Part 13 - Monastery area (at Sārnāth)

Monastery I (Dharmachakra-Jinavihāra):

To the north of the Main Shrine explorations have found out three important monasteries for residential purpose. Monasteries I, II, III and IV were located here. No traces of Maurya remnants could be found here. These are probably Kuṣāṇa structures but gone through repairs several times in successive ages. Finally the whole area claimed for the construction of the Dharmachakra-Jinavihāra which is also known as the Monastery I.

Dharmachakra-Jinavihāra is an imposing medieval structure dated roughly to the 12^th century CE. Detailed excavation of the site in 1907-08 brought out a layout of the structure. From an inscribed stone slab found in course of excavation it comes to our knowledge that the building in its present form is made by a donation from Kumarī(a) Devī-the Buddhist queen of Govinda Candra, a Gahadvala king of Kanauj (1114-54 CE). The whole monastery was built over many other earlier monasteries. The excavated area stretched to 832 meters in east-west. It had court open on the west and with rows of cells on the three sides. Near the north-west corner of the court there is well surrounded by a low parapet. The basement of the monastery was made of neatly chiselled bricks with both inner and outer sides decorated with beautiful mouldings. Though the apartments and cells of the monks have disappeared but lintels, door-jambs and cross foundation walls of chambers were lying in the heaps over the basement and courtyard were most probably used as building materials for those structures above the ground. Around the quadrangle or the courtyard and even outside the whole building moulded brick plinths with double projections on the south, east and north faces of the quadrangle. And in the centre of each face there is a flight of steps. Among them the east facing projection was divided into a number of chambers. The central chamber is surrounded with steps. It may have served as a hall of audience. These steps afforded a direct access inside the courtyard.

Monastery I had two entrances to the east and the distance between the two is more than 88 metres. The main entrance, measuring 114 feet in east-west merged into the courtyard. The outside of the entrance was furnished with richly carved bastions put inside the boundary wall. The bastion on the south was almost vanished while well preserved to a height of 4 feet on the north. Its core was composed of brickbats but the facing brickwork was most accurately chiselled and decorated with elegant mouldings and design. The entrance also had a gatekeeper’s lodge made of finely dressed plain bricks. Passing through this gateway one reaches another very spacious court measuring 290 feet from east to west. Its plan is much more elaborate than the former. The bastion outside and a gate keeper’s lodge can also be seen here. Between them there is a large gatehouse containing several chambers. The gatehouse also had a huge superstructure.

Another important feature of the monastery was a great drain to the western limits. Side walls of this drain were made of bricks. The roof and floor were made of bricks. It was large enough for manual cleaning.^[1] Daya Ram Sahni conducted a course of fresh and further study of the site and made some important observations. Firstly he proposed that the supposed drain coming out of the central block of monastery, intended to carry off rain water was not a drain at all. It was a 160 feet long subterranean passage, commencing 34 feet to the central block of the monastery I and reached a small shrine located to the westernmost extremity. Its floor is located 10 feet below the present ground level. The entrance to the chamber is so low that virtually the votary had to crawl. It was probably a part of the homage paid to the lord. The outside of the passage is neatly finished because it was exposed to the eye but the inside is crude and coarse. It was an underground structure

About 87 feet from the entrance of the chamber there is another small chamber with its roof above the ground probably allowed some ventilation in the chamber. Being underground the chamber must have been very dark and the niches on the wall were most likely used for keeping some lamps.^[2] His second proposition was it was neither a monastery nor a hostel or hospice of the monks and nuns. He argued that unlike other monasteries it does not have a regular Catuśālaplan. The building is open on one side and the space allotted for residence was actually not enough for that purpose. Its large courtyard and rich ornamentation was unseen in any other monastery of the complex.

More definitely the mention of the building of a temple in the name of Dharmachakra-Jinavihāra in the stone inscription of Kumarīdevī proves beyond doubt that it was a temple. The high appreciation of the structure in the inscription closely matches with the appearance of the building.^[3] The building amply reflects the lavish grant of a wealthy person and it may have totally built by Kumarīdevī’s grant. Close resemblance of the gateways to south Indian gopurams reminds us that Kumarīdevī originated from the Godavarī region might have done it in the model of a south Indian gopuram.^[4]

Monastery II:

This monastery assignable to the late Kuṣāṇa to early Gupta period was found buried in a ruined condition beneath the area to the west of the central block of the Dharmacakra-Jinavihāra. Its western wall marked the western limit of the deer park. The average height of the site is not more than 3 to 4 feet from the ground. It has a usual squarish central courtyard. The low wall around this carried the columns of the verandah in front of the cells and common rooms for the monks. It had a row of chambers in the west, two cells in the south-east corner and two in the south wing. The fifth chamber from the southern end on the west line is larger than the rest and might had been allotted to some senior monk in church of the monastery. The building closely matches with the layout of other structures at Sārnāth, with a courtyard in the middle and other structures surrounding it. From the sizes of bricks and chiselled brick work used in the inner and outer face of the building it appears to be an early Gupta structure built over some much earlier monastery. The wall of this older building peeps out at places to a height of 3.5 feet. This was used as foundation of the Gupta edifice.^[5]

Monastery III:

Two monasteries numbered III and IV are adjacent to each other and located in the monastery area. Monastery III that occupies a very low level is consisted of three chambers in the west, four in the south and a part of the courtyard and verandah. Walls with even 10 feet height were exposed. The verandah in front of the cells is 11 feet broad. The courtyard, verandah and floors of chambers are all paved with bricks. A covered drain starting from one corner of the courtyard runs under the floor of the verandah and reaches the passage of the south-west corner of the monastery to carry dirty water from the open courtyard. This drain is 10 feet deep and 7 feet wide and covered with slabs of stone. At its mouth a perforated stone is placed to prevent choking of the drain.

