A Matter of faith
By Citizen
Throughout history, there have been good men who did good things and bad men who did bad things. But it has taken an unquestioning acceptance of religious doctrines or preaching or a tribal affiliation to a race, to motivate good people to do bad things. History is at best a romanticised compilation of half-truths – useful only as much as we can learn from it without giving into the temptations of using history to justify our actions in the present. The only thing that can justify our actions at present is an uncompromising sense of what is right and wrong and the voice of our moral conscience which is independent of religious affiliation. As much as it is dangerous for a nation to be constitutionally bound to protect any religion, I sometimes feel that this could perhaps even be a strength in the Sri Lankan context if only we could create a legal precedence that the only way to ‘protect Buddhism’ is to adhere to its principles and thus declare that it is illegal for the government and people (which includes every citizen including V. Prabhakaran, members of the JHU and ‘maha Sangha’) to engage in any activity that is contrary to the Buddhist doctrine! Wouldn’t that be the best safeguard of our human rights and dignity?
Don’t you think it ironic that despite Buddha’s invitation to his followers to actively question his philosophy in their search for higher truths and despite his advice to them to discover the truth for themselves, Buddhism has never gone through a reformation but has stagnated for 2500 years? Buddhists all over the world still unquestioningly believe in theories such as karma and re-incarnation without ever seeking better, more grounded evidence for their beliefs? Buddhists in Sri Lanka believe that the Gautama Buddha chose Sri Lanka as the seat of Buddhism where his philosophy would flourish and spread enlightenment to the rest of the world – but how come we are still a morally impoverished population at war with ourselves, ruled by a government that is far from enlightened and substantially funded by the proceeds from gambling?
Christianity and Islam on the other hand is based on dogma and as all monotheistic religions, demand unquestioning faith and obedience. Buddhists often cite this as a proclamation of their own superiority as adherents of a more rational doctrine. Yet the Christian faith has gone through reformations that have had a positive impact on the whole world – mostly unintentionally of course, but nevertheless very inspiringly and with wide implications. Almost every single democratic right, freedom and liberty we enjoy – or we can hope to enjoy – today is the direct or indirect result of the thoughts, philosophy and spirit of empowerment that was sparked off by Martin Luther a Catholic monk, in the protestant revolution that took place in medieval Europe. It is perhaps a coincidence of history, but as much as the negative impacts of colonialism in our country, Christianity provides the moral and practical foundations for the present day democracy, human rights, equal access to education and the encouragement of industriousness that we have inherited from our colonial past.
But I digress. This is not so much about the vices and virtues of religion in general – let alone of one religion or the other. It is more about the fact that dogmatic beliefs in religion and overly romanticised notions of ancient history have denied us the space to realise the importance of new thoughts and ideas that humanity has produced during the better part of the last two millennia. Despite the Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed and the so called great philosophers of ancient Greece, it was not until Thomas Jefferson did in 1776 that the universal equality of all human beings was publicly acknowledged or declared – let alone constitutionally enacted – even though it took a couple of centuries to be fully realised even in the land of its birth. It is a fact nevertheless that men like Einstein, Bhor, Plank, Feynman and Gelman have described their insights into the hidden mysteries of the universe more clearly and in more depth than perhaps any ‘Samma Sambuddha’ has ever done. The search for higher truth continues deeper and unabated long after the Buddha, by laymen and women of many faiths, out of sight and out of the consciousness of many Buddhists. While the monks are getting into politics and their followers are yet trying to reconcile themselves with a philosophy that has trickled through two and a half millennia, many of whom will read this and fail to see the hypocrisy in considering it their duty to call me a heretic.
16 Comments
Leave a Reply
Subscribe to Content Updates
iPhone app
The thing to be sure of is that the christians won't stop preaching what they believe, and that i guess is the ultimate test of whether they believe in what they say or not. When Bandaranaike converted to buddhism no one accused him of an unethical conversion, though the law "happened" to state that only a Buddhist could be the head of state. Correct me if i am wrong (i.e. if he didn't convert, or if the law was passed after he converted).
The buddhist priests don't mind temples being built in nations the public are generally told to believe are "christian nations", either, and boast of people loving buddhism for its intelligence and simplicity, as you say.
Finally, while many buddhists will point out that christianity allowed killings, or christians, did, they put aside the case of dutugemunu and how his killing were justified for the sake of greater good. For sure, it's possibly a rare mistake, but christianity is in many countries, and masses believing in it gives errant politicians more power, needless to say.
And after all, the final argument is freedom of choice. in a country where meat and fish are allowed, a total contradiction of buddhist teachings, they stop another religion?
it's important to emphasize that christians will not, have any hatred against their buddhist friends.because they know what's going on. I hope, we don't need another war.
Ashan,
I'm certain that Christians won't stop preaching what they believe in, and they must have every reasonable right to do so. I would, however, humbly suggest that there might be more productive uses of their time.
The head of state during Mr. Bandaranaike's time happened to be the Queen of England. She was represented in Ceylon by the Governor-General, who I believe was a Christian.
There was never a law that stated only a Buddhist could be head of state or head of government. There isn't one now. Read our constitution.
