Talk:Taxila

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Taxila was never a place of Hindu learning

To say that taxila has been a place of Hindu learning is to mock history. I was born in the city and am well versed in the history of the city. I would request the contributor to substantiate their claim.


I would you request you to come up with any other name, ancient or modern, for "Taxila" other than the original Takshashila which is in Sanskrit, the language of Hindus, before trying to dismiss its Hindu heritage. Even Taxila is an anglicized version of Takshashila.
221.135.246.153 16:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


You may have been born and raised there but that doesn't make you an expert in ancient history of taxila. It is a well documented fact that Taxila was a place of learning well before buddhism was introduced during the reign of Asoka and the religion prevelant before that time was hinduism, tell history like it happened. Please do not pick the facts that you like and omit the ones that you don't. The famous sanskrit scholar Panini (much of the work in sanskrit grammar was done by him at Taxila. Kautilya(the mentor of Chandragupta Murya) wrote his Arthshastra while he was a teacher at Taxila and the list goes on. The fact that Taxila became a seat of Buddhist learning during the reign of Asoka and Kushanas is well known to historians the world over. Read the history before making ignorant and unsubstantiated claims.

Hindu word itself came after Arabic warriors came in India. The city and its culture was flourishing long before that so one can not relate the culture or city with Hinduism. In fact current Hindu belief is a lot deviated from the original Vedic culture.

Really???? the world Hindu(from Sindhu, it literally means the inhabitants of the land of Sindhu or Indus) created and used for centuries by the ancient persians, the immediate neighbors to the west(i.e Zorastrian Persia or modern Iran). It was they who passed on this name to the Arabs and the rest of the world, centuries before the Arab/Islamic conquests July 30, 2006

[edit] first university

“ (1) Extract from a letter of 22 October 1944, from Prof. F.W. Thomas, C.I.E., M.A., Ph.D., F.B.A.
I have never supposed that these 'Universities' were anything but organised groups of independent teachers, such as you describe, without common buildings or action....Real Universities, with colleges (sc. monasteries) and endowments were created by Buddhism. These, of course, Nālandā, Vikramaśīla, etc., were primarily religious and sectarian, and the students and teachers were monks or aspirants to monkhood. But that, as we know from Hiuen-tsang and I-tsing, did not preclude a keen interest in general studies, literary, scientific, and philosophic, including even subjects specially Brahmanic, such as the Veda. In numbers and fame and in splendid buildings and rich endowments these were, of course, great institutions, but they do not belong to the early centuries A.D. In Central Asia and China the Buddhists usually founded pairs of (real) colleges, one for religion and doctrine (dharma), the other for contemplative philosophy (dhyāna). These were about contemporaneous with Nālandā.
(2) From Education in Ancient India (1934) by Prof. Altekar, pp. 79–80.
In ancient India for several centuries the relations between the teacher and the student were direct, i.e. not through any institution. Buddhism had its own Sanghas or monasteries, which developed into education institutions in the course of a few centuries; but, as far as Hinduism is concerned, we do not so far find any regular education organisations or institutions till about the beginning of the ninth century A.D. For centuries Hindu teachers like Hindu Sanyāsins had no organised institutions. We come across several Jātaka stories about the students and teachers of Takshaśilā, but not a single episode even remotely suggests that the different 'world renowned' teachers living in that city belonged to a particular college or university of the modern type.
Marshall, John [1951] (1975). Taxila. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.		 ”
“ It may be observed at the outset that Taxila did not possess any colleges or university in the modern sense of the term. It was simply a centre of education. It had many famous teachers to whom hundreds of students flocked for higher education from all parts of northern India. But these teachers were not members of any institutions like professors in a modern college, nor were they teaching any courses prescribed by any central body like a modern university. Every teacher, assisted by his advanced students, formed an institution by himself. He admitted as many students as he liked. He taught what his students were anxious to learn. Students terminated their courses according to their individual convenience. There were no degree examinations, and therefore no degrees or diplomas.
Altekar, Anant Sadashiv [1934] (1965). Education in Ancient India, Sixth Edition, Revised & Enlarged, Varanasi: Nand Kishore & Bros.		 ”

