White Christmas SpeedyWhite Christmas , Michael Buble version by Mahendra

https://drive.googlWhite Christmas = Speedye.com/file/d/19hQ_nVZdaOqFUTmrWNjOQ4VcnpFkg_cD/view?usp=sharing

Jeevithe Tharuna Kale

A jazz version by Mahendra

Individual belief and community responsibility

I have grappled with these issues for a long time and I like to share my understanding in a few sentences.

We are generally talking of beliefs. This is circumscribed by some as just what they believe without extending it to a belief that they have “realised the truth”, and that their view is the correct one, implying that others are wrong.

Others believe very strongly that they are correct in a similar manner but are willing to concede that within the limits of human capability, there is a possibility that they may have got it wrong. Although they do think they are right (if you think that you are right then that is a fact which others can’t take away from you, I mean your freedom to think so). If we are discussing relatively trivial thing like whether potatoes are without any doubt the best source of healthy food or whether Liverpool FC is better than MUFC (not trivial to some!), differing opinions do not matter that much. But in philosophical and religious matters, people are dealing with what they think is the “Ultimate Truth”, the Big "T". If this truth, for example, includes acceptance of an afterlife it has consequences not only for that person but for their loved ones, their friends. For those with evangelical tendencies, it matters in an even wider context in view of what they consider as their duty towards the human race, and their lies the danger to society. There is the real danger of using unacceptable methods which are justified in their own minds as "the end justifies the means"- the motive was good.

We have no irrefutable proof of a God or karma or an immutable soul, or of an after-life. People of high intelligence, people who have read widely and people who have championed the scientific method of interpreting evidence still have amongst them, believers in God, believers in karma, believers in a soul, believers in Heaven, atheists and so on. Intelligence and “how clever you are” clearly has nothing to do with it. It is far more likely that the culture you were born into is the critical factor. It is clear to me that belief systems are what you as a person are most comfortable with in making sense of life and its trials and tribulations. The need for proof, verifiable evidence is all subsidiary. Most often, people seek “evidence” for what they have already decided is correct,

What do all this mean? A claim to know the truth can only be a viewpoint. It would be unwise to regard yourself as someone who has realised the truth. You are entitled to hold the belief that you do know the truth but you have no entitlement for your fellow humans also to accept it and to regard those who disagree with you as misled (again I make the distinction that you may not be able to stop thinking so but if so please keep it to yourself!)

We are part of a community. We have our obligations towards that community and self-interest has to be overridden at times to observe that. You can accept religion on the basis of your examination of it, but in observing that as part of the human community, you have no right to force any behaviour contrary to what is accepted by the community. Buddhists and Christians and Muslims and Atheists can all say they think they are right but they should be humble enough not to feel as beings with a superior state of understanding.

There is intuitive knowledge and acquired knowledge through study. Revelation and enlightenment are forms of intuitive or introspective understanding and a belief that by such means it is possible to have a true realisation of reality but examples of revelation are there in every religion and cannot be regarded as irrefutable evidence although, to the individual, it may be considered as the Truth (there are convinced people who have had a dialogue with Christ, with the Buddha, with Allah). Philosophers have done this throughout history by just introspection and rumination.In summary, by all means, be intuitive, meditate, study and learn but be humble and regard the most important requirement that others could expect from you and vice versa are humility, understanding, empathy, a feeling of responsibility for generations to follow and for the precious planet we inhabit.

People have different needs. The feeling of reverence, ecstasy and Peace some achieve through rituals and worship is very important to them, especially when they are faced with what appear to be insurmountable difficulties and even if you think they are irrational, recognise how important it is for them. So long as they don’t interfere with the accepted norms and laws of Society (a rather silly example is that you may think it is within your rights to physically assault a disobedient son but you cannot do so) they can believe in what comforts them.

People should be allowed to hang on to any belief system they fancy but with the proviso that they keep within the moral rules and behaviour expected from them as part of the human race. They should also reflect on the fact that even the belief they hold today could change in time, and even change so drastically that after a few years you may say “ did I really think so?” You are at any one time a complex collection of beliefs, memories, views, needs and wants, conditioned by the past and by the expectations of the future.

I personally believe that only Science is capable of solving the riddle of Reality. One big question to answer is whether there is a reality beyond what the Human senses can perceive and the conundrum that we use the very thing we are trying to understand when we attempt to make sense of Consciousness (whatever that means judging by the huge range of definitions given to it!)

Buddhism, the Dhamma and politics; ‘All People Matter’

13 June 2020. Daily FT
Raj Gonsalkorale

Question posed to Venerable Mahinda as noted in ancient Sel Lipi, “Ven Sir, what would you say about the spread of Buddhism you brought to Sri Lanka from India? Venerable Mahinda’s response, “It has spread, but had not rooted”.

In the backdrop of the worldwide campaign ‘Black Lives Matter’, it is perhaps timely for Sri Lankans to look inwards and ask the question whether we are all equals, and treat everyone as equals not just constitutionally, but in spirit, behaviour and attitudes. The campaign slogan, if we were to have one, from a Sri Lankan context could be ‘All People Matter’, and to examine with honesty whether this is so in our complex and diverse society. It appears to the onlooker that one of the most powerful tools available to make this happen, religious beliefs and the religious institutions, have divided rather than unified our complex nation. Whether this is so or not is a discussion that must be had.

This article is inspired by the recent Poson day Dhamma discussion conducted by the Head of the Walpola Rahula Institute Venerable Galkande Dhammananda Thero and Venerable Yatalamatte Kusalananda Thero. The discussion centred around two contrasting historical narratives relating to patronage of Buddhism by the Royalty and high class noblemen and women, both in India and Sri Lanka, and the other, about the spread of the Dhamma during Buddha’s time in India, and later, upon the introduction of Buddhism to Sri Lanka by Venerable Mahinda, how the Dhamma spread in large numbers amongst the very ordinary people in Sri Lanka without any Royal patronage.

Conventional Buddhism and Buddhists, perhaps form the backbone of institutional Buddhism. In saying this, no reflection is cast on them as most would be decent ordinary folk who live as good human beings. However, this category perhaps needs the institution of Buddhism as that is what gives them the rules and the guidelines, and the comfort of a cultural milieu where they have a great sense of belonging, and for some, a purpose for their existence. It is possible that many in this mass of people would be lost without these anchors, and who would feel that unless these anchors that Buddhism provides are protected, Buddhism itself will be lost

This latter view is expressed clearly in the article titled ‘Impact of Buddhism on Indian society’ published in the web journal, the Sociology Guide. It says: “Buddhism gave the greatest jolt to the orthodox Brahamism. Buddhism exercised profound influence in shaping the various aspects of Indian society. It developed a popular religion without any complicated, elaborate and unintelligible rituals requiring necessarily a priestly class. This was one of the reasons for its mass appeal. The ethical code of Buddhism was also simpler based on charity, purity, self-sacrifice, and truthfulness and control over passions. It laid great emphasis on love, equality and nonviolence. It became an article of faith for the followers of the Buddhism. It laid emphasis on the fact that man himself is the architect of his own destiny. It was devoid of any elaborate idea of God. Although Buddhism could never dislodge Brahmanism from its high position, it certainly jolted it and inspired institutional changes in Indian society. Rejecting the caste system and its evils including rituals based on animal sacrifices, conservation, fasting and pilgrimage, it preached total equality. Promotion of social equality and social justice helped Buddhism to cross the frontiers of Indian sub-continent and became a world religion. In the field of education Buddhism tried to make education practical, action oriented and geared towards social welfare. Most of the ancient Indian universities like Nalanda, Taxila were products of Buddhism”.

This description appears to be a clear reference to the mass appeal, and the mass following of the Dhamma that Buddha preached, and there is no reference here to any patronage or a top down approach to the spread of the Dhamma in India during Buddha’s time.

