Midweek Review

Towards a new medico- philosophical model : A short essay

Published

2 months ago

2025/11/19

Sri Lanka, with its long historical traditions, is home to the practice of many medical systems. Western allopathic medicine is the most widespread and is a legacy of our colonial past. The exemplary quality of life in terms of health indices Sri Lanka can rightly be proud of is a result of the successes of the practice of western allopathic medicine in Sri Lanka.

The practice of Ayurveda has been in existence from historical times which reached the shores of Sri Lanka from India, and it remains the main alternative system of medicine. But closest to the cultural practices of the Sinhalese ethnic group is what is termed indigenous medicine – ‘generational’ (paramparika) medical practitioners who carry on an individualised practice with the ‘knowledge base’ differing to each other and kept secret within families and passed on from generation to generation – hence its herbal medicines and practices too differ and are guarded by each family.

The practice of Siddha (from South India), culturally linked to the Tamil ethnic group, is based on the belief that the body is composed of five elements – earth, fire, water, air and sky – and Unani (from a Greco-Arabic tradition) culturally linked to the Muslim ethnic group is based on the body being composed of four elements – earth, water, air and fire – which is similar to the origins of the Hippocratic tradition.

In addition, in very much more recent times, Homeopathy (established by the German Heinemann) and acupuncture (of Chinese origin) have become less well-established medical systems practiced in Sri Lanka.

The main philosophical dichotomy between the western and eastern systems of medicine in Sri Lanka can be exemplified by the differences between western allopathic medicine and Ayurveda/indigenous medicine.

Western medicine derives its conceptual basis from the western philosophical tradition which is the source of the empirical ‘scientific method’. This is basically a reductionist model where the scientific process seeks to ultimately identify the ‘active ingredient’ in medicines. This finally leads to an organic molecule with certain specific properties giving rise to the required effect. On the other hand, Ayurveda approaches medication from a holistic model and the concept that a multiplicity of factors acts in concert to exert the required effect.

Errors of subjectivity over objectivity

This leads to a situation where both systems become prone to errors of subjectivity over objectivity. For example, Ayurveda ignores the possible deleterious side effects of the multiplicity of chemicals (particularly alkaloids) found in their herbal preparations. The errors in this aspect are so much greater when it comes to chronic long-term effects and not acute short-term or immediate effects. This is a result of the fact that the theoretical basis of Ayurveda not establishing a tradition of continuing intellectual and academic investigation of a systematic nature into long-term deleterious side effects of ayurvedic preparations. No systematic clinical studies have been carried out to ascertain the ‘real’ effects of ayurvedic preparations over their placebo effects – i.e., randomised clinical trials. The concept of a placebo effect has not been considered within the paradigms of Ayurveda. The fallback position of the ayurvedic/indigenous schools have been that the herbal preparations and their pharmacopeia has been “tested” and found to be valid by the extensive duration it has been in use. It is argued that the herbal medicines currently in use have been in use for centuries, if not millennia. If there were any such deleterious effects, they would have been definitively identified. Therein, to my mind, lay another serious conceptual error. There is little or no renewal of knowledge in Ayurveda, where the texts used in the teaching and practice of Ayurveda are ‘ancient’ – more ancient, the better according to many adherents of the system. Knowledge derived from hoary traditions, from the vedas and the sacred texts are sacrosanct. It is my view that unless ayurvedic medicines undergo the rigorous continuous monitoring and systematic study – i.e. establishing a regular monitoring procedure for their medicines – which will also include double-blind clinical trials that ensure their efficacy in the first place, there will always be large question marks in the minds of the discerning consumer about the long-term safety of ayurvedic medicines.

While it is also known to Ayurveda that herbs used in its medicinal preparations differ in the composition and concentration of active alkaloids present, from environment to environment, climate to climate, area to area, subspecies to subspecies and variety to variety, no attempt has been made to test the possible differences in their pharmacological effects or efficacies. It has been known to modern plant taxonomists that plants of very similar appearance from gross external appearance have been misclassified by ayurvedic physicians as being the same plant. Some have been of different species or even different genus.

The pitfalls of Ayurveda can be summarised as inconsistencies in dose standardization, possible contamination with harmful alkaloids and heavy metals, lack of uniform quality control systems and an absence of continuing regular clinical trials with standardised prescriptions to ensure patient safety.

