Articles
The Vihāradevālagam Act and the Monasticism:
Study of the Rules of Colonial Rulers on Monastic Properties
2024 Volume 14 Pages 20-32
Details
2024 Volume 14 Pages 20-32
The Vihāradevālagam Act, also referred to as the Buddhist Temporalities Act, was instituted by British colonial rulers in 1931 to regulate Buddhist monastic properties in Sri Lanka. This legislation is one of the most authoritative in Sri Lankan history, surpassing traditional Buddhist monastic disciplinary rules (Vinaya). Despite extensive research on the Vihāradevālagam Act, its relationship with the Vinaya Piṭaka (the collection of Buddhist monastic disciplinary rules) remains underexplored. This paper examines how the Vihāradevālagam Act influenced the Buddhist monastic administrative system, highlighting significant changes introduced by the colonial administration. The interconnections between the Vihāradevālagam Act, medieval Sri Lankan Katikāvatas (legal texts written by previous monarchs), and Vinaya Piṭaka are explored to provide a comprehensive understanding of their impact on monastic practices.
The history of monastic properties in Sri Lanka dates back to the introduction of Buddhism to the country. Over the centuries, kings generously granted lands to sustain monasteries, along with enacting rules for their administration. During the early colonial period, which saw the rule of the Portuguese (1505–1658) and Dutch (1658–1796), there was a general reluctance to interfere with or utilize the properties owned by the Bhikkhus. However, the British colonial rulers (1796–1948) gradually sought control over these monastic properties by implementing a series of specially crafted rules for the management of vihāragam (Buddhist monastic lands) and devālagam (aristocrats’ lands). To this day, the Vihāradevālagam Act, introduced by British colonial rulers, governs monastic landed properties in Sri Lanka.
The establishment of the Vihāradevālagam Act by the British rulers aimed to regulate monastic properties without undermining the Buddhist religion or its monastic disciplinary rules, known as the Vinaya. It appears that the colonial rulers collaborated with the Katikāvatas, legal texts written by previous monarchs, in formulating the Vihāradevālagam Act. By examining the impact of the Vihāradevālagam Act on the traditional Buddhist monastic administrative system, this study explores the significant changes introduced under the British colonial administration. Furthermore, it delves into the relationship between the Vihāradevālagam Act, the Katikāvatas, and Buddhist disciplinary rules, emphasizing the extent to which the act surpassed preexisting regulations.
The literature centers on the Vihāradevālagam Act, which regulates the monastic landed properties in Sri Lanka, and its relationship with British colonial policies and the Vinaya. This section examines six studies that provide diverse perspective on the act’s history, impact, and practical application.
Silva’s (1963) study offers insight into the evolution of British colonial policies on monastic landed properties and economic circumstances in Ceylon. However, it falls short in exploring the relationship between British law and the Vinaya. In contrast, Liston (2000) delivers a more comprehensive analysis of the impact of colonial rule on the evolution of Buddhism in Sri Lanka, highlighting the challenges faced by the religion in the post-colonial period. Liston’s study identifies the British colonial administration’s attempts to diminish the power of Bhikkhus and their efforts to gain their support through legal acts.
Wijesinghe (2013) provides clear guidelines on the practical application of the Vihāradevālagam Act’s regulations. However, it neglects to address the act’s historical evolution or its relationship with the Vinaya. Similarly, Ralapanawa (2017) concentrates on the act’s historical development without offering a clear explanation of its relationship with the Vinaya.
Mahanama and Padmika (2018) stresses the need for Bhikkhus to prioritize spiritual pursuits and argues that the British rulers established a proper system for managing monastic properties. Yet, this study overlooks the act’s relationship with Buddhism or an analysis of the Vinaya or Katikāvatas.
De Silva (2018) offers a perspective that views the Vihāradevālagam Act as beneficial for preserving monastic properties and protecting Buddhism. However, a critical examination of this perspective suggests that the colonial rulers were primarily focused on consolidating control over these monastic properties, thereby reducing the influence of Buddhist institutions. The act, in this light, appears to have served as a strategic tool for the colonial administration to assert dominance, rather than genuinely safeguarding Buddhist interests.
