So you want to take out ‘Buddhism’?

The ‘enlightened’ people entrusted with the grave task of recommending changes to the constitution have sought to turn Sri Lanka into an official secular state.  Although the Final Report of the Consultation Task Force on Reconciliation Mechanisms (CTF) doesn’t mention it, this particular recommendation clearly seeks to do away with Article 9 of the Constitution.

Article 9 reads thus: The Republic of Sri Lanka shall give to Buddhism the foremost place and accordingly it shall be the duty of the State to protect and foster the Buddha Sasana, while assuring to all religions the rights granted by Articles 10 and 14(1)(e).

Articles 10 and 14(1)(e) are as follows: 

10. Every person is entitled to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including the freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice. 

14. (1) (e) the freedom, either by himself or in association with others, and either in public or in private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

This recommendation should not surprise anyone.  The worthies on this committee are without exception either advocates of secularism and have on occasion been critical of Article 9 (and even openly been anti-Buddhist as judged by crass extrapolation of extreme Buddhist groups to cover the entire community and strange silence on the excesses of other religious groups) or are tainted by association with organizations that by and large do the same.  

This report claims legitimacy from both appointment and by claiming to have given ear to voices that cut across all categories, religious and otherwise.  

A report put together by the Committee on Constitutional Reform, headed by Lal Wijenayake, released last year, in contrast appear to have actually listened to people and recorded their representations faithfully, despite the problematic nature of the committee’s composition.  The CTF report, in contrast, is weak, slanted and quite in contrast to the reconciliation intent of the mandate, a recipe to deliver its very opposite.   However, given what has to be understood as real intent, the recommendation is what was always predictable.  

This is how it is worded: 

The CTF strongly recommends that meaningful steps should be taken through consultation with all stakeholders, towards a secular State and with equal respect accorded to the multiple religions practiced in the country.  

The logic of Article 9 draws from the clause related to Buddhism in the Kandyan Convention, the document that ceded the Kandyan Kingdom (to which the ‘land of the war-like Sinhalas’ — as described by the Dravidian marauder Raja Raja Chola I — or ‘Sinhale’ had shrunk by that time) to the British: ‘The religion of Buddhoo, professed by the chiefs and inhabitants of these provinces is declared inviolable and its rites and ministers and places of worship are to be maintained and protected’.  The British treated that as well as other protective clauses with utmost disdain (to put it gently) thereafter.  If the recovery of the nation from the invader was to make any sense, then reinstating those abrogated clauses was logical.  Hence Article 9, it can be argued, also considering the notion of ‘compensation’ for all the violence unleashed on Buddhists and Buddhist places of religious significance, and the burning and looting of Buddhist texts.  We could throw in the formal and informal advantages conferred on non-Buddhists, especially Christians, in all spheres, especially education and obtaining employment.

Someone might say, ‘but people, communities and geographies are always in flux — changing times and scenarios call for changed articles of faith’.  Correct.  If that’s the case, then we have to legislate for the moment, having duly dumped history in the waste-paper basked of constitution-making.  Out would go all talk of traditional/historical homelands (myth-lades though they may be) and with it calls for devolution.  Factored in would be the dispersed nature of the Tamil community (close to 50% live outside the so-called ‘traditional/historical homelands’).  Interestingly, that dumping is not called for by those who want to legislate for the here and now.

But what is this here and now?  Is it the number-erased, percentages-ignored thing described as multi-ethnic and multi-religious?  We are not talking of a population equally divided along lines of ethnic identity and religious persuasion.  We are not talking of a neatly ethnically enclaved geography.  So, in essence, Buddhists are asked to concede demographic edge in the interest of ‘a more enlightened’ political arrangement.  Perhaps Buddhists are being asked, in the name of the philosophy they subscribe to, to reflect on the Buddha Vacana, the notions of impermanence, the virtues of giving (dana) and equanimity (upekkha) and so on; essentially boiling down to ‘magnanimity’ and the celebrated of shared humanity.  

Let’s go with secularism. If secularism is what is sought and if Buddhists are being asked to waive demographic advantage in view of ‘enlightenment’ and ‘reconciliation’, if reconciliation can never be a clap with a single hand, and if secularism is citizen-focused in ways that keep religion strictly separate from state, we would have to consider alterations that are not limited to doing away with Article 9.  

Let’s begin with the simple things (things, please note that even the ‘enlightened’ West would not consider).  Holidays.  Religious holidays.  Communal holidays.  

