06-09-2004, 03:27 AM
From BR- amrit
I think that there is a reason why the "Greater India" concept is not applied to South East Asia even though there may be a clear factual basis for doing so.
I believe that an earlier generation of scholars (both Indian and European - eg seee Ananda Coomaraswamy, History of Indian and Indonesian Art), took this approach.
However, after South East Asian countries became independent, there was some resentment to this way of looking at things. So the new scholarship tended to emphasise the indigenous over the Indian and other foreign elements.
That I think is the historical reason for the current approach to the study of South East Asia.
Nevertheless, I believe that much has been written on the subject (as well as in respect of Indian influence over China, Korea and Japan).
What, I must say, interests me more, is Indian influence, to the West, both the Middle East and Europe. Very little has been done here by way of research. The influence of India on Greek and Roman philosophy is one obvious point - the biography of just about every major Hellenistic philosopher states that he studied Indian philososhy. The doctrines they evolved certainly bear a striking resemblance to Hindu and Buddhist thinking - enough to validate that claim the the biographies. I think that Greek tradition has it that Indian philosophers visited the Academy in Athens and debated with the Greeks.
What is probably even clearer is the impact of Indian technology to the areas to the West incuding most textile technologies (eg the chakra/gin), the water wheel and possibly metallurgy which went accross quite early, maybe even by Gupta/Roman times. For anyone who is interested, there is a brief discussion on the matter in F and J Gies, Cathedral, Forge and Waterwheel, Technology and Invention in the MIddle Ages.
In all, a very fertile area for research but little has been done compared to the work done on Indian influence to the East.
I think that there is a reason why the "Greater India" concept is not applied to South East Asia even though there may be a clear factual basis for doing so.
I believe that an earlier generation of scholars (both Indian and European - eg seee Ananda Coomaraswamy, History of Indian and Indonesian Art), took this approach.
However, after South East Asian countries became independent, there was some resentment to this way of looking at things. So the new scholarship tended to emphasise the indigenous over the Indian and other foreign elements.
That I think is the historical reason for the current approach to the study of South East Asia.
Nevertheless, I believe that much has been written on the subject (as well as in respect of Indian influence over China, Korea and Japan).
What, I must say, interests me more, is Indian influence, to the West, both the Middle East and Europe. Very little has been done here by way of research. The influence of India on Greek and Roman philosophy is one obvious point - the biography of just about every major Hellenistic philosopher states that he studied Indian philososhy. The doctrines they evolved certainly bear a striking resemblance to Hindu and Buddhist thinking - enough to validate that claim the the biographies. I think that Greek tradition has it that Indian philosophers visited the Academy in Athens and debated with the Greeks.
What is probably even clearer is the impact of Indian technology to the areas to the West incuding most textile technologies (eg the chakra/gin), the water wheel and possibly metallurgy which went accross quite early, maybe even by Gupta/Roman times. For anyone who is interested, there is a brief discussion on the matter in F and J Gies, Cathedral, Forge and Waterwheel, Technology and Invention in the MIddle Ages.
In all, a very fertile area for research but little has been done compared to the work done on Indian influence to the East.