Introduction:
The Dualism of a Non-dual Tradition
Society
in Balance: The "Positive Disintegration"
of Not-self (anatta)
and Ethics (sila)
The
Growth of Mythic Dualism and the Shift in Organizational Culture
Sri Lanka: A Case Study in Reformation and Deformation
Movement
towards the Center: The Over-Integration of the Monk
Movement
Towards the Periphery: the Re-Integration of the Monk
Conclusion
Introduction:
The Dualism of a Non-dual Tradition
One of the ways
Shakyamuni Buddha's enlightenment has been explained is through
his penetrating insight into Not-self (anatta) and Voidness
(sunnata). The key characteristic of this insight is a
deep understanding of the non-dual nature of existence; that our
hardened distinctions between self and other, good and evil are
fabrications of an ignorant mind. The realization that follows
this understanding is that if the world is non-dual, then all
phenomena are inter-related and interdependent, sometimes referred
to as the law of dependent co-origination (paticca samuppada).
It is ironic then that the Buddhist tradition has been perpetually
caught in a dualism that has been the source of great sectarianism
and unending debates even up to the present time. This tension
surrounds two contentions about the path that the Buddha taught
towards enlightenment and the achievement of sentient beings'
greatest potential: one is through a rejection of the mundane
world to pursue the solitary ascetic practices of the monastic
(the hinayana interpretation); the other is through the building
of egalitarian communities (sangha) for both monastic and lay
in which relationships infused with the Buddha's ethical teachings
of compassion create the conditions for a comprehensive awakening
of all beings (the mahayana interpretation).
This is a battle line that appears to have been drawn rather early
on in the development of the tradition, at least from the time
of the 2nd Buddhist Council and the schism of the monastic sangha
into the Sthaviravadins and the Mahasamghikas in the fourth century
B.C. This line has not only caused the monastic sangha to schism
but has always created a tension between the monastic and lay
sanghas - from one side, that the monastics are the true heirs
to the Buddha's teachings and by virtue of their maintenance of
the Vinaya are the only ones capable of achieving nirvana in this
lifetime; and from the other side, that the Buddha consciously
established the monastic sangha to be dependent on the lay sangha
for material support and to co-create a religious community in
which lay followers could equally follow the path to nirvana.
Today, this line is recreated in new ways such as in modern scholarship
with those who rely on the textual tradition as authoritative
of the Buddha's teaching and those who look at the popular tradition
as it exists in reality as the definitive expression of Buddhism
(Schopen, 1997). This line also divides modern practitioners of
Buddhism with those who see it as a method of individual, internal
development by which to transcend various personal problems (the
New Agers) and those who see it as the basis for an alternative
type of social renewal which can lead us beyond the ills of feudalism
and modernity (the socially engaged Buddhists). Ironically enough,
it has usually not occurred to proponents of either camp that
these two viewpoints are not really contentious but rather
complementary
- that the Buddha in all his awakened insight perhaps saw these
two positions as forming a creative tension which could enable
the Dhamma and the Sangha to grow in a balanced way.
In this paper, I will examine this other-worldly/this-worldly and monastic/lay tension in the Buddha's teachings within the socio-political context of his day. This perpetual tension, or perhaps creative dialectic, may help us understand more deeply the ideal organizational culture of the Buddha's vision for the lay and monastic sangha. Then I will look at how this ideal organizational culture of the four-fold sangha failed to be realized, specifically in Indian and Theravada Buddhism. Finally, I will examine the successes and pitfalls of the attempt to revitalize this ideal organizational culture in the modern reform movements of Sri Lanka.
Society
in Balance: The "Positive Disintegration" of Not-self
(anatta) and Ethics (sila)
The period of
the Buddha (563-483 B.C.) was one of great change in the upper
and middle reaches of the Ganges valley in northeast India. There
had existed federal republics characterized by simpler social
structures, such as a two tiered class system and more subsistent
forms of agriculture based on the largely public ownership of
land (Chakravarti, 1987, 15, 87). However, the increasing use
of iron allowed for more complex forms of agriculture spurring
economic expansion and the rise of the gahapati business
class, especially the more urbanized setthi business class
(Chakravarti, 1987, 16-23). This complexification of society
necessitated
more efficient administrative systems based on centralized
bureaucracies.
This need fueled the drive towards political consolidation and
the rise of monarchies, many made famous in the Buddha's discourses,
such as Magadha and Kosala. The monarchies began swallowing up
the smaller federal republics culminating in the establishment
of the Mauryan Empire in 322 B.C.
We can understand this situation as a sort of "positive disintegration" in which there is growth in diversification and differentiation (in this case a greater variety of social classes) as well as integration and consolidation (economic expansion and more efficient administrative systems) (Macy, 1991, 187). As society became more stratified with wider and more distinct class identities, religious and political elites became more removed from the common people and closer to each other as allies and rivals for power. Chakravarti notes that, "In this movement towards expansion and consolidation, the keynote was politics unhampered by moral restraint" (Chakravarti, 1987, 8). This is evidenced in numerous places in the Buddha's discourses, such as when Ajatasattu of the Magadha kingdom imprisoned and assassinated his own father (Samannaphala Sutta, D.i.85). Thus not only important economic and political changes were taking place, but there were also important qualitative changes taking place in the culture of society at this time. Specifically, we can see that the culture of Brahminism which had entered India from the northwest was becoming increasingly influential and challenging the place of the indigenous pre-Vedic samana tradition of forest asceticism common to this region.
The Buddha is of course well known for challenging the beliefs and practices of Brahmanism. These challenges, however, were not simply confined to religious and spiritual beliefs but what these beliefs meant for how people related to one another and how they constructed their society. As we have seen in previous essays in this issue, the Buddha challenged aspects of Brahmanism which had significant impact on the social order. Principally, the teaching of Not-self (anatta) exposes the various ethical pitfalls of a one-way causality derived from a creator God or eternal Self. When causality as the flow of power or energy is understood as emanating from an immutable and unconditioned centralized force, there is a natural tendency to recreate social organizations based on this world view. Such social organizations are hierarchical, centralized and prone autocratic forms of power. Brahmanism, which emerged from brahmin priests taking a hold of the Vedic religion in such an autocratic way, was clearly a target of the Buddhaﾕs Not-self (anatta) teaching. However, as Brahmanism began to have influence over the political affairs of the emerging monarchies and of the new forms of cultural discourse, the Buddhaﾕs critique of it also extended into social areas, such as his indictment of class inequality based on divine birth from a creator God (Perusha). After the decline of the Mauryan Empire in 185 B.C., this movement grew stronger and articulated the classic Hindu caste system and the divinely legitimized kingship of the Devaraja ("god-king").
