Features

Buddhism and Ahimsa

Published

1 year ago

2025/01/13

Thilina Walpola

The Buddha showing compassion towards Angulimala. (Image courtesy Buddha Weekly)

by Dr. Justice Chandradasa Nanayakkara

The word Ahimsa, derived from Sanskrit, means non-harm or non-injury and is often translated into English as non-violence. The dictionary defines it as “the ethical principle of not causing harm to other living beings.”

From its very inception, Buddhism has had a deep commitment to non-violence. Ahimsa represents a profound ethical principle in Buddhist thought just as in many other religious traditions. The Dhammapada states “Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal”. The first precept in buddhism emphasises the importance of avoiding harm to all living beings. It advocates nonviolence and asserts that violence toward others contradicts the teachings of the Buddha. This principle involves refraining from causing injury to life and includes abandoning all forms of weapons that can inflict harm or destroy life. In a positive context, it promotes compassion and empathy for all living beings. Therefore. In an age of hatred and discord ahimsa (non-violence) should become an ideal for all beings.

Buddha’s stance on violence was unequivocal. He was not a theologian but a liberator who sought to guide individuals toward inner peace. For Buddha, nonviolence was not a social or political philosophy. The Buddha famously stated, “There is no greater happiness than peace.” In Christianity, Jesus expressed similar sentiments and declared “Blessed are the peacemakers” The ultimate goal for a Buddhist is to attain a serene state of nirvana, and the means to achieve this must be inherently peaceful. Moreover, the Dhammapada emphasises that “All tremble at violence, all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.”

Buddha’s teachings have influenced the lives of millions of people worldwide. Buddhists are expected to radiate metta (loving-kindness) and karuna (compassion) which are vital tenets of Buddhism to fellow human beings and to all the elements that constitute Mother Nature. These tenets teach that loving kindness toward one another is essential for peace and harmony in society. Further, the interconnected and interdependent nature of all phenomena in the world underscores that our well-being depends fundamentally on cultivating a peaceful environment free from violence and hatred.

While religions can contribute positively to society, they can also exert a pernicious influence. Religions have, at times, served as agents of violence, providing a cover of legitimacy to unbridled violence and aggression in virtually every heterogeneous society. Many atrocities have been perpetrated and cruel wars have been waged by followers of one religion ruthlessly persecuting those belonging to other faiths in the name of religion.

Buddhism is not exempt from this reality. Despite its peaceful teachings that explicitly condemn war and violence -regardless of whether they are defensive or aggressive- the fact remains that violence has disrupted the political and social landscapes of many Buddhist countries. These countries have grappled with various forms of violent conflicts, fostering a climate of mutual distrust and animosity. In many of these societies, stark disparities and gross injustices have driven individuals to such violence. Conflicts are an inescapable aspect of human existence, ranging from minor inconveniences to serious confrontations, affecting individuals and nations and not unique to Buddhist countries.

There have been many instances where despite Buddhists being committed to radiating metta (loving-kindness) and karuna (compassion) toward all beings participating in violence in places like Sri Lanka, Thailand, Myanmar, and several other countries. These clashes often arise when people fail to tolerate each other’s moral, religious, or political differences. All religions have their accepted dogmas and beliefs that followers must accept without question, which leads to inflexibility and intolerance in the face of other beliefs. When individuals display blind religious zealotry and adopt absolutist and dogmatic attitudes toward their religion can also provoke powerful irrational impulses that destabilise society. When individuals feel overwhelmed by their irrational emotions, normal behaviour breaks down. Similarly, the interpretation of vague dogmas and scriptures has led to varying interpretations resulting in conflictual situations. Moreover, there is the tendency of religious nationalists to view their religion as intimately tied to their nation or homeland, so a threat to one is perceived as a threat to the other. Religious fundamentalists who are primarily driven by dissatisfaction with modernity too have produced extremist sentiments in many countries. It is indeed unfortunate that violence has become so entrenched in our societies, overshadowing the profound wisdom of non-violence that Buddhism seeks to promote.