No Poya holidays.  No extra holiday for Vesak.  No aluth avurudda on April 13/14.  No Easter. No Christmas.  No Ramadan.  No Thaipongal, no Mahasivarathri, no Idul Fitr and no Idul Adha.  No Deepavli or Milad-un-Nabi.  And Sunday, a day of religious significance for Christians will no longer be a holiday.  

Instead, let the work day be truncated by one and a half hours, Sunday through Friday.  Saturday, a religion-neutral days will be a holiday.  And yes, no half-days or short-leave for Friday prayers.  If employees want to be religious by all means, but on their time, not that of the organization that pays their salaries.  

Let’s take it further.  Not only will religion be taken out of the curriculum there won’t be morning prayers and there will no longer be schools based on religious faith.  No Buddhist schools, Muslim schools, Hindu schools, Catholic schools or schools run by or framed by other Christian religious organizations or faiths respectively.  The state cannot help in any manner whatsoever any private institution that has any association with any religious faith.  

Let’s get more serious.  Let this secular Sri Lanka of ‘equal citizens’ (never mind the inequalities that capitalism generate and depends on) be a land where there is one law: an eka-ratak, eka-neethiyak kind of entity.  

Nothing called 'Customary Law'.  No marriages under ‘Kandyan Law’.  It will no longer be possible to refer to Thesavalamai law in property-related litigation.  No Sharia law.   No ‘Muslim marriages’.  No Talaq.  No multiple wives.  

Come to think of it, if we want to be truly secular, then we need to revisit Roman-Dutch Law as well, since the man considered to be the founder of this system of jurisprudence, Hugo de Groot, was a Christian apologist.

The CTF has been quite cute in all this.   The CTF hasn’t gone into these important areas of secularism simply because it wants non-Buddhists to have religious privileges.   When they interject the phrase ‘towards a secular state’, they deliberately advocate ‘a start’ and the only ‘start’ that anyone has talked about so far in this business of secularizing Sri Lanka is doing away with Article 9.  That’s cute, ladies and gentlemen.  Very cute.  

Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance writer.  Email: malindasene@gmail.com.   Twitter: malindasene.

Read more

There are Buddhist revolutions and Buddhist revolutions

There are people who believe that Sri Lanka had a cultural revolution, a ‘Sinhala Buddhist cultural revolution’, to be precise.  The proof is pretty thin of course, but if anyone wants to believe there is some kind of silent move on the part of Sinhala Buddhists, that’s fine with me, for there’s nothing intrinsically wrong in any social group stamping presence in a political, cultural, economic or other sense; it is the manner that one could object to, unless of course one says ‘it’s politics’ which means ‘anything-goes’. 

I am thinking of the French Revolution and all the secular rhetoric at the time and since.  I checked.  France has public holidays, like any other country.  France has 5 civil holidays: January 1 (New Year), May 1 (Labour Day), May 8 (End of WW II), July 14 (Bastille Day) and November 11 (End of WW I).  Surprise, surprise, France has 6 more ‘secular’ holidays: Easter (sometime in April), August 15 (to celebrate the Assumption of Mary), November 1 (All Saints’ Day), a Thursday in Mid-May (39 days after Easter, to celebrate Jesus’ Ascension), Pentecôte (50 days after Easter, usually on a Monday by the end of May) and of course December 25 (Christmas).  And just the other day, France’s lower house of Parliament overwhelmingly approved a bill that would ban wearing the Islamic full veil in public. 

The ‘state of revolution’ should not be based on the why and when and how many of holidays, but if France is secular then Sri Lanka’s ‘Sinhala Buddhist Revolution’ is to be preferred by religious minorities. Indeed, it can be argued that the Buddhist doctrine of tolerance and equanimity had something to do with the fact that other faiths were received and treated with respect even though those who came carrying bibles were also armed with Papal Bulls that sanctioned horrendous crimes against humanity (quite in opposition to the teachings of the Prince of Peace, Jesus of Nazareth). 

There are those who say there is some kind of revolution happening.  I am not impressed. If this ‘revolution’ is about flag waving, pirith nool-wearing, pandals and festivities, not to mention being unable to adhere to Buddhist tenets of equanimity, compassion and the use of reason when deliberately provoked (by organizers of the Akon show and by Buddha-statue smashing, ‘Buddha-biscuit’ distributing people calling themselves ‘Christian Evangelists), then it would be ‘revolution by name’ and not ‘substance’ in my book. 

