LETTERS ON BUDDHISM
Appeared in Sri Lankan News Papers
PAGE III
LETTERS INDEX Page-3
- Buddhism - a reply to critics - Buddhism and the Sangha have been criticised...
- Vegetarians - say no to cheese - 1 - Cheese is a dairy product...
- Vegetarians - say no to cheese - 2 - he has categorically proved that the...
- Enjoy vegetarian cheese - The chief enzyme used...
- Is belief in god inconsistent with Buddhism? - It is true that Buddhism originated in India...
- Kamalika Pieris replies to V. R. De. Silva - The establishment of the Siam Nikaya to the establishment of ...
- Vegetarianism - Most Hindus administer Buddhist’ first precept Panathipatha (killing of animals) well rather than...
- A question of health or compassion - With reference to, "The act of killing and the act of eating ...
- Religious conversion - True and compassionate "conversion" is based on the premise that only "my religion"...
- Belief in God and the EMV virus - the issue of ordered complexity in the Universe...
- Dhamma Gathas in Sinhala - I forward herewith my observations on the topic discussed...
- Amoeba and re-birth - Amoeba is a minute Uni-Cellular Organism representing the lowest form...
- Amoebae and rebirth - A reply - Had a child posed the question whether the life cycle...
- The designing of the Buddhist Flag - History leading to the declaration of Vesak holiday traced...
- Why don’t first Buddhists give up eating meat – a reply - Buddhists should give up eating flesh...
- Buddhists should give up eating meat - 1 - Why don’t Buddhists give up eating meat...
- Buddhists should give up eating meat - 2 - After contemplating the Buddha-word on animals...
- More on Buddhists should give up eating meat - There is a difference between trading in flesh and trading in intoxicants...
..Buddhism - a reply to critics
Buddhism and the Sangha have been criticised in the recent past. One Mr. R. Buddhadasa also made his contribution criticising Buddhism and the Sangha. The critics need a response.
Buddhism being a kind, tolerant and peace loving philosophy, Buddhists do not rush to defend Buddhism from critics. That is because Buddhism allows criticism and investigation whereas in other faiths scriptures cannot be challenged and criticism of the scriptures is considered as sacrilege.
Buddhism has existed peacefully with other religions for over 2500 years and its spread did not create conflict with other faiths. The spread of Buddhism has not caused violence and bloodshed and did act as ‘the opium of the masses’. There have been no forced or unethical conversions to Buddhism as has been the case in certain religions.
Buddhism being a tolerant and peace loving philosophy, certain non-Buddhists quote that to unarm and silence Buddhists against criticism and unethical conversions. In fact, Buddhism does not debar the defence of the principles of Buddhism and safeguard of the followers of Buddhism. Sadly, it is the lack of organisational power and ‘club rules’ among the Buddhists, that has wiped out Buddhism entirely from certain countries where it flourished previously.
The latest victim is Korea. Buddhism has been out-stripped by Christianity, in that country. After the war, especially the American missionaries, on the pretext of saving the Koreans from communism started the conversion of Buddhists to Christianity. Once a Buddhist country, Korea, now has only a 30 per cent Buddhist population. Sri Lanka has also been targeted. There are a large number of missionary groups functioning in our country spending lavishly on the conversion exercise. The ongoing war has made our country a good fertile ground for conversion of Buddhists and Hindus. Criticism of Buddhism and the Sangha is apparently part and parcel of the conversion programme. The critics may perhaps be in the pay of these groups.
I agree with Mr. Buddhadasa’s contention that Buddhism has no place for a supernatural controlling power and does not accept God as Creator. It is neither monotheism or polytheism, nor a combination of both as some religions are.
It may be correct to say that Buddhism was conspicuously introduced to Sri Lanka by Arahath Mahinda during the reign of King Devanampiyatissa ,but it is also a fact that The Buddha had visited Sri Lanka several times before that and Buddhism had a foothold in the country, though not widespread. Arahath Mahinda who came as a Buddhist Missionary from India, through reasoning and argument convinced King Devanampiyatissa to embrace Buddhism. No gun boats followed this great missionary to help him in his missionary work. Buddhism spread widely thereafter. Thus it is this Arahath Mahinda’s visit that is being celebrated every year in June at Mihintale.
Temples, shrines and worship are not prohibited in Buddhism though contended otherwise by Mr. Buddhadasa. Buddhists, no doubt, could follow the Dhamma without visiting a temple or worshipping at a shrine. However, they have been introduced to help laymen to develop a sense of respect and administration. Why do people pay obeisance to their dead parents lying prostrate before they framed photographs? When one visits a Buddhist temple and worships before a Buddha Shrine, it is not clay or metal that is being worshipped but what it represents - Buddha Dhamma.
Buddhist monks have to reside in the temples to look after them whilst guiding the lay followers in the practice of the Dhamma. Such monks follow a life of less desires. There are other members of the Sangha who stay in seclusion to meditate and reach a deeper understanding of the teachings of the Sakyamuni.
The Vinaya rules to be followed by the Sangha were changed often during the time of the Buddha. Changes have also been made after the passing away of the Buddha, to meet the requirements of the times. ‘Sangatanyas’ or Councils for the Revision of Buddhist Practices have been held for the purpose. There have been such changes in other faiths too. Dropping the belief in rebirth by Christians, change of Testaments from old to new, removal of pork eating prohibition in certain faiths and stopping of the sacrifice of humans and animals at religious rituals, have taken place. Sathi Puja is no more. Devadasi system or temple prostitution is no more accepted. Brahmanical Hinduism resting on caste is on the way out. Bare bodied temple entry is no more a must. Excommunication of those who marry from other faiths is no more in vogue. These are some of the changes that have taken place in the arena of religious practice. In Buddhism too it has not been different.
