In recent years, a controversial theory has emerged in Sri Lanka challenging one of Buddhism’s most fundamental historical claims: the location of the Buddha’s birth, enlightenment, and teachings. While mainstream Buddhist scholarship and archaeological evidence firmly place these events in the Gangetic plains of northern India and Nepal, a fringe theory proposes that “Dambadiva” (Jambudvipa) - traditionally understood as the Indian subcontinent - actually refers to ancient Sri Lanka itself. This debate touches on questions of religious identity, national pride, and the interpretation of ancient texts.
The Traditional Understanding: Jambudvipa as India
In Buddhist cosmology, the universe consists of Mount Meru (Sumeru) surrounded by four island continents in the cardinal directions. The southern continent, Jambudvipa (Sanskrit) or Jambudipa (Pali), literally means “the land of jambu trees,” named after the Syzygium cumini (rose apple or black plum) tree said to grow near Lake Anavatapta in the continent’s northern mountains.
The traditional scholarly consensus identifies Jambudvipa as the Indian subcontinent and, more broadly, the known world of ancient Buddhist civilization. This interpretation rests on multiple sources:
Ancient Chronicles: The Mahavamsa, Sri Lanka’s great chronicle, records how Emperor Ashoka’s son Mahinda introduced himself to King Devanampiya Tissa of Anuradhapura as coming from “Jambudvipa,” clearly referring to the Indian mainland. The Dipavamsa and other Pali chronicles consistently use this geographic designation to distinguish India from Lanka (Sri Lanka).
Chinese Pilgrims: For two centuries of scholarly consensus, the detailed travelogues of Chinese Buddhist pilgrims Faxian (399-414 CE) and Xuanzang (629-645 CE) documented extensive journeys through the Indian subcontinent, visiting Buddhist holy sites and describing them in relation to “Jambudvipa.” Their accounts provide invaluable geographic and cultural information about ancient India’s Buddhist heartland.
Historical Usage: Emperor Ashoka himself used the term Jambudvipa to describe his realm in the 3rd century BCE, referring to the Indian territories under Mauryan control.
Archaeological Evidence from the Indian Subcontinent
The most compelling support for the traditional view comes from extensive archaeological evidence at four primary sites in India and Nepal:
Lumbini, Nepal (Birthplace): UNESCO designated Lumbini as a World Heritage Site in 1997, recognizing it as the Buddha’s birthplace. The site contains the Ashoka Pillar with a Brahmi inscription stating “hida Budhe jate Sakyamuniti” (“Buddha Sakyamuni was born here”). Erected in 249 BCE, this pillar provides contemporary evidence from just 250 years after the Buddha’s death. Recent archaeological excavations by Durham University and UNESCO discovered timber structures beneath brick temples dating to the 6th century BCE - the very period of the Buddha’s life. Radiocarbon and optically stimulated luminescence dating suggests human activity at Lumbini began around 1000 BCE, with continuous religious use at the site.
Bodh Gaya, India (Enlightenment): The Mahabodhi Temple Complex, a UNESCO World Heritage Site since 2002, marks where the Buddha attained enlightenment. Archaeological evidence includes the Diamond Throne (Vajrasana) built by Emperor Ashoka between 250-233 BCE at the exact spot of enlightenment. Sculptures and finds confirm Buddhist use since the Mauryan period (3rd century BCE), though the earliest structure was a tree shrine from the 1st century CE. The current temple dates from the 5th-6th centuries CE.
Sarnath, India (First Sermon): Where the Buddha delivered his first teaching about the Four Noble Truths and the Middle Way. The Dhamek Stupa and Ashoka Pillar mark this location, with extensive monastic remains excavated.
Kushinagar, India (Death): Where the Buddha attained Parinirvana. The Mahaparinirvana Temple contains a 6-meter statue of the reclining Buddha, and excavations have unearthed relics including crystal caskets and bone fragments.
These four sites form the traditional Buddhist pilgrimage circuit, all located in northern India and Nepal, all with archaeological evidence stretching back to the centuries immediately following the Buddha’s death.
The Alternative Theory: Dambadiva as Heladeepa
The theory that Dambadiva refers to ancient Sri Lanka (Heladeepa) rather than India has been primarily promoted by Venerable Mukalangamuwe Pannyananda Thero and appears in various blogs and YouTube channels. Proponents make several claims:
Geographic Claims: The theory proposes that ancient Heladeepa contained two main regions: Lakdiva and Dambadiva, with the Buddha traveling from Dambadiva to Lakdiva within Sri Lanka itself.