I agree that most religious groups have encouraged bloodletting in their name. But check up on world history and see if your breezy comparison between Christians and Buddhists in this regard is fair.
As for the meat and fish issue, is this an example of Buddhist hypocrisy – or tolerance? Food for thought at least.
Please be assured that Buddhists bear no ill-will against their Christian friends. Except maybe when they get unjustifiably sanctimonious. Or start muttering dark things about war. I'm sure the feeling is mutual.
harsh words rajiv:)
i admit i had always been told that only a buddhist sinhalese could be head of state, and that's why i said correct me if i am wrong. My fault for not checking.
It's not up to either of us to say who is getting unjustifiably sanctimonious (i had to look that up) by the way. i am sure others understood my reference to war.
I don't know whether anyone is interested in letting me clear what i said about meat and fish. if they are, i was saying that tolerating that in my opinions is more un-buddhist, than unethical conversion.
In terms of finding more productive uses of our time, well that may be what the general public would tell us folk in advertising.
This is one of the most interesting posts I've read in quite a while. It is indeed ironic that the Enlightenment arose in the dogmatic Christian West and not in the Buddhist East.
Perhaps partly it came in reaction to the almost perpetual state of religious warfare and oppression that existed in Europe for centuries. In contrast, religious wars were much less frequent in Asia, although the secular variety was quite popular.
A good friend of mine made an astute observation, which is very similar to what you say in your first para. The Enlightenment in Europe was a movement AWAY from Christian fundamentalism. If there is ever an Enlightenment in Sri Lanka, it will be a movement TOWARDS the fundamentals of Buddhism.
Europe has arguably experienced a second Enlightenment In the decades following World War II. Democracy, secularism and individual freedom have finally become universal right up to the frontiers of the old Soviet Union. It has been quite the reverse in Sri Lanka. Small wonder then that Buddhism is on the ascendant in the West, while we have to attempt legislation to arrest its decline here.
rajivmv,
It's more likely that the renaissance was sparked by a people’s reaction to the oppression of the church and state rather than wars – religious or secular. But people in the east were not much better off. The difference is that the west was empowered and emboldened by the abstract concept of an almighty God. Here's my humble take on it.
Modelling one’s life based on the concept of God as in the Christian theology has worked amazingly well. Believing that “we are all God’s children” and that “I am my brother’s keeper” (both concepts that Obama used masterfully to rally the American people) establishes individuals social responsibilities in their society. However the supremacy of God above all political and religious powers and the idea that both king and common, pope and person are equal in front of God, empowers common men to challenge the abuse and misuse of power by those in government as well as church. (This is precisely why bringing in legislation to curb the actions of Christians can be ineffective as Ashan points out above)
Buddhist philosophy on the other hand – or whatever that has trickled through 2500 years – establishes the supremacy of Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha over the common layman. So it it technically religious heresy for a Buddhist to challenge a member of the Sangha, the contents of the Dhamma or the status of the Buddha – so the status quo has remained unchallenged – and therefore unreformed.
* I must add as a footnote that the empowerment that comes with the faith in an 'almighty God' is equally dangerous and destructive – which is amply demonstrated by the crusades of old as well as those of the present. there is nothing more dangerous and stupid than to think that "the holy spirit is working through you" or that God has sanctioned all your actions through any such 'mechanism.
This is a void which a rational, philosophical doctrine has much fill
And yet, Buddhist teachings provide just as much material to challenge tyranny as Christian concepts do. The Dhamma, for example, is supreme to all political and religious powers. This idea of an Almighty God exists in Islam too, but the Islamic world has not followed the example of Europe.
I don't think you can attribute the European Enlightenment primarily to Christianity, nor our current relative backwardness to Buddhism. Theology can be invoked in service of any argument. Martin Luther picked his cherries from the same tree as Torquemada.
And you sir present the plea to the Triple Gem as the sum total of Buddhist philosophy. Proof that it brooks no dissent or independent thought. Yet, in a previous incarnation, you pointed out that the Buddha invited his followers to question his philosophy.
The Enlightenment sprang out of a complex confluence of factors in European culture, much of which can be traced back to pre-Christian Greece and Rome. I see no reason to believe, as you infer, that Buddhism condemns its adherents and their societies to permanent intellectual and spiritual poverty. Even less that mass conversion to Christianity is the answer.
rajivmv,
As i said, mine was just one way of interpreting the course of history in the hope that there may be lessens to be learnt. The richer and more diverse our interpretations are, the better and thus i am richer for having read your interpretation. I offer my views, not as facts, but as an attempt to describe the sensations of my fingertips as i blindly reach out to feel out and touch the unknowns of the past – but that's the best anyone can do. History is a wise old man who is deaf and dumb – it possesses boundless knowledge but feeble in its dispense. That is why we still have to struggle and reform ourselves as a nation and society despite maturing through 2000 years.
rajivmw, Citizen may not be a "Sir", just as I may not be a male frog.
More substantively, Citizen's point — as I read it — was not that Buddhist philosophy does not have within it wonderful resources for forming and shaping a better society — I would agree with you that it does — but that that it might be less amenable (than Christianity) to being used by the lay people to challenge the hierarchies of religious order and State.
