Ajith (Samaranayake) began his brilliant career way back in 1975 at Lake House as a young radical bubbling with zest and burning passion for the printed word. Having already cut his teeth on writing at Trinity, he took to journalism like a duck to water. Under the tutelage of heavyweights of the day, he rose to the cruising altitude of Sri Lankan journalism in no time.

He joined The Island at its inception and went on to edit The Island Sunday Edition. No respecter of political potentates and their commissars, he led the charge against the dictatorial regime at that time from the front to keep the popular struggle to democratise Sri Lankan politics alive. He also lent his voice fearlessly to mass movements for democracy and human rights.

There was hardly a subject that he didn’t write about. He excelled as a literary critic, political commentator and editorialist par excellence. Anything that he wrote, the people devoured avidly. His columns sold newspapers. To us the fellow scribes, it was a pleasure to be with Ajith and see him at work. He would sit in his editorial chair stroking his greying beard and suddenly he would spring into action. He would take out his small typewriter—by the ear as we jokingly said—and produce a juicy copy in record time and disappear equally fast after finishing it to exercise his elbow at a watering hole, a habit that never deserted him. He apparently thought on the same lines as Mark Twain, who said:

All say, "How hard it is that we have to die"- a strange complaint to come from the mouths of people who have had to live.

Following the false beginning of a new era in 1994, immersed in the prevailing zeitgeist, he went whence he had come—to edit The Sunday Observer. His going back was a mistake as he used to confide in the editor of this newspaper whenever they met. At the time of his death, he was Editor of The Friday tabloid.

Ajith obsessively strove to maintain what he fondly referred to as gravitas in journalism, which is fast disappearing with packaging taking precedence over content in today’s newspapers, as he recently pointed out in a column. He jealously guarded editorial freedom and had the knack for having a tiff with those who wielded authority. He knew there was a Brutus behind every pillar in state media institutions but didn’t give two hoots about the consequences that his defiance would lead to. For, he didn’t care for positions. A good journalist, it is said, works with the resignation letter in his pocket.

The tragic death of his sister last week dealt a devastating blow that Ajith could hardly withstand. Since then, he had been battling death in an ICU of a Colombo hospital. A fighter to the last, he may have thought like Donne:

Death be not proud, though some have called thee

Mighty and dreadful, for, thou art not so`85

With Ajith’s untimely demise, gone is a man who never bartered standards and ethics of his profession for personal gain. Ajith leaves us sad but proud.

Adios amigo!

-The Island Editorial

While the government is thus presenting budgets, inaugurating ambitious projects, expressing fond hopes about achieving rapid economic progress, on the other side of the fence, the UNP is embroiled in serious internal conflict. It held its 60th Annual Convention with an important section of its members boycotting the event.

The newly elected General Secretary Tissa Attanayake says that there was no official communication to the party about the dissidents’ boycott of the convention, while the dissidents say that they had informed UNP Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe about their non-attendance.

At their press briefing the dissidents have said that they had no intention of deposing their leader, but the thrust of their exercise was to save the party they loved so much. Their statements are reminiscent of what Brutus said having assassinated Julius Caesar. Brutus said, "If there be any in this assembly, any dear friend of Caesar’s, to him I say that Brutus’ love to Caesar was no less than his. If then that friend demands why Brutus rose against Caesar, this is my answer: Not that I lov’d Caesar less, but that I lov’d Rome more." The future events will show us whether this love will have the effect of destroying both.

It was, however, evident that the vast majority in the party had stood by its leader and the convention has been conducted without a mishap. It was encouraging that the members have approved theMoU the party had signed with the SLFP and decided to stand by it faithfully. We hope that the dissidents will come back and fall in line with the majority in the party who also have shown their keenness in adopting the required party reforms. The leader himself has promised to convene a special convention within 100 days to get the remaining proposals approved- it is hoped that the leader will go ahead with reforms as promised.

What seems to be thwarting attempts at reconciliation are the personal ambitions and agendas that some are suspected to be promoting. So the abnegation of these ambitions in the party’s interest has become essential for any progress in restoring party unity.

What appears as a glimmer of hope amid the prevailing doom and gloom is the news about the finalisation of the set of proposals by the experts panel of the All Party Conference. It has been revealed that a set of proposals envisaging internal self-determination, devolution of power and electoral reforms, is being finalized by this panel now and it will be presented to the Representatives Committee of the APC shortly.

