<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n\n\n
After much thought, I have become convinced of the validity\nof the Buddhist approach to human conditions. I will tell you very briefly, as\nto how I arrived at that conviction. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
A PERSONAL EXPERIENCE<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I was born into a Roman Catholic family and received a very\northodox Roman Catholic education until about the age of eighteen. I believed\nin the central teachings of Roman Catholicism<\/strong> , namely the existence of an all\nmighty GOD WHO CREATED THE WORLD, and the existence of an IMMORTAL SOUL in man.\nWhen in the University entrance class at St. Joseph\u2019s College, Colombo, I had\nthe privilege of being taught Apologetics,, i.e. Advanced Catholic Religious\nKnowledge, by the Reverend Father Peter Pillai, a Master of Arts, a Master of\nScience and a Doctor of Divinity, a well known Educationalist. He was a very\nclever and holy man. To tell the truth, it was during a College class lesson\ngiven by him that, I strongly felt had doubts about the existence of a God. He\ndiscussed the proofs of existence of God, as was formulated by St. Thomas\nAquinas. (Christian Theologian) He said there are five proofs. They are: (1)\nProof of reference to motion. God is unknown to motion. (2) Proof of reference\nto efficient Authors. God is the upcaused cause. (3) Proof to necessity and\ncontingency. God is the only necessary being. (4) Proof by reference to\ngradations. In the world, God is the perfect being. (5) Proof with reference to\nOrder in the universe. God is the Ordainer of all. Having explained these\nmatters, he went on to say something that shocked me, greatly. <\/p>\n\n\n\n He said that according to St. Thomas Aquinas. THAT ALTHOUGH\nTHE EXISTENCE OF GOD COULD BE ESTABLISHED, REASON ALONE CANNOT PROVE THAT GOD\nCREATED THE WORLD. For that he said, we have to go to the REVELATION. So\naccording to St. Thomas Aquinas, we believe that God created the world, THE\nBIBLE TELLS US TO. That disturbed me. If indeed, we cannot prove that God\ncreated the world, then it is possible that the world was, is, and will be.\nFurther, there was so need to postulate that God created the world! So my\nfaith, in that God created the world was shaken up. Once that fundamental\nbelief was shaken, the other Christian beliefs came under scrutiny. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Next was the existence of an immortal SOUL. St. Thomas\nAquinas taught that the soul was found in every part of the human body. According\nto St. Thomas Aquinas, it was not located in any one place, such as in the\nbrain. But the soul is not transmitted in the semen. St. Thomas believed that\nthe woman was like a pot, and the male planted the seed in the pot, so that\neverything substantial came from plan. St. Thomas concluded that, SOUL WAS\nCREATED AT EVERY ACT OF CONCEPTION BY GOD, AND HE INTERVENED TO CREATE THE\nSOUL. This puzzled me. Take the case of a woman who is raped by an unknown\nperson and conceives during the act. Does God intervene to create a soul for\nthe child that is conceived? If so, is God and accomplice in the act of rape?\nSuch thoughts came into my mind. St. Thomas Aquinas, the classic exponent of\nthe Roman Catholic teachings said that, even animals have souls. But the souls\nof animals were not immortal. Now, I began to wonder about the Chimpanzee.\nYears later, I learnt that this particular animal shares with us 98.4 per cent\nof its genes. So we differ genetically from the Chimpanzee by only 1.6 per\ncent. BUT THE CHIMPANZEEE\u2019s have souls which PERISH with death. Then how about\nman? Could not man\u2019s soul also perish? So my belief in a SOUL came to be\nseriously shaken. <\/p>\n\n\n\n But there was even a more disturbing thought. St. Thomas\nAquinas taught that IN ORDER TO ENTER HEAVEN ROMAN CATHOLICS MUST BE BAPTISED.\nThis meant, if there is no Baptism, then there is no heaven for people. <\/p>\n\n\n\n I have many dear relatives and friends who are Buddhists and\nin that background this was a very horrible thought. They have then to go to\nHell. It seems horrible, unfair and unjust. So when I entered the University of\nCeylon, Colombo, at the age of 20, I was a man without a Religion. During the\nnext ten years or so I was deeply involved in my medical studies. My Medical\nCollege colleagues present here today, will confirm that medical science deals\nwith the release of human (and animal) suffering caused by disease. This fact\nis known to medical men based on knowledge acquired by certain methods such as\npositioning, testing and application of medicines. The results that ensued my\nown belief in medical knowledge became firm. But, now and then patients died,\nand I was not sure whether medical men make in such instances diagnostic\nerrors, or whether the treatment was not efficacious. The same skepticism or\ndoubting began at times to apply in