Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The University of Nalanda c11: Chapter V. Famous Pandits of Nālandā

The University of Nālandā c11

Language
English

Chapter V. Famous Pandits of Nālandā

c11.2

ALL institutions, it is said, are extended shadows of great men. The lives of these men, therefore, are no less important than the institutions of which they are the makers. Nālandā, likewise, was the extended shadow of its pandits Nāgārjuna, Vasubandhu, Diṅnāga, Śāntarakṣita, for instance. Personal history of these and other famous pandits of the University, then, forms the topic of this Chapter.

c11.3

Before dealing with this aspect of their life we would just like to add a note on the word ‘Pandita’ which we will use, frequently, hereafter. It was used in a two-fold sense at Nālandā. Ordinarily it meant a professor. But there was another meaning and that was of greater importance. At the University of Vikramaśīlā (800 A.D.) ‘Pandita’ was a degree that was conferred on its successful candidates, while at Nālandā, it appears that it was a distinctive title bestowed upon the head of the University.¹

c11.4

¹ See Vidyabhusana, o. c., p. 79; H.I.L., p. 271-2. Taranath also seems to use the word in this latter sense when he says, “Dharmapāla became Pandita in Śrī Nālandā after the excellent Candrakīrti,” o. c., p. 161.

c11.5

We have said previously that even though Nāgārjuna and Āryadeva were connected with Nālandā, as statements of Hiuen Tsiang would appear to show, still they cannot be said to have any real connexion with the University. For the University itself was of a posthumous origin. So also would be with Rahulabhadra, “who held office as a teacher in Śrī Nālandā when King Śrī Candra erected 14 fragrant halls and 14 incomparable religious schools.”² Likewise, even Asaṅga and Vasubandhu will have to be excluded from the list of pandits who actually lived and worked in the University if we agree with Kimura¹ that they lived in 390-400 A.D., that is, some 50 years before the rise of the University. But against this we have very strong evidence to prove that they lived not only when the University was actually founded but some 60 years after. It has been shown almost conclusively by Takakusu that Asaṅga and Vasubandhu lived in the latter part of the fifth century A.D.² The only other difficulty in including them among the pandits of Nālandā is that they might not have proceeded to Nālandā but accomplished all their work either at Peshawar (Puruṣapura) or Ayodhyā, as the University had just come into existence. The difficulty, however, will be to a great extent solved if we presume that Vasubandhu who took such a prominent part in converting Bālāditya (Narasimhagupta) to Buddhism must also be taking a very great interest in the institutions at Nālandā.

c11.6

² Vidyabhusana, o.c., p. 146.

c11.7

¹ Kimura, o.c., p. 175.

c11.8

² Takakusu, *Paramartha's Life of Vasubandhu*, J. R. A. S., 1905 p. 35. See also note 5, p. 19 above.

c11.9

Most probably as a sign of his conversion to Buddhism, Bālāditya may have erected the great saṅghārāma at Nālandā, which bore his name, even when Hiuen Tsiang visited the place.³ It is also not unlikely that Vasubandhu was greatly instrumental in persuading the king to show his love for Buddhism in a tangible shape in the form of the Nālandā buildings. To all these proofs, we may add one more, viz., Taranath, who in this case, contrary to that in the case of Nāgārjuna, is supported by other historical evidence. Says he of Asaṅga, "He lived in the period of his later life for 12 years in Nālandā."⁴ The words "later life" are important, because the greater portion of his life was spent at Peshawar and Ayodhyā,⁵ while the last years of his must have been spent in Nālandā.

c11.10

³ Hiuen Tsiang, o.c., II, p. 173; Hwui Li, o.c., p. 109.

c11.11

⁴ Taranath, o.c., p. 118.

c11.12

⁵ Takakusu, o.c., pp. 35-44.

c11.13

So, there is no objection, if we speak of Asaṅga and Vasubandhu as the pandits of Nālandā, which was very fortunate in securing the services of such eminent personalities at its very inception.

c11.14

The University found another great pandit in the person of Diṅnāga. Asaṅga and Vasubandhu made the University famous by placing their services at its altar. Diṅnāga restored its fame when it was on the point of being humiliated by the Brāhmaṇ Sudūrjaya. The circumstances under which Diṅnāga was brought to Nālandā according to Taranath were as follows: A great contest took place between the pandits of Nālandā and the Brāhmaṇ Sudūrjaya. The former found it hard to discuss with the Brāhmaṇ, who was well-versed in dialectics. So they sent for Diṅnāga. Diṅnāga, though a native of Siṃha Vaktra, a suburb of Kāñcī, in the South, at the time when he was sent for by the pandits of Nālandā was living in a cave on Bhoraśaila in Odivisa. And the story goes that he thrice defeated the Tirthyas in the debate. After the controversy was over, he began to preach the Abhidhamma; he also composed many dialectical śāstras and is said to have composed in all 100 śāstras.¹ Reference to his important works and his contribution to Logic we have noted previously.

c11.15

¹ Taranath, o.c., p. 132.

c11.16

Ever since the Chinese and Japanese came to know of him and his works, they have looked upon him with great admiration. "And even up to the present day Diṅnāga has a firm hold on the learned people of China and Japan, in spite of the fact that there had been many distinguished Naiyāyikas in both China and Japan. And as European system of Logic has been only recently introduced, Diṅnāga is still studied,"² There is a difference of opinion as to when he lived. Keith says, "He lived probably before A.D. 400."³ While the Japanese would place him between 400-500 A.D.¹ This latter appears to be the more correct date because we have assigned the fifth century to Vasubandhu, Diṅnāga, who came after him, must necessarily be assigned 500 or even 520 to 600 A.D.

c11.17

² I am indebted for this information to Sastri, *History of Nyāya-śāstra from Japanese sources*, J. A. S. B., N.S., I (1905), p. 177.

c11.18

³ Keith, o.c., p. 484.

c11.19

Perhaps, next to Diṅnāga when King Śila was ruling, Jayadeva had the distinction to occupy the ‘Pandita’ chair. Save Taranath,² nobody refers to this Jayadeva, not even Hiuen Tsiang and I-Tsing, who though give a host of names of the famous pandits of Nālandā.

