Theravada Buddhism:

A social history from ancient Benares to modern Colombo,

by R.F.Gombrich.

Reviewed by Perry, E. (REPRINT)

Journal of the American Oriental Society

Vol.117 No.2

Pp.339-342

April-June 1997

COPYRIGHT 1997 American Oriental Society


            For reasons i will try to make apparent further along in this review 
            one should read these two books as a unit. They both treat the 
            phenomenon of change in the Theravada Buddhism preserved and 
            practiced by the Sinhala people of Sri Lanka. Their account and 
            their interesting explanations of changes in the Theravada from its 
            origin in ancient India up to the "transforming" innovations 
            recently introduced by Sinhala urbanites in and around Colombo are 
            rendered in a lucid prose and an engaging narrative construction 
            that make their authors' scholarship accessible to Sri Lanka 
            specialists, Buddhists and buffs alike. This literary excellence 
            will make pleasurable the repeated close readings that are necessary 
            for an ample grasp of the data and its interpretation presented here 
            by Richard Gombrich and Gananath Obeyesekere. 
            Gombrich, an Indologist at the University of Oxford, and 
            Obeyesekere, a native of Sri Lanka who holds a professorship in 
            anthropology at Princeton University, have already established their 
            names as well as a canon of research literature in the study of the 
            religious life of Sinhala Buddhists in Sri Lanka. One recalls at 
            once such notable book-length examples as Gombrich's Precept and 
            Practice: Traditional Buddhism in the Rural Highlands of Ceylon 
            (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971) and Obeyesekere's Medusa's Hair: An 
            Essay on Personal Symbols and Religious Experience (Chicago: 
            University of Chicago Press, 1981). 
            In Theravada Buddhism: A Social History from Ancient Benares to 
            Modern Colombo, Gombrich develops social explanations for "three 
            major points of change" that have occurred in Theravada's history. 
            He selects the Buddha's founding of this Sasana (religion) in India 
            some 2500 years ago; its migration from India to Sri Lanka, where a 
            redefinition of Buddhist identity happened; and within the last 150 
            years, a configuration of responses and reactions to the Protestant 
            Christian missionary accouterment to Great Britain's colonization of 
            Sri Lanka, a development widely designated nowadays as "Protestant 
            Buddhism." It would be difficult to argue sensibly against the 
            choice of these three instances of "major change" in Theravada, 
            particularly since Gombrich gives a persuasive defense of his 
            selection without claiming that these are the only instances of 
            definitive change. 
            There is similarly no compelling reason to challenge the basic 
            assumptions of his concept of social history. He holds that the 
            social historian's primary responsibility is to explain change while 
            understanding that the historian, like every other human being, 
            cannot explain everything. He holds further that changes in a 
            religion arise in response to problem situations within a society 
            and are, hence, appropriate phenomena for empirical study and for 
            causal explanation in social terms that may conflict with the 
            metaphysical explanations proffered by the religion itself. He 
            considers the agents and subjects of innovation in social history to 
            be, typically, human individuals whose intended objectives evoke 
            group patronage, although disasters in nature exemplify notable 
            exceptions and some intended actions result in unintended 
            consequences. 
            Gombrich acknowledges here (p. 25) the limited usefulness of a 
            general definition of religion, as he did earlier in Precept and 
            Practice (p. 11). He accepts religion defined broadly as a system of 
            belief in and patterned interaction with superhuman beings. Gombrich 
            reasons that this general definition of religion will not suffice 
            when one investigates and writes the social history of a specific 
            religion. To understand Theravada in its particular social contexts 
            one has to probe beyond the marks that identify it as a religion in 
            the general sense. One must determine what the Theravadins 
            themselves define as their Buddhist identity, and as a scholar 
