Wednesday, June 17, 2020

The Legacy of Tony Benn

The Legacy of Tony Benn

Tony Benn was one of my favourite Labour MPs when I was working in UK.

Please do not confuse with Tony Blair (Once a UK PM) who ruined the Labour Party.  Tony Blair lied to the parliament with the aid of president Bush and instrumental in destroying Iraq (biological weapons and weapons of mass destruction campaign-origin of "FAKED NEWS").

Reproduction
Tony Benn on the Legacy of Slavery
In 2007, Tony Benn – who was an MP for Bristol for 20 years – gave a speech discussing the legacy of slavery, the fight which brought it down and the ideal of common humanity which powers progressive struggles.

I have copied only a part of his speech, relevant to religion and democracy.
Right at this moment in Ceylon, the democracy is at peril due to Buddhist monks supporting a Military Dictator.

Now the other thing that interests me very much is the role of religion in all this, and I know the question ‘am I my brother’s keeper?’ has been raised. On the Internet, from which, I get a lot of very useful information, I got the other day a summary of what all the religions of the world say. Judaism says ‘what is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow men’, that is the entire law, all the rest is commentary. Then Christianity, ‘all things whatsoever you would that men should do to you, do even so to them.’ For Mohammad it was ‘no one of you is a believer until he desires to his brother what he desires for himself’. And the same with Brahmans, the same with Buddhists, the same with the Confucians, and that’s also what’s on every trade union banner, ‘an injury to one is an injury to all’.
So you can see it all coming together as a recognition that you cannot build a society on other than on a moral basis. And that I find very interesting because nowadays, you see, religion is being used as a way of dividing us, you only have to look at what’s said now about Islam and the use of God. Bush said God told him to go to Iraq, I didn’t know God worked in the White House, but apparently he did. Then they say Moses went up Mount Siani and got Palestine allocated to the Jews, I didn’t know God was an estate agent. But the way in which you use religion to justify your power is a tremendously important question.
If you now look at it in a cultural sense, all the religions apart from people who control them, all the religions are part of our culture. I was brought up as a Christian and when I go to church I like the churches, I like seeing bishops in funny outfits. I sing hymns like ‘onward Christian soldiers marching as to war with the cross of Jesus going on before’.
Now if anyone sang ‘onward Muslim soldiers going as to war with Mohammad’s banner going,’ they’d all be locked up at once by John Reid. So you have to recognise that there is, in every religion, a culture. There’s nothing whatsoever in the culture of religion to divide one from another. The people I’m nervous of are the people who use religion to get control of us, and that is the difference.
I mentioned that I was bought up as a Christian, my mother taught me that the story in the Bible was the story of the conflict between the kings who had power and the prophets who preached righteousness, and she taught me to support the prophets against the kings. It’s got me into a lot of trouble in my life but it explained so much. Because it’s one thing to be told love your neighbours as yourself. It’s another thing to be told by a bishop, ‘if you don’t do what I tell you, you will rot in hell’ […]
When I look back is in every period of history, two flames have always been burning in the human heart, the flame of anger against injustice and the flame of hope that you can build a better world and those two flames are really material by which we make progress. To understand that is very important, because if you don’t have some aspiration then you find yourself in a position, which I think about most of the time now – and that is how the human race is going to cope with its problems.
We live in a very remarkable period, quite unlike any other in history, when the human race has the capacity to destroy itself, and you can kill one man with a spear, a few more with a bayonet, one or two with a machine gun or a plane, but with chemical, nuclear and biological weapons it is possible to destroy the human race, that has never, ever been true before.
But it’s also the first generation in history which has the technology and the know-how and the money to solve the problems of the human race. And that’s where you really come right into the contemporary political scene, because a fraction of the cost of the war now would see that everyone in Africa with AIDs would have free drugs. A fraction of the cost of the war would see everyone in America has a health service, would protect New Orleans from Hurricane Katrina. That is the choice.
So the question then you have to ask yourself is, well how do you change the situation? Because there are only three interesting questions in politics, what’s going on? Which is not always easy to find out. Why is it going on? Which is harder to find out. The third question is, what are you going to do about it? And if you look at the way in which it all developed, it developed really with the greatest revolution of all, far more revolutionary than the French or Russian or American revolution, it was the revolution of democracy and reason.
I mention it is because throughout the 19th century a huge change in power occurred, in the olden days all the power was in the hands of the rich. If you were rich you didn’t need a school, you hired tutors, you didn’t have a mortgage from a local authority for your castle because you owned it, you didn’t have to bother about anything else, if you were ill you hired a doctor, when you were old you were okay, you were never unemployed because you never did any work anyway, and that was the basis of society. What happened during the 19th century explains everything, I think, including the national independence movements.
