Sanctification Of The Island By The Buddha?

l by Dr.Sripali Vaiamon

(15 July, 2012, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Contents of this article focus on the attention of erudite monks who are well conversant in Buddhalogy and the lay adherents of Authentic Buddhism who are concern on Four Noble Truths, The Noble Eight Fold Path, Dependent origination (Patichcha Samuppada) and the Buddha’s profound philosophical conceptions. This is not necessarily for the interest of the followers of Popular Buddhism who pay attention only for rituals, ceremonies and rites starting with offering flowers to Buddha statues, dagabas, Bodhi tree, conduct Buddha Puja, Gilanpasa Puja, Bodhi Puja and pay homage to various so-called Buddhist deities such as Vishnu, Natha, Saman, Pattini, even Kataragama and host of others; practice Bali Thoil where Buddhist stanzas are combined and have full faith on ritualistic healing pattern. The followers of Astrology, Auspicious time, Castes and Sects based on Brahmins’ caste hierarchy and various Hindu traditions conducted in Buddhist temples and more prone to folk-lore type Buddhism, which are mostly not in coherence with Buddha’s benign Doctrine.

This is an analytical study of Buddhist history and practices which are not in agreeable to myths and legendary sources enacted in ancient documents.

Rev. Mahanama, the compiler of the great Epic Mahavansa has extensively elaborated Buddha’s three trips to Sri Lanka, during the pre-historic time as he was quite confident of every turn. His lively descriptions and portrayals anybody would believe as positive truth. But nothing on this was discussed even remotely at The 3rd Sangayana held at Pataliputtha under the patronage of Emperor Dharmasoka, who presented the Gauthama Buddha’s Tri Pitake Dhamma after revision and codification to King Devanampiyatissa and his subjects via his son and daughter, Mahinda and Sangamittha.

Buddhist Doctrine is a strong philosophy and a way of life rather than a religion where subsequently rituals, rites and other paraphernalia were added up to keep the followers, particularly followers of popular Buddhism, internally happy. It is unfortunate that the less knowledgeable majority of Buddhism have not developed yet their capacities to understand the truism in the religion. They have great devotion for the Faith rather than understanding the core issue. As Buddha advocated to follow the Middle Path their mediocre understanding to observe the practices are quite all right. When he advocates his Theory as ANATHMA, an average person may not have understood at all.

It was very strange why a single word was not uttered at the great Council, simply because there was absolutely no truth engulfed in it. In other word there was no one heard or knew Buddha had three trips to Lanka. Rev.Mahanama was a great literati with inborn talent, much higher and more prolific than Valmiki or Homer to create such strong stories to establish extremely well in the innocent minds of Buddhist devotees to say their great religious leader sanctified their motherland by making three trips, once with 500 Arahaths and left a foot print on a sapphire on the peak of a high mountain for devotees to pay their homage and covered it with a boulder for the safety sake. There is another glaring misconception in the Gatha utilize by devotees to worship Sripada where it says Buddha implanted his left foot print on the peak of Samanola and the right foot print at Yonakapure Makkama,ie.Mecca in SaudiArab.

In the first trip when he arrived at Mahiyangana and was hovering in the sky while Yakkas had an assembly. He requested, for the courtesy sake permission to get down but they did not respond. Then he created a darkness, a storm and finally a deadly fire. Yakkas got scared. He got down, tied them up and expelled to Giri Island. Hitherto nobody has come across the referred Giri Island. Could anyone expect the compassionate Buddha to have stooped down to such a low level to treat them as terrorists. On the contrary, the day that Buddha attained Parinirvana Vijaya landed in Sri Lanka and the first human being he came across was a Yakkini who was spinning thread to weave cloth. Wasn’t this a gross contradiction? However he has knitted the stories so well not even a king had any doubt. That’s why hitherto everyone believes this episode as a veritable truth. We must highly praise Rev. Mahanama for his brilliance and the caliber. There are lot more instances in his masterpiece where historians dare not to speak a word. Say for an example he firmly stated King Elara was a Chola from South India, but Rev. Hiselle Dhrmaratana Maha Thera who made an extensive research on South Indian Buddhist heritage, revealed that he was a native of Kerala.( This is believable as there were quite close connections with Kandyan with Kerala families during Kandyan period.) There are much more similar instances in Mahavansa readers have taken all as perfect truths. Wilhelm Geiger comments that Mahavansa is considered to be a work of art, written in epic or Kavya style. He commented thus to emphasize that history is not art but facts. Nevertheless, in the absence of data from extensive archaeological excavations and systematical researches with veritable findings even modern historians were compelled to accept what is given in Mahavansa as furnishing evidence. The New Encyclopedia of Britannica Vol.7- Mahavansa text is exuberant style much of the oral traditions handed down by monks are mythical or supernatural. Large portion of the text are of dubious historicity.

