Opinion

Philosophy for participatory or collaborative culture – A response

Published

4 years ago

2021/10/30

Apropos Panduka Karunanayake’s (PK) article under the above caption (The Island – 28.10.2021) I would like to respond as he has invited readers to do so. His is a salutary effort as he seeks a philosophy that incorporates both altruistic and self-centered behaviour as complementary facets of our lives. Altruism and self-centered behaviour could be complementary only in a limited range of activity. For instance, one of the aims of life that he mentions, “Artha” or accumulation of wealth is difficult to achieve when combined with aims of altruism.

The ancient Indian philosophy that PK has recommended is nothing but pure Hinduism that has developed from the Vedic tradition. The four hierarchical goals he mentions; Moksha, Dharma, Artha and Kaama are the four main goals in Hinduism. Different schools of Hinduism may give different weightage to these goals but basically, at present, these are the main goals of Hinduism. PK probably prefers this system due to its hierarchical nature, in the sense that a goal placed low in the hierarchy cannot be achieved at the expense of a higher goal. This arrangement, I assume, he probably thinks would prevent self-centered behaviour at the expense of altruism. There cannot be any other reason for adopting this system. However, no limit is enforced to the “Artha”, or accumulation of wealth as long as it is not carried out at the expense of Dharma. Yet, one wonders how Dharma could coexist with the greed that is necessary for accumulation of wealth.

These four goals of Hinduism developed gradually in the Vedic tradition. In the early Vedas for instance Moksha was not mentioned and Dharma was given prominence. In the later texts, in the Upanishads the concept of Moksha gradually developed. Brahmanism introduced the concept of Moksha as the final union between Brahman and Atman. It was Bhagavad-Gita which developed the three paths to Moksha; 1) Kamma marga (path of duty), 2) Gnana marga (path of knowledge and 3) Bhakthi marga ( path of devotion). The Upanishadic and Brahmanical thoughts on this subject were criticized by Buddha. During Buddha’s time the Atman-Brahman concept was being intensely debated and Buddha’s response was the “Anatta” concept and an attack on the caste system that Brahmanism advocated. The caste system was built into the religion and also into the path to Moksha. “Anatta” concept rejected the Atman theory and the attack on the caste system rejected the major tenets of Brahmanism.

Later when these theories raised their heads in the 2nd Century CE Ven. Nagarjuna, one of the greatest Buddhist philosophers who was also known as the second Buddha came out strongly against the four goals of Hinduism. Nagarjuna says Moksha and Dharma cannot coexist as partners in the same journey. He says the world of Dharma is so different from the freedom implied in the concept of Moksha. They cannot be intellectually related. Dharma needs worldly action while Moksha is unworldly understanding. He asks; how could worldly action and thought lead to unworldly state.

These three goals of Hinduism are based on its philosophy which is defined by Nithya, Sukha and Athma whereas the thrilakna of Buddhism are Anithya, Dukha Anathma which therefore are the exact opposite of Hinduism.

Buddhism which has influenced the minds of a majority of people in Sri Lanka has a solution to this problem. It proposes that people must earn a living and the earnings have to be divided into three portions, one portion is spent on the family, another portion is saved for a rainy day and a third portion is given in alms. Jeffrey Sachs the renowned economist says “Buddhist economics will give guidance to all those who seek peace, fairness and environmental sustainability”. In the Attahita sutta (Anguttara Nikaya) Buddha says the person who is embarked on the wellbeing of himself and also others is the supreme being.

Thus, there is no need for practitioners of Buddhism to adopt ideas of altruism from any other philosophy. People in this country have been moulded by Buddhist tenets and their culture is altruistic in nature. Hinduism is a great religion but there is no need for it to replace the Buddhist ethos that had been inculcated in the minds of Buddhists in this country and which have moulded them to be altruistic when the need arises.

N. A. de S. Amaratunga

All News Advertisement

Opinion

Those who play at bowls must look out for rubbers

Published

7 hours ago

2026/01/27

Sahan Weerasooriya

President Anura Kumara Dissanayake should listen at least to the views of the Mothers’ Front on proposed educational reforms.

I was listening to the apolitical views expressed by the mothers’ front criticising the proposed educational reforms of the government and I found that their views were addressing some of the core questionable issues relevant to the schoolchildren, and their parents, too.

