දෙවියන් වහන්සේ + අල්ලා හා බුදුදහමේ දෙවියන&#353

[Y2K]

එතකොට (වර්තමාන තත්වය ගනන් නොගෙන ඉමු) ඇමරිකාව එංගලන්තට වගේ රටවල් වල ඔක්කොම මිනිස්සු පෝසත් වෙන්න එපායැ. ලෝකයේ හිගන්නන් වැඩිම රට ඇමෙරිකාව.

ඔවැනි ගොන් තර්ක වලට කාලය යොදවන්න තරම් මම මෝඩයෙක් නෙවෙයි. අනේ මන්ද බුද්ධිකයෙක්ගේ තරම මම හින්දත් මිනිස්සු දුප්පත් වෙනවලු. ඔව් උඹලා වගේ හොර ලෝගු කාරයෝවනම් දුප්පත් කරලා පන්නලා දානවා අපි.



දෙවියන් වහන්සේ practical ද . සුරංගනා කතා practical කරන්න කතා කරන උඹ වගේ මෝඩයෝ නිවන් මග ගැන කතා කිරීම කොහොමත් practical නෑ.මොකද ඔය අලස ගොන් මොල වලට තේරෙන්නේ නෑ.



ඔව් ඔව් ගොඩක් දේවල් තියෙනවා නේද fulfill කරගන්න. මට එක දෙයක් කියන්න පුලුවන් ඔය ඔක්කෝම fulfill කරගෙන එනකොට මේ ලෝකේ නැති වෙලා මිනිස්සු දෙවියන්ට ගල් ගහන තත්වයට පත් වෙලා ඉවරයි. මෝඩයෝ ප්‍රශ්නෙන් මග හරින්න එපා.

ඔන්න ආයෙත් ගොන්නාන්සේ තප්පුලනවා. නිර්වාණය පිළිබද ඕනේ තරම් විස්තර කරලා ඕනේ තරම් ලිපි පලවෙලා තියෙනවා මේ Elakiri එකේ. එහෙම නැත්තම් book shop එකකට ගිහින් හොයාගෙන කියවපන්. නිර්වාණය දක්වා යන මාර්ගය පියවරෙන් පියවර පැහැදිලිව දක්වලා තියෙනවා. උඹ වගේ ගොන් හරක්ට නැවත නැවත එකම දේ කියලා කාලය නාස්ති කර ගන්න ඕනේ නෑනේ.



compassion වචනේ හරියට ලියා ගන්න බැරි එකා කොහෙද compassion ගැන කතා කරන්නේ. උඹේ compassion ගැන මම Thread එකක්ම දාලා තිබ්බ මතක නැද්ද ?? ගිහින් බලපන් කවුද වෛරයෙන් සහ ද්වේශයෙන් කෑගහලා තියෙන්නේ කියලා. එතකොට උඹටම තේරෙයි උඹ fail වෙලා ගොඩක් කල් කියලා




මගේ කිසිම ප්‍රශ්නයක් නෑ උඹටම තමයි ප්‍රශ්නේ වෙලා තියෙන්නේ හරියට පිළිතුර කියවපන්. ප්‍රශ්නෙට උත්‍තරේ තියෙද්දී ඒකම නැවත අහනවා. එහෙම අයට ඉතින් මනද බුද්ධිකයෙක් කිව්වට ප්‍රශ්නයක් නෑනේ.



අපි හැම තිස්සේම cool එකේ ඉන්නේ. උඹලා වගේ එවුන් අපිව තවත් cool කරනවා.



cool down cool down man
මිනිස්සුන්ට දඩුවම් දෙන්න විතරද ඔය දෙවියන් ඉන්නේ. අනේ එහෙම අයට අපිනම් දෙයියෝ කියන්නේ නෑ. ආයෙත් කියනවා දඩුවම් දෙන්න කලින් මිනිසුන්ව දුකින් මුදවන්න එපායැ. අනේ මෙහෙමත් දෙයියෝ මොකටද කතා කරලා




මට අනිත් ආගම් ගැන දැනගන්න උවමනාවක් නෑ. නමුත් උඹලා වගේ වසලයින් අනිත් ආගම් ගැන දැනගන්න යන්නේ ඒවයේ අඩුපාඩු හොයන්න මිසක අවංක චේතනාවකින් නෙවෙයිනේ. අන්න ඒක තමයි වෙනස. හැබැයි උඹලා වගේ හොර කුමන්ත්‍රණකාරයින්ට මේ ලංකාවේ නැගිටින්න ඉඩ තිය‍න්නේ නෑ අපි.




