Chapter I. Chronological Position

[1] It is not unreasonably claimed that so far as the Buddhist world is concerned, the Theras of Ceylon stand unrivalled in the field of Chronicles narrating not only the political history of their island but also the ecclesiastical history of their faith. If the Dīpavaṁsa is the oldest known Pali chronicle produced in Ceylon, the Sāsanavaṁsadīpa by Thera Vimalasāra is certainly the latest one (1929). In between the two we have first of all general introductions to the Sumaṅgalavilāsinī and a few other commentaries written by Buddhaghosa, the pioneer Pali commentator, and after that the general introduction to the Samantapāsādikā, the Mahāvaṁsa by Mahānāma in its two recensions, the Mahābodhivaṁsa, the Dīpavaṁsaṭṭhakathā, the Vaṁsatthappakāsini, the Dāṭhāvaṁsa, the Thūpavaṁsa, the Cetiyavaṁsaṭṭhakathā, the Nalāṭadhātuvaṁsa, and the Saddhammasaṅgaha, all written in Pali, and, above all, the Cūḷavaṁsa representing the continuation of the Mahāvaṁsa through its later supplements. In the list one must include also such Sinhalese writings as the Pūjāvalī, the Nikāyasaṅgraha, the Dhātuvaṁsa, the Rājāvalī, the Rājaratnākara and Vuttamālā. Although we have a masterly dissertation on the chronological position of these works from the pen of Geiger, it is necessary to reconsider it before dealing with their literary position.

 

1. Dīpavaṁsa Vide Oldenberg Ed. and Tr. (1879); Geiger Ed. and Tr. (P.T.S., 1908 and 1912); Geiger, Dīpavaṁsa und Mahāvaṁsa und die geschichtliche überlieferung in Ceylon, Leipzig 1905; Tr. by E.M. Coomaraswamy, Colombo, 1908; Z.D.M.G., 63, 1909, 540ff.; Indian Antiquary, XXXV, p. 443; Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, Vol. XXI, pp. 203 and 307. The Dīpavaṁsa puts together some well-known traditions handed down among the Buddhists of Ceylon sometimes in a clumsy manner. For historical and geographical data from this chronicle (Vide B. C. Law, History of Pali Literature, II, Chap. VI, pp. 555ff.).

The main reason advanced for regarding this Pali Chronicle of Ceylon as a work of antiquity is that it stands, as distinguished from the rest which are chronologically later, as the literary production of a school or community, and not as the composition of an individual author. It is considered to be the last of the literary works of Ceylon which had no special authors. Malalasekera, The Pali Literature of Ceylon, p. 132. Oldenberg places the closing date of the Dīpavaṁsa in its extant form between the beginning [2] of the fourth and the first third of the fifth century A.D. Dīpavaṁsa, edited and translated by Oldenberg, p. 9. Malalasekera while discussing the question of its closing date significantly observes: ‘It could not have been closed before the beginning of the fourth century, because its narrative extends till about A.D. 302. Buddhaghosa quotes several times from the Dīpavaṁsa, but his quotations differ in some details from our version. In the Mahāvaṁsa we are told that Dhātusena (459-77) ordered the Dīpavaṁsa to be recited in public at the annual Mahinda festival, so that by that time the Dīpavaṁsa had been completed. After that date it fell into disuse, its glory outdone by the more brilliant work of Mahānāma; but it seems to have been studied till much later, because Dhammakitti III of the Āraṇyakavāsī sect quotes it in his Saddhammasaṅgaha (p. 47, v.7; p. 49, vv. 8 foll.) with great respect as a work of much merit and immense importance.’ The Pali Literature of Ceylon, p. 138.

The important question which arises at the outset is – what was the exact form of this chronicle, when king Dhātusena caused it to be recited in public year after year during the Mahinda festival? To put it in other words, did the narrative of the Dīpavaṁsa, as it was then known, extend beyond the advent of Mahinda in the island and the establishment of the Good Faith through his efforts? Evidently it did not extend beyond this great event in the early history of Ceylon.

It is also not quite correct to say that this chronicle is not the work of any individual author. Let us see what light its opening verses throw on its contents and author.

Here the expression, suṇātu me, – ‘Listen to me’, is significant as a form of supplication made by an individual who was in the role of the narrator or author of the chronicle. Such is precisely the way in which Mahānāma, the author of the Mahāvaṁsa, exhorts the interested hearers, i.e. readers, to hear the chronicle he was going to narrate well. Behind the Pali Canonical expressions, suṇātu me bhante, suṇantu bhonto mama ekavākyam, the speaker is a single individual. Thus looked at from this point of view, the Dīpavaṁsa is as much the composition of a single author as the Mahāvaṁsa, in spite of the fact that the name of the author of the former is yet unknown.

The enumeration of the themes of the Dīpavaṁsa in its earlier form is equally important for the reason that it does not take us beyond the establishment of the Buddhist Order in the island by Mahinda and Saṅghamittā. This chronicle in its present form closes, like Mahānāma’s great work, with the reign of Mahāsena. The subject matters of its earlier form [4] go only to suggest that the chronicle grew into its present form by stages. Even it seems possible that the Dīpavaṁsa in its first stage closed with Chapter VIII of which the concluding verse reads:

This verse would seem sufficient for the subject of sāsanapatiṭṭhā dealt with in the chronicle in its first stage, the description being quite in keeping with those of other Buddhist missions. That which follows and fills as many as nine bhāṇavāras (Chapters IX-XVII) is just a later elaboration of the matter. The recitation of the chronicle concluded with an account of the death of Mahinda and its sequel would be enough and appropriate for the Mahinda festival in Dhātusena’s time:

The themes mentioned in the prologue leave out of account the Mahārājavaṁsa contained in Chapter III. This at once appears to have been a separate entity, the absence of which would not cause any break in the historical narration of the events; rather its presence interferes with the continuity.

A version of the Dīpavaṁsa as known to the Theras of the Mahāvihāra is presupposed by the general introduction to the Vinaya-Commentary known as the Samantapāsādikā. It is interesting to find that the history of Buddhism given in it is ended precisely with the account of the foundation of the Buddhist Holy Order in the island by Mahinda and his sister Saṅghamittā.

There are two other lines of argument by which one may arrive at the conclusion that the Dīpavaṁsa history had not extended beyond the reign of Asoka and his Ceylon contemporary Devānaṁpiya Tissa even in the second stage of its growth. They are as follows: –

1. That the Dīpavaṁsa account of the Buddhist sects is completely silent on the rise of the later sects in Ceylon. Dīpavaṁsa, V, 54; B.C. Law, Debates Commentary, p. 5.

2. That there is a great disparity between the Dīpavaṁsa and the Mahāvaṁsa as regards the rivalry between the monks of the Mahāvihāra and the Abhayagiri monastery, especially the [5]
mischievous activity of the wicked Soṇa and the wicked Mitta. Barua, Ceylon Lectures, pp. 77ff.

Another important fact which has bearing upon the question of the date of the Dīpavaṁsa is its account of the early Buddhist sects. It is said that each sect with its rise made certain textual changes and adopted certain new rules of discipline. Particularly in connection with the Mahāsaṅghikas it says: ‘The Bhikkhus of the Great Council settled a doctrine contrary (to the true Faith). Altering the original redaction they made another redaction. They transposed Suttas which belonged to one place (of the collection) to another place; they destroyed the (true) meaning and the Faith in the Vinaya and in the five Collections (of Suttas). Those Bhikkhus, who understood neither what had been taught in long expositions nor without exposition, neither the natural meaning nor the recondite meaning, settled a false meaning in connection with spurious speeches of Buddha; these Bhikkhus destroyed a great deal of (true) meaning under the colour of the letter. Rejecting single passages of the Suttas and of the profound Vinaya, they composed other Suttas and another Vinaya which had (only) the appearance (of the genuine ones). Rejecting the following texts, viz. the Parivāra which is an abstract of the contents (of the Vinaya), the six Sections of the Abhidhamma, the Paṭisambhidā, the Niddesa, and some portions of the Jātaka, they composed new ones.’ Dīpavaṁsa, Oldenberg’s Trans., vv. 32-37, pp. 140-141.

