Posted on November 6th, 2012

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

In fact Mr. Chnadrasoma’s piece;

“Mahinda Weerasinghe Hallucinations on Darwinism-Rejoinder to article published” Posted on July 24th, 2012″ tickled me pink!

 Through Chandrasoma is a “ƒ”¹…”believer’ of Dawkins, to me he is nothing but a bag of wind and a promoter of hyperbole and mechanistic claptrap.

 Now Dawkins and his local boy “ƒ”¹…”Carlo’ has found it rather taxing to defend their “ƒ”¹…”hollow’ mechanistic theories of life, so they have recruited an uncle “ƒ”¹…”Tom’ to get their reputation whitewashed.  But Chnadrasoma’s “ƒ”¹…”shooting from the hip’ was all cockeyed. Under the circumstances I propose he utilize the below specified report as a basis to synchronize his aim.  


Posted on July 26th, 2012

 Since its posting, “ƒ”¹…”Professor’ Dawkins or his, “ƒ”¹…”irrational’ sidekick Carlo Fonseka has found it a daunting task to confront my claims.

  In fact a total silence has descended on “Darwinian commercial complex’ front, as ditto the Judeo Christian sects.

 Perhaps Chandrasoma is capable of coming up to scratch and end my hallucinations.

 Chandrasoma informs, “I presume he is a Buddhist but his stance is exactly that taken by Christian Fundamentalists in their mindless campaign of vilification against those regarded as the authors of the “ƒ”¹…”infamous “ƒ”¹…”doctrine of evolution through descent.”

 And points out that “His transformation into a Satanic Figure (Dawkins) by Mr. Weerasinghe is a great puzzle to all dispassionate seekers of the truth.”

 Before “ƒ”¹…”Dawkins’ has thrust himself on the world stage, I have taken issue “ƒ”¹…”with the “ƒ”¹…”Judeo- Christians’ deterministic theories of fatalism’.

In fact, it is those very short comings of Darwinian determinism, and slipshod logic of guys such as Dawkins that has strengthened the Judeo-Christian sects.

 I have written some of the most disparaging pieces and they (Judeo Christians), curiously, has not vilified me.  For readers edification I note here a few of the noteworthy ones:


Posted on September 23rd, 2012





Mahinda Weerasinghe

 Not through kindness of their heart that they have refrained from heaping me with abuse. But the ideas presented therein were based on irrefutable facts, logically built up.

 Indeed in the said research papers I have quoted bona fide professors working with “ƒ”¹…”Darwinian concept’ and some of them are Nobel laureates.

 I wrote there:

“Surely Darwinists are not nursing a ridiculous notion that the human species is a “ƒ”¹…”special creation’ by some sadistic “ƒ”¹…”God’ and should be made the exception to that “ƒ”¹…”tooth and claw’ rule of the “ƒ”¹…”survival of the fittest’…

 “ƒ”¹…””¦In fact Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg, present honest opinion, when, basing himself on the (Darwinian dictates) claims that, “more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless”. Darwinism teaches “that our lives are brief and inconsequential in the cosmic scheme of things” and that life has no ultimate purpose because there is no heaven, hell, or afterlife and “nothing we know about life requires the existence of a disembodied vital force or immaterial spirits, or a special creation of species”. Raymo, Chet. 1998. Skeptics and True Believers. New York, NY: Walker (Page 110)

That eminent evolutionary, Harvard paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson, is in total agreement with this opinion, for it seems that, “Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind. Indeed, since Darwinism has demolished the belief that the universe and human beings have an ultimate purpose, our educational system must inculcate young people in “cold and clammy truths like descent from reptilian or amoebic ancestors”.  Simpson, George Gaylord. 1970. The Meaning of Evolution. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. (Page 345)”¦

 Indeed “ƒ”¹…”Dawkins’ is totally in agreement and I quoted his notions;

 “ƒ”¹…””¦Dawkins the “ƒ”¹…”bull dog’ of Darwinism insist that evolution “has shown higher purpose to be an illusion” and that the Universe consists of “selfish genes;” consequently, “some people are going to get hurt, others are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason for it”.  “A Scientist’s Case against God,”

 So you shooting the messenger bearing indigestible news is counterproductive Chandrasoma! If you want your readers to take you seriously now is the time to make your “ƒ”¹…”talk’ walk.

 As you jeeringly put it; “ƒ”¹…”Mr. Weerasinghe has had bad experiences “”…” with persons and institutions ranging from the Island Newspaper to Dr Carlo Fonseka “”…” is no grounds for making a monkey out of Darwin.’

  Why Chandrasoma do you feel that we should absorb any bullshit that’s heaped on us without first questioning as to its veracity? Is that scientific method you propose?

