Features

Where is Animisa Cetiya?

Published

5 years ago

2020/10/13

By Bhante Dhammika of Australia

According to the introduction to the Jataka, after the Buddha’s awakening he spent seven weeks at Bodh Gaya. During the second week there he sat gazing at the Bodhi Tree without blinking. In time a shrine called the Animisa Cetiya, the Shrine of Steadfast Gaze, came to be built on this site and became one of the seven sacred locations (sattamahatthana) at Bodh Gaya. When today’s pilgrims go to Bodh Gaya and enter the sacred precincts in front of them they will see a flight of stairs and beyond it the magnificent Mahabodhi Temple and on the right a small temple painted white. A large sign next to this temple identifies it as the Animisa Cetiya, the place where the Buddha sat staring at the Bodhi Tree without blinking. In this article I am going to argue that this small temple is not the Animisa Cetiya and suggest where the real one is.

With the almost complete disappearance of Buddhism after the 13th century, Bodh Gaya was abandoned, its temples and shrines fell into ruin and the very location of most of seven sacred places was forgotten. In 1877 a mission from the King of Burma came to restore the Mahabodhi Temple and in the process they destroyed many of the smaller shrines around it, often leaving no more than their foundations. After the British engineer/archaeologist Joseph Beglar excavated the whole area in 1880, the only structures that were more than just foundations were the Mahabodhi Temple, the small temple that shelters the footprints stone, what is now identified, probably incorrectly, as the Ratnaghara Cetiya, and a small single-spire temple which a large sign now identifies as the Animisa Cetiya. I will call this building Temple A. How did this temple get to be identified as the Animisa Cetiya?

Towards the end of the 19th century when pilgrims began returning to Bodh Gaya they wanted to see all the places where the Buddha had stayed during his seven weeks there. Being mostly simple folk with limited knowledge of history or archaeology it is only natural that they would identify any existing structures with the ones they wanted to see. Having entered the Mahabodhi Temple and worshipped the Bodhi Tree their next concern was to see the place where the Buddha had sat for seven days gazing at the tree. Other than the Mahabodhi Temple itself the most noticeable structure was Temple A and so it gradually came to be identified with the Animisa Cetiya. What had been just uninformed popular opinion gradually became anaccepted fact when in the 1980s the Temple Management Committee decided to put up signs identifying the various sacred sites around Bodh Gaya after consultation with the leading monks. The abbot of the Burmese Vihara produced a book called the ‘Jinatthapakasani’ written by Bhikkhu Kyithe Laythat in 1920 which identified Temple A as the Animisa Chaitya. In this book the author says he had used the Tipitaka and the commentaries to try to locate all the seven sacred sites “to the best of my ability.” While this monk no doubt had strong faith, this is not very helpful in settling questions pertaining to history or archaeology and his conclusions were at best uninformed guesses. Nevertheless, the Temple Management Committee accepted his conclusions and Temple A officially became the Animisa Cetiya.

But there are two reasons why Temple A cannot be the Animisa Cetiya. It will be noticed that it sits on the top of a very high hillock; in fact, it is nearly the highest ground around Bodh Gaya. This is not a natural hill but a part of the large artificial mound built up by centuries of habitation. The fact that Temple A sits on the top of this mound rather than on the original ground level as does the Mahabodhi Temple, proves that it was built at a very late date. Secondly, the Animisa Cetiya was built to mark the place where the Buddha sat gazing at the Bodhi Tree so we can safely conjecture that it would have had a Buddha statue in it positioned to face towards the Bodhi Tree. Temple A faces towards the river, not towards the Bodhi Tree. These facts are sufficient to establish that Temple A cannot be the Animisa Cetiya.

So if Temple A is not the Animisa Cetiya what is it? In the 19th century the British archaeologist Alexander Cunningham discovered an inscription at Bodh Gaya which might throw some light on this temple’s real identity. Unfortunately, Cunningham did not say exactly where he found this inscription. It recorded the building of a shrine at Bodh Gaya by a monk named Srimitra sometime between the years 1183 and 1192. The inscription also mentions that a statue of Lion’s Roar Avalokitesvara (a Mahayana bodhisattva always shown with a lion), and three statues of Tara were placed in this temple. When Rajendralal Mitra was at Bodh Gaya he noticed that Temple A had a statue of Lion’s Roar Avalokitesvara in it and he also noted that local people referred to this temple as Tara Vihara. This statue of Avalokitesvara is still enshrined in Temple A and dates from the 11th or 12th century. The Tibetan pilgrim Dharmasvamin who was in Bodh Gaya in 1234 mentioned a Tara Vihara as one of the prominent sights at Bodh Gaya. He also mentioned that one of the statues enshrined in this temple was called Tara of the River and that it faced the river. These are good reasons for thinking that Temple A is the one built by Srimitra.

