RELIGION, CULTURE, CIVILISATION AND DOMINATION - V
In Part IV of this series I said that Mr. Senanayake had failed to understand my argument, when I said that I had not been denounced by the Bhikkus. Mr. S. had referred to Ven. Pelpola Vipassi Thero and had said that the Thero had been denounced by the Bhikkus for what are considered as Mahayana heresies. He says that by informing the readers, that include Mr.S., that I had not been denounced by the Bhikkus I am replying "malle pol" when asked "koheda yanne?". The Sinhalas usually refer to this question and answer in the form "yanne koheda, malle pol" as yanne "rhymes" (in terms of mathras) with malle and not with pol, unless one is under the influence of pol. Though there is no difference in meaning between "koheda yanne" and "yanne koheda" and both expressions are accepted unlike in the case of similar expressions in English. (the relationship defined by the placement of words with respect to meaning and acceptance in an expression in Sinhala language, being a more poetic language, satisfy the commutative law, expressed in the form ab=ba, more often than it is the case in English, which is a more "precise" language. In other words, in Sinhala, often, the words can be interchanged, rotated in order, without changing the meaning and the expressions are still accepted. In contrast "going where" or "going are you where" cannot be substituted for "where are you going" in ordinary English. Yes, Mr.S. it has got something to do with chinthanaya. People who claim to understand "paradigm"- it is said that Kuhn has used "paradigm" in some forty odd senses in his "Structure of Scientific Revolution"- find "chinthanaya" to be either elusive or "Chauvinistic") It is clear that Mr. S. is not familiar with these expressions in Sinhala. In any event, why did Mr. S. refer to Vipassi Thero in a reply to me? I would not call it a "yanne koheda, malle pol" type reply as I understand what he was trying to imply.
Mr. S. was concerned with war in Sinhala Buddhism. I had said in my articles that the king Dutugemunu incorporated "war" into Sinhala Buddhism. I explained at length in Part IV what is meant by this statement both with respect to Sinhala Buddhism as a culture and as a religion. In his very first "reply" that appeared on 27th February he had said: "No religion can be entirely free of cultural accretions and modifications but those who believe in the original teachings generally resist changes, which distort the original teachings, and such distortions are considered heresy. Ven. Pelpola Vipassi tried to introduce practices, which were considered as Mahayana heresies, and the prelates roundly denounced him." Soon after this sentence Mr. S. asks, "Of what moral worth is Sinhala Buddhism as proclaimed by Dr. Nalin, which includes war as an element?" Then further down Mr. S. refers to Theravada Buddhism and asks questions on my use of words Sinhala Buddhism. He also says in his articles that I use words not in the normal sense.
Now the implication is that I have been trying to distort the original teachings of Buddha by using concepts such as Sinhala Buddhism either in a cultural sense or in a religious sense or both. From the example of Ven. Pelpola Thero it is clear that according to Mr. S., those who believe in the original teachings generally resist changes that distort the original teachings and would denounce somebody who tries to introduce such distortions. All that I wanted to show in Part III with respect to this implication is that unlike (Incidentally the words used by Mr. S. with respect to Buddhism are all Christian. There are no prelates or heresies in Buddhisms.) Pelpola Vipassi Thero I was not denounced by the Bhikkus, though I have expressed my views on Sinhala Buddhism in many articles and speeches in Sinhala language. It is Mr. S., a Catholic who has raised an objection to war in Sinhala Buddhism, as I have formulated, for the first time. The third rate western sociologists and others who imitate western theories and engage in case studies and not in creating theories have discussed war and the role of Sangha with respect to Buddhism as practiced in Sri Lanka and they have come to conclusions such as Buddhism has being betrayed and that the Sangha have played the role of kings. Their questioning along these lines assumes that war is acceptable within Christian and other cultures but it is not so in Buddhist cultures. Why do these people discuss this question now, after the Tamil racists took up arms against the Sri Lankan state and not before. The answer is obvious. They do not want the Sri Lankan state to defeat the Tamil terrorists. They would try to camouflage their agenda with their academic rhetoric but their objective is to see that the terrorists gain what they want. It is quite clear that the Bishops have involved in politics for a long time not in only Europe but in Sri Lanka as well. Even today they are very much in the political game not only in instructing people whom to vote but also engaging in political maneuvers with the leaders of the political parties. The third raters want to keep away only the Bhikkus from politics but not the Christian clergy. Nobody questions a Christian clergy becoming the prime minister of Norway the so-called mediator and peace giver. Why do not they write books on the role of the kings ( Christian clergy) in Sri Lanka for a change from the time of the first missionaries who came with the Portuguese? When Kenneth Fernandos, Malcolm Ranjiths, Rayappu Josephs talk on Tamil racism and humanness of Prabhakaran do they play the role of kings or not. I would like a reply from Dr. H.L.Seneviratne, who has written on the role of the kings. I hope he would not hide behind an "academic" excuse like his study was "confined" to the Sangha only, which is another way of saying he goes to the boutique only for the westerners. (ohu kade yanne batahirayan venuven pamanay.). By doing that he becomes an errand boy or a house boy of the western cultural domination.
