HIERARCHY OF RELIGIONS: A

RELIGIOUS OR POLITICAL
NECESSITY?

A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS IN TWO
SOUTH ASIAN COUNTRIES
An analysis of Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Draft Constitution of the
Kingdom of Bhutan and Article 9 of the Constitution of Sri Lanka
The relevant Article in the draft Constitution of the Kingdom of Bhutan
reads as follows:

1. Buddhism is the spiritual heritage of Bhutan, which promotes among others the
principles and values of peace, non – violence, compassion and tolerance.
2. The Druk Gyalpo is the protector of all religions in Bhutan.

In seeking to understand the meaning and effect of these Articles I will

embark upon a comparison with the relevant Article in the Constitution of
Sri Lanka. There is no suggestion that the Bhutanese Article is in any way
inspired by the Sri Lankan Article. Nevertheless they both seem to share a
fundamental flaw, rooted in dualistic principle (which represents a level of
primordial thinking that is transcended by Buddhist thought) and given
dualistic expression by the English language.

In their primary thrust the message given by these two articles have a
remarkable similarity to Article 9 of the present Constitution of Sri Lanka.
This reads as follows:

The Republic of Sri Lanka shall give to Buddhism the foremost place and
accordingly it shall be the duty of the State to protect and foster the Buddha
Sasana while assuring to all religions the rights granted by Articles 10 and 14(1)
(e).1

[Please see footnote for articles 10 and 14 (1) (e).]

This formulation, although found in the Second Republican Constitution of

1978 was first adopted by the Constituent Assembly that drafted the First
Republican Constitution of 1972. It was the 1972 Constitution that
enabled Sri Lanka to break off from dominion status and the British Crown
and become a sovereign and fully independent nation.

However this notion of a hierarchy of religions presided over by the

Buddhist faith is a peculiarly British one. We need to go back to 1818 in
order to find the first statement of this nature in a Constitutional
document.

The Proclamation of British Sovereignty over the island of Ceylon in 1818

took place after the brutal suppression of a protracted War of Liberation
fought by the Kandyan People in 1817/18 to restore their ancient
freedoms which were being usurped by an alien Western power. At the
end of this War every patriotic Kandyan Chief was either sentenced to
death or deported. It was a moment when an alien power was coming to
grips with administering an ancient kingdom and seeking to settle issues
both temporal and spiritual in the most acceptable manner. Consequently
the following Article 16 of the 1818 Proclamation was an application of the
British rules of certainty and fairness to the 4 religions being followed in
the island of Ceylon at that time – Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam and

1
Article 10 states: Every person is entitled to freedom of thought, conscience and religion,
including the freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.
Article 14 (1) (e) states: Every citizen is entitled to- the freedom either by himself or in
association with others, and either in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in
worship, observance, practice and teaching.
Christianity. It was also motivated by a need to allay the fears and
concerns of the Buddhist majority.

As well the priests as all the ceremonies and processions of the Budhoo Religion
shall receive the Respect which in former times was shown them, at the same time
it is in no wise to be understood that the protection of Government is to be denied
to the peaceable exercise by all other persons of the Religion which they
respectively profess or to the erection under due license from His Excellency of
Places of worship in proper situations.

Here we come to a significant interface of politics and religion. A

Constitution is a holistic document that must be enriched by a holistic and
inclusive spirit. In politics divisions are assumed and they are then
exploited for political purposes. In religion on the other hand man made
divisions are investigated, challenged and de-constructed. True religion is
a search for UNITY, and this becomes possible by unravelling the illusory
nature of biological, linguistic and emotional descriptions with which
divisions are erected. When religion comes face to face with politics it is
essential that it should not be coloured or diluted by divisive effluents.
This is a real danger when a Constitution is being drafted.