In summary, the studies reviewed provide valuable insights into the evolution of British colonial policies on monastic landed properties and the broader impact of colonial rule on Buddhism in Sri Lanka. However, there is a clear need for further research to explore the relationship between the Vihāradevālagam Act and Buddhist doctrine, particularly concerning the Vinaya and Katikāvatas. Addressing these gaps is essential for a more comprehensive understanding of how colonial legal frameworks influenced and transformed traditional Buddhist governance in Sri Lanka.
The word gam of vihāradevālagam shares the same meaning as gāma, the term used in vihāragāma and devālagāma. Monastic lands are referred to as vihāragam, while lands owned by aristocrats are termed devālagam. In certain region of Sri Lanka, both types of lands are administered together; in others, monastic lands and aristocratic lands are managed separately. Presently, vihāragam belongs to the saṅgha (the Buddhist Order), whereas devālagam is managed by Basnāyaka nilame (lay administrator), although both claim property rights.
Historically, Sri Lanka has not had any formal Buddhist law governing monastic lands, nor has the Vinaya been given constitutional power. There were no statutory rules for the administration of monastic landed property, except for certain guidelines established by the Vihāra Katikāvatas (royally enacted rules for the administration of the monastic properties) and Sāsana Katikāvatas (royally enacted rules for the supporting the lives of the Bhikkhus). Until the colonial period, monasteries were largely managed at the discretion of the Bhikkhus. It was only when colonial rulers began to enact constitutional laws that formal rules for the administration of monastic lands came into existence.
Landed properties that generated income for monasteries were granted as early as the late second century BCE (Gunawardana 1979: 53–57). For example, King Lajaka Tissa (119–109 BCE) offered two tanks, namely Vihāra-vewa and Panita-katiya. During this period, irrigation was provided to monasteries to facilitate revenue generation (Gunawardana 1979: 55). The Nāulpota and Galgamuwa inscriptions (Wickremasinghe 1912: 146) are believed to have been inscribed by King Vaṭṭagāmiṇi (103–102, 89–77 BCE) (Gunawardana 1979: 54). Offering landed property to monasteries was a royal duty (Gunawardana 1979: 54), and the kings refrained from collecting tax from these lands. Instead, they gave the monasteries the profits generated from the lands. It was considered a sin to take any profit or tax from the monasteries after offering land to the saṅgha.1
3.2. Development of Vihāragam and DevālagamDuring the Dam̆badeṇiya period, Bhikkhus were advised to accept the slaves, cattle, lands, and fields only after consulting with the modest, learned, and disciplined Chief Bhikkhu (Nāyaka Tera).2 It is assumed that the Bhikkhus of this period were actively engaged in agriculture. Although there were no formal rules governing the administration of monastic lands during this time, the Bhikkhus themselves managed these lands. Monastic administration was typically based on the opinion of the residents Bhikkhus of each monastery. The king was responsible for maintaining the monastery even if the Bhikkhus oversaw its management. Rahula (2012: 76) noted that government-paid officers worked in leading monasteries, such as Mihintale and Abhayagiriya, under the full guidance of the Bhikkhus.
The kings’ motivation for maintaining monasteries with government funds was likely due to Bhikkhus’ immense popularity and influence, rather than purely religious respect. Kings even employed and compensated Bhikkhus to serve as advisors in order to win favor with the community. For instance, King Parākkramabāhu IV (1302–1346 AD10)3 granted gamvara for the maintenance of the Temple of the Tooth Relic in Kandy. It can be assumed that gamvara referred to the lands offered to monasteries.
By the time of the Kandyan period, the Bhikkhus had amassed substantial wealth in the form of uncultivated land that could generate huge income. Many of these lands were part of Rajamaha Vihāras (monasteries built by the kings) and devālas (shrines dedicated to gods in Buddhism) and were primarily administered by the Bhikkhus and Basnāyaka niḷame.4
The British colonial rulers took notice of the vast monastic properties owned by the Bhikkhus. This section will now explore how they gradually seized administrative control over these lands through a series of newly enacted regulations.
3.3. British Colonial Rulers on Vihāragam and DevālagamThis section examines the history of British administration, with a focus on its interactions with the Bhikkhus. British colonial government began in 1815 along with the establishment of Kandyan Convention.
