Before we proceed a mistake made in the
last week has to be corrected, as it is somewhat serious. Kuhn’s Structure of
scientific revolutions was referred to as Structure of scientific discoveries
and it is hoped that nobody was misled by that reference. It is a cardinal sin,
though it is not a pancanatareeya kamma, to refer to scientific discoveries, as
scientific theories meaning of course western scientific theories are not
discovered, and all knowledge is created due to avidya (loosely translated as
ignorance) if we go by Paticcasamuppada. The talk of universal laws stem from
Biblical Laws in Christian culture, and the hegemony of Greek Judaic Christian
Chinthanaya has conditioned us to think that there are objective universal laws
that could be discovered. Newton’s Laws of Motion are valid only in what are
known as inertial frames of reference that cannot be observed empirically,
though the educated may not think so. I am emphasizing the word empirically as
it has drawn the attraction of the educated from whom Sinhala Buddhism has to
be protected.
I also wish to remind the readers that I
am not writing this series of articles, or any article for that matter, as a
dispassionate objective person looking at Sinhala Buddhism from outside. I am a
Sinhala Buddhist, and what is presented here is what I see (and constructed due
to my avidya), and if an educated person insists that it is my subjective view,
though as far as I am concerned all knowledge is subjective, all that I would
say is that there is no so called objective knowledge.
Sinhala Buddhism as we said in the
previous installment is associated with a school of Bududahama. However, we did
not mention what this school was. Sinhala Buddhism takes pride in claiming that
Arhant Mahinda Thero brought Bududahama to this country after the third council
(Sangayana) held under the leadership of Arhant Moggalaiputtatissa Thero and
under the patronage of the king Dharmashoka. The Mahavamsa supposed to be
written in the sixth century mentions this fact but Vargapurnikava has
something else to say. It is not known when Vargapurnikava was first written, but
it is clear that it is a book written by Yaksha Gothrikas, probably by Yaksha
Gothrika Bhikkus, but has been influenced to a lesser degree by Ashokan
Bududahama or third council Bududahama. According to Vargapurnikava there had
been Yaksha Gothrika Bhikkus and a Buddha Sasana before the arrival of Arhant
Mahinda Thero, which Bududahama could be referred to as Yaksha Gothrika
Bududahama. The culture associated with this Bududahama could be referred to as
Hela Buddhism or even Yaksha Gothrika Buddhism.
I have my reservations of both Mahavamsa
and Vargapurnikava representing Sinhala Buddhism and Hela Buddhism
respectively, but both believe in samsara, punabbhava (rebirth), karma and even Abhidhamma. However, it appears that
Hela Buddhism does not believe in Kshanavada that deals with moments and
Dharmavada associated with Dharmas that exist independent of the observer,
which were probably introduced at the third council. It is said only the Vibhajavadi
Bhikkus were allowed to participate at the third council, and I wonder if
Budunvahanse would have been allowed to take part in the council by Arhant
Moggaliputtatissa Thero. Though I do not believe in either Kshanavada or
Dharmavada it is my intention to defend Sinhala Buddhism and Mahavamsa,
however, at the same time being sympathetic with Hela Buddhism and of course
tending to believe in the history as told by Vargapurnikava, which is not a
book in history in the western tradition.
It has become a fashion to attack
Mahavamsa but some among Sinhalas who do not believe in that book are somewhat
scared to criticize the book. Instead people such as Suriya Gunasekera a well
known contributor to the Sinhala press and who had been a former SLAS officer
criticize Senerath Paranavithana and Codrington, the English public servant who
was also interested in history. It is easy to criticize Codrington and
paranavithana rather than Mahavamsa but the intention of these people is very
clear. They want to go back to a Hela Yugaya probably going up to Manu who
apparently ruled from Mannar, thousands and thousands years ago and are
critical of Vijaya the originator of Sinhala race according to Mahavamsa. The
Tamil racists on the other hand criticize Mahavamsa, and claim that the
original inhabitants of the country were Tamils. It should be mentioned that
Vargapurnikava does not give any credentials to the Tamil claim and Hela script
is very much different from the Tamil script, according to Ven. Manewe
Vimalaratana Thero who has published the Vargapurnikava recently.
Apparently there are some pre Mahinda
inscriptions referring to Gothama Samana or Budunvahanse but Paranavithana has
read them to mean “len pujas” or cave donations. People such as Suriya
Gunasekera criticize Paranavithana for distorting facts but it is unfair to
claim that the latter did so. What would have happened is that Paranavithana
who was brought up in the tradition of Mahavamsa and western history did not
see a Buddhism Hela or Sinhala prior to the arrival of Arhant Mahinda Thero. In
fact he had openly said there was no evidence to show that Budunvahanse visted
Sri Lanka three times as stated in Mahavamsa. What we see is what we have been
trained to see and Paranavithana would not have seen any evidence of Budunvahanse
being present in Sri Lanka in any of the inscriptions. As far as Codrington was
concerned it cannot be justified that the English promoted Mahavamsa as it
suited their world view of somebody (Vijaya) coming from outside colonizing the
island. What would have happened was that Mahavamsa would have been the
accepted text when the English came to this country, and not Vargapurnikava or
any other text, and Codrington would have interpreted history according to
Mahavamsa.
It is clear that by the sixth century
the Sinhala Buddhism would have been on the victory path over Hela Buddhism,
and Mahavamsa that ends with Mahasen who declared “war” against Mahavihara, who
demolished the Vihara and sowed Undu in the premises, being a Hela Buddhist of
Yaksha origin would have been defeated by Sinhala Buddhism. Mahavamsa would
have been the book of victory of Sinhala Buddhism over Hela Buddhism, which has
contributed immensely to the survival of Sinhala Buddhism with the incorporated
Theravada Bududahama of the third council. It is this Buddhism and Bududahama
that survived in Sri Lanka since the sixth century with Hela Buddhism weaning
away gradually.
It is in this context
I refer to an interview given by Gunadasa Amarasekera to Silumina of 27th
April 2014. In the interview Amarasekera mentions that we should establish a
Philosophy based on Jathika Chinthanaya and Buddhist Civilization and without
such Philosophy we cannot survive. While agreeing with Amarasekera though Jathika
Chinthanaya is a wooly concept I do not agree with him when he claims towards
the end of the interview that “things” such as Punaruthpaththiya (rebirth) and
Karma are not required for Bududahama. It is here the educated Amarasekera who
probably believes in objective reality and empiricism comes to the forefront
overcoming Amarasekera of Jathika Chinthanaya however vague that concept may
be. Without punaruthpaththiya and karma what is the Buddhist civilization that
Amarasekera thinks of? Is it a rational empirical Bududahama advocated by the
educated in the country? It is from this rational empirical Bududahama that
Sinhala Buddhism has to be protected.
(To be continued)
Nalin De Silva
30-04-2014