In recent times, biochemists, molecular biologists and biotechnologists have ventured to ‘test’ herbal preparations under far stricter standardised laboratory conditions. These have, sometimes, given good promising results. I believe this is a positive trend towards developing a science-based, clinical trials-based indigenous pharmacopeia. Moreover, it could be an internationally marketable proposition – considering the increasing disillusionment in the US and Europe with Western allopathic medicine and the serious concern about the diabolical machinations of the singularly profit-oriented pharmaceutical industry.

Investiment in Ayurvedic hospitals

Already, we have several Sri Lankan corporates that have invested billions in Ayurveda-based hospitals, hotels, spas and the export of herb-based medicines. Certain simplified, freeze-dried and packeted indigenous medicine products have caught the attention of international markets. The Indians and the Chinese have been doing this international marketing of their indigenous medicines very effectively in recent decades. Many of these ‘medicines’ have slipped through the US Foods and Drugs Administration (FDA) approvals by labeling them as ‘dietary supplements’ or ‘traditional remedies’ and are marketed in the USA. Unless the researchers in herbal/ayurvedic/indigenous medicines ‘clean up’ their methodologies to ensure that the preparations have absolutely no alkaloids harmful to health and contain no heavy-metal impurities, a lucrative international market will be lost to them. In the final analysis, all alternate medical/health systems and medicines must conform to the bases of the ‘scientific method’ – whatever methodological deficits remain therein. It still remains the best system through which we try to understand the nature of the universe.

Fallibility

Having said all of the above, in my evening years, I have come to realise the stark fallibility of completely depending on and defending the so-called ‘evidence-based’ knowledge. Evidence derived by the application of the scientific method. I have said elsewhere that ‘evidence-based’ on many occasions has been found to be strictly not evidence-based – at least in the realm of medicine. It has often been found that “evidence” is also ‘created’ by vested interests – mainly the ‘Big Pharma’ who pay medical researchers, through ‘ghost-writers’ to ‘manufacture’ ‘evidence’ that are published in reputed medical journals.

The mindset of over-dependence on so-called modern western science has been so deeply inculcated in us that it is very difficult to find a state from which we can completely or wholly be rid of. Dr. Gundasa Amarasekera (I attended his 96th birthday prathyawalokanaya a few days ago) and Prof. Nalin de Silva tried to popularise an alternative indigenous philosophy in their Jathika Chinthanaya. Dr. Amarasekera has been, in my view, balanced in the approach and exposition he adopted in the enunciation of his hypothesis. But Prof. Nalin de Silva went into extremes that I could neither accept nor fathom.

But where does it leave traditional indigenous and ayurvedic medicine? Can they derive sustenance and philosophical rigour from Jathika Chinthanaya? Have they attempted to do so in any meaningful way? Should it not be the vision and philosophy of indigenous medicine? If not, why not?

At present, the leading institutions of indigenous medicine are the Faculty of Indigenous Medicine – FIM (former Institute of Indigenous Medicine – IIM) of the University of Colombo and the Gampaha Wickramarachchi University of Indigenous Medicine (GWUIM). I do not wish to delve too deep into their respective course contents except to note here that there was a time about two decades ago, when Prof. Nandadasa Kodagoda, Prof. Carlo Fonseka and Prof. Colvin Goonaratna of the Faculty of Medicine, University of Colombo were delivering lectures on anatomy (structure), physiology (function) and pharmacology (Medicines) based on Western medical principles. I did challenge both Profs. Carlo Fonseka and Colvin Goonaratna (my teachers in medical school), as to why they are teaching students of indigenous medicine the principles of anatomy and physiology based on modern, western scientific medicine which is contrary to the basic principles of Ayurveda and indigenous medicine. I believe it corrupted the purity and philosophy of Ayurveda. All I will say here is that the debate was long and arduous. We agreed to disagree. I believe that the reason behind many graduates of the then IIM, prescribing antibiotics in their private clinics was a result of that short-sighted act of misplaced ‘goodwill’. I sincerely hope that the FIM, UoC, no longer continues that false path to ‘scientific’ indigenous medicine.

Hybrid path

I find that to try and legitimise the ‘modernisation’ of indigenous medicine, the two institutions are following, in today’s jargon, a “hybrid” path of including modern science and management-based courses in their postgraduate programmes running in almost parallel lines. I agree that this is both unavoidable and understandable. Even in India, this ‘scientific modernisation’ is taking place. They are integrating scientific methodology into their pharmacology research – using the reductionist principle of isolating ‘active plant chemical compounds’. This, in fact, is what western medicine commenced over two to three centuries ago when they discovered cardioactive digitalis from foxglove and anaesthetic curare and quinine from cinchona bark for treatment of malaria from South American plants.

