SINHALA INTELLECTUAL TRADITIONS
(Continuation of "CONTRADICTIONS OF THE SLFP)
The nationalist movement lacked abstract general theories based on the national or "jathika chinthanaya" from the very beginning. That does not mean that there were no theories based on the "jathika chinthanaya", as there were concrete theories applicable to specific instances. In fact the "jathika chinthanaya" does not encourage abstract general theories as Sinhala Buddhist culture does not provide a fertile ground for abstract creations. Sinhala Buddhists have never been good at abstract theorising and this is something that they have to learn if they want to survive on this planet as a nation.
Sinhala Buddhists do not have a theorising tradition such as the Brahmin tradition in the ancient Bharath. The Brahmins had been good at abstract theorising from the Vedic times, and have created elaborate theories in sociology, medicine (Ayurveda), science, mathematics, music and other fields. The Varna theory on social sects (classes) is a consistent theory within the Vedic chinthanaya, though the westerners and even the Buddhists would object to it. Buddha came from a different tradition and was based on pre Vedic chinthanaya found in not only in pre Vedic Bharath but in China and other countries in Asia. These pre Vedic cultures did not give rise to abstract theories as could be seen from the Chinese science and other sciences in Asia. If the Aryans (treated as a cultural group) did not come to Bharath there would not have been a Brahamin tradition in India and there would not have been abstract theories. On the other hand what would have happened if the Aryans, for some reason or other, went to China instead of going to Bharath? In any event it has to be emphasised that the Vedic chinthanaya, in spite of giving rise to abstract theories, was not as abstract as the present day Greek Judaic Christian chinthanaya that came into existence about five hundred years ago in Europe.
Most of the Vedic people who came to Sri Lanka, around ninth century B.C. according to Dr. Shiran Deraniyagala, were from Vanga and Kalinga (Bengal and Orissa) and would not have been Aryanised to a great extent. The people in the eastern areas of Bharath including present Nepal would have ben slow to absorb the Aryan culture. It has to be remembered that Buddha also came from this region and more "Vas" (rainy seasons) had been spent in Shravasti closer to Nepal than in Madhya Desha that would have come under the influence of the Aryans by that time. (I am thankful to a former student of mine who drew my attention to this fact.) Those Vedic people who came to Sri Lanka would not have been capable of Aryanising the pre Vedic people who were already living in Sri Lanka to a large extent, and as a result no Brahmin tradition was evolved in this country. (Details are to be found in the series of articles published in "Vidusara" under the theme "Ape Pravada".) On the other hand the Brahamin tradition was so powerful in Bharath, it even "infiltrated" Buddhism resulting in abstract theorising in Buddhism in the form of Mahayana. Almost all the "theorists" in Mahayana from Ven. Nagarjuna to Ven. Vasubandu had come from Brahmin families and it is clear that they had brought with them the Brahmin tradition to Buddhism. Even in Theravada Buddhism the "theorists" such as Ven. Buddhagosha had come from Brahmin families and one could easily identify abstract theorising in the Abhidhamma created long before the Buddhagoshas, that is not found in the Suttas. What I am trying to point out is that abstract theorising is alien to pre Vedic Chinthanayas and early Buddha Dhamma. (Strictly speaking Buddha Dhamma is not an "ism" and it is not correct to use the word Buddhism in respect of Dhamma. Words such as Buddhism were created by the westerners who tried to understand the east in terms of their concepts and even if we have to use such terms we have to be conscious of the fact that those terms are not accurate.) Theorising in Buddha Dhamma that emphasises "prathyaksha", is a later phenomenon introduced by the Bhikkus who came from Brahmin families.
