Was the Buddha a blue-eyed light skinned Aryan?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
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 2:48 pm
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:
Yet still,the people of the past had oppressive class systems as well.
Of course Brown people will have some brown pictures! Doesn't mean they are free of a class system!
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 3:08 pm Yet still,the people of the past had oppressive class systems as well.
Of course Brown people will have some brown pictures! Doesn't mean they are free of a class system!
nobody says no oppression existed. I cannot see your point
White people also could be slaves at those times.
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 4:00 pm
Zenny wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 3:08 pm Yet still,the people of the past had oppressive class systems as well.
Of course Brown people will have some brown pictures! Doesn't mean they are free of a class system!
nobody says no oppression existed. I cannot see your point
White people also could be slaves at those times.
Yes of course,white people are oppressed as well.
My point is class has always existed with its subsequent oppression of others.
What point are you making?
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 4:40 pm Yes of course,white people are oppressed as well.
My point is class has always existed with its subsequent oppression of others.
What point are you making?
I wrote in the previous messages:

- a biological notion of a superiority of some skin human color is a modern idea. This is not very useful to speculate about censorship of physical appearances in ancient times, because the notions of purity and superiority were conditioned by another factors.

- those indo-aryan tribes were not societies more sophisticated, intelligent or evolved than societies with different skin colour.

- while the exact knowledge of that past evolution is uncertain, most times the hypothesis arise conditioned in its own times, with diverse sociopolitical interests, anguish and fears.

At least I don't believe in the explanation of oppression only because the existence of classes. A human group can accept the existence of classes without implying there is oppression.
In example, in this forum there are moderators who are another class. The oppression could arise in a subjective way, depending of individual factors be in users or moderators. No because the existence of the moderator class.
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 8:29 pm
Zenny wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 4:40 pm Yes of course,white people are oppressed as well.
My point is class has always existed with its subsequent oppression of others.
What point are you making?
I wrote in the previous messages:

- a biological notion of a superiority of some skin human color is a modern idea. This is not very useful to speculate about censorship of physical appearances in ancient times, because the notions of purity and superiority were conditioned by another factors.

- those indo-aryan tribes were not societies more sophisticated, intelligent or evolved than societies with different skin colour.

- while the exact knowledge of that past evolution is uncertain, most times the hypothesis arise conditioned in its own times, with diverse sociopolitical interests, anguish and fears.

At least I don't believe in the explanation of oppression only because the existence of classes. A human group can accept the existence of classes without implying there is oppression.
In example, in this forum there are moderators who are another class. The oppression could arise in a subjective way, depending of individual factors be in users or moderators. No because the existence of the moderator class.

There have always been classes that thought that they were biologically superior. That's what monarchy and Royal families are! And alleged biological superiority still exists all over the world with people who claim royal ancestry. Most top politicians and celebrities are from elite families.
Whenever there is elite classes there is oppression because of competing interests. Subjective and mass subjective.
Can you name me one society past or present without oppression?
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 8:35 pm There have always been classes that thought that they were biologically superior. That's what monarchy and Royal families are! And alleged biological superiority still exists all over the world with people who claim royal ancestry.
no, my friend. Biology was conformed at 18-19th centuries. In medieval Europe, the monarchies were supported by divine justifications instead biological. For that reason, many kings could be mentally incapable to rule although it was not an obstacle to be a king. The important thing was to know his lineage was well connected with god by means the Pope approval or similar

It means that medieval people were not racist neither classist (both 19th century notions) but a different thing. The justification was being closer to divinity than rest of people.

Their privileges were not justified by a modern biological racism or a marxist classism. It was a different thing.

Those royals did not think the African or Asiatic people were inferior because the skin color. This notion was absent in their minds. They believed other people were inferior because their beliefs. And not only royals: in example, the Muslims at those times could not have Muslim slaves but they could have Christian slaves. They believed the Christians were inferior beings because no close to Allah. Same for others.

Can you see the obvious change in that superiority wrong notion through the Times?.
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 11:37 pm
Zenny wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 8:35 pm There have always been classes that thought that they were biologically superior. That's what monarchy and Royal families are! And alleged biological superiority still exists all over the world with people who claim royal ancestry.
no, my friend. Biology was conformed at 18-19th centuries. In medieval Europe, the monarchies were supported by divine justifications instead biological. For that reason, many kings could be mentally incapable to rule although it was not an obstacle to be a king. The important thing was to know his lineage was well connected with god by means the Pope approval or similar

It means that medieval people were not racist neither classist (both 19th century notions) but a different thing. The justification was being closer to divinity than rest of people.

