Chapter XXXV: Ceylon (1)

1

The island of Ceylon, perhaps the most beautiful tropical country in the world, lies near the end of the Indian peninsula but a little to the east. At one point a chain of smaller islands and rocks said to have been built by Rama as a passage for his army of monkeys leads to the mainland. It is therefore natural that the population should have relations with southern India. Sinhalese art, religion and language show traces of Tamil influence but it is somewhat surprising to find that in these and in all departments of civilization the influence of northern India is stronger. The traditions which explain the connection of Ceylon with this distant region seem credible and the Sinhalese, who were often at war with the Tamils, were not disposed to imitate their usages, although juxtaposition and invasion brought about much involuntary resemblance.

The school of Buddhism now professed in Ceylon, Burma and Siam is often called Sinhalese and (provided it is not implied that its doctrines originated in Ceylon) the epithet is correct. For the school ceased to exist in India and in the middle ages both Burma and Siam accepted the authority of the Sinhalese Sangha.[10] This Sinhalese school seems to be founded on the doctrines and scriptures accepted in the time of Asoka in Magadha and though the faith may have been codified and supplemented in its new home, I see no evidence that it underwent much corruption or even development. One is inclined at first to think that the Hindus, having a continuous living tradition connecting them with Gotama who was himself a Hindu, were more likely than these distant islanders to preserve the spirit of his teaching. But there is another side to the question. The Hindus being addicted to theological and metaphysical studies produced original thinkers who, if not able to found new religions, at least modified what their predecessors had laid down. If certain old texts were held in too high esteem to be neglected, the ingenuity of the commentator rarely failed to reinterpret them as favourable to the views popular in his time. But the Sinhalese had not this passion for theology. So far as we can judge of them in earlier periods they were endowed with an amiable and receptive but somewhat indolent temperament, moderate gifts in art and literature and a moderate love and understanding of theology. Also their chiefs claimed to have come from northern India and were inclined to accept favourably anything which had the same origin. These are exactly the surroundings in which a religion can flourish without change for many centuries and Buddhism in Ceylon acquired stability because it also acquired a certain national and patriotic flavour: it was the faith of the Sinhalese and not of the invading Tamils. Such Sinhalese kings as had the power protected the Church and erected magnificent buildings for its service.

If Sinhalese tradition may be believed, the first historical contact with northern India was the expedition of Vijaya, who with 700 followers settled in the island about the time of the Buddha's death. Many details of the story are obviously invented. Thus in order to explain why Ceylon is called Sinhala, Vijaya is made the grandson of an Indian princess who lived with a lion. But though these legends inspire mistrust, it is a fact that the language of Ceylon in its earliest known form is a dialect closely connected with Pali (or rather with the spoken dialect from which ecclesiastical Pali was derived) and still more closely with the Mahârâshtri Prakrit of western India. It is not however a derivative of this Prakrit but parallel to it and in some words presents older forms.[11] It does not seem possible to ascribe the introduction of this language to the later mission of Mahinda, for, though Buddhist monks have in many countries influenced literature and the literary vocabulary, no instance is recorded of their changing the popular speech.[12] But Vijaya is said to have conquered Ceylon and to have slaughtered many of its ancient inhabitants, called Yakkhas,[13] of whom we know little except that Sinhalese contains some un-Aryan words probably borrowed from them. According to the Dîpavaṃsa,[14] Vijaya started from Bharukaccha or Broach and both language and such historical facts as we know confirm the tradition that some time before the third century B.C. Ceylon was conquered by Indian immigrants from the west coast.

It would not be unreasonable to suppose that Vijaya introduced into Ceylon the elements of Buddhism, but there is little evidence to indicate that it was a conspicuous form of religion in India in his time. Sinhalese tradition maintains that not only Gotama himself but also the three preceding Buddhas were miraculously transported to Ceylon and made arrangements for its conversion. Gotama is said to have paid no less than three visits:[15] all are obviously impossible and were invented to enhance the glory of the island. But the legends which relate how Paṇḍuvâsudeva came from India to succeed Vijaya, how he subsequently had a Sakya princess brought over from India to be his wife and how her brothers established cities in Ceylon,[16] if not true in detail, are probably true in spirit in so far as they imply that the Sinhalese kept up intercourse with India and were familiar with the principal forms of Indian religion. Thus we are told[17] that King Paṇḍukâbhaya built religious edifices for Nigaṇṭhas (Jains), Brahmans, Paribbâjakas (possibly Buddhists) and Âjîvikas. When Devânampiya Tissa ascended the throne (_circ._ 245 B.C.) he sent a complimentary mission bearing wonderful treasures to Asoka with whom he was on friendly terms, although they had never met. This implies that the kingdom of Magadha was known and respected in Ceylon, and we hear that the mission included a Brahman. The answer attributed to Asoka will surprise no one acquainted with the inscriptions of that pious monarch. He said that he had taken refuge in the law of Buddha and advised the King of Ceylon to find salvation in the same way. He also sent magnificent presents consisting chiefly of royal insignia and Tissa was crowned for the second time, which probably means that he became not only the disciple but the vassal of Asoka.

In any case the records declare that the Indian Emperor showed the greatest solicitude for the spiritual welfare of Ceylon and, though they are obviously embellished, there is no reason to doubt their substantial accuracy.[18] The Sinhalese tradition agrees on the whole with the data supplied by Indian inscriptions and Chinese pilgrims. The names of missionaries mentioned in the Dîpa and Mahâvamsas recur on urns found at Sanchi and on its gateways are pictures in relief which appear to represent the transfer of a branch of the Bo-tree in solemn procession to some destination which, though unnamed, may be conjectured to be Ceylon.[19] The absence of Mahinda's name in Asoka's inscriptions is certainly suspicious, but the Sinhalese chronicles give the names of other missionaries correctly and a mere _argumentum ex silentio_ cannot disprove their testimony on this important point.

