The Mahavamsa phobia
Posted on January 24th, 2014

Nalin de Silva

According to learned opinion Mahavamsa was written in the fifth century by a Bhikku named Ven. Mahanama. Mahavamsa may not be the most authoritative book on history in the Western tradition, but it is definitely the most hated book on history by the Tamil separatists, and in general the anti Sinhala Buddhist activists. Mahavamsa is a history book though not in the tradition of Western knowledge after the fifteenth century, where they attempt to separate different disciplines. In the old Sinhala tradition history was not separated from knowledge of other disciplines such as Dhamma.


The Samadhi statue in Anuradhapura is mainly for worshipping but it is a work of art as well. This feature was not confined to Sinhala Buddhist culture but could be seen in Hindu temples, and paintings in Vatican. It was only after the Greek Judaic Christian (GJC) Chinthanaya became the dominant Chinthanaya in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries that an attempt was made to separate disciplines from one another.

The concept of separation of state from religion was introduced in the West after the GJC Chinthanaya became the dominant Chinthanaya but all these separations were only in name as the underlying Chinthanaya would never allow for such separation. Thus English state is not separated from the Anglican Christian religion and to date the king or the queen of England remains the head of state as well as the church. In all the Western countries the state is associated with some denomination of Christianity though the Western pundits would not accept it. When the American President takes his oath he keeps his hand on a copy of the Bible and not on a copy of Dhammapada or Quran or Bhagawath Githa. The whole of Western knowledge is based on GJC Chinthanaya and that knowledge is Christian from A to Z.

Western science

However, the Western pundits and of course their imitators here, would claim that the Western knowledge is objective and that the state should be separated from religion. They pretend it to be so in the Western countries in order to propagate the view that knowledge other than Western science, which covers the entire spectrum from Astronomy to Literary Criticism to Political Science to Zoology, is myth.

The Samadhi statue in Anuradhapura is mainly for worshipping but it is a work of art as well.

They would demand that the Sri Lankan state should be separated from Buddhism or Buddha Sasana and that in Sri Lanka Buddhism has become the state religion forgetting conveniently that in England Anglican Christianity is the state religion. The Western knowledge is basically to maintain the hegemony of Judaic Christian culture, condemning other systems of knowledge as myths.


Sri Lankan history


Mahavamsa is not a pure history book and no Sinhala Buddhist brought up in the tradition of Sinhala Buddhist culture will ever claim that it is only a book of history written attempting to follow the GJC tradition of so called separation of disciplines. However, Mahavamsa is not a book belonging to Thripitaka (the three baskets) and neither could it be considered as the fourth pitaka. However it is an important book in Sinhala Buddhist culture just as much the Jathaka Potha is. There have been other records of history (the Sinhala Buddhists have no problem in admitting that there are other “histories” (not versions of one history) as well). Recently a book called “Vargapurnikava” has surfaced giving a history from the point of view of the Yakshas. Unfortunately these are not reported in the English media and very often I find that English speaking people in Sri Lanka are in the dark with respect to knowledge on Sinhala Buddhist culture. Though there are various histories of Sri Lanka the Mahavamsa history had been accepted by the learned Bhikkus when the English administrators especially from the civil service turned their attention to Sri Lankan history.

Thus English administrators such as Codrington and Turnour treated Mahavamsa as the book on history of Sri Lanka and most of the historians brought up in the Western tradition followed them when studying Sri Lankan history. It is the English who made Mahavamsa a history book and not the Sinhala Buddhists nor Ven Mahanama Thera who wrote the book for the “hudi jana pahan sanvegaya” (serene joy and emotion of the pious as translated by Turnour). The important fact in this regard is that as far as history of Sri Lanka is concerned is that there is no book in Tamil or Sanskrit (Pure Thamilians would object to this reference to Sanskrit) in the Tamil tradition.

The only book that is found in Tamil is Yalpanam Vaipava Malai that had been written as the fulfillment of an assignment given by the Dutch to a Tamil Mudaliyar in Jaffna. If there was a history written by the Tamils the English civil servants would not have spared it as the English were pro Vellala in their administration. The English who wanted the Ramanathan family to be the leading family in Sri Lanka would have gladly translated a Tamil history of Sri Lanka if they could find one. The Dutch assigned the Mudaliyar to compile a history of Sri Lanka in order to deprive the Sinhala kings the eastern coast, which had been leased to them by the latter. If the English came across a Tamil history they would have accepted that as the “authentic” history of Sri Lanka as the Tamils led by the English educated Tamils who did not fight against the English were favoured by the colonialists.

The English had no alternative but to consider Mahavamsa history as the history of Sri Lanka as the vast number of inscriptions and archeological evidence seemed to support the contents therein. Of course there are some discrepancies (internal contradictions) regarding the periods of some kings before Devanampiya Tissa but that does not make Mahavamsa a myth. These contradictions can be resolved with the aid of books such as Vargapoornikava and some inscriptions that have been found recently.

Mahavamsa has been written relative to Sinhala Buddhist culture and is the viewpoint of Mahavihara. One does not need to hide the fact that the Mahavamsa had been written with the objective of protecting Buddhism of the third council (Sangayana) headed by Moggaliputta Tissa Maha Thera. One could call this particular Buddhism, Ashokan Buddhism if one wishes.

The Mahavamsa has to be read together with the commentaries written by Ven. Buddhaghosha Thera, and they should not be dissociated from each other. Both have been written in Pali originally and Sinhala scholars such as Kumaratunga Munidasa were of the opinion that it was not in the best interests of Sinhala Language to say the least. The Theravada Buddhism of the third council had come under criticism by Madhyamikavada founded by Nagarjunapada after the second century and the Andra Pradesh centre of the tradition of Ashokan Buddhism had declined by the fifth century.

Dravidian tradition

 It is clear that the Theravadins of Andra Pradesh and Mahavihara in Anuradhapura had wanted to make sure that the Buddhism of the third council prevailed at least in Sri Lanka, and Mahavamsa and the commentaries attributed to Ven. Buddhaghosha Thera were basically the result of that objective. Mahavamsa is in a way, as much as the commentaries, belongs to the combined Andra Pradesh – Mahavihara tradition, these two centres being the strongholds of what may be called Ashokan Buddhism of the ancient world. In that sense one could see a Dravidian tradition in Mahavamsa. It is said that both Mahanama Thera and Buddhaghosha Thera were of Dravidian stock.

