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
?????????????????????????????????????????????????Friday, August 11, 2017
Buddhism: Grapes of wrath and the elixir of compassion
Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord:
He
is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored; He
hath loosed the fatal lightning of his terrible swift sword: His truth
is marching on. ~ From ‘The Battle-hymn of the Republic’ by Julia Ward
Howe (1819-1910)
( August 10, 2017, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) The
Maha Sangha (the community of Buddhist monks) of Sri Lanka are on the
march. But please don’t jump to the conclusion that I am going to assert
that they are on the warpath or are going to voluntarily assume or
advocate for others a literally militant role in the context of the
country’s simmering politics, as would any reader predict on the basis
of the ‘righteous rage’ of violated Truth and Justice depicted in the
lines from the 19th century American poet Julia Ward Howe’s famous poem
(It is one of my favourites) quoted in the epigraph above. She happened
to be an abolitionist social activist against the evil of slavery, which
was normal in her country at that time. However, the ‘march’ is only
metaphorical in both contexts (i.e., here and in the poem).
What I mean is that the Buddhist monks have been forced to make a stand
in response to what they perceive as the worst existential threat that
they have faced since independence. However, their engagement is not of a
militaristic nature. It is a nonviolent attempt to ensure the victory
of truth and justice over injustice and falsehood that are now,
according to them, are reigning. Monks are only advocates of
righteousness (Of course, politically motivated critics will dispute
this, irrespective of whether their conduct in any given situation
deserves censure or not). It is truth that begins to march on when the
upright monks point the way for the guidance of rulers (whether current
or future). Monks’ involvement as a lateral or central or marginal force
is bound to be misconceived or misrepresented as a purely political
intrusion, particularly by those who do not believe that Buddhist monks
have at least a quasi political role to play in our society. But this
sort of benign mediation by monks in mundane affairs is a social
responsibility that devolves on Sri Lankan monks with a conscience; they
just cannot relinquish that responsibility even if they wish to do so. I
need not invoke the historical and cultural background that leads one
to make this assertion, because many speakers and writers have already
commented on the subject, and for the average Sri Lankan it is a matter
of common knowledge (a fact, cleverly shielded, like other positive
pieces of information about the country, from foreign observers by
anti-Sri Lanka propagandists). The other factor that legitimizes the
advisory role of monks would like to unobtrusively play in governance is
the very nature of Buddhism as a truly ‘secular’ (in the sense that the
word is understood in the celebrated Western democracies) ethical
philosophy, rather than a religion. I’d like to remind the reader of
Bhikkhu Bodhi’s lucid essay titled “Tolerance and Diversity” in The Island of
August 7, 2017.Here I am not dragging Bhikkhu Bodhi into local
politics. My suggestion only (for those who need) to highlight the
fundamental difference between Buddha’s teaching and monotheistic
‘religions’ in respect of the concept of secularism. The prominence
given to Buddhism in the current constitution does not make Sri Lanka a
Buddhist theocracy unlike constitutional recognition conferred on a
monotheistic religion would turn the relevant country a strictly
(religious) non-secular state. The Sri Lankan Supreme Court has declared
that under the current constitution Sri Lanka is effectively a secular
state.
Actually, it doesn’t matter if the monks’ social activism is interpreted
as political or non-political. Throughout history they advised the
monarch, which certainly influenced their political decisions. Rulers
also provided legal authority for the enforcement of judgements that
leader monks delivered on errant monks, as in cases of disrobing them on
grounds of violated bhikkhu discipline. The monks are bound to be
nonpartisan when they have to meet their historically assigned or
inherited obligations towards the society that supports them with the
‘four requisites’ (food, shelter, clothes and medicine), for they are
bhikkhus ‘mendicants’ in terms of the religious precepts they have
undertaken to follow. The perfect democracy, humanity, and compassionate
tolerance of Buddhism does not allow people of other religions to be
disadvantaged in any way in a state where the majority are Buddhists.
The monks cannot abandon their duties towards the lay society which
mainly consists of Buddhists – but they are not discriminatory towards
people of other faiths – simply because their viewpoints and well meant
activities could displease the minorities, who might wrongly view them
as fundamentalist, or racist, or sectarian, or domineering; but they
need to appreciate the righteousness that impels monk activism, the
overriding universal compassion that blesses not only those in the
Buddhist fold, but outside it, even non-humans.
