Page 256 - Proceedings book

mqrdúoHd fomd¾;fïka;=j

emphasized that the kingdom had been "handed over to the sangha" over and over

again by several rulers in the past. In this context, it was held that it was the
sangha which handed over kingship to an individual, for the express purpose of the

protection of their "bowls and robes," symbols perhaps of the order and its material
wealth. It would thus be evident that the set of concepts on the relative position of the

king and the sangha was dialectical in nature in that in it opposed ideas had been put

together and linked.

These ideas emphasized the dependence of the king on the sangha. However, the
sangha could not rival the king in power. For one, the Buddhist clergy were divided

into three groups, the nikayas, for more than a millennium. For the greater part of this

period relations amongst these three groups were not very friendly. A king could
always get the support of one of the nikayas to curb the power of another. And, in the

twelfth century, when the sangha was unified, it came to be unified and remained
unified under the leadership of a monk nominated by the king. Under these conditions,

emphasis was on the interdependence of the sangha and the king, the need for close
collaboration and mutual support. The proper functioning of the polity would depend

on the concurrence of their views. The growth of the wealth of the monastery and its

increasing involvement in administrative affairs would have meant that monastic
communities had an interest in preventing serious disruptions of the political order,

and would be amenable to accommodation with the state. Hence, in very broad,
general, terms, the relationship could be described as one of symbiosis, an

arrangement or a process of accommodation which suited mutual interests.

On this last point I would be making two further clarifications. The first classification

I would like to make is that this accommodation with the state was not an easy task
for the sangha and that it involved a radical change even as regards certain crucial

points of doctrine. A comparison with a particular South Asian tradition of political

theory as outlined in epics like the Mahabharata and in the Dharmasastra literature
helpful in explaining the point. An important politico-social concept found in these

works is that of danda. Danda is punishment. It represented the principal of violent
coercive, even if corrective, force. Danda ruled the world, and the proper functioning

of the social order depended on it. It was the supreme duty of the ruler to set danda in
motion and, if he were to ignore his duty, or exercise it improperly, danda would turn

235