The Pushpagiri Question: Identifying, Naming, and Claiming a Lost Buddhist University

Pushpagiri occupies a singular place in the historical imagination of Buddhism in eastern India. It appears in textual memory as a centre of learning, circulates in scholarly debate as a geographical puzzle, and operates in contemporary discourse as a marker of cultural authority. In Odisha, the association of Pushpagiri with the clustered monastic landscape of Lalitgiri, Ratnagiri, and Udayagiri reshapes regional and national narratives of Buddhist education.

This essay examines how historians, archaeologists, and anthropologists have approached Pushpagiri, why their statements often emphasise caution, and how the very act of naming transforms archaeological landscapes into civilisational claims.

Textual Memory and Scholarly Restraint

Pushpagiri enters historical discourse primarily through the travel accounts of the seventh-century Chinese pilgrim Xuanzang. His references to Pushpagiri highlight scholastic vitality and monastic scale, yet avoid precise cartographic detail. Historian R.C. Majumdar famously warned that Chinese pilgrim itineraries function as “religious itineraries rather than geographical surveys,” urging scholars to treat textual references as indicators of importance rather than exact location markers. This methodological restraint has shaped subsequent historical approaches to Pushpagiri.

Romila Thapar, reflecting on the broader use of textual sources in early Indian history, observed that “names in texts often refer to institutional memory rather than fixed sites,” a formulation that resonates strongly with the Pushpagiri problem. Her perspective frames Pushpagiri as a remembered centre whose physical form may have exceeded the boundaries of a single campus.

Archaeology and the Reconfiguration of Eastern India

Odisha entered the Pushpagiri debate through archaeology rather than textual exegesis. The mid-twentieth-century excavations led by Debala Mitra at Ratnagiri and Lalitgiri transformed prevailing assumptions about the region. Mitra described Ratnagiri as “one of the most extensive Buddhist monastic complexes discovered in eastern India,” a statement that shifted Odisha from the margins of Buddhist historiography to its core.

In her excavation reports, Mitra repeatedly emphasised the density and diversity of monastic remains in the region, noting that “the scale of establishments in coastal Odisha rivals that of better-known centres of Buddhist learning.” Although she refrained from explicitly naming Pushpagiri, her work provided the empirical foundation for later identifications.

Archaeologist K.S. Behera, writing on Odisha’s Buddhist heritage, argued that the Diamond Triangle represents “a regional monastic system rather than isolated viharas,” a system whose collective scale aligns with descriptions of major universities in early medieval sources.

Institutional Scale and the University Analogy

The identification of Pushpagiri with the Diamond Triangle rests heavily on an institutional scale. Ratnagiri and Udayagiri together contain multiple large monasteries, extensive residential cells, assembly halls, and ritual spaces capable of sustaining a large resident population. Art historian Susan L. Huntington remarked that the iconographic and architectural range at these sites indicates “an environment of sustained theological debate and pedagogic transmission.”

Anthropologist Gregory Schopen’s work on Buddhist monasticism provides an important comparative lens. He has noted that Buddhist “universities” functioned as clusters of residence, ritual, and instruction distributed across landscapes rather than enclosed campuses. Read through this framework, and the Diamond Triangle’s clustered geography closely corresponds to how Pushpagiri may have operated in practice.

Chronology and Scholastic Networks

Historians frequently point to chronological alignment as another supporting factor. The peak phases of Lalitgiri, Ratnagiri, and Udayagiri fall between the seventh and tenth centuries CE, matching the period when Pushpagiri appears in transregional Buddhist networks. Tansen Sen, in his studies of Sino-Indian Buddhist exchange, has observed that “eastern India hosted multiple centres of learning that operated simultaneously, forming networks rather than hierarchies.” His observation weakens the assumption that a single site must monopolise the Pushpagiri identity.

This networked model supports interpretations that place Pushpagiri within a constellation of institutions rather than a singular monument.