c11.20

Candrakīrti succeeded Jayadeva. Of him Taranath says that he was a great Master of Masters. As the ‘Pandita’ of Nālandā Candrakīrti composed commentaries upon Mādhyamikamūla, Mādhyamikavācāra and upon First Principles.³

c11.21

Before we come to Dharmapāla, who had retired just before Hiuen Tsiang visited Nālandā, the interregnum that is marked in Taranath’s history was perhaps filled up by Guṇamati and Sthiramati, ‘the streams of whose superior teaching’ had spread abroad, and Prabhāmitra and Jinamitra who had been famous for their eloquent and clear discourses and others.⁴

c11.22

Of this group of distinguished pandits of the Nālandā University, we would like to speak in detail of Sthiramati, because Hiuen Tsiang in another place speaks of him as the founder of a monastery at Valabhi.⁵ Let us again repeat what Hiuen Tsiang⁶ speaks of him. He says, “The streams of whose superior knowledge spread abroad even now.” Since, in the Catalogue du fond Tibetain, a large number of books are ascribed to him, we may construe the word “abroad” as referring to Tibet. If this can be conclusively proved then we may say that Sthiramati contributed more to the spread of Buddhism in Tibet than his successors Śāntarakṣita and

c11.23

(1) Sastri, o.c., p. 178.
(2) Taranath, o.c., p. 146.
(3) Ibid., p. 147.
(4) Hiuen Tsiang, o.c., II, p. 171.
(5) Ibid., p. 271.

c11.24

Padmasambhava. Bose says,¹ “Sthiramati was known to the Tibetans as a great interpreter. He knew Tibetan well and translated many Sanskrit books into Tibetan. He was also famous as a grammarian and translated many books on grammar into that language.”

c11.25

Sthiramati, since he is spoken of by Hiuen Tsiang, must have flourished some years, perhaps a century, before the Chinese traveller. We can, however, fix the date of Sthirmati with some certainty, if he is the same Sthiramati who along with Gunamati built a monastery at Valabhi.² Very probably they are identical since Hiuen Tsiang speaks of Sthiramati as well as Gunamati.

c11.26

The date of the founder of the monastery is easily established. For he is referred to by the Valabhi Grant of Dharasena I³ as Ācāryya Bhadanta Sthiramati, who built the Vihāra Bappapāda at Valabhi. The grant is made in Saṃvat 269 which, we think, is the Gupta Saṃvat. The reasons for assuming this Saṃvat are mainly two.

c11.27

1. If we take the Śaka Saṃvat then we arrive at the year 347 A.D., which is absurd if our Sthiramati is the famous Sthiramati, who was the disciple of Vasubandhu⁴ and who composed several treatises. And Vasubandhu, we know, lived in the latter half of the 5th century A.D.⁵ Consequently he could not have lived earlier than that date. Probably he flourished in the latter half of the 5th century and the first half of the 6th century A.D. Adoption of the Gupta era exactly fits in with the date arrived at. For the grant is made in Saṃvat 269, and if we add 319 years required for reducing Gupta Saṃvat to the Christian, we get 588 A.D. Now the grant says, “To the Vihāra, built by Sthirmati”. So, it follows that the monastery was constructed some years earlier

c11.28

(1) Indian Teachers of Buddhist Universities, p. 133.
(2) Hiuen Tsiang, o.c., II, p. 268.
(3) Ind. Ant., VI, p. 12, plate II, ll. 3 and 4.
(4) Wassilief, Buddhismus, p. 84 referred to by Buhler, Ibid., p. 10.
(5) Takakusu, J. R. A. S., 1905, p. 35.

c11.29

say, a hundred years. Thus, we come to the year 488 A.D., precisely the time when Vasubandhu flourished.

c11.30

The second reason why we assume the *Gupta Samvat* is that Dharasena calls himself the "great feudal chief."¹ He was probably the vassal of the Guptas and therefore adopted the Gupta era. Sthiramati, then, flourished between 460 and 550 A.D.²

c11.31

¹ *Ind. Ant.*, VI, p. 12, plate II, line 1.

c11.32

² It has been definitely ascertained now that there were two Sthiramatis, the one of whom Watters speaks and the other ours, the disciple of Vasubandhu. *See* Kimura, o.c., p. 183. Watters, however, says that Sthiramati was the author of an "*Introduction to Mahāyānism*," which was translated into Chinese about A.D. 400. That means Sthiramati flourished much earlier, in about 300 A.D. But this seems impossible because Nālandā was not so famous then. While Sthiramati is known to succeed Vasubandhu who definitely lived in 480 A.D. Watters, *Yuan Chwang*, II, p. 169.

c11.33

We may here note that if it can be proved independently of Vasubandhu that the grant refers to the Gupta era, then we get one more proof besides that in Paramartha's *Life of Vasubandhu*, that Vasubandhu lived in the latter half of the 5th century A.D.

c11.34

From a glance at the headings of the works written, translated and corrected by Sthiramati, it appears that he was the first writer, after Āsaṅga, the author of the *Yogācāra* doctrine, to write on the *Tantra*, though, according to Bose, he only undertook the revision and correction of the Tibetan works.

c11.35

The works are: 1. *Ṣaḍaṅga Yoga*. 2. *Lakṣaṇābhidhānadhṛta laghu tantra piṇḍārtha vivarṇa nāma*. 3. *Śri Buddha kapāla mahā tantra rāja ṭīkā abhaya padhatināma*.

c11.36

If, however, the works were not really composed by him but only revised by him then, the introduction of the *Tantra* must be attributed to Āsaṅga himself, who was primarily responsible for the introduction of *Yoga* in the theistic Buddhism.

c11.37

We tread on surer and firmer ground when we come to the time when Dharmapāla was the abbot of the University. Dharmapāla, though born in Kāñcīpura, far away in the South, and though a son of a high official of the city, embraced the life of a Buddhist *Bhikṣu*, at a very early age¹ and became one of the greatest luminaries of Nālandā. His help to Buddhism is inestimable value. For, even when he was in his teens, he accepted the challenge of a heretical *paṇḍit* thrown to an assembly of Buddhist *paṇḍits* who were dumb-founded and tore his arguments to pieces. By doing so, he converted to Buddhism not only the *paṇḍit* but even the king who was partial to the heretic.² Thus "he acquired renown for penetration and wisdom and the reputation of his noble character was far spread." On another occasion he held discussions, for seven long days, with 100 Hīnayāna *śāstra* masters and utterly defeated them.³

c11.38

¹ Watters, o.c., II, p. 226.

