Was the Buddha a blue-eyed light skinned Aryan?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
48vows
Posts: 185
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 2:31 am

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

Post by 48vows »

Tennok wrote: Fri Sep 17, 2021 4:34 pm Cool comic, Kusala. But I guess it's just a glow of santicity on this holy baby. And extra teeth could be old "marks of the chosen one" thing. Like with shamans.
I am very suprised you know about this.
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 »

48vows wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:34 am I am very suprised you know about this.
Why? is it a rare knowledge?

I think Mircea Elliade wrote about it.
48vows
Posts: 185
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 2:31 am

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

Post by 48vows »

Tennok wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 11:30 pm
48vows wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:34 am I am very suprised you know about this.
Why? is it a rare knowledge?
I think Mircea Elliade wrote about it.
Well, I knew of it too, so when I saw that you also knew it I thought you must be pretty involved in that type of thing, because I think that is something a person would only know if they were deeply involved.

All that being said I am also a reader of Eliade and have actually studied with people who studied under him. And while I don't remember coming across this in his books, I doesn't suprise me that he mentioned it.

In sum, that yopu mentioned that in the first place and that you mention Eliade, indicates that you and I have similar intrests.

Best regards
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 »

Cause_and_Effect wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 1:16 pm It is also very clear that the earlier Yamna Aryans were somewhat dark coloured. They came from Central Asia and had this darker phenotype without lighter hair and eye genes found in Europe.
Does it bother people that these Yamna Aryans who represent a large percentage of modern European ancestry were 'non-white' by today's standard?
If it does, it's surely the result of modern conditioning that is all.
No, Cause and Effect. It is only clear to you, for some misterious reasons. You insist that Yamma Aryans were "not white", but it is absurd. Where is a serious evidence for that? Some pictures from internet? Having brown hair doesn't mean, they weren't white. And what are those "modern standards" ? Whose standards? Are you talking about American culture, obsessed with race?

According to scientists, some Yamma Aryans coluld be already blonde. You ommit that detail. And there were many later, Indoeuropean tribes living in Asia, that beared various "European" features, before even visiting Europe. Read about Tocharians in modern Sicciang, for example. Great Buddhistic culture. Or Alans, whose very name comes from "Arya".

I know that "Aryans" is a very suspicious brand nowadays, but those are facts. Those agressive, white guys ( some could be blond ) invented the charriot and conquered or occupied large parts of the world. The were the linguistic and cultural ancestors of ancient Greeks, Hettites, Romans, Persians, Northern Indians, Celts, Germans and Slavs, plus most of modern European nations. The world as we know it today, with it's beloved democracy, human rights, medicine, science and art, was largely shaped by their ideas and inventions. Such as Dhamma.

Sounds politicaly incorrect? But it's true :smile:

Btw., the flaw of this whole discussion is that the cathegory of "Indoeuropeans" orginally refered to language, not race and genes. And, according to some scholars, choice of language affects our thinking. Dhamma was first developed by usage of Indoeuropean languages of Pali and Sanscrit, plus the original dialect of Gautama Buddha. In that sense it is Indoeuropean religion, in contrast to Chistianity, for example.
Last edited by Tennok on Mon Sep 20, 2021 1:18 am, edited 2 times in total.
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 »

48vows wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 12:51 am All that being said I am also a reader of Eliade and have actually studied with people who studied under him. And while I don't remember coming across this in his books, I doesn't suprise me that he mentioned it.

In sum, that yopu mentioned that in the first place and that you mention Eliade, indicates that you and I have similar intrests.

Best regards
Best regards to you, too. Nice to study with Elliade's disciples. Were they Romanians or French? I ve spent some years at the University, studing history of religion and most of my scholary pursuits were somehow related to that.

Elliade mentiones "marks of the chosen" in his book "Shamanism and archaic techniques of ecstasy", I suppose.

Btw., have you read his "Yoga. Freedom and Immortality"?

