Editorial

Security

Politics

World

Letters

Sports

Obituaries

Archives

by D. G. A. Perera

There is no doubt that history needs to be reviewed in the light of new archaeological discoveries. Even the comparison of different literary sources can be used to get a clearer view of what happened in history. Such research is productive when carried out without allowing preconceived notions or personal prejudices that cloud ones' vision.

The fact that this Rock was earlier referred to as Sihigiri is confirmed by that name being used in two verses of the Sigiri Graffiti.

Archaeological excavations at Sigiriya helped Prof. Senarat Paranavitana to discover the Lion Staircase mentioned in the Mahavamsa. The Chronicle also provides the information that this huge figure of the Lion built by King Kassapa I, was the origin of the name Sihagiri. The second part of the name 'giri' has the double meaning of 'mountain' as well as 'throat.' Only the huge paws of the lion have survived to indicate that the stairway had actually passed through the gaping mouth of the figure of a crouching lion.

The excavations at the summit of the rock to which this stairway led uncovered a vast building complex spread over three acres of the surface. Strategically placed watch pockets dug out of the sheer rock face just below the building complex were also found. The absence of any trace of religious edifices on the summit also helped to confirm the chronicler's statement that the buildings were those of a royal palace. The spectacular view from the top shows the extensive and elaborately laid out gardens below.

The massive ramparts and the wide moat on three sides unprotected by the rock gave added support to the statement in the Chronicle that site was a palace complex. Both Paranavitana and the compiler of the second part of the Mahavamsa are now being challenged by Dr. Raja de Silva. He is a former Commissioner of Archaeology whose real forte is, unfortunately, not in Pali Sanskrit and Sinhala, or History and Epigraphy.

The presentation of the first copy of Dr. Raja de Silva's book 'Sigiriya and its Significance' to the Chairman of a Tourist Hotel (not to a prominent historian or archaeologist,) was reported in the newspapers recently. Though the book was not available for reference at the time of writing, this novel theory has been spelt out in detail in his paper on "Mahavamsa, Mahavihara and Mahayana read at the D. T. Devendra Memorial Lecture - 1998. The text was published serially the press in May 1998, and the comments that follow relate to three principal arguments in support of the new theory presented there. We have no reason to think that his book presents a different theory.

In the first place, he says that because the earlier form of the name was Sihigiri, it did not mean Lion Rock, but "Remembrance Rock". Secondly, he says that Kassapa did not build a palace on top of Sigiriya. But, he says, that the ruin at the top are those of a Mahayanist monastery. In support of this he puts forward another theory that the ladies in the Sigiriya Frescoes represent the Mahayana Goddess Tara. Thirdly, he questions the authority of the Mahawamsa and the bona fides of the compiler of that section, for stating that King Kasspa I built a palace on top of Sigiriya Rock. Now let us consider each of his arguments, in turn. Did "Sihigiri" mean "Remembrance Rock?"

The first is that Sigiriya was earlier known as Sihigiriya. According to this learned author Sihigiriya really meant "Remembrance Rock" and not Lion Rock. He may appear to have made a point there. According to current Sinhala usage, it is difficult to show semantically how Sihigiri is derived from Siha meaning lion. The Pali form of the name is also Sihagiri (with the first 'i' being pronounced as a long vowel,) and not Sihigiri.

The fact that this Rock was earlier referred to as Sihigiri is confirmed by that name being used in two verses of the Sigiri Graffiti (20 & 62). Therefore he is correct in saying that the earlier form of the name in Sinhala, was indeed Sihigiri and not Sihagiri. But that by itself is no proof that Sihi meant "remembrance" as in modern usage, and not Siha or "lion." Saying so is to ignore the fact that the usage of the language could have changed during the twelve or thirteen centuries that have elapsed since incision of these graffiti.

The fact that such a change had taken place is confirmed by the meaning "Sinha" given to "Sihi" by Sorata Thera, in the authoritative Sri Sumangala Sabdakoshaya. Confirmation of this is found again in the Sikha Valanda Vinisa (10th century,) edited by Sir D. B. Jayatilaka in 1924. There, lion-meat is referred to as 'sihi' mas. Similar use of the vowel 'i' to form an adjectival from a substantive ending in 'a' is found in 'gihi' meaning 'layman' from 'gaha' meaning a household.

