A HISTORIOGRAPHICAL REVIEW ON NĀLANDĀ MAHĀVIHĀRA: CHINESE,

PERSIAN, ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOURCES AND THE ROLE OF “NĀLANDĀ

TRADITION” OF TIBETAN BUDDHISM

A
Dissertation
Submitted
by
FERNANDO JOSÉ BENETTI
in partial fulfillment of
the requirement for the degree
of
MASTER OF ARTS
IN
BUDDHIST STUDIES, PHILOSOPHY AND COMPARATIVE RELIGIONS

Supervised
by
DR. ALEKSANDRA WENTA

SCHOOL OF BUDDHIST STUDIES, PHILOSOPHY AND COMPARATIVE

RELIGIONS
NĀLANDĀ UNIVERSITY
RAJGIR, NALANDA-803 116
BIHAR, INDIA
May 2018
 2

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that this dissertation entitled “A HISTORIOGRAPHICAL REVIEW

ON NĀLANDĀ MAHĀVIHĀRA: CHINESE, PERSIAN, ARCHAEOLOGICAL

SOURCES AND THE ROLE OF “NĀLANDĀ TRADITION” OF TIBETAN

BUDDHISM” is a bonafide record of research done by me during the course of

research and that the dissertation has not previously formed the basis for the award of

any degree, diploma, fellowship or other similar title, of any other University or

Society.

Rajgir FERNANDO JOSÉ BENETTI

Date: 02/05/2018 Admn. Id: 030116001

 3

CERTIFICATE

We the undersigned members of the dissertation advisory committee of Mr. /Ms.

FERNANDO JOSE BENETTI (030116001) a candidate for the degree of Master of
Arts agree that this dissertation entitled “A HISTORIOGRAPHICAL REVIEW ON
NĀLANDĀ MAHĀVIHĀRA: CHINESE, PERSIAN, ARCHAEOLOGICAL
SOURCES AND THE ROLE OF “NĀLANDĀ TRADITION” OF TIBETAN
BUDDHISM” may be submitted by Mr. /Ms. FERNANDO JOSÉ BENETTI
(030116001) in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree.

DR. ALEKSANDRA WENTA

Supervisor

DR. SUKHBIR SINGH

Dean
School of Buddhist Studies,
Philosophy, and Comparative Religions,
Nālandā University.
 4

Table of Contents

Abstract .............................................................................................................................6

Introduction ......................................................................................................................7

Chapters:

1 – The theory of the emergence of Nālandā mahāvihāra in 427 CE…………..…...…10

2 – “Nālandā Tradition” and the Masters of the “International University”……….. …21

3 – The theory of the destruction by fire ……………………………………….…...…39

Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………..………46

Bibliography ……………………………………………….…………………………..50

Appendixes:

1 – The Intellectual networks of the 17 Nālandā Masters…………..…………..…...…55

2 – The Sanskrit original manuscripts and Tibetan translations of the treatises of the 17

Nālandā Masters ………………………………………………………………....…….82

3 – Interview with Ven. Geshe Dorji Dambdul - 18/12/2017 – Tibet House – New

Delhi………………………………………………………………………….………...83

4 – A bibliographical review on the history of Nālandā mahāvihāra by the historians

and archaeologists (1850 – 2016)……………………………………………………..103

 5

Acknowledgment

I would like to acknowledge my immense gratitude to all the beautiful beings who have
been sharing the steps of my path. To my supervisor and kalyāṇa-mitra, Aleksandra
Wenta, for her immense patience and beautiful teachings. She is a great source of
inspiration for myself. Also special gratitude for all the SBS faculty of Nālandā
University. To my soul sister Jéssica for her unmatched friendship and constant
partnership. To my parents and sisters for their unconditional support and eternal love.
To my dear Nālandā friends: Himadri, Gaurav, Sourajit, Sanjivani, Nupur, Tu Quang,
Van, Shatarupa, Turzo, Pradeep, Shubham, Aditya, Lien, Christina, Maria, Paola,
Manuel, among others. To my dear friend Rohit Forbes, who is always with me.
My gratitude also to Nālandā University, for having provided me the necessary support
for these two years of studies in India. As well, my gratitude for Tibet House and my
dear Professor Venerable Geshe Dorji Dambdul La. I especially would like to
acknowledge my gratitude to my spiritual mentor Guilherme França, without him I
would not have started this path towards the nature of mind. Special gratitude to my
spiritual gurus, who guide my spiritual path from both the nirmāṇakāya and
saṃbhogakāya conditions.

To Jesus, the brother

To Buda, the teacher
To Shiva, the partner.

The crazy diamond keeps shining!

I bow my head to the 17 Nālandā Masters, and pray for them to let me penetrate
within the secrets of their infinite knowledge.

When Everything is Ready –

Quando tudo aqui já estiver pronto When everything here is ready

Que meu Pai vier receber When my father comes to receive
Tenho palmas de flores para dar I have bunches of flowers to offer
Minha boca para agradecer And my mouth to thank

Eu agradeço a minha Mãe I thank to my mother

Agradeço de coração I am heart-fully grateful
Agradecendo todos primores I thank all the goodness
Que depositou em minha mãos That she deposited in my hands

Padrinho Sebastião – Santo Daime – Hymn nº 5 – Nova Jerusalém

 6

Abstract

The objective of the present dissertation is to provide a historiographical review

of the academic literature on Nālandā mahāvihāra produced by Indian and European

historians and archaeologists from the late 19th century until today. While reading the

academic work of those scholars, it is evident that they preferred Chinese and

archaeological sources over the Tibetan ones. Scholars treated these sources as a way

for legitimizing their assumptions about the history of Nālandā without the necessary

historical contextualization of space and time. This dissertation inquiries into the

limitations of the Chinese and archaeological sources, and presents the material from

the Tibetan sources as a possible ways to bring new insights for the continuity of this

academic field. Among the Tibetan sources, I give special attention to the investigation

of the “Nālandā Tradition” of Tibetan Buddhism and the list of “17 Nālandā masters”,

which are the living continuities of the intellectual legacies of Nālandā mahāvihāra in

the context of the 21st century CE. Overall, this dissertation brings up insights that may

contribute to deconstructing the older assumptions about the history of Nālandā

advanced by the scholars of the past. The intention here is not to invalidate the work of

those intellectuals. On the contrary, I always acknowledge their contributions but

criticize them from unusual perspectives that may contribute to reveal the alternative

interpretations for the same facts.

Keywords: Nālandā mahāvihāra; historiography; Nālandā Tradition; Tibetan Buddhism.

 7

Introduction

The academic research on the history of Nālandā mahāvihāra has been for the

past one hundred years primarily undertaken by Indian and European historians and

archaeologists. The objective of this dissertation is to track how these scholars have

been narrating the history of this educational institution from its beginnings until its

destruction. In a general sense, Nālandā mahāvihāra is known as an Indian Buddhist

monastic center of education whose seeds were planted during the time of the Buddha

and whose tree has grown up to the present moment, configuring around 2.500 years of

history. Emerging from around the 4th century CE as the “head office”, repository, and

authoritative center of Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna, it was a place of passage and

transcultural encounters where students and scholars used to come from and go to

places such as China, Korea, Tibet, and Sumatra to study and disseminate the

philosophical, scientific, and religious legacies of Nālandā.1 The main philosophical

schools of Mahāyāna – Mādhyamaka, Yogācāra, and Pramāna –, and the Tantric

literature, were composed, studied, and debated at Nālandā mahāvihāra up to the 12th

centuries CE. In the material dimension, Nālandā mahāvihāra was systematically

destroyed from the 12th century CE, abandoned from the 14th century CE, and nowadays

remains as an archaeological site in the village of Bargaon, in Bihar, India. In the

immaterial dimension, the intellectual legacies of Nālandā mahāvihāra did not perish,

but continued to live up to the present moment. The missionary work held by the

Nālandā Masters could not have been more successful anywhere else than in Tibet,

where Buddhists preserved the legacies of Nālandā mahāvihāra through generations

from the 8th century CE until nowadays. If, during the approximate 800 years that

1
Kumar, 2010: 108
 8

separates the 13th and 20th centuries CE, the physical structures of Nālandā mahāvihāra

were facing destruction, in the secluded Tibet, the “Nālandā Tradition” was serving as

the solid ground for the emergence and development of the four schools of Tibetan

Buddhism (Gelug, Kagyü, Sakya and Nyingma).2

From the analysis of the available literature developed by historians and

archaeologists on the history of Nālandā mahāvihāra, it is evident that they came up

with the theory that Nālandā was an “International University” created in 427 CE by the

Guptas and destroyed in 1127 CE by Bakhtiyar Khilji. This theory became the standard

narrative accepted widely around the world. For the writing of this version of the history

of Nālandā, these scholars have primarily used the archaeological remains and Chinese

accounts and left aside the Tibetan indigenous sources. From my perspective, the

Tibetan accounts, as well as the “Nālandā Tradition” of Tibetan Buddhism, are rich

primary sources whose insights about the history of Nālandā mahāvihāra remain

unexplored by scholarship until nowadays.

This dissertation has three chapters. The first chapter concentrates on discussing

how these scholars wrote the history of Nālandā mahāvihāra for the period between 5th

century BCE and 5th century CE. The main objective of this chapter will be to challenge

the established narrative that Nālandā mahāvihāra was non-existent before the 5th

century CE. I sustain that Nālandā was already there before the 5th century as a minor-

scale educational institution. I develop my argument through the analysis of the Chinese

primary sources, from the understanding of the historical context of Buddhism in India

during the period in question, and through the critical engagement in the discourse

created by the Buddhist Studies scholars and the Tibetan sources. The second chapter is

analyzing the period between 5th and 12th centuries CE, and its main intention is to

2
Dalai Lama, 2011: 16.
 9

rethink the association of Nālandā with the concept of “University”. Moreover, the

second chapter tries to understand what Tibetan Buddhism believes to be the “Nālandā

Tradition” as a rich source to understand the intellectual history of Nālandā

mahāvihāra. One of the unfoldings of this “tradition” is the list of “17 Nālandā

Masters”, developed by His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama in 2001. I acknowledge this

list as a valuable primary source to understand the philosophical developments of

Nālandā mahāvihāra from the 1st to 8th centuries CE. Finally, in the third chapter I will

discuss how contemporary scholars created the theory of destruction of Nālandā

mahāvihāra by fire during the 12th century CE, and in sequence I will propose a

deconstruction of this theory from my reading of the same primary sources.

This dissertation aims to propose a critical review of the historiography on

Nālandā mahāvihāra, offering an overview on the current theories of emergence,

existence, and destruction of Nālandā, and exploring alternative reading of the primary

sources than the ones read by historians and archaeologists for the past 100 years.

Within these delimitations, the intention of my critique is not to dismiss or demoralize

the importance of the literary or archaeological primary sources. On the contrary, I

acknowledge the importance of these sources and push their interpretation further. I

believe that this approach makes it possible to discover hidden aspects of the history of

Nālandā mahāvihāra that remained unexplored so far. By so doing, I hope to inspire my

colleagues at Nālandā University to start undertaking research about the history of

Nālandā mahāvihāra systematically. This would certainly give an intellectual “push” in

direction of reviving the old mahāvihāra in the 21st century CE.

 10

Chapter 1 –

The theory of the emergence of Nālandā mahāvihāra in 427 CE.

The discovery of the archaeological sites in India, especially that of Nālandā

mahāvihāra, started with the advent of European researchers who came to India in the

late 19th century CE. More specifically in 1857, the British scholar Alexander

Cunningham got hold of the publication of Stanislas Julien’s French translation of the

account of the Chinese pilgrim Hiuen-Tsiang (602 – 664 CE). In this account, which

narrates a seventeen years long pilgrimage from China to India (629 – 646 CE), Hiuen-

Tsiang records his travels and eventually mentions his stay at Nālandā mahāvihāra.

Inspired by this literature, Cunningham came to India, founded the ASI (Archaeological

Survey of India) and started to reconstruct the routes of Hiuen-Tsiang.3 In 1862,

following the indications of the Chinese traveler, he carried out superficial excavations

in the region of contemporary Bargaon and identified the site as the ancient Nālandā

mahāvihāra.4 Cunningham published his initial investigations in 1871, along with a

diagram entitled “Sketch of the ruins of Nālandā mahāvihāra” showing the spatial

distribution of the site.5

After the discovery of the archaeological site of Nālandā, Indian and European

scholars began combining bibliographical and archaeological material of the history of

Nālandā mahāvihāra. The first generation of academics had in hands two kinds of

primary sources. First, the historical accounts of the Chinese missionary travelers Fa-

Hien, I-Tsing, and Hiuen-Tsiang that got translated into English by Legge in 1886,

3
Abu, 1963: 194.
4
Stewart, 1989: 5.
5
Cunningham, 1871: 28.
 11

Takakusu in 1896, and Beal in 1906, respectively. In 1914, Beal also translated the

biography of Hiuen-Tsiang by his disciple Hwui Li. Second, between 1915 and 1934,

the first formal archaeological excavations were carried out by the ASI.6 This survey

revealed a whole range of stupas, vihāras, chaityas, together with valuable inscriptions,

royal coins, and sculptures, the majority from the Gupta and Pāla dynasties dating from

the 4th century CE to the 12th century CE.7 8

The argument:

With these primary sources in hand, the senior scholars of the field strived to

come up with a theory for the foundation of the mahāvihāra. The verdict of Broadley

(1872), Sammadar (1927), Heras (1928), Kuraishi (1931), Ghosh (1939), Sastri (1941),

and others, is that the Gupta kings created Nālandā mahāvihāra in 427 CE from the

ground. To understand how they substantiated this assumption, we need to separate

their claim into parts.

Scholars seem to have started to credit the idea of the non-existence of any

educational institution in the village of Nālandā before the 5th century CE based on

account of the Chinese pilgrim Fa-Hien.9 This traveler, who visited the Magadha region

between 405 – 411 CE, says:

6
ASI has conducted excavations in several phases, the earliest in 1915 and the most recent in
1983. Excavated under the superintendence of: D. Spooner (1915–19), H. Sastri (1919–21), J.
Page (1921–29), M. Kuraishi (1928–30), G. C. Chandra (1932–36), N. Nazim (1936–37), A.
Ghosh (1937–38), and V. K. Misra, B. Nath, B. S. Jha (1973–83) (See in: Singh, 2010: 51–60).
7
Ghosh, 1936: 45,46.
8
The most significant remains found during this period were Devapala’s Cooper-plate
(describing the erecting of a vihāra at Nālandā by Balaputradeva, the king of Suvarṇadvīpa –
Sumatra) and one inscription of Yaśovarmann (728 – 745 CE) (possibly a patron of Nālandā
during the referred period) (See in: Sastri, 1923: 310).
9
Broadley, 1872: 2.
 12

One yojana south-west from Giriek brought them to the village

of Nalo, where Śāriputra was born, and to which also he
returned and attained here his parinirvāṇa. Over the spot, there
was built a stupa which is still in existence.10

Markham Kittoe was probably the first scholar to associate “Nalo” with

“Nālandā”.11 Visiting the Bargaon region in around 1847, he observed that this “Nalo”,

which was about one yojana from Giriek (old Rājagṛha), was about the same distance

that Hiuen-Tsiang accounted Nālandā to be distant from (new) Rājagṛha.12 In 1860,

when Vasilei and Schiefer translated Rgya gar chos ’byung (History of Buddhism in

India), the Tibetan traditional account of Tāranātha, into Russian and German, it came

to the fore that this author agreed that Nālandā was the same place as the birthplace of

Śāriputra.13 This evidence strengthened the theory in question, and we can perceive this

fact from Vasilei’s “Preface” for Tāranātha’s Russian translation: “Nālandā, which later

became so famous, had been an insignificant place at the time of Fa-hien”.14

Arriving at the conclusion of the first excavations of the archaeological site in

1934, the assumption that Fa-Hien went to Nālandā and nothing was there during the

early 5th century, so far based only upon the literary accounts, received archaeological

legitimation. Excavations have not revealed anything which would suggest the

occupation of the site before the Guptas. The earliest datable findings are the cooper-

plate of Samudragupta (ca. 350 – 375)15 and the coin of Kumaragupta (ca. 411 – 455).16

The archaeological site contrasted drastically with the place described by Fa-Hien,

10
Legge, 1886: 81.
11
Rajani, 2016: 1.
12
Legge, 1886: 81.
13
Chattopadhyaya, 1970: 101.
14
Chattopadhyaya, 1970: 460.
15
Singh, 2013: 31.
16
Ghosh, 1939: 40.
 13

because there were dozens of large and well-elaborated ruins of vihāras and chaityas.

Then, if there was nothing there before the 5th century CE, as Fa-Hien said, and if the

earliest material sources found at the archaeological site are of the Gupta origin, the

scholars logically arrived to the conclusion that the enterprise of erecting those many

monuments must have been the work of the kings of that Gupta dynasty.17 This theory

seemed to be plausible enough if it was not the case that Hiuen-Tsiang attests to

different names for the royal “founders” of the mahāvihāra:

Not long after the nirvana of Buddha, a former king of this

country named Sakraditya respected and esteemed the one
Vehicle, and honored very highly the three treasures. Having
selected by augury a lucky spot, he built the saṅghārāma of
Nālandā.18

His successors: Buddhagupta, Tathāgatagupta, Balāditya, and Vajra, built

monasteries nearby. The true identity of these kings is unknown, but because

archaeologists found in the archaeological site coins of Narasimha-Gupta bearing the

title of “Balāditya”, scholars such as Heras and Sammadar asserted that those kings

accounted by the Chinese missionaries were in reality epithets for the Gupta Kings. 19

With this: Sakraditya was Kumaragupta I (411 – 455), Buddhagupta was Skandagupta

(455 – 470 CE), Tathāgatagupta was Puragupta (467 - ? CE), Balāditya was

Narasiṃhagupta (470 – 5-- CE), and Vajra was Kumaragupta II.20 21

17
Ghosh, 1939: 41.
18
Beal, 1906: 168.
19
Heras, 1928: 2.
20
Heras, 1928: 1.
21
Sammadar, 1927: 118.
 14

Acknowledging the fact that Narasimhagupta was active at around 502 CE,

Heras concludes that the date of the foundation of Nālandā was around 427 CE. He

makes this claim relying on the basic mathematics accounts:

To calculate the date of the foundation of Nālandā, we take 25

years of reign on an average to the first four kings mentioned
by Hiuen-Tsiang. We know that Baladitya-raja was
contemporary of Mihirakula whose reign began in 502 CE.
Taking also this year as the initial year of the reign of Baladitya
and following the calculation, we reach the year 427 as the
initial year of Sakraditya's reign. Accordingly, the foundation
of Nālandā took place around 427.22

Then, at around 1930, the claim that “Gupta kings created Nālandā mahāvihāra

in 427 CE from the ground” became the authoritative explanation for the “foundation”

of the educational institution. No one after Heras seems to have critically analyzed the

reliability of this theory during the past century. Rather, scholars have continuously

repeated the words of their seniors as if that was the truth of what happened.

The counter-argument:

I believe that this claim of the erection of Nālandā mahāvihāra from the ground

in 427 CE by the Guptas can be deconstructed by the investigation of the historical

context of the period in question and by the revision of the same primary sources that

founded such assumptions. First, the available archaeological sources do not represent a

definite picture for the beginning of the activities at the place. Even though most of

these sources do not suggest occupation at the place before the Guptas, this situation can

easily change after further excavations on the site.23

22
Idem, Ibiden: 3.
23
Kumar, 2016: 95.
 15

Second, most of the accounts of the places visited by Fa-Hien are often sketchy

and brief. Many of his narratives contain nothing but what he has heard, and he

constantly repeats legends.24 Except for general remarks, he does not give any

substantial information about Buddhist monasteries apart from a very few of those in

Patna.25 With this in mind, the question arises: How much can this source be a reliable

narration of the 5th century Indian Buddhism as it existed in Nālandā? As for the

association of Nālandā with a birthplace of Śāriputra, the topic is not a consensus. The

Sudassana Jataka, for example, says that the right place for the birth and death of this

disciple of the Buddha was “Nalaka”.26 Observing from this perspective, I may suggest

that a possible reason why Fa-Hien fails to acknowledge the existence of educational

monasteries at Nālandā was not that they did not exist, but because he heard about the

place and probably never went there.

