“PAVENA PARANDEL” OF WESTERN SCIENCES AND
TECHNOLOGIES
Prof. N. A. de S. Amaratunga
writing to the Island on 31st August has stated that I am still a
Marxist. I will quote him verbatim so as to avoid any
misinterpretations and misunderstandings. Let us begin with where he
ends his article. His one but the last paragraph and the last paragraph
are reproduced below.
“He sees everything as being
culturally determined. In his view the creation of knowledge is
culturally determined. Can one be more blinkered? Creation of knowledge
depends on many more factors such as economic, political as well as
cultural. Further it is the fundamental urge inherent in the Homo
sapiens that makes him seek knowledge. The fact that some forms of
knowledge are culture based does not mean that entire process of
knowledge creation is culture based. Many forms of knowledge are
independent of cultural conditioning and culture plays no role in their
creation. This cultural obsession has made Prof. Nalin de Silva come
out with such inanities as Sinhala Science, Sinhala Biology, Sinhala
medical science! They may boost our ego but would culturally take us
back to the Dark Ages much against the liberal attitude espoused by our
Sinhala Buddhist Culture.
I feel sad that by this
nonsensical "pravada", Prof.de Silva is out to make a mockery of that
valuable concept Jathika Chinthanaya enunciated by Dr.Gunadasa
Amarasekera. By trying to make it an all-encompassing great narrative,
he is bound to make a mockery of it. This is what ails all Marxists.
Prof. Nalin de Silva, I am afraid, is still a Marxist though he says he
has given up Marxism! Marx was no Marxist.”
It is clear that Prof.
Amaratunga has not been trained in reading attentively and carefully.
He may have read my articles but I am afraid that he has failed to read
what I have written attentively without jumping into conclusions. Could
he quote an instance in my writings either in English or in Sinhala
where I have said that everything is culturally determined? In
particular where have I said that knowledge is culturally determined?
Having said that in my view knowledge is culturally determined he goes
on to tell us that creation of knowledge depends on many factors
including culture. I am glad that he believes in creation of knowledge
but I am not sure whether he believes in discovery of knowledge as
well. This is a very fundamental problem and when he says that it is
the fundamental urge inherent in the Homo sapiens that makes them seek
knowledge it is not clear whether he believes in creation of knowledge
as well as in discovery of knowledge. I will come to this later as in
my view there is no discovery of knowledge and all knowledge possessed
by the human beings have been created obviously by human beings
themselves. I also believe that knowledge is created in cultures and is
based on what I call “Chinthanaya” and that knowledge is relative to
the culture, the five sensory organs and the mind of the human beings
who create knowledge. I have stated this number of times but I have
never said that the knowledge is culturally determined. Professors are
expected to be clear in thinking but Prof. Amaratunga appears unable to
distinguish between knowledge determined by culture and knowledge
relative to culture. In any event I have not said anywhere that all
knowledge is relative to culture as I include two more factors namely
the five sensory organs and the mind. I would have said that the
knowledge is relative to the “indriyas” and kept it at that as
Buddhists consider mind also to be an indriya. However, we live in a
culture that is not accustomed to think of the mind as an “indriya” and
I have had to include mind as a separate entity. In any event a sensory
organ in the western culture does not have the same meaning as an
“indriya” as the former is not accustomed to consider the mind as an
“indriya”. Could Prof. Amaratunga give an example for a knowledge that
is not relative to either to the culture or shall we say the six
“indriyas”.
I am not obsessed with
culture but I must say the above mentioned knowledge on (creation) of
knowledge is relative to the Sinhala Buddhist culture and I have
created it myself depending on Paticcasamuppada. Prof. Amaratunga
mentions of “inanities” such as Sinhala Biology and Sinhala medical
science. He may have been a Professor of some discipline in dental
science perhaps having entered the Faculty of Dental Science for the
love of Dentistry without having tried to enter the Faculty of
Medicine. However, he should have known of Ayurveda and Sinhala
Vedakama though he may not have heard of a Sinhala “Dath Vedakama” as
such. In Sinhala Vedakama even Veterinary Sciences had been included as
can be inferred from the story of King Buddhadasa treating a cobra.
Perhaps the Sinhala nationalist Prof. Amaratunga has contempt for such
“inanities” as Sinhala Vedakama and as I know of many Sinhala
nationalists who have nothing but contempt for non western knowledge
especially in the field of what they call sciences, I am not surprised
to read Prof. Amaratunga on such “inanities”. Some of the Sinhala
nationalists having being trained in some western science or technology
such as Medicine or Dentistry think that all the non western knowledge
including Sinhala Vedakama are nothing but myths or “inanities” in the
wisdom of Prof. Amaratunga. I am afraid that most of these so called
scientists dentists and such others are nothing but “pavena parandel”
in their western sciences and technologies having created no concept or
theory in their disciplines.
I will have more to say on
these and going back to the dark ages later when I compare my concept
of “Chinthanaya” with the nebulous and wooly idea of “Jathika
Chinthanaya” or national thought which Dr. Gunadasa Amarasekera had
copied. Incidentally it has to be pointed out that the idea of Jathika
Chinthanaya in Sri Lanka had been propagated by the then Maoists such
as Mr. Kuliyapitiye Prananda long before Dr. Amarasekera copied it from
a westerner. Prof. Amaratunga mentions of the valuable concept of
Jathika Chinthanaya enunciated by Dr. Amarasekera. The word enunciates
has number of meanings but in the case of Dr. Amarasekera it was only a
case of talking about the idea of National Thought he had copied. In
any event could Prof. Amaratunga tell us what is meant by this
“beautiful concept” of Jathika Chinthanaya? Long time ago when Prof.
Amaratunga was not known in the nationalist movement there were number
of debates on Jathika Chinthanaya in the Divaina newspaper. In one of
the debates somebody wanted to find out what Jathika Chinthanaya was
and in one of the replies Dr. Amarasekera came out with the idea that
Jathika Chinthanaya was social character again an idea borrowed from a
westerner namely Erich Fromm. Recently when Dr. Amarasekera was asked
to explain what Jathika Chinthanaya was in one of the “Ape gama”
programs telecast by the Rupavahini he mentioned that it could be said
that the Jathika Chinthanaya was the “Game Chinthanaya” or the Village
Thought. I wonder whether Dr. Gunadasa Amarasekera himself could
explain in precise terms what Jathika Chinthanaya is.
I have not made a mockery of
the “valuable concept Jathika Chinthanaya enunciated by Dr. Gunadasa
Amarasekera” as there is no concept of Jathika Chinthanaya as such due
to Dr. Amarasekera. All I have done is to define Jathika Chinthanaya in
terms of the concept of Chinthanaya which I had created independent of
Dr. Amarasekera. Those who have followed my articles in Sinhala in the
eighties would know that I used the concept Judaic Chinthanaya or Yudev
Chinthanaya which was later developed into Greek Judaic Christian
Chinthanaya. In fact I had then said that western science was based on
Judaic Chinthanaya. I was and am more concerned with Chinthanaya in
respect of creation of knowledge and I will show that it is much deeper
than the concept of paradigm of Thomas Kuhn who introduced the latter
concept in his “The Structure of Scientific Revolution”. (To be
continued)
Professor
Nalin de Silva
>
>
>