I like his ideas about relation between Dhamma and Yoga...placing the Dhamma in a broader cultural contexst. Plus the chapters about conflict between Samadhi oriented monks and Insight oriented monks. I guess Bhante Sujato was inspired by this book, too. Or just came to similiar conclusions.
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 »

Tennok wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 12:55 am
Cause_and_Effect wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 1:16 pm It is also very clear that the earlier Yamna Aryans were somewhat dark coloured. They came from Central Asia and had this darker phenotype without lighter hair and eye genes found in Europe.
Does it bother people that these Yamna Aryans who represent a large percentage of modern European ancestry were 'non-white' by today's standard?
If it does, it's surely the result of modern conditioning that is all.
No, Cause and Effect. It is only clear to you, for some misterious reasons. You insist that Yamma Aryans were "not white", but it is absurd. Where is a serious evidence for that? Some pictures from internet? Having brown hair doesn't mean, they weren't white. And what are those "modern standards" ? Whose standards? Are you talking about American culture, obsessed with race?

According to scientists, some Yamma Aryans coluld be already blonde. You ommit that detail. And there were many later, Indoeuropean tribes living in Asia, that beared various "European" features, before even visiting Europe. Read about Tocharians in modern Sicciang, for example. Great Buddhistic culture. Or Alans, whose very name comes from "Arya".

I know that "Aryans" is a very suspicious brand nowadays, but those are facts. Those agressive, white guys ( some could be blond ) invented the charriot and conquered or occupied large parts of the world. The were the linguistic and cultural ancestors of ancient Greeks, Hettites, Romans, Persians, Northern Indians, Celts, Germans and Slavs, plus most of modern European nations. The world as we know it today, with it's beloved democracy, human rights, medicine, science and art, was largely shaped by their ideas and inventions. Such as Dhamma.

Sounds politicaly incorrect? But it's true :smile:

I understand that identity view is important, but sadly it seems to get in the way of facts when this subject is discussed. It's nothing to do with being 'politically correct'.
You have also said some very strange things such as you think 'one day the genetics will be debunked' so it seems only if it fits what you want to see then you would accept it. Actually the field of archeogenetics will only get stronger and clarify the picture more in future.

There has already been data presented that the Yamna lacked the fair hair or light eyes genes. Further the skin color was only intermediate. I don't see how people 5000 ago with dark/black hair , brown eyes and an intermediate skin color in the middle of Central Asia become 'white'.
1920px-Indo-European_expansions.jpg
Further these people represent only 5-50% of the modern European genome.
So we go from trying to whitewash the Yamna, to then making an ideological leap to then call modern Europeans 'Aryans' ignoring their other ancestry.

Which is why I said, some want the 'white' category to become increasingly broad across time and space when suitable.

You are arguing for only a version of identity view. However I don't blame you, everyone want to glorify their own ancestry it is a common conceit.

You omit that your primary ancestors, the Western Hunter gatherers were very dark skinned but carried the blue eyes trait. They would not be considered white today.
villabruna_WHG.jpg
The 'nordic' coloring you speak of came from the Scandinavian hunter gathers who had the light hair and eyes.

These reconstructions are based upon the skulls and genetic data. An approximation but still reasonably good.
bckaskog_woman_SHG.jpg
Neither of these groups were the Indo-European speaking Aryans.
These discussions only show how persistent is ideology mixed with identity view.
Last edited by Cause_and_Effect on Mon Sep 20, 2021 2:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
"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
48vows
Posts: 185
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 2:31 am

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

Post by 48vows »

have you read his "Yoga. Freedom and Immortality"?
I have read parts of it and do plan on reading all of it sometime.
The part that stood out was on page 162 where he says that Alara Kalama taught a "preclassic samkhya" a point that he further discusses on pages 378, where Eliade states that "Muller and Oldenberg wre the first to reject the tradition - until then generally accepted -that buddhism derives from Samkhya"
I don't really know much about indian religion other than inherited buddhism, but I found those pages interesting.
I like his ideas about relation between Dhamma and Yoga...placing the Dhamma in a broader cultural contexst.
Johannes Bronkhorst seems to have continued this and cites Eliade several times.
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 »

Cause_and_Effect wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 2:21 am You have also said some very strange things such as you think 'one day the genetics will be debunked' so it seems only if it fits what you want to see then you would accept it. Actually the field of archeogenetics will only get stronger and clarify the picture more in future.
This only shows how persistent is ideology mixed with identity view.
I said it will be debunked in the history studies, becouse this method allows manipulation. Parhaps I've should say "checked" instead. Academics's work is based on grants and they prefer topics - and results - that allow grants. Sometimes in the service of politicians, nationalists, ideologicians and such. I remind you, that the Nazi anthropologists, who supported racist theories of Hitler, were respected scientists at their time. They brought him results he paid them for. I didn't say genetics per se will be debunked. Don't make extra fool out of me, please. I will handle that by myself :smile:

As about your lack of belief in those white, nomadic tribes, it is your problem. Do you think that Tocharians and Scythians didn't exist, ancient paintings and sculptures were faked, and witnesses just lied about them? And why would they do that?

