The Pali Literature of Ceylon c8: Chapter IV. The Beginnings of Literary Activity

The Pāli Literature of Ceylon c8

Language: English

Chapter IV. The Beginnings of Literary Activity

c8.2

MAHĀ-SENA’S son and successor, Siri Meghavaṇṇa, did all that lay in his power to make amends for the mischief which his father had committed. He assembled all the monks of the Mahā-vihāra, who had been scattered abroad by the measures of Mahā-sena and reverentially asked them how best he could make up for the sacrileges of which his father had been guilty. Acting under their advice, he rebuilt the Brazen Palace, which was the proudest building in the capital; he reconstructed all the pariveṇas (the temple-schools) which had been demolished and restored all the lands that had been endowed for their maintenance. Meghavaṇṇa was evidently a student of history, and when he learnt of Mahinda, who had converted the island to Buddhism, he caused an image of the Thera to be made and held a great festival in his honour. For the ceremony of dedication he sent messengers and summoned to the city all the monks from the various parts of the country; the Mahā-vaṃsa gives a glowing description of the rejoicings that marked the event.¹ He also decreed that a similar festival should be held annually at the conclusion of the rainy season. This order was for a very long time carried out; but, like many another institution, it has now perished.² But the most outstanding event of the reign was the bringing over to Ceylon of the Right Eye-Tooth, the Dāṭhādhātu, from Kalinga. In the introductory verses of the Dāṭhā-vaṃsa the author tells us that his work was based on an ancient poem in Sinhalese (Elu) verse, called the Daḷadā-vaṃsa. And this poem appears to have been composed in the ninth year of Meghavaṇṇa’s reign—the very year of the arrival of the tooth relic in Ceylon—by the king’s express command. It is said to have contained a history of the relic from the death of the Buddha to its arrival in Ceylon. There seems to have been another work, called the *Dāṭhā-dhātu-vaṃsa*, composed either at this time or shortly after and mentioned in *Mahā-vaṃsa* XXXVII. In a footnote to his translation of this chapter Turnour mentions that the work was still extant at the time (1837).¹ In spite of diligent search I have not been able to see a copy. Major Forbes identifies the *Daḷadā-vaṃsa* with this work, but gives no reason for his conclusions.²

c8.3

¹ M.V., xxxvii, vv. 66 foll.

c8.4

² An attempt, however, has recently been made to revive it.

c8.5

¹ Turnour, *Mahā-vaṃsa*, p. 241, footnote.

c8.6

² See *Dāṭhā-vaṃsa* discussion.

c8.7

Whatever information we have at present is based on the *Dāṭhā-vaṃsa*, written by Dhammakitti in the twelfth century A.D. There we learn that the relic was introduced into Ceylon from Dantapura in the ninth year of Siri Meghavaṇṇa’s reign by Hemamālā, daughter of Guhasīva, king of Kaliṅga, and her husband, Danta Kumāra, a prince of the Ujjenī royal family. During more than eight centuries the relic had remained undisturbed at Dantapura; but Guhasīva, when he became a convert from Brahmanism to Buddhism, paid homage to the Tooth and thereby incurred the implacable wrath of the Brahman priests. They complained to his suzerain lord of Pāṇḍu at Pāṭaliputra, who ordered it to be brought to his capital, and there by the wonders it exhibited he himself was converted. Shortly afterwards the king of Sāvatthī assembled an army and demanded the relic. War ensued, and Pāṇḍu’s army was defeated. The relic was restored to Guhasīva. Sometime later the son of the king of Ujjenī, who was a zealous Buddhist, came to Dantapura, bringing tokens of homage to the relic, and there he married Hemamālā, daughter of the Kaliṅga king. A large army from Sāvatthī appeared at Dantapura, demanding the relic once more, and Guhasīva, apprehensive of the power by which he was assailed, directed his daughter and son-in-law to escape from the city, taking the relic with them. They disguised themselves as members of the Buddhist Order, and after many adventures came to Ceylon (which is said to have been foretold as its final resting place), and delivered it to the king. There they were received with all the honour due to their exalted rank and the precious object which they escorted. On the arrival of the relic at Anurādhapura the king took charge of it himself and, rendering thereto the greatest homage, deposited it in a casket made of *phalika* (steatite) stone and lodged it in an edifice called the Dhamma-cakka, built by Devānampiya-Tissa. In the height of his felicity the king, so the *Mahāvāṃsa* tells us,¹ spent 9 lakhs in celebrating the Dāṭhādhātu festival and made proclamation that the relic should be annually honoured by taking it in a procession to the Abhayagiri Vihāra. A century later Fa-Hsien saw the ceremony performed, and he has described it in his memoirs.² Dhammakitti³ mentions in his work a rubric written by Meghavaṇṇa for the observances to be performed before the Tooth (*Caritta-lekhaṃ abhilekhayi*). There is a copy of this ancient ceremonial manual still extant in the Māligāva at Kandy, where the relic is now deposited.

