By Rohana R. Wasala– Lankaweb
The opinion piece under the title Temples and noise pollution” (The Island/November 6, 2017) by a virtually anonymous writer who signs ‘HMNW’ makes some censorious remarks about Buddhist temples conducting traditional religious observances like pirith chanting and bana preaching, using amplifiers. He or she charges that pirith chanting and (by implication) bana preaching at temples on Poya days cause ‘noise’ pollution, using public address systems. According to him or her, on Poya days all temples start this sound polluting activity as early as 4 o’clock in the morning, disturbing the sleep of people, young and old, living in houses in the neighbourhood. The writer laments that the same form of sound pollution occurs now even in Sunday daham paselas, which also use loudspeakers. A few temples broadcast seth pirith using the same method everyday. He or she suggests that if they want to use a public address system they could do so maintaining a lower sound level that is loud enough to be heard only by the devotees assembled in the temple premises; they could follow the practice of Christian churches, which also use public address systems at all services without disturbing those living around.
Though there could be an element of truth in HMNW’s critical remarks, it is neutralized by his or her evident bias against Buddhists. While claiming to be a Buddhist himself or herself, the writer seems to be devoid of the kindness, humility, and equanimity that is typical of the average educated Buddhist. The last bit of unsolicited advice betrays HMNW’s disrespectful attitude towards Buddhist monks who have unintentionally annoyed him or her.
A general criticism of easily avoidable sound pollution that is caused by amplified sounds of music, chanting of hymns, pirith, etc., reciting of prayers, and delivering of sermons, that emanate from places of worship at unwelcome times would have been accepted as reasonable by everyone irrespective of their religious backgrounds. But such a discussion would not isolate the practice of a particular religious establishment for special censure. What about the daily five times repeated call for prayer (azan/adhan) of Muslims, often blared out from the minarets of mosques, once early morning, once late evening and three times in between? That ritual is not confined to areas where exclusive Muslim neighbourhoods are found. What about sounds emanating from Christian churches and Hindu Kovils on their respective festival days. On all such occasions, the Buddhist commonalty do not complain against sound pollution from those places of worship; they won’t disparagingly call it ‘noise’. They are decent enough to recognize that devotional sounds from a particular place of worship are soothing to the ears of the faithful. It is not that the average Christians, Hindus, and Muslims behave differently from Buddhists either, in similar situations, except perhaps a handful of fanatics who see no further than the end of their nose. In fact, it is a matter of common decency and common sense to make no issue of such temporary inconveniences incidentally caused by people during religious observances. On the other hand, those causing inconvenience to others who have nothing to do with their devotions or observances, ought to minimize them as much as possible. My freedom ends where your freedom starts as Martin Luther King Jr said. In our proudly multi-religious society, we have to tolerate possible minor trespasses on our individual freedom in order to allow our neighbours of different religious persuasions to manifest their beliefs in the way they like.
About a year ago, in December 2016 to be more specific, well known preacher monk Ven. Uduwe Dhammaloka Thera of Alan Mathiniyaramaya, Polhengoda was charged in court by a group of six parties including Milinda Moragoda, a former government minister, and the Centre for Environmental Justice for allegedly inconveniencing his neighbours by using loudspeakers between 5 am and 6 am. It was no doubt a sensitive case. Later, the complainants offered to withdraw the case; they later arrived at a settlement with the monk out of court. People like HMNW who feel they are inconvenienced by noisy devotional activities in Buddhist temples in their neighbourhood, should approach the responsible monks in person and find a suitable settlement through friendly dialogue.
Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the UN (Illustrated edition, 2015) is about Freedom of Religion:
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”
If HMNW is sufficiently well informed about the attitude of different religions towards other religions and towards the followers of those other religions, he or she will appreciate the fact that no religion accommodates the right of persons of other religious persuasions to freedom of religion as defined here more readily than Buddhism.
Among religions, Buddhism is the least regimented. No sane Buddhist would ‘haunt temples day in and day out’ (as the writer says he or she doesn’t). Actually, mandatory temple attendance (pansal yaema) is unheard of. Buddhist precepts are not commandments, but rules of conduct that need to be followed voluntarily with wisdom, not with uncomprehending faith, and not out of fear of punishment or love of reward. Buddhists need not be invited to take part in religious activities at viharas, contrary to what the writer suggests. Buddhists do not invite, nor do they expect, professors of other religions to participate in Buddhist rituals. ‘Dane’ or alms giving is a voluntary activity. No Buddhist is compelled to give ‘dane’ to monks in the temples. The writer’s apparent ignorance of such basic things about Buddhism suggests that he or she is a non-Buddhist critic taking cover behind anonymity.