Talk:Nalanda/Archive 1

Archive 1

Contradictions

There are contradictions about the age of Nalanda in the text. This webpage: http://www.indiaplaces.com/india-monuments/nalanda-university.html claims, that at least the International Scholastic Centre is older than the main foundations. Some even claim it was already a university in the time of the Buddha. Perhaps someone with more information could give sources for the various claims.

The article mentions "later mystic Theravada schools" developed at Nalanda. What are these schools? What does this refer to? I don't know what this means. Thank you. Bhikkhu Santi Seattle.

Also the article says some of the buildings were built by Ashoka. Per Wikipedia Asoka's period is from 273-232 BC. But the article says the period of Nalanda is from 427 to 1197 CE. There is a big difference of more than 600 years. Could some one fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.236.243.16 (talk) 23:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It was a major urban center even in Buddha's time, however the famous Gupta period vihara came later, Malaiya (talk) 20:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Citing Sources

Please sign your comments with four ~. I caught this article in the maintenance list so I took out the unsourced statements flagged by the interested party and surrounded them with html comment markers. Further, I demonstrated the use of a single footnote, multiple times as demonstrated in footnotes. There are other statements in the article that should be sourced as well, but I'm not going to flag them as this isn't an area of interest for me. Religious articles are typically controversial and the editors of this article most likely will need to cite reliable sources if they don't want others to remove their remarks. Alan.ca 07:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone provide any source that "Khilji asked if there was a copy of the Koran at Nalanda before he sacked it" ? thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.24.246 (talk • contribs) of 11.02.2007

Roll back

I have rolled back the texts deleted by anonymous as the text had already cite references and there was no need to remove them unless a citation to the contrary is made. --Bhadani 15:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyright issue

I removed a large section of text in the "Plans for revival" section that appeared to be a cut and paste of the NY Times article mentioned. Woodega 01:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Much text under "Description of Nalanda University" is also a direct copy of the NY Times article and should be removed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 18:05, 14 May 2007 67.187.123.214 (talk • contribs)

It is incorrect to say that the university was also patronized by cholas , because they were opposed to both buddism and jainism and other communal sects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.21.77 (talk) 06:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I just removed it. It would have been easier for you just to do it yourself than leave a comment, but whatever. Sylvain1972 20:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Mention of Pala Empire

I have removed the phrase "partly under the Pala Empire", which was in the very first paragraph. As somebody mentioned before, I too feel the the university was at its peak long before the Palas had even risen above their "Shudra" status. Was it not before 500 AD that the great Aryabhatta migrated from a far-off place to Nalanda to do further research? It was established before the Christian Era and had reached its peak long before the Palas. In any case there were many other more famous and powerful figures and dynasties who merit mention a lot more than the Palas do (if at all they do at all) in the context of the growth and flowering of the university. 69.141.35.217 (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Alexander Cunningham

Nalanda was identified by Alexander Cunningham with the village of Baragaon.

Interesting, but I don't know what it is trying to say or why it is in the lead section. I also don't know what "CAGI" means. Removed here until further clarification. Viriditas (talk) 23:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

References

Categories: Islamism, religious violence, anti-Buddhism, massacres

I removed those categories for several reasons:

1. The monastery's destruction is a footnote to an article about an establishment that was actually fairly significant. Comparing this article to an article like the Buddhas of Bamyan - where their destruction is actually an important part of their history [added: rather than "important in a larger history"] - is silly.

2. Wikipedia is full of articles about religious structures that were destroyed by members of other religions, and we don't categorize them as "Anti-"whatever. The attempt to apply this standard only to buildings destroyed by Muslims is an obvious attempt to insert a POV.

3. "Islamism" is a modern term which no editor with any knowledge of history has any business applying to a 12th-century event.