c8.8

¹ *M.V.*, xxxvii, v. 96.

c8.9

² Giles' Translation, pp. 69-70.

c8.10

³ *Dāṭhā-vaṃsa*, p. 16.

c8.11

The Tooth Relic from the time of its first arrival in Ceylon obtained among the Sinhalese the position which the Palladium held in ancient Rome, for the sovereignty of the country belonged to the possessor of the venerated object. Even to-day, after the vicissitudes of many centuries, no relic commands more veneration than this. The wealth of the country was freely poured out in its honour. Wherever the palace of the king had to be erected, by reason of the incursions of invading foes, by its side, within the royal precincts, rose the *Daḷadā-Māligāva* (the Palace of the Tooth Relic), smaller but incomparably more beautiful than the royal residence. Entire villages were dedicated to the maintenance of those whose business it was to supply offerings of rice and flowers and incense and oil, and one king at least offered up all his personal ornaments as a mark of humble devotion.¹

c8.12

¹ Kirti Srī Rāja-Siṅha, Pieris, op. cit., p. 11.

c8.13

Siri Meghavaṇṇa’s contemporary in India was Samudragupta, whose brilliant reign saw the establishment of a mighty Indian empire, second only to that of Asoka. Though a Vaiṣṇavaite himself, he was tolerant towards other faiths, and we are told that in his youth he was a friend of Vasubandhu, the Mahāyānist teacher of great repute. Reference should be made to him here, because of one single event connected with him, which for several reasons is of much interest to us. It is recorded by a Chinese writer that Siri Meghavaṇṇa, king of Ceylon, sent an embassy to Samudragupta and obtained his permission to build a Saṅghārāma near the Mahābodhi Vihāra. Hiuan-Tsang,² who saw this monastery two and a half centuries later, gives a full description of it and adds many details about its foundation. According to him, a certain disciple of the Buddha, a monk from Ceylon, went forth to wander through India, but at all the convents he visited he was treated with disdain as a foreigner. He came back, and in great sorrow reported his experiences to the king. The latter, who seems to have held the monk in high esteem, asked what there was that should be done to remedy matters. He was advised to build convents throughout India for the benefit of travelling monks. A minister was accordingly dispatched to the Emperor with costly presents and jewels to ask permission for the purpose. Samudragupta was pleased at this cordiality shown towards him, and granted leave to “take one of the places in which the Tathāgata has left traces of his holy teaching”. The Bodhimaṇḍala was chosen as the most suitable spot, and there an imposing edifice was erected to entertain all monks coming over from Ceylon. The king, Meghavaṇṇa, had the following inscription engraved in copper: “To help all without distinction is the highest teaching of all the Buddhas; to exercise mercy as occasion offers is the illustrious doctrine of former saints. And now I, unworthy descendant in the royal line, have undertaken to found this Saṅghārāma to enclose the sacred traces, and to hand down their renown to future ages and to spread their benefits among the people. The monks of my country will thus obtain independence and be treated as members of the fraternity of this country. Let this privilege be handed down from generation to generation without interruption." ¹ In an inscription of a stone pillar at Allahabad, Samudragupta gives an account of his reign, and among the alliances he formed with foreign powers occurs mention of "the Saimhalakas, who propitiated him with presents ".²

c8.14

² Memoirs, ii, pp. 133 foll. (Beal).