Monks are expected to live in charity but that is not practiced at present by all clergy due to social and economic changes that have taken place. Monks, as at present, have to meet their own expenses and cannot live on charity alone and as such handling of money has become necessary and that is not prohibited. Then again, for missionary work and other purposes monks have to learn other languages and subjects not connected with Dhamma. That again, is not disallowed in Buddhism.
Drums no doubt are made of animal hide. But the hide of dead animals are used for the purpose. It is absurd extremism to presume that the use of such drums is against Buddhism. No religious leader has sanctified the killing of animals. It is the people who have interpreted otherwise.
No member of the Sangha hold ownership of temple land. The land owned by the Dayaka Sabhas or lay bodies of the temples. Such land income is required for the sustenance of the temples.
Monks growing hair to a reasonable length is permitted. There is nothing wrong in monks being engaged in the teaching of the Dhamma in schools, medical care and social service. There is no bar to that.
In fact, Sakyamuni’s Dhamma has no rules of prohibition. What is good and bad have been laid down. It is for the followers to follow the teachings. The results will be based on their efforts that applies to the monks as well. If you commit sin, in Buddhism, there, is no one, divine or otherwise to cleanse you from that sin at or after death.
The former Buddhas have preached the Buddha Dhamma, but lost in the mist of time. Gautama Buddha is the last who attained Enlightenment and preached the Dhamma. The belief in God creating the universe and man and thereafter sending His Son, 2000 years ago, to revive his Gospel, is something similar. Lord Krishna could also be considered as a revivalist.
Former Buddhas are also venerated. Gautama Buddha received more veneration as it is his teaching that the Buddhists follow now. 0ne pays respect to the parents but not to that level where the great grand parents are concerned.
The Buddhist Clergy, a few of them, do take part in active politics. That is not correct and the Buddhists do not approve of it. That of course is not peculiar to the Buddhist clergy alone.
In Sri Lanka, as in other countries, revivalists - national and religious - have been there from time to time and it will be so in the future too. Ven. Soma Thera is just another. And he is no divine healer but a teacher of ordinary civic and moral conduct.
Mr. Buddhadasa or anyone else, need not get disturbed over the shortcomings of some members of the Sangha. Such shortcomings in the clergy exist in other faiths as well, and in a worse degree in the western world.
Without therefore being concerned about what the Sangha or Ven. Soma Thera do or do not do, I would request Mr. Buddhadasa and other critics to heed the admonition "Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye but considerest not the beam that is the thine own eye".
Upali S. Jayasekera, Colombo 4
Cheese is a dairy product which is extremely popular with vegetarians. It’s made entirely of cows milk with its entire goodness in it.
I write this letter with the intention of pointing out a little known fact, in the manufacture of Processed Cheese. A substance called rennet which is found in the lining of the stomach of cows is used to facilitate the coagulation of milk in the production of cheese. Rennet is obtained from the stomach of freshly killed young calves. Incorporation of rennet in cheese makes it utterly unacceptable to vegetarians.
All vegetarians who were not aware of this fact so far please take note and give up eating processed cheese immediately. All importers and manufacturers of processed cheese please comment.
Genuine non-meat eating Buddhists should refrain from eating cheese.
Concerned Citizen
The Island - 11 Jan 00
I am a daily reader of The Island paper more specially its opinion column. I fully agree with the concerned citizen from Avissawella who very clearly indicated the known facts on the above subject in the opinion column of The Island of 11th January 2000.
In his letter he has categorically proved that the manufacture of processed cheese is with the substance called rennet or a curdled milk from freshly killed young calf’s stomach which helps to change milk from liquid to semi solid.
Cheese is extremely popular among vegetarians, but when taking into consideration the above facts and findings according to the learned concerned citizen from Avissawella who has educated the readers through your opinion column to think logically and meaningfully, I too can stress that the so called vegetarians who consume cheese very eagerly are neither vegetarians nor at least coming under the category of lacto vegetarians who take only fish and milk.
Moreover, he has openly challenged the dairy farmers and all importers and manufacturers of processed cheese to comment on the subject, and also has asked genuine Buddhists to give up consuming cheese which is contrary to vegetarianism. We highly appreciate such opinions with scientific and logical footings.
S. Dematage, Talduwa
This refers to the letter published in The Island of January 11. The chief enzyme used in the Cheese production is Chymosin, used in the form of Rennet. True, Rennet used to be extracted from the fourth stomach of suckling calves. But due to its large scale use, in fact it is the largest used enzyme on an industrial scale, other avenues of manufacturing it was explored. Genetic Modification has come to the rescue.
Now enzymes of vegetable origin have been genetically modified to resemble Chymosin. Cheese made using this artificially prepared enzyme is quite indistinguishable from the original, so much so special labelling regulations are not necessary in the U.K. Thus cheese can now be sold as vegetarian cheese. So cheese lovers (Tyrophiliacs) go on, enjoy it.
D. W. Wijeratne, Borella
The Island - 28 Jan 00
I write with reference to some queries raised by a writer which appeared in Sunday Observer of September 12, 1999 captioned "is belief in God inconsistent with Buddhism?
It is true that Buddhism originated in India. It is with the emergence of a Buddha alone that Buddhism comes into view. At that time in India there were plenty of ideologies, especially belief in Brahma and Iswara. As none of these beliefs brought any solace to the mankind the Bodhisatva went in search of the real solace. He realised the real solace is achievable through the realisation of the Four Nobel Truths and revealed the path to the people.
The Hindus in India were said to be having faith in Eshwara and Brahma and later Vishnu was added into the pantheon. At the beginning they had believed in Vishnu instead of Brahma and in the latter not as a separate god, in the fourth century BC alone that they had started to venerate Vishnu as a separate god. If one reads Brahma Purana and Vishnu Purana, it will be clear that the name Vishnu had been given to Brahma alone. It is clearly explained in Devadaha Sutra of Majjima Nikaya that the Buddha strongly refuted faith in Iswara. With the emergence of the lord Buddha people belonging to royal families and Brahma caste too accepted Buddhism and followed the Eightfold Path. By realising the truth of the deliverance preached by the Buddha they rejected other believes and accepted Buddhism. Therefore nobody can say that Buddhism and other religions are the same.
