The University of Nalanda c9: Chapter III. The Rise of the University and Its Growth Under Kings of Various Dynasties

The University of Nālandā c9

Language: English

Chapter III. The Rise of the University and Its Growth Under Kings of Various Dynasties

c9.2

A marked feature of Indian history is the immense number of traditional and legendary accounts. Kings, of however small and insignificant a place, claim their descent from some supernatural agency, usually the Sun or the Moon. As with kings, so with places. They also have their theory of divine or supernatural origin. It is not we, moderns, that are struck with these accounts. Even the Chinese traveller Hiuen Tsiang was so much surprised with the name Nālandā, that in the very beginning of his account of the place, he discusses the various theories as to the origin of the name, leaving aside its other more attractive features. He says, "Going north from this, 30 li or so, we come to Nālandā saṅghārāma. The old accounts of the country say that to the south of this saṅghārāma, in the middle of an Āmra (mango) grove, there is a tank. The Nāga of this tank is called Nālandā. By the side of it is built the saṅghārāma, which therefore takes the name of the Nāga."[1]

c9.3

Here ends the one legendary account of the place. Proceeding to give the second account, which he thinks to be the true one, he says, "But the truth is that Tathāgata in old days practised the life of a Bodhisattva here and became the King of a great country and established his capital in the land. Moved by pity for living things, he delighted in continually relieving them. In remembrance of this virtue he was called 'charity without intermission,' and the saṅghārāma was called in perpetuation of his name."[2]

c9.4

¹ Hiuen Tsiang, o.c., II, p. 167.

c9.5

² Ibid., pp. 167-168.

c9.6

The reason why Hiuen Tsiang considers the latter account as true can be easily explained. He was a devout Buddhist. And when he wrote this account he only voiced the feelings of the Buddhists who had invented a legend to explain the name Nālandā. The story sounds like one of the *Jātaka* tales which describe the previous lives of Buddha. We cannot, however, place credence in this explanation, for the simple reason that even when Buddha was alive, the place was called by that name.¹

c9.7

¹ See *Mahāparinibbāna Suttanta* in the *Dialogues of the Buddha*, II, pp. 87-89: where Buddha says, "Come Ananda, let us go to Nālandā."

c9.8

Let us now examine the first account. I-Tsing, another Chinese traveller who visited India after Hiuen Tsiang, thinks that Nālandā derived its name from the Nāga Nanda.² We cannot understand why the travellers should disagree regarding the name of the Nāga. We think I-Tsing is giving the original name of the Nāga, whereas Hiuen Tsiang gives the name which Nāga came to acquire afterwards. For we often say, "He is from this place or this is from such and such a place." The Nāga, therefore, must have in course of time come to be called 'the Nāga of Nālandā' which gradually must have been shortened into 'Nāga Nālandā' or 'Nālandā Nāga.' But this discussion does not lead us anywhere. At least it does not tell us how the place came to be called Nālandā, though incidentally we have suggested a theory as to the name of the Nāga.

c9.9

² Takakusu, J. R. A. S., N. S., XIII, p. 571.

c9.10

That there was a mango grove, a tank and perhaps the Nāga too, is beyond doubt. For Buddha in his tours always stayed under a grove of trees and Nālandā must have also one. As to the tank, etc., we have the testimony of General Cunningham who, examined the place and carried on some excavations there in the later part of the last century, says, "There is still existing immediately to the south of the ruined monastery a small tank called Kargidya Pokhar, which exactly answers to the position of Nālandā tank and is the identical part of the Nāga.¹

c9.11

¹ A. S. R., I, p. 30.

c9.12

To resume the history of the name Nālandā. Prof. Beal has put forward one etymological analysis of the name suggested by Hiuen Tsiang's interpretation.² In a footnote on the phrase ‘charity without intermission’, he says, “The word Nālandā would thus appear to be derived from *Na-alam-dā*, not giving enough,” or not having enough to give. But this interpretation rather goes against the one given by the traveller though it is quite correct literally. If, however, we take *na-alam-dā* as an interrogative sentence, requiring a positive or affirmative reply: *alam dātum* (for *dā*), viz., that there is sufficient to give, we can say that the phrase *na-alam-dātum* (for *dā*) though negative, emphatically brings out a positive reply that (the place) was (rich) enough to provide (for all). The position of *na* in the sentence *alam-dātum na* is not so much objectionable because it can as well be put in the front: *na-alam-dātum*, because in Sanskrit the position of words does not matter so much as the sense is conveyed by the emphasis put on the words, which in the present case would naturally be put on the word *na*.

c9.13

² Hiuen Tsiang, o.c., II, 168.

c9.14

In short the name conveyed the idea that the place was rich and prosperous.

c9.15

The early history of the place bears sufficient testimony to its claim to be a rich and prosperous city. Various Buddhist texts tell us that the place in the days of Buddha was a prosperous village.³ To take but one illustration. It is stated that Lepa, one of the citizens of Nālandā, was prosperous, famous, rich and had large houses, beds, seats, vehicles and chariots, abounding in riches, gold and silver, possessed of useful and necessary things, owning many male and female slaves, cows, buffaloes, and sheep.⁴ Even the Great Buddha had partaken of Lepa's hospitality. Lepa offered his rich bathing halls to the Enlightened Śākya prince, who gladly accepted them and delivered a long discourse which had the effect of converting him to Buddhism. Sūtrakṛtaṅga also tells us that Nālandā contained many hundreds of buildings.¹

c9.16

³ Sum. Vil., p. 35; Majjih. Nik., I, p. 377; Digh. Nik., I, Sutta 11.

c9.17

⁴ Sūtrakritānga, S. B. E., XLV, p. 420.