Buddhism and politics

In contrast to this view is an article by Matthew Moore titled ‘Buddhism and Politics’ published by Oxford Bibliographies, where, in his introduction he says: “Politics has always been part of Buddhism. The earliest Buddhists texts, the Tipiṭaka, contain numerous references to and discussions of kings, princes, wars, and policies. Later Buddhist texts, up to the present day, likewise contain advice to rulers about how to govern well, warnings about the dire consequences of ruling poorly, and admonitions to avoid arrogance and ignoring the needs of the common people. In the realm of political practice, since the time of the historical Buddha, Siddhartha Gotama (Sanskrit, Siddhartha Gautama)”.

Buddhism’s close links to kings, princes, and their patronage, and also links in general to politics, is the theme outlined by Moore which is consistent with the belief that patronage was a key element associated with the spread of Buddhism.

The issue discussed in this article is not about Buddhism and politics not being intertwined, or, in a sense interdependent. The issue is whether what is practiced as Buddhism is the practice of the Dhamma through conviction rather than labelling oneself as a Buddhist by convention, and whether it is this practice that has forged these interdependencies.

For most people who call themselves Buddhists, Buddhism is a set of rules and traditions that one follows to the extent one could and when one could, as most of us do when it comes to rules. Human beings generally need rules and where there aren’t enough, they make more of them. These rules give them the structure within which they find their comfort zones.

Rules and traditions extend to cultural norms and it is these rules that differentiate human beings besides other attributes such as race, colour, caste, and religion, none of which a new born comes with at the time of birth. So, post birth, an individual is fashioned into someone else, having being just a human being at birth. The individual acquires a new identity and a persona by becoming a dark/light skinned, a Sinhalese/Tamil/, Christian/Buddhist/Muslim, high caste/low caste. This new person is then subject to the cultural and social rules and values that define the particular group that he or she belongs to. There is little or a questionable amount of freedom for this individual to operate outside of these rules and traditions.

Some opine that in a relative sense, Buddhists have more freedom to do so than say Muslims and Christians, mainly Catholics. The love and fear of an all-powerful God makes it very difficult for exercising freedom outside the bounds of the rules that define these religious groups.

Prince Siddhartha sought this freedom as he had a sense of being imprisoned within the cultural, dynastic and ‘Royal’ rules and traditions he was bound by in order to see whether he could get some answers to the feeling of discontentment and disillusion he had in his physically comfortable, but mentally anguishing world around him.

He must have felt his sense of freedom invigorating and intellectually challenging for him to continue pursuing what he was learning, as we know that he never looked back and never returned to what he had left behind including his throne.

If the writer remembers right, Siddhartha, no longer a Prince, having found the answer for the reasons he left his lifestyle and his inheritance, entertained doubts whether most ordinary folk would be able to follow the path he could show them, for them to travel down and realise the reasons for what is termed ‘unsatisfactoriness’ about their life and existence. It is said, or thought, that he then came up with easy to follow sets of rules for such ordinary folk who would live as good human beings, causing no harm by word or deed or action, to fellow human beings and other beings, and even the environment around them.

These rules and traditions are not a different set of rules that describe the path he outlined as the one that we should traverse should we wish to find the answer to the state of unsatisfactoriness of our existence and how we could reach a state whereby we are liberated from the shackles that bind us to this state of unsatisfactoriness.

Following rules through conviction not convention

The difference exists not in the rules or the teaching, but in the understanding and following them through conviction, rather than by convention. Following rules through convention is much easier than doing so through conviction. The latter involves a mental process that is not easily able to be practiced, whereas the former is easier to follow and abide by, of course to varying degrees of adherence.

As we know, Buddhism thrived in India for a considerable period of time after the passing of Buddha. It is said that what started more as a doctrine for the ordinary folk in parts of India during Buddha’s time, had begun to decline as the ordinary folk over a few centuries had lost interest, perhaps in the simplicity of the doctrine, and in comparison, the flourish of new forms of Hinduism now around them. It is said that this fading interest had consequences such as the loss of patronage by the Royalty and other high society classes. While there may have been Kings and noblemen who were Buddhists by conviction, it is more likely many of them were Buddhists by convention, and they had been patrons when masses of people, by convention, called themselves Buddhists. Royals are also politicians, and they too need the support of the people for effective rule, as do modern day politicians.

The Dhamma is devoid of any politics and it never needed and even today, does not need the patronage of rulers for it to survive. Buddha Dhamma is not an institution and it cannot be destroyed unless we destroy it in our minds. On the contrary, Buddhism has been institutionalised, and institutions have been, and can be destroyed from within and without

Conventional Buddhism and Buddhists, perhaps form the backbone of institutional Buddhism. In saying this, no reflection is cast on them as most would be decent ordinary folk who live as good human beings. However, this category perhaps needs the institution of Buddhism as that is what gives them the rules and the guidelines, and the comfort of a cultural milieu where they have a great sense of belonging, and for some, a purpose for their existence. It is possible that many in this mass of people would be lost without these anchors, and who would feel that unless these anchors that Buddhism provides are protected, Buddhism itself will be lost.

Rulers of years gone by have all done their bit to protect the institution, as it is the institution that directly or indirectly communicates with the people. These conventions go back hundreds of years, and even the British colonialists, when they finally did their deal with the Kandyan chieftains to cede the last bastion of unconquered Sri Lanka to the British, the colonialists recognised the special place given to Buddhism.

The conventions related to this age old practice continues to this day, and it is true to say that no one could become the President of Sri Lanka unless he or she is a Buddhist, conventional or otherwise. These conventions are, as they were before, political tools, and little to do with Buddha Dharma or convictions.

The conventions dictate that Buddhism, meaning the institution, and the anchors it provides, have to be protected in order to protect Buddhism itself. The institution that ‘protects’ Buddhism is a Sinhala institution although Buddha had no institution nor any one or any particular group of people protecting something he had clearly stated as being in our minds and which could not be taken away by anyone except by ourselves.

During the Dhamma discussion referred to at the beginning of this article, Ven Dhammananda mentioned a very important and apt response that Venerable Mahinda had given to a question as to whether the Buddhism he had brought to Sri Lanka from India had taken hold in the country. His answer had been that it had spread, but had not rooted.

This describes the position of Buddhism perhaps even today. It has spread by conventional means, but not rooted deep enough by conviction in order to stand the vicissitudes of time. Hence a fear amongst some that Buddhism will disappear unless it is protected.

Institutionalisation of Buddhism is probably a reality that has to be faced unless more and more Buddhists take refuge in the Dhamma by conviction rather than in the Buddhist institution through convention.

The Buddhist institution has probably looked at such a directional change as a threat to its very existence, and therefore for purpose of self-preservation, limited the institution to the Sinhala, Buddhist race and excluded all other races from it. Besides this being totally contrary to the Dhamma and Buddha’s own attitude and practices, which had no such boundaries, it has made other racial groups non inclusive, virtual second class ones in Sri Lanka although lip service is played that they are all equals in the country.

Fundamental teaching of the Dhamma

The point here is not about people becoming Buddhists, conventional or by conviction, but about the fundamental teaching of the Dhamma, and living according to that Dhamma. No labels are required to practice the Dhamma and any individual can practice the essence of the Dhamma, which are described in the four principles, Love or Loving-kindness (metta), Compassion (karuna), Sympathetic Joy (mudita) and Equanimity (upekkha).

These four attitudes are said to be the right or ideal way of conduct towards living beings (sattesu samma patipatti). They provide, in fact, the answer to all situations arising from social contact. They are the great removers of tension, the great peace-makers in social conflict, and the great healers of wounds suffered in the struggle of existence. They level social barriers, build harmonious communities, awaken slumbering magnanimity long forgotten, revive joy and hope long abandoned, and promote human brotherhood against the forces of egotism.

