Features
Buddhism and Ahimsa
by Dr. Justice Chandradasa Nanayakkara
The word Ahimsa, derived from Sanskrit, means non-harm or non-injury and is often translated into English as non-violence. The dictionary defines it as “the ethical principle of not causing harm to other living beings.”
From its very inception, Buddhism has had a deep commitment to non-violence. Ahimsa represents a profound ethical principle in Buddhist thought just as in many other religious traditions. The Dhammapada states “Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal”. The first precept in buddhism emphasises the importance of avoiding harm to all living beings. It advocates nonviolence and asserts that violence toward others contradicts the teachings of the Buddha. This principle involves refraining from causing injury to life and includes abandoning all forms of weapons that can inflict harm or destroy life. In a positive context, it promotes compassion and empathy for all living beings. Therefore. In an age of hatred and discord ahimsa (non-violence) should become an ideal for all beings.
Buddha’s stance on violence was unequivocal. He was not a theologian but a liberator who sought to guide individuals toward inner peace. For Buddha, nonviolence was not a social or political philosophy. The Buddha famously stated, “There is no greater happiness than peace.” In Christianity, Jesus expressed similar sentiments and declared “Blessed are the peacemakers” The ultimate goal for a Buddhist is to attain a serene state of nirvana, and the means to achieve this must be inherently peaceful. Moreover, the Dhammapada emphasises that “All tremble at violence, all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.”
Buddha’s teachings have influenced the lives of millions of people worldwide. Buddhists are expected to radiate metta (loving-kindness) and karuna (compassion) which are vital tenets of Buddhism to fellow human beings and to all the elements that constitute Mother Nature. These tenets teach that loving kindness toward one another is essential for peace and harmony in society. Further, the interconnected and interdependent nature of all phenomena in the world underscores that our well-being depends fundamentally on cultivating a peaceful environment free from violence and hatred.
While religions can contribute positively to society, they can also exert a pernicious influence. Religions have, at times, served as agents of violence, providing a cover of legitimacy to unbridled violence and aggression in virtually every heterogeneous society. Many atrocities have been perpetrated and cruel wars have been waged by followers of one religion ruthlessly persecuting those belonging to other faiths in the name of religion.
Buddhism is not exempt from this reality. Despite its peaceful teachings that explicitly condemn war and violence -regardless of whether they are defensive or aggressive- the fact remains that violence has disrupted the political and social landscapes of many Buddhist countries. These countries have grappled with various forms of violent conflicts, fostering a climate of mutual distrust and animosity. In many of these societies, stark disparities and gross injustices have driven individuals to such violence. Conflicts are an inescapable aspect of human existence, ranging from minor inconveniences to serious confrontations, affecting individuals and nations and not unique to Buddhist countries.
There have been many instances where despite Buddhists being committed to radiating metta (loving-kindness) and karuna (compassion) toward all beings participating in violence in places like Sri Lanka, Thailand, Myanmar, and several other countries. These clashes often arise when people fail to tolerate each other’s moral, religious, or political differences. All religions have their accepted dogmas and beliefs that followers must accept without question, which leads to inflexibility and intolerance in the face of other beliefs. When individuals display blind religious zealotry and adopt absolutist and dogmatic attitudes toward their religion can also provoke powerful irrational impulses that destabilise society. When individuals feel overwhelmed by their irrational emotions, normal behaviour breaks down. Similarly, the interpretation of vague dogmas and scriptures has led to varying interpretations resulting in conflictual situations. Moreover, there is the tendency of religious nationalists to view their religion as intimately tied to their nation or homeland, so a threat to one is perceived as a threat to the other. Religious fundamentalists who are primarily driven by dissatisfaction with modernity too have produced extremist sentiments in many countries. It is indeed unfortunate that violence has become so entrenched in our societies, overshadowing the profound wisdom of non-violence that Buddhism seeks to promote.
