Evolution of the Theravāda Buddhist Idea of ‘Merit- Transference’ to the Dead, and Its Role in Sri Lankan Buddhist Culture

Home , Atthakatha, Buddhism in Sri Lanka, Buddhist funeral, Five precepts, Itivuttaka, Khuddaka Nikaya

BSRV 30.1 (2013) 89–112 Buddhist Studies Review ISSN (print) 0256-2897 doi: 10.1558/bsrv.v30i1.89 Buddhist Studies Review ISSN (online) 1747-9681

Evolution of the Theravāda Buddhist Idea of ‘Merit- transference’ to the Dead, and its Role in Sri Lankan Buddhist Culture

Soorakkulame Pemaratana

University of Pittsburgh

[email protected]

ABSTRACT The practice of merit-transference in Sri Lankan Theravāda Buddhism has evolved over three important stages of development, namely, assigning of dakkhiṇā, giving of patti, and direct transferring of merit. These stages are generally understood as similar practices but are significantly different from each other. It is not the merit but the meritorious act that is dedicated to, or shared with the departed ones in first two stages. Pattidāna, in this context, does not strictly mean giving merit or giving what is obtained or achieved, as it has so far been interpreted, but giving a share of or stake in the ownership of a meritorious act. It is in the third stage that the idea of merit-transference appeared in Buddhist practice in Sri Lanka. Under- standing this historical development is important for interpreting Bud- dhist texts in their historical contexts as well as for realizing the larger role assigned to the living in the contemporary practice of merit-transference (puṇyānumodanā/ pin anumodan-/ pin dīma) and its influence on other arena of social and cultural life in Sri Lanka. This idea of merit-transference transformed mourning and sorrowful funerals into merit-making events. Practices related to this idea of merit-transference also successfully fulfill the psychological needs of the living to assist departed relatives and to maintain some form of relationship with them. It also allowed local beliefs to be assimilated into the Buddhist fold and shaped the social structure of the living, particularly the lay-monastic relationship.

Keywords death rituals, merit-transference, Sri Lankan Buddhism, dakkhiṇā, pattidāna, puṇyānumodanā, pin anumodan-, pin dīma

INTRODUCTION Funeral and memorial rites have long been a component of societal attempts to address the issues raised by the death of a close relative. Buddhist death rituals in many parts of Asia seek to assure the smooth transition of the dead to the next life along with their welfare there, while also facilitating the bereaved in adjusting to their new situation and new relationship with the dead. Various Buddhist tradi- tions have developed a number of practices to enable the living to assist the dead. Buddhist practices related to death are based on the doctrines of karma and rebirth. These provide a clear picture of the range of possible postmortem states of the dead, portraying a universe in which all beings are repeatedly reborn into one or other of six different realms (as divine beings, humans, jealous spirits, hungry ghosts, animals or hell beings) until they attain Nirvāṇa (D III 7–15; M I 73). The doctrine of karma and teachings on attachment (upādāna) to sense-pleasures and ‘self’-related views describe how an individual goes through these realms (M III 203–206; A I 223). While attachment provides the main thrust for one to be born again, karma — volitional actions performed by an individual throughout his or her life — determines the realm of that next life. These doctrines provide a com- prehensive picture of the afterlife while assuring people that reality has a moral structure in which, ultimately, both good and bad conduct bring their appropri- ate results. However, the doctrines of karma and rebirth alone cannot give us a full picture of the Buddhist idea of the afterlife and related Buddhist practices. William LaFleur notes that when the doctrines of karma and rebirth are taken alone, the rigor of individual karmic responsibility for actions and their fruits can be disturbing, because one could never be sure of whether a dead person has enough good karma to outweigh the bad karma of previous lives (LaFleur 1983, 26ff) — a perturbing issue when it comes to deaths of one’s own relatives. These doctrines seem to put the whole responsibility for earning a happy postmortem state onto the individual himself, not leaving any opportunity for others to assist. As Jacqueline Stone and Mariko Walter observe, these teachings were coupled with ideas and practices from the early period of Buddhism which allowed some opportunity for the living to assist the dead (2008, 5). The two most prominent practices of this kind are transforming the last moment of death of dying relatives and ‘transferring merit’ to departed relatives. These aim either to provide a better rebirth for the dead or to mediate an escape from the whole process of rebirths. Both practices have been seen to facilitate both of these aims, though spiritually improving the last moment of death seems to put most emphasis on escaping the whole process of rebirth, as in the Tibetan Powa death ritual, the Shingon sanmitsu practice for union with a Buddha at death, or the Japanese deathbed ritual called Mukaekō for attaining birth in Amida Buddha’s Pure Land, while the ‘transference of merit’ is closely related to affecting a better rebirth. In the Buddhist doctrinal framework, the last moment of death is crucial in deciding the nature of the next life. Karmic tendencies and attachment mani- fest in this last moment and have an influence on what the next life may be. Assisting a dying person to generate a proper state of mind is seen by Buddhists to allow a great opportunity to direct his or her consciousness to a more favorable rebirth. Within this doctrinal framework, a number of practices related to transforming the last moment of death have been prevalent in Buddhist societies. In

Theravāda Buddhist societies, assisting the dying person to remember his or her good actions and to let go of attachment to worldly things is done by close relatives. Further, monks are invited to chant suttas to assist the dying person to help make his mind peaceful at the moment of death. In Sri Lanka, for example, an alms-giving called jīva dāna or godāna is offered to monks when one approaches death (Langer 2007, 12). This article, though, focuses on the practice of merit-transference in Theravāda Buddhist death rituals in Sri Lanka. By ‘merit-transference’, I mean doing a good action and sharing with or transferring to another person, here a dead done, its karmic benefit — its potential to produce future good fortune. This potential has come to be the primary meaning of the term puñña. If we examine the usage of the term puñña within Pāli Buddhist texts, we find that it frequently occurs in references to good actions. Peter Harvey points out that puñña can be used both as a noun and an adjective (2000, 17–18). He cites L.S. Cousins (1996, 153) as explaining that as an adjective, puñña means the ‘fortune- bringing or auspicious quality of an action’ and as a noun it means either ‘an act which bring good fortune or the happy result in the future of such an act’ (Cousins 1996, 155). In this regard, as Harvey observes, puñña refers to something with a ‘natural power of its own to produce happy results’ (2000, 18). P.D. Premasiri dis- tinguishes puñña and kusala which are often broadly equivalent terms. He clarifies that the term kusala is reserved in the Pāli Canon to refer to qualities and actions which lead to Nibbāna while the term puñña is used to mean good deeds which bring enjoyment of a sensuous kind and happiness in saṃsāra (Premasiri 1976, 67). We find in theItivuttaka that the Buddha explains the beneficial power ofpuñña in saṃsāric life. He reveals that he has seen how beings who performed good actions have reappeared in a good destination as a result of those actions; he declares that the doer of puñña (puññakāro) will reappear in heaven (saggaṃ) (It 60). In the Aṅguttara Nikāya, the Buddha reports his own experience regarding how he was able to enjoy pleasant, charming and delightful benefits for a long time as a result (vipāka) of puñña done by him (A IV 89). Puñña along with pāpa (evil, equivalent to apuñña actions; the opposite of puñña) is also regarded as what follows an individual after death (S I 72). This notion of puñña is also readily found in the Pāli commentaries. The Papañcasūdanī interprets puñña as ‘aggregates of future results’ (āyatiṃ vipākakkhandhā ti, Ps II 283) of good actions. The commen- tator Dhammapāla also recognizes results of good actions as one meaning of the term puñña (It-a I 73). What emerges from the above usages is that puñña can have three closely related meaning: a) good or ‘meritorious’ action, b) meritorious potency, c) result-of-merit.1 Though, at times, meritorious action is rendered by the term puññakamma (Ap I 100, v.112; Sv III 711), result of merit by the term puññaphala (D III 169; S I 217; Pv 4,5,1), and meritorious potency by the term puñña itself when relevant passages speak about increasing of it (puññaṃ pavaḍḍhati, D II 136; III 58; puññaṃ pasavanti, D III 99; III 120), these distinctions are not strictly maintained. Puñña can interchangeably mean any one of three meanings. In the context of helping departed ones, puñña used as a noun refers to either meritorious potency

