//honeypot demagogic

 Forum DhammaCitta. Forum Diskusi Buddhis Indonesia

Author Topic: Panadura Debate  (Read 17112 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline yesican88

  • Bukan Tamu
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • Reputasi: 1
  • Gender: Male
Panadura Debate
« on: 15 December 2008, 10:43:03 AM »
Dear all,
Ada yang tahu isi dari Panadura Debate, kalo bisa dalam bahasa Indonesia? Kenapa jarang dipublikasikan/diekspos ya?


Offline Lily W

  • KalyanaMitta
  • *****
  • Posts: 5.120
  • Reputasi: 241
  • Gender: Female
Re: Panadura Debate
« Reply #1 on: 15 December 2008, 10:55:29 AM »
Panadura debate itu apa yah? telmi nih... ;D

Kalo karakteristik debat... saya ada tuh... mau?

_/\_ :lotus:
~ Kakek Guru : "Pikiran adalah Raja Kehidupan"... bahagia dan derita berasal dari Pikiran.
~ Mak Kebo (film BABE) : The Only way you'll find happiness is to accept that the way things are. Is the way things are

Offline 7 Tails

  • Sebelumnya RAIN
  • Sahabat Baik
  • ****
  • Posts: 864
  • Reputasi: 24
  • Gender: Male
Re: Panadura Debate
« Reply #2 on: 15 December 2008, 11:11:24 AM »
kayanya debat nya itu2 aja deh
debat2 kan banyak dari dulu sampai sekarang
debat DC juga lumayan =))
korban keganasan

Offline Sunkmanitu Tanka Ob'waci

  • Sebelumnya: Karuna, Wolverine, gachapin
  • KalyanaMitta
  • *****
  • Posts: 5.807
  • Reputasi: 239
  • Gender: Male
  • 会いたい。
Re: Panadura Debate
« Reply #3 on: 15 December 2008, 11:14:07 AM »
Debat Panadura adalah debat di muka umum antara seorang penginjil dan seorang Samanera di Sri Lanka pada tahun 1873. Debat ini dimenangkan oleh Samanera tersebut, dan merupakan salah satu tonggak kebangkitan kembali Ajaran Sang Buddha di Sri Lanka.

Saya pernah ketemu transcript bahasa inggrisnya, tetapi bahasa indonesia setahu saya belum ada.
Fake friends are like shadows never around on your darkest days

Offline bond

  • KalyanaMitta
  • *****
  • Posts: 3.666
  • Reputasi: 189
  • Buddhang Saranam Gacchami...
Re: Panadura Debate
« Reply #4 on: 15 December 2008, 11:27:54 AM »
wah kalo ada boleh nih dibagi2 infonya nih ;D
Natthi me saranam annam, Buddho me saranam varam, Etena saccavajjena, Sotthi te hotu sabbada

Offline Sunkmanitu Tanka Ob'waci

  • Sebelumnya: Karuna, Wolverine, gachapin
  • KalyanaMitta
  • *****
  • Posts: 5.807
  • Reputasi: 239
  • Gender: Male
  • 会いたい。
Re: Panadura Debate
« Reply #5 on: 15 December 2008, 11:31:54 AM »
dulu juga transcriptnya gak lengkap

coba cari di google -> panadura vadaya / panadura controversy / panadura debate
Fake friends are like shadows never around on your darkest days

Offline bond

  • KalyanaMitta
  • *****
  • Posts: 3.666
  • Reputasi: 189
  • Buddhang Saranam Gacchami...
Re: Panadura Debate
« Reply #6 on: 15 December 2008, 11:37:29 AM »
ok thx bro infonya .
Natthi me saranam annam, Buddho me saranam varam, Etena saccavajjena, Sotthi te hotu sabbada

Offline Reenzia

  • KalyanaMitta
  • *****
  • Posts: 2.199
  • Reputasi: 50
  • Gender: Female
  • The Wisdom ~
Re: Panadura Debate
« Reply #7 on: 15 December 2008, 11:45:01 AM »
Dear all,
Ada yang tahu isi dari Panadura Debate, kalo bisa dalam bahasa Indonesia? Kenapa jarang dipublikasikan/diekspos ya?


Debat Panadura adalah debat di muka umum antara seorang penginjil dan seorang Samanera di Sri Lanka pada tahun 1873. Debat ini dimenangkan oleh Samanera tersebut, dan merupakan salah satu tonggak kebangkitan kembali Ajaran Sang Buddha di Sri Lanka.