I don’t think that there is a revolution taking place and I am not even sure such a thrust is necessary. I think Buddhism is alive and well in the hearts and minds of Buddhists.  Having said that, I don’t think Buddhists have anything to lose by educating themselves further and more deeply about the fundamental tenets of the doctrine.  I believe that the best answer to those who vilify Buddhists and Buddhism is not to hang out Buddhist iconography from every nook and corner of the island (I think this defeats the purpose).  The best way to respond to ill-will is compassion.  The best way to respond to cross-waving fanatics is with reason and logic.

I heard how some bikkhus were upset that some group calling itself ‘Christian’ was smashing Buddha statues and ‘demonstrating’ the Buddha’s ‘impotency’.  They are supposed to have stormed into the premises of this ‘service’ and demanded that the ‘pastors’ (self-proclaimed faith-healers) cure a crippled who was waiting outside.  There was an easier and non-confrontational way, I believe: picking up the broken pieces of the statue as proof of the fundamental tenet of impermanence, and using the fact to elaborate on the concept and point out that it is universal.  No one and nothing is permanent. Not the Buddha, not Jesus Christ, not the Bible.  If on the other hand, reason is rejected in deference to faith and someone says ‘Jesus is God, is immortal’ and so on, the Buddhist response ought to be silence, respect for different opinion and if challenged further, polite reference to the Kalama Sutra with the observation, ‘not compelling enough, sorry’.

If ‘revolution’ is deduced from the fact that Mahinda Rajapaksa makes ‘Buddhistic’ noises, that’s pretty superficial and indeed aberrational.  We can keep arguing whether or not there is a Buddhist Revolution or a Sinhala Buddhist Revolution, and we can throw in ‘evidence’ of non-Buddhist thrusts, but that will not make us a better society or better individuals for that matter. 

A few decades before the French made their so-called ‘revolution’ and began the liberty, equality and fraternity chant (for only those who are Christians, we later learnt), there was in this island, a saamanera, a novice bikkhu by the name of Welivita Saranankara.   This was a time of anarchy, moral decline and violence against all things associated with Buddhism.  There wasn’t a single bikkshu with higher ordination, upasampada.  The temples were full of corrupt ganinnaanses who were neither conversant in the dhamma nor interested in its basic practices.  A single person turned things around.  I believe that two things helped. First, the commitment to the dhamma on the part of Ven. Welivita Sri Saranankara Sangha Raja Thero, and two the deeply ingrained recognition of the Buddhism’s value in explaining how things are and in conducting one’s life in beneficial, benevolent and non-intrusive ways. 

Now if ‘revolution’ is required then the above is an example that one might want to study.  If what we see is indeed ‘Buddhist revolution’, then a) it is not ‘Buddhist’ except in name, and b) I don’t want any part of it, and c) it does nothing to make like better for anyone, not for Buddhists or anyone else. 

Buddhism is a reflective practice.  It is a doctrine that advocates simplicity.  Thrift.  Co-existence.  Concern for environment.  Like most other religious faiths, one might add.  It does not impose laws on pain of punishment, but recommends self-discipline as a necessary precondition for alleviating suffering.  All Buddhist practices can be adopted by anyone of any other faith without compromising his/her belief system.  A ‘revolution’ that promotes such things cannot harm anyone.  It can be called ‘Buddhist’ but it need not be.  All things, including names and labels are after all impermanent. 

Read more

Buddhism, radicals and radicalism: a necessary preamble

The adjective ‘radical’ has two principal definitions. In common usage, ‘radical’ conjures images of or alluding to Che Guevara.  It doesn’t necessarily have to be about those who think like Che or for whom Che is hero. Anyone favouring fundamental or extreme change, especially in the social, political and economic order, or expressing related sentiments, is taken to be a ‘radical’.  In general ‘radical’ denotes ‘going against the grain’ or ‘swimming upstream’.  Some would say ‘banging head against wall’ but let’s be more optimistic.

There is a more interesting and perhaps less known definition of ‘radical’: ‘of or from the root or roots; going to the foundation or source of something; fundamental; basic: a radical principle.’

The second definition functions as a prerequisite for earning the label ‘radical’ in terms of the first formulation.  It is easy to rant and rave about system and ruler but system-change and ruler-ousting (the latter being the easier of the two) can only benefit by examining the fundamental sources of support, including but not limited to configuration of political forces, ideological persuasions and the degree of support enjoyed, structural factors that inhibit or make easier the obtaining of desired outcome. 

