Opinion

Is the Buddha’s teaching lost on us?

Published

2 years ago

2023/12/5

By Geewananda Gunawardana, Ph.D.

My high school teacher, late professor Kotagama Wachissara Thero, told us that there is no “ism” in what the Buddha taught. “You are too young to grasp this, but think about it when you get a chance,” he advised. Now, after five decades of searching, I can relate to it; but as I have seen it repeatedly, saying it out loud is going against tradition. However, seeing the current situation in the Buddhist majority country, I thought, perhaps, the time has come to address this circular reasoning, however awkward and risky it may be.

The term Buddhism was coined by late nineteenth century western scholars to describe diverse practices that were based on the Buddha’s teaching. The suffix “ism” is mostly used to describe a religion, a set of organised beliefs, practices, and systems that most often relate to the belief and worship of a controlling force, such as a personal god or another supernatural being. We cannot find fault with those scholars; it is hard to deny that Buddhism as practised has many of those characteristics if not all: pantheon, mysticism, rituals, and beliefs. There is nothing wrong with religion if it fulfills the needs of the follower. In fact, being religious has many benefits that range from providing mental and physical wellbeing to forming social networks. Often, there are spiritual and cultural elements associated with religions as well. The snag here is that not only does the Teaching not include any of those characteristics, but it also eschews them.

What I would like to discuss here is how far away Buddhism has drifted from the teachings. Over two and a half millennia ago, the Buddha started an intellectual and ethical movement based on a set of truths he discovered about nature and the place humans occupy in it. This is often stated as “seeing things as they really are” (yathabutha nanadassana) and living accordingly. The premise is that once one understands this truth with wisdom, he or she will lead a harmonious life that is beneficial to themselves, society, and the entire world, both here now and hereafter. Nibbana is seeing things as they really are at the highest level (Karunadasa 2013).

What did the Buddha teach? Assaji, one of the first five disciples of the Buddha, was asked the same question by Upatissa, who later became known as Sariputta, one of the two chief disciples of the Buddha. Assaji replied “All phenomena arise from causes; Those causes have been taught by the Tathagata, and their cessation too has been proclaimed by the Great Samana” (Ye dhammaā hetuppabhavaā tesam hetum Tathagato āaha, Tesan-ca yo nirodho – evam vadi Mahasamano).

This statement by Assaji is the most concise yet complete description of the Teaching found in the literature. It was so illuminating that Upatissa became a stream entrant (sotapanna) upon hearing it. Some scholars fail to recognise the significance of this simple statement, but it captures the fundamentals of Buddha’s teaching in its entirety: Codependent Arising, Three Characteristics of Life, and the Four Noble Truths. Teaching is an in-depth analysis of the human mind, which modern neuroscience is just beginning to reinvent. There is nothing in the Teaching that is attributed to beliefs or supernatural powers. All that was the result of human intelligence. For the same reasons, the Teaching is accessible to the wise, here, and now (sanditthiko akaliko…). The path to develop the mind to “see things as they really are” as they relate to the human condition, has three requisites: conduct, tranquility or harmony, and wisdom. None of that has anything to do with beliefs, rituals, or mysticism.

If so, how did Buddhism acquire the beliefs, practices, and rituals that are extraneous to the Teaching? India was teeming with religious movements during the time of the Buddha. During the six years prior to enlightenment, Prince Siddhartha studied under several thought leaders of the time, and found their doctrines unsatisfactory. The enlightenment or the Buddha’s rediscovery of eternal truths was a response or a repudiation of the prevailing views, Brahmanism in particular. He gave new meanings to Brahminic concepts such as gods, karma, and rebirth. Even the Four Noble Truths was a repudiation of several contemporary theories on human condition.

This dynamical interaction of the Teaching with the prevailing theories, traditions, and beliefs of the societies that accepted it took place during the Buddha’s time; and this process has been ongoing ever since. For example, it is not difficult to identify the customs of Sri Lankan Buddhists that were added in reaction to Christian missionary activities, or the rituals started during the war years. The Buddha did not reject the acceptance or presence of other traditions among his followers for several reasons. First, his teaching is grounded in truths and can be empirically verified by the wise. Anyone can see if they benefit from the truth irrespective of their affiliations. Therefore, his Teaching prevailed, and will continue to be so in the future, at least among the wise. The operating word here is “wise,” and the Buddha emphasised this fact in his famous advice to the Kalamas:

“Now, Kalamas, don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, ‘This contemplative is our teacher.’ When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted and carried out, lead to welfare and to happiness’ — then you should enter and remain in them.”

