The Buddha Sasana consists of Buddha Dhamma, Sangha Society, their existence and Buddhist heritage. The relationship between the State and Sangha Society in the country had originated consequent to the advent of Buddhism during the reign of King Devanampiyatissa.
The relationship so emerged between the State and Sangha Society could be categorised into three stages namely during early history which includes Anuradhapura and Polonnaruwa periods, medieval history which consists of Dambadeniya Kurunegala, Yapahuwa, Kotte and Kandyan Kingdoms and modern history which covers Portuguese, Dutch and British occupation and the period after Independence.
Although early Buddhism had been identified as a non-political religious movement, King Dharmasoka in India had been assumed the responsibility of the State for the well-being of Sangha. A systematic attempt to regulate State- Sangha relation through Sangha reforms led by Moggaliputtatissa at Third Council (Thevana Sangayana) was initiated by King Dharmasoka. As a consequence of the missionary activity initiated by King Asoka, not only did Sri Lanka take over Buddhism but also for the first time Buddhism became the only accepted religion in Sri Lanka.
King Asoka had started in his inscription in the Rock Edict 13, Thambapanni (Sri Lanka) among countries to which missionaries were dispatched. According to Dipawansa and Mahawansa, the conversion of Sri Lanka to Buddhism is the work of Asoka’s son and daughter Mahinda and Sangamitta.
From early history from King Devanampiyatissa up to the Kandyan Kingdom, the attitude of the rulers towards Buddhism was a devoted and dedicated one for the protection of Buddhism and well-being of Maha Sangha.
Reciprocally, the approach of Mahasanga towards rulers or the State was based on the principle that Sanghas should play the role of advisor and guide to the rulers and the State. This relationship has continued from the beginning of early history of Buddhism up to the Kandyan Kingdom. It was a cordial and mutual one for peaceful co-existence for the betterment for both parties the State and Sangha Society and the nation at large.
Custodians of Buddhism
Bhikkhus have assumed that they are the custodians of Buddhism and the ruler or the State is the protector of Dhamma. Dhamma in this context is none other than Buddhism. It may be noted that there is a concept called Dasaraja Dharma in Buddhist literature. This concept has never been practised in full scale by rulers or the State in the country. However, there are some exceptions thereto like King Sirisangabo.
Ample instances are there to corroborate the fact that kings intervened to protect the Buddha Sasana from misbelievers who encroached Theravada Dhamma from time to time such as “Vaithulya Vada” and Neelapata Darshanaya during the reigns of Voharikatissa (214 AD), Gotabhaya (257 AD and Sena the Second (868AD). Contrary to the policy of protecting Mahavihara, some rulers such as Walagamba (89 BC), Mahasen (276 AD) extended their support to Abhayagiriya and Jethavana which were considered as safe grounds for aforementioned misbelievers.
King Kasyapa the fifth (931-937 AD) had taken action to expel indisciplined bhikkhus from Sasanaya. King Vijayabahu the first (1055 AD) had taken action to re-establish Upasampada and restore the status-quo of Buddha Sasanaya. King Parakramabahu the 1st (1153 AD) had taken action to unite Mahavihara, Abayagiri and Jethawana expelling indisciplined bhikkhus from Sasanaya. He had introduced the post of “Sangaraja” for administration of “Sangha Society” effectively. As a result, there was a substantial development in Buddha Sasanaya during his time. Buddha Sasanaya declined during the reign of Kalinga Magha (1213 AD). However, it was restored to the pre-declined level by Parakramabahu the second (1236 AD).
Intervention of bhikkhus
There are several instances as recorded in Mahawansa where Bhikkhus directly involved in the affairs of the State sans Buddhism. Bhikkhus were not hesitant to intervene to settle disputes between kings and the people. The support extended to the rulers such as Dutugemunu, Saddhatissa, Walagambahu, Sangabodi, Gotabhaya and Parakramabahu the first stand as evidence of the close connection that existed between Sangha and the State. Several instances could be traced out from Mahavansa and Chulavansa on intervention of bhikkhus to enthrone, settle disputes within royal family members, between kings and the people.
Prince Dhatusena was brought up by Bhikkhu Mahanama and admitted him to the order, and instructed him in knowledge and duties that were requested for discharge of duties of a king. Dispute between regent Mahinda King Sena and Kasyapa, political crisis which arose during the reign of Udaya, dispute between Gotabhaya and Parakramabahu the first, seeking a successor to king Panditha Parakramabahu, enthroning Vijayabahu the fourth (1270-1272) Parakramabahu the sixth (1412-1461) were settled peacefully due to the intervention of bhikkhus.
Consequent to the capturing of maritime provinces and whole island finally by Portuguese, Dutch and British, governmental authority had been shifted from local dynasties to foreign powers. As a result, traditional relationship that existed up to 1815 between the State and Sangha society had been changed. Foreign powers paid no attention to maintain and continue traditional relationship that existed between the State and Sangha Society although there was a written undertaking given in the Kandyan Convention in 1815 by Colonial Government of British to protect Buddhism and Buddhist traditions which were prevailing prior to 1815.