What happens in these countries in no way represents Buddha’s teachings It is the perversion of his core teachings. No matter what the Buddha taught, there have always been and will be people who will misinterpret the teachings, and resort to violence and killing. It is the fault of the people and not the teachings. While every religious tradition has experienced instances of violence, this phenomenon highlights more about human nature than it does about religion itself. This is particularly so when the world is composed of diverse people with varying tendencies; some are naturally peaceful while others are prone to violence. These popular portrayals of religions often reinforce the view of religion as conflictual and violent.
The Buddha’s teachings are generally pacifist and peaceful, but some contend violence may be justified in certain circumstances. They believe that a certain amount of violence may be acceptable if the end goal is noble. However, the overarching message of Theravada Buddhism remains clear. Non-violence which is intrinsic to Buddhist philosophy, applies to all spheres of life and rejects physical violence even to achieve social or political change. Buddhism is inherently a peaceful tradition and sets its moral bar very high and nowhere in its teachings does one find any evidence in support of violence whether in word , thought or deed. Therefore, all teachings and practices are geared towards the principle of ahimsa (non-harming) for the benefit of oneself and others. Buddha once declared: Even bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered even an at that would not be doing my bidding”.
Buddhists who are committed to peace believe that they cannot take up arms under any circumstances, even knowing that they would be killed as a result. True Buddhists are not expected to kill even a small insect let alone kill a human being. If a Buddhist insults another let alone kill or use violence toward others he does not follow buddhas teachings. The irony lies in the fact that history has demonstrated that the use of violence, no matter how justifiable it may seem, often leads to a cycle of further violence.
Another fundamental aspect of Buddhism that is allied to this idea is the doctrine of consequences or Kamma. Buddha said volition is karma Cetanaham, bhikkhave kamman vadimi . Cetayitiva kammam karoti kayena, vacaya, manasa (Intention, oh monks, I call karma, intending one does karma by way of body, speech, and mind. Buddhism just like many religions teaches that human beings are responsible for their actions and must face the repercussions—whether in this life, the next life, or the afterlife. Dhammapada states “An evil deed committed does not immediately bear fruit, just as milk curdles not at once; like smouldering fire covered with ashes, evil deeds follow the fool”.
When we delve deeply into the root causes of conflict and tension, they lie in the unhappiness and suffering born of greed, hatred, and delusion as identified in the Buddha’s teachings. We can only truly foster a harmonious world by embracing the principles of non-violence as enunciated in many religious traditions overcoming hatred and discord.
For Buddhist countries, maintaining armed forces poses the dilemma of protecting their citizens’ rights and lives without violating the principle of non-violence. Similarly, some Buddhists may find it difficult to conceive of serving in the military whilst adhering to the ethos, values and standards of Buddhism. Although Buddha himself was a member of the warrior caste and had cordial relations with kings and delivered several discourses to kings he never advised them to abandon their responsibility of ruling with its attendant consequences and punishment for crimes, nor to abandon warfare and protection of their state when necessary.
Every Buddhist enlisted in the military is legally bound to protect and defend his country and countrymen. It is also natural for every living being to defend himself and attack another for self-protection, but the karmic effect of aggression depends on his mental attitude. For example, if a man dies accidentally in the course of a struggle at the hands of another who had no intention of harming him, according to Buddhism he will be absolved from the karmic reaction. On the other hand, if a man kills another without any provocation whatsoever then he will not be free from the karmic response; he has to face the consequences.
Therefore, there is no fundamental contradiction between adhering to ahimsa and being enlisted in the military service. What is important is how he sets about his task and what intentions he entertains while performing his duties.
In the Kalama sutta of the Anguttara Nikaya, the Buddha has told Kalama, how the three unwholesome roots of greed, hatred and delusion lead one to commit unwholesome actions like killing and causing violence and also to encourage others to do the same, result in long-term harm and suffering.
