How far west did Buddhism reach?

As far as I understand Buddhism did at least reach Afghanistan. Of course, the later expansion of Islam meant that this area was later lost to Buddhism, but how far west did it reach before the arrival of Islam?
 
As far as I understand Buddhism did at least reach Afghanistan. Of course, the later expansion of Islam meant that this area was later lost to Buddhism, but how far west did it reach before the arrival of Islam?

From what I recall reading, the proven western most Buddhist communities existed in what is modern-day Turkmenistan and according to folktales have used to exist as far as far as Azerbaijan.
 
If I had to guess, probably Kalmykia, which is now part of southern Russia. It's still mainly Bhuddist to this day from what I've heard.
 
Like how the Christians scattered all about I'm sure there were a few scattered monks and monasteries in more western communities.
 
Depends on what you mean by "reach". According to Strabo's Geography, a buddhist monk immolated himself in Athens in 13 A.D.

I was thinking more about where they were able to get many converts. Of course "many" is a relative word.

About Buddhists visiting Greece, this is interesting as it might have lead some to see similarities between Buddhism and Platonism.
 
What do you mean by reach?

If you mean its spread prior to globalisation, then there is evidence of buddhist artifacts in Viking ruins which is as west as you can get barring the Americas.
If you mean as a commonplace religion, arguably Russia because of the mongols.
 
I was thinking more about where they were able to get many converts. Of course "many" is a relative word.

About Buddhists visiting Greece, this is interesting as it might have lead some to see similarities between Buddhism and Platonism.
Ive heard people say Buddhism and Platonism are similar, but in many ways I would disagree...
Buddhism isn't interested in absolute truth whilst this is core to Platonism.
Platonism is dualistic and rationalist (as opposed to empiricist) whilst in the epistemological tradition Buddhism looks at mind and body as the same and in regards to empiricism vs rationalism would come between both as the middle way.
Emptiness as a doctrine would probably have made Plato scream for how it basically makes his theory of forms impossible.

In fact the only thing I can think of that Buddhism and Platonism have in common is that those closer to the truth should lead their communities (albeit in traditional buddhism this is strictly on monastic grounds rather than social, whilst Plato is very interested in social imposition and application of his ideas).
 
IOTL, Buddhism was more assimilated to an obscure mysteria or a philosophy than a religion by Greco-Romans. Which was the best you could have, granted they were really cautious about foreign cults they couldn't assimilate or identify to their own (and Buddhism would be radically different from these).

Greco-Roman world would be an hard nut to break, unless you manage to have Helleno-Indian kingdoms (which were pretty much marginal politically) not only somehow survives longer but as well pull a Kushan to impose a more westernized version of Budhism. Eventually, it could mean a more acceptable take that could be exportated in the Mediterranean basin.

If you manage to get an Hellenized Buddhism in Western Asia, I don't see why you couldn't have an expension in Eastern Europe (tough I think it could have issues really develloping outside eastern mediterranean basin and in more rural regions or less touched by Romanisation-Hellenization).
 
I think both Platonism and Buddhism has been suggested as influences upon Gnosticism.

I'm not really convinced : influence of mysterion and more or less intellectualisation of Judaism by certain circles are enough to explain it without resorting to a clearly not present (without clear proofs) Buddhism and a Platonicism that self-indulged in contempt on Christianism.
 
I'm not really convinced : influence of mysterion and more or less intellectualisation of Judaism by certain circles are enough to explain it without resorting to a clearly not present (without clear proofs) Buddhism and a Platonicism that self-indulged in contempt on Christianism.

Bud Judaism is about as far as you can get from Gnosticism. Judaism worships the creator god.
 
Bud Judaism is about as far as you can get from Gnosticism. Judaism worships the creator god.

Judaism isn't exactly ony big monolithic things. As for every religion, you had its mystical, intellectuals groups; and it wasn't exactly immune to hellenistic influence.
 
Judaism isn't exactly ony big monolithic things. As for every religion, you had its mystical, intellectuals groups; and it wasn't exactly immune to hellenistic influence.

But if they rejected Jahve as god, they would not really be Jews anymore.
 
But if they rejected Jahve as god, they would not really be Jews anymore.

I don't think you understand what Gnosticism is. It's not about rejecting God or Yahwe as God, but arguing there's more complexity (basically two-levels of religious understanding) to scriptures.

IOTL Gnosticism WAS Christian, just a different denomination. And Kabbalah or Merkabah isn't about not worshipping Yawhe.
 
I don't think you understand what Gnosticism is. It's not about rejecting God or Yahwe as God, but arguing there's more complexity (basically two-levels of religious understanding) to scriptures.

IOTL Gnosticism WAS Christian, just a different denomination. And Kabbalah or Merkabah isn't about not worshipping Yawhe.

Didn´t Christian Gnostics consider Jahve to be the demiurge, that is the imperfect creator god associated with matter and the flesh, while they considered Jesus to be the saviour God, associated with the soul and perfection. The world of God is eternal and not part of the physical. It is impalpable and timeless. My impression was that the Gnostics, like the Buddhists, have a negative view of the physical world and that they consider the soul to be independent from the body (captured in the body). The "gnoosis" seems to parallell nirvana, although Buddhism is different in being non-theistic.

My impression was that Gnostic Christianity posit opposing gods: one higher, spiritual, and "good" (Jesus), and the other lower, material, and "evil" (Jahve). As fast as I understand the same is true with non-Christian Gnosticism, although they are not based on Jesus and Jahve.

If this understanding is correct, then it is difficult to see how to make a Jewish form of Gnosticism, as Judaism is based on worshipping the creator god.
 
Buddhism was present at least as far west as Hormuz in pre-Islamic times, as Buddhist symbols exist on Qeshm island, and there were Buddhists in the Arsacid royal court.
 
Didn´t Christian Gnostics consider Jahve to be the demiurge, that is the imperfect creator god associated with matter and the flesh, while they considered Jesus to be the saviour God, associated with the soul and perfection.
It varies a lot from one Gnostic groups to another. Not all groups making demiurge distinction are gnostics (even if they may be influenced by) and all gnostics doesn't makes this distinction and when they do so, Yawhe isn't always assimilated to the demiurge (generally, it's far more vague, and maybe inspired by zoroastrianism, about two essences) as in Valentinian Gnosticism.

The systematical identification is eventually more due to pre-Niceans and Niceans Christians scholars, rather than what Gnostics and Gnose followers may have said about themselves. Their extreme variety makes actual systematisation hard.

If this understanding is correct, then it is difficult to see how to make a Jewish form of Gnosticism, as Judaism is based on worshipping the creator god.
But then again, I never said there was a Jewish gnose, but said that rather than looking at Buddhism, looking at Jewish intellectualist and/or mystic groups as influence to Christian gnosticism may be interesting.
 
Top