RELIGION, CULTURE, CIVILISATION AND DOMINATION - III
Mr. R. M. B. Senanayake (herein after referred to as Mr.S.) in two articles, together extending over one full page, that appeared on 27th February and 6th March 2002, has attempted to reply some of the points I have raised in the first two parts of this series. However, he is only replying to a Nalin de Silva whom he has imagined to be a post modernist, who "doesn't accept the rules of logic" and "doesn't accept every day meanings of words". He is only replying to a Nalin de Silva relative to him. For example when I have said "These bodies of knowledge, like religion, though created within a culture nevertheless changes the cultures as a result of the creation. For example the Buddha was able to create "Buddhism" in a Vedic culture that believed in sansara and karma. The Buddha was able to change this culture, by the introduction of anicca, dukka, anatta that were not found in the Vedic (not Hindu, which came long after Jainism and Buddhism) culture, meaning the culture associated with the Vedic religion......Jesus was a product of the Judaic culture prevailing at that time though he was able to change the culture or introduce a different stream within that culture through his sermons." (13th February 2002) Mr. S. states: "But religion is not entirely the product of a particular culture for the newer religions when they first appeared transformed the original cultures they were born into. Dr. Nalin de Silva would concede the truth of this in respect of Buddhism".
Mr.S., the devout Catholic, I believe, is concerned so much about Buddhism, says that NdeS is trying to distort the original meaning of the Buddha. He says that when "Ven. Pelpola Vipassi tried to introduce practices, which were considered as Mahayana heresies, and the priests roundly denounced him". I have been writing on these topics in Sinhala, for at least fifteen years and no Bhikku has denounced me so far nor have they contradicted me, though the volume of my writing in Sinhala is much more than that in English. I have expressed my views on various topics including Kalama Sutta which I have shown to be non rationalist and I am glad when people like my good friend Dr. Carlo Fonseka, (Catholic turned rationalist?) throw the entire Kalama Sutta, instead of part of it that could be given a rationalist interpretation, at his opponents. Not only that the Bhikkus have not denounced me but they have not accused me of anything that the Catholic Mr.S. has brought up against me in defense of the word of the Buddha. Mr. S. reminds me of the Sinhala film "Kapati Arakshakaya" that entertained people some time ago. Mr. S. is indeed an entertainer who tries to rationalise Catholicism, long after Calvin introduced rationality, in the sense of Weber, and went on to "reform" the church.
"What exactly does Dr. Nalin de Silva say week in and week out in the Island?" asks Mr.S. The answer is very simple. I am only writing against the western white Judaic-Christian male cultural domination (hegemony) in our society in particular and against western white Christian colonialism that began nearly five hundred years ago, in general. I am neither a western type feminist nor a western post modernist, though it would appear to some that I am using some of their concepts. Any similarity between me and the western post modernists is due to the attempt, though unsuccessful, by the post modernists to break away from the Judaic Chinthanaya that includes two valued logic. They have understood the limitations of the language, which has been known to Buddhists of various shades for more than two thousand years. However, unlike the Buddhists, the post modernists are now entangled in the language web. When I wrote "Mage Lokaya" in 1986, I had only read "The structure of Scientific Revolution" by Kuhn and "Against Method" by Feyeraband, even if they were to be identified as post modernists. I began reading post modernist works as such only after my enforced early retirement from the University of Colombo in 1992 thanks to some western pre modernists in the University. For the information of Mr. S., I must also say that I am deeply interested in creation of knowledge and I am against the present practice of creating knowledge only in the western white Christian civilisation. It is a case of "theory creating" for them and "case studies" for us. We are at the mercy of western white Christian male theories, and this is the worst form of cultural colonialism. I am looking forward to a day when we as south Asians create our own knowledge, not for the Nobel prizes awarded by Norway and Sweden nor for recognition by the west or by the sterile minds in Sri Lanka who can only imitate western theories, but relative to our cultures based on Sansara and Karma of Buddhisms, Hinduisms and Jainisms of various shades. However, contrary to what Mr. S. seems to believe, I am not advocating rejection of the western knowledge (when I was in the University of Colombo some people had propagated the myth that I had asked the students not to study English) and all that I have been saying is that in addition to creating our own theories, we should be assimilating western knowledge, which is a creative process, and not imitating it.
