5

The Anuradhapura Kingdom IV

A Buddhist Civilization

Buddhism was, to use modern parlance, the ‘established’ religion of the Anuradhapura kingdom. The conversion of Dev•nampiya Tissa was the momentous event from which this link between state and religion emerged and thereafter, over the centuries, it became formalized or institutionalized, with Buddhism and royal authority supporting each other and drawing strength from their association.¹

Of the formal obligations of the ruler to the established religion, three were of special importance. First of all, there was a provision, by the state and its citizens, of the wherewithal for the maintenance of the sangha. Second, part of the state’s economic resources were used for the construction of religious edifices and monuments, with the architectural and sculptural embellishments associated with these—a theme reviewed in detail in the second part of this chapter. And third, it was the king’s duty to protect the established religion. This obligation taxed the ruler’s resources of statesmanship to the full because of the need to steer a wary course between the defence of Buddhism and an entanglement in the doctrinal disputes of the day and in the prolonged struggle between the orthodox Theravada school and its persistent Mahayanist rivals. Closely linked with the obligation to defend the established religion was the onerous responsibility, which devolved on the ruler of the day, of overseeing if not initiating a purification of the sangha when increasing wealth and luxury inevitably led to corruption and indiscipline among bhikkhus. However, monarchical intervention to cleanse the sangha proved to be rarer in the period covered by this chapter than thereafter. The third section of this chapter is a brief sketch of the salient features of language and literature in the Anuradhapura kingdom.

According to the vinaya rules which governed the lives of the sangha, its members were expected to live on the charity of the people. However, with the rapid increase in the number of bhikkhus, this became increasingly precarious and unrealistic as a source of sustenance. Thus, from the beginning, monasteries became dependent on the state for their maintenance and pious kings regarded it their sacred duty to divert part of the resources and revenues at their command for the maintenance of the sangha. As a result, monasteries came to own vast temporalities and in the course of time they became the biggest landholders in the kingdom. Some of the social and economic implications of the emergence of monastic landlordism have been discussed in the previous chapter. Suffice it to say, at this point, that the wealth they controlled afforded the sangha a more durable and indeed an enduring protection of their own interests and existence, quite apart from increasing their authority over the community at large.

We turn next to a review of the king’s role as protector of the established religion. This theme can only be analysed in terms of and against the background of the sectarian squabbles within the sangha which erupted in ancient Sri Lanka. Inevitably, this discussion will take us beyond the narrow confines of the study of the ruler’s role as protector of the established religion into the wider theme of the evolution of Buddhist doctrine and practices in the kingdom of Anuradhapura.

The teachings of the Theravada school were marked by a remarkable blend of clarity, simplicity and compassion. There was an emphasis on the uniqueness of the Buddha, the Enlightened One, who showed the way to salvation and a stress on individual effort as the means to this end: one reached salvation by one’s own efforts. A bhikkhu, for instance, would attain nirvana by a single-minded dedication to the demands of his chosen vocation as a disciple of the Buddha, and the ideal set for him was the status of an arah•nt, one who achieves nirvana and is not reborn thereafter.

Theravada doctrine had the defects of its virtues: generally clear, simple, compassionate and restrained, it was at the same time a trifle too abstract and lacking in emotion, passion and vehemence, if not enthusiasm. At the core of Mahayanist teaching was its conception of the bodhisattva, a compassionate figure who forgoes nirvana to work for the salvation of all beings. A bodhisattva seeks enlightenment to enlighten others, continues in the cycle of rebirths and uses his piety and spiritual attainments to guide all living things in their quest for salvation. Theravada sensibilities were offended by the Mahayanist contention that the status of a bodhisattva was a more altruistic ideal to strive for than the attainment of nirvana for oneself.

Through their cult of the bodhisattva, the Mahayanists provided Buddhism with a new mythology. More significantly the Buddha himself came to be regarded and worshipped as a god and was placed in a cosmic view in which a succession of Buddhas was distributed through infinite time and space. In Mahayanist teaching, the accumulation of merit through one’s own endeavours and spiritual attainments, although essential in the quest for salvation, was not the only means to this end. There was also the emotional aspect of devotion and divine grace through worship of the heavenly saviour Buddhas and bodhisattvas. A central feature of Mahayanist religious practice was the worship of images of the Buddha and later of bodhisattvas.