Kandy was the final kingdom in Sri Lanka before it fell under colonial rule. Most of the nobility along with the two principal monasteries, Malvatta and Asgiriya, were in Kandy. Consequently, the colonial rulers first directed their attention to Kandy and its environs. The Kandyan Convention held in 1815 included discussions concerning the Buddhism. In the fifth clause of the Kandyan Convention, the colonial administration guaranteed to the protection of religion, the Bhikkhus, and monasteries of Sri Lanka.5 This protection also extended to the landed property of the vihāra (Buddhist monastery) and devāla (Silva 1963: 312–329). However, after the great rebellion of 1818, a new declaration was issued that relieved the colonial rulers of the obligations made in 1815. Despite this, they continued to assume responsibility for matters related to Buddhism.6 In addition to protecting the vihāragam and devālagam, the colonial rulers safeguarded all other religions and exempted religious organizations from paying taxes.7
In a proclamation issued in 1818, the colonial rulers in Kandy instructed Bhikkhus to register all monastic landed properties. Temples were exempt from taxes, and even the lands of nobles who remained loyal to the government were exempted. The primary motivation behind these actions was to secure the loyalty of the population rather than to show respect for religion and prevent further rebellions.8
It can be assumed that the colonial rulers adopted a strategy like that of earlier king, aiming to preserve Buddhism to secure their authority. Although monasteries were exempted from taxation, registration of these properties was made compulsory. Between 1820 and 1822, orders were given to register the monasteries, but many Bhikkhus did not comply. As a result, another proclamation was issued, including a provision to register previously unregistered monastic properties. Despite this, no penalties or fines were imposed on those who failed to register their properties (Silva 1963: 313).
The colonial government made several attempts to register all the landed properties of vihāra and devāla until 1829. However, they encountered numerous irregularities in the registration of paddy lands belonging to vihāra and devāla, leading to the eventual abandonment of the registration process.
The registration of monastic landed properties without taxation was driven by several factors as follows:
During this period, the Bhikkhus wielded immense power and influence in the community, even surpassing that of the king. According to Rahula (2012: 67–68), Bhikkhus were behind the three significant rebellions in the Kandyan kingdom in 1818, 1834, and 1848. The British rulers realized that suppressing Bhikkhus would not be an effective strategy if they wanted to maintain control over Sri Lanka. Instead, they sought to win over Bhikkhus and their lay followers.9
Because of Bhikkhus’ power and popularity, no kings dared to audit the landed properties of Bhikkhus. However, the British colonial rulers required to provide accurate reports on tax revenues to the British mainland, needed to register the properties of vihāra and devāla property and establish a proper system for their management. This process helped eliminate irregularities caused by the administration of large-scale lands by a single group without a formal system (Mahanama and Padmika 2018: 3–4). Some scholars argue that these laws helped create a proper administrative framework for vihāra and devāla properties (Rahula 2012: 83; Mahanama and Padmika 2018: 3).
When the British rulers took control of Sri Lanka, they were initially uncertain about how to manage monastic landed properties. From 1815 to 1840, all legislative acts were primarily focused on preserving Buddhism, which continued to receive the same level of respect as it had under previous rulers. However, by 1840, Christian missionaries began expressing dissatisfaction with the British government’s hospitality toward Buddhism, eventually pressuring the British rulers to halt this support. Until then, the British governor had prioritized to appointing Bhikkhus to certain administrative positions, a tradition that the missionaries successfully stopped by 1940 (Rahula 2012: 84).
However, the British rulers were responsible for amending the rules governing the administration of Buddhist landed properties. Several legislative acts were promulgated by the British colonial authorities pertaining to vihāragam and devālagam, as follows:
In addition to these proclamations and ordinances, another significant piece of legislation was enacted to provide full administrative control over monasteries, known as the Vihāradevālagam Act. This act was specifically responsible for the administration of monasteries and several other acts were passed under its authority between 1889 and 1931:
The Vihāradevālagam Act, which remains in use today, was initially introduced in 1889 as an ordinance. According to the Hansard report of the UK Parliament on 22 August 1889, the purpose of the Buddhist Temporalities Ordinance was to limit the administrative authority of the Bhikkhus over monastic properties to ensure the proper use of monastic revenue.11
The British rulers implemented the ordinance to guarantee that income from monastic properties used effectively. Before this period, monastic lands were not assigned to the responsible owner, and no legal regulations governed their administration. Since monastic properties were exempt from taxation, previous kings had little interest in managing them. The Katikāvatas from the Kandyan period emphasized that Bhikkhus should not use monastic property income for personal purposes (Ratnapala 1971: 99, 109, 120), and the Vinaya explicitly prohibited the alienation of such properties. However, Bhikkhus often disregarded these traditional laws, and by 1931, new rules were introduced to regulate monastic properties.
