Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A History of Pali Literature v2.c13: Chapter VI. Pāli Chronicles

A History of Pāli Literature v2.c13

Language
English

Contents

Chapter VI. Pāli Chronicles

v2.c13.2

The Dīpavaṃsa¹ or the chronicle of the island of Laṅkā is the earliest known work of its kind. It puts together certain well-known traditions handed down among the Buddhists of Ceylon, sometimes in a clumsy manner. Its diction is in places unintelligible, and its narrative is dull and interrupted by repetitions. Though it is composed in verse, curiously enough the verses are, here and there, intervened by prose passages (cf. Dīpavaṃsa, pp. 33, 64-65). What inference should be drawn from the occurrence of the prose passages in a metrical composition is still a matter of dispute. The point to be settled is whether the traditions on which the Dīpavaṃsa narrative is based were prevalent all in prose or all in verse or in both prose and verse. Its authorship is unknown. The canonical model of this work is to be traced in a number of verses in the Parivārapāṭha of the Vinaya Piṭaka.² The Dīpavaṃsa is an authoritative work well known in Ceylon at the time of Buddhaghosa, and, as a matter of fact, the great Pāli commentator has copiously quoted from it in the introductory portion of his commentary on the Kathāvatthu. Dr. Oldenberg has edited and translated the book into English. He says that the Dīpavaṃsa and the Mahāvaṃsa are in the main nothing but two versions of the same substance, both being based on the historical introduction to the great commentary of the Mahāvihāra. The Dīpavaṃsa follows step by step and almost word for word the traces of the original. According to Oldenberg the Dīpavaṃsa cannot have been written before 302 A.D. because its narrative extends till that year. If we compare the language and the style in which the Dīpavaṃsa and the Mahāvaṃsa are written, it leaves no doubt as to the priority of the former. The Dīpavaṃsa was so popular in Ceylon that King Dhātusena ordered it to be recited in public at an annual festival held in honour of an image of Mahinda in the 5th century A.D. (vide Dīpavaṃsa, ed. by Oldenberg, Intro., pp. 8-9). An idea of its contents can be gathered from the summary given below.

v2.c13.3

¹ Dr. Geiger has published a valuable treatise known as "Dīpavaṃsa und Mahāvaṃsa und die geschichtliche überlieferung in Ceylon," Leipzig, 1905. Translated into English by E. M. Coomaraswamy, Dīpavaṃsa and Mahāvaṃsa, Colombo, 1908. We invite our readers' attention to Dr. Geiger's interesting contribution to the Indian Antiquary, Vol. XXXV, p. 443, on the Dīpavaṃsa and the Mahāvaṃsa and the Historical tradition in Ceylon.

v2.c13.4

² Cf. Parivārapāṭha, Vinaya Piṭaka, Vol. V, p. 3. " Tissatthero ca medhāvī Devatthero ca paṇḍito, | punar eva Sumano medhāvī vinaye ca visārado, bahussuto Cūlanāgo gajo va duppadhamsiyo, | Dhammapālitanāmo ca Rohaṇe sādhupūjito, tassa sisso mahāpañño Khemanāmo tipeṭakī | dīpe tārakarājā va paññāya atirocatha. Upatisso ca medhāvī Phussadevo mahākathī, | punar eva Sumano medhāvī Pupphanāmo bahussuto mahākathī Mahāsīvo piṭake sabbatthakovido, |

v2.c13.5

The first chapter gives an account of Buddha's

v2.c13.6

punar eva Upāli medhāvī vinaye ca visārado,
Mahānāgo mahāpañño saddhammavaṃsakovido, |
punar eva Abhayo medhāvī piṭake sabbatthakovido,
Tissatthero ca medhāvī vinaye ca visārado, |
tassa sisso mahāpañño Pupphanāmo bahussuto
sāsanaṃ anurakkhanto Jambudīpe patiṭṭhito. |
Cūḷabhayo ca medhāvī vinaye ca visārado
Tissatthero ca medhāvī saddhammavaṃsakovido |
Cūḷadevo ca medhāvī vinaye ca visārado
Sīvatthero ca medhāvī sabbatthakovido, |
ete nāgā mahāpaññā vinayaññū maggakovidā
vinayaṃ dīpe pakāsesuṃ piṭakaṃ Tambapaṇṇiyā 'ti.”
Cf. also Dīpavaṃsa, p. 32.
Nibbutē lokanāthasmiṃ vassāni soḷasaṃ tadā,
Ajātasattu catuvīsaṃ, Vijayassa soḷasaṃ ahū,
samasaṭṭhi tadā hoti vassaṃ Upālipaṇḍitaṃ,
Dāsako upasampanno Upālitherasantike.
yavatā buddhaṭṭhassa dhammappatti pakāsitā
sabbaṃ Upāli vācesi navaṅgaṃ jinabhāsitaṃ.

v2.c13.7

first visit to the island of Laṅkā. Gotama obtained perfect enlightenment at the foot of the Bodhi-tree. He surveyed the whole world and perceived the island of Laṅkā, a dwelling-place fit for saints. He foresaw that Mahinda, the son of the Indian King Asoka, would go to the island and propagate the Buddhist faith there. Accordingly he placed a divine guard over the island. He visited Laṅkā and drove the Yakkhas, the inhabitants of the place, out of the island.

v2.c13.8

Buddha visited the island for the second time when the island was on the verge of being destroyed by a terrific war which ensued between the mountain-serpents and the sea-serpents. The Lord exhorted them to live in peace and all the serpents took their refuge in him.

v2.c13.9

His third visit to the island was in connection with an invitation he got from the Nāga King Maṇiakkhika of Kalyāṇī.

v2.c13.10

The Dīpavaṃsa then traces Buddha’s descent from the Prince Mahāsammata, the first inaugurated king of the earth. Gotama Buddha was the son of Suddhodana, chief of Kapilavatthu and Rāhula-bhadda was the son of Gotama. Mention is also made of many other kings who reigned before Suddhodana and after Mahāsammata.

