Guhādharas (Buddhist rock-cut architecture)

Guhās and Layanas, for all intents and purposes are one and the same—the secret places where the denizens of heaven are present, for the communion with whom, men have been meditating for time immemorial. The Samarāṅgaṇasūtradhāra LIX 193-197 describes this type of cave-temples. Its name however is derived from the division of the door frame (dvāraśākhā) into several compartments (guhās). It is also enjoined in the text that it should resemble the temple—Siṃha (e.g. Simhāsya cf. the M.P. CCLXIX). As already suggested it is illustrated in the cave temples of Ajanta and a brief review is accordingly called for. But before Ajanta is described a passing review of earlier or contemporary specimens may also be made. Primitive shrines like a rock-cut chamber at Guntupalle in the Kistna district of Madras state and another similarly rock-cut at Kondivte near Bombay represent the earlier efforts towards this direction. Both these illustrate one of the many sided currents of the building art under the Śuṅgas and Āndhras.

The more developed types of Guhādharas however may be attributed to Buddhist rock-cut architecture, the early or Hīnayāna phase, as are represented in the monuments at Bhaja, Kondane, Pitalkhora, Ajanta, Bedsa, Nasika, Karli and Kanheru. These Hīnyāna rock-cut monasteries represent a definite regional development, as they are limited to the western side of India, many of them lying within the Bombay State. The South and the North (especially Orissa) also did not lag behind in responding to this exuberance. We have already remarked that these Layanas and Guhādharas come to a total of twelve hundred, majority of which are attributed to Buddhism.

This rock-cut architecture, are not caves but cave-temples, the Layana, the Guhādhara, the Guhārāja Prāsādas, in the terminology of our Vāstuśāstra and Prāsādas or temples in the canons of Indian Art are architecture and sculpture both. Percy Brown also supports this implication.

“The fashioning of architectural forms out of the living rock, or rock-architecture, occupies a very prominent place in the development of creative art in India. Yet in spite of the admittedly high aesthetic character of these productions they have never been allowed that position in field of art to which they are fully entitled. Ever since these examples of rock-architecture became a subject of study, it has been the custom to refer to them as “caves”, implying that they were natural grottoes in the mountain side, the haunt of wild people, and still wilder animals. No word would be more misleading to designate these wonderful records of man’s handwork, as many of them are large and well planned temples, skilfully wrought and chiselled out of the solid cliff, and to define which the term rock-architecture if the only one which can adequately describe their workmanship. If however, the usually accepted definition of architecture as “good construction truthfully expressed” is applied, then on account of their technique alone they cannot be classed as architecture in the strict sense of the word. These rock-hewn forms are expert achievements but they involved no constructional principles, nor do they display any functional properties their columns signify no adjustment of support to load, the arches cany no weight, nor do they counteract any thrust, in the whole operation no structural intelligiblity is required, as no problems of this nature arise. In a word rock-architecture to all intents and purposes is not architecture, it is sculpture, but sculpture on a grand and magnificent scale”

“Rock-architecture appealed to the Indian mind for several reasons. In the first place its stability, as it was as immoveable as the mountain of which it formed a part, was undoubtedly an attraction to a people living very largely in impermanent structures of wood and wattle. Secondly, it was acceptable to the Buddhists because from the earliest times natural caves and grottoes were the favourite abode of hermits and anchorites, a custom which even now survives in Nepal and parts of Tibet, where a Lamaistic form of Buddhism still prevails Such habitations were therefore not only associated with religion but had also the sanction of tradition. But the principal reason was the great increase in the conventual life of the country at this time. From the ancient practice of asceticism common in the Vedic period, it was but a step to that of monasticism, a system which all the world over has induced its followers to retir [retire?] into rocky fastnesses, forest recesses, or lonely deserts, there to dedicate their lives to the rare worship of the self-absorbed. Some such convictions, perhaps, accentuated by the pressure of religions intolerance, for the ruling powers belonged to the Brahmanical faith, were largely responsible for extensive monastic establishments flourishing within these secluded mountain retreats.”

With this general introduction to the rehabilitation of these cavetemples of India in their proper perspective, it is not the business of this dissertation to give a detailed architectural account of these individual monuments, but for an idea of their characteristic features, some remarks in the words of Percy Brown are called for.

“This architecture resolves itself into some ten separate groups of conventual establishments, each group being separate and self-contained, and each originally consisting of a prayer-hall and its accompanying monastery. The prayer-hall or Buddhist temple, and usually referred to as the chaitya hall, as it accommodated a caitya or stūpa, took the form of a large vaulted hall having an apsidal end and divided longitudinally by two colonades into a broad nave and two aisles. In the apse stood the stupa, also carved out of the natural rock, consisting of an elaborated representation of the structural tumulus previously described.”

“The other architectural formation in these rock-cut retreats was the monastery proper, an arrangement of apartments for the accommodation of the monks, and known as a vihara. A typical vihara consisted of a square central hall entered by a doorway, in front of which was a vestible, verandah, or portico. Out of the central hall, doorways opened into square cells carried still further into the rock, each of which was the abode of one of the brotherhood. The original plan was for one of these viharas to be situated close to the caitya hall, but as the priestly community increased, more cells were required to be excavated along the cliff side. These provided quarters for the ordinary members of the community, but there were others of a superior rank who felt it more seemly to live in chambers separated from the main group, of which an example is vihara number 4 at Karli. In addition there were those rare individuals on a still higher plane who claimed to be Arhats or Boddhisatvas, each of whom on account of his status lived alone in a single cell by itself, examples of which may also be seen at Karli. Communication between all these various forms of abode was maintained, where necessary by flights of steps, but in some of the larger monastic establishments, the cells are so numerous that the cliff side is honey-combed with them, recalling the nesting burrows of swifts in a disused quarry.”