When did large Hindu temples come into being? Not before 500 AD

Dharmashastras opposed temple-based religious and ritual activities. Vishnu Smriti says that Vedic recitation shouldn't be conducted 'in a temple, in a cemetery, at a crossroads, or on a road.'

Khajuraho, Madhya Pradesh | Photo: Varun Pyasi

I would like to do a little thought experiment today. Imagine taking a trip to India a century or so before the Common Era using, thanks to AI, the recently discovered technology of time travel. You are transported to northern India. You hire a horse carriage and a travel guide. You cover the length and breadth of India. Something, however, was bugging you. You felt that something was missing from the landscape. So, you turned to your travel guide and asked: “Where have all the temples gone?” The guide was puzzled. He had no idea what you were talking about. “What is a temple?” he asked.

This may come as a surprise to contemporary Indians, but during that period, there were no Hindu temples. Hindu traditions existed for over a thousand years before the need to construct temples was felt. This is the story of Hindu temples.

Let us begin with words, that is, words for temple. Words are often used to create and maintain identities. The English word temple, for example, is used only in some contexts. It was initially used by European Christians for religious edifices of “others”—Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, and later Hindus, Buddhists, and the like. You never hear of a Christian temple. The identity game in the use of “temple” becomes clear when we look at a book of synonyms. For ‘temple’, we have church, synagogue, mosque, sanctuary, shrine, chapel—the list goes on. Each of these terms carries nuances of meaning and a whole set of cultural baggage. Even in Indian English, one rarely uses the term ‘temple’ for a Sikh gurdwara or a Muslim mosque. So, what were the indigenous terms for what we call temples today?

No mention of temple in Dharmashastras

In the most ancient period, there was probably no term at all. Vedic rituals were performed in purpose-built temporary structures. Domestic rituals described in the Grihya Sutras were performed at home. Terms for temple appear in the Dharmashastras and other literature composed in the 3rd century BCE or later. The most common Sanskrit terms are devalaya, devayatana, and devagriha, and sometimes devakula and kostha. It is unclear what differences, if any, there were in the use of these terms, but they indicated a structure that housed a divinity.

But what kind of structures were they? Were they small roadside shrines or monumental buildings like those in Khajuraho and Madurai? What kinds of activities took place there? To which segment of the population did they cater? Did they have sectarian affiliations? In other words, in the use of the umbrella term ‘temple’, are we running the risk of obliterating differences?

Meenakshi Amman temple, Madurai, Tamil Nadu | Photo: Bernard Gagnon/Wikimedia Commons

On the ground, monumental religious architecture was first associated with Buddhist sites. Beginning with Ashoka (3rd century BCE) and culminating in the Kushan empire (2nd century CE), Buddhist architecture was well developed when Hindu temples began to be constructed probably around the 1st or 2nd century CE. There is no archaeological evidence for Hindu temples until at least the time of the Kushans.

Ironically, even though a temple is thought to locate the visible presence of divinity on earth, it is conspicuous by its absence or insignificance in the Dharmashastras. This mainstream of the Brahminical literary tradition ignored, or even actively opposed, temple-based religious and ritual activities. The activities recommended or enjoined by these texts were not meant to be carried out within a temple. The low prestige of the temple is indicated by the Vishnu Smriti (30.15) when it says that Vedic recitation should not be carried out “in a temple, in a cemetery, at a crossroads, or on a road.” Placing a temple next to a cemetery is telling. Ritual specialists associated with temples were called devalaka. They were despised by the authors of Dharmashastras. The devalaka is listed among those who should not be invited to an ancestral offering (shraddha), Manu listing them between physicians and butchers.

The installation of an iconic or aniconic divine image, furthermore, was a central element of a temple, as it still is. People go to a temple to, among other things, “take darshan” of the divinity. This act entails both seeing and being seen by the divine presence in the image. Yet, Brahminical texts composed in the first half of the 1st century CE take no notice of such images or the rituals surrounding them. The great scholar of Dharmashastra, PV Kane observes: “It strikes one as somewhat strange that none of the principal gṛhya and dharma-sutras contains any procedures of consecrating an image in a temple” (History of Dharmaśāstra, I, p. 896). The reason for this “strange” silence is clear—these texts of mainstream Brahminism were not interested in temples or what goes on in them. They viewed them with suspicion and disdain. The religion and rituals of mainstream Brahminism were domestic, solidly based in the home.

Temporary shelter for wandering ascetics

Where were temples of the early period located? Here is a clue. The most common function of a temple mentioned in early texts relates to the places where wandering ascetics spent the night. The Vasistha Dharmasutra (10.3) gives a list: outskirts of a village, temple, abandoned house, and foot of a tree. Similarly, the Vaikhanasa Dharmasutra (3.6): outside the village in an empty matha, in a temple, and at the foot of a tree.

Other texts list hills, forests, foot of a tree, and the like along with temples. That is the imagined geography of ascetic habitation, reinforcing the perception that temples were also as far from human habitations as these other locations. Thus, early temples or shrines were generally located far from villages and towns. Note again, however, that the only role the temple plays in the life of ascetics was as a temporary shelter for the night. Their religious life was as divorced from the temple as that of the ideal householder depicted in the Dharmashastras.

By the Gupta period, that is, around the 5th century CE, large Hindu temples became commonplace in the Indian landscape, especially at sacred sites. The institution of the temple became central to the religious and spiritual life of all kinds of Hindu traditions, and it remains so to this day. Temple architecture flourished, giving rise to a rich array of regional styles.

But it was not always so. Even after the arrival of the temple, religious activities prescribed by Dharmashastras continued, and still continue, to be carried out within the home. With a little bit of history that we have surveyed, we can understand why our time traveller was surprised not to find any temples in the Indian landscape.

Further readings:

Himanshu Prabha Ray (ed.), The Temple in South Asia. Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2010.

George Michell, The Hindu Temple: An Introduction to its Meaning and Form. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988.

Patrick Olivelle is Professor Emeritus of Asian Studies, The University of Texas at Austin. He is known for his work on early Indian religions, law, and statecraft. Views are personal.

(Edited by Prashant)