The Religion and Philosophy of the Veda and Upanishads v2.c41.77

v2.c41.77

It is remarkable also that, though in the case of Porphyry (\textsc{a. d.} 232–304) we know that he used Bardesanes and actually reproduces remarks of his regarding the Brahmans, we find nothing conclusive of borrowing from the Sāṁkhya. The distinction which he makes between spirit and matter is merely in keeping with the views of Plotinus; equally so are the doctrines of the superiority of spirit to matter, of the omnipresence of the soul when freed from matter, and of the fact that the world has no beginning. His objection to sacrifice and the slaying of animals might be traced with Lassen to Buddhism with far greater likelihood than to the Sāṁkhya, but it has historical antecedents in Greece. Abammon's doctrine of the remarkable magic powers possessed by persons in ecstasy agrees perfectly with Buddhist views as well as those of the Brahmans, but we cannot forget the delusions attributed by Euripides to the Bakchai and in special to Pentheus. We may see an echo of the Sāṁkhya Guṇas in the Gnostic divisions of men as πνευματικοί, ψυχικοί, and ὑλικοί, and in the according of personal existence to such mental states as the intellect, will, &c., in the manner in which existence is assigned to Buddhi, Ahaṁkāra, Manas, &c. But the case for real borrowing is far from certain; in the later case Iranian influence is probably at work; in other instances, as in the system of Basilides, Buddhist influence is clear.³