The Search for the Ashokan Stūpa of Goviṣāṇa

       

The community-built shrine dedicated to Dronāchārya inside the ‘capital city’.

After a year-long break, I resumed my foot journey Retracing Bodhisattva Xuanzang (RBX) from Kāshipur, Uttar Pradesh on October 6th 2022. The RBX foot journey project was set into motion in February 2020. Xuanzang (Hsüan-tsang) was a Chinese Buddhist monk-scholar who visited the Indian Subcontinent in the 7th CE. Xuanzang’s account of his 16 years of travels in the Indian Subcontinent played a pivotal role in the resurrection of the Buddhist geography of India in 19th CE.  The central idea behind the RBX foot journey project is to explore and document the present situation of the sites related to the sacred footsteps of the Buddha.

Within a month of the start of the foot journey COVID pandemic disrupted the planned schedule. Frequent COVID lockdowns had compelled me to split-up the foot journey into smaller sections. By July 2021, I had completed 2100 kms of the Xuanzang trail, exploring the sites related to the wanderings of the Buddha in Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar in India and Southern Nepal. 

The present section of foot journey is approximately 400 kms long starting from Kāshipur (ancient Goviṣāṇa?) ending at Hulas Kherā touching Ahichhatra, Kannauj and Newal (ancient Navadevakula).

The present section of RBX foot journey.

Present day Kāshipur in Uttrakhand was identified by Sir Alexander Cunningham as the ancient Goviṣāṇa mentioned by Xuanzang. Cunningham identified the remains of an old fort (29° 12' N. 78° 58' E) near the village of Ujain, which is just one mile to the east of Kāshipur as the ancient ‘capital city’ of the then country of Goviṣāṇa. According to Xuanzang, the Buddha had visited the capital city of Goviṣāṇa. Xuanzang mentions a 200 ft Ashokan stūpa to mark the place where the Buddha preached for a month   (Rongxi 1996: 116). The stūpa was situated in an old monastery beside the capital city. Beside the Ashokan stūpa there were traces where the four past Buddha’s used to sit and walk up and down. Alongside the traces there were two more stūpas, each over ten feet high, containing hair and fingernail relics of the Historical Buddha.

Cunningham, who visited Kāshipur in 1862-63, noticed many archaeological mounds in the vicinity of the ‘capital city’. The survey map prepared by Cunningham served as a reference for my explorations in Kāshipur. Shri Manoj Saxena, Superintending Archaeologist, Dehradun Circle was kind enough to assign Shri Ranjeet Negi,  a staff of  Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) Kāshipur office to guide me around. The remains of the ‘capital city’ are now popularly known as ‘Dronāchārya kā kilā’, i.e. palace of Dronāchārya. Dronachārya was teacher of the legendary Pāndava brothers of Epic Mahābhārata. Local people believe that the Pāndava brothers built this City/Palace for their teacher Dronāchārya. I noticed a community-built shrine dedicated to Dronāchārya inside the ‘capital city’.  Excavation of Bhim-gaja, the biggest mound inside the ‘capital city’ has revealed it to be a Brahmanical Temple, a Panchayātana complex built in three different phases. The earliest period of the temple dates 5-6th CE. One of the major highlights of the excavations of the ‘capital city’ was the discovery of painted grey ware pottery. PGW pottery has been dated to 1,100 to 800 BCE.

Much has changed in the last 150 years, since the visit of Cunningham to Kāshipur. Walking around the outer boundary of the ‘capital city’ with Ranjeet, I noticed a number of habitations touching and often settled over the archaeological remains.  These habitations are non-existent in Cunningham’s map of Kāshipur. Ranjeet told me ASI is regularly reporting the incidents of encroachment, which is a contravention of ASI laws, to the District Administration, but there is political interference and lack of Administration will to prevent it.

ASI entrance gate,  Dronāchārya ka Kilā (ancient Goviṣāṇa city/‘capital city’).

‘capital city’ and Jagesar Shrine plotted on Google Map.