Dr. Hema Ellawala,who has done extensive research on this elaborative compilation says; as a historical document the Mahavansa’s fallings are many and prior to 250 B.C. it contains much that myths and legends.(Social History of Ancient Sri Lanka. Prof.H.Ellawala) 

With regard to the landing of Vijaya, let us see briefly what he has written. He says Vijaya and 700 came from Vanga, i.e Bangaladesh in the East of India and he says on the way he touched Barukachcha, a port below Bombay in the western coast of India. That was something not possible! Indian historian Dr. A.L.Basham, Professor of Indian civilization, has conclusively shown that Vijaya had come to Ceylon from the western coast and not from the eastern coast, quite contrary to the idea created in the Mahavansa. This I have explicitly described in my History book, Pre-historic Lanka to end of Terrorism, and Dr. Paranavithana correctly described that they came from Sihor, in Kathiyawar District in Gujarath. Vijaya is not the progenitor of the Sinhalese or Sinhala language. Dr. Siran Deraniyagala who did an excavation at Anuradapura recently firmly says there was a civilization 3 to 400 years prior to the advent of Vijaya. A civilization at Anuradhapura where they had the knowledge of paddy cultivation and horse breeding etc. This contradicts Mahavansa’s revelation and more over I described in an earlier article the language of the country, Sinhala exists from about 900 BC. This tally with Dr.Deaniyagala’s findings. Mahabaratha second book, Sabha Parva and several ancient Sanskrit classics such as Markandeya Purana, Bhagawatha, Brahath Sanghitha, Mathsya Purana and Jaina Canonical works, explicitly given the term Sinhala. 

Material to build up Vijaya, Sinhabahu, Sinha Seevali story has been taken from several Jathaka stories. Janaka Jathakaya speaks of the ship wreck in the shore of Lanka where yakkas plundered all valuables of the passangers. Padakusalamana Jathakaya relates where an erotic yakka kept a Brahmin damsel in a cave as a prisoner. Devadhamma Jathakaya explains how Bodhisattva’s retinue went down to a pond to quench their thirst were seized one by one, by an ogre and hid in a cave. Ultimately Bodhisatthva who went there observed footprints in one direction only and realized what had befallen on them. He threatened the ogre with his sword and got them released. This is given in exact form in Vijaya episode. Further inspirations to create this plot he has taken from Susondhi, Gata and Chetiya jathaka. Elderly people may have heard stories and yarns from the sailors who sailed up to Java via Sri Lanka and anchored at Maha Thiththa, present Mannar, where they purchased commodities such as ivory, gems and spices. During leisure time they related stories from their countries. Mahavansa described how Suppadevi, daughter of the king of Vanga, eloped with a lion while on a caravan and were living in a cave as husband and wife. They begot son and a daughter whom they named as Sinhabahu and Sinhaseevali. In a bas-relief in Babylonia there had been a depiction of a lion having coitus with a woman. Poranikas who have heard this from sailors may have related and a later stage Mahavansa author got acquainted with this from the descendents and knitted the story in his book. These few instances are sufficient to analyze and believe what are correct instances and what were mere creations that have gone into his document, as in a fiction which were generated in his fertile mind. Now let’s go into Buddha’s sanctification of this Island.

The veteran archaeologist and historian, Dr. Senarat Paranavithan of Sri Lanka when somebody questioned him he has uttered casually, some people in the country get annoyed and hurt if we say Buddha did not visit Sri Lanka, therefore we will say he visited Sri Lanka and keep them in eternal happiness and satisfaction. Although it sounds as a casual utterance there is a great depth in it. Sinhala kings and primitive devotees have taken highly that Gauthama the Buddha has sanctified this little Island, in pre-historic era with three memorable trips. True enough there is absolutely no evidence but from time immemorial these have been entrenched as an intrinsic truth which cannot be eradicated whatever the way historians tried to convince them. That must be the prime reason why they are reluctant to talk on this and hurt the minds of the devotees. It does not really matter for the sake of devotion they may believe it as an absolute truth. When they visit temple and pay homage to a concrete statue as that of Buddha’s but absolutely no resemblance to Gauthama Buddha from shape features and size. But the statue generates an enormous faith and that is more than sufficient. However for the sake of intelligent people and those who are in the higher education stratum, may like to know what one or two Buddhist leaders have commented on these trips.

Sir Baron Jayatilake, one of the great Buddhist leaders and scholars we had sometimes back, writing to a Vajirarama publication, ‘Bosath’ published on 1st October 1921,raised the question, why Buddha’s three trips or preaching to Nagas and Yakkas were not given even remotely in the Tri Pitaka? Wherever Buddha went and whatever he preached are given in the Tri Pitaka with an introduction such as, Evang me Suthang Ekang Samayan etc. But there was nothing relevant to Sri Lanka, to say that he visited thrice and preached his doctrine.