The Mahavamsa is the only ancient source in Sri Lanka that refers to Tamil and other Dravidian elements, and if not for these references there is no way to claim any presence of Tamils in the country even on a temporary basis as invaders, scholars etc. Of course, Mahavamsa establishes the Sinhala Buddhist prominence (not dominance) in the country as far as the Ashokan Buddhism is concerned, which cannot be discarded however much one hates that fact. Abhayagiriya was not a Mahayana abode as some seem to believe but unlike Mahavihara it kept its doors open to other Buddhisms as well.

Naturally the Mahavihara did not like the Abhayagiriya tradition knowing very well what happened in Andra Pradesh and objected to Theravada as practiced by the Abhyagiriya Bhikkus. The Mahavamsa phobia of the non Sinhala Buddhists is baseless and if at all it is the Sinhala Buddhists who do not entirely subscribe to Ashokan Buddhism who should find fault with this great book that is called the great chronicle in English.

24 Responses to “The Mahavamsa phobia”

  1. Lorenzo Says:

    MOST Tamils hate whatever that is dear and valuable to Sinhalese and Muslims. That is TAMIL TRIBAL thinking which has NOT evolved into something civilized.

    Even in Colombo Tamils live in TAMIL ONLY GHETTOES in this 21st century. That shows their GENERAL mentality.

  2. Nanda Says:

    “In that sense one could see a Dravidian tradition in Mahavamsa. It is said that both Mahanama Thera and Buddhaghosha Thera were of Dravidian stock.”

    So Tamils consider them as “traitors” being enemies of Brahminism ?
    That is why they hate “Buddhism” more than “Sinhalism” of the Sinhala Buddhist.

  3. Piyadigama Says:

    රට කරවන රජ දරුවන් සැපවත් කරලා
    පිට රටවල ණය අරගෙන සුර සැප විඳලා
    වට පිට රට තොට මිනිසුන් මහ මග දමලා
    කොටි නැසුනත් රට වනසා රජයන දෙමළා

  4. Nalliah Thayabharan Says:

    Tamil Nadu boasted of outstanding Buddhist monks, who had made remarkable contributions to Buddhism thought and learning. Three of the greatest Pali scholars of this period were Buddhaghosa, Buddhadatta, and Dhammapala and all three of them were associated with Buddhist establishments in the Tamil kingdoms.

    Buddhadatta or Thera Buddhaatta as he is called lived during the time of Accyutarikkanta, the Kalabra ruler of the Chola-Nadu. He was a senior contemporary of Buddhaghosa. He was born in the Cola kingdom and lived in the 5th Century AD. Under the patronage of this ruler, Buddhadatta wrote many books. Among his best known Pali writings are the VINAYA-VINICCHAYA, the UTTARA-VINICCHAYA and the JINALANKARA-KAVYA. Among the commentaries written by him are the MADHURATTHA-VILASINI and the ABHIDHAMMAVATARA. In the Abhidhammaratara he gives a glowing account at Kaveripattinum, Uragapuram, Bhutamangalam and Kanchipuram and the Mahavihara at Sri Lanka. While he was at Sri Lanka, he composed many Buddhist works such as Uttara-viniccaya Ruparupa Vibhaga Jinalankara etc. Buddhaghosha, contemporary of Buddhadatta also composed many Buddhist commentaries.

    Buddhaghosha is a Tamil monk, who made a remarkable contribution to Buddhism in Sri Lanka. He stayed and studied Buddhist precepts at Mahavihara in Anuradhapura. The Visuddhimagga was the first work of Buddhaghosha which was written while he was in Sri Lanka.

    After Buddhaghosha, the important Theravada monk from the Tamil Nadu was Dhammapala. Dhammapala lived in the Mahavihara at Anuradhapura. He composed paramathadipani which was a commentary on Buddhaghosha s work on Khuddaka Nikaya and Paramathamanjusa, which was a commentary on Buddhaghosha’s Visuddhimagga. A close study of the three Buddhist monks viz Buddhadatta, Buddhaghosha and Dhammapala shows that Tamil Buddhists were closely associated with the Sri Lankan Buddhists around the 5th century AD.

    The author of NETTIPAKARANA is another Dhammapala who was a resident of a monastery in Nagapattinam. One more example is the Chola monk Kassapa, in his Pali work, VIMATTI-VINODANI, this Tamil monk provides interesting information about the rise of heretical views in the Chola Sangha and the consequent purification that took place.

    There are so many other Tamil monks who are attributed to the Pali works some of them were resident at Mayura-rupa-pattana (Mylapore) along with Buddhagosha. The well known Tamil Buddhist epics, on the other hand, were MANIMEKALAI and KUNDALAKESI.

    The 6th century Tamil Buddhist work Manimekalai by Sattanar, is perhaps the most famous of the work done in Tamil Nadu. It is a work expounding the doctrines and propagating the values of Buddhism. The interaction between Tamil Nadu and Sri Lankan monks finds mention in Manimekalai, which is set in the Tamil towns of Kaveripoompattinam, Kanchi, and Vanchi.

    There is mention about the presence of wondering monks of Sri Lanka in Vanchi, which was the capital of the Chera Kings of Tamil Nadu. The Chinese traveller, Tsuan Tsang, wrote that there were around 300 Sri Lankan monks in the monastery at the Southern sector of Kanchipuram.

    As Buddhism was one of the dominant religions in both Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka, naturally there were very close relations between the two regions. The monks from Sri Lanka, too, went across to the Tamil kingdom and stayed in the monasteries.

    There was NO Buddhism in Sri Lanka until Emperor Asoka’s missionary monks led by Mahinda converted the Hindu Naga King Tissa into a Buddhist in the 2nd century BC. Similarly, there was NO Sinhala race/tribe in Sri Lanka until the Mahavihara monks created it in the 5th century AD. 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 witnessed the decline and disorientation of Buddhism in India. Events that took place in India against Buddhism prompted the Mahavihara monks in Sri Lanka to come up with a strategy to protect Buddhism. Due to their strong devotion to Buddhism and desire to consolidate and protect this religion in Sri Lanka they have decided to write the Pali chronicles Deepavamsa/Mahavamsa making Sri Lanka a Dammadeepa – 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 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 together and called them Sihala. 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 first appeared ONLY in the 5th Century AD Pali chronicles Deepavamsa/Mahavamsa and that also ONLY twice in the beginning chapters. To date, no archaeological evidence has been found to prove ‘Hela’ or ‘Sihala’ or ‘Sinhala’ existed before that 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. Ultimately, the Mahavamsa has transformed the Buddha into a special patron of Sinhala-Buddhism, an ethnic religion created in Sri Lanka.

    The Buddhism practiced in Sri Lanka 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 passing away of Lord Buddha is also considered as a part of the Buddhist scriptures.