උඹ මට pray කරන්න ඕනේ නෑ. මොකද උඹේ ඔය pray සතේකට මට වැඩකුත් නෑ. උඹ බුදු දහම ගැන respect නොකරනතාක් කල් දුක උඹටම තමයි.



වෛර කරන්නත් පුලුවන් සැබැවින් ඉන්න හෝ හිටිය කෙනෙකුටනේ මිථ්‍යා චරිත වලට වෛර කරන්න බෑ.

Choose life !

God bless you

 

[Y2K]

නිර්වාණ මාර්ගය එදා සිටි බුදුරජාණන් වහන්සේ සහ මහරහතන් වහන්සේලා ඔප්පු කර පෙන්වන ලද්දක් ඒ වගේම නිර්වාණය ලබා ගැනීමට අවශය ක්‍රමය ඉතා පැහැදිලිව ලිඛිතව පියවරෙන් පියවර සදහන් වී තිබෙනවා. කුමටද නැවත නැවත කතා කරන්නේ.

Well how do you know what Buddha said was the truth ? how do you know for sure that there is place or thing called "Nirvana'?

If it is very clear then why you do not follow it and attain Arrahatship ? WHy not in this life?
Please explain it?



දෙවියන් වහන්සේ ගේ පැවතීම මිථ්‍යාවක් කියන්නේ ඒ වගේ කෙනෙක් සැබැවින් මේ ලෝකේ හිටිය නැති හින්දා ඉතින් එහෙම කෙනෙක්කේ පැවැත්මක් නෑ ඒක අමුතුවන් ඔප්පු කරන්න දෙයක් නෑ.
ඒක හරියට අපි පොඩි කාලේ අහපු සුරංගනා කතාවක් ඔප්පු කරන්න යනවා වගේ.

ඔය වගේ Counter Question ඕන තරම් තියෙනවා උඹලා ලග නමුත් වැඩක් නෑ.

Brother you can make such a statements without any proof you can not prove that there is no GOD

Brother what is the purpose of your life? Everything is meanless? pls answer

 

[sanjeeme]

Brother you can make such a statements without any proof you can not prove that there is no GOD

Brother what is the purpose of your life? Everything is meanless? pls answer

අනේ මහත්තයෝ මෙලොව හිටපු නැති කෙනෙකුට අමුතුවෙන් proof අවශ්‍ය නෑ එහෙම දෙයක් නෑ කියලා කියන්න. සමහරැ කියනවා විද්‍යාවෙන් දෙවියන් නෑ කියලා ඔප්පු කරලා නෑලු. අනේ අසරණයෝ විද්‍යාඥයෝ මිථ්‍යාවක් ඔප්පු කරන්න කාලය නාස්ති කරන්නේ නෑ කියලා දන්නේ නෑ.

අර මම කිව්වා වගේ අපි පොඩි කාලේ අහපු සුරංගනා කතාවක් ඇත්ත කියලා ඔප්පු කරන්න යනවා වගේ වැඩක් ඕක. අර ඔය මහත්තුරැ කියනවනේ මට දෙවියන් වහන්සේ කතා කලා ඊයේ රෑත් මට කතා කලා කිය කියා (අන්ධ විශ්වාසයේ අන්තයටම ගිහින්) ඒ මානසික ලෙඩ්ඩු.

ඒ ප්‍රශ්නේ එහෙමම ති‍යාගෙන මේ ගොන් වහන්සේලා බුදු දහමේ නිර්වාණය ගැන ප්‍රශ්න කරන්න යනවා අනේ මහත්තයෝ ඒ ගලේ රෙදි මේ ගලේ ගහන්න එපා කියලා තමයි කියන්න තියෙන්නේ.

 

[sanjeeme]

Brother what is the purpose of your life? Everything is meanless? pls answer

ඔන්න තවත් ගොන් ප්‍රශ්නයක් උඩ බලාගෙන කෙල ගහන්න එපා. ඕක උඹ උඹෙන්ම අහ ගත්තනම් ටිකක් හරි මොලයක් තියෙනවා කියන්න පුලුවන්.