c11.39

² Hiuen Tsiang, o.c., I, pp. 238-39.

c11.40

³ *Ibid*., pp. 238-40.

c11.41

He slowly made his way to Nālandā—the foremost place of learning in Central India—and when Śīlabhadra came to Nālandā⁴, we find him occupying the highest office he could then wish for, namely, the headship of the University.⁵ He was a contemporary of the great Bhartṛhari and wrote the *Śloka* portion of the *Bedavṛtti* in collaboration with him.⁶ He wrote treatises on Etymology, Logic and the Metaphysics of Buddhism,⁷ and the following four books in Sanskrit⁸:

c11.42

⁴ Watters, o.c., I, p. 374.

c11.43

⁵ Hiuen Tsiang, o.c., II, p. 110-11.

c11.44

⁶ I-Tsing, o.c., Intro., p. lvii.

c11.45

⁷ Bunyiu Nanjio, Appendix I, No. 16.

c11.46

⁸ Bose, o.c., pp. 115-116.

c11.47

1. *Ālambana-pratyāya-dhyāna śāstra-vyākhyā*.
2. *Vidyāmātra-siddhi-śāstra-vyākhyā*.
3. *Śata-śāstra-vaipulya-vyākhyā*.
4. *Valitaltava saṃgraha*.

c11.48

The time when Dharmapāla was the head of the University may be fixed at the early years of the seventh century, because when Hiuen Tsiang visited Nālandā in A.D. 635, Śīlabhadra was the head of the University, which implies that Dharmapāla was then dead or had retired by that time. And Dharmapāla could not have come to Nālandā earlier than the 7th century. For assuming that he left his native place Kāñcīpura at the age of 20, as he was then of marriageable age,¹ we must assign some twenty to thirty years more, to the interval, during which he became the ‘Pandita’ of Nālandā, when he acquired training for the Bhikkhuship, mastered the Buddhist and other heretical śāstras, so much so that he could win over the pandits and kings of other faiths and then go to Nālandā as a distinguished Buddhist.

c11.49

¹ Watters, o.c., II, p. 228.

c11.50

Moreover, we cannot say that the Nālandā-throne was lying vacant when Dharmapāla arrived at Nālandā and it must have taken some years before he could aspire to and acquire it. In fact Taranath tells us that Dharmapāla became the ‘Pandita’ in Nālandā after the excellent Candrakīrti.² His tenure of office, according to Taranath, was very short. For he says, “ After Dharmapāla had been Pandita in Nālandā a short while, Jayadeva became Pandita after him.”³ It must be noted however that Taranath’s version goes against the generally accepted view, viz., that Śīlabhadra succeeded Dharmapāla.⁴

c11.51

² Taranath, o.c., p. 161.

c11.52

³ Ibid., p. 162.

c11.53

⁴ See I-Tsing, o.c., Intro., p. lvii.

c11.54

His existing works do not make full justice to the part that Dharmapāla played to keep the University going, efforts that he made in order to spread the fair name of Nālandā far and wide, and the hardships and the fire he underwent in order to hold aloft the banner of Mahāyāna Buddhism against the repeated attacks of the Hīnayānists, Sāmkhyas and Vaiśeṣikas and other followers of less important philosophies.

c11.55

Śīlabhadra, who succeeded Dharmapāla to the post of the Pandita of the University, was not less famous a figure among the Nālandā pandits. The accounts that we have of him are vivid and most reliable because they are recorded by Hiuen Tsiang from his own personal knowledge and not from any hearsay.

c11.56

Son of a king in East India, as Watters explains Samatata,¹ and a Brāhmaṇ by caste, this Śīlabhadra renounced both the regal honour and comfort, as well as his caste. For, in his heart burned the fire which made him averse to all things but the quest of truth and pursuit of newer realms of knowledge. With such ideas, he embarked upon the tour of India. Fortunately, he had not to go very far, as Nālandā was comparatively much nearer from Samatata. Here, at Nālandā, he was initiated into the principles of Buddhism by Dharmapāla. At the very inception, he held out a promise of being a worthy disciple of his teacher. For the questions that he put to Dharmapāla touched the very core of all philosophies, namely, the aim and the end of all worldly things.²

c11.57

¹ Watters, o.c., II, p. 109.

c11.58

² Hiuen Tsiang, o.c., II, p. 110. n.

c11.59

Śīlabhadra surprised even the most sanguine of his supporters, when, at the young age of 30, he defeated, refuting by profound and subtle arguments, a heretic of South India, who had dared to raise his head against the renowned Dharmapāla himself. As a reward for this most wonderful victory, the king (perhaps of Magadha) granted him the revenues of a village, in spite of the persistent refusal of Śīlabhadra, who said, "A master who wears the garments of religion knows how to be contented with little and to keep himself pure. What would he do with a town?" But he had to bow to the will of the king, when the latter replied that the only way to encourage the scholars to press forward in the attainment of religion was the distinction thus shown between the learned and the ignorant in the shape of reward of revenues to the learned. But Śīlabhadra, a true Bhikṣu to his bone, instead of keeping the revenues for his own personal use, built a vast and magnificent monastery. This monastery of Śīlabhadra, it appears, lay on the route from Patna to Gayā, for the pilgrim proceeded to Gayā (Brahmagayā) from this monastery.

c11.60

From a mere disciple of Dharmapāla, he rose, after Dharmapāla, to the most envied position in the then academical life, the ‘Pandita,’ the head of the Nālandā University.