The move to get experts on constitutional matters to prepare a framework for the resolution of the North-East conflict was indeed a positive step. The proposals once formulated would serve as a basis for discussion and acceptance at the APC conference.

The view expressed on this matter by Leader of the Opposition and UNP Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe holds out hope that it would be possible for the parties to proceed with the process set afloat to a successful conclusion.

Wickremesinghe has said at the convention that his party would consider the proposals of the experts panel when they come before the APC and make their own contributions to make them acceptable to all parties concerned.

It is quite possible that the proposals may fail to satisfy the LTTE if it is not prepared to come down from their irreconcilable ambitions. The effort should be get the majority political opinion to back the common proposals. -Daily Mirror Editorial

"God sent his Singers upon earth

With songs of sadness and of mirth,

That they might touch the hearts of men,

And bring them back to heaven again."

— H. W. Longfellow

Many a person has blown a gasket over the appointment of popular singer Karunaratne Divulgane as the North Central Province Governor. They demand to know whether President Mahinda Rajapakse couldn’t find anyone else for that post. Most appointments that politicians make are questionable and the consternation of the public is understandable. But should the appointment of Divulgane be condemned on similar grounds?

Divulgane’s disqualification, according to his detractors, is that he is a singer. In other words, they don’t consider singers fit enough to hold political/public office. We have had all sorts of artistes as politicians, mainly actors but there has been no such opposition to them on the grounds of their profession. The late Mr. Gamini Fonseka, actor turned politician, went on to become the Speaker and NE Governor and maintained the dignity of those posts, though not without theatrics.

Across the Palk Straits, in Tamil Nadu we have seen several celluloid heroes and heroines reach the zenith of political firmament, like MGR and Jayalalitha. The US had Ronald Reagan the actor as President and the present Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger is a blockbuster idol.

Never mind, artistes, in this country we have had even the scum of the earth as politicians. Among them have been killers, torturers, rapists, arsonists, drug dealers, thugs, cattle thieves, bootleggers, swindlers, frauds and pickpockets. We mean what we say but stop short of naming names because of the bludgeon of privileges at their disposal to beat the press with. ‘Lawmakers’ are, as we have pointed out in these columns umpteen times, still using firearms without permits, an offence for which any other person would have been thrown behind bars. Worst of all, those who have robbed the country of billions of rupees and killed dozens to get elected continue to be returned at popular elections. Strange but true! It looks as if the country had come to take the criminal track record of politicians for granted.

As far as we are aware, Divulgane doesn’t fall into any of the aforesaid categories. His only ‘crime’ appears to be his singing! Is it that his detractors wouldn’t have objected to any of the abovementioned anti-social characters being appointed the NCP Governor instead of a singer?

Divulgane is a singer par excellence, though he has sullied his image by engaging in party politics. It is unfortunate that he has forgotten that an artiste belongs to the people and not to any particular political party. He shouldn’t have lent his voice to any politician and accepted favours in return. For that, one may say, he deserves, so to speak, a knuckle sandwich! However, he is not alone in having committed that mistake: All political parties are full of artistes who have lost their way. Politics has become their last resort.

We are never short of clowns as politicians. Once there was a state minister by the name of A. J. Ranasinghe, whose only qualification to be in charge of the media was his offer to make a soup out of President Premadasa’s slippers (sereppu soup) and relish it. (We must be evoking readers’ memories of a scene in Gold Rush, where Charlie Chaplin prepares a ‘boot soup’.) We have written extensively about a parliamentarian from the North Western Province, who dyed all the birds in his poultry farm green, the colour of the UNP, after its landslide victory in 1977. Then there was that Minister of School Education who challenged students, teachers and a principal at a school assembly to give him another name for mathematics and triumphantly declared, when they failed to answer his question, that it was algebra!

If one cares to visit Parliament while it is in session, one will see for oneself the real standards of Sri Lankan legislators. They hurl abuse across the well of the House and hit one another’s genitals with mobile phones. Once, a group of school children who were in the public gallery started crying when they were scared out of wits by a rowdy scene below. Or, if one watches regular cockfights a.k.a. TV political debates,—provided one doesn’t have anything else to do—one will see the politicians for what they really are.

Divulgane is far superior—at least at present—to most politicians and political appointees we are burdened with. Whether he will be a good governor, we don’t know. But we know for sure that he wouldn’t be any worse than the lot we have had so far.