The Buddha's critique of Brahmanism was very much based on the viewpoint of the ascetic samana tradition of his home region. He saw the ethical decline of society as rooted in the increasingly powerful world view of Brahmanism. For the Buddha, Brahmanism was a terrible corruption of what the ideal brahmin once was: "The sages of ancient times, possessed of self-control and restrained mind, abandoning the fivefold sensual pleasures, led a life for their own welfare" (Brahmanadhammika Sutta, Sn.II.7:284). However, "having seen the worthless things such as wealth and well-adorned women, there was a change in them"(299). They became jealous of the wealth and pleasures of the aristocratic khattiya class and began to demand sacrifices of them that eventually included cow and animal sacrifice. This not only resulted in the anger of the gods and the fallen virtue of the brahmins but also led to various forms of social decay and social injustice, principally in warring among the classes (300-315). In this way, the Buddha's championing of the ascetic samana model should perhaps be seen as not a rejection of the world but a rejection of the Brahmanistic world which was impinging more and more on this region of India (Chakravarti, 1987, 105, Obeyesekere, 2003, 85-86). The battle between the Buddha's dharma of ethical karmic action and the brahmin's dharma of ritualized karmic action was also indivisibly a battle between two types of social order - one based on egalitarian democracy and another based on autocratic feudalism.
However, while the Buddha clearly promoted the samana way as the optimal means for realizing the highest goal of enlightenment, it is difficult to see this as a promotion of other-worldly asceticism or as a retreat from society, as evidenced in this gatha: "When danger threatens, most people run away to sacred mountains, forests, temples, and shrines. Those are not the highest refuge, they are not truly safe. Dependence upon them is no escape from suffering." (Khemakhemasaranadipika Gatha) Aspects of the Buddha's monastic order represented important diversions from the existing samana culture of the day. For example, the creation of a monastic order with well defined rules for not only internal conduct but also for conduct in relation to non-monastics was a significant development on the samana culture, which in the centuries before this time consisted largely of small and loosely organized bands of wanderers (Chakravarti, 1987, 54; Seneviratne, 1987, 41). The Buddha's acceptance of land from wealthy patrons upon which permanent dwellings could be built for the monastic order also represents a middle way between the nomadic life of the traditional samana and the brahmin priestsﾕ use of donated lands for agricultural production and personal profit (Chakravarti, 1987, 57). As we have seen in the essay from Thailand in this issue, the Buddha developed the fourfold Sangha as a community of reciprocal exchange based on generosity (dana) and intentional ethical action (karma) or the doing of good (punya). It cannot be denied that the role of the Buddhist bhikkhu and bhikkhuni was to occupy a space apart from the normal social milieu. However, it appears the Buddhist monastic order was a significant new cultural form of the times, balancing differentiation from mundane life with integration into a larger social system of relationship.
In this way, the process of "positive disintegration" is not necessarily a fall from grace or a departure from a golden age of simplicity as some would have it. This process in fact is a sign of survival. It affords opportunities for new types of thinking (differentiation) as well as cooperation (integration). It is a proccess which if harnessed properly can be enacted as a means towards making a healthier, more open society (Macy, 1991, 200). In the Buddhaﾕs teachings, we find this opportunity, principally in his ethicization of Vedic ritual and samana yoga. Based in the interdependent causality of a selfless (anatta) universe, the Buddhaﾕs sense of morality and ethics was not authoritarian or rigid. Rather, in various suttas, we can see the Buddha continually addressing moral issues in a fluid manner within the context of complex social relationships. He developed different sets of moral norms to guide the maintenance of various communities, for example, the guidelines for a moral king (dhammaraja) in the Cakkavatti Sutta, for the householder in the Sigalovada Sutta (D.iii. 180-193), and for the republican congresses in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta (D.ii.74). In this third discourse, these principles are extended to similar ones for the maintenance of an ideal egalitarian community, the order of monks and nuns. All of these systems rather than legitimizing the use of power by some over others support the conditions for responsible communication through mutual respect, self-restraint and the proper use of speech. When these conditions are met, all members of a community become potential centers of power in being able to create or prevent change (Brown, 1990, 170). In this way, we can see how the existential and cosmic proposition of Not-self (anatta) has direct relationship to the ethical culture and the society of those who subscribe to it.
On the broader
socio-political
scale, the Buddhaﾕs cosmic and ethical vision indicates the need
for the differentiation and integration of the religious and the
secular and of the personal and the social. In this way, the two
domains of church and state should exist as distinct but interconnected
parts of a whole, rather being rigidly kept apart as in modern
secular society. This ideal can be found in modern democracies
in the checks and balances between the judiciary, executive and
legislative branches. Such differentiation and integration creates
a "steady state" or "flux-balance" when the
proper tension between opposing forces is maintained (Macy, 1991,
73). The Buddha appears to have had this sense in the way he viewed
the balance between the ruling elite (khattiya), economic
elite (gahapati), and religious elite (brahmanas).
During the Buddhaﾕs time, these gahapati were the most
prominent lay followers of the Buddha supporting the material
needs of the monastic community. This close alliance obviously
exerted a certain kind of check on the power of the ruling elite.
Yet at the same time, many of the members of the monastic community
came from these ruling families, as the Buddha did, while very
few came from the gahapati class (Chakravarti, 1987, 134).
Perhaps the potential for these former aristocrats to be drawn
back into political affairs is another reason for the Buddhaﾕs
strong prohibition on political involvement by the monastic community.
Indeed, he makes it very clear that these two vocations are to
be kept separate, and instructions are made to the monks to stay
well clear of political matters (Brahmajala Sutta, D.i.7-8).
The Buddhaﾕs separation of the religious from the political then
can be seen not as a retreat from society but rather as an
understanding
of the need for the maintenance of a healthy social system by
differentiating the domains of church and state. His further balancing
of religious and economic concerns fills out this picture of what
we would consider today an ideal civil society that harmonizes
church, state and market through a series of ethical relationships.
