What “mystery” means here
Bodh Gaya is not mysterious in the sense of being unknown. It is well studied. But several important questions remain open, and honest accounts say so. This article sets out three: how old the structures are, how far the nineteenth-century restoration changed them, and who has been responsible for the temple through time. Where scholars disagree, the points of disagreement are noted rather than resolved.
Dating the structures
The standing temple is usually dated, on stylistic and historical grounds, to roughly the fifth to seventh centuries CE. That is a range, not a date, and some scholars argue for the earlier or later end. Part of the difficulty is that the temple has been repaired many times, so the brick fabric is a mixture of periods.
Another long-running question concerns Ashoka’s role. Later tradition associates Emperor Ashoka with a visit and with marking the place of the seat. Whether he built a shrine, and what it looked like, is uncertain because no building of his time is clearly identifiable. The stone slab called the Vajrasana is often described as Ashokan, but dating of the slab itself, as opposed to the tradition, is discussed in scholarly writing.
The carved railings are another subject. Parts are generally placed in the last centuries BCE, with other sections later, and some pieces may have been reused or rearranged. Inscriptions on the railings record gifts by donors, and their interpretation is still refined by epigraphers.
Finally, the relationship between what Xuanzang describes in the seventh century and the building seen today is debated. His description of a tall temple has been connected with the present structure by many writers, but others read it as describing an earlier phase or an earlier version that was later modified.
The nineteenth-century restoration
By the early nineteenth century the temple was in poor condition and partly buried by debris. Alexander Cunningham surveyed it from the 1860s, and a significant programme of repair in the early 1880s, in which J. D. Beglar played a key part, strengthened and rebuilt much of the structure. This is part of a wider pattern of archaeological rediscovery across India.
The restorers worked from what remained, early descriptions, drawings and models of the temple preserved in Burma, and their own judgment. Later scholars point out that this means some features, such as details of the upper tower and corner towers, may reflect restoration choices rather than an exact copy of any earlier phase. Restoration in this era also sometimes meant replacing and reassembling sculpture, and some original pieces were moved to museums.
None of this makes the temple “fake”. Most historic monuments that have been in use for many centuries have been repaired in each era. The useful question for a visitor is which parts are older and which are restored, and the answer is a matter of ongoing study.
Who managed the temple?
The history of control is complicated and contested, and the following is a general outline.
- In the medieval period, Buddhists from Sri Lanka and Burma are recorded as making repairs and offerings.
- From about the sixteenth century, a Hindu monastic institution became established nearby, and its head, the mahant, held control of the site and its lands for a long period.
- During the colonial period, officials and Buddhist reformers, including Anagarika Dharmapala, debated the question of Buddhist involvement, and disputes went on for decades.
- The Bodh Gaya Temple Act of 1949 created a management committee. The balance of its membership and the question of full Buddhist management continue to be debated by Buddhist communities.
Opinions differ strongly, and the arguments involve religious, legal and historical claims. Treat any account that presents this as simple with caution, and consult current official sources for how the site is managed today.
What we may never know
Some matters are likely to stay uncertain: the appearance of the earliest shrine, the course of the medieval decline, the exact fate of the buried monasteries. Excavation has been limited by the fact that the town and temple are in continuous use. That the questions are open is part of the site’s interest, and a visitor can hold two thoughts together: the place is old and honoured, and parts of its story remain unsettled.