Survey map of Kāshipur prepared by Alexander Cunningham.

With Ranjeet Negi in front of the Panchayātana complex.

Inside the ‘capital city’.

With Ranjeet and Shri Vikas Kumar Agnihotri.

With Dr P K Sagar.

The Jagesar Mahadeva Shrine.

The Jagesar Mahādeva shrine is situated on an ancient mound.

Exposed ancient wall during the excavation in 2004-05, Jagesar mound.

The eastern wall of the ‘capital city’. 

Ranjeet walked me to the Jagesar Mahādeva shrine complex (29° 11' 51'' N. 78° 58' 45'' E). Jagesar shrine is situated 600 mts SW of the ‘capital city’. The shrine was situated over a large archaeological mound, which is approximately an acre in size.  Large bricks, brickbats and potsherds were scattered all over the Jagesar mound. Shri Vikas Kumar Agnihotri, chief priest of Pithadhishvar Temple and few other locals whom I met during my explorations in Kāshipur believe Jagesar Mahādev mound to be a Buddhist shrine, probably the Ashokan stūpa mentioned by Xuanzang. They hope its excavation and exposition will make Kāshipur a tourist/pilgrimage destination for the Buddhists.  Shri Agnihotri told me that the site was excavated by ASI in 2004. According to Agnihotri ji, excavation of this mound in 2004 revealed it to be some Buddhist shrine. Agnihotri ji expressed his displeasure that the site was not completely exposed after some preliminary excavations in 2004-05.

Later, I had a telephonic conversation with Shri Dharmavir Sharma who had excavated the Jagesar Mahādeva mound in 2004-05. Shri Sharma, now a retired ASI official told that the  Jagesar mound is a Brahmanical shrine from 6th CE and not a Buddhist stūpa, contrary to the common belief in Kāshipur. He told me how there were repeated requests from the state government to the ASI to find the ‘Ashokan stūpa of Goviṣāṇa’ mentioned by Xuanzang. ASI assigned Dr Sharma for this job. He followed the exploration reports of Cunningham for his research. Shri Sharma in his explorations noted that a large number of mounds noticed by Cunningham in Kāshipur had got destroyed by migrants who were settled in this vicinity after the partition of India in 1947. The new settlers, according to him, destroyed archaeological sites to convert them into agricultural land. The report of the excavation of Jagesar mound carried out by Shri Sharma is awaiting publication.

Jagesar mound, which was believed to be the stūpa noted by Xuanzang, instead turned out to be, a Brahmanical temple. So now the question is what happened to the Ashokan stūpa of Goviṣāṇa?

Cunningham in his report has mentioned a solid brick mound SW of Jagesar Mahādeva.  Cunningham thought this mound could be of Buddhist origin.  In the words of Cunningham;

“The only ruin which appeared to me to be of undoubted Buddhist origin was a solid brick mound 20 feet in height, to the south-west of Jagesar Mahadeva, and close to the small village of Kharagpur. The base of the mound is upwards of 200 feet in diameter. The solid brick-work at the top is still 60 feet thick; but as it is broken all round, its original diameter must have been much greater, probably not less than 80 feet. But even this larger diameter is too small for a stūpa of 200 feet in height of the hemispherical form of Asoka’s time; a stūpa of that early period, even when provided with both plinth and cupola, would not have exceeded 100 feet in height. Unless, therefore, we may suppose that there is a mistake of 100 feet in the text of Hwen Thsang, I feel quite unable to offer any identification of the Buddhist remains of Govisana as described by the Chinese pilgrim.”(Cunningham 2000: 251)

The ‘Buddhist’ mound documented by Cunningham is now lost. There are houses and market complexes all around the Jagesar shrine. Dr P K Sagar, a local resident of Jagesar Mahādeva, told me how all the houses in the neighbourhood including his house are made from large sized bricks unearthed/excavated from the mounds in the surrounding of Jagesar Mahādeva.