When people had the vote power was transferred from the people with money to the people who didn’t have money. In 1837, when the Birmingham Corporation became law the people of Birmingham, or some of them anyway, had the vote, how did they use the vote? They used to the vote to buy with their vote what they couldn’t afford personally: municipal hospitals, municipal schools, municipal fire brigade, municipal museums, municipal art gallery and what democracy did was to transfer power from the market place to the polling station, from the wallet to the ballot.
What then happened was the whole prospect changed, that’s how the welfare state came about, of course, in the end, the idea of a National Health Service, the idea of state education, the idea, even, of a fire brigade. In the olden days there was no fire brigade, you insured your own house with an insurance company. So if your neighbour’s house burned down they didn’t bother to put that out because he wasn’t insured and that would obviously threaten your house and this idea of welfare, which is looked down upon in mockery, is on the basis that actually the interest of all of us are in common.
If you meet a diseased person your health is threatened, if you work with an uneducated person your work is threatened and so the recognition of the common interests we have in survival and prosperity was a product of democracy, and nobody really likes democracy very much, nobody in power likes democracy very much. I mean, Hitler didn’t like it, Stalin didn’t like it, the Pope doesn’t allow the clergy to elect the Pope, it’s all done by shares of cardinals whom he appoints. I can’t say I find all that much enthusiasm for democracy even in a capitalist society of where the market is everything, because the thing about having a market society is that you don’t have citizens, you only have consumers. Now to be a consumer you have to have some money, I mean homeless people in the streets of London need homes more than anybody else but as they can’t afford them they’re not consumers, and the language used to belittle collective activity is very noticeable.
Now when I look again at the future I think of what’s called ‘cultural diversity.’ When I was born it was terribly boring – they were all white, they had fish and chips, they watched cricket, a little bit of ballroom dancing. Now we’ve got such a fantastic cultural diversity in Britain. Two of my granddaughters are at a primary school in London with 77 nationalities in the school and a refugee centre in the school, so when I go and talk at the school it’s like addressing a meeting of the General Assembly [of the United Nations]. My granddaughters have got Russian friends, American friends, Malaysian friends, West Indian, for them that’s normal, that is the world we live in. It’s complete generational change because I think younger people understand it, very often much better than older people who were brought up in a different tradition.
That’s really what we have to try and, which is why I think the Internet is very valuable because you get access to things which you wouldn’t necessarily find described in The Sun or The Mail. The information you get allows you to reach a judgment of your own which is independent and probably puts you in the category of the prophets against the king. So I warn you don’t use the Internet too loosely or you’ll be in trouble yourself.
I mentioned the trade unions and apartheid. I spoke in Trafalgar Square in 1964 in support of a very well known terrorist and I got denounced in the tabloids. I didn’t meet him for a bit, next time I met him he had a Nobel Peace Prize and was President of South Africa. Well, look at the suffragettes who were locked up for just wanting votes for women.
The way I think progress occurs, you see, is this: to begin with is you’ve got a sensible idea like abolishing slavery or votes for women or trade unions or ending apartheid, and they ignore you. Then if you go on you’re stark staring bonkers, I’ve had a touch of that myself, then if you go on after that you’re dangerous. Then there’s a pause and then you can’t find anyone at the top who doesn’t claim to have thought of it in the first place – and that is how progress is made.
It’s made by movements, by people who understand the world, who feel a sense of commonality with other people and say, ‘why don’t we get together and do it ourselves?’ In order for that to succeed you need to have encouragement and I think encouragement is the most important quality in political leadership, because they do try, all the time, to put you down […]
I went to the Labour conference 18 months ago and the Prime Minister made a speech which I listened to and I got up to go to the loo and I collapsed. I was taken to the Brighton hospital and given a pacemaker. I had a letter from the Prime Minister saying ‘hope my speech didn’t cause it’ and I was too polite to reply.
The interesting thing was this, when I left I discovered that was the worst hospital in Britain under the league tables. Well what if you’re the nurse or a sister or a doctor or porter, what do you make of it if you’re told you work in the worst hospital in Britain?
People want encouragement and that’s what they don’t always want to give you, but if we encourage each other, my God there’s nothing you cannot do. And so that’s how the slave trade really ended, people got together and saw the truth and realised that we’re brothers and sisters and we made an advance.
But one final warning, every generation has to do it for themselves again, there is no railway station called justice that if you catch the right train you get there, every generation has to fight for their rights because rights are taken away. They concede what they have to, and then when the pressure is off, they try and recapture the territory they’ve lost.
So it’s an ongoing struggle. I’m 82 now, and it’s wonderful, if I’d known what fun it was to be 80 I’d have done it years ago, because you have a bit of experience and you don’t want anything. And when I speak, as I do tonight to you, I say you can relax, I am not asking you to vote for me and there’s a great sigh of relief and people saying, “well, if he doesn’t want anything we may as well listen to him.”
So that is really the function of the old, I think it’s to encourage people and to understand. So thank you for asking me here […]
This transcript originally appeared on the blog of Socialist Unity.