We must also remember that Lawrie recorded the folk tale that Sihigiri meant "remembrance rock" way back in 1898. At that time, the Lion Staircase at Sigiriya was to yet brought to light in order to confirm the statement in the Mahavamsa that King Kassapa built such a staircase and named the rock after it. Hence the very modern interpretation of the meaning of "Sihigiri" as Remembrance Rock. Even so, this folklore also says that the name Sihigiri was "in Remembrance of King Kasspa," a view that is not being denied by Dr. Raja de Silva. As we have seen above "Sihi" is the adjectival form of "Siha." Hence, "Sihigiri" really meant "Lion Rock" and not "Remembrance Rock".

Was Sigiriya not the site of King Kassapa's Holiday Resort?

Dr. Raja de Silva identifies the relatively small figures of the Sigiriya damsels on the rock face as the object to which the huge staircase through the colossal lion's throat was designed to lead to. But the stairway leads right up to the top of the rock where not signs of a gigantic figure of Tara have come to light. But he denies that the staircase led to Kassapa's palace on the summit of the rock, which he says is also an invention of the chronicler. He maintains that the remains of the building complex at the top of Sigiriya are those of a Mahayana monastery of the type known as a Pabbata Vihara built by King Kassapa I. However, only unfounded guesswork has been advanced by Dr. Raja de Silva to substantiate this.

Had he had consulted the authorities on the subject like Prof. Marasinghe that he refers to, he would have come to know that the layout of edifices in a Pabbata Viharas conformed to a certain pattern. Not only were there twin meditation terraces (separated by a moat and connected by a stone bridge,) but also buildings laid out according to a particular configurations within such a complex. Prof. Senaka Bandaranayake who devoted a long chapter to the subject of Pabbata Vihara in his doctoral thesis did not say that the buildings on a top of Sigiriya were those of a Pabbata Vihara. Dr. Raja de Silva also does not say that he discovered any such meditation terraces or a configuration of buildings stop Sigiriya.

On the other hand, even if indeed there had been a Mahayana monastery in the inhospitable terrain on top of Sigiriya, that by itself is not enough to disprove the statement in the chronicle that King Kassapa had built his palace up there before that. In fact the Chronicle says that Sigiriya was given over to two Mahayana factions after the fall of Sigiri Kassapa. That cannot happen if King Kassapa had already done so by royal decree.

That the frescoes represent the celestial nymphs called "apsaras" (cloud nymphs) is quite in keeping with the same place assigned to them in the construction of royal palaces elsewhere, in Cambodia and Vietnam for instance. The Pattirippuva (Pati+irippuva, lit. 'Lord's Residence') built in Maha Nuwara by Devendra Mulacharya for Sri Wickrama Rajasingha (another tyrant like Kassapa I), is an octagonal model of a traditional Mahameru gala as the 'Cosmic Mountain' of mythology.

There, the curvaceous "Valakulu Bemma" or 'Clud Parapet' below the Pattirippuva symbolizes the apsaras or 'Cloud Nymphs'. The Cloud Parapet is skirted below by the "Diya-reli Bemmas" (Ocean Wave Parapets) with the sharp crests representing the waves of the primeval ocean that surrounded the Cosmic Mountain. To crown the illusion, King Sri Wickrama insisted on naming the lake that he built to the East of the Pattirippuva as "Kiri Muhuda".

Kiri Muhuda is the Milky Ocean to the East of the Cosmic Mountain in South Asian Mythology (where it was churned up to produce Amrita, i.e. Ambrosia or the food of the Immortals). It is a pity that there was no scholar even among the Professors attached to the Cultural Triangle project to recognize this symbolism inherent in the Pattirippuva and explain it in one of their Project-Reports. The fact is that they were at a loss even to say why the tiny Kandy Lake was named 'Milky Ocean.'