The renowned Srilankan Buddhist monk and scholar Venerable K. Sri Dhammanannda says, “Buddhists should not be aggressors even in protecting their religion or anything else. They must try their best to avoid any kind of violent act. Sometimes they may be forced to go to war by others who do not respect the concept of brotherhood of humans as taught by the Buddha. They may be called upon to defend their country from external aggression, and as long as they have not renounced worldly life, they are duty-bound to join in the struggle for peace and freedom. Under these circumstances, they cannot be blamed for becoming soldiers or being involved in defence.
One of the challenges the world faces today is transforming the prevalence of violence in all its forms into a culture of peace, not merely the absence of war but also fostering an environment of compassion and karuna (loving-kindness).
Features
Rethinking post-disaster urban planning: Lessons from Peradeniya
A recent discussion by former Environment Minister, Eng. Patali Champika Ranawaka on the Derana 360 programme has reignited an important national conversation on how Sri Lanka plans, builds and rebuilds in the face of recurring disasters.
His observations, delivered with characteristic clarity and logic, went beyond the immediate causes of recent calamities and focused sharply on long-term solutions—particularly the urgent need for smarter land use and vertical housing development.
Ranawaka’s proposal to introduce multistoried housing schemes in the Gannoruwa area, as a way of reducing pressure on environmentally sensitive and disaster-prone zones, resonated strongly with urban planners and environmentalists alike.
It also echoed ideas that have been quietly discussed within academic and conservation circles for years but rarely translated into policy.
One such voice is that of Professor Siril Wijesundara, Research Professor at the National Institute of Fundamental Studies (NIFS) and former Director General of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Peradeniya, who believes that disasters are often “less acts of nature and more outcomes of poor planning.”
“What we repeatedly see in Sri Lanka is not merely natural disasters, but planning failures,” Professor Wijesundara told The Island.
“Floods, landslides and environmental degradation are intensified because we continue to build horizontally, encroaching on wetlands, forest margins and river reservations, instead of thinking vertically and strategically.”
The former Director General notes that the University of Peradeniya itself offers a compelling case study of both the problem and the solution. The main campus, already densely built and ecologically sensitive, continues to absorb new faculties, hostels and administrative buildings, placing immense pressure on green spaces and drainage systems.
“The Peradeniya campus was designed with landscape harmony in mind,” he said. “But over time, ad-hoc construction has compromised that vision. If development continues in the same manner, the campus will lose not only its aesthetic value but also its ecological resilience.”
Professor Wijesundara supports the idea of reorganising the Rajawatte area—located away from the congested core of the university—as a future development zone. Rather than expanding inward and fragmenting remaining open spaces, he argues that Rajawatte can be planned as a well-designed extension, integrating academic, residential and service infrastructure in a controlled manner.
Crucially, he stresses that such reorganisation must go hand in hand with social responsibility, particularly towards minor staff currently living in the Rajawatte area.
“These workers are the backbone of the university. Any development plan must ensure their dignity and wellbeing,” he said. “Providing them with modern, safe and affordable multistoried housing—especially near the railway line close to the old USO premises—would be both humane and practical.”
According to Professor Wijesundara, housing complexes built near existing transport corridors would reduce daily commuting stress, minimise traffic within the campus, and free up valuable land for planned academic use.
More importantly, vertical housing would significantly reduce the university’s physical footprint.
Drawing parallels with Ranawaka’s Gannoruwa proposal, he emphasised that vertical development is no longer optional for Sri Lanka.
“We are a small island with a growing population and shrinking safe land,” he warned.
“If we continue to spread out instead of building up, disasters will become more frequent and more deadly. Vertical housing, when done properly, is environmentally sound, economically efficient and socially just.”
The veteran botanist also highlighted the often-ignored link between disaster vulnerability and the destruction of green buffers.
“Every time we clear a lowland, a wetland or a forest patch for construction, we remove nature’s shock absorbers,” he said.
