Cecil Atukorale

With the open economy we got under J.R.Jayawardena regime in 1977, sometime in the past, a new kind of Buddhist standards was established, according to which all religions are alike both in spirit and essence. Several years later, the Minister of Education Mr.Akila Viraj Kariyawasam is highly lamenting now about the moral degradation of the Buddhist community and ascribed all that to the one single cause of poor attendance marked in Sunday Dhamma Schools. In our opinion, this surely is an attempt to distort the social meaning of the open economy which spoilt our young minds in the country over the years without any let or hindrance or else he has no insight to see the things in its correct perspective. In actual fact, the religious outlook of the Buddhist, their thinking, their modes of expression and their way of life is Un-Buddhist. Even when they conform to the tenants of Buddhism they do so in Un-Buddhist way. This marks the decline of religion.

In the early 80’s school texts books were revised and re-written to match the open economy objectives. Open Economy was not all about export and import of goods, nor about road development and building constructions either, for it had its links with many other vices like drug trafficking , porn films, Casino, sex- shops , Taverns and Brothels and so on. It was during that period of the open economy, massage clinics in the style of Ayurvedic Hospitals , Brothels in the style of Restaurants, Homo sex clubs in the style of friendship circles came to the surface with no legal obstacles. To elucidate this fact, we can cite the following controversial excerpt from the Buddhism text book prepared for year 10 class in the 80’s. See page 64

‘Division of mankind on the basis of religion was contrary to the expectations of religious teachers. In every religion is taught kindness, love and Universal Love; each of which must be a thing not restricted to the followers of one particular religion; and each of which must be a thing that is universally acceptable and common to the whole world. A Buddhist must show his kindness and Universal love not only to the Buddhists; the creation of the well being taught in Hindu religion is not to be confined to the Hindus alone. Love taught in Christian religion is not to be confined to the followers of Christian religion. Brotherhood taught in Islam religion is not to be confined to the Islamists alone either. Each of these things must be common to the whole of mankind. Expectation of all religious teachers was that .’

Though superficially this may appear to be correct was it not a misrepresentation of facts? Was it not a misrepresentation of a major fact in Buddhist religion? In short was it not a challenge to all religions alike?

As we understand things the spiritual essence of these religions is not one and the same. The slaughter of animals was in the highest degree offensive to the Buddha and he disallowed animal sacrifices absolutely. Thus,  the Universal love (Maithree) taught in Buddhism knows no bounds and it applies to all beings alike.  In all the other religions, except Buddhism, animal slaughtering is allowed. It is a fact known to all in our midst. Hence the Universal Love (Maithree) preached in Buddhism can no way be equated with the Christian concept of neither love nor can it be equated with the well-being concept of Hinduism or even the brotherhood concept of Islam either. In the context how is how are we to say that Universal Love is taught? Is this not a greater distortion of facts? In our opinion, what the Buddhism is one thing and what religion ought to be is quite another thing. ‘Religion as it ought to be’ implies a prescriptive pattern of conduct which could in no way be harmonized with the concept of ‘religion as it is’. In other words Buddhism is Not a thou Shall not religion.

We want our young men to study Buddhism as it is ( as found in Thri-pitaka ), but not as it ought to be as Buddhism is a religion based on the Four Noble Truths which are not  subordinate to the laws of neo colonial propagandists. There is no determinate superior, in Buddhist religion to command its will on the followers of that religion. Comparison of Buddhism with other religion needs to be done with greater caution.

Hence, there is a special branch of studies called Comparative Religion. Here it is nothing, but Buddhism that is expected to be dealt with in the text book though it has gone beyond its terms of reference. Again if all the religions are alike, then, there is no need for us to have separate places of worships like temples, churches, Mosques as we do have at present. Anyone can opt to go any place of religious worship irrespective of the religion he/she believes in, resembling the procedure which the public servant follow in reporting to the nearest place of work taking account to the exigencies of situation s such as flood and civil commotion. Is it this kind of nonsense that our education planners want our young ones to learn by way of learning religion? Today we are reaping what we sow yesterday; despite all this there is a constitutional provision to safeguard Buddhism (See Section 9 of the constitution to get an idea about the objective of this provision).