We who call ourselves Buddhists should ask the question whether we live and practice these ideals.

The Buddhist institution is a power entity and it derives its power from the mass of people who belong to it. It is this mass which in turn becomes the source of power for political parties that are predominantly of Sinhala Buddhist orientation.

In the post-independence era, since SWRD Bandaranaike, this institution has wielded a considerable amount of power, and they have made sure their support stands between a party forming a government or being in the Opposition. Ironically, the leader who rode the crest of the Sinhala Buddhist wave in 1956, paid with his life as he had stood firm against the commercial interests of a leading Buddhist Monk who helped to catapult him to power. That incident demonstrated the power of the institution as well as the ulterior motives of some in the institution.  The paradox for Sri Lankan Buddhists arises from the fundamental discussion point mentioned in this article. This is the question of whether one follows the Buddha Dhamma by conviction and treats everyone as equals, and lives and practices Loving-kindness (metta), Compassion (karuna), Sympathetic Joy (mudita) and Equanimity (upekkha) or whether one follows convention and becomes part of the Buddhist institution that promotes the notion that some are more equal than others in the Sri Lankan society. The Dhamma is devoid of any politics and it never needed and even today, does not need the patronage of rulers for it to survive. Buddha Dhamma is not an institution and it cannot be destroyed unless we destroy it in our minds. On the contrary, Buddhism has been institutionalised, and institutions have been, and can be destroyed from within and without.

My response (Mahendra Gonsalkorale)

Dear Raj, I agree with the underlying message in your thoughtful article. i.e., which is that blind adherence to Institutionalised Religion is harmful. This is true not only for Buddhism but arguably for all religions. The problem I have with Religion is that they are more than a set of “rules” to conduct your life in a satisfactory way. If we consider the idea of a set of "rules", we could use the analogy of “rules” for maintaining Peace in a Society or within an Institution. But Religion goes beyond that. Religion professes to “know” all about what "reality "reality is" and in a way propounds “a theory of everything” which it claims is not a theory but a “fact”. If it is just a set of rules to live harmoniously, most religions could agree on a core set of principles such as the Four you in my view quite correctly identified as the most important because even the 5 precepts arise as a second layer from this core underlying one. Because Religion claims to be THE truth, dangers to Society arise when those who unconditionally accept it whether though convention of conviction. A convinced Muslim will behave in a very different way from a convinced Buddhist. He could resort to violence for example because of his conviction. This brings me to the next point which is, what do we mean by conviction? Conviction is merely a firm belief. Conviction does not imply realisation and true understanding. Even the words “realisation” and “understanding” requires definition. It does not follow that a person who is convinced has the true understanding, whatever that is! A Christian will say that a convinced Christian will have an insight into the fact that if one accepts Jesus Christ as your saviour, you will go to Heaven. A Muslim will have similar feelings about Allah. A Buddhist will disagree with both and say that he is “convinced” that these “convinced” Christians and Muslims are misled. Nobody in my view could state that Buddhism or Christianity or Islam or Judaism is TRUE. They can say that "after examining the evidence available to me, I believe in X, Y  or Z. That is all he can say. If it is an absolute proven fact, I doubt whether there would be more than one religion, and the fact that well over 90% of adherents of any religion are born into it further reinforces my view that religious adherence is mainly cultural.

There will be a category within all religions who will favour a broader approach and pay more attention to moral values and ways of conduct as Human Beings that will be conducive in a favourable manner to whatever that is to follow, whether it is Heaven or a better birth or Nirvana. The sad fact in my view is that this is not a widespread view, especially among those you describe as Institutional “religionists”. In my view, the type of moral attitude I describe is far more prevalent among Atheists, Agnostics and non-believers. They have no problems with breaking “rules” which however well-meant or “ill-meant” are necessary to attain salvation. A Buddhist, if he is what I call a true-believer, will have to admit that a sincere worthy moral Christian or Muslim would not attain Nirvana at the end of the current birth although he/she will be well-positioned to possibly do so after a few more births in one of which he will have the “realisation” of the truth of Buddhism. Sadly, the reverse may not apply to a non-Buddhist being assessed by a Theistic believer, unless their instinctive sense of morality makes them rationalise and lead them to question their own belief by thinking “surely my all-loving God won’t abandon Smith who led such a good life?”. It is my contention that most of us have a strong sense of morality and that is why even followers of Religions question what is said to be in their holy texts. If we follow holy texts, wars could and were justified, physical harm could and was justified and the litany goes on.

Religions have failed miserably in making this a better world. It has only succeeded in creating divisions and promoting injustice. Countries with the lowest religiosity have the highest indices of happiness and the lowest indices of crime. The answer to the World is Humanism, not religiosity. You may rightly argue that what I state concurs with your view that it is Institutions that must carry the blame and not religions but sadly, entrenched deep-seated convictions are the trademark of the majority of so-called “conviction” believers and certainly the majority of “convention” believers. Buddhism is in a way a “safer” religion (or Philosophy or whatever) as the consequences of not accepting Buddhism are not dire, if you still lead a moral life such as one guided by the noble principles you and the Ven Dhammananda so correctly identified. I shall not use the word "conviction" but just my personal view and understanding of Buddhism is that it promotes harmony, understanding and tolerance more than any other religion I am aware of. This is nothing to do with conviction or convention but just my own understanding which may or may not be correct. If the "convinced" Buddhists you refer to are "convinced" that Mahendra is right, we will have a better world to live in! The problem with that is that so many devout practising other religious believers have a similar view as mine. This begs the question, "how is this possible?" and I have attempted to answer it

One last point is about our “innocence” at birth, This is not entirely true as all of us have two major influences that govern our lives. The first is our genes over which we have no control and the second is cultural/environmental, over which we do have control. I pointed this out not just for the sake of accuracy but for understanding some aspects of human behaviour you are “born with”, including bipolar disorder and some cases of sexual identity

I don't expect you to agree with my view at all, in fact I am sure you will cogently argue against it! I just hope that you will pause for a moment and give it some thought. It is also certainly not meant to offend anybody

The Wind of Change

Note by Mahendra: The author of this thoughtful article is a close friend and fellow medical graduate from the Faculty of Medicine, Colombo, Sri Lanka. He is now resident in the UK and is a retired Consultant Radiologist.

By Nihal D. Amerasekera 

As the dust settled from the tragedies of WWII,  the wind of change  swept  across  the Indian subcontinent with the growth of national consciousness. 

We grew up through the dying embers of colonial Ceylon.  There began an interminable conflict between British values and post-independent nationalism. Meanwhile, schools in big cities encouraged us to maintain British ways. In many affluent homes, English remained the spoken language. We took on British culture, manners and mannerisms. On the 4^th of February 1948,  the administration and the flag changed overnight. But the cultural change took a lot longer.  At school, we were discouraged from speaking in Sinhala. “Godaya” was a term reviled by all.  The word “Swabasha” was used as a derogatory expression.  

The British introduced their own social structure and aristocracy, to help in their administration. This social hierarchy was added on to our own class and caste system.  These hereditary titles and privileges prevailed all through the British period. After independence, the aristocracy declined, but slowly. With every general election, the voice of the people began to be heard with ever-increasing force until the emergence of the age of the common man. Many welcomed the triumph of meritocracy but they were less enthusiastic to accept the power of the people. 