c8.15

¹ The Buddhist, vol. viii, No. 26, published in Colombo, 1922.

c8.16

² History of the Sangha, by D. B. Jayatilaka, in course of publication.

c8.17

At the time of Hiuan-Tsang's visit there were over 1,000 monks in this convent, studying the "Great Vehicle" and belonging to the Sthavira (Shang-tso-pu) school. "They carefully observe the Dharma and Vinaya," he wrote, "and their conduct is pure and correct." ³

c8.18

³ Memoirs, vol. ii, p. 133 (Beal).

c8.19

The circumstances connected with the founding of this Saṅghārāma allow us to infer that at this time Ceylon monks were not held in high esteem on the continent, the reason being perhaps the ascendancy of Brahmanical power, or more probably because the views of the Ceylon school were not acceptable even to the Buddhist monks of India. The cleavage between Hīna- and Mahā-yāna had grown wider and wider. The disfavour with which Ceylon kings and monks viewed any encroachment by Vaitulya doctrines on the Thera-vāda Buddhism of the island had made it impossible for much exchange of scholarship to take place between the two countries. But this establishment of a Thera-vāda community near the Bodhimaṇḍala, which was undoubtedly then as now the chief centre of Buddhist pilgrimage, must have facilitated such interchange of views. As far as we know, there do not seem to have been any restrictions as to who should make use of the convent. Nominally, of course, the chief power was vested in the hands of the Mahā-Vihāra, and we may well assume that monks of the Abhayagiri fraternity, for instance, who wished to study in greater detail and at much closer distance the doctrines which distinguished them from other schools, took advantage of the opportunity thus created for the pursuance of their purpose. I believe also that the familiarity thus brought about with the Mahāyānists, as we may safely call the dissenters from the Thera-vāda, was in large measure responsible for the convergence that later seems to have come about between the Mahā-Vihāra and the Abhayagiri fraternities. The Mahā-Vihāra community seems to have treated the Abhayagiri sect with much toleration throughout, and their doings were interfered with only when glaring attempts were made by them to tarnish the purity of the Dhamma. It was also most probably in this Saṅghārāma that the young Brahman Buddhaghosa met Revata Thera, who converted him and admitted him into the Order.¹

c8.20

¹ See next chapter.

c8.21

Passing over Meghavaṇṇa's brother and successor, Jeṭṭha-Tissa, who was a skilful carver and a clever painter,² we next come to Buddhadāsa, according to the Mahāvaṃsa "a mine of virtue and an ocean of riches". "This monarch exemplified to the people in his own person the conduct of the Bodhisattas; and he entertained for mankind as large a compassion as a parent feels for his children. The indigent he made happy by distribution of riches amongst them, and he protected the rich in their property and life."³ In addition to all his other qualifications of wisdom, piety and virtue, he possessed in supreme measure a knowledge of surgery, and many are the miraculous cures attributed to this royal surgeon. One case, for example, was that of a man who had drunk water containing the spawn of frogs in it, and an egg entering the nostril, ascended into the head and being hatched there became a frog. There it attained its full growth, and in rainy weather it croaked and gnawed the head of the man. The king, splitting open the head and extracting the frog and re-uniting the several parts, quickly cured the wound.¹ He provided hospitals all over the island, not only for men but also for birds and beasts. To every ten villages a royal physician was appointed, and for their guidance he compiled a work called the Sārārtha-saṅgraha, a compendium of medical science.² By way of the encouragement of learning, he sought out ministers who could expound the doctrines of the faith, patronized them, devotedly attended to their needs, and provided all facilities for carrying on their work. At the Mahā-Vihāra he built a Pariveṇa called Mora or Mayūra (the remains of which still exist) and made large endowments for its maintenance.

c8.22

² M.V., xxxvii, v. 101.

c8.23

³ Ibid., xxxvii, v. 105-110; Geiger's trans., p. xxxix; 267, n. 1.

c8.24

¹ M.V., xxxvii, v. 144.

c8.25

² Now published with a translation by a later author, Colombo, 1899.

