Sunday Times 2
Buddhist heritage and interference by lay authorities
The maha sangha lead a life of austerity from a very young age as samaneras and become upasampada bhikkhus, obtain an education with great difficulty, and serve the nation perhaps more than political authorities.
Rulers were created, according to all religions, by the consensus of humans when conflicts arose among them. Agganna sutta and several other sermons in the Buddhist doctrine analyse how and why the rulers were chosen; the inhabitants who came from the Abhassara world, found the need for leaders to bring peace and harmony in the community, especially when the yield was to be divided equitably among the farmers. The sutta elaborates, how ‘badalatha’ an edible plant came to being, and ‘el hal’, a kind of rice sprang-up and the collective efforts by the community to cultivate and receive the yield, but the ignorance, and craving in humans prevented them from receiving the yields equitably. They then selected a leader to adjudicate on quarrelsome behaviour and conduct of the humans; this episode of eons past, was supposed to be the origin of leaders among humans. Gita mentions the triumvirate among the pantheon of gods, Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva, the creator, protector, and destroyer of the humans and earth, and the creation of rulers. Christianity, relates how Adam and Eve erred, and ate the forbidden fruit and he created the persons looking after the welfare of humans. Islam similarly, relates how the great Allah, regulates actions of humans, and how the Holy Prophet was sent as messenger and how leaders arose. The religious leaders themselves became the guardians of peace and tranquility in society, and advisors to rulers, and the leaders in turn protected the religions and the religious dignitaries.
In this blessed land of ours too, the ruling classes sprang up when permanent settlements were established, even before the advent of Aryans. These leaders continued either as royalty, or as chieftains; after the introduction of the Buddhist doctrine, these leaders utilised the teachings to introduce morality and ethics to the society; thus the doctrine had a profound effect on the worldly life of persons and their spiritual advancement. The land became the ‘protector of the doctrine’ according to Buddhist scriptures. The sangha, one of the three ratnas had to be protected by the kings, as they became the doctrinal advisors to the king as well as the inhabitants. They were highly educated and the education of the people too lay in their hands. The kings built viharas and dagabas and enshrined the relics of the Buddha in them. Ruwanweli Seya, Mirisawetiya and other sacred sites came into being and their sustenance became also the responsibility of the kings. The story begins with Arahant Mahinda preaching the ‘Culla haththipadopama sutta’ and ‘Devaduta sutta,’ and suttas like ‘Balapanditha-Sutta’, during their first encounter at Maha-Megha park. They contained the sublime essence of good and bad as a ruler following the doctrine. When the sacred Bo sapling was brought the king went knee-deep in water to receive the gift from Theri Sanghamitta. How King Devanam Piyatissa listened to the sermons of Mahinda Thera in the woods of Mihintale is fascinating history of which all Sri Lankans are proud inheritors. Later the arrival of danta dhatu, the sacred tooth relic with Princess Hemamala and Prince Danta from Jambudhdveepa, present Orissa, and their enshrinement in a chaitya in Anuradhapura which became a “guardian of the land” for centuries to follow. The sangha, the monarchy and the laymen protected each other from any impending calamity, including foreign invasions, and destruction of Buddhist monuments. In all periods of history this phenomenon continued including during the era of western domination. The Vihara Devalagam Ordinance, and the Buddhist Temporalities Ordinance during these periods and also the Convention of Kandy, assured the protection of the doctrine and Buddhist places of worship.
After independence successive Governments continued with the supreme pedestal on which Buddhism was placed, although, there were some attempts at non-implementation of proposals of the Buddha Sasana Commission. They were later implemented on the urgings of the sangha, and Buddhist intellectuals. There were also some excesses by persons in robes and they were requested to disrobe. Generally, the doctrine, the sangha, and the Buddhist temples were protected.
Recently there had been some ‘un-Buddhist’ actions, and pronouncements by the rulers who are vested with the responsibility of protecting the very foundation of our Buddhist civilisation, as described above. This aspect is clearly spelt out in the Asgiri Maha Vihara Statements on the uncalled for actions by some ruling hierarchy. They include taking of Buddhist monks into custody, for making statements ‘which could disturb national reconciliation’, speaking rather disparagingly about Buddhist monks, and making statements that temple administrations of some temples would be vested with ruling hierarchy. These are made supposedly to rectify some so-called excesses by the Buddhist clergy. Although, the creation of a Mahasammatha, according to Buddhist literature was to eradicate social evils, the successive ‘prathagjana’, worldly rulers became dabblers in worldly pleasures that proper justice was not enacted anywhere. It became a phenomenon globally, throughout history. In some parts of the world protectors of spiritual upliftment, the clergy too engaged in unethical ungodly, economical pursuits that there were conflicts between the papacy and the monarchy. In Lankan Buddhist history this phenomenon was less visible as the role of the venerable monks was strictly spiritual in character except when their advice was sought by the kings. The Buddhist clergy were the protectors of the doctrine as propounded in the teachings.
