[Buddha-l] Rice & Dragons

[Jo]

> What I find of interest here is the question of compatibility. Is 
> Buddhism better suited to flourish in the areas of wet-rice 
> cultivation, with its tradition of communal labor, or in the areas of 
> wheat (barley, etc.) cultivation, with its tradition of - mainly - 
> single homestead labor?

Still wrong question, I think, Artur. Buddhism flourishes where there is
mercantilism and Islam is absent or restrained. You are missing the key
point. Buddhism was expunged from the western asian world by Islam, not lack
of rice, absence of collective work habits, or too much wheat. Muslim
interventions in the trade routes in the 7th-8th c even severely restricted
contact between India and China -- one reason why by the 8th c no
significant new texts or Indic ideas were introduced to East Asia, so they
never heard of Dharmakirti (7th c) or anything significant that happened
after him in India (aside from a brief flirtation with tantra that arrived
primarily by boat from Sri Lanka). The impact of Islam on Buddhism's
missionary abilities should never be underestimated -- though it is un-PC to
discuss such things these days. Muslims not only expunged Buddhism from
western and most of central asia, they also were major factors in
eliminating it in India as well (and not, as your thesis would suggest, a
shortage of rice).

To continue thinking there is an actual (hypo-)thesis to explore with this
grain imagery is to imagine Buddhism never took root in Tibet, Mongolia,
etc. The former was spared extinction by Islam (which they feared well into
the late middle ages) by its relative inaccessibility and their fearsome
reputation as warriors.

Buddhism follows the money, not the rice.

Dan 
__________________________________

" Buddhism flourishes where there is mercantilism and Islam is absent or
restrained." 
Dan, I'd modify this by saying that Buddhism "travels" with mercantilism, or
commerce, rather than
"flourishes".  It "flourished" where there were Kings and a supportive
social hierarchy who adopted it, but it "spread" via commerce. If we look at
the avadanas, for ex., we find that merchants are among the main characters
in these tales, not farmers, nobles, or warriors. 

However, it's worth noting that Islam also spread along ocean routes via
commerce more than via warfare. The conversion of Hindus and Parsis in
Gujarat and Maharashtra to Islam is thought by Indian historians to have
been accomplished by Arabs trading from Africa. The conversions were made
among groups who were already specialised on trade--Hindu Vohras, for ex.  I
can just imagine some of the pious Arab traders making deals with their
merchant counterparts on the Indian west coast in ways similar to Christian
missionaries making deals: quid pro quos, exchanging beneficial deals for
conversion. In this way of commerce, Islam spread into southeast Asia. They
were able to convert most of the Chams of Vietnam, based most probably on
trade with already partly Islamised Indonesia territories. Christianity did
the same thing when Africa and the New Worlds were  colonized, for economic
(rather than political) exploitation --Bible in one hand, gun in the other,
as the old adage goes.

This begs the question as to why Buddhist merchants got supplanted by Muslim
merchants in the ocean trade.  I'm not that up on the history literature to
get an answer. I'm guessing that once Buddhism became broadly established in
the eastern areas and kingdoms of Asia, the various Buddhist establishments
must have figured they were done with spreading the word, after which monks
were enclosed and made to stay where they were rather than traveling with
merchants to new realms. 

Then, much later, along came the Arab traders and Islam, seeking not only
trade but political domination.
I see the biggest difference between these two trade-oriented religious
systems in that Buddhism was ecumenical while Islam was not. In the ancient
Buddhist kingdoms, different religions existed and practiced as they wished
without interference from the rulers. This wasn't true of the Muslim rulers,
with a few exceptions here and there.  There were, of course Muslims in
different parts of China, but China's rulers were powerful enough to prevent
any takeovers. AND, we must note also that the Chinese have not forever been
Buddhists, as some rulers persecuted Buddhism while others fostered it. 
 
Of course, all this cultural and commercial movement took place over vast
periods of time, and there would be multiple, not single, factors bearing on
these religious phenomena. I'm out of my depth here so far as the history
literature goes, and maybe the rest of us discussing these topics are, as
well. 

Joanna