The
Growth of Mythic Dualism and the Shift in Organizational Culture
As we have seen
above, it is possible to construct the image of the Buddha and
the first monastic community as maintaining an ideal balance between
renunciation (differentiation) and social interaction (integration).
We can also construct an image of a just Buddhist society in which
morality (sila) formed the means for harmonizing power
in various sectors and securing justice. While these are certainly
creative constructions on my part, I think they can be helpful
in better understanding how Buddhism developed in relation to
economic and political forces. Furthermore, I think the creative
tension that exists in "positive disintegration"
itself between differentiation and integration can help us see
more clearly the growth of the tensions in Buddhism that I mentioned
in my introduction. When the balance of this creative tension
was lost and lead to either too much differentiation (alienation)
or too much integration (homogenization), the character of Buddhist
religious and social institutions moved away from one based in
the shared power of ethics to ones based in the autocratic power
of personality and property.
The Monastic Tension
and the Myth of the Ascetic
As we have seen, the original creative tension of the Buddhaﾕs
vision is in his attempt to harmonize the worldly life of textual
study and ritual of the brahmin priest and the other-worldly life
of ascetic yoga of the samana. These two modes are themselves
expressed in the Buddha's own developmental experience: his years
as a youth studying the Vedic texts and his years living in the
samana tradition of forest asceticism after his renunciation of
the world. These modes are further epitomized in his two top disciples,
Shariputta who was know for his great wisdom and Mahakassapa who
was know for his great ascetic powers. In the development of the
monastic sangha, these two modes increased in differentiation,
growing into two distinct streams of monastic vocation: the forest
ascetics (vipassana dhura) and the scholar monks (gantha
dhura) (Gomez, 1987).
The integration of these two groups, however, could not keep pace with their differentiation and eventually the balance tipped towards the scholar monks. A critical factor in this process was the continued development of monastic properties and monasteries through the patronage of political and economic elites, many of whom we are already familiar with during the days of the Buddha himself. While the vipassana dhura maintained its distance and differentiation from society, the gantha dhura became more and more integrated into society while developing its ties to political and economic power. The comforts of a life of study within a large well-maintained monastery no doubt appealed to a larger mass of monastics daunted by the more rigorous path of the forest ascetic. As the period of the Buddha, the perfectly self-enlightened one, and his enligetened discples began to fade into an histrocial memory, the vipassana dhura became a more romantic ideal not only for the lay but for the monastics themselves. Thus in number and socio-political influence the vipassana dhura became more marginal and consequently more mythical. I use the term "myth" here not to dismiss the real value of ascetic practice but to highlight how the "image" of the ascetic bhikkhu was developed and used in the institutionalization of Buddhism. This myth developed in two important ways: as the sacred poverty of the bhikkhu and as the sacred other-worldliness of the bhikkhu.
As the monastic order continued to grow after the death of the Buddha, patronage from political and economic elite began to involve the building of great monasteries. During the apex of Buddhism as a civilizational force from the time of Ashoka (r.270-232 B.C.) to its demise in India in the 9th century, these monasteries "commanded extensive resources of land and labor and were often actively involved in commercial enterprises" (Reynolds & Hallisey, 1987, 344). Although they were dependent on the security and material prosperity afforded by such patronage, the contact they developed with each other across the regions of Central Asia, China, India and Sri Lanka afforded them a somewhat independent base of power which was aloof from state power. The key point to see in this development is that the myth of the monk's sacred poverty was an engine for this growth, for the greater the spiritual power of the monk as demonstrated in a lifestyle of ascetic poverty, the greater the merit gained by supporting all his material needs. The perpetuation and even extension of this myth created benefits for the elites by sacralizing their material prosperity as benefactors of the Sangha and for the monastic institutions which grew from this benevolence. As the process developed and the monasteries became more prosperous, the myth of poverty certainly became more mythical. This was one critical step towards the over integration of the religious sphere with the political and especially the economic sphere.
The second myth which comes out of this ascetic ideal is the monk as a "world renouncer", unconcerned and uninvolved with mundane social matters, especially political ones. It is quite easy to find instances of the Buddha being involved in mundane social affairs, whether telling King Ajatassatu of the conditions by which republican congresses remain prosperous (Mahaparinibbana Sutta, D.ii.74) or averting the war over water resources between the Shakyan and Koliyan republics (J.v.412-14). However, it is during the reign of Ashoka that we see the monarchy and the monastic sangha playing on this myth of other worldliness to actually conflate political and religious power. Ashoka was not a mere benefactor of the monastic sangha, but a lay devotee with ultimate temporal power. He became deeply involved in monastic affairs through his intervention in monastic disputes and occasional purges of the Sangha of "heretics". Although we can debate the ethical intent of Ashoka's actions, they have served as a seminal model in the development of Buddhist states, principally in the Theravadan countries, throughout history (Chakravarti, 1987, 175).
Ashoka appears in the Theravadin tradition as the greatest kind of lay follower of Buddhism. As a dhammaraja, he was not only eminently righteous and a benefactor of the Sangha, but he also was a protector and, in turn, a regulator of the Sangha. The Sangha was in need of such protection and regulation because it was a repository of the society's moral values as the ideal community which must be guarded for the continued prosperity of the state. The integrity and purity of the Sangha depended on its differentiation from mundane society. It could not be sullied by the temptations of sensuality and power. And so who better to guard this sacred differentiation than the moral king (dhammaraja)? Thus the ideal of religious and political differentation was warped into a myth of monastic disassociation or world-renunciation which legimitized the stateﾕs control over the Sangha and the Sanghaﾕs inevitable politicization (Seneviratne, 1987). As with the myth of poverty, the conflation of political and religious spheres had a definitive effect on the organizational culture of society.
The Monastic Sangha's
Movement Towards Political and Economic Power
The development
of these two myths had important ramifications for the fate of
Buddhism in India and its subsequent development in especially
the countries where Theravada Buddhism became dominant. One of
the important early developments which appears to have sowed the
seeds of Buddhismﾕs decline in India was that from an organizational
standpoint, the monastic order became too much the focus of Buddhist
community life (Reynolds & Hallisey, 1987). The Vinaya and
the fortnightly uposatha at which all monastics gathered
to review their observance of the Vinaya helped to create a systematic
organization for the monastic sangha which the lay sangha lacked.