The greatest name associated with these new developments in Buddhist thought was N•g•juna and his principal disciple, Āryadeva. The latter, an original thinker himself, is believed to have been a scion of the Sinhalese royal family. And this brings us to the point that Mahayanist doctrine was soon preached in Sri Lanka. The Mah•vihara bhikkhus rose in opposition to these, but there was a sympathetic reception for Mahayanism by the Abhayagiri sect, which had been founded in the reign of Vattag•mani Abhaya (c. 103 BC). It had seceded from the Mah•vihara and had established itself as a rival and independent sect. There were frequent disputations between the Mah•vihara and the Abhayagiri sect on matters relating to monastic discipline and doctrinal interpretation, ranging from truly significant issues to the very trivial. These polemical wranglings and sectarian disputes became more frequent and sharper in tone with the development of the cleavage between Theravada orthodoxy and heretical versions of Buddhism.²

The third century AD saw a historic confrontation between the orthodox Theravada school and the intrusive and dynamic Mahayanist doctrines (the Mahayanists were called Vaitulyav•dins and Vitaṇdav•dins in the Mah•vaṁsa), which began, as is usual in such encounters, with the orthodox school on the offensive, urging the ruler to fulfil his traditional obligation to the ‘establishment’ of using the resources of the state for the enforcement of religious conformity and, if need be, to crush heterodoxy before it could stabilize itself. This is what happened under Voh•rika Tissa (209–31) when the Mah•vihara bhikkhus convinced him that the new teachings were incompatible with the true doctrines of Buddhism. These repressive measures were only temporarily successful and the Mahayanists were too resilient and resourceful to be kept down forever. Within a generation, the struggle was renewed, but this time the Mah•vihara woke up to the limits of its influence on the ruler of the day, Goth•bhaya (249–62), who could not be persuaded that coercion on behalf of religious orthodoxy was the answer to the problems stemming from doctrinal dissonance in the sangha. On the contrary, he was a little sympathetic to Mahayanism himself. Under Mah•sena, the tables were turned on the Mah•vihara sect. Orthodoxy now faced the ruler’s wrath, which was manifested with a virulence that far surpassed Voh•rika Tissa’s suppression of Mahayanism. Indeed, some of the magnificent edifices of the Mah•vihara complex were pulled down and the material from them used for the extension of the Abhayagiri. Mah•sena founded the Jetavana monastery and the institutions affiliated to it formed a congregation generally partial to the Abhayagiri and its doctrines. Thus the third of the sects into which the sangha was divided in ancient Sri Lanka had emerged.³

Orthodoxy was not so easily dislodged. It had links, strong and intimate, with all sections of the population, but above all with the nobility. These loyalties were strong enough to restrain Mah•sena and to compel him to stop well short of a complete destruction of the Mah•vihara sect. Under his successor, the Mah•vihara sect, recovered much of its former privileges. It had weathered the storm and re-emerged as the centre of orthodoxy, largely through the indefatigable energies, scholarship and piety of monks such as Buddhaghosa (fifth century AD), although a great deal of its original prestige and power was irretrievably lost in the struggle against Mahayanism.

The Cūlavaṁsa would have us believe that there was no substantial change in the position of the Mah•vihara in the later centuries of the Anuradhapura kingdom; that it remained the centre of the ‘official’ version of Buddhism; that kings continued as its patrons and, as defenders of the faith, suppressed heterodox sects whenever these appeared to offer a challenge to the Mah•vihara. But the fact is that the position of the Mah•vihara was much weaker and less influential than this.

Though the Mah•vihara had survived the worst effects of Mah•sena’s purposeful hostility, the sectarian strife of the third century and early fourth century had demonstrated the limits of its powers. It neither received the exclusive loyalty of the rulers of the day and the people at large nor did it dominate religious life as it had done in the early centuries of the Anuradhapura kingdom. Every now and then new sects representing some fresh interpretation of the canon would emerge and the Abhayagiri and Jetavana viharas continued to be receptive to these heterodox sects and ideas.

