{"id":101936,"date":"2020-05-05T14:38:58","date_gmt":"2020-05-05T21:38:58","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/?p=101936"},"modified":"2020-05-05T14:40:45","modified_gmt":"2020-05-05T21:40:45","slug":"buddhist-nikayas-in-sri-lanka-part-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/2020\/05\/05\/buddhist-nikayas-in-sri-lanka-part-2\/","title":{"rendered":"BUDDHIST NIKAYAS IN SRI LANKA Part 2"},"content":{"rendered":"

KAMALIKA PIERIS<\/em><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n

The first clash within the Sangha was between\nthe Udarata Siyam and Pahata rata Siyam. Udarata monks ridiculed the Pahata\nrata monks. I think they saw them as \u2018polluted\u2019 since the Pahata rata was under\nDutch rule. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pahata rata monks were not crushed by this. They\nin turn, watched the sima debate between Asgiri and Malwatte. Asgiri had said\nthe Malwatte sima was no longer acceptable. Malwatte had removed the sima\nstones to extend the sima and put it back wrong.  Asgiri also said that Malwatte had polluted\nits ordination, not because of sima but because of dishonest activity, such as conspiring\nto kill king Kirti Sri. Also Malwatte had seized lands belong to Asgiri.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pahata rata Siyam nikaya watched this with\ninterest. There is nothing about a sima in Buddhism and ordination without a proper\nsima is also valid, they said. Without getting permission from Kandy   they performed a higher ordination at\nTelwatte Raja Maha Vihara in 1773 led by Ven. Vagegoda Dhammakusala. Another\nordination was performed in Tangalle in 1798 \n led by Induruwe Indrajothi.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There was a second clash on caste\u201d. Malwatte\nflatly refused to ordain persons who did not belong to the Govigama caste.\nMalwatte was adamant about this. Malwatte said this was not their idea. They\nwere simply following the katikavata issued by king Kirti Sri.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 This katikavata\nincluded in it a Pali phrase taken from Dambadeni Katikavata, Pabbajentapi\nsodetva pabbajeta sodetva upsampadadeta\u2026 jati gotra vicara kuladosa kriyadosa\nnati pratigna kala kala\u201d (Kulatunge p 79). \nMalwatte used this to confine ordination to those of the Govigama caste\nonly.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Malwatte said that when \u2018low castes\u2019, such as\nblacksmiths and gold smiths  were ordained\nthey would still have to carry out their caste duties. Malwatte ended the argument\nsaying that though in the time of Buddha, low castes were given ordination it\nwas not possible to do so now.  Because\nnow there was a royal decree against it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to Kulatunge, Karava and Durava\ncommunities of the low country    had written to       Malwatte asking for higher ordination and\nMalwatte said no\u201d. Non-Govigama Buddhists were not prepared to accept this. They\nwould probably have said that it was ridiculous to have the Maha Sangha\nconfined to just one caste. And that this has not happened before in the\nhistory of Buddhism in Sri Lanka.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

They had to find their own way out of this. They\ndid so, without hesitation. They founded their own Nikaya, the Amarapura Nikaya<\/strong> with a fresh Upasampada\nobtained from Burma.  The Amarapura nikaya\narose due to the refusal of Malwatte to ordain \u2018non Govigama\u2019 into the Sangha.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Govigama caste was considered the elite\ncaste by the British. But three non-Govigama castes, Durawe, Karawe and Salagama\nwere also very well placed in the British administration. Their names,\naddresses and professions show that they had good status in the British administration,\nsaid Kulatunge. These three castes had money, position and contacts. Their\nmoney came from landholdings, arrack and professions. Going to Burma to bring\nback a fresh Upasampada, was not a problem for them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The first bhikkhu to go to Burma and bring\nback the ordination was Ambagahapitiye Nanavimala Tissa (b. 1767) of\nBalapitiya. Nanavimala had been ordained by Sangharaja Saranankara. Re-ordination\nhad been refused by Malwatte because he was of the Salagama caste. He decided\nto go to Siam to obtain higher ordination but was advised to go to Burma\ninstead as Burma was more prosperous.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ambagahapitiye went to Burma in 1799\naccompanied by Ven. Madampe Uttamadhira, Bogahawatte Jayatujina Tissa and\nWaturegama Dammadhara. He met King\nBodavpaya in his capital, Amarapura.  King\nBodavpaya of Burma was no weakling. He had annexed Arakan in Upper Burma,\nsecured control over the Tenarassim coast, and was also ruling over Manipur and\nAssam.  In 1783 he had made Amarapura his\nnew capital.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

King Bodavpaya was a fervent Buddhist. He\nwelcomed Ambagahapitiye and his team and treated them well.  He built a vihara for them, the Lankarama. He\narranged for the religious tuition needed, and took Ambagahapitiye in a\npalanquin, dressed in royal attire, for his ordination.                       <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ven. Ambagahapitiye was given Buddhist texts\nto take back with him, also two letters dated Jan 1802 in Burmese and\nPortuguese language. These probably certified the Upasampada. Four eminent\nBurmese monks led by Ven. Aggasara were sent with him. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

