¹ For a detailed discussion of Weber's opinions see Bechert, H., “Einige Fragen der Religionssoziologie und Struktur des suedasiatischen Buddhismus,” International Yearbook, for the Sociology of Religion 4 (1968) pp. 251–53Google Scholar. Max Weber's “Gesammelte Aufsaetze zur Religionssoziologie,” vol. 2, were translated into English under the title “The Religion of India, The Sociology of Hinduism and Buddhism” (New York, 1958).Google Scholar

² Bechert, H., “Ueber den Ursprang der Geschichtsschreibung im indischen Kulturbereich,” Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschajten in Goettingen, Philologisch-historische Klasse 1969, Nr. 2, pp. 35–58.Google Scholar

³ Sāsana “instruction,” “order” as used in the canonical texts refers to the dogmatical teachings of the Buddha as well as to the disciplinary orders juridgiven by the Buddha. In later Pali works and as a loan-word in Sinhalese, Burmese and Thai, sāsana means the totality of the Buddhist institutions in a lawful unbroken succession from the time of the Buddha onwards. Therefore, the term “establishment of the sāsana” denotes the establishment of a valid tradition of monastic ordination or upasampadā.

⁴ The canonical text of the Vinayapiṭaka was edited by H. Oldenberg (5 vols., London 1879–1883)Google Scholar and translated by I. B. Horner (The Book of the Discipline, 6 vols., London 1938–1966Google Scholar). Two monographs deal with the regulations of the Vinaya: Dutt, Sukumar, Early Buddhist Monachism (London, 1924)Google Scholar; Bhagvat, Durga N., Early Buddhist Jurisprudence (Poona, 1939)Google Scholar. Unfortunately, both these monographs are full of errors, and their authors have not understood the juridical system of Vinaya. Consequently, a systematical study of the Vinaya as a source of law is still lacking. The basic rules for the performance of vinayakarmas or juridical acts prescribed by Buddhist canonical law are discussed in Bechert, H., “Aśokas “Schismenedikt” und der Begriff Sanghabheda,” Wiener Zeitschrift fuer die Kunde Sued- und Ostasiens 5 (1961) p. 21ffGoogle Scholar. For further information, see also Rosen, V., Der Vinayavibhanga zum Bhikṣuprātimoksa der Sarvāstivādins (Berlin, 1959)Google Scholar; Härtel, H., Karmavācanā (Berlin, 1956)Google Scholar; Gokuldas De, , Democracy in Early Buddhist Saṃgha (Calcutta, 1955).Google Scholar

⁵ The pārājika offences are: sexual intercourse, theft, killing a human being, and pretension of spiritual perfections.

⁶ Dīghanikāya, ed. by Davids, T. W. Rhys and Carpenter, J. E., vol. 2 (London, 1903) p. 162fGoogle Scholar; Vinaya, ed. by H. Oldenberg, vol. 2, p. 284f.Google Scholar

⁷ On the early Buddhist councils see Frauwallner, E., “Die buddhistischen Konzile,” Zeitschrijt der Deutschen Morgenlaendischen Gesellschaft 102 (1952), pp. 240–61Google Scholar; Bareau, A., Les premiers conciles bouddhiques (Paris, 1955)Google Scholar, and the relevant sections in Lamotte, E., Histoire du Bouddhisme Indien (Louvain, 1958).Google Scholar

⁸ This council is not identical with the council of Pāṭaliputra recorded in Buddhist Sanskrit, Tibetan and Chinese sources; see Frauwallner, , op. cit., pp. 243–49 and 256–59Google Scholar. It has been called, therefore, the “Second Council of Pāṭaliputra” by modern scholars. In Ceylonese, Indian, and South-east Asian Buddhological literature it is, however, still referred to as “Third Buddhist Council.”

⁹ Aśoka's avoidance of unnecessary interference was stressed by Alsdorf, L., “Aśokas Schismender Edikt und das dritte Konzil,” Indo-Iranian Journal 3 (1959) p. 170f. and 174Google Scholar. Alsdorf has shown that Eggermont, P. L., The Chronology of the Reign of Asoka Moriya (Leiden, 1956) p. 118fGoogle Scholar., was wrong in denying the historicity of the council held during Aśoka's reign.

