Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   North Spore Injection Grain Bag   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4  [ show all ]
Offlinekitten6
hiker
Male
Registered: 05/13/19
Posts: 96
Loc: UK 0161
Last seen: 13 hours, 52 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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offliner00tcmplx
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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineliving_failure
unworthy
Male


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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNear Dylan
Shitpost Artist


Registered: 07/29/15
Posts: 13,929
Last seen: 6 days, 21 hours
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: DividedQuantum] * 1
    #26403394 - 12/27/19 06:01 PM (4 years, 1 month ago)

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.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male


Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #26403638 - 12/27/19 08:39 PM (4 years, 1 month ago)

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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offliner00tcmplx
Stranger

Registered: 02/19/18
Posts: 419
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: living_failure]
    #26403695 - 12/27/19 09:12 PM (4 years, 1 month ago)

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.

:canthelpbutlaugh:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offliner00tcmplx
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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offliner00tcmplx
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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offliner00tcmplx
Stranger

Registered: 02/19/18
Posts: 419
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #26403724 - 12/27/19 09:32 PM (4 years, 1 month ago)

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

:clintonshuh:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offliner00tcmplx
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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineliving_failure
unworthy
Male


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.

:canthelpbutlaugh:




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)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,531
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.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineliving_failure
unworthy
Male


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

:clintonshuh:





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).


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offliner00tcmplx
Stranger

Registered: 02/19/18
Posts: 419
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: living_failure]
    #26404572 - 12/28/19 11:56 AM (4 years, 1 month ago)

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

:clintonshuh:





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)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offliner00tcmplx
Stranger

Registered: 02/19/18
Posts: 419
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: Rahz]
    #26404633 - 12/28/19 12:40 PM (4 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Rahz said:
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 didn't become "white" until quite recently. History was becoming more inclusive even prior to the internet.




I understand the soap-box you're attempting to preach from (Muh new age love .. we all is one) and in that I see you ignoring what I have stated and mis-characterization therein in order to go on your own tirade. Focus on the topic at hand and it will be easier to make contributions.

My words stand. If you want to directly challenge them with supporting facts, go for it. Greece/Rome were empires who conquered many opposing cultures/empires. They were included and folded into Rome (one part of its eventual undoing) because it brought more tax revenue/strength for a time into the empire. There were multiple classes in Rome, the highest echelon and empire were ruled primarily by 'established individuals' the same as all of its spin-off empires crafted in its own vein. There wasn't the concept of modern racism and there couldn't have been per the model Rome pursued which was conquer/expand/fold people into Rome and empower the empire. In that comes the direct address of OP's original inquiry : Rome heavily influenced and was heavily influenced by outside cultures.
My point was to make this glaringly obvious.

If by 'inclusive' you mean that Rome contained the many people and there were no systematic barriers to one's standing .. Indeed. However, at the upper echelons towards 'Rome' proper there was a clear distinguishable characteristic. Towards its conquered regions there was indeed a different makeup. This varied wildly with time which in part lead to its demise.

I don't need a history lesson or my words curbed by some 'love is all' posture. I stated what I stated. If you disagree, form sound arguments as to why its wrong.

I myself am of mixed race particular leaning towards white ad-mixture. So  fall-back with your personal directed rant. I can't reference your historical ignorance because all you've managed to do is make directed personal comments towards me and rant about 'we all are one'.

Stick to the topic and OP and not me.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekitten6
hiker
Male
Registered: 05/13/19
Posts: 96
Loc: UK 0161
Last seen: 13 hours, 52 minutes
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: r00tcmplx] * 1
    #26404641 - 12/28/19 12:45 PM (4 years, 1 month ago)

ahhh guys I messed up, It wasn't the romans that I was meant to be talking about, it was the greeks, the buddhists had a large influence on the greeks and i many people believe that it is the buddhists that introduced the greeks to stoicism. There was a strong link between buddhists and greeks for a time, they call it greco-buddhism

In fact this statue of guatama was made by the greeks,


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Buddhism


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineliving_failure
unworthy
Male


Registered: 06/13/19
Posts: 352
Loc: spain, madrid
Last seen: 3 years, 8 months
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: kitten6]
    #26404676 - 12/28/19 01:01 PM (4 years, 1 month ago)

You can actually read how stoicism arrived in helenistic culture and stoicism it arrived at more or less the same time the fist strong interactions between helens and buddhists (Alexander). But you must also take into consideration that stoicism could be considered a "son" of the cynicism.

Since, even with similarities, buddhism and stoicism is clearly different, we can just infer that it is just a coincidence.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekitten6
hiker
Male
Registered: 05/13/19
Posts: 96
Loc: UK 0161
Last seen: 13 hours, 52 minutes
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: living_failure]
    #26404695 - 12/28/19 01:13 PM (4 years, 1 month ago)

yes that is a given stoicism and buddhism are two different things, but the Greek empire owned the Ghandharan colony, where Greeks were Buddhists, it could be that Stoicism came from Buddhism, that the Roman Empire under Marcus Aurelius (a prominent stoic) could owe its greatness to the Buddha. King Ashoka who preserved the Buddha's teachings 200 years after his death, wrote in Greek, Hebrew, and Sanskrit.

You should know that Stoicism is nearly identical to Early Buddhism, and that Albert Ellis, founder of REBT which is now CBT, created his system based on Stoicism and Buddhism.

The Indo-Greek King, King Menander I, became a Buddhist and attained enlightenment, he has a whole book about him debating with monks in the pali Nikayas called the Milanda Panha.


Edited by kitten6 (12/28/19 01:15 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male


Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: r00tcmplx]
    #26404705 - 12/28/19 01:19 PM (4 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

r00tcmplx said:
Quote:

Rahz said:
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 didn't become "white" until quite recently. History was becoming more inclusive even prior to the internet.




