[Buddha-l] Nalanda's library destruction

[Jo]

On May 14, 2013, at 17:55 , Franz Metcalf <franz at mind2mind.net> wrote:

> 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.

This particular reference to Elverskog's work is an instance of a broader theme. The "revisionists" here on buddha-l to which Dan has drawn attention a few times have questioned what Franz aptly calls "the black-and-white narrative of complete and continuous hostility between Islam and Buddhism," but I can't recall a single instance of anyone denying that there were episodes of hostility between Muslims and Hindus, Hindus and Buddhists, Muslims and Buddhists, Jains and Buddhists and Buddhists and Buddhists. I certainly can't recall any denizen of buddha-l questioning or denying the attack of Nālandā in 1193.

Richard

_______________________________________________

Speaking as an anthropologist, agreed. 
Sectarianism plagued spiritual seekers in the Buddha's time, as we know. Some of them liked to try plaguing him.  Hindu kings of ancient times were also talented at destroying cities and laying waste to swathes of peasant lands. 
A Sena king was mentioned here as building barricades against Ghurid attacks, but basically, it was the Hindu Sena kings from the south who managed to destroy the Bengal (eastern India) Pala Buddhist "empire" (it covered a rather large territory, after all, including Bihar.) Ironically, Buddhism survived at a low key in Bengal. The Barua caste of Bengal are mostly (traditionally) Buddhist. Bodhgaya, however, is an international zone and Hindus control the main temple. It's existence never demonstrated that it was surrounded by a huge Buddhist population. Probably even since Buddha's time it was mostly a pilgrim center. Maybe its international participation saved it from disintegration. (I've never been there.)

Joanna