Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The University of Nalanda c13: Chapter VII. Student Life

The University of Nālandā c13

Language
English

Chapter VII. Student Life

c13.2

IN this Chapter, we propose to discuss a number of details connected with the daily life of the students of Nālandā and other Universities. Our attention will be confined for the most part to the Buddhist Universities, as, it is with these Universities, that we are dealing here.

c13.3

For a layman in this subject, it is simply difficult, we may say almost impossible, to imagine what a Buddhist student actually was. Accustomed as he is to see the majority of modern students returning home everyday in the afternoon he will be surprised to know that a Buddhist student passed eight to twelve years at a monastery¹ or a Gurukula. If the student was younger than the modern undergraduate, he is not to be confused with a modern schoolboy; when we are told by the *Vinaya Texts* and I-Tsing that he begged, that he did all the household duties of his preceptor², such as sweeping of the floor, we are not to suppose that he was a beggar, that he was merely a domestic servant. If we compare the dress of a modern University student with that of the Buddhist or Hindu student we find that the minimum a modern student requires is a *dhoti*, a shirt, a coat and a cap, apart from the dress of the students who dress in European style; whereas the minimum of the ancient student was:—a *dhoti* and an *uttarīya* or an upper garment if he was a Hindu; a robe, dyed yellow and made from rags collected from dust heaps if he was a Buddhist. The reader, as Rashdall says, will have to view things historically, and it may be that his imagination will be strained.

c13.4

¹ According to I-Tsing the students passed only two or three years at the Universities. I-Tsing, o.c., p. 177.

c13.5

² The word for "preceptor" in Pāli and the one often used in the *Vinaya Texts* is Upajjhāya (Sans. Upādhyāya).

c13.6

As to the equipment with which a student entered upon his University course we have mainly relied upon the accounts of I-Tsing and Hiuen Tsiang, for they were in India for a number of years and possessed first hand information of the working of the Buddhist institutions. Moreover, it is with the Buddhist Universities that we are mainly concerned here.

c13.7

It appears that the knowledge of Sanskrit was essential for all those—be they Buddhists or Hindus—who wanted to prosecute their studies in Universities.¹ Knowledge of Sanskrit meant a thorough grasping of Sanskrit grammar called *Śabdavidyā* in technical language. This *vidyā*, be it noted, was, so to say, the first step in the attainment of supreme knowledge which could be obtained by *Adhyātmavidyā*, science of the Universal Soul or Philosophy. It comes last in the list of *vidyās*, the intervening ones being *Śilpavidyā* (Art), *Cikitsāvidyā* (Medicine) and *Hetuvidyā* (Logic).

c13.8

¹ I-Tsing, o.c., p. 169.

c13.9

Primary education thus consisted of *Śabdavidyā* (grammar). And the reason why grammar was taught to a student first was possibly this that, in India as well as in Europe, the educationist wanted to impress upon the boy's mind the idea of science, method, order, principle and system of rule.²

c13.10

² See Newman, o.c., Preface, XIX.

c13.11

Beginners and students six years old studied, what I-Tsing³ calls, *Siddha-composition* and finished it within six months. The book seems to deal with elementary Sanskrit grammar and it was perhaps meant to encourage young students to prosecute their studies further. This inference is supported by the name of the first section of the book "Be there success."⁴ The contents of it, according to I-Tsing, were as follows: "Forty nine letters of the alphabet (which) are combined with one another and arranged in eighteen sections; the total number of syllables is more than 10,000 or more than 300 *ślokas*."

c13.12

³ I-Tsing, o.c., pp. 170-172.

c13.13

⁴ Ibid., p. 170.

c13.14

This work was originally taught by Maheśvara-deva.

c13.15

The student, thus, initiated into the elements of grammar, was given the sūtra of Pāṇini as it was considered to be the foundation of grammatical science. Usually the student at the age of eight learnt this sūtra within eight months. The student at this age learnt The Book of Dhātu also.

c13.16

This knowledge of grammar, however, was considered too elementary. The student was likened to a waste-land and in order to cultivate his mind, the student, when he reached the age of ten, was taught the Book on the Three Khilas. The study of this book equipped the student with a thorough knowledge of grammar. The first part of the book treated of the seven cases and ten Las, viz., the ten signs with 2 for the verbal tenses, and the eighteen finals, that is, the Ātmanepada and Parasmaipada forms of a verb with first, second and third person. The second part treated of the formation of words by means of combining a root and a suffix. The third part was almost the same as second. "Three years of diligent study" enabled the student to master this book.

c13.17

Here, it appears, the secondary education of the student, as far as grammar was concerned, came to an end. Thereafter, he was led into more subtle and abstruse works on grammar. These works, though they professed to be commentaries on grammar, dealt with everything under the Sun. Vritta Sūtra, one of the best commentaries on the sūtra of Pāṇini, and evidently a book on grammar, besides minutely explaining the meaning of the sūtra, "exposed the laws of the Universe, and the regulations of gods and men."¹ The same writer continues, "Boys of fifteen begin to study this commentary and understand it after five years." It is difficult to understand what I-Tsing means by this. The student must be devoting his attention to some other works as well, because five years, for the study of only one work, is too long a period.

c13.18

¹ Ibid., p. 175.

c13.19

With *Vritti-sūtra*, the study of grammar was over.¹ All these years, efforts to train the memory of the student were made, and he was made to learn everything by heart. But now when he finished the *Vritti sūtra* "he began to learn composition in verse and prose." From the study of composition, he passed on to the study of *Hetuvidyā* (Logic) and *Abhidharma-kośa* (Metaphysics). The student was taught to draw valid and invalid inferences by the study of *Nyāya-dvāra-tarka-śāstra*, while *Jātakamālā* increased his power of comprehension.