I understand the soap-box you're attempting to preach from (Muh new age love .. we all is one) and in that I see you ignoring what I have stated and mis-characterization therein in order to go on your own tirade. Focus on the topic at hand and it will be easier to make contributions.

My words stand. If you want to directly challenge them with supporting facts, go for it. Greece/Rome were empires who conquered many opposing cultures/empires. They were included and folded into Rome (one part of its eventual undoing) because it brought more tax revenue/strength for a time into the empire. There were multiple classes in Rome, the highest echelon and empire were ruled primarily by 'established individuals' the same as all of its spin-off empires crafted in its own vein. There wasn't the concept of modern racism and there couldn't have been per the model Rome pursued which was conquer/expand/fold people into Rome and empower the empire. In that comes the direct address of OP's original inquiry : Rome heavily influenced and was heavily influenced by outside cultures.
My point was to make this glaringly obvious.

If by 'inclusive' you mean that Rome contained the many people and there were no systematic barriers to one's standing .. Indeed. However, at the upper echelons towards 'Rome' proper there was a clear distinguishable characteristic. Towards its conquered regions there was indeed a different makeup. This varied wildly with time which in part lead to its demise.

I don't need a history lesson or my words curbed by some 'love is all' posture. I stated what I stated. If you disagree, form sound arguments as to why its wrong.

I myself am of mixed race particular leaning towards white ad-mixture. So  fall-back with your personal directed rant. I can't reference your historical ignorance because all you've managed to do is make directed personal comments towards me and rant about 'we all are one'.

Stick to the topic and OP and not me.




By inclusive I meant that Greeks and Italians weren't considered white until the early 20th century. Romans were mostly influenced by the Greeks and other local civilizations, who were in turn influenced by other locals, slowly spreading out through time. It is reasonable to suggest Greek culture was influenced by Mesopotamia and Egypt so that would be the next step back for Rome, which pre-dates Buddhism.

Anyway, has nothing to do with "new age love" or oneness and everything to do with the plethora of information available today which is impossible to ignore.


--------------------
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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineliving_failure
unworthy
Male


Registered: 06/13/19
Posts: 352
Loc: spain, madrid
Last seen: 3 years, 8 months
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: r00tcmplx]
    #26404710 - 12/28/19 01:22 PM (4 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

r00tcmplx said:

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





Even if there were other empires, the point is, when someone study european civilization history the actual past of european civilization history is actually quite literal more influential than other distant empires.
There is no "white conspiracy" as someone already pointed you.

And even then, i pointed to you that with the articles you found that i not only did indeed read, but even pointed out after reading them that they don't show a "strong influence" but a light almost not existent one.

For example this text that i quoted, have been copied and modified a lot of times. Making the validity and veracity a little harder, even taking that into account, the text itself talk about 30000 monks went from Alexandria to Sri lanka.
Such amount of people would be something actually someone else should have talked about, and since it is not another text speaking about it, we can take it as imagination instead of history authenticity. That doesn't mean that there wasn't an interaction between greeks and buddhist, but that it just doesn't prove it was influential at all. Which is the point of the thread


For example, here in Spain where there is a CLEAR history bias on older fold (fascist regime)spanish historians believe in the Cagayan battles. That something like 40 Spanish soldiers defeated something like 1000 samurais.
Of course, if something actually read more about the stuff, you can realize it was mostly a contraband battle between corrupt spanish army (lying in the letters) and taiwanesse pirates. That being the reason the only memory of it happening is of the spanish army...


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineliving_failure
unworthy
Male


Registered: 06/13/19
Posts: 352
Loc: spain, madrid
Last seen: 3 years, 8 months
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: kitten6] * 1
    #26404732 - 12/28/19 01:34 PM (4 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

kitten6 said:
yes that is a given stoicism and buddhism are two different things, but the Greek empire owned the Ghandharan colony, where Greeks were Buddhists, it could be that Stoicism came from Buddhism, that the Roman Empire under Marcus Aurelius (a prominent stoic) could owe its greatness to the Buddha. King Ashoka who preserved the Buddha's teachings 200 years after his death, wrote in Greek, Hebrew, and Sanskrit.

You should know that Stoicism is nearly identical to Early Buddhism, and that Albert Ellis, founder of REBT which is now CBT, created his system based on Stoicism and Buddhism.

The Indo-Greek King, King Menander I, became a Buddhist and attained enlightenment, he has a whole book about him debating with monks in the pali Nikayas called the Milanda Panha.




I know about that text, i quoted it in my last post.
It just proves that an indo-greek king switched to buddhist religion.
Probably he tried to switch religious to avoid a civil revolt (similar of what happened to romans and christianism). I just checked the book, and it tells there was indeed a civil revolt, however i have doubts about the book veracity or historical events.
It does not prove anything of remote relationship between stoicism and buddhism, since the father of stoicism is almost two centuries older. (cynicism, even more).


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offliner00tcmplx
Stranger

Registered: 02/19/18
Posts: 419
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: Rahz]
    #26404862 - 12/28/19 02:53 PM (4 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Rahz said:
By inclusive I meant that Greeks and Italians weren't considered white until the early 20th century. Romans were mostly influenced by the Greeks and other local civilizations, who were in turn influenced by other locals, slowly spreading out through time. It is reasonable to suggest Greek culture was influenced by Mesopotamia and Egypt so that would be the next step back for Rome, which pre-dates Buddhism.




If you slow down enough and read, it's exactly what I stated and was referring to so as to, in reference to OP, have no doubts about outside influences from surrounding empires folded into their corpus of knowledge and thought. In that you re-state my very point : Rome/Greek weren't white. Their bodies of knowledge and composition were from all over the world thus framing it as a 'white' empire is a false representation as it was am empire built on the backs of knowledge from tons of other might empires/civilizations.