Up until our country’s independence, Medical College was the citadel of the privileged class. The medical students were educated in the top schools and came mostly from the upper echelons of Ceylonese society. Their bohemian lifestyle and legends had entered the folklore of that great institution. In 1948 the cultural transformation began and when we joined the Faculty in 1962 it was at the tail-end of this remarkable era.  In our batch, we had the rich and the poor and the many in-between.  There were those from different ethnic and social classes.  Although I would like to think elitism didn’t exist in Medical College of our time, the cliques and exclusive parties of a few would say otherwise. That was the way society had turned us out.  We often rose above those differences.  In good times and bad, as a batch, we jelled marvellously well.  We remained united during the tension and turmoil of the rags and suspension. The success of the Block night and the Final year trip speaks volumes. Our fine multiple Batch Reunions are a great tribute to our members' unity. What age has taught me over the years is that we are all different. But it is important we are equal. 

My generation grew up with these changing attitudes and beliefs. Sometimes we felt stranded in ‘no man's land’.  There are many in our batch who accepted the change with good grace. We are proud of our gifted musicians who sing those melodious old  Sinhala songs from long ago bringing back childhood memories.   I feel immensely fortunate to have listened to Sinhala music in my childhood and also watched the early Sinhala films which have turned out to be classics.  HM Rupasinghe, Sunil Santha, Chitra and Somapala, Rukmani Devi and others made a tremendous contribution to Sinhala music. I found some of the Hindi films rather jolly and good all-round entertainment. Their music was interesting. Many of our early Sinhala cinema took the cue from those ever-popular Hindi music and films.  

The Colombo schools hung on to British values a lot longer.  English classical and popular music remained in their curriculum as did ballet and English drama at the expense of our own.  There was a resurgence of the local dances and drama which gradually gained popularity after independence.  Those lost arts took a lot longer to be revived. We must be thankful to those village schools that maintained Sinhala and Tamil traditions and preserved the arts for posterity. 

In many ways, our generation was fortunate to get the best of both worlds. It seems we were better prepared for life.  English is a universal language and our early exposure to this at home and school made our professional lives so much easier.   I am unaware of the situation in SL now.  The wide gap that existed between the schools of the big cities and villages have largely disappeared. The world is a much smaller place than when we were growing up.  Television and the digital age have brought knowledge far closer to everyone. I hope we have retained our national identity and values whilst accepting what is good and wholesome from the rest of the world.  

I have lived in exile for over 40 years and love the way of life in England.  I love English classical music, drama and ballet.  Visiting English country houses and gardens and watching cricket at Lords have now become a part of my great enjoyment of life. Yet, I am a Sri Lankan at heart.   Amazingly I still can speak Sinhala fluently to be understood. But I cannot comprehend the modern Sinhala spoken by Newsreaders on TV and Radio. Reading Sinhala newspapers is much harder and slower. The drift away from my beloved country  I would put down to the awesome force of destiny.  

I wish Sri Lanka will remain a country where all its people can live in peace. We have come through tough times.  We now recognize conflict and fear.  I hope we have learnt from the mistakes of the past.  As I have said earlier, the premise that we are all equal is an important one for our future peace and prosperity.

More thought on Beliefs

We all arrive at our own conclusions by studying "the evidence". As far as the Universe is concerned, currently, we don't fully understand its workings and the laws that operate within it. If we have successfully cracked that puzzle, that would be evident and there will be only one accepted TRUTH. In our current state of knowledge, we have to study whatever is being put forward as arguments/evidence and make a  decision whether to accept, reject or be non-committal.

Speaking in general terms, beliefs are either rational, irrational or non-rational and the categorisation is ultimately very personal. Some would consider a belief which is not rational as irrational, i.e., apply binary thinking. I favour the idea that if it is not rational it is not necessarily irrational but could be considered as non-rational. For example, belief in an all-powerful, all-merciful God who created the Universe and man is irrational to me but I concede that for some it is rational and for yet others, it is non-rational and not irrational.

We seek answers and come to our own conclusions aware of our own limitations but in the process, we learn and gain a greater understanding of ourselves, of others and of our world.

I remain an atheistic humanist with an agnostic slant if you like, the latter because I am willing to admit that as a mere human being my views may prove to be incorrect, very personal, just as the beliefs that others find compelling to them (although I cannot accept them).

I believe in morality as a characteristic that is evolutionary in origin. It makes sense to me that attributes such as cooperation, love, empathy have survival value and is seen widely in the animal kingdom. In humans, it predates religion and I reject the notion of some that we are moral because of religion. The argument goes that religions make us moral either through concern about the rewards or the "punishments" that result from actions (the concept of "cumulative merit" or  "pleasing God") through a mixture of hope and fear. These arise from the inculcation of moral values based on religion in our cultural upbringing.  I am the first to admit that there are many instances where religion has contributed to good in societies, although I can also show many instances where religion has caused harm. 

I have no reason to believe in a life after death and even if there was, I haven't even the faintest of recollection of such a life myself nor do I know a single person who does. I know I have a "personality" (some may call it "self") which is changing every moment.  I fail to understand how "I" am advised to escape from this unsatisfactory existence where somehow "I " doesn't exist to some sort of existence where I am non-existent and which I must accept on the basis of faith.

I don't understand "time" completely but I do believe that the pyramids existed, that the fossil remains is evidence of an evolutionary process and that I had progeny. I don't think that all this is a figment of my imagination or "constructed " through the power of light (photons).  I do accept that we are limited in our ability to perceive the true nature of the outside world because we are reliant on our senses and we use the very organ (the brain) in trying to understand the brain. While I agree that what I perceive and "see" outside of me is an interpretation which is unique to me, it is also unique to all others, it doesn't make it an illusion. The desk I see may be different to each person but its geographical location is the same for all, as an example. In other words, the desk which is itself formed of elementary particles and waves assembles into something real which although real, will remain interpreted differently. The appreciation of reality is certainly subjective.

My way of thinking makes me a moral and social being who respects human nature as we are one family striving to lead lives which are as comforting as possible in the interval between birth and death. My beliefs promote human harmony without dangers arising from religious dogma. My belief promotes curiosity and examination of facts rather than blind acceptance. My belief removes the anxiety that arises from speculation on the quality of an afterlife. My belief also values the Planet we live in and our efforts to sustain it. But our cultural upbringing and exposure to belief systems continue to have a major influence on our "inner thinking". As  I was brought up as a Buddhist, I still entertain doubts about my reasoned rejection of an afterlife, just as some of my Christian born friends who now don't accept God, still have "inner voices" that God does exist. 

As you can see, all of us ultimately make judgments on what we accept or believe. From the point of view of a safe world to live in, blind faith is OK if it can be guaranteed that it would not harm the person or the community they live in, but sadly, this is far from the truth. None of us can rely entirely on Science as Science is evolving all the time. Science by its very nature is humble enough to state that its theories are the best explanation in the current state of knowledge and is open to revision in the light of new evidence. Religious believers who try to use currently accepted scientific theories to justify their beliefs are building sandcastles on a beach.

Life is ultimately a personal affair. What to accept, what to reject, what to remain open about. I know I will NEVER fathom the workings of the entire universe but I feel confident that the answers will emerge slowly through the scientific method, which remains the only credible method of pursuing inquiry. I can't see any reason for seeking spiritual answers as they just complicate matters where our understanding is still lacking. Mental illness is a classic example the cause of which was explained by - "possessed by the devil", "punished by God or gods". We now know better. There are many examples of harmful effects arising from the acceptance of blind faith;  exemplary humans made to feel guilty and take the blame on themselves for some action supposedly carried out in a previous existence of which he has no recollection, unfortunate sufferers from economic or medical conditions being told that it is all because of indiscretions in a past life. These attitudes stunt human understanding and compassion

Did Albert Einstein believe in God?

