monks, caves and kings a reassessment of the nature of early buddhism in sri lanka

Monks, Caves and Kings: A Reassessment of the Nature of Early Buddhism in Sri LankaAuthor(s): Robin A. E. ConinghamSource: World Archaeology, Vol. 27, No. 2, Buddhist Archaeology (Oct., 1995), pp. 222-242Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/125083 .Accessed: 19/05/2011 11:37

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to WorldArchaeology.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis

http://www.jstor.org/stable/125083?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis

Monks, caves and kings: a

reassessment of the nature of early

Buddhism in Sri Lanka

Robin A. E. Coningham

Abstract

This paper begins by describing the early history of Buddhism in Sri Lanka as recorded in the two Pali chronicles, the Dipavamsa and the Mahavamsa. Their general approach treats the introduction of Buddhism into the island as a royal package sent by the Emperor Asoka to his Sri Lankan ally Devanampiya Tissa, through the former's son and daughter, Mahinda and Sanghamitta. Buddhism was immediately accepted as the state religion, thus linking it with the destiny of the Sinhala people.

This pattern is not, however, supported by the only extant category of Buddhist archaeological remains from this period - over 1,000 Buddhist cave-dwellings. It is clear from their dedicatory inscriptions that they were constructed by patrons bearing high royal titles about whom the chronicles are remarkably silent.

By drawing from studies of modern forest-dwelling monks, it is possible to identify more fully the processes at work and to identify the discrepancy between the two records. It is argued that the first monks attracted political patronage by virtue of their ascetic discipline and soon became one of the vehicles for competition between localized political organizations. As this competition ended, a single high king ruling a loose political federation emerged, with the formerly ascetic monastery communities as wealthy feudal landlords; both were increasingly interdependent. This relationship led to the creation of a foundation myth forever cementing the interests of the legitimate rulers with the survival and patronage of Buddhism.

Keywords

Anuradhapura; Early Buddhism; forest monks; inscriptions; kingship; Sri Lanka.

Introduction

The island of Sri Lanka (former Ceylon) covers some 65,525 km2 and is located off the extreme southeastern coast of the Indian Peninsula (see Chakrabarti Fig. 1, this volume). Although it is separated from India by a narrow physical distance, the Palk straits, culturally that distance is far wider. Whilst the southern Indian polities have been typified as consisting of Hindu Dravidian speakers, the Sri Lankan polity has been typified as

World Archaeology Vol. 27(2): 222-42 BuddhistArchaeology

?C Routledge 1995 0043-8243

Monks, caves and kings in Sri Lanka 223

consisting of Buddhist Indo-European speakers. Although Buddhism was brought to the island only in the third century BC, well after its development in north India, Sri Lanka's estimated 11,178,000 Buddhists currently represent South Asia's largest concentration of this religion (Somasekaram 1988: 2). Buddhism's introduction to the island proved to be a remarkable catalyst which aided the transformation of a number of largely undifferenti- ated societies into a single powerful kingly polity.

According to Buddhist tradition, as contained in the two Sri Lankan chronicles, the Dipavamsa (Oldenberg 1982) and the Mahavamsa (Geiger 1934), Buddhism was introduced to Sri Lanka as part of a royal gift sent by the Indian Emperor, Asoka, to his Sri Lankan ally, Devanampiya Tissa in about 250 BC. This king immediately adopted it as the state religion and became its first major Sri Lankan patron. This pattern, however, is not supported by the only extant category of Buddhist archaeological remains from this period - over a thousand caves on the island. It is clear from their donors' inscriptions that they were constructed by many patrons, not just by Devanampiya Tissa. Some were even constructed by kings who are not mentioned in the chronicles.

This study will attempt to use analogies with modern forest-dwelling monks in order to recreate the practices and attractions of early Buddhism. It will be argued that the first monks attracted political patronage and became one of the vehicles for competition between localized political organizations. As this competition ended, a single high king ruling a loose political federation emerged, with the formerly ascetic sangha (the monkish community) as wealthy feudal landlords. This relationship led to the creation of an orthodox tradition cementing the interests of the legitimate rulers with the survival and patronage of urbanized Buddhism.

Before commencing, certain conventions adopted in the text should be explained. De Silva's list of Sri Lankan rulers (De Silva 1981: 565-70) has been accepted as an initial framework for the island's chronology. It should also be noted that inscriptions and chronicles have been studied in translation and that all diacritics have been dispensed with following the convention used by the Cambridge Encyclopaedia of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan and the Maldives (Robinson 1989). References in the text to the three Sri Lankan chronicles, the Dipavamsa (Dvs), the Mahavamsa (Mvs) and the Culavamsa (Cvs), have been reduced to Endnotes.

Early Buddhism and the Sri Lankan chronicles

The early history of Buddhism in Sri Lanka is constructed from its two chronicles, the Dipavamsa and the Mahavamsa (Bechert 1978: 3). The former was composed at the end of the fourth century AD, and the latter's earliest section, which covers the introduction of Buddhism to the island, was recorded in the fifth century AD (Geiger 1934: x; 1960: 71). Although both are later than the introduction of Buddhism to the island in the third century BC, there is evidence that they were composed by Buddhist bhikkhus (monks) from a variety of earlier chronicles, records of royal donations to the sangha, king lists and political geohistories.

The general reliability of the chronological aspects of the chronicles can be illustrated by the correlation between the royal genealogies contained within them and a series of royal

224 Robin A. E. Coningham

Palk Straits

ot~~~~~s3

o ~ ? 50 k

Figue Mn aswng apura District t

Uradhapur& a 0 Mihintale

\ t / ~~~Ritigala * \ g \ \ Po~~~~~alannaruva Dist

Ma tle District L -

s~~~~~~~d Distric

Kegall\7Distrect<S E

gS \nx X X ~Ba l la D istr t

l Mof ~~~~~C~afagala Di

Noorth\

? 50krn

-Figure I Map of Sri Lanka showing sites mentioned in the text.