            Gombrich determines to find for himself "what exactly is involved in 
            being [this kind of] Buddhist" (pp. 15 and 25). He adverts to this 
            question of specifically Theravada identity five times (pp. 74-75, 
            138-39, 141-42, 178, 194) in the seven chapters that follow the 
            introduction. Although he characterizes his achievement in this book 
            as "essentially a presentation" of research results accomplished by 
            esteemed "predecessors" (p. ix), he allows that "if this book breaks 
            new ground it will mainly be in my treatment of this question" of 
            Theravada Buddhist identity (p. 23). 
            Gombrich demonstrates exemplary professional etiquette in his 
            generous acknowledgment of large dependence on other scholars, but 
            knowledgeable readers will readily discern that he has overstated 
            his disclaimer to originality in this book. The concept of a social 
            construction of Theravada's entire history in a single essay is as 
            highly original as it is ambitious. The introduction gives as 
            brilliant and as unpompous a discussion of theoretical 
            considerations as I have read anywhere, and the seven chapters 
            present an unprecedented construction of Theravada's story. This 
            book exemplifies laudable originality in another sense, probably a 
            consequence unintended by its author. It constitutes a widely usable 
            text in introductory courses in Buddhism. A listing of the chapter 
            titles will attest this evaluation: "Gotama Buddha's Problem 
            Situation," "The Buddha's Dhamma," "The Sangha's Discipline," "The 
            Accommodation Between Buddhism and Society in Ancient India," "The 
            Buddhist Tradition in Sri Lanka," "Protestant Buddhism," and 
            "Current Trends, New Problems." As an introduction Theravada 
            Buddhism differs from the two most often selected at the present 
            time. Walpola Rahula's What the Buddha Taught clings closely to the 
            Pali canon and commentaries in succinctly stating the definitive 
            teachings ascribed to the Buddha, and N. Ross Reat's Introduction to 
            Buddhism describes Buddhist religion in its several prisms, not 
            merely in that of the Theravada. Gombrich makes it easier than 
            either of these for beginning students of Buddhism to grasp the 
            meaning of the definitive teachings by presenting them in the 
            sequence of a historical narrative of Theravada's social contexts 
            and by limiting their meaning to that given by the Theravadin. 
            Irrespective of its merits as a prospective textbook, Theravada 
            Buddhism can serve scholars and other critical readers instructively 
            as an expanded preface to Buddhism Transformed: Religious Change in 
            Sri Lanka. In this latter book, Gombrich and Obeyesekere "describe, 
            analyze and interpret recent changes in the religious life of 
            Sinhala Buddhists" (p. 3, italics added), changes they encountered 
            in the collaborated research project they began in the 1970s and 
            sustained for more than a decade. From a careful reading of 
            Theravada Buddhism one gets an informed historical perspective 
            suitable for locating and assessing the numerous innovations of 
            belief and practice that Gombrich and Obeyesekere found among urban 
            middle and working class Sinhala Buddhists living in the nation's 
            capital, Colombo, and its suburbs. Such a reading will also acquaint 
            one with the nuanced vocabulary and syntax of the social 
            description, analysis and explanation employed in Buddhism 
            Transformed. 
            Part, if not all, of Theravada Buddhism was written later than 
            Buddhism Transformed, and the sophisticated distinction it draws 
            between "communal religion" and "soteriology" helps us to understand 
            the two discrete components of "the religious life of Sinhala 
            Buddhists" analyzed in Buddhism Transformed. A whole generation of 
            investigators have noted that the religious life of these Buddhists 
            includes something broader than Theravada Buddhism. In 1963 Michael 
            Ames observed that "magical animism and Buddhism" coexist without 
            being confused in one Sinhalese religious system (Journal of Asian 
            Studies, 22.1: 21-53). He concluded that these two religious units 
            "do not lie on one continuum, but on two intersecting ones" and 
            serve respectively the worldly (laukika) and the supra-worldly 
