Destruction of Nalanda: The Zombie debate

January 17, 2026

Rohit Dhankar

Before asking who destroyed Nalanda, ask who destroyed our habit of thinking? Because the real destruction of Nalanda begins when history is replaced by ideology and repeated like a chant.

PART 1

Nalanda was attacked and destroyed by Bakhtiyar Khalji, says the conventional opinion. Nalanda was burnt by Brahmins, say the gunning for eyeballs by hook and crook a self-proclaimed historian supported by likes of DN Jha. And then there is an army of zombies who are programmed to echo opinion A or B in advance. They simply bleat the chosen statements like George Orwell’s sheep in The Animal Farm. Only difference between The Animal Farm scenario and present-day zombie debate is that the bleat in the first stopped at the end of the meetings, the bleat in the second never dies down.

This article is not to settle the issue, I am not a historian and am in no position to settle it for all and everyone for ever; especially for those who have lifelong vested interest in paddling a narrative for ideological reasons. It is to encourage people who have not yet turned into bleating sheep to use their own mind and find ways of evaluating vicious opinions deliberately thrown at them by various soul hunters to turn the still alive into braindead bodies in their respective flocks.

I am taking the most direct route—as far as I understand—to tackle this debate. And in that respect the first question arises: was Nalanda deliberately destroyed or just turned into abandoned ruins due to neglect and loss of patronage?

The ASIAR[1] clearly comes to the conclusion that it was fire and destruction as well. It states “[L]ayers of ashes, potsherds, heavy brick debris, more ashes, and finally natural earth accumulation are most clearly defined, and serve at once as an indisputable record of fire and destruction, and of the abandonment and subsequent reoccupation of the site.” (Emphasis added) Thus there was fire, destruction and abandonment. But also, that subsequent reoccupation and we will see some restoration as well. Many historians claim that destruction, fire and large scale killing in the area happened, but the restorations remained weak and slowly the patronage died down due to Buddhism losing favour in India as well as Hindu patrons becoming weak. We will talk more about it in analysing other sources. 

The Origins of Nalanda

Before we come to the real focus of the debate, we need to pay very brief attention to the origins of the Nalanda Mahavihara and who actually built and sustained it.

There is fairly general agreement that Nalanda with different names was a well-known locality or town since the time of Buddha and Mahavira; both of them are claimed to have visited and stayed there many times. There are many references to that ancient literature of Jainism and Buddhism[2]. However, all these references are as a place of importance and a town etc., not as a monastery of fame or a university. Gosh[3] claims that “[B]ut it may be emphasised that excavations have not revealed anything which suggests the occupation of the site before the Guptas, the earliest datable finds being the copperplate of Samudragupta and the coin of Kumaragupta.” He further claims on the authority of Hiuen Tsang that “a former king of the country named Sakraditya selected by augury a lucky spot and built here a monastery.” Sakraditya is identified with Kumargupta I. Subsequent to him several Gupta kings build further monasteries and centres of learning making it a university. Hiuen Tsang mentions Buddhagupta, Tathagatagupta, Baladitya, and Vajra. There is a fair agreement among historians that these are Buddhist names of various Gupta emperors[4]. A Korian monk who visited India also states that “[T]he Nalanda Temple, which is seven stages north-east of the Mahabhodi, was built by an old king, Sri-Sakraditya, for a Bhikshu of North India called Raja-Bhaja. After beginning it he was much obstructed, but his descendants finished it, and made it the most magnificent establishment in Jambudvipa.”[5]

In today’s world people may ask why a Hindu dynasty built the “most magnificent” university in Jambhdvipa? The curriculum in Nalanda was not confined to Buddhist studies in spite of this being primarily a Buddhist university. “The Sangharamas of India are counted by myriads, but this is the most remarkable for grandeur and height. The priests, belonging to the convent, or strangers (residing therein) always reach to the number of 10,000, who all study the Great Vehicle, and also (the works belonging to) the eighteen sects, and not only so, but even ordinary works, such as the Vedas and other books, the Hetuvidya, Sabdavidya, the Chikitsavidya, the works on Magic (Atharvaveda), the Sankhya; besides these they thoroughly investigate the “miscellaneous” works.”[6]

Perhaps that is why many kings and ordinary people belonging to all religious traditions supported Nalanda and other monasteries. Gulpta’s were of course the founders and particularly munificent in bestowing villages for upkeep and building monasteries and centres of learning as Nalanda.