Quote:

Rahz said:
Anyway, has nothing to do with "new age love" or oneness and everything to do with the plethora of information available today which is impossible to ignore.



Which was directly referenced and my initial statement.
I'm glad were done with this exchange and arrived at a consensus


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offliner00tcmplx
Stranger

Registered: 02/19/18
Posts: 419
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: living_failure]
    #26404883 - 12/28/19 03:05 PM (4 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

living_failure said:
Even if there were other empires, the point is, when someone study european civilization history the actual past of european civilization history is actually quite literal more influential than other distant empires.
There is no "white conspiracy" as someone already pointed you.





What is Europe at this time? What is Rome today? What is Rome at its peak?  If you are a study of Roman history and the extent of the empire (peak) and its outward and inward influences, you clearly are aware of the geographical/cultural range of Rome such that there is no compass of 'European civilization'. So, you're either saying that Rome was primarily a 'white european' civilization or it wasn't and was instead a huge amalgamation of cultures and influences. Which is it?

There is no conspiracy nor was one stated on my behalf. You are interestingly bringing up my main point in your statement above. So which is it o' scholar of european history?

Quote:

living_failure said:
And even then, i pointed to you that with the articles you found that i not only did indeed read, but even pointed out after reading them that they don't show a "strong influence" but a light almost not existent one.




I gathered those links in less than 2 min. from google. I didn't read them nor do I need to as I already have a firm grasp of history. My point in putting them here without comment was to show how easy it is to get an answer to a particular inquiry such that there is no need to debate it. The information is all over the web. Please point out where I explicitly stated that Buddhism had a heavy influence on Rome?


Quote:

living_failure said:
etc etc...



Again, I provided the links to show how easy it was to find an answer.
Why the reaction gif under? Because even per the links, one cannot say what did or didn't influence lightly or heavily unless you can go back in time and live in a person's mind. I don't write down all of my thoughts or influences like a catalog of my life. And sometimes when I put forth thoughts I even consciously omit influences for a range of reasons.

My overarching point was that Rome/Greece aren't majestic 'white European empires' that are the center of human history. They're a blip on the radar and an amalgamation of a range of other pre-dated civilizations and empires and cultural ad-mixtures/groupings.

The end. So, I ask again :
> Was Rome/Greece primarily a 'white european' Empire of Grand
or
> Were Rome/Greece huge far stretching empires that were an amalgamation of various different people's culture, science, philosophy, math, astrology, etc etc?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekitten6
hiker
Male
Registered: 05/13/19
Posts: 96
Loc: UK 0161
Last seen: 13 hours, 52 minutes
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: living_failure]
    #26404897 - 12/28/19 03:15 PM (4 years, 1 month ago)

I guess yea it seems unlikely that Buddhism was foundational to stoicism. I guess though before buddhism you have indian philosophy which existed around 1000BC, I think alot of these philosophies travelled down the silk road as did many things,

Do you think it's possible that greek philosophies including cynicism may have originated from other philosophies that came down the silk road?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offliner00tcmplx
Stranger

Registered: 02/19/18
Posts: 419
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: kitten6]
    #26404935 - 12/28/19 03:37 PM (4 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

kitten6 said:
I guess yea it seems unlikely that Buddhism was foundational to stoicism. I guess though before buddhism you have indian philosophy which existed around 1000BC, I think alot of these philosophies travelled down the silk road as did many things,

Do you think it's possible that greek philosophies including cynicism may have originated from other philosophies that came down the silk road?




Buddhism predates Stoicism by 200 years as do a lot of 'philosophies' and theologies in other regions.  In my opinion, observation, practice, and because mainstream perception and history are tilted towards European centric achievement/thought/theology/philosophy and the empires of Rome/Greece glorified above others, what I simply do is cover a lot more history outside of Europe and consciously redress my perception and understanding of human history across the board.

Who influenced who.. Who came before who/etc
I only entertain these thoughts and pursue such knowledge so as to re-dress history and come to a more accurate/truthful perception which is that empires/culture/civilizations/ethnic groups rise and fall. Have for all of history. With any progress there are influences and foundations built by previous people. Where those people came from, isn't a big deal. We stand on the shoulder of giants. For a time, the east and many other civilizations/empires were far ahead of Europe. For a time, Europe was far ahead of the east and many other civilizations/empires.

Ping/pong - tick/tock is the pattern. Sometimes you're up. Sometimes you're down. Sometimes things are common sense. Sometimes they require deeper inquiry. Deep schools of thought philosophy of time's past are common sense in present and so thus we move forward and build upon it.

Whereas the east had and still maintains a far more spiritually, philosophical, and theologically mature religion of personal development and enlightenment, the religion of conquest born out of Europe and personal figures therein still blankets the world and still leads to armed conflict and idiocy.

Buddhism/Stoicism...
Do yourself a favor.. Go around and ask the average person if they know what Buddhism is. Then ask the same person what Stoicism is.

By and large (>50%) will know what Buddhism is but have no idea what in the world is Stoicism. My point? One cultural grouping likes to posture and postulate another actually put a lot of common schools of thought of the great Rome/Greece into practice.. Many did so long before it was even thought of being discussed in the great halls of Rome/Greece.

