During the first millennium GE, many—but not all—of the large Buddhist pilgrimage sites first constructed in the late first millennium bge continued to be a focus of lay devotions (e. g., Sanchi, Sarnath, Bodh Gaya, Amaravati; see Figure 6.1). While often rebuilt, expanded, or otherwise modified, most Buddhist pilgrimage sites preserved the same basic layout and organization throughout the period of their use—usually a large courtyard with a central stupa and circumambulatory path. While several new pilgrimage centers were constructed and some older ones were abandoned, for the most part, the newer centers followed the same general layout as the earlier pilgrimage sites. The failure of some pilgrimage centers and the creation of new centers was not the product of their design, but rather the waxing and waning popularity of lay Buddhism in different regions in India. None of this is intended to suggest that pilgrimage sites were completely unchanging or that the ritual and architectural development in monastic Buddhism did not extend to pilgrimage sites. They did, but only to a limited degree. Lay Buddhism did change over the first millennium GE, just less dramatically than monastic Buddhism did.
Buddhism originated in the Gangetic Plain, with major pilgrimage centers established at places associated with the life of the Buddha—though, with the exception of Lumbini (Coningham et al. 2013), the archaeological form of these early pilgrimage centers is unknown due to later constructions and modifications. Once established in the heartland, popular Buddhism rapidly spread southward, with the creation of major Buddhist pilgrimage sites at Bharhut, Sanchi in the second century bge, Amaravati in the first century bge, and the Kanaganahalli Stupa in Karnataka between the first century bge and the third century GE. The expansion of popular Buddhism into the Northwest is shown by the construction of the Dharmarajika monastery at Taxila between the third and first centuries bge, as well by the construction of numerous other stupas in the early to mid-first millennium GE. In Orissa and the Northeast, the spread is more complicated.
While there is clear evidence and mention of Buddhism in Ashokan inscriptions in Orissa, and some potentially Mauryan period finds have recently been reported (e. g. Lalitagiri [Chauley 2000]), it appears that a major fluorescence of monastic Buddhism occurred in the mid-first millennium ce. This is shown by the founding or enlargement of several monasteries, including Lalitagiri, Udayagiri (Nigam 2000), and Ratnagiri (Mitra 1981, 1983). All contained several viharas following the typical square layout, numerous Buddha images, and large open-air stupas that were likely intended for pilgrimage. The Northeast follows the same pattern, with clear evidence of Buddhism from the earliest periods, but significant expansion and enlargement of Buddhist monastic and pilgrimage centers in the mid - to late first millennium GE, including Somapura (Mitra 1971) and Vikramasila (Dutt 1988; Prasad 1987). These late Buddhist centers will be discussed at length in Chapter 7.
Ritual in pilgrimage centers typically consisted of festive communal ritual in the courtyards and circumambulation in the paths directly circling the central anda. In some cases, particularly at the pilgrimage sites in the Gangetic Plain that memorialized specific moments in the life of the Buddha, the central foci of the courtyards were not stupas. At Bodh Gaya, for example, devotees circumambulated the Bodhi tree and the Gupta period temple that marked the location of the Buddha’s enlightenment. At Lumbini, the foci was a tree, and later a stone, that marked the place of the Buddha’s birth (Coningham et al. 2013). Whatever the focus, the patterns of ritual at pilgrimage sites balanced the individual and communal desires of lay devotees. In comparison to contemporary monastic centers, ritual at pilgrimage centers tended to favor individual ritual in the circumam-bulatory paths, and more egalitarian communal ritual in the courtyards surrounding them. Critically, in contrast to the ever-changing design of Buddhist monasteries, the stability in the design and layout of pilgrimage centers throughout the first millennium GE belies stability in the balance between the individual and communal desires of Buddhist pilgrims in the first millennium GE. None of this should be taken to imply that there were not attempts by the sangha to alter pilgrimage centers to foster their own power, only that monastic legitimations at pilgrimage centers seem to have mostly failed.