POWER OF LANGUAGE TO SEPARATE AND DIVIDE

The Buddha clearly differentiated between two types of language – the

language of existence and the language of becoming. In teaching the
universal characteristics of all phenomena being

ƒ Impermanent – anicca
ƒ Unstable, in conflict and subject to breaking up – dukkha; and
ƒ Without an abiding entity or substance within – anatta

He was particularly mindful of the impact of language on the human mind.

By describing transient phenomena in terms of language it can make that
which is impermanent appear permanent; that which is unstable appear
stable and finally confer it with the status of an entity. In other words we
conceptualise, or package reality. As the Late Ven. Chogyam Trungpa
said:

The heart of the confusion is that man has a sense of self which seems to him to
be continuous and solid.2

Having conceptualised ourselves we then go on to conceptualise

everything else around us. This process is useful up to a point. We use our
knowledge of botany to identify different trees and plants and this makes
it possible to preserve our environment. But if we show a preference to
just one category of trees or plants and de-prioritise or ignore the rest we
will be overlooking the fact that they are all inter-dependent and form one
harmonious whole.

2
CUTTING THROUGH SPIRITUAL MATERIALISM Boston and London Shambala 1973
Language therefore needs to be used with great care especially when
framing a Constitution using Buddhist ideas and concepts. The greatest
danger is giving the impression of something impermanent, unstable and
lacking an abiding entity or substance as being permanent, stable and
solid. Thus the ordinary Bhutanese reading Article 3.1 would derive great
satisfaction from seeing the word Buddhism – his or her own religion,
enshrined there and given pride of place.

The question may however be asked ‘is Buddhism permanent, stable and
solid?’ We may take another step further and inquire – ‘Is there such a
thing as Buddhism?’

The word ‘Buddhism’ is a creation of the English language. It may have its
corresponding native word. Thus in Sri Lanka we refer to buddhagama
meaning the Buddhist Religion. Giving the natives of colonies a racial and
religious identity was a colonial political habit. It was to mark out and
separate one set of people from another.

Is there a word called Buddhism or a comparable term in the teachings of

the Buddha? The answer is NO. The closest expression is Buddha dhamma
or the dhamma as taught by the Buddha. The Buddha avoided giving a
name or a label to his teachings, preferring instead to summarize the
teachings by grounding it in the experience of human beings – as opposed
to creating a vague and meaningless abstraction. Thus he said in one of
his most celebrated statements:

Two things only do I teach – suffering and its end.

It was natural for Westerners to associate the doctrine taught by the

Buddha as a Buddha – ism or Buddhism in the same way that the gospel
taught by Christ was called Christianity. There is no doubt that Buddha
and Christ are the clear authority figures behind the respective doctrines
they expounded. Yet there is one crucial distinction. The former claimed
humanity whilst the latter claimed divinity. The identity of Jesus Christ as
the Son of God is central to Christianity. The Buddha was careful to
eschew the personality cult – so often the failing of human beings. He
placed dhamma or the universal law at the forefront of his teachings and
dispensation and was careful to keep his personality in the background.

He established and encouraged the critical and democratic approach of

free inquiry and personal verification in the famous discourse to the
Kalama’s. His caution that no teaching should be accepted on authority
alone applied to his own teachings.

The logical conclusion that the Kalama Sutta indicates is the moral
freedom of the individual human being to decide the particular moral code
by which she will order her life. Given this freedom it is not open to a true
disciple of the dhamma to wrap the teachings with an imaginary piece of
wrapping paper and paste a label called ‘Buddhism’ on it. When this is
done the worldling or ordinary person gives up every freedom identified in
the Kalama Sutta to either accept or reject what is so packaged without
critical inquiry. The Indian Philosopher Krishnamurti was one of the few
human beings of the last century who seized the power of the Kalama
Sutta with both hands, thought for himself and encouraged others to do
so. He said:

Do not have a unifying or a binding system of thought. Be free of the

entanglements of creeds, customs and traditions. Think simply.

Both nations and people continue to ignore this wise counsel – with
disastrous consequences which are plain to see as we enter a new
millennium.