අපිට අපේ ජීවිතයේ අරමුණක් තියෙනවා. ඒක විශ්වාසයක් නෙවෙයි මිථ්‍යාවකුත් නෙවෙයි. වසර 2012 පුරා අද එයි හෙට එයි කියලා මේ ලබපු මිනිසත් කමෙන් කිසිම ප්‍රයෝජනයක් නොගෙන මැරිලා ගියේ උඹේ පරපුර තමයි. උඹ ඊටත් වඩා අන්තයි. උඹලා මේ රටටත් බරක්.

 

[sanjeeme]

Choose life !

God bless you

නිර්වාණ මාර්ගයේ ගිහින් බලන්න. විදර්ශණා භාවනාවන් වඩවා වෙනස තේරැම් ගන්න. එවිට යමෙකුට හැගේවි නිර්වාණය පිළිබදව යම් හැගීමක්

 

[dev.sahan01]

who has proved the niravana exists? no one right..... who do you prove Arahants achieved it? you just believe it... just like believe god exists.... you are no different from a theist....
​

which Arahant said so? you are just blabbering.... Arahants are being who overcame everything... why should they preach people about nirvana? you are misguided!

උඹ වගේ පොල් මෝඩයෙක්

 

[Y2K]

ඔන්න තවත් ගොන් ප්‍රශ්නයක් උඩ බලාගෙන කෙල ගහන්න එපා. ඕක උඹ උඹෙන්ම අහ ගත්තනම් ටිකක් හරි මොලයක් තියෙනවා කියන්න පුලුවන්.

අපිට අපේ ජීවිතයේ අරමුණක් තියෙනවා. ඒක විශ්වාසයක් නෙවෙයි මිථ්‍යාවකුත් නෙවෙයි. වසර 2012 පුරා අද එයි හෙට එයි කියලා මේ ලබපු මිනිසත් කමෙන් කිසිම ප්‍රයෝජනයක් නොගෙන මැරිලා ගියේ උඹේ පරපුර තමයි. උඹ ඊටත් වඩා අන්තයි. උඹලා මේ රටටත් බරක්.

Mokada me kalabala ???

where is the answer brother ?

 

[Y2K]

නිර්වාණ මාර්ගයේ ගිහින් බලන්න. විදර්ශණා භාවනාවන් වඩවා වෙනස තේරැම් ගන්න. එවිට යමෙකුට හැගේවි නිර්වාණය පිළිබදව යම් හැගීමක්

Samidu ta wage da?

Why do not you follow the path? if you followed it why you go mad when someone brings arguements against you ? common man

 

[Y2K]

Ravi on How do you know there is a God?

 

[Y2K]

DNA Proves Creation

 

[dev.sahan01]

Buddhism more scientific than modern science

Buddhism more scientific than modern science

Ven. Ajahn Brahmavamso reflects on Buddhism’s enduring significance

I used to be a scientist. I did Theoretical Physics at Cambridge University, hanging out in the same building as the later-to-be-famous Professor Stephen Hawking. I became disillusioned with such science when, as an insider, I saw how dogmatic some scientists could be.

A dogma, according to the dictionary, is an arrogant declaration of an opinion. This was a fitting description of the science that I saw in the labs of Cambridge. Science had lost its sense of humility. Egotistical opinion prevailed over the impartial search for Truth. My favourite aphorism from that time was: "The eminence of a great scientist, is measured by the length of time that they OBSTRUCT PROGRESS in their field"!

To understand real science, one can go back to one of its founding fathers, the English philosopher Francis Bacon (1561 - 1628). He established the framework on which science was to progress, namely "the greater force of the negative instance". This meant that, having proposed a theory to explain some natural phenomenon, then one should try one's best to disprove it! One should test the theory with challenging experiments.

One must put it on trial with rigorous argument. When a flaw appears in the theory, only then does science advance. A new discovery has been made enabling the theory to be adjusted and refined. This fundamental and original methodology of science understood that it is impossible to prove anything with absolute certainty. One can only disprove with absolute certainty.

Some misguided scientists maintain the theory that there is no rebirth, that this stream of consciousness is incapable of returning to a successive human existence. All one needs to disprove this theory, according to science, is to find one instance of rebirth, just one! Professor Ian Stevenson, as some of you would know, has already demonstrated many instances of rebirth. The theory of no rebirth has been disproved. Rebirth is now a scientific fact!