The principal repositories of Sinhalese tradition are the Dîpavamsa, the Mahâvamsa, and the historical preface of Buddhaghosa's Samanta-pâsâdikâ. [20] All later works are founded on these three, so far as concerns the conversion of Ceylon and the immediately subsequent period, and the three works appear to be rearrangements of a single source known as the Aṭṭhakathâ, Sihalaṭṭhakathâ, or the words of the Porâṇa (ancients). These names were given to commentaries on the Tipiṭaka written in Sinhalese prose interspersed with Pali verse and several of the greater monasteries had their own editions of them, including a definite historical section.[21] It is probable that at the beginning of the fifth century A.D. and perhaps in the fourth century the old Sinhalese in which the prose parts of the Atthakathâ were written was growing unintelligible, and that it was becoming more and more the fashion to use Pali as the language of ecclesiastical literature, for at least three writers set themselves to turn part of the traditions not into the vernacular but into Pali. The earliest and least artistic is the unknown author of the short chronicle called Dîpavamsa, who wrote between 302 A.D. and 430 A.D.[22] His work is weak both as a specimen of Pali and as a narrative and he probably did little but patch together the Pali verses occurring from time to time in the Sinhalese prose of the Atthakathâ. Somewhat later, towards the end of the fifth century, a certain Mahânâma arranged the materials out of which the Dîpavamsa had been formed in a more consecutive and artistic form, combining ecclesiastical and popular legends.[23] His work, known as the Mahâvamsa, does not end with the reign of Eḷâra, like the Dîpavamsa, but describes in 15 more chapters the exploits of Duṭṭhagâmaṇi and his successors ending with Mahâsena.[24] The third writer, Buddhaghosa, apparently lived between the authors of the two chronicles. His voluminous literary activity will demand our attention later but so far as history is concerned his narrative is closely parallel to the Mahâvamsa.[25]

The historical narrative is similar in all three works. After the Council of Pataliputra, Moggaliputta, who had presided over it, came to the conclusion that the time had come to despatch missionaries to convert foreign countries. Sinhalese tradition represents this decision as emanating from Moggaliputta whereas the inscriptions of Asoka imply that the king himself initiated the momentous project. But the difference is small. We cannot now tell to whom the great idea first occurred but it must have been carried out by the clergy with the assistance of Asoka, the apostle selected for Ceylon was his[26] near relative Mahinda who according to the traditions of the Sinhalese made his way to their island through the air with six companions. The account of Hsüan Chuang hints at a less miraculous mode of progression for he speaks of a monastery built by Mahinda somewhere near Tanjore.

The legend tells how Mahinda and his following alighted on the Missaka mountain[27] whither King Devânampiya Tissa had gone in the course of a hunt. The monks and the royal cortege met: Mahinda, after testing the king's intellectual capacity by some curious dialectical puzzles, had no difficulty in converting him.[28] Next morning he proceeded to Anuradhapura and was received with all honour and enthusiasm. He preached first in the palace and then to enthusiastic audiences of the general public. In these discourses he dwelt chiefly on the terrible punishment awaiting sinners in future existences.[29]

We need not follow in detail the picturesque account of the rapid conversion of the capital. The king made over to the Church the Mahâmegha garden and proceeded to construct a series of religious edifices in Anuradhapura and its neighbourhood. The catalogue of them is given in the Mahâvamsa[30] and the most important was the Mahâvihâra monastery, which became specially famous and influential in the history of Buddhism. It was situated in the Mahâmegha garden close to the Bo-tree and was regarded as the citadel of orthodoxy. Its subsequent conflicts with the later Abhayagiri monastery are the chief theme of Sinhalese ecclesiastical history and our version of the Pali Piṭakas is the one which received its imprimatur.

Tissa is represented as having sent two further missions to India. The first went in quest of relics and made its way not only to Pataliputra but to the court of Indra, king of the gods, and the relics obtained, of which the principal was the Buddha's alms-bowl,[31] were deposited in Anuradhapura. The king then built the Thuparâma dagoba over them and there is no reason to doubt that the building which now bears this name is genuine. The story may therefore be true to the extent that relics were brought from India at this early period.

The second mission was despatched to bring a branch of the tree[32] under which the Buddha had sat when he obtained enlightenment. This narrative[33] is perhaps based on a more solid substratum of fact. The chronicles connect the event with the desire of the Princess Anulâ to become a nun. Women could receive ordination only from ordained nuns and as these were not to be found on the island it was decided to ask Asoka to send a branch of the sacred tree and also Mahinda's sister Sanghamittâ, a religieuse of eminence. The mission was successful. A branch from the Bo-tree was detached, conveyed by Asoka to the coast with much ceremony and received in Ceylon by Tissa with equal respect. The princess accompanied it. The Bo-tree was planted in the Meghavana garden. It may still be seen and attracts pilgrims not only from Ceylon but from Burma and Siam. Unlike the buildings of Anuradhapura it has never been entirely neglected and it is clear that it has been venerated as the Bo-tree from an early period of Sinhalese history. Botanists consider its long life, though remarkable, not impossible since trees of this species throw up fresh shoots from the roots near the parent stem. The sculptures at Sanchi represent a branch of a sacred tree being carried in procession, though no inscription attests its destination, and Fa-Hsien says that he saw the tree.[34] The author of the first part of the Mahâvamsa clearly regards it as already ancient, and throughout the history of Ceylon there are references to the construction of railings and terraces to protect it.