    Although it deals mostly with mythical or supernatural Buddhist history, some episodes of which are copied from the ‘Mahabaratha’ and ‘Ramayana.’ Since the Buddhist scriptures (Tripitaka) and the mythical Buddhist history (Mahavamsa) were both written in the Pali language, a Buddhist layperson who does not understand Pali cannot understand the difference between the two and, therefore, he/she believes everything that the Buddhist monks preach, to be the true words of Buddha.

    Due to ignorance, even the present day some Sri Lankans 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.

    According to Buddhism, a person ordained as a Bikkhu 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.

    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. 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’.

    Some scholars 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 (Sihala). This 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 ancient literary works and/or the stone inscriptions/rock edicts of neighbouring India (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 kings who ruled these kingdoms never called themselves ‘Hela’, ‘Sihala’, or ‘Sinhala’. Subsequent to the Chola domination of Sri Lanka in the 10th century A.D, people who identified themselves as Buddhists and Sinhalese shifted their seats of rule from the ancient kingdoms of Anuradapura and Polanaruwa towards South and Central of the island. It was only after the 13th century AD that the kingdoms of Kotte and Kandy were known as ‘Sinhale’ even though some parts 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.

    The term ‘Sinhale’, appeared only in the 13th Century AD Chulavamsa and NOT in Deepavamsa/Mahavamsa. 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, growing tobaco, 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-Buddhism.

    It was the British who re-discovered the Mahavamsa in the early 20th century and their so called European ‘Pali Scholars’ misinterpreted it, thereby creating another myth known as Arya-Sinhala. Since the Sinhala (Elu) language (mixture of Sanskrit, Pali, Tamil and Malayalam) 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 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.

    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 (aka 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. The Mahavamsa equates the killing of the invaders as being on par with the killing of “sinners and wild beasts”, and the King’s sorrow and regret are assuaged. This is considered by some critics as an ethical error. However, Buddhism does recognize a hierarchy of actions as being more or less wholesome or skillful, although the intent is as much as or more important than the action itself. Thus the killing of an Arahant may be considered less wholesome and skillful than the killing of an ordinary human being. Buddhists may also assert that killing an elephant is less skillful and wholesome than killing an ant. In both cases, however, the intent must also be considered. An important thing to note is that Dutthagamani regretted his act, and this was also true of King Asoka, who became a pacifist after a series of bloody military campaigns.

    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 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.

    Ven. Mahanama has 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 Sasana) should be protected for 5000 years. This is known as the Jathika chintanaya or the Mahavamsa mindset.

    What we witness today is a kind of political Buddhists trying to promote their interest rather than Buddhism as a path for personal salvation.

    Ven Mahanama, the author of the Mahavamsa refers to three visits by the Gautama Buddha to Sri Lanka. To ascertain whether the description in the Mahavamsa has any basis, one has to study the life of the Gautama Buddha, as revealed in the Pali Canon.
    Immediately after Enlightenment, the Gautama Buddha walked from Bodh Gaya to Sarnath. From Sarnath, He set out to wander by stages to Uruvela. At that time three ascetics with matted hair — Kassapa of Uruvela, Kassapa of the River and Kassapa of Gaya — were living at Uruvela. When the Gautama Buddha was living at Uruvela, Kassapa’s sacrificial ceremony fell due.
    The Mahavamsa says, “Now, since a great sacrifice by Kassapa of Uruvela was near at hand, and since He (the Gautama Buddha) saw that this latter would fain have Him away .., the Conqueror in the ninth month of his Buddhahood, at the full moon of Phussa, Himself set forth for the Isle of Lanka…
    “To this great gathering of the Yakkas went the Blessed One and there in the midst of that assembly, hovering in the AIR over their heads, at the place of the future Mahiyangana Thupa, He struck terror to their hearts, by rain, storm, darkness and so forth. The Yakkas, overwhelmed by fear, besought the fearless Vanquisher to release them from fear. Then, when He had destroyed their terror,… the Master preached them the doctrine.”
    The suttas display the Gautama Buddha, as the incarnation of patience and peace, capable of working the miracle of transformation by His unshakeable equanimity and impeccable wisdom.
    The Gautama Buddha would never have struck terror to their hearts. This idea that the Gautama Buddha struck terror to their hearts by rain, storm and darkness, Mahanama has taken directly from the Vedas. The Vedas tell us that Indra wields the thunderbolt and conquers darkness. He brings us light and life, gives us vigour and freshness. Heaven bows before him and the earth trembles at his approach “Yes, when I send thunder and lightning” says Indra “then you believe, in me.”
    According to the Mahavamsa’s description of the first visit of the Gautama Buddha to Lanka, the visit should take place between the sacrificial ceremony and the deliverance of the fire sermon at Gayassi.
    The Mahavamsa says the Gautama Buddha came by AIR to Lanka. The description of the first visit of the Gautama Buddha goes against the fundamental teachings of the Gautama Buddha. In Mahasihanada Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 12) Sunakkata made this statement before the vesali assembly: “The recluse Gautama does not have any superhuman states, any distinction in knowledge and vision worthy of the noble ones. The recluse Gautama teaches a Dhamma hammered out by reasoning, following his own line of reasoning as it occurs to him, and when he teaches the Dhamma to anyone, it leads when he practices it to the complete destruction of suffering”.
    Bhikku Bodhi in his commentary to this sutta says “Apparently he (Sunakkhatta) believes that being led to the complete destruction of suffering is, as a goal, inferior to the acquisition of miraculous powers”. In His rebuttal of Sunkattha’s assertion the Gautama Buddha says “the recluse Gautama teaches a Dhamma hammered out by reasoning, following His own line of reasoning as it occurs to Him-Unless He abandons that view, then he will wind up in hell”.
    In the Kevaddha Sutta, The Gautama Buddha says, He dislikes, rejects and despises the miracles of psychic power and miracle of telepathy. The Gautama Buddha was possessed of a quality of compassion, seldom seen among men. His sympathy was all embracing and spontaneous. The Gautama Buddha’s teaching is based and built on a conception of universal love and compassion for all living beings.
    In the Vatthupama Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 7) the Gautama Buddha says, “he abides pervading that all-encompassing world with a mind imbued with loving kindness, abundant, exalted immeasurable, without hostility, without ill will. He abides pervading one quarter with the mind imbued with compassion.”
    “In the Lakkahan Sutta (Digha Nikaya Sutta 30) it is stated, “the Tathagata rejects harsh speech, abstains from it, spoke what was blameless, pleasing to the ear, agreeable, reaching the heart, urbane, pleasing and attractive to the multitude.”
    Therefore, if the Mahavamsa is to be believed, when Mahanama says, “He struck terror to their hearts by rain, darkness and so forth. The Yakkas overwhelmed by fear… we have to accept that the Gautama Buddha abandoned the fundamental tenets of the Dhamma merely for the sake of converting a set of ‘uninstructed wordings.’ He was, of all the historical personages of whom we possess any knowledge, one of the most consistent in thought, word and act.
    He not only placed little value on the supra-rational knowledge and ecstasy to which ascetics and mystics were supposed to have access, but actually described their mental acrobatics as “the thicket of theorizing, the wilderness of theorizing, the tangle, the bondage.”

