by Victor Ivan
Translation by K.A.N. Perera

While attending a public discussion on the renaissance movement, a participant approached me and shared his opinion on the intellectual poverty of the Sri Lankan people as a nation and asked me whether it would be possible for me to investigate this and clarify the historical context of the issue.

Smallness of thinking

As I see it, the main reason for the intellectual poverty of Sri Lankan people lies in the fact that, for ages, they have been restricting their knowledge, exclusively to the religion that they believe in. Perceived from a philosophical sense, of all religious leaders, the Buddha offers an in-depth philosophical analysis. Yet, unfortunately, the doctrine of the Buddha has been understood by many in a very narrow sense despite its profundity and matter of fact approach to the human issues.

Not only in the distant past, even at present the Buddhist is entrenched in viewing Buddhism as the culmination and crowning glory of all knowledge. In the long history of over 2300 years, all literary and intellectual activities that can be classified as of academic value were executed in very close association with Buddhism. In this background, not a single book of non-religious nature like Art, Literature, Mathematics, Science, Philosophy, the purpose of life or the nature of the world was written during this long period. Similarly, not a single book on these subjects published in other countries was translated into Sinhala. Consequently, Buddhism remained only, or the main source of knowledge and inspiration over this long period.

Religious leaders like the Buddha, Mahavira, Confucius, philosophers of the calibre of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, Mathematicians like Euclid and scientists like Archimedes can be described as great intellectuals who lived in the pre Christian era. They were unique people in the respective fields that they represented. Pythagoras and Euclid stand out prominently in the field of mathematics. Archimedes stands out in both mathematics and engineering fields, Socrates in ethics, Plato in political science and conceptual issues. Aristotle represents four different areas viz. political science, art, logic and physical science.

But the people of Sri Lanka were not aware of any of these intellectuals and philosophers other than the Lord Buddha. Therefore, the thinking of these sages did not have any impact on the intellectual development of the people of Sri Lanka. Buddhism was the main source of inspiration while Hinduism had its impact on the Sri Lankan psyche to lesser degree. This has resulted in shaping the thinking of the people of our country exclusively in a religious milieu. Consequently, the mundane aspects did not find a significant place in their ideology.

Almost all the books written in Sri Lanka can be described as religious treatises. Not a single treatise on non- religious character was written. As per Ven Baddegama Wimalawansa thero, of the books written between the Auradhapura era and the Kandyan period, only Amavathura can be treated as coming close to that genre of treatise. During this long span of time, despite great efforts displayed in committing Buddhist texts to writing, no attempt had been made to translate any other great book of repute published in the world to Sinhalese language. There was no room for the emergence of any advance art, science or philosophy in this social milieu.

The Kalama Sutta

Buddhism advocates the critical approach of inquiry and offers proper guidance for the development of the intellect. But we have desperately failed to make use of this unique potential as, Buddhism had been practised more as a system of faith than an intellectual discipline in Sri Lanka.

The best example to support this proposition is found in the Kalama Sutta preached by the Buddha, which is unique in the history of religions. Kalama Sutta gives an admirable description of scientific inquiry and stresses the importance of objective verification of facts before accepting anything. It goes on to say that “do not be led by reports or tradition or hearsay. Be not led by the authority of religious text nor by mere logic or inference; nor by considering appearances or by the delight in speculative opinions, nor by seeming possibilities, nor by the idea “this is our teacher”. Ranaweera Leslie Gunawardena, commenting on the Kalama Sutta, states that the importance of this objective approach advocated in the Sutta Pitaka of the Buddhist text was not recognised until the late nineteenth century. He further states that regrettably, it had been ignored for a long time and even now it has not received adequate intellectual attention that it deserves.

