Connect with us

Sat Mag

Sigiriya was a monastic complex

Published

on

Reply to Gananath Obeyesekere

by Raja de Silva

 

Obeyesekere, Gananath 2019.
The Buddha in Sri Lanka Histories and Stories.
London: Routledge. 336 pp.

The author [GO], an eminent anthropologist, has rejected the evidence (archaeological and literary) that I depended on in my interpretation (de Silva, Raja 2002, 155 pp) of the meaning of Sigiriya and its paintings: that the site was a monastic complex and the paintings were representations of the goddess Tara. He has criticized my thesis (1) by resorting to assertions, several untrue and the rest of no merit and (2) by asking rhetorical questions. He has mentioned without criticism the interpretation of Sigiriya by Siri Gunasinghe (SG) (2008), his friendly colleague of the Peradeniya University. SG’s thesis is that (1) Kassapa built a palace at Sigiriya, and was the patron of the paintings, (2) that the paintings do not represent the goddess Tara, but depict nondescript beautiful women. It should be noted that (1) above is the unquestioning acceptance of that story in the 13th century literary work, the Mahavamsa (Mhv.) regarding the alleged building activity of Kassapa I, datable to the 6th/7th century. All the archaeological evidence at the monumental complex, which is to the contrary, has been ignored by SG and GO.

My later study of the many aspects of the Sigiriya paintings (de Silva, Raja 2009. 220 pp) does not seem to have come to GO’s notice; there, I gave a detailed response to the stand taken by Siri Gunasinghe, and described it as a flimsy tissue of untenable conjectures (pp. 175-183).

This is an appropriate place to record the most notable of GO’s assertions and give my comments on them.

Assertion 1. GO states (2019, p.146), regarding my attitude to the reliability of the Mhv.

‘Raja de Silva rejects the Mahavamsa totally’.

Comment 1. What I did state about the Mhv. is (to quote from de Silva, 2002, p. 7)

‘Considering the pattern of omission of historical facts demonstrated above, it is evident that the Mhv. Cannot be relied upon to be an authentic record of secular history in the absence of other corroborative material’. (emphasis added)

GO’ s assertion, therefore, is not true.

Assertion 2. Furthermore, GO states (p. 148)

‘Gunasinghe does not deny all of the Mahavamsa story as de Silva does. For example, he agrees that Kashyapa established two monasteries in honour of his two daughters and himself’.

Comment 2. This is a distortion of what I have written (See Comment, above; Sig. & Signif. 2002, p. 9 1.4). 1 have not denied the Mhv. story of the religious works of Kassapa I, and I did mention (before Gunasinghe, 2008) his building of two viharas named after his daughters.

‘Kassapa built a vihara in the garden known as the Niyyanti Garden and named this vihara too after his daughters (Mhv.’39, v. 14)’.

Assertion 3. GO has commented on my attitude to the Mhv.vis-a-vis my interpretation that Sigiriya was no pleasure dome, capital, fortress of Kassapa I, but a monastic complex (p.149). His assertions as numbered by me are

i. ‘Paranavitana’s main hypothsis is that Sigiriya was a cosmic-city modelled on the basis of Kuvera’s palace’.

ii. ‘De Silva’s basic thesis wipes out the Mahavamsa account from the slate’

iii. ‘Kashyapa in this [de Silva’s] account becomes a kind of nonentity’.

iv. ‘The actual monastic complexes were pre and post Kashyapa’

Comments. 3. i. GO is referring here, with approval, to Paranavitana’s long paper entitled Sigiriya, the abode of a god-king (JRAS(CB) 1 n.s., 129 – 183. But here is the rub: GO does not refer to my paper (de Silva, Raja 2005, 223 – 240) where I criticized in detail Paranavitana’s god-king theory. This assertion, therefore is of no value.

3, ii, iii, iv. My monastic interpretation of Sigiriya does not entail denying the Mhv. in toto, but only where the compiler writes of a grand palace for Kassapa I on the summit. To explain, let me quote from my thesis (Sigiriya and its Significant, p. 11)

‘The Mhv. has recorded that Kassapa I built a vihara in Sigiriya and named it after himself and his two daughters. All these literary records (detailed above) indicate that Buddhist shrines existed on and around the Sigiriya rock before, during and after the rule of Kassapa 1’.

