24 December 2019
SRI LANKA’S CATCH 22
During my pain in relation to our Colombo land case, I learnt through our lawyer Mr Manoharan that Buddhists did not swear but affirmed in a court of law. That was new knowledge for me and I learnt about it only by going through the pain of doing the preliminary Appeal Arguments myself. To my mind, Affirmation does not recognize a higher form of god but the god within – which was also the way Lord Buddha followed as per my understanding. To my mind, my conscience is the god when I affirm.
In contrast, swearing recognises higher God as represented by the Bible, Quran & the Geetha. This invokes that Higher Being to be the judge of the person. A person true to that Higher Being gets the return at that level. The human judgment may or may not deliver the return. But one who bears the pain of any failure at that human level – is rewarded at the level that that Higher Being is recognized. I always swore in Court matters and my evidence was submitted to that Higher Power. The return therefore came at that level.
The example that comes to mind is my communication a few days back to which Mr KKS Perera confirmed that he recognizes the One Truth principle:
[My truth--Your truth & others truths? There is only ONE truth]
My response was:
[One truth recognized by many facts – like in many religions leading to One God or are you claiming that there is only Buddhist god]
Mr Eranda Ginige who recommends policy to the current Sri Lankan President - raised the following :
[What is a Buddhist god? ]
As per the government of Sri Lanka and the depictions by Buddhist Clergy – I conclude that Buddhist God is visualized as Lord Buddha – the parallel of Jesus, Mohamed or Krishna.
The next question that comes to my mind is ‘What is Buddha Sasana?’ This is relevant in the context of Article 9 of the Constitution which requires as follows:
[The Republic of Sri Lanka shall give to Buddhism the foremost place and accordingly it shall be the duty of the State to protect and foster the Buddha Sasana, while assuring to all religions the rights granted by Articles 10 and 14(1)(e).]
Article 32 of the Constitution requires as follows:
[32. (1) The person elected or succeeding to the office of President shall assume office upon taking and subscribing the oath or making and subscribing the affirmation, set out in the Fourth Schedule, in Sri Lanka before the Chief Justice or any other Judge of the Supreme Court.]
The Fourth Schedule provides as follows:
FOURTH SCHEDULE ARTICLE 32, 53, 61, 107, 165
solemnly declare and affirm
---------------------------- that I will faithfully perform the duties
that I will faithfully perform the duties and discharge the functions of the office of ………………………………………………… in accordance with the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka and the law, and that I will be faithful to the Republic of Sri Lanka and that I will to the best of my ability uphold and defend the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.”
If the Buddhist President affirms on the basis of the Constitution – then the Constitution as invoked by per her/his belief in the Constitution is the highest level of manifestation of her/his truth.
Since swearing is provided for and is used by say a Hindu Minister– then such swearing needs to be on the basis of Geetha. Likewise on the basis of Quran for a Muslim Minister and Bible for a Christian Minister. These non-Buddhists who do so swear on the Higher God would manifest outcomes at the higher level.
In turn – Buddhist leaders who Affirm, undertake to not manifest any belief outside the parameters of the Constitution – based on which they affirm. The Sinhala-Buddhist leadership claim by the new President was in breach of the Constitutional parameters. A Hindu minister on the other hand has the authority of the Geetha to invoke her/his truth as per Krishna’s philosophy and introduce it as law through Parliament . Buddhist members who affirmed – have the duty to limit their expressions of belief to the language of the Constitution and no more. This applies also to new legislation introduced by them.
The expressions by the new President that he would repeal the 19th Amendment are therefore blasphemous.
Each nation has its own god as per the consolidated truth of that land. When we invoke Almighty God – we invoke our own form of Ultimate Reality. As per the law/ science of Nature – that Ultimate Reality will manifest in the form of the Ultimate Reality of that Land. The Constitution is a consolidated version of such as perceived by the makers which would not necessarily be identical to the Ultimate Reality of that Land.
If the Ultimate Reality is higher – and it is ignored by those who have the duty – but is invoked by those in need – that Ultimate Reality will manifest Itself. Hence the Equal Position for minorities in National Parliament in the 1977 and 2015 Elections. This power is diluted when minorities act in revenge and thus lose the power to manifest at the higher level. Jihad / Soorasamharam is permitted only by those who have followed the path of existing common laws and then invoke the higher powers. Other punishments by death become sins.
Article 9 requires Buddhist leaders to promote Buddha Sasana. Unless there is specific provision in Buddha Sasana to take another’s life – there is no authority for Buddhists to kill another human being in punishment. As per natural law – they as Equals have the authority to fight to defend their current territory and NOT to invade. Natural laws cannot be applied directly by those who have official powers.
If Jesus whose birth is celebrated by majority in this world – sought to take revenge or curse the authorities – Jesus would have been forgotten after His body perished. But Jesus invoked the higher Lord – and is celebrated including through secular pathway – as if He is today’s Ultimate Reality .
Likewise those who truly believe in Lord Buddha would invoke Lord Buddha as Ultimate Reality which would be manifested by those outside the beneficiaries of the Sri Lankan Governments after the 1972 Constitution limited such manifestations through Article 6. There can be no higher manifestations allowable by Buddhists than the one that existed prior to 1972 – which was codified as Kandyan Law.
Article 6 in the 1972 Constitution and Article 9 in the current Constitution divide the Constitution into two compartments. One is applicable to Buddhists and the other to non-Buddhists. They are like two rooms that a home is made-up of. Any changes to the Buddhist room is limited to the Buddhist room only and needs to be within the manifestation of the Buddha Sasana already in existence at the time of birth of the 1972 Constitution. This is the Kandyan Law.
Since non-Buddhists are not required to follow any particular Sasana – there is no limit to the manifestations of their Belief. The implementation however needs to be not in breach of the Constitution.
The 6th Amendment to the Constitution which prohibited promoting separate state within Sri Lanka was introduced in 1983 by the Government of J R Jayawardene who included the Buddhism Foremost article as Article 9. Vaddukoddai Resolution 1976 was an expression of political belief. The 1983 Amendment was invalid because Mr Jayawardene – a Buddhist – did not have the authority to override the provisions of ‘free’ expressions of Belief by non-Buddhists. Thus Mr Jayawardene who was bound by Articles 10 and 14(1)(e) of his own 1978 Constitution – acted in breach of the Constitution.
So long as we believe – the Truth will manifest in highest form of the believer . So long as there is a true Believer active in Sri Lankan Governance – any changes to constitution towards a higher form of governance can become official only through non-Buddhists. Hence the victory in the 1977 and 2015 elections through non-Buddhists who rejected separation because they believe in Sri Lanka the whole AND had the authority of the Constitution to form Higher forms of governance – including the provisions in the 19th Amendment. Under the new government – Sri Lanka would be limited to the levels of 1972 constitution and no more. Any Amendments would be valid only through Minorities in Leading Opposition.
Post a Comment