Mr. S. says that I attack "rationalism in the manner of the western post modernist thinkers" and that "there is no absolute, no reference point for anything, everything is relative to everything else whether it is religion or ethics". I cannot speak for western post modernism but as far as I am concerned all I can say is that this is absolutely wrong and I am using the word absolutely in the every day meaning of it and not in a philosophical sense! To me the absolutes, whether it is God or the space and time or an objective reality are merely metaphysical concepts. Knowledge is subjective and relative. The western knowledge created in a Christian civilisation is also relative, though many people may not realise it. It is created with respect to God, space and time of Newton or Space-time of Einstein (the so called relativity of Einstein assumes a metaphysical absolute space-time) and an objective reality independent of the mind. I challenge anybody to show, independent of the mind, that there is an objective reality independent of the mind. Mr. S. or anybody else could if possible even import western "specialists" if they think that they are unable to establish it by themselves merely by repeating the views of the westerners on this matter. The western knowledge systems are unilinear and always have a starting point. However, the starting point is not defined! They think that they have reference points but the reference points are undefined entities like the God. Anybody who has studied Mathematics know the amount of undefined entities in Mathematics. For example take the familiar case of Euclidean Geometry. There planes are defined in terms of straight lines and the latter are defined in terms of points. But how does one define a point? The concept of point that could be taken as a reference point is an undefined concept. Unilinear knowledge systems do not have a firm philosophical foundation and they only deceive the followers to believe that they have so called reference points that are well defined.
We formulate our epistemology (constructive relativism - Nirmanathmaka Sapekshathavadaya described in Mage Lokaya and other works) in the following manner. "Knowledge is created and is relative to the culture, the sense organs and the mind of the people". In that sense there is no absolute (For Mr. S. and others of his ilk I am using the word absolute now in a Philosophical sense and I had thought that any sensible grown up person should be able to "know" the sense of a word from the context) objective knowledge and the pretence of the western science and other knowledges to be objective is rejected. Western knowledge is not absolute and is created relative to white Judaic Christian cultures and even the big bang theory is based on the creation stories in the old Testament. As far as reference points are concerned we reject the metaphysical concept of absolute reference points. However, that does not mean that there are no reference points. The reference points themselves are relative and the systems of knowledge are cyclic and not unilinear. I do not begin by saying in the beginning the God created the world. I follow the paticca samuppada model which is cyclic (chakriya). My ethics are relative to the concepts of sansara and karma and it is not fear of God or of anybody else, metaphysical or megapolitical ( probably a new word for Mr. S. the meaning of which should be obvious from the context), but "attaining Nibbana" (if Mr. S. is interested he could refer the preface to the third edition of "Mage Lokaya" for an "explanation" ) that guides my life, though I could postpone it a few years (what is fifty years or so or even a few lives compared to "asankya kalpa lakshas" in sansara) in order to fight against western Christian cultural domination (hegemony). It has to be emphasised that I and mine are only conventional or relative truths and we are compelled to use these words as long as we are born as humans or other "sathva" that use some kind of "language".
