“Debating” with a Buddhist Monk

I’ve been having such a good email thread with my good friend and teacher, Paññobhāsa Bhikkhu, that it is posted below here, on my Blog.

On 2019-Dec.-08 11:16 a.m.,

Paññobhāsa Bhikkhu wrote:

We should try to come up with something to talk about before next time. I was thinking of maybe a philosophical one on what is knowledge. Discussing the difference between real knowledge and just belief. It would get into at least a little Buddhist philosophy about the two kinds of truth, though, and may be a little heavy for most viewers. But I can’t think of any good political topics.

I’ve been watching a few of Victor D. Hanson’s videos on WW2, and I’m learning a few things. For example, in WW2 none of the Axis powers had a heavy bomber with 4 engines, which was a severe disadvantage. The Germans were experimenting with a new kind of heavy bomber, but it didn’t work out and they scrapped it. Also I learned two nights ago that Germany had no aircraft carriers. At the beginning of WW2 the fashion was to make big battleships, which had a cannon range of about 25 miles. But an aircraft carrier has a lethal range of more than 300 miles, so a swarm of airplanes launched from a carrier can destroy a battleship long before it gets close enough even to fire a shot at the aircraft carrier. Battleships are effective only with air superiority, which the Germans eventually lost. The Italians had a big navy, but their ships were inferior and not technologically up to date.

Also Hanson explains one theory on why Germany declared war on America. There was a naval plan by someone named Mahon to cut off Britain’s supplies with a naval blockade, and the USA was sending lots of supplies to the UK. The Germans couldn’t really attack US supply ships without being at war, so they figured they could cut off supplies to Britain by attacking US ships supplying them, but it turned out not to work. Then later the USA developed ways of destroying submarines (depth charges dropped according to a worked-out pattern), so the German U-boat campaign became ineffective.

Metta

On Sun, Dec 8, 2019 at 6:14 PM Brian Ruhe <brian@brianruhe.ca> wrote:

Hi bhante,

I was thinking that your study orientation isn’t the best so I should pass on something of what I know. We talked before about:

Adolf Hitler The Greatest Story Never Told. Video series by my friend Dennis Wise

I attached a page I made to send to others who are interested.

I don’t know the sources you refer to below but am about certain that they don’t address the deeper deception of what we are taught which is lies about history and true motives.

Thanks,

Brian

On 2019-12-08 6:23 p.m., Paññobhāsa Bhikkhu wrote:

Beware of calling anything you don’t believe “lies.”

Anyway, people have recommended The Greatest Story Never Told, and I have the links saved, and I’ll probably watch it someday.

On Sun, Dec 8, 2019 at 8:27 PM Brian Ruhe <brian@brianruhe.ca> wrote:

Yes,

I would like to talk about the Jayasaro issue because it’s part of the issue that I have brought them (Chah) many students and been with them for almost 20 years and almost none will give me any advice. My question is are they responsible for not giving me advice when I influence 1000s of people. Is it wrong to cut me off?

Also I advise you to watch TGSNT over the other military studies you describe. I feel that your priorities are  upside down. TGSNT gives evidence that the official story is a lie and they have footnotes at the end. If you study what  you describe you’ll lose the debate again because you don’t have the true information. I’m quite happy to win another debate with you. I’m just trying to give you a fighting chance.

After 20 years in Burma no one expects you to be an aficionado of WW II.

Thanks,

Brian

On 2019-12-08 9:08 p.m., Paññobhāsa Bhikkhu wrote:

I’ll give you fair warning: Saying you’ve won debates with me, or saying that I believe “lies,” is not the way to make your point. I don’t see our discussion about Hitler as some sort of contest, and I’ve warned you before about insisting that you know the truth and that people who disagree with you are liars, or just foolishly believing lies.

As for Victor D. Hanson, he’s one of the greatest intellectuals alive in the USA today. He’s a classical scholar and military historian at Stanford, and no matter how much you have studied, I guaranteed you that he has studied more, and is also more intelligent. (He also supports Trump, which is nice.) He’s not always right because nobody’s always right (including even you), but what I told you about heavy bombers and aircraft carriers, or about the German desire to blockade Britain, is pretty straightforward, and just flat-out calling it “lies” or just false is not the right way to move forward.

We’ve discussed before the issue of you calling anything you don’t want to believe “lies,” even to the point of declaring official government documents from Germany, Italy, Britain, and the USA lies written by Jews or even the goddamn Rothschilds. Everyone has the right to their own beliefs, but for you to insist that your beliefs are true knowledge and that other people’s beliefs are “lies” is not wise.

The official narrative is partly propaganda and false, but most of the government documents used by mainstream historians are valid, as are plenty of the first-hand accounts made by the people involved. Simply to dismiss it as Jewish lies may work well enough for most of your audience, but it won’t work with skeptics.

Hi bhante,

I feel I understand why you wrote your comments below. When I refer to lies I am making a brief and broad statement referring to strata of information. More specifically, I mean that if we look at source documents and evidence, before a Stanford professor publishes on it, this leads one to what is referred to as revisionist history. I will not even read a book by a Stanford professor if I can read David Irving who got original documents from the wives of German generals or from people who knew Hitler personally. Stanford, like most universities the world, is under Rothschild control so it’s honesty is automatically suspect to any wise person. This is based upon 2000 hours of my studies since 2005 plus that of countless guests who know far more than I do. Many such guests as Dr. David Duke and Dr. E. Michael Jones provide scholarly sources. To refute this is to throw away a 300 year tradition of the principles of scholarly studies in our civilization. To say that my view is “just” my opinion is clearly false as my sources are broad and do not contradict each other much.

See the work of Robert Faurisson or Germar Rudolf, etc. So, my previous email to you is still valid in my view, as I wrote:

“Also I advise you to watch TGSNT over the other military studies you describe. I feel that your priorities are  upside down. TGSNT gives evidence that the official story is a lie and they have footnotes at the end. If you study what  you describe you’ll lose the debate again because you don’t have the true information. I’m quite happy to win another debate with you. I’m just trying to give you a fighting chance.

After 20 years in Burma no one expects you to be an aficionado of WW II.”

*

I think it is good that we keep on doing these kinds of videos. Since I did put out a formal challenge to the world, I would prefer that our videos be a debate rather than just a discussion but it depends. Some are just you giving a talk, some are a discussion and some could be a debate, depending on the topic.

As a true intellectual, I accept the truth if I am wrong. What matters to me is evidence.

Please let me know what time you would like to meet today, thanks.

Mettacittena,

Brian