“Tim Parritt, Deputy Director Amnesia, albeit, Amnesty International
and his lady cohorts in the organisation’s Asia Programmes are gradually
exposing their vile agenda against Sri Lankan cricketers in particular
and towards Sri Lanka in general.
By claiming that they are also calling upon the LTTE to play by the
rules, they plead a false innocence of impartiality, but continue to
focus their spin on us. It is obvious that their despicable advertising
campaign against Sri Lanka is starting to backfire. They have stooped so
low to mix politics with sport.
Their amnesia derives from their inactivity against Human Rights
violations existing in Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, Afganistan, Iraq and in
many other parts of the world. However the 64,000 dollar question is why
focus their venom at a small country like ours? The reason is that the
LTTE has successfully infiltrated their ranks. One does not need to be a
rocket scientist to discover this.
Parritt and his band of ancient relics of a defunct Western empire is
trying the art of neo-colonists and are resorting to demoralising us.
They are the first line of attack as modern crusaders, using sport,
politics and whatever to influence their objectives.
Unfortunately some of cricket’s leading personalities have been duped
to sign Parritt’s balls. There is a picture of Brett Lee proudly
displaying one that he has smugly signed. I wonder whether his people
have played by the rules with the aborigines? Talk of fools rushing
in....
As the ill-conceived ad campaign continues to unmask those of Amnesty
International and brings on a counter-productive situation, regrettably,
it is bound to damage the real Human Rights victim’s causes mainly
because it is hypocritical.
The ill-fated campaign appears to have been due to a poor
co-ordination between tongue and brain. Therefore let all right thinking
people fling Tim Parritt, his team and his balls into the dustbin of
political history and lend morale and steadfast support to our
cricketers in the Caribbean.
JITH WIJEYESEKERA
Thalawatugoda
I am happy that Tuan Rasool brought up this apparently confusing but
simple issue. (DN March 27) Tuan is correct when quoting from ‘The Book
of (Monk’s) Discipline’ the Buddha allowing monks to eat meat given as
alms food as long as the animal was not killed specially for the monk(s).
But he is wrong in saying that Buddhism does not prohibit eating meat.
It is true that unlike some other religions, the Buddha did not
impose any absolutely rigid commandments. What Buddhism has in that
place are precepts. These are voluntary undertakings.
Lay people are expected to observe five basic precepts called ‘Pansil’.
(Anagarikas or Ata-Sil observers have 8, Ten precept nuns or Dasa-Sil
Mathas have 10, Bhikkus have 227 and Bhikkunis 311) The very first
precept is the undertaking not to kill or harm any living being - be it
a human being, an animal or even a mosquito.
There is a sequential value in the five precepts and by putting this
precept as the first; the Buddha showed the paramount importance of
non-violence towards all living beings. Obviously, you cannot eat flesh
(whether meat or fish) without killing a living being. Therefore any lay
Buddhist who is consciously eating meat or fish is breaking the very
first precept. Lay Buddhists neither should eat flesh nor should they
offer it to monks.
Monks were supposed to go on ‘Pindapath’ to lay people’s houses for
their food. Their code of discipline (Vinaya) does not allow them to
show any food preferences. They are supposed to eat (with gratitude)
whatever given to them. (With few exceptions like dog meat, snake flesh
and tiger flesh etc.)
For example, if a monk goes to a fisherman’s house or a butcher’s
house and if some leftover fish or meat is offered, he is supposed to
accept it with gratitude as long as he knows that the animal was not
specially killed for him.
On the other hand, in such a situation, if the monk insists on a
vegetarian meal, he is not only breaking his Vinaya (code of discipline)
but imposing an unnecessary burden on the poor householder.
Obviously Tuan is misleading the readers by generalising a quote
taken from instructions meant for monks. Ajahn Brahmavamso starts the
article as follows. “Since the very beginning of Buddhism 2500 years
ago, Buddhist monks and nuns have depended on alms food.
They were and still are, prohibited from growing their own food,
storing their own provisions or cooking their own meals. Instead, every
morning they would make their day’s meal out of whatever was freely
given to them by lay supporters.” He goes on to say “I was a strict
vegetarian for three years before I became a monk.
