Was the Buddha a blue-eyed light skinned Aryan?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
Kusala
Posts: 1148
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 11:02 am

Re: Was the Buddha a blue-eyed light skinned Aryan?

Post by Kusala »

Cause_and_Effect wrote: Fri Sep 10, 2021 12:56 am
Kusala wrote: Thu Sep 09, 2021 11:23 pm

Razib Khan is a well respected geneticist and an expert when it comes to Indo-European origins...

if you can't afford to sit through 25:45, skip to the main point of the video, which starts at 11:40-15:40...

And if you can't sit through 4 minutes, here's the main point...

Yes, the Aryans were "White", and 25% had blue eyes...but, there's a twist...care to find out?

Problem is none of this supports the false narrative you are trying to push equating the ancient Aryans with modern Europeans at all. Calling them "white" is a stretch also as even Khan says.

So let's look at some of the twists.
Where do blue eyes in Europe actually come from? From these guys, the earliest Western Hunter gatherers which make up about 30-40% of the modern European ancestry.
Cheddar-Man-ancient-briton-CREDIT-AAP-Channel-4-Plimsoll-080218-1120.jpg


https://www.nationalgeographic.com/hist ... ed-dna-spd

So modern Europeans have significant non-Aryan ancestry, and ironically the blue eyes are an originally non-Aryan trait that was picked up later in the corded ware from the hunter gatherers.
As mentioned Europeans have also lost the dark skin since that time which somewhat obscures their mixed origins from dark skinned people.


Also Razib Khan is actually talking about the Sintashta, who were not the original proto-Indo-European speakers. For that we have to look at the Yamnaya people who came before.
yamnaya.jpeg

sphairos wrote: Thu Sep 09, 2021 12:05 pm
And this is exactly what modern genetic data suggests (David Reich was the head of the paper from 2015):

David Reich, in his 2018 publication Who We Are and How We Got Here, noting the presence of some Indo-European languages (such as Hittite) in parts of ancient Anatolia, states that "the most likely location of the population that first spoke an Indo-European language was south of the Caucasus Mountains, perhaps in present-day Iran or Armenia, because ancient DNA from people who lived there matches what we would expect for a source population both for the Yamnaya and for ancient Anatolians."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_ ... #Reception

It is Ok to be wrong and let the science speak for itself.

Aryans and Proto-Indoeuropeans weren't "white", abandon stupid ancient racist and Nazi myths, educate yourself.

Immanuel Kant proclaimed that the motto of the Age of Enlightenment is Sapere aude ("Dare to be wise/thinking").
Yes this is correct. Reich has said that the source population for the earliest Indo-Europeans of the Yamnaya is likely around Iran or Armenia. They lacked genes for light eyes or hair. As I posted earlier from the study.
"Blue eyes... are thanks to a specific mutation near a gene called OCA2. As none of the Yamnaya samples have this mutation, it seems likely that modern Europeans owe this trait to their ancestry from these European hunter gatherers of the Mesolithic (10,000-5,000 BC)."
What their skin color was is debatable since people in general have been getting less swarthy due to light skin selection.

I have seen some reconstructions of the early Indo-Europeans like this, bearing in mind reconstructions are a guestimate at best and if you made him a little lighter or darker it would drastically alter our perception of his 'race'.

reconstructed-proto-indoeuropean.jpg

Add a shade and he could look like any typical Indo-Iranian. Add a few more more dark shades he could look like a typical Dravidian even. Take a few shades away he would look more White. It's perception. Ultimately we see what we want to see as fulfilling our identity view preferences.
False narrative? Razib Khan said himself...the Aryans were "white"...what part don't you understand?

"The Sintashta culture is thought to represent an eastward migration of peoples from the Corded Ware culture. It is widely regarded as the origin of the Indo-Iranian languages.[9][10]]..."

"Allentoft 2015 analyzed the remains of four individuals ascribed to the Sintastha culture. One male carried haplogroup R1a and J1c1b1a, while the other carried R1a1a1b and J2b1a2a. The two females carried U2e1e and U2e1h respectively.[15][27] The study found a close autosomal genetic relationship between peoples of Corded Ware culture and Sintashta culture, which "suggests similar genetic sources of the two," and may imply that "the Sintashta derives directly from an eastward migration of Corded Ware peoples."[15]

Sintashta individuals and Corded Ware individuals both had a relatively higher ancestry proportion derived from the Central Europe, and both differed markedly in such ancestry from the population of the Yamnaya Culture and most individuals of the Poltavka Culture that preceded Sintashta in the same geographic region.[d] The Bell Beaker culture, the Unetice culture and contemporary Scandinavian cultures were also found to be closely genetically related to Corded Ware. A particularly high lactose tolerance was found among Corded Ware and the closely related Nordic Bronze Age.[e] In addition, the study found the Sintashta culture to be closely genetically related to the succeeding Andronovo culture.[f] "


