The Indic-Buddhic origin of the Islamic madrasa (and thus the medieval European college)

[enkidu_]

I'm reading a very enlightening book right now, by Christopher Beckwith, generally considered the US' best specialist in Tibetan studies, entitled : Warriors of the Cloisters: The Central Asian Origins of Science in the Medieval World.

As the title suggests, it asks a simple yet always eluded question : we keep talking of the "Greek" influences on the early Islamic civilization (of course, to bring the so called "European" contributions), and when we're generous, of the Persian one (limiting ourselves to administration or literature), but what about the Indic-Buddhic one, considering Central Asia was full of Buddhists, and that this religious tradition had a sophisticated intellectual tradition which couldn't have been totally ignored ?

And that's where his books gets interesting : he demonstrates that the "recursive argument" in logic, which would give the scientific method later on, was first envisioned by Indian Buddhist scholars (for instance Vasubandhu of the 4th century, in modern day Peshawar) ; he then vindicates the late Arab Christian George Makdisi thesis' that the European college does come from madrassa, but he goes further in the genealogy : that the madrassa itself was modeled on the Buddhist vihara or monastery-school, the oldest dated being in Taxila in modern day Pakistan, but dozens of such viharas doting all Central Asia.

Some extracts from chapter three of this rich little book (without the notes, not even 200 pages):

The actual charter of the first college known to have been founded in Western Europe, the Collège des Dix-huit, which was established in Paris in 1180, states that it was founded by Jocius of London, a wealthy English merchant who had just returned “from Jerusalem.” By the period of Jocius’s visit to the Near East, madrasas were very common there. Like the madrasa, the college is an all-inclusive academic institution with a permanent endowment recognized by the government. The endowment, in both the Islamic and Western European traditions, covered the expenses of the physical property and living support for the scholars—the students and their teacher or teachers—all of whom lived together in the same structure. Based on the brief description in the founding charter and what is known about other early colleges from the following decades, including the Sorbonne, the college founded by Jocius is identical in all particulars to the typical madrasa then widespread in Syria and its vicinity. They were endowed institutions, generally quite small, which housed a small number of students, typically less than two dozen: exactly like the Collège des Dix-huit and most of the other early colleges. Because Jerusalem is located inland, Jocius had necessarily spent time in the Islamic Near East—undoubtedly in Syria, which was one of the main destinations of merchants and pilgrims alike. There he must have encountered the local small type of madrasa on which he modeled the identical institution he founded in Paris, Europe’s first college. The Near Eastern origin of the Western European college could hardly be clearer.

But there is much more to this story. It has actually been known for almost a century, though little recognized by most scholars, that the medieval Central Asian Islamic college, the madrasa, is an Islamicized form of the earlier Central Asian Buddhist college, the vihara. The two are virtually identical in form, function, teaching program, and legal status. The identity of the unique architectural form of the Central Asian vihra and madrasa has also been established by archaeologists,whose discoveries have confirmed the much earlier arguments of Barthold.
(...)
The earliest examples of vihras built according to the plan of Adzhina Tepa (though without wns) have been found in the ruins of the great city of Taxila (Takala), dating to the period of the Kushan Empire (ca. 50 BC–AD 225). This empire was a powerful Central Asian state, founded in Bactria, which included in its territory Gandhra (the southeasternmost region of Central Asia), the great city of which was Taxila (located very near to what is now Islamabad-Rawalpindi in northern Pakistan).
(...)
The earliest historically mentioned madrasa noted so far under that name in the scholarly literature is the school endowed by Abu Hatim al-Busti (890–965) in his native town, Bust. It had apartments and scholarships for his students and foreign students, and a library. This is exactly like the Buddhist vihara. The vihara-madrasa must have already spread widely by the middle of the tenth century. By 1025–1026 there already were twenty fully endowed madrasas in Khuttal (then part of Tokharistan, now part of Tajikistan), the very same province where once the former vihara of Adzhina Tepa and the hundreds of viharas noted by Hui Ch’ao when he passed through in ca. 726 AD were operational. Moreover, in one of the major metropolises of Central Asia, Nishapur, “no less than 38 madrasas predating the great Nimiyya of that city (founded ca. 450/1058) are recorded.” It may be assumed from similarities in the teaching methods and in the main philosophical interests—theology and religious law, both comprised in the Buddhist context by the word dharma—that the Muslims in Central Asia had continued the vihara pattern intellectually, too.
(...)
As for the architectural form of the European college, it is a fact that the ‘cloister’ of the early English college happens to be essentially identical physically to the madrasa-vihara, and this design seems to have been widely and stereotypically used for that purpose in England (...) like the Central Asian vihara and madrasa, the early English college cloister had doors along the vaulted corridor opening onto rooms for the students and masters. Examples can still be seen at Oxford, such as the one in Magdalen College.
(...)
Among the more striking of his examples is the licentia docendi ‘license to teach’, which first appears in Latin Europe in the late twelfth century, in a decree of Pope Alexander III (r. 1159–1181). It corresponds exactly to the Arabic ijza li-’l-tadrs ‘license to teach’, which had appeared in the Islamic world by about the tenth century. In fact, the correspondence of these and other terms was already demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt by nineteenth-century scholars, who argued that the Latin licentiate derives from the Arabic equivalent. This strongly suggests that not only was the Latin college borrowed directly from the Islamic madrasa, which was in origin the Central Asian Buddhist vihara, but to some extent the European higher educational system as a whole was derived from the medieval Islamic one. This should hardly be surprising, considering the massive cultural influence of the Islamic world on Latin Europe in this period in general.