The point at this juncture in history is to grasp the concept not where it came from and who influenced who...Except of course if you are attempting to strip the implied bias from what you have been taught.
The more true philosophies and theologies are practiced widely in a person's day to day and in their waking lives. A good deal of others are simply wild fantasy, theory, and ruminations of the mind to extremes and while such things have become a favored mental masturbation past time, in this day and age, there isn't much emphasis placed on it as people are instead 'living their thoughts/fantasies' out vs entertaining the thoughts of it in their heads ad nauseam.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male


Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: r00tcmplx]
    #26404940 - 12/28/19 03:38 PM (4 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

r00tcmplx said:
Quote:

Rahz said:
By inclusive I meant that Greeks and Italians weren't considered white until the early 20th century. Romans were mostly influenced by the Greeks and other local civilizations, who were in turn influenced by other locals, slowly spreading out through time. It is reasonable to suggest Greek culture was influenced by Mesopotamia and Egypt so that would be the next step back for Rome, which pre-dates Buddhism.




If you slow down enough and read, it's exactly what I stated and was referring to so as to, in reference to OP, have no doubts about outside influences from surrounding empires folded into their corpus of knowledge and thought. In that you re-state my very point : Rome/Greek weren't white. Their bodies of knowledge and composition were from all over the world thus framing it as a 'white' empire is a false representation as it was am empire built on the backs of knowledge from tons of other might empires/civilizations.

Quote:

Rahz said:
Anyway, has nothing to do with "new age love" or oneness and everything to do with the plethora of information available today which is impossible to ignore.



Which was directly referenced and my initial statement.
I'm glad were done with this exchange and arrived at a consensus




I've been reading just fine friend. And who falsely represented anything as white? Didn't you bring that up when you suggested the Romans and Greeks copied from colored civilizations? I'm sure you don't mean to set up a strawman.


--------------------
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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offliner00tcmplx
Stranger

Registered: 02/19/18
Posts: 419
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: Rahz]
    #26404957 - 12/28/19 03:47 PM (4 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Rahz said:
I've been reading just fine friend. And who falsely represented anything as white? Didn't you bring that up when you suggested the Romans and Greeks copied from colored civilizations? I'm sure you don't mean to set up a strawman.



Pick one :

> Rome/Greece were mainly great 'white European empires' based on 'white European history and school of thought'.

> Rome/Greece were huge amalgamation of various people's civilizations/empires that were conquered over time rendering Rome/Greece's achievements not that of 'white European' manufacture but of the collective and equal contributions of diverse groups that composed it including former and independent colored civilizations.

Since you want to beat around the bush, make clear where you stand by picking one of the above. Or, if you want to sliver some more, feel free to add your own version. In that will be you finally bringing to bear a critical thought as opposed to playing on mine.


Edited by r00tcmplx (12/28/19 03:58 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekitten6
hiker
Male
Registered: 05/13/19
Posts: 96
Loc: UK 0161
Last seen: 13 hours, 52 minutes
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: r00tcmplx] * 1
    #26405113 - 12/28/19 05:36 PM (4 years, 1 month ago)

yes that may be true that things a schema that a lot of people has is that Europe was the birthplace of science and rational thinking, obviously that's not true, it's just a very marketable lie.
And many people think that science is the be all/end all method of understanding and explaining the world that is wrong as well of course, the truth is in ourselves and in everyone and everything the god within, the soul of god is what brings us this seemingly linear flow of causality. And the ancient people knew that well before the Greeks.

I think the Greeks were unoriginal, because they had their own problems that they failed to admit or even notice in many cases. The Greeks over-complicated things instead of trying to listen for the answers in their heart and work gradually on seeing the bigger picture of god, they would come up with preconceived conclusions and assumptions then specialize and pass those explanations down to their apprentices, the apprentices would conflict against each other in the name of their master. Disagreements ran deep forming ideologies, including stoicism and cynicism. Greeks would try to come up with 'a' truth only to end up contradicting other truths. I'm not saying that all Greeks were wrong, but as a whole they were too focused on advancement. Like we are, in fact we're making the exact same mistakes they did, the ones that led to their downfall. We can't all be so impatient, what are we rushing for.

The world has the so called 'truths' and the contradictions they cause.
The isolated truth is not of this world, the one truth is not up for debate, that is what Buddhists would write about after going on their journeys of contemplation, the truth is often very simple, in fact, it could be written down on the side of an emerald.

I think Christianity was the best thing that ever happened to the Greeks, at least we know they can preserve their teachings of kindness.


Edited by kitten6 (12/28/19 05:39 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offliner00tcmplx
Stranger

Registered: 02/19/18
Posts: 419
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: kitten6]
    #26405171 - 12/28/19 06:13 PM (4 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

kitten6 said:
yes that may be true that things a schema that a lot of people has is that Europe was the birthplace of science and rational thinking, obviously that's not true, it's just a very marketable lie.
And many people think that science is the be all/end all method of understanding and explaining the world that is wrong as well of course, the truth is in ourselves and in everyone and everything the god within, the soul of god is what brings us this seemingly linear flow of causality. And the ancient people knew that well before the Greeks.




100% agree.

Quote:

kitten6 said:
I think the Greeks were unoriginal, because they had their own problems that they failed to admit or even notice in many cases. The Greeks over-complicated things instead of trying to listen for the answers in their heart and work gradually on seeing the bigger picture of god, they would come up with preconceived conclusions and assumptions then specialize and pass those explanations down to their apprentices, the apprentices would conflict against each other in the name of their master.
100% agree which is why I focus very little of my time/attention on the Greeks/Romans and their non universal school of thought most certainly when it comes to philosophy and theology
This was indeed more of my point but better stated. They are held as the bastion of thought/progress but I consider them as a bunch of noblemen who over-complicated the world because they spent more time theorizing about it vs living it... And in effect retraced with muddy shoes earlier plumbed ground. The Romans/Greeks accomplished a lot and moved humanity forward but only as a collective amalgamation of culture/thought and only in their time vs the other times in history when other civilizations/cultural groupings did the same.