Before we proceed further we must clarify what we mean by rationalism. Rationalism as used in western Philosophy means a branch of western Philosophy that assumes a-priori knowledge. People like Kant were rationalists in that sense and according to them there is knowledge before sense perceptions, whereas according to Empiricism as a branch of western Philosophy, knowledge begins with sense perceptions. (In constructive relativism there are no perceptions without conceptions and this formulation is based on paticca samuppada.). However, rationalism has other meanings as well. For example, Weber refers to rationality of Protestant ethic distinguishing it from Catholicism that was prevailing at the time of Luther and Calvin. In ordinary usage in the west, rationalism is tied with reasoning as opposed to say romanticism or "mysticism" and this reasoning is based on language and two valued formal logic and is mostly, though not exclusively, associated with empiricism. "Rational" men and women in the west would appeal to empirical knowledge, with or without being empiricists as such, and reasoning based on two valued Aristotelian logic. This has not been the case right throughout in the west and Aristotle himself would have argued without resorting to empirical knowledge. Mr. S. is correct if he says that I am not a rationalist according to anyone of the above formulations. However, he is wrong when he says that I "propagate the idea that we should forsake rationalism (western rationalism) and go back to our traditional logic". It is very clear that the former civil servant does not know a hang about what he calls our traditional logic. The Catuskoti (four fold) logic, that had been in existence in Dambadiva even before the Buddha, incorporates the Aristotelian logic as well. According to Catuskoti, a proposition could be (i) true, (ii) false, (iii) both true and false, (iv) neither true nor false. Aristotelian logic says a proposition is either true or false. Catuskoti is not confined to these two ends only but admits that under certain conditions a proposition could be true or false. All that I have said is that we should know the limitations of two valued logic, and by reasoning according to two valued logic only, we cannot "understand" the world (meaning construct a world). I criticise two valued logic that is represented as the absolute logic and as the only system of logics, but not two valued logic per se. In any event two valued logic is not a God given (Rishi Bhashitha) system but is also a creation of the mind, abstracting day to day experience in a sensory perceptible world. If Mr. S. is interested he could refer "Mage Lokaya", "Apohakaye Rupikaya" (Formalism of Dialectics) and the articles on "Knowledge of Dialectics and Dialectics of Knowledge" and "Catuskoti: To whom and for what" that appeared respectively in the "Divaina" of 16th October and 4th December 1996 and the article "Logics are not God given" (Rishi Bhashitha) in the "Vidusara" of 8th March 1995, for further details.
Mr. S., like many others appears to think that a reasonable man should be limited two valued formal logic. At least some Mathematicians and Physicists and a few Philosophers in the west know the fallacy of this type of thinking. In mathematics, the Goedel Theorem has shown that there are formal systems that are not complete. The theorem says that in any formal system, subject to certain conditions, there are true propositions that cannot be reduced to the axioms of the system. In other words one cannot begin with a set of axioms (so-called absolute reference point) and by applying two valued logic only, one cannot arrive at all the "true" statements within the system. The philosophical implications of this theorem are immense and the westerners, restricted by their reductionist attitudes are not prepared to go in to them. I have discussed some of these in my articles on "Nothing in Mathematics could be properly defined" (meaning western Mathematics) and "Mind, Computer and Rebirth", where I argue that mind cannot be reduced to a software programme, that appeared respectively in "Vidusara" of 5th August 1992 and "Divaina" of 5th January 1996. In Quantum Physics the famous two slit experiment, which Feynmann said nobody understood, has shown that a "particle" can be at two places at the same time. This is not "reasonable" to a western "reasonable" man (a woman, given the freedom to think independently of men, may not think the same way) and that is why Feynmann said that nobody understands it. However, it is within catuskoti and Feynmann had no right to say that nobody understands it. It is another example of western Christian chauvinism, which assumes that if the westerners cannot understand something then nobody else could understand it and that the two valued logic is the only logical system. There are systems that cannot be understood using only the two valued logic. When the Catholics believe that Jesus, the son of the God is the God Himself (I hope the western feminists would not crucify me for not using Herself), they are using a three valued logic, which is found in Hinduism as well, and not a two valued logic. If Mr. S. confines himself to two valued logic and tries to be "reasonable" he would find it impossible to continue to be a Catholic. Mr. S. has referred to Alice in Wonderland that was written by a western Mathematician who, I think, had understood the limitations of two valued logic and language. If Mr. S. reads it, not as a children's book in the western world, he would realise that it has its own "logic" and it is somewhat closer to Zen koans, though not in spirit.