Cite cop is vandalizing the site, editing and deleting referenced material sep3, 2006
CiteCop is making damn well sure that sources cited verify the text in question.CiteCop 23:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The source cited in "Early Hindu" refrence is encyclopedia britannica which says that Kautilya was a "Hindu" statesman and a teacher at "taxila" so it was associated with brahminism and early hindu learning before, during and after the reign of Nandas(the dynasty that was defeated by chandragupta with the help of kautilya, who in turn was avenging the fact that he was exiled from Magadha by the Nandas, and spent most of that time at Taxila) All the stupas excavated at Taxila are from either during the later years of Ashoka's reign(two generations after chandragupta) or from a period after that, as is clear from the unesco refrence cited by you. The only religion prevelant before that was hinduism. Taxila was a centre of learning during that period as is clear fron the britannica and Ayurveda(charaka) refrences. We cannont call them Vedic because the late vedic period ended long before Kautilya and Panini lived. Scholars associated with Taxila lived after the 7th century B.C. If we are going to use contemporary terms like Buddhist to describe the Ashoka and Kushan periods, then we have to use Early Hindu(used by most historians to describe this period) for the period prior to that. Cite cop you should be banned for deleting refrenced material your own UNESCO refrence doesn't even use the term buddhist centre of learning but we are all smart enough to know that a stupa is a buddhist monument. Aparently Cite cop you don't know that Hindu statesman(kautilya), ayurvedic scholar(charaka) and sanskrit grammarian(panini) means they were Hindu gentlemen or brahmins to be precise. Or do you think they were all Buddhists???

So now the question is why did you delete those refrences and in addition to that you also deleted the words "Early Hindu"(since charaka, panini and kautilya etc. lived after the late vedic period and the epic age)???????? They pretty well expain that these gentlemen were "Hindu" statesmen or Brahmin scholars........i could cite hundereds of history books published during the last century with refrences that say exactly the same thing. I am not a Hindu nor do i have any association with Taxila but as a student of history the ignorance of people like you is really disturbing.

So Cite Cop, is this another attempt at vandalism or not??? Sept 4, 2006

UNESCO was my source. UNESCO said Buddhist so I said Buddhist.
The entry for Taxila in your online Britannica is strangely silent on the issue.
CiteCop 04:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heading

Why is the image at the top of the page cover the entire width of the page? This is fairly nonstandard. --Whiteknox 20:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sanskrit or Indianization?

Fouler&Fouler, what proof do you have that Sanskrit was used by the ancient people of Taxila? I will accept the script if you provide a non-Indian and unbiased neutral proof for its use by the ancient people of Taxila. (and also provide script for some language Pali or whatever the third language is) Szhaider 04:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, because you want to remove the relevant scripts, you should provide sources that it wasn't used by the people of Taxila. Anyways I have two sources per your request: World 66: Taxila and The South Asia: Taxila. This should clear everything up. Thanks, AnupamTalk 04:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Szhaider, The Sanskrit script at the top of the article is relevant. Sanskrit and Pali/Prakrit were both languages used in the region for 2000 years. See: Peoples and Languages of Pre-Islamic Indus Valley by Tariq Rahman. Here is the first few sentences from the Encyclopaedia Britannica article on Taxila:

“ Sanskrit Takshashila ancient city of northwestern Pakistan, the ruins of which are about 22 miles (35 km) northwest of Rawalpindi. Its prosperity in ancient times resulted from its position at the junction of three great trade routes: one from eastern India described by a Greek writer, Megasthenes, as the “Royal Highway,” the second from western Asia, and the third from Kashmir and Central Asia. ”

In Sanskrit "shila" means rock; therefore, the name of the city means "(King) Taksha's rock." Furthermore, Taxila is mentioned in both the Sanskrit epics Ramayana and Mahabharata. Here is the Encyclopaedia Britannica article once again:

“ Taxila is known from references in Indian and Greco-Roman literary sources and from the accounts of two Chinese Buddhist pilgrims, Faxian and Xuanzang. Literally meaning “City of Cut-Stone” or “Rock of Taksha,” Takshashila (rendered by Greek writers as Taxila) was founded, according to the Indian epic Ramayana, by Bharata, younger brother of Rama, an incarnation of the Hindu god Vishnu. The city was named for Bharata's son, Taksha, its first ruler. The great Indian epic Mahabharata was, according to tradition, first recited at Taxila at the great snake sacrifice of King Janamejaya, one of the heroes of the story. Buddhist literature, especially the Jataka, mentions it as the capital of the kingdom of Gandhara and as a great centre of learning. ”

So the inclusion of the Sanskrit script in entirely relevant. I am not someone who compulsively asks for Sanskrit scripts in Pakistan related articles. See the Talk:Harappa, where I ask for the Sanskrit to be removed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Well said, Fouler&Fouler. Anupam, any information which cannot be proved true can be deleted. See WP:Verifiability. Counter-questioning is not a constructive behaviour and expresses POV-pushing tendency. Szhaider 05:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but your questioning was not in good faith as evinced by the header of this conversation: "Sanskrit or Indianization", especially when the article discusses Vedic civilization as sourced in the article. Oh by the way, thanks for providing the addition sources, Fowler&Fowler. With regards, AnupamTalk 05:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
It was in unbiased faith which might turn out be "not good" for some. Szhaider 05:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, okay. --AnupamTalk 05:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


