CEYLON
1
The island of Ceylon, perhaps the most beautiful tropical country in
the world, lies near the end of the Indian peninsula but a little to
the east. At one point a chain of smaller islands and rocks said to
have been built by Rama as a passage for his army of monkeys leads to
the mainland. It is therefore natural that the population should have
relations with southern India. Sinhalese art, religion and language
show traces of Tamil influence but it is somewhat surprising to find
that in these and in all departments of civilization the influence of
northern India is stronger. The traditions which explain the
connection of Ceylon with this distant region seem credible and the
Sinhalese, who were often at war with the Tamils, were not disposed to
imitate their usages, although juxtaposition and invasion brought
about much involuntary resemblance.
The school of Buddhism now professed in Ceylon, Burma and Siam is
often called Sinhalese and (provided it is not implied that its
doctrines originated in Ceylon) the epithet is correct. For the school
ceased to exist in India and in the middle ages both Burma and Siam
accepted the authority of the Sinhalese Sangha.[10] This Sinhalese
school seems to be founded on the doctrines and scriptures accepted in
the time of Asoka in Magadha and though the faith may have been
codified and supplemented in its new home, I see no evidence that it
underwent much corruption or even development. One is inclined at
first to think that the Hindus, having a continuous living tradition
connecting them with Gotama who was himself a Hindu, were more likely
than these distant islanders to preserve the spirit of his teaching.
But there is another side to the question. The Hindus being
addicted to theological and metaphysical studies produced original
thinkers who, if not able to found new religions, at least modified
what their predecessors had laid down. If certain old texts were held
in too high esteem to be neglected, the ingenuity of the commentator
rarely failed to reinterpret them as favourable to the views popular
in his time. But the Sinhalese had not this passion for theology. So
far as we can judge of them in earlier periods they were endowed with
an amiable and receptive but somewhat indolent temperament, moderate
gifts in art and literature and a moderate love and understanding of
theology. Also their chiefs claimed to have come from northern India
and were inclined to accept favourably anything which had the same
origin. These are exactly the surroundings in which a religion can
flourish without change for many centuries and Buddhism in Ceylon
acquired stability because it also acquired a certain national and
patriotic flavour: it was the faith of the Sinhalese and not of the
invading Tamils. Such Sinhalese kings as had the power protected the
Church and erected magnificent buildings for its service.
If Sinhalese tradition may be believed, the first historical contact
with northern India was the expedition of Vijaya, who with 700
followers settled in the island about the time of the Buddha's death.
Many details of the story are obviously invented. Thus in order to
explain why Ceylon is called Sinhala, Vijaya is made the grandson of
an Indian princess who lived with a lion. But though these legends
inspire mistrust, it is a fact that the language of Ceylon in its
earliest known form is a dialect closely connected with Pali (or
rather with the spoken dialect from which ecclesiastical Pali was
derived) and still more closely with the Mahârâshtri Prakrit of
western India. It is not however a derivative of this Prakrit but
parallel to it and in some words presents older forms.[11] It does not
seem possible to ascribe the introduction of this language to the
later mission of Mahinda, for, though Buddhist monks have in many
countries influenced literature and the literary vocabulary, no
instance is recorded of their changing the popular speech.[12] But
Vijaya is said to have conquered Ceylon and to have slaughtered
many of its ancient inhabitants, called Yakkhas,[13] of whom we
know little except that Sinhalese contains some un-Aryan words
probably borrowed from them. According to the Dîpavaṃsa,[14]
Vijaya started from Bharukaccha or Broach and both language and such
historical facts as we know confirm the tradition that some time
before the third century B.C. Ceylon was conquered by Indian
immigrants from the west coast.
It would not be unreasonable to suppose that Vijaya introduced into
Ceylon the elements of Buddhism, but there is little evidence to
indicate that it was a conspicuous form of religion in India in his
time. Sinhalese tradition maintains that not only Gotama himself but
also the three preceding Buddhas were miraculously transported to
Ceylon and made arrangements for its conversion. Gotama is said to
have paid no less than three visits:[15] all are obviously impossible
and were invented to enhance the glory of the island. But the legends
which relate how Paṇḍuvâsudeva came from India to succeed
Vijaya, how he subsequently had a Sakya princess brought over from
India to be his wife and how her brothers established cities in
Ceylon,[16] if not true in detail, are probably true in spirit in so
far as they imply that the Sinhalese kept up intercourse with India
and were familiar with the principal forms of Indian religion. Thus we
are told[17] that King Paṇḍukâbhaya built religious edifices for
Nigaṇṭhas (Jains), Brahmans, Paribbâjakas (possibly Buddhists)
and Âjîvikas. When Devânampiya Tissa ascended the throne (_circ._ 245
B.C.) he sent a complimentary mission bearing wonderful treasures to
Asoka with whom he was on friendly terms, although they had never met.
This implies that the kingdom of Magadha was known and respected in
Ceylon, and we hear that the mission included a Brahman. The answer
attributed to Asoka will surprise no one acquainted with the
inscriptions of that pious monarch. He said that he had taken
refuge in the law of Buddha and advised the King of Ceylon to find
salvation in the same way. He also sent magnificent presents
consisting chiefly of royal insignia and Tissa was crowned for the
second time, which probably means that he became not only the disciple
but the vassal of Asoka.
In any case the records declare that the Indian Emperor showed the
greatest solicitude for the spiritual welfare of Ceylon and, though
they are obviously embellished, there is no reason to doubt their
substantial accuracy.[18] The Sinhalese tradition agrees on the whole
with the data supplied by Indian inscriptions and Chinese pilgrims.
The names of missionaries mentioned in the Dîpa and Mahâvamsas recur
on urns found at Sanchi and on its gateways are pictures in relief
which appear to represent the transfer of a branch of the Bo-tree in
solemn procession to some destination which, though unnamed, may be
conjectured to be Ceylon.[19] The absence of Mahinda's name in Asoka's
inscriptions is certainly suspicious, but the Sinhalese chronicles
give the names of other missionaries correctly and a mere _argumentum
ex silentio_ cannot disprove their testimony on this important point.
The principal repositories of Sinhalese tradition are the Dîpavamsa, the
Mahâvamsa, and the historical preface of Buddhaghosa's Samanta-pâsâdikâ.
[20] All later works are founded on these three, so far as concerns
the conversion of Ceylon and the immediately subsequent period,
and the three works appear to be rearrangements of a single
source known as the Aṭṭhakathâ, Sihalaṭṭhakathâ, or the words of the
Porâṇa (ancients). These names were given to commentaries on the
Tipiṭaka written in Sinhalese prose interspersed with Pali verse and
several of the greater monasteries had their own editions of them,
including a definite historical section.[21] It is probable that at the
beginning of the fifth century A.D. and perhaps in the fourth century
the old Sinhalese in which the prose parts of the Atthakathâ were
written was growing unintelligible, and that it was becoming more and
more the fashion to use Pali as the language of ecclesiastical
literature, for at least three writers set themselves to turn part of
the traditions not into the vernacular but into Pali. The earliest and
least artistic is the unknown author of the short chronicle called
Dîpavamsa, who wrote between 302 A.D. and 430 A.D.[22] His work is weak
both as a specimen of Pali and as a narrative and he probably did little
but patch together the Pali verses occurring from time to time in the
Sinhalese prose of the Atthakathâ. Somewhat later, towards the end of
the fifth century, a certain Mahânâma arranged the materials out of
which the Dîpavamsa had been formed in a more consecutive and artistic
form, combining ecclesiastical and popular legends.[23] His work, known
as the Mahâvamsa, does not end with the reign of Eḷâra, like the
Dîpavamsa, but describes in 15 more chapters the exploits of
Duṭṭhagâmaṇi and his successors ending with Mahâsena.[24] The third
writer, Buddhaghosa, apparently lived between the authors of the two
chronicles. His voluminous literary activity will demand our attention
later but so far as history is concerned his narrative is closely
parallel to the Mahâvamsa.[25]
The historical narrative is similar in all three works. After the
Council of Pataliputra, Moggaliputta, who had presided over it, came
to the conclusion that the time had come to despatch missionaries to
convert foreign countries. Sinhalese tradition represents this
decision as emanating from Moggaliputta whereas the inscriptions of
Asoka imply that the king himself initiated the momentous project. But
the difference is small. We cannot now tell to whom the great idea
first occurred but it must have been carried out by the clergy with
the assistance of Asoka, the apostle selected for Ceylon was his[26]
near relative Mahinda who according to the traditions of the
Sinhalese made his way to their island through the air with six
companions. The account of Hsüan Chuang hints at a less miraculous
mode of progression for he speaks of a monastery built by Mahinda
somewhere near Tanjore.
The legend tells how Mahinda and his following alighted on the Missaka
mountain[27] whither King Devânampiya Tissa had gone in the course of
a hunt. The monks and the royal cortege met: Mahinda, after testing
the king's intellectual capacity by some curious dialectical puzzles,
had no difficulty in converting him.[28] Next morning he proceeded to
Anuradhapura and was received with all honour and enthusiasm. He
preached first in the palace and then to enthusiastic audiences of the
general public. In these discourses he dwelt chiefly on the terrible
punishment awaiting sinners in future existences.[29]
We need not follow in detail the picturesque account of the rapid
conversion of the capital. The king made over to the Church the
Mahâmegha garden and proceeded to construct a series of religious
edifices in Anuradhapura and its neighbourhood. The catalogue of them
is given in the Mahâvamsa[30] and the most important was the
Mahâvihâra monastery, which became specially famous and influential in
the history of Buddhism. It was situated in the Mahâmegha garden close
to the Bo-tree and was regarded as the citadel of orthodoxy. Its
subsequent conflicts with the later Abhayagiri monastery are the chief
theme of Sinhalese ecclesiastical history and our version of the Pali
Piṭakas is the one which received its imprimatur.
