The Jamāl Gaṛhī Monastery in Gandhāra: An Examination of Buddhist Sectarian Identity Through Textual and Archaeological Evidence

Abstract

In the 19th century, the British archaeologist Sir Alexander Cunningham identified the remains of an unidentified Buddhist monastery at Jamāl Gaṛhī, an ancient site located approximately 13 km from present-day Mardān, Pakistan. Subsequent excavations by the Archaeological Survey of India between 1920 and 1921 unearthed a schist inscription dated to the year “359”. Heinrich Lüders, the renowned German Indologist and epigraphist, attributed this inscription to the Dharmaguptaka sect/school. Despite this early attribution, the Monastery’s precise sectarian characteristics have remained largely unexplored in later scholarship. This article reevaluates the site’s sectarian identity by employing a “ground-to-text” methodology that integrates archaeological evidence with textual analysis, with a particular focus on the Chinese translation of the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya. Through this comparative framework, this study seeks to elucidate the religious ideas reflected in the site’s material culture and their relationship with Dharmaguptaka disciplinary thought. The analysis encompasses the architectural remnants of the stūpa excavated by Cunningham and the “Fasting Buddha” statuary, now preserved in the National Museum of Pakistan, the British Museum, and other sites, situating these artifacts within the distinctive visual and contemplative traditions linked to the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya. By integrating architectural, sculptural, textual, and epigraphic materials, this article provides a nuanced understanding of sectarian developments at Jamāl Gaṛhī and argues that an explicit emphasis on the ‘Middle Way’ ideology constituted a defining feature of the Dharmaguptaka tradition during this period.

1. Introduction

In the 19th century, the British Army in India excavated several important Buddhist sites in the Gandhāra region.1 Among the most prominent figures involved in these efforts was Sir Alexander Cunningham (1814–1893), a Major General in the British Army, who led extensive archaeological investigations at monastic sites in both Gandhāra and Mathurā.2 At the site of Jamāl Gaṛhī, an ancient location situated in a rural area approximately 13 km from present-day Mardān in Pakistan,3 Cunningham uncovered the remains of a previously undocumented Buddhist monastery (Cunningham 1848, p. 104; 1875, p. 46). His findings were meticulously recorded in an archaeological report published in 1875, which included a detailed catalogue of the recovered artifacts.4

The newly established Frontier Circle of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) resumed excavations at Jamāl Gaṛhī between 1920 and 1921, producing a comprehensive report that documented an extensive inventory of the site’s material remains.5

1.1. The Jamāl Gaṛhī Monastery Site

The ancient ruins of the Jamāl Gaṛhī Monastery are located at the center of a triangular region formed by Swāt, Puruṣapura (present-day Peshawar), and Takṣaśilā (present-day Taxila) in the present-day Mardān District of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province, Pakistan. The surrounding landscape features hilly terrain to the northeast and plains to the south, reflecting the remote yet culturally rich areas of ancient Gandhāra.6

Importantly, Jamāl Gaṛhī is located near several other key historical sites, including Thareli (Sawal Dher), Sikri, Takht-i-Bāhī, and the hill that bears the Aśokan Shāhbāzgaṛhi Inscription, all of which were once flourishing centers of Buddhist activity.7 Scholars widely agree that the region now known as the Mardān Division was an integral part of the ancient Gandhāran network. This network served as a critical hub along international trade routes connecting India, Central Asia, and China, via Uḍḍiyāna and Peshawar, and extending to Chārsadda (historically Puṣkalāvatī).8 Moreover, it played a key role in facilitating the exchange of visual culture and artistic traditions across these regions.9

1.2. The Gandhāra Region’s Historical Buddhist Context as It Pertains to the Jamāl Gaṛhī Monastery Site

In 326 BCE, Alexander the Great (c. 331/323 BCE) conquered the region of Gandhāra,10 leaving behind Greek populations that influenced the local culture. By 321 BCE, the Mauryan dynasty, founded by Chandragupta Maurya (r. 324 to 300 BCE), assumed control of the region (Cribb 2017, pp. 3–27). Under King Aśoka (r. c. 273–232 BCE), Buddhism emerged as a dominant religion (Salomon 2018, pp. 1–24).

Scholars have cited that between the fourth century BCE and the seventh century CE, Gandhāra was governed by various rulers, including the Greeks, Indo-Greeks, Shakas, Parthians, Scythians, Kushans (c. 30–375 CE), Sasanians, Huns, and other political entities (Behrendt 2004, p. 23). These rulers introduced diverse religious traditions and artistic conventions (Behrendt 2007, pp. 3–5), fostering a convergence of Greek, Indian, and Persian cultures in which Buddhism, Brahmanism, and Zoroastrianism coexisted. These conditions allowed local Buddhism to absorb various influences (ibid., pp. 3–5), as evident in the stylistic diversity of Buddhist imagery at sites such as the Jamāl Gaṛhī Monastery.

Reconstructing the microhistory of the subregion surrounding the Jamāl Gaṛhī Monastery remains a tentative endeavor, as the correlation between ancient Chinese place names and modern geographical terminology remains a subject of debate. Nevertheless, several historical sources provide a valuable framework for such reconstruction. The strategic geographic position of the Mardān Division is highlighted in numerous historical accounts of ancient Gandhāra.

Notably, in his “Records of the Buddhist Kingdoms” (Foguo ji 佛國記), the renowned Eastern Jin (東晉, 317–420 CE) Chinese Buddhist monk and translator Faxian (法顯, 337–422 CE; traveled 398–412 CE) identified Gandhāra (揵[犍]陀衛國) as lying southeast of the ancient region of Udyāna/Uḍḍiyāna/Oḍḍiyāna (烏萇/長國) in northern India—corresponding to the present-day Swāt Valley. Faxian also recorded that King Aśoka’s second son, Kuṇāla (alias Dharmavivardhana), once served as governor of Gandhāra (是阿育王子法益所治處).11

The region was again visited during the Northern Wei period (北魏, 386–534 CE) by the monk Songyun (宋雲, d. u.), whose journey is recorded in the “Travelogue of Songyun” (宋雲行紀[記]).12 Later, during the Tang dynasty (唐, 618–907 CE), the eminent monk Xuanzang 玄奘 (596?–664 CE/fl. 603–664 CE)—who traveled from 629 to 645 CE—referred to the area as the “Gandhāra kingdom” (健馱邏國) in his “Record of the Western Regions of the Great Tang [Dynasty]” (Da Tang xiyu ji 大唐西域記).13

During Faxian’s visit in the late fourth–early fifth century, the Gupta Empire (3rd to mid–6th century CE) was in power in India, and the Buddhist community in Gandhāra flourished mainly under nikāya (i.e., sectarian monastic orders), with numerous stūpas14 and monasteries embellished with gold and silver, indicating robust patronage.15 By the time Songyun arrived in 520 CE, however, the region had come under the control of the Hephthalites (Greek: *Xίων “Hun”; Indic: Śveta Huṇa; Chinese: Yàndā 嚈噠),16 marking the onset of a period of decline in Buddhist institutional life. Monastic orders had weakened, and support for religious establishments had diminished.17 Gandhāra’s economy appears to have collapsed sometime in the late 5th century, coinciding with a Hun occupation of the region. Japanese historian and archaeologist Kuwayama Shōshin 桑山正進 (Kuwayama 2006, pp. 124–27) posits that this decline in patronage may have been linked to a shift in trade routes that favored Afghanistan, or to other, unidentified causes of economic disruption. Kurt Behrendt (2004, pp. 205–6; 2007, p. 4) similarly observes that the lack of patronage is especially evident in the archaeological materials, as construction activities at major Buddhist centers across Gandhāra came to a sudden halt, leaving many sacred areas unfinished. While the Huns may not have been solely responsible, their rule likely exacerbated Gandhāra’s economic decline.

By the time Xuanzang visited in the 7th century, Buddhism in Gandhāra had further deteriorated. Nevertheless, a vibrant monastic presence persisted, now centered on Mahāyāna teachings. Xuanzang noted the presence of multiple religious traditions and reported that some monasteries practiced both the “great vehicle” (Mahāyāna) and “little vehicle” (Nikāya) doctrines.18 Monastic scholars from the region continued to make significant contributions to Buddhist literature, producing a wealth of śāstras (scholastic treatises).

In summary, the Jamāl Gaṛhī Monastery endured for centuries amid the evolving sociopolitical and religious landscape of Gandhāra. The historical context outlined here provides a valuable framework for understanding the factors that may have influenced the Monastery’s architectural features and significantly aids in interpreting its material remains.

