Bringing Nalanda from Past to the present...

If you have been following this journey so far you must have noticed that we have covered the history of Nalanda in great detail, from literature to the archeological survey to the ruins as they stand today.
And in the course of this travel it must have, no doubt, occurred to you more than once about the present scenario at Nalanda. How it stands today, how can you get there and what all can you expect?
Well, we are now getting anxious to discuss our Nalanda as it stand today.

The present exposed Nalanda was completely exposed in 1934. It was a great discovery made possible by the travelogues left to us by the 7Th century visitor Xuanzang. The praise he showered on Nalanda Mahasangharama and the painstaking detail with which he described each structure was one of the very big reasons that it made to the top of the list of exploration.
At the time, these excavations and exposition were more of an intellectual pursuit. Slowly people recognized the roots of there on culture in these half demolished buildings and tourists started pouring in, slowly at first but steadily none the less.
The site became a big attraction for what it stands though it was not staged properly and never got its due regard beyond the religious and the intellectuals.

The development in the area took place on a need base with an ad-hoc approach, to make do with the resources available and not necessarily look beyond the immediate crisis. The local authorities probably never anticipated that this piece of heritage will grow in popularity and attract plethora of tourists. So, as could be expected the infrastructure is failing.

Growing needs of the area and the requirement of better infrastructure is also coupled with the dire need for sustainable livelihoods for the locals.
Tourism provides a unique opportunity for the locals to step up and be part of the growing economy; but the lack of foresightedness on the part of the managing authorities and lack of coordination between various disciplines of government has actually been a detriment for their growth. Since there is no proper development plan of the area, the haphazard sources of livelihood that people have invented has added to the chaos. And so far managing authorities have been treating them as a problem and trying to eliminate them. But the solution lies in the interdependencies and context sensitive solutions.

Nalanda has traveled from being a much coveted university of royal patronage to being buried under the earth for centuries, to being discovered by explorers and now to the modern day chaos at it doorsteps.
That was the past but now the lessons that were taught inside Nalanda centuries ago are inspiring us to find a new balance and seek peaceful, sustainable coexistence with our surroundings and Nalanda (that is insatiable in its offerings) is starting a new leg in this journey.

As we have mentioned before, the universe provided us with right inspirations, help and support of the people; and we had this opportunity to develop a master plan for Nalanda.
The present master plan that we’ll be sharing with you in the upcoming posts is designed by involving the community through Participatory rural appraisal, trying to gauge their needs and giving them a platform to voice their concerns and solutions.

As you’ll experience from the dialogues we had with the community and the final solution, the local people are the best judge of any policy making since they are the ones who execute it. And the people of Nalanda value their heritage and are striving to find a balance between generating livelihoods and sharing their culture with tourists while maintaining the sanctity of the place and preventing any further exploitation.

Destruction of the Mahavihara

Nalanda Mahavihara was a university that shared a very close bond with the community and that is the reason for its extreme popularity and for its survival for centuries. The ties between the local people, the patronages from the kings and queens and the contributions of the businessmen created a very taut support system that made it invincible for several centuries but something happened in the 12th century that not just damaged the infrastructure but severed the spirit of the people and that made it impossible to bounce back to its full potential and led to a slow decay.

There are many theories on how this great establishment came to an end but there is no sufficient archaeological evidence to confirm any theory of its destruction. The decline of Nalanda Mahasanghrama was not a single isolated incident; many small, medium and large monasteries went to oblivion together. There were more than 20 medium and small monasteries in 15Km radius of Nalanda Mahavihar. All the monasteries have followed a similar sequence of patronage, Gupta + Pala or Pala alone.
If we carefully observe the pattern we find that the Buddhist monastic order here had reached a unique understanding with the locality and it is evident in the archaeological evidence littered in villages. With royal patronage of Guptas’, monasteries flourished in Nalanda and around. In later centuries we find new monasteries were established and they continued to flourish during Pala period too and then there are evidences of more villages with only Pala influence. This reflects the quality of students and education which attracted royal patronage and also a general ambience of peace and prosperity; the strong value that society placed in knowledge and respect for wisdom.
The tradition started by Guptas’ found acceptance with the local population and local traders and merchants extended patronage and it was not totally dependent on royal patronage alone. In post Gupta period merchant and affluent class extended support to such establishment even Nalanda Mahavihara had about 80 small monasteries further north.

