Mapping Nalanda, Takshashila, Vikramashila, and the Diamond Triangle: Scale, Chronology, and the Institutional Forms of Buddhist Learning

Modern discourse often compresses ancient Buddhist centres of learning into the familiar metaphor of the “university.” Nalanda, Takshashila, Vikramashila, and, more recently, Odisha’s Diamond Triangle are frequently discussed within the same conceptual frame, yet their institutional forms, spatial logics, and historical trajectories differ significantly.

This essay maps these four centres comparatively, moving beyond prestige-based hierarchies to examine how Buddhist learning was organised across scales, chronologies, geographies, and political contexts. Rather than asking which site was “greater,” the essay asks how each functioned within its own intellectual ecology.

Chronological Horizons: When These Institutions Emerged and Why

Takshashila represents the earliest horizon among the four. Flourishing from at least the fifth century BCE, it operated well before Buddhism crystallised into large monastic institutions. Historian A.L. Basham described Takshashila as “a city of teachers rather than a monastery of monks,” emphasising its role as an urban pedagogic centre where multiple disciplines—grammar, medicine, statecraft, and philosophy—were taught across sectarian boundaries. Buddhism was one strand among many within this cosmopolitan environment.

Nalanda and Vikramashila belong to a later institutional phase, emerging between the fifth and eighth centuries CE, when Buddhism had become deeply monastic and scholastic. Nalanda’s rise coincided with Gupta patronage, while Vikramashila was explicitly founded under the Pala rulers to strengthen monastic discipline and doctrinal authority. The Diamond Triangle, with peak activity between the seventh and tenth centuries CE, overlaps chronologically with Vikramashila and late Nalanda, situating Odisha firmly within the mature phase of Buddhist scholasticism rather than its beginnings.

Scale and Spatial Organisation: Campus, City, and Cluster

Nalanda is often cited as the archetype of the Buddhist university due to its monumental scale. Archaeological remains reveal a linear campus stretching over 1.5 kilometres, featuring multiple monasteries, temples, libraries, and water systems. Chinese pilgrims such as Xuanzang and Yijing recorded thousands of resident monks. Archaeologist H.D. Sankalia characterised Nalanda as “an enclosed scholastic city,” spatially coherent and architecturally unified.

Vikramashila, though smaller than Nalanda, presents a more rigidly structured plan. Its cruciform monastery with a central shrine reflects a highly regulated institutional environment. Historian Sukumar Dutt noted that Vikramashila was conceived as “a corrective institution,” designed to enforce doctrinal orthodoxy and ritual discipline within the Buddhist sangha.

Takshashila contrasts sharply with both. Excavations show no single enclosed campus. Teaching occurred across the city, in private residences, monasteries, and public spaces. Anthropologist Romila Thapar has emphasised that Takshashila functioned as “a dispersed pedagogic field,” where authority rested with individual teachers rather than institutional architecture.

The Diamond Triangle introduces a fourth model: the clustered landscape. Lalitgiri, Ratnagiri, and Udayagiri together form a distributed institutional zone spread across multiple hills within a compact geographical radius. Archaeologist Debala Mitra described this configuration as “a regional monastic system of exceptional density,” where no single site monopolised authority. Learning, ritual, and residence unfolded across interconnected monasteries rather than a singular campus.

Institutional Form: Who Taught, Who Learned, and How Authority Worked

Takshashila’s authority derived from reputation rather than regulation. Teachers attracted students independently, and curricula varied widely. This model aligns with early Buddhist pedagogy, which prioritised debate, oral transmission, and itinerancy. Historian F.E. Pargiter observed that Takshashila “knew no central administration of learning,” a feature that allowed intellectual diversity but limited institutional continuity.

Nalanda institutionalised learning through collective governance. Monastic councils regulated admissions, curricula, and examinations. Yijing records that students underwent rigorous oral debates before acceptance. Gregory Schopen has cautioned, however, that Nalanda’s monastic ideals should not be mistaken for uniform practice, noting that everyday life often diverged from prescriptive texts.

Vikramashila represents the most centralised model among the four. Founded explicitly by royal decree, it housed appointed scholars, including Atisha Dipankara. Historian Tansen Sen describes Vikramashila as “a state-supported intellectual instrument,” linking monastic learning directly to political authority and diplomatic outreach, especially toward Tibet.

