I write in response to the Sri Lanka Guardian article ‘Eulogizing dead people’ by Dr. Ruwantissa Abeyratne
( April 5, 2013, Melbourne, Sri Lanka Guardian) To me it was no surprise to see this heading. It was more an identity with the powers beyond our comprehension. It was no surprise because it was just this morning that I was saying to my husband that his brother who passed away in April 2010, came in my dream early this morning and that in that dream my brother in law was enjoying a meal I had prepared and that he was getting ready to play a board game with us – something we do as a family when our grandchildren come over. I said to my husband that to me it was acceptance by his brother of the work we were doing to ensure that the consolidated value of all our investments in the values that my brother in law upheld, was being recognized. The meal part was especially important given that his sister who while living in the same house, failed to share her food with my brother in law, is now coming to Courts to get his wealth. My husband and I are objecting to this sister and her husband representing my brother in law in Court. As per the principles of Thesawalamai – males have the greater right to represent. This right is stronger where the sisters are married with dowry. This ancestral system of sharing property recognized equal opportunity on time basis. Sons inherited the residual wealth or liabilities of the parents. Towards this they were facilitated to go through higher education as a priority whilst daughters were given in marriage early. If both are equally well educated – then there should be no dowry at all as part of the marriage arrangement. Yet, many families in our community continue to carry this forward – confirming that they are still under the old cultural system but for the purpose of showing others that they have got their children married. But Truth balances it all one way or the other – including through death.
I had the first experience when I was in Vattukottai – in the traditional home of my husband’s family which was given as dowry to his above mentioned sister. It was a few months after the passing away of my brother in law. I was seated in the easy-chair used by my brother in law. A lady by the name of Mrs. Ramaiyah was visiting me. Mrs. Ramaiyah was from Sangarathai-Thunaivi – where our family Vairavar-Kali temple is and this lady is known to have deep faith in our Mother Kali at our temple. It is believed that her faith is due to her getting her 8 daughters married well starting practically with zero base and selling vegetables to the locals. During conversation the sister and her husband started talking about prices of food parcels and they confirmed to Mrs. Ramaiyah that my brother in law had all his meals from the outside and not with his sister. Mrs. Ramaiyah then asked me ‘How about your meals?’ I said I had it with my sister in law and her husband. Then Mrs. Ramaiyah promptly asked pointing to my sister in law ‘Does she know to cook?’ It is a natural conclusion that a common person would come to in that area – where family members share their resources more openly than in the West. I said that my sister in law did know to cook. Then Mrs. Ramaiyah asked the question again – this time with greater force. Then my sister in law gave some response – confirming that she did cook. The unspoken issue was why she had not cooked for her bachelor brother? I felt that through me, Mrs. Ramaiyah became the medium through which my brother in law’s spirit was expressing what he could not when he was alive. To me it was no coincidence that Mrs. Ramaiyah visited me for the first and last time there. Just a couple of days prior to that Mrs. Ramaiyah insisted that I should have her cooked meal at the temple on the day of Aadi Pooram (the day of Pooram Star in July). This I believe connected us through food. Hence Mrs. Ramaiyah became the medium through whom I was educated by the Spirit of my Brother in law. The consequence was that I pooled my contribution to the family to elevate the testamentary matter regarding his wealth to the court level. This has in turn led to me appreciating the deeper values of Thesawalamai – the customary law of Jaffna Tamils - which the rural people of Jaffna are more familiar with than the provisions of Common Law of Sri Lanka. I keep admiring the balance brought about the system which did discriminate between sons and daughters – so the sons brought wealth from outside and daughters were groomed to be homemakers. This system continues to be needed by areas such as Thunaivi – where majority men are do manual labor work and only a few invest in higher education and the job opportunities related to higher education. Daughters do put themselves through higher education but after marriage if they take up higher status than the husband – they do not have a structure to support it. I realized that Jaffna Tamils do have the need for conscious reconciliation between Thesawalamai and the Secular system which does not distinguish between male and female. In countries like Australia where gender based discrimination is unlawful – practice of dowry is unlawful. Yet many educated folks continue to practice the dowry system. Many of them work as executives in large Australian organizations. If dowry is right – then so is racial discrimination so long as the discrimination is in reverse order at a different time and/or for different level of wealth – for example for status.
