Posted on November 12th, 2011

Mahinda  Weerasinghe


This reply to “ƒ”¹…”The Island paper was, formulated and forwarded to the Editor of the Island, about three weeks ago. But it never saw the “ƒ”¹…”dawn of light’ in the Island.  As, many such critical response of mine. Buzz around the patriotic authors living in Lanka and ex.pat authors, is that Christian/ Catholic media is expunging such crucial information from getting through to the public. Indeed, what the public hears is “ƒ”¹…”the sound of one hand clapping’.  In such a manner, such editors of the English media have been brain washing the Buddhist public for many a long year! Why?  For such editors are Christian/Catholic sleepers working for terror organization LTTE doing a most subtle job of a propaganda war in order to destabilize the nation from within?

As the readers of this web site would have noticed, my articles with vital analysis never appeared in the printed English media. Thus they were locked out of fundamental information, which would have helped them make up their mind.

It is time the patriotic Buddhists public do something about it. Write and inform the Buddhist owners of such publications such as this rag, that they get rid of such editors which hinders balanced information/opinions from getting through. Indeed these media do not publish vital responses to their absurd lop sided opiniated pieces, that is to say, they have ended as propaganda rags.   If the internet and such real information giving websites such as the “ƒ”¹…”Lankaweb’ were not in existence, we would have lost the Catholic Church inspired terror war in theIsland.  For in fact the dull one-opinion only rags are boring reads.

It’s time the real patriots of the nation standup and be counted.  They should query as to what are the real intentions of such newspapers? Advertising, making money and brainwashing and targeting public with misleading drivel! Today to get a real balanced opinion, one has to connect up to the Internet.

Mahinda  Weerasinghe



I refer to your two features “ƒ”¹…”The arrival of Prof. Richard Dawkins’ & “ƒ”¹…”intelligent design and Richard Dawkins’ printed on the 25th October 2011. I found them lacking in any substance and spiced with empty hollow rhetoric.

Indeed going by these, our existence is either a fatalistically determined or, mechanistically determined


Now the concept of DETERMINISM deals with the most fundamental issues of human nature, namely, whether the behaviour, thinking, actions or feelings of any being, are driven by something called “ƒ”¹…”Free Will’. So are we to assume that; we are like machines, pre-programmed, encoded, preordained and fated by external forces? In other words; are we like pieces of corks bobbing along a swiftly flowing river, and at the mercy of chance and current tides, which are nudging us towards an ignorable exit? That’s what these two schools of thought ask us to put our faith in.

But in reality, creatures are compelled to perform actions, depending on their inherited and conditioned mind-body-circumstances. Such actions will aid them in reaping, much sought after sensory needs. But these two “ƒ”¹…”pundits’ ask us to embrace a nonsensical providence, disregarding our experience and a pleasure and pain stirred existence.

Indeed, our “ƒ”¹…”body-mind-situation’ is locked-in at birth and hence actions are futile and powerless according to them.  In other words, whether we like it or not, we have inherited a deterministic kismet, hence pointless to resist our providence.

On the other hand, no creature had a say to his inherited body-mind-circumstances. But then no one requested this breath of life here on earth. So if life was determined by external deterministic forces, and no individual had say how he was assembled, how the hell can we, demand individuals account for their actions?

Under those circumstances, no one should be held responsible for his actions. That is the fundamental, question, which is neither posed nor answered? Logically if we take our analysis a little bit further, than why should anyone act ethically, when the end result being, the “ƒ”¹…”fittest’ anyhow will be “ƒ”¹…”naturally selected’.

If we investigate these two nitwit schools of thought more intimately, we are confronted with an inescapable fact; no creature had put in a request how he should be put together, and totally devoid of any power to navigate its destiny, then how in the world can any mother’s son be held responsible for his actions, is a query which should have been tackled by Darwinists and the Intelligent design folks, but is studiously avoided?


