Source : http://panapuram.blogspot.com/
Migettuvatte Gunananda Thera
The two key persons in the Panadura Debate were Migettuvatte
Gunananda Thera for the Buddhists and Father David de Silva for the Christians.
Gunananda Thera was acclaimed as a debater of a very high order after this
debate and his personality deeply affected the resurgence of Buddhism which was
to follow. He was described as "the boldest, most brilliant and most
powerful champion of Sinhalese Buddhism" and the leader of the Buddhist
revival. The Panadura Debate was the climax of the first phase of the
revivalist movement which began with the establishment of the 'Society for the
Propagation of Buddhism' at Kotahena and the establishment of the Lankopakara
Press in Galle. Both events took place in 1862. In the meantime, another sect,
the Ramanna Nikaya had been established in 1865 and the Vidyodaya Pirivena, the
first leading centre of oriental learning was founded in 1872.
It was the success of the Panadura Debate that prompted
Colonel Henry Steel Olcott to come to Ceylon. He was impressed with what he
read in the newspapers in the United States on the Debate and immediately sent
a mass of pamphlets and other literature which were very critical of
Christianity. Gunananda Thera got these translated into Sinhalese and
distributed them all over the island. The Panadura Debate thus created quite a
stir not only in this country but in many parts of the world.
Migettuwatte Gunananda Thera (February 9, 1823, Balapitiya –
21 September 1890, Colombo) was a Sri Lankan Buddhist orator. He is known for
leading the Buddhist side in debates that occurred between the Buddhists and
the Christians in Baddegama, Udanwita, Waragoda, Liyanagemulla, Gampola, and in
the most famous of the debates in Panadura. As a result of the debates Buddhism
in Sri Lanka saw a revival. After reading a pamphlet on the debates published
in United States, Henry Steel Olcott arrived in Sri Lanka in 1880.
He was born 1823 in a village called Migettuwatta near
Balapitiya to a rich buddhist Salagama caste family. He was taught first by his
parents and shown oratory skills since young age. He had a close contact with a
Roman Catholic priest who resided nearby church, and the child gained the
knowledge in the Bible and Christian doctrine. He had an intention of becoming
a Christian priest but change his mind after came into contact with Buddhist
monks of the nearby temples. He was ordained at age of twenties in Dodanduwa
Gala Uda vihara by Venerable Thelikada Sonutthara Thera, the chief incumbent of
the temple. His eloquent first sermon he made in the night he ordained the
people gathered in the temple exclaimed that the young thera will prosper the
Buddhism in the country and pledged their support in his religious work. He
gained proficiency in Buddhism and oriental languages while he was in the
temple.
One day while he was reading a magazine Bauddha Sahodaraya
(Sinhalese Buddhist Brotherhood) he learned that Buddhists in Colombo is
subject to religious discrimination by the Christians. Disturbed by the news
Gunanada thera decided to move to Colombo, and reside in Deepaduttaaramaya in
Kotahena, which happened to be the first Buddhist temple in Colombo with a history
of 300 years. From there the thera begin his speeches in defending Buddhism
against arguments raised by the Christian missionaries.
The Christian missionaries were propagating the religion
through the pamphlets and the books. Rev. D.J. Gogerly of the Wesleyan mission
published Christian Pragnapthi in 1849. Gunananda thera replied with Durlabdi
Vinodini in 1862 for Buddhists. Hikkaduwe Sumangala thera wrote Christiani Vada
Mardanaya and Samyak Darshanaya in 1862-63. Soon after publications were
replaced by public debates.
Baddegama debate was originated from an argument arises in
between a young monk name Sumangala and a Christian priest in temple of
Baddegama. Gunananda thera and many other monks such as Bulatgama
Dhammalankara, Sri Sumanatissa, Kahawe Nanananda, Hikkaduwe Sumangala, Weligama
Sumangala, Pothuwila Gunaratana participated in the debate. The debate was not
held face-to-face. This is because of the manner of the behavior of the
Christian debaters would lead to conflicts, the Buddhists as the majority would
naturally be blamed. Considering the situation the two parties agreed to carry
out the debate in the writings. First the writings are done in Baddegama,
though later writings were carried out in Galle. Waragoda debate also held in
1865.
Third debate was conducted in Udanwita in Hathara korele
present day Kegalle District. The Creator, the redeemer and the Eternal heaven
were the debating topics. The debate was carried out in 1 February 1866. John
Edwards Hunupola was the debater who represented the Christian side, was a
former Buddhist monk and a convertee to Christianity. As agreed before the
debate Gunananda thera published the summary of the debate. In response
Hunupola nilame also published his own version of summary. Gunananda thera
issued more publications to counter the Hunupola nilame's summary. There is no
records of Liyanagemulla debate, the only Known fact about the debate is that
it held in 1866.
As the spirit of the debating rose in Buddhist side and
Christian side, both parties agreed to debate in Gampola on June 9 and 10 of
1871. Gunananda thera showed his oratory skills in this debate and in
appreciation the crowd cried in joy. The crowd paraded Gunananda thera around
the Gampola town. After the thera delivered several sermons round various
places in Gampola, people arranged a procession taking the thera to the
Peradeniya railway station and sent the thera back to Colombo. There people
collected the sum of £75 to print the sermons the thera delivered.