“The Royal Botanic Gardens has survived floods for over a century precisely because surrounding landscapes once absorbed excess water. Urban planning must learn from such ecological wisdom.”
Professor Wijesundara believes that universities, as centres of knowledge, should lead by example.
“If an institution like Peradeniya cannot demonstrate sustainable planning, how can we expect cities to do so?” he asked. “This is an opportunity to show that development and conservation are not enemies, but partners.”
As climate-induced disasters intensify across the country, voices like his—and proposals such as those articulated by Patali Champika Ranawaka—underscore a simple but urgent truth: Sri Lanka’s future safety depends not only on disaster response, but on how and where we build today.
The challenge now lies with policymakers and planners to move beyond television studio discussions and academic warnings, and translate these ideas into concrete, people-centred action.
By Ifham Nizam ✍️
Features
Superstition – Major barrier to learning and social advancement
At the initial stage of my six-year involvement in uplifting society through skill-based initiatives, particularly by promoting handicraft work and teaching students to think creatively and independently, my efforts were partially jeopardized by deep-rooted superstition and resistance to rational learning.
Superstitions exerted a deeply adverse impact by encouraging unquestioned belief, fear, and blind conformity instead of reasoning and evidence-based understanding. In society, superstition often sustains harmful practices, social discrimination, exploitation by self-styled godmen, and resistance to scientific or social reforms, thereby weakening rational decision-making and slowing progress. When such beliefs penetrate the educational environment, students gradually lose the habit of asking “why” and “how,” accepting explanations based on fate, omens, or divine intervention rather than observation and logic.
Initially, learners became hesitant to challenge me despite my wrong interpretation of any law, less capable of evaluating information critically, and more vulnerable to misinformation and pseudoscience. As a result, genuine efforts towards social upliftment were obstructed, and the transformative power of education, which could empower individuals economically and intellectually, was weakened by fear-driven beliefs that stood in direct opposition to progress and rational thought. In many communities, illnesses are still attributed to evil spirits or curses rather than treated as medical conditions. I have witnessed educated people postponing important decisions, marriages, journeys, even hospital admissions, because an astrologer predicted an “inauspicious” time, showing how fear governs rational minds.
While teaching students science and mathematics, I have clearly observed how superstition acts as a hidden barrier to learning, critical thinking, and intellectual confidence. Many students come to the classroom already conditioned to believe that success or failure depends on luck, planetary positions, or divine favour rather than effort, practice, and understanding, which directly contradicts the scientific spirit. I have seen students hesitate to perform experiments or solve numerical problems on certain “inauspicious” days.
In mathematics, some students label themselves as “weak by birth”, which creates fear and anxiety even before attempting a problem, turning a subject of logic into a source of emotional stress. In science classes, explanations based on natural laws sometimes clash with supernatural beliefs, and students struggle to accept evidence because it challenges what they were taught at home or in society. This conflict confuses young minds and prevents them from fully trusting experimentation, data, and proof.
Worse still, superstition nurtures dependency; students wait for miracles instead of practising problem-solving, revision, and conceptual clarity. Over time, this mindset damages curiosity, reduces confidence, and limits innovation, making science and mathematics appear difficult, frightening, or irrelevant. Many science teachers themselves do not sufficiently emphasise the need to question or ignore such irrational beliefs and often remain limited to textbook facts and exam-oriented learning, leaving little space to challenge superstition directly. When teachers avoid discussing superstition, they unintentionally reinforce the idea that scientific reasoning and superstitious beliefs can coexist.
To overcome superstition and effectively impose critical thinking among students, I have inculcated the process to create a classroom culture where questioning was encouraged and fear of being “wrong” was removed. Students were taught how to think, not what to think, by consistently using the scientific method—observation, hypothesis, experimentation, evidence, and conclusion—in both science and mathematics lessons. I have deliberately challenged superstitious beliefs through simple demonstrations and hands-on experiments that allow students to see cause-and-effect relationships for themselves, helping them replace belief with proof.
