MAHABODHI OR THE GREAT BUDDHIST TEMPLE UNDER THE BODHI TREE AT BUDDHA-GAYA

PREFACE

In 1878, when Dr. Rajendra Lála Mitra published his work on the Temple of Buddha Gaya, the only excavations which had then been made were the trenches dug by Major Meade in 1863 at my suggestion, and the subsequent surface clearances by the Burmese. The former had exposed the foundation lines of the original Buddhist Railing, which once surrounded the Temple, while the latter had brought to light several small Temples, besides many votive Stapas and Buddhist Statues.

I visited Buddha Gayá in 1879 for the express purpose of seeing what had been done by the Burmese. Their clearances had not been carried deep enough to expose the more ancient monuments which still existed on or near the original level of the ground on which the Temple was built. The clearances also had not been made with any discrimination. Everything was removed as it became exposed; and thus many of the hemispherical domes of the rows of early votive Stupas were thrown down. Fortunately they were not carried away, and when the great clearance of the ruins was subsequently made by Mr. Beglar, many of these stone hemispheres were restored to their original Stúpas, the remains of which had not been disturbed.

The ruinous state of the Temple at this time was thus described by a correspondent of the “Calcutta Englishman” newspaper:-” I found the Temple in the following “condition: The whole of the plinth and lower mouldings buried under accumulations “of rubbish; the floor of the sanctum, and of the great hall in front 4 feet lower “than the level of a rough stone floor laid by the Burmese, who had partially cleared the heaps of rubbish in front, the great hall roofless; the half-hall, or porch of the second storey, roofless; the whole of the front of the Temple above the level of “the third chamber fallen, disclosing a great triangular gap, about 20 feet high and away 12 feet wide at base; the stairs leading up from lowest floor, or ground floor or termson, from which the tower springs, roofles; the whole of the façade of the platform to the East a mound of ruins; the whole south façade of platform reinos, but retaining here and there portions of original work; the entire Woet from of the platform of the Temple buried under rubbish, which itself was held up by revetment wall 32 feet high of plain brick and mortar, unplastered, and looking for all the world like a dilapidated jail wall. The holy tree at the spex of a series of ” a circle of steps, which stood on the rubbish so held up by the revetment aforesaid, ” and the entire north wall above the then ground level a plain blank wall of mud and ” and brickbats, which was even then leaning outwards. A massive new well-plastered “staircase [is] stuck on the East front or main façade at its north-east angle to give access to the terrace of the upper chamber, and to the holy tree. The entire West face of main tower peeled off, including the half of the upper pinnacle, the rest of pinnacle overhanging. The entire North face of tower, except the upper portion, peeled off; the East face in fair order above the great triangular “gap already noticed; the South face in fairiah order, the terrace or platform “extensively cracked in all directions, the corbelled work in the third chamber, interior, overhanging in a most dangerous condition, the chamber at the same time “being inaccessible.”

Such was the state of the Great Buddhist Temple in 1880, when Sir Ashley Eden, the Lieut-Governor of Bengal, appointed Mr. J. D. Beglar to make a thorough repair of the whole building. The work was begun during the course of the year with a further clearance of the accumulated rubbish, which had become absolutely necessary, as every year the interior of the Temple was turned into a small tank by the catchment of rain water from the outside. During this clearance the different additions made to the outside were revealed. At the same time the interior pavement, which had become very uneven, was taken up to be relaid; and this work brought to light the numerous alterations which had been made at different times to the inside of the Temple.

In February 1881 I paid another visit to the Temple, and I was present when the discovery of Relics was made under the front of the Vajrisan Throne. As the discoveries that were made during these excavations are described in detail in the following pages, I will here only state the principal conclusions which I was constrained to adopt on their evidence.

B.C. 250-The first, and perhaps the most interesting, discovery was the remains of the original Temple of Asoks, with the polished Vajrisan Throne, exactly as portrayed in the Bharbut Baarelief with the view of the Bodhi Tree of Sakya-muni Close by, on the north side of the Temple, was found the remains of the cloistered walk, with its 22 pillared bases still in situ, each marked with a letter of the Indian alphabet of Asoka from a to the cerebral t. One shaft was also found marked with the Asoka letter a.

But the most important discovery was the fact that the present Temple is built exactly over the remains of Asoka’s Temple, so that the original Vajrasan Throne still retains its old position of Buddha’s seat, and the reputed centre of the Universe.