Panadura Debate
All these debates culminated in the most notable of all
debates, Panadura debate two years after the Gampola debate in 1873. The cause
for debate arose when Rev. David de Silva delivered a sermon on the Soul at the
Wesleyan Chapel, Panadura in 12 June 1873. The debating on religious points
arose more than 10 years ago. Gunananda thera delivered a sermon a week later
criticising the points raised by Rev. David de Silva. The two parties signed an
agreement on 24 July 1873 to hold another debate at Panadura. Though this not
the only reason of the debate.
The Christian may have thought that the Buddhists were not
educated and hence could be easily defeated in a debate. Therefore this could
be a miscalculation on the part of Christians. The Buddhist monks are familiar
with Pali and Sanskrit texts like Nyaya Bindu Dignaga and Tarka sastra by
Dharmakirti, which were written on art of debating, were not hesitate to accept
the challenge of debating in public. written by
The debate was held in 24th and 26 August in 1873 at the
site where the Rankot Vihara stands today. The ablest debaters were summoned on
the side of the Christians. Gunananda thera was the debater on the side of the
Buddhists while Rev. David de Silva and Catechist S.F. Sirimanna represented
the Christian side. The debate revolved around the topics ranged from the
nature of God, the Soul and resurrection, to the concept of Karma, Rebirth,
Nirvana and the principle of Pratityasamutpada or dependent origination. Dr.
K.D.G. Wimalaratna, Director of National Archives wrote;
Rev. David de
Silva, a fluent speaker in Pali and Sanskrit addressed the audience of around
6000-7000 and only a very few understood him. In complete contrast was
Mohottiwatte Gunananda Thera who used plain language to counter the arguments
of the opponents.
Dr. Vijaya Samaraweera in his article "The Government
and Religion: Problems and Policies c1832 to c1910", stated;
The Rev.
Migettuwatte Gunananda proved himself to be a debater of very high order,
mettlesome, witty and eloquent if not especially erudite. The emotions
generated by this debate and the impact of Migettuwatte Gunananda's personality
had lasting effects on the next generation of Buddhist activities. Migettuwatte
Gunananda's triumph at Panadura set the seal on a decade of quiet recovery of
Buddhist confidence. In retrospect the establishment of the 'Society for the
Propagation of Buddhism' at Kotahena, and the Lankaprakara Press at Galle would
seem to mark the first positive phase in this recovery.
At the end of the second day of the debate the jubilant
crowd uttered "sadhu, sadhu". The Christians were not pleased the
noise the Buddhists audience were making. When atmosphere became heated
Migettuwatte Gunananda thera raised his voice and ordered "everybody
should be silent". After that remark the crowd were dispersed without
making any further scenarios.
The impact of the debate was phenomenal in both locally and
internationally. Locally it was the principal factor behind reviving the
identity and pride of Sinhala Buddhists.in the west. The editor of Ceylon Times
newspaper John Cooper, arranged Edward Perera to write a summary on the debate
and thousands of copies of the translation were published. This translation was
published as a book, Buddhism and Christianity face to face by J.M. Peebles in
United States After reading a copy of the book Henry Steel Olcott, the
co-founder of the Theosophical Society came to Sri Lanka in 17 May 1880. With
arrival of colonel Olcott the activities of the revival movement accelerated.
Olcott had described Gunananda thera as; with an introduction in 1878.
Internationally, it was instrumental in making awareness of Buddhism
“ the most
brilliant Polemic Orator of the Island, the terror of the missionaries, with a
very intellectual head, most brilliant and powerful champion of the Sinhalese
Buddhism. ”
Rev. S. Langden, who was present when the thera spoke in the
Panadura debate remarked;
“ There is
that in his manner as he rises to speak which puts one in mind of some orators
at home. He showed a consciousness of power with the people. His voice is of
great compass and he has a clear ring above it. His action is good and the long
yellow robe thrown over one shoulder helps to make it impressive. His power of
persuasion, shows him to be a born orator. ”
Gunananda thera continued work to revive the Buddhism in the
country and had published many Buddhist periodicals which included Riviresa,
Lakmini Kirana and Sathya Margaya.Buddhist flag in 1885. The thera was also
served in the committee that designed the
Migettuwatte Gunananda Thera died in 1890 September 21 at
about 11.00 am at the age of 67.
In 1873 , there was much ridiculing of Buddhism through
books and pamphlets written in the vernaculars which Christians distributed in
propagating their faith. This was besides the mass proselytising of Buddhist
children through the school system. These resulted in an open challenge being
made by Ven. Mohottiwatte Gunananda to the Christians to defend their faith. It
was accepted by the Christian clergy. This led to three public debates one at
Uyanwita in 1866 CE, the second at Gampola, in 1871 CE and the last at Panadura
in 1873 CE.