Quote:

kitten6 said:
Disagreements ran deep forming ideologies, including stoicism and cynicism. Greeks would try to come up with 'a' truth only to end up contradicting other truths. I'm not saying that all Greeks were wrong, but as a whole they were too focused on advancement.




100% agree.

Quote:

kitten6 said:
Like we are, in fact we're making the exact same mistakes they did, the ones that led to their downfall. We can't all be so impatient, what are we rushing for.




The west is modeled after Rome's template and is follow it in many ways indeed. I personally don't subscribe to such schools of thought and life as I have more than enough understanding of history and reality to grasp when something is fundamentally flawed even when and especially when institution of power continue to endorse it.

Quote:

kitten6 said:
The world has the so called 'truths' and the contradictions they cause.
The isolated truth is not of this world, the one truth is not up for debate, that is what Buddhists would write about after going on their journeys of contemplation, the truth is often very simple, in fact, it could be written down on the side of an emerald.




100% agree

I don't disagree with anything above stated.
100% agree in fact. I just can't believe the mainstream narrative was different for so long. O'well. Forward we go


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male


Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: r00tcmplx]
    #26405216 - 12/28/19 06:34 PM (4 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

r00tcmplx said:
Quote:

Rahz said:
I've been reading just fine friend. And who falsely represented anything as white? Didn't you bring that up when you suggested the Romans and Greeks copied from colored civilizations? I'm sure you don't mean to set up a strawman.



Pick one :

> Rome/Greece were mainly great 'white European empires' based on 'white European history and school of thought'.

> Rome/Greece were huge amalgamation of various people's civilizations/empires that were conquered over time rendering Rome/Greece's achievements not that of 'white European' manufacture but of the collective and equal contributions of diverse groups that composed it including former and independent colored civilizations.

Since you want to beat around the bush, make clear where you stand by picking one of the above. Or, if you want to sliver some more, feel free to add your own version. In that will be you finally bringing to bear a critical thought as opposed to playing on mine.




I don't think I've slivered. You took things personally and made a big deal out of it. I can tell someone is upset when they tell me what to talk about and when to quit talking and what to do. Not my fault or problem.

Anyway, the salient point is that Rome and by extension Greeks were a major influence on Europe as a whole. I think we agree on this. I took exception to your whiteness remarks and thought it odd you would suggest Greeks and Romans copied colored people which kinda makes it look like you're not sure what color they are. But as I originally said, who cares? I don't.


--------------------
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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offliner00tcmplx
Stranger

Registered: 02/19/18
Posts: 419
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: Rahz]
    #26405247 - 12/28/19 06:53 PM (4 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Rahz said:
Quote:

r00tcmplx said:
Quote:

Rahz said:
I've been reading just fine friend. And who falsely represented anything as white? Didn't you bring that up when you suggested the Romans and Greeks copied from colored civilizations? I'm sure you don't mean to set up a strawman.



Pick one :

> Rome/Greece were mainly great 'white European empires' based on 'white European history and school of thought'.

> Rome/Greece were huge amalgamation of various people's civilizations/empires that were conquered over time rendering Rome/Greece's achievements not that of 'white European' manufacture but of the collective and equal contributions of diverse groups that composed it including former and independent colored civilizations.

Since you want to beat around the bush, make clear where you stand by picking one of the above. Or, if you want to sliver some more, feel free to add your own version. In that will be you finally bringing to bear a critical thought as opposed to playing on mine.




I don't think I've slivered. You took things personally and made a big deal out of it. I can tell someone is upset when they tell me what to talk about and when to quit talking and what to do. Not my fault or problem.

Anyway, the salient point is that Rome and by extension Greeks were a major influence on Europe as a whole. I think we agree on this. I took exception to your whiteness remarks and thought it odd you would suggest Greeks and Romans copied colored people which kinda makes it look like you're not sure what color they are. But as I originally said, who cares? I don't.




Yeah so no comment when your rambling is nailed to a wall.
I know when someone is systematically wasting my time and have nothing of value to say and I know how to handle that. My emotions relate to having wasted my time with you in the first place.

*cheers

And thank you to kitten6 (OP) for having and extracting knowledge and wisdom.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male


Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: r00tcmplx]
    #26405293 - 12/28/19 07:32 PM (4 years, 1 month ago)

I did in fact address your two choices, before and after you gave them to me. Your emotions have got in the way of any reasonable correspondence. You waste your own time... though I do not consider it a waste.


--------------------
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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNear Dylan
Shitpost Artist


Registered: 07/29/15
Posts: 13,929
Last seen: 6 days, 21 hours
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: r00tcmplx]
    #26405512 - 12/28/19 11:25 PM (4 years, 1 month ago)



--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offliner00tcmplx
Stranger

Registered: 02/19/18
Posts: 419
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: Near Dylan]
    #26405536 - 12/28/19 11:55 PM (4 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Near Dylan said:
Quote:

r00tcmplx said:
Also, what does the $55k refer to? That was the total cost of attendance for a year at my University.



Clearly they didnt want you that much.

Quote:

r00tcmplx said:
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




:burke: nice reddit and wikipedia links.




No comment was provided on the links on my behalf.
They were posted to see how easy it was to find information pertaining to OP's question. It was compiled in 1 to 5 mins and posted. My position was detailed and supported and ultimately supported by a well reasoned OP.

"Clearly they didn't want you that much.."
What does this even mean?
As this is attracting a Jerry Springer crowd, I'm going to use it to add names to my filter.
So keep them coming whoever else has any bum like comments.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineliving_failure
unworthy
Male


Registered: 06/13/19
Posts: 352
Loc: spain, madrid
Last seen: 3 years, 8 months
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: r00tcmplx] * 1
    #26405785 - 12/29/19 06:55 AM (4 years, 1 month ago)

your opinion is not at all supported, the texts you quoted have no values that proves your points.

there is no white conspiracy to make greek and romans more influential than they were to european culture, because they were.

