A Brief Colonial History Of Ceylon(SriLanka)
Sri Lanka: One Island Two Nations
A Brief Colonial History Of Ceylon(SriLanka)
Sri Lanka: One Island Two Nations
(Full Story)
Search This Blog
Back to 500BC.
==========================
Thiranjala Weerasinghe sj.- One Island Two Nations
?????????????????????????????????????????????????Monday, June 12, 2017
Some Questions about Violence and Theravada in Buddhism?
It might not be correct to make a direct link between Theravada thinking and violence in these countries. Because there are various other factors that have influenced violence in general and the monk’s involvement in violence.
( June 11, 2017, Sydney, Sri Lanka Guardian) Recent
attacks on Muslim mosques instigated by certain sections of Buddhist
monks, as well as the post-independence orientation of the Sangha almost
in general (aside admirable exceptions) against the Tamil community in
Sri Lanka raises serious questions about the theory and practice of
Buddhism in the country, commonly declared as Theravada Buddhism. One
could surmise that such a dichotomy between the theory and practice is
common to all organized religions. However, the contrast appears drastic
particularly given the fundamentals of the Buddhist teachings and the
practical implications that this has brought to the political surface in
recent times. Most alarming is the active involvement of at least some
Buddhist monks in violent politics.
Not only that the Buddha’s teachings were extremely moderate, pacifist
and peaceful, but when Buddhism came to Sri Lanka in the third century
BCE through the initiatives of King Dharma Asoka, the guidelines were to
tolerate other religions. The four immeasurable concepts of Karuna
(compassion), Metta (unconditional love), Mudita (empathy) and Upekkha
(equanimity) do not appear together in any other religion in that
clarity or prominence. Dharma Asoka’s advice also was to ‘respect other
religions as much as you respect your own religion’ (Edict XII).
Early Religious Plurality
After the arrival of Buddhism, it spread through the length and breadth
of the country as evident from pagodas, inscriptions and chronicles.
However, the country preserved the plurality of religions and plurality
of interpretation of Buddhism allowing different schools to survive side
by side. The prominent schools or nikayas were
Mahavihara, Abhayagiri and Jetavana. In this sense, Theravada led by
Mahavihara was only one school, but the most prominent one.
The proper origins of Theravada could be traced to the Fourth Council
held in Sri Lanka during the first century BCE. There was another Fourth
Council held in Kahsmir in the First Century CE which gave birth to
Mahayana tradition. It is during this time that Abahayagiri came to
prominence in the country, following Mahayana convictions. That
tradition was quite liberal and open to new ideas including the worship
of bodhisattvas.
There is no question that Theravada school or Mahavihara contributed
immensely to preserve, interpret and enhance the teachings of the Buddha
for posterity. Some of the contributions came from visiting scholars
like Buddhagosha in the sixth century and his compilation of Visuddhimagga is
testimony to this fact. However, there was another side to its
contribution. In a sense, Theravada tradition was rigid, doctrinaire and
in certain respects sectarian. There was a clear attempt to portrait
Sri Lanka as a sacred land (dhammadipa) and to emphasize purity and lineage both in terms of sangha and kingship. Mahavamsa, authored by one of the key monks of this tradition is an example.
The above aspects of Theravada tradition became boosted after challenges
from several South Indian invasions and occupations. The other reason
was the unification of the three schools or the abolition of the other
two (Abhayagiri and Jetavana) and the establishment of the predominance
of Mahavirhara in the twelfth century. It is this Theravada which went
to Burma, Thailand and Cambodia.
Some Questions
Last year, John Clifford Holt edited a book on Sri Lanka titled ‘Buddhist Extremists and Muslim Minorities: Religious Conflict in Contemporary Sri Lanka’
contributed also by three Sri Lankan academics. Holt stated in his
Introduction that “The rise of a Buddhist militancy victimizing Muslim
communities strikes most Euro-American observers as surprising.” The
reason he gave was while the West ‘profile Buddhists as peace loving,
meditative and representing pacifism and gentility, Muslims are often
branded or imagined in almost polar opposite manner.’ He also observed,
“Before
addressing the situation specifically in Sri Lanka, I need to point out
that Sri Lanka is not the only Theravada Buddhist dominated society
where tensions and violence between Buddhists and Muslims have flared in
recent years.” (p. 2)
He was particularly referring to Burma and Thailand and observed many
similarities between the violent Wirathu movement in Burma and the Bodu
Bala Sena (BBS) in Sri Lanka.