Lay Buddhism developed in terms of the monastics and always as
a derivative or inferior form of practice. As we have seen above,
the greatest lay examplars became the economic elite, who could
best safeguard the mythic poverty of the monastic sangha through
offering the best material requisites, and the political elite,
who could best safeguard the mythic renunciation of the monastic
sangha through regulation. As these three spheres became more
conflated, Buddhism as an institutional and organizational body
became more and more removed from the common people, confining
itself to its scholarly pursuits in giant monasteries.
Subsequent regime changes, such as the replacement of the Buddhist oriented Mauryan Dynasty with the Brahmanistic-Hindu Sunga Dynasty in 186 B.C., suddenly left Buddhism very exposed institutionally. However, Buddhism continued to grow and gain state patronage in other regions, such as central India with the Satavahana dynasty, northwestern India with the Kushan empire, and Sri Lanka under Dutthagamani. Yet these institutional failures, especially to develop meaningful lay institutions on the ground, left Buddhism susceptible to rising devotional or bhakti movements. These movements repopularized Vedic rituals and cult sacrifices and seemed better equipped to assimilate the religion of the people and win the support of the ruling class (Gomez, 1987). In this way, Brahmanistic-Hinduism may have been preferred over Buddhism for its greater ability to meld together a religious ethic with a particular ethnic and socio-political order, thus providing a powerful elixir to conflate religion and nationalism to unite the people against invaders or to mobilize them for conquest. In any event, it appears that when Muslim invaders destroyed the great Buddhist universities of Nalanada and Vikramasila around 1200 and dispersed the monastic order, there was neither the support among the elite or the common people for the reconstitution of Buddhism (Goyal, 1987, 393).
Buddhismﾕs inferiority in molding state and ethnicity together at this time shows its superiority in forging a wider civilizational identity that enabled it to prosper beyond India. These nationalistic and universalistic aspects both played important roles in the subsequent development of Theravada Buddhist states in Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia. The nationalistic tendency drew on the concept of the deva-raja (god-king), based on the Brahmanistic model of the close association between state and church elite. The influence of this Brahmanistic idea of divine monarchy was clearly present, though of varying degree, in these kingdoms. In the Angkor Period of 12th century Cambodia, Saivism and Mahayana Buddhism were brought together, and both Suryavarman I and Jayavarman VII were seen as incarnate buddhas (buddha-raja) (Swearer, 1987). Through Angkor's influence, the distinction between devaraja and dhammaraja also become blurred in the development of the emerging state of Thailand next door. In Sri Lanka, the monarch was also often considered a bodhisattva or nascent buddha and was addressed as deyiyo buduvanda - "Oh you God! Who would one day become Buddha" (Ariyaratne, 1996, 134).
In this way, the myth of the devaraja and the myth of monastic poverty and other-worldliness served to collapse the differentiations between church, state and market that the Buddha had envisioned. In terms of the organization of the lay and monastic sangha, the domination of the scholar monks (gantha dhura) led to the mythification of various aspects of the samana way which appear central to the Buddhaﾕs teaching, such as the monaticﾕs voluntary poverty and differentiation from society as well as the realization of nirvana itself. With nirvana mythologized in the great attainments of the Buddha and his direct disciples, the practice of the average monk became less on realization of this increasingly unattainable goal and more on the ritualized practice of the monastic Vinaya and the rote memorization of the suttas (Ray, 1994). For the lay person, the goal of enlightenment became so distant that further samsara in the form of more favorable rebirths became the central goal, which was achieved through the ritualized merit making of fetischized generosity (dana) in providing for the monastic's requisites. The result, not surprisingly, has been that the Buddha's notion of karma as intentional (cetana) ethical action morphed back into a Brahmanistic one of ritual action by which to gain heaven and avoid hell. This organizational development fed into the larger socio-political one in which the monarch, instead of being "the Peopleﾕs Choice" (Maha-Sammata) as in the Agganna Sutta or an ethical ruler (dhammaraja) as in the Cakkavatti Sutta, became a divine ruler (devaraja) who was "a repository of merit linking the kingdom to the cosmos and possessing, both in his person and in his office, a relationship to the invisible world by which his body and his actions were made sacred" (Steinberg, 1987, 60). The transference of the mythical qualities of an enlightened bhikkhu onto the monarch helped to create various state-sanctifying rituals conflating the state, the religion and the people.
As we have seen, ethics
(sila) supports the conditions for responsible communication
and the sharing of power. This in turn fosters a culture where
church, state and market are properly differentiated and integrated.
When Buddhists are able to establish their communities in such
a way, Buddhism is able to act as a civilization force which favors
no single race, country, or class and provides a common basis
for the uniting of diverse peoples across regions. However, when
ethics and communication become ritualized, power stagnates and
loses its void (sunnata) and interdependent qualities.
In this way, the organizational culture shifts to a dualistic
mode in which integration becomes domination and differentiation
becomes alienation. That is, those who exist within the community
or sphere of power must obey the centralized source of power;
those who do not will be alienated or shunned; and those who originally
exist without will either become objects for domination and total
alienation (death). When Buddhists establish communities in such
a way, Buddhism becomes a chauvinistic cultural force which differs
in no way from similar forms of Christianity and Islam from which
it prides itself on being so different. In this last section of
this paper, we will examine just such a case.
Sri
Lanka: A Case Study in Reformation
and Deformation
In
this second half, we look at the specific case of Sri Lankan Buddhism
in order
to see how Buddhists have attempted to reform a feudalistic
organizational
culture based in the ritualization of karma and merit making. The
original
pre-colonial political systems of Sri Lanka and the other Theravada
Buddhist
kingdoms were ones of "galactic polities" with center-oriented
societies
that had shifting boundaries. Although the central state structure
often
exhibited the over-integration of religious and political power
discussed
above, the technical inability to regulate vast areas and large
populations
engendered a "devolutionary process of power parcelization" with
checks and balances on patrons and clients (Tambiah, 1992:173-174).
This lack
of strong centralization allowed for diversity and differentiation
throughout a
system in which minority populations found their places in multi-ethnic
areas
on the edges of such kingdoms (e.g. Tamils and Muslims in Northern Sri
Lanka,
hill peoples in the mountainous regions between Burma and Thailand).