Furthermore, I have conceded there that, as recorded in the Mhv., Kassapa I had built a surrounding wall, a lion-staircase house, and a vihara. I discussed the question of the palace Kassapa I was stated to have built, and concluded (ibid. pp. 12, 13, 14)

‘It is reasonable to conclude, from the foregoing critical look at the references in the Mhv, that the story of a palace on the summit of the Rock cannot be true’

The assertions made by GO have no merit.

Assertion 4. Regarding my interpretation of Sigiriya as being a monastic complex, GO has asserted

‘On the face of it Raja de Silva’s argument that Sigiriya was a monastic complex is a persuasive one.’

Let’s face it, GO has softened the blow, but the fact remains that he has shown his hand: intrinsically, he has summarily rejected my thesis. I have spent much thoughtful time (Sigiriya and its Signifiance: 5 – 14; 63 – 65) on the evidence of the literary record, and (ibid: 15 – 62) on the archaeological evidence at the site, to show that Sigiriya is a monastic complex.

GO has not given reasons for his rejection; instead of meeting my arguments, he has posed two questions (the second in exasperation), given below, that I am prepared to answer:

i. ‘If indeed Sigiriya was entirely a monastic complex and in general the Mahavamsa extols such achievements, why did it ignore this case, especially because Sigiriya was a combination of both Mahayana and Theravada according to de Silva?

ii. ‘And why on earth did they focus instead on Kashyapa?

Comment 4. i. The Mhv. did not ignore the case of Sigiriya from the religious point of view. My Sigiriya and its Significance 2002: 10 shows that 2/3ds of the page is devoted to Mhv. records of Mahayana-Theravada viharas built by several kings at Sigiriya.

ii. Gott im Himmel! Careful reading of the Mhv. would show that far from focussing on Kassapa I, instead of on Sigiriya (as GO wails) the Mhv. compiler has recorded works of this king at Sigiriya (See Comment 2 and 3.ii,iii, and iv, above).

The assertions made above, disguised as rhetorical questions, are shown to have no basis.

Assertion 5. GO has published further critical assertions about my monastic complex – interpretation of Sigiriya. He has stated (Buddha in SL: 150)

`If indeed Sigiriya was a monastic complex, how does one reconcile the wonderful gardens with its many ponds and fountains with the ascetic tradition that our author thinks was characteristic of his version of Buddhism T (question mark included by me).

Comment 5. This is another distortion of what I have stated (Sigiriya and its Significance: 52). 1 have not stated that the ascetic tradition was characteristicof my version of Buddhism (at Sigiriya). To the contrary, I stated

‘The terraces of the cave shrines which have been in occupation for more than a millennium, show development (emphasis added) from the initial residential quarters for ascetic monks to serve larger purposes connected with the introduction of Mahayanist forms worship of dagobas, the Buddha and female bodhisattva statues and statuettes, and the rituals connected thereto’.

Elsewhere (ibid:106, 123), 1 have described the abode of Tara, Mount Potala, with its forested trees bearing fruit, creepers, fragrant flowers, frequented by birds and cooled by water-falls. I have also shown that Sigiriya (taken symbolically as an island) with its gardens, parklands, thickly wooded areas difficult of access, intricate water-ways and fountains, fits the description of Mount Potala; I have concluded that the significance of Sigiriya is that it was another Mount Potala, the abode of Tara.

I have also shown (ibid.: 63 — 65), that literary light shed on ancient viharas shows that they had beautifully laid-out gardens.

Assertion 6(1) GO has criticized (Buddha in SL, p. 150) my detailed identification of the Sigiriya paintings with the goddess Tara; I had done this by utilizing the known iconography of Tara (as given in several Mahayana sacred texts) with such information elicited from a study of the Sigiriya paintings. GO’s view of iconography for this purpose is that ‘We must, I think, be cautious in our interpretation of iconography’.

He goes on to recommend that one should be able to show the resemblance of the Sigiriya Taras to other Taras; that one ought to be able to demonstrate that this iconographic representation of Tara can be verified on the basis of similar archaeological features in the record of of South Asia.