When Mahayana reached China and the other countries in the east it was absorbed into those cultures without much of the abstract theories, and became more practical. It is significant that Buddha Sasana has survived in countries with what could be called Mongolian cultures or non Vedic cultures. One could say that the only exception is Sri Lanka or Sinhale as it was known then, where Sasana has survived for more than two thousand three hundred years. However, it has to be pointed out that Sinhale never became a Vedic country and the Sinhala people had been able to create a unique culture in this country independent of the Bharath Vedic culture. In that sense one could say that Buddha Sasana has survived in those countries with non Vedic cultures, and in India the Vedic culture has been strong enough to wipe out Buddhism (in the sense of a theoretical Buddha Dhamma due to Brahmin teachers). This does not mean that Buddhism disappeared from India due to this reason alone, as there were political reasons contributing to it, but one should consider this cultural aspect as well when discussing the emergence of Hinduism, another "ism" coined by the westerners, after Shankaracharya who was able to construct a Nirgun Brahaman by "inverting" the concept of Sunyatha in Madhyamikavada.
Sinhala people from the very beginning (and even before that as the tribes that after mixing with the Vedic people who came from Bharath, went on to form the Sinhala nation) had been very good at "shilpa" than at "shasthra" (in the sense of theories) and to date this tradition could be found among them. It is said that when the Europeans came to the east as colonialists the Asians did not have guns but very soon the Sinhalas and the Japanese made the best guns in the world. Both Japanese and the Sinhalas are good at "shilpa" but after "independence", it is sad that the Sinhalas have neglected their abilities in that field while the Japanese have gone from strength to strength in the field that they can excel. Instead of developing "shilpa", the Sinhalas, in the name of "shasthra", have imitated the western theorists "cutting" (fitting) data according to the theories of the west. In the present world neither the Japanese nor the Sinhalas could neglect theorising. However, they should create their own theories with respect to their cultures without "cutting" data to fit into the theories of the westerners. The Sinhalas may have to start from scratch as they do not have a tradition of abstract theorising expect for what has been absorbed into their culture in the form of Abhidhamma. However in the process of theorising they should not lose their ability in "shilpa" and also should not go to the extremes that the westerners have gone during the last five hundred years or so.
The "intellectual" traditions that began in the nineteenth century among the Sinhalas consisted broadly of two trends. The so-called indigenous traditions that were formed around Vidyodaya and Vidyalankara pirivenas concentrated on Sinhala literature and Dhamma studies and on Ayurvedic medicine and may be Astrology. However, as there was no tradition of theorising the "indigenous" school was not interested in creating new knowledge. They were satisfied with learning what was already there and "correcting" (writing "shuddhi") the ancient works found in "ola leaf books". On the other hand those who had a western education were devoid of the Sinhala "aranyavasi" tradition and became the "data cutters" imitating western theories. These people who thought that they were creative were very often the worst imitators that the country had produced. Though they may have come first in various examinations from the kindergarten to the civil service and may have ended up with first classes and doctorates, they were the most sterile when it came to creating knowledge. Though they may have become professors here and abroad none of them has been able to be elected as a Fellow of the Royal Society, that august body in London held in high esteem by them. Instead they have formed their own national academy of science again imitating the Royal Society, London. As a well known professor in the University of Colombo, who is a fellow of the academy and a "sales rep" keeps on reminding me I am neither a professor nor a fellow of the academy, and I am not unhappy about it. The "data cutters" may have had a very good education in English and the western culture in the schools and the universities that they attended but they have not been able to absorb that culture into their system. They do not have a "gut" feeling about that culture which they have "learnt" from books. As a result they are not able to create knowledge in the western cultures and have been restricted to "data cutters".
When western knowledge was introduced to Sri Lanka what the Sinhalas (and Tamils and Muslims) should have done was to absorb that knowledge into their system without imitating it. However, in defense of "data cutters", I must say that there were two factors that prevented them from doing so. Both these factors are operative even today and unless one is conscious about them one is bound to end up as a "data cutter". One is the western cultural colonialism that forces the "intellectuals" in Asia and Africa to become mere imitators of the western knowledge. Western cultural colonialism together with other forms of western Christian colonialism has established a hegemonic system and enforces western creations on the others. The second factor has to do with the tradition among the "gramavasi" Sinhala intellectuals as against the "aranyavasi" intellectuals. The "gramavasis" had in general been imitators of the Bharath knowledge and the "aranyavasis" had not been abstract theorists though they had been creative in their own way. The "nagaravasi" intellectuals who had a western education only copied the "gramavasis" substituting England and English knowledge for Bharath and knowledge associated with that country.
Professor Nalin de Silva
>
>
>