By Raj Gonsalkorale

Unworthy Wearer: “Whoever, being depraved, devoid of self-control and truthfulness, should don the monk’s yellow robe, he surely is not worthy of the robe”.

Worthy Wearer: “But whoever is purged of depravity, well-established in virtues and filled with self-control and truthfulness, he indeed is worthy of the yellow robe” –Dhammapada (Verses 9-10)

In a world where a rules based governance order has been replaced by a rules for some, and not for others” order, and the adjudicator of compliance with rules, the United Nations system, has become more or less impotent, the rules applicable for an important segment of  the Sri Lankan society, the Buddhist clergy is being discussed in this article.  Rules for the Buddhist monastic order are governed by what are called Vinaya rules, a code of conduct for Buddhist Monks contained in the Vinaya Pitakaya. The monastic order itself is responsible for making sure the members of the order adhere to these rules. A question does arise today in the minds of many lay Buddhists as well as perhaps some Buddhist Monks themselves whether the Vinaya rules are being adhered to by some Buddhist Monks. Challenges faced by Buddhist monks themselves in having a book of rules but inability to adhere to them also need to be looked at in empathy of practical challenges they face in a very materialistic world.

The Pali Tipitaka states that the last major Theravada Buddhist Council (Sangayanawa), known as the Sixth Council was held in Yangon, Burma (Myanmar), from 1954 to 1956 ( https://www.tipitaka.org/chattha#:~: text=King%20Aj% C4%81tasattu%20sponsored%20the%20First,This%20is%20what%20happened). The outcome reported was that The council concluded on Vesak day, May 24, 1956, resulting in a newly verified and approved edition of the Tripitaka and its commentaries, which were later printed on modern presses”

However, considering the doubts and apprehensions revolving around adherence to the Vinaya Pitakaya and the effectiveness of these rules in a general sense, it may be an opportune time for the Vinaya Pitakaya to be revisited and reviewed by Buddhist Monks themselves, and its rules looked at from the prism of the contemporary environment. Times have changed from the days of Buddha some 2600 years ago, and it may be opportune to consider what changes if any are to be introduced for the Order itself and the rules governing the Order. Amongst possible changes could be the introduction of a new Order that could complement the existing Sangha Order. It is perhaps time for another Sangayanawa to have a look at the Vinaya pitakaya and revise it in keeping with the contemporary environment.

In context, this article examines a practice, an age old one, where lay persons make a distinction between a Robe a Buddhist Monk wears and the Monk who is wearing it, and worships the Robe, as a mark of respect to Buddha and what Buddhism represents, and not necessarily the Monk who is wearing it. The verse quoted from the Dhammapada, (a revered collection of 423 verses in the Pali Canon, representing Buddha’s teachings on ethics, wisdom, and mindfulness. Known as “The Path of Truth,” it emphasizes that the mind shapes reality, guiding followers toward ethical living, mental purity, and liberation from suffering), states otherwise and emphasises that the wearer should be a Worthy Wearer: “whoever is purged of depravity, is well-established in virtues and filled with self-control and truthfulness, and that he indeed is worthy of the yellow robe”.

This distinction attributed to Buddha himself, between a worthy” wearer, and an unworthy” wearer stands in contrast to the popular distinction and belief and practice of venerating a Robe irrespective of the qualities of the wearer. While various commentaries are there concerning the robe that Prince Siddhartha (and later the Buddha) wore, and what he supposedly said as to what it should be made of and why Monks should wear it, the above mentioned Dhammapada verse encapsulates the principle and practice when it comes to the meaning behind who should wear it and under what circumstances.

Today, the contradiction between the practice of many members of the Buddhist public who believe that worshipping the robe is like worshipping the Buddha, irrespective of the values, qualities, ethics and the practice of the Dhamma as per the Vinaya rules, and what is attributed to Buddha in the Dhammapada in regard to who should be wearing the robe, is very stark. This article is not elaborating on this contradiction as readers will be fully aware of individual cases of contradictions.

While it would be a controversial statement to make, nonetheless, there is no evidence” as such as to what Prince Siddhartha wore upon his renunciation, except a description that has been carried on through a verbal tradition for hundreds of years.  However, what one can surmise very clearly from the numerous commentaries is the symbolism behind why a robe was worn, what kind of robe, what it constituted of and what it represented.