1.3. Objectives of the Study

The historic region of Gandhāra, renowned for its rich textual and visual legacy associated with Buddhism and the Silk Roads, has drawn sustained scholarly interest for over a century. Extensive research has explored Gandhāra’s Buddhist architecture, artistic traditions, structural remains, and its significant corpus of Gāndhārī Prākṛt manuscripts and translated Buddhist texts. One important example is the Jamāl Gaṛhī Monastery, which, despite being undocumented for many years, is now recognized as one of the earliest Buddhist sites in the region. In her 1987 doctoral dissertation, Elizabeth Errington reevaluated earlier archaeological findings on Jamāl Gaṛhī’s ancient site by Cunningham and the ASI. Her study offered a detailed examination of the site’s stūpa complex, inscriptional evidence, and the narrative themes depicted through Gandhāran stylistic conventions in Buddhist imagery (Errington 1987, 2022).

In more recent scholarship, the chronology and architectural characteristics of the Jamāl Gaṛhī Monastery site have been further investigated by Behrendt (2004)19 and Wannaporn Rienjang.20 Epigraphic data from the Monastery has also been analyzed and documented by scholars such as Stefan Baums and Andrew Glass.21

Nevertheless, despite extensive research in regional archaeology and textual studies as distinct disciplines, comprehensive analyses that integrate material records with textual sources remain largely insufficient.

This article addresses this gap by recontextualizing the material culture of the Jamāl Gaṛhī Monastery in light of the Chinese translation of the Dharmagupta-Vinaya and other related Buddhist texts. The article employs a “ground-to-text” methodology, comparing archaeological remains (ground) with textual evidence.

This approach reverses the “text-to-ground” methodology utilized by Cunningham, using material evidence to connect relevant historical Vinaya texts detailing Buddhist monastic regulations.

The analysis includes the renowned “Fasting Buddha” statue,22 discovered at the Jamāl Gaṛhī Monastery site, possibly by the ASI in the early 20th century, and currently housed in the National Museum of Pakistan. This statue is compared with a related “Fasting Buddha” relief panel, likely from the main stūpa of Jamāl Gaṛhī, excavated during Cunningham’s expedition in the late 19th century and now located in the British Museum. Additional examples of this “Fasting Buddha” iconographic type from sites such as Takht-i-Bāhī and Sikri are also examined in relation to pertinent textual sources.

The study connects these statues to contemplative practices described in the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya tradition, particularly as expressed in the Fo benxing ji jing 佛本行集經 (“Sūtra of the Collection of the Past Activities of the Buddha”; Skt. *Buddha-carita-saṃgrāha) and the Sidi lun 四諦論 (“Treatise on the Four Noble Truths”; Skt. *Catuḥsatya-śāstra, *Catuḥsatya-nirdeśa), preserved in Chinese. By juxtaposing textual and material evidence,23 this article explores the connections between the Jamāl Gaṛhī Monastery’s ideological orientation and its sectarian characteristics, thereby illuminating its broader historical and cultural significance in the context of South Asian Buddhism and along the Silk Roads.

2. The ‘Sectarian Affiliation’ and Chronology Reconstruction of the Jamāl Gaṛhī Monastery Based on Epigraphical Data

The Jamāl Gaṛhī Monastery, identified by Alexander Cunningham and the ASI, ranks among the earliest surviving Buddhist monasteries. During ASI excavations, a Kharoṣṭhī inscription was discovered on a black-greenish mica schist24 stone tile, referred to as the “Jamālgaṛhī Inscription of the [Yona] Year 359” (hereafter, the “Jamālgaṛhī Inscription”)25 (Figure 1).

The ASI reported that the inscribed stone was discovered “during the removal of debris in Courtyard 7”28 (Figure 2). Harold Hargreaves (1876–1951), who served as Director General of the ASI from 1928 to 1931, suggested that the Jamālgaṛhī Inscription was likely “one of the courses of a wall,” although its original site remained uncertain.29

Building on these early accounts, Errington (2022) produced a comprehensive site plan, combining the 1873 and 1923 plans with her own survey, detailing the Monastery’s structures and previously omitted buildings. She identified Room 16 (Figure 2), located adjacent to Courtyard 7, as the probable location where the Jamālgaṛhī Inscription was recovered. However, she also noted that the inscription may have originated from another part of the Monastery’s complex (Errington 2022, p. 9).

Following the excavations, Norwegian Indologist Sten Konow (1867–1948) deciphered the Jamālgaṛhī Inscription in 1929. The text reads as follows:

Text:
1	saṃ 1 1 1 100 20 20 10 4 4 1 Aśpaï [u] sa paḍhaṃmaṃmi ṣa-
	vaena Poda [ena sa] haehi pida [pu] [trehi*]
2	[U] ḍiliakehi i [ś] e rañe preṭhavide dhamaüte [oke] parigrahe sar-
	vasa [pana*]

Konow interpreted the inscription as follows:

Anno 359, on the first [day] of [the month]30 Āśvayuj, an asylum connected with religion was established in this grove by the śrāvaka Potaka, with (or, for) the Uḍḍiliaka companions, father and sons, in the acceptance of all beings.31

In 1940, German Indologist and epigraphist Heinrich Lüders (1869–1943) proposed a different interpretation:

In the year 359, on the first day of Aśvayuj, Podaa, together with his companions, fathers, and sons—the Uḍiliakas—constructed [this] for acceptance by the Dharmaguptakas in honor of all beings.

[Im Jahre 359, am ersten des Aśvayuj, hat Podaa zusammen mit seinen Genossen, Vätern und Söhnen, den Uḍiliakas, …… errichtet zur Entgegennahme durch die Dharmaguptīyas, zu Ehren aller Wesen.]

(Lüders 1940, p. 20)

Lüders diverged from Konow by interpreting the term “dhamaüte [oke]” in the inscription as “Dhamaüt[i]ana”, which corresponds to the Sanskrit “Dharmaguptīyānām,” denoting “the Dharmaguptaka school/sect” (Ch. Fazang bu 法藏部)32 ([Dhaṃmaguta + -ga-] {dʱəmːəgutːəjə} adj. [of a Buddhist school Dharmaguptaka]33).

Lüders’ interpretation confirmed the attribution of the inscription, demonstrating that the Dharmaguptakas had established monastic sites in northwestern India during the early centuries CE—despite earlier inscriptions attesting only to their presence in Mathurā. By the 7th century, according to the account of Xuanzang, the Dharmaguptakas were still present in Udyāna.34 This view is further supported by Shizutani Masao 静谷正雄 (cf. Shizutani 1974, pp. 87–92) and Meicun Lin 林梅村 (cf. Lin 1988, pp. 149–50).

Although Errington mistakenly credited Lüders’ discovery to Konow, the identification of the term “Dharmaguptakas” is solely attributable to Lüders. Nevertheless, Errington also confirms that the Monastery in question once belonged to the Dharmaguptaka school.

The Dharmagupta school or ‘sect,’ also known as the Dharmaguptaka (Skt: धर्मगुप्तक Dharmaguptaka; Pāli: Dhammaguttika), represents one of the early sects or branches of the Buddhist tradition.35 In this article, the term “sectarian identity” or “sectarian affiliation” refers to a community of Buddhist monks who collectively adhere to a common Vinaya tradition (see Wang 1989, pp. 66–71).

While previous studies have examined whether school affiliations (nikāyas) influence specific canonical textual traditions, the present research focuses on how sectarian affiliation affects broader institutional frameworks, ranging from monastic complexes and architectural layouts to aspects of Buddhist image iconography. Identifying the sectarian affiliation of a particular monastery or site is essential for understanding its historical and ideological characteristics. This inquiry serves as a key point of entry for analyzing both the physical features and the historical context of the Jamāl Gaṛhī Monastery.36

Scholars generally regard the Chinese translation of the Dīrghāgama (Ch. Chang Ahan jing 長阿含經, T. 1.1.1a–149c, c. 412–413 CE, commonly known as the Longer Āgama-sūtra), along with the *Dharmagupta-Vinaya (Ch. Sifen lü 四分律, T. 1428, c. 410–412 CE), or the ‘Four-Part Vinaya,’ as foundational texts attributed to the Dharmaguptakas (Heirman 2002a, pp. 396–99). Among these, the *Dharmagupta-Vinaya in particular37 was widely disseminated in China from the 5th century CE onward through translated scriptures,38 playing a crucial role in the Sinicization of Buddhism.39

Over the past century, numerous Buddhist sites along the ancient Silk Roads have been unearthed. Among these, artifacts associated with the Dharmaguptaka tradition—such as sūtra scrolls, inscriptions, statues, and stone reliefs—have attracted scholarly interest. Researchers have deciphered and translated some of these materials, shedding light on the Dharmaguptaka’s historical presence. According to Tsukamoto Keishō (塚本啓祥, 1929–2010), the main surviving inscriptions of the Dharmaguptaka are found at Haḍḍā and Kunduz in the north, Mathurā in central India, and the Kanheri Caves in the west (Tsukamoto 1996–1998, p. 1061).