The 1931 Vihāradevālagam Act placed greater emphasis on vihāragam than the devālagam. By the time the British colonial rulers had assumed control of the nation, most lands and fields were occupied by the Bhikkhus and nobility. The British authorities enacted new laws aimed at making use of idle monastery properties, as the Bhikkhus did not possess the means to generate income from these lands. However, due to Bhikkhus’ significant power in the Kandyan Kingdom, rulers were reluctant to submit to the new laws. In fact, the Bhikkhus of the Kandyan Kingdom were often more powerful than the country’s ruler.12
Ultimately, the British authorities succeeded in establishing new rules for monastic properties. However, their objective was not limited to creating a proper administrative system. The British also sought to diminish the power of the Bhikkhus and weaken the relationship between the Bhikkhus and the laity. This objective had been part of their strategy since 1815, and it was eventually realized through the enactment of the Vihāradevālagam Act.13
4.1. Sāṅghika Properties and VihārādhipatiInitially, land and fields were given to monasteries as monastic property for maintenance. There is no evidence to suggest that a Bhikkhu was granted land for personal use. It was stated that a Bhikkhu should refrain from accepting landed property or a monastery as a personal offering. In the Anuradhapura period, the first instance of a monastery being recognized as personal property was discovered. As a result of his adoption of Abhayagiriya, Tissa Tera of Mahāvihāra was banished from the monastery.14 Lands and fields were to be offered to monasteries in the name of the monastery itself, not to any individual Bhikkhu or group of Bhikkhus.
In the early periods, landed properties and monasteries were offered to “the Bhikkhus who have come, those who have not come, and also those who are coming from all four directions”.15 This meant that any Bhikkhu, regardless of origin, could enter any Buddhist monastery. If something is offered as a sāṅghika property, it was generally considered common property for all Bhikkhus. The central concept here was not about the four requisites,16 but rather the monastic landed properties. The Lord Buddha emphasized that the acceptance of landed properties by Bhikkhus was forbidden.17 However, over time, Bhikkhus began to use these properties by introducing additional disciplinary rules into their codes of conduct, except for the Vinaya. These changes allowed Bhikkhus to legitimize the use of land and the income derived from them.18
According to the Vihāradevālagam Act, “all that is ritually received and accepted by the Bhikkhus is sāṅghika property” (Wijesinghe 2013: 40). If something is offered as sāṅghika property, it has no personal owner but can still be used by the monastic community. Moreover, the income generated through a sāṅghika property should be utilized by the common Bhikkhus. The twenty-fifth clause of the Vihāradevālagam Act explicitly outlines the procedures for using income obtained from sāṅghika property (Mahanama and Padmika 2018: 88–90).
The implementation of the Vihāradevālagam Act altered the sāṅghika system of properties that had existed until the British colonial period and transformed the conventional system of managing monastic lands. A Bhikkhu was designated as the Chief Incumbent (Vihārādhipati),19 responsible for overseeing the monastery’s properties. The Chief Incumbent was accountable for all properties upon the registration of a monastery. However, there was no age requirement for the Bhikkhu selected to serve as Chief Incumbent. The ancient seniority system in Buddhism was effectively abolished by the law, which stated that "any novice monk (Sāmaṇera) or a monk who has received higher ordination (Upasampadā Bhikkhu) can assume the office of the Chief incumbent.”20 If the Chief Incumbent was absent or if there was no Bhikkhu of sufficient age and knowledge to fulfill the role, the Chief Incumbent to transfer power to the Vice Incumbent (Vihārādhikārī) (Mahanama and Padmika 2018: 30–38).
The Chief Incumbent also had the authority to lease the monastic landed properties and could expel a resident Bhikkhu from the monastery for a valid reason. The position of Chief Incumbent, appointed without regard for age or experience, undermined the tradition of respect for elders, a fundamental principle of Buddhism. The British rulers appeared either to have lacked respect for the Vinaya and the Katikāvatas, or they were simply unaware of what the Vinaya entailed.