In Chapter 4, I discussed the design tricks that the sangha used to make their stupas appear taller and more massive than they actually were—initially by attenuating the proportions of andas and later by implying greater mass by raising the midpoint of andas above the drum on which they rested. While not common, in the early and mid-first millennium GE, the same visual tricks were applied to the design of the andas at some major pilgrimage sites. Perhaps the clearest example of this is at Sarnath, the location of the Buddha’s first sermon. As discussed in earlier chapters, Sarnath was a Buddhist pilgrimage center from at least Mauryan times, as shown by a column with Ashoka’s Schism Edict. While Ashoka is credited with numerous edifices at Sarnath, the structures available for archaeological study date mostly to Gupta times. Sarnath was also an early and important location for Buddha images. These images were placed throughout the new constructions and along a processional path used by pilgrims. The main stupa Sarnath—the Dharmarajika stupa (not to be confused with a stupa of the same name at Taxila)—was extensively mined for its bricks in the late eighteenth century. While it appears similar in most respects to other pilgrimage stupas, little more can be said of it.
The largest surviving stupa at Sarnath is the Dhamek stupa (43.5 m tall and 23.3 m diameter; Figure 6.2). In its present form, the Dhamek stupa dates to Gupta times, though the existing edifice may enclose earlier constructions (Mitra 1971). The Dhamek stupa is a striking departure from the typical form of large, open-air stupas in India. Rather than a low hemisphere, the anda of the Dhamek stupa is more like a giant column. In a sense, the Dhamek stupa at Sarnath was an attenuated, open-air stupa. That is, verticality was emphasized to such a degree that the anda lost all iconic resemblance to the earthen mound it was intended to signify. The manipulations of the anda proportions were so extreme that the Dhamek
Figure 6.2: Dhamek stupa at Sarnath (c. fifth or sixth century ce)
Courtesy of the Digital South Asia Library and the American Institute of Indian Studies (Accession No. 25261).
Stupa barely resembles a stupa at all. Just like the attenuated stupas discussed in Chapter 4, it is possible that the form of the Dhamek stupa was intended to help assert authority over those who viewed it. The same can be said of the several similar open-air stupas found in Northwest India, including the Shingardar stupa in the Swat Valley.
By the standards of Moore (1996), the Dhamek stupa and other attenuated stupas were very large, highly visible, associated with a location of special religious importance, and made of very durable materials. By any standard, they can be understood as legitimations. What seems less likely, however, is that they were successful. Given how few attenuated open-air stupas were constructed in India, that even when constructed they were of secondary importance to more traditional stupas at the same site, and that stupas with traditional proportions continued to be erected across India, it is likely that attenuated open-air stupas mostly failed as legitimations.
In contrast to the relative failure of attenuated open-air stupas among the laity, the incorporation of Buddha images at pilgrimage sites may have been more successful. In part this success was due to images’ unobtrusiveness. Across India, Buddha images were added to processional paths leading to pilgrimage stupas (e. g., Sarnath), placed in subsidiary chapels that surrounded pilgrimage stupas (e. g., Dharmarajika stupa at Taxila, Takht-I-Bahi), carved into the gates, railings, and Ayaka platforms of pilgrimage stupas (e. g., Amaravati). In some cases, like the Mahabodhi temple at Bodh Gaya and Temple 31 at Sanchi, small temples centered on a Buddha image were constructed, but these temples served as an addition to the repertoire of ritual spaces available at pilgrimage sites, not as replacements for the traditional ritual foci of these sites. Lavish decorations at pilgrimage sites were nothing new, with elaborate carvings in stone and stucco common from the earliest archaeologically known pilgrimage sites in the second century BCE (e. g., Sanchi and Barhut). With the end of the taboo on depicting the Buddha in the early to mid-first millennium CE, Buddha images were added at pilgrimage complexes, but not in a way that would have forced the laity to alter their ritual practices. Those who found Buddha images ritually satisfying could include them in their devotions. Those who did not could simply pass them by and perform circumambula-tion and group rituals just as they always had.
