Spanning thirty years of intensive research, this book proves what many scholars could not explain: that today’s Western world must be considered the product of both Greek and Indian thought—Western and Eastern philosophies. Thomas McEvilley explores how trade, imperialism, and migration currents allowed cultural philosophies to intermingle freely throughout India, Egypt, Greece, and the ancient Near East. This groundbreaking reference will stir relentless debate among philosophers, art historians, and students.

Through criticism and analysis of ancient traditions, Kahn reconstructs the pattern of Anaximander’s thought using historical methods akin to the reconstructive techniques of comparative linguists.

This article examines closely an important passage at the conclusion of the Mahābhārata wherein the final state of the epic heroes after death is defined. The Critical Edition’s phrasing of what precisely became of the characters once they arrived in heaven is unclear, and manuscript variants offer two apparently contradictory readings. In this article I present evidence in support of one of these readings, and respond to the Mahābhārata ’s seventeenth century commentator Nīlakaṇṭha Caturdhara, who champions the other. Underlying and (...) prompting this debate is a much broader issue of the epic narrative: the complex nature of the Mahābhārata heroes as both agents in a universe governed by karma , and their identities as “portions” of divine figures acting within a broader dramatic structure of eschatological myth. (shrink)

In the Classical world, the language of cosmology was a means for framing philosophical concerns. Among these were issues of time, motion, and soul; concepts of the limited and the unlimited; and the nature and basis of number. This is no less true of Indian thought-Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, and Ājivika-where the prestige of the cosmological idiom for organizing philosophical and theological thought cannot be overstated. This essay focuses on the structural similarities in the thought of Plotinus and Buddhist cosmological/philosophical speculation. (...) It builds on research concerning the Buddha-field (buddhakṣetra), which identified two discrete numerologies central to this speculation: the thousands of worlds (sāhasralokadhātu) comprising the field of a single Buddha (buddhakṣetra), characteristic of the Hinayana, and the innumerable or incalculable (asaṃkhyeya) Buddha-fields filling the ten regions of space, characteristic of the Mahāyāna. The Enneads of Plotinus serve as a lens through which to view in a fresh way a broad range of difficult issues associated with Buddhist cosmology in three general areas. First, it asks whether Plotinus' understanding of Intellect and his treatment of infinite and essential number afford an understanding of the innumerables and thousands central to the concept of the Buddhā-field. This analysis involves a consideration of the Hindu creator god, Brahma, as 'demiurge.' Second, it suggests analogies between the One, Intellect, and Soul of Plotinus and the three Buddhist Realms-the Formless Realm, the Realm of Form, and the Realm of Desire. Finally, it explores the possibility that an understanding of the Enneads can provide a model for relating the cosmologies of the Hīnayāna and the Mahāyāna. (shrink)

In the Classical world, the language of cosmology was a means for framing philosophical concerns. Among these were issues of time, motion, and soul; concepts of the limited and the unlimited; and the nature and basis of number. This is no less true of Indian thought-Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, and Ājivika-where the prestige of the cosmological idiom for organizing philosophical and theological thought cannot be overstated. This essay focuses on the structural similarities in the thought of Plotinus and Buddhist cosmological/philosophical speculation. (...) It builds on research concerning the Buddha-field (buddhakṣetra), which identified two discrete numerologies central to this speculation: the thousands of worlds (sāhasralokadhātu) comprising the field of a single Buddha (buddhakṣetra), characteristic of the Hinayana, and the innumerable or incalculable (asaṃkhyeya) Buddha-fields filling the ten regions of space, characteristic of the Mahāyāna. The Enneads of Plotinus serve as a lens through which to view in a fresh way a broad range of difficult issues associated with Buddhist cosmology in three general areas. First, it asks whether Plotinus' understanding of Intellect and his treatment of infinite and essential number afford an understanding of the innumerables and thousands central to the concept of the Buddhā-field. This analysis involves a consideration of the Hindu creator god, Brahma, as 'demiurge.' Second, it suggests analogies between the One, Intellect, and Soul of Plotinus and the three Buddhist Realms-the Formless Realm, the Realm of Form, and the Realm of Desire. Finally, it explores the possibility that an understanding of the Enneads can provide a model for relating the cosmologies of the Hīnayāna and the Mahāyāna. (shrink)

In this work-originally published in German in 1906 and translated into English two years later-Deussen explores the place of the Upanishads in the literature ...

Anaximander explained the sun as an ejection of light or fire from an opening in the hollow rim of a kind of wheel which revolved around the earth. We are told that this wheel or circle of the sun is 27 times the size of the earth, and again that it is 28 times the size of the earth. These numbers have been thought to represent respectively the inner and the outer diameters of the sun wheel. This has been questioned (...) by Kirk. Kirk assumes that the thickness or width of the rim of the sun wheel would be the same as the diameter of the earth. He argues therefore that there should be a difference of two units between the inner and the outer diameter. (shrink)

Anaximander explained the sun as an ejection of light or fire from an opening in the hollow rim of a kind of wheel which revolved around the earth. We are told that this wheel or circle of the sun is 27 times the size of the earth, and again that it is 28 times the size of the earth. These numbers have been thought to represent respectively the inner and the outer diameters of the sun wheel. This has been questioned (...) by Kirk. Kirk assumes that the thickness or width of the rim of the sun wheel would be the same as the diameter of the earth. He argues therefore that there should be a difference of two units between the inner and the outer diameter. (shrink)