Having said that, we have this to tell Divulgane: Now that you have plunged into the cesspit of politics, try to remain afloat! We are worried about the good singer in you. -The Island Editorial

Army Commander Lt. General Sarath Fonseka inspects LTTE weapons and explosives captured by  troops during his inspection tour in Jaffna yesterday.

Tribute to Sri Lankan Armed Forces

Today is Binara Full Moon Poya day

Maha Pajapati Gotamire questing for permission from the Buddha to establish the order of nuns (Bhikkhuni Sasana)

Binara (full moon Poya commemorates the Buddha’s visit to heaven to preach to his mother and celestial multitude. Also the commencing of the Bhikkhuni (nun’s) Order. Pajapati Gotami approached the Buddha and implored him to establish the Bhikkhuni Order.

Buddhist Missionary Society, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 1996

Let us discuss a question often asked by many people: What is the difference between Mahayana and Theravada Buddhism? To see things in their proper perspective, let us turn to the history of Buddhism and trace the emergence and development of Mahayana and Theravada Buddhism.

The Buddha was born in the 6th Century B.C. After attaining Enlightenment at the age of 35 until his Mahaparinibbana at the age of 80, he spent his life preaching and teaching. He was certainly one of the most energetic man who ever lived: for forty-five years he taught and preached day and night, sleeping for only about 2 hours a day.

The Buddha spoke to all kinds of people: kings and princes, Brahmins, farmers, beggars, learned men and ordinary people. His teachings were tailored to the experiences, levels of understanding and mental capacity of his audience. What he taught was called Buddha Vacana, i.e. word of the Buddha. There was nothing called Theravada or Mahayana at that time.

After establishing the Order of monks and nuns, the Buddha laid down certain disciplinary rules called the Vinaya for the guidance of the Order. The rest of his teachings were called the Dhamma which included his discourses, sermons to monks, nuns and lay people.

The First Council

Three months after the Buddha’s Mahaparinibbana, his immediate disciples convened a council at Rajagaha. Maha Kassapa, the most respected and elderly monk, presided at the Council. Two very important personalities who specialised in the two different areas – the Dhamma and the Vinaya – were present. One was Ananda, the closest constant companion and disciple of the Buddha for 25 years. Endowed with a remarkable memory, Ananda was able to recite what was spoken by the Buddha. The other personality was Upali who remembered all the Vinaya rules.

Only these two sections – the Dhamma and the Vinaya – were recited at the First Council. Though there were no differences of opinion on the Dhamma (no mention of the Abhidhamma) there was some discussion about the Vinaya rules.

Before the Buddha’s Parinibbana, he had told Ananda that if the Sangha wished to amend or modify some minor rules, they could do so. But on that occasion Ananda was so overpowered with grief because the Buddha was about to die that it did not occur to him to ask the Master what the minor rules were.

As the members of the Council were unable to agree as to what constituted the minor rules, Maha Kassapa finally ruled that no disciplinary rule laid down by the Buddha should be changed, and no new ones should be introduced. No intrinsic reason was given. Maha Kassapa did say one thing, however: "If we changed the rules, people will say that Ven. Gotama’s disciples changed the rules even before his funeral fire has ceased burning."

At the Council, the Dhamma was divided into various parts and each part was assigned to an Elder and his pupils to commit to memory. The Dhamma was then passed on from teacher to pupil orally. The Dhamma was recited daily by groups of people who often cross check with each other to ensure that no omissions or additions were made. Historians agree that the oral tradition is more reliable than a report written by one person from his memory several years after the event.

The Second Council

One hundred years later, the Second Council was held to discuss some Vinaya rules. There was no need to change the rules three months after the Parinibbana of the Buddha because little or no political, economic or social changes took place during that short interval. But 100 years later, some monks saw the need to change certain minor rules. The orthodox monks said that nothing should be changed while the others insisted on modifying some rules, Finally, a group of monks left the Council and formed the Mahasanghika – the Great Community. Even though it was called the Mahasanghika, it was not known as Mahayana, And in the Second Council, only matters pertaining to the Vinaya were discussed and no controversy about the Dhamma is reported.

