Talk:Nalanda mahavihara

Requesting inclusion of earlier attacks
It is widely accepted historically established fact that Nalanda Mahavihara was first attacked by Huns under the reign of Mihirakula (455–467 AD) and then in the 7th century by the Goudas after which it was restored again by king Harshavardhana.

It was earlier there in the article with citations but now I cannot find it in the article. I found some sources which are:, , , , and more available. 103.42.88.145 (talk) 08:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Looking through the edit history, it seems this article is targeted a lot.
They mostly seem to want to establish that Nalanda also was a Brahmin university. Is there any good reference for this? There is currently a mention of the Vedas being taught in the university and the citation is from a book I don't have. Tusharhero (talk) 01:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I got the book, there is no mention of the Vedas being taught there. I am removing it fron there since its not in the citations. Tusharhero (talk) 02:57, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * P.565:
 * Regards, Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  04:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I found it. Tusharhero (talk) 05:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I found it. Tusharhero (talk) 05:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Nalanda
Official website and Indian tradition both buddhist and non-buddhist holds (in Patna) that the structure was destroyed and burnt by the troops of Khilji and millions of book burnt in it which took so many days to become ashes.

 I think it has became trends like these now-a-days especially with the historian like Trushcke which seems not reliable with their works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.96.16.145 (talk • contribs) 18 february, 2024 (UTC)


 * This got pretty messed-up, with various IP-edits, from 106.211.189.128 diff, 117.205.22.12 diff, and 117.96.16.145 diff, edit-summary [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nalanda_mahavihara&diff=1208429071&oldid=1198155257 diff {{tq|actually I am reverting to the last version .. The edits were misplaced; see it again https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nalanda_mahavihara&diff=1208429071&oldid=1198155257] (that is, diff). But looking at this version, you seem to be right. It would be preferable, though, if you edit those bare url's into proper references. Regards, Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  18:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Nalanda being a 'Univeristy'.
If Nalanda is considered a Univeristy then are all Mahaviharas? Cathedral schools? All ancient places of higher learning? Western Universities before they were designated as such legally?

The current citation for the Considered by historians to be the world's first residential university is Nalanda mahavihara (https://whc.unesco.org/uploads/nominations/1502.pdf).

On this document on page 13:



1. We see "Nalanda University" and "Nalanda" - in reference to the ancient Mahavihara are two different establishments 2. Nalanda in the sense of the ancient institution is refered to as 'Nalanda Mahavihara' throughout the document. 3. "University" is put in speech marks.

Again on Page 132:



Page 14:

1 . Same thing as previously mentioned with the word univeristy in relation to the Mahavihara.

Page 40:

1. Again showing the complete difference between the ancient Mahavihara and the University of Nalanda

Page 124:

1. 'quality of a university campus'

On page 125 and 126 it is reffered to as a 'planned university'

Page 139:

N.B. 'University-like'

Page 154:



In the conclusion (p154):



'cetre of higher learning' All univeristies are centres of higher learning but not all centres of higher learning are universities.

In my conclusion: Nalanda is called a Univeristy out of academic laziness and ease, it was not actually a university and should be changed to reflect the truth. 'Considered by historians to be the world's first residential university' should be removed or replaced with 'some historians'. 'revive the famous university' should also be removed as proven it is not a revival as the current school is considered to be a completely different thing and an actual university, you cant revive the university if it wasnt a university. MightyPoof (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Dates it was operational from
We know from recent research in this area that Nalanda was continuing to produce Buddhist scholars like Dhyānabhadra into the 14th century. This info is already included in the article and referenced. Should the lead and infobox be updated to change the operation dates as ending in the 14th century rather than the 1100s? Ixudi (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @talk, Even in the source referenced, it says:- "In the eleventh century, NĀROPA held a senior teaching position at Nālandā, until he left in search of his teacher TILOPA. In 1192, Nālandā was sacked by Turkic troops under the command of Bakhtiyar Khilji, who may have mistaken it for a fortress; the library was burned, with the thousands of manuscripts smoldering for months. The monas- tery had been largely abandoned by the time of a Tibetan pilgrim’s visit in 1235 CE, although it seems to have survived in some form until around 1400. " Another sources, from A dictionary of Buddhism by Keown says, "The Turkic general Mahmud Shabuddin Ghon sacked Nalanda in 1197 and Vikramasila in 1203, burning their libraries and destroying priceless literary and artistic treasures. These traumatic events effectively marked the end of the history of Buddhism in India until modern times although some limited activity continued in the south: there were Buddhist monasteries in Orissa and south India in the 15th century, and Buddhist teachers went from India to Tibet even later. "(At India entry) and again, ". Ties were also formed with the nascent Buddhist movement in *Tibet, resulting in a number of leading Tibetan monks visiting Nalanda and reciprocal visits to Tibet by Indian Buddhist masters. Nalanda was destroyed in one of the greatest acts of cultural vandalism by Muslim invaders in the 12th century CE" I don't find any direct source concluding it was abandoned in 14th CE. I don't think it would be right to directly mention 14th ce as the abandoned date. Even for considering the Dhyanabhadra, for which I assume your's concern is, the Writer says: "....the case of Dhyānabhadra, a monk who received his early training in Buddhism at the Nālandā Mahāvihāra during the latter half of the thirteenth century. Later, he went to Sri Lanka for more specialized training in Mahāyāna.."

I think the later 13th CE would be the right date to carry on rather than 14th CE.

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.61.67.147 (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)