Indeed, it would seem that for much of the Anuradhapura period, the Abhayagiri had a more numerous following than its more illustrious rival. The Abhayagiri complex covered a larger area than that of the Mah•vihara, while its edifices rivalled if they did not surpass those of the latter in grandeur and variety. Besides, the bhikkhus of the Abhayagiri enjoyed a reputation for spiritual attainment and learning both in Sri Lanka and abroad. The equating of heterodoxy with sinfulness, which the Mah•vihara and its adherents put forward in their criticisms of the Abhayagiri, was one which had no basis in fact or acceptance among the Buddhists of the island.

Though it was never able to displace Theravada Buddhism from its position of primacy, Mahayanism had a profound influence on Sri Lankan Buddhism. This it achieved by the response it evoked among the people, in the shift of emphasis from the ethical to the devotional aspect of religion. To the lay Buddhist, Mahayanist ritual and ceremonies had a compelling attraction and they became a vital part of worship. The anniversary of the birth of the Buddha became a festive occasion celebrated under state auspices. Relics of the Buddha and of the early disciples became the basis of a powerful cult of relic worship.⁴ Of these the most significant and popular was the tooth relic⁵ of the Buddha which was brought to Sri Lanka in the reign of Sirimeghavanna (ad 301–28) under Mahayanist auspices and housed in the Abhayagiri, since the Mah•vihara would have nothing to do with it, in the early stages at least.⁶ But the lack of enthusiasm on the part of the Mah•vihara could not prevent the cult of the tooth relic from becoming an important annual Buddhist ceremony whose appeal became progressively more contagious to the point where, after some centuries, the possession of the tooth relic became essential to the exercise of sovereignty in Sri Lanka.

The Mahayanist influence⁷ was also seen in the increasing popularity of images of the Buddha and of bodhisattvas in Buddhist worship. As a result, an image house became, in time, an essential feature of the complex of structures that formed a vihara. There was also—evidence once more of Mahayanism’s persuasive appeal—a profound change in the Theravadin concept of the Buddha, one feature of which had significant political implications—the belief that a righteous king could attain Buddhahood in a future birth. This latter was an irresistible attraction for royal patrons of Buddhism. They could hardly demonstrate any enthusiasm, much less passion, for suppressing a religious doctrine the effect of which was to confer an element of divinity on kingship.

One other point needs emphasis. Mahayanism was not the only influence at work in softening the pristine starkness of Theravada Buddhism. There were others too: pre-Buddhistic cults, Hinduism and Tantric Buddhism, in chronological order.

The belief that one’s life was affected by good and evil spirits, that is, disembodied souls or incorporeal beings, who needed to be propitiated by prayer and ritual, was one of the ritual elements of the pre-Buddhistic folk religion to survive in the face of the more rational outlook which Buddhism encouraged. Eventually, Buddhist rites were developed to cater to this pre-Buddhist survival and a ceremony called pirit was evolved. This consisted of the public chanting by bhikkhus of extracts from the Buddhist scriptures in times of general calamity such as drought, epidemic or famine, for the purpose of exorcizing evil spirits from a place or person. Sorcery and magical arts, generally pre-Buddhistic in origin, remained as strongly rooted among the people after their conversion to Buddhism as before and indeed continued to exercise their sway with virtually undiminished power. This accommodation between Buddhism and pre-Buddhistic cults and practices became a feature of Sinhalese religious beliefs lasting up to modern times.

Although the spread of Buddhism on the island was at the expense of Hinduism, the latter never became totally submerged, but survived and had an influence on Buddhism which became more marked with the passage of time. Vedic deities, pre-Buddhistic in origin in Sri Lanka, held their sway among the people, and kings who patronized the official religion, Buddhism, supported Hindu temples and observed Brahmanical practices as well. Hinduism was sustained also by small groups of Brahmans living among the people and at the court.

It was in the later centuries of the Anuradhapura kingdom that the Hindu influence on Buddhism became more pronounced as a necessary result of political and religious change in south India. The early years of the Christian era saw Buddhism strongly entrenched in south India. Nagarjunakonda (in Andhra) and Kanchipuram were famous Buddhist centres there. Close links were established between these south Indian Buddhist centres and Sri Lanka. There was a Sri Lanka vihara at Nagarjunakonda and the introduction and establishment of new heterodox Buddhist sects in Sri Lanka was primarily the work of visiting ecclesiastics from India or of Sri Lankan students of famous Indian theologians.

After the sixth century all that remained of south Indian Buddhism, inundated by the rising tide of an aggressive Hindu revivalism, were a few isolated pockets in Orissa, for example, maintaining a stubborn but nonetheless precarious existence. There was no recovery from that onslaught. The intrusive pressures of south Indian kingdoms on the politics of Sri Lanka carried with them also the religious impact of a more self-confident Hinduism. All this was especially powerful after the Cōḷa invasions and Cōḷa rule.

There was, for instance, the influence of Hindu rituals and modes of worship; faith in the magical effect of incantations, a great Vedic phenomenon and, more importantly, in bhakti (devotion as a means of salvation), which was an important part of Hinduism from about the seventh century ad. This strengthened the shift from the ethical to the devotional aspects of Buddhism initiated by Mahayanism. Hindu shrines came to be located close to viharas. The assimilation of Hindu practices in Buddhism, of which this was evidence, was reinforced by the gradual accommodation in Buddhist mythology of Hindu deities such as Upuluvan, Saman and N•tha. This latter occurred by the tenth century.

Tantric Buddhism had established itself and indeed had begun to flourish in India from about the eighth century, especially in the land of the Palas. As with every Indian religious movement of the time, its influence began to be felt almost immediately in Sri Lanka, so much so that when two well-known exponents of Tantrism, Vajrabodhi and Amogharajra, arrived on the island sometime in the eighth century, they were able to collect a large number of Tantric texts as well as learn some of the Tantric ritual practices prevalent there. In the ninth century, Tantrism had an even stronger impression on Sri Lanka. Two Tantric schools or sects were introduced, the Nīlapatadar•ana and the Vajrav•da, the latter in the reign of Sena I (833–53) by a bhikkhu from the Viramkara monastery at Anuradhapura. Sena I himself became an adherent of Tantrism. Tantric incantations or dh•ranis in the Indian Devanagari script of the ninth century, inscribed on stones, clay tablets and copper plaques, as well as Tantric images, for example, those of the Goddess Tara, in bronze and copper, have been found in a number of places in the old R•jarata.

Thus, Sri Lanka’s Theravada Buddhism accommodated a variety of religious influences—pre-Buddhistic cults and practices, Mahayanism, Tantric Buddhism and Hinduism—but was not overwhelmed by any or all of them.

One last theme needs to be reviewed in this section of the present chapter—Buddhism as a link between Sri Lanka and other parts of Buddhist Asia. There were, in the early stages, links with China, but in time the closest and most intimate ties were with the Buddhist kingdoms of south-east Asia, especially with lands where the prevalent form of Buddhism was Theravadin, namely, modern Myanmar (Burma), Thailand and Cambodia. Thus there were frequent exchanges of pilgrims and scriptural knowledge with R•maṇṇa in Myanmar. These links became much stronger after the tenth century under the Polonnaruva kings. As we shall see in a later chapter, resuscitation of the Sinhalese sangha after the destructive effects of the Cōḷa conquests owed a great deal to bhikkhus from upper Myanmar sent over for this purpose by its king at the request of Vijayab•hu I.

Relations with Cambodian Buddhism hinted at in the chronicles were very probably more tenuous than those with Myanmar Buddhism. Whether this was because Cambodian Buddhism, unlike its R•maṇṇa counterpart, was Mahayanist we are in no position to say. There is evidence too that Sinhalese nuns went to China in the fifth century AD and helped in the ordination of women there. In 411, the famous Chinese Buddhist traveller Faxian visited the island and stayed there for two years. But contacts with Chinese Buddhism, generally, were occasional and had few long-term effects.

Architecture And Sculptures⁸

The concept of Buddhism as state religion had as one of its essential features the obligation assumed by the ruler to divert some of the state’s economic resources at his command for the construction of religious edifices, which became in time more magnificent in scale and visual impact. The earliest Buddhist shrines in Sri Lanka were based on Indian models, and in the wake of the Mauryan Buddhist mission to the island came the arts and crafts of India as well. But after an initial period of Indianization, which tended to imitate the parent culture, a distinctive Sri Lankan style in art and architecture was evolved, bearing the stamp of its Indian origin no doubt, but not identical with that of any particular region of India.

The most constant feature of Buddhist Sri Lanka is the stupa or cetiya which came to the island from northern India.⁹ These stupas generally enshrined relics of the Buddha and the more celebrated illuminati of early Buddhism, and were on that account objects of veneration. They dominated the city of Anuradhapura and the landscape of the R•jarata by their imposing size, an awe-inspiring testimony to the state’s commitment to Buddhism and to the wealth at its command. The stupa, generally a solid hemispherical dome, gave a subdued but unmistakable expression to the quintessence of Buddhism—simplicity and serenity.

There were five important stupas at Anuradhapura. The first to be built was the small but elegant Thūp•r•ma. Dutthag•manī built two, the Mirisaväti and the Ruvanvälisäya or the Mah•stupa. Two stupas subsequently surpassed the Mah•stupa in size, the Abhayagiri and the largest of them all, the Jetavana. The scale of comparison was with the largest similar monuments in other parts of the ancient world. At the time the Ruvanvälisäya was built it was probably the largest monument of its class anywhere in the world.¹⁰ The Abhayagiri was enlarged by Gajab•hu I in the second century AD to a height of 85.3 m or more, while the Jetavana rose to over 121.9 m.¹¹ Both were taller than the third pyramid at Giza and were the wonders of their time, with the Jetavana probably being the largest stupa in the whole Buddhist world.

Thūp•r•ma around 1900

Abhayagiri around 1900

Jetavana as it is today

Smaller stupas were also built in the early Anuradhapura period at Mihintale, Dighavapi and Mahagama.

Those of the later Anuradhapura period such as the Indikatusaya at Mihintale and the stupa at the Vijayar•ma at Anuradhapura were of modest proportions. Their domes were elongated in shape and the three basal terraces¹² were reduced to mouldings. These seem to have been inspired by the Mahayanists.

One feature of the colossal stupas merits special mention: the frontispieces which project from their bases. The exuberant architecture of these frontispieces—v•halka•as, as they were called—with their ornamental sculptures are in agreeable contrast to the stark simplicity, if not monotony, of the lines of the stupas. The best examples of v•halka•as are those of the Jetavana and Abhayagiri d•gäbas at Anuradhapura and the Kantaka-cetiya at Mihintale. These sculptures bear evidence of the influence of the Amaravati school but with a restraint which makes up for a lack of vitality.

Among the architectural features of this period is the vatad•gē, a shrine enclosing a small stupa. The largest of the vatad•gēs is at the Thūp•r•ma at Anuradhapura, which had four circles of stone compassing the stupa, while each of those of Medirigiriya and Polonnaruva has three circles of pillars, those of Tiriyay and Mihintale having two each. Though the vatad•gēs all follow a common design, each has some distinctive feature of its own. The earliest extant vatad•gē to which a date can be assigned is that at Medirigiriya from the reign of Aggabodhi IV.

The Lov•mah•p•ya or the Brazen Palace is unique among the ancient monuments of Anuradhapura. Designed to house the monks of the Mah•vihara, it was begun by Dutthag•manī and is believed to have risen on completion to nine storeys in all. The bhikkhus were accommodated on the basis of rank, with some floors being reserved for the most senior and, presumably, the most venerable among them. All that remains of this early skyscraper are some 1,600 weather-beaten granite pillars which are a haphazard reconstruction of the twelfth century, with some of the pillars upside down and not even on the original site.

Literary works refer to the splendid mansions of kings and nobles, but few traces of these have survived since they were built mostly of wood. There are no traces at all of the habitations of the common people. Stone played only a limited role in Sinhalese architecture and was usually restricted to ornamental details and ancillary features. But these latter have survived, while the woodwork which was the basis of Sinhalese architecture, domestic and public, has not. An example of this are the stone-faced baths, various in shape and dimension but elegant in design, located within the precincts of the monasteries and royal parks. These have survived.

The abundance of timber suitable for building purposes and the lack of a type of stone which was at once durable and easy to work, appear to have hindered the development of stone architecture in Sri Lanka. When such a style did emerge, the inspiration came once more from an Indian source, from south India this time, where the earlier architecture of brick and wood was yielding place, so far as religious edifices were concerned, to one solely of stone. This had its influence on Sri Lankan architecture. The best example of stone architecture of this period is the galgē at Devundara, the southernmost point of the island. The shrine was built to house the image of Upuluvan, the ancient Varuna, the protector of the island. The simplicity and lack of ornamentation in this shrine was in striking contrast to the exuberance of the Dravidian style that was developing about the same time in south India.

Both in terms of its variety and artistic achievement, the sculpture of the Anuradhapura kingdom is as rich and impressive as its architecture. Some of the outstanding features of this sculptural heritage are reviewed here, beginning with the moonstones which many scholars regard as the finest product of the Sinhalese artist.

At a time when the Buddha image came to be regarded as a regular feature of a Buddhist shrine in Sri Lanka, the moonstone was central to the theme of worship.¹³ Its decorative features were intended to communicate symbolic significance to the worshipper. The motif appears to have come to Sri Lanka from Andhra, but it had its fullest development in Sri Lanka. There are six moonstones at Anuradhapura, each one a masterpiece.

The earliest Buddha images found in the island go back to the first century ad. Thanks to the research and recent publications of Ulrich von Schroeder,¹⁴ much more is known about Sri Lankan Buddha images, the Sri Lankan contribution to Buddhist art and the role of Sri Lanka in the diffusion of the Buddhist art system in south-east Asia than in the past.

Moonstone, Anuradhapura

There is, of course, the early influence of India, especially Andhra Pradesh, on the Buddha image on the island, as seen in a standing Buddha of Amaravati marble, which is about 1.8 m high and was probably imported from Amaravati (Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh). It was discovered almost intact at Mah• Illuppallama in Anuradhapura. Fragments of Buddha images in the Amaravati style and in the distinctive marble of that school have also been found. In time, Buddha images were carved and sculpted in Sri Lanka and developed peculiarly Sri Lankan characteristics, without, however, effacing all traces of the Indian prototype on which they were modelled. Buddha images in bronze of characteristically Sri Lankan workmanship have been found in western Java, Celebes, Vietnam and Thailand, thus demonstrating ‘that Sri Lanka represents to a certain extent the missing link in the dissemination of Buddhism from India to Southeast Asia’.¹⁵ Images of the Buddha in a sedentary position, from the early period of Sinhalese sculpture, are perhaps more exciting and impressive than the more stately statues of the Buddha in a standing posture—the very simplicity of the conception is singularly successful in its dignified and elegant evocation of the concept of samadhi.

Some of the standing Buddha images are of colossal proportions and are, consequently, awe-inspiring. The most remarkable and famous of these is the 12.9 m high Buddha image at Avukana. The group of colossal images carved on the face of a rock at Buduruv•gala near Vallav•ya comprises a Buddha image in the centre, attended by a bodhisattva on either side. These figures at Vallav•ya may be dated to the ninth and tenth centuries, to which period may also be attributed the stylistically interesting bodhisattva figure at Väligama on the south coast. Buddha images in the recumbent position, of similar proportions, are found at Älahära and Tantrimalai. At M•lig•vala in the Buttala area a Buddha image nearly 12 m high has been fashioned completely in the round, probably brought from the quarry to the site, and set up in position in the shrine. This colossus which had fallen and lay on the ground, badly damaged, was repaired and restored to its pedestal in the early 1980s.

Images of similar size and bulk carved on rock faces have not been found in India. However, there were figures of larger dimensions carved on rock faces by Buddhists in what is now Afghanistan, of which the group at Bamiyan was the most spectacular till it was destroyed in March 2001 in a fit of Islamic fundamentalism by the Taliban rulers of that country.

