My First Love

31/12/2009

The montissori I went to had two grades. She was on the second and I was in the first. The first time I saw her, she was drawing something on the dirt. Instantly I fell in love with her (In fact I don’t really know what I felt. But like to think this way)… Later, I found out she was a talented dancer. Teachers didn’t let anyone see her while she practised for the annual concert. We were all dumbfounded when we finally saw her, dancing like a fairy princess. To this day, I haven’t seen any child dance better. Her movements weren’t the awkward, childish ones we see all the time with kids. Instead they were smooth and sophisticated..The greatest obstacle for me in befriending her was that we were in two different grades. The only time I could even see her was the half hour interval they gave us. I really wanted to talk to her, except I didn’t have the guts to approach her. I had no problem with dealing with other girls. But this girl was different. This girl was special… I was a precautious child. I could write sentences, something most other montissori kids couldn’t. So I wrote a note to her. On a piece of paper I wrote, “I like you.” I gave it to another girl to give it to her and tell her who wrote it. She did what she’s told. But I had made a grave mistake. I had assumed that my sweetheart could read. She couldn’t. So she gave it to her mother. She didn’t go ballistic. But she informed the teachers. They informed my mother, and everybody else. So now the whole montissori knew about us.. Nothing bad really came out of all that. We did become friends, but the teachers always had an eye on us. Those days, my hobby was collecting stickers (In fact, it is still my hobby. I have about 15,000 stickers). Everyday, I gave her a sticker. Everyday she gave me some of the biscuits she brought. Once she asked me what I wanted to become when I grow up.” An engineer”, I answered. “Don’t be. Be a driver”, she advised wisely. I asked her what did she want to become when she grew up. “I’ll be a mom”, she replied..On the last day she came to the montissori, I kissed her. I thought about kissing her on her cheeks. But everybody seemed to do that to everybody. I’d seen something my dad do to my mom. I kissed her forehead. We were of the same height, so I had to stand on my toes. That’s the last day I saw her.

I don’t believe in God. Of course, there are many Gods. People have been killing each other for thousands of years to determine which God is true. I don’t care. People can do whatever they like. Religion is probably calamitous. I don’t care. Science is probably calamitous as well. No. Neither do I care about Euthyphro Dilemma and so and so. I don’t care. The only reason I don’t believe in God, is that I have no reason to believe in God. Why should I believe there is a God? But then, there have been occasions I wanted to believe in a higher power. In something bigger than me. Something that can take care of me. When you’re down, seriously down, you feel that way. Probably that’s why people created God, to guide them through hard times..After years of practice, I have completely killed this higher being within me. I don’t want to believe God in the direst of situations. Am I happy about it?..yeah..I AM.

I don’t think that there is any doubt that Gen. Fonseka said what he denied to have said to the Sunday Leader newspaper. I say this because I saw the video of the speech he made in a Ratnapura rally. Let’s call this ‘STATEMENT A’. And then, upon realising that this statement was going to result in a political fallback (it has), he clarifies the ‘STATEMENT A’. So he makes another statement. Let’s call this ‘STATEMENT B’. In this statement, he tries to modify the first statement. If someone (like the government) declares that the ‘STATEMENT A’ is traitorous, then it follows that the ‘STATEMENT B’ is patriotic, regardless of the motives of the man who made them both…Now, say there’s someone (like the goverment) who gives more publicity to ‘STATEMENT A’ than to the ‘STATEMENT B’. That means this someone gives more hype to the traitorous statement than to the patriotic statement. So what can you say about this someone? Is he a traitor, or patriot, or someone in between?…It’s just dirty politics.

Ever watched any of those hindi-widow-dramas on Sirasa, especially Praveena or Mahagedara? Lot of my female friends like them more than they like great American drama’s such as House M.D. And certainly more than they liked Sopranos. I don’t have any beef with those terrible hindi dramas but can’t help thinking, these must be the funniest TV shows on earth without intending to be funny. Look at them. They don’t age. Praveena must be over eighty years old by now. But she looks like a 30 year old. Her daughters, and the grandaughters are of the same age. When she’s with her son, or grandson, she looks as if she’s their wife. Also, she’s the one who runs the entire family. She practically raises her grandchildren, and their parents do nothing. And it’s just ridiculous how they change actors. A crocadile eats someone’s face and after a plastic surgery, he’s a new actor. Sometimes they change actors and don’t give even a that kind of lame excuse. What about those “literal-cliff-hangers?” Everday, somebody’s going to die by tumbling down a cliff. There must be so many cliffs in India. In Mahagedara, that old, old, old woman never dies. I’m sure I’ll die before her.

Thank you all. Especially http://www.kottu.org

That black and white the UNP made to counter-attack the other black and white Ad of Tharunyata hetak seems to be effective. Already the frequency that ad’s being broadcast has reduced, which is great, because Tharunyata Hetak has no right to do what they do. I write this to propose a way to make the counter-attack even more effective. What about having a “colour Naa tree” on the black and white background? Its reddish Namal’s will please everbody’s eyes. Hah hah ha.

If you have something hanging between your legs, you are bound to have hit on the balls at least once. I’ve been hit twice. They were actually gentle hits, but the pain was excruciating. What’s worse is that it spreads to the stomach and kidneys. I don’t know. This is probably more painful than giving birth to a child. And yet, when we see a guy get hit when he’s batting in a cricket match, or when we see one get hit in a movie, we smile involuntarily. Usually, most of us don’t want to see another in pain. But this is a special case, isn’t it? I don’t know why, but it’s very funny. Any comments?