Thus, for a very long period, Sri Lanka remained in a religious setting distanced from the ever expanding new knowledge regime. The Pirivena education was confined to a limited few and the subjects taught were restricted to language and Buddhism. It was only after the introduction of the formal system of school education during the British rule that the doors for the new knowledge were opened for the people. The British system of school education too, had the proselytising element aimed at spreading their religion. Yet, apart from religion, a range of mundane subjects were also included in the curriculum, thus paving the way for exposing a population that was hitherto confined only to religious instructions, to a expansive world of new knowledge. Yet, the country failed to reap the benefit of the new system and pursue a systematic progress along the path.

Translation of Books

The interest in learning from other advanced cultures and civilizations has a greater role to play in the progress of a nation and its intellectual advancement. Japan has a system of translating into their language, the best books published across the world. This is not a recent phenomenon. It has a long history and a tradition coming down from ages past. Their knowledge of European languages has been extremely poor. But they are rich in new knowledge. Translation literature serves as one of the major sources of new knowledge. It was through Iban Rushdie, a Muslim philosopher (1296-98) that the Christian world came to know of Aristotle. He was the first person to realise the significance of Aristotle in the sphere of philosophy. The Christendom came to know of Aristotle through Rushdie’s articles, translated into Latin. Reading Aristotle became a passion in Europe during the Renaissance. The origin of Geometry was in Egypt. But it thrived and progressed in Greece. It was Thales (620BC -555 BC) who introduced Geometry to Greece. He is held to be the “father of philosophy”. Sometimes, the new knowledge born in one country flourishes in another. The game of Chess originated in India. But the second stage of its progress occurred in the Arab world. Finally, it reached its climax in Europe.

The translation literature can be described as a major source of inspiration in which the knowledge of one nation is transmitted to other nations. Intelligent nations will not remain complacent with the knowledge that they already possess. Instead, they keep constant watch on new knowledge that emerge and adopt appropriate measures to absorb it. The translation of books from other languages plays a major role in this process.

Stagnation

As far as the search for new knowledge is concerned, Sri Lanka remained in the dark until the doors to the world were opened through the formal school system introduced during British rule. Until then, the people of Sri Lanka were totally ignorant of the great revolutions and sweeping changes that took place in the world. The Sri Lankans at that time did not have any knowledge of the Renaissance that originated in Italy and spread through Europe, ending the medieval period and heralding the new age. Along with it, sweeping changes spread across Europe, producing great intellectuals and philosophers and ideas they bequeathed to the world.

The people of Sri Lanka at that time were not aware of the host of prominent people like Machiavelli (1467-1527), Copernicus (1473-1543), Kepler (1571-1630) or Galileo (1564-1642) and particularly the changes that the findings of the latter three ushered in the sphere of science. They did not know about Francis Bacon (1561-1620), Hobbs (1588-1679), Descartes (1596-1650), Spinoza (1632-1677), Lock (1632-1704), David Hume, Russo (1711-1776), and Kant (1724-1804). I don’t intend adding a list of the great books they wrote as this article might get unduly long. Also, there is no need for a list of books to be produced here as some readers are adequately conversant with their writings while the others can have easy access to their books through the Net. However, the following list of books written in Sri Lanka during this period point out the level of backwardness of the intellectual prowess. The list includes “Pansiya Panas Jaathaka Potha, Dalada Siritha, Sinhala Maha Bodhi Vansaya, Sinhala Anagatha Vansaya, Soorya Sathaka Sannaya and Dambadeni Asnaya”. A comparative analysis of these books in the light of those published in Europe would reveal the vast difference that existed between Europe and Sri Lanka in terms of their intellectual content and control. Obviously, the difference was poles apart.

Patriotism

Soon after the country was turned into a literate society, it was the European civil servants that made an immense contribution in kindling the patriotic feelings in Sinhala people. It was mandatory for the civil servants to be proficient in native languages. Their promotions were withheld unless they passed the language proficiency test. Those who failed the test were dismissed from the service. This practice resulted in producing a generation of civil servants with a high level of language proficiency. John D’Oyly who learnt Sinhla language under the tutelage of Ven. Karathota Dhammarama thero is a classic example. He chewed betel and had an intimate relationship with Gajaman Nona, the renowned poetess. The legend has it that D’Oyly and Gajaman Nona often used the medium of verse in exchanging romantic sentiments.