The Buddha’s approach to language was, as always moderate. He neither

embraced nor rejected concepts but only pointed towards their proper use
towards a better understanding of experience. The human habit of
proliferation – papanca – or creating more words than are necessary goes
contrary to the precision and economy (of thoughts, words and deeds)
that a disciple of the Buddha is expected to cultivate.3

From this perspective the word ‘Buddhism’ and ‘Buddhist’ can do more
harm than good. It serves a strictly limited function of identifying places,
practices which are, and people who are, Buddhist in a purely formal
sense. The danger is that it can give these formal Buddhists a sense of
superiority – together with the insecurity this can lead to when a specific
identity is acknowledged and emphasized. For the ‘non – Buddhist’ on the
other hand this Article can give an inferiority complex – also coupled with
the same sense of insecurity.

This tangle which is so created is precisely what the Buddha taught us to

unravel by letting go of what is not essential and focusing on the two
things that all human beings – irrespective of formal religious affiliation –
must relate to; human suffering and the way out of it.

THE OWNERLESS DHAMMA

The Buddha himself claimed no exclusive copyright to the dhamma. He

discovered it and opened the doors wide for others to discover it. It is
unthinkable for him to have said “henceforth the dhamma proclaimed by
me shall be known as ‘Buddhism’ and by no other name.” In one instance
he rejected a dogmatic suggestion by two Brahmin Monks to preserve the
dhamma in the very words uttered by him as contrary to the spirit of the
dhamma.4 The dhamma is truly the Open Way for people from different
lands and different cultures using different languages to learn what is
ultimately, a universal language of the heart. The dogmatic stance,

This indeed is the truth. All else is falsehood.

3
Kalupahana, David, J (1999). The Buddha’s Philosophy of Language, Sarvodaya Vishva
Lekha pp 32,33.
4
Bhikku Nanananda (1971) Concept and Reality in Early Buddhist Thought BPS, Kandy.
Please see Annexure.
was positively discouraged. This Great Teacher who taught that all
phenomena are transient, imperfect and ownerless did not leave an
exception in favour of the dhamma either for himself or for his followers.
If he did not claim ownership of the dhamma how can we lesser mortals
seek to do so using various man made devices (like writing Constitutions
and using labels to separate and divide people) left to us by the British?

Being an eminently practical human being the Buddha recognized the

value of specificity, practical experience and individual realization in
relating to and understanding the individual strands of the dhamma. He
foresaw the clear danger inherent in giving the doctrine a label backed up
by his personal authority. Such a label can lend itself to misuse by
ignorant human beings. It is human experience that all religions and
systems of thought are susceptible to either wise use or misuse like
double edged swords.

The English word ‘Buddhism’ has indeed accomplished the task of giving
such a label to the Buddha’s teachings and conferred it with an identity
and ego which has been separated from other religions. This point is
reinforced graphically by Krishnamurti.

Where there is division, there must be conflict: that is the law. There is division
between the Muslim and the Hindu, the Buddhist and the other, between Catholics
and the Protestants, and so on. Where there is division nationally, religiously,
there must be conflict. Our minds are accustomed to conflict from the moment we
are born till we die. It is a perpetual struggle, perpetual strife, constant battle
within oneself and outside, and if one realises – not verbally, not intellectually (but
through direct experience) the fact that the thinker is the thought and that there is
no division between the two, then one begins to understand the nature of conflict
and the ending of conflict.

You know, we are always asking for peace of mind. There is no peace of mind;
peace exists only when there is total absence of violence (or separation or
division). There is violence if you are ambitious. Sir, these are all facts; go into
them. There is violence if you belong to any group – religious national or
otherwise. There is violence in your relationship. (to the whole) [Words in italics
added. J. Krishnamurti, Sri Lanka Talks 1980]

According to Bhikku Nanananda5:

Concepts, be they material or spiritual, worldly or transcendental – are not worthy

of being grasped dogmatically. They are not to be treated as ultimate categories
and are to be discarded in the course of the spiritual endeavour … the uninstructed
average person succumbs to it; the disciple training on the Ariyan path resists it;
and the Emancipated One transcends it.