In its 800 years long history this symbiotic association of Buddhist monastic order and local population must have seen many ups and downs together but it had the resilience to bounce back and biggest evidence to support this thought is that all monasteries (villages) in surrounding villages continued to flourish even when the dynasties changed from Gupta to Pala and it is quite evident from the remainders of art and culture from the period. Anything that started during the Gupta period reached its final culmination with Pala. Many new centers were founded in Pala period as we find many villages with only Pala influence.
Over the centuries Buddhism assimilated with the local religions. And this assimilation of cultures is reflected in the new iconography very peculiar to this region. Biggest evidence of this confluence is the sculptures lying in temples of the villages in region. The possibility that the Buddhism had lost its support with local population doesn’t concur with the archaeological evidence which say a different story. Though this thought is based on the surface findings and only an intensive research can reflect the deep truths.
Monasteries in villages and Nalanda survived the “sankracharya effect” and outlived it by 250 years. The composition of sculptures from the late Pala period accommodating gods and goddesses from Hindu pantheon seemed like a direct consequence of such cross culture interchange.

There are several theories about what might have caused the destruction of such a resilient education system; fire, draught, flood, loss of local support and royal patronage but none of these seem to be plausible reasons the sudden disappearance or in other words not being able to bounce back.
It seems possible that the onslaught of Bakhtiyar Khilji was coupled with one such lean period among many other in past 800 years after which the university could not revive back to its golden days.

Something strong happened that didn’t let this rebound, this subjugation of the resilience was slow and gradual process. A single onslaught of Bakhtiyar Khilji with small army was not sufficient to raze a culture of 800 years which had taken roots in local ambience.
With the attack of Bakhtiyar Khilji came a new settlement that was averse to the idolatry. The high structures provided them good ground to support their military pursuits. Most of the new settlement in this area was at places with rich Buddhist remains. The biggest of the mounds have Mazars over top. The building materials were reused to build mosques. And the Idols were not crushed but most of the times they distorted the face or chiseled off the Nose. The settling of new population at such centers never let it rebound again and a rich culture disappeared.
Buddhism was based on monastic order and with the loss of monasteries, Buddhism was lost and since Hinduism had its own inbuilt systems it survived. Hindu population was the new custodians of this rich heritage. Buddhist fled the scene to further north carrying with them the scriptures but the sculptures were too heavy to carry along. Later all the sculptures in whatever shape, size and form were established at some common place within the village which can be seen till date in the villages.
The onslaught did extend the immediate damage by killing the distinct looking monks and setting up monasteries on fire but this was not the end.
Dharmasvamin who visited Nalanda in 1235AD provides the best contemporary description of the “Resilience factor” and local support.
After the Khilji onslaught, Nalanda Mahavihar did bounce back to function with two monasteries and 70 students at place. 900 years of survival instincts were on test. In past there were instances of persecution by kings, but it was warded off by supporting kings. As in the past this time yet again there was help from neighboring Buddhist countries to revive the traditions but it didn’t prove to be adequate. There are evidences in Tibetan source Pag-sam-Jonzang of its revival effort but they were all short lived.

This onslaught had a different character compare to any previous attack; invaders were outsiders and wanted to settle here. There was no strong king left to rescue them and local support could not save the very noticeable monasteries and monks for a long time. The 800 year old tradition had very little time to adjust to the new set of challenges and could not cope up. There are evidences where the locals tried their best to keep things going but the bonds were severed time and again by the invaders until they gave up. Dharmasvamin’s accounts talks about a lay Hindu patron who was put behind bars at odantpuri (now Bihar Sharif) for supporting the monks. While in jail he smuggled the information of impending attack of the Turks on the Nalanda monastery. This little story conveys the precious relationship that the local population and the monasteries must have shared and there must be many more such incidents associated with the various monasteries that would remain unknown to us but in the end we gather that the strong legacy of support and compassion died within span of 50 years and almost no monastery big or small could handle such betrayal of faith

Number of students in the Nalanda Mahasanghrama

Let’s put all the references in the travelogue about number of students at Nalanda Mahavihar

1- The life of Xuanzang, Book-III, page 101, travels, chapter XIV, Magadha, page 86
Crossing the Ganges we come to the kingdom of Magadha. This kingdom is 5000Li in circuit. There are about 50 Sangharamas and 10,000 priests, mostly attached to Great vehicle.