    The Mahavamsa goes on to say that it was on His first visit that the “Master preached the doctrine”. There is no record of the doctrine the Gautama Buddha preached to the Yakkas. However, there is a record of the two earlier sermons the Gautama Buddha delivered at Saranath.
    According to the Mahavamsa, the Gautama Buddha’s second visit to Lanka was in the fifth year of His Gautama Buddhahood “He set out to Lanka from Jetawana.” If the Mahavamsa account of the Gautama Buddha’s second visit is to be believed He should have come to Lanka before He left for Kapilavasthu.
    In His second visit, the Mahavamsa says the Gautama Buddha brought about a reconciliation between the Naga kind Maniakkhika and Mahodora by preaching the “the doctrine that begets concord.” King Pasanedi was one of the most devoted lay followers of the Gautama Buddha. Pasanedi says “The dhamma has been made clear in many ways by the Blessed One, as though He were turning upright what had been turned upside down. (vide Kosalaamyutta in the Samyuta Nikaya.)
    Yet the Gautama Buddha was not able to prevent King Pasanedi going into battle with Ajasathu. In the Paranibbana Sutta we find Ajasattu sending his chief minister Brahamin Vessakara to the Gautama Buddha to seek advice as to how he could attack the Vajians and bring them to ruin and destruction. The Gautama Buddha told him, “the Vajians will never be conquered by force of arms.” Still the Gautama Buddha was not able to dissuade Ajasatu resorting to various stratagems to destroy the Vajians.
    It is strange therefore, that while the Gautama Buddha was not able to prevent His disciples from waging wars, He could bring about reconciliation between two kings in a foreign country.
    The doctrine that “begot concord” is not found anywhere in the Pali Canon. It is also strange that this doctrine was not delivered to Kings Pasanedi or Ajasatu and thereby dissuade them from going to war.
    According to the Mahavamsa, the third visit of the Gautama Buddha to Lanka was in the eighth year of His Gautama Buddhahood.
    The Gautama Buddha “set forth surrounded by five hundred arahats on the second day of the beautiful month of Vesak..” Again the doctrine He preached on His third visit to the island is not found in the Pali Canon. The Gautama Buddha’s famous statement in the Paranibbana Sutta, “I have taught the Dhamma, Ananda, making no inner and outer. The Tathagata has no teacher’s fist in respect of the Dhamma,” makes it clear that there is no esoteric teaching in Buddhism.
    On a plain reading of the Gautama Buddha visits to Lanka as recorded in the Mahavamsa, it becomes clear that this account is not only false but goes against the teachings of the Gautama Buddha.
    It is also established that from the day of His enlightenment till He passed away at Kusinara, the Gautama Buddha walked barefoot from Gautama Buddha Gaya to Kusinara. At the little village of Beluva the Gautama Buddha said (Paranibbana Sutta), “Ananda, I am now old, worn out, one who has traversed life’s path, I have reached the term of life which is eighty.” The version in the Mahavamsa that the Gautama Buddha came by air from Jetawana to Lanka should be rejected.
    One other matter that should be considered in delving into the veracity of the Gautama Buddha’s visit as narrated in the Mahavamsa is that there was an intellectual awakening in India about a thousand years before the Gautama Buddha. Therefore, we find in India at the time of the Gautama Buddha’s birth the tendency of man to think rationally, to reduce the chaotic universe of his sense-impressions and intuitions to a coherent and logical order, was ingrained in the Indian mind. The Gautama Buddha tore away the Dhamma from His ancestral stem and planted in a purely rational soil.
    Even in such an intellectually fertile soil as in India in the 5th century B.C, soon after enlightenment the Gautama Buddha experienced an inner conflict as to whether He should ever teach the Dhamma because, in the words of Bhikku Bodhi, “He reflected the density of the defilements of beings and the profundity of the Dhamma. In the Brahmasamayutta in the Samyutta Nikkaya we find the following statement, “This Dhamma I have discovered is deep, hard to see, hard to understand, peaceful and sublime, not within the sphere of reasoning, subtle, to be experienced by the wise.”
    While there is a record of the very first sutta preached to five ascetics, we do not find in the Pali Canon any reference to the three discourses delivered to the Nagas and Yakkas.
    Mahavamsa is a conscious and intentional rearrangement of the Dipavamsa as a sort of commentary to this latter. In the absence of any sources, the Dipavamsa must be considered as standing unsupported on its own tottering feet. Therefore no historical value can be conceded to the Dipavamsa nor to the Mahavamsa.
    The account given in the Mahavamsa has no historical evidence to support the proposition that the Gautama Buddha ever visited Sri Lanka. Ignorance is the first requisite of the historian. Ignorance simplifies and clarifies, selects and limits, with a placid perfection unattainable by the highest art.

    Millions of people for thousands of years believed that the earth was flat. And also millions of people believed the following in the seventh chapter of Mahawamsa for hundreds of years :
    Vijaya’s arrival in Sri Lanka coincided with the passing away of the Buddha. The very first ‘person’ that Vijaya encountered on the island was the ‘Lord of the Gods’, Lord Vishnu, who was charged by the ailing Buddha with looking after Vijaya and his descendants.
    The second encounter was far less auspicious – a Yakkinni, or demoness, who ‘appeared in the form of a dog’. Vijaya’s men, surmising that ‘Only where there is a village are dogs to be found’, followed the creature, only to come upon the Queen of the demons, Kuveni. Though the protection of Vishnu prevented Kuveni from devouring the hapless man, it did not prevent her from hurling him – and all of Vijaya’s other companions – into a chasm.