Today the term ‘radical’ and its oft interchanged twin ‘revolutionary’ have become overused and abused to much that they’ve lost meaning and been divested for the most part of operative power, especially in the ideological arena.  Che, after all, is not just a revolutionary icon, but a catch-all visual for any old product or brand that wants to position itself as ‘new’, ‘radical’, ‘great’, ‘revolutionary’ etc.  Similarly those who call themselves ‘radicals’ tend to grapple with the frills of the system they are determined to overthrow and even on the rare occasion that they do effect ‘change’, the transformation is more in the cosmetics rather than substance.  Name-change and face-change don’t connote ‘revolution’ even if marketed as such.  Regime change may take a lot of work and even require a blood-price but the amount of plasma shed and hours of sleep sacrificed are not qualification enough for the outcome to be called ‘radical’. 

My contention is that the necessary disappointment that follows flows from the ready embrace of illusion, the uncritical acceptance of received ‘knowledge’ and manifest sloth in the matter of going beyond rhetoric.  It is in this context that I offer the Kalama Sutra, the Charter on Free Inquiry proposed by Siddhartha Gauthama, the Enlightened One, our Budun Wahanse as an excellent guide to more effective, judicious and efficient engagement. 

The Compassionate One cautioned the Kalamas thus: ‘Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher’.' 

The Buddha did not use the word ‘radical’ to my knowledge.  He stated things as they are, elaborated on the human condition, the vicissitudes of life and proposed a pathway out of sorrow.  One of the enduring beauties of the doctrine expounded by the Buddha is the multiple applicability of tenet flowing from observation and commentary.  It is strictly in this sense that I have found the Kalama Sutra to have immense utility value for all those who profess a predilection towards radicalism, in thought and deed as well as in multiple spheres of engagement, including overhauling of social and political order.  

Each of the cautions articulated by the Buddha to the Kalama merit separate treatment, but even a cursory glance at the above set of qualifiers when used as instrument of assessing expediency of action would indicate that for all self-righteous claim and even braggadocio, ‘radicals’ and ‘radicalism’ for the most part are creatures that nibble at systems raged again.  Indeed some could argue that in a certain sense radicals and radicalism are necessary ingredients of system sustainability in the absence of a deep consideration of these conditions for they often and at best affect little more than regime change; the terms of inequality and other anomalies persist beyond ‘moment of victory’ and the replacement of one flag with another.  

Do we not, after all, more often than not, go by reports, depend on traditions and scripture, the power of logic (based naturally on certain assumptions that may not be completely true or at least only applicable in certain conditions and not others), indulge in inference, wallow in analogy, play the numbers game of chance, or defer to reputation of book and author, leader and saint?  How often do we probe that which is taken as self-evident, tease out the assumptions, un-frill it of rhetoric, verbosity and fudge-spot?

I propose to examine each of the above clauses with reference to ‘radicalism’ and ‘radicals’ here and abroad.  Such an examination, I hope, would make for a more honest and wholesome understanding of the terms and their operative potential (or lack thereof as the case may be).  

For now, I shall leave the reader with the thought that pinning the word ‘revolution’ on an event, moment and apparent transformation in political order does not necessarily imply that a fundamental change has taken place.  The ‘radicalism’ implied in the latter definition of ‘radical’ (stated above) could provide an interrogative stand point that helps shed light on revolutions and revolutionaries.  The last thing that those seeking to overturn a draconian social and political order need is illusion. The Kalama Sutra can help, I believe.  

Sabbe Satta Bhavantu Sukhitatta (May all beings be happy).

Read more

Reflections on foolishness, wisdom and those deserving of honour

I have been reading and reflecting on the Mangala Sutta of late, i.e. the Discourse on Blessings, and found that even the simplest line from the Buddhist scriptures inspires immensely.  My wife, a keener student of the doctrine and who frequently listens to bana on the radio, made an interesting observation:  ‘Yes, and it’s all linked and should be reflected on keeping in mind other pertinent and salient elements of the dhamma (doctrine); the Mangala Sutta should be read in conjunction with the Parabhava Sutta (the Discourse on Downfall)’.

I glanced through the latter, which complements the Mangala Sutta by pointing out the causes of downfall and that those who allow themselves to be tarnished by these, blocks their own road to worldly, moral and spiritual progress while lowering all that is truly noble and humane.  Being mindful of the dangers enumerated in the Parabhava Sutta and avoiding them, therefore keeps open the pathways to receive the thirty eight blessings detailed in the Mangala Sutta.

I read again the particular lines from the Mangala Sutta and as always happens when a mind enriched by further elaboration re-reads, the inspiration was greater and the reading richer or so I like to believe. 