Epigraphic Silence and Scholarly Caution

Despite strong archaeological indicators, scholars continue to emphasise epigraphic caution. No inscription recovered from the Diamond Triangle explicitly names Pushpagiri. Dilip K. Chakrabarti has repeatedly stressed that “archaeology provides context, scale, and pattern, while names demand inscriptional certainty.” His position reflects a broader disciplinary ethic that prioritises material evidence over narrative desire.

This caution has preserved the Pushpagiri question as an open scholarly field rather than a settled claim. The absence of a name has encouraged deeper engagement with how Buddhist institutions identified themselves, often through seals, lineages, and ritual affiliation rather than place-names.

Anthropology, Heritage, and the Politics of Naming

From an anthropological perspective, the Pushpagiri debate illustrates how naming operates as a form of power. Laurajane Smith’s concept of “authorised heritage discourse” explains how expert validation transforms sites into heritage assets. Once a site receives a canonical name, it enters funding frameworks, tourism circuits, and educational syllabi.

Cultural anthropologist Nayanjot Lahiri has written that archaeological naming “creates a past that can be administered in the present.” In Odisha, the aspiration to identify Pushpagiri reflects a broader effort to reposition the region within global Buddhist history. The stakes extend beyond scholarship into questions of recognition, stewardship, and identity.

Pushpagiri as a Distributed Institution

A growing body of scholarship treats Pushpagiri as a distributed institution rather than a single location. Historian Hermann Kulke, reflecting on early medieval Odisha, described the region’s religious landscape as “polycentric,” characterised by clusters of institutions sharing patronage and ritual idioms. Applied to Pushpagiri, this view allows the Diamond Triangle to function as a composite academic zone.

This interpretation aligns with UNESCO’s decision to frame Lalitgiri, Ratnagiri, and Udayagiri as a serial property. The serial approach acknowledges collective significance without enforcing a singular name, allowing scholarly debate to continue alongside heritage recognition.

UNESCO, Global Validation, and Scholarly Balance

The UNESCO Tentative List inscription introduces a new layer of authority into the Pushpagiri discourse. Heritage experts evaluate sites through concepts such as integrity, authenticity, and universal value. These criteria reward coherence and scale while leaving questions of naming to academic debate.

Archaeologist B.B. Lal once observed that “heritage recognition often precedes historical consensus,” a dynamic evident in the Diamond Triangle’s global positioning. UNESCO recognition amplifies visibility while scholarly restraint preserves methodological integrity.

Why Pushpagiri Endures as a Question?

Pushpagiri persists because it occupies a productive space between memory and materiality. Historians caution against textual literalism, archaeologists foreground scale and pattern, and anthropologists reveal the power embedded in naming. The Diamond Triangle satisfies many conditions associated with a major Buddhist university, yet the scholarly discipline sustains the question rather than closing it.

The enduring value of the Pushpagiri debate lies in its ability to expand understanding of Buddhist education beyond iconic campuses toward landscapes of learning shaped by mobility, patronage, and collective practice. In this sense, Pushpagiri survives less as a fixed point on a map and more as a framework for rethinking how knowledge institutions functioned in early medieval India.

---

References

1. Xuanzang (Hsüan-tsang). Great Tang Records on the Western Regions.

2. Mitra, Debala. Buddhist Monuments. Sahitya Samsad.

3. Thapar, Romila. Early India: From the Origins to AD 1300. University of California Press.

4. Chakrabarti, Dilip K. The Archaeology of Eastern India. Oxford University Press.

5. Huntington, Susan L. The Art of Ancient India. Weatherhill.

6. Schopen, Gregory. Bones, Stones, and Buddhist Monks. University of Hawai‘i Press.

7. Smith, Laurajane. Uses of Heritage. Routledge.

8. Sen, Tansen. Buddhism, Diplomacy, and Trade. University of Hawai‘i Press.

9. Kulke, Hermann. Kings and Cults. Manohar.