[Buddha-l] Re: Natural lucidity for Socrates

[L.S. Cousins]

Dan,

>This is a severely understudied issue. The better evidence is later, 
>during the early Islamic spread, where we have detailed reports, 
>with casualty counts, of Jains and Buddhists being chased out of 
>Central Asia. They clearly had a substantial presence in certain 
>areas.

Can you offer some sources for this ? Offhand it seems improbable.

>  One of the climaxes involved the Muslim armies chasing them back to 
>Vallabhi, where Jain and Buddhist monasteries were destroyed and the 
>occupants massacred in the thousands, after which the Muslims 
>retreated. Vallabhi, which had been a second Nalanda for Buddhists 
>up to that point (home to Gunamati, Sthiramati, etc.) never 
>recovered.

Vallabhi certainly ceased to be important after the Muslim conquest 
of Sind, but I have not seen an account of this. Source ?

>Earlier Jain history is sketchier, often even in India, 
>unfortunately, but there are indications in the early Manichaean 
>literature of central asian contact with Jains and Buddhists.

With Buddhists, yes. With Jains ?

>Earlier than that, the "Western" accounts seem unable to 
>differentiate "Brahmans from Buddhists, Jains, Ajivikas, etc.

THat may simply mean that Buddhists were simply not numerous enough 
before Asoka. For all we know, Ajiivakas may have been brahmins.

>Since Jainism is often entirely off the radar of archeaologists and 
>philologists -- with Hinduism and Buddhism faring only slightly 
>beter -- the possibility of unrecognized remains looms large.

Somewhat.

>Check out Jason BeDuhn's _The Manichaean Body: In Discipline and 
>Ritual_ (2002), especially the dietary rituals, which he covers in 
>some detail, and decide for yourself whether it rings any Jaina 
>bells. There were certainly no Ajivikas around at that time who 
>would have served as a source. BeDuhn doesn't mention Jainism at 
>all, but this is one of the most important recent works on the 
>Manichaeans.

I will try to look at this.

>Perhaps we might agree that the account in Hippolytus (largely, but 
>not entirely drawn from the Alexander templates) is not an accurate 
>portrayal in all details,

Well, no. We don't know that. It could be an accurate representation 
of some early third century group.

>nor, given its dependence on the Alexander materials, one drawn 
>exclusively from contemporary or even near contemporary ethnographic 
>evidence. It is a literary template, synthetic in nature (and since 
>most of the scholars working on this material have not reached a 
>consensus on its sources, I won't venture a definitive explanation 
>either). Since it mixes sources and details, there very well might 
>be some details culled from someone's description of Ajivikas, 
>Taxila charlatans, odd Brahmans doing things not exactly elsewhere 
>attested, and who knows what else. That it also is surreptitiously 
>addressing more familiar Mediterranean cults is also more than 
>likely (it wouldn't be included on a work designed to refute 
>heresies unless contemporaries believed that such practitioners 
>posed a clear and present danger, even if at some remove). Given its 
>syncretic nature, it may very well be that no actual group that ever 
>existed corresponds exactly to the description given, and that it is 
>a misleading composite of authentic and distorted information.

That is possible, but it is only a hypothesis.

>  So trying to match this particular description (or the many similar 
>ones in this genre) to an actual group in India, Central Asia, and 
>or the Mediterranean region, is a kind of interesting parlor game, 
>fun to play, but lacking in definitive data.

Agreed.

Lance