NON-AMERICAN YOUNG BLACK MEN WATCH THIS INDIAN MOB BEATING AFRICANS AND ...

[frankster]

 

[GetInTheTruck]

@frankster as i mentioned we are just repeating ourselves at this point so I consider this discussion over. Your assertions about varna, skin color, and how it relates to Hinduism have already been thoroughly refuted in this thread.

I told you way back that the current debate about the aryan invasion / migration hypothesis centers squarely on linguistic arguments, not race or skin color. That alone works against everything you've been saying in here, whether you want to admit it or not

 

[frankster]

@frankster as i mentioned we are just repeating ourselves at this point so I consider this discussion over. Your assertions about varna, skin color, and how it relates to Hinduism have already been thoroughly refuted in this thread.

I told you way back that the current debate about the aryan invasion / migration hypothesis centers squarely on linguistic arguments, not race or skin color. That alone works against everything you've been saying in here, whether you want to admit it or not

You have said a lot but proved less.....and of that little you tried to proved in the end yourself said you were not convinced of.
Let me leave with this tidbit a Brahman describe the qualities of a Brahman to Buddha




"
13. And drawing his body up erect, and looking round on the assembly, he said to the Blessed One: 'The Brahmans, Gotama, declare him to be a Brahman who can accurately say "I am a Brahman" without being guilty of falsehood, who has five things. And what are the five? In the first place, Sir, a Brahman is well born on both sides, on the mother's side and on
{p. 153}
the father's side, of pure descent back through seven generations, with no slur put upon him, and no reproach, in respect of birth--
'Then he is a repeater (of the sacred words), knowing the mystic verses by heart, one who has mastered the Three Vedas, with the indices, the ritual, the phonology, and the exegesis (as a fourth), and the legends as a fifth, learned in the phrases and in the grammar, versed in Lokâyata sophistry, and in the theory of the signs on the body of a great man--
'Then he is handsome, pleasant to look upon, inspiring trust, gifted with great beauty of complexion, fair in colour, fine in presence, stately to behold,--
IV. Sonadanda Sutta

 

[thekyuke]

Its obvious your people have problems with the darker ones including Africans. Possibly a deeper cellular memory thing-doesn't matter. I first saw this infamous Assam stripping pic years ago and thought it a one off:

A casual search shows this is by no means rare and is actually quite common!






Coupled with many reports of violence against Africans what would you yourself conclude-tell me?

This ish is endemic,brehs! Here's the latest: A group of high caste Jat elders in Uttar Pradesh ordered the rape of a pair of Dalit sistersd after their brother eloped with a Jat woman



Fyi,these are Dalits

These are the Jats.

The lighter rule over the darker-maybe not always,but here it seems to be the case. There's also a very deep,indeed pathological anti blackness in India,which befalls Africans frequently. Younger brehs,observe this getinthetruck. He'll tell us everything about Indo European dna in Indians,early Cacs in India but gets extremely defensive over this issue-with good reason.
Fyi,not everyone is your friend. Many,come to observe us negroes break dancing and talking ish:when they realise we're not only observing them but also taking notes their true nature arises-they turn hostile.
That public service announcement is for both US and non US YBM.

 

[GetInTheTruck]

the lighter rule over the darker-maybe not always,but here it seems to be the case. There's also a very deep,indeed pathological anti blackness in India,which befalls Africans frequently. Younger brehs,observe this getinthetruck. He'll tell us everything about Indo European dna in Indians,early Cacs in India but gets extremely defensive over this issue-with good reason.
Fyi,not everyone is your friend. Many,come to observe us negroes break dancing and talking ish:when they realise we're not only observing them but also taking notes their true nature arises-they turn hostile.
That public service announcement is for both US and non US YBM.

Being that you are an African I find it hilarious that you're so concerned with the colorism in India when it's probably even worse where you're from.