Wise rulers of the past, like Emperor Asoka of India, therefore used
formulations that were non-alienating, holistic and therefore in accordance
with the teachings. Thus he proclaimed through a rock edict:

Dhamma sadhu, kiyam cu dhamme ti?

Apasinave, bahu kayane, daya, dane, sace, socaye.

5
Id p 54,55.
 Dhamma is good, but what constitutes Dhamma?
(It includes) little evil, much good, kindness,
generosity, truthfulness and purity.

The Noble Triple Gem, the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, or the Teacher,
Teaching and the Taught unite in the Teaching which is the dhamma. The
Enlightened One and all noble disciples who followed him became one with
the dhamma and manifested it in their whole being through thoughts
words and actions.

ENSHRINING THE LIVING DHAMMA IN ARTICLE 3.1

It is recommended with great respect that the word ‘Buddhism’ in article

3.1 be replaced with the words ‘the living dhamma as taught by the
Buddha.’

This reference to ‘living dhamma’ gives precedence to the substance of

the teachings, to noble deeds and actual experience over mere forms. The
living dharma (or the way things are – as opposed to the way we see
them) is coterminous with and as broad as the process of life itself. It is
generally in matters of ritual that the adherents of the four main religions
go their separate ways. But in so far as the essential practice is
concerned, a Hindu, Muslim or Christian is capable of altruism or selfless
and compassionate action no less than a Buddhist and thus become one
with the living dharma. True religious practice is a search for unity. This
unity is fundamentally a unity of heart and mind and a unity of self with
others. It defies and rises above all barriers set up by linguistic and
ritualistic externals.

It also emphasizes that the dhamma is timeless and a dynamic force for
good in the twenty first century. Prefacing it with the word ‘living’ serves
to prevent excessive importance being given to the sacred texts. Notably
Sri Lanka is one Buddhist country where the emphasis on scholasticism
grew so strong that Buddhist scholars lost touch completely with the
meditative tradition. The meditative tradition in Sri Lanka had been
broken before it made a revival in the 19th century through several
pioneering forest monks. It is gathering pace today with the dawn of the
new millennium.

The following quote from Ven. Chogyam Trungpa6 calls our attention to
the need for a balanced approach to spirituality.

The contemplative traditions of Buddhism, such as the Tibetan and Zen traditions,
while emphasizing meditation practice very strongly, see study as something which
should go alongside it. It is felt that a student cannot rely on meditation practice
alone without sharpening his intelligence. The idea is that one first needs some
grounding in meditation practice. Then one can begin to work with the intellectual
aspect of the tradition. In this way study becomes a confirmation of experience
rather than simply the acquisition of banks of irrelevant information. Rather than
becoming a stupid meditator or an absent minded intellectual, the student can
become an intelligent yogi – scholar and practitioner at the same time.

6
The Heart of the Buddha, Shambhala 1991, p 15.
Balance and moderation are cardinal virtues of a Buddhist society and this
basic attitude must necessarily extend to issues of religion as well. The
mention of ‘Buddhism’ which can very easily extend to historical and
cultural accretions which are simply human bonds and not really part of
the pure and liberating doctrine of the Buddha is a clear pitfall that should
be avoided by the wise. It falls more onto the side of ego and suffering
than to the side of selflessness and happiness outlined in the dhamma. On
the other hand the reference to the living dhamma limits the spiritual
heritage of Bhutan to the actual teachings of the Master and their practice
– either consciously or unconsciously by all human beings irrespective of
their religious label.