There was wide coverage in the Press for the Panadura Debate
where rules were laid down for fair play. Reports of the debate and the efforts
made by the Sinhala Buddhists to safeguard their rights reached America and
inspired a. young American lawyer, Henry Steele Olcott to come to Sri 'Lanka in
May 1880 CE and fight the Buddhist cause. The defeat of the Christians in
debate, more than anything else, broke the myth of the infallibility of the
Christian Church and was one of the major contributing factors to the Buddhist
revival in the country.
In the library of the University of California at Berkeley,
the closest thing to a primary source for the Great Panadura Debate of 1873:
Controversy at Panadura, or Pa:nadura: Va:daya,
Re-edited by Pranith Abhayasundara, Sri Lanka State Printing
Company, 1990
It was listed under "Panadura Vadaya" in the UCB
book catalog, making me worry that it would be in Sinhalese, but it was in
English, with most of it apparently the reproduction of some original edition.
A sizable part of it contained discussions of Buddhist
beliefs, including a part which claims that Buddhists believe in an impersonal,
pantheist God. Which may seem like no God at all by Abrahamic standards.
The book had several pictures, drawings, and pictures of
statues of the Buddhist side of these debates, the Venerable
Migettuwatte/Mohottiwatte Sri Gunananda Thera. He was an orator and writer who
spoke often in defense of Buddhism and Sinhalese literature; he helped revive
Buddhism in Sri Lanka.
He was up against the Rev. David de Silva and the Rev. F. S.
Sirimanne.
Now to the main event, with some commentary:
Rev. de Silva
He argued that Buddhists believe that there is no soul or
irreducible "self", quoting various Buddhist scriptures to that
effect, like:
(the original Pali) Rupam bhikkhave anattam, yadanattam
n'etam mama n'eso 'hamismineso attati.
(English translation) Organized form, monks, is not self,
that which is not self is not mind, I am not that, that is, not to me a soul.
He continued by claiming that this means that there is no
fundamental difference between humanity and frogs, pigs, and the rest of the
animal kingdom.
LP: there is no need to accept the existence of an
irreducible soul or self to recognize an important difference between humanity
and the rest of the animal kindgom: sentience vs. nonsentience. In fact,
"animal" in common usage implies nonsentience, which may explain why
"animal" is sometimes used as an insult, as de Silva was trying to
do.
And also that there would be no rewards and punishments
after death for what one has done in this life, meaning that one would have
nothing to fear if one did something bad.
And quoted the Bible to the effect that we do have souls (no
word on frogs, pigs, etc.).
Ven. Gunananda
He took a swipe at Rev. de Silva's command of the Pali
language, suggesting that someone who makes elementary mistakes in it cannot be
expected to have a good understanding of abstruse metaphysics described in it.
LP: this argument seems like a rather low blow, but it
reminds me of when I once exposed someone's expertise in Hebrew as limited to
Strong's Concordance.
He then proceeded to explain how reincarnation works in
Buddhism in the absence of a "soul" -- there is some sort of
continuity that extends beyond the death of the body.
He then accused Christian missionaries of being deceptive on
account of their use of various local deities' names for the Christian God,
like in Calcutta the Hindu god Ishwara and in Sri Lanka Dewiyanwahanse.
He continued in this vein by charging that some Bible
translators have committed variious deceptions, like translating
"jealous" into Sinhalese jwalita, which literally means
"glittering" or "luminous". And also of omitting verses
like Leviticus 17:7, saying that they should no longer make offerings to
various devils that they have prostituted themselves to. He concluded by saying
that he appreciates that Catholics have not rewritten their Bibles in the
above-described fashion of some Protestants.
Turning to Genesis 6:6,
(KJV) And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the
earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
(NASB) The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth,
and He was grieved in His heart.
(NIV) The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the
earth, and his heart was filled with pain.
Gunananda asked what kind of entity regrets something that
he/she/it has done. Certainly not an omniscient one, as he pointed out.
He continued to ask why an allegedly omniscient being needed
visible markers, as when he killed the firstborn of Egypt; the Israelites had
to put some blood at the doors of the houses so that God would know who they
were and not kill their firstborn.
LP: this oddity may have been invented to justify some
ritual practice; that's the most reasonable thing I can think of.
In Exodus 4, God tells Moses to perform a miracle to impress
the Egyptians, and if that fails to impress them, to perform more miracles
until they are suitably impressed. Gunananda pointed out the implied lack of
omniscience here also.
Later in that chapter, Zipporah circumcises Moses, offering
Moses's foreskin to God, who had wanted to kill Moses. And God was apparently
satisfied with that bloody offering. Gunananda wondered what kind of being the
Biblical God must be like, a being like some devil who likes receiving blood
offerings.
And turning to Judges 1:19, he wondered how omnipotent a
being was who could not overcome iron chariots.
Rev. de Silva
He claimed that he was simply repeating some statements made
elsewhere, and that any alleged errors were not his fault. And he bluntly
denied that any Bible translators were trying to be dishonest.
He also claimed that the "translations" of the
Christian God's name were not done to deceive would-be converts but to provide
something that they could relate to.
