Buddha Head Found amid New Excavation Efforts in Gujarat, India

[Cobra Arbok]

Buddha Head Found amid New Excavation Efforts in Gujarat, India
By BD Dipen
Buddhistdoor Global | 2019-01-25 |
AddThis Sharing Buttons
Share to Facebook67Share to Twitter

Archaeologists have unearthed a major structure in Vadnagar on the banks of Sharmistha Lake. From timesofindia.indiatimes.com
Archaeologists have unearthed a carved Buddha head at a Ramdev Pir temple—a temple dedicated to a the local Hindu folk deity Baba Ramdev—at Negardi Village near Taranga in the Indian state Gujarat. According to the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), the find will further consolidate the work of Excavation Branch V of the ASI, which has expanded the search and excavation of Buddhist-related sites to include northern Gujarat.

“We have found a Buddha head in a Ramdev Pir temple at Negardi Village in Saltasana Taluka, about 10 kilometers north of Taranga Hills,” a senior ASI official told The Times of India. “It is a round face with curly hair and long ears. The eyebrows are arched above half-closed eyes. Depressions can be found on the corners of the lips. A similar image was mentioned in the excavation report for Devni Mori [an important Buddhist site in Gujarat] as ‘Type C.’ We at the moment assume that the head might be belonging to an idol dating back to 4th–5th century CE.”

A team of archaeologists under the leadership of Dr. Abhijit Ambekar, the deputy superintending archaeologist, has been working for the past three years to uncover a number of heritage sites associated with Buddhism in Gujarat and western India. The archaeologists have also uncovered various Buddhist structures in or near the cities of Gunja, Taranga, Vadnagar, and Valabhi, as well as Sharmishtha Lake.

According to experts, the findings indicate that Gujarat has a long Buddhist history. Various forms of Buddhism are thought to have existed through the centuries in the area, which extends from Valabhi, Junagadh, Saurashtrain the southwest, Taranga in the north, and Devni Mori in the east.

The structure measures 50 x 25 meters, and there are indications that it was a Buddhist stupa. From timesofindia.indiatimes.com
“In the past three years, a number of encouraging discoveries have been made,” a senior ASI official said. “While a major structure—measuring 50 x 25 metres, dating back to 5th century—has been found on the banks of Sharmishtha Lake, two cells of a possible monastery were also found from Ghaskol area. The walls and rampart of the city also gave a peek into unbroken sequence of many centuries. The excavations so far have given a detailed account of the town under different rules including Kshatrapa, Solanki, Sultanate, and Maratha.” (The Times of India)

Among the excavated Buddhist sites of the region, Devni Mori is considered to be the most important. Excavated by the state archaeology department between 1959 and 1972, the site houses a monastery and a stupa. Nine buddha statues were found in the stupa, in addition to three 1,700-year-old relic caskets, one of which is believed to contain bodily relics of the Buddha. The remains are now kept at Maharaja Sayajiro University of Baroda in Gujarat.

Historical accounts seem to support the theory that Buddhism flourished in Gujarat over the centuries. The Chinese Buddhist monk, scholar, and translator Xuanzang (602–64), who visited India and the Gujarat region in the seventh century, reported on 1,000 Buddhist monks in “Onan To Pu Lo,” which is thought to be the Anandpur, the old name of Vadnagar. Archaeologists are now searching for a potential monastery in the region that could house such numbers.
@Indus Pakistan @Talwar e Pakistan @UnitedPak @niaz @Theparadox @DANCING GIRL @third eye @Tshering22 @Nilgiri @Rajesh Kumar @Suriya @HariPrasad @AyanRay @surya kiran @jaiind @Śakra @Tea addict @Peaceful Civilian @pothead @KapitaanAli @Rollno21 @Sam. @Tom M @Cherokee @scorpionx @KAL-EL @DANCING GIRL @Mugwop @iqbal Ali @KAMDEV @SuvarnaTeja @Joe Shearer @Desert Fox @AUSTERLITZ @scorpionx @MilSpec @PakSarzameen5823 @Rajesh Kumar @Soumitra @Jf Thunder @Mage @MultaniGuy @KapitaanAli @Mage @OsmanAli98 @waz @Irfan Baloch
@Zibago @padamchen @Indos @Ortis @MastanKhan @Mugwop @firestorm777 @Taimur Khurram

 

[Cobra Arbok]

this is a very important find. The artifacts mentioned in the article were found between 300 to 500 ce, during the height of the Gupta Empire. Considering that these were found in Gujarat, on the opposite end of the Subcontinent as the region where buddhism originated, one can draw two main conclusions from this discovery:

1. By the end of the Mauryan Empire, buddhism had spread throughout every part of the Indian subcontinent
2. This discovery also destroys the narrative that the Gupta empire and the preceding shunga Empire persecuted Buddhists, because buddhism was thriving during that period. Rather, the most likely conclusion is that Buddhism was incorporated into Hinduism and thrived along with it in most parts of the Subcontinent. The only exception is Sri Lanka, as sinhalas have historically been adverse to associating Hinduism and Buddhism.