0 "'S 0 ;0w' a0

t *t-t*- @ * * 'I .t~~~~~ %

O e Ct~~~~~~~~~~~~

North nuadhpur

I _ _ _ _ H~~~~~~~~~~0 o 5~~~~~~0k Figue 3 Mapof ri ank sh win th lo ati ns o ca e-d ellngs wit ealy udd istdontio . ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~ .

lnscrlptlons.~~~~~~~~~*0


inscriptions dating to between 77 BC and AD 9. The Dipavamsa and the Mahavamsa record that king Mahaculika (r. 77-63 BC)1 was a member of the royal family which carried the name Devanampiya (friend of the gods). His son, Kutakanna Tissa (r. 5148 & 44-22 BC),2

became king - as did his grandsons Bhatik Abhaya (r. 22 BC - AD 7)3 and Mahadathika Maha Naga (r. AD 7-9 ).4 The latter's son, Amanda Gamani Naga (r. AD 19-29),5 also succeeded to the throne. This royal succession list conforms with the following inscriptions, although they are from varied localities within the island. Two were from an isolated rock in a swamp in Polonnaruva district, one from a cliff within a monastic complex in Anuradhapura district, and one from a rock within a monastic complex in Monaragala district (Fig. 1):

Kutakana Abhaya, son of Mahaculi of the Devanampiya family (Paranavitana 1970, II.I: no. 1)

Batiya, son of Kutakanna Gamani Abhaya (ibid.: no. 9)

the great king Naga, the grandson of the great king Tissa, the friend of the gods, and the son of Kutakanna Gamani Abhaya

(ibid.: no. 23)

the great king Gamani Abhaya, friend of the gods, son of the great king Naga, and grandson of the great king Putakana Abhaya, the friend of the gods.

(ibid.: no. 36)

It is clear that the genealogies contained by the two sources correlate closely, notwithstanding errors involving the royal titles Gamani, Tissa, Abhaya and Devanam- piya.

Having established the reliability of the chronicles' genealogies, the next section will present the arrival and establishment of Buddhism in Sri Lanka as recorded by them. It is recorded that during the first year of Devanampiya Tissa's coronation (ca. 250 BC) as king of Tambapanni (Sri Lanka), many miraculous riches appeared in the island.6 The new king decided to send them to Asoka, the Indian emperor, as they 'were both intimate friends, united by faithful affection'.7 He sent them with a deputation consisting of his chaplain, his commander-in-chief, astrologer and minister with the words, 'Present these most precious treasures to Asoka, my ally.'8 Asoka returned the deputation with the gift of royal insignia for a second and imperially sanctioned coronation. He also sent a message concerning his own conversion to Buddhism:

I have taken refuge in the Buddha, the dharma [the-doctrine], and the sangha [monkish community]; I have avowed myself a lay pupil of the Doctrine of the Sayaputta. Imbue your mind also with the faith in this triad, in the highest religion of the Jina, take your refuge in the Teacher.'9

At the same time, the theta (Buddhist elder) Mahinda, a son of Asoka,10 and five companions were requested by other elders to leave India and to 'convert the island of Lanka."' Mahinda was then again requested to convert the island, this time by Sakka (the


Abhayagiri Vihara

Malwattu Ve {river)

0 (Bulan kulm (reservoir)

0 City I Anuradha ura

O cistern Monasteries apovana)

0 0 0

r H Thupara tu a

ahananda Garden Basewk Kuiem (reservoir)

Mahavihara (Mahameghavan Gard

* Bo-treeorWw r rr~r

Nuwara Wewa (reservoir)

O lsurumuni Vlh ra

Tisa Wwa (reservoir)

O Vessagiriye hara North

0 1km

Figure 2 Map of Anuradhapura showing sites mentioned in the text.

king of the gods).12 The six agreed and allegedly flew to Sri Lanka and landed near Anuradhapura, the capital of king Devanampiya Tissa, on the Missaka mountain (now known as Mihintale) 'as swans (alight) on the summit of a hill'."3 It is also recorded that Mahinda possessed great magical powers and the six supernatural faculties,14 whilst his five companions were equipped with the six supernatural faculties.'5

Devanampiya Tissa was hunting on Mihintale and was led to the group by the yakkha (spirit) of the mountain in the disguise of a stag.'6 Mahinda addressed the king by name' and successfully converted him and his accompanying hunters.'8 The king requested the six to proceed to his capital, but, declining the use of a chariot, they allegedly flew to Anuradhapura."9 A pavilion was erected for their use in the grounds of the palace so that


they might preach to and convert the ladies of the court.20 The six then preached to the city's citizens in the Elephant Stables21 and in the Mahanandana pleasure garden to the south of the city,22 converting great numbers of them.

When night came the king asked them to stay in the garden, but Mahinda replied that 'The town . . . is too close by; in the night there will be a great noise; nay let us go to that mountain which is like the palace of Sakka and well fitting for a retired existence'.23 The king then offered another royal pleasure garden, the Mahameghavana, which 'is well fitted for a retired existence and suits ascetic people'.24 The six agreed to spend the night there in the royal pavilion.25 The next day the garden was given to the sangha for the construction of the Maha Vihara or great monastery (Fig. 2).26 Together Mahinda and the king identified the locations of the important buildings to be built there,27 and the king marked the limits of the monastery with a plough.28 Each day the six went into the city to preach and receive alms from the king; but when the rainy season approached, they returned to Mihintale.29 Devanampiya Tissa followed them there and offered them cave-dwellings saying 'venerable thera, take possession of these rock-cut cells'30 and Mahinda marked the new monastery's boundaries.3' Following this, the king's nephew and fifty-five chiefs were ordained and joined the sangha.32