Roscelese (talk) 03:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I support this wholeheartedly. some of these cats make no sense and are pure POV.--vvarkey (talk) 09:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Although I would categorize the monastery's destruction as more than a footnote, I think your points are generally valid.Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps "footnote" wasn't the best way of talking about it - but as a comparison, look at the articles on the First and Second Temple. Their destruction is extremely important in Judaism - far more so than Nalanda's destruction in terms of historical impact, I would venture to say - and they're not tagged "anti-Semitism." Roscelese (talk) 22:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that most of these categories are inappropriate. The destruction of Nalanda was a significant event in the decline of Buddhism in India, though, and so I would say that its destruction is an important and historical event. Of course, the university had centuries of success prior to this, and its central position in the development of Buddhist philosophy is what makes the destruction important. In any discussion of the end of Indian Buddhism, this part of the history of Nalanda is sure to be mentioned. For this reason alone, its destruction is historically significant. Tengu800 (talk) 04:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

In retrospect, those comments of mine were stupid, and I have struck them through. Roscelese (talk) 05:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Decline and end

I have deleted a section from "Decline and end". That incident is not true. The source given is unreliable and from an amature writer. Only that one particular person claims of that such a thing happening in his book. I have read his books, he just says such a thing happened without giving evidence for his claims. This is unreliable and a false propaganda. We need strong evidence from reliable people for such a claim. No other historian claims such an incident happened. Let it stay deleted. That info should not be included in wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.81.158 (talk) 04:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Take it to WP:RSN. We don't remove sources just because someone doesn't like them. You deleted 2 sources, by the way, not just one. Dougweller (talk) 05:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The third sentence in the paragraphs strikes me as a little odd: "However, the authenticity of these claims cannot be verified independently from other writings." The reason that is is a little odd is that it is unclear what "these claims" refers to. If it refers to the first two sentences in the paragraph, then I note that there appear to be at least 3 different citations referring to the incidents - just how many citations are needed for these descriptions to be considered independently verified? Also, using the word "claims" shows bias. I'm not an expert on the topic (I'm just passing through), so I don't wish to edit this - but perhaps an expert can tidy this up a little. Kmasters0 (talk) 05:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I think people have some wrong ideas about publications. If someone publishes in a reputed journal, that does not mean that the incident did happen. Perhaps you should know that many wrong concepts of physics were published in early 20th century by reputed scientists which proved to be totally wrong later. In this case of Nalanda university's fate, we have one person's account of the history. While it might be true, it must be corroborated by other sources to be correct and/or to be acceptable to all historians to be called THE TRUTH. The original writing looks like what he wrote was indeed what happened. How do you know it happened? Are there multiple accounts of the same incident? What I added to this is to caution the reader that what really happened, the real reason of the decline of Nalanda and/or destruction, is not 100% known to us at this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syz2 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Our articles should be based on what reliable sources (as defined at WP:RS say about a subject. In this case the article is quoting Minhaj-i-Siraj for instance. If you have sources that offer a different perspective and meet our criteria, by all means add them. Or if you think the sources are misrepresnted, suggest what wording should be used. There are a number of other sources that say the same thing that we could use if a particular source doesn't meet our criteria. But what you have added is your own opinion/analysis, and that is what we call original research and is against our policy at WP:NOR. When you first started to edit I put a message on your page explaining this, but you don't seem to have understood it (I'm hoping you did read the links I gave you). Dougweller (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Library I completed some major edits on the library section. One of the links was a dead and the other source I was not able to find. I removed the previous section and replaced it with three that discuss the library.--Petercannon usf (talk) 22:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://asi.nic.in/asi_monu_tktd_bihar_nalanda.asp. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. MER-C 12:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The editor who added this was indefinitely blocked last month for copyright violations. Dougweller (talk) 12:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The school at Nalanda was NOT a university.

The school at Nalanda was, as the lede of the article says, an ancient institution of higher learning that does not fit the definition of a university, which is why all references to Nalanda having been a university were removed. The primary reason for the attempts to label the old institution of higher-learning a university seems to be to glorify the newly founded Nalanda University, and give the impression that the new university is in some mysterious way connected to the old school at Nalanda, even though it was established 817 years after the old school ceased to exist. Thomas.W ^talk 10:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