About the Author

Tony Benn was a Labour Party Member of Parliament (MP) for forty seven years, serving as Party Chairman, Postmaster General, Minister of Technology, Secretary of State for Industry and Energy. He ran unsuccessfully for the party deputy leadership and leadership in the 1980s and was President of the Stop the War Coalition until his death in 2014.

Tuesday, June 16, 2020

Global COVID-19 cases exceed 8 million










Global COVID-19 cases exceed 8 million June 15, 2020, 9:20 pm

The overall number of global COVID-19 cases has surpassed 8 million, while the death toll has reached 435,848, according to the Johns Hopkins University (JHU).

With 2,093,508 cases and 115,732 deaths, the US continues with the world’s highest number of COVID-19 infections and fatalities, agency reports said quoting JHU sources.

In terms of cases, Brazil comes in the second place with 867,624 infections.

This was followed by Russia (528,267), India (320,922), the UK (297,342), Spain (243,928), Italy (236,989), Peru (229,736), France (194,153), Germany (187,518), Iran (187,427), Turkey (178,239), Chile (174,293), Mexico (146,837), Pakistan (139,230), Saudi Arabia (127,541) and Canada (100,043), the Center for Systems Science and Engineering of the JHU figures showed.

Regarding fatalities, Brazil has overtaken the UK in the second position with 43,332 COVID-19 deaths.

The other countries with over 10,000 deaths are the UK (41,783), Italy (34,345), France (29,410), Spain (27,136) and Mexico (17,141).

Besides, 432,922 deaths recorded across the globe since the virus emerged in China late last year.

More than 3.7 million recoveries were also reported.

The worst-hit U.S. has recorded over 2 million confirmed cases, with115,732 deaths and Brazil has reported 867,624 confirmed cases of novel coronavirus with 43,332 deaths.

Russia is now in the third position with 528, 267 cases followed by India (320,922), United Kingdom (297,342) and Spain (243,928).

The UK has the third-highest death toll at 41,783, followed by Italy with 34,345, France 29,410 and Spain 27,136, according to Johns Hopkins University.

Meanwhile, Chinese health authorities said on Monday that they had received reports of 49 confirmed new COVID-19 cases in Chinese mainland on Sunday, of which 39 were local transmissions.
No new deaths were reported.

Coronavirus cases were first reported in China in December last year.

The World Health Organization (WHO) declared the coronavirus crisis a pandemic on March 11.

Buddhaghosa Tradition

Buddhaghosa was a scholar, erudite and a compulsive researcher who vitalized the dying Pali Tradition (Pali was killed by Sinhala Theravada Tradition- in other word "Sinhalen Bhana").

His biggest failure was that he has to wait until the Mettyya Buddha to appear in eons time to realize Nibbhana.

In other words Buddhist Meditation is to practice NOW and not later as envisaged, by Buddhagosa.

I have a copy of Visuddhimagga with me to remind me that the literary exercise is futile in the long run and the copy of Vimuttimagga (The path of FREEDOM) is much shorter and precise.

This is to counteract a distortion made by a senile guy who writes to the Island Paper for recreation of some sort.

Sometimes, I have to wake up from my slumber to awaken the misguided masses.

Reproduction from WiKiPedia and not my View!

Buddhaghosa Tradition


Buddhaghosa with three copies of Visuddhimagga, Kelaniya Raja Maha Vihara
Occupation Buddhist monk
Era 5th century
Movement Theravada Buddhism
Buddhaghosa was a 5th-century Indian Theravada Buddhist commentator, translator and philosopher.
He worked in the Great Monastery (Mahāvihāra) at Anurādhapura, Ceylon and saw himself as being part of the Vibhajjavāda school and in the lineage of the Sinhalese Mahāvihāra. 
 
His best-known work is the Visuddhimagga ("Path of Purification"), a comprehensive summary of older Sinhala commentaries on Theravada teachings and practices. According to Sarah Shaw, in Theravada this systematic work is "the principal text on the subject of meditation."
The interpretations provided by Buddhaghosa have generally constituted the orthodox understanding of Theravada scriptures since at least the 12th century CE.
He is generally recognized by both Western scholars and Theravadins as the most important philosopher and commentator of the Theravada, but is also criticized for his departures from the canonical texts.

Name

The name Buddhaghosa means "Voice of the Buddha" (Buddha+ghosa) in Pali, the language in which Buddhaghosa composed. In Sanskrit, the name would be spelled Buddhaghoṣa (Devanagari बुद्धघोष), but there is no retroflexing sound in Pali, and the name is not found in Sanskrit works.

Biography

Limited reliable information is available about the life of Buddhaghosa.
Three primary sources of information exist: short prologues and epilogues attached to Buddhaghosa's works; details of his life recorded in the Mahavamsa, a Ceylonese chronicle; and a later biographical work called the Buddhaghosuppatti.
A few other sources discuss the life of Buddhaghosa, but do not appear to add any reliable material.
The biographical excerpts attached to works attributed to Buddhaghosa reveal relatively few details of his life, but were presumably added at the time of his actual composition. Largely identical in form, these short excerpts describe Buddhaghosa as having come to Ceylon from India and settled in Anuradhapura.
Besides this information, they provide only short lists of teachers, supporters, and associates of Buddhaghosa, whose names are not generally to be found elsewhere for comparison.
The Mahavamsa records that Buddhaghosa was born into a Brahmin family in the kingdom of Magadha.
He is said to have been born near Bodh Gaya, and to have been a master of the Vedas, traveling through India engaging in philosophical debates.
Only upon encountering a Buddhist monk named Revata was Buddhaghosa bested in debate, first being defeated in a dispute over the meaning of a Vedic doctrine and then being confounded by the presentation of a teaching from the Abhidhamma.
Impressed, Buddhaghosa became a Bhikkhu (Buddhist monk) and undertook the study of the Tipiṭaka and its commentaries.
On finding a text for which the commentary had been lost in India, Buddhaghosa determined to travel to Ceylon to study a Sinhala commentary that was believed to have been preserved.
In Ceylon, Buddhaghosa began to study what was apparently a very large volume of Sinhala commentarial texts that had been assembled and preserved by the monks of the Anuradhapura Maha Viharaya.

