Introduction
In
his spirited response 1 to Arun Shourie2 on Nalanda, Dr.D.N.Jha has made the following broad,
important points –
1)
His talk in 2006 was not
exclusively about Nalanda. It was on the history of animosity between Buddhists
and Hindus in which context he’d referred to the Tibetan tradition on Nalanda.
2) The two Tibetan traditions on
Nalanda corroborate each other and cannot be brushed aside even if they’d
magical elements in them.
3) The Tibetan traditions were
accepted as credible not just by Marxists but also by highly acclaimed
non-Marxist scholars
4) Dr.Shourie was wrong in identifying
the Vihara, which the Tabaqir-i-Nasiri records as having been destroyed by
Bhaktiyar-i-Muhammad, with Nalanda. The scholarly consensus is that the Vihara
in question is the one referred to in historical chronicles as Odantapuri or
Uddandapura (modern Bihar Sharif). There’s, thus, no reason to believe that
Bhaktiyar-i-Muhammad burned down Nalanda.
In
this article I examine these points and also enquire 1) if Dr.Jha’s conclusions were made with
consideration to a holistic appraisal of the facts and 2) if he’s accurately
represented the positions of those he’s cited in his article
The two Tibetan traditions
Dr.Jha
states that his original speech at the congress was focused on antagonism
between Brahmins and Buddhists for which he drew on various sources including myths
and traditions. It’s in this context that he referred to a Tibetan tradition that
states that Nalanda was burned down by Brahminical mendicants. The tradition in
question is from the 18th Century book Pag-Sam Jon-Zang by the Lama
Sum-Pa. Dr.Jha suggests that the
idea of longstanding Brahminical animosity towards Buddhists was recorded as
myths and legends and transmitted through generations in Tibet. He further
states that the tradition cannot be ignored as it “jibes in” with a similar
tradition recorded in the legendary 17th Century Lama Taranatha’s monumental book “A
History of Buddhism in India”.
Myths,
legends and local traditions often carry within them kernels of truths that can
be useful to historians. But, they must be subjected to rigorous validation
before they can be used to make inferences about historical events. In our
present case, that validation is all the more necessary for the “magic ridden
“tradition is being stated to be credible not just for its own sake but to
serve as a valid historical example of Hindu Buddhist animosity. We shall now
inquire if the tradition is a valid one.
An
analysis of the chronology of Buddhism in India as given in the works of both
Taranatha and Sum-pa would place the “Burning of Nalanda by Tirthika mendicants”
(assuming it’s a real event) before the period of the logician Dignaga who
belonged to the 6th century. Thus, the magical events described by
the Tibetan traditions are at least a thousand years removed from the times in
which Taranatha and Sum-Pa lived. That
means, the only two mentions we find in the annals of history about the burning
of Nalanda by Tirthikas is from two sources which are a millennia removed from
the events that they’re describing.
There’s no other source, nearer in time to the alleged event, which
records it.
The two prominent 7th Century
Chinese travelers Xuangzang & Yi Jing – who, unlike Taranatha & Sum-Pa,
had visited and stayed at Nalanda - do not mention the names of any library,
let alone its destruction. It must be pointed out that Xuangzang spent years
studying and teaching at Nalanda and would have arrived at the place after the
period of the alleged “burning”. Thus, there is no third source, contemporary
or near contemporary, which affirms the very later Tibetan traditions.
Dr.Jha
states that Sum-Pa’s account gains importance as it tallies with Taranatha’s.
There’s a problem here. The two sources can be said to corroborate each other
only if they’re truly independent. The
fact that both the sources are from Tibet and the traditions narrated in the
two sources are very similar in detail, it won’t be terribly out of place to
infer that both the books have drawn this tradition from a common source. This
inference gains more strength considering that Lama Taranatha was one of the
greatest monks of his period and lived only decades before Sum-Pa. Hence, it
won’t be unreasonable to hypothesize that Sum-Pa collected the tradition
regarding Nalanda from Taranatha himself. Thus, either the traditions narrated
in the two sources have a common third source or one of them has inspired the
other. In either case, these two traditions cannot be said to be independent
and cannot corroborate each other.
The two Tibetan legends, thus, cannot be considered
valid sources of historical information, more so when they’re used to establish
long standing animosity between Hindus and Buddhists.
