Talk:Chaitya

Untitled
Is a chaitya the same thing as a stupa (which is is what the stupa article says) or not? - Nat Krause(Talk!) 04:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 17:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Evolution of the Chaitya cave
I tried to illustrate some time ago the evolution of the Chaitya caves in western India according to Huu Phuoc Le (2010) (the reference is accessible for reading). It readily appears that Ajanta Cave 10 was quite early in the process and rather basic in design compared to later models. This would suggest a rather pioneer role for Ajanta 10, and be coherent with the notion of a progressive embellishment of Buddhist retreats (viharas and chaityas) after that, down to the artistic explosion of Ajanta in the 5th century, although Huu Phuoc Le considers "artistic perfection" was reached at Karla Cave 8 in 120 CE. I don't know if it fits in the article, anybody feel free to use or not, or modify. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 06:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Toda Hut
Johnbod: Could you please explain, in light of our NPOV guidelines, why you are deleting Davidson's criticism of Zimmer's theory? If you wish to explain Davidson's argument in different words, please do. But I am puzzled by your complete deletion of what Davidson is stating. FWIW, you brought the Davidson source, so we both agree that it is RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We have only Davidson's rather bitchy review point here. I rather doubt that Zimmer proposed any such "theory", but instead just made a rather loosely phrased remark, which Davidson has pounced on. Any talk of a "theory" should be based on Zimmer directly; I suspect it is a mirage. Just about everybody for the last 130 years has agreed that the Toda huts represent a living survival of the same sort of building as those the earliest rock-cut chaityas imitated, without saying that the Todas, should they have been around 2,000+ years ago, initiated the style. There are in fact RS refs, which I'm personally very dubious about, associating the style with "milk-huts", which is what the Todas use them for.  But these are more from anthropological sources, picked up by popular Indian works, and I think should be ignored unless better refs are found.  Davidson gets a bit carried away - the Pantheon has an entirely conventional Roman temple portico, and no art-historical account of this form will neglect to mention its origins in wood architecture. But essentially this is a non-argument which it is wildly WP:UNDUE to cover with such solemnity. But an image of the Toda hut very nicely represents an authentic contemporary survival of the same broad form as the chaitya imitates; sadly one can't really do that for the Greek or Roman temple.  There is no need to elaborate an imaginary controversy. Johnbod (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Johnbod: I have no interest in a forum-y discussion, per TPNO. Instead of sharing your POVs and "suspicions" about "mirages", flawed or wise they might be, I suggest we focus on the content guidelines. This means, instead of forum-y lectures, please find the RS and summarize them. Further, please welcome others to contribute and collaborate. So, once again, if you wish to explain Davidson's argument in different words or add additional mainstream reliable sources, please do. Or let others do so. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, you certainly don't have any interest in discussions. I am saying you have blown up two passing comments into a "theory" and "refutation" which are not evidenced in the single source that I introduced, and which it would be wildly WP:UNDUE to cover purely on the basis of that. I'm predicting you won't be able to find any other references to this supposed theory, which would certainly be necessary before we mention it in a short article. Generally it is not worth mentioning in short articles the many suggestions scholars make all the time, and them being dismissed, or not widely adopted. Unless you can produce other references about the supposed "theory" and controversy over it, it stays out. Johnbod (talk) 04:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Johnbod: Allow me to keep ignoring your personal opinions/ confusions/ prejudices/ wisdoms. We are here to collaboratively summarize reliable sources, to the best of our cooperative abilities, while respecting community agreed content guidelines. What you keep writing comes across, inadvertently perhaps, as pretensive strawman arguments about "suspicions", "scholars" etc. What you need to do instead is to identify scholars and their publication(s) with page numbers. If I must repeat, "if you wish to explain Davidson's argument in different words or add additional mainstream reliable sources, please do." Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I reworded that para in this article, removed the word "theory" etc to address your concern. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I won't have time for this until January, but the current presentation is massively WP:UNDUE, and in fact WP:SYN on your part. In the picture caption you omit the mainstream view, for which plenty of references have been shown you, to whip up this deeply obscure point. Johnbod (talk) 20:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * You have provided one source that you now criticize! Take your time in finding additional reliable sources, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Chaitya
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Chaitya's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "singh": From Jainism:  From Banawali:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

comparisons this article doesnt take into account
buddhist chaitya apsidal floor plan is very identical to mithras temple of roman empire, also floor plan of most of the christian churches, toda hut doesnt display this apsidal characteristics, the lycian tombs also dont display apsidal characteristics, only the roof of the structure does and nothing else

buddhist chaityas foundations can be seen in pre mauryan times in rajgir, which dates between 530-400 BCE. an even older apsidal structure which is being called fire altar at banawali in haryana, an indus valley civilization site also displays apsidal structure., i suggest to move toda hut and lycian tombs argument to the roof structure of the mauryan period and reserve this article and compare the apsidal characteristics of the chaityas, mithras temple and the churches.