There are many interpretations of books and it is the case with religions and books associated with religions. Mr. S. does not understand my views on religions and cultures. He says: "Dr. Nalin must accept that there is enough historical evidence that culture is subject to change although more slowly.....But a founder of the religion has formulated religious teachings and since he is no longer there to modify such teaching it cannot change". Now where have I said that the culture does not change? This is Nalin de Silva relative to Mr.S. I am culturally and religiously a Sinhala Buddhist, and Sinhala Buddhists imbibe "anicca" with mother's milk so to say. My contention is that not only culture but even religion changes. How many of us know "exactly" what the Buddha or Jesus said? Though by analysis, applying consistency arguments, language analysis etc., we may be able to get some "idea" of what a founder of a religion has said nobody can say "exactly" what the founder has said. In any event even if the text has been preserved many interpretations could be given by different followers. Take the case of Marx's works. Though he is not the founder of a religion (some think that Marxism is a religion) different interpretations have been given to his works. It is impossible to single out a corpus of knowledge, in religion or even in Physics and say this is what the founder has said. The concept of force in Physics has undergone so much change since the time of Newton (there was no field of force in Newton's time) and if he were to go to Cambridge today he would be puzzled by the first few lectures in a course on Newtonian Mechanics, let alone lectures in Thermodynamics and Quantum Physics which are outside the Newtonian paradigm. Being Newton he would catch up in no time, but he would have to make some adjustments. Christianity has undergone change in the first three centuries, then in the Roman Empire, as Roman Catholicism, through Luther's and mainly Calvin's reformations, by the present day evangelists and Mr.S. will have a tough time convincing a Protestant what "true" Christianity, according to Jesus, is. Even if one takes the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John there are discrepancies. Religions change with time deleting and adding new elements to the teachings. Calvin introduced not only a new Christian culture but a new Christian religion as well. The rationality he introduced was not found in Roman Catholicism, which had a more holistic outlook. There is no Christianity as a religion but only Christianities. However, in most of these Christianities there are churches and that makes them world religions with central authorities. For example let us take Roman Catholicism. Though Roman Catholicism itself has changed over time (When was infallibility of the Pope introduced? What did the second Vatican council in 1962 do? Why apologise for the work of previous "infallible" Popes) the Pope has authority over the whole world as far as Roman Catholicism is concerned and thus there is only one Roman Catholic religion and there are no Catholic religions as Sinhala Catholicism etc. All are Roman Catholics whether they are in Italy, France, or Sri Lanka. In Buddhisms (Theravada, Sarvasthivada, Vinnanavada etc.) there are no churches and it further splits up into various Buddhisms as Sinhala (Theravada) Buddhism, Thai (Theravada) Buddhism etc. This is a freedom that Buddhisms enjoy and I refer to Sinhala Buddhism in that sense not only as a culture but as a religion as well.
Mr. S. asks me what I mean by Theravada Buddhism. It is the Buddhism of Ven. Moggalipuththa Thissa Thero of the third council as modified later by Ven. Buddhagosha Thero who is supposed to have come from Andra Pradesh to Sri Lanka, as interpreted by the Sinhala Bhikkus at that time. This Theravada Buddhism was written in books in Sri Lanka and has undergone changes in Sri Lanka from the time of king Devanampiya Tissa. The Sinhala Buddhists not only make Bodhi Poojas but expect the devas to do favours for them. It is not only a cultural phenomenon. It is part of Sinhala Buddhism as a religion though it may be against the "true spirit" of "Buddhism", according to "rational scientific" Buddhists. The Sinhala Buddhists have absorbed Vedic gods such as Vishnu and non Buddhist or pre Buddhist indigenous gods such as Mahasen into Sinhala Buddhism. If not for the western Christian cultural colonialism, I have a feeling that they would have absorbed Jesus Christ as a Bodhisathva into the religion of Sinhala Buddhism. The Buddha may have said "aththahi aththano natho" but in "akasattaca bhummatta ....chirang rakkhantu sasanang; desanang" the Sinhala Buddhists want the gods to protect the Buddha sasana and the country and in the present context when the political leaders and the leading Bhikkus, who have been silenced by various means, are protecting (and projecting) themselves and not the sasana and the country, the average Sinhala Buddhist would have to recite this particular stanza number of times a day. It has to be emphasised that "aththahi aththano natho" is relevant with respect to attaining Nibbana. In day to day life on many things we have to depend on the others.
