I was aware that caste stratification was a feature of Sri Lankan culture, but I have to admit I was pretty surprised to stumble upon this passage:
"The overriding authority of the ruler in religious affairs was demonstrated most starkly in Kīrti Śrī Rājasimha’s decree, promulgated after the establishment of the Siyam Nikāya, which restricted its membership to the Govikula alone. Saranankara acquiesced in this, although it went against the Silvat Samāgama’s well-established practice of ignoring caste distinctions among its membership. With Kīrti Śrī Rājasimha’s decree, the non-Goyigama bhikkhus were rigorously excluded from the sangha; indeed, a large number of them were even prohibited from performing the ceremony of higher ordination. This caste exclusiveness in the sangha was nothing new either in the Kandyan kingdom, or in the Sinhalese kingdoms of the past; indeed, it was well established in the days of the Dambadeniya kings in the thirteenth century. What was significant in Kīrti Śrī Rājasimha’s decree was that it ostentatiously legitimized caste exclusiveness. Equally important, the acquiescence of the Siyam Nikāya leadership in this demonstrated afresh the strength of traditional values in the Buddhist revival.
The reaction to this appeared within a generation, not in the Kandyan kingdom but in the low country where, in the last years of the eighteenth century and the first decade of the nineteenth, a predominantly non-Goyigama fraternity of bhikkhus, the Amarapura Nikāya, was established on the refusal of the Siyam Nikāya to grant upasampadā to non-Goyigamas.6 The authority of the exclusively Goyigama Siyam Nikāya was still unchallenged within the Kandyan kingdom."
Silva, K M de. A History of Sri Lanka . Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.
The author states that “this hardening of caste attitudes is attributed to the burgeoning influence of Hinduism on religion and society in Sri Lanka.”
Here is the passage for context:
“We turn next, and briefly, to the caste structure of Sri Lankan society under the Polonnaruva kings. Two points are of special interest. There is, first, much stronger evidence of a hierarchical arrangement of castes, though it is difficult to determine the exact or even approximate place of each caste in that structure. The segmentation of Sinhalese society into some of the numerous castes which exist today began before this period, but the process appears to have been accelerated in it. Second, there was increasing rigidity in the observance of caste duties, obligations and rights on the basis of custom and usage. For instance, a Tamil inscription of 1122 reveals that washermen were required to perform their customary duties to members of certain other—presumably ‘higher’—castes and that there would be no remission of this obligation. A rock inscription of Vijayabāhu I at Ambagamuva shows that he had constructed a special platform on Adam’s Peak below the main terrace of the ‘sacred’ footprint for the use of persons of ‘low’ caste. More significantly, there are Ni••aṅka Malla’s repeated references to, and ridicule of, the aspirations of the Govikula (the Goyigama caste, then as now very probably the largest caste group among the Sinhalese, though possibly not at that time the most prestigious) to kingship in Sri Lanka. Quite clearly, this was regarded as a monopoly of the Kshatriyas. **This hardening of caste attitudes is attributed to the burgeoning influence of Hinduism on religion and society in Sri Lanka.**17”
Silva, K M de. A History of Sri Lanka . Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.
The footnote gives the reference:
“17. Siriweera, ‘Land Tenure and Revenue in Medieval Ceylon’, pp. 2–3.”
This got me wondering if such caste discrimination had any historical impact on Vinaya interpretation in Sri Lanka, aside from the exclusion of ordination to members of certain castes by certain nikāyas. I think this is an interesting topic of inquiry, and I am interested to learn more about this.
In the first passage I provided above, there is a footnote that references Buddhism in Sinhalese Society by author Kitsiri Malalgoda, so I went and purchased the book, which I am currently reading in an effort to learn more about it. So far, not much in the way of Vinaya interpretation as a result of these splits has been mentioned in this insightful study of the transformation of Buddhism on the Island during the period of 1750 - 1900, but it has been quite insightful to see just how rampant the caste discrimination had been. And it’s not difficult to see why different nikāyas developed based on caste stratification. For example, the author quotes a letter written by monks to Iman Willem Falck, the Dutch Governor, in 1769 in response to some of his questions:
“The Kandyan monks themselves were well aware that their caste exclusivism did not derive its legitimacy from the ancient vinaya regulations. Answering the question ‘Men of what nagaran [castes] are qualified to enter on the duties of the religious life?’-which was included in a questionnaire addressed to them by Iman Willem Falck, the Dutch governor (1765-85)-the monks replied: ‘It does not appear in the books that the religious life is not open to men of any nagaran, nevertheless at the present time in the Sinhala Rata [Kandyan kingdom] the admission of a person of low nagaran is prohibited.’20”
Buddhism in Sinhalese Society by Kitsiri Malalgoda p. 125
And so then, quite a bit of turmoil unfolded as individuals from lower castes sought to be ordained as well. Perhaps I will post more about that later, but for now, I would like to examine the question of how these separate nikāyas may have led to differences in the interpretation of Vinaya (and especially of Pāṭimokkha).
Renaldo