KTS - Sarao.The History of Mahabodhi Temple of Bodh Gaya

K. T. S.
Sarao
The History
of Mahabodhi
Temple
at Bodh Gaya
The History of Mahabodhi Temple at Bodh Gaya
“ekaṃ samayaṃ bhagavā uruvelāyaṃ viharati najjā nerañjarāya tīre bodhirukkhamūle
paṭhamābhisambuddho. tena kho pana samayena bhagavā sattāhaṃ ekapallaṅkena isinno hoti
vimuttisukhapaṭisaṃvedī” (Udāna.1.1).
“Once the Lord, soon after having attained Enlightenment, was staying at Uruvelā on the
bank of the river Nerañjarā at the foot of the Bodhi Tree. Thereafter the Lord sat cross-legged
in one (posture) for a week, experiencing the bliss of emancipation” (Udāna.1.1).
“Tena samayena buddho bhagavā uruvelāyaṃ viharati najjā nerañjarāya tīre bod-
hirukkhamūle paṭhamābhisambuddho. atha kho bhagavā bodhirukkhamūle sattāhaṃ eka-
pallañkena nisīdi vimuttisukhapaṭisaṃvedi” (Mahāvagga.1.1).
“Once the Enlightened One, the Lord, soon after having attained Enlightenment, was staying
at Uruvelā on the bank of the river Nerañjarā at the foot of the Bodhi Tree. Thereafter the
Lord sat cross-legged in one (posture) for a week at the foot of the Bodhirukkha experiencing
the bliss of emancipation” (Mahāvagga.1.1).
K. T. S. Sarao
The History of Mahabodhi

Temple at Bodh Gaya
123
K. T. S. Sarao
Department of Buddhist Studies
University of Delhi
Delhi, India
ISBN 978-981-15-8066-6 ISBN 978-981-15-8067-3 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8067-3
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar
or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from
the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained
herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard
to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721,
Singapore
Preface
The basic purpose of this book, aimed at a broad audience, is twofold. The first is to
offer an overview of the history of Bodh Gayā, especially its growth as a sacred site
within the Gayā Dharmakṣetra. For this purpose, apart from tracing the history of
Uruvelā, Senānigama, and Gayā ever since human habitation took place here, an
attempt has also been made to contextualize the different encounters, incidents, and
legends connected to the Buddha’s experiences shortly before and after his
attainment of Enlightenment (Bodhi). Here, a particular attention has been paid to
the period when, spiritually speaking, the recently enlightened Śākyamuni was
somewhat lonely and trying to carve a place for himself in the highly competitive
Gayā Dharmakṣetra that was already teeming with similarly inclined but
better-established personages. The second purpose of this book is to examine the
role of various personalities and institutions most of whom not only contributed
towards the emergence of the Mahābodhi, Temple of Great Enlightenment, as a
contested religious site but also often aggravated the prevailing competition, tussles,
and tensions surrounding this ancient temple complex that was restored and rebuilt
more than once. In this context, a special notice has been taken of the role of the
Victorian Indologists as well as the colonial administrators, the Giri mahants,
Anagārika Dharmapāla, the Indian National Congress, the Hindu Mahasabha, the
UPA Government of India, and the Government of Bihar for the purposes of
understanding the material milieu pertaining to the identity, evolution, growth,
ownership, management, and conservation of the Mahābodhi Temple Complex.
The politics behind the access to spiritual resources and the accompanying financial
benefits that go with it has also been examined here.
The general principle that has been adopted in this book is to mention popular
Buddhist terms in Sanskrit placed in parentheses after the English equivalent.
However, wherever there is a difference, the Pāli or Prākrit version is also used and
the same follows the Sanskrit within the parentheses. For instance, the term
“no-soul” (anātman, anattā). If and when the term is used again in the main content
of the book, the Sanskrit version has generally been preferred, unless the context is
exclusively based either in Pāli or Prākrit. Those words that have now become part
of the vocabulary of English language and can be usually seen in a typical English
v
vi Preface
dictionary have not been italicized. However, for the purpose of clarity, appropriate
diacritical marks, wherever applicable, have been used. Thus, the word “nirvana”
has been written as “nirvāṇa”. Further, popular spellings of words such as Bodh
Gayā (for Bodhgayā Bodha Gayā, Baudha Gayā, Bodhagayā, and Buddha Gayā),
mahant (for mahanta), pīpal (for pīpala, peepal, peepul), Sārnāth (for Sāranātha),
Pāli (for Pāḷi), Sanskrit (for Saṃskṛta), and Prākrit (for Prākṛta) have been used but
with diacritical marks for more clarity.
Delhi, India K. T. S. Sarao

Acknowledgements
This work was fostered by the assistance of many persons and institutions, without
which it would have never come into existence. I am most grateful to my guruji
Prof. Dilip K. Chakrabarti who read the manuscript of this book in the initial stage
of preparation and made many helpful suggestions and critical comments. The
critical comments of the two anonymous referees were very useful and I am grateful
for their learned and perceptive engagement with the manuscript. My friends Anita
Sharma and Surinder Kumar were most helpful throughout the preparation of this
book. I am grateful for their camaraderie, wholehearted interest in my research,
valuable comments, and willingness to share their knowledge about Bodh Gayā.
I also wish to thank Angrej, Jarnail, and Anu for their unstinting concern for my
well-being. Poonam and Manik were most helpful in ensuring that my Mac com-
puter stays functional. My colleagues in Delhi University, particularly R. K. Rana,
Subhra Pavagadhi, Ranjana R. Singhal, Shalini Singhal, Satyendra Kumar Pandey,
Nirja Sharma, Susmita Pandey, K. N. Tiwary, and Galdhan Sangai always kept my
spirits high. Niharika Labh, Sanjaya Kumar Singh, Arvind Kumar Singh, Deepmala
Mishra, Neeraj Yadav, Jyoti Dwivedi, and Baishali Sarkar helped with the bibli-
ographical material of various kinds. I am indebted to all of them. Above all, I am
grateful to Neha, Asher, Nidhi, Ken, Sarabjit, Gurbinder, Kanika, and Jatin for their
sustained interest and continuous support to my research on Bodh Gayā. I also wish
to thank Amaya, Daryush, Riya, Mishka, Roman, and Jaskaran for their adven-
turous spirits. I am very grateful to Satvinder Kaur at Springer for seeing this book
through. And finally, but foremost in my heart, I wish, in this book to thank my
wife, Sunita, who has withstood with superhuman good nature, the ups and downs
that came our way.
30 March 2020 K. T. S. Sarao
vii
About This Book
This book offers an overview of the emergence of Bodh Gayā as a sacred site within
Gayā Dharmakṣetra. It contextualizes the different encounters, incidents, and
legends connected to the Buddha’s experiences shortly before and after he attained
Bodhi–when, spiritually speaking, he was extremely lonely and was trying to carve
a place for himself in the highly competitive Gayā Dharmakṣetra. Further, the book
examines the role of various personalities and institutions contributed towards the
emergence of Mahābodhi Temple. It incorporates a wealth of research on the role
of the Victorian Indologists as well as the colonial administrators, the Giri mahants,
and Anagārika Dharmapāla, to understand the material milieu pertaining not only to
its identity but also access to spiritual resources as its conservation and develop-
ment. This book is an indispensable read for students and scholars of history,
cultural studies, and art and architecture as well as practitioners of Buddhism and
Hinduism.
ix
Contents
1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2 The Gayā Dharmakṣetra and Its Neighbourhood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3 The Mahābodhi Temple Complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
4 The Mahābodhi Tree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
5 The Mahābodhi Temple: Origin, Evolution, and Dilapidation . . . . . 77
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
6 The Sri Lankans, the Turuṣkas, the Mahants, and the British . . . . . 91
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
7 The Politics of Anagārika Dharmapāla and Its Aftermath . . . . . . . . 111
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Appendix A: A Brief History of Bodh Gayā Math, District Gayā . . . . . . 131

Appendix B: Calcutta High Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
Appendix C: The Bodh Gaya Temple Act, 1949 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
Appendix D: Bye-Laws of the Bodh Gaya Temple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
Appendix E: Application for the Inscription of the Mahabodhi
Temple Complex as a World Heritage Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
xi
xii Contents
Appendix F: World Heritage Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

Appendix G: The Bodhgaya Temple (Amendment) Act 2013 . . . . . . . . . 201
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
About the Author
K. T. S. Sarao is currently Professor of Buddhist Studies at the University of

Delhi. He holds doctoral degrees from the universities of Delhi and Cambridge and
an honorary doctorate from the P. S. R. Buddhist University, Phnom Penh. In 2018,
the President of India conferred on him the Certificate of Honour for substantial
contribution in the field of Pāli Language.
xiii
Chapter 1
Background
Abstract After attaining Enlightenment at the foot of a pı̄pal caityavr.ks.a and then
setting the wheel of the Dharma in motion, the Buddha spent some time in the Gayā
Dharmaks.etra. Though he was able to win a few converts like the Tebhātika Jat.ilas,
his success appears to have been rather limited in the Gayā Dharmaks.etra. Though
devotees began to visit the Mahābodhi during the lifetime of the Buddha, pilgrimage
appears to have picked up pace only from the time of Emperor Aśoka when he visited
the open-air bodhighara (shrine). By the Gupta period (c. 319–570 CE), the spot of
Enlightenment became an established centre of international pilgrimage when, with
the blessings of King Samudragupta, the Sri Lankans established an extraterrito-
rial base near the Mahābodhi Tree and took over the control of the bodhighara.
Consequently, the Sri Lankans may have played some role in the building of the
towered brick Mahābodhi Temple, that appears to have been constructed during the
Gupta period. Except the occasional Brāhman.ical-Hindu influence, the Sri Lankan
dominance continued until the temple became derelict due to the Turus.ka raids in
Bihar after the twelfth century. Four centuries later, the Śaivite saṅnyāsins began
to look after the Temple and international pilgrims began to trickle in again. In the
last quarter of the nineteenth century, the Temple was completely refurbished and a
new sapling of the Mahābodhi Tree was planted. Around the same time, Anagārika
Dharmapāla, under the influence of the Victorian Indologists, began a movement for
the control of the Mahābodhi Temple that culminated in the loss of Dharmapāla in
the Calcutta High Court. However, the acrimony with regard to the possession of the
Mahābodhi Temple continued. Efforts by the Indian National Congress and Hindu
Mahasabha were not of much help. After the passage of the Bodh Gaya Temple
Act (1949), management of the Temple was brought under the joint control of four
Hindus and four Buddhists whose chairman, a ninth member, had to be a Hindu.
This advantage was done away with through the Bodhgaya Temple (Amendment)
Act of 2013. In June 2002, the Indian UPA Government managed successfully to get
the Mahābodhi Temple complex declared as the UNESCO’s World Heritage Monu-
ment recognizing it as only a “Buddhist monument” completely doing away with its
multi-faith character.
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license 1
to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020
K. T. S. Sarao, The History of Mahabodhi Temple at Bodh Gaya,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8067-3_1
2 1 Background
Full-Length of the Chapter

According to tradition, when Siddhārtha Gautama (Pāli, Siddhattha Gotama), the
would-be Buddha, left home at the age of twenty-nine to become a saṅnyāsin
(renouncer), the phenomenon of saṅnyāsa (renunciation of all things of the world,
both internal and external) had become both ubiquitous and diverse.1 Knowledge
of the Brahman (Supreme Reality) was perceived as the highest spiritual attainment
and it was believed that the key with which the door to Brahman could be opened
was tyāga (Pāli, cāga. Renunciation with generosity of all that hinders the realization
of the Self) through saṅnyāsa. For instance, as pointed out in the Kaivalyopanis.ad,
there was a firmly held view that “neither by deeds, nor by (acquiring) progeny and
wealth; but by renunciation does one attain immortality” (na karman.ā na prajayā
dhanena tyāgenaiken amr.tatvam anaśuh) (see Radhakrishnan 1953: 927). Following
this established tradition of saṅnyāsa, like many other persons, the young Siddhārtha
Gautama gave up his role as a householder and fractured out of the society for the
purpose of devoting himself full time to a life of religio-spiritual quest. At this
time, the saṅnyāsins such as he lived as wanderers (parivrājakas, paribbājakas)
and almsmen (bhiks.us, bhikkhus) (Kaelber 1989: 110) who not only did not follow
the conventional means to meet their own basic needs but also considered them-
selves free from two obligations of a householder. First, the obligation of meeting
the basic needs of one’s family. Two, the obligation towards parents (pitr. r.na) of
looking after them in their old age. Furthermore, having become religious mendi-
cants, these typical renouncers cut down their basic needs to a bare minimum and
met these reduced needs either through alms or directly from nature. Whereas some
of these wanderers and ascetics pursued their goals individually, others would gather
themselves in fairly organized groups around a teacher. For the most part, these
renouncers practised austerities in various forms in order to attain their goals. These
austere practices that they undertook to either suppress or completely rid themselves
of bodily drives, ranged from measures such as taking a vow of silence to extreme
physical mortifications that included adopting bodily postures such as keeping an arm
raised in the air (ūrdhva-bāhu), sleeping in a sitting or standing position and never
lying down, wearing matted-hair, living alone at the foot of a tree (mūlikatta), living
swathed with dirt and dust (pam . sugun..thita), and embracing complete and all-weather
nakedness (see Rhys Davids and Carpenter 1890–1911: i.161–177; Trenckner and
Chalmers 1888–1896: i.387–392; iii.41; Feer 1884–1898: 197). These wanderers
and ascetics also combined their austere practices with some sort of meditation
or concentration (dhyāna/ jhāna, samādhi) aimed at producing an altered state of
1 Though traditionally saṅnyāsa had been prescribed for men or women in late years of their life,
an option was available to young brahmacārins (bachelor students) who could skip the stages of
household (gr.hastha) and retirement (vānaprastha) by renouncing worldly and materialistic desires
for the purpose of living a life inspired by peace and spirituality (Radhakrishnan 1922: 1–22; Bhavuk
2011: Chap. 5). However, during the early mediaeval period a drastic change took place in saṅnyāsa.
After the invasions of India by Arabs and Turks and the establishment of régimes influenced by
Islamic theocracy from about the twelfth century, some of the Śaiva and Vais.n.ava saṅnyāsins
metamorphosed themselves into warriors by developing martial arts, formulating military tactics,
and engaging in guerrilla warfare (see Lorenzen 1978: 61–75).
1 Background 3
consciousness for the purpose of acquiring a deeper understanding of the nature of

existence (sam . sāra). Different combinations of these austere practices and medita-
tional techniques resulted in the origin of numerous philosophical perspectives that
aimed at intellectually rationalizing the understanding of sam . sāra.
During six years of saṅnyāsa, Siddhārtha Gautama worked under different
teachers as well as alongside like-minded wandering religious seekers. Sources
specifically mention two teachers who in all probability taught him two different
forms of meditative techniques (Wynne 2007: 8–23). The first one, under whom he
spent some time, was Ārād.a Kālāma (Pāli, Āl.āra Kālāma). The would-be Buddha
found Ārād.a’s assertion that his Dharma, if practised as taught, could be grasped soon
by oneself as one’s own, quite promising and inspirational. He felt that a pragmatic
doctrine is reliable and persuasive only if it could be grasped by oneself and in a
short time. He was thus satisfied with Ārād.a’s words that what he knew personally he
had realized it himself. Within a short period of time, the would-be Buddha learned
the Dharma which led him as far as the dhyānic (Pāli, jhānic) realm of nothingness
(Pali, ākiñcaññāyatana).2 He then queried from Ārād.a whether the realm of noth-
ingness, which the latter had realized himself and lived in possession of, was the
same stage as what the would-be Buddha had now accomplished. Ārād.a replied in
the affirmative (see Wynne 2007: 76). The Ariyapariyesanā Sutta mentions Ārād.a
pointing out to him that he could not teach him anything more, saying, “You are
the same as I am now. There is no difference between us. Stay here and take my
place and teach my students with me” (Trenckner and Chalmers 1888–1896: i.160–
175). However, becoming apathetic to the practice that at best took one only to the
dhyānic realm of nothingness (the seventh dhyāna, if the formless realms were to be
counted as the dhyānas as well) and finding that he could progress no further under
Ārād.a, the would-be Buddha went ahead to become a student of Udraka Rāmaputra
(Pāli, Uddaka Rāmaputta). Udraka was known for teaching refined states of medita-
tion known as the immaterial attainments (Armstrong 2004: 77; Eliade 2009: 162;
Sumedho 1998: 3). Under his guidance, he attained to higher stages of meditative
consciousness called sphere of neither perception nor non-perception (corresponding
to the eighth jhāna or the fourth ārūpa jhāna).3 The difference here was that while
2 Literally meaning lacking anything, the term Ākim . canyāyatana or Ākiñcaññāyatana is a sphere
in which formless beings sojourn contemplating upon the thought that “there is no thing”. This
is viewed as a form of perception, though a very subtle one. According to the second century
Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra, Ākim
. canyāyatana refers to the “sphere of nothing at all” and represents
one of the four Ārūpyasamāpatti (“formless absorptions”). Of the four formless (ārūpya) absorp-
tions, one, viz., the naivasam. jñānā-sam
. jñā-āyatana, is always impure (sāsrava). The ākāśānantya-
āyatana is sometimes impure (sāsrava) and sometimes pure (anāsrava). If it is impure, this
ākāśāyatana contains four impure aggregates (sāsrava-skandha), and if it is pure, it contains four
pure aggregates. It is the same for the vijñānānantya-āyatana and the ākim . canya-āyatana (see
Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra: Chap. 32). Ārād.a Kālāma considered Ākiñcaññāyatana as a higher
formless world where matter no longer exists and in his view it was equivalent to Enlightenment
(see, Chinese Buddhist Encyclopedia, http://www.chinabuddhismencyclopedia.com/en/index.php?
title=Ākiñcaññāyatana). Accessed 18 December 2019.
3 Naivasamjñānāsamjñāyatana (Pāli, Nevasaññānāsaññāyatana) is a realm in which the beings go
. .
just beyond a negation of perception and have reached a liminal state where they do not engage
4 1 Background
Ārād.a Kālāma had taught him to concentrate on nothingness, Udraka Rāmaputra

taught him to enter this state of mind. However, the would-be Buddha felt that his
aim was not yet achieved. Though he had attained mastery of his mind which was
considered to be the highest level of achievement at that time, his ultimate goal went
far beyond these limits. In the Sam . yutta Nikāya the Buddha points out that Udraka
Rāmaputra laid claim to being “versed in lore and to have conquered everything,
digging out the root of ill,” though he had no explanation for such a claim (Feer
1884–1898: iv.83f). Again, in the Pāsādika Sutta of the Dı̄gha Nikāya, the Buddha
tells Cunda that when Udraka Rāmaputra said “seeing, he seeth not,” he had in mind
a man who could see the blade of a sharpened razor but not its edge—“a low, pagan
thing” to talk of (Rhys Davids and Carpenter 1890–191: iii.126–7) . By now he had
realized that his aspirations surpassed those of these two teachers under whom he
had received training. Thus, he felt that he could not get what he had sought and
feeling unsatisfied, moved on (Narada 1992: 19–20).
Now he began to practice extreme austerities together with five renouncers (Aññā
Kon.d.añña, Bhaddiya, Vappa, Mahānāma, and Assaji) who later won fame as the
Pañcavargı̄yā Bhiks.us (Pāli, Pañcavaggiyā Bhikkhus). After having pushed himself
to the extreme, he came to realize that this served only a limited purpose and
concluded that he might find what he was seeking if he allowed his mind to perch in
a state of peace. To do this, he needed to nourish his body and regain strength. Thus,
he began to eat and drink in moderate quantities. His five companions thought, by
doing so, he had broken the protocol of saṅnyāsa and turned away from the quest.
Consequently, they parted ways and left him to his own devices.4 Now nourished,
he seated himself, facing east, at the foot of a pı̄pal tree (ficus religiosa), which later
came to be recognized as the Bodhirukkha or Bodhivr.ks.a (i.e., the Tree of Enlight-
enment).5 The occasion was the full-moon night of the month of Vaiśākha (Vaiśākha
Pūrn.imā). And his ultimate resolve was: “Let only skin, sinew and bone remain, let
the flesh and blood dry in my body, but I will not give up this seat without attaining
compete awakening” (Fausböll 1877–1897: i.71). The earliest accounts describe the
attainment of Bodhi (often translated as either Awakening or Enlightenment) in gener-
ally solemn psychological terms, most often by reference to the successive practice
of the four dhyānas and the attainment of three “knowledges” (trividyā, tevijjā),
in “perception” (sam . ñā, sañña), recognition of particulars by their marks), but are not entirely
unconscious.
4 After having attained Enlightenment, the Buddha paid a visit to them and gave his first discourse
to them. The early texts indicate that at first they refused to pay much attention to him. However,
gradually the Buddha’s persuasive power won their hearts and they became his first disciples. It
has been suggested that credit for certain inclinations in the teaching of the Buddha should go to
the members of this group. In fact, C.A.F. Rhys Davids goes so far as to call them the “Unknown
co-founders of Buddhism” (1927: 193–208).
5 It seems that the would-be Buddha was drawn to this particular pı̄pal tree because it was “already
the object of a popular cult” and was distinguishable by some kind of makeshift offering-altar or
mound or by a railing which set it apart from its surroundings as a caityavr.ks.a (tree-shrine) (see
Coomaraswamy 1935: 3–4; Myer 1958: 278). In the Indic tradition, a caityavr.ks.a should not be
injured as there is a belief that such trees are the abodes of gods, yaks.as, demonic spirits, and so on
(Ganguli 1976: XII.69.39).
1 Background 5
climaxing in the knowledge of suffering (duh.kha, dukkha), its cause, its cessation,
and the path leading to its cessation—what came to be celebrated as “the four noble
truths” (catvāri āryasatyāni, cattāri ariyasaccāni). The Bodhi is also explained in
terms of the attainment of insight into the causal chain of dependent origination
(pratı̄tyasamutpāda, pat.iccasamuppāda) as well as the higher knowledge (abhijñā,
abhiññā), i.e.. direct comprehension of the dharma (dhamma) (see Trenckner and
Chalmers 1888–1896: i.21–23, 167; Rhys Davids and Carpenter 1890–1911: ii.30–
35) . The legend also underscores the Bodhi as the story of the encounter of the
Bodhisattva (Pāli, Bodhisatta) with Māra. Māra is not so much a personification of
evil as of the dreadful grip which the world—particularly the world of the senses—
can have on the mind of a person. In fact, Māra is the powerful control of all kinds of
experience to entice and entrap the unguarded mind. Thus, having been enticed by
Māra one remains lost and engrossed in the allure of the sam . sāra. As a consequence,
one is not able to discover the path that leads to the cessation of suffering. Hence,
as the Bodhisattva sat beneath the pı̄pal tree steadfast in his resolution, Māra, riding
his great elephant, arrived armed with desire, aversion, hunger and thirst, craving,
tiredness and sleepiness, fear, and doubt. His sole objective was to wear down the
resolve of the Bodhisattva and make him abandon his seat beneath the pı̄pal tree.
The gods who had gathered around the tree in anticipation of the Bodhisattva’s
Enlightenment took to their heels in all directions at the sight of Māra’s advancing
armies, and the Bodhisattva was left to face them all by himself. Māra asked him as
to by what right he sat there underneath the tree. He replied that it was by right of
having practised the perfections (pāramitās) over countless aeons. However, Māra
commented that he too had done likewise and, what was more, he had witnesses too
to prove it, i.e., all his armies would vouch for him, “But who would stand witness for
you?” asked Māra. The Bodhisattva then raised his right hand and touched the ground
inviting the very earth as his witness. This became known as the Bhūmisparśa Mudrā
(Touching-the-Earth Posture). It marks the defeat of Māra and the Enlightenment of
the Bodhisattva who thereby became the Enlightened One (Buddha). As the Buddha
touched the earth, Māra plummeted down from his elephant and his armies bolted
in disarray. Apart from the Bodhisattva’s struggle against the allure of the sam . sāra,
one may also see in this legend, the difficulties that the Bodhisattva may have faced
in the Gayā Dharmaks.etra vis-à-vis the various competing parties for a share in the
sacred space immediately before and after his Enlightenment.
Even the earliest tradition appears to be familiar with the story of how the great
god, the Brahmā Sahampati, came then and stood before the Buddha and made an
appeal to him to teach. This legend, it seems, was created as a device to indicate that
the Buddha’s superiority was acknowledged even by the already recognized gods
of that time. Shortly afterwards, a second visit by the Brahmā Sahampati further
established that the Buddha did not need a teacher as he was a teacher unto himself.
The world of ghosts, demons, sprites, demi-gods, and gods is made to merge and
blend with the world of Buddhist practice. Early stone reliefs illustrating the Buddha’s
Enlightenment show all of them getting together around the Mahābodhi Tree and
acknowledging his accomplishment.
6 1 Background
The Buddhist perception of the nature of the lifestyle of the One Gone Forth
(Tathāgata) views the Buddhist sam . gha as an important part of society as a whole.
Thus, when shortly after the attainment of Enlightenment, the Buddha is reported as
imparting instructions to his growing group of newly engaged monastic followers to
set off, never two in the same direction, to teach the Dharma that is “lovely in the
beginning, lovely in the middle, and lovely in the end,” “for the benefit and happiness
of humanity, out of sympathy for the world, for the good, benefit, and happiness of
gods and men,” this represents much more than a simple enrolment campaign for the
Sam . gha (Oldenberg 1879–1883: i.20–21).
The history of the Buddhist Sam . gha in ancient India was a series of compromises
that amounted to a revolutionary change in the ancient institution of asceticism.
Unlike the ascetics before him, the Buddha laid emphasis on maintaining contact
with the householders to help them spiritually by sharing the Dharma with them.
For this purpose, monks and nuns were allowed to accept invitations to forenoon
meals at the homes of the lay communities which could be used as a good excuse to
preach the Dharma to them. However, one significant result of this development was
that the tradition of asceticism became somewhat domesticated. Consequently, the
sam. gha was faced with the mandatory requirement of having to establish residential
monasteries near human habitations leading to the gradual development of a more
settled way of life as against what Devadatta had sought to prohibit (see Dutt 1962:
26). The Buddhist monks and nuns may have been the ones who renounced society,
but the genius of the Vinaya lies in the fact that having invited them to break away
from the society it then made it necessary for them to live in dependency upon it,
thereby compelling them back into a relationship with it. Notably, the interaction of
the monastic and lay communities is vital to the way of life set out by the Vinaya.
Sujātā’s offer of food is also indicative of dependence on the society.
Though the Buddha succeeded in winning over the Tebhātika Jat.ilas by performing
miracles (something he thought was undesirable and dangerous; see Nyanaponika
2012: 89; Keown 2013: 96) and the yaks.as (Pāli, yakkhas) Sūciloma and Khara,6 his
success appears to have been rather limited in the Gayā Dharmaks.etra. Remarkably,
the Gayā Dharmaks.etra became an important centre of his detractors under the lead-
ership of his cousin Devadatta, and the Buddha is not known to have visited this region
more than twice after the founding of the sam . gha. Even though the devotees appear
to have begun to visit the spot of Enlightenment during the lifetime of the Buddha
or shortly thereafter, the sam . gha does not appear to have been very active in the
Gayā Dharmaks.etra. In fact, presence of Buddhism within the Gayā Dharmaks.etra
remained confined primarily to the Mahābodhi Tree and the open-air bodhighara
(shrine) that had definitely come into existence by Emperor Aśoka’s time. Aśoka’s
6 EarliestBuddhist sites are closely related to worship of various kinds of yaks.as many of whom
were brought by the Buddha under the umbrella of Buddhism. The earliest of these yaks.as were
the tutelary deities of forests and villages. A well-known example of such a winning-over is that
of Khara and Sūciloma. Some of these pre-Buddhist Brāhman.ical-Hindu shrines of these yaks.as,
where trees were worshipped, were either “converted” into holy places of Buddhism (see Samuel
2010: 140–152) or the Buddhists and the Jainas joined the Brāhman.ical-Hindus in sharing the holy
space occupied by these shrines. The Bodhi Tree is one example of such a sharing.
1 Background 7
pilgrimage tour of the Bodhiman.d.a (Foot of the Mahābodhi Tree) and other places
associated with important events in the life of the Buddha gave a major boost to
pilgrimage in India. This was also the time when Buddhism became transformed
from a philosophic system into a genuine popular religion. From the Śuṅga period
(second to first century BCE) onwards pilgrimage to the Mahābodhi Tree and the
Spot of Enlightenment appears to have become an established practice. By the Gupta
period (c. 319–570 CE), international pilgrims began to come in such large numbers
that the Sri Lankan king approached his Indian counterpart for permission to build
a permanent facility for its monks near the Mahābodhi Tree. Consequently, King
Samudragupta granted a piece of land to the Sri Lankans to build a vihāra, most
probably, along with the entitlement to manage the bodhighara. In all likelihood,
when during the Gupta period, the bodhighara was replaced by the towered brick
temple, the Sri Lankans, who were in near control of the place, may have played
some role in its construction. Except the occasional Brāhman.ical-Hindu control, the
Sri Lankan dominance continued until the temple became derelict and pilgrimage
largely came to a halt due to Turus.ka (Turkic) raids in the region towards the end
of the twelfth century. Four centuries later, the Hindu Śaivite Gir mahant saṅnyāsins
began to look after the Mahābodhi Temple and international pilgrims began to trickle
in again.
The five-towered temple with an extended entrance that we see now is largely
a refurbishment of the last quarter of the nineteenth century when major segments
of the original structure of the temple were either supplanted, removed, covered,
or extended. A new sapling of the Mahābodhi Tree was planted in 1881 as the
earlier Tree had fallen down in a storm five years earlier. In the closing years of
the nineteenth century, under the influence of the Victorian Indologists, Anagārika
Dharmapāla of Sri Lanka started a campaign against the mahant for control of the
Mahābodhi Temple. This campaign culminated in a court case which ended in the
loss of Dharmapāla in the Calcutta High Court and his subsequent expulsion from
the Burmese Rest House. However, the acrimony with regard to the religious nature
and possession of the Mahābodhi Temple refused to die down. Efforts by the Indian
National Congress during the pre-independence period especially its leaders such
as Babu Rajendra Prasad and Mahatma Gandhi only added fuel to the fire. Like the
Indian National Congress, the Hindu Mahasabha that considered Buddhists, Jains,
and Sikhs as indivisible part of Hinduism, also tried to help in sorting out the issue.
However, the problem remained unresolved despite the fact that when a bill related
to the management of the temple was introduced in the Bihar Assembly during 1935,
the Hindu Mahasabha took a stand that the Mahabodhi Temple be handed over to
the Buddhists.
Finally, after independence the Bihar State Assembly was able to legislate on
the thorny issue. It passed the Bodh Gaya Temple Act (1949) which brought the
management of the Mahābodhi Temple under the joint control of four Hindus and
four Buddhists. However, the Hindus had a slight advantage in managing the affairs
of the Temple as the chairman of the management committee and the ninth member
had to be a Hindu. This advantage was done away with by Nitish Kumar, the Chief
Minister of Bihar, through the Bodhgaya Temple (Amendment) Act of 2013 whereby
8 1 Background
the chairman of the management could be a person of any religious persuasion. In the
meanwhile, in June 2002 the UPA Government in New Delhi successfully managed
to have the Mahābodhi Temple complex declared as the UNESCO’s World Heritage
Monument whereby getting it recognized as specifically a “Buddhist monument”
and thereby inflicting a serious blow to its multivalent character.
References
Radhakrishnan, S. 1922. The Hindu dharma. International Journal of Ethics 33 (1): 1–22.
Radhakrishnan, S. 1953. The Principal Upanis.ads. London: Allen and Unwin.
Kaelber, Walter O. 1989. Tapta Mārga: Asceticism and initiation in vedic India. New York: State
University of New York Press.
Rhys Davids, T.W., and Carpenter, J.E. (eds.) 1890–1911. The Dı̄gha Nikāya, 3 vols., London: Pali
Text Society.
Trenckner, V., and Chalmers, R. (eds.). 1888–1896. The Majjhima Nikāya, 5 vols., London: Pali
Text Society.
Feer, M.L., (ed.). 1884–1898, The Sam . yutta Nikāya, 5 vols., London: Pali Text Society.
Wynne, Alexander. 2007. The origin of Buddhist meditation. London: Routledge.
Lorenzen, David N. 1978. Warrior ascetics in Indian history. Journal of the American Oriental
Society 98 (1): 61–75.
Armstrong, Karen. 2004. Buddha. New York: Penguin Books.
Eliade, Mircea. 2009. Yoga: Immortality and freedom. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Sumedho, Rewata Dhamma. 1998. “Foreword” by Ajanh. The first discourse of the Buddha: Turning
the wheel of the Dhamma. Boston: Wisdom Publications.
Narada, Thera. 1992. A manual of Buddhism, reprint. Taipei: The Corporate Body of the Buddha
Educational Foundation.
Fausböll, V. (ed.). 1877–1897. The Jātakas, 7 vols. London: Trübner.
Coomaraswamy, Ananda K. 1935. La sculpture de Bodhgayā, Ars Asiatica no. XVIII. Paris: Les
Éditions d’Art et d’Histoire.
Myer, Prudence R. 1958. The great temple at Bodh-Gayā. The Art Bulletin 40 (4): 277–298.
Ganguli, K.M. (trans.). 1976. The Mahābhārata. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal (originally
Calcutta: Bharat Press).
Oldenberg, H. (ed.). 1879–1883. The Vinaya Pit.aka, 5 vols. London: Williams and Norgate.
Dutt, Sukumar. 1962. Buddhist monks and monasteries of India. London: George Allen and Unwin
Ltd.
Nyanaponika, Helmuth Hecker. 2012. Great disciples of the Buddha: Their lives, their works, their
legacy. New York: Simon and Schester.
Keown, Damien (ed.). 2013. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. London: Routledge.
Samuel, Geoffrey. 2010. The origins of yoga and tantra. Indic religions to the thirteenth century.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chapter 2
The Gayā Dharmaks.etra and Its
Neighbourhood
Abstract The Gayā Dharmaks.etra or the Gayā-tı̄rtha, with the Vis.n.upāda Temple
at its centre, contained three important settlements, viz., Gayā, Uruvelā, and
Senānigama at the Buddha’s time. It covered a radius of 2½ kros.a (between eight and
ten kilometres) and included the Mahābodhi Tree in the south. Gayā appears to have
become a pre-eminent pilgrimage centre for ancestor worship prior to the Buddha.
“Possibly… the Buddha came to the outskirts of Gayā specifically because it was the
place where pilgrims sought an escape from the fetters of death—albeit on behalf
of deceased relatives rather than themselves.” The earliest settlement located in the
immediate vicinity of the Mahābodhi Tree was the gāmanigama (village-township)
of Uruvelā (now identified with Tārād.ı̄h). Sujātā, who has been immortalized in
Buddhism for having offered milk-rice to Gautama, came from Senānigama. After
the attainment of Enlightenment of the Buddha, the sacred caityavr.ks.a or vanacetiya
became popular as the Mahābodhi Tree and the complex around it as the Mahābodhi.
The Victorian Indologists rechristened the place as Bodh Gayā when in the eighteenth
century they began depicting this place as the opposite and counterpart to Brahma
Gayā or “Hindu” Gayā. Gayā (17 times), Uruvelā (9 times), and Senānigama (8
times) are mentioned only 34 times altogether in the whole of Pāli Tipit.aka, occu-
pying only 0.7% of the total reference space. It was in the Gayā Dharmaks.etra that
the Buddha realized the futility of severe penances and mortification. His encounter
with Tebhātika-Jat.ilas, the proto-Śaivite fire worshippers, of this region and their
conversion is another important event in which he used feats of magic rather than
impress them with wisdom. Here, the Buddha also defeated Māra comprehensively.
It was also at Uruvelā that the Buddha had reservations in his own mind about the
efficacy of preaching the Dharma when the Brahmā Sahampati pleaded with him
not to succumb to such hesitancy. Sahampati also advised the Buddha later that he
did not need a teacher. It seems that during the forty-five years of ministry and for
a while after the Nirvān.a of the Buddha, the Buddhist sam . gha was not very active
in the Gayā Dharmaks.etra. This could have been due to a variety of reasons such as
the rural nature of the region, it being a centre of dissident activity of the āran.yaka
Buddhists, and spiritually speaking, they may have found it highly competitive and
overcrowded. During his ministry, the Buddha is not known to have visited the Gayā
Dharmaks.etra more than twice.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8067-3_2
10 2 The Gayā Dharmaks.etra and Its Neighbourhood
Full-Text of the Chapter

The holy space of Gayā, historically known as the Gayā Dharmaks.etra or the Gayā-
tı̄rtha, is an important region of pilgrimage for the adherents of the Indic religious
tradition. At the time of the Buddha, it contained three settlements, viz., Gayā,
Uruvelā, and Senānigama. The Gayā Māhātmya, a section of the Vāyu Purān.a
that may be dated to the eighth–ninth century CE, contains an elaborate mythology
relating to the Gayā-tı̄rtha and lists as many as 324 sacred sites in and around Gayā that
are connected to ancestral rites (Tagare 1987: 596–609). The location of these sacred
sites marks out the Gayā-tı̄rtha around the Vis.n.upāda Temple1 covering a radius of
2½ kros.a2 (between eight and ten kilometres)3 and including the Mahābodhi Tree
in the south which is to be worshipped on the fourth day of the pin.d.adāna4 rituals
(Śāstri 1909: 1070, 1081. See also Singh 2012: 512).
1 Approximately from the Vis.n.upāda to the Mahābodhi Tree (see Kane 1974–1997: ii.667).
2 As given in the Vāyu Purān.a (Śāstri 1909: 1070, 1081).
3 The length of the krosa varies depending on the different standards adopted by traditional Indian
.
scholars. It is approximately 1.9 to 2.5 miles. According to the Vāstuśāstra (see Lubotsky 2011;
Monier-Williams 1911), length and distance are traditionally measured as follows:
8 paramān.u = 1 ratnadhūli (chariot-dust)

8 rathadhūli = 1 vālāgra (hair-end)
8 vālāgra = 1 liks.ā (nit)
8 liks.ā = 1 yūka (louse)
8 yūka = 1 yava (barley-corn)
8 yava – 1 aṅgula (finger)
1 aṅgula = 16 to 21 mm
12 aṅgulas = 1 vitasti (hand-span: distance between the tip of thumb and the tip of last
finger when palm is fully stretched) = 19.20 to 25.20 cm
2 vitastis = 1 hasta (cubit: distance between the tip of the longest finger and the elbow) =
38.40 to 50.40 cm
4 hastas = 1 dan.d.a = 60.50 to 79.20 inches
2 dan.d.as = 1 dhanu = 121 to 158.40 inches or 3.36 to 4.40 yards
5 dhanus = 1 rajju = 16.8 to 22 yards
2 rajjus = 1 parideśa = 33.6 to 44 yards
100 parideśas = 1 kros.a/kosa/gāvuta = 3360 to 4400 yards or 1.9 to 2.5 miles
4 kros.as/kosas/gāvutas = 1 yojana = 7.6 to 10 miles = distance travelled with one yoke of
oxen.
4 Pindas are balls of either cooked rice or barley flour mixed with ghee and black sesame seeds that
..
are offered to forefathers as gratefulness (pitr. r.n.a) during the last sam
. skāra of the Hindu funeral rites
(antyes..ti) and ancestor worship (śrāddha). In Hinduism, making an offer of a pin.d.a to a recently
2 The Gayā Dharmaks.etra and Its Neighbourhood 11
The earliest settlement located in the immediate vicinity of the Mahābodhi Tree
was the gāmanigama (village-township) of Uruvelā5 (Sk, Uruvilvā) (Feer 1884–
1898: i.103ff; v.167, 185; Fausböll 1877–1897: 68). The Neolithic settlement of
Uruvelā continued as a somewhat sleepy rural settlement till about the time of the
beginning of the Turus.ka carnage towards the end of the twelfth century. After the
attainment of Enlightenment of the Buddha, the sacred cetiyavr.ks.a or vanacetiya
became popular as the Mahābodhi Tree and the entire complex as the Mahābodhi.
Later, the Victorian Indologists rechristened the place as Bodh Gayā when in the
eighteenth century they began depicting this place as the opposite and counterpart
to Brahma Gayā or “Hindu” Gayā.
Bodh Gayā as a sacred site has powerful association with the Buddha and majority
of the structures within the Mahābodhi Temple Complex of Bodh Gayā are directly
linked to the events attributed to the Buddha’s spiritual life shortly before and after his
attainment of Enlightenment. The practice of venerating the spot where the Buddha
had attained Enlightenment appears to have come into existence, if not during his
own lifetime, then at least immediately after the Mahāparinirvān.a. For instance, it
has been mentioned in the Mahāparinibbāna Sutta that shortly before his decease,
the Buddha had told Ānanda that “there are four places that should stimulate a
sense of emotional urgency (sam . vejanı̄yāni) among the believers… and those who
die while doing the pilgrimage to these shrines with a devout heart will be reborn
in a happy heavenly world (sugatim . saggam . lokam
. ) upon dying” (Rhys Davids
and Carpenter 1890–1911: ii.141) . He mentions the spot of his Enlightenment as
one of these four places, the other three being Lumbinı̄ (Rummindei), Isipatana
(R.s.ipatana, Sārnāth), and Kusinārā (Kuśinagara). The earliest material evidence for
the existence of such a practice can be tracked down to the third century BCE when the
Bodhiman.d.a (Vajrāsana), the commemorative shrine Bodhighara, and the protective
stone railing around the Bodhi-angan.a (the courtyard within which the Bodhi Tree
and the Bodhiman.d.a are located) were built by King Aśoka. Aśoka appears to have
done this as part of the drive to promote his policy of Dhamma, thereby contributing
towards the strengthening of pilgrimage, a tradition which had been in existence in
India at least since the Early Vedic period.
The earliest references in Buddhist literature indicate that Gayā was a market-
town (nigama) and it lay at a distance of fifteen yojanas6 from Bārān.ası̄ on the
highway (addhānamagga) that passed by the Mahābodhi Tree7 (Oldenberg 1879–
1883: i.8; Trenckner and Chalmers 1888–1896: i.170; Morris and Hardy 1885–1900:
iv.320) . Remarkably, Sāvatthı̄ (1378 times), the HQ of early Buddhism, and the six
mahānagaras (metropolitan urban settlements), viz., Bārān.ası̄ (801 times), Rājagaha
(566), Vesālı̄ (243 times), Kosambı̄ (107 times), Sāketa (57 times), and Campā (46
departed soul helps to unite the soul with its ancestors (pitr.s). Offer of pin.d.as can be made to both
paternal and maternal lineages (Fowler 1997: 59; Gold 2000: 82–90).
5 Variously spelt as Uruvelā, Uruvela, and Urucelā in different texts of the Pāli Tipitaka.
. . .
6 One yojana is approximately 7.6 to 10 miles (see fn. 9).
7 Texts of the Pāli Tipitaka locate the Mahābodhi Tree at a distance of three gāvutas from Gayā
.
(Morris and Hardy 1885–1900: iv.320).
times) are together mentioned a total of 3198 times in the Pāli Tipit.aka. These
seven settlements occupy over 66% of the total reference space to all the settle-
ments mentioned (4834 times) in the Pāli Tipit.aka. In sharp contrast to this, the three
settlements of the Gayā Dharmaks.etra, viz., Gayā (17 times), Uruvelā (9 times), and
Senānigama (8 times), are mentioned just 34 times put together, occupying only about
0.7% of the total reference space in the Pāli Tipit.aka (see Sarao 2010: Appendices-I
and III). It seems that during the forty-five years of ministry of the Buddha himself
and for about two centuries after his Nirvān.a, the Gayā Dharmaks.etra does not appear
to have been a region where the Buddhist sam . gha was most active. In fact, during the
post-Enlightenment period, the Buddha does not appear to have had a very agree-
able experience here and it appears as if the early Buddhists tended to avoid this
region. This could have been due to a variety of reasons. Firstly, urban settlements
(mahānagaras) such as Sāvatthı̄, Bārān.ası̄, and Rājagaha, most favourite places of
early Buddhism, were far more urbanized than Uruvelā, Senānigama, and Gayā,8
out of which the first was completely rooted in forested-ruralism and the latter two
were still in the process of shedding their rural character (see Sarao 2010: 42–52).
Considering that supporters and manpower of early Indian Buddhism came primarily
from highly urbanized centres, the settlements of Uruvelā, Senānigama, and Gayā
were not exactly the kind of places on which the early sam . gha sustained itself.
Secondly, as opposed to mainstream ārāmika (settled monastic) Buddhism, the
Gayā region appears to have become the centre of dissidence in the form of puritan-
ical Buddhism that preferred a lifestyle away from human settlements and rooted in
the countryside and wilderness (aran.ya, arañña). The Buddha did not fully endorse
āran.yaka form of Buddhism and showed a preference for the ārāmika form whose
modus vivendi was sojourning in monasteries located on the outskirts of urban
settlements.9 For this reason, even after the decease of the Buddha, the ārāmika
form of Buddhism, which overwhelmingly dominated the sam . gha, appears to have
neglected the Gayā region. Things appear to have come to a head when the Buddha
expressed unwillingness to impose five austere (dhuta) practices10 whose violation
8 The settlement of Bodh Gayā remained a rural settlement until after the Bodh Gaya Temple Act
of 1949. It was declared a town only in the year 1961 when its population was just 6,299 (see Singh
2012: 505).
9 It seems, as proposed by R.A. Ray, Devadatta strictly identified himself with forest Buddhism as
it did not go well with settled monasticism. “It is not just that he practices forest Buddhism, he is
a forest saint, and advocates forest renunciation. Even more, and worse from the viewpoint of his
detractors, he completely repudiates the settled monastic form, saying in effect that he does not
judge it to be authentic at all” (Ray 1994: 171). It would be interesting to see as to why, after leaving
the sam . gha, Devadatta decided to settle down at Gayāsı̄sa, located not very far from the spot of the
Buddha’s Enlightenment.
10 These five austere practices proposed by Devadatta were as follows:
(1) Monks should live all their lives in the forest (āraññaka); whoever should carry himself to the
neighbourhood of a settlement, sin (vajja) would defile him.
(2) Monks should all their lives obtain alms by begging (pin.d.apātika); whoever should accept
invitations for meals, sin would defile him.
(3) Monks should all their lives wear robes made of cast-off clothes (pam . sukūlika); whoever should
accept a robe given by the laity, sin would defile him.
in the opinion of Devadatta, the leader of the puritanical Buddhists, was sinful and
hence not acceptable at all. Consequently, Devadatta went ahead with the setting
up of his headquarters at Gayāsı̄sa (Sk, Gayāsı̄rsa), a well-known hill located in the
vicinity of Gayā (Oldenberg 1879–1883: i.34; Feer 1884–1898: iv.302) and where
Ajātaśatru is said to have constructed a vihāra for him (Fausböll 1877–1897: i.185,
508; ii.38f) .
Thirdly, Gayā dharmaks.etra had become not only a highly competitive place for
all kinds of seekers but also, spiritually speaking, overcrowded. Hence gaining a
foothold in the intensely competitive sacred space was certainly far more difficult
than places which had recently become important politico-economic centres and
whose material milieu suited Buddhism. In the Gayā dharmaks.etra, the Buddha
had to face quite a few formidable competitors. In this regard, the three Kassapa
brothers known as the Tebhātika Jat.ilas, two yaks.as called Sūciloma and Khara,
dit..thamaṅgalika brāhman.as such as Huhuṅkajātika, and Ājivikas such as Upaka are
worth mentioning. Encounters with these religious entities strongly indicate towards
a feeling of unease towards Gayā on the part of the Buddha. The subterranean
uneasiness is also reflected in the Pāli Tipit.aka where the faithfuls are reminded:
“At Gayā… the fool, though entering constantly, does not cleanse his dark deed”
(Gayam . … niccam . pi bālo pakkhanno kan.hakammo na sujjhati) (Horner 1954–1959:
49; Trenckner and Chalmers 1888–1896: i.39). He further reminds them: “Why seek
Gayā? Your well at home is Gayā” (kim . kāhasi Gayam . gantvā, udapān.o pi te Gayā
ti) (Trenckner and Chalmers 1888–1896: i.39).
The Pāli-based Buddhist tradition records the Buddha as having visited the Gayā
Dharmaks.etra only twice after having set the wheel of the Dharma in motion at
Sārnāth in Bārān.ası̄. His first visit took place shortly after he returned from Bārān.ası̄
after the delivery of the First Discourse at Sārnāth. During this visit, he spent his
first vassāvāsa in Kappāsikavanasan.d.a in the vicinity of Uruvelā when, apart from
thirty young men called Bhaddavaggiyā, he brought the Kassapa brothers as well as
their relatives and followers within the ambit of Buddhism (Oldenberg 1879–1883:
i.23–24). During this visit, he also travelled to Gayāsı̄sa (Oldenberg 1879–1883: i.34;
Feer 1884–1898: iv.19; Morris and Hardy 1885–1900: iv.302) and T.aṅkitamañca,11
(Andersen and Smith 1913: 47; Feer 1884–1898: i.207) . At Pitthipāsān.a in Gayāsı̄sa
he preached the Fire Sermon (Ādittapariyāya Sutta), the third recorded discourse of
the Buddha, when the erstwhile Tebhātika-Jat.ilas became arahants on hearing the
discourse (Oldenberg 1879–1883: i.34–35; Fausböll 1877–1897: i.82, iv.180). At
T.aṅkitamañca, the yaks.as Sūciloma and Khara, who were, it seems, deities of an
(4) Monks should all their lives live at the foot of a tree (rukkhamūlika); whoever live under a roof,
sin would defile him.
(5) Monks should all their lives abstain absolutely from fish and flesh (macchamam . sam. na
khādeyyum
. ), whoever should eat fish and flesh, sin would defile him (see Oldenberg 1879–1883:
iii.171)
11 According to the Paramatthajotikā, the atthakathā of the Sutta-Nipāta, Taṅkitamañca was located
.. .
near Gayātittha and was a stone-dais (pāsān.amañca) formed by a stone set on top of four boulders
(Smith 1966–1972: i.301).
indigenous can.d.āla community, became his followers. According to the Pāli-based

Buddhist tradition (Milley 2000: ii.434; Smith 1966–1972: i.302, 305; Woodward
1977: i.233), Khara and Sūciloma, who were friends, were monks in their previous
births and came across the Buddha while they were passing through Gayā. Both are
described as being of very ugly appearance and seem to have been despised because
of the colour of their skin and other bodily features that showed them to be different
from the others.
According to the commentary of the Sam . yutta Nikāya, Sāratthappakāsinı̄,
Sūciloma was born as a yaks.a on a garbage heap at the entrance to Gayā village
(Woodward 1977: i.302–305). The Buddha saw that he had the potential for the
attainment of the path of stream-entry and went to his hangout at T.aṅkitamañca for
the purpose of teaching him (Bodhi 2000: 475 fn. 563). Sūciloma received his name
from the fact that the hair on his body resembled needles. The explanation given
is that in one of his earlier births he was a lay-follower of Kassapa Buddha and
devotedly visited his vihāra eight times a month to hear the dharma from him. Once
he was working in a field near the vihāra and on hearing the gong, he left for the
vihāra without cleaning himself as he did not want to get late. However, he sat on an
expensive rug in the uposatha hall and dirtied it. Consequently, his hair became like
sickles. Khara, as a monk in his previous life is mentioned as having rubbed oil in his
body after having taken it from the sam . gha without permission. Consequently, his
skin became very rough and coarse like a tiled-roof. Whenever he wanted to scare
anybody his skin would stand up like tiles on a roof (Bodhi 2000: 475 fn565).
According to the Sūciloma Sutta as given in the Sam . yutta Nikāya (Feer 1884–
1898: i.207–208) as well as the Sutta-Nipāta (Andersen and Smith 1913: 47–49) and
as commented upon in the Paramatthajotikā, the Sutta-Nipāta At..thakathā (Smith
1966–1972: ii.301–05) and the Sāratthappakāsinı̄, the Sam . yutta-Nikāya At..thakathā
(Woodward 1977: i.302–305), T.aṅkitamañca was the haunt of yaks.a Sūciloma. On
seeing the Buddha, Khara queried from Sūciloma if the Buddha was a true ascetic
(saman.a). It has been pointed out in the Sāratthappakāsinı̄ (Woodward 1977: i.302–
305) that in response to Khara’s query, Sūciloma spoke thinking, “One who gets
frightened and flees when he sees me is a sham ascetic (saman.aka); one who does
not get frightened and flee is an ascetic (saman.a). This one, having seen me, will
get frightened and flee” (Bodhi 2000: 475 fn.564). The yaks.a took on a terrifying
manifestation, opened his mouth wide, and raised his needle-like hairs all over his
body. But he failed to scare the Buddha. Thereafter, Sūciloma bent over the Buddha
to touch him. The Buddha withdrew and told him that he found the yaks.a’s touch
evil (pāpaka) that ought to be eschewed like excrement, fire, or a venomous snake.
After this the yaks.a threatened the Buddha with murder if he did not answer his
questions. Though the Buddha told him that he was not scared of him, he agreed
to answer his questions. Sūciloma asked the Buddha about the source of the origin
of lust, hatred, discontent, delight, and terror. The Buddha replied to his satisfaction
that sensual pleasures are the cause of origin of all of these. Instantaneously after the
Buddha finished his sermon, both Sūciloma and Khara are said to have become not
only sotāpannas but their skins also became shiny and beautiful.
In all probability, the story of Sūciloma and Khara is a reference to an aborig-

inal community of can.d.ālas living either within or on the outskirts of the Gayā
Dharmaks.etra. This can.d.āla community represented symbolically through Sūciloma
and Khara may have been converted by the Buddha shortly after his Enlightenment.
Interestingly, winning-over to Buddhism of a few rural and aboriginal communities
within the Majjhimadesa appears to have taken place during its nascent stage only.
Once the Buddha was able to firmly establish himself in the various mahānagaras
and rājadhānı̄ya nagaras such as Sāvatthı̄ and Rājagaha, Buddhism appears to have
begun to focus primarily on the urban communities and within them the merchants
and the ruling elites.
During his second visit to Gayā Dharmaks.etra, the famous lady Sujātā Senānı̄dhı̄tā
as well as her daughter-in-law and father became disciples of the Buddha (Walleser
and Kopp 1956–1973: i.218–219). During this visit, the Buddha preached the Gayā
Sutta at Gayāsı̄sa (Morris and Hardy 1885–1900: iv.302–305). This was the second
sutta preached by the Buddha in the Gayā Dharmaks.etra. In this discourse, the
Buddha describes to the monks how at initially he could only see the light from the
bodies of the devas; later, through conscious endeavouring, he could make out their
forms, talk with them, find out how they came to be born in their various realms;
then he was able to scan their previous births, and finally, he succeeded in attaining
the supreme knowledge. He further explains some of the stages through which he
passed before the attainment of Supreme Knowledge
Monks, to me came the thought: ‘If I were to perceive the auras; see the forms; stand with,
talk to and engage those devas in conversation; know they are of such a community; know
their faring on was thus because of their deeds; their food, experiences, weal and woe such;
their lives and life-span so long; know whether I had dwelt with them or not– knowledge and
vision within me would thus be better purified.’ … later on, living zealous, earnest, resolute,
I did… and know all these things…. so long as this eightfold series of knowledge and vision
of the higher devas (at..tha-parivat..tam
. adhidevañān.adassanam
. ) was not fully purified in me,
I did not realize as one wholly awakened to the highest awakening, unsurpassed in the world
of devas, with its Māras and its Brahmās, or in the world of mankind with its recluses and
godly men, devas and men. But when the eightfold series of knowledge and vision of the
higher devas was fully purified in me, then, monks, I realized as one wholly awakened to
the highest awakening, unsurpassed…. Then knowledge and vision arose in me, and I knew:
Sure is my heart’s release; this is my last birth; there is now no more becoming for me’
(Woodward 1932–1936: 202).
During either of his two visits to Gayā Dharmaks.etra and on the occasion of the
Gayāphaggunı̄ festival,12 Senaka Thera, son of Uruvela-Kassapa’s sister also became
the Buddha’s disciple (Woodward 1940–49: i.388–89, 418; Oldenberg and Pischel
1990: v.287). After this, the Buddha is not known to have visited this region. Despite
the fact that the Mahābodhi Tree became the first shrine of Buddhism during the
lifetime of the Buddha, the Tree itself was symbolically shifted to Śrāvastı̄ where
under the supervision of Ānanda and Anāthapin.d.ika the counterpart of Mahābodhi
12 Itwas a bathing festival celebrated on the occasion of full moon by people at the bathing ghāt. (a
flight of steps leading down to a ford in a water body) of Gayā during the earlier half of the month
of Phagguna/Phaggun.a/Phaggun.ı̄ (Sk, Phālguna, February-March) which marks the beginning of
Spring (Woodward 1940–49: i.388f, 418; v.287).
Tree was personally inaugurated by the Buddha with great élan. Thus, whenever the
Buddha had to go away from Śrāvastı̄, the Bodhi Tree, by taking his place, ensured
his uninterrupted presence at Śrāvastı̄.
Gayā, also known as Gayāpurı̄, Gayājı̄, and Brahma Gayā, had become a pre-
eminent pilgrimage centre for ancestor worship during the pre-urban period and
Brāhman.ical-Hindu connection between śrāddha and Gayā predates the period of
the Buddha. In fact, P.V. Kane traces the origins of Gayā as a pitr.tı̄rtha (manes’
pilgrimage) in antiquity (1930–60: iv. 334ff). According to Buddhaghos.a, Gayā was
the name both of a gāma (village) and a pond known as Gayāpokkharan.ı̄ (Gayā
Pond) that was located near it (Woods, Kosambi, and Horner 1976–1979: i.145).
The Pāli texts mention men and women taking bath in this pond so that their sins
might be washed away (Fausböll 1877–1897: v.388f). Buddhist commentator Ācārya
Dharmapāla points out that there were two distinct bathing ghāt.s, Gayānadı̄ (Gayā
River) and Gayāpokkharanı̄, both collectively being called Gayā-tittha (Sk, Gayā-
tı̄rtha, i.e., Gayā Ford or Gaya Pilgrimage-site) and both being imbued with spiritual
vibrations and possessing the power to wash away sins. He further mentions people
being drawn to Gayā who recited the Vedas, made sacrifices to the gods, and took dips
in the holy water (Woodward 1926: 74, 75; cp. Smith 1966–1972: i.301). Further,
of all the seven rivers where people took bath to wash their sins, the river Gayā
(variously known as Nerañjarā, Verañjarā, Phalgu, Nilānjanā, or Lı̄lājan), which is
a tributary of the Gaṅgā, is mentioned as the foremost among them (Trenckner and
Chalmers 1888–1896: i.39) .
Spiritually speaking, the Śākyamuni was drawn to the Gayā Dharmaks.etra as this
region, along with Bārān.ası̄13 and Prayāga-tı̄rtha (Pāli, Payāga-tittha), had become
an important place for spiritual seekers. Gayā specifically had become the magnet for
ascetics for practicing the tı̄rtha śrãddha rituals. Thus, as F.M. Asher has pointed out,
“Possibly… the Buddha came to the outskirts of Gayā specifically because it was the
place where pilgrims sought an escape from the fetters of death—albeit on behalf of
deceased relatives rather than themselves” (Asher 1988: 87). However, after the goal
of Enlightenment was achieved, the rural and wild14 Gayā Dharmaks.etra stopped
13 Interestingly, the Buddha chose the outskirts of Bārānası̄ for the delivery his first sermon. Apart
.
being a renowned place for the exchange of ideas, Bārān.ası̄ had become major centre of commercial
activities at the time of the Buddha (Jayaswal 2015: 195). Though the Dharma was realized the
Gayāks.etra situated in the wild and rural countryside, it could best be understood and practised in
the most urbanized centres of Madhyadeśa. Thus, it was only natural that the Buddha chose Kāśı̄
for his first sermon.
14 Arañña is often equated with the wild and untamed in early Indian Buddhism. The samgha was
.
led by intellectuals who always remained wary of those who lacked sophistication and affluence.
The Dharma being “subtle, deep, and hard to grasp,” Buddha believed that it would not be easy
to understand it (Feer 1884–1898: i.138–139; Morris and Hardy 1885–1900: ii.20f). Intellectual
snobbery had kept the Buddhist sam . gha out of touch with the common masses. Interestingly, most
of the sermons recorded in the Nikāyas were delivered in large cities such as Sāvatthı̄, Rājagaha,
and Kosambi. Whereas Pāli literature sees the nāgarika (city-dweller) as urbane and polite (Rhys
Davids, Carpentier and Stede 1886–1971: i.282), it registers an unambiguous contempt for gāma
(village) and things rural. For instance, the word gāma forms part of a large number of contemp-
tuous compound words and expressions, found in the Pāli Tipit.aka and its commentaries, such
being the Buddha’s karmabhūmi, so to speak. The Mahābodhi Temple Complex

appears to have begun to evolve with the Mahābodhi Tree at its centre only from
about the time of Emperor Aśoka. This was the time when the Third Buddhist Council
that took place, dhammadūtas (teachers of dharma) were sent to distant lands, and
Aśoka paid a visit in person to the Mahābodhi.
The treatise Nirukta by Yaska,15 dateable to circa eighth century BCE, refers to
Gayā16 as a sacred place. Gayā is also mentioned in the Mahābhārata (Śalya Parva
and Anuśāsana Parva) as an alter (vedi) and prominent place of pilgrimage where
one gets liberated even from the most heinous sins and where a son “may go… (to)…
liberate the ancestors by offering them Pin.d.as” (Dave 1970: 32). The references in
the Vis.n.u Smr.ti, which may be dated to about the fifth century CE, refer to Gayā as a
place that had acquired great sanctity (Jolly 1880: 256–259). Epigraphical evidence
referring to continuous tradition of pilgrimage as well as religious donations at the
Gayā-tı̄rtha is available from about the eighth century CE. However, despite many
early references to Gayā in literature, temple-building activity at this site can only be
dated to the mid-eleventh century when the ruler of Gayā got a temple constructed
dedicated to Lord Vis.n.u (Gadādhara) along with a few other shrines. The Vis.n.upāda
temple complex at Gayā where the footprints of Vis.n.u are enshrined was built by
Queen Ahilya Bai Holkar of Indore in the late eighteenth century (Vidyarthi 1978:
18).
According to a legend mentioned in the Vāyu Purān.a (see Tagare 1987: 916–923),
Gayā derives its name from the mythological Gayāsura which literally means Gayā
the Demon. According to this legend, the body of Gayāsura became pious after he
performed rigid penances and was able to secure blessings from Lord Vis.n.u. Conse-
quently, he became so holy that one’s sins got instantaneously got washed off on
touching him or even by looking at him. After his death, the various bulges of his
body became transformed into a series of rocky hills making up the landscape of
Gayā with different gods and goddesses taking up their abodes on the hilltop bulges
of Gayā. This led to crowds of people flocking to Gayā to perform the śrāddha
sacrifices on these hilltop bulges, i.e., parts of Gayāsura’s body, for the purposes of
absolving their ancestors of sins. The most popular spot at present is the Vis.n.upāda
Temple located along the Phalgu River. As per the legend, the footprint of Lord
Vis.n.u chiselled into a block of basalt in the Vis.n.upāda Temple marks the act of Lord
Vis.n.u subduing Gayāsura by pressing his foot against his chest.17 Interestingly, the
as gāmakūt.a (sycophant. Feer 1884–1898: ii.258); gāmadhamma (vile conduct. Rhys Davids and
Carpenter 1890–1911: i.4); gāma-vāsı̄nam . dhamma (vile conduct. Rhys Davids, Carpentier and
Stede 1886–1971: i.72); gāmadārakā (street urchins. Fausböll 1877–1897: ii.78, 176, iii.275),
gāmakathā (gossip. Rhys Davids and Carpenter 1890–1911: i.7).
15 According to P.V. Kane (1974–1997: ii. 645), Yaska was born much before the Buddha (see Singh
2012: 502).
16 Literally, the word Gayā means “let us go to another place” which refers to coming into contact
with the other realm, i.e., symbolizing a destination connecting this world of humans with the world
of the divine, the realm of the forefathers (see Singh 2012).
17 According to the legend, as anybody touching or seeing Gayāsura could attain salvation, people
started getting it easily. In order to prevent immoral people from attaining salvation, Lord Vis.n.u
Buddhists consider this footstep as that of the Buddha. This is not surprising consid-
ering that religious symbols, customs, and rituals are shared by the different Indic
religions attaching different identities and significance to them. Aniconic symbols
such as the footprints were employed as objects of worship in the Indic religions
as they were considered magically powerful and auspicious. Recycling and trans-
formation of images from one tradition to another or a single image being treated
as representing or embodying two distinct traditions has been quite common in the
Indic tradition. In other words, Buddhists, Jainas, and Hindus share such symbols
due to their “iconographic open-endedness” (Kinnard 2000: 36). Thus, one is not
surprised that whereas some scholars consider the double footprint located in front
of the Mahābodhi Temple as Vis.n.upāda, others consider it Buddhist (see Mitra 1878:
100; Paul 1985; Kinnard 2000:52). As a matter of fact, of the dozens of footprints
available in the Gayā dharmaks.etra, it is actually impossible to tell those of the
Buddha’s as different from Vis.n.u’s. Majority of these have been repeatedly moved
from one place to another and it is virtually impossible “to tell what might have
been their intended identity by those who made them. Furthermore, many of these
images are ambiguously marked, inscribed with symbols that are common to both
the Buddhist and Vais.n.ava iconographic lexicons” (Kinnard 2000: 52).
The river Phalgu, as it flows by Gayā, is viewed as the embodiment of Lord
Vis.n.u himself. Gayā is particularly important to the Hindus for pin.d.adāna, a ritual
through which they pray for the salvation of the souls of their ancestors.18 Every year
pin.d.adāna is performed on the bank of the river Phalgu during the Pitr.paks.a which
is a fortnight-long festival of souls celebrated in Gayā every year during the month of
September. According to a tradition (see O’Malley 2007: 9), Lord Rāma19 is said to
pushed Gayāsura into the pātāla (nether world) by placing his right foot on his head. Pushed into
the nether world and held in place by the foot with the help of nine weapons (such as the cakram,
gadham, and śankam), Gayāsura begged for food. Consequently, Vis.n.u gave a boon, declaring that
on a daily basis someone will offer him food and on whosoever’s behalf food is offered his/her soul
will go to heaven. It is believed that the day Gayāsura does not get fed, he will come out. Every day,
someone or the other, praying for the welfare of his/her departed relative’s soul offers food here,
feeding Gayāsura (see Bhoothalingam 2016: 92–93).
18 According to the Gayā Māhātmya, “A person who performs śrāddha in the Gayāksetra, is freed
.
from the r.n.a (debt) to the forefathers” (Śāstri 1909: 1070). The Hindu “pilgrims come with a view to
offering pin.d.as for the release of their deceased forefathers from the woes of spirit-life and washing
away their sins by bathing in the sacred waters of the Phalgu and the tanks of Gayā…. They visit
Bodh-Gayā and worship the Bo-tree and the Buddha image with this very purpose…. We may
clearly see that there was no conflict in essence between Brāhman.ical Hinduism and Buddhism.
These, like the two great hill-streams of the Gayā region, combined to flow together and form a far
wider expanse in modern Hinduism” (Barua 1934: 269–271).
19 It is noteworthy that Lord Rāma is revered by the Theravādin Buddhists as one of the bodhisattvas.
Like the Jainas and the Hindus, the Buddhists also have their own version of the Rāmāyan.a known
as the Dasaratha Jātaka. According to the Dasaratha Jātaka, the Buddha in one of his earlier lives
(bodhisattva) was born as Rāma, the Wise One (Rāma-pan.d.ita) to King Dasaratha’s eldest wife
and queen-consort. On the death of Rāmā’s mother, Dasaratha (Daśaratha) promoted another of
his wives to the status of queen-consort who bore him a son named Bharata. When Bharata was
seven years old, his mother laid stake to the kingdom for her son as per a boon granted to her by
King Dasaratha. As soothsayers had predicted to Dasaratha that he would live for twelve years
have come to Gayā along with Sı̄tā to perform the ritual of pin.d.adāna on the banks of
the river Phalgu. However, before offering the pin.d.adāna, Lord Rāma went to have
a bath and while he was away, his father Daśaratha’s hands appeared before Sı̄tā and
asked her to offer him the pin.d.a on Rāma’s behalf. He warned her that she had to
hurry up as otherwise the gates of heaven would close for him. Having no rice but
moved by Daśaratha’s plight and also feeling obligated as the daughter-in-law, Sı̄tā
offered the pin.d.as prepared out of sand to the hands that appeared to receive them.
A short while later, when Lord Rāma began performing the rites; he was aggrieved
to find that his father was not receiving the pin.d.as. Thereafter, Sı̄tā told him what
had happened. In order to justify her action and that the rite had been duly and
correctly performed, she called upon the river Phalgu, a banyan tree, a brāhman.a,
a tulsı̄ plant, and a cow standing nearby as eyewitnesses to this incredible incident.
However, only the banyan tree stood by her and others repudiated her story. Whereas
the cow was scared of Lord Rāma, both the brāhman.a and river Phalgu wanted more
offerings due to their greed. Sı̄tā cursed these four liars. Consequently, due to Sı̄tā’s
curse, river Phalgu lost its water and just became a vast expanse of arid sand dunes.20
Sı̄tā rewarded the banyan tree by blessing it with eternal life. This banyan tree is
known as aks.ayavat., the word aks.ayavat. being a compound of two words aks.aya
(that which never decays) and vat. (banyan tree). All banyan trees shed leaves once
a year. However, this specific tree remains green even in times of drought and never
sheds its leaves.
The Buddha had used the Gayāsı̄sa (Sk; Gayāśı̄rs.a) hill near Gayā as a halting
place on his way to Uruvelā. According to the Sāratthappakāsinı̄ and the Para-
matthadı̄panı̄, the commentaries (at..thakathās) of the Sam . yutta Nikāya and the
Udāna, respectively, this hill got its name from the fact that it had the shape of an
more, he asked Rāma and Lakkhan.a (Laks.man.a) to go away for twelve years so that no harm is
caused to them by Prince Bharata’s mother. To fulfil their father’s wishes as obedient sons, Rāma
and Lakkhan.a, followed by Sı̄tā, went away for twelve years. During this period, Rāma lived as an
ascetic in the Himālayas feeding upon wild fruits brought to him by Sı̄tā and Lakkhan.a. Dasaratha
died after nine years, and Bharata met Rāma in the forest and requested him to return to the capital.
However, Rāma refused to return for another three years as that would be a violation of Dasaratha’s
orders which he must carry out to the letter. On Bharata having refused to sit on the throne, Rāma
gave him his straw slippers to be placed on the throne during the period of his absence. When cases
were heard in the presence of the slippers and a wrong judgement was given, the slippers would beat
upon each other. And if correct judgement was given, the slippers would stay quiet. Rāma returned
to Bārān.ası̄, capital of the kingdom of Kāśı̄, after completing the full term of exile of twelve years
and was anointed its kingdom with great celebration. He lived in his magnificent palace Sucandaka
and held sway for sixteen thousand years as a much admired righteous ruler. After completing his
earthly sojourn, he “went to swell the hosts of heaven” (Fausböll 1877–1897: iv.123–30).
20 The Buddhist tradition has a different story to tell with regard to the sand dunes. The commentaries
of the Aṅguttara Nikāya, Udāna, and the Majjhima Nikāya mention that before the appearance of the
Buddha in the world, ten thousand ascetics lived in the Gayā region, and they took a decision among
themselves that whenever an evil thought arises in the mind of anyone of them, he should carry a
basket of sand to a particular location. The sand so amassed ultimately resulted in the formation of
a great bank (Walleser and Kopp 1956–1973: ii.476; Woodward 1926: 26; Woods et al. 1976–1979:
i.376).
elephant’s head (gaja-sı̄sa) (Woodward 1977: iii.4; Woodward 1926: 74). The flat-
tened top of the hill is said to have had sufficient room for one thousand monks. It was
upon this hill that the Buddha delivered the famous Ādittapariyāya Sutta addressing
the Tebhātika Jat.ilas, fire-worshipping ascetics of the Gayā Dharmaks.etra, who had
of late become his disciples (Oldenberg 1879–1883: i.34f; Feer 1884–1898: iv.19–
20; Fausböll 1877–1897: i.82). As attested by the Pāli texts, this very hill acquired
prominence in the early history of Buddhism as a place where Devadatta lived with
his five hundred associates immediately after breaking away from the sam . gha, and
it was here that the Buddha’s chief disciples had to go to reclaim them (Oldenberg
1879–1883: ii.199; Fausböll 1877–1897: i.142, 425, 490f; iv.180). When Xuanzang
came to India in the seventh century, he saw three stūpas of the Tebhātika Jat.ila
brothers located to the southeast of the Gayāsı̄sa hill (Li 1995: 243).
According to Xuanzang, Mt Prāgbodhi (Qianzhengjueshan, “Pre-Enlightenment
Mountain”, in Chinese, as the Tathāgata had climbed this mountain prior to his
realization of perfect Enlightenment) was located fourteen or fifteen li to the northeast
of the Mahābodhi Tree. Twice, once on top of the mountain and then in the cave,
the Tathāgata was advised against seeking Enlightenment here. “Later, after King
Aśoka rose to power, he built monuments and stūpas at the sites where the Bodhisattva
ascended and descended the mountain…. Every year at the end of the summer retreat
monks and laypeople from different places come here to make offerings” (Li 1996:
214–215). On the basis of the information supplied by Xuanzang, Mt Prāgbodhi,
located about five kilometres to the northeast of the Mahābodhi Tree, is identified
with Gayāsı̄sa. As Xuanzang had mentioned in his travelogue, halfway down the
mountain there is a large cave with its back to the crag (Li 1996: 214). Close to
the vaulted cave, now known as the Duṅgeśvarı̄ Cave, there is a small temple. The
cave enshrines a statue of an eight-armed female deity with a few characters of the
Buddhist formulae written in script dateable to about the tenth century. Above the
cave and along the pinnacle of the hill are remains of seven stūpas of varying sizes.
The Buddha arrived in the Gayā Dharmaks.etra after having given up the company
of Ārād.a Kālāma and Udraka Rāmaputra as under their guidance he had felt that he
could not progress spiritually beyond the stage that he had already attained. His
first halt in this region was at Gayāsı̄sa Hill where he meditated for some time.
After this he moved into the neighbourhood of Uruvelā/Uruvel.ā (identified with
Tārād.ı̄h) and Senānigama/Senānı̄nigama (identified with Bakraur). Located in the
forest thicket on the either side of river Nerañjarā, he found the neighbourhood of
these two settlements as quite congenial for severe ascetical practices and stayed here
till the attainment of Enlightenment. The five recluses (Añña-Kon.d.añña, Bhaddiya,
Vappa, Mahānāma, Assaji), known as the Pañcavargı̄yā Bhiks.us (Pāli, Pañcavaggiyā
Bhikkhus), whom he had met earlier at Rājagr.ha also joined him. Here, as a result of
the severe austerities and self-mortification, he tormented himself through starvation
to such an extent that his body was reduced to a mere skeleton (Fig. 1). He himself
describes his condition as follows:
Fig. 1 The Fasting Buddha