c9.18

We have dismissed Hiuen Tsiang's theory because it reminded us of many of the Jātaka tales which are pure inventions of the devout Buddhists. But if we eschew the mythical portion (viz. that which refers to the previous life of Buddha, as a great king who gave to all in charity without intermission) and keep in mind that Nālandā was a rich place, as has been proved by its past history then we say that Nālandā derived its name because of its hospitality and charity.²

c9.19

To resume the early history of Nālandā. Nālandā before it became an educational centre, had already been imbued with the holy memories of Buddha. Even before Buddha it was the place where the Great Mahāvīra met Gosāla.³ Among the many places where Buddha carried on his religious propaganda Nālandā held a unique position. Many a time with his favourite disciple Ānanda, he had visited the place and stayed at the Pāvārika mango-grove.⁴ And this Ānanda thought that Nālandā was a fit place for Buddha's Nirvāṇa aud not Pātali-

c9.20

(1) o.c., p. 420.
(2) Hira Nand Shastri has hazarded still another explanation. He says, "In view of the fact (that) the locality abounds with lotuses even now, it does not appear to be improbable that it was so named because it gave lotuses or naḷas or lotur flowers, as well as scholars by dhvani or implication of course, in later ages." But it is a conjecture as he himself admits it. Proceedings, Fifth Indian Oriental Conference, I, p. 387.
(3) According to Jain Works Nālandā was a suburb or bahirika of Rājagṛha in the time of Mahāvīra who as stated therein spent fourteen rainy seasons in all. It is interesting to note that another Jain Work Sametasikhara Tīrthamālā, of not very great antiquity, testifies to the above description of Nālandā, and further gives the name by which it was known at the time of its composition viz., Burgaon—and by which it is still called by the people of the locality. See Ibid., pp. 389 to 392. Bhagavati Sūtra, referred to by N. Dutt, Early History of the Spread of Buddhism and the Buddhist Schools, p. 125.
(4) Mahāparinibbāna Suttanta, o.c., pp. 87 and 89.

c9.21

putra. From this Samaddar concludes, "So far as importance went Nālandā was superior to Pātaliputra, and it may therefore taken for granted that Nālandā was older than Pātaliputra."[1] We know nothing about Nālandā from this period, that is to say after Buddha's *Nirvāṇa* which took place in 483 B.C.,[2] down to the seventh century A.D., when Hiuen Tsiang visited India and recorded his account of Nālandā. It is only Taranath, who wrote the *History of Buddhism* in about 1500 A.D. that enables us to know what happened in the centuries that followed the death of Buddha. He observes, "Here in Nālandā was in former times, the birthplace of the venerable Śāriputta and it is also the place, where he with 80,000 *arhats* attained *Nirvāṇa*. In course of time, only the *chaitya* of the venerable Śāriputta remained at which King Aśoka gave great offerings to the gods and to which he erected a great Buddhist temple. In this way the first founder of the Nālandā *Vihāra* was Aśoka."[3] Thus antiquity, glamour and sacredness claimed by all ancient things are claimed for the Nālandā University by attributing its rise to Aśoka.

c9.22

To know something about Nālandā after Christ, before we come to the historical part, we have again to refer to Taranath. But, he too mentions a tradition according to which Nāgārjuna and Āryadeva (c. 100 A.D.) were the forerunners among those who took interest in the educational institutions of the place.

c9.23

Yet to mention another tradition given by Taranath. Suviṣṇu, a contemporary of Nāgārjuna, is said to have established 108 temples at Nālandā in order to prevent any decline of *Abhidhamma*.[4] Since the tradition mentions Nāgārjuna it cannot be older than the 2nd century A.D.

c9.24

The probability of this tradition we shall discuss after referring to Fa-hien, who toured India in the early years of

c9.25

(1) Samaddar, *Glories of Magadha*, p. 126.
(2) Coomaraswami, *o.c.*, p. 9.
(3) Taranath, *History of Buddhism in India*, p. 72.

c9.26

the fifth century A. D. Now he does not mention Nālandā. But he says, "A Yojana south-west from this place brought them to the village of Nala, where Śāriputra was born, and to which also he returned and attained here his *Pari-nirvāṇa*. Over the spot there was built a *topa*,¹ which is still in existence."² Fa-hien, though does not mention Nālandā, his description of the place exactly tallies with the description gathered from other sources and the question arises whether he speaks of Nālandā or some other place near it.

c9.27

¹ '*Topa*' is a Singalese word for '*Stupa*'.

c9.28

² Fa-hien, *A Record of Buddhist Kingdoms*, Trans. by Legge, p. 81.

c9.29

Now this Nala was one *yojana*, *i.e.*, seven miles from Giryek (old Rājagṛha) and the same distance from the new Rājagṛha; and as Nālandā was also one *yojana* from Rājagṛha one is tempted to identify Nala with Nālandā. But we learn from Fa-hien himself that Nala was the place where Śāriputra was born and had died. And it appears that this Nala was no other than Nālaka, where according to *Sudassana Jātaka*,³ Śāriputra was born. It is thus clear that Fa-hien's Nala was not Nālandā as alleged, but Nālaka, an unimportant village, *nalagrāma*, as the *Jātaka* expressly calls it. From this it follows that because Fa-hien did not visit Nālandā, he did not give us a good account of the place. And the reason why he does not give the correct name of Nālandā, was that he did not visit Nālandā at all. For had he really visited it, we are unable to understand, why he should not give us the correct name of Nālandā, when the place was known for centuries after Buddha by that name. Why do not Hiuen Tsiang and I-Tsing make any mistake in giving the correct name of the place? It cannot be said that Nālandā had become so insignificant that it had lost its original name when Fa-hien visited it and that it again recovered its original name when Śakrāditya and his suit happened to see it and think of building monasteries there. On the contrary, the very fact that Śakrāditya (Kumāragupta I) thought of erecting saṅghārāmas at Nālandā speaks in favour of Nālandā. The great temple by Aśoka, and other smaller ones by Brāhmaṇa Suviṣṇu, and the fact that in Nālandā Buddha had passed many happy days in the vast and rich house of Lepa—all these—must have attracted Śakrāditya to Nālandā. We cannot therefore, agree with those scholars who say that the tradition of Suviṣṇu building 108 temples is not authentic, because Fa-hien who visited India for the first time in 404 A.D., calls it simply the village of Nala.¹ For, as we have already shown, the village visited by Fa-hien was probably Nālaka and not Nālandā. To the objection that Nālandā, if it was famous when Fa-hien toured through Magadha, containing as it did 108 temples and a great temple of Aśoka, why should not Fa-hien mention them, we reply that the argument from silence is no objection. Megasthenes, the Greek ambassador to Chandragupta's court, for instance, shows such surprising ignorance about the Mauryan India that if we were to believe in him we shall have to unlearn much of what we know of that period.