v2.c13.11

A brief account of the first two Buddhist Councils and the different Buddhist schools that arose after the Second Council is also given. The First Council was held under the presidency of Mahākassapa and under the patronage of Ajātasattu. The first collection of Dhamma and Vinaya was made with the assistance of Upāli and Ānanda. The Second Council was held during the reign of Kālāsoka. The Vajjiputtas proclaimed the ten indulgences which had been forbidden by the Tathāgata. The Vajjiputtas seceded from the orthodox party and were called the Mahāsāṃghikas. They were the first schismatics. In imitation of them many heretics arose, e.g., the Gokulikas, the Ekavyohārikas, the Bahussutiyas, etc. In all there were eighteen sects¹—seventeen heretical and one orthodox. Besides these there were other minor schools.

v2.c13.12

¹ Vide Mrs. Rhys Davids, ‘The sects of the Buddhists,’ J.R.A.S., 1891, pp. 409 foll.; schools of Buddhist belief, J.R.A.S., 1892, pp. 1 foll. Cf. Mahāvaṃsa, chap. 5, Mahābodhivamsa, pp. 96-97, Sāsanavaṃsa, p. 14, Kathāvatthupakaraṇa-aṭṭhakathā, pp. 2, 3, 5.

v2.c13.13

The Dīpavaṃsa further deals with the reign of the great Indian King Asoka, the grandson of Candagutta and son of Bimbisāra, and the notable events that took place in his time. It was during his reign that Mahinda went to Ceylon and spread Buddhism there with the help of the Ceylonese King Devānaṃpiyatissa who was a contemporary of Asoka the Great. It is said that this great king built 84,000 vihāras all over the Jambudīpa. The Third Buddhist Council was held under the presidency of Thera Moggaliputta Tissa and under the patronage of Asoka. After the Council was over the thera sent Buddhist missionaries to different countries (Gandhāra, Mahisa, Aparantaka, Mahāraṭṭha, Yona, Himavata, Suvaṇṇabhūmi, and Laṅkā) for the propagation of Buddha’s religion.

v2.c13.14

The Dīpavaṃsa gives a brief account of the colonisation of Ceylon by Vijaya, son of the king of Vaṅga, and also a systematic account of kings of Ceylon who ruled after Vijaya and their activities in promoting the cause of Buddhism. Sīhabāhu, king of Vaṅga, enraged at the bad conduct of Vijaya, his eldest son, banished him from his kingdom. Vijaya with a number of followers went on board a ship and sailed away on the sea. They in course of their journey through the waters visited the seaport towns of Suppāra and Bharukaccha and later on came to Laṅkādīpa. Vijaya and his followers set on colonising this country and built many cities. Vijaya became the first crowned king of the island. After Vijaya we find a long list of kings among whom Devānaṃpiyatissa stands out pre-eminent.

v2.c13.15

It was during the reign of Devānampiyatissa that Buddhism was first introduced into Laṅkā through Mahinda who at the instance of Thera Moggaliputta Tissa, the President of the Third Council, went to Ceylon for the propagation of the Buddhist faith there. It may be noted here that the great Indian King Asoka was a contemporary of Devānampiyatissa and that they were in friendly terms. Asoka sent a branch of the Bodhi-tree of the Tathāgata to Laṅkā which was planted with great honour at Anurādhapura.

v2.c13.16

After the death of Devānampiyatissa Buddhism was not in a flourishing condition. The immediate successors of the king were weak. The Damiḷas came over to Laṅkā from Southern India and occupied the country. The people were tired of the foreign yoke. They found in Duṭṭhagāmaṇi, a prince of the royal family, who could liberate the country from the foreign domination. Duṭṭhagāmaṇi at the head of a huge army drove the Damiḷas out of the country. He was the greatest of the Sinhalese kings. Whether as a warrior or a ruler, Duṭṭhagāmaṇi appears equally great. He espoused the cause of Buddhism and built the Lohapāsāda, nine storeys in height, the Mahāthūpa, and many other vihāras. Indeed Buddhism was in its most flourishing condition during the reign of this great king.

v2.c13.17

Duṭṭhagāmaṇi was followed by a number of kings, among them Vaṭṭagāmaṇi was the greatest. His reign is highly important for the history of Buddhist literature. It was during his reign that the bhikkhus recorded in written books the text of the three piṭakas and also the Aṭṭhakathā. Vaṭṭagāmaṇi was also succeeded by a number of unimportant kings. The account of the kings of Ceylon is brought down to the reign of King Mahāsena who reigned for 27 years from circa 325 to 352 A.D.

v2.c13.18

At the close of the 4th century A.D. there existed in Ceylon, an older work, a sort of chronicle of the history of the island from very early times.

v2.c13.19

Mahāvamsa—its sources. The work was a part of the Aṭṭhakathā which was composed in old Sinhalese prose mingled with Pāli verses. The work existed in the different monasteries of Ceylon and on it the Mahāvamsa is based. The chronicle must have originally come down to the arrival of Mahinda in Ceylon; but it was later carried down to the reign of Mahāsena (4th century A.D.) with whose reign the Mahāvamsa comes to an end. Of this work, the Dīpavamsa presents the first clumsy redaction in Pāli verses. The Mahāvamsa is thus a conscious and intentional rearrangement of the Dīpavamsa as a sort of commentary on the latter.

v2.c13.20

Author. The author of the Mahāvamsa is known as Mahānāman.¹

v2.c13.21

¹ Read ‘Mahānāma in the Pāli Literature’ by Rev. R. Siddhartha, published in I.H.Q., Vol. VIII, No. 3, pp. 462-465.

v2.c13.22

Date. A well-known passage of the later Cūḷavamsa alludes to the fact that King Dhātusena bestowed a thousand pieces of gold and gave orders to write a dīpikā on the Dīpavamsa. This dīpikā has been identified by Fleet with the Mahāvamsa; and if this identification be correct, then the date of its origin is more precisely fixed. Dhātusena reigned at the beginning of the 6th century A.D., and about this time the Mahāvamsa was composed.

v2.c13.23

Historicity of the work. The historicity of the work is established by the following facts :—

v2.c13.24

(a) As to the list of kings before Asoka, namely, the nine Nandas, Candagutta, and Bimbisāra, the statements concerning Bimbisāra and Ajātasattu as contemporaries of the Buddha agree with canonical writings, and, in respect of the names, with those of the Brahmanic tradition. In the number of years of Candagutta’s reign, the Ceylonese tradition agrees with the Indian. Candagutta’s councillor Cāṇaka (Cāṇakya) is also known.