How exactly does Nalanda not fit the definition of a university? Whatever your disagreement is with the "new" Nalanda University, the original one has always been spoken of as a university and fits the basic definition of one. See any one of the innumerable sources on Google Books which refer to it as so. Please feel free to assure yourself that scholars have been referring to it as so prior to the setting up of the new Nalanda University. IOW, there is no attempt to label the OLD institution as a university. It has customarily always been done so (as with Takshashila, Valabhi, etc.). And FWIW, the new university has been established explicitly as a bid to re-establish the old one, hence the support from governments representing large Buddhist populations around the world. At any rate, I have already significantly reduced the amount of prominence given to the new institution in the article; cf. 10 days ago. I do plan to expand on the terminology (Mahavihara etc.) at some point, but the use of university is perfectly acceptable. I am going to revert your revert. IMO, it is up to you to explain why you think "university" is inaccurate and "school" more accurate. Also, I am relatively new to WP. Please let me know if I commit any faux pas. Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 11:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@Cpt.a.haddock: The term "university" has come to be applied very loosely nowadays, often retroactively, so you can't go by what others claim Nalanda to have been. Nalanda does not fit the definition of university that we use here on en-WP, which is why it is described as an ancient institution of higher learning in the lede, and not a university. A fate Nalanda shares with many other religious schools, including both madrasahs and cathedral schools, many of which predate the first commonly recognised university, the University of Bologna. Thomas.W ^talk 11:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, I think this is some kind of WP-specific, euro-centric asininity. It's not "others" who refer to Nalanda, Takshashila, etc. as universities. It's scholars around the world from at least as long ago as 1895, a few decades after Nalanda was identified. So there's nothing "nowadays" or "retroactive" about it. 'University' was used because it fit and there was no other term for it in the English language. Languages grow. Meanings evolve. Anyway, screw it. If you can edit the page to explicitly note in the lead that it is commonly spoken of as a university, then that will be a reasonable compromise. I will incorporate 'Mahavihara' later presumably after having to disambiguate its existing usage and convincing some Sri Lankans. Thanks. Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 13:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

And a pox on whoever thought "ancient higher-learning institution" was a succinct replacement.Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 13:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll add a note about it often being referred to as a university. As for the term being euro-centric I both agree and disagree with you. The term "university" is a European term created to describe the schools of that type that started to appear in the 11th century. The problem isn't the term itself, or its euro-centric origin and use, though, but that it, because of being seen as having a higher status than other terms for institutions of higher-learning, has come to aquire a broader meaning in general use than it originally had. Thomas.W ^talk 13:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you clarify a bit on why the "ancient higher-learning institution" cannot be called a university, commonly Nalanda's ancient school of learning is referred to as University by common man as well as by scholors. So even if we go by majority of sources the ancient school at Nalanda has to be called a University. I disagree with your logic that it doesn't fit the definition. -sarvajna (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Contrary to what many people believe "university" isn't a generic name for institutions of higher learning, regardless of type and age, but a name for a specific European type of such institution, first created with the University of Bologna in 1088 AD (even the term "university" was created with the establishment of the University of Bologna), and then copied all over Europe and eventually all over the world. And since the school at Nalanda doesn't fit the definition of a university, it can't be called a university. Thomas.W ^talk 15:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I can add that there are many European instutions of higher learning, predating the University of Bologna, that aren't called universities either, for the same reasons, ranging from Greek academies that were established almost a thousand years before Nalanda, and similar Roman institutions, to Christian cathedral schools. So there are many very old European schools that aren't called universities either. Thomas.W ^talk 16:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

You are right about that -- it was never considered a university or a secular educational institution. It was always a monastery, hence the name "Nalanda Mahavihara." Only monks were permitted there, and their purpose was largely religious rather than academic. The recasting as a "university" is sloppy and ignores the monastic and religious functions that were most fundamental to the institution. It definitely does not qualify as a university per the basic definitions given in the article University. It was not an open institution of higher learning. It did not issue degrees, or even allow entrance by anyone who was not a Buddhist monk, as far as I can tell. Having an religious academic function does not qualify it as a university. Tengu800 11:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