 

[GetInTheTruck]

You have said a lot but proved less.....and of that little you tried to proved in the end yourself said you were not convinced of.
Let me leave with this tidbit a Brahman describe the qualities of a Brahman to Buddha




"
13. And drawing his body up erect, and looking round on the assembly, he said to the Blessed One: 'The Brahmans, Gotama, declare him to be a Brahman who can accurately say "I am a Brahman" without being guilty of falsehood, who has five things. And what are the five? In the first place, Sir, a Brahman is well born on both sides, on the mother's side and on
{p. 153}
the father's side, of pure descent back through seven generations, with no slur put upon him, and no reproach, in respect of birth--
'Then he is a repeater (of the sacred words), knowing the mystic verses by heart, one who has mastered the Three Vedas, with the indices, the ritual, the phonology, and the exegesis (as a fourth), and the legends as a fifth, learned in the phrases and in the grammar, versed in Lokâyata sophistry, and in the theory of the signs on the body of a great man--
'Then he is handsome, pleasant to look upon, inspiring trust, gifted with great beauty of complexion, fair in colour, fine in presence, stately to behold,--
IV. Sonadanda Sutta

Great, so since in your last post you conceded that the greatest brahmin of them all, Vyasa, was dark skinned, and here we have description of fair brahmins, I guess you've ended up proving my point all along - that brahmins can be dark, light, and everything in between. Funny how that works

Here's a painting that's a good example:

 

[frankster]

Great, so since in your last post you conceded that the greatest brahmin of them all, Vyasa, was dark skinned, and here we have description of fair brahmins, I guess you've ended up proving my point all along - that brahmins can be dark, light, and everything in between. Funny how that works

I did not concede I said I would not dispute that.
The Brahman was describing the general characteristics of what a Brahman is.....Every rule has its exception or maybe Vyasa is just not pure going back through seven generations.

Here's a painting that's a good example:

Taken from the Mahabharata....


SECTION CLXXXVIII
"Bhrigu said, 'Brahman first created a few Brahmanas who came to be called Prajapatis (lords of creation). Possessed of splendour equal to that of the fire or the Sun, they were created out of the energy of that First-born Being. The puissant Lord then created Truth, Duty, Penance, the eternal Vedas, all kinds of pious acts, and Purity, for enabling creatures to attain to heaven (by practising them). After this, the Deities and the Danavas, the Gandharvas, the Daityas, the Asuras, the great snakes, the Yakshas, the Rakshasas, the Serpents, the Pisachas, and human beings with their four divisions, viz., Brahmanas, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, and Sudras, O best of regenerate ones, and all the other orders of creatures that exist, were created. The complexion the Brahmanas obtained was white; that which the Kshatriyas obtained was red; that which the Vaisyas got was yellow; and that which was given to the Sudras was black
The Mahabharata, Book 12: Santi Parva: Mokshadharma Parva: Section CLXXXVIII

 

[GetInTheTruck]

I did not concede I said I would not dispute that.
The Brahman was describing the general characteristics of what a Brahman is.....Every rule has its exception or maybe Vyasa is just not pure going back through seven generations.




Taken from the Mahabharata....


SECTION CLXXXVIII
"Bhrigu said, 'Brahman first created a few Brahmanas who came to be called Prajapatis (lords of creation). Possessed of splendour equal to that of the fire or the Sun, they were created out of the energy of that First-born Being. The puissant Lord then created Truth, Duty, Penance, the eternal Vedas, all kinds of pious acts, and Purity, for enabling creatures to attain to heaven (by practising them). After this, the Deities and the Danavas, the Gandharvas, the Daityas, the Asuras, the great snakes, the Yakshas, the Rakshasas, the Serpents, the Pisachas, and human beings with their four divisions, viz., Brahmanas, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, and Sudras, O best of regenerate ones, and all the other orders of creatures that exist, were created. The complexion the Brahmanas obtained was white; that which the Kshatriyas obtained was red; that which the Vaisyas got was yellow; and that which was given to the Sudras was black
The Mahabharata, Book 12: Santi Parva: Mokshadharma Parva: Section CLXXXVIII

Breh, right after that comes:

"Bharadwaja said, 'If the distinction between the four orders (of human beings) be made by means only of colour (attribute), then it seems that all the four orders have been mingled together. 2 Lust, wrath, fear, cupidity, grief, anxiety, hunger, toil, possess and prevail over all men. How can men be distinguished by the possession of attributes? The bodies of all men emit sweat, urine, faeces, phlegm, bile, and blood. How then can men be distributed

The translator made sure to point out that color in this sense refers to the three attributes - Satva (goodness), Rajas (passion), and Tamas (ignorance), which in indian thought correspond to white, red, and black respectively. Yellow is a mixture of satva and rajas. It relates to the theory of karma and how it decides what kind of birth a soul takes, if it takes birth in a human body. That's why Bharadwaja is asking how we can distinguish this, so he obviously isn't referring to skin color, which can easily be distinguished. We see multiple instances in the Mahabharata of people faking their varna by dressing in a certain way for some purpose or another, altering the color of the skin never comes in to play.

Please stop betraying your ignorance man. Like I said before check what you write.

 

[frankster]

Breh, right after that comes:

"Bharadwaja said, 'If the distinction between the four orders (of human beings) be made by means only of colour (attribute), then it seems that all the four orders have been mingled together. 2 Lust, wrath, fear, cupidity, grief, anxiety, hunger, toil, possess and prevail over all men. How can men be distinguished by the possession of attributes? The bodies of all men emit sweat, urine, faeces, phlegm, bile, and blood. How then can men be distributed

The translator made sure to point out that color in this sense refers to the three attributes - Satva (goodness), Rajas (passion), and Tamas (ignorance), which in indian thought correspond to white, red, and black respectively. Yellow is a mixture of satva and rajas. It relates to the theory of karma and how it decides what kind of birth a soul takes, if it takes birth in a human body. That's why Bharadwaja is asking how we can distinguish this, so he obviously isn't referring to skin color, which can easily be distinguished. We see multiple instances in the Mahabharata of people faking their varna by dressing in a certain way for some purpose or another, altering the color of the skin never comes in to play.

Please stop betraying your ignorance man. Like I said before check what you write.

Reading is fundamental and comprehension is paramount.

Bhrigu says the complexion of the "The complexion the Brahmanas obtained was white; that which the Kshatriyas obtained was red; that which the Vaisyas got was yellow; and that which was given to the Sudras was black"
Bharaddwaja says "'If the distinction between the four orders (of human beings) be made by means only of colour (attribute), then it seems that all the four orders have been mingled together"
What I gather from this is that Bharaddwaja is saying that Color alone cannot be the distinguishing factor between the four orders of men.....because all men regardless of skin color suffer from "Lust, wrath, fear, cupidity, grief, anxiety, hunger, toil, possess and prevail over all men. How can men be distinguished by the possession of attributes? The bodies of all men emit sweat, urine, faeces, phlegm, bile, and blood. How then can men be distributed."
Bharaddwaja is saying you cannot know a good man by the color of his skin / complexion

If Complexion was to be used as an arbiter of Good through Ignorance then as Bharaddwaja argued....

then it seems that all the four orders have been mingled together"

In short what Bhrigu is saying is that all man was originally Brahman, but some have fell to various lower orders - in other words the Sudra's black skin is the attribute of those who have fallen the lowest....

If what the translators is saying was so....then Brigu and Bharaddaja would be saying the same thing - which clearly they are not.
Yes those words also means that but in this case it is clear Bhrigu equates those attributes with the corresponding skin color in the four orders of men.....hence the reason he used the word complexion.

That's why Bharadwaja is asking how we can distinguish this, so he obviously isn't referring to skin color, which can easily be distinguished. We see multiple instances in the Mahabharata of people faking their varna by dressing in a certain way for some purpose or another, altering the color of the skin never comes in to play.

No....Bharaddwaja is saying is that skin color is not an indicator of goodness or ignorance and cannot be used as a distinction between orders of men.
Bhrigu on the other hand is maintaining the idea that skin color denotes character of goodness through to ignorance....depending on their predilections when reborn they obtain one of the four skin color.
stating the following

"These, falling away, became members of diverse (inferior) orders. Losing the light of knowledge, and betaking themselves to an unrestrained course of conduct, they take birth as Pisachas and Rakshasas and Pretas and as individuals of diverse Mleccha species. "

 

[GetInTheTruck]

Reading is fundamental and comprehension is paramount.