Saya pernah ketemu transcript bahasa inggrisnya, tetapi bahasa indonesia setahu saya belum ada.

oooh....begitu toh..... :))

Offline Lien hua Rue Liang

  • Sahabat
  • ***
  • Posts: 122
  • Reputasi: 8
  • Gender: Male
Re: Panadura Debate
« Reply #8 on: 21 December 2008, 03:37:28 AM »
sy juga udah cari2 tapi blom ketemu...

Offline xenocross

  • KalyanaMitta
  • *****
  • Posts: 1.189
  • Reputasi: 61
  • Gender: Male
Re: Panadura Debate
« Reply #9 on: 21 December 2008, 11:02:01 AM »
The great debator who saved the Buddha Sasana
The Lakehouse 20th September 2001

The foreign exploiters such as the Portuguese, the Dutch and the
English invaded this blessed land and used devious means to extort
its essence and turn their countries into heavens and keep its people
under bondage. This Buddhist country can be governed not by the use
of arms but by breaking the confidence between the layman and the
Buddhist monk reported the English officers who were in charge of the
administration here, to the British rulers abroad. In order to
achieve this objective missionary education and the Christian
doctrine were propagated while government jobs were limited only to

Dialectician reborn

This crafty project was so successful that the Christian scholar,
James D. Alwis was bold enough to write in his introduction to the
Sidat Sangarava that Buddhism were end by the end of the 19th
century. From this alone the pitiable plight that the Sinhala
Buddhist faced at that time can be guaged. Under these conditions at
the first half of the 19th century in order to establish a Buddhist
revival after awakening the Buddhists who were in a deep slumber it
was essential to have many Bhikkhu-dialecticians with debating skill,
knowledge of the doctrine and philosophy and self-reliance and
fearlessness. But instead of these many Bhikkhus, one monk arose. It
was the great debater Vadibhasimha Gunananda from Mohottivatte
(Migettuwatte)at Balapitiya in South Sri Lanka. He was born imbued
with all the qualities of a great Vadibhasimha and it was as if the
great dialectician Nagasena was reborn.

It is mentioned that at that time rubbing shoulders with the
missionaries who condemned Buddhism even the number of discourses he
made all over the island exceeded four thousand. Besides these he
held great public debates at Waragoda, Udammita, Gampola, Baddegama
and Panadura. The Panadura debate was a very strongly decisive one.
Although engaged in the other debates without the assistance of
anybody, he obtained the assistance of several great pandit monks who
were learned and well versed in the doctrine and discipline. They
were Hikkaduve Sri Sumangala, Panadura Sri Gunaratana, Weligama Sri
Sumangala, Randombe Dhammalankara, and Waskaduve Sri Subhuti. If the
truth of Buddhism was not logically proved that day by holding the
Panadura Great Debate, Buddhism would have certainly been crippled.

The value of this debate lay not merely on the victory of Buddhists
alone. It was the establishment of a Buddhist revival island-wide and
the acceptance of the value and truth of Buddhism worldwide.

It was because of this great debate that Col. Olcott came to Sri
Lanka with Madame Blavatsky on May 17 1880, embraced Buddhism and
began the great campaign to revive Buddhism in Sri Lanka.

Buddhist schools

This historic great debate opened the road for the birth of Buddhist
schools, establishment of Pirivenas, starting of various societies
for the development of the Sasana, making it possible for learned men
to arise, publication of Buddhist literature, and making it possible
for the protection and fostering of the Sinhala nation and the
Buddhist culture.

The Panadura debate began on 26th August 1872. Vidyodaya Pirivena was
established after four months from this date, viz: December 1872.
Ven. Mohottiwatte thera frequently preached sermons at the site of
the Vidyodaya Pirivena, and helped to collect funds and build up the
Pirivena. This is stated in the column, 'Things to know' published by
Anagarika Dharmapala.

Ananda College, Colombo was established 14 years after the Panadura
debate. When they tried to name it Gunananda Vidyalaya, it was Ven.
Mohottiwatte who suggested that it should rather be called Ananda
College. "It is a great honour for Buddhism for the College to be
named after the chief attendant of the Buddha, and my name is also
embodied in it"; said the venerable thera. Thus it was named Ananda

At that time there were 905 schools for about 3 lakhs of Catholics,
whereas there were only 4 schools for about 20 lakhs of Buddhists. As
a result of the Panadura debate about 142 Buddhist schools were
started between 1800 and 1900.


According to these facts it is evident that it was Ven. Mohoittiwatte
Gunananda Maha Thera who started the great battle to obtain the
national and religious rights by a 'lion's roar' which dispelled the
fright which was there in an era when people were afraid ever to call
themselves Buddhists. If he did not pursue that battle dedicating his
life it would certainly have led to the disappearance of Buddhism as
predicted by James D'Alwis.

