Lanka Citizen

by Nalin de Silva

We have outlined some aspects of the logic and attitudes of western GJC Chinthanaya. Western knowledge is based on the GJC Chinthanaya, one of its attitude being the domination of the world, which includes not only the domination of the other people, which Europeans and their descendants in North America have been engaged since the fifteenth century, but nature as well. The Biblical attitudes that man has been created in the image of God, and that the world (universe) including the woman has been created for the man, and that the Jews are the chosen people have been changed so as to replace Jews by the white Europeans, and after about three hundred years since the renaissance, the white Anglican Christians had become the dominant people on the earth. Since the fifteenth century that saw the emergence of the GJC Chinthanaya, it took about three hundred years for the English to rule the world defeating finally not only the Pope but the Catholic Chinthanaya as well. However, the Catholic Chinthanaya has not died down completely as could be seen from the advent of Communism and Fascism in the twentieth century, which are in the final analysis based on the community feeling reigning over the individual, and superficially on the three fold logic. Both Communism and Fascism were products of Germany which remains a Catholic country to date, but which gradually follows Anglo Christian countries and their culture. It has to be emphasised that the logic of Catholic Chinthanaya is two valued three fold, while the logic of GJC Chinthanaya, which is Aristotelian, is two valued and two fold

The economic man giving priority to the economics with welfare of man being substituted by the economic welfare, and the material goods acquired by the individual becoming a yard stick of the success of the individual, is a product of the GJC Chinthanaya that climaxed in England, in Europe, which has begun the next stage of development in USA. If Liberalism was a product of England (if one wishes Britain or UK) neo Liberalism is a product of USA. It is the evolution of the western society with its leadership changing from English kings and prime ministers to the American presidents that began after the so-called second world war, which has been identified as Post Modernism by some intellectuals in the west. If industrial revolution and machine technology belonged to England, electronic revolution and information technology belong to USA, though countries such as Japan may be producing more computers than north America. If India and China continue to take the path of Japan imitating the western Anglo Christian countries, they would soon lose their identities and become so called neo liberal countries with the individual dominating the community going against Hindu and Confucian cultures respectively. India and China could become economic giants in the future at the expense of becoming spiritual pygmies, and losing their sovereignties as well.

In any event, it has to be pointed out that the Newtonian world view that was challenged by scientists such as Heisenberg produced by German culture, as well as by people such as Bohr who had been greatly influenced by the Chinese culture, has been to a large extent defended by those in the USA and England with what could be identified as the neo Newtonian world view, if one wishes to do so. The adjective neo as far as we are concerned, implies a development within the same GJC Chinthanaya, though the paradigm may have been changed somewhat in certain cases. In that sense it is possible to identify Einstein as a neo Newtonian, with his opposition to interpretations of Quantum Mechanics by Bohr and Heisenberg. Einstein’s relativity did not change the GJC Chinthanaya though the Newtonian paradigm was changed as a result. Similarly what is known as post modernism could be identified as neo Modernism. It is clear that a paradigm shift has occurred in the GJC Chinthanaya in certain areas during the twentieth century without a change in the Chinthanaya as a whole. The logic of the GJC Chinthanaya has not been changed and in certain fields in “neo Modernism” the Einsteinian paradigm reins supreme. However, we do not subscribe to the nomenclature of neo this and neo that as we do not believe these limited changes only in certain areas warrant a change of name. For us it is Modernism and Modernity that has evolved for five centuries.

In the Newtonian paradigm, within the GJC Chinthanaya it is assumed among others that (i) the world (reality) exists outside the observer independent of him, (ii) the world obeys laws that could be discovered by the observer, (iii) the laws as well as the observer are rational, (iv) it is through the sense organs that the observer observes and understands the world, (v) there exists a space which is absolute, (vi) time which is absolute flows uniformly through absolute space, (vii) space and time are continuous, (viii) the properties (measurements) of objects exist independent of the observer, (ix) the measurements such as lengths, energies can take continuous values, (x) all the properties of an object can be known (measured) simultaneously at least theoretically, (xi) measurement of a property gives an already existing value, (xii) the objects exist independent of each other, (xiii) the objects move with velocities that could be measured or are at rest, in space and time (xiv) a system could be analysed into components, (xv) properties of objects could be deduced from fundamental properties implying reductionism. In the Einsteinian paradigm only (v), (vi) and (xiii) were modified, and space and time became relative, while what was introduced as space-time became absolute. However, with the Quantum Paradigm most of the others were rejected. The western world has failed to come to grips with the Quantum Paradigm, and as a consequence the GJC Chinthanaya has not been changed.

