[Buddha-l] Nalanda's library destruction

[Franz Metcalf]

Dear Dan et al.,

"Case closed?" Well, not entirely. I would prefer to see further evidence--as I am sure Dan would, as well. Archeological evidence would be nice, especially if it suggested a immediate decline in the condition of the university after 1193, rather than a slow decline. Since we have evidence from the Buddhist side that there were still students at Nalanda a generation after 1193, and perhaps even 200 years after, this raises the question of how destructive (from the Buddhist perspective) or effective (from an Islamist perspective) the 1193 attack actually was. If we could find physical evidence that, in that attack, walls were thrown down and book burning took place on the scale the Tabaqat-i Nasiri claims, then we'd have a case closed situation. Lacking that, we might entertain the idea that its author exaggerated the enormity of the destruction for one of various possible reasons. It would hardly be unusual for him to have done so. After all, histories of the time had their mythologized aspects and the destruction of such a fetid heap of iconography and ungodly doctrine as Nalanda makes for great myth (from both Buddhist and Islamic perspectives). All that said, lacking further evidence, it seems we're stuck trusting (or not) our choice of various texts. I'm with Dan in figuring the Tabaqat-i Nasiri is our most accurate account.

I suppose I should read Elverskog's book to see how he supports the positions expressed in his first pages. I do want to say, though, that I read those pages as a denial of the black-and-white narrative of complete and continuous hostility between Islam and Buddhism on the subcontinent, NOT as a denial of the attack of 1193.

Cheers,

Franz