4.2. Personal PropertiesThe Act concerning personal properties includes the clarification that “All that a Bhikkhu has personally earned during his lifetime is considered personal property” (Mahanama and Padmika 2018: 88). This raises the question of whether a Bhikkhu can, in fact, own personal property, which is explicitly forbidden by the Vinaya. According to the Vinaya, Bhikkhus are not allowed to accept substitutes for money such as gold and silver.21 However, due to socioeconomic changes that took place during the Kandyan period, Bhikkhus became salaried workers. As a results, the Katikāvatas permitted the Bhikkhus to use what they personally received as a personal belonging, though it was required to be left in the monastery upon their renunciation of the robes (Ratnapala 1971: 99). During the Kandyan period, the Katikāvata of the Siam sect (Siam nikāya) emphasized that a Bhikkhu could transfer his personal articles to someone of his choice through a last will, which must be accepted as an assignment while he is still alive (Mangala 2019: 151).
According to Kandyan Law, a Bhikkhu had the right to inherit his mother’s properties (Wijesinghe 2013: 69). However, in accordance with Buddhist principals, a person becomes a Bhikkhu by relinquishing all lay properties and severing familial ties. Nevertheless, under British colonial rule, a Bhikkhu was permitted to claim ownership of lay property. Thus, although both the Vinaya and the Katikāvatas prohibit Bhikkhus from owning lay property, British colonial laws allowed it.
The British rulers even contemplated enacting additional laws regarding private property, as Bhikkhus were regarded as elite landowners at the time (Silva 1963: 317), who owned many uncultivated lands during that period, and Liston (2000: 194) referred to colonial Buddhism as “Landlord Buddhism”. According to current law, Bhikkhus are allowed to hand over their personal properties to laypeople of their choice. However, this is not permitted in any way according to either the Vinaya or the Katikāvatas.
4.3. The TrusteeA new administrative position, the trustee, was introduced to monasteries, a role that had not previously existed. Either a Bhikkhu or a layperson could hold this position, and even the Chief Incumbent could serve as both trustee and Chief Incumbent simultaneously. The authority of the Chief Incumbent was, however, limited by the trustee.
In this system, the ownership of the monastic lands remained with the respective monasteries, but they no longer had personal legal rights over the property. Previously, monastic administration was determined by seniority (Rahula 1956: 135), but this tradition was completely altered under British colonial rules. One of the most significant changes was that laypeople were now authorized to manage monasteries to some extent, thus curtailing the power of the Bhikkhus. The trustee position, especially in wealthy monasteries, held substantial power. By appointing a trustee, the protection of monastic property was strengthened, making it more difficult for Bhikkhus to arbitrarily use monastic property.
There are indications that monasteries may have had a similar position with corresponding responsibilities. For example, the kappiyakāraka (one who makes it befitting)22 oversaw the monastery’s storeroom and managed the conversion of unpermitted articles (akappiya-vatthu) into permitted articles (kappiya-vatthu). The same concept also appeared in the Katikāvatas (Ratnapala 1971: 100), but during the colonial period, it was carried out by laypeople rather than by monastics.
The Vihāradevālagam Act established a special procedure for appointing trustees to prominent monasteries like Aṭamasthāna.23 The act clearly defines the process for removing a trustee, their responsibilities, and the duration of the term.24 In most monasteries, a layperson or a lay organization is appointed as the trustee. In some cases, both trustee and the Chief Incumbent are Bhikkhu. In such monasteries, the layperson is more powerful than the Bhikkhu. For example, if someone is using the monastery’s property without permission, the Chief Incumbent has no power, but the trustee has the power to remove them. Thus, the introduction of the trustee role transferred significant authority from the Bhikkhus to laypeople, thereby weakening the power of the saṅgha (Wijesinghe 2013: 64), which was precisely the intention of the British rulers.
4.4. Pupilary Tradition (Śiṣyānuśiṣya Parampara)The property rights and pupillary tradition (Śiṣyānuśiṣya paramparāva) of the Bhikkhus are inherent features not found in other institutions. In the early days, Bhikkhus did not have a formal property rights system, relying instead on pupillary tradition. Originally, Bhikkhus only possessed basic requisites, such as a bowl and robes. Upon their passing, their belongings were given to other Bhikkhus.25 However, during the Kandy period, the usage of various properties and articles by Bhikkhus increased, and as a result, the Katikāvatas permitted Bhikkhus to use them (Ratnapala 1971: 99).