Dr. Abeyratne writes ‘We also have another peculiar trait, at least in our part of the world (and I am referring here to my country of birth) – of canonizing people immediately after they die. We write things called “appreciations” which we keep hidden in some recess of our minds until a person dies. Then we unleash a barrage of hyperbole about that person; how he or she set a good example in life with exacting standards, values, and what brightness that person exuded and how that person was so loved by family and friends. And all this, to issue a testimonial to the rest of the world regarding a dead person!’
In our Jaffna Seminar we discussed the three levels of Communication as follows:
1. Physically Shown - Through the Oonak kann (Biological eye)
2. Mentally thought/known – Through the manak kann (mind’s eye)
3. Felt in heart - Through the Gnanak kann (Third eye of wisdom)
Mind’s eye is a combination of Wisdom and Biological sight.
Institutions / Families are bound by common faith. This common faith has exponential value. Even if there is no structure to show this Common Faith – it still has value – Universal Value through the system of Silent Communication. Hence Yoga Swami said ‘Oomai Pashai arinthidada’ (learn the language of silence).
Hence our work values are in wholesome terms :-
Money
People(Status + Goodwill)
Ownership – Then we become that.
Dr. Abeyratne as a Scientist would appreciate that the biological eye says that the earth is flat. That is lateral thinking needed by relatives (to relate). The eye of wisdom says that the earth is global. This cannot be ‘seen’ by the eye but could be proven logically and/or through experience. Experience here is to see and also do the work from start to finish as Lord Muruga did. Hence He is on a Hilltop at Kathirgamam in Sri Lanka (towards an aerial view).
In terms of eulogies – the expressions in public could be for a combination of the above three reasons. Words and actions without work are most temporary – they are the only ones that could be dismissed as relating to the dead body. All others confirm continuity of the work done by the person who has passed away. Hence Hindus chant Sivapuranam when someone passes away. Lord Shiva is the Lord of the Mind. The inner (third) eye opens when we close our eyes and go into meditation. At that time – the essence of the genuine work by that person merges with ours and hence they continue to live with us in our minds. The outer expressions – including ceremonies and eulogies confirm this merger to various degrees. That ‘testimonial’ is for us – to confirm the value of our merged minds. Given that the other person is not there to physically reward or punish us – our minds would tend to recognize only that which is returnable by us or others living. The latter is temporary until we are ready for the former – and become One. Others may start off with the primary stage of formality and good manners (at which the West is more stylish than us Easterners). Likewise in terms of saying eulogies to subjective discrimination – the Westerners are more stylish than Sri Lankans – but it does not mean that they have greater wisdom in Equal Opportunity systems.
Dr. Abeyratne writes ‘In Montreal, where I have been living for the past 23 years, the local newspapers publish no such appreciations written by interested individuals. Instead, they have what are called “obituaries” which are written by the editorial staff and detail the valuable contributions a deceased had made to society and that person’s achievements in life. The Economist has in every issue, in its last page, an obituary which marks the passing of a distinguished person, be it a world or national leader, journalist, musician, scientist or other who has either led an interesting life that left an indelible mark on society or an enduring legacy that is objectively recognized by the world’
In Sydney where I have been living for 28 years – also I do not see such publishing by individuals. I do see them when in Sri Lanka. But unlike Dr. Abeyratne, when in Sri Lanka, I do not use Australian culture to ‘judge’ Sri Lankans and v.v.. I just accept them as is. I use common platform to discriminate or remain silent. Sometimes I do find the consolidated version of those of higher importance to society by prominent individuals. But there are thousands more who would have reached higher level of wisdom not receiving any such notice at all. If I were to die today – the official newspapers in Australia are not likely to write anything about me at all. But it is my belief that to Sri Lanka Guardian I am somebody. More importantly those who receive and read my emails would miss me. Their feelings become the base through which they would receive the essence of my work. That matters most and it is a most natural merger. Then our thoughts and then only mere words and outer actions – through surface majority information registered in our surface memories.. That last part actually is lifeless and is dead with the person – even if that person who passed away was a dignitary. Finding out which category s/he belongs to is the real challenge. Like the Sri Lankan Government driven by majority vote – Dr. Abeyratne seems to be driven by this last category. That is like an academic publishing information without research.