They were critical of the way the educational reforms were formulated. The absence of any consultation with the stakeholders or any accredited professional organisation about the terms and the scope of education was one of the key criticisms of the Mothers’ Front and it is critically important to comprehend the validity of their opposition to the proposed reforms. Further, the proposals do include ideas and designs borrowed from some of the foreign countries which they are now re-evaluating in view of the various shortcomings which they themselves have encountered. On the subject, History, it is indeed unfortunate that it has been included as an optional, whereas in many developed countries it is a compulsory subject; further, in the module the subject is practically limited to pre-historic periods whereas Sri Lanka can proudly claim a longer recorded history which is important to be studied for the students to understand what happened in the past and comprehend the present.

Another important criticism of the Mothers’ Front was the attempted promotion of sexuality in place of sex education. Further there is a visible effort to promote trans-gender concepts as an example when considering the module on family unit which is drawn with two males and a child and two females and a child which are nor representative of Sri Lankan family unit.

Ranjith Soysa

Opinion

Seeds of discord

Published

7 hours ago

2026/01/27

Sahan Weerasooriya

When the LTTE massacred people, mostly Sinhalese Buddhists, government leaders never claimed that the Tamil community, which the LTTE claimed to represent, was driven by hatred. That restraint mattered. That is why it was outrageous to hear President Anura Kumara Dissanayake tell Tamils that Buddhists visiting the North to worship were doing so out of spite. If reports are accurate, the President also declared that we needed a prosperous nation free of racism and united in spirit. Yet, in the same breath he sowed seeds of division recklessly.

Had he spoken in Tamil or English, some might have dismissed it as a slip of the tongue. But in Sinhala, the words carried unmistakable intent. Who could have expected such divisive rhetoric to come from the head of a nation now enjoying fragile coexistence, after enduring a 30‑year war and two insurrections that devastated the economy?

A Ratnayake

Opinion

Where are we heading?

Published

7 hours ago

2026/01/27

Sahan Weerasooriya

The Island editorial, dated 22 January, 2026, under the title ‘Conspiracy to subvert constitutional order,’ is an eye-opener to those who supported the so-called Äragalaya in July 2022 and those who voted to bring the current regime into power with various positive expectations, including ‘ a system change’. ( https://island.lk/conspiracy-to-subvert-constitutional-order/ )

The editorial highlighted, with irrefutable evidence, how a foreign diplomat and a group of Sri Lankans, consisting of some religious leaders (a Buddhist monk, some Catholic priests) and a trade unionist, made a blatantly illegal bid to pressure the then Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena to take over the executive presidency in violation of the Constitution. The intention of the intimidator tactics was said to be to create in Sri Lanka a situation similar to that in Libya.

The editorial also mentioned how Minister K.D. Lal Kantha and his JVP attempted to lead the Aragalaya protestors to capture Parliament, but without success. Addressing a public rally, under the title ‘Let’s read Lenin’, a few days ago, Minister Lal Kantha has revealed that their planning was to follow what Lenin had said and done during the Russian revolution. Minister Lal Kantha said: “We do not have the power of the State although we managed to obtain the power of the Government. Hence, we are now engaged in the struggle to win the power of the State’’.

In a democratic society, there is a need to ensure maintaining Law and Order without any state interference. It looks like the intention of the Minister is to bring the Police, Armed Forces and the Judiciary, including all the State Services, under direct control of the ruling party, by filling those positions with JVP loyalists to suppress the opponents of the government.

There is also an attempt by the JVP-led forces to remove the Attorney General by making unsubstantiated allegations against him. As per a latest news item in The Island, under the title “Opposition slams sitting HC judge’s appointment as Justice Ministry additional Secretary”, is alleging President Anura Kumara Dissanayake of trying to control the judiciary by appointing a sitting High Court judge as Additional Secretary to the Justice and National Integration Ministry. (https://island.lk/opposition-slams-sitting-hc-judges-appointment-as-justice-ministry-additional-secretary/)

On the other hand, the ruling party is trying to appoint one of their cronies as Auditor General, possibly, to cover up a number of questionable deals made during the year they ruled and to ensure achieving the so-called power of the State.

Unless the people, especially those who naively dreamt of ‘a system change’, have a clear understanding of the ultimate goal and motives of the ongoing changes and take appropriate actions to protect their own democratic rights, they will be left with no other alternative but to live under a repressive government.

Sangadasa Akurugoda