Bhrigu says the complexion of the "The complexion the Brahmanas obtained was white; that which the Kshatriyas obtained was red; that which the Vaisyas got was yellow; and that which was given to the Sudras was black"
Bharaddwaja says "'If the distinction between the four orders (of human beings) be made by means only of colour (attribute), then it seems that all the four orders have been mingled together"
What I gather from this is that Bharaddwaja is saying that Color alone cannot be the distinguishing factor between the four orders of men.....because all men regardless of skin color suffer from "Lust, wrath, fear, cupidity, grief, anxiety, hunger, toil, possess and prevail over all men. How can men be distinguished by the possession of attributes? The bodies of all men emit sweat, urine, faeces, phlegm, bile, and blood. How then can men be distributed."
Bharaddwaja is saying you cannot know a good man by the color of his skin / complexion

That's what you gather from that passage because you are hell bent on interpretating everything in a racial context.

The translator put "attribute" in parentheses after the word color here because he assumes the reader is familiar with the Indian concept of the three gunas, or qualities so as to ensure that the reader doesn't confuse it with skin color...like you're doing.

To explain the concept of gunas, hindu texts use the color classification system, where white represents spotlessness/purity, red represents passion and lust, and black represents darkness and ignorance. Mixture of goodness and passion in this sense is represented by yellow. These are spiritual concepts relative to the soul of an individual, not skin color. Soul is eternal, physical body isn't. No human being is literally white, red, yellow, or black, we are all varying shades of brown, using them to classify races is recent phenomenon...so the idea you are proposing makes little sense.

If Complexion was to be used as an arbiter of Good through Ignorance then as Bharaddwaja argued....

In short what Bhrigu is saying is that all man was originally Brahman, but some have fell to various lower orders - in other words the Sudra's black skin is the attribute of those who have fallen the lowest....

Bharadwaja, who is also a brahmin by the way, doesnt bring up skin color in his questioning of bhrigu rishi, he is asking about personal qualities like lust, anger, wrath, etc; which all humans tend to possess in different scales and quantities. Bhrigu is explaining that a soul with an abundance of saatvic karma will take birth in a brahmin family, a soul with an abundance of rajasic karma will take birth in a Kshatriya family, a soul with a mix of these two will take birth in a vaishya family, and a soul with an abundance of bad karma will take birth in a sudra family, or a family of mlecchas. Mlecchas are anybody born outside the varna system, which includes white skinned people like Greeks and Turks, which further shows that none of this hinges on skin color.

If what the translators is saying was so....then Brigu and Bharaddaja would be saying the same thing - which clearly they are not.
Yes those words also means that but in this case it is clear Bhrigu equates those attributes with the corresponding skin color in the four orders of men.....hence the reason he used the word complexion.

Sorry breh, I tend to take information regarding sanskrit texts from those who are proficient in the way sanskrit works, not whites and blacks who try to pimp these texts to suit their own agendas.

No....Bharaddwaja is saying is that skin color is not an indicator of goodness or ignorance and cannot be used as a distinction between orders of men.
Bhrigu on the other hand is maintaining the idea that skin color denotes character of goodness through to ignorance....depending on their predilections when reborn they obtain one of the four skin color.
stating the following

Bharadwaja isn't saying anything about skin color... you are, since you seem to have an unhealthy obsession with it.

Also, these two are not arguing. Hindu texts routinely explain many philosophic concepts through dialogue between two learned individuals, where one is playing the role of imparting knowledge to the other.

 

[frankster]

That's what you gather from that passage because you are hell bent on interpretating everything in a racial context.

Not necessarily Race but Skin Color as in Complexion

The translator put "attribute" in parentheses after the word color here because he assumes the reader is familiar with the Indian concept of the three gunas, or qualities so as to ensure that the reader doesn't confuse it with skin color...like you're doing.

