Abstract
Aśoka is generally credited with constructing the first open-air shrine (bodhighara) with a railing under the Mahābodhi Tree. which appears to have been further expanded and renovated during the reign of Kuṣāṇa king Huviṣka (c.150–180 CE) or perhaps a little later. The most dramatic change appears to have taken place sometime after the visit of Faxian during the Gupta period (c.319–570 CE), when a large and tall tower-like brick structure appears to have been built by encompassing most of the bodhighara with an image of the Buddha of a proportionate size placed inside the cella. With the grant of extraterritorial rights by King Samudragupta to the Sri Lankans for the construction of the Mahāvihāra Saṃghārāma (Monastery) in the close vicinity of the Mahābodhi Temple, the Sri Lankan monks appear to have taken control of the entire complex. There is a great possibility that in their enthusiasm as the extraterritorial masters of the complex, the Sri Lankans may have actually built the towered brick Temple. However, if Xuanzang’s testimony is to be believed then not only that the Mahābodhi Temple was constructed by a brāhmaṇa devotee by enlarging the small shrine built by Aśoka, but also the large Buddha image in bhūmi-sparśa-mudrā was constructed by another brāhmaṇa. Despite efforts by kings like Śaśāṅka and the Sri Lankan monks, the site of the Mahābodhi Temple remained multivalent. A Sri Lankan monk called Prakhyātakīrti made some repairs to the Mahābodhi Temple in the seventh century. Thereafter towards the beginning of the eleventh century, some minor repairs are reported to have been undertaken by Mahipāla I of Pāla Dynasty. King Aśokaballa of Sapadalakṣa was the last Indian king to carry out several repairs in the year 1157 CE. Some repair work was done in the last quarter of the thirteenth century, especially the Burmese “significantly altering the original design” of the Mahābodhi Temple. Thereafter the Mahābodhi Temple became derelict for about three centuries till a Śaivite saṅnyasin started living here.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
In the Mahāparinibbāna Suttanta, the Buddha tells Ānanda that “the believing clansman should visit with feelings of reverence” four places, including the place where “the Tathāgata attained to the supreme and perfect insight” (Rhys Davids and Rhys Davids 2000: ii.153). Similarly, one of the Jātakas mentions that the Bodhimaṇḍa was used as a shrine when the Buddha was alive (Fausböll 1877–1897: iv.228).
- 2.
“King Pathanadi Kosala surrounded… [it]… with a double wall, and subesuently King Dammathoka added two others” (Bigandet 1880: 107).
- 3.
Alexander Cunningham has suggested that “the double enclosure of Prasenjit must have been only a double palisade of wood, which would have been much decayed during the two centuries and a half which intervened between the two monarchs. … it would have been altogether removed when Aśoka built his Temple immediadetly to the east of the Bodhi Tree” (1892: 31).
- 4.
For the South Asians, the Temple has always been secondary to the Mahābodhi Tree (see Huntington 1985: 6). But as the Northern Buddhist societies focus more on the chörten/pagoda and the tradition of tree-worship has not been as strong among them, slowly and steadily the devotees from these backgrounds have contributed greatly in the shift of the focus from the Tree to the Temple at Bodh Gayā. Consequently, for many Buddhists now, the Temple appears to have become more important than the Tree.
- 5.
This bodhighara, repaired and rebuilt more than once thereafter, became variously known as Bodhimaṇḍa Vihāra, Sambodhi, and Mahābodhi.
- 6.
Alexander Cunningham has mentioned that the name Mahābodhi was being used by the local populace for the great stūpa when he visited here in 1877 and which, apart from Xuanzang’s Da Tang Xiyu Ji, is also attested to by different inscriptions datable to the beginning of the fourteenth century CE (see Cunningham 1892: 2).
- 7.
However, citing the relief depiction from the Bharhut stūpa, John Guy feels that a two-storeyed structure with the Vajrāsana had come into existence by the Śuṅga period (second to first centuries BCE) (1991: 358). Myer also considered it highly likely that the Kuṣāṇa temple at Bodh Gayā was very much of a similar type (1958: 284). But, towered temples similar to the Bhitargāoṅ and the Mahābodhi Temple are not known to have coe into existence prior to the fifth-sexth centuries CE (see Verardi 2011: 409).
