Opinion

Is the Buddha’s teaching lost on us?

Published

3 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

Sri Lanka’s geopolitical positioning for future prosperity

Published

13 hours ago

2026/09/25

Thilina Walpola

Kariyawasam

By Chula Goonasekera
For the LEADS Forum (admin@srilankaleads.com)

Sri Lanka’s future prosperity will depend on how effectively it positions itself within an increasingly complex global environment. At a recent LEADS Forum discussion (https://youtu.be/Bbr3e_qU1Fw), veteran diplomat Prasad Kariyawasam, former Secretary to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, High Commissioner to India, Ambassador to the United States, Ambassador /Permanent Representative to the UN in New York and Geneva —outlined the strategic choices Sri Lanka must make to secure long term stability and economic advancement. Kariyawasam offered a rare blend of historical perspective, diplomatic experience and practical guidance.

His central message was clear: Sri Lanka must exercise strategic agency—engaging all major partners while safeguarding its national interests.

Foreign Policy as an Extension of National Aspirations

Foreign policy, Kariyawasam emphasised, is inseparable from domestic priorities. As your text notes, “foreign relations often reflect the medium- and long-term aspirations of a country’s people and its leadership.” Governments must therefore craft external relations that reflect the public’s economic and social expectations, avoiding short-term political impulses that undermine long-term national interests.

For a small nation, foreign policy cannot be symbolic or personality driven. It must be purposeful, pragmatic and directed towards the security and prosperity of the people.

A History of Global Connectivity

Sri Lanka’s history demonstrates that the island has never been isolated. From ancient ties with India and Southeast Asia to Arab, Persian and Chinese maritime networks, the island prospered when connected to the wider world. We must realise that “geography creates opportunity, but geography alone does not create prosperity.” Institutions, infrastructure and policy determine whether geographic advantage becomes economic success.

Colombo’s emergence as a cosmopolitan trading hub and Galle’s role as a resupply station for Indian Ocean shipping in colonial times , illustrate how deeply Sri Lanka has been embedded in global commerce for centuries.

Lessons from Asia’s High Performers

Kariyawasam highlighted the experiences of Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Vietnam. Their paths differ, but their success rests on common foundations:

• investment in human capital and infrastructure

• merit based institutions

• integration into global markets

• attraction of investment and technology

• export oriented industries

• strategic engagements with both China and Western economies

The lesson for Sri Lanka is not imitation but continuous adaptation and constructive integration with the global economy.

India: Sri Lanka’s Closest Major Partner

India’s transformation into a global economic power presents Sri Lanka with both opportunity and responsibility. India is already Sri Lanka’s largest source of tourists and a major investor. Kariyawasam states, “The larger question is how effectively Sri Lanka can participate in and benefit from India’s growth.”

A partnership should encompass modern, more open pathways for trade, investment, logistics, energy, technology, digital services, education and professional mobility—And asymmetry between the two economies must be handled with maturity and foresight, seeking special and differential treatment .

China and Other Global Partners

China remains a significant economic partner. Sri Lanka must avoid viewing this relationship through a zero sum lens. The goal should be productive and transparent engagement, ensuring better terms of trade and meaningful technology transfer.

Equally Important relations must be nurtured with the United States, European Union, United Kingdom, Japan, Australia, ASEAN and the Gulf.

All these relationships can be vibrant partnerships that does not lead towards , dependency but mutually beneficial pragmatic arrangements .

A Fragmenting International System

Global geopolitics is becoming more volatile. Trade tensions, wars, sanctions, supply chain disruptions, climate change and technological competition increasingly shape national security. We must realise, “foreign policy cannot be separated from economic policy.”

Sri Lanka’s recent economic crisis demonstrated the importance of international confidence, access to finance and resilient supply chains. Energy security, food security, cybersecurity and digital infrastructure are now core elements of national strategy.

Strategic Agency: The Guiding Principle

Sri Lanka must avoid becoming an arena for great power competition. Strategic agency means making decisions based on national interest, expanding Sri Lanka’s choices, not restricting them.

India is essential. China is important. The United States, Europe, Japan, Australia, ASEAN and the Gulf are important. The objective is a web of partnerships that strengthens resilience and autonomy.

Sri Lanka’s Strategic Assets

1. Location: Sri Lanka’s geography is a long standing advantage. Ports such as Colombo, Hambantota, Trincomalee and Galle can become specialised hubs—if connected to logistics, manufacturing, services and exports.

2. Digital Connectivity: Submarine cables, data centres, cloud services and cybersecurity are now as important as physical geography. Sri Lanka can turn its location into both a maritime and digital advantage.

3. Tourism and Natural Heritage: The focus should shift from tourist numbers to value creation—wellness, heritage, ecotourism, cruise tourism, education and MICE tourism.

4. Human Resources and Demographics: High literacy is no longer enough. Skills in technology, engineering, AI, logistics and advanced manufacturing are essential, especially with an ageing population.

5. Migrant Workforce: Migrant workers are a strategic asset, not merely a source of remittances. Bilateral labour agreements, skills recognition and diaspora engagement should be central to foreign policy.