1. I owe Peter Harvey for these distinctions 2. Though the PTS edition here reads pubbaṃ kammaṃ, vl. pubbakammaṃ.

© Equinox Publishing Ltd 2013 92 Soorakkulame Pemaratana or meritorious action, depending on the occasion and the individual who uses it. The article argues that the current idea of merit-transference (the terms for this in Sri Lanka now generally being puṇyānumodanā, pin anumodan- and pin dīma) to departed relatives is a result of two earlier developments, dedication of dakkhiṇā and giving patti, which are generally understood as similar to merit- transference but are significantly different from it. Understanding these- his torical developments is important for realizing the larger role now assigned to the living by the practice of merit-transference in the process of helping the dead. The article further analyses how this notion of merit-transference, with its emphasis on the giver’s role, has fulfilled psychological needs of the living and shaped cultural beliefs and social institutions; how it accommodated people’s deep-rooted need to assist departed relatives and to maintain the bonds between the living and the dead within the Buddhist doctrinal framework. Further, the article will show how the practice of merit-transference enabled the appropria- tion of local beliefs and customs into the Buddhist fold. Finally, it will demon- strate how this practice shaped the social structure of the living, particularly the lay-monastic relationship. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENTS LEADING TO THE PRACTICE OF MERIT-TRANSFERENCE The practice of transferring one’s merit (puñña), in the sense of the potency to produce good karmic fruits, to departed ones has evolved following a number of phases of development in the history of Theravāda Buddhism in Sri Lanka. The idea of giving one’s merit to someone else, particularly to a departed one, did not come easily to Buddhists in Sri Lanka. Merit is understood within the Buddhist context as the psychological product of one’s wholesome actions. When merit is viewed as psychologically produced and as a form of spiritual energy of one’s own mind, gifting a portion of it to somebody else becomes problem- atic. Furthermore, the Buddhist theory of karma stresses the fact that karma is one’s own (kammassakatā, M III 203). In other words, when a person performs an intentional wholesome action, the good karma, or merit that is produced in his or her mind becomes his or her own heritage (kamma dāyāda) (Nyanatiloka 1959, 7). The idea of kammassakatā poses a challenge for the possibility of giving or transferring one’s merit to someone else. It becomes more challenging when this giving of merits is done to someone who is not immediately present. The Buddhist practice of transferring merit to departed ones gradually took shape through constant interaction with the above issues. We can identify three important phases of development in the practice of helping departed ones in Sri Lankan Theravāda Buddhism: designating charitable acts as done on behalf of departed ones — assigning it to them; giving patti — a stake or share — in charitable acts to departed ones; and transferring puñña to departed ones. Dedication of a dakkhiṇā Memorial services for departed relatives are recommended even in the early strata of the literature of Indian Buddhism. However, it is not clear that the practice of transferring merit was a part of these services. In the Sigālovāda Sutta, the Buddha points out that performing a memorial ‘dakkhiṇā’ and dedicating it to

© Equinox Publishing Ltd 2013 Evolution of the Theravāda Buddhist Idea of ‘Merit-transference’ to the Dead 93 the departed parents is a duty of filial children (D III 189): petānaṃ kālakatānaṃ dakkhiṇaṃ anuppadassāmīti: ‘I will give/hand over/provide (anuppadassāmi- see DP 124) a donation (dakkkiṇaṃ) for the departed dead (petānaṃ kālakatānaṃ — with the dative case ending having the force of ‘for’)’.3 The term dakkhiṇā was originally used in the context of Brahmanism to refer to the donation given to Brahmin priests (SED 465). In the early Buddhist context, it usually refers to donations, particularly alms, offered to Buddhist monks as dāna (M III 254, 255). What is said here to be done for the departed parents is this act of donation. How this was done is not clear. It is clear, however, that no reference to merit or any other karmic benefit of this donation is mentioned in thissutta . It is the very act of donation that is supposed to be dedicated to or done for the departed parents. Dedicating certain wholesome acts to departed relatives, as done on their behalf, seems to be a common practice in the early history of Buddhism. In the book of Peta-stories (Petavatthu) and its commentary, we find many instances in which the petas or hungry ghosts (though at D III 189 above, it just seems to mean ‘the departed’) ask help from their relatives through Venerable Moggallāna or other monks. In these instances, what we find is that both the request of hungry ghosts and the fulfillment of those requests by their relatives involve assigning a wholesome action to them but not as such the merit produced from the action. In the story of Petī Nandā, she instructs her former husband on how to help her: What is given by your hand into my hand is of no benefit to me. But please satisfy with food and drink monks who are endowed with virtue, free of lust and who have heard much and assign that donation to me (mama dakkhiṇaṃ ādisa) — then I will be happy and richly endowed with all I desire. (Pv.II.4 (p.23) as translated by Masefield 1980, 98) The husband performed an act of charity to monks and then ‘assigned the donation to her’ (tassā dakkhiṇaṃ ādisi). This form of assigning of good actions to hungry ghosts is common in many stories in the Petavatthu. It is the term dakkhiṇā that is used to refer to these donations which are performed specifically in the name of departed ones. The term dakkhiṇā occurs 29 times in the Petavatthu. The term directly refers to alms-giving or donation given to monks in two occurrences (ayañca kho dakkhiṇā dinnā — saṅghamhi supatiṭṭhitā: ‘this alms-giving is given and well-placed in the Saṅgha’, Pv I. 5. 11; Pv I. 4. 4). In other occurrences, the term refers to acts of donations which are dedicated or assigned to departed ones. The verbs mostly used along with dakkhiṇā are ādisa (Pv I 10. 5; 4. 8), ādisi (Pv II 1.14), ādisittha (Pv II 8.9), anvādissatu (Pv III 6. 9), uddisāhi (Pv II 2.6). These verbs indicate a form of dedication of wholesome actions through a formal declaration. The first three verbs are different forms of the verb ādisati, which means ‘to announce, to dedicate’ (PED 99). Anvādisāhi (anu + ā + dis) is also derived from the verb root of ādisati and it also means ‘to dedicate or assign’ (PED 49). Uddisāhi/uddisati also means ‘to point out’ 3. Others translate it thus: After my parents’ death, I will distribute gifts on their behalf. (Walshe 1987, 467) I shall offer alms in honor of my departed relatives. (Narada: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.nara.html) I will make donations on behalf of dead ancestors. (Kelly, Sawyer and Yareham, http:// www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.ksw0.html) ‘when we have passed on he will make an offering on our behalf’ (Bodhi 2012, 663, for an exactly parallel passage at A III 43) (Rhys Davids does not translate this sentence)

© Equinox Publishing Ltd 2013 94 Soorakkulame Pemaratana or ‘allot’ (PED 135). These verbs do not suggest any form of transference or a gift of merit but a formal announcement indicating that this action is done on behalf the departed one. However, in two instances we find the expression, ‘may this dakkhiṇā go to the yakkha’ (yakkhissimā gacchantu dakkhiṇāyo, Pv IV 1.53). Here we do not find verbs like ādisati but the verb gacchantu (may it go) is used. What is important to notice in this case is that it is the donor who utters this phrase after he performed an act of donation. Unlike in the other instances where departed ones make requests to dedicate a dakkhiṇā or the author of the text reports that such a dakkhiṇā is dedicated, in this case the above phrase appears as an expression of the donor. As such, although the verbs which suggest formal dedication of the act, such as ādisati, are not used here, this phrase can be seen as an example of how the very act of dedication or designation of wholesome acts is done by donors on such occasions. What becomes clear here is that in the Petavatthu the term dakkhiṇā refers to the act of donation itself and not as such to the fruits of such acts. This becomes further clear by the fact that the term dāna (donation or giving) has been used in the place of dakkhiṇā in the Petavatthu. For example, in the Sāriputtatheramātupeti vatthu (Pv.II.2), the mother of venerable Sāriputta requests, ‘Give a dāna on behalf of me, dear son. Having given [the dāna], assign or dedicate it to me (uddisāhi)’. Instead of requesting to dedicate a dakkhiṇā, as in many cases, here we find that thepeti requests to dedicate a dāna. This usage gives us an important clue as to the meaning of dakkhiṇā in the Petavatthu. Furthermore, we also find in the Petavatthu the terms dakkhiṇārahā (Pv II 8.6) and dakkhiṇeyyo (Pv IV 1.33), which mean ‘worthy of dakkhiṇā’. According to the Petavatthu, those who are worthy of dakkhiṇā are the Buddha and his disciples. This is also one of standard nine qualities of the Saṅgha (dakkhiṇeyyo, S V 343). As such, dakkhiṇā cannot mean the fruits of the act of donation but the act of donation itself. At least within the Petavatthu and the Dīgha Nikāya, dakkhiṇā stands for acts of donation which can then be assigned or dedicated to departed ones. John Holt, in analyzing the common structure of stories in the Petavatthu, claims that the ‘transference of merit’ is an important element in it, ‘The living should offer a gift to the bhikkhusaṅgha and transfer the merit derived from that virtuous action to the suffering peta’ (Holt 1981, 12). However, as we saw above, what is happening in the Petavatthu is not really a ‘transference of merit’ produced from the donation by the giver, but the dedication of the very act of donation. No reference to merit (puñña) is made in these instances of helping departed ones, though the term puñña is found in other contexts in the Petavatthu (Pv III 1. 20). Holt’s interpretation of this dedication of acts as ‘transference of merit’ reflects a later development of the idea and how these practices are understood in Buddhist societies today. Holt mistakenly translates ‘dakkhiṇaṃ ādisa’ in verse 8 of the story of Nandā petī as ‘transfer to me the benefit of the gift’ (1981, 13). Dakkhiṇā in the Petavatthu does not mean the benefit or fruit of the gift but the very act of donation, while ādisa does not mean ‘transfer’ but ‘assign’ or dedicate’. In this connection, Lambert Schmithausen also asserts that we cannot find any unambiguous evidence for merit transference to the deceased in the four Nikāyas (1986, 212). What I have shown above is that in the Petavatthu too we cannot find direct evidence for any reference to merit-transference. Schmithausen points out that dakkhiṇā primarily means the gift given to a person to be honored and that this meaning is derived from the Vedic context in which dakṣiṇā means a reward

