with Amara Sinha, who lived about or after A. D. 500. (Report, Vol. I, p. 7.)
The existence of the cylindric pinnacle on the top of the temple may now be added as another argument against the construction of the temple so early as the 1st century A. D., if it be supposed to be a representatation of the Buddhist chaitya, for the Buddhist chaityas of the period were far from being the tall cylinder that is here represented; if, however, the temple be ascribed to A. D. 500, there is no difficulty on this score.
But I am not disposed to attach much weight to this argument, as I do not consider it likely that it represents a Buddhist chaitya. The story of Hwen Thsang about the temple having been built by a Brahman by order of Mahâdeva tends to show that the emblem is really a Saivic one. Nothing is more natural than that a Brahman building a temple to Buddha, by order of Mahâdeva, should place the symbol of that deity as the crowning ornament of the temple, and the occurrence of the same finial in other and indisputably Brahmanical Saivic temples tends to show that it really is meant to represent the symbol of Mahâdeva, and that its occurrence in the Buddhist temple of Buddha Gaya is not only not reason for supposing the temple at Konch to have been Buddhist, but is, on the contrary, an evidence in support of the tradition that the Buddhist temple at Gaya (in which it occurs) was built by a worshipper of Brahmanical deities.
In this view, therefore, I do not consider that the age of the Buddha Gaya temple can be even approximately inferred from the existence of this pinnacle on its top; that question must be decided on other grounds; and although I have taken the liberty of pointing out the weak point in General Cunningham’s argument, I am not disposed to dispute his finding, as it does not appear to me that there is sufficient evidence for or against, and therefore I bow to his superior experience and authority.
But whether the 1st or the 6th century be finally fixed upon, when sufficient evidence is forthcoming, as the date of the temple, it is clear from the existence of this pinnacle, and quite independent of the coincidence of the features of the existing temple with Hwen Thsang's description, that this temple was built by a Brahman; and as there is record of a Brahman having built the temple but once, whether it be in the 1st or the 6th century A. D., the opinion of Mr.