In the 2nd–1st centuries BCE, the Dharmaguptaka were involved in constructing the Bharhut stūpa, where inscriptions documenting their donations appear on two stūpa railings (vedikā). Additional analyses and references related to these inscriptions have been cataloged by Baums and Glass (see Items: CKI 116; 117; 118; 119; 122; 123) in the Catalogue of Gāndhārī Inscriptions.40 Despite such findings, Shizutani (1974, p. 92) notes that Tsukamoto’s comprehensive 1996 study makes no mention of the Jamāl Gaṛhī Monastery or its associated stūpa-monastery complex. Moreover, no other scholars have systematically examined the Jamāl Gaṛhī site in relation to the Dharmaguptaka tradition.

The academic discussion concerning the date of the construction or expansion of the Jamāl Gaṛhī Monastery centers on the “Jamālgaṛhī Inscription,” which references the year “359.” Konow proposed that this date corresponds to August 24, 275 CE, a view supported by both Lin (1988, p. 150) and Chongfeng Li 李崇峰 (C. Li 2019, p. 330). Shizutani (1974, p. 90), by contrast, speculated that the inscription may be based on the Vikram Samvat calendar, which begins in 58 or 57 BCE, thus placing the event in 302 CE. Errington (2022, p. 7) offered a different interpretation, suggesting that the inscription follows a Greek chronological system and should be dated to around 179 CE. This Greek system is associated with the reign of Eucratides I (Εὐκρατίδης, fl. c. 205–145 BCE; r. 172/171–145 BCE), with Richard Salomon (2005, pp. 359–401, esp. p. 377) identifying 175 BCE as the baseline. If this Greek era is accepted, the inscription would correspond to approximately 184 CE.

According to Konow, during a visit to Jamāl Gaṛhī in early 1912, Sir Aurel Stein (1862–1943) discovered a Kharoṣṭhī inscription consisting of eleven characters—each approximately 2.5 inches (6.35 cm) in height—engraved on one of the slate slabs forming the pavement surrounding the main stūpa.41 This stūpa had previously been excavated under the supervision of Cunningham in 1873 (Figure 3; Cunningham 1873).42

The original report authored by Stein asserts the following:

The inscription […] shows plainly, characters of the Kushāṇa period [c. 30–c. 375 CE]. Its chronological interest is evident; for placed as it was and scratched into a stone of no great hardness, it could not have retained its legibility if it had lain exposed for a long series of years […] It seems, therefore, probable that the period when the Stūpa court was finally abandoned is not separated by a very great interval from the time when these characters were scratched in, perhaps by some pious visitor.44

After its discovery, the inscribed stone—now housed in the Peshawar Museum (inv. No. 01873)—was examined and revealed a votive inscription:

“*[B]u[dharakṣi]da[sa] ta(da)nam[ukhe],” translated as ‘The gift of Buddharakshita.’45 N. G. Majumdar (1897–1938) noted that the stone contained several holes, which he believed had been used “to hold offerings of coins.”46 This hypothesis was supported by the subsequent discovery of a copper coin of Vāsudeva I (Βαζοδηο, r. c. 190–230 CE), found in one of the holes of another pavement slab at Jamāl Gaṛhī.47

Further evidence of coin offerings at the site was provided by Hargreaves, who recorded the discovery of a copper coin of Kaniṣka I (r. c. 127–150 CE), two copper coins of Huviṣka (Bactrian: OOHϷΚΙ, r. c. 150–190 CE), and six silver coins attributed to the Hunnic ruler Kidara (r. c. 425–457 CE) during excavations in the 1920s.48 Charles Arthur Crompton (1873) also reported the discovery of silver coins likely belonging to Kidara (Errington 1987, Appendix 6, No. 448). According to Cunningham’s (1875, p. 194) account, special stone slabs with grooves were installed in the courtyard of the stūpa within the Jamāl Gaṛhī fortress, designed specifically to receive coins as votive offerings.

The range of coins unearthed at the Jamāl Gaṛhī Monastery spans the reigns of five Kushan rulers, reflecting the site’s prominence during the Kushan Empire’s most prosperous period. More recently, archaeological excavations carried out between 2012 and 2015, sponsored by the Japanese government and UNESCO, recovered additional coins from Huviṣka’s reign (c. 150–190 CE), with some specimens dating as early as 158 CE, roughly five to eight years after his coronation (Khan 2015).

These findings suggest that the Jamāl Gaṛhī Monastery was likely established in the 2nd century CE. The so-called “Jamālgaṛhī Inscription” (dated to [Yona] Year 359 = c. 179 CE), which documents the founding of an “asylum in possession of the Dharmaguptikas,” appears to coincide with the Monastery’s expansion under Huviṣka.49

Taken together, the archaeological and epigraphic evidence indicates that the monastery complex was both constructed and expanded during the 2nd century CE, with its monastic community likely remaining active at least into the 3rd century.50

3. The Architectural Remains of the Stūpa Courtyard at Jamāl Gaṛhī in Connection with Vinaya Literature

The Sifen lü 四分律 (T. 1428; Skt.*Dharmaguptaka-Vinaya, hereafter Sifen lü) was translated into Chinese around 410–412 CE by Buddhayaśas (Ch. Fotuoyeshe 佛陀耶舍, fl. c. early 5th century), a prolific translator of Buddhist texts and a Dharmaguptaka monk of Kashmiri (罽賓國) origin. Uniquely among ancient Vinayas, the Sifen lü includes specific provisions concerning stūpa construction. Although it was translated approximately a century after the completion of the Jamāl Gaṛhī Monastery, the architectural layout and structural features of the Monastery’s main stūpa courtyard51 exhibit striking similarities to the descriptions found in this text.

3.1. Stūpa Formation

The stūpa at the Jamāl Gaṛhī Monastery site differs significantly in form from the specifications found in the Mohesengqi lü 摩訶僧祇律 (T. 1425; Skt. Mahāsāṃghika-Vinaya, dated 416–418 CE, hereafter Mohesengqi lü), which explicitly prescribes a square foundation for stūpas:

As for the method of constructing a stūpa: railings [should] surround all four sides of the square foundation/platform. Two domes (*aṇḍa) [should] be constructed, one on top of the other (on the foundation). [Atop of them], a square tusk-like (construction; 方牙) (*harmikā) [should] protrude in the four directions. Canopies (槃蓋), long banners (長表), and discs (chattra; 輪相) [should] be attached atop.

作塔法者, 下基四方周匝欄楯, 圓起二重, 方牙四出, 上施槃蓋長表輪相.52

In contrast, the Sifen lü permits stūpas to be constructed in a variety of shapes—square, round, or octagonal—stating the following:

The Buddha says, ‘Construct it as square, round, or octagonal’

佛言: “四方作, 若圓, 若八角作”.53

The Vinaya of the Mahīśāsaka school/sect (彌沙塞部/化地部)—the Mishasai bu hexi wufen lü 彌沙塞部和醯五分律 (Skt. Mahīśāsaka-Vinaya; abbreviated as 彌沙塞部五分律 and 彌沙塞律, T. 1421, c. 423–424 CE54, hereafter Wufen lü), does not explicitly prescribe the form of the stūpa’s foundation or platform. However, it does include a verse—identical to one in the Sifen lü55—that extols the virtue of building a stūpa with a mere “ball of clay” (yi tuan ni 一摶/團泥) rather than gold.56 This imagery may suggest a stūpa of rounded form, due to the association of clay with malleable, circular shapes.57

The Shisong lü 十誦律 (“Ten Recitations Vinaya,” T. 1435, dated 404–409 CE; Skt. *Sarvāstivāda-Vinaya or *Daśādhyāya-Vinaya), translated by Puṇyatāra (Ch. Furuoduoluo 弗若多羅) and Kumārajīva (Ch. Jiumoluoshi 鳩摩羅什, c. 334–413 CE), includes further architectural references. It describes the construction of “arched niches” (龕塔, *stūpa-gṛha-pratisaṃyuktaṃ) and “pillar stūpas” (柱塔). It specifies that the stūpa’s body should be elevated with sculpted Buddha images. Such stūpas were also likely circular in design.58

Archaeological evidence from the Jamāl Gaṛhī Monastery supports the view that the square foundation of its main stūpa was a later addition to an originally circular base (Behrendt 2004, p. 199). Its initial design likely resembled that of early Indian stūpas at (a) Sāñchī, (b) Bhārhut, and (c) Dharmarājikā—structures characterized by a high drum and a hemispherical dome in the “inverted bowl” (覆鉢 fubo) style (Figure 4, Behrendt 2004, p. 236).

In subsequent periods, stūpa architecture in China evolved into more columnar forms, with foundations taking on square, octagonal, or cruciform shapes. These more evolved architectural forms align more closely with the rules outlined in the Mohesengqi lü (Mahāsāṃghika-Vinaya).