v2.c13.25

(b) The conversion of Ceylon, according to the chronicles, was the work of Mahinda, son of Asoka, and this is confirmed to a considerable extent by the fact that Asoka twice in his inscriptions (Rock Edicts XIII and II) mentions Ceylon to be one of the countries where he sent his religious missionaries and provided for distribution of medicines. It receives further support from Hiuen Tsang who mentions Mahendra, a brother of Asoka, expressly as the man by whom the true doctrine was preached in Sinhala. Even before Mahinda, relations existed between India and Ceylon, for the chronicles relate that Asoka sent to Devānampiyatissa presents for his sacred consecration as the king of Ceylon.

v2.c13.26

(c) An inscription from a relic-casket from Tope No. 2 of the Sāñci group gives us the name of Sapurisasa Mogaliputasa who, according to the tradition, presided over the Third Council under Asoka's rule. There is no doubt that he is identical with Moggaliputta Tissa of the Ceylonese chronicles.

v2.c13.27

(d) The narrative of the transplanting of a branch of the sacred Bodhi-tree from Uruvelā to Ceylon finds interesting confirmation in a representation of the story on the reliefs of the lower and middle architrave of the East gate of the Sāñci Stūpa.

v2.c13.28

(e) The contemporaneity of Devānampiyatissa with Asoka is established on the internal evidence of the Dīpavaṁsa and the Mahāvaṁsa, as well as by archæological evidence. Another contemporaneity of King Meghavarman reigning from c. 352-379 A.D. with Samudragupta is established by the Chinese account of Wang Hiuentse.

v2.c13.29

(f) There is a general historical reminiscence underlying the stories of the three Buddhist Councils recorded in the chronicles.

v2.c13.30

But the historical statements are not always infallible; and the longer the interval between the time of the events and the time when they are related, the greater the possibility of an error, and the more will be the influence of legend noticeable. As regards the period from Vijaya to Devānampiyatissa, there is a considerable distrust of tradition and traditional chronology. Also during the period from Devānampiyatissa to Duṭṭhagāmaṇi there is matter for doubt. But in later periods we encounter no such difficulties and impossibilities. The chronology is credible, the numbers appear less artificial, and the accounts more trustworthy.

v2.c13.31

In the ninth month after Buddhahood, when the Lord Buddha was dwelling at Uruvelā, he one day personally went to Laṅkā and converted a large assembly of Yakkhas as well as a large number of other living beings. After this, he came back to Uruvelā but, again in the fifth year of his Buddhahood when he was residing in the Jetavana, he, in an early morning out of compassion for the nāgas went to the Nāgadīpa (apparently the north-western part of Ceylon) where he preached the five moral precepts and established the three refuges and converted many nāgas. The Lord then came back to Jetavana, but, again in the eighth year of his Buddhahood the Teacher, while dwelling in the Jetavana, went to Kalyāṇī and preached the Dhamma, and then came back to Jetavana.

v2.c13.32

The Chapter II gives a long list of kings beginning with Mahāsammata from whose race sprang the Great Sage, the Tathāgata. Descendants of this race of kings ruled in Kusāvatī, Rājagaha, and Mithilā, and they reigned in groups in their due order. One group whose chief was Okkāka ruled at Kapilavatthu and was known as the Sākyas. In this line was born Yasodharā, a daughter of King Jayasena, and she was married to Sakka Añjana. They had two daughters, Māyā and Pajāpatī, who were both married to Suddhodana, a grandson of Jayasena and son of Sīhahanu. The son of Suddhodana and Māyā was the Lord Buddha whose consort was Bhaddakaccānā, son was Rāhula, great friend was Bimbisāra, and another contemporary was Bimbisāra’s son, Ajātasattu.

v2.c13.33

Text—the visit of the Tathāgata.

v2.c13.34

The Race of Mahāsammata.

v2.c13.35

The First Buddhist Council¹ was convened three months after the parinirvāṇa of the Buddha (at Kuśinārā) in the Sattapanni Cave at Rājagaha where his nearest disciples followed by seven hundred thousand bhikkhus and a large number of laymen assembled to establish the most important rules of the Order as, according to their recollection, the Master himself had laid down. The work of the compilation was entrusted to Thera Ānanda and Thera Upāli. Thera Upāli spoke for the Vinaya, and Thera Ānanda for the rest of the Dhamma; and Thera Mahākassapa seated on the thera’s chair asked questions touching the Vinaya. Both of them expounded them in detail and the theras repeated what they had said. The work of the First Council took seven months to be completed, and the Council rose after it had finished compilation of the Dhamma, and the Canon came to be known as thera tradition.

v2.c13.36

¹ Prof. Przyluski's Le Concile de Rājagriha, pt. I, pp. 8, 30, 66, and 116 should be consulted. Read also Buddhist Councils by Dr. R. C. Majumdar published in the Buddhistic Studies, edited by Dr. B. C. Law. Vide The Buddhist Councils held at Rājagriha and Vesāli translated from Chinese by S. Beal.

v2.c13.37

A century after the parinibbāna of the Buddha when Kālāsoka was the reigning king, there were at Vaiśālī many bhikkhus of the Vajji clan who used to preach the Ten points of Buddhism. But the theras of Pāvā and Avanti with their leader, the great Thera Revata, declared that these Ten points were unlawful, and wanted to bring the dispute to a peaceful end. All of them followed by a large number of bhikkhus then went to Vaiśālī and there met the bhikkhus of the Vajji clan. Kālāsoka too went there, and, hearing both sides, decided in favour of the true faith, held out by the theras of Pāvā and Avanti. The brotherhood then came together finally to decide, and Revata resolved to settle the matter by an Ubbāhikā wherein four from each of the two parties were represented. Thera Revata, in order to hold a Council, chose also seven hundred out of all that troop of bhikkhus, and all of them met in the Vālikārāma and compiled the Dhamma in eight months. The heretical bhikkhus who taught the wrong doctrine founded another school which came to bear the name Mahāsānghika.

