|
SAFFRON RIDE TO NOWHERE? -SANGHA IN CRISIS
Shyamon Jayasinghe
Melbourne
“…the Thathagatha urged the monks
to devote themselves to their own work and not that of the others [princes]”
-Milindapanha
Is the venerable sangha in the process of shedding the great power
and aura it has enjoyed in Lankan society over centuries of tradition?
Anybody entering the field of politics enters the vortex of a heartless
power game- a scramble for power and a struggle to sustain that power,
if won. Such a person must be prepared to confront brickbats and slurs
that may come from varied quarters. Attackers, being also in the power
game, cannot afford to treat any opponent with soft gloves. Therefore,
the sangha in politics will appear on the firing line. This is going
to be hard in Sri Lanka where some politicians have links to the mafia.
Niccolo Machiavelli, the Renaissance political philosopher, has earned
respect for his intellectual honesty about political dishonesty. He
uncovered the humbug to which politicians are prone. Niccolo explained
that a ruler must repudiate received morality in his conduct. “A
ruler will perish if he is always good”, he said.” it is necessary
to be a great feigner and dissembler” According to Niccolo, a ruler
must “pretend to be virtuous”. Thus, it is a whole world of
intrigue, pretence, and lies that one enters when entering politics.
Unfortunately, politics is vital for society.
The Buddhist clergy did once get black marks after the assassination
of Prime Minister Bandaranaike. That event was seen as a dramatic culmination
of a short and intensive sangha -involvement in the political fora leading
up to the MEP victory in the year 1956. For several decades after the
tragedy, no monk was welcome on political platforms. This time’s
involvement represents a bolder level of intervention.
The sangha invasion of the political domain we see today, is such an
unusual event that it is important to try and find an explanation for
this development. It is hard to believe in the rationalisation expressed
by the candidate- monks of the Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU). They say
that the sangha has historically displayed a social responsibility to
intervene in governance at times of national crisis and especially “when
Buddhism has been threatened”. This argument from history cannot
be sustained: Monks say that they have in the days of monarchy always
played a positive role of counselling about the affairs of state and
even physically intervening. Aside from a few solitary instances, the
broad sweep of Lankan history demonstrates a general non-involvement
of monks in the affairs of state. As far as government decision-making
was concerned, Church and State remained separate unlike in Europe during
Middle Ages or in some of the Middle Eastern countries where theocracies
still hold sway.
During the long period of militant Hindu invasion of Anuradhapura by
the Pandyas, Colas, and Pallavas in the 5th and 6th centuries, monks
stayed aloof letting the kings and armies offer resistance, until the
whole of Rajarata , the heart of the Sinhalese kingdom, had been brought
under Rajaraja the Great (983-1014), the Cola king. Partly due to this
invasion, the capital shifted to Polonnaruwa in the 7th century. The
Polonnaruwa regime, too, saw the pillage of the Sinhalese kingdom by
Magha. The capital retreated further. Monks remained aloof. In the meantime,
in the 13th century an independent Jaffna kingdom was established with
the peninsula as base. There is evidence to show that monks and the
feudal hierarchy cooperated with the Tamil settlers.
During the subsequent periods when the capital shifted to Dambadeniya,
Yapahuwa, Kurunegala, and Gampola chronic dissension within the royalty
followed. Monks did make considerable contribution to literature during
this period but they generally left royal politics alone. The Gampola
period saw the intrusion of Tamil Hindu practices into Buddhist temples.
Obviously, that could not have taken place without the cooperation of
monks who exemplified an excellent model of harmonious cooperation and
adaptation.
Perhaps, the most challenging period for Buddhism came with the Portuguese
and Dutch conquests. Unlike today, there was little resistance then
to the mass-scale conversions that took place. The only marked resistance
to foreign rule and anti-Buddhist activities was witnessed during British
rule in the two rebellions of 1817-1818 and 1848 where monks did play
an important role. That, too, was a supportive role to lay leaders.
The historical truth is that from early times, the sangha had to be
sustained on state assistance and monarchic support. From the early
Anuradhapura period onwards, lands were handed over to monks who became
powerful landowners. During the Polonnaruwa period Vijayabahu ! intervened
to resuscitate a demoralised sangha and unify it. It was during the
Gampola period that the monarchy intervened to correct the indiscipline
in the sangha. The king created the post of Sangharaja, chief of Bhikkus,
to introduce a measure of order in the monastic community During most
of the 18th century the sangha was in such a state of debility that
ordination of new members became a serious problem. Kings Vimaladharma
1 and Vimaladharma 11 had to get down monks from Burma to restore the
upasampada. Ironically, it was only when the South Indian Nayakkar dynasty
came to occupy the throne that the situation appeared to get normalised.
One may view the sangha in Sri Lanka as entering a new phase in its
evolution generated by wider social and economic changes in the country
and in the world at large. In fact, this trend has been on for a long
time: The flow of huge state support for the temple that came in the
past has ceased because the modern state has to play a more secular
role. The sangha has been finding it hard to survive on the alms of
a growingly frugal community. Some temples have had to sell off their
title to land. Many monks have been forced to give up a pirivena education
and seek more job-oriented formal studies at a university. Thousands
work in State schools on pay as teachers. This has meant the abandonment
of the traditional life of seclusion from the give and take of lay life.
Exposure of the sangha to the world of TV, teledrama, and internet has
been a common sight. Some monks openly or discretely conduct business
to earn a living. In such circumstances, the sangha –lay connection
has been drawing so close that the next step toward a political career
seems not difficult. The process is enabled and instigated by lay politicians
who are already in the power game.
Nevertheless, the foray into politics if successful on a wide scale,
would reciprocally alter the public perception of the monk drastically.
The public perception is in line with the above quote from Milindapanha.When
monks depart from that expectation, the public may continue to pay obeisance
but that may be as a mere formality. People may continue to resort to
temples to seek priestly support in key events of their lives-births,
deaths, and marriages, good and bad events. That is all. The temple
will no longer be the true focus of peoples’ lives. The sasana
as we have known it will transform like water changing its state in
the boil. This has happened to the Christian church in many parts of
the West where religion has indeed become a mere formality in the lives
of people. Recourse to the priceless treasure of Buddhist teaching would,
eventually, be available only to those willing to read Buddhist literature.
|