Comment 6(1). Since I have not done as he would have wished, he says that the female figures have to be taker} faith as those of Tara. This is an example of the difference between the two cultures – the scientific attitude on the one hand ,,and the arts and humanities on the other, as descried by CP Snow, the scientific writer. 1, having been educated in the scientific attitude, believe that the simplest theory is the best: it is a fact that n established iconographic features peculiar to Tara (as stated in sacred books of the Mahayana Buddhist pantheon are identical with n of the same features seen in the Sigiriya paintings. I shall be specific for the information of a reader who has not seen my book titled Sigiriya paintings ntings (2009: 96 – 122). 1 have identified there ten special iconographic features showing such identity, i.e., n 10. 1 have also shown, earlier, that

‘The similarity between Mount Potala and Sigiriya is derived from design. The significance of Sigiriya, then, is that it was another Mourit Potala, the abode of Tara’.

 

– Sigiriya and its Significance 2002: 123

It is safe to take it that these items of identity with characteristics of Tara are not accidental but have been introduced into the Sigiriya paintings by design, and the paintings represent Tara.

Besides, the greater the number of paintings there are in which these traits of the Tara iconography are to be seen, the greater is the confidence in my mind, that the paintings do represent Tara; and in Sigiriya, there are to, be seen many such paintings in the fresco pockets and and elsewhere (24 figures).

There is no need for me, then, to go to other countries for comparison in order to further support my case. See NA Jayawickrama (2002) and Richard Gombrich (2002) for their approving comments on my thesis. So, GO is loath to accept my interpretation, which he criticizes.

He takes the step of using euphemistic language to induce readers not to readily accept my reasoning: he warns them to be wary about the usefulness of iconography, i.e., to be cautious about accepting my conclusion (Buddha in SL, p. 150). Thus, he sidelines my interpretation, which is based on iconography, the only way an art critic can identify the (human) subject of an ancient paint ng that is not named by the artist concerned.

GO’s attempt to devalue the usefulness of iconography in art criticism is baseless.

Assertion 6(2). GO asserts (Buddha in SL, 150) that there is, for me, an insurmountable hurdle concerning my Tara-interpretation:

‘He refers to Mount Potala as the abode of Tara which is true: but we know that Tara’s consort is Avalokitesvara and he is indeed the main deity in Potala and in most of Mahayana. There is no mention of Avalokitesvara in the famed monastic complex of Sigiriya, supposedly strongly influenced by Mahayana, according to de Silva.’

Comment 6(2). 1 cannot accept GO”s argumentum ex silentio (that there being no mention of Avalokitesvara, the paintings cannot be of Tara) for the following reasons.

Though Tara and Avalokitesvara both have their abode in Mount Potala, Tara who was early recognized an assocate of Avalokitesvara and a bodhisattva gradually became known as a goddess (“in the seventh century Tara is established as a deity in her own right, and is said in particular to save devotees from eight great fears “(Paul Williams 2009: 225, which GO has noted in his biblgraphy); Miranda Shaw 2006: 314 states “Literary sources, too, trace a rapid expansion of interest in Tara, first as an associate of Avalokitesara and then as an object of reverence in her own right’. Oral traditions in religious practice existed for several centuries before they were put down in writings, as shown by AK Coomaraswamy (1932) 1994: 97. Thus, hymns to Tara written down in the 7’1′ century would have been in oral usage several centuries earlier, just as much as the the hymn about Tara composed by Matrceta in the time of King Kanishka co. AC 218 – 151 would have been known and chanted for several centuries before being put down in writing (See Sigiriya and its Significance 2002: 90. Therefore, we can take it that when the paintings were done in Sigiriya (co mid-6th century AC Tara was being worshipped in her own right (See ibid. 2002: 107 – 115 on dating of the paintings),

GO’s complaint that there is no mention of Avalokitesvara in my interpretation is of no value.

Concluding Comments

The accumulated archaeological evidence unearthed from more than a century of fieldwork at Sigiriya, and reported in ASCAR, was used by me (together with evidence from ancient Buddhst literature) in interpreting the meaning of the vast complex: it is a series of Buddhist monasteries. GO has presumed to dismiss this thesis without devoting even one sentence to considering/ appreciating this major archaeological and literary evidence.

