Was the Buddha a blue-eyed light skinned Aryan?

[Kusala]

My post from another thread

Interesting...thanks for sharing...There's a tribal group in Pakistan called the Kalash... "The Kalasha language, also known as Kalasha-mun, is a member of the Dardic group of the Indo-Aryan languages..."

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

Yes, but Buddha was probably darker skin than the kalash people, and more like the girls with blue eyes in the first picture of my post.



The roma gypsies are also indo-aryans



Darker skin than the kalash but still have blue eyes

That's assuming that the Sakyan clan were a mixed clan. According to the origin story, the Sakyans intermixed with their own sisters because they didn't want to mix with non Aryan tribes.

I assume the ruling class of ancient India resembled these people

[TRobinson465]

I assume he would have been as I've seen Indians which are virtually indistinguishable from Europeans but not as many nowadays it has to be said.

Why exactly does it need consideration?

Why wouldn't it? I want to know if the founder of the religion I may adopt was a white man or close to being a white man.

Ambaṭṭha, in the supreme knowledge and conduct there is no discussion of ancestry or clan or pride

This is why it wouldn't. But if you r just curious about his physical appearance or ancestry this is a valid question as I've seen plenty of non productive questions and discussions here and this is no different.

The answer is no he wasn't white, he did possibly have blue eyes as ppl like that do exist in that area of the world and the texts say he had blue eyes. Whether or not he had some kind of European ancestry is impossible to determine but I suppose is possible. Just as it is possible or even probable most ppl in Europe have some kind African ancestry in their family tree if u go back far enuff.

[sphairos]

Everyone who is posting here light-featured Indians (and for some reason Afghani-s -- which is a totally different story, "white" people have been living there for millennia) -- just go to India/Pakistan/Nepal and see everything with your eyes. Indians are not light-featured. All these photos is extreme cherry-picking , and if researched most of those people had some "white" colonial blood recently or etc. Most "white" out of all Indians are "Brahmins" (brāhmaṇa in Hindi/Sanskrit), it's true. I have a lot of friends from old and authentic Brahmin lineages, many of whom are affiliated with traditional Sanskrit science/studies. All of them are quite/very dark-skinned. They have often facial features alike South Europeans/Arabic/Mediterranean people, but still the "Indian" character is clearly distinguishable and shade is dark. Don't fool yourself and don't get fooled, Indians/Iranians/Āryans have never been white-skinned and blue-eyed. Moreover, Greeks and Romans for the most part weren't. It's all stupid 19-th century romantic and then Nazi myths. Don't repeat and spread them, it's just ignorance.

[SDC]

Don't repeat and spread them, it's just ignorance.

Agreed, but what I think is even more troubling is that the OP seems to be under the impression that this practice is some sort of method or life plan (although was transparent about the fact that he/she has yet to undertake the work). That the Buddha delivered a message for the benefit of the world could not be more of a wrong way to take the Dhamma, so I hope that can be clarified, if nothing else.

[48vows]

Everyone who is posting here light-featured Indians (and for some reason Afghani-s -- which is a totally different story, "white" people have been living there for millennia) -- just go to India/Pakistan/Nepal and see everything with your eyes. Indians are not light-featured.

The Shakyas, that is the decedents of the buddha are not very dark skinned at all.

And when you put "white" in quotes above I think was you mean is, aryan.

Was the Buddha a blue-eyed light skinned Aryan?

He was definitely an Aryan. There is no doubt at all. He definitely wasn't a semite or chinese.
But aryan is really a linguistic group and it includes alot of people who may or may not be considered white.
We can be sure he has plenty of R1A1

I also have to add that sariputtra was light skinned and mulian was dark skinned - they were both good friends who bonded over their common interest and they both became two of buddha's top disciples.

Those are all facts - now, my take is this - if thinking the buddha was white will motivate you to start studying, reading the sutras and doing positive things with your life, then yes, buddha was white! There you go, he was white - now get to work!

[sphairos]

Don't repeat and spread them, it's just ignorance.

Agreed, but what I think is even more troubling is that the OP seems to be under the impression that this practice is some sort of method or life plan (although was transparent about the fact that he/she has yet to undertake the work). That the Buddha delivered a message for the benefit of the world could not be more of a wrong way to take the Dhamma, so I hope that can be clarified, if nothing else.

The Op in the other thread said that he is awaiting the Racial Holy War... So I think everything is clear about him. Is he already banned? I would think so.

[48vows]

Is he already banned? I would think so.

I hope not.
I want him to see my post

[SDC]

Don't repeat and spread them, it's just ignorance.

Agreed, but what I think is even more troubling is that the OP seems to be under the impression that this practice is some sort of method or life plan (although was transparent about the fact that he/she has yet to undertake the work). That the Buddha delivered a message for the benefit of the world could not be more of a wrong way to take the Dhamma, so I hope that can be clarified, if nothing else.

The Op in the other thread said that he is awaiting the Racial Holy War... So I think everything is clear about him. Is he already banned? I would think so.

Probably not banned….

…but it would only benefit the community for us to inform him, so even if he doesn’t remain here at DW, he can return to 4chan or Reddit with better information.

[cappuccino]

my take is this - if thinking the buddha was white will motivate you to start studying, reading the sutras and doing positive things with your life, then yes, buddha was white! There you go, he was white - now get to work!

[sphairos]

The Shakyas, that is the decedents of the buddha are not very dark skinned at all.