When a Bhikkhu passes away, their belongings are to be given to their pupils. This practice, established by the Katikāvatas, was also formalized by the British rulers in the Vihāradevālagam Act. The purpose of this law was to preserve monastic property. However, the current pupillary tradition has diverged significantly from the traditional one. What once began as a tradition of scriptural study has now evolved into an educational system shaped by British colonial rules (Wijesinghe 2013: 74).
The pupillary tradition is one of the most powerful provisions in the Vihāradevālagam Act and, in some cases, supersedes the Vinaya. According to this tradition, a Bhikkhu has the right to the belongings of a deceased monk, provided the Bhikkhu is legally registered as a student of the deceased monk during the pabbjjā (admission into Buddhism) or upasampadā (higher ordination). If there is more than one pupil, the senior pupil holds precedence. In cases where a Bhikkhu passes away without pupils, the ownership of the monastery and its properties is transferred to the sect (nikāya), which then appoints a Bhikkhu to manage them. This rule does not apply if the deceased monk transferred his property to another monk in his last will, or if the receiving monk had been expelled from discipleship. The act thus grants authority to legal documents, rather than the Vinaya.
The act also includes provisions for expelling a Bhikkhu from the monastery, though it does not provide for expulsion from Bhikkhu status itself. A particularly controversial aspect of this law is that the British rulers were seemingly unaware of the pārājikā (the four major offenses that disqualify a Bhikkhu from monastic life) outlined in the Vinaya.26 When a Bhikkhu commits a pārājikā offence, he is supposed to leave the Buddhist order and disrobe.27 However, the Vihāradevālagam Act provides only for expulsion from the monastery, not for disrobing. This loophole means that a convicted Bhikkhu can technically remain within the monastic community, which constitutes a significant flaw in British colonial law, ultimately harming the integrity of Buddhism.
4.5. Government Officers on the Administration of Buddhist MattersOne influential factor introduced by the Vihāradevālagam Act is the appointment of laypersons to manage monastic affairs. In the past, the Katikāvatas allowed laypeople to manage temple-related matters, but their administrative power was subordinate to that of the Bhikkhus. By the Kandyan period, neither the monarch nor anyone else could govern the Bhikkhus. The British colonial rulers were fully aware of this dynamic.
However, the British colonial administration created various roles that were to be filled by laypeople in order to diminish the influence of the Bhikkhus. These laypeople were granted state power to carry out their responsibilities, with the intention of creating conflicts between the lay administrators and the Bhikkhus. Governor Thomas Maitland’s28 confidential letter reveals that the aim of these appointments was not to support Buddhism, but rather to sever the bond between laypeople and the Bhikkhus. This was a deliberate move to weaken the power of the Bhikkhus.29
4.5.1. The Public Trustee (Mahā Bhārakāra)The Public Trustee plays a crucial role in the administration of monastic properties and was assigned responsibilities under the 1931 Act. The Public Trustee oversees all trustees and regulates the Acting Incumbents (Pālaka vihārādhipati). They hold the authority to inspect problems related to monastic property and are empowered to lease or mortgage monastic lands. In cases of irregularities, the Public Trustee can take legal action. Significantly, the Public Trustee wields considerable power over the Bhikkhus, making them a key figure in the colonial administration’s control over monastic properties.
4.5.2. Registrar GeneralThe post of Registrar General for land registration was empowered by the 1931 Act to oversee the registration of Bhikkhus. A sāmaṇera or Bhikkhu is officially recognized as a Buddhist monk only after registering with the Registrar General’s department. All Bhikkhus must be registered, and any unregistered person wearing the monk’s robe cannot legally claim to be a monk.
The Amended Act of 1981 transferred some of the Registrar General’s powers to the Commissioner of Buddhist Affairs. This position specifically deals with Buddhist matters and operates under the guidance of the Advisory Board for Buddhist Affairs. As the head of this board, the commissioner advises on matters related to Buddhism, but does not possess independent powers comparable to those of a trustee or registrar. The commissioner cannot make independent decisions and must work according to the directives of the Mahānāyaka Teras (Supreme Bhikkhu) of the sects (Ralapanawa 2017: 46). According to the Amended Act, the Commissioner reports directly to the Minister of Buddhist Affairs.
