Talk:Mahāvaṃsa

Buddhist sins? Dubious.

See this edit and edit summary. [1] See the main article on Sin for the Buddhist perspective.

At first, I put the dubious tag up. Then I just decided simply to re-word the paragraph. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 19:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Usurper

There are recent TV programs (NatGeo, Discovery) that dispute incidents and figures like The Exodus, Noah's Ark, David, Goliath and Abraham and many more Bible stories and figures happened or existed. These science based programs mention that there are no other evidence apart from the Bible.

Similarly apart from Mahavamsa, is there any other item that indicate that Elara (monarch) is a foreign king ? He may have been born and brought up in Sri Lanka. In fact everything that is mentioned in the Mahavamsa should be checked and verified as it is written by few people possibly to promote their own political and religious interest.

I guess as times passes, the technology develops, Sri Lanka and India become richer, people become wiser and not-narrow minded, it is possible that one day truth will come out on all that is mentioned in the Mahavamsa.

Can a comment be added to wikipedia article on the basis that is in Mahavamsa ?

-Iross1000 (talk) 02:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC).

Removed statements about Ruvanwelisaya

The article contained the following claims with no citations: "The Ruvanwelisaya was the tallest edifice in the world in that age. The engineering works of King Parakramabahu were the greatest hydraulic works in the world in those times." I added a request for citations a month ago, and then today decided to investigate. The claim that Ruvanwelisaya was the tallest edifice at that time is demonstrably untrue: its height was 92 meters, whereas the Great Pyramid of Giza was 146 meters. Given that the claim about the height of Ruvanwelisaya was simply made up and easily proven to be false, I've removed both that claim and the other one about hydraulic works. Interlingua 13:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I would love to provide here cave and stone insscriptions to confirm buddhism was not brought to sri lanka by mahinda thera that was confirmed by historian V.A Smith and Hermann Oderbeg. Mahawansa wss written by an indian monk that can not be trusted.

1. Pitha maha rannaha badakarika parumaka shumana putha parumaka chemasha lene ranna thishaha ranniyashi niyatha agatha anagatha bagawatha shagasha (Dekundara inscription} Tranlation This cave was offerd to buddha and monks by queen of king thisha (tissa). Thisha is the son of hon.Chemasha, Chemasha is the son of hon. Sumana. Sumana is the treasurer of great king Pitha (Panitha). Panitha was the king for whole iland and Thisha, a regonal king.

2.1 Maha ranna Panitha badagarika parumaka shumana lenne agatha anagatha chatudisha sagasa.

 The great king Panitha's treasurer's cave was offered to monks.

2.2 Panitha maha rannaha nnya nnya Abi Upuliya lene shagithe

   Great king panitha's queen's cave was offered to monks

3.Prumaka Abaya putha thishaha nawihaka lene gothama shamane karapithe (Inscription Handapanwilluwa) Hon. Abaya's son tisaha offered the cave to Gthama samana (In sutta pitaka in nikaya gothama buddha is introduced as gothama samana.)

4. Bamana Misakuta gothama samane agatha agatha anagaha chathudiga sagasa.

  Dekundara wewa cave inscription)
  Brahmin Misakuta offered the cave to gothama buddha and monks.

5. Parumaka shumana kuta gothama shamane agatha anagatha chathudisha sagasha

   (Bena samanala, inscription)
  Hon. shumana offered the hill(mountain samanala) to Gothama Buddha.

6. Gapathi putha thisha putha dobathikina lene gothma nama shamane karapithe.

 (Inscription Kalimade)
  Two brothers, the son's of Tissa offered the cave to Gothama Buddha
  

7. Kasaba budaha lene agatha anagatha chathudisha shagasha.

  (Inscription Wessagiriya)
  The cve was offered to Kassapa Buddha and monks.
  (The source is Inscription of sri lanka.) 

We have more than 20000 cave and stone insciptions pertaing to buddha sashana

  There was no mention of great king panitha in mahawansa, Our cave and stone inscription confirm we have names of different kings who were not metioned in mahawansa. And mahawansa says bddhism was brought to sri lanka by mahinda thera (Buddhism was not brought to sri lanka was confirmed by historian V.A Smith and Hermann Oderbeg). Above inscriptions clearly proved buddhism was in sri lanka even before mahinda thera's arrival and sri lankans have offered caves to buddha and monks. The people who do not read stone or cave inscriptions trust mahawansa as very accurate.(
But we have wariga purnika sannsa (palm manucriptions) which was written by kings of yaksha tribes descended from king Rawana family. Source Yaksha gothrikayange aprakata thorathuru Manawe  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subhakuma (talk • contribs) 05:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC) 

Not all authors of the Culavamsa were Sinhala

Was not the first part of the Culavamsa authored by a Tamil monk Dhammakitthi? Is it not inaccurate therefore to state that only Sinhala Buddhist monks were involved in its authorship? Nagadeepa (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Historical accuracy

This section is ridiculously biased. While pointing out the arguments against the accuracy of the chronicles, Geiger also has an extensive defense of them in his book which is cited. Leaving out Geiger's theories on the accuracy, and only citing the opposing theories is a gross violation of WP:NPOV.