Dr. Abeyratne states ‘How many “appreciations” record such value, apart from lamenting the passing of an aunt or a friend? Why should the whole world read about the personal loss of death or emotional abyss plunged into by a bereaved colleague or a nephew whose dear departed uncle taught him how to fish? What if we started writing bad things about a dead person saying that the deceased cut another’s throat? Or cheated someone? Or was responsible for destroying a marriage?’
The whole purpose of these exercises is to focus on the good values of the person who has passed away. Take for example – farewells at the workplace. When I left my substantive position at the University of New South Wales – the person in charge picked up my feelings and cancelled the farewell arranged by the general staff. The reason was – if they had appreciated my work when I was working there – I would not have resigned. Hence a farewell with the nice eulogies would have covered up their failure to support a colleague on behalf of the institution. I wonder how many such eulogies Dr. Abeyratne had at his workplaces – including Airlanka? I did not have one at Airlanka either. But I still share with Airlanka staff as I do with staff of the University of New South Wales who worked with me. Some of that sharing is at the deepest level – but one knows in the silence of one’s heart. Some of them have passed away. But to me they are still with me – fresh and alive as my partners in life.
The culture of publishing is to harness the thoughts of others – especially those who may have failed to remember. Like majority vote – it is a collective effort that does have value – just like the ceremonies we go through at funerals and at other times at places of worship. If those are right – then so are these. Some of us do not need them but most of us do – to keep their minds focused. Like repetitive learners they need to ‘see’ the importance of their relative to register the underpinning value. If Westerners could do that at work farewells – why are Easterners wrong in doing this in community life? These days it is difficult – especially in Sri Lanka for people to gather in one place. Hence a newspaper notice would be helpful at least for others to remember. I have read and felt for many young ones killed in the war. To me that was sharing and I do believe that my support would have reached the relatives and friends one way or the other.
An institution, family, community, nation – needs to give priority to use merit basis and/or belief of elders to promote or demote people. To the extent this is unreliable – we the ordinary folks without portfolios have the right to use avenues available to us to show others that the one who has passed away is our hero / heroine. This is why we have majority vote. We rule through that tiny spec and if we cast our vote on faith – it would be as good as having elected the whole government needed by us. Hence we are all governors and hence the demand for self governance by Tamils in Sri Lanka – especially for those who ‘see’ and ‘believe’ rather than ‘know’ and ‘believe’. Those who consciously or otherwise worked against Tamils seeking this path and knowledge of right and wrong – through discriminative thinking based on common principles – have now got their karma back – through militants who work through likes and dislikes and therefore us and them. As we sow, so shall we reap.
Dr. Abeyratne says ‘Dead people should be left alone to take their merits and demerits to wherever they go. Those who are left behind and have had some experience of the deceased should form their own opinions and mourn the death with silent fortitude. The world must only know of a legacy left behind and in what manner that legacy could benefit those remaining. That is the true worth of an obituary.’
Each one of us leaves behind a legacy – positive or negative. Most do not talk publicly about the negatives. Completed experiences – even though they may seem negative – are the most positive legacies in terms of value. They need to be silently shared. The positives like the first set of principles - would give a positive start to those who seek to follow or preserve the value of the person who has passed away. It may be small but by going through a public process – we collect other minds. It’s like saying prayers at the same time or turning off the lights during earth hour.
According to Dr. Abeyratne who has lived in Montreal – he has no current value for Sri Lanka. He has been facilitated to take all his Sri Lankan value with him to Canada – and only those physically closest to him would mourn and miss him.
