From Sinhala (Mahavansa) Buddhism to Civilized Buddhism
From Sinhala (Mahavansa) Buddhism to Civilized Buddhism
From Sinhala (Mahavansa) Buddhism to Civilized Buddhism
By J.L. Devananda
.....they who know truth as truth and untruth as untruth arrive at truth.....Dhammapada
The Buddhism practiced in Sri Lanka, better known as Sinhala-Buddhism (or Mahavamsa-Buddhism) is different from the Theravada Buddhism practiced in other countries such as Thailand, Cambodia and so on. The Buddhists in these countries follow only the Buddhist scriptures Tripitaka (Viniya, Sutta, Abhidhamma), whereas in Sri Lanka the 'Mahavamsa,' which was written by one of the Mahavihara monks (Ven. Mahanama) more than 1000 years after the Parinibbana (passing away) of Lord Buddha is also considered as a part of Buddhism, although it deals mostly with mythical or supernatural Buddhist history, some episodes of which are copied from the Indian epics 'Mahabaratha' and 'Ramayana.' Since the Pali canon/Buddhist scriptures (Tripitaka) and the mythical Buddhist history Mahavamsa/Pali chronicle were both written in the Pali language, a Buddhist layperson who does not understand Pali cannot understand the difference between the two and, therefore, s/he believes everything that the Buddhist monks preach, to be the true words of Buddha. Even though the Pali canon (Tipitaka) and the Pali chronicles (Divpavansa/Mahavansa) are translated in Sinhala, majority of the Sinhalese have never read any of them, they only listen to the Bana (sermon) or read some books written by Buddhist monks and believe everything what they say. Most of them (laypersons) are unable to distinguish, which comes from the Tipitaka (truth) and which comes from the Mahavansa (myth).
Due to ignorance, even today, some of the Sinhala-Buddhists still believe that they are blood relatives of Buddha because, according to the Mahavamsa, their forefather Pandu-Vasudeva belongs to the Sakya clan, and is a relative of the Buddha where as the historians believe that the term Pandu' in Pali means Pandyans of South India.
According to Buddhism, a person ordained as a Bikkhu (monk) should practice Ahimsa (non-violence), Karuna (compassion), Metta (affection), and Maithriya (loving-kindness) towards fellow humans, (irrespective of race or religion), not only by words but also in his thoughts and action. Unfortunately in Sri Lanka, due to the influence of the Mahavamsa, a Buddhist Bikkhu is at liberty to engage in racist politics and promote Sinhala-Buddhist chauvinism and hatred, as we see today.
Protecting Buddhism
There was NO Buddhism in Sri Lanka until Emperor Asoka's missionary monks led by Mahinda converted the Siavate (Siva worshipping) Naga King Tissa into a Buddhist in the 2nd century BC. (The existence of five recognized Eeswararms' of Siva before the arrival of Thero Mahinda, and Nagas being the dominant ethnic group during that period, and king Tissa's father and brother having names ending with Siva can be considered as evidence. Let us not forget that the Nagas were not unique to Sri Lanka, in the early historic period, the Nagas not only occupied Nakanatu/Nagadipa in Sri Lanka but also Nagar-Kovil and Naga-pattinam in South India).
Similarly, there was NO Sinhala in Sri Lanka until the Mahavihara monks created it in the 4th/5th century AD. (the term Sihala also may have been adopted from the term Simhala/Sinhala found in the Mahabharata which predates the Mahavansa by many centuries. (The Indian epic Mahabharata talks of Sinhalas as barbarous mlecchas in its Book 1, Chapter 177, in Book 2, Chapter 33 & 51, and in Book 7, Chapter 20).