To dismiss a source you need some valid arguments.

I don't want to discuss Yamnaya culture, becouse I lack knowledge for that. But look, what I found in the Yamnaya viki:
Some individuals are believed to have carried a mutation to the KITLG gene associated with blond hair, as several individuals with Steppe ancestry are later found to carry this mutation
I can only guess, that the climate of the Asian stepes was responsible for "European looks" of those tribes. White skin, blue eyes and such appeared becouse of the temperature and climate. And this continental climate had harsh, cold winters, like in modern Russia and Syberia, for example. And I can agree they probably didn't look like modern Norvegians let's say. It's all anicca, it was long time ago.

At the end, thank you, couse I've learned some intereting stuff while discussing :namaste:. And sorry if I sounded hostile, but ancient history is one of my passions & study fields. Plus identity views, true.
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 »

48vows wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 2:32 am I have read parts of it and do plan on reading all of it sometime.
I read it piece by piece, too. Especially the parts about Dhamma. it's quiet a big book :smile: .

And the parts about Buddha's studies with those 2 teachers were interesting. it is easy to imagine what Buddha learned from the yogic guy, probaby meditation, tapas, pranayama etc. But pre - classical shankya? No idea, really. Perhaps it was about some traditional beliefs and ethics.

I've tried to read Bronkhorst...but I don't remember much, unfortunately.

Here on Dhamma Wheel many people focus on a conflict between the Dhamma and other traditions India - like "yogic Troyan horse" idea, for example. But i think differently. According to Elliade the very idea to meditate and study your own mind, is unique to Yoga - and India. We are in a debt.

In all other religions it was more about ecstatic traveling to the realm of gods, like shamans, or uniting with the God.

Btw., the oldest sculptures of someone in a meditation pose, were found in one of the Indus Valley cities, Harappa or Mohenjo Daro.
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 »

Cause_and_Effect wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 2:21 am You omit that your primary ancestors, the Western Hunter gatherers were very dark skinned but carried the blue eyes trait. They would not be considered white today.
Western Hunter Gatherers left me large chunk of my genes, true. But they left me no symbolic culture I know of. I still speak and think in a living, Indo - European langue. So they are not my "primary ancestors" in the sense of culture. Actually, as a practicioner of Dhamma and Yoga, I feel more connection with Indus Valley people, supposed inventors of Yoga.

At the end, we are all the grandchildren of Lucy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus)
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 »

Tennok wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 3:42 am
Cause_and_Effect wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 2:21 am You have also said some very strange things such as you think 'one day the genetics will be debunked' so it seems only if it fits what you want to see then you would accept it. Actually the field of archeogenetics will only get stronger and clarify the picture more in future.
This only shows how persistent is ideology mixed with identity view.
I said it will be debunked in the history studies, becouse this method allows manipulation. Parhaps I've should say "checked" instead. Academics's work is based on grants and they prefer topics - and results - that allow grants. Sometimes in the service of politicians, nationalists, ideologicians and such. I remind you, that the Nazi anthropologists, who supported racist theories of Hitler, were respected scientists at their time. They brought him results he paid them for. I didn't say genetics per se will be debunked. Don't make extra fool out of me, please. I will handle that by myself :smile:

As about your lack of belief in those white, nomadic tribes, it is your problem. Do you think that Tocharians and Scythians didn't exist, ancient paintings and sculptures were faked, and witnesses just lied about them? And why would they do that?

To dismiss a source you need some valid arguments.