Nalanda’s Decline
Dr.Jha is correct in pointing out that the Vihara
mentioned in the Tabaqir-i-Nasiri as having been destroyed by
Muhammad-I-Bhaktiyar is the Odantapuri Mahavihara and not Nalanda. But, that’s not sufficient to assert that
Muhammad-I-Bhaktiyar couldn’t have attacked Nalanda for the latter is at a
distance of just 11 Km from the site of Odantapuri. That would beg the question
– why wasn’t Nalanda mentioned in the contemporary Muslim chronicle?
Many modern scholars3 opine that the decline of Nalanda started much earlier
than the Khilji invasion. One of the more prominent reasons for this decline is
attributed to the emergence of Odantapuri and Vikramashila under the Palas. The
Palas – who were devout Buddhists – had set up a capital at Odantapuri and
established the Mahavihara which grew in stature and size owing to its
proximity to political power and the liberal patronage it received from the
imperial Palas. It is reasonable to suggest that there was a drain of talent
and numbers to Odantapuri and Vikramashila from Nalanda. One of the last
inscriptions4 from the
Nalanda site dates to the mid-11th century, a century before its
final destruction. Thus, it does appear that Nalanda had ceased to be the great
Mahavihara that it once used to be and was certainly not as big as Vikramashila
and Odantapuri on the eve of the invasion. This, if true, would explain the
silence of Muslim writers on the sack of Nalanda by the invaders.
Dharmaswamin and the Demise of Nalanda
What then brought about the ultimate end of the
institution? An answer to this question would’ve remained in the realm of
speculation but for the existence of the records left by a 13th
century Tibetan Monk who’d lived and studied in Nalanda in its very last years.
Dharmaswamin belonged to an illustrious lineage of Lot
bas –traditional translators – and was well versed in Sanskrit and the Buddhist
lore. He was in India between 1234 and 1236 and had studied at Nalanda with its
last great abbot Rahula Sri Bhadra. A Biography 5 of the monk by his disciple Upasaka Chos-dar narrates
the Monk’s peregrinations through Bihar in the period after its conquest by the
Khiljis. He provides firsthand account of the fear that had gripped the whole
place because of the terror unleashed by roving bands of “Turushka
Soldiery”. He records that by the time
he came to Nalanda, it had already been sacked by the invaders though some of
the buildings stood unscathed. Education
at the university had continued under Sribhadra who was tutoring 70 disciples
with generous patronage from a rich lay Brahmana Jayadeva. We further learn
from him that a Muslim military camp had been established in Odantapuri, whose
Mahavihara was completely destroyed. Dharmaswamin further states that the
university’s patron Jayadeva was imprisoned6
by the Muslim authorities and was accused of supporting the modest Nalanda monk
establishment. Jayadeva, according to the accounts, manages to sneak out a
message to the abbot about an impending attack on the monastery by the Turushka
army. The University was eventually abandoned7 and Nalanda is scarcely known after this.
“Hindu Buddhist
animosity”, The Tibetan Legends & the Chronicles of Dharmaswamin
The Taranatha version8 of the legend has the Buddhist King Buddhapaksha and
two Brahmanas9 Shanku and
Brhaspati rebuild the temples destroyed by the fire. The story is incomplete
without this information. Thus, even the magical legend, taken as a whole,
cannot count as an example of Hindu-Buddhist animosity.
Dharmaswamin’s account gives a good insight into
Hindu-Buddhist relations in India in the twilight of the Buddhist faith in
India. The picture that one can glean from it is that, though there was
religious competition between the faiths in terms of whose sadhakas were
more accomplished in siddhis and such things, there weren’t great
social tensions between the Buddhists and non-Buddhists. Dharmaswamin
specifically mentions 10
that the monks of the Sangha were given alms by the Non- Buddhists and revered
by them. We also learn that education in Nalanda continued even after the
Islamic onslaught due to the munificence of a rich Brahmana Jayadeva. Dharmaswamin also mentions 11 that the Raja of Tirhut,
Rama Simha, a devout Hindu himself, asked for the former to become his
preceptor. The general portrayal in his account doesn’t suggest any great
social tension between the two groups.
It isn’t contended here that there have never been
conflicts between the various sects before the arrival of Islam; or even that
these conflicts haven’t been recorded.
Through these examples all that is intended to be highlighted is the
status of inter-faith relations between Hindus and Buddhists in the 12th
century as recorded in a contemporary source. This task becomes all the more
imperative given the concerted attempts by historians of a certain persuasion
to portray the twilight years of Buddhism in India was ridden with mutual
animosity and antagonism between the Buddhist and Hindu faiths
A few distortions
Dr.Jha
claims that the Tibetan legends have been given “Credence” by non-Marxist
scholars of unimpeachable integrity. He names R.K.Mukherjee, Sukumar Dutt,
Buddha Prakash & S.C.Vidyabhushana as the scholars who’ve treated the
Tibetan legends as credible.