When Hindu/Brahmanical influence posed a serious challenge to Buddhism and when Buddhism started to lose popular support and the patronage from the rulers, the Buddhist institutions in India came under attack. The Mahavihara monks of Anuradapura including Ven. Mahanama, the author of the Pali chronicle Mahavamsa and a close relative of the Buddhist Naga king Dhatusena would have witnessed the decline and disorientation of Buddhism in India. The events that took place in India against Buddhism must have prompted the Mahavihara monks in Sri Lanka to come up with a plan/strategy to protect Buddhism. Due to their strong devotion to Buddhism and desire to consolidate and protect this religion in Sri Lanka they must have decided to write the Pali chronicles Deepavamsa/Mahavamsa making Sri Lanka a Dammadeepa/Sinhaladvipa (chosen land of Buddha where Buddhism will prevail for 5000 years) and creating the Sinhala race by integrating all the Buddhists from different tribes/ethnic groups into one group/race and making them the sustainers of Buddhism (Gautama Buddha's chosen people) to protect Buddhism in Sri Lanka for 5000 years until the next Maithriya Buddha arrive. With the patronage of the Buddhist Kings, it is the Mahavihara monks who assimilated all the Buddhists from many different tribes (mainly Nagas and Damilas) together and called them Sihala (followers of Mythical Vijaya). There may have been instances where the convicted criminals from India (Sanskrit speaking Bengali/Gujarati) who were exiled would have seek asylum in the island and would have been allowed to settle and got assimilated with the local population, but there is NO historical evidence what so ever to prove Vijaya's arrival with 700 men or to say there were Sinhalese during the Early Historic period. The term 'Sihala' itself along with its associated myths first appeared ONLY in the 4th/5th Century AD Pali chronicles Deepavamsa/Mahavamsa and that also ONLY twice in the beginning chapters. Even such a literature, which projects Tamils as invaders, could not help linking the Pandyas of Tamil country in the genesis of Sinhalese in Sri Lanka. The Hela/Sinhala race and the Elu/Helu language would have started evolving only from this period after the foundation was laid by the Buddhist monks and the kings.
To date, no archaeological evidence has been found to prove Hela' or 'Sihala' or Sinhala' existed before 4th/5th Century AD or anything about Vijaya's arrival. Only the Mahavamsa Tika that was composed very much later to interpret the Mahavamsa, mentions that it was adopted from the mysterycal Vamsa texts' known as Sihala Atthakatha' (collection of Sinhala verbal stories). Very strangely, most of the mythical/supernatural stories from the so called Sihala Atthakatha Vamsa texts' are very similar to those found in the Indian Epics and Puranas such as the Mahabaratha/Ramayana. Even if we think that the people/monks kept on passing such stories from generation to generation verbally until it was written down, within one complete millennium, spurious doctrines would have got added, perverting in great measure the real intent and meaning of Lord Buddha's peerless Dhamma.
The Mahavamsa became an orthodox Theravada Buddhist doctrine of Sinhala-Buddhism in Sri Lanka which ultimately has transformed the Buddha into a special patron of Sinhala-Buddhism, an ethnic religion created in Sri Lanka.
Sinhala and Damela
There are enough of ancient archaeological evidence in Sri Lanka such as Brahmi stone inscriptions, cave writings, Pali chronicles, etc where the terms Dameda', Damela', Damila', Demel' are mentioned as a group of people living in the island. Even in the Jataka stories such as Akitti Jataka, there is a reference to Tamil country (Damila-rattha), where as there is NO evidence what so ever about the terms Hela', Sihala', Sinhala' before and even a few centuries after the Pali chronicles were written. The term Hela' appeared only in the 9th century AD stone inscriptions. Even the Mahavamsa says, the missionary monk Mahinda Maha Thero preached Buddhism to the people of the island in Deepa basa (language of the island) but it does not say that the deepa basa was 'Elu' or 'Helu' or 'Sihala'. The language of the Brahmi inscriptions found during this period was written in the sacred language of the Hindus (Sanskrit). The German Pali scholar' who translated the Mahavamsa in the 19th Century AD assumed/labelled it as Sinhala Prakrit'.