In Sri Lanka, government officials were primarily responsible for managing Buddhist matters, including the administration of monastic properties. This full government intervention continued until 1840, when Governor Mackenzie ceased state involvement in Buddhism under the influence of Christian missionaries. State sponsorship of religion was thereby entirely discontinued.
In 1847, the sacred Tooth Relic was returned to the Bhikkhus, leaving them responsible for its care without state support (Rahula 2012: 84). This transition left the Bhikkhus in a vulnerable position. Around the same time, appointed state officials began to assert control over the Bhikkhus, selling off monastic property and making decisions that contradicted monastic interests. These conflicts between the state, the Bhikkhus, and the laity led to significant friction and caused considerable damage to the reputation of Buddhism in Sri Lanka.
In summary, the British colonial rulers initially maintained a favorable relationship with Buddhism and the Bhikkhus, despite their underlying unfavorable view of the religion. While the Vinaya prohibited Bhikkhus from owning real estate, socioeconomic changes during the Kandy period led Bhikkhus to acquire landed properties, with the support of the Katikāvatas further increasing their power. However, the enactment of the Vihāradevālagam Act in 1889 marked a shift, as the British authorities sought to curtail the influence of the Bhikkhus. Although the British enacted laws aligned with the Vinaya and Katikāvatas, certain regulations imposed by the colonial rulers undermined the foundational teachings and practices of Buddhism.
While the Vihāradevālagam Act played a role in protecting monastic property, it also had the unintended consequence of damaging the traditional monastic system. As such, the act remains a subject of controversy and continues to warrant reevaluation and reform to better align with Buddhist principles and the governance of monastic properties.
1 According to Sinhalese folklores, utilizing the articles of the saṅgha leads to the hell (Buddhadatta 2002: 43–44).
2 Dambadeni Katikāvata 68; Ratnapala (1971: 58).
3 The exact time of King Parākkramabāhu IV is uncertain. When indicating the reign of King Parākkramabāhu IV, the reign includes King Bhuvanekabāhu III and King Vijayabāhu V.
4 Basnāyaka niḷame is a chief custodian of devāla. There are thirty-two Basnāyaka niḷames according to Vihāradevālagam act, still in service of main devāla in Sri Lanka.
5 The religion of Boodho (Buddha), professed by the chiefs and inhabitants of these provinces, is declared inviolable, and its rites, ministers, and places of worship are to be maintained and protected (Kandyan Convention - 2 March 1815).
6 As well the priest as all the ceremonies and processions of the Budhoo (the Buddha) religion shall receive the rest which in former times was shown them; at the time it is in nowise to be understood that the protection of the government is to be denied to the peaceable exercise by all other persons of the religion which they respectively profess, or to the erection under due license from His Excellency of places of worship in proper situations (Declaration of British Sovereignty, 21 November 1818).
7 The governor, desirous of showing adherence of government to its stipulation in favor of the religion of the people, exempts all lands, which are the property of temples, from all taxation ever (Sections 17 to 20 repealed by Ordinance No. 4 of 1892) (Declaration of British Sovereignty, 21 November 1818).
8 All lands also now belonging to the following chiefs whose loyalty and adherence to the lawful government merit favor; namely, “Mollegodde Maha Nileme, Mollegodde Nileme, Ratwatte Nileme, Kadoogamoone Nileme, Dehigamme Nileme, Mulligamme Nileme, lately Dessave of Welasse, Eknillegodde Nileme, Mahawalatene Nileme, Doloswalle Nileme, Eheyleyagodde Nileme, Katugaha the elder, Katugaha the younger, Damboolane Nileme, Godeagedere Nileme, Gonegodde Nileme, formerly Adikaram of Bintenne” shall be free of duty during their lives, and that their heirs shall enjoy the same free of duty, excepting with regard to such as paid pingo duty, which shall now and hereafter pay one-tenth to the government of the annual produce, unless when exempted under the next clause (Declaration of British Sovereignty, 21 November 1818).
9 The priests of Buddou are in Ceylon accounted superior to all others. They are called Tirinanxes and are held in high estimation at the court of Candy, where indeed they have the chief management of affairs. The King has no authority over them, but endeavors to gain their good-will by respecting their immunities and loading them with distinctions (Percival 1805: 216).
10 The first agreement presented by the British rulers after Sri Lanka was recognized as a colony. It includes a pledge to protect Buddhism, vihāragam, devālagam, monasteries, and the saṅgha.
