Science far behind Buddhism

Whether literary criticism should be influenced by Buddhist teachings or not is now becoming a debate among literati. It was quite apparent recently at the National Library Services Board when Nuvan Nayanajith Kumara launched his seventh work: Pathana, Vichara ha Alochana (Reading, Criticism and Insight).

Professor Carlo Fonseka, Ven Agalakada Sirisumana and Silumina Editor Karunadasa Sooriyaarachchi delivered the speeches at the event.

As the first speaker Professor Carlo Fonseka questioned the link between Buddhism and literary criticism. Buddhism encourages the riddance of taints, whereas literature means entertainment. How can these two diametrically opposed ends be linked, Professor Fonseka questioned. He also criticized Martin Wickramasinghe’s essays of philosophy which are referred to in Nayanajith’s book.

“Journalists have this eccentric habit called ‘writing to a deadline’. Most of Wickramasinghe’s philosophical essays are written in a hurry to meet deadlines.”

Explaining his statement, Fonseka defined philosophy as something one keeps on thinking; this is different to science where one has to research and experiment to arrive in a conclusion. He scoffed at the Wickramasinghe theory of ‘intuition knowledge’ too.

“Everything around us, fans, air conditioner, seats and lecterns are products of science. So I believe in science and nothing else. There is nothing called ‘intuition knowledge’. I respect Martin Wickramasinghe very much for his works of art. His trilogy for example is one masterpiece. But otherwise he was just groping in the dark.”

Professor Fonseka mentioned he has read Kalama sutta and respects the Buddha for introducing and encouraging free thinking. Buddhism and literary criticism can hardly be linked, Professor Fonseka concluded.

Initiating his speech, Ven Agalakada Sirisumana said the Buddha is the greatest ever aesthetician. Commenting on Professor Fonseka’s statement of Buddhist influence, the priest said the Buddha had commented on aesthetic works as well. “He taught how to admire a work of art without getting attached to it. So many suttas bear testimony for that.”

Ven Sirisumana Thera eventually recalled how he first got to know Nuvan Nayanajith through his writings on the press.

Afterwards Ven Sirisumana Thera summoned Nayanajith to take part in art seminars and workshops at the Colombo University. He spent hours to explain how we can be influenced from our own traditions for arts. “We all learnt a great deal from this young scholar.” Ven Thera opined.

Various trends come and go, but tradition is set in. No one can challenge that, Ven Thera added.

“As I step down the stairs, I see him climbing up the stairs. That’s Nuvan Nayanajith, one of the fastest walkers in the Lake House.” Said Silumina Editor Karunadasa Sooriyaarachchi delivering the chair’s speech.

Sooriyaarachchi recollected the day Nayanajith came to meet him exactly when he needed a young scholar to be of assistance in compiling the Silumina literary supplement Punkalasa.

“Nayanajith is one of the few journalists who joined Silumina upon my request. He has lived far up to my hopes.” Sooriyaarachchi said. Nuvan presented copies of his book to two friends representing the schools he studied: Nalanda and Ananda colleges. The friends too reminisced about their schoolmate in their brief speeches. Delivering the final speech, Nuvan emphasized the need of studying Buddhism to engage in progressive literary criticism.

“If any work of art gives us the picture of real life philosophy, then that’s what matters. That’s where Buddhism comes in. It is Martin Wickramasinghe who first raised the need of our own Sinhala literary criticism. Now is the time for us to implement that.”

The foreign literati come to Sri Lanka in search oriental roots of literary criticism, but they are disappointed to see nothing but their own methodology practised here, Nayanajith added.

He also said that science is far behind philosophical teachings.

“Scientists do not believe of things unless they research. But there are things discovered even before they carry out research. The pristine difference between science and philosophy is that science takes time to believe what philosophy already opined. This is quite so in Buddhist context too.” Nayanajith concluded.

- Sachitra

..................................

<< Artscope Main Page