© Equinox Publishing Ltd 2013 Evolution of the Theravāda Buddhist Idea of ‘Merit-transference’ to the Dead 95 given to a priest for his sacrificial service (1986, 210). He further suggests that the expression dakkhiṇaṃ ādis- simply means that a gift, though presented to monks, is assigned to deceased persons or divine beings. In such contexts, the monks somehow act as their representatives or as mediators (1986, 210–211). However, as we saw in the above textual references, a dakkhiṇā is assigned to the deceased only after giving gifts to monks. Even the requests from petas mention first to give monks gifts or to feed monks and then to assign (Datvā ca me ādisa, Pv II 1.6; Bhojayitvā mama dakkhiṇam ādisa, Pv II 3. 25). In such cases, what can be assigned or dedicated is the act of donation and not the gift since it is already given to monks.4 Schmithausen suggests that in early Buddhism, monks would have tolerated popular religious customs and rites by adapting and interpreting them in accordance with Buddhist ethics and doctrines (1986, 213). Popularizing the dedication of meritorious acts to the deceased, instead of direct giving of gifts or feeding the deceased (as in Brahmanical piṇḍapitṛ yajña or śrāddha) could be one such adaptation. Giving patti The next phase of the development of the practice of benefitting the dead, which has led up to the present practice of merit-transference, is giving ‘patti’ to a departed one. In Pāli commentaries composed in Sri Lanka, the dedication of a dakkhiṇā, an act of donation, came to be interpreted as giving patti. In the Macchudāna Jātaka, the Bodhisattva donates some food to fish in the nearby river and the canonical verse says he dedicates that act of donation (dakkhinaṃ ādisi) to the river-deity (Ja II 425). The commentarial part of the story states that after giving food to fish, the Bodhisattva ‘dedicatespatti (pattiṃ adāsi)’ to the river-deity (Ja II 423). Here we can see that dakkhiṇā has changed into patti. In fact the commentary on the Petavatthu also identifiesdakkhiṇā with pattidāna (imasmiṃ ṭhāne pattidānaṃ dakkhiṇaṃ nāma, Ja II 423; dakkhiṇaṃ ādisā ti … pattidānaṃ dehi, Pv-a 48). The term patti has been interpreted as ‘attainment’ or ‘acquisition’. C.Witanachchi explains patti as deriving from pa — √ āp (to reach, attain, obtain) and as an equivalent of prāpti in Sanskrit (2004, 382). Accordingly, patti stands for what is attained or acquired. Akira Fujimoto also interprets patti as what one has achieved through engaging in a wholesome action (2003, 128). However, he argues that this term cannot be understood strictly as merit as it is interpreted in scholarly writings (e.g. PED 407). In his view, this achievement can include mental qualities and memories derived through wholesome activities. Patti does not refer to a present action such as making a dakkhiṇā but to mental qualities achieved through a past action — even one just done, as at Ja II 423–425. What is achieved through a wholesome action may include merit but is not limited to merit (Fujimoto 2003, 128). However, we should notice here that patti as it is found in Pāli commentaries also means a ‘share’ or ‘stake’ in a task. In the Magha Mānavavatthu of the Dīgha Nikaya Aṭṭhakathā, we find a story in which Magha and his companions start a project to build a community hall. They decide in the beginning that they will not give their wives a share of this project (tāsaṃ pattiṃ na dassāma). One of Magha’s 4. In another place (1986, 212), Schmithausen seems to understand the meaning of dakkhiṇā as a meritorious act: ‘the benefit accruing to thepretas is explicitly stated to be the fruit (phala) or ripening (vipāka) of the meritorious act performed by the donor’ (dakkhiṇāya idaṃ phalaṃ. Pv II 1.8; emphasis added).

© Equinox Publishing Ltd 2013 96 Soorakkulame Pemaratana wives named Sudhammā requests from a carpenter to give her a share (patti) in this task of building a community hall. When the carpenter informed her of the decision made by Magha and his companions, she pleads with the carpenter to make her a partner (pattikaṃ) in this project by means of some trick. Later, as a result of the carpenter’s plot, a ridge pole (kaṇṇikā) for the hall cannot be found except in Sudhammā’s house. Then Magha and his companions had no choice but to take Sudhamma’s ridge pole, so making her a partner in the project (Sv III 713ff). In the Kāsāva Jātaka, a trader gives a piece of valuable cloth to those who organize a voluntary collection in order to perform an act of charity (dāna) and then he asks them to make him a partner (pattikaṃ) in that charity (Ja II 196). In a similar incident found in the Khadiravaniya Revatattheravatthu of the Dhammapada commentary, a villager refuses to sell his bee-hive when he comes to know that it is going to be used for an alms-giving. Instead, he expresses his willingness to give it for free if he can also receive a share in the alms-giving (dāne pattiṃ). Then the organizers of the alms-giving agree, saying ‘Good, be a partner’ (sādhu, pat- tiko hotu, Dh-a II 198). In another story of the Dhammapada commentary, a person named Aparājita starts to build a gandhakuṭi (perfumed hut) for the Buddha. His nephew offers to help and requests a share (patti) in this project. However, Aparājita refuses to give a share, saying that he will make this project unshared with others (aññehi asādhāraṇaṃ karissāmi, Dh-a IV 203). In these stories, patti does not stand for merit or any fruits of charitable acts. It stands for a share or stake in such acts. When the above donors request patti, they seek physical participation in the act, not any fruit achieved through such acts specifically. In the above cases, patti or a share is requested before the performance of a charitable act. Then the person who requested patti makes a contribution and gains a partnership in the act. However, there are also cases where patti is requested and given after the performance of charitable acts (as discussed by Akira Fujimoto). In the Sukha Sāmaneravatthu of the Dhammapada commentary, a wealthy man named Gandhaseṭṭhi comes to know about an alms-giving performed by one of his servants. Appreciating such a charitable act, he requests from his servant to take one thousand coins and give him patti in the donation. The servant agrees and gives him patti by taking one thousand coins. Later, even the king of the coun- try makes the same request. The servant takes another thousand coins and gives the king patti (Dh-a III 93 ff). Since the patti is requested in this story by offering money to the donor, what Gandhaseṭṭhi and the king seek here is to be part of the expense of donation. By sharing a part of the expense, they become partners in the act of donation. However, as it appears in the Pāli commentaries, if the original owner of the charitable act is willing, he also can give others a share in his act without taking anything in return. In another story of the Dhammapada commentary, a person named Annāhāra rejects money but gives his employer a share (patti) in his alms-giving (Dh-a IV 122). Another wealthy person gives the first part or share (paṭhamaṃ pattiṃ) of his alms-giving to his enemy (Dh-a III 60). This possibility of becoming partners in another’s charitable act or making others partners in one’s charitable act even after it has been performed is important for understanding what is happening in the context of helping departed ones through granting them patti. These instances show that patti, in such contexts, means a share or stake in another’s charitable act, though it means ‘attainment’ or ‘acquisition’ in Pāli

© Equinox Publishing Ltd 2013 Evolution of the Theravāda Buddhist Idea of ‘Merit-transference’ to the Dead 97 terms such as nibbāna-patti (S I 189) and samāpatti (D III 207). According to the above episodes, what is happening in giving patti is sharing the ownership of, that is participation in, a charitable act. The original ‘owner’ of a charitable act can share his ownership of the act with others even after he has performed it. When we understand patti in this sense, we can interpret what is happening in the context of helping departed ones as sharing one’s ownership of a charitable act with them by making them partners in the act. Accordingly, the term pattidāna, as it appears in the Pāli commentaries, means giving a share of the ownership of a charitable act. It is the term pattidāna that is found in the commentary to the Petavatthu where stories of helping departed ones are found. Assigning a dakkhiṇā in the Petavatthu is interpreted as pattidāna in the commentary to the Petavatthu (Pv-a 78; 87). The commentary to the Petavatthu elucidates that the wholesome act of giving includes not only gifts of material things (deyyadhamma-pariccāgo) but also gifts of charitable acts (dānadhamma-pariccāgo). The text gives pattidāna as an example of the second kind of gift (Pv-a 8). Pattidāna or patti anuppadāna is one of the ten standard meritorious deeds (dasa puññakiriya vatthu) in Theravāda Buddhism (It-a II 25). It is defined as making a wish that ‘may this patti be for a particular person or for all living beings’ (As 158) after performing a wholesome action. In the Sāriputtattheravatthu of the Dhammapada commentary, we find that king Bimbisāra makes a similar wish when he gives patti to his departed relatives following the advice of the Buddha (Dh-a I. 102). However, though patti stands for a share of or in a charitable act in the above instances, patti is also used occasionally in the Pāli commentaries to mean a share of the merit accrued from charitable acts. We find an instance in the commentary to the Vimānavatthu where king Bimbisāra requests a share of the merit accrued by his gardener (Vv-a 287). When the king comes to know that the gardener has donated four mangoes from the king’s garden to Venerable Moggallāna, he appreciates this charity and admits that the gardener has accrued merit (puññaṃ pasutaṃ) from this donation of mangoes. Then the king requests him to ‘give me a share in that (tato me pattiṃ dehi)’. Though there is a reference to merit here, patti still means a share even in this context. Even when one gives a share of the ownership of a past charitable act, if the other party accepts it, it allows the recipient to join in the charitable act and so accrue merit. Therefore, one can argue that giving patti to departed ones means, or at least entails, giving merit. However, the use of the term pattidāna, rather than a term like puññadāna (giving of merit), indicates an intermediary phase of development in the practice of helping departed ones. As we saw above, patti in the Pāli commentaries does not stand as a synonym for puñña. In many cases, it means a share of the ownership of others’ charitable acts, though in some cases it means a share of merit accrued by others. In both cases, recipients of patti accrue merit for themselves by mentally associating themselves with the share they were given. In order to benefit frompattidāna , there is a role for the receiver too. This role of the receiver is known as anumodana or abbhanumodana (It-a II 24), which mean ‘satisfaction’ at and ‘being pleased’ with (PED, 41, 59). This appreciation or rejoicing is also identified as one of ten meritorious deeds mentioned above (It-a II 24). Later, this came to be known as pattānumodanā (Abhidhammattha-saṅgaha V. 65). In the commentary to the Macchudāna Jātaka mentioned above, when the Bodhisattva gave his patti, the river-deity rejoices in the patti (pattiṃ anumoditvā,