Whether he was Atheist or not is hotly debated. From all what I have read, and I can give you references, Einstein believed in God in a Mathematical sense. He always said that he has no belief in a "personal" God who listens to prayers and has qualities such as love, forgiveness and limitless power. To say he was an Atheist is wrong. Here is one quote-" I’m not an atheist and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist,” he once said when asked to define God. “I believe in Spinoza’s God,” he told Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the Institutional Synagogues of New York, “who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists.”  Another - " There are still people", he remarked at a charity dinner during the War, "who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for support of such views”. “There are fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics,” he said in 1940.  

He believed in a Cosmic religion or some type of Cosmic order responsible for the precise mathematical laws that appear to exist in Nature but he was passionately against a belief in a Personal God. If you define Atheism as a rejection of a personal God, then Einstein was an atheist but most intellectual scientists and physicists who believe in God do not have the "Old man in a beard" type of personal god concept. I think it is fair to say that a true Atheist is one who rejects both components, i.e cosmic intelligence and a personal God who have an influence on us. I certainly know highly intelligent and well-read people who believe in God but it is almost always a belief in a Cosmic intelligence rather than a personal god. 

WHAT SHOULD WE BELIEVE

WHAT SHOULD WE BELIEVE?  7^TH April 2020.

At some point in our lives, we become more and more curious and seek explanations for what we observe around us. We also recognise periods of awareness when we experience pleasurable as well as unpleasurable sensations. Both seem to appear and then inevitably disappear after variable periods. What we would prefer, of course, is for the pleasurable periods to be more frequent and last longer and vice versa for the unpleasurable. We then seek factors which promote such a mental state. In early life, it was achieved by the fulfilment of non-material human desires such as a desire to be loved, desire to be wanted, desire to be valued and various others which produce a pleasant feeling. In the same manner, the non-occurrence of emotions such as feeling rejected, to be hated, to be undervalued, would stop unpleasant feelings arising. Underlying all this are the basic need for food, to be healthy (free of illness) and a safe environment. As Societies advance, the need for a basic income, and for resources such as adequate water and power supply arises. (This article assumes that such basic needs are satisfied and is confined to dealing with a higher level of experience). At a later stage in our lives, we pursue contentment by attempting to satisfy material desires such as buying consumer goods, travelling, eating tasty food etc. As we mature, we may on our own realise that this is not the answer or we may be influenced by philosophies or religions which appear to deal with these issues and promise the desired results. Some continue to pursue these futile pursuits with short-lived gain. Others are inclined to seek answers to deep questions that occur to them such as what is the meaning of human existence, what is morality, do we have free will, is there a soul, is there a God, is there a life after death and other metaphysical and philosophical questions. These lead them to study philosophy, religion and other belief systems and also to further their understanding through the study of Science.

The main sources for knowledge and explanation of phenomena are Science, Philosophy and Religion. Science has been amazingly successful in helping us to understand physical phenomena and philosophy and religion have been the main source for understanding non-physical or mental phenomena. Science is the primary force towards a greater understanding of the Universe and also has contributed immensely to making it a better place to live. We merely have to reflect on the diseases that we have overcome, preventive medicine successes such as vaccination, the improvement in the standards of water supply and sewage disposal, housing, transport, advances made possible through electricity, the reduction of starvation through improvements in food production and distribution, the dispelling of dangerous myths about natural phenomena (earthquakes and tsunamis caused by divine displeasure, diseases caused by the devil, better-governing systems such as Democracy and so many others. There has also been an overlap and increasingly, Science is moving towards championing itself as a force for explaining mental phenomena. The empirical way Science operates appeals to logic and reason. Phenomena are observed, hypotheses to explain them are put forward and experiments are done or data gathered to support or reject a hypothesis. Any hypothesis accepted always carries the condition that it is subject to revision or total rejection on the light of further evidence to the contrary. Science does not claim to know the TRUTH. Religion differs in that each one claims to explain all that happens in the World and IS the ultimate TRUTH. Science is based on Fact and religion is based on Fiction! I have dealt with some of the problems arising from religious beliefs in earlier articles but suffice to state that the analysis of TRUTH as claimed by a Religion is hampered by the absence of information as to exactly what the religious hypothesis is. The sources are mostly holy texts open to interpretation because of the language used or the reliability of the texts as the genuine expression of the religion. Some have been handed by word of mouth for long periods and transferred to written documents later. Unlike scientific hypotheses, religious ones cannot be tested and the acceptance of religion is mostly based on whether it appeals to the reasoning of the examiner. If it does, then it becomes a belief. If it is accepted without any examination at all, then it becomes faith. Religion also has the immense power of consoling people when they experience difficulties in life. It is the unseen helicopter in the sky ready to swoop down and help you when the vehicle you are journeying in fails. It does not matter if the helicopter is mythical provided you believe it IS there.

The big question is this. Has Man got the capacity or ability to realise the TRUTH by introspection as claimed by many religions? Has man got the intrinsic ability to understand and grasp the Universal laws that operate in our Universe by mere focussed thought and attention? Words such as an “awakening” or a “flash of realisation” or “revelation” or a “dawning of universal knowledge” have been used where this has apparently occurred. Philosophers ponder on how to make sense of what they observe and try to provide explanations. Most are conceptual thinkers.

In the end, what matters to me is a satisfactory answer to the question I posed at the beginning, i.e., How could we live a life where pleasurable periods are more frequent and last longer and unpleasurable periods are less frequent and last shorter. How can we help our fellow occupants of this planet to achieve the same? I shall label this aspiration as seeking contentment. We then look for factors which would promote such a mental state. This I realise is a rather simplistic view. Religion adds another dimension. All religions state that there is an after-life after death. If this is accepted, just being content in this life may not be sufficient. “Is there an afterlife?” is a big question and as yet it cannot be answered with any degree of certainty. Individuals will need to examine the data and the evidence and come to their own conclusions. In the end, it is a matter of belief.

The TRUTH as stated by religion is not merely of academic interest. When options to travel by different means are considered, if the endpoint is defined and known, the options are merely alternatives to achieve the same goal. If all religions agree on the final destination, the options or paths chosen by different individuals of different religions do not matter that much.(In fact, there are many people who haven’t studied religions and philosophies in-depth but are just decent honourable human beings, who believe that all religions “say the same thing”, largely referring to moral aspects of behaviour). But when the destination has no consensus (by that I don’t mean a loose term such as be happy, but a more sophisticated lasting aim), the options assume greater importance especially when it is also stated that deviation from the path not only fails to get you to the desired destination but can positively lead you (or mislead you!) to disaster. This also has the negative and dangerous possibility that well-meaning people may take it upon themselves to impose on others, even by the use of force in the belief that “the end justifies the means”.

A further implication is the claim that the concept of morality can only operate within the climate of religious belief. I won’t go into details but I could write a whole paper supporting my view is that morality is virtually a part of human behaviour through the evolutionary pressure for survival. In the case of the majority of sudden heroic acts performed by people, they do it by instinct and those who do form a wide spectrum of believers and non-believers.

These are the powerful forces that Religion could set free:-

(1)    Morality is vital for human societies and as religion is the basis of morality, it is essential for religions to be supported or even imposed.

(2)    As the TRUTH is synonymous with acceptance of religion, it is the duty of “enlightened religious beings” to ensure that firstly those close and dear to them are converted and in a truly generous spirit, it should then be extended to all human beings.

(3)    The fate of “misguided” non-believers is open to the interpretation of the religion by those who claim to “know” the “real meaning” and the “real message” in the religion. Those who accept that the duty is to pass the message and leave it to the recipient to accept or reject pose no real danger to Society. Those who reject this form a spectrum of from being benignly incentivising conversion to being a positive danger to the whole of society. The minor irritants (benign) are, for example, those who coerce dependents to have enforced religious education and the major ones (dangerous) are Jihadists and insurrectionists. To witness misled people committing mass slaughter believing that they are performing a good act is one of the most nauseating spectacles. The evangelists target the young. It is not mere coincidence that the vast majority of observers of any religion have been born to it. Those who converted after critical study are a very small minority. Influencing families and impressionable children is a vital ploy used by evangelists.