All these details about the various Buddhist sects go to connect even the earlier form of the Dīpavaṁsa with an age which is posterior to the Parivāra written by Dīpa who was evidently a Thera of Ceylon. The date of composition of the Parivāra itself cannot be placed earlier than the reign of Vaṭṭagāmaṇi during which the Pali canonical texts as handed down by an oral tradition were first caused to be committed to writing. B.C. Law, History of Pali Literature, I, pp. 11 and 13. The Parivāra embodies a tradition in verse regarding the succession of the Vinaya teachers in Ceylon from the days of Mahinda and his Indian companions. The succession of the leading theras in Ceylon from the time of Mahinda and that of the leading Therīs from the time of Saṅghamittā given in the Dīpavaṁsa must have been based upon a cherished tradition. This fact may lead us to think that in an earlier stage the Dīpavaṁsa was closed with the [6] first half of the Chapter XVIII and with the verse 44 which reads:

Here the word idāni ‘now’, which occurs also as the first word of the first verse in the Chapter XVIII is significant. By it the author must have referred to a contemporary state of things.

The mention of the six later Buddhist sects, viz. Hemavatikā, Rājagirikā, Siddhatthā, Pubbaseliyā, Aparaseliyā and Apara Rājagirikā, Dīpavaṁsa, V, 54. is also important from the chronological point of view. The Pubbaseliyās and Aparaseliyās do not find mention in any Indian inscription earlier than those of Amarāvatī and Nāgārjunikoṇḍa. The earlier eighteen and these later sects and schools of thought existed also in the time of Buddhaghosa, the author of the Kathāvatthu Aṭṭhakathā. Kathāvatthuppakaraṇa-aṭṭhakathā, J.P.T.S., 1889, pp. 2ff; B.C. Law, Debates Commentary (P.T.S.), pp. 2ff.

The author of the Samantapāsādikā quotes verbatim the traditional verses from the Parivāra concerning the succession of the Vinaya teachers from Mahinda’s time. These are sadly missed in the Dīpavaṁsa edited by Oldenberg. But the occurrence of such verses regarding the succession of the Vinaya teachers among the Therīs from Saṅghamittā’s time suggests that there were similar verses also regarding the succession of Vinaya teachers among the Theras from Mahinda’s time, and it seems quite probable that the verses were quoted in the Parivāra from the Dīpavaṁsa itself, in which case we have to assume that these were later interpolations in the Vinaya text. If it be so, the Dīpavaṁsa as presupposed by the general introduction to the Vinaya Commentary must have been concluded with the first half of the Chapter XVIII. This fact may be made clear by a comparison of the succession of the Vinaya Therīs in the Dīpavaṁsa with that of the Vinaya Therīs incorporated into the Parivāra.

The Dīpavaṁsa contains three slightly different traditions regarding Saṅghamittā and the Therīs who accompanied her. According to one Dīpavaṁsa, XVII, vv. 21-22 Saṅghamittā, Rucānandā, Kanakadattā and Sudhammā were the nuns, each of whom carried a branch of the Bo-tree to the island of Ceylon: [7]

According to another Dīpavaṁsa, XVIII, vv. 11-12. the Therī Saṅghamittā was accompanied by ten other young nuns, viz. Uttarā, Hemā, Pasādapālā, Aggimittā, Dāsikā, Pheggu, Pabbatā, Mattā, Mallā and Dhammadāsiyā. Again, the list in Dīpavaṁsa, XV, vv. 77-78, has Māsagallā for Pasādapālā, Tappā for Pheggu and Mitāvadā for Dāsikā.

According to the third Dīpavaṁsa, XVIII, 24-25. the leading Therīs, Mahādevī, Padumā, Hemāsā, Unnalā, Añjalī and Sumā, accompanied Saṅghamittā, together with sixteen thousand nuns.

It would seem that the third tradition was really about the nuns who flourished not during the reign of king Devānaṁpiya Tissa, the Ceylon contemporary of Asoka, but during that of some other king of Ceylon who came into power after king Duṭṭhagāmaṇi Abhaya and before Kuṭikaṇṇa Tissa.

The three traditions may be reconciled only on the ground that the first of them is concerned with the five Therīs including Saṅghamittā, who were placed in charge of the five Bo­branches, the second with the eleven young nuns of importance including Saṅghamittā, and the third with the six leading Therīs among the many companions of Saṅghamittā.

The Dīpavaṁsa while giving an account of the Therīs, first of all, speaks of the well-known Therīs headed by Mahāprajāpatī Gotamī who became well versed in Vinaya (Vinayaññū) in the Master’s lifetime. In the second stage it mentions the Therīs, headed by Saṅghamittā, who went to the island of Ceylon in Devānaṁpiya Tissa’s time and recited the five Vinaya books and the seven Abhidhamma treatises in Anurādhapura. Ibid., XVIII, vv. 11-13. Vinayaṁ vācayiṁsu piṭakaṁ Anurādhapuravhaye Vinaye pañca vācesuṁ satta c’eva pakaraṇe. (v.13.)

Immediately after this, it offers a list of the eminent Therīs of the island who were ordained by the Therīs from India and who became noted for their special attainments. The Therīs of Ceylon are connected with the reign of Kākavaṇṇa Tissa and those of the next stage with that of his son and successor Duṭṭhagāmaṇi Abhaya. The Therīs of the next stage are assigned to a period which elapsed after the death of Duṭṭhagāmaṇi, while those of the sixth stage are referred to the time of Vaṭṭagāmaṇi Abhaya. It lists the leading Vinaya Therīs of the island, those connected with the reign of Kuṭikaṇṇa Abhaya and those with the reign of his son and [8] successor Bhātiya Abhaya. It should be noted that the last mentioned king finds a respectful mention in the Samantapāsādikā in connection with a meeting of the monks called by him for the decision of a Vinaya point then in dispute. Samantapāsādikā, III, 582-3; cf. Indian Culture, Vol. XII, No. 3.

The succession of the Vinaya teachers in the island is traced in the general introduction to the Samantapāsādikā from Mahinda and Ariṭṭha to the date of composition of the Vinaya Commentary, while that cited from the Parivāra, and presumably also from the Dīpavaṁsa, leads us to think of nineteen eminent successors of Mahinda. The latter may be taken to bring us as far down as the first or second century A.D.

Thus there is an earlier form of the Dīpavaṁsa which was concluded with the reign of Bhātika Abhaya.

It is evident from the prose account in the general introduction to the Samantapāsādikā that the Dīpavaṁsa pre­supposed by it contained Chapter XVII giving us an account of the visits of Kakusandha and other previous Buddhas to the island when it was known by other names in succession.

The Mahārājavaṁsa giving a genealogy of the Ikṣvāku rulers of the Solar race of Khattiyas from Mahāsammata to Suddhodana, which is now contained in Chapter III, appears to have been a separate chronicle by itself, bodily incorporated into the Dīpavaṁsa. The canonical basis of the chronicle may be traced in the legends occurring in the Pāli Nikāyas and the Mahāvastu. In what stage of the growth of the Dīpavaṁsa it came to be included in it we cannot say. The introduction to the Samantapāsādikā throws no light on this point.

The traditional succession of the Vinaya teachers in the island of Ceylon, as presented in the Parivāra, speaks of twenty-nine generations traced from Mahinda. Unfortunately the later teachers are not connected with the reign of any king. Allowing twenty years for the interval between any two successive generations, it is possible to think that the list brings us down to the first quarter of the fourth century of the Christian era.