v2.c13.38

The Third Council was held under better circumstances during the reign of King Asoka at the Asokārāma in Pāṭaliputta under the guidance and presidentship of Thera Moggalliputta Tissa. Within a hundred years from the compilation of the doctrine in the Second Council, there arose eighteen different sects in the Buddhist Order with their respective schools and systems, and another schism in the Church was threatened. At this time, 218 years from the parinibbāna of the Buddha, Asoka came to the throne, and after a reign of four years, he consecrated himself as king in Pāṭaliputta. And, not long after, Sāmaṇera Nigrodha preached the doctrine to the king, and confirmed him with many of his followers in the refuges and precepts of duty. Thereupon the king became bountiful to the bhikkhus and eventually entered the doctrines. From that time the revenue of the brotherhood was on the increase but the heretics became envious, and they too, taking the yellow robe and dwelling along with the bhikkhus, began to proclaim their own doctrine as the doctrine of the Buddha, and carry out their own practices even as they wished. They became so unruly that King Asoka was obliged to arrange an assembly of the community of bhikkhus in its full numbers at the splendid Asokārāma under the presidency of Thera Moggalliputta Tissa. Then did the king question one by one on the teachings of the Buddha. The heretical bhikkhus expounded their wrong doctrine, upon which the king caused to be expelled from the Order all such bhikkhus and their followers. Only the rightly believing bhikkhus answered that the Lord taught the Vibhajja-doctrine, and this was supported and confirmed by Thera Moggalliputta Tissa. Three thousand learned bhikkhus were then selected to make a compilation of the true doctrine under the guidance of the great thera, and they completed their work at the Asokārāma in nine months.

v2.c13.39

The coming and consecration of Vijaya and others. Vijaya of evil conduct was the son and prince regent of King Sīhabāhu, ruler of the kingdom of Lāḷa; but he was banished from the kingdom by his father for his many intolerable deeds of violence. Boarded on a ship with his large number of followers with their wives and children, Vijaya first landed at Suppāraka, but afterwards, embarking again, landed in Laṅkā in the region called Tambapaṇṇi, where he eventually married and consecrated himself as king and built cities. After his death, he was succeeded by his brother’s son Paṇḍuvāsudeva who married Subhaddakaccānā, and consecrated himself as king. He was in his turn succeeded by his son Abhaya who was followed by Paṇḍukābhaya. Between Paṇḍukābhaya and Abhaya there was no king for 17 years.

v2.c13.40

Devanāmpiyatissa. Paṇḍukābhaya’s son Muṭasiva followed his father and was succeeded by his second son Devanāmpiyatissa whose friend was Dhammāsoka whom he had never seen, but to whom he was pleased to send a priceless treasure as a gift. Dhammāsoka appreciated the gift, and sent as a return-gift another treasure to Devanāmpiyatissa who was now consecrated as king of Laṅkā.

v2.c13.41

After the termination of the Third Council, Moggalliputta Tissa Thera, in order to establish the religion in adjacent countries, sent out learned and renowned missionaries to Kasmīr, Gandhāra, Mahīsamaṇḍala, Vanavāsa, Aparāntaka, Mahāraṭṭha, Suvaṇṇabhūmi (Burma), and to the Yona country. To the lovely island of Laṅkā, he sent Mahinda, the theras Iṭṭhiya, Uttiya, Sambala, and Bhaddasāla to preach the religion.

v2.c13.42

Mahinda came out to Laṅkā with four theras and Saṅghamittā’s son Sumana, the gifted sāmaṇera. Even on their landing many devas, nāgas, and supaṇṇas were converted to the doctrine, and he with his followers entered the capital city where people thronged to see him, and he preached the true faith unto them. The wise King Devānaṃpiyatissa heard him explain some of the miracles and teachings and episodes of the life of the Buddha, and became one of his most devoted patrons. The king then built for the great thera the Mahāvihāra, henceforth known as the Mahāmeghavanārāma, which the thera accepted. Next the king built for him and his followers another vihāra on the Cetiyapabbata, henceforth known as the Cetiyapabbata-vihāra, which too the thera accepted. The wise king then became eager to enshrine one of the relics of the Great Lord the Buddha in a stūpa, so that he and the followers of the faith might behold the Conqueror in his relics and worship him. At his request Mahinda sent Sumana to King Dhammāsoka with the instruction to bring from him the relics of the Sage and the alms-bowl of the Master, and then to go to Sakka in the fair city of the gods to bring the collar-bone of the Master from him. Sumana faithfully carried out the instruction, and when he landed down on the Missaka mountain with the relics, the king and the people were all filled with joy, and thirty thousand of them received the pabbajjā of the Conqueror’s doctrine. Later on the king sent his nephew and minister Ariṭṭha again to Dhammāsoka to bring the Bodhi-tree which at Dhammāsoka’s approach severed of itself and transplanted itself in the vase provided for the purpose. Ariṭṭha then came back on board a ship across the ocean to the capital with the holy tree and a gay rejoicing began. With the Bodhi-tree came also Therī Saṅghamittā with eleven followers. The Tree and its Saplings were planted with due ceremony at different places, and royal consecration was bestowed on them. Under the direction of the Thera Mahinda who converted the island, Devānampiyatissa continued to build vihāras and thūpas one after another, and thus ruled for 40 years, after which he died. He was succeeded on the throne by his son, Prince Uttiya; but in the eighth year of his reign, the great Thera Mahinda, who had brought light to the island of Laṅkā, died at the age of sixty; and the whole island was struck with sorrow at his death, and the funeral rights were observed with great ceremony.

v2.c13.43

After a reign of ten years Uttiya died, and was followed by Mahāsiva, Sūratissa, two Damiḷas, Sena and Guttaka, Asela and Eḷāra, a Damiḷa from the Cola country, in succession. Eḷāra was killed by Duṭṭhagāmaṇi who succeeded the former as king.