What happens in these countries in no way represents Buddha’s teachings It is the perversion of his core teachings. No matter what the Buddha taught, there have always been and will be people who will misinterpret the teachings, and resort to violence and killing. It is the fault of the people and not the teachings. While every religious tradition has experienced instances of violence, this phenomenon highlights more about human nature than it does about religion itself. This is particularly so when the world is composed of diverse people with varying tendencies; some are naturally peaceful while others are prone to violence. These popular portrayals of religions often reinforce the view of religion as conflictual and violent.

The Buddha’s teachings are generally pacifist and peaceful, but some contend violence may be justified in certain circumstances. They believe that a certain amount of violence may be acceptable if the end goal is noble. However, the overarching message of Theravada Buddhism remains clear. Non-violence which is intrinsic to Buddhist philosophy, applies to all spheres of life and rejects physical violence even to achieve social or political change. Buddhism is inherently a peaceful tradition and sets its moral bar very high and nowhere in its teachings does one find any evidence in support of violence whether in word , thought or deed. Therefore, all teachings and practices are geared towards the principle of ahimsa (non-harming) for the benefit of oneself and others. Buddha once declared: Even bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered even an at that would not be doing my bidding”.

Buddhists who are committed to peace believe that they cannot take up arms under any circumstances, even knowing that they would be killed as a result. True Buddhists are not expected to kill even a small insect let alone kill a human being. If a Buddhist insults another let alone kill or use violence toward others he does not follow buddhas teachings. The irony lies in the fact that history has demonstrated that the use of violence, no matter how justifiable it may seem, often leads to a cycle of further violence.

Another fundamental aspect of Buddhism that is allied to this idea is the doctrine of consequences or Kamma. Buddha said volition is karma Cetanaham, bhikkhave kamman vadimi . Cetayitiva kammam karoti kayena, vacaya, manasa (Intention, oh monks, I call karma, intending one does karma by way of body, speech, and mind. Buddhism just like many religions teaches that human beings are responsible for their actions and must face the repercussions—whether in this life, the next life, or the afterlife. Dhammapada states “An evil deed committed does not immediately bear fruit, just as milk curdles not at once; like smouldering fire covered with ashes, evil deeds follow the fool”.

When we delve deeply into the root causes of conflict and tension, they lie in the unhappiness and suffering born of greed, hatred, and delusion as identified in the Buddha’s teachings. We can only truly foster a harmonious world by embracing the principles of non-violence as enunciated in many religious traditions overcoming hatred and discord.

For Buddhist countries, maintaining armed forces poses the dilemma of protecting their citizens’ rights and lives without violating the principle of non-violence. Similarly, some Buddhists may find it difficult to conceive of serving in the military whilst adhering to the ethos, values and standards of Buddhism. Although Buddha himself was a member of the warrior caste and had cordial relations with kings and delivered several discourses to kings he never advised them to abandon their responsibility of ruling with its attendant consequences and punishment for crimes, nor to abandon warfare and protection of their state when necessary.

Every Buddhist enlisted in the military is legally bound to protect and defend his country and countrymen. It is also natural for every living being to defend himself and attack another for self-protection, but the karmic effect of aggression depends on his mental attitude. For example, if a man dies accidentally in the course of a struggle at the hands of another who had no intention of harming him, according to Buddhism he will be absolved from the karmic reaction. On the other hand, if a man kills another without any provocation whatsoever then he will not be free from the karmic response; he has to face the consequences.

Therefore, there is no fundamental contradiction between adhering to ahimsa and being enlisted in the military service. What is important is how he sets about his task and what intentions he entertains while performing his duties.

In the Kalama sutta of the Anguttara Nikaya, the Buddha has told Kalama, how the three unwholesome roots of greed, hatred and delusion lead one to commit unwholesome actions like killing and causing violence and also to encourage others to do the same, result in long-term harm and suffering.

The renowned Srilankan Buddhist monk and scholar Venerable K. Sri Dhammanannda says, “Buddhists should not be aggressors even in protecting their religion or anything else. They must try their best to avoid any kind of violent act. Sometimes they may be forced to go to war by others who do not respect the concept of brotherhood of humans as taught by the Buddha. They may be called upon to defend their country from external aggression, and as long as they have not renounced worldly life, they are duty-bound to join in the struggle for peace and freedom. Under these circumstances, they cannot be blamed for becoming soldiers or being involved in defence.