Third, apart from the Chinese accounts, the first generation of scholars in

question had also access to Tāranātha’s Rgya gar chos ’byung. Tāranātha’s account

presents a three hundred fifty pages account where we can find a rich narrative about all

the periods of existence of Nālandā, Vikramaśilā, Odantapurī, and others, up to the 12th

century CE. Although the importance of this account is evident, scholarship on Nālandā

mahāvihāra seldom took into consideration Tāranātha’s versions of the facts for the

period between 1st and 5th centuries CE at Nālandā.27 Although they straightforwardly

24
Sankalia, 1934: 39.
25
Legge, 1886: 78.
26
Sankalia, 1934: 38.
27
One of the reasons why scholars failed to give proper attention to this account may have
happened because it was available only in Russian and German languages until 1970, when the
English translation came into existence. The fact that Tāranātha’s account received English
translation only at 1970 is symptomatic. Indigenous sources were continuously dismissed by
early colonialist scholars as fanciful fabrications lacking in necessary elements to be considered
a “history”. Denying that there was any reliable indigenous source for the history of Nālandā,
scholars turned to the Chinese sources, imagining them to be much more reliable, because of
their eyewitness element. Then, Tāranātha’s influence remained peripheral inside the field
 16

accepted his view to legitimate Fa-Hien’s association of Nālandā with Śāriputra, other

parts of his narrative were never mentioned. For example, Tāranātha says that Aśoka

(ca. 3rd century BCE) might have been the “founder of the first vihāra at Nālandā”, and

the institution might have already been sufficiently important to receive the whole

corpus of the early Mahāyāna sūtras at around the 1st century CE.28 Moreover, 108

temples were built at Nālandā by a Brahmana called Suviṣṇu during Nāgārjuna’s period

(ca. 2nd century CE), and a minister called Kakuta-Siddha may have also built a

monastery during the same period.29

Fourth, contemporary Buddhist Studies scholars convey the scenario of a unique

intellectual effervescence of ideas for the Indian historical context of Buddhism

between the 1st and 5th centuries CE.30 With the arrival of the 1st century CE, the

monasteries, which were originally incepted by the Buddha as abode-retreat for monks,

also became educational institutions. Originally, they were intended to convey doctrinal

instruction to be followed only by monks.31 This particular emphasis started to outweigh

during this period onwards and vihāras slowly evolved into mahāvihāras, or “seats of

learning”.32 What characterizes this transformation is the fact that, although the study

of Buddhism remained mandatory, a wide range of secular subjects such as

during the whole process of creating the standard narrative for the emergence, existence, and
destruction of Nālandā. In 1970 scholars had already a clear theory for the whole history of
Nālandā. As this author brings many elements which goes against the claims advanced by
scholars about the Nālandā history, Tāranātha’s contribution remains hidden until today. The
indigenous accounts certainly carry limitations, such as lack of historical precision, magical
stories, etc, but still Tāranātha brings dozens of names of philosophers and siddhas who lived
between the 1st and 12th centuries CE, as well as the names of historical places, events, cultural
and doctrinal elements and daily life, etc. (See: Chattopadhyaya, 1970: xii).
28
Chattopadhyaya, 1970: 101.
29
Chattopadhyaya, 1970: 141.
30
Sankalia, 1934: 5.
31
Dutt, 1956: 182.
32
Steven, 1971: 347.
 17

mathematics, astronomy, poetry, etc. started to be taught not only to monks but also to

lay students planning to resume their householder status after completing their studies.33

The elements presented above might have been forming the intellectual environment of

the pre-Nālandā mahāvihāra period. For the Tibetan historians, such as Tāranātha and

Bu Ston, the most important masters who lived at Nālandā during the period before the

5th century CE, were the composers of the root-texts of the philosophical schools of

Mahāyāna Buddhism: Nāgārjuna, Āryadeva, Asaṅga, Vasubandhu, and Dignāga.34

Starting from the 1st century CE onwards, these masters are said to have strived to

create philosophical lore out of the sectarian knowledge by inquiring into the canonical

scriptures of Mahāyāna.35 At the beginning of the 5th century CE, their intellectual

contributions formed the literary structure of the Buddhist curriculum of Nālandā

mahāvihāra, composed by the study of Logic (Pramāṇa), Philosophy (Mādhyamaka and

Yogācāra), and Buddhist practice (Mahāyāna Buddhism). In this context, we observe

that during the period between 1st and 5th centuries CE, Buddhist institutions were

passing through an evident expansion of ideas and horizons. This fact renders difficult

to believe that this institution, whose fame as the “head office” of Mahāyāna Buddhism

expanded up to the 12th century CE, could be non-existent before the 5th century CE.

Finally, the fifth element, which deconstructs the claim of the non-existence of

Nālandā before the Guptas comes from Hiuen-Tsiang’s account. The Chinese traveler is

very clear that the six monarchs, the “founders” of Nālandā, lived and ruled close to the

time of the Buddha. Before the referred passage of the foundation of the institution, the

Chinese account says:

33
Kumar, 2010: 98.
34
Chattopadhyaya, 1970: 106, 123, 149, 176; Obermiller, 1931: 122, 130, 136, 149.
35
Sankalia, 1934: 6.1
 18

The site [of Nālandā] was originally an Amra garden. Five

hundred merchants bought it for ten kotis of gold pieces and
gave it to Buddha. Buddha preached the law here during three
months, and the merchants and others obtained the fruit of
holiness. Not long after the nirvana of Buddha, a former king
of this country named Sakraditya […] 36

Interestingly enough, in the biography of Hiuen-Tsiang, Hwui Lui says that

Nālandā was founded 700 years before Hiuen-Tsiang:

[…] during the 700 years since the foundation of the

establishment, there has been no single case of guilty rebellion
against the rules.37

In the footnote of this passage, Beal, translating the account in 1914, before

Heras and the archaeological findings, draws another theory for the kings mentioned by

Hiuen-Tsiang:

This seems to throw light on the date of Sakraditya, if he "after

the Nirvana," was the first to found the Nālandā Convent, and
this was 700 years before Hiuen-Tsiang, we may suppose he
lived about the 3rd century B.C.E.38

The above passage seems clear that the identity of Hiuen-Tsiang kings is not

evident and they may not have been Guptas at all. Heras and others distorted Hiuen-

Tsiang’s account by associating his list of kings with the Guptas, and obscured the

whole passage which says that Nālandā was created 700 years before Hiuen-Tsiang.

Moreover, they also disregarded the Tibetan accounts, which would have added

multiple elements to think about this period in a much more dynamic fashion.

36
Beal, 1906: 168.
37
Beal, 1914: 121.
38
Idem, Ibidem: 121.
 19

The refutation:

With the historical contextualization developed in this chapter, my opinion is

that the claim which advances that the Gupta kings created Nālandā mahāvihāra from

scratch in 427 CE is not necessarily what truly happened. What seems to be a more

plausible perspective is to assume that Nālandā might have been a great religious and

educational center before the 5th century CE. The place carried its fame from the time of

the Buddha, and at least from the beginning of the Common Era, the kings accounted by

Hiuen-Tsiang, Tāranātha, and others, started to build small vihāras at that place. From

the 2nd century CE, Nālandā may have already been sufficiently recognized as a place of

education, as it attracted scholars such as Asaṅga and Vasubandhu,39 Dignāga, etc.,

from North India, and Nāgārjuna, Āryadeva,40 etc., from South India. They brought an

intellectual flourishing that resulted in the composition of the root-texts of the main

philosophical schools of Mahāyāna Buddhism – Mādhyamaka, Yogācāra, and Pramāna.

During the 5th century CE, the association of the genius intellectual contributions of

these masters with the enhancement of the institution made by the Guptas and the other

kings from past generations provided perfect conditions for Nālandā to emerge as a

huge and imposing mahāvihāra.41 From that point onwards, Nālandā became the “head

institution” and the main coordinator of the Buddhist education in different branches of

knowledge but especially in the Mahāyāna philosophy and Vajrayāna, for a period of

nearly one thousand years.42 Supported by the aforementioned premises, the objective

of this chapter was neither to dismiss the Gupta influence in the process of the

expansion of Nālandā, nor to completely exclude the possibility for them to have been

39
Takakusu, 1905: 294.
40
Ruegg, 1981: 50.
41
Sankalia, 1934: 53.
42
Kumar, 2011: 65.
 20

the five “founders” of Nālandā mentioned by Hiuen-Tsiang, but to refute the

supposition made by scholars in the field which advances the notion that nothing was

there at Nālandā before the 5th century CE.

 21

Chapter 2 –

“Nālandā Tradition” and the Masters of the “International

University”

From 1930 onwards, the second generation of scholars working in the academic

field of the history of Nālandā mahāvihāra appeared, chiefly composed by nationalist

historians. Indian intellectuals wrote according to the nationalist historiography in such

a way as to make a counterpoint to the writings of the British colonial scholars. One of

their main agendas was to restore Indian nationalist self-esteem and glory of the past.43

From this perspective, scholars such as Sankalia (1934), Altekar (1934), Mookerji

(1951), Bashan (1954), Dutt (1954) and others, presented Nālandā’s history with the

vibe of glory, extolling the institution in all possible ways. In this chapter, first I will

investigate what the Chinese sources tell us about the period posterior to the 5th century,

trying to observe in which context scholars made the Nālandā mahāvihāra an institution

eligible to receive the title of “International University”. Second, I will explore how the

Tibetan tradition of Buddhism appropriated the intellectual lore of the Nālandā

mahāvihāra, how they preserved it through generations, and how it arrives at the 21st

century CE as an unbroken living tradition. From this investigation, it will be possible

to perceive the extent to which the Tibetan tradition of the Nālandā Masters is accurate,

and whether, if at all, it can be considered a valid primary source for the study of the

intellectual history of the Nālandā mahāvihāra.

43
Ramesh, 2016: 421.
 22

Chinese accounts and the archaeological remains of the Nālandā mahāvihāra

between 5th and 8th centuries CE.

The first scholars to conceive Nālandā mahāvihāra as a “university” were

Broadley (1872), Vidyabhusana (1920), Bose (1923), and others. They seem to

legitimate this association basing their arguments mainly on the archaeological data.

Anyhow, none of them gave a proper explanation for the reasons of such connection.

Sankalia was the first to address the topic, in his The University of Nālandā (1931). In

this book the author makes a long discussion, investigating the origin of the concept of

“university” in the European and Indian contexts, and comparing it with the Chinese

accounts of Hiuen-Tsiang, I-Tsing, and archaeological sources. By the end, he

concludes that Nālandā was not only a University but an “International University”.44

The first evidence that allowed Sankalia to make such claim was Devapala’s

Copper-plate, an inscription dated to the 9th century CE that archaeologists found at

around 1925 at Nālandā excavated site. This inscription describes how Balaputradeva,

the king of Suvarṇadvīpa – Sumatra, erected a vihāra at Nālandā mahāvihāra.45 This

evidence led to the conclusion that by that time, the fame of the institution must have

overspread to South-East Asia to such an extent that the king of Sumatra granted

international patronage. The second primary source were the Chinese accounts. Hiuen-

Tsiang and I-Tsing were themselves international students at Nālandā mahāvihāra

during the 7th century CE. Among the many international students that passed through

the institution by the time, the eyewitness accounts of these two missionaries are the

only that arrive intact to the present moment. They narrate the period after the 5th

century CE at Nālandā as one of great expansion in material terms. From Hiuen-Tsiang,

44
Sankalia, 1934: 191.
45
Sastri, 1923: 310.
 23

who remained at Nālandā between ca. 629-640 CE, for example, we see that the

institution might have had approximately 10.000 students, 1.500 teachers,46 and “the

whole [place] is truly marvelous to behold”.47 This author says that his teacher,

Śilabhadra, was the head of the mahāvihāra during the 7th century CE, preceded in this

office by Dharmapāla, information confirmed by I-Tsing.48 Many names of the masters,

mostly following the Yogācāra perspective, are mentioned by Hiuen-Tsiang to have

lived during this period at Nālandā, such as Candrapāla, Guṇamati, Sthirmati,

Prabhamitra, Jinamitra, Jñānacandra, and Śigrabuddha.49 I-Tsing, arriving at the place

around fifty years later and remaining there between ca. 671-695 CE, says that more

than fifty-seven Chinese scholars have passed through Nālandā and studied there for

some time. Some of them were Yuan Chiu (ca. 664), Tao Hi, Taou-Sing (ca. 649),

Tang, Taou-Lin, Hwui-Ta, and Wou King.50 I-Tsing also accounts the names of the

masters living between the 5th and 7th centuries CE, such as Gina, Siṃhakandra,

Pragñāgupta, Ginaprabha, Ratnasiṃha, Divākaramitra, Sakyakīrti, Rāhulamitra, and

Kandra.51 Furthermore, he says that Nālandā had in its possession around 200 villages

and 3.000 priests.

The limitations of the available primary sources

One of the main critical points when we compare the physical remains with the

eyewitness accounts is that the Chinese pilgrims suggest that Nālandā’s spread was

greater than our present understanding. If Nālandā had sustained anywhere near the

46
Beal, 1914: 112.
47
Beal, 1906: 171.
48
Takakusu, 1896: lvii.
49
Beal, 1906: 172.
50
Sankalia, 1934: 197.
51
Takakusu, 1896: 65, 154, lvii – lviii.
 24

10.000 residents as accounted for by Hiuen-Tsiang, or the 3.000 priests recorded by I-

Tsing, solely within the currently excavated area, the monasteries should have been

multistoried, which seems unlikely.52 Succumbing to the possibility that the Chinese

travelers somewhat exaggerated the number of the residents, it is nevertheless clear that

even in the 7th century CE, the extent of the complex must have been larger than the

currently excavated area, not to mention any additions that could have been made

during the nearly five hundred years that Nālandā remained functional after these

Chinese travelers visited the place.53 What has helped scholars to solve the problem of

the contradictions between the excavated remains and the facts mentioned in the

accounts is that there is a vast quantity of material data (statues, coins, seals, etc.) spread

in the region around the archaeological site. This evidence suggests that the site was

much larger than the currently exposed area, a hypothesis that may be qualified after/if

the excavations on the site restart once again.54

Tibetan Buddhism and the “Nālandā Tradition”

Although the Chinese and archaeological sources may provide scholars a

glimpse of the material grandeur of Nālandā mahāvihāra up to the 8th century CE, these

were evidently not enough for the reconstruction of a version of the intellectual history

of the institution. When we turn our attention to the history of Buddhism in Tibet, it is

possible to notice that the process of penetration, appropriation, and dissemination of

Buddhism in that country was always in straight relationship with the intellectual

context of the Nālandā mahāvihāra. Current Tibetan Buddhist authorities such as His

Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama has been referring to the massive remains of the

52
Asher, 2014.
53
Rajani, 2016: 7.
54
Stewart, 1989; Miśra, 1998.
 25

intellectual legacies from Nālandā mahāvihāra that arrive at the present world as

“Nālandā Tradition”.55

From one interview with Venerable Geshe Dorji Dambdul La, the director of

Tibet House in New Delhi held by me in December 2018, it is possible to forge an

understanding of what Tibetans mean by “Nālandā Tradition”. Observing that Tibetan

Buddhism nowadays is composed of a complex bundle of practices, such as prayers,

pūjās, meditation, and the study of philosophy, tantra, etc., I asked:

Q: What is “Nālandā Tradition” inside the whole picture of

Tibetan Buddhism?
A: All the study of philosophy comes from Nālandā tradition.
The philosophy which has been studied in Tibet belongs to
Nālandā. Then Tantra also, the main root-texts are from
Nālandā […]. Then you are right, there are pujas, ritual music,
so these things I think are more from the ancient Bon tradition,
which are the local practices that mixed with the Buddhism
coming from India. So from that point of view, we can say that
the hardcore Buddhism being practiced in Tibet are originally
from Nālandā, and then there are these secondary things which
are taken from the local tradition. So we see that Tibetan
Buddhism can be called “Nālandā Tradition” because the real
Tibetan Buddhism is the philosophy and the main system of
Tantra, which are all coming from Nālandā.56

From Ven. Dambdul’s answer, it is possible to perceive that, among other

topics, he is referring to the historical process of transference of Buddhism from India

into Tibet. Tibetans divide the nearly six hundred years of the transference of Indian

Buddhism to Tibet into two major periods: the Early Dissemination (7th - 9th centuries

CE), and the Later Dissemination (10th - 12th centuries CE).57 At around 763 CE, the

king Khri srong lde btsan (ca. 755-797) invited Śāntarakṣita, a scholar of Nālandā

55
Dalai Lama, 2011: 15.
56
For the whole transcription of the interview refer to Appendix 3.
57
Ray, 2001: 28.
 26

mahāvihāra, to come and establish Buddhism as the main religion of Tibet.58 Being the

first Buddhist teacher in Tibet, he determined that the doctrinal platform from which

Tibetans were going follow Buddhism would be by the monastic Mahāyāna standards

of Nālandā mahāvihāra.59 When the first Tibetan monastery, Bsam yas, was established

in 779 CE, to assure the transfer of the Buddhist heritage from Nālandā mahāvihāra,

Śāntarakṣita established a strong tradition of translation of Sanskrit manuscripts into

Tibetan.60 In this regard, the main interest during the Early Dissemination was the

translation of the root-texts of Nāgārjuna, Āryadeva, Asaṅga, Vasubandhu, Dignāga,

and Śāntarakṣita, and the commentaries of Bhāvaviveka, Buddhapālita, Śāntideva,

Kamalaśīla, and others.61 During the Later Dissemination, starting with Rin chen bzang

po’s translation of the Cakrasaṃvara Tantra at around 987 CE, a strong tradition of

translation of the Vajrayāna manuscripts took place.62 At around 1046 CE, Atīśa, a

master from Nālandā and Vikramaśilā, arrived in Tibet. He taught the Prāsaṅgika-

Mādhyamaka point of view, contributed to the translation of Candrakīrti’s and

Dharmakīrti’s treatises,63 and founded the Kadampa tradition.64

From that point onwards, Tibetans preserved through generations the Nālandā

mahāvihāra legacies untrusted to them by the Nālandā masters according to the

“Nālandā Tradition”. The concept of “tradition” concerns: “a belief or practice […]

received from the hands, lips, or the example of others rather than being discovered or

58
Karmay, 2007: 1.
59
Dalai Lama, 2011: 15.
60
Karmay, 2007: 3.
61
Lang, 2004: 483.
62
Gray, 2007: 21.
63
Kapstein, 2011: 2.
64
Karmay, 2007: 10.
 27

invented”.65 After the period of transmission, this “tradition” becomes a “repeated

pattern of behaviors, beliefs, or enactment passed down from one generation to the

next”,66 which “seeks to inculcate certain values and norms of behavior by repetition,

which automatically implies continuity with the past”.67 Tibetans did not invent the

Buddhist practices that they follow. Rather, Śāntarakṣita and others transmitted these

practices as multiple sets of authoritative literature and practices that conveyed certain

Buddhist values and norms. Tibetans considered this specific knowledge sufficiently

important to be repeated over centuries until the present moment. Within these

premises, the “Nālandā Tradition” might be an example of a direct and unbroken

continuity of the legacies of Nālandā mahāvihāra from the 8th century CE up to the

present moment.

