From the starting point of 'In keeping with other early Buddhist tenets, there is no figurative representation of Buddha here, However, there is a large gilded statue from a later period inside, and behind the temple are the spreading branches and trunks of the sacred Bodhi Tree, which is said to have grown from a sapling of the first one that stood here 2,500 years ago.', does 'There is no statue of Buddha located there.' follow as a logical conclusion?
In keeping with other early Buddhist tenets, there is no figurative representation of Buddha here, However, there is a large gilded statue from a later period inside, and behind the temple are the spreading branches and trunks of the sacred Bodhi Tree, which is said to have grown from a sapling of the first one that stood here 2,500 years ago.###There is no statue of Buddha located there.