17 July 2021
Intellectual logic is Human; Belief is Divine
[The letter from the National Catholic Committee for Justice to Easter Sunday Attack Victims, a group of bishops and priests led by Archbishop of Colombo Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith, called on the president to take legal action against former President Maithripala Sirisena for negligence as recommended by a presidential inquiry commission report.] Aljazeera
What if according to Mr Sirisena’s interpretation of article 9 of the Sri Lankan Constitution – he did not have jurisdiction over the interactions between Christians and Muslims? As per my memory – Mr Sirisena kept stating that Sri Lanka was a Buddhist country and the relevant branch applicable to Sri Lanka was Theravada Buddhism. As per Wikipedia:
[According to Theravada Buddhism, mundane right view is a teaching that is suitable for lay followers, while supramundane right view, which requires a deeper understanding, is suitable for monastics. Mundane and supramundane right view involve accepting the following doctrines of Buddhism:
2. Three marks of existence: everything, whether physical or mental, is impermanent (anicca), a source of suffering (dukkha), and lacks a self (anatta).
3. The Four Noble Truths are a means to gaining insights and ending dukkha.]
In essence, even if we do not do anything – physical or mental – those involved would experience the consequences of their actions . To do something one must believe that the other is a part of her/him and/or know as per the structure – the consequences of her/his actions.
Mr Sirisena was a beneficiary of the Sri Lankan war. He did not earn credit as a fighter of armed groups nor did he politically operate to earn the position of President. He ‘happened’ to be President. As per his own declaration – he was Buddhist foremost. Hence he would not have had the intuition to know how Muslims or Christians would have felt about each other. Nor did he have strong knowledge of Secular law to apply the law intellectually and project outcomes.
Sri Lankan Catholic leaders who limited themselves to their own religious congregations were the parallels of this Buddhist president. Had they actively fought against Article 9 – they would have developed deeper common Sri Lankan rights.
The current president showed in action that he was driven by his ancestor King Dutugamunu. Dutugamunu as a king did not rule as per Buddhist values. To my mind he was one of the reasons why Buddhism foremost article would have been included in the Constitution. If he were living now and he acted as he did that would have been in breach of Article 9. By taking oaths at Ruwanwelisaya the current President took oath to rule as King Dutugamunu did. That meant he was as a warrior foremost. So long as he bound himself by a Buddhist leader breaches of Article 9 would have largely been the responsibility of the leader above him. By becoming the President – he took on the karmic results of his past – and escalated it to the king / corona position. As a family – the Rajapaksas are known to believe in Astrology. As per my knowledge – virtues or sins of our past are beyond our direct control. If invoked for current purposes – they come with their ‘other side’ and do so exponentially. Hence the fear of exponential spread of Corona virus. It is the exponentiality of the spread that confirms that it is a sin from the past – such as Silk Road karma.
On 13 December 2018, I invoked positive heritage of the Judiciary as follows:
[In the Colombo Telegraph article headed ‘Executive Presidency- Absurdity Of The Immunity Cover!’ – the author Mr Lukman Harees refers to the following case brought against the then Attorney General - Mr Shiva Pasupati – a Tamil. The case was named ‘Mallikarachchi vs. Siva Pasupathy’
It ought to have been named Mallikarachchi vs Attorney General – as the highest legal power within the Government. The individual is mere medium of the government.
Justice Sharvananda, also a Tamil is quoted by the above author as follows:
[In the SL Context, Sharvananda CJ in Mallikarachchi vs. Siva Pasupathy explained the immunity granted to the President as follows: ‘…the President is not above the law. He is a person elected by the people and holds office for a term of six years. The process of election ensures in the holder of the office correct conduct and full sense of responsibility for discharging properly the functions assigned to him. It is, therefore, necessary that special immunity must be conferred on the person holding such high executive office from being subject to legal process or legal action and being harassed by frivolous actions. If such immunity is not conferred not only the prestige, dignity and status of the high office would be adversely affected but the smooth and efficient working of the Government of which he is the head would be impeded. That is the rationale for the immunity cover afforded to the President’s actions both official and private’. ]
Hence if legal action is taken against the former president, the value of immunity is lost. These leaders have the right to bring action against the Attorney General with the intent of disciplining all concerned in that Administrative structure. The immunity covers the Governor in the position of President. A governor who believes cannot be questioned and is taken as right. The individual cannot be found fault with after he stepped down from that position, for her/his actions or negligence during the time s/he was in that position. To do so would be like the to punish in this life, for our past karma. The law does not have that authority.
We Sri Lankans do not know how the government would perform without being conscious of Buddhism and its foremost status. When we fail to challenge Buddhism ‘foremost’ article – we quietly condone it and when we think we are ‘free’ we do likewise. Then we separate and become foreigners to each other. Hence we have no moral authority to question leaders on the basis of faults that we ourselves carry. If the Sri Lankan Catholic church believed in Jesus – they would invoke the global power of Catholics which would effectively warn the would be offenders. This is why Jesus must have said to turn the other cheek – confirming he was divine and therefore was the offender and the victim.