Comments by "M Shastri" (@libshastra) on "'Large-sized Hindu temples did not exist before 500 AD' : Historian Patrick Olivelle" video.

The sites on which temples exist today existed prior to 500 AD. Garbagriha of Hindu temples were worshipped prior to 500 AD.
119
It's clever by half to restrict oneself to textual sources while ignoring archaeological ones. If you only relied on texts, this video is 100% right. But then again you're looking at Hindu dharm with a very narrow lens.
41
Actually it's a bit misleading to say Buddhist temples existed prior to Hindu ones. Buddhists pantheon and Hindu pantheon were pretty much the same (Like Vishnu in Mahayana, Shiva in Tibetan). Buddhists did use temples to mediate. Brahmanical dissociation can be best seen as rivalry against Buddhists. Buddhists who preached sanyas & forgoing family life, left out social obligations (duties to your parents, funerals, new home, birth of a child etc.). Brahmin focus on these rituals reflects the needs of the society at that time. That's why Brahminical texts is focused on role of householder (Ghrihasta). This is where Dharmashastra and sutras comes into the picture. Also only half of the dharnashashtras have survived into contemporary age. So what we know is quite incomplete. Maybe there's a dharmashastra that specifically talks about Devalaka.
21
@grapeshott he's only restricted himself to textual sources. Stalupanishad and their carbon dating disprove him.
2
@abhilashrao5350 Olivier (the presenter) himself has written papers on it.
2