The only Buddhist region in Europe

I can't help but think that the whole distinction between Europe and Asia is based on European pride and racism. It definitely makes sense to divide them from a cultural perspective, but a geological one? Come on.

More people should know about the apparitions that have taken place in Catholicism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marian_apparition

These apparitions provide a lot of revealed knowledge which is not in the Bible necessarily.

Surprised this is the top thread and unchallenged.

Buddhism arrived in China via the Greek Bactrian kingdom

{{citation-needed}}. Buddhism arrived in the geographic region currently encompassed by the modern Chinese state via multiple routes over more than a thousand years including innumerable exchanges through the overall Tarim Basin (Xinjiang) or "silk road" area via modern Tajikistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan but also via Tibet and by sea through Southeast Asia (Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, and probably some sporadic oceanic contact with South Asia and Buddhist kingdoms in Indonesia). Tajikistan in particular is only slightly archaeologically investigated to date owing to its remote location, poor infrastructure, geopolitical challenges and IIRC the use of mines during 20th century military conflicts. In short, like any other set of ideas it probably arrived in waves of migration, monkly pilgrimages, exchanges, and instances of official diplomacy. There are records of Buddhism being preached to China by the geographically proximal Yuezhi people as early as 2BCE. Classical Chinese history teaches that Buddhism "came to China" in 67CE. Hellenistic artistic styles are, to my knowledge, never mentioned.

Buddha as depicted in East Asia is wearing Greek robes

The robes are not Greek, they are Buddhist. Buddhism was established in the sixth century BCE. We can read that in Buddhist tradition monks are only allowed a robe and a begging bowl, and that the historical Buddha also set forth a tradition that discouraged iconography as improper worship of likeness (idolatry). This may be because Buddha composed his philosophy in reaction to the prevailing religious environment, where he had previously partaken in such habits which were and remain deeply culturally entrenched.

In short, Greco-Buddhist art is influential because it is, in a sense, the first major period with any voluminous production of "Buddhist art" (a notion decidedly not Buddhist), and in any event, the Hellenistic style robes primarily only affects Mahayana art, and the modern geographical scope of China also encompasses an endemic Vajrayana philosophy, Theravada, and Tibetan. Even within Mahayana artistic tradition in China, I don't see how a cursory inspection of - for example - robes depicted at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Buddhist_sculpture or https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Buddhist_sculptu... could conclude they're all Greek-influenced. Such a claim is tenuous at best.

there are elements of Greek philosophy in Buddhism as practiced in East Asia.

I have never heard anyone make this claim. If we flip the claim, as Buddhist jataka tales are known to Christianity, the reverse could also be said: "elements of Indian philosophy in Christianity as practiced in Europe". Such a statement, outside of tangential academic arguments, is broadly untrue.

My apologies for the mistakes in my statement. You seen to know much, much about this topic than me; thank you for adding the nuances this complex topic. My comment was based on my recollection of what I saw at the San Francisco Museum of Asian Arts and some of the descriptions I read there about the various pieces. In all likelihood, my recollection was either incorrect and/or incomplete. I cited the Wikipedia article because it seems to reflect similar ideas as my recollection and also in case anyone else found the topic as fascinating as I did.

I'm past the window for editing my original comment but if the mods don't mind, it would be great to qualify my original comment with the response.

> Perhaps people experience cognitive dissonance when reconciling the things that you mentioned with beliefs about reincarnation?

Reincarnation was the only thing to come into my mind when I heard "buddhism" when I was a schoolboy. I had zero idea of what else is Buddhism about back then. Later, as I learnt more I found out (or came to an opinion) "reincarnation" itself is a fairly unimportant concept. Perhaps it is only there to attract/repel public and to be another target for becoming indifferent to as you progress.

It may also be beneficial to imagine you being reincarnated in a particular realm of existence and contemplating what you would experience. Imagine you are going to heaven where you are going to live millennia never forgetting... that you are going to hell after that, inevitably, like for real, and try to come in peace with that. That would be an exercise.