A.D. 140.-The age of the present Great Temple is shown by the presence of a gold coin of the Indo-Scythian King Huvishka, amongst the Relics deposited in front of the Throne, along with some silver punch-marked coins. The date of Huvishka is now known as covering a large portion of the first half of the 2nd century A.D. The same age is declared by the presence of an Indo-Scythian inscription on the outer Vajrasan Throne, and also by the discovery of a colossal statue, just outside the Temple, with an Indo-Scythian inscription dated in the year 64, which if referred to the Saka Samvat gives A.D. 78+64-142. I formerly thought that there was no Mahabodhi Temple standing at the time of Fa-Hian’s visit, A.D. 399 to 409; but I now see that his actual words distinctly imply that Temples were then standing at all the four famous sites connected with Buddha’s history. These were-1. Birthplace at Kapila. 2. The Bodhi Tree at Uruvihoa. 3. The Deer-park at Benares. 4. Place of Death at Kusinagara. Fa Hian must therefore have seen the present Temple about one century and a half after its erection.

450 A.D. circa-The early date of the Temple is proved by its straight sides, which form a square truncated pyramid, whereas all mediaval Temples that I have seen have curved or slightly bulging sides, which give a more graceful form. The entrance Pavilion in front of the Temple, which was seen by Hwen Thaang, and which he describes as an after addition, may perhaps be the work of King Sado, called Thado- Meng in the Burmese inscription. Some repairs must certainly have been made about this time, as we know that the pillared roof of Buddha’s Walk had fallen down before the time of Hwen Thsang, who does not notice it.

About this time also must have occurred the great irruption of sand from the Phalgu River, which filled the whole courtyard of the Temple to a height of 24 feet. To the same period I would refer the sandstone pavement of the interior, which I suppose was a necessary repair owing to the breaking up of the old terraced flooring of Huvishka’s Temple. A great irruption of sand is alluded to by Hwen Thaang,

who says, “Since the true Law has become weakened sand and earth have covered “the Adamantine Throne all over, and it is no longer visible;” to which he adds that during the last century or two men will go towards the Bodhi Tree, as they can no longer see the Adamant Throne.” By this account I understand that at the time of the Pilgrim’s visit the Vajrásan Throne outside the Temple under the Bodhi Tree was covered with sand, and consequently men could not pay their devotion to it.

A.D. 600.-In the beginning of the 7th century the Bodhi Tree was cut down by Raja Sasangka, the great opponent of Buddhism. At the same time the status of Buddha inside must have been broken, although the pilgrim piously records that it was saved by a stratagem of Purna Varma’s Minister.

A.D. 620.–The Bodhi Tree was afterwards restored by Raja Pârna Varma, who surrounded it with a stone wall, about 24 feet high, to prevent it being again cut down. By this account I understand that the Raja placed his new Tree on the top of the basement terrace, about 25 feet above the level of the accumulated sand which surrounded the Temple. At the same time I conclude that he must have found the old Vajrasan Stone, which had originally been placed on the broad terraced berm which surrounded the whole building. This Throne would then have been raised on the basement, 3 feet in height, where it was found in 1881, hidden behind the mass of the great central buttress.

A.D. 1035 to 1079.-The next ascertained event in the history of the Temple is the account of the extensive repairs which were made by the Burmese in the 11th century. The detailed notice of this work is recorded by the Burmese themselves in an inscription dated in A.D. 1079. The earlier date of A.D. 1035 is found on a gilded copper umbrella top, which was the gift of Dharma Raja Guru, the person deputed by the King of Burma to repair the Temple. By the second inscription on a stone slab we learn that as the repairs were not finished by this officer, a second agent was sent in A.D. 1071, who acceeded in making a complete restoration in 7 years and 10 months, having finished the work in A.D. 1079.

Other repairs were no doubt made in the latter half of the 12th century by Asoka-bella, Raja of Sapáda-laksha, or Sawlak, just before the Muhammadan conquest in A.D. 1198.

After this time I find no notices of Mahabodhi. In the chronicles of Mewar mention is made of expeditions in the 13th and 14th centuries for the recovery of Gay Julien’s Hwen Thsang, II, 401. Beal’s Hwen Thsang, II, 116.

from the infidels; but these notices refer to Brahma Gays of the Brahmazists, and not to the Great Buddhist Temple of Buddha Gayà. I, however, look upon thees expeditions as pious wishes of the Bardic chroniclers.