The kings of Ceylon who find incidental mention in the writings of the great Buddhaghosa and in the Samantapāsādikā are none later than Mahānāga or Coranāga, Bhātika, Vāsabha and Sirināga. The career of an eminent Thera called Deva is connected in the Dīpavaṁsa with the reign of Tissa, the second son of Sirināga I. If this Thera be no other than the leading Vinaya teacher who figures as the last but one in the above list, it may be concluded that the Dīpavaṁsa as known to Buddhaghosa closed with the reign [9] of Sirināga I and his two successors. Its final form, concluded with the reign of Mahāsena, was probably reached in the reign of Dhātusena during which it was caused to be publicly recited.

Let us now see what becomes of the position of the Dīpavaṁsa when it is judged by the introductory verses of the Mahāvaṁsa which read:

Here the important question is – Does it or does it not mean the Pali Dīpavaṁsa by the previous Mahāvaṁsa composed by the ancients and presupposed by Mahānāma’s Mahāvaṁsa? The author of the Mahāvaṁsa-Ṭīka has been at pains to clear up the allusion. He maintains that here Mahānāma refers to the Aṭṭhakathā Mahāvaṁsa written in Sinhalese and cherished in the school of Mahāvihāra. Vaṁsatthappakāsini, I, pp. 35-36. But the verses which he quotes in support of his thesis are all from the prologue to the Pali Dīpavaṁsa as we now have it. Ibid., I, p. 48: ‘eso Sīhaḷaṭṭhakathā-Mahāvaṁso porāṇehi Sīhalāya niruttiyā kato.’ The defects pointed out are all applicable to the same work. Whenever the traditional sayings are quoted in the Writings of Buddhaghosa and other Pali commentaries they are all found to be in Pali verse. B.C. Law, Buddhaghosa, pp. 45ff.

From the language of the introductory verses of the Mahāvaṁsa, it is not at all clear that the allusion is to an earlier form of the Chronicle in a Sinhalese commentary. The work is not claimed to have been a translation from a Sinhalese original.

 

2. Aṭṭhakathā Mahāvaṁsa

We have seen that an earlier Mahāvaṁsa composed by the ancients is presupposed [10] by the Mahāvaṁsa composed in verse by Mahānāma, and that the allusion is evidently to a chronicle of the Dīpavaṁsa type. Mahānāma does not refer to any commentary version of the Mahāvaṁsa written in Sinhalese, nor does he say that his work was a translation from Sinhalese into Māgadhī meaning Pali.

The author of the Vaṁsatthappakāsini has taken a lot of pains to explain the significance of the title of Mahāvaṁsa meaning ‘The great Chronicle’ as well as to enlighten us on the allusion to an earlier chronicle made in the words – porāṇehi kato p’eso, ‘this as composed by the ancients’. The Mahāvaṁsa is the title adopted by Mahānāma for his own work. There was nothing to prevent him from loosely applying the same title to the earlier chronicle Dīpavaṁsa. He might easily have got the idea of such a title from a sectional caption, viz., Mahārājavaṁsa, used in the Dīpavaṁsa, Chapter III. Let us see what the author of the Mahāvaṁsa Commentary himself has got to say. Vaṁsatthappakāsini, I, pp. 35-36.

The scholiast has tried with his great erudition to exhaust all probable explanations of the introductory verses of the text. The work is called Mahāvaṁsa or ‘Great Chronicle’ not only due to the fact that it is the chronicle of the great kings and teachers but also because it deals with great themes. This twofold significance of the title is explained in the light of the verses from the prologue to the Dīpavaṁsa. The word dīpatthuti, literally meaning ‘an eulogy of the island’, which occurs in these verses, is similarly sought to be explained in the light of other verses from the prologue to the same earlier chronicle. Here these are quoted in the name of ‘the Ancients’: Ten’ āhu Porāṇā. But it is not certainly true that these verses testify to the great number of topics dealt with (saṅkhyāmahattaṁ).

In explaining the significance of the verbal expression pavakkhāmi, which literally means ‘I will narrate well’, the scholiast arbitrarily suggests that by it the author means to say that he was going to narrate the chronicle in the blameless Māgadhī or Pali language, abandoning the Sinhalese diction of the chronicle contained in the Porāṇaṭṭhakathā as taught in the school of Mahāvihāra. In the sequel, again, two authoritative verses are quoted from the Dīpavaṁsa, although in the name of the ancients. Evidently the scholiast has made the confusion between the traditional sayings of the Porāṇas in verse and the Sinhalese Porāṇaṭṭhakathā. It seems rather strange why he, instead of quoting the verses from the Dīpavaṁsa, quotes them in the name of the Porāṇas. Are we to understand that when the [11] Aṭṭhakathā was first written, it was written in Sinhalese? If so, from whom did the inspiration come to write the commentary in Sinhalese in preference to Māgadhī (Pali)?

The Dīpavaṁsa presupposes indeed the Piṭaka commentaries when it says that king Vaṭṭagāmaṇi caused the Three Piṭakas to be committed to writing along with the Aṭṭhakathās:

This very statement occurs also in the Mahāvaṁsa. Mahāvaṁsa, XXXIII, 100-101.

But the question still remains – Were these Aṭṭhakathās the commentaries written in Sinhalese? As shown elsewhere, B.C. Law, Buddhaghosa, pp. 55ff. there is a commentary process to be noticed throughout the Three Piṭakas, in which case the statement, if at all correct, may be taken to mean that the first incentive to producing the commentaries in Sinhalese came from the direction given by Vaṭṭagāmaṇi.

Whatever it may be, the traditional sayings of the ancients were all in Pali verses, and none in Sinhalese. The Mahāvaṁsa-Ṭīkā speaks, on the other hand, of a Porāṇaṭṭhakathā written in Sinhalese prose, in which evidently the Pali sayings of the ancients in verse were quoted. If so, the Mahāvaṁsa itself might be a later metrical version of an earlier prose chronicle in Sinhalese prose, but as regards the Dīpavaṁsa, it was composed or compiled on the basis of the traditional sayings of the ancients in Pali verse. In such circumstances the Dīpavaṁsa must have to be treated as chronologically earlier than the Aṭṭhakathā Mahāvaṁsa or the Sinhalese prose chronicle in the Porāṇaṭṭhakathā with the traditional Pali verses quoted here and there in the name of the Porāṇas.

In support of the statement of the Mahāvaṁsa-Ṭīkā regarding the earlier Aṭṭhakathā Mahāvaṁsa one may cite the evidence of the Pali commentaries ascribed to Buddhaghosa. One may even go so far as to premise that the general introduction to the Samantapāsādikā is only a verbatim reproduction in Pali of such an earlier chronicle in a Sinhalese Aṭṭhakathā. We have similar reproductions also in the general introduction to the Sumaṅgalavilāsinī, the commentary on the Dīgha Nikāya, and in those to the Atthasālinī and the Kathāvatthu Aṭṭhakathā. These reproductions presuppose the Dīpavaṁsa and Sinhalese commentaries but nowhere Mahānāma’s great work. [12]

 

3. Mahāvaṁsa and Cūḷavaṁsa

The Mahāvaṁsa proper which is known as the great work of Mahānāma is to be distinguished from its later supplements edited by Geiger under a common title, namely, Cūḷavaṁsa. The authors of the supplements applied the title of Mahāvaṁsa to their own compositions. Under this very title George Tumour published his edition and translation of the entire work. The relative chronological positions of the chronicle and its supplements may be stated thus: ‘The Mahāvaṁsa proper with Duṭṭhagāmaṇi as its hero was composed by Mahānāma, the Cūḷavaṁsa with Parakkamabāhu the Great as its hero was composed by Dhammakitti, the second portion of the Cūḷavaṁsa with Kitti­Siri as its hero was composed by Tibboṭuvāve Siddhattha and concluded with a chapter added by Hikkāḍuve Siri Sumaṅgala. A laudable attempt has been made by the Venerable Yagirala Paññānanda to bring it down to modern times.’ B.M. Barua, Ceylon Lectures, p.99.

