Buddhist Priest and the Law
– from the Sublime to the Ridicule
By Charles.S.Perera
During the rein of the Kings in Sri Lanka, the offenders were brought
before the King, to be judged for the offences for which he had been
accused. His Majesty the King was the sole authority.
Now it is different. We have accepted a British style democracy, with
the separation of powers that go with it. Therefore the judiciary is
separate and independent of the Executive and the Legislature. When
the Court is in session the Judge is the sole authority . The people
seeking justice accept the independence of justice and the authority
of the judge.
The manifestation of the acceptance of the judicial authority is the
deference shown to the judge by standing up when he enters the Court.
All those who are present in the Court are equal before Justice, whatever
the Social or Official status of a person. It is not a respect shown
to the person of the judge, but to his Office.
Outside the Court the judge is an ordinary lay person. If the Judge
is a Buddhist, he will pay respect to a Buddhist Priest, as any other
lay person. He may even go on his knees to ask the blessings of a Buddhist
Priest. It is not for that matter that a Buddhist Priest present in
the Court should not get up to respect the independent authority of
the judge and his judgement.
If the Buddhist Priest seeks exception in view of his religious position,
the Court is not the place where he should be present. If a Buddhist
Priest has committed a criminal act, in terms of the Criminal Law, in
the eye of justice he is a person who has been accused of committing
a criminal act, nothing else. As such he has forfeited his right to
be treated as a Buddhist Priest. And so he will be an accused person
before the Court of Law, or a defendant in a civil case.
Under these circumstances it was amusing to read , that four Buddhist
Organisations are proposing a manifestation against the Chief Justice
to ask the President of Sri Lanka to appoint a Parliamentary Select
Committee to Probe the Chief Justice, for insulting Buddhism in the
Supreme Court, and to look into 100 of his previous court rulings. In
other words the Associations want the judge to be judged !
The writer is neither a Catholic , nor an agnostic seeking to smear
the sublimity of the Venerated Buddhist Priests. On the other hand he
holds the Buddhist Priesthood in utmost veneration. But he is sad to
see the Buddhist Priests falling from the sublime to the ridicule.
The four associations: Conversion Observation Centre, Buddhist National
Movement, Soma Thera Chinthana Foundation and Bodubala Sena, contemplating
a public awareness campaign against the Chief Justice, will not be doing
a service to Buddhism. It is far better for them first to understand
what actually is the greater menace to the Buddha Sasana. Is it the
Chief Justice, affirming his independent authority in his Court, or
the Buddhist Priests over stepping the bounds of their religious claim
to respect and veneration ?
We should know to separate the secular from the religious . Judiciary
is a civil or secular authority that is independent of the executive,
and the legislature. A Priests should not commit any offence that may
place him at the mercy of the judicial authority. Therefore, these four
association should see in this matter between the Priests and the Judiciary
who stands to be blamed.
The Buddhist Priests are required to follow the 227 Vinaya rules. If
they are found to have breached the Vinaya rules, they should be punished
in terms of those rule, by the Buddhist hierarchy. If they have committed
a serious offence in breach of the law of the land, they should be judged
by the civil authorities, in addition to punishment under the Vinaya
rules.
The Buddhist Priests have no right to ask for separate Courts to judge
them for civil or criminal offences they may commit. The Society cannot
be changed to suit the Buddhist Priests. It is the Buddhist Priest aware
of the threat to their dignity, who should avoid acts that would result
in the intervention of the state authorities in the course of their
maintaining peace and order in the secular society.
The four Association: Conversion Observation Centre, Buddhist National
Movement, Soma Thera Chinthana Foundation and Bodubala Sena, who have
taken up the defence of the Buddhist Priests against the Chief Justice,
if they proceed with the proposed action would only be adding insult
to injury.
It may be more useful for these Associations to read the Buddhist Commission
Report to see whether any part of it could be implemented even at this
late stage, to re-establish the loss of respect, and to ensure continued
veneration of the Buddhist Priesthood. They may instead of making a
public manifestation, request the President to appoint a commission
of inquire in to the possibility of re-establishing the Pirivena System
of education to the Buddhist Monks, and make recommendations to reform
the Buddhasasana so that we may never again see a Buddhist Priests in
a Court of Law in Sri Lanka.
The peril the Buddhism in Sri Lank is facing to day comes from the
Buddhist Priest getting involved in worldly affairs like an ordinary
"householder". And the primary cause of this phenomenon is
the abandoning of the Pirivena System of Education to Buddhist Priests.
The present trend of the Buddhist Priests giving up their true vocation
to become worldly monks is a danger for the continued existence of the
Venerated Order of the Sangha. Therefore it is time the public is made
aware of the necessity to intervene to demand appropriate authorities
to change the present situation with regard to the deterioration of
the discipline of the Buddhists Monks, and take appropriate action to
punish the Buddhist Priests who behaves like lay men, under the Vinaya
rules.
It is true that a Buddhist Priest should not get up, bow down, shake
hands, make salutations by putting the palms of hands together, or kissing
the Pope's ring to show their respect. But a Buddhist Priest not being
worldly should not be present in a Court of Law. If he happened to be
in a Court of Law, then he should respect the customs and practices
of the Court, if not suffer the indignity of being punished by the Judge.
|
