Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

05 June  2020

Sri Lanka the Buddhist Holy See?

The sentiments in USA seem to have surfaced their parallels in Sri Lankans. The Editorial of Sri Lanka Guardian is headed ‘Sri Lanka: Buddhist Country vs. Country of Buddhists’. The issue could have been raised more substantively under the heading ‘Buddhist vs Sri Lankan’. The mental picture of the Editor seems to not extend beyond Buddhism.

The editor states:

[Some say that Sri Lanka is not a country of Buddhists but a country of Sri Lankans. They argue for it. Others react to the idea that Sri Lanka is a country of Buddhists. Both parties have distorted a niche in language and placed it before society. Buddhist country and Country of Buddhists are two different concepts.

Buddhist Sri Lanka is similar to the concept known and accepted by common sense, such as Christian USA, Catholic Vatican, Hindu India, Judaist Israel and Islamic Saudi Arabia, though they have not officially proclaimed. By this historical nature, is it wrong to call Sri Lanka a Buddhist country? Does this practice harm or discriminate another religion? We believe, not. This is nothing more than the identity of a nation.]

The dictionary for common purposes is the Sri Lankan Constitution. If Sri Lanka by law is governed by Buddha Sasana, then it would be valid to call Sri Lanka a Buddhist country or country of Buddhists. To my mind they are not different in substance. Article 9 of the Constitution of Sri Lanka separates the country into two nations. By stating

[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).]

The moment the root of our form of belief is recognized to be different to that of another – we are naturally separated. The root of Buddhism is represented by Buddha. The root of Christianity is represented by Jesus. Hence the Sovereignty of each is confirmed as separate entities. To be a Sovereign entity within a larger sovereign entity there needs to be separation – as earth is separated from the Sun. Earth revolves around the sun due to its sovereign power. One who holds an official position in the larger entity cannot hold official position in the smaller sovereign body and v.v. The PM of Sri Lanka cannot hold an official position in the UN for this reason. But we could be bound by the same laws.

The Vatican City for example is a sovereign entity within Holy See’s jurisdiction. These structures have been confirmed through appropriate laws.

[The Holy See also called the See of Rome, is the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, known as the pope, which includes the apostolic episcopal see of the Diocese of Rome with universal ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the worldwide Catholic Church, as well as a sovereign entity of international law, governing the Vatican City.]

Buddhist country is therefore valid only when there has been such a declaration of belief by Buddhists. Vaddukoddai Resolution 1976 is such a claim by Tamil politicians. Thereafter there was no authority for the Sri Lankan government to directly administer Tamils represented by Politicians. Common law ought to have been the basis and the exercise of power ought to have been through law and/or  consensus  and not direct ‘telling’. That in effect is a Federal structure.

More importantly, the Hindu  parallel of Episcopal See / Chair of Authority is Sri Sai Baba’s chair which is an essential representation in Sri Sai Baba’s shrines – including here in Australia.

The Lankan parallel is the Kandyan throne which was last occupied by Hindu King Sri Vikrama Rajasinha:

[Sri Vikrama Rajasinha (1780 – January 30, 1832, born Kannasamy Nayaka) was the last of four Kings, to rule the last Sinhalese monarchy of the Kingdom of Kandy in Sri Lanka. The Nayak Kings were of Telugu origin who practiced Shaivite Hinduism and were patrons of Theravada Buddhism. The Nayak rulers played a huge role in reviving Buddhism in the island. They spoke Tamil, which was also used as the court language in Kandy alongside Sinhalese.] Wikipedia

When Sinhalese politicians declared ‘Sinhala Only’ as official language they naturally disconnected themselves from the heritage up to January 1832. In democracy a law is a declaration of belief. The subsequent addition through the 13^th Amendment is in effect a treaty.

Likewise when Buddhism foremost was added to the Constitution in 1972 Lanka became the parallel of Holy See / the Sun and Buddhist common area the parallel of the Vatican State/Earth.

Tamils balanced this through Vaddukoddai Resolution 1976. If the armed rebels had considered the Vaddukoddai Resolution 1976 to be the Sun and themselves the Earth we would have been positively supported by Dharma. We may do so by promoting Intellectual opposition foremost and preserve our Independence.

The editor concludes as follows:

[The verbal game between Buddhist Country and Country of Buddhists has done a great deal to the country's reputation and people. The whole country suffered for decades as these fundamental issues were not addressed nationally and the same mistakes were repeated. It is high time to rethink the bad consequences we as the country encountered due to the slight negligence of our very language.]

To my mind it goes deeper than verbal play. It’s fear of majority power in the region. Those who desire power of majority in local circle, would automatically fear majority power in wider circles where they are not in control. This became reality when India trained Tamil militants after the 1983 pogrom against Tamils in multicultural areas of Sri Lanka. Hindu part of India tthe facto parallel  of the Holy See. It did not have official jurisdiction but had the moral authority to facilitate Tamils to defend themselves. Moral authority is based on the science of Truth. Such authority is valid – so long as it is confidentially exercised. Beyond that one needs express laws that confirm intellectual/scientific  logic. Wikipedia presents this as follows:

[ International law differs from state-based legal systems in that it is primarily—though not exclusively—applicable to countries, rather than to individuals, and operates largely through consent, since there is no universally accepted authority to enforce it upon sovereign states. Consequently, states may choose to not abide by international law, and even to break a treaty. However, such violations, particularly of customary international law and peremptory norms (jus cogens), can be met with coercive action, ranging from military intervention to diplomatic and economic pressure.]

By promising to withdraw from the UN Resolution and therefore the fundamental values of International Law, the current President disconnected the Energy flow to his followers - from Common International mind .