When asked by Ananda why he (Buddha) smiled, he answered:

l,Xn yonder spot, Ananda, X once dwelt, deep in

ascetic meditation, . in the time of king Makhadeva#u Xixen at his request * • • 1

Xn comparison with this short passage, Atthadassi*s translation seems to be an independent one in which the author has expanded what is contained in the original by adding certain amount of* material of* his own# Ananda * s x’everential attitude towards the Buddha, as narrated in the translation, and the phrases ascribed to Ananda, bear testimony to the skill of the translator* Atthadassi appears to have employed more than one device in order to expand ideas drawn from the original version, by way of*

giving his composition a new look* As in the above passage, he adds epithets, explanatory phrases and con­

versations between characters, and occasionally some descriptions which can be regarded as pieces of his own cx’cative writing# The following passage is a good

specimen of such a, description:

* ekala sanda ha samaga ena divyarathaya daka ada davas pera nudutu viru sanda dedenek enneya yi kiya nangu piyavara perala bima obagata noh£ samaharu sita balannahu ya* samaharu kata dalva sitiyaraa axidi ru se niscala va balatd. * samaharu nagagat susma helagata no hi bala sitinahu ya# samaharu'divyarathayata kara netra pujavak men aspiya no solva sititi#1

132

F r o m wliat we have discussed, it is clear that A t t h a d a s s i !s intention was to make a descriptive t r a n s ­ l a t i o n and at the same time to make it into an independent c ompo s it ion *

Authors of the Sasadavata and the Muvadevdavata_■ I B M W M I. I H I I W I I1 ■ I H i! M I . . U — ■■■■■»■ *1 - - ^ „ , , , ,, - , ,

We have seen elsewhere in this discussion the great att e n t i o n paid by writers to the Jatakas during the Folon- n a r u period. Some scholars wrote accessory works in

Sinhalese for those who studied the Pali Jatakas, while others concentrated on prose and poetry draw i n g their subject matt e r from the Jatakatthakatha, bo t h for the learned and the.less learned* A m o n g Sinhalese classical poems the Sasadavata and the Mnvadevdavata are the earliest surviving examj)les. Th e y were much influenced by the

Sanskrit ornate poems * The S a s a d a v a t a , based on the Sasajataka of the Jatakatthakatha, was composed by a n anonyinoxis poet w ho lived in the latter part of the Polon- n a r u period* The date of the w o r k must fall during the

first period of the re i g n of Q u e e n h i lavati (1197-1200) who came to the throne by the support of general Kitti.

The Q u e e n and her Prime Minister who extended their magnanimoxis patx'onage towards the poets are described w i t h gx*eat respect in the preliminary verses of the S a s a d a v a t a . The w o r k pxirpox'ts to be a devotional poem of 293 verses in praise of the virtues of the Buddha.

134

Its m a i n theme is to praise the asp i r a t i o n for charity of the Bodhisatva, w h i c h is included in the past story of the Sasajataka, yet the author has also made an elaborated description of the various virtues of the Buddha in the course of delineating the present story* learned circles* Some verses from the Muvadevdavata are found quoted in. later works like the Blusanda si akuna

Dam b a d e n i period. A n ancient Sinhalese verbal paraphrase

The first displays his great erudition and poetical skill w h i l e the second m a i n l y shows his unparalleled skill in

138

Vidyacakravarti, the author of the Butsarana, also called the A m r t a v a h a , is regarded as a contemporary of, -r-.-jii— rt.j-u. i-i ""

Gurulugomi or not far removed from his date. To h i m are 2

*

atti'ibuted the authorship of two other w o r k s of the same category as the Butsarana, called the Dahamsarana and the Saiigasarana*; Godakumbura is. of the opinion that this

a uthor is identical w i t h Parakrama Pandita, the author of

• •

the Sitnhala Thupavamsaya who bears the title of

fsakala-£ ‘ 1

y i d y a - c a k r a v a r t i . * B\it the authox’ship of the last three works is still in conjecture* Many scholars profex* to differentiate the author of the Butsarana from those of the other works, for its peculiarities in language and style', and for the artistic talent it displays in contrast

of Vid y a c a k r a v a r t i but mentions a certain-scholar called

— 1 — —

A g a m a c a k r a v a r t i . ‘ Vidyacakravart 1 and Agamaca k r a v a r t i are generally believed to have been one and the same person*

A p erspective on authors and their v/orlcs f

Before concluding this discussion, it is necessary to summarize what we have covered in this chapter. It is evident from our discussion that the Pali authors played a prominent role in the religious and literary fields, and

seem to have invaded almost all learned faculties in Ceylon during the pex'iod. Since Pali was considered a common

language , m e d i u m for international communication a mong T h e r a v a d x monies in Ceylon, India and South-east As i a n

countries, Pali studies at that time received m u c h a t t e n t i o n in learned circles. It seems to have been

given priority in evexy institution of clerical education.