Where the
state was weak and society less economically stratified, religion could
also exhibit
stronger ethical tendencies alongside the ritualistic ones. Thus, in
the more
rural localized societies away from the center, Buddhist institutions
and monks
were closer to the people and could use their power for more ethical
ends in a
variety of social roles supporting the integration of society
(Ariyaratne,
1996:137). Such societies perhaps resemble most closely the romantic
ideal of
the early sangha in which monks and the common people lived closely
together,
before the advent of the great landed monasteries.
Yet
we should also remember that the
closer one moved to the center, the greater the conflation of power
between the
spheres of religion, state, and market. In each of these Theravadin
Buddhist
societies, we find examples of large, wealthy, land-owning monasteries
whose
monks were politically compromised. To make a very long story short,
western
colonial imperialism struck a huge blow to the feudal and often
chauvinistic
organizational culture of these Theravadin Buddhist states. The
dissolution of
the monarchies and the establishment of secular, nation-state
structures in the
colonial and post-independence eras brought an end to devarajas and social structures built
on merit and
ritual. For Buddhism, the advance of the secular state was, and
continues to
be, perhaps the greatest institutional challenge it has faced in its
long
history. Once the institution of the divine monarchy came to an end in
Sri
Lanka and Burma, and as a real political force in Thailand and
Cambodia, what
could the Sangha expect but the same fate?
This crisis
has led to modern reform
movements in these countries that have been called Protestant Buddhism
and,
more recently, Socially Engaged Buddhism. Sri Lanka is perhaps the most
notable
of these cases, because the quasi-monk Angarika Dharmapala (1864-1933)
developed the first of these great reform movements. Like similar
reform
movements in Thailand and among untouchables in India, Dharmapala's new
Buddhism emphasized rationalism, material development, and engaged
public service
while heavily criticizing traditional ritualism and merit-making.
The key point
in Dharmapala's vision is
what I will call the concept of "reciprocal merit." As other
essays
in this issue have shown, within the traditional merit making system,
the lay
sangha gives material sustenance to the monastic sangha, while the
monastic
sangha offers back some spiritual edification, principally in the
traditional
dharma talk. The role of the monk in merit transfer is generally quite
passive
or indirect – that is if a monk maintains and develops his spiritual
powers or perfections (parami)
through observing the Vinaya, studying the suttas, and perhaps
meditating,
merit is automatically
transferred to the person who supports such a monastic. In this way,
the ritual
act of transference - the merit-making ritual - becomes central.
However, for
Dharmapala and other modern Buddhist reformers, this notion of
merit-making not
only did not conform to the original teachings of the Buddha and his
intent for
the monastic Sangha. It also became a serious impediment to the
material
development of the people and the nation, because the people’s
resources went
to constructing religious edifices and institutions rather than on
meeting the
basic needs of the people, which were often more dire than the monks’.
Instead,
Dharmapala reinterpreted the ritual act of merit-making in more
reciprocal
terms, whereby monks became leaders and supporters for the material as
well as
spiritual needs of the lay sangha. In this way, the traditional idea of
the
monk as a passive provider of merit, or as a "field of merit" (punyakkheta), was turned on its head, and
the monk
was transformed into a much more active source of merit through social
service.
It appears the Dharmapala and other like-minded reformers were trying
to
recover the original meaning of punya as “doing good,” rather than
as making ritual merit.
The
subsequent movements which emerged
out of Dharmapala's vision picked up on the economic aspect through the
promotion of rural regeneration through a self-sufficient, largely
agricultural
economy (Seneviratne, 1999). They also picked up on Dharmapala's
critique of secular
modernism and colonialism and his promotion of political independence
and
national integrity (for which economic independence was essential). As
noted
earlier, the widening gap (or differentiation) between lay and monastic
due to
the myths of poverty and other-worldliness encouraged the development
of
ritualistic merit-making as the core of Buddhist practice, especially
for the
lay sangha. Dharmapala narrowed this distance between lay and monastic
and
reintegrated the monk into society by reformulating the monk's
reciprocal and
material merit in terms of social service. Unfortunately, this did not
turn out
to be a clean and neat solution to the problem of ritualistic
merit-making.
Instead, a new problem arose: how should this new ideal of "social
service" be defined? For one group in Sri Lanka, epitomized by the
monks
of Vidyodaya University, it meant returning to the periphery of the
state and
to the people at the grassroots in order to work for their economic and
spiritual well-being. For another group, epitomized by the monks of
Vidyalankara University, this meant rediscovering their place at the
center of
the state in order to rebuild the sacred trinity of state, people, and
religion
that had been destroyed by colonial imperialism.
Movement
towards the Center: The Over-Integration of the Monk
In
the colonial and post-independence eras, the Sangha became increasingly
irrelevant.
Its ceremonial role as sanctioning the divine authority of the monarch
was not
needed, and its functional role in a wide variety of cultural,
educational, and
social activities at the grassroots was replaced by modern, secular and
bureaucratic structures. The two aspects of Dharmapala’s vision both
sought to
re-integrate the Sangha into the new structures of modern Sri Lankan
society.
On the peripheries, it seems that the still-traditional structure of
the rural
village has helped development monks maintain a healthy level of
integration.
However, the urban monk, educated at the aforementioned two monastic
colleges,
has faced a new and rapidly changing culture. By the advent of
independence in
the late 1940s, the education of the urban business classes largely
surpassed
that of the monks, traditionally the highest educated group in
pre-modern
Theravadin societies. Furthermore, many of these new urban lay people
studied
at Buddhist Theosophical societies and become more "serious" about
their Buddhist ethical and meditative practice than many monks.
Although this
modern urban Buddhism appeared more rational and ethical, the growing
materialism of modern society gave birth to new forms of economic and
politically competitive merit making by the elite. Rather than wanting
a more
modernized and more socially and politically aware monk, many urban lay
people
continued to valorize the mythical bhikkhu of sacred poverty and
other-worldliness by which to make socially conspicuous merit
(Seneviratne,
1999).
It
was to this situation that one of
the inheritors of Dharmapala's modernizing vision, the famous Ven.
