Talk:Greco-Buddhism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
More information about this article... Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. This article is a selected article on the India portal, which means that it was selected as a high quality India-related article.

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject History of Greece; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ..
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Greco-Buddhism is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.

Greco-Buddhism is a selected article on the India Portal, which means that it was selected as a high quality India-related article.

Greco-Buddhism appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 28, 2004.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Philrelig article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.

Talk:Greco-Buddhism/Archive

Contents 1 Gandhara 2 Platonism and Madhyamaka 3 Ashoka Column picture removed 4 The Bodhisattva as a Universal ideal ... text pulled for discussion 5 Linguistics 6 "top-knot"

[edit] Gandhara

Isn't the term 'Gandhara' the same thing as 'Greco-Buddhist', refering to this type of art? Coult the title of this article be "Gandharan Art"? Or is Gandharan a subcategory or different type of art? If so, perhaps the word should be mentioned in the article.--DanielCD 20:01, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi Daniel. As far as I know Gandhara is a geographical region corresponding to the upper Indus Valley in northern Pakistan. Greco-Buddhism decribes the meeting of two cultures, rather than just a place or just an artisitc phenomenon. Also, Greco-Buddhism was active over a rather wide area from the Oxus, Bactria to Gandhara, and of course had influences on a wider scale still. I do agree it is a good idea to mention Gandhara in the article. User:PHG 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Platonism and Madhyamaka

This sentence is problematic: 'The distinction between conditioned and unconditioned being, and the denial of the reality of everyday experience in favour of an "unchanging and absolute ground of Being" is at the center of Platonism as well as Nagarjuna’s Madhyamika thought.'

Madhyamika thought does not in any shape or form allow for an "unchanging and absolute ground of Being" - in fact the major thrust of Nagarjuna's thought is to deconstruct concepts of this form! At the same time Madhyamika thinkers do not deny "the reality of everyday experiences", merely that they possess an intrinsic and independent identity of their own. It's a subtle issue which in my view needs to be handled with greater care... There are definite similarities between Platonism and Yogācāra however. Prime Entelechy 14:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Prime here, up to his mention of Yogācāra, which in all of it's varieties, remains distinct from Platonism, though I agree there may be similarities. (20040302)

• In the Prajnaparamita, the rejection of the reality of passing phenomena as “empty, false and fleeting” can also be found in Greek Pyrrhonism.

A primary source from Prajnaparamita is needed which states this. It is generally understood that Prajnaparamita rejects essence only.

One source among others: "There is no form, nor feeling, nor perception, nor impulse, nor consiousness, no eye, or ear, or nose, or tongue, or body, or mind, no form, nor sound, nor smell, nor taste, or touchable, nor object of mind..." (Heart sutra) PHG 13:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

See a zillion commentaries on this which adequately point out that the Heart sutra should be glossed as "There is no essence of form, no essence of feeling..." - it is apparent to any being that there =is= form, feeling, etc. (20040302)

• The distinction between conditioned and unconditioned being, and the denial of the reality of everyday experience in favour of an “unchanging and absolute ground of Being” is at the center of Platonism as well as Nagarjuna’s Madhyamika thought.

See above. This suggests that the author is unfamiliar with Madhyamaka view. There is no 'unchanging and absolute ground of Being' in Madhyamaka.

• The perception of ultimate reality was, for the Cynics as well as for the Madyamikas and Zen teachers after them, only accessible through a non-conceptual and non-verbal approach (Greek "Phronesis"), which alone allowed to get rid of ordinary conceptions.

See above. This also suggests that the author is unfamiliar with Nagarjuna and the Madhyamaka. 'Ordinary conception' is a highly technical term within the context of the Madhyamaka - representing conception based upon views that assert essential existence. Moreover the views of the Cynics (which prioritised individualism) are contrary to Buddhism (see anatman).