In this particular letter the writer says that out of the four main religions, three religions say that the word was created by a god. The Buddha expounded that the world is made of cause and effect. The other three religions say that god is your refuge. The Buddha stated that "Kamma patisarang, Karma is the refuge." The Buddha explained the nature of existence as Anithya, Dukka and Anathma. "As philosophies they are completely different. Therefore if anybody requests a Buddhist to believe in gods it means that he is trying to convert Buddhists to other religions and detach them from their own religion. What the Buddha had stated was that one cannot gain any good by praying. Who created you in to this world? It was your parents. If god is creating you how can people abort? How can they practice birth controls? Some say that people were created by the Brahma out of his mouth, shoulders, bosom, sole etc. Due to this belief alone that this god-concept has come into existence and it is what the Buddha strongly refuted.
There is no harm in people following their own religions, but why are they trying to attract Buddhists to other religions which the Buddha rejected? Buddhists follow other religions with the belief that personal gains can be obtained. If one doesn't study well can a god make him pass the exam? When a doctor cures the patient they thank the god though the appreciation should really go to the doctor? If the patient dies they would say it is his Karma. This is a world where you devolve your own mind. Although there were many beliefs in Sri Lanka at the time Buddhism was brought to our country after its arrival the other beliefs paled into insignificance. At that time Buddhism was not mixed up with other religions. If Buddhism in its purity did not exist a favourable Buddhist atmosphere enabling the emergence of Arhats would not have prevailed in Sri Lanka. Later Dharmavarnan, Gunavarnana and the other Mahayana pundits came into prominence and they were not Arahats. They later spread Buddhism based on their concepts. It paved the way to the spread of Mahayana.
Gradually Indian Kings like Elara invaded and ruled parts of Sri Lanka and the Vishnu concept. It is in this atmosphere solely that Vishnu concept came into Sri lanka. Before that there was no Vishnu concept in Sri Lanka. Where is it recorded that Buddha handed over the protection of Buddhism to Vishnu? It is not at least mentioned in the National Chronicle of the Mahavamsa. Buddha having explained on Anithya, Dukka and Anathma nature of all things could have never requested the gods to protect Buddhism. "Dammo have Rakkathi Damma Chari". (Righteous conduct protects the doer).
In this letter the writer states that until Ven. Soma Thera create this problem there was no disputes about the practice of religions in Sri Lanka. As the greed of the people was growing religion became a money making business. Dolukande worshipng is a good example to pin point this aspect, cheating people and making money.
Those who try to gain things through miracles are "Upasaka Chandala", these are not the words of Ven. Ven. Soma Thera, but the words of the Buddha. These people don't know how and why they fall sick and how they can be cured? There are some sicknesses for which you may change the atmosphere and find remedies. Those who seek refuge from external forces have no principles. As they don't have principles they try to hunt others and convert them to other religions.
Buddhists can never seek the refuge of Hindu gods. The philosophy of Buddhism explained by the Buddha is perfectly correct. While other religions have not borrowed practices from our religion why should we take from them? The writer says that after some time practices were added to our religion. Then why have not other religions borrowed practices from our religion? Buddhism teaches us to follow the Eight Fold Path. Buddhism is solely based on this principle. The final goal of the Buddhists is the realisation of Nirvana. There is no other way to reach Nirvana, except through the Eighth Fold Path which all Buddhists should follow. They cannot reach Nirvana by the belief in Gods. That is why Buddhists seek refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha. They cannot do this by seeking refuge in anyone else.
In other religions there is no Eight Fold Paths so how can the Buddhists follow those religions?
The writer has invited Ven. Soma Thera to visit Sai Baba. Being a follower of the Buddha Ven. Thera does not believe in miracles. What the Buddha stated was not to follow miracles. Ausha, Varna, Yasasa, Sepatha, Panna and Swargaya cannot be gained by praying, (Ayung Kamena Ganapathi Aung Sanwathenika Patipada). A person reaches long life, beauty of form, fame, comfort and birth in divine abodes through his own efforts and not through the effort or the intervention of any other person or god. No one can give you these things through the power of miracles.
The writer says that according to present world trends entry of Hindu influences cannot be prevented. What we cant is not the absorption of world trends, but realisation of the truth. If the world status is a myth and if the truth is something else we as Buddhists should accept the truth and not the world status.
The writer seems to live in a Devala with pictures of gods. He says that separating Hinduism and Buddhism is a much more difficult task. Buddha had stated that mean people who damage Buddhism will appear within the religion itself. If he believes in the doctrines of Jesus Christ, Prophet Mohamed, Sai Baba, Gods with Super power he cannot call himself a Buddhist, because Buddhist seeks refuge in the Buddha only.
He says that unity can be developed by following all the other religions. There is no connection of unity with religions, When you try to mix religions with each other there will be obstructions for unity. Even Soma Thera had to talk on this subject continuously as people are trying to mix Buddhism with other religions. If religions are observed separately there will not be any obstruction to unity and also to any of the religions. The philosophies of religions are different with each other. The other three religions are fundamentally equal. But Buddhism is completely different. Although the other three religions are equal in fundamental philosophy they are unequal in the secondary philosophies.
What has Buddha Taught about the status of the gods? the god concept of the Buddha is that by developing the five kinds of wisdom Sahhda, Seela, Sutha, Chaga, panna one is able to be born in Chathu Maha Rajika Heavenly Abodes. There are meditation practices through which one may ponder on these gods.
When people pray to creator gods and seek favours from them their greed and ignorance develop. However, by pondering on the gods in the way propounded by Buddha one can gain wisdom and insight.
Anha Vedan Patilabbathi,
Damma Vedang Patilabbathi,
While the god concept of Buddha leads to Nirvana, the creator god concept leads one to hell, because he is benighted in this Samsaric existence.
