Series of religious rituals mark Buddha Purnima in Varanasi
2
3
4
5
6
Varanasi:
Buddha Purnima
was celebrated with a series of religious events organised in the city on Monday.
Sarnath
, the place where Buddha preached his first sermons, witnessed a series of programmes while several devotees thronged the ghats of the Ganga for holy dip since early morning hours on Monday.
After the holy bath, they performed many
religious rituals
at the ghat and visited temples to offer prayers.This auspicious occasion is observed on the full moon night of the Vaisakha month to celebrate the birth of
Gautam Buddha
. the day holds significance as on this day he also attained enlightenment, and nirvana. Buddhists visited the Mulagandha Kuty Vihar in Sarnath to offer prayers. A day-long celebration, including special prayers, yatras, and other events, was held in the city.
Students from various schools carried out a 'dhamm chetana yatra' in Sarnath in the morning. Later, in the evening, Dhamek Stupa was beautifully illuminated.
The religious activities, such as the administration of Ashtangsheel and offerings to Buddha, were organised by the Maha Bodhi Society of India at Mulagandha Kuty Vihara. In the evening, the Mulagandha Kuty Vihara and Bodhi Tree Complex were illuminated with lamps.Meanwhile, a special prayer was organised at Mulagandha Kuty Vihar on the eve of Vaishakh Purnima on Sunday. Led by Bhikkhu Silavansa and Bhikkhu Chandima, Buddhist monks recited the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta for world peace in front of the statue of Lord Buddha. After the prayers, the monks lit lamps at the temple entrance. The entire temple premises were adorned with colourful lights and flags.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
5 days ago
- Economic Times
Buddhist Piprahwa relics have finally returned, but is India's heritage free yet?
Urn our keep: Late Mauryan Brahmi inscription on a steatite vase from a Piprahwa stupa that reads, 'Relics of the Buddha Lord', Indian Museum, Kolkata On July 30, gem-encrusted relics believed to be linked to the Buddha's ashes finally returned to India. In 1898, a team led by British civil engineer and indigo plantation owner William Claxton Peppe excavated a stupa in his estate in Piprahwa, in today's Uttar Pradesh. The team found relics associated with Shakya clan, the community to which the Buddha belonged. The most sacred caskets were handed over to colonial authorities and deposited in the Indian Museum in Calcutta. But Peppe, reportedly with state consent, retained a portion of the find: roughly 20% of the stones, categorised at the time as 'duplicates'. Narendra Modi rightly called the repatriation of the Piprahwa relics 'a joyous day for our cultural heritage'. The items, including over 300 gem-encrusted stones, had vanished from public view, and were taken outside colonial India. Last month, they were about to be auctioned off by Sotheby's in Hong Kong on behalf of Peppe's descendants for an estimated $13 mn, when GoI intervened. On the 78th anniversary of India's independence, behind the deserved celebration of the relics' return lies a deeper reckoning: what legal memory still governs ownership of culture in postcolonial India? It's a reminder of what remains unreconciled: colonial-era laws that governed whose heritage was protected, whose discoveries were criminalised, and whose claims still shape the institutional memory of India's cultural past. Indian Treasure Trove Act of 1878 was repealed in 2018. But its legal and moral legacy continues to haunt our understanding of cultural ownership. Peppé, reportedly with state consent, retained a portion of the find: roughly 20% of the gem-encrusted stones. The Piprahwa repatriation is not just an act of diplomatic triumph. It is also a case study of the legal double standards that once underwrote empire, and which linger in the deep and accommodating shadows of museums and markets. Now that repatriation has gained momentum across former colonising and colonised states, what structural work remains to be done?Unlike the treatment meted out to the Peppe family, there were many cases of Indian villagers unearthing buried objects. These finders were subsequently prosecuted under the Indian Treasure Trove Act. In the 1914 'Mala Naicker And Anr. vs Unknown' case, two Tamil labourers were sentenced for failing to report a discovery of 'treasure' to the 'nearest government treasury'. In the 1938 'Govindaraja Pillai vs Vanchinatham Pillai' case, six men in Madras Presidency were convicted for not disclosing an uncovered 'treasure trove'.These cases reflected how the Act operated in practice. On paper, the 1878 law required anyone who found treasure worth more than ₹10 to report it to the collector. If no rightful owner could be identified, the treasure was to be claimed by the British crown. In principle, the law applied to all. In practice, enforcement targeted Indian subjects, particularly poor and/or rural finders, while British officials and landowners were often exempt from scrutiny or do not have a complete registry of enforcement actions under the Act. But, to date, no public record exists of cases involving prosecution of British or European residents. The Peppe case illustrates how easily colonial privilege could reclassify sacred relics as private heirlooms, all under the law. The result was a selective legal ecosystem: privatised for some, and weaponised against Buddha's relics were, for over a century, kept from