Gajalakshmi Paramasivam – 29 June 2015

http://austms.blogspot.com.au/

Mahinda Rajapaksa the Lesson Maker

Parliamentary elections have been declared in Sri Lanka and discussions seem to center more and more around Mr. Mahinda Rajapaksa – the controversial President who was defeated in January 2015 Presidential Elections. To my mind,  as an individual, this is an extension of the Presidential Elections. In terms of  Election Administration there seems less anxiety than there was in January. To me it is NOT about who will win but more about how I need to restructure each time I identify with the Truth of the person/s in charge. Elections help us learn more about other People’s expectations and to many it is also about confirmations of their opinions one way or the other. The current opinion seems strongly against Mr. Rajapaksa – within young and educated Sri Lankans not so close to the Government.

One such young writer – Ms Thisuri Wanniarachchi has published her opinion through her article ‘The Last King of Sri Lanka’.

So long as Sri Lankans vote for a National Leader rather than their local leader – the state continues to be a Monarchy and not a Democracy. In a Democracy – People must elect themselves to the position of leadership in that electorate and when something goes right or wrong for them it is that Elected Leader of their Electorate who is responsible. To elect at National level one should be able to Believe in and/or Relate to National level pathways and outcomes. Towards this one has to sacrifice at local level to participate in the higher common experience.

Ms Wanniarachchi tells her story as follows:

‘I first met President Rajapaksa when I was 11 years old. I had won a national short story competition and the Ministry of Cultural Affairs had taken me and several other winners to Temple Trees to see the President. He was a rare and skilled politician. He knew the game and he played it very well. He had a clever way of making people feel comfortable around him. He patted our heads spoke to us for a long time; asked us about school and home. We were infatuated. He had us hooked. The other kids and I would go home and tell our friends and family what a great man he was. He was simple, loving, almost god-like. “He’s like a father, not a President,” the kid from Mahiyangana who was the winner of the Sinhala short story category said on our way out. Little did we know, that was all politics. Politics was all PR and propaganda; and Rajapaksa knew this very well.’

As per public reports – Mr. Rajapaksa is respected by his children and hence one could conclude that he was natural in his interactions with 11 year olds. That experience was completed at that level and should not be reopened for the purposes of media politics. It would not be if it was completed at that level. If the 11 year old had taken her position as a junior back then, the picture would have been a true picture from her point of view. Mr. Mahinda Rajapaksa would have combined his natural ways as a father – albeit a pampering one – with his job as head of State.  To the genuine voter – Politics is about  Belief. Belief needs no proof. But it works. Belief based outcome is never unjust. If the way the 11 year old received an experience seems to show an unjust Politician  to the adult – there has been some interference within that mind. In Democracy, the bases on which discrimination is unlawful include Age – i.e –time based discrimination. Where there is Discrimination  there is Relativity. The way a child related to an adult would necessarily include age based discrimination. This is why children do not have voting rights. Belief that the child is a part of the adult takes away the need for discriminative thinking. The two are One through such belief. Where belief is weak they are still Relatives and not One Family. Hence Administrative positions and laws common to both sides.

Once an experience is completed – we take only the essence as Truth with us. This would not then interfere with our new environment but would empower from within:

‘When we connect to the mind of ancestors – we invoke them as if they are here with us. Usually we are able to connect and go into that inner world – as the ancestor is our guru. There is no one else at that time. The path is free of blockages from the outside. It is like having ‘Love experience’.  True Love is experienced beyond body consciousness. It is there always as an energy within us and an aura around us. The people within us have the experience as One. I now realise that by bringing them into me through gratitude and cultural pathways as well as my own individual Truth – I brought into me their true strengths and their wisdom about their own weaknesses. This helped me have the confidence that I could achieve what they achieved. Whenever it looked as if I was running short of money  those who were themselves economically self-sufficient seemed to give me the confidence that I would find the money. Whenever I was found fault with or downgraded, those whose respect and appreciation I valued – came alive from with me and I was no longer alone. This is the value of Truth. It operates through Its own independent force – as if we are One. Towards this we must have first saved this oneness by sharing our credits with others.  Those who take credit due to physical possession or proximity – without allocating to others – would exhaust their credits and this would rob them of the confidence to feel part of the whole. When they do have surplus at the physical level – it would be like being in the ocean without a drop of drinking water.’ Beyond Consciousness  