c9.30

³ *S.B.E.*, XI, p. 238.

c9.31

¹ See Kimura, for instance, Shifting of the Centre of Buddhism in India, J.D.L., Cal. Uni., I, p. 36.

c9.32

While reading the account of Fa-hien's and Hiuen Tsiang's travels in India we should note one point. It is this: Fa-hien's accounts of the places visited are often quite sketchy and brief. Many of his narratives contain nothing but what he heard, and only reveal his love for repeating the legends. While describing Patna he mentions some Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna monasteries. With the exception of general remarks about its appearance, etc., how brief is his description!² Hiuen Tsiang, unlike his predecessor seems to note down whatever he sees, apart from what he gathers from hearsay. He gives a detailed and minute description of King Pulakeśi II and his people.³ It may be that Fa-hien had not the same opportunities as Hiuen Tsiang had, partly because he was the first traveller from China and partly because his stay in India was very short and his tour not so comprehensive as his successors.

c9.33

² Fa-hien, o.c., p. 78.

c9.34

³ Hiuen Tsiang, o.c., II, pp. 255-257.

c9.35

With due deference to the various scholars who based their conclusions on Fa-hien's silence about Nālandā, we submit that it is no use all the time jumping to the conclusion that the tradition is wrong, or the things did not exist because Fa-hien or anybody else did not tell us what we expected him to tell us. Probably he did not see the things.

c9.36

By this time it must have been apparent that Nālandā possessed some points in its favour which would make it a suitable place for the foundation of a Buddhist University.

c9.37

To sum up these points:

c9.38

Nālandā was often visited by Buddha and his disciples and many discussions were held here with other religious sects.¹

c9.39

¹ N. Dutt, o.c., p. 125.

c9.40

Here the great Mahāvira, the Jain Tīrthaṅkara met Gosāla.²

c9.41

² Ibid.

c9.42

So the place long before the Christian era was noted as a great religious centre. And it continued to enjoy this fame even in the centuries after the advent of Christianity, because, as we have said previously, the place, where all the philosophical discussions between Nāgārjuna and others were carried on, was Nālandā.

c9.43

Long before Śakrāditya, Aśoka had chosen this place for building a temple and a vihāra. Moreover, Nālandā was very near, not more than 7 miles, from Rājagṛha, the capital of Magadha in the time of Jarāsandha and his successors, and afterwards the centre of Buddha's religious activities. This small distance from Rājagṛha was, we think of great importance. Precisely because it was a little distant from Rājagṛha that the monasteries were built there. For the Bhikkhus and the Brahmacārins alike lived in places which were a little away from very thickly populated places, and yet not so far away that they were not within very easy reach. Even the modern colleges are built on the same principle. In short, there must be facility of access and that, we think, Nālandā afforded sufficiently.

c9.44

Other recommendations, cheapness, abundance of food stuffs, etc., Nālandā did possess. Many of its inhabitants had sung to Buddha of the prosperity of Nālandā.

c9.45

The climate of Nālandā, we learn from I-Tsing, was very hot.¹ And the one advantage of this was that the Bhikkhus did not require many garments.² But even apart from this advantage, Nālandā, or as a matter of fact any place in Magadha, could not but be hot as Maghada itself is situated in the hot regions of India.

c9.46

¹ I-Tsing, o.c., p. 70.

c9.47

² This advantage, however, could be had in summer only. For Nālandā is pretty cold in winter and gets sufficient rain too.

c9.48

These are some of the reasons why Nālandā of all places in Maghada became a great seat of a University.

c9.49

In the preceding Chapter while speaking about the history of Buddhist monachism, we have seen how the Bhikkhus came to stay in permanent places, how these places called saṅghārāmas diffused knowledge in various branches of learning, religious as well as secular, how in course of time they came to be the resorts of Bhikkhus and Brahmacārins alike.

c9.50

Hiuen Tsiang tells us how exactly the saṅghārāmas at Nālandā passed through all these stages and gradually developed in a residential University. Speaking of one particular saṅghārāma he says, "A former king of this country named Śakrāditya. . . . . . . built this saṅghārāma."³

c9.51

³ Hiuen Tsiang, o.c., II, 168. These saṅghārāmas may very well be called "monastic schools" such as were found in Mediaeval Europe in Bologna and Paris, though their respective Universities were not the outcome of monastic schools. See Rashdall, o.c., p. 276 ff.

c9.52

And this saṅghārāma founded by Śakrāditya (afterwards identified with Kumāragupta I of the Imperial Guptas) was to be a residential University, and not a shelter for Bhikkhus to resort to for merely religious purposes. If any evidence be needed for this interpretation, it can be found in the words of the soothsayer.¹ They were elicited on account of the following circumstances.. The King Śakrāditya when he had selected a lucky spot in an auspicious moment, and when the work for digging up the place for laying the foundation was going on, the Nāga (evidently the Nāga of Nālandā) was wounded. To an Indian king, whether he be a Hindu or Buddhist, this is a sign of ill-omen, for reptiles of all kinds he held sacred, and specially among them, the Nāga or a cobra. The king perhaps must have consulted the soothsayer in order to know whether to proceed with the work or not. And what the soothsayer predicted really came true. He told the king, "This is a very superior site, if you build here a saṅghārāma, it must of necessity become highly renowned. Throughout the five Indies it will be a model. For a period of thousand years it will flourish still. Students of all degrees will, here, easily accomplish their studies. But many will spil blood because of this wound given to the Nāga."¹ His last words clearly show that he was no flatterer. He declared in clear, unequivocal terms what he thought to be the future of the University whose foundation stone the king was then laying down. Nālandā was to be a centre of learning of international repute. Nālandā was to be a battle-field where two faiths, opposite in character, were to contend against each other and destroy many a young scholar.

