Des Philosophes En Contact

Here is a comprehensive summary of Johannes Bronkhorst's essay "Des Philosophes En Contact?":

The essay, "Des Philosophes En Contact?", by Johannes Bronkhorst, published by Johannes Bronkhorst, explores the possibility and nature of contact between ancient Greek, Indian, and Chinese philosophical traditions. The author begins by acknowledging the common assumption that these three cultures developed independently, making comparative philosophy an interesting endeavor. However, he immediately questions this assumption, noting that the Eurasian landmass facilitated regular, albeit not always idea-transmitting, contact through trade, military endeavors, and missionary activities.

Bronkhorst highlights the difficulty of philosophical ideas "traveling" compared to practical technologies or medical methods. Philosophical concepts are deeply embedded in their cultural contexts, and it's less likely for a traveler to adopt abstract philosophical insights than a practical innovation. He emphasizes the geographical barriers between Greece, India, and China, suggesting that while travelers existed, it's improbable that many philosophers made the journey.

The sole significant exception to this isolation is the prolonged presence of Greek emigrants in South Asia following Alexander the Great's conquests. Greek kingdoms existed in regions like Bactria and on the Indian side of the Hindu-Kush, with their influence extending as far as Gujarat and potentially Pataliputra around 150 BCE. This presence is evidenced in art and coinage. This historical asymmetry is crucial: while there's evidence of Greek presence in India, there's no comparable evidence of significant Indian or Chinese political or cultural settlements in Greece or China.

Bronkhorst argues that this Greek presence in India justifies exploring potential philosophical influence. He notes that while Greek astronomical influence in India is well-attested, philosophical influence is less evident. A plausible explanation for this lack of apparent philosophical exchange lies in the inherent religiosity of Indian philosophy. Indian philosophical schools are largely tied to religious traditions like Buddhism, Brahmanism, and Jainism, drawing upon their foundational doctrines. This religious grounding makes it less likely for a philosophical school to borrow elements across cultural divides, especially when compared to the internal polemics between Indian philosophical traditions themselves.

Bronkhorst uses the example of Buddhist and Brahmanical philosophical schools in India, which coexisted for centuries, engaged in extensive debate, yet showed remarkably little direct borrowing of concepts. Both traditions, however, grappled with similar problems, such as karma and the relationship between language and reality, demonstrating that shared concerns can arise without direct transmission of ideas. These shared concerns were often based on pre-existing cultural assumptions rather than direct borrowing.

Returning to the Greek presence in India, Bronkhorst suggests that while the Greeks brought their lifestyle, including the custom of public debate, this didn't automatically lead to the adoption of Greek philosophy by the local population. However, he posits that the interaction between Greek rulers and newly Buddhist populations in regions like Gandhara may have been a catalyst for significant philosophical developments within Buddhism.

The essay points to Buddhist reorganization of traditional teachings, characterized by a more detailed cosmology and a sophisticated atomism, as a potential outcome of this encounter. The famous Buddhist text, the Milinda Panha, which depicts a debate between the Greek king Menander and a Buddhist monk, is presented as evidence of Buddhists feeling the need to engage in debate with Greeks. Bronkhorst suggests that this need might have spurred Buddhists to adapt their doctrines for such encounters.

He concludes that this developed Buddhist philosophy, influenced by the Greek tradition of public debate rather than direct philosophical borrowing, likely became the first systematic philosophical system on the Indian subcontinent. Its influence extended to Jainism and even spurred resistance-based developments in Brahmanical philosophy.

Ultimately, Bronkhorst argues that the contact between Greek and Indian philosophy during the period of significant Greek presence in northwestern India is the most plausible instance of direct philosophical contact between these three ancient cultures in the pre-modern era. He even provocatively suggests that systematic Indian philosophy itself might owe its origin to this contact, implying a lack of indigenous Indian philosophers to initiate such a contact initially. He emphasizes that the resulting Buddhist philosophy, shaped by the tradition of public debate, bears little resemblance to its Greek origins, with the shared element being a practical response to the challenge of severe criticism in public discourse.