Talk:Nalanda

Contradictions

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

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

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

Citing Sources

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

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

Roll back

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

Copyright issue

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

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

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

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

Some useful links

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

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

Mention of Pala Empire

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

Alexander Cunningham

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

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

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

I removed those categories for several reasons:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Decline and end

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

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