Their privileges were not justified by a modern biological racism or a marxist classism. It was a different thing.

Those royals did not think the African or Asiatic people were inferior because the skin color. This notion was absent in their minds. They believed other people were inferior because their beliefs. And not only royals: in example, the Muslims at those times could not have Muslim slaves but they could have Christian slaves. They believed the Christians were inferior beings because no close to Allah. Same for others.

Can you see the obvious change in that superiority wrong notion through the Times?.
Nope. Have you read the torah or actually been to the middle East?
There has always been class division based on Birth and family.
Non buddhist Zen Practitioner.
Focus!
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 »

TRobinson465 wrote: Thu Sep 09, 2021 9:43 pm
sphairos wrote: Thu Sep 09, 2021 5:29 pm
TRobinson465 wrote: Thu Sep 09, 2021 4:56 pm The texts say he had blue eyes so he could have had blue eyes.
The texts say nīlaḥ, (black, dark-blue). In Ancient india it is mostly "black".
Is black eyes even an existing eye color? And yes I agree. It could not actually say he has blue eyes. Just as Maha moggallana being described as blue skinned could also be a mistranslation.
David Reynolds wrote an interesting piece on the physical appearance of the Buddha. Check it out. https://politicallyincorrectdharma.blog ... -eyes.html

"One possible complication with this is that nīla in a few cases can also mean blue-black, or jet black with bluish highlights, like the hair of some Asian people or Veronica's hair in Archie comics. This does seem unlikely as an eye color however, since black-eyed people (again like many Asian people) really have brown-black eyes the color of black coffee; the color is really a very dark brown and not bluish at all. So in all likelihood the most ancient references to the Buddha’s eye color really do say that he had very blue eyes."
"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. "
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: Wed Sep 15, 2021 4:10 pm 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.
It's not my belief, zerotime. It's my joke. Tongue in cheek. But I'm sorry, if I offended you.

But I do believe that Indoeuropeans shared some psychical features and Buddha was, most likely, one of them.

And I do believe that there could be some cultural tensions between Indoeuropeans and Dravidians at the times of Buddha. We don't need any modern, anachronistic ideas to support such notion. You seem to know history well, so don't you agree, that in many cases, ruling class comes to power by force? Like Franks in France, or Normans in England. Buddha likely belonged to such "opressor" group, had good ties with king and elite, yet wandered though remote, rural areas. That's interesting position to take, and bit tricky.

Btw, class divisions are possible to exist long before Marxism. In my country, Poland, 10 % of society, so called "nobles", lived separated from other groups, exploiting or even enslaving them, since late medieval period until late XIX Century. The idea of "three estates" was well established in whole medieval Europe, and it was pretty similiar to varnas in India. The warriors, the clergy and the workers.

On course, Dhamma was and is aimed at ending of Dukkha, and identity views, inluding any "ethinic" or "class" attachments, are obstacle on the Path.The idea of giving up one's previous, secular identity, clan pride and attachment to language and customs, often appears in the Suttas. Shaving was just a part of it, I guess. And beard is also a masculinity and sexual identity symbol, so to shave it off was an act of vossagga.
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 »

Kusala post_id=644690 time=1631786492 user_id=3179]
ow that you mentioned it, there's this Indian comic book that I came across a long time ago.
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.

Btw, great mystic Svendenborg had extra set of teeth, too. But i think he grow them in his old age :smile: .
thomaslaw
Posts: 812
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:55 am
Location: Australia

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

Post by thomaslaw »

thomaslaw wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 6:29 am The Buddha was being called "wicked outcaste" (vasala/vasala-ka) by a Brahmin (Brāhmaṇa):
“You are an outcaste, do not approach”

Sn 1.7 Vasala-sutta: ‘ “tatr’ eva samaṇaka, tatr’ eva vasalaka tiṭṭhāhī” ti.’ (Sn 21).

Cf. the Chinese versions:
SA 102: ‘住。住。領群特。慎勿近我門。’ (T 2, 28b). ASA 268: ‘住住旃陀羅。莫來至此。’ (T2, 467c).

