[Buddha-l] Rice & Dragons

[Artur Karp]

Dan,

When one reads you, one forms the impression that the early Islamists
must have had some special problem with the Buddhists - they must have
hated them so much that they would kind of have to exterminate them on
sight.

The question is: why? Ideology? Some other deep concerns?

Were the Buddhists as such the object of the Islamic aggression, or,
rather, some political entities, that may have been ruled by the
Buddhists?

Why singling them out?

Nothing of the sort with the polytheistic Hindus. A modicum of
tolerance there. Mahmud of Ghazni's prisoner (yes, of that infamous
Muslim who was at the time busy with destroying the Hindu Somnath
Temple on the Kathiawar Peninsula - he needed hard cash for his
Central Asian military projects), one Al-Biruni, used to spend while
in Delhi a lot of time with the Hindu pandits, learning. I do not
recall him mentioning any Buddhist savants, or monks running around
with their begging bowls. But, since I am already retired, my memory
may fail me. If it is, correct me – and I’ll stand corrected.

Thanks for the links. Although, to tell you the truth, they aren't new
to me, I have already been there. And I can recognize them for what
they in reality are. Richard Eaton’s works convince me better. Hard
facts do convince me, as a rule.

Instead of serving me a lengthy quotation from a second-hand web
source www.allempires, beginning with "The first incursion," and
ending with "Descendents of Lord Rama)", I'd prefer if you meditated a
bit on the meaning of the previous fragment:

<<Harshavardhana died in about 647 AD. After his death there was
disorder in Northern India. During the period from the death of
Harshavardhana to the conquest of the Muslims Indian history circles
around numerous kingdoms in the north and south. The territories of
Harsha was parceled among various rulers>>.

Deep fragmentation of political scene. An era of incessant conflict
covering several centuries. New local dynasties appearing, starting
wars for political hegemony and disappearing. No more imperial support
for large Buddhist monastic institutions, diminishing local care for
important pilgrimage centers. Marks of slow decline even at
Harshavardhana time, already noticed by both the Chinese pilgrims.

And, in this context, I’d like to ask: what did it mean to be a
Buddhist in early medieval India? Were local monasteries involved in
performing the rites of passage for lay followers? If not – who was?
Was the loss of contact with the monastery as a merit-field a dramatic
experience? To the extent, that the lay followers would want to defend
their monasteries from the depredations of the dharma enemies, Hindus
or Muslims?

Yes, it’s spring here.

And so I am in a question asking mood. The spring question – why was
(and is) Buddhism in the wet-rice growing areas of SE and E Asia more
resilient to change and external ideological challenges than its
counterparts in India and Central Asia?

My spring answer is: because it remains protected, under the ever
watchful eyes of benevolent dragons.

Best,