Ordinary people know so little about science that they can hardly even understand the jargon. Yet, if they read in a newspaper or magazine "a scientist says that?", then they automatically take it to be true.

Compare this to our reaction when we read in the same journal "a politician says that?"! Why do scientists have such unchallenged credibility? Perhaps it is because the language and ritual of science has become so far removed from the common people, that scientists have become today's revered and mystical priesthood. Dressed in their ceremonial white lab coats, chanting incomprehensible mumbo jumbo about multi-dimensional fractal parallel universes, and performing magical rituals that transubstantiate metal and plastic into TV's and computers, these modern day alchemists are so awesome we'll believe anything they say. Elitist science, as once was the Pope, is now infallible.

Some know better. Much of what I learnt 30 years ago has now been proved wrong. There are, fortunately, many scientists with integrity and humility who affirm that science is, at best, a work still in progress. They know that science can only suggest a truth, but can never claim a truth. I was once told by a Buddhist G.P. that, on his first day at a medical school in Sydney, the famous Professor, head of the Medical School, began his welcoming address by stating "Half of what we are going to teach you in the next few years is wrong. Our problem is that we do not know which half it is!" Those were the words of a real scientist.

Buddhism is more scientific than modern science. Like science, Buddhism is based on verifiable cause-and-effect relationships. But unlike science, Buddhism challenges with thoroughness every belief. The famous Kalama Sutta of Buddhism states that one cannot believe fully in "what one is taught, tradition, hearsay, scripture, logic, inference, appearance, agreement with established opinion, the seeming competence of a teacher, or even in one's own teacher". How many scientists are as rigorous in their thinking as this? Buddhism challenges everything, including logic.

It is worth noting that Quantum Theory appeared quite illogical, even to such great scientists as Einstein, when it was first proposed. It is yet to be disproved. Logic is only as reliable as the assumptions on which it is based. Buddhism trusts only clear and objective experience.

Clear experience occurs when one's measuring instruments, one's senses, are bright and undisturbed. In Buddhism, this happens when the hindrances of sloth-and-torpor and restlessness-and-remorse are both overcome. Objective experience is that which is free from all bias. In Buddhism, the three types of bias are desire, ill will and sceptical doubt. Desire makes one see only what one wants to see, it bends the truth to fit one's preferences. Ill will makes one blind to whatever is disturbing or disconcerting to one's views and it distorts the truth by denial. Sceptical doubt stubbornly refuses to accept those truths, like rebirth, that are plainly valid but which fall outside of one's comforting worldview. In summary, clear and objective experience only happens when the Buddhist 'Five Hindrances' have been overcome. Only then can one trust the data arriving through one's senses.

Because scientists are not free of these five hindrances, they are rarely clear and objective. It is common, for example, for scientists to ignore annoying data, which do not fit their cherished theories, or else confine such evidence to oblivion by filing it away as an 'anomaly'. Even most Buddhists aren't clear and objective. One has to have recent experience of Jhana to effectively put aside these five hindrances (according to the Nalakapana Sutta, Majjhima No. 68). So only accomplished meditators can claim to be real scientists, that is, clear and objective.

Science claims to rely not only on clear and objective observation, but also on measurement. But what is measurement in science? To measure something, according to the pure science of Quantum Theory, is to collapse the Schroedinger Wave Equation through an act of observation. Moreover, the "un-collapsed" form of the Schroedinger Wave Equation, that is before any measurement is made, is, perhaps, science's most perfect description of the world. That description is weird! Reality, according to pure science, does not consist of well ordered matter with precise massed, energies and positions in space, all just waiting to be measured. Reality is the broadest of smudges of all possibilities, only some being more probable than others. Even basic 'measurable' qualities as 'alive' or 'dead' have been demonstrated by science to be invalid sometimes. In the notorious 'Schroedinger's Cat' thought experiment, Prof. Schroedinger's cat was ingeniously placed in a real situation where it was neither dead nor alive, where such measurements became meaningless. Reality, according to Quantum Theory, is beyond measurements. Measuring disturbs reality, it never describes it perfectly. It was Heisenberg's famous 'Uncertainty Principle' that showed the inevitable error between the real Quantum world and the measured world of pseudo-science.