Chemical compound isolates in the western pharmacopeia were claimed by indigenous medical practitioners as the main cause of undesirable adverse effects and that a more holistic approach in indigenous medicine with its multiplicity of chemicals and alkaloids in their herbal preparations counter-balance the negative adverse effects. Hence, in my view, attempts at isolating active ingredients of herbal preparations in indigenous pharmacological research is a blind mimicry of western pharmacological research. Instead, what they should be doing is researching herbal preparations in its holistic form and clinical trials run on that basis. Whereas this gives rise to many methodological difficulties, they need to be overcome to ensure a more authentic basis for indigenous medicines. But then, who am I to preach to the high priests of indigenous medicine?

Reductionist approach only path?

Is the reductionist approach the only path to definitive knowledge? Are specifics always more important than the general? Are we losing some important aspects of research conclusions by this approach? Have we not grasped the importance of the concept that the “whole is often greater than the sum of its parts”?

Are there alternative methodologies for indigenous medical researchers to follow in parallel lines that do not compromise on basic principles of scientific research – formulate a hypothesis, test it by experiments, collect and analyse the data and draw logical conclusion without falling into the common pitfall of researchers of misreading ‘cause and effect’.

The philosophical bases of modern western scientific medicine and indigenous medical systems dependent on ancient wisdom are principally in contradistinction to each other. In Sri Lanka, like in many societies with civilizational millennia behind them, such as in India and China, where both these medical systems coexist today, we have a great opportunity to evolve a cohesive medical philosophy. Can this ‘great divide’ be bridged? Shouldn’t those within these seemingly contrary medical systems have some intellectual/academic meeting point? Should there not be a ‘movement’ in this direction? AS much as the physicists are seeking a unified field theory to explain the four fundamental forces of nature, is it not opportune for the medical philosophers to begin seeking such unity in the world of medicine? Can we in Sri Lanka, with the cooperation of India and China, set the ball rolling?

What I have attempted to do in this short essay is to bring up some contending, even conflicting, issues in our overarching medical culture. Is it an unrelenting truth that the ‘East is east and the West is west, and never the twain shall meet’? Can we not fall back on the Eastern philosophical tradition that we Sri Lankans are atavistically immersed in, to strengthen our resolve, in all sincerity, to synthesise an alternative medico-philosophical model that will bring out the best of both worlds?

All News Advertisement

Midweek Review

Opp. MP’s hasty stand on US air strikes in Nigeria and Sri Lanka’s foreign policy dilemma

Published

3 days ago

2026/01/14

Sahan Weerasooriya

Somaliland's President Abdirahman Abdullahi Mohamed (right), posing for a photograph with Israel's Foreign Minister Gideon Saar, at the Presidential Palace in Hargeisa (Pic released by the Somaliland Presidential Office on 06 January, 2026)

Israel’s recognition of Somaliland on 26 December, 2025, couldn’t have taken place without US approval. The establishment of full diplomatic ties with Somaliland, a breakaway part of Somalia, and Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar’s visit to that country, drew swift criticism from Somalia, as well as others. Among those who had been upset were Türkiye, Saudi Arabia and the African Union.

The US-backed move in Africa didn’t receive public attention as did the raid on Venezuela. But, the Somaliland move is definitely part of the overall US global strategy to overwhelm, undermine and belittle Russia and China.

And on the other hand, the Somaliland move is a direct challenge to Türkiye, a NATO member that maintains a large military presence in Somalia, and to Yemen based Houthis who had disrupted Red Sea shipping, in support of Hamas, in the wake of Israeli retaliation over the 07 October, 2023, raid on the Jewish State, possibly out of sheer desperation of becoming a nonentity. The Israeli-US move in Africa should be examined taking into consideration the continuing onslaught on Gaza and attacks on Lebanon, Iran, Syria, Yemen, and Qatar.

Many an eyebrow was raised over Opposition MP Dr. Kavinda Jayawardana’s solo backing for the recent US air strikes in Nigeria.