When the richness of Buddhism is suppressed, it is the duty of the Buddhaputras to take it up. There is no necessity to bury down Buddhism. If the teachings of Soma Thera are not according to Buddha one may point them out. But the point is that the Truth in Buddhism is eternal. It cannot be changed from time to time.
MANJARI PEIRIS, Maharagama
Sunday Observer - 24 Oct 99
‘The Island’ of 11-10-99 carried a letter from V. R. de Silva referring to one paragraph in my article on Buddhism published on 1-9-99. This was a paragraph intended to lead the reader from the establishment of the Siam Nikaya to the establishment of the later Nikayas. Since these Nikayas were caste based and of caste origin, I had no alternative but to include a linking paragraph which said something about the four castes involved. I was aware that direct reference to caste sometimes acted as a trigger for caste obsessed personalities.
In order to avoid such a confrontation, I provided a deliberately disconnected series of observations, where the time periods were also mixed up. I am trying to present the social history of Buddhism, not make a statement about caste. The intermixing of castes in the Sangha is briefly touched on else where in the series.
Since V. R. de Silva has addressed a ‘reply’ to me, I am obliged to respond. Unless am mistaken, this is not the first time that V. R. de Silva has commented on the subject of caste in Sri Lanka. I think that I have seen his name in connection with at least two other communications. He seems to feel it necessary to pounce on caste references appearing in the public domain if he did not like what was said. V. R. de Silva’s own view of caste could be inferred from his letter to me. He wishes to stress that the Govi caste did not hold a high position in the traditional structure. He seems to resent any imputation of superiority to the Govi caste, even if the writer is simply conveying the values of the time, and not his own. He also seems to resent any suggestion that non-Govi castes are inferior. He also appears to have strong objections to current interpretations of the ‘rise’ of the low country castes during British times. (para 5). If it is his contention that the non-Govi castes are superior to the Govi caste, he has only to say so, with supporting references. V. R. de Silva seems to lack the training, discipline and restraint necessary to discuss the issue of caste at a public forum. His terminology is unfortunate.
He refers to ‘fertility ceremonies’ performed on three castes by the British, which I may perhaps know of. (para 5) Not only is this un-academic, but it could also be termed a crude response. Some of his inferences are wholly imaginary. He says that I give the ‘impression’ that the Govi castes continuously ‘monopolised’ the Sangha from medieval times. The word ‘monopolise’, used at least twice in his letter, is V. R. de Silva’s interpretation, not mine. (paras 3,4) Elsewhere he uses the word ‘misleading’. He says that my statement ‘Buddhist Sangha consisted exclusively of Govigama monks’ is ‘totally misleading’. But he states, immediately after, that in 1764 there was a decree aimed at ensuring that the Sangha were exclusively Govigama. He says that it took till 1810 for the other castes to ‘regain’ higher ordination. (paras 1,2) Therefore V. R. de Silva has shown that the Govigama did monopolise the Sangha, at least in the time period under review in my essay.
V. R. de Silva has had the effrontery to dictate to me as to the manner in which I should research my subject. He has advised me to research on my own, looking at original sources. Let us therefore look at the manner in which V. R. de Silva has examined this subject, on his own, looking at original sources. He states that higher ordination was restricted to the Govigama caste on a 1764 decree by King Kirti Sri Rajasinghe. However, he says that this decree ‘had never been produced for examination’. V. R. de Silva admits that his own source of information is a secondary source, which merely ‘narrates’ the event. Another source is given as ‘Polonnaruwa inscriptions’. He does not say which ones. A third source offered to is the ‘Ummagga Jatakaya’. (paras 2, 3).
V. R. de Silva’s foray into caste research, also illustrates certain important research pitfalls, specially for the amateur researcher. The use of natural language permits the interested amateur to dip into research monographs. V. R. de Silva feels it safer to bypass unreliable secondary material and go for ‘original’ sources. He probably means authentic sources. Not all secondary material is necessarily unreliable. And evaluating ‘authenticity’ is a specialist task. I shall leave the matter there, for the moment.
The Island - 19 Oct 99
Despite the fact that Ven. Soma Thera’s concept of Hinduism, it is apparent that Most Hindus administer Buddhist’ first precept Panathipatha (killing of animals) well rather than that of Buddhists do. Though our religion (Buddhism) is based on compassion for all living beings, most Buddhists are not vegetarians. It is worthwhile learning this particular quality from Hindus.
G. L. A. RANJITH, Ratmalana.
Daily News - 19 Oct 99
With reference to, "The act of killing and the act of eating (The Sunday Times, September 12), may I say, with due respect to the Ven. Gangodawile Soma that the Thero is lost in his reflections in trying to justify meat eating by Buddhists. He has in fact, failed to prove his point that by eating meat one does not share in the act of killing. His example is a case where an unexpected visitor to a house is offered meat which is expressly not prepared for him. Do we have to cite such a rare occurrence as an example ? What if one buys and eats meat regularly? Doesn't he contribute to the act of killing?
For instance frogs and reptiles are killed for food in some countries. Why aren't they killed in our country? It is because there is no market for them. Is it not Buddhists who constitute the major part of the market which is catered to, by the killing of animals?
It is said that some 50,000 animals are slaughtered every month in Sri Lanka. Isn't it possible to spare the lives of a greater number of these animals, if Buddhist monks set an example by being vegetarian and explain to the Buddhists that the lives of these animals are at the mercy of the Buddhists?
After all, a Buddhist need not depend solely on various interpretations ( whether distorted or not ) of the 'Jeevaka Sutta'. One has to look into this in the light of 'loving kindness' as preached by the Buddha. The Buddha laid great emphasis on compassion for all beings whether small or large, seen or unseen, far or near and so on. 'Life is dear to all. Comparing oneself with others, one should neither kill nor cause to kill' (Dhammapada) . We as Buddhists must think twice before we eat the flesh of animals because it certainly causes the killing of animals.