The monastery had several cells for the monks. Of them, the corner cell is reached by a narrow, open passage. In the north wall of this passage there is a small niche, probably to put a lamp or a small image. The doorways of the cells were spacious enough for the free movement of people. The interior walls of these cells are rough but the outer wall is chiselled and smooth. A chamber with an underground depth of 17 feet and 6 feet height above ground was discovered. Probably it was meant for some storage function. Alternatively it was just the base of the superstructure that could be accessed from the first floor of the monastery.^[6] From the style of carvings on the pillars of the verandah the monastery was supposedly erected in the Kuṣāṇa period.^[7]

Monastery IV:

Located to the eastern portion of the monastery area this is a monastery located below the ground level. The exposed portion of the monastery is consisted of three cells on the north and three on the east, a part of the verandah and a courtyard at a depth of more than 14 feet below the ground level. Like Monastery III here too the pillars are set into a wall.Average height of those columns set into the wall is 8 feet of which 5’6” stands out of the ground. The breadth of the verandah varies from 7’ 6” to 7’ 10”. The courtyard is paved with bricks laid flat but has a slight slope towards the drain in the north-east corner.

Leaving the monastery area, a group of remains and memorials in the form of shrines, stupas, relics were brought to notice at 80 feet north of the Dhamekstupa. There were located stupas, chapels, walls, concrete floors belonging to the Gupta period to the early and even medieval times up to 8^th- 9^th to even 11^th- 12^th centuries. They are located at a depth of 6 feet below the ground at various stages of preservation. One important find in this area was a well-cut inscription of 12^th century in a Nagari script this inscription records the Vihāra at Dharmachakra by Kumarī(a) Devī. Its elegance and style speaks of the climax of the Buddhist architecture at Sārnāth.

Monastery V:

Entering the monastic complex at Sārnāth, the first monastery to be encountered in the left was the Monastery V. It was originally excavated by Markham Kittoe in 1851-52 contains a square shaped courtyard surrounded by residential cells of monks on all four sides. It follows the usual catuśālah plan of the Buddhist monasteries. There is a well in the centre of the court. Around the court there is pillared passage giving access to the cells. The central room on the north provided direct access to three chambers and two guard rooms projecting the north.

Monastery VI:

This monastery is not visible to the eyes. This is actually buried under the lawn adjacent and located to the west of the Dhamekstupa. It was first discovered and identified by Major Kittoe as a hospital on the basis of pestles, mortars, flat stones for mashisng and loongas that were found scattered in the site. Kittoe marked this site as z. It is 60 feet long from west to east, 42 feet broad and surrounded by a 3 feet thick, low wall. Its height is 1.5 foot high above the terraced wall. In this wall twelve stone pillars are found though are largely destroyed by fire. Cunningham agrees with Kittoe that it was a hospital site^[8] or an Arogyagara. Kittoe could not leave a worthwhile account of his discovery owing to his ill health. The next study of this site was conducted in 1906-07. In this session, the courtyard and row of chambers surrounding this court were exposed. The portion discovered by Kittoe belonged to a late date of the 8^th century but Gupta antiquities, particularly a gem studded metal diadem was found in this layer.^[9] Fresh exploration of this site took place in 1927-28. It was found that the edifice was built and rebuilt twice. Old bricks were used on the facing and the core was made of specially manufactured same sized bricks. It was a monastery of usual type built on the similar structure of the Gupta period. On account of these findings the claim that it was an ancient hospital does not stand. The monastery had a row of cells on the south of the quadrangle and the back of the verandah similar to those in other monasteries discovered at Sārnāth. Digging the foundations under the chamber located to the southeast corner revealed an important statute of a female divinity. Its halo and forearms were broken but seems to be a Hindu divinity. It probably belonged to the time when originally the monastery was erected.^[10]

Monastery VII:

The last among the monasteries is the monastery VII. Entering the complex immediately one can see it on the left. It is an early medieval monastery, rebuilt on some earlier structure. It is another usual monastery consisting of an open courtyard measuring 9.15 square metre surrounded by a running verandah and ranges of cells in all sides. Now they are all destroyed and bases of the verandah pillars points to a devastating fire that the monastery underwent like monastery V. That might have brought an end to the monastery.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Annual Report Archaeological Survey of India, 1907-08, Swati publications, Delhi 1990, pp.43-54.

[2]:

Sir John Marshall, Annual Report Archaeological Survey of India, 1919-20, Swati publications, Delhi 1990, p.26.

[3]:

D. Brained Spooner,, Swati publications, Delhi 1990,p.45.

[4]:

Daya Ram Sahni, op.cit. 1926, pp. Annual Report Archaeological Survey of India, 1921-2231-32.

[5]:

B. Majumdar, op.cit. 1947, p.39.

[6]:

Annual Report Archaeological Survey of India, 1907-08, Delhi, Swati publications, 1990, pp.56-58.

[7]:

B.R. Mani, Sarnath, Archaeology, Art and Architecture, Published by the Director General, New Delhi, A.S.I., 2012, p.49.

[8]:

Alexander Cunningham, op.cit,1994, p.125

[9]:

Annual Report Archaeological Survey of India, 1907-08, Delhi, Swati publications, 1990, p.88.

[10]:

Annual Report Archaeological Survey of India, 1927-28, ed. H. Hargreaves, Delhi, Swati publications, 1990, p. 16.