The Gampaha District Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) lawmaker handed over a letter to the US Embassy here last week applauding US President Donald Trump’s order to bomb Nigeria on Christmas Day. The letter was addressed to President Trump

( https://island.lk/kavinda-lauds-us-president-trumps-actions-to-protect-christians-in-nigeria/)

The former UNPer who had been in the forefront of a high-profile campaign demanding justice for the 2019 Easter Sunday terror victims, in an obvious solo exercise praised Trump for defending the Nigerian Christian community. The US bombing targeted Islamic State Terrorists (ISIS) operating in that country’s northwest, where Muslims predominate.

The only son of the late UNP Minister Dr. Jayalath Jayawardana, he seemed to have conveniently forgotten that such military actions couldn’t be endorsed under any circumstances. Against the backdrop of Dr. Jayawardana’s commendation for US military action against Nigeria, close on the heels of the murderous 03 January US raid on oil rich Venezuela, perhaps it would be pertinent to seek the response of the Catholic Church in that regard.

President Trump, in a wide-ranging interview with the New York Times, has warned of further strikes in case Christians continued to be killed in the West African nation. International media have disputed President Trump’s claim of only the Christians being targeted.

Both Christians and Muslims – the two main religious groups in the country of more than 230 million people – have been victims of attacks by radical Islamists.

The US and the Nigerian government of President Bola Tinubu reached a consensus on Christmas Day attacks. Nigeria has roughly equal numbers of Christians – predominantly in the south – and Muslims, who are mainly concentrated in the north.

In spite of increasingly volatile global order, the Vatican maintained what can be comfortably described as the defence of the national sovereignty. The Vatican has been critical of the Venezuelan government but is very much unlikely to throw its weight behind US attacks on that country and abduction of its President and the First Lady.

Dr. Jayawardana’s stand on US intervention in Nigeria cannot definitely be the position of the main Opposition party, nor any other political party represented in Parliament here. The National People’s Power (NPP) government refrained from commenting on US attacks on Nigeria, though it opposed US action in Venezuela. Although the US and Nigeria have consensus on Christmas Day attacks and may agree on further attacks, but such interventions are very much unlikely to change the situation on the ground.

SL on US raid

Let me reproduce Sri Lanka’s statement on US attacks on Venezuela, verbatim:

“The Government of Sri Lanka is deeply concerned about the recent developments in Venezuela and is closely monitoring the situation.

Sri Lanka emphasises the need to respect principles of international law and the UN Charter, such as the prohibition of the use of force, non-intervention, peaceful settlement of international disputes and the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states.

Sri Lanka attaches great importance to the safety and well-being of the people of Venezuela and the stability of the region and calls on all parties to prioritize peaceful resolution through de-escalation and dialogue.

At this crucial juncture, it is important that the United Nations and its organs such as the UN Security Council be seized of the matter and work towards a peaceful resolution taking into consideration the safety, well-being and the sovereign rights of the Venezuelan people.”

That statement, dated 05 January, was issued by the Foreign Affairs, Foreign Employment and Tourism Ministry. Almost all political parties, represented in Parliament, except one-time darling of the LTTE, Illankai Thamil Arasu Kadchi (ITAK), condemned the US attacks on Venezuela and threats on Cuba, Colombia and Iran. The US is also targeting China, Russia and even the European Union.

Dr. Jayawardana requested coverage for his visit to the US Embassy here to hand over his letter, hence the publication of his ‘love’ letter to President Trump on page 2 of the 09 January edition of The Island.

There had never been a previous instance of a Sri Lankan lawmaker, or a political party, endorsing unilateral military action taken by the US or any other country. One-time Western Provincial Council member and member of Parliament since 2015, Jayawardana should have known better than to trust President Trump’s position on Nigeria. Perhaps the SJBer felt that an endorsement of US action, allegedly supportive of the Nigerian Catholic community, may facilitate his political agenda. Obviously, the Opposition MP endorsed US military action purely for domestic political advantage. The lawmaker appears to have simply disregarded the growing criticism of US actions in various parts of the world.

The German and French response to US actions, not only in Venezuela, but various other regions, as well, underscore the growing threat posed by President Trump’s agenda.

French President Emmanuel Macron and German leader Frank-Walter Steinmeier have sharply condemned US foreign policy under Donald Trump, declaring, respectively, that Washington was “breaking free from international rules” and the world risked turning into a “robber’s den”.

US threat to annex Greenland at the expense of Denmark, a founding member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) ,and the grouping itself, has undermined the post WWII world order to such an extent, the developing crisis seems irreversible.