¹⁰ For a detailed discussion of the relevant sources see Bechert, H., “Aśokas “Schismenedikt” und der Begriff Sanghabheda,” Wiener Zeitschrift fuer die Kunde Sued- und Ostasiens 5 (1961) pp. 18–52.Google Scholar

¹¹ See my article quoted above, footnote 10. On the nonconfessional character of Aśoka's dbarma, see the remark by Alsdorf, , op. cit. (note 9) p. 173f.Google Scholar

¹² Mahāvaṁsa 44, vs. 75–79.Google Scholar

¹³ Recently, doubts have been expressed about the historical background of the records on the reestablishment of the upasampadā from Burma; see Godakumbura, C. E., “Burmese Buddhist Order and Ceylon in the Eleventh Century,” Wickramarachchi Felicitation Volume (Gampaha, 1968), pp. 291–95Google Scholar. It is possible that the upasampadā tradition brought back from Burma to Ceylon had been a paramparā originating from Ceylon and brought over to Burma earlier at an unknown date, but this would not affect the basic facts discussed here, namely that it was the first reintroduction of the upasampadā from another country to Ceylon and that the triple organizational structure of the Sangha was retained.

¹⁴ On sects in Ceylon and their history, see Geiger, W., Culture of Ceylon in Medieval Times (Wiesbaden, 1960) pp. 207–11Google Scholar; Bechert, H., “Zur Geschichte der buddhistischen Sekten in Indien und Ceylon,” La Nouvelle Clio 7–9 (1955–1957) pp. 311–60Google Scholar. The existence of Mahasanghika monks in medieval Ceylon has been asserted by Gunawardana, R. A. L. H., “Buddhist Nikayas in Medieval Ceylon,” Ceylon Journal of Historical and Social Studies 9 (1966) pp. 55–66Google Scholar. Until additional material comes to light, a final judgement on Gunawardana's interesting theory and reinterpretation of the puzzling so-called Jetavanārāma Sanskrit Inscription will be difficult.

¹⁵ The katikāvatas of Ceylon were edited and translated by Nandasena Ratnapala: The Katikāvatas, Laws of the Buddhist Order of Ceylon from the 12th century to the 18th century (doctoral dissertation, Goettingen, forthcoming as: Muenchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft, Beiheft N). The katikāvata issued by Parākramabāhu I was edited by Wickremasinghe, D. M. de Z., Epigraphia Zeylanica 2, pp. 256–83Google Scholar. The Sinhalese texts of all major katikāvatas were printed in Katikāvatsangarā, ed. Jayatilaka, D. B. (Colombo, 1922).Google Scholar

¹⁶ Dambadeṇi Katikāvata, in: Katikāvatsangarṇ, op. cit., pp. 6–22Google Scholar; Ratnapala, , op. cit.Google Scholar See also University of Ceylon History of Ceylon, ed. Ray, H. C., vol. I, part 2 (Colombo, 1960) p. 745ff.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Kauṭalīya-Arthaśāstra 5. 2. 37–39Google Scholar; 13. 2. 21–35, etc.

¹⁸ Cf. Geiger, , op. cit. (note 14) p. 74, 119Google Scholar; Geiger, , “Kenntnis der indischen Nītiliteratur in Ceylon,” Beitraege zur Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte Indiens, Festgabe Hermann Jacobi (Bonn, 1926) pp. 418–21Google Scholar. Kauṭalya's work seems to be mentioned in the book list of the famous Pagan inscription of 1442 under the misspelt title of “Koladhvaja-ṭīkā.” See Bode, Mabel Haynes, The Pali Literature of Burma (London, 1906) p. 108Google Scholar, no. 259.

