Page 252 - Proceedings book

mqrdúoHd fomd¾;fïka;=j

iv) The fourth area pertains to the award of immunities to monasteries. Even in the

early centuries which witnessed the beginnings of the transfer of land and irrigation
property to monasteries, we find the kings exempting the donated properties from

taxes. Even when private donors transferred property to monasteries, they interceded
with the state officials to have them exempted from taxation. The exemption from

taxation did not mean that the tenants in the monastic estates benefited, but it did

mean that the monastic officials collected the dues. By about the ninth century, it is
found that, in addition to the rights to fiscal dues, the monasteries were enjoying the

right to free labor which the king had traditionally enjoyed and also the authority to
administer justice within the monastic estates. From about the eighth century, a

considerable number of inscriptions called "immunity grants" came to be issued by

kings, and these inscriptions record the formalization or ratification by kings of the
fiscal, judicial and one might even say political authority enjoyed by the monasteries

over the peasants living in their estates. It becomes clear from these inscriptions that
the authority that royal officials enjoyed over these estates came to be increasingly

limited. In certain cases they were even debarred from entering their precincts. Within
the estates the functions of state officials were being taken over by employees in the

monastic administration. Some of the monastic estates were enjoying special

privileges of a category of grant called Brahmadeya. According to exegetical works
of the Sri Lankan tradition, a grantee of this category could collect taxes and tolls, and

was even entitled to judicial powers including authority to impose severe physical
punishments. According to one such text, the grantee could enjoy his property in a

royal manner as if he was the sovereign. The grant was final and irrevocable.

Methods

It is clear that the relationship with the king brought to the sangha enormous material
benefits. His patronage helped to augment the resources of the monastery and to

strengthen its administrative power. The relationship was a complex one. On the one

hand, royal authority was the source of essential support for the sangha in its attempts
to maintain discipline within the clerical community and to periodically rid itself of

undesirable elements. On the other hand, this very relationship had a totally different
effect in directing the monastery into increasing involvement in not only economic

activity but also administrative affairs over considerably large lay groups. The fact
that monasteries had lay officials in their employ did not mean that the monks were

231