I say to GO in the slightly altered words of Alexander Pope (18th century)

Know then thyself, presume not Goddess to scan, The proper study of mankind is Man.



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sat Mag

Notes on a not-so radical class

Published

on

By Uditha Devapriya

A little over a year ago, Devani Jayathilaka, the Gampaha Division Wildlife Officer now on a crusade against the government, stood up to a State Minister and got away with it. Objecting to Sanath Nishantha’s proposal to build a children’s playground on forest land, she stood her ground even as the Minister and his acolytes attempted to intimidate her.

Videos of Devani retorting to Nishantha and those acolytes gained supporters across social media. Public opinion being very much with her, the government quickly began feting her: Bandula Gunawardena said that the Cabinet took her side, and S. M. Chandrasena regretted the incident while half-heartedly exonerating the Minister.

Devani Jayathilaka’s courage was seen at the time as a symptom of the President’s resolve to make the bureaucracy more independent and efficient, free of bias and politicisation. As such, supporters of the government jumped on the bandwagon. The Daily News dedicated an entire editorial to her, calling her “the toast of all environmentalists, nature lovers and generally all those who cherish our country’s legal and constitutional integrity.” Hopefully, the laudatory piece concluded, “this signal act… will be a beacon to others in the public service to do their bit in fulfilling their public duty while resisting the pressures of politicians.” The subtext was unmistakably clear: the President’s reformism had empowered the officer’s activism.

A year later, and here we are: the premature love affair aborted, the feeling of celebration dampened. Yet could one have expected otherwise? At no point here in living memory have environmental concerns permeated every layer of society, from Colombo’s civil society to Sinhala nationalist outfits, as they are now. A broad conjuncture of oppositional forces, some drawn from organisations that fuelled the ideology which brought the government to power (such as the Sinhale movement), has pitted itself against that government’s apathy over the environment, while social media continues to enthrone activists: environmentalists and state officials. The President’s men, meanwhile, seem to be resorting to a policy of either ignoring or retorting to these voices. In both cases, it’s the government that has lost out.

It is hard not to side with the activists. They have a point: no regime has engaged properly with the environment. Between 2017 and 2019, forest cover reduced from 29.7% to 16.5%. It was the yahapalana government, remnants of which are tweeting against the present regime’s environmental record now, that held

the reins of power then. Yet the administration before it was no different: in 2012, to give just one example, roughly 1,585 hectares of primary forest land were lost, the biggest annual loss in a decade. The numbers for 2020 and 2021 have not been released yet, but there’s no doubting they are as big as, if not bigger than, these figures; according to the Rain Forest Protectors of Sri Lanka, forest cover stands at 17%, above what it was in 2019, but well below the 30% promised by the president.

The politics of the campaigns against the government, however, goes well beyond a simple dichotomy between political representatives and wildlife activists. Frustratingly enough, it’s not easy to put a finger on the dynamics of these protests, to draw a line between protagonists and antagonists within them, not least of all because a simple twofold division – government versus us – has been replaced by a threefold one in them: the government (high level officials included) on one side, activists and officials on another, and us on yet another.

Led by a mostly Sinhala and Buddhist lower middle-class, including the clergy (no less than the Sinhala Ravaya), these campaigns, which have mobilised activists and officials, appear to have unearthed a rather interesting contradiction from within that middle-class: a distrust of political representatives, and an ambivalent attitude towards lower level officials. To identify this contradiction for what it is, and explore it, is not easy: that requires research, the mettle of an anthropologist or ethnographer, and I am neither. Yet from what little I have been able to gather, it appears that this recent spurt of activism has facilitated a shift in the character of anti-state activism, particularly in its class composition. How so?

Devani’s message resonates profoundly with a section of the country’s upward aspiring middle-class, educated mostly in Sinhala but idealising a better life: one to which they feel both government representatives and private interests are obstacles.

They hold contrasting views regarding the state. As far as the government proper – Ministers plus high level officials – is concerned, they are against it. It’s a different story with officials, not least because of the latter a great many hail from the milieu they do: Sinhala educated and upward aspiring. This is the demographic Patali Champika Ranawaka is targeting through his “43 Senankaya”, a demographic parties have not tried to court until fairly recently.

