premjan

The Greek political base throughout West Asia was pretty shaky and did not last long. More importantly, the Greek uniqueness and fire also seemed to dissipate after Alexander's globetrot. So the conditions probably were not in existence for absorbing Buddhism along that particular trade route.

Vajradhara

Namatse all,

good OP

interestingly enough.. there was no Buddhist icongraphy until the arrival of the Bactarian Greeks on the Subcontinent.

this is actually quite fascinating to my way of thinking...

bagong, i, too, enjoy "what if's"

are you acquainted with an author named Harry Turtledove? he's written a few "alternate history" series which i've really enjoyed.

he did one series about a Roman Legion fighting some Gauls that was transported to a new world.. and an alternate history of WW2 where aliens invade Earth in 1940 and the humans all band together. it's pretty interesting, if you're into that sort of thing

bagong

Well, from the time of Alexander the Great's conquests to the Yuezhi barbarian invasions of 140 BC, Bactria was ruled by the Seleucids or independent Indo-Greek kings with close contacts with the rest of the Hellenestic world, so that's a period of almost 200 years - a pretty significant time span. And even after that period, economic contacts continued to thrive, so there would have been plenty of opportunities for Buddhist monks to tag along with caravans.

I also don't follow the conventional wisdom that the "Classical" period was the height of Greek civilization, and everthing that came after Alexander (i.e. the Hellenistic period) was tired, derivative, decadent, etc. Hellenistic culture was both extremely confident in the value of its own heritage AND cosmopolitan, open to foreign influence, willing to experiment, and so on. I greatly admire those qualities; to me it still sets the standard that dominant imperial cultures should aspire to.

I also imagine those qualities would have made the Hellenistic Middle East very receptive to a religion like Buddhism (a religion with claims to universality, but enough flexibility to incorporate local practices and traditions, incorporating both elements of rigorous philosophical discourse and mysticism). But I'm kind of hi-jacking the original purpose of this thread here...

premjan

I think perhaps we are just understimating the degree of native religious ferment in the middle east (e.g. the semitic and persian contributions, for example). buddhis would just have been one of many offerings on display. in later times, manichaeism was a significant competitor against buddhism. for some reason, buddhism resonated more with (perhaps the more atheist) bent of china and the far east than with the near east.

Answerer

Sorry, I'm late into this thread because of the recent disappointing US election. Anyway, its up to me to offer some possibilities.

I believe that the reasons are largely due to the problem of language and geographical barrier. The Greek never meet the Indian until Alexander fought his war there therefore its safe to conclude that Greeks didn't know much about the Indian's culture, language and history. And lets us not forget that Alexander died early, even if he was interested in Indian philosophy, I don't think he had enough time to study or spread them across Greece. Besides, Greeks were constant at war with its neighbours, especially Romans at the later stage, so cultural exchange was the last thing on their minds.

Of course, I didn't rule ou some minor exchange or influence but due to the above reasons, the possibility of Buddhism having an impact on the Greeks was small.

premjan

he died too early. but the greek colonies he left behind did get into buddhism, quite a bit (developing a whole school of sculpture much of whose subjects were the buddha), so we could honestly say that there was a buddhist influence on the greeks, just not on greece.

gurugeorge

Great stuff folks, keep it coming - it's a good subject. Another possible connection between Gnosticism and Buddhism - wasn't Appolonius of Tyana supposed to have visited some Buddhists in India and debated with them?

Yeshi

Chronologically, the meeting of Buddhism and Hellenic thought happened too late to have any impact on western history.

If you look at the timeline (and i will pull some numbers from head, so correct me if wrong):

° Buddha Sakyamuni is born in 580 BC, lives around 80 years.
° (Buddhism spreads for 230 years, unknown dispersion)
° Great buddhist universities like Nalanda and Nara are established in 400 BC
° Alexander conquest Bactria ca 330 BC
° King Asoka unites India under Buddhist rule ca 280-240 BC
° Romans subdue Greece ca 200 BC, and since then it is Roman thought that counts and is spread or retained in collective western thought.
° Eastmost Greeks endorse Buddhism, and mixing with Tocharians the great civilizations of Gandhara and later Kushans is established.
° in ca 1. century AD, Mahayana is established in Kushan area, diversifying from orthodox Theravada Buddhism.
° from 3rd to 6th century AD, everything is destroyed by White and Black Huns, from northenmost borders of China to even the western Roman Empire that crumbles. The great movement of people's groups takes place, displacing e.g. Turks from north China to Asia Minor, Slavs from mid Asia into Europe, etc. The Dark Ages ensue.
° Muslim warriors conquer all over Persia somewhere in 7th century AD. The old teachings are transferred to Tibet by Padmasambhava who is of Oddiyana (Bactria? origin)


So even if European Greeks received some of the Buddhist influence, it would have been for about hundred years, and was soon rolled over by Romans.

DCC

Maybe Bodhidharma just took a wrong turn. :huh:

premjan

Bodhidharma went east, but there was a Buddhist monk from Afghanistan who carried Buddhism to Tibet (forgot his name) who was probably in a better geographical position to go west rather than east.