One of the challenges the world faces today is transforming the prevalence of violence in all its forms into a culture of peace, not merely the absence of war but also fostering an environment of compassion and karuna (loving-kindness).

All News Advertisement

Features

Ranking public services with AI — A roadmap to reviving institutions like SriLankan Airlines

Published

2 days ago

2026/03/13

Thilina Walpola

Efficacy measures an organisation’s capacity to achieve its mission and intended outcomes under planned or optimal conditions. It differs from efficiency, which focuses on achieving objectives with minimal resources, and effectiveness, which evaluates results in real-world conditions. Today, modern AI tools, using publicly available data, enable objective assessment of the efficacy of Sri Lanka’s government institutions.

Among key public bodies, the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka emerges as the most efficacious, outperforming the Department of Inland Revenue, Sri Lanka Customs, the Election Commission, and Parliament. In the financial and regulatory sector, the Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL) ranks highest, ahead of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Public Utilities Commission, the Telecommunications Regulatory Commission, the Insurance Regulatory Commission, and the Sri Lanka Standards Institution.

Among state-owned enterprises, the Sri Lanka Ports Authority (SLPA) leads in efficacy, followed by Bank of Ceylon and People’s Bank. Other institutions assessed included the State Pharmaceuticals Corporation, the National Water Supply and Drainage Board, the Ceylon Electricity Board, the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation, and the Sri Lanka Transport Board. At the lower end of the spectrum were Lanka Sathosa and Sri Lankan Airlines, highlighting a critical challenge for the national economy.

Sri Lankan Airlines, consistently ranked at the bottom, has long been a financial drain. Despite successive governments’ reform attempts, sustainable solutions remain elusive.

Globally, the most profitable airlines operate as highly integrated, technology-enabled ecosystems rather than as fragmented departments. Operations, finance, fleet management, route planning, engineering, marketing, and customer service are closely coordinated, sharing real-time data to maximise efficiency, safety, and profitability.

The challenge for Sri Lankan Airlines is structural. Its operations are fragmented, overly hierarchical, and poorly aligned. Simply replacing the CEO or senior leadership will not address these deep-seated weaknesses. What the airline needs is a cohesive, integrated organisational ecosystem that leverages technology for cross-functional planning and real-time decision-making.

The government must urgently consider restructuring Sri Lankan Airlines to encourage:

=Joint planning across operational divisions

=Data-driven, evidence-based decision-making

=Continuous cross-functional consultation

=Collaborative strategic decisions on route rationalisation, fleet renewal, partnerships, and cost management, rather than exclusive top-down mandates

Sustainable reform requires systemic change. Without modernised organisational structures, stronger accountability, and aligned incentives across divisions, financial recovery will remain out of reach. An integrated, performance-oriented model offers the most realistic path to operational efficiency and long-term viability.

Reforming loss-making institutions like Sri Lankan Airlines is not merely a matter of leadership change — it is a structural overhaul essential to ensuring these entities contribute productively to the national economy rather than remain perpetual burdens.

By Chula Goonasekera – Citizen Analyst

Features

Why Pi Day?

Published

2 days ago

2026/03/13

Thilina Walpola

International Day of Mathematics falls tomorrow

The approximate value of Pi (π) is 3.14 in mathematics. Therefore, the day 14 March is celebrated as the Pi Day. In 2019, UNESCO proclaimed 14 March as the International Day of Mathematics.

Ancient Babylonians and Egyptians figured out that the circumference of a circle is slightly more than three times its diameter. But they could not come up with an exact value for this ratio although they knew that it is a constant. This constant was later named as π which is a letter in the Greek alphabet.