What explains their relationship with the state? Regarding government representatives, their opposition is easy to rationalise: most of these representatives are seen to have risen to where they are now by foul means, not fair. That irks an educated middle-class bereft of political or economic power; simply put, they feel hard done by, left out, unrepresented.

Such feelings of distrust cut through parties; indeed, a defining characteristic of the middle-class is the absence of a unifying political ideology. Any Opposition which believes that by coming to power on the strength of their convictions it can expect support from them forever is therefore walking on water, for this lower middle-class happens to be adamantly protean. It is their protean character, incidentally, that explains their response to state officials.

Their view of the latter is borne out by two main considerations: that they hail from the same class background, and that, since of late, these officials have taken up arms against political authorities, a group whose actions are seen as burdening the lower middle-class.

Indeed, far from berating officials like they berate political authorities, the lower middle-class rebelling against the regime share a desire to enter the bureaucracy as either professionals or administrators, though through education attainment, and not political backing. This desire is essentially a retread of the demand made by unemployed graduates: they want to fill a post in a state institution as soon as they leave university. Under Gotabaya Rajapaka their integration into the bureaucracy has been remarkably rapid: by September last year, for instance, around 60,000 graduates had been absorbed into the Public Service, as part of his “Rata Wenuwen Weda” programme. Yet even this rather modest realisation of lower middle-class aspirations has failed to dampen, or stunt, lower middle-class opposition to his government.

To sum up, what we are seeing here is a division between state officials, assumed to have entered the government through merit, and political representatives, assumed to have entered it through influence. That Devani Jayathilaka continues to be idealised by this class therefore points at the consolidation of a uniquely petty bourgeois consciousness, which at once aspires upward in the bureaucracy, and pits itself against the government overseeing the bureaucracy. Gravitating to meritocratic ideals, they have become a huge floating electorate.

This raises another point: their disavowal of party politics. Let’s not mistake karawala for mallum here, however; the line this milieu touts, that they lack party ideology, should not mislead one into thinking that they can’t be co-opted into any party ideology. For those who believe that a non-political middle-class rebelling against an elected government, even one infringing every other norm in the book, is incapable of political manoeuvring, the case of Anna Hazare offers a counterargument: opposed to political groups, what Hazare achieved in the end was an electoral landslide for just such a group, Narendra Modi’s BJP.

By no means am I saying that Anna Hazare was/is to India what officials crusading against political representatives are/will be to Sri Lanka. Yet not unlike Hazare, these officials have given what little of an Opposition that’s there in the country some much needed ammunition (with which to topple the government). Far from welcoming such a state of affairs, I see two problems with this: the lack of a proper policy on the environment from the Opposition (apart from a few perfunctory protests), and the risk of letting what environmentalists are combating continue under a future administration led by that Opposition. As environmentalists and Left activists have pointed out only too clearly, much of what is being protested against, including the Sinharaja debacle, can be traced back to the yahapalana period. How wise would it be to trust the party that held the cards then so much as to return them to power now?

To these two problems one can add a third: the contradiction between the social conditioning and the activism of the middle-class. That contradiction translates itself into another: between political ideals that pit this middle-class against political authority, and social aspirations that orient them towards personal achievement in education and employment.

One can ask why this is a problem, why it’s so problematic. In matters of political concern, so the idealists say, personal matters are of no relevance.

But that’s precisely the issue. How pertinent are one’s personal aspirations to one’s political inclinations? Not pertinent, some would say; pretty pertinent, in my book.

That leads us to a crucial issue, the most important to crop up from what we’re seeing today: the extent to which those leading the protests are willing to own up to how class aspirations, and not just state complicity, have contributed to environmental degradation.

Let me reduce this to a simple query: how much do you attribute everything wrong with the environment to the government’s doing and non-doing, and how much do you attribute it to, say, our propensity to import, a major factor in environmental degradation?

To be fair, of course, it’s not only imports. The truth is that degradation of the environment is linked inextricably to an economic model rooted in consumerism and urbanisation.

But that merely reinforces my point: consumerism is promoted by the private sector, and urbanisation by the public, because both have an audience: the same middle-class blaming the government for what’s happening to our forests, our rivers, our way of life.