(Courtesy: Lahore Museum,
Pakistan)
Because of eating so little the gleam of my eyes sank far down in their sockets, looking like
the gleam of water that has sunk far down in a deep well…. My scalp shriveled and withered
as a green bitter gourd shrivels and withers in the wind and the sun…. my belly skin adhered
to my backbone; thus if I touched my belly skin I encountered my backbone and if I touched
my backbone I encountered my belly skin…. If I tried to ease my body by rubbing my limbs
with my hands, the hair, rotted at its roots, fell from my body as I rubbed (Ñān.amoli and
Bodhi 1995: 339).
He kept pushing himself to the extreme till he fell unconscious and lay helplessly
on the verge of death. A shepherd who was passing by found him and took him in his
care. After this experience, he came to the realization that the mortification of the flesh
had brought him no nearer to the truth that he sought, and that penance and austerity
were not the means to obtain deliverance from suffering. Realizing the futility of
severe penances and mortification, he began taking solid food. Annoyed with his
decision to lessen the severity of his austerities, his five companions abandoned him
(Trenckner and Chalmers 1888–1896: i.166).
He moved to the cave, now known as the D.ungeśvarı̄ Cave, located about seven km
to the northeast of the Mahābodhi Tree. From now onwards he began to concentrate
more on meditative practices and less on austerities. It is noteworthy that the very
ascetical practices of Gayā-tı̄rtha that had attracted the Śākyamuni were given up by
him as “misguided deprivations that gave rise only to more karmic baggage” thus
Fig. 2 Sujātā’s offering and Māra’s Temptation (Sāñcı̄ Stūpa No. 1)
“set[ting] a precedent for tensions between the Hindus at Gayā and the Buddhists at
Bodhgayā” (Kinnard 2000: 47).
Consequent upon his decision to give up severe penances and mortification, he
decided to reconnect with the society. This was in sharp contrast to those saṅnyāsins
who believed in completely severing themselves from the society and not depending
on it for anything including food and shelter. The later Pāli texts indicate that this
decisive moment coincided with Sujātā Senānı̄dhı̄tā giving him a meal of milk-rice
(gavapāna) when she took him to be a tree-sprite21 (Fausböll 1877–1897: i.68ff;
Norman 1906–15: i.71; Horner 1946: 238) (Fig. 2). It is noteworthy that in the Indic
tradition milk is considered as an important drink that is offered to a starving god to
revive him. He took bath in river Nerañjarā at the Śūrpa-tı̄rtha (Pāli, Suppa-tittha),
ate Sujātā’s milk-rice, and spent the afternoon in the Sālavana (shorea robusta grove)
previous to the night of Enlightenment. According to tradition, this was his only
meal for forty–nine days. This decision of the Buddha to maintain some contact with
the society for the purposes of food and shelter was one of the most momentous
decisions ever taken by the Śākyamuni. However, the degree of this contact appears
to have remained a thorny issue for some time in the Buddhist monastic tradition.
Whereas monks like Devadatta preferred to keep the contact to bare minimum and
considered the forest (aran.ya) as the best place for a monk where he could live as
some sort of a vanavāsin (forest-dweller), the opinion that ultimately came to prevail
was that the members of the sam . gha could set themselves up in permanent residential
structures on the outskirts of urban habitations from where they could easily acquire
the required provisions (see Sarao 2014).
After having spent the afternoon in the Sālavana, the would-be Buddha moved
towards a particular pı̄pal tree on the outskirts of Uruvelā. According to Xuanzang, he
was advised by the God of Mt Prāgbodhi as well as the beings of the Heaven of Pure
Abode to go to this specific pı̄pal tree (Li 1996: 214–215). Xuanzang’s reference to
21 The ritualistic worship of trees or forests as abodes of different tree-deities (rukkha-devatās) or
forest-deities (vana-devatās) has been prevalent in India since pre-historic period. Sujātā’s offering
of gavapāna to the would-be Buddha sitting at the foot of a banyan tree (vat.avr.ks.a) on the eve of
his Enlightenment, in the belief that he was none other than the tree-deity residing in that tree, is a
quintessential example of the common ancient ritualistic tradition of India.
a Brāhman.ical-Hindu god directing the soon-to-be-Buddha to a specific pı̄pal tree is

an endorsement of the fact that this tree, in all likelihood due to its specific location,
shape, and size, had already evolved into a caityavr.ks.a (tree-shrine) or a vanacetiya
(forest-shrine, a shrine in the wood) where Brāhman.ical-Hindus were praying and
making offers. On the way, a grass-cutter offered him some kusa-grass (Sk, kuśa-
grass). Interestingly, this is the last offering received by Gautama before he became
fully enlightened. Kusa-grass (desmostachya bipinnata) is commonly known as big
cord-grass, halfa grass, and salt reed-grass in English and as darbha, dābha, and
kuśa in India. This grass, which is not cultivated but grows naturally, is used in the
Indic religious tradition as a sacred plant. For instance, kuśa is mentioned in the R.g
Veda as being used in sacred ceremonies as well as a seat for the gods and priests
(Griffith 189: 4). Kuśa-grass is also mentioned in the Bhagavad Gı̄tā where Lord
Kr.s.n.a endorses it as part of an ideal seat for meditation (Sargeant 1984: 95 (VI.11)).
Perhaps the most important reason behind this grass being used during meditation
is that it is believed to preserve the energy generated during meditation from being
discharged into the ground through the body of the meditator, mostly through legs
and toes. Kuśa-grass is also viewed as having the highest value in directing the
phonetic vibrations through its tip. When this tip is immersed in water and thereafter
the water is sprinkled around, it is said to purify the environs. Kuśa implies sharp in
the sense of adept or severe because the edges of the long leaves are quite sharp, so
like the sword, it symbolizes “insightful discernment”. In other words, kuśa-grass is
supposed to bring clarity to the mind through the removal of distorted conceptions
and the absorbance of negative radiations from the environment. Interestingly, in the
Brāhman.ical-Hindu tradition, kuśa-grass is plucked only on the day after the Full
Moon day whereas here, the Buddha is offered the grass a day earlier.
According to Buddhist texts, when the Śākyamuni arrived in the Gayā
Dharmaks.etra seeking Enlightenment, it was under the predominant influence of
proto-Śaivite fire worshippers led by three Kāśyapa brothers known as the Tebhātika-
Jat.ilas. These worshippers of fire (agni) considered Agni as a god of sacrifice, energy,
and divine knowledge. In fact, in the R.g Veda, god Agni is second only to Lord
Indra in power and importance. The three brothers were born in a Kassapa (Sk,
Kāśyapa) brāhman.a family and after having mastered the three Vedas had become
saṅnyāsins (Walleser and Kopp 1956–1973: i.165f; Norman 1906–15: i.83ff; Lilley
1925–27: ii.481ff). Uruvela-Kassapa, the eldest of the three brothers, was based
with five hundred disciples on the outskirts of Uruvelā. The youngest brother, Gayā-
Kassapa, had two hundred followers and was based in Gayā. The middle brother,
Nadı̄-Kassapa, with three hundred disciples, was based between the two on the
banks of the river Nerañjarā (Oldenberg 1879–1883: i.25). The present-day tradition
of keeping the crematory fire burning nonstop on the Nerañjarā (now Nilāṅjanā)
riverbed, even when no cremation is in progress, goes back to the practice begun by
these pre-Buddhist fire worshippers.
After the short post-Enlightenment visit to Isipatana (Sk, R.s.ipatana. Sārnāth) and
having returned to the Gayā Dharmaks.etra, the Buddha took up residence in the forest
known as the Kappāsikavanasan.d.a (Kappāsika Forest) and spent his first rainy season
(vars.āvāsa, vassāvāsa) here. The primary purpose of spending the rainy season in
the Gayā dharmaks.etra appears to have been to win over the fire-worshipers who
were proving rather difficult to convert. The Buddha had to patiently wait for them
to be ready for winning-over and even resorted to the process of performing miracles
which he himself considered undesirable (see Oldenberg 1879–1883: i.23–25; Law
1958: i.35, 38, 81; Geiger 1908: i.17ff). Considering that it was a tough case, he had
to use the persuasive powers of magic and rather than impress Uruvela-Kassapa with
wisdom, the Buddha astounds him with feats of magic as well as his super resilience
against Uruvela’s own powerful magic.
While describing the taming of the Kassapa brothers, the texts of the Pāli Tipit.aka
mention that when the most lethal of the tricks of the Nāga22 on behalf of Uruvela-
Kassapa fail, he honours the Tathāgata by calling him, the Buddha. Through his
magical skills, the Buddha overpowered, first this Nāga and then another, both
of whom spewed out fire and smoke. Being impressed with this demonstration
of psychic-power, Kassapa took upon yourself the responsibility of providing the
Buddha with his daily food. In the meantime, the Buddha stayed in the neighbouring
Kappāsikavanasan.d.a, waiting for Kassapa to be ready for winning-over. At this time,
the Four Regent Gods, Sakka, Brahmā Sahampati, and others paid him a visit. The
Buddha spent the whole of the rainy season there, performing a total of three thou-
sand five hundred miracles of different types, reading the thoughts of Kassapa, split-
ting firewood for the sacrifices of the ascetics, heating stoves for them to use after
bathing in the cold weather, etc. Still Kassapa remained stuck in the thought, “The
great ascetic is of great magic power, but he is not an arahant like me.” Ultimately,
the Buddha decided to shock him by announcing that he was not an arahant. He
was further told by the Buddha that the path that he followed would also not lead
to arahantship. Thereupon Kassapa conceded defeat and humbly requested for ordi-
nation. The Buddha advised him to have consultations with his pupils, and they
cut off their hair and threw it with their sacrificial utensils into the river and were
all ordained. Shortly afterwards, Nadı̄-Kassapa and Gayā-Kassapa came to find out
what had happened, and they, too, were ordained with their pupils (see Malalasekera
1937–38: 433) (Fig. 3).
After converting the Kassapa brothers, the Buddha chose the Pitthipāsān.a at
Gayāsı̄sa, at the heart of Gayā dharmaks.etra, to preach the Ādittapariyāya Sutta (The
Going-Round-Aflame Discourse), also known as the Āditta Sutta (The Discourse on
Burning) to them (Walleser and Kopp 1956–1973: i.166; Woodward 1940–49: i.435).
22 It is noteworthy that in the Indic mythology, nāgas are viewed as beings that are either an admixture
of human and serpent-like traits or as having human traits at one time and serpent-like traits at
another. For instance, in the story related in the Mahābhārata (Ādi Parva, Sect. 36), it has been
related how Śes.a, the nāga prince, came to carry the world on his head. The story begins with a
scene in which he appears as a steadfast human ascetic, “with knotted hair, clad in rags, and his
flesh, skin, and sinews dried up owing to the hard penances he was practising.” Being pleased with
Śes.a, Lord Brahmā assigns to him the responsibility of carrying the world. At that juncture in the
story, Śes.a begins to manifest the characteristics of a serpent. He enters the Earth through a hole and
slithers all the way to bottom, where he then loads the Earth onto his head. Mucalinda is a notable
nāga in the Buddhist tradition as a protector of the Buddha. When shortly after having attained
Enlightenment, the Buddha was meditating in a forest a great storm arose, Mucalinda provided
shelter to the Buddha from the storm by covering the latter’s head with his seven hoods.
Fig. 3 Miracle of Serpent in the Fire and winning-over of the Kassapa brothers, the Tebhātika
Jat.ilas (Sāñcı̄ Stūpa No. 1)
This is the third recorded address of the Buddha. In this discourse, the Buddha pointed
out that everything consisting of the eye, the eye-consciousness (cakkhuviññāna),
and the contact of the eye with objects (cakkhusamphassa), and the sensations that
arise therefrom, is aflame with lust, anger, ignorance and the anxieties of birth, decay,
death, etc. The same is true of the other senses. Learning this, a follower of the Noble
Eightfold Path feels revulsion towards them and rids himself of passion for them and
finally accomplishes vimutti (supreme freedom). At the end of this discourse the
thousand monks, erstwhile jat.ilas, who had been listening, are said to have become
arahants (Oldenberg 1879–1883: i.34–5; Fausböll 1877–1897: i.82; iv.180).
The Pāli texts claim that as a result of the activities of the three brothers, the
number of followers increased substantially (Walleser and Kopp 1956–1973: i.166)
and that Uruvela-Kassapa was declared to be the foremost among all those who
had followers in large numbers (aggam . mahāparisānam . ) (Morris and Hardy 1885–
1900: i.25). The event of winning-over of the jat.ilas is considered by Pāli texts as a
momentous event and the scene of the winning-over of Uruvela-Kassapa is, in fact,
sculptured in Sāñcı̄. Xuanzang also mentions a stūpa having seen erected at the spot
where he had become a follower of the Buddha (Li 1995: 256). It appears that after
joining the Buddhist sam . gha, the disciples of the jat.ilas, may have moved away from
the Gayā Dharmaks.etra to act as dharmadūtas (preachers of the Dharma) in the large
urban settlements considering that this region was not ready for Buddhism as yet.
Other than the supreme contest with Māra23 under the Mahābodhi Tree, the Pāli
texts talk of several temptations of the Buddha while he practised austerities in the
Gayā Dharmaks.etra. Once, Māra made an attempt to scare him in the guise of a
terrifying elephant in the darkness of the night. On another occasion, again in the
darkness of a rainy night, when rain was falling drop by drop, Māra took on the
appearance of various kinds of extraordinary forms which were both beautiful and
ugly. Then there was another occasion when Māra attempted to create doubt in the
mind of the Buddha as to whether he had really broken free from all the fetters
and had attained fully enlightenment (Feer 1884–1898: i.103ff). Then, for the last
time, Māra made an attempt to make the Buddha dissatisfied with his lonely lot and
sent his three daughters, Tan.hā, Ratı̄, and Rāgā to distract him. However, this final
effort to derail the Buddha’s effort to become fully enlightened, Māra went away
discombobulated (Feer 1884–1898: i.124f). The Nidānakathā (Fausböll 1877–1897:
i.71ff.; cp. Woods, Kosambi, and Horner 1976–1979: i.384) and the Buddhavam . sa
Commentary (Horner 1946: 239f) contain a vivacious and comprehensive narrative
of the temptation by Māra, as the Buddha sat under the Mahābodhi Tree immediately
before he attained Enlightenment. In this narrative, Māra is shown as summoning his
forces numbering ten divisions and advancing against the Bodhisatta who is seated
with the firm resolve of becoming fully enlightened. These forces are shown as having
been spread up to a distance of twelve yojanas each in front and behind the Buddha
as well as nine yojanas each to the left and right. The narrative shows the thousand-
armed Māra himself riding his elephant, Girimekhala, who is one hundred and fifty
yojanas in height and Māra’s followers, armed with dreadful weapons, assuming
various ferocious appearances. On seeing the Māra approach, all the devas, nāgas,
23 In the Buddhist tradition, Māra is normally considered as the personification of Death, the Evil
One, or the Tempter (the Buddhist counterpart of the Devil or Principle of Destruction). Apparently,
it is with this same implication that the term Māra, in the older books, is applied to the whole of the
worldly existence, the five khandhas, or the realm of rebirth, as against Nibbāna. The standard use
of the word was unmistakably in the sense of Death which was enlarged to mean “the world under
the sway of death” (māradheyya) and the beings therein (Morris and Hardy 1885–1900: iv.228).
Thence, the kilesas also came to be called Māra in that they were instruments of Death, the causes
enabling death to keep a grip over the world. Similarly, all Temptations brought about by the kilesas
were perceived as the handiwork of Death. There was also apparently a legend of Māra devaputta,
who considered himself the head of the World of Kāma and who recognized any attempt to restrain
the indulgence in sensual pleasures, as a direct challenge not only to him but also to his authority.
Many statements can be seen in the Pāli Tipit.akas connected to Māra, which have obvious reference
to Death and the kilesas as well as the world over which Death and the kilesas hold a grip. For
instance, (i). One can escape the snares of Māra by controlling the mind and its propensities (Sarao
2009: 7). (ii). He who takes delight in objects cognizant to the sense organs goes under the sawy of
Māra (Feer 1884–1898: iv.91). (iii). One who has attachment is ensnared by Māra (Feer 1884–1898:
iii.73). (iv). Māra will defeat one if one is unrestrained in one’s senses, immoderate in one’s food,
idle, and weak (Sarao 2009: 8). (v). The attainment of the Eightfold Path (at..thangiko maggo) one
can be free from Māra (Sarao 2009: 40) (based on Malalasekera 1937–38: 611–620).
and other deities, who were gathered round the Bodhisatta in his honour and to
pay him homage are shown as taking to their heels. Having been left all alone,
the Bodhisattva calls for assistance the ten pāramı̄ (perfections) which he had fully
cultivated. The Bodhisattva puts to flight each of the divisions with one pāramı̄.
Finally, Māra hurls the cakkāvudha (wheel weapon), his ultimate weapon, at him
but it stood over him like an umbrella of flowers. Still undeterred, Māra challenged
the legitimacy of his right to the seat whereas the Māra’s all followers declare in
unison that the seat was that of the Māra. Having no other witness, the Bodhisattva
called on the earth to bear witness on his behalf and the earth roared in response.
Māra and his retinue flee in utter rout, and the devas gather round the Buddha to
celebrate his victory (see Malalasekera 1937–38: 611–620). As succinctly pointed
out by T.W.D. Rhys Davids, we are to understand by the attack of Māra’s armies,
that all the Buddha’s
old temptations came back upon him with renewed force. For years he had looked at all earthly
good through the medium of a philosophy which had taught him that it, without exception,
carried within itself the seeds of bitterness and was altogether worthless and impermanent;
but now, to his wavering faith, the sweet delights of home and love, the charms of wealth and
power, began to show themselves in a different light and glow again with attractive colours.
He doubted and agonized in his doubt, but as the sun set, the religious side of his nature
had won the victory and seems to have come out even purified from the struggle (quoted at
Malalasekera 1937–38: 614–615).
It was at Uruvelā, too, that the Buddha had reservations in his own mind as to the
worthwhileness of expounding the Dharma realized by him to a world blinded by
passions and prejudices. The Brahmā Sahampati thereupon beseeched the Buddha
not to succumb to such hesitancy (Feer 1884–1898: i.136ff; Oldenberg 1879–1883:
i.4f). According to Buddhaghos.a, the reason behind this was that the Buddha wanted
Sahampati to make him such an entreaty. “For, thought the Buddha, the world
honours Brahmā greatly, and when people realized that Brahmā himself had begged
of the Buddha to spread his teaching, they would pay more attention to it” (Wood-
ward 1977: i.155). Sahampati was, at this time, the most senior of the Brahmās
(jet..tha-Mahābrahmā) (Rhys Davids, Carpentier, and Stede, 1886–1971: ii.467). In
the same spirit, Sahampati is mentioned as holding a white parasol over the head
of the Buddha when the latter attained Enlightenment (Horner 1946: 239). It has
been suggested that Brahmā Sahampati is in all likelihood connected with Brahman
Svayambhū of brāhman.ical literature (Rhys Davids and Oldenberg 1881: 86 fn.1).
Encounter with Brahmā Sahampati shortly after Enlightenment in the neighbourhood
of Brahma Gayā indicates that the Buddha was seeking to spread his influence in the
Gayā Dharmaks.etra by seeking the services of their highest god. Sahampati Brahmā
appeared before the Buddha when the latter was at the Ajapāla-Nigrodha and was
hesitating as to whether or not he should expound the Dharma. Sahampati begged of
him to open the doors of Immortality to the world and the Buddha gave his consent.
to this compelling request (Oldenberg 1879–1883: i.5f; Feer 1884–1898: i.137f; Li
1895: 253). When the Buddha was looking for a teacher, he also accepted Saham-
pati’s advice to have the Dharma as his teacher (Feer 1884–1898: i.139). Further,
the Buddha also got assurances from him with regard to the four satipat..thānas and
the five indriyas (Feer 1884–1898: v.167f., 185, 232; Morris and Hardy 1885–1900:
ii.10f).
The closest human settlement to the Mahābodhi Tree at the time of the Buddha
was the site now represented by the archaeological remains in the village of Tārād.ı̄h
(24°68 N and 85°01 E). The excavations at Tārād.ı̄h have yielded many fire guards.
This strongly indicates towards Tārād.ı̄h being the village of Uruvelā. The Tārād.ı̄h
remains, 600 m east to west and 500 m north to south, named after goddess Tārā,
stretch southwest and north of the Great Stūpa of Bodh Gayā, popularly known as
the Mahābodhi Temple.
The excavation records of Tādād.ı̄h (Indian Archaeology: A Review 1974–75: 10,
1981–82: 10–12; 1982–83: 16; 1983–84: 12ff) indicate that the settlement history of
this region goes back to the Neolithic period. Tārād.ı̄h now consists of no more than
scattered brick-masonry remnants in a poor state of post-excavation preservation. A
mosque has been built on part of the site. Today Tārād.ı̄h is eight metres above the
level of Phalgu riverbed, but traces indicate frequent past flood-related inundations.
Chronologically, the site offers valuable evidence indicating a continuous cultural
epoch extending from the Neolithic Age to the time of the Pāla dynasty (750–1174).
Its excavation could not begin until after the removal of the earth piled there by
Cunningham when he excavated the Mahābodhi Great Stūpa. Meade started exca-
vating the Great Stūpa core in 1861. In 1880, J.D. Beglar had already brought to
light such important elements as the Vajrāsana. Laying out four trenches at Tārād.ı̄h
in 1981–82, Ajit Kumar Prasad was able to establish a clear chronology beginning
with the Neolithic Age, continuing through the time of Śākyamuni, and extending
to the age of Pāla dynasty. The chronology consists of seven periods:
Period 1: Neolithic Age.
Period 2: Chalcolithic Age, sometimes black-rimmed red ware with white
markings and soapstone beads.
Period 3: Introduction of iron-ware; traces of unhulled rice, various ceramics
black-rimmed red ware, black ware, and red ware; as well as diverse bodily
ornaments.
Period 4: Predominantly Northern Black Polished Ware (NBPW), clay figurines,
and body ornaments.
Period 5: Śuṅga-Kus.ān.a dynasties.
Period 6: Gupta and later Gupta dynasties.
Period 7: Pāla dynasty.
Lasting until 1985, excavations unearthed many artifacts including unglazed-
pottery and stone body ornaments, clay figurines, Buddha statuettes, and stone
Buddha figures. In 1988, artifacts from the NBPW period to the time of the Pāla
dynasty were discovered in the rear of the site of the nearby Samanvaya Āśrama. The
statement in the Mahāvam . sa to the effect that, at the period in question, pot produc-
tion flourished in this region agrees with the large quantities of pottery shards of
various forms, colours, and constructions discovered there. Prasad described Tārād.ı̄h
as the only site where it is possible to see artifacts from a continuous cultural epoch
Fig. 4 Sujātāgarh
extending from the Neolithic to the time of the Pāla dynasty not only from Bihar, but
also from the whole of Indian subcontinent.
According to the texts of the Pāli Tipit.aka, Senānigama was the village in which
Senānı̄ and his daughter Sujātā lived. Sujātā was the lady who has been immortal-
ized in Buddhism for having offered milk-rice to Gautama shortly before he attained
Buddhahood. This place was located on the banks of the Nerañjarā and was not
very far from Uruvelā (Fausböll 1877–1897: i.68). Though originally, the name
of this settlement appears to have been Senānigama (see, for example, Feer 1884–
1898: i.106; Oldenberg 1879–1883: i.21; Trenckner and Chalmers 1888–1896: i.166,
240), later texts also began to spell it as Senānı̄nigama. Two variations of the name
of this settlement have resulted in differing opinions about its nature. According
to Buddhaghos.a either it was occupied by soldiers at the beginning of the kappa
(pat..thamakappikānam . senāya nivit..thokāse patit..thitagāmo) or it was a marketplace
belonging to Sujātā’s father Senānı̄ (Sujātāya vāpitu Senānı̄ nāma nigamo) (Wood-
ward 1977: i.135; see also Malalasekera 1937–38: s.v. Senānı̄nigama). On the basis
of this observation of Buddhaghos.a, some say it was the settlement of Sujātā’s
father Senānı̄, i.e., Senānı̄–nigama (see Rhys Davids, Woodward and Thera 1917–
1930: i.132 fn.5.), whereas others call it a camp city (Malalasekera 1937–38: s.v.
Uruvel.ā, Senānı̄nigama) or cantonment city (Horner 1938–1966: iv.28 fn.6.), i.e.,
Senā-nigama. But the only reading given for the father’s name is Senānı̄. However,
the issue does not look as complicated. The mix-up appears to have arisen from the
fact that Senānı̄ besides being the name of Sujātā’s father, means a general. Consid-
ering perhaps Sujātā’s father was an army commander, the Lalitavistara calls this
settlement Senāpatigrāma (Vaidya: 1958: 195).
The Sujātā legend has been substantially supported by the excavations (Srivastava
1977) at Sujātāgarh near the village of Bakraur (24°69 79 N and 85°00 34 E) situ-
ated about one kilometre from the Mahābodhi Temple across the river Nilāṅjanā.
Excavations by the Archaeological Survey of India there in 1973–74 and again
in 2001–06 uncovered a stūpa with a round, two-level, terraced structure eleven
metres high on a square east-west, north-south platform (Fig. 4). The stūpa has
revealed traces of three phases of additions and expansion from the Gupta to the Pāla
period. During the first-phase, the stūpa had a narrow clockwise path around it with
a surrounding wall of fired-brick. Noticeable traces indicate at the ground level the
existence of a wooden railing surrounding the path. In the later expansions, this was
widened to five metres and thickly covered in lime plaster. In third-phase expansions,
a lime-plastered surrounding wall made of fired-brick was added with railings on four
sides and an open gate on each side. During this phase, a simple lime-plastered clock-
wise path was added between the surrounding wall and the gates. According to the
excavator, K.M. Srivastava (1977), in its earliest form the pradaks.in.āpatha of the
stūpa was very narrow and made of burnt bricks. The width of the pradaks.in.āpatha
was two metres whereas the diameter of the stūpa was fifty-five metres. Subsequently,
when the devotees enlarged the diameter of the stūpa and also raised its height, the
original pradaks.in.āpatha was covered up. An altogether new feature of this stage is
the five-metre wide pradaks.in.āpatha made of thick lime plaster. Six corners in the
pradaks.in.āpatha, three on either side of the gateway appear to have been provided
to give it symmetrical ambience. A fired-brick platform in front of one of the gates
appears to have been used for congregations. During the final phase of expansion,
the stūpa grew to quite a large size, reaching a maximum diameter of 65.5 m. Dating
of the building and expansion of each level is unclear, but the initial phase of the
residence site is thought to be from about the second century BCE. This appraisal is
based on the shards of dark grey polished ceramic ware excavated from a building
thought to be the remains of a temple located on the northeast of the stūpa site.
Terracotta seals and small plaques support the dating of the final expansion from the
eighth to the tenth century. The attitude of the monarchs of the Pāla dynasty towards
Buddhism led to the assumption that the surrounding walls, railings, and gates were
erected during this period. K.M. Srivastava (1978–79) found here several plaques
made of plaster with images of the Buddha in bhūmisparśa-mudrā. These plaques
were inscribed with the legend “Devapāla rajasya Sujātāgr.ha” (King Devapāla’s
House of Sujātā) in characters of the eighth–ninth century of the Pāla period making
it certain that this last phase was constructed to commemorate the place where Sujātā
lived. Also excavated from the site are part of a golden earring, a small terracotta
brooch, punch-marked coins, a stone Buddha head and torso, body ornaments, and
terracotta seals. However, the sandstone pillar seen by Cunningham at Bakraur is no
longer traceable here. The lime plaster was damaged at all the places when the place
was vandalized by the locals for burnt bricks (see Srivastava 1978–79: 18).
References
Andersen, D., and H. Smith (eds.). 1913. The Sutta-Nipāta. London: Pali Text Society.
Asher, Fraderick M. 1988. Gaya: Monuments of the pilgrimage town. In Bodhgaya: The Site of
Enlightenment, ed. Janice Leoshko, 74–88. Bombay: Marg Publications.
Barua, B.M. 1934. Gayā and Buddha-Gayā (Early History of the Holy Land), rev ed. Calcutta: Satis
Chandra Seal.
Bodhi, Bhikkhu (trans). 2000. The connected discourses of the Buddha, 2 vols. Boston: Wisdom
Publications.
Dave, J.H. 1970. Immortal India, vol. I. Bombay: Bhartiya Vidya Bhawan.
References 31

Feer, M.L., (ed.). 1884–1898. The Sam . yutta Nikāya, 5 vols. London: Pali Text Society.
Fowler, Jeaneane D. 1997. Hinduism: Beliefs and practices. Brighton: Sussex Academic Press.
Geiger, W. (ed.). 1908. The Mahāvam . sa. London: Pali Text Society.
Gold, Ann. 2000. Fruitful journeys: The ways of Rajasthani pilgrims. Illinois: Waveland Press Inc.
Horner, I.B. (ed.). 1946. Madhuratthavilāsinı̄ nāma Buddhavam . sat..thakathā of Bhadantācariya
Buddhadatta Mahāthera. London: Pali Text Society.
Horner, I.B. (trans.). 1938–1966. The book of the discipline, 6 vols. London: Pali Text Society.
Horner, I.B. (trans.). 1954–1959. The collection of the middle length sayings (Majjhima Nikāya), 3
vols., London: Pali Text Society.
Jayaswal, Vidula. 2015. The Buddhist landscape of Varanasi. New Delhi: Aryan Books International.
Jolly, Julius. 1880. The institutes of Vishnu, sacred, books of the east series, vol. 7. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Kane, P.V. 1974–1997. History of Dharmaśāstra, vol. 1, Part I: rev. and enl. 2nd ed., repr., 1990,
vol. I, Part II: 1975; vol. II, Part I and II: 3rd ed., 1997; vol. III: 3rd ed., 1993, vol. IV: 3rd ed.,
1991; vol. V, Part I: 2nd ed., 1974; vol. V, Part II: 2nd ed., 1977; Government Oriental Series,
Class B, No. 6, Poona: Bhandarkar Research Institute.
Kinnard, Jacob N. 2000. The polyvalent Pādas of Vis.n.u and the Buddha. History of Religions 40
(1): 32–57.
Law, B.C. (ed. and trans.). 1958. The chronicle of the island of Ceylon or the Dı̄pavam . sa, Colombo:
The Ceylon Historical Journal, 7: 1–266.
Li, Rongxi (trans.). 1995. A biography of the Tripit.aka master of the great Ci’en monastery of the
great Tang Dynasty. Berkeley: Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research.
Li, Rongxi (trans.). 1996. The great tang dynasty record of the western regions, Berkeley: Numata
Center for Buddhist Translation and Research, Berkeley.
Lilley, M.E. (ed.). 1925–27. The Apadāna, 2 vols, London: Pali Text Society.
Lubotsky, Alexander. 2011. Indo-Aryan inherited lexicon (in progress). Indo-European Etymolog-
ical Dictionary Project: Leiden University.
Malalasekera, G.P. 1937–38. Dictionary of Pāli proper names, London: John Murray.
Milley, M.E. (ed.). 2000. The Apadāna, 2 vols. London: Pali Text Society.
Mitra, Rajendralala. 1878. Buddha Gaya: The great Buddhist temple, the hermitage of Śākya Muni.
Calcutta: Bengal Secretariat Press.
Monier-Williams, Monier. 1911. Sanskrit-English dictionary, 2 vols, reprint, New Delhi: Parimal
Publications: 2008.
Morris, R. and E. Hardy (eds.). 1885–1900. The Aṅguttara Nikāya, 5 vols., London: Pali Text
Society.
Ñān.amoli, Bhikkhu, and Bhikkhu Bodhi. 1995. The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha.
Boston: Wisdom Publications.
Norman, H.C. (ed.). 1906–15. The commentary on the Dhammapada, 4 vols, London: Pali Text
Society.
O’Malley, L.S.S. 2007. Bengal district gazetteers: Gaya, reprint, New Delhi: Logos Press, originally
published: 1906.
Oldenberg, H., and Pischel, R. (eds.). 1990. Thera- and Therı̄-Gāthā, second ed. with appendices
by K.R. Norman and L. Alsdorf, Oxford: Pali Text Society.
Paul, Debyani. 1985. Antiquity of the Vis.n.upāda at Gayā, tradition and antiquity. East and West
35: 103–141.
Ray, R.A. 1994. Buddhist saints in India: a study in Buddhist values & orientations. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Rhys Davids, C.A.F., F.L. Woodward, and S.S. Thera (trans.). 1917–1930. The book of the kindred
sayings, London: Pali Text Society.
Rhys Davids, T.W., and Carpenter, J.E. (eds.). 1890–1911. The Dı̄gha Nikāya, 3 vols., London: Pali
Text Society.
Rhys Davids, T.W., J.E. Carpentier, and W. Stede. (eds.). 1886–1971. The Sumaṅgalavilāsinı̄,
Buddhaghosa’s commentary on the Dı̄gha Nikāya, 3 vols, London: Pali Text Society.
Rhys Davids, T.W.D., and Hermann Oldenberg. 1881. Vinaya Texts. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Sarao, K.T.S. 2009. The Dhammapada: A translator’s guide. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal.
Sarao, K.T.S. 2010. Urban centres and urbanization: As reflected in the Pāli Vinaya and Sutta
Pit.akas, 3rd rev. ed., New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal.
Sarao, K.T.S. 2014. “Dissent and protest in early Indian Buddhism with special reference to Deva-
datta” in Vijaya Ramaswamy (ed.), Devotion and dissent in Indian history, pp. 31–48. Delhi:
Cambridge University Press.
Sargeant, Winthrop (trans.). 1984. The Bhagavad Gı̄tā, Albany: State University of New York Press.
Śāstri, Rampratap Tripathi. 1909. Vāyupurān.am . (Hindi Anuvāda Sahitam . ). Allahabad: Hindi
Sahitya Sammelan.
Singh, Rana P.B. 2012. Sacredscape and manescape: The sacred geography of Gaya, India. In Ashok
Kumar Dutt, Vandana Wadhwa, Baleshwar Thakur, and Frank J. Costa (eds.), Facets of social
geography: International and Indian perspectives, pp. 502–525. Delhi: Foundation Books.
Smith, H. (ed.). 1966–1972. Sutta-Nipāta Commentary being Paramatthajotikā II, 3 vols, London:
Pali Text Society.
Srivastava, K.M. 1978–79. Where Sujātā offered Payasa to the Buddha. Journal of the Sri Lankan
Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, New Series, 24: 15–19.
Tagare, G.V. (trans.). 1987. The Vāyu Purān.a, 2 vols., Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Trenckner V., and Chalmers R. (eds.). 1888–1896. The Majjhima Nikāya, 5 vols., London: Pali Text
Society.
Vaidya, P.L. (ed.). 1958. The Lalita-Vistara. Darbhanga: The Mithila Institute of Post-Graduate
Studies and Research in Sanskrit Learning.
Vidyarthi, L.P. 1978. The sacred complex in Hindu Gaya, second edition with introduction. Delhi:
Concept Publishing Co.
Walleser, H., and Kopp, H. 1956–1973. The Manorathapūran.ı̄: Buddhaghosa’s commentary on the
Aṅguttara Nikāya, 5 vols., London: Pali Text Society.
Woods, J.H., D. Kosambi, and I.B. Horner (eds.). 1976–1979. Papañcasūdanı̄, Majjhi-
manikāyat..thakathā of Buddhaghosācariya, 3 vols., London: Pali Text Society.
Woodward, F.L. (ed.). 1926. Paramattha-Dı̄panı̄: Udānat..thakathā (Udāna commentary) of
Dhammapālācariya. London: Pali Text Society.
Woodward, F.L. (ed.). 1940–49. Paramattha-Dı̄panı̄: Theragāthā-At..thakathā, the commentary of
Dhammapālācariya, 3 vols, London: Pali Text Society.
Woodward, F.L. (ed.). 1977. The Sārattha-ppakāsinı̄, Buddhaghosa’s commentary on the Sam . yutta
Nikāya, 3 vols. London: Pali Text Society.
Woodward, F.L. (trans.). 1932–1936. The book of the gradual sayings, 5 vols, London: Pali Text
Society.
Chapter 3
The Mahābodhi Temple Complex
Abstract The Mahābodhi Temple Complex of Bodh Gayā has primarily evolved
around the different spots associated with various events leading to the Buddha’s
Enlightenment and shortly thereafter and consists of the Mahābodhi Tree, the
Mahābodhi Temple, the Vajrāsana, the Mucalinda Pond, the Animes.alocana Stūpa,
the Ratnaghara, the Ratnacam . krama, the Pañca Pān.d.ava Temple, a Śaivite Temple-
complex, and a large number of ancient votive stūpas and shrines. All these are
quite well-maintained and safeguarded by inner, middle, and outer boundaries of the
Complex. Now as per the Bodh Gaya Temple Act of 1949, the State Government of
Bihar is responsible for the management, maintenance, and protection of the property
through Bodhgaya Temple Management Committee (BTMC) and Advisory Board.
The earliest accounts mention that the Buddha spent five weeks under and near the
Mahābodhi Tree following the attainment of Enlightenment. However, as the sacred
story developed around the site of Enlightenment, the symbiotic relationship between
the site and the story gave birth to the master narrative spread over a period of seven
weeks. The first epigraphic record relating to the building activity of and around the
Mahābodhi Temple is found in small inscriptions by Lady Kuraṅgı̄, Nāgadevı̄, and
Sirı̄mā written in Aśokan Brāhmı̄ script on a section of the highly ornamented carved
stone-railing dating to the Śuṅga period (c.100 BCE). From the late fourth century
onwards, the Sri Lankan monks appear to have been granted extraterritorial control
by Gupta king Samudragupta and consequently, the care and maintenance of the site
was taken over by the Sri Lankans. The Mahābodhi Temple is surrounded on all four
sides by stone railings which reveal two distinct types, both in style as well as the
materials used. The older ones were made of smooth sandstone (first century BCE)
and the others were constructed from unpolished coarse granite (Gupta period). The
railing has many bas-reliefs and carvings, depicting episdoes from the life of the
Buddha as well as Buddhist symbols. The Chinese pilgrims Faxian and Xuanzang
have given a comprehensive account of the Mahābodhi Temple Complex. Xuan-
zang mentions the existence of at least thirty stūpas and half a dozen shrines within
the complex of the Mahābodhi Temple and its immediate proximity at the time of
his visit. According to Xuanzang, the towered Mahābodhi Temple as well as the
large buddha image inside the cella, were made by brāhman.as. Acceding to India’s
request, UNESCO declared the Mahābodhi Temple Complex on 27 June 2002 as
the eighteenth Indian cultural site to be awarded the UNESCO’s World Heritage
Monument.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8067-3_3
34 3 The Mahābodhi Temple Complex
Fig. 1 An Aerial View of Bodh Gayā showing the Mahābodhi Temple Complex, parts of Tārād.ı̄h,
and the Nilāṅjanā River

The present-day Mahābodhi Temple Complex of Bodh Gayā is located at a distance
of about six kilometres from Gayā Airport at 24°41 43 N and 84°59 38 E. It covers
a total area of twelve acres of land, out of which the Mahābodhi Temple area covers
about five and a half acres. The Complex has primarily evolved around the different
spots associated with various events leading to the Buddha’s Enlightenment and a few
months thereafter and consists of the Mahābodhi Tree1 the Mahābodhi Temple,2 the
Vajrāsana (Throne), the Ajapāla-Nigrodha (Goatherd’s Banyan), the Mucalinda Pond,
Rājāyatana Tree, the Animes.alocana Stūpa (i.e., the Unblinking Stūpa or the Fixed-
Gaze Stūpa), the Ratnaghara (or the Jewel Chamber), and the Ratnacam . krama (the
Jewel Walk). Except the Rājāyatana tree and the Goatherd’s shrine, all these sites are
identified by the Buddhists these days. The complex also includes the Pañca Pān.d.ava
Temple, a Śaivite Temple-complex, the sepulchre (samādhi) of a mahant, and a large
number of ancient votive stūpas and shrines. All these are quite well-maintained and
shielded by inner, middle, and outer boundaries of the Complex. Till the mid-1980s,
the absence of railings allowed visitors unobstructed access to the Vajrāsana and the
Mahābodhi Tree. However, now these two are enclosed by double and triple railings,
over which the branches of the Mahābodhi Tree extend widely. Now, as per the Bodh
Gaya Temple Act of 1949 and its subsequent amendment of 2013, amendment, the
Mahābodhi Temple Complex is the property of the State Government of Bihar which
is responsible for its management, maintenance, and protection through Bodhgaya
Temple Management Committee (BTMC) and Advisory Board.
The history of the Mahābodhi Temple Complex has been documented in many
inscriptions and pilgrimage accounts (Fig. 1). According to the Mahāvagga of the
1 Discussed separately in this chapter.

2 Discussed separately in Chap. 4.
3 The Mahābodhi Temple Complex 35
Vinaya Pit.aka (Oldenberg 1879–83: i.2–8), when the would-be Buddha arrived to
sit under the pı̄pal tree in his final push towards Enlightenment, he is said to have
spread some kuśa-grass under it and sat on it facing the east. As the sun rises in
the east, turning to that direction symbolizes an act of final preparation for spiri-
tual wakefulness and earnestness for Enlightenment. He was faced with a variety of
distractions and temptations in the guise of Māra who is said to have tried unsuc-
cessfully to put obstacles in his path to Enlightenment. Entering into deep contem-
plation, he attained the knowledge of his past lives during the first watch of the night.
During the second watch, he attained the supernormal divine vision. During the
third watch, he fathomed the pratitı̄yasamutpāda (Pāli, pat.iccasamuppāda. Law of
Dependent Arising) and gained insight into the destruction of āśravas (Pāli, āsavas.
mental cankers/biases/intoxications/leakages). At the dawn of the day, he realized the
Sambodhi (Supreme/Full Enlightenment). It was the full-moon day (pūrn.imā) of the
month of Vaiśākha (Pāli, Vesākha) (Oldenberg 1879–1883: i.1–2; Feer 1884–1898:
v.160, 423). After Enlightenment, the Sambuddha (the Fully Enlightened One) is
said to have bathed in the Śakra (Pāli, Sakka) tank. This tank is generally identified
with a tank located in the Pı̄pal Pattı̄ hamlet, south of Buddhapokharā (see Ahir 1994:
147).
The earliest accounts (Oldenberg 1879–83: i.2–8) mention that the Buddha spent
five weeks under and near the Mahābodhi Tree following the attainment of Enlight-
enment. He spent his first week under the Mahābodhi Tree itself. After taking bath
in the Śakra Tank, he sat cross-legged at the foot of the Mahābodhi Tree gazing at
it uninterrupted for seven days, experiencing the bliss of Enlightenment. He spent
the second and the fifth weeks under the Ajapāla-Nigrodha (Goatherd’s Banyan)
tree experiencing the bliss of freedom. A pillar now marks this spot. Here, he was
approached by a brāhman.a known as the Huhuṅkajātika Brāhman.a (Oldenberg 1879–
1883: i.2–3). Huhuṅkajātika brāhman.a, who received his name from the fact that he
went about uttering the sound “hu-huṅ,”3 visited the Buddha at the Ajapāla-Nigrodha.
Though the Buddha explained to him on being asked as to what a true brāhman.a is,
but he went away unimpressed and apparently the Buddha was not able to make any
impression on him (Oldenberg 1879–1883: i.2; Steinthal 1885: 4).
When the Buddha was spending his fifth week at the Ajapāla-Nigrodha, the
Brahmā Sahampati presented himself before him and convinced him to preach the
Dharma (Oldenberg 1879–1883: i.4–7). According to the story related in the Āyācana
Sutta of the Dı̄gha Nikāya, the Buddha was debating whether he should teach the
dharma to others or not. He was worried that human beings were overwhelmed
by ignorance, greed, and hatred to such an extent that they would never be able to
appreciate the path, which is subtle, deep, and difficult to grasp. While persuading the
Buddha, Brahmā Sahampati is mentioned as saluting the Buddha as well as stooping
his right knee to the ground. When the Buddha wished to live under another recluse
or brāhman.a as a guru (Pāli, garu. teacher), Brahmā Sahampati appears before. Him
3 The Samantapasādikā calls him ditthamangalika i.e., one who believes in omens that can be seen
..
and who. Goes around making (the sound) hum . out of conceit and in anger (Takakusu and Nagai
1947–1975: 957).
once again and suggests that he does not need to live under any teacher but under the
sadharma only (Feer 1884–1898: i.138–139; Morris and Hardy 1885–1900: ii.20f).4
It was also under the Ajapāla-Nigrodha that Māra attempted unsuccessfully to
convince the Buddha to die at once (Rhys Davids and Carpenter 1890–1911: ii.112).
It has been suggested that apart from being a place of shelter for goatherds and their
goats, old brāhman.as, incapable of reciting the Vedas, lived here in lodgings that were
shielded by walls and ramparts (see Malalasekera 1937–38: s.v. Ajapāla-Nigrodha;
Woodward 1926: 51). According to the northern Buddhist tradition, this tree was
planted by a shepherd boy to shelter the would-be Buddha when the latter was doing
his penances of six years (Beal 1875: 192, 238). The Brahmā Sutta (Feer 1884–1898:
v.167) and the Magga Sutta (Feer 1884–1898: v.185), both related to four satipat..thānā,
and another Brahmā Sutta (Feer 1884–1898: v.232f) related to five indriyāni, were
originally conceived by the Buddha while he sat at the foot of this tree immediately after
having attained Enlightenment. In all these instances Brahmā Sahampati presented
himself before him and endorsed his thoughts. Several old brāhman.as are also said to
have paid a visit to the Buddha during this time and enquired from him if it was true
that he did not pay respect to age. To these brāhman.as, he gave a sermon on the four
Thera-karan.ā dhammā (Morris and Hardy 1885–1900: ii.22).
The Buddha spent the third week near the Mucalinda Pond (Oldenberg 1879–
1883: i.3; Woodward 1926: ii.1).5 According to tradition, while the Buddha was medi-
tating here, Mucalinda, the Nāga king of the pond, offered shelter to the Buddha from
great storm that had arisen out of due season resulting in cold winds, rainy weather,
and overcast skies. The Buddha spent the fourth week at the foot of the Rājāyatana
Tree. Here he was offered cakes of barley and honey by Tapussa and Bhallika, busi-
nessmen of Ukkala (Utkala, Odisha), who were passing by (Oldenberg 1879–1883:
i.3f; Fausböll 1877–1897: i.80). Tapussa and his younger brother Bhallika were two
merchants from Ukkala who while on their way to Rājagaha saw the Buddha at the
foot of the Rājāyatana Tree, in the fourth week after the Enlightenment. They made
an offer of rice-cakes and honey to the Buddha and are credited with being the first
lay disciples of the Buddha by taking the two-fold shelter in the Buddha and the
Dharma (dvevācikasaran.a) and obtained from the Buddha a few hairs as an object
of worship (Oldenberg 1879–1883: i.3f; Morris and Hardy 1885–1900: i.26; Fausböll
1877–1897: i.80). A stūpa was later erected on the site of the tree (Beal 1875: 129).
From the Rājāyatana tree, located towards the south from the Temple, the Buddha
returned to the Mahābodhi Tree, bowed to it reverently, and thoughtfully proceeded
towards Isipatana (Sk, R.s.ipatana. Sārnāth) to preach the first sermon, the Dham-
macakkapavattana Sutta. On his way, somewhere between the Mahābodhi Tree and
Gayā, he had a meeting with Upaka, the Ājivika. When Upaka enquired from the
Buddha if the latter were an Anantajina (the Boundless Victor) and the latter replied in
4 In the Brāhmanical-Hindu practice, guru is central to spiritual realization. Thus, true knowledge
.
is impossible without a guru. But this is reversed by the Buddha and that too at the hands of the
highest god of Brāhman.ical-Hinduism, the Brahmā himself that the Sambuddha (Fully-Enlightened
One) needs no guru.
5 Mucalinda Pond is generally identified with a tank located to the south-east of Buddhapokharā in
the Tikabhighā hamlet (see Ahir 1994: 147).