Unfortunately, the mound in question was lost even before it could be scientifically examined. But even if it survived, Cunningham was of the opinion that this mound SW of Jagesar was not big enough to represent the 200ft Ashokan stūpa of Xuanzang (Cunningham 2000: 251). 

If we trust Cunningham’s identification of the ancient remains of Kāshipur to be the Goviṣāṇa of Xuanzang, it is plausible that the Buddhist monuments described by Xuanzang got vandalized long before Cunningham visited Kāshipur in 1862-63. 

Even so, it is also conceivable that ‘Drona kā Kilā’ in Kāshipur may not be the correct identification of the ‘capital city’ of Goviṣāṇa.  There are two major dissonances between the descriptions of the ‘capital city’ of Goviṣāṇa described by Xuanzang and the actual finds at ‘Drona kā Kilā’.

1. According to the translation of the accounts of Xuanzang by Li Rongxi, the capital city of Goviṣāṇa was surrounded by Lofty mountains that serve as impregnable barriers to the city (Rongxi 1996: 116). Translation of the same work by another sinologist Thomas Watters has mentioned the boundary of the capital city as a ‘natural stronghold’ (Watters 2004: 331).  Broadly, ‘natural stronghold’ and ‘lofty mountains’ suggest the same, probably some hill or a mountain range that surrounded the ‘capital city’. The ‘Drona kā Kilā’ has a high fortified brick boundary which is certainly not a ‘natural’ fortification. The nearest ‘natural stronghold’, i.e. hills is the shiwālik range of Himalayas, which are situated more than 15 kms north of Kāshipur. 

2. Xuanzang mentions the City of Goviṣāṇa to be 14-15 Li in circuit, which makes approximately 5 kms. However, the measurement of the fortification wall on Google Earth makes it to be only 2.6 kms. Cunningham has also noticed this discrepancy in the perimeter of City of Goviṣāṇa, mentioned  by Xuanzang (Cunningham 2000: 253). 

In his survey of this region, Cunningham noted Kāshipur to be the only place of any antiquity in this direction mentioned by Xuanzang  (Cunningham 1871: 357). According to Cunningham, Kāshipur also fits well with respect to Ahichhatra, the next place on the route of Xuanzang.   We have quite a few examples where identifications offered by Cunningham were found to be incorrect by the scholars after him. For example, the identification of Mokson as Lumbini and Nagar as the City of Kapilavastu (Cunningham 1871), both the identifications offered by Cunningham in the 1860s were corrected in 1890s. The primary reasons behind many of the incorrect identifications offered by Cunningham were the rudimentary maps available in his times. Awareness and mapping of archaeological features was in its infancy, in the mid 19th CE.

And last but not the least; we cannot be very certain if Xuanzang actually visited Goviṣāṇa.  Biography (Beal 1914) and Travels (Rongxi 1996), the two separate accounts of Xuanzang have different descriptions of how Xuanzang travelled onwards from Matipura. As per the Travels, from Matipura Xuanzang travelled to Goviṣāṇa and from Goviṣāṇa he travelled to Ahicchattra (Rongxi 1996: 116). However, according to the Biography, from Matipura, Xuanzang travelled to Brāhmanpura  and from Brāhmapura to Ahicchatra (Beal 1914: 81). There is no mention of his visit to Goviṣāṇa between Matipur and Ahicchatra in Biography as mentioned in Travels. I think, this inconsistency between Biography and Travels is because Xuanzang may not have actually visited Goviṣāṇa and may have collected information about Goviṣāṇa at Matipura or Ahicchatra.

I think, there is enough evidence to re-examine the identification of Kāshipur as the ancient Goviṣāṇa.   I believe that more exploration and scientific study is required in this region to locate the ancient Goviṣāṇa and the Buddhist monuments mentioned by Xuanzang in Goviṣāṇa.

Story chronicled by Surinder M Talwar.