Anyway, how can anyone measure the measurer, the mind? At a recent seminar on Science and Religion, at which I was a speaker, a Catholic in the audience bravely announced that whenever she looks through a telescope at the stars, she feels uncomfortable because her religion is threatened. I commented that whenever a scientist looks the other way round through a telescope, to observe the one who is watching, then they feel uncomfortable because their science is threatened by what is doing the seeing! So what is doing the seeing, what is this mind that eludes modern science?

A Grade-One teacher once asked her class "What is the biggest thing in the world?" One little girl answered "My daddy". A little boy said "An elephant", since he'd recently been to the zoo. Another girl suggested "A mountain". The six-year-old daughter of a close friend of mine replied, "My eye is the biggest thing in the world"! The class stopped. Even the teacher didn't understand her answer. So the little philosopher explained "Well, my eye can see her daddy, an elephant, and a mountain too. It can also see so much else. If all of that can fit into my eye, then my eye must be the biggest thing in the world"! Brilliant.

However, she was not quite right. The mind can see everything that one's eye can see, and it can also imagine so much more. It can also hear, smell, taste and touch, as well as think. In fact, everything that can be known can fit into the mind. Therefore, the mind must be the biggest thing in the world. Science's mistake is obvious now. The mind is not in the brain, nor in the body. The brain, the body and the rest of the world, are in the mind!

Mind is the sixth sense in Buddhism, it is that which encompasses the five senses of sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch, and transcends them with its own domain. It corresponds loosely to Aristotle's "common sense" that is distinct from the five senses. Indeed, ancient Greek philosophy, from where science is said to have its origins, taught six senses just like Buddhism. Somewhere along the historical journey of European thinking, they lost their mind! Or, as Aristotle would put it, they somehow discarded their "common sense"! And thus we got science. We got materialism without any heart. One can accurately say that Buddhism is a science that has kept its heart, and which hasn't lost its mind!
Thus Buddhism is not a belief system. It is a science founded on objective observation, i.e. meditation, ever careful not to disturb the reality through imposing artificial measurements, and it is evidently repeatable.

People have been re-creating the experimental conditions, known as establishing the factors of the Noble Eightfold Path, for over twenty-six centuries now, much longer than science. And those renowned Professors of Meditation, the male and female Arahants, have all arrived at the same conclusion as the Buddha. They verified the timeless Law of Dhamma, otherwise known as Buddhism. So Buddhism is the only real science, and I'm happy to say that I'm still a scientist at heart, only a much better scientist than I ever could have been at Cambridge.

http://sundaytimes.lk/090503/Plus/sundaytimesplus_13.html

 

[dev.sahan01]

God does not exist!

 

[dev.sahan01]

Creation is a lie!

 

[sanjeeme]

Buddhism more scientific than modern science

Ven. Ajahn Brahmavamso reflects on Buddhism’s enduring significance

I used to be a scientist. I did Theoretical Physics at Cambridge University, hanging out in the same building as the later-to-be-famous Professor Stephen Hawking. I became disillusioned with such science when, as an insider, I saw how dogmatic some scientists could be.

A dogma, according to the dictionary, is an arrogant declaration of an opinion. This was a fitting description of the science that I saw in the labs of Cambridge. Science had lost its sense of humility. Egotistical opinion prevailed over the impartial search for Truth. My favourite aphorism from that time was: "The eminence of a great scientist, is measured by the length of time that they OBSTRUCT PROGRESS in their field"!

To understand real science, one can go back to one of its founding fathers, the English philosopher Francis Bacon (1561 - 1628). He established the framework on which science was to progress, namely "the greater force of the negative instance". This meant that, having proposed a theory to explain some natural phenomenon, then one should try one's best to disprove it! One should test the theory with challenging experiments.

One must put it on trial with rigorous argument. When a flaw appears in the theory, only then does science advance. A new discovery has been made enabling the theory to be adjusted and refined. This fundamental and original methodology of science understood that it is impossible to prove anything with absolute certainty. One can only disprove with absolute certainty.

Some misguided scientists maintain the theory that there is no rebirth, that this stream of consciousness is incapable of returning to a successive human existence. All one needs to disprove this theory, according to science, is to find one instance of rebirth, just one! Professor Ian Stevenson, as some of you would know, has already demonstrated many instances of rebirth. The theory of no rebirth has been disproved. Rebirth is now a scientific fact!

