favoured Buddhism, did not actively discourage Hinduism.  They even gave grants to Hindu temples and their prime ministers were generally Brahmans who[273] used to erect non-Buddhist images in Buddhist shrines.  The dynasty continued through the eleventh century and in this period some information as to the condition of Indian Buddhism is afforded by the relations between Bengal and Tibet.  After the persecution of the tenth century Tibetan Buddhism was revived by the preaching of monks from Bengal.  Mahipala then occupied the throne (c. 978-1030) and during his reign various learned men accepted invitations to Tibet.  More celebrated is the mission of Atisa, a monk of the Vikramasila monastery, which took place about 1038.  That these two missions should have been invited and despatched shows that in the eleventh century Bengal was a centre of Buddhist learning.  Probably the numerous Sanskrit works preserved in Tibetan translations then existed in its monasteries.  But about the same time the power of the Pala dynasty, and with it the influence of Buddhism, were curtailed by the establishment of the rival Sena dynasty in the eastern provinces.  Still, under Ramapala, who reigned about 1100, the great teacher Abhayakara was an ornament of the Mahayana.  Taranatha[274] says that he corrected the text of the scriptures and that in his time there were many Pandits and resident Bhikshus in the monasteries of Vikramasila, Bodh-Gaya and Odontapuri.

There is thus every reason to suppose that in the twelfth century Buddhism still nourished in Bihar, that its clergy numbered several thousands and its learning was held in esteem.  The blow which destroyed its power was struck by a Mohammedan invasion in 1193.  In that year Ikhtiyar-ud-Din Muhammad,[275] a general of Kutb-ud-Din, invaded Bihar with a band of only two hundred men and with amazing audacity seized the capital, which, consisting chiefly of palaces and monasteries, collapsed without a blow.  The monks were massacred to a man, and when the victors, who appear not to have understood what manner of place they had captured, asked the meaning of the libraries which they saw, no one was found capable of reading the books.[276] It was in 1193 also that Benares was conquered by the Mohammedans.  I have found no record of the sack of the monastery at Sarnath but the ruins are said to show traces of fire and other indications that it was overwhelmed by some sudden disaster.

The Mohammedans had no special animus against Buddhism.  They were iconoclasts who saw merit in the destruction of images and the slaughter of idolaters.  But whereas Hinduism was spread over the country, Buddhism was concentrated in the great monasteries and when these were destroyed there remained nothing outside them capable of withstanding either the violence of the Moslims or the assimilative influence of the Brahmans.  Hence Buddhism suffered far more from these invasions than Hinduism but still vestiges of it lingered long[277]