I don't want to discuss Yamnaya culture, becouse I lack knowledge for that. But look, what I found in the Yamnaya viki:
Some individuals are believed to have carried a mutation to the KITLG gene associated with blond hair, as several individuals with Steppe ancestry are later found to carry this mutation
I can only guess, that the climate of the Asian stepes was responsible for "European looks" of those tribes. White skin, blue eyes and such appeared becouse of the temperature and climate. And this continental climate had harsh, cold winters, like in modern Russia and Syberia, for example. And I can agree they probably didn't look like modern Norvegians let's say. It's all anicca, it was long time ago.

At the end, thank you, couse I've learned some intereting stuff while discussing :namaste:. And sorry if I sounded hostile, but ancient history is one of my passions & study fields. Plus identity views, true.
Actually there is no confusion. I already said that the later Aryans tribes such as Tocharians and Sintashta may have indeed had a small percentage of blondes since they were a mixed population with the Corded Ware culture, a combination of Yamna with some hunter gatherers in the west who carried these lighter blonde traits and the blue eyes.

I said only that the Yamna Aryans who were the precursors lacked these genes so were darker and very unlikely what we could call as 'white' today.

Perhaps the Yamna carried a precursor gene variant for blondism also but unexpressed? Maybe but I have not seen that data or what it means. It could be misleading language to say they carried a precursor gene but were not blonde themselves since many groups have this gene. We have seen even how South Indians who are mainly Indus Valley farmer and hunter gatherer ancestry, without the skin or hair gene expression can look unrecognizably different and even pass as nordics. Such is the power of conditioned perception.
4791ee735f9401d116e34d4341974107.jpg
Brett-Cole-India-06077_xlarge.jpg
I expect the 'ideological battleground' will be fought in the academics world for the next decade at least about these Yamna and their identify, relations and appearance. After all to credit much of the founding of Western culture and civilization to swarthy people from Central Asia will be a big deal.
yamnaya___boldyrevo_i__kurgan_i__grave_1_by_philipedwin_deg39r5-pre.jpg
Ultimately this is the problem with layering perception onto identity view onto thousands of years old genetic samples. It will generally cause more vexation than anything.
The Buddha said that people fight over views.
We had seen how a version of the theory was used in WW2 to justify persecution of the very blonde Slavic people also, even at a time period when the Aryans were believed to have been blonde, so people can fashion interpretations as they desire. It seems the theory had been used so far more to divide rather than unite which is unfortunate,as no living population can really claim sole relation via ancestry or appearance to these people.
If one finds a mental representation that brings peace of mind and accords with some reality it is enough.
"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 »

Cause_and_Effect wrote: ↑After all to credit much of the founding of Western culture and civilization to swarthy people from Central Asia will be a big deal.
It seems now mainly the swarthy Hindu politicians from the ruling party are shocked and offended by the recent studies by Reich and others, that support the migration theory. They already offer their own researches to confront him, both parties saying different things about Indus Valley and it's inhabitants's genes. And nationalists bully those scholars who support a theory of a Steppe migration of Arya. They believe Indus Valley civilization was both ingdigenious and Aryan. They even want to change the name of Harappa into some new name, Sanscrit based.

Btw, and bit off topic, are you familiar with the Cheddar Man story?

Few years ago, I ve read an article, saying that most of the current British population has a very similiar gene pool to him. He is from 10000 BC.

And today I ve read this article about replacement of most of British population in 2000 BC, based on genetic research.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-03773-6

Reich also says that the invading Steppe people replaced up to 70 % of former populations in some parts of Europe. While some other scholars before, claimed it had just a small impact.

That's why genetic studies are both fascinating and problematic, as historical tools. They bring very contradicting conclusions, which I, as a poor humanist, can't really evaluate nor judge. Do you have a scientific knowledge of genetics, sufficient to judge who is right about those things, Cause and Effect?

Btw., I'm a very swarthy Slav, so I'm fine with those Kurgan pictures. This guy you've posted, could be my grandpa :smile:
Dweller
Posts: 104
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2021 9:14 pm

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

Post by Dweller »

Tennok wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 12:55 am
Cause_and_Effect wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 1:16 pm It is also very clear that the earlier Yamna Aryans were somewhat dark coloured. They came from Central Asia and had this darker phenotype without lighter hair and eye genes found in Europe.
Does it bother people that these Yamna Aryans who represent a large percentage of modern European ancestry were 'non-white' by today's standard?
If it does, it's surely the result of modern conditioning that is all.
No, Cause and Effect. It is only clear to you, for some misterious reasons. You insist that Yamma Aryans were "not white", but it is absurd. Where is a serious evidence for that? Some pictures from internet? Having brown hair doesn't mean, they weren't white. And what are those "modern standards" ? Whose standards? Are you talking about American culture, obsessed with race?