It is the same with war. The Buddha never asked any king to dissolve the army. In fact at the request of king Bimbisara who complained that his soldiers were leaving the army to become Bhikkus, the Buddha made a rule to the effect that a soldier had to get permission from the king, before he was ordained as a Bhikku. It was as a result of this ruling that Therapuththabhaya had to get permission from the king Dutugemunu when he wanted to enter the order a second time after the war. This very same Therapuththabhaya, according to the religion (not only culture) Sinhala Buddhism became an Arhat after becoming a Bhikku for the second time. It is in Sinhala Buddhism that even after engaging in war, one can become an Arhat. Not only Therapuththabhaya, but Angulimala after killing thousand but one men and women became an Arhat. I do not know whether Mr. S. is aware of the fact that it is the Angulimala piritha that is "chanted" for pregnant women. The man who killed so many people as Angulimala has now become the "protector" of life as Arhat Angulimala. In Sinhala Buddhism however, this does not mean that the Buddha approved of killing people. Neither the Sinhala Buddhists approve of killing. The kings and states have to protect the state and sometimes it becomes necessary to engage in war. The Buddha realised the importance of an army for a state. The war is not debarred in Sinhala or any other Buddhism. Sinhala Buddhists would refrain from killing but there is nothing in Sinhala or any other Buddhism (as a religion) that makes a lay person to refrain from engaging in war. In pre Kavanthissa time Sinhala Buddhists most probably could not resolve the "contradiction" between killing and the necessity of an army. Though king Kavanthissa himself raised an army something in Sinhala Buddhism at that time prevented him from going to war. It was left to king Dutugemunu to resolve the above "contradiction", probably with the help of some Bhikkus, and take a decision to declare war against the invader Elara. These apparent contradictions are the result of using two valued formal logic, out of context. Refrain from killing, therefore refrain from engaging in war. The king Dutugemunu did two things. Firstly he added "war" to Sinhala Buddhism as a culture. Secondly he got rid of "refraining from engaging in war" in Sinhala Buddhism as a religion. I use Sinhala Buddhism sometimes as culture and some other times as religion and the context would reveal the relevant meaning.
Mr. S. finally asks: " If everything is relative what about Dharma? Is it also relative? Is there no permanently valid path to human liberation? What about the truth about the world according to Lord Buddha and the eightfold path to human liberation? Are these entirely relative?" As far as Mr. S. is concerned even relative is an absolute concept. What he does not realise is that anything is relative with respect to something else. Relative does not hang in an absolute space. The Sinhala or any other Buddhism is not concerned with human "liberation" only. It is concerned with the sansara of all sathva and not only the humans. Yes, the eightfold path is relative to humans and probably human like sathva if they exist. There are no permanent paths and even different individuals may seek different paths depending on their "mental development". All knowledge is created due to avidya of anicca, dukka and anathma, relative to the particular sathva. Sathva attains Nibbana not by acquiring or creating more and more knowledge but by stoping creation of knowledge. According to Buddha the world is within the body of the individual meaning that his or her world has been created with respect to the mind and the other sense organs. The Dhamma has been stated in languages for human beings and in that sense it is relative to humans who make use of languages.
Mr. S. is obviously ignorant of our past society. He thinks that it was feudal, backward, superstitious and these are concepts used by western Christian cultures to describe other cultures. He thinks that the freedom of expression is due to western civilisation. I know the freedom of expression I had in the University of Colombo and today with respect to the so called peace. There is a vitual censorship in the Sinhala media. In the western culture the discourses, hegemonies (they are holistic concepts) control the expression of the people. The west that had killed people for not believing and for having different views, and that had inquisitions, witch hunting etc., had to have a Voltaire to come out with his dictum on expression of views. The Sinhala Buddhists and the others in the sub continent had respected others' views for ages and there had been healthy debates even during the time of Buddha. When Mr. S. and others use words such as traditional knowledge, alternative medicine etc., they imply that the western knowledge, western medicine are the standards. This is nothing but cultural domination (hegemony) by the western Christian civilisation. The people in Asia and Africa, have to create their own knowledge (assimilating western knowledge whenever necessary) in order to fight against this cultural domination. I do not agree with the call for the banning of Valentine's day. But there is such agitation because people intuitively feel the association of Valentine's day with cultural domination and at present without their own knowledge systems being created they cannot see any other way of fighting against the western cultural domination. This is not something confined to Sinhala Buddhists. In India Hindus and in the middle east and Pakistan Muslims have resorted to this type of agitation as their so called intellectuals have failed to come up with their knowledge and are only good at imitating the west.
(concluded).
Professor Nalin de Silva
>
>
>