Colonial Documentation: Advocates cite purported British colonial-era texts stating that a place called “Dambadiva” was situated 57 miles east of Colombo, and that a British Governor traveled there with 300 soldiers. However, independent verification of such documents has proven elusive in mainstream historical records.
Linguistic Arguments: The similarity between “Dambadiva” and “Dambadeniya” - a medieval Sri Lankan capital that flourished from 1220-1345 CE - is presented as evidence. The name Dambadeniya derives from “Jambudoni mountain” (jambu mountain), sharing the same Sanskrit root “jambu” found in Jambudvipa.
Evidence from 13th-14th Century Sinhalese Texts
Proponents of the alternative theory cite several medieval Sinhalese Buddhist texts, though careful examination reveals complications:
Poojavaliya (1266-1275 CE): This influential text was compiled by bhikkhu Mayurapada Buddhaputta Thero during the reign of Panditha Parakramabahu II at Dambadeniya. The Poojavaliya contains tales about the Buddha, moral instructions, and episodes from Sri Lankan history. However, mainstream scholarship notes that the text refers to “Dambadiva (or Bhatath)” as ancient India, from where Gautama Buddha originated - actually supporting the traditional view rather than contradicting it.
Rajavaliya: This chronicle, written in various recensions during the late 16th and 17th centuries, famously describes the Portuguese arrival at Colombo (Kolomthota) in 1505. It contains the memorable description of Portuguese soldiers as seen through Sinhalese eyes: “There is in our harbour of Colombo a race of people fair of skin… They don jackets of iron and hats of iron.” While the Rajavaliya is valuable for understanding Portuguese-era Sri Lanka, it does not provide substantive evidence about Dambadiva’s location in the pre-colonial period.
Rasavahiniya (14th century): Composed by the monk Vedeha of the Vanavasi fraternity, this collection of 103 stories in Pali is divided into two explicit sections: Jambudipuppattivatthu (40 stories from Jambudipa - India) and Lankadeepuppathi (63 stories from Lankadeepa - Sri Lanka). The very structure of this text treats Jambudipa and Lankadeepa as two separate geographic entities, undermining rather than supporting the theory that they are the same place.
The Role of Dambadeniya in Medieval Sri Lanka
Understanding the historical context of Dambadeniya is crucial to this debate. The Kingdom of Dambadeniya served as Sri Lanka’s capital from 1220-1345 CE, during a transitional period following invasions that had displaced Polonnaruwa. King Vijayabahu III established Dambadeniya as a fortified capital, building sturdy walls atop the Dambadeniya rock.
The kingdom reached its cultural zenith under King Parakramabahu II (1236-1270 CE), a celebrated poet whose works “Kavisilumina” and “Visuddi Marga Sannasa” marked a turning point in Sinhalese literature. It was during this golden age that the Poojavaliya was written (1266-1275 CE), one of the texts now cited in the Dambadiva debate.
The town’s name derives from the “Jambudoni mountain,” etymologically linked to the same “jambu” tree that gives Jambudvipa its name. This linguistic connection is factual, but it doesn’t necessarily indicate that Dambadeniya was synonymous with the cosmic Jambudvipa. Many places throughout South and Southeast Asia incorporated “jambu” into their names due to the tree’s cultural and religious significance.
Scholarly Perspectives on the Controversy
Mainstream academic scholarship has largely dismissed the theory that Buddha was born in Sri Lanka. Historians describe it as “too peripheral to merit scholarly comment,” emanating from “local YouTube channels or fringe bloggers” rather than peer-reviewed academic research.
Methodological Concerns: Scholars point out that the theory lacks the “rigorous method, critical reading, and careful attention to context” required for historical claims. While all historical theories deserve examination, not all claims are equally valid when measured against archaeological evidence, textual analysis, and established historical methodology.
Nationalist Context: The theory has been characterized as part of Sri Lanka’s “nationalist fringe,” connected to broader currents of Sinhalese Buddhist nationalism. The political subtext, some scholars note, is that “if the Buddha ‘belongs’ in Sri Lanka, then perhaps so does the right to police who counts as an authentic Buddhist or an authentic Sri Lankan.”