So, where is or was the real Animisa Cetiya? There are three facts that can help in answering this question. As it was built to mark the place where the Buddha sat gazing at the Bodhi Tree it must have been within view of the Tree and almost certainly facing it. It has to be clearly understood that the present Bodhi Tree does not grow now in its original place. Before the Mahabodhi Temple was built it grew just behind the Vajarasana, the exact spot where the Buddha was sitting when he attained enlightenment, i.e. the altar inside the Mahabodhi Temple. The introduction to the Jataka gives us precise information about the location of the Animisa Cetiya, saying that it was “slightly to the east, north of” the Vajarasana (pacinanisste uttaradisabhage). This is confirmed by the Chinese pilgrim Xuanzang who visited Bodh Gaya in the 6th century and who also mentioned that the Animisa was north of Mahabodhi Temple.

If we look directly north of the Mahabodhi Temple we see the foundations of a rectangular structure of what was no doubt once a large temple. This structure, which in Cunningham’s map is marked as Temple U, is much the same as it was when it was excavated by Beglar in 1880. It will be noticed that the entrance of this Temple U faces to where the Bodhi Tree originally grew, right behind to the altar now inside the Mahabodhi Temple, i.e., at the Vajarasana, although tilted just slightly to the east. This makes it almost certain that Temple U represents the remains of the original Animisa Cetiya. Note that Temple A on Cunningham’s map, a little to the north-east of the front of the Mahabodhi Temple is called Tara Deva.

One more thing should be added. When Cunningham was excavating around the Mahabodhi Temple in the 1870s he found a small clay tablet with a temple housing a Buddha statue stamped on its surface. He conjectures, probably correctly, that it was a souvenir sold to pilgrims at Bodh Gaya. Interestingly, this is the only image of the Buddha ever found at Bodh Gaya in a meditation gesture (dhyana mudra) rather than in the earth touching gesture (bhumipassa mudra). It is quite possible that this is meant to be a depiction of the Animisa Cetiya.

All News Advertisement

Features

Amid Winds and Waves: Sri Lanka and the Indian Ocean – references Prof. Gamini Keerawella

Published

1 day ago

2025/11/7

Thilina Walpola

The following are the references for the four-part article, Amid Winds and Waves: Sri Lanka and the Indian Ocean byProf. Gamini Keerawella, published in The Island on 10, 11, 12 and 13 Nov.

Acharya, Amitav. 2014. The End of American World Order. Cambridge: Polity Press

Amrith, Sunil S. 2013. Crossing the Bay of Bengal: The Furies of Nature and the Fortunes of Migrants. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Baldwin, David A. 2016. Power and International Relations: A Conceptual Approach. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Brewster, David. 2014. India’s Ocean: The Story of India’s Bid for Regional Leadership. London: Routledge.

Blanchard, Jean-Marc F., and Colin Flint. 2017. “The Geopolitics of China’s Maritime Silk Road Initiative.” Geopolitics 22 (2): 223–245.

Bose, Sugata. 2006. A Hundred Horizons: The Indian Ocean in the Age of Global Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Browning, Christopher S. 2006. “Small, Smart and Salient? Rethinking Identity in the Small States Literature.” Cambridge Review of International Affairs 19 (4): 669–684. https://doi.org/10.1080/09557570601003536

Buzan, Barry, and Ole Wæver. 2003. Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Campbell, Kurt M., and Iain H. Houlden, eds. 1989. The Indian Ocean: Regional and Strategic Studies. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Chacko, Priya. 2021. “Sri Lanka and the Indian Ocean: Geopolitical Crosscurrents.” Third World Quarterly 42 (8): 1647–1665.

Chaturvedi, Sanjay, and Michal Okano-Heijmans, eds. 2019. Connectivity and the Indo-Pacific: Concepts, Challenges, and Prospects. Singapore: Springer.