Ordinary people know so little about science that they can hardly even understand the jargon. Yet, if they read in a newspaper or magazine "a scientist says that?", then they automatically take it to be true.

Compare this to our reaction when we read in the same journal "a politician says that?"! Why do scientists have such unchallenged credibility? Perhaps it is because the language and ritual of science has become so far removed from the common people, that scientists have become today's revered and mystical priesthood. Dressed in their ceremonial white lab coats, chanting incomprehensible mumbo jumbo about multi-dimensional fractal parallel universes, and performing magical rituals that transubstantiate metal and plastic into TV's and computers, these modern day alchemists are so awesome we'll believe anything they say. Elitist science, as once was the Pope, is now infallible.

Some know better. Much of what I learnt 30 years ago has now been proved wrong. There are, fortunately, many scientists with integrity and humility who affirm that science is, at best, a work still in progress. They know that science can only suggest a truth, but can never claim a truth. I was once told by a Buddhist G.P. that, on his first day at a medical school in Sydney, the famous Professor, head of the Medical School, began his welcoming address by stating "Half of what we are going to teach you in the next few years is wrong. Our problem is that we do not know which half it is!" Those were the words of a real scientist.

Buddhism is more scientific than modern science. Like science, Buddhism is based on verifiable cause-and-effect relationships. But unlike science, Buddhism challenges with thoroughness every belief. The famous Kalama Sutta of Buddhism states that one cannot believe fully in "what one is taught, tradition, hearsay, scripture, logic, inference, appearance, agreement with established opinion, the seeming competence of a teacher, or even in one's own teacher". How many scientists are as rigorous in their thinking as this? Buddhism challenges everything, including logic.

It is worth noting that Quantum Theory appeared quite illogical, even to such great scientists as Einstein, when it was first proposed. It is yet to be disproved. Logic is only as reliable as the assumptions on which it is based. Buddhism trusts only clear and objective experience.

Clear experience occurs when one's measuring instruments, one's senses, are bright and undisturbed. In Buddhism, this happens when the hindrances of sloth-and-torpor and restlessness-and-remorse are both overcome. Objective experience is that which is free from all bias. In Buddhism, the three types of bias are desire, ill will and sceptical doubt. Desire makes one see only what one wants to see, it bends the truth to fit one's preferences. Ill will makes one blind to whatever is disturbing or disconcerting to one's views and it distorts the truth by denial. Sceptical doubt stubbornly refuses to accept those truths, like rebirth, that are plainly valid but which fall outside of one's comforting worldview. In summary, clear and objective experience only happens when the Buddhist 'Five Hindrances' have been overcome. Only then can one trust the data arriving through one's senses.

Because scientists are not free of these five hindrances, they are rarely clear and objective. It is common, for example, for scientists to ignore annoying data, which do not fit their cherished theories, or else confine such evidence to oblivion by filing it away as an 'anomaly'. Even most Buddhists aren't clear and objective. One has to have recent experience of Jhana to effectively put aside these five hindrances (according to the Nalakapana Sutta, Majjhima No. 68). So only accomplished meditators can claim to be real scientists, that is, clear and objective.

Science claims to rely not only on clear and objective observation, but also on measurement. But what is measurement in science? To measure something, according to the pure science of Quantum Theory, is to collapse the Schroedinger Wave Equation through an act of observation. Moreover, the "un-collapsed" form of the Schroedinger Wave Equation, that is before any measurement is made, is, perhaps, science's most perfect description of the world. That description is weird! Reality, according to pure science, does not consist of well ordered matter with precise massed, energies and positions in space, all just waiting to be measured. Reality is the broadest of smudges of all possibilities, only some being more probable than others. Even basic 'measurable' qualities as 'alive' or 'dead' have been demonstrated by science to be invalid sometimes. In the notorious 'Schroedinger's Cat' thought experiment, Prof. Schroedinger's cat was ingeniously placed in a real situation where it was neither dead nor alive, where such measurements became meaningless. Reality, according to Quantum Theory, is beyond measurements. Measuring disturbs reality, it never describes it perfectly. It was Heisenberg's famous 'Uncertainty Principle' that showed the inevitable error between the real Quantum world and the measured world of pseudo-science.