To restate this as simply as I can, then, the problems of environmental degradation today are the result of a decades-long experiment with capitalism and neoliberalism that has failed. The crisis is thus a crisis of a consumerist and exploitative model based on a capitalist framework. Now no critique of what is happening to our forests can evolve without taking this model into consideration. As perhaps its biggest beneficiaries, the middle-class must hence recognise the need to formulate an alternative model to it, in line with their activist inclinations.

However, in continuing to ignore if not marginalise this need, those taking the government to task over the environment are offering an inadequate response, radical enough to question the regime for its failings, yet not radical enough to question our embracement of an acquisitive, consumption-led economic model that has contributed to the quagmire we are in. Now I hate gazing into crystal balls, but if this is what will continue in the future, then these protests, no matter how laudable, will someday, somehow, fizzle out. That would be a pity.

The writer can be reached at udakdev1@gmail.com

Continue Reading

Sat Mag

CELEBRATING EARTH DAY: THE VOICE OF THE NEXT GENERATION

Published

on

Our world needs transformational change, and it is time for us, those of the present generation to hold ourselves accountable for our role in the environmental crisis while also calling for bold, creative, and innovative solutions. This year marks the 51st anniversary of Earth Day and this Webinar is designed to commemorate the occasion and to support the worldwide efforts to conserve and revitalize the environment of the blue planet that is our home. If we are to succeed, we must listen to the children who will link hands from around the world during this webinar and voice their concerns and ideas to preserve a pristine environment for their generation.

This is the 17th of a series of virtual zoom panel discussions hosted by the America-Sri Lanka Photographic Art Society in Los Angeles California, USA (ASPAS); Member of Photographic Society of America (PSA) and The International Federation of Photography of Art in France (FIAP). The objective of the series is to showcase the beauty of world fauna and flora and promote environmental conservation in the context of nature photography and tourism, with a special focus on the grandeur of Sri Lanka’s natural habitat. The upcoming programme will commemorate World Earth Day 2021.

At a previous ASPAS Webinar, Dr. Peter H. Sand, former Secretary-General of ICUN, stated, “Pandemics, such as coronavirus, are the result of humanity’s destruction of nature, the illegal and unsustainable wildlife trade, as well as the devastation of forests and other wild places, are the driving force behind the increasing number of diseases leaping from wildlife to humans.” The ASPAS Webinars are intended to offer a platform to discuss a more balanced relationship with these ecosystems and the tools that can help us reach this objective, so that future generations can continue to enjoy and benefit from them sustainably and responsibly.

Earth Day marks the anniversary of the birth of the modern environmental movement in 1970 which gave voice to an emerging public consciousness about the state of our planet. Our planet is an amazing place, but it needs our help to thrive! That is why each year on April 22, more than a billion people celebrate Earth Day to protect the planet from pollution and deforestation and environment related issues. By taking part in activities like picking up litter and planting trees, we are making our world a happier, healthier place to live.

In the decades leading up to the first Earth Day, the world was consuming vast amounts of leaded gas through massive and inefficient automobiles. Industry belched out smoke and sludge with little fear of the consequences from either the law or the press. Air pollution was commonly accepted as the smell of prosperity. Until this point, the world remained largely oblivious to environmental concerns and how a polluted environment threatens human health. Since, the great challenge for the environmental community is to combat the cynicism of climate change deniers, well-funded oil lobbyists, reticent policy makers, and a disinterested public. In the face of these challenges, Earth Day prevailed and established itself as a major movement for global action for the environment.

Over the decades, it has brought hundreds of millions of people into the environmental movement, creating opportunities for civic engagement and volunteers in 193 countries. Earth Day engages more than 1 billion people every year and has become a major steppingstone along the pathway of engagement around the protection of the planet.

Now, the fight for a clean environment continues with increasing urgency, as the ravages of climate change become more and more apparent every day. As the awareness of our climate crisis grows, so does civil society mobilization, which is reaching a fever pitch across the globe today. Digital and social media are bringing these conversations, protests, strikes and mobilizations to a global audience, uniting a concerned citizenry as never before and mobilizing generations to join together to take on the greatest challenge that humankind has faced.