The assumption, I suppose, is that an important ingredient of "reforming" and "improving" is the ability to challenge status-quo and institutions of power with something other than violence. Societies in which people don't find the resources to do that might tend to become worse over time.
I can see the point you make — by citing Islam — that it is not necessarily the belief in an all powerful God that creates that empowering possibility. So I wonder what it is that creates such empowerment, if Citizen is right.
Is it that the Christian God in Jesus takes the side of the weak and the victim, becoming himself the object of harassment by Church and State? So, not just an all powerful God, but one who chooses in a very special way to identify and be identified with the down-trodden? One who might right now, be more easily identified with the trapped civilians in the Vanni, than with the causes of the Army or the LTTE? I don't know.
But I digress. The point I wanted to make is that it is not about the theoretical theological/philosophical resources but about the sociological consequences of that theology/philosophy which Citizen seems to be speaking — at least to my reading.
Is Christianity really more amenable to the cause of reform than other religions? The evidence presented is that Christian Europe produced the ideas than underpin modernity (democracy, rule of law, individual liberty, etc).
But as I have pointed out before, these concepts have their origins in the pre-Christian era. It can be argued that Christianity actually helped snuff out the tradition of intellectual inquiry that once flourished in ancient Greece and Rome. And that it was revived only when religious influence began to wane in the aftermath of the schisms.
At any rate, the Enlightenment was more a European phenomenon than a Christian one. Ethiopia, despite being one of the oldest Christian nations in the world, has turned out nothing like Europe.
Although the record might largely suggest otherwise, Christianity can no doubt empower reform without violence, But Gandhi has shown us that the Indic religions have at least the same potential.
Your fourth paragraph is, as you admit, a digression. In fact, it's an attempt to smuggle in a spot of proselitysing here! I mean really Frog… But thanks for pointing out my ill-considered gender reference. Won't make that mistake again.
I offer this not as a counterpoint, but as another interesting addition to the discussion – that Ghandi's movement based on non-violent dissent was chiefly inspired by Leo Tolstoy's book "The Kingdom of God is within you". The two great men exchanged many letters though i doubt they ever met. "The Kingdom of God is within you" was banned by the catholic church, which is only one of the many reasons i would highly reccomend it to both Christian and non-Christians alike.
Also 'A Letter to a Hindu', written by Tolstoy to Tarak Das Nath, an Indian revolutionary, in which he expounds on the liberating potential of love as espoused by all the great religions.
Oops! Make that Tarak Nath Das.
who is calling desperately for a ceasefire in Sri Lanka? Definitely, the call is coming from all those who care for human lives and seek human dignity. Civilised people, countries and the Tamils in different parts of the world are seriously concerned about 300,000 civilians, who have run away into the jungles fearing the genocidal army. The call is a human responsiblity. The call is genuine coming from serious people.
Talk against any truce whatsoever is headed by the "clenched fist" lot in the state ledership and the miltary, both of whom are blood thirsty for Tamil genocide. The fingers of their "clenched fists" need to be straigtened by the UN to make a truce come into force, send UN monitors and investigate genocide.
Telling the untruth and propping up blatant lies, like a magician pulling out a "rabbit from his hat", about Tamils and on Tamil matters, is in the rotten leadership of the state, its bloody military and the DNA of its major Sinhalese lot; a reason why journalists and the UN monitors are disall;owed in the war zone. If allowed the "rabbits from hats" would cease coming out!!
Yesterday, the soldiers fired shells to Puthukudiyirppu hospital and killed more than 6 civilians and injured about 19 others. The obvious intention was to prevent any medical facility whatsoever to the injured civilians in the war zone. It is a clear war crime. But the military spokesman pulled a "rabbit from his magic hat" and said that the shells were fired by the LTTE !
When the military spokesman was asked as to why the LTTE should fire such shells, he pulled another "rabbit from his magic hat" and said that the LTTE wanted a truce !!
The war in SL is turning out to be a story of the magicians amusing people with "hats" and "rabbits"!!
Sam,
Those who care for human lives and seek human dignity have been calling for the renunciation of violence in 1958, 1971, 1983, 1988/89 and 1998 when the Dalada Maligawa was bombed, right through the ceasefire from 2001, now… from the beginning of civilization to this moment. Those who care for human lives and seek human dignity wept when hundreds of un-armed men were massacred in mosques and under a sacred tree and they speak now for their brethren who are starving, wounded, helpless, forcefully conscripted and held for ransom in the Wanni. Those who care for human lives and seek human dignity do not hesitate to renounce any and every ideology that is so immersed in violence and so bankrupt in its path that they should resort to strapping high explosives and shrapnel to the bodies of their own youth and trade their lives dor more death and destruction. Those who care for human lives and seek human dignity also protest against the atrocities committed by those who continue to harass their own brethren for their own petty personal gain – in the guise of collecting for funds to liberate their people when in truth it funds terror and violence against a hapless people whose just aspirations for justice and human dignity are being exploited by ruthless beasts.
So rest assured that those who care for human lives and seek human dignity are ever vigilant and active and ever smarter that those who blatantly pretend to be so.