v2.c13.44

Gāmaṇi, for such was his original name, was born of Prince Kākavaṇṇatissa, overlord of Mahāgāma, and Vihāradevī, daughter of the king of Kalyāṇī. Gāmaṇi was thus descended through the dynasty of Mahānāga, second brother of Devānampiyatissa. Kākavaṇṇatissa had another son by Vihāradevī named Tissa, and both Gāmaṇi and Tissa grew up together. Now when they were ten and twelve years old, Kākavaṇṇatissa, who was a believing Buddhist, wanted his sons to make three promises; first, they would never turn away from the bhikkhus, secondly, the two brothers would ever be friendly towards each other, and, thirdly, never would they fight the Damiḷas. The two brothers made the first two promises but turned back to make the third, upon which their father became sorry. Gāmaṇi gradually grew up to sixteen years, vigorous, renowned, intelligent, majestic, and mighty. He gathered round him mighty and great warriors from far and near villages, as well as from the royal and noble families. Gāmaṇi developed a strong hatred towards the Damiḷas who had than once usurped the throne of Laṅkā, and determined to quell them down. No gathered a strong army of brave and sturdy warriors round him, he approached his father for permission to make war on the Damiḷas. But the king, though repeatedly requested, declined to give any such permission. As a pious Buddhist devoted to the cult of ahiṃsā, he could not give permission for war that would result in bloodshed and cruelty. He also dissuaded the warriors to fight for his sons. Gāmaṇi, thereupon, became disgusted with his father, and went to Malaya; and because of his anger and disgust towards his father, he was named as Duṭṭhagāmaṇi. In the meantime King Kāka-vaṇṇatissa died, and there arose a deadly scramble for the throne between the two brothers, Duṭṭhagāmaṇi and Tissa. Two battles were fought with considerable loss of life, and Duṭṭhagāmaṇi eventually became victorious. Peace was then concluded and the two brothers began to live together again. He took some time to provide for his people who had suffered during the last wars, and then went out to fight against the Damiḷas. He overpowered Damiḷa Chattā, conquered Damiḷa Titthamba and many other mighty Damiḷa princes and kings. Deadly were the wars that he fought with them, but eventually he came out victorious, and united the whole of Laṅkā into one kingdom. Gāmaṇi was then consecrated with great pomp, and not long after he himself consecrated the Maricavaṭṭi vihāra which he had built up. Next took place the consecration of the Lohapāsāda; but the building up of the Great Thūpa was now to be taken up. He took some time to the obtaining of the wherewithal, i.e., the materials of the thūpa from different quarters, and then began the work in which masons and workmen from far and near did take part, and at the beginning of which a great assemblage of theras from different countries took place. When the work of the building had considerably advanced, the king ordered the making of the Relic-chamber in which the relics were afterwards enshrined with due eclat, pomp, and ceremony. But ere yet the making of the chatta and the plaster work of the monument was finished, the king fell ill which later on proved fatal. He sent for his younger brother Tissa, and asked him to complete the thūpa, which Tissa did. The ill king passed round the Cetiya on a palanquin and did homage to it, and left with Tissa the charge of doing all the work that still remained to be done towards it. He then enumerated some of the pious works he had done in his life to the theras and bhikkhus assembled round his bed, and one of the theras spoke to him on the unconquerable foe of death. Then the king became silent, and he saw that a golden chariot came down from the Tusita heaven. Then he breathed his last, and was immediately seen reborn and standing in celestial form in a car that had come down from the Tusita heaven.

v2.c13.45

Duṭṭhagāmaṇi was succeeded by his brother Saddhātissa who ruled for 18 years, and built many cetiyas and vihāras. He was followed by Thūlathana, Lañjatissa, Khallāṭanāga, and Vaṭṭagāmaṇi. The last named was a famous king during whose reign the Damiḷas became powerful and again usurped the throne. Vaṭṭagāmaṇi was thus followed by Damiḷa Puḷahattha, Damiḷa Bāhiya, Damiḷa Panayamāraka, Damiḷa Piḷayamāraka, and Damiḷa Dāthika. But the Damiḷas were dispossessed of their power not long after by Vaṭṭagāmaṇi, who now ruled for a few more years.

v2.c13.46

After his death, his adopted son Mahācūḷi Mahātissa reigned for 14 years with piety and justice. He was followed by Coranāga, Tissa, Siva, Damiḷa Vaṭuka, Brahmin Niliya, Queen Anulā, Kūṭakaṇṇa Tissa, Bhātīkābhaya, and Mahādāthika Mahānāga.¹ All of them had short reigns and were builders of vihāras and cetiyas. Anulā was a notorious queen and to her love intrigues at least four kings, Siva, Tissa, Damiḷa Vaṭuka, and Brahmin Niliya, lost their lives. Except Tissa, they were all upstarts and they rightly deserved the fate that had been theirs.

v2.c13.47

¹ In the list of Ancient Kings of Ceylon the name of Dārubhatikatissa appears after Damiḷa Vaṭuka (vide Geiger, Mahāvaṃsa, Introduction, p. xxxvii).

v2.c13.48

Twelve kings. After Mahādāthika’s death, Āmaṇḍagāmaṇi Abhaya, his son, followed him on the throne. He was followed by Kaṇirajānutissa, Cūḷābhaya, Queen Sīvali, Iḷanāga, Candamukha Siva, Yasalālakatissa, Subharāja, Vaṅkanāsikatissaka, Gajabāhukagāmaṇi, and Mahallaka Nāga in succession. Most of these kings were worthless, and their merit lay only in the building or extension of vihāras and other religious establishments and in court-intrigues. Two of them, Iḷanāga and Subharāja were, however, comparatively more noted for their acts of bravery and valour exhibited mostly in local wars.

v2.c13.49

Thirteen kings. After the death of Mahallanāga, his son Bhātikatissaka reigned for 24 years. He was followed in succession by Kaṇiṭṭhatissaka, Khujjanāga, Kuñcanāga, Sirināga, Tissa, Abhayanāga, Sirināga, Vijayakumāraka, Saṃghatissa, Sirisamghabodhi, Goṭhābhaya, and Jeṭṭhatissa who are grouped together in a chapter entitled “Thirteen Kings” in the Mahāvaṃsa. Scarcely there is anything important enough to be recorded about these kings, besides the fact that most of them ruled as pious Buddhists, always trying to further the cause of the religion by the foundation and extension of religious establishments, and that they carried out the affairs of the kingdom through wars, intrigues, rebellions, and local feuds.

v2.c13.50

King Mahāsena. King Jeṭṭhatissa was succeeded by his younger brother, Mahāsena, who ruled for 27 years and during whose reign, most probably, the Mahāvaṃsa was given its present form. Originally it ended with the death of King Duṭṭhagāmaṇi, but now it was probably brought up-to-date.

