Scythian Buddha

“Greek Buddha: Pyrrho´s Encounter with Early Buddhism in Central Asia” is a book by Christopher I Beckwith, a distinguished professor in Central Eurasian studies based in Indiana, US. I never read Beckwith´s other works (they seem interesting!), but this work comes across as something of a “teaser trailer” with the author constantly veering off topic, trying to cover at least a dozen different subjects. I admit, however, that I *was* properly teased. I might return to Beckwith in the future.

“Greek Buddha” has been described as iconoclastic, and the book certainly has a “revisionist” tendency. To summarize, everything you (and me) learned when we studied comparative religion in our sadly misspent youth is, well, wrong. No hard feelings, btw. Beckwith argues that Early Buddhism was very different in character from Normative Buddhism. The earliest written sources about Buddhism are *not* Buddhist and far from “normative”. They include the Greek descriptions of the Buddhists encountered during Alexander the Great´s military campaign in India. These are also some of the earliest preserved sources on Brahmanism, what later developed into “Hinduism”. By contrast, the canonical Buddhist scriptures were written down centuries later, and the earliest preserved manuscripts are even later. The well-known story of the Buddha´s childhood, life and death – often treated as sort of true even by Western scholars – is sheer fiction. The earliest preserved Buddhist sources are the so-called rock and pillar edicts of Ashoka, but Beckwith believes that many of them are later forgeries. The genuine ones were created under the reign of Devanampriya Priyadarshi, who was later conflated with other Mauryan rulers into the composite character of “Ashoka”. The author also claims that archeology disproves the official Buddhist version of events. For instance, a separate monastic order can´t have been part of Early Buddhism, since the first excavated monasteries are from a later period and the “wrong” area (Taxila in modern Pakistan) if you believe Buddhism originated at Bodh Gaya (in modern Bihar, India).

Beckwith´s chain of events look roughly like this: Early Zoroastrianism, a staunchly monotheist faith based on an absolute dichotomy between the True and the False, was introduced into ancient India by the Persian Empire. (Interestingly, the author argues that monotheism first emerged among the Scythians and was part of a Central Eurasian culture complex.) Buddhism was a reaction against Zoroastrianism, Buddha teaching a crypto-atheist message of skepticism coupled with yogic practices to still the mind. Buddha was Scythian, Beckwith arguing that “Shakyamuni” means “sage of the Sakas”, a Scythian people. It was this Early Buddhism which influenced Pyrrho when he accompanied Alexander on his invasion of India. Indeed, Early Pyrrhonism is almost identical to Early Buddhism (I admit that the parallels between Pyrrho and the Buddha are striking). Already at the time of Alexander, however, a “popular Buddhism” had begun to develop, which included notions of karma, soul and rebirth in Heaven. These ideas are really Zoroastrian. This popular Buddhism was promoted by the Mauryan dynasty, including “Ashoka”, the Mauryans being heavily influenced by the Persians and also having good relations with the Greeks. Beckwith also believes that Early Taoism was heavily influenced by Early Buddhism, indeed the Old Master (Lao-tse) is really the same person as the Buddha! Normative Buddhism is an eclectic compromise between Early Buddhism, Early Popular Buddhism and later developments, which explains its contradictory nature. For instance, why did Buddha refuse to discuss metaphysics, when Normative Buddhism is fiercely metaphysical? How could he remember all his past lives, when there is no soul? And so on. Beckwith also argues that Early Brahmanism was very different from later “Hinduism”. Here, too, the Zoroastrian influence was crucial. The ascetic sects within “Hinduism” plus the Jains are also later developments influenced by Buddhism, rather than the other way around, and the Upanishads were written in response to the success of Buddhism rather than being earlier works.  

I long suspected that we don´t know as much about the Buddha and Early Buddhism as often claimed, precisely because the sources are so late. Also, the canonical story about the Buddha´s life is obviously legendary and didactic. However, I also suspected that Early Buddhism was just as “religious” as Later Buddhism, the “philosophical” Buddhism so popular today being a *much* later development (so-called Protestant Buddhism, not to mention “Alan Watts is the Man”). If Beckwith is right, Early Buddhism really was a non-theistic philosophy with attendant yoga, all the religious strapping evolving later when some Buddhist sects turned towards the broad masses. I also suspect that the Buddha may not even be a real historical person – Moses is pretty much disproved, a case could be made for Jesus not being a historical person either, and the origins of Islam are probably much different from what we think. Beckwith himself doesn´t believe Lao-tse to be real. Why should the Sage of the Sakas be the sole exception?

Other topics dealt with in “Greek Buddha” include a discussion of David Hume, who Beckwith believes had an “esoteric” message which was really atheist (compare Leo Strauss here). The professor believes that Humean skepticism, if properly interpreted, doesn´t threaten science. To the contrary, it´s its only proper foundation! There is also a discussion on Zoroastrianism. If I understand him correctly, Beckwith believes that Zoroaster lived shortly before Cyrus the Great (i.e. “late” compared to the very early dates preferred by the Zoroastrians themselves and also some scholars). Cyrus was the founder of the Persian Achaemenid Empire. He and his successor Cambyses were Zoroastrians. Under the short reign of Gaumata, a mysterious usurper, the old polytheist “Magian” faith was restored. (Compare Julian the Apostate in the Late Roman Empire.) However, the Zoroastrians staged a comeback when Darius overthrew Gaumata. Eventually, however, a kind of religious compromise was reached, whereby Zoroastrianism de facto incorporated the old polytheist deities into its pantheon as “angels”. This is the Zoroastrianism we know today. (Compare how Catholicism de facto compromised with paganism.)  I´m not entirely sure how Beckwith looks at the origins of the Mahayana. He seems to regard the Pure Land sect of Buddhism as a kind of throwback to the monotheism of the Central Eurasian culture complex. Note also that the Pure Land was a paradise in the West – that is, west of China, where this Mahayana sect was successful. That would be Central Asia…

Did I miss something? Well, Professor Beckwith´s son used to read “Almagest” at the age of nine. Wow. Not even I did that. At the age of nine, I was still reading children´s books about Odin and Ragnarök. But YMMV.

Teaser trailer, but still recommended.