The other example given by Ven. Soma is not a common occurrence too. It is true that the bhikkus who look for alms (pindapatha) are offered food not expressly prepared for them. But a bhikku on 'pindapatha' is a rare sight today.
With all respect to the Thero, I must ask whether, when he says it is a good principle to be a vegetarian, he looks at it from the angle of health or compassion?
K.K.S.Perera, Ratamalana.
Sunday Times - 10 Oct 99
Religious conversion has become a subject of growing interest, and being discussed widely in media. In the majority of articles, various sects belonging to Christianity have been the receivers of blame and Buddhists, the blaming denomination. There were also articles that attempted to justify and legitimize conversion.
True and compassionate "conversion" is based on the premise that only "my religion" gives the one and only truth and those who belong to other faiths are infidels. Therefore, I should help others to move into "my religion" as a way of helping them to tread along the one and only true path. This is a very humane way of thinking. However, who is qualified to declare that "my religion" is the only true religion and the rest wrong? How many Christians understand Lord Jesus when He said, "The Kingdom of Heaven is within you", or, do Buddhists truly realize the words of Lord Buddha, "All of we are Buddha and the Blissful state of Nirvana is within yourself", or, Muslims when Prophet Mohammed said "Lord Buddha is more closer to you than your own jugular veins"? Do Hindus realize that according to Vedas "Brahman resides in the heart of man and reveals Himself when all the worldly desires are shed". If all of us understand what these declarations truly mean, the issue and concern for conversation from one faith to another will be transformed into a concern for transformation within one's own religion.
We face another very serious issue related to "my Master and my religion". Lord Buddha preached a certain path for liberation, which has now been furcated into Mahayana, Heenayana, Zen and a few other sects. Christianity has over twenty sects it is said. Islam too has several sects including the controversial Sufis. Hinduism is divided into Dvaitha, Advaitha and a number of other sects. We all seem to have gone much further than our own Masters, by further refining and diversifying the original path they prescribed. Thus, when we have lamentably defiled our own original religious teachings, by injecting "mundane infections", what authority do we have to rectify other religions? This phenomenon alone shows the fallibility of declaring "my religion" as preaching the one and only truth.
Which religion truly places greater priority to the blooming of Bliss that is very much within the hearts of men and women, than converting a person from one faith to another? Some talk about miracles. Miracles have been witnessed in places of worship belonging to all the major religions. Finally, may I appeal to all humanity to stop religious conversion and attempt to convert yourself into compassionate human beings and help others to become the same so that the inner Bliss adored by all the Masters will be manifested in all beings to make this earth a heaven.
SUNANDA DEGAMBODA, University of Kelaniya
Sunday Observer - 19 Sep 99
The arguments (and associated convictions) of your correspondent Mr. R. M. B. Senanayaka do not stand up to close scrutiny. I shall restrict myself to three of the issues raised by him in his apologia for mainstream monotheism. First, the issue of ordered complexity in the Universe that bespeaks a guiding divine intelligence. This argument has been demolished a thousand times, yet has a quality of resilience which is astonishing. Briefly, there is chaos, disharmony and ugliness in the Universe that acts as a counterpoise to its putative goodness and beauty. One has only to glance at the living dynamics of the biosphere of which we are part to realise the inextricable mix of good and evil that holds this system together. The ugliness cannot be separated or fobbed-off as the work of the Devil or of fallen mankind. An intelligent and loving God could do much better than the botched job that passes off as his handiwork. We could do without blood-sucking mosquitoes, the AIDs virus and bipedal monsters (supposedly made in his image) of the kind typified by Hitler, Pol-Pot and Prabhakaran. We must add to this litany of God created evils the natural disasters such as floods and earthquakes that are surprisingly perverse in their action - innocent babes, hard-pressed womenfolk and feckless rural populations are the customary victims of a wrathful and rampaging God.
One looks in vain for the ‘agape’ (non-carnal love) that the God head is supposed to exude. The second issue relates to the diffuseness of the concept of God in lay discourse. On the one hand, there is the orthodox view that this Power (God, Ishvara etc.) stands above and apart from his creation and views with ‘angers the human experiment that has gone awry. Disobedience, sin, petitionary prayer etc. are features of the behavioral system that issues from a belief in this kind of God. The other stance rejects the personal and the deontological vis-a-vis the Godhead. The latter is immanent in the workings of nature - indeed, it is its manifested intelligence. Deists such as Voltaire believed in this immanent (or Spinozan) God and found belief in the fumbling meddling God of Christianity a travesty of the truth. To round off this brief classification one must include the so-called ‘process theologians’ within the Christian fold who believe that the Divine Task is still ‘incomplete’ and that he (that is, God) actively creates in the flow of history. A. N. Whitehead, Tielhard de Chardin and Henri Bergson believed in this species of God. As Buddhists, we reject the ‘Ishvara" of the monotheists as false, delusory and an ideological obstacle in the path that leads to true enlightenment. The ‘Deism’ of Voltaire does not contradict any basic tenet of Buddhism but lies quite outside its humanistic purview and, hence, is otiose in the context of the great task at hand - that of existential release. Plunged in a world that is fluxional in its event-structure, devoid of material or spiritual footholds and sorrowful to boot, the enlightened being thinks first of liberation from the quagmire of karmic catenation. God is irrelevant.
Let us look - this is the third issue - at those saintly beings supposedly in communion with God (or have ecstatically experienced his living presence) who, by their good work, provide the world with a practical proof of God’s Existence and power. The difficulty inherent in this kind of argument was pointed out by David Hume - the famous Scottish Philosopher. There have been saintly men within all creeds and religious traditions. Indeed, even animists and atheists can be saintly - goodness is grounded not in an external God but in human nature. More damaging is the Humean argument that God inspired men can be malevolent just as they can be benevolent. The lesson of history is very clear on this matter. The vast majority of the great killers of mankind have had prayer on their lip before the execution of their gory deeds. The argument that a few exceptionally good men (and women) constitute a pipeline to God is a non sequitur. The sanctimonious scoundrels of the world tell a different story.
