[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
The Bodh Gaya Temple Controversy: An Essay
The Bodh Gaya Temple Controversy: An Essay
------------------------------------------
The Ambedkarite neo-Buddhists have been taken for a ride by the
Macaulites, Marxists and the Jihadists as well as the apologists of the
Islamic rapine alike. As a strategy to put the Hindu society on the
defensive, and in their expectation to turn the clock back on Hindu
resurgence, the combine have "engineered" the controversy over the
Mahabodhi Temple in Bodh Gaya. Now the controversy is being faishoned and
equated at par with the RJB liberation movement. A large section of the
pro-establishment and hence pro-Congress(I) "kept" press has lent a
helping hand. So as the Marxists masquerading as intellectuals, donning
the professors' chairs at leading universities.
In imitation of the temple/mosque controversies, the neo-Buddhist
movement has tried to create controversies over certain temples. It got
the idea from the pro-Islamic polemists who have tried to neutralize the
Hindu arguments against Islam by alleging that Hinduism has its own
history of systematic temple destruction, with Buddhist buildings as its
main target. From the comfort of their armchairs, they have been
discovering Buddhist stupas and viharas under every Hindu temple that
lies ruined underneath a mosque, to "balance" the Hindu indignation over
Islamic temple destruction. They have yet to come forward with the first
proof of a Buddhist temple destroyed by Hinduism.
The neo-Buddhists have lately started a movement for the "liberation of
the Mahabodhi shrine." A reference to academic and professional
historians will prove that the term "liberation" herein is itself a big
joke. The aim of the so-called "liberation" movement is to remove the
statutory four (4) Hindu members of the temple management committee, and
to PROHIBIT WORSHIP of a shivalingam in the temple. It is noteworthy that
the proponents of this "liberation" movement are the same who have been
advocating and who do not waste a breath in calling for "composite culture",
and for a multi-religious worship at the Ramajanmabhoomi site. So much so
for their "secularism", "objectivity," "tolerence,"
"multi-religio-culturalism" and what not.
Anyway, the demands of the neo-Buddhists are not so much unreasonable,
and a viable solution acceptable to the neo-Buddhists, the Hindu members
of the temple management, and the Hindu patrons of the shrine, can be
hammered out through the normal process of negotiation. This can be done
without the agitation and vandalism with which the neo-Buddhists have
already desecrated their own holiest shrine in October 1992.
The role of the pseudo-secularist politicians is noteworthy in the
affair. In the RJB controversy, first the Congress(I) led by Rajiv
Gandhi, who was Hindu in name only, got the locks at the dilapidated
Babri Structure opened, in order to make a quick harvest of hindu votes,
but then to appease the fanatical Muslim leaders, anatagonized over the
lock opening, opposed the RJB liberation movement on flimsy grounds and
legal and procedural technicalities, along with putting down the
aspirations of muslim women who want to free themselves of the shackles
of Shariat (Islamic personal law) in a country which is supposed to
be "secular." The Hindu society ultimately got tired of this cat and mouse
game of the pseudo-secularists and their political interest in keeping
the muslim masses away from a dialogue with their Hindu counterparts, and
despite the calls for restraint from the RJB movement leaders, defied the
heavy state security and pulled down the Babri structure on December 6,
1992 with their bare hands!
The same set of pseudo-secular politicians are tacitly and not so tacitly
encouraging vanadalism by the neo-Buddhists at the Mahabodhi Temple, in
order to prevent any dialogue between the parties which are necessarily
made out to be anatagonists in this case by the vested interests. Indeed,
if the politics of division goes on unabated by the pseudo-secularists,
and the patience of the neo-Buddhists runs out, and if they indeed harm
the Mahabodhi Temple, it would be unprecedented in the annals of history,
for the neo-Buddhists will be pulling down their own most-important
shrine. It is like Catholics pulling down the St. Paul's basilica at the
Vatican!
The Bodh Gaya controversy has been presented by certain "secularists" as
comparable to Ayodhya, even though Hindus NEVER DESTROYED THE TEMPLE,
NEVER TOOK IT OVER FROM THE BUDDHISTS (Shaiva monks took charge of the
Bodh Gaya premises in 1590, after centuries of disuse), HAVE HANDED IT
BACK FOR BUDDHIST WORSHIP, AND ARE NOT INTERFERING WITH BUDDHIST PRACTICES
THERE. (For historical background and the controversy, please refer to
Dipak K. Barua: "Buddha Gaya Temple and its History.")