The Diamond Triangle occupies an intermediate institutional space. Excavation evidence—monastic seals, multiple large viharas, and ritual diversity—suggests organised scholastic life without a single administrative centre. Anthropologist Dilip K. Chakrabarti has argued that such clusters reflect “federated monastic systems,” where authority circulated across sites rather than flowing from a single institutional core.

Curriculum and Doctrinal Orientation

Takshashila’s curriculum was explicitly plural. Buddhist, Brahmanical, and secular subjects coexisted, reinforcing its role as an intellectual crossroads rather than a doctrinal stronghold.

Nalanda became synonymous with Mahayana philosophy, logic, grammar, and metaphysics. Textual production and commentary flourished, and Nalanda-trained monks travelled widely across Asia. Susan L. Huntington notes that Nalanda’s intellectual output shaped Buddhist art and doctrine far beyond India.

Vikramashila specialised in Vajrayana and advanced tantric ritual alongside philosophical training. Its pedagogic authority extended into Tibet, influencing lineages that remain active today.

The Diamond Triangle reveals strong Vajrayana presence, particularly at Ratnagiri and Udayagiri, yet retains evidence of earlier Mahayana phases. This layered curriculum suggests adaptive learning rather than rigid doctrinal focus. Art historian T. Richard Blurton described Ratnagiri as “one of the clearest archaeological expressions of mature Vajrayana practice within an institutional setting.”

Political Economy and Patronage

Takshashila thrived through urban prosperity and mercantile patronage rather than royal endowment. Nalanda and Vikramashila depended heavily on imperial and dynastic support, which enabled scale but also made them vulnerable to political disruption.

The Diamond Triangle displays a more diversified patronage base. Archaeological evidence points to sustained support across multiple centuries, likely involving regional rulers, merchant groups, and ritual economies tied to coastal and riverine trade. Historian Hermann Kulke has characterised Odisha’s early medieval religious institutions as “polycentric and resilient,” less dependent on singular dynastic fortunes.

Decline and Afterlife

Takshashila declined gradually as trade routes shifted. Nalanda and Vikramashila suffered sharper disruptions due to political upheavals in the late twelfth century. The Diamond Triangle experienced attenuation rather than destruction, with monasteries thinning out but landscapes remaining ritually and materially active.

This difference shapes modern memory. Nalanda and Vikramashila dominate textbooks due to textual fame and dramatic endings. The Diamond Triangle remained archaeologically silent until the twentieth century, its importance emerging through excavation rather than legend. Debala Mitra remarked that Odisha’s Buddhist sites “force us to rethink how many centres of learning history has overlooked.”

Comparative Synthesis: Four Models of Buddhist Learning

Taken together, these sites demonstrate that Buddhist education in South Asia followed multiple institutional forms:

• Takshashila: urban, teacher-centric, pluralistic

• Nalanda: enclosed, monastic, scholastic

• Vikramashila: state-founded, doctrinally focused, regulated

• Diamond Triangle: clustered, federated, ritually adaptive

Anthropologist Clifford Geertz’s notion of “local knowledge” offers a useful lens here: each institution embodied a locally negotiated model of learning shaped by geography, politics, and social networks.

Rethinking the Geography of Buddhist Knowledge

Mapping Nalanda, Takshashila, Vikramashila, and the Diamond Triangle together dismantles the myth of a singular Buddhist university model. Buddhist learning unfolded through cities, campuses, monasteries, and landscapes, adapting to local conditions while remaining connected through transregional networks. The Diamond Triangle’s inclusion within this comparative frame restores eastern India’s coastal and riverine worlds to the history of Buddhist education, not as peripheral echoes but as parallel centres of intellectual production.

Understanding these differences enriches the study of Buddhism as a lived, institutional, and spatial practice rather than a monolithic tradition.

---

References

1. Basham, A.L. The Wonder That Was India. Rupa.

2. Dutt, Sukumar. Buddhist Monks and Monasteries of India. Motilal Banarsidass.

3. Mitra, Debala. Buddhist Monuments. Sahitya Samsad.

4. Thapar, Romila. Early India: From the Origins to AD 1300. University of California Press.

5. Schopen, Gregory. Bones, Stones, and Buddhist Monks. University of Hawai‘i Press.

6. Sen, Tansen. Buddhism, Diplomacy, and Trade. University of Hawai‘i Press.

7. Huntington, Susan L. The Art of Ancient India. Weatherhill.

8. Chakrabarti, Dilip K. The Archaeology of Eastern India. Oxford University Press.

9. Kulke, Hermann. Kings and Cults. Manohar.