Some Sinhala scholars have a weak argument for the above (non existence of the term Sinhala). They argue that the ethnic name of the dominant group does not occur in these records for the very good reason that there is no need to distinguish any person by referring to him/her as such when the people as a whole are entitled to that name (Sinhala). The million dollar question is why it is not the case now because today they are actually the dominant ethnic group? (How they became a majority is another subject but I will briefly mention below). Today, leave aside the major things like medicine, etc, even the smallest stuff like roof tiles are labelled after 'Sinhala'.
The above argument could have been accepted if the terms Hela', Sihala', Sinhala' was found at least somewhere outside Sri Lanka such as in any of the stone inscriptions/rock edicts of neighbouringIndia (either South or North) that was always associated with the island's history, but unfortunately nothing has been found until now.
The kingdoms of Anuradapura and Polonnaruwa were NEVER known as Sinhala kingdoms and the Naga and Demela kings (and Kalingas during the later period) who ruled these kingdoms alternatively never called themselves Hela', Sihala', or Sinhala'. There is no evidence to prove that the Nagas were Sinhalese. It was only after the 9th century AD, the term Nagas totally disappeared from the stone inscriptions and the two major ethnic groups Hela and Demela clearly appeared. Historians believe that the Nagas were assimilated into the two major ethnic groups Hela and Demela. The Archeologist/Historian Dr. Parnawitharana says, "We know next to nothing about the pre-historic autochthonous people of Sri Lanka. They could have been the ancestors of the present day Sinhalese and Tamils."In other words, the people who call them Sinhalese and Sri Lankan Tamils today originate from the same stock.
Subsequent to the Cola domination of Sri Lanka in the 10th century A.D, people who identified themselves as Buddhists and Hela (Sinhalese) shifted their seats of rule from the ancient kingdoms of Anuradapura/Polanaruwa towards South, West and Central Sri Lanka while the people who identified themselves as Hindus (Saiva) and Demela (Tamils) moved their ruling structures from these same regions to the North and East of the island. The permanent Tamil settlement in the North & East and the permanent Sinhalese settlement in South, West and Central started only after the 10th CAD and during the 11th CAD. In 1215 AD, the Jaffna kingdom was established by Kalinga Magha who adopted the name Segarajasekeran Singhai Ariyachakravarthi on coronation. Similarly, the kingdom of Kotte was established in 1412 and the kingdom of Kandy in 1469.
It was only after this period that the kingdoms of Kotte and Kandy were known as Sinhale' even though some parts of the Tamil areas in North and East also came under the Kandyan rule but Kandy was mostly ruled by the Kalingas of South-East India and the Nayakkars of South India with whom the Tamils did not have any problems. Also, the term 'Sinhale', appeared only in the 13th Century AD Chulavamsa and NOT in Deepavamsa/Mahavamsa. There was neither a separate Tamil Nation/kingdom nor a separate Sinhala Nation/kingdom in Sri Lanka (neither North nor South or North Central) before the 13th Century AD. On the other hand, even the Thun-Sinhale' (3 Sinhala Ruhunu-South, Maya-West, & Pihiti-Anuradapura/Polonaruwa) concept was created very much later. Even during the recent past, in 17th CAD (colonial period) Anuradapura was inhabited by Tamils as per the book written by Robert Knox who was the prisoner in Kandy. When he escaped from prison, he had to go through several places and when he came to Anuradapura, he says it was fully occupied by Tamils (NOT Sinhalese).
We should also not forget the fact that it was only the last Tamil King of Jaffna (Sangkilian) who fought a fierce battle against the European invader (Portuguese) when they arrived in Jaffna and tried to convert the Tamils into Christians (not the Sinhala king of Kotte). Later, even the Dutch were not very successful in converting the Tamils into Christians. Even though they could build Forts, they could not establish a Dutch Reformed Church in Jaffna or batticaloa like what they did in many places in Colombo and Galle. It was only the American missionary that arrived in Jaffna in 1813 built well equipped Hospital and Schools in Jaffna and in the process converted a good number of Tamils into Christians. This helped the Tamils to receive an English education, an advantage they had over the Sinhalese when it came to government jobs under the British.
