/jp/ - Otaku Culture

[Anonymous No.]

Reminder that the Greeks influenced Buddhism

Vajrapani is Hercules

As Buddhism expanded in Central Asia, and fused with Hellenistic influences into Greco-Buddhism, the Greek hero Heracles was adopted to represent Vajrapani. He was then typically depicted as a hairy, muscular athlete, wielding a short "diamond" club.

In Japan, Vajrapani is known as Shukongōshin (執金剛神, "Diamond rod-wielding god"), and has been the inspiration for the Niō, the wrath-filled and muscular guardian god of the Buddha, standing today at the entrance of many Buddhist temples under the appearance of frightening wrestler-like statues. He is also associated with Fudo-Myo, an incarnation of Acala and the prayer mantra for Fudo-Myo references him as the powerful wielder of the vajra.

Some suggest that the war deity Kartikeya, who bears the title Skanda is also a manifestation of Vajrapani, who bears some resemblance to Skanda because they both wield the vajra and are portrayed with flaming halos. He is also connected through Vajrapani through a theory to his connection to Greco-Buddhism, as Wei Tuo's image is reminiscent of the Heracles depiction of Vajrapani.

Greek gods are canon in Gensokyo

[Anonymous No.]

>>13106147
Hercales was Buddhisms first guardian

[Anonymous No.]

>>13106147
Pffffft.

If anything you've got it backwards don't you? The earliest Greek Philosophers (after the 'Sophists') were Stoics, were they not? The stoics rose after Alexander traveled East into India, did they not? The stoics sure do seem to take a lot after the Buddha, do they not? (Emotion is the cause of man's suffering, it's best to accept whatever life brings without getting excessively attached to anything, etc. etc.)

Plus the Buddha just predates them.

Read moar /lit/

[Anonymous No.]

>>13106155
(Plato and the Buddha would be alive around the same 100 year period), Europeans do have an enormous role in Buddhism.

Up until the Greco-Bactrians converted to Buddhism, Buddhism was entirely aniconic. The earliest Buddhist art is Greek. Greek gods and Buddhist-Hindu deities were conflated. The earliest depictions of Vajrapani (Angry guy who protects Buddhists) is fucking Hercules. Boreas is the wind god all across the Buddhist world. Tyche and Atlas are also present.

Buddhism spread both to Greece proper and into Asia thanks to Greeks. Chan Buddhism (The Chinese branch that would become Zen Buddhism when it hit Japan) was founded by a blue eyed angry Greek. Stoicism is basically "Buddhism for Romans".

People who say "Buddhism isn't a White people religion" are drooling retards. It would be less popular than fucking Jainism if it weren't for the Greeks.

[Anonymous No.]

>>13106162
>People who say "Buddhism isn't a White people religion" are drooling retards
Bitch I'll hurt you.

[Anonymous No.]

Which is better? Hinduism, Buddhism or Taoism?

[Anonymous No.]

>>13106162
>Up until the Greco-Bactrians converted to Buddhism, Buddhism was entirely aniconic
This part is true. And guess what? It's the absolute worst part of the extended Buddhist tradition. Teachings on Buddhist 'meditational deities' or just outright deities have nothing to do with Gotama's actual philosophy. It's just a bunch of crap woven into Buddhism to give it a wider appeal, like early Christianity adopting Pagan holidays.

>Buddhism spread both to Greece proper and into Asia thanks to Greeks.
I'm glad we agree then. The Greeks didn't influence Buddhism itself. They spread it around and also gave it a wider appeal by sticking in their fairy tales and superstitions.

Theravada Buddhism a best.

[Anonymous No.]

>>13106162
Buddha's teachings and Plato's "theory of forms" are very similar

Plato's theory of Forms or theory of Ideas asserts that non-material abstract (but substantial) forms (or ideas), and not the material world of change known to us through sensation, possess the highest and most fundamental kind of reality.When used in this sense, the word form or idea is often capitalized. Plato speaks of these entities only through the characters (primarily Socrates) of his dialogues who sometimes suggest that these Forms are the only true objects of study that can provide us with genuine knowledge; thus even apart from the very controversial status of the theory, Plato's own views are much in doubt.Plato spoke of Forms in formulating a possible solution to the problem of universals.

