|
kitten6
hiker

Registered: 05/13/19
Posts: 96
Loc: UK 0161
Last seen: 16 hours, 15 minutes
|
the romans and the buddhists
#26403129 - 12/27/19 02:56 PM (4 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
word on the street is that the romans encountered buddhists during the expansion of their empire.
They say the emperor himself became inspired by buddhists, which began a wave of stoicism in the roman empire,
does anyone have any interesting information to share about this? maybe some dates names facts, i find this whole buddhism thing very interesting.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,818
|
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: kitten6]
#26403171 - 12/27/19 03:43 PM (4 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
That would be strange because to my knowledge, the Romans never made it east of present day Iraq. That is not to say they could not come into contact with Buddhism through travelers, but I have never heard of such a thing.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,818
|
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: kitten6]
#26403241 - 12/27/19 04:41 PM (4 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I did a little digging (nothing fancy, just a regular web search) after reading your post, and what I came away with was this: There were a scant few contacts between notable Romans and Indian Buddhists, but these contacts did not seem in any way to impact the course of Roman history. That’s my informed opinion/educated guess. The sources also mention (once) the Parthians, but it would seem this is a much narrower avenue than through trade with India. All in all, not much of a topic.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
r00tcmplx
Stranger

Registered: 02/19/18
Posts: 419
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
|
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: kitten6]
#26403265 - 12/27/19 04:57 PM (4 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
The Romans and Greeks get far more credit than they are due for having copy/pasta'd a great deal of their works from colored civilizations that predate them. The only reason there is so much weight put on them is because, dare I say, they were a white society. A great deal of the works reflected in their society were reflected in earlier civilizations in the region. They accomplished a great deal and built upon it but they are not the end/all be all of scholarly/scientific pursuits.. Not by a long shot.
If you care to know the truth on this matter hunker down and spent time on it across a 6 month - 1 year time span. You will after-all have to concretely disprove a lot of written history.
Aside from this, common sense should tell a person, that many cultures/civilizations have contributed equally to science/philosophy/thought. Any other presentation of history is an obvious lies/farce.
|
living_failure
unworthy



Registered: 06/13/19
Posts: 352
Loc: spain, madrid
Last seen: 3 years, 8 months
|
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: r00tcmplx]
#26403343 - 12/27/19 05:38 PM (4 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
r00tcmplx said: The Romans and Greeks get far more credit than they are due for having copy/pasta'd a great deal of their works from colored civilizations that predate them. The only reason there is so much weight put on them is because, dare I say, they were a white society. A great deal of the works reflected in their society were reflected in earlier civilizations in the region. They accomplished a great deal and built upon it but they are not the end/all be all of scholarly/scientific pursuits.. Not by a long shot.
If you care to know the truth on this matter hunker down and spent time on it across a 6 month - 1 year time span. You will after-all have to concretely disprove a lot of written history.
Aside from this, common sense should tell a person, that many cultures/civilizations have contributed equally to science/philosophy/thought. Any other presentation of history is an obvious lies/farce.
Do you honestly believe that any past civilization have influenced present civilization science (do you mean knowledge? in old civilziations, without scientiphic method, there was none to be called science) equally?
Do you really believe that people of spain when they wrote spanish history, didnt wrote about the influence of romans because we in fact, were romans?
Do you really believe that people of italy when they wrote italian history didnt wrote about the influence of romans because they in fact, were romans?
(...)
Have even the thought that, instead of just trying to deduce the history of humanity, try to read the history of humanity yourself?
Then you might realize, than when reading about European civilization, OLD European civilization might actually indeed, being influential to it?. (Nothing to do with "white supremacism")
I don't know, have you any proof than the imperialism and romanization of europe was equally influential in europe than the Langkasuka's?
Getting back to main topic.
I think it is unlikely, given the way the greek thought developed, they would have spoke about buddhism or oriental thought if it mattered to them.
|
Near Dylan
Shitpost Artist