The irony of ironies here is that people who now have a problem with sanskrit and ancient vedic religion and its connection to Taxila or Pakistan, are either unaware of or conveniently forget that the greatest Sanskrit grammarian a brahmin to ever have lived, Panini was born not far from today's Taxila in Attock district, and was a prominent personality associated with Taxila, a fact well acknowledged by every credible historian including Pakistani historians---Anon

[edit] Taxila was a center of learning, not a University

Why do people feel the need to add text that is plainly not true? Hartmut Scharfe's Education in Ancient India was cited as mentioning Taxila to be the world's oldest university. I read through the relevant pages of Scharfe's book. Nowhere does he call Taxila a university, let alone the world's oldest! He is very careful to only refer to it as a center of learning. Here is what he says:

“ The earliest reports about instructional institutions that we have refer to the city of Taxila, as the Greeks called it, corresponding to Sanskrit Taksasila (Panini IV 3 93) and Pali Takkasila in Gandhara that contained several monasteries (vihara), all, it seems, involved in teaching. The archaeological site is quite large; but no large lecture halls or dormitories have been discovered. By all indications instructions in these early schools and monasteries was conducted still in an individualistic fashion, not totally unlike the acarya-kula-system, or perhaps more like in an asrama. Independent teachers or individual monks taught single individuals or small groups of students, even if they were part of a larger monastic institution, and perhaps even supervised by the monastic community at large. It was probably another matter when the physician Jivaka Komarabhacca from Rajagaha (Rajagrha) is said to have received his medical training over seven years from his teacher at Takkasila, because there is no indication that the teacher was a monk or even affiliated with a monastery; but his report, too, shows the city as a center of higher learning at an early time....

We have to be extremely cautious in dealing with the literary evidence, because much of the information offered in the secondary literature on Taxila is derived from Jataka prose that was only fixed in Ceylon several centuries after the events that it purports to describe, probably some time after Buddhaghosa, i.e. around A. D. 500. Since the data gleaned from the Jatakas probably represent more the imagination of a late commentator than a tradition of factual knowledge, it will be best to neglect these tales and to rely on more authentic sources. We may accept, though, that Taxila was a well known as a center for higher studies in the Buddhist tradition, as it is mentioned again and again.

 ”

It's one thing to make a good faith mistake, but it's another to cite the Scharfe's book for a claim, when there is no evidence for it in this source. That is falsification, plain and simple! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it was a university. I thought it would be pertinent to produce some sources which include the following:-

Many regards, Freedom skies| talk  06:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No it is not. Your references are not reliable. According to Encyclopaedia Britannica:[1]

“ Taxila, besides being a provincial seat, was also a centre of learning. It was not a university town with lecture halls and residential quarters, such as have been found at Nalanda in the Indian state of Bihar. At Taxila, the preceptor housed his own pupils, who paid for their board and lodging in cash or in the form of service to the teacher and his family. The Buddhist monasteries also catered to the needs of the students and monks. ”

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ * Taxila. (2007). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved January 15, 2007, from Encyclopaedia Britannica Online

Your references are not reliable.

This personal opinion could not be more incorrect. The citations as such, are very reliable. If you're attempting to make a case stating that The University outside Europe: Essays on the Development of University Institutions in Fourteen Countries (part 3:India) by Edward Bradby. is unreliable then you're mistaken. Also, the "It was not a university town with lecture halls and residential quarters" is misrepresented. The structural differences between universites of the world can be gauged by the "Essays on the Development of University Institutions in Fourteen Countries."

Having said that, I'm on a Wikibreak and have prior commitments on Wikipedia itself when I return. I'll not pursue this presently due to time constraints. Regards,

Freedom skies| talk  15:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] From the talk page of Takshashila centre of learning, now merged with Taxila

Note This page was previously named Takshashila University. The first five sections of this talk page were copied from that page, and provide the rationale for the name change. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] University ?

Aren't these "university's" in India more like the Greek "Lyceum" or "Academy"? It seems a bit irresponsible and far-fetched to call them a university. Did they have an established curriculum, building complexes, paid professors? The Europeans don't really begin to call them universities until they incorporate as a university and have paid professors... Stevenmitchell 06:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Stevenmitchell, I don't think it was like a Greek Lyceum; more, perhaps, like a monastery town—like a Mont Saint-Michel, with students living nearby. According to Encyclopaedia Britannica:[1]
“ Taxila, besides being a provincial seat, was also a centre of learning. It was not a university town with lecture halls and residential quarters, such as have been found at Nalanda in the Indian state of Bihar. At Taxila, the preceptor housed his own pupils, who paid for their board and lodging in cash or in the form of service to the teacher and his family. The Buddhist monasteries also catered to the needs of the students and monks. ”
  1. ^ * Taxila. (2007). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved January 15, 2007, from Encyclopaedia Britannica Online
I hope this quote is not too long (i.e. a copyvio), but it does seem to settle the "university" question. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Does that sound like a European monastery to you? Where students or pupils stayed at someone's house and paid for a room to learn. Doesn't sound like the production facility of a monastery. I think monasteries were a bit flatter in their hierarchy. It may be the Britannica's analogy but it sounds very confusing.