(A) Mahāvaṁsa: G. Turnour’s Ed. and Eng. Tr., Ceylon, 1837; H. Sumaṅgala and Baṭuwantuḍāwe, Mahāvaṁsa, Colombo, 1883; Geiger, Mahāvaṁsa (P.T.S.) and Tr. by him (published by P.T.S.); Kambodian Mahāvaṁsa in J.R.A.S., 1902; J.P.T.S. (1902-1903); I.H.Q., Vol. VIII, No. 3; Wijesinha, Sinhalese Tr., Colombo, 1889; Eng. Tr. by L.C. Wijesinha, published in 1909. The Sinhalese equivalent of the Pali title of Mahānāma’s great work is Pajjapadoruvaṁsa (Padyapadoruvaṁsa). Vaṁsatthappakāsinī, II, p.687. It means, according to the Mahāvaṁsa-Ṭīkā, that Mahānāma composed this Pali chronicle in verse (padyapadagāthābandhena) on the basis of the Sīhaḷaṭṭhakathā-Mahāvaṁsa of old. Ibid., I, pp. 41f. The author of the Ṭīkā really means that the Mahānāma’s composition was an earlier prose chronicle in the Porāṇaṭṭhakathā in Sinhalese, Ibid., I, p. 36. which had formed also the basis of the Abhidhamma commentaries.

Mahānāma’s chronicle is closed, like the Dīpavaṁsa, with the reign of Mahāsena. R. Siddhārtha (I.H.Q., VIII, 3, pp. 426ff.) is not right in holding that the Pali Mahāvaṁsa (Mahānāma’s work) stops abruptly in the middle of the 37th Chapter without concluding it in the usual way. The concluding chapters of the Dīpavaṁsa and Mahāvaṁsa composed by Mahānāma ended in the same way with the same two reflective verses, if both the works were concluded with an account of the reign of Mahāsena:

When Mahānāma’s work was continued by a later chronicler, Dhammakitti, these two verses occur in the middle of the Chapter 37 instead of at the end. The essential point is that each chapter is expected to conclude with one or more reflective verses. In Chapter 37 of Mahānāma’s work the concluding verses were evidently taken from the earlier chronicle. It is justly claimed to have been an improvement on an earlier work. The drawbacks of the earlier work, as pointed out in the introductory verses, are all applicable to the Dīpavaṁsa. Geiger, Dīpavaṁsa and Mahāvaṁsa, pp. 17 ff.

Comparing the two chronicles, we cannot but come to the conclusion that one is the later remodelled version of the other. A typical example may suffice here to indicate the relation between the two works:

In the instance cited above, the same tradition is narrated in two identical Pali verses. But there are certain traditions in the Mahāvaṁsa which differ from those in the earlier chronicle, e.g. the legend of Tissarakkhā and last days of Asoka; that of conversion of Asoka to Buddhism by Nigrodha, the posthumous son of Asoka’s elder stepbrother Sumana, described as a novice of seven years of age; the description of Suvaṇṇabhūmi as a country on a sea-shore, which was under the sway of a terrible rakkhasī. These are all conspicuous by their absence in the earlier chronicle.

The six later Indian Buddhist sects which find mention in the Dīpavaṁsa (v. 54) are also found in the general introduction to the Kathāvatthu Commentary. They are referred to also in the body of the latter work. The earlier Pali Chronicle is unaware of the two Sinhalese sects, the Dhammarucī and Sāgaliyā, occurring in the Mahāvaṁsa (v. 13). They are conspicuous by their absence also in the Kathāvatthu Aṭṭhakathā and other works of Buddhaghosa: [14]

The Mahāvaṁsa nowhere says how they had originated and when. It speaks indeed of the first development of the Mahāvihāra and the Abhayagirivihāra into two rival schools. Mahāvaṁsa, XXXIII, 96-98. The account of their origin is given in the Mahāvaṁsa-Ṭīkā and the Nikāyasaṅgraha. Both the Pali Chronicles connect the mischievous activities of Mitta, Soṇa, and other injudicious persons with the reign of Mahāsena. Dīpavaṁsa, XXII, 67-74. Judged by the tradition in the earlier Pali Chronicle, the rise of the two Sinhalese sects, called Dhammarucī and Sāgaliyā, occurred in post-Mahāsena times.

The Mahāvaṁsa must have obtained the legend of Tissarakkhā and Asoka’s last days from an Indian source presupposed by the Divyāvadāna narrative of Asoka. We say ‘presupposed’, because the narrative in the Pali great Chronicle is lacking in the legend of Kuṇāla. Mahāvaṁsa, XX, 2-6.

We have so far differed from Oldenberg as to the relative chronological positions of the Dīpavaṁsa and the Sīhalaṭṭhakathā Mahāvaṁsa. In his opinion, the two works, viz. the Dīpavaṁsa and the Mahāvaṁsa, were based on the historical introduction to the great commentary of the Mahāvihāra, each of them representing their common subject in its own way, the first work following step by step and almost word for word the traces of the original, the second work proceeding with much greater independence and perfect literary mastery. Oldenberg, Dīpavaṁsa, Introduction, p. 7. The position hitherto taken up by us is that the Dīpavaṁsa, which is a compilation of the traditional sayings of the ancients in verse, is an earlier work presupposed by the Porāṇaṭṭhakathā in Sinhalese, and both of these formed the basis of the Mahāvaṁsa. The points of difference between the two Pali Chronicles were due to the reliance placed by the latter work on the traditions recorded in the historical introduction to the Sinhalese commentary. [15]

The Mahāvaṁsa-Ṭīkā speaks of two recensions of the text, namely one belonging to the Mahāvihāra and the other to the Uttaravihāra or Abhayagiri school. It is from this work that we come to know that Thera Mahānāma who resided in a monastery built for him by the commander-in­chief named Dīghasanda, better Dīghasandana, was the author of the Mahāvaṁsa. Vaṁsatthappakāsini, II, p. 687:
Dighasandasenāpatinā kārāpitamahāpariveṇavāsinā Māhānāmo ti gurūhi gahitanāmadheyyena therena… katassa Padyapadoruvaṁsassa. The gifted author himself keeps us entirely in the dark as to his personality and whereabouts. Dīghasandana is traditionally known as a commander-in-chief of Devānaṁpiya Tissa who built a little pāsāda on eight pillars for Mahinda, named Dīghasandasenāpati-pariveṇa after him. Mahāvaṁsa, XV, 212f.; Cūḷavaṁsa, XXXVIII, 16. The connection of Mahānāma with this monastery does not, however, enable us to fix the time of the author or the date of the work ascribed to him.

Seeing that both the Mahāvaṁsa and the Dīpavaṁsa, as we now have them, are concluded alike with an account of the reign of Mahāsena, it may be presumed that the author of the first-named chronicle and that of the concluding portion of the Dīpavaṁsa flourished almost in the same age.

In the midst of uncertainty, the only traditional basis of chronology is the fact that king Dhātusena (A.D. 460-78) evinced a keen interest in the popularization of the Dīpavaṁsa. Dhātusena is the only king of Ceylon after Mahāsena who finds an incidental mention in the Mahāvaṁsa. We are told that king Mahāsena caused a monastery, called Dhātusenapabbata, to be built in the west of Ceylon. Mahāvaṁsa, XXXVII, 42: pacchimāyaṁ Dhātusenapabbataṁ ca akārayi. The christening of this Buddhist foundation as Dhātusenapabbata in Mahānāma’s time is palpably an instance of anachronism but this can surely be construed as a fact, which brings us down to the reign of Dhātusena, who caused the monastery originally built by Mahāsena to be restored in his time and named after him. It is equally important to note that the annual Mahinda festival was chosen by the king as the fittest occasion for the edification of the chronicle of the island of Ceylon.

