The Anuradhapura Kingdom - XV

The Anuradhapura Kingdom - XV

Contiued with part fourteen   here to go previous one

Theravada doctrine had the defects of its virtues: clear, simple, compassionate and restrained, it was at the same time a trifle too abstract and lacking in emotion, passion and vehemence if not enthusiasm. At the core of Mahayanist teaching was its conception of the bodhisattva, a compassionate figure who forgoes nirvana to work for the salvation of all beings. A bodhisattva seeks enlightenment to enlighten others, continues in the cycle of re-births, and uses his piety and spiritual attainments to guide all living things in their quest for salvation. Theravada sensibilities were offended by the Mahayanist contention that the status of a bodhisattva was a more altruistic ideal to strive for than the attainment of nirvana for oneself.

Through their cult of the bodhisattva, the Mahayanists provided Buddhism with a new mythology. More significantly the Buddha him self-came to be regarded and worshipped as a god, and was placed in a cosmic view in which a succession of Buddhas was distributed through infinite time and space. In Mahayanist teaching the accumulation of merit through one's own endeavors and spiritual attainments, although essential in the quest for salvation, was not the only means to this end. There was also the emotional aspect of devotion and divine grace through the worship of heavenly savior Buddhas and bodhisattvas; and a central feature of Mahayanist religious practice was the worship of images of the Buddha and later of bodhisattvas. The greatest name associated with these new developments in Buddhist thought was Nagaijuna and his principal disciple, Aryadeva. The latter, an original thinker himself, is believed to have been a scion of the Sinhalese royal family. And this brings us to the point that Mahayanist doctrine was soon preached in Sri Lanka. The Mahavihara bhikkhus rose in opposition to these, but there was a sympathetic reception for Mahayanism at the Abhayagiri, which had been founded in the reign of Vattagaman! Abhaya (c. 103 BC), had seceded from the Mahavihara and had established itself as a rival and independent sect. There were frequent disputations between the Mahavihara and the Abhayagiri on matters relating to monastic discipline and doctrinal interpretation, ranging from truly significant issues to the very trivial. These polemical wranglings and sectarian disputes became more frequent and sharper in tone with the development of the cleavage between Theravada orthodoxy and heretical versions of Buddhism.

The third century AD saw a historic confrontation between the or thodox Theravada school and the intrusive and dynamic Mahayanist doctrines (the Mahayanists were called Vaitulyavadins and Vitanqla vadins in the Alahdvarnsa), which began, as is usual in such encounters, with the orthodox school on the offensive, urging the ruler to fulfil his traditional obligation to the 'establishment' of using the resources of the state for the enforcement of religious conformity, and if need be to crush heterodoxy before it could stabilise itself. This is what happened under Voharika Tissa (209-31) when the Mahavihara bhikkhus convinced him that the new teachings were incompatible with the true doctrines of Buddhism. These repressive measures were only temporarily successful, and the Mahayanists were too resilient and resourceful to be kept down forever. Within a generation, the struggle was renewed, but this time the Mahavihara woke up to the limits of its influence on the ruler of the day, Gothabhaya (249-62), who could not be persuaded that coercion on behalf of religious orthodoxy was the answer to problems stemming from doctrinal dissonance in the sangha. On the contrary, he was a little sympathetic to Mahayanism himself. Under Mahasena tables were turned on the Mahavihara. Orthodoxy now faced the ruler's wrath, which was manifested with an "S. Paranavitana in UCHC I, p. 248." virulence that far surpassed Voharika Tissa's suppression of Mahayanism. Indeed some of the magnificent edifices of the Mahavihara complex were pulled down and the material from them used for the extension of the Abhayagiri. Mahasena founded the Jetavana monastery, and the institutions affiliated to it formed a congregation generally partial to the Abhayagiri and its doctrines. Thus the third of the sects into which the sangha was divided in ancient Sri Lanka had emerged.

Orthodoxy was not so easily dislodged. It had links, strong and intimate, with all sections of the population but above all with the nobility, and these loyalties were strong enough to restrain Mahasena and to compel him to stop well short of a complete destruction of the Mahavihara. Under his successor, the Mahavihara recovered much of its former privileges. It had weathered the storm and re-emerged as the center of orthodoxy, largely through the indefatigable energies, scholarship and piety of monks such as Buddaghosa (fifth century AD), although a great deal of its original prestige and power was irretrievably lost in the struggle against Mahayanism.

The Ciilavamsa would have us believe that there was no substantial change in the position of the Mahavihara in the later centuries of the Anuradhapura kingdom; that it remained the centre of the 'official' version of Buddhism; that kings continued as its patrons and, as defenders of the faith, suppressed heterodox sects whenever these appeared to offer a challenge to the Mahavihara. But the fact is that the position of the Mahavihara was much weaker and less influential than this. Though the Mahavihara had survived the worst effects of Mahasena's purposeful hostility, the sectarian strife of the third century and early fourth century had demonstrated the limits of its powers. It neither received the exclusive loyalty of the rulers of the day and the people at large nor dominated religious life as it had done in the early centuries of the Christian era. Every now and then new sects representing some fresh interpretation of the canon would emerge and the Abhayagiri and Jetavana viharas continued to be receptive to these heterodox sects and ideas.

Indeed it would seem that for much of the Anuradhapura period, the Abhayagiri had a more numerous following than its more illustrious rival. The Abhayagiri complex covered a larger area than that of the Mahavihara, while its edifices rivaled if they did not surpass those of the latter in grandeur and variety. Besides, the bhikkhus of the Abhayagiri enjoyed a reputation for spiritual attainment and learning both in Sri Lanka and abroad. The equating of heterodoxy with sinfulness, which the Mahavihara and its adherents put forward in their criticisms of the Abhayagiri, was one which had no basis in fact or acceptance among the Buddhists of the island. Though it was never able to displace Theravada Buddhism from its position of primacy, Mahayanism had a profound influence on Sri Lanka Buddhism. This is achieved by the response it evoked among the people, in the shift of emphasis from the ethical to the devotional aspect of religion. To the lay Buddhist, Mahayanist ritual and ceremonies had a compelling attraction, and they became a vital part of worship. The anniversary of the birth of the Buddha became a festive occasion celebrated under state auspices. Relics of the Buddha and of the early disciples became the basis of a powerful cult of relic worship. Of these much, the most significant and popular was the tooth relic of the Buddha which was brought to Sri Lanka in the reign of Sirimeghavanna (301-28) under Mahayanist auspices and housed in the Abhayagiri, since the Mahavihara would have nothing to do with it, in the early stages at least. But the lack of enthusiasm on the part of the Mahavihara could not prevent the cult of the tooth relic from becoming an important annual Buddhist ceremony whose appeal became progressively more contagious to the point where, after some centuries, the possession of the tooth relic became essential to the exercise of sovereignty in Sri Lanka.