The Buddhist monasteries also catered to the needs of the students and monks seems a bit ambiguous. I would think it would be better if we could get a more effective description, rather than one as speculative.

Regards, Steve Stevenmitchell 13:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Steven, Takshashila is wrongly associated as being ONLY a centre of Buddhist learning, whereas it was a centre of Vedic (or in modern sense, "Hindu") learning also. The Indian equivalent of Michiavelli, Chanakya was a teacher there and he composed his magnum opus, the Arthashastra there.
Takshashila would be incorrectly attributed as only a large Academy or a collection of religious schools. Considering its time, its importance at that time, and the large amount of intellectual products (both Vedic & Buddhist) which were churned out from there, it would be appropriate to call it a University of that time. IAF
Hi Steve, Yes, come to think of it, a monastery (as in Benedectine) is not the best analogy. I've added an extended quote from a book below. It will give you a better idea. In any case, what I was trying to say above, was that Taxila was not a university and shouldn't be labeled as such. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi IAF, As both Encyclopaedia Britannica (quoted above) and Scharfe's book, Education in Ancient India, quoted below, take pains to state, Taxila, was not a university. A university has a specific meaning in current parlance: established curriculum, lecture halls and other buildings, (often) residential quarters, paid professors, and the authority to grant degrees. Taxila did not meet these criteria. It may have been a precursor to a university, but being a precursor doesn't make it the real thing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guinness Book

I have removed the incorrect claim that Guinness Book recognizes Taxila as the world's oldest university. The Guinness book recognizes a university in Morrocco, see here, as the world's oldest. As I have mentioned above, Taxila was a center of learning, but (as Britannica says as well) it was not a university in the usual sense of the word. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why does this page exist?

Why is this page even here (i.e. in Wikipedia)? The Taxila page is more extensive and has everything here and more. This page should simply be deleted, as there is not one sentence in it that is not already in the Taxila page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why do people lie?

Why do people feel the need to add text that is plainly not true? The text mentioned that the Guinness book considered Taxila to be the world's oldest university. That, however, is not true. Next, another reference, Hartmut Scharfe's Education in Ancient India was cited as mentioning Taxila to be the world's oldest university. I read through the relevant pages of Scharfe's book. Nowhere does he call Taxila a university, let alone the world's oldest! He is very careful to only refer to it as a center of learning. Here is what he says:

“ The earliest reports about instructional institutions that we have refer to the city of Taxila, as the Greeks called it, corresponding to Sanskrit Taksasila (Panini IV 3 93) and Pali Takkasila in Gandhara that contained several monasteries (vihara), all, it seems, involved in teaching. The archaeological site is quite large; but no large lecture halls or dormitories have been discovered. By all indications instructions in these early schools and monasteries was conducted still in an individualistic fashion, not totally unlike the acarya-kula-system, or perhaps more like in an asrama. Independent teachers or individual monks taught single individuals or small groups of students, even if they were part of a larger monastic institution, and perhaps even supervised by the monastic community at large. It was probably another matter when the physician Jivaka Komarabhacca from Rajagaha (Rajagrha) is said to have received his medical training over seven years from his teacher at Takkasila, because there is no indication that the teacher was a monk or even affiliated with a monastery; but his report, too, shows the city as a center of higher learning at an early time....

We have to be extremely cautious in dealing with the literary evidence, because much of the information offered in the secondary literature on Taxila is derived from Jataka prose that was only fixed in Ceylon several centuries after the events that it purports to describe, probably some time after Buddhaghosa, i.e. around A. D. 500. Since the data gleaned from the Jatakas probably represent more the imagination of a late commentator than a tradition of factual knowledge, it will be best to neglect these tales and to rely on more authentic sources. We may accept, though, that Taxila was a well known as a center for higher studies in the Buddhist tradition, as it is mentioned again and again.

 ”

It's one thing to make a good faith mistake, but it's another to deliberately cite the Guinness Book or Scharfe's book for a claim, when there is no evidence for it in these sources. That is falsification, plain and simple! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UNESCO World Heritage Site Citation

The UNESCO World Heritage List brief description describes Taxila as:

“ From the ancient Neolithic tumulus of Saraikala to the ramparts of Sirkap (2nd century B.C.) and the city of Sirsukh (1st century A.D.), Taxila illustrates the different stages in the development of a city on the Indus that was alternately influenced by Persia, Greece and Central Asia and which, from the 5th century B.C. to the 2nd century A.D., was an important Buddhist centre of learning. ”

Again, as I have repeatedly said above, no mention is made of a university. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name changed to Takshashila centre of learning

I have changed the name of the page. The evidence that Taxila was not a university was overwhelming. The new name is more accurate. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion?