Tissa is represented as having sent two further missions to India. The
first went in quest of relics and made its way not only to Pataliputra
but to the court of Indra, king of the gods, and the relics obtained,
of which the principal was the Buddha's alms-bowl,[31] were deposited
in Anuradhapura. The king then built the Thuparâma dagoba over them
and there is no reason to doubt that the building which now bears
this name is genuine. The story may therefore be true to the extent
that relics were brought from India at this early period.
The second mission was despatched to bring a branch of the tree[32]
under which the Buddha had sat when he obtained enlightenment. This
narrative[33] is perhaps based on a more solid substratum of fact. The
chronicles connect the event with the desire of the Princess Anulâ to
become a nun. Women could receive ordination only from ordained nuns
and as these were not to be found on the island it was decided to ask
Asoka to send a branch of the sacred tree and also Mahinda's sister
Sanghamittâ, a religieuse of eminence. The mission was successful. A
branch from the Bo-tree was detached, conveyed by Asoka to the coast
with much ceremony and received in Ceylon by Tissa with equal respect.
The princess accompanied it. The Bo-tree was planted in the Meghavana
garden. It may still be seen and attracts pilgrims not only from
Ceylon but from Burma and Siam. Unlike the buildings of Anuradhapura
it has never been entirely neglected and it is clear that it has been
venerated as the Bo-tree from an early period of Sinhalese history.
Botanists consider its long life, though remarkable, not impossible
since trees of this species throw up fresh shoots from the roots near
the parent stem. The sculptures at Sanchi represent a branch of a
sacred tree being carried in procession, though no inscription attests
its destination, and Fa-Hsien says that he saw the tree.[34] The
author of the first part of the Mahâvamsa clearly regards it as
already ancient, and throughout the history of Ceylon there are
references to the construction of railings and terraces to protect it.
Devânampiya Tissa probably died in 207 B.C. In 177 the kingdom passed
into the hands of Tamil monarchs who were not Buddhists, although the
chroniclers praise their justice and the respect which they showed to
the Church. The most important of them, Eḷâra, reigned for
forty-four years and was dethroned by a descendant of Tissa, called
Duṭṭhagâmaṇi.[35]
The exploits of this prince are recorded at such length in the
Mahâvamsa (XXII.-XXXII.) as to suggest that they formed the subject of
a separate popular epic, in which he figured as the champion of
Sinhalese against the Tamils, and therefore as a devout Buddhist. On
ascending the throne he felt, like Asoka, remorse for the bloodshed
which had attended his early life and strove to atone for it by good
works, especially the construction of sacred edifices. The most
important of these were the Lohapasâda or Copper Palace and the
Mahâthûpa or Ruwanweli Dagoba. The former[36] was a monastery roofed
or covered with copper plates. Its numerous rooms were richly
decorated and it consisted of nine storeys, of which the four
uppermost were set apart for Arhats, and the lower assigned to the
inferior grades of monks. Perhaps the nine storeys are an
exaggeration: at any rate the building suffered from fire and
underwent numerous reconstructions and modifications. King Mahâsena
(301 A.D.) destroyed it and then repenting of his errors rebuilt it,
but the ruins now representing it at Anuradhapura, which consist of
stone pillars only, date from the reign of Parâkrama Bâhu I (about
A.D. 1150). The immense pile known as the Ruwanweli Dagoba, though
often injured by invaders in search of treasure, still exists. The
somewhat dilapidated exterior is merely an outer shell, enclosing a
smaller dagoba.[37] This is possibly the structure erected by
Duṭṭhagâmaṇi, though tradition says that there is a still
smaller edifice inside. The foundation and building of the original
structure are related at great length.[38] Crowds of distinguished
monks came to see the first stone laid, even from Kashmir and
Alasanda. Some have identified the latter name with Alexandria in
Egypt, but it probably denotes a Greek city on the Indus.[39] But in
any case tradition represents Buddhists from all parts of India as
taking part in the ceremony and thus recognizing the unity of Indian
and Sinhalese Buddhism.
Of great importance for the history of the Sinhalese Church is the
reign of Vaṭṭagâmaṇi Abhaya who after being dethroned by Tamils
recovered his kingdom and reigned for twelve years.[40] He built a new
monastery and dagoba known as Abhayagiri,[41] which soon became the
enemy of the Mahâvihâra and heterodox, if the latter is to be considered
orthodox. The account of the schism given in the Mahâvaṃsa[42] is
obscure, but the dispute resulted in the Piṭakas, which had hitherto
been preserved orally, being committed to writing. The council which
defined and edited the scriptures was not attended by all the
monasteries of Ceylon, but only by the monks of the Mahâvihâra, and the
text which they wrote down was their special version and not universally
accepted. It included the Parivâra, which was apparently a recent manual
composed in Ceylon. The Mahâvaṃsa says no more about this schism, but
the Nikâya-Sangrahawa[43] says that the monks of the Abhayagiri
monastery now embraced the doctrines of the Vajjiputta school (one of
the seventeen branches of the Mahâsanghikas) which was known in Ceylon
as the Dhammaruci school from an eminent teacher of that name. Many
pious kings followed who built or repaired sacred edifices and Buddhism
evidently flourished, but we also hear of heresy. In the third century
A.D.[44] King Voharaka Tissa suppressed[45] the Vetulyas. This sect was
connected with the Abhayagiri monastery, but, though it lasted until the
twelfth century, I have found no Sinhalese account of its tenets. It is
represented as the worst of heresies, which was suppressed by all
orthodox kings but again and again revived, or was reintroduced from
India. Though it always found a footing at the Abhayagiri it was not
officially recognized as the creed of that Monastery which since the
time of Vaṭṭagâmaṇi seems to have professed the relatively orthodox
doctrine called Dhammaruci.
Mention is made in the Kathâ-vatthu of heretics who held that the
Buddha remained in the Tusita heaven and that the law was preached on
earth not by him but by Ananda and the commentary[46] ascribes these
views to the Vetulyakas. The reticence of the Sinhalese chronicles
makes it doubtful whether the Vetulyakas of Ceylon and these heretics
are identical but probably the monks of the Abhayagiri, if not
strictly speaking Mahayanist, were an off-shoot of an ancient sect
which contained some germs of the Mahayana. Hsüan Chuang in his
narrative[47] states (probably from hearsay) that the monks of the
Mahâvihâra were Hinayanists but that both vehicles were studied at the
Abhayagiri. I-Ching on the contrary says expressly that all the
Sinhalese belonged to the Âryasthavira Nikâya. Fa-Hsien describes the
Buddhism of Ceylon as he saw it about 412 A.D., but does not apply to
it the terms Hina or Mahayana. He evidently regarded the Abhayagiri as
the principal religious centre and says it had 5000 monks as against
3000 in the Mahâvihâra, but though he dwells on the gorgeous
ceremonial, the veneration of the sacred tooth, the representations of
Gotama's previous lives, and the images of Maitreya, he does not
allude to the worship of Avalokita and Mañjusrî or to anything that
can be called definitely Mahayanist. He describes a florid and
somewhat superstitious worship which may have tended to regard the
Buddha as superhuman, but the relics of Gotama's body were its chief
visible symbols and we have no ground for assuming that such teaching
as is found in the Lotus sûtra was its theological basis. Yet we may
legitimately suspect that the traditions of the Abhayagiri remount to
early prototypes of that teaching.
In the second and third centuries the Court seems to have favoured the
Mahâvihâra and King Goṭhâbhaya banished monks belonging to the
Vetulya sect,[48] but in spite of this a monk of the Abhayagiri named
Sanghamitta obtained his confidence and that of his son, Mahâsena, who
occupied the throne from 275 to 302 A.D. The Mahâvihâra was destroyed
and its occupants persecuted at Sanghamitta's instigation but he was
murdered and after his death the great Monastery was rebuilt. The
triumph however was not complete for Mahâsena built a new monastery
called Jetavana on ground belonging to the Mahâvihâra and asked the
monks to abandon this portion of their territory. They refused and
according to the Mahâvamsa ultimately succeeded in proving their
rights before a court of law. But the Jetavana remained as the
headquarters of a sect known as Sagaliyas. They appear to have been
moderately orthodox, but to have had their own text of the Vinaya for
according to the Commentary[49] on the Mahâvamsa they "separated the
two Vibhangas of the Bhagavâ[50] from the Vinaya ... altering their
meaning and misquoting their contents." In the opinion of the
Mahâvihâra both the Abhayagiri and Jetavana were schismatical, but the
laity appear to have given their respect and offerings to all three
impartially and the Mahâvamsa several times records how the same
individual honoured the three Confraternities.
With the death of Mahâsena ends the first and oldest part of the
Mahâvamsa, and also in native opinion the grand period of Sinhalese
history, the subsequent kings being known as the Cûlavaṃsa or minor
dynasty. A continuation[51] of the chronicle takes up the story and
tells of the doings of Mahâsena's son Sirimeghavaṇṇa.[52] Judged
by the standard of the Mahâvihâra, he was fairly satisfactory. He
rebuilt the Lohapasâda and caused a golden image of Mahinda to be made
and carried in procession. This veneration of the founder of a
local church reminds one of the respect shown to the images of
half-deified abbots in Tibet, China and Japan. But the king did not
neglect the Abhayagiri or assign it a lower position than the
Mahâvihâra for he gave it partial custody of the celebrated relic
known as the Buddha's tooth which was brought to Ceylon from Kalinga
in the ninth year of his reign and has ever since been considered the
palladium of the island.