On the other hand these two “ƒ”¹…”pundits’ studiously keep their readers in the dark as for the third alternative. Buddhism in no way subscribes to such hollow determinism beliefs. In that sense, Buddhism is the only non-deterministic explanation of life around. It requests its followers to take responsibility for their actions. I will attempt at an answer, as to why, when I touch upon his deeper doctrine.


Western thinking in general and the evolutionist in particular, starting with the dawn of the 18th century, concluded that everything on this planet is in an incessant flux.

Curiously enough; this is the cardinal Buddhist Law. The Buddha declared ca. 530 BC that all compounds are impermanent and liable to change, hence in a state of dynamic flux. This is the corner stone of the Buddha’s doctrine and underpins his four nobel truths. Buddhist calls it the law of impermanence.

Indeed the Idea of Becoming (evolution to the Darwinian) was first declared over 2550 years ago by the Buddha. So why are Darwinists promoting Darwinas the discovery of this “ƒ”¹…”none status quo’ situation of species, and defined it as “ƒ”¹…”evolution’. Then are we to assume, that when Buddha declared that all compounds are in a state of flux: “ƒ”¹…”becoming process of species’ is the exception to that rule!

On the contrary, it looks as if; Darwin and his disciples have reinvented the wheel. Absurd thing is,Darwin’s 1859’S invention lacked its essential “ƒ”¹…”bits and pieces’ when he formulated the “ƒ”¹…”Theory of evolution’. In fact what we have is thatDarwinhad re-invented the wheel, minus its indispensable “ƒ”¹…”spokes’. How so?

Whereas the Buddha declared the “ƒ”¹…”none status quo’ situation to species when he projected a process of “ƒ”¹…”Becoming’,Darwintermed it “ƒ”¹…”evolution’. Goes to show that Darwin and their hangers on did not quite grasp the intricate processes of life, for becoming works in every direction, negatively or positively unlike “ƒ”¹…”evolution’. Indeed according toDarwin’s theory you modify, adopt and become fit or face extinction. In fact the theory spelled out a deterministic “ƒ”¹…”chance’ outcome. Briefly, how can creatures guess in what direction they should evolve, in order to culminate the process by being fit? Thus they muddied their theory from its very inception. No wonder Judeo-Christian fundamentalism is growing by “ƒ”¹…”leaps and bounds’ as this mechanistic deterministic theory ofDarwin, had not given the world at large realistic explanation of life.

In fact “ƒ”¹…”The theory of evolution’ by Charles Darwin did not convince anybody except scientists who gets a paycheck for invoking “ƒ”¹…”natural selection’ mantra, and using it as a pivot for their own slanted, half-baked and inadequate sub theories.

From the SaƒÆ’‚¡¸·ƒÆ’-¾yatanavibhaƒÆ’‚¡¹”‚¦gasutta of the Majjhima NikƒÆ’-¾ya, we hear the Buddha informing his follows in such a manner, translated as The Middle Length Sayings III (217-218) by I.B. Horner:

“When one has known the impermanence of material shapes themselves, their alteration, disappearance and arrest, and thinks formerly as well as now all these material and shapes are impermanent, painful, and liable to alteration, from seeing this thus as it really is by means of perfect wisdom, joy arises.”

Indeed the Buddha had a clear concise explanation concerning speciation to justify such statements.

It is through these copious permutations and combinations of mixtures and blending of sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch that the magical world of sensory delights are relayed to us.

Going by his philosophy we recognise humans as the ultimate pleasure-soaking machines. In a nutshell, that’s what it all about! The Buddha’s “ƒ”¹…”sensory becoming’ explanation is subtle, comprehensive intricate, and inclusive of real life elements, such as;

1. An action theory. (Not considered in Darwinism)

2. An ethical theory. (Darwinian concepts being purely of a mechanistic nature does not give any consideration for ethics as having relevance to the “struggle to survive”.)

3. Conditioning process or conditional genesis of creatures. (A core Buddhist concept and have momentous consequence when understanding the sensory becoming process. This element is totally unknown among the Darwinians).