c13.20

¹ Like I-Tsing, Hiuen Tsiang's biographer gives a detailed description of grammar as taught at Nālandā, See Hwui Li, o.c., pp. 121-125.

c13.21

Though the knowledge of these subjects was sufficient for a student to enter upon the University career,² still some students for advanced scholarship and thorough mastery over grammatical science studied the undermentioned works.

c13.22

² See I-Tsing, p. 177.

c13.23

The *Cūrṇi* of Patañjali and the *Bhartṛihari-śāstra*, a work containing 25,000 ślokas, and dealing with the principles of human life as well as of grammatical science, etc., and finally the *Peina* (probably Sanskrit '*Beda*' or *Veda*) were studied, as we said above by advanced students. Since the last mentioned work, viz., the *Peina*, the śloka portion of which was composed by Bhartṛihari, and the commentary portion by Dharmapāla, was read by advanced students also, it appears that all the works were studied by the University students, though perhaps for entrance at Nālandā knowledge of even these was requisite if they thought of proceeding to Nālandā boasting that they were well-informed.³

c13.24

³ I-Tsing, o.c., p. 177. What this 'Beda' actually was, it is difficult to say. See I-Tsing, o.c., p. 225.

c13.25

From the absolute absence of any of the *vidyās* and courses of study mentioned in the curriculum of students, previous to the foundation of the Nālandā University, in the account given by I-Tsing, the reader should not think that the student, prior to his admission to the University, did not study any of the *vidyās* mentioned previously. Some of the *vidyās*, for instance, *Dhanurvidyā*, *Sarpavidyā* or *Cikitsāvidyā* were never meant for all and sundry. Kṣatriya students as a general rule, would go in for archery, and if any one liked to study medicine or anything else, he could also do so in the University.¹ As to other subjects, Vēdas, Vēdānta, Sāmkhya, etc., we have the authority of Hiuen Tsiang who tells us that the student who sought admission in the University of Nālandā must have deeply studied both old and new (books), because the keeper of the gate proposed some hard questions and many being unable to answer had to retire.² The old and the new books are no other than the works on Hinduism,³ such as Vēdas, Vēdāngas, and Śāstras-Sāmkhya, Nyāya, Vaiśeṣika, etc., and works on Buddhism, in all its subdivisions. The same conclusion can be deduced from the words of I-Tsing also, who says that the students learn Vinaya works, and sūtras and śāstras as well.⁴

c13.26

The student, therefore, before he entered the University of Nālandā, Vikramaśīlā, or Valabhi, had studied much more than our modern school-boy. And, though his knowledge may be favourably compared with our modern graduate, still he was regarded as a school student, until he was enrolled in the University by the gate-keeper.

c13.27

For this reason, we would consider Nālandā as a University of Universities, entrance to which could be had only after the student had passed out from other smaller and inferior Universities, and the student, not merely a school-boy but a University student wishing to be enrolled in a higher University. Support to this interpretation is lent by the words of I-Tsing⁵ who says, “Here at Nālandā eminent and accomplished men assemble in crowds, discuss possible and impossible doctrines and after having been assured of their opinions by wise men, become far famed for their wisdom.” It would be evident from the

c13.28

(1) Hwui Li, o.c., p. 113.
(2) Hiuen Tsiang, o.c., II, p. 171.
(3) Perhaps it would be better to call this division by the dichotomous term “Non-Buddhist,” for “Hinduism” is a term of recent origin.
(4) I-Tsing, o.c., p. 181, also p. 104.

c13.29

above quotation that students had already distinguished themselves but they traversed all the way to Nālandā from distant parts of India to get that stamp of culture and refinement, which Universities like Oxford and Cambridge give to the modern Indian student.

c13.30

What was the actual method of teaching followed in the University? Were there lectures, as we have at present addressed to a group of students, sometimes amounting to a hundred or more? Or was it tutorial, meaning that each student or a small group of students was personally attended to by the teacher?

c13.31

From the records of Hiuen Tsiang, it would appear that the method, in majority of cases, was tutorial. He says,¹ "The old and the young mutually help one another," that is, the old, meaning the teacher, helped the student in his studies by explaining to him the various difficult passages of the book, etc. Hiuen Tsiang himself was taught the Yoga śāstra by Śīlabhadra, and many other works, he learnt from Jayasena and others in the same manner.² The student, in his turn, as we shall see elsewhere in detail, assisted the teacher in performing all the domestic and religious duties.

c13.32

¹ Hiuen Tsiang, o.c., II, p. 170.

c13.33

² Hwui Li, o.c., pp. 153-157.

c13.34

Next to this tutorial method came discussion, and the student acquired much of the knowledge by listening to the discussions which were carried on from morning till night. Both Hiuen Tsiang and I-Tsing seem to have been very much impressed by this part of Nālandā's activities.³

c13.35

³ See Hiuen Tsiang, o.c., p. 170; I-Tsing, o.c., p. 177.

c13.36

But, there were some subjects, mainly pertaining to the religious side of Buddhism and not to the philosophical, in which, we can, with some propriety, say that lectures were delivered. Hwui Li is quite clear on this point. He writes, "Within the Temple they arrange every day about 100 pulpits for preaching, and the students attend these discourses without fail, even for a minute."⁴ Even these lectures, very often took the shape of personal discussion between the teacher and the student, who could not follow the lecture or had some doubts regarding some topics in the lecture.¹ Numerous instances of such nature are met with in the *Vinaya Texts*: *Cullavagga*, *Mahāvagga*, etc. Sometimes, a professor lectured on knotty problems referred to him by the students, who, while discussing among themselves, could not solve them. Or as Buddha very often did, the professor lectured to the whole mass of students on some important problem that he had solved, or on some truth that he had divined.

c13.37

⁴ o.c., p. 112.