 
Buddhaghosa sought permission to synthesize the assembled Sinhala-language commentaries into a comprehensive single commentary composed in Pali.
Traditional accounts hold that the elder monks sought to first test Buddhaghosa's knowledge by assigning him the task of elaborating the doctrine regarding two verses of the suttas; Buddhaghosa replied by composing the Visuddhimagga.
His abilities were further tested when deities intervened and hid the text of his book, twice forcing him to recreate it from scratch.
When the three texts were found to completely summarize all of the Tipiṭaka and match in every respect, the monks acceded to his request and provided Buddhaghosa with the full body of their commentaries.
Buddhaghosa went on to write commentaries on most of the other major books of the Pali Canon, with his works becoming the definitive Theravadin interpretation of the scriptures.
Having synthesized or translated the whole of the Sinhala commentary preserved at the Anuradhapura Maha Viharaya, Buddhaghosa reportedly returned to India, making a pilgrimage to Bodh Gaya to pay his respects to the Bodhi Tree.
The details of the Mahavamsa account cannot readily be verified; while it is generally regarded by Western scholars as having been embellished with legendary events (such as the hiding of Buddhaghosa's text by the gods), in the absence of contradictory evidence it is assumed to be generally accurate.
While the Mahavamsa claims that Buddhaghosa was born in northern India near Bodh Gaya, the epilogues to his commentaries make reference to only one location in India as being a place of at least temporary residence: Kanci in southern India.
Some scholars thus conclude (among them Oskar von Hinüber and Polwatte Buddhadatta Thera) that Buddhaghosa was actually born in South India and was relocated in later biographies to give him closer ties to the region of the Buddha.
The Buddhaghosuppatti, a later biographical text, is generally regarded by Western scholars as being legend rather than history.
It adds to the Mahavamsa tale certain details, such as the identity of Buddhaghosa's parents and his village, as well as several dramatic episodes, such as the conversion of Buddhaghosa's father and Buddhaghosa's role in deciding a legal case.
It also explains the eventual loss of the Sinhala originals that Buddhaghosa worked from in creating his Pali commentaries by claiming that Buddhaghosa collected and burnt the original manuscripts once his work was completed.

Commentarial style

Buddhaghosa was reputedly responsible for an extensive project of synthesizing and translating a large body of ancient Sinhala commentaries on the Pāli Canon. His Visuddhimagga (Pāli: Path of Purification) is a comprehensive manual of Theravada Buddhism that is still read and studied today.
Maria Heim notes that, while Buddhaghosa worked by using older Sinhala commentarial tradition, he is also "the crafter of a new version of it that rendered the original version obsolete, for his work supplanted the Sinhala versions that are now lost to us".

Writing style

Ñāṇamoli Bhikkhu writes that Buddhaghosa's work is "characterized by relentless accuracy, consistency, and fluency of erudition, and much dominated by formalism."
According to Richard Shankman, the Visuddhimagga is "meticulous and specific," in contrast to the Pali suttas, which "can be vague at times, without a lot of explanatory detail and open to various interpretations."

Method

According to Maria Heim, Buddhaghosa is explicitly clear and systematic regarding his hermeneutical principles and exegetical strategies in his commentaries.
He writes and theorizes on texts, genre, registers of discourse, reader response, Buddhist knowledge and pedagogy.
Buddhaghosa considers each Pitaka of the Buddhist canon a kind of method (naya) that requires different skills to interpret. One of his most important ideas about exegesis of the Buddha's words (buddhavacana) is that these words are immeasurable, that is to say, there are innumerable ways and modes to teach and explain the Dhamma and likewise there are innumerable ways in which to receive these teachings.
According to Heim, Buddhaghosa considered the Dhamma to be "well-spoken visible here and now, timeless," visible meaning that the fruits of the path can be seen in the behavior of the noble ones, and that comprehending the Dhamma is a transformative way of seeing, which has immediate impact.
According to Heim, this idea of the transformative and immediate impact of the scriptures is "vital to Buddhaghosa's interpretative practice," concerned as he is with the immediate and transformative impact of the Buddha's words on his audiences, as attested in the suttas.
Regarding his systematic thought, Maria Heim and Chakravarthi Ram-Prasad see Buddhaghosa's use of Abhidhamma as part of a phenomenological "contemplative structuring" which is expressed in his writings on Buddhist praxis.
They argue that "Buddhaghosa’s use of nāma-rūpa should be seen as the analytic by which he understands how experience is undergone, and not his account of how some reality is structured."

Yogacara influences

Some scholars have argued that Buddhaghosa's writing evinces a strong but unacknowledged Yogācāra Buddhist influence, which subsequently came to characterize Theravada thought in the wake of his profound influence on the Theravada tradition.
According to Kalupahana, Buddhaghosa was influenced by Mahayana-thought, which were subtly mixed with Theravada orthodoxy to introduce new ideas.
According to Kalupahana, this eventually led to the flowering of metaphysical tendencies, in contrast to the original stress on anattā in early Buddhism.
According to Jonardon Ganeri, though Buddhaghosa may have been influenced by Yogacara Vijñānavāda, "the influence consists not in endorsement but in creative engagement and refutation."

Theory of consciousness

The philosopher Jonardon Ganeri has called attention to Buddhaghosa's theory of the nature of consciousness and attention. 

Ganeri calls Buddhaghosa's approach a kind of "attentionalism", which places primacy on the faculty of attention in explaining activities of thought and mind and is against representationalism.
Ganeri also states that Buddhaghosa's treatment of cognition "anticipates the concept of working memory, the idea of mind as a global workplace, subliminal orienting, and the thesis that visual processing occurs at three levels."
Ganeri also states:

Buddhaghosa is unlike nearly every other Buddhist philosopher in that he discusses episodic memory and knows it as a reliving of experience from one’s personal past; but he blocks any reduction of the phenomenology of temporal experience to the representation of oneself as in the past. The alternative claim that episodic memory is a phenomenon of attention is one he develops with greater sophistication than has been done elsewhere.
Ganeri sees Buddhaghosa's work as being free from a mediational picture of the mind and also free of the Myth of the Given, two views he sees as having been introduced by the Indian philosopher Dignāga.