6
the affirmative, Upaka took a side track (ummaggam . ), shook his head (sı̄sam okam-
petvā) indifferently, and commented “It may be so, friend” (hupeyya āvuso’ti) (Faus-
böll 1877–1897: i.81; Oldenberg 1879–1883: i.8; Trenckner and Chalmers 1888–
1896: i.170–1). I.B. Horner has suggested that had Upaka been “convinced or even
interested” he would not have parted. ways by a side track (Horner 1938–1966 iv.12
fn.7).7
As the sacred story grew around the site of Enlightenment, the symbiotic rela-
tionship between the site and the story gave birth to the master narrative spread
over a period of seven8 weeks. Thus, in the master narrative, available in later texts,
the Buddha spent seven weeks after Enlightenment at seven different spots in the
neighbourhood of the Mahābodhi Tree meditating and thinking of his experience.
According to this master narrative, he spent the first week at the foot of the Mahābodhi
Tree savouring the bliss of Enlightenment. During the second week he stood gazing
at the Mahābodhi Tree uninterrupted out of gratitude for giving him shelter. This spot,
located on the north-east of the Mahābodhi Temple, is marked by the Animes.alocana
Stūpa with an image of the Buddha with his eyes fixed towards the Mahābodhi Tree.
Talking about it, Xuanzang points out that “to the north of the promenade, on a huge
rock on the right side of the road, is a big shrine in which there is an image of the
Buddha with its eyes gazing upward. Formerly the Tathāgata looked at the bodhi tree
from this place for seven days without blinking, gazing at the tree attentively with a
feeling of gratitude” (Li 1992: 220).
During the third week after Enlightenment, the Buddha is said to have practised
walking meditation back and forth between the location of the Animes.alocana Stūpa
6 The word ummaggam . (literally ‘off-track’) may also be translated as ‘a wrong road’ or ‘a devious
way’ (see Rhys Davids and Stede 1921–25: 154).
7 It has been mentioned in the atthakathā of the Dı̄gha Nikāya (Rhys Davids, Carpentier, and Stede,
..
1886–1971: ii.471) that the Buddha deliberately took this land-route as he wanted to meet Upaka.
After this encounter, Upaka is said to have gone to the Vantakāradesa where he desperately besotted
with Cāpā, the daughter of a huntsman. He succeeded in persuading the huntsman to marry his
daughter to him after having starved for a week. In order to make a living, Upaka skinned the
dead animals brought home by his father-in-law. Soon, he was blessed with a son named Subhadda.
Whenever the child cried, his mother Cāpā would tease Upaka by singing “Upaka’s son, ascetic’s
son, game-dealer’s boy, don’t cry.” Getting frustrated as a result of this mocking, he left home and
went to meet the Buddha at Śrāvasti. The Buddha happily admitted him to the sam . gha. Conse-
quent upon his meditation, Upaka attained the status of an anāgāmı̄ and was reborn as a deva in the
Avihā heaven (Pruitt 1997: 220ff; Woods, Kosambi, and Horner 1976–1979: i.388f). The Sam . yutta
Nikāya mentions the Buddha paying a visit to Upaka and six other beings in Avihā (Feer 1884–1898:
i.35, 60). The Papañcasūdanı̄, at..thakathā of the Majjhima Nikāya, mentions that Upaka became an
arahant at the moment of his birth in Avihā (Woods, Kosambi, and Horner 1976–1979: i.389). The
Therı̄gāthā mentions his nickname as Kāla (Oldenberg Pischel 1990: 309) probably because of his
dark complexion. The Paramatthadı̄panı̄, at..thakathā of the Therı̄gāthā, mentions his birth-place
as the village of Nāla that was located near the Mahābodhi Tree. It was here that he had left Cāpā
(Pruitt 1997: 225). Later on, Cāpā is also said to have joined the sam
. gha and become an arahant. The
listing of the Buddha’s virtues which was made to Upaka is not considered a real dhammadesanā
as it happened before the wheel of the Dharma was set rolling at Isipatana. It did not result in either
sekhabhāgiya or ribaddha-bhāgiya, but only resulted in vāsanā-bhāgiya (Woodward 1926: 54).
8 The numeral seven is a collective and concluding (serial) number based on astronomical conception
in the Indic holy tradition and is associated with inner wisdom, intuition, and mysticism.
and the Mahābodhi Tree along the northern side of the Temple. The footsteps of
the Buddha are represented by lotus flowers on a narrow masonry raised platform
about 53 feet long, 3½ feet broad, and a little more than 3 feet high. According to
the legend, as the Buddha walked lotus flowers sprung up along this route. It is now
called the Ratnacam . krama (the Jewel Walk) or simply Cam . krama (Pāli, Caṅkama;
the Promenade or Cloister Walk). In some of the later Buddhist traditions, the Buddha
saw through his mind’s eye that the devas in the heavens were not certain if he had
attained Enlightenment or not. To prove that he indeed had attained Enlightenment
the Buddha is said to have built a golden bridge in the air and walked on it from side
to side during the third week after Enlightenment.
The Ratanaghara (or the Jewel Chamber), a small roofless shrine in which the
Buddha spent the fourth week in meditation, is also located within the courtyard to the
north-west of the Temple. The Buddha is. Said to. Have meditated here contemplating
on the Law of Dependent Origination (Pratitı̄yasamutpāda). It is said that at this point
of time, his body became so pure that a ray of six colours emanated from his body. The
Buddhists have designed their flag based on these six colours: yellow for holiness,
white for purity, blue for confidence, red for wisdom, orange for desirelessness, and
a mixture of these five.
In the master narrative of seven week tradition, the Buddha spent the fifth
week under the Ajapāla-Nigrodha tree. Here, while he was meditating, three most
enchanting girls called Tan.hā, Ratı̄, and Rāgā came to disturb him by tempting him in
various seductive ways. However, having failed in their purpose, they left him alone.
In the master narrative, having spent the sixth week under the Mucalinda Tree and
the seventh under the Rājāyatana Tree respectively, the Buddha left for R.s.ipatana to
deliver his first sermon.
The first epigraphic record relating to the building activity of and around the
Mahābodhi Temple is found in small inscriptions by Lady Kuraṅgı̄, Nāgadevı̄, and
Sirı̄mā written in Aśokan Brāhmı̄ script on a section of the highly ornamented carved
stone-railing dating to the Śuṅga period (c.100 BCE). One of these inscriptions
found repeated at several pillars reads “Ayāye Kuraṅgiye dānam” (Gift of the noble
(lady) Kuraṅgi) (Cunningham 1892: 15). The title Ayā (Sk, Āryā) indicates that
Lady Kuraṅgı̄ was either the wife of a monarch or some person of authority.9 These
inscriptions provide evidence of noble patronage. However, from the late fourth
century onwards, the Sri Lankan monks appear to have been granted extraterritorial
control of the Mahābodhi Temple Complex by Gupta king Samudragupta (c. 335–
380 CE) and consequently, the care and maintenance of the site was taken over by
the Sri Lankans and its patronage during the succeeding centuries came mostly from
visiting pilgrims and missions sent by foreign rulers.
The Mahābodhi Temple is surrounded on all four sides by stone railings, about two
metres high. The railings reveal two distinct types, both in style as well as the materials
used. The older ones, made of smooth sandstone, date to about the first century BCE
and the others, constructed from unpolished coarse granite, are believed to be of the
9 The identity of Lady Kuraṅgı̄ has been made somewhat clearer by the two lines of another of these
small inscriptions which is inscribed on the coping of the railing: “… ka putasa Indāgi-Mitasa
pajāvatiye Jivāputaye Kuraṅgiye dānam” (The gift of Kuraṅgı̄, daughter of Jivā, the sister-in-law
of Indrāgnimitra, son of […]ka) (Cunningham 1892: 15).
Fig. 2 Part of the Old Stone Railing (ASI Museum, Bodh Gayā)
Gupta period (c.319–570 CE) (see Asher 1980: 27). The older railings have scenes
such as Laks.mı̄, the Hindu goddess of wealth, being bathed by elephants; and Sūrya,
the Hindu sun god, riding a chariot drawn by four horses (Fig. 2). The newer railings
have figures of stūpas (reliquary shrines) and garud.as (mythical eagles). One of the
Gupta railing pillars, located at the western entranceway, shows on its southern face a
dvārapāla holding a triśūla (see Asher 1980: 27). Images of lotus flowers also appear
commonly. The stone railing was later rearranged and further enlarged to enclose the
Temple by king Pūrn.avarmā at the beginning of the seventh century, while a gateway
was constructed somewhat later in the eighth century (Myer 1958: 292). The old stone
railing had as many as sixty-four pillars of which only seven are now standing in situ
the rest having been either lost or removed to the Archaeological Survey of India’s
Museum of Bodh Gayā and replaced by cement casts of the originals. Majority of the
crossbars of the railing have lotus medallions with human heads or animals in their
centres. Apart from these, the railing has many bas-reliefs and carvings, depicting
scenes from the life of the Buddha as well as Buddhist symbols:
1. The Mahābodhi Tree
The Mahābodhi Tree is one of the most important themes depicted on the stone
railing. Notable scenes are in which the Mahābodhi Tree is shown as surrounded by
a railing, being worshipped by human devotees as well as elephants, and a deva flying
towards it with garlands in his outstretched hand while a man is kneeling before it
in adoration.
2. The Dharmacakra
The dharmacakra is shown at a number of places either alone or as part of the Triratna.
It is also shown at one place as having been set up on a throne and attended by two
worshippers.
3. The Birth Scene of the Buddha: The upper panel of the southwest corner-pillar
of the railing depicts, through the device of two mansions placed on each other,
the scene of the Buddha’s birth in the Lumbinı̄vana.
4. The Buddha’s Enlightenment: It has been depicted at four places. The first repre-
sentation is shown through the Bodhi Tree without the Vajrāsana but with a quad-
rangular enclosure and honoured with two posted umbrellas and two hanging
garlands. The second depiction is represented by a cubicle seat with an umbrella
above it and two worshippers standing in front with joined hands. The third
depiction is represented by a quadrangular circumambulatory path upon a colon-
nade of pilasters. The fourth depiction is represented by a two-storeyed temple
with a covered verandah in front of an open-pillared hall at the lower level. The
verandah is shown with a sanctuary with the Vajrāsana on a cubical seat with a
Triratna symbol placed upon it. The upper storey is shown as having three small
sanctuaries each with a Vajrāsana.
5. The First Discourse: The first discourse of the Buddha is depicted at six places.
One representation is on a medallion in the middle row. It is similar to King
Aśoka’s Sarnath pillar with the wheel set vertically below the lion-capital. Three
representations are on the upper panels of three rail-posts. They are depicted on
seats bearing a wheel each on their capital located inside arched rooms. Two
representations of the first discourse of the Buddha also appear in the panels
of the two corner-pillars. The first of these is a two-storeyed structure with an
open-pillared hall in the lower storey with a verandah, and a cubical seat under
an umbrella with some worshippers. The second one is a chapel-like structure,
in which a wheel is vertically set upon the lotus-capital of a pilaster.
6. The Mahāparinirvān.a: The Mahāparinirvān.a of the Buddha has been represented
at eight places. Whereas six of these are in sandstone, two are in granite.
7. The Purchase of Jetavana by Anāthapin.d.ika: The scene of the Jetavana being
purchased by Anāthapin.d.ika at Śrāvastı̄ at a huge cost is depicted in the upper panel
of a rail-post of the railing. The scene shows a servant who is carrying a basket full
of coins towards the two men who are spreading these coins over the ground.
8. The Jātakas: At least seventeen Jātakas have been depicted on the railing, viz.,
the Udañcani Jātaka (no. 106),10 Sı̄lānisam 11
. sa Jātaka (no. 190), Kāsāva Jātaka
10 The Bodhisatta’s son gets besotted with a woman and with the former’s permission goes away
with her. However, soon he realizes that he had to slave to fulfil her unending needs. Consequently,
he leaves her and goes back to his father (Fausböll: 1877–1897: i.416–7).
11 A devout disciple of Kassapa Buddha and a barber get ship-wrecked. They swim to an island
the Nāga king of the island and the Spirit of the Sea offer to help the lay disciple by taking him
to Jambudvı̄pa. However, they refuse to help the barber who was a sinful person. The devout
disciple transfers some of his merit to the sinful barber thereby helping him in washing away his sin.
Consequently, both succeed in reaching Jambudı̄pa (Fausböll: 1877–1897: ii.111–113).
(no. 221),12 Asitābhu Jātaka (no. 234),13 Sujāta Jātaka (no. 306),14 Sussondi
Jātaka (no. 360),15 Somadatta Jātaka (no. 410),16 At.t.hāna Jātaka (no. 425),17
Padakusalamānava (no. 432),18 Tittira Jātaka (no. 438),19 Rohantāmiga Jātaka
12 A hunter began to slay elephants for ivory in the guise of a Pacceka buddha. His modus operandi
was to block the path of the elephants and then kill the last one of the herd each day. The Bodhisatta,
being the leader of the elephants, on finding out what was happening, issued a threat to kill the hunter.
However, having received his word never to visit the forest again, he let the hunter go free as he was
wearing a yellow robe (Fausböll: 1877–1897: ii.196ff).
13 Prince Brahmadatta and his wife, Asitābhū, were exiled to the Himālaya by the king of Bārānası̄.
.
While in exile, Brahmadatta got besotted with a kinnarı̄ and stalked her after having abandoned
his wife. Asitābhū approached the Bodhisatta and with his help she developed many superhuman
powers. Thereafter she went back to her hut. Brahmadatta failed in his quest and also decided to
go back to the hut. On returning, he found his wife poised in mid-air singing songs of joy over her
newfound freedom. Thereafter she abandoned him and he had to live in solitude till he succeeded to
the throne after his father’s death (Fausböll: 1877–1897: ii.229ff).
14 The king of Bārānası̄ became besotted with the daughter of a fruit seller and made her his queen. A
.
while later she saw the king eating sweets from a golden dish and asked him what those egg-shaped
fruits were. The king was extremely upset and wanted to kill her. But the Bodhisatta interceded on
her behalf and she was pardoned (Fausböll: 1877–1897: iii.20–22).
15 Tamba, king of Bārānası̄, loved his beautiful queen Sussondı̄. The bodhisatta, known as Seruma,
.
was as a young garud.a who had his residence in Nāgadı̄pa. From Nāgadı̄pa he used to travel in disguise
to play at dice with Tamba and Sussondı̄ eloped with him to Nāgadı̄pa. Tamba was filled with grief.
But his minstrel called Sagga managed to find out the truth and recounted his adventures in a song
before Tamba and the garud.a. The garud.a understood the references, was overcome with remorse
and shame. Consequently, he brought Sussondı̄ back to Tamba (Fausböll: 1877–1897: iii.187–90).
16 A wealthy brāhmana of Bārānası̄, who took saṅnyāsa in the Himālaya, adopted an elephant calf
. .
and became quite distraught when the calf died. On seeing this, Sakka appeared before him and
reminded him that this is not what for which he had left home and hearth (Fausböll: 1877–1897:
iii.388–91).
17 A young merchant called Mahādhana patronised a courtesan and every day gave her one thousand
coins. One day, being in a hurry, he did not carry any money with him. Being empty-handed, he
was thrown out. Thereupon, in revulsion and shame, he became a saṅnyāsin (Fausböll: 1877–1897:
iii.474ff).
18 The queen of a Bārānası̄, due to bad karma, became a horse-faced yaksı̄ (Pāli, yakkhı̄). After having
. .
served Vessavana for three years, she obtained permission to eat people up to a certain distance. One
day she caught a rich and handsome brāhman.a, and, made him her husband. The bodhisatta was born
as their son, and, on having learnt the story of his father, found out from the yaks.ı̄ as to how far her
power extended, and then made his escape good along with his father. The yaks.ı̄ chased after them,
but failed to capture them as they were already not only outside her territorial jurisdiction but also
would not be persuaded by her to return. She had given her son a charm that enabled him to trace the
footsteps of any person, even after the lapse of twelve years. By virtue of this charm, the lad managed
to secure service in the court of the king of Bārān.ası̄. One day, the king and his chaplain, wishing to
test him, stole some treasure, took it away by a meandering and sneaky path, and buried it in a tank.
The youth was able to recover it without any difficulty. But when the king insisted that the names of
the thieves be divulged, the boy disclosed their names, the assembled populace murdered the king
as well as his chaplain and put the bodhisatta on the throne as their king (Fausböll: 1877–1897:
iii.501–514).
19 A famous teacher who had retired into the forest had tame partridge who had learnt the three Vedas
by listening to the teacher. When the teacher suddenly died, his students were in anguish, but their
minds were set at rest by the partridge who taught them what he had learnt. One day a sham ascetic
(no. 501),20 Kiñchanda Jātaka (no. 511),21 Kumbha Jātaka (no. 512),22 Sambula
Jātaka (no. 519),23 Alambusa Jātaka (no. 523),24 Sonaka Jātaka (no. 529),25 and
Sudhābhojana Jātaka (no. 535).26
arrived at the hermitage and, when the students were away, put the partridge to death. However, the
partridge had two friends, a lion and a tiger, who killed the sham ascetic (Fausböll: 1877–1897: iii
iii.536f).
20 To fulfil the wish of Khemā, he husband, the king of Bārānası̄, engaged a hunter to capture, Rohanta,
.
a golden deer, from the forest. Rohanta taught the Dharma to the hunter and the hunter related the
story to the king and queen and taught the Dharma to them. Then turning down the rewards that they
had bestowed upon him, he became an ascetic in the Himālaya (Fausböll: 1877–1897: v.123ff).
21 An advisor to the king of Bārānası̄, who took bribery and delivered false judgments, was reborn in
.
a state whereby he suffered through the day. But because he had gifted a mango fruit to a woman who
was keeping the fast, as an award for this, he enjoys blissfulness throughout the night in a charming
mango-grove. His king, who had become an ascetic, eats a mango which had been carried by the
river from this grove, and expresses a wish for some more. He is transported by a river nymph to the
mango-grove, where he learns from his erstwhile chaplain the story of his alternate bliss and misery
(Fausböll: 1877–1897: v.1ff).
22 A forester, Sura, by accident came across a strong drink and with the help of his accomplice, the
ascetic Varun.a, he made the discovery known throughout Jambudvı̄pa thus leading to its destruction.
Sakka appeared on earth and by his exposition of the evils of drink convinced Sabbamitta, king of
Śrāvastı̄, to abstain from its use (Fausböll: 1877–1897: v.11ff).
23 On being seized with leprosy, Sotthisena, king of Bārānası̄, gave up his throne and went into the
.
forest along with his beautiful wife, Sambulā. Sambulā tended him with great devotion. One day,
when she went to bathe she was seized by a yaks.a. But through her power Sakka’s throne started
emitting heat, and Sakka, coming with his thunderbolt, frightened the yaks.a and put him in chains.
It was late when Sambulā returned home, and Sotthisena, wishing to test her love, refused to believe
her story. She then performed an Act of Truth, declaring that she was faithful and sprinkled water on
Sotthisena. He was fully cured, and together they went to Bārān.ası̄ and Sotthisena became the king
again. Sotthisena began indulging in all sorts of pleasure and completely neglected Sambulā. When
Sotthisena’s father, an ascetic, who had bestowed the kingdom on him, learnt of this, he admonished
Sotthisena (Fausböll: 1877–1897: v.88–98).
24 Isisinga had built a dwelling in the forest where he practised the severest ascetical practices. As a
consequence of these austerities, Sakka’s abode began to tremble and his throne became hot. Being
afraid of his rivalry, Sakka sent down a beautiful celestial nymph, Alambusā, to seduce him and
make him fall from virtuous life. This she did successfully and for three years he lay unconscious
in her embrace. Finally, coming to his senses, he immediately gave up his sensual desire, and have
developed mystic meditation, attained to jhāna. Alambusā begged to be forgiven, which was granted
immediately (Fausböll: 1877–1897: v.152–161).
25 Arindama, the king of Bārānası̄ and Sonaka, a chaplain’s son, had studied together at Takkasilā as
.
young persons. Forty years later, Arindama did not recognize Sonaka who had now become a Pacceka
Buddha. Sonaka, not disclosing his identity, gave a talk to the king on the benefits of renunciation,
and became invisible. The king, moved by his words, took a decision to forsake the throne and
take saṅnyāsa. He put his eldest son Dı̄ghāvu on the throne in his own place, handed over to him
all his possessions, and cultivating supernatural faculties was born in the Brahma world (Fausböll:
1877–1897: v.247–61).
26 Though Kosiya’s forefathers had been very generous, but utterly miser despite being very rich.
But once seeing Sakka and other deities with superhuman power, decided to give away his wealth
in charity. Later he became an ascetic and took up residence in a hut. At that time the four daughters
of Sakka - Asā, Saddhā, Sirı̄ and Hirı̄ - went to Anotatta to play in the water. There they saw Nārada
under a pāricchattaka-flower, which served him as a sunshade, and each asked him for the flower.
It is also noteworthy that not only that the pavilion appears to have been “impro-
vised with stones which originally belonged to other temples” but also the so-called
Buddhapāda bears “certain marks or symbols, which… are not characteristic of a
Buddha” (Mitra 1878: 100). The Vis.n.upāda, the granite floor and the railing, made
of reused materials, were probably executed in the same period, to which the re-
decoration of the śikhara is attributable. The śikhara was also drastically remod-
elled, the new tower design being “clearly related to the early Hindu temples” as the
“re-builders at Bodh-Gayā were working under strong Hindu influence” culminating
into “a synthesis of strong local traditions… with current architectural tendencies”
(Myer 1958: 292–293). Thus, occupation by a Śaivite saṅnyāsı̄ is not surprising.
Apart from the ambience of the place, the saṅnyāsin must have felt duty-bound for
keeping the holy site alive.
The Chinese pilgrims have given a detailed account of the Mahābodhi Temple
Complex. Faxian (399–414 CE) while visiting the place in the year 404 CE, mentions
in his Foguo Ji (Record of Buddhist Kingdoms) that “At the place where Buddha
attained to perfect Wisdom, there are three monasteries, in all of which there are
monks residing. The families of their people around supply the societies of these
monks with an abundant sufficiency of what they require, so that there is no lack or
stint” (Legge 1886: 89). Faxian further says that there was a tope built here at the
place of Enlightenment (Legge 1886: 90). Talking about the Buddha’s experiences
immediately after the attainment of Enlightenment, Faxian mentions
Where Buddha, after attaining to perfect wisdom, for seven days contemplated the tree,
and experienced the joy of vimukti; where, under the patra tree, he walked backwards and
forwards from west to east for seven days; where the devas made a hall appear, composed
of the seven precious substances, and presented offerings to him for seven days; where the
blind dragon Muchilinda encircled him for seven days; where he sat under the nyagrodha
tree, on a square rock, with his face to the east, and Brahma-deva came and made his request
to him; where the four deva kings brought to him their alms-bowls; where the 500 merchants
presented to him the roasted flour and honey; and where he converted the brothers Kaśyapa
and their thousand disciples;—at all these places topes were reared (Legge 1886: 88–89).
Xuanzang mentions that the younger brother of a brāhman.a and under the direc-
tions of Maheśvara, excavated the pond and made rich offerings (Li 1996: 218).
In his travelogue, Xuanzang refers to the Cam . krama located “to the north of the
bodhi tree… where the Buddha walked up and down…. People of later times built a
promenade about three feet high at this place” (Li 1996: 220). Xuanzang mentions
the existence of at least thirty stūpas and half a dozen shrines within the complex
of the Mahābodhi Temple and its immediate proximity at the time of his visit (see
Li 1996: 217–230). Apart from the Mahābodhi Temple and the Vajrāsana, some of
Nārada said he would give it to the best of them, and referred them to Sakka. Sakka sent (by Mātali)
a cup of ambrosia to Kosiya, and said that whichever of his daughters persuaded Kosiya successfully
to share with her his drink would be declared as the best. He listened attentively to all their claims and
took a decision in favour of Hirı̄. Sakka, wishing to know why he took such a decision, sent Mātali
in his chariot for an answer. While Mātali was yet talking to him, Kosiya died and was reborn in
Tāvatim. sa. Sakka offered him Hirı̄ as wife as well as a share of the kingdom of Tāvatimsa (Fausböll:
1877–1897: v.382–412).
the important stūpas, shrines, and other landmarks within the Mahābodhi Temple
Complex and its immediate proximity mentioned by Xuanzang were as follows27 :
1. A great shrine, with a brass image of the Buddha in the standing posture, located
not far to the west of the Mahābodhi Tree (Li 1996: 220).
2. A stūpa, more than one hundred feet high built by King Aśoka, located not far
to the south of the Mahābodhi Tree (Li 1996: 221).
3. A stūpa located not far to the northeast of the spot where grass was received by
the Bodhisattva (Li 1996: 221).
4. Two stūpas located to the east of the Mahābodhi Tree, one on the left and the
other on the right side of the main road. According to Xuanzang, this is the
place where the King of Māras had disturbed the Bodhisattva (Li 1996: 221).
5. A shrine, with an image of Kāśyapa Buddha, located to the northwest of the
Mahābodhi Tree. (Li 1996: 221).
6. Two brick chambers, each housing an image of an earth god, located to the
northwest of the shrine of Kāśyapa Buddha According to Xuanzang, one these
gods informed the Buddha of the arrival of Māra and the other bore witness for
the Buddha (Li 1996: 221).
7. A stūpa, known as Saffron Stūpa, more than forty feet high and built by a
merchant lord of the country of Jāgud.a, located not far to the west of the
Mahābodhi Tree enclosure (Li 1996: 222).
8. A stūpa and a temple located next to a banyan tree at the southeast corner of the
Mahābodhi Tree enclosure. The temple enshrine an image of the seated Buddha
(Li 1996: 223).
9. A great stūpa located at each of the four corners inside the Mahābodhi Tree
enclosure (Li 1996: 223).
10. Many sacred sites located “as closely together as the scales of a fish” located
inside the Mahābodhi Tree enclosure and “difficult to describe them… in full
detail” (Li 1996: 223).
11. A stūpa at the southwest corner outside Mahābodhi Tree enclosure marking the
site of the old house of the two milkmaids who offered milk gruel to the Buddha
(Li 1996: 223).
12. A stūpa marking the place where the milkmaids cooked milk the gruel (Li 1996:
223).
13. A big pond, more than seven hundred paces in circuit, with clear and lucid
water in which dragons and fish dwell, located outside the south gate of the
Mahābodhi Tree enclosure. According to Xuanzang, it was dug by the younger
brother of a brāhman.a under the order of Maheśvara (Li 1996: 223).
14. A pool, magically produced by Indra, located to the south of the pool dug by
the brāhman.a (Li 1996: 223).
15. A stūpa next to a big rock located to the west of the pool magically produced
by Indra (Li 1996: 223).
16. A stūpa, located near Indra’s pool, where the Tathāgata had mended his clothes
(Li 1996: 223).
27 Alexander Cunningham has identified most of these shrines and stūpas (see 1892: 34–41).
17. A stūpa located in a wood located to the south of Indra’s pool. (Li 1996: 223).
18. The pond of the dragon king Mucilinda located in a wood to the east of the pool
produced by Indra (Li 1996: 223).
19. A small shrine, with an image of the Buddha, located on the west bank of the
Mucilinda Pond (Li 1996: 224).
20. A chamber of the dragon king located on the east bank of the Mucilinda Pond
(Li 1996: 223–224).
21. A shrine, with an image of the Buddha in an emaciated condition, located in a
wood to the east of the Mucilinda Pond. Beside the shrine was the place where
he walked up and down. There were also two pı̄pal trees nearby (Li 1996: 224).
22. A stūpa located beside the pı̄pal tree where the Bodhisattva had practised austeri-
ties and where Ājñāta-Kaun.d.inya and his four companions had made their abode
(Li 1996: 224).
23. A stūpa, located to the southeast of the abode of Ājñāta-Kaun.d.inya and the
others, where the Bodhisattva had entered the Nairañjana River to bathe (Li
1996: 224).
24. A stūpa located not far from the river at the spot where two elders had offered
baked barley and honey the Buddha (Li 1994: 224).
25. A stūpa located at the spot where the four devarājas had offered alms bowls to
the Buddha when the two elders had offered baked barley and honey the Buddha
(Li 1996: 225).
26. A stūpa, located not far from the place where the four devarājas had offered
alms bowls, where the Tathāgata preached the Dharma for his mother (Li 1996:
225).
27. A stūpa, located on the bank of a dried-up pond and beside the place where the
Buddha had preached the Dharma to his mother, where the Tathāgata had once
manifested supernatural powers to convert those who had the good causes to be
present on the occasion (Li 1996: 225).
28. A stūpa located at a spot where the Tathāgata converted Uruvilvā-Kāśyapa and
his two younger brothers (Li 1996: 225).
29. A stūpa located to the northeast of the place where Kāśyapa brothers had
taken shelter in the Triple Gem and the Tathāgata had subdued the fire dragon
worshipped by the Kāśyapas (Li 1996: 226).
30. A stupa beside the spot where the Buddha showed the subdued fire dragon in
his alms bowl to the disciples of Uruvilvā-Kāśyapa and where five hundred
pratyekabuddhas entered nirvān.a (Li 1996: 226).
31. A stūpa, located to the south of the pool of the dragon Mucilinda, where the
Kāśyapas went to rescue the Tathāgata from drowning” (Li 1996: 226).
32. A stūpa, located beside the east gate of the enclosure of the Mahābodhi Tree,
where the King of Māras tried to frighten the Bodhisattva (Li 1996: 227).
33. Two stūpas, built by Indra and Brahmā, located not far from the spot where
Māra’s troops became terrified and retreated in disorder (Li 1996: 227).
34. The Mahābodhi Monastery, built by a former king of the country of Sim . hala,
located outside the north gate of the enclosure of the Mahābodhi Tree. It
consisted of six courtyards and three storied pavilions, surrounded by walls
thirty or forty feet high. The stūpas inside the Monastery were “lofty and
spacious with wonderful adornments and they contain[ed] relics of the Buddha”
(Li 1996: 227).
Xuanzang’s description of the Mahābodhi Temple Complex and its environs is
fairly accurate. The Nilānjanā River still flows on the east of the Mahābodhi Temple
and there is a tank on the southern side. The foundations of the Mahābodhi Monastery
can still be seen on the northern side of the Temple.
Most probably, the first pilgrim from Sri Lanka to visit here was one Bodhirakkhita
(Sk, Bodhiraks.ita) who donated either a crossbar to the Śuṅga railing, apparently to
replace the one that had been broken or perhaps the original sandstone railing itself
enclosing the Mahābodhi Tree. His brief inscription reads as “Bodhi-rakhitasa Taba-
panakasa dānam” [Gift of Bodhiraks.ita of Tambaparna (Ceylon)] (Cunningham
1892: 16). In the latter half of the fourth century, King Samudragupta (r. 335–380
CE) allowed the Sri Lankan king Sirimeghavanna (r.352–379 CE) to construct a
rest house near the Mahābodhi Tree for Sri Lankan pilgrims and thus the great
Mahābodhi Monastery came to be constructed at Bodh Gayā towards the north of
the Mahābodhi Tree. An inscribed copper plaque above the door of this monastery
declared that hospitality was to be offered to everyone who came. It read, “To help
all without distinction is the highest teaching of all the Buddhas” (see Cunningham
1892: 42).
In the southeast corner of the Mahābodhi Temple is a small shrine with a large
Buddha image in bhūmisparśa mudrā, dated in the late tenth century CE. This shrine
apparently marks the spot where Brahmā Sahampati had appeared before the reluctant
Buddha imploring him to preach the dharma. A white building, known as the Pañca
Pān.d.ava Temple, is located to the left side of the entrance to the Mahābodhi Temple.
This temple has five images of bodhisattvas (Jacques 1979: 13; Trevithick 1999:
637) (Fig. 3). Another white structure to the right of the entrance is the sepulchre
(samādhi) of a mahant. There is also the foundation of a Buddhist monastery to the
south west of the Mahābodhi Temple. There are a large number of votive stūpas
erected from time to time by the Buddhist pilgrims who visited this place during
the ancient and early medieval period. The best-carved stūpas may be seen inside
the eastern side of the railing. Directly to the south of the Temple is the foundation
of the biggest stūpa ever built at Bodh Gayā. Most probably, King Aśoka built this
stūpa. There is a large pond, known as the Mucalinda Pond (also called Lotus Pond),
to the south of the Temple. In the middle of this pond is an image of the Buddha
shielded by Mucalinda, the Nāga King. A section of the Aśoka pillar may be seen at
the entrance to the Lotus Pond. This uninscribed pillar was found at Gol Patthar in
Gayā and moved to its present location in 1956 on the occasion of the celebrations
of the 2500th Buddha Jayanti.
Archaeological excavations (IAR 1974–75: 10, 1981–82: 10–12; 1982–83: 16;
1983–84: 12ff) in the precincts of the Mahābodhi Temple of Bodh Gayā were limited
to the exposure of the visible ruins directly around the temple. Nothing from the
period of the Buddha till the Mauryas was found here. The three superimposed slabs
in the shrine are most probably the oldest relics in Bodh Gayā. The well-known stone
Fig. 3 The Pañca Pān.d.ava Temple
Vajrāsana, found by Cunningham at the foot of the Mahābodhi Tree is also quite old
(Fig. 4). The sandstone slab due to its Mauryan polish and decorative designs is
assigned to Aśoka. The stone seat located under the Mahābodhi Tree, as well as
the quadrangular stone-railing, which enclosed the area around the Mahābodhi Tree
and now surviving only in fragments are generally dated to the first century BCE
(see Cunningham 1892: 4–20, pl. VI) (Fig. 5). The caṅkrama, the promenade of the
Buddha, is also of quite an old date in its earliest layer (Fig. 6).
In its application of 29 June 2002 to the World Heritage Committee, the Govern-
ment of India recommended the following criteria as a justification for getting the
Mahābodhi Temple Complex declared as a world heritage site (Appendix: V):
Criterion (i): The grand 50 m high Mahabodhi Temple of the 5th–6th centuries is of
immense importance, being one of the earliest temple constructions existing
in the Indian sub-continent. It is one of the few representations of the archi-
tectural genius of the Indian people in constructing fully developed brick
temples in that era.
Criterion (ii): The Mahabodhi Temple, one of the few surviving examples of early brick
structures in India, has had significant influence in the development of
architecture over the centuries.
Criterion (iii): The site of the Mahabodhi Temple provides exceptional records for the
events associated with the life of the Buddha and subsequent worship, partic-
ularly since Emperor Aśoka built the first temple, the balustrades, and the
memorial column.
Fig. 4 Vajrāsana (Cunningham 1892: Pl. XIII)
Criterion (iv): The present Temple is one of the earliest and most imposing structures built
entirely in brick from the late Gupta period. The sculpted stone balustrades
are an outstanding early example of sculptural reliefs in stone.
Criterion (vi): The Mahabodhi Temple Complex in Bodh Gaya has direct association with
the life of the Lord Buddha, being the place where He attained the supreme
and perfect insight
The recommendation further pointed out that “Although early Buddhist caves do
exist in India, the grand Mahabodhi Temple is the only Buddhist structural temple
of the early period which stands today. In India, we do find a few structural temples
of this period, but the Mahabodhi temple of the 5th–6th century is well-preserved,
larger and the most imposing amongst them all” (Appendix: V).
Acceding to India’s request, UNESCO declared the Mahābodhi Temple Complex
on 27 June 2002 as the 18th Indian cultural site to be awarded the UNESCO’s
World Heritage Monument. According to UNESCO, “the present temple is one of
the earliest and most imposing structures built entirely in brick from Gupta period”
UNESCO further recognized it as the ‘first living Buddhist monument’ to be declared
Fig. 5 The Vajrāsana (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bodhgaya_3640455476_ece9eaf

386_t.jpg)
Fig. 6 The Cam

. kraman.a
a World Heritage Site, thus distinguishing it from other heritage sites that are often
regarded as ‘dead’ (see Appendix: VI). Above all, the UNESCO World Heritage
Site inscription privileged a specific Buddhist identity on Bodh Gayā, showing the
estrangement of the site’s identity from the larger multivalent landscape of the Gayā
Dharmaks.etra in which it is situated.
References
Ahir, D.C. 1994. Buddha Gaya through the ages. Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications.
Asher, Fraderick M. 1980. The art of eastern India, 300–800. Minnesota: University of Minnesota
Press.
Beal, Samuel. 1875. The romantic legend of Sākya Buddha. London: Trübner & Co.
Cunningham, Alexander. 1892. Mahābodhi or the great Buddhist temple under the bodhi tree at
Buddha-Gaya. London: W.H. Allen & Co.
Fausböll, V. (ed.). 1877–1897. The Jātakas, 7 vols., London: Trübner.
Feer, M.L. (ed.). 1884–1898. The Sam . yutta Nikāya, 5 vols. London: Pali Text Society.
Horner, I.B. (trans.). 1938–1966. The book of the discipline, 6 vols., London: Pali Text Society.
Jacques, C. 1979. Gaya Mahatmya-Introduction. In Purān.a, vol. XXI, no. 2, All Indian Kashiraj
Trust, Varanasi.
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
Malalasekera, G.P. 1937–38. Dictionary of Pāli proper names, London: John Murray.
Morris, R., and E. Hardy (eds.). 1885–1900. The Aṅguttara Nikāya, 5 vols. London: Pali Text
Society.
Oldenberg, H., and R. Pischel (eds.). 1990. Thera- and Therı̄-Gāthā, second ed. with appendices
by K.R. Norman and L. Alsdorf, Oxford: Pali Text Society.
Pruitt, W. (ed.). 1997. Therı̄gāthā commentary (Paramatthadı̄panı̄ VI): Commentary on the
Therı̄gāthā by Dhammapāla. Oxford: Pali Text Society.
Rhys Davids, T.W., and J.E. Carpenter (eds.). 1890–1911. The Dı̄gha Nikāya, 3 vols., London: Pali
Text Society.
Rhys Davids, T.W., J.E. Carpentier, and W. Stede (eds.). 1886–1971. The Sumaṅgalavilāsinı̄,
Buddhaghosa’s commentary on the Dı̄gha Nikāya, 3 vols, London: Pali Text Society.
Rhys Davids, T.W., and W. Stede. 1921–25. Pāli-English Dictionary, London: Pali Text Society.
Steinthal, P. (ed.). 1885. The Udāna. London: Pali Text Society.
Takakusu, J., and M. Nagai (eds.). 1947–1975. Samantapāsādikā: Buddhaghosa’s commentary on
the Vinaya Pit.aka, 8 vols. (including index by H. Kopp), London: Pali Text Society.
Trenckner, V., and R. Chalmers (eds.). 1888–1896. The Majjhima Nikāya, 5 vols., London: Pali
Text Society.
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.
References 51
Woods, J.H., D. Kosambi, and I.B. Horner (eds.). 1976–1979. Papañcasūdanı̄, Majjhi-
manikāyat..thakathā of Buddhaghosācariya, 3 vols., London: Pali Text Society.
Woodward, F.L. (ed.). 1926. Paramattha-Dı̄panı̄: Udānat..thakathā (Udāna Commentary) of
Dhammapālācariya. London: Pali Text Society.
Chapter 4
The Mahābodhi Tree
Abstract The sacred pı̄pal, at whose foot the Buddha had attained Enlightenment, is
generally known as the Mahābodhi Tree to distinguish it from the other bodhi trees.
Though quite a few other bodhi trees appear to be older than the present Mahābodhi
Tree, this pı̄pal is considered as the most sacred among all the bodhi trees for the
reason that the Diamond Throne is located at its foot which the Buddhists believe to
be the exact spot of Enlightenment. Indians have been worshipping the sacred pı̄pal
since pre-historic period and it is quite probable that the Mahābodhi Tree existed as
a caityavr.ks.a (tree-shrine) or a vanacetiya (forest-shrine) during the pre-Buddhist
period. The Hindus venerate the Mahābodhi Tree and perform their fourth day’s
ritual of pin.d.adāna (oblations to ancestors) at its foot. The Buddhists believe that
site of the Mahābodhi Tree forms the navel of the earth (pr.thvı̄nābhi). During the
lifetime of the Buddha himself, the Mahābodhi Tree came to represent him and was
used as a shrine (caitya). Emperor Aśoka visited the Mahābodhi Tree during the
tenth year of his reign as part of his Dharma pilgrimage and either built a caitya
here or most probably replenished the already existing caitya. Some Buddhist texts
mention that Aśoka’s queen Tis.yaraks.itā and king Śaśāṅka had completely destroyed
this tree. There is also at least one recorded incident when it fell down due to a storm
in the year 1876 and Alexander Cunningham planted its sapling some distance away
from the original spot “to protect the temple from being harmed” and another one
some 80 feet away to the north for “Hindu worshippers”. Interestingly, a recent
DNA fingerprinting conducted by the Forest Research Institute (FRI) of Dehradun
indicates that “the north peepal tree is older and more authentic as compared to the
current Bodhi tree.” On the basis of the report of the FRI, the Temple Management
Committee has implemented a number of precautions over the years to ensure that
the tree stays in good health. Also, as a backup, an offspring of the Mahābodhi Tree
was planted in 2010 that “can take over” should the need arise in the future.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8067-3_4
54 4 The Mahābodhi Tree

The religious importance of Bodh Gayā, which has grown around the Mahābodhi
Temple Complex, lies primarily in the fact that here the Buddha had realized Enlight-
enment (bodhi) at the foot of the sacred fig tree (ficus religiosa. Sk, aśvattha; Pāli,
assattha) on the outskirts of Uruvelā. This fig tree is known as the sacred pı̄pal
to majority of the Indians who, as a matter of fact, consider it as the most sacred
among all the trees. It is a species of fig native to the Indian subcontinent that
belongs to Moraceae, the fig or mulberry family. It famously became known as
the Bodhi Tree (Sk, Bodhivr.ks.a; Pāli, Bodhirukkha) because of its association with
Gautama Buddha. The bodhi tree located at the spot where the Buddha is said to
have attained Enlightenment on the Bodhiman.d.a (Spot of Enlightenment) located at
its foot (bodhimūla, Smith 1966–1972: 32, 391; bodhiyāmūle, Poussin and Thomas
1916–17: 172, 458; Taylor 1905–07: i.174) is now most popularly known as the
Mahābodhi Tree. This sacred pı̄pal tree is called the Mahābodhi Tree1 to distinguish
it from the other bodhi trees all of which trace their parenthood to another bodhi tree
and the lineage goes on all the way to the first bodhi tree underneath which Gautama
Buddha had attained Enlightenment. Though a few other bodhi trees appear to be
older than the present Mahābodhi Tree, this pı̄pal is considered as the most sacred
among all the bodhi trees for the reason that the Diamond Throne is located at its foot
which the Buddhists believe to be the exact spot on which the Buddha had attained
Enlightenment.
The pı̄pal is a large dry season-deciduous or semi-ever-green tree growing up to a
hundred feet in height with a trunk diameter of up to ten feet. It is an incredible shade
tree, providing cool relief during the suppressive summer hear in northern Indian.
The truly remarkable leaves of the pı̄pal are cordate in shape with smooth edges and
a unique extended drip tip. It has a very long lifespan, ranging on an average between
1000 and 1,500 years. In some of its native habitats, it has been apparently found
living for over 2,000 years. The sacred pı̄pal tree in the ancient city of Anurādhapura
in Sri Lanka, famously known as the Jaya Śrı̄ Mahābodhi, is estimated to be more
than 2,250 years old and is, remarkably, regarded as the “oldest historical tree in
the world with religious importance.”2 The pı̄pal tree is tolerant to a wide variety
of soils and can thrive even in the unlikeliest places such as concrete walls having
1 Some of the texts of the Pāli Tipit.aka call it the Mahābodhirukkha. (for instance, Fausböll 1877–
1897: iv.228; Warren 1951: 403; Norman 1906–15: 1.105; Woodward 1940–49: 62). Emperor Aśoka
in his Rock Edict VIII at Girnar in Gujarat and Kalsi in Uttarakhand calls it Sam . bodhi (see Hultzsch
1925: 14–15, 36–37; Barua 1943: 186). Alexander Cunningham, who had planted its sapling in
1881, also occasionally referred to it as the Mahābodhi Tree in his writings, to distinguish it from
the other bodhi trees (for instance, 1892: 31).
2 According to tradition (Oldenberg 1879: 197; Geiger 1912: XIX:128–135), a sapling of the original
tree was planted in Sri Lanka sometime towards the middle of the third century BCE (circa 245 BCE)
by Emperor Aśoka’s daughter. It is the oldest living human-planted flowering plant (angiosperm)
in the world and according to the Rocky Mountain Tree-Ring Research, is the twelfth oldest living
tree in the world and the oldest in South Asia (http://www.rmtrr.org/oldlist.htm).
4 The Mahābodhi Tree 55
Fig. 1 A pı̄pal leaf
little moisture.3 As an ornamental tree, the pı̄pal is particularly attractive because

the leaves upon their long and thin petioles begin to shake with the feeblest breeze
(Fig. 1). This evergreen tree is religiously planted near temples as well as houses
and is considered a symbol of immortality. The popular belief among the Indians is
that watering, worshipping, and circumambulating the pı̄pal brings fame, happiness,
and prosperity. The space underneath the pı̄pal is considered as an idealized place
of safety or comfort. In popular belief the pı̄pal is linked to healing, bewitching, or
mere wishing and hence this tree is used as an object to make offerings and wreaths,
ribbons, threads, or rags are hung or tied to its branches to win favour for sick humans
or livestock, or simply for good luck.
It is noteworthy that the pı̄pal tree and the Indians have enjoyed a mutually benefi-
cial relationship since pre-historic period. The usefulness of the pı̄pal tree for various
kinds of remedies has been made available in considerable detail in the Ayurvedic
literature (see Varma 1980). It has been claimed in the Ayurvedic literature that pı̄pal
is “the abode of the Sun on Earth” (see V.M. Singh 2005: 9–11). Therefore, parts of
a pı̄pal tree are used in Ayurvedic herbal medicines where it is felt that one’s consti-
tution is in need of invigorating fire (pitta). As it is considered a blood purifier, it has
been utilized as an aphrodisiac and employed in the cure of infertility and impotency
(V.M. Singh 2005: 9–10). In addition to this, the pı̄pal is used to treat mental disor-
ders, problems with the eyes and teeth, and ailments affecting the internal organs.
In fact, some studies have pointed out that the ficus religiosa is used in the tradi-
tional Ayurvedic medication for at least fifty types of ailments including asthma,
diabetes, diarrhoea, epilepsy, gastric problems, inflammatory disorders, infectious
and virological ailments (Singh and Singh et al. 2011: 565–583).
3 Itsroots can easily make a way into the stem of the support, in due course splitting it from
within. Ficus religiosa has been listed as an “environmental weed” or “naturalized weed” by the
Global Compendium of Weeds (Randall 2012) and the Invasive Species Compendium (https://www.
cabi.org/isc/datasheet/24168#tosummaryOfInvasiveness). The primary reasons responsible for its
invasive behaviour are its ability to grow in different soil types as well as climate zones, fast-growing
nature, very long lifespan, and its growth habit as an epiphyte.
Fig. 2 A seal from the

Indus-Sarasvatı̄ Civilization
depicting pı̄pal leaves and the
tree deity. Credit Marshall
1931: III, pl.CXII, no. 387
The pı̄pal has been worshipped in India for several millennia as an arboreal form
of divinity and an indication of the worship of the pı̄pal tree can be found in the
pre-historic cultures of India, including the Chalcolithic, Kulli-Nāl, and the Indus-
Sarasvatı̄ Civilization (c.3000 BCE) (see Mackay 1931: 387; Marshall 1931: I.52,
64; III.Pl.CXII no. 387; Parpola 2005: 28–66; Gupta 2001: 33) (Fig. 2). On the basis
of archaeological data, some scholars have suggested that “the pipal god was the
supreme deity” of the Indus-Sarasvatı̄ Civilization (Malla 2000: 15–16; Śastri 1965:
I.15–18). As in some seals a tree is surrounded by a railing, Marshall has suggested an
established practice of worship of trees and tree-deities. As a matter of fact, another
seal from Mohenjodaro depicts “the sacred fig circled by worshippers” (Patnaik 1993:
37; Marshall 1931: 63–64). This great tree finds a place of honour in the R.g Veda
(Wilson 1888: I.146) and many other Vedic texts.4 In the R.g Veda the whole universe
is considered to be a pı̄pal tree with a thousand branches (Wilson 1888: IX.5.10). In
the ancient Sanskrit literature, “so deeply is this tree associated with both the origin
and the symbiosis of life that it is thought to induce illumination, and countless Indian
legends tell of sages meditating in its shade” (Patnaik 1993: 62). In fact, many of
the ancient Indian brāhman.ical-Hindu texts view the Aśvattha as the axis mundi,
supporting or holding up the cosmos, and affording a link between the heavens,
earth, and underworld. The R.g Vedic Indians also considered the pı̄pal tree as the
abode of Lord Agni (the God of Sacrificial Fire) who was brought out of the wood
through friction. Thus, it has been pointed out that the sacredness of the pı̄pal tree
“comes perhaps from the old Vedic ritual of kindling the sacrificial fire at religious
4 Plaksa is most probably Sanskrit term for ficus religiosa which the Hindu scriptures associate with
.
the source of the Sarasvatı̄ river (see, e.g., Vāmana Purān.a.XXXII.1–4), the Sarasvatı̄ rose from the
Plaks.a tree. Similarly, in the R.gveda Sūtras (Aśvalāyana Śrauta Sūtra,XII.6,1; Śāṅkhāyana Śrauta
Sūtra.XIII.29,24), Plaks.a Prasravana refers to the source of the Sarasvatı̄ (see Macdonell and Keith
1912, II: 55).
ceremonies by friction between two peculiarly shaped pieces of wood, one of which
is the Aswattha, and the ceremony is called ‘birth of Agni’” (Gupta 2001: 33). In
other words, the use of the pı̄pal tree and its wood was widespread in Vedic rituals and
the sacrificial fire having been started with the dead branches from a pı̄pal tree “with
which the gods granted knowledge to the human race” (Hume 1921: 167; Bloomfield
1897: 460; Macdonell 1897: 95; Patnaik 1993: 37). According to the Atharva Veda,
the pı̄pal tree is the abode of all the gods and the ancient Indians worshipped it for not
only victory over the enemies but also for the birth of a male child (Bloomfield 1897:
33, 117, 460). In fact, it has been suggested that “the aśvattha tree was made the basis
of a profound metaphysic doctrine in Vedic times” and the Vedāntic philosophical
texts considered this tree to be both the tree of supreme knowledge (brahma-taru)
and the tree of life (jı̄van-taru) (Malla 2000: 27). The aśvattha is considered to be
the highest reality of Brahman in the Maitrān.ı̄ya Upanis.ad (Cowell 1935: 6.4). The
Kat.ha Upanis.ad also identifies the aśvattha with the pure and eternal, the ultimate
reality of Brahman and claims that the whole world rests on it (Sarvananda 1967:
6.1).
According to the Bhagavad Gı̄tā, the one who truly knows this imperishable tree
is said to be the knower of the Vedas themselves (Sargeant 1984: 590). In fact,
it identifies the pı̄pal with the entire universe and also with the all-encompassing
Lord Vis.n.u (Sargeant 1984: 436).5 According to the Mahābhārata, “The man who
worships the pı̄pal daily, worships the whole universe” (Ganguli 1976: X. 268). The
purān.as such as the Padma Purān.a and the Skanda Purān.a dwell at length on the
important of an Aśvattha tree in the religious and spiritual life of a person.6 According
to these purān.as, the pı̄pal tree is a form of Lord Vis.n.u himself (Tagare 2007: 18.1061;
Deshpande 1988: II.764). According to the Skanda Purān.a, the pı̄pal is “the most
sacred of all trees… (and)… is accompanied with great auspiciousness” (Tagare
2007: 18.1061). According to the Padma Purān.a, Lord Vis.n.u resides in the Aśvattha,
if worshipped earnestly, it fulfils all wishes and “a person gets more spiritual benefit
from planting an Aśvattha tree on the bank of a pond than from performing hundreds
of sacrifices” (Deshpande 1988: II.763–765, III.2883, 3438). However, the Padma
Purān.a asserts that cutting a pı̄pal tree is a heinous sin that brings much misfortune
(Deshpande 1988: II.765). It further points out that “there is nothing on earth as
great as Vis.n.u in the form of an Aśvattha tree…. God in the form of an Aśvattha
tree is considered to be worthy of the highest worship” (Deshpande 1988: II.764). So
much so, one is freed from all misfortunes by merely looking at an aśvattha tree and
obtains good fortune by touching it reverently (Deshpande 1988: II.763). A blessed
longevity is ensured by honouring an aśvattha tree by circumambulating it. Apart
from the assurance of moks.a and permanent residence in heaven if gifts of water,
flowers, incense, and lamps are offered to it, it is mentioned in the Padma Purān.a
that its worship yields not only offspring but also brings eternal wealth, happiness,
success, fame, honour, and prosperity (Deshpande 1988: II.764). Thus, according to
5 Lord Kr.s.n.a to Arjuna (Bhagavad Gita X.26.): “Among all the trees, I am the sacred fig” (aśvatthah.
sarvavr.ks.ān.ām
. ) (Sargeant 1984: 436).
6 Majority of the references from the purānas have been borrowed from Haberman 2013: 73–74.
.
the Padma Purān.a, “Who in this world would not worship the Aśvattha in whose
roots reside Vis.n.u, in whose trunk resides Śiva, and in whose upper branches reside
Brahmā?” (Deshpande 1988: II.764). Similarly, the Skanda Purān.a mentions that
“Vis.n.u is forever present in its roots, Keśava in its trunk, Nārāyan.a in its branches.
Moreover, Lord Hari is in its leaves, Acyuta in its fruit, and it is connected with all
gods” (Tagare 2007: 18.1057–1058).
The upshot of the above stated is that the sacred pı̄pal tree was not only worshipped
variously by the ancient Indian Brāhman.ical-Hindus as the Tree of Creation, Life, and
Supreme Knowledge but the tree had also become known as “an object of miraculous
efficacy, and therefore worthy of worship (puja)” (Snellgrove 1978: 72) much before
the would-be-Buddha chose a pı̄pal tree for his final push towards Enlightenment.
Even today, uprooting a pı̄pal tree is considered by a typical Hindu as the equivalent
of destroying a shrine. Hindu ascetics still meditate beneath the sacred pı̄pal trees,
and Hindus devotees do the meditative circumambulation (pradaks.in.ā) around the
sacred pı̄pal tree as a mark of worship in the morning chanting vriks.a rājaya namah
(salutation to the king of trees).
The pı̄pal trees that are genetically linked to the original pı̄pal tree at the foot of
which the Buddha had attained Enlightenment are also sacred to the Buddhists. They
make prayer beads from the seeds of sacred bodhi trees and attach specific importance
to their leaves, particularly the leaves of the Mahābodhi Tree. The bodhi tree, known
to the Pāli texts as the Bodhirukkha (Oldenberg 1879–1883: i.1), Mahābodhirukkha
(Fausböll 1877–1897: iv.228) or the Bodhipādapa (Geiger 1908: 1), is sacred to
the Buddhists because not only that the Śākyamuni had attained Enlightenment
(bodhi) under it but also because he had striven hard in its neighbourhood to realize
the futility of severe penances. The Mahābodhi Tree is now variously known as
the Tree of Enlightenment, Tree of Wisdom, Tree of Knowledge, Mahābodhidruma,
Mahābodhitaru, Śrı̄mahābodhi, and the Bo-Tree. The āsana (seat) at the foot of
the Mahābodhi Tree (Bodhimūla. Smith 1966–1972: i.32, 391) or the foundation-
ground of the Bodhi Tree (Bodhitala. Fausböll 1877–1897: i.105) is revered as the
Vajrāsana (Diamond Throne) and the Bodhiman.d.a (Spot of Enlightenment. Jayaw-
ickrama 1974: ii.65, 183; Li 1996: 216). The word Bodhiman.d.a literally means
“the essence of Enlightenment” or “the highest state of Enlightenment”. However,
when towards the beginning of the Mauryan period ceremonies such as Bodhimaha
(festivity to honour the Mahābodhi Tree. Fausböll 1877–1897: iv.229) and Bodhipūjā
(veneration of the Mahābodhi Tree or offerings to it. Strong 1891: 81) came into exis-
tence, it came to acquire the meaning as “the Best Place of Enlightenment” or “the
Throne of Enlightenment” (Fausböll 1877–1897: iv.228, 232; Jayawickrama 1974:
ii.65, 183). In religious iconography, the Mahābodhi Tree can be seen in the form of
heart-shaped leaves, which are often displayed prominently (Fig. 3).
Fig. 3 Bodhi leaf with

dragon decoration.
Terracotta, 13th–14th
century CE.
Collection Vũ T´ân. National
Museum of Vietnamese
History, Hanoi. (https://upl
oad.wikimedia.org/wikipe
dia/commons/a/a8/National_
Museum_Vietnamese_Hist
ory_1_%28cropped%29.jpg)
Texts of the Pāli Tipit.aka locate the Mahābodhi Tree at a distance of three gāvutas7
from Gayā (Morris and Hardy 1885: iv.320). According to the Samantapasādikā
(Takakusu and Nagai 1947–1975: 952), “bodhi is knowledge of the four ways; the
lord attained that awakening here, so the tree acquired the name of the tree of awak-
ening” (see Oldenberg 1879–1883: iv.1 fn.2). The Kaliṅgabodhi Jātaka mentions the
Mahābodhi Tree as well as the spot where the Buddha had attained Enlightenment and
calls it the Bodhiman.d.a (Fausböll 1877–1897: iv.228–226). Later a monastery called
the Bodhiman.d.a-vihāra appears to have been erected here (Geiger 1808: xxix.41). It
was near the Mahābodhi Tree (probably at Uruvelā) where Buddhaghosa was born
(Geiger: 1925–27: i.215).
It is noteworthy that the Hindus venerate the Mahābodhi Tree because they
perform their fourth day’s ritual of pin.d.adāna (oblations to ancestors) at its foot. It
is quite probable that the tree beneath which the would-be Buddha took his seat was
already the object of a popular cult and was distinguished by some kind of makeshift
offering-altar or mound or by a wall which marked it out from its surroundings
as a caityavr.ks.a (Pāli, cetiyarukkha. tree-shrine) or a vanacaitya (Pāli, vanacetiya.
forest-shrine) (see Coomaraswamy 1935: 3–4; Myer 1958: 278).8 However, if such
an offering-altar or railing was not already in existence, then after the Buddha’s
Enlightenment here, such a railing and most probably an altar may well have been
7A gāvuta is a quarter of a yojana (Norman 1906–15: ii.13. Also see Rhys Davids and Stede
1921–25: s.v. gāvuta). It is approximately 1.9 to 2.5 miles (see fn.9).
8 However, it appears that later when Devadatta proposed that monks ought to be rukkhamūlikatta or
rukkhamūlakas (dwellers at the foot of a tree) Buddhaghos.a listed the cetiyarukkhas among those
trees which are not to be chosen for the practice of “living at the foot of a tree” (see Warren 1951:
74).
built by the first Buddhist pilgrims, who had begun to perform worship at the site
during the Buddha’s own lifetime. The Mahābodhi Tree and the altar-throne, as
depicted on reliefs on the Bharhut Stūpa, appear to have begun to share veneration,
originally accorded to the Mahābodhi Tree alone, from about the first century BCE.
“The very fact that the decorative system of four pilasters seen on the old sandstone
altar-throne was repeated in the relief and again in the pilaster facing of the throne
suggests a deliberate intention to preserve a traditional and familiar element” (Myer
1958: 286). However, elsewhere, for instance, in Sri Lanka the Jaya Śrı̄ Mahābodhi
Tree at Anurādhapura continues to be the crucial relic of the Enlightenment (see
Wood 2004a).
Interestingly, many legends have grown over the years around the Mahābodhi
Tree. For instance, the Buddhists believe that site of the Mahābodhi Tree is the
same for all the Buddhas of the past as well as future (Horner 1946: 247; Geiger
1908: 79) and that the Mahābodhi Tree forms the navel of the earth (pr.thvı̄nābhi,
pat.havı̄nābhi) (Fausböll 1877–1897: iv.233). It is also believed 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). Further, when the world is
destroyed at the end of an aeon (kalpa, kappa), the Bodhiman.d.a would be the last
spot to disappear and when the world comes into existence again, it will be the
first to come into existence (Rhys Davids, Carpentier, et al. 1886–1971: ii.412). The
same tradition believes that the Mahābodhi Tree had sprung up on the day Gautama
Buddha was born (Rhys Davids, Carpentier, et al. 1886–1971: ii.425; Horner 1946:
248). The Buddhist tradition also believes that when no Mahābodhi Tree grows,
the Bodhiman.d.a (ground round the Mahābodhi Tree), up to a distance of one royal
karı̄sa,9 is bereft of all plants, even of any blade of grass, and is quite smooth, spread
with sand like a silver plate, while all around it are grass, creepers, and trees. No one
can travel in the air immediately above the Mahābodhi Tree, not even Sakka (Fausböll
1877–1897: iv.232). During the lifetime of the Buddha himself, the Mahābodhi Tree
and its saplings came to represent him. It has been mentioned in one of the Jātakas
that the Bodhiman.d.a was used as a shrine (caitya) when the Buddha was alive and
it was the only shrine that could be so used (Fausböll 1877–1897: iv.228). While the
Buddha was yet alive, in order that people might make their offerings in the name of
the Buddha when he was away on pilgrimage, he gave his approval to the planting of
a seed from the Mahābodhi Tree in front of the gateway of Jetavana saying that “that
shall be as it were an abiding place for me” (Fausböll 1877–1897: iv.228; Cowell,
Chalmers et al. 1895–1907: iv.143). For this purpose Moggallāna took a fruit from the
Mahābodhi Tree as it dropped from its stalk, before it reached the ground. Tradition
has it that as soon as it was planted in a golden jar by Anāthapin.d.ika a sapling of fifty
cubits in height sprouted forth and in order to consecrate it, the Buddha spent one
night under it, rapt in meditation. As this tree was planted directly under the direction
and care of Ānanda, it came to be known as the Ānanda Bodhi (Fausböll 1877–1897:
iv.228–229). On the occasion of the inauguration ceremony of the plantation of the
9 A square measure of land which may be nearly an acre (see Rhys Davids and Stede 1921–25: 196;
Shukla 2008: 388) .

Fig. 4 The Mahābodhi Tree (Sāñcı̄ Stūpa-1, East Gateway, front face)
Bodhi Tree at Jetavana, the Buddha had also made the announcement that “the great
bo-tree used by the Buddhas is fit for a shrine, be they alive or be they dead” (Fausböll
1877–1897: iv.228; Cowell, Chalmers et al. 1895–1907: iv.142) (Fig. 4).
Emperor Aśoka was most conscientious in paying homage to the Mahābodhi Tree
and appears to have visited it more than once. In his Rock Edict VIII at Girnar in
Gujarat and Kalsi in Uttarakhand, he says that ten years10 after his coronation (c.
259–258 BCE) he visited the Mahābodhi Tree as part of his Dharma pilgrimage.11
He is also known to have initiated an annual festival in honour of the Sam . bodhi in
the month of Kārtika (Pāli, Kattika) (Geiger 1908: xvii.17). The memory of one of
his visits to the Sambodhi has also been depicted in the first century BCE sculpture
on the East Gateway (front side, bottom architrave) of the Great Sāncı̄ Stūpa (Fig. 5).
The representation shows the branches of the Mahābodhi Tree rising above a barrel-
vaulted temple enshrining the triratana and Aśoka supported by two queens, once
descending from the elephant and the second time proceeding towards the Mahābodhi
Tree with folded hands. Aśoka’s visit to Sambodhi, along with his spiritual preceptor,
10 According to the Mahāvam. sa, this happened in the eighteenth year (Geiger 1908: XX.I).
11 Devānampiye/Devānampriyo Piyadasi lājā/rājā dasa/das[a]-varsābhisito/vasābhisite
. .
sam. to/sam
. tam
. ayāya nikhamithā Sam . bodhim
. /Sam . bodhi tenesā/tenatā dham. ma-yātā (When
king Devānām. priya Priyadarśin had been anointed ten years, he went out to Sam . bodhi. Therefore
these tours of Dharma [were undertaken] here) (see Hultzsch 1925: 14–15, 36–37; Barua 1943:
186).
Fig. 5 Emperor Aśoka paying a visit to the Sambodhi (Sāñcı̄ Stūpa)
Upagupta is described at length in the Aśokāvadāna. During this visit, Aśoka is

said to have made a donation of precious jewels and 100,000 pieces of gold to the
Mahābodhi Tree and either built a caitya here (see Strong 1983: 257–258) or most
probably replenished the already existing caitya.
Some Buddhist texts mention the Mahābodhi Tree either having been cut down
or efforts being made to destroy it. There is also at least one recorded incident when
it fell down due to a storm in 1876. Consequently, it appears to have gone through
quite a few cycles of death and rebirth, so to say, and efforts must have been made to
either regrow it from the stumps of the original Mahābodhi Tree, or from one of its
branches, or through the seed having been dropped into decayed spot of the old tree,
or through the replanting at the original spot of one of its naturally grown saplings
gathered from around it. The present Mahābodhi Tree appears to be the fourth or fifth
generation from the original Mahābodhi Tree.12 As noticed by Rajendralala Mitra in
1877, as a consequence of the intensely devotional activities of the Pāla kings and
the Burmese, the platform around the Mahābodhi Tree also progressively rose till it
reached the height of the terrace around 35 feet above ground level (see Mitra 1878:
94).
Over half a dozen incidents have been mentioned in the different texts about the
Mahābodhi Tree having suffered at the hands of man or nature:
1. Emperor Aśoka
Xuanzang, who visited the Mahābodhi Temple sometime in the 630s CE, mentions
that before becoming an aficionado of Buddhism, Emperor Aśoka attempted to
destroy the Mahābodhi Tree. According to him,
After the Tathāgata’s demise, when King Aśoka first ascended the throne he believed in
heretical doctrines and he destroyed the sites left by the Buddha. He sent his troops and
came in person to cut down the bodhi tree. He chopped the roots, stalks, branches, and
12 Strangely,Alexander Cunningham believed that as the ficus religiosa is a short-lived tree, “there
must have been a long succession of fresh trees raised from seed, from the time of Aśoka down to the
present day; perhaps as many as twelve or fifteen, or even twenty, to meet the frequent destruction
to which it was exposed” (Cunningham 1982: 31). Ficus religiosa is not a short-lived tree and
can easily survive for a thousand years. As some of the incidents of its destruction mentioned in
Buddhist texts or sources are credible, the present Mahābodhi Tree appears to be fourth or fifth
generation from the original Mahābodhi Tree.
leaves into small pieces and had them heaped up at a spot a few tens of paces to the west,
where fire-worshiping brahmans were ordered to burn the pile as a sacrifice to their god.
Before the smoke and flames had dissipated, however, two trees with luxuriant and verdant
leaves grew out of the furious fire; these trees were thus called ash bodhi trees. On seeing this
strange sight, King Aśoka repented his misdeeds and watered the remnant roots with sweet
milk. When it was nearly dawn the tree grew up as before. The king, greatly exhilarated to
have seen this spiritual wonder, made offerings to the tree in person with such delight that
he forgot to return home (Li 1996: 216).
The incident of Aśoka having indulged in such a deed has not been mentioned
anywhere else. As Xuanzang visited India nearly nine hundred years after Aśoka, the
tale told by him appears to be fictional and unreliable (see Barua 1934: 3). Xuanzang
appears to have fabricated this story in his enthusiasm to show how the truly evil
Aśoka (can.d.āśoka) became a completely transformed pious Aśoka (Dharmāśoka)
due to his adoption of Buddhism. Sri Lankan chronicles mention Aśoka only as being
devoted to the Mahābodhi Tree to such an extent that he once not only bestowed his
own kingship upon it but also compared his own life with the life of the Tree (Geiger
1912: 125).
2. Emperor Aśoka’s Wife Tis.yaraks.itā
According to the Aśokāvadāna, Emperor Aśoka’s wife Tis.yaraks.itā (Pāli,

Tissarakkhitā) hired a sorceress, a Mātaṅga woman, out of sheer jealousy (she
mistook the holy tree to be a secret lovelady of Aśoka named Bodhi whom the king
had been secretly sending precious jewels as gifts) to put a spell on her competitor
and destroy it. The sorceress, in her blind loyalty to the queen, tied a thread around the
trunk of the tree, muttered some mantras, and as a result of her black magic the tree
began to wither (Mukhopadhyaya 1963: 93; Strong 1983: 126). When the Emperor’s
spies immediately informed him of the fact, Aśoka lamentingly announces: “If the
tree of the Lord comes to die, I too shall surely expire” (Strong 1983: 126–127;
Mukhopadhyaya 1963: 93).13 However, before it is too late, Tis.yaraks.itā comes to
realize her mistake and orders the sorceress to rewind the spell. Consequently, the
tree grew to be as it was before (Strong 1983: 258).
According to the Sri Lankan chronicle, the Mahāvam . sa, Emperor Aśoka’s queen,
Tissarakkhā was jealous of the Mahābodhi Tree, and three years after she became
queen in the nineteenth year of Aśoka’s reign (c. 249 BCE), she caused the tree to
be killed by means of man.d.u thorns (Geiger 1908: XX.4f). The tree, however, grew
again, and a great monastery (mahāvihāra) was attached to the Bodhiman.d.a (Geiger
1908: xxix.41).
13 The
occasion has been displayed on one of the bas-reliefs at Sāñcı̄ (see Strong 1983: 127 fn 68;
Marshall 1955: 54).
Faxian also refers somewhat vaguely to Aśoka’s queen, without naming her, for
having ordered the destruction of the tree: “The queen asked where the king was
constantly going to, and the ministers replied that he was constantly to be seen under
(such and such) a patra tree. She watched for a time when the king was not there,
and then sent men to cut the tree down. When the king came, and saw what had
been done, he swooned away with sorrow, and fell to the ground” (Legge 1886: 92).
“Thereupon, he banked it up on all sides with bricks…. (and)… the tree began to
grow at the top of its roots, and exists to this day. It is now rather less than 100 feet
high” (Giles 1877: 82).
Xuanzang also refers to this incident and points out that Emperor Aśoka’s “queen,
a heretical believer, secretly sent someone to cut down the tree after nightfall. When
King Aśoka went to worship the tree… he was very sad to see only the stump of
the tree. He prayed earnestly and watered the stump with sweet milk, and in a few
days the tree grew up once again. With deep respect and astonishment the king built
a stone enclosure to the height of more than ten feet around the tree, which is still in
existence” (Li 1996: 216–217).
However, A-yu-wang-jing, the Chinese version of Aśokāvadāna, gives a slightly
different version:
King Aśoka’s first lady, Tis.yaraks.itā by name, was angry about it. “If the great king loves
me, why should he give all the best gems and jewels to the Bodhi tree?” She called in a
can.d.ālı̄ (outcaste) maid and said to her, “The Bodhi tree is what I hate. Can you destroy it
for me?” The maid said in reply, “Yes, I can, but you must pay me in gold.” The lady said,
“Let it be so.”
“The can.d.ālı̄ maid cursed the tree with incantations and bound it with a cord, and so the tree
withered away gradually. Someone reported it to the king, saying, “The Bodhi tree is dying
away gradually.”
[On hearing of this, the King announced] “…..If it withers away, My life will also expire.
On seeing that the king was so anxious and worried, the lady said to him, “If I cannot revive
the Bodhi tree, then I also cannot please Your Majesty.” The king said in reply, “If you can
revive the Bodhi tree, then you are not a woman. Why? Because this is the place where the
Buddha attained supreme perfect Enlightenment.”
The lady called the can.d.ālı̄ maid and said to her, “Can you restore the tree to grow as before?”
The maid replied, “If the root of the Bodhi tree is not dead, I can rejuvenate the tree to grow
again.” Then the can.d.ālı̄ maid unloosed the cord with which she had bound the tree and dug
a ditch around it. Every day she poured milk into the ditch to irrigate the tree, and in a few
days it gradually revived and became alive as it was before (Li 1993: 39–40).
A-yu-wang-jing also mentions King Aśoka as having constructed a wall around

the Mahābodhi Tree but does not mention its height (Li 1993: 47). On the basis of the
information provided by the Burmese chronicles, Cunningham has suggested that
as King Pasenadi (Prasenjit) had already built a double wall around the Mahābodhi
Tree, Emperor Aśoka appears to have added a third wall (Cunningham 1892: 31).14
14 Talkingabout the wall, Cunningham further points out: “If this account can be accepted, I would
suggest 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. I conclude, also, that it would have been altogether removed when Aśoka built his
Temple immediately to the east of the Bodhi Tree” (1892: 31).
3. Pus.yamitra Śuṅga
Some indirect evidence, as hinted in the Vibhās.ā (see Lamotte 1988: 387), has also
been used to accuse Pus.yamitra Śuṅga for having vandalized the Mahābodhi Tree.
Both the Divyāvadāna and the Aśokāvadāna talk about King Pus.yamitra Śuṅga
making the so-called declaration to “wipe out the religion of the Buddha” who later
apparently “slaughtered the monks and destroyed the residence of the sam . gha,”
(Vaidya 1959: 282; Mukhopadhyaya 1963: 133) but these two texts do not specif-
ically mention him having attacked or caused any harm to the Mahābodhi Tree,
though both these texts give credit to Yaks.a Dam . s.t.rānivāsin, the guardian spirit
of the Mahābodhi Tree for killing Pus.yamitra in revenge for trying to wipe out
the religion of the Buddha (Vaidya 1959: 282; Mukhopadhyaya 1963: 135). The
Vibhās.ā, a Sarvāstivādin-Vaibhās.ika text dated in the second century CE, points out
that Pus.yamitra, though tried to destroy the Mahābodhi Tree, but was not able to:
Gradually destroying the Law of the Buddha, he reached the Bodhi tree. The deity of that
tree, named Ti Yü (Satyavāk) thought: “Here is this foolish and cruel king who wishes to
destroy the place where the Bhagavat Buddhas, as numerous as the sands of the Ganges,
vanquished Māra the wicked and won marvellous Enlightenment.” Immediately, this divinity
manifested, by transformation, a female body of great beauty and prostrated herself before
the king. On seeing this, the king was seized with desire, but as soon as the good Law-
protecting deity had obtained his favours, she killed him and slew his army as well as the
troop of the Asuras (quoted from Lamotte 1988: 387).
It may not be easy to deny the fact that Pus.yamitra Śuṅga did not show any special
favours to the Buddhists, but it is not certain that he persecuted them. The only thing
that may be said with confidence, on the basis of the stories told in the Buddhist
texts about Pus.yamitra, is that he might have withheld royal patronage from the
Buddhist institutions. This change of circumstance under his reign might have led to
disgruntlement among the Buddhists. Probity of the Divyāvadāna is also seriously
marred by the fact that Pus.yamitra Śuṅga is mentioned as a descendent of Aśoka
whereas he did not belong to the Mauryan dynasty of non-Brāhman.ical background.
The testimony of the Buddhist legends about Pus.yamitra Śuṅga also appears doubtful
on many other counts. The earliest of the texts that mention these legends are chrono-
logically far removed from the Śuṅgas. The traditional narrative in the Divyāvadāna,
for example, can at the earliest be dated to two centuries after the death of Pus.yamitra.
It is more likely that the Divyāvadāna legend is a Buddhist version of Pus.yamitra’s
attack on the Mauryas, and reflects the fact that, with the diminishing influence of
Buddhism at the Śuṅga imperial court, Buddhist monuments and institutions would
naturally receive less royal attention. Moreover, the source itself in this case being
Buddhist would naturally suffer from the tendency to exaggerate the wickedness of
anti-Buddhists (see Thapar 1997: 200; Sarao 2012: 112–115).
4. King Hunimanta
Taking a cue from the information provided by Tāranātha, Alexander Cunningham

has suggested that the Mahābodhi Tree was most probably destroyed when Magadha
was invaded by the Western King, Hunimanta15 in about the first century of the
Common Era (Cunningham 1892: 31). According to him, “As the temples are said to
have been destroyed, the Canopied Walk must have been thrown down and destroyed,
and the famous Bodhi Tree could not have escaped” (Cunningham 1982: 31).
5. King Śaśāṅka of Gaud.a
Xuanzang has mentioned in his travelogue that when he paid a visit to the Mahābodhi
Tree in the first half of the seventh century, despite its having been cut down or
damaged several times, it remained forty or fifty feet high and its devotees bathed it
“with scented water and milk” (Li 1996: 216, 1995: 244–246). According to him,
King Śaśāṅka, a heretical believer, denounced the buddha-dharma out of jealousy, destroyed
monasteries, and cut down the bodhi tree [again]. He dug the ground so deep as to reach
spring water but he could not get at the ends of the roots, so he set fire to burn it and soaked it
with sugarcane juice with the intention of making it rotten and prevent it from sprouting….
King Pūrn.avarman… of Magadha, watered the tree with milk obtained from several thousand
cows and it grew up to some ten feet high in one night. Fearing that people of later times
might cut it down [again], he surrounded it with a stone enclosure to the height of twenty-
four feet. Thus the bodhi tree at present is behind the stone wall, and more than ten feet of
branches grow out above the wall (Li 1996: 217).16
Alexander Cunningham has suggested that after the deaths of kings Hars.a Vard-
hana and Śaśāṅka, i.e., during the latter half of the seventh century when King
Aditya Sena and his successors controlled this region, the Mahābodhi Tree remained
unharmed (Cunningham 1892: 31). This, according to him, is proven by the fact
that during their time the Mahābodhi was repeatedly visited by Chinese pilgrims,
all of whom mention the Mahābodhi Tree as still standing. “If it escaped during the
following century, 700 to 800 A.D., the Tree planted by Pūrna Varmma may have
lasted down to the time of the Buddhist dynasty of Pāla Kings, which began to reign
about A.D. 813” (Cunningham 1892: 31).17
B.P. Sinha has given quite an interesting analysis of the background to the anti-
Buddhist actions of Śaśāṅka. He points out that it is quite reasonable to believe that the
Buddhists were almost certainly the most fully organized sect in India who, through
their numerous monasteries and seats of learning, exercised sufficient leverage in the
politics of Magadha. “It was probably the expulsion of the pro-Buddhist Maukharis
from Magadha by the Brāhman.ical Gaud.as which made Śaśāṅka unpopular with the
powerful Buddhists of Magadha” (Sinha 1954: 259). Sinha further points out that
“[t]he uprooting of the Bodhi Tree may have been an economic move against the
15 Identified by Cunningham with Mihirkula, King of the Hūn.as (1892: 31 fn2).

