EDITORIAL

Ethics Vs. Religion

Well before the advent of Christianity, the Gautama Buddha had expounded a powerful new idea. Seeking knowledge 'from within' through meditation, he rejected theism and superstition as irrelevant, and instead propounded a formula whereby the painful cycle of birth, death and rebirth could be broken, and nibbana - annihilation - achieved. Buddhism has been hailed as the religion that isn't, for the reason that it admits the supernatural, it asserts that salvation, in the form of nibbana, can come only from within: we are each the custodians of our destiny.

All religions propound a moral code: the Ten Commandments of Judaism, the Beatitudes of Christianity, the Sharia of Islam. Inasmuch as Buddhism is not a religion, the Buddha Sasana surely represents such a code. The great thing with codes is that they enable religion to fit seamlessly into society. To people cultured in the liberal values of the West however, any link between religion and government is anathema. They fear the excesses that have invariably followed the mingling of religion and politics: the inquisition, the crusades, the pogroms and countless wars that have been fought in the name of God. So indeed it was in the 16th century that Sri Lankans of all faiths were forcibly converted to Roman Catholicism at the point of a sword, by the Portuguese, and from Roman Catholicism to Protestantism by the Dutch two centuries later.

Karl Marx derided institutional religion through the memorable phrase Die Religion ist das Opium des Volkes (Religion is the opium of the people) for a reason: when religion gets mixed up in government, government is unable to deliver development and social justice to the people. In Sri Lanka, we managed for several post-independence decades to keep religion out of politics. The special place given to Buddhism in the present constitution, while irksome to many non-Buddhists, has been accepted on the basis that it only pays lip service to the majority. Indeed, Queen Elizabeth happens to be the Head of State of the UK while at the same time being head of the Anglican Church (hence the sceptre and the orb are part of her regalia). This bothers no one as the Queen neither governs nor legislates: she is a mere figurehead.

So it has been in our case, except that now a segment of the Buddhists have begun demanding that that promise be put into practice. Article 9 of the Constitution states, "The Republic of Sri Lanka shall give to Buddhism the foremost place and accordingly it shall be the duty of the state to protect and foster the Buddha Sasana, while assuring to all religions the rights granted by Articles 10 and 14(1)(e)." In turn, Article 10 states, "Every person is entitled to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including the freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief of his choice." Article 14(e) states, "Every citizen is entitled to the freedom, either by himself or in association with others, and either in public or in private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching" (emphasis added). Two other constitutional freedoms too, are relevant: the freedom of peaceful assembly and the freedom of association (Arts. 14(1)(b) and (c)).

Last week, the government hastily committed to allowing a bill to be drafted, aimed at preventing 'unethical conversions' from one religion to another. The reason was, as we all know, that two Buddhist monks threatened to commit suicide (an act explicitly prohibited by the Sasana, apart from attempted suicide being a criminal offence) unless this was done. The nub of the process would be, of course, what counts as 'ethical.'

Even as Buddhists seek to apply ethical conduct to other religions, it would pay them first to look inside their own and ask some pointed, painful, questions. If Buddhism is a personal philosophy, why do Buddhists worship trees and offer incense, flowers and dhana to cement statues? This has no place in the dhamma and goes directly against the teachings of the late Gangodawila Soma Thero. And there is much else that is unethical about institutional Buddhism. Buddhists should ask whether the institutionalisation of caste in the Sangha is ethical. Is it ethical that Gangodawila Soma Thero, because of his 'low' caste, could not aspire to be a member of the Siyam Nikaya and was required to advertise his 'low' birth by covering both shoulders with his robe?

What then of child monks, the abiththayas, inducted to various temples, often performing the most menial duties there? Is it ethical to deprive a child of his mother and the security of a family, abandoning him instead to an all-male world of adult monks and a philosophy he would in all probability know little of other than what the parents would have drilled into him from the time of birth? Then again, what are the ethics of capturing wild elephants and keeping them captive, chained by the foot like convicts, in hundreds of temples across the land, beaten into obedient submission? What are the ethics of Buddhist temples (to say nothing of mosques) blaring their deafening chants on loudspeakers: is this how the Buddha taught meditation? Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum - "Such evil deeds could religion prompt", as the philosopher Lucretius observed 2,000 years ago.