Devânampiya Tissa probably died in 207 B.C. In 177 the kingdom passed into the hands of Tamil monarchs who were not Buddhists, although the chroniclers praise their justice and the respect which they showed to the Church. The most important of them, Eḷâra, reigned for forty-four years and was dethroned by a descendant of Tissa, called Duṭṭhagâmaṇi.[35]

The exploits of this prince are recorded at such length in the Mahâvamsa (XXII.-XXXII.) as to suggest that they formed the subject of a separate popular epic, in which he figured as the champion of Sinhalese against the Tamils, and therefore as a devout Buddhist. On ascending the throne he felt, like Asoka, remorse for the bloodshed which had attended his early life and strove to atone for it by good works, especially the construction of sacred edifices. The most important of these were the Lohapasâda or Copper Palace and the Mahâthûpa or Ruwanweli Dagoba. The former[36] was a monastery roofed or covered with copper plates. Its numerous rooms were richly decorated and it consisted of nine storeys, of which the four uppermost were set apart for Arhats, and the lower assigned to the inferior grades of monks. Perhaps the nine storeys are an exaggeration: at any rate the building suffered from fire and underwent numerous reconstructions and modifications. King Mahâsena (301 A.D.) destroyed it and then repenting of his errors rebuilt it, but the ruins now representing it at Anuradhapura, which consist of stone pillars only, date from the reign of Parâkrama Bâhu I (about A.D. 1150). The immense pile known as the Ruwanweli Dagoba, though often injured by invaders in search of treasure, still exists. The somewhat dilapidated exterior is merely an outer shell, enclosing a smaller dagoba.[37] This is possibly the structure erected by Duṭṭhagâmaṇi, though tradition says that there is a still smaller edifice inside. The foundation and building of the original structure are related at great length.[38] Crowds of distinguished monks came to see the first stone laid, even from Kashmir and Alasanda. Some have identified the latter name with Alexandria in Egypt, but it probably denotes a Greek city on the Indus.[39] But in any case tradition represents Buddhists from all parts of India as taking part in the ceremony and thus recognizing the unity of Indian and Sinhalese Buddhism.

Of great importance for the history of the Sinhalese Church is the reign of Vaṭṭagâmaṇi Abhaya who after being dethroned by Tamils recovered his kingdom and reigned for twelve years.[40] He built a new monastery and dagoba known as Abhayagiri,[41] which soon became the enemy of the Mahâvihâra and heterodox, if the latter is to be considered orthodox. The account of the schism given in the Mahâvaṃsa[42] is obscure, but the dispute resulted in the Piṭakas, which had hitherto been preserved orally, being committed to writing. The council which defined and edited the scriptures was not attended by all the monasteries of Ceylon, but only by the monks of the Mahâvihâra, and the text which they wrote down was their special version and not universally accepted. It included the Parivâra, which was apparently a recent manual composed in Ceylon. The Mahâvaṃsa says no more about this schism, but the Nikâya-Sangrahawa[43] says that the monks of the Abhayagiri monastery now embraced the doctrines of the Vajjiputta school (one of the seventeen branches of the Mahâsanghikas) which was known in Ceylon as the Dhammaruci school from an eminent teacher of that name. Many pious kings followed who built or repaired sacred edifices and Buddhism evidently flourished, but we also hear of heresy. In the third century A.D.[44] King Voharaka Tissa suppressed[45] the Vetulyas. This sect was connected with the Abhayagiri monastery, but, though it lasted until the twelfth century, I have found no Sinhalese account of its tenets. It is represented as the worst of heresies, which was suppressed by all orthodox kings but again and again revived, or was reintroduced from India. Though it always found a footing at the Abhayagiri it was not officially recognized as the creed of that Monastery which since the time of Vaṭṭagâmaṇi seems to have professed the relatively orthodox doctrine called Dhammaruci.

Mention is made in the Kathâ-vatthu of heretics who held that the Buddha remained in the Tusita heaven and that the law was preached on earth not by him but by Ananda and the commentary[46] ascribes these views to the Vetulyakas. The reticence of the Sinhalese chronicles makes it doubtful whether the Vetulyakas of Ceylon and these heretics are identical but probably the monks of the Abhayagiri, if not strictly speaking Mahayanist, were an off-shoot of an ancient sect which contained some germs of the Mahayana. Hsüan Chuang in his narrative[47] states (probably from hearsay) that the monks of the Mahâvihâra were Hinayanists but that both vehicles were studied at the Abhayagiri. I-Ching on the contrary says expressly that all the Sinhalese belonged to the Âryasthavira Nikâya. Fa-Hsien describes the Buddhism of Ceylon as he saw it about 412 A.D., but does not apply to it the terms Hina or Mahayana. He evidently regarded the Abhayagiri as the principal religious centre and says it had 5000 monks as against 3000 in the Mahâvihâra, but though he dwells on the gorgeous ceremonial, the veneration of the sacred tooth, the representations of Gotama's previous lives, and the images of Maitreya, he does not allude to the worship of Avalokita and Mañjusrî or to anything that can be called definitely Mahayanist. He describes a florid and somewhat superstitious worship which may have tended to regard the Buddha as superhuman, but the relics of Gotama's body were its chief visible symbols and we have no ground for assuming that such teaching as is found in the Lotus sûtra was its theological basis. Yet we may legitimately suspect that the traditions of the Abhayagiri remount to early prototypes of that teaching.

