Presenting Bhutan's economy as self sufficient but poor, Prof Sachs says Bhutan is now modernising its society. What is Bhutan's approach and how will it achieve modernisation ? “What is incredible is the thoughtfulness with which Bhutan is approaching this process of change, and how Buddhist thinking guides that thoughtfulness.” writes Prof Sachs. In Bhutan, the index of growth is not Gross National Product (GNP), but Gross National Happiness (GNH) says Prof Sachs and adds, “There is no formula, but, befitting the seriousness of the challenge and Bhutan’s deep tradition of Buddhist reflection, there is an active and important process of national deliberation.”
Our majority in Sri Lanka are Buddhists too and take pride in our Buddhist heritage, but act in a wholly different way. Sri Lanka's “Heenayana” (Therevada) Buddhism is any way different. Bhutan is a “Mahayana” Buddhist society very much influenced by the Tibetan Buddhist Sect. They have also assimilated North Indian Hindu beliefs and rituals over the past centuries, fashioning their own Buddhist philosophy that accepts secular living. Present day Mahayana Buddhism is any way a more positive Buddhist ideology on secular life. It is this Mahayana Buddhist influence that Prof Sachs is very much impressed about.
Ours being a Heenayana society that all through history, denied and suppressed the influence of Mahayana Buddhism in our historical evolotuion and still refuse to accept the contribution of Mahayana in our heritage, have remained in the company of two other Heenayana kingdoms in Burma and Thailand. It thus becomes important to glance through our Heenayana Buddhist history to form an idea as to how we have missed out on opportunities for growth and why we live on poverty that is not only about economics, but also about culture as well.
It thus justifies in this present day Buddhist society in Sri Lanka to question how and why a sizeable number of Buddhist monks came together at the BMICH (on Friday 20 August) to request President Rajapaksa to re-establish stripped Mervyn Silva as Deputy Minister and as SLFP organiser for Kelaniya, once again. His track record is nothing but one of social nuisance and political bullying to say the least. Yet these Buddhist monks appreciated very much, the work (sic) of Mervyn Silva in making their appeal on behalf of him.
They were not just ordinary monks. Apart from most being senior Buddhist monks, there were also academics in higher educational institutes like Ven. Patheygama Gnanasiri of the Anuradhapura Bikkhu University and professors like Venerable Kamburugamuwe Vajira thero, among those who led this appeal. What can one say of these Buddhist monks ?
Today, news reports often have stories of monks accused of child abuse, of sexual harassment of women, accused of fraud and cheating and about monks who run businesses. There is also leading monks who own and accumulate property and wealth, dabble openly in present day uncultured, corrupt politics, scheme and deal in such politics for fame, positions and money. Most such monks live a very luxury secular life in every sense, at least within their heavily funded “ashrams”. There is very little Buddhism in any of them.
What is important and has to be stressed is, this Sinhala Buddhist society accepts all of it without grumbling. That these monks are never punished within their own Sangha “Nikayas” too. This clearly means, what this society accepts as Buddhism is not even the Heenayana Sect of Buddhism as of yore. In short, these Buddhist monks are uncompromisingly unfaithful to Buddhism and they represent that period of ill famed “Ganinnanseys” in history. This drastic decline in Buddhism has its history, though within a different social context. It was then a period around mid 16 Century, when royalty sponsored Buddhism was being deified with South Indian Hindu traditions and rituals, their gods and with local variants too. It was a poor feudal society ruled often by South Indian Nayakkar royalty, rampant with ruling rivalry and often living with external threats.
The Sangha thus had its own interpretations of Buddhism and was taking over Hindu rituals in the name of Buddhism. Buddhism was been adulterated to accommodate a ritualistic form of a religion on which monks could also live a comfortable life. This decline over centuries gave in to personal greed and individuality, allowing even lay life among monks. These monks thus reduced themselves to “Ganinnanseys” donning a yellow piece of cloth, towards 17 Century.
