Is this true that the Buddha was black?

[bouncy]

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.

1-The fact that he was black was something that was seen as a dis to the brahmin who was dissing him, in the link you gave it speaks on this.

2-If he dissed him because of being dark skinned, chances are he may have other qualities that we would associate with black in todays society. Unfortunately we have no pictures so we can't even discuss this part in depth. But people do this to this day. They dis someone who is black or has black in them but they dis their skin when there is more to being black then the skin, its the facial features.

3-I didn't say I believe he didn't exist, i stated I don't know. I'm just arguing to give you another side to your beliefs. It is never good to never quesiton what you believe, and since most people hang with those who think like them or those who don't know anything about what they believe, they tend to think their way of thought is right or hold no mistakes. I'm just shaken you up a little because if you let religion go with no challenge, it will distort your way of thinking. I've seen it too many times.

4-I can find people who will say something to me that is special but, those people are not having religions being made off of their teachings. Its their so called miraculous powers that get these highly praised people noticed by the world, and they are seen as special. THEN what they teach is taking into account.

If someone told you a snake protected them from the elements, and they turned arrows into flowers, etc. you don't think that is trying to be seen as special? Buddha himself asked if he was to become the buddha let his hair, and hair accessory stay in the air! He didn't need to say he was special, he was insinuating it

 

[Turk]

1-The fact that he was black was something that was seen as a dis to the brahmin who was dissing him, in the link you gave it speaks on this.

2-If he dissed him because of being dark skinned, chances are he may have other qualities that we would associate with black in todays society. Unfortunately we have no pictures so we can't even discuss this part in depth. But people do this to this day. They dis someone who is black or has black in them but they dis their skin when there is more to being black then the skin, its the facial features.

3-I didn't say I believe he didn't exist, i stated I don't know. I'm just arguing to give you another side to your beliefs. It is never good to never quesiton what you believe, and since most people hang with those who think like them or those who don't know anything about what they believe, they tend to think their way of thought is right or hold no mistakes. Just shaken you us a little because if you let religion go with no challenge, it will distort you r way of thinking. I've seen it too many times.

4-I can find people who will say something to me that is special but, those people are not having religions being made off of their teachings. Its their so called miraculous powers that get them noticed by the world, and they are seen as special. THEN what they teach is taking to account.

1. The article made note of the face that "“Black” and “white” are correlative and culturally-conditioned concepts". There's nothing there that even explicitly states the Buddha had African features.

2. I'm guessing you didn't read the other part of the article because it says:

the Brahmin’s own ancestry is partly black. The discussion reveals that this Brahmin’s clan-name (scil. kaṇhāyana) incorporates the same Pali word for “black” (kaṇha) because the family traces their origins back to one of the slaves of the (presumably mythic) king Okkāka. Eventually, the Brahmin admits that he had been taught the same origin story for his clan and clan-name.

3. You're really confusing me now. I'm not even Buddhist.

4. People didn't start following the Buddha because of supposed miracles. You won't even find claims of those miracles in his texts. They started following him because of his ideologies and what he preached. He didn't go around performing miracles like Jesus supposedly did.

 

[bouncy]

1. The article made note of the face that "“Black” and “white” are correlative and culturally-conditioned concepts". There's nothing there that even explicitly states the Buddha had African features.

2. I'm guessing you didn't read the other part of the article because it says:



3. You're really confusing me now. I'm not even Buddhist.

4. People didn't start following the Buddha because of supposed miracles. You won't even find claims of those miracles in his texts. They started following him because of his ideologies and what he preached. He didn't go around performing miracles like Jesus supposedly did.

I read the whole thing. They kept putting the word black into quotations because chances are they are not even questioning if he could have been black in today's meaning of it. We are though, which is why I stated in my earlier post he most likely would have looked like what we would call to day a black person due to the story being 4,000 years ago, and man having less mixture of his genes as we do now. People look the way we do now because of constant regeneration of those who look like us, and a little bit of mixing with other people who don't look like us. If it was 4,000 years ago, he would have looked more like earlier man because he was much closer to him in age then we are, and he would have less chance of his genes to become what we see an Asian/Indian as today.