Walpola
Rahula, published The Heritage of the Bhikkhu in 1946. Rahula strongly
criticized the
ritualism and cultic activity that many monks were involved in, as well
as the
generally low level of monastic education. He argued that the monk's
role in
social service was to be an essential part of the development of the
nation,
and this included being active in political matters. The Heritage spawned a major ideological
battle over
the role of the monk in politics, which took place in the highly
politicized
environment of post-independence Sri Lanka in the 1950s. With the
victory of
S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike and the Sri Lanka Freedom Party in the 1956
election,
Rahula and his colleagues gained an ally. Shortly afterward, a critical
step
was taken to integrate monks into modern urban society. The two
Buddhist
monastic colleges, Vidyodaya and Vidyalankara, became fully-accredited
four
year universities open to all students, lay and monastic alike. Besides
bringing together young monastics with typical co-eds to share their
university
experience, perhaps of even greater significance was granting salaries
to the
monk-professors. Upon graduation, these monks thus became qualified in
marketable secular subjects (Seneviratne, 1999).
Another
important step was taken a
generation later with the publication of The Contemporary
Generation of
Monks (Vartamana
Bhiksu Parapura)
in
1970. It was written by Ven. Horatapala Palita, a product of this new,
secularized, urban monk education. In this small book, he not only
specifically
stated that "social service" meant participation in political
matters, but also called for a monastic council to revise and update
the Vinaya
to better conform with the existing reality of modern society. Even
more
radically, he called on monks to take gainful employment and cut their
economic
dependence on the laity, which he deemed "an injury to self respect, an
insult to being human" (Seneviratne, 1999:208). Although this trend
towards a secular lifestyle has not been embraced by the majority of
Sri Lankan
monks, by the 1990s there were numerous examples of monks living in
private
residences with their own form of economic support, creating popular
art like nationalistic
war songs, and establishing major entrepreneurial development projects
through
wealthy overseas connections to countries like Japan. Finally, just at
the time
of the writing of this article, perhaps the most unthinkable has
happened - a
group of monks has not only formed an all monastic political party but
also
gained electoral victory to serve in the Sri Lankan parliament.
The
problem with the above situation is not the tragic loss of the
renunciate
bhikkhu who protects the sacred dharma of the Buddha by maintaining sila and knowledge of the suttas,
because, as
we have seen, this is largely a myth that has often been projected
through the
ages in order to justify forms of autocratic power. Rather, the problem
is that
in trying to become a master of this new world, the bhikkhu has become
a
product of it – in opposition to the true meaning of
"other-worldliness" which means to be in the world but not of it. By
completely rejecting the ritualism of traditional monastic-lay
relations, many
of these reformist monks have severed what can be a mutually enriching
bond
with the laity and have became unrooted (Seneviratne, 1999). As
mentioned
earlier, the Buddha found a middle way between the worldliness of the
brahmin
and the other-worldliness of the samana by establishing an
interdependent relationship with the
laity. In this way, these modernist monks of the Rahula heritage
instead of
liberating the rituals from ritualism have merely tried to discard
them. By not
seeing through these rituals as empty (sunnata), not worthy of attachment (upadana) and thus open to reform,
they have
become attached to a new form of ritual (silabbatupadana): a modernized and
secularized lifestyle
freed from the burdens of tradition.
Nevertheless,
these reformers were onto something important in following Dharmapala's
re-invigoration of sila
as engaged ethical conduct. The major mistake made along the way was
neglecting
proper monastic training.
A common critique heard today in Sri Lanka is that young, newly
ordained monks
are quickly put into monastic schools and never properly trained by
their
preceptors in the lifestyle of a bhikkhu (Seneviratne, 1999). With the
rise of
the scholar monks (gantha dhura)
in early Buddhism, the goal of enlightenment was in effect replaced by
the
ritualistic maintenance of the precepts and study of the suttas. In
modern Sri
Lankan Buddhism, the goal of nirvana has become even more remote as the
standard lifestyle of a bhikkhu has been endangered by the nebulous
unrooted
vocation of "social service" in a modern consumer society. Again, the
problem is not with the ideal of "social service," which was a useful
attempt to de-ritualize and ethicize the practice of merit-making. The
problem
is that "social service" has not been balanced by a commitment to
authentic monastic experience. This experience involves periods of
serious
meditation and ascetic practice which supports inner transformation and
a real
ethical grounding for subsequent social service.
From a socio-political point
of view, the over-integration
of monks into modern Sri Lankan society has had more tragic effects.
One of the
fundamental principles of the secular nation-state is the separation
between
church and state. However, this has for the most part remained an ideal
everywhere since the mythic power that originally emanated from the
monarch has
shifted to the state itself. The fanatical and almost religious quality
of
modern nationalism differs very little from the same type of loyalty
and
reverence held for divinely-ordained monarchs. As David Loy notes, "The
eventual disappearance of such absolute rulers did not work to
decentralize that
absolute power" (Loy, 2002:95). In fact, the opposite has been the
result.
With its technical and bureaucratic ability to penetrate to the outer
reaches
of its territories, the modern state has been able to enforce a much
greater
degree of religious, cultural, political and economic homogeneity. In
this way,
the modern nation state has exacerbated the tendency to conflate state,
people,
and religion with its rigidity and power to control all aspects of
life. In the
post-independence era in Sri Lanka, the articulation of a racist and
sectarian
national identity has offered a compelling opportunity for certain
secular
authorities competing for power and for certain monastic authorities
wishing to
recapture the social prestige and power of the Sangha. The cost of
hundreds of
thousands of lives in civil war and the subsequent severe retardation
of the
Sri Lankan economy have been the result of this over-integration of the
political and religious, not to mention the understanding of Buddha
Dhamma as
seen in this slogan written by one nationalist monk: "It is not to be
king
that I bear weapons. I defend my land as Gamunu's son. Country,
religion, race
are my triple gem" (Seneviratne, 1999:274).
Movement
Towards the Periphery: the Re-Integration of the Monk
We have seen that the problem
with the monks who moved
towards the center of power in Sri Lankan monastic modernization was
their outright
rejection of a ritualistic relationship with the laity, instead of
attempting to
liberate the authentic core of the relationship. In Seneviratne's
conclusion to
his portrayal of this modernization movement in The Work of Kings, he makes a very compelling
articulation
of what such a liberation should mean. The dualism in Buddhism between
lay and
monastic reflects the general dualism in Indian religions between
householder
and renunciate. In Brahmanism the tension is less extreme, because the
brahmin
is economically independent. He also occupies a social status that puts
him
above householders dependent upon him for his ritual powers. In
contrast, the
Buddhist layperson occupies a much more crucial role, because the
bhikkhu
renunciate is dependent upon him/her for material sustenance. Rather
than
making a spiritual outcast of the layperson, the Buddha elevated
him/her
"to partnership with the monk in a common existential ecology, biology,
and spiritual culture" (Seneviratne, 1999::345).
