Posted on July 24th, 2012

Mahinda Weerasinghe The Author of “ƒ”¹…”The Origin of Species According To the Buddha’


When the first edition of “ƒ”¹…”THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES’ appeared in 1859, it was not touted as such, but  as; On the Origin of Species by Means of Natu­ral Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.

Darwin in fact, was not expounding on the “ƒ”¹…”origin of life’, but how differences in living forms, which naturalists specified as species, came into being.

In order to explain his “ƒ”¹…”my’ theory, he variously specified it as “the development theory” or “descent with modification” for by 1859 he still has not hit upon the critical word, “ƒ”¹…”evolution’ to connect up “ƒ”¹…”his theory’. Indeed we find notable lapses in the theory so he simply glossed these as “ƒ”¹…”unexplainable’. We can for an example, concretely point to the “ƒ”¹…”indisputable fact’ that “ƒ”¹…”sex was a function of reproduction’ to “ƒ”¹…”ensure’ the continuation of the species. But we find this basic “ƒ”¹…”function’ blatantly violated by homosexuals and lesbians in human species, thus countermanding the basic Darwinian precept. For these mortals were not motivated towards procreation in order to send their “ƒ”¹…”types further in time and space’, but something more crucial; quenching their “ƒ”¹…”sensory lusts’.

In spite of the persistent claim that Darwin’s theory is “ƒ”¹…”scientific’; we are unable to find tangible answers as to what mechanisms “ƒ”¹…”fired’ the transmutation of species. Perhaps, that’s why it is still defined as a “ƒ”¹…”theory’ by the world at large.

Then, why should they hang on to such an inadequate theory?

In order to get an answer to this query we have to appreciate the “ƒ”¹…”mind set’ of the society in which Darwin lived. Intellectuals at that point of history were seeking a rational and verifiable explanation in order to extricate and distance themselves from the myth of creation. Only alternative to counter that absurd “ƒ”¹…”fairy tale’ was Darwin’s theory. So they placed all of their eggs into this basket and promoted “ƒ”¹…”his’ theory as being “ƒ”¹…”scientific’. In time free thinkers were so much committed to this “ƒ”¹…”mechanistic’ version of life, that they never investigated it rationally. In time his “ƒ”¹…”theory’ has become like a run-a-way train, running on lock-in rails called “ƒ”¹…”natural selection’, powered by its own hollow rhetoric, taking willy-nilly, the human species towards their obliteration.

Though unknown to most people there was and is an original “ƒ”¹…”theory of becoming’ elucidated some 2397 years prior to the publication of “ƒ”¹…”Origin of Species’ but it was too profound for these “ƒ”¹…”evolutionary’ pundits to grasp. Perhaps because, it was not a white man who had proposed it? On the contrary, it seems, Darwin and his disciples have reinvented the wheel minus its essential “ƒ”¹…”bits and pieces’ when he formulated this mechanistic version of how species evolved. How so? In spite of the Darwinian insistence that “natural selection” is a fact of life, we find his whole set of connected ideas are nothing but hypotheses. It cannot be measured, like a pound of butter or a liter of milk. In short it should have been titled “ƒ”¹…”luck by chance’ survival theory!

The word “ƒ”¹…”evolution’ in that sense is vital for Darwinists’, for without this catch phrase they would never have got “ƒ”¹…”his theory’ off the ground initially.

Considering the society he was living in (1859), he wisely did not challenge the Book of Genesis and the theory of creation in order to avoid agitating the true believers. Indeed, both camps avoided debating the most central issue under the circumstances. Indeed if man had descended from the monkey, are we to assume then that, “ƒ”¹…”The human animal is like any other “ƒ”¹…”run of the mill’ creature, without an attached “ƒ”¹…”soul’ substance? And if there was no such “ƒ”¹…”soul’ essence affixed at his creation then “ƒ”¹…”why the hell are these Judeo-Christian sects striving to save this non-existing quintessence?

Yet, most of the facts which Darwin adduced was, either common knowledge or available in the vast literature of natural history by 1859.