For example white people. They are new to this world. Science has shown white skin, and straight hair developed around 6,000 years ago. This means the first white people most likely looked black but with white skin, and straight hair. Over time they became what we associate as being white due to the constant mixing with each other, and certain traits being more expressed, and a little bit of mixing with other groups. 6,000 years ago is more then enough time for changes in body features to occur.

You can say they didn't start following him because of his special powers but, I beg to differ. All these religions made followers because their prophets either had powers, and can talk to God, or they just could talk to God. Either way it wasn't their teachings that got them noticed, it was them claiming to be able to do what others couldn't that gain them followers. But we can agree to disagree.

 

[Turk]

I read the whole thing. They kept putting the word black into quotations because chances are they are not even questioning if he could have been black in today's meaning of it. We are though, which is why I stated in my earlier post he most likely would have looked like what we would call to day a black person due to the story being 4,000 years ago, and man having less mixture of his genes as we do now. People look the way we do now because of constant regeneration of those who look like us, and a little bit of mixing with other people who don't look like us. If it was 4,000 years ago, he would have looked more like earlier man because he was much closer to him in age then we are, and he would have less chance of his genes to become what we see an Asian/Indian as today.

We're going to have agree to disagree then. He was never described with any of the terms that are used to describe Africans, the only term that was used was "Black" but he was indeed darkskinned.

You can say they didn't start following him because of his special powers but, I beg to differ. All these religions made followers because their prophets either had powers, and can talk to God, or they just could talk to God. Either way it wasn't their teachings that got them noticed, it was them being able to do what others couldn't that gain them followers. But we can agree to disagree.

The thing is the Buddha made none of those claims. Where did he claim to have powers? His followers made those claims. Where did he claim to talk to God? He never did.

 

[bouncy]

We're going to have agree to disagree then. He was never described with any of the terms that are used to describe Africans, the only term that was used was "Black" but he was indeed darkskinned.




The thing is the Buddha made none of those claims. Where did he claim to have powers? His followers made those claims. Where did he claim to talk to God? He never did.

Again, we are saying African or associate certain traits because of how the world works NOW. We are living under the world of the way whites see race. The WHOLE world is like this. This is not how it would have been back then. There would have been no reason to describe other traits because everyone else had them. This is why I gave the example of white people as we know them today, are only 6,000 years old. You are bringing the ways of the world today, into those of yesterday. Chances are most of the people in the land had black features. Now we are speaking on India and it has two different environments. The north more cooler, and the south more hot, and humid. This will give different looks, so there were a few who had a mixture to them but most would have looks of what we call black today. Again this is most likely why the brahmin used his blackness as a way to dis him. It was a way to say he was of lower caste. Of course it wasn't true but it was a dis of using who he was to talk down on him.

You have to take into account the caste system started close to 2,000 years ago. This is when the mixing of the people of india stopped. So there is a strong argument he had African features once you put everything into its context, science wise.

So you're saying he never asked if he was Buddha for certain things to happen?

http://world.time.com/2013/08/27/what-dna-testing-reveals-about-indias-caste-system/
"Their finding, recently published in the American Journal of Human Genetics, made waves when it was revealed that genetic mixing ended 1,900 years ago, around the same time the caste system was being codified in religious texts. The Manusmriti, which forbade intermarriage between castes, was written in the same period, give or take a century.

Thangaraj says the study shows only a correlation between the early caste system and the divergence of bloodlines, and whether one caused the other is a debate better left to historians. Nonetheless, it puts a stake in the ground, marking the moment when the belief that one should marry within one’s own group developed into an active practice."