In the second and third centuries the Court seems to have favoured the Mahâvihâra and King Goṭhâbhaya banished monks belonging to the Vetulya sect,[48] but in spite of this a monk of the Abhayagiri named Sanghamitta obtained his confidence and that of his son, Mahâsena, who occupied the throne from 275 to 302 A.D. The Mahâvihâra was destroyed and its occupants persecuted at Sanghamitta's instigation but he was murdered and after his death the great Monastery was rebuilt. The triumph however was not complete for Mahâsena built a new monastery called Jetavana on ground belonging to the Mahâvihâra and asked the monks to abandon this portion of their territory. They refused and according to the Mahâvamsa ultimately succeeded in proving their rights before a court of law. But the Jetavana remained as the headquarters of a sect known as Sagaliyas. They appear to have been moderately orthodox, but to have had their own text of the Vinaya for according to the Commentary[49] on the Mahâvamsa they "separated the two Vibhangas of the Bhagavâ[50] from the Vinaya ... altering their meaning and misquoting their contents." In the opinion of the Mahâvihâra both the Abhayagiri and Jetavana were schismatical, but the laity appear to have given their respect and offerings to all three impartially and the Mahâvamsa several times records how the same individual honoured the three Confraternities.

With the death of Mahâsena ends the first and oldest part of the Mahâvamsa, and also in native opinion the grand period of Sinhalese history, the subsequent kings being known as the Cûlavaṃsa or minor dynasty. A continuation[51] of the chronicle takes up the story and tells of the doings of Mahâsena's son Sirimeghavaṇṇa.[52] Judged by the standard of the Mahâvihâra, he was fairly satisfactory. He rebuilt the Lohapasâda and caused a golden image of Mahinda to be made and carried in procession. This veneration of the founder of a local church reminds one of the respect shown to the images of half-deified abbots in Tibet, China and Japan. But the king did not neglect the Abhayagiri or assign it a lower position than the Mahâvihâra for he gave it partial custody of the celebrated relic known as the Buddha's tooth which was brought to Ceylon from Kalinga in the ninth year of his reign and has ever since been considered the palladium of the island.

2

It may not be amiss to consider here briefly what is known of the history of the Buddha's relics and especially of this tooth. Of the minor distinctions between Buddhism and Hinduism one of the sharpest is this cultus. Hindu temples are often erected over natural objects supposed to resemble the footprint or some member of a deity and sometimes tombs receive veneration.[53] But no case appears to be known in which either Hindus or Jains show reverence to the bones or other fragments of a human body. It is hence remarkable that relic-worship should be so wide-spread in Buddhism and appear so early in its history. The earliest Buddhist monuments depict figures worshipping at a stupa, which was probably a reliquary, and there is no reason to distrust the traditions which carry the practice back at least to the reign of Asoka. The principal cause for its prevalence was no doubt that Buddhism, while creating a powerful religious current, provided hardly any objects of worship for the faithful.[54] It is also probable that the rudiments of relic worship existed in the districts frequented by the Buddha. The account of his death states that after the cremation of his body the Mallas placed his bones in their council hall and honoured them with songs and dances. Then eight communities or individuals demanded a portion of the relics and over each portion a cairn was built. These proceedings are mentioned as if they were the usual ceremonial observed on the death of a great man and in the same Sutta[55] the Buddha himself mentions four classes of men worthy of a cairn or dagoba.[56] We may perhaps conclude that in the earliest ages of Buddhism it was usual in north-eastern India to honour the bones of a distinguished man after cremation and inter them under a monument. This is not exactly relic worship but it has in it the root of the later tree. The Piṭakas contain little about the practice but the Milinda Pañha discusses the question at length and in one passage[57] endeavours to reconcile two sayings of the Buddha, "Hinder not yourselves by honouring the remains of the Tathâgatha" and "Honour that relic of him who is worthy of honour." It is the first utterance rather than the second that seems to have the genuine ring of Gotama.

The earliest known relics are those discovered in the stupa of Piprâvâ on the borders of Nepal in 1898. Their precise nature and the date of the inscription describing them have been the subject of much discussion. Some authorities think that this stupa may be one of those erected over a portion of the Buddha's ashes after his funeral. Even Barth, a most cautious and sceptical scholar, admitted[58] first that the inscription is not later than Asoka, secondly that the vase is a reliquary containing what were believed to be bones of the Buddha. Thus in the time of Asoka the worship of the Buddha's relics was well known and I see no reason why the inscription should not be anterior to that time.

According to Buddhaghosa's _Sumangalavilâsinî_ and Sinhalese texts which though late are based on early material[59], Mahâkassapa instigated Ajâtasattu to collect the relics of the Buddha, and to place them in a stupa, there to await the advent of Asoka. In Asoka's time the stupa had become overgrown and hidden by jungle but when the king was in search of relics, its position was revealed to him. He found inside it an inscription authorizing him to disperse the contents and proceeded to distribute them among the 84,000 monasteries which he is said to have constructed.

In its main outlines this account is probable. Ajâtasattu conquered the Licchavis and other small states to the north of Magadha and if he was convinced of the importance of the Buddha's relics it would be natural that he should transport them to his capital, regarding them perhaps as talismans.[60] Here they were neglected, though not damaged, in the reigns of Brahmanical kings and were rescued from oblivion by Asoka, who being sovereign of all India and anxious to spread Buddhism throughout his dominions would be likely to distribute the relics as widely as he distributed his pillars and inscriptions. But later Buddhist kings could not emulate this imperial impartiality and we may surmise that such a monarch as Kanishka would see to it that all the principal relics in northern India found their way to his capital. The bones discovered at Peshawar are doubtless those considered most authentic in his reign.