In the six centuries which followed the Muhammadan conquest during which the Mahabodhi Temple was quite deserted, it gradually became more and more ruinous. The greater part of the stucco facing had disappeared, and the brick walls, being laid only with clay mortar, had peeled off on all sides, more especially on the West face, where in many places the bricks had fallen away to a depth of nearly 5 feet. But a sufficient number of tolerably well-preserved portions of the mouldings and niches on the other faces still remained to enable the restorer to complete the repair of the whole in the exact pattern of the original. This extensive renewal of the surface was absolutely necessary to ensure the future safety of the building. No new features were added, the restoration being limited to a strict repetition of the existing niches and mouldings. But the front Pavilion of the Temple was almost a complete rain; and at first it did not seem likely that any authority could be found for even its partial renewal. My advice was that the ruined walls should be well plastered with cement simply to prevent further decay. This was actually begun, as I see by one of Mr. Beglar’s photographs. But a short time afterwards a small model in stone of the Temple was found amongst the ruins, from which the whole design of the building as it existed in medieval times could be traced with tolerable completeness [See Plate XVI] From this model, and from the still existing remains of the façade, Mr. Beglar designed the front Pavilion as it now stands. On the same authority he designed the four corner Pavilions, which are seen in all the photographs of the restored Temple. This additional work has been much criticised, and I have been roundly abused for it in company with Mr. Beglar, although I had nothing whatever to say to it. At the same time I must confess that, since I have seen it, I think his design of the front Pavilion is a very successful completion of the entrance in the style and spirit or the original work as shown in the model. It is of course a Restoration, which, as it was based on the double authority of existing remains and an ancient model, I consider as legitimate and justifiable.

 I have since discovered a second model of the Mahabodhi Temple in the Indian Museum at Calcutta. As it was found at Mroboung, the ancient capital of Arakan, I have no doult that models of the Temple were kept on sale for pilgrims.

The importance of the Mahabodhi Temple for the history of Indian art is quite The sculptures of the Bharhut Stúpa date from the flourishing period of the Sunga unique, as it gives us the oldest existing remains of both sculpture and architecture. Dynasty, about B.C. 150, whereas the Mahâbodhi remains belong to the period of Asoka, just one century earlier.

There are two large statues, both alto-relievos, one of a female standing to the front on the corner pillar of Buddha’s Walk, the other of a Yakshini in a tree, on a corner pillar of the Railing. Of smaller sculptures there are basso-relievos of the famous Jetavano garden scene, of the Indra-sála cave, of the Bodhi Tree, and of the Tri-ratna and Dharma-chakra symbols. The romains of architecture are limited to the Pillars, which show unmistakeably their Porsepolitan origin, both in their bulbous bases and in

their animal capitals.

In Appendix A. I have added some notes on the peculiar construction of the Vaults and Arches of the Temple. As the style is confined to India, it may, very appropriately, be called the Indian Arch.

In Appendix B. I have suggested that the Plan of the Temple must have been formed on a diagram of squares after the usual Indian fashion.

MAILẢ BODHL

HISTORICAL NOTICES

The history of the Mahabodhi Temple is written in the alterations and successive additions that were made to it. These different works are actual facts that were revealed during the repair of the building. The chief altoration was the removal of the upper slab of the Vajrasan Throne from the inside to the outside of the Temple. As this alab is sculptured on all four faces it must have been exposed to view on all four sides in an open building. Another later change was the elevation of the Bodhi Tree from the ground level to the top of the basement, a rise of more than 24 feet. Other alterations were the successive changes in the level of the floors, both inside and outside, which were gradually raised from the time of Asoka down to the last great restoration of the Temple by the Burmese in the 11th century of the Christian era. The most prominent additions were the three great buttresses built against the back wall of the basement. These subsisted in a ruined state down to the present time; but they had been completely detached from the Temple by their entire want of foundations, the lower courses being laid on the bare sand. Their weight failed to withstand the resistless force of the growing roots of the holy Pipal Tree, one of which that had penetrated in a slanting direction across one of the niche figures of Buddha was as thick as a man’s thigh. The actual separation amounted to 6 or 8 inches, and the gap was filled with crushed bricks of the back wall. See Plate XV.

A much more striking addition must have been the front portico, which is described by Hwon Thsang as a pavilion of three storeys. No remains of this work came down to our time save the edges of the crumbling walls that were attached to the main building. But the ground plan was plainly indicated by the bases of Pillars, which showed an open portico, similar to that which was added to the Great Temple at Nålanda. The front of the portico consisted of four tall pillars, which, judging from the pilaster attached to the back wall must have been nearly plain. This front of four pillars is also clearly shown in the small model of the Temple which was found amongst the ruins.”