Indian scholars, pilgrims and institutions. Their retrieval is both overdue and meaningful. But restitution is not the same as redress - not for those whose names were never remembered, whose prosecutions were never questioned and whose claims were dismissed, not because they were weak, but because they were 'native'.Even now, the Act's influence endures in regulatory ambiguity, including gaps in enforcement of Antiquities and Art Treasures Act 1972 that surrounds antiquities, in the often-unchallenged authority of global auction houses, and in the persistent hesitation of museums to revisit the provenance of their we are to move from symbolic restitution to substantive redress, India must begin a historical inventory. That means building a transparent, public database of repatriated and contested cultural objects, including those held in private collections, auction pipelines or museums also requires a systematic review of acquisition records in our institutions, many of which still carry the legacy of colonial-era curatorial practices. Without such a reckoning, we risk treating each return as an isolated triumph, rather than part of a broader, unfinished narrative - one in which cultural memory is still being negotiated, and justice remains means revisiting narratives we tell - and don't tell - about who found what, who kept it and who was punished. It means acknowledging that many stories of cultural theft are not just about missing objects but also, and importantly, about missing return of the Piprahwa relics is a rare act of historical rightness. But it should not be mistaken for closure. Cultural heritage is not just about the past. It is about power: who defines what is sacred, what is legal and who is allowed to Buddha has come home. Now, let us ask: whose stories are still in exile? (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of Elevate your knowledge and leadership skills at a cost cheaper than your daily tea. Tariffs, tantrums, and tech: How Trump's trade drama is keeping Indian IT on tenterhooks Good, bad, ugly: How will higher ethanol in petrol play out for you? As big fat Indian wedding slims to budget, Manyavar loses lustre As 50% US tariff looms, 6 key steps that can safeguard Indian economy Stock Radar: JSPL forms Ascending Triangle pattern on weekly charts, could hit fresh 52-week high soon Nifty and business are different species: 5 small-cap stocks from different sectors with upside potential of up to 30% F&O Radar | Deploy Bear Put Spread in Nifty to play index's negative stance amid volatility Wealth creation: Look beyond the obvious in some things; 10 fertilizer sector companies worth watching
The Hindu
5 days ago
- The Hindu
Art historian Naman Ahuja on the repatriation of the Piprahwa Buddha relics
In the spring of 1897, William Claxton Peppé, an estate manager, ordered the excavation of a stupa in Piprahwa, a village in modern-day Uttar Pradesh. Piprahwa is widely believed to be the site of ancient Kapilavastu, the historical seat of the Buddha's family clan, the Shakyas. Peppé's team unearthed bone fragments, soapstone and crystal caskets, a sandstone coffer, and offerings of gold ornaments and gemstones. An inscription in the Brahmi script on one of the caskets confirmed that these were relics of the Buddha. While the bone relics were gifted to the King of Siam (Rama V) and some portions allocated to temples in Mynamar and Sri Lanka, the rest was divided between the Indian Museum in Kolkata and the Peppé family. When Chris Peppé, great-grandson of William, decided to auction the relics in his family's possession at Sotheby's Hong Kong on May 7 this year, there was a furore. Buddhist scholars, monastic leaders, and historians, including Naman Ahuja, condemned the move. The auction was postponed after the Indian government issued a legal notice to Sotheby's Hong Kong. Following diplomatic intervention and mounting pressure from the government and Buddhist organisations, the auction house returned the relics to India on July 30. In this interview, Ahuja, curator, editor of the art magazine Marg, and professor of Indian Art and Architecture at Jawaharlal Nehru University, speaks of the importance of the repatriation of the relics, one of the most significant archaeological discoveries in Buddhist history. Edited excerpts: Q: Why are these particular relics significant? A: For millennia, traditional belief has it that the Buddha gave permission for the worship of his relics, albeit reluctantly. Relics constituted the focus of theistic worship in Buddhism. Scholarly consensus is that the relics from Piprahwa have every reason to be a part of the original share of the cremated remains of the Buddha that were entrusted to the Shakyas — the Buddha's paternal family. The archaeological dating and context fits this and an ancient Brahmi inscription on one of the relic caskets found inside the stupa at Piprahwa corroborates this view. Further, the gems that the Shakyas interred with the cremated remains are cut using tools that were also known to be used only in very ancient times. There can be little dispute about their antiquity or significance. Q: Now that the relics have been repatriated, in what ways would they have to be taken care of? And does India have the necessary resources, manpower, and will to do so? A: Yes, we do. Even in ancient times, their trusteeship was passed on with care, and entire monastic administrative machineries were in place to look after these matters. Ashes or charred