Clearly, the issue of "unethical conversions" has little to do with ethics and much to do with maintaining the numbers. This is why Gangodawila Soma Thero himself urged Sinhala Buddhists to forgo birth control and seek to breed on par with the minorities, or actually seek to out-breed them. The primary object of a true Buddhist is to do everything it takes to follow the Sasana and thereby attain nibbana. Forcing people to join the Buddhist ranks or remain in it, whether by law or 'unethical' inducements, thereby catering to the subject's craving for material wellbeing, would be foreign to the policy of Buddhism. Forcing people to retain a religion in which they do not believe (for otherwise they would not convert), is equally un-Buddhist. The challenge true Buddhists face in Sri Lanka therefore, is converting both non-Buddhists and nominal Buddhists to true Buddhism - Buddhism practiced with the serious aim of attaining nibbana. Can those who are now campaigning for legislation to prevent 'unethical conversions' then truly claim they are only driven by the selfless motive of ensuring their fellow man (and woman) achieves nibbana, for that is the ultimate objective in the practise of Buddhism? If that be the case, pray why legislate for it?

There is a case therefore, for Buddhist evangelism, and it would be heartening to see true Buddhists supporting such a cause, rather than seeking to introduce laws to prevent nominal, uncommitted Buddhists seeking succour in other religions for whatever reason. For this to happen, true Buddhists must practice selfless philanthropy and not surround themselves with material trappings (Mahanayakes desisting from gadding about in Benz cars is a good place to start). Let true Buddhists, by good deeds and sincere words, set a worthy example of their faith, rather than seeking to retain loyalty through legal restraints. Religion must operate within a free market: people must be free to pick and choose. It is after all a matter of personal faith.

Each one of us is born to a particular family, class of society, caste (we must recognise this, even if only because true Buddhists do), ethnicity, nationality and religion. In that we do not have a choice. Not all of us are happy with our lot. In the course of our lives, some of us move up or down the social ladder, we intermarry, we emigrate, and we change our religion. Westerners such as Oland‚ Ananda, the Dutch monk,  are highly thought of because they have converted to Buddhism, making a conscious choice. Today, hundreds of thousands of Sri Lankans, unhappy with their lot, seek to emigrate to the West. Think about it: if all the millions of nominal Sinhala Buddhists were offered prosperity in the West on condition they embraced Christianity, how many would decline? If for the sake of argument all the Sinhala Buddhists living in the West and are passionate about 'unethical conversions' in Sri Lanka are given an ultimatum to embrace Christianity or return to their country of birth, how many of them true to their conscience can say they will pack their bags and return to the motherland? Our latter-day Buddhists zealots would do well to study the Sasana and check if a person who turns away from Buddhism for the lure of material benefit could ever have been a Buddhist in the first place.

Indeed, many agnostics who believe all religion to be bunkum hold the high ground here, living law-abiding lives, doing philanthropic good deeds and harming no one. It is bigoted religion that is intolerant and evil, and it is precisely to the bigots that we would pander by subverting constitutional assurances of freedom to narrow religious interest. It is only too true that many Buddhists are worried that their numbers are on the decline, to the advantage of other religions. They have only themselves to blame. No one who has found Buddhism to be the true path to enlightenment would, regardless of the inducement, swap his faith for another. Those who stand to abandon Buddhism are those who do not believe in it anyway, but who blindly call themselves such because that is how they were brought up. If true Buddhists want to stem the outward flow, they should do a better job of persuading their brethren that Buddhism is indeed the true path, rather than trying to bring laws to secure their numbers. And the only reason you need to secure the numbers is to wield influence and authority for patronage over the powers that be.

Buddhists argue that evangelical Christians offer their members inducements, financial and material, to convert to Christianity and that this is unethical. Well, is this not precisely what every political party (and indeed every politician) does, to persuade us to vote for it? And do we not have the freedom, when a party or politician fails us, to vote for another? It is these very politicians and political parties that are now threatening to bring legislation to prevent the people from choosing a religion of their choice. Where is the ethics in that? What is wrong then, with the freedom the constitution guarantees each of us, "to adopt a religion or belief of his choice"?

Inasmuch as all religions cannot be right, every religion teaches good. What we need today is for all citizens of this land to lead good lives regardless of their religion. Extremist Buddhists (and indeed, many leaders of other institutional religions) today are behaving rather like members of a political party that is on the decline. They want to do something - anything - to shore up their numbers. People judge religions much as they do political parties. The recent actions of the Buddhist hierarchy would have driven away many people who were attracted to the teachings of Buddhism: if he had a grave, the Gautama Buddha would be rolling in it.