Connect with us

Features

Port City Project – Will it generate confidence amongst investors?

Published

on

By Raj Gonsalkorale

Sri Lankan politics has not witnessed bi-partisan agreement amongst the major political parties on key issues that impact on the people of the country, the present generations and many more to come.

There has never been bi-partisan agreement on foreign policy, on education, on health at least at the highest policy levels. Personality politics has dominated the political landscape and it has always been about the plaudits, or damage, a policy-decision might make on a personality and as a consequence on the party or parties that person represents, and eventually whether or not that individual or the party would win the next election, and ones after that.

This absence of bi-partisan agreement has now extended to one of Sri Lanka’s most daring, controversial to many and an out of the box venture, the Port City project. The absence of such agreement, and the statements made by the current Opposition that they will amend the Port Commission Bill is bound to unsettle many would-be investors. They will be wondering what would happen to their investments if the current regime is defeated at the next election and the terms and conditions in which they invested should change after four years or so. The investment period horizon would then be four years. It does not need an Einstein to conclude that investors would be very hesitant to invest in any long term project in such a climate.

The statement of the Opposition is not being questioned here as they have rightly said that although the constitutionality of the bill has been adjudicated by the Supreme Court, amendments made, but the policy contentions had not been addressed and amendments they had brought in had been rejected by the government. It is also not clear whether the amended bill, incorporated with the Supreme Court determined amendments, had been presented to the Parliament. The public certainly has not seen the amended bill.

 

Bona fides of Opposition

The bona fides of the current Opposition of course is questionable, as they were the government in 2016 when they signed a tripartite agreement with the China Harbour Engineering Company and the UDA to develop the Port City into what they termed the “Colombo International Financial City, which will be in the centre of the maritime city, will be one of the key phenomenon which will decide the future development of Sri Lanka” according to the then Megapolis Minister Champika Ranawaka at the signing of the tripartite agreement. He added that the project would also fuel the planned Maritime city, Aero city, Tech city, Industrial cities and Tourist cities. That agreement has not been made public to the best of the writer’s knowledge.

The Port City project and the Port City Commission are major undertakings that will bind many future generations to its positives, but more importantly to any possible negatives as well. It would not be out of place to say that the politics associated with this futuristic project could have been handled better in a more transparent and consultative manner.

In the first place, the origin of this project, the agreement signed with China, signed by the Presidents of China and Sri Lanka in 2014, to reclaim an area of the sea and to create a Port City, was not tabled in Parliament for discussion as far as can be ascertained.

Reports indicate that the project concept goes back to 2011 and construction was set to begin in March 2011 but due to several circumstances the project had been stopped. In mid-2012, the Sri Lankan Port Authority (SLPA) announced that the construction of the then Colombo Port City project would commence on 17 September 2014. The budget was estimated to be $15 billion.

The reclamation was to be carried out by China Harbour Engineering Corporation, who has been engaged by the investor. The land given to the government was 125 hectares (310 acres), as well as 88 hectares (220 acres), while owned by the government, was planned to be leased for 99 years to the Chinese company. Twenty hectares (49 acres) was planned to be given freehold to the Chinese company.

Construction of the Colombo Port City project was launched on 17 September 2014 by Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa and Chinese President Xi Jinping.

 

Sirisena-Wickremesinghe administration

The Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government that was elected in 2015 suspended the project on environmental grounds, but it is understood that this was granted approval again in 2016 having agreed to pay a penalty of USD 100 million to the Chinese company for the delay encountered in proceeding with construction as per a country to country agreement. It is learnt that in exchange for not paying this penalty, the Hambantota Harbour was sold or given on a long term 99-year lease virtually on a platter.

On August 12, 2016 the tripartite pact to construct a mega port city was signed between Sri Lanka’s Urban Development Authority, the Ministry of Megapolis and Western Development and the China Harbour Engineering Company, and as far as known, this agreement too has not been tabled before the Parliament.

With the signing of the agreement, the Colombo Port City Development Project was newly renamed the Colombo International Financial City with the government stating that the project would transform Sri Lanka into an international financial hub in the Indian Ocean region.

It is still not very clear as to the extent of land involved in this project as different extents have been mentioned in different agreements. It is also not clear whether whatever land extent has been registered with the land registry. Clarity on these will be useful.