            (lokottara) interests of the Sri Lankan Buddhists (pp. 22, 40). The 
            same year Gananath Obeyesekere himself published a study examining 
            the composite character of Sinhala Buddhism. He observed that some 
            Buddhist intellectuals as well as Western investigators are puzzled 
            by finding "magic and a polytheistic pantheon" combined in practice 
            with Theravada Buddhism. He cautioned against equating Sinhalese 
            Buddhism with Theravada and advised that it be seen instead "as a 
            fusion and a synthesis of beliefs derived from Theravada with other 
            non-Theravada beliefs to form one integrated tradition" ("The Great 
            Tradition and the Little Tradition in the Perspective of Sinhalese 
            Buddhism," Journal of Asian Studies, 22.2: 148). Other researchers 
            have tried unsuccessfully to make sense of the combination of 
            diverse and seemingly incompatible elements that make up the 
            religious life of Sinhala Buddhists. 
            In Theravada Buddhism and Buddhism Transformed Gombrich and 
            Obeyesekere enable us to see that "spirit religion" and Gotama 
            Buddha's recipe for individual salvation function commensally in a 
            single organic relationship. For matters pertaining to life, death, 
            and, in large measure, rebirth, Sri Lankan Buddhists have a form of 
            communal religion, the resources and options of "the spirit 
            religion," which includes gods and other supernatural beings with 
            varying powers and jurisdictions. For matters of a salvation that 
            will enable an individual to transcend life, death and rebirth, and 
            hence to transcend the jurisdiction and aid of all natural and 
            supernatural beings, these Sinhala Buddhists have the Buddha's 
            program for individuals as set forth in the Pali scriptures and 
            promulgated by the monks of the Sangha. 
            Gombrich and Obeyesekere found that Sinhala Buddhist urbanites have 
            recently innovated radical changes of beliefs and practice in both 
            the spirit religion and the soteriological component of their 
            religious life. The status and province of some of the gods have 
            been redefined and this is reflected in the positions they are given 
            at the Buddhist temples. Also changed in the spirit religion is the 
            introduction of darker aspects of some deities and the accepted 
            practice of black magic. Although there are hints that the worship 
            of the god Kataragama encroaches upon the Buddha's exclusive 
            provision for salvation, the Buddha remains sui generis and 
            unquestionably first in the Buddhists' perception and ranking of the 
            supra-naturals in their pantheon. 
            The truly arresting changes are those reported for the Buddhist unit 
            of the Sinhala religious life. Our two seasoned social scientists 
            refer to these as "startling," "important departures from 
            tradition," "the creation of tradition," and eventually, since they 
            are developments within and beyond Protestant Buddhism, these 
            changes constitute a "Buddhism transformed." In 1963 Michael Ames 
            discerned that "Sinhalese Buddhism appears to be facing a 
            fundamental transformation" ("Ideological and Social Change in 
            Ceylon," Human Organization, 22.1: 46). One does not have to be a 
            Sri Lanka specialist to understand that a transformation of 
            Theravada has occurred when lay meditation centers, patronized 
            generously by numerous lay people assuming responsibility for the 
            promulgation of the Buddha's doctrine and seeking to realize nirvana 
            themselves through their meditation regimen, rank equally with or 
            take precedence over temples and monasteries in the Sinhala society. 
            Rather than discuss and evaluate the significance of changes I find 
            interesting in Buddhism Transformed, I will reiterate some 
            observations expressed by Aggamahapandita Walpola Sri Rahula, the 
            Chancellor of the University of Kelaniya in Sri Lanka. Across a 
            monastic career that spans most of this century, the Ven. Dr. Rahula 
            has opposed the provision for deity worship at Buddhist temples and 
            has maintained that pristine Buddhism preserved in the Pali 
            scriptures by monks in Sri Lanka is utterly rational and without 
            analogue among other religions. He has disparaged field research 
            studies of Buddhism as dealing with matters extraneous to the 