Registered: 07/29/15
Posts: 13,929
Last seen: 6 days, 23 hours
|
|
I could go on and on to the point of getting banned for spam but tl;dr:
Yea there was knowledge of eastern religion in the classical mediterennean, obviously more prevalent later on. The greek state of Bactria in afghanistan was obviously bordering Maurya, the dominant indian power at the time, who of course spread indian cultural and religious influence to the Bactrians, who in turn leaked it a bit into the greek world. Ptolemaic Egypt recieved a few missionaries from indian Maurya and they were apparently well liked, and Ptolemy II sent his own embassy to stay with the Indians.
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: The sources also mention (once) the Parthians, but it would seem this is a much narrower avenue than through trade with India. All in all, not much of a topic.
What? What do you mean 'the sources' mention the Parthians 'once'? Pretty much evverything that came through from the East for most of Roman history had to go through the silk road through Parthia. They are a big reason that the empire never had official contact with the Han dynasty from china, because the Parthians controlled the silk road and were very rich being the middle man, they did not want the big boy of the west and the big boy of the east to have contact. So it goes without saying that unavoidably, eastern traders with a myriad of faiths would be seen on the silk road.
Most interestingly, an Sramanam missionary was sent to Augustus' Rome, and burned him alive in public. Made a big stir. So you best believe people knew who Buddhists were.
There were a few 'philosopher emperors', most notably Marcus Aurelius of course, but I wouldn't say there is much to suggest that any Emperor was very notably influenced by Buddhism. That being said, however, they absolutely knew about each other, and absolutely had influence on each other.
r00tcmplx thinks you can get a good view of the origins of western civilization by 'hunkering down' for '6 months to a year' lol. I want $55,000 back if that's the case.
--------------------
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,818
|
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: Near Dylan]
#26403400 - 12/27/19 06:05 PM (4 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
The sources I looked at, very briefly, said that there was some Buddhist influence through Pakistan into Parthia, but that most contact with Buddhism probably came from sea trade with India. I don't know whether this is accurate, and I don't personally possess any knowledge about the topic of Buddhism in Rome. Just relaying the info I came across.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
Rahz
Alive Again



Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
|
|
Italy was just a short boat trip from the Silk Road proper. There's no reason to think Buddhism and Hinduism wouldn't have been known to Roman scholars. Not the kind of thing you spread to the masses and anything that contradicts canonical law wouldn't have been espoused much in inner circles. It was probably more well known than history might suggest.
Some think Jesus studied Buddhism abroad before returning to begin his ministry.
Maybe Socrates (if he was real) traveled there as well. He was known as the wandering philosopher and what road better to wander on than the Silk Road?
Regarding the "white people" comment, who cares? Whites recorded and spread their own history! Now we're all multi cultural and can appreciate various histories translated into... English! It's all good. All inspiration springs from the human heart and mind. There's nothing new under the Sun. That's an Eastern saying isn't it? Or is it?
-------------------- rahz comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace "You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,818
|
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: Rahz]
#26403650 - 12/27/19 08:47 PM (4 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I have no doubt that you're right. Many Romans at various levels of society were probably conversant in Buddhism, at least to some extent. But whether it made a significant impact on Roman history is another matter, which is far from straightforward. OP's main question was whether some injection of Buddhist thought into the higher echelons of Roman society created "waves" of effects, and I have never even heard of evidence for this. I am not a scholar of ancient Rome, but have read some books from my armchair and Buddhism was never brought up at all, let alone as anything of significance. So I suppose all we really have is conjecture.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
r00tcmplx
Stranger

Registered: 02/19/18
Posts: 419
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
|
|
Quote:
living_failure said: Do you honestly believe that any past civilization have influenced present civilization science (do you mean knowledge? in old civilziations, without scientiphic method, there was none to be called science) equally? Do you really believe that people of spain when they wrote spanish history, didnt wrote about the influence of romans because we in fact, were romans? Do you really believe that people of italy when they wrote italian history didnt wrote about the influence of romans because they in fact, were romans? (...) Have even the thought that, instead of just trying to deduce the history of humanity, try to read the history of humanity yourself? Then you might realize, than when reading about European civilization, OLD European civilization might actually indeed, being influential to it?. (Nothing to do with "white supremacism") I don't know, have you any proof than the imperialism and romanization of europe was equally influential in europe than the Langkasuka's? Getting back to main topic. I think it is unlikely, given the way the greek thought developed, they would have spoke about buddhism or oriental thought if it mattered to them.
What is all this wasteful verbiage? I've covered the history in detail. Europe was in the stoneages when many other civilizations were at the forefront of the world.... Get over yourself and the lies you were sold.
Through most of history, Europe has been a backwater. Only around 500BC did Europe’s southern fringe become an important part of the world, with the rise of sophisticated civilizations in Greece and Italy; but by AD500, it was sliding back into obscurity. If we are to explain Europe’s rise to globe dominance after AD1500 and its changing position in the last seventy-five years, we must first explain why the continent has usually been—as the Marxist economist Andre Gunder Frank once put it—no more than “a distant marginal peninsula.
2019 and pretending as if anyone bought this wildly ridiculous story that only white civilizations were the bastion of intellect, science, and philosophy...
Rome and Greece were nothing compared to the empires/civilizations before it and Cleopatra was a Greek slutbag who was given areas of Egypt as a prize for her good BJs once the whole civilization had collapsed. If I were to grant Greece/Rome recognition it would be as world's best LARP empires.
Human recorded history dates back 10s of thousands of years. Rome/Greece were prominent for a spec of that time period as was much of Europe.
|
r00tcmplx
Stranger

