#kroraina

As important as it may be to understand the details about Buddhist cave temples in Dunhuang that are given in the Shichang reading, I think the Hansen selection had more relevant content with respect to what we talk about in class.  Reading about the architectural forms, decorations, and uses of the caves was good in order to have background knowledge but in general I found it to be almost too detailed and too specific.  So with that I’ll look at the Hansen reading.

I think they key point to extract from this reading is the reinforced knowledge of multiple Buddhisms being practiced, as opposed to one singular Buddhism transported across Central and East Asia.  Hansen asks “what happens when we consciously put aside the Buddhist canon” (279), but I would almost rather ask what made a certain Buddhism canon in the first place?  The answers to that don’t lie in what we read this week but I still believe it is a question worth asking.  The Buddhists of Kroraina having families, property, even slaves is so contrary to what has been deemed the canon and I wonder why.  With the mention of Kroraina retaining their burial practices even after the arrival of Buddhism, it seems as though they were in an ‘in-between’ state of adopting a non-indigenous religion.  Is this why their Buddhism was so different?  It is hard to imagine a people without their own religion, as it has been so present and so important historically, but if those in Kroraina had not had their own traditions, would the Buddhism that came to them have been practiced more similarly to what we are familiar with?  I have a lot of questions after reading this.  I am not sure if it is two religions’ interactions that motivate one to change, or simply a religion’s interactions with a new people.  I am not even sure if we can reasonably ask this kind of question!  

The Kharosthi documents attract my attention not because of their contents per say, even though the position of the cozbos and the kingdom’s government were worth the read.  The role language plays in any history has always interested me.  Hansen mentions that Kharosthi was used to scribe spoken Gandhari; this caught my eye due to our reading of Gandhara and its part in Buddhist art.  Gandhara also had elements of a less familiar Buddhism even if this was present primarily in their art (or, at least, to the best of my knowledge from this course), for example the heavy Hellenistic influences.  These influences were seen through Greek gods on Kharosthi documents at Niya and Miran’s stupa decorations including Western angels (303).  

Niya is considered the “best documented Buddhist site along the silk route” (306), despite the fact that the Buddhism found there is not necessarily the best understood.  I think this is quite crucial.  I understand more after reading this text how to appreciate Buddhisms rather than Buddhism.  The familiarity of something does not diminish its value, even more so when it is something so deeply historical and not ‘ideally’ documented.  I’ll try to look at other things under this same lens now - try not to make any assumptions and not hold static opinions, thoughts, or outlooks on what I am not well versed in.  

Source used