This inscription is engraved on a fragment of an irregularly shaped octagonal stone slab, which appears from its shape to have originally formed a cross-bar of a railing. The fragment is now in the collection of the National Museum at Colombo. It was unearthed in 1893 by H. C. P. Bell in one of the buildings of the group called monastery L in the extensive monastic complex at Jetavanārāma in Anurādhapura. One end of the slab has broken off and is missing. As a result, the inscription is incomplete. The record can be dated on palaeographic grounds to the third or fourth century A.D. The first line tells us that it is an edict issued in the first year of a king’s reign but, unfortunately, the monarch’s name was inscribed on the lost portion of the slab. The fragmentary nature of the record prevents us from gaining a complete idea of the edict’s purpose but it seems to have been designed to regulate the ecclesiastical affairs of the ancient Sinhalese Buddhist Church. It addresses certain monks whose doctrines are described as needing regulation. These monks were apparently the inmates of some establishments known as the ‘Five Great Residences’. It appears that the king who issued this edict did so under outside influence, the inscription being engraved on a type of stone and using a form of script which were native to the Āndhra country and which are not typically found Sri Lanka. Senarath Paranavitana conjectured that the inscription may relate to the struggle between the monks of the Mahāvihāra and king Mahāsena (r. ca. 334–361), which is described in the chronicles. Paranavitana cited numerous pieces of evidence to support this theory (see Misc. Notes below) but, owing to the fragmentary nature of the edict, no decisive conclusion is possible.
| Metadata | |
|---|---|
| Inscription ID | IN03209 |
| Title | Jetavanārāma Fragmentary Stone Inscription |
| Alternative titles | |
| Parent Object | OB03167 |
| Related Inscriptions | |
| Responsibility | |
| Author | Senarath Paranavitana |
| Print edition recorded by | |
| Source encoded | |
| Digitally edited by | |
| Edition improved by | |
| Authority for | |
| Metadata recorded by | |
| Authority for metadata | |
| Metadata improved by | |
| Authoriy for improved | |
| Language | සිංහල |
| Reigning monarch | |
| Commissioner | |
| Topic | addresses certain monks – apparently inmates of the ‘Five Great Residences’ – whose doctrines are described as needing regulation |
| Date: | |
| Min | 200 |
| Max | 400 |
| Comment | The record can be dated on palaeographic grounds to the third or fourth century A.D. The first line tells us that the inscription is an edict issued in the first year of a king’s reign but, unfortunately, the monarch’s name is not preserved. Senarath Paranavitana conjectured that the inscription may relate to the struggle between the monks of the Mahāvihāra and king Mahāsena (r. ca. 334–361), which is described in the chronicles. |
| Hand | |
| Letter size | 2.54 cm |
| Description | The height of the letters ranges from ⅞ to 1 in. (2.2225 to 2.54 cm). Southern Brāhmī script, datable on palaeographic grounds to the third or fourth century A.D. but differs considerably from other Sinhalese inscriptions of that period, having some similarities with contemporary records from the Āndhra country. |
| Layout | |
| Campus: | |
| Width | 10.16 |
| Height | 59.055 |
| Description | 14 lines boldly engraved on a fragment of an irregularly shaped octagonal stone slab, which appears from its shape to have originally formed a cross-bar of a railing. The fracture at one end of the fragment is irregular and cuts the lines of the inscriptions at different points; hence the surviving portions of the lines are of unequal length. The stone has been inscribed on seven of its eight facets, with two lines on each face. The writing on five of the facets remains in a good state of preservation but the rest of the inscription has been much damaged, apparently as a result of a deliberate attempt at defacement. |
| Decoration | |
| Bibliography | |
| References | The discovery of the inscription was reported in the Archaeological Survey of Ceylon Annual Report for 1893 (p. 3). Robert Sewell published Don Martino de Zilva Wickremasinghe’s reading of the first eight lines in The Indian Antiquary 35: 295–299. Senarath Paranavitana produced a new edition and translation of the inscription, differing considerably from Wickremasinghe’s text, in Epigraphia Zeylanica 4 (1934–41) 273–285, no. 36. Also included in Paranavitana (2001): 189. |
| Add to bibliography | |
| Misc notes | Senarath Paranavitana conjectured that the inscription may relate to the struggle between the monks of the Mahāvihāra and king Mahāsena (r. ca. 334–361). As the chronicles relate, Mahāsena was convinced by his former tutor, a monk called Saṁghamitta from Kāvērīpaṭṭana in South India, that the monks of the Mahāvihāra were not only sinful in their conduct but also did not follow the true doctrine of the Buddha, which he believed was the Vetulya-vāda.
Paranavitana cited various pieces of evidence to support his theory of a connection between this period in Sri Lankan history and the present inscription. He noted firstly that, since Mahāsena’s attempt to regulate the beliefs of the Mahāvihāra monks was due to the influence of a religious teacher from South India, it might be expected that any edict issued on this occasion might show this foreign influence, as the present inscription does in both the style of the script and the origin of the stone. Secondly, according to the chronicles, Mahāsena’s conflict with the Mahāvihāra began very soon after his accession; this too accords with the present inscription, which was dated in the first year of the king who issued it. Thirdly, the Nikāyasaṁgraha says that Mahāsena assembled for questioning monks from the ‘Five Great Residences’, a phrase which also appears in the present inscription. Fourthly, the fifth line of the inscription features the name Vayatuḍala, which could well be a variant name for the Vetulya-vāda, the doctrine favoured by Mahāsena and his teacher. Lastly, Paranavitana noted that the inscribed stone came to light in the precincts of the Jetavana Vihāra, which was established by Mahāsena; the foundation of this monastery did not occur in the first year of the king’s reign, when the inscription is dated, but Paranavitana suggests that the edict could have been set up elsewhere initially, before being transferred to the king’s new foundation at a later date.
These pieces of evidence make for a compelling argument but, owing to the fragmentary nature of the edict, no decisive conclusion is possible. |