Over two decades ago, when I was doing my doctoral studies on human
rights, I selected Burma, Cambodia and Sri Lanka as case studies given
the magnitude of violence and human rights violations that had occurred
in these countries in contemporary times. What struct me later was that
all these countries are Theravada Buddhist countries. Although violence
in Cambodia was not directly related to the monks or Buddhism there,
during the Khmer Rouge violence, the Cham Muslims were overwhelmingly
killed. I also had occasion to visit where the Chum Muslims lived and
perished. I also came across the Khmer word ‘Thimil,’ which was used to
mean the enemies of Buddhism. There were all indications to believe that
the word originated during the Sinhala Buddhist (Theravada) influence
in Cambodia.
A Possible Link?
It might not be correct to make a direct link between Theravada thinking
and violence in these countries. Because there are various other
factors that have influenced violence in general and the monk’s
involvement in violence. In the case of Cambodia, the monk’s involvement
in violence during 1970s or thereafter is minimal. On the other hand,
they were victims. The Cambodian monks also do not generally get
involved in politics. It is prohibited by vinaya and
law. This is also more or less the case in Thailand. Therefore, the
question is more general than specific. But in the case of Burma or Sri
Lanka, the question is both general and specific.
Is there anything doctrinal within Theravada thinking/tradition which
makes (at least some) monks or the general adherents intolerant of other
religions and disposed towards aggression and violence? That is the
question which I am posing in this article. One may dismiss or denounce
the question as anti-Buddhist or Western conspiracy. In my sincere
opinion, that would not render any good for Buddhism which I respect
immensely or the country. According to Kalama Sutta, this kind of
questioning is necessary to understand the reality. I would not say the
‘truth’ which is generally relative in my opinion.
There should be a dialogue within the Buddha Sasana and in general (if
not to find the reasons or any connection) to bring the peaceful
teachings of the Buddha to the forefront. The lateral way might be the
best, avoiding intractable issues. That is the way to spread Buddhism to
the world without confining it narrowly to one ethnicity. Likewise,
there should also be moderation on the part of the other religions and
communities without exacerbating the frictions. Violence does not serve
any purpose, even for the perpetrators. As I have stated at the
beginning, Theravada tradition itself has rendered a major service to
Buddhism by preserving, interpreting and enhancing the teachings of the
Buddha. If there is anything wrong in the order, the discipline (vinaya) or the way the teachings are interpreted today, those must be corrected for the general good.
A Way Out
Visuddhimagga (path
of purification) of Buddhagosha might be one way out. Not only
individuals, but also the whole country must be mindful (the principle
of mindfulness) of ‘what is being done, not being done and how things to
be done in the future.’ There is an abiding duty on the part of the
Maha Sangha, the Sangha Nayakas and the Buddhist scholars to address
these issues. As predominantly a Theravada country, there were periods
where religious tolerance and plurality prevailed. As Robert Knox
recorded (1681), the Kandyan kingdom was such a period. This was apart
from the glorious Anuradhapura period which spanned over a millennium.
Same was of most of the Kotte period.
With reference to the Sinhalese, after describing their way of charity,
Knox said, “Nor are they charitable only to the poor of their own
nation; but as I said to others”’ There were Moorish pilgrims coming
from the other coast, he said. What he meant by ‘the other coast’ was
India. They were Mohametans by religion, he said. “These have a temple
in Candy. A certain former king gave this temple this privilege – that
every freeholder should contribute a pannam to it” (p. 171 in Part III, ‘An Historical Relation of the Island of Ceylon in the East Indies’). Knox’s descriptions of religions in the Kandyan kingdom were about plurality.
While critically commenting on Portuguese destruction of some Buddhist
shrines, he also noted that the people ‘respect Christians’ because
“They love a man that makes conscience of his ways.” While making a
distinction between Buddhist temples and others, he said, “But these
Arms are not in the Buddou’s Temples, he being for Peace.”
‘He being for peace,’ was Knox’s understanding of the Buddha.
The purpose of the whole article is not to blame Theravada for violence,
but to search for answers in curtailment of violence in the country and
beyond. As the history of many organized religions show, there were
priests and monks who involved in violence at times in the name of
religion. The reason might be the erroneous belief that ‘their version
of the world is the absolute truth.’ The Crusaders were one such example
from Christianity. There are more recent examples from the Islamic
faith. However, none should be an excuse on the part of the Buddhists to
indulge in violence. One may argue that Buddhism could be considered
the most peaceful religion in its philosophy and teachings. There is
nothing wrong if each religion considers or argues itself as the most
peaceful. But that must be put into practice on everyone’s part.