[Buddha-l] Rice & Dragons

[Dan Lusthaus]

Artur,

The weather in Warsaw must be pleasant these days -- spring has the 
imagination roaming...

> A. Buddhism started to emerge as an alternative to the traditional
> beliefs and practices in the wet-rice cultivation area of Gangetic
> Plain.

Are you familiar with a form of "popular" intellectualizing in Japan -- had 
its heyday in the second half of the 20th century -- that could be dubbed 
geographic etiology. Everything, especially the origin and spread of 
religions and cultures, were to be explained by geography and weather. 
Abrahamic traditions were "desert" traditions. Buddhism and Hinduism were 
"jungle" religions. Shinto was a Mountain religion, and so on. Weather, 
climate, terrain, etc. were all ingeniously and entertainingly used to 
account for everything under the sun. Each formed a "type", and the 
civilizations and their religions could be explained entirely on the basis 
of those types. Very active imaginations, until one snapped out of it, and 
realized reality was much more complex, and this was little more than the 
equivalent of intellectual horoscopes.

>
> B. It remains to be checked, whether the pockets of long-lasting
> presence of Buddhism south of the Vindhyas weren't located mainly
> along riverine aluvial deposits (and in the estuaries of large Indian
> Peninsula rivers) forming the areas of wet-rice cultivation.

Since Indian civ. per se has developed along rivers and coast - and have 
been celebrating that at least since Vedic times, this says nothing about 
Buddhism specifically, but something about India (Sarasvati, Ganges, 
Krishna, etc.). Same could be said for China (Yellow River, etc.). Oh, and 
mesopotamia (Tigris, Eurphrates...), Egypt (Nile), Greece, England, France, 
the Amazon, the Mississippi, Missouri, etc., etc.

>
> C. "Buddhism follows money". Agreed. But money comes mainly from
> agricultural surpluses.

That's one source. Mercantilism commodifies all sorts of non-agricultural 
items as well. The Silk road was not lush rice country (though apparently 
more verdant than it has become today -- the Tarim basic used to actually 
contain a lake, etc.). Towns and cultures tended to collect at major oases 
(Samarkand). Not a river, but water. Gee, why would humans require water for 
habitation? Let's see... could it have something to do with Buddhism?

> a) Buddhism transferred by traders to the West, to areas without
> wet-rice cultivation. A question: did Buddhism there take roots deep
> enough to withstand the pressure from an exclusivistic monotheistic
> religion? If not, the next question is --- why?

It's an ugly story of death, purging, persecution, and mass slaughter, 
followed by rebellions, forced and cajoled conversions, and the destruction 
of central and vital institutions, by violence and economic starvation. By 
the 14th c. it was untenable to be a Buddhist in the Muslim world. The arab 
word for "idol" is "bod" (from "Buddha").

start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barmakids#

Track down some of the names mentioned and you will get important pieces of 
the story (neither rice nor dragons play a role unfortunately).

Then there is "scholarship" like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Wisdom
Which entirely omits the role of Buddhists in Baghdad in the transmission 
and translation of Indic science (medicine and astronomy were especially 
prized), until they became persona non grata, were purged and fled back to 
the Sind, from which they soon were also purged. So current scholars can be 
forgiven intially for being ignorant of such events -- they are constantly 
being swept under the rug.

Dig, and you will find some information on the Buddhists being invited to 
Baghdad (because of their fame as translators, administrators, bookkeepers, 
and high literacy skills), on the tide turning, and on their escapes.

While the entry on Al-Ma'mun never mentions the word "Buddhists", it does 
say "Al-Ma'mun gathered scholars of many religions at Baghdad, whom he 
treated magnificently and with tolerance."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ma%27mun

But
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahya_ibn_Khalid
Here, finally, you will read: "Under his influence, the Caliph invited to 
Baghdad many scholars and masters from India, especially Buddhists. A 
catalogue of both Muslim and non-Muslim texts prepared at this time, Kitab 
al-Fihrist, included a list of Buddhist works. Among them was an Arabic 
version of the account of Buddha’s previous lives, Kitab al-Budd."

Actually the Buddhists were primarily from the Sind and Central Asia, and 
after the purge, returned to the Sind, where further persecutions followed.

There is more material available than one finds on Wikipedia, but you have 
to look for it. These days scholars are literally afraid for their lives 
about publishing research on this material (and if not literally killed, 
then ignorant dreamers, such as Richard will label them right-wing. Always 
easier to apply negative misleading labels and tease, than to deal with the 
facts... schoolyard tactics).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vallabhi
This monastic center in western India, in which Jains and Buddhists 
flourished, was destroyed, everyone killed, by an invading Muslim army in 
725. Later Hindu (not Buddhist or Jain) temples were rebuilt, but Muslims 
returned numerous times to decimate things -- but the wikipedia entry on 
Vallabhi gives a poetic farewell without any mention of Islam or the reason 
(or dates) for: "The house of Siladitya was left desolate. In its defence, 
his hero fell; of his seed but the name remains " That means everyone was 
killed, no one survived.

And here, only the repeated destruction and rebuilding of the buildings is 
mentioned -- the slaughtered are whitewashed/airbrushed out of history:
http://www.indiantravelguide.com/gujarat/somnath-temple.html
Of course, they are encouraging tourism, not historical consciousness, so 
keep things pretty and neutral...

Vallabhi, incidentally was where the famous Sthiramati and his teacher 
Gunamati (an expert in Abhidharmakosa, Yogacara and Vinaya) flourished, and 
it was a thriving Buddhist and Jain center when visited during the mid 7th c 
by Xuanzang and later that century by Yijing (I-tsing). Many tens of 
thousands of unarmed, white robed (Jain) and saffron robed (Buddhists) 
monastics were killed, and the buildings razed to the ground in 725.