Bibliography:

Beal, S.; 1914, The life of Hiuen-Tsiang by Shaman Hwui Li by Kegan Paul. London: Trench Trubner and Co

Cunningham, A; 2000, Archaeological Survey of India Four Reports Made During the Years 1862-63-64-65, Vol-I,

Published by ASI, GOI, 2000, (First Published in 1871).

Cunningham, A.1871. The Ancient Geography of India - I: The Buddhist Period. London: Trubner and Co.

Rongxi, Li; 1996, The Great Tang Dynasty Record of the Western Regions, BDK America, Inc.

Watters, Thomas; 2004, On Yuan Chwang’s Travels in India, (Edited by T. W. Rhys Davids and  S.W. Bushell), Reprinted in LPP 2004, Low Price Publications, Delhi. 

Website of Archaeological Survey of India, Dehradun Circle, Uttarakhand

https://www.asidehraduncircle.in/excavation.html

 

Prospects of Reclaiming the Buddhist Heritage of Saṅkāsya

An ancient image of the 'Buddha's Descent from Tushita' enshrined in the Saṅkāsya Temple

Saṅkāsya (also Sankissa, Sankassa) is one of the ‘Eight Great Places’ of the Buddhist pilgrimage. It was here that the Buddha performed the miracle of the ‘Descent from the Heavens, accompanied by Indra and Brahma’. According to Buddhist literature, in his forty-first year the Buddha went up from Śrāvasti to the Tushita Heaven and passed the rainy season retreat teaching Abhidharma to his mother Māyādevi, who had died seven days after Buddha's birth and been reborn as a male god in Tushita. Three months later, at the time of his descent from the retreat, a great assembly of kings and people of the eight kingdoms gathered. As the Buddha descended, a flight of gold stairs appeared, which he climbed down. He was accompanied by Brahma on the right and by Indra holding a jewelled umbrella on the left. Saṅkāsya continued to flourish as an important Buddhist pilgrimage place till around 13^th CE when the Buddhist pilgrimage in India came to its ebb due to a change in the political climate. In the next few centuries, the abandoned Buddhist monasteries were reoccupied and the places were renamed by the new occupants. Mahābodhi, the place where the Buddha got enlightenment was renamed Bodhgayā. Nālandā Mahāvihāra became Baṛgāon. Migadāya, where the Buddha gave his First Sermon, became Sārnātha, and so on. It is interesting that among the Eight Great Places, Saṅkāsya is the only place where the ancient name is preserved. In 1842, Alexander Cunningham identified the village of Saṅkāsya with the place Saṅkāsya mentioned by 5th CE Chinese monk and pilgrim, Faxian (Fahien). Saṅkāsya was discovered much before some of the other prominent Buddhist pilgrimage places like Nālandā (1862), Śrāvasti (1863), Lumbīnī (1896), Vaiśālī (1862), but unfortunately Saṅkāsya remains the most obscure of the Eight Great Places of Buddhist pilgrimage till date. 

I visited Saṅkāsya on 19th April. It took us 9 hrs to drive 400 kms from Śrāvasti to reach Saṅkāsya. This was my first visit to the place. The objective of my visit was to find reasons for the low footfalls of pilgrims at Saṅkāsya and explore possibilities of improving it. Saṅkāsya is located in the village of Saṅkāsya-Basantapur in Farrukhābād district of Uttar Pradesh, where the borders of Farrukhābād, Etah and Mainpuri districts meet. The site of Saṅkāsya is visible from a distance. The mound on this site is the most prominent feature of the landscape. The circumference of the mound is 2.6 kms (approximately 120 acres). The mound is almost 70 ft high on the North-Western side and slopes gradually in the eastern and southern direction merging with the plain. 

