If you don't know then on what basis can you comment in anything?
We know that Buddha was a north Indian. We know that he spoke a north Indian dialect which would been classified as Indo - aryan, we know Buddhist traditions are compiled mainly in sanskrit or Pali, which are also Indo - aryan languages, we know that the Buddha espoused a philosophy closely related to Hindu concepts of death, rebirth, and karma, we know that at one point Buddhism was the official religion of the Indian maurya dynasty, and we also know that millions of non Indian Asian Buddhists have no problem acknowledging that Mr. Guatama was an Indian....but we are supposed to disregard all of this because a few statues of his likeness made well after his death depict him with a hairstyle that you want so bad to be cornrows, knotty, or whatever. I really don't get it.
So again, who is the one here really in denial?
I was referring to it not being common knowledge in India which I said idk ......when it's common knowledge(educated ppl) that people physical appearances have changed over the thousands of years on this planet (migration mixing etc )
I am really breaking this down for you because you re reading comprehension...is at a all time low ...is English your first language???
Once again ..you need to find a 3rd grade tutor OR just stop being dishonest twisting shyt and playing stupid
The orginal man was BLACK if people didn't change mix etc over thousands of years how the fucc do you think the "Indian" was made ???
@lotty I seen you ether him already
You have nothing else to prove
All I'm doing is playing with fido since he wants to play dumb