Therefore it is no small wonder that present day historians mention
that Ven. Mohottiwatte Vadibhasinha was the pioneer in the national
and religious revival of the Colombo era, and that one should not
hesitate to name the Colombo era as the Gunananda era and that it is
the duty of unbiased critics to name the real facts as the truth.

The Editor of 'Ceylon Times' John Cooper wrote a detailed account of
the Panadura debate held on 26th August, 1872. In that report it is
mentioned thus:

"It had been agreed to commence the debate at 8 a.m. Long before the
appointed time well dressed natives began to pour in streams to the
open ground facing the building where the debaters would meet. At 7
a.m. the whole ground was one mass of heads. Villagers from every
district had come there. The Colombo district was represented by a
few young men attired in silk who seemed to be intelligent. They were
all ready to sacrifice everything they had for the sake of Ven.
Mohottiwatte Thera who was the powerful guardian of Buddhism".

Debate building

"The building in which the debate was held was a delightful thatched
building. There was a high platform inside it. On this platform which
was divided into two, on one side seated there were Rev. David de
Silva, Clergyman and his colleagues and on the other side Ven.
Mohottiwatte and about 200 monks. The cause for the Panadura
controversy was a sermon preached by Rev. David de Silva on 12th
June, 1872. There the non-soul theory of the Buddha was mentioned. On
the 19th of that month itself, Buddhists denounced that statement
saying it was a falsehood".

During the whole of the period of this debate, among the audience was
Rev. S. Langdon, clergyman. He wrote a letter to the Wesleyan
Methodist Mission Society detailing the points of the debate. There
it is mentioned as follows:

Oratorical skill

"When Ven. Mohottiwatte arose from his seat to open the sermon I was
reminded of certain speakers of our country. He was fully aware of
his power to sway the people due to his oratorical skill. His voice
tamed the dissentients. The voice which was clear, ebbs and flows in
various ways. His gestures are pleasing and all the more striking due
to his long yellow robe. Because of his power to sway the audience he
seemed to be a born orator".

"This wonderful debate came to an end peacefully. People who stood
far away from the speaker almost not to hear him gave shouts
of 'Sadhu'. Besides this there was no other disturbance or hullabaloo
at the debate. This was the most wonderful thing. I would like to
question whether it is possible to conduct a debate of this nature in
Europe free from riots and disturbances".

The learned critics of later times mentioned that the birth of Ven.
Gunananda Thera was similar to the appearance of Ven. Nagasena Thera
to dispel the misgivings of King Milinda in the past. Pandit
Batuvantudave has mentioned that if he did not appear at that time
the Sinhala nation and Buddhism would have been effaced forever.

Death of a debater

Ven. Seenigama Dheerakkhandha Maha Thera who was the incumbent of the
Dipaduttarama Vihara at Kotahena was Ven. Gunananda's uncle. He who
was ordained at the feet of his uncle did an incomparable service to
the sasana and the nation passed away on September 21, 1890 at the
age of 67 years. With the setting of the Gunananda sun which
dispelled the darkness of the hereties thousands of people flocked
towards Dipaduttaramaya. The body was covered in a yellow silk robe
and was kept in a glass casket and exposed to public veneration for
about a week. Thereafter the funeral procession headed by Ven.
Hikkaduve Siri Sumangala reached Model Farm Road where the Nayaka
Thera was cremated.

Commemoration meetings are held at this time at Abhinavaramaya,
Mohottivatta, Balapitiya, Dipaduttaramaya, Kotahena and at various
places in Panadura. May the Ven. Gunananda realise the bliss of
Buddhahood at the end of his journey in Samsara.

dari: http://argumentativeindians.blogspot.com/2008/05/tropical-debates.html
Satu saat dari pikiran yang dikuasai amarah membakar kebaikan yang telah dikumpulkan selama berkalpa-kalpa.
~ Mahavairocana Sutra


  • Guest
Re: Panadura Debate
« Reply #10 on: 21 December 2008, 11:15:06 AM »
namaste suvatthi hotu

saluuut atas postingannya


Offline xenocross

  • KalyanaMitta
  • *****
  • Posts: 1.189
  • Reputasi: 61
  • Gender: Male
Re: Panadura Debate
« Reply #11 on: 21 December 2008, 11:46:28 AM »

That controversial clash
By D. C. Ranatunga

"At Panadura the great historic controversy between the Christian missionaries and the Buddhist yellow-robed monks took place, and in the arena the Christian party was ignominiously defeated. That was the first moral conquest, which the Buddhists had gained against the Christians since the latter came to Ceylon. First as plundering pirates and buccaneering brigands and later on as conquistadors, who destroyed the ancient aesthetic Aryan civilization which had existed for so many centuries." Thus wrote Anagarika Dharmapala in the Mahabodhi Society Journal (MBJ) Vol. 41.