However, the construction of the main stūpa at the Jamāl Gaṛhī Monastery—especially in its earlier form—follows design principles and circular shapes more aligned with those found in the Chinese translations of the Vinayas associated with so-called “Mainstream” or “Nikāya Buddhism.” In particular, the Sifen lü (i.e., Dharmagupta-Vinaya) and Wufen lü (i.e., Mahīśāsaka-Vinaya) provide closer textual parallels to the Monastery’s architectural features (Figure 5).

3.2. Layout and Orientation of the Stūpa Courtyard

The architectural plan of the Jamāl Gaṛhī Monastery site (See above, Figure 2)60 suggests that its earliest buildings were organized along a central axis. These structures included the main stūpa, the Caitya-gṛha (Hall), the Monastery Hall, and the Cloister. The stūpa courtyard/complex was situated in the northeastern part of the overall layout, with the monastery gate oriented to face east. The main stūpa courtyard was connected to a large, enclosed courtyard, likely used for meetings, while the monks’ cells were located separately from the courtyard.

During the Tang dynasty, the eminent scholiast and Vinaya master Daoxuan 道宣 (fl. 596–667 CE) emphasized that Buddhist monasteries should adhere to principles outlined in the Vinayas. In 667 CE, Daoxuan documented these principles in his “Illustrated Scripture on the Ordination Platforms Established in Guanzhong” (Guanzhong chuangli jietan tujing 關中創立戒壇圖經), where he outlined guidelines for monastery construction as follows:

Vinaya and sāstra texts distinguish between ‘flat bounded areas’ “chang 場” and ‘raised platforms’ “tan 壇”. Unsurprisingly, all the countries of the Western kingdoms (西天諸國, i.e., India) have established separate rituals, whereas here (the Chinese) have never done so. [……] The name “raised platform” (壇; i.e., ‘altar’) was established during the Buddha’s time! 律論所顯, “場”, “壇” 兩別, 西天諸國皆立別儀, 此土中原素未行事, 不足怪也. [……] “壇” 之立名在佛世矣!61

The layout and orientation of the stūpa are explicitly discussed in the Mohesengqi lü (Mahāsāṃghika-Vinaya), which was translated into Chinese during the Eastern Jin dynasty by Buddhabhadra 佛陀跋陀羅 (359–429 CE) and Faxian. This text states:

Concerning matters of stūpas (塔事; stūpavastupratisaṃ-yuktaṃ): When a saṃghārāma (monastery) is built, one should choose (lit. “plan”) a suitable place, in advance, for the stūpa. The stūpa should not be located to the south or west (of the monastery). It should be located to the east, (or) located to the north. The area of the (monastic Community) is not allowed to transgress the area of the Buddha (i.e., stūpa). The area of the Buddha (i.e., stūpa) is not allowed to transgress the area of the Community. If the stūpa is located near a cemetery and if dogs, which feed on leftovers, bring them and dirty the area, fences should be made. Cells of monks should be built to the west or south of (the stūpa). Used water of the area of the Community should not flow into the area of the Buddha (i.e., stūpa). Used water from the area of the Buddha (i.e., stūpa) is allowed to flow into the area of the Community. The stūpa should be built on a high place and at a vantage point.

塔事者, 起僧伽藍時, 先預度好地, 作塔處. 塔不得在南, 不得在西, 應在東, 應在北, 不得僧地侵佛地. 佛地不得侵僧地. 若塔近死屍林, 若狗食殘持來污地, 應作垣牆. 應在西若南作僧坊, 不得使僧地水流入佛地, 佛地水流入僧地. 塔應在高顯處作.62

Chinese scholar Zhan Ru (湛如) observes the following:

The Mohesengqi lü reflects the Mahāsāṃghika school’s (Ch. Dazhong bu 大衆部) strong emphasis on the spatial positioning of stūpas. Whenever a monastic community constructs a new monastery, it is required to reserve the most desirable plot of land specifically for the stūpa courtyard, which should be situated in the northern and eastern sections of the site. The term ‘stūpa courtyard’ indicates not only the prominence of the stūpa’s location within the monastery but also its architectural separation as a dedicated space. The Mohesengqi lü further stipulates that the grounds of the stūpa must not overlap with the monks’ residential quarters, and that the stūpa should be enclosed by a wall or fence to protect it from contact with impure objects.

(Ru 2006, p. 212)

The architectural layout of the Jamāl Gaṛhī Monastery closely follows these prescriptions. Its stūpa courtyard is located at the northernmost and highest point of the complex, with the Caitya-gṛha (Hall No. 2) and the Cloister (No. 3) arranged below it.

In contrast, Cunningham’s (1875, pp. 26–30) report draws attention to key differences at the nearby Buddhist monastery of Takht-i-Bāhī, built around the same period. Unlike Jamāl Gaṛhī, Takht-i-Bāhī features a stūpa courtyard oriented to the south—an arrangement that directly contradicts the spatial regulations set forth in the Mohesengqi lü.63

Furthermore, an inscription found on a black earthenware jar excavated from the Takht-i-Bāhī site confirms that this monastery belonged to the Kāśyapīya school (Ch. Yinguang bu 飲光部). Thus, this difference in the orientation and integration of the stūpa courtyard may reflect doctrinal or disciplinary distinctions between the Buddhist schools or sects (Tsukamoto 1996–1998, p. 1061). Monika Zin (2022) has noted that variations in monastery layouts often arise from the differing attitudes of coexisting schools within a given region. Similar phenomena are observable in the southern Indian regions of modern Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, where numerous schools were established concurrently.

In his Guanzhong chuangli jietan tujing (關中創立戒壇圖經), Daoxuan notes that the monastic community built monasteries by adhering to principles found in both the Vinaya-piṭakas and Sūtra-piṭakas. He also suggests that canonical texts such as the Āgamas (or Nikāyas), scriptural collections respected across sects,64 may have served as common reference points for each school’s records on monastery construction.65

It is also plausible that a wider corpus of canonical texts or Tripiṭaka materials from various Buddhist traditions was accessible in Gāndhāra during this period. As Gāndhārī emerged as the lingua franca for the region’s diverse populations, it also became the scriptural language for many flourishing Buddhist institutions and the medium for translating their manuscripts (Salomon 1990; 2018, pp. 57–58).

Japanese Buddhist scholar Karashima Seishi 辛嶋静志 (1957–2019) (Karashima 1992) notes that early Mahāyāna Buddhist texts were transmitted orally, not in an ‘ecclesiastical language’ like Sanskrit, but in local vernacular Prākrits66—among them Gāndhārī, a Middle Indo-Aryan language spoken across northern and central India.67 Furthermore, the formation and transmission of early Buddhist canonical texts exhibit significant variation, reflecting a gradual and evolutionary process (Karashima 2006; Salomon 2017, p. 242).

Traditional studies of the Vinaya have often regarded rules common to all Vinaya schools as the most ancient. However, scholars such as Shizuki Sasaki佐佐木闲 and Wei Li 李薇 (W. Li 2019, pp. 308–309) argue that this perspective is overly reductive and that additional supporting evidence must be examined.

Archaeological findings suggest that the earliest excavated stūpas, such as those at (a) Sāñchī, (b) Bhārhut, and (c) Dharmarājikā, are primarily oriented toward the north and east of their respective sites.68 Scholars have noted that early Indian religious texts—including the Manusmṛti (Mānava-Dharmaśāstra), the Bṛhat Saṃhitā, and the epics Rāmāyaṇa and Mahābhārata—associate spatial orientation with caste hierarchy. In these traditions, the northern direction is often linked to notions of superiority (Chi 2018, pp. 66–78).

Chinese monks recorded similar traditions during their travels in India. For instance, Daoxuan, in his earliest and most comprehensive work on the Dharmaguptaka-Vinaya, titled Sifen lü shanfan buque xingshi chao (四分律刪繁補闕行事鈔, “A Commentary on Conduct and Procedure: Abridgments and Emendations to the Four-part Vinaya”), provides further insights:

The Mahāsāṃghika-Vinaya says: Concerning matters of stūpas (塔事; stūpavastupratisaṃ-yuktaṃ): When a saṃghārāma (monastery) is built, one should choose (lit. “plan”) a suitable place for a stūpa. A stūpa should not be located to the south or west (of the monastery). It should be located to the east, (or) north. (In “the middle country” [中國, madhyadeśa, i.e., ‘central north India’],69 monastery entrances typically face east, so stūpas and monastery buildings are oriented accordingly. Even kitchens and toilets are in the southwest due to the prevalence of northeasterly winds there.70 In the ‘divine continent/holy land’ [神州; i.e., China], the west is considered the primary direction [正陽],71 so [monastery and stūpa constructions] do not need to follow Indian customs).

《僧祇》: 塔事者. 起僧伽藍時, 先規度好地, 作塔處. 其塔不得在南, 在西. 應在東, 在北 (中國伽藍門皆東向故. 佛塔廟宇皆向東開. 乃至厨廁亦在西南. 由彼國東北風多故. 神州尚西爲正陽. 不必依中土法也).72

Daoxuan believed that the provisions in the Vinaya-piṭaka were influenced by local conditions and climate and could thus be adapted according to variations in location.