If one were to say it was a symbol of Renunciation of everything that was material, everything that was unsatisfactory, everything that attracted greed and deception, it could be very much closer to what Buddha taught as the four truths and the eightfold path towards the cessation of the cycle of birth.

The verbal commentaries that spread over five centuries after Buddha’s passing, saying that the original robes were constructed of discarded rags gathered from cemeteries, funeral pyres, and trash heaps, patched together, and dyed, perhaps was very  representative of the rejection of materialism, and it would be very much in line with what Buddha would have meant when he spoke about the robe and its symbolism and who deserved to wear it and who did not.

Ritualism and veneration

These two probably have a symbiotic relationship and the fostering and spread of one has a direct impact on the other.  The word veneration used here is also from a ritualistic angle as veneration, as Buddha had said, would mean veneration that it is an acknowledgment of truth and an expression of the desire to realize that same enlightenment by oneself. In Buddha-dharma, the distinction between veneration and ritualism lies in the practitioner’s intention and understanding. While veneration is a mindful act used to cultivate virtue, ritualism is often defined as the third mental fetter (sīlabbata-parāmāsa), which practitioners must eventually abandon to reach enlightenment. 

The reality of the spread of ritualism, and possibly a misconception relating to veneration, are imbedded in the culture of many Buddhists.  Today’s very materialistic world with information technology advancing beyond ones’ imagination, conservative cultural habits being increasingly replaced with liberal, free-thinking lifestyles, the environment in which people live, including Buddhist monks, should be viewed from a more contemporary prism. In a very general sense, one could say that many Buddhist Monks, for want of a better word, are stranded, between two worlds. An ancient world where most became Monks after renunciation of their material lives in search of the truth or the ending of their cycle of life (samsara), and a modern, more contemporary world where Monks become Monks perhaps with the same objective, at least some of them, but whose way of pursuing this objective is not in alignment with the practice of renunciation as one knows it.

Ritualism and institutionalisation of the Buddhist order are also very much two sides of the same coin, as the growth of institutions are directly dependent on the growth of ritualism. The proliferation of Stupas, Buddha statues, other edifices, ceremonies etc are consequences of institutionalisation that result in and promote veneration shifts. These are now embedded in cultural practices that are promoted as necessary for the protection and progression of Buddhism.

Future of Dhamma preservation

Practicing the Buddha Dhamma is very much an individual choice. Buddhists have a choice. They could look more closely and intently at the practice of the Buddha Dhamma and explore ways of doing so, or they could further institutionalise Buddhism through more and more ritualism in the belief that it will bring them closer to the cessation of samsara and is necessary to safeguard Buddhism. As the Britannica says (https://www.britannica.com/ topic/Buddhism/Historical-development) , the institutionalization accelerated significantly during the reign of Emperor Ashoka in the 3rd century BCE. While the initial sangha (monastic community) founded by Buddha during his lifetime were a group of wandering ascetics spreading the Dhamma and pursuing the truth, the organized institutionalisation with state support happened over the following centuries and continues in Sri Lanka.

This institutionalisation began in Sri Lanka after Emperor’s Ashoka’s son Venerable Mihindu’s formal introduction of Buddhism from one Royal family to another. There are reportedly some evidence or indications that Buddhism had moved to Sri Lanka prior to Venerable Mihindu’s arrival in Sri Lanka, and in fact there had been Monastic centres too prior to that. The presence of an inscription at Rajagala, in Ampara (also known as Girikumbhila Tissa Pabbatha Viharaya) mentioning the enshrinement of Ven Mihindu’s ashes is one of the most significant archaeological finds in Sri Lanka as per the UNESCO World Heritage Convention (https://whc.unesco.org/en/ tentativelists/ 6454/#:~:text=Apart%20from% 20the%20above% 20significant,the% 20ancient%20water %20management %20system). Whether a monastery existed there prior to Ven Mihindu’s formal introduction of Buddhism to Sri Lanka, or whether it came into being after this, is still unresolved. It does raise a question why his ashes were interred there if it was place of wilderness and not some type of Monastery. In any event, institutionalisation of Buddhism is nothing new to Sri Lanka, and it has grown over time for it to become an important cornerstone in the country’s political governance ethos. This however does not automatically translate to a corresponding increase in the practice of the Buddha Dhamma by the people.