He was referring to the famous Panadura Vaadaya - Panadura debate - between the Buddhist clergy and the Christian missionaries held 130 years ago (August 26 to 28, 1873), which became a landmark event in the Buddhist revivalist movement. The proceedings of the debate, translated into English by E. F. Perera and John Capper, were published in The Times of Ceylon. The Times report was picked up by J. M. Peebles who published it in book form in the United States. Colonel Henry Steele Olcott who by that time was corresponding with Ven. Dodanduwe Piyaratana Tissa Thera and who had been invited to Ceylon, advanced his trip when he read the book on the Panadura debate.

Having taken control of the Kandyan kingdom in 1815, the British started consolidating their position, particularly after crushing the 1818 Rebellion. "Since 1818 CMS (Church Missionary Society) missionaries have been working in Ceylon with the object of destroying Buddhism," said Anagarika Dharmapala. "Thousands of Sinhalese after learning English had become Christians in order to gain their livelihood. A Sinhalese villager could be trained to attack Buddhism within a year, and in those days a salary of Rupees twenty a month was enough to make him offer his services as a Catechist to preach in the villages against the venerable religion of the Sinhalese people."

The Christian missionaries began spreading the religion through pamphlets and books. When Rev. D. J. Gogerly of the Wesleyan mission published 'Christian Pragnapthi' in 1849, Ven. Mottiwatte Gunananda replied with 'Durlabdi Vinodini' in 1862 and Ven. Hikkaduwe Sri Sumangala Nayaka Thera wrote 'Christiani Vada Mardanaya' and 'Samyak Darshanaya' (1862/63). Soon the writings were replaced by public debates.

At least five debates are recorded beginning with the Baddegama and Waragoda debates held in 1865. The third was at Udanvita in the Hatara Korale (February 1866) between Ven. Migettuwatte Gunananda and John Edwards Hunupola, a former Buddhist monk who gave up robes and converted to Christianity. June 1867 saw Gunananda Thera meeting a Catechist by the name of Sirimanne, Hunupola Nilame and Samuel Perera at a debate in Gampola.

The Panadura debate was the most notable of all debates and stemmed from two lectures given on the subject of the 'Soul' at the Wesleyan Chapel, Panadura. Dr. Wimalaratna states that the first was delivered by Rev. David de Silva on June 12, 1873 to which Ven. Gunananda replied a week later. He lists out the participants at the Panadura debate, which was held at the site where the Rankot Vihara stands today. On one side were Rev. David de Silva, S. Coles, R. Tebb, S. Lagden, C. Jayasinghe, P. Rodrigo, Joe Fernando, J. H. Abhayasekera, Nathanielsz, G. J. Gunasekera, Juan de Silva, Dr. Staples, Proctors Jayasinghe, Daniel and Alwis, Mudaliyar de Soysa, F. S. Sirimanne and Hunupola Nilame. On the other side of the stage were Ven. Hikkaduwe Sri Sumangala, Waskaduwe Sri Subhuti, Ven. Potuvila Indrajoti, Ven. Koggala Sanghatissa, Ven. Talhene Amaramuli, Ven. Mulleriyawe Guneratana and Ven. Mohottiwatte Gunananda Theras.

"Rev. David de Silva, a fluent speaker in Pali and Sanskrit addressed the audience of around 6000-7000 and only a very few understood him. In complete contrast was Mohottiwatte Gunananda Thera who used plain language to counter the arguments of the opponents," he says.

University don, Dr. Vijaya Samaraweera in his article 'The Government and Religion: Problems and Policies c1832 to c1910', states: "The Rev. Migettuwatte Gunananda proved himself to be a debater of very high order, mettlesome, witty and eloquent if not especially erudite. The emotions generated by this debate and the impact of Migettuwatte Gunananda's personality had lasting effects on the next generation of Buddhist activities."

He goes on to discuss the Buddhist revivalist movement that followed. "Migettuwatte Gunananda's triumph at Panadura set the seal on a decade of quiet recovery of Buddhist confidence. In retrospect the establishment of the 'Society for the Propagation of Buddhism' at Kotahena, and the Lankaprakara Press at Galle would seem to mark the first positive phase in this recovery."
Satu saat dari pikiran yang dikuasai amarah membakar kebaikan yang telah dikumpulkan selama berkalpa-kalpa.
~ Mahavairocana Sutra

Offline xenocross

  • KalyanaMitta
  • *****
  • Posts: 1.189
  • Reputasi: 61
  • Gender: Male
Re: Panadura Debate
« Reply #12 on: 21 December 2008, 11:47:43 AM »
Controversy at Panadura, or Pa:nadura: Va:daya,
Re-edited by Pranith Abhayasundara, Sri Lanka State Printing Company, 1990

It was listed under "Panadura Vadaya" in the UCB book catalog, making me worry that it would be in Sinhalese, but it was in English, with most of it apparently the reproduction of some original edition.