The Thera Mahānāma of the Dīghasandana or Dīghāsanda monastery, to whom the Mahāvaṁsa Ṭīkā ascribes the Mahāvaṁsa, appears to have been no other person than the Thera Mahānāma to whom king Moggallāna I (A.D. 496-513), the younger son of Dhātusena, dedicated the Pabbatavihāra [16] built by him. Cūḷavaṁsa, XXXIX, 42:
Pabbataṁ tu vihāraṁ so katvā therassa dāpayi
Mahānāmasanāmassa Dighāsanavihārake On reading between the lines, it becomes apparent that the Thera was a resident of the Dīghasandana monastery previous to this dedication and was, therefore, connected more with the reign of Dhātusena. This important point is missed by both E.W. Adikaram (Early History of Buddhism in Ceylon, p.9) and G.C. Mendis (The Pali Chronicles of Ceylon, University of Ceylon Review, Vol. IV, No. 2, pp. 20ff.). Mahānāma is described as the maternal uncle of Dhātusena according to the Cūḷavaṁsa. Dhātusena in his early life was initiated as a novice by his maternal uncle who was then a Thera in the Dīghasandana monastery. Cūḷavaṁsa, XXXVIII, pp. 16-17:
Mātu sodariyo tesaṁ saddho pabbajia vattati
Dighasandakatāvāse, Dhātuseno pi māṇavo.
santike tassa pabbajja rukkhamūlaṁhi ekadā

The encouragement given by king Dhātusena for the edification of the Dīpavaṁsa must have served as a great impetus to the composition of the Mahāvaṁsa or Padyapadoruvaṁsa in Pali. The writing of a Dīpavaṁsa-Aṭṭhakathā may have resulted from the same literary process. At all events the mention in the Mahāvaṁsa of a Pabbatavihāra named after Dhātusena, its restorer, is a fact, which must have an important bearing on the question of the date of its composition.

The date of composition of Mahānāma’s chronicle thus arrived at from internal evidence gives rise to an important question whether Mahānāma’s work was concluded with the reign of Mahāsena or if it included the whole of the Chapter 37 which now occurs partly in the Mahāvaṁsa proper and partly in the Cūḷavaṁsa. To assume that Mahānāma’s work had ended as in Geiger’s edition is to admit that it ended abruptly without its usual reflective verses. It is true that the text of Mahānāma’s work as in Geiger’s edition was precisely before the author of the Vaṁsatthappakāsini. If the later composer Dhammakitti continued the chronicle in his own way, there is apparently no reason why he should have extended the Chapter 37 instead of beginning with a new chapter. The date suggested in Mahānāma’s work itself leads us to think that it was concluded with an account of the reign of Dhātusena. In other words Mahānāma’s chronicle consisted not of 37 chapters but of 38.

(B) Cūḷavaṁsa: The Thera Dhammakitti is traditionally known as the author of the first portion of the Cūḷavaṁsa [17] representing a continuation of the Mahāvaṁsa proper. According to Sinhalese tradition, Dhammakitti was a Burmese monk who came to Ceylon during the reign of king Parakkamabāhu II in the thirteenth century A.D. Cūḷavaṁsa, edited by Geiger, Introduction, p. iii

Geiger notices a turning point in the chronicle of the later kings of Ceylon immediately after the description of the reign of Parakkamabāhu I. Thus the first supplement to Mahānāma’s great work may be taken to have comprised forty-three chapters (XXXVII-LXXIX).

In the Cūḷavaṁsa itself we have no mention of any Burmese Thera known by the name of Dhammakitti and connected with the reign of Parakkamabāhu I. We have, on the other hand, the mention in it (LXXVI, 32) of a Ceylonese Thera, called Dhammakitti, who was deputed by Parakkamabāhu I as one of the envoys to the then king of Rāmañña, Lower Burma. The Cūḷavaṁsa (LXXXIV, 11) eloquently speaks of the great qualities of a leading Colian Thera known by the same name who came across to Ceylon on an invitation from king Parakkamabāhu II to effect a thorough reform of the Sangha. It is difficult to say if he was the author of the first supplement. The consensus of opinion, however, is in favour of regarding him as the monk who wrote the account in the Mahāvaṁsa from the reign of Mahāsena to that of Parakkamabāhu II. J.R.A.S., 1896, pp. 202ff.

The second portion of the Cūḷavaṁsa may be taken to comprise eleven chapters (LXXX-XC). It presents a chronicle of kings from the reign of Vijayabāhu II to that of Parakkamabāhu IV (circa A.D. 1300). Geiger, Cūḷavaṁsa, Introduction, p. iv. The identity of the author of this supplement is still unknown. It would seem possible that this was the composition of the erudite Colian Mahāthera, a master of different languages, who came to Ceylon on an invitation from king Parakkamabāhu IV (A.D. 1325-1347 ?).

The third portion (Chs. 91 to 100) brings the chronicle down to the reign of Kitti-Siri-Rājasīha (A.D. 1767-1782), the last independent king of Ceylon. The Thera Tibboṭuvāve Sumaṅgala is traditionally known as its author, while the concluding chapter bringing the history of Ceylon down to A.D. 1815 was added by Hikkaḍuve Siri-Sumaṅgala. Malalasekera, Dictionary, sub voce Cūḷavaṁsa, I, p. 901.

In adopting the title of Cūḷavaṁsa for the continuation of Mahānāma’s work Geiger seeks to justify it on two authorities: (1) a statement in the Cūḷavaṁsa, Chapter 99, [18] v. 76, and (2) a statement in the Sinhalese Rājāvalīya. Cūḷavaṁsa (Geiger’s Ed.), Introduction, pp. 1ff. The two statements are found on a proper examination to be of the same import. Both propose to divide the kings of Ceylon into those of the Mahāvaṁsa meaning the great dynasty and those of the Cūḷavaṁsa, i.e. the lesser dynasty. According to the Rājāvalīya the line of the kings of the first dynasty ended with Mahāsena, and the line of the kings of the later dynasty began with Kitti-Siri-Meghavaṇṇa, the son of Mahāsena. The later dynasty is called Cūḷa or lesser or lower because the pedigree of the kings belonging to it is heterogeneous, being an intermingling between the descendants of those monarchs who brought to the island the sacred Bo-Branch, and those who brought the tooth relic. But this division of the kings of Ceylon cannot be taken as an evidence to prove that the chronicle composed by Mahānāma had ended with the reign of Mahāsena. Here we must bear in mind also the fact that the Dīpavaṁsa applies the name of Mahārājavaṁsa only to the Indian kings of the solar race descended from Mahāsammata and Okkāka.

(C) Uttaravihāra Mahāvaṁsa: The Mahāvaṁsa Ṭīkā expressly refers to an Uttaravihāra or Abhayagiri version of the Mahāvaṁsa which differed in some respects from the Mahāvihāra recension. Just one instance of difference between the two recensions is cited in the Ṭīkā, Vaṁsatthappakāsinī, I, p. 134: Uttaravihāravāsīnaṁ pana Mahāvaṁse: Sīhassararañño puttapaputtakā dvāsiti-sahassāni rājāno ahesuṁ, tesaṁ kaṇiṭṭhako Bhagusakko nāma rājā, tassa puttapaputtakā dvāsīti-sahassāni rājāno ahesuṁ, tesaṁ kaṇiṭṭhako Jayaseno ti vuttaṁ. but there might have been other instances as well, which may be detected in the light of the difference between the two commentaries produced in the two schools, both in Sinhalese. The instance cited in the Ṭīkā is concerned apparently with what is called Mahārājavaṁsa in the Dīpavaṁsa.

 

4. Dīpavaṁsa Aṭṭhakathā

In two contexts Ibid., II, pp. 411, 683. the Mahāvaṁsa Ṭīkā has quoted the views of a Dīpavaṁsa commentary, written probably in Sinhalese. When this was written and by whom – all these are not known. None need be surprised if the writing of this commentary resulted from the encouragement given by king Dhātusena for the improvement of the Dīpavaṁsa.