the field of medicine too. Gradually, I\nbecame interested in Epistemology i.e. the branch that deals with method or\nground of knowledge. <\/p>\n\n\n\n IN SEARCH OF TRUTH<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Epistemology is concerned with how we come to know, and what\nwe claim to know. How reliable is our knowledge? How do we know what we came to\nknow is TRUE? I then indulged in wide reading, especially books written by\nBertrand Russell and A.J. Ayer. A little book (Penguin series) THE PROBLEM OF\nKNOWLEDGE by A.J. Ayer, a famous English Philosopher influenced me. Finally, I\ncame to realize that in order to claim and know something it is necessary to\nsatisfy three conditions. (a) The problem of defining the necessary and\nsufficient grounds that something IS TRUE. In the practice of the Law\nprofession, Lawyers are careful in the application of the Law of Evidence, and\nin the scientific enterprise the three conditions as set out by Ayer are\nfulfilled. <\/p>\n\n\n\n He said, WHAT I CAME TO KNOW MUST BE TRUE. Secondly, I MUST\nBE SURE THAT IS TRUE, Thirdly, I MUST HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE SURE THAT IT IS\nTRUE. This is the essence of the talk that I am giving today. Suppose, I claim\nto know that there is a Mango Tree in this garden near the Hall. I say it is a\npiece of knowledge. Therefore, it must really be a Mango Tree. But that is not\nenough to make it a valid claim that, I know there is a Mango Tree. The second\ncondition is that I MUST BE SURE THERE IS A MANGO TREE OUTSIDE THE HALL. I\ncannot judge or guess. Why should I be sure? Cannot I make a mistake? Cannot it\nnot be subject to an illusion or hallucination or a delusion? Hallucinations\nand delusions are well known symptoms of insanity. It can also be a form of\nerror. Therefore, we need a third condition. i.e. THE RIGHT TO BE SURE. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In Science, this Right is won BY PUBLIC CHECKABILITY, of the\nevidence the claim is made on. Why? Because there can be disagreement. I may\nsay the tree is a Mango tree, but someone else may say it is some other tree.\nTRUTH LIES THERE as expounded by Philosophers and Scientists. By this method,\nScientists have made material advances….. to split the Atom, produce\nSatellites and for man to explore the moon etc. <\/p>\n\n\n\n THE BUDDHIST OUTLOOK<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n In my readings about the Buddha, Smith (a Prof. of\nAnthropology) has stated that Buddhism is unique because it DOES NOT SHARE SIX\nCHARACTERISTICS AS SEEM IN SIX OTHER CLASSICAL RELIGIONS such as Hinduism,\nJudaism, Christianity, Islam. <\/p>\n\n\n\n What are they? <\/p>\n\n\n\n (1) AUTHORITY i.e. validity of what is believed (faith)\nderived from a source. The Buddha Dharma (Buddhist Philosophy) stands by\nitself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (2) RITUAL. In strict Theravada Buddhism there is no place\nfor ritual (Popular corrupted Buddhism does see ritual). Other Religions have\nRitual.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (3) Speculation:<\/strong> This is absent in Buddhism. <\/p>\n\n\n\n (4) Mystery: There is no place for mystery in the teaching\nof Gautama Buddha. <\/p>\n\n\n\n (5) Divine: Belief in a supreme creator god or a son of God,\nor of a Messiah. (The Buddha Dharma leads:- Shows the Way to man)\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In that background, I say the Buddhist approach to reality\nis valid. It is a scientific approach. The scientific approach has led to great\nmaterial, stunning achievements for the well-being of man. One of the foremost\nscholars of the past century, the Late Prof. K.N. Jayatilleke, Ph.D. (Cantab)\nin his monumental work The early Buddhist theory of knowledge had stated that,\neverything what the Buddha referred to (The Identification of Suffering: the\nCause of Suffering, the Path that leads to the end of suffering on earth; the\nLaw of Dependent Origination etc.) are locatable in the empirical stream,\nexcepting one – NIBBANA. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Nibbana (is beyond logic and reasoning, it is realization of\nthe truth) cannot be apprehended and it cannot be described. It is the extinction\nof the fire of desire, (Lobha, Dhosa and Moha). To clench his argument, Prof.\nJayatilleke used, as the last statement of his work, (The words of his guru at\nCambridge University, Prof. Luwig Wittengstein, who wrote: TRACTATUS LOGICO\nPHILOSOPHICUS\u201d). It says: Thereof one cannot speak, Thereof one must be\nsilent\u201d .<\/p>\n\n\n\n Before the days proceedings ended, it was mentioned that the\nreference to Nibbana, made known by Prof. K.N. Jayatilleke has been confirmed\nas correct, by the American Jewish Scholar, Bhikkhu Bodhi, (Ph.D). of\nKandy <\/p>\n\n\n\n Courtesy: The Buddhist (YMBA)<\/p>\n\n\n\n Vol : CXXXVIII – BE – 2561- NOV. – CE – 2017 – No. 03\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n