Archimedes

It was the Greek mathematician Archimedes (250 BC) who was able to find an upper bound and a lower bound for this constant. He drew a circle of diameter one unit and drew hexagons inside and outside the circle such that the sides of each hexagon touch the sides of the circle. In mathematics the circle passing through all vertices of a polygon is called a ‘circumcircle’ and the largest circle that fits inside a polygon tangent to all its sides is called an ‘incircle’. The total length of the smaller hexagon then becomes the lower bound of π and the length of the hexagon outside the circle is the upper bound. He realised that by increasing the number of sides of the polygon can make the bounds get closer to the value of Pi and increased the number of sides to 12,24,48 and 60. He argued that by increasing the number of sides will ultimately result in obtaining the original circle, thereby laying the foundation for the theory of limits. He ended up with the lower bound as 22/7 and the upper bound 223/71. He could not continue his research as his hometown Syracuse was invaded by Romans and was killed by one of the soldiers. His last words were ‘do not disturb my circles’, perhaps a reference to his continuing efforts to find the value of π to a greater accuracy.

Archimedes can be considered as the father of geometry. His contributions revolutionised geometry and his methods anticipated integral calculus. He invented the pulley and the hydraulic screw for drawing water from a well. He also discovered the law of hydrostatics. He formulated the law of levers which states that a smaller weight placed farther from a pivot can balance a much heavier weight closer to it. He famously said “Give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and I will move the earth”.

Mathematicians have found many expressions for π as a sum of infinite series that converge to its value. One such famous series is the Leibniz Series found in 1674 by the German mathematician Gottfried Leibniz, which is given below.

π = 4 ( 1 – 1/3 + 1/5 – 1/7 + 1/9 – ………….)

The Indian mathematical genius Ramanujan came up with a magnificent formula in 1910. The short form of the formula is as follows.

π = 9801/(1103 √8)

For practical applications an approximation is sufficient. Even NASA uses only the approximation 3.141592653589793 for its interplanetary navigation calculations.

It is not just an interesting and curious number. It is used for calculations in navigation, encryption, space exploration, video game development and even in medicine. As π is fundamental to spherical geometry, it is at the heart of positioning systems in GPS navigations. It also contributes significantly to cybersecurity. As it is an irrational number it is an excellent foundation for generating randomness required in encryption and securing communications. In the medical field, it helps to calculate blood flow rates and pressure differentials. In diagnostic tools such as CT scans and MRI, pi is an important component in mathematical algorithms and signal processing techniques.

This elegant, never-ending number demonstrates how mathematics transforms into practical applications that shape our world. The possibilities of what it can do are infinite as the number itself. It has become a symbol of beauty and complexity in mathematics. “It matters little who first arrives at an idea, rather what is significant is how far that idea can go.” said Sophie Germain.

Mathematics fans are intrigued by this irrational number and attempt to calculate it as far as they can. In March 2022, Emma Haruka Iwao of Japan calculated it to 100 trillion decimal places in Google Cloud. It had taken 157 days. The Guinness World Record for reciting the number from memory is held by Rajveer Meena of India for 70000 decimal places over 10 hours.

Happy Pi Day!

The author is a senior examiner of the International Baccalaureate in the UK and an educational consultant at the Overseas School of Colombo.

by R N A de Silva

Features

Sheer rise of Realpolitik making the world see the brink

Published

3 days ago

2026/03/12

Sahan Weerasooriya

A combined US-Israel attack on Iran.(BBC)

The recent humanly costly torpedoing of an Iranian naval vessel in Sri Lanka’s Exclusive Economic Zone by a US submarine has raised a number of issues of great importance to international political discourse and law that call for elucidation. It is best that enlightened commentary is brought to bear in such discussions because at present misleading and uninformed speculation on questions arising from the incident are being aired by particularly jingoistic politicians of Sri Lanka’s South which could prove deleterious.

As matters stand, there seems to be no credible evidence that the Indian state was aware of the impending torpedoing of the Iranian vessel but these acerbic-tongued politicians of Sri Lanka’s South would have the local public believe that the tragedy was triggered with India’s connivance. Likewise, India is accused of ‘embroiling’ Sri Lanka in the incident on account of seemingly having prior knowledge of it and not warning Sri Lanka about the impending disaster.

It is plain that a process is once again afoot to raise anti-India hysteria in Sri Lanka. An obligation is cast on the Sri Lankan government to ensure that incendiary speculation of the above kind is defeated and India-Sri Lanka relations are prevented from being in any way harmed. Proactive measures are needed by the Sri Lankan government and well meaning quarters to ensure that public discourse in such matters have a factual and rational basis. ‘Knowledge gaps’ could prove hazardous.