The texts describe in common how a Brahmin, while performing the fire ritual with a food offering in his house, sees the Buddha coming at a distance, and says to him, “You are an outcaste, do not approach”.
It seems the Buddha was a black-eyed yellow skinned Vṛṣala/Caṇḍāla.
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: Fri Sep 17, 2021 4:26 pm It's not my belief, zerotime. It's my joke. Tongue in cheek. But I'm sorry, if I offended you.
no offence in your message :anjali:, although I thought it was your real belief. Anyway sure we agree there is no problem with building images of the Buddha (physical or mental) with different colors while the teaching is preserved. Well, this is present in the Buddhist art.
Tennok wrote: Fri Sep 17, 2021 4:26 pm And I do believe that there could be some cultural tensions between Indoeuropeans and Dravidians at the times of Buddha. We don't need any modern, anachronistic ideas to support such notion. You seem to know history well, so don't you agree, that in many cases, ruling class comes to power by force? Like Franks in France, or Normans in England. Buddha likely belonged to such "opressor" group, had good ties with king and elite, yet wandered though remote, rural areas. That's interesting position to take, and bit tricky.

Btw, class divisions are possible to exist long before Marxism. In my country, Poland, 10 % of society, so called "nobles", lived separated from other groups, exploiting or even enslaving them, since late medieval period until late XIX Century. The idea of "three estates" was well established in whole medieval Europe, and it was pretty similiar to varnas in India. The warriors, the clergy and the workers.
I agree, violence for power is the common pattern in History. Although no trick about the Buddha behaviour. Sila exists according the own actions. Somebody is not responsible of some oppression because his social group but according his own actions. And sila also exist when talking about Dhamma with oppressors, killers or whoever.

if we label class system to a caste system it will distort that reality. In example, read here:

While distinguishing class from caste, Ogburn and Nimkoff observe as follows:

“In some societies, it is not uncommon for individuals to move up or down the social ladder. Where this is the case the society is said to have “open” classes. Elsewhere there are little shifting, individuals remaining through a life-time in the class into which “they chance to be born.” Such classes are “closed”, and if, extremely differentiated, constitute a caste system.” “When a class is somewhat strictly hereditary,” states Cooley, “we may call it a caste.”

Briefly caste may be defined in the words of Warner and Davis as a rank order of superior super-ordinate orders and inferior subordinate orders which practise endogamy, prevent vertical mobility, and unequally distribute the desirable and undesirable social symbols.

Class may be defined as a rank order of superior and inferior orders which allows both exogamy and endogamy, permits movement either up or down the system, or allows an individual to remain in the status to which he was born; it also unequally distributes the lower and higher evaluated symbols.”


https://www.sociologydiscussion.com/cas ... oints/2356

note the kings and nobles fits better in castes than classes system because no vertical mobility, the endogamy, etc.

This is the problem when projecting our modern notions to the past as I have written in previous messages. We are populating those past minds with notions and ideas absent in their minds. In that way we can believe ancient indian and medieval people were racist or classist while those minds worked with different notions to divide humans and society.
Tennok wrote: Fri Sep 17, 2021 4:26 pm On course, Dhamma was and is aimed at ending of Dukkha, and identity views, inluding any "ethinic" or "class" attachments, are obstacle on the Path.The idea of giving up one's previous, secular identity, clan pride and attachment to language and customs, often appears in the Suttas. Shaving was just a part of it, I guess. And beard is also a masculinity and sexual identity symbol, so to shave it off was an act of vossagga.
I understand the shaving of beard was no related with losing the masculinity. Masculinity and femininity are a kammic rupa production and logically the Buddha knew it. Also note the Buddha visited Upali the barbier for a haircut.

It sounds more probable the novices were completely shaved when joining the order (like Buddha did before pursuing nibbana). And later some of them could choose (be older bhikkus, senior, etc). I don't know exactly what the Vinaya says in this subject. Maybe other people can know.

I believe the explanation to lose masculinity is another projection over the past. At those times, the attachment to lose masculinity or femininity was a manifestation from a non-defined, non-preponderant kamma in that aspect.

Detachment from genre is not leaving masculinity, femininity, or a non-defined kamma. That's not possible. This detachment means leaving any genre concern because this is a cause of doubt and dukkha. Also we should include here the detachment from modern notions like non-binary, trans, inter or any notion to sustain that concern. However, today many people who talk about detachment from genre they talk all the time about there is a problem with the gender, which is revelatory.
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 »

zerotime wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 11:37 pm
Zenny wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 8:35 pm There have always been classes that thought that they were biologically superior. That's what monarchy and Royal families are! And alleged biological superiority still exists all over the world with people who claim royal ancestry.
no, my friend. Biology was conformed at 18-19th centuries. In medieval Europe, the monarchies were supported by divine justifications instead biological. For that reason, many kings could be mentally incapable to rule although it was not an obstacle to be a king. The important thing was to know his lineage was well connected with god by means the Pope approval or similar

It means that medieval people were not racist neither classist (both 19th century notions) but a different thing. The justification was being closer to divinity than rest of people.

