The University of Nalanda c16: Chapter X. The End of Nālandā
The University of Nālandā c16
- Language
- English
Chapter X. The End of Nālandā
c16.2
LITTLE did the promulgator of the doctrine of Momentariness know that the very place, from which he preached his new philosophy, would also one day come to naught, and be destroyed, almost effaced from the memory of men whom it served so long, to find light, however again some day, as all things must, according to the Principle of the Wheel, in the hands of antiquarians. What he perhaps never dreamt of did happen. Nālandā, the resort of many religious teachers, the nursery of many new-fangled philosophies, the great Temple of Learning, after an existence of about a thousand years, was finally destroyed by the champion of a new faith. Its life was also momentary, for what is but a thousand years, in the infinite and endless flow of Time!
c16.3
Thus did the great University meet its end, is the verdict of the political historian, whose main function seems to have been to record only wars and treaties, death and devastation of men and countries, and the rise and fall of institutions and empires. But strangely enough, the question is asked, why could not the buildings be reconstructed as after the Hūna invasion under Mihirakula and after the interregnum which followed the death of Harṣa and the rise of Pālas in Bengal, admitted though it be that the Moslem came, saw and conquered, and left no traces of the physical existence of the University?
c16.4
The Moslem chronicler tells us that the onslaught of Bakhtiyār Khilji was so severe and so thorough that the monks (Brāhmaṇs with shaven heads) were killed, one and all, so much so, that there was no one left to explain the contents of books that the victor found at the place.¹
c16.5
¹ See Tabakat-I Nasiri, Elliot, History of India, II, p. 306.
c16.6
But this answer will not suffice, for we know from a Tibetan source, *Pag-sam-jonzang* that the temples and *vihāras* were repaired once again by a sage, named Mudita Bhadra.¹ Further, "after this, one Kukkutasiddha, a minister of some king of Magadha, erected a temple." Thus, there is evidence of the external regeneration of the monastic order. Yet this was short-lived, for, according to another tradition, the buildings were razed to the ground by a stupid act of two mendicants. Ridiculed by the young monks, they are said to have propitiated the Sun for twelve years, performed a sacrifice and alleged to have thrown living embers on the stately structures which reduced them to ashes.² Credibility of the account, we shall examine afterwards, along with the question of Nālandā's date of destruction at the hands of the Mohammedans. But, still the problem, *viz.*, why could not the University be rebuilt, monks reinstated and the whole institution given a new lease of life remains unsolved.
c16.7
¹ See Vidyabhusana, *Indian Logic Mediaeval School*, p. 149.
c16.8
² *Pag-sam-jonzang*, Index I, i.
c16.9
This step could have been taken, were it not for the fact that Buddhism as a religion and, in fact, the whole Buddhistic culture were robbed of all their vitality and mere external supports could not prop them up.
c16.10
The history of the end of Nālandā, hence, is, in a sense, the history of the extinction of Buddhism from the land of its birth. Various causes contributed to bring about its downfall. Chief of them can be conveniently divided into those inherent and those extraneous.
c16.11
Taking a rapid survey of the extraneous causes first, we find that Buddhism which had become a state religion in the Aśokan era, had, gradually, in the centuries that followed, lost the royal patronage.
c16.12
Aśoka's son and successor was a devout Jain,³ and Puṣyamitra, the exterminator of the Mauryas, turned out to be the first persecutor of Gotama's faith.¹ In Kaniṣka's hands the religion once again became a state religion. But he never completely identified himself with the foreign faith. He appears to have clung to his old faith.² The Imperial Guptas, though they showed much interest, sympathy and toleration towards Buddhism, never embraced it. They, on the contrary, felt proud to style themselves as *Parama Bhāgavatas,* devotees of Vāsudeva. After receiving a severe set back at the hands of Mihirakula, Buddhism seems to have attained its former glory in the reign of Harṣa. Nevertheless, Harṣa's patronage was analogous to that of Kaniṣka. The Buddhists never acquired its complete monopoly. Moreover, this patronage was enjoyed, whatever be its extent, for a short period only.
c16.13
³ We refer to Samprati. See Raychaudhuri, *Political History of Ancient India*, p. 186.
c16.14
During the interregnum that followed Harṣa's disappearance from the political horizon, and the rise of the Pālas in Bengal, we do not know exactly what course the religion followed. But, when with the emergence of the Pālas from the political chaos in Bengal as her elected kings, the religion seemed to have found new champions, its internal degeneration had already set in, to which a death blow was given, by the mighty, blood-smeared hand of Islam.
c16.15
The loss of Imperial grace was not the only cause. There were other reasons too for its disappearance. These were mainly internal; those which affected the system itself. Of these, its pessimistic outlook on life, conveyed by the famous phrases, such as *Sarvam Dukkham, Sarvam anityam, Sarvam anātmyam,* "All is suffering, all is impermanent, all is Non-Soul," and its deficiency in supplying a deity seem to be the primary and cardinal defects. In Chapter IV, while dealing with Tāntrism, we have already referred to the fact that the common mind found no consolation, on the contrary it felt
c16.16
(1) Scholars are divided on this point. Raychaudhuri, o.c., p. 210 says that he was not so intolerant as some represent him to be, while Bagchi, *Decline of Buddhism in India and its Causes*, A.M.S.J., Vol., Orientalia, Part II, pp. 405-6, has tried to prove by citing *Divyāvadāna* and Kimura that Pusyamitra did really persecute the Buddhists.