The site on which this famous Temple stood is said to have been pointed out by Upa Gupta to Asoka, who gave 100,000 pieces of gold for the building.  near the small village of Uruvilwa, or Uruwela as it is called in the Pali Chronicles, and which still exists under the name of Urel. This place was then the residence of the eldest of the three Kasyapa brothers, on which account he was known as Uruvilwa “Uruwela Kasyapa,” who was a fire worshipper. The name of Uruvilwa is not Kasyapa. When the Prince Sakya Sinha arrived there “he went to the residence of mentioned by the Chinese pilgrims; but it is found repeatedly in the Buddhist Chronicles of Ceylon; and in the Mahawanso it is stated that Buddha-ghosha, on his return from Ceylon to India, went “to worship at the Bo Tree at Uruwelaya in “Magadha.” There is some doubt about the meaning of Uruvilwa, which Turnour translates as “sand hills” or “waves of land,” from uru “sand,” and welaya “waves “or mounds.” In the Tibetan version of the Lalita Vistara it is translated as “many tanks.” Both of these versions agree very well with the sandy nature of the site and its surrounding tanks. Uruvilwa was the name of the village which was under a senapati or senâni, named Nandika, whose daughter Sujâtâ presented the rice-and-milk to Buddha. In the Lalita Vistara nine other young girls are associated with Sujata, of whom one is named Uluvillikd. In some passages mention is made of the “forest of As vilva is the name of the “Uruvilva,” near which was a village of the same name. common and well known tree now called “bel” (Aegle marmelos), the original meaning of Uruvilva would have been the “many bel trees,” or the “Bel forest.” This derivation is confirmed by the statement of the Lalita Vistara, according to which Buddha was charmed when he beheld the village of Uruvilva with its beautiful trees and shrubs, and the pure waters of the Nairanjana River. Unfortunately this stream is liable to sudden inundations during the rainy season. That it was equally subject to great floods in early times is, I think, proved by the story of Kasyapa’s anxiety for Buddha’s safety when surrounded by the inundation. The deposit of sand about Uruvilvâ seems also to be established by the following legend:-

“In a former age there were ten thousand ascetics resident in that forest, and it “was their custom that when any of them were troubled with evil thoughts, they “arose early in the morning, and going to the river, entered it, and waded on until “the water reached to their mouths, when they took up a handful of sand from the “bottom and put it in a bag. They afterwards confessed the fault of which they “had been guilty in the midst of the assembled ascetics, and threw down the sand ” in their presence as a token that the appointed penance had been performed. By this ” means, in the course of years, a sandy plain was produced 16 miles in size.”

This certainly is an ingenious way of accounting for the accumulation of sand; but I prefer the natural process of the river floods, and I am willing to accept the 16 miles as a fair estimate of the extent of the sandy tract.

I got the first notice of the name of Mahabodhi in the end of the year 1877, as I was approaching Buddha Gaya from the south. For several days I had heard mention of a lofty Temple called Mahabodhi, which I soon found was the common name for the Great Temple of Buddha Gaya. Everywhere the people spoke of it by no other name. I then came to the conclusion that this must have been its name in ancient times. This opinion was confirmed by a reference to Hwen Thsang’s Travels, in which I found that the Temple was called the Mo-ho-pu-ti, or Mahabodhi Vihara, and the Monastery the Mahabodhi Sanghåráma. I afterwards found that the same name was used by all the Chinese pilgrims of the 7th century,’ of whose travels we have short notices by Mr. Beal. The name of Mahabodhi also occurs in a Brahmanical inscription found at Buddha Gays, which records a grant made in A.D. 850 by Raja Dharma Påla.” Still later it is found in two of the inscriptions of Raja Asokaballa, of which one is dated in A.D. 11573 according to my reckoning.

Lastly, the name of Mahabodhi is found in all the inscriptions of the granite pavement slabs, which range in date from A.D. 1302 to 1331.

From these notices it appears that the name of Mahabodhi was the common appellation for the holy site where Sakya-Muni had attained Buddhahood. Of course the terms Bodhi and Mahabodhi apply primarily to the holy Pipal Tree, or Bodhi-druma.

Under these circumstances I have thought it right to drop the erroneous title of Buddha Gaya, which is first found in the apocryphal inscription of Amara Deva. Abul Fazl mentions Brahma Gaya as a place of Hindu worship sacred to Brahmâ. But the Great Temple of Mahabodhi stands a short distance to the north of the village of Urel or Uruvilwa, 6 miles to the south of Gaya, and has no connexion whatever with the name of Gayâ.

In giving the name of Mahabodhi to the most famous place in Buddhist history, I am only restoring the true name which has been in use for many centuries. The simple form of Bodhi was in common use in the time of Asoka, and the holy Pipal Tree is so named in the Bharhut Basrelief, of B.C. 150, as the-

Bhagavato Saka-Munino Bodhi,

“the Bodhi (Tree) of the divine Sakya Muni.” The larger name of Mahabodhi has been in use for more than twelve centuries, from the time of the Chinese pilgrim, Hwen Thsang, in the 7th century down to the present day. The full name of the holy Pipal Tree was Bodhi-druma, or the Tree of Wisdom.” The Throne or seat of Buddha, was called Bodhi-manda; the Temple erected over the Throne was named Mahabodhi Vihara, and the Great Monastery close by was called Mahabodhi Sangháráma. But perhaps the most decisive proof that Mahabodhi was the true name of the place is the fact that it is so called in a Brahmanical inscription (Plate XXVIII., fig. 3) which records the setting up of an image of the four-faced Mahadeva in A.D. 850, during the reign of Dharma Påla ” for the benefit of the inhabitants of Mahabodhi [Mahabodhi-nivâsinâm].”