Debate:Is richard dawkins the orginal man of 'no'

{{debate|Eric Flores

Proposition

A modern logician, De Bono, says that the purpose of logic is really to say no in a reasonable way, in a rational way. The very purpose of logic is to say no and then to adduce reasons, proofs, for saying no. Buddha said no; it appealed. His approach was logical, rational, everything was perfect - but yet he couldn't get roots in the Indian soil. He was uprooted soon. And this is a very strange fact: that he could get Found in China, in Japan, in Burma, in Ceylon, everywhere in Asia except India. But the secret is that the Buddhist monks learned their error when they left India. The no was the error, so they never used negative attitudes anywhere else. They became positive. In China they began to say yes: in Ceylon they have said yes. Then everywhere they succeeded because yes has a very magical secret of success. It may not appeal to reason: it appeals to the heart. And in the end heart wins - never reason! Really, reason never wins in the end. You can silence someone with logical reasoning, but you can never convert him, you can never change him. Even if he cannot say anything against you, he will still be convinced of his own mind. Unless the yes is evoked, he cannot be converted. So Buddha tried hard, but with a no - everywhere no. Whatsoever he was saying was the same as the Upanishad is saying. It was not a bit different. Only the methodology he chose was negative, and the reason might be that he was a Kshatriya - a warrior - and a warrior lives with a no. The Upanishads came through Brahmins. They were beggars, and a beggar lives with a yes. Even if you deny him, a real beggar, an authentic beggar, will bless you. He lives with a total yes: that is his secret. He cannot use no. And a warrior, a Kshatriya, can use yes only when he is defeated, and then too from his heart he will never say yes. He will continue to say no. All the Jain teerthankers were Kshatriyas. Buddha was a Kshatriya. They both took negative attitudes.