[Buddha-l] Re: Natural lucidity for Socrates

[L.S. Cousins]

Dan,

I asked:
>  > Can you offer some sources for this ? Offhand it seems improbable.

You replied:

>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).

noted

>  > 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

I don't think this is any use as a source. Berzin doesn't seem to 
know any Arabic and any sources we have for this would have to be in 
Arabic.

>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.

It isn't that far from Sind to Vallabhi, but I agree that wearing 
white is a very implausible basis for an error.

>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.

I don't have any problem with supposing that Muslims were engaging in 
ruthless attacks on Buddhism at this time and later. The Islamic 
inscriptions in the Maldives (although later) are clear enough proof 
of this. And this is part of a wider context of attacks on so-called 
pagans. Around this time Carolingian rulers were engaging in fairly 
destructive attacks on paganism in Sweden and among the Friesians, 
among others. Of course, there is an element of seeking plunder from 
wealthy religious institutions here. And there is no doubt that many 
Arab rulers have a better general record of tolerance than Christian 
rulers at this time. No doubt this is much to do with being minority 
rulers of a non-Muslim population.

>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.

O.K.

>  > 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.

I think most of us thought the idea quite discredited.

>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.

Yes. My suspicion is that it will prove mistaken, but let us see.

>  >>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

Good.

Lance