About the regretting of Genesis 6:6, he claimed that the
original Hebrew word (nokam) did not imply regretfulness. And the marking with
blood in Exodus he claimed was a symbol of Christ's death.
LP: Checking in The Blue-Letter Bible
(http://www.blueletterbible.org), I find that the word is nahham, 05162 in
Strong's Concordance, listed as meaning "to be sorry, console oneself,
repent, regret, comfort, be comforted". So "regret" is a
reasonable translation.
Also, that supposed Christ's-death symbolism seems to me to
be a non sequitur.
He concluded with an effort to show that some Buddhist
doctrines have some contradictions of the form that X is the source of Y and Y
is the source of X.
LP: I could not follow that argument very well.
Ven. Gunananda
He started off by pointing that the Reverend had called him
viruddhakaraya ("opponent" or "adversary"), even though
there was no personal enmity between the two. And that he now had no choice but
to do the same.
He continued by asking why de Silva had made no comment
about the (mis)translation of "jealous" in the Sinhalese Bible, and
why the Biblical God is referred to as "jealous". He continued in
this vein, asking what de Silva's level of competence in Pali was when he
repeats others' grammatical errors without bothering to correct them. And
despite de Silva's praise of the honesty of Bible translators, the
rearrangements of parts of it suggests something suspicious about Bible
translators.
LP: there are worse translation issues, like Isaiah's
"young woman" being translated as "virgin", and the
"translation" of the "eunuchs" of Matthew 19:12 as
"those who cannot marry".
He turned to the question of Iswara, noting that Hindus
believe that he has a wife named Umayaganawa; does the Christian God also have
a wife?
LP: Gunananda could have gone into more detail about the
sexist absurdity of Christianity's pantheon (three male beings in one God), but
Buddhism has also had a long history of sexism.
Continuing in this vein, he complained that de Silva never
took on the question of the Biblical God's implied non-omniscience and taste
for blood offerings.
He then explained further what gets reincarnated, discussing
various views of the "soul", claiming that the Biblical view sort-of
agrees with the Buddhist view of something that has an eternal existence before
birth as well as after death.
LP: I found that difficult to follow.
He continued into the story of Jephthah sacrificing his
daughter; he charged that Protestants had rewritten their Bibles to indicate
that that sacrifice was not literal, and he praised Catholics for being honest
about that sacrifice.
He next took on the question of how long Jesus Christ had
stayed in his tomb, noting that "three days and three nights" does
not exactly fit Friday afternoon to Sunday morning.
He then argued that Jesus Christ's birth had a bad omen
associated with it -- King Herod's mass murder of baby boys. By comparison, the
Buddha's birth had had nothing but good omens -- lots of cures and pain relief.
LP: I'm not sure if that's a "proper" omen -- that
mass murder took place after JC was born. In fact, the only bad omen I can
think of is there being no room in the inn for his parents (Luke 2).
Gunananda would have made a better argument if he had noted
the lack of mention of this spectacular atrocity elsewhere in the New
Testament, and its lack of mention by outside historians like Josephus, whose
description of Herod would make it completely in character for him.
He could also have mentioned how common it is for someone to
try to murder some legendary figure in his infancy:
Moses
Zeus
Hercules
Oedipus
Perseus
Romulus
Krishna
But the story of the Buddha has something parallel -- his
father tries to raise him to be his heir, not a religious teacher.
He concluded by claiming that he would renounce Buddhism if
even so much as an ant died as a result of the Buddha's birth.
Rev. Sirimanne
He started by comparing Gunananda's rejection of
Christianity to a fever patient's rejection of food, no matter how good the
food might be for him/her.
LP: analogy time -- watch out for apologists wielding
analogies, because they are likely to be specious.
He claimed that Gunananda had not really replied to the
argument that Buddhism teaches that there is no such thing as the soul, and
that Buddhism also teaches the existence of beings like the soul, beings that
are immaterial and invisible and so forth.
He continued with the claim that the Biblical God being
"jealous" did not really mean "envious", just not wanting
his glory to be shared by others.
About the Ten Plagues of Egypt, he claimed that God knew how
it would turn out, but that all those plagues were necessary because the king
of Egypt was so haughty.
LP: then God could have told Moses about this: "That
Pharaoh is a tough one. It will take ten plagues to soften him up, but hang in
there; we'll beat him."
He continued with God being unable to defeat those iron
chariots in Judges 1:19, claiming that Judah had not had sufficient faith in
him. He claimed that the Bible is not only literally and historically true, but
full of valuable spiritual lessons for future generations.
LP: that's not what the Bible itself says; theologians are
fond of imposing externally-derived interpretations on their favorite sacred
books.
He had a chortle at Gunananda's interpretation of the
creation of Adam by God blowing on him, the monk claimed that that meant that
Adam had received some of God's soul.
He turned to Jephthah's daughter, seemingly claiming that
she was not really sacrificed. And also to JC's reamining in the tomb, claiming
that this was some special Jewish way of counting days. He correctly points out
that Herod's massacre would be hard to call an omen, though he continued by
claiming that they were sent to Heaven, where they would be much happier than if
they had been allowed to live out their lives.
