Are temples the launching pads to Nibbana?
A controversial question?
Do we need to go to temples, in order to attain Nibbana? A question quite often raised by 'intellectuals' among laymen. It is true. During Buddha's times, many a laymen attained enlightenment by hearing His teachings, despite the lack of temples.
Temples, monasteries, or whatever you want to call them, began to appear in His own lifetime, when the then rulers began to construct and offer monasteries (E.g. Jetavana Vihara) for the benefit of the Sangha. The texts say that they were offered to the Buddha. No doubt He "accepted", everything on behalf of His disciples, He being the leader by consensus at the time. There is, of course, no hint of Him claiming ownership to any of them anywhere.
Temples, if you want to use the popular term, were places for the practicing Sangha - who are dedicated to realising The Truth. I have not come across any mention of any particular Monk being the "owner"/"permanent resident" of any of those constructions donated to the cause of Buddhism.
I think there is a case of symbolism here. The statues, the paintings, and elaborate decorations, assume a meaning if one looks at the issue of temples in modern times.
In the past, that is where the followers, as well as non-followers, went to listen to His message and learn,and also to challenge His message. Where possible, they used available accommodation to reside and practice the teachings. It is at the temple, that scene can now be re-enacted.
The modern world is awash with technology, where one could reach Buddhism in whatever form one prefers. One could listen to a sermon over the Internet, join a discussion group, and the opportunities are immense.
Yet, the question remain: what difference does it make, by the choice of media one chooses to receive the Dhamma?
I think, the acquisition of Dhamma, by whatever means, is one thing, but would it be sufficient to realise The Truth?