It would be foolhardy to believe that arguments of this nature will be graciously received by true believers in the one God. As Prof. Richard Dawkins points out, religious beliefs are picked up at a very early age as a ‘mental virus’ from infected elders. To disabuse such entrenched thought- structures in the adult is a daunting task - especially when the Exclusive Monotheistic Virus (EMV virus) takes hold. A last thought - the EMV-Virus is spreading rapidly in Sri Lanka.
by R. Chandrasoma
The Island - 20 Oct 99
I forward herewith my observations on the topic discussed, recently, in the readers columns for your kind consideration as it would be of interest to your readers.
Reference letter of Ramanayake (The island 20/10/99) on the views expressed in the letter of Hettige (The Island 14/l0/99) titled Dhamma Gathas in Sinhala, I am grateful to the worthy reader for voicing the most commonly put forward views in support of this illogical practice of obvious language discrimination in the recitation of Dhamma Gathas at temple ceremonies. There is definitely more benefit to the person who understands the Pali language than to one who does not understand Pali in the daily recitation of these Gathas. Hence one should not be lulled in to a sense of complacency in the enjoyment of the musical sound effects of the Dhamma Gathas only. In that case we could also get the same effects by listening to Bajan Recitals, etc. Furthermore the writer seems to be under the delusion that Dhamma Gathas are recited in Pali so that the person repeating them could get the full efficacy as well as the benevolent sound effects of these Pali Gathas into ones mind and body, in which case they are to be classed on the same lines as Shanthi Karma and nothing more.
If the Buddha wanted the followers of the Dhamma to enjoy only the sound effects of the Dhamma Gathas he would not have taken the trouble to preach the Dhamma and request all intelligent beings to ‘Ehipassiko’, come see the Dhamma with your own mind eye, instead he would have said come and listen to the Dhamma recitals. The Dhamma was never intended for blind following without full comprehension, like some other Faiths, but it has been made into a Blind Faith for the Non-Pali speaking people, after segregating the Dhamma in Pali, by the very people who created Buddhism.
The Buddha never created ‘Buddhism’, he only established the Buddha sasana in order to ensure the 500 year endurance of the Dhamma for the benefit of humanity. Therefore this monopolisation of the Dhamma by the Pali language group, may have been either to preserve the Dhamma for posterity in its pure form, or to maintain the unquestioned superiority for that group, or to subordinate the Non Pali speaking followers of the Dhamma, irrespective of whether they belong to Sinhala, Myanmar, Thai, Japanese, Chinese or any other race.
It is a historical fact that the Dhamma was originally practised in Lanka in Sinhala or ‘Hera Basa’, since the time of Buddha and also after the arrival of Arahant Mahinda for the purpose of establishing the Buddha Sasana, until the reign of King Mahanama (412 - 432 A.D.), for almost 950 years. It was during the latter part of his Kingship that the Dhamma, which was preached, practised and recorded in Sinhala, was translated into Pali by the likes of Mahatheras, Buddhadhatta and Buddhagosha, for the benefit of the Pali speaking people. (Refer the introduction by Bhikkhu Nanamoli in his book the ‘Path of Purification’ - a translation of Visuddhimagga by Rev. Buddhaghosa). This translation of the Dhamma from the Sinhala Oala Books was presumably done in order to rekindle the flame of the Dhamma, extinguished by the Moghul invaders who put to sword all the monks and destroyed temples and places of Dhamma learning in Magadha and elsewhere in India. Thus the credit of the preservation of the Buddha Dhamma should be shared by both Languages, Sinhala and Pali and not Pali only.
The vital question is can the non-Pali speaking followers of the Dhamma, sincerely, state that they, mindfully, understand the Pali Dhamma Gathas which they are made-to repeat daily? We, non-Pali speaking, followers of the Dhamma, with unclouded vision, are interested in developing our wisdom in Elite Sansaras as outlined in the Dhamma Pathways enroute to our Nibbana and do not want to be lulled through Eternal Sansaric Manifestations by the soothing sounds of the Pali Gathas.
Kumara Semage.
Former Vice President, World Fellowship of Buddhists, Sri Lanka Regional Centre.
Executive Co-ordinator, Dhamma Vivarana Movement
The Island - 28 Oct 99
Amoeba is a minute Uni-Cellular Organism representing the lowest form of animal life. It exists in shallow ponds and pools, and is also found in large numbers in the Green Slime of the top layers of water.
These tiny organisms re-produce by a process known as Binary-Fission, It’s a simple process where the existing Amoeba divides right across including its nucleus to give two new identical Amoeba. Both start leading a new life. Once they mature these organisms, repeat the same process of multiplying, giving rise to more of its kind.
My query is: Does the theory of re-birth of Buddhism apply in the case of the Amoeba. As things are, all Amoebae will be re-born as nothing but new Amoeba. Will the Amoeba ever get a chance of being born as a human being?
The re-productive process of the Amoeba seems to disprove the theory of Re-birth of Buddhism. Will experts of Buddhism comment on this phenomenon of the unique method of multiplication of the Amoeba.
Free thinker, Avissawella
The Island - 11 July 00
A letter appearing in the Island newspaper of July 11 under the above title by a nun-de-plume invited elucidation, hence my response.
Had a child posed the question whether the life cycle of an amoeba is consistent with the principle of rebirth,considered to be a genuine inquiry. But when a person under a pseudonym (a free thinker or a non-thinker) poses such a question one suspects it could be either facetious or is a teaser.
In the Sacca Vibanga Sutta, (MN141) it is stated that there are six ways in which life arises including the coming to being of the myriads of Gods in the various heavens. The Dhamma does not refer to a process of rebirth but to a process of re-becoming (ponobhavika) which is a continuation of the life energy in various forms and realms.