 

5. Mahāvaṁsa Aṭṭhakathās

The Mahāvaṁsa Ṭīkā has cited the authority of the Sinhalese commentaries on the Mahāvaṁsa, one belonging to the Mahāvihāra and the other to the Uttaravihāra or Abhayagiri. The latter contained [19] certain legends, however few, which were not to be found in the former. Vaṁsatthappakāsinī, I, pp. 125, 155, 177, 187, 247, 249, 289, 290. Some of the additional matters supplied in the Uttaravihāra commentary have been utilized in the Mahābodhivaṁsa, the Mahāvaṁsa Ṭīkā and the Extended
Mahāvaṁsa.

The Mahāvaṁsa Ṭīkā presupposes two other earlier commentaries, namely, one by Pāsāṇadīpavāsī Upatissa Thera and the other known as the Gaṇṭhipadavaṇṇanā.

 

6. Mahābodhivaṁsakathā

This is another older work which is quoted by name in the Mahāvaṁsa Ṭīkā. The Pali verse which is cited from this work cannot, however, be traced in the Mahābodhivaṁsa edited by Arthur Strong for the Pali Text Society:

By the title, Mahābodhivaṁsakathā, Malalasekera rightly understands a Mahābodhivaṁsa Aṭṭhakathā. Ibid., II, p. 412. The question is – is the older work presupposed by the Mahāvaṁsa Ṭīkā to be identified with the Pali version of the Mahābodhivaṁsa now extant or should it be identified with its earlier Sinhalese form? There is no consensus of opinion as yet on this point. Geiger admits the possibility of the work being ‘‘identical with the Mahābodhivaṁsa, still in existence’ Geiger, The Dīpavaṁsa and Mahāvaṁsa, p. 49. while Malalasekera doubts it. The latter is inclined to think that careful perusal of both the Mahābodhivaṁsa and the Mahāvaṁsa Ṭīkā shows that the Mahābodhivaṁsa, at least from the point of view of its language, is later than the Mahāvaṁsa Ṭīkā. Vaṁsatthappakāsinī, I, Introduction, p. cvii.

It is certain that although the Pali version is distinctly given the name of Mahābodhivaṁsa, it is, in fact, written in the style of a commentary, with the usual introductory verse:

The Pali version is claimed to have been a composition of the author on the basis of an older form written by the previous teachers in the Sinhalese idiom for the benefit of the people of Ceylon. Pubbācariyakesarīhi Laṅkāvāsīnaṁ atthāya Sihalabhāsāya ṭhapitaṁ Mahābodhivaṁsaṁ ahaṁ idāni avasesa-desavāsīnaṁ subodhaṁ karonto… Māgadhābhidhānāya… vācāya racayanto… Mahābodhivaṁsa, p. 1.

Geiger rightly points out that the verses in the Pali Mahābodhivaṁsa are all taken from the Mahāvaṁsa. Its [20] direct dependence on the Samantapāsādikā cannot be doubted. The Jātakaṭṭhakathā in its present form is clearly presupposed. Geiger, op. cit., pp. 75ff.

It may be important, while discussing the date of composition of the Mahābodhivaṁsa in its Pali form, to note that the work was indebted to the Mahāvihāra version of the older Mahāvaṁsa Aṭṭhakathā in Sinhalese for the names of Kālāsoka’s ten sons, Mahābodhivaṁsa, p. 98; Vaṁsatthappakāsinī, I, p. 177; Kālāsokassa atrajaputtā dasabhātukā ahesuṁ. Tesaṁ pana nāmaṁ Aṭṭhakathāyaṁ vuttaṁ. and to the Uttaravihāra or Abhayagiri version of the same for the names of the nine Nanda brothers, Ibid., p. 98; Vaṁsatthappakāsinī, I, p. 177: tesaṁ navannaṁ uppattikkamañ ca Uttaravihāraṭṭhakathāyaṁ vuttaṁ. but not to the Sinhalese Mahābodhivaṁsakathā.

It does not seem possible that there was a text known by the name of Mahābodhivaṁsa other than the Mahābodhivaṁsakathā which, when first written, was written in the style of a commentary.

The Gandhavaṁsa mentions the Bodhivaṁsa along with the Dīpavaṁsa, the Cullavaṁsa, the Mahāvaṁsa and the Paṭisambhidāmagga Aṭṭhakathā, and includes Upatissa among the Sinhalese teachers. In the Sāsanavaṁsadīpa, on the other hand, Upatissa is definitely mentioned as the author of the Bodhivaṁsa. It is said that Upatissa undertook to compose the work at the instance of the Thera Dāṭhānāga. One Thera Dāṭhānāga finds respectful mention in the Cūḷavaṁsa (LIV, 36) as a contemporary of king Mahinda IV (A.D. 956-72), but the connection of Upatissa, to whom the Sāsanavaṁsadīpa ascribes the Bodhivaṁsa, remains hypothetical. One may agree with Geiger if the Sinhalese Mahābodhivaṁsakathā be regarded as a work written in the last quarter of the tenth century, leaving the question of the date of composition of the Pali work still open.

 

7. Mahācetiyavaṁsa Aṭṭhakathā

It is particularly in connection with the Mahāthūpa or Great Dagoba built by king Duṭṭhagāmaṇi that the Mahāvaṁsa Ṭīkā refers us for certain important details to an older work, mentioned in one context by the name of the Mahācetiyavaṁsa Aṭṭhakathā, Vaṁsatthappakāsinī, II, p. 509. and in a second context by that of the Cetiyavaṁsa Aṭṭhakathā. Ibid., II, p. 548. Just as by the Bodhivaṁsa and Mahābodhivaṁsa the one and the same chronicle is meant, so by the Cetiyavaṁsa Aṭṭhakathā and Mahācetiyavaṁsa Aṭṭhakathā was presumably meant one and the same chronicle – the chronicle of the thūpas.

Geiger Geiger, op. cit., p. 49. rightly observes that the Cetiyavaṁsa Aṭṭhakathā was clearly [21] a work on the dagobas of Ceylon. It is to be expected therefore that it stands in closer relation to the Thūpavaṁsa the Mahāvaṁsa Ṭīkā admits at the place where it speaks of the Cetiyavaṁsa Aṭṭhakathā that the description of the Vessantara Jātaka and the Abhinikkhamaṇa in the Dhātugabbha of the Mahāthūpa is here given in detail the pictorial decoration of the relic cell in the Ruvanveḷi Dagoba is in fact fully described in the Thūpavaṁsa. The Mahācetiyavaṁsa Aṭṭhakathā seems to treat especially of the history of the Mahāthūpa built by Duṭṭhagāmaṇi.

Here, precisely as in the case of the Mahābodhivaṁsakathā, we are not to suppose that the work, in spite of its being given the name of a commentary, was preceded by a text called Cetiyavaṁsa or Mahācetiyavaṁsa. It probably served as a commentary to the Mahāvaṁsa description of the dagobas built in India and Ceylon. This was written in Sinhalese and served as the authoritative basis of the Pali Thūpavaṁsa.

 

8. Vaṁsatthappakāsinī Malalasekera has edited it for the P.T.S. in two parts.

This title is employed in Burmese manuscripts for the Pali commentary on the Mahāvaṁsa, while its author himself suggests the double title of Vaṁsatthappakāsinī and Padyapadoruvaṁsassa atthavaṇṇanā. G.P. Malalasekera, Vaṁsatthappakāsinī, I, Introduction, p. vii. In the Kambodian MSS., however, the work bears the name of Aṭṭhakathā Mahāvaṁsa, meaning an Exegetical Chronicle. According to a tradition current in Ceylon, the author of the commentary, too, was a Thera named Mahānāma. Turnour who recorded this tradition was wrongly led to think that probably the author of the text and the author of the commentary were one and the same person. That they were two different persons separated by a considerable interval of time may now be taken for granted.