I’ve been watching at what times my blog gets most visits and guess what, it’s in the office time (in SL) of course. In the evenings there are less visits, but more comments. So it seems that a lot of people read blogs while working in the offices, using office computers. If you’re one of them, WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING HERE? Go back to work. No wonder SL is a backward country.

Alright, now, this requires a lot of thinking. OK. My 10th favourite movie is Shawshank Redemption. This is a great movie about hope and redemption. It depicts the prison life of a falsely accused man, and how he finally escapes. 9th favourite is American Pie part II (please don’t stop reading). This must be the funniest sex comedy of all time. 8th favourite is Aviator. Starring Leonardo DeCaprio, it is the story of american industrialist and aviator, Howard Hughes. 7th favourite is Shakespeare in Love. Tom Stoppard’s screenplay was fantastic. But it required great actors to act it, and Gwenyth Paltrow, my non-existing God, she acted it well. The 6th favourite is Braveheart. It’s impossible to remember this one without remembering its soundtrack. One of the best ever. And remember that last scene when Wallace is finally beheaded? Just magnificent. The 5th favourite is Legends.Of.The.Fall. Again the soundtrack is great, but who steals the show is Brad Pitt. The storyline was fantastic. The 4th favourite is The English Patient. Well, lots of people found this movie to be slow and boring, but I didn’t. The cinematography was just outstanding. Those desert scenes are priceless. The musical score was dreamy and beautiful. And Ralph Fiennes makes Almasy his own. I can’t imagine any actor who’d act it better than him. The 3rd favourite is Before Sunrise. For me, this is the most romantic movie ever. All there is, is one long conversation between two young man and a woman while walking on the streets of Vienna. But it is so beautiful. That scene in the studio, both too embarrassed to look directly at each other, is one of my all time favourites. The 2nd favourite is Donny Darko. I’m sure that most of you haven’t even heard of it. This is probably the least commercially successful movie on this list. But it’s a strange, strange movie, combining several different genres. It’s kind of philosophical too. And finally, my fovourite movie is, papparapaaa… The Godfather Part II. Al Pacio is having the time of his life. It’s the perfect mafia movie. It’s dark and (well, not violent if compared to the ones we see nowadays) cruel. And it’s amazing how Michael Corleone gradually loses his soul..It’s interesting that no movie since Aviator (which I think was released in 2002) has made it to this list. There had been great movies like The Lord of the Rings and Crash and so on. But they are, for me, not that good. It seems that the period between 94 to 97 were the best days ever.

Nalin De Silva

23/12/2009

First I must stress that this post is not an attempt to falsify Prof. De Silva’s Theory of Constructive Relativism (CR). Rather this is an attempt to understand his theory. So I want my questions answered. And oh, please don’t call me a NGO guy trying to destroy Sinhalese Buddhist Chinthanaya. I hate it because it’s oppressive. But this article isn’t an attempt to destroy it…. According to CR, the world is nothing but the creation of the observer, and the world is as same as the knowledge of the world. Here it isn’t assumed that a world exist independent of the observer who attempts to know or gather information of an already existing world relative to him. The observer creates knowledge of the world, and therefore the world itself. Obviously this means that there is no ‘objective reality’ in existence….. He has stated that Participatory Anthropic Principle, and every Anthropic Principle for that matter, is incorrect since the first-mind isn’t outside the system which is being observed, and the wave function of the system describes mind as well (Basically, PAP is a theory based on accepting an observer-centric interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Here the universe exists as a superposition of number of universes, and matter evolves in these until the first-mind appears. I’m having a hard time in trying to understand what this implies. Do we have to keep on reproducing to save the physical reality? WOW)…….. So it seems to me that not only he rejects ‘objective reality’, but he rejects reality itself. In fact, in the article I downloaded from kalaya.org (nps070311.pdf), he writes that not only ‘reality’, but also what’s called ‘real’ is a creation. His own theory is a creation……. Now Prof. De Silva’s theory is based on Theravada Buddhism. Even though Buddhism doesn’t clearly define what’s right and what’s wrong like other religions do, certainly there’re Good Actions and Ill Actions (Kusala & Akusala Karma). Now if there isn’t an objective reality, then there also can’t be objective good actions and objective bad actions that affect everybody the same way. If the world is relative to the mind, what’s good and bad are relative to mind as well. There are similarities and differences between human minds. So what’s good for me (“me” in a Sammuti sense), may not be good for you (“you” in a Sammuti sense), and what’s good for you may not be good for me. Similarly, what’s bad for me may not be bad for you, and what’s bad for you may not be bad for me. I realise that it could be argued that since Nibbana is an absolute truth, or parama satthya, only certain actions will lead to it, and certain other actions will lead away from it. However since what’s good and bad aren’t absolute, I might or might not suffer if I kill a man….. Say I do suffer. You will suffer either more or less or as same as I suffer if you too killed the same man. Again, there’s no such unchanging, existing thing as good or bad. Nothing’s absolutely right and nothing’s absolutely wrong. Is this the case?……. The denial of objective reality leads to many questions. How can there be nothing out there independent of our minds? While writing about culture, Prof. De Silva writes that it’s possible for one mind to pass information (relative info) to another mind. This results in the similarities between human minds. We can do this through words and images and so on. But doesnt’t that mean that we can affect something that’s outside our minds? Say that the entire human race extict. But dogs continue to live. After several generations of dogs they evolve into an intelligent specie. They find DVDs humans had left and watch the movie “The Day After Tomorrow”. Doesn’t that mean we’ve had an effect on a physical world independent from our minds? We had affected the physical world. The physical world affected the minds of the dogs.