16 Referring to the twenty-four feet high stone enclosure mentioned by Xuanzang, J.D. Beglar, and
Alexander Cunningham had suggested that the surrounding of the tree with this high wall refers to
the placing of the new Tree on the terrace of the Temple, which is rather more than thirty feet above
the original ground level (Cunningham 1892: 30).
17 In the view of Cunningham, the Mahābodhi did not come to any harm at the hands of the Turuska
.
(Turk) invaders. He has pointed out that “it was safe until the time of the Muhammadan invasion
under Bakhtiyār Khalji in A.D. 1201. As the Moslems spared the famous Tree at Peshāwar, it is
probable that the Mahābodhi Tree was then left untouched” (Cunningham 1892: 31).
Buddhist hierarchy of Magadha, as presents from all over the Buddhist world were
offered at the Bodhi Tree” (Sinha 1954: 259–260). The impressions of a foreign
religious scholar like Xuanzang, perceiving in these acts of Śaśāṅka a calculated
strategy to annihilate Buddhism, are not unexpected. Buddhist authors of later times,
too, appear to have consciously or unconsciously seen religious fanaticism in the
actions of Śaśāṅka. Thus, the motives of Śaśāṅka seem to have been not only misun-
derstood but also exaggerated according to Sinha (1954: 259–260). Moreover, as
pointed out by Mitra, all of Śaśāṅka’s actions of persecution having taken place
outside the limits of his own kingdom, it may be argued that his object was not so
much to extirpate Buddhist heresy as to take the wind out of the sails of his own
Buddhist subjects by destroying the Mahābodhi Tree at Bodh Gayā (Mitra 1954:
127).
6. Replantation from Anurādhapura after expiry
Some modern scholars have suggested on the basis of information available in the
Sri Lankan chronicles that whenever the Mahābodhi Tree of Bodh Gayā expired,
“cuttings from the Bodhi Tree at Anuradhapura were used to replant it” (see, for
instance, Haberman 2013: 95; Joshi 2019: 61). But none of the three major chronicles
of Sri Lanka, i.e., the Dipavam
. sa, Mahāvam
. sa, and the Cullavam . sa give any such
information. However, Hamilton-Buchanan in his report mentions the locals around
the Mahābodhi Tree having told him that “The worshippers of Gautama… say that
it was planted by Dughda-Cāmini,18 king of Singhal-dwı̄pa (Ceylon), 2,225 years
before A.D. 1811, that is, according to them, 125 years before the building of the
temple” (1830: 49).
7. Storm
When Hamilton-Buchanan visited the Mahābodhi Temple in the year 1811, he found
the Tree to be in full vigour, but “in all probability not exceeding 100 years of age”
(see Cunningham 1871a: 5; Buchanan-Hamilton 1830: 49). R.L. Mitra found the
Mahābodhi Tree as “decayed and dying” in 1863 (Mitra 1878: 93). A few months
earlier, when Cunningham saw it in December 1862 he too found it “very much
decayed”, one large stem, with three branches to the westward being still green,
whereas the other branches being barkless and rotten (1871a: 5; 1892: 30). He actually
found not one but “numerous stems of apparently different trees clustered together”
the green branches belonging to one of the younger ones. He further says, “The tree
must have been renewed frequently, as the present Pipal is standing on a terrace at
least 30 feet above the level of the surrounding country” (Cunningham 1871a: 5).
Cunningham next saw the Tree in 1871, and again in 1875, “when it had become
completely decayed, and shortly afterwards, in 1876, the only remaining portion of
the Tree fell over the west wall during a storm, and the Old Pipal Tree was gone”
(Cunningham 1892: 30). “Many seeds, however, had been collected, and young
18 Dutugamunu, Tut.t.akāmin.i, popularly known Dut.t.hagāmani Abhaya who reigned from 161 BCE
to 137 BC.
Fig. 6 The Mahābodhi Tree
scions of the parent tree were already in existence to take its place” (Cunningham
1892: 30). Consequently, the tree was later replaced by Cunningham by a seedling
of its parent tree, which was about three feet tall (Mitra 1878: 99). The present
Mahābodhi Tree has grown out of that sapling and is expected to live up to the age
of about 200 years, i.e., for about fifty years or so (Lefferts 2019) (Fig. 6).19
Whenever the Mahābodhi Tree came to any harm, manmade or otherwise, and
a new sapling had to be planted, it must have been planted exactly at its original
spot keeping the Vajrāsana as the reference spot. However, Cunningham planted the
Mahābodhi Tree a few feet away from its original place as a more convenient spot for
19 The expert team from the Forest Research Institute, Dehadun (India) engaged by the
Mahābodhi Temple Management Committee has suggested that the over-enthusiastic devo-
tees and lighting arrangements made around the Mahābodhi Tree have significantly reduced
its life period. https://www.vice.com/en_in/article/9kgdxz/the-bodhi-tree-the-buddha-sat-under-is-
dead. Accessed 15 March 2018.
it to grow without the risk of damaging the restored temple.20 According to Warren,
Cunningham after “finding shoots from the old tree, received permission to encourage
one to grow and to transplant this to a place nearby where the Buddha supposedly
went to stand after his Enlightenment” (1987: 147). However, the “Report of the
Bodh Gaya Temple” prepared by the committee appointed by the All India Congress
Committee and the Bihar Provincial Hindu Mahasabha and published in The Maha
Bodhi differes completely from the account offered by Warren with regard to the
number of bodhi trees replanted. The report states that
During the course of the restoration, the old Bodhi Tree fell and two saplings from it were
planted on two places, one in its original place just to the west of the temple and the other at
a distance of some 80 feet to the north of the temple to which place were also removed the
images from underneath and near the old Bodhi Tree and kept on a platform. It is said that
this latter tree was reserved for Hindus to offer their pindas under, which is done even up to
now (Anon. 1926: 16 quoted at Joshi 2019: 64).
Recent DNA fingerprinting conducted by the Forest Research Institute (FRI),

Dehradun, the consultant appointed by the Bodhgaya Temple Management
Committee for the upkeep and maintenance of the Mahābodhi Tree, seems to support
the report of the All India Congress Committee and the Bihar Provincial Hindu
Mahasabha. This report indicates that instead of the present Mahābodhi Tree, the
second pı̄pal tree that was planted “some 80 feet to the north” may have originated
from the remains (roots) of the original Mahābodhi Tree, which was believed to have
been taken to Anurādhapura by Emperor Aśoka’s daughter, Bhikkhunı̄ Sam . ghamitrā,
as a sapling of the original tree in the third century BCE. However, the existing
Mahābodhi Tree located at the west of the Mahābodhi Temple is believed to have
been brought back as a branch from Anurādhapura. On the basis of the report of the
FRI, “it could be concluded that the north peepal tree is older and more authentic as
compared to the current Bodhi tree” (Joshi 2019: 65). So now interestingly, whereas
the more authentic tree is not revered as it is located away from the original spot of
Enlightenment and the less authentic tree is worshipped as the Mahābodhi tree as it is
located at or closer to the exact spot where the Buddha had attained Enlightenment!
In the year 2007 the Bodhgaya Temple Management Committee began to observe
scrubby, light-green leaves in the tree’s canopy as well as damaged roots and bark
along its trunk and limbs. Alarmed, the Committee quickly approached the Forest
Research Institute (FRI) in Dehradun, India, for an emergency check-up of the
20 Interestingly, the new sapling of the Mahābodhi Tree was also planted by Cunningham some
thirty feet lower than the spot where older Mahābodhi Tree stood. According to him, “in 1880,
when I saw the Vajrāsan Throne uncovered outside the backwall of the Temple, it struck me that
possibly some trace of the old Bodhi Tree might still be found where the original Tree must have
stood. I, therefore, had the ground dug up at a short distance to the west of the Vajrāsan Throne.
In the sandy soil, just outside the granite facing of the Throne, 3 feet below the level of the foot of
the Throne, and 30 feet below the terrace level where the modern Tree had stood, I found two large
pieces of an Old Pipal Tree, on 61 /2 inches in length, and the other 4 inches. As the whole mass of
the great buttress at the back of the Temple, 32 feet long and 30 feet high by14 feet thick, had been
standing over this spot for more than 12 centuries, it seems not improbable that these two fragments
may be part of the Pipal Tree which was cut down by Śaśāṅka” (Cunningham 1892: 31).
Mahābodhi Tree (see Khan 2018; Lefferts 2019). The team of specialists sent by
the FRI discovered that the sources of the tree’s ailments were, including, among
other things, the high-intensity electric lights installed just underneath the tree to
guide visitors who came here after sunset.21 The expert team pointed out that the
lights impeded its daily respiration and posed serious heat risks to the low-hanging
branches. It was further pointed out that besides being affected by the lack of dark-
ness, Mahābodhi Tree’s daily process of photosynthesis was compromised to a great
extent by a coating of carbon on the underside of the tree’s leaves, the result of
candle burning by the devotees.22 On the basis of this report, the Temple Manage-
ment Committee has implemented a number of precautions over the years to nurse the
tree back to health. For this purpose, candle and incense burnings have been stopped
from the tree’s immediate proximity and the night lights have been replaced by less
damaging ones.23 Despite these precautions, apprehensions have been expressed that
the tree may not survive for long or at least that there is a very real danger of the
Mahābodhi Tree being not in good health. Massive footfall, soil compaction, and
resultant blockade in the flow of nutrients appears to have added to the problem
(Anon. 2016). One of the members of the FRI team is said to have pointed out in an
interview with the magazine Tricycle that as a backup, an offspring of the Mahābodhi
Tree was planted in 2010 that “can take over” should the need arise.24 The member
is said to have further pointed out that as long as the caretaking endeavours continue,
Buddhism’s most sacred tree should stay alive for at least another fifty years (Lefferts
2019). Some sources have indicated that the FRI has done a complete DNA profiling
of the sacred tree to produce a clone in case the ageing tree were to meet its natural
destiny (Anon. 2016).
21 Another practice that appears to have caused significant damage to the root and the stem of the
Mahābodhi Tree was the practice of the devotees of making offers of ghee, milk, scented water, etc.
For instance, during one of his visits, Alexander Cunningham witnessed the roots of the tree being
washed with “scented water and perfumed milk” (Cunningham 1892: 30). The Dharmasvāmin in
1234 CE also saw that “The devotees worship (the Bodhi-tree) with curds, milk and perfumes, such
as sandal wood, camphor, etc. They bring the offerings from afar in vessels, and pour them out into
(the trench). Thus they worship the Bodhi-tree and keep it constantly moist” (Roerich 1959: 67).
22 In an interview to Vice.com, on 4 May 2018, N.S.K. Harsh, the leader of the FRI Team and advisor
to the Mahabodhi Temple Management Committee on the Mahābodhi Tree restoration pointed out:
“There is white marble flooring underneath the tree, which gets hot during summers. The wall of
the Mahabodhi Temple, grey in colour, also emits heat. This excess heat causes premature defoliation
at times” (Khan 2018).
23 According to N.S.K. Harsh, now “the marble floor is mopped twice a day, around 11 AM and 4
PM. We also stopped the devotees from offering milk to the tree. We encased the metallic props
beneath the branches with rubber and foam bedding, so that the branches are not damaged. The
foliage was regularly removed and manure added. We were regularly finding ways to save the tree
from diseases like mealybug. Any injuries to the stem or branches were treated with a special paste.
The tree was also suffering from a scarcity of major nutrients like nitrogen, copper, and potash. To
counter that, we applied micronutrients to the old roots once or twice a year, depending upon the
requirement” (Khan 2018).
24 According to N.S.K. Harsh, “this tree may survive another 50 years. Its descendant has already
started to appear and it will take over when the time comes” (Khan 2018).
Fig. 7 Three Stamps released by Indian Department of Posts in Honour of the Mahābodhi Tree
In the present times, following in the footsteps of Emperor Aśoka in order to

strengthened cultural and commercial links, heads of the Government of India have
been gifting saplings of the gigantic Mahābodhi Tree to foreign heads of government
of countries where substantial proportion of the population follows Buddhism. For
instance, in the year 1959, an offshoot of the Mahābodhi Tree was gifted by the
Indian President Rajendra Prasad to his Vietnamese counterpart President Ho Chi
Minh which was planted in the Tran Quoc Pagoda, Hanoi. India had gifted to Vietnam.
A second sapling of the sacred Mahābodhi Tree was planted in the Vietnamese Pres-
idential palace, Hanoi by the Indian President Pranab Mukherjee on 15 September
2014 (see The Economic Time, Mumbai, 15 September 2014). Similarly, the Indian
Prime Ministers and/or Presidents have presented saplings of the Mahābodhi Tree
to their counterparts in Thailand, South Korea, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, China,
and Mongolia (see The Nation, Thailand, 29 May 2013; Business Standard, New
Delhi, 8 March 2014; The Times of India, New Delhi,10 May 2015). Now such
saplings are developed at Bodh Gayā under the supervision of the scientists of the
Dehradun-based Forest Research Institute (FRI). For this purpose, a small number of
saplings for special occasions prepared through Conventional method of first treating
the seeds and then germinating them are used by the scientists. The Government of
India has also issued special commemorative postage stamps from time to time in
honour of the Mahābodhi Tree (Fig. 7).
The Mahābodhi Tree has also inspired people to start NGOs in its name. For
instance, Bodhi Tree Education Foundation (Carmel, California, USA) apparently
works “to end poverty in Bodhgaya” (www.bodhitreeeducationalfoundation.org).
Another NGO called Bodhi Tree Foundation (Thirunelveli, Tamil Nadu, India) is
run by Ashweeta Shetty her home town of Thirunelveli where her parents used to
work in beedi (local tobacco) factories and she is the first of her family to go to
school. Now her foundation builds capacities of rural youth and connects them to
appropriate income generating opportunities (https://bodhitreefoundation.org.in).
As part of the larger ritual within the Gayā Dharmaks.etra, Hindus nowadays
perform their pin.d.adāna ritual here that lasts just a few minutes. However, some
people have objected to the Buddhists’ unsubstantiated claim of an exclusive and
absolute right to worship under the main Mahābodhi Tree. However, since about
the beginning of the fourteenth century, Hindus have been regularly worshipping the
Mahābodhi Tree and its Temple. According to Cunningham, “there still exists a round
stone which formerly stood in front of the Temple with the feet of Vishnu sculpted on
its face, and the date of Saka 1230, or A.D. 1308, carved on its side” (Cunningham
1892: 57). Thus, it has been maintained that Hindus have long worshipped under the
Mahābodhi Tree and that the Hindu mahants had been performing homam (rituals)
on each new moon day and on many other important religious occasions underneath
the same tree for more than a millennium. Thus, it has been pointed out, any forceful
ousting and prevention of those performing Hindu rites is unacceptable. Balindralal
Das, a local lawyer, has even questioned the story of Alexander Cunningham having
planted another pı̄pal tree to the north for the worship by Hindus. In fact, he has
called it “a pure fiction” (Das nd: 102). He has argued that the authority under which
Cunningham could “have ousted Hindus from the worship of and from the offering
of Pinds [sic] under the Bodhi-Tree by planting a second tree (even if this statement
is correct), it is difficult to understand” (Das nd: 102–104). Expressing somewhat
similar views, Joshi also pointed out that “To consider it as a symbol related to the
Buddha and Buddhists would be erroneous” (Joshi 2019: 66).
The north pı̄pal tree is now circumscribed by a broad stone platform and statues
(mostly of Hindu deities) placed below the tree. However, it is occupied mainly
by Buddhists conducting various rituals such as meditation, walking meditation,
chanting, and sermons by senior Buddhist monks. Supporters of the sole right of the
Buddhists to worship here consider the Hindus nothing more than mere tourists
performing inappropriate rituals are at the wrong place. For instance, Albertina
Nugteren has argued that these Hindu pilgrims at the Mahābodhi Temple complex
“behave more or less as tourists… exhibiting only a minimum of ritual behaviour”
(1995: 156). Though it cannot be denied that the Mahābodhi Tree has received its
worldwide fame because the Buddha has attained Enlightenment here, sacredness of
the Mahābodhi Tree must be viewed as multivalent. To consider it as a sole symbol
of sacredness to the Buddhists would be grossly fallacious. The Mahābodhi Temple
complex, as a matter of fact, accommodates not only the Buddha and Vis.n.u but also
Mahāvı̄ra Jaina, the founder of Jainism (Sato 2014: 14).
References
Varma, Ganapati Singh. 1980. Pipal Guna Vidhan. New Delhi: Rasayan Pharmacy.
Smith, H. (ed.). 1966–1972. Sutta-Nipāta Commentary being Paramatthajotikā II, 3 vols. London:
Pali Text Society.
Poussin, de la Vallée, E.J., and E.J. Thomas (ed.). 1916–17. Niddesa: Mahāniddesa, 2 vols. London:
Pali Text Society.
Taylor, A.C. 1905–07. Pat.isambhidāmagga, London: Pali Text Society, 2 vols, 1905–07, combined
volume, London: Pali Text Society, 1979. Tr. Bhikkhu Ñān.amoli (with an intro. by A.K. Warder),
The path of discrimination (Pat.isambhidāmagga), London: Pali Text Society, 1982.
Singh, Vaidya Mahavir. 2005. Pairh-paudhon ke tantrik prakashan. Hardwar: Randhir Prakashan.
Singh, Damanpreet, Bikram Singh et al. 2011. Traditional uses, phytochemistry and pharmacology
of ficus religiosa: A review. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 134 (3), April: 565–583.
References 73
Mackay, Ernest. 1931. Seals, seal impressions, and copper tablets, with tabulation. In J. Marshall
(ed.), Mohenjo-daro and the Indus civilization, vol. II, pp. 370–405. London: Arthur Probsthain.
Marshall, J. (ed.). 1931. Mohenjo-daro and the Indus Civilization, 3 vols., London: Arthur
Probsthain.
Parpola, Asko. 2005. Study of the indus script. In Transactions of the 50th International Conference
of Eastern Studies, pp. 28–66. Tokyo: The Tôhô Gakkai.
Gupta, Shakti M. 2001. Plant myths and traditions in India, 3rd revised and enlarged edn. New
Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal.
Malla, Bansi Lal. 2000. Trees in Indian art mythology and folklore. Delhi: Aryan Books
International.
Śastri, K.N. 1965. New light on the indus civilization, 2 vols. Michigan: Michigan University Press.
Patnaik, Naveen. 1993. The garden of life: An introduction to the healing plants of India. New
Delhi: Acquarian.
Wilson, H.H. 1888. R.gveda-Sam . hitā, text in Devanāgarı̄, English translation, notes and indices, ed.
W.F. Webster, reprint. Delhi: Nag Publishers.
Bloomfield, Maurice (trans.). 1897. Hymns of the Atharva-veda, sacred books of the east, vol. 42,
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Macdonell, A.A. 1897. Vedic mythology. Strassburg: Karl.
Cowell, E.W. (trans.). 1935. The Maitri or Maitrān.ı̄ya Upanishad. Calcutta: The Asiatic Society
of Bengal.
Sargeant, Winthrop (trans.). 1984. The Bhagavad Gı̄tā. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Ganguli, K.M. (trans.). 1976. The Mahābhārata. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal (originally
Calcutta: Bharat Press).
Tagare, G.V. 2007, The Skanda Purān.a, 23 vols. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Snellgrove, David, et al. 1978. The image of the Buddha. Kodansha: UNESCO.
Jayawickrama, N.A. (ed.). 1974. Buddhavam . sa and Cariyāpit.aka, new ed. London: Pali Text
Society.
Li, Rongxi (trans.). 1996. The great tang dynasty record of the western regions. Berkeley: Numata
Strong, S.A. (ed.). 1891. The Mahā-Bodhi-Vam . sa. London: Pali Text Society.
Morris, R., and E. Hardy (eds.). 1885–1900. The Aṅguttara Nikāya, 5 vols. London: Pali Text
Society.
Takakusu, J., and M. Nagai (eds.). 1947–1975. Samantapāsādikā: Buddhaghosa’s commentary on
the Vinaya Pit.aka, 8 vols. (including index by H. Kopp). London: Pali Text Society.
Geiger, W. (ed.). 1925–27. Cūlavam . sa: Being the more recent part of the Mahāvam . sa, 2 vols,
London: Pali Text Society.
Coomaraswamy, Ananda K. 1935. La sculpture de Bodhgayā. Ars Asiatica no. XVIII. Paris: Les
Éditions d’Art et d’Histoire.
Wood, Leela A. 2004a. Mahābodhi Temple. Encyclopedia of Buddhism, pp. 486–487. New York:
Macmillan Reference USA.
Horner, I.B. (ed.). 1946. Madhuratthavilāsinı̄ nāma Buddhavam . sat..thakathā of Bhadantācariya
Buddhadatta Mahāthera. London: Pali Text Society.
Rhys Davids, T.W., J.E. Carpentier, and W. Stede (eds.). 1886–1971. The Sumaṅgalavilāsinı̄,
Buddhaghosa’s commentary on the Dı̄gha Nikāya, 3 vols. London: Pali Text Society.
Cowell, E.W., R. Chalmers, W.H.D. Rouse, H.T. Francis, and R.A. Neil (trans.). 1895–1907. The
Jātaka or the stories of the Buddha’s former births. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Strong, John S. 1983. The legend of king Aśoka: A study and translation of the Aśokāvadāna.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Barua, B.M. 1934. Gayā and Buddha-Gayā (Early history of the holy land), rev ed. Calcutta: Satis
Chandra Seal.
Geiger, W. (trans.). 1912. The Mahāvam . sa or the great chronicle of Ceylon. London: Pali Text
Society.
Mukhopadhyaya, S. (ed.). 1963. The Aśokāvadāna, New Delhi: Sahitya Akademi, 1963. Trans.
John S. Strong (eds.), The legend of king Aśoka: A study and translation of the Aśokāvadāna.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983.
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.
Giles, Herbert A. (trans.). 1877. Record of the Buddhistic kingdoms. London: Trübner & Co.
Li, Rongxi (trans.). 1993. The biographical scripture of king Aśoka, Berkeley: Numata center for
Buddhist translation and research.
Cunningham, Alexander. 1892. Mahābodhi or the great Buddhist temple under the Bodhi tree at
Lamotte, É. 1988. History of Indian Buddhism: From the origins to the Śaka Era, trans. Sara
Webb-Boin, Louvain-la-Neuve: Insitut Orientaliste: 1988 (originally published as Histoire du
bouddhisme indien: Des origenes à l’Ère Śaka. Louvain: Bibliothéque du Musèon, vol. 43,
Louvain: 1958.
Vaidya, P.L. (ed.) 1959. Divyāvadāna. Darbhanga: Mithila institute of post-graduate studies and
research in Sanskrit learning, 1959. Trans. E.B. Cowell, and R.A. Neil (eds.), The Divyāvadāna:
A collection of early Buddhist legends. Cambridge: The University Press, 1886.
Thapar, Romila. 1997. Aśoka and the decline of the Mauryas, rev ed. New Delhi: Oxford University
Press.
Sarao, K.T.S. 2012. The decline of buddhism in India: A fresh perspective. New Delhi: Munshiram
Manoharlal.
Sinha, B.P. 1954. The decline of the kingdom of Magadha (Cir. 455–1000 A.D.). Bankipore: Motilal
Banarsidass.
Mitra, R.C. 1954. The decline of Buddhism in India. Santiniketan, Birbhum: Visvabharati.
Haberman, D.L. 2013. People trees: Worship of trees in northern India. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Joshi, Nikhil. 2019. The Mahābodhi Temple at Bodhgayā: constructing sacred placeness,
deconstructing the ‘Great Case’ of 1895. New Delhi: Manohar.
Alexander, Cunningham. 1871. Archaeological survey of India annual report, vol. I. Calcutta: Office
of the Superintendent of Government Printing.
Hamilton-Buchanan, Francis. 1830. Description of the ruins of Buddha Gaya. Transactions of the
royal asiatic society of great Britain and Ireland, vol. II, pp. 40–51. London: Parbury, Allen &
Co.
Lefferts, Gabriel. 2019. Bodhi tree in need of TLC. Tricycle: The Buddhist review. Summer. https://
tricycle.org/magazine/bodhi-tree-tlc/. Accessed 31 December 2019.
Khan, Z.M. 2018. The Bodhi tree the Buddha sat under is dead. Vice, 04 May. https://www.vice.
com/en_in/article/9kgdxz/the-bodhi-tree-the-buddha-sat-under-is-dead. Accessed 15 September
2018.
Anon. 2016. Sacred Bodhi tree in good health, says FRI scientist. The Tines of India, Patna, 23
November.
Sato, Ryojun. 2014. The Mahabodhi Temple at Bodh Gaya. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Warren H.C. (ed.). 1951. The Visuddhimagga of Buddhaghosācāriya, rev. D. Kosambi, vol. 41.
Cambridge, Mass: Harvard Oriental Series.
Norman, H.C. (ed.). 1906–15. The commentary on the Dhammapada, 4 vols. London: Pali Text
Society.
References 75
Woodward, F.L. (ed.). 1940–49. Paramattha-Dı̄panı̄: Theragāthā-At..thakathā, The Commentary of

Dhammapālācariya, 3 vols. London: Pali Text Society.
Hultzsch, E. 1925. Inscriptions of Asoka, New ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Barua, B.M. 1943. Inscriptions of Asoka. Part II, Calcutta: University of Calcutta.
Oldenberg, H. (ed. and trans.). 1879. The Dı̄pavam . sa: An ancient Buddhist historical record.
London: Williams and Norgate.
Randall, R.P. 2012. A global compendium of weeds, 3rd edn, Perth, 2017, ebook: https://www.cabi.
org/isc/FullTextPDF/2017/20173071957.pdf. Accessed 15 November 2019.
Macdonell, A.A., and A.B. Keith. 1912. Vedic index of names and subjects, 2 vols. London: John
Murray.
Rhys Davids, T.W. and Stede, W. 1921–25. Pāli-English Dictionary, London: Pali Text Society.
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.
Chapter 5
The Mahābodhi Temple: Origin,
Evolution, and Dilapidation
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 Kus.ān.a king Huvis.ka (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 Sam . ghārāma (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 brāhman.a
devotee by enlarging the small shrine built by Aśoka, but also the large Buddha
image in bhūmi-sparśa-mudrā was constructed by another brāhman.a. Despite efforts
by kings like Śaśāṅka and the Sri Lankan monks, the site of the Mahābodhi Temple
remained multivalent. A Sri Lankan monk called Prakhyātakı̄rti 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 Sapadalaks.a 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.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8067-3_5
78 5 The Mahābodhi Temple: Origin, Evolution, and Dilapidation

Visits to the Mahābodhi Tree by the followers of the Buddha appear to have begun
during his own lifetime,1 alongside those who perhaps had been already visiting the
sacred pı̄pal to offer pin.d.adāna (oblations to ancestors). That the Mahābodhi Tree had
become an important landmark for the Buddhists during the life time of the Buddha
is also indicated by the Burmese chronicles2 that credit the Buddha’s contemporary
King Pasenadi (Sk, Prasenajit) of Kosala for having built a double wooden wall
enclosure around the Mahābodhi Tree as a mark of adulation (see Cunningham 1892:
31).3 However, the predominantly Buddhist sacredscape surrounding the Mahābodhi
Tree appears to have begun to take firm roots from the period of Emperor Aśoka from
when onwards the Buddhist share in the Gayā Dharmaks.etra with the Mahābodhi
Tree at its centre4 continued to grow commemorating different events of the life
of the Buddha. During one of his pilgrimage trips (dham . ma-yātā) to the Sam
. bodhi
(c.259–258 BCE), he is said to have initiated an annual festival to be held in its
honour and constructed a small bodhighara (shrine) at the foot of the Mahābodhi
Tree with a railing encompassing it (see Hultzsch 1925: 14–15, 36–37; Barua 1943:
186; Strong 1983: 119, 257–258; Geiger 1908: xvii.17, xx.1).5 Visiting this site
about 900 years later, Xuanzang also credits Aśoka for having built “a small shrine”
at the site where he saw the towered Mahābodhi Temple (see Li 1996: 218).6 If the
Bharhut bas-relief dated to the early Śuṅga period (c.185-c.73 BCE) is taken to be a
true portrayalof what was erected by Aśoka, then the original shrine was an open-air
two-storeyed pavilion supported by octogonal pillars with the Vajrāsana underneath
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 Bodhiman.d.a 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 Hunt-
ington 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
Bodhiman.d.a 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).
5 The Mahābodhi Temple: Origin, Evolution, and Dilapidation 79
(see Cunningham 1892: 4; Huntington 1985: 60) (Fig. 1).7 Some construction activity
and consequent expansion of the bodhighara appears to have taken place during the
Śuṅga period (c. 187- 78 BCE). This is alluded to in the small inscriptions by Lady
Kuraṅgı̄, Nāgadevı̄, and Sirı̄mā written in Aśokan Brāhmı̄ script on a section of the
stone-railing dateable to c. 100 BCE. These inscriptions provide evidence of noble
patronage, particularly by women of the ruling households.
The bodhighara constructed by Aśoka appears to have been further expanded
and renovated either during the reign of Kus.ān.a king Huvis.ka (c.150–180 CE) in
the second century CE or perhaps soon thereafter (see Verardi 2011: 404). This is
recorded not only in the Indo-Scythian and Gupta inscriptions but is also testified by
the pedestal of a Buddha statue, found outside the southern gate of the Mahābodhi
Temple, inscribed with the date Vikrama Sam . vat 64 (c.162 CE) and the discovery
of a gold coin of King Huvis.ka along with five punch-marked coins amongst the
relics deposited in front of the throne (Cunningham 1892: 21). A representation of
a temple with a tower on a terracotta plaque excavated from Kumrāhar near Patna
and dated to second-third century CE by Sten Konow on the basis of the Kharos.t.hı̄
inscription (Konow 1926), has sometimes been suggested to have been the prototype
of the Mahābodhi Temple (see Myer 1958: 283–284). However, this version does
not have the upper terrace with the towers and small temples in the four corners. Sten
Konow, like V.A. Smith, did not believe the plaque to represent the temple of Bodh
Gayā. Similar doubts were expressed by B.N. Mukherjee, who noticed the existence
of a second inscription, which is in Brāhmı̄, and which he dated to the first century
CE (1984–85: 43–46).
Most dramatic change in the history of the Mahābodhi Temple appears to have
taken place during the Gupta period (c.319–570 CE)8 due to two important historical
developments. One, establishment of an extraterritorial base by the Sri Lankans near
the Mahābodhi Tree leading to them becoming major stakeholders in the Bodh Gayā
sacredscape from now onwards . Two, the coming into vogue of towered brick temples
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 Kus.ān.a 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 refer-
ring to new plaster and paint for the vajrāsana vr.had gandhakut.i 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).
Fig. 1 The Bodhighara (Bharhut Stūpa) (Courtesy: Indian Museum, Kolkata): The inscription
between the caitya arches reads: bhagavato sakamunino bodho (Lord Buddha, ascetic of the Śākyas)
in India. Consequently, the Mahābodhi Temple in the form of a large and tall tower-
like brick structure with an image of the Buddha of a proportionate size placed on a
newly built throne in the cella appears to have been built encompassing or replacing
most of the bodhighara.9 Rest of the vestiges of the old shrine that remained outside
the temple especially the Cam . krama and the Vajrāsana appear to have slowly got
buried under the sand and silt deposited by Phalgu River during inundation (see
Cunningham 1892: vii).10 When Beglar examined the Temple in 1872, he found it
to be “substantially not different from the original temple” (1878: 71). It may be
said that outwardly the present structure has resulted from the repair and restoration
extended over several centuries including the transformation of the bodhighara into
the present temple, rectangular in plan and with a tower topped by an āmalaka (Myer
1958: 277–298; Malandra 1988: 9–28). However, inwardly, “the thickening of the
side walls and consequent narrowing of the sanctum… (has taken place) … due to
the alterations and additions carried out since the building of the temple” (Beglar
1878: 67).
It has been suggested that as no name of any ruler or feudatory appears in the
inscriptions at Bodh Gayā after the year 64 of the Gupta Era, the site of the Buddha’s
Enlightenment was neglected by the ruling authority considering that there is ample
evidence of continuing royal patronage of Hindu shrines in the district of Gayā
(Asher 1980: 29; Verardi 2011: 230–231).11 But this kind of criticism of the Gupta
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-gandhakut.i 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 pı̄pal would have been utterly sacrilegious. Moreover, considering that
the Buddhists believe that the Mahābodhi Tree forms the navel of the earth (pr.thvı̄nābhi) (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 Sim . hala monks to live in the whole of India,” the
kings is unwarranted. Permission to the Sri Lankans for the construction of the
Mahāvihāra Monastery in the close proximity of the Mahābodhi Tree was granted
by the Guptas themselves. In fact, the Sri Lankans appear to have been granted an
extraterritorial control of the shrine complex by Samudragupta. The Gupta kings
and their local feudatories have stayed away, it seems, to maintain non-interference
in the supervision of a site managed by the monastics of a vassal state. For this
reason, patronage to the Mahābodhi shrine appears to have come mostly from visiting
pilgrims and missions sent by foreign rulers. Further, it must be remembered that
the symbiotic link between pilgrimage and patronage, a salient feature of the history
of the sacred site at Bodh Gayā, had become firmly established from the period
of the Śuṅgas, when it became an internationally renowned pilgrimage centre for
Buddhists. An inscription on a Śuṅga railing recording the support of a Sri Lankan
pilgrim named Bodhiraks.ita is a good example of this (see Cunningham 1892: 16).
It has been erroneously suggested that as time went by, replacement of the
bodhighara by the construction of the tall brick temple must have required the relo-
cation of the Mahābodhi Tree some distance away and hence its separation from the
throne. On this basis, it has been further suggested, again erroneously, that as it was
the Vajrāsana, and not the foot (mūla) of the Mahābodhi Tree, that was intended to be
the exact spot of Enlightenment, relocation of the tree may not have been problematic
(see Malandra 1988: 14; Verardi 2011: 405).12 On the contrary, it would have been
definitely a problem. The foot of the Mahābodhi Tree is the Vajrāsana, as it were,
and there is no way that an effort could have been made to separate the two. Thus, it
is hard to believe that the Mahābodhi Tree was relocated whenever the opportunity
presented itself. It seems that whenever the need or circumstances arose to build a tall
brick temple that could not be built under the Mahābodhi Tree, it may have been built
a few feet away to the east. However, if the events of the construction of the tall brick
temple and the planting of the new Mahābodhi Tree somehow coincided, though
its possibility would have been extremely remote, even then the spiritual protocol
would have required the tree to be planted at the exact spot. Clearly, the insensitive
Alexander Cunningham did not realize this when he went ahead with the planting of
two trees away from the exact spot after the Mahābodhi Tree fell in a storm in 1876.
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 “Sim . halas… (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 pı̄pal. 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?
When Faxian arrived here in the year 404 CE, he only saw a stūpa13 built at
the place of Enlightenment 14 (Legge 1886: 90; Giles 1977: 78) which subse-
quently appears to have been expanded or replaced by a towered temple. Alexander
Cunningham has suggested that as Faxian does not mention the existence of the
Mahābodhi Temple when he visited this place and Xuanzang (CE 629–642) gives a
detailed account not only of its existence but also its construction, it must have been
constructed sometime during the period between the visits of these two Chinese visi-
tors.15 He credits Amara Deva (identified with Brāhman.a Amara Sim . ha, the author
of Amara Kośa), a member of the court of king Vikramāditya, for constructing it
“in compliance with the command of Buddha himself, conveyed to him in a vision”
(Cunningham 1871: 6–7).16 This, he supports, on the basis of the information avail-
able in an inscription17 dated in the year 948 CE (Vikrama Era 1005) which recorded
its construction in about 500 CE and the exact conformity in size as well as in mate-
rial and ornamentation between the existing temple and that described by Xuanzang,
he felt “satisfied that the present lofty temple is the identical one that was built by
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 parinirvān.a (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 Huvis.ka along with some silver punch-marked coins. According
to Cunningham, the Great Temple was constructed by a brāhman.a and financed by King Huvis.ka
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
the celebrated Amara Sinha” (Cunningham 1871: 7–8).18 Using the cue that Faxian
does not mention the temple as well as the testimony of Yijing,19 it has also been
suggested (for instance, Verardi 2011: 370, 405), that the temple may have been built
by the Sri Lankans sometime during the fifth-sixth centuries CE.20
According to Xuanzang, the small shrine built by Aśoka was later enlarged by
a brāhman.a (Li 1996: 218). Xuanzang (629–644 CE) in his Da Tang Xiyu Ji (The
Great Tang Records of the Western Regions) describes the Mahābodhi Temple as
follows:
To the east of the bodhi tree is a shrine one hundred sixty or seventy feet high, built on a
base of which the front is more than twenty paces wide. It was built with brick and plastered
with lime. In all the niches arranged in tiers, there are golden images, and on the four walls
there are marvellous carvings in the shapes of strings of pearls or figures of spirits. On top
is installed a gilded copper āmalaka fruit (also said to be a precious bottle or a precious
pot). It is connected with a storied pavilion at the east, the eaves of which are in three layers.
The rafters, pillars, ridgepoles, beams, doors, and windows are adorned with gold and silver
carvings and studded with a mixture of pearls and jade. The innermost chamber of the shrine
has three doors connecting with the other parts of the structure. On each side of the outer
door there is a niche containing an image of Avalokiteśvara Bodhisattva on the left side and
one of Maitreya Bodhisattva on the right side, both cast in silver and more than ten feet in
height (Li 1996: 217–218).21
Interestingly, Xuanzang points out that the brāhman.a responsible for constructing
the Mahābodhi Temple as well as his younger brother who dug out the large pond
were directed by Maheśvara for this purpose:
There was once a brahman who did not believe in the buddha-dharma but worshiped the
deity Maheśvara. He heard that the deity was living in the Snow Mountains, so he went
Jamboodweep… where it may obtain salvation, reputation, and enjoyment, even in the country
of Bharata, and the province of Keekat.a, 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 brāhman.as 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 brāhman.a.
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.
with his younger brother to seek the fulfillment of his wishes from the deity. The deity said,
“Your wishes can be fulfilled only when you have done meritorious deeds. It is not that you
can get things by merely saying prayers, nor can I make you satisfied.” The brahman said,
“What meritorious deed should I do so that my mind can be satisfied?” The deity said, “If
you wish to plant the seed of goodness you should find the field of blessedness. The bodhi
tree is the place where the Buddha attained buddhahood, so you should quickly go back to
the bodhi tree and build a great shrine, dig out a large pond, and make various offerings.
Then your wishes will be fulfilled.” Under the deity’s injunction the brahman, cherishing
a mind of great faith, returned with his younger brother. The elder one built the shrine and
the younger one excavated the pond. Then they made rich offerings to seek the fulfillment
of their wishes. They finally realized their wishes and became cabinet ministers to the king.
They gave away as alms whatever emoluments or rewards they received (Li 1996: 218).
Thereafter, according to Xuanzang, another brāhman.a built the image of the

Buddha in bhūmi-sparśa-mudrā inside the cella
When the shrine was completed artists were invited to make an image of the Tathāgata as he
appeared at the time of attaining buddhahood, but for a long time no one answered the call
for the job. At last a brahman came and said to the monks, “I am good at making fine images
of the Tathāgata.” The monks said, “What do you need for making the image?” The brahman
said, “I only need some scented clay and a lamp to be placed inside the shrine. After I have
entered the shrine the door should be tightly closed, and only opened again after six months.”
The monks did as they were told, but just four days short of six months they opened the
door out of curiosity to see [what was going on]. They saw that the image inside the shrine
was in the posture of sitting cross-legged facing the east, with the right foot upon [the left
thigh]; the left hand was drawn back and the right one pointed downward. It was just as if
the figure was alive. The pedestal was four feet two inches high and twelve feet five inches
wide, and the image was eleven feet five inches tall. The two knees were eight feet eight
inches apart, and the width from one shoulder to another measured six feet two inches. All
the auspicious physical symbols of a buddha were complete and the compassionate features
were true to reality, except that a little spot above the right breast was unfinished…. It is
made with the right hand pointing downward because just as the Tathāgata was about to
attain buddhahood Māra came to disturb him, but the earth gods informed him of Māra’s
arrival (Li 1996: 218–219).22
The difference between the story related by Xuanzang and the one mentioned
in the Bodh Gayā’s Stone Inscription is that whereas Amara Deva constructs the
temple in compliance with the command of the Buddha as incarnation of Lord Vis.n.u
and the brāhman.as mentioned by Xuanzang are devotees of Maheśvara. Even if the
stone inscription of Bodh Gayā were fake, Xuanzang’s testimony by itself hints at
the indelible contribution of the Brāhman.ical-Hindus in the growth and development
of the Mahābodhi Temple.
A Sri Lankan monk called Prakhyātakı̄rti who came in the seventh century, built a
shrine and also made some repairs to the Mahābodhi Temple (see Bloch 1912: 153;
Cunningham 1982: 23; Barua 1931–34, II: 71–72; Dhammika 1992: 55). However, it
appears that after this no major repairs or enhancements were made to the Mahābodhi
Temple for nearly four centuries. It was only in 1010 CE that some minor repairs are
reported to have been undertaken by Mahipāla I of Pāla Dynasty (eighth– twelfth
22 TheDharmasvāmin, who visited here in 1234 CE also supports Xuanzang’s version that the
Mahābodhi image “was erected by a young son of a Brāhman.a” (Roerich 1959: 68–69).
century CE). The Mahābodhi Temple reached its zenith “under Pāla and Sena rule,
when it clearly stood as a thriving hub of royal patronage, artistic production, and
pan-Asian Buddhist activity” (Guha-Thakurta 2004: 282). Thereafter, the Burmese
carried out major restoration and renovation at least twice during the twelfth and thir-
teenth centuries “significantly altering the original design” (Trevithick 1999: 649.
Also see Cunningham 1892: 77). Tāranātha refers to some damage coming to the
Mahābodhi Temple towards the end of the eleventh century as a consequence of fire
that was put out by the monks (Chimpa and Chattopadhyaya 1970: 302–303). The
last Indian Buddhist King to carry out repairs was King Aśokaballa of Sapadalaks.a
located in the Śivālik Hills of the Punjab. He along with a local chieftain called
Purus.uttama Sim . ha carried out several repairs in the year 1157 CE under the super-
vision of a Buddhist monk, Dharmaraks.ita (Cunningham 1892: 79; Roerich 1959:
xxii-xxiii).
After the Turus.ka attacks in the region began towards the closing years of the
twelfth century, patronage and travel to the Mahābodhi Temple appears to have nearly
ended except the occasional daredevil23 and one comes across only two examples
of some repair work done in the last quarter of the thirteenth century. One was in
the year 1286 CE when four persons, including a Tibetan monk called Grub-thob
O-rgyan, another person working on behalf of the king of Laṅkā, and two others, are
said to have repaired one side each of the Mahābodhi Temple (see Verardi 394 fn.
233). The second example is recorded in a Burmese inscription of 1833 according
to which some repair work was done at the temple between the years 1295 and
1298 CE (Singh 2017: 243). Thereafter, the Mahābodhi Temple became derelict,
additions and renovations resuming only in the eighteenth century culminating in
its near reconstruction and repossession by the British in the 1880s. Now, it may be
said that though the present structure was largely created through several massive
restorations during the second half of the nineteenth century, it incorporates large
parts of earlier work dating from as early a period as the second century BCE (see
Mitchel 1989: 228–229).
The site of the Mahābodhi Temple appears to have been multivalent since before
the Buddha took his seat under the Mahābodhi Tree. Occasionally, the Sri Lankans
may have tried to turn it into a purely Buddhist place or kings like Śaśāṅka may have
tried to turn it into a predominantly Śaivite place for extra-religious considerations,
but all such efforts were unsuccessful. For instance, with regard to Śaśāṅka, it has
been suggested that “[t]he uprooting of the Bodhi Tree may have been an economic
move against the Buddhist hierarchy of Magadha, as presents from all over the
Buddhist world were offered at the Bodhi Tree” (Sinha 1954: 259–260). Though at
the beginning of the seventh century and then in the late eighth century CE Śaivites
had predominant presence at the shrine and at other times, it was under the control of
the Sri Lankan Buddhists, the shrine has never ceased to be a multivalent site. Other
than the Buddhist sculptures that have been found here in large quantities, Śaivite and
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).
Vais.n.avite sculptures dated from the ninth to the eleventh century CE, have also been
found all over the site (Huntington Archive 2015). Buddhist scholar Benimadhab
Barua has pointed out that at least since the Kus.ān.a period pious Brāhman.ical-
Hindus had been visiting Dharmaprastha (Bodh Gayā) to have a sacred touch of
the Buddha image, pay respectful homage to it as well as the Mahābodhi Tree for
the purposes of releasing the departed spirits of their ancestors (Barua 1934: 233).
He further points out that a time had come when in the Buddhist legend itself, the
Śaiva Brāhman.ical deity Maheśvara was entrusted with the benign work of acting
as the guardian angel to the Buddha. The testimony of Xuanzang clearly proves that
as early as the seventh century CE the Buddhists themselves freely recognized the
temple as a magnificent erection of the devotional piety of a Śaivite brāhman.a who
undertook the costly work under inspiration from no other deity than Maheśvara.
If we can rely upon the testimony of the great Chinese pilgrim, the life-like image of the
Buddha which he found enshrined in the main sanctuary of the temple at the time of his
visit was the wonderful handiwork of a skilled Brahmin artist employed by the builder of
the temple. If the two Brahmin brothers had afterwards become votaries of the Buddha, for
that, too, the credit is due at the first instance to Śiva-Maheśvara, the Brahmanical deity,
ungrudgingly rendering distinct service to the Buddha (Barua 1934: 223–224).
The multivalent nature of the Mahābodhi Temple is also indicated by a tenth

century inscription from Bodh Gayā (Bloch 1912: 150) of one Keśava, son of Ujjvala,
the stone-cutter. According to this inscription, the erudite Śaivite brāhman.a scholars
and their successors were living at Bodh Gayā side by side with the Buddhists of the
place without any feeling of enmity or discord. The record goes so far as to indicate
that a devout Hindu was freely allowed to set up a stone-figure of Śiva-Brahmā
(Mahādevaś-Caturmukha) within the temple of Buddha-Dharmeśa for the benefit of
the Śaivite Brāhman.a scholars of the locality. The text of the inscription goes as
follows
Om . . (A figure of) chaumukh-Mahādev [a liṅga with four faces, being a phallic device,
representing a figure of Śiva and the four-faced Brahmā] has been installed in the pleasant
abode (temple) of (Buddha), the Lord of Righteousness [Dharmeśa or Dharmeśvara is a
designation of the Buddha-image worshipped at Bodhgayā], by Keśava, son of Ujjvala, the
stone-cutter, for the benefit of the descendants of snātakas (the erudite Śaivite Brahmin
scholars) residing at Mahābodhi (Bodha-Gayā). A tank, of exceeding depth and holy like
the river Ganges has been excavated for these good people at the cost of three thousand
drachmas. (Written) in the 26th year of the reign of Dharmapāla, the enjoyer of the earth, on
the 5th day of the dark fortnight of Bhādrapada, on a Saturday. Om. (Barua nd: 266).
The Dharmasvāmin has pointed out that when he visited the Mahābodhi Temple
in c. 1234 CE, it was under considerable Ceylonese influence; none but Sri Lankan
monks could carry out the worship of the Buddha or sleep in the courtyard of the
temple.24 However, refering to the overall multivalent nature of the places of worship,
the Dharmasvāmin says, “The procedure of the image worship in Buddhist temples
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).
of Bihar and Nepāla was at this time very similar to that in Hindu shrines. The
Pañchāmr.ta-snāna or the bath in curds, milk, honey, sugar and ghee had become
quite common in the Buddhist temples” (Roerich 1959: xxiv). Hindus, says the Dhar-
masvāmin, gave alms to Buddhist monks; one of the main supporters of Rāhula-śrı̄-
Bhadra, the last abbot of Nālandā, was a Brāhman.a lay disciple at Odantapurı̄, named
Jayadeva. Rāmasim . ha, the Hindu Raja of Tirhut, asked the Dharmasvāmin to become
his chaplain. When he expressed his inability to do so, the king gave him a number of
valuable presents. “Dharmasvāmin replied that it was improper for him, a Buddhist,
to become the Guru of a non-Buddhist. The Rājā accepted it, and… honoured him
with numerous requisites” (Roerich 1959: 100). It is therefore no surprise that both
the Brāhman.ical-Hindus and Buddhists have traditionally performed worship side-
by-side at Bodh Gayā. The Gayā Māhātmya which is the concluding portion of the
Vāyu Purān.a (Tagare 1987: 910–972) and was composed around the time when the
international pilgrimage to the Mahābodhi Temple almost came to a halt, further
cemented the multivalent character of the Mahābodhi Temple when the brāhman.as
of Gayā began to officiate as priests at the worship of the Buddha-Dharmeśvara at
Bodh Gayā which formed part of the Gayāks.etra (see Barua 1934: 2).25
References
Press.
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.
Dhammika, S. 1992. Middle land middle way. Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society.
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 89
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
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.
Mukherjee, B.N. 1984–85. Inscribed ‘Mahabodhi Temple’ Plaque from Kumrahar. Journal of the
Indian Society of Oriental Art, n.s., 14: 43–46.
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).
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 Purān.a, 2 vols. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Trevithick, Alan. M. 1999. British archaeologists, Hindu abbots, and Burmese Buddhists: The
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.
Chapter 6
The Sri Lankans, the Turus.kas,
the Mahants, and the British
Abstract Though Sri Lankans pilgrims appear to have begun to visit the Mahābodhi
shortly after Aśoka’s son Mahendra and daughter Sam . ghamitrā went to proselytize
there, International pilgrimage became an established phenomenon by the latter half
of the fourth century when the Indian King Samudragupta allowed Sri Lankans to
build a rest house (sam . ghārāma) near the Mahābodhi Tree. From now onwards, a
large number of the important Buddhist structures in the Mahābodhi Temple Complex
are attributed to Sri Lankan patrons. At times the control of Sri Lankan monks over
the Mahābodhi Temple and its ecclesiastical affairs appears to have been strong
enough that none but they could carry out the worship of the Buddha or sleep in
the courtyard of the temple. The hegemony of the Sri Lankan monks continued
till Turus.ka attacks when the Temple became derelict towards the beginning of the
fourteenth century. About four centuries later, Śaivite Giri mahants took up a perma-
nent residence here. The practice of derelict Indic sites with a sacred background
being reused by other Indic faiths was not uncommon during the ancient and medi-
aeval period. Moreover, multiple-affiliation was quite normal rather than exceptional
among the various Indic faiths. Consequent upon the occupation of the Temple by
the Śaivite Giri mahants, Buddhist symbols, rituals, or images were left undisturbed.
Remarkably, the Śaiva worshippers embraced all that was there and nothing was
destroyed. With the passage of time, the mahants became the owners not only of
the land on which the Mahābodhi Temple stands but also large estate surrounding it
through many royal decrees of the Mughal emperors and their feudatories. When after
securing permission from the mahant through the British Government, the Burmese
started their repair work in January 1876, it was found that the “Burmese workers
were making a mess of the old temple.” This gave a good excuse to the government
which took on the “responsibility” of the restoration work thus becoming a stake-
holder in the sacred space. During the restoration, demolition, and reconstruction
during the 1880s, Hindus and the Buddhists continued to share the sacred space
occupied by the Mahābodhi Temple without any issue. However, some mischievous
British Indologists intensified their efforts to drive a wedge between the Hindus
and the Buddhists through a portrayal of Bodh Gayā as a pristine Buddhist place
of the egalitarian and peace-loving Buddhists illegally occupied by the caste-ridden
and corrupt Brāhman.ical-Hindus. Consequently, the tranquillity and peace of Bodh
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8067-3_6
92 6 The Sri Lankans, the Turus.kas, the Mahants, and the British
Gayā was for the first time disturbed in modern India by semi-religieux Anagārika
Dharmapāla who was partly carrying with him a baggage of Sinhala intolerance and
who was partly instigated by the British Indologists.

Sri Lankans were the first international pilgrims who began to visit the Mahābodhi
Temple shortly after Aśoka’s son Mahendra and daughter Sam . ghamitrā went to Sri
Lanka to proselytize.1 Visits by the Sri Lankan pilgrims picked up a definite pace
from the beginning of the Śuṅga period since when records of donations made by
some of them are available.2 As a matter of fact, the practice of Sri Lankan pilgrims
paying a visit to the Mahābodhi Tree and the shrine had become so regular by the
latter half of the fourth century that the Sri Lankan king Sirimeghavanna (r. 352–379
CE) approached and successfully persuaded the Indian King Samudragupta (r.335–
380 CE) to allocate a piece of land for the construction of a monastic rest house
(sam. ghārāma) near the Mahābodhi Tree for Sri Lankan pilgrims. Consequently,
the Mahābodhi Monastery consisting of “six courtyards and three-storied pavilions,
surrounded by walls thirty or forty feet high” was built towards the north of the
Mahābodhi Tree (see Li 1996: 227).3 It appears that King Samudragupta had granted
this piece of land,4 probably including the control of the shrine complex, to the Sri
Lankan vassal state5 with extraterritorial privileges or at least so it appears from
the behaviour of the Sri Lankan monks who began to conduct themselves as the
extraterritorial custodians of the shrine complex. Taking about the establishment of
the Mahābodhi Monastery and its long-term consequences, A.S. Altekar has pointed
out that
the privilege of being the official priests of the Mahābodhi temple had now passed on to
the Ceylonese monks. This is an interesting development. … This facilitated the entry and
residence of a Buddhist colony from Ceylon. … Buddhist monks from Ceylon continued to
1 It has been suggested that the honorific term devānampiya was conferred by Aśoka on King
Tissa of Sri Lanka as Sri Lanka appears to have become a sphere of Aśoka’s Dharma missionary
activity prior to the arrival of Mahendra. Mahendra’s visit may be seen as the official introduction
of Buddhism into Sri Lanka and “it is not reasonable to believe that information about the Buddha
and his teachings and the news of the great activities of the mighty Buddhist Emperor of India had
not reached the Island earlier” (Rahula 1956: 48).
2 For instance, an inscription on a Śuṅga railing records the support of a Sri Lankan pilgrim named
Bodhiraks.ita (see Cunningham 1892: 16).

3 In the centuries following its construction, the Mahābodhi Samghārama appears to have evolved
.
into a centre of higher learning with specialization in Theravāda Buddhism, where Buddhaghos.a
had sojourned and the Sri Lankan pan.d.ita Ānandaśrı̄ (who afterwards lived and taught in Tibet) had
taught (see Verardi: 370–371, 394 fn.229; Dhammika nd).
4 It was a normal practice of the Gupta kingdom to make landgrants to priests, temples, and
feudatories (see Sharma 1958).