At the end of the rainy season, relics of the Buddha, consisting of his alms-bowl and collar-bone, were collected from Asoka33 and the king of the gods;34 and Devanampiya Tissa began the construction of the Thuparama stupa (a stone and brick mound or tumulus) for them.35 The king's wife requested ordination from Mahinda but was told that it could only be conferred by bhikkhunis (Buddhist nuns).36 Therefore Mahinda's sister, Sanghamitta, was sent for. She brought a branch of the bodhi-tree, under which the Buddha obtained enlightenment, to Anuradhapura37 and planted it in the Maha Vihara. Royal patronage continued with the founding of further religious establishments, including the Isurumuni monastery,38 Vessagiri monastery,39 Colakatissa Vihara,40 and two convents.4' Devanampiya Tissa was succeeded by his younger brother, Uttiya, during whose reign Mahinda died at Mihintale42 and was cremated near the east gate of the Maha Vihara where the site was marked with a stupa.43

These documents imply that the establishment of Buddhism in Sri Lanka was a royal prerogative. Mahinda was sent during the reign of Asoka as part of the latter's efforts to convert neighbouring states to Buddhism. The two principal missionaries, Mahinda and Sanghamitta, were even his children. It is also clear that, once the Sri Lankan king had been converted, Buddhism immediately become the state religion of the Anuradhapura kingdom with royal sponsorship, and all the early Buddhist establishments and their monuments were the result of the king's patronage. Although we know the locations of nearly all of these early Buddhist establishments, they have been so developed and expanded by later kings that no trace of the original structures have been identified.

Early Buddhism and the Sri Lankan inscriptions

In comparison with the above documentary record, the presence of early Buddhism in the archaeological record is not so clear. Of the original establishments, there is a single extant category of early Buddhist monuments - over a thousand cave-dwellings (Fig. 3). Their


74,

Plate I General view of early cave-dwellings at Vessagiri monastery in Anuradhapura (free- standing ornamental ashlar are later additions).

survival is due to their indestructibility; whilst other monuments have been remodelled or robbed out, they have remained in a pristine state. Unlike the contemporary Indian rock-cut caves of Barabar which were completely rock-cut, most Sri Lankan examples are in a more natural state (Plate 1). Rahula describes a fifth-century AD technique for making natural caves habitable. The cave was filled with firewood and set alight in order to remove unpleasant smells and dislodge loose splinters of rock. The cave was then cleared of debris, a wall built across the mouth and a drip ledge cut above the mouth to prevent rainwater flowing into the cave (Rahula 1956: 114).

The dating of these caves is facilitated by the presence of inscriptions on the drip ledges above the caves (Plate 2), without which it would be impossible to date or suggest a function. The majority of these were recorded and deciphered during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century; however, this work had begun as early as 1855 AD

(Paranavitana 1970, I: i). Although Paranavitana's monograph, The Early Brahmi Inscriptions of Ceylon, contained 1,234 donations of caves, he noted that 'it cannot by any means be claimed that all such records in the Island have been included' (ibid.: v). Each inscription records the donation of at least one cave to the sangha between the third century BC and the first century AD.

The inscriptions often contain information about the royal and religious affiliation and occupation of the patron (Table 1). Of the 1,234 donations, seventy-nine were from royal patrons or members of the royal family (ibid.: xlvi). To this number we may add


I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~N C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Plate 2 Detail of a drip ledge and early Buddhist donation inscription at Vessagiri monastery in Anuradhapura.

Paranavitana's category of local rulers and princes, resulting in a total of 6.4 per cent royal donations. Twenty-one donations were from brahmans (members of high caste Hindu priestly families) and their families, with occupations listed as treasurers, chiefs, royal physicians and teachers. They represent 1.7 per cent of the sample, and one even records royal connections (ibid.: no. 814). The majority of the titled donors, 372, are recorded from individuals bearing the title parumaka (chief) and their families (ibid: lxxiv), representing 30.2 per cent of the inscriptions. Donations by gamikas (village squires) and

Table I Details of the rank of donors of early Buddhist cave-dwellings in Sri Lanka

Donor No. of donations % of donations

Royal 79 6.4 Brahmans 21 1.7 Parumakas 372 30.2 Gamikas 103 8.3 Gapatis 66 5.3 Craftsmen 13 1.1 Others 580 47

Total 1234 100


their families (ibid.: lxxxvii-iii) account for 103 inscriptions, representing 8.3 per cent. Another significant group is that of the gapatis (householders) and their families with a total of sixty-six inscriptions, representing some 5.3 per cent. There are only thirteen donations from craftsmen, representing 1.1 per cent of the sample. It is also possible to make comments on the religious affiliations of donors. As mentioned above, twenty-one caves were donated by Brahmans or the relatives of Brahmans (ibid.: lxviii); in addition, there were five donations by individuals with names that belong to a Brahman gotra (family) (ibid.: lxix). The majority of patrons had names suggesting the very varied religious affin- ities possessed by the first patrons of Buddhism (ibid: cxxiii). One inscription even suggests that the donor was himself a Brahman who had become a Buddhist monk (ibid.: lxviii).

Although there are seventy-nine royal donors, very few can be identified with individuals in the chronicles. Paranavitana failed to identify a single donation from the first royal patron of Buddhism, Devanampiya Tissa (r. 250-210 BC). However, it seems possible that nos. 2 and 31 are donations from one of his consorts and from the sister of one of his consorts (ibid.: liv). Only three donations, nos. 34, 46 & 47, have been identified from king Uttiya (r. 210-200 BC), Devanampiya Tissa's brother and successor (ibid.: lii). Other identified kings include Vankanasika Tissa (r. AD 111-114), the donor of no. 54 (Parana- vitana, 1970, II. 1), and Lanjatissa (r. 119-109 BC), the donor of twenty-five caves in no. 428 (Paranavitana 1970, I).