This article is pointless in my opinion. The Taxila article already covers pretty much everything mentioned here. Does anyone else agree that this article should be deleted? Jagged 85 22:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] University

As I have said before, Taxila was not a university in the modern sense of the word. I checked one of the references The University outside Europe: Essays on the Development of University Institutions in Fourteen Countries. I couldn't find any references to Taxila as a "university." Taxila according to the search is on page 209, the word "university" is nowhere on that page.

Similarly, Radha Kumud Mookerji (Ancient Indian Education: Brahmanical and Buddhist) calls Taxila a centre of learning and uses the word "university" only as an example. In Chapter 11, titled "Universities," Taxila is not in that list: I. Nalanda, II. Valabhi, ... etc. So, please stop pushing this. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

All of the things mentioned in reference to Mookerji are described on pages 478-489 of his/her book, including explicit references to Taxila as a university. These pages were already mentioned in the reference, and yet you ignored them and removed the reference. Read the actual pages mentioned in the reference itself before you decide to remove them next time. I haven't yet read the sources listed by Freedom skies but was taking his word for it. But if you say there are no references to Taxila as a university in those references, then I'll take your word for it and remove them for now. Jagged 85 13:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I did read those pages. He uses "university" to give an example of "higher education," in contrast to elementary school education; but nowhere does he call Taxila a university. More pointedly, if he thought Taxila was a university, he would have included it in Chapter 11 (which is titled "Universities"). Also, your Jona Lenderling web page link does not say that the Arthashastra was composed in Taxila. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you may be referring to this sentence (Mookerji, page 479):

"This shows that Taxila was a seat not of elementary, but higher, education, of colleges or a university as distinguished from schools."

However, this sentence is more spefific (Mookerji, page 478):

"Thus the various centres of learning in different parts of the country became affiliated, as it were, to the educational centre, or the central university, of Taxila which exercised a kind of intellectual suzerainty over the wide world of letters in India."

Jagged 85 14:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope, apparently, you don't know how to interpret the text. The key words are "as it were" (to the education centre or the central university). That means it is like an educational centre or central university, but not that it is a central university. Again, if RK Mookerji thought Taxila was a university, he would have included it in the Chapter (Chapter 11) on universities. Why is Taxila not in that list?? I have already quoted Encyclopaedia Britannica (2007) above explicitly saying that Taxila was not a university. Please don't keep pushing this. If you do, we'll have to have an RfC on it. I feel pretty confident that Taxila was not a university. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Here is the Britannica (2007) quote again: According to Encyclopaedia Britannica:[1]
“ Taxila, besides being a provincial seat, was also a centre of learning. It was not a university town with lecture halls and residential quarters, such as have been found at Nalanda in the Indian state of Bihar. At Taxila, the preceptor housed his own pupils, who paid for their board and lodging in cash or in the form of service to the teacher and his family. The Buddhist monasteries also catered to the needs of the students and monks. ”

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ * Taxila. (2007). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved January 15, 2007, from Encyclopaedia Britannica Online

Why should your interpretion be given any more weight than my interpretation? It's very clear to me that Mookerji does consider Taxila to be like a university. If you don't agree, then I suggest it's best we actually quote it so that readers can interpret it themselves (which is what I was doing). Either way, there are a number of other scholars who do consider Taxila to be a university, just as there are others who do not consider it a university. In any case, I think it would be more reasonable to present both sides of the argument and highlight the fact that there is a disagreement among scholars about whether Taxila should be considered a university. Jagged 85 19:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

No, first of all it's not my interpretation; it is what is meant in English when "as it were" is used. I repeat, R. K. Mookerji does not say that Taxila is a university. And, no it is not best to quote both sides when there is no second side. Your second reference is from 1917 (from an Anatomical journal, from around the time Taxila was being excavated). Your third reference is from a management journal. Neither is reliable as a reference for ancient history. Wikipedia doesn't mandate that the views of everyone—the unreliable, the not notable—need to be mentioned. Clearly, what you have done is to go on Google scholar and do a search on "Taxila university" and willy-nilly thrown in whatever you can find. That is not historiography. I am reverting your edits for a third time; if you persist, I will force an RfC. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I've tried being reasonable and unbiased, by pointing out in the article itself that Taxila is not considered a university in the modern sense by other scholars and even added references supporting the opposing point of view, and yet you still reverted it. Now it seems clear to me that not only do you have a biased agenda, but are POV-pushing by completely disregarding the opinions of scholars who you do not agree with and going as far as to censor any references to the word university. Wikipedia is not the place for POV-pushing or censorship, no matter how much you disagree with something. Wikipedia is NPOV, i.e. it does not take sides. The sources I've given are reliable based on the fact that they are peer-reviewed publications and journal articles. Those are only a handful I picked out, but there are plenty more such publications and journal articles which refer to Taxila as a university. You really need to stop removing references to publications and journal articles just because you disagree with them. The only exception to this is when there is a consensus among scholars, for which you will need a source confirming any such claims of consensus, and I have not yet seen any such consensus for Taxila. Even if there was such a consensus, then it will still need to be mentioned in the article itself (not just on a talk page). I am reverting the article back to a more neutral version which presents both points of view. If you disagree with something, you can always co-operate by editing or re-wording. But if you still wish to force an RfC, then keep in mind that you are the one being biased and POV-pushing. Jagged 85 19:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] University