The alleged "free thinker" has made a profound observation that the amoeba produces only amoeba. What did he expect? Even humans produce only humans, not DONKEYS. (Although some behave as such.) Is there such a suggestion that the division process in the amoeba implies that the amoeba is eternal? In which case those who are victims of amoebic dysentery etc. are doomed.
With the new findings on the interconvertibility of mass and energy - this was stated 2500 years ago by the Buddha. The concept of re-becoming is not only scientifically acceptable, but is also logically valid except possibly to those with amoebic minds. The eminent scientist Einstein himself has stated that the only doctrine he can accept is the Buddha Dhamma.
The process of re-becoming had been personally verified by the noble beings who attained Sainthood (not those appointed posthumously) when they reviewed their previous existences.
The Suttas are replete with such examples. The numerous instances of children all over the globe recounting incidents relating to past existences, which have been well authenticated and recorded incontrovertibly establishes the reality of a process of re becoming. These are real life situations, unlike the phantasmagoric illusions often cited as evidence of the existence of a dvine power.
Asoka Devendra, Maharagama
The Island - 24 July 00
I refer to the news report by your Colombo East Group correspondent under the heading 'History leading to the declaration of Vesak holiday traced', published in the Daily News of 27.5.2000.
In that news report, it is said that the Director, National Archives, Dr. K. D. G. Wimalaratne had said, that 'On behalf of the Buddhist Defence Committee, Poojita Gunawardena designed the Buddhist flag.'
I would not have responded to that statement, if it was not attributed to the Director, National Archives. In any country of the world, a statement made by the Archivist of that country, is taken seriously, as it is taken for granted that a person holding such office, will not make a statement unless it is supported by incontrovertible evidence.
As far as I am aware, the only contemporary evidence on the designing of the Buddhist Flag are as follows:
(1) Sarasavi Sandaresa (SS) of 17.4.1885: the first reference: it said the Buddhist residents of Colombo, had agreed to hoist a Buddhist Flag, on the coming 28th, at the Maligakanda Pirivena and at the Dipaduttamaramaya, Kotahena, and at some other temples in the vicinity. The account related to the colour picture of the flag printed therein.
(2) Editorial of SS of 1.5.1885: among other things it said, that the flag suggested by the Colombo Theosophical Society (Paramavignartha Bauddha Samagama) was also seen flying...
(3) Article in the SS of 7.5.1886: that the flag suggested by the BTS, flew in many viharas last year.....
(4)Editorial in the SS of 21.5.1886: referred to the flag ordered (vidhana kala) by the BTS...
(5) H. S. Olcott, 'Old Diary Leaves', Third Series, 1883-1889, p. 363 has that, 'Our Colombo brothers, had hit upon the quite original and unique idea of blending in the flag the six colours alleged to have been exhibited in the aura of the Buddha....'
p. 364: 'As the Colombo Committee had sketched the flag, it was of the inconvenient shape of a ship's long streaming pennant.....My suggestion that it should be made of the usual shape and size of national flags was adopted......and on the Buddha's Birthday of that year (1886) was hoisted on every temple and decent dwelling-house in the island...'
I would add that the Minutes Book of the BTS for the year 1885, which perhaps, could have thrown further light on the subject, was missing in their collection, when I looked into that record group, in the 1980s, I wonder whether, that volume has been located since?
Thus on the available contemporary evidence on the designing of the Buddhist Flag, it is the 'Buddhists of Colombo', and the Paramavignartha Bauddha Samagama, that had been responsible for the flag, and later, Olcott for its present shape. There is no mention of an individual responsible for the design: it had been a collective effort.
The first printed reference to its attribution to an individual, namely, C. P. Gunawardena, came 43 years later in a single paragraph, in the periodical 'Sudana Mina' of May 5, 1928. It gave no reference to any document on which that statement was based. Such a statement carries no historical value.
In recent times, it is perhaps the statement in the 'Sudana Mina' which is being used by parties who wish to attribute its design, to C. P. Gunawardena, also called Pujita Gunawardena.
Thus, at the time I retired from the National Archives in 1990, to the best of my knowledge, the only available contemporary evidence to the designing of the Buddhist Flag were what I have quoted here above. It may be that, more material of the period, have surfaced since then.
Now that a categorical statement made on the designer of the flag, has been attributed to the present Director, National Archives, I would very kindly request him to just name the contemporary source, on which he had based the supposed attribution. That information would help clarify the issue and would be of great interest to readers, here and abroad, who would wish to consult that document. I repeat, my request is only to name the contemporary source, on which the aforesaid attribution was made.
(Interested readers would perhaps recall, that around 1987-1989, if my memory is correct, a series of articles by various individuals, were published in the papers arguing for and against this same issue. Although, I was asked to make a public statement at that time, I did not do so, since my first obligation would have been to report to the government, in case I was asked for an official statement on the subject).
Daily News - 19 June 00
I certainly agree with Mr. R. I. Samaraweera that Buddhists should give up eating flesh. I go further and say Buddhists should not even trade in flesh. According to the noble Eight fold Path, dealing in flesh is also not permitted for a Buddhist. I find most of the eating houses, tourist hotels and guest houses have flesh in their menu cards. This is certainly against Buddhist teaching.
If all Buddhists stop eating flesh and trading in flesh and if all animal lovers who are of all religions give up eating flesh 90 per cent of this animal slaughter will stop and may be selling meat will become unprofitable in Sri Lanka.
We cannot force anyone to not eat flesh. We in our Kandy Humanitarian Society hold propaganda meetings and try to convince people to give up eating flesh. At these meetings we deal with several topics:
1. We show the sufferings of these poor innocent animals in our talks and show films on cruelty to animals.
2. We show medically how harmful the consumption of meat to one’s health is, leading to cancer, high blood pressure, increase in cholesterol strokes etc. These are of high incidence in meat eaters.