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

Image
"He, the Blessed One, is indeed the Noble Lord, the Perfectly Enlightened One;
He is impeccable in conduct and understanding, the Serene One, the Knower of the Worlds;
He trains perfectly those who wish to be trained; he is Teacher of gods and men; he is Awake and Holy. "

--------------------------------------------
"The Dhamma is well-expounded by the Blessed One,
Apparent here and now, timeless, encouraging investigation,
Leading to liberation, to be experienced individually by the wise. "
Dweller
Posts: 104
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2021 9:14 pm

Re: Was the Buddha a blue-eyed light skinned Aryan?

Post by Dweller »

Then they lived over 1500 years in Asia, including over 1000 in India before Buddha came.
Mr. Seek
Posts: 582
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2020 5:45 am

Re: Was the Buddha a blue-eyed light skinned Aryan?

Post by Mr. Seek »

I see that this is still alive... Well then, the texts do say that he's a naga that came down from Tusita heaven...

Image
User avatar
Kusala
Posts: 1148
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 11:02 am

Re: Was the Buddha a blue-eyed light skinned Aryan?

Post by Kusala »

Cause_and_Effect wrote: Thu Sep 09, 2021 1:44 am
Kusala wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 9:52 pm

The Indo-European expansion to the East is not a 19-th century myth. The Scythian and other Iranic tribes are recorded by the ancient Greeks and Chinese. Are you telling me that Caucasian looking people in places like Iran all the way to Western China is nothing more than a fabrication and that blonde and red head blue eyed individuals never existed in that part of the world?



This little girl and her sister from Iran is a perfect example of ancient Indo-European settlement in Central Asia.

Image
In the Buddha's teachings ancestry is less important than ones lineage in the dhamma. Ones conduct.
We are attached to our identity views and concepts no matter their accuracy if they make us feel good.
So the following will be a good excericise is examining and abandonong idealized and wishful perceptions.

Actually you are unwittingly rehashing some standard false stereotypes there. Same with cherry picking Bollywood actors where there is a strong post colonial prejudice that the upper castes bought into to try to appear 'more European' and select fair skinned actors.
Same when we see the Kalash who look white and would seem a good candidate for the 'blonde Aryan' myth.
This belief seems reasonable at face value because the Indian population varies in light to dark skin whereas Europeans are mainly 'white'. But then we look deeper and there are big twists in the story.

Indeed, a picture can be worth a thousand words...

As DNS mentioned there seems to be a preference in the West to try to turn all religious figures into European blue eyed blondes. It's seems not enough to acknowledge the shared kinship between Indo-Europeans, we need him to be 'white'. This occurs with Jesus and an attempt has been made with the Buddha and even to falsely claim that upper castes were 'white' before being mixed which you are rehashing.

Also the study you posted is more than 20 years old. There have been more recent studies that make things more clear.


First up it is misleading to simply say the upper castes are more 'European'.

Who are white people aka Europeans?
Europeans themselves are actually a mix of 3 different tribes and they have also become much lighter skinned over last few thousand years.


https://www.livescience.com/ancient-che ... -lola.html

This is what a Norwegian, called Western Hunter Gatherer looked like just 5-6000 years ago.

tb-lola-final-lores-1-800x445.jpg

As we will see, it is sanna or our perception which 'colors' our views of this.

"Blue eyes, it suggests, could come from hunter gatherers in Mesolithic Europe (10,000 to 5,000 BC), while other characteristics arrived later with newcomers from the East.....

The Bronze Age (around 3,000–1,000 BC) was a time of major advances... One people that was particularly important in the spread of both early Bronze-Age technologies and genetics were the Yamnaya...

By comparing DNA from various Bronze-Age European cultures to that of both Yamnaya and the Neolithic farmers, researchers found that most had a mixture of the two backgrounds....
And it appears that the Yamnaya also moved east. The Afanasievo culture of the Altai-Sayan region in central Asia seemed to be genetically indistinguishable from the Yamnaya...


The DNA of several hunter gatherers living in Europe long before the Bronze Age was also tested. It showed that they probably had a combination of features quite striking to the modern eye: dark skin with blue eyes.

The blue eyes of these people – and of the many modern Europeans who have them – are thanks to a specific mutation near a gene called OCA2. As none of the Yamnaya samples have this mutation, it seems likely that modern Europeans owe this trait to their ancestry from these European hunter gatherers of the Mesolithic (10,000-5,000 BC).