Also, very similar to some of the Sinhala rebellion against the British rule even the Tamils have rebelled. Pandara Vanniyan (Kulasegaram Vairamuthu Pandaravanniyan) was known as one of last native Tamil chiefs to challenge British rule.
When the Europeans (Portuguese, Dutch and British) arrived, what all of them clearly observed and experienced during their period was that, there were two different ethnic groups (Sinhalese and Tamils) having two different languages, religions, cultures, and living in two well defined and clearly and naturally demarcated (thick jungles, lakes, river, etc) land areas with their own kingdoms within their lands. The Tamils lived as a majority within their land area (North & East) and the Sinhalese also lived as a majority within their land area (South, West & Central). The British, on seeing the naturally existing borders of the two ethnic groups used their technology to demarcate them as two separate regions (occupied by two separate races) and created the maps for the first time somewhere in the 1800s.
In the 16th century, the Portuguese and in the 18th century, the Dutch who occupied the island brought in tens of thousands of people from South India (presently Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Andara) and settled them in the Southern parts of the island as menial labourers (for growing/peeling cinnamon, fishing/pearl diving, coconut planting/plucking, toddy tapping, and for many other jobs). Within a few centuries, the Sinhala population increased exponentially when these people assimilated with the local Sinhala population by adopting the Sinhala language and the Buddhist religion. Today their decedents (6th generation) are not only claiming the ancient Sri Lankan civilization as their own Sinhala' heritage but have also become the patriots and champions of Sinhala-Buddhist chauvinism.
Only those that the British brought in the 19th century AD and settled in the upcountry did not assimilate with the Sinhalese because the British had a different policy/agenda and they maintained it till they left the island in 1948.
During the last 2500 years, more Tamils mixed with those who call themselves Sinhalese today than anybody else. If a comprehensive genetic study is conducted on the Sinhalese population, it will reveal this fact. The question some of the Sinhala scholars ask is why the Tamils in Sri Lanka did not develop a separate language of their own. It is because the Tamils in Sri Lanka were not only Buddhists before the 10th century AD Chola invasion but they were also one of the main contributors for the development of Elu/Helu/Sinhala language and they never lived as a separate nation/kingdom in North/East Sri Lanka (as some of their politicians claim as justification for a separate Tamil state) until the 13th Century AD.
Aryans and Dravidians
It was the British who re-discovered the Mahavamsa in the early 20th century and their so called European Pali Scholars' who translated the Pali chronicles misinterpreted it, thereby creating another myth known as Arya-Sinhala. The colonial Orientalist scholars', who were enthusiastic to invent Indo-Aryan cousins in this part of the world, created enough myths in that process for Brahmanism in India and Sinhala-Buddhist elitism in Sri Lanka. Since the Sinhala (Elu) language (hybrid of Sanskrit, Pali, Tamil and a very few words from unknown origin) was more of Indo-Aryan in nature, the British declared that the Sinhalese were Aryans from North India and the Tamils were Dravidians from South India. It is important to note that the Aryan theory was not merely something imposed from above by Orientalist scholars'. It was eagerly welcomed by most Sinhala scholars who found the Aryan theory flattering in that it elevated them to the ranks of the kinsmen of their rulers. The combined result of the forces at work was the mischievous oversimplification of Sri Lankan History that the Sinhalese are Indo-Aryans who came from North India in the 6th century BC and the Dravidian Tamils are later migrants who came as invaders, traders and mercenaries to snatch a part of the promised land of the Sinhalese away. Influenced by the colonial historiography, the Sinhalese declared that they were indigenous to the island, and that the Tamils were invaders from South India. The above facts and the non-existence of Tamil Buddhists during the colonial period (due to the aftermath of the 10th century Chola invasion) led the 19th century European Pali scholars' to assume and subsequently the present day Sri Lankans to believe that the ancient Buddhists and the Buddhists Kings of Sri Lanka were none other than Sinhalese. Most of the Sinhalese cannot even think/believe that there were Tamil Buddhists in the early period.