I am assuming a similar dynamic occurred in Pakistan during the Greco-buddhist period, where Buddhism as well as elements of greek polytheism were incorporated into Hinduism and practived side by side.

 

[MultaniGuy]

Good for India for its findings.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Buddha Head Found amid New Excavation Efforts in Gujarat, India
By BD Dipen
Buddhistdoor Global | 2019-01-25 |
AddThis Sharing Buttons
Share to Facebook67Share to Twitter

Archaeologists have unearthed a major structure in Vadnagar on the banks of Sharmistha Lake. From timesofindia.indiatimes.com
Archaeologists have unearthed a carved Buddha head at a Ramdev Pir temple—a temple dedicated to a the local Hindu folk deity Baba Ramdev—at Negardi Village near Taranga in the Indian state Gujarat. According to the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), the find will further consolidate the work of Excavation Branch V of the ASI, which has expanded the search and excavation of Buddhist-related sites to include northern Gujarat.

“We have found a Buddha head in a Ramdev Pir temple at Negardi Village in Saltasana Taluka, about 10 kilometers north of Taranga Hills,” a senior ASI official told The Times of India. “It is a round face with curly hair and long ears. The eyebrows are arched above half-closed eyes. Depressions can be found on the corners of the lips. A similar image was mentioned in the excavation report for Devni Mori [an important Buddhist site in Gujarat] as ‘Type C.’ We at the moment assume that the head might be belonging to an idol dating back to 4th–5th century CE.”

A team of archaeologists under the leadership of Dr. Abhijit Ambekar, the deputy superintending archaeologist, has been working for the past three years to uncover a number of heritage sites associated with Buddhism in Gujarat and western India. The archaeologists have also uncovered various Buddhist structures in or near the cities of Gunja, Taranga, Vadnagar, and Valabhi, as well as Sharmishtha Lake.

According to experts, the findings indicate that Gujarat has a long Buddhist history. Various forms of Buddhism are thought to have existed through the centuries in the area, which extends from Valabhi, Junagadh, Saurashtrain the southwest, Taranga in the north, and Devni Mori in the east.

The structure measures 50 x 25 meters, and there are indications that it was a Buddhist stupa. From timesofindia.indiatimes.com
“In the past three years, a number of encouraging discoveries have been made,” a senior ASI official said. “While a major structure—measuring 50 x 25 metres, dating back to 5th century—has been found on the banks of Sharmishtha Lake, two cells of a possible monastery were also found from Ghaskol area. The walls and rampart of the city also gave a peek into unbroken sequence of many centuries. The excavations so far have given a detailed account of the town under different rules including Kshatrapa, Solanki, Sultanate, and Maratha.” (The Times of India)

Among the excavated Buddhist sites of the region, Devni Mori is considered to be the most important. Excavated by the state archaeology department between 1959 and 1972, the site houses a monastery and a stupa. Nine buddha statues were found in the stupa, in addition to three 1,700-year-old relic caskets, one of which is believed to contain bodily relics of the Buddha. The remains are now kept at Maharaja Sayajiro University of Baroda in Gujarat.

Historical accounts seem to support the theory that Buddhism flourished in Gujarat over the centuries. The Chinese Buddhist monk, scholar, and translator Xuanzang (602–64), who visited India and the Gujarat region in the seventh century, reported on 1,000 Buddhist monks in “Onan To Pu Lo,” which is thought to be the Anandpur, the old name of Vadnagar. Archaeologists are now searching for a potential monastery in the region that could house such numbers.

This is a bit of a breaking down of an open door.

Essentially, the conclusion that Buddhism flourished in Gujarat over the centuries seems to be opposed to an unseen 'alternate hypothesis' that Buddhism never came to Gujarat; all right, that is extreme, let us say that the alternate hypothesis was that Buddhism was never popular in Gujarat, it might have been practised but in pockets and by stray individuals.