In short the word ‘Buddhism’ is extraneous to the noble triple gem – the
Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha. It is only significant as a label, and as
such can be limited to label bearers and their activities which may not
necessarily personify the essence or substance of the Dhamma. The
Dhamma on the other hand personifies and unifies the noble triple gem
and serves to focus the attention of all Bhutanese on this well defined and
well expounded body of knowledge and experience that constitutes the
heart of a living dynamic and vibrant tradition.

The whole business of giving names or labels to particular religious

teachings or traditions can be attributed to the political (and not religious)
inclinations of human beings. Differentiating ‘this’ from ‘that’ is not so
important to the seeker of truth who gradually develops the ability to see
and accept the essence of the truth regardless of the form in which it is
couched. Thus even for the beginner who is ultimately destined to reach a
state of unity there must be a capacity to see the label simply as a label
and nothing more. That which lies inside the label must be weighed on its
intrinsic merits and accepted if useful and discarded if not.

When the liberated human being who has united with the fathomless
silence of the universe looks deep inside his heart he does not see a
Buddhist there. Nor does he see a Hindu, a Christian or a Muslim. The
truth has no label and the Buddha is one Teacher who accepted this
proposition without any reservation.

With metta and deep admiration and respect for Bhutan, its’ wise
and noble King and its’ blessed People.

POSTSCRIPT – LESSONS FOR SRI LANKA

THE UNBROKEN THREAD OF HUMAN GOODNESS

It would not be out of place to frame some suggestions for future

constitutional change in Sri Lanka itself based on this approach.

Does the stability of the Sasana require a constitutional provision?

Both countries appear to have now passed the stage of questioning
whether, and why, a provision of this nature should be included in the
Constitution at all. However, this issue remains relevant.

In His 45 year ministry which relied solely upon face to face meetings and
teachings and discussions conducted using the spoken word the Buddha
did not consider the written word essential. The foundations of his
dispensation were laid by flawless example and precept in holistic conduct
and holistic understanding.

The teachings were subsequently reduced to writing and this had obvious
advantages. However, there can be no doubt as to which aspect is more
important for the long term sustenance of the doctrine. Learning can
stand alone and indeed be divorced from actual practice. Practice however
must necessarily be based upon internalised learning and is to this extent
superior. As Chogyam Trungpa states:

During its 2500 year history, Buddhism has manifested itself in a multitude of
different schools and styles. Always the dynamic nature of living Dharma has
brought about, in different cultural and historical environments, new modes of
expression. But at the heart of all of these manifestations lies the practice of
meditation, as exemplified and taught by the Buddha himself. Only through
personal meditative practice is the student of Dharma enabled to slow down the
speed of neurotic mind and to begin seeing the world with clarity and precision.
Without this, he will only be able to increase his confusion and perpetuate his
aggressive grasping for self – confirmation. Without meditation, there is no
approach to genuine sanity, no path to enlightenment, indeed no Dharma.7

The recognition of ‘Buddhism’ in a Constitution is consequently a further

step in the direction of reifying and abstracting a living practice. That the
resultant politicisation is a compromise that detracts from the essential
doctrine has been recognized unequivocally by Walpola Rahula
Mahathera.8

We have to admit that from the day that Buddhism was adopted as a state
religion, it began to lose its original spirit of renunciation and simplicity, and
gradually developed into an ecclesiastical organization with its numerous duties,
religious, political and social. It is impossible for any religion, when it becomes an
organized body, to continue in its original form. It has to change with the times if it
is to maintain its power and prestige. “Adapt or perish” is nature’s inexorable
imperative.

What is significant in the observation of the Mahathera is that he

attributes the dilution and decline of the dhamma in Ceylon to its linkage
with the State beginning with its reception by King Devanampiyatissa.
This was no doubt a very gradual historical process.