It should be noted that none of those European Orientalist scholars' who translated and brought to light (or rather misinterpreted) the Sanskrit texts and Pali canon/chronicles ever attempted to do the same to the ancient Tamil texts and the writings on ola leaves which are believed to be destroyed when the Jaffna library was burnt. Some of them which were translated by Arumuga Navalar, Thamotharam Pillai and Saminathaiyar still wait for a comprehensive translation. The partiality in historiography by the British colonial rulers brought in new social gaps, confrontations and competition. With that started the Sinhalese-Buddhist nationalism spanning from Anagarika Dharampala's revivalist movement through 1956 "silent revolution to Jathika Chinthanaya and Sinhala Urumaya in the 1990s is interpreted as a teleological linear history, at the end, intending the ethnic crisis at present.
Mahavamsa Mythology
The Vijaya legend symbolically represents the story of migration of the Sinhalas, from 'Sinhapura' of the western region of 'Aryavartha' passing 'Bharukachcha' and 'Supparaka' (also called Lata and Lala) on the western sea board of India.
It is said in MAHAVAMSA CHAPTER VII - THE CONSECRATING OF VIJAYA,
**But the king Sihabahu, since he had slain the lion (was called) Sihala and, by reason of the ties between him and them, all those (followers of VIJAYA) were also (called) Sihala.**
If Sihabahu whose father had slain the lion was called Sihala and his eldest son Vijaya and his followers were also called Sihala, then what about Vijaya's twin brother Sumitta and his followers in Sinhapura, India? Why they were not called Sihala? That itself proves that Vijaya and the Sinhala race was a creation of Ven. Mahanama and the Mahavihara monks.
Today, another group of Sinhalese-Buddhists by the name Hela Havula (Sinhalese literary organization founded by Munidasa Cumaratunga) have created a new theory (Siv + Hela = Sinhala) linking Ravana to the Sinhalas (without any evidence) and totally contradicting the above (Mahavamsa) to say that the Sinhalas are the original natives of Sri Lanka from the four tribes known as Siv-hela (Deva, Naga, Yakka, & Rakhsasa, also adopted from the Ramayana) and not migrants from India as mentioned in the Mahavamsa.
Another good example of the myths, fantasies, superstitions and fables from the Mahavamsa is the Elara/Dutugemunu episode. Just around ten lines/verses in the Pali chronicle Deepavamsa about the Elara/Dutugemunu was blown up into 11 chapters in the Mahavamsa just to glorify Buddhism and the Buddhist kings against the Hindus which gave birth to "superior race", "Bhoomiputhra (sons of the soil)", "Sinhaladivpa", "unitary state", and "Dhammadivpa" theories. The Mahavamsa author being a Buddhist monk and justifying the killing of around sixty thousand Tamils/Hindus (invaders) by Dutugemunu is one reason why others (non-Buddhists) think that Sinhala-Buddhism is somewhat of a violent barbaric form of Buddhism where killing Tamils is justified. According to some of the Buddhist monks, king Dutugemunu waged a 'just war' to save their so called promised land thrice blessed by Lord Buddha' against the Tamil invaders. (Most probably, the guardian deity, God Vishnu who was assigned by Buddha to protect/save the 'Promised Land' and the Sinhalese people cannot be trusted anymore because the Tamils also worship him). The killing of Tamils in Sri Lanka by the Sinhala-Buddhists even today is due to this uncivilized/barbaric ehhno-religion known as Sinhala-Buddhism (or Mahavamsa-Buddhism).