Two mutations responsible for light skin, however, tell quite a different story. Both seem to have been rare in the Mesolithic, but present in a large majority by the Bronze Age (3,000 years later), both in Europe and the steppe (Yamnaya)...."
https://theconversation.com/ancient-dna ... ance-43078


So in summary its more accurate to say upper castes have more Yamnaya ancestry (thought to be the so called 'Aryans') and so do Europeans. But they mixed in both Europe and India with earlier farmer populations and hunter gatherers.
Also surprisingly the blue eyes come from the dark skinned hunter gathers in Europe, not the 'Aryans' who later came and invaded/migrated to Europe and India, from Central Asia.

So it looks like what happened was Europeans have only been light skinned for about 6 thousand years. They went 'all the way' with the skin lightening since then while in India it was mainly the North that got skin lightened by marriage selection not the South.

https://m.economictimes.com/news/scienc ... 556277.cms


To make matters more interestng and fully end the blonde Aryan myth, recent genetics and culture has linked the very dark skinned Dravidians like Tamils to migrations both to South India and to ancient Europe even before the Aryans came, from the Indus Valley region. So a migration of dark skinned 'caucasians' who lost the color on the European side.
"Ukrainian archaeologist Iurii Mosenkis, according to whom the Dravidian culture of the Indus valley has expanded to Iran (Zagros culture), Mesopotamia (Ubaid culture), Anatolia (Çatal Höyük), the Balkans (Vinča) to Northern Gaul (megaliths of the Vth millennium BC in Barnenez (Brittany) and in the Parisian basin), as well as to Majkop (North Caucasus) to Northern Gaul (Parisian basin) and Southern Gaul (Fontbouisse, Languedoc), French megalithic sites where can be found according to him characteristical elements of Ubaid and Majkop cultures. He also underlines that the cult language of Vinča could be Dravidian, given the Dravidian etymology of several words of the language and the script of Vinča."
https://www.researchgate.net/project/Ou ... Dravidians

Now if we compare to those blonde Kalash that we would love to romanticize, they do not have the genetics of Europeans, those blondes have almost the same genetic profile as other Indian groups including the darkest skinned Tamils of South India! That is the 3 main tribes that form the Indian population.


main-qimg-ac30c58c59f1dffd2102a0f4961b0dfc.jpeg

You can see here 'Steppe' in blue (which is the same as what is called Yamnaya and is speculated to be the 'Aryan' part).

Actually it is skin lightening that is the mystery process that helps us understand all this and the similar appearance of people from India to Europe with variance in coloration.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24244186/

And this picture really demystifies the debate.
Dravidian.jpg

Did the Aryans have any with blue eyes and blonde? Unlikely, majority probably had the typical dark hair and eyes is what the studies of the Steppe dna tells us. And either way they were all very dark just a few thousand years earlier, with the original very dark color only preserved in India especially South for speculated sociodemographic factors.

It just goes to show how sanna conditions papanka and then our preferred identity views come in, reinforced by more thought and perception.
All very interesting and still being researched. Expect science to make more revelations in future!
Nuristanis speak an Indo-Iranian(Aryan) language...

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

Image
"He, the Blessed One, is indeed the Noble Lord, the Perfectly Enlightened One;
He is impeccable in conduct and understanding, the Serene One, the Knower of the Worlds;
He trains perfectly those who wish to be trained; he is Teacher of gods and men; he is Awake and Holy. "

--------------------------------------------
"The Dhamma is well-expounded by the Blessed One,
Apparent here and now, timeless, encouraging investigation,
Leading to liberation, to be experienced individually by the wise. "
Dweller
Posts: 104
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2021 9:14 pm

Re: Was the Buddha a blue-eyed light skinned Aryan?

Post by Dweller »

About the date of mixing in India:
Genetics Proves Indian Population Mixture

Between 4,000 and 2,000 years ago, intermarriage in India was rampant.

Scientists from Harvard Medical School and the CSIR-Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology in Hyderabad, India, provide evidence that modern-day India is the result of recent population mixture among divergent demographic groups.

The findings, published August 8 in the American Journal of Human Genetics, describe how India transformed from a country where mixture between different populations was rampant to one where endogamy—that is, marrying within the local community and a key attribute of the caste system—became the norm.
...

This genetic data tells us a three-part cultural and historical story,” said Reich, who is also an associate member of the Broad Institute. “Prior to about 4000 years ago there was no mixture. After that, widespread mixture affected almost every group in India, even the most isolated tribal groups. And finally, endogamy set in and froze everything in place.”

https://hms.harvard.edu/news/genetics-p ... on-mixture
The caste system in South Asia — which rigidly separates people into high, middle and lower classes — may have been firmly entrenched by about 2,000 years ago, a new genetic analysis suggests.
...

