Dr. Sebi Jr.
Trust Me
EMPHATICALLY.
Is this true that the Buddha was black?
- Thread starter observe
- Start date
Why does it matter if you're still broke. Lets say whites and asians said *o ok buddah was black and you built the pyramids, thank you for your contribution, we'll take it from here"
What then. These self esteem boosts are necessary at the entry level of knowledge of self but after that, unity in education and commerce are the natural next steps.
observe
Banned
It's not self esteem issues..it's white people hiding the truth, telling lies, and destroying our culture...lol at entry level of knowledge..naw son
Entry level knowledge of self knowledge, it really is. First question, who am i and where did i come from.
How long can you say you descended from kings and queens before the next phase begins. You telling truth to power changes nothing. You tell the truth and get crushed or they say *ok i give u that, now what* That doesnt make them want to concede to you. Theyll tell you you made it a hot line i made it a hot song. Its got to be followed up with commerce and unity. Why? So schools and other facilities can be built to facilitate the growth of an actual black nation.
observe
Banned
Dude..what are you talking about..this post is about Buddha and we're trying to get to the bottom of this..it has nothing to do with power, commerce, or building schools..
That's not how the story goes. It says he cut his hair to make it short, then he put his hair into a bun when he asked if it was meant to for him to be a buddha.Lul'z at people in this thread trying to use the Buddha being depicted with corn rolls as proof of him being black, when he actually shaved his head once he renounced the world.
Here's the line:
"If it is destined to me to become a Buddha, may my hair and head-cloth remain hanging in the air; if not, let them fall to the ground"
Turk
Young, Gifted, and Black
In the Ambaṭṭha-sutta the Buddha debates a Brahmin who describes him as bald headed
That was spoken in reference to the Buddha
Here's a link about the Buddha being bald
http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2010/12/30/the-buddha-was-bald/
And this is why I don't like taking these stories serious because the more you learn the more you keep going in circles. This is a quote from the link you gave me:
"In the Ambaṭṭha-sutta [DN #3] the Buddha debates with a Brahmin who is openly contemptuous of him; the Brahmin describes the Buddha as a bald-shaven man (…gotama muṇḍakā samaṇakā…) and as “black” like other members of the vassal social class, i.e., in reference to India’s caste hierarchy
“Black” and “white” are correlative and culturally-conditioned concepts, but it is nevertheless significant that a Brahmin would perceive the Buddha as “black” (i.e., by the Brahmin’s own social standards) and that one would reproach the other on this account. While the Brahmin’s bias is obvious, this text is much more useful than passages that merely glorify the Buddha without telling us how he was perceived by his contemporaries"
No picture in mainstream media shows the Buddha as a darkskin person. So that adds to the argument along with his hair.
Now, because the story was written at least 400 years after Buddha was said to be alive, and a council was made to allow what was published and what wasn't, along with people adding things as years went on because they add their own beliefs(even if its just a sentence) its hard to talk about certain things without just realizing its not important because we would just be arguing back & forth without not being able to prove anything. At least with philosophy, it is the questions we ask they are able to allow us to find asnwers. With history we can get an idea, but when its religious its really hard because we don't even know if these people existed.
Turk
Young, Gifted, and Black
Which is very odd. I don't know why he's also depicted as a fairer skinned Asian man. I don't deny that the Buddha was darkskinned....just not "black" in the same sense as Africans.
It's very likely that certain things got added since this was 400 years after his death, but Siddhartha Guatama was a historical person.
But how can we say for certain he wasn't black in the sense of looking like someone from the continent of Africa or having African features? Remember this was over 4,000 years ago. Man who wasn't white would have looked more closer to the original man, then man today due to lack of having as much mixing as we have today. Plus, if we are to believe he did all these miraculous things, why can't we believe he was born to look different from everyone else? This is like religious people laughing at the idea of aliens, but they believe in an invisible God, and he had a son born from a mother who never had sex? Religion is just not for me. It allows people to think without being open minded even though the very thing they are worshiping goes against ALL things that are natural!
How do you know he really existed?
Turk
Young, Gifted, and Black
Because the clan he was born into. The Shakya clan wasn't African. How can we say for certain that he was African? I don't believe any of the miraculous claims about his life. I just see him as a regular person who reached enlightenment, which is what he taught. He himself never said he was special but some of his followers did. You went on a random tangent at the end because Buddhism is Non-Theistic.
I didn't say he was African, I said had African features that all have on the continent regardless of the location. You know when you see someone with black in them.
Come on man, of course they will give him a clan to be born into, and it was of a higher class considering its a caste system in India but, that isn't proof that he was real. It was just part of the story.
How can you take some parts of his story as real, and not the others? Remember the story was never written by HIM, so ALL of it can be false. I do agree the most important parts are the teachings but, that means you can't believe the story of his history because now you have to believe he did those miraculous things. This is why he was seen as being special. If he was never known to be special, he would just be considered a philosopher, and a regular man. We know that isn't the case.
Turk
Young, Gifted, and Black
African features like what? Where was he described as having African features?
If you don't even believe he existed then why are you arguing all of this?
I take some parts of his story as real because there's proof for them. There isn't proof for things such as his supposed miraculous birth, which also goes against what we know about in science. An aspect of a story being mythical does not mean the entire story is mythical. Who says I have to believe in everything about the Buddha? The Buddha was not special because of supposed miracles he was special because of what he taught. I'll say it again he never proclaimed himself to be special.......other people did.