c13.38

¹ But as regards religious instructions too, tutorial method seems to have been more common. *Cf.* for instance, I-Tsing's words: The candidate begins to learn *Vinaya-pitaka*; he reads it day after day, and is examined every morning. Such is the way a teacher instructs in India. *o.c.*, p. 103.

c13.39

Whether the students had to do some desk-work is a moot point. But it appears that the only writing work the student had to do, was in the form of copying out manuscripts, the most important of these manuscripts being the *Prajñāpārmitā*. We have got epigraphical evidence to show that copying of manuscripts was one of the important activities of the students.² Hiuen Tsiang and I-Tsing carried away hundreds of manuscripts from India, and many of them were copied by them, perhaps, at Nālandā. For this purpose, very likely the slabs of stone were carved out in the Buddhist caves, as at Ellora, so that the student could put the book he was reading on the slab and use the same when he wanted to write.

c13.40

² See Bendall, *Cat. of Buddhist Sans. MSS. in the Univ. Liby.*, Cambridge, p. 101. Also *J.A.S.B.*, N.S., IV, p. 105.

c13.41

Teaching on the whole was tutorial, more attention being paid to the needs of individual students, rather than a professor coming to the class and lecturing on the particular part of a particular subject as at present in vogue in our colleges.

c13.42

The Matriculation examination was conducted by the University itself. For this purpose, it had appointed gate-keepers who guarded the way to the higher University studies.

c13.43

The examination consisted of a few questions, which were put to all those who came from other quarters, as strangers, with a desire to join the University and take part in the discussions. The amount of knowledge these students were expected to possess, we have seen, in the preceding paragraphs.

c13.44

From the number of unsuccessful students, which was seven or eight in ten, it is evident that the examination must have been very strict. Students of moderate talent were not only bound to fail to get admission but by their non-admission they even forfeited their fame as eminent debators.¹ This entrance examination, as it is clear from words like "other quarters" and "strangers," seems to have been held for those students, who had not received their 'primary' and 'secondary' education at Nālandā. But for students who had received their 'primary' and 'secondary' education at Nālandā and who were generally those who had embraced Buddhism, no such examination was necessary. They had to study, first, the Buddhist works and then works of other faiths and systems.² Then in course of time, when they had finished certain works, they were placed in charge of various departments of the University, majority of them being appointed as ācāryas.

c13.45

¹ Hiuen Tsiang, o.c., II, p. 171.

c13.46

² I-Tsing, o.c., p. 181.

c13.47

We have seen with what knowledge the student entered the University, and how he received education in it. Let us now follow him to the University and see how he lived there.

c13.48

If we rely solely upon I-Tsing for our knowledge then the minimum age at which a student obtained admission at Nālandā or Valabhi would be twenty, because, at the age of fifteen a boy just began his study of Vṛttisūtra and he finished it at the age of twenty.³ Having mastered this, he learnt such subjects as Hetuvidyā (Logic) and Abhidharmakoṣa (Metaphysics). After studying all this, to quote the same author, "(The students) thus instructed by their teachers and instructing others, they pass two or three years, generally in the Nālandā monastery in Central India or in the country of Valabhi in Western India."¹

c13.49

³ Ibid., p. 175.

c13.50

¹ *Ibid.*, p. 177.

c13.51

But the statement of I-Tsing, we think, applies to those students who went to Nālandā to get the Nālandā-seal on the knowledge and culture already obtained by them.

c13.52

We think, therefore, that there must be other students who had passed their whole career at Nālandā, primarily as *Bhikkhus*. Such students must have entered the University not at the age of twenty but at least some five to seven years before, just after they had finished their studies in grammar.² For these students, Nālandā was not the University of Universities but merely a school for secondary education, from which they were gradually to pass on to Nālandā, the University.

c13.53

² As a matter of fact, we have the testimony of I-Tsing, who says that students who entered Buddhist institutions were of two classes—one were *Bhiksus* (whom he calls *mānavas*), and the other *Brahmacārins* (students), o.c., pp. 105-106. This division, we think, corresponds to the one we have suggested.

c13.54

Thus we have two ages at which a student entered the University;—one at which the outsiders, for example, Dharmapāla and Śīlabhadra, entered the University, the minimum for which would be twenty; and the other, at which young *Bhikkhus* joined the *sangha*, the minimum for which would be thirteen or fifteen.

c13.55

Our main source of information on the state of discipline observed and maintained in the Nālandā University and other Buddhist institutions are the *Vinaya Texts*, which deal with rules and regulations prescribed from time to time by Buddha to be observed by what the *Texts* sometimes call "*Saddhivihārika*" and sometimes "*Śiṣyas*" and in general *Bhikkhus*. Perhaps more important than these codes of discipline are the contemporary accounts of the Chinese travellers, who had the opportunity to be eye-witnesses to the University colleges in action.

c13.56

Our University student was strikingly different from the Mediæval European University student, as far as liberty was concerned. If the reader of books on Mediæval European Universities would be astonished, as Rashdall¹ thinks, at the unfettered liberty—not to say the licence—which the European student enjoyed, the reader of books on ancient Indian Universities would be astonished at what may be called serfdom, which the Indian student had to go through, in order to acquire education. But what we term ‘serfdom’ now, was deemed as duty from the Indian standpoint, and therefore the student did not feel the restraint that was put upon his freedom. The following passage from I-Tsing tells us how completely the student gave himself up to the teacher for the acquisition of knowledge, which could never be dreamt of, in the Europe of the Middle Ages nor even in modern India. Says the traveller, “ He goes to his teacher at the first watch and at the last watch in the night. First the teacher bids him sit down comfortably. (Selecting some passages) from the Tripitakas, he gives a lesson in a way that suits circumstances, and does not pass any fact or theory unexplained. He inspects his pupil’s moral conduct, and warns him of defects and transgressions. Whenever he finds his pupil faulty, he makes him seek remedies and repent. The pupil rubs the teacher’s body, folds his clothes, or sometimes sweeps the apartment and the yard. Then having examined water to see whether insects be in it, he gives it to the teacher. Thus if there be anything to be done, he does all on behalf of his teacher.”²

c13.57

¹ Rashdall, o.c., II, p. 605.