Aside from finding when the mixing started and stopped, the researchers also found the mixing was thorough, with even the most isolated tribes showing ancestry from both groups.
...

Early on, there were distinct classes of people — the priests, the nobility and the common people — but no mention of segregation or occupational restrictions. By about 3,000 years ago, the texts mention a fourth, lowest class: the Sudras. But it wasn't until about 100 B.C. that a holy text called the Manusmruti explicitly forbade intermarriage across castes.

https://www.livescience.com/amp/38751-g ... igins.html
And Aryans were not close to "Whites" genetically, but to Slavs.

Genetics is not the same as race.

Extreme example is that when ancestors of this Slavic and Aryan haplogroup were in same group with most East Asians, ancestors of Nordic I haplogroup were part of same group with Middle Easterners, and even with ancestors of South Indians.
sphairos
Posts: 966
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:37 am
Location: Munich, Germany

Re: Was the Buddha a blue-eyed light skinned Aryan?

Post by sphairos »

Kusala wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 9:35 am Razib Khan
is a no-one, a "journalist".

David Reich is

He is professor in the department of genetics at the Harvard Medical School, and an associate of the Broad Institute. Reich was highlighted as one of Nature's 10 for his contributions to science in 2015.[4] He received the Dan David Prize in 2017, the NAS Award in Molecular Biology, the Wiley Prize, and the Darwin–Wallace Medal in 2019.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reich_(geneticist)
How good and wonderful are your days,
How true are your ways?
User avatar
zerotime
Posts: 480
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Was the Buddha a blue-eyed light skinned Aryan?

Post by zerotime »

Kusala wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 11:07 am
As DNS mentioned there seems to be a preference in the West to try to turn all religious figures into European blue eyed blondes. It's seems not enough to acknowledge the shared kinship between Indo-Europeans, we need him to be 'white'. This occurs with Jesus and an attempt has been made with the Buddha and even to falsely claim that upper castes were 'white' before being mixed which you are rehashing.
I think that's not very right. Are different issues.

Before 19th century we cannot find this silly fascination. We find many religious figures object for devotion who were black, in example the very spread Black Madonnas in all Europe. At the other side, before that century we find how the slavery was understood by reasons of conquest, commerce, birth, or religion. Never in terms of the physical appearance. At those times we find how both white and black slaves were property of white and black rich people.

We can read about rich and powerful black merchants, who ruled vast territories, who were key pieces in the global geopolitics to decide the traffic of products from East to West. That powerful black people had many slaves of all the thinkable skin colours. Logically, in that global scenery there is not possibility to conceive some fascination for one skin color like a mark of a superior or "pure" human being.

About the present racism, we are talking about a new thing, a new idea. One should ask from where arose that idea, this modern notion. And that's very interesting because we cannot find any special academic stuff tracing that investigation. Why so?. Probably because the origin of this modern racist idea arose in the roots of the present scientific, academics and economical system.

The modern fascination for the skin color being a signal of purity or racial superiority, it arose with the modern biological racism. It was developed at 19th century in England, from both the aristocracy (Lytton and others) and the clumsy pseudoscience from Galton, Darwin, Huxley and others. All they were deluded racist people.

All together it was a socio-political invention systematized inside the British Colleges (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Club) to endow to the new British Empire with a new "scientifical theology" to justify its expansion and conquests around the world. This sort of new theology about a natural superiority of the British was a needed ingredient. Different from other past Empires, no superior idea, no religious or civilizatory kernel was pushing the new empire but just the expansion and the accumulation of wealth. And the people needs of a superior justification to do the typical things of any Empire should do in other lands in order to conquer and expoliate.

Although we can read some few books about the utility of that new racist idea for that new Empire and the creation of a new "Third World" :

Image
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/175704322

these ideas about the skin colour were passed from England to Germany, to the nazis and also to other places. This the origin of this modern idea which today still is awakened in some minds in front social problems.

The other issue, about the Aryans origins and Buddha times, this is linked today to the previous issue. However, today we know the "Aryan myth" like a superior race is wrong. We know those Aryans tribes were more primitive than many conquered people. They had a shamanic, warrior and nomad character. They were efficient in war and conquest, although much less sophisticated than the Indus Valley Civilization in where we find impressive signals of a more sophisticated society:

Image
https://www.worldhistory.org/image/12856/mohenjo-daro/
http://niltindia.asia/appiusforum/indusvalley.html

"The cause or causes of the end of the Indus civilization are not easy to determine. At Mohenjo-daro groups of sprawling skeletons in this period suggests some sort of massacre or invasion. The end of the Indus Valley Civilization may have been fairly abrupt and violent, but long before the end came, there seems to have been a gradual process of internal decay and stagnation."

so it was a contact in where the invaders learned more things from the conquered people than the inverse thing.

