Varigapurnikava has not been published
in its entirety or what is remaining of it, but only some extracts of it by
Ven. Manewe Vimalarathana Thero. Also when I mentioned that Varigapurnikava
believed in Abhidhamma what was intended to say was that Varigapurnikava
believes that Abhidhamma was taught by Budunvahanse, as there are some schools
of thought such as Sauthranthikas that do not believe in Abhidhamma as one of
the pitakas (baskets). What is interesting is that according to Varigapurnikava
Abhidhamma had been first (and probably last time as well, if considered as a
Pitaka) taught to Arhant Rathnavali Therin in Sri Lanka. I do not want to go
into details regarding Arhant Rathnavali Therin but according to Varigapurnikava she had been the
mother of Mahapali apparently identified as Kuveni by the Mahavamsa, and
Ruvanveliseya had been named after her. Interested readers may refer to the two
books published by Ven. Vimalarathana Thero based on Varigapurnikava. However,
Varigapurnikava does not mention how much of the Abhidhamma Pitaka as known at
present was taught to Arhant Rathnavali Therin, but it could be another Sutta
by Budunvahanse, later developed into a Pitaka on its own right by some Bhikkus,
who were probably students of Arhant Sariyuth Thero. It should be mentioned
that some Suttas contain briefly what is included in the Abhidhamma Pitaka and
this whole narrative on Abhidhamma needs a careful study.
In any event what is clear is that as
far as Buddha Sasana is concerned there are at least two narratives one given
by Mahavamsa and the other as stated in Varigapurnikava. As mentioned in the
last installment, Varigapurnikava gives the Hela Buddhism and Mahavamsa depicts
the Sinhala Buddhism with Sinhala Buddhism taking the upper hand after King
Mahasen. It is interesting to note that after Mahasen, Abhayagiriya or
Jethavanaya had not enjoyed much Royal patronage.
When Physics is not objective, one
cannot expect History to be objective, and what is clear is that Mahavamsa
records the history of the winners. It appears that Hela Buddhism had been non
violent, and though some Yakshas (Yagu Kauranas according to Varigapurnikava) did
not become Buddhists, there was no hostility by them against Bududahama unlike
in Bharat. It is also clear that in a
hostile surrounding a strictly non violent culture cannot survive, and Ashokan
Buddhism could not afford to be hundred percent non violent. Whether we like or
not almost all cultures that have survived have been militant at least to some
extent, though they may have preached loving thy neighbour in their texts and
sermons. If one thinks that the English culture at present, forget its past since
Hastings days of 1066 or round about, is non militant then one is in a deep
slumber.
The English culture has trapped us
militantly not only through weapons but through knowledge as well. The
professional jealousies that make the western medical practitioners taking up
“arms” against nurses being given a training in midwifery, the allied health
service students in the universities getting a four year training, the Sinhala
“praramparika” physicians being supplied with facilities to cure the Kidney
patients, are only a few examples in compartmentalizing knowledge and some
people being issued with ‘certificates” to engage in certain work. I wonder had
the “sisters” continued to work as nurses and had they wanted a training in
midwifery, whether the western “doctors” would have objected to it. This is
finally a question of power where what has to be decided is who carries out the
work as dictated by the western powers. This is not confined to western medicine but
western engineering, teaching including university teaching etc., are also
poisoned with compartmentalization of knowledge. The so called professionals
and not the politicians are powerful in many areas and very often the ministers
become helpless though the public knows only to blame the politicians.
The educated Sinhala Buddhists who are
products of western education are conditioned to think that Sinhala Buddhists
are non militant pious people who should be confined to live according to the
teachings of Budunvahanse. The Bhikkus according to these educated Buddhists
should follow the “Vinaya Pitaka” strictly and should not engage in politics.
Some so called scholars would teach Bududahama to the Sinhala Buddhists and
tell them that “war” is not for the Buddhists whether Sinhala or otherwise. In
effect the westerners and their henchmen and henchwomen want the Sinhala
Buddhists to be non militant.
As non militant cultures cannot survive
when almost all other cultures are
militant in one way or the other what these Samaritans who preach Sinhala
Buddhists is the extinction of Sinhala Buddhism. The Sinhala Buddhism had been
militant in the past, and it could be that their first victory was over the
Hela Buddhism around the fifth sixth centuries. It appears that Hela Buddhism
was not as militant as Sinhala Buddhism, and probably it was the cause of its
downfall. In any event when different sects of Hinayana had been wiped out from
the surface of the earth, the survival of Sinhala Buddhism in Sri Lanka for so
long could also be due to its militant nature introduced by the Sinhala
Buddhists of yesteryears.
If not for that militancy Sinhala
Buddhism would have been wiped out too, especially in the face of conquerors
from Chola and Kalinga. It cannot be said that the Bhikkus of Sinhala Buddhism
were the most pious people who lived on this earth, and the educated who want
to confine the Bhikkus to pansukula, pirith and dana want to see the downfall
of Sinhala Buddhism on the instructions they have got from the English very
often indirectly. Though I do not agree with Dhammvada and Kshanavada as they
stem from Athmavada, it has to be stated that the other reason for survival of
Sinhala Buddhism was the introduction of these two vadas or pravadas or theories as the educated even in
the third fourth fifth centuries would have wanted some kind of Athmavada to
project their images. However, Dhammavada and Kshanavada could not stand up to
the criticism by Ven. Nagarjunapada and in Andra Pradesh the other forte of
Theravada Buddhism in the fourth fifth centuries, and it was gradually driven
out.
In Sri Lanka Sinhala Buddhism (Theravada
Buddhism) survived due to militancy of Mahavira Bhikkus who eradicated any
challenges from Hela Buddhism or any other sect by translating the texts to
Pali and destroying the Hela Atuvas and other books on Hela Bududahama,
confining Bedudahama to Sinhala Bududahama. I am not particularly bothered by
this incident as if this step was not taken no form of Bududahama or Buddhist
culture would have survived in Sri Lanka. In Andra Pradesh and other areas in
ancient Bharat no form of Buddhism including Mahayana versions could survive
especially after the challenge of Sankaracharya in the sixth century. Sankaracharya
was able to turn Ven. Nagarjunapada upside down by turning Sunyathava to a
Nirgun Brahman through his Advaitha Vedantha. If the Mahvihara Bhikkus had not
taken the militant step of having a totalitarian attitude towards Bududahama,
and if the texts were not translated to Pali, various interpretations could
have been given to them as anybody who could understand Sinhala would have
tried to give his two cents (or kahavanu) worth opinion, and Sri Lanka could
have ended up as a Hindu country under the influence of Sankaracharya. (To be continued)
Nalin De Silva
07-05-2014