The Third Council

In the 3rd Century B.C. during the time of Emperor Asoka, the Third Council was held to discuss the differences of opinion among the bhikkhus of different sects. At this Council the differences were not confined to the Vinaya but were also connected with the Dhamma. At the end of this Council, the President of the Council, Moggaliputta Tissa, compiled a book called the Kathavatthu refuting the heretical, false views and theories held by some sects. The teaching approved and accepted by this Council was known as Theravada. The Abhidhamma Pitaka was included at this Council.

After the Third Council, Asoka’s son, Ven. Mahinda, brought the Tripitaka to Sri Lanka, along with the commentaries that were recited at the Third Council. The texts brought to Sri Lanka were preserved until today without losing a page. The texts were written in Pali which was based on the Magadhi language spoken by the Buddha. There was nothing known as Mahayana at that time.

Coming of Mahayana

Between the 1st Century B.C. to the 1st Century A.D., the two terms Mahayana and Hinayana appeared in the Saddharma Pundarika Sutra or the Sutra of the Lotus of the Good Law.

About the 2nd Century A.D. Mahayana became clearly defined. Nagarjuna developed the Mahayana philosophy of Sunyata and proved that everything is Void in a small text called Madhyamika-karika. About the 4th Century, there were Asanga and Vasubandhu who wrote enormous amount of works on Mahayana.

After the 1st Century AD., the Mahayanists took a definite stand and only then the terms of Mahayana and Hinayana were introduced.

We must not confuse Hinayana with Theravada because the terms are not synonymous. Theravada Buddhism went to Sri Lanka during the 3rd Century B.C. when there was no Mahayana at all. Hinayana sects developed in India and had an existence independent from the form of Buddhism existing in Sri Lanka.

Today there is no Hinayana sect in existence anywhere in the world.

Therefore, in 1950 the World Fellowship of Buddhists inaugurated in Colombo unanimously decided that the term Hinayana should be dropped when referring to Buddhism existing today in Sri Lanka, Thailand, Burma, Cambodia, Laos, etc. This is the brief history of Theravada, Mahayana and Hinayana.

Mahayana and Theravada

Now, what is the difference between Mahayana and Theravada?

I have studied Mahayana for many years and the more I study it, the more I

find there is hardly any difference between Theravada and Mahayana with regard to the fundamental teachings.

- Both accept Sakyamuni Buddha as the Teacher.

- The Four Noble Truths are exactly the same in both schools.

- The Eightfold Path is exactly the same in both schools.

- The Paticca-samuppada or the Dependent Origination is the same in both schools.

- Both rejected the idea of a supreme being who created and governed this world.

- Both accept Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta and Sila, Samadhi, Panna without any difference.

These are the most important teachings of the Buddha and they are all accepted by both schools without question.

There are also some points where they differ. An obvious one is the Bodhisattva ideal. Many people say that Mahayana is for the Bodhisattvahood which leads to Buddhahood while Theravada is for Arahantship. I must point out that the Buddha was also an Arahant. Pacceka Buddha is also an Arahant.

A disciple can also be an Arahant. The Mahayana texts never use the term

Arahant-yana, Arahant Vehicle. They used three terms: Bodhisattvayana, Prateka-Buddhayana, and Sravakayana. In the Theravada tradition these three are called Bodhis.

Some people imagine that Theravada is selfish because it teaches that people should seek their own salvation. But how can a selfish person gain Enlightenment? Both schools accept the three Yanas or Bodhis but consider the Bodhisattva ideal as the highest. The Mahayana has created many mystical Bodhisattvas while the Theravada considers a Bodhisattva as a man amongst us who devotes his entire life for the attainment of perfection, ultimately becoming a fully Enlightened Buddha for the welfare of the world, for the happiness of the world.

Three Types of Buddhahood

There are three types of Buddhahood: the Samma Sambuddha who gains full Enlightenment by his own effort, the Pacceka Buddha who has lesser qualities than the Samma Sambuddha, and the Savaka Buddha who is an Arahant disciple.

The attainment of Nibbana between the three types of Buddhahood is exactly the same. The only difference is that the Samma Sambuddha has many more qualities and capacities than the other two.

Some people think that Voidness or Sunyata discussed by Nagarjuna is purely a Mahayana teaching. It is based on the idea of Anatta or non-self, on the Paticcasamuppada or the Dependent Origination, found in the original Theravada Pali texts. Once Ananda asked the Buddha, "People say the word Sunya. What is Sunya?" The Buddha replied, "Ananda, there is no self, nor anything pertaining to self in this world. Therefore, the world is empty."

