About
10 years ago, there was a debate between two writers in a prominent national
newspaper. The debate went on for several weeks with its two contenders,
Professor Nalin de Silva and Tissa Devendra. In the end though, it went
nowhere.
It
started with Professor Nalin. He was writing about "Olcott Buddhism".
He was at loggerheads with Devendra over one point: whether the institutions
and ideology represented by Colonel Henry Steel Olcott stunted the Buddhism
which would have been an instrument of national regeneration. That it did not
was what he opined. That Olcott Buddhism was needed to revive Buddhism was what
Devendra opined.
The
historian's role is to record history. Can anyone say that he's free from
prejudice? Can anyone point at history books and claim "objectivity"
for them? Of course not. That's why comment is needed, not because history is
open but because those who record it are selective. This is as true a statement
as it's going to get when it comes to our history, not just because those
who've recorded have not let go of their political preferences but because they
have managed to insert those preferences in subtle, even mischievous ways.
The point is that Colonel Henry Steel Olcott deserves reassessment. The point is that, in the attempt to lionise him and his movement, some facts were deliberately skewed. The point is that we were taught that he was a national hero.
But was there another side to him? Was there perhaps a flaw in his movement and revival, which we never missed but opted to forget because that would have tarnished his popular image? To ask this is to look back at his movement and its context and then judge Professor Nalin's contention.
To
begin with, what Colonel Olcott ushered in was a revival. But he was not
responsible for its inception, for the simple reason that he came here because
of the Panadura Vaadaya. What happened at Panadura was the culmination of a series of debates between Christian and Buddhist
priests.
The
revival which followed this was not without its critics. Migetuwatte Gunananda Thera, who had led
the priests to victory at Panadura, later disagreed with Colonel Olcott and the
Theosophist movement. But by then (around the late 1880s), what was done was
done and dusted: Theosophy won, and with it Colonel Olcott's revivalist
movement. This is important notwithstanding its demerits because on it rests
the argument that what dominated the Buddhist discourse thereafter was
Olcott's Buddhism. Not Anagarika Dharmapala's.
And
on this rests another thesis: that Colonel Olcott triumphed at the exact point
the Anagarika failed: the preaching of a religion which could embrace all and
exclude none. Maybe that's how Theosophists managed to throw out religion
altogether when referring to Buddhism and instead called it a
"philosophy". Philosophies are not static. They are subject to
change. Religions, on the other hand, need missions to spread their gospel
(largely static), and as Professor H. L. Seneviratne observed in his Work of Kings,
the mission here needed a missionary. The missionary needed a leader. That leader
was not Colonel Olcott. He was the Anagarika.
But
where Theosophy won was also where it lost. To understand why, one needs to
understand what Colonel Olcott stood for. He was not a Buddhist, a point
acknowledged by almost everyone from Professor Nalin to Victor Ivan. Put
simply, he saw Buddhism under Western eyes. How so?
It's
to do with what he wrote and founded, at one level. The Buddhist Catechism,
which he compiled, was a virtual copy of Luther's Small Catechism. Buddhists
didn't go to Sunday Schools before his movement began them. That they coincided
with Christian Sunday Schools is all too obvious. To top all that the curriculum
he implemented in the schools he founded were, barring a few subjects here and
there which catered to the “vernacular” Buddhist crowd, largely imitative of
the liberal arts tradition of the (mostly Christian) West.
It
follows from all this that the kind of Buddhism Colonel Olcott went after was
both imitative and rootless. What those who lionise him forget is
that this same “universal Buddhism” they venerate was and is responsible for
the culture of disengagement that has pursued Buddhists here to date. More
relevantly, they forget the contribution towards the same racialist ideology
they find in the Anagarika's movement by (what else?) Olcott's movement.
What
was this contribution, incidentally?
No
religious movement is possible without continuous engagement with its roots.
What Colonel Olcott's program failed to account for was that inasmuch as
Buddhism needed to be all-embracive, it couldn't be sustained for long without
placing it in a specific culture. Rootless and therefore virtually castrated,
the Buddhism he conceptualised managed to split precept and practice to an extent whereby
there could be no engagement with it. Gunadasa Amarasekera
pointed this out when he observed that what it created was a "culturally divorced Buddhist elite no different from the westernised Christian class".
When
Amarasekera compared the "Buddhist elite" to the "westernised
Christian class", he was not dabbling in bigoted polemics. It is well
known that those who financed and patronised Colonel Olcott's movement were no
different in their social position to their Christian counterparts. There are
temples and schools founded by those who were arrack renters by profession, for
instance. When their descendants became politically active and led our
independence struggle, they began "using" Buddhism.
What
aided and aggravated this was the split between temple and state accompanied by
the Kandyan Convention. True, a clause in the Convention purported to safeguard
Buddhism, but by and by that was violated. And thus two trends – the rift
between precept and practice and the rift between Buddhism and the state –
contributed to the "rhetoricisation" of religion for political
expedience which has become the norm today.
Here
lies the tragedy of contemporary Buddhism: the split between the tenet and its
practice, echoing the split between temple and state. The one aggravated the
other, and while the latter split was needed in the interests of ethnic
harmony, the former sought new channels of venting out frustration.
Students at Ananda College (courtesy: "Twentieth Century Impressions of Ceylon") |
What were the results of this? Extremist political organisations that
rise and fall? Ideologues and populists who badmouth other faiths and then
backtrack on Buddhism when in power? Perhaps.
The
problem wasn't Anagarika Dharmapala's chauvinism (only), hence. It was the fact
that we looked at Buddhism through and allowed its revival to be led under
Western eyes. Most of those who headed Olcott's schools (as principals or
patrons), after all, were not “indigenous” Buddhists. They were
"born-again" so to speak, and this largely helped to do away with any
form of racialism. Tragically however, they failed to account for the cultural
context in which Buddhism here was placed, and this more or less provoked the
same racialism which Colonel Olcott tried to rid his movement of.
There's
more, but we must end here. With an ultimatum.
Popular myths can make heroes out of parvenus, turning them overnight into figures deserving of accolade and posterity. They are venerated and they breed cults. True, they may not have nourished those cults, but the fact is that for the most, they are created with or without their sanction. In that context, it makes good (business) sense to shrug away the other side to the leader of the cult. Which is why history is and always will be full of frill.
Professor
Nalin made the following observation about Olcott: "It could be said that he was
instrumental in separating Buddhism from Sinhala Buddhism, and as a consequence
a group of people emerged who would think of themselves as Sinhalas and
Buddhists separately.” In this revelation he may have split hairs and badmouthed
sacred cows (and Colonel Olcott, as evidenced by the epithet “Olcott thuma”
used by adherents in his schools and elsewhere, is a sacred cow to the teeth).
But he spoke the truth.
Whether
we like it or not therefore, the Professor's argument holds water. Makes sense
to acknowledge it. Makes sense to note it down. And makes sense to revisit
history with it.
Read also: Colonel Olcott: Under Eastern Eyes
No comments:
Post a Comment