(I've moved your reply to the bottom for chronological reasons.) This argument is specious. Since when are universities secular institutions? Since when do they have to be "open"? There are plenty of universities that are largely dedicated to religious studies, particularly in the Islamic world (al-Qarawiyyin, for example). It is also incorrect to contend that only monks were permitted in Nalanda. Aryabhata, the mathematician and astronomer, is associated with Nalanda, and possibly headed the observatory there. I am yet to see anything that states that he was a Buddhist monk. And WP's "basic definition" of University is what this conversation is about. Nalanda eminently fits the literal meaning of "community of teachers and scholars". I am unaware of what kind of grading system it had, but there was obviously a system of progressive hierarchy (read qualification) there. And it was an institution of higher education and research imparting an education to possibly 10,000 students at a time. The contentious bit is that Nalanda wasn't part of the modern European enterprise which apparently all universities have to be, which is something I do not agree with. The term university has lost this particular distinction in the real world just as the words Academy or Lyceum have. That said, I am perfectly happy to promote the attachment of the term 'Mahavihara' to Nalanda. But the fact that it is often associated with the term 'university' and considered (one of) the oldest in the world should be noted. Prominently. Thanks. - Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 07:41, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Your definition of "university" is so broad that it has no real meaning at all -- many colleges, vocational schools, and monasteries would qualify as universities. Also, it is not attaching the term "Mahavihara", as though that is something newly-coined. "Nalanda Mahavihara" is the traditional and correct name of this place as it was known in ancient India. The recasting of Nalanda Mahavihara as a university is an modern innovation. Tengu800 01:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to the attachment of 'Mahavihara' in lieu of 'University', i.e., call it Nalanda Mahavihara instead of Nalanda University or the University of Nalanda. Please see my replies to Thomas W above and cf. the article prior to my edits from c. Sep 1. I agree with you that the term Nalanda Mahavihara is the proper term. And it is not "my" definition of university. You will find plenty of people referring to Nalanda as a university. It's real-world and scholarly usage. Please see the links provided above. Also, I don't believe that there's any real confusion between 'university' and 'school'. Although there is considerable overlap, it's a question of scale, scope, and influence. A Mahavihara is not just "a monastery". If anything, it is a collection of monasteries (seeing as to how there was more than one vihara). Couple this with the fact that everything from medicine to town-planning was taught at Nalanda, and you'll be hard-pressed to find any term in English more suitable to describe this Mahavihara than university. In fact, I remember reading someone describe Nalanda as a collection of colleges (viharas) inside a university (mahavihara) which is, IMHO, an interesting (and succinct) real-world analogy to describe the institution. -Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 06:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

ASI number

Is there some prescribed format for including the ASI number to the article? I've currently simply added it (ASI No. N-BR-43) as a "note" in the infobox. (I've since moved it to a freename/freevalue variable.) But I'm hoping that there's a better solution that can potentially link to a page of all ASI monuments, etc. -- Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 10:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Claim that "Historians often characterize Nālandā as a university"

The claim in the lede that "Historians often characterize Nālandā as a university" is not supported by the references given, since only one of those five books was written by a historian specialising in education (Hartmut Scharfe), while the others are/were architects, archaeologists and a specialist in Buddhism as a religion. Meaning that there is only one historian using the term "university" in connection with Nalanda, which is very far from it often being characterised as a university by historians. Some editors might see it as a matter of national pride to describe Nalanda as a university, with eight "colleges", predating the true universities of Europe, instead of describing it as what it was, a "mahavihara" (Pali for "great monastery") with eight viharas, a religious school where both the teachers and the students were Buddhist monks. But Wikipedia isn't about national pride but about describing things as they are or were, and the mahavihara at Nalanda does not in any way fit the definition of a university (see also the discussion about that a bit up this page). Thomas.W ^talk 10:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

(I'm also replying to Thomas' initial message on my talk page.) Firstly, I am not done editing this article. In fact, I am simply getting warmed up (and waiting to get my hands on Sankalia's and Ghosh's books on the subject). Secondly, this is not "national pride" and is about describing things as they are. You just don't seem to like the reality of the situation. Thirdly, I am armed with reliable references. You are not. Anyway, getting to your points. The fact that a "historian specialising in education" has dubbed Nalanda a university should put paid to the kind of unanimity you (and WP) seem to suggest that the term can only be used definitively with the European institution. Furthermore, two of the cited references are written by specialists in education. The other one is Paul Monroe. Dubbing an archaeologist specialising in the subject matter (who also happened to be a Professor of Ancient History at a "university") as a non-historian is frankly, disappointing. Calling architectural historians non-historians is simply laughable. If you don't like Le Phuoc (whom I admit, I am unfamiliar with, but appreciate the detail in his writing), please check another reference used in this article, namely A Global History of Architecture (apparently widely used as a textbook) written by architectural historians (one a dean of architecture at MIT, another a Professor Emeritus of architecture at UW, and a third an architectural historian at UW). Quoting from the book, {tq|"Mahaviharas like Nalanda were multidisciplinary universities devoted not only to the preparation of Buddhist practitioners but also to the study of secular disciplines"}. Also, all teachers and students at Nalanda were not Buddhists. These facts are why Nalanda Mahavihara is still so widely admired. Sukumar Dutt, another historian cited widely in this article routinely calls Nalanda a university and specifically a "university-type Mahavihara". DN Jha, a noted (and infamous) historian calls it a university. (I plan to note his controversial opinions within the "Deline and End" section.) The list is essentially endless. Hmm, and just about each and every person cited is an academic (including Alex Wayman, Professor Emeritus at Columbia University whom you casually brush off as a specialist in Buddhism as a religion) who works/worked (often in a distinguished position) in a university. I daresay that they know exactly what the term means. --Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 19:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Nalanda/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