As discussed in Chapter 5, the tradition of Buddha images originated within the sangha at a time when the sangha was increasingly constructing fortress-like viharas at the largest Buddhist pilgrimage sites in India. By their design, these new monasteries were not intended to facilitate greater interaction with the laity, but rather to allow the sangha to engage in their own rituals at the most holy sites of Buddhism while minimizing the distraction of lay worshipers. Behind the high walls of these new viharas, Buddha images had taken the place of stupas as the central ritual foci. It is possible, then, that the unobtrusive addition of Buddha images at pilgrimage sites was not intended for the laity at all. Rather, the addition of Buddha images might have served that group that is known to have originated and championed the image cult in Buddhism—the sangha itself. While some laity might have followed the sangha’s lead, given the stability in architectural layout of pilgrimage stupas in the first millennium GE, it does not appear that the bulk of the laity ever fully embraced the image cult to the same degree as the sangha did. Whereas the sangha rebuilt and refashioned their world to concord with their new ritual interests—abandoning stupas and chaityas while creating Buddha images and the perfumed chambers that housed them—the laity did nothing of the sort. At the sites favored by the laity, stupas were not torn down and replaced by massive images of the Buddha. Rather, Buddhist pilgrimage sites remained pretty much the same, with only the unobtrusive addition of some Buddha images, mostly for the benefit of the newly resident sangha.
Overall, based on the architecture and layout of Buddhist pilgrimage sites, the Buddhist laity settled on a ritual format that satisfied their individual and communal desires by at least the second century bge and stuck with it for more than a millennium. This layout consisted of a large central stupa encircled by a railing that separated the circumambulatory path from a larger communal worship space. The layout of the main stupa at Sanchi reached its final form, more or less, in the fourth or fifth century GE, and remained that way until the site was abandoned sometime after the twelfth century GE. Even those pilgrimage sites that were first built in the first millennium continued to follow the same general layout as those that came earlier. Thus, new pilgrimage centers in Karnataka, Orissa, and elsewhere resemble, in almost all details, the earliest pilgrimage complexes at Sanchi and Bharhut. At least for those laity who continued frequenting Buddhist pilgrimage sites in the first millennium GE, it appears little changed. It is less clear, however, what happened to all those lay Buddhists who stopped going to Buddhist pilgrimage sites. If lay Buddhists were abandoning Buddhism, where were they going?
BUDDHIST/HINDU SYNCRETISM
Just like all other periods of Indian history, religious practice during the first millennium GE was highly heterodox. Along with Buddhism, major religions included Hinduism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism and, beginning in the seventh century CE, Islam. While often discussed as rival, distinct religious traditions, popular religious practice was highly syncretic, with rival religious traditions borrowing from, and blending into, one another. Jainism has been discussed in several earlier chapters. Islam will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 7. Here I will focus on the relationship between Buddhism and Hinduism.
The archaeological history of Hinduism is even more complex and problematic than Buddhism. The first difficulty is the term “Hindu.” The term “Hindu” was first coined in the nineteenth century to label a bewildering variety of religious beliefs, sacred texts, and ritual practices, including the more philosophical understanding of the religion by Brahmans and the daily, lived practices of ordinary Hindus. Just as in Buddhism, the interests and religious practices of the Hindu elite did not wholly align with the quotidian interests of the Hindu laity. In the first millennium ce, nobody referred to themselves as Hindu. Rather, people were devotees of several different gods and god-like beings including Shiva, Vishnu, Brahma, Ganesha, Durga, Krishna, and numerous others. Among those who practiced a more philosophical form of Hinduism, all of the gods were arrayed on a complex pantheon, with most of the gods viewed as avatars of either Shiva of Vishnu. The bulk of the population, however, cared little for such complex theological abstractions and simply worshiped and made offerings to their local deities.
Modern-day Hinduism differs from other major world religions in many important respects, in that it has no founder, no fixed canon which embodies its major beliefs and practices, and no organized priesthood. It is also marked by a great variety in beliefs, practices, sects, and traditions. Some scholars argue that Hinduism is not so much a religion as a set of socio-cultural practices; others argue that it is inextricably linked to the existence of caste, and still others hold that we should talk of Hindu religions in the plural rather than the singular. The relative newness of the word, the problems of definition, and the existence of much internal diversity, are not sufficient reasons to avoid the use of the term Hinduism. (Singh 2008:433)
Like Singh, I still see value in using the term “Hindu,” though only as a shorthand to describe the widely divergent yet overlapping religious beliefs that were developing in the first millennium CE. The term “Hindu” is a convenient label when speaking generally. The term “Hindu” is inappropriate, however, when discussing specific archaeological sites, religious beliefs, or ritual practices. When discussing specific instances, I use the appropriate terms for the specific sect of Hinduism being discussed.
