Ven Omalpe Sobhita Thero, Sinhalese Buddhism：Religion，Culture or National Identify？
In the ancient city of Anuradhapura in Sri Lanka stands the world’s oldest recorded tree – a sacred Bodhi tree planted in the 3rd century BC. This tree, planted from a sapling of the original Bodhi tree under which the Buddha attained enlightenment in India more than 2500 years ago, is a representation of the deep roots that Buddhism has in Sri Lanka.
Like this sacred Bodhi tree, the Buddhist Sinhalese tradition is the
oldest living Buddhist lineage in the world, and the only religious
culture that had managed to survive for more than 2300 years.
In 250 BC, Arahant Mahinda and his mission, dispatched by the great Buddhist monarch King Asoka of India, landed at Mihintale in Sri Lanka
and was warmly welcomed by King Devanampiya-Tissa. Having heard the
first sermon, the King took to the new religion immediately and declared
it the state religion. Buddhism spread rapidly across the island and
enjoyed royal patronage for successive centuries thereafter. Up to the
end of Sinhalese rule in the 19thC, the supremacy of Buddhism
was such that only a Buddhist had the legitimate right to be king of
Ceylon, a “defender of the faith”, entrusted with the protection of the
“alms-bowl and the tooth relic of the Buddha”.
In the Great Chronicles of Sri Lanka, the Dipavamsa and the Mahavamsa, the underlying theme is the identification of the island as the “Island of Dhamma” (dhammadipa), a land for Buddhism:
“When
the Guide of the World, having accomplished the salvation of the whole
world and having reached the utmost stage of blissful rest, was lying on
the bed of his nibbana, in the midst of the great assembly of gods, he,
the great sage, the greatest of those who have speech, spoke to Sakka
who stood there near him: `Vijaya, son of king Sihabahu, is come to
Lanka from the country of Lala, together with seven hundred followers.
In Lanka, O lord of gods, will my religion be established, therefore
carefully protect him with his followers and Lanka.”
Hence, the pact between Buddhism and Sri Lanka was sealed. In the words of Sri Lanka’s
first prime minister D. S. Senanayake in 1939: “Sinhalese are one blood
and one nation. We are a chosen people. Buddha said that his religion
would last for 5500 years. That means that we, as the custodians of the
Religion, shall last as long.”
Through
the centuries, despite frequent attacks from foreign enemies and four
hundred years of colonization, Buddhism, though badly shaken at times,
withstood the storms. Sinhalese Buddhist kings and leaders fought
indefatigably and passionately, both for the cause of Buddhism and for
the liberation of Sri Lanka from foreign powers. From the battle cry “Not for kingdom, but for Buddhism” of Duttha-Gamani in the 2nd century BC to Anagarika Dharmapala in the late 19th
century, the sense of religio-nationalism was ingrained. Wary of the
dangers posed by the spread of Christianity, especially in the
establishment of missionary schools, and the erosion of traditional
values among the Sinhalese population, Dharmapala warned, “As long as
the religion of the pagan influences the Sinhalese Buddhists, so long
will Buddhism decline and not prosper.” He beseeched all true-blooded
Sinhalese Buddhists compatriots to serve for the “preservation of our
nation, our literature, our land, and our most glorious religion at
whose source our forefathers drank deep for nearly seventy generations.”
“There exists no race on this earth today that has a more glorious,
triumphant record of victory than the Sinhalese.” Underlining all this
is the sacred mission of the island: “Ceylon,
the home of the Dhamma, sacred to the Buddhists, hallowed by the touch
of the blessed feet of the all-compassionate Lord, has become the beacon
light to future Humanity.”
This Sinhala-Buddhist fervor played a critical role in the development of events that eventually led to Sri Lanka’s
independence in 1948. The fruit of all this is the enshrinement of
Buddhism as the “foremost” religion in the constitution of 1972, making
it the duty of the State to protect and foster the Buddha Susana while
guaranteeing the rights of all other religions of the island.
The
fusion of a religion with a chosen land, a chosen people (that forms
the majority in this case) can often generate dissent among the
minorities and is a potential trigger point for ethnic and religious
conflicts. Fortunately, this is not the case in Sri Lanka.
This may sound contradictory in the face of the civil war going on in
the North Eastern corner of the island. While it is beyond the scope of
this paper to discuss at length about the civil conflict, some points
ought to be highlighted. The LTTE claim for a Tamil homeland in the
North has little justification. 65% of the Tamils in Sri Lanka
live in the South harmoniously among the majority Sinhalese population.