Indeed the idea of a “struggle for survival’ had come to him””‚as it did to Wallace””‚through   Malthus’s Essay on Population, published some sixty years before. In fact, the gradual evolution was already estab­lished in geology and tentatively accepted in astronomy. Initially he considered naming it simply as; “Natural Selection.’ He rationally analyzed that; with the burgeoning of population, if individual species did not shape up, adapted and bettered itself; then they are bound make an exit and end up in the dust bin of history.

Darwin’s publisher Murray found the work shoddy and lacking in quality. Under duress, he decided to print it, but limit it to 500 copies. Personally he was of the opinion that Dar­win’s theory was “as absurd as contemplating the fruitful union of a poker with a rabbit.”

Yet reducing the title to; “ƒ”¹…”Origin of Species’, was a stroke of genius. Origin had an alluring am­biguity: it irresistibly suggested, as it still does to casual readers today, the beginning of all things. Favored Races, Struggle for Life, Natural Selection””‚the idea of conflict for survival and strife encountered with tangible rewards for the victors. Indeed survival was the resultant “ƒ”¹…”sieve’ through which, this “iron law” of nature operated. It discarded anything related to ethics, morality and “ƒ”¹…”common sense’, for these was in direct conflict with this fun­damental law of “ƒ”¹…”tooth and claw’ for “ƒ”¹…”the fittest’ at the end that survived.

In that sense the timing of this work was perfect (1859). It matched the mood and the current mental “ƒ”¹…”set up’ of the crafty empire building British. For at that juncture “ƒ”¹…”this nation of shop keepers’ was gearing up for the great colonial adventure of exploitation and enslavement of the “ƒ”¹…”un-favored Races’. For the next one and a half centuries this book justified rape and exploitation of the resources of the modest and tolerant peoples of the world. The Bible, whiskey and opium no doubt chipped in, to give aid this “ƒ”¹…”God’s chosen race’ of conquerors. Also there were the Tamil coolies of the Indian subcontinent willing and waiting to serve slavishly, to these neo-colonial white masters. In that sense the historical moment of 1859 was impeccable.

All that’s water under the bridge now, and world is at cross-roads currently. Decay, regression and implosion of the global civilization are just a hop, step and a jump away. If we do not reject these additive deterministic creeds the human species we will end up in the dust bin of history as well, like any other lumbering species!

The historical moment is ripe for a rational analysis of the two concepts: Judeo-Christianity and Darwinism. The two creeds seemingly at odds with each other were in reality propping each other up, hastening the civilization towards its kismet.  For man has raped and undermined nature, by these egoistically self-centered beliefs of Judeo-Christianity and Darwinism): one fatalistic (creation by a loving God) and other mechanistic, (by a series of luck by chance events) which has driven the human kind and find themselves at the crossroads of eradication. A sweeping comparative analysis is a must now; as to how these two creeds made a mockery of “ƒ”¹…”common sense’ and instead enthused egoistical self centeredness.

As for the magical theories of “ƒ”¹…”creation’ no point in wasting valuable time for a comprehensive analysis. God’s contribution to human suffering is well documented, and not difficult to establish. Hence I will simply touch upon its high points.  

Genesis (IX 2″”‚3) informs what was “ƒ”¹…”God’s’ injunctions to his “ƒ”¹…”hangers-on’ and conditioned their attitude as to the rest of its fellow creatures, the ecology and finally to the world at large and its repercussions are blatant.

“The fear of you and the dread of you all shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you.”

Just switch on the TV and it will bring to your view in vivid colors, the Judeo Christian sects activities. Holy wars, pogroms of defenseless minorities, sectarian conflicts, inquisitions, witch burning, stoning of sinners to death, women degraded and acting as production machines for the dull sects to take over countries through procreation, all executed in the name of one or other of this Judeo-Christian “ƒ”¹…”merciful and compassionate’ God. Hence these “ƒ”¹…”believers’ dealings were divinely sanctioned!

Throughout history, the idol-worshiping Buddhist was at the receiving end of this God-loving people’s wrath. For these ideal worshippers did not believe in a God, a Soul, a heaven or hell, or indeed, cared “ƒ”¹…”two pence’ to live “ƒ”¹…”unto eternity’ with their loving God, hence needed to be dispatched to where they belong; “ƒ”¹…”in hell’. Today thanks to the secular powers, information war, internet and UN, Buddhists, non-believers of a loving God, free thinkers and atheist had received a moratorium. So now it is time to “ƒ”¹…”declare holy war’ on each other, and the resultant victors of this “ƒ”¹…”killing spree’ will be the “ƒ”¹…”fittest’.

