“PAVENA PARANDEL” OF WESTERN SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES - II

The so called “valuable concept Jathika Chinthanaya enunciated by Dr. Gunadasa Amarasekera” is not even a “Jathika concept”. It is a “vijathika” idea that Dr. Amarasekera copied from a Polish writer Andrzej Waliki. Dr. Amarasekera as he indicates in his book “Deshapalana Samaja Vichara – I”, a collection of articles by him, introduced this idea in an article published in the “Divaina” on 17th August 1986. (This particular article is also reproduced in this book). The title of the article according to the book “Deshapalana Samaja Vichara – I” is “Marxvadee Chinthanaya ha Jathika Chinthanaya”. It is not clear whether the article in the newspaper had the same title but as far as Dr. Amarasekera is concerned there is a Chinthanaya called Marxvadee Chinthanaya and from the very beginning there is confusion as to what is meant by Chinthanaya.

According to this “historical” article that introduced “Jathika Chinthanaya” Dr. Amarasekera had read a book by Andrzej Waliki titled “A history of Russian Thought” and Dr. Amarasekera says the book demonstrates how Lenin was influenced by the “Desheeya Chinthanaya” that the latter had inherited. Dr. Amarasekera in this article further states that in a review of the book by one Joseph Frank in the T.L.S. magazine the following paragraph is included.

“Whether a Communist regime would behave any differently, if it came to power legitimately in a highly developed Western country with democratic traditions, still remains to be seen. But that such a question arises at all testifies to the effect of the Russian example, and the immense historical consequence of the paradoxical victory under the guise of Marxism, of the Slavophile – populist current of Russian thought.” Though Dr. Amarasekera is not in agreement with this statement he sees some underlying truth in it.

It is clear what Dr. Amarasekera wanted was not a substitution of Marxvadee Chinthanaya for what he called “Jathika Chinthanaya” but some kind of marriage (“sahavasa”) between Marxvadee Chinthanaya and “Jathika Chinthanaya”. This idea of a “sahavasa” is not only reflected in his short stories and novels written after “ Abuddassa Yugayak” and “Anagarika Dharmapala Marxvadeeda” but also in most of the articles that were published in the “Divaina”. In fact in the second article reproduced in the above book spells out how we should use Marxism in the “Jathika Chinthanaya”. I will not go into detail at present but it is suffice to mention that Dr. Amarasekera did not have a clear concept of what he meant by “Jathika Chinthanaya” then. The use of the words Chinthanaya in connection with Marxism and “National Thought” clearly indicates that Dr. Amarasekera had a wooly idea about it.

Now we will get back what Prof. Amaratunga has to say in his articles on “Still a Marxist” and “Tamil Problem and World Power Polarization”. In Still a Marxist he states: “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.”

I have responded to the so called valuable concept “Jathika Chinthanaya” and shown how Dr. Amarasekera has copied it from Andrzej Waliki and later borrowed the idea of social character from Erich Fromm in order to illustrate this “valuable” concept. Prof. Amaratunga mentions that I am trying to make “Jathika Chinthanaya” an all – encompassing great narrative. In any event there are no all – encompassing great narratives as if at all there can be only one all – encompassing great narrative since it is meaningless to talk of a number of all – encompassing narratives. I must say that nobody can make a wooly idea the all – encompassing great narrative and I am certainly not trying to do so. It is true that I am trying to explain certain phenomena using the concept of Chinthanaya which is far from the wooly idea of “Jathika Chinthanaya”. However, by doing that I am not trying to reduce all phenomena to culture (or chinthanaya) as Prof. Amaratunga seems to think.

In the case of western sciences they try to reduce at least in large areas in each of their disciplines phenomena to a single concept and in that sense western science is reductionist. Marxism is also reductionist trying to reduce phenomena to economic infrastructure. Reductionism is not peculiar to Marxism and it has inherited it from western sciences. I am neither a Marxist nor a western Scientist nor a western Mathematician and I do not subscribe to reductionism. I as a Sinhala Buddhist not afraid to talk of Sinhala Vedakama as a science though not a western technology, do not believe in “eka hethuvada”. I believe in “bahu hethuvada”. There is no possibility of reductionism with “bahu hethuvada” and “Ape Pravada” are constructed following “paticcasamuppada” which is cyclic and not reductionist. It is in that “spirit” we talk of interdependent cultural, political and economical components without trying to reduce all phenomena even within a limited range to culture alone. On the other hand as practitioners of western dental science, which is really a technology according to western way of categorizing, both Prof. Amaratunga and his creator of a valuable concept are reductionists.

Just a few words on the statement that Marx was no Marxist. Prof. Amaratunga tries to imply that I am a Marxist but Marx was not. I think he is quoting some statement on Marx out of context. Marx was a Marxist but he would said if some others were called Marxists then he would refrain to call himself a Marxist. Though Professors cannot be categorized as adherents of a common Science or Technology, I would say having come to know some Professors I would not like to call myself a Professor. However, it is unfortunate that in certain official documents I am compelled to use the title Professor.

Prof. Amaratunga begins his article on Still a Marxist with the following sentences. “Prof. Nalin de Silva does not appear to have understood what is meant by Colonialism or Neo –Colonialism. Hence he assumes that I meant only economic exploitation or economic conquest by that term. As far as I know, Colonialism includes these aspects - economic conquest as well as cultural conquest and that they often go hand in hand much like twin brothers.” His argument is as follows. I do not appear to have understood what is meant by colonialism or neo colonialism. Therefore (that is because of my apparent failure to understand colonialism and neo colonialism) I assume that Prof. Amaratunga means only economic exploitation or economic conquest by the term colonialism (and neo colonialism). I cannot see the logic of this argument but I would quote a paragraph from his article on Tamil Problem and World Power Polarization for the readers to ponder until we meet next time hopefully next Wednesday.

“The Western countries would even resort to mass murder to maintain their grip on the world economy. The ultimate goal of all this is nothing else but economic exploitation. Some analysts who seem to be obsessed with a cultural determinism tend to go at a tangent and lose sight of this ultimate aim of the neo-colonialist. They forget that the rich West could maintain their luxurious life style only by plundering the poor. The purpose of the cultural domination that the West attempts is nothing but economic exploitation. The war against the Islamic culture is aimed at maintaining the grip on the oil rich Middle East. That against the Chinese culture is to stop Chinese expansion. Cultural domination by itself is meaningless unless it opens the avenues for economic exploitation.”

Professor Nalin de Silva