c13.58

² I-Tsing, o.c., p. 120.

c13.59

This was true of all resident students and generally a major part of the students was of resident students. If the passage speaks of the Buddhist students, it is equally true of a Hindu student, excepting such work as the examining of water etc., which was peculiar to the Buddhists. Hindu religious codes, Gautama-Dharma-Sūtra,³ for instance, speak at length of the behaviour of the student towards the teacher, of the day to day examination of the pupil’s morals and of many other things.

c13.60

³ adhyāya II.

c13.61

The reason why the Indian student willingly underwent so much subjection, while his European brother was almost immune from such hardships, nay, on the contrary enjoyed unimaginable luxuries is to be found in the fact that the Indian paid no fees to his teacher. After the completion of his education, the student paid whatever he liked, and whatever he could to his preceptor. All preceptors, we think, did not pitch their demand so high when the pupil humbly asked the preceptor as to what he should pay him, as the preceptor of Kālidāsa’s Kautsa.¹ The teacher, in his turn, as he took no fees, made the student to work in his āśrama or vihāra, as his domestic life must be carried on. So, very often besides doing the work of the preceptor as shown above, the student had to go for alms. This was true of the Buddhist saṅghas and monasteries also. For, in the beginning, when the saṅgha was started by Buddha, gifts of land, corn and other household requirements were not coming so freely as when the kings and wealthy people accepted Buddhism as a faith and made rich gifts to the saṅgha, built monasteries and equipped them with all the necessities of life. The custom of serving the preceptor, introduced by Buddha, was handed down from generation to generation and we find it being followed even in the time of I-Tsing.

c13.62

¹ Raghuvamsa, canto V, verse 21 and ff.

c13.63

Circumstances, however, were different in Europe. The student paid fees in Europe and so we meet with a strange spectacle of a touting Master visiting a freshman, “anxious to secure the new-comer for his own Hall or lecture room.”[2] Instead of a student approaching the Master we find the Master going out in search of students. And the contrast cannot be more striking than when we read that “In the matter of lectures, indeed, a trial was respectfully solicited with all the accommodating obsequiousness of a modern tradesman.”[3]

c13.64

² Rashdall, o.c., II, p. 606.

c13.65

³ Ibid.

c13.66

No one need think that the Indian student, as a strict watch was kept over his morals and movements, did not commit any immoral act or violate the discipline in any way. In fact, acts of immorality and transgression of ordinary rules of discipline gave rise to the various regulations in the Pātimokkha. Buddha prescribed rules from time to time, as acts of omission and commission were brought to his notice. Perusal of Vinaya Texts clearly shows this. But, if the rules of discipline were rigorous¹ they were not so spartan in their execution in the sense that the students were not imprisoned nor birched, as the European undergraduates were.² Corporal punishment there was none. The highest punishment was expulsion from the monastery for serious acts of immorality.³ Otherwise, the offence fell under various heads of offences mentioned in the Vinaya Texts⁴ and the punishment for them was to practise penance by the modes prescribed by Buddha.

c13.67

¹ Cf. Hiuen Tsiang, o.c., II, p. 170, who says, "The rules of this convent (Nālandā) are severe, and the conduct of priests pure and unblamable."

c13.68

² Rashdall, o.c., II, p. 609.

c13.69

³ Pātimokkha, Saṃghādisesā Dhamma.

c13.70

⁴ Ibid., Nissaggiyā Pākittiyā Dhamma.

c13.71

The European student was free from the rigours of discipline in the 12th and 13th centuries. But, the colleges that sprang up in the 15th and 16th centuries enforced a very strict discipline upon the students. And "this discipline reacted upon the discipline of the Halls and of the Universities generally."⁵ Henceforward, the European student came very near the Indian student in point of discipline. And as regards punishment, in fact, he was more severely dealt with than the Indian.

c13.72

⁵ See Rashdall, o. c., II, p. 623.

c13.73

From this, we pass on to a topic which is intimately connected with the one already discussed, and which in fact comprises the question of discipline and many other kindred questions. This topic is the relation between the teacher and the taught. On this question also, the Hindu and the Buddhist codes of conduct have almost the same outlook. The reason is that the whole idea of Buddhist *saṅgha*, monasticism and so forth was modelled upon the Hindu practice of sending young students to an *āśrama* of guru, or *ācārya* to serve and to study under him. Buddha, indeed, says in so many words that "I prescribe, O *Bhikkhus*, (that young *Bhikkhus* choose) a preceptor."¹ Continuing, he lays down the relation that is to exist between them. "The preceptor, O *Bhikkhus*," says Buddha,² "ought to consider the pupil as a son; the pupil ought to consider the preceptor as a father." Such a relationship held out a very noble reward both to the teacher and the taught. For these two united by mutual reverence, confidence, and communion of life, would progress, advance, and reach a high stage in doctrine and discipline.³

c13.74

¹ *Mahāvagga*, I, 25.

c13.75

² *Ibid.*

c13.76

³ *Ibid.*

c13.77

Thus initiating the subject, Buddha proceeds to mention the actual duties of the pupil and the teacher respectively towards each other. First the pupil's.