On arriving in Ceylon, Ambagahapitiye and his\nteam was taken in procession from Colombo harbour to Ambarukkaramaya at\nBalapitiya. Ambagahapitiye set up a\nsima in Madu Ganga and started Upasampada in 1803. This was the beginning of\nthe Amarapura Nikaya. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Others followed his example and went to Burma,\ngot higher ordination there, returned to Ceylon, and strengthened the Amarapura\nNikaya. Kataluve Gunaratana of the Karawe caste was one of these bhikkhus. Kataluve\nhad received   two questionable higher ordinations\nin Sri Lanka. He went to Burma in 1803, got ordained at Kalyani sima at\nHamsavati in Pegu and returned in 1810 to Dodanduwa.  <\/em>He set up the Amarapura Kalyani\nvamsa.<\/em> Five other Amarapura nikayas\nsprang from this later on, in 1841, 1886, 1900, 1908 and 1915.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bogahapitiye Dhammajothi of the Durawe caste,\nleft for Burma in 1806 with a team   and\nobtained higher ordination at Suwannabumi sima. He returned in 1807 and worked\nin Uva and Sabaragamuwa.  He set up the\nAmarapura Dhammaraksita nikaya. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ven. Attudawe Dhammaraksita and his team went\nto Amarapura, in 1807, spent five years there,    came back in 1813   to\nDevundara, and formed the Amarapura Dhammaraksita nikaya in 1818.  He was probably Karawe since he had joined Ven.\nKataluve Gunaratana and carried out joint Upasampada.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ven. Kapugama Dhammaraksita went to Burma in 1807,\ntravelled to Rangoon and Ava and retuned after ordination. He started the\nDadalu faction of Amarapura in Matara. This was a nikaya consisting of monks from\na sub caste of the Salagama. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kapugama Dhammakkandha, of Salagama caste, went\nto Hamsavati in Burma for his higher ordination and   returned in 1809. He was based at Walukaramaya,\nDadalla and the sima was on Gin Ganga at Gintota.  Kapugama Dhammakkanda converted to\nChristianity, gave up robes,    and took\nthe name Nandoris Silva. This would have been a triumph for the Christians but\nthe nikaya activities would have continued undisturbed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Malwatte was very antagonistic towards\nAmarapura. Malwatte condemned these monks. Malwatte wrote to Siam saying that\nlow country weavers have taken to robes from Amarapura. King Bodavpaya  had ruled that  both shoulders of a monk should be\ncovered  and Amarapura monks( and later\nRamanna) wore both shoulders covered. Malwatte objected to this too. But\nMalwatte was unable to dislodge Amarapura.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Amarapura nikaya was very successful from\nthe start. Kulatunge draws attention to the support given to Amarapura by the dayakas\nof the temples. The low country non-Govi gave whole hearted support to bhikkhus\nof their own caste, he observed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

 Kulatunge reported that eighteen Maha theras\nof Siyam Nikaya, including Puwakdandave Pannananda, Denipitiye Somananda, and\nAkmeemana Sobhita had assembled at  \nKatutimbiriyawe Maha vihara, at Kuruvita and with the assistance of\nEkneligoda Maha Dissawe had obtained higher ordination with Tolangamuwe as\nKammacarya and Delgamuve as preceptor and entered the Amarapura Nikaya. Date\nnot given. (Kulatunge p 233)                \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The bhikkhus who went to Burma belonged to\nSalagama, Durava, Karawe and Govigama castes.By 1861, according to a letter from Ven. Lankagoda Dhirananda of\nRatgama Mandalaramaya, the  \nAmarapura   nikaya had   Sangha from Salagama, Karava, Durava and\nGoi. The caste divisions in the Amarapura nikaya were recognized by the British\nadministration. In     1825, the British\ngovernment   appointed Ven. Nanawimala\nTissa as Nayake of the Bhikkhus belonging to the Salagama caste.\u201d Chief priests were not appointed to the\nother caste nikayas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Salagama caste had two main divisions, and\none section considered itself superior to the other. Therefore,   no sooner was the Amarapura nikaya created,\nthere were two Salagama sima and two Salagama Amarapura sects. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