i've added a couple of images: photos shot by me. i'd like to see this page rise to "featured" standard. any ideas, comments? -- mowglee 14:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 14:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Some useful links

• http://www.shaarique.com/worlds-oldest-university/
• http://www.shunya.net/Pictures/NorthIndia/Nalanda/Nalanda.htm
• http://www.hindubooks.org/temples/bihar/nalanda/page7.htm
• http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha240.htm
• http://buddhism.2be.net/Nalanda_University - This page may have texts similar to us – but, perhaps it is an endorsement of the fact stated in our page by an independent set of people.
• gopetition.co.uk/msg.php?msgid=132131&order=&isearch=&page=3
• http://www.islam-watch.org/AlamgirHussain/Falling_WTC_Islam.htm

--Bhadani 04:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The use of IAST

Hi, I have just finished replacing all instances of Nālandā with plain Nalanda. I've done this solely for reasons of consistency as there were far more instances of Nalanda. But I find the general use of IAST in Wikipedia a little worrying primarily for the fact that it actually promotes mispronunciation and misspelling, a self-defeating result. While it's not much of an issue with a word like Nālandā, it is with words like Śīlabhadra (which is pronounced more like Shilabhadra) and Candrakīrti (~ Chandrakīrti). The average Wikipedia reader is going to pronounce these words as Silabhadra and Kandrakirti (or worse, Sandrakirti), and spell them similarly elsewhere. Śakrāditya is another example from this article. Running a search for Silabhadra outlines the beginnings of a malaise of misspelling on Wikipedia alone. It's probably spread all over the interwebs. The intro to Candrakirti's article explains the issue with IAST's C succinctly. The other problematic consonant is the Ṣ (for ष); see the mangled spelling used for Śāntarakṣita in this article. For this and a bunch of other reasons, I'd prefer to use IAST (and IPA) only as pronunciation guides in the intro of an article and use simple (and mainstream) English equivalents elsewhere. Thoughts? Is there a policy page for this? Thanks. --Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Needs upclassification to B

Request any editor to please carry out a check as per the B-class article checklist so that the next step can be a GA/peer review to showcase this article. AshLin (talk) 13:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Specimen

<!-- B-Class checklist -->

<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. -->

|B-Class-1=no

<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->

|B-Class-2=yes

<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->

|B-Class-3=yes

<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->

|B-Class-4=yes

<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->

|B-Class-5=yes

AshLin (talk) 14:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Vedic studies and Nalanda

Part 1

From Frazier, Jessica, ed. (2011). The Continuum companion to Hindu studies. London: Continuum. p. 34. ISBN 978-0-8264-9966-0.:

> The highly formalized methods of Vedic learning helped to inspire the formation of large teaching centres – effectively India’s first universities. Taxila, Nālandā and Vikramaśīla are the most famous of these, the latter two surviving until the thirteenth century.

Are there any corroborating sources for this opinion? While this statement might have been true for Takshashila, it's a bit of a stretch for the other two Buddhist institutions.

> Such universities taught not only the Vedic texts and the ritual that complemented them, but also the various theoretical disciplines that provided a foundation for these two pillars, the Vedāngas, or sciences (literally ‘limbs’ or ‘supports’), of the Vedas.