115.135.130.182 (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The article in fact says some of this if you actually bother to read it, though the chaitya has no transepts. There are plenty of absidal floorplans earlier than those you mention. Mithras temples seem to have mostly underground, and pretty different, as well as being later. Johnbod (talk) 05:26, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * can you show me There are plenty of absidal floorplans earlier than those you mention which resemble chaitya like floor plan, i find it astonishing that this is not discussed in the article that a mithras temple, church basilica floor plan exactly matches with the chaitya apsidal one, while article contains everything from toda hut to lycian tombs. If mithras temple were so different you can actually observe its floor plan here and tell me how much diff they are115.135.130.182 (talk) 12:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * For 9th century BCE apsidal structures in Greece, see Heraion of Perachora. Expanding on the connection between Chaitya and Church Basilica apsidal plans might be interesting, but reputable sources would be needed.पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 13:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The basilica apsidal hall, sometimes with aisles, was a basic form in Ancient Roman architecture, though the apse was normally a raised area up a few steps. The basilical Christian church is a later development of this (well after the chaitya form was well-established), as is perhaps the Mithraeum, though in fact these seem typically to draw on domestic dining-rooms, which also sometimes had apses. All these typically had flat roofs, whereas the striking thing about the rock-cut chaitya is that it doesn't, despite the vast amount of extra work required to excavate a high roof. Johnbod (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)


 * i think you are confusing things here, what im saying is, the chaitya apsidal ground plan seems very identitical to mithras temple and the basilica church, i didn;t say apsidal structures didn't exist in antiquity, what im arguing is, chaitya ground plan which is a middle pillared aisle with two extra aisles on each side and in the end an apsidal plan with a stupa/ statues on the apse and ambulation path in both the church and the chaitya and as far as flat roof is concerned, the basilicas also have an arched roof just like chaitya, mithras temple also has them, the greek temple quoted is from 9th cen BC and greek temple didn't have them in the time lines we are talking about, they didn;t have an apse and didn't have the ground plans we are talking about. i have seen roman basilicas ground plan and to be honest i dont see any resemblence between the earlier basilicas who's roof were not circular, they were not apsidal and their ground plan was not rectangular aisle like, like the one in mithras temple and the christian basilicas, christian basilicas plan seem very different from the roman basilicas which were constructed earlier. Most basilicas also oddly have a very characteristic chaitya like opening arch in them, lycian tombs are dated to 4th century BCE, we also have chaitya like roof design from the 4th century BCE, saurashtra coin as well. my opinion is, apsidal plans and their temple architecture went from india to the west contrary to mr James Fergusson's opinion. 115.135.130.182 (talk) 20:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, I wondered where you were going with this. Any WP:RS saying this? Most certainly don't. You need to be thinking about early basilican churches from Late Antiquity, like Santa Maria Maggiore, not Gothic ones from a thousand years later, whose gradual evolution is pretty clear from thousands of examples. Johnbod (talk) 21:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * the church basilicas evolved into mithra temple designs, which themelves were based on chaitya designs, basilicas may have had both chaitya circular roof or the flat roof, but mithras temple had chaitya type roof already, which shows, both designs were prevalent, but the three aisle temple design is something which greco roman temples never incorporated except ofcource mithras temple, last nail on the head is the pointed arch with a finial and that too which resembles a chaitya opening. The gradual evolution of basilicas is their gradual evolution into indian architecture. Mr. James Fergusson is wrong to say that lycian tombs were inspiration for chaityas since, chaityas were always apsidal and he didn't know a contemporary saurashtra coin displaying chaitya, so his argument falls flat that chaityas copied from lycian tombs, so indian influence on western architecture is pretty evident from lycian examples.115.135.130.182 (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:OR, but you really need to get some sense of chronology. Johnbod (talk) 04:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Seconded. The Lycian tomb design goes back to at least the late 5th century BCE, as shown by the Lycian sarcophagus of Sidon. The Saurashtra Janapada coin mentionned here is dated to 350 to 250 BC, which is about the same date as Lomas Rishi anyway. And as always on Wikipedia, personal opinions are irrelevant, one needs to find what reputable sources say on the question and describe it with references. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 04:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. I might add that personally I feel Lycian influence on India is somewhat doubtful, but many RS feel the other way. No refs have been produced for Indian influence on Lycia. Johnbod (talk) 06:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * RS, Art historian David Napier has also proposed a reverse relationship, claiming that the Payava tomb was a descendant of an ancient South Asian style, and that Payava may actually have been a Graeco-Indian named "Pallava".
 * your earlier tomb doesnt show wooden design, so basically it should have appeared in your earlier sample not later, a very clear case of imitation of indian chaityas. as mr. James Fergusson has already stated '' The Lycian tombs, dated to the 4th century BCE, are either free-standing or rock-cut barrel-vaulted sarcophagi, placed on a high base, with architectural features carved in stone to imitate wooden structures. There are numerous rock-cut equivalents to the free-standing structures. Both Greek and Persian influences can be seen in the reliefs sculpted on the sarcophagus.[13] The structural similarities, down to many architectural details, with the Chaitya-type Indian Buddhist temple designs, such as the "same pointed form of roof, with a ridge", are further developed in The cave temples of India.[14] Fergusson went on to suggest an "Indian connection", and some form of cultural transfer across the Achaemenid Empire.[15] Overall, the ancient transfer of Lycian designs for rock-cut monuments to India is considered as "quite probable".[12], so basically the entire issue is solved with your singular example alone, your RS is against your argument, both the lycian pavaya tomb and the one in the coin are contemporary while pavaya tomb doesnt show any barrel vault despited argued by mr. james Fergusson and most of all fails to show any apsidal construction which demolishes the who argument that chaitya is copied from pavaya tomb, since pavaya only contains one element of chaitya which has been imitated nothing else, also fergusson mentions persian and greek influence, so why is there no possibility of an indian influence as well, lycian structure clearly is an inspiration of various influences. My arguments on chaitya being inspiration for mithras temples and basilica are pretty accurate and even though there are no RS, but i feel that some architect scholars should have made valid discussion on chaitya and basilica i have some video of western scholar visting chaitya and expressing how she feels its like a church. i also know one video where an underground basicila with barrel vault and apse was constructed so must be an early specimen. 115.135.130.182 (talk) 16:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Napier has a very varied career, but he is not an art historian. As the article says, "The overall effect is surprisingly similar to smaller Christian churches from the Early Medieval period", which anyone used to such churches is likely to feel on first visiting one, & I certainly did. This is a very different thing from tracing an actual connection. I think Napier's Payava/Pallava bit was intended as a joke. Johnbod (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * not bigger joke than declaring a roof from 2 foot tomb served as an inspiration to model entire infrastructure of the indian subcontinent. 115.135.130.182 (talk) 02:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * ?? What are you talking about? Johnbod (talk) 04:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * chaitya barrel arch is an architectural element which appears not only in chaitya but in every architecture building during that period.