Although the guidelines for selecting a site to build a stūpa are only documented in the Chinese translation of the Mahāsāṃghika-Vinaya, evidence from ancient stūpa remains and related texts suggests that these provisions reflect relatively older traditions preserved by the Mahāsāṃghika school. It is also possible that similar provisions existed in the Vinayas of other sects at the time, contributing to their widespread use in stūpa construction. Alternatively, such provisions may have been omitted or altered during localization to accommodate sectarian differences, local customs, or climatic and geographical conditions.

Zhan Ru highlights that among all extant Vinaya-piṭaka texts, only the Mahīśāsaka-Vinaya (五分律) and the Dharmaguptaka-Vinaya (四分律) emphasize the concept of “offering to the Buddha within the Saṅgha.” However, the Dharmaguptaka school (法藏部) teaches that offerings made directly to the Buddha yield greater merit than those made to the Saṅgha, and offerings to a Buddha’s stūpa generate even greater merit still (Ru 2000, pp. 81–82).

In the first century CE, the arrangement of stūpa courtyards in the Dharmaguptaka’s Vinaya-piṭaka, written in the Gāndhārī language, may have shared significant similarities with the Mahāsāṃghika-Vinaya.

In the important historiographical text that records the Sarvāstivāda account of the evolution of the various schools (nikāya) that arose in the mainstream Buddhist community in the years after the Buddha’s death in ancient India, the Samayabhedoparacanacakra (Ch. Yibu zonglun lun 異部宗輪論 “The Cycle of the Formation of the Schismatic Doctrines” T. 2031), translated by Xuanzang (in c. 622 CE), it states the following:

Doctrines of the Dharmaguptakas:

The propositions originally held in common by the Dharmaguptakas are: (1) Although the Buddha is included in the Saṅgha, giving separate gifts to the Buddha procures great fruition (merit), but giving to the Saṅgha [does not]. The act of making offerings to a stūpa procures great merit; (2) The deliverance obtained by the Buddha [vehicle] and that obtained by the [other] two vehicles is the same, but the noble paths [of each vehicle] are different; (3) Heretics cannot obtain the five supernatural powers; (4) The whole body of the arhat is pure (anāsrava 無漏). Most of the other teachings [of this school] are the same as those of the Mahāsāṃghikas (大眾部).

其法藏部本宗同義. 謂佛雖在僧中所攝, 然別施佛果大, 非僧. 於窣堵波興供養業獲廣大果. 佛與二乘解脱雖一, 而聖道異. 無諸外道能得五通. 阿羅漢身皆是無漏. 余義多同大眾部執.73

This record highlights why the Dharmaguptakas placed great importance on the sanctification of stūpas and their historical connection with the Mahāsāṃghikas.

As previously mentioned, the exact placement of the stūpa courtyard is not explicitly defined in the Sifen lü (Dharmagupta-Vinaya). However, modern scholars have proposed that various clues point to the possible existence of a Gāndhārī Tripiṭaka. Based on this premise, it is plausible that the Jamāl Gaṛhī Monastery’s main stūpa was constructed by the Dharmaguptakas in adherence to a version of the Vinaya that included these specific provisions at the time.

4. Ideas Embodied in the Iconography of the “Fasting Buddha” Images

Buddhist art historian Juhyung Rhi (2008b, pp. 125–54) argues that variations in ascetic narratives and their visual representations in Gandhāran art largely reflect the distinct historical contexts in which the associated texts and images were produced. In a separate study, Rhi (2008a) classifies Gandhāran Buddha images into five types, attributing their stylistic differences not only to chronological shifts in production but also to the existence of independent workshop clusters in the northwestern Peshawar Valley. Based on Rhi’s analysis, it is reasonable to conclude that the unique visual representations of the “Fasting Buddha” in Gandhāra were shaped by localized artistic and period-specific aesthetics. However, additional factors may also account for the conceptual and ideological distinctions these images convey.

One particularly striking example is the “Fasting Siddhārtha (Buddha)” from Takht-i-Bāhī (Figure 6). Although partially damaged, the sculpture conveys a haunting image of ascetic devotion with remarkable clarity. The gaunt face resembles a skull, featuring sunken eyes and sharply defined cheekbones, projecting a sense of bodily collapse and spiritual intensity.

Similarly, the “Fasting Buddha” from Sikri (Figure 7) transforms the human form into a near-sacrificial icon: the facial features are stretched thin across the bones, reinforcing a visual language of spiritual detachment and physical suffering. The torso is rendered with extreme anatomical precision—ribs protrude like blades, the spine forms a knotted ridge beneath the skin, and the abdomen caves into hollow recesses. The arms hang like withered branches, and enlarged joints further exaggerate the sense of bodily deterioration.

In contrast, the “Fasting Buddha” image excavated from Jamāl Gaṛhī (Figure 8) showcases a vigorous, muscular figure that stands in stark contrast to the emaciated depictions found at Takht-i-Bāhī and Sikri. If stylistic differences alone had been responsible for this variation, it would have been entirely feasible for the Jamāl Gaṛhī monastic community to commission sculptures from the same workshops that were active at Takht-i-Bāhī. In fact, statues at Jamāl Gaṛhī dating to the same period suggest shared workshop affiliations, indicating that the iconographic divergence likely arises from differing ideological orientations rather than access to artisanship.

In his textual analysis, Rhi (2008b) categorizes early Buddhist texts on the Buddha’s asceticism into three main groups:

Group A includes the Sifenlü (四分律) and Fo benxing ji jing (佛本行集經, T. 0190), among others.

Group B comprises the Majjhima-nikāya and Zengyi ahan jing (增一阿含經, T. 0125, Ekottarika-āgama).

Group C contains texts such as the Xiuxing benqi jing (修行本起經, T. 0184), Taizi ruiying benqi jing (太子瑞應本起經, T. 0185), and Puyao jing (普曜經, T. 0186, Lalitavistara Sūtra).

According to Rhi, the majority of Gandhāran visual depictions of the “Fasting Buddha” correspond to Group C—texts that represent the earliest extant Chinese translations but lack detailed critique or discussion of ascetic practices.

The “Fasting Buddha” from Jamāl Gaṛhī—now preserved in the National Museum of Pakistan—embodies an alternative vision of asceticism: one that rejects glorified emaciation in favor of vitality and inner strength. This aesthetic seems to reflect a fundamentally different understanding of bodily discipline and spiritual cultivation, aligning more closely with the texts in Group A as identified by Rhi. It strengthens the case that the Dharmaguptaka tradition influenced this Monastery’s artistic and ideological framework.

Additional iconographic and textual evidence reinforces this connection. The Dharmaguptaka-Vinaya (四分律), in its first skandhaka (犍度) on monastic ordination (受戒), contains a passage describing the Buddha entering the first dhyāna (初禪) during his ascetic practices, emphasizing meditative attainment rather than bodily mortification.74

Then the Bodhisattva recalled, “Long ago, when I was sitting under a jambu tree by a field belonging to my father the king, I eliminated the desire for sensual pleasure, as well as all other evil and unwholesome states; with applied thought, reflection, joy, happiness, and one-pointedness of mind, I attained mastery of the first dhyāna.”

The Bodhisattva then contemplated, “Could this path bring an end to the origins of suffering?” It occurred to him, “Indeed, this path will bring an end to the origins of suffering.” Thereupon, motivated by this realization, the Bodhisattva undertook cultivation with great effort. Through this path, he brought an end to the origins of suffering.

Then the Bodhisattva wondered, “Is it possible to attain happiness through desire or unwholesome states?” It occurred to him, “No, it is not possible to attain happiness through desire or unwholesome states.”

He further considered, “Is it possible to attain happiness by cultivating desirelessness and abandoning unwholesome states?”

It occurred to him, “Whether or not that is possible, I will not obtain happiness through mortification of my body. I shall eat a little rice porridge to regain my strength.”

爾時菩薩自念: “昔在父王田上坐閻浮樹下, 除去欲心惡不善法, 有覺有觀喜樂一心, 遊戲初禪.”

時菩薩復作是念: “頗有如此道可從得盡苦原耶?” 復作是念: “如此道能盡苦原.” 時菩薩即以精進力修習此智, 從此道得盡苦原.

時菩薩復作是念: “頗因欲不善法得樂法不？” 復作是念: “不由欲不善法得樂法.”

復作是念: “頗有習無欲捨不善法得樂法耶？然我不由此自苦身得樂法, 我今寧可食少飯麨得充氣力耶?”75

A further example appears in a relief panel reportedly unearthed at Jamāl Gaṛhī and now preserved in the British Museum (Figure 9).76 It depicts an emaciated Bodhisattva (Fasting Buddha) flanked by celestial beings and worshippers, visually echoing the passage from the Dharmaguptaka-Vinaya. This scene offers a narrative counterpart to the textual emphasis on meditation, illustrating the Buddha’s path to enlightenment through both physical imagery and symbolic context.