c11.61

In this capacity, he received Hiuen Tsiang, when the latter arrived at Nālandā, after visiting many other places. He appointed Jayasena to teach Yogaśāstra to the Chinese visitor when the latter requested Śīlabhadra to instruct him in the work. Later on he “deputed the Master of the Law to expound to the congregation the Mahāyānasamparigrahaśāstra and comment on the difficulties of the Vidyāmātrasiddhi śāstra.”¹ To him, as the head of the University, Harṣa wrote “to send four men of eminent ability well acquainted with one and the other school and also with esoteric and exoteric doctrine to the country of Orissa.”² It was, again, under his presidentship, that Hiuen Tsiang won over and converted to his faith a heretic of the Lokāyata philosophy tearing to pieces shred by shred the doctrines of the different heretical schools, namely, the Bhūtas, Nirgranthas, the Kāpālikas and Jutikas, the Sāmkhyas and the Vaiśeṣikas.³ But, for him, Hiuen Tsiang would not have gone to the King of Kāmarupa, for the pilgrim was hesitating, being afraid to undertake a long and perilous journey. He did so only when Śīlabhadra explained to him that by visiting Kāmarupa he would be doing the most meritorious act, namely, the conversion of Kumārarājā and his family to Buddhism.⁴

c11.62

Unfortunately only one work is assigned to him in the Catalogue du fond Tibetain:⁵ Ārya Buddha-bhūmi vyākhyāna. Though from what are told by the biographer of Hiuen

c11.63

(1) Hwui Li, o.c., p. 157.
(2) Ibid., p. 160.
(3) Ibid., pp. 161-162.
(4) Hiuen Tsiang, o.c., II, p. 197.

c11.64

Tsiang, we can reasonably say that the man, who could explain the whole collection of works amounting to some thousands of books, must have written many more books than the one to which we find a reference in the Catalogue.

c11.65

Śīlabhadra’s profound knowledge, his virtue and advanced age had earned for him the title of the “pater familias” of the Buddhist community.¹

c11.66

¹ Hwui Li, o.c., p. 112.

c11.67

As to his date, it is very easily settled. He was the abbot of Nālandā when Hiuen Tsiang visited the place. Moreover his hair had turned grey, so it appears that he must be pretty old at the time of the traveller’s visit, say, about sixty years. He, therefore, flourished in the latter part of the sixth and the first half of the seventh century A.D.

c11.68

Dharmakīrti may be said to have done a great service to Nālandā and incidentally to Buddhism, if he defeated the great Mīmāmsaka—Kumārila and the still greater Vedāntist—Śankara—as would appear from the account of Taranath.² According to this account, Dharmakīrti refuted each and every one of Kumārila’s uncommon assertions by a hundred arguments. Not content with this success, Dharmakīrti, like a king performing the Aśvamedha sacrifice, announced by means of a bell, that those persons willing to join the dispute with him should come forward. Śankarācārya took up the challenge and sent a messenger to Śrī Nālandā to say that he was willing to join the dispute. But, as at this time, Dharmakīrti was not at Nālandā, having gone somewhere in the South, the controversy was postponed till the next year. Then, at Benares, in the presence of King Prasanna, Dharmakīrti and Śankara started the debate. Before the actual debate opened, Śankara laid down the conditions, which the defeated party must fulfil. He said that if Dharmakīrti and his party lost in the debate, they should either jump in the Ganges or join the Tirthyas (i.e. join Hinduism) but if Śankara and his party lost, they would jump into the Ganges and die. Śankara was defeated several times. At last, he prepared himself to die, but, before taking this last step, he forbade his pupil Bhaṭṭācārya to continue the debate and triumph over the cropped-head monks. He finished his instructions to the pupil with the prophetic words, "If you cannot triumph, I shall be born as your son, I shall crush them."

c11.69

² Taranath, o.c., p. 180.

c11.70

But this account of Taranath raises very important issues. First, if the Dharmakīrti, he speaks of, is the same Dharmakīrti referred to by I-Tsing,¹ then we shall have to shift the hitherto known dates of Kumārila and Śaṅkara, provided the latter also are identical with the great Mīmāṃsaka and the first Advaitist, Kumārila and Śaṅkara respectively. Supposing that the two Dharmakīrtis are identical, then the probable period during which he flourished may be put down as the first half of the seventh century A.D. I-Tsing, who toured India in 671-695 A.D., says that Dharmakīrti was one of the famous men "of late years",² and classes him with Dharmapāla, and Śīlabhadra, whom we know for certain to have flourished in the first half of the seventh century. We can, however, still narrow the limits of the period in which Dharmakīrti worked. This period appears to be from 639 to 671 A. D. because Hiuen Tsiang, who was in India from 635 to 639 A. D. and visited the most important centres of learning, does not seem to have ever heard of Dharmakīrti. While I-Tsing, who came some 30 years after, speaks of him as if he had not seen him. For, were he really living while he (I-Tsing) was in India, he would not have said, "He made a further improvement in Logic," but "he has made . . . . . . . .". This implies that I-Tsing had not seen Dharmakīrti, who must have died just a few years before I-Tsing landed on the Indian shore, at Tāmralipti.

c11.71

¹ I-Tsing, o.c., p. 182.

c11.72

² Ibid., p. 181.

c11.73

We have now to bring Śaṅkara and Kumārila to live with Dharmakīrti in the middle of the seventh century A. D. (640 to 675).

c11.74

Let us see if it is possible to do so.

c11.75

We would have given up the attempt to make Śaṅkara a contemporary of Dharmakīrti, as we know even the actual date of his birth,¹ but for Dr. Pathak’s remark that Śaṅkarācārya precedes Śāntarakṣita,² who, we know, lived in the first half of the eighth century A.D. He thus raises the possibility of Śaṅkara being a contemporary of Dharmakīrti, both having probably lived in the latter half of the 7th century A.D. Pathak seems to base his statement on the fact that Śāntarakṣita refers to the *Vivarta-vāda* in the following verse³:

c11.76

¹ The following two verses give the birth-date and the year in which Śaṅkara was born:

c11.77

² Dharmakīrti’s *Trilakṣaṇahetu*, A. B. O. R. I., XII, Pt. I, p. 79.

c11.78

³ *Tattvasaṅgraha*, G. O. S., verse 144.

c11.79

*Athāvibhāgamēvēdam brahmatattvam sadā sthitam,*
*Avidyopaplavālloko vicitram tvabhimanyate.*

c11.80

Now Brahma always remains indivisible. But due to an eclipse in the form of nescience people regard it as manifold. From this Pathak thinks that the doctrine here referred to is that of Śaṅkara.

c11.81

But, why should we say that Śaṅkara’s *Māyāvāda* is referred to in the verse? Can it not refer to the same doctrine first propounded by Gaudapāda or his disciples? If Śaṅkara’s doctrine was here alluded to then Kamalaśīla, who gives us the names of the authors of the doctrines referred to by his guru, would surely have given us the name of Śaṅkara, who must have been his guru’s contemporary or immediate predecessor.

