Wednesday, September 8, 2010
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 Dignāga 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 Pratītyasamutpāda or dependent origination. Dr. K.D.G. Wimalaratna, Director of National Archives wrote;
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;
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.
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 ātmaya, 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.
Guṇānanda, 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.
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 ātmaya, 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.
Guṇānanda, 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)