Talk:Greco-Buddhism

NPOV Dispute

The article repeatedly states as fact that Mahayana is a development of Greco-buddhist syncretism, but offers little or no evidence to support its claim.

Meanwhile there is evidence to suggest that the Mahayana is implicit in the earliest of sutras with Gautama minimally being an exemplar, if not explicitly an advocate. So the notion of Mahayana as a greco-buddhist syncresis appears to be hardly a widely accepted proposition, and therefore at a minimum this article

• Needs to state its evidence in a manner that is less suppositious.
• Needs to demonstrate counter arguments for alternative theories of the ideas and developments of Mahayana.

Discussion is (as always) welcome. (20040302 14:31, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC))

---

Mar. 2, I'm with you on this, I really am. In theory. Can we just make it where it says that Greco-Buddhism syncresis led to the development of the cultural form of later Mahayana, i.e. the vessel rather than the contents? - Nat Krause 14:43, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Nat, yes, if done at a structural level, I agree. I like the article, I agree with the influence of Greece on Ghandaran art, but there is a different subtext to this article as it stands. The idea that e.g. compassion for the less fortunate is a greek influence on Buddhism is (frankly) absurd, and falls far off the mark. The implicit assertion that the Mahayana religious tradition arose due to Greek influence is likewise absurd.

Reinstated the Disputed tag because

• The article is still in dispute(!)
• It remains substantially the same article, with 'probably' stuck in it.
• The article appears to be only interested in one-way influence.
• If the following paras are pulled, we can begin to remove the POV stigma.

---

from Artistic influences The very image of the Buddha in Mahayana Buddhism is often considered an example of Greco-Buddhist fusion, with its Greco-Roman toga-like wavy robe covering both shoulders, stylicized Mediterranean curly hair, and the Apollo-like soft and compassionate facial expression, all rendered with strong artistic realism (see Greek art).

from Religious influences Several other Buddhist deities may be adaptations of Greek gods. For example, the image and characteristics of Hercules were adopted to represent Vajrapani, the Bodhisattva protector of the Buddha. In Japan, this expression further translated into the wrath-filled and muscular Niō guardian gods of the Buddha, standing today at the entrance of many Buddhist temples.

from Intellectual influences Mahayana Buddhism evolved new concepts, which may have been influenced by the Greek understanding of deity and individual excellence:

• The first physical representations of the Buddha, often in realistic Greco-Buddhist style.
• A supra-mundane understanding of the Buddha (lokattara).
• A description of each individual as having a Buddha nature (tathagatha).
• The possibility of reaching Buddhahood through virtuous acts (bodhisattva).
• Compassion for the less fortunate.

The new form of Buddhism expanded into Northern Asia from the 5th century onward, to China, Korea and Japan, forming the basis of Mahayana Buddhism, itself at the origin of Zen.

---

More precisions

Hi Nat & 20040302. Thank you for the constructive discussion.

I think that this issue can be resolved by unpacking the article. We have a definately worthy article on art history, most of which could be better placed under the title Greco-Buddhist Art. Then we have a far more tenuous article on issues of cross-cultural influence outside the sphere of artisanship. I have a lot more to say about the current comments from PHG, but they will have to wait till after the week-end. However, PHG - are you willing in principle to look at splitting the article - if not, could you please explain why? (20040302 08:42, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC))

Hi 20040302. The object of this article is to describe the confluence of Hellenistic and Buddhist influences in Central-Asia. The existence of Greco-Buddhist art is among the hardest evidence there is of that confluence. Among the other evidence are the adoption of the Hellenic script, the urban inter-mixing of Greek and Indian life for centuries in the region, the existence of writing such as the Milindapanha, the parallels between Mahayana and Hellenistic thought. But all these elements are part of a whole for the understanding of this cultural exchange. It is also how it has been understood by many leading historians (see references).

Of course, you are free to create a more comprehensive article on Greco-Buddhist art, which could be linked to this one.User:PHG

Point 1

• Point 1, regarding the image of the Buddha as deriving from the Greco-Buddhist tradition, is actually quite a widely held view in History of Art. Excerpts from Boardman (p126., referenced in the text): "The creation of a figure type (expressely forbidden under early Buddhism) seems to have happened in the first century AD, either in Gandhara or in the Mathura region to the south. (...) One might regard the classical influence as including the general idea of representing a man-god in this purely human form, which was of course well familiar in the West, and it is very likely that the example of westerner's treatment of their gods was indeed an important factor in the innovation" etc... Dress, hairstyle and face expression are all considered adoptions of Hellenistic stylistic influences.

Good to hear from you too! You may be interested in the article concerning varying views on the evolution of the Buddha image at http://www.exoticindiaart.com/article/lordbuddha.

User: PHG It is an honour. Thank you for the great informative link. The visual evidence which is given rather tends to confirm the first anhropomorphic expression of Buddha as being influenced by Greek conceptions. For example the Kanishka coin given as an example bears the word "BODDO" in greek letters beside the rendition of Buddha, and Kanishka was actually a Kushan ruler from the Gandhara region. The author even recognizes that "Most scholars assert that the Gandhara images of Buddha are earlier to those of Mathura", therefore reinforcing the Greek connection.