In addition, the Tamils carried out ethnic cleansing by brutally
massacring hundreds or forcibly evicting thousands of Sinhalese
Buddhists and Muslims from the North and East. This is not an ethnic
conflict but terrorism pure and simple. The fact that many Western
governments had labeled the LTTE as a terrorist group and imposed travel
ban on its cadre is a testimonial of this.
Regrettably, the civil war in Sri Lanka
over the last 2 decades has ravaged the country, resulting in social
instability and individual disorientation. This has provided
opportunities for some factions to undermine Buddhism. In recent years,
Buddhism has come under threat from a wave of unethical conversion by
evangelical groups especially in the rural areas. There is nothing wrong
with genuine conversion as such. However when it is done through
material inducement or forced coercion, and in its course subvert
another religion, desecrating its objects of worship, it is
disconcerting. When it leads to violent clashes and bloodshed, it
becomes alarming. The painful memories of the brutality and humiliation
suffered by Buddhists at the hands of Christian missionaries of the
colonial era had not been forgotten. The proposed Bill against Unethical
Conversion tabled by Buddhist monks in Parliament in 2004 is not an
attempt to curb the spread of other religions, but to protect Buddhism
from such unethical forces.
The
involvement of Buddhist monks in mainstream politics and a resounding
call for a unitary Sinhalese Buddhist state had spurred strong
criticisms from many fronts. Accusations range from violations of the
right to religious freedom to the emergence of Buddhist fundamentalism.
To challenge the validity of such charges, one has to look at the
reality on the ground.
Modern
Sri Lanka is a multi-cultural, multi-racial, and multi-religious
democracy. Although Buddhism is been given foremost place in the 1972
constitution, the legal protection of all religious are also guaranteed
in Articles 10 and 14. In many cities and towns across the island,
Buddhist temples stand alongside kovils, churches and mosques.
Buddhists, Christians, Hindus and Muslims are allowed to practice freely
within the law. There is no restriction of outward manifestations of
religious beliefs such as the wearing of headscarves or crucifixes and
the holy days of the main religions are declared as national and public
holidays. There is no “bumipitra” preference in job opportunities and
airtime is given to all the major faiths on the national broadcast
stations. On the question of language, another defining feature of a
nation’s identity, although Sinhala is the main medium of education in
public schools, there are a proportionate number of Christian, Muslim
and Tamil schools to cater to the needs of the minorities.
If one is to ask if Sri Lanka is a Buddhist or secular state, one could say that it is a fluid form of secularism unique to Sri Lankan. Sri Lanka
is governed by a modern secular constitution. All are equal in the eyes
of the law, irrespective of religion or race. In this aspect, it is a
fine example of religious diversity and harmonious co-existence in
comparison with other countries where the existence of a majority
belonging to one religious group results in ethnic and religious
tension. In the aftermath of tsunami disaster of 2004, Buddhist temples
offered refuge for the many displaced, regardless of race or religion
just as they did for the enemies in the past. Buddhist humanitarian
organizations provided aid and relief without any discrimination, and
built houses for all displaced without segregation. The driving force is
not material but simply a compassion for a common humanity.
Inevitably,
a Sri Lankan national ideology would be inalienable from the
Sinhala-Buddhist culture through 2300 years of evolution. After all,
Sinhalese Buddhists make up a majority of 73% of the population. For
them, Buddhism permeates every aspect of their daily lives and defines
the social fabric that connects them. The threads of Buddhism and
Sinhalese culture are inextricable interwoven. Throughout Sri Lanka’s
history, whenever Buddhism or the island was threatened by invading
armies or ideologies, the Sinhalese Buddhists had always stepped forward
to champion the causes. The fiery passion and patriotism that
Sinhalese-Buddhists have for their country are so strong that it
sometimes border on fanaticism but had it not been for their courage and
determination, Sri Lanka may have remained in the hands of foreign
powers or a mere stooge on the world’s stage. Sinhala novelist Gunadasa
Amarasekara writes: “The main assumption behind Jathika Chintanaya
(national ideology) is that, although there are many ethnic groups in
this country such as Sinhalese, the Tamils and the Muslims, all of them
belong basically to the same culture; as such they must be referred to
as one nation.” Hence, the covenant between Buddhism and the Sinhalese
is fully expanded to include all other ethnic and religious groups on
the island.
In
a discussion of Sinhalese Buddhism and national identity, one aspect
need to be touched upon - that is the role of the sangha in Sri Lankan
politics. The involvement of monks in politics is not a new phenomenon
in Sri Lanka.