Meditation

Vipassanā and Vipassana movement
The Visuddhimagga's doctrine reflects Theravada Abhidhamma scholasticism, which includes several innovations and interpretations not found in the earliest discourses (suttas) of the Buddha.
Buddhaghosa's Visuddhimagga includes non-canonical instructions on Theravada meditation, such as "ways of guarding the mental image (nimitta)," which point to later developments in Theravada meditation.

 
According to Thanissaro Bhikkhu, "the Visuddhimagga uses a very different paradigm for concentration from what you find in the Canon."

 
Bhante Henepola Gunaratana also notes that what "the suttas say is not the same as what the Visuddhimagga says they are actually different," leading to a divergence between a [traditional] scholarly understanding and a practical understanding based on meditative experience. 

Gunaratana further notes that Buddhaghosa invented several key meditation terms which are not to be found in the suttas, such as "parikamma samadhi (preparatory concentration), upacara samadhi (access concentration), appanasamadhi (absorption concentration)." 

Gunaratana also notes that the Buddhaghosa's emphasis on kasina-meditation is not to be found in the suttas, where dhyana is always combined with mindfulness.
Bhikkhu Sujato has argued that certain views regarding Buddhist meditation expounded in the Visuddhimagga are a "distortion of the Suttas" since it denies the necessity of Jhana.
The Australian monk Shravasti Dhammika is also critical of contemporary practice based on this work.
He concludes that Buddhaghosa did not believe that following the practice set forth in the Visuddhimagga will really lead him to Nirvana, basing himself on the postscript to the Visuddhimagga:

Even Buddhaghosa did not really believe that Theravada practice could lead to Nirvana. His Visuddhimagga is supposed to be a detailed, step by step guide to enlightenment. And yet in the postscript he says he hopes that the merit he has earned by writing the Vishuddhimagga will allow him to be reborn in heaven, abide there until Metteyya (Maitreya) appears, hear his teaching and then attain enlightenment.

According to Sarah Shaw, "it is unlikely that the meditative tradition could have survived in such a healthy way, if at all, without his detailed lists and exhaustive guidance."
Yet, according to Buswell, by the 10th century Vipassana was no longer practiced in the Theravada tradition, due to the belief that Buddhism had degenerated, and that liberation was no longer attainable until the coming of Maitreya.

 
It was re-introduced in Myanmar (Burma) in the 18th century by Medawi (1728–1816), leading to the rise of the Vipassana movement in the 20th century, re-inventing Vipassana-meditation and developing simplified meditation techniques, based on the Satipatthana sutta, the Visuddhimagga, and other texts, emphasizing Satipatthana and bare insight.

Attributed works

The Mahavamsa ascribes a great many books to Buddhaghosa, some of which are believed not to have been his work, but composed later and attributed to him. Below is a listing of the fourteen commentaries (Aṭṭhakathā) on the Pāli Canon traditionally ascribed to Buddhaghosa
Tipitaka Buddhaghosa's
commentary
from the
Vinaya Pitaka
Vinaya (general) Samantapasadika
Patimokkha Kankhavitarani
from the
Sutta Pitaka
Digha Nikaya Sumangalavilasini
Majjhima Nikaya Papañcasudani
Samyutta Nikaya Saratthappakasini
Anguttara Nikaya Manorathapurani
from the
Khuddaka Nikaya
Khuddakapatha Paramatthajotika (I)
Dhammapada Dhammapada-atthakatha
Sutta Nipata Paramatthajotika (II),
Suttanipata-atthakatha
Jataka Jatakatthavannana,
Jataka-atthakatha
from the
Abhidhamma Pitaka
Dhammasangani Atthasālinī
Vibhanga Sammohavinodani
Dhatukatha Pañcappakaranatthakatha
Puggalapaññatti
Kathavatthu
Yamaka
Patthana

 

While traditional accounts list Buddhaghosa as the author of all of these works, some scholars hold that only the Visuddhimagga and the commentaries on the first four Nikayas as Buddhaghosa's work. 

Meanwhile, Maria Heim holds that Buddhaghosa is the author of the commentaries on the first four Nikayas, the Samantapasadika, the Paramatthajotika, the Visuddhimagga and the three commentaries on the books of the Abhidhamma.
Maria Heim also notes that some scholars hold that Buddaghosa was the head of a team of scholars and translators, and that this is not an unlikely scenario.