Registered: 02/19/18
Posts: 419
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
|
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: Near Dylan]
#26403701 - 12/27/19 09:16 PM (4 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Near Dylan said: I could go on and on to the point of getting banned for spam but tl;dr:
Yea there was knowledge of eastern religion in the classical mediterennean, obviously more prevalent later on. The greek state of Bactria in afghanistan was obviously bordering Maurya, the dominant indian power at the time, who of course spread indian cultural and religious influence to the Bactrians, who in turn leaked it a bit into the greek world. Ptolemaic Egypt recieved a few missionaries from indian Maurya and they were apparently well liked, and Ptolemy II sent his own embassy to stay with the Indians.
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: The sources also mention (once) the Parthians, but it would seem this is a much narrower avenue than through trade with India. All in all, not much of a topic.
What? What do you mean 'the sources' mention the Parthians 'once'? Pretty much evverything that came through from the East for most of Roman history had to go through the silk road through Parthia. They are a big reason that the empire never had official contact with the Han dynasty from china, because the Parthians controlled the silk road and were very rich being the middle man, they did not want the big boy of the west and the big boy of the east to have contact. So it goes without saying that unavoidably, eastern traders with a myriad of faiths would be seen on the silk road.
Most interestingly, an Sramanam missionary was sent to Augustus' Rome, and burned him alive in public. Made a big stir. So you best believe people knew who Buddhists were.
There were a few 'philosopher emperors', most notably Marcus Aurelius of course, but I wouldn't say there is much to suggest that any Emperor was very notably influenced by Buddhism. That being said, however, they absolutely knew about each other, and absolutely had influence on each other.
r00tcmplx thinks you can get a good view of the origins of western civilization by 'hunkering down' for '6 months to a year' lol. I want $55,000 back if that's the case.
I did so over the span of years on the occasion I wanted to be reminded of how much of history and its framing was bullshit. I'm sure if someone focused over the course of 6 months to a year, they'd gather enough of my understanding to correctly place Roman/Greek history... Yet another empire of many empires in the world that moved the ball forward a little. You don't need to spend $55k or get a degree to get a jist of it. However, you most certainly wont get it (looking at OP) by asking for a quick summary on a forum. My comment was directed towards Op in defining that its going to take a hellavuh lot longer to get the correct understanding/framing of this inquiry than a casual night following up on provided links.
Also, what does the $55k refer to? That was the total cost of attendance for a year at my University.
|
r00tcmplx
Stranger

Registered: 02/19/18
Posts: 419
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
|
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: Rahz]
#26403718 - 12/27/19 09:25 PM (4 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Rahz said: Regarding the "white people" comment, who cares?
Regarding the white people comment, a person who wants a correctly weighted history should care. A person seeking truth and origin of it should care so as to not hang their hat solely on the works of two empires who weren't all that special or unique as opposed to other empires/civilizations/people/culture.
Quote:
Rahz said: Whites recorded and spread their own history! Now we're all multi cultural and can appreciate various histories translated into... English!
And obscured the history of others so as to promote themselves.. And hid the origin of various ideas/information/etc etc... such as any victor/empire does. The point is not to center on some low IQ racial remark, it's to realize that much of history is presented falsely and move to discover the more truthful lensing... Something you wont be moved to do if you just say 'It's all good'.
Quote:
Rahz said: It's all good. All inspiration springs from the human heart and mind. There's nothing new under the Sun. That's an Eastern saying isn't it? Or is it?
The truth is all good. I move towards it and beyond the lies/obstruction of man. It is indeed uplifting and allows me to view the world in a much different manner. It allows me to see the east as important and instrumental as the 'west'. It allows me to correctly combine schools of thoughts. It results in me not relying upon European history as a fulcrum for thought and in that my mind expands beyond one cultural framing of the world.
Try it out sometimes and don't be afraid to add flavor to the castigation of a body of lies and misrepresented history for it is not in a favorable tone that I refer to such things.
|
r00tcmplx
Stranger

