Buddhist Philosophy in India and Ceylon c19.s1.3

c19.s1.3

Such in effect is the case which can be presented for foreign influence, nor is it possible to deny that such influences may have been at work. The fact of the introduction of new peoples and new ideas to India is obvious enough in the field of art where actual remains exist to tell a conclusive tale. To deny the same influence in other spheres, because it is less easy to prove it, is clearly illegitimate. The development of the Mahāyāna was parallel with the introduction of Greek astrology² into India; we cannot assert that Āryadeva who apparently knew the latter must have been ignorant of any other side of Asianic thought. What we can establish, and that with a considerable degree of probability, is that there existed in India itself, partly even in early Buddhism the germs of the results which are revealed in the Mahāyāna; we cannot deny that these seeds may have been stirred to active life by the intellectual ferment which must have been caused by the introduction of new peoples to India. History has shown us how able are Indians to assimilate in their own distinctive manner foreign conceptions, in ways which it is difficult or impossible effectively to trace, and from this fact we may be warned not to deny foreign influences in the past, because the traces of them are slight. When India appropriated, it was with an activity of its own, which made the borrowing appear an integral part of the ancient thought.