SULU KARUNA OF ELANKESAN - I
Sankiliyan Elankesan of Nallur, Jaffna, writing to The Island on April 17, under the title, "'Tamil racism' as perceived by a Sinhala Buddhist" appears to be hurt by the use of the words "Tamil racist", "Tamil Racism", "Tamil Racist Problem". He implies that these are pharussa vacana that I should have avoided as a Buddhist. Let us see how the adherent of Buddha Dhamma, as he calls himself, sets about writing on a Sinhala Buddhist, without using any pharussa vacana. I quote below the first three paragraphs of his letter:
"I am reluctantly compelled, much against my conscience, being an adherent of the Buddha Dhamma (not Buddhism, hence not a Buddhist) to write with reference to the narrow, parochial, irrelevant, incompatible, incongruous and inconsistent issues that were copiously dealt by the self-proclaimed Sinhala Buddhist, Nalin de Silva (de Silvas were and are 'aliens' amongst the indigenous Sri Lankans), under the title, "Lord Naseby Speaks", which was prominently published in your Midweek Review section of The Island paper of March 29, 2006. 'A lie', Mark Twain said, 'can travel half way round the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes'. This is de Silva's pet sport in which he achieves contentment.
"Since Nalin de Silva, in his incisive and penetrative wisdom, has chosen the title, 'Lord Naseby Speaks' to express his views and comments, the innocent and the intelligent readers would have expected him to bisect, dissect and render an indepth analysis of the contents of the interview given by the celebrity to the Sunday Island, presumably on March 26, 2006; instead, he was content just to make a reference to, 'The British Government is not doing enough to ensure that the ban on the LTTE is properly implemented' and a few lines only, in relating to the title in the first para of the nine-para essay under reference.
"However, in the rest of the eight paras of his paranoic parasynthesis, he was in his inborn hatred towards the Tamil community as a whole, was quite lavishly and extravagantly using terminologies like, 'Tamil Racist', 'Tamil Racism', 'Tamil Racist problems', specially invented by him to hurt, injure, cause grave pain of mind and offend the susceptibilities of the Tamils, as a whole. Since he claims himself to be a 'indigenous Sinhala- Buddhist', it is unbecoming, loathsome, repugnant, detestable for any Buddhist to indulge in the sport of using harsh, crude, rude, hurtful and coarse language on the others, even if provoked under understandable circumstances. (Avoidance of pharussa vacana, as ordained by Samma Sam Buddha to lay Buddhist). The most curious is the falsehood of calling the Tamils by the diatribe and epitaph referred to above, even without adducing any reason and substantiating his confirmed view with supporting evidence, which is a matter to be condemned, abhorred and disproved by the civilized society."
Having said those saintly words with maithree the adherent of Buddha Dhamma wants me to explain the following to "eradicate the ignorance of the Tamils": Tamil racist, Tamil racism, Tamil Racist Problems. There is no ethnic problem, but a problem due to something else. He has also appealed to me to read an article written by him to some other paper, under the title "Concept of Traditional Homeland of Tamils", dealing exhaustively with "supporting historical evidence that the Sinhalese were the aliens in Sri Lanka and the Tamils were in Sri Lanka long long before their arrival here." I read this article which had been written in support of Prof. Carlo Fonseka in a "debate" the latter had with some others. Needles to say to Elankesan, Prof. Fonseka, unlike me, is "highly learned, erudite, scholarly, intellectually recognised."
Let's start at the very end. The highly learned, erudite, scholarly, intellectually recognised Prof. Fonseka, in the said debate, had written on homelands "in support" of Tamil racism, though it boomeranged on him later, saying that the concept of historical homeland is an "imprecise matter of judgement and semantics about which legitimate disagreement is inevitable". However, the former Professor of Physiology, after quoting the 1981 census tells us that there is evidence that the Tamils had lived in the Northern and the Eastern Provinces at least for a few centuries. Then he makes the statement that "If Tamil people feel passionately that certain parts of the country are their 'historical homeland', there is no science or art that can rationally convince them that they are wrong to feel so", which is quite worthy of the "rationalist" Fonseka who "demonstrated" with a colleague that there are people who could walk on fire without going through the usual rituals associated especially with Hinduism. Needless to say that I have my "narrow, parochial, irrelevant, incompatible, incongruous and inconsistent" explanation of the works of the "highly learned, erudite, scholarly, intellectually recognised Prof. Fonseka". Narada Wickramage of Bandaragama had to state only one implication to expose the learned scholar. He said if "historical homelands" cannot be defined "objectively" then it is impossible to demarcate the boundaries of the so-called Tamil homeland. Does Prof. Fonseka imply that we have to give in to the passions of the Tamils, which could be presented as the aspirations of the Tamils?