Sure three gunas ....but four orders of men

To explain the concept of gunas, hindu texts use the color classification system, where white represents spotlessness/purity, red represents passion and lust, and black represents darkness and ignorance. Mixture of goodness and passion in this sense is represented by yellow. These are spiritual concepts relative to the soul of an individual, not skin color. Soul is eternal, physical body isn't. No human being is literally white, red, yellow, or black, we are all varying shades of brown, using them to classify races is recent phenomenon...so the idea you are proposing makes little sense.

Bhrigu words were " The COMPLEXION of Brahmanas" how can you continue to deny this has to do with skin color.....if anybody is hell bent it is you on deny the obvious.
Bhrigu was saying the complexion of individuals is dictated by or is a result of the gunas.
All Agree that the gunas are spiritual qualities....the argument between Bhrigu and Bharaddwaja is whether or not spiritual qualities - gunas are tied or associated with skin color complexion.
Not true using colors to classify human beings is not recent - you yourself said Khrisna means black does that now mean that he is Tamasic - ignorant
"Otherwise how could Krishna be black and all-attractive at the same time?" #55 your post....are you for real you back tracking all over the place
Here is a quote from the RigVeda using skin color as classification of a peoples
"5 O'er Sire and Mother they have roared in unison bright with the verse of praise, burning up riteless men,
Blowing away with supernatural might from earth and from the heavens the swarthy skin which Indra hates."
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 9: HYMN LXXIII. Soma Pavamana.

Bharadwaja, who is also a brahmin by the way, doesnt bring up skin color in his questioning of bhrigu rishi, he is asking about personal qualities like lust, anger, wrath, etc; which all humans tend to possess in different scales and quantities. Bhrigu is explaining that a soul with an abundance of saatvic karma will take birth in a brahmin family, a soul with an abundance of rajasic karma will take birth in a Kshatriya family, a soul with a mix of these two will take birth in a vaishya family, and a soul with an abundance of bad karma will take birth in a sudra family, or a family of mlecchas. Mlecchas are anybody born outside the varna system, which includes white skinned people like Greeks and Turks, which further shows that none of this hinges on skin color.

True Bharaddwaja did not bring up skin color Bhrigu did, and yes Bharaddwaja did say to paraphrase you "all humans did possess different scales and quantities of these qualities..
What you are refusing to acknowledge is that Bhrigu tied or associate these qualities with the complexion of the individuals
What does that Make Khrisna and Rama who you say are all black....the have an abundance of bad karma?

Let me repeat this last question of yours....that Manu deals with succinctly.

. Mlecchas are anybody born outside the varna system, which includes white skinned people like Greeks and Turks, which further shows that none of this hinges on skin color.

57. A man of impure origin, who belongs not to any caste, (varna, but whose character is) not known, who, (though) not an Aryan, has the appearance of an Aryan, one may discover by his acts.
The Laws of Manu: Full Text Translation by G. Buhler - Chapter 10

Sorry breh, I tend to take information regarding sanskrit texts from those who are proficient in the way sanskrit works, not whites and blacks who try to pimp these texts to suit their own agendas.


Bharadwaja isn't saying anything about skin color... you are, since you seem to have an unhealthy obsession with it.

Also, these two are not arguing. Hindu texts routinely explain many philosophic concepts through dialogue between two learned individuals, where one is playing the role of imparting knowledge to the other.

Yeah I take truths from where ever it comes...
Yes Bharaddwaja said nothing about skin color......but Bhrigu did..
To cite evidence in support of an idea is a form of arguing....but that's off topic another thread maybe

 

[GetInTheTruck]

Not necessarily Race but Skin Color as in Complexion

...and yet you are still unable to give reasons why there are so many dark skinned brahmins during the vedic period itself.

Sure three gunas ....but four orders of men

Satva mixed with rajas produces the vaisya, or yellow class of men. I explained this in my post, please pay attention.

Bhrigu words were " The COMPLEXION of Brahmanas" how can you continue to deny this has to do with skin color.....if anybody is hell bent it is you on deny the obvious.