King Sri Wickrama appeared atop his model of the Cosmic Mountain only on ceremonial occasions or to watch the brutal executions in the Maha Maluwa. Therefore it is possible to think that King Kassapa also used Sigiriya only for his appearance at the convocations of his forces, or even as a country house (Gam Nuwara or Gannoruwa) when he wished to take a holiday from the hubbub of city life. It is significant to note here that even the Mahavamsa does not say that King Kassapa abandoned the capital Anuradhapura and took up permanent residence at Sigiriya. That should provide the answer to Dr. Raja de Silva's worries about the hazards posed by Monsoon winds at the top of Sigiriya.

The king could have timed his visits to suit the weather patterns on top but not so any Buddhist monks if they chose to reside there. If there had been such a huge mahayana monastery on top of the dry and treeless summit of this spectacular rock, why is there is no mention of it by any one of the numerous visitors who came to Sigiriya during the four centuries after King Kassapa. They left their impressions about the place in elegant verses written down on the Mirror Wall, but made no mention of such a thing. In the 685 verses that paranavitana had edited and published, none refer to a Monastery on top of Sigiriya. Can Dr. Raja de Silva also point out a single instance where any of those visitors referred to the figure in the frescoes as the Goddess Tara?

If King Kassapa built a monastery complex and not a palace there "at tremendous expense of time and labour" why did he not leave behind a customary Act of Donation - a stone inscription to proclaim that event? Does this not indicate that the Chronicler had recorded what was true while that Dr. Raja de Silva is only putting forward a theory merely based on unfounded speculations?

How reliable is the Mahavamsa?

That brings us to the third point - that relating to denigrating the Mahavamsa. This is a cry that is being raised by people in certain quarters who cannot be said to have much knowledge about Sri Lanka's well documented history, or have only a superficial knowledge of it through information gleaned from secondary sources only. Others who have joined this bandwagon are those with an agenda of their own, to discredit the Buddhist Sangha. What real oriental scholars - linguists with a broad knowledge of both Oriental and Western classics had to say on this point will come later in this article. But not let us consider what Dr. Raja de Silva had to say.

"Can the Mahavihara compiler of the second part of the Mahavamsa be taken as an impartial chronicler?" "The truth regarding the summit was not mentioned in the chronicle because the idea of giving any prominence to non-Theravada Buddhist activities would not have appealed to the compiler of the Mahavamsa." "The gap of seven centuries between the events at Sigiriya and the alleged recording at the hands of the Mahavamsa compiler would have added to the facility of misrepresenting the truth for the 'serene joy and emotion of the pious' the stated purpose of the chronicle" are some of his statements.

The last statement sadly shows the superficiality with which Dr. Raja de Silva tries to pass judgement. He apparently does not have the linguistic ability to compare the English translation of the Chronicles with the original text in the Pali language or to take into consideration the variant readings that have been so carefully documented.

It is due to an error in the English of Geiger's translation that every chapter in the chronicle ends with the statement that the Mahavamsa was "compiled for the serene joy and emotion of the pious." Dr. Silva has not realized that this terse refrain at the end of each chapter is a condensation of what has been more elaborately stated in verses 3 & 4 of the very first chapter of the Chronicle: "...what has been recorded here, as it has come down to us through tradition (suttio ca,) giving rise to either pleasing or painful emotion according as each incident may be agreeable or afflicting".

It is with this (proper) meaning of the refrain that Turnour and Wijesinghe placed the following line at the end of each chapter in their translation of the Mahavamsa with greater accuracy than Geiger to show that the Mahavamsa was meant to evoke both joy and sorrow: "...the Mahavamsa... composed for the delight and affliction of righteous men". There are many other mistakes that are not a result of the translator's fault, in Dr. Raja de Silva's interpretation of the text. A few of them are mentioned here.

He apparently overlooked the fact that a Sinhala king was entitled to have other queens of a lesser rank than the queen who was jointly consecrated with him. In interpreting the statement of Kassapa's birth "by a mother of unequal birth" he takes the unwarranted liberty of saying "As a bachelor Dhatusena consorted with a woman of unequal caste who bore him as son." Elsewhere, "without blame on her part" is rendered as "incensed by some unmentionable misdemeanor" by him.