There is a clear record of all the main events of Buddha, the places he visited, with whom he was, where and what he preached and to whom he preached, in the Buddhist scriptures Tripitika, but nowhere it is mentioned that the Buddha visited or even spoke about the island of Lanka. In order to protect Buddhism in Sri Lanka from those powerful South Indian Hindu kingdoms, Ven. Mahanama wrote the Mahavamsa, by added his own imaginations and myths. He has introduced many events concerning Buddha which never took place, things that Buddha has never said or done, events which are not mentioned in any of the Buddhist scriptures (both Theravada and Mahayana).
For example, according to the Mahavamsa, Buddha made three magical trips to Sri Lanka, each time colonizing another area of the island, in preparation for the formal introduction of Buddhism two centuries after his death. One of these trips was to settle a dispute between the Yakkhas and Nagas at Naga Divipa (Ninathivu) where the Buddha tamed the Yakkhas, the non-human inhabitants of the island.
There is no evidence whatsoever to support this claim (Buddha's 3 visits), other than the three chaithiyas (Buddhist structures) built in the recent past by the Sinhalese Buddhists at 3 different locations to say, 'This is where Buddha came.' Even the footprint of Buddha at Sri Pada (Adam's peak) is nothing but an obvious myth.
According to the Mahavamsa, just before passing away, Buddha has called the Sakka (King of Gods) and told him,
'My doctrine, O Sakka, will eventually be established in the Island of Lanka, and on this day, Vijay the eldest son of Singha Bahu king of Sinhapura in the Lata country lands there with 700 followers and will assume sovereignty there. Do thou, therefore guard well the prince and his train and the Island of Lanka. On receiving the blessed one's command, Sakka summoned God Vishnu and said, 'Do thou. O lotus-hued one, protect with zeal prince Vijay and his followers and the doctrine that is to endure in Lanka for a full five thousand years'.
It should be noted that in Buddhist scriptures, Buddha has never mentioned about any Hindu/Brahmanical Gods, he only talks about Devas and Bramahas from different worlds who have no connection with any Hindu/Brahmanical Gods.
Jathika Chintanaya (Mahavamsa mindset) and its consequences
Ven. Mahanama created an imaginary link between the three elements, Country-Race-Religion and made it into one unit similar to the Holy Trinity, whereby Sri Lanka (Dhamma Deepa), Buddha's chosen people (Sinhalese), and Buddhism (Buddha Saasana) should be protected for 5000 years. This is known as the Jathika chintanaya or the Mahavamsa mindset and its outcome is the Sinhala-Budda Deepa' and the unitary state'. Therefore, for the next 2500 years, a Sinhala Buddhist will never allow a federal state or any autonomy for others (non-Sinhala-Buddhists) in Sri Lanka.
What we witness today is a kind of political Buddhism trying to promote the interests of the Sinhala-Buddhist people, rather than religion (Buddhism) as a path for personal salvation, and it is the main impediment to peace in the Island of Sri Lanka because it is based on the doctrine of primacy and superiority of the Sinhala race and the Buddhist religion.
From a very young age, the innocent Sinhala Buddhist children are brainwashed by their parents/grandparents, teachers, Buddhist priests (some members of the Maha Sangha), media personnel, text book writers, politicians and some of the Daham Paasela (Sunday school) teachers in the Buddhist temples by engraving the Sinhala-Buddhist Mahavansa mindset and Sinhala Buddhist racism into their sub-conscious minds. They are taught to believe that the non-Sinhala Buddhists (Tamils) are invaders who do not belong to Sri Lanka. All the Tamils should be chased away to Tamil Nadu just the way their ancient Kings Dutugemunu did. The country (Sri Lanka), Sinhala race and Buddhism should be protected from the Tamils. Now, from recently, they have also included the Christians in those needing to be thrown out. Due to the above conditioning, the Sinhala-Buddhist majority believes that the entire Sri Lanka belongs to them and the minorities are aliens.