Chaudhuri, K. N. 1985. Trade and Civilisation in the Indian Ocean: An Economic History from the Rise of Islam to 1750. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Crawford, Neta C. 2000. Rethinking International Relations. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Cordner, Lee. 2010. “Rethinking Maritime Security in the Indian Ocean Region.” Journal of the Indian Ocean Region 6 (1): 67–85

Das Gupta, Ashin, and M. N. Pearson, eds. 1987. India and the Indian Ocean, 1500–1800. Calcutta: Oxford University Press.

de Silva, Colvin R. 1953. Ceylon under the British Occupation : 1795-1833. Colombo: Ceylon Apothecaries

Finnemore, Martha, and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. “International Norm Dynamics and Political Change.” International Organization 52 (4): 887–917.

Gunasekara, T. 2021. Maritime Diplomacy and Small State Strategy: Sri Lanka in the Indian Ocean. South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies 44(2): 275–292.

Hey, Jeanne A. K., ed. 2003. Small States in World Politics: Explaining Foreign Policy Behavior. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Holmes, James R., and Toshi Yoshihara. 2008. Chinese Naval Strategy in the 21st Century: The Turn to Mahan. London: Routledge.

Hourani, George F. 1995. Arab Seafaring in the Indian Ocean in Ancient and Early Medieval Times. Rev. ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Ingebritsen, Christine. 2006. Small States in International Relations. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Kaplan, Robert D. 2010. Monsoon: The Indian Ocean and the Future of American Power. New York: Random House.

Keerawella, Gamini. 2024. India’s Naval Strategic ascent ane the Evolving Natal Security Dynamics of the Indian Ocean-BCIS Research Monograph Series 2024/1. Colombo: Bandaranaike Centre for International Studies.

Kuik, Cheng-Chwee. 2008. “The Essence of Hedging: Malaysia and Singapore’s Response to a Rising China.” Contemporary Southeast Asia 30 (2): 159–185. https://doi.org/10.1355/cs30-2a.

Li, Mingjiang. 2018. China’s Maritime Silk Road Initiative, Africa, and the Middle East. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan.

Mahan, Alfred Thayer. 1890. The Influence of Sea Power upon History, 1660–1783. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

Marx, Karl. 1952. The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. New York: International Publishers.

Medcalf, Rory. 2020. Indo-Pacific Empire: China, America and the Contest for the World’s Pivotal Region. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Mignolo, Walter D. 2011. The Darker Side of Western Modernity: Global Futures, Decolonial Options. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Pearson, M. N. 2003. The Indian Ocean. London: Routledge.

Rothstein, Robert L. 1968. Alliances and Small Powers. New York: Columbia University Press.

Schweller, Randall L. 1994. “Bandwagoning for Profit: Bringing the Revisionist State Back In.” International Security 19 (1): 72–107. https://doi.org/10.2307/2539149.

Strange, Susan. 1988. States and Markets. London: Pinter.

Thorhallsson, Baldur, and Robert Steinmetz, eds. 2017. Small States and Shelter Theory: Iceland’s External Affairs. London: Routledge.

Till, Geoffrey. 2013. Seapower: A Guide for the Twenty-First Century. 3rd ed. London: Routledge.

Walt, Stephen M. 1987. The Origins of Alliances. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Wilson, Ernest J. 2015. Hard Power, Soft Power, Smart Power. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

(Author is a former professor of Modern History at the University of Peradeniya. He could be contacted through Keerawellag@gmail.com)

Features

Vision of Dr. Gamani Corea and the South’s present development policy options

Published

2 days ago

2025/11/6

Sahan Weerasooriya

Dr. Gamani Core / Dr. Carlos Maria Correa

The ‘takes’ were numerous for the perceptive sections of the public from the Dr. Gamani Corea 100th birth anniversary oration delivered at ‘The Lighthouse’ auditorium, Colombo, by Dr. Carlos Maria Correa, Executive Director of the South Centre in Geneva on November 4th. The fact that Dr. Gamani Corea was instrumental in the establishment of the South Centre decades back enhanced the value of the presentation. The event was organized by the Gamani Corea Foundation.

The presentation proved to be both wide-ranging and lucid. The audience was left in no doubt as to what Dr. Gamani Corea (Dr. GC) bequeathed to the global South by way of developmental policy and thinking besides being enlightened on the historic, institutional foundations he laid for the furtherance of Southern economic and material wellbeing.