Arriving at the 21st century, if we leave apart the tantric literature, probably the

main representation of “Nālandā Tradition” would be the “list of 17 Nālandā Masters”,

developed by His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama. The “Dalai Lama” is a Gelug title given

to the highest spiritual leader of Tibetans.68 Since the time of the 5th Dalai Lama (1617-

1682 CE), this personage has always been a symbol of the unification of the state of

Tibet, where he has represented Buddhist values and traditions.69 The current Dalai

Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, was born in 1935 and recognized at the age of two as the 14th

successive reincarnation of the 1st Dalai Lama.70 From the age of six, he started the

Tibetan monastic education.71 In 1959, at the age of twenty-three, he was awarded the

65
Valliere, 2005: 9267.
66
Allison: 1997: 799.
67
Hobsbawn, 1983: 1.
68
Schaik, 2011: 129.
69
Woodhead, 2016: 94.
70
Shakabpa 1984: 91.
71
www.dalailama.com (access in: 22/03/2018).
 28

Geshe Lharampa degree (equivalent to Ph.D.) from Jokhang Monastery. Being Geshe

and the highest spiritual leader of Tibetans, the 14th Dalai Lama is considered the

highest authority on Nālandā Buddhism.72 During the same year of 1959, Tibetans

became refugees in India, and the 14th Dalai Lama had to spend his life looking for

strategies to preserve Tibetan culture in exile.

One of his strategies during the past decades has been to place a copious

emphasis on the authority of Tibetans over the Indian knowledge entrusted to them

during the 8th century CE, arguing that this valuable treasure has been lost long ago in

its motherland. Then, he says: “Tibetan Buddhism is not the invention of Tibetans.

Rather, it is quite clear that it derives from the pure lineage of the tradition of Nālandā

monastery in India”.73 He goes on saying “Tibetans have preserved these centuries’ old

traditions intact through rigorous study for more than one thousand years”.74 Arriving at

the present context, noticing that Indians let perish this knowledge, he says: “Indians

were historically our guru, we were Indian’s students. Nowadays the student became a

guru, and the guru became a student”.75 With this, he emphasizes a paradigmatic

inversion of the historical Indo-Tibetan relationship of teacher/student and sets forth the

responsibility of Tibetans in reviving the immaterial legacies of Nālandā in India. Then,

the Dalai Lama embodies himself a descendant of Nālandā: “I do not say that I belong

to the Hinayana or the Mahāyāna traditions, but to the lineage of Nālandā",76 and also

72
As affirmed by Geshe Dorgi Dambul during our interview: “HH the Dalai Lama is the final
authority of the Nālandā legacies. He himself embodies the Nālandā legacies. And he is an
authority.”
73
Dalai Lama, 2017: 15.
74
Dalai Lama, 05/02/2017: public speech (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FozLVau8HXM
– access in 22/03/2018).
75
Dalai Lama, 04/2017: Interview (https://www.sahapedia.org/his-holiness-the-14th-dalai-lama-
speaks-sudha-gopalakrishnan access in 22/03/2018).
76
Dalai Lama, 07/2001: quoted by Thurman in: (https://bobthurman.com/buddhist-history-101-
nalanda-indian-culture-ep-140/ - 42:52 – access in 22/03/2018)
 29

the religious status of his tradition: “Tibetan Buddhism is no longer Lamaism, Tibetan

Buddhism is Nālandā Tradition”.77 Finally, at the age of eighty-three, he has stated by

the end of 2017: “I dedicate the rest of my life for the revival of the Ancient India

knowledge of Nālandā”.78 In 2001, he composed a compendium of those who were

considered the main masters from Nālandā, and presented them in the “Homage to the

17 Nālandā Masters”. This list gives specific names in a distinct order of exponent

masters from Nālandā mahāvihāra. What can this list tell us about the interconnections

between the contemporary Tibetan Buddhist approach to “Nālandā Tradition” and the

intellectual history of Nālandā mahāvihāra? 79

Despite the enthusiastic approach of the 14th Dalai Lama towards the legacies of

Nālandā mahāvihāra, we should refrain from taking his words literally. Approaching

his discourse from a critical perspective, it seems clear that Tibetans did preserve the

intellectual legacies of Nālandā mahāvihāra, rendering possible for this specific kind of

knowledge to arrive at the present moment yet practiced as a living tradition. But, like

any tradition, that of Nālandā also, does not reflect the whole set of practices followed

by the students of the ancient institution, but only parts of it. Like the flow of winds,

these practices changed in time. Analyzing the technical aspects of the list of “17

Nālandā Masters”, it is possible to perceive that the 14th Dalai Lama did not present

them chronologically, but according to each of the Mahāyāna philosophical schools:

Mādhyamaka, Yogācāra, Pramāna and Mādhyamaka-Yogācāra. Their periods of life

were between the 2nd and 8th centuries CE (apart from Atīśa - 11th century CE). They all

lived, taught, and debated their points of view at Nālandā mahāvihāra, influencing and

77
Public speech, 12/12/2016 – Personally attended.
78
Dalai Lama, 18/11/2017: public speech (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuWt1eh_fCQ
access in: 22/03/2018)
79
For the names of and details about their lives and intellectual contributions of these masters
refer to Appendix 1.
 30

giving continuity to each other’s theories according to the composition of “root-texts”

and “commentaries”. Majority of their original Sanskrit manuscripts are lost and

nowadays preserved only in the Tibetan or Chinese translations. The Tibetan canon,

Tengyur, assigns around 458 manuscripts to these 17 masters (see appendix 2). Finally,

the majority of them are not directly connected to the tantric aspect of Tibetan

Buddhism, nor with the doctrinaire aspects of the Kangyur. Then, the list of the “17

Nālandā Masters” does not reflect the whole of Tibetan Buddhism, but a specific part of

it, that of the Mahāyāna philosophical studies held at Nālandā mahāvihāra from the 1st

to 8th centuries CE.

With the systematization of this information, it is possible to perceive that

although the list of “17 Nālandā Masters” reflects a resumed version of the intellectual

history of Nālandā mahāvihāra up to the 8th century CE, it fails to convey an inclusive

historical background of all the most famous masters from Nālandā. It excludes names

such as Nāropa, Padmasambhava, Śilabhadra, Dharmapāla, Candragomin, Sthirmati,

among others. The exclusion of these and other names (Tāranātha, for example,

mentions more than ninety masters in association with Nālandā),80 render evident the

fact that this list is not intended to be informative at all. It does not make justice to the

historical background of Nālandā mahāvihāra, but merely reflects a specific part of how

“Nālandā tradition” reached the 21st century CE.

With this notion in mind, I asked Ven. Dorji Dambdul why masters such as

Nāropa did not make part of the list of the “17 Nālandā Masters”. His answer reveals

that only those masters who inherited a huge number of manuscripts are eligible to

make part of this row:

80
Chattopadhyaya, 1970: 101 - 240
 31

Q: Can you give me a definition of what is Nālandā tradition?

A: It is a tradition based on the writings of the Nālandā Masters.
Q: So Nālandā tradition is specifically a literary-philosophical
tradition?
A: Yes, that’s right, together with practice (tantra).
Q: So why Nāropa is not included in the list of 17 Nālandā
Masters?
A: In fact, one reason, maybe, is that he did not leave a book as a
legacy. He has small writings, but he did not leave a legacy, a big
volume of writings.
Q: So for being part of the 17 Nālandā Masters…
A: …there should be given big written contributions.

I do not believe that Ven. Dambdul’s answer transmits the whole reason why

Nāropa does not make part of this list. If we observe the colophon of the list of the “17

Nālandā Masters”, we see that the 14th Dalai Lama did not come with these names from

his mind. This list is an expansion of an older set of Nālandā masters called the “Six

Ornaments and Two Supreme”.81 From Tāranātha’s Rgya gar chos ’byung we learn

that:

The Six Jewels the three namely: Nāgārjuna, Asaṅga and Dignāga, who
were the composers of original treatises, while the other three, namely
Āryadeva, Vasubandhu and Dharmakīrti, were the composers of
commentaries. They are called the Six Jewels, because all of them
added equal glory to the Law in ways appropriate for their own times.82

The “Two Supremes” are Guṇaprabha and Śākyaprabha, the composers of the

Vinaya treatises that reflect the Mūlasarvāstivāda approach of Tibetans to Buddhism.

From a short historical overview of the period from the Second Dissemination onwards,

we see that the present list of “17 Nālandā Masters”, as a development of the list of “Six

Ornaments and Two Precious”, is a reflection of how Tibetans historically approached

the philosophical inheritance of Nālandā mahāvihāra. During the 11th century CE, when

the process of coming up with an established educational system in Tibet was slowly

81
Dalai Lama, 2017: 11.
82
Chattopadhyaya, 1970: 240.
 32

developing, monastic colleges started to emphasize a highly rationalized approach to

Buddhist doctrine, over and against the one dominated primarily by faith.83 At the

forefront of this development was the Kadampa college of Gsang phu, established in

1073 CE by one of Atīśa’s foremost disciples, Rngog legs pa'i shes rab. The rigor of

Indian epistemological theories much inspired this scholar.84 He formulated a five-fold

curriculum based on the study of the Indian root-texts and commentaries expressed in

the following manner:

1 – Logic: study of Dignāga’s Pramāṇasamuccaya;

2 – Vinaya: study of Guṇaprabha’s Vinaya Sutra;
3 – Abhidharma: study of Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośa;
4 – Prajñāpāramitā: study of Asaṅga’s Abhisamayālaṅkāra;
5–Mādhyamaka:study of Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamādhyamakakārikā.85

Giving sequence to the elaboration of the Tibetan scholastic system according to

the Indian standards, Sakya Pandita (1182–1251 CE) refined the Gsang phu’s

curriculum. This monk-scholar also received his early philosophical education at Gsang

phu, and then, after 1204 CE, continued his studies with the Kashmiri master

Śākyaśrībhadra.86 As a result, he mastered Sanskrit grammar and other aspects of Indian

learning, what would lend a notably “Indological” dimension to his scholarship. In his

treatise Mkhas pa ‘jug pa'i sgo (Scholar's Gate), he sets forth an educational program

detailing a cycle of studies based on the mastery of the old Indian patterns of

composition, rhetoric, and debate of root-texts and commentaries.87 The traditions of

Gsang phu and Sakya were largely responsible for the content, style, and method of

83
Kapstein, 2011: 7.
84
Yamamoto, 2009: 825.
85
Dreyfus, 1997: 34.
86
Kapstein, 2011, 8.
87
Dreyfus, 2003: 103.
 33

subsequent Tibetan Buddhist scholasticism, which came to be confined by the close

study of the “Six Ornaments and Two Precious”.

During the 14th century CE, many subsequent scholars educated in the Kadampa

and Sakya traditions contributed to the elaboration of every aspect of Buddhist thought

in Tibet. It became customary for students to move from one center to another, studying

with different masters. One of these was Jé Tsongkhapa (1357–1419 CE), who acquired

a special concern for the interpretation of the Prāsaṅgika-Mādhyamaka philosophy of

Candrakīrti and the epistemological tradition of Dharmakīrti.88 After founding his

monastic center of Gamden in 1409 CE, his followers gradually came to be established

as a distinctive new order, which eventually adopted the name “Gelug” and to which the

Dalai Lamas adheres. Tsongkhapa’s merit was to establish within the Gelug educational

system a curriculum that combines the study of the five major topics from Gsang phu’s

system with a special emphasis on the practice of debate and the study of Prāsaṅgika-

Mādhyamaka.89 Henceforth, the five-fold academic study of the “Six Ornaments and

Two Precious” provided a solid ground for the development of the different educational

curriculums of the four schools of Tibetan Buddhism: Gelug, Kagyü, Sakya, and

Nyingma. According to the 14th Dalai Lama, the study of the Nālandā masters is very

clear until nowadays. All monks who receive training in Tibetan monasteries study the

texts of the Nāgārjuna, Āryadeva, Asaṅga, Vasubandhu and so forth.90

Georges Dreyfus, who analyses the curriculum of the educational institutions of

the four sects of Tibetan Buddhism, confirms the statement of the 14th Dalai Lama. This

author brings up the conclusion that the main singularity between the different cycles of

studies of these schools is not so much in content but rather in educational style and

88
Dreyfus, 2003: 142.
89
Ray, 2001: 195.
90
Dalai Lama, 2011: 15.
 34

pedagogy.91 The Gelug’s curriculum has as its basis the five-fold curriculum of Gsang

phu, with special attention given to the study of Candrakīrti and Dharmakīrti, and

emphasizing debate over textual studies. The other three traditions emphasize the

practice of commentarial literature over debate. Nyingma tradition follows the

curriculum of the “thirteen texts”, which is a composition of the five-fold curriculum of

Gsang phu plus a specific number of commentaries of this lineage’s concern.92 Kagyü

sect follows the same five-fold system of Gelug tradition, as well as the “eight great

texts of the sūtra and tantra”, and the Sakyas follow the “eighteen texts of great

renown”.93 Even though each school has its specific curriculum, the basis of contents of

studies of them all are the masterpieces of the “Six Ornaments and Two Precious Ones”.

What differentiates these curriculums are the order in which monks study the main root-

texts and commentaries of the Nālandā masters and what are the Tibetan sub-

commentaries supplementing their understanding.94 Within these premises, among the

contemporary curriculums of the Tibetan Buddhist monasteries, there is a common

platform of studies based on Gsang phu’s curriculum, together with the specific

approaches to these teachings given by each school over time. Furthermore, the study of

the Indian masters, the special place given for the study of Sanskrit language in all the

four schools, and the study of Vajrayāna, are evidence of the inheritance of this

curriculum from Nālandā and Vikramaśilā.95 Then, from the contemporary curriculums

of the Tibetan educational institutions, we can have a glimpse of the structure of the

curriculum of studies at Nālandā mahāvihāra.

91
Dreyfus, 1997: 34.
92
Idem, Ibiden: 34.
93
Dreyfus, 2003: 128
94
Idem, Ibiden: 128.
95
Idem, Ibiden: 102.
 35

Finally, it seems evident that the list of “17 Nālandā Masters” is the outcome of

a historical process of development of a specific approach to a selected number of

philosophers from Nālandā mahāvihāra that took place from the 11th century onwards

in Tibet. This list, then, represents the “state-of-art” of how the Mahāyāna philosophical

aspects of “Nālandā Tradition” arrive at the present world. It is the result of specific

choices made over time which included and excluded the study of one or more Indian

commentators from the main curriculum of studies of the Tibetan educational

institutions. This list conveys only the names of the Nālandā masters who are studied

nowadays inside the Tibetans monasteries. With this, we understand why Tāranātha’s

masters such as Jñānagarbha, Śrigupta, Samudramegha, Kamalabudhi,

Abhayākaragupta, and other famous Mādhyamaka and Yogācāra masters from Nālandā

mahāvihāra, including those mentioned by Hiuen-Tsiang and I-Tsing, are excluded

from this list. It happens so because they are peripheral characters that do not arrive at

the present context embedded in the Tibetan monastic curriculum. From this platform, it

is as well intriguing to observe some of the further reasons why the 14th Dalai Lama

includes Atīśa in this list and excludes Nāropa and Padmasambhava. In the one point,

Atīśa, who was prevenient from Vikramaśilā and not from Nālandā, was the professor

of Prāsaṅgika-Madhyamika to Tibetans, perspective undertaken mainly by the Dalai

Lama’s Gelug pa order. This approach granted a special place for Atīśa as a

“foundational” character among the followers of this tradition. On the other hand, the

great tantric masters Padmasambhava and Nāropa, whose biographies attest their

activities at Nālandā mahāvihāra, are the historical “founders” of Nyingma and Kagyü

schools of Tibetan Buddhism, respectively. With this, the conclusion is that not only did

Nāropa fail to leave huge literary corpus, as exposed by Ven. Dambdul, but also he was
 36

one of the “founders” of Kagyü, a sect competing with the Gelug tradition of the 14th

Dalai Lama.

From this contextualization, then, it becomes evident that: (1) this list is not

reflecting the important historical figures of Nālandā mahāvihāra globally, and it

excludes many well-known philosophers and tantric masters. It is, then, a representation

of the contemporary philosophical curriculum of studies in the Tibetan monasteries; (2)

the presence of a “foundational” character of the Gelug (Atīśa), and the exclusion of the

“founders” of Nyingma (Padmasambhava) and Kagyü (Nāropa), renders evident that

this list is a political tool for the legitimation of a version of the history that contributes

for the preservation of the prevalent point of view of those who are occupying the

places of power. The list of 17 Nālandā Masters, then, is a specific presentation of the

philosophical aspects of “Nālandā Tradition” with a touch of sectarian influence tended

to the Dalai Lama’s Gelug pa sect. From the explanation given in this section, we see

how the whole history of Buddhism in Tibet developed according to a specific approach

to knowledge-systems inherited by Nālandā mahāvihāra. Majority of the 17 Nālandā

Masters lived during the period between 5th and 8th centuries CE, which demonstrates

how rich were the intellectual dynamics at Nālandā mahāvihāra during that time.

My conclusion then, is that the list of “17 Nālandā Masters” may be used as a

primary source for the study of the intellectual history of Nālandā mahāvihāra in what

concerns the philosophical aspects of it. The Vajrayāna and doctrinal aspects of

Kangyur, although also making part of what is “Nālandā Tradition”, do not appear in

the list of the “17 Nālandā Masters”. Finally, “Nālandā Tradition” may be interpreted as

an “umbrella concept” for the philosophical literature and tantric practices transmitted

from Nālandā Mahāvihāra into Tibet mainly between the 8th to the 12th centuries CE

and preserved by Tibetans until nowadays. Because this “tradition” has been changing
 37

with time, it was not able to transmit the past 100% certainly. It arrives at the present

moment as a fragment of reality, and not as a representation of the whole history of

Nālandā mahāvihāra. It re-presents the past from a certain point of view with the

intention to give a sense of reality of a specific society, the Tibetan Buddhist.96 My

discussion, then, was not meant to recollect the truth about “Nālandā Tradition”, but try

to acknowledge the possible ‘echoes’ of the past in its many possibilities and

manifestations in the present moment, conveyed here by the list of “17 Nālandā

Masters”.

Was Nālandā mahāvihāra a “University”?

As for the question if Nālandā mahāvihāra was an “International University”,

an idea propagated by the contemporary scholars: in my opinion, we should avoid

making such a connection. The problem of the association of Nālandā mahāvihāra with

a “university” is that the scholars who worked for the academic legitimation of this

perspective based their hypothesis on poor and superficial bibliography which

nowadays would result in an outdated perception of what a “university” is or could be.97

In this sense, for a substantial association of Nālandā with the concept of “university”, a

new endeavor would have to be taken which would explore more precise terms of what

the contemporary understanding of this category is. Then, most probably, forcing the

connection, one would be able to see if the concept of “university” would fit into the

parameters of what the Buddhist monastic educational institution of Nālandā

mahāvihāra was. In my perception, scholars should not employ concepts for periods

before their appearance. The idea of “university” appeared with the emergence of the

96
Farge, 2011: 71.
97
Sankalia, 1934: 1.
 38

“University of Bologna”, in 1158.98 Any application of this concept for the period

before its emergence would be an anachronistic corruption of the category. Then, I tend

to disagree with the retrospective association of Nālandā with the contemporary and

Western concept of “university”, and would encourage the use of terms employed by

the actors who lived during the historical period in question. In this case, that Nālandā

was a mahāvihāra.

98
Asher, 2015: 16.
 39

Chapter 3 –

The theory of the destruction by fire

After the second generation of scholars created the theory of the “International

University”, they turned attention to the creation of a narrative for the destruction of

Nālandā mahāvihāra. Motivated by the interest of depicting the foreign invaders as

enemies and destructors of the ancient legacies of India, the Indian nationalist scholars

came up with the claim that the Muslin military commander Bakhtiyar Khilji invaded

the Magadha region at around 1127 CE and burned Nālandā mahāvihāra down.99 In this

chapter, I will first describe the basis upon which the scholars assumed that a fire

destroyed Nālandā. In sequence, I will suggest a possible deconstruction of this theory

basing my argument on the Tibetan accounts of Bu Ston and Tāranātha, the only literary

sources that I was able to find which associate Nālandā with the element of fire.