c8.26

It was during this reign that a certain monk named Mahā-Dhammakathī translated the Suttas of the Piṭakattaya into Sinhalese.³ Who this Dhammakathī was and what was the nature of his translation it is impossible to say, because no records of him or his work exist at the present time. The Mahā-vaṃsa gives but the name of the man and the barest account of his work, dismissing the subject with only one verse. Mr. Wickremasinghe⁴ identifies him with Dharmagupta mentioned by Fa Hsien in the account of his visit to Ceylon. According to him Dharmagupta lived at Mihintale at the head of about two thousand monks. He was " a Śramaṇa of great virtue, honoured and looked up to by all the kingdom. He has lived for more than forty years in an apartment of stone, constantly showing such gentleness of heart that he brought snakes and rats to stop together in the same room, without doing one another any harm". The identification, ingenious as it is, has, as far as I am aware, nothing but conjecture to support it. Legge¹ in his translation of Fa Hsien adds a footnote: "Eitel says (p. 31) a famous ascetic, the founder of a school which flourished in Ceylon, A.D. 400," and adds further: "But Fa-Hsien gives no intimation of Dharmagupta's founding a school." Little as we know of Dhammakathī (and there is hardly any probability of our ever being able to learn much more), his work is of great significance as showing the outcome of a steady tendency on the part of the Sinhalese language to assert itself over the Pāli.

c8.27

³ M.V., xxxvii, v. 175.

c8.28

⁴ Ep. Zeyl., vol. i, pt. iii, p. 83.

c8.29

¹ p. 107, footnote 2.

c8.30

Whatever be the origin of Sinhalese as the language of the people of Ceylon—whether it was brought over by Vijaya and his followers from some part of the Indian peninsula, or whether it was derived from the same source as classical Sanskrit and Pāli,² or was, as the *Mahā-vaṃsa*³ puts it, indigenous (*dīpa-bhāsā*), "the language of the land," and later modified and developed by the Aryan settlers—within two and a half centuries after Vijaya's arrival the language was found sufficiently rich and copious in its terms and regular in its structure to have been capable of the enunciation in it of matter so varied and so abstract as that contained in the commentaries brought over by Mahinda from the Council at Pāṭaliputta. With the advent of Pāli, as the language of the sacred Scriptures, Sinhalese borrowed and derived from it various terms and expressions with all their specific connotations. The steady and constant intercourse kept up with the mainland enabled all the advances made in various branches of knowledge in India to find their way into Ceylon; and the numerous colonies of Brahmanas and others that from time to time settled down in the island contributed to enlarge the vocabulary of Sinhalese by the addition of words from their literatures. The frequent invasions of Tamil marauders—each one of whose attacks is sure to have left behind some of their number as permanent settlers, even after they had been repelled—provided another source of enrichment for the language. Thus Sinhalese steadily and quickly grew up to be a language capable of expressing the most varied ideas and emotions, rich in its vocabulary and supple in its structure. From the time when Pāli was introduced into Ceylon its study was assiduously cultivated, but, as Sinhalese grew in power, monks and laymen alike tended more and more to use this medium for the exposition of the Buddhist faith. Mahinda gave the lead to this tendency not only by preaching in “the language of the land”, but more so by translating into it the commentaries on the Piṭakas.¹ The very nature of the Aṭṭhakathās demanded that they should be compiled in a manner to be easily understood, and the choice of Sinhalese, which was mainly the people’s tongue, is therefore no matter for surprise. We shall see later, how eagerly scholars availed themselves of this concession to conduct their expositions in their own language, by the number and variety of the works—histories, poems, etc., commentarial and otherwise—which they produced in that medium, with a line or two of Pāli verse being introduced here and there, at salient points, to emphasize certain things, or to sum up the narrative.

c8.31

² For a discussion of this question see D'Alwis, *Sidat-saṅgarā*, Introduction.

c8.32

³ Chap. I, vv. 2-3.

c8.33

¹ See next chapter on Buddhaghosa’s work, which was based on these translations.