Already in its origins, those ancient Aryan tribes were diverse and with different physical appearence. And they were mixed across the times. When we arrive to Buddha times we find the obvious word "Sakya" which for sure has some relation with the ancient "Sakka". Although at that time the physical appearance of that people after enough centuries in India was diverse.

We know about that constant process of change because the "anulom vivah" from Manu specifies:

"A Shudra can only marry a Shudra woman; a Vaishya can marry any of the two; a Khastriya can marry a woman from his clan or any woman from the clans below him; while a Brahmin is eligible to marry a woman from any of the four clans..[,,,].A woman is not liable for punishment if she has sex with a man from the ‘higher castes’. But she is due for harsh punishment for having sex with a man from a ‘lower caste’.."

in these conditions the mixture of people through the centuries was logical. In that social equation, only the Brahmin caste can remains quite isolated from the ethnic mixture. And in that way, the white skin color was a characteristic associated with the Brahmin caste and we find that mention only specific to this caste inside the Suttas.

We know this characteristic as a superiority mark it was rejected by the Buddha by means the history of Devala the Dark and another places.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
And also the warrior caste in where Siddharta was born, it was free of those limitations to be married with other people.

Together with that panorama, we can remember how the Sramana "revolution" was fueled by a general discontent with the Brahmin religious establishment. And it was only possible with the support of powerful rulers, who obviously were not adherent to that Brahmin system in crisis. And probably (because logical) many of them were not "so brahmin" as expected.

https://ntuhistsoc.wordpress.com/2017/0 ... -movement/

.
Cause_and_Effect
Posts: 1067
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2021 7:39 am

Re: Was the Buddha a blue-eyed light skinned Aryan?

Post by Cause_and_Effect »

zerotime wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 1:34 pm
The modern fascination for the skin color being a signal of purity or racial superiority, it arose with the modern biological racism. It was developed at 19th century in England, from both the aristocracy (Lytton and others) and the clumsy pseudoscience from Galton, Darwin, Huxley and others. All they were deluded racist people.


these ideas about the skin colour were passed from England to Germany, to the nazis and also to other places. This the origin of this modern idea which today still is awakened in some minds in front social problems.

The other issue, about the Aryans origins and Buddha times, this is linked today to the previous issue. However, today we know the "Aryan myth" like a superior race is wrong. We know those Aryans tribes were more primitive than many conquered people. They had a shamanic, warrior and nomad character. They were efficient in war and conquest, although much less sophisticated than the Indus Valley Civilization in where we find impressive signals of a more sophisticated society:

Image
https://www.worldhistory.org/image/12856/mohenjo-daro/
http://niltindia.asia/appiusforum/indusvalley.html

The works you cite are very interesting as your points about how racial ideas were formed during the colonial era and the 'creation of the third world'.

What to me stands out about the caste system is how it was not applied in the beginning at all. In fact there was widespread mixing of populations for centuries before the current castes crystalized 2000 years ago.
There are also some interesting contradictions that are unresolved yet. The Steppe or Aryan ancestry in India appears to be mainly paternal, but some of the earliest from the Swat is largely maternal. This means Indus Valley males were marrying the Aryan women mainly here when they arrived, and the Swat Valley is further seen as the gateway route into the rest of India.

https://m.economictimes.com/news/scienc ... 556277.cms

This all argues strongly against an invasion and more a cultural diffusion and assimilation. Vedic culture is just this fusion of the two.

Kusala wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 11:07 am
Nuristanis speak an Indo-Iranian(Aryan) language...

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

Image

Instead of looking at the research and seeing how it progresses in the years ahead you are looking for a confirmation bias of your preconceived hopes about the subject. I mean you keep posting photos of blonde Iranians or Afghans supposedly supporting your claims, I could likewise keep posting Albino Dravidians in support of just the reverse. Clearly we don't even need to look outside India for an independent origin of blondes.

IMG_3074.JPG

We have already established that skin, hair and eyes color do not mean much by themselves and most populations have lightened up considerably over the last few thousand years. Looking at people now is not a good indicator at all as to how they looked back then.
We know the same genes for skin color are found across Northern Europe to South India and there has been gradual light skin selection particularly among Europe over the last few thousand years.

Further, genetics has shown that modern Europeans themselves are actually a heavily mixed population descending from dark skinned hunter gatherers.
So Europeans today are hardely a representative of the 'Aryans' whatsoever any more than Indians or any population is.

Even if we assume that at some phase the Sintashta culture were lighter skinned after the migration of the Yamnaya to Corded Ware then back East, we are having to write 'white' because the term isn't precise or easy to define.