Indeed Darwinian bull dogs did not act in such a mindless manner or overtly as the God’s chosen lot, after all they needed a scientific under-pinning for their dealings.

Before we get to the basic unanswered questions by the scientific “ƒ”¹…”natural selection’ mantra I will bring to the reader some of horrendous historical repercussions Darwin’s creed had on the unfavoured nations.

In fact Social Darwinism’s chequered history can be traced back to the chief Guru himself. Charles Darwin’s work, “On 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; such as Arthur J. de Gobineau’s manifesto, “The Inequality of the Races,” or the Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx. These were all pure Darwinian spin offs. Naturally, “Survival of the fittest” paved the ideological path for “race struggles” and “class struggles” in societies.

Unwittingly Darwin had applied his biological selection process to the historical social process. What emerged soon was “Eugenics.” Eugenics can be defined as applied Darwinism. The founder of it was Francis Galton, a cousin of Darwin, and the author of several highly influential works on heredity, especially “National Inheritance” (1889). Shortly after Galton published this work, a group of so-called “racial scientists” became active in Germany.

In time this catalyzed and validated Hitler’s scientific “biomedical vision”.

Indeed knowledgeable historians easily deciphered the concoction: Darwinian biology led to the evolutionary theory; Social Darwinism to God’s patronage and blessings for the fittest; and indeed a pseudo-science called “Eugenics. All built on a solid “scientific” edifice for “racial prejudice”, “racial discrimination” and “racism” was natural. Such vague, unscientific and polydimensional conceptions justified elitism, hate, racism, tribalism, war, holocaust, colonization, and a mystical economic destiny for the favoured nations.

 What differentiated Nazi “race purification” program from other genocidal campaigns was that, it was built on solid “scientific” (Darwinist) findings?

Currently Prof. Dawkins has taken on the mantle as Pundit, exponent and promoter of the neo-Darwinist mechanistic creed of life.

Prof. Dawkins is happy to offer us some helpful tips, concerning our mechanistically determined and unavoidable kismet. 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. He contradicts every logic and common sense of any reasonable man. 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.”  How can one “jump off” from such a “catch 22″ type of fate? What these Darwin’s watch dogs are asking us is: release our self from a fatalistically deterministic “ƒ”¹…”God delusion’ and embraces instead, a mechanistically deterministic fate. For aren’t we genetically powered machine and helpless and indeed, our existence aimless.


The whole point simply baffles me! By dropping a fatalistic God lunacy and embracing a mechanistic Darwinism, is as good as replacing a sadistic God delusion and exchanging it with manifest hopelessness and purposelessness of a mechanistic view of life? 

So we need to dive a little bit deeper and try to grasp what this scientific “ƒ”¹…”natural selection’ really means “ƒ”¹…”scientifically’?

Here we must consult a bona fide Professor and not a shallow character such as Dawkins to get a “ƒ”¹…”scientific’ answer.  Who is better than Professor Ernst Mayr (An authority on the evolutionary theory) and first to give a biological definition for species, mind not a universal definition!

He outlines in his exceptionally well written book, which any lay person will be able to grasp, What Evolution is.

 He states that Darwin’s theory in fact 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/claclogenesis)
  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:

  1. A population would increase exponentially if not constrained.
  2. The size of populations remains stable over time.
  3. Resources available to every species are limited.
  4. No two individuals are the same in a species. (Unique)
  5. As a rule the differences are heritable. (Transmissible from parents to offspring.)

The stated factors, obviously will fire competition, friction and a struggle for survival, not only between species but also between individuals within a species. The resultant outcome is that the ‘fittest’ and the best adapted are selected for the continuation of its proto-types.

To the basic question “what is this struggle in aid of?” Or “why should there be a need for this evolutionary change at all?” is answered in the following manner, In order to survive so that the continuation of its proto-types is assured, We are not provided with a qualified answer as to why the continuation of its proto- types was such a vital driving urge or of any value species. After all most of us do not remember our great grand father’s name?