Registered: 02/19/18
Posts: 419
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: I have no doubt that you're right. Many Romans at various levels of society were probably conversant in Buddhism, at least to some extent. But whether it made a significant impact on Roman history is another matter, which is far from straightforward. OP's main question was whether some injection of Buddhist thought into the higher echelons of Roman society created "waves" of effects, and I have never even heard of evidence for this. I am not a scholar of ancient Rome, but have read some books from my armchair and Buddhism was never brought up at all, let alone as anything of significance. So I suppose all we really have is conjecture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_the_Roman_world https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_influences_on_Christianity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Buddhism https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7fxzdy/was_there_any_awareness_of_buddhism_in_ancient/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/74q57n/were_there_any_interactions_between_buddhism_and/dpp2qpr/?context=3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_Gnosticism https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/wikispeedia/wpcd/wp/g/Greco-Buddhism.htm
|
Rahz
Alive Again



Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
|
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: r00tcmplx]
#26403887 - 12/28/19 12:29 AM (4 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
r00tcmplx said:
Quote:
Rahz said: Regarding the "white people" comment, who cares?
Regarding the white people comment, a person who wants a correctly weighted history should care. A person seeking truth and origin of it should care so as to not hang their hat solely on the works of two empires who weren't all that special or unique as opposed to other empires/civilizations/people/culture.
Quote:
Rahz said: Whites recorded and spread their own history! Now we're all multi cultural and can appreciate various histories translated into... English!
And obscured the history of others so as to promote themselves.. And hid the origin of various ideas/information/etc etc... such as any victor/empire does. The point is not to center on some low IQ racial remark, it's to realize that much of history is presented falsely and move to discover the more truthful lensing... Something you wont be moved to do if you just say 'It's all good'.
Quote:
Rahz said: It's all good. All inspiration springs from the human heart and mind. There's nothing new under the Sun. That's an Eastern saying isn't it? Or is it?
The truth is all good. I move towards it and beyond the lies/obstruction of man. It is indeed uplifting and allows me to view the world in a much different manner. It allows me to see the east as important and instrumental as the 'west'. It allows me to correctly combine schools of thoughts. It results in me not relying upon European history as a fulcrum for thought and in that my mind expands beyond one cultural framing of the world.
Try it out sometimes and don't be afraid to add flavor to the castigation of a body of lies and misrepresented history for it is not in a favorable tone that I refer to such things.
The point is that it's fairly apparent that civilization didn't spring from Greece or Rome. I don't know why you think they get far more credit than they deserve. It's not the 80s any more. That's why it's all good.
-------------------- rahz comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace "You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi
|
r00tcmplx
Stranger

Registered: 02/19/18
Posts: 419
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
|
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: Rahz]
#26403896 - 12/28/19 12:47 AM (4 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Rahz said:
Quote:
r00tcmplx said:
Quote:
Rahz said: Regarding the "white people" comment, who cares?
Regarding the white people comment, a person who wants a correctly weighted history should care. A person seeking truth and origin of it should care so as to not hang their hat solely on the works of two empires who weren't all that special or unique as opposed to other empires/civilizations/people/culture.
Quote:
Rahz said: Whites recorded and spread their own history! Now we're all multi cultural and can appreciate various histories translated into... English!
And obscured the history of others so as to promote themselves.. And hid the origin of various ideas/information/etc etc... such as any victor/empire does. The point is not to center on some low IQ racial remark, it's to realize that much of history is presented falsely and move to discover the more truthful lensing... Something you wont be moved to do if you just say 'It's all good'.
Quote:
Rahz said: It's all good. All inspiration springs from the human heart and mind. There's nothing new under the Sun. That's an Eastern saying isn't it? Or is it?
The truth is all good. I move towards it and beyond the lies/obstruction of man. It is indeed uplifting and allows me to view the world in a much different manner. It allows me to see the east as important and instrumental as the 'west'. It allows me to correctly combine schools of thoughts. It results in me not relying upon European history as a fulcrum for thought and in that my mind expands beyond one cultural framing of the world.
Try it out sometimes and don't be afraid to add flavor to the castigation of a body of lies and misrepresented history for it is not in a favorable tone that I refer to such things.
The point is that it's fairly apparent that civilization didn't spring from Greece or Rome. I don't know why you think they get far more credit than they deserve. It's not the 80s any more. That's why it's all good.
You're incorrectly framing my commentary. Indeed it isn't the 80s yet many falsehoods of history remain. OP asked about Romans and Buddhists for a reason and that drifts into how history and the influences of the empire were not represented correctly. The list goes on and on.
My point wasn't that civilization sprang from Greece or Rome either, do you not understand 'figure of speech'? The point was that too much emphasis is put on those two empires for historically biased reasons and a steward of truth should look beyond them for a wider and more accurate understanding of history and the world. This is all what is all good.
My commentary is substantiated by its truthfulness, I don't need an apologist to take the edge off or misrepresent my words.
Also, i'm a millennial so I have no clue what you're referring to about the 80s. Snap out of the delusions and logical fallacies you're framing up.
Back to the thread.
|
living_failure
unworthy