 

[SandyB]

[MENTION=137893]enkidu_[/MENTION] So the Arabs didn't have any such thing called "madrasa" before the contact with the Budhist culture ?

 

[enkidu_]

[MENTION=137893]enkidu_[/MENTION] So the Arabs didn't have any such thing called "madrasa" before the contact with the Budhist culture ?

Yep. Their education was informal with private tutors like in the Roman Empire (a scholar getting a dozen of students here and there), but it was not into a specific institution (and its own building) with State-support when it comes to funding, a regular curricula, a diploma crowning successful studies and permit to teach, etc that was the Buddhist vihara (monastery-school) that was taken up by Central Asian Muslims (former Buddhists) who generalized it to the whole Islamic world (incl. Arabs), and then by Europeans through the crusades, where it would give the "college", itself an ancestor of the modern "university".

 

[SandyB]

Yep. Their education was informal with private tutors like in the Roman Empire (a scholar getting a dozen of students here and there), but it was not into a specific institution (and its own building) with State-support when it comes to funding, a regular curricula, a diploma crowning successful studies and permit to teach, etc that was the Buddhist vihara (monastery-school) that was taken up by Central Asian Muslims (former Buddhists) who generalized it to the whole Islamic world (incl. Arabs), and then by Europeans through the crusades, where it would give the "college", itself an ancestor of the modern "university".

Interesting . The initial invasions by Islamic conquerors to south asia were thought of as mostly destructive in nature, they razed down Taxila (i thought it was in present day Kashmir), Nalanda (the other great Buddhist centre)and the original Sankaracharya Mutt (in kashmir) . Only the later settlers like the mughals actually took interest in studying the local culture and knowledge bases and adopted certain elements.

Again the southern state of Kerala is supposed to have islamic learning centers from 8th century, which were later promoted by the Brits. But kerala muslims have their origin independent from the Persian invasions. I need to look at how Madrassa system came to be established here.

 

[WebGuru]

Taxila (i thought it was in present day Kashmir),

Taxila is in Pakistan just a few Kilometers away from capital Islamabad.

 

[enkidu_]

Interesting . The initial invasions by Islamic conquerors to south asia were thought of as mostly destructive in nature, they razed down Taxila (i thought it was in present day Kashmir), Nalanda (the other great Buddhist centre)and the original Sankaracharya Mutt (in kashmir) . Only the later settlers like the mughals actually took interest in studying the local culture and knowledge bases and adopted certain elements.

Again the southern state of Kerala is supposed to have islamic learning centers from 8th century, which were later promoted by the Brits. But kerala muslims have their origin independent from the Persian invasions. I need to look at how Madrassa system came to be established here.

Taxila and Nalanda were already functionally dead when the first Islamic conquerors reached the areas. Here an academic source on the subject of Nalanda, but Taxila went down even a bit earlier, when in the 500s the White Huns unleashed on Punjab:

The Buddhist monastery of Nalanda was founded in north-east India in the early fifth century. Over time it became the premier institution of higher learning in Asia and, much like leading universities today, Nalanda had a world-renowned faculty working on the cutting edge of the theoretical sciences and a student body drawn from across the Buddhist world. This prestige also brought with it ample gifts from the rich and powerful. Not only had local rulers in north-east India bequeathed entire villages to help finance the running of Nalanda, but the king of Sumatra had also offered villages for the monastery’s endowment, and a special fund had been created to support students specifically from China. At its peak Nalanda had an extensive faculty teaching a diverse student body of about three thousand on a beautiful campus composed of numerous cloisters with lofty spires that “ resembled the snowy peaks of Mount Sumeru.” Then suddenly the serenity of this Buddhist institution was shattered. In the fall of 1202, Muslim soldiers on horses rode in and hacked down teachers and students where they stood. The once majestic buildings were left in ruins. The savagery was so great it signaled the end of the Dharma in India.

This powerful story has been told countless times. Today it is ubiquitous, being found in everything from scholarly monographs to travel brochures. Indeed, by its sheer pervasiveness, this one episode has in many ways come to encapsulate and symbolize the entire thirteen-hundred-year history of Buddhist-Muslim interaction. And on account of this, whenever the topic of Buddhism and Islam is ever mentioned it almost invariably revolves around the Muslim destruction of the Dharma.