Chinese pilgrim Xuanzang (Hsüan-tsang, 7th CE) saw a 70 ft high staircase at the spot where the Buddha had descended from heaven. On the top of the stairs was a temple with a stone image of the Buddha that according to Faxian was 16 cubit (16 ft) tall. Close to the stairs was a 70 ft high Aśokan Pillar. The Buddha bathed immediately after his descent, and later a bathing house and stūpa were built to mark that site. Stūpas were also raised at the spot where he cut his hair and nails and where he entered samādhi. The Chinese pilgrims tell about the presence of more stūpas and a chankramana  (a raised platform with foot impressions of the Buddha) where the Buddha and the previous Buddhas had walked and sat in meditation. According to Xuanzang, these shrines were enclosed within the walls of a Saṃmitīya Monastery, which he describes as being excellently ornamental and having many fine images. He adds that hundreds of monks dwelt there along with a community of lay followers.

Travelling two centuries earlier, Faxian had found roughly thousand monks and nuns living here and pursuing their studies, some of whom were from the Hinayāna sect and others from the Mahāyāna. Corroborating the accounts of Faxian and Xuanzang with the ancient remains in the village, we could say that the Saṅkāsya village (A in the Map-1) is sitting exactly atop the complex that enclosed the monastery, stairs, temple and numerous stūpas (i.e. the place where the Buddha descended from the heaven). The circumference of this high mound hiding the ‘enclosed complex’ is around 1.25 kms (approximately 30 acres). Saṅkāsya is only one of the Eight Great Places of pilgrimage where the main ancient shrine still remains buried. In Bodhgayā, the ancient Mahābodhi Temple has been restored. In Śrāvasti, Sārnātha, Vaiśālī, and Nālandā, the places of pilgrimage, the ancient Buddhist remains of temples, monasteries and stūpas have been excavated and conserved. The absence of excavated ancient remains for the pilgrims to offer prayers and offerings is the chief cause for the poor footfalls at Saṅkāsya.

Map-1- Ancient mounds in the Saṅkāsya  marked on Google map

View of  Mound 'A' depicted in Map-1

View of  Mound 'A' depicted in Map-1

Faxian writes that at Saṅkāsya, he witnessed a white-eared dragon (cobra snake) which lived close to the monastery, guarding it and the surrounding areas. Faxian also talks about the abundant rainfall and agricultural produce, and prosperity and happiness of the people, all brought about by blessings from the white-eared dragon. Monks and lay people worshiped this dragon and offered it food. In 1842, Cunningham noticed this tradition still existing in Saṅkāsya in the form of worshiping of Bisari Devi. Every year in the month of Āṣārha (corresponding to June-July), there is a 15-day long celebration and offering. Just before the beginning of the monsoon, people from this village and it’s surrounding gather at this temple, located in the southern side (B in Map-1) of the village, and pray for abundant rain and harvest. The small temple of the deity, Bisari Devi is built on a 30 ft high ancient mound. This ancient mound is probably a stūpa built to mark the place where the dragon existed. 

I was informed by the local people that in the ancient times, this village belonged to the Bisaria Kāyastha people. They were the landlords of Saṅkāsya, and Bisari Devi is their community deity. Some two hundred years ago, the Bisaria Kayastha families migrated to a town called Bareli, about 130 kms from Saṅkāsya. Bisari Devi temple complex has the elephant capital of Aśoka's pillar. Another small shrine in the vicinity contains an ancient statue of the Buddha. Buddhist pilgrims who visit Saṅkāsya offer their prayers at this small shrine made by Panditha Madabawita Wijesoma Thero and Dixit family.

 Stūpa mound depicted 'B' on the Map-1, Bisari devi temple sitting on the top 

    The Elephant Capital of Aśoka's pillar kept in a stone canopy

         Bisari devi temple sitting atop  the 'Stūpa mound'