Destruction of Nalanda

After having a brief look at the importance of Nalanda in Gupta period and its foundations, now we should be able to understand the sources documenting its destruction.

When one reads any contemporary paper or book on destruction of Nalanda one comes across a labyrinth of references sited to support their claims.  Suppose you read papers A, it refers to paper B, B to C, and so on; and at each stage something coloured by the writers’ political ideology will imperceptibly creep in. All the “possibly”, “seems to”, “can be reasonably accepted” etc. are progressively dropped and the claims become definitive: Brahmins destroyed or Khalji destroyed. Therefore, reaching the original sources becomes important. I noticed that within 2 to 4 stages one reaches the original or primary sources in the matter of Nalanda destruction. And surprisingly they boil down to four and then finally to two; such a small number. All others are actually interpreting, paraphrasing or building their arguments on the basis of these 2 (4). Therefore, I will focus only on these two in particular and total four in general. They are:

  1. Chos-dpal dar-dpyan, Tr. Roerich, Biography of Dharmasvamin, Jayaswal Research Institute, Patna, 1959 [Written in 1258-59, based on eye witness and close to evets accounts of others.] (BD for reference in short)
  2. Minhaj-i-Saraj, Tr. Reverty, Tabakat-i-Nasiri, Gilbert and Rivington, London, 1881 [Completed in 1260 CE, based on account of soldiers in Khalji army.] (MS for reference in short)
  3. Lama Chimpa and Alka Chattopadhyaya, Taranatha’s History of Buddhism in India, Motilal Banarsidas, Delhi, 1970 [Written in 1608, no primary witness, based on earlier material.] ( TN for reference in short)
  4. Sumpa Khan-po Yece pal jor, Tr. SC Das, Pag Sam Jon-Zang, The Presidency Jail Press, Calcutta, 1908 [Written in 1747, no firsthand account. Based on earlier material.] (Pag Sam for reference in short)

I have listed them in chronological order of writing. There can be a bit of confusion in the first two, as MS is stated to have been completed in 1260 and BD is stated to been dictated during 1258-59; therefore, the part relevant for us in MS may have been written earlier. The second point we should keep in mind is that in BD Dharmasvamin gives eye-witness account of certain places, events and of what is going on; and the main destruction of Nalanda is heard from other monks who were eyewitness or colleagues/students of eye-witnesses. Minhaj-i-Saraj’s account is based on a soldier who participated in destruction of monasteries, looting and slaughters. The remaining two are written long after the real events and based on some material available to the authors. Pag Sam seems to heavily depend on TN in account of Nalanda. Now, I will take these sources one by one. My purpose is very limited: to make up my mind based on available evidence and reason regarding who destroyed Nalanda? Other issues or questions which may arise are purely to settle the primary question as stated above. All the references and citations from the above four sources will be given simply as short form of the book-name and page number; for example source information on page x on BD will be cited as (BD, x). All other references will be given as footnotes.

Biography of Dharmasvamin (BD)

Dharmasvamin was a Tibetan monk who visited India between 1234-36 CE and stayed at Nalanda for some time. He was born in 1197 and died in 1264 CE. His biography was written by Upasaka Chos-dar, who was a disciple of Dharmasvamin. According to Altekar the author mostly relied on dictation by Dharmasvamin himself. “The author of this work relied mostly on the account dictated by Dharmasvamin, and so the work may be regarded as giving us almost an eyewitness account of the incidents and conditions narrated therein.” (BD, i) This source is considered very reliable by most historians, of course, with the usual caveat of possible inaccuracies and the fact that a religious monk’s accounts may be influenced by his faith.