The Indian influence is prominent in other features of the sculptural achievements of the Anuradhapura kingdom. The dv•rapalas or guardians of the four directions—usually in the form of a n•ga king in human form¹⁶ attended by a grotesque pot-bellied dwarf, the guard-stones at Buddhist shrines—bear the distinct mark of the Amaravati school. The rock-cut Isurumuniya vihara below the bund of the Tissaväva at Anuradhapura is renowned for its sculptural embellishments, the most celebrated of which are two reliefs carved on rock outcrops: the lovers—a young warrior on a stone seat with a young woman on his lap—and a man seated in the pose called royal ease with the head of a horse behind him. The first of these, the lovers, has characteristics of the Gupta school of India of the fourth and fifth centuries, while the second is in the Pallava style of the seventh century.

Guard-stone, Anuradhapura

There is also that most astounding monument of them all, the rock fortress of Sigiri, a complex of buildings, part royal palace (with superbly designed ornamental gardens), part fortified town, which together constitute a magnificent and unique architectural tour de force. Sigiri is remembered today for the exquisite frescoes in a rock pocket some 12.2 m above the access pathway. Who these female figures are has always been a matter of debate among scholars.¹⁷ H.C.P. Bell argued that they were the wives of King Kassapa, but a more recent theory—propounded by Paranavitana—is that Sigiri was devised less as a fortified town than as a symbolic representation of the palace of Kuvera, the god of riches, who dwelt on the summit of Mount Kailasa, and that the females are ‘Lightning Princesses’ attended by ‘Cloud Damsels’.

Guard-stone, Anuradhapura

The paintings at Sigiri are the earliest surviving specimens of the pictorial art of Sri Lanka that can be dated; they are approximately the same age as those of Ajanta in India with which they bear comparison. Though no paintings of an earlier era than those at Sigiri have survived, the inscriptions and literature of the early Anuradhapura period show that painting as an art form had as long a history as sculpture and architecture and was as extensively practised. Its techniques and artistic theory are likely to have been based on Indian traditions modified to suit the local milieu. Thus the Sigiri paintings represent a sophisticated court art with centuries of experience behind it.

Fragments of paintings dated to the seventh or eighth centuries have been discovered in the lower relic chamber of the stupa to the east of the Kantaka-cetiya at Mihintale. They comprise figures in outline, of divine beings rising from clouds in four directions. Paintings have also been noticed in the eastern v•halka•a of the Ruvanvälisäya, the eastern v•halka•a of the Jetavana; at a site named Gonapola in the Dig•m•dulla district (Gal Oya) and in some caves at Sigiri. In addition to these, there were until very recently the remains of paintings, of the same vintage as the Sigiri frescoes, in the rock temple at Hindagala near Peradeniya.

Literature

Buddhism was, without doubt, the greatest stimulus to literary activity among the ancient Sinhalese. The Theravada Buddhist canon was brought to the island by Mahinda and his companions and handed down orally. These scriptures were in Pali and it was in this language that they were committed to writing for the first time, at Aluvihara near M•tale in the first century BC. The preservation of the Theravada canon, which had been lost in India at a comparatively early date, is one of the landmark contributions of the Sinhalese to world literature.

Around these scriptures grew a considerable body of writing in Pali and old Sinhalese, consisting of exegetical works, religious texts and historical accounts. The Mah•vihara bhikkhus compiled an extensive exegetical literature in Pali. No doubt its rivals, the Abhayagiri and Jetavana, matched the achievement of the Mah•vihara in this field, but nothing of their work has survived. Not that very much of the body of material produced by the Mah•vihara has survived either but these works together formed the basis of the extensive canonical and commentarial literature in Pali,¹⁸ and the chronicles in that language in the fifth century AD and later. The oldest Pali chronicle surviving today is the Dīpavaṃsa, which provides an account of the history of the island up to the time of Mah•sena, with scattered references to developments in India when these had some bearing on Sri Lanka. The Pali commentaries and canonical literature, a systematic compilation of the fifth century AD by Buddhaghosa,¹⁹ Buddhadatta and Dhammapala, none of them a native of the island, demonstrate greater literary skill. Buddhaghosa, whose most famous work is the Visuddhimagga, is much the most celebrated of these scholars. His work was intended mainly for Buddhist missionary activity overseas in south-east Asia.