Obvious to you perhaps, but we know why that is it "obviously" wasnt obvious to the translator who made it a point to qualify that portion of translation, and you "obviously" had no idea what gunas were before I replied to your post.

Bhrigu was saying the complexion of individuals is dictated by or is a result of the gunas.

Bhrigu was explaining how karma dictates ones station in life, which skin color had little to do with at that period in time, being that there so many famous dark skinned rishis and sages.

All Agree that the gunas are spiritual qualities....the argument between Bhrigu and Bharaddwaja is whether or not spiritual qualities - gunas are tied or associated with skin color complexion.

Gunas are tied to lots of things. Skin color is a petty issue. What is more favorable, to be a white skinned cripple, or an able bodied dark skinned hero? Who has the better combination of karmas and gunas in this situation?

Not true using colors to classify human beings is not recent - you yourself said Khrisna means black does that now mean that he is Tamasic - ignorant
"Otherwise how could Krishna be black and all-attractive at the same time?" #55 your post....are you for real you back tracking all over the place

Krishna was black because he happens to be black bruh, its really not that complicated. His brother balarama was known to be much lighter. So what?

Here is a quote from the RigVeda using skin color as classification of a peoples
"5 O'er Sire and Mother they have roared in unison bright with the verse of praise, burning up riteless men,
Blowing away with supernatural might from earth and from the heavens the swarthy skin which Indra hates."
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 9: HYMN LXXIII. Soma Pavamana.

Well lucky for us I own a copy of the rig veda with sanskrit transliteration. I looked this verse up and the word translated as swarthy here is "asikni," which can mean either dark, or "snake like, like a dark snake," so perhaps this verse was referring to these people as being serpent like. Rig veda is called "rik" because it is composed in poetry, where the choice of wording can be ambiguous. Being that this is a translation by Europeans, it really doesn't surprise me that they would translate it as "swarthy skin."

In sanskrit one word can have multiple meanings. That's why I told you it's useless to base these ridiculous theories of yours on stray excerpts from a text as complex as the rig veda. But anyway ill cite one anyway that describes another dark skinned Brahmin rishi, kanva:

"To nrsads son they gave the name kanva, and he, the brown hued courser won the treasure. For him, dark colored, streamed the shining udder, none made it swell for him. Thus order willed it."

This is from RV 10:31:11

The Sanskrit words used to describe him are "syam," and Krishna.

True Bharaddwaja did not bring up skin color Bhrigu did, and yes Bharaddwaja did say to paraphrase you "all humans did possess different scales and quantities of these qualities..
What you are refusing to acknowledge is that Bhrigu tied or associate these qualities with the complexion of the individuals

You're way too hung up on color my dude.

What does that Make Khrisna and Rama who you say are all black....the have an abundance of bad karma?

Lmao....you tell me breh. It's not me that says it, it's the sacred texts themselves. It's proof that your theories about color in this context is wrong. That's what I've been telling you from jump.

Let me repeat this last question of yours....that Manu deals with succinctly.


57. A man of impure origin, who belongs not to any caste, (varna, but whose character is) not known, who, (though) not an Aryan, has the appearance of an Aryan, one may discover by his acts.
The Laws of Manu: Full Text Translation by G. Buhler - Chapter 10

Appearing like an aryan, or a brahmin, etc; doesn't necessarily have to mean by physical appearance in terms of skin color. A character in the Mahabharata, karna, for example "faked" his caste status just to learn archery from parasurama, a sage who only taught brahmins.

Yeah I take truths from where ever it comes...
Yes Bharaddwaja said nothing about skin color......but Bhrigu did..
To cite evidence in support of an idea is a form of arguing....but that's off topic another thread maybe

 

[frankster]

...and yet you are still unable to give reasons why there are so many dark skinned brahmins during the vedic period itself.

Something akin to miscegenation....I have said it many times.
Down below you said Khrisna brother was known to be much lighter than Khrisna - Miscegenation for want of a better word.

Satva mixed with rajas produces the vaisya, or yellow class of men. I explained this in my post, please pay attention.