These sources refer to Taxila as a university.

An official government portal, a peer reviewed journal and a respectable book.

Freedom skies| talk  12:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

A Pakistan Government website! Since when did that become a reliable source for Ancient History. As to your "peer reviewed journal," it is a one paragraph book review (in the American Sociological Review) of Bradby's book. Here is the entire one paragraph:
“ The University outside Europe: Essays on the Development of University

Institutions in Fourteen Countries. Ed. by EDWARD BRADBY London: Oxford University Press, 1939. Pp. vii+332. $3.50.) This little supplement to Kotschnig's The University in a Changing World (1932) might better have been entitled "The European University outside Europe," although its omission of South and Central American institutions would belie even that title. As it stands, the book presents magazine-length accounts of the history, constitution, aims, and "problems" of Europeanfathered centers of higher education in the United States (78 pages), Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, India, China, Japan, the Dutch East Indies, the Arab-Moslem world, Turkey, Iran, and Palestine. For the sociologist the main interest in these all too historical-journalistic accounts perhaps lies in the tracing out of the lines of diffusion by which Western European scientific culture, now, it may be, dying at its core, has pierced its way into the heart of such ancient traditionalistic cultures as the Hindu, Chinese, Moslem, and Hebrew. Many of the universities described in this book are the spearheads of this movement, at once nationalistic and imperialistic. To cite a remark made by Josef Goebbels in another connection, they "provide the intellectual substructure for political power." In view of the present centrifugal tendency of European civilization, however, the white man's burden may become the white man's boon. The universities "outside Europe" may soon be the only universities "Europe" has. E. Y. HARTSHORNE, Harvard University

 ”

Where is Taxila mentioned in the review? As for the book itself, where is "Taxila university" mentioned there? "Taxila is mentioned on page 209, but there is no "university" mentioned there. Jagged85 and Freedom Skies, from your citations, it is clear that you don't have a very good idea of what a reliable reference is. Do you guys really want to take me on and go for an RfC? I am busy right now with other stuff, but when I find more time, I will quote from the other encyclopedias (Encarta and Columbia) and compare what they say about Taxila vs. Nalanda (which really was more worthy of the title "University"). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

The content is on page 209.
In response to the very heated from your citations, it is clear that you don't have a very good idea of what a reliable reference is I would call for calming down and reading the following citations:-

When the men of Alexander the great came to Taxila in India in the fourth century BC they found a university there the like of which had not been seen in Greece, a university which taught the three Vedas and the eighteen accomplishments and was still existing when the Chinese pilgrim Fa-Hsien went there about AD 400. -- Within the Four Seas: The Dialogue of East and West By Joseph Needham. Published 2004. Routledge. ISBN 0415361664

The ancient university city of Taxila, on the Indian side of the Indus, lay within the reach of Peshawar. -- History of Indian and Indonesian Art 1927 By Ananda Kentish Coomaraswamy. Published 2003. Kessinger Publishing. ISBN 0766158012

Arab travellers and their teachers came in large numbers to the northern university of Takshashila or Taxila, which was especially famous for medicine. -- Indo-West Asian Relations: The Nehru Era By Najma Heptulla. Published 1991. Allied Publishers

Early biblical references provide accounts of travelling scholars, and interlectual education can be traced to the 272-22 BC reign of Ashoka the great and the establishment of the University of Taxila in Asia minor. -- The Psychology of Culture Shock By Colleen A. Ward, Stephen Bochner, Adrian Furnham. Published 2001. Routledge. ISBN 0415162343

In the early centuries the centre of Buddhist scholarship was the University of Taxila (near the present city of Islamabad) -- A History of India By Hermann Kulke, Dietmar Rothermund. Published 2004. Routledge. ISBN 0415329191

