Suren,

I would like to know what social degradation you talk about in Theravada countries as opposed to other societies.

Similarly would like you to elaborate the evidence of illiberalism as against any other society.

I would like to submit that Sinhala Buddhist culture is one of the most liberal cultures. It has only reacted negatively and sometimes violently when there is sustained attacks on it and it’s very existence is threatened which has been the case on numerous occassions throughout the history.

Theravada Buddhism played a pivotal role in bringing different communities together to build the Sinhala Buddhist nation as it is known today in this country. An illiberal philosophy would not be able to achieve it. Only and open, liberal and benevolent philosophy could achieve it considering extreme violence employed by other religions in conversions and expansion.

Sinhala Buddhists were liberal enough to accept non Sinhala Buddhists as their kings. The only condition was the requirement that those kings become the custodians of Buddhism as symbolised by being the custodian of Buddha’s tooth relic. To my knowledge this has never happened in the most liberal societies (that the head of state/king being a ‘non believer’) that you may worship as utopia.

However, your open minded approach is a welcome sign in this debate and applauded.

Dear GV! Greetings to All!

Although, being neither a contributor nor a regular participant in debates, it has become a ritual for me to visit regularly and spend at least half an hour with GV once a day – compelled by keen interest in reading the postings and the heated intellectual volleys in debates between the little, the gentle and the genteel men – to replenish / recycle my thoughts and thus improve and enhance my knowledge.

To pass my judgment on public forums, I am immature – not a journalist or a decorated academic but a just thinking layman who knows only to distinguish black from white – a right from a wrong – to an acceptable degree of fairness and moral standard. Thereby, I find there is nothing wrong and has ever gone wrong with GV’s moderation and her standard of evaluation of contents and their inherent / implying worthiness of message that is conveyed in such comments. Once again, GV has demonstrated her caliber of fairness and impartiality with impeccable still unquestionable tolerance in applying uniquely self-designed yardstick in arbitration.

At least, we who believe that we are fair and broad-minded, let’s appreciate GV for practicing and thus mercilessly enforcing a disciplined system of ‘Rule of Law / Ethic’ in form of her moderation – without changing the goal posts in the middle.

I really admire and appreciate the editor and his editorial staff and the team of GV moderators for their zeal in upholding journalistic professionalism; and use this opportunity to convey my greetings to them. Keep-up GV’s flag bearing journalism & keep it flying! Thanks! Nithy!

It is true that Theravada Buddhism (Heenayana as preferred by Kusal) ultimately focusses on ending human suffering by breaking the bond of ‘thanha’ or craving. In ‘Paticca Samuppada’ this cause and effect cycle is explained in detail. Accordingly, it explains the futility of slavery to material comforts and encourages renunciation of such life style. The pundits who take this aspect in isolation, brand the Theravada Buddhist philosophy as nihilistic as Kusal and others do.

They forget the Buddha’s key message related to the middle path as explained in Theravada Buddhism. Buddha has been much more rational and balanced than these pundits. Given the nature of human beings, Buddha knew more than anyone else that only a minute fraction would properly understand what he taught and take to the path of achieving ‘nirvana’ in that same life time. Therefore, he taught one of the most progressive ways of life for the rest of the mankind (defined as upasaka & upasika) to follow which despite of overwhelming evidence in ‘Sutta Pitaka’ these pundits ignore.

He was the first to challenge the myth of creation and elevate the capacity of human mind above all other forces. He challenged the existing social structures and gender bias and pronounced the equality of all human beings irrespective of cate & creed. Therefore it is no surprise that Sri Lanka has a higher gender equality than many countries.

In ‘Mangala’, ‘Parabhava’, ‘Wasala’, & ‘Sigalovada’ suttas (which you find in Theravada teachings) He taught us how a harmonious society can be built by everyone not only focussing on their rights but their obligations towards fellow human beings.

Buddha, according to Theravada Buddhism explained the importance of economic freedom as a stepping stone to achieving spiritual freedom. The example is feeding a hungry man before preaching ‘Dhamma’. Under such economic freedom, he advised the individuals to split their income in to 4 parts, use 2 parts for consumption, 1 part for saving & 1 part for spiritual/social service activities.

He advised on governance models to ‘Liccavi’ kings.

Sangha was the earliest most democratic and collective society one could find. It is a clear response to pundits who claim that Theravada Buddhism is only an individualistic philosophy. An unbiased researcher would find all the aforementioned in Theravada Buddhist teachings.

