south-east Asia

South-east Asian Buddhism is the product of a highly complex system of intertwining historical, geographic, political, and cultural circumstances. The form of Buddhism that predominates in the region is Theravāda, deriving historically from the Sthavira group of schools that emerged in 3rd century bc Sri Lanka. From Sri Lanka monks carried the teachings of the Buddha to Burma, Thailand, Laos, and Cambodia, where, compounded with the previous religious practices of the people of those countries, it has produced the now existing local variations of Theravāda Buddhism. Despite these variations, and the fact that the early history of the religion in south-east Asia is even more piecemeal than the foregoing suggests, there are some common features. For example, among the factors that facilitated the spread of Buddhism in the area is the fact that it was adopted by the rulers of the region. These modelled their notion of the Buddhist king or ideal ruler (cakravartin) on the Indian emperor Aśoka, who had greatly promoted the spread of Buddhism. The close association between Saṃgha and state in south-east Asia meant that the kings of this region took upon themselves the duty of overseeing the Saṃgha of their country to ensure that it conformed to the norms laid down in the Vinaya Piṭaka. This interest of the king in the orthodoxy and orthopraxy of his national Saṃgha is due to the particular link between Saṃgha and kingship that developed in this region. On the one hand, the Saṃgha justified the authority of the king, legitimizing the symbols on which his power rested. This was done in several ways, most noticeably through the compilation of historic literary works. On the other hand, the king, who since the lifetime of the Buddha had been the principal sponsor of the Saṃgha, not only acquired great merit (puṇya), but by giving his favour to one or the other monastic group (nikāya) made sure that none of them became so powerful as to threaten his control.

With the arrival of the colonial powers, the nature of the relationship between political and religious power in the region altered (most notably in Burma) and resulted in the birth of a modern Saṃgha, a greater involvement of the laity in religious matters and a strong correlation of religious and national identity. The modern centralised Saṃgha is largely a result of the development of the modern nation-state and the consequential centralisation of political power. The greater involvement of the laity in all religious matters is due to the fact that the Saṃgha had lost in the king its major sponsor and because with the advent of printed texts and increased literacy the teachings of Buddhism had become more accessible. The involvement of the laity in religious affairs has been mirrored by the social work the monks of this region have been involved in in more recent times. During the last decades of the 20th century various temples have pioneered development programmes geared primarily to the needs of the rural poor. These activities have been at the centre of much public debate, raising, again, the issue of what is appropriate behaviour for a monk.

The greater interest of the laity in Buddhism has generated a sense of national identity, especially in those countries that came to be under the rule of colonial powers. In Burma, for example, the Saṃgha used to be very much under the control of the king. There, a large administrative body headed by a Saṃgharāja, appointed by each king in turn, ruled over the Saṃgha. When the British annexed Burma this system collapsed and as a consequence new groups and movements originated within the Burmese Saṃgha and communities of lay supporters, which in turn became closely linked to the independence movements. Thailand also saw in the 19th century the revival of Buddhism in association with the introduction of social and political reforms. This country, however, had not been colonized. In this case it was the ruling Buddhist dynasty, that of the Chakri kings, that sponsored the revival and the social reforms. The Thai kings practically held divine status, but faced with the modernization movement that threatened to make their own existence obsolete, decided to use their traditional role to lead the movement by means of social reform. The more independent modern south-east Asian Saṃgha has also become more openly involved in all sorts of social and political matters. This remains true throughout the region, despite the fact that in more recent times in Laos and Cambodia the political events of the 1970s have severely curtailed the activities of Buddhist monks. In Burma, the monks have alternatively given and denied their support to the various post-war governments.

Two other important characteristics of south-east Asian Buddhism are the phenomenon of temporary ordination and the lack of ordained nuns. The virtual absence in this region of fully ordained nuns is due to the fact that their ordination tradition has died out in Theravādin countries, and this feature is not only peculiar to this region. Provisions exist for women to ordain to a level which is intermediate between the Five Precepts (pañca-śīla) for a lay Buddhist, and the ten undertaken by the novice (śrāmaṇera). These women, who wear robes, are known in Thailand as sikkhamat or mae chii, in Sri Lanka as dasa silmātā, and in Burma as thilashin. Temporary ordination is a rite of passage into manhood practised exclusively in the Theravādin countries of south-east Asia. It requires that all men at some point in their life, before their marriage, take ordination and spend some time in a monastery (vihāra). This custom was not practised during the lifetime of the Buddha and it is not known when it was introduced in south-east Asia.