The availability of variation is the indispensable prerequisite of evolution. Hence Darwin postulated that the inexhaustible genetic variation of a population together with selection (elimination) is the key to evolutionary success.

Major fissures to the theory appear when we join the above items 2.) and 3.). And unravel the “ƒ”¹…”missing link’ riddle! Or request for a universal Definition of a “ƒ”¹…”SPECIES’ or a clarification for that most vital conundrum! How is “ƒ”¹…”speciation’ fired in higher Taxa?

Strange as it seems, scientists are not agreed on these fundamental issues which are the very foundation upon which the whole of their evolutionary theory built.

Though On the Origin of Species ascended to the biblical status in the course of time, Darwin’s writing on species and speciation clearly indicates that he was rather befuddled about the topic and hence frequently contradicted himself. This is not my personal opinion but one shared by most biologists. The reason for his confusion, they point out; can be traced back to his disorientation over the origin of genetic variation.

Considering that each species has different biological characteristics and the analysis and comparison of these differences are a prerequisite for all other research in ecology, behavioral biology, comparative morphology, physiology, molecular biology, and indeed all branches of biology.

Over the years they found species differences not that clear-cut and obvious. Taxonomists use all sorts of differences, viz, morphological, behavioral, and genetic, to identify species. Occasionally they have serious problems in deciding how much a group must differ to be classified as a separate species. Sometimes the discriminating traits between two species partially overlap each other. Just to assess different opinions nursed by specialists on diverse disciplines would take volumes.

One would have thought that a viable, universal definition of “ƒ”¹…”species’ has been formulated by the scientific community by now, but not so!

Biology recognizes two principal meanings which can be called the reductive and the morphological (or phenetic) species concepts. Thus, biological definition of species is attributed to Ernst Mayr who defines species as “groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups”. (Mayr 1963).

Presently we see the molecular biologists had their own constricted definition if going by their ‘molecular clock’ concept. If going by that we would need to revise the whole ‘species’ definition.

If they are unable to find a tenable definition for their subject matter, how can we trust them to explain “ƒ”¹…”natural selection’ logically?

In fact what characteristics do species have in common? Though the species is a natural unit, not just an arbitrary invention of biologists who need a classification system to communicate about the organisms they study; they have found it hard to express what constitute a species!

If it was difficult to get a universal definition for species, then their inability to explain how “ƒ”¹…”speciation’ is fired shouldn’t come as a surprise to us.

Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise. The biologist Orator F. Cook seems to have been the first to coin the term. We know the term, but can they scientifically explain how an X species mutated and end up as Y species.

A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group. This is especially important where the descendant group is sharply differentiated by gross anatomy and mode of living from the ancestral group. These fossils serve as a reminder that taxonomic divisions are human constructs that have been imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation. Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, (missing link) there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence. Therefore, transitional fossils cannot be assumed to be direct ancestors of more recent groups the scientists would explain.

In fact not only chimp to human cross over, but to connect any two species, how a species restructured it genetic code and ended up as a brand new species is difficult to establish going by Darwin’s theory.

Let me be more concrete to get the essence of what I am speaking about.

Researchers have established that humans and chimpanzees share about 98 percent of the genes.

So a mutation should occur in the genetic code in chimp make a huge leap to get the last 2% before he ends up owning a human genetic code!

But a change in genetic code should start with a with a bungling coping error of the cell, but doctors will inform that a coping error of the cell would not end with a new genetic code but end that entity’s life with Cancer?

Cancer happens when cells that have gone renegade. Normal body cells grow and divide and know to stop growing, where as cancer cells just continue to grow and divide out of control and don’t die when they’re supposed to.

So how can a genetic code of a chimp mutate and become an owner of human one, without that entity perishing through cancer? This is the crux of the problem which scientists avoid answering. There is no “ƒ”¹…”natural selection’ here, a miraculous jump from an x genetic code owned by a chimp to that of a reformed Y genetic code of human creature. In other words we find the chimp has pole-vaulted in spite of his renegade cancer cells, while avoiding cancer and transformed himself owning a genetic code of a human. An impossible task! Indeed if such thing transpired at all then this was no “ƒ”¹…”natural selection’ but caused by an “ƒ”¹…”un-natural selection’?