2
It may not be amiss to consider here briefly what is known of the
history of the Buddha's relics and especially of this tooth. Of the
minor distinctions between Buddhism and Hinduism one of the sharpest
is this cultus. Hindu temples are often erected over natural objects
supposed to resemble the footprint or some member of a deity and
sometimes tombs receive veneration.[53] But no case appears to be
known in which either Hindus or Jains show reverence to the bones or
other fragments of a human body. It is hence remarkable that
relic-worship should be so wide-spread in Buddhism and appear so early
in its history. The earliest Buddhist monuments depict figures
worshipping at a stupa, which was probably a reliquary, and there is
no reason to distrust the traditions which carry the practice back at
least to the reign of Asoka. The principal cause for its prevalence
was no doubt that Buddhism, while creating a powerful religious
current, provided hardly any objects of worship for the faithful.[54]
It is also probable that the rudiments of relic worship existed in the
districts frequented by the Buddha. The account of his death states
that after the cremation of his body the Mallas placed his bones in
their council hall and honoured them with songs and dances. Then eight
communities or individuals demanded a portion of the relics and over
each portion a cairn was built. These proceedings are mentioned as if
they were the usual ceremonial observed on the death of a great man
and in the same Sutta[55] the Buddha himself mentions four classes
of men worthy of a cairn or dagoba.[56] We may perhaps conclude that
in the earliest ages of Buddhism it was usual in north-eastern India
to honour the bones of a distinguished man after cremation and inter
them under a monument. This is not exactly relic worship but it has in
it the root of the later tree. The Piṭakas contain little about the
practice but the Milinda Pañha discusses the question at length and in
one passage[57] endeavours to reconcile two sayings of the Buddha,
"Hinder not yourselves by honouring the remains of the Tathâgatha" and
"Honour that relic of him who is worthy of honour." It is the first
utterance rather than the second that seems to have the genuine ring
of Gotama.
The earliest known relics are those discovered in the stupa of Piprâvâ
on the borders of Nepal in 1898. Their precise nature and the date of
the inscription describing them have been the subject of much
discussion. Some authorities think that this stupa may be one of those
erected over a portion of the Buddha's ashes after his funeral. Even
Barth, a most cautious and sceptical scholar, admitted[58] first that
the inscription is not later than Asoka, secondly that the vase is a
reliquary containing what were believed to be bones of the Buddha.
Thus in the time of Asoka the worship of the Buddha's relics was well
known and I see no reason why the inscription should not be anterior
to that time.
According to Buddhaghosa's _Sumangalavilâsinî_ and Sinhalese texts
which though late are based on early material[59], Mahâkassapa
instigated Ajâtasattu to collect the relics of the Buddha, and to
place them in a stupa, there to await the advent of Asoka. In Asoka's
time the stupa had become overgrown and hidden by jungle but when the
king was in search of relics, its position was revealed to him. He
found inside it an inscription authorizing him to disperse the
contents and proceeded to distribute them among the 84,000
monasteries which he is said to have constructed.
In its main outlines this account is probable. Ajâtasattu conquered
the Licchavis and other small states to the north of Magadha and if he
was convinced of the importance of the Buddha's relics it would be
natural that he should transport them to his capital, regarding them
perhaps as talismans.[60] Here they were neglected, though not
damaged, in the reigns of Brahmanical kings and were rescued from
oblivion by Asoka, who being sovereign of all India and anxious to
spread Buddhism throughout his dominions would be likely to distribute
the relics as widely as he distributed his pillars and inscriptions.
But later Buddhist kings could not emulate this imperial impartiality
and we may surmise that such a monarch as Kanishka would see to it
that all the principal relics in northern India found their way to his
capital. The bones discovered at Peshawar are doubtless those
considered most authentic in his reign.
Next to the tooth, the most interesting relic of the Buddha was his
_patra_ or alms-bowl, which plays a part somewhat similar to that of
the Holy Grail in Christian romance. The Mahâvaṃsa states that
Asoka sent it to Ceylon, but the Chinese pilgrim Fa-Hsien[61] saw it
at Peshawar about 405 A.D. It was shown to the people daily at the
midday and evening services. The pilgrim thought it contained about
two pecks yet such were its miraculous properties that the poor could
fill it with a gift of a few flowers, whereas the rich cast in myriads
of bushels and found there was still room for more. A few years later
Fa-Hsien heard a sermon in Ceylon[62] in which the preacher predicted
that the bowl would be taken in the course of centuries to Central
Asia, China, Ceylon and Central India whence it would ultimately
ascend to the Tusita heaven for the use of the future Buddha. Later
accounts to some extent record the fulfilment of these predictions
inasmuch as they relate how the bowl (or bowls) passed from land to
land but the story of its wandering may have little foundation since
it is combined with the idea that it is wafted from shrine to shrine
according as the faith is nourishing or decadent. Hsüan Chuang says
that it "had gone on from Peshawar to several countries and was
now in Persia.[63]" A Mohammedan legend relates that it is at Kandahar
and will contain any quantity of liquid without overflowing. Marco
Polo says Kublai Khan sent an embassy in 1284 to bring it from Ceylon
to China.[64]
The wanderings of the tooth, though almost as surprising as those of
the bowl, rest on better historical evidence, but there is probably
more continuity in the story than in the holy object of which it is
related, for the piece of bone which is credited with being the left
canine tooth of the Blessed One may have been changed on more than one
occasion. The Sinhalese chronicles,[65] as mentioned, say that it was
brought to Ceylon in the ninth year of Sirimeghavaṇṇa.[66] This
date may be approximately correct for about 413 or later Fa-Hsien
described the annual festival of the tooth, during which it was
exposed for veneration at the Abhayagiri monastery, without indicating
that the usage was recent.
The tooth did not, according to Sinhalese tradition, form part of the
relics distributed after the cremation of the Buddha. Seven bones,
including four teeth,[67] were excepted from that distribution and
the Sage Khema taking the left canine tooth direct from the funeral
pyre gave it to the king of Kalinga, who enshrined it in a gorgeous
temple at Dantapura[68] where it is supposed to have remained 800
years. At the end of that period a pious king named Guhasiva
became involved in disastrous wars on account of the relic, and, as
the best means of preserving it, bade his daughter fly with her
husband[69] and take it to Ceylon. This, after some miraculous
adventures, they were able to do. The tooth was received with great
ceremony and lodged in an edifice called the Dhammacakka from which it
was taken every year for a temporary sojourn[70] in the Abhayagiri
monastery.
The cultus of the tooth flourished exceedingly in the next few
centuries and it came to be regarded as the talisman of the king and
nation. Hence when the court moved from Anuradhapura to Pollunaruwa it
was installed in the new capital. In the troubled times which followed
it changed its residence some fifteen times. Early in the fourteenth
century it was carried off by the Tamils to southern India but was
recovered by Parâkrama Bâhu III and during the commotion created by
the invasions of the Tamils, Chinese and Portuguese it was hidden in
various cities. In 1560 Dom Constantino de Bragança, Portuguese
Viceroy of Goa, led a crusade against Jaffna to avenge the alleged
persecution of Christians, and when the town was sacked a relic,
described as the tooth of an ape mounted in gold, was found in a
temple and carried off to Goa. On this Bayin Naung, King of Pegu,
offered an enormous ransom to redeem it, which the secular government
wished to accept, but the clergy and inquisition put such pressure on
the Viceroy that he rejected the proposal. The archbishop of Goa
pounded the tooth in a mortar before the viceregal court, burned the
fragments and scattered the ashes over the sea.[71]
But the singular result of this bigotry was not to destroy one sacred
tooth but to create two. The king of Pegu, who wished to marry a
Sinhalese princess, sent an embassy to Ceylon to arrange the match.
They were received by the king of Cotta, who bore the curiously
combined name of Don Juan Dharmapâla. He had no daughter of his own
but palmed off the daughter of a chamberlain. At the same time he
informed the king of Pegu that the tooth destroyed at Goa was not
the real relic and that this still remained in his possession. Bayin
Naung was induced to marry the lady and received the tooth with
appropriate ceremonies. But when the king of Kandy heard of these
doings, he apprized the king of Pegu of the double trick that had been
played on him. He offered him his own daughter, a veritable princess,
in marriage and as her dowry the true tooth which, he said, was
neither that destroyed at Goa nor yet that sent to Pegu, but one in
his own possession. Bayin Naung received the Kandyan embassy politely
but rejected its proposals, thinking no doubt that it would be awkward
to declare the first tooth spurious after it had been solemnly
installed as a sacred relic. The second tooth therefore remained in
Kandy and appears to be that now venerated there. When Vimala Dharma
re-established the original line of kings, about 1592, it was accepted
as authentic.
As to its authenticity, it appears to be beyond doubt that it is a
piece of discoloured bone about two inches long, which could never
have been the tooth of an ordinary human being, so that even the
faithful can only contend that the Buddha was of superhuman stature.
Whether it is the relic which was venerated in Ceylon before the
arrival of the Portuguese is a more difficult question, for it may be
argued with equal plausibility that the Sinhalese had good reasons for
hiding the real tooth and good reasons for duplicating it. The
strongest argument against the authenticity of the relic destroyed by
the Portuguese is that it was found in Jaffna, which had long been a
Tamil town, whereas there is no reason to believe that the real tooth
was at this time in Tamil custody. But, although the native
literature always speaks of it as unique, the Sinhalese appear to have
produced replicas more than once, for we hear of such being sent to
Burma and China.[72] Again, the offer to ransom the tooth came not
from Ceylon but from the king of Pegu, who, as the sequel shows, was
gullible in such matters: the Portuguese clearly thought that they had
acquired a relic of primary importance; on any hypothesis one of the
kings of Ceylon must have deceived the king of Pegu, and finally
Vimala Dharma had the strongest political reasons for accepting as
genuine the relic kept at Kandy, since the possession of the true
tooth went far to substantiate a Sinhalese monarch's right to the
throne.
The tooth is now preserved in a temple at Kandy. The visitor looking
through a screen of bars can see on a silver table a large jewelled
case shaped like a bell. Flowers scattered on the floor or piled on
other tables fill the chamber with their heavy perfume. Inside the
bell are six other bells of diminishing size, the innermost of which
covers a golden lotus containing the sacred tooth. But it is only on
rare occasions that the outer caskets are removed. Worshippers as a
rule have to content themselves with offering flowers[73] and bowing
but I was informed that the priests celebrate _puja_ daily before the
relic. The ceremony comprises the consecration and distribution of
rice and is interesting as connecting the veneration of the tooth with
the ritual observed in Hindu temples. But we must return to the
general history of Buddhism in Ceylon.