2- Book-III, page 112
The priests, belonging to the convent or strangers always reach to the number of 10,000

3- “Travels”- Thomas Watters, chapter-XIV, page 86
Crossing the Ganges we come to the kingdom of Magadha. This kingdom is 5000Li in circuit. There are about 50 Sangharamas and 10,000 priests, mostly attached to Great vehicle.

Itsing - Itsing puts the number of students to 3000

Hwui Lun -There are about 3500 priests in the temple at Nalanda

Dharmasvamin -The Mahasanghrama was counting its last days when Dharmasvamin visited the monastery. There were around 70 students and two monastic units were in use

There is a general perception of 10,000 students staying in this big complex during the time of Xuanzang visit. But on a closer look and a thoughtful analysis we find neither is this true but also not possible. Xuanzang in his “Travel” and “Life” accounts has mentioned about 10,000 students and over 50 monasteries for the Magadha region this is usual of Xuanzang as he has mentioned about the area, number of monasteries, Higher or Lower vehicle and approximate number of monks in the monasteries of all the kingdoms he has visited. Further in the “Life” accounts he says “The priests, belonging to the convent or strangers always reach to the number of 10,000”, we must notice the word strangers, always and reach in the context. This is probably reference to some lay disciples or monks, priests and students reaching there for attending some important discourse, functions and festivals and not the actual residents of the Mahasanghrama. This is corroborated with the description in “Life” where he tells about his welcome at Kulika.

Page 106,
Halting here for short refreshment, then with two hundred priests and some thousand lay patrons, who surrounded him as he went, recounting his praises, and carrying standards, umbrellas, flowers and perfumes, he entered Nalanda.
Moreover he has mentioned that there are 50+ sangharamas and 10,000 students in whole of Magadha region of which Nalanda Mahasanghrama was also apart. Further we have accounts of It-sing and Hwui Lun who mention of 3000 and 3500 students at their time respectively

We try to examine the possible capacity of sangharama at the time of Xuanzang
Assumptions
1- There were 5 monasteries in working condition as per the Xuanzang accounts
2- Monasteries were 4 storeys ( Maximum)
3- Monasteries had same monastic plan as the excavated remains

The calculations:

Total no of Cells- 555


If there is double occupancy- 562X 2 = 1124students

We see the maximum students as per the description where 1110. He has mentioned about separate chambers for the priests which again is in 4 stages. In any case this number is not exceeding 2000 students + teachers.

How Xuanzang reached Nalanda and his total stay at Nalanda

As we have noticed in some of the previous discussions, the two biographies of Xuanzang ‘Life’ and ‘Travel’ pose a significant challenge in drawing parallel conclusions.

“Life of Hiuen-Tsiang” (“Life”) by Hwui Li and “Records of western Countries” (“Travels”) have different interpretations about route taken by Xuanzang to Nalanda. While both travelogues state the journey start in Pataliputra for Bodh Gaya and on the way he went to Telhada monastery but the description about how he arrived at Nalanda is significantly different. The “Life” account maintains that he arrived at Kulika (the birth place of Moggallana) directly from Bodh Gaya and stayed there for a night at a farm before he was given a pompous welcome at Nalanda the following day. But the “Travel” account says that he first reached Rajgriha and from there he traveled to Nalanda.

There is also considerable doubt about the number of years Xuanzang stayed at Nalanda, Cunningham, who based his calculations on the both the accounts concludes that Xuanzang arrived at Nalanda in March 637AD and left Nalanda for his travel to southern India in Jan 639AD. There are four different references of his stay at Nalanda in the “life”, and that partly fuels the confusion on the number of years that Xuanzang actually stayed at Nalanda and when.
In Book III page 125,
Thus he penetrated, and examined completely, all collection, and also studied the sacred books of the Brahmans during Five years.