c9.53

¹ See Hiuen Tsiang, o.c., II., p. 168.

c9.54

¹ Ibid.

c9.55

The genuineness of the prophecy cannot be doubted. No interpolation has yet been found in the records of Hiuen Tsiang, and so it cannot be said that the passage in question was afterwards interpolated. Even there has been no such suggestion. Consequently the present passage is quite free from the charge of interpolation so often brought against such prophetical legends. The only questions then that remain are: whether the prophecy was made after Nālandā had already become famous as a "studium generale"; secondly, whether the prophecy was made after the buildings had already been destroyed, at least once, by the savage bands of Mihirakula.

c9.56

Nālandā had seen ups and downs in its career so many times that the prophecy could be true not only of its whole history but also of the various period of its history considered separately.

c9.57

Nālandā, no sooner it was founded by Śakrāditya and extended by his son Buddhagupta-rājā and his successor Tathāgatagupta-rājā, than was destroyed by Mihirakula.¹ It stands to reason that Nālandā, as it was built by Śakrāditya must have come in to great prominence as an educational centre, otherwise his son and successors would not have expended their energy over institutions that were not prospering. On the contrary, the fact that they went on adding more colleges to the existing ones points to another fact that they responded to the growing need of greater accommodation for the ever increasing number of students. We have, thus, shown that the one period of the history of Nālandā exactly fits in with the first part of the prophecy. As to the second part, *viz.*, "much blood will be spilt", we have got archaeological evidence to show that Nālandā was destroyed more than once.²

c9.58

¹ There is no direct evidence to show that Mihirakula razed to the ground the Nālandā buildings. But from the fact that no less than 9 levels of occupation are discovered (*See A. S. I. A. R.* 1923-24, p.70) coupled with the fact that Mihirakula had passed through Magadha, while pursuing Narasimhagupta and carried ravage and destruction throughout the land leads us to think that the buildings were destroyed for the first time by Mihirakula., also see Heras, *J. B. O. R. S.*, XIV, pp. 8-9 and *J. B. E. R. A. S.*, II, N. S., pp. 215-216.

c9.59

² *See* footnote (1) above.

c9.60

But though the prophecy can be proved to have been made afterwards, *i.e.*, after the place became famous as an educational centre, and after it was destroyed, we believe that the prediction was made at the time of the very first inception of the University.

c9.61

The reasons are obvious : First, the prophecy is more appropriately applicable to the whole history of the institution rather than to the various parts; second, (this is, in a sense, contained in the first) the University gained its international reputation only after its rejuvenation at the hands of Bālāditya, alias, Narasimhagupta. Scholars went to Tibet and China during the Panditship of Dharmapāla and many students flocked to Nālandā from these places in this period.¹ And the fame of Nālandā also reached the ears of foreign potentates, who sent emissaries to Nālandā inviting its pandits to their countries and built colleges at Nālandā for the students.² Third, according to the soothsayer, the ‘saṅghārāma’ was to flourish for a thousand years. And nobody would be so foolish as to prophesy like that in the face of previous ruin and destruction of the place. Fourth, if we do not take the soothsayer very seriously as regards the age of the University then he was not much wrong; for the institution did flourish for about 800 to 900 years, from 425 A.D. to 1205 A.D. if not for a full period of 1000 years.

c9.62

¹ See supra.

c9.63

² See supra.

c9.64

As regards the spilling of blood, etc., the massacre and the ravages of the Moslems must have been much greater than that caused by Mihirakula and his band. Because the institution never raised its head up after the onslaught of the Moslems, while it did flourish again and perhaps with greater radiance and prosperity after the destruction at the hands of the Hun King.

c9.65

Consideration of the genuineness of the prophecy took us, perhaps, out of the track. Let us revert to the point, namely the factors that contributed to the RISE OF THE UNIVERSITY.

c9.66

A saṅghārāma, then, was the starting point of the University. The history of the University from this period onwards,—the history of its buildings—of its maintenance, etc., we have subsumed under the title the “Royal Patrons of Nālandā”. Because thus only we can describe the part played by the rulers of different dynasties the Guptas, the Vardhanas, the Maukhāris, the Pālas and the Senas, in the development, maintenance and the preservation of the University.

c9.67

Amongst the patrons that we know of, those mentioned by Hiuen Tsiang draw our attention first. From an earlier reference we know that Śakrāditya was the first founder of a *saṅghārāma* at Nālandā.

c9.68

Hiuen Tsiang, thus, continues his account of the construction of the University. "His son (Śakrāditya's) Buddhagupta-rājā, who succeeded him, continued to labour at the excellent undertaking of his father. To the South of this he built another *saṅghārāma*.

c9.69

"Tathāgata-gupta-rājā vigorously practised the former rules of his ancestors, and he built East from this another *saṅghārāma*.

c9.70

"Bālāditya succeeded to the empire. On the North-east side he built a *saṅghārāma*."

c9.71

But in addition to this, Bālāditya had built a great *vihāra*, about 300 feet in height. "With respect to its magnificence, its dimensions, and the statue of Buddha placed in it", says Hiuen Tsiang, "it resembles the great *Vihāra* built under the Bodhi tree".¹

c9.72

And a striking confirmation of Hiuen Tsiang's statement is found in the recently discovered inscription.² In this inscription we are told that Bālāditya "erected as if with a view to see the Kailasa mountain surpassed, a great and extraordinary temple (*prāsāda*) of the illustrious son of Śuddhodana here at Nālandā".

c9.73

Hiuen Tsiang further says, "This king's son, called Vajra, came to the throne in succession, and was possessed of a heart firm in the faith. He again built on the West side of the convent a *saṅghārāma*. After this a king of Central India built to the North of this a great *saṅghārāma*. Moreover, he built round these edifices a high wall with one gate. A long succession of kings continued the work of building, using all the skill of the sculptor, till the whole is truly marvellous to behold."³ So ends the account of Hiuen Tsiang of the actual building of the University.

c9.74

(1) Hiuen Tsiang o.c., II, p. 170.
(2) Nālandā Stone Inscription of the Reign of Yaśovarmmadeva, *Ep. Ind.*, XX, January, 1929, p. 27.