What is 'white' exactly? It's a modern invention in the US to distinguish Europeans from African Slaves. We can be reminded that until recently Greeks, Italians and Slavs were considered to be 'non-whites'. Now they are apparently 'white' (for most people) and now we even see people trying to argue that so were 4000 year old Sintashta people who were not particularly closely related to modern Europeans and were not nearly as skin lightened as people are today.


David Reich has also said that the original Indo-Europeans that gave rise to the Corded Ware lacked genes for light hair or eyes and had only a moderate skin color. So it's clear that the early Indo-Europeans who entered Europe from the Caucasus region were basically what we would class today as 'non-whites'.
From_Corded_Ware_to_Sintashta.jpg
To make matters more complicated for the 'Europeans are the Aryans' myth we also have evidence now of a migration of swarthy Dravidian/Iranian farmers into Europe from the Indus Valley, before the Aryans got to Europe and contributes to the Neolithic farmer genetics. So a total reverse direction migration to the 19th century theory has also been shown.

In short, let's just say it is enough that the ancient culture of Indo-Europe was at one time in a sense a kind of giant pagan land before the advent of the Christians in Europe and the Muslims in Iran.
The fact of this bi-directional migration is definitely interesting.
I understand the urge to mythologize since the West is lacking in myth today although they get it through Lord of the Rings etc. So connecting with the real thing and the larger cosmic world view is much needed and there is a strong desire within the mind for this.




However the true pagan legacy of Europe was lost millenia ago. It's futile to argue that some of today's Europeans might have maybe 10% more Steppe ancestry than Northern Indians when the Vedic tradition has died in the West long ago. Ancient Europe is part of the larger Dharmic culture however, so the arrival of the Buddha Dhamma finally in the West is fitting.

And let us not forget the Buddha also almost certainly had some Tibeto-Burmese blood as those in North East India and Nepal have also from millennia ago when these groups migrated there. They have played a role of preserving Buddhism for the past 2000 years and Buddha carried some of their ancestry also, genetics has shown that no modern population is unmixed.

You will have much vexation trying to reconstruct a coherent identity view that aligns with your current human identity by looking at the genetics. Some researchers have attempted it vaguely and it's a mess even at this stage to try to put it all together and derive one considering how mixed populations are and how they change.

In short, develop an identity view that supports dhamma practice and leads to attenuation of defilements so that you attain to stream-entry. This is all. Among the true meanings of Aryan in the world-transcending Buddha's teaching is 'one who is freed from the lower world and is headed for Nibbana'.
"Therein monks, that Dimension should be known wherein the eye ceases and the perception of forms fades away...the ear... the nose...the tongue... the body ceases and the perception of touch fades away...

That Dimension should be known wherein mentality ceases and the perception of mind-objects fades away.
That Dimension should be known; that Dimension should be known."


(S. IV. 98) - The Dimension beyond the All
User avatar
Tennok
Posts: 195
Joined: Sun May 02, 2021 2:02 am

Re: Was the Buddha a blue-eyed light skinned Aryan?

Post by Tennok »

zerotime wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 1:34 pm [Already in its origins, those ancient Aryan tribes were diverse and with different physical appearence. And they were mixed across the times. When we arrive to Buddha times we find the obvious word "Sakya" which for sure has some relation with the ancient "Sakka". Although at that time the physical appearance of that people after enough centuries in India was diverse.
Very informative post. Nice. But first Sakka came to India with the multi-ethnic army of king Cyrus the Great. His conquests started in 535 BC.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achaemeni ... dus_Valley

And Gautama Buddha lived turing reign of king Bimbisara (c.  558 – c. 491 BCE, or c. 400 BCE )

So if we agree that Sakians are connected to Sakka, Gautama could belong to the second, third generation of the newcomers. I don't see "enough centuries" here, necessary for the radical change of his psychical appearence. More like decades. And while his father could indeed marry a local girl from a "lower" caste, Gautama was his official heir...and official heirs are usually concieved in a political marriage with a high status wife, not in a mesalliance.

Of course, that ponts out to anther big issue, to which extend whole story of Buddha being a royal prince is a later myth, forged for PR reasons.

But if he was a Sakka descend...then we really can guess how he looked. For example, Scythian kinsmen of Sakka served as Athenian law enforces. Those nomads were really not that misterious and unknown for the ancient writers.

Btw, I' ve got a new theory about Gautama's hairstyle choices. Perhaps that's why he've decided to shave his hair and beard...in the contrary to most of ascetic wanderers. To hide their provocative, blond color :tongue:
User avatar
zerotime
Posts: 480
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Was the Buddha a blue-eyed light skinned Aryan?

