So are you the epitome of “Hypocrisy is a virtue”?

The LION is a myth.
Singapore (Lion city) was thus called because somebody saw a Lion in the area. But historians now say the animal that was seen was most probably a Tiger. Because Tigers habit those areas. In the same way the Lion the sinhalese refer to comes from a myth that a Lion married a woman and their decedents are the sinhalese. But where does this myth come from? It comes from the Bengali area, which is again an area habituated by the Tiger!
Let’s stop with the myths.
Most Sri Lankans are probably from South India of Dravidian stock. Thank you.

Dear Dr.DJ,
Kumar Sangakkara’s well received speech was well received not because of his reaffirmation of the multiethnic and multicultural reality of Sri Lanka. We don’t need him for that, we have the Ministry of Tourism for that. But rather his reaffirmation of the Sri Lankan government’s dishonesty and corruption. He got a standing ovation because he plainly showed to the cricketing world the hypocrisy and bankruptcy of the Sri Lankan government, sometimes descending into raw thuggery.

Ironically, Kumar is in a convenient position to talk about, proudly being Sri Lankan. Unfortunately the Thamil people in the Northeast didn’t have that luxury. He came from a well to do family, went to a great school and became Cricket Captain of Sri Lanka. Got fame, fortune and endorsements. Does he need to look for greener pastures? I believe, for this speech he had to.

Hence through his speech Kumar Sangakkara was saying “the Channel 4 video is tragically TRUE!

People who worked for the GoSL for their own enrichment either for positions or possessions are now trying to hop on the bandwagon and ignore their stained white suits!

No self-flagellation or renuciation of identity, please.

Dear ordinary lankan;

Do you think you have not got confused Vijjamana and Avijjamana for ech other?

I think,

Vijjaman = vidyamana = visible

Avijjamana = Avidyamana = not visible,

I think (obviously) visible things are day to day identifications that have functional value and hence should be Vijjamana. In contrast, feelings, emotions and thoughts like are “comparatively difficult to be seen” hence should be Avijjamana.

That is how I feel like about it, but I am not very sure about it.

Thanks!

@Sadun – easier said than done when it’s your bread and butter you are dealing with. Besides its the IPL money that gives Sangha the security to really speak out else Aluthgamage and his corrupt cronies would destroy his livelihood.

It was the platform that he gave the speech added to its resonance, i.e. ‘Spirit of Cricket’ not so much the country.

Dear ordinary lankan;

I totally agree with what you say about Avijjamana concepts, usually taken as “conventional truths”, especially in Buddhist philosophy. They are not considered as “absolute truths” or “objective truths”.It is so because, those “truths” depend not only on the “object” of observation, but also on the “observer” as well. Those truths do not represent only the intrinsic nature of the “object” itself, and hence do not represent the “objective realities” alone.

For example “red colour” of a flower is not an objective(absolute) truth, because a cat sees that red colour as ash colour. Red is not intrinsic to the flower alone, but should be attributed to the “human nature” as well. For “cat nature”, red becomes “ash”, hence “red” and “ash” are only conventional or relative truths . “Colour” is not an absolute property of the flower. However, as you have pointed out the conventional concepts “red” has a functional value for humans and that “ash” has a functional value for cats.

Now, you classify the dharma as Vijjamana concepts again as a way of identification of things, based on experience – like feelings, emotions and thoughts and indicates that they are not “conventional truths” but as “actual”.

While the identifications with a “functional value” are taken as “conventional” or “relative” concepts, you indicate to call identification of things based on “”actual”(???)experience” based on like feelings, emotions and thoughts as “Absolute” or “actual” truths.
You have not given any special reason why the second type of identification is considered to be absolute or actual. Can’t they be another type of relative concepts different from the relative concepts which have a functional value?

What are the reasons you have to say the second type of concepts are not “another perspective” of identification of things? One other “relative human perspective”?

While calling a desk a desk is conventional and relative, why not we call, taking a desk as a “state of ever changing flux” or “Sunyatha” as a conventional and relative concepts? What reasons justify the taking of (all) dharmas and specially “Sunyatha” not as conventional and relative truths but as “actual” or “absolute” concepts(or truths or realities)?

In plain language how do you justify calling “Sunyatha” as “Reality” or “Absolute” Truth or “Arya Sathya” or “Noble Truth”, claimed by Mahayanists?

How do you say experiencing “Sunyatha” in meditation is the experiencing of reality? How do you justify it is experiencing “Nirvana” or it is the true path to Nirvana?

Thanks!

(in a kind of lighter vein actually….)

There are 2 linguistic concepts according to Prof. Kalupahana.

1. Vijjamana concepts are based on our actual experience – like feelings, emotions and thoughts – the dharma is really based on this essence. This will also include the identification of things – not based on their conventional description – eg a desk but their actual character – ie hardness and earth quality.

2. Avijjamana concepts based on all the conventional liguistic usage that simple makes life easy and practical. These have a strictly functional value even though the description is not true in the Buddhist sense. It is only our convention to call a desk a desk. If we agree we can call a desk a chair and vice versa. It is all based on our agreement.

As you will see most of our debate on this site is based on avijjamana concepts – what Buddha called animal talk. perhaps that makes us all different types of animals!!!!

Not that this has much to do with Kumar. I mean I support him fully for raising the issues he has done with SLC. Whether he should have raised these internally or not etc are more technical issues. His dissent at this point of time is valuable.

Dear ordinary lankan;

I think there are no human being either according to the philosophy of Nagarjuna, Sunyatha.

Don’t you think we should get away with the “nonsense of human beings” as well, just as the lion nonsense?

Thanks!

No…

no lions here – just human beings

the sooner we get over this lion nonsense the better

Dayan,

Thank you for the compliment and the critique. Rather than me getting an attempted hook wrong, I think the final sentence was more of a flighted invitation to hook; but I should perhaps be grateful that you did not use the spin metaphor about the piece as a whole!

You are right of course about James’ politics (in addition to The Black Jacobins, perhaps the even more pointed reference from the James oeuvre that is relevant to your argument is The Case for West Indian Self-Government), which I am fully aware of, but I would point you also to the theme of what he calls ‘puritanism’ that counterbalances his Marxist radicalism (see inter alia, the three chapters of Part I and the chapter entitled ‘Prolegomena to W.G.’ in Beyond a Boundary). It is this nuanced political (and personal) disposition that has made James a more interesting figure than the mono-dimensional ideologue you suggest he was.

My point in using James in juxtaposition with Khan (and Ranatunga and Jayasuriya by implication) had nothing to do with the substantive politics of either. Based on the distinction between the public and the political, I was hoping that Sangakkara’s post-Cowdrey life would be as an intelligent, cultured and informed citizen-commentator, which would be infinitely more valuable than getting into politics, even though for both forms of activity, he undoubtedly has all the talents. Therefore, the allusion is to James, the man of letters, rather than James, the revolutionary anti-imperialist of the Fanon era.