c13.78

"Let him arise betimes, and having taken off his shoes and adjusted his upper robe so as to cover one shoulder let him give to the preceptor the teeth-cleanser and water to rinse his mouth with. Then let him prepare a seat (for the preceptor). If there is rice-milk, let him rinse the jug, and offer rice-milk (to the preceptor). When he has drunk it, let him give water (to the preceptor)."......Getting up early in the morning, the pupil was to help the teacher in all the ceremonies and practices of the first hours of the day. Going for alms was the next item of the day and in this the pupil had to follow the preceptor if the latter so desired. The pupil had to make all arrangements for the teacher's meals and cleanse the bowls, etc. Sometimes the pupil had even to sweep the *vihāra*. More important things than the above were the following: "The pupil was also to act as a check, as it were, upon the preceptor, in keeping him steadfast in the faith. If he became discontented the pupil was to try and appease him or get some one else to do this. If indecision arose in his mind or he had become tainted with false doctrines the pupil was to try and win him back. If the preceptor was guilty of a grave offence, the pupil was to take care that the *sangha* sentenced him to discipline and also that he was rehabilitated after the penance was complete, but he was at the same time to get the *sangha* to forego, or mitigate, any severe discipline which it might wish to impose upon his preceptor. He was not to accept or give presents or wait on any one else, or go out, without the permission of the preceptor. If the preceptor was sick he was to wait upon him and nurse him diligently."[1]

c13.79

The relation, therefore, between the teacher and the taught was that of a master and a servant, of a superior and an inferior, of a patient and a nurse. The primary relation was that of a teacher and a pupil; the others were its offshoots but they were of no little importance.

c13.80

To give, in Buddha's own words, the duties of the preceptor towards the pupil: "The former ought to observe a strict conduct towards the latter. Let the preceptor, O Bhikkhus, afford (spiritual) help and furtherance to the pupil by teaching, by putting questions to him, by exhortation, by instruction."[2] Just as the pupil was to be a nurse to the teacher when ill, so also the teacher in his turn was required to wait upon and nurse the pupil, when the latter fell ill.[3]

c13.81

Very few instances of feuds with the teacher are met with in Hindu as well as Buddhist works. One specific case mentioned by *Cullavagga*—one of the parts of the *Vinaya Texts*—is that of Devadatta. This disciple of Buddha not only severed his connection with Buddha but went even further. He attempted first himself and when he failed, induced Ajātaśatru—the son and successor of King Bimbisāra of Maghada—to take the life of Buddha. Such cases were however very rare. If a digression be permitted, then we may cite the case of Yājñavalkya¹ mentioned in the Purāṇas where the disciple Yājñavalkya was asked by his teacher, Vaiśampāyana, to give back whatever he had learnt from him on account of some quarrel that took place between them. But this calm submission to the teacher's order, even if it be unjust and autocratic, could be expected only from an Indian student, for he was brought up in an atmosphere, where strict obedience was the rule. Students of the Paris University, we are told,² brought an action against the faculty, under which they were studying, before the Parliament, and boldly pleaded for the degree, which was refused to them. Yājñavalkya, in these days, will be perhaps condemned for his deed; obedience may be construed as cowardice. But, those times were such, when an appeal against the teacher's order was unheard of, and even if some one wanted to appeal he did not know where to lodge his appeal, for, even though, the king was the sole authority, the Brāhmins, who were usually the teachers, were considered superior to and more powerful than the king. So, the king dared not lift his head against the teacher.³

c13.82

¹ Keay, *Ancient Indian Education*, p. 91-92.

c13.83

² *Mahāvagga*, I, 26.

c13.84

³ The relation thus is almost identical with that expressed in the opening and closing prayer of many of the *Upaniṣads*, viz., *Saha nāvavatu, Saha nau bhunaktu, Saha vīryam karavāvahai tejas-vināvadhītamastu, Mā vidviṣāvahai*. See for instance *Taittirīya*, III.

c13.85

¹ Śrimad Bhāgavat, skandha XII, adhyāya 6.

c13.86

² Rashdall, o. c., I, p. 470.

c13.87

³ Often times we come across stories where a king was punished for going against the wish of the Brāhmin. See Śrimad Bhāgavat, skandha X, adhyāya 64.

c13.88

What was the dress of the Indian student? Did he have any special academic dress, as the students of Bologna and other European Universities had? And, even if there was any special dress for students was it compulsory for all? These are some of the questions with which we shall have to deal, while speaking about the life of an Indian University student.

c13.89

Rules about the dress of a Hindu student, that is, a Brahmacārin are given in the Gautama Dharma Sūtra⁴ and many other such Sūtra works and Smṛtis. The form, etc., of the dress was the same whether the student was a Brāhmin, a Kṣatriya or a Vaiśya but the quality of the cloth and other paraphernalia relating to the dress varied according to his caste.

c13.90

⁴ Gautama Dharma Sūtra, adhyāya I, sūtra 29.

c13.91

No such distinctions, however, were to be found among the Buddhists. For with them, there was no caste; all people were same to them. Now, the dress that was prescribed by Buddha for a *Bhikkhu* was to be the dress of a student also. Very little difference was made between a student and a *Bhikkhu*. A student, in fact, as long as he was in a monastery was guided by the same rules and regulations that were prescribed for a *Bhikkhu*. The dress of a student who studied at Buddhist monasteries, where *Bhikkhus* also resided, must be like that of the *Bhikkhus*. We shall, therefore, see what the dress of a *Bhikkhu* was.

c13.92

The *Bhikkhu* used to put on a robe. As to the cloth that was to be used in the preparation of a robe, we find that Buddha was very liberal in his views. Unlike the authors of *Smṛtis* and *Sūtras* he allowed such rich cloth as silk and wool, besides linen, cotton, and hemp.¹ Gautama and others have laid down that *Brahmacārins* should only use a garment made of hemp, linen, rags, etc.² But, if Buddha thus appears to be very broadminded when compared with writers on *Smṛtis* and *Sūtras* one condition that he had laid down regarding dress was very strict. The *Bhikkhus* could not go to the market and buy one robe length of cotton or silk or wool, for Buddha³ had prescribed that a set of robes made entirely from untorn pieces was not to be worn. In order that *Bhikkhus* should refrain from violating this rule he also laid down that a person who would break the rule would be guilty of a *Dukkhati* offence⁴.