As described in the British Museum’s catalogue:

The Bodhisattva’s damaged forearms originally met in dhyāna; he is naked to the waist where a twisted roll of textile forms a girdle…His head, unevenly sliced at right angles to the slab, is bearded on one side along the jaw to the chin and still has one deep-set eye, a prominent cheek-bone and horizontal mouth below a moustache…The flat-shouldered torso is ribbed, the top of the rib cage plunging in a deep ‘V’ below the protruding vertebrae. Nippled breasts project slightly, and the waist is indrawn at the navel. The posture is dramatically straight and still, the arms bony. The face of the grass-covered rectangular seat has triangular panels each containing a large, roughly triangular indentation.77

This image of the frail, skeletal Buddha, surrounded by divine figures, illustrates the physical manifestation of the narrative of the Buddha’s path to enlightenment and its spiritual lessons—i.e., the ‘Middle Way’ (中道). This sculpture conveys this concept not through a depiction of the Buddha but through the surrounding narrative scene.

The image also notably aligns with the description found in the Chinese translation of the Buddha’s biography, the Fo benxing ji jing 佛本行集經 (T. 3, No. 190, translated by Jñānagupta 闍那崛多 in 591 CE) in the chapter (品) ‘On Diligence and Ascetic Practices’ (精進苦行品):

At that time, Sujātā having heard these words, took a vessel from the Bodhisattva’s hand. She entered her house and filled it with fragrant, delicious, sweet food and drinks, along with various cakes, fruits, and stews. The vessel overflowed, and she then knelt before the Bodhisattva, offering it to him.

……

At that time, the Bodhisattva saw that the brāhmaṇa Deva had developed a heart inclined toward him and was filled with joy. He then said to Deva the brāhmaṇa:

“Great Brāhmaṇa! Could you provide me with a small amount of food so that I may sustain my life? Even just a little broth made from lentil beans, soybeans, kidney beans, red beans, or the like—if I eat it, I can maintain my life.”

The brāhmaṇa, being narrow-minded, petty in thought, with limited understanding and no expansive vision, nonetheless wished to practice almsgiving. He accepted this request and replied to the Bodhisattva:

“Great noble prince! I can indeed provide such food.” Thus, for six years, the brāhmaṇa provided the Bodhisattva daily with the aforementioned food. The Bodhisattva accepted it each day, consuming it in accordance with the teachings of the Dharma to sustain his life. During that time, the Bodhisattva would receive the food with his bare hands, taking only a small portion daily—be it a soup of mung beans or red beans, just enough to preserve life.

As a result of this meager sustenance, the Bodhisattva’s body grew emaciated, his breathing became faint, and he appeared as frail as an aged man of eighty or ninety, utterly without strength, his limbs failing to respond. Likewise, his joints and bones became rigid and brittle.

By thus reducing his intake of food and drink, and practicing intense asceticism, the Bodhisattva’s skin grew deeply wrinkled. Like a bitter gourd not yet fully ripe, severed from its stem and left in the sun to wither yellow under the heat—its flesh parched, its skin wrinkled, flaking off in patches like dried bone—so too was the Bodhisattva’s skull, appearing no different.

Due to his meager intake, the Bodhisattva’s two eyes had sunken deep into their sockets, like water at the bottom of a well from which stars might be seen reflected. Thus, his eyes barely appeared visible.

Again, due to eating so little, the Bodhisattva’s ribs protruded widely apart, covered only by skin, resembling the exposed rafters of a cowshed or a goat shed.

時善生女聞是語已, 從菩薩手而取瓦器, 入自家中, 滿盛香美甘味飲食, 并及種種餅果羹臛, 溢瓦器中, 即出胡跪, 奉授菩薩.

……

爾時, 菩薩見彼提婆婆羅門, 心向於菩薩, 生歡喜已, 即告提婆婆羅門言: “大婆羅門!汝能爲我辦少許食, 活我已不? 若小豆臛, 大豆, 菉豆, 赤豆等羹, 而我食之, 持用活命.” 彼婆羅門, 心狹劣故, 少見少知, 無廣大意, 欲行布施, 述可此語, 報菩薩言: “大聖太子! 如是之食, 我能辦之.” 彼婆羅門, 於六年中, 日別如上所須之食, 以供菩薩. 菩薩日日受取此食, 依法而食, 以活身命. 爾時菩薩, 但以手掌日別從受, 隨得少許而食活命, 或小豆臛及赤豆等. 是時菩薩, 受食既少, 隨掌所容, 如上所説, 諸豆汁食, 菩薩如是食彼食已, 身體羸瘦, 喘息甚弱, 如八九十衰朽老公, 全無氣力, 手脚不隨. 如是如是, 菩薩支節連骸亦然. 菩薩如斯減少食飲, 精勤苦行, 身體皮膚, 皆悉皺. 譬如苦瓠, 未好成熟, 割斷其蔕, 置於日中, 被炙萎黃, 其色以熟, 肌枯皮皺, 片片自離, 如枯頭骨. 如是如是, 菩薩髑髏, 猶是無異. 菩薩既以少進食故, 其兩眼睛深遠陷入, 猶井底水, 望見星宿. 如是如是, 菩薩兩眼, 覩之纔現, 亦復如是. 又復菩薩以少食故, 其兩脅肋, 離離相遠, 唯有皮裹, 譬如牛舍, 或復羊舍, 上著椽木.78

Both the composition of the image (Figure 9) and its narrative structure employ the visual motif of bodily emaciation to convey the Bodhisattva’s (i.e., the Fasting Buddha) renunciation of worldly desires. Surrounded by celestial attendants and donors, the relief panel combines various episodes from the Buddhist sūtras into a cohesive, unified scene79—a technique of visual narration frequently found in Gandhāran reliefs.

To the right stands a bearded, hirsute, and gaunt-faced Vajrapāṇi, holding a vajra shaped like a long baton resting against his right shoulder. Just above and beside him, rendered in higher relief, is a full-faced woman, likely Sujātā. She wears a long tunic that reaches her feet and a heavy overgarment draped over her left shoulder. Her sleeves appear thickly woven, and her hands are joined, possibly holding a floral offering or garland. Her right leg is slightly bent, as though she is preparing to kneel. She wears hoop earrings and a necklace, and her hair is coiled into a wreath-like shape at the back of her head. Opposite Sujātā is a standing male figure resembling Vajrapāṇi, shown turning sideways. He wears Indra’s headdress with its cylindrical crown, along with earrings, a necklace, and an uttarīya. He holds a pair of flowers in both hands. Next to him, another male figure also wears a sleeved tunic and an uttarīya, along with earrings and a necklace, and joins his hands in a gesture of offering, likely representing the brāhmaṇa.80

Together, these figures frame the emaciated Bodhisattva, reinforcing the narrative message: that spiritual realization is achieved through disciplined renunciation, not mere physical suffering.

As Rhi (2008b) observes, the Chinese translation of the Fo benxing ji jing—affiliated with the Dharmaguptaka tradition and rendered into Chinese during the Sui dynasty (隋, 581–618 CE)—illustrates the Bodhisattva’s continued consumption of food at various stages: prior to undertaking austerities, during the ascetic practices themselves, after renouncing them, and before advancing toward the bodhi tree. This narrative presentation suggests that the contrasting representations at Jamāl Gaṛhī, in comparison to other regional sites, may reflect sectarian differences in perspectives regarding asceticism and the ideal of the Middle Way, rather than merely reflecting stages in textual development.

Although the texts categorized in Group C were translated earlier, their chronological precedence does not inherently imply that the practices they describe developed before those found in the Majjhima-nikāya, Āgama texts, or various Vinaya traditions. Rather, the classification and doctrinal positions regarding austerity may correspond with the viewpoints of different sectarian lineages. Considering this, it is reasonable to posit that the Dharmaguptaka tradition was more closely aligned with emphasizing the ‘Middle Way’ and opposing extreme asceticism, a trait evident in the imagery from Jamāl Gaṛhī.

Behrendt (2010) has observed that texts associated with the Dharmaguptaka and Sarvāstivādins, early Nikāya Buddhist schools in Gandhāra, articulate various regulations concerning “forest practices” (i.e., Buddhist adherents who advocated a much more extreme path of austerity than those living in the monasteries attached to sacred areas), particularly in the discourse between the Buddha and the five monks, former ascetics, whom the Buddha converted at Sārnāth. Furthermore, various biographical texts recount Shakyamuni’s six-year fast and its eventual failure. These texts suggest that the ‘Middle Way’ or ‘path,’ rather than extreme renunciation, is the pathway to enlightenment. Consequently, it may be inferred that the monks at the Jamāl Gaṛhī Monastery requested artisans to render ascetic images in this manner to convey the ideology of the ‘Middle Way.’ Additionally, the concept of ‘escaping suffering and attaining bliss’ embodies the nascent stages of the tathāgatagarbha (‘Buddha-nature’ 如來藏) doctrine and is intricately connected with Mahāyāna philosophy.