3
The kings who ruled in the fifth century were devout Buddhists and
builders of vihâras but the most important event of this period, not
merely for the island but for the whole Buddhist church in the south,
was the literary activity of Buddhaghosa who is said to have resided
in Ceylon during the reign of Mahânâma. The chief authorities for his
life are a passage in the continuation of the Mahâvamsa[74] and the
Buddhaghosuppatti, a late Burmese text of about 1550, which, while
adding many anecdotes, appears not to come from an independent
source.[75] The gist of their account is that he was born in a Brahman
family near Gaya and early obtained renown as a disputant. He was
converted to Buddhism by a monk named Revata and began to write
theological treatises.[76] Revata observing his intention to
compose a commentary on the Piṭakas, told him that only the text
(pâlimattam) of the scriptures was to be found in India, not the
ancient commentaries, but that the Sinhalese commentaries were
genuine, having been composed in that language by Mahinda. He
therefore bade Buddhaghosa repair to Ceylon and translate these
Sinhalese works into the idiom of Magadha, by which Pali must be
meant. Buddhaghosa took this advice and there is no reason to distrust
the statement of the Mahâvamsa that he arrived in the reign of
Mahânâma, who ruled according to Geiger from 458 to 480, though the
usual reckoning places him about fifty years earlier. The fact that
Fa-Hsien, who visited Ceylon about 412, does not mention Buddhaghosa
is in favour of Geiger's chronology.[77]
He first studied in the Mahâvihâra and eventually requested permission
to translate the Sinhalese commentaries. To prove his competence for
the task he composed the celebrated Visuddhi-magga, and, this being
considered satisfactory, he took up his residence in the Ganthâkara
Vihâra and proceeded to the work of translation. When it was finished
he returned to India or according to the Talaing tradition to Thaton.
The Buddhaghosuppatti adds two stories of which the truth and meaning
are equally doubtful. They are that Buddhaghosa burnt the works
written by Mahinda and that his knowledge of Sanskrit was called in
question but triumphantly proved. Can there be here any allusion to a
Sanskrit canon supported by the opponents of the Mahâvihâra?
Even in its main outline the story is not very coherent for one would
imagine that, if a Buddhist from Magadha went to Ceylon to translate
the Sinhalese commentaries, his object must have been to introduce
them among Indian Buddhists. But there is no evidence that Buddhaghosa
did this and he is for us simply a great figure in the literary and
religious history of Ceylon. Burmese tradition maintains that he was a
native of Thaton and returned thither, when his labours in Ceylon were
completed, to spread the scriptures in his native language. This
version of his activity is intelligible, though the evidence for it is
weak.
He composed a great corpus of exegetical literature which has been
preserved, but, since much of it is still unedited, the precise extent
of his labours is uncertain. There is however little doubt of the
authenticity of his commentaries on the four great Nikâyas, on the
Abhidhamma and on the Vinaya (called Samanta-pâsâdikâ) and in them[78]
he refers to the Visuddhi-magga as his own work. He says expressly
that his explanations are founded on Sinhalese materials, which he
frequently cites as the opinion of the ancients (porânâ). By this word
he probably means traditions recorded in Sinhalese and attributed to
Mahinda, but it is in any case clear that the works which he consulted
were considered old in the fifth century A.D. Some of their names are
preserved in the Samanta-pâsâdikâ where he mentions the great
commentary (Mahâ-Aṭṭhakathâ), the Raft commentary (Paccari, so
called because written on a raft), the Kurundi commentary composed at
Kurunda-Velu and others[79]. All this literature has disappeared and
we can only judge of it by Buddhaghosa's reproduction which is
probably not a translation but a selection and rearrangement. Indeed
his occasional direct quotations from the ancients or from an
Aṭṭhakathâ imply that the rest of the work is merely based on
the Sinhalese commentaries.
Buddhaghosa was not an independent thinker but he makes amends for his
want of originality not only by his industry and learning but by his
power of grasping and expounding the whole of an intricate subject.
His Visuddhi-magga has not yet been edited in Europe, but the extracts
and copious analysis[80] which have been published indicate that it is
a comprehensive restatement of Buddhist doctrine made with as free a
hand as orthodoxy permitted. The Mahâvamsa observes that the Theras
held his works in the same estimation as the Piṭakas. They are in
no way coloured by the Mahayanist tenets which were already prevalent
in India, but state in its severest form the Hinayanist creed, of
which he is the most authoritative exponent. The Visuddhi-magga is
divided into three parts treating of conduct (sîlam), meditation
(samâdhi) and knowledge (paññâ), the first being the necessary
substratum for the religious life of which the others are the two
principal branches. But though he intersperses his exposition with
miraculous stories and treats exhaustively of superhuman powers, no
trace of the worship of Mahayanist Bodhisattvas is found in his works
and, as for literature, he himself is the chief authority for the
genuineness and completeness of the Pali Canon as we know it.
When we find it said that his works were esteemed as highly as the
Piṭakas, or that the documents which he translated into Pali were
the words of the Buddha[81], the suspicion naturally arises that the
Pali Canon may be in part his composition and it may be well to review
briefly its history in Ceylon. Our knowledge appears to be derived
entirely from the traditions of the Mahâvihâra which represent Mahinda
as teaching the text of the Piṭakas orally, accompanied by a
commentary. If we admit the general truth of the narrative concerning
Mahinda's mission, there is nothing improbable in these statements,
for it would be natural that an Indian teacher should know by heart
his sacred texts and the commentaries on them. We cannot of course
assume that the Piṭakas of Mahinda were the Pali Canon as we know
it, but the inscriptions of Asoka refer to passages which can be found
in that canon and therefore parts of it at any rate must have been
accepted as scripture in the third century B.C. But it is probable
that considerable variation was permitted in the text, although the
sense and a certain terminology were carefully guarded. It was not
till the reign of Vaṭṭagâmaṇi, probably about 20 B.C., that
the canon was committed to writing and the Parivâra, composed in
Ceylon[82], was included in it.
In the reign of Buddhadâsa[83] a learned monk named Mahâdhammakathi is
said to have translated the Suttas into Sinhalese, which at this time
was esteemed the proper language for letters and theology, but in the
next century a contrary tendency, probably initiated by Buddhaghosa,
becomes apparent and Sinhalese works are rewritten in Pali.[84] But
nothing indicates that any part of what we call the Pali Canon
underwent this process. Buddhaghosa distinguishes clearly between text
and comment, between Pali and Sinhalese documents. He has a coherent
history of the text, beginning with the Council of Râjagaha; he
discusses various readings, he explains difficult words. He treated
the ancient commentaries with freedom, but there is no reason to think
that he allowed himself any discretion or right of selection in
dealing with the sacred texts accepted by the Mahâvihâra, though it
might be prudent to await the publication of his commentaries on all
the Nikâyas before asserting this unreservedly.
To sum up, the available evidence points to the conclusion that in the
time of Asoka texts and commentaries preserved orally were brought to
Ceylon. The former, though in a somewhat fluid condition, were
sufficiently sacred to be kept unchanged in the original Indian
language, the latter were translated into the kindred but still
distinct vernacular of the island. In the next century and a half
some additions to the Pali texts were made and about 20 B.C. the
Mahâvihâra, which proved as superior to the other communities in
vitality as it was in antiquity, caused written copies to be made of
what it considered as the canon, including some recent works. There is
no evidence that Buddhaghosa or anyone else enlarged or curtailed the
canon, but the curious tradition that he collected and burned all the
books written by Mahinda in Sinhalese[85] may allude to the existence
of other works which he (presumably in agreement with the Mahâvihâra)
considered spurious.
Soon after the departure of Buddhaghosa Dhâtusena came to the throne
and "held like Dhammasoka a convocation about the three
Piṭakas."[86] This implies that there was still some doubt as to
what was scripture and that the canon of the Mahâvihâra was not
universally accepted. The Vetulyas, of whom we heard in the third
century A.D., reappear in the seventh when they are said to have been
supported by a provincial governor but not by the king Aggabodhi[87]
and still more explicitly in the reign of Parâkrama Bâhu (c. 1160). He
endeavoured to reconcile to the Mahâvihâra "the Abhayagiri brethren
who separated themselves from the time of king Vaṭṭagâmaṇi
Abhaya and the Jetavana brethren that had parted since the days of
Mahâsena and taught the Vetulla Piṭaka and other writings as the
words of Buddha, which indeed were not the words of Buddha[88]." So it
appears that another recension of the canon was in existence for many
centuries.
Dhâtusena, though depicted in the Mahâvaṃsa as a most orthodox
monarch, embellished the Abhayagiri monastery and was addicted to
sumptuous ceremonies in honour of images and relics. Thus he made an
image of Mahinda, dedicated a shrine and statue to Metteyya and
ornamented the effigies of Buddha with the royal jewels. In an image
chamber (apparently at the Abhayagiri) he set up figures of
Bodhisattvas,[89] by which we should perhaps understand the previous
births of Gotama. He was killed by his son and Sinhalese history
degenerated into a complicated story of crime and discord, in which
the weaker faction generally sought the aid of the Tamils. These
latter became more and more powerful and with their advance Buddhism
tended to give place to Hinduism. In the eighth century the court
removed from Anuradhapura to Pollannaruwa, in order to escape from the
pressure of the Tamils, but the picture of anarchy and decadence grows
more and more gloomy until the accession of Vijaya Bâhu in 1071 who
succeeded in making himself king of all Ceylon. Though he recovered
Anuradhapura it was not made the royal residence either by himself or
by his greater successor, Parâkrama Bâhu.[90] This monarch, the most
eminent in the long list of Ceylon's sovereigns, after he had
consolidated his power, devoted himself, in the words of Tennent, "to
the two grand objects of royal solicitude, religion and agriculture."