c13.93

¹ *Mahāvagga*, VIII, 1.

c13.94

² Gautama, o. c., I, sūtra 19.

c13.95

³ *Mahāvagga*, o. c., VIII, 21, 2.

c13.96

⁴ *Ibid.*, VIII, 21, 2.

c13.97

Now, there were three such robes.⁵ One was a double waist-cloth, the other a single upper robe, and the third was a single under garment. In a note to this passage the translator tells us how these garments were used. "The waist cloth," says he, "was wrapped round the waist and back, and secured with a girdle. The under garment was wrapped round the loins and reached below the knee, being fastened round by an end of the cloth being tucked in there, and sometimes also by a girdle. The upper robe was wrapped round the legs from the loins to the ankles, and the end was then drawn, at the back, from the right hip, over the left shoulder, and either allowed to fall down in front, or drawn back again over the right shoulder, and allowed to fall down on the back." The colour of the garment was usually yellow.¹

c13.98

⁵ *Ibid.*, VIII, 31, 54.

c13.99

¹ Mahāvagga, VIII, 10, 1; Cf. I-Tsing, o. c., pp. 72-73-74.

c13.100

Now this dress was evidently ecclesiastical or religious, for, it was primarily the dress of the priests and Bhikkhus. I-Tsing also calls it a religious garment.² But, we may call it academical as the students also put on the same dress. Whether there was any head-dress for the students, we cannot definitely say. Vinaya Texts, at least, are silent on this point, and hence, Dr. Vidyabhusana³ concludes that "in the early Buddhist Church, monks (and so also the students) were not allowed to wear any head-dress." However, "With the introduction of Mahāyāna," continues the same writer, "in the first century A.D. by Kaniṣka, a great change was effected in the dress of monks, and caps of various shapes were invented."⁴ Then he proceeds to describe a picture of Ācārya Diṅnāga, who was a great logician and a distinguished professor of Nālandā. This picture therefore gives a good idea about the dress of the Nālandā professors. The picture represents Diṅnāga with a cap having a pointed peak and long lappets. In Tibetan it was called Panchen-shwa-dmar or ‘Pandita's red cap’. The length of the lappets of the cap was in proportion to the rank of the wearer. If, as Dr. Vidyabhusana says, that a Pandita's cap was perhaps a distinctive badge of the scholars of the Nālandā University¹ then we can at least infer that the students must have had some kind of head-dress and possibly similar to that worn by Ācārya Diṅnāga.

c13.101

² I-Tsing, o. c., p. 72.

c13.102

³ Vidyabhusana, o. c., p. 78; H.I.L., p. 271.

c13.103

⁴ Ibid.

c13.104

¹ Vidyabhusana, *H.I.L.*, p. 272.

c13.105

The records at our disposal are seldom sufficient to enable us to say exactly how many times in a day the students took their meals. This much, however, is certain that three meals, *viz.*, breakfast, lunch, and supper, which our modern students are accustomed to, were quite unknown to the Nālandā student, and in fact to all the students of ancient India. If there was something like our morning tea, which I-Tsing² calls morning meal with reference to the teacher, and simpler meal with reference to the pupil, the time for such a meal was quite different. Unlike the modern student, the ancient student could not take tea which consisted of rice-water³ immediately after cleaning his teeth, for after chewing his tooth-wood,⁴ he had to wait upon his teacher.⁵ And this would at least require an hour, after which the teacher partook of his cup of rice-water and then came the turn of the student. The actual time, according to the commentator Kāśyapa, for this meal, was just after sunrise.⁶ This rice-water, being more substantial than our tea or coffee, may as well be called a breakfast.

c13.106

² I-Tsing, *o. c.*, p. 117.

c13.107

³ *Ibid.*

c13.108

⁴ "Toothwood" is even now the most common way of cleaning the teeth in India. The wood is a small, cylindrical, tender branch of either the "Neem" or "Babul," tree.

c13.109

⁵ I-Tsing, *o.c.*, p. 117.

c13.110

⁶ *Ibid.*, p. 117, n.

c13.111

The next meal, it appears, was at 12 o'clock, forenoon.⁷ Even this meal, as I-Tsing says, was sometimes delayed till the afternoon.⁸ Rice, butter, milk,⁹ fruits, and sweet melons,¹⁰ were usually taken by students for their food. All these provisions were contributed by two hundred householders from about hundred villages.¹ Whether there was any equivalent of our afternoon tea, or even the evening supper, we are not in a position to say, though we think that there must be some evening meal at about 7 o'clock.

c13.112

⁷ *Ibid.*, p. 26.

c13.113

⁸ *Ibid.*

c13.114

⁹ Hwui Li, *o. c.*, p. 113. *Cf.* also I-Tsing, *o. c.*, pp. 43-44.

c13.115

¹⁰ I-Tsing, *o. c.*, p. 44.

c13.116

¹ Hwui Li, o. c., p. 112.

c13.117

From the above remarks, it would seem that our Indian student was not quite well-off in the matter of food, or that he was rather starved. If, however, we turn to the Oxford student of the 12th and 13th centuries, we shall be surprised to find that "so far as regular meals of college are concerned, no provision was usually made for any food before dinner at 10 A.M."² Thus the Oxford student had nothing like breakfast, nor tea. In this respect his Indian brother, as we have seen, was better provided. But, though we find no mention of breakfast for the Oxford student, we are definitely told that he had his supper at 5 P. M.³ On Fast-days, however, even this supper disappeared.⁴ It would be evident from this comparative study that the Indian student was, on the whole, much more cared for in the matter of food than the English.

c13.118

² Rashdall, o. c., II, p. 653-654.

c13.119

³ *Ibid.*, p. 654.