Second, the Buddha was able to reinterpret or give new meanings to existing beliefs and practices if they did not contradict the truth. Many Brahmins became his disciples after the Buddha convinced them that their practices and beliefs can have deeper new meanings. If the practices or beliefs were contradictory to the Teaching or futile, he rejected them. The Vedic practice of animal sacrifice was one of them. That is the key question: do our beliefs and practices do any harm?

It is not correct to conclude that all such acquisitions are detrimental. However, to make that determination, we must heed the advice to Kalamas, take a critical look at our practices and beliefs, and evaluate their validity or benefits. Admittedly, this is a difficult undertaking. The irony is that tradition prevents us from questioning tradition. One can say that this is a form of suppression of critical thinking.

It is noteworthy that the three main schools of Buddhism, Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana are all based on the Four Noble Truths, but their practices, customs, and beliefs vary widely. This diversity arose as a result of absorbing the practices, customs, and beliefs that existed in the lands that embraced the Teaching. Theravadins reason that their school being the oldest, they are the closest to the Teaching. That may be the case, but when its history is examined, it cannot be denied that Theravada school had not been immune to the transformative forces that shaped the other schools over millennia. For example, the Abhayagiri and Jethavana monasteries had been thriving Mahayana centers. When they were consolidated with the Mahavihara monastery in the 12th century, the new Theravada tradition adopted most of the Mahayana practices and beliefs but kept the Pali Canon (Rahula 1956).

The glaring proof that the Teaching is lost on us is the moral bankruptcy of the nation that led to the equally horrific economic bankruptcy. Moral and ethical conduct is at the root of the Noble Path; however, it appears that this has been fully and completely ignored at all levels of society. For example, if two of the five precepts were adhered to at a minimum, would the country have ended up as the most corrupt and lawless one in the region? The second indication is the rapid rate of introduction of new rituals that are blatantly against the Teaching, and often criminal according to the law. While the entire nation and the country’s future suffer due to ethical and moral failures, it is the innocent pious who fall victim to these scams disguised as meritorious actions.

It is difficult to pinpoint the origins of these malaises, but it is not surprising that they do exist considering the checkered history of Buddhism in the country. Even though we would like to think that there is an unbroken lineage between the canonical materials and the sangha to the Buddha’s times, that does not mean it is free of extraneous material. The canon that was brought to Sri Lanka had been supplemented for over two centuries under Brahminic influence, and there is no evidence that Emperor Asoka made any distinction between Sthavira and Mahasamghika sects that had different opinions. The original Sri Lankan texts do not exist, and only portions of their Pali translations survived in Sri Lanka. The missing sections were brought back from other countries in recent times. The Sri Lankan Bhikkhuni community disappeared, and the Bhikkhu community escaped near extinction thanks to repeated reintroduction of ordination from other countries, also in relatively recent times. There were many opportunities for the incorporation of extraneous materials into the tradition during this eventful history.

The most influential addition in this process was the belief that the Teaching cannot be comprehended beyond the first millennium after Parinirvana, even though the Pali stanza venerating the Teaching states quite the opposite. Once the original ideal became inaccessible under this premise, the followers were offered a new goal: collect merits so that one can assure rebirth in superior realms until the arrival of Maitreya Buddha when the liberation can be achieved, a concept not found in the Teaching. For more immediate needs, followers started turning to supernatural powers, as their ancestors did before the arrival of Buddhism. The merits gathering and petitionary prayers or offerings have turned into bartering systems: exchange of material things or services for some benefits in return. This is the opposite of giving (dana) to suppress attachment to worldly things as the Teaching prescribes.