                                        Bisari devi temple complex 

The entire mound (marked with white dotted line in the Map-1) is circumscribed by a narrow 3 km long meandering path. This walking trail distinguishes the mound of Saṅkāsya from the surrounding plains. I took a walk along this trail to get acquainted with the place and its people. I observed the life of the locals revolved around agriculture. At many places of the mound, I noticed large-scale illegal excavation. Mining had revealed the ruined foundations of former buildings. Mining is illegal in Saṅkāsya because of its archaeological significance, however, some people were engaged in illegally digging out earth for selling. I was also told that miners were digging with the hope of finding some buried treasure. Most of the people I spoke to on the streets and the farms were indifferent to the historic significance of their village. Many of them had little or no awareness about the Buddhist significance of the place. I believe that the main reason for this general apathy among the villagers is because they have presently no or little interaction with domestic and international Buddhist pilgrims. The average halting time of a Buddhist pilgrim at the worshiping place in Saṅkāsya is not more than 30 minutes. Pilgrims do not stay beyond this short period of time because the place does not have any arrangement for pilgrims to offer prayers and rest. There is no urinals, eateries and parking lots around.

Ancient brick structures revealed due to illegal mining of the ancient mound

Ancient sculptures lying neglected in open

The next morning, I met an energetic young person named Raghav Dixit. He shared with me how his uncle Shri Mukta Prasad Dixit and his elder brothers, Shri Devendra Nath Dixit and Chandrika Dixit made efforts to facilitate the preservation, conservation and promotion of the Buddhist heritage of Saṅkāsya. In 1957, Panditha Madabawita Wijesoma Thero, a monk from Sri Lanka came to Saṅkāsya with the intent of facilitating development of the place. Shri Mukta Prasad Dixit offered a room in his house where Ven. Wijesome stayed for 11 years. Together both of them formed an organisation called ‘Sankasya Development Board’. Raghav brought with him a couple of old looking folders that contained documents, pictures, and newspaper cuttings from 1960’s, 70’s and 80’s showing the contributions of his uncle and brothers. The Dixit family gave 25 acres of land to Ven. Wijesoma Thero for constructing a school, Buddhist monastery, an accommodation and a worshiping place for the pilgrims at Saṅkāsya. Despite their limited resources, they also constructed a small Buddhist temple inside the Bisari Devi temple compound. They initiated the trend of celebrating Buddha Jayanti (Vesak Pūrṇimā) every year. Setting up of the Wijesoma Widyalaya, monastery and the Buddhist temple were stepping stones towards the development of Saṅkāsya. Later the Dixit family also offered 4 acres of land for setting up of a Burmese monastery. The endeavours of the Saṅkāsya Development Board came to a halt due to lack of cooperation from government authorities, and because of the passing away of Panditha Madabawita Wijesoma Thero and Shri Mukta Prasad Dixit. Raghav Dixit, who aspires to continue his uncle’s legacy of developing in Saṅkāsya is challenged at present by lack of resources and support from locals. However, being a very capable youth, he hopes to overcome these challenges with time.

Raghav sharing documents, pictures, newspaper clippings, the works done by the Dixit family

Temple inside the 'Bisari devi temple complex' constructed by  Wijesoma Thero and the Dixit family.  

H.H Dalai Lama and  Wijesoma Thero at Bisari devi temple complex (Saṅkāsya, 1950's). Pic courtesy Raghav 

 Ven. Wijesoma Thero  and Shri Devendra Nath Dixit at the 'Sankasya Development Board' office. Pic courtesy Raghav 

Shri Devendra Nath Dixit and others at temple complex celebrating Buddha Jayanti (Veshak). Pic courtesy Raghav

Shri Cadrika Prasad Dixit with District Magistrate at the Bisari devi temple complex. Pic courtesy Raghav

Special thanks to Aparajita Goswami and  Raghav Dixit

Bibliography

Beal, S.; 2005, Travels of Fah-hian and Sung-Yun, Buddhist Pilgrims from China to India, Low

  Price Publications, Delhi: (Originally published London: Trubner and Co.: 1869).

Cunningham, A.; 1871, The Ancient Geography of India- I, The Buddhist Period, Trubner and Co., London.

Watters, Thomas; 2004, On Yuan Chwang’s Travels in India, (Edited by T. W. Rhys Davids and

 S.W. Bushell), Reprinted in LPP 2004, Low Price Publications, Delhi. (First published

 by Royal Asiatic Society, London, 1904-05).