Western Classical Economics is essentially built on the Newtonian paradigm and not even on the Einsteinian paradigm. In general it is assumed that rational selfish individuals competing with each other in a Newtonian space and time, who try to satisfy their “infinite” needs (including sensual pleasures) with finite “resources” on the earth, during their lifetimes, contribute towards the economy of a country. With this view western engineering sciences and related disciplines try to maximise the resources (”efficiently” use them, or theoretically looking for infinite energies), and the medical sciences take pains in attempting to avoid death, as if it is possible to do so. However, it has been shown that the human beings are not rational beings taking decisions on a rational basis always, nor are they selfish. In fact it has been shown that human beings are no more rational than the capuchin monkeys. (For details please read the article entitled Monkey Business that appeared in the 5th November 2005 issue of the New Scientist). However, the western Christian modernity assuming the existence of a rational man, in five hundred years has reduced everything to Economics and Economic man. Marxism, though with a superficial three valued logic, subscribed to reductionism, and in essence reduced social evolution to economics.

There is no pluralism in western Christian modernity which pays only lip service to the former. It is the Judaic Christian culture and the GJC Chinthanaya that dominate the world. The other cultures and Chinthanayas are given the freedom to agitate on soap boxes (soap box freedom), as has been demonstrated by the recent incidents in UK, Australia and the present crisis in France involving black Muslims. Only the knowledge constructed in the GJC Chinthanaya is recognised as true or objective knowledge with other systems considered as “traditional” knowledge. How can there be pluralism in a Chinthanaya that has absorbed a version of a chosen people found in the Jewish culture? The White Anglo Saxon Christian Males are the chosen people in the world with other European whites following Lutheran religions coming second.

The attitudes of Jathika Chinthanaya based, among other things, on Buddha’s advice to Gahapthi Upali to continue to pay respect to the Nighanata Natha Putththa, and not to hasten to become a disciple of Buddha, is pluralistic to the core. The Sinhala people have tolerated the others through out history and also knowledge systems other than their own. The Jathika Chinthanaya of this country has a logic which is four valued that contains not only propositions of the form A and its negation but also of the form neither A nor its negation. The logic of the Jathika Chinthanaya is not two fold, and there does not arise the necessity of expressing the world in terms of binary oppositions. The question of an economic man presiding over the destinies of all other men would not arise in the Jathika Chinthanaya. There is no reductionism taught in Jathika Chinthanaya and the welfare of the man is not believed to be confined to Economics. It is neither the individual nor the community that take precedence over the other, and aspects other than economics of people are also considered. The Sinhala leaders of the past had taken into consideration the integrated life of a person dealing with bringing up children and making them useful citizens of the country, the spiritual life and such other aspects of life. The people were not measured with an economic yardstick, and the economy had to be integrated with the environment, nature and also the spiritual and other non economic lives of a person. The cyclic logic of Jathika Chinthanaya helped people to lead a more balanced way of life, one aspect of which depending on the other and finally ending up as Dhamma, which anybody could learn from the texts, even if it was not possible to find a teacher at a particular period of life.

However, it has to be pointed out that we have not formulated the theories of economics within the Jathika Chinthanaya. We have not even begun this work, but it does not mean that we have no intuitive ideas on what could be called a Jathika Arthikaya. The so called Thulana Arthikaya is only one aspect of a Jathika Arthikaya, arising out of four fold logic. A Jathika Arthikaya would not give prominence to either the “private sector” or the “state sector”. As we do not think in terms of binary oppositions, within a Jathika Arthikaya it is possible to have both “private sector” and the “state sector” complementing each other. Also there would not be a ban on investments by the foreigners, provided of course the investors agree to the conditions imposed by Jathika Arthikaya. Within a Jathika Arthikaya neither the nature nor the man become the important component, and it would not be assumed that the world has been created for man, nor that the men are rational and selfish, and are all out to compete with each other. The Jathika Arthikaya would also see to it that the “economic man” does not take the upper hand over the “spiritual man” and others.