If we go by Altekar’s estimates Dharmasvamin stayed in Bodh Gaya from July to October 1234, then visited several other places and perhaps reached Nalanda in April 1235, and stayed there till March 1236. (BD, v and vi) He give accounts of destruction by Turushkas of shrines and Viharas at Bodh Gaya and also general fear of Turushka soldiers among Hindus and Buddhists, so much so that people ran to forests when heard that some Turuska soldiers were passing nearby or coming to their town. But we will focus only on the Nalanda.

Dharmasvamins opens the chapter on Nalanda by stating that “[N]alendra, which means “Lord of Men” in Tibetan, was built by a former Raja, and because of it was given this name.” (BD, 91) It is worth noting that he gives no name of the Raja who built it. It could be any Raja, however, Emperor Ashok can be eliminated as a pious Buddhist monk would not have left the name of Ashok out.

Then he gives a description of the university as he saw it. Mentions several shikharas and viharas and says that “[M]ost of these were, built by the Raja. Some were built by the queen. They were damaged by the Turushkas, and there was absolutely no one to look after them, or to make offerings. They were built of bricks and many were left undamaged.” This confirms a Turushka attach on Nalanda sometime prior to his visit. He gives no date, nor mentions any fire.

There lived a learned monk by the name of Rahula-shribhadra and four other monks who were respected by Raja Buddhasena of Magadha. There were also seventy other “venerable ones”. (BD, 91) Dharmasvamin had come to study with Rahulasribhadra. Thus, Nalanda in 1236 was in a dilapidated condition, with only about seventy-five monks and disciples living there. Only a ghost of its earlier glory. These monks and disciples were supported by a lay person called Jayadeva. Other sources as well as Dharmasvamin mention that this Jayadeva was a rich Brahmin, we will have occasion to meet him again. He also says that most of the wealthy people were obliged to honour in the similar manner. These most wealthy people at that time could not have been Buddhists alone, majority was Hindus.  He mentions “that the two Viharas called Dha-na-ba and Ghu-na-ba were in a serviceable condition”. (BD, 91)

Dharmasvamin also mentions four images “the stone image of the Lord Khasarpana, Manjusri, ‘‘With the turned neck”, the miraculous stone image of Jhananatha and the image of Tara “Without ornaments”.” Then narrates the miraculous stories associated with them. These images are not mentioned as damaged in any manner, the stories associated with them indicate that they were old, which means they survived Turushka attack.

“When an officer of the Turushka soldiery took up residence in the Vihara of Odantapuri, situated at a distance of a day’s march to the east of Nalanda, he summoned into his presence Guru Rahulasribhadra’s lay-supporter Jayadeva and a member of the latter’s family. For several days they did not return. Then a traveller came and brought a message from Jayadeva which said, “The Brahmana lay-supporter wishes to tell the Guru and disciples, that he had been detained by the officer who said that he, (Jayadeva), had honoured numerous monks attending on the Guru. Now they shall surely kill the Guru and his disciples. Flee”.  (BD, 93) This shows active persecution of the monks, their disciples and even their lay-supporters. And that Odantapuri had become a garrison for the Turushkas.

Such messages came more than once and the monks and disciples were scared. All fled, but the Guru Rahulasribhadra and Dhamaswamin. The Guru pleaded and chided Dharmasvamin to go but he did not leave the Guru alone. The Guru was more than 90 years old at that time. Finally, he said “[N]ow, if I were to be carried by you, would you go? If you go, we shall both flee!’’ (BD, 94) Dharmasvamin agreed. The Guru said that they will not be able to go far, and that he has a way to save them both.   There was a temple of Jnananatha nearby, the Guru told the story that: “Formerly, the Turushkas had carried away all the stones of this (temple) and instead of anointing the image with oil and worshipping it, they threw impurities and dust at it. A man who participated (in this work) died the same evening of colic on reaching Odantapuri. Next morning the image was found undamaged, so it was said. Since then, the Turushka-heretics did not dare to approach it and cross the threshold.” (BD, 94)