¹⁹ There is a number of sources on this so-called “Moladanda Rebellion” which is not mentioned in the Mahāvaṃsa. See, inter alia, “The Johnstone Manuscripts, Relation of a Conspiracy Against the King of Candy in the Year 1760, given by the Appoohamy de Lanerolles,” Ceylon Antiquary and Literary Register 2 (1916/1917), pp. 272–74Google Scholar; Fernando, P. E. E., “India Office Land Grant of King Kirti Śrī Rājasiṃha,” Ceylon Journal of Historical and Social Studies 3 (1960), pp. 72–81Google Scholar. The rebellion is recorded in the Śāsanāvatīrṇavarṇanāva, edited by Godakumbura, C. E. (Moratuva, 1956)Google Scholar, a Sinhalese history of Buddhism.

²⁰ On the relation of “sāsana reform” and “secularist tendencies” in the traditional history of the Sangha see Bechert, H., “Einige Fragen,” op. cit. (see footnote 1), p. 275ff.Google Scholar

²¹ The upasampadā was reintroduced by inviting monks from Arakan during the rule of Vimaladharmasūrya I (1592–1604) and of Vimaladharmasūrya II (1687–1707); see Mahāvaṃsa 94, 15ffGoogle Scholar.; 97, 8ff.; Fernando, P. E. E., “The Rakkhanga-Sannas-Cūrṇikāva and the Date of the Arrival of Arakanese Monks in Ceylon,” University of Ceylon Review 17 (1959) pp. 41–46.Google Scholar

²² The most detailed study of this reform movement is Vācissara, Koṭagama, Saraṇaṅkara Saṅgharāja samaya (Colombo, 1960)Google Scholar. From the large number of articles on the topic, Fernando, P. E. E., “An Account of the Kandyan Mission sent to Siam in 1750 A.D.”, Ceylon Journal of Historical and Social Studies 2 (1959) pp. 37–83Google Scholar, should be referred to. For the katikāvata issued by Kīrtiśrī-Rājasiṃha, see Katikāvatsangarā, op. cit. and Ratnapala, op. cit. (footnote 15).

²³ Rahula, W., History of Buddhism in Ceylon, The Anuradhapura Period (Colombo, 1956), p. 135Google Scholar, note 1, states that “the law of succession and incumbency of Buddhist temporalities in the early period is not clearly known.” Rahula traces the first evidence for the “pupillary succession” from the Buddhannehäla Pillar Inscription dated in the third year of king Kassapa V (913–923) and edited by Wickremasinghe, D. M. de Z., Epigrapkia Zeylanica 1, pp. 191–200Google Scholar. The development is also discussed by Warnasuriya, W. M. A., “Inscriptional Evidence bearing on the Nature of Religious Endowment in Ancient Ceylon,” University of Ceylon Review 1, no. 1. (04 1943) pp. 69–74Google Scholar, no. 2 (Nov. 1943) pp. 74–82, and 2 (1944) pp. 92–96. However, we must concede that our knowledge of the stages of this transformation is still insufficient.

²⁴ See Bechert, H., Buddhismus, Staat und Gesellschaft in den Laendern des Theravāda-Buddhismus, vol. 1 (Frankfurt, 1966) p. 224 ff. and p. 230 ff.Google Scholar

²⁵ For details of this rule see Bechert, H., op. cit., (footnote 24), vol. 1, pp. 225–28.Google Scholar

²⁶ Dambadeṇi Katikāvata par. 35 (in Ratnapala's edition, cf. footnote 15) prescribes that the heads of the āyatanas (a type of large monastic institutions) should belong to certain families. On the jñātiśiṣyaparamparāva see Bechert, , op. cit., vol. 1, p. 226.Google Scholar

²⁷ See also Evers, H. D., “‘Monastic Landlordism’ in Ceylon,” Journal of Asian Studies 28 (1969) pp. 685–92.Google Scholar

²⁸ See Bechert, H., op. cit., vol. 1, pp. 230–44Google Scholar; De Silva, K. M., “Buddhism and the British Government in Ceylon 1840–1855,” Ceylon Historical Journal 10 (1960–1961) pp. 91–159Google Scholar; Evers, H. D., “Buddhism and British Colonial Policy in Ceylon, 1815–1875,” Asian Studies 2 (1964) pp. 323–333.Google Scholar

²⁹ Dambadeṇi katikāvata par. 13 (in Ratnapala's edition, cf. footnote 15). Most of the lower castes of the Sinhalese originated from the assimilation of minority ethnic groups; in the coastal areas, the larger minority castes can be traced back to immigrated Dravidian populations which have been assimilated by the Sinhalese in the course of many centuries. Therefore, historically speaking, the Goyigama caste can be largely identified with the Sinhalese peasant population in the proper sense of the word.

