[Buddha-l] Buddhist pacifism

[Dan Lusthaus]

In addition to Hodgson and MacLean, an important (and the most thorough -- 
though there are still frustrating gaps) reference is Andre Wink, _Al-Hind:
The Making of the Indo-Islamic World_ (2 vols.).


Joy wrote:
> Also I consider "pacifism" or non-violence if you prefer an essential
> and even constitutional part of Buddhism (even though it is more
> pronounced in Jainism). Without it, I wouldn't recognise it as Buddhism.

Then the following, from the same site (different webpage) as before, may be
unrecognizable:

---

Empress Dowager Trima Lo, being friendly with the Chinese court, now turned
Tibet’s military ambitions away from that direction and formed an alliance
in 705 with the Turki Shahis in Gandhara and Bactria, this time against the
Umayyad Arabs. When the Empress Dowager passed away in 712 and Mey-agtsom
ascended the throne (r. 712 - 755), he was still a minor. Empress Jincheng,
like the late Empress Dowager, subsequently exerted a strong influence on
the Tibetan court.


The Tibetan-Umayyad Alliance
Meanwhile, the power struggle over West Turkistan continued. In 715, after
the Arab general, Qutaiba, had taken Bactria back from the Turki Shahis,
Tibet switched sides and allied itself with the Umayyad forces they had just
been fighting. The Tibetan troops then helped the Arab general take Ferghana
from the Turgish and prepare for an advance against Turgish-held Kashgar.
The Tibetans’ alliance with the Turki Shahis and then the Umayyids was
undoubtedly an expediency for keeping a foothold in Bactria with the hope of
reestablishing its military, economic, and political presence in the Tarim
Basin. Tax from the lucrative Silk Route trade was the ever-present lure for
their actions.


[... ]


Therefore, the Bon faction in the Tibetan court was not leading a "holy war"
in Bactria. Furthermore, neither were the Buddhists, as is indicated by the
fact that after the loss of Bactria and the devastation of Nava Vihara, the
Tibetans did not continue to defend Buddhism in Bactria, but changed
alliances and joined with the Muslim Arabs. The primary motivating force
behind the Tibetans’ foreign policy was political and economic
self-interest, not religion.

http://www.berzinarchives.com/e-books/historic_interaction_buddhist_islamic/history_cultures_05.html

-------------

The Empress Dowager was an admirer of China and Buddhism, and had Chinese
monks brought to her court to educate them (especially the women).

As mentioned, the Turks (Turki Shahis) were the initial impediment to Arab
(Umayyad) conquest of Gandhara and Bactria.

Nava Vihara was the main monastery in  Tagzig.

During this period there were substantial dislocations of Buddhist
populations from Central Asia, some fleeing parts of Central Asia for
Kashmir and India (especially Valabhi, an important Buddhist university that
rivaled Nalanda, was a Yogacara stronghold for many generations -- where
Gunamati and Sthiramati hailed from, for instance, a couple of centuries
earlier). The dislocatees occasionally moved back to Central Asia (either
voluntarily or compelled by the rulers of their new locations -- the age-old
refugee problem), only to undergo further travails in time.

As for the question as to whether Merchants had no choice but to become
Buddhists, that seems unlikely in most cases. In the period following Asoka,
Buddhists clearly linked up with the merchants in India's northeast (e.g.,
gandhara and beyond) -- which became a Sarvastivadin stronghold -- and
pursued writing with an eagerness still foreign to Hindus who remained
resistant to writing for some time. They followed the merchants through the
Silk Road (that is how Buddhism spread through Central Asia and reached
China). That symbiosis largely flourished until Arabs entered the region.

To repeat, my interest is less in passing judgement on long-ago events as
much as evaluating -- historically -- the strategies Buddhists used to deal
with persecution, invasion, etc., and observe their effectiveness and
consequences. Before advocating a naive adoption of certain principles of
action, it seems prudent to look back at how successful or unsuccessful
those strategies were in the past, so that we can learn how to improve
them -- just as many today would advocate , without much resistance,
revisiting Buddhist treatment of women, monastic authority (guru abusing
devotees scandals), and a host of other Buddhist issues that seem to be in
serious need of revision.

Dan Lusthaus