c9.75

I-Tsing's account of the place, though not so exhaustive as that of Hiuen Tsiang, fully corroborates his predecessor's. With regard to the first royal founder of Nālandā buildings, I-Tsing says, "The temple (Nālandā) was built by an old king, Śrī Śakrāditya, for a Bhikṣu of North India called Rāja Bhāja."¹ Continuing he says, "After beginning it, he was much obstructed by other people, but his descendants finished it and made it by far the most magnificent establishment in Jambudvipa. This building is four square, like a city. There are four large gateways of three storeys each. Each storey is some ten feet in height. The whole is covered on with tiles."²

c9.76

¹ I-Tsing, *Nan-hae-k'i-kwei-niu-fā-ch'uen*, referred to by Beal, *J.R.A.S.*, XIII (N.S.), p. 571.

c9.77

² Ibid.

c9.78

Thus, according to both the Chinese travellers, Śakrāditya was the first king who built a monastery at Nālandā. Moreover, they both tell us that Śakrāditya met with an opposition from the people after beginning the construction of the building. But that it was the descendants of Śakrāditya who made the institution a renowned centre of learning.

c9.79

Who were these kings mentioned by the Chinese traveller, whether they were Buddhists or Hindus, to what period of Indian history they belonged, whether to the line of the Imperial Guptas or to a branch of that line (for Guptas they were as the endings Guptas of their names signify), are the next questions that are to be considered before we speak of other patrons of Nālandā.

c9.80

Two scholars have attempted to identify these kings and tried to give them a local habitation and a name. According to Kimura³ we can recognise two Gupta Kings at first sight from the list presented by Hiuen Tsiang, namely, Buddha gupta and Bālāditya. Secondly, he says that Buddhagupta was the successor of Skandagupta, who reigned about 484 A.D. Śakrāditya, therefore, reigned about 450 A.D.; and as Skandagupta ruled, as it has been established, from 455 to 480 A.D., “Śakrāditya consequently becomes identical with Skandagupta.” Thirdly, on the strength of Vincent Smith's authority, he says that “Buddhagupta was the king of Nālandā and belonged to another branch of the main Guptas.”

c9.81

³ The Shifting of the Centre of Buddhism in India, *Journal of the Department of Letters*, I, pp. 36-38.

c9.82

Incomplete as this identification is, it also appears to be incorrect. In the first place we can identify all the kings, excluding the King of Central India, for the present, as Gupta Kings and not only two. For if Buddhagupta was a Gupta, his father Śakrāditya must also be a Gupta. As to Tathāgatagupta, does not his name too sound like the name of a Gupta King? Then his son and successor must also be a Gupta.

c9.83

All the kings therefore mentioned by Hiuen Tsiang are Guptas, whether they belonged to the line of the Imperial Guptas or not we shall know if we can show that Śakrāditya or any of his successors was an Imperial Gupta. For, according to Hiuen Tsiang, all the kings formed one unbroken line of kings. According to Heras,¹ therefore, the identification of Kimura would fall through for the following reasons:

c9.84

¹ J.B.O.R.S., XIV, pp. 1-7.

c9.85

(1) Śakrāditya seems to be Kumāragupta I because (a) Skandagupta was the son and successor of Kumāragupta I,² just as Buddhagupta was the son of Śakrāditya. (b) Another reason that has been very rightly suggested by Heras is that Hiuen Tsiang does not seem to give the original names of the Gupta Kings, but their titles or some titles taken in the later period. And thus he argues that as Kumāragupta I's coins bear witness of his having used the title of Mahendrāditya,³ and that as Mahendra is the same as Śakra, Kumāragupta I is the same as Śakrāditya.

c9.86

² Bhitari Inscription of Skandagupta, Fleet, Gupta Inscriptions, p. 55, ll, 5 and 6.

c9.87

³ Allan, Gupta Coins, p. 41. See also footnote (2) below p. 48.

c9.88

From the above discussion it is evident that Kumāragupta I, an Imperial Gupta, was the founder of the University of Nālandā, and not Skandagupta as Kimura tries to make out.¹ While fixing the date of the University we shall come to the same conclusion from other reasons.²

c9.89

As regards Buddhagupta, we know that he was the son and successor of Śakrāditya, alias, Kumāragupta³ while epigraphical evidence⁴ tells us that Skandagupta was the son and successor of Kumāragupta I. It naturally follows, therefore, that Buddhagupta was the same as Skandagupta. Vincent Smith even admits that he seems to belong to the Imperial Guptas.⁵ There are no proofs to show that Buddhagupta belonged to the branch line of the Guptas; secondly, that he is not the same as Skandagupta; thirdly, Vincent Smith nowhere says, as Kimura alleges, that Buddhagupta was the king of Nālandā (only). He, in fact, was the sovereign ruler of Magadha and Nālandā, naturally, came under his sway.

c9.90

Since the names Buddhagupta and Tathāgatagupta connote connexion with Buddhism, it is up to us to prove that these kings looked favourably at Buddhism.

c9.91

About Skandagupta we know nothing. But we can say that a son,—and that again in ancient India (if it were in modern times we may expect otherwise)—would not go against the religious inclinations of his father. Consequently even if Skandagupta was not a devout Buddhist, he did not lose anything if he acted according to the wish of Nālandā authorities and order another saṅghārāma to be built by the side of his father's.

c9.92

(1) Kimura. o.c., p. 38.
(2) Very recently a gold coin of Kumāragupta Mahendra I was found immediately above the earliest concrete payment in the verandah in the north-east corner of Monastery No. 4 Nālandā. See A.S.I.A.R., 1928-29, p. 145. It may have been dropped there. So before commenting upon it we should await more finds of coins and inscriptions.
(3) Hiuen Tsiang, o.c., II, p. 168.
(4) Bhitari Inscription, o.c., p. 55.
(5) Vincent Smith, Early History of India, p. 332.

c9.93

Such an act proceeding from sheer charity if not from faith in Buddhism would do credit to him and much more to his father. For evidently the institution founded by his father was showing signs of prosperity. And who would not like the father's institution thus prospering, thus fulfilling the cherished desire of his father! Even a hundred śrāddhas would not gain him so much.