A sizable part of it contained discussions of Buddhist beliefs, including a part which claims that Buddhists believe in an impersonal, pantheist God. Which may seem like no God at all by Abrahamic standards.

The book had several pictures, drawings, and pictures of statues of the Buddhist side of these debates, the Venerable Migettuwatte/Mohottiwatte Sri Gunananda Thera. He was an orator and writer who spoke often in defense of Buddhism and Sinhalese literature; he helped revive Buddhism in Sri Lanka.

He was up against the Rev. David de Silva and the Rev. F. S. Sirimanne.

Rev. de Silva

He argued that Buddhists believe that there is no soul or irreducible "self", quoting various Buddhist scriptures to that effect, like:

(the original Pali) Rupam bhikkhave anattam, yadanattam n'etam mama n'eso 'hamismineso attati.

(English translation) Organized form, monks, is not self, that which is not self is not mind, I am not that, that is, not to me a soul.

He continued by claiming that this means that there is no fundamental difference between humanity and frogs, pigs, and the rest of the animal kingdom.

And also that there would be no rewards and punishments after death for what one has done in this life, meaning that one would have nothing to fear if one did something bad.

And quoted the Bible to the effect that we do have souls (no word on frogs, pigs, etc.).

Ven. Gunananda

He took a swipe at Rev. de Silva's command of the Pali language, suggesting that someone who makes elementary mistakes in it cannot be expected to have a good understanding of abstruse metaphysics described in it.

He then proceeded to explain how reincarnation works in Buddhism in the absence of a "soul" -- there is some sort of continuity that extends beyond the death of the body.

He then accused Christian missionaries of being deceptive on account of their use of various local deities' names for the Christian God, like in Calcutta the Hindu god Ishwara and in Sri Lanka Dewiyanwahanse.

He continued in this vein by charging that some Bible translators have committed variious deceptions, like translating "jealous" into Sinhalese jwalita, which literally means "glittering" or "luminous". And also of omitting verses like Leviticus 17:7, saying that they should no longer make offerings to various devils that they have prostituted themselves to. He concluded by saying that he appreciates that Catholics have not rewritten their Bibles in the above-described fashion of some Protestants.

Turning to Genesis 6:6,
(KJV) And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
(NASB) The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.
(NIV) The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.

Gunananda asked what kind of entity regrets something that he/she/it has done. Certainly not an omniscient one, as he pointed out.

He continued to ask why an allegedly omniscient being needed visible markers, as when he killed the firstborn of Egypt; the Israelites had to put some blood at the doors of the houses so that God would know who they were and not kill their firstborn.

In Exodus 4, God tells Moses to perform a miracle to impress the Egyptians, and if that fails to impress them, to perform more miracles until they are suitably impressed. Gunananda pointed out the implied lack of omniscience here also.

Later in that chapter, Zipporah circumcises Moses, offering Moses's foreskin to God, who had wanted to kill Moses. And God was apparently satisfied with that bloody offering. Gunananda wondered what kind of being the Biblical God must be like, a being like some devil who likes receiving blood offerings.

And turning to Judges 1:19, he wondered how omnipotent a being was who could not overcome iron chariots.

Rev. de Silva

He claimed that he was simply repeating some statements made elsewhere, and that any alleged errors were not his fault. And he bluntly denied that any Bible translators were trying to be dishonest.

He also claimed that the "translations" of the Christian God's name were not done to deceive would-be converts but to provide something that they could relate to.

About the regretting of Genesis 6:6, he claimed that the original Hebrew word (nokam) did not imply regretfulness. And the marking with blood in Exodus he claimed was a symbol of Christ's death.

He concluded with an effort to show that some Buddhist doctrines have some contradictions of the form that X is the source of Y and Y is the source of X.

Ven. Gunananda

He started off by pointing that the Reverend had called him viruddhakaraya ("opponent" or "adversary"), even though there was no personal enmity between the two. And that he now had no choice but to do the same.

He continued by asking why de Silva had made no comment about the (mis)translation of "jealous" in the Sinhalese Bible, and why the Biblical God is referred to as "jealous". He continued in this vein, asking what de Silva's level of competence in Pali was when he repeats others' grammatical errors without bothering to correct them. And despite de Silva's praise of the honesty of Bible translators, the rearrangements of parts of it suggests something suspicious about Bible translators.

He turned to the question of Iswara, noting that Hindus believe that he has a wife named Umayaganawa; does the Christian God also have a wife?

