@GetInTheTruck
trick?
Where have the Vedas traditionally been taught outside of the subcontinent? (I'm using the word subcontinent now for accuracy, and also because the name "India" seems to bother you)
I gave you both the traditional view and the academic view, I don't know how much more balanced of an answer you were expecting.
If you are hanging your hat on the fact that the Buddha was born in present day Nepal I hope you realize that Nepal still sits on the subcontinent and that many Nepali people look like any other Indian or South Asian.
and even so, aside from Lumbini, all of the other Buddhist holy pilgrimage sites are located in present day north India
It's funny how with you, when we are discussing Africa, borders never matter and all Africans are members of one continuous cultural and racial stream no matter where they come from on that continent, but when when it comes to India we all of a sudden have to acknowledge borders. Isn't it you guys who are always screaming from the hilltops that the Middle East is really just "northeast africa?"
Well here you go bruh, Nepal is really just Northeast India
Where did I state Africa has no borders, and India does? Getting very emotional because you see the con that has been placed on you!
And of course the vedas wasn't taught outside of India, it was being used for the ones who introduced it, to get, and maintain power. That was the point of my post, are you that blinded by your beliefs, you are can't see what is being told in plain english!
...A fact. All of the early propagators of Buddhism came from the top two Indian social classes/castes....they were all Brahmins or Kshatriyas. Ever heard of Nagarjuna? He is seen by Buddhists as the second coming of the Buddha, he lived in the 1st century CE and was born into a South Indian Brahmin family from present day Andhra Pradesh.
Buddhism is a very intellectual/heady ideology. All of the early Buddhists were monks and Buddhism was concentrated in a few monasteries. One of the reasons why Buddhism failed in India is because despite it's patronage by various kingdoms throughout the subcontinents history, it had no appeal among the "common people" who did not come from the intellectual classes and couldn't grasp it's concepts. They were quite happy worshiping their Gods and practicing their traditional family rites - quite simply, Buddhism had nothing to offer the everyday Joe Schmo in Ancient India. Besides, the Vedic religion already has it's own ascetic orders for people who wanted to pursue that type of thing.
I know its a fact, but that wasn't my point! The point was Buddha represented a dislike of this culture!
And you are wrong, Buddhism was gaining traction with the people, but it was stopped by those in power, to maintain their power! You are being very biased, and not even giving me answers that showed you actually thought about what you are writing. You are regurgitating everything you read, you gave it no thought to see if it made sense, but that is religion for ya!
This article shows how Buddhism was fought against, and not how you are making it seem.
Rajput Period Was Dark Age Of India
Rajput Period Was Dark Age Of India
Dr. K. Jamanadas,
Rise of Rajputs was for suppressing Buddhism
That Buddha is seen as an incarnation of the Supreme (in this case Vishnu) despite teaching a radical philosophy is further indicative that he is a product of the same culture, not less. To contrast, this never happened with Islam, for example, because Islam IS seen as foreign to the subcontinent, despite it being present in India for over 1000 years.
Again, what is the point of this. I never said he wasn't born in India, I wrote he represented a foreign knowledge of the land, at the time, and when he became the Buddha he was the embodiment of this knowledge.
...something not uncommon in ancient India. Like I told you before, please look up the Sramana movements.
Śramaṇa - Wikipedia
Some went against, some didn't, bottom line is the Indian religious and philosophical scene has always been diverse, since ancient times.
But those people weren't seen as the great change that the Buddha represented. Why do you keep doing this? You take what I write, and just reply to certain aspects of the statement, but ignore the meaning in its totality. I gave you the meaning of him traveling away from his home, in the next paragraph. The story has a meaning, but you are taking it literally!
It's hard for you to accept this knowledge having origins outside of India, but its not hard for you to believe the Buddha had a king cobra snake use its hood to protect him from the rain, then turn into a man? Its easy to see you are just arguing with me because its about race to you, not about the truth, and the knowledge of this truth, and where it originated. Some may be about race when it comes to this discussion, but I already explained my position, its YOU who are just like them, but you claim its not about that.
Says who? Besides, the first artistic depictions of Buddha didn't come about till like a half millennium AFTER his death....and the earliest of those depictions are done in the Greek style. All of those other sculptures you guys get erections over weren't made till hundreds of years AFTER that, and only after Buddhism spread further east....and even those people today would have no problem telling you that yeah, the Buddha was originally from the land we now call India. So you telling me you know better than them?
Here we go again! you are just showing me you are a book smart, but lack the ability to think for yourself. You can argue the first depictions were a greek style, BUT you forget one thing, Greeks didn't elongate their earlobes. Their hair wasn't like the depictions we see, but lets ignore the hair, the earlobes was a cultural things that belonged to a specific few! If you look at the greek depictions, the earlobes are still elongated, which indicates there was still an acknowledgement of the culture being different from theirs! This is why I keep saying if you know what to look for, the picture is telling the story for you!
It's funny, you really know nothing about Buddhism, or the Buddha. All you know how to do is look at a few statues, throw all historical context out of the window, disregard any and all facts that don't confirm your biases, and hold tight to ethnocentric pseudo-historical quack theories that stem out of an inferiority complex that was hoisted upon you by Europeans. Well that has nothing to do with Indians, sorry to inform you. Like I said, we are over here in reality. This thread is almost half-a-decade old and you are still operating on infantile worldviews. When do you plan on joining us?
You are projecting how you are onto me, because you are doing that, not me! YOU are intent on keeping the history stuck to India, which is why you accept that a knowledge has no origins, which in any other society would be laughed at. Even Europeans admit that their knowledge cna be traced back to somewhere else, it didn't just appear out on nowhere, BUT YOU say this. This is why I was aking you those questions, I wanted YOU to show the bullshyt that has been propagated for thousands of years, not me. Again, you are projecting your views onto me!
No the reason you say he is black is because the European has taught you to value and esteem everything HE values and esteems. So if the European esteems Buddha, here you come right behind him
There is nothing resembling Buddhism that has ever been taught in Africa, most of the traditional African spiritual concepts that revolve around animism would have been considered to be heretical to Buddhist thought and practice.... but that isn't a slight towards them because I'm sure Africans couldn't care less about the Buddha let alone claiming him as one of their own. So why do you?
AGAIN, Africa is a continent that hasn't been researched much, so how can you claim with such pride that nothing resembling Buddhism has been taught? There is constantly being new things found, but when it comes to teachings, I doubt a shaman would give his teachings to people who are the cause of his people falling, so again, how can you know more about the teachings in Africa, if you aren't interacting with the spiritual teachers, let alone the people? I would doubt they are in the cities, which means it would be even harder to get this knowledge, so again how do you know what is being taught?
Do you know in parts of South Africa, this sacred knowledge is only given to those who go through a ritual, because when they gave some away it was used negatively? Now, when you consider Africa as a whole continent, it is probably much more harder to get this knowledge.
You have a huge ego, and its based on knowing books, but when it comes to thinking, you are not good at it. You did the same thing with stop'n'frisk, which showed you lack critical thinking, and that is a recent thing, so I know you are not thinking critically when it comes to religion, and something from thousands of years ago!