5 The Prayāga Praśasti, known as the Allahabad Pillar Inscription of Samudragupta, mentions the
island country of Sim . hala as the vassal state of Samudragupta (Fleet 1888: 8, 14 (line 23). See also
Majumdar and Altekar 1967: 137).
6 The Sri Lankans, the Turus.kas, the Mahants, and the British 93
come and stay at Mahābodhi, instal images and make endowments during the intervening
centuries. … How Ceylonese Buddhist monks acquired a vested interest in the temple and
became its privileged and exclusive priests is a mystery. Nor do we know how they lost that
right (1959: xxiii–xxiv).
Thus, one is not surprised that a large number of the important Buddhist structures
in the Mahābodhi Temple Complex are attributed to Sri Lankan patrons (Roerich
1959: xxviii). In fact, there may be some truth in the suggestion that originally the
Mahābodhi Temple, in place of the smaller bodhighara, may have been built by the
Sri Lankans (see Verardi 2011: 405).
By the time, the Mahābodhi Monastery was built by the Sri Lankans, Buddhism
in India had become highly diversified and the Brāhman.ical-Hindus had embraced
the Buddha as the incarnation of Vis.n.u. However, in Sri Lanka the symbiotic union
of robe and the throne had produced a fairly monolithic Pāli-based Buddhism that
had by now become strongly rooted in Sim . hala nationalism. Establishment of an
extraterritorial base right under the shadow of the Mahābodhi Tree by this brand of
Sri Lankan Buddhists must be seen as the first attempt to undermine the multivalent
character of the Mahābodhi Temple Complex. King Samudragupta must be also be
held responsible, at least in part, for unwittingly sowing the seeds of future conflict
surrounding the Mahābodhi Temple.
After the establishment of the Nālandā University, the Mahābodhi had begun to
draw pilgrims, besides Sri Lanka, from as far away as China, Korea, and Central
Asia (see Beal 1881). These pilgrims of Mahāyāna persuasion appear to have faced
hurdles from time to time in performing unhindered puja at the premises of the
Mahābodhi Temple Complex. At times the control of Sri Lankan monks over the
Mahābodhi Temple and its ecclesiastical affairs appears to have been strong enough
that none but they could carry out the worship of the Buddha or sleep in the courtyard
of the temple. This is further made clear by inscriptions such as the Patna Museum
Inscription of Prakhyātakı̄rti (c. 300 CE), a descendant of the royal family of Laṅkā,6
the Bodha-Gayā Inscription of Mahānāman (c. 588–9 CE),7 and the Udayatrı̄ records
from Siṅhala dated circa twelfth century8 (see Altekar 1959: xxiii). Thus, much
before the arrival of the Turus.ka (Turkic) invaders in the region, the Mahābodhi
Temple Complex became a casualty of the puritanical belligerence of Sri Lankan
Theravādin monks who openly opposed practises that did not conform to Singhalese
version of Buddhism. For instance, during the reign of the Pāla king Dharmapāla
(ca. 770–810 CE),
In a temple of Vajrāsana there was then a large silver-image of Heruka and many treatises
on Tantra. Some of the Śrāvaka Sendhava-s of Siṅga island (Ceylon) and other places said
that Māra composed these. So, they burnt these and smashed the image into pieces and used
the pieces as ordinary money…. Later on, the king came to know all these and was about to
punish the Siṅgala islanders. But the ācārya saved them at last (Chimpa and Chattopadhyaya
1970: 279).
6 Archaeological Survey of India: Annual Report, 1908–09: 156; Journal of the Bihar & Orissa
Research Society, Poona, IV: 408.
7 Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, vol.III, Calcutta, 1888: 279.
8 Journal of the Bihar & Orissa Research Society, Poona, vol.V: 147.
At the time of the Senas, “The Mahāyānı̄s did not have any special importance in
Vajrāsana, though some of the yogı̄-s and Mahāyānı̄s continued to preach there.
During a vars.āvāsa, about ten thousand Śrāvaka Sendhavas congregated there”
(Chimpa and Chattopadhyaya 1970: 318–319). The most compelling evidence of
Sri Lankan dominance and control of the Mahābodhi Temple has been offered by
the Dharmasvāmin9 who visited this place sometime between the years 1234 CE
and 1236 CE. According to him, “the Ceylonese monks, 300 in number, were in
charge of the worship at the Mahābodhi temple and no one other than they, could
sleep in the courtyard of the main temple” (Roerich 1959: 73). Thus, when the
Dharmasvāmin entered the Mahābodhi temple, the Sri Lankan priest enquired about
the Indian manuscript that he was carrying in his hand. When he said that it was
the As..tasahasrikā-Prajñāpāramitā, the priest said to him “You seem to be a good
monk, but this carrying on your back of a Mahāyāna book is not good. Throw it into
the river!” (Roerich 1959: 74). The priest further remarked that Mahāyāna was not
preached by the Buddha but by Nāgārjuna and to worship Khasarpan.a was illogical,
for he was a mere householder and had not even renounced the world (Roerich 1959:
73–74).
The Mahābodhi Temple Complex being under the control of the Sri Lankan monks
is also indirectly indicated by an inscription of King Aśokaballa of Sapadalaks.a
located in the Śivālik Hills of Haryana. According to this inscription dateable to
c.1157 CE, Aśokaballa made a provision for daily offerings for the “heavy presence”
of the members of the Sim . hala Sam. gha at the Mahābodhi Temple (Cunningham
1892: 79; Roerich 1959: xxii). Another inscription of an Indian king discovered at
Jānı̄bighā (six miles east of Bodh Gayā) and dated in the Lakshman.asena Sam . vat
83 (1202 CE) talks about a Sri Lankan monk, Maṅgala Svāmin, looking after the
Mahābodhi Temple: “This village of Kat.thalā, with land and water, without any
reservation, together with the plough-tax, in Saptaghat.t.a, is granted by charter to the
majestic Diamond Throne for its monastery, in trust of Monk Maṅgala Svāmin of
Ceylon, Master of the Tripit.aka, by the King, the son of Buddhasena, for as long as
the sun and the moon endure” (Panday 1918: 280; see also Majumdar 1919: 43–48).
Commenting on the Jānı̄bighā inscription, K.P. Jayaswal has pointed out that
This Mahant Maṅgala Svāmin, curiously enough, was a man from Ceylon, noted for his
knowledge of the Tripit.aka. The line-drawing on the top of the inscription shows the Buddha
seated on the Diamond Throne under the Bodhi tree. At present the Diamond Throne is
lying detached from the Shrine. Formerly it was, on the evidence of this drawing, beneath
the statue of the Buddha under the Bodhi tree. The monk who received the gift on behalf of the
Vajrāsana was necessarily the guardian of the whole Shrine at Bodh-Gayā. It is interesting to
note that Hı̄nayāna School still held the shrine and abbots for their knowledge of the Tripit.aka
were imported from Ceylon as late as the beginning of the thirteenth century (Jayaswal 1918:
272).
The imagery of Bodh Gayā of the Pāla period (circa eighth through twelfth
centuries) has been found to be far more conservative than that found at other major
9 HisSanskrit was so good, we are told, that he was mistaken by the locals at Bodh Gayā, for an
Indian (Kosak and Singer 1998: 14).
eastern Indian sites (see Huntington 1984: 96; Asher 1980: 76). “This supposed
conservatism has sometimes been linked to evidence of a sustained presence of Sri
Lankan Buddhists at the site, and there is indeed evidence of such, especially in the
twelfth and thirteenth centuries” (Leoshko 1991: 46). On the basis of her examina-
tion of several inscriptions belonging to the early years of the thirteenth century from
Bodh Gayā, Janice Leoshko has pointed out that these inscriptions indicate a special
role for Sri Lankan monks (1987: 41–45, 1991: 46).
Bodh Gayā appears to have endured at least two organized and many sporadic
assaults by the Turus.ka soldiers during the last quarter of the twelfth century and the
first half of the thirteenth century.10 The Dharmasvāmi mentions that the mother of
the brāhman.a boy who had made the Buddha image11 for the sanctum sanctorum,
“presented an emerald, out of which they fashioned the eyes of the image. It is told
that the precious stone which was inserted between the eyebrows (of the image)
emitted such light that formerly one was able to read at dusk. A Turushka soldier
having placed a ladder climbed up and pulled the stones out” (Roerich 1959: 70).
Giving a graphic account of the adversity that had fallen upon the Mahābodhi Temple,
the Dharmasvāmin mentions that
[T]he place was deserted and only four monks were found staying (in the Vihāra). One (of
them) said, “It is not good! All have fled from fear of the Turushka soldiery”. They blocked
up the door in front of the Mahabodhi image with bricks and plastered it. … The monks said,
“We five do not dare to remain here and shall have to flee.” As the day’s stage was long and
the heat great, said the Dharmasvāmin, they felt tired, and as it became dark, they remained
there and fell asleep. Had the Turushkas come, they would not have known it.
At daybreak they fled towards the North following the rut of a cart, and for seventeen days
the Dharmasvāmin did not see the face of the image (i.e., the Mahābodhi image). At that
time also a woman appeared, who brought the welcome news that the Turus.ka soldiery had
gone far away.
Then the Dharmasvāmin returned to Vajrāsana, and stayed there worshipping and circum-
ambulating the image of the Mahābodhi (Roerich 1959: 64).
However, the Dharmasvāmin witnessed at the Diamond Throne those objects

that were not either of much value to the Turus.kas or did not draw their immediate
attention. These included “many wonders and numerous exceptionally holy objects
of worship, such as the Bodhi tree, the image of Mahābodhi, the Gandhola erected by
the Dharmarāja Aśoka, the corner-tooth of the Tathāgata, the two foot-prints of the
Blessed One on the empty stone throne of Śākyamuni of the’Phrul-snaṅ Temple of
Tibet, the stone wall erected by Ārya Nāgārjuna, and the Temple of the Tārā known as
10 Referring to the Turus.ka attacks, Alexander Cunningham, after examining the archaeological
remains in the vicinity of the Mahābodhi Temple, pointed out that “it is certain that the two famous
establishments of Mahābodhi and Nālandā could not have escaped. … whilst everything of value
that was not secreted must have been either carried off or destroyed. To the savage iconoclasm of
this irruption must be due the many headless and broken statues that are found at both places. I
think it nearly certain that these famous monasteries were then sacked and desolate, and that they
remained so for a long time” (1892: 56).
11 According to the Dharmasvāmin, the power of this image was so great that “even people of little
faith when standing in front of the image felt it impossible not to shed tears” (Roerich 1959: 67).
the Tārāvihāra” (Roerich 1959: 65). The terror created by the roving bands of Turus.ka
soldiers in Bihar through their loot and exactions is leitmotif in the memoirs of the
Dharmasvāmin. This is perhaps so because he himself had to face the brunt of their
terror. Once when he was crossing the Gaṅgā in a ferry boat, two Turus.ka soldiers
climbed on to this ferry and “snatched away the begging bowl of Dharmasvāmin….
The matter was eventually compromised by Dharmasvāmin offering a pan.a on his
own behalf” (Roerich 1959: 89).
The geopolitical situation in Bihar appears to have changed after attacks of the
Turus.kas to the extent that it resulted in a serious setback to the flow of international
pilgrims to Bodh Gayā for the next several hundred years. From now onwards only
the most enterprising persons would undertake the journey to India to pay homage
at Bodh Gayā. In reality, the Turus.ka attacks appear to have dealt a coup-de-grace
to the already enervated Buddhism in the region as a whole. A small number of
monks who succeeded in surviving the Turus.ka attacks, for them living at Bodh
Gayā became increasingly challenging not only due to the stream of pilgrims having
almost completely dried up but also because royal patronage was no longer coming
forth. Consequently, one by one the monks drifted away and the Mahābodhi Temple
fell prey to the vagaries of nature for nearly four centuries.
In c.1590 a wandering Śaivite saṅnyāsin named Gossāiṅ Ghaman.d.ı̄ Gir (1590–
1615), an heir to the tradition of philosopher Śam . karācārya, visited the Mahābodhi
Temple on a pilgrimage. In the traditional account it has been mentioned that struck by
its serenity and quietude, he decided to build an āśrama opposite the Temple and take
up a permanent residence here.12 It may be mentioned that the Śaivite saṅnyāsin may
have also felt some sense of responsibility towards a holy site that in the past had been
protected by the god that he worshipped. Henceforth, Gossāiṅ Ghaman.d.ı̄’s succes-
sors, the mahants, were in continuous residence here. When Gossāiṅ Ghaman.d.ı̄ Gir
came here, the Mahābodhi Temple had been overrun by undergrowth and shrub-
bery and had nothing by way of a priest, caretaker, or worshipper. He and his two
successors “cut down the woods…(and)… built up the place” (Mackenzie 1902: 75).
Appropriation of a derelict temple by a saṅnyāsin such as this one, located near a
small village, was an act that no one questioned. The practice of derelict Indic sites
with a sacred background being reused by other Indic faiths was not uncommon at all
during the ancient and mediaeval period. Multiple-affiliation was quite normal rather
than exceptional among the various Indic faiths.13 Consequent upon the occupation
of the Temple by the Śaivite Giri mahants, Buddhist symbols, rituals, or images were
12 The Bodh Gayā Order was a branch of one of the ten Daśanāmı̄ monastic mat.hs (orders) of
“single-staff renunciation” (eka dan.d.i saṅnyāsi) founded by Śam
. karācārya (see Trevithick 2006:
20). The small monastery of Bodh Gayā was the headquarters of this sect. Since its establishment
in 1590, this sect has had no robust administrative or institutional or connection with any other
ascetical organization (Trevithick 2006: 23). Though an active Śaiva monastic presence still exists
at Bodh Gayā, according to oral tradition, this monastery is ranked thirty-sixth among the fifty-two
major Śaivite mat.hs, making it comparatively minor within the Śaiva monastic system. However,
it has served as an important anchor for Hindu pilgrims who visit Bodh Gayā in conjunction with
visits to the nearby tı̄rtha of Gayā (see Kinnard 2013: 157–168).
13 This type of behaviour is amply exemplified by sites such as Ajantā, Ellorā, and Sı̄rpur. The earliest
..
cave excavation at Ajan.t.ā started towards the end of the late sixth century and was dedicated to
left undisturbed. Remarkably, the Śaiva worshippers embraced all that was there and
nothing was destroyed. Even today, in addition to adoptation as well as adaptation
of images of the Buddha and Bodhisattvas, the Hindus propitiate their deceased
ancestors at the Mahābodhi Tree (Asher 2008: 69). The Giri mahants of Bodh Gayā
always adopted an inclusive approach in which Buddhist pilgrims were readily and
unquestionably accommodated as worshippers.
The second mahant, Caitanya Gir (1615–1642), who is credited with building a
spacious mat.ha (monastery) on the banks of the Phalgu River, was a man of great
learning. His mortal remains were buried within the premises of the Mahābodhi
Temple Complex and a small temple was built encompassing them. Caitanya Gir’s
successor, Mahādeva Gir (1642–1682), erected a small shrine to Goddess Annapūrn.ā,
provider of a vessel that never runs short of food (see Bahadur 1893). According to an
official report prepared in 1893 by the DM-cum-DC of Gayā under the orders of G.A.
Grierson, the Magistrate-cum-Collector of Gayā, the Mughal emperor Muhammad
Shah Alam (1719–1748) had conferred in 1728 through a firman (royal decree) on
Mahant Lāl Gir (1682-?), the fourth mahant, the madad māsh (fief) of “the villages of
Mastipur and Tārād.ı̄h, in which the Buddhist Mahābodhi temple is situated. A jagir
of six villages was presented to the Mat.h by Wazı̄rul-Mumālik Qamaruddin Khan….
(Later, the next Giri) … got a present of Antarin and other villages from Emperor
Farukh Siyar of Delhi” (Bahadur 1893: 1). Thus, different Mughal emperors granted
royal decrees of ownership of the land on which the Mahābodhi Temple stands as
well as its environs. The seventh Giri, Mahant Rāmhit Gir (1769–1806) obtained in
1769 “lākhirāj lands and villages from the Maharajas of Tikari and Ichak” (Bahadur
1893: 2). Then in the year 1820, the eighth Giri, Mahant Bālak Gir (1806–1820),
“obtained a few villages from Maharaja Rāmsingh of Jaspur” (Bahadur 1893: 2).
The seals, names, and dates of the granting emperors and other authorities are well
documented in the records. Apart from the seal, the content of each of the grants is
specified in detail including dates and fief areas. It has been further mentioned in the
official report that during the time of the ninth Giri, mahant Śiva Gir (1820–1846),
“some of the properties were resumed under Regulation II of 1819 and Regulation III
of 1828, and that they were all released after due enquiry being held. The Mahanth…
was thus also acknowledged as Mahanth of Bodh Gayā by the British Government”
(Bahadur 1893: 2).14 It may be further noted that the signatures of the British rulers
appear on these documents. Over a dozen and half documents recognize Bodh Gayā
as the property of the mahants and include registration numbers, district names,
approval dates, recorded areas, actual areas, and dates on which the grants were
issued.15 Occasionally, the mahants also contributed towards the upkeep and repairs
Lord Śiva, followed by Buddhist, Brāhman.ical, and Jaina caves over the next several centuries (see
Malandra 1996: 181–208).
14 One might here get the impression that the Giris had rendered assistance to the British forces
during the events of 1857 and hence were favoured in getting legitimized in their ownership rights
at Bodh Gayā. “In fact, there is no evidence that the Giris rendered ‘valuabe aid’ during the Mutiny”
there is “some indication that they were not involved in any way” (Trevithick 1999: 639–640).
15 The Giri mahants had established themselves at Bodh Gayā in such a manner that both the
Government of Bengal and the Government of India were fully satisfied and had accepted that
to the Mahābodhi Temple. For instance, in a letter of 25 March 1881 addressed to the
eleventh mahant, Hem Nārāyan Gir (1867–1891), the Secretary to the Government of
Bengal wrote at the direction of the Lieutenant-Governor “to convey… an expression
of his thanks for the assistance offered by [him] in connection with the preservation
works which [were] being executed in the old temple at Bodh Gayā” (Bahadur 1893:
16). The British Government also acknowledges the benevolent works of mahant,
Hem Nārāyan Gir, such as construction of a local road at his own cost (Bahadur 1893:
13). The twelfth giri, mahant Kr.s.n.a Dayāl Gir (1891–1917), particularly known for
his open advocacy of interfaith approach, “contributed Rs. 2,500 in 1882 towards
the expenses of repairs of the Mahābodhi temple” (Bahadur 1893: 2). Similarly, one
of his predecessors extended not only a warm welcome to the Burmese Buddhist
pilgrims but also even protected one of his own monks who had been converted to
Buddhism by the Burmese (Hamilton-Buchanan 1830: 41). Here, it may be pointed
out that what Kr.s.n.a Dayāl Gir was doing was perfectly in line with the multivalent
nature of Indic religious milieu.16
During the period when the Mahābodhi Temple came under the control and then
possession of the Śaivite mahants, Buddhist pilgrims and devotees were able not
only to pay their respects but also to take on the task of repairs. Thus, it is not correct
to say that the Śaivas had “no religious interest” in the Temple. On the contrary,
they had been indeed worshipping the Buddhist images ever since their arrival at the
Mahābodhi Temple. Indian religieux as well as laity of various Indic faiths had not
only shared the image of the Buddha but had also shared the holy space of Bodh
Gayā for many centuries. The only exception that one comes across is the occasional
example of the intolerance shown by the Sri Lankans. None of the Buddhist pilgrims
are known to have ever complained of mistreatment or noncooperation at the hands
of the Giri mahants. The Panchen Lama is said to have sent a good-will embassy to
Bodh Gayā in the year 1777 (Eliot 1921: 13) (Fig. 1). King Badaw Paya sent a royal
mission in 1810 that carried out some minor repairs to the Mahābodhi Temple and
next year he himself came on a pilgrimage to Bodh Gayā. King Bagyi Daw sent in
1823 a royal mission with offerings for the Temple. A Japanese pilgrim, Kitabatake
Dōryū erected a stone monument in Japanese in December 1883 towards the right
side of the Mahābodhi Temple (Jaffe 2004: 65–06). Prince Damrong Rajanubhab of
Thailand wrote in 1893 in a memorandum after returning from pilgrimage to Bodh
Gayā:
I desire to put on record my warm appreciation of the courteous and hospitable reception
given to me by Mahant Krishna Dayāl Gir on the occasion of my visit to Bodh Gayā…. And
the evidence which I have seen on all sides that, in the hands of their present guardians, all
is being done that care and devotion can do to preserve and hand down to future generations
“possession and control” of the temple and its surroundings legitimately and legally belonged to
the mat.h (see Ronaldshay 1928: 337).
16 In contrast to the conventional accounts of linear development from Buddhist caitya to Hindu
temple, archaeological data confirms that both the Buddhist caitya and the Hindu temple were
contemporaneous in third–first centuries BCE and shared sacred space with a diverse range of
domestic, local, and regional cults (Ray 2004: 350–375).
Fig. 1 Watercolour drawing of the Mahabodhi temple at Bodh Gaya in Bihar, by James Crockatt, c.
1800. Inscribed on back in ink: ‘East view of the Hindoo temple at Bode-Gya, in the neighbourhood
of Gya in Behar’; ‘made by Capt. Crockatt.’ http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/onlineex/apac/other/
largeimage65760.html
these priceless monuments of the history and of the religion of so many millions of the
human race (Bahadur 1893: 16).
The tranquillity and peace of Bodh Gayā was for the first time disturbed in modern
India by semi-religieux Anagārika Dharmapāla who was partly carrying with him a
baggage of Sinhala intolerance and who was partly instigated by the British Indol-
ogists. In this regard, it may be pointed out that by about the first quarter of the
nineteenth century the colonial masters of India, through textual studies, began
to see Buddhism and Hinduism as two irreconcilably different religions whereby
Buddhism was portrayed as a protest movement against Brāhman.ism. Here in the
“heavyhandedness” of the brāhman.as, efforts were made to see “the other” in the
context of Buddhism vis-à-vis Hinduism.17 The formation of the Archaeological
Survey of India (ASI) in 1861, with Alexander Cunningham as its director, led to
the further perpetuation of such an attitude through the use of material remains.18
Cunningham openly and freely mocked Hindus who had violated the very chastity of
17 In this regard, it would be interesting to see how some of the German Indologists have equated
Brāhman.as with Jews, resulting in anti-Brāhman.ism (see an interesting study by Vishwa and
Bagchee 2014: 289–426).
18 It is worth noting that although Alexander Cunningham later gave up his overt imperialistic
enthusiasm, his and that of the Archaeological Survey of India’s earliest projects focused on India’s
Buddhist past, for Cunningham’s primary aim was to trace the itineraries of Chinese pilgrims
Indian sculpture, which in its early Buddhist state rivalled the Greeks, “until its degra-
dation culminated in the wooden inanities and bestial obscenities of the Brāhman.ical
temples” (Cunningham 1973: 87). And thus, we see once again “the recurrent narra-
tives of authenticity and origin, whereby the true identity of a structure comes to rest
on the recovery of a presumed primary moment of its coming into being” (Guha-
Thakurta 2004a: 248). Cunningham’s reports are replete with contempt and mockery
flung at the Hindu priesthood of the Mahābodhi Temple, particularly because it was
in a state of ruin. He further took the locals to task for their ignorance due to which
they had been using the site’s stones as building materials, and in this way “the
spectre of ‘mediaeval ravage’ inevitably dovetailed with a more current scenario of
‘native apathy and neglect’” (Guha-Thakurta 2004a: 249). These Victorian Oriental-
ists found the Hindu handling of the image of the Buddha as utterly repugnant. They
also saw the Buddha not only as a social reformer who led a crusade against Hinduism
but also as an ally in opposing Hinduism by preaching “the perfect equality of all
mankind…in spite of the menaces of the most powerful and arrogant priesthood in the
world…. who… had the courage to incite his countrymen to resist the forcible abduc-
tion of their wives and daughters by great men” (Cunningham 1854: 51). Indeed,
the Buddhist past was styled by these Victorian Orientalists as the authentic and
unadulterated antithesis to “the most abominable, and degrading system of oppres-
sion, ever invented by the craft of designing men” (Hamilton-Buchanan 1801: 167).
They projected the Mahābodhi Temple as a quintessential example where through the
institutionalization of “a disproportionate valuation on the site’s Buddhist moment of
origin” (Krusell 2010: 2), they portrayed the later presence of the perverted Hindus
as the desecration of the holiest shrine of the Buddhists. Cunningham’s observation
in 1861 of the presence of a Śivaliṅga in the sanctum sanctorum of the Mahābodhi
Temple and Edwin Arnold’s 1893 write-up in The Daily Telegraph of having seen
ignorant and insensitive “Maharatta peasants performing ‘shraddh’ in such a place,
and thousands of precious ancient relics of carved stone inscribed with Sanskrit lying
in piles around” (Arnold 1893: 240), can only be seen as part of the divisive and perni-
cious agenda of the Victorian Orientalists. Some of these highly prejudiced scholars
even resorted to lies to push forward such an agenda. Thus, it is impossible to believe
the assertion of the likes of Montgomery Martin and Hamilton-Buchanan that during
his visit to the Mahābodhi Temple in 1811 Hamilton-Buchanan saw Hindus having
“built a stair on the outside, so that orthodox may pass up without seeing the porch,
and thus, seeing the hateful image of the Buddha” (Hamilton-Buchanan 1830: 48;
Martin 1838: 75).
Of course, Edwin Arnold, who appears to have got his information directly from
the learned Cunningham, was the most mischievous among these Victorian Orien-
talists. He was the first person to come up with the outrageous idea of buying the
Mahābodhi Temple from the Hindus. According to him, “Buddha-Gaya is the most
from the fifth to seventh centuries. Thus, instead of a wide-reaching and comprehensive survey,
Cunningham selected for exploration only those areas or places that were visited by Faxian
and Xuanzang and portrayed by them as having ancient remains (Chakrabarti 1988: 58). Thus,
importance was given first to the event rather than the place per se.
dear and sacred to Asiatic Buddhists. Why, then, is it today in the hands of Brahman
priests, who do not care about the temple, except for the credit of owning it, and for
the fees which they draw?” (Arnold 1896: 310). Edwin Arnold wrote to the Governor
of Ceylon requesting
[T]here would be little difficulty… in procuring the departure of the Mahānt (sic) with his
priests, and the transfer of the temple and its grounds to the guardianship of Buddhists from
Ceylon and elsewhere. I have consulted high authorities, among them General Cunningham,
who thoroughly sympathises with the idea, and declares it entirely feasible… I apprehend
that a certain sum of money might be required to facilitate the transfer of the Brahmans… In
my opinion, a lakh of rupees could not be expended by any government in a more profitable
manner (Arnold 1893: 241).
Despite the scorn and derision of scholars such as Hamilton-Buchanan and

Cunningham, almost nothing was done to preserve the Mahābodhi Temple (Fig. 2).
The British Indian Government appears to have suddenly come out of its slumber
when in 1875 the Burmese King Mindon Min sought permission from the mahant
through the British Government of India “to repair the enclosures of the Great Bodi
[sic] tree, which from a long state of existence must have fallen into decay” (quoted at
Trevithick 1999: 648). The Burmese request “stimulated the government’s posses-
siveness over historical sites within its territory” (Krusell 2010: 6). The mahant
readily agreed to the Burmese request with the only caveat that the Brāhman.ical-
Hindu idols lying in the compound of the Temple be neither destroyed nor interfered
with (see Trevithick 1999: 650).19 The permission to the Burmese team consisted of
repairs to the Mahābodhi Temple as well as the construction of a fortification with
a fully enclosed monastery nearby for the regular stay of about twenty persons who
could perform different religious services at the Temple uninterruptedly.
The Burmese started their repair work enthusiastically in January 1876 and there
were no issues involved between the Hindu worshippers and the Burmese repair
team.20 However, within six months or so, Alexander Cunningham and others began
raising objections that the “Burmese workers were making a mess of the old temple
at Buddha Gaya” (see Trevithick 1999: 650).21 In the meanwhile, King Mindon
19 Details in January 1874, Political-A, British Foreign Department Documents, Nos. 122–125,
National Archives, New Delhi.

20 During the repairs and restoration activities by the Burmese at the Mahābodhi Temple in 1877,
the British thought that since the work was done with religious zeal and in such a way that it
demolished old landmarks, it might somehow outrage the religious susceptibilities of the mahant.
However, as pointed out by Doyle (1997: 139) and Trevithick (1988: 47–48), the mahant had no
problems at all with King Mindon’s restorations. Moreover, the Burmese officials superintending
the restoration project stayed at the mat.h like their predecessors and established a good camaraderie
with the mahant. This friendship was further cemented when the mahant promised rent-free land for
the construction of a monastery for the monks and a paribhoga building for the safeguarding of the
offerings made to the Mahābodhi Tree and the Temple. In 1880, a rest house about eighty yards to
the west of the Mahābodhi Temple was built by the mahant at his own cost for the accommodation
of pilgrims in return for many presents given by the king of Burma to the mahant (see Doyle 1997:
140).
21 In fact, “the Burmese had dug out the foundation structures in order to obtain building materials”
(Trevithick 1999: 652). It was reported about the Burmese that “the mischief they have done by
Fig. 2 The Mahābodhi Temple before it was reconstructed by Beglar and Cunningham (Photo by
J.D. Beglar in 1870: http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/onlineex/apac/photocoll/v/largeimage58200.
html)
Fig. 3 Model of the Temple found in the excavation (Cunningham 1892: Pl. XIII)
Mon died in 1878 and the repair work began to be seen by Cunningham and his
ilk as not proceeding on the “right lines”, presenting a definite opportunity to the
British Government which in 1880 decided to take the “responsibility” of making
repairs. Consequently, the government intervened and Rajendralal Mitra, a cele-
brated Bengali archaeologist, was dispatched to monitor the restoration work. Mitra
reported that the Burmese had made use of the foundations of the ancient edifices
as building materials and had also filled-up the niches in the sanctum sanctorum
meant for images. Though Mitra considered the Burmese monks as “ignorant of
their true history and their faith” neither the Burmese nor the Śaivite mahant had any
problem with the repair work mainly because neither of them had any “interest what-
soever in archaeologically ‘discovering’ or ‘situating’ a Buddhism with which they
were already familiar” (Trevithick 1999: 650–651). However, Mitra abided by the
Orientalist perception privileging the legitimacy of the moment of origin (Trevithick
1999: 651). Mitra’s report offered a further opportunity to the government to become
a stake holder in holy space. Consequently, the Burmese were told to back off and the
government took over the repair work. In 1883, Alexander Cunningham along with
J.D. Beglar and Rajendralal Mitra excavated the site and the temple was rebuilt at a
cost of Rs.100,00022 on the basis of a stone model found by Cunningham during the
excavation (Cunningham 1892: 25 and pl. XVI) (Fig. 3).23 It was, as a matter of fact,
their misdirected zeal has been serious. The demolitions and excavations already completed by
them have swept away most of the old landmarks, and nothing of ancient times can now be traced
on the area they have worked upon” (Trevithick 1999: 651).
22 The mahant contributed financially towards J.D. Beglar’s temple-renovation project, a gesture
that was appreciated by the Lieutenant-Governor (see Bahadur 1893: 16). “It could be argued that
donations by Hem Narāyan Giri for the renovation works were also in his financial interest as well
as a matter of generosity, but most importantly served to develop friendly relations with his colonial
masters” (Joshi 2019: 82).
23 In addition to the replicas, over twenty stone models of the Mahābodhi Temple, averaging about
twenty centimetres in height and made between the early thirteenth and the late fifteenth century
CE, have been found widely circulated from eastern India to Nepal, Tibet, Arakan, and Myanmar.
a complete reconstruction of the temple as it exists in its present condition. Even after
the reconstruction, though technically the property rights of the Mahābodhi Temple
and its environs continued to rest with the mahant, by taking over the right to its
upkeep through “the masking and modernizing of the ancient temple”, the British
Government started asserting its “archaeological” claims on the Mahābodhi Temple,
thus making it a stakeholder in the sacred space (see Guha-Thakurta 1997: 33: fn47).
During this period of restoration, demolition, and reconstruction, Hindus and the
Buddhists continued to share the sacred space occupied by the Mahābodhi Temple
without any issue except that some mischievous British Indologists intensified their
efforts to drive a wedge between the Hindus and the Buddhists through a portrayal of
Bodh Gayā as a pristine Buddhist place of the egalitarian and peace-loving Buddhists
illegally occupied by the caste-ridden and corrupt Brāhman.ical-Hindus.
Despite claims being made that it is the oldest brick temple in the world, etc.,
in reality “the present temple is largely a nineteenth-century British Archaeolog-
ical Survey of India reconstruction” (Huntington 1985: 61). Actually, Beglar and
Cunningham were severely criticized for dubiously adding four corner pavilions24
to the main temple while carrying out the reconstruction and restoration work (see
Temple 1893: 157–159).25 It is also noteworthy that in spite of Cunningham’s
contention, his interpretation of the Mahābodhi complex completely differs from
the description given by Xuanzang in his Da Tang Xiyu Ji and this is also an issue
for which several of his contemporaries have indicted him (Watters 1904–5: 117)
(Fig. 4).
The Mahābodhi Temple facing east, as it stands now, is 166 feet high. It is a tall
straight-edged pyramidal tower of nine storeys surmounted by a stūpa. The entrance
porch to the Temple, with niches on either side containing statues of the Buddha, is of
a comparatively later date than the present temple and is located on the eastern side.
All the four sides of the curvilinear śikhara (spire) or tower of the temple present
several tiers of niches, while the front face has a tall lancet opening for the entry of
They represent not just the Mahābodhi temple but the whole complex that includes the rectangular
outer wall and a representation of the Mahābodhi Tree located on the western terrace (Guy 1991:
356–67) . “It is difficult to evaluate the extent to which the models served as direct prototypes
for these (re-created temples), or the extent to which those responsible for designing them relied
on first-hand information gathered by missions sent to Bodhgayā itself. A major reason for their
construction, which spans the early thirteenth to the late fifteenth century, must have been the desire
to create surrogate temples to allow veneration to continue after access to Bodhgayā itself had been
so severely curtailed by Muslim control of eastern India” (Guy 1991: 365) .
24 The four corner pavilions were added on the authority of a small stone model of the old temple
which was found in the debris.

25 As many of the monuments were irretrievably distorted as a result of colonial intrusion, concerns
were raised from time to time with regard to such a behaviour. Auguste Barth (1834–1916) Indologist
and epigrapher who played a critical role in preparing the blueprint of the foundation charter of
EFEO (École Française d’Extrême-Orient) in Southeast Asia set out its programme in a letter to
EFEO’s first director Louis Finot: “Not only will you not demolish them, you will preserve and
conserve them. But you will not restore, as that is usually the worst form of vandalism. The old-
new Temple of Bodh Gaya must not have its counterpart in Cambodia” (see Clémentin-Ojha and
Manguin 2007: 20).
Fig. 4 View of the Mahābodhi Temple from the North East in 1892 (Cunningham 1892: Pl.XIII)
light into the sanctum sanctorum (Fig. 5). The śikhara of the temple is topped by
āmalaka and kalas.a (architectural qualities in the tradition of Indian temples). At the
four corners of the parapet of the temple are four statues of the Buddha in small shrine
chambers. A small tower, miniature replica of the main spire, has been constructed
above each of these shrines. The sanctum sanctorum of the Temple is located at the
ground floor and is accessible through a vaulted passage. The over five feet high great
image of the Buddha in the sanctum sanctorum is in the bhūmisparśa mudrā (earth
touching posture) symbolizing the supreme event of the Buddha’s Enlightenment.
This image, seen by the Tibetan pilgrim Dharmasvāmin in the year 1234 CE, is
dated in the tenth century CE. It was shifted to the mat.h by the mahant during the
late mediaeval period from where it was shifted back in 1880s with the mahant’s
consent to its original place by Alexander Cunningham (see Cunningham 1892: 54)
(Fig. 6).
Fig. 5 The Mahābodhi Temple

Fig. 6 The Buddha image in the cella
References
Alexander, Cunningham. 1854. The Bhilsa topes; or Buddhist monuments of central India. London:
Smith, Elder and Co.
Altekar, A.S. 1959. Introduction of the general editor. in George N. Roerich (decipherer and trans.),
Biography of Dharmasvāmin (Chag lo tsā-ba Chos-rje-dpal): A Tibetan monk pilgrim, pp. i–
xxxviii. Patna: K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute, 1959.
Arnold, Edwin. 1893. Appendix 1: East and west- a splendid opportunity. Collected wheel publi-
cations, vol. XI, nos. 158–161, pp. 236–248. Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society, 2011.
Reproduced from The Daily Telegraph.
Arnold, Edwin. 1896. East and west, being papers reprinted from the “Daily Telegraph” and other
sources. London: Longmans, Green and Co.
Press.
Asher, Fraderick M. 2008. Bodh Gaya monumental legacy. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Bahadur, R.R.A. Narayan Singh. 1893. A brief history of Bodh Gaya Math, district Gaya, Under
the Order of G.A. Grierson. Calcutta: The Bengal Secretariat Press.
Beal, Samuel. 1881. Indian travels of Chinese Buddhists. Indian Antiquary, X: 109–111, 192–197,
246–248.
Chakrabarti, Dilip K. 1988. A history of Indian archaeology, from the beginning to 1947. New
Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal.
Chimpa, Lama, and Chattopadhyaya, Alka (trans.). 1970. Tāranātha’s history of Buddhism in India.
Simla: Indian Institute of Advanced Study.
Clémentin-Ojha, Catherine, and Pierre-Yves Manguin. 2007. A century in Asia: The history of the
École Française d’Extrême-Orient 1898–2006. Singapore: Didier Millet.
Doyle, T.N. 1997. Bodh Gayā: Journeys to the diamond throne and the feet of Gayāsur. Cambridge:
Harvard University.
Eliot, Charles. 1921. Hinduism and Buddhism: An historical sketch, vol. II. London: Edwin Arnold
& Co.
Fleet, J.F. 1888. Corpus inscriptionum indicarum: Inscriptions of the early Gupta kings and their
successors, vol. III. Calcutta: Superintendent of Government Printing.
Guha-Thakurta, Tapati. 1997. “Monuments and lost histories: The Archaeological imagination in
colonial India,” In Suzanne L. Marchand and Elizabeth Lunbeck (eds.), Proof and persuasion:
Essays on authority, objectivity and evidence, New York: Brepols Publishers: 144–170.
Guha-Thakurta, Tapati. 2004. Archaeology and the monument: An embattled site of history and
memory in contemporary India. In Monuments and memory, made and unmade, ed. Robert Nelson
and Margaret Olin, 233–258. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Guy, John. 1991. The Mahābodhi temple: Pilgrim souvenir of Buddhist India. The Burlington
Magazine, 133(1059, June): 356–368.
Hamilton-Buchanan, Francis. 1801. On the religion and literature of the Burmas. Asiatic Researches
6: 163–308.
Hamilton-Buchanan, Francis. 1830. Description of the ruins of Buddha Gaya. Transactions of the
royal asiatic society of great Britain and Ireland, vol. II, pp. 40–51. London: Parbury, Allen &
Co.
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.
Jaffe, Richard M. 2004. Seeking Śākyamuni: Travel and the reconstruction of Japanese Buddhism.
Journal of Japanese Studies 30 (1): 65–96.
Jayaswal, K.P. 1918. Inscription of the year 83 of the Lakshman.a-Sena era. Journal of the Bihar
and Orissa Research Society, Patna 4 (3): 266–273.
Joshi, Nikhil. 2019. The Mahābodhi temple at Bodhgayā: Constructing sacred placeness,
Kinnard, Jacob N. 2013. Bodh Gaya, India. In William M. Johnston (ed.), Encyclopedia of
monasticism, pp. 157–158. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis.
Kosak, Steven M., and Jane Casey Singer (eds.). 1998. Early paintings from central Tibet. New
York: Metropolitam Museum of Art.
Krusell, Kirstin. 2010. The uses of Buddhism in colonial and post-colonial India: Examining contes-
tation around the site of Bodh Gaya. https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Joukowsky_Institute/
undergrad/prizes/Krusell2011.pdf. Accessed 10 September 2015.
Leoshko, Janice (ed.). 1991. Pilgrimage and the evidence of Bodhgaya’s images. In van Kooij, K.R.,
and H. van der Veer (eds.), Function and meaning in Buddhist art, pp. 45–58. Groningen: Egbert
Farstern.
Li, Rongxi (trans.). 1996. The great tang dynasty record of the western regions. Berkeley: Numata
Mackenzie, Colonel. 1902. Extracts from the journal of Colonel Mackenzie’s Jain Pandit of his
route from Calcutta to Gaya in 1820. Indian Antiquary, 31(February): 62–75.
Majumdar, N.G. 1919. Patna Museum inscription of Jayasena. The Indian Antiquary 48: 43–48.
Majumdar, R.C., and A.S. Altekar (eds.). 1967. The Vākāt.aka-Gupta age: Circa 200–550 A.D.
Banaras: Motilal Banarsi Das.
Martin, Montegomery. 1838. The history, antiquities, topography, and statistics of eastern India,
vol. I. London: W.H. Allen & Co.
Malandra, G.H. 1996. The mandala at Ellora/ Ellora in the mandala. Journal of the International
Association of Buddhist Studies 19 (2): 181–208.
References 109
Panday, H. 1918. The Janibigha inscription. Journal of the Bihar and Orissa Research Society,
Patna, iv(3): 273–280.
Rahula, Walpola. 1956. History of Buddhism in Ceylon: The Anuradhapura period, 3rd Century
BC–10th Century AC. Colombo: M.D. Gunasena & Co., Ltd.
Ray, H.P. 2004. The archaeology of sacred space: An introduction. H.P. Ray, and Carla Sinopoli
(ed.), Archaeology as history in early south Asia, pp. 350–375. New Delhi: Indian Council for
Historical Research and Aryan Books International.
Chos-rje-dpal): A Tibetan Mmonk pilgrim, with a historical and critical introduction by A.S.
Altekar, Patna: K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute.
Ronaldshay, Earl. 1928. The life of lord Curzon. London: Earnest Benn Ltd.
Sharma, R.S. 1958. Origins of feudalism in India (c. A.D. 400–650). Journal of the Economic and
Social History of the Orient, 1(October): 297–328.
Temple, R.C. 1893. Models of the Mahābodhi temple. The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of
Great Britain and Ireland, January 1893: 157–159.
Trevithick, Alan, M. 1988. A Jerusalem of the Buddhists in British India: 1874–1949, Ph.D.
Dissertation, Harvard University.
Trevithick, Alan. M. 1999. British archaeologists, Hindu abbots, and Burmese Buddhists: The
Trevithick, Alan, M. 2006. The Revival of Buddhist Pilgrimage at Bodh Gaya (1811–1949):
Anagarika Dharmapala and the Mahabodhi Temple, First Indian Edition. Delhi: Motilal
Banarsidass.
Verardi, Giovanni. 2011. Hardships and downfall of Buddhism in India. New Delhi: Manohar.
Vishwa, Adluri, and Joydeep Bagchee. 2014. The nay science: A history of German indology.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Watters, Thomas. 1904–5. On Yuan Chwang’s travels in India (AD 629–645). London: Oriental
Trans. Fund, NS.
Chapter 7
The Politics of Anagārika Dharmapāla
and Its Aftermath
Abstract Anagārika Dharmapāla is primarily known in India for having begun an

aggressive campaign for the restoration of the Mahābodhi Temple with the Buddhists
led by him. For this purpose, he founded the Maha Bodhi Society in 1891 and
began publishing The Maha Bodhi journal. In line with the anti-Hindu propaganda
of the Victorian Indologists, Dharmapāla in both his writings and speeches, unequiv-
ocally contested the multireligious history of the Mahābodhi Temple. Dharmapāla
was also behind inspiring a mass movement of South India’s low caste Tamils to
embrace Buddhism. He and Iyothee Thass urged the dalits during the 1891 census to
register themselves as “casteless Dravidians.” Notably, this mass movement of Tamil
dalits to embrace Buddhism, inspired by Dharmapāla, occurred half a century before
Ambedkar. To the Sri Lankans Dharmapāla is known for the revival of Buddhism
and as an ardent Sinhala nationalist patriot. Before Dharmapāla began his campaign,
Hindu-Buddhist conflict was unheard of at Bodh Gaya. He threw an open chal-
lenge to the mahant his proprietorship of the Mahābodhi Temple. However, after
failing to evict the Śaivite mahant by buying him out, on 25 February 1895, he and
his associates attempted to install a Japanese image of the Buddha in the Temple.
However, Dharmapāla was thwarted in his attempt by the mahant. Thereafter, he
went to the court of law. The Calcutta High Court in its judgment of 22 August 1895
announced that though the temple was the property of the mahant, the Buddhists, like
the Hindus, had the right to perform worship at the temple. After the court judgement,
Lord Curzon decided that the temple “would be held in trust by the government.”
Later in 1920, Dharmapāla took the matter to the Indian National Congress which
found it impossible to handle the issue as the freedom movement itself had been
affected by communalism. After independence, the Bodh Gaya Temple Act, 1949
was passed on 19 June 1949 and the government of Bihar assumed responsibility for
the management of the temple. In 2002, the Mahābodhi Temple became a designated
World Heritage site. The Bodh Gaya Temple (Amendment) Act 2013 allowed the Gaya
District Magistrate to be the Chairman of the Temple Management Committee, irre-
spective of her/his religious affiliation. Though people of all Indic faiths are still free
to pray and worship at the Mahābodhi Temple, they do so as if it were now only a
Buddhist shrine.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8067-3_7
112 7 The Politics of Anagārika Dharmapāla and Its Aftermath

Don David Hewavitarana (17 September 1864–29 April 1933) of Sri Lanka, popu-
larly known by his self-adopted heroic and optimistic name Anagārika Dharmapāla,
was the first Buddhist of modern times to disseminate Buddhism on three continents
viz. Asia, Europe, and North America. A look at his career profile gives the unmistak-
able impression that he considered himself as the Vessantara of contemporary world
passionately aspiring to become a Buddha. Pitr. r.n.a, a sense of indebtedness towards
parents, appears to have further intensified this aspiration as it was his father’s wish
too that he should become a Buddha (Diary, 30 November 1939 quoted at Kemper
2015: 32).1 As a matter of fact, it has been suggested that Dharmapāla’s first visit to
Bodh Gayā and his determination to not to leave the place until he had rescued it from
the Hindu mahant was not merely a result of his love for Bodh Gayā. It was more a
result of his effort to emulate the life of Gautama Buddha who had made a similar
vow that he will not leave his seat of Enlightenment (padmāsana) without being
successful. The place where he made his vow and the manner in which it resonated
with Gautama Buddha’s own vow hints at his motivation to become a Buddha
(Kemper 2015: 50–51). With this goal in mind, Dharmapāla had chosen to become
homeless (anagārika),2 embraced a form of universalism based on the teachings of
the Buddha, and had announced: “There was no sacrifice I was not prepared to go
through. My motto was “Victory or death, the motto of Prince Siddhartha”” (Sarnath
Notebook no. 101 quoted at Kemper 2015: 33). Further, if need be, he declared that
he wouldn’t mind taking rebirth in India in a “righteous Brahmin family” (Diary, 17
November 1930 quoted at Kemper 2015: 38). To Indians, Anagārika Dharmapāla is
primarily known for having laid the foundations of an aggressive campaign whose
singular agenda was: the Mahābodhi Temple is purely a Buddhist shrine hence its
ownership must be restored with the Buddhists led by him. To some extent, the seeds
of communal discord around monuments were sown in the late nineteenth century
when the Buddhist reformer Anagārika Dharmapāla began to pressurize the British
Indian government of the day to put ‘Buddhist monuments’ under the exclusive
Buddhist control, and his most important success story was at Bodh Gayā (Lahiri
1999).
While on a visit to Bodh Gaya in 1891, Dharmapāla was infuriated that a Hindu
religious authority was in control of the property and Hindu pilgrims worshipped
the Buddha as an avatāra of their god Vis.n.u. He founded the Maha Bodhi Society
1 After giving a speech at the World Parliament of Religions in Chicago in 1893, Dharmapāla
declared in his diary, “some likened me to Christ!!!” (Trevithick 2006: 95, 98). Another time, he
heard the Buddha tell him in one of his dreams: “You are my cousin” (diary of 2 November 1894
quoted at Roberts 1997: 1020).
2 The adjective anagārika, an antonym of agārika (householder, layman), is a person who has
adopted anagāriyā (state of homelessness amounting monkhood) i.e., kesamassum . ohāretvā

kāsāyāni vatthāni acchādetvā agārasmā anagāriyam
. pabbajati (to shave off beard as well as hair,
put on the yellow robes, and wander forth out of the home into the homeless state (see Rhys Davids
and Carpenter 1890-1911: i.60). However, Dharmapāla does not become a fully-ordained monk
till about shortly before his death and remained a sort of semi-religieux adopting a sort of halfway
house life.
7 The Politics of Anagārika Dharmapāla and Its Aftermath 113
on 31 May 1891 in Colombo and a year later shifted its headquarters to Calcutta,
the then capital of the British Raj. This event is generally considered as the single
most important event in the history of the revival of Buddhism in India. However, the
primary purpose of the Maha Bodhi Society was to restore the Mahābodhi Temple
and its precincts to its “legitimate” owners (Kinnard 1998). The rhetoric of the Maha
Bodhi Society, whose general-secretary he was, was also in line with the anti-Hindu
propaganda of the Victorian Indologists such as Edwin Arnold. As a “spiritual chain
that will bind the Buddhist nations together” and “will make them members of one
spiritual family” (Guruge 1965: 827), the Maha Bodhi Society embodied the Buddhist
Asianist vision of Dharmapāla. This way, he felt the Maha Bodhi Society “would
become the centre of the mightiest Buddhist propaganda (Guruge 1965: 824–825).
Two months after moving the Maha Bodhi Society to Calcutta, he brought from
Sri Lanka four monks of the Rāmañña Nikāya to Bodh Gayā with the mandate to
work as Buddhist missionaries (dharmadūtas). To give voice to his campaign for the
‘liberation’ of the Mahābodhi Temple, in January 1892, he began publishing from
the Headquarters of the Maha Bodhi Society, The Maha Bodhi, a demi-quarter size
journal of eight pages. In his writings as well as speeches, he unequivocally began
to contest not only Buddhism’s roots in Hinduism but also the multireligious history
of the Mahābodhi Temple of Bodh Gayā.
What is not so well-known about Anagārika Dharmapāla’s work in India, but
which is perhaps his greatest contribution, is his inspiration behind a mass move-
ment of South India’s low caste people, primarily Tamils, to embrace Buddhism
(see Goonatilake 2014). Along with Pandit Iyothee Thass, a Tamil dalit, he was
instrumental in initiating a social transformation of the untouchables in South India.
In 1886, Thass made a declaration that untouchables were not Hindus. Following
this declaration, Dharmapāla assisted Thass in establishing the Dravida Mahajana
Sabha in 1891. During the 1891 census, they urged the dalits to register themselves
as “casteless Dravidians” instead of calling themselves as Hindus and registering
as such. He also assisted Thass in laying the foundations of the Sakya Buddhist
Society in 1898. Thereafter, the two as joint secretaries also started Buddhist Young
Men’s Association. It is noteworthy that this mass movement of South Indian dalits
to embrace Buddhism was inspired by Anagārika Dharmapāla over half a century
prior to B.R. Ambedkar (see Goonatilake 2014; Goonetilake 2008). In 2014, on the
occasion of his 150th birth anniversary, the Indian government issued a postal stamp
in his honour, though with his name misspelt in Hindi (Fig. 1).3
In Sri Lanka, Anagārika Dharmapāla is primarily known for two things. One, he
was one of the leading contributors to the Buddhist revival of the nineteenth century
that led to the establishment of Buddhist institutions and schools to match and counter
those of the Christian missionaries. Two, he is considered as an ardent Sinhala
nationalist patriot and a heroic anti-colonial figure who was the spirit behind the
independence movement of the twentieth century (Guruge 1965; Obeyesekere 1976;
Amunugama 1985, 1991, 2016). However, his work for the revival of Buddhism
has been seen as being a direct contributory factor to the rise of Sinhala Buddhist
3 Anāgārika ( ) as against the correct form Anagārika ( ).

Fig. 1 Anagārika
Dharmapāla
nationalism. In fact, he has often been accused of being an ethnic chauvinist, rabble
rousing extremist, ultra-nationalist, a Buddhist bigot, and “a fundamentalist zealot
who hated all things non-Buddhist and non-Sinhala” and who “greatly contributed
towards Sri Lanks’s recurrent violence and ethnic tensions of recent times between
the Tamils and the Sinhalas” (see Rösel 1996: 279; Young and Somaratana 1996: 226;
Roberts 1997: 1009ff, 2000; Jayawardena 2003; Lehr 2019: 127).4 A critical exam-
ination of his speeches indicates that they “were nothing if not militant” (Kemper
2015: 36). He is particularly blamed for driving Sri Lankan Buddhist monks towards
increased political involvement, ecclesiastical belligerence, and ethnic confronta-
tion (see Little 1894: 32; Kemper 2015: 40; Obeyesekere 1976: 244). Actually, if
one were to highlight the most salient feature in his career profile, it would be his
almost single-handedly sketched blueprint of virulent politics of contemporary Sri
Lanka. For instance, as pointed out by Tambiah, Dharmapāla’s journalism amalga-
mated Buddhism into Sinhala ethnic identity and constructed that identity as a racial
one (1992: 131). Similarly, Seneviratne has written that Dharmapāla gave rise to a
tradition of Dharmapalite monks, linking those monks in turn to the estrangement
among Sinhalas, Tamils, and Muslims that now drives the island’s politics (Senevi-
ratne 1999). Seneviratane has actually alleged that the origin of the slogan “country,
nation, religion” that has “become the refuge of the scoundrels” originated with
Dharmapāla (1999: 67).
Dharmapāla’s activities with regard to the Mahābodhi Temple of Bodh Gayā fall
within his schema of becoming a Buddha through the orchestration of campaign for
the revival of Buddhism both in India, the country of its birth and Sri Lanka, the
country of his birth. He regarded the Śaiva mahant as having only financial and “no
religious interests” in the Mahābodhi Temple (see Guruge 1965: 625). Dharmapāla’s
Maha Bodhi Society hosted an international conference in Bodh Gayā in October
1891 to publicize and win support for his cause to ‘liberate’ the Mahābodhi Temple.
At his behest, the Japanese delegation declared in this conference that “the authorities
of the Nishi Honganji Temple were prepared to purchase the Maha Bodhi Temple and
4 The threads of Buddhism-based Sinhala nationalist ideaology of post-independence Sri Lanka

were at least partly embedded in the propagandist work of Anagārika Dharmapāla. The massive
victory of the Sri Lankan Freedom Party (SLFP) led by S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike on a vanguard of
Sinhala nativism is at least partly credited to Dharmapāla (see Roberts 1997: 1006–1007).
its precincts from the Mahant by paying an adequate price” (see Datta 1952: 73). It has
often been alleged that Dharmapāla “made the Maha Bodhi Society the choke point
that controlled access to Bodh Gaya or at least the platform for a Buddhist presence
at the place” (Kemper 2015: 29). In fact, Kemper goes on to say that “Dharmapala
had scant interest in brotherhood that transcended Buddhism, and even his interest
in building a Buddhist world did not seek that unity as an end in itself. He wanted
Buddhist unity for one purpose: recovering a site of importance to all Buddhists,
Bodh Gaya” (Kemper 2015: 59). And, in turn, this ‘recovery’, he believed, would
fast track him to Buddhahood. However, Dharmapāla’s imperious personality and
his efforts to make the Maha Bodhi Society central to the access to Bodh Gayā made
other Buddhist leaders quite wary of him (see Kemper 2015: 29).
For Dharmapāla, ‘recovery’ of the Mahābodhi Temple and its precincts would
have served another important task. Though he is known to have never made a specif-
ically Sinhala claim on the Mahābodhi Temple, he firmly believed that regaining
control over the Temple was “not only essential for the well-being of his people
but was also essential for reinvigorating the Sinhala nation” which in turn could
lead to the Sinhala nation to get rid of the colonial yoke (Karpiel 1996: 177). He
also believed that with all their backwardness only the Sinhala people were compe-
tent to carry out the propaganda for ‘recovering’ Bodh Gayā (see Trevithick 2006:
81). While the Tibetans, and the Thais did not have any problems with the way the
Mahābodhi Temple was being managed and the Burmese had even accepted the
authority of the mahant in their restoration project, Anagārika Dharmapāla threw an
open challenge to his proprietorship of the Mahābodhi Temple. It has been suggested
that Dharmapāla unfortunately “suffered from a restricted vision” for whom just like
the Victorian Indologists
[T]he Buddha image could only ever properly, or legitimately, represent what it was originally
intended to represent, the Buddha, although the cause of their restricted vision was not so
much the lack of imagination… but an obviously pro-Buddhist ideology that froze the status
of Bodhgayā as the site of Śākyamuni’s Enlightenment. But… the Buddha image at Bodhgayā
was and still is situated in the ongoing social life of Bodhgayā, a social life that now once
again includes the Buddhist pilgrimage but which has for several centuries also included a
great many Hindus (Kinnard 1998: 820, 834).
Experiences of Anagārika Dharmapāla as a young person appear to have played

a crucial role in building his weltanschauung. He came from a well-off Sinhala
family of Colombo. Though he was sent to English medium Catholic and Protestant
missionary schools, he described his parental home as completely Buddhist. Towards
the end of his school years, he came under the influence of the founders of the
Theosophical Society, Henry Olcott and Helena Blavatsky. With Olcott, he travelled
across India where he wished to revive Buddhism. However, he soon grew disillu-
sioned with the Theosophical Society’s call for universal brotherhood in general and
with Olcott’s belief that Hinduism and Buddhism have essentially the same roots,
in particular. Olcott argued that, “it was not only possible for the two religions to
coexist in peace and harmony at Bodhgayā, but it was natural for them to do so…
because… Hinduism and Buddhism were in essence the same” (Kinnard 1998: 822).
However, for Dharmapāla, Buddhism alone was authentic (Rambukwella 2018: 51)
and Olcott’s view was totally unacceptable. As a matter of fact, Dharmapāla had
already been incited by Edwin Arnold’s account of Bodh Gayā in The Light of Asia
and his other writings that he openly began to indulge in smear campaign against
Hinduism. In language and logic that seems to have directly informed Dharmapāla,
Arnold observes that the Hindus “deface the shrine with emblems and rituals foreign
to its nature” (Arnold 1896: 312). Arnold’s idea that the mahant and his followers
ought, quite simply, be bought out, was later followed by Dharmapāla with absolutely
no success. His impulsiveness and invariable failure to comprehend the diplomatic
minefield of colonialism made this task even harder when he launched a “crusade”
for the “liberation” of Bodh Gayā from the hands of its Śaiva squatters and declared
that, “India by right belongs to Buddha” (see Kinnard 1998: 822).
As a self-appointed spokesman for Buddhist Asia, at the World Parliament of
Religions, he claimed to represent “four hundred and seventy-five million Buddhists”
(Guruge 1965: 655) and envisioned Bodh Gayā as the central headquarters of these
Buddhists. Actually, he oratorically asked: “If the Ministry of England from their
Downing Street Foreign Office could govern nearly three hundred millions of people
politically, why is it not possible for the Buddhists to have a central office at the spot
so sacred to them?” (Guruge 1965: 847). Under the strong influence of the Victorian
Indologists, Dharmapāla erroneously believed that Buddhism and Hinduism could
not and must not be seen as harmonious but at variance with each other. So much
so, once in a public speech, he declared that polytheism [i.e. Hinduism], like Chris-
tianity, was “responsible for the vulgar practices of killing animals, stealing, pros-
titution, licentiousness, lying and drunkenness” (Guruge 1965: 482). Dharmapāla
personally credited Edwin Arnold with coming up with the “idea of restoring the
Buddhist Jerusalem into Buddhist hands… [and having] … done all… [he]… could
to make the Buddhists of all lands interested in the scheme of restoration” (Guruge
1984: 366). Thus, he viewed himself as fulfilling the need of “a powerful Buddhist’s
eloquent voice… to show the knavery of the selfish bigoted Brahman priests” (quoted
at Kinnard 1998: 821). As time went by, this voice became more powerful, less
eloquent, and “increasingly ugly and anti-Hindu” (Kinnard 1998: 821). In this way,
Dharmapāla enabled the “most egregious sort of Orientalist essentialism, [for] to
him all Hindus could be reduced to an unambiguous image of the Other: namely the
avaricious, duplicitous, and mercenary Mahant– the very epitome of the wily Brah-
min” (Kinnard 1998: 824). Besides, from his perspective the worship rituals, such
as painting and clothing the images, performed by the Brāhman.ical priests at the
Temple amounted to desecration. Thus, he declared that whereas the Buddhists only
paid tribute to the Buddha and did not worship him, “the Hindus turned the image
into a god and thus into an idol perverting the Buddha and his image” (Kinnard
1998: 824). Clearly, the agenda pursued by Dharmapāla was not only divisive but
also considerably aggressive.
Since times immemorial, the Buddhists and the Hindus had shared the holy space
of Bodh Gayā including the image of the Buddha as well footprints of both the Buddha
and Vis.n.u.5 Before Dharmapāla began his campaign, Hindu-Buddhist conflict was
unheard of at Bodh Gayā. The atmosphere was so friendly that after part of the
restoration work on the Mahābodhi Temple had been completed, two Burmese monks
stayed behind at the residence of the mahant in April 1878 (see Trevithick 2006: 39;
Kinnard 1998). However, by interpreting Buddhism as the heroic achievement of
a single individual’s fight not only against the supposedly superstitious, irrational,
and archaic but also an overarching and predominant Brāhman.ic tradition in India
(see Masuzawa 2005: 134), Dharmapāla, like European scholars, “contributed to the
disembodying of Buddhism from its social, political and religious roots while making
it transnationally available” (Moritz 2016: 31). Indeed, the debate over control of
Bodh Gayā was not a debate initiated by the Buddhists and the Hindus. In fact, it
was
in significant ways actually created by the opinions of a select group of Orientalists who
were engaged in a prolonged and diffuse anti-Hindu polemic… (and)… although on the
surface it may seem that he was simply trying to restore the image of the Buddha to its
rightful place in the Mahabodhi temple, he was himself responding to, and at the same time
perpetuating, a long-standing Orientalist conception of Hindu/Buddhist relations in which
Hindus, through their idolatrous and fetishistic ritualizing, perverted the pure image of the
Buddha (Kinnard 1998: 818, 820).
The commission set up by J.A. Bourdillon, the Lt. Governor of Bengal, in 1893 at
the request of the Viceroy, Lord Curzon, could not find any real Buddhists who were
really offended by the Hindu way of worship in the Mahābodhi Temple. As a matter of
fact, different Mahāyāna Buddhists visiting the shrine were discovered to have been
“pro-Hindu.” The Burmese Theravādins also had an amicable relationship with the
mahants going back to long period of time. And this was viewed as a quintessential
counter-example to the anomalous intolerance of Dharmapāla and his Sri Lankan ilk.
It was only some Sri Lankans under the command of Dharmapāla who were “quite
intolerant and they form[ed] the chief source” of hostility to the Hindus (see Kinnard
2014: 94). Here, it may also be pointed out that the Buddha has been not only turned
into a god by some Mahāyānists but many forms of their worship are quite similar
to that of the Hindus. As opposed to Dharmapāla’s propaganda that the Hindus
“scowl and spit upon the image of the Buddha and throw stones at the temple,” the
Commission discovered that local Buddhist modes of worship often crisscrossed with
those of the Hindus (Kinnard 1998: 823). With regard to Dharmapāla’s allegation
that the Buddhist images had been perverted by the Hindus by clothing them, the
Bourdillon commission found that “some sects of Buddhists do make offerings of
that material nature” (cited at Trevithick 2006: 159).
Dharmapāla was particularly advised by the Thai royalty against the kind of
adventurism that he was indulging in at Bodh Gayā. As a matter of fact, Prince
Damrong wrote to Dharmapāla in 1892, advising him that as
5 Thechemistry between Hindu and Buddhist traditions in Bodh Gayā is not only palpable with
images of the Buddha per se, but also with the image of the Buddha’s foorprints. Hindu pilgrims
worship the Buddha’s footprints in the Mahābodhi Temple complex as those of Lord Vis.n.u and
even observe the Chhath festival in the Mucalinda pond.
Buddhism is not brick and mortar; you may spend a lac of rupees in buying up the sacred
temple, but before you do that, you ought to prepare the way for the dissemination of the moral
truths of Buddhism. Later on, you may direct your attention to the Temple… By all means,
carry on your good work, and try to work in harmony with the Hindus. Concentrate your
efforts on the diffusion of knowledge, for that constitutes Buddhism. The British Government
is taking care of the temple, and it could not be in better hands (quoted at Blackburn 2010:
125 from Journal of the Maha Bodhi Society. vol. 2, no.16, 1892: 1).
In the year 1902, the Thai king went ahead by complaining to the British officials
that Dharmapāla was “importuning them” (Kemper 2015: 29). Seeing the divisive
and self-centred behaviour of Dharmapāla, the Burmese also backed off. In turn,
Dharmapāla accused the Burmese members of the Maha Bodhi Society that they
“wanted to pursue the Buddhist cause on their own” (Kemper 2015: 29). More-
over, the aspired-for transnational Buddhist unity was construed by Dharmapāla by
discovering “an ancient ‘pure’ Buddhist past” dispossessed of its multiple religious
and historical strands (see Bose 2004: 101). However, he forgot the fact that as the
different Asian countries were followers of very different Buddhist traditions, they
followed national agendas that were frequently at variance (Moritz 2016: 33).
When Dharmapāla failed in his attempts to evict the Śaivite mahant by buying him
out, he indulged in “an open act of aggression aimed at Hinduism in general and at the
Bodh Gaya Mahant and his followers in particular” on 25 February 1895 (Kinnard
1998: 822). Believing that the Mahābodhi Temple and its precincts belonged solely to
Buddhists and the Maha Bodhi Society their sole representative, he and his three Sri
Lankan associates (Ven. Sumaṅgala, Ven. Devānanda, and Silva) attempted to install
a Japanese image of the Jina Buddha, Amitābha, on the altar in the chamber of the
upper floor of the Mahābodhi Temple.6 Dharmapāla was thwarted in his attempt by
the mahant’s men and during the maelstrom of emotions some pushing and shoving
appears to have taken place (see Appendix: II). Immediately after this incident,
Dharmapāla decided to go to the court of law. Dharmapāla’s key supporters in Sri
Lanka advised him against such an action. As a matter of fact, some quarters in Sri
Lanka were so much worried that, in the words of Dharmapāla himself, “the Ceylon
people have telegraphed to… reconcile the case” (quoted in Trevithick 2006: 107).
However, Dharmapāla ignored all these pleas and went ahead with the case. It is also
worth noting that Dharmapāla’s self-created designation for himself of a semi-ascetic
“homeless wanderer” (anagārika), located between laymen and monkhood, did not
go too well with large majority of the Sri Lankan Buddhist monks.
It may be pointed out that a noteworthy contradiction in Dharmapāla’s weltan-
schauung was his utterly ambiguous comprehension of the relationship between
Buddhism and Hinduism. This kind of behaviour resulted in extensive loss of support
to his “cause.” Whereas he frequently spoke of Hinduism as a corrupt religion, from
time to time, he argued that there was no difference between Buddhism and Hinduism.
6 When Dharmapāla “placed the image in the Mahābodhi temple, he placed not an Indian image of
Śākyamuni Buddha, as would have been appropriate at the site of the Buddha’s Enlightenment, but
a Japanese image of Amitābha. Although the image of Amitābha was certainly Buddhist, it would
originally have been situated in a devotional and ideological context quite different from—and quite
at odds with—Dharmapāla’s own vision of simplified and purified Buddhism” (Kinnard 1898: 836).
He said so in his first lecture “Buddhism in its Relationship to Hinduism” in Calcutta

at the Albert Hall on 25 October 1891 (Kemper 2015: 30 fn. 65). In 1923 he gave a
speech at the annual meeting of the Hindu Maha Sabha that went one step further,
insisting that Buddhists were Hindus (Dharmapala 1923: 354–356).
The case went all the way to the Calcutta High Court and the two parties ended up
having spent a huge amount of money and resources on it.7 The Calcutta High Court
judgment of 22 August 1895 (see Appendix: II) proved to be a landmark judgment
with regard to the right to worship at the Mahābodhi Temple. The Court declared
that various incidents from time to time had indicated that the temple had remained
pan-religious in nature. The court announced that though Dharmapāla had taken the
law in his own hands by installing a Japanese statue of the Buddha in the temple, as
it was the property of the mahant, the Buddhists, like the Hindus, had the right to
perform worship at the temple. The Court further pointed out that
the Mahabodhi temple, which is very ancient and very sacred to Buddhists, was a Buddhist
temple; that, although it has been in the possession of Hindu Mahants, it has never been
converted into a Hindu temple in the sense that the Hindu idols have been enshrined or
orthodox Hindu worship carried on there, and that Buddhist pilgrims have had free access
and full liberty to worship in it. It does not appear that any hindrance was ever offered to them
or that any complaints were ever made by them, and, before the occurrence in question, there
is no instance of any disturbance between the Buddhist worshippers and the Hindu Mahants
or their subordinates, in regard to their respective rights (Calcutta High Court 1895: 7).
Regarding the mahant, the Court pointed out that