One good example is the former Army Chief Lt.-Gen. Sarath Fonseka who once said that he strongly believes that Sri Lanka belongs to the Sinhalese, the minorities can live in the country with them (Sinhalese) but they must not try to demand undue things. This is the common understanding/belief not only among the Sinhalese masses (both educated and uneducated) and the Buddhist clergy but also among the Sinhalese political leaders right from the top.
Immediately after taking over the country from the British, the first thing that an independent government under the Sinhalese Buddhist leader D. S. Senanayake, the so called father of the nation did was to disenfranchise the upcountry Tamils. This was followed by colonization schemes that settled Sinhalese peasants in the predominantly Tamil-speaking North-East, thereby changing the ethnic demography of the area which prompted the Tamil leaders to demand a separate state in 1949. SWRD Bandaranayaka followed the same path by bringing in the Sinhala Only' policy in 1956 totally ignoring the Tamils and their language. It was followed by the Sinhala -Only (sri) vehicle license-plates policy in 1958 which caused the anti-Tamil racial riots. Sirimawo Bandaranayaka brought in a new constitution in 1972 abolishing all the pre-existing minority rights in it and gave foremost place to Buddhism in a multi-religious Sri Lanka. JR Jayawardana who marched from Colombo to Kandy against granting autonomy to the Tamils unleashed the violence against the Tamils the moment he came to power in 1977 and then in July 83 (to teach Tamils a lesson). All their actions created a monster that ruined the country for many decades. It was DB Wijethunga who said, "we do not have any ethnic problem, we only have a terrorist problem" denying all the problems the Tamils had for decades.
After ending the 30 years of civil war, many believed (with full of hope) that the powerful government of President Mahinda Rajapakshe will come up with a permanent political solution for all communities to live in peace and harmony with a sense of belonging but unfortunately we are back to square one as we see from the government's recent proposal to scrap the Tamil version of the national anthem and have a Sinhala-Only National Anthem. Once again the government has succumbed to the Sinhala-Buddhist ultra-nationalists (obsessed with Mahavansa mindset) who are masquerading as Patriots.
What have we learned from the aftermath of many decades of ethnic problem/war in our country? Absolutely nothing, instead of ignoring the ultra-nationalist racists/fanatics and uniting the Sinhalese and Tamils, the government is doing the opposite and the history seems to be repeating once again. Sri Lanka still remains as a land of broken promises and broken dreams.
The well respected Sinhalese Pali scholar late Dr. E.W. Adikaram once said in an interview after the 1983 black July, the only way to have peace in Sri Lanka is by burning all the copies of the Mahavamsa.
Coming out of ignorance
In Sri Lanka, the history is already twisted many centuries ago and sealed. What we have is not history but his-story (Ven. Mahanama's story). Today the myth has become the truth and if anybody tries to undo the twist (after enormous amount of new discoveries) he/she will be considered an unpatriotic traitor or even a terrorist supporter'. Some of the new archaeological discoveries (artefacts) which are not in favour of the Mahavamsa mythology are either hidden (not allowed to reveal the facts) or they are made to disappear by none other than the governing authorities in order to keep the majority community happy.
For example, the archaeologist Prof. Senerath Paranawithana being a non-Buddhist had to come up with magical evidence from his research to prove the accuracy of the stories in the Mahavamsa (misinterpret as true history). Once when he deviated (by saying the truth that there is no archaeological evidence to prove Buddha visited the island) he was forced to deny.
The Mahavamsa author Ven. Mahanama was a great scholar and a poet and from his writings it is clear that he was well versed with the Indian epics. We cannot blame him because during that turbulent period (when Buddhism was under threat), the Mahavamsa author Ven. Mahanama and the Mahavihara monks had a genuine reason for the above mythology but unfortunately today due to ignorance and lack of rational thinking, the present day Sinhala Buddhists still believe the Mahavamsa as the gospel truth.Ven. Mahanama would have never expected that his doctrine will create a new religion in Sri Lanka filled with racism and hatred.