To me – I left behind the surface value of my work in Sri Lanka and started virtually from zero base here in Australia. Towards this I said my highest qualifications were Sri Lankan and hence the credit I received in higher positions was attributed to Sri Lanka. In other words – I was saying my eulogies to Sri Lanka – long after I left Sri Lanka. Others of Sri Lankan origin who had dignitary status due to their Australian qualifications – are given priority status by the official system – in Sri Lanka as well as in Australia. This is the system Dr. Abeyratne is recommending in the case of death – so that those who seem to be nobodies or rebel against inequalities would go to their corners while the so called dignitaries would the only ones who seem to be worthy of following.
There are parts in Sri Lanka – especially in the East – where the folks do not come outside their local areas – leave alone read papers. Doctors like Dr. Natchinarkinian go to them towards providing medical aid. Our own Australian Dr. Fred Hollows did likewise. The folks in those remote areas would have their own way of mourning, following and honoring. As Gandhi said – ‘there is room for all of us’. Gandhi said it on behalf of all those who were treated as lesser citizens. I am saying it on behalf all nobodies who were officially demoted and/or blocked from promoting themselves in their home nations.
Dr. Abeyratne says ‘I am convinced that, when I die, there will not be an obituary in a journal, as I would have left neither a legacy nor achievements and contributions that might benefit the human race. Of course, members of my family may be inclined to mark their appreciation of me, for providing for them and looking after them, which they must essentially do in private reflection and prayer’
The parallel of this for me is ‘ I expect my public life – including my work through Sri Lanka Guardian to be valued and carried forward by those left behind – at least in their minds so they would use them during times of need. This is what I said to the Tiger lady who was assigned to be trained by me in Public Administration. I said to this young lady at the Murugan temple in Kilinochchi ‘If you ever feel anxious - think of me and what I would do under the circumstances. You will get the answer you need from within you’. That Tiger lady took me around to the places of worship I needed to go. That was her eulogy – which the likes of Dr. Abeyratne by his own confession would not ‘appreciate’. But to that lady I was the highest administrator known to her. THIS is the reason why I had to leave the environment that was damaging my faith in Australian administrative system. It was time to die in that system and become a facility for them as well as them for me. That is the basis of ‘user pays’ system. Under the old hierarchical system – the dignitaries were the ones to be written about. In democracy – each of us is a dignitary in the medium that publishes our work and the various forms of our work – including the work done to remember loved ones who are not physically with us.
By pooling our work with the ones of those who have passed away – we are consolidating and raising the whole to the higher level. When this is done value to society is higher than if it were not done. Hence the need for eulogies. Some may be of surface value only – but then there are their parallels as wearing the official uniforms – even as academics. So long as even one of us who does have the higher value include these folks as part of us – their work is of value – as much as we are of value. That is what family and institution is all about.
Once we become independent individuals – we have become complete at the individual level. But then we have the duty to contribute to the structures that helped us get there. It’s when we make that contribution out of gratitude / appreciation – that we become part of society that supported us to become complete. When we pay our dues to society – we become that society and therefore are able to work that society in real terms – beyond injury to and death of the physical body. Discrimination against those with disabilities outside the functional circle – is unlawful on this basis – that we recognize beyond the physical and know that we are all One and when divided we are equals and look equal at the beginning and at the end.
Appended below is a message about Sri Sathya Sai Baba - shared by a Tamil Diaspora leader. Swami Sai Baba shed His physical body and the Western media failed to show His real worth to the world – as happened when Jesus Christ was punished until death. Many of us who are common to both systems do share our valuation through the Public media. If this is inappropriate then Dr. Abeyratne who confesses to not having prepared to leave behind a legacy for wider society should not be writing through wider media – including the Sri Lanka Guardian. If I outlive Dr. Abeyratne I would write about him publicly – by using his opposition of me to complete the picture and make it wholesome and then share the total as One at the higher level. Only the physical has two sides. Hence once we die we do not have two sides. Making it one is the core purpose of eulogies. Hence it is not just about the person passing away – but also about the person doing the eulogies. When we consolidate and become One – each part – even when it is more than one - has the quality of the whole. That is the value of natural creation – through which each one of us create more than one of us. It is exponential growth and hence the real value is greater than the sum of the simple total. Hence self governance of myself is more valuable than a verdict through majority vote by primary level administrators.
