Hello Stan

Here is my own reaction to your question, I would be interested to get comment.

<<I'm looking for references on risk in Far East and Middle East philosophy,>>

I am unhappy with the implicit assumption being made here.  That (for
instance) there is a unified Far Eastern Philosophy standing as an
alternative to other geographical philosophies.  Philosophical ideas seem to
be very diverse everywhere.  The idea that there are specific
regional/temporal philosophies has been dignified in recent times, for
instance, by the notion of mentalites (Annales school of historians), and by
Heidegger – but did this derive from empirical observation, or was it just
what funding politicians wanted to hear?

I suppose the biggest risk a state can take is going to war – and states
worldwide have apparently always gone to war, everywhere.

<<By the way, is there by the way any "classic" reference for Far East
related thought in economics?>>

Oddly, the place that does not have a classical reference for economics is
Europe – the Pseudo-Aristotelian Economica is not a very sophisticated
account at all.

India has the Arthashastra, and China the Guanzi (Kuan Tzu).  Both are
compilations of yet earlier texts put together around the 4th century BC –
thus neither is particularly consistent in its approach.  I would recommend
the book of translated extracts from the Kuan Tzu put out by Lewis
Maverick,.  The text is accessible if you can find a copy of the book. 
Maverick was denied tenure at UCLA and published the book with his own funds
I think, so there are not too many copies around.  Maverick’s account of the
influence of Chinese political and economic thought on Leibniz, Spinoza,
Quesnay etc – called “China a model for Europe” is however up on the web
somewhere.  (China seems to have been a big influence on George Berkeley's
economics too, though I think Maverick missed that.)

I fear Mises scholars might not be too keen on Maverick’s Kuan Tzu, as I
recall it says things like “It is not a lack of wealth from which the world
suffers, but the lack of a prince who can distribute it”  Lovely prose
though! It also has a lot of theory concerning covert market intervention
for tax purposes by the state, led by a clear grasp of the so called
quantity theory of money

I note the Wiki page does not mention the Maverick translation, only the
Rickett translation.  It is about 20 years since I looked at that but I
found the translation so literal as to be very hard to follow, and I gather
the sections Maverick highlighted were missing completely from the Rickett
version at that time.  Am not sure if this has since been rectified by a
fuller translation.

Chinese scholars also mention a book call the Chou Li as being very
important for early Chinese political and perhaps economic thought.  Hard
for me to say, it remains untranslated into English.

Coincidentally, I visited a local University Library to refresh my memory on
the most important economic reformer of medieval China – Wang Anshi (Wang an
Shih) - a couple of weeks ago.  They did have a copy of the 1937 two volume
Henry Williamson study.  But it had been locked in a cupboard with a view to
disposal, because no one had consulted it for 10 years.  I hasten to add the
librarian herself was very helpful indeed in recovering for me.

Best

Rob, York, UK