v2.c13.51

On his accession to the throne, he forbade the people to give food to any bhikkhu dwelling in the Mahāvihāra on penalty of a fine of hundred pieces of money. The bhikkhus thus fell in want, and they left the vihāra which remained empty for nine years. It was then destroyed by the ill-advisers of the king and its riches were removed to enrich the Abhayagirivihāra. The king wrought many a deed of wrong upon which his minister Meghavaṇṇabhaya became angry and became a rebel. A battle was imminent, but the two former friends met, and the king, repentant of his misdeeds, promised to make good all the harm done to the religious establishments of Laṅkā. The king rebuilt the Mahāvihāra, and founded amongst others two new vihāras, the Jetavanavihāra and the Maṇihīravihāra. He was also the builder of the famous Thūpārāmavihāra, as well as of two other nunneries. He also excavated many tanks and did many other works of merit.

v2.c13.52

Dr. Kern says in his Manual of Indian Buddhism that the Mahāvaṃsa deserves a special notice on account of its being so highly important for the religious history of Ceylon. Dr. Geiger who has made a thorough study of the Pāli chronicles, has edited the text of the Mahāvaṃsa for the P.T.S., London, and has ably translated it into English for the same society, with the assistance of the late Dr. M. H. Bode. G. Turnour’s edition and translation of this text are now out of date. Prof. Geiger has translated it into German. Mrs. Bode has retranslated it into English and Dr. Geiger himself has revised the English translation. There is a commentary on the Mahāvaṃsa known as the Mahāvaṃsaṭīkā (Vaṃsatthapakāsinī revised and edited by Baṭuwantudawe and Ñānissara, Colombo, 1895) written by Mahānāma of Anurādhapura. This commentary is helpful in reading the text. It contains many additional data not found in the text. Readers are referred to the Mahāwanse, ed. by Turnour, Ceylon, 1837, Mahāvaṃsa revised and edited by H. Sumaṅgala Baṭuwantudawe, Colombo, 1883, and Cambodjan Mahāvaṃsa by E. Hardy, J.R.A.S., 1902. There is a Sinhalese translation by Wijesinha, Colombo, 1889 (chapter and verse).

v2.c13.53

It has long been ascertained that both Dīpavaṃsa and Mahāvaṃsa owe their origin to a common source—the Aṭṭhakathā-Mahāvaṃsa of the Mahāvihāra monastery, which, evidently was a sort of chronicle of the history of the island from very early times, and must have formed an introductory part of the old theological commentary (aṭṭhakathā) on the canonical writings of the Buddhists. Both Oldenberg and Geiger, the celebrated editors of the Dīpavaṃsa and Mahāvaṃsa respectively, are of opinion that this Aṭṭhakathā-Mahāvaṃsa was composed in Sinhalese prose, interspersed, no doubt with verse in the Pāli language. This book (Mahāvaṃsa-aṭṭhakathā) existed in various recensions in the different monasteries of the island, and the authors of both Dīpavaṃsa and Mahāvaṃsa borrowed the materials of their works from one or other of the various recensions of that Aṭṭhakathā. This borrowing presumably was independent, and quite in their own way; but even then, in the main, they are nothing but two different versions of the same thing. But as the Dīpavaṃsa had been composed at least one century and a half earlier than the Mahāvaṃsa, it shows perhaps more faithfulness to the original, i.e., to the Aṭṭhakathā, for, as Oldenberg points out, that “author of the Dīpavaṃsa borrowed not only the materials of his own work but also the mode of expression, and even whole lines, word for word, from the Aṭṭhakathā. In fact, a great part of the Dīpavaṃsa has the appearance not of an independent, continual work, but of a composition of such single stanzas extracted from a work or works like the Aṭṭhakathā ”.¹ But the author of the Mahāvaṃsa is not so fettered in his style or execution. Coming as he did at least one century and a half later (i.e., the beginning of the 6th century A.D.) than the author of the Dīpavaṃsa when the islanders had attained much more freedom in their learning and writing of the Pāli language he evidently showed greater ease and skill in his use of the language, as well as in his style and composition, and finally, a more free and liberal use of the material of his original.

v2.c13.54

¹ Dīpavaṃsa (Oldenberg), Introduction, p. 6.

v2.c13.55

It is well known that Mahānāman was the author of the Mahāvaṃsa, whereas we are completely in the dark as to the name of the author of the Dīpavaṃsa. A further proof of the fact that both the authors were indebted to a common source is provided by a very striking coincidence of the two narratives, namely, that both the chronicles finish their accounts with the death of King Mahāsena who flourished about the beginning of the 4th century A.D. It was not much later that the Dīpavaṃsa was composed, but as the Mahāvaṃsa was composed still later, we might as well expect the bringing down of the narrative to a later date. But this was not the case, apparently for the fact that their common source, the Aṭṭhakathā-Mahāvaṃsa of the Mahāvihāra monastery, as shown by Oldenberg, was very intimately connected with King Mahāsena with whose reign the glorious destinies of the monastery came practically to an end, and there the Aṭṭhakathā could only logically stop its account.¹

v2.c13.56

¹ Dīpavaṃsa (Oldenberg), Intro., p. 8.

v2.c13.57

But the historical writers of the Mahāvihāra fraternity did not at once bring down their account to the reign of Mahāsena. The Aṭṭhakathā-Mahāvaṃsa seems to have originally brought down its account only to the arrival of Mahinda in Ceylon; but it was later on continued and brought down to the reign of Mahāsena, where both the Dīpavaṃsa and the Mahāvaṃsa as already noticed, came to an end.

v2.c13.58

That the Dīpavaṃsa was well known to the author of the Mahāvaṃsa is evident from the very arrangement of the chapters and events of the narrative, so much so that the Mahāvaṃsa seems to be more an explanatory commentary on the earlier chronicle. The account in the Dīpavaṃsa is condensed, and the sequence of events and characters presents the form more of a list and catalogue than of any connected account. The Mahāvaṃsa, on the other hand, is elaborate, more embellished, and seems rather to explain the catalogue of events and characters of the earlier chronicle so as to give it the form of a connected narrative. Geiger rightly thinks in this connection that “the quotation of the Mahāvaṃsa of the ancients in the proœmium of our Mahāvaṃsa refers precisely to the Dīpavaṃsa ”.¹ The well-known passage of the Cūḷavaṃsa (38. 59) “datvā sahassaṃ dīpetuṃ Dīpavaṃsaṃ samādisi” which Fleet translates as “he (King Dhātusena) bestowed a thousand (pieces of gold) and gave orders to write a dīpikā on the Dīpavaṃsa ” also lends support to this view,² for this Dīpikā, Fleet says, is identical with Mahāvaṃsa.