c13.120

⁴ *Ibid.*

c13.121

Though the provisions of food at Nālandā were supplied by the householders from the adjacent villages and the students—*Bhikkhus* as well as *Brahmacārins*—as the biographer of Hiuen Tsiang says, were abundantly supplied and so did not require to ask for the four requisities, *viz.*, clothes, food bedding, and medicine,⁵ still we learn from I-Tsing that both kinds of students above mentioned had to pay for their own subsistence.⁶ From other sources we learn that the students had to go for alms every day.⁷ We have, thus, three statements as to the way in which the students were provided, each totally contradicting the other. If, as I-Tsing tells us, the student had to pay for his own maintenance, it will give rise to another query as to the standard of living of the student. I-Tsing’s statement, however, is opposed to all that we know about Hindu or Buddhist system of education. Nowhere, in any Hindu work do we come across a single reference that tells us that the student had to pay for his own livelihood. All that we learn from these works is that the students either begged not only for themselves but even for their teachers or, as Hwui Li tells us, they were maintained by rich citizens or kings.¹

c13.122

⁵ Hwui Li, o. c., p. 113.

c13.123

⁶ I-Tsing, o. c., p. 105-106.

c13.124

⁷ *Mahāvagga*, I, 25 and 26.

c13.125

¹ Hwui Li, o. c., p. 113. According to the *Jātakas*, e.g., II, pp. 277-78., however the students had the option before them either to pay the fees or to attend upon the teacher.

c13.126

A reference to the question of morality was made when we spoke about the discipline of students. An Indian student who lived in the *āśrama* of a *guru* had very few occasions when he could come into contact with women. Even on those few occasions he had to act in strict conformity with the rules laid down by religious codes.² His chances of going astray, consequently, were very few. Matters were different, however, with students who took education in Buddhist institutions. These were open to nuns, and so side by side with male students, women also lived. Hence, the students had greater scope of association with women. Every possible precaution was, therefore, taken to dissuade the students from acts of immorality. Whenever a woman entered a monastery, she was not allowed to proceed to the apartments of either priests or students; she could only speak to them in a corridor, and go away.³ From an instance cited by I-Tsing it would seem that the students and priests alike were very sensitive on this question of morality. For a teacher who sent to a tenant’s wife two *Shang* (*prastha*) of rice gratis, resigned his post, out of sheer shame when this incident was reported to the assembly, even though the assembly declared that he had committed no crime.¹ Though instances such as these would show that the students as well as teachers scarcely violated the code of morality we are inclined to say from other sources that acts of immorality must have been committed at least in the later centuries, that is to say, in the 9th and 10th centuries. Buddhist religion at this time was in a very decadent state.² Advent of new cults such as Mantrayāna, and so many other yānas had led their devotees to produce all sort of rubbish and trash literature. Many base and immoral practices were advocated. And we can just imagine what must be the actual deeds of these persons when they openly wrote on such subjects. It was only in the 11th century that Atiśa and others restored Buddhism to its pristine position. For, even though they were the exponents of Mantras and Dhāraṇīs they moved in a much higher sphere than their predecessors.³

c13.127

² Gautama, o. c., adhyāya II, sūtras 24 and 40-41.

c13.128

³ I-Tsing, o. c., p. 63.

c13.129

¹ Ibid.

c13.130

² Vasu, Modern Buddhism, Introduction, p. 4.

c13.131

³ Ibid., p. 6.

c13.132

Some cases of immoral acts are even mentioned by Vinaya Texts.⁴ And Buddha had prescribed the maximum punishment for it, viz., excommunication from the saṅgha.⁵

c13.133

⁴ Cullavagga, 1, 13, 1.

c13.134

⁵ Pātimokkha, Aniyatā Dhamma.

c13.135

Before we go to another aspect of the student-life, it may be noted, so far as its morality is concerned, that none of the Chinese travellers, neither Hiuen Tsiang, nor I-Tsing, refers to any instance of immorality. No one need say that the tourists painted only the better side of the picture. Even a cursory glance at the index of Takakusu's translation of I-Tsing's records will show to the reader that the tourist is admirably or shall we say surprisingly frank in his records of what he saw in India. He never misses an opportunity of pointing out the superiority of his country, which he calls the country of gods, over India, in its customs, manners, etc. This also points to the fact that he was not a mere admirer or a flatterer of India, even though much of his writing contains nothing but admiration for India. From the absence of any reference by these travellers to the morality of the students we may assume that the standard of morality must be very high.

c13.136

Since games and sports are of supreme interest to modern students, the question may be asked whether the students of ancient India had a similar fondness for amusements, and whether they were allowed any.

c13.137

Writers of Hindu *Dharmaśāstras* and *Smṛtis* would have us believe that students of yore had no craving for any kind of games, save gambling with dice. Gautama¹, while speaking about the duties of a student, lays down the rule that a student should always keep away from gambling, etc. In one whole chapter devoted to the life of the student this is the only reference he makes to an amusement out of so many amusements that we know of. Since Gautama does not tell us of the games that the student used to play, it follows that the students indulged in no other sport but gambling. Gautama, however, strictly forbids gambling. We are, therefore, compelled to arrive at the conclusion to which Rashdall arrived, in the case of the Mediaeval European Universities, viz., that "a very striking feature of medieval University life is the almost total absence of authorized or respectable amusements."² But as far as ancient India is concerned, there appears to be a total absence of authorised or respectable amusements.

c13.138

¹ Gautama, *Dharmasūtra*, adhyāya II, sūtra 23.

c13.139

² Rashdall, o.c., II, p. 669.

c13.140

If we turn from the Hindu Works to the Buddhist we find that they give an exhaustive list of games, and even though many of them were innocent and absolutely harmless, they were banned.