Influence and legacy

In the 12th century, the Ceylonese (Sinhalese) monk Sāriputta Thera became the leading scholar of the Theravada following the reunification of the Ceylonese (Sinhala) monastic community by King Parakramabahu-I.
Sariputta incorporated many of the works of Buddhaghosa into his own interpretations.
In subsequent years, many monks from Theravada traditions in Southeast Asia sought ordination or re-ordination in Ceylon, because of the reputation of the Ceylonese (Sinhala) Mahavihara lineage for doctrinal purity and scholarship.
The result was the spread of the teachings of the Mahavihara tradition— and thus Buddhaghosa— throughout the Theravada world.
Buddhaghosa's commentaries thereby became the standard method by which the Theravada scriptures were understood, establishing Buddhaghosa as the definitive interpreter of Theravada doctrine.
In later years, Buddhaghosa's fame and influence inspired various accolades.
His life story was recorded, in an expanded and likely exaggerated form, in a Pali chronicle known as the Buddhaghosuppatti, or "The Development of the Career of Buddhaghosa".
Despite the general belief that he was Indian by birth, he later may have been claimed by the Mon people of Burma as an attempt to assert primacy over Ceylon in the development of Theravada tradition.
Other scholars believe that the Mon records refer to another figure, but whose name and personal history are much in the mold of the Indian Buddhaghosa.
Finally, Buddhaghosa's works likely played a significant role in the revival and preservation of the Pali language as the scriptural language of the Theravada, and as a lingua franca in the exchange of ideas, texts, and scholars between Ceylon and the Theravada countries of mainland Southeast Asia. The development of new analyses of Theravada doctrine, both in Pali and Sinhala, seems to have dried up prior to Buddhaghosa's emergence in Ceylon. In India, new schools of Buddhist philosophy (such as the Mahayana) were emerging, many of them making use of classical Sanskrit both as a scriptural language and as a language of philosophical discourse.
The monks of the Mahavihara may have attempted to counter the growth of such schools by re-emphasizing the study and composition in Pali, along with the study of previously disused secondary sources that may have vanished in India, as evidenced by the Mahavamsa.
Early indications of this resurgence in the use of Pali as a literary language may be visible in the composition of the Dipavamsa and the Vimuttimagga, both dating to shortly before Buddhaghosa's arrival in Ceylon.
The addition of Buddhaghosa's works— which combined the pedigree of the oldest Sinhala commentaries with the use of Pali, a language shared by all of the Theravada learning centers of the time— provided a significant boost to the revitalization of the Pali language and the Theravada intellectual tradition, possibly aiding the Theravada school in surviving the challenge to its position posed by emerging Buddhist schools of mainland India.
According to Maria Heim, he is "one of the greatest minds in the history of Buddhism" and British philosopher Jonardon Ganeri considers Buddhaghosa "a true innovator, a pioneer, and a creative thinker."
Yet, according to Buddhadasa, Buddhaghosa was influenced by Hindu thought, and the uncritical respect for the Visuddhimagga has even hindered the practice of authentic Buddhism.

Notes

    1. See also Bronkhorst (1993), Two Traditions of Meditation in ancient India; Wynne (2007), The Origin of Buddhist Meditation; and Polak (2011), Reexaming Jhana
    2. Devotion to Metteya was common in South Asia from early in the Buddhist era, and is believed to have been particularly popular during Buddhaghosa's era.

References


  • (v. Hinüber 1996, p. 103) is more specific, estimating dates for Buddhaghosa of 370–450 CE based on the Mahavamsa and other sources. Following the Mahavamsa, (Bhikkhu Ñāṇamoli 1999, p. xxvi) places Buddhaghosa's arrival as coming during the reign of King Mahanama, between 412 and 434 CE.
  • Gethin, Rupert, Was Buddhaghosa a Theravādin? Buddhist Identity in the Pali Commentariesand Chronicles, 2012.
  • Stede, W. (October 1951). "The Visuddhimagga of Buddhaghosācariya by Henry Clarke Warren; Dharmananda Kosambi". The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland (3/4): 210–211. JSTOR 25222520.
  • Stede, D. A. L. (1953). "Visuddhimagga of Buddhaghosācariya by Henry Clarke Warren; Dharmananda Kosambi". Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. 15 (2): 415. doi:10.1017/s0041977x00111346. JSTOR 608574.
  • Ñāṇamoli, 1999, Introduction p. xxxvii
  • Heim, Ram-Prasad, In a Double Way: Nāma-rūpa in Buddhaghosa’s Phenomenology, Philosophy East and West, University of Hawai'i Press.
  • Buddhist Phenomenology: A Philosophical Investigation of Yogācāra Buddhism by Dan Lusthaus. RoutledgeCurzom: 2002 ISBN 0700711864 pg 106 n 30
  • Ganeri, 2018, 32.
  • Ganeri, 2018, 31.
  • Ganeri, 2018, 34.
  • Kalupahana, David J. (1994), A history of Buddhist philosophy, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited
  • For instance, regarding the Khuddha Nikaya commentaries, (v. Hinüber 1996, pp. 130–1) writes:
Neither Pj [Paramattha-jotika] I nor Pj II can be dated, not even in relation to each other, except that both presuppose Buddhaghosa. In spite of the 'Buddhaghosa colophon' added to both commentaries ... no immediate relation to Buddhaghosa can be recognized.... Both Ja [Jataka-atthavannana] and Dhp-a [Dhammapada-atthakatha] are traditionally ascribed to Buddhaghosa, an assumption which has been rightly questioned by modern research....
  • Ganeri, 2018, p. 30.
  • S. Payulpitack (1991), Buddhadasa and His Interpretation of Buddhism
  1. Buddhadasa, [https://www.dhammatalks.net/Books6/Bhikkhu_Buddhadasa_Paticcasamuppada.htm Paticcasamuppada: Practical Dependent Origination]