According to scientists, some Yamma Aryans coluld be already blonde. You ommit that detail. And there were many later, Indoeuropean tribes living in Asia, that beared various "European" features, before even visiting Europe. Read about Tocharians in modern Sicciang, for example. Great Buddhistic culture. Or Alans, whose very name comes from "Arya".

I know that "Aryans" is a very suspicious brand nowadays, but those are facts. Those agressive, white guys ( some could be blond ) invented the charriot and conquered or occupied large parts of the world. The were the linguistic and cultural ancestors of ancient Greeks, Hettites, Romans, Persians, Northern Indians, Celts, Germans and Slavs, plus most of modern European nations. The world as we know it today, with it's beloved democracy, human rights, medicine, science and art, was largely shaped by their ideas and inventions. Such as Dhamma.

Sounds politicaly incorrect? But it's true :smile:

Btw., the flaw of this whole discussion is that the cathegory of "Indoeuropeans" orginally refered to language, not race and genes. And, according to some scholars, choice of language affects our thinking. Dhamma was first developed by usage of Indoeuropean languages of Pali and Sanscrit, plus the original dialect of Gautama Buddha. In that sense it is Indoeuropean religion, in contrast to Chistianity, for example.
Yamnaya people were in no way Aryans, they could be ancestors of them and many other peoples, excluding many Europeans, notably native I haplogroup people, mostly spread in Nordic countries and Balkans, and also excluding many other Balkanians and Italians with genes from Middle East.

Among those who indeed were their descendants, only those related to ancestors of Slavs and Baltids have any connection with Aryans, other part went to the West and established cultures there, with not connection whatsoever with Aryans.
Dweller
Posts: 104
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2021 9:14 pm

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

Post by Dweller »

What is funny with Aryans and genetics is how genetic research has debunked Nazi and similar myths about it.

Original Nordic ubermensch of Hitler has proven to be the least related to Aryans among Europeans, paternally closer to Middle Easterners.

While the subhuman Slavs of Hitler were proven to be the closest, which goes hand in hand with linguistics.

To make thing even more funny is that proto-Germanic cultures were founded by the peoples more closely related to the ancestors of Slavs than to the native Nordics, who later appeared almost out of nowhere and spread it around mixed with Yamnaya related peoples.
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 »

DNS wrote: Thu Sep 09, 2021 4:14 pm
Kusala wrote: Thu Sep 09, 2021 12:09 am Personally, I could careless whether the historical Buddha was white, green, purple; his skin color is of no importance to me. But as a student of history and practicing Buddhist, I seek the "truth" even if it goes against the mainstream narrative. I understand certain topics invoke strong emotions...but like David Reynolds, I've always been somewhat of a politically incorrect Buddhist...
You say that; yet whenever the topic returns to the skin color of the Buddha, you're always there to post some questionable articles and numerous pictures of Asians with light colored skin and blue eyes.

There is nothing wrong with being politically incorrect. Even Bill Maher, a liberal Democrat is politically incorrect. But white-washing history to suit your preferences? That's going too far, imo.

Let's see what the Suttas say: "his skin is the color of gold [i.e., brown or at least light-brown]."

Image
Hi, David. I'm very passionate about the subject...as much as I respect the Suttas, I see it as a tiny part of the puzzle. It's not the whole puzzle, so to speak...We need to look beyond the Suttas, and look at actual Indians.

I've been called out for cherry-picking light-skinned Indians, but the thing is, light-skinned Indians are part the ruling class. And the Buddha was part the ruling class. We already know that upper caste Indians have certain amount of European/Caucasian dna as part their genetic makeup...The real question is(to me atleast), just how mixed were the ancient Indians during the Buddha's time...


Image

Image

Image

Image



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. "
Post Reply