I  have done quite a lot of wasted debate, saying that “I do not believe in Re-birth”. In all above cases both their verbal and non verbal reaction was “How d’ye know that? Pls keep urself off from telling things you’re not sure about !!!”. But , what I have to tell as a reply , is as follows.

            I neither say “there is” nor “there isn’t” re-birth, because I don’t know for sure. But what I firmly tell is that those who argued with me also know the same amount of that subject like me. But the difference is they claim to know that they actually don’t know, but I neither agree with nor deny, what I don’t know. They accept concept of re-birth claiming that Buddha has preached about re-birth, using his super-psychic powers and it’s a prejudice to have doubt on anything what Buddha preached. Some say they agree with Re-carnation (Punarbhava), not Re-birth (Punaruthpaththi) , despite they are not certain with the difference between two. Except that, we are concerned of the phenomenon, not of the term.         

            Here who comes to my mind is Socrates of Athens. Once he was in a shrine, the nun tells him “there is no man in Athens wiser than you”. Not agreeing that divine words , Socrates goes in search of guys cleverer than him. He once goes to poets, who create apparently great poems, and begins to discuss with them, appreciating their creations. Here our beloved Socrates gets astonished by the fact that those so-called great artists are quite unaware of what they are writing!!!!!!!. Reminding this , Socrates thinks.

            “The divine words are true. i.e. I’m cleverer than anyone in Athens. All others do not know anything just like me. But at least I realize this fact , while others do not!!!!!)

            Without any doubt, primary teachings of Buddha, consists of free thinking , than any other religion in the world. It’s clear that Buddha has confirmed the right of their disciples to think freely, by Sutra’s like Kalama Sutra. But, our “Buddhists” are less likely to use this thinking method, when they are studying about Buddhism. Why?

            When they were questioned regarding this, most of them claim that “questioning Buddha’s words, is a reason to go to hell”; while only few argue “Buddha knew everything to be known. So we, the ordinary people are better to go on the path Buddha showed us, rather than to think newly”

            I’m not wasting your valuable time to talk about the first. But let’s pay our attention on the second, which possesses an undeniable basis.

            This can be true. I do not at least try to deny that one can go along that path and acquire enlightenment. But who, with common senses goes along an uncertain path , with certainty? Here one can claim that our common sense , too directs us to the wrong path. But my verdict is that it’s better for me to go wrong with my common sense , rather than to go along an uncertain path with trust. If the unknown path ended in a wrong destination accidentally, two what god shall I pray? (pls remind that I do not believe in any god). But the one who seeks the path with common sense , can change the path frequently , and can reach the correct path randomly. He also enjoys much freedom than the previous one.

            One can ask me what my idea about Buddha is. As far as I know , Buddha is the greatest man ever lived on this soil. I’m ready to tell this anywhere to anyone at anytime without any hesitation. I have a firm and unchanging belief that he achieved the great enlightenment. Also I inform with much gratitude that he tried to direct others towards that path, with his maximum effort, by preaching, with his utmost kindness.

            But that’s not the case here. The case is “why I don’t go along the path he taught?” there are various facts contributing to that.

            I agree that he was a great teacher. But my wretched common sense doesn’t allow me to accept that his words existed for two and a half millenniums without any mutilation. So I can’t at once accept today’s common Buddhist path , as the path to enlightenment.

1. Both ‘path’ and ‘guidance’ are having a high probability for faults. “Nibbana Path” can’t be as wide as “Inter-American Highway” , because the prejudice “I’m going on Nibbana Path” can itself lead us off the road. And ordinary man who faced such an experience may never realize what happened to him. So I have no intention to go into this popular path. If one goes to the correct destination by that path , I’m glad. I have no jealousy at all.

 Let me summarize what I’ve told so far. I’m roaming about , not knowing the correct path. There are quite a lot of highways running in front of me. Those who believe they are true road run along them , which I can see for clear. I also feel like “this can be the correct path” , towards a certain road. Many go alogh that road too. But they also go along that road with the blind belief , same as the other roads. These passengers can sometimes go to correct destination. But I won’t go along that road , till I realize “this is the correct path”. I’m walking along the side-ways. If I saw the real path someday, I’ll go along that road. Idling around , brings me much pleasure than going to correct destination , without knowing.

            That’s how I think of Buddhism. Then, what about others?

            Doesn’t matter how much selfish I am , I respect generosity and serving others. I agree with Ven.Valpola Rahula thero, when he says we should do good but not with the hope of going to heaven, and we should keep away from bad but not with the hope of not going to hell. Let’s think for a while that ones goes to hell after doing  good , and goes to heaven after doing bad. But still we should do good. (pls remind that I have no belief either of heaven or hell). This means that we should do good but neither with the fear for bad results nor with the desire for good results , but with the kindness towards the whole mankind; with the feelings of justice and humanity. It’s now high time to reject both heaven and hell, as myths.

             I do not argue that Nirvana should not be a desire, because my poor brain is incapable of understanding such complex facts. But I believe, that one should give up the desire to Nirvana too , before achieving Nirvana. At least none can say it’s not. According to my this belief , what is more near Nirvana is not the determination for Nirvana , but generosity. Greatness is being generous even if he doesn’t get enlightened. Even a person who believes Nirvana is the greatest bliss of the world, he won’t be great if he neglects his duties and responsibilities towards others in his way to achieve Nirvana.