Focus on UAE

Indian Army Chief Gen. Upendra Dwivedi visited the United Arab Emirates on 05 and 06 January. His visit took place amidst rising tension on the Arabian Peninsula, following the Saudi-led military coalition launching air attacks on Yemen based Southern Transitional Council (STC) whose leader Aidarous al-Zubaid was brought to Abu Dhabi.

In the aftermath of the Saudi led strikes on Yemen port, held by the STC, the UAE declared that it would withdraw troops deployed in Yemen. The move, on the part of UAE, seems to be meant to de-escalate the situation, but the clandestine operation, undertaken by that country to rescue a Saudi target, appeared to have caused further deterioration of Saudi-UAE relations. Further deterioration is likely as both parties seek to re-assert control over the developing situation.

From Abu Dhabi, General Dwivedi arrived in Colombo on a two-day visit. Like his predecessors, General Dwivedi visited the Indian Army memorial at Pelawatte, where he paid respects to those who paid the supreme sacrifice during deployment of the Indian Army here – 1987 July to 1990 March. That monument is nothing but a testament to the foolish and flawed Indian policy. Those who portray that particular Indian military mission as their first major peace keeping operation overseas must keep in mind that over half a dozen terrorist groups were sponsored by India.

Just over a year after the end of that mission, one of those groups – the LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam) -assassinated Congress leader Rajiv Gandhi, the former Premier who sent the military mission here.

India never accepted responsibility for the death and destruction caused by its intervention in Sri Lanka. In fact, the Indian action led to an unprecedented situation when another Sri Lankan terrorist group PLOTE (People’s Liberation Organisation of Tamil Eelam) mounted a raid on the Maldives in early Nov. 1988. Two trawler loads of PLOTE cadres were on a mission to depose Maldivian President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom on a contract given by a disgruntled Maldivian businessman. India intervened swiftly and brought the situation under control. But, the fact that those who had been involved in the sea-borne raid on the Maldives were Indian trained and they left Sri Lanka’s northern province, which was then under Indian Army control, were conveniently ignored.

Except the LTTE, all other major Tamil terrorist groups, including the PLOTE, entered the political mainstream in 1990, and over the years, were represented in Parliament. It would be pertinent to mention that except the EPDP (Eelam People’s Democratic Party) all other Indian trained groups in 2001 formed the Tamil National Alliance (TNA), under the leadership of Illankai Thamil Arasu Kadchi (ITAK), to support the separatist agenda in Parliament. Sri Lanka’s triumph over the LTTE, in May 2009, brought that despicable project to an end.

The Indian Army statement on General Dwivedi’s visit here, posted on X, seemed like a propaganda piece, especially against the backdrop of continuing controversy over the still secret Indo-Lanka Memorandum of Understanding on defence that was entered into in April last year. Within months after the signing of the defence MoU, India acquired controlling stake of the Colombo Dockyard Ltd., a move that has been shrouded in controversy.

Indian High Commissioner Santosh Jha’s response to my colleague Sanath Nanayakkara’s query regarding the strategic dimension of the India–Sri Lanka Defence Cooperation Agreement following the Indian Army Chief’s recent visit, the former was cautious in his response. Jha asserted that there was “nothing beyond what is included” in the provisions of the pact, which was signed by President Anura Kumara Dissanayake and has generated controversy in Sri Lanka due to the absence of public discourse on its contents.

Framing the agreement as a self-contained document focused purely on bilateral defence cooperation, Jha said this reflected India’s official position. By directing attention solely to the text of the agreement, the High Commissioner indicated that there were no unstated strategic calculations involved, aligning with the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister’s recent clarification that the pact was not a military agreement but one that dealt with Indian support.

Nanayakkara had the opportunity to raise the issue at a special media briefing called by Jha at the IHC recently.

Julie Chung departs

The US attack on Venezuela, and the subsequent threats directed at other countries, including some of its longtime allies, should influence our political parties to examine US and Indian stealthy interventions here, leading to the overthrowing of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, in July 2022.

The US Embassy in Colombo recently announced that Julie Chung, who oversaw the overthrowing of Gotabaya Rajapaksa, would end her near four-year term. Former Indian High Commissioner in Colombo Gopal Baglay, who, too, played a significant role in the regime change project, ended his term in December 2023 and took up position in Canberra as India’s top diplomat there.

Both Chung and Baglay have been accused of egging on the putsch directly by urging Aragalaya time Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena, on 13 July, 2022, to take over the presidency. Former Minister Wimal Weerawansa and top author Sena Thoradeniya, in their comments on Aragalaya accused Chung of unprecedented intervention, whereas Prof. Sunanada Maddumabanadara found fault with Baglay for the same.