Post by zerotime »

Tennok wrote: Wed Sep 15, 2021 2:01 am
zerotime wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 1:34 pm [Already in its origins, those ancient Aryan tribes were diverse and with different physical appearence. And they were mixed across the times. When we arrive to Buddha times we find the obvious word "Sakya" which for sure has some relation with the ancient "Sakka". Although at that time the physical appearance of that people after enough centuries in India was diverse.
Very informative post. Nice. But first Sakka came to India with the multi-ethnic army of king Cyrus the Great. His conquests started in 535 BC.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achaemeni ... dus_Valley

And Gautama Buddha lived turing reign of king Bimbisara (c.  558 – c. 491 BCE, or c. 400 BCE )

So if we agree that Sakians are connected to Sakka, Gautama could belong to the second, third generation of the newcomers. I don't see "enough centuries" here, necessary for the radical change of his psychical appearence. More like decades.
[,,,]
Btw, I' ve got a new theory about Gautama's hairstyle choices. Perhaps that's why he've decided to shave his hair and beard...in the contrary to most of ascetic wanderers. To hide their provocative, blond color :tongue:

just to say the idea about some physical appearance of the Buddha can be a personal issue. Probably for many people this is part of their relation with the Buddha. So I think not very right forcing others to believe this or that. Specially when we don't have that exact knowledge. If you think the Buddha was blonde, that's your belief. Fortunately the variety was enough diverse at those times and lands, so not problem to choose some image.

I point to a confusion in your message about the Historical memory. There is the written, oral, archaeological, genetics.. A complicated puzzle.

Indo-aryans migrations started many thousands years ago. In example these are the 4000 to 1000 BCE movements according to the Kurgan hypothesis. Please read that article to see more about an older past also with migratory movements:

Image

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_migrations

other hypothesis are tracing those movements still older in Time, until 8.000 bce. Also there are theories explaining a continuity in a proto-indian civilization in India until today; these deny the theories about a violent aryan conquest and talk about a peaceful encounter. Even there are 19th century hypothesis going to the pre-glaciation times, in where all people lived together inhabiting the north-pole; these theories were popular in Germany and Rusia, obviously with different political characteristics

Reality is that from the Ice Age, these movement are very complicated to trace. And also there are political interests from many sides (western, indian, nationalists, colonialists, religious, etc) to build a comfortable one.

Mention to Sakkas in 550 bce doesn't mean those tribes were missing thousand years before. Neither it means they were thousand years static in some place. They were nomads in climate changes. We can jump backward until the proto-indo-european time and also we will find migrations of those peoples:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-Europeans

if we search about the origin of those tribes we find genetics and archaeological findings to complicate more the mess. The written stuff is not always a register of a Time but many times explains a long time before. Similar with the Manu code, which talks about something previously existing perhaps across many centuries. We know that pattern with the Suttas compilation, in where the texts are the culmination of oral memories

My previous message was pointing to the source of the modern notion of a biological fascination for the superiority of some specific skin human color. This is really a wrong idea because we know all the humans share the same mind, which is potentially able to discern nama and rupa. Obstacles for this goal are not the skin colour and physical appearence but attachment and ignorance.

Second part was pointing to that obvious contrast of indo-aryans tribes compared with the sophisticated civilization already existing in India.

I'm aware about the political contamination in this discussion. Just to say I'm not a "leftist" or something similar. In our times we observe the present forced migration like non-ethical and a source of many problems. However, it's good put each thing in its basket. There is the same human potential in all the human variety to discover the Truth.
User avatar
Kusala
Posts: 1148
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 11:02 am

Re: Was the Buddha a blue-eyed light skinned Aryan?

Post by Kusala »

Tennok wrote: Wed Sep 15, 2021 2:01 am
zerotime wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 1:34 pm [Already in its origins, those ancient Aryan tribes were diverse and with different physical appearence. And they were mixed across the times. When we arrive to Buddha times we find the obvious word "Sakya" which for sure has some relation with the ancient "Sakka". Although at that time the physical appearance of that people after enough centuries in India was diverse.
Very informative post. Nice. But first Sakka came to India with the multi-ethnic army of king Cyrus the Great. His conquests started in 535 BC.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achaemeni ... dus_Valley

And Gautama Buddha lived turing reign of king Bimbisara (c.  558 – c. 491 BCE, or c. 400 BCE )

So if we agree that Sakians are connected to Sakka, Gautama could belong to the second, third generation of the newcomers. I don't see "enough centuries" here, necessary for the radical change of his psychical appearence. More like decades. And while his father could indeed marry a local girl from a "lower" caste, Gautama was his official heir...and official heirs are usually concieved in a political marriage with a high status wife, not in a mesalliance.

Of course, that ponts out to anther big issue, to which extend whole story of Buddha being a royal prince is a later myth, forged for PR reasons.