Indeed we find that there was one personality in the history of thought who gave a viable explanation; what’s firing this “ƒ”¹…”struggle for survival’. And he was many centuries ahead of Darwin.

And he never used the word “ƒ”¹…”evolution’ but “ƒ”¹…”becoming’ to explain the intricate process. In fact it is more precisely sweeping and I will call it “ƒ”¹…”sensory becoming’.

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. 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.”

So why do Darwinists promote Darwin as the discovery of this “ƒ”¹…”non 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; did he mean “ƒ”¹…”becoming process of species’ is the exception to that rule!

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.”

 Goes to show that Darwin and their hangers on did not quite grasp these intricate processes of life, for becoming works in every direction, negatively or positively unlike “ƒ”¹…”evolution’. Indeed according to Darwin’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 of being fit?

Now when Buddha was conveying his “ƒ”¹…”sensory becoming principle’ he had to use the existing vocabulary. When a query is raised by a listener he specifically replied to the question raised, also while keeping the answer to the listener’s level of understanding. Then we are in for a shock. For in a most subtle manner he has relayed information, embedded in that answer.

In spite of what Darwinists has been claimed, they still had not grasp the basic law of Impermanence, which applies to all compounds. In the below given quote the Buddha relays the “ƒ”¹…”sensory becoming principle’ while at the same time connecting it to a “ƒ”¹…”pleasure and pain principle’ while informing his questioner as to lacking of soul essence to a being. I challenge Darwinist to question any professor on Buddhism what I quoted below is my own invention or quoted directly from the given scriptures. Indeed whether “ƒ”¹…”evolution of species’ in this quote is only in my imagination.

In the following passage from the Alagadapama Sutta of the Majjhima Nikaya (No 22) (I: 138-139) (MLS) (I: 177-178) the Buddha implicitly touches the subtle points under discussion.

“What do you think about this, monks: Is material shape permanent or impermanent?”

(Here material shape should be taken as individual sensory mechanisms and their collectives, being species)

“Impermanent, Lord:”

“But is what is impermanent painful or pleasant?” “Painful, Lord:”

“But is it fitting to regard that which is impermanent, painful, liable to change, (change here means becoming and not evolution as its direction is conditional and tied to sensory opportunity) as “This is mine, this am I, this is myself?”

“No, Lord”

“What do you think about this, monks: Is feeling … perception …are the habitual tendencies permanent or impermanent?”

“Impermanent, Lord.”

“What do you think about this, monks: Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?”

“Impermanent, Lord:’

“Is that which is impermanent painful or pleasant?” “Painful, Lord.”

“But is it fitting to regard that which is impermanent, painful, and liable to change as, `This is mine, this am I, this is myself? “

“No Lord”

“Wherefore, monks, whatever is of material shape, past, future, present, subjective or objective, gross or subtle, mean or excellent, whether it is far or near-all material shape should be seen thus by perfect intuitive wisdom as it really is: This is not mine, this am I not, this is not myself. Whatever is feeling whatever is perception … whatever are the habitual tendencies (through conditioning) whatever is consciousness, past, future, present, subjective or objective, gross or subtle, mean or excellent, whether it is far or near-all consciousness should be seen thus by perfect intuitive wisdom as it really is: This is not mine, this am I not, this is not myself.”

Indeed according to the Buddha all compounds are impermanent unstable they being in a state of

flux. In other words all compounds are in a process of becoming.

Buddha’s explanation is so subtle so convoluted and at the same time, more than modern, that it was over Darwinians’ head.  Here I have only touched upon few basic elements of the Sensory becoming principle, but as we dig deeper an extraordinary advanced theory emerges; why creatures struggle to survive in spite of every set back, pain, suffering and immortality?

What comes across is, humans are the ultimate hedonistic machines. Buddha’s “ƒ”¹…”sensory becoming’ explanation is so subtle, comprehensive, intricate, and inclusive of real life elements, that Darwin’s theory becomes like kindergarten stuff.

In part II, I will make an attempt to make a comparative analysis of Darwin’s theory contra, sensory becoming principle, and present to you how this advanced “ƒ”¹…”sensory becoming principle’ was by passed to promote an absurd mechanistic explanation of life.