[the Buddhist university of] Taxila, beyond the Gupta boundaries, [was] in the fifth century devastated by the Huns -- Scholarship and the Gypsy Struggle: commitment in Romani studies. Donald Kenrick. Published 2000. University of Hertfordshire Press. ISBN 1902806018

Foreign minister Zulfifar Ali Bhutto arranged for the secretary general to take time out to visit Taxila, seat of the oldest Buddhist university in the world. -- United Nations: the first fifty years By Stanley Meisler. Published 1995. Atlantic Monthly Press. ISBN 0871136562

Taxila university , which is the oldest in the world, has been in existence even before the time of the Buddha and before the occupation of the Taxila valley by the Achaemanid rulers in 6th- 5th century B.C. Probably in the period of the (7th century B.C.) philosophers gathered here to have their own schools of thought and imparted instructions. -- Official Portal of the Government of Pakistan (Pakistani Heritage)

The history of international educational exchange can be traced to the University of Taxila (Taxshashila) in ancient India. -- Indian Education Abstracts By India Ministry of Education, India Central Secretariat Library

The Buddhist influences in northern Pakistan are evident in elaborate buildings at Julian, the Buddhist hill town outside the ruins of Taxila, where a bustling university existed in ancient times to train monks -- Culture And Customs of Pakistan By Iftikhar Haider Malik. Published 2005. Greenwood Press. ISBN 031333126X

Freedom skies| talk  18:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fowler&fowler's Quotes from Tertiary Sources (Encyclopedias): Taxila vs. Nalanda

Please don't add any responses or references in this section. I am collecting my own references here. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] From Encyclopaedia Britannica (2007)

From History of Education article:

“ These forces produced revolutionary changes in education. Schools were established in growing towns, and even day scholars were admitted. Studies were chosen freely and not according to caste. Taxila had already acquired an international reputation in the 6th century BC as a centre of advanced studies and now improved upon it. It did not possess any college or university in the modern sense of the term, but it was a great centre of learning with a number of famous teachers, each having a school of his own. ”

From History of Education article:

“ The 500 years from the 4th century AD to the close of the 8th, under the Guptas and Harsha and their successors, is a remarkable period in Indian history. It was the age of the universities of Nalanda and Valabhi and of the rise of Indian sciences, mathematics, and astronomy. The university at Nalanda housed a population of several thousand teachers and students, who were maintained out of the revenues from more than 100 villages. Because of its fame, Nalanda attracted students from abroad, but the admission test was so strict that only two or three out of 10 attained admission. ”

From "Taxila" article:

“ Taxila, besides being a provincial seat, was also a centre of learning. It was not a university town with lecture halls and residential quarters, such as have been found at Nalanda in the Indian state of Bihar. At Taxila, the preceptor housed his own pupils, who paid for their board and lodging in cash or in the form of service to the teacher and his family. The Buddhist monasteries also catered to the needs of the students and monks. ”

From "Nalanda" article:

“ celebrated Buddhist monastic centre, often spoken of as a university, southwest of Bihar city in northern Bihar state, India. Nalanda's traditional history dates to the time of the Buddha (6th–5th centuries BC) and Mahavira, the founder of the Jaina religion. According to a later Tibetan source, Nagarjuna, the 2nd–3rd-century AD Buddhist philosopher, began his studies there. Extensive excavations carried out by the Archaeological Survey of India indicate, however, that the foundation of the monasteries belongs to the Gupta period (5th century AD)... ”

[edit] From Encarta Encyclopedia (2007)

From Taxila article:

“ Taxila was also a great center for learning, where the study of the Vedas, the Buddhist sutras, and the sciences flourished, especially during the Kushāna period (1st to 3rd century ad). It declined in importance after the coming of the White Huns in the 5th century. ”

From Nalanda article:

“ Nalanda, Bihār State, India, an ancient seat of learning, probably founded in the 5th century AD. It flourished until the 12th century and at its height had 2000 teachers and 10,000 students. Teachings included the study of the Buddhist scriptures of both the Mahayana and Theravada schools, the Vedas, philosophy, mathematics, logic, theology, and medicine. Attendance was free, since the university was supported by revenue and food donations collected from local villages.... The site now lies in ruins, but excavation work has revealed a complex of lecture halls, dormitories, gardens, and many stupas, in addition to stone images of the Buddha. ”

[edit] From Columbia Encyclopedia (2001)

From Taxila article:

“ archaeological site of three successive cities, near Rawalpindi, Pakistan. There between the 7th cent. B.C. and the 7th cent. A.D. was a flourishing city, famous as an ancient seat of learning. It was occupied (326 B.C.) by Alexander the Great, became prosperous under the empire of Asoka, and was overrun (c.1st–2d cent. A.D.) by the Kushans. It was a center of Buddhist studies and was visited in the 7th cent. by Hsüan-tsang. ”

From Nalanda article:

“ Buddhist monastic center in what is now Baragaon, Bihar state, E central India. Often referred to as a university, Nalanda was, from the 4th to the 12 cent. A.D., the most renowned center of Buddhist learning in India. There are extensive ruins of stupas, monasteries, and temples. ”

[edit] Pakistan? I dont think so...

