International Buddhist Conference on New Millennium Challenges for Buddhism

17-19 February, 2012

Sub-theme- Tradition and Change

Abstract- The Post of Chief Monk (Sangha-Nāyaka) in Sri Lanka and Its

Credibility, Utility and Accountability: An Introspective Note

Bakamoone Indaratana Doctoral Candidate,

Special Centre for Sanskrit Studies,

Jawaharlal Nehru University,

New Delhi, 11006705

India

The Buddha, in his life time, did not appoint any supreme monk as the care-taker

or authority of his disciples even though there were some demands for the same from

some of his monks. Besides, the Buddha assigned the supremacy to his teaching and

disciplinary rules (Dhamma and Vinaya) which he prescribed as the administrator of the

Sangha community after his death. Yet, He assigned some duties and responsibilities in

the Sangha administration to his great disciples as suitable to the positions according to

their specialized status and qualifications.

But, as Buddhism spread to many countries, Buddhist tradition had to be adjusted,

changed, or modified according to the political, geographical, economic, social and

cultural conditions and circumstances of that particular region. Availing themselves of

the permission granted by the Buddha to the Sangha that if they desired they could

remove or abolish minor rules, bhikkhus with the help of the States started to hold Sangha

councils, make some declarations, pass resolutions, and appoint supremacies for the

smooth continuation of the Sangha community. In many of the Theravada Buddhist

countries, the king appointed a monk as the ‘sangha-rāja’ (supreme patriarch) for the

regularization of the institution.

Following this historical tradition, Sri Lanka too witnesses the post of ‘maha-

nāyaka’ (Chief High Priest/Arch Bishop) as replenishment for the sangha-raja in

different sects of Sangha (nikāya) or councils of Buddhist monks (sangha-sabhā). Under

the headship of maha-nāyaka, the hierarchical order consists of the posts such as ‘anu-

nāyaka’ (deputy chief high priest), ‘pradhāna-sangha-nāyaka’ (chief monk), ‘upa-

pradhāna-sangha-nāyaka’ (deputy chief monk), ‘adhikara�a-sangha-nāyaka’ (judiciary

chief monk). These posts are conferred with relevance to a particular district, region or an

area in Sri Lanka and outside the Island by the main-fraternities or sub-fraternities or

councils of monks. Hence one can see a number of maha-nāyakas, anu-nāyakas and so

forth among the Sri Lankan Buddhist monks in the world. Fortunately or unfortunately,

the nuns in Sri Lanka still do not own such kind of institution.

The institutionalization of this system in the recent past merits our attention as

the current system was established by the Act of Appointment by the British with a view

to keeping the nāyakas loyal and faithful to the English Government and even using them

as spies to provide the government with certain information. This fact is still rendered

partially in the credentials given to the chief monks when they are conferred. At present,

the conferring and acceptance of the chief monkhood seems to be a mere continuation of

the tradition. Most of the posts are merely ceremonial. The post-holders or the granters

seem to be unaware of the duties or responsibilities of their function. Yet the competition

among the monks to receive the post is very high where even “money” seems to be a

decisive factor thus contributing to an increase in worldliness rather than spiritual

realities. One can see that in many regions in Sri Lanka, monks have established

“Councils of Monks” which have departed from the so called “official fraternities” or

“councils”, irrespective of sects for the regularization of the institution and they work

well in addressing the day today circumstances. Therefore, it is time for an introspection

of what we are doing, what should be the purpose of holding and continuing such an

institution, what kind of system we should have for the exact and real protection and

preservation of the order of monks.

This paper intends to address the issues such as the history of the institution of

‘Chief Buddhist Monk’ and the present status of the same, and its credibility, utility and

accountability in relevance to the future needs. These issues will be compared with the

similar systems which are practiced in other Theravada Buddhist countries. The paper

will also emphasize some introspection within the tradition since some major changes

seem to be required rather than embarking upon criticism.