But if he was a Sakka descend...then we really can guess how he looked. For example, Scythian kinsmen of Sakka served as Athenian law enforces. Those nomads were really not that misterious and unknown for the ancient writers.

Btw, I' ve got a new theory about Gautama's hairstyle choices. Perhaps that's why he've decided to shave his hair and beard...in the contrary to most of ascetic wanderers. To hide their provocative, blond color :tongue:
Now that you mentioned it, there's this Indian comic book that I came across a long time ago. I made nothing of the blonde baby Siddartha, but the whole Scythian thing got me thinking of the possibility...I mean, there's still blonde people in isolated areas of Afghanistan...

But according to Buddhist texts, the Buddha had "black hair", but he also had "forty teeth"... :thinking:


Image

https://estudantedavedanta.net/uploads/ ... -katha.pdf
"He, the Blessed One, is indeed the Noble Lord, the Perfectly Enlightened One;
He is impeccable in conduct and understanding, the Serene One, the Knower of the Worlds;
He trains perfectly those who wish to be trained; he is Teacher of gods and men; he is Awake and Holy. "

--------------------------------------------
"The Dhamma is well-expounded by the Blessed One,
Apparent here and now, timeless, encouraging investigation,
Leading to liberation, to be experienced individually by the wise. "
Zenny
Posts: 999
Joined: Wed May 12, 2021 12:09 pm

Re: Was the Buddha a blue-eyed light skinned Aryan?

Post by Zenny »

For all the purported "tolerance" and open mindedness of the modern world,bubbling under the surface is always the alleged "superiority" of Western culture over any other.
Many people think in "groups" rather than individuals.
Even the word "rationality" and "science" are narrowed down to western dogmas.
This is not really racism but classism.
Would people be put off if Buddha was born from a poor family but was white with blue eyes? Yes! Because class is everything on the world stage.
Last edited by Zenny on Thu Sep 16, 2021 11:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
Non buddhist Zen Practitioner.
Focus!
User avatar
zerotime
Posts: 480
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Was the Buddha a blue-eyed light skinned Aryan?

Post by zerotime »

Zenny wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 11:30 am For all the purported "tolerance" and open mindedness of the modern world,bubbling under the surface is always the alleged "superiority" of Western culture over any other.
Many people think in "groups" rather than individuals.
Even the word "rationality" and "science" are narrowed down to western dogmas.
This is not really racism but classism.
class, ideologies.. Different contamination depending times and social context for this discussion.

130 years ago this discussion was conditioned because colonialism. Later because the Nazis, the Soviets.. Today there are those things like that BLM in USA and the globalist migrations in Europe.

Can I recommend searching in Google to find about the Ajanta Paintings. Then one can realize the variety of colors and characters. Those ancient people were not hiding that type of things conditioned by ideas and fears of present times

Image

they could hide uncomfortable things although different things
Zenny
Posts: 999
Joined: Wed May 12, 2021 12:09 pm

Re: Was the Buddha a blue-eyed light skinned Aryan?

Post by Zenny »

zerotime wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 2:14 pm
Zenny wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 11:30 am For all the purported "tolerance" and open mindedness of the modern world,bubbling under the surface is always the alleged "superiority" of Western culture over any other.
Many people think in "groups" rather than individuals.
Even the word "rationality" and "science" are narrowed down to western dogmas.
This is not really racism but classism.
class, politics.. Different contamination depending times and social context for this discussion.

130 years ago this discussion was conditioned because colonialism. Later because the Nazis, the Soviets.. Today there are those things like that BLM in USA and the globalist migrations in Europe.

Can I recommend searching in Google to find about the Ajanta Paintings. Then one can realize the variety of colors and characters. Those ancient people were not hiding that type of things conditioned by the ideas and fears of present times

Image

they could hide uncomfortable things although different things
Your post is not very clear. Are you saying the ancient people's didn't judge by class? Because if you are you are absolutely wrong. There are no noble political systems of old. They were all based on class/ caste.
Non buddhist Zen Practitioner.
Focus!
User avatar
zerotime
Posts: 480
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Was the Buddha a blue-eyed light skinned Aryan?

Post by zerotime »

Zenny wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 2:19 pm Your post is not very clear. Are you saying the ancient people's didn't judge by class? Because if you are you are absolutely wrong. There are no noble political systems of old. They were all based on class/ caste.
no, I mean the notion of birth superiority has evolved through the times. Then we cannot apply the modern notions to understand the past. In example, those ancients paintings would not have been possible with the racial superiority notions from 19th century

Therefore, when somebody believes those ancients Indian people had the need to hide the skin or hair color of the Buddha, mostly this is a projection of modern biological superiority notions to the past.

Even I have read these days about the Buddha was an intersex but ancient indians had the need to hide the truth!! :shock:
Post Reply