Although it may be argued that many inscriptions do not allow the identification of a particular king, there are cases of donations from kings who are not mentioned in the chronicles. We can construct the genealogy of three generations of a previously unknown royal family from the four inscriptions in the Kandy/Matale region. Pacina Rajha (king) Naga, his sons Rajha Abaya and Tisa-aya (prince), and his grandson Tisa-aya, are mentioned in nos. 814, 831, 832 and 833. Another royal family were patrons in the Kegalle area. Four generations of the family of king Duhatara made donations at the same sites (ibid.: nos. 786, 792 and 795). They record the donations of the king himself; his son, prince Siva; his grandson, prince Dusatara; and his great-grandson, Gamani-Siva. Three generations of another unknown royal family are recorded in Badulla District (ibid.: nos. 756 and 757). Two inscriptions allow us to construct the genealogy of king Siva, his son, prince Siva and his grandson, prince Siva. Another previously unrecorded king is found in western Anuradhapura District, where no. 111 refers to Rajaputta (son of a king) Kanna, the son of king Kanna. Yet another unknown king, Diparajha (king of the island), can be identified in the donation of his daughter at Mihintale (ibid.: no. 37). Paranavitana believed that this referred to the ruler of Nagadipa (the Jaffna Peninsula) (ibid.: lxiii). The most interesting donation is no. 813 in Kandy District. From this single inscription it is possible to reconstruct five generations of a royal family which can be identified in the Sri Lankan chronicles. The genealogy begins with king Mahaculi Mahatissa (r. 77-63 BC), who was succeeded by his son, king Kutakanna Abhaya (r. 41-19 BC); his grandson, king Ma- hadathika Mahanaga (r. 9-21 AD); and his great-grandson, king Amanda Gamani Abhaya (r. 22-31 AD). The cave itself was donated by the latter's son, Gamani Tissa, a son about whom the chronicles are completely silent. They record only that his father, Amanda Gamani Abhaya, was usurped and murdered by his uncle, leading Paranavitana to suggest that 'the silence of the chronicles about him is due to the reason that he did not succeed' (ibid.: lxi).


The epigraphic evidence suggests that the donation of cave dwellings for the sangha became well developed between the third century BC and the first century AD. It also appears that numerous noble and royal families were motivated into becoming patrons of such sites. There are two clear discrepancies between this evidence and the chronicles. Firstly, it is clear that the earliest kings of Anuradhapura were not the only patrons of early Buddhism; only two donations from Devanampiya Tissa and three from Uttiya have been identified at Mihintale. Secondly, it is clear that other kings were acting as royal patrons in addition to the kings of Anuradhapura. We may suggest that they are not mentioned in the Dipavamsa and Mahavamsa because, when the records of the earlier periods were being composed in the fifth century AD by the monks of the Maha Vihara, the Anuradhapura kingdom had successfully absorbed the island's other kingdoms. The chronicles thus may represent a contrived ecclesiastical tradition legitimizing the contemporaneous status quo by awarding a central position to the successful kings of Anuradhapura and ignoring the contributions of the failed kings. Such an interpretation is further strengthened by the chronicles' silence about the failed prince, Gamani Tissa.

Ancient and modern forest monks

It is clear from the above that the majority, if not all, of the early Buddhist remains in Sri Lanka are cave-dwellings. This may be due to continual building and rebuilding within early monastic sites near urban centres. However, the numbers of caves (well over 1,204) suggest that they were an important focus for patrons, even though they were located in remote and dangerous forest areas. It is argued here that the caves do not just represent rainy season retreats of urban or village monks but that they represent a strain of evidence which may help to explain why Buddhism became the island's established religion. As the chronicles tend to describe only royal donations to orthodox monasteries in the urbanized plains, we shall have to draw from mediaeval and modern examples of the nature and appeal of cave and forest-dwelling monks in order to illustrate four possible aspects of early Buddhism in Sri Lanka.

The first and most obvious attraction of modern forest-dwelling monks is their surroundings. Their retreats are often located on rocky outcrops far from human settlement, surrounded by a sea of jungle filled with wild animals. The symbiotic relationship between the monks and wild animals is stressed by visitors, donors and by the monks themselves. One of Sri Lanka's most successful forest monks of recent times was Pannananda (AD 1817-87) (Carrithers 1983: 83). His relationship with wild animals was almost miraculous, as he often shooed leopards away from his meditational walkway (ibid.: 85). Nanananda, a twentieth-century forest monk, also encountered leopards, bears and wild elephants (ibid.: 182-97).

A second attraction is that these isolated sites are often associated with the presence of supernatural forces. For example, Pannananda experienced a number of supernatural incidents. In one he was visited by a god who delivered a message to him to dwell in the forest (ibid.: 87); in another he was tempted by the Mara (arch-enemy and tempter of the Buddha) (ibid.: 84). Three days before he died, 'a certain person with a splendid


beautiful body came through the sky in a gold chariot' and requested him to 'please come' (ibid.: 88).

A third attraction is the ascetic dedication of forest monks. The Tapasa (ascetic) Movement of the early 1950s attracted much lay support when Tapasa Himi, a former orthodox monk, and his disciples lived in cemeteries (ibid.: 61). This association with death is also found in other groups of forest monks; several use a skeleton as the focus for meditation on the human body (Gombrich 1991: 332). Some more extreme groups have even been known to use the bodies of the recently deceased for this purpose (Ravi Jayewardene, pers. comm. 1994). Many forest monks also still collect their food by begging within surrounding villages, rather than having it brought by lay donors as at village or city monasteries (Gombrich 1991: 324-5). They are also generally thought to practise solitary meditation rather than scholarship or preaching. This is not to suggest a strong dichotomy between forest and urban monks; Tambiah points out that it is possible to find scholars in forest monasteries and accomplished mediators in urban monasteries (Tambiah 1984: 53). In many recent groups strict disciplinary practices have been combined with meditation (ibid.: 58) (it is held that through meditation, monks can arrive at a higher stage); however, there is insufficient space here to discuss the various stages, whilst Tambiah has discussed these points in some depth (Tambiah 1984).