Continuing in this vein, he complained that de Silva never took on the question of the Biblical God's implied non-omniscience and taste for blood offerings.

He then explained further what gets reincarnated, discussing various views of the "soul", claiming that the Biblical view sort-of agrees with the Buddhist view of something that has an eternal existence before birth as well as after death.

He continued into the story of Jephthah sacrificing his daughter; he charged that Protestants had rewritten their Bibles to indicate that that sacrifice was not literal, and he praised Catholics for being honest about that sacrifice.

He next took on the question of how long  Christ had stayed in his tomb, noting that "three days and three nights" does not exactly fit Friday afternoon to Sunday morning.

He then argued that  Christ's birth had a bad omen associated with it -- King Herod's mass murder of baby boys. By comparison, the Buddha's birth had had nothing but good omens -- lots of cures and pain relief.

He concluded by claiming that he would renounce Buddhism if even so much as an ant died as a result of the Buddha's birth.

Rev. Sirimanne

He started by comparing Gunananda's rejection of Christianity to a fever patient's rejection of food, no matter how good the food might be for him/her.

He claimed that Gunananda had not really replied to the argument that Buddhism teaches that there is no such thing as the soul, and that Buddhism also teaches the existence of beings like the soul, beings that are immaterial and invisible and so forth.

He continued with the claim that the Biblical God being "jealous" did not really mean "envious", just not wanting his glory to be shared by others.

About the Ten Plagues of Egypt, he claimed that God knew how it would turn out, but that all those plagues were necessary because the king of Egypt was so haughty.

He continued with God being unable to defeat those iron chariots in Judges 1:19, claiming that Judah had not had sufficient faith in him. He claimed that the Bible is not only literally and historically true, but full of valuable spiritual lessons for future generations.

He had a chortle at Gunananda's interpretation of the creation of Adam by God blowing on him, the monk claimed that that meant that Adam had received some of God's soul.

He turned to Jephthah's daughter, seemingly claiming that she was not really sacrificed. And also to JC's reamining in the tomb, claiming that this was some special Jewish way of counting days. He correctly points out that Herod's massacre would be hard to call an omen, though he continued by claiming that they were sent to Heaven, where they would be much happier than if they had been allowed to live out their lives.

About the Buddha's birth, Sirimanne noted that the Buddha's mother had died seven days afterward, and that the Buddha had not only walked and talked when he was born, he roared like a lion. And he noted that lion roars are widely believed to be deadly.

He followed that by claiming that  Christ came to fight sin and establish righteousness, while the Buddha was a sinner who wanted to encourage vice. And that the Buddha's good omens are like drunkards welcoming a fellow drunkard with open arms, while spurning a teetotaler.

He continued by pointing out that the Buddhist scriptures were written down only 450 years after the Buddha's death, hinting that they could have been less-than-reliably transmitted in all that time.

This was followed by him claiming that the Buddha pursued enlightenment in previous reincarnations by offering his eyes, head, flesh, blood, wives and children; he commented on how cruel the Buddha must have been, to desert all those wives and children.

He also wondered if the Buddha was as omniscient as he was sometimes claimed to be, since the Buddha thought that some living people were dead, and vice versa, and since the Buddha was not initially sure that there would be anyone who could understand his message.

He interpreted Nirvana as be a state of nonexistence, and thus, since the Buddha had achieved that state, that the Buddha was now nonexistent. This meant that "taking refuge in the Buddha", as many Buddhists talk about, is taking refuge in someone now nonexistent.

And he concluded by claiming that many Buddhist monks are wicked, thus making them unfit for moral leadership.

Ven. Gunananda

He started by expressing disappointment in the quality of his opponents' arguments, and continued by noting that Ecclesiastes 3:19 (NIV: Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless.) is what de Silva charges that Buddhism teaches. He challenged de Silva to find similar statements in the Buddhist scriptures.

After going into some arcane Buddhist doctrines, and explaining further what gets reincarnated if there is no soul, he pointed out a contradiction:

1 Corinthians 15:22-28 (NIV: For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. ...) -- implying that everybody who believes in  Christ will go to Heaven.

Matthew 25:41-46 (NIV: Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. ... [those who do wicked things] ... "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.") -- implying that one can believe in  Christ yet be sent to Hell.

He then asked why take the Bible seriously when it contains gross contradictions like that. Which of these parts is right, if any at all? They can't both be right.

Turning to Sirimanne's speech, he commented that he had never heard anything so unscholarly or aimlessly meandering, and that he will skip over irrelevant parts like the curing of a fever patient. Many of his opponents responses he found beside the point, like how haughty the Pharaoh was. About Judah and the iron chariots, he asked that if Judah did not have enough faith in God, then why was God with him at all?

