Opinion
Sense and nonsense of time
My father asked me a question when I was little: what is the fastest thing in the world? Like any other kid, I tossed up a rocket, and he responded in the negative, and affirmed that the fastest thing is the mind. The notion that the movement of thought is the fastest, astonished me.
There is no doubt that the analysis of time is a complicated thing; I am here merely drawing attention to facts and fictions that are combined to portray an impression of time. For example, the time taken by a train to get to a city is derived from events which are in time. This is physical time (kalika) that is measured by the clock. ‘Going to a city’ by mind does not involve physical events in between, so, it must be psychologically derived by past experiences.
Use of physical time in day-to-day life makes sense, but the use of psychological time to become something (by desire) that is not present here and now does not make much sense. We appear to do just that by mixing up psychological time with physical time to cause all sorts of stress and anxiety. Do we think around existence in psychological or physical time? Does neither time exist?
Kalavadins, a group of eternalists in contemporary of the Buddha, claimed that time is an absolute reality and strictly distinct. Even for Isaac Newton in 17th century, time was absolute and universal. Albert Einstein in 1905 disputed Newtonian time by the theory of Relativity in which he specified that time is not independent of the universe, but elastic and relative to the motion of an observer. For Einstein, the passing of time was an illusion. Moreover, he wrote that “the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion”.
Two millenniums before western philosophers, the Buddhist thought expounded by answering to Kalavadins that time has no objective reality and has no existence outside the world of phenomena (dhammas). In other words, time does not exist in real sense—avijjamana pannatti—like dhammas that arise and cease through causes and conditions. The theory of causality (an equivalent term for Paticcasamuppada) categorised that past, present and future are a concept of time and the Buddha advised us not to entertain views around the past and the future. The mind is designed to operate in the present because everything we experience is a product of six internal bases and six corresponding sense objects.
If we cannot talk about time without causally produced events, thinking about future is nothing but extrapolating the past or present with imaginary or predicted causes and conditions. As such any notion of deterministic future cannot stand in the Buddhist thought. For this reason, I think the Buddha never talked about the future in absolute accuracy, apart from a few exceptions, for example heinous crimes in which effect will be without intervals (anantarrika-kamma).
To replace the belief of absolute time, the Abhidhamma had invented a few entities in various scales such as khana (moment), santati (continuum or moving now) and addhan (duration). Any attempt to extend these entities into samsaric cycle, phenomenal integration by an observer—a self—is necessary to place them in temporal scale. All these entities, as far as I see, should be understood in relation to phenomena. A phenomenon is not a function of time and self, but vice versa. Without such a consideration, these entities sound more metaphysical than empirical and may well fall into the line of Kalavadines.
For example, if ‘khana’ is defined as a moment in physical time, it should have a duration. Any division of the duration should have characteristics of the whole duration. If ‘khana’ represents the entirety of its divisions—many consciousnesses as advocated by the Abhidhamma—to cognise what ‘khana’ is, one needs to go into all divisions at once, which is impossible. If we were to say it does not have a duration, several moments have no duration either. Therefore, ‘khana’ cannot be understood in terms of physical time. The exact nature of santati—continuum—is also debatable and cannot be grasped easily by us, due to the fact that phenomenal overlaps between successive santati are needed for ‘moving now’. It is nevertheless accepted in the commentarial tradition and recognised as perceptible time.
Since time is a conceptual construct that cannot be distinct outside of phenomena and their observers, I think ‘samaya’—confluence of conditions (paccaya samaggi)—is the most sensible way to put time into psychological perspective, in which no chronological sequence can be recognised. Samaya has widely been used in the early Buddhist literature, for examples, “ekam samayan” (at one time) in the Sutta Pitakaya, “tena samayena” (at that time) in the Vinaya Pitakaya and “yasmin samaye” (at which time) in the Abhidhamma Pitakaya.
Life is nothing more than the confluence of conditions one after the other. Attachment to time by always attempting to become ‘something’ in the future seems a major issue for us not being able to realise the Dhamma. In this life, we are fulfilling our time (‘kalam karoti’) in both physical and psychological senses, and before fulfilling our time (‘kalakiriya’), eradicating our attachment to time is necessary to put an end to becoming (bhava).
DR KEMACHANDRA
Opinion
Ministerial resignation and new political culture
The resignation of Energy Minister Kumara Jayakody comes after several weeks of controversy over his ministerial role. The controversy sharpened when the minister was indicted by the Commission on Bribery and Corruption for a transaction he was involved in ten years ago as a government official in the Fertiliser Corporation. The other issue was the government’s purchase of substandard coal from a new supplier. Minister Jayakody’s resignation followed the appointment of a Special Presidential Commission of Inquiry to investigate coal and petroleum purchases. The minister who resigned, along with the Secretary to the Ministry of Energy, Udayanga Hemapala, stated that they did not wish to compromise the integrity of the investigation to be undertaken by the Commission of Inquiry.