How does Science help to address traditionally philosophical questions? Philosophers have throughout the ages dealt with questions such as purpose, intentionality, ethics, morality, consciousness, happiness and mortality. Reality is at the moment a much-discussed topic. Science has certainly helped in no small measure in our understanding of perception and our thinking. Science, unfortunately, has also contributed lately to the promotion of concepts of time and space which appears quite divorced from the experienced universe we know. In mathematical terms, the time line may not be an arrow and with quantum mechanics, the current universe may be one of many multiverses but does this help to understand human nature and human history? We have evidence that the universe is billions of years old and that man evolved over thousands of years and that over 90% of known species are extinct. We know how we interpret sensory signals in the brain in great detail from the reception of these signals to the detailed pathways within the brain and the neurochemical processes that go on within neurones and synapses in a network but we are still unsure how these complex processes result in conscious awareness with all the subtle nuances of feelings and emotions associated with it. We know that the information received via our senses form impressions which are modified and conditioned by our working memory of previous experiences and vary not just from person to person but within the same person from moment to moment. What we “see” is almost certainly just a conclusion reached by our brain through interpretation using the information presented and information associated with it recalled into our working memory ( I see a river but it evokes memories of a person who drowned and a poem I read in my childhood and I “know” the river is going to get narrower because that is what rivers do and so on. The experience I have is therefore very different from that of another and we “see” the river very differently), but to extend it and say that reality as such does not exist seems nonsensical to me. When I see an object in space and locate it, it is the same location as another observer although what it “looks like” may be different. Even if it appears that both see it as the same, there is no way of knowing whether it is the same as the end experience is unique to each person based on his previous experiences and memory. When both agree it is “red” it does not mean that what they experience is the same as each assign the word “red” to the experience that the red colour wavelength gives them. I cannot see how we can deny that we have buildings, trees, other forms of living and non-living beings and that they are all figments of our imagination. We do know, however, compared to a long time ago, that “solid” objects have the quality of solidity but it is relative and the apparently unchanging stone in your visual field is a mass of elementary particles and waves observed by us through photons reflected from it to our retinae. But I fail to understand how this extrapolates into such objects not actually existing. To me, there is “something” but we can only observe it with our sensory and mental limitations and we cannot ever know what that object really looks like because both the interrogator and the decision-maker are the same. But we also know from Neuroscience that we can be made to experience things which are not actually happening “out there” at the time, through electrical stimulation of relevant parts of the brain. This does not necessarily mean that everything we experience is imaginary, or that all imagery is imaginary.

If Consciousness is defined as the awareness of self and its relationship to the environment in which it exists, then it is possible to understand that our senses provide information as of “now” (in the present) to an area of the brain which is continually monitoring information that is being received and attempting to make sense of it to the owner by matching it with past memories and reacting first and foremost evolving strategies to avoid danger and promote survival. For example, the image caused by the visual presence of a Tiger would not make any sense to a person who has no memory of tigers (either previously seen or learnt from others). The knowledge on tigers thus gained would produce fear, and strategies to escape will rapidly form, making the response and reaction very different when he next sees a tiger. All actions that follow the reception of information is not consciously known. Swaying to avoid an object thrown at you is automatic. The fact that even a conscious decision may be preceded by mental processes which can be recorded by EEG which precede the time at which the subject is conscious of the decision he makes shows how much the brain is geared towards helping us to arrive at a decision (Libet experiment where the action potential to trigger the action occurred a few milliseconds before the subject indicated the preference). Some have interpreted this as proof that we have no free will as the action potential to trigger the action came before he was actually aware that he made the decision. What we need to realise is that we have to be very cautious about how we interpret our sensory information. Unknown to us, when we start thinking of choices, subconscious thought processes have already commenced and fed us and influence what we think is wholly independent thought and action performed by us. The practice of Mindfulness is said to promote a true understanding without being conditioned by previous memories which are kept at bay allowing only the present moment. The leap from neural processes being consolidated in a physical area or areas in the brain to experiencing the external world as a three-dimensional object within space is a challenge. It appears that this is not totally dependent on visual input. Congenitally blind people appear to have the capacity to experience space utilising other forms of sensory inputs available to them. This applies to animals too.  A white eyeless fish was found recently in a limestone cave in India. This fish swims effortlessly finding its way, much like a fish that lives where vision is available.

Awareness or consciousness appears to be very simply expressed in less evolved animals to possibly the highest form in Humans, (some p[people question whether lower forms can have agency). The reflex response to a stimulus is not evidence of awareness. For example, phototaxy which is always expressed in the same way every time, i.e. moving towards a light source without the ability to choose between possible actions. If a danger is introduced during the phototaxy, it won’t recognise the danger the next time the experiment is repeated as it has no working memory and only the present moment is available to it, much like an amnesic person for whom every instance is a new one. If variations in the response to a previously exposed situation can be shown in a primitive form, it would be evidence to support a working memory. As far as I know, this has not been shown in single-celled animals such as amoebae or even in small multicellular forms further up the evolutionary tree. It has been shown in the octopus and certainly in mammals.

Emotions are not restricted to humans. Emotions such as fear, love, empathy, care and love for offspring, joy, anxiety, and curiosity have all been shown in animals. But what they appear to lack is the ability to build and act on scenarios constructed in their minds from a wealth of past experience and memory. (Notice that I used the term “mind” without being actually making a distinction between mind and consciousness). Such information can be passed genetically and such information is also widely available to humans through experience and knowledge gained during multiple generations and retained and passed on to the following generations through the use of symbolic language so that we have a wealth of what Merlin Donald calls “external memory” working through our conscious memory and our consciousness. 

Whether this “consciousness” can migrate from one life to another assuming that there is a process such as rebirth is contentious. It is very tempting to regard the process of cognition and awareness as a three-stage process. The first is the gathering of available raw information surrounding us. The second is the accessing of this information and processing them within the brain to make a coherent story which is then presented to “consciousness” which transforms this to a conceptual “internal” the image which can be projected in our minds to make sense of the world. Without the cerebral activities presenting the information to “consciousness”, proper understanding is not possible. In the same way, even if consciousness exists, it needs the intervention of the brain for the information to be presented to consciousness. Buddhist philosophy will go a step further and state that the consciousness of the body in question also had prior information stored and is always active and this interacts with the “new” material being presented. In this scheme of things, a person may have had a terrible experience with a particular animal in a previous birth and when the animal is presented to the person in this birth, following interaction with the stored memory from a previous birth, the person will react with aversion in the same way as he would if he had a bad experience previously in this life. The difference is just from where the aversion memory comes from. The difficulty with this is how do we demonstrate that we have a “consciousness” which can be independent of the body? If so what is it? One can loosely call it a form of energy but this is just glorified semantics to cloth ignorance using a scientific term. Some will regard reincarnation as a proven fact through case records of recollection but if that passes rigid criteria, it will be accepted mainstream thinking which clearly it is not. I have an open mind about this. I don’t think I know enough to totally discount it.

Whether this awareness that we possess could exist in inanimate forms, albeit in a different form is also even more contentious. I somehow fail to understand how a piece of rock can have consciousness in any form, even to “knowing” one rock from another.