Asevanā ca bālānam
Panditānañca sevanā
Pūjā ca pūjaneyyānam
Etam mangalamuttamam

The above is the first set of blessings that our Budun Wahanse is said to have mentioned when asked to speak on the subject by some deities visiting him at Jetavanarama as recorded in the Sutta Pitakaya and the Kuddakapatha following re-telling by the incomparable Treasurer of the Dhamma, the Ven Ananda Thero.  The stanza advocates association with the wise, disassociation with fools and the honouring of those worthy of honour and observes that those who do this are blessed.

Who are the ‘foolish’ referred to here?  Taking into account other relevant discourses, ‘fool’ refers to those who do not observe basic morality.  The commentaries indicate that even if one is conversant with the dhamma but does not observe moral conduct, one is foolish since the behavior results in suffering, the augmentation of suffering and a lengthening of sansaric sojourn. The commentaries also argue that in the ultimate sense this stanza extols the individual to remain aloof from foolishness. 

It occurred to me that there are no absolute fools and that no one is absolutely wise except those who have walked the path advocated and have reached the destinations of knowing.  In each of us there is a fool and there is a wise person.  To the extent one fortifies oneself with the thrividaratne, or the Noble Triple Gem, the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, one is able to better ascertain the dimensions of foolishness and wisdom in a given individual, and able to empower oneself by learning from the wise dimensions and check oneself against being contaminated by the foolish. 

It is not a piece of advice where the individual is required to label someone ‘fool’ or ‘learned’, run from fool and walk with the wise.  If that were the case, we would have collectives made exclusively of fools and exclusively of the wise with no interaction whatsoever between the two, even the fools who wish to be wise being snubbed by the latter. 

Like in all things, the call is for the twin deployment of pragna (wisdom) and maithree (compassion), keeping in mind the virtues of practicing upekkha (equanimity), with full knowledge of the transient nature of things (even fools can become wise and the wise slip to foolishness, for example).

Most importantly, the stanza calls for deep self-reflection, advocating that the individual seek within him/herself the foolish and the wise using one or more of the many tools provided in the vast canon of Buddhism.  An easy pathway would be to reflect on the qualities of the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha (the collective of those who have renounced worldly pleasures, or the bikkhus incorrectly translated as ‘clergy’).  The distance between self in all its facets and the ideal-types (if you will) articulated in these qualities of the Noble Triple Gem, would help, I feel, in discovering within oneself the elements of foolishness and (relative) wisdom and help also to obtain sense of the dimensions of ignorance.  Once these things are ascertained in some approximate manner, it becomes or should become easier to move from avidya (ignorance) to vidya (comprehension), darkness to light, foolishness to wisdom and so on.

The ‘honour’ element is no less fascinating, I found.  Who are those who can be seen to be worthy of honour? The commentaries offer a list:  those who provide material and spiritual benefits such as parents, teachers, employers, monks, public servants, etc. and also those with more refined morality, greater learning, or greater age.

The latter set of characters worthy of honour cuts across all categories for everyone is honourable one way or another, and by the same token everyone has qualities that sit well with the opposite.  The advocacy, perhaps, is to expend wisdom and compassion in order to be able to ascertain in each individual one encounters, that which is praiseworthy and to applaud the same, even as one recognizes flaw and protects oneself and if possible the flawed as well, without being condescending or succumbing to moral posturing. 

Critically important, likewise, is to reflect on the idea of ‘honour’ in the context of self-exploration.  It is inevitably a humbling exercise and an ego-washing that makes for more wholesome engagement with the larger collective even as it makes for keener and more beneficial exploration of self. 

This afternoon, a friend, benefactor, reader and critic, told me that she was disappointed with the tone I had used in a piece I wrote for Sunday (July 31, 2011).  I told her that there are times when foul language has a role.  ‘No Malinda, never; it might seem to be effective but in the long run it is not’. 

We slip and I am sure I will slip again.  My friend was absolutely right.  I was checking out the Mangala Sutta for a different purpose when a particular line popped up before me.  It was about the well-spoken word and how speaking it is a blessing.  I wrote back to her, copy-pasting the stanza, acknowledging that she was right.

There’s a fool in me.  The association of the wise (my friend) helped me recognize myself or at least that particular aspect of who I am.  She is truly worthy of homage. 

I take refuge in the Buddha.  I take refuge in the Dhamma. I take refuge in the Sangha.  May all beings be happy: Sabbe Satta Bhavantu Sukhitatta.

Read more