Next to the tooth, the most interesting relic of the Buddha was his _patra_ or alms-bowl, which plays a part somewhat similar to that of the Holy Grail in Christian romance. The Mahâvaṃsa states that Asoka sent it to Ceylon, but the Chinese pilgrim Fa-Hsien[61] saw it at Peshawar about 405 A.D. It was shown to the people daily at the midday and evening services. The pilgrim thought it contained about two pecks yet such were its miraculous properties that the poor could fill it with a gift of a few flowers, whereas the rich cast in myriads of bushels and found there was still room for more. A few years later Fa-Hsien heard a sermon in Ceylon[62] in which the preacher predicted that the bowl would be taken in the course of centuries to Central Asia, China, Ceylon and Central India whence it would ultimately ascend to the Tusita heaven for the use of the future Buddha. Later accounts to some extent record the fulfilment of these predictions inasmuch as they relate how the bowl (or bowls) passed from land to land but the story of its wandering may have little foundation since it is combined with the idea that it is wafted from shrine to shrine according as the faith is nourishing or decadent. Hsüan Chuang says that it "had gone on from Peshawar to several countries and was now in Persia.[63]" A Mohammedan legend relates that it is at Kandahar and will contain any quantity of liquid without overflowing. Marco Polo says Kublai Khan sent an embassy in 1284 to bring it from Ceylon to China.[64]

The wanderings of the tooth, though almost as surprising as those of the bowl, rest on better historical evidence, but there is probably more continuity in the story than in the holy object of which it is related, for the piece of bone which is credited with being the left canine tooth of the Blessed One may have been changed on more than one occasion. The Sinhalese chronicles,[65] as mentioned, say that it was brought to Ceylon in the ninth year of Sirimeghavaṇṇa.[66] This date may be approximately correct for about 413 or later Fa-Hsien described the annual festival of the tooth, during which it was exposed for veneration at the Abhayagiri monastery, without indicating that the usage was recent.

The tooth did not, according to Sinhalese tradition, form part of the relics distributed after the cremation of the Buddha. Seven bones, including four teeth,[67] were excepted from that distribution and the Sage Khema taking the left canine tooth direct from the funeral pyre gave it to the king of Kalinga, who enshrined it in a gorgeous temple at Dantapura[68] where it is supposed to have remained 800 years. At the end of that period a pious king named Guhasiva became involved in disastrous wars on account of the relic, and, as the best means of preserving it, bade his daughter fly with her husband[69] and take it to Ceylon. This, after some miraculous adventures, they were able to do. The tooth was received with great ceremony and lodged in an edifice called the Dhammacakka from which it was taken every year for a temporary sojourn[70] in the Abhayagiri monastery.

The cultus of the tooth flourished exceedingly in the next few centuries and it came to be regarded as the talisman of the king and nation. Hence when the court moved from Anuradhapura to Pollunaruwa it was installed in the new capital. In the troubled times which followed it changed its residence some fifteen times. Early in the fourteenth century it was carried off by the Tamils to southern India but was recovered by Parâkrama Bâhu III and during the commotion created by the invasions of the Tamils, Chinese and Portuguese it was hidden in various cities. In 1560 Dom Constantino de Bragança, Portuguese Viceroy of Goa, led a crusade against Jaffna to avenge the alleged persecution of Christians, and when the town was sacked a relic, described as the tooth of an ape mounted in gold, was found in a temple and carried off to Goa. On this Bayin Naung, King of Pegu, offered an enormous ransom to redeem it, which the secular government wished to accept, but the clergy and inquisition put such pressure on the Viceroy that he rejected the proposal. The archbishop of Goa pounded the tooth in a mortar before the viceregal court, burned the fragments and scattered the ashes over the sea.[71]

But the singular result of this bigotry was not to destroy one sacred tooth but to create two. The king of Pegu, who wished to marry a Sinhalese princess, sent an embassy to Ceylon to arrange the match. They were received by the king of Cotta, who bore the curiously combined name of Don Juan Dharmapâla. He had no daughter of his own but palmed off the daughter of a chamberlain. At the same time he informed the king of Pegu that the tooth destroyed at Goa was not the real relic and that this still remained in his possession. Bayin Naung was induced to marry the lady and received the tooth with appropriate ceremonies. But when the king of Kandy heard of these doings, he apprized the king of Pegu of the double trick that had been played on him. He offered him his own daughter, a veritable princess, in marriage and as her dowry the true tooth which, he said, was neither that destroyed at Goa nor yet that sent to Pegu, but one in his own possession. Bayin Naung received the Kandyan embassy politely but rejected its proposals, thinking no doubt that it would be awkward to declare the first tooth spurious after it had been solemnly installed as a sacred relic. The second tooth therefore remained in Kandy and appears to be that now venerated there. When Vimala Dharma re-established the original line of kings, about 1592, it was accepted as authentic.