 

[Turk]

Again, we are saying African or associate certain traits because of how the world works NOW. We are living under the world of the way whites see race. The WHOLE world is like this. This is not how it would have been back then. There would have been no reason to describe other traits because everyone else had them. This is why I gave the example of white people as we know them today, are only 6,000 years old. You are bringing the ways of the world today, into those of yesterday. Chances are most of the people in the land had black features. Now we are speaking on India and it has two different environments. The north more cooler, and the south more hot, and humid. This will give different looks, so there were a few who had a mixture to them but most would have looks of what we call black today. Again this is most likely why the brahmin used his blackness as a way to dis him. It was a way to say he was of lower caste. Of course it wasn't true but it was a dis of using who he was to talk down on him.

You have to take into account the caste system started close to 2,000 years ago. This is when the mixing of the people of india stopped. So there is a strong argument he had African features once you put everything into its context, science wise.

All I want you to do is to find me some textual evidence where the Buddha is described with features that denote a person of African descent. Can you do that or no? We can argue all day about the connotation of "black".

So you're saying he never asked if he was Buddha for certain things to happen?

What?

http://world.time.com/2013/08/27/what-dna-testing-reveals-about-indias-caste-system/
"Their finding, recently published in the American Journal of Human Genetics, made waves when it was revealed that genetic mixing ended 1,900 years ago, around the same time the caste system was being codified in religious texts. The Manusmriti, which forbade intermarriage between castes, was written in the same period, give or take a century.

Thangaraj says the study shows only a correlation between the early caste system and the divergence of bloodlines, and whether one caused the other is a debate better left to historians. Nonetheless, it puts a stake in the ground, marking the moment when the belief that one should marry within one’s own group developed into an active practice."

I don't understand the point of this quote. My argument has nothing to do with non-mixing.

 

[bouncy]

All I want you to do is to find me some textual evidence where the Buddha is described with features that denote a person of African descent. Can you do that or no? We can argue all day about the connotation of "black".



What?



I don't understand the point of this quote. My argument has nothing to do with non-mixing.

You're not understanding me so I'll end it with this last post.

They didn't describe buddha to have what we call African features today because, it was not unusual for the people of the land to have those features. The reason why he was dissed for being black was because it was most likely a way of connecting him with a lower caste. You have to take what is the meaning of black now as opposed to then because it will help explain why it isn't used to describe him. For example if I say he had high cheek bones, full lips, broad nose or more of a flat nose, and dark skin, I would be describing a lot of indians today. There would be no point to go deep into his facial characteristics because everyone had those regardless of class. The one thing that you can easily divide was skin color. That is why the brahmin used it to dis the buddha.

You stated the buddha never said he had special abilities, it was his teaching that gained him followers but, when we learn about the buddha it is wrote he asked if he was the buddha, to let his hair ,and the hair accessory, to stay in the air. THAT ALONE IS SOMETHING SPECIAL. This is what caused those to know he was special. You make it sound like he was just teaching people, and meditating, with no weird stories connected to him when this is far from the case.

The point of the article was to show that before 2,000 years ago mixing was high in India which means they would have had a more African look being that man went towards India once leaving Africa. The environment of India allows black traits to be expressed, particularly southern india. The mixing of northern indians, who would have had a light color, and more narrow nose, due to the cooler environment, would have allowed indians to have their own look but, because it was over 4,000 years ago the buddha was said to have lived, those traits would have not been expressed as much as they are now. From 2,000 years ago to now, is the start of what we consider Indian today, and even then a lot of them have "black" features.

 

[GetInTheTruck]

Its all based on Horus. All of it.

Buddhism is based on Horus? How about no.

 

[Poitier]

Buddhism is based on Horus? How about no.

Whether you like it or not.

 

[GetInTheTruck]

Whether you like it or not.

Evidence?

 

[Poitier]

Evidence?

human migration and common sense

 

[GetInTheTruck]

human migration and common sense

What? Can you tell me about any Egyptian philosophical systems on record that compare with Buddhism? who were their teachers, where are their writings?

 

[Poitier]

What? Can you tell me about any Egyptian philosophical systems on record that compare with Buddhism? who were their teachers, where are their writings?

Goes before Egypt.

 

[GetInTheTruck]

Goes before Egypt.

Names and dates please.

 

[Poitier]

Names and dates please.

this is pre recorded history so I can't help you with that