Definitions of what is known as common sense vary in relation to the contexts in which the term is used. When applied to the management of the ordinary affairs of day-to-day  life, the notion is interpreted  as the practical ability of a person to successfully deal with a problematic situation in their life using their own judgement, or  the  useful good sense shared by a particular community.  In the rarefied atmosphere of intellectual domains on the other hand, common sense is likely to be downgraded as a hindrance to clear rational thought: Albert Einstein is believed to have said, "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen"!

What is characterised as common sense among intellectuals cannot probably avoid that kind of stigmatisation. However, there is no gainsaying the fact that common sense (of the mundane variety) plays a vital role in the affairs of ordinary humanity. Some reflection on the passing scene before our own eyes will suffice to convince us that many of the problems that people face – some of them quite serious -  could be easily forestalled, or resolved through the application of a little common sense. In other words, the majority of these trials and tribulations are attributable to a general lack of common sense among those usually beset with such problems.

In my opinion, absence of common sense is a persistent malady in our society. People from all walks of life are among the afflicted, be they rural or urban, educated or not so educated, young or old. They are a very vulnerable lot, something repeatedly borne out by a number of recent, well publicised incidents. The latest of these was the case of the  fatal misadventures at a faith healing prayer meeting conducted by an allegedly fundamentalist Christian sect at the Vihara Maha Devi Park in Colombo at the beginning of this month.

Incidentally, if some of us feel tempted to jump into the conclusion that the practice of faith healing itself is nothing but a hoax, such a judgement itself could be a result of a serious lack of common sense. For one thing, faith healing is not an exclusively Christian practice. In our own country faith healing has been tried from time immemorial, as it is being done even today in non-Christian religious contexts (though the term faith cure/faith healing is not used), the object of faith being other unseen powers (than the Christian godhead). The priests involved will have us believe that their gods are behind the efficacy of  such cures;  rationalists might say that there is no divine intervention at all in these cases, attributing the salutary effects, if any, to such scientifically explicable causes as hypnosis, self-suggestion, etc. For most ordinary people, however, faith healing still remains a mystery, and more importantly, a source of succour especially when afflicted with incurable diseases. 

The Christian practice of faith healing is said to be based on the following passage from the Holy Bible:

"And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him".

(James 5.15)

Christian believers can justifiably argue (within their belief system) that if the prayer of faith is conducted in the purity of heart by the supplicants, their prayers will be answered, but that when this basic and single condition is not fulfiled, they cannot expect good results.

Most of the masses who feel encouraged to seek relief from such a source are in the dark about it, or do not possess a proper understanding of this fundamental requisite. But what they should know by now is the generally well publicised "record" of these fanatical ‘Christian’ zealots whose infamous methods of proselytising are roundly condemned by  the ordinary adherents of all faiths.

Shockingly, a man (presumably a Buddhist) who had attended the particular  prayer service interviewed by a certain local TV channel claimed that his decision to do so was approved by a Buddhist monk! Such is the depth of ignorance that even some of our monks display!

Buddhist monks are conspicuously associated with the proposed unethical conversion legislation. Among predictable repercussions of the Vihara Maha Devi Park incident a renewed call for such legislation will be foremost. Though legal measures alone  wouldnbe adequate to stop religious fundamentalism from making inroads into Sri Lanka’s rural hinterland where the ordinary folk are  traditionally tolerant, peaceful, (seemingly at least) rather docile , they will, to a certain extent, serve to neutralize the threat of a dangerous reaction from the victimised groups against religious extremists. Fortunately our country has been almost entirely free from religion-based conflicts. However, the enemies of the Sri Lankan state may be trying to provoke such clashes to further tarnish its international image. While laws against unethical conversions could be hard to implement, their promulgation alone would represent at least a symbolic act of defiance against religious aggression, which might discourage irate elements from among the aggrieved taking the law into their own hands.

Which known crime in human society hasn’t led to the  enactment of laws against it? And which crime has been totally eliminated through legislation? It will be the same with this problem of unethical conversion. Yet, there’s no need to despair, for a commonsensical approach is likely to prove more effective  in checking this menace than any legislation, draconian or otherwise.

The fundamentalists usually target the innocent poor of the rural villages. They are mostly peasants and unskilled labourers with a low level of education. For them the material allurements that the crafty missionaries dangle before them are more than welcome. Such is their misery. If the price they must pay for these benefits is apostasy,  they will not hesitate to  say, "So be it", because they are naturally more concerned with the here and now than with the hereafter!  

Therefore, in order to protect their respective flocks from these predatory wolves, the religious leaders and teachers of those vulnerable communities must do everything to uplift them first materially, and then spiritually. It was the Buddha who once had a hungry man fed before he taught him the Dhamma, saying that every being subsists on food:  adequate material wellbeing is a prerequisite for spiritual enlightenment.

Buddhist monks, since they form the majority among religious guides and minister to the largest following, have a particularly important role to play in this context. They themselves are supposed to be  mendicants living on alms offered by the pious, practising asceticism, and providing spiritual succour to the laity in return. However, for most Sri Lankan monks life is not so hard. Many Buddhist viharas are materially well endowed. It would be good if the monks decided, as some of them already seem to have done, to improve the lot of their  followers and others who are poor by whatever means possible, without allowing them to fall prey to impostors. Such a course of action  will be far more effective than any parliamentary legislation or mass agitation in stemming the tide of religious fanaticism devouring certain sections of the country’s population.