Dr. Rajah de Silva (RdeS) says (P. 16) archaeologists at Sigiriya, including Bell, Paranavitana and himself, even as late as 1973 accepted the position that Kasyapa had built a palace on the summit of Sigiriya rock but now, he takes a U-turn to say that these remains are those of a Monastery complex that is to be consistent with his new theory about the paintings there–that they are of Taras and asks the readers to forget what he had said earlier. This new theory how ever, must stand or fall on whether one can identify the ruins on the summit of the rock are those of either a palace or a monastery.

The 3 1/2 acres or so at the summit of the rock are strewn with ruins of apparently meticulously planned structures; retaining walls have been built no doubt, with tremendous effort and at great risk to life and limb of the masons, with numerous ledges cut into the beetling edge of the rock. Obtaining the maximum possible space: only a person out of his mind would go to such pains and risk to capture a few inches of space for a monastery, whether Mahayana or Theravada, when there was so much of space down below for the asking! Therefore it is obvious this space has been acquired only to build a secure refuge for a man fleeing from imminent danger as Kasyapa was, from Moggallana.

Having done so, the unique aesthete that Kasyapa was, he not only conceived something out of this world, but converted that dream abode into an epitome of beauty, luxury and comfort that has astonished the world ever since! Just think of the ruins there: a Chiselled rocksummit with terraces and numerous corridors -flagged with polished lime-stone slabs (a species of rock not found in the vicinity), a bewildering series of stair-cases leading to the equally numerous terraces prepared obviously for apartments, which all in their day were built of timber and apparently thatched with wooden planks; there are also a throne, a swimming pool, and a cistern and, last but not the least, a securely covered massive stairway, levelled in places for easy climbing, with an entry through a fantastic structure, of a lion’s open mouth! As for the throne seen there, which RdeS calls an Asana (an offerings stand) but which this writer can identify only as a luxury ‘settee’ which in its time was lavishly ‘upholstered’ and laid out with numerous soft cushions for Kasyapa and his angellike beauties whose figures are immortalized for men to see ever since, to disport at will. Indeed, one scribbler on the mirror-wall has clearly stated (Graffito 156) that he had seen the remaining of a remains of the palace. Thus, much as one would like to wish away the vestiges remaining palace, it cannot be done!

And, if one is to accept the author’s theory that these are the remains of a Monastery, then why such elaborate provision for luxury and comfort for meditating recluses who had turned their backs upon all such mundane pleasures which they had declared were contemptible? Sigiriya would have been the last place they would have preferred to occupy.

As for the paintings on the rock-walls as seen today remaining, of beautiful and adorned damsels, who, RdeS is insisting, are Taras and no others, to prove which, he quotes numerous sources, Mahayanic traditions, conventions of art and iconographic marks and symbols and signs (see P.106) .......... the colour of their skins, the poses they assume, the angle of their slanting necks, the positions of their arms and palms, the flowers they carry etc......... etc....... his interpretations of them are sometimes arbitrary, and even at times fanciful and, can equally well apply to just alluringly portrayed, heavy-breasted (topless?) young women. The same applies to his interpretation of the Urna-loma (the curled hair) on the in foreheads for, as far as one can see, no two women there, have their Tilaka in identical form. Another identification mark according RDeS of Tara is the lotus flower in the hands of Avalokitesvara and often seen in the hands of these damsels and he refers its presence in the hands of these Sigiriya ladies: again, as far as one could see, these ladies carry all kinds of flowers native to this country; indeed, the lotus seems to be conspicuous by its scarcity among the flowers they carry, in their hands, hair and in their trays.