It is quite apparent that the youth of our world should also be engaged in this vital conversation as an absolutely indispensable partner.

Governments have recognized this for decades and many have introduced some level of climate and environmental education into their education systems. But the truth is that impact of climate and environmental education is in some cases week, cursory, and still in many countries non-existent. In the decades since the launch of the global environmental movement, it is estimated that more than 3 billion young people have graduated from high school having learned little or nothing about one of the greatest issues that will shape their lives and their livelihoods for decades to come.

The time is now, indeed it is long overdue, for a massive environmental literacy campaign that can create a generation of citizens, workers and leaders who really understand why and how to stop climate change and environmental degradation, ensuring that every student around the world completes their formal education as an environmental and climate literate citizen. A citizen who is ready to take action and speak up for change and build knowledge and skills for the growing green sector of clean energy, efficient transportation, sustainable business and making themselves competitive for new jobs.

The youth must also equip themselves with the knowledge and skills needed to build a better future and be stewards of this planet. They must learn that to sustain a functional society and economy, natural resources must be used wisely and efficiently while protecting the ecological systems to ensure clean air, clean water, and food security for all.

But just as vitally, we need to equip future generations with the knowledge, skills, and enthusiasm to survive and indeed thrive in the decades to come. And that begins in school. Even world leaders recognized that pivotal role as far back as 30 years, when the countries that forged the original United Nations climate change treaty in 1992 at the Rio Earth Summit enshrined climate education as an essential part of a national response to a global emergency.

Educationists believe every school in the world must have compulsory, assessed climate and environmental education with a strong civic engagement component. They have also pointed out that the onus for developing environmental consciousness in youth could not be the sole responsibility of schools as the young people need the help of adult allies. There is a role for everyone, parents, relatives, and society to support youth voices and stand alongside them.

It is in that spirit that the America-Sri Lanka Photohtaphic Art Society Los Angeles, led by its President, Suriya Jayalath Perera, has organized this Webinar to bring together 10 young people from the U.S., the U.K., Canada, and Sri Lanka to voice their concerns and present their ideas on the occasion of Earth Day 2021. Youth from ages six to 18, will address the entire gamut of environmental issues from climate change to plastic pollution. It would be a truly ground-breaking event, and you can be a part of it by virtually joining them on Sunday April 18th, 2021. The webinar will be moderated by Medini Ratnayake.

More Information: www.usacaaspas.com

Join us live on Sunday April 18th, at 8.30 P.M. 2021 https://www.facebook.com/aspaslausa/live Nandasiri (Nandi) Jasentuliyana, Former Deputy Director-General, United Nations

 

 

Continue Reading

Sat Mag

How to flush cholesterol out of your body

Published

on

Cholesterol is a waxy, fat-like substance found in all the cells in your body. Your body needs cholesterol to make hormones, vitamin D, and substances that help you digest foods. Your liver makes all the cholesterol you need. The cholesterol in your body that you do not need comes from animal bodies.

If you have more cholesterol in your body than you need, then you are heading for heart disease and heart attacks. A build-up of cholesterol narrows arteries, causing a restriction of blood flow to the heart. Very often a person with high cholesterol levels has no symptoms until he has his first heart attack.

This is even more problematic if you are overweight – which you will be, because the food that causes an increase in cholesterol also increases your weight. Though some cholesterol components are stored in the liver and gallbladder, the main storage area is in fat cells called adipocytes. When you have too much cholesterol, these cells swell up and you gain weight. Too much cholesterol can be caused by eating too much fat or carbohydrates.

 

There are two types of cholesterol: HDL and LDL

High density lipoprotein (HDL) is good cholesterol which protects you from hearts attacks, and strokes, by mopping up excess bad cholesterol. It takes the cholesterol that you don’t need back to the liver. The liver breaks it down so it can be passed out of your body. LDL is bad cholesterol. This blocks the blood supply and causes strokes and heart attacks. Non-HDL take cholesterol from the liver to the cells around your body. Too much bad cholesterol (non-HDL) can be harmful because it sticks to the inside walls of your arteries. This can lead to fatty material (atheroma) building up – this process is known as atherosclerosis.

Cholesterol is found in animal foods, meat, milk, butter and cheese.