A fourth attraction is the miraculous or supernatural power, which is often recorded, of forest-dwelling Sri Lankan monks. It was rumoured of Tapasa Himi that he could fly and speak ten languages (ibid.: 61). There are many similar cases for both ascetic behaviour and miraculous powers amongst recent forest monks of Thailand (ibid.: 272).

These four factors attract lay support, given in the form of buildings, alms and pilgrimage. Many lay-folk feel that the more ascetic the recipient of alms, the more merit produced for the donor. New buildings are often loaned to monks during the rainy season - earning merit for the donor, giving the house an auspicious start, and requiring the monk to preach for the donor family (Gombrich 1991: 326). Merit can be gained by renovating and cementing monks' dwelling-caves (ibid.: 378). Merit may also be gained by offering food to monks; one forest monastery, Salgala, is so popular that donations of food must be booked a year in advance (ibid.: 324). On occasions donors have almost come to blows in their competition to feed notable ascetic monks (Carrithers 1983: 206). Many lay-folk will go on pilgrimage to visit such monks. When Tapasa Himi and his disciples stayed in Kandy in 1953, tens of thousands of pilgrims visited them, including Hindus and Muslims (ibid.: 125). These reports are so similar and fantastic that they might be based upon a template of an ideal saint's hagiography, but this appears to be exactly the format in which the lay-folk wish to accept it.

The descriptions of Mahinda in the Dipavamsa and Mahavamsa appear to correlate closely with the above descriptions of modern forest monks. Mihintale, where the monks first arrived and which they later chose as their rainy season residence,44 was far enough from human settlement for Devanampiya Tissa to organize a hunt.45 It has many outcrops which are still occupied by wild animals. In the 1920s, Still noted that villagers had to clear bears out of the caves of Issurumuniya (Plate 3), another of the first cave monasteries built in the reign of Devanampiya Tissaj before they could be


I~~B I

Plate 3 Interior view of an early cave-dwelling at Isurumuni Monastery in Anuradhapura showing nineteenth-century plaster models of the clder Mahinda (centre) and companions receiving the monastery from king Devanampiya Tissa (standing).

re-occupied by monks (1992: 132). Paranavitana, who collected many of the inscriptions, recorded that:

Camping out at such sites was fraught with danger to life and limb, for they were, as many of them still are, in the haunts of wild elephants, buffaloes, bears and leopards. . . . Arriving at a cave which two thousand years ago gave shelter to a bhikkhu who suffused the whole universe with thoughts of good will, one might be rudely confronted by a she bear anxious about her youthful progeny.

(Paranavitana, 1970, 1: iv)

The chronicles also record that the first monks had various encounters with the supernatural. Sakka, the king of the gods, asked Mahinda to convert the island.47 The yakkha or spirit of Mihintale, in the form of an elk, led Devanampiya Tissa to the monks.48 It is also recorded that devas (demi-gods) listened to Mahinda preaching at Mihintale and were converted.49 Mahinda sent one of his followers to Asoka's court to collect the Buddha's alms-bowl and then to the court of the king of the gods to collect the Buddha's collar-bone.50 Mahinda and his five companions also possessed miraculous powers. They flew from India to Mihintale,5' and from Mihintale to the city of Anuradhapura.52 Mahinda could communicate with his sister in India and asked her to bring a branch of the bodhi-tree.53 Other miracles included relics of the Buddha:


Amid the assembly the relic rose up in the air from the elephant's back, and floating in the air plain to view . . . throwing the people into amazement . . . it wrought that miracle of the double appearances, that caused the hair (of the beholders) to stand on end.54

The miracle of the double appearance is when phenomena of the opposite character appear in pairs, for example, the Buddha's miracle of producing streams of fire and water (Geiger 1934: 120).

Earthquakes and other phenomena were witnessed, associated with the monks. When Devanampiya Tissa presented the Maha Vihara to the sangha, a great earthquake occurred;55 and, when Mahinda and the king walked round the new monastery, earthquakes occurred at sites where important monuments would be built.56 Later, when the bodhi-tree was planted, an earthquake occurred and a great cloud produced rain for a week.57 No connection is made between the early monks and meditation, the earliest reference to a meditational trance occurring during the reign of king Subha (r. AD 60-7).58 A further reference is given during the reign of king Dhatusena (r. AD 455-73).59 However, epigraphical evidence suggests that some of the early monks were taking part in meditation. A number of cave-dwellings were inscribed with the name 'delighting the mind', three with the name 'peak of intuition' and one with the name 'bringing the gods down' (Paranavitana 1970, I: cxx).

It is thus proposed that the form of early Buddhism that came to Sri Lanka was very similar to that practised by modern forest-dwelling monks. Such an analogy is not far-fetched, since there is evidence for a long tradition of forest monks within the island. There are references to forest monks and ascetics in the later Sri Lankan chronicle,60 the Culavamsa (Geiger 1928). Such monks were differentiated in this chronicle from those monks living in villages (Geiger 1960: 202). Between the seventh and ninth centuries AD

they appear to have been given groves by donors rather than villages in the case of most monks,6' a practice also found recorded in some of the earliest inscriptions in the island, dating to between the third century BC and first century AD (Paranavitana 1970, 1: no. 469). During the seventh century AD, a group called pamsukulins (those clothed in rags from dustheaps) appear to have attracted substantial royal patronage.62 Although they did not occupy caves, they were located in isolated areas of jungle, strewn with boulders. Their residences have been identified archaeologically at Ritigala, the Western Monasteries at Anuradhapura (Bandaranayake 1974: 115), and at Vessagiriya, also in Anuradhapura. The latter is also one of the earliest cave monasteries allegedly founded by Devanampiya Tissa.63 Generally, these sites do not possess the typical Buddhist cult structures found at other monastic complexes such as stupas (Silva 1988: 1), but they are associated with numerous meditational pathways, suggesting a strong link between meditation and forest dwelling. The Western Monasteries have been identified as the Tapovana (grove of penitents) of the Culavamsa (Geiger 1960: 203). It also is interesting to note that two of the great mediaeval monastic forest centres, Dimbulagala and Ritigala, are associated with yakkhas or spirits in the early chronicles.!' It is thus proposed that we may agree with Tambiah that modern forest monks have a strong continuity with the past forest monks (Tambiah 1984: 58).


