refuges and precepts to laypeople, and in performing
funerals. They are often engaged to perform apotropaic
rituals, which focus on the protective power of the
Buddha and the dhamma.
Paritta
The most common manifestation of such protective
rituals is the recitation of PARITTA AND RAKSATEXTS,
which are considered to offer powerful protection in
warding off dangers and appeasing malevolent spirits.
Parittarecitation can last throughout the night or even
for seven days and nights. During the ceremony fur-
ther objects may be imbued with protective qualities,
including string, sacred water, and AMULETS AND TAL-
ISMANS. In mainland Southeast Asia it is common for
men to wear protective amulets in the form of small
Buddha images, images of famous monks or kings,
mythical figures, or even phallic shapes. Other forms
of visual protection include yantras,which may be
drawn on cloth or used as the pattern for a tattoo. They
portray heroic figures and sacred writing of Buddhist
formulae in Pali, sometimes in the form of geometric
designs and outlines of the Buddha.
Attempts to classify Theravada
Much Theravada religious activity includes ritualized
interaction with the Buddha, dhamma, and san ̇gha in
combination in one or more of the forms described
above. As such, Theravada has much in common with
other forms of Buddhism. In scholarship it is often
strongly demarcated from other traditions, although
the viability of such distinctions is currently under
scrutiny.
One such distinction can be summarized on the basis
of the relative value in Theravada of self-transformation
through MEDITATION and RITUAL. Paraphrasing the
work of Melford Spiro, Theravada religion may be said
to fall into three categories. First, nibbanicTheravada fo-
cuses on self-transformation, chiefly through medita-
tions aimed at developing the emotional responses and
level of insight of individuals so that they become en-
lightened and escape from SAMSARA. Second, kammatic
religion focuses on merit-making and ethical action, to
improve one’s future life and lives within samsara.
Third, apotropaic Buddhism uses magic in the form of
amulets and rituals to deal with this-worldly concerns,
either in distinction to or outside of the law of karmic
cause and effect.
Tibetan Buddhism has been similarly categorized
by Geoffrey Samuel. His three categories are: first,
bodhi-oriented practices that focus on often ritualized
altruism and higher levels of tantric ritual; second,
karma-oriented merit-making to improve future life
within samsara; and third, pragmatic religion for this-
worldly concerns, using tantric ritual.
If we align these two analyses we see that in terms
of the two categories of seeking improved life within
samsara and this-worldly concerns, Theravada and Ti-
betan Buddhism are directly parallel. It is at the sote-
riological end that Theravada putatively eschews ritual
and magic, whereas Tibetan Buddhism invokes it.
However, there is a tradition of ritualized soteriology
in Theravada too that was found throughout the Ther-
avada world in the premodern period. This tradition
involved ritual identification with the Buddha and the
assimilation of the Buddha’s qualities, much as are
found in Tibetan tantra, yet using only Theravada cat-
egories and nomenclature. Thus, Theravada also em-
ploys ritual practices that might be designated magical
at the nibbanic/bodhi end of the spectrum, a conver-
gence that minimizes the distinction between Tibetan
and Theravada Buddhist practices. It further suggests
that the apparent Theravada focus on forms of medi-
tation found in the tipitakaand Buddhaghosa may be
the result of a narrowing of the tradition caused in part
by the close state-san ̇gha relationship that shaped
dominant forms of Theravada.
A more widespread generalization often made re-
garding Theravada is that it is the sole surviving form
of HINAYANABuddhism. The supposed Mahayana-
Hnayana dichotomy is so prevalent in Buddhist liter-
ature that it has yet fully to loosen its hold over scholarly
representations of the religion. Hnayana (literally, “in-
ferior way”) is a polemical term, which self-described
Mahayana (literally, “great way”) Buddhist literature
uses to denigrate its opponents. As such, Hnayana is a
designation that has no clearly identifiable external ref-
erent. Some of the first attempts to categorize forms of
Buddhism as either Hnayana or Mahayana are found
in the accounts of early Chinese pilgrims to South Asia.
But there are additional reasons for the modern asso-
ciation of Theravada with Hnayana. The first is that
one body of Mahayana texts, the PRAJN
APARAMITALIT-
ERATURE, propounds the lack of self of all dharmas, a
critique of the analytical categories of the abhidharma.
This position is refuted in the Kathavatthu(Points of
Controversy), a text of the Theravada Abhidhamma
Pitaka,which purports to discuss points of debate with
other religious traditions raised at the Third Council.
The second is that one supposed characteristic of the
Mahayana involves the proliferation of multiple bud-
dhas in parallel world systems. The possibility of moreTHERAVADA