If you want to discuss that European culture holds no meaning because roman empire was bigger than europe you are crazy.


I've never said or stated that roman empire was homogeneous and much less stated that Hellenistic philosophy was homogeneous...
Of course, everyone knows that Alexander empire was specially heterogeneous.


Now, thinking that old greek philosophy was influenced by buddhist thought is a risky claim.


In order to prove things historically, one must search for historic clues and texts, otherwise one might fall in "legends says". And, without historically validation, you just hold a bullshit opinion which might be true or false but nobody knows.

I have a lot of bullshit opinions, or opinions just based on rationality, but i don't pretend them to be prove by just a google search linking wikipedia void articles and reddit, omg.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNear Dylan
Shitpost Artist


Registered: 07/29/15
Posts: 13,929
Last seen: 6 days, 21 hours
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: living_failure] * 1
    #26405810 - 12/29/19 07:14 AM (4 years, 1 month ago)

I think he blocked you dude...

One less underaged user who thinks they're smarter than everyone. Guy reads one wikipedia article about Etruscans and then tells everyone the world is a lie lol.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekitten6
hiker
Male
Registered: 05/13/19
Posts: 96
Loc: UK 0161
Last seen: 13 hours, 52 minutes
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: living_failure]
    #26406513 - 12/29/19 03:04 PM (4 years, 1 month ago)

i think you misunderstand, we're not trying to downplay the role of the Greeks in European culture, we wouldn't be anywhere near where we are now if it weren't for the Greeks. It was Greek ideas that served as a basis for the time of questioning that was the renaissance. And the Greeks with their illustrations and explanations giving rise to the scientific method which we claim to be responsible for all the crazy advancements we've been making in the past hundred - hundred and fifty years.

But in terms of actual philosophical thought and teachings, what we're actually talking about is the possibility that their philosophies originated from the other side of the silk road. The travelling Greek philosophers would come back to Greece write a few books and start a school. Who knows where their ideas came from. The Greeks aren't famed for their meditation in fact, I've heard things about the Greeks putting trippy shit into their wine, maybe that's where they get their inspiration from. In the East they didn't need to drink trippy wine, they meditated and focused on purity, they would silence themselves and find the answers deep within.

The Greeks were the ones who put truth up for debate, and I think that was one of their biggest mistakes. The Greeks wrote their books and debated and in the end they were taken over by Rome, the debate ended abruptly, not that it was ever going to end anyway. And in the end the books of the Greeks were translated redistributed throughout Europe by Rome, the unfinished works of the most famous philosophers that had too much pride, blown all around Europe and once the Romans converted to Christianity as did the Greeks on their downfall, the books were stored in monastic libraries. Monasteries were the sacred place of healing and discovery during the dark ages, monasteries were the healthcare practice, nuns and monks were taught Hippocrates and  Galen, which became dogmatic practices, until the renaissance.

The renaissance was the point of breakthrough for Greek dogmas, bringing us out of the dark ages. The Greeks taught us how to advance, but only held us back when it came down to actually advancing.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineliving_failure
unworthy
Male


Registered: 06/13/19
Posts: 352
Loc: spain, madrid
Last seen: 3 years, 8 months
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: kitten6]
    #26406543 - 12/29/19 03:20 PM (4 years, 1 month ago)

Yea kitten, but i honestly believe you and the other guy are not on the same boat.

You are just looking for information to prove if your idea is true or false.
He just spitted that it was not only true, but that the history as we know it was false...

The problem with the silk road idea, it is that is unlikely that greeks didn't write about any buddhist fella while they write about anyone discussing about virtue or about the truth.

There is however, the remote possibility that it was burned during the fall of Alexandria.


I however, find more rational to believe that the similarities between early buddhism (i really need to find more about early buddhism after you quoted it) and stoicism is based because it is a rationalization of an emotional response.
The response of trying to remain calm and in control in troublesome situations.

I in no case mean that that is everything stoicism is about, but that it is indeed what i find the most logical explanation of the emotional cause for it. Being the fact that it is rational and logical what makes it viable.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinekitten6
hiker
Male
Registered: 05/13/19
Posts: 96
Loc: UK 0161
Last seen: 13 hours, 52 minutes
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: living_failure] * 1
    #26406589 - 12/29/19 03:55 PM (4 years, 1 month ago)

Yes early buddhism was not so much a religion, everything begins small, but buddhism outgrew its early roots in order to benefit the many people who decided to turn to buddhism after guatama.

Buddhism like taoism or any eastern philosophy outlines the duality that is in the nature of all things. There is an opposite to everything and it is the balance between the two extremes that allows one to move forward, neutrality and spirituality in all situations. Guatama called it the middle way,

To calm the oscillations and ripples in the puddle that is your mind and when it is finally completely calm, you will be able to see yourself clearly in the reflection. And when you can see yourself at the deepest level, you can forget yourself and move on to other things, the understanding and satisfaction of your irrationality becomes a novelty. Pure sanity and rationale, the ability to remain unclouded without ripples in the most stressful of situations, the key is to see through stress and let your mind become more flexible to work around anything.

That is stoicism i guess, and also quoted from early Buddhist teachings.
The main difference between stoicism and the early Buddhist teachings is that stoicism is actually beneficial to living in the modern world and dealing with the daily issues of today. Stoicism will help you deal with the short term feelings and issues, short term stress. Allowing you to overcome hurdles that otherwise your emotions would stop you from overcoming.

