countries of Southern India may be ascribed to the secular hostility between the Sinhalese and the Tamils of the mainland, which naturally would indispose the oppressed Sinhalese to recognize the ancestors of their oppressors as having been brothers in the faith. The island monks were eager to establish the derivation of their religion direct from Magadha through the agency of Mahinda and his supposed sister, and had no desire to recall the bygone days of friendly intercourse with the hated Tamils. Sound principles of historical criticism require that when the evidence of the inscriptions differs from that of later literary traditions, the epigraphic authority should be preferred without hesitation, and there is no reason to doubt the reality of the missions to the Tamil kingdoms of the south.
The Ceylon tradition as to the names of the missionaries is partially confirmed by Cunningham's discoveries at the Bhîlsâ topes or stûpas near Sânchî, which included relic caskets bearing the name of 'Kâsapa Gota, missionary (âchariya) of the whole Hemavanta,' or Himalayan region. Other caskets bore the name of Majjhima[1]. But when the chronicler ascribes to the monk Tissa, son of Mogali, all the credit for the organization of the missions, and ignores Asoka, we are clearly bound to apply the principle of preferring the authority of the contemporary inscriptions, and to allow Asoka the honour of having personally organized,
- ↑ Bhilsa Topes, pp.287, 289, 317, pl. xx. The finding of a casket inscribed Mogaliputasa does not establish the real existence of the Ceylonese Tissa, son of Mogali, as distinct from Upagupta.
