[Buddha-l] Re: Natural lucidity for Socrates

[Dan Lusthaus]

Lance,

> >during the early Islamic spread, where we have detailed reports,
> >with casualty counts, of Jains and Buddhists being chased out of
> >Central Asia. They clearly had a substantial presence in certain
> >areas.
>
> Can you offer some sources for this ? Offhand it seems improbable.

I don't have them on hand -- and those colleagues who have much of this
information on their fingertips are intimidated by the current climate
against publishing. No one wants to be the next Salman Rushdie. However,
there are things in print. There may be some discussion of this in one of
Richard Eaton's books on Islam in India. If memory serves, Yohanan
Freidmann's essay, "Islamic Thought in Relation to the Indian Context" in
Eaton's _India's Islamic Traditions: 711-1750_ (Oxford) may provide some of
the sources (I don't have it on hand to check for sure).

>
> Vallabhi certainly ceased to be important after the Muslim conquest
> of Sind, but I have not seen an account of this. Source ?

An online source that attempts to explain it all away as a case of mistaken
identity:

http://www.berzinarchives.com/e-books/historic_interaction_buddhist_islamic/history_cultures_10.html

This source argues that the Jains at Vallabhi were mistaken for central
Asian rebels who dressed similarly! This apologetic at least admits the
underlying facts, though it takes great pains to explain them away or
diminish their significance, using words like "unintentionally." That a
marauding, well trained army could come all the way from Sind to Vallabhi,
annihilate entire religious committees "unintentionally" or "mistakenly" and
then withdraw would be a laughable contention if it wasn't so tragic.

By way of contrast, the Arabic sources (proudly) describe the killing in
Central Asia, and the progressive fleeing of Buddhists and Jains, eventually
to Vallabhi. There are also numerous other campaigns similarly well
documented by the perpetrators and witnesses. The Eaton book cited above
contains an essay or two documenting some of this (but there are more
detailed treatments elsewhere). There are a very few pieces published in
English detailing this, but there are some. Unfortunately these days this
entire area of research is dominated by ideologues of all stripes: hindutvas
ready to start their own holy war of revenge, muslim sympathizers who
reassure readers that the deaths and destruction were not on the magnitude
bragged about in the Arabic sources, and the truly dangerous fanatics that
will slap a fatwa or put out a hit on anyone who says or publishes something
true that is unflattering. So just getting the basic facts is indeed
difficult.

But this is an important topic whose history should be better known, so I
will try to hunt the relevant sources down, since memory fails me at the
moment. I have some other pressing projects to deal with first, so please
give me some time.

>  early Manichaean
> >literature of central asian contact with Jains and Buddhists.
>
> With Buddhists, yes. With Jains ?

You are right that the Buddhist encounters are much better documented in the
secondary literature. Warner Sundermann, Oktor Skjaervo, etc., have written
on Buddhist-Manichaean interaction and translated relevant material. The
Jain connection was noted early on (19th c scholars), but has not had the
follow up, and I'm not sure anyone is working on it at the moment. Nuggets
tend to appear with little fanfare in the footnotes to articles on
Manichaeaism, with little fanfare or additional comments, so it is not
surprising that this has not received much attention at all outside those
circles, and even within them, barely noticed. Someone really needs to
gather this material together and connect the dots.


>>is a kind of interesting parlor game,
> >fun to play, but lacking in definitive data.
>
> Agreed.

Finally, we've agreed on something. Might be a fitting place to wind down
this thread. I will try to provide more documentation and sources when I get
a chance, and then we can revisit this.

Dan