They changed the doctrinal philosophy of Buddhism—as a result of Dharmapala.
Vidyalankara did not change the doctrinal fundamentals of Buddhism, but they did go against some of what the Buddha taught. The Buddha taught that monks should have no involvement with politics. This subject has recently been a topic of extreme controversy, but the Vidyalankara monks certainly made their standpoint very clear. They deliberately involved themselves in politics—in fact they often made it their lives work. Though they did not change any doctrinal concept, they did shape how Sri Lankans currently interpret the word of Buddha.
But Dharmapala’s greatest impact on Sri Lanka was arguably his contribution to the ethnolinguistic polarization of the country. Sri Lanka had two prevailing cultures—the Sinhala culture and the Tamil culture. For thousands of years they coexisted, but Dharmapala was the first to highlight their differences. He vocally supported the Sinhala people over the Tamils. Because of his influence, a hegemonic pattern developed in Sri Lanka. The Sinhala people had complete control over the government, and used it against the Tamils. For instance, in a 1956 election, Sinhala was made the official language of Sri Lanka. This tension, established initially by Dharmapala, led to massive conflict between the two groups.
H.M. Gunaratne documented his experience in this massive conflict in his memoir Life Means Not to Kill. As a boy, he is enrolled in a nearby monastery but shortly realizes that the monastic life is not for him. He prefers the life of a scholar, and even spends some time at an American college. Gunaratne develops strong socialist and Marxist sentiments, and becomes minimally involved with the JVP—the group in opposition to the government. Government officials take him to a prison where he is savagely beaten and deprived of food, in an attempt to get him to reveal information about his supposed JVP connections. The insight his account provides to this discussion is in his title.
During these racial conflicts, the first precept was lost by the laypeople of a Theravada Buddhist country. Anyone who calls him or herself a Buddhist must agree to refrain from killing, but in these troubled times in Sri Lanka, assassinations were regularly made on a political basis. This doctrinal shift is as important as any in the history of Theravada Buddhism. Even the ruthless Emperor Asoka, who was responsible for the death of thousands and commanded numerous bloody wars, converted to Buddhism and immediately venerated the first precept. Yet in Sri Lanka, during the Sinhala-Tamil conflicts, the first precept was less emphasized. Other precepts were violated casually by Buddhist laypeople—for instance, Gunaratne misbehaved sexually and enjoyed intoxicating liquor. But this conflict represented a tremendous shift in the lay perspective of doctrinal Buddhism—the First Precept could be broken on a national scale, just as casually as any of the others.
Dharmapala was an obvious internal force on Theravada Buddhism, but it is arguable whether he was hostile or benign. 