The government’s initial resistance to holding the minister accountable for the costly purchase was based on the argument that the official procedure had been followed in ordering the coal. However, the fact that the procedure permitted a disadvantageous purchase which has come to light on this occasion suggests a weakness in the process. The government’s appointment of the Special Presidential Commission of Inquiry to examine purchases as far back as 2009 follows from this observation. In this time 450 purchases are reported to have been made, and if several of them were as disadvantageous as this one, the cost to the country can be imagined. The need to investigate transactions since 2009 also arises from the possibility that loopholes in official government procedures in the past would have permitted private enrichment at a high cost to the country.
Concerns have been expressed in the past that the purchase of coal and petroleum, often on an emergency basis, enabled the use of emergency procurement processes which do not require going through the full tender procedures. The government has pledged to eradicate corruption as its priority. As a result, the general population would expect it to do everything within its power to correct those systems that permitted such corruption. Accountability is not only forward looking to ensure non-corrupt practices in the present, it is also backward looking to ensure that corrupt practices of the past are discontinued. This would be a matter of concern to those who headed government ministries and departments in previous governments. Those who have misapplied the systems can be expected to do their utmost to resist any investigation into the past.
Politically Astute
One of the main reasons for the government’s continuing popularity among the general population, as reflected in February 2026 public opinion poll by Verité Research, has been its willingness to address the problem of corruption. Public opinion studies have consistently shown that corruption remains one of the top concerns of citizens in Sri Lanka. The arrests and indictments of members of former governments have been viewed with general satisfaction as paving the way to a less corrupt society. At the same time, the resignations of Minister Kumara Jayakody and Secretary Udayanga Hemapala are an indication that not even government members will be spared if they are found to have crossed red lines. This is an important signal, as public confidence depends not only on holding political opponents to account but also on demonstrating fairness and consistency within one’s own ranks.
There appears to be a strategy on the part of the opposition to target government leaders and allege corruption so that ministers will be forced to step down. Organised protests against other ministers, and demonstrations outside their homes, are on the rise. The government appears not to want to give in to this opposition strategy and therefore delayed the resignation of Minister Jayakody until it had itself established the Special Presidential Commission of Inquiry. It enabled the minister to step down without it seeming that the government was yielding to opposition pressure. In political terms, this was a calibrated response that sought to balance the need for accountability with the need to maintain authority and coherence in governance.
The demand by opposition parties to focus attention on the coal problem could also be seen as an attempt to shift the national debate from the corruption of the past to controversies in the present. The opposition’s endeavour would be to take the heat off themselves in regard to the corruption of the past and turn it onto the government by making it the focus of inquiries into corruption. The decision to set up a Special Presidential Commission of Inquiry accompanied by the resignation of the minister and the ministry secretary was a politically astute way of demonstrating that the government will have no tolerance for corruption. It will also help to remind the general public about the rampant corruption of past governments which prevents the opposition’s corruption accusations against the government from gaining traction amongst the people.
New Practice
The resignation of a government minister who faces allegations but has not been convicted is still a relatively new practice in Sri Lanka. The general practice in Sri Lanka up to the present time has been for those in government service, if found to be at fault, to be transferred rather than removed from office. This is commonly seen in the case of police officers who, if found to have used excessive force or engaged in abuse, are transferred to another station rather than subjected to more serious disciplinary action. A similar pattern was seen in the case of former minister Keheliya Rambukwella, who faced allegations of corruption in the health field but was reassigned to a different portfolio rather than removed from government.
Against this background, the present resignation assumes greater importance. It signals a willingness to break with past practices and to establish a higher standard of conduct in public office. However, a single instance does not in itself create a lasting change. What is required is the consistent application of the same principle across all cases, irrespective of political affiliation or convenience. This is where the government has an opportunity to strengthen its credibility. By ensuring that the same standards of accountability are applied to its own members as to those of previous governments, it can demonstrate that its commitment to good governance is not selective.
The establishment of the Special Presidential Commission of Inquiry, the willingness to accept ministerial resignation, and the recognition of systemic weaknesses in procurement are all steps in the right direction. The challenge now is to ensure that these steps are followed through with determination and consistency. If the investigations are conducted impartially and lead to meaningful reforms, the present controversy could mark a turning point. The resignation of the minister should not be seen as an isolated event but as the beginning of a new practice. If it becomes part of a broader pattern of accountability, it can contribute to a new political culture and to restoring public trust in government.
by Jehan Perera
Opinion
Shutting roof top solar panels – a crime
The Island newspaper’s lead news item on the 12th of April 2026 was on the CEB request to shut down rooftop solar power during the low demand periods. Their argument is that rooftop solar panels produce about 300 MW power during the day and there is no procedure to balance the grid with such a load.
We as well as a large academic and industrial consortium members have been trying to promote solar energy as a viable and sustainable power source since the early 1990’s. We formed the Solar Energy Society and made representations to Government politicians about the need to have solar power generation. This continuous promotional work contributed to the rapid increase in PV solar companies from three in the early 1990’s to over 650 active PV solar companies established today in the country. These companies have created tens of thousands of high-quality jobs, as well as moving in the right direction for sustainable development.
