Interesting statement from lanka academic, quite relevant to this tread
I think one important reason why people don't understand the phenomenon of Buddhism in Srilanka is that they jumble the doctrine of Buddhism with its history. Most people (including many of the Buddhists themselves) are knowledgeable about some of the philosophy but they are clueless about the history of this very old religion. So they have a hard time reconciling the hysterics of some Sinhala Buddhists including some members of the Sangha itself with the words of the Buddha which preach inclusiveness and tolerance.
The notion of 'Sinhala Buddhism' arose due to history, not through anything that the Buddha stated. Simply put, Srilanka was the last place in Indian Subcontinent where Buddhism survived and the Sinhalese were the last people to preserve it. Thus is it not mere chauvinism or 'mythology' which led to the Sinhala-Buddhist exclusivist identity but rather the fact that the Sinhalese were the only Buddhists around. This nascent identity further developed (or mutated) during the European era when Buddhism was largely suppressed, and its followers had to become more politically active for it to survive. An argument can be made that if the Sinhalese were not so defensive and 'attached' (another anti-Buddhist quality) to Buddhism, it would never have survived after 2500 years.
|