@VictoriaGrayson: Re: my revert, IMO, the stress on the "Vedic" component in the lead without mention of the Buddhist curriculum is a misrepresentation. Can all this be added to a dedicated paragraph dealing with the entire curriculum at Nalanda? Some reliable love to the entire curriculum section in the article will also be a great help. Thanks. --Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 09:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

This is an academic book written for other academics. It is a extremely high quality source.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

This is about its inclusion in the lead, not the article itself. Nalanda was chiefly a Buddhist institution. Without ample importance given to its Buddhist curriculum, it cannot be misrepresented as some sort of Vedic institution.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 16:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

You may think you are smarter than scholars, but that's not how we edit Wikipedia. The book describes them as Vedic institutions, without any mention of Buddhism.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

(And thus your ad hominems begin …) If you're actually contending (by proxy) that Nalanda was not a Buddhist institution, then I can only assume that you're "drive-by-editing" and recommend that you read through the authoritative sources on the Mahavihara included in the article rather than relying on a couple of lines taken out of context in a book about Hinduism. Note that the line in question here is already part of the (incomplete) curriculum section and my objection is to its inclusion in the lead without noting the primary and Buddhist components of the curriculum.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

You consider others to be drive by editors since you have WP:OWN issues. And the book is about Hindu studies, not Hinduism. It's a book written for other scholars. The sources you use in this article are dubious.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I consider you a drive-by editor since you appear to believe that Nalanda is some sort of a Vedic Hindu institution and not a Buddhist one (as stated in the very first line of this article). This is contrary to all the sources including the non-authoritative one that you are cherry-picking lines out of and misinterpreting. Consequently, pushing this POV of yours into the top of the lead without taking cognisance of the rest of the article that the WP:LEAD is supposed to summarise is both irresponsible and wrong. Stating that the sources that are in use are dubious is not helpful either when you don't list any that contend that Nalanda is a Buddhist Mahavihara. And again, neither your preferred reference nor your preferred line are being removed from the article. The line is question already exists in the article. It is its inclusion in the lead that is in question.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 12:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

For the lead:

All students at Nalanda studied Mahayana as well as the texts of the eighteen sects of Buddhism. Their curriculum also included other subjects such as the Vedas, Logic, Grammar, Philology, Medicine, Samkhya, law, astronomy, and city-planning.

The supporting references including the Continuum Companion are in the Curriculum section. Both Dutt and Sankalia paraphrase the following from Hwui-Li:

The priests, belonging to the convent, or strangers (residing therein) all study the Great Vehicle, and also the works belonging to the eighteen (Hinayana) sects, and not only so, but even ordinary works such as the Vedas and other books, the Hetuvidyā (Logic), Śabdavidyā (Grammar and Philology), Cikitsāvidyā, the works on magic (Atharva-veda), Sānkhya (system of philosophy).

--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 16:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• See WP:VNT. It doesn't matter that you personally feel the source is wrong.
• There is no cherrypicking. The book doesn't mention Nalanda is Buddhist anywhere else.
• You continuously calling others drive-by editors, just further proves your WP:OWN issues.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I am not calling the source wrong (although I am certainly calling it non-authoritative here). I'm calling it incomplete for this article as it does not mention that Buddhism was the primary subject of study. It is a false syllogism to conclude from the fact that Frazier does not state that Nalanda (or Takshashila or Vikramashila) was a Buddhist institution that it was not one or that it was Vedic. She only mentions that Vedic texts were studied there and nothing more (as her book is on Hinduism and this is the only thing pertinent). Therefore your edit which coloured Nalanda as some sort of Vedic University was similarly incomplete. Yes, the vedas were studied at Nalanda and the source for Frazier's statement (which she does not note) is very likely the Hwui-Li quote included above and as you can see, Mahayana and then Hinayana were the main topics studied. And I have attempted above to correct this perception. And no, I do not have WP:OWN issues as evident from the fact that I've repeatedly requested you to expand and fix the curriculum section (and then summarise it) in both this talk page ("Some reliable love to the entire curriculum section in the article will also be a great help.") and in my edit messages. Thanks.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 18:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