Also look at http://www.exoticindiaart.com/article/buddhaimage on the same site. If you actually read the articles in toto, you will agree that there is an open debate as to whether or not the image of Buddha originates from Greek influence. Even if 'most scholars' assert something, it does not make it fact. In an encyclopedia it is better to be factual than presumptious. (20040302 08:46, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC))

Even the author of that text says that the only hard evidence for the first anthropomorphic representations of the Buddha are Hellenistic-influenced representations. The only evidence to the contrary are 1) an assumption by some that the first images existed but all disapeared ("Some believe that the first Buddha image had come into being during the lifetime of the Buddha himself. These scholars contend that the tradition so begun continued ever since, but the medium, wood or clay, generally used for making these images, being of perishable nature, could not have such images survive against time."). Or 2) a legend of King Udayana saying the Buddha asked for a representation of himself to be made. Or 3) an a-contrario argument saying that clear prohibitions against anthropomorphic representations of the Buddha have never been found.

So the argument is between: thousands of existing Hellenistic representations of the Buddha on one hand, and, on the ohter hand only an assumption and a legend. To anybody, this would hardly be an "open debate".User:PHG

Point 2

• Point 2, regarding the influence of the God Heracles on the representation of Vajrapani, is a little bit more arcane, but has been clearly documented by the Tokyo National Museum. Besides the photo in the text, there are a few even more expressive ones, but they are copyrighted. I can send a personal e-mail of these if you are interested in the subject.

It seems fair that Vajrapani must not be taken out of context. Vajrapani, even in very early manifestations is a member of a triumvirate that also includes Avalokitesvara and Manjushri (They represent the heads of the three families - Vajra, Lotus, and Buddha respectively). Of course my point here is not the visual appearance of Vajrapani in Ghandaran art - I agree that there is little doubt about the influence of greek artisans on buddhist sculpture - but the subtext of your claim appears to be far more broad- it sounds that you are suggesting that Vajrapani is a Buddhist cognate of Heracles, which is misleading and unlikely.

User: PHG No denying of the origins of Vajrapani. Before the Greek influence, the imagery of Vajrapani derived from Indra. It was only after that that Heracles was used for his representation. Let's rework the phrasing to avoid any misunderstanding.

Point 3

• Point 3, regarding the influence of Hellenistic thought on Mahayana, is more prospective and hard to prove, but the parallels are striking and somewhat supported by evidence of mutual exchanges such as the Milinda-Panha text. University of Florida Richard Foltz (p46, reference in the text) gives many interesting examples and summarizes: "Greek as well as Iranian influences appear to have shaped the evolution of Mahayana images (and perhaps thought as well) during the Kushan period".

Of course I assume you are aware that the Milindapanha is important to the Theravadin school (which considers the Mahayana to be somewhat heretical). Moreover, if you have read it, it appears that the greeks are influenced by the buddhists. The questions that the greek king Milinda asks reveals a lot to us about contemporary greek thought - and one is led to the conclusion (certainly by this text) that the Greeks absorbed Buddhist thought, rather than Buddhists absorbing greek thought. The answers given by Nagasena are striking in that they both conform to the ideas of Buddhism and also clarify question that have haunted the West for millenia.

User:PHG I am not an expert of the Milindapaha, but you probably know that Nagasena is often considered an Indo-Greek (Foltz), and anyway the student of a Greek monk called Dharmaraksita (Milindapaha I.32-35). Rather than Buddhists teaching Greeks or Greeks teaching Buddhists, it does sound like a multi-cultural fusion where Greeks were actively developping their own understanding of Buddhism, at the time and place Mahayana was arising.

Furthermore

Furthermore, the issue of compassion is especially striking. there is no doubt that Buddha himself taught and practiced compassion in a deeply profound manner, and we are aware of Buddhist missionaries in both the greek world and the middle east in the last centuries BC. It is not even unreasonable to suggest that Jesus was deeply influenced by these early Buddhist ideas during the development of his gospel, something that the Vatican appears to wish to steer scholars away from thinking about (see the defensive attitude regarding this in the catholic encyclopedia).

User:PHG I totally agree. The Greeks who were in contact with India had kept communications with the Mediterranean bassin: Plutarch talks about Menandros. Christianity and Mahayana have many, many things in common.

Well, (a) Wikipedia isn't the place to prove anything; we can cite scholarly claims and disagreements, but that's about it, (b) most of the Mahayana doctrines can be accounted for by the outgrowth of early schismatic schools among the eighteen (particularly things like Buddha-nature--and where is that supposed to be found in Greek thought, anyway?), (c) some of the elements, such as the supramundanity of the Buddha, should clearly be derivable from native Indian influences, with the tradition of superhuman avatars being what it is, (d) broad similarities between Indian and Greek thought may be in some degree owing to the fact that Greek and Indian thought are, of course, genetically related!! and the Greek gods and the Indian devas are ultimately drawn from the same Proto-Indo-European pantheon, etc. Indeed, India should logically be closer to the source, just as the classical Indian languages preserve an older form of speech. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 18:48, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

User:PHG Mahayana of course has a strong Indian Buddhist substrate, but the deification of Buddha, the boddhisattva concept, the treatment of Buddha in a realistic human form along the lines of Apollo, the notion that an individual can become a god (the Buddha-nature element) point, according to many sources, to the Greco-Buddhist influence, which is the subject of this article.

I think the best approach is to cite what authors put forward what parts of these hypotheses in the article. "X" says that the deification of Buddha is Greek in origin, etc., and whatever claims don't have a concrete specifiable etiology should be dropped. Incidentally, regarding the NPOV notice, I don't think this is a POV problem, I think it's a factual accuracy problem--we're not being sectarian here, we're debating history. Is there an alternative disclaimer that might cover this? -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 17:15, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This is a delicate, but very interesting subject, and I hope the article can convey a better understanding of the interaction between cultures.

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)