A new Buddhist Order?

As mentioned earlier, Buddhist Monks in general are trapped between two worlds. One world, representing the ancient one, and the other that is very much influenced by materialism, acquisition of wealth, engaging in other worldly practices. In the past two notable Monks were convicted of murder and sentenced to death over the assassination of a Prime Minister. This was a serious contradiction of objectives of the Monks concerned.

Activities and lifestyles of some Monks have had an impact on the entire Sangha, and the practice of Buddhism has become an external manifestation of a desire to be seen as practicing Buddhism, rather than being actual practitioners. While it may sound sacrileges, if the Dhamma is to take precedence over this situation, the Sangha order governed by the Vinaya Pitakaya would have to undergo a major system change.

In order to assist in overcoming the dilemma faced by many Buddhist Monks in the contemporary world and to provide more freedom for them to decide which world they wish to be in, the ancient world or the modern world, and how best their objectives could be pursued ethically, a suggestion is made to create another formal Buddhist order of lay preachers say wearing a yellow national dress, to complement the Sangha order. These lay preachers could for example, lead a lay life but undergo a period of training as Anagarika’s or a form of it that suits the contemporary world (Anagarikas commit to full-time Buddhist practice, often taking the Eight Precepts and renouncing worldly possessions, serving as a transitional step toward ordination or a lifelong commitment to dedicated practice). This new order should operate along with established Buddhist temples and other Buddhist Institutions, but their task will be to teach the essence of the Dhamma and to assist the Sangha to transform Buddhist temples as sanctuaries for lay persons to free their mind from fetters that impact on their attitude to life and also places where they can seek guidance on the many social matters that can be overcome through exercises in developing mindfulness.

The existing members of the Sangha will have an opportunity to join this Order and move away from the sangha Order as an accepted practice but continue their teaching of the Dhamma. If they chose to remain in the Sangha order, they could remain in the temples or move to Monastries and away from the Institutions. The members of the new Order of course will have to live outside temples and monasteries, but work in close association with temples. An essential element of this system change will have to be a revision of the Vinaya Pitakaya to reflect this change and the introduction of rules for the new Order and the revision of rules relating to the Sangha.

In regard to this suggestion, the attention of readers is drawn to an organisation called the Sri Lanka Buddhist Vinayawardhana Organization (https://budumina.org/about.php), which is primarily a lay-led movement, meaning it is run by laypeople rather than ordained monks. It and several others, while focussing on the necessity of strict discipline of monks as per the Vinaya Pitakaya, also engage in teaching the Buddha Dhamma and associated practices. They generally only support or associate with monks who they believe strictly adhere to the original Vinaya rules, such as those who do not handle money or participate in politics.

Challenges to the suggestion

The main hurdle to this suggestion will come from the concept of Merit. In traditional Buddhist societies, laypeople give donations or almsgivings to Monks, specifically because they believe, through an assumption rather than a real conviction, of a monk’s celibacy and strict adherence to the Vinaya (monastic code), that such an act generates “merit.” A lay preacher in a national dress might struggle to receive the same level of acceptance and support, as the “exchange” for merit is historically tied to the asceticism of the robe, irrespective of course to the asceticism of the person wearing the robe. A complementary class of lay preachers who will be aligned with the Sangha and the temples may help to overcome this hurdle. It could also help Monks to decide whether they wish to remain as Monks and adhere fully to the revised Vinaya rules, or become members of the new Order which will have its own rules. Several traditions already use a system similar to what has been suggested. Bhutanese Gomchens (Lay Priests), Tibetan Ngakpas (Tantric Practitioners), Japanese Temple Priests are some of them. Sri Lanka could adopt a system that is culturally complementary and a system that looks towards the future and the effective preservation of the teachings of the Buddha. It is hoped that a discussion will ensue on what has been suggested and presented here and some leading Monks takes the leadership to further the discussion.