Whereas
Brahmanism destroyed wealth
through sacrificial ritual, Buddhism attempted to increase wealth by
circulating it in an ethical ritual of reciprocal merit-making and
generosity (dana). This was accomplished
through the
emphasis on living a simple life materially, as found both in
prohibitions against
personal wealth in the monastic Vinaya and in exhortations to the laity
to live
simply, especially in the Mangala Sutta (Sn ii.4), Parabhava Sutta
(Sn i.6), and Sigalovada
Sutta (D.iii.
180-193). In
this reconsideration of the
complementary roles of lay and monastic, the divergent interpretations
of the
Buddha's essential message are preserved as whole. The transcendental
goal of nirvana
is kept present in a well-supported, well-trained, and dedicated
monastic
sangha, while the immanent goal of an ethical and non-harmful society
that creates
the conditions for realizing nirvana is realized in an empowered lay
sangha. In
this way, the dualism between monk and lay is transcended by the
creation of a
symbiotic relationship in which there is clear differentiation between
monastic
and lay and yet also their deep integration through reciprocal merit
making.
The
reformation of lay-monastic
relations along these lines was more successfully realized by the other
stream
that came out of Dharmapala's vision, the economic regeneration
promoted by the
monks of Vidyodaya University. Although Dharmapala began his campaign
for rural
regeneration around 1900, this vision really did not come to life until
the
1930s, when universal suffrage suddenly made politicians interested in
rural
development. The new monks from Vidyodaya were thus well placed to
provide a
bridge between the urban political elite and the rural masses, and
thereby
discover a different way of re-integrating themselves back into modern
Sri Lankan
society (Seneviratne, 1999).
The first
important monk of this
generation was Kalukondayave Pannasekhara (1895-1977), who tempered the
latent
anger in Dharmapala's critique of the colonial system by shedding any
political
elements from his work. This in turn made him very pluralistic in
working with
communities that were not always Sinhala or Buddhist (Seneviratne,
1999).
Another important monk was Hendiyagala Silaratana (1913-1982) who
developed a
broad and comprehensive theory of social activism. He felt that as a
renunciate, the monk is free to primarily serve the people. Recalling
the idea
of reciprocal merit, Silaratana felt that monks owe more to the laity
than just
ritualism and acting as fields of merit. Monks should actually stop
meditating for
certain periods and focus on material service to the laity. He noted
that,
"What in every religion is called merit is what is done for the good of
the world. That is what we mean by morality (sila)" (Seneviratne, 1999:112). He
also
criticized the laity for detracting from monks’ social service work by
demanding too many rituals or putting pressure on them to build
monasteries in
order to fulfill their desires for merit-making. He believed that when
a monk
rebuilds the morality of the people by constructing a village school,
instead
of a temple, he creates a type of reciprocal merit as positive action
that
secures "success in both worlds" (ubhayalokartha) (Seneviratne, 1999:123).
Although
this movement of monks could
not sustain itself in the divisive political situation that developed
in post-independence
Sri Lanka, the influences were no doubt carried forward to the largely
lay
Sarvodaya Shramadana movement initiated by A.T. Ariyaratne in 1958.
Although
the movement speaks of its Gandhian influence in its idea of
self-reliance (sarvodaya), its fundamental use of
village
associations (gramaraksaka)
is clearly linked to the popularization of these groups by the
Vidyodaya monks
of the 1930s. Ariyaratne has done exhaustive and systematic work to
interpret
Buddhist ethical systems in terms of social development and the needs
of the
rural poor in Sri Lanka. Although there is this strong foundation in
Buddhist
teachings, the ideology is developed in a non-sectarian way and often
expressed
in a common ethical language that can be understood by anyone. The
culmination
of this vision is a community balanced in its moral, economic and
political
relationships.
Changes in the
thinking of people and
their attitudes; innovation of methods, techniques and technologies in
the
execution of basic human needs satisfaction programs; and evolution and
institutionalization of appropriate structures within democratic
control of
basic communities, are three such sectors that converge harmoniously in
this
self-development exercise of the people. (Ariyaratne, 1999:31)
While
Ariyaratne has similar opinions as other modern reformists about the
old,
rigidified Buddhist institutions, he has sought to revitalize the role
of monks
as leaders in the ethical processes of traditional village society.
Monks in
the Sarvodaya movement take a central role in introducing and
articulating the
Sarvodaya philosophy to villages, organizing its activities, and
mediating with
the power elite (Macy, 1985:66). In these efforts to revitalize the
social role
of monks, Ariyaratne appears to be trying to keep alive the vision of
Dharmapala and the efforts of his successors at Vidyodaya.
On
the socio-political level, Sarvodaya
has made a clear statement supporting the localization of power. In
emphasizing
self-reliance, Sarvodaya "works towards the total devolution and
decentralization of political and economic power to local communities
so that
imposition of oppressive systems of governance, economic exploitation
and
imposition of dominant cultures on people are minimized"(Ariyaratne,
1999:33).
Sarvodaya Shramadana Societies are village organizations which as
legally
independent structures are empowered to seek independent financing for
their work
projects and also to create partnerships with other civil society
groups (Macy,
1985:108). This organizational flexibility enables the movement to stay
in line
with its philosophy of being non-partisan and ecumenical in nature. It
embodies
the type of structure that creates greater integration through
differentiation
and cooperative rather than competitive energies. In the highly
politicized
environment of the civil war in Sri Lanka, Ariyaratne has decried the
ethnicization of politics and attempted to maintain political
neutrality.
Although the Sarvodaya movement works predominantly among Buddhist
communities,
its ecumenical outlook has enabled it to cooperate with other ethnic
communities. Furthermore, it has been a conspicuous organizer of and
participant in inter-faith activities to change the culture of war in
Sri
Lanka.
Although
the work of Sarvodaya is
inspiring, the core problem that we have seen in Sri Lanka remains to
be
addressed: that is, the role of the monk and lay-monastic relations in
an urban
environment. In both Thailand and Sri Lanka, there are numerous
examples of
progressive Buddhist movements for social regeneration in rural areas.