v2.c13.59

¹ Mahāvaṃsa (Geiger), Intro., p. xi.

v2.c13.60

² Mahāvaṃsa (Geiger), Intro., p. xi, where Geiger quotes Fleet.

v2.c13.61

It is interesting to compare the more important chapters of the two chronicles to see how their subject-matters agree or differ. We have already indicated that their contents are almost identical; in the Dīpavaṃsa they are condensed, and in the Mahāvaṃsa, elaborate. After an identical account of the race of Mahāsammata, both the earlier and later chronicles proceed to give a more or less detailed account of the three Buddhist Councils. The account of the First Council is almost the same. Five hundred chosen bhikkhus assembled under the leadership of Mahākassapa in the Satta-paṇṇa cave at Rājagaha and composed the collection of the Dhamma and the Vinaya. The Dipavaṃsa mentions the fourth month after the Master’s death as the time at which the First Council was held. This was the second Vassa-month, i.e., Sāvaṇa. This date is substantially confirmed by that provided by the Mahāvaṃsa which mentions the bright half of Āsāḍa, the fourth month of the year as the beginning of the Council. But as the first month was spent in preparations, the actual proceedings did not begin till the month of Sāvaṇa. The account of the Second Council too is substantially the same. It was brought about by the dasa-vatthūni of the Vajjians of Vesālī, a relaxation of monastic discipline; and 700 bhikkhus took part in the discussion of the Council. It was held in the 11th year of the reign of Kālāśoka; there is, however, a slight discrepancy about the locality where the Council was held. The Mahāvaṃsa mentions the Vālikārāma, whereas the Dīpavaṃsa mentions the Kūṭāgārasālā of the Mahāvana monastery as the place of the Council. The tradition of a schism in the Second Council is also identical in the two chronicles. The Dīpavaṃsa states that the heretical monks held a separate Council called the Mahāsaṃgīti, and prepared a different redaction of the Scriptures. The tradition is also noticed in the Mahāvaṃsa where it is related that they formed a separate sect under the name Mahāsāṃghika. The account of the Third Council is also identical. It was held at Pāṭaliputta under the presidency of Tissa Moggaliputta and lasted for nine months.

v2.c13.62

The list of Indian kings before Asoka and pieces of historical account connected with them, the traditional date of the Buddha’s parinirvāṇa, and the duration of reigns of individual Indian kings are always almost identical in both the chronicles. The story of the conversion of Ceylon, that of the coming of Vijaya and his consecration, the list and account of Ceylonese kings up to Devānaṃpiyatissa and that of the latter’s contemporaneity with King Dhammāsoka, are for all practical purposes the same. But before the two chronicles take up the account of Mahinda's coming to Ceylon, the Mahāvaṃsa inserts a somewhat elaborate account of the converting of different countries under the efficient missionary organisation of Moggaliputta Thera. The Mahāvaṃsa thus rightly stresses the fact that it was a part of the religious policy of the great thera that Mahinda came to Ceylon. Here again the accounts of the Dīpavaṃsa and the Mahāvaṃsa are identical; then follow the identical accounts of Mahinda's entry into the capital, his acceptance of the Mahāvihāra and that of the Cetiyapabbata-vihāra, the arrival of the relics, the receiving and coming of the Bodhi tree, and the Nibbāna of the Thera Mahinda. From Vijaya to Devānaṃpiyatissa the tradition and traditional chronology are almost identical; there is only a discrepancy about the date of Devānaṃpiyatissa himself. The earlier chronicle states that King Devānaṃpiyatissa was consecrated king in the 237th year after the Buddha's death, whereas the Mahāvaṃsa places it on the first day of the bright half of the ninth month, Maggasira (Oct.-Nov.), showing a discrepancy involved probably in the chronological arrangement itself.¹

v2.c13.63

¹ See Mahāvaṃsa (Geiger), Intro., pp. xxxi foll.

v2.c13.64

The account of the kings from the death of Devānaṃpiyatissa to Duṭṭhagāmaṇi is also identical in the two chronicles. But the Mahāvaṃsa is much more detailed and elaborate in its account of King Duṭṭhagāmaṇi, giving as it does in separate chapters the topics of the birth of Prince Gāmaṇi, the levying of the warriors for the war of the two brothers, Gāmaṇi and Tissa, the victory of Duṭṭhagāmaṇi, the consecrating of the Maricavaṭṭi vihāra, the consecrating of the Lohapāsāda, the obtaining of the wherewithal to build the Mahāthūpa, the beginning of the Mahāthūpa, the making of the relic-chamber for the Mahāthūpa, the enshrining of the relics and finally his death: whereas the Dīpavaṃsa touches, and that also in brief, the two accounts only in their main outline.

v2.c13.65

The list and account of the later kings from Duṭṭhagāmaṇi to Mahāsena in the Dīpavaṃsa are very brief. In the Mahāvaṃsa, however, though the essential points and topics are the same, the accounts differ considerably in the detail which may be due to the more liberal use by the author of the original as well as of other historical and traditional sources than the Aṭṭhakathā-Mahāvaṃsa. He might have also used those indigenous historical literature and tradition that might have grown up after the author of the Dīpavaṃsa had laid aside his pen. This is apparent from a comparison of the respective accounts of any individual king, say, the last King Mahāsena. Thus the Dīpavaṃsa relates that while he was in search of really good and modest bhikkhus, he met some wicked bhikkhus; and knowing them not he asked them the sense of Buddhism and the true doctrine. Those bhikkhus, for their own advantage, taught him that the true doctrine was a false doctrine. In consequence of his intercourse with those wicked persons, he performed evil as well as good deeds, and then died. The Mahāvaṃsa account is otherwise. It gives the story of his consecration by Saṅghamittā, the account of the vicissitudes of the Mahāvihāra, how it was left desolate for nine years, how a hostile party succeeded in obtaining the king’s sanction for destroying the monastery, why for this fault of the king the minister became a rebel, how the Mahāvihāra was reconstructed and came to be again inhabited by bhikkhus, how an offence of the gravest kind was made against Thera Tissa and how he was expelled, how the king built the Maṇihīra-vihāra, destroying the temples of some brahmanical gods, and how he built many other ārāmas and vihāras, and a number of tanks and canals for the good of his subjects.