From the time of Colonel Olcott there have been attempts to separate Buddhism from Sinhala. I call this resultant Buddhism Olcott Buddhism to distinguish it from the Sinhala Buddhism that we had in this country from the time of king Dutugemunu. It is not for nothing that the group Sinhala MPs and others who took part in the Adhishthana pooja in Anuradhapura yesterday (on the 14th), seventeen years after the day that fascist murderer Prabhakaran killed innocent people in the vicinity of the Sri Maha Bodhi made a pledge to protect the unitary state, before the statue of the king Dutugemunu in the premises of the Ruwanweli Seya. Incidentally the pledge was read by a Bhikku in spite of the third rate sociologists and the other imitators who masquerade as intellectuals. I have explained briefly the position of Buddha with respect to war in Part IV and I do not wish to repeat the facts given there. It is not me who incorporated war into Sinhala Buddhism, but king Dutugemunu some two thousand two hundred years ago. All that I did was to formulate this conceptually and to show that there are Buddhisms and not one abstract theoretical Buddhism that is found only in the heads of the imitator house boys. With that formulation all the arguments and the results of the so-called research of the third raters collapse like a pack of cards. Those who wanted to keep the Bhikkus away from politics (I do not agree with Bhikkus becoming members of political parties and having lay people as their leaders) and stop the war using an imaginary Buddhism do not like the conceptualisation of Sinhala Buddhism that incorporates war and allows Bhikkus to take part in politics. The formulation of the concept of a Sinhala Buddhism makes those who want the propagation of Olcott Buddhism only, uneasy and it is natural that when their conceptual apparatus of an imaginary Buddhism breaks down with that, they have to challenge the concept to perpetuate their domination. They cannot now talk of Buddhism betrayed as there is no one single Buddhism imagined in their heads to be betrayed and since the action of the Bhikkus have not betrayed Sinhala Buddhism that has a history of war incorporated in that Buddhism and a tradition of Bhikkus taking part in politics. It so happens that a Catholic in the form of Mr. S. who has never found anything wrong with what the terrorists have been doing all these years has come forward to protect Buddhism from a non intellectual like me. As I said in Part III, Mr. S. is indeed a kapati Arakshakaya. If not for king Dutugemunu whose name the NGO experts want to erase from the history text books for obvious reasons, there would not have been any form of practicing Theravada Buddhism in Sri Lanka or any other country. I have developed this concept further and my theory, which I have espoused in the Sunday Divaina, and not challenged so far, is that Dutugemunu was called Dutu (wicked) by some (intellectual) ancestors of the present day imitators who thought that war cannot be incorporated in a Buddhism. He was called Dutugemunu by the pre Dutugemunu Buddhist culture in this country where the opinion leaders were the (intellectual) ancestors of the imitators (the ancestors themselves were imitators), but it is to the credit of the king to defeat first those bankrupt intellectuals and then go to war with Elara. I do not want to go into details but if Mr. S. or Dr.S. (Dr. H. L. Seneviratne) or any other person is interested he or she could refer to the articles in the Sunday Divaina. While I am on the topic of war and Sinhala Buddhism I must say just one word on pansil. They are wrongly translated as the five precepts. They are not commands or laws that the Buddhists have to obey but five statements by which the Buddhists of various shades on their own volunteer to refrain from doing certain things. They are on self discipline and as I have said in Part IV, the Buddha did not ask any of the kings living then to dissolve their armies. The kings would have most probably taken pansil before going to war. Even if they did not do that the king Dutugemunu would not have had any inhibitions to do so.
Mr. S. having no other argument tries to hide behind the statement that the original teachings of the Founders of the religions cannot be changed. It is pointless to say that these cannot be changed, for the simple reason that nobody knows exactly what these original teachings were. ( I have gone into this in Part III). Mr. S. talks of consistency. He thinks that I am inconsistent. According to him a relativist (my epistemology is constructive relativism) cannot be consistent. He quotes his friend Mr. Neville Jayaweera who says: "a fundamental statement must itself be absolutely true for otherwise he who says it, is in effect rebutting himself". I do not think either Mr. S. or Mr. Neville Jayaweera has read "Mage Lokaya" for otherwise they would have known that there I have stated that even the statement that knowledge is relative to one's sense organs, culture and the mind is also relative. Why should that statement be absolute. Could Mr. Jayaweera or anybody else first "prove" or "establish" or whatever that a fundamental statement must itself be absolute. When Mr. Jayaweera says if it is not so, one is in effect rebutting oneself, he is only uttering an assumption. He has already assumed that any true statement must be absolute and more importantly that truth means absolute truth. Why should truth be absolute. Even the so-called absolute truths are only relative or conventional truths. If Mr. S. and Mr. Jayaweera read "Mage Lokaya" they would know that a consistent model has been built on a system of relative truths. It appears that these gentlemen do not read books in Sinhala? Do these gentlemen and the ladies who think like them are of the opinion that any original idea has to come from the west and that it has to be first expressed in a European language, especially, English, French or German. In "Mage Lokaya" a consistent model has been built in a cyclic way. I think a consistent model could be built only in a cyclic way. If one tries to start from a first point or an absolute reference point and build linear systems one always comes across difficulties. In these linear systems consistency is very limited and is applicable only in a very narrow range. In wetern Mathematics it is this narrow consistency that is appealed to in "proving" theorems. In the model built in "Mage Lokaya" it is stated that even the mind is a construction of the mind! It is based on "Paticca Samuppada" which is a cyclic system of knowledge. I have been consistent and I know how to be consistent with respect to two valued logic within its limitations imposed by a linear system of knowledge or with respect to catuskoti in a cyclic system.