    Vijaya eventually comes upon Kuveni and threatens her with death unless she releases his men. When this is done, Kuveni supplies them with food and clothing, and, ‘assuming the lovely form of a sixteen year old maiden’ seduces Vijaya. Then, in a complete reversal of her allegiances, she states that she ‘will bestow Kingship on my Lord Vijaya’ and thus ‘all the Yakkhas must be slain, for else the Yakkhas will slay me, for it was through me that men have taken up their dwelling (in Sri Lanka)’. This Vijaya goes on to do, vanquishing the demons and driving them from the island, all the time with Kuveni at his side.
    Though Kuveni bears him two children, a son and a daughter, Vijaya eventually rejects her with the words ‘Go now, dear one, leaving the two children behind; men are ever in fear of superhuman beings’. Despite begging Vijaya not to send her away, a heart broken Kuveni eventually leaves the palace, taking the two children despite being ordered not to. Arriving in one of the few surviving Yakka cities she is killed by her own people for her betrayal. One of her uncles takes pity on her children and tells them to flee before they, too, are killed. They eventually flee to Malaya rata where they settle and become the ancestors of the Pulindas. And alternative tale is that Kuveni flung herself from Yakdessa Gala, imploring the Gods to curse Vijaya for his cruelty – which they do by preventing any of Vijaya’s children from ever sitting on the throne of Rajarata.
    The Kuveni-Vijaya story evokes some similarities with the encounter of Odysseus with Circe. Circe is also an enchantress and a witch. The Kuveni myth is also remarkable for being so violent and tragic. Both the demon Queen and Vijaya are portrayed as being deeply treacherous and unfeeling – Queen in betraying her entire people, Vijaya in betraying her in turn so callously. Indeed Vijaya’s reason for rejecting Kuveni is his desire for a ‘a maiden of a noble house’ to be consecrated Queen with him. This desire could have had a political aspect – in marrying a princess of an established noble house he would essentially have established himself as a legitimate monarch in his own right, on a par with the other rulers of the subcontinent’s kingdoms.
    Kuveni, on the other hand, is regarded as a descendant of the demons of the Ramayana and of Ravana, who also dwelled in Sri Lanka. A common folk tale was that her children did not, in fact, flee to Malaysia, but instead remained in Sri Lanka’s jungles and became the Veddas – Sri Lanka’s aboriginal population. This may indeed be the explanation for Kuveni and her people, as early Indian settlers would almost certainly have come into contact and conflict with indigenous Sri Lankans. The Yakkas are referred to occasionally as ‘invisible’, and indeed would have appeared so to the newcomers unused to Sri Lanka’s jungles, through which the Veddas even today can move in near-silence and with barely a trace. Interestingly the Dipavamsa, on which the Mahavamsa is based, makes no mention of Kuveni whatsoever.
    In the Mahavamsa, or in the ancient Pali or Sanskrit literature for that matter, the Nagas are never represented as human beings, but as a super natural being that inhabited a subterranean world, whose natural form was a serpent but who would assume any form at will.
    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 people to think rationally and distinguish/differentiate 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.

    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, some Buddhists still believe the Mahavamsa as the gospel truth.

    BTW Ceylon Lion – Panthera leo sinhaleyus is only known from two teeth found in deposits at Kuruwita in Ratnapura District. Based on these two teeth, a well known naturalist Mr P.E.P.Deraniyagala erected Panthera leo sinhaleyus in 1939. Mr Deraniyagala did not explain explicitly how he diagnosed the holotype of this prehistoric subspecies as belonging to a lion, though he justified its allocation to a distinct prehistoric subspecies of lion by its being “narrower and more elongate” than those of recent lions in the British Natural History Museum collection. According to Mr Deraniyagala, Panthera leo sinhaleyus was endemic to Sri Lanka, became extinct prior to the arrival of culturally modern humans about 40,000 years ago. There is insufficient information to determine how it might differ from other subspecies of lion. Further studies would be necessary because it is extremely difficult to differentiate a canine tooth of similar species of animals. Even the Ratnapura rainforest habitat is most suited for tigers than lions.
    In 1982 a sub-fossil right middle phalanx was found in a 17,000 years old prehistoric midden at Batadoma in Ratnapura District and tentatively considered to be of a tiger. Tigers arrived in Sri Lanka during a pluvial period during which sea levels were depressed, evidently prior to the last glacial maximum about 20,000 years ago. Since Sri Lanka was separated from the Indian subcontinent by rising sea levels in the early Holocene, now there are no tigers in Sri Lanka.
    A leopard subspecies – Panthera Pardus Kotiya is native to Sri Lanka and it is the country’s TOP predator. The correct Sinhala term for leopard is Kotiyā .
    The term Diviyā was in use for centuries in Sri Lanka to refer to smaller wild species of the cat family such as Handun Diviyā or Kola Diviyā. The correct Sinhala word for tiger is Viyagraya. Mistakenly we started to use Kotiyā to mean tiger and Diviyā to mean leopard.
    To complicate and confuse the matters , Tigers led by Veluppillai Prabhakaran who were also known as Koti (the plural form of Kotiyā) – once ranged widely across Northern and Eastern Sri Lanka, now extirpated from Sri Lanka. Since we do not have lions or tigers in Sri Lanka we should have Kotiyā in our national flag and not lion or tiger.

    I know truth hurts….

  5. Nalliah Thayabharan Says:

    “Believe nothing, in the faith of traditions,
    even though, they have been held in honor,
    for many generations, and in diverse places.

    Do not believe, a thing, because many people speak of it.
    Do not believe, in the faith, of the sages of the past.
    Do not believe, what you yourself have imagined,
    persuading yourself, that a God inspires you.

    Believe nothing, on the sole authority, of your masters and priests.
    After examination, believe what you yourself, have tested
    and found, to be reasonable, and conform your conduct thereto.”

    – Siddhārtha Gautama

  6. Nalliah Thayabharan Says:

    Please visit the following link to know more

  7. aloy Says:

    There he goes again. The cat is out of the bag, and it is nothing but Mahavamsa bashing by TGTE.
    This is an incredible revelation by NT:
    “There was NO Buddhism in Sri Lanka until Emperor Asoka’s missionary monks led by Mahinda converted the Hindu Naga King Tissa into a Buddhist in the 2nd century BC. Similarly, there was NO Sinhala race/tribe in Sri Lanka until the Mahavihara monks created it in the 5th century AD.”
    According to a research work done by a Sr lanka historian, Ten sons of a King whose name was Sinhala and who was defeated by Chadragupta Mourya descended in this country with their followers from present day Pakistan and established settlements here. According to that story mother of these ten princes was the daughter of a Greek general. They have given her in marriage as it was this Sinhala who gave the biggest fight to Alexander the great’s army. The colonies they established in Sri Lanka were Rohana, Digha and Anuradhapura( named after one of the sons) and it is an established fact that there had been a Greek settlements near Anuradhapura. Probably they were brought there to build the city. This somehow has some connection with MutaSiva. If possible I will try to locate a copy of this book and get it translated to English and put it in the Internet. I had a copy and gave it to a friend and he never returned it. That was about twenty five years ago.