Here the biographer doesn’t clarify if this was his study and stay at Nalanda or total time he devoted to study including his travels to various parts of the country.


In Book III page 109, it reads
Then Fa-Tsong (Shilabhadra) asked him further “for how many years have you been on your journey?” he answered “during three Years” …..

We know Xuanzang started from Changan in August 629. And as Xuanzang himself mentioned that he traveled for 3 years and in addition to that he stayed at few places for study on his way, the major ones include 2 years at Kashmir and 14 months at Chinabhukti (modern firozpur) among many others. This would sum up to about 7 to 8 years from his start in 629AD and brings us to 637 AD. And this is how we arrive at the tentative year of when Xuanzang arrived at Nalanda.
From Nalanda he went to Kamrupa and then all way to Kanchipuram. From Southern India he came to Vallabhi in west and then returned to Nalanda via Multan and Parvata.

After his sojourn at Nalanda, he left for Tiladaka monastery about 3 Yojan west and stayed there for 2 Months. From Tiladaka monastery he went to Yastivana (modern Jethian) where he speaks about Jayasena, who according to him was a man of high attainment and Xuanzang stayed with him for two years.

In book III page no 121
Shilabhadra requested him to remain there and listen to the explanation of the sutras for 15 Months……
The master of law whilst he stopped in the convent heard the explanation of Yogasastra three times.

It evident from this dialogue that Xuanzang stayed at Nalanda monastery for 15 months before leaving for the pilgrimage to further east and south India.
In Book IV page 155
The master of law remained (Xuanzang) with him first and last for two years, and studied a treatise on the difficulties of the Vidya-matra-siddhi……..

This reference is in context with his stay at Yastivana (modern Jethian) with Jayasena. As discussed earlier Xuanzang after his trip to south India returned to Nalanda monastery and then left for Tiladaka monastery and then to Jethian. Xuanzang has given a detail description of his association with Jayasena and even if he didn’t stay for 2 years he did spend a considerable time with him.

Taking into account these various descriptions the total time that Xuanzang must have spent at Nalanda would be
Nalanda Mahavihar- 637 to 639 +
Tiladaka – 2 Months +
Yastivana- Two years +
Total= 4 years

After his initial stay at Nalanda in 637AD, he left for a pilgrimage to southern India via Kamrupa, Kanchipuram, Multan and Parvata and arrived back at Nalanda after a journey of more than 30 thousand Li. At some places like Irana, Bezwada and south Kosala he stayed for as long as a month each.

The other confirmed date that we have is his arrival in Changan in April 645 AD. We track back keeping this time as constant and try to come up with a timeframe when he started his return journey from Nalanda. His return path included the places mentioned below from Nalanda to Changan and also is a summary of time he spent there…
Kamrupa- 1 Month
Kanyakubja (Harsavardhan Court) - 4 Months
Virashana- 2 month
Jalandhara- 1 Month
Kapisa- 75 Days
Kunduz- 1 Month
Khotan- 8 month

So adding up the time he stayed at these places and a travel time of about a year since it was a caravan of elephants carrying numerous scriptures and sculptures, we can deduce that his return journey was about 3 years and that tells us that his return from Nalanda started in the year 642 AD.
We are left with a spread of 639 AD to April 642 AD. This includes his 2nd stay at Nalanda and around plus 30 thousand Li journey across India.

So if we try to distribute this time of 3 years to accommodate a two year stay and a travel distance of about 30 thousand Li to various places across India, it would not be irrelevant to say perhaps he didn’t not stay in Nalanda for more that 2 years. And his fondness and appreciation for Jayasena and clearly mentioning about his 2 year stay at Yastivana puts further doubt on how many years he actually spent at Nalanda.

Asanga, Vasubandhu and Nagarjuna and Nalanda

In book no II of “Life” page no 73
Xuanzang reaches Sakala (modern Sialkot), here he says Vasubandhu Bodhisattva composed treatise Shing-i-tai-lun.