- 8.
Asher has suggested that the dramatic change took place probably during the Gupta period (c.319–570 CE) as “[m]ost of the Gupta sculptures of the site may be associated with this major change in orientation (1980: 27). The partially preserved inscription on a sandstone coping stone referring to new plaster and paint for the vajrāsana vṛhad gandhakuṭi prasāda… bhagavate buddha… vihāraipi (the great perfumed hall that enshrines the diamond throne… Lord Buddha… vihāra) (see Cunningham 1892: 23) dated by Asher in the Gupta period (1980: 28) may have been carried out by the Sri Lankan monks (Verardi 2011: 404–405). It has been even suggested that the renovation hinted at in the inscription actually included the construction of the brick temple (see Malandra 1988: 17; Myer 1958: 291).
- 9.
It has been suggested that “the transformation from hypaethral shrine to towered brick temple must have involved the removal of the Bodhi-tree from its central position within the temple, so that the temple ceased to be a bodhi-ghara and became a Vajrāsana-gandhakuṭi or Diamond-throne Temple, centering around the altar-throne” (Myer 1958: 286). But that would have been impossible considering that as the construction of the Temple was an act of devotion uprooting and/or removing the sacred pīpal would have been utterly sacrilegious. Moreover, considering that the Buddhists believe that the Mahābodhi Tree forms the navel of the earth (pṛthvīnābhi) (Fausböll 1877–1897: iv.233) and that no other place but the exact spot where the Mahābodhi Tree is located can support the weight of the Buddha’s attainment (Fausböll 1877–1897: iv.229), its removal from the exact spot is impossible to imagine. However, as first due to inundation and then due to pious actions of the devotees, the level of ground around the Mahābodhi Tree kept rising (Cunningham found it to be 30 feet above the original level. See Cunningham 1892: 30), whenever the need to plant a sapling of the Mahābodhi Tree arose at that height, it may have been planted approximately directly above the original spot.
- 10.
As the Buddha had attained Enlightenment at the foot of the Mahābodhi Tree (bodhirukkhamūle), this foot of the Tree, in a way, was the Vajrāsana. Therefore, it is hard to visualize that the Vajrāsana could ever be separated from the Mahābodhi Tree for the simple reason of the two being inextricably linked to each other. Thus, construction of a large tower-like brick structure either encompassing or replacing the small-sized bodhighara with the Vajrāsana at the foot of the Tree must have been quite a challenge. In all probability, as was to be expected, the tower-like brick temple was built, where it stands now, at some distance to the east, encompassing or replacing portions of the bodhighara but without moving the Vajrāsana or causing any harm to the sacred Mahābodhi Tree.
- 11.
Asher has pointed out that at Bodh Gayā “the artists apparently were local but the patrons came from elsewhere. In the inscriptions of Bodhgayā, the pilgrims, perhaps only to stress that they had made the pilgrimage, note their place of origin. The practice is quite different … elsewhere… where the benefactors apparently felt no such need to stress their place of origin. As if to underscore the lack of local patronage, not even a local king’s name is mentioned to establish time… the site received scant local support” (1980: 28–29). Giovanni Verardi has completely twisted the information provided in Sri Lankan chronicles and Chinese accounts to explain the background behind the construction of the Mahābodhi Monastery. Ignoring all the hyperbole and the context of the source material, in the chapter entitled “The Gupta Sphinx,” he declares in his book that this had to be done because “there was no place for the Siṃhala monks to live in the whole of India,” the Sri Lankan king had to send “gems…in addition to the usual gifts” amounting to “paying a tribute of subjugation” to Samudragupta who being “unsympathetic, if not overtly hostile” to Buddhism “made them pay dearly for the privilege” resulting inevitably in “Siṃhalas… (being)… enlisted among his vassals” (2011: 130–131).
- 12.
Relocation of the Mahābodhi Tree certainly would have been a problem as it would be virtually impossible for the devotees to cause any harm to the sacred pīpal. However, such an opportunity may have arisen when the Mahābodhi Tree came to some sort of harm, natural or otherwise, and a sapling was planted in its place. But the question arises: was this opportunity availed in violation of the protocol?