To me, it boils down to stating that we can ask all the right questions but we just don’t know the right answers. Some are happy to accept such an agnostic view while others are not. The Scientologists will press on looking for physical answers while the philosophers will proffer their own answers. My problem with philosophers is the assumption that we can understand the workings of this vastly complex universe while seated on a chair and contemplating. The Buddhist vision that all of us have that capacity if we get rid of the defilements that cloud the dormant “capable of being awakened” is acceptable to some. But for me, any theory of everything has to take into account the vastness of time and space, the relative obscurity of Man and the clear evidence we have that Man as we know came into being only very recently (almost minuscule compared to the totality of universal time). I have studied Evolution in great detail and it appears to be the only way we can explain the diversity of living beings and the fossil record. No religion or philosophy to my knowledge has referred to evolution. If I understand Buddhist philosophy correctly, animals can be born as humans and vice versa. This is totally against scientific fact. Other planes of existence have been referred to and it is all too easy to equate these with life in other planets. The importance of light is hijacked by Christians when they say that one of the first things God did was to create light. They conveniently forget that he then separated light to night and day (presumably the Earth was given a spin!). In Biblical times nothing was known about planets and the solar system. These statements cannot be taken seriously by anybody who is a critical thinker.  I would also assert that it is only through faith that even Buddhism can be accepted. Rebirth, the pursuance of an existential state by a person who is not a “person” with a blind acceptance that somehow when the sequence of births and deaths is interrupted, some form of bliss is released to someone who is, as a matter of fact, no one as there is nothing substantial that transmits from one birth to the other, is a matter of belief or faith. The Abidhamma refers to a gandhabba which if true makes better sense in that although the gandhabba is subject to change from moment to moment, at least there is some continuity.  I can visualise the Earth being filled by streams of gandabhayas each apparently being burnt out at various stages but continuing its trail as a “new” fire but not entirely new as it has its own path compared to the next one by its side. In Buddhism, we are constantly reminded that self is an illusion. I find this very hard to accept. I know that “Mahendra” has a body and “Mahendra” can think, perceive, imagine, empathise, question, enjoy sensual pleasures, be angry, be irritated, be awed and be seen and experienced by others, and all this is experienced by Mahendra as a person. The same person who is asked to develop insight and be liberated from suffering is not a person – is this not a contradiction? How can liberation liberate without a subject to be liberated? It doesn’t make sense to me. How can “I” set upon a journey if there is no “I”? The “I” could be constantly changing but Mahendra and Sarath are two distinct entities. Whatever answers I seek, I seek as Mahendra, for Mahendra who is very real to me.

What I believe is that what we know matters to us. We know the world exists and has existed for a very long time. We have evolved from simple life forms to what we are today. Because we can experience the emotion we are subject to both positive and negative aspects of it. If we are incapable of emotion, we will neither be happy nor unhappy. We are conditioned by our genes and this genetic trail goes back several generations. At birth, these have an influence on us but do not determine our future. We are affected by our environment and we now know that these cultural changes or “nurture” can change the ways in which our genes are expressed- the science of epigenetics. We are therefore not prisoners of our genes. We are all affected by the laws of nature. If I put my hand in a burning flame it will be burnt unless before that happens, the sharp pain I experience causes me to withdraw my hand. This is my subconscious reflex defence mechanism. Similarly, if I happen to live in a country which has a violent earthquake, I am very likely to be affected. It has nothing to do with God’s will or my past actions in a previous birth although it may have everything to do with actions in my current birth, e.g., ignoring advice on the high likelihood of an earthquake. I live my life with a detached view with the realisation that material wealth and exalted position in life does not give me a sense of contentment. It doesn’t necessarily follow (as some Buddhists suggest) that material enjoyments are futile. I beg to differ. If I followed that line of thinking I would have been deprived of some of the most enjoyable experiences in my life. As I realise that these don’t last and as I am prepared to accept that they are finite, I don’t feel sad- just left with some good memories which I can recall when I contemplate and reflect. The fault is to cling to them without realising their temporary nature or to aspire for more and more material possessions in the false belief that that is the way towards contentment. Our life would be a misery if we didn’t have friends, healthy pursuits and some material joys. I know that all material things could cause us happiness or unhappiness through the state of our receptive mind. The elation a beggar experiences, when he picks up a £20 note, may not be very different from that which is experienced by the property tycoon when he makes his next million. In other words, both actions ultimately produce a reaction through sensations in the brain.  The £20 or £1 million are just vehicles; the joy is entirely in the mind.  It would much more preferable if one could produce that effect without the need for any money at all!

I believe in morality, not for personal gain or loss, reward or punishment but because humans and animals are integral parts of this planet and by cooperation, mutual understanding and respect we can all be better off. A Scandinavian was asked why he is happy to pay such high taxes and his answer was “If it helps to make people less fortunate than myself happier, that is all I need”. The reason to be moral is not to gather merit or please God and ensure a good afterlife. What matters is this life. Period.  We have no evidence at all of life after death. Why concern ourselves with it? In this life, I don’t want to suffer pain if I could avoid it. I would like to avoid illness where possible through the sensible living and I want to avoid things like accidents where possible – in other words, I have some degree of control over my future and where possible, I like to make use of it. Growing old is an essential part of living and so is death.  Without death, there wouldn’t be any life. I accept both as inevitable.  I never quite understand why people seek purpose in life. Why does life need a purpose? If you subdivide “purpose” into chunks, purpose can be assigned. The purpose behind why I don’t smoke is because I want to reduce my chances of suffering from smoking-related diseases. The purpose of saving money for my retirement is to be financially solvent. There is no purpose in my life. I am here because I was born and I was fortunate to have had loving parents and a happy childhood. Purpose is largely pursued by Theists who believe that God has something in mind for you. Purpose is not the same as causality.

So why dwell on the sort of discussion on consciousness? Was it and is it a waste of time? Absolutely not, as long as we pursue it to gain a better understanding of the world and of ourselves. It is counterproductive if we do it to justify our religious beliefs. Science today won’t be the science of tomorrow. To hitch your wagon entirely to science is like building a castle in the sand.

What’s in a name?

Mahendra Gonsalkorale. March 31st 2020

Personal identity is a fascinating subject. I don’t know enough of Human history to identify when Homo sapiens assigned “names” to people so that communication became easier. I guess the need would have been somewhat similar to classifying any collection of “things” that you have, to make it easy to pick out what you want. Before language was discovered, the only way to indicate and item would have been to point to it. Once unique symbols (names) were given you could indicate what you want by referring it to by name even in the absence of the object desired. This presumably started with assigning names or symbols to objects of importance around us and then naturally progressing to all sentient beings. With evolution and aggregations of man into tribes and communities, the system of naming too had to evolve. There could been a time when a person was identified only by his/her relationship to other family members. For example, a man named Aponso may have had a son and the son may not have had a unique name but merely referred to as “Aponso’s son”. When Aponso had more sons, it could be “the elder son of Aponso” and the “younger son of Aponso” or even abbreviated to “Aponso son the elder” and “Aponso son the younger”. At some time, those identified in that manner may have insisted on a unique name with the development of a sense of “self” or equally, it may have been more practical for the group as a whole to assign unique names to members.  But the relationship of one person to another appears to have continued in the naming process. The link could have been to the family or possibly to other respected figures in the community. For example, if Hannibal was held in high esteem, I could imagine a father naming his son Hannibal. This still applies with names of revered religious figures such as Mary and even Jesus or Buddha being given to people.