            substance of authentic Buddhism. 
            In the Daily News, Colombo, Monday, April 22, 1991, the Ven. Dr. 
            Rahula published an appeal entitled "Protect Buddhism from 
            Pollution." He begins with the declaration that "in the whole 
            history of Buddhism throughout the world, the oldest, most authentic 
            and unbroken tradition is the Theravada" which began at the First 
            Council "three months after the Buddha's Parinirvana." This "pure 
            and genuine Theravada" was brought to Sri Lanka "in the third 
            century B.C." by Mahinda Thera, the son of Emperor Asoka of India. 
            "From that time up to this day, the Maha Sangha and the devout 
            Buddhists of this country have preserved it." Although occasional 
            "extraneous influences" have entered the culture, "all those 
            pollutions were repulsed by a firm opposition from both the Sangha 
            and the laity," as was the "attempt to introduce into this country a 
            Mahayana Sect of the Japanese clergy" as recently as 1990. 
            Rahula names "various forms of pollution to pure Theravada teaching" 
            that contaminate the current Buddhist scene in Sri Lanka. Although 
            his list is much shorter, he cites practices and beliefs treated by 
            Gombrich and Obeyesekere as ingredients of a Buddhism in 
            transformation. He scolds those who "say all religions teach the 
            same thing" when, in fact, the "similarities between Buddhism and 
            other religions ... are peripheral and superficial," while "the 
            difference is central, deep and fundamental." He berates those who 
            advocate and practice "the new-fangled bodhipuja ... which is 
            tantamount to taking refuge in a tree, a practice which the Buddha 
            condemned," and he laments that "these days one hardly hears of 
            Buddha-puja." In his observation of the religious scene in Sri Lanka 
            today he sees that "what is flourishing is not Buddhism, but 
            pollution, superstition, and ignorance in the name of Buddhism." 
            Rahula scores those who "venerate and worship Sai Baba," not only 
            "in private houses," but also "in some temples led by Buddhist monks 
            in yellow robes." Sai Baba performs magic "behind a religious garb, 
            in a religious place," and "whether magic or miracle, his 
            demonstrations" according to the Buddha's own "attitude towards 
            magic and miracles" are "improper, unsuitable and unworthy of a 
            religious man." Gombrich and Obeyesekere assess the veneration of 
            Sai Baba as truly ominous, though noting carefully that it is at 
            present only a minor phenomenon in Sri Lanka. They tell us that some 
            Sri Lankan Buddhists venerate this contemporary Indian religious 
            leader as only a guru, that others worship him as a god, and that 
            still others receive him as the boddhisattva incarnation of the 
            coming Maitreya Buddha. "When Sai Baba, both god and guru, is 
            identified as a Buddha," theistic devotion, they reckon, has been 
            cobbled "into the frame of orthodox soteriology" (p. 455), and that 
            transforms Buddhism. 
            Even from this brief comparison one can see that the Ven. Rahula 
            regards the beliefs and practices of certain Sri Lankan Buddhists to 
            deviate radically from the received Theravada tradition. The 
            substance of his evaluation amounts to an insider's affirmation, 
            even if not specifically intended, that Gombrich and Obeyesekere 
            have described a Buddhist reality, not a matter extraneous to 
            Buddhism, that exists in Sri Lanka today. For what amounts to an 
            insider's rejection of Buddhism Transformed, one can read Vijitha 
            Rajapakse's review published in the Journal of the International 
            Association of Buddhist Studies, 13.2 (1990): 139-51. For a study of 
            some of the same Sri Lankan Buddhist movements, conducted more 
            recently than that of Buddhism Transformed, it is instructive to 
            read George D. Bond's The Buddhist Revival in Sri Lanka (Columbia, 
            S.C.: University of South Carolina Press, 1988). As the word 
            "revival" in his book's title indicates, Bond takes a more 
            sympathetic view of the innovations, emphasizing continuity more 
            than accretion, while Gombrich and Obeyesekere conclude that some of 
            the innovations are rendered acceptable by rationalizing their 
            continuity with what is only an imagined part of the obscured 
            tradition.