In my first years as a monk in North-East Thailand, when I bravely
faced many a meal of sticky rice and boiled frog (the whole body bones
and all), or rubbery snails, red-ant curry or fried grasshoppers - I
would have given anything to be a vegetarian again!”.
He ends the article with “Monks may not exercise choice when it comes
to food and that is much harder than being a vegetarian. Nonetheless, we
may ‘encourage’ vegetarianism and if our lay supporters brought only
vegetarian food and no meat, well...monks may not complain either! May
you take the hint and be kind to animals.”
Ajahn Brahmavamso was a Theoretical Physicist at the prestigious
University of Cambridge before becoming a Buddhist monk in Thai Forrest
tradition 33 years ago. He has touched thousands of people through his
rational talks based on Buddhist principles.
The topic of Mareena Reffai’s original letter (DN February 27) was
‘Islam forbids pre-marital love affairs’. I do not understand how Tuan
and/or Ajith Tissera brought ‘Pre-marital sex’ into this.
Although it can be very challenging for young people full of
curiosity, (and also hormones), in a society like Sri Lanka, pre-marital
sex should be still discouraged. Firstly, it can hurt a lot of people
like parents and siblings.
Secondly, as the Sri Lankan society still appreciates virginity in
general, there can be unpleasant situations if the couple would not
ultimately marry as planned due to various reasons like accidents,
strong parental objections and even simple incompatibility.
We must also discourage pre-marital love affairs among teenagers who
are not capable of making an important life decision at such a tender
age. In addition, these affairs severely distract them from their
education during a crucial period.
But should we discourage pre-marital love affairs among young adults?
Definitely not! On the contrary, we should ‘encourage’ them as they are
not harming anybody. Why should we deny them an opportunity to find a
compatible life partner on their own? Yes.
There was a time that most marriages were arranged only by parents or
elders. At that time the roles of the husband (breadwinner) and the wife
(mother and homemaker) were clearly defined and also women were expected
to be submissive.
Not anymore. After centuries of injustice, now women are given an
equal opportunity in every area. They are capable of doing everything
what men can do and they are allowed to do so. (Unless they are in Saudi
Arabia - where a woman is not allowed to drive a car even or Taliban
controlled Afghanistan.)
Also most importantly why deny them of such a pleasant emotion called
‘Love’? (May be only a person who fell in love would know; Oh! What a
feeling!)
BOBBY PEREIRA
via email
On the subject of Vaas and Murali rested in the Australia game, I do
fully agree with Sangakkara’s comments. (Reference DN April 21)
Where was the noise when the Aussies dropped Lee and New Zealand
dropped Bond?
Double standards is not the word.... Pundits prefer to keep their
gabs shut and eyes closed as well. we wish you guys luck and we are
supporting you all the way.
SHALINI
via email
Two prowlers got into our compound at 1.30 a.m. on April 21. We
alerted our neighbours and I called 119 emergency police.
Within minutes the police jeep drew up at our gate, but the prowlers
had vanished.
However the police searched the premises thoroughly and assured us of
their services.
We were surprised, pleased and grateful for their prompt action. It
is such actions that earn the confidence of the public.
T. V. WIJEYARATNAM
Colombo 6
During Mrs. Bandaranaike’s regime, even before it became unpopular,
J. R. Jayewardene was trying to project himself a worthy leader of the
party of D.S. and Dudley Senanayake (Reference DN April 21).
He tried to spread the rumour that Mrs. Bandaranaike was trying to
get him arrested to become popular and get publicity.
Then once he came to power, you can see from his behaviour (Ranil’s
uncle) that they oppressed everyone and unleashed thugs and harassed
everyone including Vijaya Kumaratunga with bogus plots of naxalite coups
that were only swallowed by the English speaking pretentious elite in
Colombo.
We all know it and President Rajapaksa knows it. Johnston Fernando as
the movie title said ‘Desperately seeking Susan’ is ‘Desperately seeking
publicity’ for Ranil in the midst of victories by our Armed Forces.
R. F. GUNASEKERA
via email |