Although there is little evidence in the Chronicles to suggest that
monks wield direct political power in the kingdom, it is clear that they
exercised considerable influence over matters of kingship as advisors,
settling disputes between political leaders and even in the selection of
successors to the throne. Even the foreign powers from India and Europe that occupied Sri Lanka from time to time recognized the need to rein in or appease the guardians of Buddhism in their dominion.
In
2004, Sri Lankan monks stirred up a huge controversy by running for
elections under the banner of Jathika Hela Urumaya (National Heritage
party) and winning nine seats in Parliament. This direct involvement of
monks in partisan politics was seen by some as a sign of growing
(Sinhala-) Buddhist fundamentalism that undermines the secularism of the
country. This is a misconception; the aim of the monks in Sri Lankan
politics is not to challenge the established political system. Their
main objective is to protect the Buddhist heritage from the threats
posed by the spread of unethical conversion throughout the country and
the corruption and decline of the Sri Lankan society in a rapidly
changing global economy. The Act to control the sale of alcohol and
tobacco forwarded by the monks in Parliament and that came into effect
in 2006 is a prime example of governance by Buddhist principles to
protect the moral, social, mental and physical well-being of the people.
Like
their fore-fathers, the present generation of Sinhalese Buddhist
leaders is once again at the forefront to fulfill the mandate handed
down to them – to protect the motherland, not just for Buddhists but
also for all Sri Lankans. Their ideology, based on Buddhist principles,
is shared by all who cherish a pluralistic, multi-ethnic and
multi-religious society and true democracy in a free world. What they
champion are the protection of the vulnerable, the naïve, the uneducated
and the poor from exploitation and manipulation, the protection of
human lives from terrorism, and the protection of indigenous cultures
and age-old traditions, and of the rich legacy that they have inherited.
From its birthplace in India,
Buddhism now has more than 350 million followers across the globe.
Buddhism is a religion that seeks to harmonize and synthesize, rather
than to destroy or fragmentize. It does not seek to challenge the status
quo, to create social turmoil and dissent. Wherever it spread, Buddhism
assimilated the native practices and customs of each land, giving rise
to its many different forms – Thai Buddhism, Chinese Buddhism, Japanese
Buddhism etc. This, perhaps more than any other factor, speaks about the
universality and fluidity of the Buddha’s teachings.
The Buddha taught respect for other religions and tolerance, compassion and non-violence. “Khanti paramam tapo titikka.”
“Tolerance and forbearance is the highest moral practice.”
(Dhammapada184). Buddhism does not insist on people converting to it,
nor does it condemn those who convert to other faiths. When Upali, a
rich follower of Niganthanataputta of Jainism, wanted to become a
disciple of the Buddha, the Buddha urged him to reconsider his
decision.. When Upali showed firm commitment, the Buddha consented on
condition that Upali should not forsake his former teacher but continue
to respect him and offer alms.
Albert
Einstein remarked “if there is one religion that would cope with modern
scientific needs, it would be Buddhism.” Buddhism is an intellectual
and rational philosophy, one that does not support blind subordination,
but demands of the individual much effort on his or her own path to
enlightenment. There is no room for dogmatism; Buddhism does not seek to
impose or prescribe strict adherence to its beliefs. Upon his
parinibbana, when questioned by Venerable Ananda about a successor, the
Buddha answered, “Dhammo ca vinayo mamaccayena sattha.”
“When I am gone, the Dhamma and vinaya will be your teacher and
leader.” While this encapsulates the efforts of individual
self-realization central to Buddhism, it has left a vacuum in authority
and leadership. The same qualities that allow Buddhism to adapt and
integrate itself to new cultures also expose the Buddha’s teachings to
variant interpretations, sometimes with undesirable consequences.
Unlike
missionary religions like Christianity and Islam, Buddhism lacks a
central authority and is highly vulnerable, especially in a world of
growing religious intolerance and globalization. Even as we speak,
Buddhists are being persecuted in different parts of the world by
extremisms trying to shape the world according to their systems of
beliefs. Buddhism does not have militias to ward off the enemies, nor
the strong political or economic powers to protect it. The dearth of the
Buddha’s teachings would indeed be a tragic loss for humankind, the
loss of what historian H G Wells had described as “the advance of world
civilization and true culture than any other influence in the chronicles
of mankind.”
At
no time in our history is there a greater need for the Buddhists
communities all over the world to stand united. More than national
identity, Buddhism needs a universal identity that can speak in one
voice and reawaken the Buddha’s teachings to make it relevant to the 21st
century. Only then can Buddhism engage in meaningful and constructive
dialogue with other major faiths to build peace and harmony, and a
better world for future generations.
Ven Omalpe Sobhita Thero
Sri Bodhiraja Foundation, Sri Lanka