Dear Grgdai,

Looks like you are determined to prove what I am saying. Please read carefully
my first reply to you. let me explain now

In my first reply I have countered your statement that says Nepal didn't exists at the time of Buddha, and for that I gave you reference. I haven't talked about the boundary. Debating existence of a country is one thing and debating its boundaries is different thing and in your first statement you haven’t touched the word boundary.

Now you want to drag the debate without coming to the conclusion of the
existence of Nepal. The debate was not about the boundary instead it was about the existence of the country. When you start something be clear about the concepts it will help you a lot in future.

My second counter was about you stating that the knowledge Buddha was attained
in India. I countered you saying following you own logic you can not say knowledge Buddha was not attained in India because at that time country called India didn't exists ( this was not my logic I was following you logic which says that country Nepal didn't exists) and if it exists I requested you to give me proof. here I was playing your logic against you.


Instead of giving me the proof you came with the Mahabharata and about the controversy of origin of the word Nepal.


Following your own logic I gave with proof that debate about the existence is different and controversy about the name  of a the country is different, for this I cited the
example of china.

and for Mahabharata I  told you with example how ambiguous is the Mahabharata. Here again you failed to conclude then you started new point about the boundaries.

Your debating style is like that of Nepali political leaders talking for two years and failing to come up with a constitution. This is what happens when the concept is not clear and sticking to own logic valid or invalid.


Now regarding to “I have noted that your thoughts are very rigid and mechanic and lacks flexibility

To counter this I am using your own logic like in previous replies. In my first reply there was “either’ “or” already two options.  I may have given you more but that was the conclusion came after reading your post. After reading your second reply to me I added third own that also shows flexibility.providing three possibilities is not a sign of rigidity but sign of flexibility.

Till now I have not touched the subject where Buddha was born, I do not want to go to other topics unless we conclude the first three that is 1. Existence of Nepal,
 2. Existence of India and 3. Enlightenment  of Buddha in India . Otherwise the debate becomes clueless and this forum will become like constitution assembly of Nepal, “Raat bhari karayo, dakchina harayoo?

I just want to point you something which might be helpful to you. Not cross examining your logic for different statement you put forward will give your opponent to cancel your argument with your own logic without a delay.

Remember that till now I haven’t argued on any thing except for three things which I have mentioned above.

And now to friend Homlal

You are right my friend. At the time of his death Buddha said don’t worship my idol just follow the teachings. But followers did the opposite. Not only that, some of the followers even created the authority like Dalai Lama.
On the other hand, for average people like us it is very difficult to follow great path. I want to follow footsteps of Bill Gates (I am serious here) I even don’t know how, forget about Bill Gates I tried to follow this Nepali guy Mahato unable to do that either. Looks

like it is easy to follow a crook person than great persons.