What does taxila have to do with Pakistant, no disrespect to pakistan, but when taxila was built there was no taxila, this should be listed under WikiProject Pakistan. It's insulting to all indians, People who say this is isnt a hindu university are crazy!! It was build in Hindu india, everything during the time of its building was Hindu, the size of this article doesent do it justice, can we call it Takshashila like it was named then, not taxila... You ca shorten most stuff, but not everying. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.13.72.99 (talk • contribs). at 17:25, 17 June 2007

I can understand perhaps why you may think it's innappropriate for it to be under the Pakistani project but it's not in the article and at least it's bringing more editors to improve the article. As for the name, it should remain Taxila and not Takshasila, as that is the naming convention used in English otherwise we would call William I, Confucious and Alexander the Great (among others) by their native names instead. ([[User:Giani g|Giani g]] 18:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC))
To the unsigned anon: Taxila is the Greek name for that historic town, just as India too is the Greek name for a country. Well, if you are hung up on changing the name to an indigenous Hindu name, why not first get the Wikipage page on India changed to "Bharata Varsha" instead? No, its not insulting to all Indians. The Indians mostly didn't have a clue about Taxila (except as a Buddhist center of learning in the Jatakas and Greek accounts, for the infinitesimal number of Indians who had read the Jatakas and the Greeks) until the Brits came along, excavated Taxila, and instituted a modern education system in India that taught archaeology and history. Why shouldn't Taxila be a part of Wikipedia Pakistan? The last I checked, it was well within Pakistan's borders? If you are trying to make the argument that Pakistan doesn't have too many Hindus etc., let me remind you that the proportion of Hindus in Pakistan is greater than that of Buddhists in India. So why don't you try to get the India tag removed from pages like Nalanda, Bodh Gaya etc. before you wax illogical further here? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

If they changed India to Bharat Varsh that would simply be correct, India is incorrect, yet we live with it. Im just 12, i have no idea about this Naland(a=wrong), Bodh Gaya... For the last time, Takshashila was build in India, not in what we now as pakistan. How can my above comment interpret as "Pakistan doesn't have too many Hindus," is beyond me. It IS insulting to indians, i am indian, i find it insulting that the first university in the world, a indian one is listed under a pakistani project, pakistan has given NOTHING to the world, India has been the base for most of the worlds knowledge yet the west can accept this(i live in london) Greece is in Europe and India is in Asia, greek people have no right as to the name or ANYTHING of india. I'm not sure if its what you said but if you did i just want to say, Takshashila is NOT ONE BIT A PLACE OF BUDDHIST LEARNING. It has no religious strings. Its a university, a place to learn, religion could be a subject, its not a mandir or monastrey, a universtiy, school.

P.S I dont live in india, i live in london the above anon is me82.13.72.99 17:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)Patriotic


so this means im right??? YEAH!!82.13.72.99 15:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)Spartan (i am patriotic, but this name is better)

No, it doesn't mean that, but just that I've been busy. I think it is very commendable that you as a 12-year old are reading and contributing to Wikipedia, but you also seem to have collected a lot of biases and prejudices for your age. I will post some age-appropriate reading (for young teenagers) here that will help you to better understand prejudice. Meanwhile keep reading and don't vandalize the Taxila page, which you seemed to have done twice already. Regards and all the best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I shouldntve done that..woopsy... But i s'pose up to a certain extent you are right, i am sort of biased but i say this all because i think its unjust how many people dont seem to realise what India has done, not only that, they dont even acknowledge the facts, they twist the truth, like it wasn't a university, but a place of learning. That makes no sense, a place of learning and a university is exactly the same thing. One user for emaxple, vi5in is racist. He/she has some biased thoughts on ram's bridge, not adams bridge. goodbye thank you please...P.S im on different IP because this is my dads laptop

82.13.72.99 10:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)Spartan

A place of learning is not the equivalent of a university, as a primary school, secondary school and an academy can be described in the same light. You're (anon user) biased because you're more concerned with how Indian people are percieved rather than how PEOPLE are percieved. Wikipedia is full of articles dedicated to Indian advancement of the arts so you need not be worried if you feel Indians are being diminished. ([[User:Giani g|Giani g]] 14:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC))


In that day, do you think there were primary schools, secodarys schools, college then university, i doubt it.82.13.72.99 17:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)Spartan

Yes! In the same way they didn't have any universities. ([[User:Giani g|Giani g]] 18:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC))

Well they didnt. ur wrong!!!!82.13.72.99 20:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Spartan .