An Eminent Historian – his line and his fraud?



In his spirited response  1 to Arun Shourie2 on Nalanda, Dr.D.N.Jha has made the following broad, important points –

1)            His talk in 2006 was not exclusively about Nalanda. It was on the history of animosity between Buddhists and Hindus in which context he’d referred to the Tibetan tradition on Nalanda.

2)            The two Tibetan traditions on Nalanda corroborate each other and cannot be brushed aside even if they’d magical elements in them.

3)            The Tibetan traditions were accepted as credible not just by Marxists but also by highly acclaimed non-Marxist scholars

4)            Dr.Shourie was wrong in identifying the Vihara, which the Tabaqir-i-Nasiri records as having been destroyed by Bhaktiyar-i-Muhammad, with Nalanda. The scholarly consensus is that the Vihara in question is the one referred to in historical chronicles as Odantapuri or Uddandapura (modern Bihar Sharif). There’s, thus, no reason to believe that Bhaktiyar-i-Muhammad burned down…

View original post 2,180 more words


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s