Ja II 423). In another Jātaka story, a Brahmin gives patti of his good act to a deity and then the deity rejoices (so anumodi, Ja IV 19). The Petavatthu commentary says, ‘If the petas rejoice in or approve of (anumodanti) the gift given on their behalf, as a result, they become released at that moment’ (Pv-a 17). Through the act of rejoicing and empathizing with the giving, the receiver can produce merit in his own mind. Malalasekera observes: Here, the recipient of the transfer becomes a participant of the original deed by associating himself with the deed done. Thus, this identification of himself with both the deed and the doer can sometimes result in the beneficiary getting even greater merit than the original doer. (1967, 86) When we compare this stage of giving patti with the earlier stage of assigning a dakkhiṇā, we can see two important differences. First, assigning of a dakkhiṇā is presented as an act that can miraculously produce immediate benefits to the departed ones. Once a donation to monks is performed and assigned to the departed ones, they receive what is offered to monks immediately (Pv I 10. 7; II 1. 8; II 2. 9). There is no role for the recipient to play in order to get the benefit from a dakkhiṇā assigned to them, except making a request beforehand. In the case of pattidāna, though sometimes it is viewed as producing immediate benefits, the recipient needs to rejoice at the patti. In order to actually receive and so benefit from patti, the receiver has the role of rejoicing in it (abbhanumodana). For example, in the Sānusāmaneravatthu of the Dhammapada commentary, a novice monk gives a patti of his recitation of Dhamma to his parents. His parents are not aware of this giving of patti. But a yakkhinī who was his mother in a previous life is used to coming to listen to this recitation with other devas. She hears this giving of patti and receives it by rejoicing in it (Dh-a IV 17). Instead of his parents in the present life, his former mother the yakkhinī receives the patti because it is she who rejoiced in it. We should also note that the assigning of a dakkhiṇā as done on someone else’s behalf seems to designate the whole donation as done by them (though the designator still benefits as the act of designation is itself a good act, with good karmic results). On the other hand, assigning a patti just gives them a stake or share in an action done by one or more others. In this second phase of development of this practice of helping departed ones, assignment of a dakkhiṇā was replaced by the common practice of giving a patti of one’s charitable acts to others. We do not find references to assigning dakkhiṇā in commentaries unless in contexts of interpreting dakkhiṇā as pattidāna. It is important to note that the meaning of patti did not remain the same in the following periods. It is within the Pāli commentaries that patti occurs in the above sense. During the period of the sub-commentaries (tīkā) and Abhidhamma manu- als in Sri Lanka, which roughly corresponds to the twelfth century C.E., the term patti came to be understood as close to the meaning of merit (puñña/puṇya). The Abhidhammattha-saṅgaha defines pattidāna as ‘Wishing that the merit generated in one’s own mind to be common with others’ (attano santāne nibbattassa puññassa parehi sādhāraṇabhāvaṃ paccāsīsanacetanā, AbhS V. 65). This direct reference to merit (puñña) and the eventual replacement of patti with puñña marks the next phase of development of the practice of helping departed ones.

Puṇyānumodanā In this stage, the terms puṇyānumodanā, pin anumodan-, and pin dīma came to be used. The term anumodanā, which was used with patti, is still employed here except in the last term. These Sinhala terms are often used in the context of contemporary funeral rites and post-funeral rituals in Sri Lanka. For example, we find frequent references to these terms in both sermons of monks and discussions among lay people (Langer 2007, 156 ff). These terms do not correspond to any Pāli or scriptural terms, with even the possible Pāli equivalent, ‘puññānumodanā’ not being found. Nevertheless, D.K. Barua reports that in the context of Bangladeshi Theravāda Buddhist funeral rites, monks chant ‘puññānumodana-gāthā’ (2003, 15), these gāthā (verses) are not found in canonical or post-canonical Buddhist scriptures. In the popular understanding of the practice, what is expected to be given to or shared with departed ones is merit (puñña). We should note here that we find a single exception to the above order of development of the ideas that led up to the concept of merit-transference. However, this occurrence is not related to helping departed ones but in connection with assisting deities. In the Nandamātu Sutta of the Aṅguttara Nikāya, the non-returner laywoman Nandamātā recites the Parāyāna verses and is then praised for this by the deva Vessavaṇa (one of the four guardian deities of the world), who had previ- ously been her brother. She therefore says ‘let the Dhamma exposition that I just recited be my guest’s gift to you (te hotu ātitheyyan)’. He then asks her to the next day feed Sāriputta and Moggallāna and their accompanying monks: ‘You should serve them and dedicate the offering to me (mamaṃ dakkhiṇaṃ ādiseyyāsi). That will be your guest’s gift to me’ (A IV 63–4; Bodhi 2012, 1043–44). After she made the offering, she makes a wish, ‘Bhante, let whatever merit I may have gained by this act of giving be dedicated to the happiness of the great (deva) king Vessavaṇa (Yad idaṃ bhante dāne puññaṃ hitaṃ Vessavaṇena mahārajassa sukhāya hotūti)’ (A IV 65; Bodhi, 2012, 1044). Here, the dedication or assigning of a dakkhiṇā to a being is seen as equivalent to the merit of the dakkhiṇā/dāna becoming theirs. It is true that even in rejoicing at a patti, what the beneficiary gain is merit through the very of act of rejoicing. But what the donor gives is not referred to as puñña, since in this case the donor simply gives a chance to the beneficiary to generate merit for him or herself by sharing ownership of the act. The Pāli commentaries are careful not to refer to what the donor gives as puñña. Except for the above single instance, we do not find direct reference to merit in the context of helping departed ones in the Buddhist scriptures until the period of Abhidhamma manu- als and Pāli sub-commentaries. The phrases puṇyānumodanā and pin anumodan- can mean rejoicing (anumodanā) at others’ merit. However, the term stands for both the acts of rejoicing at others’ merits and sharing one’s merits with others. One can say ‘I performed a punyānumodanā’ in the sense that one shared one’s merits with others. In collo- quial Sinhala, we do find the term ‘pin anumodan karanava’ to refer to the act of one who shares the merit, and the term, ‘pin anumodan venava’ to refer to the act of the beneficiary. The termanumodanā, in the context of pattānumodanā, is used only to refer to the role of beneficiary. In this third phase of the development of the practice of helping the departed ones, though, we can see that the term anumodanā (Sin. anumodan) also occurs with regard to the progenitor of the act. The Sinhala phrase

© Equinox Publishing Ltd 2013 100 Soorakkulame Pemaratana pin anumodan karanava, etymologically or literarily means ‘cause to rejoice at merit’, and refers to what the donor does; it is to make others (frequently departed relatives and devas) rejoice at one’s merit. However, the term anumodanā (‘rejoicing’), at times, also assumes an added meaning in the popular understanding. Other than the meaning of rejoicing, it also indicates a sense of giving or transferring, though there is no etymological basis for such a rendering of the term. When the term is used by average Buddhists in Sri Lanka, it can mean ‘giving or bestowing merit’ (Witanachchi 2004, 389; Langer 2007, 165). The phrases pin denava or pin dīma, which directly mean giving (denava, dīma) merit, are interchangeably used with the phrase pin anumodan karanava. We find in theBouddha Edahilla, a contemporary Buddhist liturgical text, the Sinhala phrase pin dīma (giving of merit) with reference to departed ones and divine beings (Siri Rahula 2000, 145–149). In his analysis of this Sri Lankan practice, Richard Gombrich argues that the term anumodati has undergone a crucial change in the post-Nikāya literature to mean to ‘rejoice’ from its original meaning of ‘giving thanks’ (1971a, 237). This has occurred, in his view, as a part of the doctrinal response to undoctrinal behaviour of giving merits. On the behavioural level the passages first quoted for patti represent someone’s giving their merits to another person and that person’s saying thank you. As the idea that one can give away merit contradicts a fundamental doctrine, this clear implication has to be explained away, which is done, most ingeniously, by chang- ing the meaning of anumodati. (Gombrich 1971a, 240) However, anumodati is not only used to refer giving thanks in the four Nikāyas. Anumodati, being derived from √ mud (to be happy, to enjoy oneself, PED 542), also means to be pleased with, to approve or to rejoice. In describing how listeners responded to the Buddha’s words, we find a stock passage in the Pālisutta s (e.g.. M I 342 ff, S III 2 ff, A II 178 ff), which goes, bhagavato bhāsitaṃ abhinandi anumodi, ‘[The listener] is delighted and pleased with what the Buddha said’. Here we find anumud- is used in the above sense. The Kāladāna Sutta of the Aṅguttara Nikāya (A III 41) uses the term to refer to rejoicing at others’ good deeds. It says, ‘acts of donation (dakkhinā) of those of purified mind are great. Those who rejoice in that (ye tattha anumodanti) or give assistance also share the merit (puññassa bhāgino) and their donation is not less’. Further the Dhammapada says, ‘The wise, rejoicing in giving (dānaṃ anumodamāno), by that alone become happy hereafter’ (Dhp 177). Since anumodati is already used in the four Nikāyas to mean to rejoice, its occurrences in post-Nikāya literature in the same sense cannot be a crucial change. Furthermore, when we understand that giving patti in the context of the Pāli commentaries means not giving merits in the strict sense but sharing the ownership of the meritorious act, as shown above, we do not find a contradiction with Buddhist doctrines, as Gombrich envisioned. The real change that occurred in this context is not in Pāli texts but in the Sinhala usage of anumud-. In Pāli texts anumud- is only used to refer to the role of the recipient. However, in Sinhala usage, as we saw above, anumud- is also used to refer to the role of the donor in the phrase anumodan karanava (cause to rejoice). Then it also assumes an added meaning of giving or bestowing merit. Gombrich identifies this change (in his table on p. 238) but fails to differentiate two distinctive roles played by monks in a memorial service: a) appreciation of the act of donation by a way of a sermon and chanting traditional Pāli gāthas (following the