The Guru and Dharmswamin hid in this temple. “While they were staying there, suddenly some three hundred Turushka soldiers appeared, armed and ready for battle. Though they were sure to kill them, they did not find them, and went back. The two lay-supporters (of the Guru) were put in irons for several days but then were set free.” (BD, 94)

BD is a very informative little book, it has many accounts of worship, sacrifice by Hindus which might be of interest. It also has accounts of fear of Turushka in Tirhut, Bodh Gaya and generally in the area of Bihar he was visiting. And account of destruction wrought by them in Bodh Gaya. But our interest is only Nalanda destruction, therefore in this article I am not giving any details of all that.

We learn from BD that:

  1. The Turushka’s attacked Nalanda before Dharmasvamins visit. This attack left the university in near ruins. All the monks fled. Only about 75 people were residing there in 1236.
  2. There were signs of destruction, but Dharmsswanin mentions no fire.
  3. The atrocities and interference in Monks’ lives were continuing.
  4. There was fear of Turushkas among people. Their bands were roaming around and oppressing people.
  5. Hindus and Buddhists both supported Nalanda.
  6. Lay people respected both religions.
  7. Hindu kings also respected Buddhist monks. Dharmasvamin gives an account of how the Hindu Kings Ramasimha of Tirhut gave him many presents, honoured him and even asked him to become his Chaplin. Dharmasvamin replied “that it was improper for him, a Buddhist, to become the Guru of a non-Buddhist. The Raja accepted it, and said, “Well, stay here for some days!” and honoured him “with numerous requisites”. (BD, 100)

I will discuss Tabakar-i-Nasiri in Part 1, some time next week.

********

[1] Annual Report of the Archeological Survey of India 1921-22, Government of India Press, Simla, 1924, p.20

[2] Nalanda in Ancient Literature, Hira Nand Shastri in Proceedings and Transactions of Fifth Indian Oriental Conference, Vol 1, University of Punjab, Lahore, 1928, p.386

[3] A. Ghosh, A Guide to Nalanda, Archaeological Survey of India, Delhi, 1939, p.40

[4] Beal Translator, Buddhist Records of the Western World Vol 2, 1906, p.168-70

[5] Shaman Hwui Li, Trs. Beal, The life of Hiuen-Tsing, London, 1911, p.37

[6] Ibid, p.112

Leave a Comment » | Pratyutpann-Mati | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Rohit Dhankar

Is study of Nyaya at an introductory level useful?

December 11, 2025

Rohit Dhankar

A participant (not mentioning name because I have not taken permission) in Nyaya-sah-adyayan WhatsApp group wrote the following:

  1. I have a question (and believe me I have no mischief in mind) where is this knowledge (knowledge of Nyay Darshan) going to benefit us in our practical (day to day) life and how?
  2. Why should a learner invest time and money on it?
  3. I am an Educator (if not an Educationist) and my main “Business is to do workshops for Teacher’s motivation, Teacher’s commitment, teachers’ style of teaching (let’s call it teaching methodology) and to a little extent ‘Pedagogy’.
  4. So how a person like me is going to get benefitted by this new knowledge?

My response

My response is as follows and believe me I do not interpret it as mischief and responding without any mischief in my mind. 

The short answer:

“No benefit. And one who sees no benefit should not waste effort, energy and money”.