Gaja Lakshmi Paramasivam – 05 April 2013
Appendix
Once, Baba granted an interview to the Marxist editor of an Indian Newspaper. He spent two and a half hours with him and persuaded him of his error. The Marxist questioned Him about the methodology of His kind of ‘revolution’ and Baba replied that He had none in the
accepted organizational sense. His method is the simple one of transforming the inner individual through love, and the machinery used is co-operation and brotherhood induced by this kind of love.
The editor then asked why He did not cure the ills of the world by His sankalpa (will) to which Swami, as one would expect, replied that this kind of instant solution - without a prior spiritual transformation - would not work; the world would quickly revert to the present chaos. He also explained that the whole drama of creation with its karmic law (of cause and effect) would collapse.
Pressed by the editor about the difficulties in persuading the rich of such a life of philosophy, Swami replied, ‘The rich can only come to Me on the basis of absolute equality. This is why at the ashram rich and the poor work together, eat, worship and sleep together, do menial tasks together, and share the common austerities of the ashram. There is absolutely no distinction. Yet, despite this, the wealthy come to Me in order to secure that peace of mind which physical comfort and power cannot give. I convert their minds and hearts to spiritual values and truths.’
The rich cannot secure Swami’s grace without surrendering their materialistic outlook and self-serving attachments. He tells them, ‘Ego lives by getting and forgetting, love lives by giving and forgiving.’ He changes their mental attitudes. He emphasizes the need to live a life without desire, a desirelessness based on high thinking and frugal living, rather than a high material standard. He shows them that riches provide a fatal temptation, which is the source and the cause of human bondage.
‘Shed your luggage’ He says, using one of His parables, ‘you will travel lighter.’ It is not material but spiritual satisfaction that ultimately makes life worth living. And He points to the poor who are often spiritually rich, and to the rich who are often spiritually paupers.
During his short stay at Puttaparthi, the Marxist editor discovered to his amazement that the woman who swept the courtyard was a maharani, his personal attendant was an ex-magistrate and the interpreter during His interview was formerly India’s leading scientist, Dr S Bhagavantham!
accepted organizational sense. His method is the simple one of transforming the inner individual through love, and the machinery used is co-operation and brotherhood induced by this kind of love.
The editor then asked why He did not cure the ills of the world by His sankalpa (will) to which Swami, as one would expect, replied that this kind of instant solution - without a prior spiritual transformation - would not work; the world would quickly revert to the present chaos. He also explained that the whole drama of creation with its karmic law (of cause and effect) would collapse.
Pressed by the editor about the difficulties in persuading the rich of such a life of philosophy, Swami replied, ‘The rich can only come to Me on the basis of absolute equality. This is why at the ashram rich and the poor work together, eat, worship and sleep together, do menial tasks together, and share the common austerities of the ashram. There is absolutely no distinction. Yet, despite this, the wealthy come to Me in order to secure that peace of mind which physical comfort and power cannot give. I convert their minds and hearts to spiritual values and truths.’
The rich cannot secure Swami’s grace without surrendering their materialistic outlook and self-serving attachments. He tells them, ‘Ego lives by getting and forgetting, love lives by giving and forgiving.’ He changes their mental attitudes. He emphasizes the need to live a life without desire, a desirelessness based on high thinking and frugal living, rather than a high material standard. He shows them that riches provide a fatal temptation, which is the source and the cause of human bondage.
‘Shed your luggage’ He says, using one of His parables, ‘you will travel lighter.’ It is not material but spiritual satisfaction that ultimately makes life worth living. And He points to the poor who are often spiritually rich, and to the rich who are often spiritually paupers.
During his short stay at Puttaparthi, the Marxist editor discovered to his amazement that the woman who swept the courtyard was a maharani, his personal attendant was an ex-magistrate and the interpreter during His interview was formerly India’s leading scientist, Dr S Bhagavantham!