In connection with the baby-boy massacre, Sirimanne charged that Buddha's mother had died seven days after giving birth to him. Gunananda's response was that she had been fated to die on that date, implying that giving birth to the Buddha had had nothing to do with it.

He reiterated that the baby-boy massacre was nevertheless a bad omen, and that sinful omens imply that one will be a friend of sin. And asked if there was any record of anyone having been injured by the "lion-like" roaring of the baby Buddha.

As to the transmission of the Buddhist scriptures, he claimed that they had been recorded in the Buddha's lifetime on gold-leaf pages.

And while the recorders of the Buddhist scriptures had supposedly reached a state of great enlightenment, the same cannot be said of the writers of the Bible; he pointed out that Moses had committed some murders. He even claimed that the Bible was once completely burnt and then written down again.

And as to Moses performing miracles in Egypt, his Egyptian-sorcerer opponents had performed similar miracles (turning sticks into snakes), he commented that either Moses was also a sorcerer or else God Almighty was helping his Egyptian sorcerers also.

He continued into discussing the abandonment of wives and children by those seeking Buddhahood; he pointed that it was necessary to conquer passions and attachments, like to one's wives and children.

About Sirimanne's remarks about how long  Christ spent in his tomb, Gunananda mainly commented novasanavan ("miserable"), and reiterated his view that "three days and three nights" is a miscount. He claimed that he'd be providing more demonstration of the falsehood of Christianity in his final statement.

Satu saat dari pikiran yang dikuasai amarah membakar kebaikan yang telah dikumpulkan selama berkalpa-kalpa.
~ Mahavairocana Sutra

Offline xenocross

  • KalyanaMitta
  • *****
  • Posts: 1.189
  • Reputasi: 61
  • Gender: Male
Re: Panadura Debate
« Reply #13 on: 21 December 2008, 11:48:32 AM »
Rev. de Silva

After claiming that "opponent" is not objectionable, he then took on Eccl. 3:19, claiming that Eccl. 3:21 implies that humanity has a soul, unlike animals.

After commenting that human souls would be human souls in Heaven, though being glorious immortal beings there, he continued to the contradiction that Gunananda had pointed out between 1 Corinthans and Matthew, claiming that "being made alive" and "being saved" were two different things.

As to when the Buddhist scriptures were written down, he quoted those scriptures themselves as stating that they had been written down 450 years after the Buddha died.

As to Moses killing someone, he claimed that Moses had only killed some Egyptian who had been trying to kill some fellow Israelite.

He continued into how some very enlightened people (Arahants/Arhats) had once been robbers and murderers.

After mentioning some more such scandals, like someone who gambled with a king and seduced and ran off with his wife, he turned to the subject of a legendary world-axis mountain, Mt. Meru (Mahameru), which according to Buddhist scriptures has a length, a width, a depth below the sea, and a height of 84000 yojanas (1 yojana ~ 16 mi / 26 km). Quoting some more Buddhist scriptures, he noted this sequence of world-destruction events:

* The rain would stop and all the plants would die.
* A second sun would appear and the small rivers and lakes would dry up.
* A third sun would appear and the large rivers would dry up.
* A fourth sun would appear and the large lakes would dry up.
* A fifth sun would appear and the oceans would dry up.
* A sixth sun would appear and Mt. Meru, everything else on Earth, and the Earth itself would be destroyed.

De Silva then showed a globe and asked where was Mt. Meru. It is mentioned in several places in the Buddhist scriptures, and it would be difficult for it to escape explorers' attentions; where was it?

On top of Mt. Meru is a stack of heavenly worlds, on top of those is a stack of Brahma worlds, and on top of those is a stack of Arupa worlds. Without Mt. Meru, they would have no support, and thus could not exist. De Silva asked why act virtuously and perform good deeds if one has no chance of being reborn in one of these worlds?

He continued by noting that some Buddhist monks have interpreted their mandated celibacy in strange ways; one of them had sex with his mother, another with his sister, and another with a female monkey. And when some monks committed what de Silva described as "the foulest sin, the particulars of which cannot be given", the Buddha treated those acts as minor offenses.

About the Buddha's death, he pointed out that the Buddha had died in an entirely normal fashion, of food poisoning from some pork and rice he had eaten, with none of the miracles or divine assistance of the rest of his career.

He ended by saying that believing in  Christ was the only way to Heaven, and he claimed that all the objections to Christianity had been answered, while none of the objections to Buddhism had been.

