Source: TW
mahAbhArata
An interesting reference to caitya-s in the arcika hills, that lomasha RSi recommends yudhiSThira to visit along with his siblings & draupadI:
In the 125th chapter of vanaparva of Mbh in the tIrthayAtrA-parva subsection:
आर्चीक पर्वतश् चैव निवासो वै मनीषिणाम्
सदा फलः सदा स्रोतो मरुतां स्थानम् उत्तमम्
चैत्याश् चैते बहुशतास् त्रिदशानां युधिष्ठिर
One finds the concept of sacred caityas in the 100s (बहुशतास्) of the 30 [devas] (त्रिदशानां). Later in same chapter, one also encounters that it is particularly special to indra & varuNa who “dwell” there–a notion that classical mImAMsakas would not have been too fond of:
एतत् प्रस्रवणं पुण्यम् इन्द्रस्य मनुजाधिप
यत्र धाता विधाता च वरुणश् चोर्ध्वम् आगताः
इह ते न्यवसन् राजन् क्षान्ताः परमधर्मिणः
मैत्राणाम् ऋजु बुद्धीनाम् अयं गिरिवरः शुभः
Note concept of a local sacred spring (स्रवणं) ‘possessed’ by indra (possessive sense indicated by इन्द्रस्य) ++& varuNa, dhAtR, vidhAtr too are all mentioned as having resided there (अवसन्). ++
Essentially, what is a temple? Does it have to be a particular structure or form? Not necessarily. Even a natural location like a spring would suffice. In either case, there is an assumed presence of the devatas or some sort of “residual sacredness” due to a past association.
In the Adiparva of the mahAbhArata, there is a beautiful reference to how the ancient king yayati marked the earth with myriads of caitya-s & yUpa-s all over her:
ययातिं शुभकर्माणं देवैर् यो याजितः स्वयम्
चैत्ययूपाङ्किता भूमिर् यस्येयं सवनाकरा
Whether the hundreds of sacrificial altars established by the very very old king yayati in the course of his reign were intended to be permanent fixtures for the posterity to revere is completely besides the point. What is clear is this: It is clear that these fixtures began serving as revered memories of sites where great rituals were done by great men of old times; way way before CE. This is not all that different from today’s temples being remembered as sites where agastya or some other RSi did tapas & so on.
sangam
An interesting fact in this connection could perhaps be seen from the name of one famous king of the tamizh saNGam poetry collection—palyAgashAlai pANDyan mutukuDumi. The pANDyan is remembered after the yAgashAlas (or their ashen remains) he left behind on this earth, not the sacrifices themselves he performed at those instants. Much like how later kings are remembered after the temples they left behind.
sUtras and brAhmaNas
The desire for permanent sacred sites manifested as the caityabali of the AshvalAyana gRhya sUtra & other sources (which I believe shrI @/blog_supplement has written about) before this caitya+yUpa model of a shrine was followed by more complex models in the paurANika-Agama age. Now, although caitya is not mentioned in the veda, the adjectival term cita (piled up) is used in the very ancient aitareya brAhmaNa. In the aitareya brAhmaNa there occurs certain “shlokAs” about the various deeds of bharata, son of duHSanti, at various sites….
In that context, the following line occurs in the shlokas:
भरतस्यैष दौःषन्तेरग्निः साचीगुणे चितः यस्मिन् सहस्रम् ब्राह्मणा बद्वशो गा विभेजिरे
A full translation of whole gAtha on bharata dauHSanti:
Source: TW
The cited portion remembers a fire whose altar was built up @ sAcIguNa in a distant past (dauHSanti is a very old king), but yet speaks of it in a clearly contemporary sense (eSa..agniH: “this” fire)
In my opinion, this is the first reference to a caitya although the text doesn’t use that term (it refers to an agni that has been piled up (citaH)). There is the clear memory of a brick/clay altar being piled up at a particular place with a revered memory being attached to it. If you click the above link and read the whole passage, note that the shlokas refer to many places where bharata did great, pious deeds in old times but only refers to sAciguNa with eSa (this), indicating that the ‘fire’ was still there (i.e. remains of that very sacred altar).
Given the aitareya brAhmaNa’s undoubtedly hoary & pre-bauddha provenance, I don’t think we should buy into the Western agenda of transferring all the credit for the concept of a distinctly carved-out, temple-like sacred space in bhArata to the bauddhas!
Derivation
Now, ‘citi’ means that which has been piled up. ‘caitya’ then literally means ‘derived from a citi’, referring to the overall sacred structure resulting from the pile-up. Now, the citi itself does not have to only refer to the vedic altar but can refer to a pile-up in general. It can refer to a vertically piled-up structure consisting of stones/bricks, to be used for worship or a funerary mound (in which ashes are stored) or some other platform in which a tree has been planted (such a tree is called caitya-vRkSaH).
rAmAyaNa
In this context, one may refer to this shloka from rAmAyaNa, ayodhyakANDa, 56th sArga, 33rd shloka:
वेदिस्थलविधानानि चैत्यान्यायतनानि च।
आश्रमस्यानुरूपाणि स्थापयामास राघवः
Here, rAma is referred to as having installed 3 types of sacred structures: vedi-s, caitya-s & Ayatana-s.
pALi texts
The argument that caitya-worship came with bauddhas is not sensible when it is mentioned in early pAli texts themselves, as a matter-of-fact feature of the countries that the historical buddha visited. This is an excerpt from the buddha’s final discourse -
किन्ति ते, आनन्द, सुतं,
‘वज्जी
यानि तानि वज्जीनं वज्जि-चेतियानि, अब्भन्तरानि चेव, बाहिरानि च,
तानि सक्करोन्ति, गरुं करोन्ति, मानेन्ति, पूजेन्ति,
तेसञ्च दिन्न-पुब्बं कत-पुब्बं धम्मिकं बलिं नो परिहापेन्ती’ति?
By all accounts, ‘caitya’ as a raised stone/brick platform used for worship was an established feature of the religious landscape before the buddha. The questions hard to solve at this point are if we can pinpoint caityas dedicated to specific devas & the specific rites therein.
Discussion
The earlier structures were probably timber. That’s why they don’t survive. IMHO, the bauddha/jaina innovation was using stone structures/ rock cut caves since they also served as permanent living spaces for their monks.