The scholiast, Mahānāma or whoever else he might have been, often respectfully refers to the author of the text as ācariya. He is acquainted not only with the two recensions of the text, viz the Mahāvihāra and the Abhayagiri, but also with two different Sinhalese commentaries produced in the two rival schools. He is aware of the variants in the texts presented before him. Among other older works in Sinhalese availed of by him include a Dīpavaṁsa Aṭṭhakathā, an Exegetical Mahābodhivaṁsa and an Exegetical Mahācetiyavaṁsa.

Malalasekera has drawn our attention to the Bodhgayā inscription of the Thera Mahānāma in which the succession of six Theras of Ceylon is traced through Bhara, Rāhula, Upasena (I), Mahānāma (I), Upasena (II) and Mahānāma (II), [22] the last-named Thera being the author of the epigraph. Apart from other cogent details, this is nothing but a string of names without any bearing on the author of the Mahāvaṁsa Ṭīkā or his time. Vaṁsatthappakāsinī, I, Introduction, pp. civff.

The compliment paid to Dhātusena for certain pious constructions may be interesting as suggesting that the work could not have been written previous to the reign of this king. Ibid., II, p. 626. This does not, however, lead us very far towards the solution of the problem, the name of Dhātusena occurring as well in the Mahāvaṁsa itself. Mahāvaṁsa, XXXVII, 42.

The change of certain place-names noticed in the commentary, e.g. that of the Issarasamaṇārāma into Kassapagirivihāra, with Kassagiri, Kaṇḍagiri, Kandaragiri, Kassakagiri or Vessagiri as its variants, or that of Sāmagalla into Moragalla, is not a decisive fact at all.

There is no better way of fixing the date of compilation of the Mahāvaṁsa Ṭīkā than one suggested by Geiger. In the first place the reference made to Bhāgineyya-Dāṭhopatissa who is no other than Dāṭhopatissa II (A.D. 664-73) helps us to fix the upper limit. As for the lower limit, one may take these two facts into consideration: (1) that the author of the commentary is unaware of the Extended Mahāvaṁsa and the first supplement to the Mahāvaṁsa by Dhammakitti; (2) that it is utilized in the Pali Thūpavaṁsa composed in the middle of the thirteenth century and must therefore have been earlier than the latter. These facts have led Geiger to place the date of compilation of the Ṭīkā between A.D. 1000 and 1250.

 

9. Dāṭhāvaṁsa Vide J.P.T.S., 1886; Devanāgarī Ed. and Tr. by B.C. Law, 1925; J.B.B.R.A.S., XI, 1875; J.A.S.B., 1837; English Tr. by Coomaraswamy, 1874; Academy, Sept. 1874; C. Swamy’s Ed. in Sinhalese character; ‘Le Dāṭhāvança: On Histoire de la dent relique du Buddha Gotama’, 1884.

This is the abbreviated title for the Pali chronicle which was known to Dhammakitti, the author of the first part of the Cūḷavaṁsa by the name of Dāṭhādhātuvaṁsa Cūḷavaṁsa, XXXVII, 93: Dāṭhādhātussa vaṁsamhi. and which was intended by its author to be called Jinadantadhātuvaṁsa. Dāṭhāvaṁsa, I, 10; colophon 4. The shorter title, Dāṭhāvaṁsa, is adopted in the Gandhavaṁsa and Sāsanavaṁsa. The Thera Dhammakitti is rightly credited with the authorship of the Pali chronicle in its present form in the last-named two Pali works written in Burma. The name of Dhammakitti is fittingly mentioned in the closing verses of the work as its illustrious author. In them, he is described as a pupil of the [23] worthy pupil of the Thera Sāriputta and as the well-known author of a Ṭīkā (Sāratthadīpanī) on the Vinaya Commentary called Samantapāsādikā, a Ṭīkā on the Aṅguttara Commentary (Manorathapūraṇī), a Ṭīkā on the Candra-vyākaraṇa called the Candrapañcikā, a Pāṇinian treatise on Sanskrit grammar by Candragomin, and a Vinaya compendium known by the name of the Vinayasaṅgraha. He is praised as one of the most erudite scholars who was well-versed in the Tarkaśāstra (systems of logic) and a master of the doctrine of the Buddha. He was appointed to the coveted office of a Rājaguru (Royal Preceptor) by the reigning king Parakkamabāhu, evidently through the influence of his queen Līlāvatī the chronicle was written at the instance of Parakkama, then the commander-in-chief of Ceylon, who placed Līlāvatī on the vacant throne of the island. Dāṭhāvaṁsa, I, 4-10. Parakkamabāhu, the husband of Līlāvatī III, was no other than king Parakkamabāhu I (A.D. 1197-1200). Geiger rightly opines that the Pali Dāṭhāvaṁsa must have been written shortly after Līlāvatī was raised to the throne in A.D. 1211. Geiger, Dīpavaṁsa and Mahāvaṁsa, p. 79.

Going by Dhammakitti’s own statement, we cannot but admit that his metrical history of the Buddha’s tooth-relic was based on an older work in Sinhalese. When this older work was written and by whom is still a matter of speculation. That the Sinhalese original too, was a metrical composition, may be easily inferred from the following description which occurs in Chapter I, verse 10:

According to tradition, the Sinhalese original known as Daḷadāvaṁsa was written in 845 B.E. and during the reign of Kitti-Siri-Meghavaṇṇa (A.D. 344-362). Kern wrongly calculated this traditional date of composition to be about 310 A.D.; Manual of Indian Buddhism, p. 89, f.n. 1. he could have made out 362 A.D. to be the required date by deducting 483, which was the initial year of the Buddha Era current in Ceylon up till the fifteenth century. But the question arises, is this authentic at all?

The case may be argued thus: We cannot think of a Sinhalese chronicle of the Buddha’s tooth-relic before its arrival in the island during the reign of Kitti-Siri-Meghavaṇṇa. Secondly the Dāṭhādhātuvaṁsa finds mention in the Cūḷavaṁsa (37, 93) in connection with the reign of Kitti-Siri-Megavaṇṇa. [24]

which may be rendered:

But reading between the lines, one cannot fail to notice that the statement does not prove at all the date of composition of the Sinhalese original the Pali chronicle was well-known in Ceylon in the time of Dhammakitti, the author of the first part of the Cūḷavaṁsa. All that he wants to say is that the mode of worship of the tooth-relic followed by Kitti-Siri­Meghavaṇṇa was similar to the description in the Dāṭhāvaṁsa then known to him.

Geiger points out that the Sinhalese Daladāpūjāvalī is a later compilation, which closely follows the narrative of the Pali Dāṭhāvaṁsa.

Lastly, if the Pali version were a faithful reproduction of the older Sinhalese work, its artificial kāvya style alone would have sufficed to place its date of composition after the Mahāvaṁsa.

 

10. Thūpavaṁsa

This is the improved Pali version of the traditional history of the Thūpas in India and Ceylon built up till the reign of king Duṭṭhagāmaṇi of Ceylon, the term thūpa meaning a dagoba or relic-shrine (dhātu-cetiya). Strictly speaking, the description given was meant for the Mahāthūpa caused to be built by king Duṭṭhagāmaṇi at Anurādhapura, the traditional account of other thūpas being given by the way:

In the colophon, too, the chronicle is described as Thūpavarassa vaṁso, ‘The history of the Great Thūpa’.

The author of this version of the Pali Thūpavaṁsa is introduced in the colophon as the Thera Vācissara who was appointed by king Parakkamabāhu to the office of the Librarian of the Royal Library (Dhammāgāra). He is also described as the author of the Līnatthadīpanī Ṭīkā, a sub­commentary on the Paṭisambhidāmagga, the Saccasaṅkhepa-atthadīpunā and the Visuddhimaggasaṅkhepa-atthappakāsinī. [25]

In the Cūḷavaṁsa, the same Thera Vācissara finds mention as the leading Thera of the island of Laṅkā of his time, who lived in the time of king Vijayabāhu III, father of Parakkamabāhu II. Vācissara led the deputation of the Theras of Ceylon sent to the kingdoms of Pāṇḍya and Coḷa for the search of the Buddha’s tooth-relic and bowl. Cūḷavaṁsa, LXXXI, 20-23.

