The life of a Buddhist monk originally involved wandering, poverty, begging, and strict sexual abstinence. The monks were supposed to live only on alms, to wear clothes made from cloth taken from rubbish heaps, and to possess only three robes, one girdle, an alms bowl, a razor, a needle, and a water strainer for filtering insects from drinking water (so as not to kill or imbibe them). Most Buddhist schools still stress celibacy, though some groups, particularly in Tibet and Japan, have relaxed the monastic discipline, and some Vajrayana schools have allowed sexual intercourse as an esoteric ritual that contributes to the attainment of release. In all schools, however, begging has become merely a symbolic gesture used to teach humility or compassion or to raise funds for special purposes. Also, the growth of large monasteries has often led to compromises on the rule of poverty. While the monk might technically give up his property before entering the monastery—though even this rule is sometimes relaxed—the community of monks might inherit wealth and receive lavish gifts of land. The acquisition of wealth has often led to the attainment of temporal power. This factor, in addition to the self-governing nature of Buddhist monasteries and the early Buddhist connection with Indian kingship, has influenced the interaction of the sangha and the state. Society and state
Buddhism is sometimes inaccurately described as a purely monastic, otherworldly religion. In the earliest phases of the tradition, the Buddha was pictured as a teacher who addressed not only renouncers but lay householders. Moreover, although he is not depicted in the early texts as a social reformer, the Buddha does address issues of social order and responsibility. Perhaps the most famous early text on this topic is the Sigalovada-sutta, which has been called the “householder’s vinaya.”
Throughout their history Buddhists have put forth varying forms of social ethics based on notions of karmic justice (the “law” that good deeds will be rewarded with happy results while evil deeds will entail suffering for the one who does them); the cultivation of virtues such as self-giving, compassion, and evenhandedness; and the fulfillment of responsibilities to parents, teachers, rulers, and so on. Moreover, Buddhists have formulated various notions of cosmogony, cosmology, and soteriology that have provided legitimacy for the social hierarchies and political orders with which they have been associated. For the most part, Buddhism has played a conservative, moderating role in the social and political organization of various Asian societies, but the tradition has also given rise to more radical and revolutionary movements.
Over the course of Buddhism’s long history, the relationship between the Buddhist community and state authority has taken many forms. The early Buddhist sangha in India appears to have been treated by Indian rulers as a self-governing unit not subject to their power unless it proved subversive or was threatened by internal or external disruption. Ashoka, the king whose personal interest in Buddhism contributed to the religion’s dramatic growth, appears to have been applying this policy of protection from disruption when he intervened in Buddhist monastic affairs to expel schismatics. He came to be remembered, however, as the Dharmaraja, the great king who protected and propagated the teachings of the Buddha.
In Theravada countries Ashoka’s image as a supporter and sponsor of the faith has traditionally been used to judge political authority. In general, Buddhism in Theravada countries has been either heavily favoured or officially recognized by the government. The sangha’s role in this interaction, at least ideally, has been to preserve the dhamma and to act as spiritual guide and model, revealing to the secular power the need for furthering the welfare of the people. While the sangha and the government are two separate structures, there has been some intertwining; monks (often from elite families) have commonly acted as governmental advisers, and kings—at least in Thailand—have occasionally spent some time in the monastery. Moreover, Buddhist monastic institutions have often served as a link between the rural peoples and the urban elites, helping to unify the various Theravada countries.
In China Buddhism has been seen as a foreign religion, as a potential competitor with the state, and as a drain on national resources of men and wealth. These perceptions have led to sharp persecutions of Buddhism and to rules curbing its influence. Some of the rules attempted to limit the number of monks and to guarantee governmental influence in ordination through state examinations and the granting of ordination certificates. At other times, such as during the early centuries of the Tang dynasty (618–907), Buddhism was virtually a state religion. The government created a commissioner of religion to earn merit for the state by erecting temples, monasteries, and images in honour of the Buddha.
In Japan Buddhism experienced similar fluctuations. From the 10th to the 13th century, monasteries gained great landed wealth and temporal power. They formed large armies of monks and mercenaries that took part in wars with rival religious groups and in struggles for temporal power. By the 14th century, however, their power had begun to wane. Under the Tokugawa regime in the 17th century, Buddhist institutions were virtually instruments of state power and administration.
Only in Tibet did Buddhists establish a theocratic polity that lasted for an extended period of time. Beginning in the 12th century, Tibetan monastic groups forged relationships with the powerful Mongol khans that often gave them control of governmental affairs. In the 17th century the Dge-lugs-pa school, working with the Mongols, established a monastic regime that was able to maintain almost continual control until the Chinese occupation in the 1950s.
During the premodern period the various Buddhist communities in Asia developed working relationships of one kind or another with the sociopolitical systems in their particular areas. As a result of Western colonial incursions, and especially after the establishment of new political ideologies and political systems during the 19th and 20th centuries, these older patterns of accommodation between Buddhism and state authority were seriously disrupted. In many cases bitter conflicts resulted—for example, between Buddhists and colonial regimes in Sri Lanka and Myanmar, between Buddhists and the Meiji reformers in Japan, and between Buddhists and many different communist regimes. In some cases, as in Japan, these conflicts were resolved and new modes of accommodation established. In other cases, as in Tibet, strong tensions remained. The major systems and their literature Theravada
Theravada (Pali: “Way of the Elders”), or Sthaviravada (Sanskrit), emerged as one of the Hinayana (Sanskrit: “Lesser Vehicle”) schools, traditionally numbered at 18, of early Buddhism. The Theravadins trace their lineage to the Sthaviravada school, one of two major schools (the Mahasanghika was the other) that supposedly formed in the wake of the Council of Vaishali (now in Bihar state) held some 100 years after the Buddha’s death. Employing Pali as their sacred language, the Theravadins preserved their version of the Buddha’s teaching in the Tipitaka (“Three Baskets”).
During the reign of the emperor Ashoka (3rd century bce), the Theravada school was established in Sri Lanka, where it subsequently divided into three subgroups, known after their respective monastic centres. The cosmopolitan Abhayagiriviharavasi maintained open relations with Mahayana and later Vajrayana monks and welcomed new ideas from India. The Mahaviharavasi—with whom the third group, the Jetavanaviharavasi, was loosely associated—established the first monastery in Sri Lanka and preserved intact the original Theravadin teachings.