(2) See Raychaudhuri, o.c., p. 254.
c16.17
much aggrieved, when preachings were dinned into its ears from housetops that life is an unmixed evil and that *Nirvāṇa* or Salvation could not be achieved within a day, but only after the completion of a whole cycle of existences. The theory of *Nairātmya* or Non-Soul could hardly be imbibed even by the learned, when many other faiths preached against it so vehemently and when *Ātmavāda* (belief in Soul) appeared so natural to the human mind. The growth of divergent philosophies and views in Buddhism, since its inception, shows but one thing, namely, the eternal strivings of its exponents, to remove its shortcomings. To attract the literate as well as the illiterate, they tried many methods. And the outcome was the different and slightly divergent philosophies, *Śūnyavāda*, *Ālayavijñānavāda*, and others.
c16.18
But when in spite of their efforts they could not draw in the masses and could not satisfy their thirst for the deity, Tāntrism was introduced. With Tāntrism, its offsprings, *Vajrayāna*, *Sahajayāna*, etc., made their appearance. But the authors, who thus quenched the thirst of the popular mind for a deity, for mysticism, for superstition, for the fearful and the grotesque, could not keep it under control. Horrible excesses in matters of ritual were committed, which sapped the strength, vigour and vitality of the entire system.
c16.19
The consequence was that Buddhism, while trying to be democratic, lost its moral prestige among the intelligentsia.
c16.20
From the seventh century, then, Buddhism was on its downward march. It was slowly decaying. Just at this moment when moral degeneration had taken its root into the system, there came a terrible, philosophical onslaught.
c16.21
Kumārila in the eighth century and Śaṅkara in the ninth attacked and demolished the gigantic and at one time impregnable edifices of the Sarvāstivādins, Vijñānavādins and others. They showed and proved the hollowness and absurdity of the Buddhist dialectics, of the theory of momentariness, etc. And the strength and complete mastery of the Vedāntin attack will be evident from the fact that Śaṅkara¹ thinks it too low, even to speak of Śūnyavāda, let apart its criticism and refutation.
c16.22
¹ Cf. Śaṅkara, Brahma Sūtra Bhāṣya, adhyāya II, pāda II, sūtra 31. “Śūnyavādipakṣastu sarvapramāṇavipratiṣiddha iti tannirākaraṇāya nādaraḥ kriyate.”
c16.23
We may just pause to consider the causes of Śaṅkara’s signal victory and Buddhism’s complete defeat.
c16.24
The first great champion of Non-dualism seems to have played a masterly game in popularising his doctrine. Knowing, as he did, the different tenets so well, he soon discovered the weakness of the Buddhist system. Non-belief in Soul was, he knew, one of the Achilles' heels of Buddhism; so also the theory of Śūnya or Void. How to convert the mass of people who were ingrained with the doctrine, yet sceptic and tired of it, was the problem with him. He was really a genius and acted most ingeniously. He propounded once again the theory of Ātmā, and side by side preached that the world was all Māyā, illusion, false from esoteric viewpoint, but true from strictly exoteric view. He thus effected a compromise between the extreme Nihilism of Nāgārjuna, Idealism of Asaṅga and the Realism of other Brāhmanic theories. And in support, like a clever and pious Jew, quoted scriptures—the Upanisads. Thus the literate as well as the illiterate found what they sought for. There was a personal god for the masses; and for the cultured few the improved edition of Śūnya as well as the reaffirmation, and reassertion of the theory of Ātman.
c16.25
Buddhism was, thus, hemmed in from all sides political, moral and philosophical, and only one thing remained to exterminate it, viz., the annihilation of its visible existence, its abodes, the Buddhist monasteries, where it still continued to flourish.
c16.26
To accomplish this task, as it were, the Destroyer sent the Mohammedan adventurer, to which we have already made a general reference. In the graphic language of the chronicler, “Bakhtiyār Khilji went to the gate of the fort of Behār with only two hundred horses, and began the war by taking the enemy unawares.” Continuing he says, “Muhammad Bakhtiyār with great vigour and audacity rushed in at the gate of the fort and gained possession of the place. Great plunder fell into the hands of the victors. Most of the inhabitants were Brāhmans with shaven heads. They were put to death. Large number of books were found there and when the Muhammadans saw them, they called for some persons to explain their contents, but all the men had been killed. It was discovered that the whole fort and city was a place of study. In the Hindī language, the word Behār means a college.”¹
c16.27
Needless to say, the description of the so called fort of Bihar refers to the capture and destruction of a Buddhist monastery. Now this monastery has been identified² with the monastery of Odantapuri, founded by Rāmapāla, on the strength of the remarks of Taranath. He observes, “In the country between the Ganges and the Jumna the Turuṣka king appeared and by means of several Bhikṣus who were his messengers, he with other small kings of the Turuṣkas living in Bengal and other parts of the country, invaded and he conquered the whole of Magadha, killed many clerics in Odandapura, destroyed this as well as Vikramaśilā and on the spot of the old Vihāra a fortress of the Turuṣkas was erected.”³ Samaddar places this event in 1199 A.D. and generalizes: “This was the year of the destruction of all the Buddhistic places of learning in Bihar, Nālandā, Vikramaśilā and Odandapura.”⁴
c16.28
It would thus appear that there is no direct evidence to prove that Nālandā was destroyed by the Mohammedans in the year A.D. 1199. We, however, think that the description of the loot and ravage of the monastery referred to by the
c16.29
(1) Tabakat-I Nasiri, Elliot, History of India, 11, p. 306.