Finally as some people have over the years gained the idea that Jathika Chinthanaya rejects everything western, we have to emphasise that it is the imitation of western knowledge and attitudes under western cultural colonialism, which most of the so-called intellectuals among us are unaware, that we are against. It is possible to absorb western knowledge into our culture when it is necessary to do so, and still be independent without losing our identity.

by Nalin de Silva

I have to thank “Kathika” study circle for the article “Neo-liberalism, Jathika Chinthanaya, and Citizenship” that appeared in The Island on 31st October 2005. “Kathika” has taken the trouble to study Jathika Chinthanaya, unlike some others who dabble on the topic without trying to understand what it is all about. “Kathika” has identified the Presidential Elections as that between two candidates, one of them following what is known as Neo-liberalism, and the other Jathika Chinthanaya. At the outset, I must admit that Mr. Mahinda Rajapakse, though he has called his manifesto Mahinda Chinthana, is unlikely to identify himself with Jathika Chinthanaya as such. Both Mr. Rajapakse and Jathika Chinthanaya are in transitional stages, with the former attempting to achieve an alternative to neo-liberalism, while the latter is in the process of formulating concepts and theories relative to the culture and the Chinthanaya of the country.

“Kathika” like many others have translated Jathika Chinthanaya as national ethos. However, Jathika Chinthanaya is the Chinthanaya of the nation, and the latter has been recognized (or defined, if one who is brought up in the western intellectual tradition may say so) as the thread that binds all that has been constructed by the humans belonging to a particular nation, community etc. Thus, the arts and crafts, music, literature, science, the attitudes, world view and any other human creation of a nation have something in common that can be called the Chinthanaya. Any Chinthanaya has at least a logic, and attitudes and a philosophy, which may be called the world view of the community or the nation. We do not wish to translate Chinthanaya into English or any other language as it could convey a different meaning. It is true that when Dr. Gunadasa Amarasekera used the words Jathika Chinthanaya way back in 1986, he used them as a translation of the words national thought. However, in the evolution of the concept, Chinthanaya has acquired a much deeper idea than thought, though even in Sinhala many people who hear the word Chinthanaya for the first time are likely to mean thought by it. The concept of Chinthanaya is both holistic and reductionist. It is both analytic as well as synthetic. One could think of Chinthanaya as a concept to which everything is reduced and (not or) that synthetically combines everything into a whole. The logic of Jathika Chinthanaya enables us to consider Chinthanaya as both holistic and reductionist.

One of the theories that has been formulated within Jathika Chinthanaya is that knowledge is a human construction, as opposed to say a discovery, and that it is constructed relative to the mind, the sense organs and the culture of a particular individual. One could say that there is a school of thought in the western tradition as well which claim that knowledge is a human construction. It may be so, but we differ from them, as in our formulation, the construction is due to avidya of anicca, dukka and anatta. In that sense any knowledge including science is due to avidya. It has to be mentioned that anicca, dukka and anatta are not concepts and a “person” who “understands” them would have achieved nibbana. The knowledge that is constructed is thus relative to a particular culture, and hence is constructed within a Chinthanaya. We claim that the modern western knowledge is relative to Judaic Christian culture and is constructed within what we call the Greek Judaic Christian (GJC) Chinthanaya.

The GJC Chinthanaya itself was created only about five hundred years ago in the west, and what is known as modernity, renaissance, reformation, western science have been created within this particular Chinthanaya. We have our own theories regarding the creation of the GJC Chinthanaya, published mainly in Sinhala in the newspapers “Irida Divaina” and “Vidusara” which I am afraid are not reputed international journals where intellectuals publish their research. (I continue to lose points for my promotions under the UGC circular No 723 as I do not have so called research papers in reputed journals) Western modernity is in essence a creation in the last five hundred years in the west and is based on the GJC Chinthanaya. It is a continuing process, and in this regard we agree with Habermass, as opposed to the so-called postmodernists, though for different reasons.

