Guita Bahi Buddha: Comments

In the article The Standing Buddha of Guita Bahi, Part I, three possible conclusions regarding the dating of this sculpture were suggested:

1) The first possibility is that the Guita Buddha is the very “bronze Buddha” of the Licchavi inscription on the back of the pedestal, which has survived all the subsequent earthquakes, and thus dates to 542 C.E, making it not only the largest metal sculpture known from Nepal but also the earliest.

2) A second possibility is that it is a work earlier than the 1279 inscription, but later than the sculpture mentioned in the Licchavi inscription, perhaps from the 8h-9th centuries, a sculpture made to replace the Licchavi image when it was damaged beyond repair, but which survived the earthquake which necessitated the 1279 renovation of the vihara.

3) A third possibility is that it is a late 13th c work made to copy and replace an earlier image – either the bronze Buddha of the Licchavi inscription on the back of the pedestal, or perhaps to replace a later replacement of that Buddha which was in turn damaged beyond repair in another earthquake which struck some time before the renovation of the vihara in 1279.

My colleagues and I decided that the first possibility - that the Guita Buddha is the very “bronze Buddha” of the Licchavi inscription on the back of the pedestal, and thus dates to 542 C.E – is the most likely. But we realize that other researchers and scholars may have differing opinions, so we have set up this Comments page to record other thoughts and ideas.

We have solicited comments from various scholars and other experts and lovers of Himalayan art and Nepalese art in particular. We welcome any and all comments, not only on the subject of the dating of the Guita sculpture, but on whatever other facets of the article a reader might like to comment upon. If you would like to comment on this article, please send your comment in an email, or attach your comment as a document with accompanying images, if needed, to your email. Please send to , with the subject Guita Buddha Comment. Once received and reviewed, your comment will be added to this page.

The comments we have received are given below, with separate pages as needed, in the order they were received. Shorter comments are given in their entirety here; longer comments are continued in separate pages.


Ulrich von Schroeder, 16th July 2020
Why I believe that the present Buddha of the Guita Baha Monastery dates from N.S. 399/1279 and not from Shaka Era 464/542. (go to full page)

Tommy Yang Guo, July 2020, revised Nov. 3 , 2020
(in response to a message from Ulrich von Schroeder)
I agree with you the standing Buddha image at Guita Bahi was most likely made during the time of the consecration, i.e., late 13th century. The proposed 6th century Gupta dating is not possible. Here are some observations I would like to add to your argument. (go to full page)

Yury Khokhlov, Oct. 20, 2020
The Guita Bahi Buddha is splendid! However, I don’t think it can be of the 6th century, when the aesthetics are different and well known, for instance, from Ajanta. (go to full page)

Guatama Vajracharya, Oct. 21, 2020
In my opinion, the Guita Bahi Buddha cannot be the Buddha image described in the Licchavi inscription for two different reasons. (go to full page)

Edward Wilkinson, Oct. 27, 2020
This is a fabulous article with great research and a very solid argument – so many great comparative images to consider. I am with you for the dating of 542. Given the confidence of the early Malla artists, why would they feel the need to copy something from the past when they had moved on to a completely new style?