Dr. G.P. Malalasekara, one of the great Buddhist leaders we had, in his ‘Pali literature in Ceylon,’ categorically stated that it is a significant fact that the Pali Canon itself gives a fairly complete account of the Teacher’s activities in the first few years of his ministry, does not make any mention of his visits to Ceylon. Deepa Vansa briefly stated absolutely without any evidence to say Buddha made three visits to Ceylon. In the 3rd trip he accompanied 500 Bhikkus. From where the Compilers got this imaginary idea is very strange! No one hitherto knows who were even the Compilers of the Deepavansa.

Dr.Krishna swamy Iyangar says Buddha’s visits beyond historical recognition. (Ancient India and South Indian History and Culture.) Esmee Rankin in ‘In the Island Interlude’ quotes Dr. Senarath Paranavithana where he says no inscription referring to worship of the foot-print has been found earlier than the 11th century, on the mountain or its vicinity or anywhere else in Ceylon. No harm! This gives a great satisfaction to devotees to believe Buddha has sanctified this little Island. That is more than enough to keep them on genuine devotion. So let us take the hint made by veteran archaeologist, Dr.Paranavithana as a strong belief and derive devotional satisfaction to say Buddha sanctified the Island. He had the ability to visit by Iddhi power perhaps because of that the novices who made the comment in the Deepa vansa may have thought so. The author of Mahavansa in every chapter stated he was writing this for the reading pleasure of the public, Ithi Sujanath Pasanda Sanvegaththaya Kathey Mahavansa. Just like stories created by Shakespeare, Tolstoy,Valmiki or Hormer. So it was in the form of a novel, fiction but not with any historical background. Mahavansa had created the entire story of Buddha’s sanctification of the Island as it was actually happened. The entire gamut of three visits was orchestrated by the author of Mahavansa very clearly and cleverly. So even ancient kings were compelled to believe as absolute truth. Subjects who never go against kings, grabbed everything as infallible truths. Now it has been well entrenched in the minds of Buddhist devotees as well as ordinary folks of Sri Lanka. So for the sake of devotion we may treat the orchestration as authentic. It has not affiliated to in any form in the adjacent country, South India although Manimekalai touched a little bit of it. Buddhism was strongly exists there although Mahavansa did not touch anything. Rev. Hissele Dhrmaratana Thera who made an extensive research on Buddhism in the South India categorically says we are able to announce at the conclusion that Buddhism came to South India before the 3rd Sangam period of Tamil literature, that was 2nd century CE. British historian Vincent Smith says, as South Indian constantly harassed by invading Sri Lanka as such compilers were prejudiced against them and did not wish to give them a place in their books.

But we must not forget Buddhist Doctrine has a highest regard for the truth and truth alone.

Buddhist Doctrine is a strong philosophy and a way of life rather than a religion where subsequently rituals, rites and other paraphernalia were added up to keep the followers, particularly followers of popular Buddhism, internally happy. It is unfortunate that the less knowledgeable majority of Buddhism have not developed yet their capacities to understand the truism in the religion. They have great devotion for the Faith rather than understanding the core issue. As Buddha advocated to follow the Middle Path their mediocre understanding to observe the practices are quite all right. When he advocates his Theory as ANATHMA, an average person may not have understood at all. When Vachchagoththa questioned Buddha he was silent as he realized at that moment Vachcha was not intelligent enough to comprehend. Most of the Popular Buddhists have absolutely no knowledge on Anathma concept. 

That may be the reason why they after religious performances in a temple at the presence of a Buddha statue wish Nibbana, that is to be free from any kind of craziness and immediately approach a Hindu god inside the temple and get the blessings of Kapuas or even worship without them to fulfill their material benefits. This system was totally condemned by the late Rev.Soma but he could not continue the irregularity of the practices as he had an untimely death. Popular Buddhists still believe this system is quite O Kay with that they could gain sufficient merits and benefits, and it does not go against Buddha’s benign doctrine. As such they may continue to do so. Hinduism is an ATHMA Theory which is quite contrary to Buddhism. Because life is moment to moment changing. In a changing entity there cannot exists an Athma. It is of course, rather difficult even an erudite scholar to clearly comprehend. It is one of the prime reasons why Hindus did not like the existence of Buddhism in India.

Dharmasoka did not want to fight against Hindus. In his Edict # 13, found near Peshawar, he referred sending Buddhist missions to Chola, Pandya and Thanmrapani (Sri Lanka) He encouraged to sustain it in South India and built Buddhist Viharas. South India produced so many Buddhist personalities, such as Bodhidhrma who was born in South India and spread his teaching in China and Japan. He who originated Dhyana system of Buddhism in China. The Sh’an and subsequently Zen in Japan. 