Many scholars at the time, even though their mother tongue was Sinhalese, tried to enrich Pali literature w i t h various

interesting works. While some of them attempted to compose creative works, others were engaged in translating Si n h a ­ lese works into Pali and w r i t i n g exegetical works and works on poetics. As a result, a large number of works

including creative writings', grammatical works, commen­

taries, works on poetics, prosody and lexicography were produced in Pali during this period*

1• Nikaya s a n g r a h a y a , p v 2 1 .

138

Tlie Ceylonese Pali authors who were w e l l versed in Sanskrit appear to have used their knowledge of* Sanskrit for t he purpose of improving Pali* T h e y gave a n ew look to the Pali by adding a considerable number of J o a n words from Sanskrit, and poetical terms and usages which were shared in common w i t h Sanskrit poetry* T h o u g h Sanskrit studies too were practised widely a mong scholars in Ceylon by this time, the wo r k s in Sanskrit produced by them were only a few in number* T h e y do not show any excellence

other t h a n devotional and exegetical merits* A m o n g Sanskrit writers the a^^thors of the Anuruddhasataka* Namastasataka•Mr- rr-Tt - — ... ... * n n * ~ - -t

and the Buddhagadya who are believed to have lived in the P o l o m i a r u period deserve special mention, for their1

contribution to the devotional literature* As is evident from these works the authors seem to be greatly influenced by their coLinterparts in India* 2 Like the Indian devotee poets who were affected by the concept of bhakti and wrote ma n y volumes of devotional works in px’aise of the deities

of the H i n d u pantheon, these authors aiopear to have released their fervent devotion towards the Buddha through the form of the sataka * T h e i r works can be introduced as one phase of the influence of the Hindii bhakti cult * Anot h e r phase of it becomes clear from Pali works like the Pa .j j amadhu,

ft- ■ 1 ■ - Xl r. »- » .r --- - * - r ^ I ! IT — ! ---- -| nr .... ■ mr* " n ri,»m m i * i n r---- n~ ; i n i. .!■ i. t _ _ ■ ~ ■

1* Pannasara, op*cit *, pp«15^# 166, 171*

2* Pannasara sees some relationship betw e e n the Buddhagadya and the - Gitagovinda of Jayadeva. See Saaaskrit Lit era - ture, p* I 72 *

Samantakutavannana, Has avail ini and Jinalankara of which

— '— s— r*— — * ---- ----r™— — -- sr--- - .

authors had close relations , direct or indirect , with

Indian writers, or at least had an acquaintance with Indian bhakti literature, Buddhappiya, the author of the Rajja~

madhu, was certainly a.native of South India, .Vedeha, the author of the Samantakutavannana and the Rasavahini, was a co-pupil of Buddhapopiya, the teacher of both of whom was Ananda, a dignitary well known in Ceylon as well as

in the Cola country. Some relationship between Buddha~

rakkhita, the author of the Jinalankara, and his counter­

parts in India is evident from the introductory stanzas of the work. 1 Do these works in Pali and Sanskrit reveal collectively some traces of the Indian bhakti concept that migrated to Ceylon from India and did they pave the way to a new. type of devotional work in Sinhalese like the

Sasadavata and BLitsarana ? It appears that they share some common features of Indian devotional literature.

Since these traits will be described iri their right place none of them requires detailed mention here. No author nor work can be singled out as a pioneer in these devotional

traits to Ceylon. But it is reasonable to conclude that Ceylonese authors of devotional literature, like their counterparts in India, were stirx,ed simultaneously by the waves of the Indian bhakti movements which influenced extensively most countries of South and Souith6east Asia dtiring this period.