© Equinox Publishing Ltd 2013 Evolution of the Theravāda Buddhist Idea of ‘Merit-transference’ to the Dead 101 example found in the Pāli texts, which Gombrich discusses), and b) helping the donor to transfer merits to his departed relatives or gods through a formulaic recitation and a ceremony of pouring water. Here we find that two closely related meanings of anumod- have occurred in these two instances. In the first instance, monks appreciate or give thanks (anumodanā) for the performance of a dāna. In the second instance, gods or departed ones get an opportunity to rejoice (anumodanti) when donors transfer merits with the help of monks. Due to his overlooking of these two occurrences of the term, Gombrich envisions a ‘linguistic confusion’ and says, ‘while what the monk recites at a dāne is still called the anumodanā, according to modern doctrine it is not he who anumodati, rejoices, but the gods — the third parties’ (1971, 237). Here we do not find a linguistic confusion except for these occurrences of two closely related meanings of the term, anumod-. It should be noted here that when puṇyānumodanā is used in contexts other than memorial services, it can mean appreciation and giving thanks. For example, when an author of a book acknowledges assistance of others and gives thanks, he may use this term. However, when the term is used in funeral and memorial services, it has the meaning of making departed ones rejoice at one’s merit or giving them merit. One important feature of this phase of development of this practice is the focus on the role of the giver. In relation to dakkhiṇā and patti, the presence and active participation of the beneficiary was necessary in whatever form. In the case of dakkhiṇā, a request is usually made by the departed one indicating his or her presence before the act. In the case of patti, the recipient should rejoice in order to benefit from the good deed. In the practice ofpuṇyānumodanā or pin anumodan-, though some form of participation by the beneficiary is not ignored, the emphasis is on the part that the giver should perform in this act. This practice is now considered as a performance that the giver can undertake without a request from or participation of the beneficiary. Even an awareness of such performance by the beneficiary is not considered necessary to engage in this practice of merit-transference. This fact is clearly reflected in the opening part of the essay of G.P. Malalasekera (1967) on transfer of merit. He explains the method of transference thus: The doer of the good deed has merely to wish that the merit he had thereby gained should accrue to someone in particular, if he so wishes, or to ‘all beings’. The wish may be purely mental or it may be accompanied by an expression in words. This could be done with or without the particular beneficiary being aware of it. (1967, 85) Since the giver here assumes a powerful place due to his larger role in transferring merit, this concept brings a greater value to the practices related to assisting the dead. Within the cosmic framework informed by the theory of karma, the possibility of merit-transference even in the absence of the beneficiary is extremely empowering. It lessens the rigor of the doctrine of karma and provides more room to assist the dead. With the development of this notion of merit-transference, funeral rituals and memorial services became extremely important and meaningful in Buddhist cultures and in Sri Lankan Buddhist society in particular. The unfolding of and relationship of the three phases These three stages of the development of the practice of helping departed ones can be recognized within Theravāda Buddhist texts and practices in Sri Lanka.

However, it is not easy to find exactly when each of these stages emerged. Examples of the first two are found in canonical and post-canonical Buddhist texts. Examples of the last stage cannot be found within those texts. However, this stage is exemplified in contemporary liturgical texts and the current parlance of the Sinhala language. It is also important to keep in mind that we cannot make exact correlations between what appears in Buddhist texts and what was practised by ordinary Buddhists who lived even at the time of composition of these texts. What we can be sure of is the order of these stages of development, based on their appearances in Buddhist texts and other sources. The practice of assigning a dakkhiṇā appears in early Buddhist texts. As we saw earlier, the practice of designating a dakkhiṇā, or charitable act, as performed in the name of departed ones, appears in the Dīgha Nikāya and the Petavatthu of the Khuddaka Nikāya. The term patti, in the sense of a share of the ownership of a charitable act, appears in the Pāli commentaries. In the Pāli commentaries assigning dakkhiṇā is explicitly interpreted as pattidāna (dinnaṃ pattiṃ, Ja II 424). Here we can easily establish the order of development from assigning a dakkhiṇā to giving a patti in such an act. What is difficult to ascertain is the period in whichpatti was understood as puñña (merit in the sense of meritorious potential to bring good results), such that the idea of bold giving or transferring of merit emerged. The Theravāda Buddhist texts show us that this idea of the possibility of benefiting departed ones through donations made by the living was prevalent among some early Buddhist sects. In the Theravāda Abhidhamma, the Kathāvatthu (Points of Controversy) questions the possibility of benefiting departed ones — ‘That what is given here sustains elsewhere (Ito dinnena tatthena yāpentīti)’ — as was believed by two early Buddhist sects, the Siddhatthikas and Rājagiriyas (as identified by the commentary). In this dialogue, when these Buddhist sects accepts that it is possible, Theravādins questions about the idea of kammassakatā (karma is one’s own). Then the opponents accept the idea of kammassakatā but then put forward the possibility of rejoicing at merit. ‘Do not the departed, when a gift is given here for their own benefit, approve of it, purify the mind, generate joy and experience happiness? (Nanu petā attano atthāya dānaṃ dentaṃ anumodenti, cittaṃ pasādenti, pītiṃ uppādenti, samanassaṃ paṭilabhantīti)’(Kv VII 6). They go on to cite passages at Khp.VII and A III 43 (cf. D III 189, above), but the debate ends inconclusively since Theravādins do not reply to this question or comment on these passages. Interestingly, this idea of rejoicing or approval (anumodanā) was well accommodated in the Pāli commentaries to explain the process of benefiting departed ones. What is clear in this dialogue is that the early Buddhist sects were interested in the practices of assisting departed ones and held different views about these practices. Interestingly, a direct reference to merit is not found in this dialogue, though one can argue that, through rejoicing, what is being achieved by departed ones is merit. The Milindapañha, a post-canonical text usually dated to the first century B.C.E., has king Milinda raise this question: Revered Nāgasena, these benefactors on giving a gift (dānaṃ datvā) assign it to former ancestors now departed (pubba-petānaṃ ādisanti), thinking: ‘Let (the profit from) this accrue to them (imaṃ tesaṃ pāpuṇātūti). Do any receive a result from such a source (Api nu te kañci tatonidānaṃ vipākaṃ paṭilabhantīti)? (Mil 294, translated by Horner, 1964, II 123, cf. Witanachchi 2004, 388)

Nāgasena goes on to explain that only one of the various kinds of being ‘receive (a result)’ in such a case: one of the four kinds of peta: The deceased ancestors who live on the gifts to others obtain (profit) and those who remember them obtain it too (labhanti petā paradattūpajīvino, te pi saramānā yeva labhantīti). In this text, by a donation being assigned to a being, it receives the karmic result (vipāka) of the giving. This marks an important development from the earlier practice of dedicating of the act of donation, the dakkhiṇā. The term anumodanā is not also found in this discussion in the Milindapañha but the possibility of receiv- ing (paṭilabhantī) the karmic result (vipāka) of the giver’s act of donation by the departed is introduced. However, this idea of directly transferring the results or merit of one’s wholesome actions is not welcome in the Theravāda Pāli commentaries. The commentaries stress that the departed need to approve of or rejoice at (anumodanā) the meritorious in order for them to benefit from those acts (Witanachchi 2004, 387). This might have also be why the above passage limits those who can thus benefit to one kind of peta, probably due to their ability to witness the actual act of donation. However, this distinction is not explicitly made by average people when they engage in the practice of puṇyānumodanā. Sinhala inscriptions belonging to sixth and seventh centuries C.E. provide us with evidence for popular beliefs concerning this practice of merit-transference. Rangama Chandawimala points out a number of inscriptions which refer to the giving of fruits (pala) of wholesome actions to all beings (2008, 38). Though these inscriptions do not specifically mention giving these fruits of actions to departed ones, they dem- onstrate that the idea of giving fruits, most probably merit, of wholesome actions to others was common during sixth and seventh centuries C.E. in Sri Lanka. One inscrip- tion found in the Abhayagiriya monastery in Anurādhapura, which belongs to seventh century, says, ‘Hail ! I Gonnā the novice, give to all beings the fruits (pala) of this stone boat granted by me. May all beings, having taken that merit, become enlight- ened’ (EZ, vol. IV, 49–150). The idea that fruits or merit of one’s wholesome action can be given to others seems to be common in Sri Lankan Buddhist society at least from the seventh century. However, this idea of giving fruits of wholesome actions finds critical reevaluation in the Upāsakajanālankāra, a twelfth century Theravāda text written in Sri Lanka. This clarifies that, in the practice of pattidāna, what is actually given is not the puñña as karmic fruits (puññaphala) of a wholesome act but puñña as the act itself (puññakamma). Similarly, in the practice of pattānumodanā, what should be approved of or rejoiced in is the wholesome act but not the result- ant merit (Uj. 289; cf Witanachchi 2004, 390). This clarification can be understood as an effort to recall the orthodox Theravāda view on this issue. What we get here is that different beliefs about the practice of helping the dead and sharing merit co-existed in Theravāda Buddhist society in Sri Lanka. These different ideas inter- acted with each other and influenced popular beliefs and practices. However, this fact does not prevent us from understanding the contemporary practice of puṇyānumodanā as the third stage of historical development of the practice of helping departed ones. Contemporary liturgical texts used in vandanā (regular worship) and other rituals directly refer to the term merit (puñña) when the fruits of those devotional actions