You say you are not calling the source wrong, but then you do clearly call it wrong. You say you don't have WP:OWN issues, but you are deleting sourced material you don't agree with, edit warring, calling others drive-by editors and giving orders to support your POV.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I am calling your interpretation of it wrong and calling the source non-authoritative with respect to the other sources which deal specifically with Nalanda. If I thought that the source was wrong, then I would also be objecting to its use elsewhere in the article. I am not deleting sourced material as the material (including the line in question) from the same source exists elsewhere in the article. Furthermore my proposed edit above effectively cites the same line from the same source prepended by another line supported by authoritative and reliable sources which clarify the statement further and provide the context that is required. And I am not edit-warring as we are on Talk here discussing the issue and trying to reach consensus. By discussing the issue, I am also not ordering anyone to do anything. If you feel that we are unlikely to reach consensus on this issue, the please let me know and we can bring in a third party to mediate or take it further to whichever avenue Wikipedia proposes for dealing with situations like this.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 18:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

This book looks quite fishy to me. It certainly doesn't meet the requirements of WP:HISTRS because the articles are not signed by the authors. Only two of the contributors are historians (as far as I can tell) and many others probably aren't. The publisher is relatively unknown, and they didn't acquire the copyright of the book despite calling the book "Continuum Companion." So, this source needs to be used with great caution. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Part 2

Frazier herself describes it as "Nalanda, a renowned Buddhist university established by the Guptas in the fifth century CE" on p. 269. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

1. facepalm! I wish I'd noticed that earlier and saved myself all this typing. And I see that VG has (as expected) simply ignored your statement completely and chosen another angle of attack … --Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 13:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

(A couple of lines later, Frazier calls Ashoka the son of Chandragupta Maurya …)--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 13:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Cpt.a.haddock, describing Frazier as non-authoritative is absurd. Your source of Hwui-Li is actually a primary source, and should be deleted. Wikipedia uses secondary sources. See WP:WPNOTRS.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Dutt and Sankalia (and many others who talk about this) cite Hwui-Li and paraphrase that quote in their books. I clearly state this right above the quote where I say "Both Dutt and Sankalia paraphrase the following from Hwui-Li:". I have not cited Hwui-Li directly, but cited Dutt and Sankalia.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 13:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@AmritasyaPutra and Sdmarathe:Please take a look.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I also find it very peculiar that Frazier only mentions the Vedic part of the curriculum, and doesn't even mention that Nalanda was a Buddhist University. To mention only this Vedic part of the curriculum in the lead is like writing an article on a psychology department, and only mention in the lead that they teach statistics. The lead should mention the core (Buddhist) curriculum, if any mention of the curriculum is to be made in the lead. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The lead should present a summary of the article. To give undue weight to one aspect of the curriculum might be misleading. JimRenge (talk) 07:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree. (Far above,) I proposed the following sentences (now slightly tweaked further) for inclusion in the lead:

"All students at Nalanda studied Mahayana as well as the texts of the eighteen (Hinayana) sects of Buddhism. Their curriculum also included other subjects such as the Vedas, Logic, Grammar, Philology, Medicine, Samkhya, law, astronomy, and city-planning."

This IMO summarises the (referenced) curriculum section in the article's body adequately and can perhaps be expanded further to include a list of some of the luminaries at Nalanda and their contributions.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 13:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I think your proposed text is acceptable. Please consider to remove the word "All", unless it is mentioned in the source. JimRenge (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@JimRenge: Both Dutt and Sankalia specifically use the word all.

Dutt:

Irrespective of their special subjects, they all had to study Mahayana philosophy.

Sankalia:

But there were some subjects which almost all the students had to study, which in a sense were "compulsory" as we now understand the term. Being primarily a religious institution, Nalanda had made Theology compulsory for all the students. And knowledge of theology meant a thorough grasp of all the works on Mahayana besides acquaintance with all the eighteen schools of Buddhism.

This is based on Hwui-Li (see quote far above) who states that "all" had to study the Great Vehicle. I have added the text to the lead.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment on "The highly formalized methods of Vedic learning helped to inspire the formation of large teaching centres – effectively India’s first universities. Taxila, Nālandā and Vikramaśīla are the most famous of these, the latter two surviving until the thirteenth century."

• Taxila was a center of learning even in Gautam Buddha's time, thus its origin can be regarded as pre-Buddhist. It decayed long before the rise of Nalanda. Early Taxila was probably not an organized university but rather a center where many teachers lived and taught.
• Nālandā and Vikramaśīla are two of the five famous universities supported by the Pala rulers. Others were Odantapuri, Somapuri and Jagaddala.
• Buddhist learning at Nalanda relied heavily on the use of written books. Traditional Vedic learning used oral transmission, a tradition that has continued to our time.