  8. Lorenzo Says:


    What you have copy pasted is from a TAMIL ELAMIST RACIST by the name JL Devananda.

    He is NO historian. So he has NO TRUTH in what he says.

    Also FEDERAL IDEA by definition is a TAMIL RACIST project by David “Bull Shitt” Jeyaraj. Of course they need this type of PSEUDO RACIST HISTORIANS to twist the truth in favor if federalism.

    Next time when you copy and paste PLEASE state clearly who the WRITER is and WHICH WEBSITE it ORIGINALLY appeared. Then all will KNOW the TRUTH!

    This JL Devananda has written other ANTI SINHALA TAMIL RACIST dirt. You can read them in federalidea and lankaguardian.

    Don’t believe the racist things JL Devananda writes as GOSPEL TRUTH. Mahavamsa has more credibility than the STATELESS illegal immigrant JL Devananda.

  9. Nanda Says:

    So you chose to show your true colours. OK, we got it now.
    So the correct name of Buddhagos is Putthakosam, Dhammapala is Thammapalam. Well done.

    One thing do not misquote Budddha Dhamma for your own Koti Agenda.

    To all Buddhists and patriots including Lorenzo ( don’t know when you to woul become a Kotiya) ,
    Some information to prevent you from misquoting in the future.

    The Gathas from Kalama Sutta

    “Believe nothing, in the faith of traditions,
    even though, they have been held in honour,
    for many generations, and in diverse places……………………………

    often misquoted by the Enemies of Buddhism.

    Please read the following by one of the most intelligent monk ( who was a American Jew by birth) who has very cleverly translated most of the Pali cannon into simple English.

    A Look at the Kalama Sutta

    by Bhikkhu Bodhi

    In this issue of the newsletter we have combined the feature essay
    with the “Sutta Study” column as we take a fresh look at an often
    quoted discourse of the Buddha, the Kalama Sutta. The discourse —
    found in translation in Wheel No. 8 — has been described as “the
    Buddha’s Charter of Free Inquiry,” and though the discourse
    certainly does counter the decrees of dogmatism and blind faith
    with a vigorous call for free investigation, it is problematic
    whether the sutta can support all the positions that have been
    ascribed to it. On the basis of a single passage, quoted out of
    context, the Buddha has been made out to be a pragmatic empiricist
    who dismisses all doctrine and faith, and whose Dhamma is simply a
    freethinker’s kit to truth which invites each one to accept and
    reject whatever he likes.

    But does the Kalama Sutta really justify such views? Or do we meet
    in these claims just another set of variations on that egregious
    old tendency to interpret the Dhamma according to whatever notions
    are congenial to oneself — or to those to whom one is preaching?
    Let us take as careful a look at the Kalama Sutta as the limited
    space allotted to this essay will allow, remembering that in order
    to understand the Buddha’s utterances correctly it is essential to
    take account of his own intentions in making them.

    The passage that has been cited so often runs as follows: “Come,
    Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated
    hearing, nor upon tradition, nor upon rumor, nor upon scripture,
    nor upon surmise, nor upon axiom, nor upon specious reasoning, nor
    upon bias towards a notion pondered over, nor upon another’s
    seeming ability, nor upon the consideration ‘The monk is our
    teacher.’ When you yourselves know: ‘These things are bad,
    blamable, censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these
    things lead to harm and ill,’ abandon them… When you yourselves
    know: ‘These things are good, blameless, praised by the wise;
    undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and
    happiness,’ enter on and abide in them.”

    Now this passage, like everything else spoken by the Buddha, has
    been stated in a specific context — with a particular audience
    and situation in view — and thus must be understood in relation
    to that context. The Kalamas, citizens of the town of Kesaputta,
    had been visited by religious teachers of divergent views, each of
    whom would propound his own doctrines and tear down the doctrines
    of his predecessors. This left the Kalamas perplexed, and thus
    when “the recluse Gotama,” reputed to be an Awakened One, arrived
    in their township, they approached him in the hope that he might
    be able to dispel their confusion. From the subsequent development
    of the sutta, it is clear that the issues that perplexed them were
    the reality of rebirth and kammic retribution for good and evil

    The Buddha begins by assuring the Kalamas that under such
    circumstances it is proper for them to doubt, an assurance which
    encourages free inquiry. He next speaks the passage quoted above,
    advising the Kalamas to abandon those things they know for
    themselves to be bad and to undertake those things they know for
    themselves to be good. This advice can be dangerous if given to
    those whose ethical sense is undeveloped, and we can thus assume
    that the Buddha regarded the Kalamas as people of refined moral
    sensitivity. In any case he did not leave them wholly to their own
    resources, but by questioning them led them to see that greed,
    hate and delusion, being conducive to harm and suffering for
    oneself and others, are to be abandoned, and their opposites,
    being beneficial to all, are to be developed.

    The Buddha next explains that a “noble disciple, devoid of
    covetousness and ill will, undeluded” dwells pervading the world
    with boundless loving-kindness, compassion, appreciative joy and
    equanimity. Thus purified of hate and malice, he enjoys here and
    now four “solaces”: If there is an afterlife and kammic result,
    then he will undergo a pleasant rebirth, while if there is none he
    still lives happily here and now; if evil results befall an
    evil-doer, then no evil will befall him, and if evil results do
    not befall an evil-doer, then he is purified anyway. With this the
    Kalamas express their appreciation of the Buddha’s discourse and
    go for refuge to the Triple Gem.

    Now does the Kalama Sutta suggest, as is often held, that a
    follower of the Buddhist path can dispense with all faith and
    doctrine, that he should make his own personal experience the
    criterion for judging the Buddha’s utterances and for rejecting
    what cannot be squared with it? It is true the Buddha does not ask
    the Kalamas to accept anything he says out of confidence in
    himself, but let us note one important point: the Kalamas, at the
    start of the discourse, were not the Buddha’s disciples. They
    approached him merely as a counselor who might help dispel their
    doubts, but they did not come to him as the Tathagata, the
    Truth-finder, who might show them the way to spiritual progress
    and to final liberation.

    Thus, because the Kalamas had not yet come to accept the Buddha in
    terms of his unique mission, as the discloser of the liberating
    truth, it would not have been in place for him to expound to them
    the Dhamma unique to his own Dispensation: such teachings as the
    Four Noble Truths, the three characteristics, and the methods of
    contemplation based upon them. These teachings are specifically
    intended for those who have accepted the Buddha as their guide to
    deliverance, and in the suttas he expounds them only to those who
    “have gained faith in the Tathagata” and who possess the
    perspective necessary to grasp them and apply them. The Kalamas,
    however, at the start of the discourse are not yet fertile soil
    for him to sow the seeds of his liberating message. Still confused
    by the conflicting claims to which they have been exposed, they
    are not yet clear even about the groundwork of morality.