c13.141

Even though the work speaks of the games that were prohibited, nevertheless, it gives us very valuable information as to the games that existed in India. We read in the *Cullavagga*, that besides dancing with ladies, the *Bhikkhus* "used to amuse themselves at games with eight pieces and ten pieces, and with tossing up, hopping over diagrams formed on the ground, and removing substances from a heap without shaking the remainder; and with games of dice and trap ball; and with sketching rude figures, tossing balls, blowing trumpets, having matches at ploughing with mimic ploughs, tumbling, forming mimic wind-mills, guessing at measures, having chariot races and archery matches, shooting marbles with the fingers, guessing other people's thoughts, and mimicking other people's acts;—and they used to practise elephant riding, and horse riding, carriage driving and swordsmanship;—and they used to run to and fro in front of horses and in front of carriages;—and they used to exhibit signs of anger, and to wring their hands, and to wrestle, and to box with their fists;—and spreading their robes out as a stage they used to invite dancing girls, saying 'Here you may dance, sister' and greet her with applause."¹

c13.142

Many of the above-mentioned amusements, for instance hopping over figures, boxing, wrestling and the like, it will be admitted, were absolutely innocent. But before we criticize the orthodox attitude of the ancient writers, let us see how many of the amusements we can recognise as similar to modern amusements.

c13.143

Wrestling and boxing are evidently referred to in the words 'they used to wrestle and to box with their fists.' Chariot races are nowadays replaced by horse races, and archery by target-shooting, which our undergraduates practise in the U.T.C. Camp. The game of hopping over diagrams is still a favourite sport with Hindus. There are two such games current among them. One is usually played by young boys and girls. In it the player has to hop on one leg. The other game is more intelligent and skilful. Grown-up persons and young children alike play this game. Here the play mainly consists in crossing three or four squares without being caught by players of the opposite side. In vernacular this game is called ‘*Ātā-pātā*.’ Since the game is spoken of in connexion with grown-up persons, probably it is the latter game that is referred to and not the former, which is only resorted to by young children.

c13.144

But of greater importance than the identification of various amusements are the expressions such as “Mimicking other people’s acts,” “Exhibiting signs of anger,” and the last lines which speak of dancing. In these, perhaps, there is an allusion to the drama. And if it can be proved that the art of dramatising had developed so early as the 5th century B.C. much new light can be thrown upon the alleged Greek influence on the Indian drama. An exhaustive and critical study of all Buddhist works, prior to the invasion of Alexander the Great, with whom many actors and others are believed to have come to India and implanted the Greek drama—especially its peculiarities, for instance, the *Yavanikā*—would bring nearer the solution of the vexed problem. There is no doubt that the games spoken of, including the drama, belong to the pre-Alexander invasion, and to the Buddha and the post-Buddha period. For even allowing a space of a hundred years to elapse in which the *Vinaya Texts* came to be collected and, so to say, codified, to meet the argument that the games referred to may not really have existed in the time of Buddha, but may have reference to things found in the years that followed the death of Buddha, even then, the original theory remains untouched. And even if references to the games of the Buddha-age be disproved, they will and must refer to the interval between the death of Buddha and the Greek invasion, during which period the various *Vinaya Texts* came to be codified.

c13.145

One is really surprised at the attitude of the authors of these codes. Did they think that the students should not see the lighter side of life, however innocent? But if the attitude of those who moulded the character and life of the students appears surprising, that of the students is still more surprising. With all due regard for their sense of duty, for obedience to their teachers and parents, to all their elders, it must be said that in spite of these commendable virtues, their ready obedience showed sometimes their servility of nature. Otherwise how could they not tell their teachers and all other superiors that they must have some authorised amusements? For they did indulge in amusements; they were not puritans. And gambling, which even nowadays is considered a vice, was their favourite pastime. This is evident from the fact that we meet with universal condemnation of gambling in both Hindu as well as Buddhist works. The condemnation itself suggests that dice-playing must have been very popular. And this suggestion is based on the oft-repeated argument of the Hindu philosophers that there could be no negation of a thing which did not exist.¹ Hence gambling must have been a very popular pastime, otherwise it could not be spoken ill of by the writers who in order to check the ever-growing vice seemed to have taken up cudgels against it and determined to make a concerted attack on it. In spite of all the efforts of these well-wishers of the students, gambling had made its way into the precincts of the Nālandā University. This is conclusively proved from the find of a gaming die by the excavators at Nālandā. The comments of Mr. Page² are worth quoting. "Another curious find was a gaming die, which seems to suggest that the Buddhist brethren here were not altogether above the amusements of less austere humanity." He further adds, "Similar gaming dice had previously been recovered in Monasteries No. I and IA as well as on many other Buddhist sites."

c13.146

¹ Cf. Śaṅkara, Brahma Sūtra Bhāshya, adhyāya II, sūtra 18.

c13.147

² Archaeological Survey of India, Annual Report, 1923-24, p. 74.

c13.148

The above evidence establishes beyond doubt that the students of Nālandā must have been addicted to gambling. And if they played at dice, why should they not indulge in games—all those that are mentioned by Cullavagga—which are obviously more innocent, and really healthy? The more we think of this question of games, the more we are inclined to think that the games which tempted the Bhikkhus of Buddha, the *Bhikkhus* who had renounced the world, must have had a greater temptation for the students of Nālandā. For these students were not *sanyāsis*, many of them had a stake in the world, cherished high ambitions and moreover, they all lived in a crowd where the temptations are many, and easily fallen a prey to. Again if the *Bhikkhus* of Buddha could not resist the temptations, how could the students who, in spite of the able and distinguished abbots as Dharmapāla, Atīśa and others, were without such a spiritual head as Buddha? Human nature being the same in all ages, it would not be proper to say that the students in ancient India were puritans. And, if we see the students of our time so very fond of all kinds of sports we cannot believe the students of ancient India to have been otherwise.¹

First 147 of 214 passages. Read on

Linked texts (37)