It was the philosophical foundation on which the great hydro based civilisation was built by the Sinhala Buddhists in Sri Lanka. Their engineering skills, the arts & crafts are equal to any contemporary great civilisations. They faught against invasions, rebelled against occupations and yet these one eyed pundits blame Sinhala as non futuristic and nihilistic and therefore a passive community.

Theravada Buddhism finds common ground with the middle path. It rejects extremisms. Accordingly, ultra capitalist models encouraging unbridled consumerism, where profit is the sole motive does not find common ground with Theravada Buddhism. It also rejects ultra socialist models as the Theravada Buddhist philosophy accepts individualism and fairer profit making.

Perhaps the key issue to Kusal and his ilk could be that Theravada Buddhism does not have a problem with benevolent autocracy where principles of ‘dasa raja dharma’ were applied.

To Wijeypala
Heenayana is the actual term. The division came about as “Maha Yaana” and “Heena Yaana”. But the Maha Vihara monks did not like the term, as it denoted, or was identified as the “smaller” version of Buddhism that differed and stood for dogmatic interpretation. Therefore the term “Therunge (Buddha’s) Vaada (Words)” were introduced to identify Heena Yaana division. That twin-word term became “Theravada” and was preferred as a more prestigious label.
Rest of the debate on politics, is for you to indulge in.
– Amarnath

Dear wijayapala;
Dear wijayapala;

Yes, if we forget the bad side of the trend or the whole and only take the components separately into consideration, yes. But we must keep in mind that the whole is not equal to the total of the components. If we are only concerned about the individual components and see only the good sides of them forgetting the whole, the end could be pathetic. The whole might devour you as in the case of the following old story.

There were three brothers, who have attained their youth hood, and wanted to develop some skills to use as their means of living. So they discussed about it and departed to find some teachers. After traveling together through a jungle a few days, they decided to go in three directions to meet their destinies. Before departing they came to an agreement that they would meet at the same place on a certain date, irrespective of whether they achieve their objective or not.

Long time after, that day came and three brothers met at the rendezvous. After hugging and kissing with affection, they talked about what they had learnt. All had learnt some different skills.

The first brother has learnt to make a complete skeleton from any single bone. The second brother’s skill is he can fill any skeleton with flesh and skin and make the perfect carcass of that animal. The third could give life to any carcass, ALL INNOCENT SKILLS!

So they decided to put their skills into practice, and went in search of raw materials in the jungle. They found a small piece of bone lying beside their way.

The first brother took it and exhibited his skill making a complete skeleton out of it. All praised his skill and the second brother filled it with flesh and skin and there you see a perfect carcass. Praises came again, and the third brother, set to his business, and again a success. However, before praises came into the lips of the brothers,the tiger who got life from the third brother’s skill sprang onto them and devoured all.

This could happen to you too!

Thanks!

Dear yapa,

“I don’t say the interviews posted by Dushiyanthini are anti-Sinhalese or anti-Buddhist. But I feel like they are components of the said trend.”

But cannot they be used as components for another trend of Sinhalese understanding the suffering of Tamils?

Dear wijayapala;

None identifies tyres and steering wheel as cars, but they are components of a car. I don’t say the interviews posted by Dushiyanthini are anti-Sinhalese or anti-Buddhist. But I feel like they are components of the said trend.

Thanks!

This very valid question has been asked by me, just to be humiliated from those who think any western ideology as undeniable self evident universal truth. They think questioning anything in them as a great sin.

In my view, main thing is to get out of this “imitator slavery mind set” if we need to get out of this muddle. My belief is, out of place political theories that were forced upon us and planted in the heads of our educated, using cunning tactics is the base of the problem.

I don’t think any (licensed) political expert accept that Sri Lanka had political ideologies. I think for them to accept something as political ideologies, they should have at least fulfilled the following pre-conditions.

1. There origin must be in the west.

2. They must be found in written form in stylish books.

Anything other than this, our experts cannot identify. That is why I am used to say they are just tape recorders played only when their western masters push their buttons. They have no at least the instinct to ask from themselves, if not political ideology/philosophy, what the hell that ruled this county for over couple of thousand years. Have any of our political experts ever given a thought at least to identify “the thing” that ruled this country, rather than trying to impose each and every clause of western theories on our heads.

Thanks Suren, for having courage to ask this valid, but taboo question of our scholars.

Thanks!

I agree that this article by Kusal Perera is precisely the sort of garbage that doesn’t contribute to any kind of reconciliation. But what about the interviews posted by Dushiyanthini? How are they anti-Sinhalese or anti-Buddhist?