Page 259 - Proceedings book

q
cd;sl mqrdúoHd iu¿j 2025
over to the Buddha the whole island. Then the Buddha spreaded his rug and sits on it

and restored normalcy except for the cold. The yakkhas request for heat. The Buddha
caused his rug to emit an unbearable heat. Then he caused the rug to expand until it

coverd the entire island. The yakkhas retreat before the expanding rug till they
reached the coast, and the Buddha transfered them on to another island.

There are several levels at which the myth could be understood. Here I shall deal with
only one. In the myth the personality of the Buddha is recast in a way very much

different from his personality as presented in the Canon. In the Canon, Buddha is
presented as a most compassionate person who, in the face of hostility and harassment,

responds with loving kindness, goodwill and tolerance. In the Sri Lankan myth the

Buddha is cast in the role of a tormentor and conqueror who takes over the island
from the yakkhas. In explanation of the unusual steps taken by the Buddha, it is stated

that the yakkhas were incapable of understanding the true dhamma and were opposed
to the order. Therefore, they had to be removed from the island. It is clear that the

message in the myth included an ethical principle different from those enunciated in
the Canon: the new principle was that violence was permissible in the interest of the

order, against those who were opposed to the dhamma.

The principle was reiterated in the story of Dutthagamani in the Mahavamsa. It is said

that he was moved with remorse at the thought that his campaigns brought death to so
many. But the monks who visited him reassure him that he would be born in heaven.

It was their calculation that only one and a half human beings had been killed by him.

One was a Buddhist, who had accepted the tisaranna, the three refuges. The other had
practiced the five precepts. All others, they argued, were unbelievers and men of

sinful ways who were like unto beasts. Here again, we find a distinction being made
between violence toward Buddhists and the virtuous and violence toward non-

Buddhists and the sinful. The inconvenient question whether from Buddhist

standpoint the killing of men like unto beasts was not in itself an evil action is left
unraised, and hence unanswered. (Cûlavamsa, 1953)

The idea implicit in these stories that violence was not invariably associated with evil

and that a distinction has to be drawn between permissible and non-permissible types
of violence is perhaps peculiar to Sri Lankan Buddhism. This idea was vital for the

238