One notable feature of Sri Lanka’s Pali literature needs special mention: the remarkable tradition of historical writing among the Sinhalese. The earliest historical work is the Dīpavaṁsa, a compilation, very probably, of the fourth century ad. The Mah•vaṁsa, also in Pali verse and covering the same period of history, is a much more sophisticated accomplishment and one which succeeding generations used, quoted with pride as the definitive work on the island’s history, and felt compelled to update. Its continuation—the Cūlavaṁsa, attributed to Dhammakitti in the twelfth century—surveyed the island’s history up to the reign of Par•kramab•hu I (1153–86). A subsequent extension by another bhikkhu took the story to the fourteenth century and it was concluded by yet another in the late eighteenth century.

These chronicles, notwithstanding their flaws and gaps, provide a remarkably accurate chronological and political framework for the study of the island’s history. But their scope is by no means limited to Sri Lanka, for events and personalities on the Indian subcontinent are often mentioned. These references have provided scholars with data to determine the chronologies of Indian kings and empires as well, the classic case being the identification, in the nineteenth century, through the Mah•vaṁsa of the great Indian emperor, A•oka.

Sinhala as a distinct language and script developed rapidly under the joint stimuli of Pali and Buddhism. Indeed, it would be true to say that the art of writing came to Sri Lanka earlier than Buddhism. By the second century AD Sinhala was being used for literary purposes and thereafter a body of religious writing explaining the Pali canon was accumulated, primarily for the purpose of conveying its ideas to those not conversant with Pali. The Sinhala language was also enriched by translations from Pali. But Pali did not remain for long the only or even the dominant influence on Sinhala. Sanskrit, the language of the Mahayanist and Hindu scriptures, which was richer in idiom, vocabulary and vitality, left a strong impression on the Sinhala language in the later centuries of the Anuradhapura era. There was also a considerable Tamil influence on the vocabulary, idiom and grammatical structure of Sinhala.

Very little of the Sinhala work of this period has survived, and most of it seems stilted, pedantic and lacking in originality and vitality. This is not surprising since much of it was written for scholars and conformed to rigid literary conventions. The earliest known Sinhala work was the Siyabaslakara, a work on rhetoric, a Sinhala version of the well-known Sanskrit text on poetics, the K•vy•dar•a. Its author was probably Sena IV (954–56). There were also exegetical works and glossaries, but none of them had any literary pretensions. Some of the inscriptions of the first and second centuries BC appear in verse. Much more interesting, as examples of a lively and sensitive folk poetry, are the verses written on the gallery wall at Sigiri by visitors to the place in the eighth and ninth centuries, of which 700 stanzas have been deciphered.²⁰ These verses are a poignant reminder of how rich this vein of folk poetry must have been. Almost all of it is now irretrievably lost.

Nothing of the more formal poetry has survived. Moggall•na II, for example, apart from being a great builder of tanks, was a man of letters and is said to have composed a religious poem, of which, however, there is now no trace.

Just as Pali was the language of Sinhalese Buddhism, Sanskrit was the sacred language of the Brahmans (and Hinduism) and of Mahayanism. With the spread of Mahayanism in Sri Lanka, the more erudite bhikkhus turned to the study of Sanskrit since most of the Mahayanist scriptures were written in that language. Sanskrit studies became more popular in the island with the influence of the Pallavas who were great patrons of that language. Some of the more famous Sanskrit works were known on the island and Sanskrit theories of poetics and rhetoric were studied. But Sri Lanka’s contribution to Sanskrit literature was both meagre and imitative. The one notable work was that of Kum•rad•sa (a scion of the Sinhalese royal family but not a king), who composed the J•nakīharaṇa in the seventh century ad. Its theme was the Ramayana. There were also a few inscriptions in Sanskrit and some minor writings in that language.

All in all, therefore, the major contribution of the Sinhalese in the period of the Anuradhapura kings was in Pali. Creative writing in that language reached a level of competence far above that in either Sinhala or Sanskrit.