Sources

  • Bhikkhu Ñāṇamoli (1999), "Introduction", in Buddhaghosa (ed.), Visuddhimagga: The Path of Purification, translated by Bhikkhu Ñāṇamoli, Seattle: Buddhist Publication Society, ISBN 
  • Bullitt, John T. (2002), Beyond the Tipitaka: A Field Guide to Post-canonical Pali Literature, retrieved 2009-04-07
  • last Buswell, Robert, ed. (2004), Encyclopedia of Buddhism, MacMillan
  • Crosby, Kate (2004), "Theravada", in Buswell, Jr., Robert E. (ed.), Macmillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism, USA: Macmillan Reference USA, pp. 836–841, ISBN 
  • Ganeri, Jonardon (2017), Attention, Not Self, Oxford University Press
  • Heim, Maria (2013), The Forerunner of All Things: Buddhaghosa on Mind, Intention, and Agency, USA: OUP USA
  • Heim, Maria (2018), Voice of the Buddha: Buddhaghosa on the Immeasurable Words, Oxford University Press
  • Hinüber, Oskar von (1996), A Handbook of Pali Literature, New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharal Publishers Pvt. Ltd., ISBN 
  • Kalupahana, David J. (1994), A history of Buddhist philosophy, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited
  • McMahan, David L. (2008), The Making of Buddhist Modernism, Oxford University Press, ISBN 
  • Pranke, Patrick A. (2004), "Myanmar", in Buswell, Jr., Robert E. (ed.), Macmillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism, USA: Macmillan Reference USA, pp. 574–577, ISBN 
  • Rogers, Henry Thomas, trans. (1870): Buddhaghosha's Parables / translated from Burmese. With an Introduction, containing Buddha's Dhammapada, or "Path of Virtue" / transl. from Pâli by F. Max Müller, London: Trübner.
  • Shankman, Richard (2008), The Experience of Samadhi: An In-depth Exploration of Buddhist Meditation, Shambhala
  • Shaw, Sarah (2006), Buddhist Meditation: An Anthology of Texts from the Pali Canon, Routledge
  • Sponberg, Alan (2004), "Maitreya", in Buswell, Jr., Robert E. (ed.), Macmillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism, USA: Macmillan Reference USA, ISBN 
  • Strong, John (2004), "Buddhaghosa", in Buswell, Jr., Robert E. (ed.), Macmillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism, USA: Macmillan Reference USA, p. 75, ISBN 

Further reading





Sunday, June 14, 2020

The Fundamental Rights Petitions Relating to The General Elections

Reproduction and not my VIEW!

The Fundamental Rights Petitions Relating to The General Elections

Nigel Hatch, President’s Counsel




The five Judge Bench of the Supreme Court by its decision on June 2, 2020 speaking through its majority rejected the preliminary objections raised by the Respondents to the maintainability of the several Fundamental Rights (FR) petitions challenging the legality of the presidential proclamation of March 2 dissolving Parliament. A Petition impugning the date of elections fixed by the Elections Commission for June 20 was withdrawn midstream. However the Court unanimously refused the Petitioners leave to proceed with their FR applications.

Thus far no reasons have been given by the Supreme Court for the decision after 10 days of hearing and it appears that none will be proffered. The Constitution provides that an FR application may be proceeded with, only with leave to proceed first granted by Court. Such leave may be granted or refused by Court. The practice of the Supreme Court has been not to proffer reasons when leave is refused.

Whilst the Court deserves overall public acclamation for rejecting the preliminary objections which straddled alleged infractions of time bars, lack of necessary parties and un-reviewability by Court of a presidential decision, nevertheless the refusal of leave to proceed without reasons for such refusal is with due respect to the Court, regrettable having regard to the significant constitutional issues raised.

These unsuccessful FR petitions focused on hitherto un-litigated and significant issues in constitutional law relating to the powers of the President and the Elections Commission as regards fixing a date for parliamentary elections and the administrative task of holding that election. Concomitantly the validity of the presidential proclamation of March 2 as the election could not be held on the due date and the implied resuscitation of the dissolved Parliament were also in contention.

At the core of this case were fundamental issues pertaining to the sovereignty of the people and also the separation of powers between the President and Parliament. Whilst the 19th Amendment empowered the President to dissolve Parliament after four and a half years of its full five year term, the questions of whether a dissolved Parliament can be re-summoned and whether Parliament can be inoperative for more than three months were also matters in issue. The Supreme Court as a repository of the people’s sovereignty was called upon to arbiter these questions.

Sri Lanka’s constitutional history since independence has been replete with contentious issues between the Executive, Legislature and the Judiciary. On balance the Courts have not hesitated to preserve their own sphere of power as exemplified by the decision on the constitutionality of the new Tax Bill in 2017 where this writer successfully persuaded the Supreme Court to rule that a pernicious clause which violated judicial independence required both a 2/3 majority and approval by the people at a referendum. That Clause was dropped by the former government and not proceeded with. Moreover the recent unanimous decision of a seven Judge Bench of the Supreme Court which struck down President Maithripala Sirisena’s dissolution of Parliament illustrates that the Court has also intervened to check the unlawful exercise of presidential power.

To this writer the issues as regards fixing the date of the parliamentary general elections were clear. Constitutionally it is the President of the Republic who on a dissolution of Parliament either prior to its full term or on the expiration of its full term by proclamation fixes a date for the general election and summons the new Parliament to meet not later than three months from the date of that proclamation [Article 70(5)]. There is thus a trimester or a three month period within which this must be done. The constitutional responsibility of conducting such election is vested with the Elections Commission (EC). The date fixed by the President for the holding of such election cannot be varied by the EC. Once such date is fixed by the President the only power the EC possesses as regards conducting an election on that date under the Parliamentary Elections Act No. 1 of 1981 is to not hold a poll in an electoral district and appoint another date instead, or declare a poll in affected polling stations void in certain exceptional contingencies [Sections 24(3) and 48A of that Act].