If we take the Sinhala kingdom of Kandy during the 16 century AD, the Sinhalese accepting the Nayakkar dynasty of Madura, South India as their Kings prove that the Sinhala-Buddhist Mahavansa mindset was not prevailing or never existed even during that period. Therefore, the ONLY people who are responsible for this mess is the British colonial rulers and their so called Orientalist scholars'.
As long as the Sinhalese remain ignorant, as long as they cling on to the 2500 years old mysteries of the past as their guide, as long as they remain engrossed to the Mahavamsa mindset, whatever solution the that the government tries/pretends to bring in, the Sinhala-Buddhists are not going to accept. Scholars and analysts have identified that the 'Sinhala (Mahavamsa) Buddhist mindset,' (about the Sinhala Buddhist claim to the whole island of Lanka), as the reason why most of the Sinhalese cannot be rational and liberal.
The Tamils had been living in Sri Lanka for thousands of years. They should be considered as equal partners. The country belongs to both Sinhalese and Tamils (including Muslims), it is not Sinhala heritage but Sri Lankan (Sinhala/Tamil heritage), it should not be Sinhala Only but both Sinhala and Tamil (the two main languages spoken in the country). The so called Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) should have understood by now that the first lesson and most probably the only important lesson that the Sinhala majority has to learn in order to come out from their ignorance is to differentiate/distinguish between Sinhala and Sri Lanka. Only when the Sinhalese clearly understand that Sinhala-ness and Sri Lankan-ness are not the same but two different things, we will be able to see some light at the end of the tunnel (peace will prevail) and the Sri Lankan Tamils will be able to give up their demands and unite as one Sri Lankan nation.
As responsible leaders, not only the government and the opposition but the moderate Sinhala media personnel, educated and intelligent Sinhalese people and moderate religious leaders/Buddhist clergy should educate the Sinhala nation to think rationally and distinguish/differentiate Sinhala from Sri Lanka, Buddhism from Sinhala-Buddhism, and Myths from Facts, explaining the reason why the Pali chronicles were written during that period of extreme danger to Buddhism, which is not the case today.
This article is written after extensive research only to highlight the mindset of the present day Sri Lankan society (majority) as a reason why we are still unable to move forward towards a just society and not to dig the past 2500 years old perverted history (mystery). The intention of the author is to unite the two major communities (just the way they lived before the 13th century AD) that are in conflict and not to separate them and should not be misunderstood or misinterpreted. Today, we have a narrow minded prejudiced society which is conditioned to see only the negative aspects/differences of others in order to condemn/criticize instead of trying understanding the true concepts. In order to burn the veils that have shut our society from appreciating the beauty of multi-cultural diversity of pluralism that has existed in our country for many thousands of years, the concerned authorities and the educationalists should formulate a new educational process. The school curriculum should be modified so that not only the languages but also the major religions and cultures in our country are included in the syllabus as a single subject up to a certain grade until the students come to a better level of understanding. This will bring in a new secular united society that will have respect and tolerance towards each other, a society that will accept diversity.
Tour to Turkish and Islamic Art Museum is a Must after Istanbul Flights! Tickle your tongue with the lip smacking cuisine in Islamabad Risk Analysis of Islamic & Conventional Banks in Pakistan for the period of 2005 to 2008 Amish Gazebos Stimulating Orlando, Florida Space Selections Plus Reliable Two Cents Worth For Adventurers Seed-Faith Offering Amish Storage Sheds Social Media Trends Conveyor belt selection tips How Social Media Can Help Surveys Answer 4 Questions For Successful Social Media Strategy Sick of the social media hype? We are too Christian Social Media Identity and the Need for it