While there is no indication that any of these two agreements had been tabled and ratified by Parliament, these two occasions are not the first time Parliament had not ratified binding agreements, if indeed they had been tabled in Parliament. The Ceasefire Agreement that Prime Minister Wickramasinghe signed with LTTE Leader Prabakaran in 2002 was not tabled in Parliament, and in fact not even known to the Executive President of the country at that time Chandrika Kumaratunga who saw the agreement after it had been signed by Wickramasinghe and Prabakaran. The consequences of that agreement are well known today.

In this backdrop comes the Port City Commission bill. While it is true that there was an opportunity for litigants to go before the Supreme Court to ascertain the validity of the bill with the Constitution, the people’s representatives, however low they are in their credibility in the eyes of the people, and neither the business community, and civil society leaders, were given an opportunity to consider the policy aspects of the bill in some depth and to work together to make it a national project of great importance to the country.

The SJB, and the residue of the UNP, as well as those who supported the Yahapalanaya government in 2016, cannot afford to oppose this bill in principle while they have the right to oppose sections of it if they differ with what they agreed to in 2016. As stated earlier, the writer stands corrected if the government and the Opposition could clarify to the public whether these important agreements were in fact discussed in Parliament and whether any attempt was made to have bi-partisan agreement on them. Besides being an important consideration for the public in Sri Lanka, it would be vital to generate confidence amongst would-be investors in the Port City project, for long term projects. Unless there can be such a bi-partisan agreement, it is unlikely that the objective of large and long term investments will be met in this project.

 

Philosophical arguments

While some may entertain philosophical arguments against the concept of the Port City, and suspicions and fears about China getting an extended foothold in Sri Lanka, it is also true that Sri Lanka needs to raise its economic platform if the future generations are to enjoy the opportunities they need and deserve in years to come. The current economic platform, based on Tea, Rubber, Coconut and other agricultural exports, Apparel and IT products and services exports, foreign remittances, and tourism, is very volatile and inadequate to meet future challenges associated with investments required for infrastructure development, service improvements and social upliftment.

 

Need for different approach

The longer term future of tea and rubber is uncertain, and foreign remittances may not be long lasting even once the COVID-19 pandemic subsides. Sri Lanka needs a different approach and lateral thinking on economic policies if it is to free itself from debt and generate enough revenue to service its infrastructure development and service improvements. Besides the Port City project, there is no other innovative project that has been presented for discussion that would address the future economic needs of the country. While the management of its politics has left much room for improvement and some policy aspects may need adjustment, the fact remains that there is nothing else on the table to compare it with.

While it is not a critique of the bill itself, as the writer feels that should be left to the politicians as well as experts who are more competent to do so, there are a few questions pertaining to the clauses 64 and 65 in the agreement that needs some clarification as there appears to be a legal provision in the bill to extend the authority of the Port Commission to land associated with projects approved by the Commission, beyond the reclaimed land area that constitutes the Port City. In addition, these clauses appear to make the Board of Investments (BOI) irrelevant and an unnecessary entity as all its activities, past, present and future could easily be managed by the Port Commission.

A. Firstly, what does section 65. (1) mean? It says, “from and after the date of commencement of this Act, all land comprising the Area of Authority of the Colombo Port City, shall be vested with the Commission in the manner set out in subsection (3)”. Subsection (3) reads as follows. “For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby stated that on the coming into operation of this Act, the President may, issue a Land Grant under the Crown Lands Ordinance (Chapter 454) in the name of the Commission, in respect of all land comprising the Area of Authority of the Colombo Port City as set out in Schedule I to this Act.”

Lease

It is understood that President Sirisena by way of a gazette notification granted a land deed for the reclaimed land in favour of the UDA as mentioned by Presidents counsel Jayantha Weerasinghe at a recent press conference. The land given to the UDA on this grant apparently was leased out to the Chinese company by the UDA in 2016.

Is it to be understood that as per section 65, the present President is giving another grant of the same land to the Port Commission under section 65 when the land is owned by the UDA and leased to the Chinese company? This convoluted situation may not be accurate, and it would be good if the government could clarify this.

None of these land deeds have been registered as far as known and therefore no one has been able to peruse them and ascertain the status of the grants and deeds. No wonder the Public is confused. It is also understood that the gazette which contains the deed signed by President Sirisena has the new plan as per the tripartite agreement under Cadastral system. It would be helpful if these documents are made available to the public. If the above confusion could be cleared, this subsection and what is referred to in Section 65 of the gazette notification looks harmless and innocuous if it is read as it is without any reference to any other Section.