- 13.
Faxian uses the character 堵 which Giles and Legge have translated as pagoda, tope repectively (Giles 1977: 78; Legge 1886: 90). It is quite probable that Faxian used the generic character 堵 for the existing bodhighara.
- 14.
Just like the other three important places, viz., the place of his birth, the place where he put the wheel of his Dharma into motion, and the place of parinirvāṇa (Giles 1977: 78; Legge 1886: 90).
- 15.
Verardi also suggests that as a similar type of temple was built at Bhitargāoṅ, the Mahābodhi Temple must have also been built sometime after Faxian (405 CE) and before Śaśāṅka (600 CE) (Verardi 2011: 409).
- 16.
However, Cunningham changed his stance later. In the year 1892, he wrote in the preface to his book on the Mahābodhi Temple: “I formerly thought that there was no Mahābodhi Temple standing at the time of Fa Hian’s visit, A.D. 399 to 409; but I now I see that his Actual words distinctly imply that Temples were then standing at all the four famous sites connected with Buddha’s history…. Fa-Hian must therefore have seen the present Temple about one and a half after its erection” (Cunningham 1892: vii). The reason for this was the discovery of a gigantic statue of the Buddha discovered just outside the Temple, an Indo-Scythian inscription on the outer Vajrāsana, and discovery of a gold coin of King Huviṣka along with some silver punch-marked coins. According to Cunningham, the Great Temple was constructed by a brāhmaṇa and financed by King Huviṣka either in the year 142 CE or 152 CE (Cunningham 1892: vii, 21).
- 17.
The inscription reads as follows: “Once upon a time the illustrious Amara, renowned amongst men, coming here, discovered the place of the Supreme Being, Bood-dha, in the great forest. The wise Amara endeavoured.to render the God Bood-dha propitious by superior service…. One night he had a vision…. Reward may be obtained from the sight of ‘an image, or from the worship of an image…’ Having heard this, he caused an image of the Supreme Spirit Bood-dha to be made, and he worshipped it… and he thus glorified the name of that Supreme Being, the incarnation of a portion of Veeshnoo: “Reverence be unto thee in the form of Bood-dha!….” Having thus worshipped the guardin of mankind, he became like one of the just. He joyfully caused a holy temple to be built, of wonderful construction, and therein were set up the divine foot of Veeshnoo…. This place is renowned; and it is celebrated by the name of Bood-dha Gaya. The forefathers of him who shall perform the ceremony of the Sradha at this place shall obtain salvation…. Veekramādeetya was certainly a king renowned in the world. So in his court there were nine learned men, celebrated under the epithet of the Nava-ratnānee or nine jewels; one of whom was Amara Deva who was the king’s chief counsellor, a man of great genius and profound learning, and the greatest favourite of his prince. He, it certainly was, who built the holy temple which destroyed sin, in a place in Jamboodweep… where it may obtain salvation, reputation, and enjoyment, even in the country of Bharata, and the province of Keekaṭa, where the place of Bood-dha, purifier of the sinful, is renowned…. Thus it may be known to learned men, that he verily erected the house of Boo-dha, I have recorded, upon a stone, the authority of the place, as a self evident testimony… in the year of the Era of Veekramādeetya 1005” (Wilkins 1788: 243–244; 1806: 284–287).
- 18.
Rajendralala Mitra has agrued that the inscription is fabricated and its translation was “meant only to glorify and legitimize Hindu control of the Mahābodhi Temple” (see 1878: 202). Though there may be some truth in Mitra’s claim as competition for patronage and share in the holy space obviously existed between different religious sampradāyas, the fact that brāhmaṇas had greatly contributed towards the growth and development of the Mahābodhi Temple is, historically speaking, impossible to deny.
- 19.
According to Yijing “Vajrāsana and the Mahābodhi temple had been erected by the king of Ceylon. In olden days the monks coming from Ceylon always remained in this Temple” (Lahiri 1986: 51).
- 20.