There are two ways in which this mindset can harm society. One is the notion that the consequences of ethical or moral violations can be balanced or compensated by meritorious actions, like balancing withdrawals and deposits in a bank account. This gives the opportunity to cover nefarious activities behind bogus meritorious ones. Another is the use of rituals by unscrupulous agents to exploit hapless devotees and depriving them of precious resources that can be used to improve the living conditions in these difficult times. In essence, merit has become a commodity item. Obviously, building shrines at every street corner, offering robes (kapruka pooja) and medicinal products (oushada pooja) to stupas, or having light displays on special days are no substitutes for lack of morals and ethics. The practice of offering material things and prayers to structures or trees predates the Buddha, and the Teaching eschews such rituals. Not only that, but the current trend has taken them to extremes: there is a belief that one can gain more merits by lighting more lamps or offering more flowers or broadcasting the chanting louder and falling victim to consumerism and commercialisation. Failing to see the practicality of offering the best food one can afford to the statue to be discarded later, compared to feeding a child that goes to school hungry. The Buddha never condoned giving offerings or praying to inanimate objects or higher powers. Most of these rituals are much later additions to the practice; what may have started as symbolic gestures are given new meanings that go against the teaching.

One may argue that these are academic matters that are devoid of any practical implications. That is far from the truth. The effects of these practices will add up over time, as happened with the economy. Aside from the spiritual aspects, they can cause major economic and social upheavals. A major concern expressed by certain parties is that Buddhism in Sri Lanka is under threat. The truth is that the threat comes from within. Those who cry wolf are the same people who cause it and prevent us from realizing it, because they have much to lose if we discover the truth. We the people are caught up in this circular reasoning: It is against tradition to challenge tradition.

As the Kalama Sutta states, we must think rationally, and escape from this circular reasoning. The reality is that our practices have drifted away from What the Buddha Taught. If we do not stop this drift, the connection could be lost forever. Ironically, we are supposed to be the people chosen to safeguard the Teaching. We as a nation have done a commendable job in preserving it. We have not lost the Teaching, but the Teaching is lost on us.

All News Advertisement

Related Topics:Buddha Is the Buddha’s teaching lost on us?

Up Next

Dr Sarojini Perera: Fourth Death Anniversary

Don't Miss

Mathematics curriculum, and examinations – II

Click to comment

Opinion

War with Iran and unravelling of the global order – II

Published

7 days ago

2026/04/9

Sahan Weerasooriya

A US airstrike on Iran

Broader Strategic Consequences

One of the most significant strategic consequences of the war is the accelerated erosion of U.S. political and moral hegemony. This is not a sudden phenomenon precipitated solely by the present conflict; rather, the war has served to illuminate an already evolving global reality—that the era of uncontested U.S. dominance is in decline. The resurgence of Donald Trump and the reassertion of his “America First” doctrine reflect deep-seated domestic economic and political challenges within the United States. These internal pressures have, in turn, shaped a more unilateral and inward-looking foreign policy posture, further constraining Washington’s capacity to exercise global leadership.

Moreover, the conduct of the war has significantly undermined the political and moral authority of the United States. Perceived violations of international humanitarian law, coupled with the selective application of international norms, have weakened the credibility of U.S. advocacy for a “rules-based international order.” Such inconsistencies have reinforced perceptions of double standards, particularly among states in the Global South. Skepticism toward Western normative leadership is expected to deepen, contributing to the gradual fragmentation of the international system. In this broader context, the ongoing crisis can be seen as symptomatic of a more fundamental transformation: the progressive waning of a global order historically anchored in U.S. hegemony and the emergence of a more contested and pluralistic international landscape.

The regional implications of the crisis are likely to be profound, particularly given the centrality of the Persian Gulf to the global political economy. As a critical hub of energy production and maritime trade, instability in this region carries systemic consequences that extend far beyond its immediate geography. Whatever may be the outcome, whether through the decisive weakening of Iran or the inability of external powers to dismantle its leadership and strategic capabilities, the post-conflict regional order will differ markedly from its pre-war configuration. In this evolving context, traditional power hierarchies, alliance structures, and deterrence dynamics are likely to undergo significant recalibration.