 * Yes, I'm well aware of this, thank you, and the article says as much. Btw, you'll have trouble finding evidence of apses in such buildings. What is the "2 foot tomb"? Johnbod (talk) 15:51, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * mostly definitely yes, mr. fergusson needs to see architecture of india during ancient times before making hasty conclusions https://historum.com/threads/architecture-of-ancient-india.53159/. 115.135.130.182 (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * To state the obvious, the reliefs of Sanchi are only an illustration of what the 1st century BCE/CE Satavahanas imagined ancient cities might have looked like at the time of the Buddha. The reliefs are beautiful and do invite conjecture, but they have no archaeological value for the actual state of cities in the 6th century BCE. There is no going around the fact that the first archaeological proof for the Chaitya barrel arch in India is from the c.260 BCE Lomas Rishi. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * show me where is barrel arch in payava tomb. no barrel arched chamber in the interior of the tomb, no ogival arch as well, just plain box chamber ogival lycian tomb115.135.130.182 (talk) 00:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * [[File:The_tomb_of_Payava,_a_Lykian_aristocrat,_about_375-360_BC,_from_Xanthos,_British_Museum_(9504934234).jpg|thumb|upright=0.2]]Can't see your point... our sources are precisely pointing to the structural similarities between the arches in Lycian tombs and the Chaityas... पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 05:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Fergusson says the barrel vault, where is the barrel vault, can you please show me where is a barrel vaulting even shown in any part of the tomb, to me it looks like ogive arch not barrel arch or barrel vaulting, where is vaulting shows, it all appears platic to me friend, i bothered enough to go check the rock cut vaulting which was told by fergusson, but failed to see one by close examining few pictures, do you have any evidence of vaulting in any form in any lycian tomb comparable to the indian ones lycian tomb. It is a totally fake design my friend, and in my opinion if its not based on indian design, it must be based on some near eastern design probably, because im not even convinced how could they copy indian design while they show ogive arch and indians show barrel one. The only design close to it seems the mahabalipuram rock cut one which appears more than thousands years later

115.135.130.182 (talk) 06:05, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * ??????????? पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 07:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well Fergusson was one of the first to publish on Sanchi, though as he died in 1881, I think his researching days are over. Johnbod (talk) 22:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Summary
summary 2405:204:A116:DC73:CE56:6CA:DBC2:E18A (talk) 07:19, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Social
Svhdbgsjs Dbbddhdh 60.243.168.180 (talk) 02:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)