B. However, a question does arise as to what this Section (65) and Subsection (3) mean in effect?

Is it that only the reclaimed land area referred to as the Port City, will be vested with the Commission? If not, what other land?

Some confusion and doubt does occur when it is read in conjunction with Section 64 which reads as follows. Clause 64

(1) The Commission may, where it considers necessary to do so, as an interim measure, permit an authorised person to engage in business from a designated location in Sri Lanka, outside the Area of Authority of the Colombo Port City, as may be approved by the President or in the event that the subject of the Colombo Port City is assigned to a Minister, such Minister, for a period not exceeding five years from the date of commencement of this Act. Such business shall, for such period of five years be entitled to all the privileges accorded to, and be deemed for all purposes to be, a business situated within and engaged in business, in and from, the Area of Authority of the Colombo Port City.

(2) Where an authorised person has been permitted to engage in business from a designated location in Sri Lanka, outside the Area of Authority of the Colombo Port City in terms of subsection (1), such business shall be subject to the provisions of this Act and any regulations made hereunder.

This Section raises two questions

1. Would such a project have to be approved by the Authority, meaning, will it have to be a new project and not an existing project? Does this not virtually open any part of the country for such a project to be located for five years? If so, effectively, the Authority has islandwide authority for five years for approved projects. In this event, what is the role of the BOI, and why should projects seek approval from the BOI?

2. When this is read in conjunction with Section 65 and subsection (3) does it mean that not only the reclaimed land but also any land allocated for an approved project for five years under clause 64 could also be vested with the Authority for five years with President issuing a Land Grant under the Crown Lands Ordinance (Chapter 454) in the name of the Commission?

C. Section 65, subsection (2) reads as follows – “Where any deed of transfer, indenture of lease, agreement or other similar document has been executed in respect of any land situated within the Area of Authority of the Colombo Port City, prior to the date of commencement of this Act, by the Urban Development Authority, established under the Urban Development Authority Law, No. 41 of 1978, such deed of transfer, lease, agreement or other similar document shall, from and after the date of the commencement of this Act, be deemed for all purposes to be a document executed by the Commission, in terms of the provisions of this Act and be valid and effectual as if executed hereunder.”

The Port Commission Act has just been passed by the Parliament. In relation to this clause, besides the land that was leased to the Chinese company by the UDA in 2016, is it to be understood that there are projects approved by the UDA or any other body on land within the Area of the Authority? Is this clause to be understood as extending to projects already approved by the UDA, with some projects located outside the Port City precincts (as per Section 64) the benefits referred to in Section 65?

It would be useful if the government tables a list of such projects so approved and their operational locations as the country has a right to know which project, located where, is to benefit from terms in Section 65.

These clauses, their meaning and effects need clarification as confusion does arise about the extent of authority the Port Commission has over land outside the Port city itself, even if it’s for five years. The potential does exist for the Port Commission to approve investment projects with say the headquarters office located in the Port City, but actual projects located anywhere else in the country, and enjoying all privileges and benefits accorded to the project irrespective of where its operations are located. Theoretically, far-fetched it may be, the possibility exists for hundreds of foreign companies to have their projects approved by the Port Commission, with their operations located in any part of the country. The consequences of this possibility needs to be considered especially from the point of view of the impact on local farmers (if the projects are agriculture based) or industrialists who will not enjoy the benefits enjoyed by projects registered with the Port Commission.

Considering all of above, the extraordinary powers granted to the President of the country to make far reaching and binding decisions on what may turn out to be a sizeable component of the country’s economy could have the potential to be detrimental rather than beneficial to the long term interests of the country should the Presidency be in the hands of a person not entirely suitable to hold that office. Avenues for greater accountability of decisions made by the Port Commission and the President of the country have to be considered from this point of view.



Features

Is power devolution under JVP-NPP a political daydream?