He was lavish in building monasteries, temples and libraries, but not
less generous in constructing or repairing tanks and works of
irrigation. In the reign of Vijaya Bâhu hardly any duly ordained monks
were to be found,[91] the succession having been interrupted, and the
deficiency was supplied by bringing qualified Theras from Burma. But
by the time of Parâkrama Bâhu the old quarrels of the monasteries
revived, and, as he was anxious to secure unity, he summoned a synod
at Anuradhapura. It appears to have attained its object by recognizing
the Mahâvihâra as the standard of orthodoxy and dealing summarily with
dissentients.[92] The secular side of monastic life also received
liberal attention. Lands, revenues and guest-houses were provided for
the monasteries as well as hospitals. As in Burma and Siam Brahmans
were respected and the king erected a building for their use in the
capital. Like Asoka, he forbade the killing of animals.
But the glory of Parâkrama Bâhu stands up in the later history of
Ceylon like an isolated peak and thirty years after his death the
country had fallen almost to its previous low level of prosperity. The
Tamils again occupied many districts and were never entirely dislodged
as long as the Sinhalese kingdom lasted. Buddhism tended to decline
but was always the religion of the national party and was honoured
with as much magnificence as their means allowed. Parâkrama Bâhu II
(c. 1240), who recovered the sacred tooth from the Tamils, is said to
have celebrated splendid festivals and to have imported learned monks
from the country of the Colas.[93] Towards the end of the fifteenth
century the inscriptions of Kalyani indicate that Sinhalese religion
enjoyed a great reputation in Burma.[94]
A further change adverse to Buddhism was occasioned by the arrival of
the Portuguese in 1505. A long and horrible struggle ensued between
them and the various kings among whom the distracted island was
divided until at the end of the sixteenth century only Kandy remained
independent, the whole coast being in the hands of the Portuguese. The
singular barbarities which they perpetrated throughout this struggle
are vouched for by their own historians,[95] but it does not appear
that the Sinhalese degraded themselves by similar atrocities.
Since the Portuguese wished to propagate Roman Catholicism as well as
to extend their political rule and used for this purpose (according to
the Mahâvaṃsa) the persuasions of gold as well as the terrors of
torture, it is not surprising if many Sinhalese professed allegiance
to Christianity, but when in 1597 the greater part of Ceylon formally
accepted Portuguese sovereignty, the chiefs insisted that they should
be allowed to retain their own religion and customs.
The Dutch first appeared in 1602 and were welcomed by the Court of
Kandy as allies capable of expelling the Portuguese. This they
succeeded in doing by a series of victories between 1638 and 1658, and
remained masters of a great part of the island until their possessions
were taken by the British in 1795. Kandy however continued independent
until 1815. At first the Dutch tried to enforce Christianity and to
prohibit Buddhism within their territory[96] but ultimately hatred of
the Roman Catholic church made them favourable to Buddhism and they
were ready to assist those kings who desired to restore the national
religion to its former splendour.
4
In spite of this assistance the centuries when the Sinhalese were
contending with Europeans were not a prosperous time for Buddhism.
Hinduism spread in the north,[97] Christianity in the coast belt, but
still it was a point of honour with most native sovereigns to protect
the national religion so far as their distressed condition allowed.
For the seventeenth century we have an interesting account of the
state of the country called _An Historical Relation of the Island of
Ceylon_ by an Englishman, Robert Knox, who was detained by the king of
Kandy from 1660 to 1680. He does not seem to have been aware that
there was any distinction between Buddhism and Hinduism. Though he
describes the Sinhalese as idolaters, he also emphasizes the fact that
Buddou (as he writes the name) is the God "unto whom the salvation of
souls belongs," and for whom "above all others they have a high
respect and devotion." He also describes the ceremonies of pirit
and bana, the perahera procession, and two classes of Buddhist monks,
the elders and the ordinary members of the Sangha. His narrative
indicates that Buddhism was accepted as the higher religion, though
men were prone to pray to deities who would save from temporal danger.
About this time Vimala Dharma II[98] made great efforts to improve the
religious condition of the island and finding that the true succession
had again failed, arranged with the Dutch to send an embassy to Arakan
and bring back qualified Theras. But apparently the steps taken were
not sufficient, for when king Kittisiri Râjasiha (1747-81), whose
piety forms the theme of the last two chapters of the Mahâvaṃsa,
set about reforming the Sangha, he found that duly ordained monks were
extinct and that many so-called monks had families. He therefore
decided to apply to Dhammika, king of Ayuthia in Siam, and like his
predecessor despatched an embassy on a Dutch ship. Dhammika sent back
a company of "more than ten monks" (that is more than sufficient for
the performance of all ecclesiastical acts) under the Abbot Upâli in
1752 and another to relieve it in 1755.[99] They were received by the
king of Ceylon with great honour and subsequently by the ordination
which they conferred placed the succession beyond dispute. But the
order thus reconstituted was aristocratic and exclusive: only members
of the highest caste were admitted to it and the wealthy middle
classes found themselves excluded from a community which they were
expected to honour and maintain. This led to the despatch of an
embassy to Burma in 1802 and to the foundation of another branch of
the Sangha, known as the Amarapura school, distinct in so far as its
validity depended on Burmese not Siamese ordination.
Since ordination is for Buddhists merely self-dedication to a higher
life and does not confer any sacramental or sacerdotal powers, the
importance assigned to it may seem strange. But the idea goes back to
the oldest records in the Vinaya and has its root in the privileges
accorded to the order. A Bhikkhu had a right to expect much from the
laity, but he also had to prove his worth and Gotama's early
legislation was largely concerned with excluding unsuitable
candidates. The solicitude for valid ordination was only the
ecclesiastical form of the popular feeling that the honours and
immunities of the order were conditional on its maintaining a certain
standard of conduct. Other methods of reform might have been devised,
but the old injunction that a monk could be admitted only by other
duly ordained monks was fairly efficacious and could not be disputed.
But the curious result is that though Ceylon was in early times the
second home of Buddhism, almost all (if indeed not all) the monks
found there now derive their right to the title of Bhikkhu from
foreign countries.
The Sinhalese Sangha is generally described as divided into four
schools, those of Siam, Kelani, Amarapura and Ramanya, of which the
first two are practically identical, Kelani being simply a separate
province of the Siamese school, which otherwise has its headquarters in
the inland districts. This school, founded as mentioned above by priests
who arrived in 1750, comprises about half of the whole Sangha and has
some pretensions to represent the hierarchy of Ceylon, since the last
kings of Kandy gave to the heads of the two great monasteries in the
capital, Asgiri and Malwatte, jurisdiction over the north and south of
the island respectively. It differs in some particulars from the
Amarapura school. It only admits members of the highest caste and
prescribes that monks are to wear the upper robe over one shoulder only,
whereas the Amarapurans admit members of the first three castes (but not
those lower in the social scale) and require both shoulders to be
covered. There are other minor differences among which it is interesting
to note that the Siamese school object to the use of the formula "I
dedicate this gift to the Buddha" which is used in the other schools
when anything is presented to the order for the use of the monks. It is
held that this expression was correct in the lifetime of the Buddha but
not after his death. The two schools are not mutually hostile, and
members of each find a hospitable reception in the monasteries of the
other. The laity patronize both indifferently and both frequent the
same places of pilgrimage, though all of these and the majority of the
temple lands belong to the sect of Siam. It is wealthy, aristocratic and
has inherited the ancient traditions of Ceylon, whereas the Amarapurans
are more active and inclined to propaganda. It is said they are the
chief allies of the Theosophists and European Buddhists. The
Ramanya[100] school is more recent and distinct than the others, being
in some ways a reformed community. It aims at greater strictness of
life, forbidding monasteries to hold property and insisting on genuine
poverty. It also totally rejects the worship of Hindu deities and its
lay members do not recognize the monks of other schools. It is not large
but its influence is considerable.
It has been said that Buddhism flourished in Ceylon only when it was
able to secure the royal favour. There is some truth in this, for the
Sangha does not struggle on its own behalf but expects the laity to
provide for its material needs, making a return in educational and
religious services. Such a body if not absolutely dependent on royal
patronage has at least much to gain from it. Yet this admission must
not blind us to the fact that during its long and often distinguished
history Sinhalese Buddhism has been truly the national faith, as
opposed to the beliefs of various invaders, and has also ministered to
the spiritual aspirations of the nation. As Knox said in a period when
it was not particularly flourishing, the Hindu gods look after worldly
affairs but Buddha after the soul. When the island passed under
British rule and all religions received impartial recognition, the
result was not disastrous to Buddhism: the number of Bhikkhus greatly
increased, especially in the latter half of the nineteenth century.
And if in earlier periods there was an interval in which technically
speaking the Sangha did not exist, this did not mean that interest in
it ceased, for as soon as the kingdom became prosperous the first care
of the kings was to set the Church in order. This zeal can be
attributed to nothing but conviction and affection, for Buddhism is
not a faith politically useful to an energetic and warlike prince.
5
Sinhalese Buddhism is often styled primitive or original and it may
fairly be said to preserve in substance both the doctrine and practice
inculcated in the earliest Pali literature. In calling this primitive we
must remember the possibility that some of this literature was
elaborated in Ceylon itself. But, putting the text of the Piṭakas
aside, it would seem that the early Sinhalese Buddhism was the same as
that of Asoka, and that it never underwent any important change. It is
true that mediæval Sinhalese literature is full of supernatural legends
respecting the Buddha,[101] but still he does not become a god (for he
has attained Nirvana) and the great Bodhisattvas, Avalokita and
Manjuśrî, are practically unknown. The _Abhidhammattha-sangaha_,[102]
which is still the text-book most in use among the Bhikkhus, adheres
rigidly to the methods of the Abhidhamma.[103] It contains neither
devotional nor magical matter but prescribes a course of austere mental
training, based on psychological analysis and culminating in the rapture
of meditation. Such studies and exercises are beyond the capacity of the
majority, but no other road to salvation is officially sanctioned for
the Bhikkhu. It is admitted that there are no Arhats now--just as
Christianity has no contemporary saints--but no other ideal, such as the
Boddhisattva of the Mahayanists, is held up for imitation.
