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