Published

on

Former President Chandrika Kumaratunga

The JVP General Secretary Tilvin Silva’s recent remarks at a news conference in Jaffna where he ruled out the possibility of holding provincial council elections this year has been widely reported and widely criticized. About the same time there was another media event in Jaffna that went largely unnoticed and unreported outside Jaffna. What was said at the second media event may carry far more political implications than Tilvin Silva’s election timing talk. A veteran Tamil political participant made the startling yet not implausible statement that the prospect of having political devolution under the JVP-NPP government is becoming “a daydream”. The statement was made by Dr. K. Vigneswaran, who served as Provincial Secretary to the only North-East Provincial Council Government that was elected under the auspices of the Thirteenth Amendment.

Dr. Vigneswaran is a Professional Civil Engineer who studied at Royal College, graduated with First Class Honours in Engineering in 1964, and went on to complete a pioneering PhD at the university of Waterloo, Canada, applying the finite element method (FEM) in the field of Geotechnical Engineering. His engineering career has always been at the Irrigation Department where he rose to a Deputy Director. That was when the department was in its golden years, and Vigneswaran was known for his technical mentorship, meticulous administrative skills, and for knowing the fine print of everything. While at the Irrigation Department, Vigneswaran married Ramya de Silva, a fellow irrigation Engineer. After 1983, Vigneswaran became a fulltime political activist and a powerful resource in Tamil politics, but with unwavering commitment to nonviolence, democracy and federalism. The family moved first to India and then Canada, and Vigneswaran has been shuttling between Canada and Sri Lanka.

Devolution: Tortuous Trajectory

Since 1987, the Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement, and the 13th Amendment, Vigneswaran has been a permanent fixture in all the politics and institutional dynamic of implementing 13A and establishing provincial councils. He served as Secretary to the only elected Provincial Government for the Northern and Eastern Provinces. After 1994 and the election of Chandrika Kumaratunga as President, Vigneswaran became a key participant in all the civil society efforts and government initiatives to restore the PCs and implement 13A, both during the Kumaratunga presidency and the succeeding administrations of Mahinda Rajapaksa and the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe duo.

Devolution efforts stalled after the election of Gotabaya Rajapaksa, who in so many words declared that he had no time for 13A or PCs in his presidential agenda, whatever it was. Only that his whole agenda turned out to be a wholesale disaster for the country. Already by then, all the nine Provincial Councils had fallen into abeyance with the cancellation of the 1988 PC elections by the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe duo, with the TNA standing by. The abeyance continues under the JVP-NPP government with no apparent end in sight after Tilvin de Silva’s statement in Jaffna.

I say all this to provide the proper context for Vigneswaran’s statement in Jaffna that the prospects for power devolution under the JVP-NPP government are becoming a political daydream. He said something else as well: that of all the government leaders he has encountered over the years, the only leader who has been genuinely sincere about power devolution is former President Chandrika Kumaratunga, and no one else. I am constrained to add that the insincere category would include Ranil Wickremesinghe, who for all his handsome promises, never matched any of them with experiential sincerity. The present JVP-NPP government still has time to show that they are not an insincere lot.

It is not my purpose to agree with or question Dr. Vigneswaran’s assertions, but to use them as cue and context to comment on the widening mismatch between the JVP-NPP government’s promises and its practices on the matter of power devolution and the restoration of the PC system. With a stalling economy, rising prices and external shocks, it is obvious that the government has all the economic matters to worry about, but that does not mean that it can ignore all the other government responsibilities. No government is put in power to solve a single problem or address a single issue. It is in the nature of governments to deal with multiple problems with varying priorities. Otherwise you could have a single cabinet minister to deal with one problem at a time. That is never going to be the case.

The economy is of course the top of mind priority for the government even as it is a top of mind concern for the people. Even on the economic front, the government is holding steady but is showing little progress. And there are other government initiatives where political accountability will call for answers: to wit, the catchall Clean Sri Lanka programme, ambitious educational reforms, contentious energy sector reforms and, yes, power devolution as well as the overpromised constitutional reforms. Not to mention the sprawling unforced errors over substandard coal imports, foreign exchange fraud, and the chronic neglect of developing the renewable energy sector. Correcting these fields of errors may require a separate ministry for each.

Devolution: Daydream or Deliverable

On the PC system and constitutional reform, there has been scant progress in spite of handsome promises. On both, the government is inadvertently deepening the holes that it had dug itself into through indifference, inaction or procrastination, or all of them and more. In the matter of devolution and provincial councils, the government can simply defuse the situation by directing the Election Commission to conduct elections at the earliest opportunity that is logistically possible. Making his statement in Jaffna, Mr. Tilvin Silva alluded to funding shortfall and legal complications as reasons for the necessity to postpone PC elections until next year. Neither reason holds water.