The Argument:

Scholars concluded that Muslins burned Nālandā mahāvihāra down according to

two evidences. First, the report on the invasion of Khilji into the Magadha region comes

from Tabaqat-I Nasiri, the Persian account of Minhaj al-Siraj (1193-1265 CE). In this

account, Minhaj says that after the Muslin invasions in India, Bakhtiyar Khilji,

commanding the invasion in the Magadha region, frequently made incursions into the

district of Bihar to plunder the territories for obtaining horses, munition, and men.100

The passage that has led scholars to assume that Khilji’s troops invaded and destroyed

Nālandā mahāvihāra is:

99
Idem, Ibiden: 27.
100
Singh, 2013: 25.
 40

He [Bakhtiyar] went to the gate of the fort of Behar (nowadays

Bihar-Sharif – possibly Odantapurī) with only two hundred
horses and began the war by taking the enemy unawares […].
Muhammad Bakhtiyar with great vigor and audacity rushed in
at the gates of the fort and gained possession of the place. Great
plunder fell into the hands of the victors. Most of the
inhabitants of the place were Brahmans with shaven heads.
They were put to death. Large numbers of books were found
there, and when the Muhammadans saw them, they called for
some person to explain their contents, but all the men had been
killed. It was discovered that the whole fort and city was a
place of study.101

They compared this passage with the heaps of ashes and charcoal found during

the excavations at the uppermost strata of the archaeological site, which suggested

substantial destruction by fire. Then, the conclusion came up that after plundering

Odantapurī, Khilji turned his troops to Nālandā mahāvihāra, sacked the establishments,

destroyed the vihāras, set fire on the libraries, and killed the monks who were not able

to flee.102

The counter-argument

A closer inquiry over the established hypothesis reveals series of controversies

that compromise an accurate narration of the facts. First, as for the heaps of ashes and

charcoal found at the uppermost strata of the archaeological site: nothing leads to the

conclusion that the fire which produced these burned materials come from the 12th

century CE. One must remember that 800 years separate the event from its

interpretation. Second, Minhaj’s account is a historical document collected from oral

transmission.103 As for the passage about the destruction of Odantapurī mentioned

101
Elliot, 1869: 306.
102
Singh, 2013: 23.
103
Singh, 2013: 25.
 41

above, Minhaj says that two soldiers who participated in the attack provided the

information.104 He was not there, so it is certainly not an eyewitness account. But even

if we take Minhaj’s account about Odantapurī as a reliable source, neither he nor any

other author of his time talks about the destruction of Nālandā by fire.105

Third, the Tibetan accounts written by Bu Ston (13th century CE) and Tāranātha

(17th century CE), are the only available primary sources that I found talking about the

destruction of Nālandā mahāvihāra by fire, but eight hundred years before the 12th

century CE. These monk-scholars repeat the narrative of three hostilities suffered by

Mahāyāna Buddhism during the period before the birth of Asaṅga and Vasubandhu (ca.

4th century CE). The first hostility happened when “non-Buddhists” destroyed Buddhist

temples and is of no interest to the present study. During the second hostility, Bu Ston

and Tāranātha say that the “Persian king of Kashmir”,106 invaded Magadha and “ruined

many temples and heavily damaged Nālandā”.107 When it comes to the third

consecutive hostility, Bu Ston says:

It happened that two heretical beggars came to a Buddhist

monastery [of Nālandā] in search of alms. As the novices
poured a shower of wash-water upon them, they became
enraged and, having propitiated the sun, burned down many
Buddhist temples with the sacred texts contained in them.108

Writing around five centuries later, Tāranātha gives more details to this fact:

[…] This immediately resulted in a miraculously produced fire.

It consumed all the eighty-four temples of Nālandā. The fire

104
Elliot, 1869: 306.
105
Singh, 2013: 25.
106
Obermiller, 1931: 136; Chattopadhyaya, 1970: 138.
107
Chattopadhyaya, 1970: 8.
108
Obermiller, 1931: 137.
 42

started burning the scriptural works that were kept in the

[libraries of] Dharmaganja, particularly in the big temples
called Ratnasagāra, Ratnabodhi and Ratnarandaka, in which
were preserved all the works of Mahāyāna pitaka-s […]. The
temples damaged by the fire were reconstructed by king
Buddhapaksha. […] Of the fifteen parts of the Mahayana
pitaka-s that came to the human world, nine parts were
destroyed by this hostile fire.109

If we forget the fact that Tāranātha and Bu Ston are talking about the 4th century

CE, the combination of the accounts of the second and third hostilities would perfectly

match with the theory advanced by the historians about the destruction of Nālandā

mahāvihāra during the 12th century CE. I did not find anywhere else apart from the

Tibetan accounts for the 4th century CE a narrative saying that Nālandā was burned

down, and the Persian King of Kashmir, such as Khilji, was a Muslin invader coming

from North. Furthermore, this passage of Tāranātha is the only that mentions the

existence of libraries at Nālandā mahāvihāra. Standing from this perspective, it seems

that the scholars of nowadays deliberately manipulated the Tibetan sources and forged

the theory of the destruction by fire for the period during the 12th century CE based on a

narrative of the 4th century CE.

Fourth, scholars of this generation seem to have completely obscured the

Tibetan eyewitness account of Dharmaswāmi while creating the referred theory.

Dharmaswāmi, who visited Nālandā around fifty years after the alleged date of the fire

(1127 CE), does support that Muslims attacked the mahāvihāra. But, he never gives any

suggestion of a fire at the place. Instead, he says that despite the damage committed by

the Muslins, Nālandā still had two vihāras in serviceable conditions, and the chief

abbot - the ninety years old Rāhulabhadra - continued to reside there, teaching around

109
Chattopadhyaya, 1970: 140.
 43

seventy monks.110 Furthermore, the Tibetan account Pag sam jon zang states that the

monk Mudita Bhadra repaired some of the vihāras of Nālandā during the 12th century

CE.111 In the late 13th century CE, Tāranātha mentions that King Cingalarāja made

lavish offerings at the temple of Nālandā but did not build big centers there.112 Also, we

read in a Korean inscription that the monk Dhyanabhadra, who was born in Magadha,

was ordained in Nālandā in early 14th century CE.113

The Refutation

After the historical contextualization developed in this chapter, my opinion is

that the claim which affirms that Nālandā mahāvihāra was destroyed by fire at 1192 CE

by the slaughter of Khilji is not necessarily what happened. Taking into consideration

the examples mentioned here, what would be more likely to suppose is that Bakhtiyar

Khilji’s military incursion indeed came to Bihar and Bengal, certainly destabilized the

region in economic and political terms, and probably destroyed at least parts of Nālandā

mahāvihāra. But this damage does not imply necessarily that Khilji went to Nālandā at

all. It would not be necessary to make a direct assault to cause serious damage to the

institution. Nālandā was already facing a situation of politic and economic decline at

least from the 10th century CE onwards.114 The patronage of the Pāla kings for Nālandā

was vertiginously decreasing, and the old prestige of the institution seems to have

devolved on Vikramaśilā.115 When the Muslin troops arrived at Magadha during the 12th

century CE, the ravages of Khilji destroyed villages and farms, rendering impossible the

110
Roerich, 1959: 94.
111
Vidyabhusana, 1909: 147, 148.
112
Chattopadhyaya, 1990: 320-321.
113
Mazumdar, 1960, 165.
114
Singh, 2013: 30.
115
Asher, 2015: 131.
 44

permanence of a huge center of studies without the support of the basic needs of goods

and services, and without any patronage continuity for the reconstruction of the

structures.116 So even if there was no direct attack on Nālandā, the monastery almost

certainly suffered irretrievably from the Muslin invasions. After this contextualization,

what is most likely to assume is not that Khilji abruptly destroyed Nālandā in 1127 CE,

but that the institution slowly decreased its activities from the 10th century CE, received

damage from the Muslins during the 12th century CE, and mingled at around the 14th

century CE.

Scholarship on Nālandā mahāvihāra after 1980

After the second generation of scholars, the general lines of a history of Nālandā

as an “International University” created at 425 CE by the Guptas and destroyed in 1127

CE by Bakhtiyar Khilji were settled. The following generation of scholars strived to

legitimize this mainstream narrative by repeating it. Then, the books of Altekar (1965),

Barua (1969), Kosambi (1970), Banerjee (1973), and others, mostly restrict themselves

to repeat more of the same information in different formats. Scholars working after

1980, such as Hazara (1983), Panth (2000, 2001, 2002), and others, seems to have

assimilated this narrative as if it was the unquestionable truth of what happened and

failed to bring new breath to the field. Arriving closer to the present moment, some

scholars are undertaking the first steps in reviewing the accuracy of the research made

by scholars from the past, some of them are Kumar (2010), Asher (2015), and Singh

(2013).

116
Singh, 2013: 30.
 45

Nālandā Today

Nālandā did not cease to exist neither with Bakhtiyar’s invasions nor with the

dispersal of monks. Meanwhile, the material aspects of the institution were abandoned

from the 14th to 19th centuries CE, the immaterial legacies of Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna

remained alive and active in the secluded Tibet. Arriving at the present world, at the

same time that the revival of the archaeological site happened out of the curiosity of the

19th century British explorers and 20th century investments of the Archaeological

Survey of India, Tibetans became refugees in India, reconnecting the old knowledge of

Nālandā mahāvihāra with its motherland. In the context of 2018, we see at one point a

giant enterprise of the revival of Nālandā mahāvihāra under the name of “Nālandā

University” in Rajgir, and Tibetan leaders assuming the position of holders of the

legacies from the old Nālandā and setting forth the necessity of its revival. The present

situation, then, is paradigmatic: meanwhile Nālandā University succeeds in the

reconstruction of the material dimensions, it fails to recollect the ancient knowledge of

the institution. Tibetans, on the other hand, succeed to hold the intellectual authority of

Nālandā mahāvihāra but lack the space of Nālandā University. Then, concerns about

the present context would be: How to make the ancient legacies of Nālandā be back to

its own home? How to make physical space and knowledge connected together again?

Is it possible? Advisable? Coherent? Is this knowledge an intellectual right of the new

“Nālandā University”? These questions remain hovering in the air.117

117
One possible answer for these questions are given by Ven. Geshe Dorji Dambdul during our
interview: “The place which has been built now, the huge campus, I say that what has been
taught in there, such as commerce, ecology, history, geography, economics, and so forth, that is
fine, there is no problem. But we should not miss the right of teaching the Nālandā Masters. If
that is included, with very qualified and standard teachers, that would be coming back again,
and the knowledge and the place would be coming back to India. […] We need to study their
legacies. For example, the teachers there should be teaching the Mūlamādhyamakakārikā, the
Madhyamakāvatāra, the Uttara Tantra, the Pramāṇavārttika. If these have been taught with
such a rigor, that would be the greatest of the biggest trophies of Nālandā University.”
 46

Conclusion

More than one hundred years from the beginning of scholars writing on the

history on Nālandā mahāvihāra, the most important primary sources have been: (1) the

literary accounts of the Chinese travelers Fa-Hien, Hiuen-Tsiang, and I-Tsing; (2) the

Tibetan and Persian traditional accounts of Tāranātha and Minhaj; and (3) the

archaeological remains from Nālandā ruins - coins, statues, copper plates; etc. The fact

about these sources is that we have only limited data about various periods of time.

There is no evidence which could attest to a continuity in the history of Nālandā, from

the beginning till the end. Then, the primary sources available to us bring only

fragments of what was the mahāvihāra, and not its picture as a whole. These sources,

like any source, are not able to transmit the past with 100% certainty, and they are, in

most of the cases, extremely restrained. Among the almost four hundred pages of

Hiuen-Tsiang’s account, for example, only ten are intended to depict the mahāvihāra.118

More than half of these pages describe how the supposed Gupta Kings built the

institution. The remaining pages give just a few substantial information that could

elucidate aspects of the curriculum, social, cultural or spiritual daily lives of monks,

administrative organization of Nālandā, etc. Other Chinese sources as well are

extremely limited and seldom give substantial information that would allow us to

retrace the history of Nālandā as a whole. Not only these sources provide limited

information, but the approach of scholars to them is also problematic from the very

beginning. For over a century, almost every scholar has relied on Samuel Beal’s English

translation of Hiuen-Tsiang, without paying attention to the accuracy of the text and

treating it very much as sources for legitimizing their convenient assumptions about the

118
Beal, 1906: 167 - 175
 47

history of Nālandā without the necessary historical contextualization of space and

time.119

My intention during this dissertation was not to completely refute the theories

created by these scholars of the past. The history of Nālandā may have, at least in parts,

happened according to what they suggested. The problem here was that they wrote this

history from a tendentious reading of the primary sources lacking the basic commitment

with a neutral point, primary requirement for a serious academic research. As a result of

the misuse of sources, they composed a standard narrative of Nālandā’s history based

on poor arguments (viz. Sankalia’s explanation of why Nālandā can be considered a

University), random associations (viz. Heras conclusion that Hiuen-Tsiang accounted

kings were the Guptas), and to reaffirm political interests (viz. Mookerji et al.

reaffirmation that Khilji burned Nālandā down).

Facing this situation, we need to honestly admit that we cannot trace the history

of Nālandā from the beginning till the end and that we can only have access to the few

glimpses from its long, winding and troublesome history.120 From this arises a need of

expanding the scope of the available primary sources and to rethink about this history.

Scholars have already exhausted so much the Chinese accounts that these can barely

provide new insights into Nālandā’s history. The Tibetan accounts, on the other hand,

were in most part of the time completely forgotten, letting obscured rich and extensive

details about Nālandā and their masters. In Gos lo tsā ba gzhon nu dpal’s Blue Annals, a

traditional account written in 1476, for example, are accounted many names of masters

who lived in the context of Nālandā after the 8th century CE. In Bu-ston’s Chos-byung,

written during the 13th century CE, names of masters, biographical data, and the titles of

119
Asher, 2015: 32.
120
Asher, 2015: 12.
 48

treatises written by them, are accounted. In Tāranātha’s Rgya gar chos ’byung, written

in 1608, numerous chapters talk about the political, religious, and cultural life at

Nālandā, providing the names and titles of treatises of more than ninety scholar-monks

who lived in or surrounding the mahāvihāra. Furthermore, scholars of the Nālandā

mahāvihāra field of studies seldom explored the Tibetan “Nālandā Tradition” in any

aspect. From my point of view, “Nālandā Tradition” is the living continuity of the

legacies of Nālandā mahāvihāra in the 21st century and brings numerous information to

rethink the intellectual history of Nālandā mahāvihāra.

Within this context, this dissertation has realized a diagnostic on what is the

current situation of the historiography on Nālandā mahāvihāra, placing special attention

on the composition of a critical literary review and bringing into the fore the forgotten

Tibetan sources. My intention here was not to give definite answers about any aspect of

Nālandā mahāvihāra. This work is permanently open, and I do not claim the veracity of

the facts. On the contrary, I believe this short dissertation is no more than a humble

attempt to approach the primary sources on Nālandā mahāvihāra, and the contents

presented here need to receive further attention. With this, I intended to creatively

investigate the sources in the sense of coming up with the alternative ends for the

questions that scholars have been answering in the same manner for the past one

hundred years. My aim in so doing was to bring new questions and dilemmas to the

field, to challenge the normative uses of the sources, and to move the academic field of

Nālandā mahāvihāra from the comfort zone where it remained for at least the past forty

years, forward.

I finish this work with a strong belief that the next generation of scholars taking

upon the charge of writing the history of Nālandā mahāvihāra should be the students,

professors, and researchers from the new Nālandā University. Together with the
 49

reconstruction of the old Nālandā, scholars of this institution should make justice to the

history of the mahāvihāra and undertake a massive work of reviewing the primary

literary and archaeological sources, leaving aside the political agendas and motivations

of the historians of the past. Inspired by this belief, I invite the scholars from Nālandā

University to create groups of study, publications, field works at Nālandā ruins, etc.

Nālandā is not anymore an institution residing merely in the history of India. This

University is alive in the 21st century, and as a part of the process of understanding its

own identity, an accurate version of the history of Nālandā mahāvihāra is certainly

needed.
 50

Bibliography:

Primary sources:
Beal, S (transl.). Hiuen Tsiang’s: Si-YuKi: Buddhist Records of the Western World.
London: Trubner & Co., 1906.

Beal, S (transl.). Hwui Li’s: The Life of Hiuen Tsiang. London: Trubner & Co., 1914.

Chattopadhyaya, Lama C. A. (transl.). Tāranātha’s History of Buddhism in India. Delhi:

Motilal Barnasidass, 1970.

Das S. C. (ed. and transl.). “Sum pa khan po ye she pal jor's Pag-sam-jon-zang”. In:
History of Rise, Progress and Downfall of Buddhism in India. Calcutta, 1908.

Elliot, H. M.; John, Dowson. The History of India as Told by Its Own Historians: The
Muhammadan Period, vol. II. London: Trubner, 1869.

Julien, Stanilas (transl.). Hui Lui: histoire de la vie de Hiouen-Thsang et de ses voyages
dans l’Inde, depuis l’an 629 jusqu’en 645: suivie de documents et d’éclairissements
géographiques de la relation originale de Hiouen-Tshang. Paris: Imprimerie Impériale,
1853.

I-Tsing, Nam-hae-ki-kwei-niu-fa-ch’uen, referred to by Beal, J.R.A.S., XIII, 1850. N.S.,

p. 556 referred by Sankalia: 1934: 197.

Legge, J (transl.). Fa-Hien’s A Record of Buddhist Kingdoms: being an account by the

Chinese monk Fa-Hien of his Travels in India and Ceylon (A.D. 399-414) in search of
Buddhist books of discipline. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1886.

Obermiller, E. History of Buddhism by Bu Ston. Leipzig: O. Harrasoowitz, 1931.

Roerich, George. Biography of Dharmaswāmi. Patna: Jayaswal Research Institute,

1959.

Roerich, George. The Blue Annals. Delhi: Motilal Barnasidass, 1949.

Takakusu, J. (transl.). I-Tsing’s: A Record of Buddhist Religion as practiced in India

and the Malay
Archipelago (A.D. 671-695). Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1896

Secondary sources:
Abu, Iman. “Sir Alexander Cunningham (1814 – 1893): The first Phase of Indian
Archaeology”. In: The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and
Ireland, Cambridge University Press, No. 3/4, 1963, pp. 194 – 207.

Allison, R. “Tradition”. In: Green, Thomas. Folklore: an encyclopedia of beliefs,

customs, tales, music, and art. Santa Barbara: Library of Congress. 1997. pp. 799 – 801.
 51

Asher, F. ‘‘India, Magadha, Nālandā: Ecology and a Premodern World System,’’ In:
Cultural Heritage: Environment, Ecology, and Inter-Asian Interactions: conference
held January 6–8, 2014, at Nālandā University in Rajgir.

_________. Nālandā: situating the Great Monastery. Mumbai: Radhika Sabavala,

2015.

Bose, P. Indian Teachers of Buddhist Universities. Madras: Theosophical Publishing

House, 1923.

Broadley, A. ‘‘On the Identification of Various Places in the Kingdom of Magadha

Visited by the Pilgrim Chi-Fa-Hian (A.D. 404–415),’’ In: The Indian Antiquary, Vol. 1,
part I–III (1872): 18–21, 67–74, 106–110.

_________. Ruins of the Nālandā monasteries at Burgaon, sub-division Bihar, Zillah

Patna. Calcutta: Bengal Secretariat, 1872.

Cabezon, J. I., Buddhism and Language: A Study of Indo-Tibetan Scholasticism.

Albany: State University of New York Press, 1994

Cunningham, A. Archaeological Survey of India Reports, Vol. 1. Shimla: Government

Central Press, 1871.

Dalai Lama, 14th. HH the Dalai Lama’s Public Address during the launch of Nālandā’s
Master Course. New Delhi: Tibet House, 2017.

__________. Homage to the 17 Nālandā Masters. Delhi: Tibet House, 2017.

__________. Meditation on the nature of mind. Somerville: Wisdom Publications,

2011.

Dreyfus, G. The Sound of two hands clapping: the education of a Tibetan Buddhist
monk. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003.

__________. “Tibetan Scholastic Education and the Role of Sotereology”. In: J. I. A. B.

S., Vol. 20, No. 1, 1997

Dutt, Sukumar. “Buddhist Education”. In: Bapat, P. V. 2.500 of Buddhism. Delhi:

Gouvernment of India, 1956. p. 176-194

Farge, Arlette. Lugares para a história. Belo Horizonte: Autêntica Editora, 2011.