(2) Samaddar, o. c., p. 162.
(3) Taranath, o.c., p. 56.
c16.30
Moslem chronicler might as well apply to Nālandā. The reasons for this suggestion are as under :
c16.31
1. Nālandā like Vikramaśilā and Odantapuri, had, as we learn from Hiuen Tsiang, a big surrounding wall, which would give it the appearance of a fortress.
c16.32
2. It had also a rich library containing countless books.
c16.33
3. Moreover, its antiquity and huge establishment were sufficient reasons for the invader to regard it as very prosperous and therefore a good bait for attack.
c16.34
Likewise, we would suggest the year A.D. 1205-1206, as the probable date of the Vihāra's destruction. Samaddar gives two reasons for the year A.D. 1199.
c16.35
1. Magadha (Bihar) was attacked after the eightieth regnal year of Lakṣmaṇa Sen. As Lakṣmaṇa era had its commencement in 1119, the date of the conquest falls in A.D. 1199.
c16.36
2. The colophon of Pañcakara in the library of the University of Cambridge contains the fact that Odandapura was destroyed in the 38th regnal year of Govindapāladeva. As Govindapāladeva's accession dates from A.D. 1161, the date of the destruction of these monasteries comes to 1199 A.D.¹
c16.37
¹ Samaddar, o.c., p. 161.
c16.38
Our reasons for placing the event in 1205 A.D. or 1206 A.D. are as under :
c16.39
From the study of Tabakāt-I Nasari, we find (1) that Bakhtiyar went to Sultan Kutbuddin to pay him his respects after the conquest of Bihar. And Kutbuddin was made a Sultan after the death of Sultan Ghazi by Sultan Ghiyasuddin. And after becoming a Sultan, in 1205 A.D., he marched to Lahore, while Bakhtiyar seems to have visited him after Kutbuddin was well-established as a Sultan on the throne of Delhi. Secondly, we learn that Kutbuddin died in 607 H, i.e., 1210,² and the chronicler further tells us that he wore the crown for more than 4 years, that is, from about A.D. 1205, which exactly synchronises with his march upon Lahore in 1205 A.D. as a Sultan. Kutbuddin thus seems to have had the Sultanate in or about 1205 A.D.; and as Bakhtiyar Khilji was honoured by Kutbuddin as a Sultan, the invasion, therefore, of Bihar approximately took place in or about 1205 or 1206 A.D.
c16.40
² Elliot, o.c., p. 301.
c16.41
Hence Nālandā was destroyed by the Mohammedans in or about 1205 A.D.
c16.42
The tradition cited from Pag-sam-jonzang about the final annihilation of Nālandā by fire may be true, for, while excavating the Nālandā-site, heaps of ashes and coals are unearthed, even on the topmost levels after the removal of layers of earth which cover up various sites.¹
c16.43
¹ See A.S.I. A.R., 1921-22, p. 20.
c16.44
But this regeneration was not and could not be effective. The Moslem sword had so much frightened the people and the damage done, material as well as cultural, was so great that even though the counter-blast in the shape of fire had not come, we doubt very much if the University would have once again attained its sublime height. Only one fact will suffice to convince the reader. We are told that all the monks were butchered and there was none left to decipher any book from the vast and unique library. Thus, even those monks, who survived the Moslem avalanche would never dare to enter the portals of their once beloved institution. They all must have fled and did actually fly away to the unknown and remote corners of India : while others to foreign lands "to find pastures new" for the propagation and transplantation of the remains of the Buddhistic culture.²
c16.45
² Cf. Taranath, o.c., p. 94. He observes, "In Nālandā, much damage was done and the priests fled abroad." While at another place, p. 264, he says, "When Magadha was conquered the scholars went out and spread the doctrine everywhere."
c16.46
The Moslem invasion therefore appears to be the immediate cause of the destruction of Nālandā. Thus, did Nālandā which treasured the culture coming down from the times of Buddha, Nāgārjuna, Vasubandhu, Śāntarakṣita, Dīpaṃkara in its three storeyed libraries, and which for a thousand years diffused knowledge among Indians and spread it to the distant lands of Java, Sumatra, China and Japan, meet its end.
Linked texts (4)
- Divyāvadāna — Sanskrit
- Nālandā
- Ṭabaqāt-i Nāṣirī — Minhāj al-Dīn Jūzjānī
- Pañcākāra — Maitrīpa, Sanskrit