As to its authenticity, it appears to be beyond doubt that it is a piece of discoloured bone about two inches long, which could never have been the tooth of an ordinary human being, so that even the faithful can only contend that the Buddha was of superhuman stature. Whether it is the relic which was venerated in Ceylon before the arrival of the Portuguese is a more difficult question, for it may be argued with equal plausibility that the Sinhalese had good reasons for hiding the real tooth and good reasons for duplicating it. The strongest argument against the authenticity of the relic destroyed by the Portuguese is that it was found in Jaffna, which had long been a Tamil town, whereas there is no reason to believe that the real tooth was at this time in Tamil custody. But, although the native literature always speaks of it as unique, the Sinhalese appear to have produced replicas more than once, for we hear of such being sent to Burma and China.[72] Again, the offer to ransom the tooth came not from Ceylon but from the king of Pegu, who, as the sequel shows, was gullible in such matters: the Portuguese clearly thought that they had acquired a relic of primary importance; on any hypothesis one of the kings of Ceylon must have deceived the king of Pegu, and finally Vimala Dharma had the strongest political reasons for accepting as genuine the relic kept at Kandy, since the possession of the true tooth went far to substantiate a Sinhalese monarch's right to the throne.

The tooth is now preserved in a temple at Kandy. The visitor looking through a screen of bars can see on a silver table a large jewelled case shaped like a bell. Flowers scattered on the floor or piled on other tables fill the chamber with their heavy perfume. Inside the bell are six other bells of diminishing size, the innermost of which covers a golden lotus containing the sacred tooth. But it is only on rare occasions that the outer caskets are removed. Worshippers as a rule have to content themselves with offering flowers[73] and bowing but I was informed that the priests celebrate _puja_ daily before the relic. The ceremony comprises the consecration and distribution of rice and is interesting as connecting the veneration of the tooth with the ritual observed in Hindu temples. But we must return to the general history of Buddhism in Ceylon.

3

The kings who ruled in the fifth century were devout Buddhists and builders of vihâras but the most important event of this period, not merely for the island but for the whole Buddhist church in the south, was the literary activity of Buddhaghosa who is said to have resided in Ceylon during the reign of Mahânâma. The chief authorities for his life are a passage in the continuation of the Mahâvamsa[74] and the Buddhaghosuppatti, a late Burmese text of about 1550, which, while adding many anecdotes, appears not to come from an independent source.[75] The gist of their account is that he was born in a Brahman family near Gaya and early obtained renown as a disputant. He was converted to Buddhism by a monk named Revata and began to write theological treatises.[76] Revata observing his intention to compose a commentary on the Piṭakas, told him that only the text (pâlimattam) of the scriptures was to be found in India, not the ancient commentaries, but that the Sinhalese commentaries were genuine, having been composed in that language by Mahinda. He therefore bade Buddhaghosa repair to Ceylon and translate these Sinhalese works into the idiom of Magadha, by which Pali must be meant. Buddhaghosa took this advice and there is no reason to distrust the statement of the Mahâvamsa that he arrived in the reign of Mahânâma, who ruled according to Geiger from 458 to 480, though the usual reckoning places him about fifty years earlier. The fact that Fa-Hsien, who visited Ceylon about 412, does not mention Buddhaghosa is in favour of Geiger's chronology.[77]

He first studied in the Mahâvihâra and eventually requested permission to translate the Sinhalese commentaries. To prove his competence for the task he composed the celebrated Visuddhi-magga, and, this being considered satisfactory, he took up his residence in the Ganthâkara Vihâra and proceeded to the work of translation. When it was finished he returned to India or according to the Talaing tradition to Thaton. The Buddhaghosuppatti adds two stories of which the truth and meaning are equally doubtful. They are that Buddhaghosa burnt the works written by Mahinda and that his knowledge of Sanskrit was called in question but triumphantly proved. Can there be here any allusion to a Sanskrit canon supported by the opponents of the Mahâvihâra?

Even in its main outline the story is not very coherent for one would imagine that, if a Buddhist from Magadha went to Ceylon to translate the Sinhalese commentaries, his object must have been to introduce them among Indian Buddhists. But there is no evidence that Buddhaghosa did this and he is for us simply a great figure in the literary and religious history of Ceylon. Burmese tradition maintains that he was a native of Thaton and returned thither, when his labours in Ceylon were completed, to spread the scriptures in his native language. This version of his activity is intelligible, though the evidence for it is weak.

He composed a great corpus of exegetical literature which has been preserved, but, since much of it is still unedited, the precise extent of his labours is uncertain. There is however little doubt of the authenticity of his commentaries on the four great Nikâyas, on the Abhidhamma and on the Vinaya (called Samanta-pâsâdikâ) and in them[78] he refers to the Visuddhi-magga as his own work. He says expressly that his explanations are founded on Sinhalese materials, which he frequently cites as the opinion of the ancients (porânâ). By this word he probably means traditions recorded in Sinhalese and attributed to Mahinda, but it is in any case clear that the works which he consulted were considered old in the fifth century A.D. Some of their names are preserved in the Samanta-pâsâdikâ where he mentions the great commentary (Mahâ-Aṭṭhakathâ), the Raft commentary (Paccari, so called because written on a raft), the Kurundi commentary composed at Kurunda-Velu and others[79]. All this literature has disappeared and we can only judge of it by Buddhaghosa's reproduction which is probably not a translation but a selection and rearrangement. Indeed his occasional direct quotations from the ancients or from an Aṭṭhakathâ imply that the rest of the work is merely based on the Sinhalese commentaries.

Buddhaghosa was not an independent thinker but he makes amends for his want of originality not only by his industry and learning but by his power of grasping and expounding the whole of an intricate subject. His Visuddhi-magga has not yet been edited in Europe, but the extracts and copious analysis[80] which have been published indicate that it is a comprehensive restatement of Buddhist doctrine made with as free a hand as orthodoxy permitted. The Mahâvamsa observes that the Theras held his works in the same estimation as the Piṭakas. They are in no way coloured by the Mahayanist tenets which were already prevalent in India, but state in its severest form the Hinayanist creed, of which he is the most authoritative exponent. The Visuddhi-magga is divided into three parts treating of conduct (sîlam), meditation (samâdhi) and knowledge (paññâ), the first being the necessary substratum for the religious life of which the others are the two principal branches. But though he intersperses his exposition with miraculous stories and treats exhaustively of superhuman powers, no trace of the worship of Mahayanist Bodhisattvas is found in his works and, as for literature, he himself is the chief authority for the genuineness and completeness of the Pali Canon as we know it.