Excavations have been going on at Sigiriya for more than a hundred years but, if as the author says, it was a hot-bed of Mahayanism, how come, so far, not a single statue of Avalokitesvara even a little figurine, has turned up to the pick and the hoe of the Archaeologist? On the contrary, what has been discovered are figurines of busty women! A few years back this writer remembers, the national press announcing, along with a picture of it, the discovery at Sigiriya, of a gold pendant-ear-ring encrusted with gems, just like those seen worn by some of these Sigiriya beauties. It is a significant find that should go a long way to confirm that these ladies seen portrayed on the rock-walls were, in fact, living there. Bell says this with the cocksureness of a true professional:

"These figures are the portraits of Kasiyapa’s harem beauties showing even their individual identifications like physical traits "Warts and all" - as Cromwell is reported to have ordered his portrait painter to produce!. And again, as quoted by the author himself, "The artist has imbued each figure with certain delicate traits of face and form, and dress, which stamp prejudice in me unmistakably as individual likenesses." (Bell’s report: JRAS - 1897).

Thus, a perceptive reader should be more inclined to accept as more reasonable what Dr. Siri Gunasinghe says that they are simply paintings of beautiful women to titillate the sensuous sensibilities of a lover of all beautiful things. And again, one would likewise agree with Senake Bandaranayake that kings had this practice at times, of painting open spaces like this (empty rock-wall in this case) and calling hem Chithrasalas (Picture galleries), so wellknown in Indian literature and in the Culavamsa account of the Audience Hall at Polonnaruwa, of Parakramabahu I (see P. 11 Sigiriya, Pub. by The Cultural Triangle) In his contribution to the Collection of Essays on Cultural Triangle, (UNESCO P. 135), he refers to the ruins at the summit of the rock and says boldly and unequivocally, that they are the ruins of a palace.

Now a few comments which seem necessary here, on the style and tradition of the Sigiriya paintings. Referring to the paintings at Vessagiriya, (Issarasamana of the Anuradhapura period), RdeS makes a detailed study of them and arrives at the conclusion that they could be dated to the 6th Century A. C. and that they closely resemble the Ajanta paintings and so, connects them to the Sigiriya paintings and Kasyapa who, according to the Mv., together with his two daughters had donated Issarasamane (Vessagiriya). But do the Sigiriya paintings really belong to the Ajanta style and traditions? If one makes a close study of the paintings at Sigiriya, the draughtsmanship of the figure, the delicate and sensuous contours and curves, executed with extreme finesse, their poses, colours, there is ample evidence to debunk the belief among some critics that these paintings are related to the Ajanta paintings; but a close study would reveal that the Sigiriya paintings are in a class of their own, nor need we downgrade them saying that the painters at Sigiriya had been apprenticed to the ‘Masters’ at Ajanta or that the Ajanta painters had been employed at Sigiriya. These paintings at Sigiriya are of a distinctly higher order with an individuality of their own. Let it be strongly stated here, that Sri Lanka has all along had its own tradition and style of painting, evolved and developed over the centuries. Observe the paintings at Vessagiriya, Dimbulagala (Pulligoda caves), Karambagala, Polonnaruva (Tivanka Pilimage), Mahiyangane relic chamber, Kandalama etc., and compare them with those at Sigiriya: they are all as Gunasinghe points out representative of a single tradition and style of painting. In fact, if there is a possibility of seeing the paintings which Ms. Shereen Amendra says, as as mentioned in MV, itself are present in the relic chamber of the Ruvanveliseya, (Ref her book, The Mahathupa), they should be in the name style and tradition. If a digression may be allowed, this tradition came to an and only at the end of the Polonnaruva period and clear evidence of another school of painting emerging, is not seen until the Kandyan period........... when infantile, stiff, bloated corpse-like figures appear in gaudy colours; Ivor Jennings, a totally independent observer has some carping things to say about this style of painting; in his usual uninhibited, downright manner he says:

"The gap between the Polonnaruwa and Kandyan art has not been bridged ........ After the establishment of the Kandyan kingdom, we have decadant examples at Gadaladeniya and Lankatilaka and still, the progress was downwards until we come to the ghastly ornamentation at the Dalada Maligawa.......

(The Kandy Road P.64).