Registered: 06/13/19
Posts: 352
Loc: spain, madrid
Last seen: 3 years, 8 months
|
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: r00tcmplx]
#26404126 - 12/28/19 05:59 AM (4 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
r00tcmplx said:
Quote:
living_failure said: Do you honestly believe that any past civilization have influenced present civilization science (do you mean knowledge? in old civilziations, without scientiphic method, there was none to be called science) equally? Do you really believe that people of spain when they wrote spanish history, didnt wrote about the influence of romans because we in fact, were romans? Do you really believe that people of italy when they wrote italian history didnt wrote about the influence of romans because they in fact, were romans? (...) Have even the thought that, instead of just trying to deduce the history of humanity, try to read the history of humanity yourself? Then you might realize, than when reading about European civilization, OLD European civilization might actually indeed, being influential to it?. (Nothing to do with "white supremacism") I don't know, have you any proof than the imperialism and romanization of europe was equally influential in europe than the Langkasuka's? Getting back to main topic. I think it is unlikely, given the way the greek thought developed, they would have spoke about buddhism or oriental thought if it mattered to them.
What is all this wasteful verbiage? I've covered the history in detail. Europe was in the stoneages when many other civilizations were at the forefront of the world.... Get over yourself and the lies you were sold.
Through most of history, Europe has been a backwater. Only around 500BC did Europe’s southern fringe become an important part of the world, with the rise of sophisticated civilizations in Greece and Italy; but by AD500, it was sliding back into obscurity. If we are to explain Europe’s rise to globe dominance after AD1500 and its changing position in the last seventy-five years, we must first explain why the continent has usually been—as the Marxist economist Andre Gunder Frank once put it—no more than “a distant marginal peninsula.
2019 and pretending as if anyone bought this wildly ridiculous story that only white civilizations were the bastion of intellect, science, and philosophy...
Rome and Greece were nothing compared to the empires/civilizations before it and Cleopatra was a Greek slutbag who was given areas of Egypt as a prize for her good BJs once the whole civilization had collapsed. If I were to grant Greece/Rome recognition it would be as world's best LARP empires.
Human recorded history dates back 10s of thousands of years. Rome/Greece were prominent for a spec of that time period as was much of Europe.

That is pretty much what i said?.
There were other civilizations, however, ours come from european roots, thus the relevance of ancient european civilizations... With the renaissance, the greek and roman influence almost doubled. Even if there was a race of blue giants who dominated the world during aeons, greek and roman influence would be greater.
Getting back into topic.
I just found about Milinda Panha, it seems that indeed there was influence at least after the Alexander between buddhist and greeks. (Romans actually swalloed everything they saw, so if they saw buddhism, for sure they sallowed something of it)
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,532
|
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: Near Dylan]
#26404159 - 12/28/19 07:00 AM (4 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
55000$ is cheap! your post was good
opinions without knowledge are junk un this department.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
Rahz
Alive Again



Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
|
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: r00tcmplx]
#26404185 - 12/28/19 07:20 AM (4 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
r00tcmplx said: Also, i'm a millennial so I have no clue what you're referring to about the 80s. Snap out of the delusions and logical fallacies you're framing up.
You know, back when there was no internet and historical ignorance was excusable. Besides, Geeks and Romans didnt become "white" until quite recently. History was becoming more inclusive even prior to the internet.
-------------------- rahz comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace "You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi
|
living_failure
unworthy



