Was the Buddha a blue-eyed light skinned Aryan?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Post Reply
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 »

un8- wrote: Thu Sep 09, 2021 10:48 am
Albinism has absolutely nothing to do with ethnicity, at all. That's like saying a certain ethnicity came from autism.
No, you shouldn't see it that way. It's not implying that whites are somehow 'defective' or that they should be seen as albinos.

It's just the facts of the studies I posted; that the same genes for skin color are found across India, the middle East and Europe and that Europeans have positively selected for light skin as it confers some advantage in the cold climate (such as allowing more vitamin D absorption) and perhaps also based on sociodemographic preference.

The fact albinos from South India have a variation of the same gene is not adaptive for their climate.
It's a good excercise for our perception though; when I have shown the picture to some people (white/Europeans) of the girl zoomed in so the other dark skinned children are not visible and asked them to identify the nationality they have answered "typical Scottish, Irish somewhere around there". They have generally been shocked when the actual ethnicity is revealed.
And this shouldn't be surprising, since the Dravidians are mainly descended from Indus Valley farmers and there is research (also posted) showing that these farmers may have migrated west into Europe and also intermixed with Neolithic European farmers to contribute to the early base European population before the arrival of the Aryans to Europe or India.

Like I said it's a complex and evolving field and our cherished ideas and self concepts are ultimately, anicca.
"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
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17187
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

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

Post by DNS »

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
Dweller
Posts: 104
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2021 9:14 pm

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

Post by Dweller »

Sakyans were likely mixed and considered non-Aryan by Aryans, who themselves could only be a bit lighter than modern Indians by then.

Mixture could come both from "mongolid" peoples and dark skinned non-Aryans.

When Buddha defended his tribe's ancestry, he recalled a time in distant history when they didn't mix with dark skinned people, only to make a point about noble ancestry of Sakyans.

Need to recall these distant times for this goes to say that they were looking mixed and non-Aryan, even in the eyes of peoples who already started to resemble modern Indians.
TRobinson465
Posts: 1783
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 5:29 pm
Location: United States

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

Post by TRobinson465 »

Yes. Well despite this being a useless question that doesn't matter there seems to be a lot of debate over this.

The fact is it doesn't matter and we don't even know for sure. The texts say he had blue eyes so he could have had blue eyes. His hair was black because I remember a sutta where he says something about young ppl having black hair or something and he didn't look that different from ppl around him who mostly had black hair. His skin color is more subject to debate cuz gold can mean light brown or it can just be talking about his skin "glowing" like gold does without a reference to his actual skin color.

If we don't know we don't know. 200 years ago brilliant scientists far smarter than most of the ppl on this thread debated what the sun was made of and mostly came up with incorrect conclusions. Not because these scientists were stupid, but because they just didn't have the information at the time. We don't have the information needed to make an accurate conclusion. As somebody stated earlier, if him being white motivates you to study the dhamma, believe he is white and u will eventually find thru learning the suttas that it never mattered to begin with.
"Do not have blind faith, but also no blind criticism" - the 14th Dalai Lama

"The Blessed One has set in motion the unexcelled Wheel of Dhamma that cannot be stopped by brahmins, devas, Maras, Brahmas or anyone in the cosmos." -Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta
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 »

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".
How good and wonderful are your days,
How true are your ways?
48vows
Posts: 185
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 2:31 am

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

Post by 48vows »

sphairos wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 10:47 pm I am not going to exchange further, because you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
just couldn't stop yourself, huh ?
TRobinson465
Posts: 1783
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 5:29 pm
Location: United States

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

Post by TRobinson465 »

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.
"Do not have blind faith, but also no blind criticism" - the 14th Dalai Lama

"The Blessed One has set in motion the unexcelled Wheel of Dhamma that cannot be stopped by brahmins, devas, Maras, Brahmas or anyone in the cosmos." -Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta
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 »

sphairos wrote: Thu Sep 09, 2021 12:05 pm
Kusala wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 10:54 pm
Marija Gimbutas Triumphant: Colin Renfrew Concedes by Carol P. Christ

https://feminismandreligion.com/2017/12 ... -p-christ/
As a student of history you must run away when you hear words "Gimbutas" and "Kurgan theory". It's pure delusion and was refuted by multiple scholars right after the book was published (1965).

Don't you think that for a serious student of history it is weird to seriously refer to a link to a site "feminismandreligion.com"?

In the actual paper on which Renfrew's talk is based ("Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe". Nature, 2015) it is actually very articulately written that the study DOES NOT confirm Gimbutas in any way nor refute Anatolian Urheimat:

"The study does not reveal the precise origin of PIE, nor does it clarify the impact Kurgan migrations had on different parts of Europe."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 075334.htm

I don't know what C. Renfrew has been up to lately, maybe he really changed his mind, and anyway he is just an archaeologist, but it does not in any way affect purely linguistic arguments put forward by Diakonoff, and especially Ivanov (1984, Indoevropjskij jazyk i indoevropejcy: Rekonstrukcija i istoriko-tipologieskij analiz prajazyka i protokultury. Tiflis: Tiflis University Press 1984. xcvi + 1328 p.; Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans: A reconstruction and historical analysis of a proto-language and a proto-culture. 2 vols. Trans. J. Nichols. Berlin–New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1: 1994, 2: 1995), that in all major ancient Indo-European languages we find either full-fledged or reduced traces of of glottalised stops or ejectives (pʼ) tʼ kʼ kʷʼ

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glottalic_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_hypothesis

, which shows that the language arose in direct connection to the languages where such glottalised sounds are essential , such as languages of 25:45Caucasus (and Semitic languages).