³⁰ Bechert, H., op. cit. (footnote 24), vol. 1, pp. 211–20Google Scholar; Green, A. L., “Sinhalese Religious Organization in the Low Country,” Paper, Conference on Ceylon, University of Pennsylvania, 1967Google Scholar. For details on the nikāyas in Ceylon see Buddha śāsana komiṣan vārtāva, Colombo, 1959 (Government of Ceylon, Sessional Paper XVIII–1959) part I, pp. 27–49Google Scholar; Siṃhala viśvakoṣaya, vol. 1 (Colombo, 1963) pp. 639–43Google Scholar (s.v. Amarapura-Nikāya); Encyclopedia of Buddhism ed. by Malalasekera, G. P. (Colombo, 1961 ff.) vol. 1, pp. 406–09.Google Scholar

³¹ Information on the organizational and administrative structure of the Sangha in precolonial Burma see Smith, D. E., Religion and Politics in Burma (Princeton, N. J., 1965), pp. 3–37Google Scholar and Bechert, H., Buddhismus, Staat und Gesellschaft in den Laendern des Theravāda-Buddhismus, vol. 2 (Wiesbaden, 1967) p. 16Google Scholar f. (with further references in note 1373 a); on its development in the colonial period, Bechert, , op. cit., vol. 2, p. 17 ff., 40 ff.Google Scholar, and Smith, D. E., op. cit., p. 43 ff.Google Scholar

³² The available information on the Burmese nikāyas is scarce and partly contradictory; I refer to my survey of their history, op. cit. (footnote 31), vol. 2, pp. 21–24.

³³ Cf. also Mendelson, E. M., “Buddhism and the Burmese Establishment,” Archives de Sociologie des Religions 17 (1964) pp. 85–95.Google Scholar

³⁴ Bechert, H., op. cit., vol. 2, p. 23.Google Scholar

³⁵ Cf. Bechert, H., op. cit., vol. 2, p. 185.Google Scholar

³⁶ Field research on Buddhism in Bengal has been supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. A monograph on the history of Bengali Buddhism is under preparation. See also Bechert, H., “Contemporary Buddhism in Bengal and Tripura,” Educational Miscellany (Agartala) 4, no. 3/4 (12 1967–03 1968) pp. 1–25.Google Scholar

³⁷ Dīghanikāya, ed. by Davids, T. W. Rhys and Carpenter, J. E., vol. 2 (London, 1903) p. 154.Google Scholar

³⁸ Cullavagga XI.1. 9 (Vinayapiṭaka, ed. by H. Oldenberg, vol. 2, p. 287 f.).Google Scholar

³⁹ On the basis of canonical law, it was consistent and justified when the Rangoon High Court ruled in 1935 that a decision of the hierarchy was not valid since “neither the Thathanabaing (Sangharāja of Burma) nor the hierarchy set up by him are mentioned in the Vinaya”; see Bechert, H., op. cit. (footnote 31), vol. 2, p. 44.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ The best description of paritta is found in Waldschmidt, E., Von Ceylon bis Turfan, (Goettingen, 1967) pp. 456–78.Google Scholar

⁴¹ On the place of this idea in the history of Buddhist thought see Bechert, H., “Zur Fruehges chichte des Mahāyāna-Buddhismus,” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlaendischen Gesellschaft 113 (1964) pp. 530–35.Google Scholar

⁴² Weber, Max, Gesammelte Aufsaetze zur Religionssoziologie, vol. 2, 2nd ed. (Tuebingen, 1923) p. 220.Google Scholar

