greece, the final frontier? 159
- they live at the same time a life in solitude and as a community, in
modest huts outside the city, where each has a small cell or shrine
called monastery and sanctuary (semneîon); - they pray two times a day, in order to become enlightened and to
be relieved of the burden of the senses, nding inner calm; - they attach much importance to modesty, moderation in food,
drink and clothing, and to other practices conducive to a state of
holiness; - during their congregations on the seventh day of the week they eat
only bread and water, the elder holding a speech, while male and
female listeners are separated by a high wall; - they have no serfs, since all are born equal, but the novices serve
those with a longer state of duty; - they possess ancient allegorical scriptures and sacred philosophical
doctrines which they study and expound to each other and on which
they meditate in solitude in order to grow in piety; - they consider their doctrine as a living being, as it were, with the lit-
eral text as the body and the allegorical interpretation as the soul.
There are elements in this list which seem not entirely to t Buddhism
like, for example, the weekly congregation, for the Buddhist uposatha
or sacred day of takes place ve or six times a month. Originally,
however, among pre-Buddhistic ascetic communities the sacred day
was weekly.^140 The mentioning of a festival at which the Flight from
Egypt is commemorated seems to suggest that the Therapeutai were
Jews, which otherwise is not obvious. Other striking points seem not to
have received any attention before. The word semneîon “sanctuary” is of
course Greek, but as in the case of the Semnoí, above, it may ultimately
be based on Indic samaa “an ascetic, a monk”. The repeated stress on
piety (eusébeia) as the ultimate goal of the Therapeutai is strongly remini-
scent of the translation of dhamma by eusébeia in Aoka’s Greek edicts.
The distinction between literal reading and allegorical interpretation
of the texts vaguely recalls the Mdhyamika distinction between the
conventional and the absolute truth. The presentation of the doctrine
as a living being recalls the dharmakya notion of a depersonalised
Buddha embodying the absolute truth as his own true nature (dharma,
(^140) Przyluski 1936.