The funding question would seem to have been put to rest by the statement of Health Minister and Cabinet Spokesman Nalinda Jayatissa, presumably reflecting cabinet consensus, that there are no funding issues and if needed additional funds could be arranged through supplementary allocations. It is also disingenuous to cite legal complications as a reason. The so called legal complications arose because of the collective stupidity of the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe parliament that included the then miniscule NPP and the politically-lost TNA. The JVP-NPP has now ballooned from a handful MPs to a two-thirds majority and it can expedite any legislation that it wants to enable the PC elections to be held without delays.

Alternatively, the elections can be held under the old arrangement of proportional representation with assurance by political parties to honour their commitment to fielding more female candidates. Already at a gathering of all political parties, including the NPP (but not the JVP), and civil society groups, convened by People’s Action For Free & Fair Elections (PAFFREL), the political parties jointly committed to a 25% quota for women and youth under the old electoral system. The ongoing parliamentary committee exercise studying the legal matter, headed by the overstretched Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath, is also an unnecessary red herring. The Election Commission is ready to go under whatever law or electoral system that is before it. So, there is no reason to hide behind legal complications to further delay the PC elections.

Somewhat amusingly, Public and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Ananda Wijepala has trotted out the argument that the NPP government has already conducted two nationwide elections during the one and a half years it has been in office, and that unlike the Ranil Wickremesinghe government the JVP-NPP is not in the business “to delay elections for our personal benefit” – whatever that means. Unfortunately, the good minister is missing the point. The question is not how many elections can the JVP-NPP hold in how many years, but how many years do people in the provinces have to wait before they vote in another provincial election? How many more years? That really is the question.

We know the current situation in the provinces. There are provincial governments but no elected provincial councils. The government administration in every province is being run by the President of the Republic through his handpicked governors and unelected government officials. This is a travesty of democracy and the euthanizing of the PC system. Already under 13A, the office of the provincial governors has been constitutionally and legally compared to the office of the Governors of old Ceylon who represented the monarch in what was then a crown colony. The irony is that a JVP-NPP President may have inadvertently positioned himself as the monarch of all he provincially surveys, courtesy of the Thirteenth Amendment!

The JVP was in the forefront of the litigation that caused the demerger of the Northern and Eastern Provinces. If Dr. Vigneswaran’s assertion were to prove correct, a potential dissolution of the provincial system under the JVP-NPP government would be the consummation of the JVP’s original opposition to the introduction of the provincial council system itself. The whole system may not be eradicated, but it could be devoured of its democratic essence while preserving the administrative shell as the medium for the country’s president to overreach into the provinces. That would be worse than a daydream, a real nightmare.

by Rajan Philips ✍️

Continue Reading

Features

‘Spectrum’ Art Exhibition Showcases Emerging Talent at Lionel Wendt

Published

on

A new art exhibition, titled Spectrum ,will be held at the Lionel Wendt Art Centre on the 20th and 21st of June 2026, bringing together a collection of works by ten emerging artists.

Athsara Wijegunawardena

Neha Thirumavalavan

Dillai Joseph

Wasantha Siriwardena

Champika Dias

Nipun Dias

Dr. Prasanna Siriwardena

Kalhari Perera

Siromi Samarasinghe

Chandana Illankone

All ten artists have trained under the guidance of renowned Sri Lankan artist Royden Gibbs, and this exhibition marks an important point in their individual journeys.

Dr. Prasanna Siriwardena

Spectrum brings together a mix of styles, subjects and approaches, giving visitors a chance to experience a wide range of work in one place. The exhibition will include pieces in watercolors, soft pastels, oils and charcoal, reflecting both the discipline and personal direction of each artist. The work ranges from scenery and portraits to still life and studies of the human form, offering different ways of seeing and interpreting familiar subjects.

Dillai Joseph

Although they share the same mentor, each artist presents a distinct point of view. The result is a show that feels varied yet connected, with each piece carrying its own character and intent. It is this balance that gives Spectrum its identity.

The exhibition aims to support and highlight emerging talent within Sri Lanka’s art scene, while also creating a space where artists and audiences can connect. Visitors will find work that shifts between quiet observation and more expressive pieces, making it an engaging experience for both seasoned collectors and those simply interested in art.