There was a  \nserious controversy over the Salagama sima at Madu Ganga.  This argument started in 1851 or so and went\non and on, with many   temples joining\nin. There were many unsuccessful attempts at settling the matter. Books and\nletters were written on it, by the monks on the two sides to show that they\nwere correct.  This went on till at least\n1871. There is no information on whether it was ever settled, said Kulatunge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There was also another Vadaya. In 1908, there\nwas a Banku vadaya\u201d (bench). That arose because the westernized Buddhists did\nnot want to sit on mats to listen to bana, they were not used to it.  They wanted to sit on banku.                                                                                       \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Amarapura had many breakaway  nikayas. Eventually, Amarapura nikaya divided\nitself into 32  groups. The first\nAmarapura nikaya, the Amarapura nikaya of Ambagahapitiye, had many breakaway\ngroups. Those who received the Upasampada \ndirectly from  \nAmbagahapitiye  formed the\nAmarapura Mulavamsika Nikaya. Then two\ngroups broke away from Mulavamsika, to form  Amarapura Maha Nikaya (1918), and \nAmarapura Culagandhi nikaya. The leader of the second  nikaya had received ordination from  a Burmese monk  Ven. Ukkama vamsamala when Ukkama  came on \npilgrimage in 1886.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There was a string of breakaway groups from\nthe Bogahapitiye Dhammajothi     group. From Udarata Amarapura nikaya came the\nbreakaway group of Udarata Amarapura Sri Samagri Samgha sabha  (  1955\napprox).  The Uva Amarapura nikaya(1844) divided into factions   of which one was Udukinda Amarapura nikaya\n(1932.) The Saparagamu Amarapura siri Saddhammavamsa\nnikaya,  produced  two divisions, an Eknaligoda faction  and a Pelmadulla faction. (1910) <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kapugama Dhammakkandha\u2019s Dadella Nikaya  led to three breakaway groups, Dadalu\nparamparayatta Amarapura samagama,(1811) Amarapura siri saddhammavamsa Maha\nnikaya, (1863) and Sri Lanka Swejin Nikaya. (1952).  The breakaway Kalyani Vamsika Nikaya  came \nfrom Amarapura Kalyani nikaya.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here are \nfour more breakaway groups, listed by name only. Amarapura saddhamma\nyuktika Matara Maha nikaya. ( 1841.) Kalyanivamsika\nSri Dhammarama Saddhammayuktika Matara nikaya. (1886). Amarapura Ariyawansa Saddhamma Yuktika Maha\nNikaya (1900) Amarapura Mrammavamsabhidhaja Siri Saddhamayuttika Nikaya (1914) <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The dates of breakaway indicate that most\npartitions took place  under British rule.\nThe breakaways seems to me, (Kamalika Pieris) to  be related to three factors, the desire to\nmaintain  teacher-pupil lineages, doctrinal\ndisputes and thirdly, practical considerations such  as distance. The splintering of the Uva\nNikaya would have been due to  the hilly\nterrain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is no indication of rival factions.\nThere would have been disagreement on the pupillary succession, certainly, but\nthis does not seem to have resulted in disappointed monks marching off with\ntheir followers. If so, the nikayas they set up would have had highly individual\nsounding names. Instead, the names   of\nthe new nikayas clearly indicate the Nikaya they are breaking away from. With\nthe result that all the breakaway nikayas have similar sounding names. I found\nit very confusing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The breakaway nikayas all seem to me, to be\nstable nikayas, with unbroken lines of chief monks. They seemed set to go on\nforever. But the Sangha   had other plans. According to Kulatunge there\nwas   an attempt to unite the different\nfactions of Amarapura Nikaya in 1940. The senior bhikkhus involved in this\nattempt included Balangoda Ananda Maithri, Madihe Pannasiha, Kosgoda\nDhammavansa, Bibilegama Abhayatissa, and Talalle Dhammananda   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The unification movement got a boost with the\nMEP victory of 1956. SWRD Bandaranaike when he became Prime Minister took steps\nto unite the Amarapura nikaya . He called a meeting of the Chief priests at\nVajirarama, Colombo in 1957. This\nresulted in the creation of Samasta Lanka Amarapura Sangha sabha. Fifteen sub\ngroups were amalgamated in to this Sabha.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The longed for unification of Amarapura came  at last in 1967  with the \ncreation of Sri Lanka Amarapura Maha Sangha sabha which brought all\nthe Amarapura nikayas  together.\nBalangoda Ananda Maitriya was its first chairman.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sri Lanka Amarapura Maha samgha sabha  took strong action to stop any further  partitions. The constitution stated that to\nbe accepted as a new faction, the applicant \nshould posses at least 20 viharas and 50 Upasampada bhikkhus. This\nimmediately reduced the number of sub nikayas from 30  to 21. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This \norganization had a Supreme Mahanayake for life and also a Judicial Conciliatory Council. The  organization was aware of the threats to   Buddhism \nin   contemporary Sri Lanka  and the need to maintain a modern\nprofile.  Assistant secretaries were\nappointed to deal with the subjects of Vinaya Karma, co-ordination among local\nfactions, missionary activities,  census, \neducation, public relations and  \nsocial services.  This  Sangha sabha \nhas worked well, said Kulatunge(2018). (\nContinued) <\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

KAMALIKA PIERIS The first clash within the Sangha was between the Udarata Siyam and Pahata rata Siyam. Udarata monks ridiculed the Pahata rata monks. I think they saw them as \u2018polluted\u2019 since the Pahata rata was under Dutch rule. Pahata rata monks were not crushed by this. They in turn, watched the sima debate between […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":true,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[104],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-101936","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-kamalika-pieris"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/101936","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=101936"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/101936\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=101936"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=101936"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=101936"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}