Something that bears out the fact that Sinhalese Buddhists do not use
their vote on the basis of race or religion is how poorly Buddhist monks
generally fare at parliamentary elections , except perhaps in rare
circumstances brought about, for example, by perceived non-reciprocation
of their goodwill by other communities, and how deeply they embrace
democratic ideals. Average monks, on the other hand, with no special
spiritual attainments to their credit are, like ordinary laypersons, are
pathujjanas or worldlings (‘The world is too much with us…’ as they
could truly confess with poet Wordsworth). Not all monks can be thought
to perfectly fulfill this requirement of being non-partisan, for a stake
in party politics is usually worthwhile in ensuring material gain or
worldly success in this corrupt world, be the pathujjana a monk or a
layperson. A few loudmouthed monks, particularly the corrupt handful
that act as if they are oblivious of the abundantly available evidence
that the Buddhasasana is being targeted by inimical non-Buddhist forces
(which, nevertheless are a marginal element among the traditional
minority communities), have joined the ranks of critics of the
strengthening Sangha unity. The Buddhasasana includes the Dhamma, the
monks, the Buddhist laity, the monasteries, Buddhist shrines, all
properties donated to the Sasana by ancient royalty and lay upasakas
(lay followers of the dhamma), including those given at later times,
ruined places of worship and other Buddhist archaeological treasures,
which are our historical heritage, and extant rituals such as the Dalada
perahera in Kandy, and other ritualistic and architectural monuments
that proclaim the proud cultural identity of Sri Lanka. It is no racism
to speak up for the assertion and preservation of this unique identity,
when it is in danger. It is no threat to peaceful co-existence with
other religionists to do so. Unfortunately, it is the strident noises of
mindless extremism against the majority community that are heard
drowning out the mature mellow words of sage advice uttered by these
monks.
The eminent monks who are being drawn into the movement that is gaining
momentum (sucked in despite themselves, as Buddhists know very well,
without ignorant aliens having to berate them about it) were criticized
for keeping quiet in the face of numerous acts of barefaced aggression
and blatant hostility against Sinhalese Buddhists in the recent past,
especially in the north and east provinces, and for naively trusting the
false assurances of protection offered by opportunistic politicians of
both the major parties who have taken the vote of the patient Buddhists
for granted, while exclusively focusing on the bloc votes of the
minorities led by self-righteously communalist politicians . Leaders who
come from the majority community are often ready to implicitly disown
the monk activists, even though they would love to use them to garner
Buddhist votes. On rare occasions when a leader with some courage dares
speak about injustices that the Sinhalese Buddhist community are
subjected to, he or she gets shouted down as a racist. The relative
shyness of the southern leaders to associate themselves with the monks
openly is demonstrated by the fact that no important political leader,
perhaps with the exception of NFF leader Wimal Weerawansha, according to
the media, has fully endorsed the viewpoint of the Maha Sangha, so
openly, although it is not only the most non-communalist,
non-totalitarian, non-sectarian but the most democratic approach
proposed to resolve the religious fundamentalist problem that the
Buddhist monks have been instrumental in foregrounding as a crucial
aspect of the deeper national crisis now facing our country – the
threatened disintegration of the unitary state with a predominant
Buddhist cultural identity to accommodate federalism.
No foreign observers, nor persons alien to our language and culture, can
understand or appreciate what these monks are saying. These strangers
who want to interfere in the internal affairs of an independent
sovereign state with a unique recorded history of over two and a half
millennia do not have any empathy with the monks or the rest of Sri
Lankans. Hence the external and internal opposition that is being
registered against the monks. Despite such opposition, the monk leaders
are determined to replace the poisonous harvest of ‘grapes of wrath’ (In
Julia Ward’s poem, the phrase means an unsatisfactory situation that
calls for divine intervention/retribution, i.e., just punishment of
those responsible) with the rare elixir of universal compassion that
Buddhism offers.
The sensible majority of all Sri Lankans have welcomed the recently
announced unanimity of opinion among the Maha Sangha regarding the
deteriorating state of affairs in the country. Issuing the now well
known Asgiriya Statement of June 20th the Asgiriya Karaka Sangha Sabha
suggested that something is not alright with the way the country is
being run by the current regime. That is a damning observation coming
from the Maha Sangha. The July 4th declaration by the same Maha Sangha
that the country does not need a new constitution at this juncture was
received by the general public as a more concrete manifestation of the
positive development heralded by the Asgiriya Statement. What is needed
is the implementation of the provisions of the current constitution to
stop the rot, including the attacks on the Buddhist cultural heritage
and heritage sites of the country.
But there has been opposition to this Sangha rising from the beginning.
It comes from a minority, which, although it has little justification
for getting involved in our internal affairs because of being
effectively alienated from the majority of the population on the basis
of one reason or another, now seems to be doing everything in its power
to destroy the historical, cultural, and political basis of our
Motherland that the Maha Sangha unequivocally represent. This hostile,
small minority (rendered powerful by default in a local political
context shot through by meteoric disturbances of regional geopolitics)
consists of six marginal sections, according to my own amateur
reckoning, namely: unfeeling neo-liberalists, moribund Marxists,
federalist communalists, anti-Buddhist religious fundamentalists,
unprincipled, opportunistic politicians, and a set of well meaning but
deluded young political theorists who call themselves ‘secularists’,
which I will reserve for a future write-up.