Page 251 - Proceedings book

q
cd;sl mqrdúoHd iu¿j 2025
increased. The other noteworthy characteristic of this relationship was its protracted

nature. In India the Buddhist sangha enjoyed the patronage of certain kings such as
Asoka, the Indo-Greek ruler Menander, the Kusana king Kaniska and some kings of

the Iksvaku, Satavahana and Pala dynasties. However, it is difficult to trace a
continuity in royal patronage of Buddhism in almost all these instances. In Sri Lanka,

on the other hand, the Buddhist sangha enjoyed the patronage of rulers over a much

longer period. Of course, this does not mean that all Sri Lankan rulers of ancient and
medieval times were Buddhists. There were instances when power passed onto

Saivists or Vaisnavites from South India and also of local rulers who were not
Buddhists. However, on the whole, despite changes of dynasty, in times when the

whole island was politically unified as well as in other times when it was divided into

several minor chiefdoms, Buddhism continued to enjoy generous patronage. Even
when the personal faith of rulers was not Buddhist, they often found it politically

expedient to extend patronage to the Buddhist clergy. It is quite clear that the greater
majority of the rulers of Sri Lanka were patrons of the Buddhist sangha.

(Gunawardana, 1979)

There were several clearly identifiable areas where royal patronage was significantly

beneficial to the sangha:
i) A large number of monasteries bore testimony to the munificence of royal

patronage. The three major monasteries of Anuradhapura, together with their massive
stupas, had been constructed by royal patrons.

ii) Kings were foremost among patrons who made extensive donations of irrigation

works, rice fields, coconut and arecanut plantations, and cash to monasteries. In
addition to making permanent endowments, it became a regular practice for the king

to provide meals daily to a considerable number of monks and nuns at his palace.
Similarly, it is possible to detect numerous instances of kings extending material

supports to religieux by offering clothes, medicaments, assistance to repair monastic

buildings and inducements to further their learning.
iii) The third essential role the kings played was in lending the support of political

authority to acts of reform. It is possible that this sort of intervention was not welcome
by all monks in unison, but, at the same time, it is also true that their intervention was

at times solicited and that it was one of the functions expected of the king.

230