Fergusson, James. ‘‘On Hiouen-Thsang’s Journey from Patna to Valabhī,’’ In: Journal
of the
Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Ireland, Vol. 6, no. 2, (July 1873): 213–74.

Ghosh A. A guide to Nālandā. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India, 1939.

 52

Gray, D. (trans). The Cakrasaṃvara Tantra: the discourse of Sri Heruka

(Sriherukabhidhana). New York: Columbia University Press, 2007.

Heras, Rev. H. “The Royal Patrons of the University of Nālandā”. In: Journal of the
Bihar and Orissa Research Society, Vol. XIV, nº 1. 1928, p. 1 – 23

Hobsbawn, T. The Invention of Tradition. New York: Cambridge University Press:

1983

Hunter, W.W., The Indian Musalman. London: Trubner, 1876: 151- 152

Kapstein, M. “Buddhist Thought in Tibet: an Historical Overview” In: Edelglass, W.,

Garfield Jay., The Oxford Handbook of World Philosophy. New York: Oxford
University Press, 2011.

Karmay, S. G. The Great Perfection (rdzogs chen): A Philosophical and Meditative

Teaching in Tibetan Buddhism. Boston: Brill, 2007.

Kumar, Pintu. “Cultural life at Nālandā University”. In: Murthy (ed.). The Icfai Journal
of History and Culture. Vol. IV, No. 1/2. Hyderabad. 2010.

__________. “Studies in Medicine at Śrī Nālandā Mahāvihāra: An Introduction”. In:

Online International Interdisciplinary Research Journal, Vol. VI, 2016

__________. “The ancient Nālandā Mahāvihāra: The beginning of Institutional

Education”. In: Journal of the World Universities Forum. Vol. IV, no. 1, 2011.

Lang, Karen. “Mādhyamaka School”. In: In: Buswell, Robert (ed.). Encyclopedia of
Buddhism. New York: Macmillan Reference, 2004.

Leoshko, Janice. Sacred Traces: British Explorations of Buddhism in South Asia.

England; Burlington, 2003, 10.

Mazumdar, B. P., Socio-Economic History of Northern India. Calcutta: K. L.

Mukhopadhyay, 1960.

Miśra B, Nālandā. Delhi: B. R. Publishing, 1998.

Mookerji, R. K. Ancient Indian Education: Brahmanical and Buddhism. London:

Macmillan, 1969, p. 586.

Obermiller, E. History of Buddhism by Bu Ston. Leipzig: O. Harrasoowitz, 1931.

Rajani, M. B., “The Expanse of Archaeological Remains at Nālandā: A Study Using

Remote Sensing and GIS. In: Archives of Asian Art, Vol. 66: n. 1, 2016, 1 – 23.

Ramesh, Y. “Schools of Thought on Indian Historiography – An Interpretation”. In:

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research. Vol 2, 2016.
 53

Ray, Reginald. Secret of the Vajra World: The Tantric Buddhism of Tibet. Boston:
Shambala Publications, 2001.

Roerich, George. Biography of Dharmaswāmi. Patna: Jayaswal Research Institute,

1959.

Ruegg, D. S. The Literature of the Mādhyamaka School of Philosophy in India.

Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. 1981.

Sammadar, J.N. The Glories of Magadha. Patna: Kuntaline Press. 1927

Sankalia, H.D., The University of Nālandā. Madras: B.G. Paul, 1934.

Sastri, H. Nālandā and its Epigraphic Materials, Memories of the Archeological Survey
of India, No. 66, Delhi, p. 07ff, 1941.

________. “The Nālandā Cooper-plate of Devapaladeva”. In: H. Krishna Sastri (ed.).

Epigraphia Indica. Bombay, 1923.

Schaik, Sam van. Tibet: A History. New York: Yale University Press, 2011.

Shakabpa, T. Tibet: A Political History. New York: Yale University Press, 1984.

Singh, Upinder, The Discovery of Ancient India: Early Archaeologists and the
Beginnings of Archaeology. Delhi: Permanent Black, 2004.

Singh, D. K., Sacred Sites and Sacred Identities: A Study of Nālandā and Its Vicinity (c.
600–1200 a.d.). M.Phil. diss., University of Delhi, India, 2010.

Singh, Anand. “’destruction’ and ‘decline’ of Nālandā Mahāvihāra: Prejudices and

Praxis. In: Journal of the Asiatic Society of Sri Lanka, New Series. Vol. 58, Nº 1, 2013.
p. 23 – 49.

Smith, Vincent. General Index to the Reports of the Archaeological Survey of India,
vols. I–XXIII. Calcutta, 1887: 343.

Stewart, Mary. Nālandā mahāvihāra: A Study of an Indian Pala period Buddhist Site
and British Historical Archaeology, 1861 – 1938, Oxford: BAR, 1989.

Steven, Darian. “Buddhism in Bihar from the eighth to the twelfth century with special
references to Nālandā” In:Études asiatiques: revue de la Société Suisse – Asie. Vol. 25,
1971. p. 335 – 352.

Valliere, Paul. “Tradition”. In: JONES, Lindsay. Encyclopedia of Religion. Vol. 13, 2 nd
edition. Farmington Hills: Thompson Gale editions, 2005. pp. 9267 – 9281.

Vidyabhusana, S. A History of Indian Logic. Delhi: Motilal Barnasidass, 1920.

___________. History of the Medieval School of Indian Logic. New Delhi, Munshiram
Manoharlal, 1909.
 54

Woodhead, L. Religions in the Modern World. Abingdon: Oxon, 2016.

Yamamoto, C. S., “The Historical Roots of Tibetan Scholasticism”. In: Religion

Compass, Vol. 3, 2009. 823-835.
 55

Appendix 1 –

The Intellectual Networks of the 17 Nālandā Masters

The purpose of this appendix is to explore the list of 17 Nālandā Masters, trying

to unravel why the 14th Dalai Lama has selected these particular names and presented

them in this particular order. The methodology to unfold this list was through the

drawing of a chart containing the basic information about the life and work of each of

these masters, followed by a historical contextualization of the intellectual history of

Nālandā mahāvihāra. This chart was prepared through the reading and extraction of

information from the specialized academic literature of each of the Masters. A

bibliographical review revealed an amount of more than 200 books about the 17

masters. I filtered this bibliography according to the specific information I needed to

extract in this context, and selected 70 books which deal with the lives of the masters in

a systematic manner. For each master, I surveyed two or more books looking primarily

to acknowledge the technical information about their lives and leaving aside the

philosophical aspects of their thoughts

The chart of the 17 Nālandā masters is organized according to: name, lifetime,

most important works, conditions of the manuscripts, central concepts, and importance

for the development of Nālandā Tradition. As for the first section, “Names”, it is

important to stress that some names of the Nālandā Masters have one or more

corresponding characters. Nāgārjuna, Āryadeva and Candrakīrti, for example, have also

their “Tantric” version of the people who wrote tantric treatises. Scholars did not prove

the identity of these masters as being the same, even if generally some of them are

considered as such. The present research is concerned with the philosophers whose

academic literature has been acknowledged as pertaining to the author of the

philosophical treatises presented here. I present the “Lifetime” in terms of approximate

 56

dates (ca). In the “Most Important Works”, I present the most important works of each

master, in terms of their Sanskrit original names, along with their possible translation

into English. Because of the limited space and time for this research, a comprehensive

compendium of the complete works of the 17 Nālandā Masters preserved in the

Tengyur, which contains 458 works in number, was not possible. In addition, the names

of these works in Tibetan version are not mentioned, as well as their location in the

Tengyur. This information can receive attention in the future. In the section “Situation

of the Manuscript”, I carefully selected from the academic literature what is the

condition of the Sanskrit original manuscript of each of the 48 works presented in this

table. This section reveals that if Tibetans are saying that they have preserved “Nālandā

Tradition” intact, it is not without reason, as most part of the original Sanskrit

manuscripts are lost, and the works of many of these masters are preserved only in

Tibetan translation. The following section is “Central Concepts”, where the ideas and

connections between them are exposed. This section will receive further

contextualization after the table. Finally, the last part of the table is “Importance for the

Development of the Nālandā Tradition”, where the importance is shortly presented.

Here is a detailed presentation of the Nālandā Tradition:

 57

Name Lifetime Most Important Works Situation of Central Concepts 121 Importance for
the the Development
of the Nālandā
Manuscript Tradition

1-Nāgārjuna ca. 150– Mūlamādhyamakakārikā (MMK) – PST Inspired by the logical inquiry into the Prajñāpāramitā- Founder of the
250 CE Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way sūtras,122 Nāgārjuna criticized the tenets of Vaibhāṣika and Mādhyamaka
Sautrāntika, especially the Abhidharma tradition of the Philosophy.128
Yuktiṣaṣṭikakārikā– The Seventy Stanzas POT Sarvāstivāda,123 which understands the selflessness of person
but fails to realize that all phenomena are devoid of inherent
existence (svabhāva).124 For Sarvāstivāda, there is an atomic
Śūnyatāsaptati – The Seventy Verses on POT
reality, which grants the external existence of dharmas. 125 For
Emptiness Nāgārjuna this is not possible, as all phenomena are
dependently originated, proclaiming the emptiness of all
Vigrahavyāvartanī – The End of Disputes PST
phenomena (śūnyatā) in both conventional and ultimate levels,
including mind.126 Nāgārjuna’s perspective was penned down
Vaidalyaprakarana – Pulverizing the POT in the Mūlamādhyamakakārikā (MMK), a work that “silenced
Categories the contesting śrāvaka-s who believed in the external
reality”.127
NWT: 130

121
The detailed bibliography as base for the information of this table is provided in the Appendix 1
122
Harvey, 2013: 114
123
Winters, 1994: 22
124
Hayes, 2017
125
Walser, 2005: 224
126
Ruegg, 1981: 7
127
Taranatha, 108
128
Hayes, 2017
 58

2-Āryadeva ca. 170- Catuhśatakaśāstrakārikā – Four ESPTC Synthetized the path of the Bodhisattva with the ideas of Main disciple
270 Hundred Stanzas on the Yogic Deeds of Mādhyamaka.129 of Nāgārjuna
131
Bodhisattvas
Consolidated Mādhyamaka against non-Buddhist
systems.130
NWT: 23 Co-founder of
Mādhyamaka
Philosophy132
3-Buddhapālita ca. 470 – Mulamādhyamakavṛtti– Commentary POT Buddhapalita advocated the continuity of Nāgārjuna’s Wrote the first
540 on MMK logical method of prasaṅga – reductio ad absurdum commentary on
-, and resisted the adoption of the logical and MMK
epistemological innovations brought into Mahāyāna by
Dignāga.133 Under this method, one does not take any
NWT: 1 position of his own, but merely reduces to contradiction Outlined the
and inconsistency the systems and arguments of Prāsaṅgika sub-
opponents proceeding from principles accepted by school of
them.134 Mādhyamaka

129
Sonam: 2008: 27.
130
Tsonawa: 1985: 13.
131
Jones, 2011: 3.
132
Idem, Ibidem: 3
133
Ruegg, 1981: 60.
134
Cheng, 1982: 5.
 59

4-Bhāvaviveka ca. 500 - Prajñāpradīpa - Lamp of Wisdom PTC
570
Mādhyamakahrdayakārikā – Verses on PST
the Heart of the Middle Way
Tarkajvālā – Blaze of Reasoning
NWT: 7
Bhāvaviveka generally accepted the Sautrāntika Outlined the
conception of reality, in which atoms build up the Sautrantika-
conventional reality of the external objects, and criticized Svātantrika sub-
the Yogācāra views of the three natures. 135 At the same school of
time, he adheres to the epistemology brought up from
Mādhyamaka
within Yogācāra by Dignāga, suggesting the autonomous
POT
syllogism – svātantrika -, and criticizes Buddhapālita for
failing to do the same. Even though he was explicitly
going against Nāgārjuna’s method exemplified in
Buddhapālita’s work136, his efforts can be seen as part of
an attempt to “modernize” Mādhyamaka and make it
more relevant to the philosophical controversies of his
own time.137 According to Bhāvaviveka’s view, the
necessary co-ordination with scripture (āgama) of an
adequate logical method of reasoning (yukti) requires
more than prasaṅga arguments. To establish the
Madhyamika’s position there is a need to add an
independent (svatantra) inference (anumāṇa), which can
also be embodied in a proper ‘syllogism’
(prayogavākya).138

135
Guenther, 1976: 131.
136
Jones, 2011: 143.
137
Ames, 2003: 57.
138
Ruegg, 1981: 61.
 60

5-Candrakīrti ca. 600- Prasannapadā – Clear Words PST Candrakīrti explicitly criticized Bhāvaviveka and Gave strength to
650 Dignāga.139 Buddhapālita did not clearly specify that prasaṅga method.
Madhyamakāvatāra– Guide to the POT prasaṅga should be used in the place of Pramāṇa. It is
Middle Way – Independent work with Bhāvaviveka’s refutation of Buddhapālita and
insistence on Pramāṇa that the necessity for a clear Madhyamakāvatā
Bodhisattvayogacārācatuhśatakavṛtti– ESPT statement of prasaṅga method arose.140 Candrakīrti ra is a
states that Dignaga’s school endorses a subtle version of “supplement” of
The only existent commentary on
Essentialism, whereas Yogācāra advocates a form of the MMK, which
Āryadeva’s 400 Stanzas subjective idealism which fails to understand that is not a
everything, including the mind, is empty. 141 Hence, he commentary nor a
NWT: 21 confronts Bhāvaviveka with having failed to supply a root-text, but an
convincing response to Nāgārjuna’s original points of “enhancement” of
view, and reinforces Buddhapālita’s prasaṅga method.142 Nagarjuna’s
perspectives.

6-Śāntideva ca. 685 - Bodhicaryāvatāra – A Guide to the PST This author is famous for offering a concise Offers a concise
730 Bodhisattva’s Way of Life recapitulation of the intellectual improvements of recapitulation of
Nāgārjuna, Āryadeva, Buddhapālita and Candrakīrti – the
Śikṣāsamuccaya – Compendium of Precepts - ESPT the prasaṅgas –, and to emphasize the ethical practice of Mādhyamaka
more than 100 Mahāyāna scriptures. the Bodhisattva path. 143 144 thought.
NWT: 11

139
Ruegg, 1981: 74.
140
Hopkins, 1996: 431.
141
Hayes. 2015.
142
Jones, 2012: 175.
143
Lang, 2004: 481.
144
Hayes, 2015.
 61

7-Śāntarakṣita ca. 725 - Tattvasaṃgraha – Compendium on PST Commented about both Nāgārjuna (Mādhyamaka) Systematized
790 Reality and Dharmakīrti (Yogācāra). the
Mādhyamaka-
Madhyamakālaṃkāra + Vṛtti– POT + POT Yogācāra
Ornament of the Middle Way + auto- Yogācāras criticized Mādhyamikas for tending school.
commentary towards Nihilism. Mādhyamikas criticized
Yogācāras for tending towards Essentialism. This
quarrel continued up to the 8th century, when - Helped
NWT: 11 Śāntarakṣita embraced the Yogācāra of Vasubandhu establishing
and Asaṅga, adopted much of the terminology and Buddhism in
the Logic and Epistemology of Dignāga and Tibet and taught
Dharmakīrti, and integrated all into a Mādhyamaka the Tibetans the
framework of analysis of Nāgārjuna and Āryadeva, philosophical
incorporating elements of Buddhapālita, Candrakīrti perspective of
and Bhāvaviveka. In 763, he was requested by the Mādhyamaka-
Tibetan king to help in the establishment of Yogācāra, based
Buddhism in that country. In this sense, the biggest upon the
merit of Mādhyamaka-Yogācāra was the capacity philosophical
to encapsulate harmoniously, in one school, the traditions of
divergent philosophical thoughts of at least 12 of Nālandā
the 17 masters presented here, and bring it to Tibet. University.

8-Kamalaśīla ca. 740 - Tattvasaṅgrahapañjikā – Commentary PST Went to Tibet at the request of his Master, Helped to
795 on Tattvasaṅgraha Śāntarakṣita, to defend the Mahāyāna gradual path translate the
against the simultaneist Hva san Mahāyāna, most important
Mādhyamakaloka – Light of the Middle POT through a debate in Bsam yas monastery. After standards of
Way winning, the king asked him to write the
Indian
 62

Bhāvanākramas – Stages of Meditation
NWT: 37
Original Sanskrit of Bhāvanākramas, in order to clarify the Mahāyāna Buddhism to
the second chapter is
lost. First and third path. He wrote it from the Mādhyamaka-Yogācāra Tibet.
chapters are extant in perspective, contributing to the presentation of the
Sanskrit. Preserved meditative path to Tibetans, along with the most
completely in Tibetan
prominent philosophical views developed in the
Nālandā University until then.

9–Asaṅga ca. 310 - Mahāyānasaṃgraha - Compendium of ESPTC Asaṅga and Vasubandhu have merged into a massive and Systematized
390 Mahāyāna systematic synthesis all the preceding Buddhist the Yogācāra
teachings, attempting to formulate a definitive one
(nītārtha). They provided an examination and description
School
Abhidharmasamuccaya - Compendium of PSTC
of how the mind works from the psychological,
Abhidharma epistemological, logical, emotional, cognitive, meditative
Yogācārabhūmiśāstra – Discourse on the ESPTC and soteriological points of view. 145
Stages of Yogic Practice Yogācāra puts so much emphasis on the role of the mind
in constructing the knowledge of the world that even
Attributed to Maitreya, compiled by PSTC external objects are considered to be devoid of intrinsic
Asaṅga: Abhisamayālaṅkāra - Ornament nature.146 Mind is the only vehicle for their
of Clear Realization understanding, and all concepts of an external physical
reality are conceived as mind-only (citta-mātra).147
Madhyāntavibhāga – Discourse on PSTC
Discrimination between Middle and Most part of Asaṅga’s writings are rooted in the practice
Extremes of meditation, and he is the compiler of five root-texts
assigned to Maitreya.148
NWT: 12

145
Lusthaus, 2004: 913.
146
Harvey, 2013: 130.
147
Tola, 2004: xii.
148
Conze, 1954: 1.
 63

10-Vasubandhu ca. 320 - Abhidharmakośa – The Treasury of PST Gave to Yogācāra its theoretical frame. Co-founder of
400 Abhidharma Yogācāra
School
Trimśikākārikā - Thirty Verses PSTC Vasubandhu’s works are rooted in the theoretical
elaboration and critics of Vaibhāṣika and Sautrāntika.149
Vimśatikākārikā + bhāsya - Twenty PSTC
Verses + Elucidation
Four most important disciples: Sthimarti, Dignāga,
Pañcaskandhaprakarana – Exposition PTC Vimuktisena, Guṇaprabha.
on the Five Aggregates
Karmasiddhiprakaraṇa - Investigation PTC
Establishing [the Correct Understanding
of] Karma
NWT: 38
11-Dignāga ca. 480– Pramāṇasamuccaya + Vṛtti - PST (Sanskrit As Dignāga was Vasubandhu’s disciple, the logico- Founder of the
540 Compendium of Valid Cognition + restored from epistemological school arose from inside Yogācāra. 150 Buddhist School
His endeavor was to define the concept of valid of Logic and
Commentary Tibetan) cognition (pramāṇa) through perception (pratyakṣa) and Epistemology
inference (anumāṇa), resulting in the separation of the
Vṛtti = POT (pramāna).
“genuine” entities in the realm of existence from the
Àlambanaparīkṣa –Examination of the PTC “fake” ones.151 His Pramāṇasamuccaya propounds an
epistemological system independent from the non-
Object of Awareness Buddhist systems of logic such as Nyāyā, which

149
Anacker, 1984: 17.
150
Chatophadyaya, 1970: 181.
151
Dunne, 2004: 469.
 64

Hetucakraḍamaru - Rotating the POT accepted other means of knowledge such as comparison
Wheels and analogy (upamāṇa).152

Nyäyapravesa – Easy Treatise on Logic PSTC

Introduced the nominalist apoha theory (differentiation
NWT: 18 from others).

