Tamil country. He returned from there at the head of a Tamil army and overthrowing his brother ruled as monarch. He was succeeded on his death by his elder brother's son who ruled for another two years followed by a short reign of one year of his son. Then there was a Lambakanna usurpation by three officers of this race.

There is record of another famine in the reign of Sri Sanghabodhi of two years, A.D. 300-302 under the Geiger scheme. He was followed by the third of the Lambakannas Abhaya by name, who is known otherwise as Gothahaya or

Meghavannabhaya who had a reign of 13 years. There is a story regarding the last days of this Abhaya's predecessor which resembles the story of the Tamil patron Kumana and his younger brother, and which is recorded in poems 158-165 of Purananuru. In either case the story has reference to a prize put upon the head of a fugitive. In either case likewise, the fugitive offered to take off, and actually took off, his own head to gratify a friend by enabling him to get the prize.

In this Abhaya's reign the Vetulya heresy comes into great prominence. He is said to have suppressed the heresy which had found great strength in the community of the Abhayagiri-Vihara, and had to exclude from the community 60 of the heretical priests who went to the opposite shore of the continent and found asylum there. A Bhikshu by name Sangamitta in the Chola country attached himself to one of these excommunicated priests and came to Ceylon with a bitter hatred of the orthodox community of the Mahavihara. He is said to have been an expert in the exorcism of spirits and such other black-art. Having defeated one of the chief monks of the Tuparama, apparently of the orthodox school, he attracted the attention of the monarch and rose so high in his favour as to be eventually appointed tutor to the sons of the king. Gothabhaya's eldest son Jetta-Tissa when he succeeded set up a persecution of such of the heretical ministers as would not take their place in the funeral procession of his late father. Fearing for his own life the chief heretic teacher Sangamitta had to go back to his country and await the accession to the throne of his other pupil Mahasena, the younger of the two sons of Gothabhaya. At the death of the elder brother the heretical thera Sangamitta came back to Ceylon for the purpose of the consecration ceremony of the young ruler. At his instigation the orthodox community of the Mahavihara got to be so far thrown into neglect that they abandoned the Vihara and left it vacant for a period of nine years. The Vihara and its properties were appropriated by the state as unclaimed property. This persecution of the orthodox community led on to the proportionate rise of the community of the Abhayagiri-Vihara into importance chiefly through the instrumentality of the thera Sangamitta and minister Sona.1 The orthodox minister by name Mesrhavan-nabhaya set up in rebellion, and, on the field of battle, made it up with the monarch and came to an understanding with him. In the meanwhile Sangamitta and Sona were put to death through one of the King's wives who was an orthodox devotee of the Mahavihara. One of the great offences that Mahasena gave to the orthodox community seems to have been the setting up of numbers of images of the Buddha and the building of regular temples for them, the Mahayanist practice apparently. This time he must have set up the images of the Buddha within the Mahavihara itself at the instigation of another priest Tissa. This heretical temple in the near proximity of the Mahavihara was called Jotivana-Vihara in the garden called Joti.

1 This is briefly alluded to in the Dipavamsa as well. Verses 66-76. The names of these two are somewhat altered in shape; Sangamitta is referred to as Dummitto and minister Sona as Papa-Sono.

This action caused the vacating of the Mahavihara for some time, and the matter was settled actually in favour]of the orthodox community by the high judicial minister in spite of the wishes of the king to the contrary. The king is also said to have founded three other Viharas destroying the temples of the Brahma-nical gods. When this king Mahasena died the Mahavihara of the orthodox community and that of the Abhayagiri occupied positions practically of equal strength and uncompromising rivalry, so much so that the Chronicler closes the account of him with the following statement "thus this monarch Mahesena by his connection with ill-disposed persons having performed, during the whole course of his existence, acts of piety and impiety, his destiny (after his death) was great to his merits." The inference from this statement is clear, namely, that Mahasena whatever his own private predilections (which apparently inclined towards the heretical) let the two sections grow side by side, and perhaps even ceased to exhibit any special favour to the community of the Mahavihara. This attitude was naturally unacceptable to the orthodox corn-unity of the Mahavihara whose account actually constitutes the Mahavamsa.