Spectrum is expected to draw art lovers, collectors, students and members of the wider creative community. It also offers an opportunity to discover and support new artists at an early stage in their careers.

Open to the public over two days, Spectrum invites visitors to experience a range of work in a venue that has long been part of Colombo’s cultural landscape.

Continue Reading

Features

Rewiring Brain: Meditation to Break the Cycle of Craving

Published

on

“Craving begets sorrow, craving begets fear. For him who is free from craving there is no sorrow; how can there be fear for him,” Dhammapada verse 216 states. The mental factor craving, Tanha in Pali, is central to Buddhist Teaching, as its ultimate goal is the cessation or extinction of it—tanhakkhaya. Even though Tanha is translated as craving here, it can sometimes mislead modern readers into thinking tanha only refers to extreme or physical addictions. Just as with any Pali term, it has broad meanings. Venerable Walpola Rahula describes it as “thirst” or unceasing wanting, one of the deep-rooted proclivities or latent tendencies (anusaya) of life (Rahula 1959), without which life as we know would not exist.

Even though the Buddha recognized this natural phenomenon two and a half millennia ago, it was only in the late 20th century that science took note of it and gave it a captivating term—the Hedonic Treadmill. The advantage of this empirical investigation to us Buddhists is that it provides a way to gain penetrative, experiential comprehension (anubodha) of this concept using the vernacular of this technology-savvy age—an alternative to struggling with the language of a bygone era.

These investigations have revealed that there are no hard-to-comprehend metaphysical or mysterious elements involved with this phenomenon; it is a biochemical process fundamental to sustaining life. What is more, an effort to grasp this concept would be well within the goals of Vipassana meditation described in the Sutta Pitaka, incorporating the four elements of investigation: body (kayanupassana), sensations (vedananupassana), mind (chittanupassana), and natural laws (dhammanupassana).

Vipassana and modern science

Vipassana meditation is an in-depth exploration of how humans perceive the world, gain knowledge, and interact with themselves and the environment. Knowing this with wisdom allows one to lead a harmonious way of life (samadhi), a condition conducive to curbing the “thirst” and achieving the Buddhist ideal. The goal of modern science is also to investigate life, but humanity has often used that knowledge to increase material wealth and comfort, providing only lip service to spirituality on the fringe.

An attitude that tends to ignore the consequences of wanting more and more – thirst, potentially endangering the planet. However, that does not prevent us from using scientific information as and aid or a tool to grasp Buddhist concepts. The scientific method bears parallels to the Buddhist approach: it is based on causality (paticcasamuppada), empirical verification (ehipassiko), systematic observation (meditation), and rejecting dogma and beliefs. The primary difference is simply the vocabulary used.

The process of perception: five aggregates

Our five external sense organs receive data (vedana) containing information on the environment: Eyes: receive light, Ears: receive sound, Skin: senses physical contact and temperature, Nose & Tongue: sense chemical properties of substances. The data received by the sense organs is transmitted to the brain, where it is registered as neural networks (sanna). Neural networks, which are interconnected groups of nerve cells (neurons) can be viewed as mind-readable QR codes.

The activity of the brain, or mind (mano), processes this data and converts them into actionable information (sankhara). Modern neuroscience and psychology have made great advances in understanding these processes at the molecular level. This process allows the individual to become aware of their environment, build an autobiographical memory or the notion of a self (atta), and take actions to protect and perpetuate life.

The Pali term vinnana refers to the collection of information committed to memory. Translating vinnana as “consciousness” can be confusing, as the latter often refers to all brain activities. All physical phenomena that sense organs encounter and the mental constructs (sankhara) are referred to as Rupa. This activity of mind forms the basis of all knowledge, representing the entire world as perceived by the individual. This process is what the Teaching refers to as the Five Aggregates (pancakkhanda). The critical takeaway is that the world we perceive is merely a mental construct. While an objective world exists, our sense organs have limitations in seeing it—a fact easily realized through the hundreds of illusions used for entertainment.