© Equinox Publishing Ltd 2013 104 Soorakkulame Pemaratana are shared with deities and all living beings. Phrases such as puññaṃ taṃ anumoditvā, ‘having rejoiced at (and thus shared in) this merit’, puñña-sampadaṃ sabbe sattā anumodantu, ‘May all living beings rejoice at this treasure of merit’, are chanted in these rituals (Siri Rahula 2000, 146). However, in sharing merit with departed relatives, the verse recited is a direct quotation from the Tirokudda Sutta of the Khuddaka Nikāya (Khp.VII), which says, ‘May this be for our relatives, may our relatives be happy’ (idaṃ me ñātinaṃ hotu, sukhitā hontu ñātayo). The term, ‘this’ (idaṃ) here appears ambiguous, since it could means either the act or the merit accrued from the act. In contemporary understanding of this verse and Sinhala translation of this verse in liturgical texts, idaṃ stands for merit (Siri Rahula 2000, 147). Since the phrases puṇyānumodanā and pin anumodan- still retain the term anumodanā, they keep open the possibility of understanding this practice as a form of sharing merit. While these terms have an added meaning of giving, those who are inclined to orthodox Theravāda ideas tend to understand or interpret puṇyānumodanā and pin anumodan not as direct giving merit but as facilitating the departed one to generate their own merits, as it was the case in pattidāna. In such instances, these terms are understood more as sharing merit rather than transference of merit. Here puṇya/puñña stands for the meritorious action and not necessarily for the potency or fruits of such actions. Hence, these terms interchangeably render both meanings of merit-sharing and merit-transference depending on the occasion and the individual who uses them. The difference between these terms in this context is that in merit-sharing, the meritorious act is being shared and in merit-transference the meritorious potency is given or transferred. However, when the terms pin denava or pin dīma are used, they have the meaning of giving or transference of merits. Here pin (puñña) stands for the meritorious potency and not for the meritorious action. We should also note that though we speak about transferring or giving, in the case of puñña this transference becomes a distinctive type in which what is given is not decreased. Since giving merit or an opportunity to generate merit to someone else is also understood as a meritorious act, one does not reduce merit by transferring it; just as in ‘sharing’ merit, ‘transferring’ it is actually seen to bring karmic benefit to both transferer/sharer and the one that it is transferred to or shared with. This has been made clear in the Atthasālini with an example of giving light when one lamp is lit from another (As 158), and this understanding is very common among Sri Lankan Buddhists (Gombrich 1971a, 226). VALORIZATION OF HUMAN NEEDS Within the Sri Lankan context, this practice of punyānumodanā shaped three spheres of Buddhist life. First, it shaped how the Buddhists fulfilled their human psychological need to help the dead and sustained their interest in continuing bonds with them. Secondly, it allowed the integration of local cultural beliefs within Buddhist cosmology. Thirdly, it influenced the maintenance of the social institution of family and the relationship between the monks and the laity. The above issues within the Sri Lankan context have been discussed in a number of scholarly works. Numerous efforts of Buddhists in Sri Lanka to help the dead and maintain bonds with departed relatives are discussed by Paul Wirz (1954), M.P. Tillakaratne (1986) and Rita Langer (2007). Wirz’s work focuses on material offerings given to the dead at different occasions and ritual ceremonies related

© Equinox Publishing Ltd 2013 Evolution of the Theravāda Buddhist Idea of ‘Merit-transference’ to the Dead 105 to these offerings, while Tillakaratne describes the treatment of the remains of the dead. Langer’s work explains post-funeral rites with an attention to the practice of merit-transference. How the doctrines of Theravāda Buddhism and local cultural beliefs integrated to form Sinhala Buddhism is discussed by Gananath Obeyesekere (1963; 1966). Jeffrey Samuels (2010) discusses the role of emotions and collectively held aesthetic standards in shaping the lay-monastic relationship. However, the practice of merit-transference/sharing is not seen in connection with these issues in the above studies, except in the work of Langer. In the following, adding to Langer’s work, I examine briefly the role of this particular practice of merit-transference/sharing in shaping the above three spheres of life of Buddhists in Sri Lanka. Once a close relative who has lived with us for a long time passes away, our minds are not ready simply to forget that person. We are generally eager to somehow maintain the relationship and to assist the dead in any way possible. Anthropological studies inform us that beliefs in some form of survival of the dead and the need to interact with them are universal phenomena, particularly in traditional societies (Steadman et al, 1996). The Buddhist practice of merit- transference allows Buddhists to fulfill this need within their belief system. In contemporary Sri Lankan Theravāda Buddhist practice, merit-transference (puṇyānumodanā/ pin anumodan/ pin dīma) is practised during funeral services and subsequent memorial rituals. Due to the emphasis on merit-transference, the Buddhist funeral in Sri Lanka has become an event of merit-making. Most of the practices in the funeral ceremony are performed to accumulate merit in order to transfer it to the departed. The funeral ceremony starts with the undertaking of the five precepts, as administered by a senior Buddhist monk. Then drinks and betel leaves with herbs are offered to the monks. The central act of the funeral ceremony is to dedicate a piece of white cloth to the community of monks to be used to prepare robes for them. Then monks collectively chant verses on imper- manence. Following this, all participants engage in a short meditation on death with the guidance of a monk. Then one of attending monks gives a sermon, usually explaining the universality of death. These practices are carefully included in the ceremony to enable the participants to perform three types of meritorious deeds recommended in Theravāda Buddhism, namely, generosity (dāna), moral behaviour (sīla), and meditation (bhāvanā). At the end of these practices, family members of the departed person and other relatives perform the ritual of transference of merit. Following the guidance of the monks, they verbally dedicate merit to the departed relatives by reciting idaṃ me ñātinaṃ hotu, sukhitā hontu ñātayo, ‘May this be for my relatives. May they be happy’,5 while pouring water from a jug into a small cup placed on a plate until the cup overflows with water, symbolizing the benefits of the wholesome actions flowing towards the deceased (cf Khp.VII). All other previous practices were performed in order to do this merit-transference. With the transference of merit, family members, relatives and friends of the departed person develop a sense of fulfillment, believing that they have provided legitimate assistance to the departed person for his or her journey in saṃsāra. Giving merit becomes the best assistance one can render to a departed one within the cosmic framework informed by the theory of karma.

5. This recitation has been adopted from the Tirokuḍḍa-petavatthu (Pv I 5.3)

Subsequent memorial services are performed seven days and three months later, and sometimes annually. The memorial ceremony includes a long Buddhist sermon on the night of the preceding day and offering of food and other requisites to the community of monks on the actual day. The sermon given on such an occasion is called ‘mataka baṇa’ or ‘memorial sermon’ and the donation to monks is called ‘mataka dāne’, ‘memorial donation’. These actions are performed as a way of accumulating merit. The Buddhist sermon is conducted to provide an opportunity for villagers to listen to Buddhist teachings. This is considered a ‘gift of Dhamma’ (dhamma-dāna). Donations made to the community of monks are considered ‘material gifts’ (āmisa-dāna). By performing these two forms of acts of generosity, family members accumulate merit which is worthy of transferring to their departed relatives. Merit is transferred by following the ritual of pouring water as practised in the funeral ceremony. These repeated practices allow Buddhists to fulfill their needs to provide some form of assistance to departed relatives. This custom of transferring merit on a regular basis is also helpful in maintain- ing a relationship between the dead and the living. In the Sri Lankan Buddhist tradition, the practice of merit-transference to the departed is considered as an obligation of surviving relatives. Though it is possible for friends and neigh- bours to perform such practices, it is more often than not carried out by children, spouses, parents, and other family members of the deceased. Though the dead person is not physically around, the practice of transference of merit, which is performed at regular intervals, allows them to maintain their relationship with the deceased. Many families hold annual functions for this purpose. With this practice, they get a chance, each year, to renew their relationship with the deceased. Even in other merit-making ceremonies such as Buddhist liturgical worship (vandanā), merit-transference to departed relatives is a necessary item. Each time Buddhists perform a merit-making ceremony, they get an opportunity to remember their departed relatives and to maintain their relationship with them through this practice of merit-transfer. In this way, the Buddhist practice of merit-transference not only sanctions the deep-seated human impulse to assist the dead in the afterlife but also provides means to fulfill it. INTEGRATION OF LOCAL CULTURAL BELIEFS The practice of merit-transference has also functioned as an interesting mechanism to incorporate many local cultural beliefs and practices into the Buddhist fold. Indigenous cultural beliefs refer to various supernatural beings who are both favorable and dangerous in nature. Bandāra cults are forms of such folk religious worship among Sri Lankan Buddhists; they involve the ritual veneration of charismatic personalities posthumously elevated to the status of deities (Dharmadasa 2003, 45). As Dharmadasa points out, the conditions under which the deceased is elevated to the rank of a Bandāra deity generally include charismatic qualities such as extraordinary physical prowess, valor, or piety. But sometimes, when life episodes such as a sudden or unexpected death form a very deep impression in people’s minds, this also leads to these personalities being deified (Dharmadasa 2003, 45). These Bandāra cults can be viewed as being influenced by the beliefs of the Veddas, aboriginal inhabitants of Sri Lanka. Veddas believe that those who die become deities known as ‘nae yakku’, which literally means ‘kinsmen-deities’ (Obeysekere 1979, 202). These nae yakku are supposed to stand towards the surviv-