A key lesson underscored by the war is the deep interconnectivity of the contemporary global economic order. In an era of highly integrated production networks and supply chains, disruptions in a single strategic node can generate cascading effects across the global system. As such, regional conflicts increasingly assume global significance. The structural realities of globalisation make it difficult to contain economic and strategic shocks within regional boundaries, as impacts rapidly transmit through trade, energy, and financial networks. In this context, peace and stability are no longer purely regional concerns but global public goods, essential to the functioning and resilience of the international system

The conflict highlights the emergence of a new paradigm of warfare shaped by the integration of artificial intelligence, cyber capabilities, and unmanned systems. The extensive use of unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs)—a trend previously demonstrated in the Russia–Ukraine War—has been further validated in this theatre. However, unlike the Ukraine conflict, where Western powers have provided sustained military, technological, and financial backing, the present confrontation reflects a more direct asymmetry between a dominant global hegemon and a Global South state. Iran’s deployment of drone swarms and AI-enabled targeting systems illustrates that key elements of Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) warfare are no longer confined to technologically advanced Western states. These capabilities are increasingly accessible to Global South actors, lowering barriers to entry and significantly enhancing their capacity to wage effective asymmetric warfare. In this evolving context, technological diffusion is reshaping the strategic landscape, challenging traditional military hierarchies and altering the balance between conventional superiority and innovative, cost-effective combat strategies.

The war further exposed and deepened the weakening of global governance institutions, particularly the United Nations. Many of these institutions were established in 1945, reflecting the balance of power and geopolitical realities of the immediate post-Second World War era. However, the profound transformations in the international system since then have rendered aspects of this institutional architecture increasingly outdated and less effective.

The war has underscored the urgent need for comprehensive international governance reforms to ensure that international institutions remain credible, representative, and capable of addressing contemporary security challenges. The perceived ineffectiveness of UN human rights mechanisms in responding to violations of international humanitarian law—particularly in contexts such as the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and more recently in Iran—has amplified calls for institutional renewal or the development of alternative frameworks for maintaining international peace and security. Moreover, the selective enforcement of international law and the persistent paralysis in conflict resolution mechanisms risk accelerating the fragmentation of global norms. If sustained, this trajectory would signal not merely the weakening but the possible demise of the so-called liberal international order, accelerating the erosion of both the legitimacy and the effective authority of existing multilateral institutions, and deepening the crisis of global governance.

Historically, major wars have often served as harbingers of new eras in international politics, marking painful yet decisive transitions from one order to another. Periods of systemic decline are typically accompanied by instability, uncertainty, and profound disruption; yet, it is through such crises that the contours of an emerging order begin to take shape. The present conflict appears to reflect such a moment of transition, where the strains within the existing global system are becoming increasingly visible.

Notably, key European powers are exhibiting a gradual shift away from exclusive reliance on the U.S. security umbrella, seeking instead a more autonomous and assertive role in global affairs. At the same time, the war is likely to create strategic space for China to expand its influence. As the United States becomes more deeply entangled militarily and politically, China may consolidate its position as a stabilising economic actor and an alternative strategic partner. This could be reflected in intensified energy diplomacy, expanded infrastructure investments, and a more proactive role in regional conflict management, advancing Beijing’s long-term objective of reshaping global governance structures.

However, this transition does not imply a simple replacement of Pax Americana with Pax Sinica. Rather, the emerging global order is likely to be more diffuse, pluralistic, and multilateral in character. In this sense, the ongoing transformation aligns with broader narratives of an “Asian Century,” in which power is redistributed across multiple centers rather than concentrated in a single hegemon. The war, therefore, may ultimately be understood not merely as a geopolitical crisis, but as a defining inflection point in the reconfiguration of the global order.

Conclusion: A New Era on the Horizon

History shows that major wars often signal the birth of new eras—painful, disruptive, yet transformative. The present conflict is no exception. It has exposed the vulnerabilities of the existing world order, challenged U.S. dominance, and revealed the limits of established global governance.

European powers are beginning to chart a more independent course, reducing reliance on the U.S. security umbrella, while China is poised to expand its influence as an economic stabiliser and strategic partner. Through energy diplomacy, infrastructure investments, and active engagement in regional conflicts, Beijing is quietly shaping the contours of a more multipolar world. Yet this is not the rise of Pax Sinica replacing Pax Americana. The emerging order is likely to be multilateral, fluid, and competitive—a world in which multiple powers, old and new, share the stage. The war, in all its turbulence, may therefore mark the dawn of a genuinely new global era, one where uncertainty coexists with opportunity, and where the next chapter of international politics is being written before our eyes.