LP: this reminds me of how Andrea Yates had killed her
children in order to send them off to Heaven. This argument would make murder
seem like a Good Thing.
About the Buddha's birth, Sirimanne noted that the Buddha's
mother had died seven days afterward, and that the Buddha had not only walked
and talked when he was born, he roared like a lion. And he noted that lion
roars are widely believed to be deadly.
He followed that by claiming that Jesus Christ came to fight
sin and establish righteousness, while the Buddha was a sinner who wanted to
encourage vice. And that the Buddha's good omens are like drunkards welcoming a
fellow drunkard with open arms, while spurning a teetotaler.
He continued by pointing out that the Buddhist scriptures
were written down only 450 years after the Buddha's death, hinting that they
could have been less-than-reliably transmitted in all that time.
LP: a good point, but one that also applies to the Bible,
parts of which have internal evidence of after-the-fact composition.
This was followed by him claiming that the Buddha pursued
enlightenment in previous reincarnations by offering his eyes, head, flesh,
blood, wives and children; he commented on how cruel the Buddha must have been,
to desert all those wives and children.
He also wondered if the Buddha was as omniscient as he was
sometimes claimed to be, since the Buddha thought that some living people were
dead, and vice versa, and since the Buddha was not initially sure that there
would be anyone who could understand his message.
He interpreted Nirvana as be a state of nonexistence, and
thus, since the Buddha had achieved that state, that the Buddha was now
nonexistent. This meant that "taking refuge in the Buddha", as many
Buddhists talk about, is taking refuge in someone now nonexistent.
And he concluded by claiming that many Buddhist monks are
wicked, thus making them unfit for moral leadership.
Ven. Gunananda
He started by expressing disappointment in the quality of
his opponents' arguments, and continued by noting that Ecclesiastes 3:19 (NIV:
Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one
dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath man has no advantage over the
animal. Everything is meaningless.) is what de Silva charges that Buddhism
teaches. He challenged de Silva to find similar statements in the Buddhist
scriptures.
LP: Gunananda was not making very clear the
sentience-nonsentience distinction; he could point out that physically, we are
essentially another animal species, and that the author of Ecclesiastes is
right about that, while mentally we are very different.
After going into some arcane Buddhist doctrines, and
explaining further what gets reincarnated if there is no soul, he pointed out a
contradiction:
1 Corinthians 15:22-28 (NIV: For as in Adam all die, so in
Christ all will be made alive. ...) -- implying that everybody who believes in
Jesus Christ will go to Heaven.
Matthew 25:41-46 (NIV: Then he will say to those on his
left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for
the devil and his angels. ... [those who do wicked things] ... "Then they
will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.")
-- implying that one can believe in Jesus Christ yet be sent to Hell.
He then asked why take the Bible seriously when it contains
gross contradictions like that. Which of these parts is right, if any at all?
They can't both be right.
Turning to Sirimanne's speech, he commented that he had
never heard anything so unscholarly or aimlessly meandering, and that he will
skip over irrelevant parts like the curing of a fever patient. Many of his
opponents responses he found beside the point, like how haughty the Pharaoh
was. About Judah and the iron chariots, he asked that if Judah did not have
enough faith in God, then why was God with him at all?
In connection with the baby-boy massacre, Sirimanne charged
that Buddha's mother had died seven days after giving birth to him. Gunananda's
response was that she had been fated to die on that date, implying that giving
birth to the Buddha had had nothing to do with it.
LP: this is so laughable that I am almost at a loss for
words. Does this mean that the Buddha's mother would have mysteriously dropped
dead on the appropriate date if she had never given birth to her famous child?
And given that many women have died of giving birth, one quickly suspects
cause-and-effect here.
He reiterated that the baby-boy massacre was nevertheless a
bad omen, and that sinful omens imply that one will be a friend of sin. And
asked if there was any record of anyone having been injured by the
"lion-like" roaring of the baby Buddha.
As to the transmission of the Buddhist scriptures, he
claimed that they had been recorded in the Buddha's lifetime on gold-leaf
pages.
LP: but whatever happened to those gold-leaf books? Have
they, by any chance, gone the way of the gold-plate originals of the Book of
Mormon?
And while the recorders of the Buddhist scriptures had
supposedly reached a state of great enlightenment, the same cannot be said of
the writers of the Bible; he pointed out that Moses had committed some murders.
He even claimed that the Bible was once completely burnt and then written down
again.
LP: I have no idea where he got that idea from. The closest
thing I can think of is Moses breaking the tablets of the Law when he saw his
people commit idolatry. God obligingly prepared some new tablets for him, and
the Bible tells us the wording of both sets(!).
And as to Moses performing miracles in Egypt, his
Egyptian-sorcerer opponents had performed similar miracles (turning sticks into
snakes), he commented that either Moses was also a sorcerer or else God
Almighty was helping his Egyptian sorcerers also.
LP: this seems rather weak.
He continued into discussing the abandonment of wives and
children by those seeking Buddhahood; he pointed that it was necessary to
conquer passions and attachments, like to one's wives and children.
