The Sigiriya dispute

Sigiriya has so many disputes to offer. The foremost dispute is the purpose on which it is built. Scholars entertain diverse opinions on the purpose it is built. Some opine that King Kassapa built it as a military fortress to protect from his brother Mugalan. Some maintain it was a meditation monastery.

However as Dr Senarat Paranavithana categorically points out, artistic remains give the lie to the belief that the Sigiri was a military fortress. He explains that it was nothing but a resplendent fortress built for King Kassapa’s comforts.

“The palace on the summit of the rock, the gallery and the ornamental features on the hill-side, were of no use for purposes of defense, and it was not to protect himself from enemeies, as some modern writers aver, that Kasyapa built this unique residence and took up his abode there. As the Chulavansa categorically states, Sigiri was built as a replica of Alakamanda paradise on top of Mount Kailasa; and Kasyapa resided there as the embodiment of Kuvera on earth.” (Dr Paranavithana’s Sinhalayo)

He has been posthumously criticised for this view on Sigiri. Professors A Liyanagamage and Siri Gunasinghe provide a scholarly backing to Paranavithana’s concept. They maintain that evidence in Mahawamsa is not strong enough to convince the theory of Sigiri as a military fortress. As Gunasinghe mentions, Mugalan had been away in India for 18 years and posed no threat to him.

Nishantha Gunawardena a historian living in America exposes a Chinese record from 527 CE of a letter sent by Kassapa to the Chinese court which indicates that he kept good diplomatic contacts with outer world rather than being stuck down in a fortress. He also accepts the fact that the chronicles contain loopholes. He observes that the chapter 40 in the sequence of Kassapa’s legend is missing in Chulavamsa mysteriously. Some scholars believe that this chapter never existed.

Dr Paranavithana comes across another story in inscriptions about the two sons of Dhatusena, which maintains that Kassapa did not actually kill his father. The story explains how Kassapa fulfilled his father’s wishes by building a strong rock fortress. Prof Gunasinghe also supports the idea that Mahavamsa was wrong in labeling Kassapa as a patricide.

Scholars also entertain the theory that the frescoes have Ajantha influence. Prof Gunasinghe sees no convincing evidence to prove this theory, though he observes similarities between Ajantha and Sigiri frescoes. This theory sprang up because Ajantha frescoes were discovered and were already discussed when Sigiri frescoes came to the scene.

Scholars have different opinions about visitors and the scribes. Prof Paranavithana suggests most of them were just ordinary visitors whose writings portray the period they lived in. This period shows a high literacy rate in the then society.

Gunasinghe’s logic is that Kassapa should be understood to see Sigiri in a proper insights. Sigiriya is a work of genius, which is obviously human. Kassapa is not the man chronicles want us to think he is. Gunasinghe raises the point that Kassapa reigned the Anuradhapura kingdom while he had a passionate life at Sigiriya in his leisure.

Kassapa is introduced as a patricide in Mahawamsa. However Gunasinghe’s theory is that the Mahawamsa authors did it on purpose for two reasons: Kassapa’s mother is low-born and for that matter the Mahavihara clergy did not have a good attitude about him.

On the chronicle narration of Dhatusena’s torturing his own sister, Gunasinghe raises the question as to how a great ruler as disclosed in chronicles itself would have ever done any such thing. And the reasons the chronicles lay down are not material evidence for it says that Dhatusena did so because her son had whipped his wife, Dhatusena’s daughter.

The frescoes have sparked disputes too. Some take them as celestial maidens, while some take them as Kassapa’s concubines. Dr Paranavithana believes it is a result of court ladies and other terrestrial beauties of the time handing down the job of painting them to painters. Dr. Gunasinghe disputes this theory saying that the frescoes are mere human imaginations like Kalidasa’s Megha Duta