There were however schisms in the sangha organisations, like the Maha Vihara and the Abhayagiri Vihara. In the face of foreign invasions from Chola, Pandya, Chera, and Kerala, the kings intervened to protect the Buddhist places of worship. The invaders themselves, at times reconstructed, or rebuilt some monuments, as they too were very conversant with the teachings of the Buddha which was preserved in their lands. There were of course, destruction of sites under invaders like Magha. The kings and the Buddhist monks were able to overcome the political challenges posed by the South Indians. This unbroken link between the Buddhist monks and the monarchy continued except for random conflicts. The kings also took steps to develop relations between the sangha and the kings in the maintenance of the Buddhist places of worship and also the fostering of the doctrinal rules laid down in the scriptures. These accepted norms continued even during western occupations except for some aberrations during the Portuguese period. When the Udarata Convention was drafted there was the clause included to protect the Buddha sasana, and it was signed and followed by the British. However, there was the degeneration of the sangha which was attended to by the sangha themselves, as in the case of bringing the upasampada by Velivita Sri Saranankara Thera. Throughout Lanka’s history therefore, Buddhism was protected in the land for the spiritual attainments of the inhabitants. This trend continued even after independence by successive Governments.
In the 1972 Constitution, Chapter 2 states in Paragraph 6 ‘The Republic of Sri Lanka shall give to Buddhism the foremost place and accordingly it shall be the duty of the State to protect and foster Buddhism while assuring to all religions the rights granted by section 18(1) (d).
In the 1978 Constitution Chapter 2 states in Paragraph 9, ‘The Republic of Sri Lanka shall give to Buddhism the foremost place and accordingly it shall be the duty of the State to protect and foster the Buddha Sasana, while assuring to all religions the rights granted by Articles 10 and 14 (1) (e).
On May 22, 1972 the nation became a republic and in 1978 its name was amended to The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka with a new constitution as certified on August 31, 1978.
The Constitution at independence in 1948, known as the Soulbury Constitution too, had a safeguard to protect Buddhism and also the minority communities. It is clear therefore, that Sri Lanka has maintained a solid foundation for the protection of the doctrine while ensuring the rights of the other religions and communities
Sri Lanka was gifted this tolerance by the doctrine of the blessed one and there had been no discrimination of persons and their rights. It has infact, been ingrained in the Asoka edicts, from which the worldly rules of the State of Lanka were promulgated from the time of the advent of Buddhism. The twin features in any rule was the foremost place granted to Buddhism and the preservation of the rights of all beings. Lanka should not be sermonised on human rights by the so-called world bodies today as these values flow in the blood veins of the inhabitants of this blessed land. The ruling classes may be reminded of this lesson today so that there will be no departures from the respected ethics of the land. In the proposed Constitution, it is said that these basics are not in anyway violated. The countrymen however remain perplexed by different statements by the ruling hierarchy.
There are also pronouncements made to temporarily close one of the foremost historic temples Dambulla to restore the precious Buddhist paintings. Although a laudable objective, there is a process to approach these sensitive issues. The nayaka Theras who had been the custodians of these sacred precincts preserved the cave temples since the time of King Valagambahu. He has granted the temple, lands around the rock to a distance where the sound of the bera handa (drum beat) emanating from the rock caves can be heard. It signifies the mode of protectionism implemented, economically, of the temple, of course under the feudal system. These lands were cultivated according to the Rajakariya System by the tenant farmers. Perhaps, some of them have been donated to the ‘ande cultivators’ on the strict understanding that the temple rajakariya should be performed whenever called for. It is the system followed by even the sacred temple of the tooth relic and also temples in historic Anuradhapura, Polonnaruwa, Dambadeniya, Kurunegala, Yapahuwa, Gampola, Kotte, and Maha-Nuwara. Different methods of tenure systems are adopted by these temples now as it becomes difficult to follow the same feudal system; employing others and paying them from the income from these properties, and employing persons especially for perahera seasons are two of them. The donations given by the devotees is another source of income to these temples. How these incomes could be effectively utilised is a subject falling under the chief incumbent of the temple. There should be consultations with the sangha on all matters pertaining to the temple, including preservation of the archeological heritage of the monuments. The lay authorities could seek the advice of the maha sangha in the processes to be undertaken as they are the ones who have been growing up with the temples. As suggested in the Sunday Times comments page of July 16 the restoration of paintings of the viharas at the Dambulla cave could be undertaken cave by cave. It does not have to be closed for pujas and public viewing. This was the practice followed when reconstruction was undertaken even previously. The political authorities perhaps need to be educated on these practices before they are asked to make public statements.
The maha sangha had been the custodians of not merely the temples but the preservation of the dhamma. They lead a life of austerity from a very young age as samaneras and become upasampada bhikkhus, obtain an education with great difficulty, and serve the nation perhaps more than political authorities. This was the crux of the value system ingrained in the Buddhist society of Lanka. The lay politician has to obtain advice from these Theras as they know what is best for our motherland. The rhetoric by some monks seems to overstep the vinaya to be followed by the sangha. They are the exception than the rule, but as the Asgiri Mahanayaka Thera has stated the content of the statements is more important than how they are presented. When dealing with them, the lay authorities should perhaps balance the prestige that Sri Lanka has earned as the ‘prime citadel of the doctrine’ with the mode employed to suppress their excesses, so that no harm is brought to the respect earned by our mother land. The images that go into the internet seem to damage us globally. Our minds should go back to the days when monks in Vietnam and Cambodia self -immolated to liberate their countries.
One last thought. The societal strata is always made up of the clergy above laypersons and even rulers. The rulers should have a good formal education and possess an enlightened “three Hs – head, heart, and hand”. For this learning a bit of history is imperative, which was pushed away as unnecessary, sometime ago; our thrice blessed land is sacred to us.
(The writer was a foreign service ambassador.)