Early Buddhism and the state in Sri Lanka: a summary

The early Sri Lankan chronicles record many occurrences of regicide, foreign invasion and civil war within the island. There can be little doubt that a state of political instability was rife prior to the introduction of Buddhism, and it appears to have been prevalent for many centuries thereafter - as is well illustrated by the Mahavamsa's list of kings. Although the office of kingship was stressed as a source of security for the country and donations for the sangha, access to it was often through the force of arms. Thirty-eight per cent of the Mahavamsa's sixty-two kings had no relation to the previous king, and only twenty-nine kings ascended peacefully. The chronicles did not refer to successful monarchs with no relation to the island's first royal family as usurpers; indeed, it is often recorded that they ruled justly.65 Close relatives were sometimes usurpers, but still the sangha did not criticize them.66 Another example of the instability is the widely differing status of the individuals who became king. Some were relatives of the royal family,67 others noble adventurers,68 horse traders,69 brahmans,70 commanders of the army,7' palace gate keepers,72 town architects,73 woodcarriers, 74 relatives of commanders of the army75 and royal coun- sellors.76 Many of the above were powerful individuals whose support was necessary to obtain the kingship in return for titles and lands; but they were rivals. It was necessary to marry into other powerful families for support, but this again produced rivals who could claim the kingship.77

This instability - or rather lack of differentiation between the king and his rivals - appears to be supported archaeologically at Anuradhapura (Coningham 1994). Although the 100-hectare capital was occupied continuously from c. 600 BC to c. AD 1300, recent excavations at the site have identified a structural level which is dated to c. 275-200 BC,

contemporary with the time of king Devanampiya Tissa. This contemporaneous nature is accentuated by the find of a clay seal impression in this level from trench ASW2. The impression reads 'of the chief Magha, the son of Tissa' (Coningham and Allchin 1992: 165); this individual may be the one who donated a cave at nearby Mihintale with the following inscription: 'The cave of the chief Magha, the treasurer, son of the chief Tissa, the treasurer, (is given) to the sangha' (Paranavitana 1970, l: no. 22). It is possible to compare the structural and artefactual evidence for this level from seventeen localities within the site, including the location of the royal palace. Although it had been expected that only the royal complex would have been built of stone and brick (Hocart 1928: 151), all the occupied localities yielded evidence of structures built of brick and stone (Coningham 1994: 194-208). Indeed, the largest excavation trench ASW2 showed evidence for a multi-roomed brick-and-tiled structure, with outbuildings and courtyard (Coningham and Allchin 1992: 155-67). The above archaeological evidence suggests that this mode of construction was the case all over the city. We may therefore suggest that the king may not have been greatly differentiated from other wealthy and powerful citizens in terms of access to building materials. It had also been expected that the kingly complex would have had differentiated control over the import, manufacture and distribution of exotic and elite goods. However, the artefactual evidence from the seventeen localities suggests that each area had equal access to raw materials, and that their inhabitants were engaged in the manufacture of 6lite finished products (Coningham 1994: 194-208). It thus appears that the chronicles' details of unstable kingship in Anuradhapura may be


molten - - - - w- - - - - w-- -U br k CD <

molt-n glas__-s v f a brick ;

molten glass el

slag _ deb-t-ge

shell cores

alg crucible

Ivorye

- - - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ebitsge

antl~t~j

ie~aebtg 4Lvotuk3

__-^ , - ,-- -_bitege

.~ ~ ~

sla g slag.

1dit

Figure 4 Plan of multi-roomed brick-and-tiled structure excavated at ASW2 with evidence of craft-working activities.

supported by the archaeological evidence of a royal complex with access to little more wealth and resources than evidenced at those complexes belonging to wealthy citizens.

It is in this light that we must view the political background to the arrival of Buddhism. Royal donations had existed before Mahinda's arrival. During the foundation of Anuradhapura in the fifth century BC, some two centuries before Mahinda, king Pandukabhaya erected numerous religious structures in and around the city. He built shrines to yakkhas or spirits on the east, west and south of the city and a further one in the royal precincts.78 He dedicated a chapel to the Queens of the West and tree-shrines to Vessavana (Kubera, the god of wealth) and to the Demon of Maladies near the western gate of the city.79 He also established a cemetery to the west of the city and to its north, structures for ascetics, a hermitage for ascetics, houses for niganthas (naked ascetics), other 'ascetics of various heretical sects', and a monastery for wandering mendicant


monks.80 It appears that the patronage of ascetic and wandering monks had already begun some centuries before the arrival of Buddhism. This is not, of course, to suggest that Buddhism immediately became the established religion; indeed, it is likely that these groups, as well as others, continued to attract support. However, Buddhism became identified with the Sinhalese throne, helping later Sri Lankan monarchs to keep their polity ideologically and physically separate from the powerful Hindu states across the Palk Straits. This may be reflected in the record that merit was gained by king Vattagamani Abhaya (r. 103, 89-77 BC) for replacing a nigantha monastery to the north of Anuradhapura with the Abhayagiri monastery,8' and by king Mahasena (r. AD 274-301) for replacing Hindu temples with Buddhist monasteries.82

There still remains the question of why Buddhism was adopted. The key to this question is the legitimization of kingship. We have already demonstrated that the early role of kingship in Sri Lanka was unstable, perhaps allowing the ruler leadership only when facing a common enemy to the state. Certainly early Sri Lankan kingship does not appear to have allowed the development of a hereditary royal family. In order to achieve kingship, powerful supporters had to be attracted by rewards of land or position. However, it was also possible to gain support through the patronage of ascetic groups, as a demonstration of wealth in order to attract prestige. Donations to the early Buddhists came from the elite of the island, with 8 per cent from individuals with royal connections. This must represent a form of competition which was undoubtedly also occurring in other media such as warfare, patronage of the arts and supporting craftsmen.