Many so-called “tantrik shows” that appear supernatural can be clearly explained and exposed through basic scientific principles, making them powerful tools to fight superstition among students. For example, acts where a tantrik places a hand or tongue briefly in fire without injury rely on short contact time, moisture on the skin, or low heat transfer from alcohol-based flames rather than divine power.
“Miracles” like ash or oil repeatedly appearing from hands or idols involve concealment or simple physical and chemical tricks. When these tricks are demonstrated openly in classrooms or science programmes and followed by clear scientific explanations, students quickly realise how easily perception can be deceived and why evidence, experimentation, and critical questioning are far more reliable than blind belief.
Linking concepts to daily life, such as explaining probability to counter ideas of luck, or biology to explain illness instead of supernatural causes, makes rational explanations relatable and convincing.
Another unique example that I faced in my life is presented here. About 10 years ago, when I entered my new house but did not organise traditional rituals that many consider essential for peace and prosperity as my relatives believed that without them prosperity would be blocked. Later on, I could not utilise the entire space of my newly purchased house for earning money, largely because I chose not to perform certain rituals.
While this decision may have limited my financial gains to some extent, I do not consider it a failure in the true sense. I feel deeply satisfied that my son and daughter have received proper education and are now well settled in their employment, which, to me, is a far greater achievement than any ritual-driven expectation of wealth. My belief has always been that a house should not merely be a source of income or superstition-bound anxiety, but a space with social purpose.
Instead of rituals, I strongly feel that the unused portion of my house should be devoted to running tutorials for poor and underprivileged students, where knowledge, critical thinking, and self-reliance can be nurtured. This conviction gives me inner peace and reinforces my faith that education and service to society are more meaningful measures of success than material profit alone.
Though I have succeeded to some extent, this success has not been complete due to the persistent influence of superstition.
by Dr Debapriya Mukherjee
Former Senior Scientist
Central Pollution Control Board, India ✍️
Features
Race hate and the need to re-visit the ‘Clash of Civilizations’
Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has done very well to speak-up against and outlaw race hate in the immediate aftermath of the recent cold-blooded gunning down of several civilians on Australia’s Bondi Beach. The perpetrators of the violence are believed to be ardent practitioners of religious and race hate and it is commendable that the Australian authorities have lost no time in clearly and unambiguously stating their opposition to the dastardly crimes in question.
The Australian Prime Minister is on record as stating in this connection: ‘ New laws will target those who spread hate, division and radicalization. The Home Affairs Minister will also be given new powers to cancel or refuse visas for those who spread hate and a new taskforce will be set up to ensure the education system prevents, tackles and properly responds to antisemitism.’
It is this promptness and single-mindedness to defeat race hate and other forms of identity-based animosities that are expected of democratic governments in particular world wide. For example, is Sri Lanka’s NPP government willing to follow the Australian example? To put the record straight, no past governments of Sri Lanka initiated concrete measures to stamp out the evil of race hate as well but the present Sri Lankan government which has pledged to end ethnic animosities needs to think and act vastly differently. Democratic and progressive opinion in Sri Lanka is waiting expectantly for the NPP government’ s positive response; ideally based on the Australian precedent to end race hate.
Meanwhile, it is apt to remember that inasmuch as those forces of terrorism that target white communities world wide need to be put down their counterpart forces among extremist whites need to be defeated as well. There could be no double standards on this divisive question of quashing race and religious hate, among democratic governments.
The question is invariably bound up with the matter of expeditiously and swiftly advancing democratic development in divided societies. To the extent to which a body politic is genuinely democratized, to the same degree would identity based animosities be effectively managed and even resolved once and for all. To the extent to which a society is deprived of democratic governance, correctly understood, to the same extent would it experience unmanageable identity-bred violence.
This has been Sri Lanka’s situation and generally it could be stated that it is to the degree to which Sri Lankan citizens are genuinely constitutionally empowered that the issue of race hate in their midst would prove manageable. Accordingly, democratic development is the pressing need.