Stoicism doesn't go as far as to address the dreams and wants of mortals. Th long term stress factors in life, dreams, goals. The path of enlightenment in Buddhism is the preparation for immortality. When you are enlightened you are not reincarnated you remain above in the heavens, you become an observer from higher dimensions, time becomes a mountain range. You watch from above you lose your weight you become weightless.


Edited by kitten6 (12/29/19 03:57 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: kitten6]
    #26415465 - 01/04/20 02:41 AM (4 years, 25 days ago)

The Spartans were stoics. Seems it generally goes along with any military culture as its related to suppressing feelings, which helps when you're killing and torturing people. There is nothing particularly 'Buddhist' about stoicism.
In meditation feelings are allowed and not suppressed, just neither acted upon or clung to or avoided. Noted, experienced, & released; just another temporary manifestation or passing changing perception.

Also your notion of immortality and Buddhism is way off the mark. Not sure where you picked up this idea. On the contrary Anatta is one of the foundational ideas:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta

There are many versions & distortions of Buddhism just as there are among other Religions. For example Mormons vs Rattlesnake handlers in Texas, etc.

Anatta however is found in the earliest texts we have as regards Buddhism.

As the name "the Roman EMPIRE" shows it was a military enterprise (as does any map of its extent), and as such it was counter to the principles and teaching of Buddhism.

Of course like Jesus reform of Judaism, which later got turned into the violent inquisition & crusades, Buddhism got co-opted by the Japanese with their samurai culture at one point. In both these cases politics misused peaceful teachings.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,531
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: laughingdog]
    #26415535 - 01/04/20 05:46 AM (4 years, 25 days ago)

I think it was not the Greeks holding us back, but those who conquered the Greeks and who oppressed them who really held us back like the Romans, the Venetians, the Holy Roman empire, and to some extent the Ottomans, then the Nazi's, and finally NATO. Now Russia and China are beginning to infiltrate an control the land.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNear Dylan
Shitpost Artist


Registered: 07/29/15
Posts: 13,929
Last seen: 6 days, 21 hours
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: laughingdog]
    #26415617 - 01/04/20 07:49 AM (4 years, 25 days ago)

I would not at all say that the spartans were stoics, especially considering that stoicism as a philosophy did not even arise until, at the very least, many centuries after Sparta was founded and their culture/values developed.

More importantly tho, I don't see why you put the Spartans as representatives of the ancient greeks when in reality it was essentially the opposite. The Spartans were Dorians and saw themselves as foreign conquerors in their own land, hence their militaristic society. The greeks saw them as pretty alien, and they sure as hell saw the greeks as alien, and were very rarely very happy with each other. Sparing a few famous exceptions, of course.

Spartan culture was wildly different than that of the other greek city states, and regardless, it was just that. A city state. Who even at the height of their power and influence only controlled a portion of the Hellas region, most of their history only controlling their tiny capital, which I really would be more inclined to call a 'village' most of the time, rather than even a city-state. Lightyears away from being representative of ancient/classical greek culture.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,531
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: Near Dylan]
    #26415671 - 01/04/20 08:43 AM (4 years, 25 days ago)

lots of lovely places in the pellopanese (sparta) - olive groves and amphi-theatres - stones left in the weeds, still with great acoustics


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:


Edited by redgreenvines (01/04/20 08:44 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: Near Dylan]
    #26416079 - 01/04/20 01:52 PM (4 years, 25 days ago)

Quote:

Near Dylan said:
I would not at all say that the spartans were stoics, especially considering that stoicism as a philosophy did not even arise until, at the very least, many centuries after Sparta was founded and their culture/values developed.

More importantly tho, I don't see why you put the Spartans as representatives of the ancient greeks when in reality it was essentially the opposite. The Spartans were Dorians and saw themselves as foreign conquerors in their own land, hence their militaristic society. The greeks saw them as pretty alien, and they sure as hell saw the greeks as alien, and were very rarely very happy with each other. Sparing a few famous exceptions, of course.

Spartan culture was wildly different than that of the other greek city states, and regardless, it was just that. A city state. Who even at the height of their power and influence only controlled a portion of the Hellas region, most of their history only controlling their tiny capital, which I really would be more inclined to call a 'village' most of the time, rather than even a city-state. Lightyears away from being representative of ancient/classical greek culture.




Seems we are thinking of different meanings of stoic. One meaning could refer to a philosophy that arose at a specific historical time, another meaning is similar to having a 'stiff upper lip', or putting up with shit, not complaining, being responsible, and abandoning the search for personal pleasure.

I used Sparta as an example, of a military society, (not as representative of all Greeks), because of this well known story:

https://quatr.us/greeks/spartan-boy-fox-story.htm

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Sparta%2C+the+boy+and+the+fox&ia=web

My point was simply, that there are many instances of stoicism (meaning #2 below), & that in fact all soldiering & military endeavors require it. ( And this meaning predates the philosophy of Zeno of Citium, in Athens, in the early 3rd century BC).  So if Romans had this quality there is no reason to suppose they got if from Buddhism, which in fact has an opposing agenda, namely compassion & full awareness, etc.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stoicism
Definition of stoicism
1 capitalized : the philosophy of the Stoics
2 : indifference to pleasure or pain : IMPASSIVENESS


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,531
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: laughingdog]
    #26416219 - 01/04/20 03:41 PM (4 years, 25 days ago)

probably broken telephone before the invention of telephone:
the Spartans probably thought they had it right, but they heard wrong.
instead of "if you encounter the buddha throw him off the mountain", they heard
"if you  encounter a sick child throw him off the mountain".

bunch a right wing goofs!


