On Diogenes Laertios - There is no difference between life and death quote

Hey guys!

I'm currently working on a paper which also discusses the influence of Buddhist thought and philosophy in the Indo-Greek kingdom and later also its influence on Hellenistic philosophy in general. Now, there was this quote in EB from Diogenes Laertios (who is quite an obscure character, might I add) which goes something like this;

"Thales was proclaiming that death isn't any different than life. 'So, why don't you die?' someone asked. 'Because there is no difference' he replied."

Although Thales lived in the sixth century BC and there is no way that the historical Buddha, Sakyamuni Buddha, could have had any influence on Thales, this does sound remarkably close to the Buddhist concept of "prajnaparamita". I know that Keraunos would know some stuff about the Indo-Greeks and perhaps Buddhist influence in their realm, but I was wondering if anyone else some knowledge concerning both this subject as well as Diogenes Laertios himself.

Thanks in advance

- Hax

http://classicpersuasion.org/pw/diogenes/

This link takes you to an e-text of the only surviving work by Diogenes Laertius, who as far as i have read lived around 200AD. His work is a collection of sayings and quotes from various philosophers.

Excellent, thank you very much.

Well, Indian and Buddhist thoughts were quite influenced by Greek/Hellenistic philosophy. For example: I had a seminar on various conceptions of materialist natural philosophy with the focus mainly on atomistic theories. Indian natural philosophy has quite a big atomistic tradition which was quite probably influenced by Greek atomistic philosophers. Also, Buddhist thought has quite some Greek influences, especially Stoicism (which also had a materialistic natural philosophy). So I'd say if there was an influence, it was the other way around in that instance. However one must not forget the very rich tradition of Indian philosophy which has quite a few similar concepts to Greek philosophy but in a completely different context and with different conclusions.

The Buddhist concept of "prajnaparamita" and later, the Ch'an concept of "mu" are different from the Socratic and Stoïc philosophy in the sense that the latter takes "we cannot know anything" as something that is granted; Buddhist philosophy denies even that form of knowledge. It's still interesting to see how the Indo-Greek civilisation influenced Buddhism all the way to China and Japan, though. I've also found that before King Menander, it was quite uncommon to build Buddharupa, and that the Indo-Greeks were the first ones who did such things.

The clothing of Sakyamuni Buddha on this picture is obviously very Hellenistic

http://www.lotussculpture.com/images...dha-statue.jpg

Quote:

---

Also, Buddhist thought has quite some Greek influences, especially Stoicism (which also had a materialistic natural philosophy). So I'd say if there was an influence, it was the other way around in that instance.

---

This, specifically, is very interesting. Mahayana Buddhism only came into being some 500 years after the death of Siddharta Gautama. Could it be that Mahayana thought does indeed have some kind of Hellenistic root?

A rightful captivating (and very interesting) question. I'm far from being an expert on this subject, but a little out of interest Wikipedia 'research' seems to yield some relevant results:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahadharmaraksita: "From Alasanda the city of the Yonas came the thera (elder) Yona Mahadhammarakkhita with thirty thousand bhikkhus." (Mahavamsa, XXIX) - travelling to the dedication ceremony of the Maha Thupa ("Great stupa") at Anuradhapura in Sri Lanka (completed ~131 BC). A indo-greek Buddhist elder, leading 30.000 ascetics - presumably from a similar cultural background - from Alexandria of the Caucasus must have had at least passing knowledge of contemporary philosophical thought in the hellenistic world (cf. the inscriptions and papyrii found at Ai-Khanoum). So, if "(...)scholars believe that it (Mahāyāna buddhism) originated in south India in the 1st century CE,[4][5] or the 1st century BCE.[6][7](...)"(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahayana), a transfer of Hellenistic philosophical concepts and ideas southwards by Indo-greek monks would be perfectly reasonable, fostering/initiating/contributing to the eventual development of Mahāyāna buddhism.

On the other hand "(...)other scholars point to evidence that Mahāyāna originated in north-west India in the 1st century CE."(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahayana)" - but even in this specific context, the intensive Graeco-bactrian (and later Indo-greek) royal patronage of Buddhism (cf. Menander/Milinda, coins ,...) - especially regarding monastical convents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Buddhist_monasticism) could have encouraged reception of Hellenistic philosophy by Buddhist thinkers, which in turn may have influenced early Mahāyāna doctrine.

In every case an interesting collection of 'random wikipedia factoids' ;) which proves the inherent plausibility of your thought-provoking hypothesis - on either way Mahāyāna buddhism could have been influenced by Hellenistic thought.

Yes, the foundation of Mahayana Buddhism lay indeed in Gandhara; this is also how Buddhism was transfered into central Asia and China later on. The Ch'an lineage in China was founded by Bodhidharma, a Gandharan monk. We can also trace back the lineage of the Shingon sect in Japan to two people; Kukai (who is refered to in Shingon Buddhism as Kobo Daishi or O-daishisama) was schooled in the ways of esoteric Buddhism (known as mikkyou in Japan) by a Chinese monk, Hui-kuo as well as Gandharan scholar by the name of Prajña (which means "wisdom" in Sanskrit).

This Prajña is also reported to have taught Kukai the Sanskrit language and Vedic scripts. Interestingly, the Shingon sect is the only live Buddhist school to still use Sanskrit writings. If we take a look at the Daibutsu of Todai-ji, an important Shingon Buddhist temple, we'll notice that his style of clothing is not east Asian at all:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

http://deitchman.com/mcneillslides/i...uofTodaiji.jpg

Of course, Kukai traveled to China in the 9th century, which was way after the destruction of the Indo-Greek and Gandharan kingdoms,but I think the Islamic caliphate had already incursed into Afghanistan by then. Actually, something that is remarkebly interesting is the fact that the Buddhists of Gandhara suffered a lot under the rule of the Kushans, and were probably pushed out after the Hindu Gupta empire took over. However, the Gupta empire extended just to the Indus river, and the Sassanid Empire, which had been quite tolerant of Nestorian Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists in their early rule, had not established control of Gandhara. Even at their greatest extent, they did not control the area from Kabul onward.

Interstingly, the Sanskrit word for Kabul is "Kamboj"; remember the Kambojas? They are mentioned several times, and Buddhist sources conflict here (King Ashoka has sent missionaries to convert them, which they apparently did, but other Buddhist scholars noted that they killed insects as a holy duty, thus breaking the first of the Five Precepts (I vow to undertake the training not to kill a living being)). Apparently, an amount of them did convert at one point from either Zoroastrianism or Hinduism, but certainly not all.


What we can agree on, probably, is the fact that the Buddhist clergy and population, being pushed out (either voluntarily or under pressure) of the Gupta Empire, would have settled west of the Indus river, inbetween the Sassanid and Gupta Empires. This would have been an excellent location for Buddhism to mingle with Indo-Hellenistic culture; and forming an interesting mix there, which might have led to Mahayana Buddhism!