Asoka gave his full support to establish Buddhism firmly in Sri Lanka. So he decided to send the entire codified Tri Pitaka along with his son and daughter in good faith to introduce and establish well in the soil.(If Buddha has visited early and introduced his Dhamma this would have been redundant.) Relevant to this I wish to quote a passage from Buddhist Studies by Dr.Walpola Rahula where he affirms, The Emperor Asoka’s son Mahinda,who introduced and established Buddhism in Sri Lanka, went from Pataliputta,the capital of the Magadhian Empire. He took with him to Sri Lanka the Tri Pitaka as it was recited, redacted, finally approved and accepted by the Third Council held in Pataliputta in the 3rd century B.C; along with Buddhist beliefs, practices and traditions generally accepted at that time by the Sanga of Magadha. Rev. Maha Mahinda preferred to teach Tri Pitaka Dhamma in the language of the people in the country, So that they can understand and comprehend well. Further he decided to keep commentaries as the Dhamma was very profound. Till his death at eighty he continues in the same pattern and did a colossal service. His sister, Sangamiththa followed the same as there was no difficulty to understand Buddha’s Dhamma in their own language. She followed other relevant activities of establishing the culture,art, practices etc in Deepa Bhasa. There is no record to say they took any step to teach them Buddha’s language Magadhi/or Thanthi. Of Course Monks, in the Order may have evinced an interest to study Buddha’s language for which they got the opportunity when Rev.Buddhagosha and his colleagues arrived to translate Buddhist scriptures which were in Deepa Bhasa to Magadhi/Pali. For that first they had to learn Deepa Bhasa from the Mahavihara priests and thereby priests got the opportunity to learn Magadhi or Thanthi in return. Deepavansa produced in the 4th century seems to be their first attempt which was in crude Pali. But authors were not known. Even Buddha’s imaginary three trips were their introductions. No record to say prior to that they make any attempt to learn Magadhi. None of the erudite literati who dealt on the relevant literature or other historical descriptions of this period, such as, G.P. Mallalasekara, E.W. Adhikaram, Rhys Davids, Wilhelm Geiger, H. Hardy, Kachchayana, K. Sri Dhammavansa, Bimala Law, Olivi Abeysinghe, Anuradha Senaviratna, Walisinghe Harischandra, and several others have touched on this clearly; whether there were personnel with the knowledge of the language to deal with the Tri Pitaka in Pali until the arrival of Badanthacharya Buddhagosha .I pointed this out as there were very obscure two areas which we have to look into extremely carefully.

In 80 BC Tri Pitaka was transliterated on Ola leaves at Alu Vihare but what was the language utilized? Deepa Bhasa or Magadhi? 500 bhikkus assembled for this great task. If it was in Magadhi all these monks were well versed in the language?

Rev.Buddhagosha called over here to translate Atuwa only. Some writers say he translated Tri Pitaka from Deepa Bhasa into Pali. Mr. D.C.P. Amarasekara in his ‘Nirvana definable and astrology impediment to progress’in page 1 says, quite a large number of inadmissible and inconsistent concepts have crept into the Buddhist doctrine consequent to the wrong interpretations effected by various priests and authors from time to time. This is very prominently seen when the Pali translation of Tri Pitaka by Rev. Buddhagosha is scrutinized carefully. This indicates Rev. Buddhagosha had translated Tri Pitaka from the Deepa Bhasa to Pali. There was another comment in an Indian book where Rev. Revatha, high priest in South India requested Rev. Buddhgosha to get the Tri Pitaka in Deepabasha which is in pristine purity into Pali, as most of the Senior Bhikkus who have memorized Tri Pitaka are dying and new monks are not that capable enough in memorizing the Tri Pitaka. H.R. Perera who wrote on brief history on Buddhism in the country referred to Revatha Maha There at Tamluk as well versed in the doctrine and philosophy of Buddhism. He advised Rev. Buddhagosha to go to Mahavihara at Anuradhapura where they have preserved Tri Pitaka and the teachings of the Buddha and also the Sinhala commentaries and various expositions of the teachings which were in high repute. Mahavansa has not make any positive comment on this. Mahavansa author has cut short Buddhgosha’s period just to three months. So this is another obscure area an erudite panel should look into. 

However, the Tri Pitaka, the input of entirety of the Buddha Vachana accurately given in the completed version by Sri Vajiragnana Dharmayatanaya in 1994. But the erroneous information on myths and legends engulfed in ancient historical documents plus sectarian differences of Mahasanga based on Brahamins’ caste system etc. should look into in a broad historical perspective and amend to suit the present era.

If the Popular Buddhist adherents treat above are as sensitive issues I as an ardent Buddhist follow Asoka’s Edict #12 and have regard to other religions in this civilized world, wish to appeal to erudite Mahasanga of the Theravada Chapter, who are well versed in Buddhalogy to disclose their views as Buddhism attributes highest place to the TRUTH and nothing but truth.