by Gamini Keerawella
(First part of this article appeared yesterday (08 April)

Opinion

University admission crisis: Academics must lead the way

Published

1 week ago

2026/04/8

Sahan Weerasooriya

130,000 students are left out each year—academics hold the key

Each year, Sri Lanka’s G.C.E. Advanced Level examination produces a wave of hope—this year, nearly 175,000 students qualified for university entrance. Yet only 45,000 will be admitted to state universities. That leaves more than 130,000 young people stranded—qualified, ambitious, but excluded. This is not just a statistic; it is a national crisis. And while policymakers debate infrastructure and funding, the country’s academics must step forward as catalysts of change.

Beyond the Numbers: A National Responsibility

Education is the backbone of Sri Lanka’s development. Denying access to tens of thousands of qualified students risks wasting talent, fueling inequality, and undermining national progress. The gap is not simply about seats in lecture halls—it is about the future of a generation. Academics, as custodians of knowledge, cannot remain passive observers. They must reimagine the delivery of higher education to ensure opportunity is not a privilege for the few.

Expanding Pathways, Not Just Campuses

The traditional model of four-year degrees in brick-and-mortar universities cannot absorb the demand. Academics can design short-term diplomas and certificate programmes that provide immediate access to learning. These programmes, focused on employable skills, would allow thousands to continue their education while easing pressure on degree programmes. Equally important is the digital transformation of education. Online and blended learning modules can extend access to rural students, breaking the monopoly of physical campuses. With academic leadership, Sri Lanka can build a reliable system of credit transfers, enabling students to begin their studies at affiliated institutions and later transfer to state universities.

Partnerships That Protect Quality

Private universities and vocational institutes already absorb many students who miss out on state admissions. But concerns about quality and recognition persist. Academics can bridge this divide by providing quality assurance and standardised curricula, supervising joint degree programmes, and expanding the Open University system. These partnerships would ensure that students outside the state system receive affordable, credible, and internationally recognised education.

Research and Advocacy: Shaping Policy

Academics are not only teachers—they are researchers and thought leaders. By conducting labour market studies, they can align higher education expansion with employability. Evidence-based recommendations to the University Grants Commission (UGC) can guide strategic intake increases, regional university expansion, and government investment in digital infrastructure. In this way, academics can ensure reforms are not reactive, but visionary.

Industry Engagement: Learning Beyond the Classroom

Sri Lanka’s universities must become entrepreneurship hubs and innovation labs. Academics can design programmes that connect students directly with industries, offering internship-based learning and applied research opportunities. This approach reduces reliance on classroom capacity while equipping students with practical skills. It also reframes education as a partnership between universities and the economy, rather than a closed system.

Making the Most of What We Have

Even within existing constraints, academics can expand capacity. Training junior lecturers and adjunct faculty, sharing facilities across universities, and building international collaborations for joint programmes and scholarships are practical steps. These measures maximise resources while opening new avenues for students.

A Call to Action

Sri Lanka’s university admission crisis is not just about numbers—it is about fairness, opportunity, and national development. Academics must lead the way in transforming exclusion into empowerment. By expanding pathways, strengthening partnerships, advocating for policy reform, engaging with industry, and optimizing resources, they can ensure that qualified students are not left behind.

“Education for all, not just the fortunate few.”

Dr. Arosh Bandula (Ph.D. Nottingham), Senior Lecturer, Department of Agricultural Economics & Agribusiness, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Ruhuna

by Dr. Arosh Bandula

Opinion

Post-Easter Sri Lanka: Between memory, narrative, and National security

Published

1 week ago

2026/04/7

Sahan Weerasooriya

As Sri Lanka approaches the seventh commemoration of the Easter Sunday attacks, the national mood is once again marked by grief, reflection, and an enduring sense of incompleteness. Nearly seven years later, the tragedy continues to cast a long shadow not only over the victims and their families, but over the institutions and narratives that have since emerged.

Commemoration, however, must go beyond ritual. It must be anchored in clarity, accountability, and restraint. What is increasingly evident in the post-Easter landscape is not merely a search for truth, but a contest over how that truth is framed, interpreted, and presented to the public.