For instance, in its essential core Dr. GC’s vision for the South was given as follows: sustainable and equitable growth, a preference for trade over aid, basic structural reform of global economy, enhancement of the collective influence of developing countries in international affairs.

Given the political and economic order at the time, that is the sixties of the last century, these principles were of path-breaking importance. For example, the Cold War was at its height and the economic disempowerment of the developing countries was a major issue of debate in the South. The latter had no ‘say’ in charting their economic future, which task devolved on mainly the West and its prime financial institutions.

Against this backdrop, the vision and principles of Dr. G.C. had the potential of being ‘game changers’ for the developing world. The leadership provided by him to UNCTAD as its long-serving Secretary General and to the Group of 77, now Plus China, proved crucial in, for instance, mitigating some economic inequities which were borne by the South. The Integrated Program for Commodities, which Dr. G.C. helped in putting into place continues to serve some of the best interests of the developing countries.

It was the responsibility of succeeding generations to build on this historic basis for economic betterment which Dr. G.C. helped greatly to establish. Needless to say, all has not gone well for the South since the heyday of Dr. G.C. and it is to the degree to which the South re-organizes itself and works for its betterment as a cohesive and united pressure group that could help the hemisphere in its present ordeals in the international economy. It could begin by rejuvenating the Non-aligned Movement (NAM), for instance.

The coming into being of visionary leaders in the South, will prove integral to the economic and material betterment of the South in the present world order or more accurately, disorder. Complex factors go into the making of leaders of note but generally it is those countries which count as economic heavyweights that could also think beyond self-interest that could feature in filling this vacuum.

A ‘take’ from the Dr. GC memorial oration that needs to be dwelt on at length by the South was the speaker’s disclosure that 46 percent of current global GDP is contributed by the South. Besides, most of world trade takes place among Southern countries. It is also the heyday of multi-polarity and bipolarity is no longer a defining feature of the international political and economic order.

In other words, the global South is now well placed to work towards the realization of some of Dr. GC’s visionary principles. As to whether these aims could be achieved will depend considerably on whether the South could re-organize itself, come together and work selflessly towards the collective wellbeing of the hemisphere.

From this viewpoint the emergence of BRICS could be seen as holding out some possibilities for collective Southern economic betterment but the grouping would need to thrust aside petty intra-group power rivalries, shun narrow national interests, place premium value on collective wellbeing and work towards the development of its least members.

The world is yet to see the latter transpiring and much will depend on the quality of leadership formations such as BRICS could provide. In the latter respect Dr. GC’s intellectual leadership continues to matter. Measuring-up to his leadership standards is a challenge for BRICS and other Southern groupings if at all they visualize a time of relative collective progress for the hemisphere.

However, the mentioned groupings would need to respect the principle of sovereign equality in any future efforts at changing the current world order in favour of all their member countries. Ideally, authoritarian control of such groupings by the more powerful members in their fold would need to be avoided. In fact, progress would need to be predicated on democratic equality.

Future Southern collectivities intent on bettering their lot would also need to bring into sharp focus development in contrast to mere growth. This was also a concern of Dr. G.C. Growth would be welcome, if it also provides sufficiently for economic equity. That is, economic plans would come to nought if a country’s resources are not equally distributed among its people.

The seasoned commentator is bound to realize that this will require a degree of national planning. Likewise, the realization ought to have dawned on Southern governments over the decades that unregulated market forces cannot meet this vital requirement in national development.

Thus, the oration by Dr. Carlos Maria Correa had the effect of provoking his audience into thinking at some considerable length on development issues. Currently, the latter are not in vogue among the majority of decision and policy makers of the South but they will need ‘revisiting’ if the best of Dr. GC’s development thinking is to be made use of.

What makes Dr. GC’s thinking doubly vital are the current trade issues the majority of Southern countries are beginning to face in the wake of the restrictive trade practices inspired by the US. Dr. GC was an advocate of international cooperation and it is to the degree to which intra-South economic cooperation takes hold that the South could face the present economic challenges successfully by itself as a collectivity. An urgent coming together of Southern countries could no longer be postponed.