Bandaranayake identifies concentrations of donatory inscriptions as 'indicators of patterns of settlement in the PHEH [Protohistoric- Early Historic] period' (1992: 17). He remarks that the density of inscriptions indicates the size (and therefore the power) of such accompanying centres, which he terms 'pre-state polities' (ibid.: 18). Although this is an attractive model, making use of Renfrew's theory of Early State Modules (Renfrew 1984: 94-101), there are a number of flaws. Firstly, no large sites marking pre-state polities have been found, apart from Anuradhapura itself. Secondly, early inscriptions are only found on rock outcrops. Does this mean that pre-state polities emerged only near outcrops? Thirdly, it ignores the important role played by pilgrimages to places of great religious significance. Although the model of competition makes a useful contribution to the understanding of this period - it may be suggested that there were spheres of influence belonging to 'royal families', such as the kingly Pocina family in the Matale/Kandy area - competitors would also have been capable of making donations at places of great religious importance outside their own spheres of influence. For such a model, we may adopt Blanton's concept of competition at disembedded centres - that is, at important ceremonial sites located in neutral, marginal territory (Blanton 1978: 36-7). Whilst the forest complexes were not temporal capitals, they were spiritual and ritual ones; as such they could have been special function centres, for example, the foci of inter-regional military alliances between elite groups (Renfrew and Cherry 1986).

The ultimate goal of Buddhism is the removal of all desire. Undoubtedly, many donors supported such aims, as suggested in inscription no. 338 'Princess Anuradhi . . . caused this cave to be established . . . for the welfare and happiness of beings in the boundless universe' (Paranavitana 1970, I). However, Buddhism's adoption in Sri Lanka may have had more to do with the first missionaries' miraculous appearance and powers rather than with their doctrine. We have shown that ascetics were already a focus for donations prior


to the arrival of Buddhism; but Buddhism itself offered perhaps what the other groups could not: harsh ascetic practices; miraculous powers; a desire to be in places of wilderness normally inhabited by wild animals, demons and gods; a strong organization with links all over the subcontinent; and an imperial connection in the form of Asoka's son, Mahinda.

The power of kingly connections should not be underestimated. It is clear from more recent revivals of forest monks in Sri Lanka that leaders with noble connections appear to have been the most successful in attracting material support (Carrithers 1983: 72). The importance to rulers of such exceptional attractions has been characterized by Helms as 'the authority of distant knowledge' (1988: 131-71). The ascetic lifestyle of the early monks may also have been an attraction; donations to individuals with great powers who underwent hard ascetic practices could have been believed to bestow on the donor more merit and prestige. Tambiah suggests that it was possible to 'fortify monarchical legitimacy and creative powers by tapping the purity and charisma of the untarnished forest ascetics' (Tambiah 1984: 77). However, once this had been done and a single royal succession established, there was a need for a different form of tradition.

A new relationship between the king and the sangha was formed, leading to an interdependence. Religious and ceremonial legitimization was given to the king by the sangha in return for patronage. The rewards of patronage are clear from the words of Mahinda to the first high king, Devanampiya Tissa:

A son of thy brother the vice-regent Mahanama, one named Yatthalayakatissa, will hereafter be king, his son will be the king named Gothabhaya; his son will be (the king) named Kakavannatissa; this king's son, 0 great king, will be the great king named Abhaya, renowned under the title of Duttagamani.83

The king's response was to 'set up a pillar of stone, whereon he inscribed these sayings'.84 This relationship changed the Maha Vihara, originally a forest establishment, into the centre of orthodox Buddhism in Sri Lanka, making it the established church of the island. This is not to suppose that forest monks and their way of life disappeared; on the contrary, these still played an important role in society. As Tambiah states, 'their better documented role historically is their acting as a vitalizing force and a countervailing agent to the religious establishment during times of religious purification and cultural renaissance' (Tambiah 1984: 77).

Acknowledgements

I am very grateful to the following individuals for their help and advice whilst I was researching this paper: Mr Rukshan Jayewardene, Mr Ravi Jayewardene and Dr Christopher Knusel. As the research was carried out whilst I was conducting fieldwork at Anuradhapura, I am also grateful to the following sponsors for their financial support: the Society for South Asian Studies, the British Academy, the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research at Cambridge University, and Bradford University.

Department of Archaeological Sciences University of Bradford

West Yorkshire BD7 I DP


Notes

1 Dvs XX: 22; Mvs XXXIII: 36. 2 Dvs XX: 31; Mvs XXXIV: 29. 3 Dvs XXI: 1; Mvs XXXIV: 37. 4 Dvs XXI: 31; Mvs XXXIV: 69. 5 Dvs XXI: 34; Mvs XXXV: 1. 6 Mvs XXXV: 15-19; XI: 7. 7 DvsXI: 25. 8 ibid.: 28. 9 ibid. XII:5-7.