Requirements for Sustained Prosperity

Sri Lanka’s future depends on:

• peace and security

• access to international markets

• productive investment

• a skilled, productive workforce

• modernised agriculture

• higher value tourism

• demographic preparedness

• climate resilience

• strong, predictable institutions

Please note that “foreign policy can open doors. Domestic institutions determine whether we can walk through them.”

The Role of the State

Sri Lanka does not need a larger state—only a more capable one. Policy continuity, professional institutions, predictable regulation and reduced corruption are essential. Geography does not change; long-term national interests do not change. Intentional relationships built over decades should not be reinvented with each election cycle.

Building Trust Internationally

Trust is a strategic asset. Sri Lanka must be known as a country that honours commitments and maintains predictable policies. This is vital not only for diplomacy but also for investment and long term partnerships.

Avoiding Zero Sum Geopolitics

Sri Lanka does not need to choose between India and China, or between Asia and the West. The task is to identify what each relationship can contribute to national development while protecting sovereignty and freedom of decision making.

Sri Lanka’s geography is an inheritance, but prosperity is not guaranteed. The world is changing rapidly—great-power competition, technological disruption, and climate vulnerability demand a foreign policy that is pragmatic, adaptive, and anchored in national interest.

Sri Lanka must build partnerships without dependencies, maintain strategic agency without isolation, and integrate with the global economy while strengthening domestic capacity.

“We cannot change where Sri Lanka is. We can, however, determine what Sri Lanka becomes because of where it is”

Opinion

A tariff deal with the US? Make haste slowly

Published

2 days ago

2026/09/24

Sahan Weerasooriya

by Gomi Senadhira

Sri Lanka’s former ambassador to the United States Mahinda Samarasinghe is back in Sri Lanka lobbying for speedier finalisation of a new tariff deal with the United States. According to news reports, delivering the keynote address at the Sri Lanka Institute of Directors’ Annual Meeting last week, he stated, “I have recommended very strongly to the government that we need to conclude the agreement so that we can lock in the very favourable tariff rate that Sri Lanka has got up to now“.

I do not understand why the former ambassador is urging the government to expedite the finalisation of a new tariff deal or what is “the very favourable tariff rate” he refers to in his speech. However, given the ongoing terrible tariff turbulence in the United States and the fragile economic situation in Sri Lanka, I believe, this is not the right time to rush into finalising any trade agreement with the United States. I am also of the opinion that at this juncture Sri Lanka should maintain strategic patience and explore all available options.

Lessons from the countries that rushed for trade deals

To better comprehend this, let’s look at experiences of the countries that rushed to conclude tariff deals with the United States after President Donald Trump declared his “reciprocal tariffs” under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) in April 2025. As Samarasinghe stated in his keynote, “The bottom line on all these negotiations was that every country that finally agreed to sign the agreement had to give either complete duty-free access for American exports into those markets, or near complete duty-free access.” In exchange for these tariff concessions and other market access commitments these countries managed to get the newly introduced country specific “reciprocal tariffs” reduced.

However, in February 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) struck down these “reciprocal tariffs” under the IEEPA. With that, the market access gains these countries received in exchange for complete duty-free access for American exports into their markets evaporated under U.S. domestic law. By moving too fast to conclude bilateral tariff agreements with the United States these countries are now bound to strict obligations whereas the benefits they bargained from the U.S. administration are not worth the paper those were written on.

Sri Lanka’s experience

In April 2025, President Trump declared his “reciprocal tariffs” and labelled Sri Lanka as the worst offender, imposing one of the highest additional duties at 44%. Since then, Ambassador Samarasinghe and other negotiators have managed to negotiate this down to 20%. I do not know what the deal was through which Sri Lanka managed to reduce the 44% tariff to 20% or what we gave in return for this “concession.” However, what we received in return has absolutely no value after the decision by the SCOTUS.

Current state of US tariffs

After the decision by SCOTUS, the U.S. administration introduced a temporary 10% additional tariff on all countries for 150 days. At the end of that period, this 10% tariff was replaced by a new “forced labor tariff ” of 10% to 12.5% on all trading partners under Section 301 of U.S. trade law. Twenty-five U.S. states and several small businesses have already filed lawsuits against these tariffs in U.S. courts. This new “forced labour tariff ” on Sri Lanka was first fixed at 12.5%. Later, after President Anura Kumara Dissanayake issued a gazette notice prohibiting the importation of goods produced using forced labour, it was reduced to 10%. That means Sri Lanka has already made a substantial commitment to receive this “tariff concession,” and I presume our negotiators understand the implications of this commitment.

Make haste slowly

After President Trump imposed 44% “reciprocal tariffs” on Sri Lanka, through an article published in The Island on 25th April 2026 (), I urged the government to engage immediately with the US administration on these tariffs. However, I also emphasised that the best way to move forward was to make haste slowly.

Two millennia ago, Augustus Caesar, the first emperor of Rome, frequently used the phrase, “make haste slowly”, because he detested rashness and haste in his military commanders. It was the recurring guiding maxim that he emphasised throughout his 40-year imperial rule. After 2000 years, this classical oxymoron remains a definitive golden rule for professional trade negotiators. More importantly it is the exact blueprint required when navigating turbulence in trade negotiations with the Trump administration.