The Weight of Evidence: More than two centuries of scholarship - built on ancient monastic travelogues, early Buddhist texts, epigraphic evidence, and systematic archaeological excavations across Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, and Nepal - have consistently placed Buddhism’s founder in the Middle Ganges region. The Ashoka pillars, in particular, represent contemporary evidence from the 3rd century BCE, far closer to the Buddha’s lifetime (6th-5th century BCE) than any medieval Sinhalese text.
Buddhist Cosmology vs. Historical Geography
An important distinction often blurred in this debate is the difference between cosmological concepts and historical geography. In Buddhist cosmology, Jambudvipa is one of four mythical continents surrounding Mount Meru, each inhabited by different beings and possessing different spiritual qualities. Jambudvipa is described as the only continent where humans can attain enlightenment.
This cosmological Jambudvipa is a religious concept, not meant to be a precise geographic designation. Ancient Buddhist texts sometimes used “Jambudvipa” cosmologically (referring to the human realm), sometimes geographically (referring to the known world or the Indian subcontinent), and the context determines the meaning.
When the Mahavamsa records Mahinda introducing himself as from “Jambudvipa” to distinguish himself from the island of Lanka, this is clearly a geographical rather than cosmological usage - he’s simply saying he’s from the mainland.
What the Texts Actually Say
A careful reading of the ancient and medieval texts reveals consistent geographic distinctions:
- The Mahavamsa and Dipavamsa consistently distinguish between Jambudvipa (the mainland) and Lanka (the island)
- The Rasavahiniya explicitly separates stories from Jambudipa and Lankadeepa into different sections
- Even the Poojavaliya, written during Dambadeniya’s golden age, identifies Dambadiva with ancient India, not with Heladeepa
None of the primary sources from ancient or medieval Sri Lanka suggest that Jambudvipa and Lanka are the same place. Indeed, the entire narrative structure of Sri Lankan Buddhist chronicles depends on the distinction between the two: Buddhism came to Lanka from Jambudvipa.
The Appeal of Alternative Histories
Why has this theory gained traction despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary? Alternative historical narratives often emerge in post-colonial contexts where nations seek to reclaim agency over their past. Sri Lanka’s Buddhist heritage is central to national identity, and the desire to claim an even more direct connection to the Buddha is understandable from a cultural perspective.
Additionally, the complexity of ancient texts - written in Pali and Sanskrit, using cosmological frameworks unfamiliar to modern readers - creates space for alternative interpretations. Terms like Dambadiva can seem ambiguous without deep knowledge of Buddhist textual traditions.
However, historians caution that while cultural pride is natural and valuable, it must be balanced against historical evidence and rigorous methodology. Rewriting history to serve contemporary national narratives, no matter how well-intentioned, ultimately undermines both scholarship and the traditions it seeks to honor.
Conclusion: Following the Evidence
The debate over Dambadiva’s location represents a collision between traditional Buddhist geography, archaeological science, medieval Sinhalese texts, and modern national identity. While the alternative theory has attracted attention in certain circles, the weight of evidence - from Ashoka’s 3rd-century BCE inscriptions at Lumbini to the detailed accounts of Chinese pilgrims, from systematic archaeological excavations to the consistent testimony of ancient chronicles - places the Buddha’s life and teachings firmly in northern India and Nepal.
The medieval Sri Lankan capital of Dambadeniya, while sharing an etymological root with Jambudvipa through the sacred jambu tree, was built two thousand years after the Buddha’s death and fifteen hundred years after Ashoka’s pillar at Lumbini confirmed the birthplace.
Sri Lanka’s connection to Buddhism is profound and historically significant - the island preserved Theravada Buddhism when it nearly vanished from India, produced remarkable Pali commentaries and chronicles, and became a beacon of Buddhist learning for Southeast Asia. The Mahavamsa itself is one of the world’s longest continuous historical chronicles. These achievements represent genuine contributions to Buddhist civilization.
The search for historical truth requires honest engagement with evidence, even when that evidence challenges cherished beliefs. In the case of Dambadiva, the ancient chronicles of Sri Lanka, the archaeological remains of India and Nepal, and the scholarship of centuries converge on a consistent answer: Jambudvipa was the ancient name for the Indian subcontinent, the land where the Buddha was born, attained enlightenment, taught, and passed away. Lanka’s role in the Buddhist story is different but no less important - as the island that preserved and transmitted the Buddha’s teachings through centuries of change, ensuring that his message would endure.