The US Embassy, in a statement dated 07 January, 2026, quoted the outgoing US Ambassador as having said: “I have loved every moment of my time in Sri Lanka. From day one, my focus has been to advance America’s interests—strengthening our security partnerships, expanding trade and investment, and promoting education and democratic values that make both our nations stronger. Together, we’ve built a relationship that delivers results for the American people and supports a free, open, and secure Indo-Pacific.”

The Embassy concluded that statement reiterating the US commitment to its partnership with Sri Lanka and to build on the strong foundation, established during Ambassador Chung’s nearly four-year tenure.

Sri Lanka can expect to increasingly come under both US and Indian pressure over Chinese investments here. It would be interesting to see how the NPP government solves the crisis caused by the moratorium on foreign research vessel visits, imposed in 2024 by the then President Ranil Wickremesinghe. The NPP is yet to reveal its position on that moratorium, over one year after the lapse of the ban on such vessels. Wickremesinghe gave into intense US and Indian pressure in the wake of Chinese ship visits.

In spite of US-India relations under strain due to belligerent US actions, they are likely to adopt a common approach here to undermine Sri Lanka’s relations with China. But, the situation is so dicey, India may be compelled to review its position. The US declaration that a much-anticipated trade deal with India collapsed because Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi hasn’t heeded President Trump’s demand to call him.

This was revealed by US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick in the ‘All-In Podcast’ aired on Thursday, 08 January. The media quoted Indian spokesman Randhir Jaiswal as having said on the following day: “The characterisation of these discussions in the reported remarks is not accurate.” Jaiswal added that India “remains interested in a mutually beneficial trade deal between two complementary economies and looks forward to concluding it.”

Sri Lanka in deepening dilemma

Sri Lanka, struggling to cope up with post-Aragalaya economic, political and social issues, is inundated with foreign policy issues.

The failure on the part of the government and the Opposition to reach consensus on foreign policy challenges/matters has further weakened the country’s position. If those political parties represented in Parliament at least discussed matters of importance at the relevant consultative committee or the sectoral oversight committee, lawmaker Jayawardana wouldn’t have endorsed the US bombing of Nigeria.

Sri Lanka and Nigeria enjoy close diplomatic relations and the SJB MP’s unexpected move must have caused quite a controversy, though the issue at hand didn’t receive public attention. Regardless of the US-Nigerian consensus on the Christmas Day bombing, perhaps it would be unwise on the part of Sri Lanka to support military action at any level for obvious reasons.

Sri Lanka taking a stand on external military interventions of any sort seems comical at a time our war-winning military had been hauled up before the Geneva Human Rights Council for defending the country against the LTTE that had a significant conventional military capacity in addition to being “the most ruthless terrorist organisation” as it was described by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation. The group capitalised on experience gained in fighting the Indian Army during 1987 July-1990 March period and posed quite a threat. Within five months after the resumption of fighting, in June 1990, the LTTE ordered the entire Muslim population to leave the predominantly Tamil northern province.

No foreign power at least bothered to issue a statement condemning the LTTE. MP Jayawardana’s statement supporting US military action in support of Christian community should be examined in Sri Lanka’s difficult battle against terrorism that took a very heavy toll. Perhaps, political parties represented in Parliament, excluding those who still believe in a separatist project, should reexamine their stand on Sri Lanka’s unitary status.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Midweek Review

Buddhist Iconography

Published

3 days ago

2026/01/14

Sahan Weerasooriya

A Buddha statue from Mathura with a single curl, 2nd cent. CE

Seeing a new kind of head ornament on a recent reproduction of the iconic Avukana Buddha statue, made me ponder how the Enlightened One would have looked in real life, and what relationship that may or may not have with Buddhist iconography. Obviously, there is no record or evidence of any rendering of the Buddha made by an artist who saw him alive, but there are a few references to his appearance in the Pali Sutta Pitaka, that affirms, as he himself has said, Buddha was nothing other than a human being, albeit an extraordinarily intelligent one (Dhammika 2021).