Source: "For the Cynics, as for Madhyamikas, Zen teachers, and others, phenomena could be dealt with legitimately only in a nonverbal and nonconceptual cognition (phronesis) the same word Plato used for "unhypothesized knowledge"), which can result only from the ultimate elanchus of stripping the mind of all the conceptions with which it ordinarily tries to deal with them" (Mc Evilley, "The shape of ancient thought", p439) PHG 13:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok - the sole author you quote from as authority - unfortunately, his own sources appear to be mistaken - it appears likely he is depending upon Murti's questionable interpretations of Madhyamaka. Could you do me a favour and find out what authors he relies upon in the bibliography? Because these views remain contrary to current western scholarship regarding the Madhyamaka; and laughable to traditional Buddhist scholarship. If you wish to develop a good understanding of the development of western academic thought on Madhyamaka, I suggest you read Emptiness of Emptiness pp5-69; Huntington 1989 UoH (ISBN 0-8248-1712-5) as a starting point. (20040302)

• The mental attitude of equanimity and dispassionate outlook in front of events was also characteristic of the Cynics and Stoics, who called it "Apatheia"

Once again this is weak work founded on the misunderstanding of technical terms - indifference is not cognate with equanimity within Buddhism. Buddhism does not promote detachment from emotions in the same manner as the Stoics: The purpose is distinct, the meaning of detachment from emotions is also distinct. Independence from society is not promoted in Buddhism either. In fact there has been plenty of work showing the urban dependancy of monastic institutions.

Source: "Cynic sages, like Buddhist monks, renounced home and possessions and to the streets as wanderers and temple beggars. The closely related concepts apatheia (non-reaction, non-involvement) and adiaphoria (nondifferentiation) became central to the Cynic discipline." (Mc Evilley, "The shape of ancient thought", p439) PHG 13:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, first of all, identifying equanimity as being equivalent to apatheia, and then citing a source which typifies apatheia as taking to the streets as a wanderer does you no favours. Within the context of Buddhism, equanimity is a highly technical term. It has nothing whatsoever to do with external behaviour, or external events, but it is to do with attitudes towards living beings. To give you some idea - it may be typified somewhat as an even-minded attitude, eliminating the bias which comes from attachment to some living beings and hostility to others - 'LRCM Vol 2' p36 Tsongkhapa, SnowLion (ISBN 1-55939-168-5) (20040302)

The views of Cynicism, Stoicism and Pyrrhonism are interesting and important in their own right, and it may be that some comparisons can be usefully made against the philosophies of other cultures such as Mahayana Buddhism. It may even be that the Greeks were far more influential regarding the development of the Buddhist Mahayana than is currently recognised by academics or Buddhists. However, as they stand, the assertions above are (as far as I can see) faulty, unsourced, and unreliable. (20040302 22:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC))

Much of this text notes the contact of Buddhism and Hellenic culture, and then, noting some more or less justified parallels, draws conclusions about influences - usually in the Hellenic -> Buddhist direction. Though such parallels are interesting to study, conclusions that are stated as at least probable seem totaly speculative. Apart from there being space for contact of those cultures, is there any real reason to believe that mahayana philosophy and ideals were indeed a product of such interactions with helenic culture?

No - there is no reason, except for some highly speculative, syncretic thoughts primarily suggested by generalists such as Mc Evilley who are highly regarded by PHG - a very active and dedicated wp editor, with what appears to be wild bias on some specific issues. PHG, your contributions to art history and it's useage to examine links between Hellistic culture and Indian culture is wonderful. However, you push the boat out into wild speculation once in a while. This is an old debate between us; it would be nice if either you were to improve your scholarship regarding the Madhyamaka - or alternatively drop any such claims on the basis that you do not have enough information to warrant them. I have ordered the Mc Evilley, and will read it. (20040302)

Hi 20040323. Indeed, I certainly do not claim to be an expert on Madhyamika (I am only a fan of Central Asian history and Cross-cultural interactions). The statements in this article are now quite thouroughly sourced and referenced from published scholarly work, which of course doesn't mean these suppositions are proved, just that many scholars consider them likely. I wish you good reading of Mc Evilly: this is quite an amazing book. Best regards. PHG 14:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

With respect, PHG, section 4.1.3 is solely sourced by McEvilly, whose work is published by an art publisher. If you wish to say "many scholars consider them likely" - you should rely upon scholars who specialise in the field in question; in this case, McEvilly is a lone figure. It would be nice if you could refer to his sources - as it is clear that he is relying on other scholars himself. So we are left with supposition and one author of questionable scholarship. (20040302 11:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC))

