[Buddha-l] Spread of Buddhism

[Michel Clasquin]

Joanna,

There is no doubt that patronage is important in the spread of all 
religions. Walter's contention was that there is no equivalent in 
Buddhism to the Great Commission,"Go forth and make disciples of all the 
nations" (from memory). He claims that when the Buddha told the arahants 
that they should go forth and preach the dhamma and "go not two 
together", he was not sending them out on a missionary effort: he was 
*dismissing* them. They were arahants now, they had nothing further to 
learn from him, and they should go and do what arahants do naturally. 
His doctoral thesis is rather brilliant IMHO and well worth reading.

The difference between patronage in the two cases is that in Buddhism 
the patronage came from indigenous persons or social groupings who had 
becvome interested in one way or another. A Chinese trading class, for 
example would take some trouble to get hold of Indian monks and 
manuscripts. In Christianity, it was more a case of patronage by outside 
parties who were primarily interested in spreading their religion to new 
areas. It is the difference between fetching a religion and adpting it 
for local consumption, and sending (which is what the Latin roots of 
"mission" mean IIRC) a religion somewhere else, hoping it will take root 
there.

jkirk wrote:
> ===============
> Hi Franz and Michel,
> 
> I have a hunch that the Portuguese and the Dutch governments also supported
> the missonizing that accompanied the trading ships to China and Japan.

I vaguely remember reading that at least in some eras the relationship 
was far more complicated. If a Japanese became a Christian, he could no 
longer be cheated with impunity!

-- 
"Many people would sooner die than think; In fact, they do so."
-- Bertrand Russell