Before enlightenment, Siduhath Gotama was described as having black hair and a beard. One account describes him as “handsome, of fine appearance, pleasant to see, with a good complexion and a beautiful form and countenance” (D.I,114). Venerable Ananda has said, “It is wonderful, truly marvelous how serene is the good Gotama’s presence, how clear and radiant is his complexion. Just as golden jujube fruit in the autumn is clear and radiant … so too is the good Gotama’s complexion” (A.I,181). If Venerable Ananda’s comparison is correct, Gotama must have been of what is called ‘Wheatish’ complexion common in present-day North India, which is described as typically falling between fair and dusky complexions, exhibiting a light brown hue with golden or olive undertones (Fitzpatrick scale Type III to VI).

The Buddha is also described as a slim tall person; slim, perhaps, as a result of practising asceticism before enlightenment and spartan life thereafter. As he aged, he also suffered from back pain and other ailments, according to Sutta Pitaka.

Artists’ imagination

We need not argue that the depictions of the Buddha we see across countries, in various media, are the imaginations of the artists influenced by their local cultures and traditions. The potentially controversial aspect regarding Buddhist iconography is the depiction of his hair, which is almost universal. There are several references in the Sutta Pitaka, where various Brahmin youths derogatorily referred to the Buddha as “bald-pated recluse” (MN 81). There is no reason to believe that he would have been any different from the rest of the Bhikkhus who had and have clean shaven heads. In fact, when King Ajatasattu visited the Buddha for the first time, he had trouble identifying the Buddha from the rest of the sangha, and an attendant had to help the king.

In early Buddhist art, the Buddha was represented by the wheel of dhamma, Bodhi tree, throne, lotus, the footprints, or a parasol. For example, in the carvings of Sanchi temple built in the third century BCE, the Buddha is depicted by some of these symbols, but never in human form. Depiction of the Buddha in human form has started around the first century CE in two places, Gandhara and Mathura. In both places, the Buddha is depicted with hair, and not as a “bald-pated recluse” the way the Sutta Pitaka depicts him.

Figure 1. Bimaran Casket

No scholarly agreeement

So, the question is who started this artistic trend, was it the Gandhara artists under the Greek influence or the Mathura artists following their own traditions? There is no scholarly agreement on this; Western scholars think it was the Greek influence that made presenting the Buddha in human form while Ananda Coomaraswamy presents another theory (Coomaraswamy 1972).

The earliest dateable representation of the Buddha in human form is found on the Bimaran casket found during the exploration of a stupa near Bimaran, Afghanistan in 1834. It has been dated to the first century CE using the coins found along with it, that also depict and refer to the Buddha by name in Greko-Bactrian. This reliquary, a gold cylinder embossed with figures and artwork, is on display at the British Museum (Figure 1). Under the Hellenistic influence, it must have been natural for the Gandhara artists to represent a revered or divine figure in human form; Greeks have been doing it for millennia. The standing Buddha figure is depicted wearing the hair in the form of a knot over the crown. In other carvings from the same period, most male figures are shown with the same hair style. Also, it appears that both Spartan men and women tied their hair in a knot over the crown of the head, known as the “Knidian hairstyle” (Wikipedia). The Gandhara sculpture is famous for the Hellenistic style of realism (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Gandhara statue from 1-2
century CE

Coomaraswamy’s reasoning

Coomaraswamy reasons that the Bhakti movement – the loving devotion of the followers towards the deities, is the reason for the emergence of Buddha figure in Mathura. We cannot say for sure if the Gandhara art induced the Mathura artists to break away from their tradition of aniconic symbolism. What is clear is that they have been influenced by the trend to elevate religious leaders to divinity, to impress the followers and compete or to outdo the practices of other religions. This tradition, which predates the Buddha, has introduced the concept of the thirty-two characteristics or marks of great personalities.

It is this trend that has introduced divine interventions and other mysticisms to Buddhism and culminated in famous poems as Asvagosha’s Buddhacharithaya and exegeses as Lalithavistara a few centuries later and continues to date. Instead of following realism as the Gandhara artists did, Mathura artists have followed this tradition and incorporated the thirty-two characteristics of a great person into their representation of the Buddha figure.

Some of these marks are described as “… there is a protuberance on the head, this is, for the great man, the venerable Gotama, a mark of a great man; the hair bristles, his bristling hair is blue or dark blue, the color of collyrium, turning in curls, turning to the right; the tuft of hair between the eyebrows on his forehead is very white like cotton; he is golden in color, has skin like gold; eyes very blue, like sapphires; under the soles of his feet there are wheels, with a thousand rims and naves, complete in every way…(DN 30, M 91). Thus, the tradition of adding the protuberance referred to as Usnisha to Buddha statues started.