The European civil servants who worked in Sri Lanka were the pioneers in exploring the ancient civilisation of Sri Lanka and revealing the progress associated with the kingdoms of Auradhapura and Polonnaruva, their art and craft, irrigation work, temples and dagabas. They engaged themselves in archaeological, religious and literary investigations and published books on their findings and revelations. Prominent among them were John D’Oyly, Alexander, Johnston, R.C. Wilders, H.W. Codrington, Hugh Neville, Rhys Davis, Thomas Steel and H.C.P. Bell. The British government patronised their work. Geiger was not a civil servant working in Sri Lanka. Yet, the British administration in Sri Lanka assigned him with the task of translating into English the Mahavansa, the great chronicle of the country.

The local academics joined the bandwagon only after the British took the initiative. They followed a policy of patronising local literary efforts as well. It was the British government that persuaded Hikkaduvwe Sri Sumangala thero and Pundit Batuvantudave to translate Mahavamsa, the great chronicle of the history of Sri Lanka into Sinhalese and later published it as a book. Similarly, the British government persuaded James d’ Alwis to translate Sidath Sangarawa, a book on Sinhalese grammar into English and defrayed the associated costs.

In view of above, the intellectual atmosphere that led to kindle the patriotic feelings in us could be considered as an outcome of the work of the European civil servants and the British Administration itself which held power at the time rather than the local intelligentsia.

Misapprehension

The local academics of the day were not mature people conversant with the new knowledge that was fast gaining ground spreading across the world. They were not fully fledged intellectuals. This invariably caused them to view the revelations made by Europeans in regard to the history in a chauvinistic angle. Lack of comparative knowledge in world civilisations led them to assume an undue pride in themselves based on the findings of the ancient civilisation of Sri Lanka. They persuaded themselves to claim that the ancient civilisation of Sri Lanka was the noblest civilisation that ever emerged in the world. They did not stop at that. Ostensibly, they developed a sense of superiority upon the splendour of the ancient civilisation and initiated a vigorous campaign claiming that Sinhalese were the most noble and superior of all nationalities in the world. Anagarika Dharmapala was the forerunner and the vociferous roar of this crusade. According to Anagarika Dharmapala, the Sinhalese were the noblest race in the world. The Sinhalese had the noblest civilisation. Sinhalese is the best language among all other languages. In his opinion Tamil, Telegu, Arabic, English, Latin are barbaric languages.

According to Kumaratunga Munidasa, the ancient Sri Lanka was not a small island, but a large land mass extended upto Madagascar island in the African continent. It was ruled by legendary emperors like Tharaka and Ravana. The legendary Peacock Chariot, the flying craft was an invention of ancient Sri Lanka. Kumaratunga Munidasa lamenting on the grandeur of this so-called bygone empire goes on to say;

“Alas, Tharaka, Lanka was a paradise during your time. Alas, Ravana, Lanka was a golden city during your time …. (Editorial, Lakmini Pahana September 18, 1934).

It was the foreigners who revealed our history and kindled a feeling and interest in us for history. But we have failed to recognize that. The lack of comparative knowledge of world civilisations has led us to think and believe that we are the inheritors of the best civilisation in the world. The worst of all was the inclination to look on other nations with disdain and perceive them as inferior. This scenario can be described as an inevitable outcome of the intellectual poverty of our society.

During pre-modern era, obviously, there were no racial, religious or linguistic differences among the natives. Caste remained the only dividing line. Perceived from this angle, racial, religious and linguistic differences can be treated as of recent origin. Anagarika Dharmapala made an ample contribution to creating these divisions.