Evolution and emotion

The evolutionary purpose of this data processing mechanism is to enable living beings to respond to environmental factors for survival. The psychological and physiological state that arises prior to acting is called emotion. Primarily, emotions can be of three kinds: desire (loba) – seeing a new phone causes an urge to buy it, even though the current one works fine; aversion (dosha) – encountering a vicious dog triggers a “fight or flight” response; delusion (moha) or illusion – an unanswered message to a loved one triggers worry or speculation. Thus, tanha or thirst represents how we connect to the world in its entirety; it can be desire, aversion, and delusion, not merely simple greed. Consequently, these are natural phenomena beyond our immediate control, which are intended to sustain life. In other words, emotions are the forerunner to volitions or intentions, which the Teaching defines as kamma.

The biochemistry of craving

Emotions result from the interaction between the nervous system and biochemicals known as neurotransmitters and neuromodulators (e.g., dopamine, serotonin, epinephrine, GABA, glutamate, acetylcholine, and endorphins). Just as the Buddha’s simile of two bundles of bamboo supporting each other describes, these two processes are interdependent and co-arising. Every thought or emotional state corresponds to patterns of neural firing. When neurons fire, they release these chemicals into synapses, influencing how one feels and acts. This release perturbs the body’s normal balance, or homeostasis. Once an action is complete, these chemicals are reabsorbed, and the body returns to its baseline.

Return to baseline is essential for survival. For example, if we stay satisfied with just one meal forever, we could not sustain life. Nature has developed another mechanism to prevent us from being satisfied – we also habituate. In the case of dopamine, the brain adapts by reducing the response to the same stimulus. To get the same level of satisfaction with repeated experiences, the amounts of neurotransmitters needed keeps increasing. This leads to the cycle of craving and dissatisfaction—the Hedonic Treadmill. You “run” toward happiness on the treadmill, but it does not take you anywhere, leaving you in the same emotionally unsatisfactory state, wanting more and more.

Breaking the cycle

This explains why achievements and possessions do not bring permanent happiness, and lead to a cycle of struggle, addiction, crime, and other ills of society. For Buddhists, it also explains why we cling to meaningless rituals. The Dhamma captured this complex phenomenon in the Four Noble Truths: pleasant experiences are impermanent (anicca), leading to grasping (tanha) and unsatisfactoriness (dukkha). The remedy is the Eightfold Path that involves wisdom (panna), conduct (sila), and harmony (samadhi).

Neuroplasticity and the point of liberation

While we cannot stop the sense organs from receiving stimulation (vedana) and sending them to brain, the mind can be developed to prevent vedana from leading to tanha. This is the “point of liberation,” the seventh link in the paticcasamuppada formula. We may not have free will, but we have ‘Free Won’t’ or the ability to say no to the natural tendency to act upon stimuli. We can rewire our neural connections to do so. This ability can be cultivated by practice and repetition, and neuroscience refers to it as neuroplasticity—the brain’s ability to change with experience.

The natural tendency of the brain is to strengthen frequently used neural networks while weakening and eliminating lesser used networks and building new ones as needed. This is known as neural plasticity or rewiring the brain. As described in the Eight-fold Path, the way to weaken and eliminate dopamine-driven neural networks includes three aspects. First, the process leading to thirst must be understood. One must engage in sila – activities and thoughts that cultivate Metta: loving-kindness and goodwill, Karuna: compassion, Mudita: appreciative joy, and Upekkha: equanimity, emotional stability, calmness, and evenness of mind in the face of gain and loss, praise and blame, fame and disrepute, pleasure, and pain. That must be done with wisdom, ritualistic behavior does not strengthen the correct neural networks. These activities promote a “cocktail” of oxytocin, serotonin, and GABA, subduing the role of dopamine and helping us step off the Hedonic Treadmill. This leads to a tranquil state of mind and a harmonious existence – samadhi. Again, it is an interdependent, co-arising process that improves upon repetition. Using mind altering substances hijacks this process, thus the need for adhering to the Fifth Precept.

The goal of Vipassana is to understand this process and train the mind to say “no” to tanha. It is not just about sitting on a mat; it requires developing a lifestyle that maintains homeostasis or harmony, samadhi, at every moment. Pali term bhavana means the development of wisdom and insight. In modern vernacular – rewiring brain. This model must be assessed for its efficacy by the individual and realize the benefits by themselves –ehipassiko; knowledge without practice does not work. According to what the Buddha taught, that is the path to cessation or extinction of craving – tanhakkhaya, the supreme goal.

by Geewananda Gunawardana, Ph.D. ✍️

Continue Reading

Trending