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: redgreenvines]
    #26416761 - 01/04/20 10:05 PM (4 years, 24 days ago)

Neither the Roman legions nor the Spartans were much fun. Were a lot of bad apples long before the North Korean Government.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinegeorge698
Stranger

Registered: 01/08/17
Posts: 15
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: redgreenvines]
    #26423100 - 01/08/20 02:48 PM (4 years, 21 days ago)

Quote:

redgreenvines said:
probably broken telephone before the invention of telephone:
the Spartans probably thought they had it right, but they heard wrong.
instead of "if you encounter the buddha throw him off the mountain", they heard
"if you  encounter a sick child throw him off the mountain".

bunch a right wing goofs!



Not sure what is right wing on that, the former RDA or DDR used a similar approach in their birth control.

In view of overpopulation not a bad tactic, they had other motivs though


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePatrickKn
I'm a teapot

Registered: 07/10/11
Posts: 20,562
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: george698]
    #26431078 - 01/13/20 11:14 AM (4 years, 16 days ago)



Ancient Chinese Historian Describes The Roman Empire // 3rd century AD "Weilüe" // Primary Source


Edited by PatrickKn (01/13/20 11:15 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: PatrickKn]
    #26438502 - 01/17/20 12:32 PM (4 years, 12 days ago)

not exactly in the spirit of Buddhism



Title could be " Kill the mother fuckers"


Edited by laughingdog (01/17/20 12:34 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePatrickKn
I'm a teapot

Registered: 07/10/11
Posts: 20,562
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: laughingdog]
    #26438702 - 01/17/20 02:43 PM (4 years, 12 days ago)

Might not be in the spirit of Buddhism as a religion, but it's quite in line with Buddhism as a cultural identity. Buddhist cultures throughout the ages have been involved in war, and many sects have had warrior classes which were used to spread the religion itself. Not so different from the Western powers of the past.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: PatrickKn]
    #26438984 - 01/17/20 05:41 PM (4 years, 12 days ago)

got any references for your claims?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePatrickKn
I'm a teapot

Registered: 07/10/11
Posts: 20,562
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: PatrickKn]
    #26439008 - 01/17/20 05:56 PM (4 years, 12 days ago)

The imperial history of China and Japan from roughly 500 CE to the early 1900s come to mind off the top of my head. I'm not sure that references are entirely necessary unless there's something more specific at play. Just talking, not debating anything myself.


Edited by PatrickKn (01/17/20 06:08 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,531
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: PatrickKn]
    #26439802 - 01/18/20 07:55 AM (4 years, 11 days ago)

I don't think slavery is addressed in buddhism, although caste is pervasive.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: redgreenvines]
    #26439977 - 01/18/20 10:25 AM (4 years, 11 days ago)

Quote:

redgreenvines said:
I don't think slavery is addressed in buddhism, although caste is pervasive.




is that so?

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=buddha+and+caste+system&ia=web

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=buddha+and+slavery&ia=web


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,531
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: laughingdog] * 1
    #26440262 - 01/18/20 01:38 PM (4 years, 11 days ago)

So basically Buddhists are not supposed to have slaves but they can have servants because the idea of servitude and slavery are decoupled in the east, and the servant class is happy to abide, which is the essence of knowing one's caste even if it has been 'officially' abolished.

Buddhism does not really have a working recipe for society, but neither  does Christianity or Islam (which could use SHARIA but that would detract from modern culture). Empires however are very interested in recipes that keep the taxes rolling in.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
Re: the romans and the buddhists [Re: redgreenvines]
    #26440360 - 01/18/20 02:48 PM (4 years, 11 days ago)

Perhaps this is true of other religions as well, but the rules of monastics are very different from those for laypersons, and so are the goals, in Buddhism.
A monastic gives up worldly affairs to develop concentration, and has few possessions, as developing deep insight and emancipation are the goals. Obviously no servants for them.
Buddhism for laypeople is just to help them be somewhat kinder and happier. If these folks were asked to do what monastics do, and to give up their connections with their society & culture they simply wouldn't do it.

Among the links posted, on the caste & Buddhism issue, this one goes into some details as regards the subtleties, as one scrolls down and reads various posts:

https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/28291/what-is-the-opinion-of-buddhism-on-the-caste-system-and-untouchability-of-hindui

Historically there was a break from Hinduism on this issue, as well as the issue of perfecting a soul.

"However, what is special in Hinduism is that the caste system is found in the religious scriptures and is part of the religion. A religion-enforced caste system is not found in Buddhism. Buddhism also does not comment on the political ideology of lay societies e.g. democracy, capitalism, monarchy, socialism, communism etc."

The Indian caste system was & perhaps still is even post Mahatma Gandhi, particularly horrible:

https://www.thenotsoinnocentsabroad.com/blog/the-indian-caste-system-explained

Certainly they still have a lot of arranged marriages there.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   North Spore Injection Grain Bag   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Buddhism
( 1 2 3 all )
akb112211 4,268 47 02/02/09 11:06 AM
by durian_2008
* Buddhism Overview to correct Misunderstandings
( 1 2 3 4 all )
egghead1 8,864 77 05/13/05 06:05 PM
by Icelander
* On Mysticism and the Mandatory Madness of Irrationality relating to Buddhism, etc. deCypher 1,588 13 01/06/13 01:29 AM
by deCypher
* buddhism
( 1 2 3 all )
JCoke 4,629 46 01/21/05 01:58 PM
by Paou
* Why is Buddhism "hip"? SneezingPenis 2,149 19 07/26/07 11:11 PM
by Ravus
* Christianity + Buddhism
( 1 2 all )
Alnico 4,560 33 07/28/07 01:58 PM
by MarkostheGnostic
* Early Indian Buddhism Kremlin 840 4 10/31/03 09:07 PM
by Kremlin
* The Deconstruction of Buddhism. Icelander 1,507 6 12/01/05 04:07 PM
by Icelander

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
973 topic views. 2 members, 6 guests and 3 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.047 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 14 queries.