A decisive point of departure however was the decision of the Sangha

after foreign invasions and the Brahmanatissa famine in the 1st century BC
when the continuation of the oral tradition of the Tripitaka was gravely
threatened. Dualism raised its head and to the question raised ‘what is the

7
Preface to Living Buddhist Masters – a study by Jack Kornfield of 12 meditation masters
of the Theravada tradition who lived and taught in the 20th century.
8
History of Buddhism in Ceylon, (1956) p 76.
basis of the Sasana – learning or practice?’ the answer was given that it
was learning conferring it pride of place and subordinating the Vinaya and
the practice. This was also accompanied by the commission of the
Tripitaka to writing at Aluvihara in order that the teaching of the Buddha
might prevail. In this way a root of the dhamma established by Arahant
Mahinda was permanently dislodged.9

As we look forward to the next 2500 years of the Buddha’s dispensation

that is now left these objective lessons of history must be learned so that
they are not repeated over and over again. It is no doubt important to
establish and maintain ‘forms’ in order that the substance is preserved.
However we must not allow human error to deceive us in the guise of
‘pragmatism’ so that the form adopted is in fact a rejection and
displacement of the substance itself.

It is submitted with the greatest respect that this is what happened in

1972. Article 9 is a misrepresentation of the dhamma in letter and spirit.
No true disciple of the Buddha will seek the aid of the law to obtain
preferential treatment for ostensible adherents of the dhamma whilst
consigning the adherents of other religions to a secondary position.

Furthermore the linkage between the State and the Sasana which
according to current interpretations extend to the “Buddhist Church” in
this country with all its worldly trappings must also be thrown open for re-
consideration in view of the sharp polarity that has developed between the
supposedly Sovereign People and an all powerful State. Rambukwelle has
asserted that

In this land of the Buddhun, in matters of religion the king follows and the people
lead.10

It is well documented how the reforms of King Kirti Sri Rajasinghe and
Velivita Sri Saranankara Sangharaja Thero in 1853 were frustrated to a
degree by the nobility who ensured that only those belonging to the Govi
caste would receive higher ordination in the Siyam Nikaya.

Thus Article 9 in addition to misrepresenting the dhamma and

transforming it into a ‘dominant’ religion has also glossed over this glaring
badge of inequality symbolising caste domination. This implicit agreement
between executive and spiritual authorities in Sri Lanka remains in force
to this day, keeping egalitarianism at bay.

The advantages of the Bhutanese model

Enough was said of some root causes for the instability of the Sasana and
the dire need for a radical approach that addresses them in an
enlightened manner. It is also suggested that the false attitudes enshrined
in Article 9 have contributed to this state of affairs. The reasons for the
closure of more than 300 temples in the country today go beyond
‘poverty’ and unethical conversions to a question of meditative awareness.
How aware is the Sangha and their lay supporters of the need to re-

9
Id p 158.
10
P.B. Rambukwelle (1996) The period of Eight Kings: Portugese Wars p vii.
establish the Vinaya and discipline in order to rejuvenate both to become
a dynamic force for social transformation in a land that suffers – more
from spiritual poverty than from anything else? It is suggested that
meditation provides the golden link that would enable monk and layman
to come together once more to re-establish their relationship and re-open
closed temples on a foundation of living dhamma.

From this standpoint Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Draft Constitution of the
Kingdom of Bhutan (if amended in the manner recommended) provides a
relevant model for the achievement of these objectives.

The question may be asked whether it is necessary to assert the spiritual

heritage of a nation especially when reference is only made to one
religion. As noted above Sri Lanka does have the option of a view that the
living dhamma does not require support from the written word of the
Constitution.

It is anticipated however that the good adherents of the dhamma in Sri

Lanka will insist upon its recognition for reasons that need not be
laboured. In both Bhutan and Sri Lanka it constituted a decisive formative
influence for the establishment of a civilisation that has endured for many
centuries. Secondly the other religions in Sri Lanka can truly share in the
same values of “peace, non – violence, compassion and tolerance” which
were a fundamental enabling factor for their peaceful reception,
establishment and maintenance. Thirdly the living dhamma is a holistic
and inclusive doctrine that eschews compartmentalization and provides
the broadest framework for inter-faith dialogue and shared approaches to
unity and peace through worship, prayer and meditation.

