On Yuan Chwang's Travels in India, 629–645 A.D. v2.c19.93

Language: English

v2.c19.93.1

The temple or chaitya here described as being on the east side of the Bodhi Tree was apparently within the large inclosure. It was approached through a succession of three halls or pavilions, on the east side, and it was only through these that light reached the innermost shrine. In the "Fang-chih" the base of the temple has a continuous stone railing ten feet high all round. This Temple is not mentioned by Fa-hsien, and from our pilgrim's description we must infer that the whole was a comparatively recent structure. Cunningham regards the present "Mahābodhi Temple" as the building described by our pilgrim, and gives his reasons.¹ But these, as usual, do not agree with the Chinese texts, and are not convincing. Thus he says that the present Temple is 48 feet square at its base, and so agrees with Yuan-chuang's statement; but the latter is to the effect that on one side the base measured above 20 paces, and nothing is said about the dimensions of the other sides. Then Yuan-chuang says that the building was made of bricks and coated with lime, the term for "bricks" being ch'ing-chuan (青磚). Beal translates this by "blue bricks" and Cunningham finds the present Temple made of bluish bricks. But ch'ing-chuan denotes simply common dull-coloured bricks, and it was evidently of such bricks the Temple was made, otherwise there would not have been a coating of plaster. The "Fang-chih" here, however, has merely ch'ing-chuan without any mention of a lime coating.

v2.c19.93.2

Further the four faces of Cunningham's Temple have several tiers of niches for images, but Yuan-chuang does not say that the tiers of niches were on all sides of the brahmin's temple. Then Cunningham finds that the entrance to the east side of "Mahābodhi Temple" was certainly an addition to the original building, and he thinks this agrees with Yuan-chuang as translated by Cunningham from Julien— "Afterwards on the eastern side there was added a pavilion." The Chinese text, however, has nothing corresponding to "afterwards" and Julien's "on a construit, à la suite" was perhaps used in the sense of "there was built in continuation", which would give Yuan-chuang's meaning. Moreover there does not seem to be any authority whatever for Cunningham’s title for his book, and for his statement that certain ruins were called “Mahābodhi Temple”. This name is not found in any one of the texts Chinese, Burmese, or Indian, that he cites in support of his allegation. The Burmese inscription which he quotes is concerned with the “Páyatha-bhat (Pāyāsa-bhatta) the temple at the spot where Siddhārtha ate the “rice-milk” or milk-gruel. This, we are told, was near the “Maha Baudhi Paribauga Zedi (Mahābodhiparibhogacetiya) the consecrated shrine of the Mahābodhi [tree].¹ It could not be the Tsaokuṭa Temple of Yuan-chuang which was on a different site. Yuan-chuang does not give any name to this temple, and it is not mentioned in the Life.

v2.c19.93.3

That work and I-ching’s treatises mention the Mahābodhi-ssŭ or vihāra to be noticed presently. It was in this vihāra or monastery that the pilgrims Hsüan-chao, I-ching, and Chĭ-hung saw the beautiful image of Buddha— his “true likeness”— which I-ching also says was made by Maitreya. Among the Chinese texts cited by Cunningham is an inscription found in the Bodhi Tree district and dated in the cyclic year which corresponds to A. D. 1022. This inscription, the original text of which will be found in the Journal of the R. A. S. Vol. XIII. p. 556, was made by a pilgrim named K‘o-yun. It contains verses which that pilgrim composed on the “true likeness” that is, the Maitreya-made image of Buddha but it does not contain anything corresponding to “Mahābodhi Temple”. The characters are not distinct, but the pilgrim’s first ode seems to run thus— “The great Hero Maitreya (tzŭ-shĭ) in compassion to all creatures left them the real: although there is no oracular utterance (無宣洩) yet there is the Deity; it (i. e. the image) is respected by the heterodox and loved by the discerning: although 2000 years old its face remains new”. K‘o-yun’s next ode praises the separate parts of this image, its thirty two superior marks, the uṣṇīṣa, the ūrṇā, the hands and the robed body. This pilgrim’s verses were apparently cut in the stone slab which he set up above 30 paces to the north of the Bodhi Tree, and thus near the Mahābodhi vihāra, in which he was probably lodging.

v2.c19.93.4

The kaṣa robe which his two companions brought is represented as having been put on “the Buddha-seat of Mahābodhi”. It is possible that the beautiful image made by Maitreya may have been transferred to the great monastery. Yuan-chuang does not seem to have actually seen this image, and all his information about it seems to have been obtained from others. He gives us to understand, indeed, that the image was not to be seen by all visitors. As the brahmin Temple was made by a Śaivite brahmin for his own worldly advancement it may have been neglected and allowed to fall into decay. It does not seem to be impossible, however, that it may be the present old ruins which Cunningham calls the “Mahābodhi Temple”. The reader will remember that the Tibetans tell of a Dri-gtsan-k'an, that is, a gandha-kūṭa or temple to Buddha at the Bodhi-maṇḍa. In this temple, which was originally nine storeys high, was an image of Buddha which had a curious history. The temple was built by a converted young brahmin named Dge-ba, that is Kalyāṇa, “the virtuous” or “auspicious”, the youngest of three brothers. The making of the image was undertaken for him by divine artists, and they required seven days within which to finish the work. But on the sixth day the mother of Kalyāṇa insisted on seeing the image to console her in death. It was shewn to her as it stood unfinished, but the artists disappeared and the image remained incomplete.

v2.c19.93.5

Here Tāranātha seems to represent the Mahābodhi as being within this temple of Kalyāṇa.¹