Such an alternate hypothesis points to a peculiarity that I have noticed about discourse on history on PDF; a tendency to move to extreme positions.

Why do people habitually assume that Hinduism and Buddhism fought with each other and there were great victories won by either system of faith over the other? If we examine the record carefully, there was nothing in Buddhism that a Hindu could not practise with a perfectly easy conscience. Buddhism didn't require the worship of a different and antagonistic god hostile to the Hindu pantheon; it did away with the need for god at all, and showed the path to salvation that could be worked out by individuals on their own. 'Salvation' needs some parsing; the reference is to salvation from the eternal cycle of rebirth, to be born on earth again and again and again and go through one life after another, sinking in one due to the misdeeds of the previous one, rising in another due to the good works of a previous one. A sort of treadmill machine for the soul.

There were 'hostile' elements; there was no longer any need to go into elaborate sacrifice rituals, and the elaborate gaggle of priests rapidly ran out of gainful occupation. There was no longer any need to go to the temple; bang went another gaggle. And finally, there was that notorious mantra,
Buddham saranam gachhami
Dhammam saranam gachhami
Sangham saranam gachhami

In essence, it called for all the rest to be forgotten, and for refuge to be taken in the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha. That was decidedly not ambiguous; accepting it was a final abandonment of the old way.

Conversely, there is no prevention, no bar against following the moral way shown, while not reciting the mantra of acceptance and taking refuge.

What this is leading to is that there was nothing to mark the end of one and the beginning of another. It is wrong to make a statement of the sort that Ashoka brought Buddhism to A, or B, or C region, with the air of finality that might accompany the accomplishments of the Teutonic Knights in Prussia. When Buddhism was 'brought in', nothing, and nobody was 'sent out'; the glib and superficial implication that the old way was abandoned is utterly unfounded.

 

[Cobra Arbok]

This is a bit of a breaking down of an open door.

Essentially, the conclusion that Buddhism flourished in Gujarat over the centuries seems to be opposed to an unseen 'alternate hypothesis' that Buddhism never came to Gujarat; all right, that is extreme, let us say that the alternate hypothesis was that Buddhism was never popular in Gujarat, it might have been practised but in pockets and by stray individuals.

Such an alternate hypothesis points to a peculiarity that I have noticed about discourse on history on PDF; a tendency to move to extreme positions.

Why do people habitually assume that Hinduism and Buddhism fought with each other and there were great victories won by either system of faith over the other? If we examine the record carefully, there was nothing in Buddhism that a Hindu could not practise with a perfectly easy conscience. Buddhism didn't require the worship of a different and antagonistic god hostile to the Hindu pantheon; it did away with the need for god at all, and showed the path to salvation that could be worked out by individuals on their own. 'Salvation' needs some parsing; the reference is to salvation from the eternal cycle of rebirth, to be born on earth again and again and again and go through one life after another, sinking in one due to the misdeeds of the previous one, rising in another due to the good works of a previous one. A sort of treadmill machine for the soul.

There were 'hostile' elements; there was no longer any need to go into elaborate sacrifice rituals, and the elaborate gaggle of priests rapidly ran out of gainful occupation. There was no longer any need to go to the temple; bang went another gaggle. And finally, there was that notorious mantra,
Buddham saranam gachhami
Dhammam saranam gachhami
Sangham saranam gachhami

In essence, it called for all the rest to be forgotten, and for refuge to be taken in the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha. That was decidedly not ambiguous; accepting it was a final abandonment of the old way.

Conversely, there is no prevention, no bar against following the moral way shown, while not reciting the mantra of acceptance and taking refuge.

What this is leading to is that there was nothing to mark the end of one and the beginning of another. It is wrong to make a statement of the sort that Ashoka brought Buddhism to A, or B, or C region, with the air of finality that might accompany the accomplishments of the Teutonic Knights in Prussia. When Buddhism was 'brought in', nothing, and nobody was 'sent out'; the glib and superficial implication that the old way was abandoned is utterly unfounded.

Very true. Some members here believe that because most Buddhists do not worship idols, that Buddhism is exactly like Islam and Christianity. Hence they assume that like Muslims, Buddhists were at odds with the majority Hindu population. But the truth is that buddhism is nothing like the Abrahamic religions. In fact, one does not even have to believe in a deity to be a Buddhist. It is because of this that Buddhism has coexisted with Hinduism and has even been incorporated with many Hindu practices. That also explains why compared to other religions, Buddhism has been less prone to extremism. Of course, there are exceptions, as seen in Sri Lanka and Myanmar.