Page no 76
He arrived at Takka kingdom at a city (Modern Lahore), here he stayed for one month studying sutras composed by a disciple of Nagarjuna.
Page no 79 -80
At matipur he again speaks about an event in life of Vasubandhu
Book III page 85
At Ayodhya in a monastery, Xuanzang says Vasubandhu composed treatise and preached for the good of the community. In Ayodhya he speaks about the association of Asanga Bodhisattva with another monastery. Where Asanga ascended to heaven and received Yogasastra from Maitreya Buddha. Here he mentions that these brothers are from Gandhara and are principal composer of sastra in India.

Page 91
At Kaushambi Xuanzang speaks about a monastery where Vasubandhu composed Vidyamatra-siddhi-sastra. And raja Ashok raised stupa by the monastery.

In book III page no 109
Xuanzang speak about abode of Bodhisattva Dharmpala at Nalanda Sangharama.
Book IV page 135
In southern Kosala he visits the monastery where Nagarjuna Bodhisattva dwelt.

Conclusion
From all the references mentioned above we can conclude the following,

1- Birth place of Sariputra is different from the site of Nalanda Monastery.

2- Available evidence disapprove of any association of Noted Acharyas with Birth place of Sariputra and Nalanda monastery as said by lama Taranatha

3- Nalanda Monastic site and Nalanda of Pavarika mango groove can be same or different places or could be in very close vicinity.

4- There is a possibility that there existed a monastery with name of Nalanda near Rajgriha and that had no link with birthplace of Sariputra and Nalanda monastery (as mentioned by Xuanzang and existing remains at Bargaon).

We have literary evidence; the Pali sources have maintained that Nalanda and Nala/Nalak are two different places. The archaeological findings at the site are the biggest evidence which support Xuanzang’s travelogue. And also even the earliest findings doesn’t go before 450 AD and so there almost no scope of any Ashokan contribution to the Nalanda University.
Xuanzang in his travelogue has linked the site with Buddha. He says the site was originally an amra garden and merchants bought it for ten kotis of gold pieces and Buddha preached law here for three months, later a temple was built to mark the place. How ever it is not clear if it was Pavarika mango grove that finds its mention in the Pali texts.

The literature of lama Taranatha is so replete with Myths, dogmas and miracles that it’s difficult to correlate it with known historical facts about Nalanda. V. P Vasil’ev in his introduction to the Russian translation of Taranatha’s “history of Buddhism in india” has said that the account is not a faithful exposition of something unknown. It is also a well accepted fact that lama Taranatha himself never visited India. Taranatha’s work is basically a translation and collection of information from various Biographies. Lama Taranatha had access to authentic works of Ksemendrabhadra, Indradatta and Bhataghati, and it was very prevalent to link their legends with well known personalities. Though he mentions about them but doesn’t give sufficient details on their lives and works.

Analyzing Sources II

B- Sources that refer to either the birthplace of Sariputra or a place called Nalanda but not both together in a given context


For this we first discuss the Fahien account that Visited birth place of Sariputra “Nala” but doesn’t mention any thing about Nalanda. Fahien visited Nala around 407 AD when Raja Vikramaditya was the king.

Fahien reached at this place traveling 1 Yojan south west from Indrasaila Guha and finds one stupa which he says still existed. He says that Sariputra was born and died at the place, and there was a stupa built at the site where his body was burnt.

Fahien has provided pretty detailed description of all the monasteries and ruins of monasteries that he witnessed. It is evident when we read the accounts of Gridhkutta, Indrasaila guha and Venuwan, but such detailed description of the sariputra stupa is missing and that would lead us to conclude that perhaps the stupa at the birth place of Sariputra was not huge or majestic enough. For when he went to Rajgriha to visit the stupa built by Ajaatsatru over his share of Buddha’s body relics, he speaks at length about its size, magnificence and appearance.

Also if we observe the word used for describing the Sariputra’s stupa is “still in existence”, which may mean that it was not in the best condition. From this we may confer that at the time of Fahien’s visit the place was not of much relevance as far as monastic activities are concerned. According to lama Taranatha during the time of Fahien’s visit the place must be an important destination.

He also associated Nalanda with Asanga and Vasubandhu. Other historical evidences maintain that Vasubandhu was a prominent adviser to the king Samudra gupta in 330AD. Both were born in Purushapura (modern Peshawar) and there were active in around Ayodhya.