This idea was taken by Nagarjuna when he wrote his remarkable book, "Madhyamika Karika".

Besides the idea of Sunyata is the concept of the store-consciousness in Mahayana Buddhism which has its seed in the Theravada texts. The Mahayanists have developed it into a deep psychology and philosophy.

Among the NGOs are Amnesty International, Third World Network, Equality Now and the World Federalist Movement – Institute of Global Policy. On August 11 a Questionnaire of 14 groups of questions was submitted by them to all four declared candidates. Jayanatha Dhanapala of Sri Lanka was the first to respond followed by India. The responses of the other two candidates are still being awaited.

Here are the questions and answers from Jayantha Dhanapala. (more…)

When the diplomat with over four decades of experience took over the leadership of the government’s Peace Secretariat in May 2004, the peace process was heading for disaster. The LTTE had pulled out of peace talks a year earlier – and it had commenced a vicious strategy of assassinating its Tamil political opponents and members of the government’s intelligence apparatus. It had presented an ambitious document for regional self-rule sans the central government. Compounding this negative scenario, the general election of April 2004 had been largely fought on the issue of the peace process. The victorious United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA) campaigned on a platform that was critical of the peace process. The alliance highlighted its deficiencies as being unilaterally beneficial to the LTTE. It also accused the former government of having betrayed the country.

As Perera, a highly respected peace Analyst, observes in LMD: "But two unexpected events turned the situation around. The first was the appointment of Sri Lanka’s leading international diplomat to be the Director-General of the Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process (SCOPP). This appointment provided a measure of hope that the government was putting forward the country’s best intellectual resources to serve the cause of peace. Dhanapala’s UN experience, combined with his professionalism and integrity, meant that Sri Lanka had a world-class negotiator taking on the LTTE. However, the hoped-for breakthrough in the peace process was not immediate."

The LMD writer also points out in the magazine’s current edition that the international donor community pushed the Sri Lankan parties to work together towards a negotiated settlement. "It took nearly six months of hard work; but eventually, Dhanapala and his team of negotiators succeeded in reaching an agreement with the LTTE on a joint mechanism for tsunami relief: the Post-Tsunami Operational Management Structure (P-TOMS). This was only the second agreement ever to be signed between the government and the LTTE, the first being the (Ceasefire Agreement) CFA of 2002.The signing of the P-TOMS agreement heralded a possible new phase for the peace process," Perera comments.

"Another major achievement was the marked shift in the attitude of the LTTE, which occurred in the course of the negotiations with Dhanapala and his team of negotiators. A comparison between the P-TOMS and the LTTE’s proposed ISGA proposal showed a vast difference," expounds LMD. [Via... The Island]

Prof. Uyangoda, who is also Founder-Director of the Centre for Policy Research and Analysis (CPA), made his comments in an extensive interview with Rediff.com last week.

Prof. Uyangoda argues that attitudes in Sri Lanka are not conducive to reaching agreement on a final settlement early on in a peace process.

"A final solution of Sri Lanka’s ethnic conflict requires reconstitution of the post-colonial unitary State.

"[But] the Sinhalese political class is not yet ready for the radical reconstitution of the State power structure. Even after 25 years of conflict the Sinhalese political class have not come to that stage yet.

"Sri Lanka’s complexity is something like this: you have a majority ruling class which is not yet ready to work out the settlement that would give equality to the ethnic minority of Sri Lanka.

"Second, they do not, they cannot, acknowledge and accommodate the minimalist position presented by even the non-LTTE Tamil groups.

"Any workable solution will require recognition that Tamils are a distinct community and the North and East will require what we may call asymmetrical autonomy.

"And that is not yet recognized in Sri Lanka."

"The LTTE’s vision of political settlement, even an internal political settlement, would be one that would be defined within the framework of extensive regional autonomy that would go far beyond the existing 1978 Constitution."

"But the present government wants to work this out within the 1978 Constitution.

"The existing Constitution defines the Sri Lankan state as a unitary state, while the LTTE’s vision of a solution is far beyond even the conventional notion of federalism.

"The point here is that the LTTE is for maximalist regional autonomy and the government of Sri Lanka is for minimalist degree of regional autonomy. There is a vast gap between the visions of the two sides.

"[Even]the most advanced Sinhalese politicians would say that when provincial powers are given to the Northern region (where the Tamils are in a majority) and the Eastern region (where Muslims and Tamils are dominating), they should have equal powers as the rest of the areas in the country."