there is no doubt that he is in possession, that he is the sole superintendent of the temple,
and that he takes all the offerings, both, of Hindus and Buddhists; and the present state of
things appears to have been in existence for many years, if not for centuries. It is not proved,
I do not think it is even alleged, that any Buddhist priests have ever exercised any control or
authority in the temple within living memory (Calcutta High Court 1895: 8).
The mahant “held possession of the temple and had the control and superinten-
dence over it, subject to that right of Buddhists to worship there in the customary
manner, that is to say, in the manner in which they had been in the habit of worship-
ping” (Calcutta High Court 1895: 9). Regarding Dharmapāla, the Court pointed out
that “[i]t is amply shown from his own writings, and from writings published with
his knowledge and under his authority, that he always regarded the Mahant, whatever
the latter’s strict rights may be, as the owner. Dharmapāla was not in the position
of an ordinary devotee, worshipping at the shrine. He was undoubtedly a religious
enthusiast and an agitator” (Calcutta High Court 1895: 12).
Talking about the background to the case, the Court pointed out that “In February
1893, he and Colonel Olcott, an Honorary Director of the Society, interviewed
the Mahant with the view of acquiring the religious custody of the temple for the
7 The High Court Case turned out to be a loss of considerable amount of money for Dharmapāla and
the Maha Bodhi Society, both with meager resources at that time, as they had to pay a huge amount
of money to the tune of Rs. 22,500 in legal fees (see Joshi 2019: 114). In sharp comparison to the
resources. At the disposal of Dharmapāla and the Maha Bodhi Society, the mahant was enormously
rich, his annual income being over Rs. 1,00,000 (see Sinha and Saraswati 1978: 81).
Buddhists of all nations, but the Mahant, as the correspondence shows, refused either
to sell or give a lease on any terms. Dharmapāla then, according to a letter addressed
to the President of the Society and signed by himself and Colonel Olcott, began to
enquire into the legality of the Mahant’s tenure” (Calcutta High Court 1895: 12).
Earlier, on 5 May 1894, Dharmapāla received a letter from the Bengal Government
saying “that there is perfect freedom of worship for all Buddhists at Bodh-Gaya,
and that any well-grounded complaint that difficulties were imposed would meet
with ready attention and redress at the hands of the Bengal Government” (Calcutta
High Court 1895: 14). The Court also referred to the pluralistic behaviour of the
Mahant and pointed out that “[t]here is evidence, upon which reliance is placed, that
Burmese pilgrims in November and December 1891, placed some marble images
of Buddha by the big image on the altar downstairs without asking the Mahant’s
permission. That may be so, and it is clear that the Mahant did not object” (Calcutta
High Court 1895: 21). So much so, “[i]n January 1895 Dharmapala and a party of
pilgrims worshipped before the great image after removing the vestments and oblit-
erating the tilak marks, and no objection was made to their doing this” (Calcutta
High Court 1895: 22). Further, “[t]he temple has, however, not been shown to have
been converted into a place of Hindu worship, though there is a spot in the temple
compound, which is resorted to by Hindus as a sacred place for offering pin.d.as or
oblations to ancestors” (Calcutta High Court 1895: II.2).8
An unambiguous fallout of the Calcutta High Court Judgement was that apart from
suffering badly in terms of personal reputation and devastating loss in the criminal
proceedings, Dharmapāla “strengthened the general impression that the Mahant was
the actual owner of the temple and its ground” (Trevithick 2006: 162 fn.3).9 The
extensive Sinhala support that Dharmapāla received when he first began litigating
8 After his unsuccessful adventure to instal the Japanese Buddha image, Dharmapāla shifted the
image to the Burmese Rest House located in the immediate vicinity. He also made the rest house,
built by the mahant for visiting Burmese pilgrims, his permanent base in Bodh Gayā. Through the
act of installation of the image of the Buddha and its daily worship, Dharmapāla and his friends
turned the rest house, a secular structure, into a sacred place, but not for long. Working promptly
to capitalize on his legal victory, particularly when row with Dharmapāla was in the open now,
the mahant made another diplomatic move in November 1895 by making a representation to the
government that Dharmapāla could not occupy it permanently. The local commisioner disapproved
of the conduct of Dharmapāla in installing the image and also instructed the magistrate to ordered
Dharmapāla to remove the image within one month from the Burmese Rest House failing which,
he was told, it would be moved to the Indian Museum in Calcutta (see Joshi 2019: 124–125).
Most interestingly, now Dharmapāla appealed to the Hindus of India for support saying that “The
Hindus have never been a persecuting people. Toleration is their creed. Toleration is the habit of the
Hindu mind” (Anon. 1896a: 10–11). However, the offer of an olive branch to the Hindus was only
ephemeral. Soon he went back to his earlier demands through confrontational campaigns. Though
on 25 May 1896 the Lt-Governor permitted the Japanese image to be kept where it was, the Calcutta
High Court ordered in February 1910 the ejection of Dharmapāla from the Burmese Guest House
(see Joshi 2019: 125–133).
9 Dharmapāla’s own knowledge of Buddhism was based upon its Western scholarly interpretations
and he considered that Ceylonese Theravāda Buddhism “In its primitive purity… is only to be
found in the Southern Church of Buddhism, which is identified with Ceylon” (Guruge 1965: 287).
This type of views on Theravādin Buddhism appear to have vitiated the environment to such an
extent that non-Theravādin pilgrims found it hard to stay at the Sri Lankan monastery. Japanese
in the court for ‘liberation’ of the Mahābodhi Temple dwindled almost completely
after he lost the 1895 case. Actually, in the following years, support within Sri
Lanka for his missionary work abroad almost ceased to exist (see Karpiel 1996:
177–189). Taking responsibility for consenting to Dharmapala’s bringing litigation
against the mahant, Olcott noted that even with excellent legal representation he
had failed to deliver Bodh Gaya. The result was “many Buddhists, showing bitter
feelings against Dharmapala because of the heavy cost of the now famous suit.”
On the witness stand, Dharmapāla “made almost as bad a figure as was possible,”
becoming confused, losing his memory, and alienating his supporters” (Olcott 1890:
xxix–xxx). Olcott concluded by pointing out that public suspicion about the casual
way he shifted his contributors’ funds from one project, recovering Bodh Gaya, to
others, establishing the Ethico-Psychological College and the Sanghamitta Convent,
has no basis” (Kemper 2015: 51).
Most unfortunately, the exclusivist Anagārika Dharmapāla failed to see that it is
quite natural for the two Indic religions to share holy space and coexist in peace
and harmony. Thus, the unavoidable conclusion about Anagārika Dharmapāla’s role
would have to be that
[He] was himself tangled in this knot in ways more complex than he could possibly have been
aware… [A]lthough on the surface it may seem that he was simply trying to restore the image
of the Buddha to its rightful place in the Mahābodhi temple, he was himself responding to,
and at the same time perpetuating, a long-standing Orientalist conception of Hindu/Buddhist
relations in which Hindus, through their idolatrous and fetishistic ritualizing, perverted the
pure image of the Buddha (Kinnard 1998: 820).
Finally, his attempt to install an image of the Buddha in the Mahābodhi Temple
cannot certainly be seen as an innocent attempt at restoration by a devout Buddhist.
The behaviour of Dharmapāla appears more intolerant than the mahant he accused
of. One wonders what would have happened if Dharmapāla and his friends had been
given the control of the Mahābodhi Temple. Dharmapāla would have almost certainly
forbidden the Hindus from performing the final ceremonies of śrāddha at the foot of
the Bodhi Tree. In all probability, like his counterparts during the pre-Turus.ka period,
he would have also put obstacles in the path of the non-Theravādins to perform puja
within the premises of the Mahābodhi Temple Complex.
critic and philosopher Kakuzo Okakura who paid a visit to Bodh Gayā towards the beginning of
1902, started consultations with the mahant for the purpose of purchasing a plot of land to the west
of the temple complex directly facing the Mahāodhi Tree to build a rest house for the followers
of Mahāyāna Buddhism of Japan as their “School of Buddhism differs essentially in its tenets
from those of Ceylon or Siam” (Anon. 1923: 36). Though the mahant was quite open to the idea,
the Bengal government rejected the application on the ground that “the multiplication of interest
there is undesirable” (Trevithick 2006: 172). Later, under the presidentship of Panchen Lama,
many leading Buddhists from Tibet and the Himalayan states and some other Asian countries,
the Buddhist Shrines Restoration Society (BSRS) was founded on 9 January 1906 in Calcutta.
Dharmapāla considered it a rival organization and condemned its functioning (Dharmapāl 1917:
147). The BSRS, predominantly catering to Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna interests, appears to have been
founded basically as these sects felt frustrated with Dharmapāla’s baised and bigoted Theravādin
version of Buddhism (Anon. 1896: 2).
Sometime after the Calcutta High Court judgement, Lord Curzon decided that the
temple “would be held in trust by the government” and the mahant was retained
only as a “ground landlord to draw the fees of all visitors, whether Hindu or
Buddhist” (Guha-Thakurta 2004: 295). After having failed not gain possession of
the Mahābodhi Temple from either the colonial government or its court of law,
Dharmapāla turned to the Indian National Congress and was able to persuade Chit-
taranjan Das, the Congress leader from Bengal, to take up his cause with the party
in 1920. Consequently, the Bihar Provincial Congress Committee took up the issue
at the Gaya session of the Congress in December 1922. In this session, a dele-
gation of one hundred Burmese Buddhist monks demanded the handover of the
management of the temple to Buddhists (see Jha 2018). A delegation of Ceylonese
Buddhists under the leadership of Cassius Pereira put forward the demand more
enthusiastically at the Belgaum session of the Congress in December 1924. The
president of the session, Mahatma Gandhi, requested Babu Rajendra Prasad to look
into the matter. Prasad set up a committee consisting of three Hindus (including
himself) and five Buddhists, the latter to be nominated by the Maha Bodhi Society,
to prepare a report. However, Purushottamdas Tandon objected to the composition of
the committee. Ultimately, the All India Congress Committee modified the compo-
sition of the committee to include two more Hindus in the proposed committee and
reserved a seat for the mahant (Copland 2004). This made Dharmapāla completely
unhappy with the Congress Party and he decided to approach the Hindu Mahasabha10
for assistance. In fact, the Indian National Congress found it virtually impossible to
handle the issue at a time when the freedom movement itself had been affected by
communalism.
The intervention from the platform of the Hindu Mahasabha on behalf of the
Buddhists for control of the Mahābodhi Temple was perhaps one of the most momen-
tous episodes in the history of Hindu Mahasabha. It is noteworthy here that whereas
the British Raj in its census operations treated Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs as groups
separate from Hindus “as part of the imperial design of creating ruptures along
the fault lines of communities,” the leaders of the Arya Samaj, especially the Hindu
Mahasabha, made attempts to show them as indivisible part and parcel of Hinduism11
and intervened in issues affecting them (see Jha 2018). However, the Mahābodhi
Temple issue represented an insurmountable conundrum before the Mahasabha since
as on one hand it attempted hard to further its long-held cause that Buddhists were
an inalienable part of Hinduism and on the other it was subjected to a formidable
pressure from the Sanātanist sections who were passionately taking sides with the
mahant. The Muzaffarpur Conference of the Bihar Hindu Sabha that took place on
4 April 1925 under the presidentship of Lala Lajpat Rai and was attended by Babu
Rajendra Prasad, ardently discussed the matter. No tangible solution could be brought
10 The organization, founded in 1915, was originally named Sarvadeśak Hindū Mahāsabhā which
in 1921 was changed to Akhil Bhārat Hindū Mahāsabhā (All-India Hindu Grand-Assembly) and
became popularly known as Hindū Mahāsabhā.
11 The Hindu Mahasabha defined a Hindu as “any person professing to be a Hindu or following
any religion of Indian origin and includes Sanatanists, Aryasamajists, Jains, Sikhs, Buddhists and
Brahmos & c.” (Gordon 1973).
about as the mahant and members like Dwarka Prasad Chaturvedi remained adamant
and did not relent to Rajendra Prasad’s proposal that the management of the temple
ought to be transferred to a joint committee of Hindus and Buddhists (Prasad 1957:
232–234).
In the Mahasabha’s annual session of 1933 at Ajmer, the issue of the Mahābodhi
Temple was not taken up, though a large number of Buddhist monks from China,
Japan, Ceylon, Burma attended the conference and was viewed as a great success
by the organizers (see Copland 2004). In the Sixteenth Annual Session of the Hindu
Mahasabha of Kanpur (20–22 April 1935) (see details at Mitra 1935: 329–335)
Ottama Bhikku, a Buddhist monk, was elected as the president.12 However, when
a resolution regarding the possession of the Mahābodhi Temple was moved, the
Sanātanists held angry demonstrations and tried to prevent the passage of the resolu-
tion (see Mitra 1935: 335). Finally, a compromise resolution was passed which while
appointing a committee to deliberate on the problems of the temple management gave
to Śam. karācārya of Govardhan Mat.h the power to veto any settlement reached by
the committee on behalf of the Sanātanists (see Mitra 1935: 335). The committee,
under the chairmanship of Parmanand, met at Gaya on 8–9 July 1935 (Mitra 1935:
335). The meeting resolved that a committee be formed for the management of the
temple affairs, which would, however, “not concern itself with the existing legal rights
of the Mahant over the temple” (Jha 2028). However, Dwarka Prasad Chaturvedi, a
member of the Bodhgaya Temple Committee, formed by the Kanpur session, strongly
disapproved of all the views expressed in the Rajendra Prasad Report.
The problem remained unresolved and when a bill pertaining to the management
of the temple was introduced in the Bihar Assembly during 1935, “the Mahasabha
stood up in favour of the Buddhist cause” (Jha 2018).13 However, nothing much
happened other than this. Remarkably around this time, Benimadhab Barua, a noted
scholar of Buddhist persuasion, emphasised that
the Buddhists have never and nowhere prevented the Hindus from either visiting or
conducting worship at their shrines. As a matter of fact, they have no case against the
Hindu devotees coming to a Buddhist shrine for worship. Their shrines remain open to all
for worship, without any distinction of caste and creed. The inscription of Keśava, engraved
during the reign of Dharmapāla, clearly proves that the Buddhists were liberal and tolerant
enough even to allow a Hindu to instal a figure of his deities, Śiva and Brahmā, in their
12 Several initiatives leading to the election of a Buddhist monk as the president of the Mahasabha,
was a significant move towards resolving the issue. On one hand it showed the party’s desire to
co-opt the Buddhist community in the larger definition of the Hindu fold, and on the other it also
displayed the inclination of the Buddhist monks to respond positively to the move.
13 However, in their bid to maintain Hindu control over the temple, the orthodox members of the
Hindu Mahasabha took the position that the Buddha was an incarnation of Lord Vis.n.u. For instance,
the Hindu Mission of Calcutta in its special of 7 April 1935 at Trikoneshwar temple rejected the
claim that the Mahābodhi Temple was “a shrine exclusively of the Buddhist world” on the ground
that that only that Buddha had been worshipped by Hindus as the incarnation of Vis.n.u but also
because Buddhism had been regarded “as a branch of the Aryan religion of India” (All India Hindu
Mahasabha Papers, NMML, File No. C-11. Quoted at Jha 2018). The Hindu Mission, therefore
registered its disapproval of the bill which proposed to form a committee for management of the
Mahābodhi Temple.
temple at Bodh-Gayā (Dharmeśa-āyatane) for the benefit of the resident Śaivite Brahmins
(Barua 1934: 234–235).
After India gained independence, the government of Bihar assumed responsibility

for the management, maintenance, and protection of the temple and its properties.
Consequently, the Bodh Gaya Temple Act, 1949 was passed on 19 June 1949. As
per this act, the Management Committee of the Temple was supposed to “consist of
a Chairman and eight members… of whom four shall be Buddhists and four shall
be Hindus… The District Magistrate of Gaya shall be the ex-officio Chairman of
the Committee: Provided that the [State] Government shall nominate a Hindu as
Chairman of the Committee for the period during which the district Magistrate of
Gaya is non-Hindu.” However, some of the leading Buddhist monks and leaders
were not satisfied with this act. For instance, Bhikshu Sangharakshita wrote in 1951,
“Buddha Gaya still languishes in sacrilegious hands, and obscene symbols continue
to desecrate the sacred image of the Lord” (Sangharakshita 1952: 56). In 2002, the
Mahābodhi Temple became a designated World Heritage site that was “determined
largely by government officials seeking to sustain a tourism economy around the
site” (Krusell 2010: 1). The Bodh Gaya Temple (Amendment) Act 2013, which lets the
Gaya District Magistrate to be the Chairman of the Temple Management Committee,
irrespective of her/his religious affiliation, has ensured that not only that Hindus can
now play no role in its religious life but also that the state of Bihar can effectively
intervene in its affairs, if need be.
The anti-Hindu propaganda spiked with notion of superiority of Buddhism over
Hinduism advocated by India’s colonial masters and their accomplices such as
Dharmapāla, had a serious impact on the history of the Mahābodhi Temple during the
twentieth century. Opinions such as these actually persist to the present day. Thus,
one is not surprised that
When anti-Hindu lobbies unite, they often manage to get the contemporary form of Indian
Buddhism on their side, viz. Ambedkarite neo-Buddhism. Because of its political back-
ground, the conversion of Scheduled Caste leader B.R. Ambedkar and many of his Mahar
caste men to Buddhism (1956), in effect contributed to the genesis of what one might call
Buddhist communalism. The anti-Hindu bias of Ambedkarite Buddhism was strengthened
by the parallel Buddhist animus against Tamil Hindus in Sri Lanka and Burma/Myanmar,
as well as by the tendency among Nehruvian intellectuals to construe Buddhism historically
as an anti-Hindu revolt. As a materialization of this anti-Hindu animus, the neo-Buddhist
movement has tried to create controversies over certain temples in imitation of the Ayodhyā
temple/mosque controversy (Elst 2002).
Shortly after India became independent, two stamps on the Mahābodhi Temple
of 2½ and 3½ annas each were made an integral part of the regular repertoire of
stamps by the Indian Government’s Department of Posts (Fig. 2). Over the years
more commemorative stamps have been issued in honour of the Mahābodhi Temple.
During the first decade after independence in 1947, India’s Buddhist geography drew
considerable international attention. One important result of this attention was the
1956 nation-wide 2500th Buddha Jayanti celebrations in India. This event helped,
or at least that is what the leadership under India’s first Prime Minister Pandit Nehru
thought, to rejuvenate India’s central place among the Buddhist nations of Asia,
Fig. 2 Stamps released by Indian department of posts in honour of the Mahābodhi temple
if not Asia itself. Different Asian nations with substantial Buddhist populations
were invited by him to build their own religious establishments at Bodh Gayā.
Consequently, countries including Sri Lanka, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Japan,
Vietnam, Nepal, Bhutan, Mongolia, and Thailand have built not only their own
monasteries with guesthouses, many NGOs in league with most of these monas-
teries have also over time established health clinics, meditation centres, prayer halls,
vocational training centres, and pilgrims-sponsored schools at Bodh Gayā and its
neighbouring villages. During the 1960s, images could be seen only in some of the
niches in the Great Stūpa. However, now all the niches enshrine figures of the Buddha
and various bodhisattvas. Some communities such as the Tibetans have built over
half a dozen religious centres of different sectarian persuasions. Pilgrims-sponsored
schools by the dozen have been established on farmlands in small hamlets such as
Sujātāgarh. Such activities born out of Nehruvian vision have produced a host of
unexpected results. One important consequence has been that agricultural land of
Bodh Gayā and the surrounding villages has been taken over not only by temples,
monasteries, and NGOs but also by hotels, guesthouses, and souvenir shops. Clearly,
the different foreign Buddhist groups have been not only flouting the land regula-
tions to build their own monasteries, guesthouses, and other establishments but have
also been evading taxes by running guesthouses and meditation centres for commer-
cial purposes. Consequently, one can witness simmering friction between various
interest-groups, particularly between the local tradespersons and foreign religious
institutions viewed by the locals as “being wealthy beneficiaries of foreign capital
through transnational networks of donations and sponsorships” (Geary 2008: 13).
Added to this, Bodh Gayā now also appears to be bracing for a battle between
those who perceive this place as a tourist spot to be exploited for profit and those
who see it as a religious site that must be protected for pilgrims (see Geary, Sayers
et al. 2012: 110–118).14 Above all, Bodh Gayā is now thriving as a centre of ‘brand
Buddhism’ with the provincial and central authorities vigorously pushing various
kinds of developmental agendas by marketing this brand to revitalize the stagnant
14 Some people have even taken the perverted view that as Muslims have been living in Bodh Gayā
since the medieval period and own significant stretches of land adjacent to the sacred site “it is not
only important, but also necessary, to involve local mosque authorities in any discussion regarding
the future of Bodhgayā” (Joshi: 2019: 19).
economy of Bihar, one of the poorest and most corrupt provinces in India (see Geary
2008: 11–12).
Finally, it may be pointed out that if the large scale Bodh Gayā-centric celebrations
of 1956 sought to concretize the idea of Bodh Gayā as a ‘pure’ Buddhist place with
the non-Buddhists being projected as some sort of illegal squatters, India’s applica-
tion in the year 2002 for recognition of the Mahābodhi Temple as a World Heritage
site must be seen as a giant step taken in the same direction whereby a multireligious
site became exclusively a Buddhist site. In its application, the Government of India
highlighted only the Temple’s Buddhist aspect while sedulously ignoring its multi-
valent character. In other words, the Mahābodhi Temple Complex is now viewed as
an exclusively Buddhist site through its World Heritage status which has also “per-
petuated and reified the colonial period’s Orientalist focus on Buddhist superiority”
(Krusell 2010: 1). Though even now the number of Hindu pilgrims visiting Bodh
Gayā is perhaps as much as the Buddhist pilgrims, “yet the branding of the site as
exclusively Buddhist from time immemorial effectively renders Hindu activity at
Bodh Gayā invisible… (and now)… Bodh Gaya has been transformed, rhetorically,
at any rate, into precisely what Arnold and Dharmapāla had envisioned– the Buddhist
Mecca or Jerusalem” (Kinnard 1998: 834). Now almost all the ritual conduct at the
Mahābodhi Temple conforms to the Buddhist paradigm. Such a development has
clearly obscured the contemporary understanding of Bodh Gayā as a living “multi-
valent sacred space” (Kinnard 1998: 817). Nitish Kumar, the Chief Minister of Bihar,
drove the final nail with his The Bodh Gaya Amendment Act of 2013 ensuring that the
overlapping religious interests are completely skew-whiffed in favour of the ‘pure’
Buddhist character of the Mahābodhi Temple. Since the celebration of 2500 years
of Buddhism in 1956, repair and renovation work has been carried out a few times
to restore the Mahābodhi Temple to its “former glory.” In the same spirit, the King
of Thailand and devotees from Thailand were allowed by the Archaeological Survey
of India (ASI) in 2013 to cover the upper portion of the temple with 289 kg of gold.
Though people of all Indic faiths are still free to pray and worship at the Mahābodhi
Temple, they do so as if it were now only a Buddhist shrine. However, some people
are still not happy with the present situation and would like all ‘non-Buddhist’ signs
and symbols evicted from the premises of the Mahābodhi Temple Complex.15
15 “In mid-May, a group of 2,000 Buddhist pilgrims from Maharashtra became so agitated at the
presence of Hindu gods and priests at the temple here that they broke several idols and slapped several
of the Hindu holy men. Deen Dyaldaya Giri, a senior official at the Hindu Math, or pilgrimage site
here said ‘The basic controversy is whether it is a Hindu temple or a Buddhist temple. We see it
as both.’ Swapan Dasgupta, an editor for The Telegraph, a Calcutta newspaper, and a columnist for
the weekly news magazine Sunday, voices these concerns, labeling ‘insidious’ any ‘attempt to put
Hinduism into the straitjacket of a codified religion,’ adding, ‘If the Buddha is outlawed from the
arena of devotion, it will be another major step in the emotional fragmentation of India.’” (Gargan
1992).
References 127
References
Amunugama, Sarath. 1985. Anagarika Dharmapala (1864–1933) and the transformation of Sinhala
Buddhist organization in a colonial setting. Social Science Information, 24(Pt. 4): 697–730.
Amunugama, Sarath. 1991. A Sinhala-Buddhist “Babu”: Anagarika Dharmapala (1864–1933) and
the Bengal Connection. Social Science Information, 30(Pt. 3): 555–591.
Amunugama, Sarath. 2016. The Lion’s road: Anagarika Dharmapala and the making of modern
Buddhism. Colombo: Vijjitha Yapa.
Anon. 1896. “The Buddhists and the Government of Bengal,” The Maha-Bodhi and the united
Buddhist world, Journal of the Maha-Bodhi Society, vol. IX, part 10: 94–95.
Anon. 1896a. An act of religious persecution by the government. The Maha-Bodhi and the united
Buddhist world. Journal of the Maha-Bodhi Society, IV, pt. 10: 10–11.
Anon. 1923. Letter from K. Okakura to Rev. Paramahansa Acharya Srimat Krishna Dayal Swamiji,
Mahanth Maharaj of Bodh Gaya. In A.H. Dharmapala (ed.), Rescue Buddha Gaya, Calcutta: The
Maha-Bodhi Society, pp. 30–31.
Arnold, Edwin. 1896. East and west, being papers reprinted from the “Daily Telegraph” and other
sources. London: Longmans, Green and Co.
Chandra Seal.
Blackburn, Anne M. 2010. Locations of Buddhism: Colonialism and modernity in Sri Lanka.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bose, Sugata. 2004. Different universalisms, colorful cosmopolitanisms: The global imagination
of the colonized. In Cosmopolitan thought zones: South asia and the global circulation of ideas,
ed. Sugata Bose and Kris Manjapra. Palgrave and Macmillan: Basingstroke.
Calcutta High Court. 1895. Jaipal Gir and Ors. Vs H. Dharmapala on 22 August 1895. Author:
Macpherson, Bench: Macpherson, Banerjee. http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1821486/. Accessed 17
July 2015.
Copland, I. 2004. Managing religion in colonial India: The British Raj and the Bodh Gaya Temple
Dispute. Journal of Chuch and State 46 (pt. 3): 527–559.
Datta, Snehamoy (ed.). 1952. Maha Bodhi society of India: Diamond jubilee souvenir 1891–1951.
Calcutta: Maha Bodhi Society.
Dharmapala, Anagarika. 1917. Buddhism in its relationship to Hinduism. Calcutta: The Maha-Bodhi
Society.
Dharmapala, Anagarika. 1923. The Hindu Maha Sabha. Amrita Bazar Patrika, reprinted in Journal
of the Maha Bodhi Society, 31: 354–356.
Elst, Koenraad. 2002. The Bodh Gaya temple controversy. In Ayodhya: The case against the temple.
New Delhi: The Voice of India: Chapter 3. http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org. Accessed 12 July
2015.
Geary, D. 2008. Destination enlightenment: Branding Buddhism and spiritual tourism in Bodhgaya,
Bihar. Anthropology Today, 24 (3, June): 11–14.
Geary, D., M.R. Sayers, and A.S. Amar (eds.). 2012. Cross-disciplinary perspectives on a contested
Buddhist site: Bodh Gaya Jataka. London: Routledge.
Goonatilake, Hema. 2014. Taking the Dhamma to the dalits, 14. Colombo, Sunday, September: The
Sinday Times.
Goonetilake, Susantha. 2008. White sahib and brown sahib: Tracking Dharmapala. Journal of the
Royal Asiatic Society of Sri Lanka, New Series 54: 53–136.
Gordon, Richard. 1973. Non-cooperation and council entry, 1919 to 1920. Modern Asian Studies 7
(3): 443–473.
Guha-Thakurta, Tapati. 2004. Monuments, objects, histories: Institutions of art in colonial and
postcolonial India. New York: Columbia University Press.
Guruge, Ananda (ed.). 1965. Return to righteousness: A collection of speeches, essays, and letters
of the Anagarika Dharmapala. Colombo: Ministry of Cultural Affairs.
Guruge, Ananda. 1984. From the living fountains of Buddhism. Colombo: Ministry of Cultural
Affairs.
Jayawardena, Kumari. 2003. Ethnic and class conflict in Sri Lanka: The emergence of Sinhala-
Buddhist consciousness 1883–1983. Colombo: Sanjiva Books.
Jha, Bhuvan Kumar. 2018. Buddhists and Hindus in late colonial India: Redefining politico-religious
categories, paper read at the International Conference on Buddhism in Southeast Asia, Phnom
Penh, Cambodia, 4–8 October.
Joshi, Nikhil. 2019. The Mahābodhi temple at Bodhgayā: Constructing sacred placeness,
Karpiel, Frank J. 1996. Theosophy, culture, and politics in Honolulu, 1890–1920. Hawaiian Journal
of History 30: 177–189.
Kemper, Steven. 2015. Rescued from nation: Anagarika Dharmapala and the Buddhist world.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Kinnard, Jacob N. 1998. When is the Buddha not the Buddha? The Hindu/Buddhist battle over
Bodhgayā and its Buddha image. Journal of the American Academy of Religion 66 (4): 817–839.
Kinnard, Jacob N. 2014. Places in motion: The fluid identities of temples, images, and pilgrims.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Krusell, Kirstin. 2010. The uses of Buddhism in colonial and post-colonial India: Examining contes-
tation around the site of Bodh Gaya. https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Joukowsky_Institute/
undergrad/prizes/Krusell2011.pdf. Accessed 10 September 2015.
Lahiri, N. 1999. Bodh-Gaya: An ancient Buddhist Shrine and its modern history. In Timothy
Insoll (ed.), Case studies in archaeology and world religion: The proceedings of the Cambridge
conference. Oxford: Archaeopress, British Archaeological Reports, International Series 755:
33–43.
Lehr, Peter. 2019. Militant Buddhism: The rise of religious violence in Sri Lanka. Myanmar and
Thailand, Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.
Masuzawa, Tomoko. 2005. The invention of world religions or, how European universalism was
preserved in the language of Pluralism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mitra, H.N. (ed.). 1935. The Indian annual register: An annual digest of public affairs of India, vol.
1, pp. 329–335, January–June 1935. Calcutta: The Annual Register Office.
Moritz, Maria. 2016. “The empire of righteousness:” Anagarika Dharmapala and his vision of
Buddhist Asianism (c.1900). In Marc Frey, and Nicola Spakowski (eds.), Asianisms: Regionalist
interactions and Asian integration. Singapore: NUS Press.
Obeyesekere, Gananath. 1976. Personal identity and cultural crisis: The case of Anagarika Dharma-
pala of Sri Lanka. In Frank E. Reynolds, and Donald Kapps (eds.), The biographical process:
Studies in the history and psychology of religion, pp. 221–252. The Hague: Mouton.
Olcott, Henry Steele. 1890. The ‘Wail’ of Dharmapala, Supplement. Theosophist, 20(7): xxviii–xxx.
Prasad, Rajendra. 1957. Autobiography. Bombay: Asia Publishing House.
Rambukwella, Harshana. 2018. Anagarika Dharmapala: The nation and its place in the world. In
Harshana Rambukwella (ed.), Politics and poetics of authenticity: A cultural genealogy of Sinhala
nationalism, pp. 48–72. London: UCL Press.
Rhys Davids, T.W., and J.E. Carpenter (eds.). 1890–1911. The Dı̄gha Nikāya, 3 vols. London: Pali
Text Society.
Roberts, Michael. 1997. For humanity. For the Sinhalese. Dharmapala as crusading Bosat. The
Journal of Asian Studies, 56(4, November): 1006–1032.
Roberts, Michael. 2000. Himself and project, a serial autobiography, our journey with a Zealot,
Anagarika Dharmapala. Social Analysis: The International Journal of Anthropology 44 (1): 113–
141.
Rösel, Jacob. 1996. Die Gestalt und Entstehung des Singhalesischen Nationalismus. Berlin: Duncker
& Humblot.
Sangharakshita, Bhikshu. 1952. Anagarika Dharmapala: A biographical sketch. In Maha Bodhi
Society of India: Diamond jubilee souvenir 1891–1951, ed. Snehamoy Datta, 9–65. Calcutta:
Maha Bodhi Society.
References 129
Seneviratne, H.L. 1999. The work of kings: The new Buddhism in Sri Lanka. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Sinha, S., and B. Saraswati. 1978. Ascetics of Kashi: An anthropological exploration. Varanasi:
N.K. Bose Memorial Foundations.
Tambiah, S.J. 1992. Buddhism betrayed: Religion, violence, and politics in Sri Lanka. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Trevithick, Alan, M. 2006. The revival of Buddhist Pilgrimage at Bodh Gaya (1811–1949):
Anagarika Dharmapala and the Mahabodhi temple. First Indian Edition. Delhi: Motilal
Banarsidass.
Young, R.F., and G.P. Somaratana. 1996. Vain debates: The Buddhist-chriatian controversies of
nineteenth-century Ceylon. Vienna: Sammlung de Nobili Redaktion.
Appendix A
A Brief History of Bodh Gayā Math, District
Gayā
(Source: http://www.new.dli.ernet.in)
COMPILED BY
RAI RAM ANUGRAHA NARAYAN SINGH BAHADUR,

DEPUTY MAGISTRATE AND DEPUTY COLLECTOR
UNDER THE ORDERS OF

G.A. GRIERSON, ESQ., C.S.,
MAGISTRATE-COLLECTOR, GAYĀ DISTRICT.
1892
Calcutta:
PRINTED AT THE BENGAL SECRETARIAT PRESS.
1893.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8067-3
132 Appendix A: A Brief History of Bodh Gayā Math, District Gayā
The following is a list of Mahanths of Bodh Gayā

FROM 1590 A.D. TO 1892 A.D.
Mahantha Ghamandī Gir.
Mahantha Chaitanya Gir.
Mahantha Mahadeva Gir.
Mahantha Lāl Gir.
Mahantha Keshava Gir.
Mahantha Rāghava Gir.
Mahantha Rāmhit Gir.
Mahantha Bālak Gir.
Mahantha Shiva Gir.
Mahantha Bhaipat Gir.
Mahantha Hem Narāyan Gir.
Mahantha Krishna Dayāl Gir.
A Brief History of the Bodh Gayā Math.

———
The Bodh Gaya Math is an ancient Monastery of the Hindu Sannyāsı̄s styled Girs,
who belong to one of the ten orders of Sankara Achārya’s Sivite school. It traces its
origin back to the middle of the sixteenth century of the Christian era. It is said that
as early as Māgh of the Fasli year 997 (corresponding with 1590 A.D.), one Gosain
Ghamandı̄ Gir, a holy devotee of this order, while on a pilgrimage tour, became so
very fond of the sylvan solitude of the neigbourhood of the place where the Math now
stands, that he selected it as the place of his religious devotion, and subsequently built
a small monastery there for the accommodation of the itinerant members of his order.
Appendix A: A Brief History of Bodh Gayā Math, District Gayā 133
He was the first mahanth and the founder of the monastery. He was succeeded by
his disciple, Chaitanya Gir, in 1022 Fasli (corresponding with 1615 A.D.). Mahanth
Chaitanya Gir was much renowned for his learning and austere piety and spent his
time in worship and religious devotion. He died in 1059 Fasli, and his remains were
interred in the enclosures of the great Buddhist temple, and a small temple was built
thereon. Mahanth Chaitanya Gir was succeeded by his disciple, Mahanth Mahadeva
Gir, who led a very pious and austere life. He worshipped Anna Pūrn.a Devı̄ for several
years, and his dhunı̄ (place of worship) and samādhi (tomb) of pucka masonry work
stands in front of the Mahābodhi temple, where also a temple was built by him in
honour of his Ishta (tutelary) goddess Anna Pūrnā. The tradition is that the goddess
Ann Pūrnā Devı̄ was so much gratified that she presented him a Katorā (cup) for
distribution of grain, with the āshirbād (blessing) that if the mahanths of the Asthān
would continue freely distributing sadābarat (alms) out of this katorā, they would
never be in want. It is said to hold exactly enough to satisfy the appetite of whoever
receives its contents, be he man or women, child or adult.
This talismanic cup is still in the monastery, and grain is doled out daily with
it. It was under the auspices of this goddess, the presenter of the inexhaustible cup,
that he was enabled to build the large monastic building, the present Math of Bodh
Gayā, which is situated on the bank of Lı̄lājan river (another name for the sacred
Phālgu), in the midst of a garden extending over an area of about 52 bighas, and
surrounded by a high masonry wall. He also founded an alms house, which has been
much extended by the later mahanths, where rice and pulse are daily distributed to
three to five hundred persons up to the present time.
He died in 1089 Fasli (corresponding with 1682 A.D.) and was succeeded by his
disciple, Lāl Gir.
Mahanth Lāl Gir is said to have been much favoured by the Emperor of Delhi, and
the villages of Mastipur and Tārādı̄h, in which the Buddhistic Mahābodhi temple
is situated, were made over to him by a Royal firman. A jagir of six villages was
presented to the Math by Wazı̄rul-Mumālik Qamaruddin Khan. He was followed by
his disciple, Keshava Gir, who was so well known for his piety and devotion that
before he ascended the Mahanthi Gaddi of Bodh Gayā, and in the lifetime of his guru,
he got a present of Antarin and other villages from Emperor Farukh Siyar of Delhi,
and in the Royal firman he was styled as Faqir Kāmil wa Haq Parast (a monk who
had reached the highest degree of talismanic powers and of the merit of holy orders).
He was succeeded by Mahanth Rāghava Gir in 1155 Fasli (corresponding with 1748
A.D.), who was followed by Mahanth Rāmhit Gir in 1176 Fasli (corresponding with
1769 A.D.). Mahanth Rāmhit Gir contributed greatly to increase the wealth and
prosperity of the Math. He obtained lākhirāj lands and villages from the Maharajas
of Tikari and Ichak. He died in the holy city of Benares, and his dharam samādhi
(tomb) was built by his successor in the Bodh Gayā samādhi (family burial ground).
He was followed by his disciple, Mahanth Bālak Gir, in 1213 Fasli (corresponding
with 1806), who obtained a few villages from Maharaja Rāmsingh of Jaspur, and
was succeeded by his disciple, Shiva Gir, in 1227 Fasli (corresponding with 1820).
Mahanth Shiva Gir, who was equally noted for his personal beauty, generous heart,
and religious devotion, and who made no less than 1,400 chelās (disciples), brought
the condition of the Math and its properties to a most flourishing condition.
It is said that in his time some of the Math properties were resumed under Regu-
lation II of 1819 and Regulation III of 1828, and that they were all released after
due enquiry being held. The Mahanth, it is said, was thus also acknowledged as
Mahanth of Bodh Gayā by the British Government. After his death in 1253 Fasli
(corresponding with 1846 A.D.), his disciples, following the custom which had been
prevalent in the Math since the very beginning, selected Bhaipat Gir, one of their own
body, as the Mahanth of Bodh Gayā. Mahanth Bhaipat Gir was at the helm of affairs
for 21 years. He is said to have distinguished himself for his conspicuous loyalty by
helping the English Government in the dark days of the Indian Sepoy Mutiny. He
died in 1274 Fasli (corresponding with 1867 A.D.), and after him, his disciple, Hem
Narāyan Gir, succeeded to the Mahanthi Gadi of Bodh Gayā.
Mahanth Hem Narāyan Gir was a great Sanskrit scholar and collected a large
library of original Sanskrit manuscripts. He built a large house at Benares at a cost of
about fifty thousand rupees for the benefit of those gosains of his order who wished to
pass the last days of their life in the holy city of Kashi (Benares). He also built many
temples in his zamindaries, and established a dharamsāl.ā and excavated a tank at
Zindāpur on the Hazaribagh road. This Mahanth rendered valuable assistance to the
Government during the famine of 1873-74, and in recognition of his services, he was
presented with a Certificate of Honour in the name of the Queen-Empress of India on
the 1st January 1877, the day of the proclamation of the title of Empress of India. He
was known to be one of the most influential and respectable zamindars of the district
and was held in great reverence by the entire native community. The Government
of India, as a mark of personal distinction, exempted him from his attendance in the
civil courts under Government orders, dated the 22nd February 1876.
He was very religiously inclined and spent a great portion of his time in worship
and religious devotion. In 1882 he went out on a (tirath jātrā) pilgrimage, with the
intention of passing the remainder of his days in mere austerity. He therefore executed
a registered deed of gift (hibbā) on the 25th of August 1882, in favour of his disciple
(chelā) Krishna Dayal Gir, who was more familiarly called Brahmāchārjı̄ on account
of his pious habits. He stated in this deed that as, in consequence of his old age, he
wished to retire from the worldly life, he desired to abdicate his mahanth ship in
favour of any of his disciples who would be the most eligible, and as a panchāyat
consisting of five of the most respectable gosains of the Math had unanimously
selected Krishna Dayāl Gir as the fittest among the disciples, he, agreeing with the
panches, appointed him as his successor, and made an absolute and free gift of all his
properties in favour of the said Krishna Dayāl Gir. Krishna Dayāl Gir thus obtained
possession of all the properties appertaining to the Math and reigned as mahanth
de facto for nearly four months. During this short period, he showed good capacity
for work and ruled over the Math in a very liberal spirit. He also contributed Rs.
2,500 towards the expenses of repairs of the Mahābodhi temple. However, Mahanth
Hem Narāyan Gir, who had set out on pilgrimage, returned again to Bodh Gayā
and, at the most earnest solicitation of his disciples and other gosains, consented to
take up the onerous and responsible duties of the mahanthi of the Math once again.
A registered deed of relinquishment (bāzı̄dāwa) was therefore executed by Krishna

Dayāl Gir on the 22nd December 1882, who most gladly and cheerfully gave up
and abandoned all the right and title he had derived under the above described deed
of gift (hibbā) in favour of his guru and donor. During his lifetime Mahanth Hem
Narāyan Gir thus once more assumed the management of the estate and managed it
with great prudence. Mahanth Hem Narāyan Gir died at Benares on the 12th Paus,
corresponding with the 27th December 1891. His dharma samādhi (temple) is built
in the Bodh Gayā samādhi (the family burial ground).
The Mahanth, as well as his disciples (chelās) are pledged to a lifelong celibacy,
and, according to the time-honoured custom of the Math and the rule of their order,
when a disciple of the Math dies his properties, moveable or immoveable, revert to
the monastery.
Succession to the mahanth ship of Bodh Gayā is governed according to custom.
When a mahanth dies, all his disciples nominate five gosains of their own math
as panches or arbitrators to select a worthy and fit successor to the gaddi out of
their own body; and all the disciples abide by the decision of the panchayat so
constituted. Accordingly, a panchnāmah was executed on the 13th of Magh 1299
Fasli, corresponding with 1892 A.D., by all the disciples of the late mahanth, by
which they empowered gosains Bishun Dhāri Gir, Raghubar Sahāy Gir, Rāmkaran
Gir, Mohan Gir, and Jai Rām Gir, to elect a Mahanth for the Bodh Gayā gaddi out of
their own body, and all these five gosains gave their written and unanimous verdict
in favour of the same Krishna Dayal Gir, in whose favour the late mahanth had made
a gift. Mahanth Krishna Dayāl Gir was considered most eligible, being the most
learned, the most pious, the most religious, and the most capable of all his fellow
disciples.
The formal ceremony of ascending the ancient and holy gaddi of the Math was
performed with great éclat on the 21st Magh 1299 Fasli, corresponding with the 4th of
February 1892, on which day, after the usual pujās, homa and sacrifices, the present
Mahanth, Krishna Dayāl Gir, was declared Mahanth of Bodh Gayā in the presence
of the principal officials and other residents of the district of Gayā. When the new
mahanth was formally installed on the gaddi as the Mahanth of Bodh Gayā, all the
numerous disciples presented him each with a sheet in token of their acceptance of
his supremacy. This concluded the ceremony of installation. Mahanth Krishna Dayāl
Gir is the 12th mahanth of Bodh Gayā. His present income, which is derived from
presents offered to the great Mahābodhi temple, personal presents made by disciples
to him and to the holy shrines in the Math, and the landed property, amounts to
upwards of a lakh of rupees a year. The expenses of the monastery under head
sadābarat, or daily alms-giving, feeding the gosains, or members of the fraternity
of all the subordinate maths, and the expenses on occasion of the principal festivals,
such as Dasahrā, Tilsankrānti, and others, are said to be on a grand scale. Among
other items of expenditure the one under bhāndāra is noteworthy. Sometime after
the death of a mahanth and subsequent to election of a new mahant, a grand feast is
given, to which as many members of the fraternity throughout India as can possibly
be asked to join, are invited. They are fed on very richly and highly spiced cakes
called “māl puā”. This feast, it is said, costs nearly a lakh of rupees.
The assets of the estate are always in a very solvent state owing to good manage-
ment. One peculiar feature in the management of the domestic and foreign affairs
of the estate is that all the posts in and outside the monastery are reserved for the
members of the order. All persons employed—from the grass-cut to the highest priest,
or biggest village agent—are gir gosains of Sivite school, disciples of His Holiness
the Mahanth of Bodh Gayā.
The present occupant of the gaddi, Mahanth Krishna Dayāl Gir, is a young man
of very pious habits. He has shown great application for business and seems to have
the affairs of the monastery well in hand. He has shewn good public and liberality in
the right direction by subscribing Rs.5,000 to the “Grierson Well and Public Gardens
Fund”, and seems to possess the entire confidence of the members of his order, by
whom and the native community (both Hindus and Musalmans) he is held in high
esteem and regard.
English translations of the sanads or royal grants form appendices to this report.
A statement showing the details of property held by the Math is also enclosed.
Sanad granted under the seal of His Majesty Muhammad Shāh Pādshāh Gāzı̄.
Muhammad Seal of
Shāh Pādshāh Gāzī. Muhammad
Era 6th Muhammad Shāh Pādshāh
Shāhī Seal of Nasrāt Gāzi.
Jang Itmādu’d-dāulah (In Togra
Wazīr al Mumālik character.)
Qamaru’d-din Khān,
Khān Bahādur.
Be it known to all present and future gumāshtas and mutsaddı̄s of pargana

Sherghāti, Sarkār, and Sūbā Bihār, that according to the order of His Majesty the
King of all lands and time, Khalı̄fā of strict justice and means of preservation and
comfort to all beings (may God preserve him), who is the minister of the God of Gods,
on whom is the special mercy of the Almighty Father, and who is the sole means of
livelihood to the whole world, the root of all laws and regulations, and the throne of
the khalafat, written on the 21st day of Ziqād in the 9th year of his Jalus (accession),
mauza Bagulā and Dharahrā khurd, are granted to Lal Gir Sannyāsı̄ as madad māsh,
without any restriction of names and divisions from the middle of bijiail. You all,
in obedience to this order, should leave the said mauzas in his possession, without
making any change or alteration therein, and you should in no way be overcome by
and kind of temptation, and should in all respect look upon the order as just and right,
so that all the produce of the said property be used by him for his own livelihood
and that of the itinerant faqı̄rs; for which act of benevolence, he should ever pray for
the stability of the wealth (of His Majesty). You all should not take notice of other
properties belonging to the grantee. You all should take great care in carrying out
this order.
Written this day, the 1st day of Rabiulawal in the 9th year of the August Jalūs
(accession).
−−−−−−
Sanad granted under the seal of His Majesty Muhammad Shāh Pādshāh Gāzı̄.
Muhammad Seal of
Shāh Pādshāh Gāzī. Muhammad
Era 6th Muhammad Shāh Pādshāh
Shāhī Seal of Nasrāt Gāzi.
Jang Itmādu’d-dāulah (In Togra
Wazīr al Mumālik character.)
Qamaru’d-din Khān,
Khān Bahādur.
Be it known to all present and future gumāshtas and mutsaddı̄s of pargana Maher,
Sarkār and Sūbā Bihār, that according to the order of His Majesty the King of all
lands and time, and Khalı̄fa of strict justice and means of preservation and comfort
to all beings (may God preserve him), who is the minister of the God of Gods, on
whom is the special mercy of the Almighty Father, who is the root of all the laws and
regulations of the world, and who is the preserver of the throne of khalāfat, written
on the 27th of Ziqād in the 9th year of his Jalūs, that mauzas Mastipur, Tārādı̄h are
conferred upon Lal Gir Sannyāsı̄ as madad māsh without any restriction of names
and division from the middle of bijiail, and as it is herewith prescribed. You all
should, in obedience to the order, leave the said mauzas in his possession without
making any change or alteration thereon, and should in no way be overcome by any
kind of temptation, and should in all respect look upon the order as just and right, so
that all the produce of the said property be used by him for his own livelihood and
that of the itinerant faqı̄rs; for which act of benevolence he should always pray for
the stability of the wealth (of his Majesty). You all should not take notice of other
properties belonging to the grantee. You all should take great care in carrying out the
above orders.
Written on the 11th day of Rabiulawal in the 9th year of the August Jalūs.
−−−−−−
Sanad granted under the seal of His Majesty Emperor Farukh Siyar.
Seal of
The Emperor
Muhammad
Farukh Siyar
Pādshāh Gāzī
Be it known to all the present and future mustsaddı̄s of pargana Chainpur, Sarkār
Rohatās, and Sūbā Bihār, that as Gosain Keshava Gir Sannyāsı̄, the perfect righteous
devotee, passes his days entirely in devotion and has no property to maintain himself,
it is herewith prescribed that from the beginning of the Fasil Kharı̄f of 1124 Fasli,
the whole of mauza Antariā, tappa Nagbānsi, towards Mohardhar in taluka Ambal
in the said pargana, and the whole of the waste jungle therein are conferred upon the
said devotee for his maintenance. According to this parwana you all should leave
the said mauza in his possession, and should not demand any revenue or abwāb or
battādāri appertaining to the said village, so that in every year and every fasil he,
with other devotees, may appropriate the produce of the said property; for which
act of benevolence he may ever pray for the stability of the wealth of his Majesty,
who remains under the care of the Almighty Father, and who is his Khalı̄fa. You all
therefore should take great care in carrying out orders mentioned above.
Written on the 15th day of Ziqād in the 5th year of the August Jalūs.
−−−−−−
Sanad granted under the seal of Mirza Muhammad Akbar Shāh Pādshāh, son of His Majesty
the Emperor ‘A’lam Shāh Pādshāh Gāzı̄.
1190.
Seal of
Mirza Muhammad
Akbar Shāh
Bahādur Bin
Hazrat Shāh
‘A’lam Bādshāh
Gāzī.
Be it known to the present and future āmils of pargana Maher, Sarkār, and Sūbā
Bihār, that Mahanth Rāmhit Gir states that mauza Mastı̄pur and others in the said
pargana have been conferred upon him under the Royal farmān as madad māsh,
and that the said farmān had been lost. Now he earnestly prays for a parwāna az
daftar khās sharı̄f prohibiting every person from interfering with the said property.
Accordingly all of you are herewith directed that in obedience to this order, you
should leave the above-named property as usual in the possession of the applicant;
that you should not in any way interfere with it, so that the applicant may appropriate
its produce to his own use and may ever pray, and that you all should be very mindful
of the above order.
Written on this day the 3rd day of Shawal in the 30th year of Jalūs moalā.
−−−−−−
Attested copy of the Sanad granted to Gosain Lāl Gir
Seal of
Khadimu’l.
Akbar Gorāi
Muhamma’t
Hayāt Māzir
Gāzī
CHAK nāmah under the orders of His Majesty the King, dated the 18th day of
Ziqād, 1118 Fasli, corresponding with the 4th year of His Majesty’s Jalūs, is as
follows:
Be it known to all the present and future gumāshtas of mauza Mahābodh Min
Amal, pargana Maher, Sarkār, and Sūbā Bihār, that as chak Mastı̄pur appertaining
to the said mauza was granted to the righteous Gosain Lāl Gir as madad māsh by
the former rulers, it is herewith granted khairāt in the name of God to Gosain Lāl
Gir, and that you are all directed not to interfere in any way with the said chak. You
should be very careful in carrying out the above order.
——–
Sanad granted by Chaudhrı̄ Bı̄rsāhı̄, zamindar of pargana Sanautand others, Sarkār and
Sūbā Bihār.
Seal of
Chaudhrī
Bīrsāhi,
1184..
I AM Chaudhrı̄ Bı̄rsāhi, zamindar of parganas Sanaut and others, Sarkār and Sūbā
Bihār.
Whereas mauza Māstı̄pur amla, pargana Maher, comprising 750 bighas measured
by pakka biswa, with jalkar, bankar, and tank, &c., in mahāl Bodh Gayā was conferred
upon Gosain Lāl Gir Sannyāsı̄ as khairāt by the former zamindars, I also allow the
above-named property as shiva prit to the said Gosain to meet the expenses of
sadābarat. That the said Gosain is required to bring the property under cultivation,
and appropriate the produce every year and every crop to his own use, and ever pray,
everybody is warned not to interfere with the property. The Hindus are to consider
its produce as beef and Muhammadans as harām.
Dated the 4th day of Safar corresponding with Fasli year 1138.
−−−−−−
Sanad grated by Raja Tirbhuan Singh, Zamindar of pargana Sanaut and others, Sarkār and
Sūbā Bihār.
Seal of
Tirbhuan
Singh.
(Sd.) Tirbhuan Singh.

I AM Tribhuan Singh, Zamindar of pargana Sanaut and others, Sankār and Sūbā
Bihār.
Whereas mauza Māstı̄pur amla, pargana Maher, comprising 750 bighas of land
measured by pakka bisra with jalkar, bankar and tank, &c., in mahāl Bodh Gayā was
conferred upon Gosain Lāl Gir Sannyāsı̄ as khairāt by the former zamindars, I also
allow the said property to the above-named Gosain Lal Gir as shiva prı̄t to meet the
expenses of sadābarat. That the said Gosain is required to bring the property under
cultivation, and to appropriate the produce every year and every crop to his own use,
and ever pray, everybody is warned not to interfere with the property. The Hindus
are to consider its produce as beef and Muhammadans as haram.
Dated the 5th Rabiulawal corresponding with 1139 Fasli.
−−−−−−
Sanad granted by Divan in favour of Gosain Lāl Gir.

(Sd.) DĪWAN SAHĪB.
Seal
illegible.
Be it known to present and future gumāshtas of Mahābodh Min Amāl, pargana Maher,
Sūbā Bihār, that chak Mastı̄pur, which is attached to the said mauza, was from before
given to Gosain Lāl Gir in khairāt (charity), I also do allow the some to be given in
the name of God. It is therefore hereby ordered that nobody shall interfere with it;
and all shall obey as is hereby ordered.
Written on the 18th Ziqād 1118 Fasli, corresponding with the 4th year of the Jalās.
1834 A.D. Seal

of the Court of
Khās Mahāl,
Zila Bihar.
(Illegible.) J. C. Dick,
Offg. Superantendent.
--------------
−−−−−−
ITLAINĀMAH to Mahanth Shiva Gir, holder of mauza Gogapur, Mohamda

alias Bhagwānpur, Salaia, Bhanwarbar, Partappur, Gojra, Sagasot, Harha Harhi,
Rāmsāgar, Babhni, Sakhwārā uz Rakba Dhondhwa, Bagulā, Dharhara, Darbār Telaia
and Pesra, in pargana Sherghati and Maher, and Dhanāwan uz Rakbe, Jamra Jatia,
called Gulni, in pargana Pahra, Zila Bihār, is as follows:
That letter No. 74, dated the 15th March, 1841, from Mr. Currie, Secretary to the
Board of Revenue, in connection with the release of tenures of Asthān Math Bodh
Gayā belonging to Mahanth Shiva Gir, addressed to the Commissioner of Revenue,
has been received.
Translation of the letter of Mr. Currie, Secretary to the Sadar Board of Revenue,
is as follows:
“In reply to your letter No. 1768, dated the 6th January, in connection with papers
herewith annexed, regarding a certain lākhirāj tenure in the akhārā of Sannyāsı̄s at
Bodh Gayā which were confiscated by the Deputy Collector of Khās Mahāl, Zila
Bihār, I am directed by the Hon’ble Members of the Sadar Board of Revenue to
forward a copy of the Government order No. 260, dated the 23rd March, for your
information and guidance.”
Translation of the letter of His Honour the Governor of Bengal.
“His Honour the Governor directs that with regard to the wāguzasht of all the
tenures of the akhārā of Sannyāsı̄s at Bodh Gayā mentioned in the 7th paragraph of
the letter of the Hon’ble Member of Sadar Board of Revenue, they be informed as
follows: That the jama of every mauza, which is in aggregate Rs. 1,807, be omitted
from the rent-roll.”
On enquiry made in the sarishta and on referring to the registers of khās mahāl
and the lists received from the office of the Commissioner of Revenue, and the Khās
Deputy Collector, all of which are collected, regarding the tenure belonging to Asthān
Math Bodh Gayā, it appears that no list containing the area of lands and dates of
their confiscation has been received from the Board in accordance with which orders
regarding the release are to be issued, so that this office may not be held responsible
for it, is thought proper that a letter in English be sent to the Hon’ble Board asking
to forward a list of the villages belonging to the akhārā of Sannyāsı̄s at Bodh Gayā,
and which are liable to be released. On the receipt of the list referred to above, orders
will be issued in due course. For the present the collection of rents of the mahāls
under settlement be stopped. If Mahanth Shiva Gir executes and files an ikrārnamah
to the effect that he will realize all the sums due from persons holding these mahāls,
equal to the mustājrı̄ jama, and no claim shall rest with the Government in connection
thereof, and that he will draw from the Government Treasury only the sum equal to
what he realizes from the mustājirs, then there shall be no objection to the allowing
of these properties to remain in the possession of Mahanth Shiva Gir. But let this
also be known that, in case the Government was not to accord its sanction regarding
any village from among the villages contained in this list, then that mahāl would be
taken off from the possession of Mahanth Shiva Gir. Accordingly it is ordered.
That a copy of this rubkārı̄ be sent to Munshi Azimuddin Hussain, Khān Bahādur,
Deputy Collector, directing him not to realize the revenue from these, whether
summarily or permanently settled villages, which are in the possession of Mahanth
Shiva Gir, and also directing him to submit a statement in English and Persian showing
the realization of rent of these villages from the date of their being taken in the khās
mahāl, either by sı̄r or settlement, in the forms in which previously a statement for
a few of the released villages was submitted. A copy thereof with certain alterations
is sent herewith, so that on the receipt of the list from the Board of Revenue, it may
be submitted to the special auditors. That as soon as Mahanth Shiva Gir files the
ikrārnāmah referred to above, orders regarding possession over these villages and
those under settlement, and also those which are in the possession of others shall be
issued. That an itlāināmah containing all the above facts be issued to Mahanth Shiva
Gir. That the parwānas of release in the forms prescribed by the Board of Revenue
will be issued on receipt of the list applied for.
As the villages Babhni and Sakhwārā have, under the Board’s sanction, been
entered in the Collectorate rent-roll, a copy of this rubkari be sent to the Collector
of Bihar with the request that he shall not realize the revenue of these villages until
further orders of the Board of Revenue. That as the fees of the villages referred
to above have not been settled, a copy of this rubkārı̄ be sent to Ray Makhan Lāl
Bahadur, Deputy Collector, directing him not interfere with the completion of the
settlement of those villages. Accordingly you have been informed of the facts referred
to above.
The 10th day of May, 1841, corresponding with 5th jeth 1248 Fasli.
ISHWARI PARSAD RIAZUDDIN AHMAD,

Offg. Munshi (God forgive him.)
Muharrir, Manshikhana, Zila Bihār
------------------------
Release of Sanad
Khas Pargana Name Date of Kitabi Measured Name of Date of Date on

mahal of resumption bigha bigha occupant Govt which
register mahal order the
No. sanad
was
issued
2811 Pahra Portion 17th 80 6 ……. Mahant 23rd 11th
of January 11 8 Shiva Gir February October
Jamri 1840 1841, 1841.
Jatia No. 260
known
as
Gulni
SYED ABDUL GHANI, J.C. DICK,

Offg. Sarishtadar. 1834 A.D. Seal Offg. Superintendent.
of the Court of
Khās Mahāl,
Zila Bihar.
Be it known to the present and future mutsaddı̄s, karpardāzes, zamindars, talukdars,

mustājirs of land measuring 80b. 16 k. 11dh. 8dh. in mauza Jamri Jatia, known
as Gulni, which is in the possession of Mahanth Shiva Gir, in pargana Pahrā, Zila
Bihar, that the above land was resumed under Regulation II of 1819 and III of 1828
by the Government from the possession of Mahanth Shiva Giri, by order of the
Khās Deputy Collector, Zila Bihār, dated 17th January 1840. That from 17th July
1840, corresponding with 3rd Sravan of 1247 Fasli, it being held liable to revenue,
was surveyed under regulation VII of 1822, under the superintendence of Babu
Ugra Narāyan Singh, Deputy Collector, Bahādur, appointed for the purpose under
Regulation IX of 1833. That on the 26th January 1841 land measuring 115b. 1dh.
11dh. was permanently settled with Mahanth Shiva Gir, at an annual rental of Rs.
34-0-1½. This settlement was to take effect from the beginning of year 1248 Fasli.
That Mr. Currie, Secretary to the Board of Revenue’s letter No. 74 of 15th March
1841, with a copy of Government of Bengal’s order No. 260, dated 23rd February
idem, directing the release of the tenures of the Akhārā of Sannyāsı̄s at Bodh Gayā, to
the address of the Commissioner of Revenue, was received. That the Commissioner’s
orders regarding the release of the said tenure, together with others contained in the
list prepared by the Khās Deputy Collector Bahādur have been received in this office.
Accordingly, as directed by the higher authorities, the tenure in the possession of the
Mahanth Shiva Gir has been released in the possession of the said Mahanth. That all
of you are directed to release these tenures in the possession of the Mahanth Shiva
Gir, and not to raise objection of any sort. That the said Mahanth should appropriate
as usual the produce of these tenures towards the performance of noble works, such
as sadābarat alms, &e., and to pour blessings on the Government.
The 11th day of October, 1841, corresponding with 11th Assin 2nd 1249 Fasli.
−−−−−−
Release of Sanad
SYED ABDUL GHANI, 1834 A.D. Seal J.C. DICK,

of the Court of
Offg. Sarishtadar. Khās Mahāl, Offg. Superintendent.
Zila Bihar.
Khas Pargana Name of Date of Kitabi Measured Name of Date of Date on

mahal mahal resumption bigha bigha occupant Govt which
register order the
No. sanad
was
issued
1427 Sherghati Bhanwar 23rd June 300 0 420 18 5 Mahant 23rd 11th
bar 1836 00 10 Shiva February October
Gir 1841, 1841.
No. 260
The contents of this wāguzasht are the same as that of the wāguzasht of mauza
Gulni, mutatis mutandis.
−−−−−−
Release of Sanad

of the Court of
Zila Bihar.

No. sanad
was
issued
2918 Sherghati Darbar 1sr June 930 0 —— Mahant 23rd 11th
Taliaia 1840 00 Shiva Gir February October
and 1841, 1841.
Pesra No. 260
−−−−−−
Release of Sanad

of the Court of
Zila Bihar.

register order the
No. sanad
was
issued
2962 Sherghātı̄ Ram 3rd 71 0 0 —- Mahant 23rd 11th
Sagar… September, 0 Shiva February October
1836 Gir 1841, 1841.
No. 260
−−−−−−
Release of Sanad

of the Court of
Zila Bihar.

register order the
No. sanad
was
issued
2938 Sherghati Bagula 8th June 676 0 ……. Mahant 23rd 11th
and 1840 00 Shiva February October
Dharhara Gir 1841, 1841.
No. 260
−−−−−−
Release of Sanad

of the Court of
Zila Bihar.

No. sanad
was
issued
2092 Sherghati Harha 21st 101 0 135 8 1 1 Mahant 23rd 11th
Harhu August, 00 Shiva Gir February October
1837 1841, 1841.
No. 260
−−−−−−
Release of Sanad

of the Court of
Zila Bihar.

register order the
No. sanad
was
issued
2018 Sherghati Sagasote… 14th June 500 0 629 0 0 0 Mahant 23rd 11th
1834 00 Shiva February October
Gir 1841, 1841.
No. 260
−−−−−−
Release of Sanad

of the Court of
Zila Bihar.

register order the
No. sanad
was
issued
747 Maher Sukhwara 1st 400 0 413 6 10 Mahant 23rd 11th
… … September 00 3 15 Shiva February October
1834 Gir 1841, 1841.
No. 260
−−−−−−
Release of Sanad

of the Court of
Zila Bihar.

No. sanad
was
issued
747 Maher Bhabni 1st 200 0 137 5 14 Mahant 23rd 11th
…. … September, 0 0 8 10 Shiva Gir February October
1834 1841, 1841.
No. 260
−−−−−−
Release of Sanad

of the Court of
Zila Bihar.

register order the
No. sanad
was
issued
1495 Sherghati Gogapur 30th July, 201 0 596 0 2 2 Mahant 23rd 11th
… 1836 00 Shiva February October
Gir 1841, 1841.
No. 260
−−−−−−
Release of Sanad

of the Court of
Zila Bihar.

register order the
No. sanad
was
issued
2115 Maher Portion of 7th 121 0 86 18 2 Mahant 23rd 11th
…. Dhondhwā September, 0 0 10 Shiva February October
1837. Gir 1841, 1841.
No. 260
−−−−−−
Release of Sanad

of the Court of
Zila Bihar.

register order the
No. sanad
was
issued
2019 Sherghati Pratāppur 14th June 80 0 0 526 0 0 0 Mahant 23rd 11th
1834 0 Shiva February October
Gir 1841, 1841.
No. 260
−−−−−−
Release of Sanad

of the Court of
Zila Bihar.
Khas mahal Pargana Name of mahal Date of Kitabi bigha Measured bigha Name of Date of Govt Date on which
register No. resumption occupant order the sanad was
issued
1494 Sherghati Uz Mohommoda 30 July, 1836 100 0 0 0 139 9 8 0 Mahant 23rd February 11th October
alias Bhagwanpur. Shiva Gir 1841, No. 260 1841.
Appendix A: A Brief History of Bodh Gayā Math, District Gayā
151
−−−−−−
Release of Sanad

of the Court of
Zila Bihar.

No. sanad
was
issued
2021 Sherghati Salaia 14th June, 225 0 203 2 13 0 Mahant 23rd 11th
…. 1837 00 Shiva Gir February October
1841, 1841.
No. 260
−−−−−−
Release of Sanad

of the Court of
Zila Bihar.

register order the
No. sanad
was
issued
2194 Sherghati Dhanāwān 22nd 615 0 562 12 3 Mahant 23rd 11th
…. January 00 10 Shiva February October
1833. Gir 1841, 1841.
No. 260
−−−−−−
Release of Sanad

of the Court of
Zila Bihar.