More than that, a Buddhist member of the Bodh Gaya Temple Management
Committee admits that
"the laudable work of the construction of the Mahabodhi Temple"
was "undertaken by a Brahmana minister of Shaivite persuasion."
(reference - D.K. Barua's "Buddha Gaya Temple and its History," page 41)
This information was originally furnished by the Chinese pilgrim Hiuen
Tsang (Xuan Zang), who saw the temple in AD 637, shortly after it was
built, and who explicitly gave the credit to a Brahmin worshipper of
Shiva Maheshwara. Not only did Brahmins refrain from demolishing the
temple, but they actually built it (by contrast, Babur cannot be accused
of building Rama temples)!
In Bodh Gaya, Tsang also stayed in the Mahabodhi Sangharama, a "splendid
monastery" with "1,000 monks," which had been built, at the Sri Lankan
king Meghavarmana's request, under the auspicies of Samudragupta, the
leading light of the Gupta dynasty. For the latter-day perverts who
identify the Gupta dynasty with a supposed "Brahmanical reaction against
Buddhism," Bodh Gaya has a large number of dated sculptures from the
Gupta period, which in fact was one of the most fruitful periods in
Buddhist art. (Acknowledged by Dr. Abdul Quddoos Ansari himself in his
work, "Archeological Remains of Bodhgaya," page 15. It is noteworthy that
Dr. Ansari, a muslim scholar, has been increasingly subscribing to the
"Hindu-Buddhist Anatagonism" theory, especially after the RJB liberation
movement surfaced, often going against his own earlier research work.) [I
guess on orders from the Delhi Jama Masjid, or JNU/AMU, or the PVNR PMO,
or the Writer's building in Calcutta, or perhaps ALL OF THESE? So much so
for intellectual honesty exhibited by the established ("kept") scholars!]
One can say that some Buddhist temples have been 'converted' into (not
demolished and replaced by) Hindu Temples, but the very word 'conversion'
may not be used to describe this phenomenon. It may not be a perfect
analogy, but let's consider a first semester physical sciences general
course taught in most undergraduate curricula, which encompasses topics
in physics, chemistry, as well as physical chemistry. During the semester
the lectures may vary from physics, to chemistry, to an "integrated"
physical chemistry. This does not mean the general course has been
'converted' into a physics course or a chemistry course. Those who fall
for "Hindu-Buddhist Philosophical Anatagonism" thoery are the ones who
perhaps do not understand the relationship between physics, chemistry and
an "integrated" physical chemistry or chemical physics or their
relationship with more general complex of physical sciences. Anyway,
coming back to the theme of this essay.
When Buddhism lost its patrons and its popular support, Buddhist temples
were turned into Vishnu temples, BY THEIR OWN USERS. The already common
identification of Buddha as one of the incarnations of Vishnu, was
further sanctioned by Shankaracharya's campaign to further strengthen the
pluralistic Vedic tradition (symbolized by the five gods worshipped in
mainstream Hindu temples and by the members of the Shankaracharya's
order) against sectarian heterodoxy. When the Muslims finally killed all
the Buddhist monks and destroyed their institutions, the Buddhist
teachings were no longer passed on, the common people forgot about the
Buddha, and so they stopped worshipping the Buddha except as one of
Vishnu's incarnations.
The answer to the question why Buddhism was wiped out (by Islam), but
Hinduism could withstand the Islamic onslaught is a complex topic in
itself, and is not the object of this essay. Suffice to say at this point
that Buddhism by definition and practice was a practical implementation
of agnostic Upnishadic philosophy, which tended to depend heavily on
support from its institutions - viharas, stupas, monasteries,
universities, etc. (in turn which needed state/voluntary
financial/material support). As the Indian states one by one crumbled
before the Sword of Islam, the Buddhist institutions crumbled, and hence
the decline of Buddhism. On the other hand, Hinduism survived due to many
factors. These include, but not limited to: religion of the masses
imbibed in the minds by pauranic folklore, ritualism and bhakti (these
never needed state/voluntary material support for sustenance).
In fact, while Hinduism has received from Islam nothing but murder and
destruction, Buddhism owes a lot to hinduism. Apart from its very
existence, it has received from Hinduism toleration, alms by Hindus
laymen, sons and daughters of Hindus to fill its monasteries, land grant
and funding by Hindu rulers, protection by Hindu rulers against
lawlessness and against the Islamic invaders between the 7th and 12
century. In many cases, Buddhist temples formed part of large pluralist
temple-complexes, and Hindu codes of arts and architecture dealt with the
Buddha on a par with Shiva and other objects of depiction and worship.