LP: that is not very reassuring; why not find new husbands
for his wives? Or not marry at all?
About Sirimanne's remarks about how long Jesus Christ spent
in his tomb, Gunananda mainly commented novasanavan ("miserable"),
and reiterated his view that "three days and three nights" is a
miscount. He claimed that he'd be providing more demonstration of the falsehood
of Christianity in his final statement.
Rev. de Silva
After claiming that "opponent" is not
objectionable, he then took on Eccl. 3:19, claiming that Eccl. 3:21 implies
that humanity has a soul, unlike animals.
LP: NIV: Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if
the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth? -- which implies that both
have souls.
After commenting that human souls would be human souls in
Heaven, though being glorious immortal beings there, he continued to the
contradiction that Gunananda had pointed out between 1 Corinthans and Matthew,
claiming that "being made alive" and "being saved" were two
different things.
LP: however, when "eternal life" is used for
salvation and "eternal death" is used for damnation, it is not clear
that there is any real difference.
As to when the Buddhist scriptures were written down, he
quoted those scriptures themselves as stating that they had been written down
450 years after the Buddha died.
As to Moses killing someone, he claimed that Moses had only
killed some Egyptian who had been trying to kill some fellow Israelite.
LP: however, Exodus 2:11 says only that that Egyptian had
"attacked" or "beat" that Israelite, with no hint on how
deadly that attack was.
He continued into how some very enlightened people
(Arahants/Arhats) had once been robbers and murderers.
LP: and these guys tend to be proud of their alleged sordid
pasts; they make a hero out of Paul, who had been a persecutor of their sect
before that famous side-changing on the road to Damascus.
After mentioning some more such scandals, like someone who
gambled with a king and seduced and ran off with his wife, he turned to the
subject of a legendary world-axis mountain, Mt. Meru (Mahameru), which
according to Buddhist scriptures has a length, a width, a depth below the sea,
and a height of 84000 yojanas (1 yojana ~ 16 mi / 26 km). Quoting some more
Buddhist scriptures, he noted this sequence of world-destruction events:
* The rain would stop and all the plants would die.
* A second sun would appear and the small rivers and lakes
would dry up.
* A third sun would appear and the large rivers would dry
up.
* A fourth sun would appear and the large lakes would dry
up.
* A fifth sun would appear and the oceans would dry up.
* A sixth sun would appear and Mt. Meru, everything else on
Earth, and the Earth itself would be destroyed.
LP: Some Buddhist might claim that this is a prediction that
the Sun will someday become a Red Giant, baking the Earth dry and then possibly
destroying it.
De Silva then showed a globe and asked where was Mt. Meru.
It is mentioned in several places in the Buddhist scriptures, and it would be
difficult for it to escape explorers' attentions; where was it?
LP: this comment reminds me of Yuri Gagarin's comment
"I don't see any god up here" during his spaceflight; likewise, no
mountain climber has found any gods living on top of Mt. Olympus in Greece.
Also, this argument can be turned against the Bible, which
clearly supports flat-earthism, as shown in The Flat-Earth Bible
(http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm). A counterpart to Mt. Meru in it
may be the mountain from which the Devil showed Jesus Christ "all the
kingdoms of the world".
On top of Mt. Meru is a stack of heavenly worlds, on top of
those is a stack of Brahma worlds, and on top of those is a stack of Arupa
worlds. Without Mt. Meru, they would have no support, and thus could not exist.
De Silva asked why act virtuously and perform good deeds if one has no chance
of being reborn in one of these worlds?
He continued by noting that some Buddhist monks have
interpreted their mandated celibacy in strange ways; one of them had sex with
his mother, another with his sister, and another with a female monkey. And when
some monks committed what de Silva described as "the foulest sin, the
particulars of which cannot be given", the Buddha treated those acts as
minor offenses.
LP: from what he was willing to list, I'm guessing that
these were homosexual acts.
About the Buddha's death, he pointed out that the Buddha had
died in an entirely normal fashion, of food poisoning from some pork and rice
he had eaten, with none of the miracles or divine assistance of the rest of his
career.
LP: the same could be said of Jesus Christ's crucifixion.
He ended by saying that believing in Jesus Christ was the
only way to Heaven, and he claimed that all the objections to Christianity had
been answered, while none of the objections to Buddhism had been.
Ven. Gunananda
He reiterated Eccl. 3:19 on how humanity is fundamentally
like the (nonsentient) animals, and rebutted the Revs' claim that some Buddhist
doctrine represents a mixed-up view of causality. He went on to explain that if
there is any mixed-up causality, it's in the Christian Trinity with the Virgin
Mary. Is God her father? Her sort-of husband? Her son?
LP: the Trinity was likely invented to tie up a lot of the
theological loose ends of the New Testament; Gunananda is not alone in finding
it confusing.
He continued by reiterating his claim that the Bible had
once been burnt and re-recorded, and he asked if some of those alleged
criminals who achieved enlightement had really been criminals, and claimed that
if they had, then they had received appropriate punishments before achieving
enlightenment. By comparison, Moses was an unrepentant murderer.