And when you put "white" in quotes above I think was you mean is, aryan.

I wasn't there 2500 years ago and didn't see them with my own eyes, but I highly doubt that they were "white". "White" I mean in the sense Americans use this word (also very close "Caucasian") -- Arabs and Iranians are already not "white" for them, even Italians are hardly "white".

This lady writes well here about this
https://www.sbs.com.au/topics/voices/cu ... -not-white

Personally abusive material removed by moderator.

[Kusala]

Everyone who is posting here light-featured Indians (and for some reason Afghani-s -- which is a totally different story, "white" people have been living there for millennia) -- just go to India/Pakistan/Nepal and see everything with your eyes. Indians are not light-featured. All these photos is extreme cherry-picking , and if researched most of those people had some "white" colonial blood recently or etc. Most "white" out of all Indians are "Brahmins" (brāhmaṇa in Hindi/Sanskrit), it's true. I have a lot of friends from old and authentic Brahmin lineages, many of whom are affiliated with traditional Sanskrit science/studies. All of them are quite/very dark-skinned. They have often facial features alike South Europeans/Arabic/Mediterranean people, but still the "Indian" character is clearly distinguishable and shade is dark. Don't fool yourself and don't get fooled, Indians/Iranians/Āryans have never been white-skinned and blue-eyed. Moreover, Greeks and Romans for the most part weren't. It's all stupid 19-th century romantic and then Nazi myths. Don't repeat and spread them, it's just ignorance.

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.

[sphairos]

Everyone who is posting here light-featured Indians (and for some reason Afghani-s -- which is a totally different story, "white" people have been living there for millennia) -- just go to India/Pakistan/Nepal and see everything with your eyes. Indians are not light-featured. All these photos is extreme cherry-picking , and if researched most of those people had some "white" colonial blood recently or etc. Most "white" out of all Indians are "Brahmins" (brāhmaṇa in Hindi/Sanskrit), it's true. I have a lot of friends from old and authentic Brahmin lineages, many of whom are affiliated with traditional Sanskrit science/studies. All of them are quite/very dark-skinned. They have often facial features alike South Europeans/Arabic/Mediterranean people, but still the "Indian" character is clearly distinguishable and shade is dark. Don't fool yourself and don't get fooled, Indians/Iranians/Āryans have never been white-skinned and blue-eyed. Moreover, Greeks and Romans for the most part weren't. It's all stupid 19-th century romantic and then Nazi myths. Don't repeat and spread them, it's just ignorance.

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.

In short: Aryans weren't "white" . Everything that you post in the result of admixture of various nomads, steppe people, migration of groups of European descent and appearance LONG AFTER the dissemination of Indo-Europeans. And according to the renowned Diakonoff-Renfrew-Ivanov hypothesis, which you surely don't know, because you-re not very knowledgeable on the subject, the Proto-Indo-European ORIGINATED somewhere in Eastern-Southern Anatolia (in modern Turkey), and didn't have anything to do with North Europeans in the first place.

And Greeks and Romans also weren't "white". Aryans weren't "white", it's a stupid old-fashioned myth that people like you still adhere to. It has no relation to reality.

And I actually have been to India and Pakistan and I KNOW how they look like.

[48vows]

The Shakyas, that is the decedents of the buddha are not very dark skinned at all.

And when you put "white" in quotes above I think was you mean is, aryan.

I wasn't there 2500 years ago and didn't see them with my own eyes, but I highly doubt that they were "white". "White" I mean in the sense Americans use this word (also very close "Caucasian") -- Arabs and Iranians are already not "white" for them, even Italians are hardly "white".

I was taking about the appearance of the living descendants of the Buddha’s clan

[Kusala]

Everyone who is posting here light-featured Indians (and for some reason Afghani-s -- which is a totally different story, "white" people have been living there for millennia) -- just go to India/Pakistan/Nepal and see everything with your eyes. Indians are not light-featured. All these photos is extreme cherry-picking , and if researched most of those people had some "white" colonial blood recently or etc. Most "white" out of all Indians are "Brahmins" (brāhmaṇa in Hindi/Sanskrit), it's true. I have a lot of friends from old and authentic Brahmin lineages, many of whom are affiliated with traditional Sanskrit science/studies. All of them are quite/very dark-skinned. They have often facial features alike South Europeans/Arabic/Mediterranean people, but still the "Indian" character is clearly distinguishable and shade is dark. Don't fool yourself and don't get fooled, Indians/Iranians/Āryans have never been white-skinned and blue-eyed. Moreover, Greeks and Romans for the most part weren't. It's all stupid 19-th century romantic and then Nazi myths. Don't repeat and spread them, it's just ignorance.

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.

In short: Aryans weren't "white" . Everything that you post in the result of admixture of various nomads, steppe people, migration of groups of European descent and appearance LONG AFTER the dissemination of Indo-Europeans. And according to the renowned Diakonoff-Renfrew-Ivanov hypothesis, which you surely don't know, because you-re not very knowledgeable on the subject, the Proo-Indo-European ORIGINATED somewhere in Eastern-Southern Anatolia (in modern Turkey), and didn't have anything to do with North Europeans in the first place.

And Greeks and Romans also weren't "white". Aryans weren't "white", it's a stupid old-fashioned myth that people like you still adhere to. It has no relation to reality.

And I actually have been to India and Pakistan and I KNOW how they look like.

I'll let science do the talking...

"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

[sphairos]

I am not going to exchange further, because you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.