There are only two things that raise cholesterol in the blood: saturated and trans fats.

Saturated fats are found in meats, dairy products, chocolate, baked goods like biscuits and popcorn, margarine, deep-fried, and processed foods, basically junk food.

Trans fats occur in some fried and processed foods, also in junk food.

In adults, total cholesterol levels less than 200 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL) are considered healthy. 200 – 239 mg/dL is borderline high. 240 mg/dL and above is high. LDL cholesterol levels should be less than 100 mg/dL.

How do you know that your cholesterol levels are high? You usually don’t. There are no typical signs if you have high cholesterol, which is why it is so important to get it checked. It is a hidden risk factor, which means it happens without us knowing until it is too late. Some people get soft, yellowish, growths or lesions on the skin, especially round the eyes, called xanthomas. If you are lucky you develop left-sided chest pain, pressure, or fullness; dizziness; unsteady gait; slurred speech; or pain in the lower legs. Any of these conditions may be associated with high cholesterol.

How do you flush cholesterol out of your body?

Stop eating meat or drinking milk. Avoid ghee, butter and paneer, and seafood like crabs, shrimps and lobsters. Don’t smoke. Exercise. Eat fewer refined grains such as maida. Foods to avoid if you have high cholesterol levels include white bread, white potatoes, and white rice, highly processed sugars. Fried foods should be avoided, as well as foods high in saturated fats.

Eat fruits, vegetables, beans and whole grains, every day.

A report from Harvard Health has identified foods that actively decrease cholesterol levels: Oats, barley and whole grains, beans, eggplant and okra, nuts, vegetable oil (canola, sunflower), fruits (mainly apples, grapes, strawberries, and citrus), soy and soy-based foods. Eating just one and one-half cups of cooked oatmeal a day can lower your cholesterol by 5 to 8%. Oatmeal contains soluble and insoluble fibre – two types that your body needs.

In June 2020 a report, led by Imperial College London Majid Ezzati, et al.​ and involving dozens of universities, “Repositioning of the global epicentre of non-optimal cholesterol” ​was published in Nature. It said that while cholesterol levels have declined in high income countries, particularly Europe, since 1980 , they have increased vastly in lower and middle income countries, with Asia, specially Southeast Asia, now being the centre.

The reason for this is the consumption of animal-based foods, refined carbohydrates (maida) and palm oil. In short, the heart attack and stroke risks have been globally repositioned with the shifting of a high cholesterol diet.

A group of nearly 1,000 researchers, from around the world, analysed data from 1,127 studies comprising 102.6 million adults, to assess global trends in cholesterol levels from 1980 to 2018. This is the largest ever study of global cholesterol levels.

Previously cholesterol was considered a problem in high income Western countries.

The report said that Belgium, Sweden, Switzerland (the centre of the milk/meat diet) and Iceland (meat) had shown the steepest declines in cholesterol, going from the highest to the lowest. There has been a sharp drop in LDL cholesterol in the UK, according to the British Heart Foundation.

China, which had the lowest levels of cholesterol in 1980, was among the highest in 2018. India, Malaysia, Philippines and Thailand have not covered themselves in glory either.

In 1980 Australian women ranked 32nd highest in the world in cholesterol levels. Today they are 146th . Australian men have fallen from 31st highest to 116th. 

Dr Avula Laxmaiah, National Institute of Nutrition, one of the authors of the research paper, said LDL cholesterol among Indian men ranked 128th in 1980 and remained the same in 2018.  Women are 139th in the global line-up.

Other conditions, that can lead to high cholesterol levels, include diabetes drugs that increase LDL cholesterol and decrease HDL cholesterol, such as progestins, anabolic steroids, and corticosteroids. India is one of the highest users of steroids – not directly, but through these being fed to chicken.

The authors have suggested that each country in Asia set into place prices, and regulatory policies, that shift diets to non-saturated fats. But, at the end of the day it is not prices that will decide – meat/chicken and milk are already expensive but it doesn’t stop you from eating them. You will have to take a personal decision, depending on how much you value your life or the lives of your family.

(To join the animal welfare movement contact gandhim@nic.in, www.peopleforanimalsindia.org)

Continue Reading

Trending