© Equinox Publishing Ltd 2013 Evolution of the Theravāda Buddhist Idea of ‘Merit-transference’ to the Dead 107 ing members of the group as friends and relatives. If they are well treated, they will continue to show loving kindness to their survivors, and only if neglected will they show disgust and anger and withdraw their assistance. Bandāra cults exemplify these qualities. Different Bandāra deities who are popular in different regions were great local personalities. They are viewed as powerful but can use their power either to help or harm, depending on how they are treated. Now these Bandāra deities are viewed as legitimate deities within the Buddhist cosmic framework. Obeysekere argues that the basic mechanism whereby non- Buddhist beliefs are incorporated into Buddhism is through the theory of karma (and rebirth). He observes, ‘The pantheons of deified ancestors could easily be incorporated into the theory of karma so that the death of the ancestor and his subsequent rebirth as a deity could be explained in terms of his good and bad actions in previous births’ (1979, 210). Marasinghe also comments that the Buddhist theory of karma is a kind of ‘machine’, which can create its own gods (1974, 69). However, here I argue that the theory of karma and rebirth is not enough to fully accommodate these beliefs. Though it can provide an explanation of the existence of such deities and their place in Buddhist cosmology, the theory itself cannot provide the means to interact with and seek support from those deities. Rather it is the practice of merit-transference that allows this interaction. The practice of merit-transference also provides an opportunity for devotees to render legitimate support to those deities. Devotees transfer merit to them, understood as spiritual energies which will strengthen the power of the deity and so get a right to seek support from them in return. The theory of karma and rebirth only with the idea of merit-transference can serve as a mechanism to incorporate local indigenous beliefs into the Buddhist fold. SHAPING SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS As mentioned earlier, transference of merit to the departed is viewed as an obligation of surviving family members. This tradition encourages them to get together and perform this ritual. At a time in which traditional familial customs are disap- pearing, the practice of merit-transference serves as an important family event. Some families have established the custom of conducting an annual commemo- rative ceremony of merit-transference to their departed parents. This custom helps the extended family to stay united in a modernizing society. In many cases, family members who have moved to different places due to work or marriage usually return to their village in order to take part in the annual ceremony of merit-transference to their departed parents or other elders. This allows the extended family to reunite annually. In addition to the Sri Lankan New Year and weddings, ceremonies of merit-transference play a very important role in strengthening family ties. Other than strengthening family ties, the practice of merit-transference is extremely important in shaping the lay-monastic relationship, unlike other practices that mark significant life events. Though the performance of merit-transference is technically possible without an involvement of monks, more often than not it is not performed so. Early Buddhist texts, in introducing practices which evolved into merit-transference, set the precedent to use monks as a ‘field of merit’ (an idea originally found in the well-known Supaṭipanno formula), for producing merit that could then be transferred to others. Holt (1981) explains

© Equinox Publishing Ltd 2013 108 Soorakkulame Pemaratana how Buddhist monks, in the early history of Buddhism, replaced the role of the Brahmanical family in memorial rites. In Buddhist ‘karmalogical’ understanding, the qualitative condition of the recipient of a donation is just as important as the mental condition of the giver if the donation is to produce greater beneficial karmic results (M III 255–257). Buddhist monks who are understood as having higher moral qualities and purer mental qualities became the worthy objects of meritorious actions. He observes, ‘within the context of this rationale, the act of merit transfer [sic] constitutes a cultic celebration of that which symbolizes the Buddha’s Dhamma: the presence of bhikkhus (monks)’ (Holt 1981, 18). This early development made the Buddhist monks an indispensable part of the kind of practices that evolved into merit-transference. In the current practice of merit-transference in Sri Lanka, both monks and laity get an opportunity to interact closely and assist each other. Monks have an opportunity to share their Buddhist knowledge on death and provide counseling and consolation to bereaved family members. They can also assure the bereaved that memorial rites are properly performed and that the departed one is benefited. Due to the help of monks received during such an emotionally challenging time, the laity strengthens its bond with them. The laity also gets an opportunity to support monks and monasteries by providing material needs. There are traditionally sanctioned items to be offered to monks during a ceremony of merit-transference; items which facilitate the smooth running of monasteries. The most important among them is what is traditionally known as ‘the eight monastic requisites’ (ata- pirikara): the alms-bowl, three robes, belt, razor, water-strainer, and sewing needle. This offering is regarded as especially meritorious. These are the basic requisites for a monk to fulfill his basic needs. Generally one ata-pirikara is offered to the chief monk and other items such as books, towels, pillow-cases, umbrellas, etc., are presented to the other monks. The other items that are offered include brooms, mats, plates and cups. These are frequently used utensils in a monastery. Due to the practice of merit-transference, monasteries have a sufficient supply of them. As such, Buddhist rituals of merit-transference give an opportunity for lay- monastic interaction on the one hand, and provide a means of support for maintenance of Buddhist monasteries on the other. The relationship between Buddhist funerals and the monastic (now priestly) economics has been studied in the context of Japanese Buddhism. Economic and social conditions in Japan changed significantly in the postwar period. Due to this change and some reformations introduced in Meiji period (1868–1912), Buddhist monasteries lost their traditional sources of income such as land holdings and funding from imperial and aristocratic families. As a result, funeral and related service became an important source of income to Buddhist monastics — who at the same time were evolving into married priests — under these conditions (Covell 2005, 145). Funeral rites and granting a posthumous Buddhist name are performed with the demand of significant donations. In contemporary Japan, Buddhist priests are severely criticized as being commercialized (Covell 2008, 293). However, in the context of Sri Lanka, such a great dependence of monasteries on funerals and related services cannot be seen. The lay-monastic relationship in Sri Lanka is largely built on interactions of both parties in the fields of educational, social and cultural activities. Among many avenues of this lay- monastic interaction, however, funerals and the practice of merit-transference/ sharing still play an important role in shaping this relationship.

CONCLUSION The practice of assisting the departed ones in Sri Lankan Theravāda Buddhism has three important stages of development, namely, assigning of dakkhiṇā, giving of patti, and sharing or transferring merit. In this context, patti should be understood as a share or stake and hence pattidāna does not strictly mean giving merits or giving what is obtained or achieved, as it has so far been interpreted, but giving a share or a stake of the ownership of a meritorious act, which will eventually produce merit if the departed ones accept and rejoice in it. The contemporary Buddhist practice in Sri Lanka is basically a ‘merit-transference’ as it is clearly evident in the term pin dīma (giving merit). The terms puṇyānumodanā and pin anumodan- are also used to mean the same. However, they, at times, stand for sharing of merits in which a meritorious act is shared with the departed ones. Though we cannot ascertain a specific timeline for these stages, the order of development of them is clear. Understanding this historical development is important for realizing the larger role assigned to the living in the contemporary practice of merit-transference (puṇyānumodanā/ pin anumodan-/ pin dīma) and its influence on other arena of social and cultural life in Sri Lanka. This idea of merit-transference transformed mourning and sorrowful funerals into merit- making events. Practices related to this idea of merit-transference also successfully fulfill the psychological needs of the living to assist departed relatives and to maintain some form of relationship with them. It also allowed local beliefs to be assimilated into the Buddhist fold. Further, it facilitated the maintenance of the lay-monastic relationship, allowing reciprocal benefits. Realizing these stages of development in Buddhist practices related to the departed invites us to question the interpreting of textual and other references to acts of dedication to the departed simply as transferring of merit. Though contemporary popular understanding of these dedications to the departed is that they are transferring merit, we cannot be sure whether they mean the same in different historical periods. This layered understanding of practices related to helping departed ones is helpful for interpreting Buddhist texts in their historical contexts. AKNOWLEDGEMENTS I gratefully acknowledge the guidance and assistance I received from Dr Linda Penkower (University of Pittsburgh) and Dr Peter Harvey (University of Sunderland) in completing this article. ABBREVIATIONS A Aṅguttara Nikāya, 6 vols. London: Pāli Text Society, 1885–1990 AbhS Abhidhammattha-sangaha and Abhidhammatthavibhāvinī-tīkā, London: Pāli Text Society, 1989 Ap Apadāna, 2 vols. London: Pāli Text Society, 1925–1927 As Atthasālinī (Dhammasaṅgaṅī Aṭṭhakathā), London: Pāli Text Society, 1979 D Dīgha Nikaya, 3 vols. London: Pāli Text Society, 1890–1911 DP A Dictionary of Pali, Vol.I, Margaret Cone, Oxford:: Pali Text Society, 2001 Dh-a Dhammapada Aṭṭhakathā, London: Pāli Text Society, 1906–1992