However, all these efforts appear to have been in vain since the CEB policy makers have continuously rejected solar energy as a viable alternative. Their power generation plans at that time did not include solar energy at all but only relied on imported coal power plants and diesel power generation. Even at the meetings where CEB senior staff were present, we emphasised the importance of installation of battery storage facilities and grid balancing for which they have done nothing at all over the past three decades. Now they have grudgingly accepted the need to include solar energy, which was an election promise of the present government. The government policy is that Sri Lanka should go for renewables to satisfy 70% of its energy needs by 2030 and soon move towards the green hydrogen technology by using solar and wind energy.
The question is why the diesel generators and hydropower stations cannot be shut off one by one to accommodate the solar power generated during the daytime. Unlike a coal-fired plant, diesel generators and hydro power plants can be shut off in a relatively shorter period of time. Norochchalai Lakvijaya power plant produces around 900 MW of power while the total country requirement is 2500 MW on a daily basis. The remainder is provided by diesel generators, hydro and other renewable energy sources.
The need for work to achieve this goal of grid balancing should be the primary responsibility of the CEB. Modern grid balancing systems are in operation in countries such as Germany where around 56% of its energy come from renewable sources. They also plan to increase this to reach 80% of the energy required through renewables by 2030. Our CEB is hell bent on diesel power plants. Who benefits from such emergency power purchases is anybody’s guess?
The Government and the CEB should realise that all roof top solar plants are privately financed through personal funds or bank loans with no financial burden on the Government. It is a crime to request them not to operate these solar panels and get the necessary credits for the power transmitted to the national grid. It appears that the results of CEB’s lack of grid balancing experience and unwillingness to learn over three decades have now passed to the privately-funded rooftop solar panel owners. It is unfortunate that the Government is not considering the contributions of ordinary individuals who provide clean power to the national grid at no cost to the Government. Over 150,000 rooftop solar panels owners are severely affected by these ruthless decisions by the CEB, and this will lead to the un-popularity of this new government in the end.
by Professors Oliver Ileperuma and I M Dharmadasa
Opinion
Nilanthi Jayasinghe – An Appreciation
It was with shock that I realized that the article in the Sunday Island of April 5 about the winsome graduate gazing serenely at her surroundings was, in fact, an obituary about Nilanthi Jayasinghe, a former colleague who I had held in high esteem. I had lost touch with Nilanthi since my retirement and this news that she had passed away, saddened me deeply
I knew and had worked with Nilanthi – Mrs Jayasinghe as we used to call her – at the Open University of Sri Lanka in the 1990s. As Director, Operations, she was a figure that we as heads of academic departments, relied on; a central bastion of the complex structure that underpinned academic activities at Sri Lanka’s major distance education provider. Few people realize what it takes to provide distance education in an environment not geared to this form of teaching/learning – the volume of Information that has to be created, printed and delivered; the variety of timetables that have to be scheduled; the massive amount of continuous assessment assignments and tests that have to be prepared and sent out; the organization of a multitude of face-to face teaching sessions; the complex scheduling of examinations and tests – all this needed to be attended to for a student population of more than 20,000 and for 23 centres of study dotted across Sri Lanka.
It was an unenviable task but Nilanthi Jayasinghe with her flair for organization, handled it all with aplomb and a deep sense of commitment. If there were delays and inconclusive action on our part, she never reprimanded but would work with us to sort things out. Her work as Director, Operations brought her into contact with staff across the spectrum-from the Vice-Chancellor to the apprentice in the Open University’s Printing Press. Nilanthi treated everyone with dignity and as a result, was respected by all at the university. She was sensitive, kind-hearted, a good friend who would readily share problems and help to solve them. The year NIlanthi retired, I was out of the island. When I came back to the Open University, I felt bereft without the steadfast support of her stalwart presence .
The article in the ‘Sunday Island’ describes her life after retirement, looking after family members and enjoying the presence of a granddaughter.
After a lifetime of commitment to others, Nilanthi Jayasinghe truly deserved this happiness.
May she be blessed with peace.
Ryhana Raheem
Professor Emeritus
Open University of Sri Lanka.
-
Business4 days agoHarnessing nature’s wisdom: Experts highlight “Resist–Align” path to resilience
-
News6 days agoPNS TAIMUR & ASLAT set sail from Colombo
-
News4 days agoGratiaen Trust announces longlist for the 33rd Annual Gratiaen Prize
-
News3 days agoFrom Nuwara Eliya to Dubai: Isha Holdings markets Agri products abroad
-
News21 hours agoRs 13 bn NDB fraud: Int’l forensic audit ordered
-
Opinion2 days agoShutting roof top solar panels – a crime
-
News4 days agoHeroin haul transported on 50-million-rupee contract
-
Latest News5 days agoSingapore Zoo’s first Sri Lankan leopard cubs make their public debut