Also, the previous para says "This date of Vijaya's arrival is thought to have been artificially fixed to coincide with the Ceylonese date for the death of Buddha - 543 BCE". One of the citations for that text, [2] mentions nothing about Mahinda.

p.s. funny thing, the same citation says "In the third century B.C. the great king Asoka ruled over Magadha, and Buddhism became the established religion. Missionary embassies were sent out, and after the council of Patna, about 250 B.C., Asoka's own son Mahinda carried the faith to Ceylon." Ironic? Either way, this section is horribly one-sided. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 11:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The reference for the artifical fixing of Vijaya's arrival is not the one you have given above, but http://www.jstor.org/stable/2941377. Which clearly states the date is artificially fixed and is a reliable, academic source. If Geiger has said postive things about the accuracy of the Mahavansa, then you should add it to the section.Wikinpg (talk) 10:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean "if Geiger said positive things"? You added that whole section to the article, so you obviously read Geiger's book. You simply choose to ignore everything that was against your POV. I'll try fixing this and the whole genetic studies mess when I get the time. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 15:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

There is also an inconsistency with the year on which Ashoka sent Buddhist missionaries to Sri Lanka. According to the Mahavamsa the missionaries arrived in 255 BCE, but according to Asoka's Rock-Edict XIII it was 5 years earlier in 260 BCE.

This is very bias statement. 5 year different of coinciding a something happened during this era is questionable ? One thing is the Rock-Edict and MahaVamsa are not dairy writings. They write these things when Asoka started to write Rock-Edict or after the Sri Lankan King was dead. Dates in either party can go wrong.

Asoka not mentioning the handing over of his son, Mahinda, to the temple to become a Buddhist missionary and Mahinda's role in converting the Sri Lankan king to Buddhism, in his 13th year Rock Edicts

This is not something to question the accuracy of MahaVamsa. What is the most important thing is the rough time estimation of Buddhism arrival. But for argument Asoka didn't hand over his children to Buddhist temple. European writers must understand that, in Indian subcontinent mother is the influence to children and not the father. That's why different children of Asoka had different influences (Buddhism, Jainism,...) as aligning with their mothers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Himesh84 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I am surprised to read : "There is also an inconsistency with the year on which Ashoka sent Buddhist missionaries to Sri Lanka. According to the Mahavamsa the missionaries arrived in 255 BCE, but according to Asoka's Rock-Edict XIII it was 5 years earlier in 260 BCE." Considering the typical error margins (which can easily be several decades to a century) in historical chronologies, a difference of only 5 years suggests a remarkable confirmation. Malaiya (talk) 23:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I could not trace this information in Geiger, "16-20" may not refer to the pages. It appears that Wikinpg inserted this content. Maybe he can respond.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 17:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Sinhalese nationalism in this article

I must protest the apparent Sinhalization of Mahavamsa. The work was given in Pali, not in Sinhalese. In those days all of India was Buddhist (with Pali language), not just the Sinhalese population. Furthermore there was a language called Sinhala Prakrit which is not the same as Pali.--213.47.76.227 (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

History of Mahawamsa

There is a good source to learn about the history of Mahawamsa.
http://lakdiva.org/mahavamsa/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariyaratnecol (talk • contribs) 16:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The part of the Mahavamsa that says that the Buddha is the product of cousin marriage may actually be true

In the historical accuracy section of this article, it says that "Moreover, the genealogy of the Buddha recorded in the Mahavamsa describes him as being the product of four cross cousin marriages. Cross-cousin marriage is associated historically with the Dravidian people of southern India- both Sri Lankan Tamils and Sinhala practiced cross-cousin marriage historically- but exogamous marriage was the norm in the regions of northern India associated with the life of the Buddha.[20]"

While it is true that Brahmins do not practice cross cousin marriage, the Buddha was not a Brahmin, he was a member of the Shakya clan. Hindu Puranas considered Buddha (Siddhartha Shakya) as a Kshatriya and not a Brahmin.

Levman writes: "Non-Aryan customs are most apparent in the marriage customs of the Sakyas and related eastern ethnic groups. The Sakyan princes who marry their own sisters is a distinctly non-Aryan custom, as incest is strictly forbidden in the Vedic śāstras."

He further writes "These so-called ‘incest mar- riages’ (by IA and Semitic standards) are a sure sign of a matrilinear culture where endogamy, even between parents and children and siblings was common."

I am writing all of this to point out that the part of the Mahavamsa that says that the Buddha is the product of cousin marriage may actually be true, because the Shakya clan is not brahmin, and did practice incest. Dillmon (talk) 15:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

It's an interesting point, but Levman's article isn't discussing the Mahavamsa so I think it would be getting into WP:OR to cite him. His source regarding Sakya marriage customs seems to be the Dictionary of Pali Proper Names, which is relating stories from the Theravada commentaries- which themselves were also written down and probably composed in Sri Lanka. In that sense, the stories that Levman is discussing aren't really independent of the ones discussed in the other articles and the same analysis would apply- they may have been written down in Sri Lanka in imitation of local practices, rather than reflecting Sakya practices during the Buddha's era. --Spasemunki (talk) 04:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

References