EZ Epigraphia Zeylanica: Being Lithic and Other Inscriptions of Ceylon, Vol, IV, edited and translated by Don Martino De Zilva Wickremasinghe, New Delhi: AES, 1994 It Itivuttaka, London: Pāli Text Society, 1975 It-a: Itvuttaka Aṭṭhakathā, London Pāli Text Society, 1977 Ja Jātaka with Commentary, 7 vols. London: Pāli Text Society, 1877–1992 Khp Khuddakapāṭha, London: Pāli Text Society, 1978 Kv Kathāvatthu, London: Pāli Text Society, 1915 M Majjhima Nikāya, 3 vols. London: Pāli Text Society, 1948–1951 Mil Milindapañha, London: Pāli Text Society, 1963 PED Pāli and English Dictionary, eds. T.W. Rhys Davids & William Stede, London: Pāli Text Society, 1905 Ps Papañcasūdanī (Majjhima Nikāya Aṭṭhakathā), 5 vols. London: Pāli Text Society, 1922–1977 Pv Petavatthu, London: Pāli Text Society, 1999 Pv-a Petavatthu Aṭṭhakathā, London: Pāli Text Society, 1894 S Saṃyutta Nikāya, 6 vols. London: Pāli Text Society, 1884–1904 SED Monier Williams Sanskrit-English Dictionary, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2005 [1899] Sv Sumangala Vilāsinī (Dīgha Nikāya Aṭṭhakathā), 3 vols. London: Pāli Text Society, 1929–1971 Uj Upāsakajanālankāra, London: Pāli Text Society, 1965 Vv-a Vimānavatthu Aṭṭhakathā, London: Pāli Text Society, 1886 Note: Unless otherwise mentioned, all translations of Pāli are mine. BIBLIOGRAPHY Barua, D.K. 2003. ‘Funeral Rituals of Buddhist in Bangladesh: A Study on Barua Community’. Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies (Indogaku Bukkyogaku Kenkyu), 51(2): 12–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.4259/ibk.51.1021 Bechert, H 1992. ‘Buddha-Field and Transfer of Merit in a Theravada Source’. Indo-Iranian Journal 35: 95–108. Bodhi, Bhikkhu. 2012. The Numerical Discourses of the Buddha: A Translation of the Aṅguttara Nikāya. Boston, MA: Wisdom. Chandawimala, Rangama. 2008. ‘Bodhisattva Practice in Sri Lankan Buddhism with Special Reference to the Abhayagiri Fraternity’. The Indian International Journal of Buddhist Studies 9: 23–43. Chen, Gang. 2005. ‘Death Rituals’. Encyclopedia of Anthropology. Sage Publications. Cole, Alan. 1996. ‘Upside down/Right Side up: A Revisionist History of Buddhist Funerals in China’. History of Religions 35(4): 307–338. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/463435 Cousins, L.S.. 1996. ‘Good or Skilful? Kusala in Canon and Commentary’, Journal of Buddhist Ethics 3: 136–64: http://blogs.dickinson.edu/buddhistethics/files/2010/04/cous- ins12.pdf Covell, Stephen G. 2005. Japanese Temple Buddhism: Worldliness in a Religion of Renunciation. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.

———. 2008. ‘The Price of Naming the Dead: Posthumous Precept Names and Critiques of Contemporary Japanese Buddhism’. In Death and the Afterlife in Japanese Buddhism, edited by Jacqueline I. Stone and Mariko Namba Walter, 293–324. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press. Dharmadasa, K. N. O. 2003. ‘Bandāra Cults’. In South Asian Folklore: An Encyclopedia, edited by Margaret A. Mills et al., 45–46. New York: Routledge. Fujimoto, Akira. 2003. ‘Meanings of Patti and Pattidāna — They mean neither merit (puñña) nor transference (parināmanā)’. Buddhist Studies (Bukkyō Kenkyū) 31: 123–154. Gombrich, Richard. 1971a. Precept and Practice: Traditional Buddhism in the Rural Highland of Ceylon. Oxford. Clarendon Press ———. 1971b. ‘“Merit Transference” in Sinhalese Buddhism: A Case Study of the Interaction between Doctrine and Practice’. History of Religions 11(2): 203–219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/462651 Gouin, Margaret E. 2010. Tibetan Rituals of Death: Buddhist Funerary Practices. New York: Routledge. Harvey, Peter, 2000, An Introduction to Buddhist Ethics: Foundations, Values and Issues, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511800801 Holt, John C. 1981. ‘Assisting the Dead by Venerating the Living: Merit Transfer in the Early Buddhist Tradition’. Numen 28: 1–28. ———. 2007. ‘Gone but Not Departed: The Dead among the Living in Contemporary Buddhist Sri Lanka’. In The Buddhist Dead: Practices, Discourses, Representations, edited by Bryan J. Cuevas and Jacqueline I. Stone, 326–344. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press. Horner, I.B., 1963 and 1964. Milinda’s Questions, 2 vols., London: Pali Text Society. Kelly, John, Sawyer, Sue and Victoria Yareham. 2005. ‘Sigalovada Sutta: The Buddha’s Advice to Sigalaka’: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.ksw0.html). Keyes, Charles F. 1983. ‘Merit-Transference in the Kammic Theory of Popular Theravada Buddhism.’ In Karma: An Anthropological Inquiry, edited by Charles F. Keyes, E. Valentine Daniel, 261–286. Berkeley: University of California Press. LaFleur, William R. 1983. Karma of Words: Buddhism and the Literary Arts in Medieval Japan. Berkeley: University of California Press. Langer, Rita. 2007. Buddhist Rituals of Death and Rebirth: Contemporary Sri Lankan Practices and its Origin. London: Routledge. Malalasekera, G. P. 1967. ‘Transference of Merit in Ceylonese Buddhism’. Philosophy East and West 17: 85–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1397047 Marasinghe, M.M.J. 1974. Gods in Early Buddhism. Colombo: Vidyalankara Campus Publication Board. Masefield, Peter. 1980. Elucidation of the Intrinsic Meaning: So Named the Commentary on the Peta-stories (Paramatthadipani nama Petavatthu-atthakatha) by Dhammapala. London: Pali Text Society. McDermott, James P. 1974. ‘Sādhīna Jātaka: A Case against the Transfer of Merit’. Journal of the American Oriental Society 94(3): 385–387. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/600073 ———. 1975. ‘The Kathāvatthu Kamma Debates’. Journal of the American Oriental Society 95(3): 424–433. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/599354 Narada Thera. 1996. ‘Sigalovada Sutta: The Discourse to Sigala — The Layperson’s Code of Discipline’: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.nara.html) Nyanatiloka, Mahathera. 1959. Karma and Rebirth. Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society. Obeysekere, Gananath. 1963. ‘The Great Tradition and the Little in the Perspective of Sinhalese Religious Systems’. Journal of Asian Studies 22: 139–153. http://dx.doi.

org/10.2307/2050008 ———. 1966. ‘The Buddhist Pantheon in Ceylon and its Extensions’. In Anthropological Studies in Theravada Buddhism, edited by Manning Nash, 16–21. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. ———. 1979. ‘Popular Religions (of Sri Lanka)’. In Modern Sri Lanka: A Society in Transition, edited by Tissa Fernando and Robert N. Kearney, 201–225. Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University. Samuels, Jeffrey. 2010. Attracting the Heart: Social Relations and the Aesthetics of Emotion in Sri Lankan Monastic Culture. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press. Schmithausen, Lambert. 1986. ‘Critical Response’. In Karma and Rebirth: Post Classical Development, edited by Ronald W. Neufeldt, 203–230. Albany: State University of New York Press. Schopen, Gregory. 1995. ‘Death, Funerals, and the Division of Property in a Monastic Code’. In Buddhism in Practice, edited by Donald S. Lopez, Jr., 473–502. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Siri Rahula, Attudawe. 2000. Bauddha Aedahilla (Buddhist Devotions). Dehiwala: Buddhist Cultural Center. Steadman, Lyle B., Palmer, Craig T., Tilley, Christopher F. 1996. ‘The Universality of Ancestor Worship’. Ethnology 35(1): 63–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3774025 Stevenson, Daniel B. 1995. ‘Pure Land Buddhist Worship and Meditation in China’. In Buddhism in Practice, edited by Lopez, Donald S. Jr., 359–379. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Stone, Jacqueline I. 2004. ‘By the Power of One’s Last Nenbutsu: Deathbed Practices in Early Medieval Japan’ In Approaching the Land of Bliss: Religious Praxis in the Cult of Amitabha, edited by Richard K. Payne and Kenneth K. Tanaka, 77–119. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press ———. 2008. ‘“With the Help of ‘Good Friends”: Deathbed Ritual Practices in Early Medieval Japan’. In Death and the Afterlife in Japanese Buddhism, edited by Jacqueline I Stone and Mariko Namba Walter, 61–99. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press ———. and Mariko Namba Walter. 2008. ‘Introduction’. In Death and the Afterlife in Japanese Buddhism, edited by Jacqueline I. Stone and Mariko Namba Walter, 1–25. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press. Tanabe Jr , George J. 2008. ‘The Orthodox Heresy of Buddhist Funerals’. In Death and the Afterlife in Japanese Buddhism, edited by Jacqueline I. Stone and Mariko Namba Walter, 325–348. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press. Tillakaratne, M.P. 1986. Manners, Customs and Ceremonies of Sri Lanka. Delhi: Sri Satguru Publication. Walshe, Maurice. 1996. Long Discourses of the Buddha, 2nd revised edition. Boston, MA: Wisdom. Walters, Jonathan S. 2003. ‘Deanimating and Reanimating the Dead in Rural Sri Lanka’. In The Living and the Dead: Social Dimensions of Death in South Asian Religion, edited by Liz Wilson, 113–126. New York: State University of New York Press. Wirz, Paul.1954. Exorcism and the Art of Healing in Ceylon. Leiden: E.J. Brill Witanachchi, C. 2004. ‘Pattidāna’. Encyclopedia of Buddhism 7(2): 382–392. Colombo: Department of Buddhist Affairs.