Mediæval images of Avalokita and of goddesses have however been found
in Ceylon.[104] This is hardly surprising for the island was on the
main road to China, Java, and Camboja[105] and Mahayanist teachers and
pilgrims must have continually passed through it. The Chinese
biographies of that eminent tantrist, Amogha, say that he went to
Ceylon in 741 and elaborated his system there before returning to
China. It is said that in 1408 the Chinese being angry at the
ill-treatment of envoys whom they had sent to the shrine of the tooth,
conquered Ceylon and made it pay tribute for fifty years. By
conquest no doubt is meant merely a military success and not
occupation, but the whole story implies possibilities of acquaintance
with Chinese Buddhism.
It is clear that, though the Hinayanist church was predominant
throughout the history of the island, there were up to the twelfth
century heretical sects called Vaitulya or Vetulyaka and Vâjira which
though hardly rivals of orthodoxy were a thorn in its side. A party at
the Abhayagiri monastery were favourably disposed to the Vaitulya sect
which, though often suppressed, recovered and reappeared, being
apparently reinforced from India. This need not mean from southern
India, for Ceylon had regular intercourse with the north and perhaps
the Vaitulyas were Mahayanists from Bengal. The Nikâya-Sangrahawa also
mentions that in the ninth century there was a sect called
Nîlapatadarśana,[106] who wore blue robes and preached indulgence
in wine and love. They were possibly Tantrists from the north but were
persecuted in southern India and never influential in Ceylon.
The Mahâvaṃsa is inclined to minimize the importance of all sects
compared with the Mahâvihâra, but the picture given by the
Nikâya-Sangrahawa may be more correct. It says that the Vaitulyas,
described as infidel Brahmans who had composed a Piṭaka of their
own, made four attempts to obtain a footing at the Abhayagiri
monastery.[107] In the ninth century it represents king Matvalasen as
having to fly because he had embraced the false doctrine of the
Vâjiras. These are mentioned in another passage in connection with the
Vaitulyas: they are said to have composed the Gûḍha Vinaya[108] and
many Tantras. They perhaps were connected with the Vajrayâna, a phase
of Tantric Buddhism. But a few years later king Mungayinsen set the
church in order. He recognized the three orthodox schools or nikâyas
called Theriya, Dhammaruci and Sâgaliya but proscribed the others and
set guards on the coast to prevent the importation of heresy.
Nevertheless the Vâjiriya and Vaitulya doctrines were secretly
practised. An inscription in Sanskrit found at the Jetavana and
attributed to the ninth century[109] records the foundation of a
Vihâra for a hundred resident monks, 25 from each of the four nikâyas,
which it appears to regard as equivalent. But in 1165 the great
Parâkrama Bâhu held a synod to restore unity in the church. As a
result, all Nikâyas (even the Dhammaruci) which did not conform to the
Mahâvihâra were suppressed[110] and we hear no more of the Vaitulyas
and Vâjiriyas.
Thus there was once a Mahayanist faction in Ceylon, but it was
recruited from abroad, intermittent in activity and was finally
defeated, whereas the Hinayanist tradition was national and
continuous.
Considering the long lapse of time, the monastic life of Ceylon has
not deviated much in practice from the injunctions of the Vinaya.
Monasteries like those of Anuradhapura, which are said to have
contained thousands of monks, no longer exist. The largest now to be
found--those at Kandy--do not contain more than fifty but as a rule a
pansala (as these institutions are now called) has not more than five
residents and more often only two or three. Some pansalas have
villages assigned to them and some let their lands and do not scruple
to receive the rent. The monks still follow the ancient routine of
making a daily round with the begging bowl, but the food thus
collected is often given to the poor or even to animals and the
inmates of the pansala eat a meal which has been cooked there. The
Pâtimokkha is recited (at least in part) twice a month and ordinations
are held annually.[111]
The duties of the Bhikkhus are partly educational, partly clerical. In
most villages the children receive elementary education gratis in the
pansala, and the preservation of the ancient texts, together with the
long list of Pali and Sinhalese works produced until recent times
almost exclusively by members of the Sangha,[112] is a proof that it
has not neglected literature. The chief public religious
observances are preaching and reading the scriptures. This latter,
known as Bana, is usually accompanied by a word for word translation
made by the reciter or an assistant. Such recitations may form part of
the ordinary ceremonial of Uposatha days and most religious
establishments have a room where they can be held, but often monks are
invited to reside in a village during Was (July to October) and read
Bana, and often a layman performs a pinkama or act of merit by
entertaining monks for several days and inviting his neighbours to
hear them recite. The recitation of the Jâtakas is particularly
popular but the suttas of the Dîgha Nikâya are also often read. On
special occasions such as entry into a new house, an eclipse or any
incident which suggests that it might be well to ward off the enmity
of supernatural powers, it is usual to recite a collection of texts
taken largely from the Suttanipâta and called Pirit. The word appears
to be derived from the Pali _paritta_, a defence, and though the Pali
scriptures do not sanction this use of the Buddha's discourses they
countenance the idea that evil may be averted by the use of
formulæ.[113]
Although Sinhalese Buddhism has not diverged much from the Pali
scriptures in its main doctrines and discipline, yet it tolerates a
superstructure of Indian beliefs and ceremonies which forbid us to
call it pure except in a restricted sense. At present there may be
said to be three religions in Ceylon; local animism, Hinduism and
Buddhism are all inextricably mixed together. By local animism I mean
the worship of native spirits who do not belong to the ordinary Hindu
pantheon though they may be identified with its members. The priests
of this worship are called Kapuralas and one of their principal
ceremonies consists in dancing until they are supposed to be possessed
by a spirit--the devil dancing of Europeans. Though this religion is
distinct from ordinary Hinduism, its deities and ceremonies find
parallels in the southern Tamil country. In Ceylon it is not merely a
village superstition but possesses temples of considerable
size[114], for instance at Badulla and near Ratnapura. In the latter
there is a Buddhist shrine in the court yard, so that the Blessed One
may countenance the worship, much as the Piṭakas represent him as
patronizing and instructing the deities of ancient Magadha, but the
structure and observances of the temple itself are not Buddhist. The
chief spirit worshipped at Ratnapura and in most of these temples is
Mahâ Saman, the god of Adam's Peak. He is sometimes identified with
Lakshmana, the brother of Râma, and sometimes with Indra.
About a quarter of the population are Tamils professing Hinduism.
Hindu temples of the ordinary Dravidian type are especially frequent
in the northern districts, but they are found in most parts and at
Kandy two may be seen close to the shrine of the Tooth.[115] Buddhists
feel no scruple in frequenting them and the images of Hindu deities
are habitually introduced into Buddhist temples. These often contain a
hall, at the end of which are one or more sitting figures of the
Buddha, on the right hand side a recumbent figure of him, but on the
left a row of four statues representing Mahâbrahmâ, Vishṇu,
Kârttikeya and Mahâsâman. Of these Vishṇu generally receives marked
attention, shown by the number of prayers written on slips of paper
which are attached to his hand. Nor is this worship found merely as a
survival in the older temples. The four figures appear in the newest
edifices and the image of Vishṇu never fails to attract votaries.
Yet though a rigid Buddhist may regard such devotion as dangerous, it
is not treasonable, for Vishṇu is regarded not as a competitor but
as a very reverent admirer of the Buddha and anxious to befriend good
Buddhists.
Even more insidious is the pageantry which since the days of King
Tissa has been the outward sign of religion. It may be justified as
being merely an edifying method of venerating the memory of a great
man but when images and relics are treated with profound reverence or
carried in solemn procession it is hard for the ignorant, especially
if they are accustomed to the ceremonial of Hindu temples, not to
think that these symbols are divine. This ornate ritualism is not
authorized in any known canonical text, but it is thoroughly
Indian. Asoka records in his inscriptions the institution of religious
processions and Hsüan Chuang relates how King Harsha organized a
festival during which an image of the Buddha was carried on an
elephant while the monarch and his ally the king of Assam, dressed as
Indra and Brahmâ respectively, waited on it like servants.[116] Such
festivities were congenial to the Sinhalese, as is attested by the
long series of descriptions which fill the Mahâvaṃsa down to the
very last book, by what Fa-Hsien saw about 412 and by the Perahera
festival celebrated to-day.
6
The Buddhism of southern India resembled that of Ceylon in character
though not in history. It was introduced under the auspices of Asoka,
who mentions in his inscriptions the Colas, Pândyas and
Keralaputras.[117] Hsüan Chuang says that in the Malakûta country,
somewhere near Madura or Tanjore, there was a stupa erected by Asoka's
orders and also a monastery founded by Mahinda. It is possible that
this apostle and others laboured less in Ceylon and more in south
India than is generally supposed. The pre-eminence and continuity of
Sinhalese Buddhism are due to the conservative temper of the natives
who were relatively little moved by the winds of religion which blew
strong on the mainland, bearing with them now Jainism, now the worship
of Vishṇu or Śiva.
In the Tamil country Buddhism of an Asokan type appears to have been
prevalent about the time of our era. The poem Manimegalei, which by
general consent was composed in an early century A.D., is Buddhist but
shows no leanings to Mahayanism. It speaks of Śivaism and many
other systems[118] as flourishing, but contains no hint that Buddhism
was persecuted. But persecution or at least very unfavourable
conditions set in. Since at the time of Hsüan Chuang's visit Buddhism
was in an advanced stage of decadence, it seems probable that the
triumph of Śivaism began in the third or fourth century and that
Buddhism offered slight resistance, Jainism being the only serious
competitor for the first place. But for a long while, perhaps even
until the sixteenth century, monasteries were kept up in special
centres, and one of these is of peculiar importance, namely Kancîpuram
or Conjeveram.[119] Hsüan Chuang found there 100 monasteries with more
than 10,000 brethren, all Sthaviras, and mentions that it was the
birthplace of Dharmapâla.[120] We have some further information from
the Talaing chronicles[121] which suggests the interesting hypothesis
that the Buddhism of Burma was introduced or refreshed by missionaries
from southern India. They give a list of teachers who flourished in
that country, including Kaccâyana and the philosopher Anuruddha.[122]
Of Dharmapâla they say that he lived at the monastery of Bhadratittha
near Kancipura and wrote fourteen commentaries in Pali.[123] One was
on the Visuddhi-magga of Buddhaghosa and it is probable that he lived
shortly after that great writer and like him studied in Ceylon.