Religious Revival

Religious revival movement in Sri Lanka is another factor reflecting the intellectual poverty of the Sri Lankan culture. This can be illustrated by comparing the differences in approach made by Arumugam Navalar, the leader of the Hindu religious movement and Anagarika Dharmapala, the leader of the Buddhist revival movement in Sri Lanka with that of the Raja Ram Mohan Roy, the leader of the Hindu Revival Movement in India and Syed Ahamed Khan, the leader of the Muslim Revival Movement in India. Both these Indian leaders – Ram Mohan Roy and Syed Ahamed Khan had grasped the true essence of the European renaissance movement. They were fully conversant with other religions and different other subjects such as Science and Arts. They did not persuade themselves to believe that all other religions except those that they professed were of inferior quality and therefore, should be destroyed. Instead, they acknowledged the importance of building harmony and promoting goodwill among other religions. In fact, they appeared for the religious reconciliation and solidarity and were concerned with the removal of outdated practices and rituals in their own faiths which were not compatible with the modern world and endeavored to give the religious ideology, a progressive orientatation.

Arumugam Navalar and Anagarika Dharmapala did not possess such a wide vision. Arumugam Navalar acknowledged the caste system while Anagarika Dharmapala endured it. Both of them were concerned only with the external threats to their respective religions. Both of them declined to recognize the outdated elements in their own religions. All other faiths were perceived to be rival religions to be destroyed. Anagarika Dharmapala saw all non Buddhists as “Pariahs” who have no claim of any sort in Sri Lanka.

Independence

The independence movement, followed by the religious revival movement, can be described as another important turning point that demonstrates the culture of intellectual poverty of Sri Lankan people. The Indian independence struggle had a progressive vision, but in Sri Lanka it had no vision at all. It was concerned only with the transfer of power. By the time India gained independence, the independence movement of India had been able to build the nation which is an essential prerequisite of healthy survival of the nation state. But, the situation in Sri Lanka was different. We gained independence without fulfilling the need for nation building.

The post-independence language policy of Sri Lanka introduced in 1956 too, can be described as a crucial factor that had contributed to promote intellectual poverty. The production of bilingual students and academics was the main object, both before and after the introduction of the system of free education. It aimed at initiating education, first in mother tongue and thereafter, gradually introducing English as the second language, producing students proficient in both languages. If this methodology were to be adopted and maintained, English language would have become the medium of higher education providing the key to new knowledge and enrichment of the thinking of the people.

Instead of producing bilingual academics, the system of free education led to produce monolingual scholars who were acquainted only with one language. Even higher education was confined to Sinhala medium. Along with the national language policy, if a program was introduced to translate the internationally published best books, as in Japan, it would certainly have made an immense contribution to enriching the knowledge-base of monolingual students who were proficient only in their mother tongue. Unfortunately, the national language policy was introduced without resorting to such an alternative. This was mainly responsible for intensifying the culture of the intellectual poverty in the country.

Social science is a popular subject in universities. But not a single book of Max Weber, celebrated authority on the subject has yet been published in Sinhala. As a result, the knowledge on Max Weber of the monolingual undergraduates studying the subject of social science without recourse to English books will invariably be restricted only to the pedagogic instructions of their teachers. This observation is equally valid on other subjects too.

In Sri Lanka, an undue prominence is given for translation of foreign novels. Novels are considered important in our country. Translated novels have a good demand in the market. Unfortunately, so far, the publishers have not realised the importance of translating the books on scholastic subjects which are equally or more important for introducing and nourishing new knowledge. Similarly, the Literary Awards are being conferred only for novels. This must not be misconstrued that novels are unimportant. But, the books that contribute to expand the horizons of knowledge and consciousness are far more important. No one has time to read all the books published in the world. Yet, there should be a system in operation to identify the books that should essentially be read by the people and translate them into vernacular languages. The books publishers too, must focus their attention on the matter.

The present system of education from Grade 1 up to the University level is based on a system of rote learning i.e., memorising. It is evident that the space for reading in education has been completely jettisoned from the process of formal education and regrettably relegated to an unimportant backburner by the prevailing system of education itself. In the final analysis, the outcome of this situation has been the production of men, who can’t even think independently, let alone producing men of letters and thought! The damage to the future generation will be immense unless this trend is rectified before it becomes too late.

Courtesy:The Island