v2.c13.66

One such instance as just noticed is sufficient to explain the nature of the difference in the accounts of individual kings as given in the two chronicles. The duration of ruling years as given to individual kings is in most cases identical; there are only a few discrepancies, e.g., with regard to the reigns of Sena and Gutta, Lajjitissa (the Mahāvaṃsa gives the name as Lañjatissa), Niliya, Tissa Yasalāla, Abhaya, and Tissa. In the case of Sena and Gutta, the Dīpavaṃsa gives the duration of rule as 12 years, whereas the Mahāvaṃsa gives it as 22 years. The Dīpavaṃsa gives 9 years 6 months to Lajjitissa, whereas the later chronicle gives 9 years 8 months. Niliya is given 3 months in the earlier chronicle, but in the later chronicle he is given 6 months. Tissa Yasalāla is given 8 years 7 months, and 7 years and 8 months respectively; and the order of rule of Abhaya and Tissa of the Dīpavaṃsa is transposed in the Mahāvaṃsa as Tissa and Abhaya, and Abhaya is given only 8 years in place of 22 as given by the Dīpavaṃsa.

v2.c13.67

In the early days of the study of the Ceylonese chronicles, scholars were sceptical about their value as sources of authentic historical tradition and information. But now after lapse of years when the study of Indian and Ceylonese history has far advanced, it is now comparatively easy for us to estimate their real value.

v2.c13.68

Like all chronicles, the Dīpavaṃsa and the Mahāvaṃsa contain germs of historical truth buried deep under a mesh of absurd fables and marvellous tales. But if they do contain mainly myths and marvels and read more like fantasies, they are like other chronicles of their time. This, however, should not be used as any argument for completely rejecting the chronicles as positively false and untrustworthy. It is, however, important that one should read them with a critical eye as all records of popular and ecclesiastical tradition deserve to be read. Buried in the illumination of myths, miracles, and legends, there are indeed germs which go to make up facts of history, but they can only

v2.c13.69

The value of the Ceylonese chronicles.

v2.c13.70

be gleaned by a very careful elimination of all mythical and unessential details which the pious sentiment of the believer gathered round the nucleus. “If we pause”, Geiger rightly says, “first at internal evidence then the Ceylonese chronicles will assuredly at once win approval in that they at least wished to write the truth. Certainly the writers could not go beyond the ideas determined by their age and their social position, and beheld the events of a past time in the mirror of a one-sided tradition. But they certainly did not intend to deceive hearers or readers.”¹

v2.c13.71

¹ Mahāvaṃsa—Geiger, Intro., p. xv.

v2.c13.72

The very fact that both Dīpavaṃsa and Mahāvaṃsa are based on the earlier Aṭṭhakathā-Mahāvaṃsa, a sort of a chronicle which itself was based upon still earlier chronicles, ensures us in our belief that they contain real historical facts, for, with the Aṭṭhakathā, the tradition goes back several centuries, and becomes almost contemporary with the historical incidents narrated in the chronicle.

v2.c13.73

Even in the very introductory chapters, there are statements which agree with other canonical writings, and find confirmation in our already known facts of history. Such are the statements that Bimbisāra was a great friend of Buddha, and both Bimbisāra and Ajātasattu were contemporaries of the Master. There does not seem to be any ground for rejecting the tradition of the chronicles that Gotama was five years older than Bimbisāra, though the duration of rule ascribed to each of them disagrees with that ascribed by the Purāṇas. But whatever that might be, there can hardly be any doubt as to the authenticity of the list of Indian kings from Bimbisāra to Asoka provided by the chronicles. The Jain tradition has, no doubt, other names; “this”, as pointed out by Geiger, “does not affect the actual agreement. There can be no doubt that the nine Nandas as well as the two forerunners of Asoka, Candagutta and Bindusāra, were altogether historical personages.” But more than this is the complete agreement of the Ceylonese and Pauranic tradition in the duration of reign, namely 24, ascribed to Candagutta. The discrepancy of the two traditions in respect of regnal duration of Bindusāra and Asoka, namely 3 years and 1 year respectively, is almost negligible. Still more interesting is the name of Canakka (Cāṇakya), the brahmin minister of Candagutta, who was known to the authors of the Dīpavaṃsa and the Mahāvaṃsa.

v2.c13.74

So much with regard to the historical value of the Ceylonese chronicles in respect of Indian history. But more valuable are the chronicles with regard to the history of Ceylon. As regards the oldest period from Vijaya to Devānaṃpiyatissa the chronicles are certainly untrustworthy to the extent that the duration of years ascribed to each reign seems incredible in view of the fact that they appear to be calculated according to a set scheme, and present certain insuperable difficulties of chronology with regard to one or two reigns, e.g., of King Paṇḍukābhaya and Muṭasiva. Moreover, the day of Vijaya’s arrival in Ceylon has been made to synchronise with the date of Buddha’s death, which itself is liable to create a distrust in our mind. But even in the first and the earliest period of Ceylonese history, there are certain elements of truth which can hardly be questioned. Thus there is no ground for doubting the authenticity of the list of kings from Vijaya to Devānaṃpiyatissa; nor is there any reason for rejecting the account of Paṇḍukābhaya’s campaigns, as well as the detailed account of the reign of Devānaṃpiyatissa, which seem decidedly to be historical. We have also sufficient reason to believe the contemporaneity and friendship of Tissa and Asoka who exchanged greetings of gifts between themselves.

v2.c13.75

As for the period from Devānaṃpiyatissa to Mahāsena, the chronicles may safely but intelligently be utilised as of value. There are no doubt gaps in the traditional chronology which have been carelessly filled in, notably in the period from Devānampiyatissa to Duṭṭhagāmaṇi, but after Duṭṭhagāmaṇi there is no such careless and fictitious filling in of gaps, nor any set-up system of chronology, and on the whole the list of kings and their duration of reigns are credible. But even where the chronology is doubtful, there is no ground whatsoever for doubting the kernel of historical truth that lies mixed up with mythical tales in respect of the account of each individual reign, say, for example, of the reign of Duṭṭhagāmaṇi. It may, therefore, be safely asserted that the Ceylonese chronicles can be utilised, if not as an independent historical source, at least as a repository of historical tradition in which we can find important confirmatory evidence of our information with regard to early Indian and contemporary Ceylonese history.

First 74 of 282 passages. Read on

Cites (35)