Prof. Fonseka may be a "highly learned, erudite, scholarly, intellectually recognised" person, according to Elankesan, but unfortunately I have a different opinion of him. After all, I do not believe in an objective world or scientific methodology and I have written a substantial number of articles on what I call "constructive relativism". Some university students at Peradeniya had wanted to organise a seminar on "Mage Lokaya" (My world) written by me on "constructive relativism" twenty years ago, and had invited Prof. Fonseka to take part in the seminar and criticise the book and the philosophy that I had been propagating without any assistance from the wider world. (The wider world would not come to the support of "my world", would they?) However, the erudite scholar has avoided the issue under the pretext that in his old age it is difficult to travel to Peradeniya, though he has been seen in that part of the country after that. Those students, I am told, are very interested in getting Prof. Fonseka to speak at the seminar, and they are now thinking of having it in Colombo so that they could listen this erudite scholar. I only hope that he would accept the invitation and we would be able to have a discussion on the objectivity and scientific methodology, which belongs chronologically to the first half of the twentieth century, and also on "non objective" concepts such as historical homeland. So much for Prof. Carlo Fonseka, who has been dragged into these columns by Elankesan's letter. Now to the author of the letter himself.
Elankesan may not think this is a bisection (perpendicular or otherwise), dissection or an indepth analysis of his letter to the editor. I have my own way of answering critics, and I follow that method, whether anybody calls it analysis or not. I have training in both western Mathematical Analysis and Sinhala Buddhist Vibhajjavada of the Mahavihara tradition, and if Elankesan is interested can enter into a debate on "analysis". Elankesan, according to himself, is an adherent of Buddha Dhamma and not a Buddhist. A Buddhist is apparently one who "follows" Buddhism, and according to Elankesan Samma Sam Buddha has ordained lay Buddhists to avoid pharussa vacana. The Buddha has never ordained the lay Buddhists on the use of pharussa vacana or anything else, and that speaks volumes for the knowledge of Buddha Dhamma possessed by Elankesan. However, as a follower of Sinhala Buddhism, I am a Sinhala Buddhist and I suppose I have to avoid such words according to Elankesan, though he only talks of Buddhists and not of Sinhala Buddhists. In my article entitled "Lord Naseby Speaks" I have not used any pharussa vacana. As Samma Sam Buddha has "ordained" the Buddhists, and perhaps not followers of Buddha Dhamma. In the wisdom of Elankesan, he may be allowed to use all those saintly words with his sulu karuna on me. He being not Buddha cannot have maha karuna whether on me or on that notorious "paramilitary" leader Karuna, irrespective of what Prabhakaran thinks of the latter.
Elankesan is not the first person to comment on that part of my name that goes as "de Silva". In his sulu karuna he thinks that de Silvas are aliens amongst the indigenous Sri Lankans. I have never claimed, contrary to what he thinks, that I am an indigenous Sinhala Buddhist, and, I do not know what he means by the word indigenous. As far as I am concerned any Sinhala is a Sinhala whether that particular person or his ancestors became Sinhala two thousand years ago or two years ago. I would have preferred if my ancestors had not taken the name de Silva, most probably in the sixteenth century, and Elankesan can rest assured that my children would not go by the name de Silva.
(To be continued)
Professor Nalin de Silva
Mr. Sankiliyan Elankesan's articles
17th April 2006 "The Island" News Paper
10th May 2006 "The Island" News Paper
21st June 2006 "The Island" News Paper
>
>
>