I personally think the only reason so many Pakistani members push this narrative of Hindus persecuting Buddhists is because they want to associate Pakistan with India as little as possible. Henve they view Buddhism more favorably than Hinduism, since Hinduism is associated with modern India. So they can claim Indus Pakistan was always this unique Buddhist civilization that had nothing to do with the Hindu Ganges. Of course they conveniently forget that buddhism is a Gangetic religion or that most Buddhists in South Asia also practiced some form of Hinduism, but that is beside the point.

 

[MultaniGuy]

Very true. Some members here believe that because most Buddhists do not worship idols, that Buddhism is exactly like Islam and Christianity. Hence they assume that like Muslims, Buddhists were at odds with the majority Hindu population. But the truth is that buddhism is nothing like the Abrahamic religions. In fact, one does not even have to believe in a deity to be a Buddhist. It is because of this that Buddhism has coexisted with Hinduism and has even been incorporated with many Hindu practices. That also explains why compared to other religions, Buddhism has been less prone to extremism. Of course, there are exceptions, as seen in Sri Lanka and Myanmar.

I personally think the only reason so many Pakistani members push this narrative of Hindus persecuting Muslims is because they want to associate Pakistan with India as little as possible. Henve they view Buddhism more favorably than Hinduism, since Hinduism is associated with modern India. So they can claim Indus Pakistan was always this unique Buddhist civilization that had nothing to do with the Hindu Ganges. Of course they conveniently forget that buddhism is a Gangetic religion or that most Buddhists in South Asia also practiced some form of Hinduism, but that is beside the point.

Agreed Pakistanis want to have to do little as much as possible with Republic of India.

That is good planning on our part.

Nobody claimed Buddhism has any similarities with Abrahamic religions.

Buddhism is dharmic religion, not an Abrahamic religion.

 

[Mugwop]

Agreed Pakistanis want to have to do little as much as possible with Republic of India.

That is good planning on our part.

Nobody claimed Buddhism has any similarities with Abrahamic religions.

Buddhism is dharmic religion, not an Abrahamic religion.

He doesn't care about this find but is using this news to troll and spite other members.
Typical indian tutty mentality and their lame tactics

Buddhists sided with Muslims in sindh against tutty mentality.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Very true. Some members here believe that because most Buddhists do not worship idols, that Buddhism is exactly like Islam and Christianity. Hence they assume that like Muslims, Buddhists were at odds with the majority Hindu population.

There is, of course, the liberal view of how and why Buddhism and Jainism were preached in the first place. This view points to the Kshatriya origin of both the founders, and see in these religions a determined push-back by the Kshatriyas, especially those from ruling clans, and others who took their lead against the corrupt and self-serving practices of the Brahmins; their obsession with sacrifice, for instance, with fees and offerings to the supervisory priests, and with the minute detail that religions accrue as they age. By the time that either of these religions was preached, Hinduism in the Puranic sense had been around nearly 900 years. Comparing it with other world religions when those reached 900-1000 years of propagation is illuminating.

So was Buddhism hostile and opposed to Hinduism? In a sense, opposed, yes, hostile, no, except that the angry and humiliated Brahmin priests reacted by calling Buddhists 'heretics'. There were never any wars, never any massacres, never any mass conversions. The solitary record of violence that we get is of the Maurya hatred of the Licchavi clan, and of the Buddha's futile dash to warn them of their impending doom, and that incident was entirely rooted in the monarch's shame and baleful fury at the way he was mocked for his irregular birth. Entirely personal, nothing to do with religion: it is not even clear that all the Lichhavi were Buddhists.

But the truth is that buddhism is nothing like the Abrahamic religions. In fact, one does not even have to believe in a deity to be a Buddhist. It is because of this that Buddhism has coexisted with Hinduism and has even been incorporated with many Hindu practices. That also explains why compared to other religions, Buddhism has been less prone to extremism. Of course, there are exceptions, as seen in Sri Lanka and Myanmar.