11 “The purport of the Ordinance is to vest the property belonging to the Buddhist temples in trustees appointed by and acting under the control of district committees elected by the Buddhist householders in the district, the object being to ensure that the revenues of the temples are applied to their proper purposes. The Ordinance does not involve the endowment of the Buddhist religion. The draft of the Ordinance was approved by the Secretary of State before it was introduced in the Legislative Council and the Ordinance has been confirmed and allowed by the Queen”: Henry de Worms, 1st Baron Pirbright (Ceylon – The Buddhist Temporalities Ordinance, UK Parliament Hansard report, 22 August 1889, vol. 340).
12 In such high veneration are the Tirinanxes held that their persons are accounted sacred; and the King of Candy, absolute as he his, has no power to take away their lives or anywise punish them even for conspiring against his own life (Percival 1805: 201).
13 Following the signing of the 1815 treaty, Robert Brownrigg wrote to Lord Bathurst of England: “The 5th confirms the superstition of Boodhoo in a manner more emphatical than would have been my choice. But as the reverence felt towards it at present by all classes of the inhabitants is unbounded and mixed with a strong shade of jealousy, and doubt about its future protection and that in truth our secure possession of the country hinged upon this point, by an article of guarantee couched in the most unqualified terms” (Rahula 2012: 130).
14 Mahāvaṃsa I, Ch. I–XXXVII, PTS (Geiger), 1908. – Trsl. (Geiger), PTS 1912: 33.94–97.
15 agata anagata catudisśa śagasa (Suraweera 1985: 11).
16 The four requisites of a Bhikkhu (monk) in Buddhism, also known as the “fourfold requisites” (cattāro paccayā), are the basic necessities provided to sustain a monk’s life and practice. These are food (pindapāta), robes (cīvara), shelters (senāsana), and medicine (bhesajja).
17 Majjhima Nikāya, PTS (TRENCKNER, CHALMERS, C. RHD), I–IV, 1888–1925: I 345.31–35.
18 Samantapsadika V (Takakusu and Nagai 1938: 1136).
19 Viharādhipati means the chief monk of a temple other than a devāla or kōvila (Hindu Temple), whether resident or not.
20 “According to the Act, Bhikkhu” means a Buddhist monk, whether Sāmaṇera or Upasampadā (Mahanama and Padmika 2018: 72).
21 Vinaya-Piṭaka (OLDERNBERG), I–V, London 1879–83: III 237.
22 Vinaya-Piṭaka (OLDERNBERG), I–V, London 1879–83: I 206.
23 The eight sacred places in Sri Lanka where the Buddha had visited during his three visits to Sri Lanka. Aṭamasthāna are known as Jaya Sri Maha Bodhiya, Ruwanwelisaya, Thuparamaya, Lovamahapaya, Abhayagiri Dagaba, Jetavanarama, Mirisaveti Stupa, and Lankaramaya. They are situated in Anuradhapura, the capital of the ancient Anuradhapura Kingdom.
24 Section fifteen of the Vihāradevālagam Act (Mahanama and Padmika 2018: 84–85).
25 Vinaya-Piṭaka (OLDERNBERG), I–V, London 1879–83: I 303.
26 Vinaya-Piṭaka (OLDERNBERG), I–V, London 1879–83: III 23; 46; 71.
27 The great transgression of the rules for Bhikkhus. A Bhikkhu who has fallen into the pārājikā offence has no right to remain as a Bhikkhu.
28 Lieutenant General The Right Honorable Sir Thomas Maitland (10 March 1760 – 17 January 1824) was a British soldier and British colonial governor to Ceylon.
29 “It is my intention to appoint a committee of Budhoo Priest to whom all cases which occur in your province, relative either to the Priest themselves, or their lands and their religious ceremonies, are to be referred to for decision; my object in forming this sort of committee is first to convince the people that the greatest respect and attention shall be shown to their religious prejudices and customs; secondly to give the priest themselves a fellow-feeling with our government, and of course an interest in supporting its authority among the inhabitant, and there by to break through the powerful combination which has hitherto, from want of taking a proper view of the subject, been allowed to subsist between the Modeliars and the Principal Priest to the great detriment of the British interest, and obvious advantage of the King of Kandy” (A letter from the Governor Maitland to the Agent of Matara district Mr. Eden on January 1807, Rahula 2012: 127–128).