Features

Attitude development: Key to national progress

Published

2 days ago

2025/11/6

Sahan Weerasooriya

In a developing country like Sri Lanka, one of the main challenges, is developing attitudes and social values of its citizens. Attitudes are the behaviours and beliefs that shape an individual’s or society’s actions. These attitudes have a significant impact on personal and societal development. Therefore, developing the right attitudes is crucial for the progress of a nation.

Why is Attitude Development Important?

Attitude development has a profound impact on various aspects of society. For instance, promoting efficiency, creativity, and innovation can accelerate economic growth. When citizens have a positive attitude towards work and entrepreneurship, they are more likely to contribute to the country’s economic development. Similarly, preserving and promoting social and cultural values can strengthen social harmony and cohesion. A society with a positive attitude towards diversity and inclusivity is more likely to be peaceful and prosperous.

Role of Education in Attitude Development

Education is a key factor in shaping attitudes. A well-educated population is more likely to have a positive attitude towards life, work, and society. Education helps individuals develop critical thinking skills, which enable them to make informed decisions and solve problems effectively. Moreover, education can promote values such as tolerance, empathy, and respect for others, which are essential for building a harmonious society.

Impact of Media on Attitude Development

The media plays a significant role in shaping attitudes. With the advent of social media, people are exposed to a vast amount of information, which can influence their attitudes and behaviours. The media can promote positive attitudes and values, such as kindness, compassion, and social responsibility. However, it can also perpetuate negative attitudes and stereotypes, which can be detrimental to society.

Role of Community Participation in Attitude Development

Community participation is essential for attitude development. When individuals participate in community service and volunteer work, they develop a sense of social responsibility and empathy towards others. Community participation can also promote values such as teamwork, leadership, and communication skills. Moreover, it can help build stronger, more cohesive communities.

Importance of Leadership in Attitude Development

Leadership plays a crucial role in shaping attitudes. Leaders can inspire and motivate individuals to adopt positive attitudes and behaviours. They can promote values such as integrity, accountability, and transparency, which are essential for building trust and confidence in institutions. Moreover, leaders can create a positive work culture that encourages innovation, creativity, and productivity.

Role of Parents and Teachers in Attitude Development

Parents and teachers play a vital role in shaping the attitudes of children. Children learn by observing and imitating adults, so it’s essential for parents and teachers to model positive attitudes and behaviours. They can promote values such as respect, kindness, and responsibility, which are essential for building a positive and productive society.

Benefits of Positive Attitudes

Positive attitudes have numerous benefits for individuals and society. They can improve mental and physical health, increase productivity, and enhance overall well-being. Positive attitudes can also promote better relationships, improve communication skills, and increase resilience. Moreover, they can inspire individuals to achieve their goals and pursue their passions.

Challenges of Developing Positive Attitudes

Developing positive attitudes can be challenging, especially in the face of adversity. It requires effort, commitment, and perseverance. Moreover, individuals may face resistance from others who are not supportive of change. However, with the right mindset and support, individuals can overcome these challenges and develop positive attitudes that benefit themselves and society.

Role of Technology in Attitude Development

Technology can play a significant role in attitude development. Online platforms and social media can provide access to information, resources, and support that can help individuals develop positive attitudes. Technology can also facilitate communication, collaboration, and networking, which are essential for building positive relationships and communities.

Future of Attitude Development

The future of attitude development is promising. With the increasing awareness of the importance of mental health, well-being, and social responsibility, more people are recognising the need to develop positive attitudes. Moreover, technological advancements and innovations can provide new opportunities for attitude development and social impact.

The attitude development is crucial for the progress of a nation. It requires a collective effort from individuals, institutions, and leaders to promote positive attitudes and values. By working together, we can build a society that is more harmonious, productive, and prosperous. By developing positive attitudes, we can overcome challenges, achieve our goals, and create a brighter future for ourselves and future generations.

Recommendations

To promote attitude development in Sri Lanka, we recommend the following:

* Integrate attitude development programmes in schools and universities

* Provide training and resources for parents and teachers to promote positive attitudes in children

* Encourage community participation and volunteer work

* Promote positive attitudes and values through media and social media

* Recognise and reward individuals and organisations that demonstrate positive attitudes and behaviours

By implementing these recommendations, we can create a society that values and promotes positive attitudes and behaviours. This will enable us to build a brighter future for ourselves and future generations.

By Jayantha K. Pathirana (M.A)
(Former Principal of Katuwana National School)