Ven. Gunananda

He reiterated Eccl. 3:19 on how humanity is fundamentally like the (nonsentient) animals, and rebutted the Revs' claim that some Buddhist doctrine represents a mixed-up view of causality. He went on to explain that if there is any mixed-up causality, it's in the Christian Trinity with the Virgin Mary. Is God her father? Her sort-of husband? Her son?

He continued by reiterating his claim that the Bible had once been burnt and re-recorded, and he asked if some of those alleged criminals who achieved enlightement had really been criminals, and claimed that if they had, then they had received appropriate punishments before achieving enlightenment. By comparison, Moses was an unrepentant murderer.
He then claimed that there was nothing in the Buddhist scriptures about the Buddha giving away his wife, and that sins in previous reincarnations should not be held against the Buddha.

About Mt. Meru, he claimed that de Silva was referring to Isaac Newton's theory that night is caused by the Sun being hidden behind the bulk of the Earth instead of behind Mt. Meru.

He claimed that Newtonianism was not completely accepted, noting the work of a certain R.J. Morrison, and also noting that the Bible, like some Buddhist books, states that the Earth is stationary. (Eccl. 1:5, NIV: The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.)

He noted that compass needles point northward and not in any other direction, meaning that Mt. Meru must be at the North Pole, and that it must be magnetic. He also claimed that the exact size of a yojana was controversial, meaning that that mountain could be smaller than de Silva thought it is.

After arguing that the misbehavior of some Buddhist monks did not necessarily discredit Buddhism, he pointed out that some Christian clergymen have also been known to misbehave. He continued with mentioning that the Bible has numerous immoralities, like Lot and his daughters' incest and the incest committed by Adam and Eve's children.

He claimed that the pork and rice were not responsible for the Buddha's death, since he was fated to have dropped dead at the date and time he did.

At any rate, he claimed, pork was no fundamentally worse than the grasshoppers eaten by John the Baptist.

As to the Buddha being dead, he claimed that part of the Buddha was still "alive" -- his relics -- and that 2500 years from now, they will be gathered at the Bo tree where he achieved enlightenment, where they will assume the form of a living Buddha, preach for a while, and then disappear. And that the Buddha will completely achieve Nirvana when that happens.

About the Buddha's alleged omniscience, he claimed that it was not the sort of omniscience that the Christian God has, of knowing everything whether he wants to or not, but the ability to know whatever he wants to know. Which thus shields him from all the superabundance of pain and misery and sin and filth in the world.

He asked why Christians attach so much emphasis to the death of  Christ, someone who advised his followers to acquire swords, and someone who had been charged with posing as the king of the Jews.

As to the resurrection, the first witness, according to Mark 16:9, was Mary Magdalene, who had seven devils driven out of her. Could she be counted on to be completely sane and reliable?

He seemed to believe in a form of spontaneous generation, in which air, heat, and water produces living things -- whether they be called Brahma, Vishnu, and Iswara, or God, Son, or Holy Ghost. "The spirit of God moved across the waters" he cited as evidence that the Bible agrees with him.

Turning to the Adam and Eve story, and how women were sentenced to give birth painfully as a result of eating that forbidden fruit, he asked why is it that some animals sometimes give birth painfully. Had their ancestors eaten some forbidden fruit also?

In a final statement, he claimed that the most eminent in all ages had spoken in support of Buddhism, including eminent doctors, astrologers, and the like, and he stated that Buddhism "inculcated the purest morality and urged the necessity of self-denial, self-sacrifice, and charity. It encouraged peace. It tolerated all religions in its midst. It had nothing to fear. It pleaded of men to follow the example of Holy Buddha, and pointed the sick and the sorrowing to the blissful state of Nirvana." After stating that he had proved the truth of Buddhism and the falsehood of Christianity, he urged his listeners to take refuge in Holy Buddha.

His listeners shouted "Sadhu! Sadhu! Sadhu!", but only stopped when he told them to.

The End

Though Buddhists often call this debate a victory for the Buddhist side, this debate did not exactly leave Revs. de Silva and Sirimanne professing belief in the Buddha and his Four Noble Truths, it must be said.
Satu saat dari pikiran yang dikuasai amarah membakar kebaikan yang telah dikumpulkan selama berkalpa-kalpa.
~ Mahavairocana Sutra

Offline ryu

  • Global Moderator
  • KalyanaMitta
  • *****
  • Posts: 13.404
  • Reputasi: 429
  • Gender: Male
  • hampir mencapai penggelapan sempurna ;D
Re: Panadura Debate
« Reply #14 on: 21 December 2008, 11:54:08 AM »
translate please :(
Janganlah memperhatikan kesalahan dan hal-hal yang telah atau belum dikerjakan oleh diri sendiri. Tetapi, perhatikanlah apa yang telah dikerjakan dan apa yang belum dikerjakan oleh orang lain =))