In the Dharmaguptaka-Vinaya, on rules regarding ordination, the text employs the story of the Buddha’s expounding of the Dharma at the Deer Park (Mṛgadāva 鹿野苑) to elucidate the Four Noble Truths. However, before discussing the Four Noble Truths, the text places particular emphasis on the concept of the Middle Way (中道), stating the following:

…A bhikṣu who has eliminated the two extremes [of reality] (除此二邊已) can attain the Middle Way (更有中道), wherein the eyes are illuminated (眼明), wisdom is clarified (智明), and there is eternal tranquility and cessation (永寂休息). Such a one achieves supernatural abilities (成神通), perfect enlightenment (得等覺), and the conduct of a śramaṇa leading to nirvāṇa (成沙門涅槃行).

……比丘除此二邊已, 更有中道, 眼明智明永寂休息, 成神通得等覺, 成沙門涅槃行.81

It further explains:

What is called ‘the Middle Way’? (云何名中道) ‘The Middle Way’ is characterized by the following: Eyes illuminated (眼明), cognition supranormal (智明), permanent cessation (永寂休息), achieving supernatural abilities (成神通), perfect enlightenment (得等覺), and the śramaṇa’s conduct toward nirvāṇa (成沙門涅槃行).

This is the Noble Eightfold Path (賢聖八正道 āryāṣṭāṅga-mārga):

Right View (正見, samyag-dṛṣṭi, correct understanding),

Right Action (正業, samyak-karmānta, the righteous behavior of post-learners),

Right Speech (正語, samyag-vāc, correct articulation),

Right Practice/Intention (正行, samyak-saṃkalpa? proper engagement),

Right Livelihood (正命, samyag-ājīva, virtuous means of subsistence),

Right Skillful Means (正方便, samyag-vyāyāma appropriate techniques),

Right Mindfulness (正念, samyak-smṛti, attentive awareness),

Right Concentration (正定, samyak-samādhi, accurate focus and determination).

This is called the Middle Way (是謂中道).

云何名中道? 眼明智明永寂休息, 成神通得等覺, 成沙門涅槃行, 此賢聖八正道: 正見, 正業, 正語, 正行, 正命, 正方便, 正念, 正定, 是謂中道.82

These passages correspond closely to the iconography of the Fasting Buddha image discovered at the Jamāl Gaṛhī Monastery site—particularly the example now housed in the National Museum of Pakistan (Figure 8). As stated, this sculpture portrays a robust physique and a spirited expression, visually reinforcing the idea that through the cultivation of sublime conduct (brahmacaryā; 梵行), one can exhaust the root of suffering (修梵行盡苦源) and thereby “delight in my teachings” (於我法中快自娛樂).83

Based on Cunningham’s survey records, the foundation of the great stūpa at Jamāl Gaṛhī originally featured high-relief stucco statues of the Buddha, surrounded by niches on all sides.

Cunningham (1875, p. 47) states:

The chapels, which formed the enclosure, stood on a continuous basement like that of the stupa [sic] itself. This was divided into straight faces of unequal length, according to the size of the chapels above them. Some of these faces were covered with plain stucco; but most of them were ornamented with seated figures of Buddha, alternately Ascetic and Teacher, and smaller standing figures of Buddha between them.

Cunningham’s description reveals that the Buddha statues within the niches of the stūpa courtyard were systematically arranged to depict the Buddha in various states and postures. These included dhyāna meditation (禪定), ascetic practice (religious austerity, 苦行), preaching (説法), and standing. Additionally, one statue depicted the Buddha walking, with his right leg slightly bent forward, his left hand holding the corner of his robe, and his right hand raised in the “no-fear” gesture (施無畏印, abhaya mudrā). These representations evoke the image of a śramaṇa engaged in “transforming meritorious deeds into supreme enlightenment,” ultimately culminating in supreme enlightenment (nirvāṇa).

This combination of Buddha iconography most likely represents the practice of ‘contemplation of the Four Noble Truths’ (Skt. Caturāryasatya/caturāryasatyāni; Ch. Si shengdi guan 四聖諦觀). According to traditional Śrāvakayāna (聲聞) teachings, if one can perceive the Four Noble Truths without uncertainty, they will eliminate all afflictions that hinder a clear understanding of the conditions of ‘arising and ceasing,’ thereby achieving the “path of liberation” (vimukti-mārga).

In the chapter on “Critical Analysis/Reflection” (思擇) of the ‘Treatise on the Four Truths’ (Ch. Sidi lun 四諦論; Skt. *Catuḥsatya-śāstra, *Catuḥsatya-nirdeśa) by Vasuvarman (婆藪跋摩, d. u.), translated by Paramārtha (真諦) during the Chen dynasty (陳, c. 557–569 CE), the text discusses how the Four Noble Truths can be cognized. It specifically notes that the Vibhajyavādas (分別説部) believed this practice could be used to cultivate the ‘meditation on non-wishing’ or ‘the gate of liberation through wishlessness’ (無願解脱門), the second of the ‘three gates of liberation’ (三解脱門).

This state of samādhi is characterized by the absence of any desires, even the desire for liberation, which leads to nirvāṇa:

The “Four Contemplations” (四相, i.e., ‘the four contemplations of the truth of suffering’) are distinct. How can they be meditated upon and realized simultaneously? The answer is through the process of “meditative imagination” (想). As the sūtras explain: “By cultivating (修習) the ‘mental image/conception of impermanence’ (無常想), one eradicates all forms of desire.” This conceived (想) “confirmatory vision” (境界) is, namely, “the truth of ‘suffering’” (苦諦 duḥkha). All forms of desire correspond to “the truth of ‘the arising’ of suffering” (集諦 samudaya). The act of eradicating (desire) represents “the truth of the ‘cessation’ of suffering” (滅諦 nirodha). Lastly, the “conception of impermanence” (無常想) aligns with “the truth of ‘the path to liberation’” (道諦 mārga)—the way to liberation. For this reason, although the “Four Truths” (四諦) are distinct, they can be realized simultaneously (一時得見).

Furthermore, through critical analysis/reflection (思擇), the process is clarified. As the sūtras state: “Because of the conception/‘mental image’ of impermanence and other contemplations (因無常等想), one carefully reflects on the five aggregates (五陰, pañca-skandha), and thus desire (貪愛) that has not yet arisen will not arise (未生不得生), and desire that has already arisen will cease (已生則滅).” Among these, ‘the five aggregates’ (五陰) represent ‘the truth of suffering’ (苦諦); ‘desire’ corresponds to ‘the truth of the arising of suffering’ (集諦); their ‘non-arising and cessation’ (不生及滅) represent ‘the truth of the cessation of suffering’ (滅諦); and the ‘conception of impermanence’ along with ‘critical reflection’ aligns with ‘the truth of the path’—the path to liberation (道諦). For this reason, one can realize the “Four Noble Truths” (四諦) simultaneously.

Moreover, by contemplating transgressions or flaws (由觀失故), the process becomes clearer. As the sūtras state: “In contemplating the basis of the tangling (afflictions), which lead to transgressions (觀結處過失), desire ceases.” The basis of these afflictions (結處) corresponds to ‘the truth of suffering’ (即苦諦); desire (貪愛) aligns with ‘the truth of the arising of suffering’ (即集諦); cessation (滅) represents ‘the truth of the cessation of suffering’ (即滅諦); and the contemplation of these faults or flaws (過失觀) aligns with ‘the truth of the path’ (道諦). For this reason, one can clearly perceive and attain “the Four Noble Truths.”