In history, it has always been the royalty that had intervened in cleansing and resurrecting Buddhism and it has often been the Heenayana Sect that had prevailed over royalty for dominance. Similarly, it was again the Heenayana influence on royalty that had two previous attempts (during Kings Vimala Dharma Suriya I and about 05 decades later by Vimala Dharma Suriya II) at cleansing the “rogue” Sangha society. Yet they had little effect in keeping a venerable standard among monks.
It then took a non Sinhala, Madurai born, South Indian Nayakkar Hindu king, Keerthi Sri Rajasinghe, guided by Welivita Saranankara Thera, to clean up the “Ganinnansey” infested Sangha society and establish the higher ordination – the Upasampadha – in 1753, brought from Thailand, then known as “Siam”. Hence the name Siam (nikaya) Sect in Kandy, that immediately came to be owned by nobles of Govigama caste, in Asgiri and Malwathu chapters, denying higher ordination to Low Country and other castes.
This for the first time, prompted traders and wealthy laymen of low country castes to fund Gnanavimala thero, a monk of Salagama origin in Balapitiya, to leave for Burma in 1793 to bring the higher ordination. Gnanavimala thero returned in 1803 to establish the “Amarapura” Nikaya, independent of any royal patronage. Thereafter, Durawa and Karawa castes also encouraged their own into higher ordination and was instrumental in establishing a Sangha society not only based on caste, but also funded by wealthy traders, outside any royal patronage. This subsequently led to the other important Sect called the Ramanna Nikaya, often said to accommodate all castes.
This trader patronised new Sangha Nikayas marked a significant change in Sri Lankan Sangha Society. With the changes in Sangha society coinciding with socio – economic changes that took place with Colonial rule, the wealthy trader community came to patronise the Sangha society, in place of Sinhala and Nayakkar kings, who were no more.
There was apparently no other independent existence for Buddhism in Sri Lanka. Yet for Heenayana Buddhism that “preached” suppression of secular comfort including giving up lay bondages and wealth, to have a trader funded base, left it with a living contradiction. This contradiction was often eased out with “giving away” (Dhana) that always accrued with temples and monks. Thus the new society that evolved with this new Sangha divisions had an inherent dynamic to lead it to degeneration and decline.
That also allowed Heenayana Buddhist monks to fall in line with the new wealthy landed proprietors and the business communities, who were identified as those social segments who stood for an independent Ceylon. Its justification was through historical anecdotes that said the Sangha always advised and guided the royalty, which never explains how the Sangha itself came to be “Ganinnanseys” in ancient Lanka. Nevertheless a new political nexus was found in the call for independence for Buddhist monks and the politically intervening wealthy Sinhala community to come together.
The rest is all simple logic, of how the present day monks have come to equate themselves with those “Ganinnanseys” of ill repute. Sri Lanka did not have a robust economic growth to allow commercial capital to evolve into productive capital as in India. The whole 60 plus year period since independence, saw only a deformed growth and is yet to see holistic capitalist growth. This society is therefore modern in its dress and attire, consumerism in a free market, access to other markets and in its communication facilities. It is colonial in its dependence on foreign powers whilst also opposing them. It is feudal in its land distribution and ownership, its introvert social thinking, value system and attitudes.
The economy is thus dominated by commercial capital that lacks any long term perspective for sustainable development and is only driven by profits, decided by commissions. In such deformed societies, existence of trade and commercial capital is decided by political patronage. The social ideology in such societies has no potential to be futuristic. With Nikayas having their own caste affiliations and through them the link to business communities, monks for sure can not avoid such degeneration and be different to “Ganinnanseys”.
This is what this Sinhala society is and how it lives its individualised, socially irresponsible life. Therefore in the absence of intellectual discourse in society that could enable this society to understand its own socio economic and cultural life, the question “how could economic modernization be combined with cultural robustness and social well-being ?”, is one that does not pose itself, wanting answers. This is a different country with a different Buddhist psyche than what Prof Jeffrey Sachs is impressed with.
Kusal Perera
28 August, 2010
1 comments:
Interesting things and culture might say. They have the 7 religion i belive and they are very faithfull to their culture.
Post a Comment