Registered: 06/13/19
Posts: 352
Loc: spain, madrid
Last seen: 3 years, 8 months
|
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: r00tcmplx]
#26404212 - 12/28/19 07:53 AM (4 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
r00tcmplx said:
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: I have no doubt that you're right. Many Romans at various levels of society were probably conversant in Buddhism, at least to some extent. But whether it made a significant impact on Roman history is another matter, which is far from straightforward. OP's main question was whether some injection of Buddhist thought into the higher echelons of Roman society created "waves" of effects, and I have never even heard of evidence for this. I am not a scholar of ancient Rome, but have read some books from my armchair and Buddhism was never brought up at all, let alone as anything of significance. So I suppose all we really have is conjecture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_the_Roman_world https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_influences_on_Christianity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Buddhism https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7fxzdy/was_there_any_awareness_of_buddhism_in_ancient/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/74q57n/were_there_any_interactions_between_buddhism_and/dpp2qpr/?context=3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_Gnosticism https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/wikispeedia/wpcd/wp/g/Greco-Buddhism.htm

If you actually read those articles you linked, you will realize they actually agree with his point, and not with yours.
The romans acknowledged the existence of buddhism, but the influence on their culture is mostly irrelevant. The hellenistic and buddhist relationship is different of what you purpose. Buddhist influence in Hellenist culture is quoted as "legends says" and Hellenistic influence in buddhist culture is so clear than you can even see how statues of buddha changes after the Hellenic influence.
Funnily enough, one of the wikipedia quotes (number 37) just tells about the existence of two types of buddhist without quoting the source. But the source it is here, and it from Clement of Alexandria, a Hellenist teologist. Take it or leave it, centuries after Plato of the Stoicism, which he himself consider the two most influential things in his thought (and not buddhism, as you wish it to be).
|
r00tcmplx
Stranger

Registered: 02/19/18
Posts: 419
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
|
|
Quote:
living_failure said:
Quote:
r00tcmplx said:
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: I have no doubt that you're right. Many Romans at various levels of society were probably conversant in Buddhism, at least to some extent. But whether it made a significant impact on Roman history is another matter, which is far from straightforward. OP's main question was whether some injection of Buddhist thought into the higher echelons of Roman society created "waves" of effects, and I have never even heard of evidence for this. I am not a scholar of ancient Rome, but have read some books from my armchair and Buddhism was never brought up at all, let alone as anything of significance. So I suppose all we really have is conjecture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_the_Roman_world https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_influences_on_Christianity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Buddhism https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7fxzdy/was_there_any_awareness_of_buddhism_in_ancient/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/74q57n/were_there_any_interactions_between_buddhism_and/dpp2qpr/?context=3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_Gnosticism https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/wikispeedia/wpcd/wp/g/Greco-Buddhism.htm

If you actually read those articles you linked, you will realize they actually agree with his point, and not with yours.
The romans acknowledged the existence of buddhism, but the influence on their culture is mostly irrelevant. The hellenistic and buddhist relationship is different of what you purpose. Buddhist influence in Hellenist culture is quoted as "legends says" and Hellenistic influence in buddhist culture is so clear than you can even see how statues of buddha changes after the Hellenic influence.
Funnily enough, one of the wikipedia quotes (number 37) just tells about the existence of two types of buddhist without quoting the source. But the source it is here, and it from Clement of Alexandria, a Hellenist teologist. Take it or leave it, centuries after Plato of the Stoicism, which he himself consider the two most influential things in his thought (and not buddhism, as you wish it to be).
If you actually read past what OP is inquiring about and what the links highlight among a pretty lengthy history of exchange, the point was to show that in 1-2 minutes one can find the information they are looking for which highlights exchange and influence. To what degree that exchange/influence occurred beyond being in someone's head and knowing their thoughts is inconclusive. My point was to highlight that the exchange and influence occurred... easily confirmed.
Also, I made reference to timing in which there were far more established empires/cultures of influence and import before Rome/Greek empires were established. In such a way, it is far easier to establish potential influence chains.
I have no clue what you're trying to get at but you seem to have misinterpreted my post
Edited by r00tcmplx (12/28/19 12:44 PM)
|
|