For the most
part, however, nationalism and secularism in Sri Lanka and consumerism
in
Thailand are the dominant themes of urban Buddhism. Looking outside of
the
Theravada tradition, we can see numerous attempts in Japan to develop
new forms
of urban Buddhism. However, rather than confront the monastic issue,
they have
done away with it by creating completely lay denominations. Meanwhile,
mainstream “funeral Buddhism” resembles a modern form of Brahmanism
with its
ancestor rituals and conspicuously wealthy and secularized priests.
Taiwan
appears to offer another possible solution with its vibrant monastic
sangha and
large numbers of fully ordained bhikkhunis. The Taiwanese sangha’s
commitment
to social work also has for the most part not translated into a form of
militant nationalism as in Sri Lanka.
What
is ironic in assessing the
failures of urban Buddhism in Asia is that the original sangha created
by the Buddha
was particularly well suited to the new demands of the urbanized
pluralistic
societies developing at that time. The monastics were a new breed of
renunciant
combining dedicated spiritual practice with a connection to the
everyday lay world.
The Buddha spoke directly about economic ethics to the new business
classes and
created an economic community of reciprocal exchange as the basis of
lay-monastic relations. Finally, the class and gender pluralism of the
Sangha
established an ethic of respect and tolerance for the rest of society
to live
up to. Today the challenge not only for Theravada sanghas but for the
Mahayana
sanghas as well is to reclaim Buddhism as a pluralistic, multicultural
civilizational force and to shed the chauvinistic and nationalist
elements that
have grown over the centuries.
In
this paper we have seen that some of
the keys for this reconstruction are: first, to reinvigorate the
monastic
order. From an educational standpoint, monastic education must be on
par with,
but not necessarily the same as, modern levels of secular education.
This
reform seems to have been somewhat successful in Sri Lanka. However,
spiritual
training is a second decisive factor in order to reinvigorate the
monastic
sangha, and this is an area where we have seen great failure in Sri
Lanka. It
is the monastic sangha’s central responsibility to recapture the essence of
nirvana as an
insight available to all through dedicated practice.
Second, it is
necessary to empower and
firmly establish the lay sangha. The modern Japanese experiment in
establishing
exclusively lay orders has been an important step in this direction.
Ambedkar
in India and many of the new Buddhist sanghas in the West have also
done
significant work to establish lay sanghas as genuine communities of
practice.
It is vital for the lay sangha to not be overly dependent on the
monastic
sangha and to be well established in the core disciplines of ethics,
contemplation, and insight (sila-samadhi-panna) rather than focusing on
ritualized merit-making.
Third and
finally, it is important to
properly re-integrate the lay and monastic sanghas into a genuine
fourfold
sangha, after first establishing the independent reinvigoration and
differentiation of both as outlined above. As we have seen in this
paper and
others in this issue, such a fourfold sangha is rooted in dana as reciprocal generosity, punya
as
compassionate action “doing good”, and
sila as a
mutually
empowering set of ethical relationships. By re-establishing these
principles, Buddhism
can begin to heal the dualism between hinayana/mayahana, and develop
egalitarian communities in which the pursuit of nirvana is a practical
and
realizable endeavor.
References:
Ariyaratne,
A.T (1996). Buddhism and Sarvodaya: Sri Lankan Experience. New Delhi: Sri
Ariyaratne,
A.T. (1999). A Buddhist Approach to Economic Development: An Experience
from Sri Lanka. In S.
Sivaraksa (ed.), Socially
Engaged Buddhism for the New
Millennium (pp. 15-33). Bangkok:
Santhirakoses-Nagapradipa Foundation &
Foundation for Children.
Brown, M. T. (1990). Working
Ethics.
Berkeley CA: Regents Press.
Chakravarti, U. (1987). The
Social
Dimensions of Early Buddhism. New
Delhi: Oxford
University Press.
Gomez,
L. (1987) Buddhism in India. In M. Eliade (ed.) The Encyclopedia of
Religion. New
York:
MacMillan Publishing.
Goyal, S.R. (1987). A
History of
Indian Buddhism.
Meerut,
India: Kusumanjali Prakashan.
The Long Discourses of the
Buddha: A Translation
of the Digha Nikaya (1995).(M.
Walshe,
Trans.). Boston: Wisdom
Publications.
Loy, D. (2002). A Buddhist
History of
the West: Studies in Lack.
Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.
Macy,
J. (1991). Mutual Causality in Buddhism and General Systems Theory. Albany,
NY: State
University
of New York Press.
Macy, J. (1985). Dharma
and
Development: Religion as a Resource in the Sarvodaya Self-
help Movement. Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press.
Obeyesekere, G. (2002). Imagining
Karma: Ethical Transformation in Amerindian, Buddhist,
and
Greek Rebirth.
Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press.
Ray,
R. (1994). Buddhist Saints in India: A Study in Buddhist Values and
Orientations.
New
York:
Oxford University Press.
Reynolds,
F and Hallisey, C. (1987). Buddhism: An Overview. In M. Eliade (ed.) The
Encyclopedia
of Religion.
New York: MacMillan Publishing.
Schopen,
G. (1997). Bones, Stones, and Buddhist Monks: Collected Papers on
the
Archaeology,
Epigraphy, and Texts of
Monastic Buddhism in India.
Honolulu:
University
of Hawaii Press.
Seneviratne,
H.L. (1987) Samgha and Society. In M. Eliade (ed.) The Encyclopedia
of
Religion.
New York: MacMillan Publishing.
Seneviratne,
H.L. (1999) The Work of Kings: The New Buddhism in Sri Lanka. Chicago, IL:
University
of Chicago Press.
Steinberg, D.J. (Ed.) (1987). In
Search
of Southeast Asia: A Modern History.
Honolulu, HI:
University
of Hawaii Press.
The Sutta Nipata. (1987). (H. Saddhatissa,
Trans.). London:
Curzon Press.
Swearer,
D. Buddhism in Southeast Asia. In M. Eliade (ed.) The Encyclopedia
of
Religion.
New
York: MacMillan Publishing.
Tambiah,
S.J. (1992). Buddhism Betrayed?: Religion, Politics, and Violence
in Sri
Lanka.
Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago
Press.