Mr Tissa Devendra has written a fascinating review of Dr Raja de Silva’s latest book ‘Sigiriya Paintings’ in The Island of 9th September, 2009. He lavishes the highest praise on it saying "Never have I come across a work of scholarship written so lucidly and so accessible to the ‘common reader’".

One of the most intriguing comments in TD’s review was his reference to "the deafening silence" from Sri Lanka’s ‘scholarly’ establishment to Raja de Silva’s truly scholarly, well documented theory that Sigiriya was never Kassapa’s Palace or Fortress, but a Mahayana-Theravada Monastery.

This shattering, revolutionary theory (explained in detail in "Sigiriya and its Significance") that established the falsity of what we have been taught in our history books from time immemorial has, strangely, been neither refuted nor accepted in writing by current archaeologists such as Drs Senaka Bandaranaike and Roland de Silva. They have maintained a studied silence on the subject.

While this could be dismissed as mere professional jealousy it has had unfortunate consequences. It has misled politicians and policy makers into adventures such as the recently mooted "Son-et-Lumiere" show glorifying Kassapa’s Palace that we now realize never existed. Even worse it has misled friendly nations such as Japan into funding a museum in Sigiriya that continues to propagate the myth that the Rock (a Heritage site) supported a Palace (or Fortress). An advisor to the Japanese in this project was Dr Bandaranayake. It must be therefore assumed that he promoted the Palace (or Fortress) theory.

That Raja de Silva’s monastery theory is not a fanciful delusion has been accepted by eminent cognoscenti such as Professor N.A. Jayawickrema, the late Dr Nissanka Wijeyeratne, and Professor Richard Gombrich of Oxford. In case there are sceptics I shall quote from these authorities:

Professor N.A. Jayawickrema of Peradeniya : "Let me congratulate you on your excellent study of Sigiriya, which I consider as a scholarly treatise of a high order. You have adduced adequate evidence to substantiate your thesis. It is of value not only to the scholar but also the general reader".

Desamanya Dr Nissanka Wijeyeratne : "Verily this work of de Silva has dispelled doubts and vague conjectures on Sigiriya, and built up a coherent and cogent interpretation of this great centre which never was "the abode of a God King" but for a long and significant period the resting place of a great and noble protectress of humans and a Mother of all Bodhisattvas"

Professor Richard Gombrich of Oxford : "I want to congratulate you on your important discovery. It is quite rare in Buddhist studies for anyone to come up with a discovery of this magnitude and certitude. You have made a major contribution which will surely stand the test of time, and all historians of Sri Lanka and Buddhism will be beholden to you".

In the light of these categorical views of eminent knowledgeable persons it is difficult to understand why scholars like Dr Bandaranayake cling to the old disproved theory and thereby encourage all of us who are not experts to also cling to it. The Palace theory is based on the Mahavamsa that was written by Theravada clerics seven hundred years after the event. Raja de Silva has explained why these clerics distorted the facts. Those, like Dr Bandaranayake and Dr Siri Gunasinghe, who cling to the literal veracity of the Mahavamsa (in the face of evidence to the contrary) are akin to George Bush and his fellow Fundamentalists who believe that the world was created by God in seven days about seven thousand years ago; because the Bible says so.

I think it is time that Dr Bandaranayake comes out into the open and says that he either accepts Raja de Silva’s theory or does not; and if he does not, he should refute it in a scientific manner giving reasons and evidence. Those of us who are still unsure what to believe would be deeply grateful to him.

If he does not do this soon in writing that is made available to the public, he would create the impression uncomplimentary to himself.