c9.94

Coming to Puragupta, we find ourselves treading on surer grounds. His coins bear the words *Śri Vikramaḥ*,¹ and this must refer to King Vikramāditya, who was the patron of Buddhism and sent his crown prince to study under Vasubandhu.² Precisely for this reason, it appears, that Hiuen Tsiang calls him Tathāgatagupta-rāja.

c9.95

From other evidence also, we can show that Puragupta was the same as Tathāgatagupta. Bālāditya, otherwise known as Narasimhagupta, was the son of Puragupta and succeeded him to the empire in 467 A. D.³ This exactly corresponds with what we learn from Hiuen Tsiang and his biographer that Bālāditya was the son and successor of Tathāgatagupta.⁴

c9.96

King Vajra spoken of by Hiuen Tsiang has been identified with King Vikramāditya II who was the son and successor of Narasimhagupta according to the Bhitari seal of Kumāragupta II.⁵

c9.97

The only king who remains to be identified is the King of Central India who built a great saṅghārāma, and an encircling wall with one gate.

c9.98

(1) Allan, o. c., p. 1. c.
(2) Takakusu, *Paramartha's Life of Vasubandhu*, J.R.A.S., 1905, p. 44.
(3) Vincent Smith, o.c., p. 329.
(4) *Records*, II, p. 168; *Life*, p. 111. Raychaudhuri, (*Political History of Ancient India*, p. 297), however, thinks that Bālāditya of Hiuen Tsiang and Narasimhagupta Bālāditya, the son and successor of Puragupta, were not identical persons.
(5) *Ind. Ant.*, XIX, p. 225.

c9.99

King Harṣavardhana of Kanauj appears to be the King of Central India. Hiuen Tsiang twice refers to him in connexion with the University.¹ That Harṣa had openly declared himself in favour of Buddhism is clear from Hiuen Tsiang's account.² It is no wonder, therefore, that a king like Harṣa should build a saṅghārāma for the propagation of Buddhism.³ Moreover, Harṣa was the only King of Central India who on account of his supremacy could stretch his hand of charity towards a distant place as Nālandā. No other king, of lesser position than Harṣa, dare do it. The occasion when Harṣa built the saṅghārāma etc. must have been, as suggested by Heras,⁴ after he defeated Śaśāṅka, the greatest oppressor of Buddhism after Mihirakula. The reason why Hiuen Tsiang calls Harṣa ‘the King of Central India’ and not by his real name is possibly this: the Chinese traveller, though he mentions Harṣa first and then Nālandā (as given by Beal in his translation), had in fact visited first Nālandā and then Kanauj. This is clear from the order which Harṣa sent to Kumārarājā, King of Kāmarupa which ran as follows: “I desire you to come at once to the assembly with the strange Śramaṇa, you are entertaining at the Nālandā convent.”⁵ From this it follows that Hiuen Tsiang had never seen Harṣa before and that he went to Nālandā first and then to Kanauj. Hiuen Tsiang's ignorance, therefore, about Harṣa's name is quite explicable. He must have been given to understand on his inquiring about the saṅghārāmas that one in question was built by a king of Central India; or it may be that Harṣa was better known by the title King of Central India, a title of greater importance than the mere name Harṣa.

c9.100

¹ Hiuen Tsiang, o.c., I, p. 216.

c9.101

² Ibid., p. 218.

c9.102

³ But perhaps the strongest reason for the supposition is that Harṣa had, in fact, built a vihāra of brass at Nālandā. (Hwui Li, o.c., p. 159.) And therefore it is not unlikely that he had also built a saṅghārāma at Nālandā.

c9.103

⁴ J.B.O.R.S., XIV, p. 15.

c9.104

⁵ Hiuen Tsiang, o.c., I, p. 216.

c9.105

The kings, then, who participated in making the University buildings "marvellous to behold" when Hiuen Tsiang visited the place were real figures of history, and it will be clear from the under-mentioned parallel columns.

c9.106

Śakrāditya—Kumāragupta I (415 A. D. to 455 A. D.). Buddhaguptarājā—Skandagupta (455 A. D.). Tathāgatagupta—Puragupta. (467 A. D.?). Bālādityarāja—Bālāditya—Narasimhagupta(470 A.D.). Vajra—Kumāragupta II (473 A.D.)¹. King of Central India—Harṣa of Kanauj.

c9.107

¹ Vincent Smith, E.H.I., p. 346.

c9.108

The contribution of each of these kings in the construction and development of the University we have noted by a reference to Hiuen Tsiang. Now, before we go to describe any other part played by these kings in relation to the University's diverse activities, we should settle the date of the royal-rise of Nālandā, a question though coming earlier than the identification of various kings, was passed over for some reasons to be mentioned hereafter.

c9.109

Though the Chinese traveller gives the name of the king, viz., Śakrāditya, who founded the University, he does not tell us when exactly or even approximately it was founded. Since, we have been able to identify Śakrāditya with Kumāragupta I, we can settle the date of the foundation of the University, if we can fix the date when Kumāragupta I came to the throne and the period of his regime.

c9.110

The earliest date of Kumāragupta I, that we know of, is A.D. 415-16, gleaned from the Bilsad Stone Pillar Inscription.² It appears that the king was a Śaivaite when he ascended the throne as the inscription just referred to speaks of the Śaiva form of worship. While another inscription, Mankuwar Stone Inscription, is Buddhist³ and the date recorded therein, probably the latest known of Kumāragupta I, is 448-49. A. D.

c9.111

² Fleet, o.c., p. 43.

c9.112

³ Ibid., p. 206.

c9.113

Naturally, therefore, the king's religious views underwent a change between these years, viz., 415-449. And it appears that the king to show that he was a devout Buddhist built *saṅghārāma* at Nālandā for the propagation of Buddhist learning. But this step he is not likely to take at the end of his reign in about 450 A.D., but earlier. Now if the conversion came earlier, say in about 420, then we can expect such a gesture on the part of Kumāragupta within five or ten years of his conversion, that is to say, in 425 A.D.¹ Hence the year 425 A. D. is the most approximate date of the royal establishment of the University.