            Don’t ask me about other religions. I believe they are quite useless, except few ethical factors. (Those who believe in religions may be annoyed to here this. If so, please forgive me. But I must say that I will continue to tell the truth, despite you hate to listen to it).     

            This is my idea about culture. There are no enemies of mankind more dangerous than culture and religion. As to say why, they have become good weapons for crooks to survive by deceiving people, and for strong to show their power on the weak.

            Let’s consider the gender problem. It’s evident that it’s a common belief among most men in eastern hemisphere that “woman” is a “thing” , which he can control according to his own desire. Despite such thoughts are quite unjust and inhuman , most  of those have been justified by so-called “cultural values”. For an example , early Indians used Suttee , not to preserve a so-called religious custom , but to keep their son’s property within their family after their son’s death , and preventing it going into hands of an “outside woman”. It can be seen that some Indian extremists are blaming British government for banning this inhuman savage custom, in early colonial era. But, they have nothing to say when humanitarian leaders like Gandhi , and Nehru banned it again and again , after independence. (it’s not a surprise that Gandhi was shot dead by a Hindu extremist).

            There are a plenty of examples to explain the dominance of culture towards male-female social states.

            It’s women who were subjected to foot-binding , which prevailed up-to recent times in China. Here , their feet are deformed by a certain method from their childhood onwards. The growth of feet ceases , while bones get crippled , toes are mutilated and get subjected to gangrene. Anyway it looks like a “lotus” at last!!!!. This is not only painful but also is a process , which brings a permanently disabled condition with great difficulties in walking , running and rising from a chair. But Chinese men see a “beauty” there. They do not prefer unbound women. Why?

            What’s the case apart from the fact that bound women have no opportunity to run away or fight back , when they are subjected to domestic violence? What’s the case apart from the fact that they can’t walk out of the houses and live with other men?

            Not only women , but also ethnic minorities are being subjected to this cultural harassment. Let’s take Veddas (aboriginal people living in Sri Lanka). It seems our highly educated professors talk a lot about keeping Vedda’s like Vedda’s and preserving their culture. But why shouldn’t we allow them to live as human , doing a cultivation and sending their children to school. “Oh no , there should be Veddas , for us to watch , when we go on trips”. Veddas also have made it a beggar’s wound , due to good source of income , they get from tourists. Apart from that they have been indoctrinated that material development is end of their generation.

            This is the culture we (the mankind) have. Let’s talk about things like Islam Fundamentalism apart, as I’m now fed up with quarrelling with pretty Muslim girls in the U.S.

            Under these circumstances, we should never place hope on culture, for goodwill of human society. The best thing we can do is to implement a common and fair ethical system to the whole mankind and legalizing it throughout the world. According to this ethical system, “The youth in Sri Lanka as well as Iran, should have the freedom to do anything that the youth in England or France are free to do. But none of them should have any freedom to do anything harmful to any other in society”. I’m not a baby not to understand, this can’t be done at once. But my firm belief is this is the direction we should precede, though with difficulty. 

            Economy oughtn’t to be included in this system. That means every country should have economic and political sovereignty. For an example Sri Lanka should have a right to ban importing wheat floor , while Iran should have right to ban importing of Coke. When these harmless economic principles collide with fundamental rights , the principles should be given priority. Nevertheless each and every country should be bound to destroy all its nuclear and mass destruction weapons.

            If there’s no such sovereignty , all the poor countries in the globe will get lost , by being caught to neo-colonialism , which is being held in sake of globalization. But, it’s essential to convert the socio-cultural background of the country into a free one. For an example , even though a certain country doesn’t import western garments , the people should have chance to produce them according to their will. There should be no ethical right for any government to restrict that sort of cultural freedom.

            I respect humbleness , not self importance and boasting. Personal glorification is amusing. Though it’s not practical to allow a certain person some amount of appreciation for his/her service towards mankind , if one expects it (s)he is definitely is a crook. To impose these humbleness , the key is to make free thinkers , rather than glorifiers. Then the vain pride may vanish out from society. Results of commercialization such as intellectual property , does no good to society. Ownership to knowledge should be restricted , and knowledge should be allowed to flow independently across borders. Otherwise the big journey science and technology has come so-far , may cease.

            Physical development of society should be a common social responsibility, whereas so-called spiritual progress should be an individual’s business. It’s not religion and culture but science and technology we should pay our attention , in the development of society.  But anyone who wishes to believe in religion , should have right to do so without harming others.

            Art , is not essential and is a spare thing. Because basic purpose of art , is entertainment , and different people have different aesthetic standards , it’s superb to have diversity in art. But no model of theatre , music or cinema , should bear monopoly , exceeding others. We can’t agree with senior artists who prepare ideologies for such a monopoly. Each and every artist should realize that no listener/reader/spectator is bound to taste any personal opinion of any artist , and the people have the right to choose.

            Art should not have chance to exceed ethical limits.

            (N.B :- Though many claim that their ideas are static , it’s a myth. Ideologies have the nature of spontaneous changing. So my ideology can change in future. I also expect that those who bear opposite ideas may tolerate my ideas , in the same manner I tolerate theirs. It’s a part of democracy , the social system I believe in. )

            Your precious comments are welcome. 

E-mail :- tabkthambugala@sinhalaya.com

Web Sites :- http://bkthambugala.spaces.live.com

                     http://beyondlimitations.spaces.live.com