No. sanad
was
issued
2017 Sherghati Gojra 14th June 200 0 123 4 17 Mahant 23rd 11th
…. 1837 00 10 Shiva Gir February October
1841, 1841.
No. 260
−−−−−−
By the orders of the Collector and Magistrate of Gayā District

By the orders of the Collector and Magistrate of Gayā District
Seal of the
Collector
of Gayā
W. KEMBLE.
The righteous Mahanth Hem Narayān Gir, may God preserve you!
Your petition on the subject of repair of roads at different places in your zamindari
at your expense having been put up in the presence of your mukhtars, it is learnt that
as you have repaired them at your expense for the use of the public, and do not
deem it proper to recover the expenses from the Government I, on behalf of Her
Majesty the Queen-Empress, may prosperity remain with Her, convey to you an
expression of thanks for this act of benevolence, and hope that during your time such
like benevolent works will be executed.
The 24th day of September 1880.
Written by Nand Kishor Lal.
−−−−−−
Seal of the
Court of GEORGE MARTENS,
Khas Mahal,
Zila Superintendent.
Shahabad.
Proceedings of the Court of the Superintendent of Khās Mahāl, Zila Shahabad,

dated the 2nd day of April, 1841, corresponding with the 26th day of Chait 1248
Fasli, Friday.
PRESENT:
George Martens, Esq., Superintendent of Khās Mahāl, Shahabad.
Read Secretary to the Government of Bengal’s letter No. 207, dates 23rd February, 1841, on
the subject of the release of mahāl Antaria, pargana Chainpur.
Under direction contained in the Secretary to the Government of Bengal’s No. 539, dated
17th April, 139, the above mahāl having been permanently settled at an annual rental of Rs.
267-15-8, were entered in the Collectorate Tauzi, and as the necessary steps regarding the
release are to be taken in Collector’s Court, it is
ORDERED
That a copy of the proceeding, with a copy of the letter above referred to, be forwarded to
the Collector of this district, with the request that he will take the necessary steps to release
the mahāl.
ORDERED
That parwanas to the record-keepers and tauzi navı̄s directing them to strike off the mahal
from the tauzi, and also a parwana to the tahsı̄li muharrir directing him not to realize the
revenue, be issued.
The 12th April, 1841. J. Sandys,
Collector.
RAM NARAYAN SINGH,
Offg. Naib Sarishtadar.
−−−−−−
No. 630, dated Calcutta, the 22nd February, 1876.
From- R.L. Mangles, Esq., Offg. Secy. to the Govt. of Bengal, Judicial Dept.,
To- The Registrar, High Court.
I AM directed to state, for the information of the Hon’ble Judges, that the
Lieutenant-Governor has been pleased to grant to the Mahanth Hem Narayan Gir, of
Bodh Gayā, the privilege of exemption from personal attendance in the Civil Courts
under the provisions of section 22, Act VIII of 1859.
2. The requisite notification will be published in the Calcutta Gazette.
No. 631, dated Calcutta, the 26th February, 1876.
Memo. by– J. Crawford, Esq., Under-Secy. to the Govt. of Bengal, Judl. Dept.
Copy forwarded to the Commissioner of Patna Division, for information.
No. 428R. dated Bankipore, the 26th February, 1876.
Memo. by- Babu D.G. Banerji, Personal Assistant to Commissioner.
Copy forwarded to the Collector of Gayā for information, and communication to the
Mahanth.
No. 1501, dated Gaya, the 29th February, 1876.
Memo. by- H.G. Sharp, Esq., Deputy Collector, for Collector.
Copy forwarded to Mahanth Hem Narayān Gir, of Bodh Gayā, for information.
−−−−−−
By command of His Excellency the Viceroy and Governor-General this certificate

is presented in the name of Her Most Gracious Majesty Victoria, Empress of India,
to Mahanth Hem Narāyan Gir of Bodh Gayā, in the district of Gayā, in recognition
of his liberality during the scarcity and the invaluable assistance he has given to the
authorities when called upon.
The 1st January 1877. Richard Temple.
Certificate presented to Mahanth Hem Narāyan Gir of Bodh Gayā, district Gayā,
in the name of the Empress of India.
The 1st January 1877.
−−−−−−
No. 3440, dated Calcutta, the 19th July, 1880.
From- H.M. Kisch, Esq., Under-Secy. to the Government of Bengal, Judicial,

Political, and Appointment Departments,
To- The Commissioner of the Patna Division.
I AM directed to forward for your information the accompanying copy of a notifica-
tion, dated the 19th of July 1880, containing the names of landholders and members
of Municipal Committees in Lower Bengal of approved loyalty and good position,
who not being otherwise exempted from the prohibitions and directions contained
in sections 13 to 16 of the Indian Arms Act, 1878, are now exempted under clause
10 of paragraph (one) I of the Notification of the Government of India in the Home
Department, No. 518, dated the 6th March, 1879, from the operations of all prohibi-
tions and directions contained in those sections of the Act, other than those referring
to common articles designed for torpedo service, war rockets, and machinery for the
manufacture of arms and ammunition.
2. The Lieutenant-Governor requests that a copy of the notification may be
forwarded to each District and Sub-divisional Magistrate in your Division, and that
the necessary communication may be made to those gentlemen in your Division
whose names are entered in the notification.
No. 220 J.Cir., dated Bankipore, the 2nd August, 1880.
Copy, together with an extract from the list, forwarded to the Magistrate of Gayā for
information, and communication to the person concerned.
No. 1739Cir., dated Gayā, the 9th August, 1880.
Copy, together with an extract from the list, forwarded to the Magistrate of Gayā for
information, and communication to the person concerned.
No. 1739Cir., dated Gayā, the 9th August, 1880.
Memo. by- E. Barton, Esq., Offg. Magistrate.
Copy forwarded to Mahanth Hem Narāyan Gir, of Bodh Gayā, for information.
NOTIFICATION.
POLICE.
Dated Calcutta, the 19th July, 1880.
Under paragraph I, clause 10 of the Notification of the Government of India in the

Home Department, dated the 16th March 1879, His Excellency the Governor-General
in Council has been pleased to exempt all landholders and members of Municipal
Committees of approved loyalty and good position from the operation of all prohibi-
tions and directions contained in sections 13,14,15, and 16 of the Indian Arms Act,
1878, other than those referring to common articles designed for torpedo service,
war rockets, and machinery for the manufacture of arms and ammunition. In accor-
dance with the provisions of clause 10 of paragraph I of the aforesaid notification,
the following list of landholders and members of Municipal Committees of approved

loyalty and good position not otherwise exempted from the prohibitions and direc-
tions contained in sections 13 to 16 of the Arms Act, 1878, is hereby issued by the
Lieutenant-Governor.
Extract from a list of landholders and members of Municipal Committees,
exempted from the prohibition against going armed, and possessing arms without
licenses.
District Name Qualification

: : :
Gayā … … Mahant Hem Narāyan Gir, Bodh Gayā … … … Landholder.
No. 621, dated Calcutta, the 25th March, 1881.
From- Horace A. Cockerell, Esq., Secretary to the Government of Bengal, Judicial,

Political and Appointment Departments,
To- Mahant Hem Narayan Gir, of Bodh Gayā.
I AM directed by the Lieutenant-Governor to convey to you an expression of his
thanks for the assistance offered by you in connection with the preservation works
which are being executed in the old temple at Bodh Gayā.
Copy of a memorandum recorded by H.R.H. Prince Damrong, Siam.
I DESIRE to put on record my warm appreciation of the courteous and hospitable

reception given to me by Mahant Krishna Dayāl Gir on the occasion of my visit to
Bodh Gayā. But, however acceptable are such acts of personal courtesy and good
feeling, the great interest and pleasure of my visit has been the sight of a place and of
its surroundings which are held in reverence and honour by every Buddhist, as well
as by many who by profession are not Buddhists, and the evidence which I have seen
on all sides that, in the hands of their present guardians, all is being done that care
and devotion can do to preserve and hand down to future generations these priceless
monuments of the history and of the religion of so many millions of the human race.
Damrong, Prince of Siam.
−−−−−−
Appendix B
Calcutta High Court
(Source: Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1821486/)

Jaipal Gir And Ors. vs H. Dharmapala on 22 August, 1895
Equivalent citations: (1896) ILR 23 Cal 60
Author: Macpherson
Bench: Macpherson, Banerjee
JUDGMENT Macpherson, J.
1. The three petitioners, who are described as Hindu sannyasis of the monastery
of Bodh-Gaya, have been convicted under Section 296 of the Penal Code of
disturbing the worship of the complainant and other Buddhists of Ceylon in the
temple of Mahabodhi at Bodh-Gaya on the 25th February last, and the conviction
has been upheld by the Sessions Judge. They were tried and acquitted on other
charges under Sections 295, 297, and 143.
2. The Magistrate says: “The case is one of importance, as the disturbance is sought
to be justified by the defendants on the ground that their superior, the Mahant of
Bodh-Gaya, claims the right, though a Hindu, of regulating what worship shall
be performed in this famous shrine, known as the Great Temple of Mahabodhi,
and regarded by the Buddhists, that is, by about one-third of the human race, as
the most sacred spot on earth.” That I think is rather misleading. No such broad
question arises, and it is desirable to keep the case within its proper limits. It
is for the complainant to prove that he and his co-religionists, when disturbed,
were lawfully engaged in the performance of religious worship or religious cere-
monies, a fact which the petitioners denied. The defence may have put their case
higher than was necessary, but it is not right to say that it is the defence which
gives the case its importance.
3. There is no doubt, however, that the case has attracted a good deal of attention
from the prominence which has been given to it and from the nature of the dispute
and the position of the parties. It has been fought with a persistency and at a cost
which would have been more appropriate if it had been brought in a Court which
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8067-3
160 Appendix B: Calcutta High Court
could finally determine the rights of the parties, and not in a Criminal Court
where the narrow issue is, whether a criminal offence has been committed.
4. The trial has occupied a long time, leading Counsel has been retained, and
very lengthy judgments, traversing the whole history of the temple, have been
recorded. It may well be doubted whether the object of the complainant was
not to do something much more than to punish a crime. It has been contended
throughout that no criminal offence was committed, and, in the Appellate Court,
that on the facts found there was no criminal offence. As it seemed to us very
questionable if the conviction was right, we gave a rule to show cause why it
should not be set aside, and the case has now been fully argued by the learned
Counsel who argued it before the Sessions Judge. It was suggested, when the rule
was applied for, that the petitioners had not a perfectly fair trial, as the learned
Magistrate had formed an opinion, before this dispute took place, of the rights
of the parties, which necessarily, but perhaps unconsciously, influenced his deci-
sion. We did not give a rule on that ground, and I think it right to say that, both in
the conduct of the trial and in his very long and careful judgment, the Magistrate
seems to have been scrupulously fair.
5. The facts connected with the occurrence of the 25th February are thus stated by
the District Magistrate and not disputed. He says:
Between 8 and 9 o’clock on the morning of that day the complainant, who
is a Buddhist gentleman from Ceylon and Honorary General Secretary of the
Mahabodhi Society, arrived at Bodh-Gaya with two Singhalese Buddhist priests,
Sumangala and Devananda, and a layman, Silva, of the same race and religion,
and proceeded to enshrine a highly artistic, and, it is said, historical image of
Buddha, sent from Japan for the purpose, on the altar in the chamber of the
upper floor of the Mahabodhi temple. While they were setting up the image two
Mahomedan gentlemen, namely, the Special Sub-Registrar and Deputy Magis-
trate of Gaya, happened to come to see the place, and were accompanied by a
Mahomedan mukhtear of the Mahant of Bodh-Gaya named Hussain Baksh, and
by one Jagannatb Singh, a Hindu doorkeeper, whom the Mahant keeps at the
temple. After they entered the chamber, Hussain Baksh said something to the
latter, who thereupon left. The three Mahomedans also went away before all the
paraphernalia of the image were set up. The image with censer, candlesticks and
lotus flowers and also a Japanese dedicatory certificate, describing its history,
was duly set up, and Dharmapala then sent word to the Government custodian
of the temple, and, on his coming six or seven minutes after, put the image in
his charge, saying it had been sent by the Japanese. This is done, Sumangala
Look one of the candles to light it, but at that moment about thirty or forty
of the Mahant’s sannyasis and other Hindus, and also the mukhtear, Hussain
Baksh, came rushing into the place in a very rowdy fashion. Some got on to
the altar, a couple of them placed themselves between Dharmapala and it, one
snatched the candle out of Sumangala’s hand to prevent its being lit, and most
spoke in a vehement and imperative tone, commanding Dharmapala to take away
the image, and using such throats as budinash, we will beat you, there are five
hundred of us. The Mahomedan in particular kept pushing him on the shoulder
Appendix B: Calcutta High Court 161
vehemently telling him to remove the image. The Government custodian, finding
them much enraged, kept imploring them with folded hands not to act hastily.
Dharmapala refused to remove the image, and as he knows little of the language,
a number of them went and fetched the Mahant’s Hindu mukhtear, Vijayananda,
who happened to be at the monastery in connection with a document of the
Mahant’s the Sub-Registrar had come to get registered. Dharmapala pointed out
to Vijayananda what desecration it was for people to go on the altar, and the
latter got one or two to come down. Thereupon this mukhtear and all but a few,
who remained quietly looking on, left the temple, and Dharmapala and the two
priests, thinking all opposition had ended, sat down to their devotion in front of
the image in the characteristic Buddhist attitude of religious contemplation, the
highest form of Buddhist worship. They were absorbed in this form of devotion
for about a quarter of an hour, when the Hindus again came to the temple, and
heedless of their attitude, made a rush into the place and tumultuously carried off
the image of Buddha and set it down in the open courtyard below. This tumult,
and indeed the mere removal of the image itself, put an end to the devotional
contemplation of the Buddhists. Dharmapala and one of the priests continued,
however, to sit there, and in a few minutes a constable came up to call him down
to the head constable, who had been sent for by the Government custodian, and
to whom also the mukhtear, Hussain Baksh, had made a statement praying him to
interfere. Dharmapala refused to go down, so the head constable had to come up
where he was, and began questioning him in Hindi; but Dharmapala, not under-
standing this, wrote down there and then, at his request, a summary statement of
the occurrence.
6. I may add to them that the image and all its paraphernalia were conveyed in
boxes to the chamber of the upper floor and opened there, that the doorkeeper,
who was apparently the only person encountered, made no opposition to the
entry, and that neither the Mahant nor anyone else connected with the temple, nor
any Government Official, had been informed of the complainant Dhanuapala’s
intention to place the image there.
7. It may be conceded that the Mahabodhi temple, which is very ancient and
very sacred to Buddhists, was a Buddhist, temple; that, although it has been
in the possession of Hindu Mahants, it has never been converted into a Hindu
temple in the sense that the Hindu idols have been enshrined or orthodox Hindu
worship carried on there, and that Buddhist pilgrims have had free access and
full liberty to worship in it. It does not appear that any hindrance was ever
offered to them or that any complaints were ever made by them, and, before
the occurrence in question, there is no instance of any disturbance between the
Buddhist worshippers and the Hindu Mahants or their subordinates, in regard to
their respective rights. This fact is of some importance in the present case, where
each party charges the other with being the aggressor. The petitioners, no doubt,
now say that the Buddhists worshipped by permission, and not of right. That is
a question which it is unnecessary to consider. I shall assume for the purpose
of this case that the worship which they were in the habit of performing was of
right. It will, however, be necessary to consider the nature of that worship, and
the nature of the act which gave rise to the disturbance complained of, in order
to see whether a criminal offence has been committed.
8. A great part of the lengthy judgments of the Magistrate and of the Judge is
devoted to a discussion of the Mahant’s position in regard to the temple and the
extent of his proprietary right and power of control. His possession is found,
but the extent of his proprietary interest and power of control is questioned. It
is quite unnecessary to discuss his proprietary interest. There is no doubt that
he is in possession, that he is the sole superintendent of the temple, and that he
takes all the offerings, both, of Hindus and Buddhists; and the present state of
things appears to have been in existence for many years, if not for centuries. It
is not proved, I do not think it is even alleged, that any Buddhist priests have
ever exercised any control or authority in the temple within living memory.
The Government has had no occasion to interfere in the internal management,
even if it could do so, and that is not a question which need to be considered in
this case. If the control and superintendence of the temple is not vested in the
Mahant, it does not appear to be vested in any one.
9. The Judge seems to think that the Mahant placed some limitation on his own
rights or powers by the agreement entered into in 1877 with the representative
of the King of Burma. This agreement and the translation of it will be found
at page 107 of the paper book, part I. The correctness of the translation of the
third passage, referred to in the Judge’s judgment, is a matter of dispute, but
the Judge in his translation has omitted to give any effect to the word hamare
in the passage uski puja hamate shudamad-i-qadeem se chali ati hai. It may
or may not be that that agreement has some bearing on the question whether
Buddhists worship by permission or of right, and which, as I have said, is
now immaterial; but neither the agreement nor the subsequent appointment of
a Government custodian, whose principal duty it apparently is to look after
the building and relics generally, have, I consider, made any difference in the
Mahant’s position for the purposes of this case. That position 1 find to be this,
that he held possession of the temple and had the control and superintendence
over it, subject to that right of Buddhists to worship there in the customary
manner, that is to say, in the manner in which they had been in the habit of
worshipping. I see nothing in the judgments of the lower Courts which goes
against this finding. The difficulty is to understand from those judgments where
the freedom of worship ends and the right of control begins.
10. The question really is whether the freedom of worship enjoyed by the Buddhists
covered what Dharmapala and his associates did. It is for the hitter to bring the
case strictly within the four corners of Section 296, and prove that they were,
when disturbed, lawfully engaged in the performance of religious worship or
religious ceremonies.
11. The petitioners say that they were not so engaged, that what they did was
something which had never been done before, and that it was done, not for the
purpose of religious worship, but for another object, in the assertion of a right
and with the knowledge that they would be resisted. This renders it necessary
to consider in some detail the nature of the act done and resisted, and the nature
of the worship which the Buddhists were in the habit of doing.
12. Dharmapala was subjected to a very long cross-examination on his denial that
the Mahant was either the owner or the person in possession of the temple.
Whatever excuses may be made for him, he certainly came very badly out of
it, and furnished the other side with good grounds for questioning his general
veracity. It is amply shown from his own writings, and from writings published
with his knowledge and under his authority, that he always regarded the Mahant,
whatever the latter’s strict rights may be, as the owner. Dharmapala was not in the
position of a quotidian devotee, worshipping at the shrine. He was undoubtedly
a religious enthusiast and an agitator. I use the word in no offensive sense, for
I may freely concede that he was thoroughly sincere in his religious views and
in promoting the work which he had undertaken. He was the Secretary of the
Mahabodhi Society, which was started in Ceylon in May 1891, and also the
editor of a monthly journal started to promote the objects of the Society. One
of the objects of the Society was, he admits, to recover the possession of the
Mahabodhi temple from the Mahant, and the prospectus moots the idea “of
restoring the central shrine and transferring it from the hands of the usurping
Śaivite Mahants to the custody of the Buddhist monks.” Numerous extracts from
the journal, which were put in, show that the object was to establish Buddhist
control in the temple. In February 1893, he and Colonel Olcott, an Honorary
Director of the Society, interviewed the Mahant with the view of acquiring the
religious custody of the temple for the Buddhists of all nations, but the Mahant,
as the correspondence shows, refused either to sell or give a lease on any terms.
Dharmapala then, according to a letter addressed to the President of the Society
and signed by himself and Colonel Olcott, began to enquire into the legality
of the Mahant’s tenure. In 1893, when in Japan promoting the objects of the
Society, he conceived the idea of enshrining a new image of Buddha in the
temple, as there was, he says, no image in the upper floor chamber, which he
regarded as the sanctum sanctorum. The result was that the image in question
was sent to him in March 1894 It is described as a beautiful work of art, and
it was accompanied by a dedicatory certificate addressed to him by the High
Priest of Tokyo. It is there described as a very ancient and holy image, and it
was presented “to be enshrined in the second storey of the Bodh-Gaya Temple.”
13. Dharmapala announced in his journal that the image would be placed in the
temple on the 19th May, a very holy day with Buddhists, in the presence of the
Collector. There was no authority for the latter part of the announcement, and the
Mahant had not been consulted. The latter, learning of the intended installation
by Dharmapala, objected to it and closed the temple door to prevent it. This
he afterwards opened in compliance with an order of the District Magistrate
made under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It was mentioned in
the order that no image would be set up in the temple that night without the
Mahant’s consent, and the Magistrate at the same time sent a demi-official letter
to Dharmapala, in consequence of which he desisted from placing the image.
14. In April 1894 Dharmapala invoked the assistance of the Bengal Government
in aid of the Mahabodhi Society, and received, in reply, the letter Exhibit D.
22, which he produced. This is dated the 5th May. In it he is informed that the
Lieutenant-Governor can take no measures for the furtherance of the general
objects of the Mahabodhi Society, that there is perfect freedom of worship for all
Buddhists at Bodh-Gaya, and that any well-grounded complaint that difficulties
were imposed would meet with ready attention and redress at the hands of the
Bengal Government.
15. In June 1894 he again addressed the Lieutenant-Governor, complaining as he
says, of the refusal to allow the image to be placed in the temple. He denies
that he asked for help or Government influence. In reply, he received the letter,
Exhibit D. 23, from the Chief Secretary, dated 22nd June. In it he is told that
the Government must decline to exercise any influence with the Mahant of the
Bodh-Gaya shrine, and he is referred to the letter Exhibit 16. In June 1894 he
also petitioned the Magistrate on the subject of the Japanese image and was
informed in September (Exhibits D. 28a and D. 28b) that the local authorities
could not deal with the matter.
17. Nothing more happened till the morning of the 25th February 1895, when he
went surreptitiously, as the Judge says, to set up the image in the upper chamber,
and the occurrence took place of which he now complains. He says he did not
anticipate opposition, but it is impossible to believe this. He had no reason to
believe that the opposition bad ceased, and he had every reason to believe that,
as his position and motives became better known, the opposition to his doing
anything which might lead to give him a better foothold in the temple would be
more intense.
18. I have said that Dharmapala was not in the position of an ordinary devotee,
but he is, of course, entitled to have the legality of his act judged as if he was
one. He could do as much, but no more, and if his act was in itself lawful, his
previous failure and his failure to get the assistance of the Bengal Government
(sic) of the local executive officers would not make it any the less so. But his
petition and his past conduct are of importance in judging of his motives and
the motives which led to the opposition.
19. Now what Dharmapala wanted and attempted to do was to enshrine this image in
the upper room of the temple against the will of the Mahant, in whose possession
and under whose superintendence the temple was, and there is no doubt that it
was the attempted enshrinement which led to the disturbance. The Judge, whose
judgment I have felt some difficulty in following, takes exception to the word
“enshrine” which the Magistrate uses, as he says there is no evidence that the
Buddhists intended permanently to enshrine the image that day. It seems to me
that no other conclusion is possible. The image had been obtained for enshrine-
ment in the upper chamber, and it was sent for that purpose, as the dedicatory
certificate, which was placed alongside it, shews. Moreover, Dharmapala, when
putting it up, sent for the custodian, Bebin Behary, and said, “this present from
the Japanese Government is now placed on the shrine, and now it is under your
control.” This clearly shows that he intended it to remain there. If he merely
intended to do an act of worship before it, and then remove it, why did he go
surreptitiously to the upper chamber? Giving him credit also for the religious
feeling which he claims to have, it is absurd to suppose that he was indifferent to
the fate of this image, if the Mahant afterwards removed, it, although the course
which he might have taken in such an event is a matter of conjecture. It does not
appear that there is any special ceremony connected with the enshrinement of
an image; but, however that may be, I have no doubt that Dharmapala’s object
was to make the altar of the upper room the permanent shrine of this image.
20. As regards motive the Judge says that the Mahant had no ground for anticipating
any injury to his interest from the act of Dharmapala, and that there was no
ground for inferring any connection between the known and published desire
of the Buddhists and the Mahabodhi Society, in connection with the temple, and
the setting up this image as an object of temporary or permanent worship. His
final conclusion is that Dharmapala’s immediate object was “to gain a spiritual
triumph for Buddhism, and to get rid of a responsibility, which, although he
had sought it himself in the greatest hope and confidence, he now felt was
an intolerable burden.” The spiritual triumph meant doing what he originally
intended to do, and in the face of opposition; and as for the burden, a man
cannot be allowed to relieve himself by doing a wrong, and then complaining
that he has been resisted. As regards the connection above referred to, I think
there was reasonable ground for inferring a connection. The Mahant certainly
seems to have thought so in 1894, probably much more in 1895. Dharmapala
has no cause for surprise if his intentions and motives were misconstrued. Now
I think Dharmapala has failed to shew that he had any right to do what he did
against the known will of the Mahant, or that he went to perform a religious
worship or a religious ceremony of a kind which was customary with Buddhist
worshippers at the temple.
21. It is said, and no doubt, with truth, that to enshrine an image of Buddha, or
to place such an image on an altar and sit before it in contemplation, are high
forms of Buddhist worship, but the image must be placed where there is a right
to place it. There was no image of Buddha in the upper chamber, and, whatever
may have been the case in remote ages, none can speak to ever having seen such
an image there, and there is no evidence that Buddhist worshippers generally
used to go to that chamber for worship. At the time of this disturbance, and
both before and after the restoration of the temple, there was a large image of
Buddha in the shrine on the ground floor of the temple, and before this Buddhist
devotees used to worship and make offerings. They seem to have been content
with this, and before Dharmapala came, no one wanted to do anything more.
He himself has worshipped many times before the great image since 1891,
without any opposition, and he says he had no reason to be dissatisfied with it
as everything about it was right. He also says that he has no knowledge of any
Buddhist having attempted to enshrine an image in the upper chamber. There
is evidence, upon which reliance is placed, that Burmese pilgrims in November
and December 1891 placed some marble images of Buddha by the big image
on the altar downstairs without asking the Mahant’s permission. That may be
so, and it is clear that the Mahant did not object, but what was then done was in
no way analogous to what was done here. The Mahant, in whose possession the
temple is, objected to Dharmapala’s enshrining this image in the upper floor of
the temple, and there is nothing on the evidence to justify the Court in holding
that the right to place it there existed, or that the Mahant’s objection could be
disregarded. Dharmapala may possibly be able to establish the right which he
asserts, but that is a question for another tribunal. It is enough to say that he has
not proved it in this case so as to justify his act.
22. The evidence shows, and the Magistrate finds, that since July 1894, the Mahant
and his disciples have been carrying on a sort of spurious Hindu worship of the
great image of Buddha on the altar of the ground floor, and that the image has
been dressed in a way which renders it repugnant to Buddhist worshippers. The
Magistrate regards this as a stratagem on the Mahant’s part to strengthen his
position against, I suppose, some threatened danger. This was extremely wrong,
but it does not, I think, affect the present case. In January 1895 Dharmapala
and a party of pilgrims worshipped before the great image after removing the
vestments and obliterating the tilah marks, and no objection was made to their
doing this. The Mahant’s conduct does not seem to have been made the subject
of any remonstrance to him or of complaint to anyone else, and it cannot be
said to have led to Dharmapala’s action on the 25th February. That the Mahant
really believed that his possession was threatened by Dharmapala, whose views
with reference to the temple must have been well known, I cannot doubt, and it
is impossible to say that there was not some ground for the belief. The desire to
enshrine the Japanese image in the upper floor of the temple, where no image
had been before, may have been very laudable from a purely religious point of
view, but it is at least open to doubt whether his motive was purely religious
and not to further his known desire to bring the temple under Buddhist control.
Anyhow, as he has not proved his right to put it there against the will of the
Mahant, he has not shown that, when putting it, he was lawfully engaged in the
performance of religious worship or religious ceremonies. It is said, how-over,
that there were two disturbances with an interval between them, and that, even if
there was no disturbance of a lawful religious worship or ceremony on the first
occasion, when Dharmapala was told to remove the image and was prevented
from lighting the candles, there certainly was on the second, when the image
was removed, as the Buddhists were then sitting in contemplation before the
image and actually and to the knowledge of the disturbers engaged in religious
worship. It is argued that the worship having commenced, they were lawfully
engaged in it, and that, even if the petitioners had the right to remove the image
before worship commenced or after it ended, the removal, of it during worship
was a disturbance and an offence under Section 296. Several cases have been
put by way of analogy, and I may concede that, if the petitioners, in effecting an
object which they were legally entitled to affect, disturbed an assembly lawfully
engaged in the performance of religious worship by means which they knew
must disturb it, they would be guilty of an offence under Section 296, even
if they had no intention of disturbing it. But it is quite clear that the worship
referred to in Section 296 must be a real worship, and not a cloak for doing
something else, and that the assembly must be lawfully engaged in worship.
It is quite true that if I see persons in a posture of worship, it is no excuse
for disturbing them to say that 1 thought they were not worshipping, and that
they were thinking of something which they ought not to have been thinking
about, but obviously much must depend upon the circumstances under which
they were worshipping. Here I think it is quite open to the petitioners to say
that there was no real worship, but I do not wish to decide the case on that
ground, or to hold that the Buddhists were not really contemplating, and that
they merely fell into a posture of worship for appearances’ sake. 1 prefer to hold,
as I do, that they were not lawfully engaged in worship, that the disturbance
must be regarded as continuous, and that if they were not lawfully engaged
at first they were not lawfully engaged afterwards. They went to enshrine an
image in a place where they had no right to enshrine it. The enshrinement may
have involved the performance of religious worship or religious ceremony, but
their immediate object was to enshrine it and not simply to perform an act
of worship. They wore told, before the enshrinement was complete, or before
worship commenced, to remove the image, they were prevented from lighting
the candles, and all the persons who went to interfere did not leave the room.
Dharmapala Hays that sitting in contemplation before an image of Buddha is the
highest form of Buddhist worship, but that there are other forms, the offering of
flowers and the burning of candles being the preliminaries. He says they were
not allowed to light the candles, and that “the prevention of the lighting of the
candles was a disturbance of a part and parcel of our religious worship.” If so,
it was a disturbance from the first, and a disturbance which continued, and the
mere circumstance of their falling into a posture of worship in front of the image
which they had been ordered to remove, but before it actually was removed, an
act which nothing but the use of personal violence could have prevented, does
not put them in any better position than they were at first.
23. To say that there was at first no disturbance of their religious worship or cere-
mony which amounted to an offence, but that there was such a disturbance
afterwards, is to put the case on very narrow grounds, and the answer is, I
think, clear. For these reasons I hold that no offence has been committed under
Section 296, which was never intended to apply to a case like this, and that the
conviction must be set aside and the fine refunded.
24. It is greatly to be regretted that this criminal case should have been brought
and pressed in the way it has been. Dharmapala’s motive in bringing it is, I
think, very questionable, and a perusal of his evidence, which is open to severe
criticism, shows that he is responsible for the great length to which the trial has
been prolonged.
Banerjee, J.
25. I am of the same opinion.
26. The accused in this case were convicted by the District Magistrate of Gaya of the
offence of voluntarily causing disturbance to the complainant and his associates,
who were found to have been lawfully engaged in the performance of religious
ceremonies and religious worship in the Mahabodhi temple at Bodh-Gaya, and
were sentenced under Section 296 of the Indian Penal Code to one month’s
simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100 each.
27. On appeal by them the learned Sessions Judge has affirmed the convictions and
the sentences of fine, but set aside the sentences of imprisonment.
28. They now ask us, in the exercise of our revisional powers, to set aside the
convictions and sentences, on the ground that upon the facts as found by the
Courts below and upon the facts disclosed by the evidence, no offence under
Section 296 of the Indian Penal Code has been committed by them.
29. We have heard learned Counsel on both sides at some length and considered the
evidence and the elaborate judgments of the Courts below, and the conclusion
we have arrived at is that the contention of the petitioners is correct.
30. To constitute an offence under Section 296 of the Indian Penal Code-
(1) There must be a voluntary disturbance caused;

(2) The disturbance must be caused to an assembly engaged in religious
worship or religious ceremonies; and
(3) The assembly must be lawfully engaged in such worship or ceremonies.
31. These being the ingredients necessary to constitute the offence, let us see how
far the evidence establishes their existence.
32. The evidence which has been fully discussed in the judgment of my learned
colleague, and which I need not therefore refer to at any length, taken along
with certain books of public history, such as Martin’s edition of Buchanan
Hamilton’s “Eastern India” and Rajendra Lala Mitra’s “Buddha-Gaya”, which
may be referred to under Section 57 of the Evidence Act, proves the following
facts:
(1) The great temple at Bodha-Gaya, said to occupy the site of Buddha’s
hermitage, was originally a Buddhist temple, but it has for a long time
(how long it is neither easy nor necessary in this case exactly to determine,
but certainly for more than a century) been in the possession and under the
control of the Hindu Mahant of that place.
(2) Buddhist pilgrims have, however, from time to time, continued to visit the
temple and perform their worship there, but there is no reliable evidence
to show that the upper chamber had in recent times been ever resorted
to by Buddhists. The temple has, however, not been shown to have been
converted into a place of Hindu worship, though there is a spot in the temple
compound, which is resorted to by Hindus as a sacred place for offering
pindas or oblations to ancestors.
(3) Early in 1893 an endeavour was made on behalf of the Mahabodhi Society
of Ceylon (established in 1891), of which the complainant Dharmapala is
the General Secretary, to obtain a conveyance or lease of the temple from
the Mahant; and on the negotiations for the purchase or lease failing, the
complainant, it seems, applied to the Government of Bengal in April 1894,
requesting it to help the Mahabodhi Society in obtaining the transfer of
the Bodha-Gaya temple from the Mahant, but was told in reply that the
Government was not in a position to help him.
(4) In the meantime, in November 1893, the complainant obtained from Japan
an image of Buddha, highly artistic in execution and said to be of historic
importance, with a document purporting to be signed by the High Priest
of Tokyo, for the purpose of enshrinement in the second storey of the
Bodha-Gaya temple, and “as a good sign” (as the document puts it) “for
the success of the restoration of the Bodha-Gaya temple;” and he advertised
in the Mahabodhi Society’s journal that on the 19th of May 1894, in the
presence of the Collector of Gaya, he would place that image in the temple;
but he had to desist from placing the image there upon the objection of the
Mahant and upon receipt of a prohibitory order from the Magistrate.
(5) No further attempt was made to place the Japanese image in the temple
until the 25th of February 1895 (the day of the occurrence, which has given
rise to this case), when between 8 and 9 in the morning the complainant
with two other Singhalese priests and one Singhalese layman went with the
image to the upper floor of the temple, and after they had set up the image on
the altar and were about to light one of the candles, as a preliminary to their
worship, a number of retainers of the Mahant came, snatched the candle
away, and commanded the complainant to remove the image. After some
expostulation all but a few left the temple; and Dharmapala and the two
priests sat down to their devotion in front of the image in the characteristic
Buddhist attitude of religious contemplation, when in about a quarter of
an hour a number of men, including the accused, came and tumultuously
carried off the image and set it down in the open courtyard below.
33. As regards the first of these facts, the complainant professes not to be aware of
the Mahant’s right to, or possession of, the temple; but he is contradicted by his
own writings in the journal of the Mahabodhi Society, and by his own conduct
in seeking to obtain a conveyance or a lease of the temple from the Mahant. The
shuffling nature of his evidence has been unfavourably commented upon in the
judgments of both the Courts below, and the learned Sessions Judge, in order
to reconcile his view of the general truthfulness of Dharmapala’s evidence with
the unreliable character of this part of it, has to rely upon the erroneous and
somewhat mischievous theory of the oriental standard of truth being different
from the normal standard, a theory, the application of which must often lead, as
it has in this instance led, to incorrect estimation of evidence. I deem it right here
to observe that the question what the exact nature and extent of the Mahant’s
control over the temple is, the evidence adduced in the case does not enable us
to determine.
34. With reference to the second fact, it was urged on behalf of the petitioners that
the Buddhists cannot claim it as a matter of right to worship in the temple, and
that they have hitherto done so only by the permission of the Mahant; but I do
not think it necessary to determine the point in this case.
35. Touching the remaining three facts, there was practically not much dispute.
36. These being the facts of the case, Mr. Ghose, for the petitioners, contended that
they disprove the existence of the three ingredients necessary to constitute the
offence of which the petitioners have been convicted.
37. He contended first of all that it was evident from facts 1, 3, and 4, and from the
finding of the District Magistrate, which was fully borne out by the evidence and
had been erroneously set aside by the Judge, that the accused, in removing the
image which had been placed in the temple by the complainant in the assertion
of a right he did not possess and in denial of the Mahant’s rights, acted under a
bond fide belief that they were only defending the rights of the Mahant without
any intention of disturbing any one; and that they cannot therefore be said to
have voluntarily caused any disturbance. Having regard to the definition of the
word “voluntarily” as given in Section 39 of the Indian Penal Code, I do not think
this contention is correct. Intention to cause a certain result is not an element
necessary to constitute a voluntary causing of that result, but knowledge of,
or belief in, the likelihood of the result following, though not intended, may
supply the place of intention. If, therefore, the accused knew, or had reason to
believe that their act in removing the image was likely to cause disturbance to
any religious worship, then, though they might not have intended to cause such
disturbance, yet the causing of the disturbance would be voluntary within the
meaning of the Penal Code. There would no doubt still remain the question
whether the accused knew or had reason to believe that the complainant and
his companions were engaged in religious worship at the time, and that their
act in removing the image was likely to cause disturbance of such worship.
But, having regard to the position of the accused as members of a religious
fraternity and to the means they enjoyed of observing Buddhist worship in the
temple, which lies close to their monastery, I am not prepared to dissent from the
conclusion arrived at by the Courts below that this question should be answered
in the affirmative.
38. The learned Counsel for the petitioners next contended that the religious worship
and religious ceremonies which Section 296 of the Indian Penal Code contem-
plates, must be real religious worship and real religious ceremonies, and not
such as are colourable only, and that the worship and ceremonies which the
complainant and his party were engaged in, were merely a pretext to cover their
act of asserting their right against the claims of the Mahant. Whilst admitting
fully the correctness of the first branch of this contention, that the religious
worship and ceremonies contemplated by the section must be such as are real,
and conceding also that the previous acts and conduct of the complainant, as
proved by his own writings in the journal of the Mahabodhi Society, tend to
show that his action on the 25th of February 1895 was more in the assertion of
a right to worship than for the purpose of worshipping, I should still hesitate to
hold that the worship was not real, when those engaged in it swear that it was
so.
39. The last contention of Mr. Ghose was that, granting that the complainant and
his companions were engaged in religious worship, and granting that they were
voluntarily disturbed by the accused, it is not shown that, they were lawfully
engaged in such worship, and that the disturbance does not therefore constitute
an offence under Section 296 of the Indian Penal Code. I am clearly of the
opinion that his contention is sound. To sustain a charge under Section 296, it
lies upon the prosecution to show that the persons who wore disturbed in their
religious worship or ceremonies were lawfully engaged in the performance of
the same, that is, that they had the right to do what they were doing. But the
prosecution has utterly failed to discharge the burden of proof that lay upon it.
What the complainant and his associates were engaged in doing, was not simply
to worship in the upper chamber of the temple, but to enshrine a new image of
Buddha on the altar of that chamber, and that, after the refusal of the Mahant,
in whose possession and under whose control the temple was, to allow such
enshrinement, as shown by the events of May 1894, and without any further
intimation to him. It is evident, too, from the previous acts and conduct of the
complainant himself, reluctantly admitted by him in his cross-examination, that
his object on this occasion was not simply to worship in the temple, but to assert
his right to worship there in a particular way, that is, to enshrine the image therein
disregard of the authority of the Mahant or, to put it in the mild language of the
learned Sessions Judge, “to gain a spiritual triumph for Buddhism, and to get
rid of a responsibility which, although he had sought it himself in the greatest
hope and confidence, he now felt was an intolerable burden.” In other words,
he wanted indirectly and in a covert way to do that which he had failed to do
directly and openly, namely, to bring the temple under the control of Buddhist
priests.
40. Now, though the Buddhists may have the right to worship in the temple, there
is no evidence to shew that they have any right to resort to the temple to secure
such an object as the one referred to above, or to enshrine a new image in
the temple against the wish, and in the face of the express prohibition, of the
Mahant. The learned Sessions Judge, in his judgment, takes exception to the
word “enshrinement”, but that is the word used in the charge to which the
accused were called upon to answer, and that is the word used by the complainant
himself with reference to the placing of the Japanese image in the temple. His
intention evidently was to place the image in the temple as a permanent object
of worship, and he has adduced no evidence to show that he had the right to do
so. That being so, it cannot be said that in doing what he did, he was lawfully
engaged in religious worship or religious ceremonies. The learned Advocate-
General, no doubt, felt the difficulty of the position, and the way in which he
sought to get over the difficulty was by arguing that, even if the Mahant had the
right to prevent the setting up of the new image, his subordinates, the accused,
were at best entitled to stop the placing of the image on the altar before the
commencement of the worship, or to remove it after the conclusion of the same,
but they were not justified in disturbing the worship during its continuance. To
this argument there are two answers: In the first place, however desirable it may
be, that religious worship from its sacred character should, while it is going on,
be secured against molestation, even though the worshipper be a wrong-doer
and a trespasser, that is not provided for by our criminal law, and the Legislature
has thought it fit to make molestation of religious worship an offence only when
people are lawfully engaged in their worship. And in the second place, upon the
admitted facts of the case, the opposition effectually began before the worship
had commenced and the lighting of the candles, which is regarded as a necessary
preliminary, had taken place, and the subsequent removal of the image was only
a continuation of the first opposition.
41. I, therefore, think that it is not established that the complainant and his associates
were lawfully engaged in religious worship, when they were disturbed, and that
the accused, therefore, in causing the disturbance have committed no offence
under Section 296 of the Indian Penal Code; and I agree with my learned
colleague in holding that this rule should be made absolute, the convictions and
sentences set aside, and the fines, if realized, refunded.
Appendix C
The Bodh Gaya Temple Act, 1949
(Source: http://www.bodhgayatemple.com/images/pdf/temple_act.pdf)
(BIHAR ACT 17 OF 1949)
(as modified up to the 8th February, 1955)
[Governor’s assent published in the Bihar Gazette of the 6th July, 1949].
An Act to make provision for the better management of the Bodh Gaya Temple and
the properties appertaining thereto.
Whereas it is expedient to make provision for the better management of the Bodh
Gaya Temple and properties appertaining thereto.
It is hereby enacted as follows:
Short little and Commencement
1. (I) This Act may be called the Bodh Gaya Temple Act, 1949.
(II) It shall come into force at once.
Definition
2. In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context
(a) “the temple” means the great temple built by the site of the Mahabodhi
Tree near the village of Bodh Gaya in the district of Gaya and includes the
Mahabodhi Tree and Vajrasan;
(b) “the temple land” means the land in which the temple and its precincts
stand and shall cover such area or shall lie within such boundaries as the
[2] [State] Government may, by notification direct;
(c) “the Mahanth” means the presiding priest for the time being of Saivite
Monastery at Bodh Gaya; and
(d) “Committee” means the committee constituted under Section 3.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8067-3
174 Appendix C: The Bodh Gaya Temple Act, 1949
3. (1) As soon as may be after the commencement of this the1 [State] Government
shall constitute a committee as hereinafter provided and entrust it with the
management and control of the temple land and the properties appertaining
thereto.
(2) The Committee shall consist of a Chairman and eight members nominated
by the [1] [State] Government, all of whom shall be Indians and of whom
four shall be Buddhists and four shall be Hindus including the Mahanth:
Provided that if the Mahanth is a minor or of unsound mind or refuses to
serve on the committee, another Hindu member shall be nominated in his
place.
(3) The District Magistrate of Gaya shall be the ex-officio Chairman of the
Committee: Provided that the [1] [State] Government shall nominate a
Hindu as Chairman of the Committee for the period during which the
district Magistrate of Gaya is non-Hindu.
(4) The [1] [State] Government shall nominate a person from among the
members to act as Secretary of the Committee.
4. The Committee shall be a body corporate by the name of the Bodh Gaya Temple
Management Committee, having perpetual succession and a common seal,
with power to acquire and hold property, both movable and immovable, and
to contract, and shall by the said name sue or be sued.
5. (1) The term of office of the members of the committee shall be three
years: Provided that the1 [State] Government, if they are satisfied that
the Committee is guilty of gross mismanagement, dissolve the Committee
and constitute another Committee or assume direct control of the temple,
temple land and the properties appertaining thereto.
(2) Where a member of the Committee dies, resigns, refuses to serve on
the Committee, absents himself from six consecutive meetings of the
Committee, without the leave of the Committee or ceases to reside in
India, or becomes in capable of working, the [1] [State] Government may
nominate a person to fill the vacancy.
(3) Any Act done by the Committee shall not be questioned on the ground
merely of the existence of any vacancy in or any defect in the constitution
of the Committee.
6. The name of the Chairman other than the District Magistrate of Gaya and of
every member of the committee shall be published by the1 [State] Government
in the Official Gazette,
7. (1) The Committee shall maintain its office at Bodh Gaya.
(2) At the meeting of the Committee the Chairman, or in his absence one of
the members to be elected at the meeting, shall preside.
(3) No business shall be transacted at any meeting unless at least four members
are present.
8. (1) No movable property of a non-perishable nature appertaining to the temple
shall be transferred without the previous sanction of the Committee, and,
if the value of the property is more than one thousand rupees, without the
previous approval of the1 [State] Government
Appendix C: The Bodh Gaya Temple Act, 1949 175
(2) No immovable property appertaining to the temple shall be leased for more
than three years or mortgaged, sold or otherwise alienated except with the
previous sanction of the committee and the [1] [State] Government.
9. The Committee shall have no proper to borrow money from any person except
with the previous sanction of the1 [State] Government.
10. Subject to the provisions of this Act or of any rules made thereunder, it shall be
the duty of the Committee:
(1) to arrange for

(a) the upkeep and repair of the temple;
(b) the improvement of the temple land;
(c) the welfare and safety of the pilgrims; and
(d) the proper performance of worship at the temple and pindadan
(offering of pindas) on the temple land;
(2) to prevent the desecration of the temple or any part thereof or of any image
therein;
(3) to make arrangements for the receipt and disposal of the offerings made in
the Temple, and for the safe custody of the statements of accounts and other
documents relating to the temple or the temple land and for the preservation
of the property appertaining to the temple;
(4) to make arrangement for the custody, deposit and investment of funds in
its hand; and
(5) to make provision for the payment of suitable emoluments to its salaried
staff.
11. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in the rules framed
thereunder, Hindus and Buddhists of every sect shall have access to the
temple and the temple land for the purpose of worship or pindadan.
Provide that nothing in this Act shall entitle any person to perform animal
sacrifice or to bring any alcoholic liqueur within the temple or on the temple
land, or to enter the temple with shoes on.
(2) If any person contravenes the provisions of the proviso to sub-section (1),
he shall be punishable with fine not exceeding fifty rupees.
12. Notwithstanding anything contained in any enactment for the time being in
force, if there be any dispute between Hindus and Buddhists regarding the
manner of using the temple or the temple land, the decision of the [State]
Government shall be final.
13. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in the rules made there-
under, the Committee shall have no jurisdiction over the movable or immovable
property of the Saivite Monastery of Bodh Gaya.
14. The1 [State] Government shall every year appoint on auditor to audit the
accounts of the funds of the Committee and fix his remuneration which shall be
paid from the said funds. The auditor shall submit his report to the Committee
and send a copy of if to the [State] Government which may issue such directions
thereon, as it may deem fit, and the Committee shall carry out such directions.
176 Appendix C: The Bodh Gaya Temple Act, 1949
15. (1) The1 [State] Government may constitute an Advisory Board (hereinafter
referred to in this Act as the “Board”) which shall consist of such number of
members as the [1] [State] Government may determine. (2) The majority of the
members of such Board shall be Buddhists who may not all be Indians. (3) The
members of the Board shall hold office for such term as may be fixed by the [1]
[State] Government. (4) The Board shall function purely as an Advisory body
to the Committee and shall discharge its functions in the ……… prescribed by
the1 [State] Government by rules made…… behalf.
16. This Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained
in the Religious endowments Act2 1863, or in any decree, custom, or usage.
17. (1) With the previous sanction of he3 [State] Government the committee may,
from time, make bye-laws to carry out the purposes of this Act.
(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing
powers, such bye-laws may provide for:
(a) the division of duties among the Chairman, the members and Secretary
of the Committee;
(b) the manner in which their decision may be ascertained otherwise than
at the meetings;
(c) the procedure and conduct of business at meetings of the Committee;
(d) the delegation of powers of the Committee to individual members;
(e) the book and accounts to be kept at the office of the Committee;
(f) the custody and investment of the funds of the Committee;
(g) the time and place of its meetings;
(h) the manner in which notice of its meeting shall be given;
(i) the preservation of order and the conduct of proceeding at meetings
and the powers which the Chairman may exercise for the purpose of
enforcing its decisions;
(j) the manner in which the proceeding of its meeting shall be recorded;
(k) the persons by whom receipts may be granted for money paid to the
Committee; and (l) the maintenance of cordial relations between the
Buddhists and the Hindu pilgrims.
(3) All bye-laws, after they have been confirmed by the1 [State] Government,
shall be published in the Official Gazette, and shall thereafter have the
force of law.
18. The [State] Government may make rules to carry out the purposes of this Act.
[Preface to the said Act: “The Bodh Gaya Temple Act, 1949 (Bihar Act
17 of 1949) has been amended by the Adaptation of Law Order, 1950. The
amendments made by the Adaptation of Laws Order have been incorporated
in the text and some other foot-notes have been added for convenience of
reference”—Deputy Secretary to Government, dated the 8th February 1955].3
Appendix D
Bye-Laws of the Bodh Gaya Temple
(Source: http://www.bodhgayatemple.com/images/pdf/temple_act.pdf)
MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
Government of Bihar,
Political Department,
(General Branch)
NOTIFICATION
Patna, the 26th February, 1957
No. A/B1-1026/56-P.G. 435. The following bye-laws made by the Bodh Gaya Temple
Management Committee under Sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Bodh Gaya Temple
Act, 1949 (Bihar Act 17 of 1949), having been confirmed by the State Government, are
hereby published as required by Sub-section (3) of the said Section:-
By-laws under Section 17 of the Bodh Gaya Temple Act.

Definitions
1. In these bye-laws unless the context otherwise indicates:
(i) “Act” means the Bodh Gaya Temple Act, 1949 (Bihar Act XVIII of 1949).
(ii) “rules” means rules farmed by the State Government under Section 18 of
the Act.
(iii) “Bye-laws” means the bye-laws framed by the Committee with the previous
sanction of the State Government under Section 17 of the Act.
(iv) “Chairman” means the Chairman of the Committee.
(v) “Secretary” means the Secretary of the Committee.
Meetings
2. Meetings of the Committee shall be held at the office of the Committee or at
such other place at Bodh Gaya as the Chairman or in his absence, the Secretary
may decide.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8067-3
178 Appendix D: Bye-Laws of the Bodh Gaya Temple
3. Meetings of the Committee shall be held, as far as possible, at intervals not

exceeding three months.
4. The agenda for a meeting shall be prepared by the Chairman after taking into
consideration suggestions (if any) received in this behalf from the members, and
resolutions received in the office of the Committee at least seven days before
the notice meeting is issued to members shall be included therein.
5. Notice of a meeting together with copies of the agenda shall be circulated to
members by post by Express delivery letters, or by messengers in case of local
members, at least, twenty-one days before the date fixed for the meeting:
Providing that in case of an emergency a meeting may be called on seven days’
notice.
6. Notice of a meeting together with the agenda shall be entered in a register kept
for the purpose, and the register shall be open to inspection by any member at
the office of the Committee during office hours.
7. The Chairman (or, in his absence, any other member elected for the purpose by
members present at the meeting) shall preside over a meeting.
8. Four members shall form the quorum at any meeting.
9. The minutes of proceedings of meetings shall be recorded by the Chairman, or,
in his absence, by the member who may preside at the meeting or by such other
person as may be directed by the person presiding at the meeting.
10. At a meeting other than an adjourned meeting, the minutes of the last meeting
shall be read out and, if approved as having been correctly recorded or after
necessary correction, if any, shall be signed by the Chairman or such other
member as may be presiding at the meeting.
11. At every meeting a financial statement and a report on the work done after the last
meeting of the committee (including a resume of the steps taken to implement
the previous decisions of the Committee), or proposed to be undertaken in the
future, shall be laid.
12. No subject once finally disposed of at a meeting shall be reopened or re-
considered within six months from the date of its disposal, except with the
concurrence of, at least, two-thirds of the members present at a meeting.
13. The Chairman may issue special invitations to persons who are not members
of the Committee to attend a meeting and the invitees may participate in the
deliberations of the Committee, but they will have no right of vote.
15. An adjourned meeting, being merely continuation of the original meeting, shall
not require notice of more than seven days.
16. No matter may be considered at a meeting including a meeting adjourned for
want of the quorum unless it is included in the agenda circulated under bye-law
5:
Provided that, at the request of any member or on his motion, the Chairman (or,
in his absence, the member presiding at the meeting) may include any matter
in the agenda if he is satisfied about its urgency.
17. Any member of the Committee may make suggestions in writing for the inclu-
sion of any matter in the agenda of a meeting and the same shall be considered
by the Chairman and, in case the Chairman does not include in the agenda
Appendix D: Bye-Laws of the Bodh Gaya Temple 179
any such suggestion which has been received in the office of the Committee
more than seven days before the notice together with the agenda is issued to the
members, he shall record the reasons for inability to include the suggestion in
the agenda and inform the member concerned of it.
18. The suggestions mentioned in bye-law No. 18 shall together with the date of
their receipt in the office of the Committee be entered in the order in which they
are received in a register to be maintained for the purpose.
19. The Chairman, or the Secretary, in consultation with the Chairman, shall
convene meetings of the Committee;
Provided that, if no meeting is held within three months, any member may
send a requisition to the Chairman requesting him to call a meeting and the
Chairman (or the Secretary in consultation with the Chairman) shall thereupon
call a meeting of the Committee and, if the Chairman (or the Secretary) fails
to call a meeting within a year, any four members may call a meeting of the
Committee.
20. Within seven days of the holding of a meeting, the minutes of the proceedings
of the meeting shall be circulated to all members of the Committee, and a copy
thereof shall be forwarded to the State Government and the Commissioner,
Patna Division by the Chairman.
21 (i) If any question of importance requiring urgent consideration arises, the
Secretary, with the consent of the Chairman, or the Chairman on his own
motion may ascertain the opinions of the members thereon otherwise than
at a meeting by referring the matter to them in writing by registered post.
(ii) In making the reference the question on which the opinion of the members
is to be ascertained shall, as far as practicable, be framed succinctly and
precisely, split into parts, if necessary, so that the answer to the parts or
whole may be “yes” or “no”.
(iii) A short explanation note shall accompany the question.
(iv) The decision of the majority of the members so ascertained shall operate
as the decision of the Committee and shall have the same binding force
and effect as that of a decision arrived at a meeting.
(v) The majority opinion shall be calculated and determined on the basis of
opinions received in the office of the Committee before the 22nd day of
the dispatch of the registered letters in this regard to the members:
Provided that, if the majority opinion becomes clear before the lapse of the
said period of 21 days, the Secretary shall proceed to act on it forthwith.
(iv) The opinion so ascertained shall be reported in writing to the next meeting
of the Committee and then incorporated in its minutes.
Budget
22. The annual budget of the Committee shall be finalized every year not later
than the 31st January, and, at least, one month before the date of the meeting
convened for the purpose of considering and passing the budget, the Secretary
shall, in consultation with the Chairman, prepare:
(i) an estimated budget of expenditure which may be incurred during the

ensuing financial year;
(ii) a statement showing all expected receipts from all sources during the
ensuing financial year;
(iii) an estimate of the balances likely to be available for expenditure during
the ensuing financial year, and circulate them with an explanatory memo-
randum, to all members of the committee at least 21 days before the date
of the meeting.
23. No expenditure shall be incurred unless it is sanctioned in the budget:

Provided that, to meet unforeseen and urgent expenditure, the Committee shall,
subject to rules, be competent to sanction special grants during the year.
24. The power of the Committee to sanction special grants to meet unforeseen and
urgent expenditure, may by a resolution of the Committee, be delegated to the
Chairman and/or the Secretary.
25. At the meeting of the Committee convened to consider the annual budget esti-
mates, statements, and proposals, the Secretary shall place the final accounts of
the financial year next preceding and the provisional accounts of the financial
year.
26. The budget for a financial year passing at the meeting of the Committee referred
to in the bye-law 23, shall be forwarded for information to the State Government,
and to such other authority as the State Government may, from time to time,
indicate, Financial Provision
27. All money received whether by way of donation, subscription, or any other
manner shall be credited to the Fund of the Committee.
28 Charity boxes shall be opened at least a month by the Chairman or any other
person authorized by him in writing, in presence of two other responsible
persons who will each certify in writing what amount is taken out of each
such box.
29. Accounts will be maintained in the local branch of the State Bank of India.
30. All money received by or on behalf of the Committee must be deposited in the
Bank within the next three working days of the bank after such receipt.
31. Payments exceeding Rs. 20.00 except the payment of salaries and emoluments
of the staff of the Committee, shall be made by cheques signed by the Chairman
or signed by the Secretary and countersigned by the Chairman.
32. For all money any articles received by or on behalf of the Committee the
Chairman or any other person authorized in writing by him shall issue printed
receipts, the counterfoils of which shall be preserved for a period of twelve
years.
33. The income and the property of the Committee, howsoever derived, shall be
applied solely towards the proper performance of the duties of the Committee
as laid down in the Act.
34. Subject to the control of the Chairman, the Secretary shall be in charge of the
funds of the committee.
35. Subject to the provisions of the Act all transfer of properties, movable or immov-
able, whether by way of lease, mortgage, sale or otherwise shall be openly
negotiated and completed:
Provided that the Chairman, or such person as may be authorized in writing
by him in this behalf, may have any perishable article auctioned after giving
locally notice of the auction by beat of drum.
36. All leases and contracts shall be made in open public bids held after seven days
of proper and public notice.
37. The lease shall usually be given to the highest bidder for reasons to be recorded
in writing by him.
38. In giving out contracts, the lowest tender shall ordinarily be accepted:
Provided that the Chairman will have the right to give a contract to a person
whose tender is not the lowest for reasons to be recorded in writing by him.
39. The Chairman may authorize the Secretary or the senior most member of the
staff of the Committee to keep with himself a permanent advance of a sum not
exceeding Rs.50/- for incurring expenditure on contingencies, which will be
recouped by drawing regular bills after submission of proper vouchers for each
item of expenditure already incurred.
Power and Duties of Office Bearers.