In fact such a “ƒ”¹…”mechanistic’ theory of life not only helped strengthen such “ƒ”¹…”God loves me and I love God’ type of self centeredness, but also planted us on a highway of self obliteration.

Mahinda Weerasinghe


The Author of “ƒ”¹…”The Origin of Species According To the Buddha’


  1. Geeth Says:

    Dear Mahinda,

    This subject of the irrational myth of modern ideology desperately demands in-depth discussion in societies like ours; to say—colonized, but never been decolonized, and still loved to remain be colonized or either to be directly or ideologically recolonized, societies like ours— to expose the pseudo scientific base of racism and subjugation in current world order.

    The entire modern ideology has been based on few utterances of few white folks made to be as grandiose as monumental scientific knowledge. The modern ideology has been supported by these very few ideological pillars such as, Newtonian science, the Darwinian so-called theory of evolution, psychoanalysis of Sigmund Freud and the Hegelian social theory/history.
    When you scrutinize all these theories with the historical events of the emergence of such theories, we can see a certain political motivation behind these entire theoretical background of modern ideology; that is to keep the entire global humanity under the rule of Europe. Hegel clearly has stated this. There is no any qualm about it. He has said it quite clearly in his words when he said….“The ideal superior signification is that of spirit, which returns into itself from out of the dullness of consciousness. The consciousness of its own self-justification arises and mediates the reestablishment of Christian liberty. The Christian principle has passed through the formidable discipline of culture; and the Reformation also gives it its exterior boundary, along with the discovery of America……the principle of the free spirit has made itself here the flag of the world, and from it universal principles of reason have developed….custom and tradition are no longer of value; distinct rights need to be founded on rational principles. Thus the liberty of the spirit is being realized.” (Under this philosophical clout, we can see where all Hegelians come from)
    Furthermore, Hegel says that no one could imagine having any rights before this Hegelian (constructed) ‘Europe.’ Then he justifies it saying….
    “Because history is the configuration of the spirit in the form of event (note he never mentions about colonialism as a turning point of events)……the people which receives the spirit as its natural principle… the one that dominate in the epoch of world history…..Against the absolute right of that people who actually are the carriers of the world spirit, the spirit of other peoples has no other rights”
    The thesis that modern ideologues want us to believe is the idea that exactly what Hegel has uttered. But when you make a tiny little alteration into this thesis and making modernity as a result of colonialism, this changes the entire picture of modernity completely upside down. Argentinian philosopher Enrique Dussel brings this new thesis into his argument wonderfully. Hope to read more interesting things from you Mahinda.

  2. Lorenzo Says:

    In a related development Russia sends 3 destroyers and 2 more warships to Syria.

    Now watch how the American funded Turkish terrorists run for cover. Ass-sad is no better but the biggest criminal here is USA. Where is Hilary Lewinsky? Hilary, Hilary where are you? Please open your mouth so Admiral Chabanenko can ejackulate a SS-14 missile in it!! An old rusted ship but it does the job.

    Thank god Russia finally got some guts. It doesn’t matter how bad your friends are. Stand by them or lose all your friends.

    “A Russian naval flotilla of warships destined for the Syrian port of Tartus has entered the Mediterranean, Russia’s defence ministry said Tuesday.

    “The Russian ships today passed the Strait of Gibraltar and entered the Mediterranean at 1200 GMT,” said a defence ministry spokesman, quoted by Itar-Tass agency.

    Led by the Admiral Chabanenko anti-submarine destroyer, the three landing craft left their home port of Severomorsk in the Arctic Circle earlier this month. They are due to be joined in the Mediterranean by the Russian patrol ship Yaroslav Mudry as well as an assistance vessel.

    The ships will perform “planned military manoeuvres”, said the ministry. Earlier in the month a military source said the
    ships would be topping up on supplies of fuel, water and foodstuffs.

    Russia has denied that the deployment is linked to the escalating conflict in Syria.”

    Yahoo news.

  3. Dham Says:

    Hilary Lewnski ! Hail the king of the names ! I will read this news but why are you pasting this on this serious discussion ?