"But that idea won’t work. And the Sinhalese have not even agreed to those equal powers."

Prof. Uyangoda, a strong advocate of the Norwegian facilitated peace process from its outset in 2002 under the then UNP government, has sometimes been criticised as being insufficiently critical of that initiative.

But he argues flaws are inevitable in any peace process and there has to be a starting point.

"Protracted ethnic conflict always requires a protracted peace process. That’s why perhaps, initially, one has to have an incomplete and imperfect peace process. Some may call it negative peace.

"We need a credible ceasefire agreement to begin with.

"[Just like the present government,] even the previous government which started this negotiation [process] in 2002 didn’t have a clear political agenda or a roadmap of the outcome of negotiations with the LTTE.

"The present government has come into power in the wake of the collapse of the 2002 peace process. The challenge before [it] is to initiate the new peace process.

"[But] I don’t think the present Sri Lankan government is in a position to take any of the fresh new set of political initiatives which are necessary to reinvigorate or reconstitute the peace process.”

Prof. Uyangoda says there considerable mutual mistrust.

"The Sinhalese want political guarantees, while the Tamils and LTTE believe that no agreement will be fully implemented by the Sinhalese political class. They quote past experiences.

"The argument forwarded by the LTTE is that until the terms of full and final settlement is fully and comprehensively implemented, there is no guarantee that the State run by the Sinhalese ruling class would honour the terms of agreement.

"The LTTE thinks that political guarantee given within Sri Lanka won’t work, it has to come from outside. That political and security guarantee can’t come from US, Japan or France but from South Asia.

"In the case of the Mozambique peace agreement the guarantee came from the South African region."

Prof. Uyangoda said the LTTE’s strategy is “unique” as there are no comparable examples to its concept of a solution – which, he argues, is ultimately envisioned within a single state in Sri Lanka.

"The LTTE knows that a separate state in South Asia is not feasible. They know it very well. The LTTE is quite shrewd in understanding regional and global geo-politics."

"Eventually, the LTTE wants a political strategy to work for a Tamil regional sub-state. They are driving at a regional subnational [entity] in Sri Lanka which they can call Tamil Eelam, but it may not be a separate state."

"The Sinhalese will find it extremely difficult to accept this [idea]."

Prof. Uyangoda’s analysis challenged suggestions that a shift in the balance of forces would facilitate a new peace process.

"The LTTE today is no longer what it was in 1987 or 1990. My own understanding of the LTTE is that it is seriously interested and committed to what one may describe as the nation-building and state-building."

"The LTTE is not going to allow the Sri Lankan State any regional or global military alliance to destroy what they consider as achievements of the Tamil liberation struggle."

The President’s letter had been sent Friday to UNP Deputy Leader Karu Jayasuriya in the absence of UNP Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe who was away in Norway, The Sunday Leader and Sunday Times newspapers said.

Wickremesinghe was in Oslo holding talks on the crisis in Sri Lanka with Norway’s International Development Minister Erik Solheim and other officials, the Leader said.

India’s Secretary for External Affairs Shyam Saran was also in Oslo for talks on the Sri Lankan crisis, the Sunday Leader added.

The President’s invitation to the UNP also comes in the wake of international pressure to address the humanitarian crisis in the Northeast and for the SLFP and UNP to work together to develop a southern consensus, the Sunday Leader said.

International concern has been mounting over the plight of 160,000 people, mainly Tamils, displaced by months of violence which was included indiscriminate shelling and bombing by the Sri Lankan armed forces of Tamil-Tiger held areas.

The Sunday Leader has learnt that Sri Lanka’s Human Rights Ministry has failed to address the urgent humanitarian needs of the displaced as urged by the international community due to restrictions on movements [of aid and aid workers] imposed by the Defence Ministry.

In Oslo, India’s Saran had discussed the humanitarian crisis in Sri Lanka, its fallout in India and the need to ensure a speedy cessation of hostilities with Solheim and Norwegian Foreign Minister J. Gahr Store, the paper said.

A top EU source in Brussels also told The Sunday Leader the Sri Lankan government faces the prospect of sanctions unless the humanitarian crisis is not addressed as a matter of utmost urgency.

The Sunday Leader learns Wickremesinghe, on being contacted by Jayasuriya about President Rajapakse’s offer told the UNP deputy leader they would discuss the offer upon his (Wickremsinghe’s) return to the country on Sunday (today).