c9.114

¹ Though this does not conclusively indicate a change of faith on the part of the king, still it does indicate a catholicity of outlook on religious matters.

c9.115

The same date can be arrived at also if instead of starting with Kumāragupta, the founder of the University, we just begin in a reverse order, to wit, from Bālāditya Narasimhagupta, the restorer of the University. For it was he who defeated the Huns under Mihirakula and regained the lost prestige of the Guptas. He came to the throne in or about A.D. 500. And now if we accept Sammaddar's or Heras' view and allot, as they do, 25 years as an average to the reign of Puragupta and Skandagupta, then we reach 450 A.D., a date we learn from another source², when he was already the ruler of Magadha. And once again assuming that he built the University not in the closing years of his regime, but say between 420 and 448 A.D., we, once more, come to the conclusion already suggested by us, viz., that the University was probably founded in or about 425 A.D.

c9.116

² Allan, o.c., p. 41.

c9.117

The assumption that the University could not have been built earlier than the year, 415 or 416 A.D., rests only on this: that we know of no date of Kumāragupta, the founder, earlier than 415-16 A.D., and his leanings towards Buddhism as early as that date. So if some earlier date can be gathered from epigraphic or numismatic evidence, as also his religious views, there need not be any objection to shift the date of the establishment of the University. For the mere fact that Fa-hien, perhaps the earliest Chinese traveller, did not speak gloriously of the place should not deter us from assuming, if it can be assumed on other grounds, that the University was founded, earlier, say in 400 A.D. Because we have already remarked, elsewhere, that Fa-hien might not have visited it at all, or if he did, by nature he preferred to be brief in his description of the places he visited, unless the place was so unusually attractive and great that it compelled a little elaborate description from him, and even in such cases his account of these places is meagre when compared with his successor's, namely, Hiuen Tsiang's.

c9.118

It must be evident to the reader that an effort has been made to fix the date only of the *saṅghārāma* (as Hiuen Tsiang calls it) built by Śakrāditya, *i.e.*, Kumāragupta I. The reason for this is obvious. Nālandā as a University came into existence only in the reign of the early Guptas; that is to say Kumāragupta and others. It is not till this period that anything like a stream of scholastic pilgrimage begins to flow towards Nālandā, when it was recognised as an educational centre. Before this, Nālandā might have been and very likely it was, in the times of Nāgārjuna in the second century A.D. and even in still remoter times—in the days of Buddha, a great religious as well as an educational centre. But as our knowledge of this period is scanty and that too not based on purely historical material we have sketched the history of Nālandā from the times of Kumāragupta I.

c9.119

Let us now resume the history of Nālandā and its ROYAL PATRONS.

c9.120

Harṣa, as we know, built a great *saṅghārāma* at Nālandā.¹ But, besides this, he constructed a *vihāra* with brass plates² and a high wall round all the buildings.³ However, this was not all. He helped and encouraged the University in other ways too. There were numerous students and professors who were to be maintained by the institution. And Harṣa, over and above the provision he must have made for the food and raiment for these, took upon himself the feeding of some forty priests every day as a special charge in order to show his gratitude, as the Chinese visitor says,¹ to the founder.

c9.121

¹ Hiuen Tsiang, o.c., II, p. 170.

c9.122

² Hwui Li, o.c., p. 159.

c9.123

³ Hiuen Tsiang, o.c., II, p. 170.

c9.124

¹ Hiuen Tsiang, o.c., II, p. 170.

c9.125

Still another way, in which the University received help from Harṣa was that he, wherever he went and whatever his other religious professions might be, championed and upheld the religious and philosophical doctrines preached by Nālandā. Thus, for instance, while touring through Orissa he came across some learned Hinayānists. They ridiculed him for having built a *vihāra* at Nālandā which, they said, believed in "sky flower" doctrine (*Śūnyavāda*?). But Harṣa asserted the superiority of this doctrine over that of the Hinayānists, and to prove it he sent a messenger to Nālandā with a note on Śīlabhadra. Therein he said, "Your servant, whilst progressing through Orissa, met some priests of the Little Vehicle who, hampered by contracted views adhere to a *śāstra* which abuses the principles of the Great Vehicle. They speak of the followers of that system as men of a different religion, and they wish to hold a controversy with you on this point. 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—so now, in answer to their challenge, I beg you 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

c9.126

² Hwui Li, o.c., p. 160.

c9.127

The passage, besides showing the high esteem and regard for Nālandā and its pandits, brings forth in no unmistakable terms the efforts he made to spread the Nālandā culture.

c9.128

Hiuen Tsiang's account of the story of the construction of the University does not stop with Harṣa. For, he says, "A long succession of kings continued the work of building....”¹ What exactly Hiuen Tsiang means by these words is, indeed, very difficult to make out. The difficulty lies in this: we have identified “the King of Central India” with Harṣa; and Harṣa and Hiuen Tsiang were contemporaries. Consequently the words, “a long succession of kings,” could not verily refer to the kings after Harṣa. Evidently, therefore, they must be some kings who flourished after Bālāditya and before Harṣa. But this interpretation is not warranted by the sequence in which the account is narrated.

c9.129

¹ Hiuen Tsiang, o.c., II, p. 170.

c9.130

However, interpreting as Heras does,² that is, by supposing that the latter sentence must precede the words, “a long succession of kings,” these words might refer to the later Guptas and others who flourished before Harṣa.³

c9.131

² J.B.O.R.S., XIV, p. 12 n. 1.

c9.132

³ Ibid. But it seems that Hiuen Tsiang does not refer to other kings but only sums up the work of construction of the earlier kings from Kumāragupta I to Harṣa. This interpretation would be at once apparent if we add ‘thus’ and read, “(Thus) a long succession of kings continued the work of building.. till the whole is truly marvellous to behold.”

c9.133

Next to Guptas and Vardhanas, royalties who seem to have shown a friendly interest in Nālandā seem to be Varmans, some of whom were Maukhāris and very probably ruled at Kanauj.