12-Dharmakīrti ca. 600- Pramāṇavarttikakārikā- Commentary POT Dharmakirti’s main objective was to explain how one Refined
660 on [Dignaga’s] Compendium of Valid can obtain completely certain, indubitable knowledge. 153 Dignāga’s
He clarifies Dignāga’s notions of perception, inference
Cognition and the apoha theory.154 With this, his main contribution
work.
was to explain how it is possible for our arbitrary and
Nyāyabindu -A Drop of Reasoning POT
conventional linguistic schemes to refer to “particulars”
Hetubindu -A Drop of Logical Reason POT that are ineffable and non-conceptual.155 His innovations
became so prominent that eventually most part of the
Vādanyāya - Logic of Argumentation POT Indian Buddhist thinkers had adopted this
epistemological point of view.156
NWT: 16

152
Hattori, 1968: 78.
153
Dunne, 2004: 225.
154
Tillesman, 2017.
155
Dreyfus, 1997: 263
156
Dunne, 2004, 225.
 65

13-Vimuktisena ca. 500 - Abhisamayālaṅkārakārikāvārttika - PST His work comes from inside Yogācāra, as he was a Commented the
600 Illuminating the Twenty-five Thousand disciple of Vasubandhu who mastered the Abhisamayālaṅk
Lines: A Commentary on the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra. He combined and āra and
Abhisamayālaṅkāra commented the Ornament of Clear Realization Prajñāpāramitā
(Abhisamayālaṅkāra) with the 25.000 verses Sūtra
Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, and wrote the “Illuminating
the Twenty-five Thousand Lines”. This text clarifies
NWT: 2
the meanings of both Mādhyamaka and Yogācāra.
157

14-Haribhadra ca. 770 - Abhisamayālaṅkāraloka– Light Ornament: PST Haribhadra, a disciple of Śāntarakṣita,158 combined Commented the
812 A Great Commentary on the 8000 Verses Abhisamayālaṅkāra with the 8.000 verses Abhisamayālaṅk
Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra and composed āra and
Sphuṭārthā - Clear Meaning PST Abhisamayālaṅkāraloka.159 Haribhadra’s Prajñāpāramitā
commentary was polemical, and initiated a Sūtra
NWT: 5 controversy that was undertaken by his followers
regarding the four-kaya model of Vimuktisena’s
normative views.160

157
Ruegg, 1984: 101.
158
Chatopadhyaya, 1970, 166.
159
Williams, 2004: 68.
160
Makransky, 1997: 6.
 66

15-Guṇaprabha ca. 600 - Vinayasūtra - Basic Teachings of the PST Guṇaprabha was the disciple of Vasubandhu who Helped to
700 Monastic Discipline Code mastered Vinaya, and composed the Vinaya-Sūtra. institutionalize
This is a commentary on the canonical Vinaya texts the monastic
with a Mūlasarvāstivāda orientation.161 tradition of
Tibet
? Auto-commentary on Vinayasūtra POT
NWT: 7

16-Śākyaprabha ca. 700 - Āryamūlasarvāstivādisramajjerakārikā - POT His importance is similar to the previous one. Helped to
800 Three Hundred Verses Showing the Possibly a disciple of Guṇaprabha. institutionalize
Meaning of Vinaya the Vinaya
Tradition in
? Possessing Light – auto-commentary of POT Tibet
the above

NWT: 2

161
Takakusu, 1896: 182.
 67

17-Atīśa ca. 982- Bodhipathapradipam – A Lamp for the ESPT Introduced the system of trisamvara (monastic Fundamental
1054 Path to Enlightenment vows; bodhisattva vows; tantric vows). figure for the
Second Spread
of the Dharma
NWT: 117 By the beginning of the Second Spread of the in Tibet.
Dharma in Tibet, the king Yeshe ‘Od sent
emissaries to invite the Master Atīśa in Tibet to
help spreading the Dharma. When he arrived, Contributed to
the previous king was dead and the current one, the translation
Byang chub 'Od, requested him to teach the of many
Dharma in the easiest way, in order to eradicate manuscripts
the wrong practices and misunderstandings from Sanskrit
currently present in Tibetan Buddhism. For this to Tibetan.
purpose, Atīśa wrote “A Lamp for the Path to
Enlightenment”, a book that does not go for
Total number of works ascribed to intricate and difficult philosophical Founder of the
the 17 Nālandā Masters in the explanations, but it is a guide for the elemental Kadampa
Tengyur: 458 practices of Buddhism and Tantra. After that, Tradition and
he made missionary work for many years in the Lam Rim
different regions of Tibet for establishing and perspective,
reforming the Mahāyāna Buddhism. which evolved
into Gelug.

Subtitle: Preserved in Sanskrit and Tibetan (PST); Lost in Sanskrit and preserved Only in Tibetan (POT); Excerpts in Sanskrit and preserved in
Tibetan (ESPT); Preserved in Tibetan and Chinese (PTC); Excerpts in Sanskrit, preserved in Tibetan and Chinese (ESPTC); Preserved in
Sanskrit, Tibetan and Chinese (PSTC); Number of works ascribed in Tengyur (NWT)
 68

Contextualizing the 17 Nālandā Masters

From the presentation of this table, it is possible to track how the intellectual

history of Nālandā mahāvihāra developed in India between the 2nd and 8th centuries CE.

Until the 1st century CE, the Buddhist education was confined to the learning of the

sectarian knowledge through the study of the canonical literature. 162 When Buddhist

scholars started to practice debate, the canonical scriptures started to be read from a

critical point of view, turning attention to the composition of the first philosophical

root-texts. Among the early Mahāyāna literature, the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras became the

main inspiration among the Nālandā masters for the elaboration of their philosophical

ideas.

During around the 2nd century CE, the first master, Nāgārjuna, founds the

Mādhyamaka schools, the first development of Mahāyāna Philosophy. 163 Nāgārjuna

proposes the logical methodology of ad absurdum (prasaṅga) as a means to inquire into

both the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras and the Abhidharmic tradition of Sarvāstivāda.164 With

this, he came up with the Mādhyamaka, a school of Buddhist philosophy independent

from the sectarian religious threads of Buddhism.165 This school explains the implicit

meanings of the emptiness of phenomena (svabhāva) through the logical inquiry of

prasaṅga. The second master, Āryadeva, is the chief disciple of Nāgārjuna, who helped

the establishment of Mādhyamaka.

From the third to the sixth masters are the most important commentators of

Nāgārjuna’s work and successors of the Mādhyamaka Philosophy from the 5th century

162
Sankalia, 1934: 6.
163
Williams, 2004: 582.
164
Ruegg, 1981: 11
165
Winters, 1994: 22
 69

onwards. They are (1) Buddhapālita, Candrakīrti and Śāntideva as proponents of what

came to be the “Prāsaṅgika-Mādhyamaka” sub-school, and (2) Bhāvaviveka, as the

proponent of what became the “Svātantrika-Mādhyamaka” sub-school. Buddhapālita,

the first commentator of Mūlamādhyamakakārikā, reinforces the prasaṅga method of

reductio ad absurdum. In the sequence, Bhāvaviveka tried to innovate Mādhyamaka,

criticizing Buddhapālita’s approach and introducing the ideas of autonomous syllogism

(svātantra-anumāna), and suggesting that during a debate one should apply Dignāga’s

epistemological method of syllogistic form. Candrakīrti criticized Bhāvaviveka,

reinforcing Buddhapālita’s method of prasaṅga, and Śāntideva presented an ethical

guide for Bodhisattvas based upon this same doctrine, representing the maturation of

“Prāsaṅgika-Mādhyamaka”. Thus, the first six of the 17 Masters represent the

Mādhyamaka Philosophy.

During the 3rd and 4th centuries CE, the masters nine and ten (skipping the

seventh and eighth for the moment), Asaṅga and Vasubandhu, systematize the Yogācāra

schools, in the second development of Mahāyāna Philosophy.166 Alternatively from

Nāgārjuna, Asaṅga approached the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras from the logical perspective

of syllogism and inference and systematized the Abhisamayālaṅkāra, a treatise which

explains the explicit meanings of emptiness by studying the spiritual progress of the five

paths and ten bodhisattva levels.167 Thus, the masters 9 and 10 represent the Yogācāra

Philosophy.

During the 5th century CE, contemporary to the so-called “foundation” of

Nālandā mahāvihāra by the Gupta Kings, the master eleven, Dignāga, a disciple of

Vasubandhu, elaborated a Buddhist epistemological tradition of logic independent from

166
Lusthaus, 2004: 914.
167
Obermiller, 1932: 7.
 70

Mādhyamaka and Yogācāra which came to be known as “Pramāna”.168 This system

propounds an epistemological method of syllogism independent from the philosophy

prevalent in the 5th century CE. With this, his school came up with a method which

provided a practical tool for the investigation of the Mahāyāna sutras. The master

twelve, Dharmakīrti, contributed to the popularization of Dignāga’s method and

contributed to the establishment of the practice of debate as one of Nālandā’s main

features. The implementation of the curricular practice of debate at Nālandā mahāvihāra

during the 5th century CE transformed the studying, writing, and teachings patterns of

the institution into academic and proof-based, and gave the academic basis for the

emergence of the mahāvihāra. Pramāṇa’s merit was to provide a lingua-franca with

which scholars of different schools could debate and define any kind of Buddhist

terminology.

Nāgārjuna and Asaṅga approached the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras from two different

points of view. The first was by the direct explanation of the meanings of emptiness in

terms of logical reasoning and philosophy. The second was by the indirect explanation

of the hidden meanings of emptiness by studying the spiritual progress of the five paths

and the ten bodhisattva levels.169 During the 6th century CE, there appeared literary

tradition that combined the direct and indirect approaches.170 The thirteenth master,

Vimuktisena, also a disciple of Vasubandhu, combined the Abhisamayālaṅkāra with the

25.000 verses Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra and composed the

Abhisamayālaṅkārakārikāvārttika. Later on, the fourteenth master, Haribhadra (8th

century CE), a disciple of Śāntarakṣita,171 combined Abhisamayālaṅkāra with the 8.000

168
Dunne, 2004: 469.
169
Obbermiller, 1932: 7.
170
Ruegg, 1981: 101.
171
Chatopadhyaya, 1970: 166.
 71

verses Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra and composed Abhisamayālaṅkāraloka.172 Haribhadra’s

commentary was polemical, and initiated a controversy that was undertaken by his

followers regarding the four-kaya model of Vimuktisena’s normative views.173

During the 7th century CE, the fifteenth master, Guṇaprabha, the third disciple of

Vasubandhu, composed the Vinaya Sūtra, a commentary on the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya.

The sixteenth master, Śākyaprabha, complemented this work of commenting the

Vinaya. Both contributed to the establishment of the monastic culture in Tibet.174 This is

a commentary on the canonical Vinaya texts with a Mūlasarvāstivāda orientation.175 The

Vinaya is a moral code followed by Buddhist monks, proclaimed by the Buddha and

preserved in the Tripitaka. After the division of early Buddhism among 18 sects, almost

each tradition came out designing its own version of the codes of rules, resulting with

the Sarvāstivāda, Mahāsāṃghika, Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya, among others.176 Although

no evidences were found suggesting which code of rules were followed at Nālandā

mahāvihāra, the Mūlasarvāstivāda orientation was undertaken by Tibetans from the

very beginning.177 Until today Tibetan monastic students focus less on the canonical

version of the Vinaya and more on their commentaries: Guṇaprabha’s Vinaya-sūtra and

Śākyaprabha’s (700 – 800) Āryamūlasarvāstivādisramajjerakārikā.178

Dignāga (master 11), Vimuktisena (master 13) and Guṇaprabha (master 15),

were Vasubandhu’s disciples who mastered Logic, Prajñāpāramitā Literature and

172
Williams, 2004: 68.
173
Makransky, 1997: 6.
174
Nietupski, 2009.
175
Takakusu, 1896: 182.
176
Frauwallner, 1956: 172.
177
Nietupski, 2009: 2
178
Dreyfus, 2003: 116.
 72

Monastic Literature.179 Hence, the masters 9 to 16 are representatives of the Yogācāra

School.

Finally, the seventeenth master, Atīśa, composed the Bodhipathapradīpa during

the 11th century CE, where he resumes Mahāyāna philosophy and gives advises about

Vajrayāna.180 In the middle of this list, the Masters number 7 and 8, Śāntarakṣita and

Kamalaśīla, are representing the link between the first six – Mādhyamaka, and the

following ones – 9 to 16 (except Atīśa) – who are masters influenced by Yogācāra

perspective.181 Śāntarakṣita summed up all these schools and propounded the

Mādhyamaka-Yogācāra School.182

The arrival of this perspective in Tibet as the first one was important, as it

gathered the most significant developments of Mahāyāna Buddhism until then, and

presented the result in a harmonious manner. It granted the establishment of the

foundations of Mahāyāna Buddhist Philosophy in Tibet without the presence of

intellectual quarrels or disputes. Kamalaśīla, being Śāntarakṣita’s disciple, has played

the role of further translating and promoting the work of his master. Their merits then

were to consolidate in Tibet the synthesis of the Yogācāra of Vasubandhu and Asaṅga,

the Mādhyamaka of Nāgārjuna and Āryadeva, and the Buddhist Logico-

Epistemological Traditions of Dignāga and Dharmakīrti, according to the Yogācāra-

Mādhyamaka perspective.183

After this description of the table, it is possible to visualize the 17 Nālandā

Masters in the two following ways:

179
Tsonawa, 1985: 36.
180
Karmay, 2007: 10.
181
Harvey, 2013: 130.
182
Dunne, 2011: 213.
183
Ibid., 212.
73
 Nāgārjuna

Āryadeva

Buddhapālita
Mādhyamaka
Bhāvaviveka

Candrakīrti

Śāntideva

Śāntarakṣita
Mādhyamaka-Yogācāra
Kamalaśīla

Asaṅga
Yogācāra
Vasubandhu
Dignāga
Pramāna
Dharmakīrti
Vimuktisena
Commented
Abhisamayālaṅkāra
Haribadra

Guṇaprabha
Commented Vinaya
Śākyaprabha

Explained the Nālandā

Atīśa
Tradition in an easy way
 75

Another way to divide the 17 Nālandā Masters is among those who wrote root texts (RT)

and are founders of one of the four schools, and those who wrote commentaries upon the root

texts and helped to establish the schools (COM), usually disciples of the previous ones. In this

sense, we can say that the masters are divided as follows:

1 – Nāgārjuna – RT
2 – Āryadeva – RT
3 – Buddhapālita – COM
4 – Bhāvaviveka – COM
5 – Candrakīrti – COM
6 – Śāntideva – COM
7 – Śāntarakṣita– COM + RT
8 – Kamalaśīla – COM
9 – Asaṅga – RT
10 – Vasubandhu – RT
11 – Dignāga – COM + RT
12 – Dharmakīrti– COM + RT
13 – Vimuktisena – COM
14 – Haribhadra – COM
15 – Guṇaprabha – COM
16 – Śākyaprabha – COM
17 – Atīśa – presentation in an easy way + link with Vajrayāna

Presented in this manner, we can see that four among the 17 are those who have initially

developed the philosophical schools of Mādhyamaka and Yogācāra. Three among the 17 are

commentators but wrote root texts also, which gave birth to new schools, but were inspired by

the contents of previous philosophies available (Mādhyamaka-Yogācāra and Pramāna). Nine

among the 17 are only commentators, who contributed to establish and spread these

philosophical traditions in different ways. In this sense, we can perceive three kinds of masters

among the 17 Nālandā Masters. Firstly, there are those who have effectively systematized the

philosophical schools – Mādhyamaka and Yogācāra. Secondly, there are those who, inspired by

these schools, developed the new ones – Mādhyamaka-Yogācāra and Pramāna. Thirdly, there are
 76

those who contributed to establish and disseminate the previous schools, commenting upon the

root texts. Apart from all of them is Atīśa who did not comment on root texts, but composed a

guide to help the easy understanding of Mahāyāna Buddhism.

Bibliography as base for the Information of the Table:

1 - Nāgārjuna:

Burton, David. Emptiness Apraised: A Critical Study of Nāgārjuna’s Philosophy. New Delhi:
Motilal Barnasidass, 1999.

Dunne, John D. "Mādhyamaka in India and Tibet." In Oxford Handbook of World Philosophy.”
Edited by J. Garfield and W. Edelglass. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 2011, p. 206-221.

Hayes, Richard, "Mādhyamaka", the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (spring 2017

Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), (April 29, 2017)
URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/Mādhyamaka/>.

Harvey, Peter. An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, History and Practice. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 2013.

Jones, Richard (trans). Indian Mādhyamaka Buddhism after Nāgārjuna: Volume 1. New York:
Jackson Square Books. 2011.

________. Indian Mādhyamaka Buddhism after Nāgārjuna: Volume 2. New York: Jackson
Square Books. 2012.

Lang, Karen. “Mādhyamaka School”. In: Buswell, Robert (ed.). Encyclopedia of Buddhism. New
York: Macmillan Reference, 2004.

Nāgārjuna, 2nd century. Twelve Gate Treatise. Translated by Hsueh-li Cheng. Boston: D. Reidel,
1982

_________. Mūlamādhyamakakārikā: Nāgārjuna’s Middle way. Translated by Mark Siderits and

Shōryū Katsura. Somerville: Wisdom Publications, 2013.

Ramanan, Venkata. Nāgārjuna’s Philosophy: as presented in the mahāprajnāpāramitā-

śāstra. New Delhi: Motilal Barnasidass, 1966.

Ruegg, David Seyfort. The Literature of the Mādhyamaka School of Philosophy in India.
Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1981
 77

Walser, Joseph. Nāgārjuna in Context: Mahāyāna Buddhism and early Indian culture. New
York: Columbia University Press, 2005.

Westerhoff, Jan. Nāgārjuna’s Mādhyamaka: a philosophical introduction. New York: Oxford

University Press. 2009

Westerhoff, Jan Christoph, "Nāgārjuna", the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (spring

2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), (April 28, 2017)
URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/Nāgārjuna/>.

Williams, Paul. “Nāgārjuna”. In: Buswell, Robert (ed.). Encyclopedia of Buddhism. New York:
Macmillan Reference, 2004.

Williams, Paul. Mahāyāna Buddhism: the doctrinal Foundations. Abingdon: Routledge ed.,
1989.

Winters, Jonah. Thinking in Buddhism: Nāgārjuna’s Middle Way. PhD thesis. 1994

2 – Āryadeva

Āryadeva. Four Hundred verses on Yogic deeds of Bodhisattvas. Translated by Ruth Sonam.
New York: Snow Lion Publication, 2008

________. Catuhśataka. Translated by Vidhushekhara Bhattacharya. Calcutta: Visva-Bharati. ?

Johnson, Dennis. Refuting the Conditioned – The Saṃskṛtārthapratiṣedha of Candrakīrti’s

Catuḥśatakaṭīkā. MPhil Thesis. Wien: University of Wien. 2012

Katsumi, Mimaki. "Āryadeva." Encyclopedia of Religion. Encyclopedia.com. (April 28,

2017). http://www.encyclopedia.com/environment/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-
maps/Āryadeva

Lang, Karen. Four Illusions: Candrakīrti’s advice for travelers on the Bodhisattva path. New
York: Oxford University Press, 2003

Lang, Karen. “Āryadeva”. In: Buswell, Robert (ed.). Encyclopedia of Buddhism. New York:
Macmillan Reference, 2004.

Tillemans, Tom. Materials for the Study of Āryadeva, Dharmapala and Candrakīrti. Wien:
University of Wien, 1990.