41. (i) The appointment or the dismissal of member of the staff of the Committee
employed on a salary of Rs. 50/- a month and above shall rest with the
Committee.
(ii) The Chairman may appoint, suspend, or dismiss any employee of the
Committee whose salary is less than Rs. 50/- a month:
Provided that all such appointments, suspensions, and dismissals must be
reported with the reasons therefore for information at the first meeting
of the Committee held after the order or appointment, suspension, or
dismissal has been passed.
(iii) The Chairman may, pending an inquiry, suspend an employee of the
committee drawing a salary of Rs. 50/- a month or more for misconduct,
incompetence, neglect of duty, or any other sufficient cause:
Provided that the action taken along with the explanation, if any,
submitted by the employee, shall be reported to the Committee for proper
action all its first meeting held after the order of suspension has been
passed.
(iv) All temporary employees of the Committee, whose services may no
longer be required shall be liable to be discharged after one month’s
notice or on payment of one month’s salary in lieu thereof. Perma-
nent employees may be removed from service after consideration of
an explanation to be submitted by them within a reasonable time.
(v) The Chairman may impose a fine not exceeding one-tenth of one month’s
salary on any employee of the Committee drawing a salary not exceeding
Rs. 50/- a month for misconduct, neglect of duty, or any other sufficient
cause.
(vi) The Chairman may impose a fine not exceeding one-tenth of one month’s
salary on any employees of the committee drawing a salary of Rs. 50/- a
month or above but the order imposing the fine shall be submitted to the
Committee for approval at its first meeting held after the order is passed
and the Committee may approve, rescind, or modify the order.
(vii) The Chairman shall call upon the employee concerned to explain his
conduct and consider the explanation, if any, submitted by the employee
before he passes an order imposing a fine.
(viii) All persons employed by a Committee shall, if required, furnish such
security as the Committee may from time to time determine.
(ix) During the period of suspension pending enquiry into his conduct, an
employee will get as subsistence allowance only one-half of the salary
which he was entitled to draw on the day he was suspended.
42. The General superintendence and control of the establishments maintained by
the Committee shall vest in and be exercised by the Chairman. The Chairman
shall be in general control of the funds of the Committee and shall enter into
contracts or execute leases or other documents and pass bills for payments, on
behalf of the committee.
43. The Secretary shall be the Chief Executive Officer of the Committee, and shall
exercise supervision over the staff of the committee and keep the books of
accounts and other principal records of the Committee.
43. The Secretary shall be the Chief Executive Officer of the Committee and shall
exercise supervision over the staff of the Committee and keep the books of
accounts and other principal records of the Committee in his custody.
44. The Committee may designate the senior most member of its office staff as its
Superintendent who shall:
(i) have the general charge of the office of the Committee and its day-to-day
work;
(ii) subject to any general or special direction which the Chairman or Secretary
may from time to time give, deal with routine correspondence.
(iii) examine and sign the cash-books and keep them in order and up-to-date;
(iv) be responsible for the maintenance of the purity and cleanliness of the
Temple and the Temple land; and.
(v) look after the comforts of visitors and devotees.
45. All communication received in the office marked “Secret”, “Confidential”, or

“Personal”, (or addressed by name) shall be opened by the Chairman or the
Secretary (according to who is the addressee).
46. The common seal of the Committee shall remain in the custody of the Chairman,
or, if he so directs in writing, of the Secretary. Miscellaneous
47. The common seal shall be affixed to the following documents:
(i) all deeds of transfer executed by, or, on behalf of the Committee;
(ii) all written contracts entered into by the Committee;

(iii) the minutes of proceedings of the Committee;
(iv) notices of the meetings of the Committee;
(v) all receipts for money grated on behalf of the Committee; and
(vi) any other documents which in the opinion of the Chairman or the Secretary
is of importance
48. (i) For the proper maintenance of accounts and efficient discharge of its
duties, the Committee shall maintain necessary books and registers in
its office.
(ii) A list of such books and registers shall be maintained in the office.
(iii) Books and registers maintained by the Committee shall be open to inspec-
tion, during office hours, by the members of the committee and with the
permission of the Chairman or the Secretary, by any other person.
49. The Committee may from time to time, for any purpose connected with its
work, appoint sub-committees consisting of such of its members and any other
persons as it may think proper and such sub-committees shall exercise such
powers and perform such functions as may be prescribed by the Committee.
50. Any addition, alteration, or modification in these bye-laws may be made by the
Committee by a majority of votes of the members of the Committee, subject to
confirmation by the State Government and publication in the official Gazette.
51. In matters no specifically provided for in these by-laws the Committee shall be
competent to pass orders and regulate its affairs in such manner as necessary
for the discharge of its duties in accordance with the Act and the rules.
52. The Committee may, by a resolution, delegate such of its powers to the Chairman
or the Secretary as it may consider necessary.
53. The Secretary shall prepare each year a report of the affairs and activities of the
committee and present it at its meeting held to consider and pass the budget. A
copy of the report shall be forwarded to the State Government along with the
budget estimates.
54. The members of the Committee including the Chairman and the Secretary and
the special invitees to the meetings of the Committee and Sub-committees shall
be entitled to travelling allowance and daily allowance for attending the meet-
ings of the Committee and its Sub-committees (and for other journeys required
in connection with the work of the Committee, in the case of the Chairman and
Secretary) at the following rates:
(i) Single second class railway fare from the railway station nearest the
members or special invitees, place, or residence to the railway stations
nearest the place of the meeting.
(ii) Eight annas for each mile of distance travelled by road in the course of
journey from the place of residence to the place of meeting.
(iii) Daily allowance at the rate of Rs. 5/- per diem for the duration of the
meeting and an allowance of Rs. 5/- as out-of-pocket expenses for every
day spent in travelling between their places of residence and the place of
the meeting and vice versa:
Provided that the out-of-pocket expenses shall not be paid for the day or
days for which daily allowance is admissible.
Provided further that employees of the State Government shall not be
entitled to charge any travelling allowance or daily allowance or out-of-
pocket expense from the funds of the Committee.
55. The staff of the Committee shall be entitled to such rates of travelling and daily
allowances as the Chairman may, from time to time, after due consideration of
the finances of the Committee, by an order in writing determine and such rates
shall prevail until modified.
Appendix E
Application for the Inscription of the Mahabodhi
Temple Complex as a World Heritage Site
PROPOSED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM MINISTRY OF TOURISM

& CULTURE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
1. Identification of the Property
(a) Country (and State Party if different): Republic of India

(b) State, Province, or Region: State of Bihar, Eastern India
District: Gaya
Town: Bodh Gaya
(c) Name of property: The Mahabodhi Temple Complex at Bodh Gaya. The
site is popularly referred to simply as Bodh Gaya.
During the times of the Buddha (sixth century BC) the forest tract where Bodh Gaya
was located was called Uruvilva or Uruvela. Subsequent to the Buddha’s attaining
enlightenment at this spot, the various names by which this site was called were
forever based on this historic event.
Within two centuries of the Buddha’s enlightenment, the name Uruvela fell
into disuse and was replaced by four other names, Sambodhi (meaning “Complete
Enlightenment”), Bodhimanda (meaning the area around the Bodhi Tree under which
the ascetic Siddharth attained enlightenment and became the Buddha), Vajrasana
(meaning the Diamond Throne), and Mahabodhi (meaning “Great Enlightenment”).
By the third century BC it was called Sambodhi. In fact it is by this name that
the Emperor Asoka addressed the place of Buddha’s Enlightenment and made a
pilgrimage to the site in the year 260 BC, during the 10th year of his reign.
Sir Alexander Cunningham records that the Bodh Gaya temple was known as
Mahabodhi to Huien Tsang, the Chinese traveller who visited Bodh Gaya in the
seventh century. It is also referred to by this name in the thirteenth century during
the reign of the Pala dynasty in eastern India.
In 1861 when the temple was excavated and restored, it was popularly called
Buddha-Gaya or Bodh Gaya.
………………….
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8067-3
186 Appendix E: Application for the Inscription of the Mahabodhi Temple Complex …
…………………
(f) Area of property proposed for inscription and proposed buffer zone if any:
Core Area: The area proposed for inscription is the Mahabodhi Temple Complex
including the Lotus Pond totally covering 12 acres of land There are two divisions
of the Complex: one where the main temple stands and the other where the Lotus
Pond is located. The Main temple occupies 5.5 acres of land.
The proposed area for inscription has the following important structures and
revered Buddhist heritage spots:
(a) The Mahabodhi Temple
(b) The Bodhi Tree
c) The six other sacred spots where the Buddha meditated after he attained Enlight-
enment. The Ratnachakrama or the path where the Buddha walked 18 steps in
deep thought; the Animeshlochan Chaitya, the Ratnaghar Chaitya, the Ajapala-
Nigrodha Tree, and the Rajyatana Tree all of which are close to the main temple.
The Lotus Pond or the Mucalinda Pond where the Buddha meditated in the 6th
week after attaining enlightenment is located just outside the southern boundary
wall of the Temple (as noted above, the area of the pond is also part of the
proposed area).
The Core Area is enclosed by outer boundary walls.
Buffer Zone:
The Mahabodhi Temple Complex including the Lotus Temple is protected and
enclosed by an outer boundary wall of a height of 10ft.6" on the east, 11ft. on the
west, 15ft. on the north and 7ft. on the south. This wall is at a distance of 204 ft. in
the east, 110ft. in the west, 169 ft. in the north and 263 ft. in the south from the inner
Asokan period railing which is the historical enclosure of the Temple. The outer
wall may be considered as the primary protection of the Temple Complex. There
is a buffer zone beyond the boundary walls of the temple of 2 kms radius from the
Mahabodhi Temple. This includes an area where a little excavation has been carried
out by the Department of Archaeology of the State Government of Bihar.
1. Km Buffer Zone: Beyond the boundary walls, the Bodh Gaya Regional Develop-
ment Authority has declared an area of 1 km from the boundary wall of the temple
to be a protected buffer zone wherein no new structures shall be permitted
in future except those vital for religious usage and designed sympathetic
to the site and are only ground floor structures. The total excavated area of
Cunningham’s plan of the monastery as given in the map of 1892 will remain
free of any new structures.
2. Km Buffer Zone: It has also been decided that within an area of 2 km from
the temple boundary wall, no building shall be permitted to exceed a height
of 44 ft and these buildings shall be designed in character similar to those
traditional to Bodh Gaya monument times.
Appendix E: Application for the Inscription of the Mahabodhi Temple Complex … 187
These Buffer Zone regulations are enforced by the Gaya Regional Develop-
ment Authority of which the District Magistrate & Collector of Gaya who is also
the Chairman of Bodh Gaya Temple Management Committee is a member. The
legal instrument for implementation is the Bihar Public Land Encroachment
Act.
The Indian Treasure Troves Act of 1878 also protects finds unearthed during
diggings in the area around the Mahabodhi Temple and in the buffer zone.
2. Justification for Inscription
The Mahabodhi Temple Complex has outstanding universal importance as it is one

of the most revered and sanctified places in the world.
(a) Statement of Significance: This is the hallowed spot where the ascetic prince
Siddharth attained Enlightenment to become the Buddha and thereafter pledged
his life to deliver mankind from the cycle of suffering and rebirth. “Thus, on
account of its association with the signal event in the Buddha’s life, that of
his attaining enlightenment and supreme wisdom, Bodh Gaya may be said to
be the cradle of Buddhism. To the devout Buddhist there is no place of greater
importance and sanctity”. This observation made by Hiuen Tsang in the seventh
century when he visited the region is valid even today.
The Buddha’s understanding of the truth of human existence on earth and the
path which he enunciated not only transformed the lives of thousands in his
lifetime but that of millions in the world ever since. Buddhism is among the
foremost religions in the world and the Buddhist population ranks fourth with
353,141,000 adherents to the faith. They constitute 6% of the world’s population
after Christians who, respectively, represent 33%, Muslims 19.6%, and Hindus
12.8%.
The Buddha is not only deeply revered by Buddhists the world over, but is
universally respected by people of different religions for the fine message of
compassion and peace which he enunciated. Every year millions of people
throng to the Mahabodhi Temple at Bodh Gaya which commemorates the spot
of his Enlightenment.
For the Buddhists this important site is even more revered as it is believed that
the Buddha himself spoke of its importance to his closest disciple Ananda:
“There are four places, Ananda, which the believing man should visit with
feelings of reverence.
The place, Ananda, at which the believing man can say, ‘Here the Tathagata
was born’
(Lumbini, included in the world heritage List) ‘Here the Tathagata attained to
the supreme and perfect insight’ (Bodh Gaya)
‘Here was the kingdom of righteousness set on foot by the Tathagata’ (Sarnath)
‘Here the Tathagata passed finally away in that utter passing away which leaves
nothing whatsoever to remain behind (Kusinagar)”
Source: Maha-parinibbana-suttanta, translated in T.W. Rhys Davis, Buddhist
Suttas, sacred Books of the East, XI (Oxford, 1881)
The Mahabodhi Temple is a living monument where people from all over the
world even today throng to offer their reverential prayers to the Buddha. The
tradition of worship here has continued over the centuries as is recorded in the
pillar edicts of Asoka and is seen depicted in the sculpture in Sanchi and Bharhut
as well as reflected in the accounts by various travellers through the course of
centuries, including the Chinese travellers of the fourth and seventh centuries.
The site bears a unique and exceptional testimony to the importance given to
this place of pilgrimage by people from different countries through the passage
of many centuries. It also represents a singular example of the efforts of people
of different countries to preserve and conserve an invaluable legacy through the
course of many centuries. The history of this temple is an outstanding reflection
of the devotion of rulers and lay persons of Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and
India, who have contributed over the centuries to repair and save it for posterity.
In recent years Japan (Overseas Economic Cooperation Fund) has also given
significant financial help for the development of the region (roads etc.) around
this site.
The Mahabodhi Temple is, above, all a unique property of cultural and archaeo-
logical significance. There is no other extant grand structural property of its kind
in the Indian sub-continent belonging to this period of antiquity, that is the fifth
/ sixth century AD. Furthermore, the temple is remarkably well preserved and
marks a high point of architectural achievement for its times. It is noteworthy to
observe that the architecture and design of the Temple has remained essentially
unaltered since the time when it was built.
(b) Possible comparative analysis (including state of conservation of similar prop-
erties): Although early Buddhist caves do exist in India, the grand Mahabodhi
Temple is the only Buddhist structural temple of the early period which stands
today.
In India, we do find a few structural temples of this period, but the Mahabodhi
temple of the fifth–sixth century is well preserved, larger and the most imposing
among them all.
This site is one of the four places of the greatest importance in the historical
legacy and heritage of the Buddhist faith (even as directly identified by the
Buddha himself.) The monument here, however, holds a pre-eminent position
in that it is most deeply revered by Buddhists and is also the grandest and
best-preserved structure among these four important sites.
Among the four Buddhist pilgrimage spots Lumbini in Nepal is an inscribed
World Heritage Site by virtue of it being the place where Prince Siddharth who
was later to become the Buddha, was born. On all counts of architectural and
artistic excellence Bodh Gaya surpasses the Lumbini site.
Both as a pilgrimage spot and as a significant place representing the development
of the religious philosophies of mankind, the Mahabodhi temple at Bodh Gaya
is similar to the sacred sites of Jerusalem and Mecca. The Mahabodhi Temple
continues to be a place of active worship and represents a continuous tradition
of philosophical thought and human values and beliefs since the times of the
Buddha more than 2,500 years ago.
………………………
………………………
(d) Criteria under which inscription is proposed (and justification for inscription
under these criteria):
Criteria VI: In the context of philosophic and cultural history, the Mahabodhi
Temple Complex is of the great relevance as it marks the most important event
in the life of Buddha which was to change the shape of human thought and belief.
Bodh Gaya is the very cradle of the Buddhism and compares as such with Jerusalem
and Mecca which are themselves the cradles of two great religions of the world. The
philosophy of the Buddha has transformed the lives of millions of people around the
world especially in India, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, China, Central Asia, Tibet, Korea,
and Japan. Today, Buddhism is not only followed in these countries but has reached
out to people in Europe and USA as well.
Criteria I: The grand 50 m high Mahabodhi Temple (fifth/sixth century) is of
immense importance as it is one of the earliest structural temple extant in the Indian
sub-continent It is one of the very few representations of the architectural genius
of the Indian people in constructing fully developed brick temples in that era.
Criteria II & III: The Mahabodhi temple is also important as it exhibits an
important phase in the development of architecture. It is one of the very few well-
preserved temple structures and also the grandest one from a period of history when
numerous such brick structures would have been built all over India. As such, it bears
an exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition and to the prevalent forms of
architecture in the late Gupta period (also known as “the Golden Age of Indian
Culture”).
Criteria IV: The sculpted BC period stone railings (seen partly at the site and
partly preserved in the nearby Archaeological Museum) are an outstanding example
of the art and architecture of the period of Emperor Asoka (third century
BC) and soon thereafter. These railings also present some of the oldest sculp-
tural reliefs found in the country. As there are few remnants of such railings which
were a very important feature of early Buddhist monuments of that time, these are
of great importance.
(a) Description: a) Description of property (at the time of nomination): The
Mahabodhi Temple Complex consists of the Temple and six other sacred
spots, including a lotus pond, where the Buddha meditated after attaining
Enlightenment under the Bodhi Tree (the Bodhi Tree is in fact the most
prominent of these seven sacred spots). The Temple is a 50-metre high,
imposing ancient structure of the fifth/sixth century, built in the classic
style of the Indian temple.
………………………
………………………
(b) History and Development of the Temple since early times: The Mahabodhi
Temple complex at Bodh Gaya is the most revered centre of pilgrimage for
Buddhists all over the world for it is in this sacred place where the Buddha
(566–486 BC) attained Enlightenment when he was 35 years of age in the

year 531 BC.
The Mahabodhi Temple commemorates the illuminating moment in the life
of the Buddha which was to transform the lives of millions in his lifetime and
thereafter in the centuries which followed.
In early times, Bodh Gaya was called Sambodhi as is evident from the 8th
Aśokan rock edict inscription of the third century BC. Emperor Asoka made a
pilgrimage to this spot around 260 BC and built the first temple at the site of the
Bodhi Tree under which the Buddha meditated. The depiction of this visit was
sculpted in relief in BharhutStupa (second–first century BC) and on the Eastern
Gateway of Stupa No. 1 at Sanchi (first century BC) (a World Heritage Site).
The extant temple has been built upon the exact spot where Emperor Asoka
raised a memorial to the Buddha in the third century BC. The original Aśokan
temple which is sculpted in the Bharhut Bas-relief was an open pavilion
supported on pillars. In the middle was the Vajrasana throne. The Vajrasana,
which was made on the original spot upon which the Buddha is believed to have
sat and meditated, was revealed during excavations which commenced in 1863
and taken up again in 1881 by Major General Sir Alexander Cunningham.
A sandstone railing (dated by some scholars to the third century BC and by
others to the first century BC) once encircled the spot under the Bodhi Tree. A
few original pillars with sculpted human faces, animals, and decorative details
carved on them still stand at the site. Other such sandstone pillars from the site
are in the nearby Archaeological Museum. Later granite pillars were later added
to enlarge the railing in the fifth–sixth centuries AD and these are also to be
found on site.
Fa-Hien, the Chinese traveller who visited Bodh Gaya in 409 AD, mentions
the Great Pagoda as one of the four which marked the significant places of
pilgrimage associated with the life of the Buddha. A study of the architecture
of the temple, particularly the shape of the tower dates the temple to the fifth
century (Sir Alexander Cunningham’s observations in 1881 after the excavations
carried out of the temple site in 1861 and 1881).
The Chinese pilgrim-traveller Hiuen Tsang described the Temple in an account
of his visit to Bodh Gaya in 637 AD: “It is built of bluish bricks with plaster. It
presents several tiers of niches, each of which holds a gilded statue of Buddha.
On all four sides the walls are covered with beautiful sculptures, festoons of
pearls, figures of rishis. On its summit there is a gilt copper amalaka fruit.”
Over the centuries these adornments have disappeared but the main temple
has survived the ravages of time and the onslaught of invaders (during the
twelfth–sixteenth centuries) and stands till today as an eloquent example of the
magnificent architecture of its times.
There is very limited information about the early restoration and repair of
the Temple which took place from the seventh to the eleventh centuries. The
accounts of restoration resume with the extensive repairs which were made by
the Burmese in the eleventh century (1035– 1079).
Other repairs were made in the latter half of the twelfth century by Asokaballa,
the king of Sapadalakasa or Shivalik. Not much is known of the state of the
temple from the thirteenth century when the Muslim invasions took place till
the sixteenth century when a Hindu Mahant or High Priest made the temple his
hermitage.
In the next six centuries which followed the Muslim conquest, the Mahabodhi
temple was quite deserted and gradually began to fall to ruin.
In 1810, the rulers of the Alompra dynasty in Burma had repairs carried out to
the main shrine of the temple. The Burmese King Mindon Min continued the
abiding interest of his country in conserving the Temple and began work to this
effect in 1877. Unfortunately, this could not be completed as the Anglo-Burmese
war broke out and the King’s representative had to leave India.
Soon afterwards, at the behest of the archaeologist-historian Dr. Rajendra Lal
Mitra and the Lt. Governor of Bengal Sir Ashley Eden, Mr. Joseph David M.
Beglar and Sir Alexander Cunningham were asked to repair the excavated
Temple. This work of restoration of the temple was completed in four years
between 1880 and 1884 AD at a cost of Rs. 200,000 (approx. US$ 4,600).
According to Sir Alexander Cunningham, the restoration and repair of the temple
which was carried out between 1880 and 1884 was on the basis of “a sufficient
number of tolerably well-preserved portions of the moulding and niches on
the faces of the temple to enable the completion of the repair of the whole in
the exact pattern of the original. No new features were added, the restoration
being limited to a strict repetition of existing niches and mouldings.” The front
pavilion of the temple was almost a complete ruin as seen by Cunningham in
1880. It was however then restored on the basis of a stone model of the temple
“found among the ruins from which the whole design of the building as it existed
in mediaeval times could be traced with tolerable completeness.”
The next significant work on the temple was done after the passing of the
Bodh Gaya Temple Act in 1949, which provided for a Temple Management
Committee and an Advisory Board. The first repair and developmental work
carried under the supervision of the Committee was from 1953 to 1956. During
this time, inner and outer “parikramas” or circumambulatory pathways were
constructed around the Temple, the lotus pond was excavated and was given a
concrete railing around it, a dais was provided for placing materials of worship.
In consultation with the Archaeological Survey of India, restoration work on
the old dilapidated Asokan railings was undertaken.
In 1968, much of the construction of the boundary wall was done with the
donation of Thai pilgrims. In 1974, repairs were carried out on the lower portion
of the walls of the temple. In 1977, the Abbot of the Thai monastery at Bodh
Gaya bore the cost of making the upper shrine area into a meditation hall.
In 1999, a Meditation Park was laid to the east of the temple. A Reception
Hall, Shoe-house and Cloakrooms were also built by the BTMC to improve the
facilities for visitors to the Temple.
In the current year, transformers for providing better electric supply to the site
have been installed for the Temple. A scheme to upgrade the supply of water to
the Temple is also under way.
Other important ancient developments at Bodh Gaya: The Mahabodhi
temple has been the focus of devotion for centuries. A Chinese writer Wang-
Hiuen-Tse refers to an Embassy sent to Samudragupta (sometime between 320–
380AD) by Sri Meghavarma, king of Ceylon to seek permission to build at
Bodh Gaya a monastery for Ceylonese pilgrims. This facilitated the residence
of a Buddhist colony from Ceylon at Bodh Gaya. Fa-Hien who visited Bodh
Gaya in 409 AD mentions three monasteries which existed there, the notable
one being the sanctuary built by King Meghavarma. The remains of this large
monastery complex are buried under a mound of earth at Bodh Gaya, to the
north of the Temple. This monastery flourished in the seventh century when the
Chinese traveller Hiuen Tsang visited Bodh Gaya.
This sanctuary and others lie buried not far from the temple. Excavations of
these important sites which are planned to be carried out will thus reveal the
remains of the ancient Buddhist city of Bodh Gaya which grew around the most
revered and sacred Mahabodhi Temple.
In the nineteenth century, largely due to the efforts of an ardent follower of the
Buddha from Sri Lanka Anagarika Dharmapala, the ownership of the Temple,
which was in the possession of a Hindu Mahant, became an important issue
for Buddhists. In order to take this cause further and to bring the Temple under
the supervision and care of Buddhists, Anagarika Dharmapala established the
Mahabodhi Society in 1891. However, the dispute of the ownership of the temple
carried on between the Buddhists and their supporters and the Hindu Mahant
who was occupying the temple. After a gap 69 years, in 1953, the management of
the Mahabodhi Temple was finally handed over to the Bodh Gaya Management
Committee by the Government.
(c) Form and date of recent records of property: The Mahabodhi Temple is owned
by and is the responsibility of the State Government of Bihar. The State
Government has, through an Act called the Bodh Gaya Temple Act of 1949,
provided for the management, monitoring, and protection of the temple and its
properties. (A copy of the Bodh Gaya Temple Act, 1949, is enclosed as Annexure
11.) The Bodh Gaya Temple Management Committee was constituted and
has been actively playing this role since 1953. The Committee maintains
the properties of the Temple, including the Temple itself and land and other
properties appertaining to it.
There is a detailed record maintained by the Bodh Gaya Temple Management
Committee (BTMC) of the properties owned by the Temple, and also an inven-
tory of the statues, votive stupas, objects of artistic and of archaeological value,
manuscripts, records of past and current donations and funds of the Temple.
They are kept at the Office of the Management Committee and the Secretary of
the Committee is the caretaker of all these records. He reports to the ex-officio
Chairman of the Committee who is also the Collector and District Magistrate
of the district of Gaya in which the town of Bodh Gaya is located. The records
of property and inventory of the Temple are updated regularly and systemati-
cally. (Please see enclosed 12 sheets which show how the Inventory has been
recorded, Annexure 12).
(d) Present state of conservation: Fortunately, the Mahabodhi Temple is the best-
preserved brick structure of its period in India. Through the course of centuries,
repairs and restoration of the Temple has carried out of which are no detailed
accounts, excepting that the design and architecture of the temple has been
uniformly adhered to.
The temple was last surveyed on June 22,1999 by the Patna Circle of the
Archaeological Survey of India. The following are the salient points of this
inspection:
The Temple is in a low-lying area. A survey needs to be done of the area around
the Temple and a proper system of drainage needs to be made so that groundwater
from the surrounding areas may not each the Temple foundation.
In the restoration carried out in 1953-54, some parts of the Temple had been
plastered with cement instead of using the original materials which were a lime
and mortar plaster. The cement plaster needs to be removed and the temple
should be re-plastered with the traditional material. Acrylic emulsion paint has
also been used in some places on the sculptural figures. This changes the original
character and beauty of the figures and needs to be removed.
Votive stupas in the parapet wall need to be reset and re-plastered so that they
do not fall off.
Vegetation growth on the Temple structure needs to be removed effectively.
Underground water seepage has created vertical cracks in some places in the
Temple which need to be stitched. The floor of the roof needs to be levelled and
sloped to allow water to drain. Cleaning and broadening of the water drainage
pipes in the Temple needs to be done.
Lighting arrangements in the Temple Complex need to be upgraded old fittings
need to be removed from the body of the Temple. The lightning conductor of
the Temple needs to be repaired.
Devotees have been following the practice of lighting oil lamps or candles along
all the walls and railings and on sculpted figures in the Temple Complex. This
is adversely affecting the ancient monument and spoiling the pathways. The
burning of a large number of oil lamps on festive occasions is a threat to the
structure of the Temple as well as to the Bodhi Tree. A thorough cleaning of the
oily residue on all parts of the Temple needs to be carried out and an alternative
found to this practice of burning oil lamps.
Carved stones and epigraphs embedded in the floor of the Temple need to be
removed and re-installed in a separate gallery.
In February 2002, work has commenced on this Conservation Proposal of
Mahabodhi Temple, prepared by the Archaeological Survey of India, 1999.
(Annexure 13).
(e) Policies and programmes related to the presentation and promotion of the prop-
erty: the Government of India and the State Government of Bihar have through
their Departments of Tourism promoted this most important Buddhist site in the
world.
An annual Budh Mahotsav celebrating the Buddhist legacy is held by the
Department of Tourism Government of India at Bodh Gaya and other important
Buddhist sites in India.
Public exhibitions and a plethora of literature is published and circulated widely
to inform all those visiting India as well as domestic tourists of the site of Bodh
Gaya and other Buddhist sites (Annexures 14).
There are films produced by the State and Central Departments of Tourism from
time to time to present this and other Buddhist sites over television media.
Please find enclosed a video-film on the Buddhist sites of India which depicts
Bodh Gaya. (Annexure 15); a VHS video coverage of the Budh Mahotsav 1999,
showing the participation of Ministers of the Central Government, the Chief
Minister of the State Government and the international Buddhist community of
Bodh Gaya (Annexure 16); a VHS video coverage of the celebration of Budh
Purnima, May 2000, the day on which the Buddha was born, attained enlighten-
ment and his Mahaparinirvana when he left his mortal bindings. 60,000 persons
were present for the celebrations. (Annexure 17).
Further the BTMC publishes books and supportive material like calendars, etc.
They have a website (mahabodhi.com) and e-mail addresses at which they
answer queries (mahabodhi@hotmail.com & bodhgayatemple@hotmail.com).
The Mahabodhi Society of India, consisting of Sri Lankan Buddhists, holds
monthly lectures and publishes a monthly journal to promote the legacy of
Buddhism and to highlight the importance of the site.
A signage project which presents the significant spots in the Mahabodhi Temple
Complex is underway. A detailed and attractive map to guide visitors to the site
has also been made.
The Mahabodhi Temple Complex holds a paramount position of importance in
the town. There are plans to illuminate the approach as well as the entire Temple
Complex at night. A sound and light show on the life of the Buddha and the
events at this historic site is also being prepared at the behest of the BTMC.
4. Management
(a) Ownership: The Temple Complex is owned by and is the property of the
State Government of Bihar, Republic of India
(b) Legal status: The title of the Mahabodhi temple is vested in the State
Government of Bihar. A self-explanatory detailed note giving the exact
legal position is enclosed (Annexure 18).
The Bodh Gaya Temple Act (Bihar XVII of 1949) passed on 19 June 1949,
makes provision for the State Government to establish the Bodh Gaya Temple
Management Committee (BTMC) for the better management of the temple and
the properties appertaining to it. The Committee works under the supervision,
direction, and control of the State Government of Bihar. BTMC was constituted
and has been playing this role since 1953.
The Act has also provided for the setting up of an Advisory Board by the
Governor of Bihar which consists of 20 to 25 embers, two-thirds of them being
Buddhists and half of them being from foreign countries. The Board is consti-
tuted every two years and headed by an elected President. Its main function is to
advise the Bodh Gaya Temple Management Committee on all matters related to
the Mahabodhi Temple Complex, its management and protection. (Please see
Annexure 11 copy of the Bodh Gaya Temple Act, 1949.)
(c) Protective measures and means of implementing them: The Mahabodhi Temple
is protected by a special Act which has been passed primarily to provide for
better management and protection of the monument and properties appertaining
to it. (Please see Annexure 8, a copy of the Bodh Gaya Temple Act, 1949.)
The Act entrusts the authority of managing the Temple and all matters
concerning it to a specially constituted Bodh Gaya Temple Management
Committee which has been shouldering this responsibility since 1953. It is
advised by an Advisory Board consisting of 20-25 members, representing the
many countries of the Buddhist world. The State Government is represented by
the Collector and District Magistrate of Gaya, who is the ex-officio Chairman
of the Committee. He is actively involved in the decisions taken and ensures
that these are implemented by all concerned authorities in the Government of
Bihar as well as by the community of Bodh Gaya town.
The guards and watchmen employed by the BTMC keep a day-to-day vigil on
the Temple Complex. The State Police and the instruments of enforcement of the
State Government under the direction of the Collector and District Magistrate
of Gaya are also wholly associated with the protection and care of the property.
To protect the Temple’s land from encroachment and building of illegal
structures, the legal instrument is the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act.
Any finds in the area are automatically also protected by the Indian Treasure
Troves Act of 1878.
The Notified Area Committee constituted in 1949 and governed by the Bihar and
Orissa Municipal Act is responsible for the maintenance of basic civic ameni-
ties in the town of Bodh Gaya. The Committee is headed by a Sub-Divisional
Officer of the State Government and is administered by the Collector and District
Magistrate of Gaya.
The interests of the Temple are also protected by the Gaya Regional Develop-
ment Authority (GRDA) which is the body responsible for the planned devel-
opment of the Bodh Gaya town. The GRDA acts on the advice of the BTMC
and the local administration of the State Government in matters relating to the
Temple and its environs.
(d) Agency/agencies with management authority: The home Department of the
State Government of Bihar. The Collector and District Magistrate of Gaya, as
Chairman of the Bodh Gaya Temple Management Committee (BTMC).
e) Level at which management is exercised (e.g., On property, regionally) and name
and address of responsible person for contact purposes: The Secretary, Bodh
Gaya Temple Management Committee (BTMC), looks after the day-to-day
management of the Mahabodhi Temple Complex and the properties appertaining
to it. His independent financial powers are restricted to payments up to Rs.

15,000 (approx. US$ 350) in each instance. He also maintains the records of
the BTMC and convenes meetings of the BTMC. The Chairman, Bodh Gaya
Temple Management Committee (BTMC) who is the Collector and District
Magistrate of Gaya implements the collective decisions of the BTMC. The
overall supervision of the Temple and all its properties is his responsibility.
Appendix F
World Heritage Status
Sources: http://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/26COM
http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2002/whc-02-conf202-25e.pdf#decision.23.15
Property: The Mahabodhi Temple Complex at Bodh Gaya
Id. N°: 1056 Rev
State Party: India
Criteria: C (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (vi)
UNESCO Region: ASIA AND THE PACIFIC
SITE NAME: Mahabodhi Temple Complex at Bodh Gaya
DATE OF INSCRIPTION: 29th June 2002
STATE PARTY: INDIA
CRITERIA: (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), and (vi)
DECISION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE:
Excerpt from the Report of the 26th Session of the World Heritage Committee
26 COM 23.15 The World Heritage Committee,
Inscribes the Mahabodhi Temple Complex at Bodh Gaya, India on the basis
of cultural criteria (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), and (vi):
Criterion (i): The grand 50 m-high Mahabodhi Temple of the fifth–sixth centuries
is of immense importance, being one of the earliest temple constructions existing
in the Indian sub-continent. It is one of the few representations of the architectural
genius of the Indian people in constructing fully developed brick temples in that
era.
Criterion (ii): The Mahabodhi Temple, one of the few surviving examples of
early brick structures in India, has had significant influence in the development
of architecture over the centuries.
Criterion (iii): The site of the Mahabodhi Temple provides exceptional records for
the events associated with the life of Buddha and subsequent worship, particularly
since Emperor Asoka built the first temple, the balustrades, and the memorial
column.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8067-3
198 Appendix F: World Heritage Status
Criterion (iv): The present Temple is one of the earliest and most imposing
structures built entirely in brick from the late Gupta period. The sculpted stone
balustrades are an outstanding early example of sculptural reliefs in stone.
Criterion (vi): The Mahabodhi Temple Complex in Bodh Gaya has direct asso-
ciation with the life of the Lord Buddha, being the place where He attained the
supreme and perfect insight.
26 COM 23.16 With regard to the Mahabodhi Temple Complex at Bodh Gaya,
India, the World Heritage Committee,
Recommends to the Indian authorities to develop an overall management plan to
protect the values of the World Heritage site. Such a plan should include a provision
for regular monitoring of conditions at the site, including the impact that tourism
may have on the religious and spiritual significance of the place.
1. The Delegate of Thailand recommended that, in view of the immense impor-
tance of the temple, constructed of brick, criterion (i) also be applied to this site.
The proposal was supported by the Delegates of China, Hungary, Argentina,
Republic of Korea, the United Kingdom, and Nigeria.
2. Several delegates including Saint Lucia, Argentina, and the United Kingdom
noted the concern expressed by ICOMOS that the site is experiencing strong
pressures from increasing tourism and pilgrimage. The Delegates of Saint Lucia
and the United Kingdom asked the representative of ICOMOS what had been
done in response to these pressures.
3. The Delegate of India responded that the management authorities had taken
note of these well-intentioned concerns. They are currently considering ways of
maintaining the integrity of the site while providing for the legitimate interests
of pilgrims to the site. The State Party was committed to taking appropriate
measures.
4. Much of the discussion concerned the nature of the management regime at the
site. Although the representative of ICOMOS explained that a “management
structure” existed as well as a master plan for the city itself, delegates asked for
additional details with a view to safeguarding the spiritual values of the site.
5. The Delegate of Saint Lucia asked if the management plan considered the site’s
“carrying capacity?” Was there a monitoring plan in place?
6. The spokesperson of ICOMOS assured the Committee that there was a manage-
ment plan but that regular monitoring would be advisable. He also indicated
that the management authority, being the owners of the site, might be tempted
to give a higher priority to development than to conservation.
7. The Delegate of the United Kingdom reminded the Committee that that morning
they had heard numerous examples of threats to World Heritage properties
which lacked adequate management plans. In this case, did a management plan
exists, and was it in place? A management structure was often not sufficient
to guarantee that the values of a site would be adequately protected, and a
development plan could even be counter productive. The Delegate urged that
the Committee make a strong recommendation that the current management
Appendix F: World Heritage Status 199
authorities put in place a management plan as a matter of urgent priority, with

a strong provision for monitoring.
8. These views were supported by the Delegate of Zimbabwe.
9. In conclusion, the Chairperson declared the property inscribed on the World
Heritage List (decision 26 COM 23.15) with a specific decision to address the
management plan issues (decision 26 COM 23.16).
10. Following inscription, the Delegate of India thanked the Committee for its
decision.
Appendix G
The Bodhgaya Temple (Amendment) Act 2013
(Source: http://law.bih.nic.in/listofacts/11-13.pdf)
[Bihar Act 11, 2013]
AN
ACT
to make amendment in Bodh Gaya Temple Act 1949.
Preamble—Whereas the Constitution of India stands for a secular state and secu-
larism is a basic feature of the Constitution and the provision in proviso to sub-section
(3) of Section 3 of the Bodhgaya Temple Act, 1949 is prejudicial to secularism;
therefore it is necessary and expedient to delete the said proviso.
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Bihar in Sixty-fourth year of the
Republic of India as follows:
1. Short title and Commencement—(1) This Act may be called the Bodh gaya
Temple (Amendment) Act, 2013.
(2) It shall come into force at once.
2. Amendment of Section 3 of Bihar Act 17, 1949—The proviso to sub-section
(3) of Section 3 of the said Act shall be deleted.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8067-3
References
Amar, A.S. 2009. Contextualizing the navel of the Earth: The emergence, sustenance and trans-
formation of Buddhism in the Bodh Gaya region (c.300 BCE-1200 CE),” unpublished thesis,
University of London.
Amar, A.S. 2012. Buddhist responses to Brāhman.a challenges in medieval India: Bodhgayā and
Gayā. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Third Series, Volume 22, Issue 01, January: 155–185.
Amar, A.S. 2012a. Sacred Bodh Gaya: the Buddhaks.etra of Gotama Buddha. In Geary, D., Sayers,
M.R., and Amar, A.S. (eds.). 2012. Cross-disciplinary Perspectives on a Contested Buddhist Site:
Bodh Gaya Jataka, pp. 29–42. London: Routledge.
Aneria, Himanshu. 1969. The Kalki Purān.a. Fusion Books.
Anon. 1892. The Maha-Bodhi society: Its constitution, rules and list of officers. The Maha-Bodhi
and the united Buddhist world. Journal of the Maha-Bodhi Society, I: 1–2.
Anon. 1895. The Buddha-Gaya temple case: H. Dharmapala versus Jjaipal Gir and others. Calcutta:
W. Newman & Co.
Anon. 1896. The Buddhists and government of Bengal. The Maha-Bodhi and the united Buddhist
world. Journal of the Maha-Bodhi Society, IV(pt. 10): 2.
Anon. 1901. Correspondence: Desecration of the Maha-Bodhi temple, Buddha-Gaya. The Maha-
Bodhi and the united Buddhist world. Journal of the Maha-Bodhi Society, IX(pt. 9): 86–87.
Anon. 1901a. The holy shrine of Maha-Bodhi at Buddha-Gaya. The Maha-Bodhi and the United
Buddhist World. Journal of the Maha-Bodhi Society, IX(pt. 10): 94–95.
Anon. 1910. Japanese image and Buddhist rest house. The Maha-Bodhi and the United Buddhist
World, Journal of the Maha-Bodhi Society, XVIII(pt. 6): 488–492.
Anon. 1923a. Letter to Rai Isser Chunder Mitter Bahadur. In A.H. Dharmapala (ed.), Rescue Buddha
Gaya, pp. 35–38. Calcutta: The Maha-Bodhi Society.
Appleton, G. 1944, 3 June. Letter to Publicity Advisor, Government of Burma (Letter No. 6,
Collection of Letters “Restoration of Budh Gaya to Buddhist Hands,” File No. 9C20/PA44),
India Office Records and Private Papers, Lnodon: The British Library.
Arnold, Edwin. 1881. The light of Asia; or, the great renunciation., Boston: Roberts Brothers.
Arnold-Forster, H.O. 1897. The queen’s empire: A pictorial and descriptive record illustrated from
photographs, vol. 2. London: Cassell and Co.
Asher, Fraderick M. 2004. The Bodhgaya temple: Whose structure is it? Religion and the Arts 8
(1): 58–73.
Banerji, R.D. 1915. The Pālas of Bengal. Memoirs of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Calcutta 5 (3):
41–113.
Bapat, P.V. (ed.). 1956. 2500 years of Buddhism. Delhi: Publication Division.
Barua, B.M. 1930. Old Buddhist shrines at Bodh-Gaya inscriptions. The Indian Historical Quarterly,
VI(pt. 1): 1–31.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8067-3
204 References
Barua, D.K. 1981. Buddha Gaya temple: Its history. Buddha Gaya: Buddha Gaya Temple
Management Committee.
Bayly, C. 1988. Rulers, townmen and bazaars: North Indian society in the age of British expansion.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bharati, A. 1963. Pilgrimage in the Indian tradition. History of Religions 3: 135–167.
Bhattacharyya, Tarapada. 1966. The Bodhgayā temple. Calcutta: Firma K.L. Mukhopadhyah.
Bhawuk, Dharm P.S. 2011. The paths of bondage and liberation. In Spirituality and Indian
psychology: Lessons from the Bhagvad-Gı̄tā. New York: Springer. Chapter 5.
The Bodhgaya Temple Act of 1949, Bihar Gazette of 6 July 1949, Patna.
Bond, George. 1988. The Buddhist revival in Sri Lanka: Religious tradition. Reinterpretation and
Response, Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
Bhoothalingam, Mathuram. 1986. Temples of India: Myths and legends. New Delhi: Publications
Division, Government of India.
Bronkhorst, Johannes. 1998. The two sources of Indian Asceticism, 2nd ed. Delhi: Motilal
Banarsidass.
Chakrabarti, Dilip K. 1997. Colonial indology: Sociopolitics of the ancient Indian past. Delhi:
Munshiram Manoharlal.
Chakravarty, K.K. 1997. Early Buddhist art of Bodh-Gaya. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal.
Chakravarty, S. 2006. Antiquities from Bodhgaya in the Indian Museum. Bodhgaya: Bodhgaya
Temple Management Committee.
Chowdhury, M.P. 1982. Buddhagaya temple and Hindu-Buddhist conflict. Calcutta: M.P. Chowd-
hury.
Clausen, Christopher. 1975. Victorian Buddhism and the origins of comparative religion. Religion
5: 1–15.
Cohn, Bernard S. 1996. Colonialism and its forms of knowledge: The British in India. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Cunningham, A. 1843. An account of the discovery of the ruins of the Buddhist city of Samkassa.
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society: 241–247.
Cunningham Alexander. 1873. Archaeological survey of India report, no. 3. Calcutta: Office of the
Superintendent of Government Printing.
Cunningham Alexander. 1878. Archaeological survey of India report, no. 7. Calcutta: Office of the
Superintendent of Government Printing.
Curzon, Lord. 1904. Lecture. In Archaeological survey of India annual report, ed. J. Marshall,
1902–1903. Calcutta: Government of India.
Das, Balindralal. nd. Maha-Bodhi temple and the Monastery of Bodh-Gaya. Gaya: Indian Printing
Press.
Deshpande, N.A. (trans). 1951. The Padma Purān.a, parts II and III. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Dhammika, S., nd. A history of Bodh Gaya. www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/history/bodh-gaya.htm.
Accessed 15 May 2015.
Dhammika, S. 1996. Navel of the Earth: The history and significance of Bodh Gayā. Singapore:
Buddha Dhamma Mandala Society.
Dharmapala, Anagarika. 1900. History of the Maha-Bodhi temple at Bodh Gaya. Calcutta: The
Maha-Bodhi Society.
Dharmapala, Anagarika. 1923a. Rescue Buddha Gaya. Calcutta: The Maha-Bodhi Society.
Eck, Diana. 1977. India’s Tirthas: Crossings in sacred geography. History of Religions 20: 323–344.
Falk, Nancy. 1977. To gaze on sacred traces. History of Religions 16: 281–293.
Frederic, M.A. 2008. Bodhgaya. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Gargan, Edward A. 1996. Bodh Gaya Journal; Where Buddha’s Path Crosses the Hindu Cosmos.
The New York Times, 3 July, Section A, p. 4.
Gethin, Rupert. 1998. The foundations of Buddhism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Government of India, Ministry of Tourism & Culture. 2002. Application for the inscription of the
Mahabodhi temple complex as a world heritage site. New Delhi.
References 205
Grierson, George Abraham. 1891, 4 November. Letter to Commissioner, Patna Division (Letter No.
2498, Collection of Letters “Restoration of Budh Gaya to Buddhist Hands,” File No. 9C20/PA44),
India Office Records and Private Papers, Lnodon: The British Library.
Grierson, George Abraham. 1893. Notes on the district of Gaya. Calcutta: Bengal Secretariat Press.
Griffith, Ralph T.H. 1890. The Hymns of the Rigveda, vol. 1. Benares: E.J. Lazarus and Co.
Griswold, Alexander. 1965. The holy land transported. Paranavitana felicitation volume on art and
architecture and oriental studies, 173–221. Colombo: M.D. Gunasena and Co.
Guha-Thakurta, Tapati. 1997a. Archaeology as evidence: Looking back from the Ayodhya Debate.
Occasional Paper no. 159. Calcutta: Centre for studies in social sciences.
Harle, J.C. 1994. The art and architecture of the Indian subcontinent, 2nd ed. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Hazra, K.L. 2007. Aśoka as depicted in his edicts. Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal.
Heine, S., and C. Prebish. 2003. Buddhism in the modern world: Adaptations of an ancient tradition.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Huber, Toni. 2008. The holy land reborn: Pilgrimage and the Tibetan reinvention of Buddhist India.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Huntington, S.L. 1990. Early Buddhist Art and the theory of aniconism. Art Journal, 49(4, Winter):
401–408.
Huntington, S.L., and J.C. Huntington. 1989. Leaves from the Bodhi tree: The art of pala India
(8th–12th Centuries) and its international legacy. Orientations 20 (10): 2–22.
Jacques, C. (trans.). 1962. Gayā Māhātmya. Pondicherry: Institut Français d’Indologie.
Jaini, Padmanabh S. 1970. Śraman.as: Their conflict with Brāhman.ical society. In J.W. Elder (ed.),
Chapters in Indian civilization, pp. i.39–81. Dubuque.
Jayaswal, K.P. (ed. and trans.). 1934. The Āryamaṅjuśrı̄mūlakalpa, The Text of the
Maṅjuśrı̄mūlakalpa (text and translation with commentary), An Imperial History of India, Lahore:
Motilal Banarsidass.
Jones, W. 1788. A Discourse on the institution of a society, for inquiring into the history, civil and
natural, the antiquities, arts, sciences, and literature, of Asia. Asiatic Researches, 1.
Kinnard, Jacob N. 2003. When the Buddha Sued Vis.n.u. J.C. Holt, J.N. Kinnard, and J.S. Walters
(eds.), Constituting communities: Theravada Buddhism and the religious cultures of south and
southeast Asia, pp. 85–106. Albany: State University of New York Press: .
Klostermaier, K. 1979. Hindu views of Buddhism. In Canadian contribution to Buddhist studies,
ed. R. Amore. Waterloo: Wilfred Laurie University Press.
Kumar, Amit. 2015. Mapping multiplicity: The complex landscape of Bodh Gaya. Sociological
Bulletin, 64(1, January–April): 36–54.
Law, B.C. 1954. Historical geography of ancient India. Paris: Société Asiatique de Paris.
Leoshko, Janice (ed.). 1988. Bodhgaya: The site of enlightenment. Bombay: Marg.
Leoshko, Janice (ed.). 1996. On the construction of a Buddhist pilgrimage site. Art History, 19(4):
573–597.
Leoshko, Janice (ed.). 2010. The significance of Bodh Gaya. In Adriana Proser (ed.). Pilgrimage
and Buddhist art. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Little, David. 1994. Sri Lanka: The invention of enmity. Washington, DC: Unites States Institute of
Peace Press.
Losty, J.R. 1991. The Mahabodhi temple before its restoration. In Aks.ayanı̄vı̄: Essays Presented to
D, ed. G. Bhattacharya, 235–267. Mitra in Admiration of her Scholarly Contributions, Delhi: Sri
Satguru Publications.
Lüders, H. 1963. Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum vol. II, part II, Bharhut Inscriptions, pp. 95–96.
Ootacamund: Archaeological Survey of India.
Madhukar, K.H., and B.B. Sahay. 1998. Bodh Gaya: The holy pilgrimage of Buddhists. Patna:
Buddhist Center for Action Research and Development Studies.
Debala, Mitra. 1971. Buddhist monuments. Calcutta: Sahitya Sansad.
Mitra, Debala. 1990. Two images of Bodh Gaya. In Essays in honour of Dr James O, ed. C.
Bautze-Pieron, 152–158. Hare, Delhi: Sri Satguru Publication.
206 References
Mitra, Rajendralala. 1864. On the Ruins of Buddha Gayā. The Journal of the Asiatic Society of
Bengal 33: 173–187.
Mitra, Rajendralala. (Trans.) 1988. The Lalita-Vistara: Memoirs of the Early Life of Sakya Sinha,
First Indian edition. Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications.
Mukherji, R., and S.K. Maity. 1967. Corpus of Bengal inscriptions bearing on history and
civilization of Bengal. Calcutta: Firma K.L. Mukhopadhyay.
Ñān.amoli, Bhikkhu. 2010. Introduction. In Bhikkhu Ñān.amoli (trans.), The Visuddhimagga: The
Path of Purification, Fourth edn., pp. xxvii–lv. Colombo: Buddhist Publication Society.
Ñān.amoli, Bhikkhu (trans.). 2011. The path of purification: Visuddhimagga. Kandy: Buddhist
Publication Society.
Nugteren, Albertina. 1995. Ritual around the Bodhi-Tree in Bodhgaya. In Pluralism and identity:
Studies in ritual behaviour, ed. J. Platvoet and K. van der Toorn, 145–165. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Nugteren, Albertina. 2005. Belief, bounty, and beauty: Rituals around sacred trees in India. Leiden:
Brill.
Obeyesekere, Gananath. 1995. Buddhism, nationhood, and cultural identity: A question of funda-
mentals. In Fundamentalism comprehended, ed. M.E. Murty and R.S. Appleby, 231–258.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Patil, D.R. 1963. Bodh Gaya: The antiquarian remains in Bihar. Patna: K.P. Jayaswal Research
Institute.
Peiris, William, 1970. Edwin arnold: His services to Buddhism, pp. 180–254. Kandy: Wheel
Publication no. 159/161, 2011.
Prasad, A.K. 1997. Excavations at Taradih, Bodh Gaya. In Art and archaeology of eastern India,
ed. N. Akhtar, 32–50. Patna: Patna Museum.
Prothero, Stephen. 1995. H steel Olcott and ‘Protestant Buddhism’. Journal of the American
Academy of Religion 63 (2): 281–302.
Prothero, Stephen. 1995. The white Buddhist: The Asian Odyssey of Henry Steel Olcott. Bloom-
ingtom: Indiana University Press.
Ray, H.P. 2007. Narratives of faith: Buddhism and colonial archaeology in monsoon Asia. Indian
Economic and Social History Review, 45(3, September): 417–449.
Ray, H.P. 2008. Archaeology and empire: Buddhist monuments in monsoon Asia. Working Paper
Series No. 99. Singapore: Asia Research Institute, National University of Singapore.
Rhys Davids, C.A.F. 1927. The unknown co-founders of Buddhism. Journal of the Royal Asiatic
Society 2, April: 193–208.
Rhys Davids, T.W.D., and Hermann Oldenberg. 1881. Vinaya texts. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Rockhill, W.W. 1884. The life of the Buddha and the early history of his order. London: Trübner &
Co.
Roerich, George N. (ed. and trans.). 1949. The blue annals, 2 parts. Calcutta, Asiatic Society of
Bengal.
Safaya, Shri Ramesh K., Simrandeep Taneja and Neeraj Sethi. 2006. City development plan for
Bodhgaya under JNNURM. Patna: Department of Urban Development, Government of Bihar.
Sangharakshita, M.S. 1980. Flame in darkness: The life and sayings of Anagarika Dharmapala.
Pune: Tiratana Grantha Mala.
Sanyal, N.A. 1929. A Buddhist inscription from Bodh-Gaya of the reign of Jayaccandradeva. Indian
Historical Quarterly I: 14–30.
Sarma, V.P. 1904. Old Gaya and the Gywals: With an incidental notice of the image of Buddha and
Buddh-Gaya temple. Umbica Churn Shome.
Sarvananda, Swami. 1987. Kat.hopanis.ad, 14th ed., original verses, constructed text, and word-by-
word translations Madras: Sri Ramakrishna Math.
Schopen, Gregory. 1992. The Ritual obligations and donor roles of Monks in the Pāli Vinaya.
Journal of the Pāli Text Society 16: 87–107.
Singh, A.N.S.R.R. 1893. Brief history of Bodh Gaya math. Calcutta: Bengal Secretariat Press.
Sircar, D.C. 1973. Buddhagaya stone slab inscription of Buddhasena in the Berlin Museum. Journal
of the Ancient Indian History, VI(1972–73): 47–53.
References 207
Smith, L. 2006. Uses of heritage. Abingdon: Routledge.

Spera, Guiseppe. 1985–86. Gayā-Māhātmya as Depicted in Skanda-Purān.a V, I, 57–59. Indologica
Taurinensia, XII: 321–333.
Takakusu, J. (trans.). 1896. A record of the Buddhist religion as practised in India and the Malay
archipelago. AD 651-695. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Tambiah, S.J. 1996. Leveling crowds. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Thomas, E.J. 1931. The life of the Buddha: As legend and history. London: Kegan Paul, Trench,
Trubner & Co.
UNESCO. 2002. Mahabodhi temple complex at Bodh Gaya. UNESCO world heritage centre,
UNESCO. http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1056. Accessed 10 September 2015.
Valisinha, D. 1945. Diary leaves of the late ven. Anagarika Dharmapala. The Maha-Bodhi: Journal
of the Maha-Bodhi Society: 162.
Vetter, Tilmann. 1988. The ideas and meditative practices of early Buddhism, Leiden.
Warren, W. 1987. Asia’s most sacred tree. The Maha Bodhi: Journal of the Maha Bodhi society 94
(10–12): 145–148.
Wood, Leela A. 2004. “Bodh Gayā”, encyclopedia of Buddhism, 49–50. New York: Macmillan
reference USA.
Wright, Brooks. 1957. Interpreter of Buddhism to the west: Sir Edwin Arnold. New York: Bookman
Associates.
Yang Han-sung, Jan Yün-hua et al. (eds. & trans.). 1984. The Hye Ch’o Diary: Memoir of the
Pilgrimage to the Five Regions of India. Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press.
Index
A Beal, 36, 93
Ādittapariyāya Sutta, 13, 20, 24 Beglar, 28, 81, 102–104, 191
Āditta Sutta, 24 Bhaddavaggiyā, 13
Ajapāla-Nigrodha, 27, 34–36, 38 Bharhut, 60, 78–80, 188, 190
Ajātaśatru, 13 Bhavuk, 2
Ājivika, 13, 36 Bhitargāoṅ, 79, 83
Ākiñcaññāyatana, 3 Bhoothalingam, 18
Āl.āra/Ārād.a Kālāma, 3, 4, 20 Bhūmisparśa Mudrā, 5, 46, 105
Altekar, 92, 93 Bigandet, 78
Amara Deva, 83, 85 Blackburn, 118
Amara Sim . ha, 83 Blavatsky, 115
Ambedkar, 111, 113, 124 Bloomfield, 57
Amunugama, 113 Bodhagay, E., 46
Ānanda, 11, 16, 60 Bodhi, Bhikkhu, 14, 21
Ānandaśrı̄, 92 Bodhighara, 1, 6, 7, 11, 77–82, 93
Anāthapin.d.ika, 16, 40, 60 Bodhiman.d.a, 7, 11, 54, 58–60, 63
Andersen, 13, 14 Bodhirakkhita, 46
Animes.alocana Stūpa, 33, 34, 37 Bodhirukkha/Bodhivr.ks.a, 4, 54, 58
Anurādhapura, 54, 60, 67, 69 Bourdillon, 117
Armstrong, 3 Brahmā Sahampati, 5, 9, 24, 27, 35, 36, 46
Arnold, 100, 101, 113, 116, 126
Brahmā Sutta, 36
Asher, 16, 39, 81, 95, 97
Brāhmı̄, 33, 38, 79
Aśoka, 1, 6, 11, 17, 20, 40, 44, 46, 47, 53,
Buddhaghos.a, 16, 27, 29
61–65, 71, 77–79, 84, 91, 92, 95
Burmese, 7, 62, 64, 77, 78, 86, 91, 98, 101,
Aśokaballa, 77, 86, 94
103, 115, 117, 118, 120, 122, 165,
Āyācana Sutta, 35
190, 191
B
Bagchee, 99 C
Bahadur, 97–99, 142 Caitanya Gir, 97
Bakraur, 20, 29, 30 Caityavr.ks.a, 1, 9, 23, 53, 59
Bālak Gir, 97, 133 Cam. krama, 38, 43, 81
Bārān.ası̄, 11–13, 16 Campā, 11
Barth, 104 Carpenter, 2, 4, 5, 11, 36
Barua, 63, 78, 85, 87, 88, 123, 124 Carpentier, 27, 60
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8067-3
210 Index
Ceylon, 46, 67, 92–94, 101, 118, 123, 159, Ganguli, 57

160, 163, 168, 192 Gayā Dharmaks.etra, 1, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13,
Chakrabarti, 100 15, 16, 18, 20, 23, 24, 26, 27, 50, 71,
Chalmers, 2, 3, 5, 11, 13, 16, 21, 29, 37, 60, 78
61 Gayā Māhātmya, 10, 88
Chattopadhyaya, 86, 93, 94 Gayāsı̄sa, 13, 15, 19, 20, 24
Chaturvedi, 123 Gayāsura, 17
Chimpa, 86, 93, 94 Gayā Sutta, 15
Coomaraswamy, 59 Geary, 125, 126
Copland, 122, 123 Geiger, 24, 58–61, 63, 78
Cowell, 57, 60, 61 Giles, 64, 83
Cunda, 4 Giri, 91, 96–98, 143
Cunningham, 28, 30, 38, 46, 47, 53, 64–69, Girnar, 61
72, 78, 79, 81–86, 94, 99–105, 185, Gold, 62, 64, 79, 84, 126
186, 190, 191 Goonatilake, 113
Curzon, 111, 117, 122 Gordon, 123
Gossāiṅ Ghaman.d.ı̄, 96
Griffith, 23
D
Guha-Thakurta, 86, 100, 104, 122
Dammathoka, 78
Gupta, 1, 7, 28, 29, 33, 38, 39, 48, 56, 57,
Damrong Rajanubhab, 98
77, 79, 81, 82, 198
Das, 72, 122
Guruge, 113, 114, 116
Daśanāmı̄, 96
Guy, 79, 104
Daśaratha, 19
Dasaratha Jātaka, 18
Dasgupta, 126
Deshpande, 57, 58 H
Devadatta, 6, 13, 20, 22 Haberman, 67
Dhammacakkapavattana Sutta, 36 Hamilton-Buchanan, 67, 98, 100, 101
Dhammika, 85 Hardy, 11, 13, 15, 25, 28, 36, 59
Dharmapāla, 1, 7, 16, 87, 92, 93, 99, 111– Harsh, 70
124, 126 Hem Nārāyan Gir, 98
Dharmasvāmin, 87, 88, 94–96, 105 Hindu Mahasabha, 1, 7, 69, 122, 123
Dhyāna/jhāna, 2 Horner, 13, 16, 22, 26, 27, 29, 37, 60
Doyle, 101 Huhuṅkajātika, 13, 35
D.ungeśvarı̄, 21 Hultzsch, 78
Dutt, 6 Hume, 57
Hūn.as, 66
Huntington, 79, 87, 95, 104
E Huvis.ka, 77, 79
Eliade, 3
Eliot, 98
Elst, 124 I
Iyothee Thass, 111, 113
F
Fausböll, 4, 11, 13, 16, 20, 22, 25, 26, 29,
36, 37, 58–61 J
Faxian, 33, 43, 64, 77, 83, 84 Jacques, 46
Feer, 2, 4, 11, 13, 14, 20, 26–29, 35, 36 Jaunpur, 86
Fowler, 11 Jayadeva, 88
Jayaswal, 94
Jayawickrama, 58
G Jha, 122, 123
Gandhi, 7, 122 Joshi, 67, 69, 72
Index 211
K Maheśvara, 43, 84, 85, 87

Kaelber, 2 Mahipāla, I., 77, 85
Kane, 16 Majumdar, 94
Karpiel, 115, 121 Malalasekera, 24, 27, 29, 36
Kāśı̄, 16, 19 Malandra, 81, 82
Kemper, 112, 114, 115, 118, 119, 121 Malla, 56, 57
Keown, 6 Maṅgala Svāmin, 94
Keśava, 58, 87, 123 Manguin, 104
Khan, 70, 97, 133 Māra, 5, 9, 15, 22, 26, 27, 35, 36, 45, 65, 93
Khara, 6, 13–15 Marshall, 56
Kharos.t.hı̄, 79 Martin, 100, 168
Khasarpan.a, 94 Mastipur, 97, 133, 137
Kinnard, 18, 22, 113, 115–118, 121, 126 Masuzawa, 117
Konow, 79 Milley, 14
Kopp, 15, 23–25 Mindon Min, 101, 191
Kosak, 94 Mitchel, 86
Kosambı̄, 11 Mitra, 18, 43, 62, 67, 68, 103, 123, 168, 191
Kr.s.n.a Dayāl Gir, 98 Mohenjodaro, 56
Krusell, 100, 101, 124, 126 Moritz, 117, 118
Kuraṅgı̄, 33, 38, 79 Morris, 11, 13, 15, 25, 28, 36, 59
Kus.ān.a, 28, 77, 79, 87 Mucalinda Pond, 33, 34, 36, 46, 186
Mughal, 91, 97
Mukherjee, 71, 79
L Mukhopadhyaya, 63, 65
Lahiri, 112 Mūlikatta, 2
Lakshman.asena, 94 Myer, 39, 43, 59, 60, 79, 81
Lāl Gir, 97, 133, 139, 140
Lamotte, 65
Laṅkā, 86, 93 N
Law, 15, 19, 24, 35, 38, 65, 111, 118, 119, Nāgadevı̄, 33, 38, 79
122, 136, 137, 172, 176–180, 183 Nagai, 59
Lefferts, 68, 70 Nāgārjuna, 94, 95
Legge, 43, 64, 83 Nālandā, 88, 93
Lehr, 114 Ñān.amoli, 21
Leoshko, 95 Narada, 4
Li, 20, 22, 26, 37, 43–45, 58, 63, 64, 66, 78, Nerañjarā, 16, 20, 22, 23, 28, 29
84, 85, 92 Nitish Kumar, 7, 126
Lilley, 23 Norman, 22, 23
Little, 21, 38, 55, 77, 85, 101, 114, 161, 186 Nugteren, 72
Lorenzen, 2 Nyanaponika, 6
M O
Macdonell, 57 Obeyesekere, 113, 114
Mackay, 56 Odantapurı̄, 88
Magga Sutta, 36 Olcott, 115, 119–121, 163
Mahābhārata, 17, 57 Oldenberg, 6, 11, 13, 15, 20, 23, 25, 27, 29,
Maha Bodhi Society, 111–115, 118, 122 35–37, 58, 59
Mahādeva Gir, 97 O’Malley, 18
Mahānāman, 93
Mahāparinibbāna Sutta, 11
Mahāvam. sa, 28, 63, 67 P
Mahāyāna, 93, 94, 117 Pāla, 28–30, 62, 66, 77, 85, 86, 93, 94
Mahendra, 91, 92 Pam . sugun..thita, 2
212 Index
Pañcavargı̄yā, 4, 20 Śāstri, 10
Panchen Lama, 98 Sato, 72
Panday, 94 Sāvatthı̄, 11, 12, 15
Parpola, 56 Sayers, 125
Pāsādika Sutta, 4 Senānı̄, 29
Pasenadi, 64, 78 Senānigama, 9, 10, 12, 20, 29
Paul, 18 Shah Alam, 97
Pereira, 122 Shukla, 60
Phalgu, 16–19, 28, 81, 97 Singer, 94
Pin.d.adāna, 10, 18, 19, 53, 59, 71, 78 Singh, 10, 55, 86, 140, 143, 160
Pı̄pal, 1, 4, 5, 22, 23, 35, 45, 53–58, 72, 78 Sinha, 66, 67, 84, 86
Pischel, 15 Sirı̄mā, 33, 38, 79
Prakhyātakı̄rti, 77, 85, 93 Sirimeghavanna, 46, 92
Prasad, 7, 28, 71, 122, 123 Sı̄tā, 19
Pruitt, 37 Śiva Gir, 97
Pūrnavarman, 66 Śivālik, 86, 94
Smith, 13, 14, 16, 54, 58, 79
Snellgrove, 58
R Somaratana, 114
Radhakrishnan, 2 Sri Lankans, 1, 7, 33, 38, 46, 63, 67, 77, 79,
Rāhula-śrı̄-Bhadra, 88 82, 84–87, 91–95, 98, 111, 114, 117,
Rai, 122 118, 194
Rājagaha, 11, 12, 15, 36 Srivastava, 29, 30
Rājāyatana, 34, 36, 38 Stede, 27
Rajendra Prasad, 7, 71, 122, 123 Steinthal, 35
Rāma, 18, 19 Strong, 43, 58, 62, 63, 78, 93, 116, 198, 199
Rāmasim . ha, 88 Sūciloma, 6, 13–15
Rambukwella, 115 Sūciloma Sutta, 14
Rāmhit Gir, 97, 133, 138 Sujātā, 6, 9, 15, 22, 29, 30
Ratnacam . krama, 33, 34, 38 Sujātāgarh, 29, 125
Ratnaghara, 33, 34 Sumedho, 3
Ray, 38, 142 Śuṅga, 7, 33, 38, 46, 65, 78, 79, 82, 92
Rhys Davids, 2, 4, 5, 11, 27, 29, 36, 60
Roberts, 114
Roerich, 86, 88, 93–96 T
Ronaldshay, 98 Tagare, 10, 17, 57, 58, 88
Rukkhamūlika, 13 Tambiah, 114
T.aṅkitamañca, 13, 14
Tārād.ı̄h, 9, 20, 28, 97
S Tebhātika Jat.ilas, 1, 6, 13, 20, 25
Sāketa, 11 Thapar, 65
Sam . ghamitrā, 91, 92 Theravādin, 93, 117, 121
Śam. karācārya, 96, 123 Tikabhighā, 36
Sam . sāra, 3, 5 Tissa, 92
Samudragupta, 1, 7, 33, 38, 46, 77, 82, Tis.yaraks.itā, 53, 63, 64
91–93, 192 Trenckner, 2, 3, 5, 11, 13, 16, 21, 29, 37
Samuel, 6 Trevithick, 46, 86, 101, 103, 115, 117, 118,
Sangharakshita, 124 120
Saṅnyāsa, 2–4 Turus.ka/Turushka, 1, 7, 11, 86, 91, 93, 95,
Sarao, 12, 22, 65 96, 121
Sargeant, 23, 57
Sārnāth, 11, 13, 23, 36
Sarvananda, 57 U
Śaśāṅka, 53, 66, 67, 77, 86 Uddaka Rāmaputta, 3
Index 213
Udraka Rāmaputra, 3, 4, 20 Vishwa, 99

Ujjvala, 87 Vis.n.u, 17, 18, 57, 58, 72, 85, 93, 112, 117
Ukkala, 36 Vis.n.upāda, 9, 10, 17, 18, 43
Upaka, 13, 36, 37
Ūrdhva-bāhu, 2
Uruvelā, 9–13, 19, 20, 22, 23, 27–29, 54, 59 W
Uruvela-Kassapa, 15, 23–25 Walleser, 15, 23–25
Warren, 69
Wilson, 56
V
Woodward, 14–16, 20, 25, 27, 29, 36
Vaidya, 29, 65
Wynne, 3
Vajrāsana, 11, 28, 33, 34, 40, 43, 47–49, 58,
68, 78, 81, 82, 93–95
Vanacetiya, 9, 11, 23, 53, 59
Varma, 55 X
Vāyu Purān.a, 10, 17, 88 Xuanzang, 20, 22, 23, 25, 33, 37, 43, 44, 46,
Verardi, 79, 82, 84, 86, 93 62–64, 66, 67, 77, 78, 83–85, 87, 104
Vesālı̄, 11
Victorian Indologists, 1, 7, 9, 11, 111, 113,
115, 116 Y
Vidyarthi, 17 Yijing, 84
Vikrama Sam . vat, 79 Young, 2, 13, 67, 114, 115, 136

KTS - Sarao.The History of Mahabodhi Temple of Bodh Gaya

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

KTS - Sarao.The History of Mahabodhi Temple of Bodh Gaya

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

K. T. S.

The History of Mahabodhi

ISBN 978-981-15-8066-6 ISBN 978-981-15-8067-3 (eBook)

Delhi, India K. T. S. Sarao

30 March 2020 K. T. S. Sarao

Appendix A: A Brief History of Bodh Gayā Math, District Gayā . . . . . . 131

Appendix F: World Heritage Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

K. T. S. Sarao is currently Professor of Buddhist Studies at the University of

Full-Length of the Chapter

consciousness for the purpose of acquiring a deeper understanding of the nature of

Ārād.a Kālāma had taught him to concentrate on nothingness, Udraka Rāmaputra

Full-Text of the Chapter

8 paramān.u = 1 ratnadhūli (chariot-dust)

indigenous can.d.āla community, became his followers. According to the Pāli-based

In all probability, the story of Sūciloma and Khara is a reference to an aborig-

being the Buddha’s karmabhūmi, so to speak. The Mahābodhi Temple Complex

Fig. 1 The Fasting Buddha

Fig. 2 Sujātā’s offering and Māra’s Temptation (Sāñcı̄ Stūpa No. 1)

21 The ritualistic worship of trees or forests as abodes of different tree-deities (rukkha-devatās) or

a Brāhman.ical-Hindu god directing the soon-to-be-Buddha to a specific pı̄pal tree is

Fausböll, V. (ed.). 1877–1897. The Jātakas, 7 vols. London: Trübner.

Full-Text of the Chapter

1 Discussed separately in this chapter.

the Tikabhighā hamlet (see Ahir 1994: 147).

Fig. 3 The Pañca Pān.d.ava Temple

Fig. 4 Vajrāsana (Cunningham 1892: Pl. XIII)

Fig. 5 The Vajrāsana (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bodhgaya_3640455476_ece9eaf

Fig. 6 The Cam

Full-Text of the Chapter

Fig. 1 A pı̄pal leaf

little moisture.3 As an ornamental tree, the pı̄pal is particularly attractive because

Fig. 2 A seal from the

Fig. 3 Bodhi leaf with

Shukla 2008: 388) .

Fig. 5 Emperor Aśoka paying a visit to the Sambodhi (Sāñcı̄ Stūpa)

Upagupta is described at length in the Aśokāvadāna. During this visit, Aśoka is

According to the Aśokāvadāna, Emperor Aśoka’s wife Tis.yaraks.itā (Pāli,

A-yu-wang-jing also mentions King Aśoka as having constructed a wall around

Taking a cue from the information provided by Tāranātha, Alexander Cunningham

15 Identified by Cunningham with Mihirkula, King of the Hūn.as (1892: 31 fn2).

Fig. 6 The Mahābodhi Tree

Recent DNA fingerprinting conducted by the Forest Research Institute (FRI),

In the present times, following in the footsteps of Emperor Aśoka in order to

Woodward, F.L. (ed.). 1940–49. Paramattha-Dı̄panı̄: Theragāthā-At..thakathā, The Commentary of

Full-Text of the Chapter

Dammathoka added two others” (Bigandet 1880: 107).

Bodhiman.d.a Vihāra, Sambodhi, and Mahābodhi.

Thereafter, according to Xuanzang, another brāhman.a built the image of the

The multivalent nature of the Mahābodhi Temple is also indicated by a tenth

Full-Text of the Chapter

Bodhiraks.ita (see Cunningham 1892: 16).

feudatories (see Sharma 1958).

However, the Dharmasvāmin witnessed at the Diamond Throne those objects

Despite the scorn and derision of scholars such as Hamilton-Buchanan and

National Archives, New Delhi.

which was found in the debris.

Fig. 5 The Mahābodhi Temple

Fig. 6 The Buddha image in the cella

Abstract Anagārika Dharmapāla is primarily known in India for having begun an

Full-Text of the Chapter

adopted anagāriyā (state of homelessness amounting monkhood) i.e., kesamassum . ohāretvā

3 Anāgārika ( ) as against the correct form Anagārika ( ).

4 The threads of Buddhism-based Sinhala nationalist ideaology of post-independence Sri Lanka