In reality, foreign powers who held governmental power had promulgated and propagated through missionaries their own religion and culture in place of Buddhism and Buddhist culture. Patronage of ruling power hitherto extended towards Sangha Society had withered or ceased on the one hand and the Buddhist laity had been gradually drifted from Buddhist culture to Western culture nurtured by Colonial administration on the other hand. This situation had caused serious challenge against the very existence of Sanga society.
In the circumstances the Sanga society was compelled to demonstrate their protest from time to time together with Buddhist laity against the State or the authority who held governmental power to restore the status-quo of traditional role that they had played during the reign of Sinhalese-Buddhist Kings who ruled the country prior to the Kandyan Convention. The cordial relationship that existed between the State and Sangha Society hitherto had changed into a hostile one during colonial administration. The Uwa Wellassa and Matale rebellions in 1815 and 1848 are considered as immediate response to the above situation. This conflict between the State and Sangha Society had continued in various forms until we gained independence in 1948.
Colonial administration
Even after Independence, above situation had continued due to the fact that the line of thinking and mentality of those who held Governmental power of the State towards Buddhism, Buddhist culture and laity immediately after the independence seemed to be similar to that of the mentality of their predecessors in Colonial administration to a large extent on the one hand and socio-cultural background of most of the successors to the Colonial administration had been welded strongly with alien Western culture introduced to the country by colonial administration on the other hand.
Dissatisfaction and protests caused by bhikkhus though silently but effectively along with Buddhist laity could be considered as a strong contributory factor for revolutionary change of Governmental power in 1956, social reforms that took place and restoring the lost rights of Buddhists during the Colonial administration.
The significant outcome of this process was that politicians were compelled to recognise the power of bhikkhus to mobilise Buddhist laity against political power on the one hand and some bhikkhus have taken upper hand on their capacity for intervention in politics of the State on the other hand. This tendency has paved the way for the emergence of indisciplined behaviour among certain bhikkhus on the one hand and also involvement of politicians to manipulate this tendency for their benefit on the other hand.
The assassination of S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike by a Bhikkhu and aggressive and indisciplined behaviour of several bhikkhus at Samanera level up to senior most level in Sangha Society, in the so-called Aragalaya could be considered as glaring instances for culmination of indisciplined conduct among bhikkhus.
Their behaviour and conduct at open stages of the Aragalaya had caused irreparable damage to the Sasanaya. The assassination of S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike is considered a cold-blooded crime wherein a distinguished leader of the nation had to pay the price sacrificing his life for adoration of corrupt dignitaries on the one hand and it had caused a turning point for the emergence of aggression, radicalism and terrorism among a large number of bhikkhus on the other hand. Could behaviour of certain bhikkhus at Samanera level as well as at matured level in the Aragalaya be justified in terms of the code of discipline prescribed for bhikkhus in Vinayapitakaya?
Constitutional provision
One of the consequences of above situation was that politicians and political authority of the State were compelled to open a separate chapter under the title Buddhism (Chapter 2) in 1978 Constitution of Sri Lanka wherein it says (Article 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) of the Constitution”.
The relationship between the State and the Sangha Society has been legalised under this Article as it says it shall be the duty of the State to protect and foster the Buddha Sasana which includes triple element of Sasanaya Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha as well. Sangha is the custodians of Dhamma. In vinayapitakaya, it says “Vinayo nama sesanssa aryou” which means very existence and continuity of Sasanaya depends on vinaya or code of discipline required to be followed by bhikkhus.
How can the State protect and foster Buddha Sasanaya wherein very conduct and behaviour of a large number of bhikkhus as above referred to had caused gross violation of discipline on the one hand and politicians who hold governmental power of the State tend to manipulate the duty entrusted with the State to protect and foster sasanaya for their own benefit on the pretext of promoting and fostering sasanaya to consolidate their vote base in Buddhist laity in their favour on the other hand?
It has been observed that both parties namely politicians who hold Governmental power in the State and Bhikkhus who had come to the forefront to fight against the Government are promoting one and the same agenda applicable to both of them namely grabbing power into their hands to manipulate it for the benefit of themselves on the pretext of promoting and fostering Sasanaya.
Legal mechanism
There should be an effective legal mechanism to control abuse of duty assigned to the State in the Constitution for promoting and fostering of Sasanaya by politicians for their own benefit and also to control indisciplined conduct and behaviour of Bhikkhus which violate code of discipline set out in the Vinayapitakaya for their self-benefit on the pretext of promoting and fostering Sasanaya.
Bhikkhus who demonstrated their protest at Aragalaya were aiming to strengthen and consolidate their power in politics to enable them to twist politicians to achieve their personal agendas on the pretext of protecting and fostering Sasanaya.
The real contribution for protecting and fostering Sasanaya is nothing but to give up their in-disciplined conduct and behaviour and reschedule their behaviour and conduct in accordance with the code of discipline set out in the Vinayapitakaya and thereby get support of laity in favour of their course of action.