His a good command of the English language coupled with a knowledge of the idion Buddhist texts should have shown him that the translator's term "house-owner" (Gihiya or layman) does not mean the same thing as "owner of a house". It is ridiculous when he says that Dhatusena who later to became the king, was "the owner of a house". This is a clear indication of the cultural estrangement that characterizes a writer who has lost the common touch.

He has overlooked the fact that it is with good reason that the chronicler refers to Kassapa who ordered the murder of his own father as a "wicked ruler". He also blames the chronicler for qualifying as "mighty," Moggallana who was perhaps the earliest king in the history of any country in the world to go on record as having established a Coast Guard to protect his country. So much would suffice for Dr. Raja de Silva's expertise relating to the character of the Chronicles.

Now let us see what just two of the many scholars of international repute, had to say on the same subject: "The Ceylon Chronicles would not suffer in comparison with the best of the Chronicles, even though so considerably later in date, written in England. The opinion of scholars as to the attitude to be adopted towards such is quite unanimous. The hypothesis of deliberate lying, of conscious forgery, is generally discredited." (Prof T. W. Rhys Davids in Buddhist India p.183)

"Trustworthiness of the Ceylon Chronicles: If we pause first at internal evidence then the Ceylonese Chronicles will assuredly at once win approval in they at least WISHED (Geiger's own capitals) to write the truth. Certainly the writers could not go beyond the ideas determined by their age and their social position, and beheld the events of past time in their mirror of a one-sided tradition. But they certainly did not intend to deceive hearers or readers.

This is clear from the remarkable objective standpoint from which they judge even the mortal foes of the Aryan race. That certainly deserves to be emphasized. It is true not only of dominating personalities (such as to all appearances, Elara was) but also of the two usurpers Sena and Guttika it is said, rajjam dhammena karayum (i.e. ruled the land with justice) Dipavamsa 18.47 and Mahavamsa 21.11" (Prof. Wilhelm Geiger: Introduction to the Mahavamsa. p.xv)

What Geiger has said about the objective treatment of the deeds of the "mortal foes of the Aryan race" by the Compilers of our Chronicles would be more valid where their attitude towards other Buddhist sects who were not their "mortal foes" is concerned.

Dr. Raja de Silva may have thought that the animosity that existed between the Roman Catholics and the Protestants holds true for Theravada and Mahayana Buddhists in ancient Sri Lanka. He has also forgotten that it is the same Dharmakirti, the Compiler of the second part of the Mahavamsa, who supplied him the information that shrines were built at Sigiriya and donated to the monks of the two Mahayana schools- the Dhammaruci, and Sagaliya Nikayas. Also, nowhere is it stated that these shrines were built on the summit of Sigiriya Rock.

If the Mahavihara chroniclers were anti Mahayanist, why did they include in the Mahavamsa the whole story about King Vattagamani Abhaya, cryptic though it was, clearly taken from the Uttaravihara Atthakatha of the Abhayagiri Chapter? Dharmakirti has also recorded the fact that King Kassapa the supposed patron of Mahayana, refused to give permission sought by his Senapati Migara to hold a consecration ceremony for the Mahayanist Statue of Abhisekha Buddha that he had built.

How could King Kassapa have refused that permission if he was indeed the devout Mahayanist supporter that Dr. Raja de Silva makes him out to be? "As leave was not granted (by King Kassapa,) he refrained with the resolve: I shall seek for it (again) under the sovereignty of the rightful ruler" says the Chronicle (39.6). In fact it was King Moggallana (who has been accused by Dr. Silva of being the favourite of an anti Mahayanist Chronicler,) that finally gave permission for this Mahayana ceremony to take place during his period of rule after Kassapa.

When the author of this part of the Mahavamsa had recorded all this accurately, how can Dr. Raja de Silva say that "the idea of giving any prominence to non-Theravada Buddhist activities would not have appealed to the Compiler of the Mahavamsa?" Perhaps it is such a crossed-wired thought-process that led Dr. de Silva to produce his half-baked theory. Therefore, there can be little doubt that what King Kassapa I built on top of Sigiriya Rock was not a Mahayana Monastery Complex, but actually his own Summer Palace, as Dharmakirti had stated 700 years ago.

News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security
Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries

Produced by Lake House
Copyright 2001 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager