No subject

inventory and classification *within* Buddhism is necessary, so that the 
eventual comparisons (initially between different forms of Buddhism, 
perhaps, and eventually other religions, etc.) will have a viable basis. For 
instance, differentiating between lay Buddhists who, by profession or 
cultural disposition, engage in some forms of violence, on the one hand, and 
clerics whose monasteries, temples, etc. were themselves army barracks of 
"warrior monks" (JP: sōhei 僧兵) that fought armies and burnt down and 
killed their rivals. Or armies employed by a Temple or sect as opposed to 
those merely sanctioned by a sect. Were there Buddhist-led peasant revolts 
that were responding to conditions so insufferable and oppressive that the 
revolts seem justifiable (and by what criteria), or was this all just the 
delusional politics of the day? And so on.

For instance, pending further information to the contrary, it would seem, as 
Chris reasoned, that while Jain laity (rulers, etc.) could engage in 
military careers, the monks and nuns did not. We can't consistently claim 
the same division of labor in Buddhism, and not just in Japan.

Once we acknowledge the problem is there, the next step is not to condemn 
Buddhism (too simple, too meaningless, and useless except for venting and 
feeling superior). The next step is to analyze how/why Buddhism, despite its 
focus on non-harming in so many forms, still so frequently -- and so 
thoroughly -- found ways to condone, advocate, embrace and perpetrate all 
sorts of violence. The Sacrilization of violence is what particularly 
disturbs me, but there are plenty of other aspects to explore. Get the facts 
out and then look at them hard and long, with an eye to figuring out what, 
if anything, can be done. And westerners don't get a free ride in this. They 
have to ask themselves why the attraction, and then clinging to such 
neo-Orientalism? Why do we always have to create an imaginary East to 
compensate for what we want here, but don't find? The lurking nihilistic 
point is that it's not *there* either, and in some ways they may have MORE 
problems than we do ... e.g., re: Richard's recent ruminations on 
authoritarianism, the West -- or some of us anyway -- are today lightyears 
ahead of anything in Asia. Environmentalism was invented in the West, not by 
ancient Asian philosophers and mystics. Etc.

Dan