Fourthly and most importantly, the acknowledgement, examination and

appreciation of the spiritual heritage of a nation is necessary to give clear
direction for moral revival and regeneration in our troubled island. Every
civilized human society is founded upon some spiritual foundation that
acknowledges the values of compassion and human inter-dependence.
This foundation is also dynamic and not static. It therefore interacts
constantly with other spiritual influences both Western and Eastern to
produce a vibrant whole which is neatly captured by the expression –
living dhamma.

For the Sri Lankan on the threshold of a new millennium what is

important is not so much its ‘Buddhist’ label but its holistic
substance and the fact that it provided and can still provide a
civilizing and humanizing vision and mission for a new nation. As
such the living dhamma is the unbroken thread that connects all Sri
Lankans without exception with their common historical heritage and
guides them towards a civilized life in this land with dignity.

Dealing with the substance in this manner is also the only approach
towards the creation of a modern Sri Lankan identity that breaks free
from narrow parochialism to produce citizens of the world. As Peter
Ustinov once said:
 I don’t have roots in any village or any part of the world but I do believe one can
have roots in civilized behaviour, like kindness, like tolerance, which I believe are
much better.

Article 3.2 by guaranteeing the equal protection of all religions through

the king establishes the rule of non-dominance, another cardinal tenet of
the dhamma.

Domination cannot go hand in hand with brotherhood and

egalitarianism. The mistake of separation, compartmentalization
and hierarchical ordering can also be found in the national flag.
The national anthem on the other hand states

‘Eka mavakage daru kela bevina … yamu yamu vee nopama’ (As we
are the children of One Mother … let us hasten without being heedless).

Finally there are three points that may be noted as guidelines11 for a
process that considers the re-formulation of Article 9.

1. Although it is often said that politics and religion must be separated

at the human level this cannot be done. The human being is at once
a political and religious or spiritual creature and these aspects
cannot in reality be severed.
2. At the institutional level however no religious organization should
enjoy special privileges. They must all be equal before the law.
3. The relationship between the organized religions and State must be
defined in the Constitution through a genuine social compact and
contract.

ANNEXURE

Extract from Bhikku Nanananda (1971) Concept and Reality in

Early Buddhist Thought BPS, Kandy

At Vin. II 139 it is said that two monks named Yamelu and Tekula, who were
Brahmins skilled in the elegancies of expression (kalyanavaca,
kalyanavakkarana), once complained to the Biuddha that the word of the Buddha
is being corrupted by those who, having entered the Order from various castes
and tribes were using their own dialects to study the Dhamma. Hence in order to
stop that corruption, they sought the Buddha’s permission to apply the rigours of
metre in fixing the text of the Buddha’s words.

The Buddha, however rebuked them, saying that the proposed method was not
conducive to the progress of the Dispensation, and having rejected the offer,
made an ‘allowance’ for the liberal study of the Dhamma in one’s own language.

Comment
This was an acknowledgement of the universal applicability of the Dhamma and a
rejection of a narrow, puritanical and parochial attitude which can so easily take

11
These points were mentioned by an Iraqi intellectual interviewed over the BBC this year
whose name is not known to me.
root in divided human societies. What ever the language used the Buddha clearly
advocated for a disciplined and proper use of terminology. This is a standard that
was not relaxed. In Kalupahana p20,21 (please see FN 3 for reference)the two
essential conditions for the stability of the genuine doctrine are cited quoting the
Buddha:

“These two conditions, monks contribute to the stability, non – confusion and non
disappearance of the genuine doctrine. Which two? A well placed terminology and the
meaning properly conveyed. When the terminology is well placed, the meaning is well
conveyed.”

Sajeeva Samaranayake
Attorney at Law

June 18, 2006