⁴³ I cannot agree with the definition of “Great Tradition” and “Little Tradition” in Theravāda countries proposed by Gananath Obeyesekere (“The Great Tradition and the Little in the Perspective of Sinhalese Buddhism,” Journal of Asian Studies 22, pp. 139–53Google Scholar); see Bechert, H., “Einige Fragen der Religionssoziologie” op. cit. (see footnote 1) pp. 266–75.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Benda, H. J., “The Structure of Southeast Asian History,” Journal of Southeast Asian History 3 (1962) pp. 114–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁵ See Ames, Michael M., “Magical-animism and Buddhism: A Structural Analysis of the Sinhalese Religious System,” Religion in South Asia, ed. by Harper, Eduard B. (Seattle, 1964) pp. 21–52Google Scholar; cf. also my article quoted in footnote 1. On the integration of both religious systems see the example described by Evers, H. D., “Buddha and the Seven Gods: The Dual Organization of a Temple in Central Ceylon,” Journal of Asian Studies 27 (1968) pp. 541–50Google Scholar. The cults of Ceylon and of Burma have been compared in Bechert, , op. cit. (footnote 1), pp. 287–93.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ On the movement of resurgent Buddhism in Ceylon and Burma see Smith, D. E. (ed.), South Asian Politics and Religion (Princeton, 1966)Google Scholar, with four chapters on Ceylon by D. E. Smith, A. J. Wilson and C. D. S. Siriwardane; Smith, D. E., Religion and Politics in Burma (Princeton, 1965)Google Scholar and Bechert, H., Buddhismus, Staat und Gesellschaft in den Laendern des Theravāda-Buddhismus, vols. 1–2 (Frankfurt, 1966, Wiesbaden, 1967).Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Vijayavardhana, D. C., Dharma-Vijaya, Triumph of Righteousness or the Revolt in the Temple (Colombo, 1953) pp. 11–20.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Rahula, Valpala, Bhiksuvagē urumaya, 1st ed. (Colombo, 1946).Google Scholar

⁴⁹ This text was published in Vijayardhana, , op. cit., p. 156 f.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Bechert, H., op. cit., vol. 1, pp. 230–44.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Bechert, H., op. cit., vol. 1, pp. 294–300Google Scholar; vol. 2, pp. 73–86; Smith, D. E., Religion and Politics in Burma, pp. 230–80.Google Scholar

⁵² Recently editions of collected writings of the Anagārika Dharmapāla have been published in Sinhalese and English: Dharmapāla lipi, ed. by Gurugē, Ānanda W. P. (Colombo, 1965)Google Scholar; Return to Righteousness, A Collection of Speeches, Essays and Letters of the Anagarika Dharmapala, ed. by Guruge, Ananda (Colombo, 1965)Google Scholar. Unfortunately, the editor has made arbitrary changes in the text as pointed out by Halbfass, W., “Anagārika Dharmapāla,” in: Das Christentum im Urteil seiner GegnerGoogle Scholar, ed. by K. Deschner, forthcoming.

⁵³ Bauddha toraturu parīkṣaka sabhāvē vārtāva (Balangoda, 1956)Google Scholar; abridged English version: The Betrayal of Buddhism, An Abridged Version of the Report of the Buddhist Committee of Inquiry (Balangoda, 1956)Google Scholar. See Bechert, H., op. cit., vol. 1, pp. 267–79.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Vimalananda, Tennakon, Buddhism in Ceylon under the Christian Powers (Colombo, 1963).Google Scholar

⁵⁵ A similar evaluation is given by Evers, op. cit. (footnote 27), p. 692.

⁵⁸ Mendis, G. C., Ceylon Today and Yesterday, Main Currents of Ceylon History, 2nd ed. (Colombo, 1963) pp. 180–87.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ For a detailed discussion of the problem involved see Bechert, H., op. cit., vol. 1, pp. 67–81.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ See Bechert, H., “Ueber den Ursprung der Geschichtsschreibung,” op. cit., (see footnote 2).Google Scholar

⁵⁹ For the political theory of modern Burmese Buddhism, see Sarkisyanz, E., Buddhist Backgrounds of the Burmese Revolution (The Hague, 1965).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶⁰ On the history of Buddhist monks' associations see Bechert, H., op. cit. (footnote 46), vol. 1, pp. 300–05Google Scholar; vol. 2, pp. 86–95; Smith, , Religion and Politics in Burma, p. 55, 106, 188 ff.Google Scholar