c11.82

If we accept Pathak’s remark, then Śaṅkara will have to be made a contemporary of Kumārila, and possibly of Dharmakīrti also. But the fact that Śaṅkara’s date is fixed at 787 A. D.⁴ and that Kamalaśīla is silent about the author of the

c11.83

⁴ Keith also agrees with this date, o. c., p. 474.

c11.84

*nidhināgebhavahanyabde vibhavē māsi mādhavē*
*śuklē tithau daśamyām tu Śaṅkarācāryodayah smrtah*

c11.85

and

c11.86

*prāsūta tiṣya śaradāmabhiyātavatyā*
*mēkādaśādhikaśatona catussahasram.*

c11.87

This means that Śaṅkara was born on the 10th day of the bright half of *Vaiśākha* of 3889 of Kaliyuga, i.e., Śaka 709 or A. D. 787.

c11.88

doctrine referred to by his guru and commented upon by him are enough to justify us in holding the view that Śaṅkarācārya did not precede Śāntarakṣita.

c11.89

What about Kumārila? He certainly lived prior to Śāntarakṣita, for the latter often refers to his views; in fact, Bhaṭṭacaryya says that *Tattvasaṅgraha* seems to have been composed specially to refute the doctrine of Kumārila.¹

c11.90

¹ *Tattvasaṅgraha*, Foreword, o. c., p. LXXXIII.

c11.91

Now from some leading facts of the life of Śāntarakṣita, *viz.*, that he built a monastery in Tibet in 749 and died there in 762 A. D., we can at least say this much that Śāntarakṣita must have written his book some years before he proceeded to Tibet, i. e., say about 730 A. D. Thus, if the work was written after Kumārila died, then we can say that Kumārila must have lived in c. 700 A.D., a date which has been generally accepted²; if it was written when Kumārila still lived and preached as a contemporary of Śāntarakṣita then Kumārila must be placed in the first half of 700 A. D. If we take the first alternative, even then Kumārila cannot be placed earlier than 700 A. D.; consequently the account of Taranath which makes him contemporaneous with Dharmakīrti will have to be dismissed as inspired by religious bigotry and false pride.

c11.92

² See Keith, o. c., p. 474.

c11.93

We have, therefore, to deprive Dharmakīrti of the great honour done to him. But it is much better that his fame should rest on the deeds he performed rather than on false reports. Of these we have previously spoken and so we now pass on to other great luminaries of Nālandā.

c11.94

The life of the author of *Śikṣā-Samuccya*, contents of which we have summarised elsewhere, makes a most interesting reading. Śāntideva’s life is preserved to us in a MS., now in the possession of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,³ and *Bauddha Gāna-o-Dohā*. The MS. gives the name of its writer as Kasthamandapiya Śrī Kirāta pandita, though the name of the work is missing.

c11.95

³ Shastri, *Catalogue*, Bengal, No. 9990, I, pp. 51-53.

c11.96

Śāntideva, according to this writer, was the son of King Mañjuvarman. His mother, seeing him disgusted with worldly life, told him that a king, a painter and a poet do not go to heaven. She, therefore, advised him to go to Buddha Bodhisattva-deśa Śrī Mañjuvajrādhisthāna (that is, the country of Buddha and Bodhisattvas, the abode of Śrī Mañjuvajra). On the way he came across a girl who took him to her guru Siddha Śrī Mañjuvajrasamādhi. This Siddha Puruṣa told him that he should go to Madhyadeśa (Central India) to the king of Magadha, after having realized Mañjuvajra and after having obtained knowledge of Mañjuśrī from him in 12 years.

c11.97

The MS. further tells us that he entered the Nālandā Mahāvihāra under a disguise. His sobriety and solemnity earned for him the name of Śāntideva. Perhaps this name was given to him in jest by other students, as it appears from the later account. At Nālandā, he studied the three Pitakas.

c11.98

Once some students were anxious to know if this Śāntideva knew anything new. And an opportunity was offered to them to test his knowledge by a custom that was prevalent at Nālandā. Every year, in the bright half of the month of Jyeṣṭha (May-June), a discourse was given by pandits in imitation of the discourse of Ruddhi Pratihāryas which refuted the śāstras of Purṇa and others. So, on this day, they asked Śāntideva to give them a lecture on any new subject he could choose. Śāntideva humbly replied that he knew nothing. But the students persisted (because they were out for fun), as they knew very well that he was a blockhead and would make a fool of himself in the assembly, if he would speak anything. Then he was led out in the huge open space or hall of the Dharma-śālā, lying outside to the north-west of the Vihāra, where eminent pandits had assembled. Surrounded by this distinguished gathering, Śāntideva just thought to himself, "I have composed three works—Sūtrasamuccaya, Śikṣāsamuccaya and Bodhicaryāvatāra." Thus thinking he went to the professorial chair (simhāsana) and asked the audience, "Shall I lecture to you on what the Ṛṣis like Jina (Buddha) have said (Ārṣa) or what others have said (Anārṣa) ?"

c11.99

He then read out to them the *Caryāvatāra* (i. e. *Bodhicaryāvatāra*). A miracle then happened, when he was reciting the following verse from the work:

c11.100

*Yadā na bhāvo nābhāvo mateḥ santiṣṭhate puraḥ*
*Tadānyagatyabhāvena nirālambaḥ praṣajyate*

c11.101

"When a man gets rid of such ideas as existence or non-existence, then he attains perfect peace as there is no other condition of which he can think of."

c11.102

As Śāntideva was finishing this verse Lord Mañjuśri appeared before him and took him away with Him into the *antarikṣa* and there they both gradually disappeared. The students were stunned by this supernatural sight and talked about his departure, and then went to the room of Śāntideva. Here they found his three works and offered them to the world.

c11.103

We may disbelieve the supernatural event. But this much stands out clearly from the story that Śāntideva's genius was not recognised for a long time. The students took him to be a second "Jadabharata". It was, however, when they persisted in their attempt to fool Śāntideva, that the latter shone forth in all his brilliance, and showed them his metal, and in appreciation of his genius the Lord Himself came down to escort him to heaven.