According to the colophon, Vācissara undertook to compile the Dhātuvaṁsa at the instance of a Venerable Thera who made the request to him while he was staying at the Mahindasena monastery. The name of the supplicant is not, however, given.

The Pali Thūpavaṁsa Vide P.T.S. Ed. by B.C. Law (1935); Sinhalese Ed. by Dhammaratana, 1896; J.R.A.S., 1898; English Tr. by B.C. Law (Legend of the Topes, Bibliotheca Indica Series, 1945). in its present form presupposes an older Pali version and a still older Sinhalese version. There are a few minor points of disagreement between the Sinhalese Thūpavaṁsa and Vācissara’s chronicle. Unfortunately the names of the authors of the Sinhalese Thūpavaṁsa and the older Pali version are unknown. The Extended Mahāvaṁsa expressly mentions the Buddhavaṁsa, the Mahāvaṁsa, the Līnattha and the Thūpavaṁsa as previous authorities on which its history was based. G.P. Malalasekera, Extended Mahāvaṁsa (Royal Asiatic Society, Ceylon Branch), XXXVIII, 15. This Thūpavaṁsa must have been an older work, inasmuch as the Līnattha (Līnatthadīpanī) is evidently a sub-commentary on the Paṭisambhidāmagga.

 

11. Hatthavanagallavihāravaṁsa

This, as its name implies, is a Pali traditional history of the Hatthavanagalla monastery erected by Goṭhābhaya-Meghavaṇṇa and repaired by Parakkamabāhu II. The monastery is said to have been built on the spot where king Siri-Saṅghabodhi gave away his head to a poor man. The chronicle which was written in the middle of the thirteenth century Wickremasinge, Catalogue of Sinhalese Manuscripts, pp. 70-71. offers us a full account of the life of Sirisaṅghabodhi.

 

12. Nalāṭadhātuvaṁsa

This is the Pali original of the Sinhalese Dhātuvaṁsa written by the Thera Kakusandha. The name and age of the author of this chronicle are as yet unknown. Geiger, Dīpavaṁsa and Mahāvaṁsa, p. 91.

 

13. Later Sinhalese Chronicles

Now turning to the later chronicles written in Sinhalese, we have got to consider the chronological position of the Thūpavaṁsa, Pūjāvalī, [26] Daladāpūjāvalī, Dhātuvaṁsa, Nikāyasaṅgraha, Rājaratnākara and Rājāvalī.

(a) Thūpavaṁsa

As compared with the Pali version of this chronicle, its Sinhalese version contains more details, and may, in many respects, be regarded as an extended paraphrase of the former. But it seems that the author of the Sinhalese work made also use of the older Sinhalese history of the dagoba on which the Pali version was based.

These facts have led Geiger to conclude that if the Pali Thūpavaṁsa were written in about 1250, the later Sinhalese version of the chronicle must have been produced shortly after that, and shortly before 1260 A.D.

(b) Pūjāvalī

The Thera Mayūrapāda is known as the author of the Pūjāvalī, who was a contemporary of the Thera Dhammakitti, the author of the first supplement to the Mahāvaṁsa. Mayūrapāda may accordingly be assigned to the second half of the thirteenth century. Geiger, op. cit., pp. 88ff.

(c) Daḷadā Pūjāvalī

This is the Sinhalese version of the history of the tooth-relic which closely follows the text of the Pali Dāṭhāvaṁsa. The name of Parakkamabāhu IV is mentioned among the princes noted for the homage paid to the tooth-relic. This Parakkamabāhu who ascended the throne in about 1325 A.D. is said to have written the Dāṭhādhātucāritta, a Sinhalese work on the ceremonial of the tooth-relic. Malalasekera, Dictionary, II, p. 151. It seems most probable that the Daḷadā Pūjāvalī was written in the reign of this king who is referred to in the work as ‘apage Siri-Parākramabāhu’, our (king) Siri-Parākramabāhu. Geiger, op. cit., p. 82.

(d) Dhātuvaṁsa

The Sinhalese Dhātuvaṁsa written by the Thera Kakusandha is evidently a faithful paraphrase of the Pali Nalāṭa-dhātuvaṁsa. There is no certainty as yet about the age in which Kakusandha lived and wrote his work.

(e) Nikāyasaṅgraha

It is a traditional history of Buddhism in India and Ceylon written by the Mahāthera Jayabāhu surnamed Devarakkhita who was famous as Dharmakīrti with special reference to the Buddhist sects. His teacher, Dharmakīrti, was an illustrious monk who caused to be built a vihāra called Saddhammatilaka in the village [27] known by the name of Gaḍalādeṇiya when king Bhuvanekabāhu was reigning in the city of Gaṅgasiripura. The chronicle was written in the reign of Vīrabāhu II the Nikāyasaṅgraha tells us that in the twentieth year of the reign of Bhuvanekabāhu V (A.D. 1396), his cousin, prince Vīrabāhu became king, most probably of the central part of Ceylon, as Vīrabāhu II. It places the accession of king Parākramabāhu II in 1809 B.E. or A.D. 1266. It tells us also that Alakeswara, evidently a minister to king Bhuvanekabāhu V, was the builder of the new Jayavardhanapura on the site of a village called Daragamuwa (Dvāragāma). Nikāyasaṅgraha, translated by C.M. Fernando, pp. xivff.

(f) Saddharmaratnākara

It is another traditional history of Buddhism written in Sinhalese shortly after the period represented by the Nikāyasaṅgraha. A clear idea of its date of composition may be gathered from the fact that in it Vīrabāhu is said to have been preceded in his office by his brother Vīra Alakeswara, and earlier by a son of Alakeswara the Viceroy. Vīrabāhu was succeeded in his office by two others previous to the return of his brother, Vīra Alakeswara from India. According to the Saddharmaratnākara his successor was a prince of the Mehenavaravaṁsa and was Epāṇa, a fact which finds its corroboration in the Chinese chronicles stating that Vīrabāhu was succeeded on the throne by his son Parākramabāhu Epāṇa meaning Parākramabāhu VI. Ibid., Introduction, p. xviii.

(g) Attanagaluvaṁsa

This is the Sinhalese translation of a Pali work, Attanogaruvaṁsa, which was dedicated to the General Satrusinha Kuñjara, brother of Alakeswara, prime minister to king Bhuvanekabāhu V. The Mayūrasandesa was a contemporary Sinhalese poem in which both king. Bhuvanekabāhu V and his viceroy Alakeswara find an incidental mention. Fernando, op. cit., Introduction, p. xvi.

(h) Rājaratnākara

It contains a traditional history of the kings of ancient India and Ceylon written by Walgampoya Terunnanse probably in about the middle of the sixteenth century there are reasons to believe that the author of this Sinhalese chronicle made use of both the Pūjāvalī and the Nikāyasaṅgraha. Geiger, op. cit., pp. 95ff.

(i) Rājāvalī

This is the latest known traditional history of the kings of ancient India and Ceylon which as a whole may be treated as the work of a single individual. The fact [28] that its account closes with the reign of Vimala Dhamma Suriya (A.D. 1679-1701) has led Geiger to take it to be a compilation of the beginning of the eighteenth century. Geiger, op. cit., 94.

 

14. Vuttamālā

This is a Pali poem written in the reign of Parakkamabāhu VI, in praise of this very king, whose ‘long and glorious reign covering over half a century was the brightest period in the national annals nearest to the advent of the Portuguese’. Fernando, op. cit., Introdcution, p. xviii.