The UNP, informed sources told the newspaper, will consider the President’s offer if an agreement can be reached on a common agenda to resolve the national issues. That would include a solution to the ethnic issue based on the Tokyo Declaration and an agreed policy for the economy, the sources said.

The pro-UNP Sunday Leader is known to be closely aware of UNP thinking and internal politics.

Meanwhile, Presidential Advisor Basil Rajapakse (Mahinda’s brother) met SLMC Leader Rauf Hakeem Friday evening and invited his party also to join the government, the paper said.

Hakeem told Rajapakse he will consult his party and reply shortly, it added.

President Mahinda Rajapakse’s appeal to the UNP comes amid press reports of the SLFP’s difficulty in acceding to some of the demands of the ultra-nationalist Janatha Vimukthi Perumana (JVP).

The contentious demands on the JVP’s list include the abrogation of the Ceasefire Agreement (CFA) with the Liberation Tigers, the rejection of Norwegian facilitation and de-merger of the Northeast.

The Sunday Leader quoted political analysts as saying the President’s offer to the UNP “could be an attempt to subdue the JVP and get it to climb down on its hardline demands under the threat of isolation [than a genuine offer to the UNP].”

The JVP, which has anti-free market economic policies had set out twenty conditions for it to join the SLFP-led government.

The Sunday Times reported this week that the JVP’s entry into the SLFP-led government was discussed again last Wednesday at a meeting in which the Marxist party’s 20 demands were taken up.

“Of the 20 demands made by the JVP, ten were already being heeded, with ten outstanding. Of that ten, the Government was in the process of fulfilling six, and only four were considered contentious,” the paper said.

The latter include the abrogation of the February 2002 Ceasefire Agreement (CFA), the ending of Norway’s role as facilitator and de-merger of the Northeast.

The JVP politburo has decided to place the SLFP’s responses for a final decision before the party’s Central Committee, the Sunday Times reported.

Meanwhile, the Sunday Times also reported that the hardline monks’ party, the Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU), which supports the government, was angered by another move of President Rajapaksa – inviting the Ceylon Workers’ Congress (CWC) and the Upcountry People’s Front (UPF) into his Government.

On Friday the President swore in CWC leader Arumugam Thondaman as a cabinet minister and gave two deputy ministers posts to his party MPs. UPF leader P Chandrasekeran was also sworn in as a cabinet minister and one of his MPs as a deputy.

The Sunday Leader quoted analysts as pointing out that the President’s offer to the UNP was made after clinching separate deals with the CWC and UPF so that the bargaining power of the main opposition party will be diminished.

Interestingly, the Sunday Leader also said if the UNP agrees to join the government, President Mahinda Rajapakse “has decided the JVP will not be allowed to constitute the main opposition in Parliament.”

The Sunday Leader said, without elaborating, “the President is looking at an arrangement where one of the principal parties can continue to function as the opposition while some members serve in the government as ministers.”

-FRN

The Professor said there are many religions in the world such as Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam and Sikhism, but that some people believe there is a transcendental unity of religion. What this means is that although there are a number of religions, in the final analysis, they say the same thing. They are different expressions of the same eternal truth in other words, despite the apparent differences and the seeming polarities, there is a unity that transcends them all. The differences are only at the periphery, but at the core they are the same.

Apparently, the idea of a transcendental unity of religion came to be mooted originally by the Theosophiscal Movement started by Colonel Olcott of the USA and Madame Blavatsky of Russia, and two other movements: The Perrenial Philosophy, also called the Continuous Tradition, one of its proponents being Ananda Coomaraswamy, the celebrated scholar from Sri Lanka and the other movement being Neo-Hinduism, a movement ushered in mainly by the well known Indian philosopher and statesman, Sarvapali Radhakrishnan.

Professor Karunadasa posed the question whether we can speak of a transcendental unity of religion from the Buddhist perspective. The purpose of his lecture was to show that Buddhism is different from all other religions and that therefore from the Buddhist point of view we cannot speak of a transcendental unity of religion.

He pointed out that those who speak of a transcendental unity of religion maintain that all religions in common recognize a higher reality as the ultimate ground of existence. In theistic religions this higher reality is God, either a personal God or an impersonal Godhead. According to Hinduism this Higher Reality is Brahman, the Cosmic Soul. They maintain that, accordingly, Buddhism too must have a Higher Transcendental Reality and the Buddhist counterpart to this is Nibbana.