Buddhist traditions in different forms

This practice has been adopted by all Buddhist traditions in different forms. The highly effective outcome of incorporating these great marks into the statuary is that it has created a globally recognisable symbol that is independent of the artist’s skills, cultural affiliation or the medium used. Without such distinct features, we would have difficulty in distinguishing the depictions of the Enlightened One from those of other monks or other religious leaders such as Mahaveera. Nevertheless, in addition to its spiritual aspect, Buddhist iconography has been a flourishing art form, which has allowed human talent and ingenuity to thrive over millennia.

Let us not forget that artistic expression is a fundamental right. Interestingly, the curly hair on the Buddha statues made the early European Indologists to think that the Buddha was an African deity (Allen 2002).

Sri Lankan Buddhist art

Sri Lankan Buddhist art is said to be related to Amaravathi style; all Sri Lankan statues are depicted with curling hair bristles turning to right. The presence and prominence of the usnisha on local statues vary depending on the period. Toluvila statue, prominently displayed at the National Museum, is considered the earliest dateable statue in Sri Lanka. It is dated to 3rd or 4th century CE, has a less prominent usnisha and lacks the elongated ear lobes; it is said to be influenced by the Mathura school.

Since Dambulla temple dates to third century BCE, one wonders if the magnificent reclining statue in Cave 1 could be earlier than the Toluvila statue. There are several bronze statues from Anuradhapura period without usnisha. Towards late Anuradhapura period, usnisha is beginning to be replaced with rudimentary Siraspatha, which represents a flame. This addition evolved over time and became a very prominent feature during the Kandyan period and replaced the traditional usnisha completely (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Kandyan era statue with
Siraspatha

Incomparable workmanship

Then the question is how does the Avukana statue, which belongs to the early Anuradhapura period, have a siraspatha that is not compatible with the style of the period or the incomparable workmanship of the statue itself? I have come across two explanations. According to the Sinhala Encyclopedia, the original siraspatha was destroyed and a cement replacement was installed in recent times, likely in the early 20th century.

The other version is that the statue never had a siraspatha like many other contemporary stone statues. For example, the Susseruwa (Ras Vehera) statue, which is identical in style, and likely a contemporary work, does not have a siraspatha. During the Buddhist revival, a group of devotees from a Southern town felt that the lack of a siraspatha on such a great statue as a major deficiency, and they ceremoniously installed the crude cement ornament seen today.

This raises the question: which is more valuable, preservation and protection of archeological treasures or reconstruction to meet modern expectations and standards? For example, what would have been more impressive, the Mirisavetiya Stupa as it was found before the failed reconstruction attempts, or the current version that is indistinguishable from modern concrete constructs? Even though, one can assume it was done in good faith. What if the Mihintale Kanthaka Chetiya were covered under brick and concrete to convert into a finished product? Would it increase or decrease its archeological value?

Differences between reality and iconography

None of that should matter in following the Buddha Dhamma. In theory. However, when the influence of Buddhist iconography is deeply rooted in devotee’s mind, it is impossible to imagine the Buddha as a normal human being, with or without a clean-shaven head and a brown complexion. The failure to see the difference between reality and iconography or art, poetry, and literature can be detrimental as it could distort the fact that Dhamma is the truth discovered by a human being, and it is accessible to any human, here and now. That is responsible, at least in part, for the introduction of mysticism, myths, and beliefs that are rapidly sidelining of Dhamma.

How often do we think of Enlightened One as a humble mendicant who roamed the Ganges Valley barefoot, in the beating sun, and resting at night on the folded outer robe spread under a tree. Sadly, iconography and other associated myths have driven us too far away from reality and Dhamma.

Up until I was six years old, we lived in a place up in the Balangoda hills that had a kaolin (kirimeti) deposit. The older students in the school used it for various handcrafts, but for the youngsters, it was playdough, even though we had never heard of that term. After witnessing an artist working on a Buddha statue at the local temple, my friend Bandara and I made Buddha statues of all types and sizes. If any of them were to survive for a few thousand years at the site where the schools stood, future archaeologists may wonder if a primitive tribe existed there (of course carbon dating will show otherwise). Like that, looking at some of the thousands of statues that pop up on every street corner, the purpose of which varies, sometimes I wonder if they were made by a civilisation that was yet to finesse the art of sculpture or by kids having access to kirimeti. No wonder birds take liberty to exercise their freedom of expression.

by Geewananda Gunawardana