It is practically impossible to really fully understand for a non-(very competent Indo-European)linguist, but it is a genious contribution, that simply cannot be dismissed.

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").
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?

"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: 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.
"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
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

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

Post by Coëmgenu »

"Whiteness," biologically, is a product of the most recent Ice Age (and I don't mean the miniature one during the 1800s). Anyone before that, Solutrean or not, is necessarily unambiguously black.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Dweller
Posts: 104
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2021 9:14 pm

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

Post by Dweller »

Aryans themselves would reject the idea of their foreign origin and claim they are autochtonus to India.

Also, Buddhas and universal monarchs appear in India, stories from previous rebirths are happening there.

What most have missed when using genetics to find Aryans is that their heritage was transmitted through the line of succesors who could mix for centuries and allow people of foreign genetics to dominate their genetic pool in relatively short period of time.

So, genes of Aryans of one era could be different than those of some other era.

Things get more complicated if we take Aryan traditions and what Buddha said into account.
sakka
Posts: 80
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2021 11:58 am

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

Post by sakka »

Dweller wrote: Fri Sep 10, 2021 11:55 am
Also, Buddhas and universal monarchs appear in India, stories from previous rebirths are happening there.
Exactly! That is why I wrote the following in this thread:
sakka wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 6:16 am So why the various Buddhas choose to live in India is not because some magical ”spiritual” atmosphere, more likely because all possible wrong views and their advocates are present at the very same time, simultaneously, in India… ;) + things like caste and the rest that the Buddha clearly opposed:
“Ambaṭṭha, in the supreme knowledge and conduct there is no discussion of ancestry or clan or pride.
Image
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 »

Sphairos post_id=643393 time=1631189104 user_id=2076]
Aryans and Proto-Indoeuropeans weren't "white", abandon stupid ancient racist and Nazi myths, educate yourself
=Kusala post_id=643303 time=1631141688 user_id=3179]
I understand that moderators of this fine forum, focus on keeping it in line with the Dhamma, and far free from personal picking...

But yet i ask, why such utter, manipulative nonsence is allowed here?

By "utter nonsence" I mean describing various historical descriptions of white Indoeuropeans, as a " Nazi Myth". Those sourses are earlier than Nazi ideology by thousends years. Homer was not a Nazi. Neither were numerous ancient authors, who wrote about white nomads form Central Asia...and blue eyed Buddha.

With such labelling, radicals try to scare people and silcence them. And they are making real disussion - exchange of facts and theories - impossible. Historical Nazis - German army, as a matter of fact - killed millions of people, driven by insane ideology. Many of them died in my country, in my city. You ofend me here, dude, by using this word in such a way.
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 »

alicem wrote: Thu Sep 09, 2021 4:12 am The Sakyas weren't considered part of Vedic society and were criticized repeatedly by Brahmins for not respecting them.

Ambaṭṭhasutta"][Ambaṭṭha] said to the Buddha, “Master Gotama, the Sakyan clan are rude, harsh, touchy, and argumentative. Riffraff they are, and riffraff they remain! They don’t honor, respect, revere, worship, or venerate brahmins. It is neither proper nor appropriate that the Sakyans—riffraff that they are—don’t honor, respect, revere, worship, or venerate brahmins.”
Thanx, alicem, it's a very interesting sutta to read. But in the context of the sutta, those words sound bit different. Buddha talks to a young priest:
This Ambaṭṭha is from a well-known family, and he is the pupil of the well-known brahmin Pokkharasāti. The Buddha won’t mind having a discussion together with such gentlemen.
But Budda dares to deny authority of a young brahmin - an authority given to him by birth, as a member of a Brahmin caste. Buddha says:
Though this Ambaṭṭha is unqualified, he thinks he’s qualified. What is that but lack of qualifications?”

When he said this, Ambaṭṭha became angry and upset with the Buddha, because of being described as unqualified. He even attacked and badmouthed the Buddha himself, saying, “The ascetic Gotama will be worsted!” .“Master Gotama, the Sakyan clan are rude ( ...)
So again, Buddha broke the varna rules of his age nad culture, in which the status of an individual was based on his caste. One could speak about religion, if he was born as a priest. Ambatttha got angry and "badmouthed" Buddha...Does it meann that he lied? Refered to some existing prejudice against the Sakyans? How much truth does this "badmouthing" contains?

Actually, Sakyans could have a particular reputation in the times of Buddha. It is likely, they were newcomers. According to some scholars, they could be the direct descendants of Saka, who were a Scythian tribe. Those Saka conquered Northern India circa 1000 years later, then first Indoeuropeans. They came in VI Century BC, together with Persian armies.

Were Saka Europeans? Wrong question. Those were nomadic tribe. Scythians roamed lands from Ukraine to western China...the Great Steppe.

Here are the ancient Scythians....and a nice portrait of a Saka warrior from a 2 Century BC:

Image
Attachments
Scythians.jpg
Scythians.jpg (13.16 KiB) Viewed 1387 times
220px-Saka_warrior_Termez_Achaeological_Museum.jpg
220px-Saka_warrior_Termez_Achaeological_Museum.jpg (23.29 KiB) Viewed 1387 times
User avatar
confusedlayman
Posts: 6231
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:16 am
Location: Human Realm (as of now)

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

Post by confusedlayman »

first of all, there is another hypothesis that humans originated in india and not in Africa.
I may be slow learner but im at least learning...
Post Reply