The EC if unable for whatever cause to hold the general election on the date fixed by the President cannot arrogate to itself the power of substituting another date. Neither should the President acquiesce in that action. The intervention of the global pandemic of COVID-19 which rendered the holding of the election on April 25 not possible did not empower the Commission to subsequently fix it for June 20 in the first instance, which date the EC subsequently informed Court could not be adhered to. These powers of the EC enumerated above are fixed by statute and are subordinate to the power vested in the President under the Constitution. In the legal hierarchy the Constitution is the supreme norm and statutes are subordinate, although Courts do endeavour where possible to harmonize them.

There have been several writings and positions in the public domain as regards the issues surrounding these cases. I do not propose to deal with all of them. However there has been to my mind some misstatement, perhaps unwittingly, of what should be the applicable legal approach.

Some writers have suggested that the doctrines of "constitutional exceptionalism" and "necessity" applied to the unexpected situation presented by the pandemic. "Exceptionalism" and "necessity" are cognate legal doctrines which seek to provide for a departure from an existing norm or rendering lawful, which is unlawful. Necessity has most often been invoked to justify a military takeover after a coup d’état. In this writer’s view neither necessity nor exceptionalism can justify any abdication or usurpation of the President’s power to fix the date of the parliamentary elections.

The President was regrettably ill advised on his constitutional responsibilities with regard to fixing a date for the general election. The constitutional duty of fixing the date of an election is solely vested with the President and what he ought to have done is to issue a fresh proclamation with a subsequent fresh date of election which provided also for the date for the new Parliament to meet within the three month trimester. This would have left time for the abatement of the pandemic and the holding of the elections. Hence the constitutional norm could have been adhered to. The President is in any event vested with the constitutional authority to summon a dissolved Parliament where he is satisfied that an emergency has arisen of such a nature that an earlier meeting of Parliament is necessary [Article 70(7)]. The fact that this would have revived the dissolved Parliament albeit for a brief period is not a justifiable consideration. The EC has now fixed the elections for August 5. The Gazette announcing that date relies on Section 24(3) of the Parliamentary Elections Act which in this writer’s view is inapplicable. Although this is now a fait accompli, there should have been adherence to the Constitution with the President fixing the date.

Another recent article cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in 1999 authored by Mark Fernando J. in Karunatillake V. The Elections Commission on the failure of President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga to hold Provincial Council elections and their periodic postponement. The observation by Court that the Commissioner of Elections (precursor to the EC) was legally competent to fix the date of Provincial Council elections was made in the context of the then President postponing such elections by Emergency Regulations. The legal regime governing parliamentary elections and Provincial Council elections are distinct. The power to fix the date of Provincial Council elections is vested by the Provincial Councils Elections Act No. 2 of 1988 in the EC. It certainly does not apply to the present situation where the President as aforesaid is solely constitutionally responsible for fixing the date of a general election.

There have also been concerns that what the President has done in the present context is tantamount to "hyper-presidentialism" where he has been allegedly ruling by Decree without Parliament. This constitutional/political concept originated from developments in certain Latin American countries and the Philippines where the Constitution provides for a directly elected President and presidentialism in these systems has enabled the arrogation of additional powers to the presidency who can issue Decrees with minimal accountability to the Legislature although impeachment exists. The present constitutional position in Sri Lanka is entirely different.

The Prime Minister and Cabinet emanate from Parliament which is an integral part of the sovereignty of the people. Neither the PM/Cabinet nor Parliament can be bypassed or dispensed with by a President who thereafter seeks to rules by Decree. That would be a flagrant violation of the Constitution. It must be not be lost sight of that Sri Lanka has a semi-presidential system with diminished presidential powers after the 19th Amendment. However eternal vigilance is the essential price of liberty.

Another misconception is that a decision of the President which is within his discretion is immune from judicial review. This is untenable in law since, as succinctly stated by our Supreme Court quite a while ago; there are no unfettered or unreviewable discretions or authority to any organ or body established under the Constitution. Besides, the decision against President Sirisena’s purported dissolution of Parliament is a case in point.

This writer does not wish to speculate as to the legal grounds on which the Court refused leave to proceed. As a political scientist and former Ambassador opined before June 2, elections even if delayed, are better than no elections. This writer agrees with this but reiterates that the constitutional norm should have been adhered to.

Refusal by the Supreme Court of leave to proceed of an FR application cannot establish a precedent as the merits have not been considered. It may have some persuasive value if reasons for the refusal were given. However, the June 2 decision of the Supreme Court was cited by the Respondents in opposition to the FR application by the UNP which canvassed the non-summoning of Parliament as allegedly no fresh grounds were adduced beyond what was already placed before Court in the prior applications. This FR application was withdrawn.

The Supreme Court is the apex Court in our Constitution and is vested with the task of interpreting the Constitution and ensuring that other organs of government and State agencies abide by it. Hopefully the Court may reconsider the non-proffering of reasons in such significant cases in the future. This writer recalls a conversation with a retired Judge of the Supreme Court with academic credentials who did agree that in the jurisdictions where the Court has a discretion in granting leave there may be a compelling argument for the Court to proffer such reasons in appropriate cases where leave is refused. It is respectfully submitted that the FR applications which culminated on June 2 was one such instance.