He then claimed that there was nothing in the Buddhist
scriptures about the Buddha giving away his wife, and that sins in previous
reincarnations should not be held against the Buddha.
About Mt. Meru, he claimed that de Silva was referring to
Isaac Newton's theory that night is caused by the Sun being hidden behind the
bulk of the Earth instead of behind Mt. Meru.
LP: this was understood long before Isaac Newton, at least
as far back as Ptolemy and Aristotle.
He claimed that Newtonianism was not completely accepted,
noting the work of a certain R.J. Morrison, and also noting that the Bible,
like some Buddhist books, states that the Earth is stationary. (Eccl. 1:5, NIV:
The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.)
LP: R.J. Morrison's theories were likely crackpottery,
making that gentleman one of the numerous anti-Newton crackpots in the 19th
century. However, Gunananda was correct about the Bible stating that the Earth
is stationary in some cosmic sense.
He noted that compass needles point northward and not in any
other direction, meaning that Mt. Meru must be at the North Pole, and that it
must be magnetic. He also claimed that the exact size of a yojana was
controversial, meaning that that mountain could be smaller than de Silva
thought it is.
LP: it was subsequently discovered that there is no trace of
such a mountain at the North Pole. In fact, the Earth's magnetic field is
generated in its liquid outer core, whose convection generates electric
currents, which in turn, generate those magnetic fields.
And by symmetry, this argument might also
"demonstrate" that Mt. Meru is at the South Pole.
After arguing that the misbehavior of some Buddhist monks
did not necessarily discredit Buddhism, he pointed out that some Christian
clergymen have also been known to misbehave. He continued with mentioning that
the Bible has numerous immoralities, like Lot and his daughters' incest and the
incest committed by Adam and Eve's children.
He claimed that the pork and rice were not responsible for
the Buddha's death, since he was fated to have dropped dead at the date and
time he did.
LP: That hooey again? First the Buddha's mother and now the
Buddha himself?
At any rate, he claimed, pork was no fundamentally worse
than the grasshoppers eaten by John the Baptist.
LP: I think he was right about that.
As to the Buddha being dead, he claimed that part of the
Buddha was still "alive" -- his relics -- and that 2500 years from
now, they will be gathered at the Bo tree where he achieved enlightenment,
where they will assume the form of a living Buddha, preach for a while, and
then disappear. And that the Buddha will completely achieve Nirvana when that
happens.
LP: I am at a loss for words.
About the Buddha's alleged omniscience, he claimed that it
was not the sort of omniscience that the Christian God has, of knowing
everything whether he wants to or not, but the ability to know whatever he
wants to know. Which thus shields him from all the superabundance of pain and
misery and sin and filth in the world.
He asked why Christians attach so much emphasis to the death
of Jesus Christ, someone who advised his followers to acquire swords, and
someone who had been charged with posing as the king of the Jews.
LP: the implication is that he had provoked his execution by
trying to start an armed revolt.
As to the resurrection, the first witness, according to Mark
16:9, was Mary Magdalene, who had seven devils driven out of her. Could she be
counted on to be completely sane and reliable?
He seemed to believe in a form of spontaneous generation, in
which air, heat, and water produces living things -- whether they be called
Brahma, Vishnu, and Iswara, or God, Son, or Holy Ghost. "The spirit of God
moved across the waters" he cited as evidence that the Bible agrees with
him.
Turning to the Adam and Eve story, and how women were
sentenced to give birth painfully as a result of eating that forbidden fruit,
he asked why is it that some animals sometimes give birth painfully. Had their
ancestors eaten some forbidden fruit also?
LP: Some theologians would claim that that was also due to
Adam and Eve eating that fruit; many theologians have claimed that there was no
such thing as death before that event, with all animals being vegetarians.
In a final statement, he claimed that the most eminent in
all ages had spoken in support of Buddhism, including eminent doctors,
astrologers, and the like, and he stated that Buddhism "inculcated the
purest morality and urged the necessity of self-denial, self-sacrifice, and
charity. It encouraged peace. It tolerated all religions in its midst. It had
nothing to fear. It pleaded of men to follow the example of Holy Buddha, and
pointed the sick and the sorrowing to the blissful state of Nirvana."
After stating that he had proved the truth of Buddhism and the falsehood of
Christianity, he urged his listeners to take refuge in Holy Buddha.
His listeners shouted "Sadhu! Sadhu! Sadhu!", but
only stopped when he told them to.
The Christian Buddhist Debates
The next phase in this encounter was the Buddhist response
to the Christian
missionary efforts and there has been a considerable amount
of work on the
encounter between Christians and Buddhists in Sri Lanka.
Elizabeth Harris’s
recent (2006) study has examined this subject in. Part of
the interest in this is
because a series of public debates took place in Sri Lanka
between 1865 and
1873 in which Christian and Buddhist spokesmen, priests and
monks, put
forward arguments to show why each other’s religion was
false. The results
of the debates were judged it seems in terms of which
speaker the audience
felt had proved their point. In each case the Buddhists felt
that they had won
the debates, although some of the Christians may have
disagreed, and they
became important events in the re-establishment of Buddhist
self identity in
Sri Lanka (Harris, 2006: 202-203).