c11.104

Śāntideva flourished according to Bendall¹ in the later half of the eighth century. But this date has been shifted some years back, *viz.*, between 695-743 A.D., because Śāntarakṣita in his *Tattvasiddhi* quotes a full verse from the *Bodhicaryāvatāra* of Śāntideva. Since the former lived in the major part of the 8th century A.D., and since the latter is not spoken of by I-Tsing, Bhattacharyya has assigned the date 695-743 to Śāntideva.²

c11.105

¹ Sikṣāsamuccaya, Intro., p. V. referred to by Bhattacharyya, o. c., p. XXIII.

c11.106

² Tattvasangraha, o.c., Foreword, p. XXIII.

c11.107

Śāntarakṣita—the man—can hardly be separated from Śāntarakṣita—the Philosopher, Logician and the Tāntric. Of his private life we know very little. Some say that he was a native of Gaur.³ Vidyābhusana, on the strength of another Tibetan source, says that he was born in the royal family of Zahor, which cannot be Lahore as Waddell has said,¹ but which very likely must be, as Bhattacharyya has pointed out, the small village of Sābhār in Pargana of Vikramapura.²

c11.108

³ Das, Journey to Lhassa and Tibet, p. 295.

c11.109

The most important phase of his life is his visit to Tibet. He had the distinction of being the first pandit who was officially invited to Tibet by King Khri-son-den-tsan. His presence in Tibet, as we are told by Das,³ was not well received by the gods and demigods. These caused a great damage by making the rivers flow, etc. So Śāntarakṣita was sent to Nepal. After a time, the king again sent messengers to call him back. This time Śāntarakṣita advised the king to send for Padmasaṃbhava—a pandit of Nālandā—and a great Tāntric scholar; the latter by his magic powers could control and quiet the gods and spirits. Padmasaṃbhava arrived and did what was expected of him. Then, in A.D. 749, Śāntarakṣita and Padmasaṃbhava erected a monastery after the model of the monastery of Odantapuri. Śāntarakṣita had the honour of being the first abbot of this new monastery called "Samye". For thirteen years he worked in the cause of the propagation of Buddhism in Tibet and finally laid his life at its altar in the year 762 A.D.

c11.110

Arguing back from the date of his death, viz., A.D. 762 and taking into account the various leading factors of his life, namely, that he visited Tibet for the first time in 743 A.D. as has been shown by Bhattacharyya⁴ and assuming that Śāntarakṣita was about 40 years old, because he had by this time written *Tattvasaṅgraha*, *Tattvasiddhi*, etc., and become so famous that he was called for by the King of Tibet, we come to A.D. 703, a date almost identical with that given by Bose, viz., 705 A.D.⁵ in the reign of King Gopāla, though this king, according to Banerji, came to the throne in 750 A.D.⁶

c11.111

(1) Lamaism, p. 379 *et seq.*
(2) o.c., p. XIII.
(3) *Indian Pandits in Tibet*, J. B. T. S., I, Part I (1893), pp. 1-31.
(4) o.c., p. XIV.
(5) *Indian Teachers of Buddhist Universities*, p. 124.
(6) *The Pālas of Bengal*, p. 47.

c11.112

Padmasaṃbhava, who followed Śāntarakṣita into Tibet, was the son of the King of Udayana, Indrabodhi. Leaving aside the folk-lores about his birth and early life, which cannot be well relied upon, what we know positively of him is that he resided at the Nālandā University, when the Tibetan king sent an invitation to him, and that he was a prominent expounder of the Yogācāra school.

c11.113

In Tibet, he founded Lamaism, and is now deified and celebrated in Lamaism as Buddha himself. How he established this new religion is graphically described by Waddell from whose account we have drawn the information about Śāntarakṣita and Padmasaṃbhava. He says,¹ “He vanquished all the chief devils of the land. His most powerful weapons in warring with the demons were the vajra, symbolic of the thunder of Indra, and spells extracted from the Mahāyāna gospels, by which he shattered his supernatural adversaries.” We have already referred to the part he played in the establishment of a monastery in Tibet.

c11.114

¹ Waddell, o.c., pp. 24-28.

c11.115

From the work that Padmasaṃbhava did in Tibet, namely, the spread of Tāntrism, we can well imagine what a hold the Tāntric faith must have had upon the intelligentsia of Nālandā in particular and of India in general or else how could a pandit of Nālandā, who was specially sent for, deliver no other message to the inhabitants of “the roof of the world” but belief in magic and sorcery and worship of innumerable gods and goddesses and demons?²

c11.116

² See Ibid.

c11.117

This Lamaism or Tāntric Buddhism with some elements from Bon religion was firmly established in Tibet by Kamalaśīla. He was a professor of Tantra at Nālandā³, besides a great philosopher and logician. The circumstances under which he was called by the Tibetan king are very interesting.

c11.118

³ Vidyabhushana, o.c., pp. 129-130.

c11.119

One Hoshang, a pandit from China, gave a very peculiar interpretation of Prajñāpāramitā and other Buddhist śāstras.

c11.120

As this was contrary to what Śāntarakṣita had taught, the people were in a fix. They did not know whom to follow. The king then arranged a debate between Śāntarakṣita and Hoshang, with a view to see as to who would win in the debate. As fortune would have it, Śāntarakṣita found that he was losing and he therefore requested the king to send for Kamalaśīla because he had great faith in his learning and powers of debate, and was sure that he would bring victory to him.

c11.121

Kamalaśīla came and easily defeated the Hoshang. The following lines¹ illustrate what a great debator he was, and how gradually he assails the opponent's views and brings him round to his own.

c11.122

¹ From Das, *Indian Pandits in Tibet*, J. B. T. S., I, Part I, 1893, pp. 1-31.

c11.123

" First of all the Hoshang said—When virtuous or sinful acts are performed the result is either translation to heaven or damnation in hell. So in none of these conditions could the Sattva be liberated from worldly existence. Both were therefore obstructions to his attaining to Buddhahood, i.e., Nirvāṇa. For instance, he continued, the sky becomes equally obscured by a white or dark cloud. Wherefore one should not think on any subject at all. If the mind remains absolutely free from thought, i.e., inactive, then emancipation from Bhāva (worldly existence) is possible and not otherwise. Want of Vikalpanā (absence of thoughtfulness, i.e. intellectual activity in body or in speech) is equivalent to the state of Nirālamba, i.e. the total isolation or abstraction of the mind.