4. Pleasure and pain principle, which is the core-stimulating factor for directional change, and not incorporated in the Darwinian evolution though crucial to the sensory becoming process.

5. The phenomenon of “ƒ”¹…”Cause and effect’ is of profound and paramount significance when considering the mechanisms of evolution according to sensory becoming. (This is purely a Buddhist metaphysical notion, and an indispensable parameter when analysing the sensory becoming process. To Darwinians it is merely tantamount to superstition and hence an irrational notion at that).


So let us first go through the basics of the “ƒ”¹…”theory of evolution’.

Professor Ernst Mayr (An authority on the evolutionary theory) outlines in his book What Evolution Is; the essentials of theDarwin’s theory. In fact it consists of the following five important components: –

1. The non-constancy of species (the basic theory of evolution)

2. The descent of all organisms from common ancestors (branching evolution)

3. The gradualness of evolution (no saltation, no discontinuities)

4. The multiplication of species (the origin of diversity)

5. Natural selection

The last item according to Darwinians could be crucial if one is desirous of grasping the mechanisms of evolution. It is broken down into the following elements:

a. A population would increase exponentially if not constrained.

b. The size of populations remains stable over time.

c. Resources available to every species are limited.

d. No two individuals are the same in a species. (Unique)

e. As a rule the differences are heritable. (Transmissible from parents to offspring.)

We are not provided with a qualified answer as to why the continuation of its prototypes was such a vital driving urge! The availability of variation is the indispensable prerequisite for evolution. HenceDarwin postulated that the inexhaustible genetic variation of a population together with selection (elimination) is the key to evolutionary success.


Here I will introduce some of the core Buddhist concepts dealing with the mechanisms of becoming (evolution). Here I am outlining my personal research.

1.) Survival we find is only a preamble to what lies beyond it. Indeed the urge for survival is fired by “sensory greed” and the indulgence in these needs is what makes an individual tick.

2.) Hence an individual’s “struggle for survival” is triggered by sensory lust.

3.) Individuals and groups (species) are in conflict as an outcome of this egoistic, self-centred sensory urge.

4.) Sensory greed needs satiation, which in turn offers gratification and pleasure.

5.) In order to bring about satisfaction individuals need to commit actions (positive or negative according to necessity & circumstances).


6.) But gratification and pleasure again depend squarely on:

a.) The conditioned state of mind and body mechanism. (Conditioning

is purely a Buddhist notion in this context.)

b.) Actions, which are controlled, constrained and proportionate to becoming status (of species) of the conditioned body-mind mechanism.

c.) Ecological circumstances (resources) current.

7.) Through repeated efforts of the mind-body mechanism, striving to cater to such sensory needs (actions), individual’s sensory apparatus is strained, stretched and weathered.


8.) Result of such repeated stress and strain will eventually lead to sensory extension (change, reform or becoming) of individuals, and in turn, species itself will be reformed (renewed). In other words a reformed species will emerge or falter and phase out if they have not the adequate required sensory paraphernalia for survival.

9.) The resulting process was named evolution byDarwinand as sensory becoming by the Buddha, a decisive difference in terminology. Note also that sensory greed is not directed towards some sort of a targeted progress but fired by immediate self-cantered sensory gratification.

Now if we were to compare the two types of arguments, and match them circumspectly, then we are in for a shock.

All of the components ofDarwin’s theory as outlined are compatible and can be replaced by elements of the sensory becoming theory and it will fit in, like a glove.

IndeedDarwin’s theory can be replaced by the “sensory becoming” theory and it becomes compatible, naturally explicable, and vastly more comprehensive.

But the reverse is not true.

Vis-ƒÆ’†’ -vis sensory becoming theory, sensory extension can be equated to speciation. Indeed according to Buddhism all things are changing momentarily, hence it would be inappropriate to specify a “sharply discontinuous” border to speciation. It is like asking one to demarcate at what second, the day turns to night or vice versa. Whereas the theory of evolution has to establish; when and where one (say X species) ended by evolving into to (Y species) another.

