Buddhist law and constitutional amendments

The article titled “Prof. Pieris says Buddha Dhamma recognized as source of law under Constitution” was discussed after its publication on September 12, 2026. The expression “Yanne Koheda? Malle Pol” was mentioned to highlight the apparent disconnect in logic of the piece. The report centered around Chief Justice's remarks regarding a petition against the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution.

The Chief Justice's statement about making the decision based on established law instead of Buddhist teachings was deemed as a dismissive attitude towards the Buddha Dhamma. However, the critique points out the lack of specifics in identifying which Buddhist tenets were allegedly violated, which prevented any legal or philosophical assessment of the claim.

The report overlooked the distinct definitions of "Buddhism" and "Buddha Dhamma," which are often used interchangeably but represent different concepts. This distinction is critical in understanding the context of the debate. While Buddhism is a broad term that encompasses various forms and traditions, Buddha Dhamma refers to the specific teachings of the Buddha, which include ethical principles and practices for achieving enlightenment.

The critique also emphasized the structural hierarchy of Buddhism, specifically the role of the Sasana in preserving and transmitting the Buddha's teachings. It clarified that the Sasana operates through three tiers – Pariyatti Sasana (study and preservation of texts), Paṭipatti Sasana (ethical conduct and meditation), and Paṭivedha Sasana (direct experiential realization).

While state support can be extended to the first tier through educational means, it cannot legislate or enforce the ethical or experiential aspects of Buddhism. Furthermore, the Buddha Dhamma is not a set of rigid commandments or legal statutes but rather ethical guidelines for personal spiritual development. The critique debunked the notion that the state could enforce Buddhist doctrines, noting that spiritual realizations are inherently personal and cannot be legally mandated.

It also discussed how the Buddha Dhamma's teachings on natural laws and the importance of respecting established laws and traditions were not about enforcing arbitrary regulations but about promoting societal balance through moral and ethical conduct. The Buddha explicitly highlighted in the Maha Parinibbana Sutta that states should prioritize economic opportunities and fair distribution of resources rather than imposing rigid legal codes.

Thus, the critique argued that the Chief Justice's adherence to constitutional jurisprudence over religious doctrine was not a dismissal of the Buddha Dhamma but a correct interpretation of legal principles. The article's framing of the judiciary's actions as an attack on the Dhamma was criticized for misguiding the public for political gain, highlighting the importance of adhering to fundamental constitutional principles.