remains of a person, their bodily relics, were treated with deep respect in antiquity — whether by the megalith builders or in Vedic or Buddhist cultures. They form the core of stupas that attract pilgrims. Elaborate rituals were held around them. However, I must hasten to add that alongside the religious importance of these relics, we must also recognise their importance for history. They mattered to the Shakyas, who committed them to public benefit and built monasteries around them. They come from Piprahwa, a site in the original Buddhist holy land, which is a region that many emperors maintained. That region deserves our attention again now. Modern India has put administrative functions in place for museums, research, archaeology and Buddhist affairs, and this case should catalyse the functioning of these departments. These relics have mobilised extraordinary research in modern times. That function is an equally important one to maintain. Q: You had said in a talk that repatriation should not be motivated merely by national chauvinism. A: No, the desire for merely possessing an object is only a manifestation of materialism. As instruments of history, or of spiritual edification, however, they have to be able to inspire diverse public stakeholders. Indeed, we must be careful to remember that for millions of Buddhists in East Asia, Southeast Asia, or anywhere else in the world, the relics of the Buddha hold profound spiritual significance. India and the current owners have an opportunity to be of service to them. Q: Do you think India's stance in this case should be its position regarding all religious relics? A: In the case of those relics where it can be reasonably established whose relics they are, where the land, site or people from whom they have been taken are known, and when they hold the kind of enormous spiritual significance that these ones do, then yes, they should be repatriated. However, as a museums person, I know how enormously difficult, specialised and expensive taking care of objects, paintings and buildings can be. Taking care of relics that combine the needs of devotees with historians, scientists, geologists and others is going to be that much harder. It is better to take on these responsibilities only to the extent they can be performed properly. Otherwise, one comes across as an insatiable child whose insecurities and perceived deprivation just make it want more and more without any idea of what looking after those things entails. It would be horrible if these relics were turned into a flavour of the month, only to be replaced by some other 'object' quickly enough. Q: After being flown in from Hong Kong, the relics were taken to the National Museum in Delhi. Relics are not objects. Is a museum the best place for them? A: Fabulous question! And a tough one, too. I have had to mull over this question for the past few months, and I can address it from two perspectives. Ancient relics were once paraded and put in transparent caskets of rock-crystal in which they could be seen. History shows their aura was sensed through different means: their energy could come through a stupa of mud, brick and stone; at the same time, through acculturation and suggestion cognition came into play when the remembrance or memory of a life respected by many was communicated; and then of course, they were visually beheld. Museums can perform all three functions. This brings me to the second part of the answer, and this involves the evolving functions of museums in society. These are institutions that showcase our highest civilisational achievements. That showcasing is now informed by profoundly knowledgeable communication. Again, I believe the presence of the relics offers India an opportunity to build its capacities on these fronts. Q: While arguing for the repatriation of these relics, you have also maintained the stance that 'not all things taken from India need to be repatriated'. When do you think it is necessary or even crucial to repatriate things, whether objects or relics, and when do you think they are better off not being repatriated? A: I'd like to clarify your question here. I don't believe the situation in India is so hopeless that the objects are better off abroad. I am not here to take sides on behalf of countries. My commitment is to the safety of objects and their capacity to communicate. Artefacts and artworks are invaluable evidence of history. And yes, it is necessary to speak up when that evidence is neglected, made unavailable to the public or if it is no longer able to reinforce cultural connections or is denied to scholars to reinterpret history. India can perform these roles. It has looked after the sacred relics from Buddhist sites, but now an opportunity has come to vastly improve research and display. I'd also like to place on record that museums all over the world with collections of Indian artefacts have inspired many universities' scholars to study the languages and culture of India and have shaped perception and policy towards India. They have safeguarded and looked after invaluable heritage. Often, this is overlooked on social media and everything abroad is presented as 'loot' when this need not always be the case. It is imperative that a calibrated position is taken in each case after examining the history behind something's removal from India. Secondly, before repatriating something, we must ask if we already have many similar pieces in India, and will that repatriation fill a major