Obvious to you perhaps, but we know why that is it "obviously" wasnt obvious to the translator who made it a point to qualify that portion of translation, and you "obviously" had no idea what gunas were before I replied to your post.


Bhrigu was explaining how karma dictates ones station in life, which skin color had little to do with at that period in time, being that there so many famous dark skinned rishis and sages.

Gunas are tied to lots of things. Skin color is a petty issue. What is more favorable, to be a white skinned cripple, or an able bodied dark skinned hero? Who has the better combination of karmas and gunas in this situation?

So are Gunas tied to the petty issue of skin color in your opinion?

Krishna was black because he happens to be black bruh, its really not that complicated. His brother balarama was known to be much lighter. So what?

So in that case it was not an attribute but actually dealing with his petty complexion skin color?

Well lucky for us I own a copy of the rig veda with sanskrit transliteration. I looked this verse up and the word translated as swarthy here is "asikni," which can mean either dark, or "snake like, like a dark snake," so perhaps this verse was referring to these people as being serpent like. Rig veda is called "rik" because it is composed in poetry, where the choice of wording can be ambiguous. Being that this is a translation by Europeans, it really doesn't surprise me that they would translate it as "swarthy skin."

Linked me with that transliteration......

In sanskrit one word can have multiple meanings. That's why I told you it's useless to base these ridiculous theories of yours on stray excerpts from a text as complex as the rig veda. But anyway ill cite one anyway that describes another dark skinned Brahmin rishi, kanva:

"To nrsads son they gave the name kanva, and he, the brown hued courser won the treasure. For him, dark colored, streamed the shining udder, none made it swell for him. Thus order willed it."

This is from RV 10:31:11

The Sanskrit words used to describe him are "syam," and Krishna.

So you now proving my point.....is that it

You're way too hung up on color my dude.

That is just as true of many Indians.....hence the reason we are here discussing color

Lmao....you tell me breh. It's not me that says it, it's the sacred texts themselves. It's proof that your theories about color in this context is wrong. That's what I've been telling you from jump.

I am asking you.......
No all along you told me that they were worshiping a black God Khrisna now you are saying color represent an attribute/gunas
So if I follower your line of argument Khrisna is not black but Tamasic.....is that what you are now saying?
So all those pictures of a black skin Khrisna you posted earlier is really about his gunas.....Tamasic - so his skin is not black is that IT?
It does not prove any such thing to me.....beyond the fact that it now appears you are intellectually dishonest

Appearing like an aryan, or a brahmin, etc; doesn't necessarily have to mean by physical appearance in terms of skin color. A character in the Mahabharata, karna, for example "faked" his caste status just to learn archery from parasurama, a sage who only taught brahmins.

What am I now dealing with Bill Clinton......Complexion and skin color do not mean complexion and skin color, appearance do not mean appearance, what next is does not mean is.....Khrisna who you posted as having black skin and who you said was black, Now you asking me????
Bredrin you filthin all over yourself...get a grip



Look I do not want this to devolve into something ugly, as it now seems you are not being forthright and totally honest.
Come with something truly intriguing and I will respond
Otherwise I will part in peace and mutual Raspect

Selassie I

 

[GetInTheTruck]

@frankster you've officially stopped making sense and are talking in circles to distract from the fact that your arguments just aren't logically sound. I've given you example after example to counter your claims, but you seem stuck on played out rhetoric that has been trashed by authoritative scholarship long ago.

It's funny you are a rasta who worships one of the lightest skinned black leaders ever as God, a guy who didn't even consider himself a "negro," but a Caucasian, but want to lecture other cultures about their color complex. Please. Take a walk bredrin.

 

[frankster]

If in a hurry Of particular importance are the following times stamps
2:30 to 3:20 minutes dalits are children of prostitutes, my understanding(not covered in the video) is that these where Dalit women force to work for the Hindu priest who impregnated these women.....hence the name harijan
11:00 minutes to 12:40 minutes - caste and color is linked.
17:30 to 19:20 - Miscegenation is the rule - caste men abusing dalit women for thousand of yrs