[Ref. - Varahamihira, "Brihatsahita," Chapters 57 and 59.]
It is therefore no surprise that (non-Buddhists) Hindus have
traditionally worshipped at Bodh Gaya, even during the heyday of Buddhism.
Prof. Benimadhab Barua reports that, "cencerning the right of the Hindus
to worship the Buddha-image Dharmeshwara, the Bo-tree Ashvatta in the
Bodh Gaya temple and its sacred area, we have noticed that as far back as
the Kushana age it is enjoined in the Epic version of the earlier
Eulogium that every pious Hindu visiting Gaya should make it a point to
also go to Dharmaprastha or Bodh-Gaya and have a sacred touch of the
Buddha image of the place. The later Eulogium in the Puranas enjoins in
the same manner that every Hindu pilgrim to the Gaya region desiring to
release the departed spirits of his ancestors must visit also Bodh Gaya
to pay his respectful homage to the Buddha image Dharmeshvara as well as
the Bo-tree Ashvatta......".
[Reference - B.M. Barua: "Bodh-Gaya from Buddhist point-of-view and
Bodh-Gaya from Hindu point-of-view," article as Appendix 2 in D.K.
Barua's work, cited above, p. 267. B.M. Barua earlier also wrote "Gaya
and Buddha-Gaya" (1934), which seems to be a much more comprehensive
historical work.]
Prof. Benimadhab Barua, even while arguing against the Shaivite Mahant
who was (in league with the British who feared Japanese interference)
obstructing the implementation of a Hindu-Buddhist settlement worked out
by the Hindu Mahasabha (and turned into law shortly after independence :-
Bodh-Gaya Temple Act, 1949), he admits: "So far as our information goes,
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 Keshava, engraved
during the reign of Dharmapala, clearly proves that the Buddhists were
liberal and tolerant enough even to allow a Hindu to install a figure of
his dieties, Shiva and Bramha, in their temple at Bodh-Gaya
(Dharmesha-ayatane) for the benefit of the resident Shaivite Brahmins."
[Ref. - B.M. Barua's aforementioned article, p. 268-269].
Now to address the crucial question, whether the Hindu control of the
Mahabodhi area since the 16th century upto 1949 (thereafter it passed
into joint-control as a result of Hindu Mahasabha brokered accord), was
similar in nature to the Muslim control of the Rama Janmabhoomi site
approx. during the same period, who else could be best other than a
muslim scholar of stature and repute, Dr. Abdul Quddoos Ansari.
On page 119 in his work "Archeological Remains of Bodh Gaya" the ace
Muslim scholar, Dr. Ansari states categorically:
"The iconoclastic fury of Islam must have had a terrible effect on the
shrines of the Gaya region, and particularly on Buddhism, with the result
that a time came when, there being no Buddhists to look after their own
shrines and worship at Bodh Gaya, the Brahmins had to do their work even
by going outside their jurisdiction."
[Dr. Ansari must be regretting his honestly done intellectual work (which
preceded the current RJB movement), now that his fellow co-religionists
are facing the music.]
Dr. Ansari's testimony against Islam rather than against Brahmanism as
being the destroyer of Buddhism will go a long way in dispelling myths
about the "Hindu Buddhist Antagonism" Theory.
To Be Continued ..........
August 19, 1995
Partial Bibliography
--------------------
Dipak K. Barua, "Bodg-Gaya Temple and its History."
Abdul Quddoos Ansari, "Archeological Remains of Bodh Gaya."
Varahamihira, "Brihatsamhita."
Benimadhab Barua, "Bodh-Gaya from Buddhist point-of-view and Bodh-Gaya
from Hindu point-of-view." (article)
Benimadhab Barua, "Gaya and Buddha-Gaya."
Notes:
-----
(i) Some of the terms used in this essay may not reflect an agreement with
the poster's personal opinion on Hinduism vs. Buddhism, etc., or Dharma vs.
religion, etc. They are used as found in popular Indian English parlance.
(ii) The essay is narrowly focused on the crux of the current Bodh Gaya
controversy. Much more needs to be investigated and compiled in the
second edition about the proponents of the controversy, particularly the
Japanese monk Sisai who is spearheading the neo-Buddhist "cause."
(iii) Will continue to add to this topic in this essay's second edition.
******************
.... and that was the project for this weekend.
regards,
Rajiv Varma