The best way to consider the Buddhist response to this question is to examine the Buddhist critique of views and ideologies. Normally when we want to criticize or argue against a point we resort to intellectual tools such as logical reasoning and philosophical investigation. According to Professor Karunadasa what Buddhism does instead is to identify the psychological factors that lead to the emergence of such views. He calls this the Buddhist Psychological Diagnosis of Ideological Positions. This he stated is something that is unique to Buddhism.

The best evidence of this comes from the Brahmajala Sutta, the First Discourse in the First Collection of Suttas, known as the Collection of Long Discourses (Dighanikaya). This Discourse, Professor Karunadasa says, begins with an enumeration of some sixty two religio-philosophical views prevalent during the time of the Buddha. What is most interesting about this discourse is that here not a single ideological position is rejected as wrong. All that the discourse seeks to do is to show, from a psychological point of view, how these views and ideologies arise, why they prevail in the world and finally, he stressed, how they can be transcended.

The Buddhist term for all speculative and metaphysical views and ideologies is ditthi-gata. This term includes all metaphysical views relating to the nature of the self and universe that are beyond personal verification.

According to Buddhism all these speculative and metaphysical views can be subsumed under two main headings: One is Sassatavada and the other is Ucchedavada. Sassatavada is the Buddhist term for all religions which recognize a permanent spiritual principle in the form of an ever-lasting spirit.

Ucchedavada, on the other hand, is the Buddhist term for all materialist ideologies. From the Buddhist perspective, both ideologies believe in a separate self, a separate individualized self-entity. The spiritualist version of the self, as defined in the Buddhist discourse, is based on the duality principle: "The self/soul is different from the physical body" (Annam jivam annam sariram). Whereas the material materialist version of the self is based on the identity principle: The self/soul is the same as the physical body" (Tam jivam tam sariram). We may represent the first as the theory of the metaphysical self and the second as the theory of the physical self. As specifically mentioned in the Buddhist discourses, all speculative views and metapysical theories relating to the nature of the self and the universe can be brought under either the spiritualist or the materialist ideologies.

What is interesting to note here is that according to Buddhism the spiritualist and the materialist ideologies are both due to what Buddhism calls sakkaya-ditthi, Personality View. Embodiment View — the belief in a separate self-entity. Why is sakkaya-ditthi identified as the root cause of all speculative views? Answering this question, Professor Karunadasa stated that we have sakkaya-ditthi when we have an egocentric perspective. It gives rise to a duality between the I and the non-I. As long as we are conditioned by the egocentric perspective so long all our judgements relating to the nature of reality will remain distorted.

Thus it is the Buddhist doctrine of non-self (the denial of sakkaya-ditthi) that prevents us from concluding that all religions are, in the final analysis, different versions of an eternal truth. Therefore, from the Buddhist perspective one cannot speak of a transcendental unity of religion.

He also pointed out that there are a large number of Buddhist schools, such as Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana, and what is more, what are called Mahayana and Vajrayana embrace within them a large number of sub-schools. However, what is common to all Buddhist schools is that they all reject the belief in a separate, individualized self. All their teachings are based on the denial of what is called sakkaya-ditthi. Therefore, we can certainly speak of the transcenedental unity of Buddhism. But not a transcendental unity of religion.

To conclude, he mentioned that if there is a doctrine which is unique to Buddhism, it is the doctrine of non-self.

If there is a Buddhist doctrine that is common to all Buddhist schools and traditions, whether they are Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana, it is also the doctrine of non-self.

If there is a doctrine that separates Buddhism from all other religions, it is also this Buddhist doctrine of non-self.

If one is asked, what is the Buddha’s most distinctive contribution to religious discourse, the correct answer should be: It is the Buddhist doctrine of non-self.

What about anicca (impermanence) and dukkha (suffering)? They were pre-Buddhist. It is of course true that the Buddhist idea of impermanence and suffering is very much different from how they are understood in other religions. However, unlike anicca and dukkha, anatta is unique to Buddhism.

What about the Buddhist doctrine of dependent origination? Is it not more central to Buddhism than the doctrine of non-self? Professor Karunadasa’s answer is that, in a way non-self means dependent origination. They are two mutually convertible terms. Whatever is describable as non-self is also describable as dependently arisen.

-The Sunday Island-