The 11 year old child was seeing the President as a father figure – a big father. The adult voter on the other hand has the responsibility to believe and/or relate through her/his investment in common issues through thoughts structured through Common pathways and/or through experience. If the 11 year old’s experience is included in the adult mind as what s/he  saw and heard – then that mind is acting in breach of the Doctrine of Separation of Powers between Family and National Government– a weakness that manifests cronyism that Mr. Rajapaksa stands accused of.  The citizen who voted for him is part of the source that infected the Politician.

I explain this as follows in relation to my Australian Experience:

‘Often those who practice current culture  of majority in power are accepted as being more compatible with the culture of majority.  Hence White Australia Policy which interestingly was legislated in 1901 through Immigration Restriction Act  1901.  When I assembled peacefully at the University of New South Wales, I was arrested by the Police and charged for Trespass under  Inclosed Lands Protection Act 1901. 

To believe in this law - the Australian Police arresting me ought to have done the work from zero base and naturally be conscious of value and meaning of the Legislation under which they arrested me and/or ought to have connected to the architects of the Legislation implemented back in 1901 which was a time when the minds of the Legislators were strongly in approval of ‘White Australians Only’ policy. The laws were two but they were from the same mind of 1901.  Hence if I were believed to be guilty as per the Common mind of 1901 – which would have had ‘anxieties’ of Aborigines walking about in private property as per the Western system -  and anxieties  that money business would be taken over by Chinese and Japanese migrants – then that mind would rule that the government that included me as an Australian body in its books (through immigration)  – was acting unlawfully in doing so.’ Beyond Consciousness

The above analysis is relevant also in the context of Land Rights in Sri Lanka’s war-affected areas. Is the land that of the believer or user with Government power?

Where there is confirmation of lack of belief from either side – discrimination needs be strictly on Objectively Measurable outcomes for it to be just. Hence merit basis. Both sides need to be equally placed in the mind of the Judge at the beginning of the common experience. Otherwise – each one is an outsider to the other and the outcomes need to be independent and need not be included by one or the other:

‘Subjective power is progressive when it is underpinned by belief.  Subjective power without belief leads to unjust discrimination and therefore real damage to the group that uses such Subjective power….. Cultural conflicts happen when those driven by majority power use majority vote in place of - laws and - discriminative thinking by using laws and principles common to all.  The path of Truth is the highest law of all.  Truth has the natural ability to bring people together through consolidation. Attachment to temporary benefits and pleasures leads to delusions that possession is ownership and hence is often divisive.  Consolidation of  values helps preserve our work beyond time and place limitations. Practice of Common Cultures leads to such consolidation by bringing the minds together. Hence the saying that the value of the total is greater than the sum of the individuals.  To raise the physical to the higher level – one needs sacrificial / disciplinary force. When the minds merge at the higher level – they  take on the value of this hidden force too. It’s like interest on money raised to investment level.’ Beyond Consciousness

Until the common Sri Lankan invests through National principles – Sri Lankans need to vote through their belief in local leaders and issues to claim to be democratic. If we continue to vote for the National Leader blindly and without belief – we would waste our votes. If we vote for the National Leader with belief – then we would continue to make Kings and not Democratic facilitators.

In conclusion ‘In the eyes of the Law  – all participants are various parts of One Person – that person having the body of the visible consolidated outcome seen through the Law.  When used Subjectively – the Judge becomes the Law. When used  Objectively – the judge facilitates self-judgment by each participant as per her/his contribution as per her/his belief based interpretation of the law.’In conclusion ‘In the eyes of the Law  – all participants are various parts of One Person – that person having the body of the visible consolidated outcome seen through the Law.  When used Subjectively – the Judge becomes the Law. When used  Objectively – the judge facilitates self-judgment by each participant as per her/his contribution as per her/his belief based interpretation of the law.’