Considering that the Sri Lankans appear to have managed to get the extraterritorial control of the site and that their subsequent behaviour also indicates as if they were its masters, one would not be surprised if, after all, it were the Sri Lankans who were originally behind the construction of the towered Mahābodhi Temple whose blueprint they may have got prepared by a brāhmaṇa.
- 21.
The Temple seen by Xuanzang was repaired and renovated many times and then was nearly demolished by the Burmese and in its place almost a new temple, the one that we see now, was constructed during the 1880s. The survival of this Temple for nearly fourteen centuries till it was completely refurbished is quite remarkable for the simple reason that having been a brick-and-stucco structure it survived for such a long time because a structure made of brick-and-stucco is not known to have survived as long as it did.
- 22.
The Dharmasvāmin, who visited here in 1234 CE also supports Xuanzang’s version that the Mahābodhi image “was erected by a young son of a Brāhmaṇa” (Roerich 1959: 68–69).
- 23.
A Chinese account mentions a eunuch named Hou Xian, stopping at Jin-gang Bao Zuo (the Vajrāsana at Bodh Gayā) on his way either to or from Jaunpur and offering gifts to the elders in the year 1412 CE (Ray 1993: 78).
- 24.
“Inside the … gates no one slept except the sacristans. There are three hundred sacristans, natives of Ceylon, who belong to the Śrāvaka school; others (schools) have no such right” (Roerich 1959: 73).
- 25.
The legend of the Gayā Māhātmya “enjoins upon each Hindu who undertakes pilgrimage to Gayā to visit this holy site and worship the Buddha-image and the Bo-tree for the release of the departed spirits of his forefathers. From the prescribed formula of prayer, it appears that the Bo-tree was viewed as a very special object of worship to the Hindus, it being extolled as a living manifestation of the divinity of the Hindu Triad” (Barua 1934: 52).
References
Asher, Fraderick M. 1980. The art of eastern India, 300–800. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.
Barua, B.M. 1934. Gayā and Buddha-Gayā (Early history of the holy land), rev ed. Calcutta: Satis Chandra Seal.
Barua, B.M. 1943. Inscriptions of Asoka. Part II, Calcutta: University of Calcutta.
Beglar, J.D. 1878. Report of a tour through the Bengal provinces of Patna, Gaya, Mongir, and Bhagalpur; the santal Parganas, Manbhum, Singhbhum, and Birbhum; Bankura, Raniganj, Bardwan, and Hughli in 1872–73, vol. VIII. Calcutta: Office of the Superintendent Government Printing.
Bigandet, Paul Ambrose. 1880. The life or legend of gaudama the Buddha of the burmese, vol. I. London: Trübner & Co.
Bloch, T. 1912. Notes on Bodh Gayā. Annual report of the archaeological survey of India, 1908–09, pp. 139–158. Calcutta: Office of the Superintendent of Government Printing Press.
Chimpa, Lama, and Chattopadhyaya, Alka (trans.). 1970. Tāranātha’s history of Buddhism in India. Simla: Indian Institute of Advanced Study.
Cunningham, Alexander. 1871. Four reports made during the years 1862-63-64-66. Archaeological Survey of India, vol. 1. Simla: Government Central Press.
Cunningham, Alexander. 1892. Mahābodhi or the great Buddhist temple under the Bodhi tree at Buddha-Gaya. London: W.H. Allen & Co.
Dhammika, S. 1992. Middle land middle way. Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society.
Fausböll, V. (ed.). 1877–1897. The Jātakas, 7 vols. London: Trübner.
Geiger, W. (ed.). 1908. The Mahāvaṃsa. London: Pali Text Society.
Guha-Thakurta, Tapati. 2004. Monuments, objects, histories: Institutions of art in colonial and postcolonial India. New York: Columbia University Press.
Guy, John. 1991. The Mahābodhi temple: Pilgrim souvenir of Buddhist India. The Burlington Magazine, 133(1059, June): 356–368.
Hultzsch, E. 1925. Inscriptions of Asoka, New ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Huntington Archive. 2015. www.huntingtonarchive.osu.edu. Accessed 15 July 2015.
Huntington, John C. 1985. Sowing the seeds of the lotus: A journey to the great pilgrimage sites of Buddhism, Part I. Orientations 16 (11): 46–61.
