I have to quote Eymard de S Wijeratne while responding since he has roamed far and wide on the remark I made about Buddhists and Hindus having to leave behind their metaphysics when entering the laboratory. I explained in my reply to Eric why I made this remark.

Eymard says:

"The impression is created by many that science constitutes an aggressive thrust based on the combination of reason and observation that challenges the boundaries of knowledge in the same aggressive way that colonies were established by extending the frontiers of an empire".

Now who creates this impression - is it I or Eric de Silva, implicitly, if not explicitly.

" This impression is created by men, who believe that the goal of science is to engage, practical men with a slight entrepreneurial cast of mind, to set up shop for the development of technology."

My comment - "Science like any other human activity must have a purpose. Technology is an offshoot of science and ordinary men applaud science because it helps to increase the material prosperity for everyone. Our ancient kings did not have radio or television to enjoy despite all the power they had. Scientists are nourished and supported by society and governments not for some pure abstract idea of discovering the truths of the universe - a fallacy in any case for the truths uncovered are far from complete although they do provide a glimpse of a non-material world in addition to the understanding and development of the matter for the benefit of society. In fact, Eymard is not consistent for he goes on to say thus: "Its explicit manifesto is that the fruits of scientific discovery must serve mankind without being exploited for the production of arms and the destruction of the environment". Now how do you serve mankind?

Re Galileo, the Pope has acknowledged the error of the Church. But this sort of obscurantism prevails not only in the past but even in the present among other societies. I remember how Ven. Pelpola Vipassi was hounded by the established Buddhist clergy here a few years back when he wanted to become a Mahayana monk.

Eymard accuses me implicitly of engaging in irrational confrontation "especially when monopoly-claims to represent truth drives them (me I presume) to engage in irrational confrontation".

I fail to see where I engaged in irrational confrontation by making a chance remark about the Buddhist denial of an objective world outside our minds.

Eymard quotes K. N. Jayatilleke’s statement "that the scientific revolution does not have the same adverse effect on Buddhism as it had on other religious traditions".

This is a subjective judgment of his and in my reply I have stated that the denial of an objective world is totally against the assumptions of science and makes science itself a meaningless effort.