While the dramatic blood-letting on Bondi Beach ought to have driven home to observers and commentators of world politics that the international community is yet to make any concrete progress in the direction of laying the basis for an end to identity-based extremism, the event should also impress on all concerned quarters that continued failure to address the matters at hand could prove fatal. The fact of the matter is that identity-based extremism is very much alive and well and that it could strike devastatingly at a time and place of its choosing.
It is yet premature for the commentator to agree with US political scientist Samuel P. Huntingdon that a ‘Clash of Civilizations’ is upon the world but events such as the Bondi Beach terror and the continuing abduction of scores of school girls by IS-related outfits, for instance, in Northern Africa are concrete evidence of the continuing pervasive presence of identity-based extremism in the global South.
As a matter of great interest it needs mentioning that the crumbling of the Cold War in the West in the early nineties of the last century and the explosive emergence of identity-based violence world wide around that time essentially impelled Huntingdon to propound the hypothesis that the world was seeing the emergence of a ‘Clash of Civilizations’. Basically, the latter phrase implied that the Cold War was replaced by a West versus militant religious fundamentalism division or polarity world wide. Instead of the USSR and its satellites, the West, led by the US, had to now do battle with religion and race-based militant extremism, particularly ‘Islamic fundamentalist violence’ .
Things, of course, came to a head in this regard when the 9/11 calamity centred in New York occurred. The event seemed to be startling proof that the world was indeed faced with a ‘Clash of Civilizations’ that was not easily resolvable. It was a case of ‘Islamic militant fundamentalism’ facing the great bulwark, so to speak, of ‘ Western Civilization’ epitomized by the US and leaving it almost helpless.
However, it was too early to write off the US’ capability to respond, although it did not do so by the best means. Instead, it replied with military interventions, for example, in Iraq and Afghanistan, which moves have only earned for the religious fundamentalists more and more recruits.
Yet, it is too early to speak in terms of a ‘Clash of Civilizations’. Such a phenomenon could be spoken of if only the entirety of the Islamic world took up arms against the West. Clearly, this is not so because the majority of the adherents of Islam are peaceably inclined and want to coexist harmoniously with the rest of the world.
However, it is not too late for the US to stop religious fundamentalism in its tracks. It, for instance, could implement concrete measures to end the blood-letting in the Middle East. Of the first importance is to end the suffering of the Palestinians by keeping a tight leash on the Israeli Right and by making good its boast of rebuilding the Gaza swiftly.
Besides, the US needs to make it a priority aim to foster democratic development worldwide in collaboration with the rest of the West. Military expenditure and the arms race should be considered of secondary importance and the process of distributing development assistance in the South brought to the forefront of its global development agenda, if there is one.
If the fire-breathing religious demagogue’s influence is to be blunted worldwide, then, it is development, understood to mean equitable growth, that needs to be fostered and consolidated by the democratic world. In other words, the priority ought to be the empowerment of individuals and communities. Nothing short of the latter measures would help in ushering a more peaceful world.
-
News4 days agoMembers of Lankan Community in Washington D.C. donates to ‘Rebuilding Sri Lanka’ Flood Relief Fund
-
News2 days agoBritish MP calls on Foreign Secretary to expand sanction package against ‘Sri Lankan war criminals’
-
Business6 days agoBrowns Investments sells luxury Maldivian resort for USD 57.5 mn.
-
News5 days agoAir quality deteriorating in Sri Lanka
-
News5 days agoCardinal urges govt. not to weaken key socio-cultural institutions
-
Features6 days agoHatton Plantations and WNPS PLANT Launch 24 km Riparian Forest Corridor
-
Features6 days agoAnother Christmas, Another Disaster, Another Recovery Mountain to Climb
-
Features4 days agoGeneral education reforms: What about language and ethnicity?