3 – Buddhapālita

“Buddhapālita” (April 28, 2017): http://www.tamqui.com/buddhaworld/Buddhapālita

 78

“Who was Buddhapālita?” (April 28, 2017):

http://www.Buddhapālitavrtti.com/Buddhapālita.php

Hopkins, Jeffrey. Meditation on emptiness. Somerville: Wisdom Publications, 1983

4 – Bhāvaviveka

Ames, William. “Bhāvaviveka's Prajñāpradīpa: A Translation of Chapter Six, Examination of

Desire and the One Who Desires, and Chapter Seven, Examination of Origination, Duration, and
Cessation” In: Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 2, (2000) p. 1-92

Dreyfus, Georges and McClintock, Sara (ed.). The Prāsangika-Śvātantrika distinction: what
difference does a difference make? Somerville: Wisdom Publications. 2003

Eckel, David Malcolm. Bhāvaviveka and his Buddhist Opponents. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 2008

Ruegg, David Seyfort. The Buddhist philosophy of the Middle: essays on Indian and Tibetan
Mādhyamaka. Somerville: Wisdom Publications, 2010.

Santina, Peter Della. Mādhyamaka Schools in India. New Delhi: Motilal Barnasidass, 1986

Watanabe, Chikafumi. “A Translation of the Mādhyamakahrdayakarika with the Tarkajvala III.

137-146”. In: Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 21, no. 1 (1998) p.
125-155

Williams, Paul. “Bhāvaviveka”. In: Buswell, Robert (ed.). Encyclopedia of Buddhism. New
York: Macmillan Reference, 2004.

5 – Candrakīrti

Candrakīrti, Madhyamakāvatāra. Translated by the Padmakara Translation Group. Boston:

Shambala Publications, 2002.

Huntington, C.W. Jr. The Emptiness of Emptiness. New Delhi: Motilal Barnasidass, 1982.

Rizzi, Cesare. Candrakīrti. New Delhi: Motilal Barnasidass, 1988.

Ruegg, David Seyfort. Two Prolegomena to Mādhyamaka Philosophy. Wien: University of

Wien, 2002.

6 – Śāntideva

Kelsang Gyatso, Geshe. Meaningful to Behold: A Commentary to Śāntideva’s Guide to the

Bodhisattva’s Way of Life. London: Wisdom Publications, 1980.
 79

Śāntideva. A Guide to the Bodhisattva’s Way of Life. Translated by Marion Matics. New Delhi:
Sri Satguru. 2002

7 – Śāntarakṣita

Blumenthal, James, "Śāntarakṣita", the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (winter 2016

Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), (April 28, 2017)
URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/saantarak-sita/>.

Blumenthal, James. The ornament of the middle way: a study of the Mādhyamaka thought of
Śāntarakṣita. New York: Snow Lion Publications, 2004.

8 – Kamalaśīla

Dalai Lama, XIV. Stages of Meditation: Training the Mind for Wisdom; root text translated by
Ven. Geshe Lobsang Jorhen, Losang C. Ganchenpa, and Jeremy Russell. New York: Snow Lion
Publications, 2001

Kamalaśīla. Bhavanakramas. Translated by Paramananda Sharma. New Delhi: Aditya

Prakashan. 1997

9 – Asaṅga

Asaṅga. Abhidharmasamuccaya. Translated by Walpola Rahula. Fremont: Asian Humanities

Press, 2001.

______. Mahāyānasutralankara. Translated by L. Jamspal. New York. Columbia University

Press.

Keenan, John P. “Asaṅga”. In: Buswell, Robert (ed.). Encyclopedia of Buddhism. New York:
Macmillan Reference, 2004.

Lusthaus, Dan. “Yogācāra”. In: Buswell, Robert (ed.). Encyclopedia of Buddhism. New York:
Macmillan Reference, 2004.

________. “What is and isn’t Yogācāra”. (April 28, 2017):

http://www.acmuller.net/Yogācāra/articles/intro.html

10 – Vasubandhu

Anacker, Stefan. Seven Works of Vasubandhu. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1984

Gold, Jonathan. Paving the Great Way: Vasubandhu’s Unifying Buddhist Philosophy. New
York: Columbia University Press.
 80

Gold, Jonathan C., "Vasubandhu", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2017
Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), (April 28, 2017)
URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/vasubandhu/>.

Lusthaus, Dan. “Vasubandhu”. In: Buswell, Robert (ed.). Encyclopedia of Buddhism. New York:
Macmillan Reference, 2004.

Tola, Fernando., Dragonetti, Carmen. Being as Consciousness: Yogācāra Philosophy of

Buddhism. New Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass, 2004.

11 – Dignāga

Dignāga. Pramāṇasamuccaya. Translated by Masaaki Hattori. Cambridge: Harvard University

Press, 1968.

Dunne, John. “Dignāga” In: Buswell, Robert (ed.). Encyclopedia of Buddhism. New York:
Macmillan Reference, 2004.

Dunne, John. “Logic”. In: Buswell, Robert (ed.). Encyclopedia of Buddhism. New York:
Macmillan Reference, 2004.

Hayes, Richard. Dignāga: on the Interpretation of Signs. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic

Publisher, 1988

Vidyabhusana, Satis Chandra. A History of Indian Logic. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, ?

12 – Dharmakīrti

Bapat, Lata S. Buddhist Logic: a Fresh Study of Dharmakīrti’s Philosophy. New Delhi:
Bharatiya Vidya Prakashan, 1989

Dunne, John. “Dharmakīrti” In: Buswell, Robert (ed.). Encyclopedia of Buddhism. New York:
Macmillan Reference, 2004.

Dunne, John. Foundation of Dharmakīrti’s philosophy. Somerville: Wisdom Publications, 2004.

Dreyfus, Georges. Recognizing reality: Dharmakīrti’s philosophy and its Tibetan interpretations.
New York: State University of New York Press, 1997

Katsura, Shoryu. Dharmakīrti’s thought and its Impact on Indian and Tibetan Philosophy. Wien:
University of Wien, 1999.

Tillemans, Tom, "Dharmakīrti", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (spring 2017

Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
<https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/dharmakiirti/>.
 81

Tillemans, Tom. Scripture, Logic, Language: essays on Dharmakīrti and his Tibetan successors.
Somerville: Wisdom Publications, 1999

13 – Vimuktisena

Vimuktisena. Abhisamayālaṅkāra with Vrtti and Aloka. Translated by Gareth Sarham. Fremont:
Jain Publishing, 2009.

14 – Haribhadra

Asaṅga. Abhisamayālañkāra: The Large Sutra on Perfect Wisdom. Translated by Edward Conze.
Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1984

15 – Guṇaprabha

Bapat, P. V., “Guṇaprabha’s Vinayasūtra and his Own Commentary on the same” In: Journal of
the International Association of Buddhist Studies 1, no. 2 (1979).

Nietupski, Paul. “Guṇaprabha’s Vinayasūtra Corpus: Texts and Contexts”. In: Journal of the
International Association of Tibetan Studies, no. 5 (December 2009)

16 – Śākyaprabha

“Śākyaprabha” In: http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Śākyaprabha (April 28, 2017)

17 – Atīśa

Chandra Das, Sarat. Indian Pandits in the Land of Snow. London: Baptist Mission Press, 1893

Kalsang, Lama Thubten (et al). Atīśa: A Biography of the renowned Buddhist sage. Bangkok:
Mahāyāna Publications, 1974.

Sparham, Gareth. “Atīśa”. In: In: Buswell, Robert (ed.). Encyclopedia of Buddhism. New York:
Macmillan Reference, 2004.

Tulku, Doboom., Mullin, Glenn. Atīśa and Buddhism in Tibet. New Delhi: Tibet House, 1983
 82

Appendix 2 –

The Sanskrit original manuscripts and Tibetan translations of the treatises of

the 17 Nālandā Masters

Among the 458 treatises of the 17 Nālandā Masters preserved in the Tengyur, 48 were

analyzed for the present study, those which Tibetans consider the most important works of these

masters. After analyzing the available literature on these masters, it was possible to track what is

the situation of each of these manuscripts in terms of: Lost in Sanskrit and preserved only in

Tibetan (POT); Preserved in Sanskrit and Tibetan (PST); Excerpts in Sanskrit and preserved in

Tibetan (ESPT); Preserved in Tibetan and Chinese (PTC); Excerpts in Sanskrit, preserved in

Tibetan and Chinese (ESPTC); Preserved in Sanskrit, Tibetan and Chinese (PSTC). The

systematization of these 48 treatises allowed the organization of the following table of the

situation of the original manuscripts of the 17 Nālandā Masters:

POT PST ESPTC ESPT PTC PSTC TOTAL TOTAL

For this study NWT
Master
Nāgārjuna 3 2 - - - - 5 130
Āryadeva - - 1 - - - 1 23
Buddhapālita 1 - - - - - 1 1
Bhāvaviveka 1 1 - - 1 - 3 7
Candrakīrti 1 1 1 - - - 3 21
Śāntideva - 1 - 1 - - 2 11
Śāntarakṣita 2 1 - - - - 2 11
Kamalaśīla 2 1 - - - - 3 37
Asaṅga - - 2 - - 3 5 12
Vasubandhu - 1 - - 2 2 5 38
Dignāga 2 1 - - 1 1 5 18
Dharmakīrti 4 - - - - - 4 16
Vimuktisena - 1 - - - - 1 2
Haribhadra - 2 - - - - 2 5
Guṇaprabha 1 1 - - - - 2 7
Śākyaprabha 2 - - - - - 2 2
Atīśa - - - 1 - - 1 117
TOTAL 19 13 4 2 4 6 48 458

Subtitle: Number of works ascribed in Tengyur (NWT)

 83

Analyzing this table, it is possible to perceive that most part of the original manuscripts

were lost in the original Sanskrit, and preserved only in Tibetan, what gives further authority for

the Tibetans leaders to state that they are the holders of this knowledge. When the 14th Dalai

Lama says that Tibetan Buddhism has preserved Nālandā Tradition, he is not only saying that

they are the authorities studying and teaching the legacies from Nālandā, he is also saying that in

a physical level they are the only owners of the treatises of the Nālandā Masters. The Sanskrit

manuscripts that perished and disappeared in time, were translated into Tibetan and remained

until today. It is evident when we look at the table that all the 48 works presented in this research

are preserved in Tibetan. In addition, it is possible to observe how the 458 works of the 17

masters are disposed in the Tengyur. From the total number of 458 works, 193 belongs to

Mādhyamikas, 48 to Mādhyamaka-Yogācāra, 50 to Yogācāras, 50 to the three groups coming

out from Yogācāra, and 117 just to Atīśa. What is possible to understand with this is: (1) most of

the works ascribed to the 17 Nālandā Masters belong to Mādhyamaka; (2) Atīśa alone composed

117 works preserved in the Tengyur. Taking out the works of “1-6”, and “17”, it remains 148

works divided into the Yogācāra masters from 7 to 16.

 84

Appendix 3 –

Interview with Ven. Geshe Dorji Dambdul–

18/12/2017 – Tibet House – New Delhi

Fernando: When I arrived here few minutes ago, before to start the interview, you said

that nowadays it would be more accurate to call “Tibetan Buddhism” as “Nālandā

Tradition”. Why is it so?

Dorgi Dambdul: Because it is always best to go to the root. It is always best to go to the original.

Original in this case is Nālandā. We need to always keep in mind that particularly in Mahāyāna

Buddhism, there is a big confusion in classifying Buddhism by the academic scholars. Buddhism

has been classified as Mahāyāna, Theravada, and Vajrayāna. That’s actually a very wrong

understanding of Buddhism. If someone classifies Buddhism like this, is a clear indication that

this person doesn’t have a clear picture of complete Buddhism. For the complete picture of

Buddhism we should think like this: 1 – who seeks liberation for oneself; 2 – who seeks

liberation for all sentient beings. So the system which seeks liberation for oneself, today is

known as Theravada. And the system which seeks liberation for all beings, today is known as

Mahāyāna. Within this system which seeks liberation for all beings, there is one system which

makes this path much faster, which is Vajrayāna. So Vajrayāna is within the category of

Mahāyāna. Within Mahāyāna, the one which says “I will seek liberation for all beings”, this is

Sutrayāna. And them, the one who says “I will seek liberation for all beings, but very quickly”,

this is Vajrayāna. So Mahāyāna is split into two: Sutrayāna and Vajrayāna. So Chinese

Buddhism we call Sutrayāna-Mahāyāna, and Tibetan Buddhism we call Vajrayāna-Mahāyāna.

 85

Both are Mahāyāna, this is what we need to keep in mind. Now in India, in terms of learning

center of Mahāyāna there were Nālandā, Vikramaśilā, Odantapurī, Taxila, which were the four

biggest centers. Unfortunately the heritage or legacy left today from those places is mainly that

of Nālandā. Some traces are left of the legacies of Vikramaśilā, Taxila, Odantapurī, but most part

of the evidences of their knowledge disappeared. But the knowledge from Nālandā is maintained

intact by the Tibetan tradition. So when we study what is called Tibetan Buddhism in the big

Tibetan monasteries universities of Sakya, Kagyu, Gelug, and Nyingma, all traditions, if you go

there, you will see that they are learning Arya Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamādhyamakakārikā,

Candrakīrti’s Mādhyamakavatara, Acharya Dharmakīrti’s Pramanavartika, Acharya

Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakosh, Acharya’s Guṇaprabha’s Essence of the Vinaya, and so forth.

So all that we have been studying is nothing but the direct root texts of the Nālandā Masters.

What we have been studying did not come from the Tibetans. We do have Tibetan

commentaries, but mostly we learn from the Nālandā masters root. We do not learn by means of

the commentaries, we learn from the root directly. Therefore, His Holiness the Dalai Lama

always says that Tibetan Buddhism is the pure Nālandā Buddhism.

F: But inside what is conceived as Buddhism in Tibet, there are prayers, pujas, the study of

philosophy, tantra, etc. Tibetan Buddhism is vast. What are the boundaries of Nālandā

tradition inside the Tibetan Buddhism? Where is Nālandā tradition inside the whole

picture of Tibetan Buddhism?

D: All the study of philosophy comes from Nālandā tradition. The philosophy which has been

studied in Tibetan tradition belongs to Nālandā. Then Tantra also, the main root texts are from
 86

Nālandā, written by Arya Nāgārjuna, Acharya Candrakīrti, Arya Deva, the saint Nāropa, all these

has been studied under Tantra. Then you are write, there are pujas, pereplex, ritual music, so

these things I think are more from the ancient Bon tradition, which are the local practices that

mixed with the Buddhism coming from India. So from that point of view, we can say that the

hardcore Buddhism being practiced in Tibet are originally from Nālandā, and then there are these

secondary things which are taken from the local tradition. So we see that Tibetan Buddhism can

be called “Nālandā Tradition” because the real Tibetan Buddhism is the philosophy and the main

system of Tantra, which are all coming from Nālandā.

F: And the main place where we can find it is inside the Tibetan universities, the Shedras?

D: Yes, inside the Tratsang and Shedras. Tratsang means Sera, Drepung, Ganden, the biggest

universities.

F: Can we say that this connection with Nālandā is because Tibetan Buddhism is an

intellectual tended kind of Buddhism?

D: Not really, because Buddhism in Tibet was inherited from the teachers. The root teachers of

Nyingma for example, comes from Bodhisattva Śāntarakṣita, and he was a Nālandā Master. Then

Sakya from the great teacher Vivapa, and also goes to Atīśa Dipamkara, who was mainly from

Vikramaśilā, but also from Nālandā. And the Kagyu, from the saint Nāropa, who was from

Nālandā. And Gelug, from Lama Tsongkapa, who has root mainly from Atīśa Dipamkara, who

was from Vikramaśilā and Nālandā. So from there we see the whole tradition. The root teachers
 87

come all from Nālandā. That’s for this reason, and not because it became intellectual and so

forth. There is the separation between the intellectual part and the practice part. To have a very

genuine and powerful practice we need to have a rigid intellectual rigor. So basically this

intellectual rigor is given by Nālandā tradition.

F: This connection with the Nālandā tradition is very powerful nowadays. HH the Dalai

Lama emphasizes it in almost every discourse, saying for example “we preserved Nālandā

tradition for almost 1.000 years”. If we observe the history of Buddhism in Tibet, can we

see this emphasis on the Nālandā tradition even before the invasion of China in Tibet?

People used to talk about the preservation of Nālandā tradition all during the history of

Buddhism in Tibet, or is it a contemporary phenomenon?

D: It was there also before the Chinese invasion.

F: So this concept of “Nālandā tradition” was always there in the history of Buddhism in

Tibet?

D: Of course, yes. It is, and when it is, whenever you go, for example to Brasil, if I go there, you

don’t need to say “I’m Brazilian”, because you already is Brazilian. Likewise, whenever Tibetan

Buddhism is, is Nālandā Buddhism.

F: So there was always an active intention of preservation of this tradition?

 88

D: Yes, very active, always.

F: And how was it preserved during these 1.000 years?

D: Basically by learning, reflecting, and meditating. Studying very toughly inside the Shedras.

Then reflecting, thinking about what was learned and gaining conviction. Then meditating. So it

was preserved through these 3 things. Together with these three means, there was plus the

dissemination, through writing, debating, studying.

F: There is one interview made in March of 2017 with HH the Dalai Lama to Sahapedia,

when he says that “Guru Śāntarakṣita transmitted into Tibet accurately and exactly the

Nālandā tradition”. In this sense, is it correct to say that Nālandā Tradition is exactly what

Śāntarakṣita taught to Tibetans during the 7th century?

D: No. It is like: the boys are human beings, human beings are not boys. Boys are human beings,

but human beings are more than only boys, are also girls and so forth. So the teachings of

Śāntarakṣita are Nālandā Buddhism, but Nālandā Buddhism is broader than that. For example,

Arya Nāgārjuna’s teachings, Arya Deva’s teachings, they are not Arya Śāntarakṣita’s teachings,

they were before Śāntarakṣita.

F: I mean, Śāntarakṣita taught from Nāgārjuna until the 17 Masters. During the Early

dissemination of Tibetan Budhism, from the 7th to the 9th century, most part of the treatises

from Nālandā were translated, according to the tradition of translation of the Lotsawas, so
 89

most part of the works of the Nālandā Masters were translated until the 9th century,

because of the work of Śāntarakṣita.

D: Yes, because of his contribution.

F: So what he taught - including the Mādhyamaka, Yogācāra, Pramāna, and how to

organize the monasteries – can we say that this is the Nālandā tradition?

D: Yes.

F: Can you give me a definition of what is Nālandā tradition?

D: It is a tradition based on the writings of the Nālandā Masters.

F: So Nālandā tradition is specifically a literary philosophical tradition?

D: Yes, that’s right, together with practice.

F: But based on the literary works, which are preserved in the Tengyur.

D: Yes.

F: And what is the difference between the Nālandā tradition and the 17 Nālandā Masters?
 90

D: It is for example the Buddha and Buddhism. Buddhism is a system which came after the

Buddha’s teachings. Buddha is the one who taught Buddhism, and Buddhism is the system

which the Buddha taught. One is the system, and one is the person who taught this. Likewise the

17 Nālandā Masters are the persons and Nālandā tradition is the system. What they taught

becomes the Nālandā tradition.

F: So Nālandā tradition is Yogācāra, Mādhyamaka and Pramāna?

D: It is more. For example, inside Pramāna we can speak about the Sautāntrika School, whereas

the Vaibhāṣika is also there. You know there are four schools: Vaibhāṣika, Sautāntrika,

Yogācāra, and Mādhyamaka.

F: So these 2 first schools are also inside Nālandā tradition, even though they are not

considered Mahāyāna teachings?

D: Yes, they are all 4.

F: So there is more than only Yogācāra and Mādhyamaka. Can you give me a little

contextualization of how this Vaibhāṣika and Sautāntrika make part of Nālandā tradition?

D: Vaibhāṣika you will find more in Abhidharmakosh of Vasubandhu, which is mostly

Vaibhāṣika positioned. Sautāntrika you will find in Pramanavartika, in chapters 1, 2, 4. These

 91

chapters are mostly presenting the Sautāntrika School. Chapter 3 is mostly Cittamātra.

Mādhyamaka there are so many texts.

F: Now I would like to ask you about Tantra. During my studies about Nālandā

Mahavihara, it is evident that Tantra also was developed in there. If we read the academic

articles and books about Nālandā, we see that from the 6th to the 8th century, most part of

the curriculum of Nālandā was Mahāyāna tended, and from the 8th century onwards, a lot

of the tantric knowledge was inserted in the course of studies. At the end of Nālandā, in the

12th century, Tantra was almost more studied in Nālandā than Mahāyāna. If we observe

the Tengyur for example, there are the works of the 17 Nālandā Masters, which were lost

in Sanskrit, preserved only in Tibetan, and also the Tantric texts, which were also lost in

Sanskrit, and preserved only in Tibetan. In this sense, would it be correct to say that

Tantra also makes part of Nālandā Tradition?

