The Ancient and Medieval Architecture of India: A Study of Indo-Aryan Civilisation c7.12

c7.12

We must, however, guard ourselves from the error of supposing that "Buddhist art," as Westerners call it, was purely sectarian, or anything else than Indian art during the ascendancy of Buddhism. Fergusson's classification of Buddhist, Jain, and Hindu temples as representing different epochs of art or different schools of artistic expression is entirely fallacious. In a village or town where Buddhists were in the majority, Buddhist shrines would naturally be the most numerous. In other localities, at the same time, Jains or followers of other sects would build similar shrines dedicated to their special divinities. Whatever school of religious doctrine the buildings might represent, the craftsmanship and principle of construction remained the same, and even the symbolism was a common vernacular language employed by different sects to explain the special tenets of their respective cults. When a great ruler like Asoka exercised supreme political power over the greater part of India, the wealth of the state was naturally devoted to making the buildings of his especial sect of better and more expensive materials than those of others, and consequently the record of Buddhist building which survives to this day is more complete than that of the rival schools of religious thought which had to be content with less costly and less permanent building materials. But a town or village and the buildings therein, inhabited by Buddhists, Jains, or Brahmans, were never at any time in Indian history entirely differentiated by special characteristics of style. Buddhist art was at the same time and place also Jain art and Hindu or Brahmanical art. India has never known any style that can be called architectural but one—and that is Indo-Aryan.