[Buddha-l] Rice & Dragons

[Dan Lusthaus]

>But - aren't the South-Eastern rice-eating
> dragons more friendly than those  monopolistic wheat dependent
> Abrahamic gods of the West?
> Artur

Artur, you are mixing apples and oranges (or malevolent and friendly 
dragons). First, as Joanna pointed out, Buddhism DID spread and take hold in 
what today we call Afghanistan, the other -stans, Iran, Baghdad, and even 
(according to archaeology) Turkey -- not to mention Tibet, Mongolia, etc. 
The reason the "northwest" expansion of Buddhism is relatively forgotten 
today -- and it occurred for nearly 10 centuries, not an insignificant 
period of time -- is the advent of Islam, which eliminated it from the scene 
(right up to the Taliban putting some finishing touches on Bamiyan). 
Peshawar, now best known as terrorist central in Pakistan, used to be called 
Purushapur, and was the birthplace of Asanga and Vasubandhu, amongst others. 
So the "rice" fantasy is a red herring.

That leaves the question of whether dragons get meaner the further west one 
goes, and the answer is, not really. There are unfriendly dragons (= 
serpents with and without legs) in both east and west -- just as the nagas 
can become protectors of Buddhas and prajnaparamita sutras, the great 
serpent encircled Osiris to preserve him; then there is the caduceus - 
symbol of healing; As for Abrahamic imagery, Moses defeats the Pharoah's 
magicians by turning his staff into a serpent that devours their serpents. 
Todays children's cartoons are full of friendly dragons (not to mention 
Peter, Paul and Mary's "Puff"). None of that has anything to do with 
Buddhism.

If you are looking for reasons that Buddhism was eliminated from its 
comfortable, long-standing establishment in central and western asia, look 
to Islam, not dragons.

Dan