c11.124

" Kamalaśīla replied—To say (that it is possible) to be free from thought, (in other words) to be in a state of absolute mental inactivity, constitutes actual rejection of Pratyāvekṣaṇā Prajñā, knowledge derived from critical examination (of things and phenomena). The root (basis) of Samyak Jñāna (perfect wisdom) is indeed Pratyāvekṣaṇā Prajñā. Therefore the abandonment of it is tantamount to rejecting the Lokāvigata *Prajñā* i.e. wisdom that transcends the faculties of man and god. Without the *Pratyāvekṣaṇā Prajñā* how can the Yogī (the meditative devotee) find himself in the state of *Avikalpanā*, i.e., the state of absolute abstraction? If there be absolute inactivity of mind so as to cause unconsciousness, i.e., the loss of the power of cognition of all external or internal phenomena and in that to be devoid of knowledge, the mind would be contending against inactivity itself. If I think that I must not remember any *Dharma* that very thought belies the determination and brings all remembrance with greater force. If again the mind be thrown into a state of unconsciousness *i.e.*, its functions be paralysed, it may be freed from *Vikalpanā* temporarily, *i.e.*, for a time it may remain in that state. Without *Samyak Pratyāvekṣaṇā* there are no means of attaining to the state in which the mind is free from *Vikalpanā*. If, only the working of the faculty of the memory is suspended, in the absence of *Samyak Pratyāvekṣaṇā*, you cannot realise that all things and phenomena (*Sarvadharma*) are in their nature void and their apparent state impermanent, and unless that is acquired, the obfuscating process that is constantly at work will not be removed. Therefore by *Samyak Prajñā* the false (delusive) notions should be thrown out, and while remembering everything, there cannot be forgetting all things (*Sarvadharma*) which is evidently a contradiction. The working of the memory and at the same time absolute inactivity of the mind cannot exist together. Because the former is activity, and the latter state its negation which is to be acquired (according to the Hoshang) cannot be co-existent. How can the *Pūrvasthāna Anusmaraṇa*, i.e., the remembrance of one's place and condition of former existence be obliterated? Therefore the Yogī who thinks by discrimination acquires *Samyak Prajñā* and meditating on the inner and outer phenomena (*Sarvadharma*) in reference to the three times, loses the *Vikalpanā* (diversity of thought) and thereby becomes free from erroneous notions and conceptions. In this manner being well versed in the *Upāya* (means) and *Jñāna* (knowledge) one should be free from darkness and thereby acquire the state of *Sambodhi* *Dharma*—Supreme Enlightenment."¹

c11.125

Being a disciple and a contemporary of Śāntarakṣita, Kamalaśīla must have lived in A.D. 720-780, because he must be at least 25 years of age when he wrote the commentary (*Pañjikā*) on *Tattvasaṅgraha*, which seems to have inspired confidence in Śāntarakṣita, who said to the Tibetans that Kamalaśīla would bring victory to the side of real *Dharma*, when there would arise a division in the Buddhist camp in Tibet². *Tattvasaṅgraha* was perhaps written in A. D. 740, before Śāntarakṣita went to Tibet. And as Kamalaśīla was sent for, just before Śāntarakṣita died, in 762 A. D, we may allow some 20 years more to Kamalaśīla, that is, 780 A. D.

c11.126

Candrogomin was another of the great pandits of Nālandā, whose contribution to the development of Tāntrism appears to be great. Only the number of books that he wrote is sufficient to stagger us. No less than 60 books, all written in Sanskrit, are attributed to him. To mention a few of them: 1. *Siṃhanāda Sādhana*, 2. *Mahākāruṇika stotra*, 3. *Rakṣācakra*, 4. *Abhicāra Karman*.

c11.127

The very names of the works are enough to show their character. They are evidently Tāntric, which shows that more and more interest was taken in the development of this cult, even perhaps to the detriment of other studies. Our Candrogomin, however, appears to be a versatile writer. For, besides writing extensively on *Tantra*, he distinguished himself in literature, Grammar, Logic, Astronomy, Music, fine arts and the science of medicine.³ In Logic, particularly, next to *Tantra* he was so well-versed that he was the first from the Bengal school of logicians to attract the attention of the literary world.⁴

c11.128

This Candrogomin is not the same Candra, the author of the Candra grammar, on which Dharmapāla wrote a commentary. For even if Tibetan works were to tell us that he was a

c11.129

(1) Das, J. B. T. S., I, Part I, 1893, pp. 1—31.
(2) Ibid.
(3) Vidyabhusana, o.c., pp. 121-122.
(4) Ibid., Introduction, p. XX.

c11.130

contemporary of Śila, son of Śri Harṣa, who reigned in 700 A. D., the very nature of his works which are purely Tāntric, shows him to be a writer, who must have flourished in the eighth century. For it is about this time, that Tāntrism was becoming the all-important subject of the day.

c11.131

We have the most trustworthy account of Viradeva who was appointed governor of Nālandā by King Devapāla.¹ This Viradeva was a resident of Nagarhāra (in the vicinity of modern Jalalabad²). He probably came to Nālandā, thinking it to be the only place in India which would recognise his merits and honour him accordingly. For, as the inscription says, "He had studied all the Vēdas and reflected on the śāstras."³ 'This quintessence of intelligence', as the inscription calls him, was highly revered by the king. And the king, perhaps, translated his appreciation of the man into action by getting him appointed by the decree of the monks as a permanent governor of Nālandā.⁴

c11.132

¹ Ghosrawa Inscription, Ind. Ant., XVII, p. 311.

c11.133

² Cunningham, Ancient Geography of India, I, p. 43.

c11.134

³ o.c., Line 7, p. 311.

c11.135

⁴ Ibid., ll. 10-11.

c11.136

From line 12, which speaks of the greatness of Viradeva, we incidentally learn that Nālandā was a very renowned vihāra. It runs thus: "And who, on becoming the lord of the lady Great Fame, graced though he be already was here by Nālandā, governed (by and) true (to him and) decorated by a ring of famous vihāras, was well praised by good people as a good man." The words "decorated by a ring of famous vihāras" perhaps refer to the Nālandā seal, having a Dharmacakra and two gazelles, which was very likely used for the purpose of honouring those persons, who were appointed governors or pandits of Nālandā.⁵

c11.137

⁵ See Frontispiece.