    Nevertheless, after advising the Kalamas not to rely upon
    established tradition, abstract reasoning, and charismatic gurus,
    the Buddha proposes to them a teaching that is immediately
    verifiable and capable of laying a firm foundation for a life of
    moral discipline and mental purification . He shows that whether
    or not there be another life after death, a life of moral
    restraint and of love and compassion for all beings brings its own
    intrinsic rewards here and now, a happiness and sense of inward
    security far superior to the fragile pleasures that can be won by
    violating moral principles and indulging the mind’s desires. For
    those who are not concerned to look further, who are not prepared
    to adopt any convictions about a future life and worlds beyond the
    present one, such a teaching will ensure their present welfare and
    their safe passage to a pleasant rebirth — provided they do not
    fall into the wrong view of denying an afterlife and kammic

    However, for those whose vision is capable of widening to
    encompass the broader horizons of our existence. this teaching
    given to the Kalamas points beyond its immediate implications to
    the very core of the Dhamma. For the three states brought forth
    for examination by the Buddha — greed, hate and delusion — are
    not merely grounds of wrong conduct or moral stains upon the mind.
    Within his teaching’s own framework they are the root defilements
    — the primary causes of all bondage and suffering — and the
    entire practice of the Dhamma can be viewed as the task of
    eradicating these evil roots by developing to perfection their
    antidotes — dispassion, kindness and wisdom.

    Thus the discourse to the Kalamas offers an acid test for gaining
    confidence in the Dhamma as a viable doctrine of deliverance. We
    begin with an immediately verifiable teaching whose validity can
    be attested by anyone with the moral integrity to follow it
    through to its conclusions, namely, that the defilements cause
    harm and suffering both personal and social, that their removal
    brings peace and happiness, and that the practices taught by the
    Buddha are effective means for achieving their removal. By putting
    this teaching to a personal test, with only a provisional trust in
    the Buddha as one’s collateral, one eventually arrives at a
    firmer, experientially grounded confidence in the liberating and
    purifying power of the Dhamma. This increased confidence in the
    teaching brings along a deepened faith in the Buddha as teacher,
    and thus disposes one to accept on trust those principles he
    enunciates that are relevant to the quest for awakening, even when
    they lie beyond one’s own capacity for verification. This, in
    fact, marks the acquisition of right view, in its preliminary role
    as the forerunner of the entire Noble Eightfold Path.

    Partly in reaction to dogmatic religion, partly in subservience to
    the reigning paradigm of objective scientific knowledge, it has
    become fashionable to hold, by appeal to the Kalama Sutta, that
    the Buddha’s teaching dispenses with faith and formulated doctrine
    and asks us to accept only what we can personally verify. This
    interpretation of the sutta, however, forgets that the advice the
    Buddha gave the Kalamas was contingent upon the understanding that
    they were not yet prepared to place faith in him and his doctrine;
    it also forgets that the sutta omits, for that very reason, all
    mention of right view and of the entire perspective that opens up
    when right view is acquired. It offers instead the most reasonable
    counsel on wholesome living possible when the issue of ultimate
    beliefs has been put into brackets.

    What can be justly maintained is that those aspects of the
    Buddha’s teaching that come within the purview of our ordinary
    experience can be personally confirmed within experience, and that
    this confirmation provides a sound basis for placing faith in
    those aspects of the teaching that necessarily transcend ordinary
    experience. Faith in the Buddha’s teaching is never regarded as an
    end in itself nor as a sufficient guarantee of liberation, but
    only as the starting point for an evolving process of inner
    transformation that comes to fulfillment in personal insight. But
    in order for this insight to exercise a truly liberative function,
    it must unfold in the context of an accurate grasp of the
    essential truths concerning our situation in the world and the
    domain where deliverance is to be sought. These truths have been
    imparted to us by the Buddha out of his own profound comprehension
    of the human condition. To accept them in trust after careful
    consideration is to set foot on a journey which transforms faith
    into wisdom, confidence into certainty, and culminates in
    liberation from suffering.

    Revised: Tue 28 January 1997 , Access-to-Insight

  10. Susantha Wijesinghe Says:





  11. Nalliah Thayabharan Says:

    Our negative attitude towards people is fueled by us noticing negative things about them which in turn reinforces our negative views of them. In many ways our view of others becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we are not looking for the positives in others we WON”T notice them.
    We can NOT live a positive life with negative thoughts !!
    Our words should build up people not beat up people!!
    Humiliating someone is not an indication of strength – It is a reflection of weakness !!!
    තෙරුවන් සරණයි !!!

  12. Lorenzo Says:


    “Humiliating someone is not an indication of strength – It is a reflection of weakness”

    EXACTLY! This applies to Tamils who humiliate the MAHAVAMSA including JL Devananda.
    It is a reflection of their weakness – ABSENCE of ANY Tamil history in SL!!
    Those who don’t have a country of their own are jealous of those who have.

    (Very FEW Tamils accept SL to be a Sinhala Buddhist Unitary country where everyone else also can live in equal individual rights as long as they don’t challenge this. They are happy as it is and they don’t dispute the Mahavamsa.)

  13. Nanda Says:

    By copying and pasting from a Kotiya and approving the Boru of Kotiya as the truth, you have humilated not only the Mahavamsa but also the whole Sinhala Nation and expect someone to build you up.

    By misquoting Kalama Sutta you even tried to humilate Buddha Dahamma, knowingly or not knowingly.
    I have given the opportunity to build yourself up.

    Read, understand and amend.

  14. Nalliah Thayabharan Says:

    If others try to humiliate us, we should use the opportunity to see if there is any truth in their accusations and rectify our shortcomings. If there is no truth in their accusations, then we should not be upset by them.

    BTW This is what JL Devananda wrote:

  15. Nalliah Thayabharan Says:

    The Genographic Project confirms humans migrated out of Africa through Middle East. After they left East Africa about 70,000 years ago Veddahs were the first to arrive in Sri Lanka via South India. Also ALL the other inhabitants in Sri Lanka originally came from East Africa as Homo Sapiens, through Middle East. On the way they picked up many religions, ethnicity and beliefs which were promoted by those in power or in collision with those in power.
    Gene diversity and original location of the genes.
    Mediterranean 4%
    Northern European; 2%
    Southwest Asian 58%
    Southeast Asian 35%
    DNA analysis of the “Sinhalese”shows that they are not much different genetically from the Tamils of South India and Sri Lanka.