Now I have touched upon some of the basic building blocks of the most advanced none-deterministic theory of life in existence. But the readers can look within and seek whether it stands up to his own “ƒ”¹…”hands on’ experience, and examine why he/she is struggling to exist. Simply said, if the sensory lust did not exists, what would be the point going on living?


 Social Darwinism is the application of Darwinian Theory on human society. Charles Darwin’s work, The Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection, (subtitled and note) The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, laid the foundation for the questionable theories that were to follow in its wake.

Indeed educated historians easily deciphered its concoction: Darwinian biology and evolutionary theory; Social Darwinism, the evangelistic dissemination of Darwinism; and indeed a pseudoscience called “Eugenics. All of these were built on a solid “scientific” edifice for “racial prejudice”, “racial discrimination” and “racism”. Such vague, unscientific and polydimensional conceptions justified elitism, hate, racism, tribalism, war, holocaust, colonisation, and a mystical economic destiny for the favoured nations.

Notwithstanding such sombre prophecies, concerning our mechanistically determined and unavoidable providence, Prof. Dawkins (Carlo Fonseka’s mentor) is happy to offer us some helpful tips. He informs:

“Let us understand what our selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have a chance to upset their designs. We have the power to defy the selfish genes of our birth”¦We can even discuss ways  of deliberately cultivating and nurturing pure, disinterested altruism, something that has no place in nature, something that has never existed before in the whole history of the world.”

Empty, hollow, sentiments such as these, can be confusing. They contradict every logic and common sense of any reasonable man, except perhaps of Carlo Fonseka’s “ƒ”¹…”agility’. Indeed I wonder whether Dawkins himself is able to unravel the meaning of his statements.

If we take his views seriously, that we are “nothing but genetically powered machines,” hence the advice given, seems as infantile as “inviting a chess-machine to play leap-frog.” Then how can one “jump off” from such a “catch 22″ type of fate?

He never questions nor answers why indeed should these robots “with their inherited egoistic behaviour patterns” be accountable for their actions.

So, are individuals devoid of any ethics? Should they not be answerable for their actions? If individuals and their collectives lacked any ethics, they are surely courting disaster. As pure egoism would mean “free for all” or “open season”; so how are people going to trust and depend on each other, in order to make the collective function, fired as it is by pure egoism?

“Selfish”, is the key theme of “The Selfish Gene,” and receives a poetic celebration in socio-biological writings. When we juxtapose “selfish” with “the survival of the fittest” and compound them with the “unfolding of blind, aimless impersonal forces, grinding its relentless way” we can guess the impending kismet.

Darwinian Theory, when applied to the real world, brought on whole array of misfortunes and disasters to nations. Human collectives and nations were colonised by the white superior Aryans under the guise that they were the “ƒ”¹…”chosen’ and the “ƒ”¹…”fittest’ ones, and considered themselves to be at the top of the heap and the cream of the human species.

Yet in reality going by Darwinism, it is not “the survival of the fittest” but “the survival of the richest and the luckiest” that is at the top of the heap as chance has provided them that opportunity.

In the end both these of these deterministic theories feed us with the same defeatist gibberish.

The Buddha had a clearer viewed of the whole scenario, as he did not invoke chance, fate, soul or God’s will, to explain “ƒ”¹…”The sensory becoming processes. There were “ƒ”¹…”causes and effects’ to this process, there were “ƒ”¹…”actions and repercussions’ to such actions; above all he pointed to the egoistic sensory greed of individuals and their collectives that were fashioning their own destinies.

The sensory becoming concept was neither ensnared nor enfeebled by such ambiguity. Gratifying sensory needs was the primary concern of individuals of the species. They were not aiming towards some sort of abstract excellence. They were keen to harvest their immediate gratifications, and these within relative security. That is why the Buddha expressly used the term “becoming” as it emphasized the sensory extension principle. And this worked in either direction, for as far as the species were concerned, its strivings was fired by immediate sensory gratification and not motivated by some sort of excellence.