The name of a person is usually of great importance to the person. Dale Carnegie said “Remember that a person’s name is to that person the sweetest and most important sound in any language”. He said “Using a person’s name is crucial, especially when meeting those we don’t see very often. Respect and acceptance stem from simple acts such as remembering a person’s name and using it whenever appropriate.” This is an indication of a basic human need to be recognised as distinct and unique. This process develops in several stages. A person is born and given a name. But the need for that name to indicate the relationship of the person to other key people in his life is also very important. So you become “son (putha (S), mahan(T))” or daughter (duwa, mahal)” or “my wife” or “my husband” or “my boss”. Or as “my son, Lakshman” for example. You as an individual is submerged. Your importance is because of your relationship. In Sri Lankan circles, wives are often annoyed by a common practice of a husband introducing his wife as “this is my wife” rather than “this is my wife Rani”. It is by no means exclusive to Sri Lankans.  This practice is further strengthened by the adoption of the husband’s surname by the wife. She becomes at best “Mrs Rita Mithra” or at worst “Mrs Mithra”. As we know there is a growing rebellion among married women, especially in the West and many choose not to adopt the husband’s surname at all while others resort to the “double-barrel” method of including both. The more liberated will become Ms Rita Mithra-Tsunami while others will be happy with Mrs Rita Mithra-Tsunami. The extreme on the spectrum will be Ms Rita Tsunami.

I was delving into the history of surnames in the UK and unearthed some interesting facts which I like to share with you. I have included some very limited facts relating to  Sri Lanka but I intend to do a more detailed study soon. As expected, there are many common themes reflecting our colonial past. I would welcome comments from readers who are able to share their knowledge.

Surnames came into existence gradually in the UK from between 1066 and about 1400. Before 1066, a person usually had one name, a Christian name. After 1400, people almost always had a family name or surname as well.  This happened first in England and later in Wales and Scotland. Most of the names now in use can be traced back to this period. The growth in surnames was the result of the growth in population and the expansion of government. A simple system of a Christian name only was inadequate. Small communities probably had a sufficient store of names to provide individual names without giving rise to duplication and confusion. The population of England doubled from 2 M in 1066 to 4 M in 1400. People travelled more and the number of towns rapidly increased. Following the Norman Conquest of England by the Duke of Normandy in 1066, a system of government administration expanded and the need for registering people became necessary. The practice of naming a son using the father’s name did not necessarily mean that the name was passed on to their children in turn. For example, King Harold, the son of Godwin was called Harold Godwinsson. But the family name Godwinsson was not passed on to his children. Harold Godwinsson was unique and his name indicated that his father was Godwin. If names were passed down, one of Harold’s sons Ulf (or Wulf) would have been Ulf Haroldsson, not Ulf Godwinsson. But Ulf was just known as Ulf son of Harold.

The evolution of surnames in general

We can see that there was a need to identify people as unique subjects.  The use of a Surname attached to the Christian name was one way. This method also created a link between two generations. Other methods were also used and they can be classified broadly as based on:-

(a) Patronymic (b) Occupational names (c) Locality names (d) Nicknames.

(a)    Patronymics. Names which refer to the father. Most are easy to pick out. Harrison – son of Harry, Johnson – son of John.  One patronymic derivation not always recognised is the use of the apostrophe ‘s. Johns for example would have started as “John’s” (son of John). Others include Edwards, Williams, Roberts and Evans. A further complication is the shortening of names. E.g., Robert could be Rob, Robin, Hob or Hopkin and the son of Robert could be Robertson, Robson, Robinson, Robbins, Hobson or Hopkinson. Similarly, Richard has nicknames such as Dick, Hick and gives rise to surnames such as Richardson, Dickson, Dixon, Hickson, Higson, Higginson. Sometimes the son is given the father’s occupational name. e.g., the father is a Tailor and the son becomes Taylorson. Similarly, Smithson- son of a Smith. In Scotland, the word Mac is used instead of son. So MacPherson is the son of the parson, MacNab is the son of the Abbot. It is even more complicated in Welsh.  The word ap- preceding the name is the same as the English –son after the name but the ap gets corrupted and the “a” may get dropped and “p” may survive as a p, ab or as an f. Lloyd could become aLloyd, or Flood or Blood or Floyd. Probert is from Robert.

(b)   Occupational. Most of them are easy to understand but some apparently unrelated to occupations are related but either the occupation has died out or called something else now. An example is Theaker which is the same as Thatcher (thatched roofer).  Chandler was a candle maker. Barker is a Tanner (bark is used for tanning).Other examples are Clark, Miller, Baker, Carpenter, Contractor, Barber. Some Royal names have humble origins too. Stuart is from Steward and Marshal is from a marshal in stately processions but the word meant a lowly horse-groom.

(c)    Locality. These are of two types. The first refers to actual names of places and the second refers to features of the countryside close to the settlement. Examples of first type are Lincoln, Preston, Doncaster, and Churchill. Examples of the second type are Hill, Meadow, Brook, Wood, and Bridge. The feature is not necessarily natural, as in Bridge, Castle, and Mill.

(d)   Nicknames. Nicknames are the hardest to classify and not uncommonly, the conclusion that it is a nickname is reached on the basis that the name does not fit into any of the first 3 classes. Some are easy to understand. E.g., according to physical characteristics such as “Redhead”, “Prettybody”, “Whalebelly” (Big tummy like a whale!) and Little.  Gray for gray hair, Donne or Dunn for a dark person. Names indicating a habit such as Drinkwater for an abstainer. Shakespeare apparently indicated exactly what it says. Doolittle for a lazy person, Lovelace came from “Love-lass”, a young man noted for his amorous activities.

The need to be unique is also reflected in how families choose how the surname is spelt. e.g., (Smith, Smythe), (Newcombe, Newcombe).

Just a few International examples.

In China, an Emperor decreed the adoption of the hereditary family names in 2852 BC.

In Turkey, a law making surnames mandatory was made in 1935.

Jews were late in adopting surnames and often were compelled to do so as they were debarred from adopting names used by Christians. Sometimes they chose names which sounded good like Rosenthal which means rose valley.

Swedish names often reflect their love of nature, incorporating words such as “berg” (mountain) and “blom” (flower).

In Sri Lanka, the word “ge” (belonging to or derived from) is used to indicate the family such as Gonsalkoralege Mahendra. This practice has largely changed to reverse it to Mahendra Gonsalkorale (and the “ge” is dropped) or a new surname has arisen and the old surname retained as an additional first name such as Gonsalkoralege Mahendra De Chickera. The place name could also be used such as Balangoda Ranjit Weeratunge. Occupational and title names are used such as Kottuwe Muhandiramge Sarath Jayanetti. Some carry a whole lineage in their name such as the celebrated Sri Lankan cricketer W P U J C Vaas who has the rare distinction of having more initials than letters in his surname! His full name is Warnakulasuriya Patabendige Ushantha Joseph Chaminda Vaas. Sri Lankans are also finicky about correct spelling of certain names as the spelling is caste related, e.g., Goonewardena and Gunawardena, Goonetileka and Gunatileka. Sri Lankans have also adopted many Portuguese, Dutch and English names and this is generally more prevalent among Christians. The other interesting feature of names in Sri Lanka is the adoption of Sinhala names by some Tamils who for several generations lived in the South and Sinhalese who have done the same after living in Tamil areas. One other feature of note during colonial times was the adoption of more English sounding names to enhance prospects for employment in Government institutions. Some went to the extent of embracing Christianity for the same reason.

Another common Sri Lankan cultural habit is to invent totally new names with no meaning at all, apart from “sounding nice”. The need for this sometimes arises from the requirement for choosing the first letter of the name as deemed auspicious by the horoscope of the person. Another reason is a fad to give name which has never been used before and stand out as unique!

The Tamil format has also changed but the practise of stating the father’s name followed by the unique name is common. We have Suranjan Vinyamoorthy and Suranjan Krishnamoorthy who are both sons of Suranjan. This makes working out relationships a bit harder.

Nick names, of course, are commonly used in every country. In our own batch, we have Speedy, Lucky, Gompa, Cigar, and Bunter just to name a few!

I do hope I have stimulated your appetite to ask more questions about names. The science that studies names in all their aspects is called Onomastics or Onamatology. I don’t know whether the science that studies names of people has a name but this is the closest I could find: a set of personal names is called Anthroponymy and their study is called Antroponomastics.