Also Fahien didn’t mention about any monastery at the present site of Remains of Nalanda Mahavihara and would be corroborated by the archaeological finds which suggest that the structure wasn’t built before the gupta period.

Other sources which have a mention about Nalanda are Jain and brhaminical literature. These sources talk about Nalanda but don’t have any reference to the Birth place of Sariputra.

But still one possibility remains that the birth place of Sariputra is different from the Nalanda (Pavarika + University site) and there still exists a monastic establishment at birth place of Sariputra called “Nalanda” and it was here that Nagarjuna was an Acharya.

To come to any conclusion we need to carefully observe what Xuanzang and Fahien say and what they don’t say about the birth place of Sariputra. Xuanzang when he reached Kalpinaka found a stupa built by Ashoka Raja at the place of Parinirvan, he gives a complete account of how Sariputra joined the Sangha and his association with Moggallana and also how he achieved Nirvana. Xuanzang doesn’t say anything about any monastery existing or any monastic ruins. Xuanzang has given a complete description about the structures and establishments at the places he visited. His complete silence raises doubt if there was any small or big monastery existing at the place before his visit.

The detail he has given about the Nalanda Mahavihar doesn’t find any mention about any contribution of Ashoka. The chronology of monastic units provided by Xuanzang starts with king Sakraditya which according to him was already in ruins in the 7th century.
The list of Acharyas who were associated with Nalanda provided by Lama Taranatha includes Nagarjuna, Asanga and Vasubandhu. Xuanzang visited the very places where these Acharyas made their major contributions and in his description of Nalanda he never associates any of these Acharyas with Nalanda mahasanghrama.

Analyzing Sources I

We will evaluate available information one by one and try to reach some conclusion

A- Sources mentioning about Nalanda (of Pavarika & University) and Birthplace of Sariputra in one context

• There are two strong contemporary references which speak about Nalanda and birth place of Sariputra in same breath and yet maintain it to be different places. The first and the major source of evidence are the Pali sources which are the record of events and place associated with Buddha and his disciples.

To reach any conclusion we need to know more about what other old texts says about places. We have a detail history of places and events around Rajgriha at the time of Buddha which are very well maintained in the Pali traditions. The Pali proper name dictionary is compilation of all the places mentioned in Pali sources.


Nalanda- A town near Rajgriha and according to Buddhaghosa one league away
Nalanda finds mention in Digh Nikaya, page 35, Kevatta sutta, Majhima Nikaya etc
As per the Kevatta sutta Nalanda was an influential and prosperous place
Some Pali sources maintain that Nalanda was 1 Yojan from Rajgriha and Pavarika mango grove was a part of it.

Nala/ Nalaka /Nalika
A Brahmin village in Magadha not far from Rajgriha. It was here where Sariputra was born. Mahasudassana-Jataka also mention Nala birth place of Sariputra
Pali sources and the Pali Tripitaka are the contemporary accounts as far as Buddha and Sariputra are concerned. This was orally maintained for centuries before it was first written in Singhalese script in Srilanka. Whole of the Pali sources available till date uniformly maintains Nala (Nalaka & Nalika) as the birth place of Sariputra. And there is no single instance of Nalanda and Nala being mentioned as same. Pali sources have been preserved by Theravada sect who is traditionally believed to preserve the Words of Buddha Verbatim.

• Travelogues of Xuanzang who visited both the places in 7th century, maintains it to be two different places. There are chances that Nalanda of Pali reference and Nalanda of University have some connection but the Nalanda of University and birth place of sariputra are two different places.

These two evidences establish that Nalanda Monastery and Nalanda of Pavarika mango grove are different from the birth place of Sariputra. Yet there are no clues that would suggest a correlation between Nalanda monastery and Nalanda of Pavarika mango grove.
Also it does not negate another possibility of a monastery named Nalanda at Nala, the birth place of Sariputra.

And since we are on the topic of discussing sariputra and the monastery named after him, the guides at Nalanda ruins mention the temple no. 3 as Sariputra Chatiya when it is evident from Xuanzang’s travelogue that it is related to the Buddha himself.