Their privileges were not justified by a modern biological racism or a marxist classism. It was a different thing.

Those royals did not think the African or Asiatic people were inferior because the skin color.
This notion was absent in their minds. They believed other people were inferior because their beliefs. And not only royals: in example, the Muslims at those times could not have Muslim slaves but they could have Christian slaves. They believed the Christians were inferior beings because no close to Allah. Same for others.

Can you see the obvious change in that superiority wrong notion through the Times?.
Unfortunately..."Skin colour tied to caste system, says study"

Read more at:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/arti ... aign=cppst
"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. "
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 »

Kusala wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 11:05 am
Unfortunately..."Skin colour tied to caste system, says study"

Read more at:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/arti ... aign=cppst
I already posted the study this article was based upon saying that there was a social selection pressure that favoured light skin in North India. This can be linked to caste. One can easily observe this today in India. It was mentioned though that the Indus Valley was the more advanced culture and that at the very beginning there was no caste system and it was an assimilation.

However in Europe it was actually the somewhat swarthier Aryans who came upon the light skinned Neolithic farmers and the blue eyed hunter gatherers when they arrived.

As genetics has shown, modern Europeans range from between about 5 - 50% Yamna Steppe ancestry, the remainder being Neolithic farmer and hunter gatherer.
For India likewise Steppe ancestry ranges from about 5-30%, the remainder being Indus Valley farmer and hunter gatherer which had been posted earlier.

3 groups.jpg

Note in this chart the hunter gatherer ancestry is actually higher as it is part of the Neolithic farmer component as well. This also excludes smaller percentage of other groups such as the Sami in Norway who were East Asian, and small amounts of Neanderthal genes also. Populations are very mixed today.

Norwegians and Estonians have the highest Steppe Ancestry in Europe.
Does this mean that the Aryans looked like current Norwegians 5000 years ago? Of course not. We have to factor in 5000 years of skin lightening and also that the Yamna Aryans mixed with the neolithic farmers and hunter gatherers where they picked up the light eyes and hair. It has been shown that it was actually the non-Aryans in Europe who had the lighter eyes and hair traits.

It is fascinating that there was a slight detour first West then East of the Yamna before they reached India which means that they came into contact with neolithic farmers on the outskirts of far Eastern Europe and mixed a bit picking up some of the lighter phenotypes. This raises the possibility at least, that a small percentage of the Aryans of the Sintashta who came into India although primarily dark haired and eyed may have indeed had the blonde and light eyes phenotype. We do find this trait there sometimes today as we have seen.

However...
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.
main-qimg-4cf3781df9d14529aa059338280d4ad9.jpeg
The bones don't lie. The fact we are even able to say that the Rig Veda Aryans were already a somewhat mixed population, and we can even point to the precursor Yamna Aryans and what they approximately looked like is amazing.
main-qimg-ec7233c24ea4064d10a7740e7b237cb3.jpeg
"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
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: Sat Sep 18, 2021 11:05 am Unfortunately..."Skin colour tied to caste system, says study"

Read more at:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/arti ... aign=cppst
that's don't mean nothing to clarify the discussion about the projection of present superiority notions to the past, which drive to imagine the existence of racism at those times. As your reply suggest. Be aware your reply is a projection of that type.

Why?. Because

1- at those times a white slave in India was not part of the superior group despite same skin color.

2- however, in modern times the racist people consider a white Muslim Pashtun part of their superior group, the "aryan race".

I'm sure that you and everybody can see the difference. It's so clear. No modern racism existed at those times but a different thing.

At those ancient times the race was not a notion to establish that superiority but it was the birth inside the caste.

The skin color was just another association to that caste like also:

- arranging his hair & beard
- putting on crimson garments
- wearing multi-layered sandals
- carrying a staff made of gold

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html


This means that no person was considered part of that caste just because the skin color or any other outer appearances like the previous ones.

A person was part of the superior caste only if he was born inside that caste!!!

No racism existed at Buddha times but a caste system. No racism existed but castes existed.

Modern racism is an invention from 18-19th century
Post Reply