Anyway, how can anyone measure the measurer, the mind? At a recent seminar on Science and Religion, at which I was a speaker, a Catholic in the audience bravely announced that whenever she looks through a telescope at the stars, she feels uncomfortable because her religion is threatened. I commented that whenever a scientist looks the other way round through a telescope, to observe the one who is watching, then they feel uncomfortable because their science is threatened by what is doing the seeing! So what is doing the seeing, what is this mind that eludes modern science?

A Grade-One teacher once asked her class "What is the biggest thing in the world?" One little girl answered "My daddy". A little boy said "An elephant", since he'd recently been to the zoo. Another girl suggested "A mountain". The six-year-old daughter of a close friend of mine replied, "My eye is the biggest thing in the world"! The class stopped. Even the teacher didn't understand her answer. So the little philosopher explained "Well, my eye can see her daddy, an elephant, and a mountain too. It can also see so much else. If all of that can fit into my eye, then my eye must be the biggest thing in the world"! Brilliant.

However, she was not quite right. The mind can see everything that one's eye can see, and it can also imagine so much more. It can also hear, smell, taste and touch, as well as think. In fact, everything that can be known can fit into the mind. Therefore, the mind must be the biggest thing in the world. Science's mistake is obvious now. The mind is not in the brain, nor in the body. The brain, the body and the rest of the world, are in the mind!

Mind is the sixth sense in Buddhism, it is that which encompasses the five senses of sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch, and transcends them with its own domain. It corresponds loosely to Aristotle's "common sense" that is distinct from the five senses. Indeed, ancient Greek philosophy, from where science is said to have its origins, taught six senses just like Buddhism. Somewhere along the historical journey of European thinking, they lost their mind! Or, as Aristotle would put it, they somehow discarded their "common sense"! And thus we got science. We got materialism without any heart. One can accurately say that Buddhism is a science that has kept its heart, and which hasn't lost its mind!
Thus Buddhism is not a belief system. It is a science founded on objective observation, i.e. meditation, ever careful not to disturb the reality through imposing artificial measurements, and it is evidently repeatable.

People have been re-creating the experimental conditions, known as establishing the factors of the Noble Eightfold Path, for over twenty-six centuries now, much longer than science. And those renowned Professors of Meditation, the male and female Arahants, have all arrived at the same conclusion as the Buddha. They verified the timeless Law of Dhamma, otherwise known as Buddhism. So Buddhism is the only real science, and I'm happy to say that I'm still a scientist at heart, only a much better scientist than I ever could have been at Cambridge.

http://sundaytimes.lk/090503/Plus/sundaytimesplus_13.html

Thanks for details brother

 

[dev.sahan01]

Thanks for details brother

Welcome dear friend

 

[GuneBhai]

Welcome dear friend

kadaiam prashnayak....

nivan dakkinna puluwan bhavana kalama vitharada?

wena krama nadda?

 

[sanjeeme]

kadaiam prashnayak....

nivan dakkinna puluwan bhavana kalama vitharada? wena krama nadda?

නිවන කරා යන මාර්ගය බුදු දහමේ පැහැදිලිව විස්තර කරලා තියෙනවා. භාවනාව කියන්නේ එහි එක් අවස්ථාවක් පමණයි. නිවනට යන අය අනිවාර්්‍යයෙන්ම භාවනා ක්‍රම පිළිපැදිය යුතුයි.

 

[Y2K]

නිවන කරා යන මාර්ගය බුදු දහමේ පැහැදිලිව විස්තර කරලා තියෙනවා. භාවනාව කියන්නේ එහි එක් අවස්ථාවක් පමණයි. නිවනට යන අය අනිවාර්්‍යයෙන්ම භාවනා ක්‍රම පිළිපැදිය යුතුයි.

Now where were you ? half way down?

 

[Y2K]

Ravi on How do you know there is a God?

 

[Al Baik]

නිවන කරා යන මාර්ගය බුදු දහමේ පැහැදිලිව විස්තර කරලා තියෙනවා. භාවනාව කියන්නේ එහි එක් අවස්ථාවක් පමණයි. නිවනට යන අය අනිවාර්්‍යයෙන්ම භාවනා ක්‍රම පිළිපැදිය යුතුයි.

නමුත් මේ එලකිරියේම ඉන්නවානේද නිවන් දැකපු අය.. දමිත් කාරියවසම් කියන කෙනා නම් නිවන් දක්ක කියලා පෲෆ් කරා (කියලා කට්ටිය කතා උනා)