c8.34

But from the very commencement it seemed to have been agreed upon that the text of the canon itself, the Piṭakattaya, was to remain intact in Pāli; that no attempt should be made to have it in any other language. The reason for this was obviously the preservation of the purity of the doctrine, so that whenever doubt arose on some doctrinal matter, as variously expounded by the commentators, there was always the resource of appealing to the Scriptures themselves for the correct interpretation. This understanding seems to have been respected for quite a long time, and the first attempt, as far as we know, to violate it was that made by Mahā-Dhammakathī in Buddhadāsa’s reign.

c8.35

The reason for Dhammakathī’s enterprise is not difficult to guess. Most probably, as the Sinhalese language, by the accretion it received from many sources, grew in force and in extent, and as writers exercising themselves in its composition acquired greater and greater facility in expressing their ideas in that medium, they began to cultivate it even more assiduously than before, and Pāli soon became of secondary importance, its use being restricted to mnemonic purposes. Fewer and fewer became those who specialized in Pāli, and Dhammakathī probably felt himself justified in the belief that, if the canon were to be made more widely known amongst the people, it should be put into the form most easily intelligible to them. And a beginning was made with the translation of the Suttas.

c8.36

We are not told that the work, thus commenced by Dhammakathī, was continued by others. Probably the conservatism of the monks in this matter stopped any further attempts. Clear evidence of the neglect of Pāli studies at this time is afforded by the fact that when scholars *did* come to write in that language, such as, for instance, in the case of the *Dīpa-vaṃsa*, which, according to Oldenberg,¹ was begun about this period, the language was unnatural, weak and stilted, lacking in subtlety and virility of expression. The reaction against this lamentable state of decline came when Buddhaghosa’s works gave fresh impetus to the study of Pāli, and a definite attempt was made to supersede the “language of the land” by means of Pāli.

c8.37

¹ Oldenberg, *Dīpa-vaṃsa*, p. 9.

c8.38

It is interesting to observe that, side by side with the ascendency of Sinhalese over Pāli, another language was gradually coming into vogue in Ceylon. This was classical Sanskrit, which had rapidly become the medium of expression for learned works on the mainland of India. Scientific and secular works in that language had found their way into Ceylon, and were studied with care. And when the surgeonking, Buddhadāsa, compiled his memorable work, “the Sārārtha-saṅgraha”—the first of its kind in Ceylon—it was neither Pāli nor Sinhalese that he used, but Sanskrit. We shall have occasion to refer to the influence of Sanskrit on Ceylon literature later; but the compilation of Buddhadāsa’s book in a language so far not used in Ceylon to any large extent is worthy of notice here.

c8.39

Buddhadāsa’s elder son, Upatissa, succeeded him. During his reign the island was afflicted with drought, disease, and distress, and, acting on the advice of the monks, he requested a body of them to walk about in the streets of the city throughout the night, chanting the Ratana-sutta and sprinkling water. We are told that, as a result, at sunrise great clouds poured down rain upon the earth; all the sick and crippled disported themselves with joy, and the king issued the following decree: “Should there at any time be another affliction of drought and sickness in the island, do ye observe the like ceremonies.”¹

c8.40

¹ M.V., xxxvii, vv. 189-198.

c8.41

This account of the ceremony given in the Mahā-vaṃsa is interesting, in that it is the first recorded instance of the Parittam having been recited for the public weal, the only other occasion being the one on which the Buddha himself is traditionally said to have preached the Ratana-Sutta to banish a deadly plague from Vesālī. Ever since this time the ceremony of chanting the Parittam has taken fast hold of the imagination of the Sinhalese, and is extensively observed, even at the present day. The Suttas most often chanted are the Maṅgala, the Ratana, and the Karaṇīya-Metta Suttas of the Khuddaka-pāṭha; and the Pirit-pota, or the book containing the suttas for such recital, forms part of the meagre library of every Sinhalese household. Such recital is believed to ward off all evils and danger, and to bring about health and prosperity. Most Sinhalese know some part of these suttas by heart, and every child is taught to recite at least a portion of them every morning and before retiring to bed.¹

c8.42

¹ It is interesting to recall that, when I left Ceylon for England, among the tokens of remembrance given to me were several editions de luxe of such *Pirit-Potas*.