In recent times, public discourse has been shaped by book launches, panel discussions, and media interventions that claim to offer new insights into the attacks. While such contributions are not inherently problematic, the manner in which certain narratives are advanced raises legitimate concerns. The selective disclosure of information particularly when it touches on intelligence operations demands careful scrutiny.

Sri Lanka’s legal and institutional framework is clear on the sensitivity of such matters. The Official Secrets Act (No. 32 of 1955) places strict obligations on the handling of information related to national security. Similarly, the Police Ordinance and internal administrative regulations governing intelligence units emphasize confidentiality, chain of command, and the responsible use of information. These are not mere formalities; they exist to safeguard both operational integrity and national interest.

When individual particularly those with prior access to intelligence structures enter the public domain with claims that are not subject to verification, it raises critical questions. Are these disclosures contributing to justice and accountability, or are they inadvertently compromising institutional credibility and future operational capacity?

The challenge lies in distinguishing between constructive transparency and selective exposure.

The Presidential Commission of Inquiry into the Easter Sunday Attacks provided one of the most comprehensive official examinations of the attacks. Its findings highlighted a complex web of failures: lapses in intelligence sharing, breakdowns in inter-agency coordination, and serious deficiencies in political oversight. Importantly, it underscored that the attacks were not the result of a single point of failure, but a systemic collapse across multiple levels of governance.

Yet, despite the existence of such detailed institutional findings, public discourse often gravitates toward simplified narratives. There is a tendency to identify singular “masterminds” or to attribute responsibility in ways that align with prevailing political or ideological positions. While such narratives may be compelling, they risk obscuring the deeper structural issues that enabled the attacks to occur.

Equally significant is the broader socio-political context in which these narratives are unfolding. Sri Lanka today remains a society marked by fragile intercommunal relations. The aftermath of the Easter attacks saw heightened suspicion, polarisation, and, in some instances, collective blame directed at entire communities. Although there have been efforts toward reconciliation, these fault lines have not entirely disappeared.

In this environment, the language and tone of public discourse carry immense weight. The framing of terrorism whether as a localized phenomenon or as part of a broader ideological construct must be handled with precision and responsibility. Overgeneralization or the uncritical use of labels can have far-reaching consequences, including the marginalization of communities and the erosion of social cohesion.

At the same time, it is essential to acknowledge that the global discourse on terrorism is itself contested. Competing narratives, geopolitical interests, and selective historiography often shape how events are interpreted. For Sri Lanka, the challenge is to avoid becoming a passive recipient of external frameworks that may not fully reflect its own realities.

A professional and unbiased approach requires a commitment to evidence-based analysis. This includes:

· Engaging with primary sources, including official reports and judicial findings
·

· Cross-referencing claims with verifiable data
·

· Recognizing the limits of publicly available information, particularly in intelligence matters

It also requires intellectual discipline the willingness to question assumptions, to resist convenient conclusions, and to remain open to complexity.

The role of former officials and subject-matter experts in this discourse is particularly important. Their experience can provide valuable insights, but it also carries a responsibility. Public interventions must be guided by professional ethics, respect for institutional boundaries, and an awareness of the potential impact on national security.

There is a fine balance to be maintained. On one hand, democratic societies require transparency and accountability. On the other, the premature or uncontextualized release of sensitive information can undermine the very systems that are meant to protect the public.

As Sri Lanka reflects on the events of April 2019, it must resist the temptation to reduce a national tragedy into competing narratives or political instruments. The pursuit of truth must be methodical, inclusive, and grounded in law.

Easter is not only a moment of remembrance. It is a test of institutional maturity and societal resilience.

The real question is not whether new narratives will emerge they inevitably will. The question is whether Sri Lanka has the capacity to engage with them critically, responsibly, and in a manner that strengthens, rather than weakens, the foundations of its national security and social harmony.

In the end, justice is not served by noise or conjecture. It is served by patience, rigor, and an unwavering commitment to truth.

Mahil Dole is a former senior law enforcement officer and national security analyst, with over four decades of experience in policing and intelligence, including serving as Head of Counter-Intelligence at the State Intelligence Service of Sri Lanka and a graduate of the Asia Pacific Center for Security Studies in Hawai, USA.

by Mahil Dole
Former Senior Law Enforcement Officer National Security Analyst; Former Head of Counter-Intelligence, State Intelligence Service)