Konow, Sten. 1926. The inscription on the so-called Bodh-Gaya plaque. Journal of the Bihar and Orissa Research Society 12 (2): 179–182.
Lahiri, Latika (trans.). 1986. Chinese monks in India: Biography of eminent monks who went to the western world in search of the law during the great Tang dynasty by I-Ching, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Legge, James (trans.). 1886. A Record of Buddhistic Kingdoms: Being an Account by the Chinese monk Fâ-Hsien of his travels in India and Ceylon (A.D. 399–414) in Search of the Buddhist Books of Discipline, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Li, Rongxi (trans.). 1996. The great Tang dynasty record of the western regions. Berkeley: Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research, Berkeley.
Malandra, G.H. 1988. The Mahābodhi Temple. In Bodhgaya, the site of enlightenment, ed. J. Leoshko, 10–28. Bombay: Marg Publications.
Mitchell, George. 1989. The penguin guide to the monuments of India: Buddhist, Jain, Hindu, vol. 1. London: Penguin Books.
Mitra, Rajendralala. 1878. Buddha Gaya: The great Buddhist temple, the hermitage of Śākya Muni. Calcutta: Bengal Secretariat Press.
Mukherjee, B.N. 1984–85. Inscribed ‘Mahabodhi Temple’ Plaque from Kumrahar. Journal of the Indian Society of Oriental Art, n.s., 14: 43–46.
Myer, Prudence R. 1958. The great temple at Bodh-Gayā. The Art Bulletin 40 (4): 277–298.
Ray, H.P. 1993. Trade and diplomacy in India-China relations: A study of Bengal during the fifteenth century. New Delhi: Radiant Publishers.
Rhys Davids, T.W., and C.A.F. Rhys Davids (trans.). 2000. The dialogues of the Buddha, 3 vols, reprint. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass (originally published London: Pali Text Society, 1899–1921).
Roerich, George N. (decipherer and trans.). 1959. Biography of Dharmasvāmin (Chag lo tsā-ba Chos-rje-dpal): A Tibetan Monk Pilgrim, with a historical and critical Introduction by A.S. Altekar, Patna: K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute.
Singh, Arvind Kumar. 2017. Bodhagayā. In K.T.S. Sarao, and Jeffery D. Long (eds.). Encyclopedia of Indian religions: Buddhism and Jainism, vol. I, pp. 241–246. Dordrecht: Springer.
Sinha, B.P. 1954. The decline of the kingdom of Magadha (Cir. 455–1000 A.D.). Bankipore: Motilal Banarsidass.
Strong, John S. 1983. The legend of king Aśoka: A study and translation of the Aśokāvadāna. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Tagare, G.V. (trans.). 1987. The Vāyu Purāṇa, 2 vols. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Trevithick, Alan. M. 1999. British archaeologists, Hindu abbots, and Burmese Buddhists: The Mahabodhi temple at Bodh Gaya, 1811–1877. Modern Asian Studies, 33.3: 635–656.
Verardi, Giovanni. 2011. Hardships and downfall of Buddhism in India. New Delhi: Manohar.
Wilkins, Charles. 1788. Translation of a Sanscrit inscription, copied from a stone at Booddha-Gayā by Mr Wilmot, 1785. Asiatic researches comprising history and antiquities, the arts, sciences, and literature of Asia, vol. 1, pp. 243–244. Calcutta reprint, New Delhi: Cosmo Publications, 1979.
Wilkins, Charles. 1806. Translation of a Sanscrit inscription, copied from a stone at Booddha-Gayā by Mr Wilmot, 1785. Asiatic researches or transactions of the society instituted in Bengal for enquiring into the history and antiquities, the arts, sciences, and literature of Asia, vol. the first, the Fifth edition, pp. 284–287. London: T. Maiden.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sarao, K.T.S. (2020). The Mahābodhi Temple: Origin, Evolution, and Dilapidation. In: The History of Mahabodhi Temple at Bodh Gaya . Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8067-3_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8067-3_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-15-8066-6
Online ISBN: 978-981-15-8067-3
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)