You will find reports in Muslim contemporaneous texts (stretching over many 
centuries, and extending from Baghdad to India to the Maldives to Java) 
written by the generals, etc., involved, revelling in the masses of 
Buddhists, Hindus and Jains they have slaughtered in place after place in 
the name of Islam (today, when "scholars" acknowledge these materials they 
are quick to assure the reader that the numbers of reported slaughtered 
*must* be "exaggerated", that maybe no slaughter at all went on, etc. 
etc. -- whitewash written specifically for the likes of Richard H.).

Then there are the general historical details:

"The first incursion, by the new Muslim successor states of the Persian 
Empire, took place around 664 AD during the Umayyad Caliphate, led by 
Mohalib towards Multan in Southern Punjab, in modern day Pakistan. Mohalib 
expeditions were not aimed at conquest, though they penetrated as far as the 
capital of the Maili and returned with wealth and prisoners of war.

The second attempt was made by Mohammed Bin Kasim, who, after the conquest 
of Sind (712 A.D.) swept over the whole of Rajasthan, Gujarat and advanced 
as far as Ujjain. The Gurjar kingdom of Jodhpur was overrun but Nagbhata of 
Ujjain hurled back the invaders in collaboration with Pratihar ruler of 
Jodhpur, Gurjar Ruler Jayabhatta-4 and Avanijanashraya Pulakeshi (the 
Chalukya ruler of Lata).

Nagbhatta took the title of Gurjeshwara in 732 AD. This shows that Pratihars 
were the successor of Maitrikas. his victory of Nagbhata over the Arabs not 
only enabled him to dethrone Jodhpur as the supreme power, but laid the 
foundation of a new power named Gurjara - Pratiharas, who became the masters 
of Kanauj by about 815 A.D. The Pratiharas reached the Zenith of their power 
during 815 A.D. to 940 A.D. and were called "Gurjareshvaras" and 
"Raghukulbhu-Chakravarti"(Descendents of Lord Rama) "
http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=The_Gurjar_Era_%281st_century_to_12th_century%29

Later on, of course, the Muslims returned, with a different result.

For Java (ca. 15th c), see e.g., A.H. Johns, "From Buddhism to Islam: An 
Interpretation of the Javanese Literature of the Transition," Comparative 
Studies in Society and History, v.9, n. 1 (Oct 1966) 40-50.


>Poor highlands remaining non-Buddhist.

Like Tibet? Mongolia? Bukhara? Bamiyan? Tarim basim? Junk data in, fantasy 
conclusions out. Buddhism, gravitating to the money, tends to be urban, or 
at least large village -- hence the attractiveness of hermitage (get away 
from the hustle and bustle). To feed a lot of monks requires lots of food 
and patronage. When the economy is good, Buddhism flourishes. When it hits 
rough spots, Buddhism does even better, people thinking that appeasing the 
Buddhas and spirits may spare them hardships. When there are literally no 
means at all, institutions cannot flourish. A day of no work is a day of no 
food, was not just Chan rhetoric or "practice" but a key to survival during 
rough times (along with encouraging a literary and poetic tradition, along 
with mountain retreats, to keep the Confucian literati and gentry 
interested). Buddhism adapts to local conditions, but only where it is 
sustainable. It had fallen into major decline over the course of the Qing 
dynasty, reasserted itself in fits and starts in the 20th c, and since the 
1980s, when the PRC took the lid off religion and especially since the 
economic revival has been transforming China, Buddhism (in the temple and 
devotional varieties) has been flourishing -- new construction, expanded 
cleric populations, lots of wealth and ostentatious displays, etc. That was 
never allowed to happen in India (Ambekar is an interesting exception).


 > D)  "Buddhism flourishes where Islam is absent or restrained". No.
> Buddhism flourished in S and SE Asia a long time before the advent of
> the Islam. The question of its absence or restrainment is irrelevant.
> A strong influx of Muslim traders in countries such as India, Ceylon
> or Burma did not result in dramatic changes.

This is one of the current revisionist notions with strong adherents (esp. 
in Britain). It plays fast and loose with many facts, selective in what it 
chooses to address, and "minimizes" all contrary data. One can easily find 
alternate versions of Indian history that will argue the exact opposite.

>(Richard Eaton's works on the Islamic rule in India make a
> good reading, if anyone's interested).

Eaton does some solid work, but you have to keep in mind which of his works 
you are reading. In some he is an enthusiastic whitewasher, in others, he 
begins to peel away the veneer somewhat. But he remains one with the 
tendency to minimize "negative" data, though he exaggerates "positive" data 
less and less over time.

> I have
> always thought that Buddhism's decline in India was primarily caused
> by the lack of imperial support for the Buddhist institutions.

Buddhism rose and fell and re-rose in numerous places in India. The full 
story of its decline (it was never 100% eliminated) is indeed complicated, 
but the attempts to imagine that Islam was not an active contributor, 
starting early on -- not just in the elimination of Buddhism from India and 
western and most of central asia, but in the disruption of the flow of 
Buddhism to east asia, etc. -- are disingenious. Either naive (Hayes) or 
dissimulating (Berzin).

What is truly sad is that every time this topic comes up, I have to dredge 
up the documentation, since, despite its monumental impact on the history of 
the development of Buddhism in the global sphere, it remains largely 
unknown -- even actively suppressed -- in a field that prides itself on its 
historical methodology and tendencies. Shame on Buddhist studies!

Dan