 In fact I responded to Dawkins and Carlo’s appropriate articles. These articles were subsequently posted in the Internet. The reason why I declared that Dawkins & co, are enjoying the sound of “ƒ”¹…”one hand clapping’.

 Not only me Chandrasoma, people such as Mahindapala and other ex pact writers has been complaining too. Obviously they were mainly Buddhists. Through Catholic Church controlled media the holy war was kept on the boil for three decades in the Island.

 In fact I dispatched this report to Scientific American, Discovery and the other so called reputable and renowned scientific magazines! I implored them to publish my findings and offer all and sundry the opportunity to mull over whether it is “ƒ”¹…”God, Darwin or The Buddha’ that got this “ƒ”¹…”becoming’ process in its proper prospective!

  It was a vain exercise on my part I admit.  They are probably hoping that time will bury my findings.  But truth like oil, will surface eventually.

 In fact such journals have been promoting “ƒ”¹…”mechanistic’ hokum. If truth be told, these mechanists will be unable to sell their magazines, sell their books; in short sell, and rake in the money.

 In fact “ƒ”¹…”mechanistic’ Darwinist theories are no better than, the Judeo-Christian “ƒ”¹…”God loves me and I love God’ hallucinations.

 Thank our lucky stars that we have the Internet or we would be burdened with such hazy, illogical theories.

 It is a fact that “ƒ”¹…”The Buddha’ was the discoverer of the most vital law 2600 years ago: “The Law of Impermanence”.

  This fact these guys totally gloss over when they promote their mechanistic or creationists’ theories as original insights.

 In spite of what Darwinists claim, they still had not grasped the subtle implication of this basic law. Indeed it applies to all compounds.  In the below given quote, the Buddha connects 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 quote 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. And such discussions are not unique but are spread all over the Pali scripts.

 “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, indeed any compounds)

“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.”

 Then should we assume that; all is impermanent, all is transforming but “ƒ”¹…”species’ is the exception to the rule   and holding on to a “ƒ”¹…”status quo’ according to The Buddha. Indeed in that case we should thank Darwin and such characters such as Dawakins for promoting the “evolutionary” process of spices.

 Your opinion of my hallucinations Chandrasoma is unimportant in the larger context, but let the facts speak for it selves.

 Buddha’s explanation is so subtle so convoluted and at the same time, more than modern, that it was over Darwinians’ head, and probably over your head too Chandrasoma. But Darwin may be excused for the time and place he was living in, unlike you, Chandrasoma, not mention Dawkins and or that “ƒ”¹…”Carlo’ guy.

  In fact, forget “ƒ”¹…”Survival of the fittest’, forget “ƒ”¹…”natural selection’ but what the very core of Darwin’s dogma: Individuals of a species should adapt and become fit, fit for what; fit to “ƒ”¹…”survive’ the competition “ƒ”¹…”within the species and between the species. Then comes the most vital and the central issue of his dogma. What is the over whelming motivation for “ƒ”¹…”survival at all? Then we get to know the crux of his arguments! Survive, in order to procreate and send their types further in time and space.  So what is the whole point sending their proto types in time and space simply beats me?

 So going by this “ƒ”¹…”hollow’ theory, sex is nothing but an instrument of procreation.

 For heaven’s sake, in which case is; how that is the human female animal is capable of having intercourse 365 days a year, but conceive only a few days after each menses. Where is the procreation in that?

 Indeed what is the whole point of homosexuality of the human animal, when no procreation is taking place with such meaningless efforts?

 Or that meaningless but very profitable occupation called prostitution by females?  So much money and time is wasted in vain, with men are humping away incidental women of the street. These were purely futile and wasted effort, as no pro creation but waste. Goes to show that Darwinian version of life does not explain real life events at all.

 Why is that human male organ the biggest one among the primates, as a rule much bigger than a gorilla’s?

 The questions posted above the simple ones but the vital core questions have been unanswered since “ƒ”¹…”evolution of species’ was published 150 years ago.

 Not me Chandrasoma it is the Catholic Church, which is making a monkey out of you! And Carlo is leading the show and using Darwinian mechanistic “ƒ”¹…”run around’ as a platform to hoodwinks the Buddhist.  Well that won’t be easy while I am alive and kicking!

 So targeting the messenger is futile Chandrasoma, aim at the massage not the messenger!!!


Mahinda Weerasinghe

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



  1. visaka Says:

    Please why want somebody reply this gentlemen s article,it needs to be read and commented on.after the answer is given why is it that u ar not replying

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.



Copyright © 2021 LankaWeb.com. All Rights Reserved. Powered by Wordpress