When we find it said that his works were esteemed as highly as the Piṭakas, or that the documents which he translated into Pali were the words of the Buddha[81], the suspicion naturally arises that the Pali Canon may be in part his composition and it may be well to review briefly its history in Ceylon. Our knowledge appears to be derived entirely from the traditions of the Mahâvihâra which represent Mahinda as teaching the text of the Piṭakas orally, accompanied by a commentary. If we admit the general truth of the narrative concerning Mahinda's mission, there is nothing improbable in these statements, for it would be natural that an Indian teacher should know by heart his sacred texts and the commentaries on them. We cannot of course assume that the Piṭakas of Mahinda were the Pali Canon as we know it, but the inscriptions of Asoka refer to passages which can be found in that canon and therefore parts of it at any rate must have been accepted as scripture in the third century B.C. But it is probable that considerable variation was permitted in the text, although the sense and a certain terminology were carefully guarded. It was not till the reign of Vaṭṭagâmaṇi, probably about 20 B.C., that the canon was committed to writing and the Parivâra, composed in Ceylon[82], was included in it.

In the reign of Buddhadâsa[83] a learned monk named Mahâdhammakathi is said to have translated the Suttas into Sinhalese, which at this time was esteemed the proper language for letters and theology, but in the next century a contrary tendency, probably initiated by Buddhaghosa, becomes apparent and Sinhalese works are rewritten in Pali.[84] But nothing indicates that any part of what we call the Pali Canon underwent this process. Buddhaghosa distinguishes clearly between text and comment, between Pali and Sinhalese documents. He has a coherent history of the text, beginning with the Council of Râjagaha; he discusses various readings, he explains difficult words. He treated the ancient commentaries with freedom, but there is no reason to think that he allowed himself any discretion or right of selection in dealing with the sacred texts accepted by the Mahâvihâra, though it might be prudent to await the publication of his commentaries on all the Nikâyas before asserting this unreservedly.

To sum up, the available evidence points to the conclusion that in the time of Asoka texts and commentaries preserved orally were brought to Ceylon. The former, though in a somewhat fluid condition, were sufficiently sacred to be kept unchanged in the original Indian language, the latter were translated into the kindred but still distinct vernacular of the island. In the next century and a half some additions to the Pali texts were made and about 20 B.C. the Mahâvihâra, which proved as superior to the other communities in vitality as it was in antiquity, caused written copies to be made of what it considered as the canon, including some recent works. There is no evidence that Buddhaghosa or anyone else enlarged or curtailed the canon, but the curious tradition that he collected and burned all the books written by Mahinda in Sinhalese[85] may allude to the existence of other works which he (presumably in agreement with the Mahâvihâra) considered spurious.

Soon after the departure of Buddhaghosa Dhâtusena came to the throne and "held like Dhammasoka a convocation about the three Piṭakas."[86] This implies that there was still some doubt as to what was scripture and that the canon of the Mahâvihâra was not universally accepted. The Vetulyas, of whom we heard in the third century A.D., reappear in the seventh when they are said to have been supported by a provincial governor but not by the king Aggabodhi[87] and still more explicitly in the reign of Parâkrama Bâhu (c. 1160). He endeavoured to reconcile to the Mahâvihâra "the Abhayagiri brethren who separated themselves from the time of king Vaṭṭagâmaṇi Abhaya and the Jetavana brethren that had parted since the days of Mahâsena and taught the Vetulla Piṭaka and other writings as the words of Buddha, which indeed were not the words of Buddha[88]." So it appears that another recension of the canon was in existence for many centuries.

Dhâtusena, though depicted in the Mahâvaṃsa as a most orthodox monarch, embellished the Abhayagiri monastery and was addicted to sumptuous ceremonies in honour of images and relics. Thus he made an image of Mahinda, dedicated a shrine and statue to Metteyya and ornamented the effigies of Buddha with the royal jewels. In an image chamber (apparently at the Abhayagiri) he set up figures of Bodhisattvas,[89] by which we should perhaps understand the previous births of Gotama. He was killed by his son and Sinhalese history degenerated into a complicated story of crime and discord, in which the weaker faction generally sought the aid of the Tamils. These latter became more and more powerful and with their advance Buddhism tended to give place to Hinduism. In the eighth century the court removed from Anuradhapura to Pollannaruwa, in order to escape from the pressure of the Tamils, but the picture of anarchy and decadence grows more and more gloomy until the accession of Vijaya Bâhu in 1071 who succeeded in making himself king of all Ceylon. Though he recovered Anuradhapura it was not made the royal residence either by himself or by his greater successor, Parâkrama Bâhu.[90] This monarch, the most eminent in the long list of Ceylon's sovereigns, after he had consolidated his power, devoted himself, in the words of Tennent, "to the two grand objects of royal solicitude, religion and agriculture." He was lavish in building monasteries, temples and libraries, but not less generous in constructing or repairing tanks and works of irrigation. In the reign of Vijaya Bâhu hardly any duly ordained monks were to be found,[91] the succession having been interrupted, and the deficiency was supplied by bringing qualified Theras from Burma. But by the time of Parâkrama Bâhu the old quarrels of the monasteries revived, and, as he was anxious to secure unity, he summoned a synod at Anuradhapura. It appears to have attained its object by recognizing the Mahâvihâra as the standard of orthodoxy and dealing summarily with dissentients.[92] The secular side of monastic life also received liberal attention. Lands, revenues and guest-houses were provided for the monasteries as well as hospitals. As in Burma and Siam Brahmans were respected and the king erected a building for their use in the capital. Like Asoka, he forbade the killing of animals.