We do not wish to use the word tradition in opposition to modernity. We have a tradition, as much as modernity has a tradition. The tradition of Western Christian (we identify it as Christian as well, opposed to Catholic) Modernity is based on the GJC Chinthanaya. The western Christian Modernity emerged in the fifteenth century with the GJC Chinthanaya being created in opposition to the Catholic Chinthanaya that prevailed in Europe at that time. When the westerners refer to tradition they use the word tradition with some kind of degradation. Thus traditional knowledge is not scientific knowledge implying that it is bordering on mythology if not mythology itself. Also modern is to be preferred with respect to tradition which is ancient and not relevant. I am not that concerned with what the westerners have to say about us, but as most of us also follow the westerners, we should be careful in the words we use as unconsciously we may degrade ourselves. It is the English who are very particular about reading between the lines, but when it comes to using their concepts and theories we have not only to read between the lines, but between the words as well. It has to be mentioned that all knowledge is mythology as knowledge is constructed as a result of avidya. Everything including the mind is a construction of the mind. (Those who are interested may read Vidusara to find out how mind constructs the mind!) This follows from the logic of Jathika Chinthanaya, which is cyclic unlike the linear logic of the westerners.

“Kathika” has referred to the individual as against the community. Before the advent of the modernist tradition the westerners were community minded. The western Chinthanaya was Catholic then, and that word itself implies whole. However, the western logic has always been Aristotelian, with their attempts to being “dialectic” ending up in formal systems (Please read Apohakaye Rupikaya or The formalism of Dialectics for details). Though the westerners changed from Catholic Chinthanaya to GJC in the fifteenth century, they did not change their logic. The logic remained Aristotelian and they continued to think in terms of binary oppositions. When Derrida says the westerners think in terms of binary oppositions such as white- black, with one of the terms in the pair dominating the other he refers to this particular characteristic in the western tradition that has remained unchanged to date in spite of Hegel, Marx and Derrida himself. None of them was able to create a system different to that of Aristotle with Derrida not even making an attempt. However, in the eastern traditions, especially in the Sinhala Theravada tradition we have a logical system known as catuskoti which incorporates the Aristotelian logic as well. Thus the Aristotelian logic could be considered as a subset of catuskoti.

What “Kathika” has pointed out is the emergence of the individual in the Western Christian modernity. Within the Catholic Chinthanaya the community or the whole was the dominant term in the binary opposition individual – community. When the Chinthanaya changed to GJC the binary opposition as a pair remained the same. However, unlike during the so-called European medieval period when the Catholic Chinthanaya was the prevailing Chinthanaya, during Christian modernity, the individual became the dominant term in the binary opposition individual – community. The David of Michelangelo that was created five hundred years ago could be considered as a symbol representing the change from the community to the individual. It represented the victory of the individual David over the community Goliath. The westerners could change only the dominant term, they did not know how to drop the binary opposition altogether.

We consider Capitalism, that emerged later in the Europe as the economic mode of western Christian modernity, just as much feudalism was the economic mode of the European medieval period. In the medieval period the community dominated over the individual, but when the individual became the dominant term, the latter lost everything except the labour that he could spend or sell. The individual gradually lost the relationship with the extended family, then the nuclear family and now he has alienated from himself as well. The alienation that Marx mentions is associated with Capitalism. For Marx alienation is a result of Capitalism. For us alienation as well as capitalism is the result of the change of the Chinthanaya of the Europeans. Not only Capitalism but even Luther and Calvin, not to mention Copernicus and Galileo are the results of the change in the Chinthanaya that began in the fifteenth century. Lutheran God of the individual was opposed to God of the community and mass of the Catholic Church. The next stage of alienation would see the individual alienating from himself and more and more cases of schizophrenia as a social phenomenon would have to be dealt with.