Malaiya (talk)

Deletion of material by IP

• Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism's entry on Nalanda: "the Vedas and Hindu philosophical schools, as well as mathematics, grammar, logic, and medicine."
• Continuum Companion to Hindu Studies: "Such universities taught not only the Vedic texts and the ritual that complemented them, but also the various theoretical disciplines that provided a foundation for these two pillars, the Vedāngas, or sciences (literally ‘limbs’ or ‘supports’), of the Vedas. These included linguistics, reasoning (hetu, literally, ‘causes’), medicine, law, astronomy and city-planning."
• Cambridge World History Vol. 5. "Vedas, philosophy, and secular sciences such as logic, Sanskrit grammar, and medicine"
• Buddhist Monks and Monasteries of India: "Vedas and other books, the Heuvidya (Logic), Sabdavidya (Grammar and Philology), Cikitsavidya (Medicine), the works on Magic (Athara-Veda), Sankhya (system of philosophy)"VictoriaGrayson^Talk 02:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

the burning of the libraries in 1193 - Turkish genocide denial

The current revision has deleted all mention of the genocide at Nalanda and the burning of the libraries. In its place, it now claims the Buddhists killed themselves and burned down their own library. Can someone please restore the previous version?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.228.9 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

There is some mention now under Decline and destruction - I came for details of Nalanda: 9 Million Books Burnt in 1193 by Bakhtiyar Khilji to see what evidence there was. Where did the number of 9 million come from ? That section now seems to down play any death and destruction and now ends "Johan Elverskog, a scholar of Central Asia, Islam and Buddhism, professor and chair of religious studies at SMU, looking at the wider reasons for Nalanda's cline as cultural centre, and how it's used in certain anti-Islamic rhetorics, talks of local Buddhists making deals with Muslim rulers early on, which assured that Buddhic activities in Nalanda went on for centuries : he says that one Indian master "was trained and ordained at Nalanda before he traveled to the court of Khubilai Khan", Chinese monks were travelling there to get texts as late as the fourteenth century, and concludes that "the Dharma survived in India at least until the seventeenth century." He mainly blames British historiography, which used these "claims of Muslim barbarity and misrule in order to justify the introduction of their supposedly more humane and rational form of colonial rule",..." - What do other historians say ? - Rod57 (talk) 15:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)\

I have not yet seen another historian respond to Elverskog's work but I do recall a controversy between D.N. Jha and Arun Shourie over this very issue a couple years before that book was published I think. In any event Elverskog in completely open about his political beliefs in his book. He has perfectly clear motives for denying Khilij's responsibility for Nalanda's destruction. While I would be curious to know how he gets around Dharmasvamin's biography in particular, I have difficult time reading sophistry (which is what I personally think you would have to resort to in order to claim that Dharmasvamin was either lying, wasn't talking about Khilij's army, or that Khilij's attack had no destructive impact on the place). I can only assume that actual historians who disagree with Elverskog probably feel the same way. 96.233.134.156 (talk) 06:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC) A

Nalanda reconstructions

How did the temples and the monasteries of Nalanda look like back in Pala period? I have seen these reconstructions:

• Conjectural reconstruction of Temple 3 Source?
• 3D reconstruction of Temple 3
• 3D reconstruction of a monastary
• 3D reconstruction of Temple 12?

Temple 3 appears to be an enigma. If it was originally a stupa with a sacred relic inside, how can people be permitted to climb over it? Malaiya (talk) 01:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

how many collections

Under curriculum it implies there were more than "50 collections of sutras and shastras". They don't seem to be mentioned elsewhere in the article. How many collections were there (at that time) ? Were the collections named or classified ? How big were they ? What did they consist of ? - Rod57 (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Misquote

"However, according to the archaeologists Krishna Deva and VS Agarwala, evidence reveals a 'complex history of destruction, abandonment and reoccupation' at Nalanda that pre-dated the arrival of Muslims." The source says that this is a reference to only two of the monasteries that were at Nalanda. Here it is misquoted in reference to the entire site (and with an obvious ulterior motive). If I get no response I will remove the portion I quoted. 96.233.134.156 (talk) 05:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC) A