If you read again, "many scholars consider them likely" refers to the interactions described in the article as a whole. McEvilly is only one reference among others, such as Foltz, Boardman, Bentley, Linssen, the Dalai Lama, Tarn, Lowenstein, most of them some of the best specialists in cultural interaction. McEvilley tends to focus on philosophical interaction (he holds a PhD in Classical philology). Regarding his own sources: Reference No17 is sourced from Edward Conze "The Development of Prajnaparamita thought" in "Thirty years of Buddhist history" and "The short Prajnaparamita texts"; and Phillip H.DeLacy "ou mallon and the Antecedents of Ancient Skepticism". The argument behind Reference 18 is sourced from "The cynic's epistole: A study edition" (Scholars Press, 1977); Rhys Davids "Vinaya texts"; David J.Kalupahana "Buddhist Philosophy". Reference No19 is sourced from R.J. Hankinson "The Spectics". Here for the McEvilley Bio. Regards. PHG 12:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ashoka Column picture removed

This picture was removed because of possible copyright violation. The copyright notice on Wikipedia incorrectly stated that the picture is from buddha101.com and used with the permission of the author of that site. The picture is not on buddha101.com and no permission was given.

[edit] The Bodhisattva as a Universal ideal ... text pulled for discussion

I am not prone to keeping this stuff removed, except that it seems to be particularly biased in it's scholarship, as was the mention of Lamotte without referring to Conze or others who feel that Lamotte is out on a limb here.

Moreover, although Lamotte suggests a NW asian source for the perfection of wisdom sutras, there is remarkable primary evidence to suggest the doctrine came from South or Central India.

These qualities are reminiscent the Greek Stoicist philosophy, which may also have influenced the understanding of each individual as having the potential to reach excellence (Concept of Universal Buddha nature) and as being equally worthy of compassion (Compassion for all or “Karuna”, related to the Greek Universal loving kindness, “Philanthropia”). The Stoics had a “conviction in the essential equality of all humankind (...), which did not provide for superior or inferior, dominant and subordinate relations between states. From the ideal of equality there followed the Stoics' emphasis on virtue, conscience, duty, and absolute personal integrity" (Bentley, "Old World Encounters").

These loose equations between various Greek philosophies and Mahayana Buddhism and it's philosophies continue to look particularly suspicious, and appear to be dominated by authors who are known to be from pro-greek backgrounds. Though indeed the stoic practices were similar in part to Buddhism, the Stoicist cosmological assertion of Logos is completely missing from, and indeed antithetical to (as is all Platonic philosophy), the perfection of wisdom sutras. (20040302)

[edit] Linguistics

Removed: "The very notion of paradise is a Persian invention (Old Persian: “Para Daisa”), which was probably relayed by the Greeks."

The notion of a paradise is not Persian; the word is of Persian origin, borrowed into Greek, but merely means "walled garden"! This fact is however totally irrelevant, as no cognate or derivative of the Persian word is used in Indian sources, and the Sukhavati is not described as a "walled garden".

[edit] "top-knot"

the text describes the attributes of the representation of the Buddha as having a "top-knot" hair style with reference to the Belvedere Apollo with the implication that the top-knot hair style (called a gutthi in the Punjab where it is common among men) was unique to Greek culture at the time, would the Indians have had their hair flowing due to lack of common sense to tie it up is which is unlikely.

I think what is meant is that the artistic rendering of the top knot was adopted from the Hellenistic world. Also, it is often pointed out that the Buddha having shaven his hair, and being a monk, was not supposed to have any kind of top-knot according to local tradition, and that this representation of one was influenced by Greek statuary. Regards PHG 22:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Well it is just a little (ok I'm pedantic) misleading though no way controversial, do reword it so that it refers to the Buddha as being previously shown as being shaven headed (which I didn't actually know as most pictures and statues I've seen depict hair).

Actually, before this representation the Buddha had never been depicted: Buddhist art was aniconic, and symbols were used to represent the Buddha instead (even if surrounding attendant were shown in human form). The tradition that his hair was cut short or shaved comes from Buddhist writing only. Regards PHG 22:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)