[Anonymous No.]

>>13106188
While it's true that Gotama talks a lot about higher realms of immaterial existence that can be experience intellectually as well as through meditation, he doesn't really talk about obtaining knowledge from Forms the way Plato does as you rightly said. All of Gotama's teachings surrounding so-called 'higher realms' centers on the fact that the only way to escape all suffering completely is to surpass all of them by the cessation of clinging even to lofty intellectual concepts. There are passages where he even goes as far as looking down on certain questions that are central to Greek/'Western' Philosophy, like the whether or not true knowledge can exist, what is the nature of a soul/essence of a 'human' etc., how should we define what is the 'good' and so on. Basically, if it isn't a question that relates directly to becoming a person capable of experiencing anything and everything without clinging and thereby causing yourself suffering by that clinging, Gotama thinks it's a waste of time.

[Anonymous No.]

>>13106202
Plato was well aware of the limitations of the theory, as he offered his own criticisms of it in his dialogue Parmenides. There Socrates is portrayed as a young philosopher acting as junior counterfoil to aged Parmenides. To a certain extent it is tongue-in-cheek as the older Socrates will have solutions to some of the problems that are made to puzzle the younger.
The dialogue does present a very real difficulty with the Theory of Forms, which Plato most likely only viewed as problems for later thought. These criticisms were later emphasized by Aristotle in rejecting an independently existing world of Forms. It is worth noting that Aristotle was a pupil and then a junior colleague of Plato; it is entirely possible that the presentation of Parmenides "sets up" for Aristotle; that is, they agreed to disagree.
One difficulty lies in the conceptualization of the "participation" of an object in a form (or Form). The young Socrates conceives of his solution to the problem of the universals in another metaphor, which though wonderfully apt, remains to be elucidated:

Nay, but the idea may be like the day which is one and the same in many places at once, and yet continuous with itself; in this way each idea may be one and the same in all at the same time.
But exactly how is a Form like the day in being everywhere at once? The solution calls for a distinct form, in which the particular instances, which are not identical to the form, participate; i.e., the form is shared out somehow like the day to many places. The concept of "participate", represented in Greek by more than one word, is as obscure in Greek as it is in English. Plato hypothesized that distinctness meant existence as an independent being, thus opening himself to the famous third man argument of Parmenides, which proves that forms cannot independently exist and be participated.

[Anonymous No.]

>>13106224
>Plato hypothesized that distinctness meant existence as an independent being, thus opening himself to the famous third man argument of Parmenides, which proves that forms cannot independently exist and be participated.
I'm actually really glad that you reminded me of this, because it's been so long since I've read Plato and the other Greeks/Romans, but the third man argument used to be one of my favorite arguments. (I used to love Western Philosophy, Childhood -> Blind Christianity, Adolescence -> Closer examination of Christianity, followed by rejection and thorough search through Western Philosophy for better solutions to ethical questions, Early Adulthood -> Meandering edgy nihilism that would've been more appropriate as a teenager, Slightly Later Early Adulthood -> Decide to read a bit of Gotama because I never gave it a shot but don't expect anything to come of it...instantly get hooked into delving deep into Buddhism due to the appeal of the teachings of 'no-self' and the strict concentration on arguing about how to minimize suffering and maximize happiness)

My thoughts on the third man argument now are basically that the most likely truth is that just as the forms don't actually exist, in truth the Buddhist teaching of 'no-self' is true, and the entire universe is one machine with interlocking parts that each influence and are influenced by one another necessarily. Basically, the idea of Forms, as well as the idea of a Soul or Self, is an illusion caused by our evolved cognitive ability to reflect inwards on ourselves and to attribute meaning/perception to objects. (Perception here meaning, the component of a human that sees a piece of wood cut into a small cylinder with a feather attached and thinks 'arrow' for instance) While Forms might be useful for intellectual examination and development, they don't have independent existence just like 'We' don't, but pretending that we do is useful for intellectual examination and development.