But the glory of Parâkrama Bâhu stands up in the later history of Ceylon like an isolated peak and thirty years after his death the country had fallen almost to its previous low level of prosperity. The Tamils again occupied many districts and were never entirely dislodged as long as the Sinhalese kingdom lasted. Buddhism tended to decline but was always the religion of the national party and was honoured with as much magnificence as their means allowed. Parâkrama Bâhu II (c. 1240), who recovered the sacred tooth from the Tamils, is said to have celebrated splendid festivals and to have imported learned monks from the country of the Colas.[93] Towards the end of the fifteenth century the inscriptions of Kalyani indicate that Sinhalese religion enjoyed a great reputation in Burma.[94]

A further change adverse to Buddhism was occasioned by the arrival of the Portuguese in 1505. A long and horrible struggle ensued between them and the various kings among whom the distracted island was divided until at the end of the sixteenth century only Kandy remained independent, the whole coast being in the hands of the Portuguese. The singular barbarities which they perpetrated throughout this struggle are vouched for by their own historians,[95] but it does not appear that the Sinhalese degraded themselves by similar atrocities. Since the Portuguese wished to propagate Roman Catholicism as well as to extend their political rule and used for this purpose (according to the Mahâvaṃsa) the persuasions of gold as well as the terrors of torture, it is not surprising if many Sinhalese professed allegiance to Christianity, but when in 1597 the greater part of Ceylon formally accepted Portuguese sovereignty, the chiefs insisted that they should be allowed to retain their own religion and customs.

The Dutch first appeared in 1602 and were welcomed by the Court of Kandy as allies capable of expelling the Portuguese. This they succeeded in doing by a series of victories between 1638 and 1658, and remained masters of a great part of the island until their possessions were taken by the British in 1795. Kandy however continued independent until 1815. At first the Dutch tried to enforce Christianity and to prohibit Buddhism within their territory[96] but ultimately hatred of the Roman Catholic church made them favourable to Buddhism and they were ready to assist those kings who desired to restore the national religion to its former splendour.

4

In spite of this assistance the centuries when the Sinhalese were contending with Europeans were not a prosperous time for Buddhism. Hinduism spread in the north,[97] Christianity in the coast belt, but still it was a point of honour with most native sovereigns to protect the national religion so far as their distressed condition allowed. For the seventeenth century we have an interesting account of the state of the country called _An Historical Relation of the Island of Ceylon_ by an Englishman, Robert Knox, who was detained by the king of Kandy from 1660 to 1680. He does not seem to have been aware that there was any distinction between Buddhism and Hinduism. Though he describes the Sinhalese as idolaters, he also emphasizes the fact that Buddou (as he writes the name) is the God "unto whom the salvation of souls belongs," and for whom "above all others they have a high respect and devotion." He also describes the ceremonies of pirit and bana, the perahera procession, and two classes of Buddhist monks, the elders and the ordinary members of the Sangha. His narrative indicates that Buddhism was accepted as the higher religion, though men were prone to pray to deities who would save from temporal danger.

About this time Vimala Dharma II[98] made great efforts to improve the religious condition of the island and finding that the true succession had again failed, arranged with the Dutch to send an embassy to Arakan and bring back qualified Theras. But apparently the steps taken were not sufficient, for when king Kittisiri Râjasiha (1747-81), whose piety forms the theme of the last two chapters of the Mahâvaṃsa, set about reforming the Sangha, he found that duly ordained monks were extinct and that many so-called monks had families. He therefore decided to apply to Dhammika, king of Ayuthia in Siam, and like his predecessor despatched an embassy on a Dutch ship. Dhammika sent back a company of "more than ten monks" (that is more than sufficient for the performance of all ecclesiastical acts) under the Abbot Upâli in 1752 and another to relieve it in 1755.[99] They were received by the king of Ceylon with great honour and subsequently by the ordination which they conferred placed the succession beyond dispute. But the order thus reconstituted was aristocratic and exclusive: only members of the highest caste were admitted to it and the wealthy middle classes found themselves excluded from a community which they were expected to honour and maintain. This led to the despatch of an embassy to Burma in 1802 and to the foundation of another branch of the Sangha, known as the Amarapura school, distinct in so far as its validity depended on Burmese not Siamese ordination.

Since ordination is for Buddhists merely self-dedication to a higher life and does not confer any sacramental or sacerdotal powers, the importance assigned to it may seem strange. But the idea goes back to the oldest records in the Vinaya and has its root in the privileges accorded to the order. A Bhikkhu had a right to expect much from the laity, but he also had to prove his worth and Gotama's early legislation was largely concerned with excluding unsuitable candidates. The solicitude for valid ordination was only the ecclesiastical form of the popular feeling that the honours and immunities of the order were conditional on its maintaining a certain standard of conduct. Other methods of reform might have been devised, but the old injunction that a monk could be admitted only by other duly ordained monks was fairly efficacious and could not be disputed. But the curious result is that though Ceylon was in early times the second home of Buddhism, almost all (if indeed not all) the monks found there now derive their right to the title of Bhikkhu from foreign countries.