This is problematic for many reasons, not the least being that the story of Nalanda is not true. For example, not only did local Buddhist rulers make deals with the new Muslim overlords and thus stay in power, but Nalanda also continued as a functioning institution of Buddhist education well into the thirteenth century. One Indian master, for example, was trained and ordained at Nalanda before he traveled to the court of Khubilai Khan. We also know that Chinese monks continued to travel to India and obtain Buddhist texts in the late fourteenth century. Indeed, contrary to the standard idea promoted by the above story that Nalanda’s destruction signaled the death of Buddhism, the fact is that the Dharma survived in India at least until the seventeenth century. Or, in other words, Buddhists and Muslims lived together on the Asian subcontinent for almost a thousand years.

Why is this not better known? There are numerous possible explanations for this and they range from Buddhist prophecies of decline to the problems of contemporary scholarship. However, rather than addressing such concerns, one can begin simply with the power of story. As noted above, the destruction of Nalanda offers us a clear-cut narrative with good guys and bad. It avoids entirely the complex shades of gray that most often color the messy fabric of history. And this is certainly what the Buddhist historians who cobbled together this story wanted to do as they tried to make sense of the Dharma’s demise in India. Indeed, rather than exploring the complex economic, environmental, political, and religious history of India, or simply the Buddhist tradition’s own failings, it was clearly much easier to simply blame the Muslims.

In this regard the Buddhists established a precedent that was to subsequently drive South Asian history. The British, for example, used the same claims of Muslim barbarity and misrule in order to justify the introduction of their supposedly more humane and rational form of colonial rule. In turn, while Indian nationalists questioned the moral righteousness and glory of the British Raj, they nevertheless continued with the historical model of blaming the Muslims. The humiliating imposition of colonial rule was thus not the result of Indian weakness per se, but rather the fault of the effeminate and voluptuous Mughals. And this view is readily perpetuated in the rhetoric of today’s Hindu nationalists who want to re-create some imagined Hindu utopia by eradicating all traces of Islam in India, by violence if necessary.

This pervasive anti-Muslim view is, of course, not unique to medieval Buddhist and contemporary Hindu historiography. It has also been a part of the Jewish and Christian tradition ever since Muhammad received God’s final revelation through the angel Gabriel in the early seventh century. Many have also argued that the modern western construction of itself as the paragon of righteousness was often done at the expense of Islam. Yet even though such “orientalism” has been roundly critiqued by decades of scholarship, these earlier views persist. Indeed, the valiant attempt of contemporary scholars and museum curators to overturn these stereotypes by means of books and lavish museum exhibits highlighting Muslim tolerance and periods of Islamic exchange with Christian Europe has not really been able to diminish our “ orientalist fear.” Of course, today’s contemporary geopolitical environment may not be conducive to such a réévaluation no matter how necessary it may actually be. Thus if we take into consideration all of these disparate strands it is perhaps not at all surprising that the story of Nalanda and the attendant one of Islam destroying Buddhism are so readily accepted. To many they just make sense. Moreover, they fit our preconceptions about these two religious traditions. While Buddhism is a good, rational, post-Enlightenment philosophy, Islam is an inherently violent and irrational religion.

Johan Elverskog, Buddhism and Islam on the Silk Road, pp. 1-3

 

[SandyB]

Taxila and Nalanda were already functionally dead when the first Islamic conquerors reached the areas. Here an academic source on the subject of Nalanda, but Taxila went down even a bit earlier, when in the 500s the White Huns unleashed on Punjab:



Johan Elverskog, Buddhism and Islam on the Silk Road, pp. 1-3

This writeup is way too forgiving to the first set of invasions by Khilji and the ilk .

The destruction may not have been suddden, but what happened to all that knowledge then ..? The great number of books and texts there.. Historically we are taught that some of the invaders set fire to the campuses., which resulted in the loss of the a great many texts. Given that attaining religious and political supremacy was the primary aim of the invasions , it would be pretty natural that they would seek to destroy the universities.

 

[enkidu_]

This writeup is way too forgiving to the first set of invasions by Khilji and the ilk .

The destruction may not have been suddden, but what happened to all that knowledge then ..? The great number of books and texts there.. Historically we are taught that some of the invaders set fire to the campuses., which resulted in the loss of the a great many texts. Given that attaining religious and political supremacy was the primary aim of the invasions , it would be pretty natural that they would seek to destroy the universities.

I agree there was obvious destruction, but Nalanda by then was already decaying and it's probable that all the important texts were already exported in other Buddhic intellectual centres, and also, the rulers didn't totally destroy Nalanda either, as the author (who, believe me, is anything but pro Islam in the book) shows with some explicit facts.

 

[SandyB]

I agree there was obvious destruction, but Nalanda by then was already decaying and it's probable that all the important texts were already exported in other Buddhic intellectual centres, and also, the rulers didn't totally destroy Nalanda either, as the author (who, believe me, is anything but pro Islam in the book) shows with some explicit facts.

I checked a few other sources too , many say that the decline of Taxila was first caused by the bloody invasions of Alexander (aka Sikander for Indians & persians) and later by the Hunas (White Huns from central asia). They were on a path of pillage through the silk route and Taxila was on their way .

https://2ndlook.wordpress.com/2009/08/04/destruction-of-takshashila-a-defining-moment/