    Did Buddhism take a “direct flight” to Matara bypassing South India? The Chinese traveler, Tsuan Tsang, wrote that there were around 300 Sri Lankan monks in the monastery at the Southern sector of Kanchipuram.

    Kandy kings received military support from the Nayaks of Madurai and the Tanjore Nayak dynasty to fight off the Portuguese. In the 17th and 18th centuries, marital alliances between Kandyan kings and Nayak princesses were a matter of policy. When Kandyan king, Narendra Sinha, died without an offspring, the brother of his Madurai Nayak queen succeeded the throne in 1739 under the coronated name of Sri Vijaya Raja Sinha. Nayak kings continued to marry with their Tanjore and Madurai counterparts. Nayak kings were originally Hindus but they later converted to Buddhism and were responsible for renaissance of Buddhist culture in Sri Lanka.

  16. Nalliah Thayabharan Says:

    Can Sri Lankans Think?

  17. aloy Says:

    The referenced article:…/wiki/Sinhalese_people have been written by a Colombian. To him and some others the mistake has ben made by SWRD. I do not think so. Because of what he did, free education and University admissions were made available to Sinhala hinterland ( and that includes me) and today you find a large number of uni educated people from those areas employed in government institutions, private sector and working all over the world. When compared to other countries we have done very well and that brings a lot of foreign exchange and also generate lot of revenue to the government. Look at our industries, they are doing very well although many hurdles are being placed on their way by way of increased electricity tariffs, power cuts, beaurocratic red tape etc. You may not find many of them contributing to these columns as their language skills may not be great unlike those commenting on CT.
    We would have been already on the way to become a developed country if DS or SWRD continued for some more time and also Tamils did not dragged us down.
    However, I do not think we will get anywhere without the present GOSL maintaining law and order. The law should apply equally to everybody right down from PM.

  18. Nanda Says:

    “Because of what he did, free education and University admissions were made available to Sinhala hinterland ( and that includes me) and today you find a large number of uni educated people from those areas employed in government institutions, private sector and working all over the world.”

    This truth is hard to swallow to Tamils. Without SWRD Colombians and Tamils would be making merry and some of current professors in the USA would have been their servants and drivers.

    This is what the Tamils hate most. That hate generates their hate towards Sinhalas and Buddhism and specially Sinhala connection to Buddhism.

  19. aloy Says:

    Sorry, correction: “(that includes my own area)”

  20. Nanda Says:

    Even the king Devanampiyatissa was given a “test” by Ven Mahinda before he was given the Dhamma.

    That test was to see whether he could always remember “his own” position.

    I am sure South Endians could not pass that test because of their inherited weakness of not seeing one’s own faults.
    No wonder Buddhism came direct to Sri Lanka bypassing the South Endia.

  21. Nalliah Thayabharan Says:

    According to Uggatitannu Sutta there are four kinds of people in the world who have different understanding levels;
    Uggatitannu – genius – can understand the dhamma by just mere hearing. He has sharp faculties and his intellectual capacity is very high.
    Vipatitannu – gifted – has good mental faculties but needs more explanation to realize the Dhamma
    Neyya – average – needs detailed explanations and constant practice. But can realize the Dhamma with the help of spiritual masters and friends
    Padaparama – below average – has difficulties in understanding things. It is very hard to realize the Dhamma in this very life.

    Siddhārtha Gautama Buddha has shown us the different personalities depend on how they learn or study.
    · People who do not pay their attention to the lessons and do not retain knowledge with them
    · People who pay attention to the lessons but they do not retain knowledge with them
    · People who pay their attention to the lessons and retain the knowledge with them
    According to some suttas, there are different people according to the way how they react towards anger.
    · People who constantly get angry and their anger last long
    · People who constantly get angry and their anger does not last
    · People who do not get angry even in harsh environments
    According to commentarial tradition, there are six types of personalities can be found.
    Raga carita – lustful character
    Dosa carita – hateful character
    Moha carita – deluded character
    Sadda carita – faithful character
    Buddhi carita – ruminative character
    Vitakka carita – wise character
    So let’s decide who we are. Let’s practice and extend compassion to oneself and others.
    The Siddhārtha Gautama Buddha said that his Dhamma would only be understood by ‘Those with little dust in their eyes’. Only deep investigation into the truth, will set our feet on the road to enlightenment.

    Some believe that Siddhārtha Gautama Buddha himself told the Theravada Jatakas which is about his previous lives as a Bodhisattva. With all respect to these people’s believe, it is very tough to believe that Siddhārtha Gautama Buddha would have told these Theravada Jatakas as true stories. Take a closer look at the Theravada Jatakas. In Nandivisala Jataka, the Bodhisattva was an intelligent talking bull that could pull hundred carts. The Mirga Jataka talks about the Bodhisattva as a deer that saved a drowning merchant and later preached the Dhamma to the King who was hunting. In Sivi Jataka, the Bodhisattva as King Sivi redeemed a pigeon by giving his own flesh. Another Jataka story is the Kusa Fathakaya, where the Bodhisattva was born as Kusa, and married a beautiful princess Pabawathie. Sakra the King of Gods came unnoticed by any one while Pabawathie was asleep and rubbed her navel with his toe. This caused her to conceive like Virgin Mary

    Buddhism in Sri Lanka goes back much deeper into history than what is stated in the Mahavamsa. Admitting that the Mahavamsa is flawed only increases the rich Buddhist history of Sri Lanka. But some narrow minded people cannot see thru the mist and they are very busy attacking and insulting the messenger.

  22. Nanda Says:

    Yes. When the messenger comes with a hidden agenda !

  23. Nanda Says:

    ‘Those with little dust in their eyes’ will pursue Dhamma, it is a different path. Not a path shown in Wikiipedia. Not a path shown clearly in the WWW.

    Others will help them by creating the necessary atmosphere by getting rid of the pests.
    There is no necessity to cry over Mahavamsa or the Jataka tales to find its faults when there are horrible crimes happening in front of your eyes. Let Mahavamsa be there and take every benefit from it to re-establish the LOST Sinhala Buddhist culture and get rid of the Tamil terrorist. Do not go and give DANA to terrorists in various forms.

  24. Nanda Says:

    Raga carita – lustful character
    Dosa carita – hateful character
    Moha carita – deluded character
    Sadda carita – faithful character
    Buddhi carita – ruminative character
    Vitakka carita – wise character

    Decide who you are and practice a suitable meditation technique recommended by Gautama Buddha.
    Do not visit internet or Lanka Web. Do not waste time on the NET. Take 1 meal a day.
    Just let me know where you are and I will arrange Dana and other requisites for you to attain Nibbana quickly.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.



Copyright © 2023 All Rights Reserved. Powered by Wordpress