Meanwhile, there could be no doubt that Sri Lanka’s sovereignty was violated by the US because the sinking of the Iranian vessel took place in Sri Lanka’s Exclusive Economic Zone. While there is no international decrying of the incident, and this is to be regretted, Sri Lanka’s helplessness and small player status would enable the US to ‘get away with it’.

Could anything be done by the international community to hold the US to account over the act of lawlessness in question? None is the answer at present. This is because in the current ‘Global Disorder’ major powers could commit the gravest international irregularities with impunity. As the threadbare cliché declares, ‘Might is Right’….. or so it seems.

Unfortunately, the UN could only merely verbally denounce any violations of International Law by the world’s foremost powers. It cannot use countervailing force against violators of the law, for example, on account of the divided nature of the UN Security Council, whose permanent members have shown incapability of seeing eye-to-eye on grave matters relating to International Law and order over the decades.

The foregoing considerations could force the conclusion on uncritical sections that Political Realism or Realpolitik has won out in the end. A basic premise of the school of thought known as Political Realism is that power or force wielded by states and international actors determine the shape, direction and substance of international relations. This school stands in marked contrast to political idealists who essentially proclaim that moral norms and values determine the nature of local and international politics.

While, British political scientist Thomas Hobbes, for instance, was a proponent of Political Realism, political idealism has its roots in the teachings of Socrates, Plato and latterly Friedrich Hegel of Germany, to name just few such notables.

On the face of it, therefore, there is no getting way from the conclusion that coercive force is the deciding factor in international politics. If this were not so, US President Donald Trump in collaboration with Israeli Rightist Premier Benjamin Natanyahu could not have wielded the ‘big stick’, so to speak, on Iran, killed its Supreme Head of State, terrorized the Iranian public and gone ‘scot-free’. That is, currently, the US’ impunity seems to be limitless.

Moreover, the evidence is that the Western bloc is reuniting in the face of Iran’s threats to stymie the flow of oil from West Asia to the rest of the world. The recent G7 summit witnessed a coming together of the foremost powers of the global North to ensure that the West does not suffer grave negative consequences from any future blocking of western oil supplies.

Meanwhile, Israel is having a ‘free run’ of the Middle East, so to speak, picking out perceived adversarial powers, such as Lebanon, and militarily neutralizing them; once again with impunity. On the other hand, Iran has been bringing under assault, with no questions asked, Gulf states that are seen as allying with the US and Israel. West Asia is facing a compounded crisis and International Law seems to be helplessly silent.

Wittingly or unwittingly, matters at the heart of International Law and peace are being obfuscated by some pro-Trump administration commentators meanwhile. For example, retired US Navy Captain Brent Sadler has cited Article 51 of the UN Charter, which provides for the right to self or collective self-defence of UN member states in the face of armed attacks, as justifying the US sinking of the Iranian vessel (See page 2 of The Island of March 10, 2026). But the Article makes it clear that such measures could be resorted to by UN members only ‘ if an armed attack occurs’ against them and under no other circumstances. But no such thing happened in the incident in question and the US acted under a sheer threat perception.

Clearly, the US has violated the Article through its action and has once again demonstrated its tendency to arbitrarily use military might. The general drift of Sadler’s thinking is that in the face of pressing national priorities, obligations of a state under International Law could be side-stepped. This is a sure recipe for international anarchy because in such a policy environment states could pursue their national interests, irrespective of their merits, disregarding in the process their obligations towards the international community.

Moreover, Article 51 repeatedly reiterates the authority of the UN Security Council and the obligation of those states that act in self-defence to report to the Council and be guided by it. Sadler, therefore, could be said to have cited the Article very selectively, whereas, right along member states’ commitments to the UNSC are stressed.

However, it is beyond doubt that international anarchy has strengthened its grip over the world. While the US set destabilizing precedents after the crumbling of the Cold War that paved the way for the current anarchic situation, Russia further aggravated these degenerative trends through its invasion of Ukraine. Stepping back from anarchy has thus emerged as the prime challenge for the world community.