Long answer: (be patient and read):

An understanding of nature of knowledge is central to an educator. Education is primarily concerned with acquisition, creation, critiquing, examining, and using knowledge. The questions of “what is knowledge?”, “How it is generated?”, “How is it examined?” etc. are of fundamental importance for an educator. One hardly needs to argue that knowledge is required in all human actions. Vatsyayana claims right in the beginning of his Nyaya-Bhashya:
“Successful activity (samartha-pravrtti) results when the object (artha) is cognised by the ‘instrument of valid knowledge’ (pramäna). Hence the instrument of valid knowledge is invariably connected with the object (arthavat).
There is no cognition (pratipatti) of object (artha) without the instrument of ‘Valid knowledge’; without cognition of object there is no successful activity. On being aware of the object with the help of the instrument of knowledge, the knower wants either to get it or avoid it. His specific effort (samiha), prompted by the desire of either getting or avoiding (the object), is called activity (pravrtti), whose success (samarthya), again, lies in its invariable connection with the result (phala).”
Plato in Theaetetus 201c–201d (Translation: Benjamin Jowett) claims:
“For true opinions, as long as they remain, are a fine thing and all they accomplish is good; but they are not willing to remain long, and they escape from a man’s mind, so that they are not worth much until one ties them down by an account (logon): and this, my friend, is recollection. When they are tied down, in the first place they become knowledge, and then they remain in place. That is why knowledge is more honourable and excellent than right opinion: because bound by reason.”
Before coming to this passage Plato (Socrates in the dialogue) is talking about uses of true opinion in achieving one’s ends. Vatsyayana is making the same point. Umpteen number of philosophers are making the same point again and again. In common day-to-day activities of life we use knowledge all the time. Even in making a cup of tea one uses knowledge of heat, how to control the source of heat, how long water needs to be boiled, how much tea leaves and sugar, and so on. The success of making good tea depends on all this knowledge.
Vatsyayana says true cognition or knowledge depends on pramans, Plato says it requires reasons. In day-to-day life we seek grounds for accepting any piece of information; even if it is as mundane as what is the market rate of wheat today. Enquiry about grounds is to assure ourselves that the information provided is reliable; it is asking pramanas or reasons. Thus, knowledge and reasons behind it are of utmost importance.
Now there are two questions: 1. Is there unanimity in matters of knowledge and acceptable reasons or pramanas or methos? And 2. Do I want to be autonomous in deciding matters of knowledge or want to live on borrowed knowledge? The first one is concerned with having at the least reasonable grounding in understanding knowledge; and the second one about my autonomy as a human being.
There are multiple systems of epistemology, the discipline which discusses knowledge. They all have strong agreements on some points and equally strong disagreements on some others. They give different definitions, criteria and methods of examination of knowledge, and persepctives. If a teacher knows about more than one such systems s/he is more likely to think critically and clearly; and also, to be able to help her/his students in the same.
Nyaya is an alternative way of looking at knowledge to the generally studied western epistemology. It has a particular penchant for clarity and precision, defining and then examining propositions. It has developed ways of elaborating arguments and communicating to others. These ideas and methos add to our understanding of knowledge and its ways, often provide criteria to critically examine concepts and claims made in the western epistemology, and provide substance to be examined through the ideas and methods of western epistemology. Thus, depend and broadens our perspective.
This should help one develop critical thinking, so much praised these days without really understanding what exactly it might be. The table below gives a tentative comparison between Nyaya’s ways of knowing and critical thinking, put forward more as an exercise in thinking than as a final conclusion. I do not have time to translate it into English, thus copying here in Hindi as it is:

One can go on and on on this issue. To the participants in this study I would say: better collect all the fliers posted as advertisements which duped you into this course to waste your money and time, and examine those numbered 1, 2 and 4. Also read again the introductory text given for the sah-adhyayan, right in the first session.
Can it help in, say, improving teaching methodology? Depends on (1) how well one understands Nyaya, (2) how well connected and consciously guided by theory his/her methodology is, (3) how conscious s/he is about having proper reasons for whatever she does in the classroom. To an activity cruncher and ready-made solution seeker it can give absolutely no help. To a conscious autonomous teacher it should. But, remember being autonomous is painful and dangerous.
Example 1: We all talk about leaving 2–5-year-old children much time for free exploration and play. Why do we recommend that? Common half understood answer is “children learn through play”. This is a mugged-up sentence which most of those who often repeat it cannot explain if one asks: what do they learn? How do you know? What is the use of what they learn? In western epistemology the idea of Knowledge by acquaintance gives one theoretical vocabulary and understanding of how sensory experience is basis of all knowledge and how it is connected with later development of skills and Propositional Knowledge. Similarly, understanding of Indriyas, their role in pratyaksha, the relationship between pratyaksha->sansakar->pramanas provides ability to articulate and think about those reasons. Which should help is choosing right kind of ‘free exploration’ for children at different stages of development. Aurobindo’s emphasis on sharpening sensory equipment for development of ideas and intelligence seems to come more or less directly from his understanding of indriyas and manas, and their role in knowledge formation.
Example 2: The understanding of anumana and difference between swartha and parartha anuman should directly help in spotting students’ difficulties in understanding as well as one’s articulation of explanation. But that we can understand when first we have studied anumana.
One can multiply these example with more detail and clarity, and we will do that in the course of this study as we progress. But at this stage, hardly having studied five concepts of Nyaya one should not attempt that.
But who can draw these benefits from studying Nyaya?
Anyone who puts in efforts and tries to understand. All efforts of using one’s mind and reason seriously even on completely unjustified and patently wrong disciplines will necessarily result in discipline of mind, rigorous use of logic, proper ways of reasoning and systematic thinking. I claim that serious and deep study of even astrology and palmistry will result in these “benefits of mind”, even if no “benefits of content”. However, many people do not understand the value of “benefits of mind”, one can see an example in Gandhi’s claim that study of geometry, astronomy, and geography helped him in nothing. (Hind Swaraj, chapter XVIII)
For whom will it be difficult to gain anything useful?
Let me begin by quoting Winch (last chapter in his Philosophy of Human Learning): “If one does not respect what one is to learn, or recognise the efforts that have gone into its creation and development, then success is unlikely.” Thus, attempts to study Nyaya (or anything) with a disdain for it will almost never result in good understanding of the subject and without good understanding its benefits will remain elusive. But “respect” here does not require an assumption of its truth or its benefits etc. in advance. All it requires is suspension of the judgment that “it is useless” or that “it is of great use” or that “I can understand whether X is useful without first knowing X”. Which means one has to enter with an open mind, with patience to draw a conclusion when one has learnt enough. A child who first wants to know the benefits of learning counting without knowing counting will never calculate even the area of his room.
Drawing benefits from study of Nyaya or anything written in Sanskrit centuries ago is very difficult without first studying it. Even its proper study is very difficult due to biases created by our education system. Anything written in Sanskrit is seen as archaic, or ponga-panthi or stone-age creation without knowing it. People will find tvak (त्वक्) as stone age without knowing that ‘touch’ comes from tvak or at the least has the same stone-age root. This disdain will strop proper and fair understanding, exactly as over-whelming respect or bhaktibhav will stop proper examination. Thus, entering into it with balanced open mind, open eyes and remanning patient till one has sufficient information to base one’s conclusions on is the key.
To re-emphasize the point: one cannot understand usefulness of a branch of knowledge without knowing what it happens to be. Yes, by asking others whom one believes or by asking a guru one can make an opinion about usefulness of anything. But that is more of an assurance at the best and indoctrination at the worst; not ‘understanding proper’. And that is why there is a contradiction between my “short answer” and “long answer”. Without knowing X, it is not possible to explain usefulness of X.
That is why the Sanskrit people had this concept of ‘Anubandh Chatushthay’ if you remember. They want to talk about the subject of a shatra, then relationship of the book wirth that Shastra, then prayojan of it’s study and then of being Adhikari. That may motivate people to study it. If one does not see prayojan one will find no inclination to study it. So, think if you have a prayojana which may be helped by this.

Leave a Comment » | Pratyutpann-Mati | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Rohit Dhankar