四相不同, 云何一時而得並觀者? 答: 由想故, 經中説: “修習無常想, 拔除一切貪愛.”是想境界, 即是苦諦; 一切貪愛, 即是集諦; 拔除, 即是滅諦; 無常想, 即是道諦; 以是義故, 雖四不同, 一時得見. 復次, 由思擇故, 如經言: “因無常等想, 思擇五陰, 貪愛, 未生不得生, 已生則滅.” 此中五陰, 即是苦諦; 貪愛, 即集諦; 不生及滅, 即是滅諦; 無常等思擇, 即是道諦; 以是義故, 一時得見四諦. 復次, 由觀失故, 如經言: “觀結處過失, 貪愛即滅.” 結處, 即苦諦; 貪愛, 即集諦; 滅, 即滅諦; 過失觀, 即是道諦; 以是義故, 一時見諦. 復次, 由思擇故, 如經言: “因無常等想, 思擇五陰, 貪愛, 未生不得生, 已生則滅.” 此中五陰, 即是苦諦; 貪愛, 即集諦; 不生及滅, 即是滅諦; 無常等思擇, 即是道諦; 以是義故, 一時得見四諦. 復次, 由觀失故, 如經言: “觀結處過失, 貪愛即滅.” 結處, 即苦諦; 貪愛, 即集諦; 滅, 即滅諦; 過失觀, 即是道諦; 以是義故, 一時見諦.84

…The Vibhajyavāda school (分別部) states: If one assembles the contemplation/vision of the ‘marks of suffering’ (聚苦相[duḥkhākāra]觀), penetrates the arising and ceasing mind (達生滅心), and becomes disillusioned with the conditioned (厭有爲; saṃskṛta), one can cultivate the ‘gate of liberation through wishlessness’ (修無願解脱門). If one contemplates the conditioned (觀有爲)—that is, all phenomena—and recognizes them as merely arising and ceasing (唯有生滅), without perceiving any other dharmas (不見余法), one can cultivate liberation through emptiness (修空解脱門; meditation on nonsubstantiality). If one contemplates tranquility (觀寂靜) without perceiving the conditioned (不見有爲), or the marks of arising and ceasing (及生滅相), one can cultivate liberation through signlessness (修無相解脱門; the meditation on no characteristics). Although ‘the four contemplations of the truth of suffering’ (四相) are distinct (雖別), they can be cognized all at once (得一時觀).

……分別部説: 若聚苦相觀, 達生滅心, 厭有爲, 修無願解脱門. 若觀有爲, 唯有生滅, 不見余法, 修空解脱門. 若觀寂靜, 不見有爲, 及生滅相, 修無相解脱門. 此中苦相, 即是苦諦; 相生, 是煩惱業, 即是集諦; 相滅, 即是滅諦; 是法, 能令心離相, 見無相, 即是道諦. 若見無爲法寂, 離生滅, 四義一時成. 異此無爲寂靜, 是名苦諦; 由除此故, 無爲法寂靜, 是名集諦; 無爲法, 即是滅諦; 能觀此寂靜, 及見無爲, 即是道諦; 以是義故, 四相雖別, 得一時觀.85

The Dharmaguptakas shared profound connections with the Vibhajyavāda school. The Za apitan xin lun 雜阿毘曇心論 (*Saṃyukta-abhidharma-hṛdaya-śāstra, T. 1552) also records that the Dharmaguptakas emphasize the ability to attain a ‘right view’ (現觀) of the Four Noble Truths through simultaneous realization (一時), enabling all four truths to be contemplated simultaneously.

The text elaborates:

Dharmaguptakas (曇無得等) explain the attainment of insight into the Four Noble Truths as a state of ‘seeing them without uncertainty’ (一無間等). […] Regarding this ‘seeing without uncertainty’ (一無間等), the text further states: ‘In attaining an uninterrupted and unified insight into the truths (於諦一無間等), what is the rationale (何以故)? It is grounded in faith in the noble and wise (信聖賢故), as the World-Honored One (Bhagavat) (世尊) proclaimed: “A bhikṣu (比丘) who has no doubt regarding suffering (苦), no doubt regarding the arising of suffering (集), and similarly, no doubt regarding the cessation of suffering (滅) and the path (道), is said to possess such insight.” This insight is compared to a lamp, which integrates four essential functions:

• heating the vessel (熱器),
• burning the wick (燒炷),
• maintaining an endless supply of oil (油盡),
• dispelling darkness (破暗).

Similarly, this singular wisdom (一智) enables one to comprehend suffering (知苦) and cultivate the path to liberation (修道). Therefore, it is said that achieving such seamless and unwavering understanding (一無間等) corresponds to attaining ‘right comprehension.’

曇無得等, 説一無間等. ……説一無間等者, 彼説: 於諦一無間等, 何以故? 信聖賢故, 如世尊説: “比丘於苦無疑, 集亦無疑, 滅, 道, 亦如是.” 如燈俱作四事, 熱器, 燒炷, 油盡, 破暗; 如是一智, 知苦乃至修道, 是故一無間等.86

In summary, a close analysis of the Fasting Buddha images, particularly those from the Jamāl Gaṛhī Monastery, reveals a distinctive aesthetic that diverges from the harsh, emaciated depictions of asceticism found at other regional sites such as Sikri and Takht-i-Bāhī. When viewed alongside other archaeological features, including stūpa construction and the overall layout of the Monastery, and interpreted through relevant textual sources, these images strongly suggest that Jamāl Gaṛhī maintained a close affiliation with the Dharmaguptaka sect. Furthermore, the stylistic variations observed in these Fasting Buddha statues reflect not only differences in period and craftsmanship but also underlying sectarian beliefs and doctrinal orientations within the monastic communities that commissioned them.

5. Conclusions

According to Cunningham (1875, p. 197), the number of surviving statues from the Jamāl Gaṛhī Monastery is significantly greater than those from the contemporary monastery at Takht-i-Bāhī. He also notes that in the Caityagrha of Jamāl Gaṛhī, many imperial statues adorned with jewels on their necks and arms were found, which later Indian archaeologists identified as images of Maitreya.87 The belief in the Bodhisattva of the Dharmaguptaka is recorded in numerous Chinese Buddhist sources.88 These factors suggest that, at this time, Dharmaguptaka had a close connection with Mahāyāna thought.

Cunningham proposes that the Jamāl Gaṛhī Monastery, with its gilded statues and overall splendid architecture, may have served as a royal monastery. Tsukamoto (1961, pp. 74–82) suggests that, in the history of India after the Mauryan Empire, the relationship between various empires and Buddhist sects is reflected in the Buddhist remains at different sites. For instance, the stūpas of Sāñchī and Bhārhut, likely constructed during the Śuṅga dynasty, demonstrate the connection between the Kuṣāṇas and the Buddhist sites of Gandhāra and Mathurā in northern India, as well as the ties between these dynasties and cave monasteries such as Ajanta and Kengheri.

As mentioned above, the rise of the Kuṣāṇa and Gupta dynasties following the decline of the Mauryan Empire led to a regionalization of cultural forms, underscoring the relationship between the monastic order and its local supporters. It is likely that the monastic orders, originally established by Aśoka, evolved with regional distinctions.

The Jamāl Gaṛhī Monastery thrived during the reign of King Huviṣka (c. 150–c. 190 CE), who, despite not being a Buddhist, supported other religions such as Zoroastrianism in Persia and Greek religions. Buddhist monastic orders, often eager to secure royal patronage, were likely more inclined to adapt to the preferences of rulers less favorable to Buddhism, as demonstrated in the history of Chinese Buddhism.

Scholars Xianlin Ji 季羨林 (Ji 2001) and Karashima (2013b, pp. 177–78; 2018a, pp. 181–96) have suggested that the rise of the Maitreya (Gk. Μετραγα; Ch. Mílè 彌勒) faith may have been influenced by the Persian Mithraic faith (Old Persian: Miça), potentially rooted in proto-Zoroastrianism.89 Therefore, it is plausible that the Buddhist monasteries in the Mardān region, particularly during the period of King Kaṇiṣka, absorbed elements of Greek and Persian culture and art, which were further integrated under King Huviṣka. This cultural synthesis likely contributed to the development of the belief in the Bodhisattva.90

The Jamāl Gaṛhī Monastery emerges as a pivotal site for understanding the institutional and ideological frameworks of early Buddhist monasticism in Gandhāra, particularly its affiliation with the Dharmaguptaka sect. The Monastery’s stūpa architecture, characterized by its circular foundation and axial alignment adhering to Vinaya prescriptions, closely aligns with the Dharmaguptaka’s emphasis on ritual precision and spatial sanctity. The iconography at Jamāl Gaṛhī, in contrast to contemporaneous sites like Takht-i-Bāhī, underscores its doctrinal adherence to Mahāyāna practices. The Fasting Buddha imagery discovered here reflects the Dharmaguptaka interpretation of the Middle Way, while the broader emergence of Maitreya remains a critical avenue for future research.

In summary, the Monastery’s material and epigraphic records, along with textual evidence, exemplify how specific Vinaya traditions influenced monastic topography, ritual practice, and iconographic programs in Gandhāra.

Future investigations may explore comparative analyses of Dharmaguptaka-affiliated sites along the Silk Roads or examine the transmission of their Vinaya practices into East Asia, where their influence profoundly shaped the Sinicization of Buddhist disciplinary thought and monasticism.

By anchoring Jamāl Gaṛhī within the Dharmaguptaka tradition, this research clarifies the sectarian dynamics of Gandhāran Buddhism and demonstrates the value of integrating archaeological data with textual sources to reconstruct the lived religious practices of early monastic communities.

Further analysis of the Monastery’s remains and a comparison of the statues’ iconography with the Dharmaguptaka-Vinaya allow us to more clearly trace the evolutionary trajectory of the Dharmaguptakas within their historical context and open avenues for further discussion.