The endgame – The most dangerous moment in trade negotiation

Samarasinghe has also stated the agreement is 90% complete. Any experienced trade negotiator should know that the final 10% contains high-stakes provisions and is the most dangerous moment in a trade negotiation. A single misplaced comma or ambiguous product description in a tariff schedule can cost millions through unintended loopholes. Rushing this last stretch to secure a deal can permanently expose Sri Lanka to sudden shifts in American trade policy, heavy compliance costs, or strict enforcement under Section 301 regarding supply-chain labour standards. Hence, this is the time for strategic patience.

(The writer can be reached at senadhiragomi@gmail.com)

Opinion

Buddhist law and constitutional amendments

Published

2 days ago

2026/09/24

Sahan Weerasooriya

Upon reading the article titled “Prof. Pieris says Buddha Dhamma recognized as source of law under Constitution” (Island, September 12, 2026), the classical Sinhala idiom “Yanne Koheda? Malle Pol” immediately comes to mind. The expression, translating literally to answering “I have coconuts in my bag” when asked “Where are you going?”, underscores a complete disconnect in logic. Because it is uncertain whether the article accurately represents the professor’s precise words, the following critique addresses the contents of the report rather than the speaker himself.

The central premise of the report concerns a statement delivered by the Chief Justice regarding a petition filed against the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution. According to the report, the Chief Justice’s observation that the determination would be made strictly on the basis of established law rather than Buddhist teachings was characterised as a “cavalier dismissal” of the Buddha Dhamma. This assertion carries a host of unexamined assumptions. Had the writer specified precisely which tenets of the Buddha Dhamma were violated, a direct legal or philosophical evaluation could take place. However, no specific Buddhist tenet or law was identified as having been transgressed, and for good reason: no such statutory legal framework exists within the Buddha’s teachings.

To understand the flaw in this argument, one must examine the constitutional context alongside the canonical meaning of the terms involved. Article 9 of the 1978 Constitution of Sri Lanka mandates that the Republic shall give Buddhism the foremost place and that it shall be the duty of the State to protect and foster the Buddha Sasana, while guaranteeing the fundamental rights of all religions under Articles 10 and 14(1)(e).

While “Buddhism” and “Buddha Dhamma” are frequently used as interchangeable terms in casual dialogue, they represent distinct concepts. “Buddhism” is an umbrella term coined by 19th-century Western scholars to classify the global institutionalised religion, incorporating its diverse sects, cultural traditions, rituals, and socio-political histories. Conversely, Sasana is the ancient term designating the structural framework established by the Buddha to preserve and transmit his teachings, comprising the monastic order (Sangha) and its supporting institutions.

In classical Theravada commentarial literature, the Sasana operates as a functional three-tiered structure. It encompasses Pariyatti Sasana, the preservation and study of sacred texts; Paṭipatti Sasana, the practical execution of the doctrine through ethical conduct and meditation; and Paṭivedha Sasana, the direct experiential realization of ultimate truth, or enlightenment. This structural breakdown raises fundamental questions about state capacity. While a state can readily support Pariyatti Sasana through academic institutions, textual preservation, and educational funding, it cannot legislate or enforce Paṭipatti or Paṭivedha. Practical engagement and spiritual realisation are inherently internal, first-person experiences. Expecting the state to codify or guarantee enlightenment is a conceptual impossibility.

Furthermore, the Buddha Dhamma refers specifically to the unconditioned truths of existence and the teachings imparted to realize them, including the Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold Path, and Dependent Origination. As the late Venerable Professor Kotagama Wachissara Thera observed, there is no rigid ideologue or “ism” in the core Dhamma. The teachings do not constitute a system of divine commandments or a legal statute enforced through reward and punishment. Rather, Buddhist ethics function as self-directed guidelines for psychological clarity and moral inquiry. Even the Vinaya Pitaka, which contains explicit rules of conduct, functions as an internal monastic code rather than a civil or criminal law intended for the laity.

Throughout the Pali Canon, guidance regarding governance focuses on the moral character of leadership and the social duties of statecraft rather than rigid legal codification. In discourses such as the Cakkavatti Sihanada Sutta (DN 26), the Buddha observes that social instability and crime cannot be eliminated solely through punitive measures, emphasising instead that states must provide economic opportunities, fair wages, and resource distribution to maintain societal balance. Crucially, in the Maha Parinibbana Sutta (DN 16), the Buddha explicitly highlights the importance of respecting established laws and traditions rather than enacting arbitrary regulations.

The natural laws articulated in the Dhamma, such as the law of cause and effect or the three characteristics of existence, govern all phenomena universally, regardless of legal statutes or personal belief. They are not human laws to be applied or suspended by a court of law. Therefore, characterizing the Chief Justice’s adherence to constitutional jurisprudence over religious doctrine as a “cavalier dismissal” lacks logical and textual foundation. Framing the judiciary’s adherence to legal precedent as an attack on the Dhamma distracts from fundamental constitutional principles and risks misguiding the public for political ends.

Geewananda
Gunawardana,
Ph.D.