Of
the four authors cited above, I was able to access
1)
Radha Kumud Mookerjee
(Education in Ancient India)
2)
Sukumar Dutt (Buddhist Monks
and Monasteries of India
3)
S C VIdyabhushana (History of
Indian Logic)
Of
these three, Dr R.K.Mukherjee 12
alone seems to treat the Tibetan legends as credible. He does so to infer that
the Nalanda campus had a library. He doesn’t interpret the legends an example
of Hindu Buddhist animosity
Dr. Sukumar Dutt, in his book, seeks reasons for the
fire whose effects are evident in the remains at Nalanda. While discussing
various possibilities, he also mentions 13
the Tibetan legend. He says “the only part of the campus that perished entirely
in the conflagration, IF we can rely upon the Tibetan legends, is the
Dharmaganja where the library ...”
Clearly, Dr.Dutt has qualified his usage of the Tibetan legend with an IF.
Moreover, further ahead in the chapter, he states that the date of the events
is unknown and that no mention of these libraries is available in the Chinese
records 14. Thus, it can
hardly be claimed that Dr.Dutt was giving any credence to the Tibetan legend.
Dr.Jha
singles out S.C.Vidyabhushana as someone who interpreted the text to say that
it refers to an ACTUAL scuffle between Brahminical mendicants and Buddhists. Now, kindly look at the inset below:-
Dr,Jha
has put the part about Brahmin Buddhist scuffle in inverted commas and has
attributed the same to Dr.Vidyabhushana. The impression one gets is that this
is an extract from Vidyabhushana’ s History of Indian Logic as cited by
D.R.Patil in his book Antiquarian Remains in Bihar. A careful reading of the
cited pages in the two cited books clarifies two things
1) Dr Vidyabhushana’s book made no
judgement on the veracity of the Tibetan legends. It merely recounts the legend
in the context of Nalanda. Vidyabhushana’s book was on Indian Logic and
historical events were treated only incidentally. That’s perhaps the reason for
the legend being mentioned in appendix section on Nalanda. Vidyabhushana makes
no interpretation at all about the textx, much less an interpretation which
projected the texts as referring to an ACTUAL scuffle between Brahminical
mendicants and Buddhists
2) The portion “scuffle
between….Ratnodadhi”, in the inset above, attributed to Vidyabhushana are not
to be found in his book. This has been taken from D.R.Patil’s Antiquarian
Remains in India. It’s Patil who states that the Tibetan tradition actually
refers to a scuffle. It is to be noted that he didn’t say the tradition
referred to an ACTUAL scuffle. In the
very same paragraph, he states that it’s difficult to say how far this story
tells a historical fact.
Following is a snapshot from
D.R.Patil’s Antiquarian Remains in India
Thus, it’s now clear that Dr.Jha was wrong
in attributing an interpretation to Vidyabhushana – about the legends referring
to an actual scuffle –which he himself never made!
Sources & Notes :
3.
Page 325, ‘The Antiquarian remains in
Bihar’, D.R.Patil & Page 344, Buddhist Monasteries and Monks, Sukumar Dutt
4.
Antiquarian Remains in Bihar, Sukumar
Dutt, page 325
5.
The biography was obscure until its
sole manuscript was retrieved from a Tibetan monastery by the Buddhist scholar
Mahapandit Rahul Sankrityayan. Dr George Roerich, who translated this work from
the Tibetan, states that this work was most likely dictated to the writer
Upasaka Cho-dar by Dharmaswamin himself in accordance with the Tibetan practice
in these matters. Thus, this biography can be considered to be an
auto-biographical sketch for all practical purposes.
6.
A Biography of Dharmaswamin – George
Roerich – page 93
7.
A Biography of Dharmaswamin – George
Roerich – page 94
8.
Taranatha’s History of Buddhism in
India – Lama Chimpa and ALka
Chattopadhyaya – Page 142
9.
Taranatha’s History of Buddhism in
India – Lama Chimpa and ALka
Chattopadhyaya – Page 144
10.
A Biography of Dharmaswamin – George
Roerich – page 87
11.
A Biography of Dharmaswamin – George
Roerich – page 100
12.
Ancient Indian Education –
R.K.Mookerjee – Page 574
13.
Buddhist Monasteries and Monks,
Sukumar Dutt – Page 343
14.
Buddhist Monasteries and Monks, Sukumar
Dutt – Page 344
No comments:
Post a Comment