10 Dvs 1: 27; Mvs XIII: 8-10. 11 Mvs XIII: 9. 12 ibid.: 29, 15. 13 Dvs XII: 37. 14 Dvs XII: 26. 15 Dvs XII: 26. 16 Dvs XII: 46-7; Mvs XIV: 3. 17 Dvs XII: 49; Mvs XIV: 7. 18 DvsXII: 60. 19 Dvs XII: 65; Mvs XIV: 43-4. 20 Dvs XII: 86; Mvs XIV: 46. 21 Dvs XIII: 4; Mvs XIV: 61. 22 DvsXIII: 11; MvsXV: 2. 23 Dvs XIII: 17. 24 ibid.: 20. 25 Dvs XIII: 25; Mvs XV: 12. 26 Dvs XIII: 31; Mvs XV: 25. 27 Dvs XIII: 36-64; Mvs XV: 27-56 28 Dvs XIV: 33; Mvs XV: 191. 29 Dvs XIV: 55; Mvs XVI: 4. 30 Dvs XIV: 67; Mvs XVI: 14. 31 Dvs XIV: 75; Mvs XVI: 15. 32 Dvs XIV: 71; Mvs XVI: 10. 33 Dvs XV: 10; Mvs XVII: 11. 34 Dvs XV: 15; Mvs XVII: 19. 35 Dvs XV: 5; Mvs XVII: 3. 36 Dvs XV: 76-7; Mvs XV: 20-1. 37 Dvs XV: 30; Mvs XIX: 49. 38 Dvs XVII: 91; Mvs XX: 14. 39 Dvs XVII: 91; Mvs XX: 15. 40 Dvs XVII: 91. 41 Mvs XX: 21. 42 Dvs XVII: 95 43 Dvs XVII: 106; Mvs XX: 53.


44 Dvs XII: 37; Mvs XIII: 19. 45 Dvs XII: 45; Mvs XIV: 1. 46 Dvs XVII: 91; Mvs XX: 14. 47 Dvs XII: 26; Mvs XIII: 15. 48 Dvs XII: 46-7; Mvs XIV: 3. 49 Mvs XIV: 38-41. 50 Mvs XVII: 16-21. 51 Dvs XII: 37; Mvs XIII: 19. 52 Dvs XII: 65; Mvs XIV: 43-4. 53 MvsXV: 113. 54 ibid. XVII: 44-5. 55 ibid. XV: 25. 56 ibid.: 15-55. 57 ibid. XIX: 44. 58 ibid. XXXV: 104-7. 59 ibid. XXXVIII: 113-14. 60 Cvs XLI: 99; LII: 19; LVII: 32; LXXXIV: 18-22; LXXXIX: 57; XCI: 25. 61 Cvs XLVIII: 4; XLIX: 80; L: 63. 62 Cvs XLVIII: 3, 73, 80; L: 63; LI: 52; LII: 21, 27; LIII: 48. 63 Dvs XVII: 91. 64 MvsX:53,65. 65 Mvs XXI: 10-11;XXI: 13-15. 66 Mvs XXXVI: 49-51. 67 Mvs XXI: 1. 68 ibid.: 13. 69 ibid.: 10. 70 Mvs XXXIV: 26. 71 ibid. XXXIII: 34. 72 ibid. XXXV: 51. 73 ibid.: 20. 74 ibid.: 21. 75 ibid.: 59 76 ibid.: 58. 77 ibid. XXXVI: 21. 78 ibid. X: 84-6. 79 ibid.: 89-90. 80 ibid.: 96-102. 81 ibid. XXX: 79. 82 ibid. XXXVII: 41-50. 83 ibid. XV: 168-72. 84 ibid.: 173.


References

Bandaranayake, S. D. 1974. Sinhalese Monastic Architecture. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

Bandaranayake, S. D. 1992. The settlement patterns of the protohistoric- early historic interface in Sri Lanka. In South Asian Archaeology: 1989 (ed. C. Jarrige). Madison, WI: Prehistory Press, pp. 15-23.

Bechert, H. 1978. The beginnings of Buddhist historiography: the Mahavamsa and political thinking. In Religion and the Legitimisation of Power in Sri Lanka (ed. B. L. Smith) Chambersburg: South and Southeast Asian Studies by Anima & Conococheague Associates, pp. 1-12.

Blanton, R. E. 1978. Monte Alban: Settlement Patterns at the Ancient Zapotec Capital. New York: Academic Press.

Carrithers, M. 1983. The Forest Monks of Sri Lanka: An Anthropological and Historical Study. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Coningham, R. A. E. 1994. Urban Texts: An Interpretation of the Architectural, Textual and Artefactual Records of a Sri Lankan Early Historic City. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Cambridge.

Coningham, R. A. E. and Allchin, F. R. 1992. Anuradhapura citadel archaeological project, preliminary results of the third season of British Sri Lankan excavations. South Asian Studies, 8: 155-67.

De Silva, K. M. 1981. A History of Sri Lanka. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Geiger, W. (ed.) 1928. Culavamsa. London: Pali Text Society.

Geiger, W. (ed.) 1934. The Mahavamsa. London: Pali Text Society.

Geiger, W. 1960. Culture of Ceylon in Mediaeval Times. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

Gombrich, R. F. 1991. Buddhist Precept and Practice: Traditional Buddhism in the Rural Highlands of Ceylon. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.

Helms, M. W. 1988. Ulysses' Sail: An Ethnographic Odyssey of Power, Knowledge and Geographical Distance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Hocart, A. M. 1928. Town planning. Ceylon Journal of Science, Section G, 1.4: 150-6.

Oldenberg, H. (ed.) 1982. Dipavamsa. New Delhi: Asian Education Services.

Paranavitana, S. 1970. Early brahmi inscriptions. In Inscriptions of Ceylon, I & 11.1. Colombo: Archaeological Survey of Ceylon.

Rahula, W. 1956. History of Buddhism in Ceylon. Colombo: Gunasena.

Renfrew, A. C. 1984. Approaches to Social Archaeology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Renfrew, A. C. and Cherry, J. F. (eds) 1986. Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-political Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Robinson, F. (ed.) 1989. The Cambridge Encyclopaedia of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan and the Maldives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Silva, R. 1988. Religious Architecture in Early and Medieval Sri Lanka. PhD dissertation, University of Leiden. Leiden: Krips Repro Meppel.

Somasekaram, T. (ed.) 1988. The National Atlas of Sri Lanka. Colombo: Survey Department of Sri Lanka.

Still, J. 1992. Jungle Tide. Dehiwala: Tisara Press.

Tambiah, S.J., 1984. The Buddhist Saints of the Forest and the Cult of Amulets. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

monks, caves and kings a reassessment of the nature of early buddhism in sri lanka

Documents