In the western society the individual is the most important concept and his, now hers as well, freedom from the society (community), individual liberty, human rights have drawn the attention of the academics legal pundits and administrators. The small David has grown up to be a Goliath in five hundred years threatening not only the community but himself as well. It has become a case of protecting David not from Goliath but from himself. The economic component has become the dominant component and welfare has become synonymous with individual economic prosperity. In the process, not only the environment but even the health of the individual has been sacrificed. The adage prevention is better than cure has been replaced by get ill and then get well attitude. If one has money he could get well, after getting ill. Even meditation has become a way to train the mind how to spend energy efficiently on accumulating wealth. Ever since Adam Smith talked about wealth of the nation individuals have been spending more and more energy to grab more and more wealth. Adam Smith should have written on wealth of the individual and not on the wealth of the nation.

(To be continued)

by Kumaran

‘Can a Leftist be a patriot? Not only he can, but he must.’ This seems to be what Ajith Perakum Jayasinghe is saying writing on ‘A New Sinhala Nationalism,’ (Lankaleft.com). He suggests that the Left in order to overcome its present alienation form the masses should grab the slogan of Sinhalaness or Sinhala nationalism from the hands of whom he calls ‘racists’ (even though he does not spell out what characteristics make one a racist) in order to wrest the ideological authority of the Sinhala society. A Gramscian ideological hegemony for political power, I suppose.

Jayasinghe argues that the Left cannot continue to hide anymore under the illusions of being International Citizens or having a Sri Lankan identity. The former is an illusion, obviously because one cannot be a citizen of nowhere, but can be a citizen of only a specific city or a country; the latter cannot be a reality as the Sri Lankan Constitution does not provide equal inclusion of Tamils or Muslims. The new Left Sinhala nationalism which Jayasinghe proposes has to be one that assures equality and democracy to Tamils and Muslims.

If my memory is correct, this reminds us of a somewhat similar suggestion by an academic sometime back in Ravaya newspaper that either Chandrika or Ranil should grab the slogan of Sinhala nationalism from the hands of Jathika Chinthanaya. Both Chandrika and Ranil with or without advice have been trying to woo Buddhists in order to achieve their political objectives. Ranil’s latest photo-ops appear not so much with live events but with ‘Wewai Dagobai’ sort of Sinhala Buddhist symbols.

So, while for some aligning with Buddhism or Sinhala nationalism may serve as a vote catching strategy, for the Left the mass appeal of nationalism has created an identity crisis leading to soul searching. Hence Jayasinghe’s questions. But then, it is quite some time since Bahu Sahodaraya had begun to talk about the value of the Buddhist concepts such as Metta even though any form of nationalism, of course except the LTTE variety, is anathema to him.

Chairman Mao, as he was called somewhat affectionately those days in the East comes to our mind here. Quotations from his little red book were frequently quoted by the leaders of the JVP, 71’ vintage, almost all of whom have now turned into neo-liberals. It was Mao who famously asked and answered: “Can a patriot be an internationalist? Not only he can, but he must.” (Mao’s revolutionary fame of course was relegated soon into the dustbin of history with the Stalinist purges by his party men during the infamous Cultural Revolution and against peasant resistance.)

Jayasinghe turns Mao around and asks: Can a Leftist be a patriot? Mao would have answered, I suppose, ‘Not only he can, but he must.’ This suggestion coming from the Left is a recognition that if the ordinary masses support Sinhala nationalism, there have to be an understanding of Sinhala nationalism which is not racist which the Leftists need to understand if they are to gain political ground in the present scenario. At the same time it moves the question of Sinhala nationalism away from the narrow economic explanations, to the realm of moral life thus making it a genuinely political question.

The question then is how do we understand what fuels the mass base of Sinhala nationalism. Would the Left agree that Sinhala nationalism in recent times has risen in response to neo-colonialism as Jathika Chinthanaya argues? If so, then what would be the left political response to this latest phase of globalization? What does globalization do to the lives of ordinary people that that they are compelled to fall back on their ethnic roots for sustenance and therefore align with nationalism?

In short, what is the phenomenology of Sinhala nationalism in the present context of globalization?

A. Sivanandan’s article ‘Why Muslims reject British values’ (see Lankacitizen for the full article) gives us some ideas to think about this question.

lankacitizen@gmail.com