3. We convince them of the myth that vegetarians lack protein, and so pulses and cereals have enough proteins, vegetables have plenty of vitamins.
4. A question often asked is whether vegetarian diets have enough vitamin B12 and zinc. B12 is found in milk and milk products, zinc is found in Soya and cucumber seeds which can be roasted and eaten like cadju seeds. Besides, B12 and zinc can be obtained in tablets and we need not kill an animal for it
The elephant can carry heavy weights and the horse can run fast, though both are pure vegetarians.
5. We demonstrate how tasty dishes can be turned out by vegetables, pulses and cereals.
6. The vegetarian society will be soon catering to vegetarians by opening ‘Vegan’ eating houses as in Britain and America.
I think if all Buddhists and humanitarian societies have such propaganda islandwide more than 90 per cent of meat eating in Sri Lanka will come down so the suffering of these poor dumb animals who can’t plead for themselves will come down appreciatively.
Dr. C. Godamunne, Kandy Humanitarian Society
The Island - 11 May 00
This is with reference to the letter "why don’t Buddhists give up eating meat &emdash; a reply" by Dr. C. Godamunne (The Island May 11). Buddhists both lay and clergy have been publicly serving and eating meat for over 2,500 years after the Buddha’s death without finding anything wrong in it. They ate meat even during the time of the Buddha.
If the Buddha was against the eating of flesh, he could have expressed his disapproval or warned us of its ill-effects as he did in the case of intoxicants. But there is nothing in the Theravada texts which show that he did so. On the contrary everything points to the fact that his followers were free to decide for themselves and that the clergy could accept meat subject to the guidelines laid down.
A person may give up eating meat for reasons of health but this has nothing to do with Buddhism. Hitler was a vegetarian for this reason and he was no Buddhist.
The animal kingdom is one of the four hells mentioned in Buddhism. This explains their suffering.
Bhikkhu C. Mahinda, Makola
The Island - 22 May 00
After contemplating the Buddha-word on animals, it becomes impossible to wind up the issue by blaming it all on karma, as Bhikkhu C. Mahinda does in his above-mentioned letter of May 22. An early instance of the Buddha’s involvement is when as young Prince Siddhartha, he puts paid to cousin Devadatta’s demand for the swan he had shot down, by asserting, "Say no! the bird is mine, the first of myriad things which shall be mine, by right of mercy and love’s lordliness...". Then we read how often, during his wanderings before enlightenment, by sheer power of grace and compassion, he protests against animal sacrifice, so that the charmed blood devotees turn to other bloodless offerings.
After becoming Buddha, every discipline preached to his disciples comes normally after "I take the precept to abstain from destroying life". In the Noble Eightfold Path to Nibbana, under Right Livelihood, of the five trades forbidden to Buddhists, one is "dealing in flesh/rearing animals for slaughter", the others being trading in human beings, arms, poison, intoxicants.
His disciple can consume flesh, if he is certain that he has not seen, heard or suspected that the animal was killed for him to eat. If he dreams of that succulent steak, he has to either go looking for a carcass (not so difficult those days when forests encircled cities) or wait for an obliging bull to come lumbering up to him and drop dead at his feet. Contrary to Bhikkhu C. Mahinda, the Buddha has certainly warned us of the danger of eating flesh, preceded by killing.
Against the background of Buddhist rebirth, killing results in short life, ill-health, constant grief caused by separation from the loved and constant fear. Coupled with this is the hatred and terror of the animal slaughtered, which at the moment of death brings forth another miserable, traumatic rebirth. The horrendous stew-pot of evil keeps bubbling! Whereas, kamma (intention) and vipaka (feeling) in the Buddha Dhamma can be moulded each moment to pass from bad to good to better to best. The true Buddhist is master of his own destiny with the ability to alleviate the misery of others, to the extent possible.
To crown it all, can we forget the famous Buddha-word – "As a mother cherishes a son, her only son, with her life, even so cherish all living beings with a boundless heart of love". After that are we next to visualize Mumsie sitting down to dinner, prodding the finger of Junior (how he had howled!) to see whether it wouldn’t be better to put it back on the coals to sizzle a bit longer?
Prema Ranawaka-Das, Moratuwa
The Island - 6 June 00
With reference to the letter by Prema Ranawaka - Das ("Buddhists should give up eating meat" "The Island" 6/6/2000) there is a difference between trading in flesh and trading in intoxicants. Trading in intoxicants is extended to imbibing intoxicants by the fifth precept, but there is no such extension in the case of trading in flesh.
A lay Buddhist therefore can purchase and eat meat put out for sale to the general public at various outlets. The purchase of meat does not make him a trader just as the purchase of vegetables for consumption does not make a vegetarian a trader or dealer in vegetables. And though the Buddha forbade his followers to trade in human beings, he did not ask them to emancipate their slaves. His followers were free to own slaves, if they wished to do so.
In the same way, his followers were free to eat meat, if they wished to do so and equally free not to eat meat, if they did not wish to do so.
I find that propagandists for vegetarianism ignore facts against them though such facts may stare them in the face. I find that they also suppress facts and use emotionally coloured words and imagery to appeal to the emotions overriding and bypassing the intellect.
Buddhist priests accept whatever is given to them, provided it can be accepted and can be used as nourishment to sustain life. They have or should have no craving for any particular type of food. There is a rule against the acceptance of uncooked meat by priests. Hence, uncooked meat cannot be accepted. But cooked meat can be accepted provided the rules for its acceptance have not been transgressed.
Prince Siddhartha became Siddhartha, the ascetic and finally the Buddha. Whatever he said or did prior to becoming the Buddha, does not carry much weight. And what Prema Ranawaka - Das has done is to give us a list of the ill-effects of killing and not of the ill-effects of eating meat. The ill-effects of eating meat is a health problem and not a religious one. If the ill-effects of eating anything outweigh the benefits, I expect a sensible person to stop eating it.
Bhikkhu C. Mahinda, Makola
The Island - 15 June 00