    Fully agree with Geeth. have not decolonized by by the stupid muderers. They killed everywhere, still killing and dare to lecture us.

  4. AnuD Says:

    I really like the beginning part of the comment by Geeth which says, We like to, at least mentally, stay as colonized and don’t like to be decolonized.

    With respect to this article, I feel, we have caught the wrong tail.

    As I heard, long ago, the church had said that every thing was created by the god. But, some people in Europe did not agree to that and, at least in secrecy, they discussed it. As a result of that natural sciences began.

    What Darwin did was, based on his observations, he wrote the role of the natural selection and the survival of the fittest in species formation. At that time when he presented that to the Royal society, there were lot of people, as that could be expected, to object that. Anyway, many other theories needed to explain the species formation in full. For example, De Vries’s theory on the appearance of small mutations.

    Some how, Church did not agree, until recent times, to what Darwin said.

    It is the same with the theory of Intelligent design. It is banned teaching in the American schools now. I am not sure about the theory of evolution though it is not taught yet.

    There are other such theories – theories of General and Specific Anthropic Principals which say that plantary system evolved in order to result humans and to be observed by human, Big bang theory can be used to explain the presence of a Allmighty. But such usage does not give strong proof to the presence of an Allmighty.

    I think, that may be the reason, when Stephan Hawkings wrote his theories about Black holes, in his last book he has said that big bangs can happen even right now and it may be happening even in side the atomic nucleus.

    In that way what he has said is more close to the Eastern theories of world formation. In other words, it is a cyclical event.

    Buddha had said, I read even in Lankaweb about the planetary system formation, how life while moving around the universe liked the earth and settled on it, How Bodhisaththwa lived in far away galaxies during the destruction and the formation of this world system are very good.

    Anyway, those things said by Buddha do not counter the claims in modern science and support those.

  5. AnuD Says:

    Natural Science and Material science both of which we call the Western Science began as an opposition to the Church which said that every thing was created by the god. It was that ridiculous that some priest had told the exact day, which later became nonsense, that the god had created the world. Even in the Scientific method and in the Null hypothesis one side is for random occurrences and the other side is for the existence of some relationship or correlation etc., which is the god’s creation part.

    I think, Rationalists are group of thinkers descending from the anti-Church thinking group. Yet, they are a dumb group too. Because, we can reason only the things that we understand. In their case, they throw away everything that they cannot understand. Modern Science, particularly Physics, at least after 1875, does not follow Scientific method.

  6. AnuD Says:

    Another point that I forgot to write in my comment was even though Science and Rationalists began as the opposition to the creationist thinking of the church people engaged in those practices were grown up in a christian Background. So, what ever they did had that flavour. They cannot escape that. It is like for every thing we saying “Sansaare hati thamai”.

  7. Naram Says:

    Why waste time in confusing between BUddha’s philosophical insight into state of suffering of all sensate beings and Darwins theory of evolution.

    Species or the sufferings are not limited to Earthby Buddha’s teachings. On earth the short term rise in Human numbers mat soon be negated by natural phenomena..

    THere are examples of human groups that brought their own total destruction; Christmea islanders became extinct when they destroyed all their trees to make TOtem poles to worship the gods who had to be appeasedin their belief to bring rain.

    Similar thing is happening today with arms race, tribal wars, and global warming by green house gases. Philosophy may explain phenomena bu tman’s nature is such that self destruction is such that philosophywill havesuch small effect. I recall that Sakya clan were wiped outby a king, bythe name Vidudaha to avange for a slight ; thishappened in the time of Buddha.

  8. Lorenzo Says:


    May be you can understand the connection after reading Naram’s comment.

    Wars, tribal violence, etc. is missing from the evolution discussion. Human impact is a SIGNIFICANT part of human evolution TODAY in WHATEVER FORM – Darwin or otherwise.

    e.g. Wars, WMDs, impact on climate, impact on natural resources and adapting to a world of pollution/lack of resources, etc.

    Taliban has BANNED polio injections as they are anti-Islamic!! :))

    VERY VERY intelligent!!

    From the looks of it, evolution will first wipe out people following Arabic religions!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.



Copyright © 2021 All Rights Reserved. Powered by Wordpress