c8.43

Several translations of these *Paritta-suttas* have been written in Sinhalese, some of them most elaborate, but, most of them being more difficult of comprehension than the original Pāli, not much use is made of them, and the efficacy of the recital is believed to remain unaffected whether the reciter understands or not the meaning of what he chants!

c8.44

Upatissa was killed by his queen consort, who was infatuated with his younger brother Mahānāma, at that time a member of the Order. On his brother's death, however, he threw off his robes, became king and married Upatissa's consort. His approval of the queen's treachery was evidently viewed with disfavour by the Mahā-Vihāra fraternity, for we find both him and his queen actively supporting the Abhayagiri establishment of schismatic priests.² It was during this reign that there arrived in Ceylon the greatest of the Buddhist commentators, Buddhaghosa, whose works are of monumental importance.

c8.45

² *M.V.*, xxxvii, v. 212.

c8.46

To this period are traditionally ascribed two short works in Pāli, the *Khudda-Sikkhā* and the *Mūla-Sikkhā*, supposed to have been written prior to the advent of Buddhaghosa. Both works are alluded to by name in the great inscription of Parākrama Bāhu at Galvihāra, Polonnaruva (A.D. 1065),³ and the grammarian Moggallāna, who lived at that time, is said to have written a commentary on the *Khudda-Sikkhā*.⁴ This commentary no longer exists, but it was apparently based on an older Sinhalese commentary. The two works are short summaries of Vinaya rules, a kind of *memoria* technica of the Vinaya. The works are for the greatest part in verse, with only a few passages in prose. The verses are put together in a rough and ready manner, appropriate for the mnemonic purpose they are intended to serve. A colophon at the end of the *Khudda-Sikkhā* ascribes that work to a monk named Dhammasiri, who was “like unto a banner in Tambapaṇṇi” (Ceylon). Though no mention of an author’s name is made in the *Mūla-Sikkhā*, tradition agrees to ascribe it to Mahāsāmi. The two, being both monks of Anurādhapura who lived in the same period, were probably confrères.¹ Nothing more is known about these authors and, from the evidence at our disposal, it is very difficult to form any opinion as to the age of the books. Dr. Edward Müller, basing his arguments on the language and certain forms of words used to meet the exigencies of metre, is inclined to think, that they are later than the *Mahā-vaṃsa*, and are not earlier than the sixth or seventh century A.D.² D’Alwis, in his Introduction to the *Sidat-saṅgarā*, assigns a rather early date, viz. A.D. 350.³ The language of both compilations is simple and free from artificiality and all Sanskritisms. Rhys Davids agrees to confirm the traditional date, viz. about A.D. 350, and is convinced that both belong to the memoriter period of Pāli.⁴ Most of the extracts given in the works are from the text of the *Vinaya-Piṭaka*, but a few passages remain unidentified. Dr. Müller thinks such passages are quotations from the *Vinaya* commentaries.⁵ A Sinhalese *sanne* or translation of the *Khudda-Sikkhā* exists, a work of great scholastic merit, written in very elegant and archaic language, the author of which is not known. It is generally assigned to the eleventh century, and two *ṭīkās* were written in Pāli based on this, the *Porāṇa-ṭīkā*, by Revata or Mahā-Yasa, the author of a *ṭīkā* on Buddhadatta’s *Vinaya-vinicchaya*,¹ and the other by Saṅgharakkhita, author of the *Subodhālaṅkāra* and several other valuable works, whose date was the latter half of the twelfth century. The works are used in Ceylon and Burma at the present day by novices of the Order as a handbook of Vinaya rules.

Cites (10)

Mahāvaṃsa — Pāli
Vinayavinicchaya — Buddhadatta, Pāli
Khuddasikkhā — Dhammasiri, Pāli
Dāṭhāvaṃsa — Dhammakitti (Dāṭhāvaṃsa), Pāli
Khuddakapāṭha — Pāli
Tipiṭaka (Theravāda) — Pāli
Vinayapiṭaka — Pāli
Subodhālaṅkāra — Saṅgharakkhita, Pāli
Mihintale
Mūlasikkhā — Mahāsāmi, Pāli