There is more than one view on the reason and the origins of the coexistence with Hinduism: it is possible that there were two sets of responses of the Hindu prelacy and orthodoxy to the gathering tempo of these two upstart religions (Jainism is often overlooked in these discussions, one major factor being that the simplistic narration that has been created from the Indus Pakistan original has no room for details or deviations from a straight line). It is possible that the significant reaction, after an initial contemptuous dismissal of seeming heterodoxy, was one of fury. The Buddha appears to have converted ordinary citizens, even worse, rulers and their entire clans, to his path in large numbers. The Ashokan phase might have seen a similar wave of conversions; while the king proclaimed his commitment to promoting the faith (dhammaghosha) rather than through conquest, and while he seems to have sent out close family members (Mahinda and Sanghamitta) on missionary expeditions, we cannot really say what numbers were converted. It is difficult to visualise any reaction by the priests other than anger. Apparently wiser counsel prevailed; the history of Buddhism in India shows that both - all three - religions prevailed until the 13th century.

It is this wiser counsel that prevailed ultimately; the Buddhists were absorbed into Hinduism. In the Dasavatara, the Buddha takes his place along with other avatars: Matsya, Kurma, Varaha, Narasimha, Vamana, Parasurama, Rama, Krishna, Buddha, Kalki. Part of this absorption was regionalisation; in Maharashtra, the ninth place is taken by Purandara, or Vithoba; in Odisha, it is taken by Jagannath. This is the truth behind the co-opting of the Buddha.

I personally think the only reason so many Pakistani members push this narrative of Hindus persecuting Buddhists is because they want to associate Pakistan with India as little as possible. Henve they view Buddhism more favorably than Hinduism, since Hinduism is associated with modern India. So they can claim Indus Pakistan was always this unique Buddhist civilization that had nothing to do with the Hindu Ganges. Of course they conveniently forget that buddhism is a Gangetic religion or that most Buddhists in South Asia also practiced some form of Hinduism, but that is beside the point.

I think it is more likely ignorance.

Consider their recollection of the spread of Islam. Consider their possible knowledge of the Crusades, and the bloodshed involved. Consider the Christian jihad against the pagans of Prussia; perhaps the bloodiest conversions after Charlemagne converted the Saxons. That is how they think conversions happen, and they could be under the impression that that is the right and natural way to convert. They are completely unaware of other processes.

 

[Cobra Arbok]

He doesn't care about this find but is using this news to troll and spite other members.
Typical indian tutty mentality and their lame tactics

Buddhists sided with Muslims in sindh against tutty mentality.

I do care about this find. I post threads like this all the time. If some members feel spited by this that is their problem. Muslims obviously treated Buddhists so well in Pakistan and Afghanistan that Buddhism is extinct in those regions, whereas millions of Buddhist still live in India.

The question should be why you care so much. Aren't you Haitian or something?

 

[Mugwop]

I do care about this find. I post threads like this all the time. If some members feel spited by this that is their problem. Muslims obviously treated Buddhists so well in Pakistan and Afghanistan that Buddhism is extinct in those regions, whereas millions of Buddhist still live in India.

The question should be why you care so much. Aren't you Haitian or something?

Yes they treated them so well kinda like shunga,shahanka

 

[Cobra Arbok]

Yes they treated them so well kinda like shunga,shahanka

As I explained was still thriving in India during the Gupta Empire, which came much after the Shungas. So how could the SHungas have persecuted Buddhists?

 

[Rusty]

Cool find

Sad that all the Buddhists were forcibly converted to Hinduism and made extinct in their Homeland.

 

[SorryNotSorry]

Cool find

Sad that all the Buddhists were forcibly converted to Hinduism and made extinct in their Homeland.

Which alternate reality have you been studying? That is very far from the truth bud.

 

[Rusty]

Which alternate reality have you been studying? That is very far from the truth bud.

The same one of Hindus where they say Muslims were forcibly converted.

80% of India is Hindu... 0.1% is still Budhists.

It's clear who was forcibly converted.

 

[Cobra Arbok]

Cool find

Sad that all the Buddhists were forcibly converted to Hinduism and made extinct in their Homeland.

I hate to break it to you, but there are still millions of Buddhists in India. Unfortunately, buddhism has become extinct in Pakistan and Afghanistan due to 1000 years of Muslim rule in those regions, which is very sad. It's a good thing Muslims only ruled parts of Northern India for less than 500 years, or else Buddhism would have met the same fate in India as it had in Pakistan and Buddhism.

As you can see, there are still several districts where Buddhists are the majority. How many such districts exist in Pakistan?

The same one of Hindus where they say Muslims were forcibly converted.

80% of India is Hindu... 0.1% is still Budhists.

It's clear who was forcibly converted.

Buddhism simply got absorbed into Hinduism do to all the similarities they share. As I already explained, many South Asian Buddhists also incorporated Hindu practices as well. There was never any conflict between Hindus and Buddhists like there was between Hindus and Muslims.