c9.134

Now Hiuen Tsiang⁴ speaks of one Pūrṇavarma who presented to Nālandā “a figure of Buddha standing upright and made of copper, 80 feet in height,” and to cover which he constructed a pavilion of six stages. This Pūrṇavarma, as Heras⁵ thinks, was the last of the Maukhāris.

c9.135

⁴ o.c., p. 174.

c9.136

⁵ o.c., p. 18.

c9.137

Besides these references to Varmans, some seals and an inscription have been discovered which contain references to Varmans. One of the seals speaks of Sureśvaravarman and his geneology⁶. But the scanty data furnished by the seals is a little improved by a recent discovery of an inscription at Nālandā.¹ Herein, we are told that Mālāda, a minister of King Yaśovarmmadeva made various kinds of offerings to the Nālandā monks, paid for their daily food and donated money equal to the price of the whole Nālandā institution.²

c9.138

⁶ This is based on a paper “The Seals of Nālandā” read by Dr.

c9.139

Mālāda was a son of Tikina, guardian of the Northern routes. The peculiarity of the names Mālāda and Tikina which seem un-Sanskritic and the reference to the Northern routes, have led scholars to identify him as a Tukharian.³

c9.140

The interest and patronage which must have been received from the overlord of Mālāda, Yaśovarmmadeva, can be better imagined than described in absence of specific evidence. Yaśovarmman must have in all probability built a *saṅghārāma* or a *vihāra* at Nālandā.

c9.141

Now who was this Yaśovarmman and when and where did he rule is not given by the inscription. Hirananda Sastri's view that he was an overlord of the King Bālāditya, Narasimhagupta and is no other than the King Yaśodharma of Mandasor inscription does not seem to be warranted from the arguments adduced by him. These, rather, if they prove anything at all, as has been shown⁴, point to the King Yaśovarmmadeva, who had a capital at Kanauj and flourished in or about 728-745. A.D.⁵

c9.142

Hira Nand Shastri at the First Historical Congress, Bombay. The seals he speaks of are perhaps the same referred to by *A. S. I. A. R.*, 1917-18, p. 44-45.

c9.143

(1) *Nālandā Stone Inscription of the Reign of Yasovarmmadeva*, *Ep. Ind.*, XX, January, 1929, p. 37.

c9.144

(2) This is the interpretation we put on the following English version of the original: “He (Mālāda), purchased (everything of) his own here (at Nālandā) from the revered Saṅgha and gave back according to rites barring the monks robes.” *See Ibid.*, verse 10, p. 46.

c9.145

(3) *See* Hirananda Sastri, o.c., p. 41 and Bhattasali, *Modern Review*, September, 1931, p. 307.

c9.146

(4) Bhattasali, o.c., pp. 306-307; also Majumdar, *I. H. Q.*, September, 1931, p. 664.

c9.147

(5) *J.R.A.S.*, 1908, pp. 775-777.

c9.148

This inscription fills up the gap which would otherwise have been felt in the account of kings connected with Nālandā. For after Harṣa no royal personage is, at present, known to have extended his hand of generosity to the University until we meet the Pālas in or about the year A.D. 750. Yaśovarmmadeva-inscription is proved to belong to the king of the same name who reigned from 734-748 A.D.

c9.149

The history of the ROYAL PATRONS OF NALANDA, thus, though appeared to be suddenly breaking off after Harṣa is now proved to be a continuous one, barring a period of about 100 years—from 648-734 A.D.

c9.150

The middle of the eighth century brings us to the Pālas, who had just then emerged from the political chaos in Bengal as her elected rulers. Gopāla, the first king, on account of the turbulent times in which he came to acquire the Pāla throne could have hardly done anything for Nālandā.

c9.151

His son Dharmapāladeva must have patronised the University in some manner or another. This conjecture is supported by a recent discovery of a copperplate at Nālandā.¹ But it is so hopelessly defaced that beyond the legend *Dharmapāladevaḥ* which is inscribed on a seal soldered at the top and engraved in one line below the *Dharmacakra* and the fact that it was issued from a royal camp nothing can be made out.

c9.152

¹ See A.S.I.A.R., 1926-27, pp. 138-39.

c9.153

It was only in the times of Dēvapāla, however, that the University once more found a king of the type of Harṣa, who seems to have completely identified himself with the cause for which the University stood. This is evident from the find of a number of metallic figures, male as well as female, all of which contain a reference to King Dēvapāla². But of greater consequence than these figures are the two inscriptions which bear testimony to the above remarks in no unmistakable terms.

c9.154

² Of such figures, two, one of Hāritī and another of Balarāma are very interesting and instructive. See Ibid., 1924-25, and 1926-1927, p. 132 respectively.

c9.155

The two inscriptions mentioned are: "*The Nālandā Copperplate of Dēvapāladēva*"¹ and the other "*Ghosrawa Buddhist Inscription*"² The first one tells us that the King Bālaputradeva of Suvarṇadvīpa " was attracted by the manifold excellences of Nālandā and through devotion to the son of Śuddodana (the Buddha)...built here (at Nālandā) a monastery, which was the abode of the assembly of monks of various good qualities and was white with the series of stuccoed and lofty dwellings;"³ and that he had requested King Devapāladēva through an ambassador of his, Bālavarmman, to grant five villages, Nandivanāka, Maṇivāṭaka, Naṭikā, Hasti and Pālā-maka towards the income for the blessed Lord Buddha, the abode of all the virtues like *Prajñāpāramitā*, for the offerings, oblations, shelter, garments, etc., of the assembly of the venerable bhikkhus...and for the upkeep and repair of the monastery when damaged.⁴

First 154 of 198 passages. Read on

Linked texts (9)

Jātaka — Pāli
Sūyagaḍa — Sudharman, Ardhamāgadhī Prakrit
Guhyasamājatantra — Sanskrit
Epigraphia Indica
Viyāhapannatti — Sudharman, Ardhamāgadhī Prakrit
玄奘 — Classical Chinese
Nālandā
Nalanda stone inscription of the reign of Yasovarmmadeva — Sanskrit
Bhitari Seal of Kumaragupta II — Sanskrit