Definitely if you interchange the Darwinian “ƒ”¹…”Theory of Evolution’ with that of “ƒ”¹…”Sensory Becoming’, a smoother consistent mechanism of a becoming process of creatures immediately opens up. Undeniably if the elements of sensory becoming, (such as sensory extension, sensory gratification, sensory greed etc.) are employed as pivots, it will offer logical and rational reasons, why species extended their body and mind and transformed. In spite of the Darwinian insistence that “natural selection” is a fact of life, we find it and the whole set of connected ideas are nothing but hypotheses. It cannot be measured, like a pound of butter or a litre of milk. The end product that has survived certainly has to be some sort of selection, and it could be a naturally selected outcome through a struggle or by sheer pot luck, or indeed because the entity just happened to be at the right time at the right place. In short by “ƒ”¹…”chance’.

Darwinian assumptions promote nothing but chance accidental events, as they blatantly disregard purposes, aims, aspirations, greed, pleasure, pain, self-centeredness, cause and effect etc., etc., of individual agents.

While Darwinians are asking us to accept the fact that the weak will be eliminated, the United Nations was promoting the protection of the individual and defending his “human rights”. Darwinian “tooth and claw” life style was good enough for other species, but somehow not worthy for the human species to emulate.

Worse, currently we find these two “locked-in” life theories are converging in a most ominous fashion. Indeed how can we blame such murderous groups such as Al Qaeda if we subscribe to such determinism? After all these holy worriers are obliged to fulfil their holy protocols, proclaimed by their “God”.

They have indeed received a mandate from their “ƒ”¹…”creator’, and as true believers, they have to implement their conditioned beliefs. If terror galvanized a favourable outcome, and transformed the global society’s multicultural lifestyle, and brought it round to a particular Taliban Afghanistani model of behaviour, then they have fulfilled their God’s decrees while also following the Darwinian “survival of the fittest” dictates. For we have to concede, if these fanatics are successful in their machinations, then indisputably they are the fittest. That’s how God and Darwin have merged to undermine the freedom of the global society.

Mahinda Weerasinghe


Author of The Origin of Species According to The Buddha



  1. Bodhi Says:

    I think this gentleman does not understand Darwin’s theory. But then, many don’t. It is best for him to read a modern book, e.g., those by Theodore Dobzynski.
    Modern physics applied to complex systems (e.g., human beings, even billard balls after a few collisions) are not deterministic. Their dynamics was shown by Poincare to be “chaotic”.

    However, if this writer believes that the Buddha was “sarvaggna”, i.e., he is all-knowing. Then this writer believes in determinism and NOt free will. he should perhaps read:

  2. AnuD Says:

    Mr. Mahinda Weerasinghe:

    In the west influential countries are behind the media and the financial market. That is how thy control “public opinion” according to their will.

    Now, those influential people are merging with the Vatican. Vatican is trying to absorb other churches, they are fighting back….

    Some how, I said that, In sri lanka, the politicians who should direct the country in the correct path should look into this. but, nothing happens, they are busy in building their own bank account.

    As I know, a several years ago, American Bible belt tried to revive this “Intelligent design: because that helps the concept of a Almighty God. Then many people began to write against it and talk disappeared.

  3. AnuD Says:

    I say that kind of News paper Editors who try to misleading articles should be removed.

  4. AnuD Says:

    I say that kind of News paper Editors who try to mislead people with this kind of articles should be removed.

  5. AnuD Says:

    Evolutionary theory is against the Creation concept.

    But,Buddhism is not against the Evolution. but, according to the Buddhism, Evolution was accelerated by attracting beings from other places to earth. Beings found earth to be attractive to live in comparison to other places. they may be proves one day, probably already proven.

  6. herman Says:

    Bodhi, are you implying that the Buddha is not all-knowing? Just cos you’re reading modern books need not mean you’re right and MW is wrong!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.



Copyright © 2018 All Rights Reserved. Powered by Wordpress