gap? When our museums and the Archaeological Survey of India are so cash-strapped, there's little point adding to our expenses with objects we aren't able to mobilise for the benefit of researchers or the public. Q: During a visit to Thailand earlier this year, Prime Minister Narendra Modi had announced that India would once again loan sacred relics of the Buddha to Thailand. What do you think about relics being used as a diplomatic tool? A: I think it is a very good idea. Such relics and objects must be shared as widely as possible. After all, they were originally endowed for the public in a stupa. Calling them a diplomatic 'tool', however, is a little cynical or even harsh, in fact. Indeed, many diplomats and administrators have to use their tools to enable a communication of narratives of religion, memory and history, of auras and aesthetics. These are not normally a diplomat's tools. Q: Did the attempt to auction the Buddha's relics perpetuate colonial violence? What does this particular case say about broader post-colonial politics? A: I believe the U.K. government did not find it necessary to take any moral or ethical action to assist India's endeavour in protecting the sale of the Buddha's bodily relics. Their state made the rules by which the despoliation of the stupas and private ownership of the Buddha's relics were granted to its colonial functionaries. Yet, without any official statement on the matter from them, it seems they are protecting the agencies of colonialism, Sotheby's and the Peppé family's monetisation of the relics. I am told that without any support, India was left with no choice but to take the course of action it did in asking a philanthropist to step in. 'Post' colonial, you ask? The textbook definition of colonialism remains. You take something for free from the colony and sell it back to the colony at a price you stipulate. radhika.s@
The Hindu
5 days ago
- The Hindu
Review of The Buddha's Path to Awakening
The increasing popularity of Buddhism among people who identify themselves as spiritual but not religious has led to a watering down of the life story of the Buddha. The rich narrative literature in Pali that chronicles Siddhattha Gotama's path to awakening does not restrict itself to a single lifetime simply because, according to the Buddhist worldview, it takes countless lifetimes to attain enlightenment. Ideas of karma and rebirth are deeply woven into the fabric of early Buddhism. While these seem problematic to contemporary audiences given the implications for social justice, it is also true that discarding these robs us of the truths contained in the language of myth, miracle and metaphor. The Buddha's Path to Awakening, translated by Sarah Shaw from the Jatakanidana in Pali, is a commentary on the 547 birth stories known as the Jatakas, which underwent numerous adaptations in the centuries after the historical Buddha's lifetime. Composed by an anonymous monk in the 5th or 6th century CE in the region known as present-day Sri Lanka, this text is significant to seekers and scholars alike because it preserves the oral traditions that have emerged and accumulated around the Bodhisatta, a title that is used to refer to a person who takes a vow to attain Buddhahood after which there is no rebirth. This is not a selfish aspiration. It stems from the motivation to be free of suffering in order to help free others. Freedom of enlightenment According to ancient Buddhist lore, there were several Buddhas before the historical Buddha aka Siddhattha Gotama known to contemporary readers. One of them was Dipankara. During his time, Bodhisatta Sumedha took this vow: 'I will fulfil the ten perfections, and a hundred thousand eons and four incalculable epochs from now, I will become a Buddha!' The story of the historical Buddha, who was born in Lumbini and got enlightened in Gaya, goes back to Sumedha who cultivated the perfections of generosity, virtue, renunciation, wisdom, heroic strength, forbearance, truthfulness, resolve, loving kindness, and equanimity over numerous lifetimes. With this book, Shaw, a faculty member in the Department of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Oxford, has produced a translation that makes the Jatakanidana accessible to people who have no knowledge of Pali but a strong wish to understand and even emulate the Buddha's path. As she notes, 'The taking of the Bodhisatta vow, the key event near the outset of this work, is not simply a narrative linking device. It also serves as a gateway, or an opening, for a heroic search that can be undertaken by anyone.' Oddly, she does not comment on how this seems inconsistent with the Bodhisatta's pronouncement that 'Buddhas are not born in a Vaishya or a Sudra family but come from a Kshatriya or a Brahman family — whichever people think is superior at the time'. This inconsistency makes one wonder if the text that 'dates to... centuries after the formation of the Pali canon' was corrupted by later additions. One of the most poignant sentences in this translation reads: 'The Bodhisatta renounced the kingdom that had been given to him like a glob of spittle, without any hankering for it.' This is a stunning articulation of the freedom that the Buddha's path promises. The Murty Classical Library of India deserves kudos for producing such a fine work with the original Pali and the English translation on facing pages, bringing ancient wisdom to new audiences. The reviewer is a journalist, educator and literary critic.