c11.138

Another inference, though of little importance, that can be deduced from the above phrase is that there were very many vihāras, that is to say, colleges at Nālandā.

c11.139

This Viradeva erected two chaityas on the hill Indraśaila (or Giryek, about 5 miles south-west of Ghosrāwā).¹

c11.140

Of greater importance than the account of Viradeva, however, is the fact, conclusively proved by this inscription, that Buddhism and more particularly Nālandā University were in a flourishing condition in the 9th or according to some scholars 10th century A. D. to which period Devapāla’s rule is assigned.²

c11.141

We take note of Buddhakīrti not because he was a very distinguished scholar of Nālandā but because, in him, we find the last connecting link between the Universities of Nālandā and Vikramaśilā and because he was perhaps the last great scholar that the University produced before it was destroyed by the Moslems. The connecting link is found in the fact that our pandit was a contemporary of Abhyākara Gupta of the Vikramaśilā University. The latter flourished towards the end of the eleventh century and the beginning of the twelfth century A. D.³ Soon after, in this period,—may be these pandits were witnesses,—the famous Universities were razed to the ground, monks slain, and the vast and gigantic libraries burnt by the Moslems.

c11.142

Pandits of Nālandā were famous all over India for their knowledge. Countless pandits of different faiths had to go away out of shame and disgust or renounce their faith and become converts to Buddhism on being defeated in discussion. We have mentioned previously the specific instances, namely, of Dharmapāla, Sthiramati, Śilabhadra, and Hiuen Tsiang. The last may well be included among the pandits of Nālandā, for it was Nālandā that made him what he afterwards became, a pandit conversant with the doctrines of the Bhūtas, Nirgranthas, the Kāpālikas, Jutikas, the Sāmkhyas and the Vaiśeṣikas, over

c11.143

(1) Ind. Ant., XVII, Line 11, p. 311.
(2) Ibid., p. 309.
(3) See Bose, o.c., p. 137. Mr. Bose does not quote the source. It appears that he has mainly culled his information from Taranath, History of Buddhism, or Das, Indian Pandits in the Land of Snow.

c11.144

and above acquiring a thorough knowledge of the cardinal principles of Buddhism so as to maintain them against all the above mentioned faiths.

c11.145

Harṣa's tribute to the pandits of Nālandā is worth mentioning. In a letter to Śīlabhadra, the head of the Nālandā convent, he wrote,¹ " Now I know that in your convent there are eminent priests and exceedingly gifted, of different schools of learning, who will undoubtedly be able to overthrow them (priests of the Little Vehicle). So now, in answer to their challenge, I beg you to send four men of ability, well acquainted with one and the other school, and also with the esoteric and exoteric doctrine, to the country of Orissa."

c11.146

¹ Hwui Li, o.c., p. 160.

c11.147

Even apart from the fact that the tribute comes from so great a king as Śri Harṣa, himself a very distinguished poet and dramatist, the words are very important, because they speak of the versatility of the pandits of Nālandā. The pandits could discuss and discourse on not only all the Mahāyāna doctrines which the Nālandā University championed, but on all other systems, Hinayāna and others, which we have mentioned in the case of Hiuen Tsiang.

c11.148

Nālandā was represented by no less than 1000 pandits in the grand assembly convened by Śri Harṣa at Kānyakubja to investigate the treatise of the Master of the Law of China (Hiuen Tsiang),² This fact alone is enough to speak of the importance of the University and the pandits who had the honour to represent it.

c11.149

² Ibid., pp. 176-177.

c11.150

We shall close this topic about the pandits of Nālandā with a peep into their customs and manners.

c11.151

The head of all the pandits, the teaching staff and others, was called a Superior. Under him was the Karmadāna, or Vihāraswāmi or Vihārapāla. He was the chief officer after the Superior and to him the utmost deference was paid.³

c11.152

³ I-Tsing, Nan-hae-k'i-kwei-nin-fā-ch'uen, referred to by Beal, J. R. A. S., XIII (N. S.), p. 571.

c11.153

The pandits believed in the maxim "honour where honour is due." And in accordance with this truism a distinction was made between the learned and the unlearned. The former were given the best rooms in the monastery, besides servants were asked to wait upon them. Again, if they gave daily lectures they were freed from the business imposed upon the inmates of the monastery,¹ whereas an ordinary priest was given just the treatment he deserved. Though food and lodging were supplied to him, all the other amenities that were shown to the revered and the learned were withheld from him. "He was regarded as a mere priest."²

c11.154

¹ I-Tsing, o.c., p. 64.

c11.155

² Ibid.

c11.156

The pandits were themselves very strict in regard to their own discipline. For a teacher himself resigned for committing an act, which was quite innocent, but, in contravention of the monastic rules; perhaps this incident must have led I-Tsing to remark that "the rites of the monastery Nālandā are still more strict."³

c11.157

³ Ibid., p. 65.

c11.158

A peculiar custom prevailed at Nālandā as to the manner in which venerable and learned pandits travelled. "These," says I-Tsing,⁴ "ride in sedan-chairs, but never on horseback."

c11.159

⁴ Ibid., p. 30.

c11.160

The pandits of Nālandā showed the same zeal and enthusiasm for the religious and monastic practices which Buddha had prescribed, even when they seemed to be engrossed in the pursuit of knowledge.

c11.161

The same observance of the Rain-retreat and the assignment of rooms according to the ranks of the priests;⁵ the same Upasampāda ordination, though in a different way,⁶ the priests followed even at such a distance of time, as the 7th century A. D. when I-Tsing visited Nālandā. This shows that even though the place had outgrown itself, from a mere town, oft visited by Buddha with his small band, to a very enviable position in the eyes of the world as an international centre of learning, it still retained the old practices which the World-honoured had taught.¹ And these it found "beneficial", for in following the World-honoured it was known and honoured in the world.

c11.162

⁵ Ibid., p. 86.

c11.163

⁶ Ibid., p. 103.

c11.164

¹ Ibid., p. 86.

Linked texts (22)