I shall recur to this question of south Indian Buddhism in treating
of Burma, but the data now available are very meagre.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 10: _E.g._ Burma in the reign of Anawrata and later in the
time of Chapaṭa about 1200, and Siam in the time of Sûryavaṃsa
Râma, 1361. On the other hand in 1752 the Sinhalese succession was
validated by obtaining monks from Burma.]
[Footnote 11: Geiger, _Literatur und Sprache der Singhalesen_, p. 91.]
[Footnote 12: Compare the history of Khotan. The first Indian
colonists seem to have introduced a Prakrit dialect. Buddhism and
Sanskrit came afterwards.]
[Footnote 13: Literally demons, that is wild uncanny men. I refrain
from discussing the origin and ethnological position of the Vaeddas
for it hardly affects the history of Buddhism in Ceylon. For Vijaya's
conquests see Mahâvaṃsa VII.]
[Footnote 14: IX. 26.]
[Footnote 15: Dîpavaṃsa I. 45-81, II. 1-69. Mahâvaṃsa I. 19-83.
The legend that the Buddha visited Ceylon and left his footprint on
Adam's peak is at least as old as Buddhaghosa. See Samanta-pâsâdikâ in
Oldenburg's _Vinaya Pitaka_, vol. III, p. 332 and the quotations in
Skeen's _Adam's Peak_, p. 50.]
[Footnote 16: Dîpa. V. x. 1-9. Mahâvaṃsa VIII. 1-27, IX. 1-12.]
[Footnote 17: Mahâvaṃsa X. 96, 102.]
[Footnote 18: For the credibility of the Sinhalese traditions see
Geiger introd. to translation of Mahâvaṃsa 1912 and Norman in
_J.R.A.S._ 1908, pp. 1 ff. and on the other side R.O. Franke in
_W.Z.K.M._ 21, pp. 203 ff., 317 ff. and _Z.D.M.G._ 63, pp. 540 ff.]
[Footnote 19: Grünwedel, _Buddhist art in India_, pp. 69-72. Rhys
Davids, _Buddhist India_, p. 302.]
[Footnote 20: The Jâtaka-nidâna-kathâ is also closely allied to these
works in those parts where the subject matter is the same.]
[Footnote 21: This section was probably called Mahâvaṃsa in a
general sense long before the name was specially applied to the work
which now bears it.]
[Footnote 22: See introduction to Oldenburg's edition, pp. 8, 9.]
[Footnote 23: Perhaps this is alluded to at the beginning of the
Mahâvaṃsa itself, "The book made by the ancients (porvâṇehi
kato) was in some places too diffuse and in others too condensed and
contained many repetitions."]
[Footnote 24: The Mahâvaṃsa was continued by later writers and
brought down to about 1780 A.D.]
[Footnote 25: The Mahâvaṃsatîkâ, a commentary written between 1000 and
1250 A.D., has also some independent value because the old
Aṭṭhakathâ-Mahâvaṃsa was still extant and used by the writer.]
[Footnote 26: Son according to the Sinhalese sources but according to
Hsüan Chuang and others, younger brother. In favour of the latter it
may be said that the younger brothers of kings often became monks in
order to avoid political complications.]
[Footnote 27: The modern Mahintale.]
[Footnote 28: The Mahâvaṃsa implies that he had already some
acquaintance with Buddhism. It represents him as knowing that monks do
not eat in the afternoon and as suggesting that it would be better to
ordain the layman Bhandu.]
[Footnote 29: The chronicles give with some slight divergences the
names of the texts on which his preaching was based. It is doubtless
meant that he recited the Sutta with a running exposition.]
[Footnote 30: Mahâvaṃ. xx. 17.]
[Footnote 31: Many other places claimed to possess this relic.]
[Footnote 32: Of course the antiquity of the Sinhalese Bo-tree is a
different question from the identity of the parent tree with the tree
under which the Buddha sat.]
[Footnote 33: Mahâvaṃ. XVIII.; Dîpavaṃ. XV. and XVI.]
[Footnote 34: But he says nothing about Mahinda or Sanghamittâ and
does not support the Mahâvaṃsa in details.]
[Footnote 35: Duṭṭha, meaning bad, angry or violent, apparently
refers to the ferocity shown in his struggle with the Tamils.]
[Footnote 36: Dîpavaṃsa XIX. 1. Mahâvaṃsa XXVII. 1-48. See
Fergusson, _Hist. Ind. Architecture_, 1910, pp. 238, 246. I find it
hard to picture such a building raised on pillars. Perhaps it was
something like the Sat-mahal-prasâda at Pollanarua.]
[Footnote 37: Parker, _Ancient Ceylon_, p. 282. The restoration of the
Ruwanweli Dagoba was undertaken by Buddhists in 1873.]
[Footnote 38: Mahâvaṃsa XXVIII.-XXXI. Duṭṭhagâmaṇi died
before it was finished.]
[Footnote 39: Mahâvaṃsa XXIX. 37. Yonanâgarâlasanda. The town is
also mentioned as situated on an Island in the Indus: Mil. Pan. III.
7. 4.]
[Footnote 40: According to the common reckoning B.C. 88-76: according
to Geiger B.C. 29-17. It seems probable that in the early dates of
Sinhalese history there is an error of about 62 years. See Geiger,
_Trans. Mahâvaṃsa_, pp. XXX ff. and Fleet, _J.R.A.S._ 1909, pp.
323-356.]
[Footnote 41: For the site see Parker's _Ancient Ceylon_, pp. 299 ff.
The Mahâvaṃsa (XXXIII. 79 and X. 98-100) says it was built on the
site of an ancient Jain establishment and Kern thinks that this
tradition hints at circumstances which account for the heretical and
contentious spirit of the Abhaya monks.]
[Footnote 42: Mahâv. XXXIII. 100-104. See too the Ṫîkâ quote by
Turnour in his introduction, p. liii.]
[Footnote 43: A work on ecclesiastical history written about 1395. Ed.
and Trans. Colombo Record Office.]
[Footnote 44: The probable error in Sinhalese dates mentioned in a
previous note continues till the twelfth century A.D. though gradually
decreasing. For the early centuries of the Christian era it is
probable that the accepted dates should be put half a century later]
[Footnote 45: Mahâvaṃsa XXXVI. 41. Vetulyavâdam madditvâ. According
to the Nikâya Sang, he burnt their Piṭaka.]
[Footnote 46: On Kathâ-vat. XVIII. 1 and 2. Printed in the _Journal of
the Pali Text Soc._ for 1889.]
[Footnote 47: Watters, II. 234. Cf. _Hsüan Chuang's life_, chap. IV.]
[Footnote 48: Mahâvaṃ. XXXVI. iii. ff. Goṭhâbhaya's date was
probably 302-315 and Mahâsena's 325-352. The common chronology makes
Goṭhâbhaya reign from 244 to 257 and Mahâsena from 269 to 296 A.D.]
[Footnote 49: Quoted by Turnour, Introd. p. liii. The Mahâvaṃ. V.
13, expressly states that the Dhammaruci and Sâgaliya sects originated
in Ceylon.]
[Footnote 50: _I.e._ as I understand, the two divisions of the Sutta
Vibhanga.]
[Footnote 51: It was written up to date at various periods. The
chapters which take up the history after the death of Mahâsena are
said to be the work of Dhammakitti, who lived about 1250.]
[Footnote 52: He was a contemporary of the Gupta King Samudragupta who
reigned approximately 330-375 A.D. See S. Lévi in _J.A._ 1900, pp. 316
ff, 401 ff. This synchronism is a striking confirmation of Fleet and
Geiger's chronology.]
[Footnote 53: _E.g._ the tomb of Râmânuja at Srîrangam.]
[Footnote 54: For a somewhat similar reason the veneration of relics
is prevalent among Moslims. Islam indeed provides an object of worship
but its ceremonies are so austere and monotonous that any devotional
practices which are not forbidden as idolatrous are welcome to the
devout.]
[Footnote 55: Dig. Nik. XVI. v. 27.]
[Footnote 56: Plutarch mentions a story that the relics of King
Menander were similarly divided into eight portions but the story may
be merely a replica of the obsequies of the Buddha.]
[Footnote 57: IV. 3, 24. The first text is from Mahâparinibbâna Sutta,
V. 24. The second has not been identified.]
[Footnote 58: _Journal des Savants_, Oct. 1906.]
[Footnote 59: See Norman, "Buddhist legends of Asoka and his times,"
in _J.A.S._ Beng. 1910.]
[Footnote 60: Just as the Tooth was considered to be the palladium of
Sinhalese kings.]
[Footnote 61: Record of Buddhist kingdoms. Legge, pp. 34, 35. Fa-Hsien
speaks of the country not the town of Peshawar (Purûshapura).]
[Footnote 62: _Ibid._ p. 109. Fa-Hsien does not indicate that at this
time there was a rival bowl in Ceylon but represents the preacher as
saying it was then in Gandhara.]
[Footnote 63: Watters, I. pp. 202, 203. But the life of Hsüan Chuang
says Benares not Persia.]
[Footnote 64: Marco Polo trans. Yule, II. pp. 320, 330.]
[Footnote 65: For the history of the tooth see _Mahâvaṃsa_, p. 241,
in Turnour's edition: the Dathavaṃsa in Pali written by Dhammakitti
in 1211 A.D.: and the Sinhalese poems Daladapujavali and Dhatuvansaya.