Let us see how consistent Mr. S. haws been. He must first explain the "consistency" of the statement that Jesus, the son of the God is the God himself, within two valued logic. He may give various excuses like the two valued logic is not applicable in the case of the God, but then it shows that there are systems where one cannot apply Aristotelian logic. He has talked of westerners devising logics to explain Quantum Physics. There again he has admitted that there are systems that defy two valued logic. However he doesn't seem to know or understand the problem raised by Quantum Physics (why not ask a Physicist friend) nor that the westerners have not succeeded in explaining the two slit experiment, I have referred to in Part III. Yes, Mr.S. would be surprised to know that catuskoti, not the catuskoti as interpreted by Prof. K. N. Jayatillake and his students, but the way it is interpreted in "Mage Lokaya" explain the above experiment. For reasons given in Part IV, I have no intention of publishing that for a western audience. Now consider the following by Mr. S. that appeared on 3rd April. "The point I made was that because we can't be certain of the original teachings of the Founders of religions we can't assert that their teachings are subject to change. Religion in the sense of institutions and practises do change with time. The original teachings will be interpreted and misinterpreted but that does not make any such interpretation valid in terms of the original teaching." "Dr. N. talks about many Christians. But most if not all Christians accept Jesus Christ as God and Man........Mostly all Christians accept his crucifixion, death and resurrection.....Different Churches arose due to political as much as doctrinal differences." Mr. S. in these sentences is not consistent to say the least. If one is not certain of the original teachings how does one decide that an interpretation is valid in terms of the original teachings. In any event according to Mr. S. himself there may be Christians who do not accept the crucifixion of Jesus (Mr. S. says mostly all Christians, what does he mean by mostly all? ). Again he says most if not all Christians accept Jesus Christ as God and Man. He is not sure and there could be Christians who do not accept Jesus as God and Man.
In any event Christianity has undergone so many changes that one sect would call the other sects the heretics. If Mr. S. does not agree with that he should read the articles on the very interesting topic "Mass in Latin" in the pages of "The Island". Mr. Ephrem Fernando, whom I do not know, but whose views I respect and admire, though I may not agree with some of them, especially those on objectivity and such concepts, would call not only Luther and the protestants heretics, but even those who adhere to Vatican II "doctrines". Whether Mr. S. likes it or not the Catholic church itself has undergone change and it is pointless to pretend that the Catholic Church (as a religion) today is the Church of St. Peter. Though I am not a Catholic and I criticise the Bishops and the elite Catholics, for their attempt to deprive Sinhalathva the rightful place in the country and especially on the stand they take on the Tamil terrorist problem, being agents of western imperialism, I find that Catholicism is more close to Asia than to Europe.It is the Bishops as agents of cultural colonialism who made it a European religion. The Catholics may not agree with my interpretations of Catholicism, but I prefer its three valued logic to the two valued logic of Aristotle, its holistic attitudes, the way they have turned an abstract God (Yehowah) to a concrete God (Jesus) and I would definitely not like to see Catholic priests dancing in their sarongs with or without nuns, just as much I do not like to see a Bhikku in sarong. If not for the cultural imperialism that is associated with the introduction of Catholicism to Sri Lanka, I have a feeling, by now the Sinhala Buddhists would have incorporated Jesus also into Sinhala Buddhism by making him a Bodhisathva, the way they have made a Bodhisathva out of the Vedic God Vishnu. I hope the patriotic Catholics would not misunderstand me and as a Sinhala Buddhist I have no objection at all if Buddha is made a Saint in the Catholic Church the way the Hindus have made Buddha an Avatar of the God Vishnu.
Before I go to the more Philosophical aspects I must say that Mr. S. does not appear to have read any English books on the scientific Method and so called science, let alone "Mage Lokaya". In this connection I wish to recommend to him "Against Method" by Feyeraband who has shown that there is no scientific method as such. Mr. S. doesn't seem to know anything about other sciences like Japanese science and Chinese science, which I mentioned in Part IV. Until I come back in Part VI with Philosophy and Science Mr. S. could also read an article that appeared in the New Scientist on 15 December 2001, on the topic Without walls (Opinion Essay) on page 46 by Frans de Waal. In this article de Waal refers to an attempt by Japanese to build a Japanese primatology where nature is seen as inherently harmonious. According to de Waal, "this rather un-Darwinian view so upset a British Palaeontologist, the late Beverly Halstead, that he felt Imanishi (the founder of Japanese primatology - NdeS) to be set straight." This is only an example of the cultural domination in science which is only a part of cultural domination by the west.
Professor Nalin de Silva
>
>
>