D: Yes.

F: Is it correct to say that Nālandā tradition is also Vajrayāna?

D: Not is, has. You have two hands, but you are not two hands. Nālandā tradition has Vajrayāna,

but is not Vajrayāna.

F: In the same way it is not the 17 Nālandā Masters, it has the 17 Nālandā masters.
 92

D: Yes.

F: So why Nāropa is not included in the list of 17 Nālandā Masters?

D: This is a good question. In fact one reason, maybe, is that he did not leave a book as a legacy.

He has small writings, but he didn’t leave a legacy, a big volume of writings.

F: So for being part of the 17 Nālandā Masters…

D: …there should be given big contributions.

F: Written contributions.

D: Yes, literary contributions.

F: Because Nāropa has a big contribution, not written, but he was an important figure.

D: Exactly, the whole lineage is there coming from him, but not a literary contribution.

F: And apart of the list of 17 Nālandā Masters, would it be possible to compose a list of

Nālandā Tantric Masters? Do you think would it be possible?

D: Of course.
 93

F: Do you think would it be advisable to make it?

D: I’m not too sure. You mean as a thesis?

F: Yes.

D: As a thesis that would be too short.

F: No, inside the thesis, as a part of it.

D: Yes, that would be fine to include it.

F: I mean, looking for the main names, and accounting their main literary contributions.

D: Yes, that would be interesting.

F: So now I’d like to ask you some questions about the connections between Nālandā

tradition and the contemporary world. During this same interview that HH the Dalai gave

to Sahapedia, he says “You are Indians, historically our gurus, we are chelas. I often say

that I am not only chela, but a very reliable chela. Nowadays the guru became chela, and

the chela became guru. The Nālandā tradition immensely helped us, and now we have the

responsibility to serve our ancient guru who forgot this knowledge, and teach it again”.
 94

There is the intention from the Tibetan side to reintroduce this Nālandā tradition inside

India? How?

D: Yes. So basically I personally think that Nālandā tradition is a very rich tradition of

psychology, philosophy and logic. India is also the land of Ahimsa. Likewise, it should also take

pride of whatever treasure it has. Nālandā philosophy and psychology, people are fascinated all

over the world about it. They are so fascinated by the sophistication of this Nālandā philosophy,

which all came from India. It’s Indian treasure, and Indians should take pride on this. And how

to take pride on this? For example, if someone has a diamond, he keeps it. And how to take pride

on a knowledge? By knowing it. This is an Indian treasure, and Indians should know it. Not only

knowing but teaching others. This is the legacy that our ancestors left, and it has a tremendous

capacity to help and contribute for the modern education.

F: So the awareness of this knowledge goes through education?

D: Finally it should be by the Indian leaders. If they really feel that this treasure of Indian should

be preserved. I would say for example, Ahimsa. I am not a Jain. If I were an Indian leader, I’d

take pride of the Jain’s principle of Ahimsa. This is my countries’ contribution. Jainism

originated in India, so it should be taken pride of this. Likewise, that does not mean that one

should become a Jain, but this is a great treasure, and this is what you can offer to the world. So

this is what you should take pride for the nation. Likewise, Buddhist philosophy, psychology,

metaphysics, logic, they are all very profound and came from the same source, and Indians

should take pride of it by learning about it. It is not necessary that one by learning Nālandā
 95

tradition would become Buddhist. It is not necessary. This is treasure that raised in India, it is

our treasure, and we like to offer it to the world. This is what Indians can say. Now for that

matter Indians have to learn this.

F: Another aspect that I’d like to explore in this sense of rebuilding the Nālandā Tradition.

Some weeks ago I was listening to one discourse of the Prime Minister of Tibet in the

Center of Higher Studies on Tibetan Buddhism, and he was saying that when Tibetans

became refugees in India, his Holiness had his plans on how to do not let Tibetan Buddhism

to perish, by rebuilding it inside India and abroad. One of the ways for this was rebuilding

monasteries all around India. If the Tibetan monasteries are based on the Nālandā

tradition, would it be correct to say that rebuilding monasteries inside India is a way to

bring this tradition back to India during the 21th century?

D: It is a part. It is not the full story, it is a part of the way. More important, for example, would

be that even if Nālandā tradition is studied inside monasteries, still we can impart the Nālandā

tradition inside the universities. If the knowledge of Nālandā Masters could reach a pinnacle in

the universities, that is the purpose. That is how we would preserve the Nālandā tradition. It is

not necessary that monasteries would be the place. Monasteries are there and it is very good. But

the most important thing is to make sure that this knowledge would be imparted. In the

monasteries there is not the guarantee that this knowledge would be imparted. Fortunately at the

moment, in India, the Tibetan traditions, like the three great monasteries of Sera, Drepung and

Ganden, and all the Shedras, are doing a great job, and the Nālandā treasures has been preserved.

But to preserve the Nālandā tradition it is not necessary to have the monasteries. If the
 96

monasteries are there this is best, this is the ideal way, but it can be preserved in the universities

also. The point is that these places must have very good teachers. They must produce high

qualified teachers.

F: Frequently HH the Dalai Lama when talking about the Nālandā tradition, is in dialogue

with physics, psychology, and logic. What are the connections between the approach

between modern science and the Nālandā tradition?

D: Modern science we can split into two, when we are relating to Nālandā tradition: physics and

neurosciences. Physics, particularly the modern physics, we have quantum physics and theory of

relativity. From the modern sciences point of view (quantum physics and relativity) in

comparison with Nālandā tradition, we have the theory of dependent origination and emptiness.

So for the quantum physics there is great relevance the concept of emptiness and dependent

origination from the Nālandā Buddhism. And then there is the concept of relativity in the

Buddhist philosophy. There is a great parallel in there. Then we can go into more specific topics.

There are so many parallels. So this is the connection between Buddhist Nālandā philosophy and

quantum physics of the modern sciences. And then there is the connection between Nālandā

tradition and psychology/neurosciences. The neuroscience at the moment, of course with the

legal issues, cannot easily have a clear idea of the human brain. It cannot be reached easily. Most

part of them make the experiments on animal neurons. At the same time, to be very honest, the

neuroscience is not as developed and sophisticated as the Nālandā Buddhist psychology. Nālandā

Buddhist psychology talks about all the sophisticated workings of the mind, parallels on what

has been studied in the mind. We don’t have this parallel in the neuro science. Though,
 97

neurosciences in the moment has been improving, advancing very quickly. So these are the two

areas in which we can make parallel, the quantum physics and neurosciences.

F: The two area that are in connection with Nālandā tradition. So the Nālandā tradition is

something like a tool of dialogue with the modern sciences?

D: Exactly. This is amazing. In fact from the Nālandā Buddhism now, the real representatives of

the Nālandā Buddhism are the Tibetan great scholars. If they are little exposed to the modern

physics, and then without the language barrier, then the discussion would be just amazing. But of

course the modern sciences they have very standard patterns, and the great Buddhist

philosophers, with a little exposure to the modern science, plus language command, then the

dialogue can be just fabulous.

F: And how to deal with the sectarian aspect of Buddhism when dialoguing with the

modern sciences? I mean, how to deal with the Nālandā tradition and the 17 Nālandā

masters without the spiritual component?

D: HH the Dalai Lama classifies Buddhism into three categories: Buddhist science, Buddhist

philosophy, and Buddhist spirituality. When you divide Buddhism into three categories, then you

can leave apart all the spiritual part. Then the spirituals can discuss with spirituals, the

philosophers with philosophers and the scientists with scientists, without spirituality. That is

what HH the Dalai Lama makes very clear.

 98

F: That means inside the Nālandā tradition there are also these three divisions.

D: Yes. Nālandā Buddhist science, philosophy and spirituality.

F: Now I’d like to ask you one question related with the university that I come from,

Nālandā University. You just said that if we teach Nālandā tradition inside the universities

that would be very good. In this context we see two things: there was from the 6 th to the 12th

centuries the Nālandā Mahavihara, the place, which was together with the knowledge.

They were together, place and knowledge. After the 12th century the place disappeared,

and the knowledge was preserved in Tibet. Nowadays, without any judgement of working

or not working, there is a real effort to rebuild this university there, the Nālandā

University, which will be quite a big university. So again there will be a place, and the

knowledge is also here, getting strong importance daily in the Tibetan context. Do you

think there would be the intention of crossing both again?

D: That would be wonderful. If that happens, it would be just wonderful. The place which has

been built now, the huge campus, I say that what has been taught in there, such as commerce,

ecology, History, Geography, economics, and so forth, that is fine, there is no problem. But we

should not miss the right of teaching the Nālandā Masters. If that is included, with very qualified

and standard teachers, that would be coming back again, and the knowledge and the place would

be coming back to India. In the same way as in the old Nālandā, you also have the study of

secular subjects, that’s amazing. But if the modern studies have been taught in there, and the

legacies of Nālandā masters are not, the whole purpose is defeated. We need to study their
 99

legacies. For example, the teachers there should be teaching the Mūlamādhyamakakārikā, the

Mādhyamakavatara, the Uttara Tantra, the Pramanavartika. If these have been taught with such

a rigor, to the extent that the students of the new Nālandā University could be discussing with the

students of the monastic universities, on the equal level, that would be the greatest of the biggest

trophies. That would be the greatest of the contributions of the revival of Nālandā. But if all the

modern studies are there, but no one is able to teach Pramanavartika, Mūlamādhyamakakārikā,

than that would be pathetic. That should not happen.

F: Yes. I think slowly that will come.

D: For that we need to ask the officials to put effort. At the moment we have HH the Dalai Lama

present, we can make use of him. He is the final authority of the Nālandā legacies I would say.

He himself embodies the Nālandā legacies. And he is an authority. He can easily send teachers.

So I’d say that we should not miss this chance. That’s a great opportunity that he is still alive,

and that the Nālandā knowledge is so alive in the Tibetan monastic universities. Using this

opportunity would be so wise.

F: Actually this discussion comes together with the invitation to go there. If you have the

opportunity and the willing to go there, you could come. Actually when I said to my

supervisor that I was coming here to speak with you, she oriented me to invite you to go

and give one lecture if it is possible, you’d be welcome.

 100

D: I would be happy to do that. Yes, I’d be so happy to talk about Nālandā, why Nālandā is

important. I’d be so happy.

F: Actually she asked me to invite you to go and teach for 6 months, but I said that

probably would not be possible, because you have so many duties and responsibilities. But

if you could invite someone, we are looking for teachers actually, to be hired and teach

there. Our department is quite small, and they are looking for teachers. They need

teachers. So if there is the willing of Tibetans to go and get in contact with this university,

that would be really interesting.

D: So the best thing is if they can make contact with the higher level. If the contact is made with

the high level then things would happen very easily. From the administration of the university

with HH the Dalai Lama’s Office. In this way things would happen so easily. So if it is possible

also you can ask them to send me an e-mail, from your department. Also if your university can

contact CUTS, in Varanasi, they have the Tibetan teachers, the philosophy teachers, all are there

already. So you can fix an MOU between the universities, then you can invite teachers from

there, and I can also come, also other teachers.

F: I’d like to ask you a final question. Looking for this list of 17 Nālandā Masters, we see

that there are many names, for Nāgārjuna there are at least 3 or four people with the same

name. There is one from the 2nd century who was the composer of the

Mūlamādhyamakakārikā, and others who were evidently living centuries later, who wrote

tantras. So there are 3 or 4 Nāgārjunas, 3 or 4 Arya Devas, 2 Candrakīrtis, and others. I

 101

see that for Tibetans the tradition is to take all of them as one, but academics have been

separating them. So how to deal with this situation?

D: In fact one thing is that the Western scholars said later that there are three or four Nāgārjunas.

Tibetans, much earlier than the westerners, see all of them as one. Not only Tibetans, because

actually they inherited this perspective from Nālandā itself. In Nālandā all of these three authors

of Mūlamādhyamakakārikā, then the author of the tantras, they were all seen as one. In Nālandā

and in Tibet they were one. In West they were taken as different. This is an Western idea. Now

what I’d suggest is let’s say, what makes the western scholars to think that Arya Nāgārjuna who

wrote tantra, is someone different from Arya Nāgārjuna who wrote Mūlamādhyamakakārikā?

What makes them think that?

F: Mainly I think is because of the gap of time.

D: No, how do we know that the tantra was written after? How do we know that? It’s just

speculation.

F: So do you think I should take them as one?

D: What I’d say is that you can say both. The Nālandā and Tibetan tradition take them as one,

and the Western scholars take them as separate. You can say like this. You can be very objective,

and them you can come with your own conclusion. Let’s say, if I tell that my mother came from

this family, my father came from this family, and them after 200 years someone says that my
 102

mother came from “A”, and after 500 years someone says that she came from “B”, and state that

what I said was wrong. Who knows the better about my mother? Me or the person who came 500

years later? 500 year later it becomes more ambiguous. For me is very near, immediate. Who is

the greatest authority, me who is immediate close to the situation or those who came 1.000 years

later? So as compared to the western scholars, Tibetan scholars are closer in time. And compared

to Tibetan scholars, Nālandā scholars were even closer to the Arya Nāgārjuna. So they are the

greatest authority, from this point of view.

 103

Appendix 4 –
bibliographical review on the history of Nālandā mahāvihāra by the historians
and archaeologists (1850 – 2016)

1850 – 1920
Cunningham, A. The Ancient Geography of India. London: Trubner and Co: 1871

Broadley, A., Ruins of the Nālandā monasteries at Burgaon, sub-division Bihar, Zillah Patna.
Calcutta: Bengal Secretariat, 1872.

Fa-Hien. A Record of Buddhist Kingdoms: being an account by the Chinese monk Fa-Hien of his
Travels in India and Ceylon (A.D. 399-414) in search of Buddhist books of discipline. Translated
by James Legge. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1886.

Das, S.C Indian Pandits in the Land of Snow. Calcutta, Baptist Mission Press, 1893.

I-Tsing. A Record of Buddhist Religion as practiced in India and the Malay Archipelago (A.D.
671-695). Translated by J. Takakusu. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1896.

Watters, Thomas. On Yuan Chwang’s Travels in India. London: Royal Asiatic Society, 1904.

Hiuen Tsiang. Si-YuKi: Buddhist Records of the Western World. Translated by S. Beal. London:
Trubner & Co., 1906.

Hwui Li. The Life of Hiuen Tsiang . Translated by Samual Beal. London: Trubner & Co., 1914.

Legge. Travels of Fa-Hien. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1886.

Vidyabhusana, S., A History of Indian Logic. Delhi: Motilal Barnasidass, 1920.

1920 – 1950
Sastri, H. “The Nālandā Cooper-plate of Devapaladeva” In: Shastri, K (ed.). Epigraphia Indica
and Record of the Archaeological Survey of India. Vol. XVII, 1923.

Bose, Phanindranath. Indian Teachers of Buddhist Universities. Madras: Theosophical

Publishing House, 1923.

Dutt, Sukumar. Early Buddhist Monarchism. London: Trubner and Co., 1924.

Sammadar, J.N. The Glories of Magadha. Patna: Kuntaline Press, 1927.

Heras, Rev. H. “The Royal Patrons of the University of Nālandā”. In: Journal of the Bihar and
Orissa Research Society, Vol. XIV, nº 1. 1928, p. 1 – 23.
 104

Kuraishi, M. A. A Short Guide to the Buddhist Remains Excavated at Nālandā. Calcutta:

Government of India, Central Publication Branch, 1931.

Sankalia H., University of Nālandā, New Delhi: Oriental Publications, 1934.

Altekar, A.S. Education in Ancient India, Benares: Nand Kishore & Bros., 1934.

Ghosh A. A Guide to Nālandā. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India, 1939.

Sastri, H. N. “Nālandā and its Epigraphic Materials” In: Memories of the Archeological Survey
of India, No. 66, Delhi, p. 07ff, 1941.

1950 – 1980
Mookerji, R. K. Ancient Indian Education: Brahmanical and Buddhism. London: Macmillan,
1969.

Basham, A. L. The wonder that was India: a survey of the history and culture of the Indian sub-
continent before the coming of the Muslims. London: Picador. 1954.

Bapat P.V. 2500 Years of Buddhism, Delhi: Publication Division, 1956.

Ghosh A., “Nālandā”, In: Archaeological Survey of India. New Delhi. 1957, pp. 16-24.

Roerich G. N. (ed. and transl.). Biography of Dharmashwāmi, Patna: Jayaswal Research

Institute, 1959.

Dutt, Sukumar. Buddhist Monks and Monasteries of India: Their History And Contribution To
Indian Culture. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1962.

Barua D. Vihāras in Ancient India: A Survey of Buddhist Monasteries. Calcutta: Indian

Publication, 1969.

Kosambi D. Culture and Civilizations of Ancient Indian in Historical Outline. Delhi: Vikas
Publication, 1970.

Steven, Darian. “Buddhism in Bihar from the eighth to the twelfth century with special
references to Nalanda” In: Études asiatiques: revue de la Société Suisse – Asie. Vol. 25, 1971. p.
335 – 352

Roychaudhary, H. C. Political History of Ancient India. Calcutta: University of Calcutta Press,

1972

Banerjee A. C. Buddhism in India and Abroad, p. 47, World Press, Calcutta. Op. cit., Prasad
(2000), pp. 87-88. 1973
 105

C. S. Upasak, C. S. Nālandā: Past and Present, Nālandā: Nava Nālandā Mahāvihāra, 1977.

Joshi, Lal Mani. Studies in the Buddhist Culture of India during the Seventh and Eighth
Centuries A.D. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publications, 1977.

1980 – 2018
Hazara K. Buddhism in India as described by the Chinese Pilgrims A.D. 399-689, Delhi:
Munshiram Manoharlal, 1983.

Wriggins, H. Xuanzang: a Buddhist pilgrim on the Silk Road. Boulder: Westview Press, 1996.

Miśra, B. N. Nālandā (Sources and Background). Delhi: B. R. Publishing Corporation, 1998.

Panth, R. (editor), Heritage of Nālandā and its Continuity, Research Volume VI. Nālandā: Nava
Nālandā Mahāvihāra, 2000.

Panth, R. (editor), Nālandā-Buddhism and the World: golden jubilee, Research Volume VII,
Nālandā: Nava Nālandā Mahāvihāra, 2001.

Panth, R (editor), Nālandā and Buddhism, Research Volume VIII, Nālandā: Nava Nālandā
Mahāvihāra, 2002.

Scharfe, H. Education in Ancient India. Handbook of Oriental Studies. Boston: Brill, 2002.

Loizzo, J. “Kalachakra and the Nālandā Tradition.” In: Arnold, E. (ed). As Long as Space
Endures: Essays in Honor of His Holiness the Dalai Lama. Ithaca: Snow Lion Press. 2009.

C. Mani (ed.). The heritage of Nālandā, New Delhi: Aryan Books International, 2008.

Kumar, P. “Cultural life at Nālandā University”. In: Murthy (ed.). The Icfai Journal of History
and Culture. Vol. IV, No. 1/2. Hyderabad. 2010.

Kumar, P. “The ancient Nālandā Mahāvihāra: The beginning of Institutional Education”. In:
Journal of the World Universities Forum. Vol. IV, no. 1, 2011.

Singh, Anand. “’destruction’ and ‘decline’ of Nālandā Mahāvihāra: Prejudices and Praxis. In:
Journal of the Asiatic Society of Sri Lanka, New Series. Vol. 58, Nº 1, 2013. p. 23 – 49

Asher, M. Frederick, Nālandā: Situating the Great Monastery. Mumbai: The Marg Foundation
2015.

Kumar, Pintu “Studies in Medicine at Śrī Nālandā Mahāvihāra: An Introduction”. In: Online
International Interdisciplinary Research Journal, Vol. VI, 2016