The debate took place in front of a huge crowd in a field at
Dombagahavatta
in Panadure. David de Silva, the main advocate for
Christianity in a voice like
‘the screeching of a tortured cat’ (Fox 161) whilst
Gunananda spoke in a high
soprano, you have to remember of course that this was long
before PA
systems so they had to speak loudly of course. It seems as
well that de Silva
addressed the audience as if they were scholars with lots of
quotes from Pali
and Sanskrit, but Gunananda spoke in everyday Singhalese.
De Silva’s first strategy was to quote Buddhist texts so
show that there was a
contradiction between the notion of anatta and merit making.
Gunananda’s
response was to question de Silva’s competency in the
Buddhist scriptures
then arguing that there was a kind of soul in Buddhism
called the atmaya, an
ongoing identity, but not a self-nature. Young and
Somaratna’s account of the
debate thinks the debate was shaped also in part by
anti-church free thinkers
as he then asked what shape Christians claimed the soul to
be?
Gunananda then argued that the bible showed that God was not
omniscient
and that in the story of Zipporah shows that God demanded
blood sacrifices,
an it was implied like a Preta, a hungry ghost demon.
Essentially the debate
came down to this issue, that the god of the old testament
behaved more like
a preta than anything else.
The debates first afternoon turned on an attempt by de Silva
to show that
dependent origination made no sense, and a refutation of
this by Gunananda.
This was then followed by an attack by Gunananda on
Christianity. This was
on the basis that the slaughter of innocents in Bethlehem
actually showed that
Jesus was some sort of ill omened demon impostor sent to
trick the world.
On the second day the Christians, this time with F. S.
Sirmanne as
spokesman, attacked the omniscience of the Buddha. Gunananda
then
responded by accusing Moses of having been an exorcist
(kapurala).
Then de Silva on the last afternoon returned to the fray and
argued that the
Buddha was immoral, both in his actions, such as pardoning
angulimala, and
in his code of conduct for monks. In particular he quoted
the rule about
bestiality, a monk who had sex with a monkey, which is
punishable by
penance but not expulsion from the monkhood (as it would be
if it was with a
woman. This he argued showed the Buddha condoned bestiality.
Then in the final hour Gunananda was given the opportunity
to respond to
this. Oddly, Young and Somaratna reckon, his main attack was
on Christian
cosmology, arguing that the modern Western science showed
the flat earth of
the bible to be incorrect, but that Buddhism was compatible
with modern
science. This seems very sensible, with one exception, he
was apparently
actually arguing that traditional Buddhist cosmology was
scientific. However,
despite this it sets a theme which I think you would
probably all agree with,
that Buddhism is compatible with modern science in a way
which literal belief
in the bible is clearly not (Young and Somaratna: (161-177).
The nature of the debate also focused on points initially
raised by Christians in
most cases. One tactic Christians had used was to argue that
inconsistencies
in Buddhist scriptures showed them to be fallible. So
Buddhist monks began
to point out the inconsistencies in Christian teachings in
reply. The Ven.
Gu?ananda, the spokesman for Buddhism at the 1873 debate in
Panadura,
attacked the teaching of the omniscience of the Christian
God by pointing out
that he was described as doing such things as repenting for
his actions, when
surely an omnisicient God would not have done anything to
cause such
repentence.
A second tactic in Christian missionary attacks on Buddhism
was to argue
that Buddhist cosmology did not agree with modern science
and geography,
the Buddhist response was to point out that modern science
also contradicted
the book of Genesis, and so in that Buddhism denied a
creator God it was
more in accord with modern science than Christianity
(Schmidt-Leukel, 2006:
7-8).
I argue that the Buddhist response to their encounters with
Christian
missionaries can be described as having three facets. First,
a willingness to
teach about their tradition. Second, an openness to looking for
what is of
value in any religious system
However, the third point is that despite any initial
reluctance to debate
whether Buddhism or Christianity was ‘true’ there was an
enthusiastic
embracing of the notion of proving the truth, or falsity, or
each teaching.
Conclusion
In this session we have seen how discovering the Sangha
developed during
the 19th century in Sri Lanka. It starts as observation of
monks, but no serious
attempt to understand their teachings. Then in the period
when Spence Hardy
was active it moves into intensive study of Buddhism, with
the aim of finding
ways to refute it. Then finally in the era of the Panadura
debates it Christianity
itself comes under attack from Buddhists, who turn Christian
arguments
against Buddhism back on Christianity.
For the next phase in the discover of Buddhism, Westerners
becoming
Buddhists, the Panadura debate also has an important role to
play. For an
account of the Panadura debate was published soon afterwards
by an
American Universalist Minister and medium who by 1856 was
preaching on
Spiritualist doctrines, James Martin Peebles (1822-1922).54
This will be
important to us in the next session as it was widely
circulated in the USA and
led to the first American declaring that they had become a
Buddhist.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar