Archive

Uncategorized

You see what you want to see only!-Sri Dayapala Muni Thuma 1:4

Free Talk Live's photo.

“Nationalism is a silly cock crowing on his own dunghill.” Richard Aldington

  • P Senarath Yapa It seems so, it also seems you also have seen the same! grin emoticon

    For a worm in a bitter gourd, the bitter gourd is the sweetmeat! — Godel

  • Asathya Sri Longus Thuma This is just a flawed generalization, isn’t it Yapa Thumani? There are ‘great truths’, ‘better rulers’, ‘better cultures’, ‘better histories, ‘better religions’, and ‘better restaurants’! Isn’t it so?
    P Senarath Yapa I think it is a flawed generalization.
    Asathya Sri Longus Thuma So, there ARE ‘barbarians’ and ‘civilized people’, ‘glorious leaders’ and ‘wicked despots’, ‘noble people’ and ‘backward savages’, ‘great religions’ and ‘primitive superstitions’, ‘adventurers and ‘invaders’ etc?
    P Senarath Yapa Depends on the context.

    Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Yapa Thumani, whose religion is superior? The Magic Jew’s or pampered prince Siddartha’s? Or both? Or none?

    P Senarath Yapa Siddartha’s, if the criterion for superiority is truth.

    But what is Magic Jew’s religion? I have no idea about it. You mean Judaism?

    Asathya Sri Longus Thuma No..no..no..no! He was like a reformer of Judaism, who said he was the son of God etc.

    Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Similarly Yapa Thumani, which one is better: Demon Ananda’s “Maaraka Polla” or Wickramasinghe’s ‘Yuganthaya’?
    P Senarath Yapa That of course I have no idea. I’m not sure whether I have read either of them.

    Asathya Sri Longus Thuma That’s sad. What I want to show is, that nothing is equal; always there are better ones in quality. Now, Yapa Thumani, having said that, does it mean that quality always plays a role. I mean you don’t play Beethoven’s or Mozart’s music at a party; you play some low quality stuff. Why? In the same way, whatever the ‘truth’ you are talking about in Siddartha Gauthama’s teachings, it may not be as “user-friendly” as that ‘Magic Jew’s” religion. The magic jew has told that you can believe in his father and He’ll look after you; solve your problems; cure your sickness; pass your exam; and even win you a lottery! He has also told that this life is merely a temporary accommodation(like a stop-over at an airport) and your permanent life will be in heaven after this life-with his father! You can confess and be free of all your sins and also you can give all your troubles to ‘God’ and be mentally free.

    Now, as far as the usefulness is concerned, can you tell that Magic Jew’s religion is inferior?

    P Senarath Yapa In short, what you say is “ignorance could be bliss”, and it should be accepted in that event (on the basis of usefulness)?

    [In reality shows who is better, “hondama tharuwa (best star)” or “janppriyama tharuwa (most popular star)”?]

    Asathya Sri Longus Thuma In fact ignorance is a bliss, when it comes to such things, as long as it helps that person. For a pilot who is flying a plane it is immaterial whether he knows the universe is expanding or not; whether omega is 0 or 1!

    P Senarath Yapa But how can you resolve the issue of the realty stars I mentioned above?
  • Priyanjith Perera I beg your prdon for intervening in this philosophical dialogue between two well-known philosophers of our time. The problem I see when you brand one is better than the other is that it will give you the right to make the latter better. That was what British colonial masters thought when they tried to civilse their subjects in the colonies by introducing their relegion, language, customs etc. When you think relegion A is better than B you will automatically acquire the right to convert followers of B to A. It seems to be alright to categorize art into ‘good’ and ‘bad’ because it is accepted by all mankind that there is such distinction. (Please llow me to correct a ASLT’statement. Jews do not confess. Confession is only in Catholicism)
     Asathya Sri Longus Thuma You are welcome, Priyanjith Muni Thumani! First of all, I was talking about Christianity in common where confession is advocated as a means of repenting sin. As you know a Jewish reformer founded that religion.

    You seem to have understood the complicated state of affairs in popular generalizations as the one above. They look OK and fair on the outside, but when you look deeply, the logic seems to fall apart.

    Did you think, why it seems alright to categorize art, restaurants, airlines, cakes, etc and not some other things like religions? There seems to be no reason to say so, Muni Thumani. As you say the British, Spanish and the Portuguese did it, converted the natives to their religion(most of the time forcibly), because they thought that the natives’ religions were inferior to theirs. But we saw, that according to Hon.Yapa, this is the other way around. If you ask why, he may go into fine details of Buddhist philosophy and say that because of these and these, Buddhism is superior to other religions.

    This is exactly the point the above illustration is trying to highlight.

    Therefore I request Hon. Yapa to once again please be kind enough to elaborate your reasons to say that Siddhartha Gauthama’s teachings are superior to (say) Jesus’ teachings.

    Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Yapa Thumani, the ‘popularity’ of something was not what I meant. I said ‘usefulness’ and it could be popular or unpopular.(Even if it is unpopular), if hanging on to a myth helps a person, it does some good to him. If a person believes that he is getting ‘eternal happiness’ and all his sins are forgiven, there is nothing wrong in believing so. After all, nobody is going to come back after death and tell you that their sins were not forgiven and there is no ‘eternal happiness’. He is not going to tell you that his ‘karma’ was following him and he was born as a worm as a result of it. So how do we know?

    Priyanjith Perera The logic does not fall apart as long as we are very clear about what we say. When we say a restaurant is better than the other we should tell the people in what aspect it is better. Is it the space, service, food etc? We have set criteria to say one is better than the other. For instance one restaurant is bigger than the other and it is objective evaluation. But when it comes to art it is not so straightforward. However, when somebody says Van Gogh’s ‘sun flowers’ is better than my ‘sun flower’ he has to put forward the criteria to say so and he would. Likewise, if somebody says Buddhism is better than, say, Islam he has to put forward the criteria he used to say so. However, we should remember that the aximatic truth Buddhist take for granted need not be so with the others. For instance, one would say Buddhism is a more ‘non-violent’ relgion than Islam. This is a fact. But the question is whether this fact is enough to say Buddhism is better than Islam. In whose eyes is it better? In the Buddhist eyes of course. This is because the Buddhists think that there is a universally accepted defintion of non-violence. Therefore, I would like Yapa to put forward his criteria on which he based his conclusion that Buddhism is better than other relegions.
  • An Ram Sorry to interject in your highly intellectual discussion. Conversion is not saying one religion is better than the other. Conversion depersonalises victim and severs the roots of the converted and controls his or her life. This is a wonderful ploy to pacify the conquered populations and neutralise any dissent. When Christianity was in it,s infancy Rome hijacked it to prolong the life of the failing Roman empire for another millennium or so. Religion is cultural, nothing more and nothing less. It is an instrument of control. And conversion creates a fifth column and sows the seeds of cultural invasion. In that sense it is no different to Macdonalds and Coke. Will you say Mac is better than KFC or Coke is better than Pepsi.? I prefer to cook at home.
    Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Once, I told Sri Dayapala Thuma that it is very difficult to find what is better in comparable cultures. It’s like the normal distribution curve. Any judgement on the majority of it is purely subjective. But, it doesn’t mean that there are things that fall outside this mainstream. For example head-hunter’s cultures, stoning to death for apostasy, honour killings, and female genital mutilations of some religions can be cited. Aren’t these inferior practices in whatever the yard-stick you use to judge them?

    P Senarath Yapa I think we should go to fundamentals rather than to details to resolve the issue of existence/non existence of differences.

    I think as ASLT has said, in principle two things are different ‘unless they are congruent’.

    In first principles, A=A and, A does not =B.

    Can anybody conclude Islam=Christianity=Buddhism?

    It is true that there are similarities among them, however, existence of similarities does not eliminate the existence of differences! In such a case not the similarities, but the differences dominate and make them dissimilar in total.

    A single difference makes two things different despite the existence of thousand similarities in them.

    I think truth should be regarded as truth disregarding the nature of its implications; whether they are beneficial or harmful (to humans).
    Should the existence of a Tsunami be denied just because it is harmful to humans? Should religions be regarded as equal as somebody could interpret them for the benefit of their religions?

    (Will the truth be different if it is differently harmful or beneficial to other animals other than the humans?)

    If we go further than identifying differences among the religions and move forward to objectively analyze of them to have an hierarchy of merits, wouldn’t such a misuse be prevented? If we can and are prepared to undertake identify parameters to prepare hierarchies in almost everything, what is the wrong in analyzing religions to see their merits and demerits of them to keep them in a hierarchical sequence? Over a several billion people of the world would relieved of the burden of having mis-beliefs if that is done.If the endeavour of Science is to discover the truth eliminating untruth from it in physical world and if it is hailed even if there could be bad repercussions (for instance nuclear energy), why the endeavour of finding truth in religions are not hailed but objected?

    At in my opinion, at least truth should not be denied, as it cannot be denied, if not for any other reason.

    In principle I don’t see any reason as to why one should not go for a better belief system (if really they want) rather than keep on believing a religion which adores inferior belief system such as head hunting or so, as ASLT has mentioned.

    People should move forward and appreciate improvements in their ideologies, at least we should accept this in principle. We should throw away the “hanamiti” and gradually go for “yakada miti”, ridee miti”, “run miti” and “diamond mities”, throwing away the “preceding mities”.

    Priyanjith Perera Yapa’s comment is very interesting. He seems to say that there is only one ‘truth’ in the this world therefore, there is no harm telling people about it. The inference, I made from his writing is that this so called ‘truth’ is Buddhism. On the other hand, people who follows Abrahaminic relegions would say the truth is in the ‘Creator God’. How are we going to resolve this conflict? Does Yapa have any instrument, philosophical of ortherwise, to solve this and come to a concrete conclusion? We judge others using our ‘frame of reference’. We do not understand that others also have their ‘frames of reference’. According to a Jain ‘frame of reference’ as to the non-violence Buddhism is a relatively violent relgion as it is not so strict as Jainism about life.

     Priyanjith Perera Yapa also says that Buddhism is a better ‘belief’ system. We want to know the reasons? Basically all the relgions are based on ‘beleif sytstems’, which escape scientific verification. The ‘Nirvana’ and ‘God’ are both beyond our senses. The people, who say that they have personally experienced ‘God’ or ‘Nirvana’, will not be able to ‘prove’ to another person that they have done so. How can we say that ‘Nirvana’ is better than ‘GoD’?
    P Senarath Yapa Some clarifications about some of the things you have attributed to me in your last posts.

    Priyanjith, one of the most difficult things in the world is to guess what is in somebody else’ mind!

    1. I do not believe that there is only one truth in this world.

    2. I don’t say there aren’t any instances telling truth is harmful.

    3. I am not talking about subjective beliefs of followers of any religion, and hence their judgments, but judgements based on an objective methodology.

    4. Does Yapa have any instrument, philosophical of otherwise, to solve this and come to a concrete conclusion?

    YES!

    5. We judge others using our ‘frame of reference’

    Not always, doesn’t science has a common frame of reference?

    6. Yapa also says that Buddhism is a better ‘belief’ system.

    YES!, objectively it is so.

    7.Basically all the relgions are based on ‘beleif sytstems’, …..

    Not always, and not everything in them at least.

    8. …….which escape scientific verification.

    Scientific verification fails most of the time in this regard, though it is effective in some cases. Scientific verification is possible on the things of the “phenomenal world”!

    9. How can we say that ‘Nirvana’ is better than ‘GoD’?

    Very simple.

    Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Yapa, according to your No.(3), you need an objective methodology. But according to your (8), this cannot be science. Then what is it that made you believe that your (6) is correct?
  • Priyanjith Perera Yapa, what you have given us is a set of conclusions. As you very well know, before you prove something you need to give us reasons so that we can examine those reasons whether they are acceptable or not. I awaiting how you prove your conclusions given under 4, 6, 7 and 9. If scientific verification is good only for the things in ‘phenomenal world how are you going to verify the things in ‘noumenal’ world. I think these two terms were introduced first by Kant to solve the conflict between ‘rationalists’ and ’empiricists’. This is from Wickipedia “Much of modern philosophy has generally been skeptical of the possibility of knowledge independent of the senses, and Immanuel Kant gave this point of view its canonical expression: that the noumenal world may exist, but it is completely unknowable to humans.”
    Priyanjith Perera Yapa, were you active in Groundsview discussion forum a few years ago? (I do not know whether you are still active as I havent been to it for last 3 years.) I am asking this because I engaged with a person named Yapa on similar topics many times. (BTW I used a pseudonym). In one, he promised me to prove Nirvana, Karma and Rebirth scientifically but did not!
    P Senarath Yapa What was your name there? Are you sure I promised so? I was ‘yapa’ there with a simple ‘y’ and not with capital ‘Y’.

     Priyanjith Perera I cannot reveal my pseudonym. Anway, it was you I am sure

    Priyanjith Perera Yes, I am sure it was you. I cannot reveal my pseudonym as I may have offended some people there. grin emoticon
    P Senarath Yapa It was me, I never wanted to hide my identity, though I might have offended many people more than you there. yapa was me there.
    P Senarath Yapa If you think you offended me in GV and you think I am keeping a grudge over it, it is not so. I don’t keep grudges with anybody who engaged intellectually with me. Even with those who insulted me in debates I never take it beyond that point, however, I am not asking now to reveal your pseudonym, it is entirely a personal matter of yours.
    Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Back to the topic, people! If it is not science, it should be philosophical arguments. So let us see those philosophical arguments that led you to your conclusion, Yapa. If they are convincing and stand the trial, we all should accept what you say!
    P Senarath Yapa ASLT, Yes I stand no. (3). WRT (8) , I have not eliminated the possibility of using scientific verification, if you read it carefully you will realise. So, I think now you understand that your question about no. (6) doesn’t arise.
    Priyanjith Perera I also agree with ASLT.
    Asathya Sri Longus Thuma So, what are those scientific or philosophical methodologies you have used to arrive at your conclusion?(Though this may require some repetition of your arguments posed on previous occasions, we need to know them again.)

    P Senarath Yapa Ok, I will start from where I stopped, and you will witness the methodologies used, I think it is unnecessary to deal them separately describing them.

    In the last serious post of mine, I showed with fundamentals that Islam, Christianity and Buddhism are not equal. In the case of all the other religions are it is the same.

    Now will consider about the hierarchy of them (in the context of truthfulness)

    Fundamentally,

    1. The probability of an disproven thing (as untrue) is zero.

    2.The probability of something that cannot be disproven/has not been disproven is more than or equals to zero.

    so, the probability of something that cannot be disproven/has not been disproven is more than or equals to zero.

    However, if there is any evidence (at least one piece of evidence) to support something cannot be disproven/have not been disproven,

    Then, definitely the probability of something cannot bet diproven/has not been disproven s more than the probability of a disproven thing (as untrue).

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Above is the theoretical basis we need to prove what I said I would prove.

    Now, will apply this theory to the religions we considered.

    1. All Abraham religions including Islam and Christianity say their doctrines are revelations of omnipotent, omnipresent and all compassionate God who created the world. God is the center of their religions.

    Existence of such a God can be easily disproven, hence his revelations, therefore such revelations cannot exist.

    2. The doctrine of Buddhism has not been proven untrue with the use of Empiricism or Rationalism and some of its doctrines can be supported with evidence and keep on consistent within the doctrine and also with the accepted knowledge forms discovered through other knowledge gaining systems and compatible with their findings such as Classical Physics, Modern Physics, Modern Psychology and Modern Philosophy.

    So, in the context of truth, Buddhism is superior to those religions>

    N.B. : I think you know how to disprove the God in those religions, I have said it in many discussions.

    Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Now, let’s revisit that God argument. How do you disprove ‘God’?
    P Senarath Yapa I think you have heard it from me alone several times, haven’t you?
    Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Yes, but in the context of this discussion, it is better you put it down again. Other participants(even there may be new ones) may have better arguments than mine.

    P Senarath Yapa Ok, there are several methods, each method comprehensively and separately disproves the God (in those religion)

    1. Infinite Regression

    Argument for God’s existence: The world is so systematic, therefore it cannot come into existence all by itself, therefore, there should be somebody to to create such a complicated thing without whom which is impossible.

    Debunking: If the complicated design< world, was created by the God, he (or his brain or whatever the entity used to design it) must be a more complicated design than His design and , therefore God cannot come into existence by Himself but there must be somebody to create him. Therefore there must be a predecessor Creator to the God.

    In this line every creator God must have a predecessor creator and world is not the fist creation, and also Creation “ends up with a Infinite Regression, which is a logical fallacy.

    2. Averroes Argument.

    Think of an omnipotent entity (being or a God or whatever it is)

    Can this omnipotent create a stone he cannot lift?

    a). If he can create: he cannot lift it. So he is not omnipotent.

    b). If he cannot create such a stone: again he is not omnipotent as he cannot do it.

    So omnipotence is an impossibility.

    So, there cannot exist an omnipotent God.

    3. Epicurus Argument-1

    God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

    4. Epicurus Argument-2

    The universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust?

    Further, God contradicts in thousands of cases with his other activities described in his so called revelations.

    Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Now, Yapa, what if the beginning of ‘God’ cannot be known?(because you cannot simply see that far!) Just like the beginning of ‘samsara’ or the beginning of ‘consciousness'(vin~nana) cannot be known?

    P Senarath Yapa Yes, when those arguments are kept aside for a moment as inactive, Yes! they can claim so.

    Howevr, those who claim so should prove it.

    Can they do it or otherwise what is the credibility level of that unproven and unsupported claim? Isn’t it zero?

    However, when something is disproven once, it is disproven for ever. You don’t need to disprove each and every tit bit of it.

    Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Yapa, Buddha has told (when asked about the beginning of ‘samsara’ and ‘vin~nana’) that it is unanswerable! Does that mean samsara and vin~nana are disproven?

    P Senarath Yapa No! It was unanswered. That is all.

    What was the big reason for you to think that it was a disproof?

    Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Then, how is ‘God’ disproved when I say that beginning of ‘God’ cannot be seen?

    Asathya Sri Longus Thuma OK! The beginning of ‘God’ is also unanswered! That’s all. Does it disprove ‘God’?
    P Senarath Yapa Anyo!, my son I created in my image can not distinguish A from B at the end!

    Understand the difference between:

    1. Claim that there exists a beginning to the world (creation by God)

    AND

    2. Refusal to give an answer to a question which either do not have an answer or the answer can not be worked out.

    Now, in God’s case he claimed he caused the beginning, which can be comprehensively disproven and you must understand that He can not be resurrected, with unproven claims or even with a sound argument if there is such arguments.

    Disproven once, disproven forever, I must re-remind to you.

    Can you disprove what the Buddha said about consciousness or universe by proving that they have a known beginning?

    Was the Buddha’s claim contradicted or disputed the way it was done to the God’s claim that he created the world?

    I think you understand the difference between disproof and doubting, giving the responsibility of it to the opposition and taking the benefit of it.

    Disproof is a claim of the claimant who says he/she can do it and does so.

    I claimed I can disprove God’s claim and disproved the same. If you claim Buddha can be disproven of his claim, it is your responsibility to keep up with your claim.

    I haven’t come across any methodology so far to prove that universe has a limit or consciousness has a beginning.

    Try and find one, you would be considered by the generation to come as the greatest individual ever come into being surpassing even Siddharha Gauthama and the Buddhists will invariably accept you as their next anticipating Buddha, Maithree.

    Try and disprove it if possible. Then I will accept that Buddhism too is no more than a religion of the level of Islam or Christianity or Judaism. I have no problem doing so, and I vow to do so and to give up Buddhism as my religion and to embrace any religion named by you.

    N.B. 1. No argument can resurrect anything that has been disproven.

    2. Negatives cannot be proven. Undisputable negatives remain intact as not disproven.

    Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Most of your response was irrelevant, Yapa Thumani!

    Some people believe that Goat/God created the universe. But they don’t say that ‘God’ was created. You make a basic error in assuming so!See More

    An Ram Which people believe a Goat created the Universe? Just curious..

    Asathya Sri Longus Thuma I’m sorry..! It’s a typo….

    P Senarath Yapa “Most of your response was irrelevant, Yapa Thumani!”

    That has been the “andapalai” you always had when something is proven beyond doubt against your contention.

    Above statement/claim is just arbitrary, authoritative and made against sound arguments

    Just take points from my arguments and dispute them specifically just without giving grand conclusions.

    “Some people believe that Goat/God created the universe. But they don’t say that ‘God’ was created. You make a basic error in assuming so!”

    What is the basic error, point to it specifically.

    “The beginning of that Goat..er sorry, ‘God’ is not answerable. ”

    Why not? the present God was created before the creation of the world and after the creation of his predecessor as per logic based on their own premise: Intelligent Design.

    Even if this was not answered God was disproven in many other ways, (Keep in mind once disproven, he is disproven for ever)

    Do you have any idea against this?

    “He was there..there..there..and ..there..you cannot see his beginning. Just like the beginning of ‘samsara’…..”

    That is your contention and will. But the beginning of the present God logically should be between the so called creation and his predecessor.

    Another interesting logical implication is if the predecessor God did not die after the present God was created, there were two Gods at the same time which disputes the “One God” concept of those religions, as per the Infinite Regression argument I mentioned. There could have been and could be even today thousands of such Gods if they are eternal and do not die as claimed by their texts and followers.

    In that argument the number of Gods in the Abrahamic religions must be more than the gods in Hinduism, 330 million.

    So there is a chronological sequence of the beginnings for all the (logically implied) Gods as per that logic; Infinite Regression.

    Can you show that there is a beginning to “Samasara” or consciousness or a limit to the universe?

    “This is the same thing, Yapa Thumani! Goat was didn’t have a beginning, and so was ‘samsara’!”

    Just a claim and your wishful thinking against my sound arguments.
    .

    Asathya Sri Longus Thuma If you have a problem of grasping things what can I do Yapa Thumani!

    The believers of ‘God’ never say that their ‘God’ has a beginning. And the believers of ‘samsara’ don’t say that ‘samsara’ had a beginning. Understand?

    Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Yapa Thumani, your first argument has failed to disprove Goat. Now you can try your second one.

    P Senarath Yapa ” if you have a problem of grasping things what can I do Yapa Thumani!”

    I don’t say you have a much of a problem of comprehension, but there is a difficulty to accept things against your contention.

    “The believers of ‘God’ never say that their ‘God’ has a beginning”

    Not only never say, they say He existed eternally, but, intelligent Design argument of theirs contradict and disproves the claim.

    Therefore, according to their premise logically there should be a beginning to the God which contradicts their claim.

    So, their claim is a logical fallacy.

    Do you say “NO” with reasons?

    Priyanjith Perera Yapa, this is the ‘cosmological argument’ put forward by Aquinas on the ‘first ause’. 1. Some things are caused.
    2. Everything that is caused is caused by something else.
    3. An infinite regress of causation is impossible.
    4. Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all that is caused.
    4. This cause, eveveryone calls God. This shows that your ‘infinite regress’ argument is not so conclusive. There are many arguments against and for the existence of God in the litrature. Nothing has been concretely proven as you claimed. The arguments you have listed in a previous post have their counter arguments. Therefore, there will not be end this debate whether the God exists or not. What we are concerend here, especially ASLT, is that whether the Buddhist concepts of Nirvana, Samasara, rebirth and Karma are similar to the God concept, which is provably unprovable.All these concepts are beyond logic and philosophical inquiry. How do you prove there is something called ‘samsara’ or ‘nirvana’ using any philosophical argument let alone scientific method? What you have so far done is to show us that there are arguments aginst the existence of God. When this fact is questioned by ASLT your answer was that these concepts (samsara, nirvana etc.) have not been disproved yet. Therefore we should accept them as ‘true’. This is lame argument. I think you have heard about the ‘tea pot orbiting around the Sun, Russell’s famous simile against the existence of God. Just because we cannot disporve that there is a Tea Pot orbiting around the Sun do we have to accept it as true?

    Priyanjith Perera Yapa, one of your statements is wrong. According to the current accepted scientific knowledge the universe is finite and has a begining. .
  • Priyanjith Perera Yapa, I hope you accept evolution. If evolution is correct consciousness and samsara should have a begining. If not consciousness should have come here from other worlds. If the life was evolved from nothing in those ‘other worlds’ their consciousness should have come from some other world other than the worlds menioned above. This is another form of infinite regress isn’t it? How do you solve this problem?
    Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Your last two posts show the answer to this question, but the believers on both sides of the divide don’t take that as an answer. Because their founders have not told them about those! Now, what they do is, try to split hairs to prove that their founders have had similar knowledge!

    P Senarath Yapa Regarding the first of your last three posts, Priyanjith.

    You claim that all of my arguments listed 1-4 have counter arguments. You have cited one for the argument 1, Aquinas’ Argument to counter it. Until I answer it I accept it as a counter argument for that.

    Do you have specific counter arguments against the other three? Please state specifically.
    …………………………………..

    Please note that the formula I used to compare religions is ,

    “the probability of something cannot bet diproven/has not been disproven is more than the probability of a disproven thing (as untrue).”

    Please note that it is unnecessary to compare them, “proven” against “disproven” for the purpose of finding their superiority/inferiority.

    Therefore, even if Buddhism is not proven true, it remains superior over disproven religions as Buddhism has not been disproven.

    So, the proof of Samasara, rebirth, karma or nirvana as true, is not necessary, and would only make the things of the present discussion unnecessarily complicated.

    We will discuss them in a separate forum, probably we might not be able to prove them, but it has no effect on the present discussion. However, If they could be proven true, it would help my stance, but inability to prove will not change the results of the formula.

    You also say there are arguments for and against the existence of God. It must have been possible some arguments against the God were countered by some arguments for God, but can you specifically show counter arguments against 2-4 to dispute them?

    (I will address the other two posts of yours above too as well.)

    Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Does/Did ‘samsara’ have a beginning?

    P Senarath Yapa ASLT, Unnecessary/irrelevant questions can cause an argument more complicated if not jeopardize it. I think it is better if we stick to the specific arguments at present alone. Will discuss about the beginning of Samasara in another discussion, so that it would not be an obstacle to this discussion. Please be focused to this topic and and to it alone for the moment.

    I think your endeavour is not to make me tired asking all sorts of questions at the same time, so that I will not be able to answer, due to break of my focus. We will be honest in this discussion, and will not use unaccepted methods to support our stances, but will make it a chance to arrive at a good conclusion whether it is favourable for or against either of us.

    I also would like to request you to stick alone to the arguments and counter arguments alone and not to go to give your opinions on them as you did in the penultimate post of yours. We will remain debaters until it is finished and will not undertake the role of judges before we finish it.

    Asathya Sri Longus Thuma No..no..no..no, Yapa Thumani, this is the only question I asked you so far, in various forms: Did ‘samsara’ have a beginning?

    P Senarath Yapa I have no idea.
    P Senarath Yapa Because I have nothing to prove it or support it.
    Asathya Sri Longus Thuma We can therefore call it ‘unanswerable’ for the time being?
    P Senarath Yapa I cannot come to that conclusion as well, on the facts/things I have heard about it. What I can surely say is for the time being is “I cannot answer it”. I surely cannot say whether somebody else be able to do so or not.
    Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Exactly, this is what I too think. The beings travelling along ‘samsara’ should appear there at some point, isn’t it so?
    P Senarath Yapa For that too I have no a reasonable answer. Most of the things seems to have a beginning and this fact doesn’t necessarily imply that everything should have a beginning, as per my understanding about logic.
    Asathya Sri Longus Thuma But you think that “bugger” ‘God’ should have a beginning!
    P Senarath Yapa If there is such a God as claimed, it is logically proven that he has been created at some finite point of time.
    Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Why do you think so?
    P Senarath Yapa It is not something I think, it is a logical conclusion arrived at based on a premise based for the existence of God. Even if I don’t think so, the argument is sound and valid and the conclusion is true, as per the principles of logic.
    Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Whoever thinks so, what made them think so? I see no valid reason to think so!
    P Senarath Yapa It is the conclusion of a sound argument based on Deductive Logic.
    Asathya Sri Longus Thuma What is that sound argument?
    P Senarath Yapa The argument showing the fallacial nature of the claim that there should be somebody to create the intellegent design of the universe.
    Asathya Sri Longus Thuma Say for a moment, that the universe is ‘intelligently designed’ as some people claim. In that case why do you think its creator should have a beginning? Aren’t intelligent beings travellling along ‘samsara’ which has no beginning?
    P Senarath Yapa Because, if there should be a creator to create the intelligent design, there should be another creator to create a more intelligent design, that is that creator who created the intelligent design. if that creator was so created as logic points out, that particular creation is the beginning of him and hece it is logically implied that the God must have a beginning.
    Asathya Sri Longus Thuma I say it shouldn’t be. There is no reason to think so.
    P Senarath Yapa In that case, don’t think, but you cannot reject a logically sound conclusion and you have to accept it as everybody does!
Advertisements

 I will make the cake bigger next time

                              

                               –  Pitiduwe Siridhamma Thera

 

  • P Senarath Yapa    Ego is growing year by year of this enlightened person. A Crook is a hero for idiots.
  • Asathya Sri Longus Thuma   Can you disprove his claim, Yapa?
  • P Senarath Yapa    Why not Longus Thuma? It is a bit harder than disproving the Creator God and Sathya Sri Sai Baba Thuma and a bit easier than eating peanuts. This person after declaring he became an arahanth, several people challenged his claim through news papers. This particular arahanth wrote several articles answering those who challenged him. I found several significant inconsistencies in those articles. I think an arahanth cannot have inconsistencies lead to contradictions, I think you agree with me?.
  • Asathya Sri Longus Thuma   O…K! But, on the other hand, an Arhanth is not supposed to possess “sarvan~na” or the omniscent knowledge, which is possessed by a Buddha only. Therefore an Arhanth CAN make mistakes and there can be inconsistencies as opposed to a Buddha. What do you say?
  • P Senarath Yapa  I think an arahanth cannot make mistakes an average person like me can easily pick up. I have seen many people make much better consistent arguments. If an “enlightened arahanth” cannot make arguments better than an average person, what is that enlightenment for? If that is the level of enlightenment that can be achieved by an arahanth, I would never be an arahanth, and the sansara with full of suffering would be my choice. Can somebody be the same tom fool after he/she becomes enlightened?
  • Asathya Sri Longus Thuma   OK, Yapa! Yes, of course! You would rather get stuck in sansara, rather than attain that kind of arhanthhood! Ha haaa!On the same lines, could we question the “omniscent knowledge” that Buddha was supposed to have? For example there is this instance in Buddhist texts where Buddha visited Magadha kingdom and expressed his willingness to meet his friend and disciple, King Bimbisara. Then he gets to know that King Bimbisara had been killed by his son, Ajasath, and on learning this Buddha expresses that he didn’t know about this.If I say, “How can This man possess an omniscent knowledge when he didn’t know about this?” By definition an omniscent person should know EVERYTHING! Then I would go on: ” If that is the level of omniscent knowledge that can be achieved by a Buddha, I would never be a Buddha, and the sansara with full of suffering would be my choice. Can somebody be the same tom fool after he/she becomes enlightened?”What do you say, Yapa Thumani about this argument?
  • P Senarath Yapa   In how many battle grounds we have fought wars Longus Thuma (in this sansara?)? I think we have fought over the same question somel time back, but I think you memory has faded away (is it due to the old age?). Anyway thanks for that story, I haven’t heard it before, however, the story is in consistent with Buddha’s omniscience. The Buddha’s omniscience was different from the omniscience claimed by Jain Mahaweera, at which Buddha used to mock. Mahaweera claimed that he is always omniscient, while walking, while eating even while sleeping. Then the Buddha asked how could the omniscient disciples of Mahaweera were bitten by the dogs while they were going from home to home begging alms and why they went to the houses where they didn’t get alms, if they knew it before. Buddha’s omniscience in contrast, exists only when he pays attention to something and he can know everything about it. (English term for this action I forgot). In this case if Buddha had not paid his attention to king Bimbisara and also no one told about his death to the Buddha, it is obviously possible for the Buddha to not to know the death of king Bimbisara. So, the Buddha’s omniscient does not affect by your story. BTW, Sri Longus Thuma, aren’t you omniscient, like Mhaweera or at least like the Buddha?
  • Asathya Sri Longus Thuma   Thank you for the acceptable answer, Yapa Thumani! In that case couldn’t … couldn’t Ven. Samanthabadra, too have switched off his mind when he made those mistakes in his arguments?
  • P Senarath Yapa   But the Buddha never made any mistakes. On the other hand, omniscience is a special competency, not mind, even without omniscience mind can exist.. They are not the same thing.
  • Asathya Sri Longus Thuma   Well, I don’t think Buddha made a mistake when he refused to ordain women twice? If Prajapathi didn’t insist, there wouldn’t have been female monks!!!
  • P Senarath Yapa    Longus Thuma, the above seems as a mistake made by the Buddha when looking at its surface, but it cannot indisputably be attributed to a mistake. In one hand Buddha’s life stories are not Buddha’s discourses and were written by the people lived later. So the mistake in the story could be attributed to the mistakes of those authors. In another hand even if Buddha really refused it, we really don’t know his objective doing so. Buddha used noble strategies in many cases where the objective is not directly visible. For example in Kisagothami’s case the Buddha asked her to bring some mustard seeds from a house where no one had died. Prince Nanda’s case is another. Buddha showed him a female monkey first and then some fairies. Chullapanthaka thero’s story is another one. So, as I have said above you cannot attribute your story of refusing to ordain as indisputable evidence against the Buddha’s indisputability.. Further considering the accuracy in all across his doctrines and unavailability of directly attributed mistakes, still the Buddha is indisputable, even in this Quantum era. Contrary, he shining more with the modern findings in Quantum Physics and Modern Science. The Epistemological theories developed with modern science are very much compatible with Buddhism.
  • Asathya Sri Longus Thuma    I’m not very impressed, Yapa Thumani! If we can pick and choose some things from Buddhist texts and say, “these are authentic”, and some other things that we don’t like, “these cannot be authentic”, where’s our credibility? You can raise this doubt about almost everything supposed to have been said by Buddha!(this applies to any other religious doctrine as well)We are ready to be dishonest when we don’t like the arguments! Ha ha haaa(listen to Longus Thuma’s belly laughter!!)
  • P Senarath Yapa   Not at all!, Is your advice to ignore the arguments of the other side to come to conclusions? Is there anything wrong in my arguments or think whether you don’t like or you are worried about some valid arguments just because they do not go with yours? If you cannot show faults in my arguments your worry won’t be valid. Think back, is it faults in my arguments make you worry or the worry was a result of when things do not go in your way, the way you like it. Tell me your answer.
  • Asathya Sri Longus Thuma   What I said was you seem to find explanations as to why Buddha(in this instance) would have said so, and you seem to question the authenticity of the saying! What I ask is, in that case we can question the authenticity of the rest of the preaching as well! That’s not a difficult argument…
  • P Senarath Yapa   You can question if there was no satisfactory answer to the question you asked, but do you think the answer is unambiguous, leading to your desired answer, that the Buddha made a mistake? It could be a mistake or some other cause. I showed you how the second option is more feasible with reasons, and why the first option is not the definite answer. Still you can doubt, but you have no reason to be certain that he made a mistake. And I provided facts and reasons against that contention. So, with what reasons anybody can be certain he made a mistake. Your question takes you to several destinations, not to your desired destination. If you board a flight, destinations of which are mentioned as London, New York, Delhi and Toronto and at the destination can you be assured that you are in Toronto? In here you are saying so, Sri Longus Thuma. Here you are assertive that the Buddha is in Toronto, not in London, New York or in Delhi.
  • Asathya Sri Longus Thuma    Yapa Thumani, your interpretation could be or could not be true! This is not the only such explanation I have heard from the devotees when you question a well respected and a historical person! I have heard exactly the same argument from the believers, when I questioned the validity of other religious texts as well!(and sometimes the reaction was violent.. ha haa!)I see a man falling on the road and I think he fell! Somebody askes me, “couldn’t he have faked the fall?” I say, “yes! Pinwatha..it is possible” and I Laugh Out Loud!
  • Asathya Sri Longus Thuma   All this side-tracking doesn’t do any good to the “Sri Naamaya” of the mad monk Arhanth Samanthabadra, does it? Ha haaaaa!
  • Asathya Sri Longus Thuma    Exactly! I cast a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury! Ha haaa!
  • P Senarath Yapa   I think sticking to your logic rather than revealing your grievances would be beneficial to our dialogue. Revealing your grieving experiences would bring sympathy votes to you, but would not help an intellectual discourse. You created a doubt, but do you think you did disprove/debunk/refute/contradicted the indisputable nature of the Buddha by your doubt (the way the Buddha has done in the case of Mahaweera, I referred above)? I think you must understand the difference between a “doubt” and the four terms I mentioned above. Unlike the terms above a doubt is not distinctive and always associated with some probability. When the probability of the doubt is high, that doubt is a more credible doubt and vice versa. In your case I made the probability of your doubt very low by providing valid/facts and arguments against it. The other alternatives have a much higher probability and they are much credible than your doubt. So, with a doubt of a very low credibility are you saying you contradicted the Buddha’s position? You disproved the Buddha’s position? You debunked the Buddha’s position? You refuted the Buddha’s position? I accept that such claims are good enough for self satisfaction and but for nothing more than that. You should not be overjoyed with such simple achievements. If possible refute/disprove/debunk/contradict a discourse of the Buddha and be overjoyed yourself. I think ignorance is a cheap drug that makes many people happy and overjoy. Do you enjoy that pill Asathya Sri Longus Thuma?
  • Asathya Sri Longus Thuma    I always enjoy the ignorance and blind faith of some people! Buddha seemed to have mocked at Mahaveera saying, “Couldn’t his(Mahaveera’s) omniscience foresee his disciples being bitten by dogs and killed by thieves?” If Arhanth Moggallana was battered to death by thieves, couldn’t omniscent Buddha foresee that?
  • P Senarath Yapa   Even Arhanth Moggallana knew that he would be beaten to death and he faced it. So, does it contradict anything?
  • Asathya Sri Longus Thuma   How do you know it? You just felt like?
  • P Senarath Yapa   Read the story again.
  • Asathya Sri Longus Thuma   I just did! According to the story, Moggallana tried to escape twice, by ‘teleporting’ out of a small crack in the cave he was living!(Btw, I wonder why he needed even that “small crack” to activate the ‘teleportation process! ) Why did he do that, if he knew it was his past bad karma?
  • P Senarath Yapa   Now I think you accepted that the Buddha was not contradicted the way you thought. Now don’t try trial and error cases, think a lot and choose a credible case and come with it. I think if you think a bit more you will also realize that you have not contradicted anything in your last post too.
  • Asathya Sri Longus Thuma   You have not answered my point:According to the story, Moggallana tried to escape twice, by ‘teleporting’ out of a small crack in the cave he was living!(Btw, I wonder why he needed even that “small crack” to activate the ‘teleportation process! ) Why did he do that, if he knew it was his past bad karma?
  • P Senarath Yapa    When he knew he faced the reality.
  • Asathya Sri Longus Thuma    OK! It must have dawned upon him rather late…! Good!Now, in the same way couldn’t Mahaveera too have known that his disciples were killed by the thieves, because it was their karma too? (karma is an essential part in Jain teachings!)
  •  Then do you think they were sent to house by house to deny alms by their karmas? The Karma concept in Jainism has been very well contradicted too.
  • Asathya Sri Longus Thuma    Of course, yes! That could be the reason! Can you disprove it is not so?
  • P Senarath Yapa   Why then they tried to run away when the dogs chased them? They should have accepted their karmas as they knew it, the way they accepted the other karmas like going to the houses which had no food for them. Why they accepted one form of karma and not another form?
  • P Senarath Yapa    Anyway I think now this has become an unnecessary exercise fighting for egos.. Please come with a credible case.
  • Asathya Sri Longus Thuma    Just like Arhanth Moggallana, Yapa! It dawned upon them rather late! (and by that time the dogs have taken a healthy bite from their emaciated bodies!)
  • P Senarath Yapa   No, they are always omniscient!
  • P Senarath Yapa    Please come with another well-thought argument.
  • Asathya Sri Longus Thuma     Not them, (supposed to be) their teacher! Still the teacher must have allowed it to happen, as karma cannot be avoided in Jainism!
  • P Senarath Yapa     Come with a well thought argument.
  • P Senarath Yapa     Yes, that is sufficient for one to understand the answer.
  • P Senarath Yapa    You have no chance here, come with another well thought argument.
  • Asathya Sri Longus Thuma     What I said last was: “Still the teacher must have allowed it to happen, as karma cannot be avoided in Jainism!”
  • P Senarath Yapa    No! (There were “enlightened disciples” among those who went begging for alms.
  • P Senarath Yapa    No case, start a new one.
  • Asathya Sri Longus Thuma     But they too must have faced the same dilemma of Moggallana! Realized late and allowed it to happen..! Heh heh!
  • P Senarath Yapa     You are fighting for your ego despite convincing arguments.
  • Asathya Sri Longus Thuma    Not me pinwatha! Why are you attributing your qualities to me, pinwatha? This is my point: They too must have faced the same dilemma of Moggallana! Realised late and allowed it to happen..!
  • Asathya Sri Longus Thuma   Thank you Sri Yapa Thumani for engaging in this debate with ASLT! I am disengaging with you now, and asking my disciples to copy and paste this discourse under the title: “Asathya Sri Longus Thuma on Blind Faith” and underline it twice!Den saadhu kiyaapalla!
  • P Senarath Yapa     They too must have faced the same dilemma of Moggallana! Realised late and allowed it to happen..!’…………………………………………..You must realize that they (Jain Arahanths) cannot realize later. They are always omniscient. …………. You are going for a (opposite) Infinite Regression. Every question of of your series has a valid answer.
  • Asathya Sri Longus Thuma     In response to your late reaction, I must say that you have a point there. Theerthakas cannot be bitten by dogs but Arhanths can be so, as omniscient Mahaveera would have prevented that, unless he didn’t do it for some other unknown reason. Longus Thuma lost this debate overall, except for casting some doubt on Buddha’s omniscience!
  • P Senarath Yapa    I too accept this position of yours as true. A doubt in principle could be either correct or incorrect. So by creating just a doubt you don’t contradict something. On the other hand in principle lack of omniscience in some incidents does not contradict the Buddha as this fact has been already expressed by the Buddha. Only if he had claimed that his omniscience was all time, then pointing out of an incident of him without the omniscience would contradict him. There are many instances the Buddha displayed the instances where he was not in that state. One incident was the one you mentioned at the beginning about Bimbisara’s death. Buddha even did not know when Devadatta rolled a stone from the Gijjikoota rock to kill him. A piece of the stone hit the Buddha’s leg and he was injured. It is evident that in this case too he was unaware of what Devadatta was planning against him. No the Buddha or any disciple or a writer of the Buddha’s life stories wanted to hide this fact………………………….. Really I am defending Buddhism not because it was my inherited religion, but because it can be defended and as dependable should be defended. On the other hand when I learn more and more into the various subject areas I found that Buddhism is unique in terms of Epistemology. According to me there are only two non-deterministic worldviews in the world, they are only Modern Science and Buddhism. Uncertainty principle says you cannot find certainties. The base of the Buddhism too is that, that is impermanence, and according to “Pancha Niyama Dharma” the world is non deterministic. All the other worldviews including all the religions based on Creator God, and all the worldviews based on Newtonian Science and related disciplines have been eliminated from being true worldviews, as all of them are deterministic in nature. If you accept Heisenberg’s Uncertainty principle you cannot accept any deterministic worldviews. So, the only probable worldviews now we have in hand are Buddhism and Modern Science. All others have been discarded and you have no chance to argue about worldviews using the bits and pieces taken from them. Classical Physics, Chemistry, Biology all those are non entities in the run for finding a true worldview. You can now confine your search for reality to those two worldviews. ie, Buddhism and Modern Science. Those who engage in other fields for finding reality would be like trying to milk from the horns of a cow. or trying to find the bunch of keys in the light under a lamp post, where the keys had been lost in a dark place somewhere else. Do you agree with me?
  • Asathya Sri Longus Thuma     Yes! Your analogue in the last sentence sums it all! I must have moved a few steps towards Buddha after this discussion, even though I’m still not fully convinced. There’s no way to prove his omniscience either. There are no clear-cut verifiable phenomena declared by him(which were unknown to people at that time) as well. For example as I mentioned with sarcasm in an earlier discussion on your website, if Buddha has told about the spherical shape of Earth or its orbiting the Sun, it would have been clear evidence of Buddha’s omniscience! The Buddha’s concepts on the non-deterministic nature using trilakshana(anitya, dukka, anathma) can rarely come from a highly intelligent person as well! What do you say?
  • P Senarath Yapa    Do your methods of verifiability stand outside of deterministic worldviews?
  • Asathya Sri Longus Thuma    That’s how we found out the non-deterministic nature of matter experimentally. You still can design such experiments! More simpler things like the Earth orbiting the Sun are “facts”, aren’t they?
  • P Senarath Yapa   I don’t think you have ever found the non-deterministic nature of matter experimentally..
  • Asathya Sri Longus Thuma   The following article gives details of such an experiment done by Physicist Andrew Cleland to observe “quantum superposition” of a large object, for the first time:http://www.nature.com/…/100317/full/news.2010.130.html

    www.nature.com

    Nature – the world’s best science and medicine on your desktop
  • P Senarath Yapa     Why do you think this is an experiment to find non-deterministic nature of matter?
  • Asathya Sri Longus Thuma     It shows that even a macroscopic object that is composed of about trillion atoms can exist in two states at the same time! Receiving and not receiving an impulse at the same time is equivalent to existing and not existing at the same time, isn’t it?
  • P Senarath Yapa     As I have pointed out earlier, search for reality now can be confined to two knowledge systems (based on their worldviews) to Buddhism and to Modern Science all the other known knowledge systems are based on deterministic worldviews, as Uncertainty Principle has clearly eliminated the possibility of a deterministic reality. Now the issue is even though the other systems are incompetent in finding reality, it does not eliminate their abilities in many other fields/scopes and dimensions. For example the competency of Classical Physics in Engineering or the competency of Biology in Medical Science do not become invalid with the above conclusion. However, one should take into consideration is how small is the domain of (human) engineering and (human) medical science compared to the domain of reality. In Sinhala there is a saying “Kumbiyage muthra ootta gangavaki”, for humans the knowledge accumulated in Engineering and in medicine is like a river., That is because we are like ants in front of reality. However, now the question is whether the measures used to measure the “urine of that ant” can be used to measure that river as well. Surely, it is not impossible to measure some water drops in the river with that old measure, but surely measuring the river will not be a reality. So, you grievance is that you cannot verify some of the “phenomena” of Buddhism by the methodologies developed in those “deterministic worldview”, however, this fact does not tantamount to invalidation of that non-deterministic worldview. In an earlier discussion too I have mentioned that we will have to understand the differences in the terms reality, truth and knowledge. Lack of knowledge is not a good reason to refuse the existence of unknown realities. If that is the case Science or any other knowledge seeking exercises have no any role to play, and we will have to close down all the universities and research institutions. In general usage too this fact is accepted as saying “Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack”. You cannot disprove anything citing lack of evidence or citing your inability to verify it. So, you did not eliminate anything even of the size of a hair of Buddhism but you cast a doubt based on the knowledge endowed to you by that “ant’s knowledge system. ……………Ok, now we will come back to the place where we have stopped. You say the experiment cited by you is an example with effect to the non-deterministic nature of matter. I think what has happened here is that confusion of similar concepts. Quantum Physics and also Philosophy are remote subjects from many people and the concepts in them are often misinterpreted by many and some concepts are interchangeably taken as replaceable but however, most of the time it is not the case. In Quantum Physics Uncertainty Principle is misinterpreted as “Observer Effect”. And I think Schrodinger’s Cat is taken as both the above principles. However, I think those three represent three different ideas and “deterministic and non deterministic worldviews” are an entirely different thing even does not belong to Quantum Physics but a subject area handled in Philosophy. It may be true that with the knowledge produced by Quantum Physics a light be shone on the nature of reality it might help to establish the non deterministic nature of reality, search for which started by philosophers long time ago. You know philosophy’s methodology for finding reality is not “experiments”. Experiments are not an essential component of an exercise for finding reality. It is only an integral part of Science, especially in Classical Science. Modern Science do not use much experiments rather than reasoning, though it often refers to “thought experiments”.. Thought experiments are really not experiments in the sense of the experiments of the classical science, but they are only rational stories, done only in intellectuals minds. However, I still of the view that the experiment you cited and even the Schrodinger’s Cat thought experiment are engaged with something else than the non-deterministic nature of reality. Can you substantiate your claim?
  • Asathya Sri Longus Thuma     Yapa, even with such limitations, as you mention, a lot of such experiments have been done.Even with my poor mathematical knowledge, the following experiment shows a break-down of causality or cause and effect principle:http://www.sciencedaily.com/rele…/2013/01/130109105932.htmCause and effect is a major concept in the Buddhist doctrine. Can you explain to me how, the absence of causality in the quantum world brings Buddhism closer to quantum theory?

    www.sciencedaily.com

    Whether a quantum object behaves like a wave or like a particle depends (accordi See More
  • P Senarath Yapa     Ok, if you ask any of the scientists who performed those experiments, the objective of their experiments, do you think they will answer their exercise is to disprove the deterministic nature of reality or matter?
  • Asathya Sri Longus Thuma      I don’t think so! Still there’s a debate going on the scale of application of the QM. Most people who know about QM honestly don’t seem to think that it applies to our everyday life. I don’t think even you would believe that your car has gone on a trip around the galaxy while all of you were sleeping, and re-appeared in the morning! Your example of ‘Schrodinger’s Cat’ only exists in theory! Even I’m not sure whether the thought experiment called “Schrodinger’s cat” is an exaggeration! Think about a cat in a box with the same threat of an uncertain death. But, here you attach an ECG lead to the cat’s chest and connect it to an ECG monitor, all inside the box! You don’t see the recording it made, until you open the door. When you open the box, you’ll look at the ECG recording of the cat and you’ll know at what point the cat “actually” got shot! Doesn’t this contradict the result of a living and a dead cat right throughout?
  • Asathya Sri Longus Thuma      ASLT’s explanation of this puzzle: [This is just an idea, with so many parts still missing] Due to some unknown reason, the probability of finding an object in more than one state, decreases when its size increases. If you take an electron, the probability of finding it in more than one place is more, compared to, say, a pebble. In other words, an electron may be existing in all possible positions before you observe it and the chance of finding it in the point ‘A’ is very low. On the other hand as the size increases,(when it comes to the pebble) the chances of you not finding it at point ‘A’ is very small!If I go back to the earlier example, the chances of your car disappearing and existing on Planet Neptune after you close the garage door and reappearing when you open the door in the morning, must be very very slim. Maybe less than a trillionth%, yet, that probability too exists, however small it is. Maybe with increasing size of an object, some other ‘quality’ also increases, which makes it almost impossible for a large object to behave like an electron!
  • P Senarath Yapa      Sorry that I couldn’t reply, I was away from home. Are we deviating from our main topic? Anyway, it is interesting and we have stepped into a very subtle area where even scientists are still startled. But we will talk a bit about these subtleties of QM with trying to give our explanations to them. Compared to modern Physicists we have the advantage of being ignorant and boldness inherited to set out foot where the fairies don’t dare to do. Who knows we might bang upon a better answer than those intelligent physicists. Schrodinger’s cat is a thought experiment designed to demonstrate the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM. The interpretation (it is an interpretation!). The core of the Copenhagen Interpretation is ” It says that a quantum particle doesn’t exist in one state or another, but in all of its possible states at once. It’s only when we observe its state that a quantum particle is essentially forced to choose one probability, and that’s the state that we observe.” Schrodinger’s cat is in superposition of the two states of alive and dead until we observe it, opening the box it says. Your ECG monitor experiment give a clue to what I think about Schrodinger’s cat though I think it does not contradict what you w3anted to contradict, that the particular state was decided before we open (and observe) the box . It is true that true time the cat was shot can be decided looking at the ECG monitor, but as Schrodinger says you can know that only after you open and observe (the ECG monitor) though it happened earlier……. But here your example supports my position about Schrodinger’s Cat than Schrodinger’s interpretation of the experiment. I think Schrodinger was wrong here because he undertook to interpret some thing a philosopher should do and a scientist cannot do. A scientist is still a materialist (or at least Physicalist) who does not know to interpret anything beyond his domain of Materialism. Schrodinger interpreted the experiment which really goes beyond that domain and missed the chance of identifying the new horizon of of Modern Science, that is the “Non-material intervention” of the experiment.. I think the experiment cannot be fully interpreted and understood within the materialistic domain of science. When extending the horizon of Science to non-material reality (consciousness, mind) this experiment can be properly explained. Please see how I explain it using mind/consciousness, and see how your query of ECG monitor too is resolved. I think the two probabilistic states, alive or dead do not have anything to do with the cat, but that uncertainty prevails only in the mind of the observer. That uncertainty prevails only because we don’t know. When we know uncertainty goes away, that is a well known common sense nature of mind. When we don’t know how much rupees I have in my wallet, I have an uncertainty about the amount, but it doesn’t say my wallet has a possibility of all the amounts in the world until I see it, really it can have only the left over money after my wife invaded it last evening. Even though as per Copenhagen interpretation, my idea should be it can have one million rupees or five million rupees as probable, it is only an uncertainty of my mind not really it is so in my wallet, and for my wife she has no that uncertainty but she knows that it has only 125 rupees. Even if I observe it later it can only have 125 rupees and never will have one million or two million. So, the uncertainty is associated with my mind and not with my wallet. Your thought experiment too say s the same thing, It is true that the observers mind was uncertain whether the cat was dead or not until he open the box and observe, as you have cleverly guessed, there is no uncertainty of the time where the death occurred, but it is a case of uncertainty of the mind until it knows..That is the nature of mind, not that cat has a superposition. I think those shrewd Physicists were prevented from seeing the truth by their deep rooted “Micca Ditti” (wrong vision) that reality is only of physical. I think Copenhagen interpretation is a pathetic result of the perplexity of trying to understand a phenomenon/phenomena involving non- material complexities in addition to their aspiration, Physicalism. I think Neils Bohr so perplexed at the observations in QM to go blindly idealistic to give that interpretation. It was the uncertainty of mind of Neils Bohr (who did not know, and hence created the uncertainty in his mind) created this interpretation. Until he observe the truth, all the possible states exist in his MIND, and it created this puzzle of interpretation in his MIND. What do you think Asathya Sri Longus Thuma ? You think fairies are still afraid to set their feet where the fool is playing Somersault?
  • Asathya Sri Longus Thuma     Yes, you are bold Sri Yapa Thumani (who knows, I might declare you as the next Prophet! Ha haa!) I totally agree with you here. I enjoyed your example of ‘invasion of the wallet’! It is the ideal example to explain this!Now, the next question that comes to my mind is, “is it the same with sub-atomic particles as well?” Unlike in the case of Schrodinger’s cat, the uncertainty of the small objects(up to what limit, we don’t know!) is well established in numerous, replicable experiments! eg. the two slit experiment and its many variations. I think we have missed the bus, somewhere down the line, between a photon and a marble!On the other hand, Yapa Thumani, could it be possible for the fundamental particles to act in one way and the collections of them(aggregates) to act in a different way? We seem to lack some vital knowledge here, in my opinion!
  • P Senarath Yapa      Ha! Ha!!, Even though you don’t believe that the Buddha was Omniscient, you seem to think that I am omniscient to bombard me with a hell of questions. Just like the Buddha, when deeply concentrated on something, in a very lesser degree I also begin to see things a bit clearly. I think I am also using the Buddha;s technique. OK, continuing my Tom-Foolery, out of bravery born from shear ignorance. …………………………. Now you ask about behaviour of sub-atomic particles referring to Double-slit Experiment. Unlike Schrodinger’s Cat and Copenhagen interpretation, Double-slit Experiment. is a real experiment, which was performed, and it doesn’t have any interpretations to be done, but that experiment leads us to that one and only conclusion that “light in this experiment behave as waves”. So, Wave-Particle Duality is a true nature of things. So, the ultimate conclusion that can be derived with the subsequent experiments was that things are of both wave and particle nature, and anything should be represented with a Wave Function. When the intensity of the wave function is low, it is more close towards a wave and when the intensity is high it is more closer to a particle. Here the intensity is represented by the mass (I think) and hence mass is less, it behaves like a wave and mass is high it behaves like a particle. It is natural then small particles(subatomic) to behave differently, than composite particles, as one should not expect the behaviour of wave should be similar to a behavior of a pebble. ………………I think the basic question is solved. But can you guess where and how the modern physicists got wrong? They interpreted and extended the result of Wave-Particle duality in a wrong way. Do you believe me?……………………….Wave _Particle Duality Very well concluded that something has a dual nature, but not of any dual nature. It proved the dual nature of “WAVES and PARTICLES”, not any other dual nature. Here in another way to express, WAVES and NO_WAVES duality. These two are opposites , true, however, the principle is valid for these two opposites only and not for all the opposites or any other opposites. It is true to say that Wave and particle states are in superposition and anything has the probability of those (all) possible states. But does the Wave-Particle Duality Experiment concludes all the opposite states like “alive” and “death” is a probability function like Waves and Particle? Can you say a living man has both the probability of “alive” and “dead”? What nonsense is that? When you don’t know that uncertainty is there, and otherwise certain, but in the case of Wave-Particle Duality I think that does not depend on our knowing of it. I think this (dualistic nature) is an objective reality. But I think Copenhagen interpretation and Schrodinger’s Cat are nothing other than ideas/concepts and a case of scientist going idealistic. They have fantasized, extended and generalized the result of the Wave-Particle Duality at their will to all their opposites and came to idealistic conclusions. Do you still think I am sane?
  • Asathya Sri Longus Thuma      Of course yes! I extremely appreciate the clarity in your thinking! Give me some time to digest all that!
  • Asathya Sri Longus Thuma       Prof. Brian Cox showed an example on a TV documentary on ‘Entropy’. A sand castle in the desert will soon be blown away by the wind back into a sand pile, if left alone. He says, there’s nothing in the laws of Physics, that prevents wind from building the sand castle again…! Yet, the chances of that happening is overwhelmingly small! The reason is, there are millions of ways of making a sand pile out of the sand castle, but, there is only one way of building the sand castle from the sand pile again ..! It’s not ‘impossible’ for it to happen, though. I started to think on these lines about the problem with bigger objects not behaving like quantum particles, and I guess that this is the answer!The sub-atomic particles have a higher entropy and the atoms and molecules have a lower entropy. The the reason that your wallet doesn’t behave like an electron could be that it has more ‘order’ than the electron, and somehow this prevents it from behaving like an electron!(and also your wife knows where to find it..!!)
  • P Senarath Yapa     What is the reason you think sub-atomic particles to have a higher entropy? (not that I disagree with you)
  • Asathya Sri Longus Thuma     Because, I think they are more disordered than the aggregates of them! When the larger bodies form the entropy of the entire universe increases due to the inevitable loss of heat; but I think, the entropy of that system becomes less. The bigger they become, it is overwhelmingly difficult for them to act like quantum particles, although it is not impossible!
  • P Senarath Yapa    Do you think when large bodies are formed, energy loss is an inevitable phenomenon? I think it is not mandatory in the cases of formation of bigger bodies by “physical reactions”. In chemical reactions, I think always there is a energy exchange. Can you describe your theory a little bit more?
  • Asathya Sri Longus Thuma      What I mean is, that a state in which the particles are moving randomly is a more disorderly state than a state where they are clumped together. The process of clumping together brings them to a higher energy level. On the other hand, at this point one can question, “In that case atoms and molecules should never have been formed in the universe?” I think, the answer to this is, “Yes, they formed complex structures making them more orderly but always with an energy loss as photons, thereby increasing the overall entropy of the universe.” Once a complex structure is formed there are many ways it can go back to the low energy state of random particles, hence the tendency is towards that increases.If I put it in another way, the conditions were right at a certain stage of our universe for the protons and electrons and neutrons to come together to form atoms. This is against the normal tendency of entropy. It’s like you building a structure with blocks. Then further complex structures were formed (like higher elements) inside stars. I see this as going against natural tendency of the universe towards more and more disorder(or towards decay) It could be due to chemical forces having an edge over the basic tendency for decay.(Well, I am not so certain now!) And then to maintain those structures, either you have to continuously maintain them (like living organisms) or once they are formed they start the process of decay(thereby increasing the overall entropy of the universe). See, the rocks were formed due to intense heat and pressure at one stage, but once they are on the surface of Earth, they start decaying! That’s the explanation I can give!
  • P Senarath Yapa     The point I was trying to emphasize was that there are examples against the theory you were trying to establish. What you were trying to say was that the entropy of smaller bodes are higher than that of the larger ones.That is your argument is that “order and disorder” is the criterion for choosing the behaviour of bodies between the forms of wave and particle. But I argued that small bodies and the bigger bodies formed without chemical reactions can have the same entropy level, and in that case according to your theory they should behave the same way having the same degree of wave and particle nature, which contradicts the Wave Function in QM. Therefore, I think Wave-Particle duality or the dualistic nature of things cannot be explained in terms of Laws of Thermo Dynamics. You have an alternative idea?
  • P Senarath Yapa     You think you have no further arguments/chances to overcome my resistance of arguments against your theory and to make it survive?
  • P Senarath Yapa      BTW, you don’t have any objection of my introducing mind/consciousness to explain the observations/phenomena in QM?
  • Asathya Sri Longus Thuma      After going through your argument regarding Arhanth Moggallana, I found a ‘crack’ in your argument-not only in the cave! Ha haaa!If Arhanth Moggallana escaped through a crack the first time when the thieves attacked him, he definitely had used his “erdhi” faculties to do so. In order to use those special faculties, he should be in a fully focused state, shouldn’t he? In that case he should have known that it was inevitable then and there! Why did he try to escape twice then?
  • Asathya Sri Longus Thuma     Mind element, I’ll discuss a little later!
  • P Senarath Yapa      “In order to use those special faculties, he should be in a fully focused state, shouldn’t he?” Why you think it should be so?
  • Asathya Sri Longus Thuma      Because, when he was not he only can walk! When he is fully focused only, he can fly, isn’t it?
  • P Senarath Yapa     I haven’t seen such a rule mentioned in anywhere in Buddhism or anybody has established of such a requirement. I don’t see such a necessasity.
  • Asathya Sri Longus Thuma    That contradicts your own argument that an arhanth is not always focused, isn’t it?
  • Asathya Sri Longus Thuma      Because you told that he realized it is inevitable ONLY after he focused on it! If he was NOT focused, how did he manage to use his ‘erdhi’ faculties?
  • P Senarath Yapa       I am contradicted if “focused condition” is an essential condition to have that special capability of “erdhi”. But I don’t see any reason to have such a relationship between them. I think it is an assumed condition of yours. I don’t see any obstacle to having erdhi capacity without having the focused condition.
  • Asathya Sri Longus Thuma      When Moggallana is walking on the road he is not using his “erdhi” faculty. When he wants to use it, he has to focus on it! If he is focused, the knowledge necessary for knowing the outcome of an event should also be there! If he didn’t, we have to conclude that he was not capable of this knowledge and he acted like any other ordinary mortal!
  • P Senarath Yapa      “When he wants to use it, he has to focus on it!” Why?
  • Asathya Sri Longus Thuma      Otherwise, Moggallana should be always ‘airborne’!
  • P Senarath Yapa      Ok, even if he focused on erdhi, to have erdhi, how come it contradicts anything?
  • Asathya Sri Longus Thuma      Such wisdom dawns upon you with all the elements required to “see things as they are”(or Pragn~na)! It’s a matter of whether this state is active or not! If this state is active,(as you say) everything pertaining to that knowledge should make its presence.
  • P Senarath Yapa     Exactly, if the focus is on erdhi, only the erdhi and nothing else will be seen.
  • Asathya Sri Longus Thuma     In that case, Yapa Thumani, an Arhanth flying on ‘erdhi’ can’t see the things to come; yet you are quick to find fault with the pure malt Arhanth Samanthabadra(the focus of our topic!) for making some ‘inconsistent’ statements! Even Pure Malt Samanthabadra couldn’t have seen those as ‘inconsistencies'(as seen by one Yapa!) eventhough his Arhanthood is in fact a genuine phenomenon! Ha ha haaa!
  • P Senarath Yapa     It has been an obvious fact that mind can focus on only one thing at a time. With regard to Buddha and arahanths it has never been stated differently. So, you have not contradicted anything said wrt the Arahanth Moggallana. But inconsistencies in the articles of Samanthabadra, clearly contradicted him. Do you think a contradicted situation and non-contradicted situations are same?
  • Asathya Sri Longus Thuma      Sir, when he was concentrating on “sathara apaaya” he was not focusing on “Vidarshana”, hence the “inconsistencies”!Further to that: “An Arhath who loves single malt, is a pleasure to meet with;a pleasure to talk to, because he is in the path of right-mindedness”-Gauthama Budda(in Sutta Nipatha)
  • P Senarath Yapa     When he was writing the articles Samanthabadra was focusing on what he was writing, so he cannot have inconsistencies! If obatuma is offering single malt , I don’t mind, will have it wishing you tthe right mindfulness. Cheers!
  • Asathya Sri Longus Thuma   Now, lets leave this joke and go on to the “mind element”! In one Zen story the conversation between two monks is as follows:
    1st monk: The flag is waving!
    2nd monk: No the wind is blowing!
    Their teacher hears this and says: No, your mind is waving!I too think, your idea of a ‘mind element’ in Quantum Mechanics solves the problem to a great deal!
  • P Senarath Yapa     Don’t you watch the last phase of the T20?
  • P Senarath Yapa    You are not all time omniscient? Ha! Ha!!
  • Asathya Sri Longus Thuma     No! I just got the stream! We are losing! Back to back after UN! Too bad Uthumaaneni!
  • P Senarath Yapa     I tried to focus and foresee the match result, anyway my omniscience too has failed. Ha! Ha!!
  • Asathya Sri Longus Thuma     Randomness in the universe looks like a big obstacle, isn’t it?
  • P Senarath Yapa    I don’t think it is the randomness.
  • Asathya Sri Longus Thuma     Do you think even the randomness is pre-determined? What about the lack of causality?
  • P Senarath Yapa     Really in that case it was neither the lack of causality nor the randomness. Really the causality is there. The problem is the difficulty of finding the relationships among the series of complex causes and effects that lead to the victory or defeat of the match. In here too all the effects can be attributed to the “Panch Niyama Dharmas”, but it is extremely difficult to identify them separately may be due to the frequency of the events take place, and also due to the intrinsic difficulty by an average person to find the cause and effect relationships. Further, the “chitta” factor can generate new causes which cannot be predicted on the basis of the effects taken place before. Really a good batsman or a good bowler or a clever captain can change the game on the basis of good strategies formulated on the basis of his “chitta” factor. That cannot be identified or predicted by any other average person, but only a person with “para chitta vijanana gnana” can know it. Even if one knows this, it is very difficult to analyze the very high number of complex causes take place at a time and also the intensive rate of change of them. Really this is not a case of lack of causality, but its opposite. It is a case of too much of causes and effects for any person. It is difficult to figure out the process due to the extreme complexity of the causes and effects involved in the process. If the causality is not there and it is decided on randomness a good captain or a ream of good players have no role to play in a team, instead you and I can replace Sangakkara and Mahela Jayawardana and your wife and the son can replace Lasith Malinga and Mendis. Either you can form “another National Team” and you can be the captain of that random team. Please include me too at least in your cheering squad. Ha! Ha!!
  • P Senarath Yapa   However, it seems there is a random factor too involved in deciding a cricket match, that is the “toss” of the match. Toss is a significant factor contributed to the decision of a match in many cases. This random factor seems to change the “Five Niyama Dhammas” pertaining to a match. Here this random event seems act as a “cause” for the other Niyamas. But who knows whether the random event, toss, is dependent on the luck of a team as many say. Further, what I say is nothing is pre-determined, especially in the events and processes involved with conscious beings.
  • Asathya Sri Longus Thuma      Yapa, Thumani, I was about to tell you about the ‘toss’! The apparently random event of the toss seems to have a ripple effect on various cause and effect pathways right throughout the match. Btw, “Niyama Dhamma” doesn’t include ‘randomness’..(unfortunSee More

    en.wikipedia.org

    A delayed choice quantum eraser, first performed by Yoon-Ho Kim, R. Yu, S.P. Kulik, Y.H. Shih and Marlan O. Scully,[1] and reported in early 1999, is an elaboration on the quantum eraser experiment that incorporates concepts considered in Wheeler’s delayed choice experiment. The experiment was desig…
  • P Senarath Yapa    You still have no good reasons to conclude that “Niyama Dhamma” doesn’t include ‘randomness’..(unfortunately)” . In a previous discussion with you too I told you that “randomness” could be a result of difficulty to figure out causes involved with the event which is considered as random, just as you interpreted the decision of a cricket match to randomness, due to the difficulty of figuring out the complex causes behind it…… A batch mate of mine says that he has proven that random numbers have a bias, and hence some of the Casino games (I have no idea of them) can be manipulated to somebody’s advantage…………… I don’t know much about “Quantum Eraser”, but can we arrive at the same conclusion under “Many World Interpretation”? If not, don’t you think it is a result of the interpretation, but not of the observation? Anyway, I will have to explore a little bit more and think twice before jumping into the well. Tell me your opinion about it.
  • Asathya Sri Longus Thuma   I think randomness plays a key role in understanding universe. What you see as randomness could be actually the result of a subtle process of cause and effect. For example if you throw a dice up, why it landed on a particular number can’t be explained See More
  • P Senarath YapaI think in the latter part of your comment you have wandered in a fantasy world created in the popular misunderstanding of the Quantum Mechanics by the laymen! Really I don’t think physicists believe in having enormous number of universes, but it is one of the explanations offered for many alternative states possible in some events (random?). For example, when a dice is thrown there are six outcomes that can occur, 1,2,3,4,5,6. But the occurrence of of any outcome is independent of each other, meaning occurrence of one number has no any effect on occurring the others, and even the occurrence of a number at a time has no any effect on its occurrence at the next time. If you take a coin we know that the probability of getting HEAD or TAILS when tossed is 1/2. But it doesn’t prevent the possibility of having HEADS five times at a stretch, because previous event has no effect on the events to come. (“Once again MS Dhoni won the toss – the 15th consecutive time he’s done it in completed matches -“) That is why we cannot bet on TAILS with more confidence after having 5 HEADS at a stretch, according to Mathematics. However, same Mathematics believe that when a coin is tossed 1000 times approximately 500 HEADS and 500 TAILS must be the outcome. In that case do you think 5 HEADS at a stretch has no hand in choosing the next 495 HEADS and 500 TAILS? Doesn’t this situation create a bias towards TAILS to be in line with the Theory of Probability, that is the probability of each outcome to be 1/2? Isn’t this itself a contradiction? Randomness allows events to occur independently, hence theoretically one outcome can occur repeatedly at any number of times without occurring the other, but eventually number of both occurrences have to be similar. Can this happen if the events are independent? OR Descartes” devil is intervening and manipulating the outcome?………………….Many World Interpretation has been taken many by as a true situation, but just an explanation given to explain those possible outcomes. The independence of the different possibilities is interpreted as a situation where there is no communication between those possibilities naming them as different worlds, but I think that doesn’t mean that there are such different worlds (universes)with physical realities as you think. I think all those modern physicists have become more idealistic, to create mind concepts and to pose them as realities, not as small ones but of the size of universes. Now their assumptions are of the size of the universes, billions of independent universes. I think scientists must be taught of Occam’s Razor. More the assumptions, the bigger the assumptions the theory is weaker. I don’t think many universe is a reality but a crazy theory created in the minds of perplexed scientists and you took it as a reality. I have seen such a situation in an explanation offered in Buddhism too literally taken as true and how people gone nonsensical (as you are, Ha! Ha!!). In Buddhism, there is an explanation to indicate that there is no a person called “I” or “me”. and people have taken that literally and say there is no a person called “I”. I tell them if I take a huge club and thump you on the back then you will cry “Please spare me” and will realize that there is a person called “I”. It is only looking at it from a philosophical perspective to explain the insignificance of ego, but our people ignore the correct perspective, ignore the udder to milk with the horns. I think your universes are not a wiser idea!!!………………….. By trying to interpret abstract things physically, you are trying to do impossibilities, I think that is the reason for these chaos among physicists. But Mathematicians have taken random outcomes with their true sense of abstractness and they are having an abstract laugh at physicists and still smiling.
  • Asathya Sri Longus Thuma    Yapa, “Dark Flow” could be one such hint, of the existence of other universes! Unfortunately, these may not be proven in any of our life-times!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_flowAs Buddha plunges into insignificance, an ancient Chinese man called Lao Tsu re-emerges from his grave and says, “Human mind can’t grasp the concept of ‘origin’; if somebody says so, that’s not the correct answer!”

    en.wikipedia.org

    Dark flow is an astrophysical term describing a possible non-random component of See More
  • P Senarath Yapa    I think you have not written anything about what I had written in my last two posts, instead you have leveled an allegation against the Buddha, which is not commensurate with the arguments you have brought up so far. You say, “As Buddha plunges into insignificance…”, but you were not able even to come to the close proximity of that statement with your arguments in this debate. I think it is very unbecoming to express such a statement. Your conclusions should be natural outcomes of the arguments and facts brought forward in the debate. You are not supposed to come to conclusions on the basis of unstated facts and arguments, which might be amply available in books and libraries. Your conclusions should be a result of your arguments and facts and only a result of them and but of nothing.
  • Asathya Sri Longus Thuma   I’ll give a detailed answer later! Buddha too have told that human mind cannot grasp the real truth!BTW, multi-verse is not an abstract concept as you think. Multiverse is the answer to many questions about what was before the Big Bang. The String TSee More
  • P Senarath Yapa     I have no much idea of that. But we can put our mind into it if you can elaborate on it. Did the Buddha say humans cannot grasp the reality? I am not very sure. Can you tell where he has said so?
  • Asathya Sri Longus    ThumaSorry! What he has said was that the question of origin and extent is unanswerable! My apologies!
  • Asathya Sri Longus Thuma    Yapa Thumani, before I go back to the topic, one small advice: You can press the ‘shift’ and ‘function’ keys together on you keypad to write in paragraphs. That makes things more readable, isn’t it?What you say about randomness doesn’t have any basisSee More
  • P Senarath Yapa     Thanks for the advice, you know technology is “haram” to me and I am very bad at that, hereafter I can write in paragraphs.You say “What you say about randomness doesn’t have any basis. I mean, “does getting 5 heads in a row affect the out come?”
  • Asathya Sri Longus Thuma    Even if you get 500 heads in a row, it doesn’t. If you go through my last comment you’ll see it could happen; when it happens, it becomes one of those GREAT PATTERNS of randomness!
  • Asathya Sri Longus Thuma      It might be interesting to read this conversation I had with one of the great Prophets of modern time, some time back! I have described about random patterns in detail here. Although you might not agree with it, it would shed some new light at least on this topic!https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=591300987614823…
  • P Senarath Yapa       Give me a little bit time. I will be back as soon as I get a chance. I am a bit busy for a couple of days.
  • P Senarath Yapa     Sorry for the delay to reply. After a few days break it seems that the spirit of discussion has faded away from me. Oh!, I must thank you, hereafter I will write in paragraphs. You know I am very poor at technology.I think I have to start from your comment of March 30 at 2:36pm. I never said that randomness doesn’t have any basis. I have no evidence or reasons for such a conclusion. What I meant was that if randomness is the case of occurrences that cannot be attributed to causes, among those occurrences there could be some occurrences which really have causes but which were not identified yet, as many occurrences have multiple and complex set of causes. In Science what we mainly do is a never ending endeavour of finding causes of the occurrences we observe in nature. To find some simple causes for some simple occurrences/phenomena of nature it took several generations for scientists. Still some people of the “civilized world” still believe that rain is an act of Gods and the God created the world. Even now people cannot figure out simple reasons behind simple phenomena. Do you think people can understand complex phenomena with their reasons? There is a tendency for uneducated people simply to attribute difficult phenomena to mysterious causes and educated people to randomness, you too attributed decisions in cricket to randomness. Are we taking things for granted?I know Mathematics attribute every outcome of a toss of a coin as a random event. I tried to build up a counter argument using the same consecutive outcomes of an unbiased coin. If a man cast his vote consecutively five times for a political party, do you not tend to think that he is politically biased towards that particular party? Then why you do not tend to think it is not so in the case of a toss of a coin? And after that out of next 95 outcomes, there is a tendency it it be 45 and 50 outcomes for and against that outcome? Give up your way of thinking taught by Mathematics, and think in terms of real occurrences afresh.Now, your ideas of “patterns of randomness” I would like to call as “biased patterns in randomness”, don’t you think that mine would be more appropriate? Yes, I think this situation could be the reason for many perplexities we have, but I think the reason could be misunderstanding “biases” as “randomness”, or taking situations with non random events as random events or “patterns of randomness”. Why don’t we call a spade a spade?Now you say thoughts occur randomly! Are you sure of this? I think I tend to take the opposite view. If not always, almost always thoughts occur due to reasons. Do you disagree?It also seems that you have fascinated even to go further to attribute the universe to randomness totally forgetting the theories of cause and effect about the universe. Do you think the theories of randomness are more credible than the theories of cause and effect on the universe?Your conversation with one of your prophets, I couldn’t read, that is not available where you have cited. I would like to read it just like I would like to read your next response to my present comment.
  • Asathya Sri Longus Thuma      Two short answers, before I send you a more analytical reply:
    The “great patterns” of randomness I mentioned doesn’t require a “great manipulator” of super-natural. If you just say, there is a bias in a series of a particular out-come(eg.heads), the qSee More
  • P Senarath Yapa     This is what it says when opened.“This content is currently unavailable
    The page you requested cannot be displayed right now. It may be temporarily unavailable, the link you clicked on may have expired, or you may not have permission to view this page.”
  • P Senarath Yapa  It is said that Ven. Samanthabadra is going to perform “erdhi prathiharya” to prove his authenticity.
  • Asathya Sri Longus Thuma     Ha haa, Sri Yapa thumani! Don’t miss this rare opportunity to go and witness this holy event! If he really does it, (and if it is not a magic trick!)I’ll be a disciple of Ven. S. Do you have any idea as to when he is going to do this?
  • Asathya Sri Longus Thuma     Getting back to your reply on randomness, I think even thoughts occur randomly. There is a sensory stimulus most of the time from our five senses. And sometimes this stimulus is from the stored memory. Basically a thought is an electrical impulse in aneuron.For example when you wake up in the morning the first thought that occurs to you(if you were not woken up while dreaming) could be a sound from the environment: “බල්ලෙක් බුරනවා!” Then a train of thoughts would follow as to who the dog is etc! “මොකද ඌ බුරන්නෙ?” Also, sometimes, random thoughts may occur as well without any stimulus eg: a thought like, “dogs are pigs in disguise!” “Consciousness is an illusion!”
    Some of them occasionally could be really great thoughts as well (like the thought about pigs…!) Ha ha haaa!
  • Asathya Sri Longus Thuma      This is an entirely new way of explaining ‘nirvana’! I’m impressed by this sermon! Very true!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-q546AaLce0
  • Asathya Sri Longus Thuma      මුන්ට පිස්සුද යාපා?
  • P Senarath Yapa     Pissu vitharakma nevey, thakkadikama eeta vadiy!
  • P Senarath Yapa      met a classmate of this Samanthabadra. He told me that the chap was in the village temple from his very young age and that guy told me the boy was a very clever fellow and read all the books available at the temple in his young age. He told me a thing that lay Samanthabadra had told him when they were together. He had told that “there were only two methods by which one can progress”, that is 1. politics 2. being a monk.After getting free education with the living expenses from the temple, Just after his university education he followed the suit (to progress).I met Samanthabadra himself once, I also felt that he cannot be sane after exchanging a few words with him.
  • Asathya Sri Longus Thuma     Actually, I wasn’t sarcastic when I wrote the comment for the video! After watching his video, I was actually impressed. The way he touched upon some of the more abstract concepts of Buddhism(for example, “beyond the existence/non-existence”) with simplicity is impressive.I couldn’t find fault with the content of this sermon !At the time of this sermon, he has not proclaimed that he was an ‘Arhanth'(an enlightened person) Maybe he wasn’t at that time!But, then again, this kind of an experience like “sudden awakening”, can be an illusionary mental status as well. If this is the case, I have no way of knowing whether all those people who were reported to have had similar experiences in the Buddhist history were having illusions or not!

The above is a question that awaits a consensus answer since a long time. Some hold the view that mind is nothing but physical brain or a part of it or a purely a result of it, but some others do not agree with that notion. Some believe it is a non-physical entity which has a separate identity from matter. Some others hold the notion that mind is a non-physical entity which comes to existence with the association of physical existence (body).

The first notion holders above point out the obvious relationship between the brain and the cognitive functions as a testimony to their notion. Further, they argue that inability to trace/identify something called “mind” in the body of living beings, the way the organs like kidney, heart, hand or brain are identified, is another good reason to refuse the existence of such a separate entity. However, one can use the same fact as an argument against the same notion as well.

If  mind is non-physical, inability to trace  such an entity has nothing to do against the notion of the existence of a non physical mind, as a non physical mind needn’t to have an identifiable physical existence.

Is there a special reason as to why existence should essentially be physical? Is it essential all existences to be physical? Aren’t there non-physical existences?

If somebody wants to establish the notion that mind is brain or a part of it or purely a result of it, he/she invariably has to

1. Disprove the non-physical existence.

AND

2. Establish that mind is dependent purely  on brain.

However, If one to accept the existence of real numbers, complex numbers, mathematical functions and their operations such as addition, subtraction, multiplication, derivation and integration etc. etc.,  one invariably has to accept the non-physical existence, as they are abstract Pure Mathematical entities.

Further, if somebody recognizes the existence of mental conditions such as love, compassion, equanimity, hatred..etc. etc. I think they will have to accept non-physical existence. One may counter argue that those emotions take place due to the chemical reactions in the physical body, but I don’t think they can write up the chemical equations give rise to these mental conditions. Really otherwise they cannot establish that these mental conditions are purely a result of those bodily chemical reactions.

Nevertheless, the above arguments would support the third notion that mind is an entity which has an association with the physical body of a living being.  Further, this notion could be further reiterated looking at the mental conditions formation process.

Think of a hypothetical person who has no all five senses, but has a healthy brain.  Will that person’s mental conditions and mind develop similar to another person’s mind that has a similar brain and with five senses?

Really we know that many of the mental conditions mentioned above take place after the information of outside world is taken into the body through five sensory organs. Hence we can reasonably conclude that mental conditions are formed as a result of some reactions taken place in a living being due to outside information (taken through five senses).

So, this clearly proves that mental conditions are not purely brain or a part of it or a result of it. So, I think this clearly proves that mind and brain are not the same thing though they may have a co-relation.

I think “Saththigumba Jathakaya” provides a good example to explain the above status. It is a story about two baby parrot siblings brought up in two different environments. In this ancient day story, these siblings exhibit entirely different mental conditions, owing to the different environments they were brought up.

You can search the web and read Saththigumba Jathakaya.

Lera Boroditsky, an Assistant Professor of Psychology at Stanford University in her research paper, “How Language Shapes Thought: The languages we speak affect our perceptions of the world” clearly shows how another outside source affects mind.

http://psych.stanford.edu/~lera/papers/sci-am-2011.pdf

Recognizing the importance of her great work, I republished it in my blog under the same heading.

******************************************************************************************************************************************

P.S. :-

Really if brain does not get inputs from “six senses” including the (prevailing) mind, it cannot produce any mental action. That is brain cannot produce any “mental action” without the help from outside. So, it is clear that “mental actions” are not a result of brain alone. This clearly proves that mind and brain are not “congruent”.

Thanks!

There is a verbal and action packed tug of war in Sri Lanka these days between its people ideologically divided into two opposite groups on this particular question. It has already created a pandemonium, even among political parties, and it was reported Muslim Congress is considering resigning from the government coalition, for government’s inefficiency to address the issue.

However, one of the salient features of this debate is that no party or a person to the question was able to put forward facts to support their positions rather than placing their ideological positions on just opinions and claims. It has become a battle of words, not facts.

In this backdrop, I think it is prudent to submit an objective analysis, so that everybody can make use as a common base to understand the question (if there one) and to formulate solutions.  I think proper identification of the question is the first  essential stepping stone for a proper solution.

One of the allegations against the Muslim community of Sri Lanka is that they have a higher population growth rate that would be a threat to the other communities of the country. However, though this is a thing that is verifiable with ease,  no one has opted for that alternative rather than engaged in a blind quarrel.

So with the available demographic statistics of Sri Lanka, we will undertake the task.

Please go through the following link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Sri_Lanka

There the table-1 is Population of Sri Lanka by ethnic group 1871 to 2012 and the table-2 is Population of Sri Lanka by religion 1881 to 2012.

The last census of the country was held in 2012 and the previous one to it  was held in 1981. Statistics given in the tables for 1989 and 2001 are estimates and therefore do  not represent exact figures.

Following data is from the table-1

Sinhalese (no)

Sri Lankan Tamils(no)

Sri Lankan Moors (no)

1981 Census

10,979,400

1,886,900

1,046,900

2012 Census

15,173,820

2,270,924

1,869,820

Above population changes were taken place during the 31 years between 2012 and 1981.

Now we will calculate the (average) population growth rates of the ethnic groups.

Sinhalese — [(15,173,820-10,979,400)/ 10,979,400/31] x100     = 1.2323%

SL Tamils — [(2,270,924-1,886,900)/1,886,900/31] x100             = 0.6565%

SL Moors — [(1,869,820-1,046,900)/1,046,900/31] x100             = 2.5357%

According to the above, population growth rate of Moor community is over two (2) times of Sinhalese and almost four (4) times of Tamils.

Therefore it is apparent that if these ethnic population growths continue, the Moor community of Sri Lanka passes the populations of SL Tamils one day and Sinhalese some time after that.

Population growths follow Exponential Progressions.

With the use of Mathematics, it can be shown that Moor population in Sri Lanka will surpass the Tamil community in ten and a half years (10.5 years) and Sinhalese community in 163.65 years. *****

Now look at the Table-2 of the above link.

Buddhist

Hindu

Muslim

Christian

1981 Census

10,288,300

2,297,800

1,121,700 (7.56%)

1,130,600 (7.62%)

2012 Census

14,222,844

2,554,606

1,967,227 (9.71%)

1,509,606 (7.45%)

At the glance of the table you will be able to see that Muslims have already surpassed Christians during the period under  consideration.

Now as we did for the communities in the above we will calculate the growth rates of religions.

Buddhist—[(14,222,844-10,288,300)/ 10,288,300/31] x100 = 1.2336%

Hindu— [(2,554,606-2,297,800)/ 2,297,800/31] x100           = 0.3605%

Muslim—[(1,967,227 -1,121,700)/ 1,121,700/31] x100         = 2.4153%

Now applying the Mathematical formula as before, we can conclude that Muslim religion will pass Hindus in 12. 89 years and Buddhists will be passed in 170.45 years.

Another salient feature that should be noted is that though the most of the Malay community in Sri Lanka are Muslims, their population is declining. Their population has declined from 47,000 to 40,189 during the period under consideration.

Now the concerned parties can use these objective data in their action for  planning a violence free peaceful country.

*******************************************************************************************************************************

Mathematics

For instance say, this year’s population of a particular community is “A” and the growth rate is d,

If present population is denoted by T0, population after one (1) year is denoted by T1, 2nd year by T2….. and so on, Then,

T0=A

T1=A+Ad=———————–          =A(1+d)

T2=A(1+d)+ A(1+d)x=A(1+d)(1+d)———–=A(1+d)to the power 2

T3=A(1+d)(1+d)+ A(1+d)(1+d)d————-=A(1+d)to the power 3

…………..

…………..

Similarly,

Tn=————————————–=A(1+d)to the power n

That is if one community overtakes the other community in “n” years, Tn for both communities must be equal.

Now suppose, present Moor, Tamil and Sinhalese populations as a, b and c respectively and their growth rates as x, y and z respectively.

Now when Moors overtake Tamil population,

a(1+x) to the power n = b(1+y) to the power n

Therefore, b/a = (1+x) to the power n/ (1+y) to the power n

That is b/a = {(1+x)/ (1+y)} to the power n

Therefore, log (b/a) = log [{(1+x)/ (1+y)} to the power n]

Therefore, log (b/a) = n log {(1+x)/ (1+y)}

Therefore, n = log (b/a)/ log {(1+x)/ (1+y)} —————-(X)