The historical origins of Hinduism are difficult to pin down. For some scholars, the origin is found in the Rig Veda, the composition of which is conventionally ascribed to the mid-second millennium bce. While there is no doubt that the Vedas are a critical foundation and antecedent for modern Hinduism, they also describe a religion very different from what anybody would consider modern Hinduism. First, the primary gods in the Vedas are Indra and Agni, not Shiva and Vishnu. Second, the Vedas emphasize animal sacrifice, including the sacrifice of cattle. While sacrifice is still practiced in modern Hinduism, animal sacrifice is rare, and cattle sacrifice specifically taboo. For these, and numerous other reasons, I do not necessarily label practitioners of Vedic rituals as Hindus. I reserve the term “Hindu” for those ancient Indians who worshiped gods that are recognized as part of the Hindu pantheon today. That said, particularly in the beginning of the first millennium CE, there was significant overlap between those people who engaged in Vedic rituals and those people who worshiped Hindu gods. Several Gupta rulers, for example, actively supported nascent Hinduism while also performing the Vedic horse sacrifice (Singh 2008).
As discussed in Chapter 1, though describing events that occurred in the first millennium bce, it is likely that the earliest existing versions of the Ramayana and Mahabharata date only to the early to mid-first millennium CE. The Puranas, Thapar (2000:133) has convincingly argued, were likely composed at roughly the same time, and are best seen as illustrating the worldview and religious understandings of the time of their composition. In contrast, the earliest archaeological and epigraphic evidence for Hinduism dates to the first few centuries bce. Among the earliest evidence for the worship of Vishnu is found in a second-century bce inscription carved on a pillar in Madhya Pradesh, near Sanchi. The inscription records the donation of the pillar to a nearby Vishnu temple by an Indo-Greek devotee. The earliest unequivocal evidence for the worship of Shiva also dates to the second century bce.1 This evidence consists of representations of Shiva as a lingam (phallus) found on a relief from Mathura and lingam from Andhra Pradesh (see Figure 6.3).
Over the course of the first millennium CE, Hinduism and the practice of Hindu rituals expanded throughout India. This spread was facilitated by 13
Figure 6.3: Shiva lingam, Gudimallan Village, Andhra Pradesh (c. first or second century bce)
Hindus’ ability to incorporate regional and local gods within their broader religious framework. Rather than replace local gods with the worship of Shiva or Vishnu, local gods were simply recast as an avatar or incarnation of Shiva or Vishnu. By incorporating local religious traditions in this way, converts to Hinduism were hardly converted at all. For the most part, the ritual lives of the newly Hindu were little different from what they practiced before—they continued worshiping their own gods, in their own ways and often even in their own temples. This easy syncretism allowed nascent Shaivite and Vaishnavite sects to attract significant numbers of converts in the first millennium CE. Given the Buddhist sangha’s general neglect of lay rituals and lay concerns, many of the converts to Hinduism were former Buddhists. Just as they had done with other sects, early Hindus facilitated conversions by incorporating Buddhist ritual practices, temple designs, and even the Buddha himself as an avatar of Vishnu.
While there are significant theological and complex philosophical differences between Buddhism and Hinduism, these abstract, esoteric debates would have had little impact on the ritual practices of the laity.
Rather than debates on the origin of the universe or the sources of sorrow, the laity always took a more practical approach to religion—they sought the favor of the gods to bless a marriage, move people through the afterlife, or protect against misfortune. Ordinary Indians did not overly concern themselves with the arcane differences between different Buddhist sects, or even the larger differences between Buddhism, Hinduism, or Jainism. As long as religious figures could lead rituals in a format more or less familiar to the people experiencing them, sectarian differences didn’t overly matter. This fluidity and heterodoxy has characterized religious practice in India for millennia, and is critical for understanding the history of lay Buddhism in the first millennium CE. This heterodoxy allowed the laity to shift their religious allegiances from Buddhism to Hinduism without ever significantly changing their ritual practices.
World History