1. J inalankara» p. 31 ? v*2 7 6.

K O

Of the scholars we have mentioned above, more than one-third were primarily Pali authors; in other words, they were Buddhist monks of the Theravada school whose main intention was to improve Buddhist learning as

found in the Pali scriptures by teaching, preaching and making new contx'ibutions to it. Most of them, however, were Ceylonese by birth and so were also sup£>orters of

Sinhalese literature* Their contributions to Sinhalese literature, though chiefly exegetical in character, were undoubtedly of great value fox'* the development of literary activities in Sinhalese* They facilitated the understand­

ing of what was contained in the original works and, at the same time, contributed a considerable vocabulary and various sentence patterns to the Sinhalese language* The

service rendered by those exegeses to the progress of Sinhalese literature by bx^inging the language to a higher standard and making it an adequate medium for the creation of a literature is great. As we lenow, the language of any nation is a most powerful and essential Instrument which

enables its users to express their cognitive and emotional views and ideas through the literary medium* Bxegetical works thereforeV as a vital part of language study, cannot be excluded from literary studies* Accordingly, those who produced any kind of exegesis in Sinhalese are worthy of mention as supporters of that literature* But the curious

thing here is why they are not specially credited with

For undertaking such a. task* Fo r instance, Vedeha, the author of the Samantakutavannana and the kasavahini, who

■ '' *■ *-■* ■" '11 ■ ■ ■■ ■. ■ ■ 1 ■

also was reputed to have written the Sadalaktmu', a grammar in Sinhalese, was certainly a m a n of great poetical skill and creative ability* Thex’e must have b e e n a considerable number of such poets in Buddhist institutions. Why, then, did they not leave behind any poetical w o r k in Sinhalese?

Wa s there any restriction oxx monies w h i c h prevented them from composing poems in the language of natives, as in the Danibadeni period? Or were theiyt productions lost in the course of time? Those questions seem,to be difficult to answer satisfactorily from our sources.

As we have seen in the first chapter, no restriction was imposed on the Sangha so as to prevent them from study­

ing certain subjects during this period* Monies appear to have b e e n permitted to study any subject relevant to

intellectual pursuits, including poetry and drama w h i c h

y - 1

were forbxdden for them later xn the D a m b a d e n i Katikavata.

' ~rr™JLT~ 'J Otherwise, ho w did they write those poems and works on poetics in Pali mentioned above? Were they permitted to compose poems only in Pali? Or as suggested by M a r t i n Wickramasingha, did the e n c o m n g e m e n t w h i c h the Sinhalese

poets received from the Mahayanists no longer exist after

142

the establishment of the srtpremacy of one nikaya in the

_ T

Island during the reign of Parakramabalm the Great?

It is not justifiable to suppose that the Buddhist church

forbidden by the Dambadeni Katikavata * Xt is an

untnistak-— ? " '

in poetical activities widely until the proclamation of the Dambadeni Katikavata is indicated by the evidence_{— — **v__ -T I, .1. . r}

that could be gained from the works of B u d d h a p p i y a , Vedeha, I V M a rtin ¥ i c k k r a m a s i n g h a , Simhala-sahityaye Nagima

(Colombo,19^5)9 p* 70.

authors the first three probably belonged to the early years of P a r a k r amabalm I, while the others belonged to the last part of the Polonnaru period# It is probable that most learned monks were preoccupied w i t h literary a c t i v i ­ ties in Pali, their favourite subject. Yet there appears to be no reason to conclude that they neglected literary pursuits in Sinhalese, their mother tongue* Perhaps their poetical works in Sinhalese were lost in the cotn'se of time or perished at the hands of opponents, internal and ex t e r ­ nal V O n the other hand, even today we are,not sure who the authors of the Sasadavata and the Muvadevdavata were * As

is evident from our sources there seem to have existed a considerable munbex* of poetical works w h i c h have left

behind.nothing more t h a n a few verses or some fragments of v e r s e s *

ii

The Blusanda s l a k u n a , a w o r k on prosody in Sinhalese ascribed to the Dambadeni period, furnishes us w i t h some evidence to a number of poetical compositions in

Sinha-1 i/ —

lese. The Sidat sangarava of Patira ja-pkruvana w h i c h is also ascribed to the same period provides some indications of the pi'evalence of other poetical works in Sinhalese*•2 Xt is of note that the Blusandaslakuna is the w o r k of a Buddhist m o n k called Bhadra of w h o m we know noth i n g else*

1. B l u s a n d a s l a k u n a , pp* 2-4, 8-20.

■*

2. T he examples given for the metre * Minimal* seem to be