See also Da Cunha, _Memoir on the History of the Tooth Relic of
Ceylon_, 1875, and Yule's notes on Marco Polo, II. pp. 328-330.]
[Footnote 66: _I.e._ about 361 or 310, according to which chronology
is adopted, but neither Fa-Hsien or Hsüan Chuang says anything about
its arrival from India and this part of the story might be dismissed
as a legend. But seeing how extraordinary were the adventures of the
tooth in historical times, it would be unreasonable to deny that it
may have been smuggled out of India for safety.]
[Footnote 67: Various accounts are given of the disposal of these
teeth, but more than enough relics were preserved in various shrines
to account for all. Hsüan Chuang saw or heard of sacred teeth in
Balkh, Nagar, Kashmir, Kanauj and Ceylon. Another tooth is said to be
kept near Foo-chow.]
[Footnote 68: Plausibly supposed to be Puri. The ceremonies still
observed in the temple of Jagannath are suspected of being based on
Buddhist rites. Dantapura of the Kâlingas is however mentioned in some
verses quoted in Dîgha Nikâya XIX. 36. This looks as if the name might
be pre-Buddhist.]
[Footnote 69: They are called Ranmali and Danta in the Râjâvaliya.]
[Footnote 70: There is a striking similarity between this rite and the
ceremonies observed at Puri, where the images of Jagannâtha and his
relatives are conveyed every summer with great pomp to a country
residence where they remain during some weeks.]
[Footnote 71: See Tennent's _Ceylon_, vol. II. pp. 29, 30 and 199 ff.
and the Portuguese authorities quoted.]
[Footnote 72: Fortune in _Two Visits to Tea Countries of China_, vol.
II. pp. 107-8, describes one of these teeth preserved in the Ku-shan
monastery near Foo-chow.]
[Footnote 73: This practice must be very old. The Vinaya of the
Mûlasarvâstivâdins and similar texts speak of offering flowers to a
tooth of the Buddha. See _J.A._ 1914, II. pp. 523, 543. The Pali Canon
too tells us that the relics of the Buddha were honoured with garlands
and perfumes.]
[Footnote 74: Chap. XXXVII.]
[Footnote 75: Both probably represent the tradition current at the
Mahâvihâra, but according to the Talaing tradition Buddhaghosa was a
Brahman born at Thaton.]
[Footnote 76: The Mahâvaṃsa says he composed the Jñânodaya and
Atthasâlinî at this time before starting for Ceylon.]
[Footnote 77: Fa-Hsien is chary of mentioning contemporary celebrities
but he refers to a Well-known monk called Ta-mo-kiu-ti (? Dhammakathi
) and had Buddhaghosa been already celebrated he would hardly have
omitted him.]
[Footnote 78: In the Coms. on the Dîgha and Dhammasangani.]
[Footnote 79: See Rhys Davids and Carpenter's introduction to
_Sumangalavi_, I. p. x.]
[Footnote 80: In the _Journal of Pali Text Soc._ 1891, pp. 76-164.
Since the above was written the first volume of the text of the
Visuddhi magga, edited by Mrs. Rhys Davids, has been published by the
Pali Text Society, 1920.]
[Footnote 81: Bhagavato Sâsanam. See Buddhaghosuppatti, chap. I.]
[Footnote 82: It appears to be unknown to the Chinese Tripitaka. For
some further remarks on the Sinhalese Canon see Book III. chap. XIII.
§ 3.]
[Footnote 83: That is according to Geiger 386-416 A.D. Perhaps he was
the Ta-mo-kiu-ti mentioned by Fa-Hsien.]
[Footnote 84: The tendency seems odd but it can be paralleled in India
where it is not uncommon to rewrite vernacular works in Sanskrit. See
Grierson, _J.R.A.S._ 1913, p. 133. Even in England in the seventeenth
century Bacon seems to have been doubtful of the immortality of his
works in English and prepared a Latin translation of his _Essays._]
[Footnote 85: It is reported with some emphasis as the tradition of
the Ancients in Buddhaghosuppatti, chap. VII. If the works were merely
those which Buddhaghosa himself had translated the procedure seems
somewhat drastic.]
[Footnote 86: Mahâv. XXXIII. Dhammasokova so kasi Piṭakattaye
Saṇgahan. Dhâtusena reigned from 459-477 according to the common
chronology or 509-527 according to Geiger.]
[Footnote 87: Mahâv. XLII. 35 ff.]
[Footnote 88: Mahâv. LXXVIII. 21-23.]
[Footnote 89: Mahâv. XXXVIII. Akâsi patimâgehe bahumangalacetiye
boddhisatte ca tathâsun. Cf. Fa-Hsien, chap. XXVIII. _ad fin._]
[Footnote 90: Or Parakkama Bâhu. Probably 1153-1186.]
[Footnote 91: Mahâvaṃsa LX. 4-7.]
[Footnote 92: Mahâvaṃsa LXXVIII. 21-27.]
[Footnote 93: Mahâv. LXXXIV. If this means the region of Madras, the
obvious question is what learned Buddhist can there have been there at
this period.]
[Footnote 94: _J. Ant_. 1893, pp. 40, 41.]
[Footnote 95: I take this statement from Tennent who gives
references.]
[Footnote 96: See _Ceylon Antiquary_, I. 3, pp. 148, 197.]
[Footnote 97: Râjasinha I (1581) is said to have made Śivaism the
Court religion.]
[Footnote 98: His reign is dated as 1679-1701, also as 1687-1706. It
is remarkable that the Mahâvaṃsa makes _both_ the kings called
Vimala Dharma send religious embassies to Arakan. See XCIV. 15, 16 and
XCVII. 10, 11.]
[Footnote 99: See for some details Lorgeou: Notice sur un Manuscrit
Siamois contenant la relation de deux missions religieuses envoyées de
Siam à Ceylon au milieu du xviii Siècle. _Jour. Asiat_. 1906, pp. 533
ff. The king called Dhammika by the Mahâvaṃsa appears to have been
known as Phra Song Tham in Siam. The interest felt by the Siamese in
Ceylon at this period is shown by the Siamese translation of the
Mahâvaṃsa made in 1796.]
[Footnote 100: Râmañña is the part of Burma between Arakan and Siam.]
[Footnote 101: See Spence Hardy, _Manual of Buddhism_, chap. VII.]
[Footnote 102: A translation by S.Z. Aung and Mrs. Rhys Davids has
been published by the Pali Text Society. The author Anuruddha appears
to have lived between the eighth and twelfth centuries.]
[Footnote 103: The Sinhalese had a special respect for the Abhidhamma.
Kassapa V (_c._ A.D. 930) caused it to be engraved on plates of gold.
_Ep. Zeyl._ I. p. 52.]
[Footnote 104: See Coomaraswamy in _J.R.A.S._ 1909, pp. 283-297.]
[Footnote 105: For intercourse with Camboja see _Epigr. Zeylanica_,
II. p. 74.]
[Footnote 106: A dubious legend relates that they were known in the
north and suppressed by Harsha. See Ettinghausen, _Harsha Vardhana_,
1906, p. 86. Nil Sâdhana appears to be a name for tantric practices.
See Avalon, _Principles of Tantra_, preface, p. xix.]
[Footnote 107: In the reigns of Vohâratissa, Goṭhâbhaya, Mahâsena
and Ambaherana Salamevan. The kings Matvalasen and Mungayinsen are
also known as Sena I and II.]
[Footnote 108: Secret Vinaya.]
[Footnote 109: _Epigraphia Zeylan_. I. p. 4.]
[Footnote 110: One of the king's inscriptions says that he reconciled
the clergy of the three Nikâyas. _Ep. Zeyl_. I. p. 134.]
[Footnote 111: See Bowden in _J.R.A.S._ 1893, pp. 159 ff. The account
refers to the Malwatte Monastery. But it would appear that the
Pâtimokkha is recited in country places when a sufficient number of
monks meet on Uposatha days.]
[Footnote 112: Even the poets were mostly Bhikkhus. Sinhalese
literature contains a fair number of historical and philosophical
works but curiously little about law. See Jolly, _Recht und Sitte_, p.
44.]
[Footnote 113: _E.g._ in the Aṭânâṭiya sutta (Dig. Nik. XXXII.)
friendly spirits teach a spell by which members of the order may
protect themselves against evil ones and in Jâtaka 159 the Peacock
escapes danger by reciting every day a hymn to the sun and the praises
of past Buddhas. See also Bunyiu, _Nanjios Catalogue_, Nos. 487 and
800.]
[Footnote 114: See for an account of the Maha Saman Devale, _Ceylon
Ant._ July, 1916.]
[Footnote 115: So a mediæval inscription at Mahintale of Mahinda IV
records the foundation of Buddhist edifices and a temple to a goddess.
_Ep. Zeyl._ I. p. 103.]
[Footnote 116: Similarly in a religious procession described in the
Mahâvaṃsa (XCIX. 52; about 1750 A.D.) there were "men in the dress
of Brahmâs."]
[Footnote 117: Rock Edicts, II. and XIII. Three inscriptions of Asoka
have been found in Mysore.]
[Footnote 118: The Manimegalei even mentions six systems of philosophy
which are not the ordinary Darśanas but Lokâyatam, Bauddham,
Sâṇkhyam, Naiyâyikam, Vaiśeshikam, Mîmâmsakam.]
[Footnote 119: Kan-chih-pu-lo. Watters, _Yüan Chuang_, II. 226. The
identification is not without difficulties and it has been suggested
that the town is really Negapatam. The Life of the pilgrim says that
it was on the coast, but he does not say so himself and his biographer
may have been mistaken.]
[Footnote 120: See art. by Rhys Davids in _E.R.E._]
[Footnote 121: See Forchhammer, _Jardine Prize Essay_, 1885, pp. 24
ff.]
[Footnote 122: Author of the _Abhidhammattha-sangaha._]
[Footnote 123: Some have been published by the P.T. Society.]