Fame of Nalanda University | connecting-the-dots

the 7th-century Chinese monk Xuanzang arrived at Nalanda.
He left the clearest-surviving account of how Nalanda operated in its heyday, with later disciples and biographers adding many fantastical details.
Xuanzang claims there were nearly 10,000 resident disciples and 1,500 masters—about six students per teacher.
most studies were conducted through memorisation, discussion, and argument rather than lectures and notes.
There were no “semesters” or “grades,” just a rigorous daily eight-hour schedule.
Time was kept by water clocks and announced through drums and conch-shells.
Students had to take ritual baths and assist in religious ceremonies.
Discipline was no laughing matter at Nalanda; even eating outside designated hours could result in expulsion.
It was a monastery first and a university second.
They took great care of foreign students, understanding that they would evangelise Nalanda in distant courts.
Much of its curriculum focused on sacred texts, both Buddhist and Vedic.
While it conducted research in linguistics, mathematics, philosophy, astrology, and ritual, its masters and disciples did not recognise “science” as a separate discipline.

entering the Great Monastery required clearing an oral examination conducted by its gatekeepers.
these gatekeepers as “expert religious controversialists, who were always ready with difficult problems to try the competence of the claimants for admission.” - Historian R K Mookerji
Serious applicants needed a command of Buddhist and Vedic scriptures, commentaries, and logic.
admission rate was about 20 per cent, NEET, has a success rate of 7–8 per cent.

By the 11th century, Nalanda and other Buddhist monasteries were losing importance in eastern India.
Meanwhile, the rulers of present-day Bengal and Bihar found that Brahmin settlements were more useful than Buddhist monasteries.
in the 11th century, royal patronage shifted from concentrated Buddhist centres to dispersed Brahmin settlements to control the countryside.
Buddhists and Brahmins both knew how to manage and administer properties.
But Buddhists applied this knowledge to their own monasteries, while Brahmins did so for kings as well. Print