Well OK one more post...
Couldn't resist writing about this. I was looking around for information on the question of whether or not the Śakyan tribe were Aryans (in the sense that they were related to the Vedic speaking authors of the Ṛgveda) - I gather there is some doubt due to the lack of caste consciousness for instance. I found lots of opinions but two in particular that struck me as making an interesting pair. I won't link to the pages as I do not wish to endorse either view.
View one.
I thought some of the images looked like they were from Java actually, and certainly some were not from India but South-east Asia which undermines the claim to be "early". But this theory might explain the traditional tight curls the in the hair of the Buddha. There were "people" in India about 400,ooo years before the present, and another wave of African immigrants is thought to have arrived around 70,000 years ago. There is a theory that the descendants this wave are the ancestors of all non-African peoples in the world. (It was in Michael Wood's doco on India).
View two.
Although I haven't checked the references I do think the person in this case has made a stupid error. The Scythians do indeed feature in Indian history but not until well after the time of the Buddha, post Aśoka; and post the Indo-Greek realm established in Gāndhāra, the most famous king of which is Menander (aka Milinda). In order to get to Indian before this, the Scythians would have had to cross Achaemanid Persian territory and that seems a bit unlikely as they were at the peak of their power at that time - Alexander did not smash the great empire until the 320's BC. At the time of the Buddha the Achaemanid's ruled Indian up to and a little beyond the Indus river. This may explain why no scholar, to my knowledge, has ever linked the Scythians to an Indian tribe.
Whatever the truth of the Buddha's origins I find this desire to claim him is fascinating. Hindus too claim him as an Avatar of Viṣṇu. In the West the Buddha is being absorbed into popular culture. I wonder how long it is before someone claims he was a European of some sort... perhaps they already have?
View one.
The Buddha was either African, or at least of an Afroid (ie African looking race). The evidence here was largely visual, utilising "the earliest" images of the Buddha with frizzy hair, a broad nose, fleshy lips etc - which *this site* said proved that the Buddha was black (note: Black is still an acceptable term in the UK for anyone of African descent, and was used on the website in question).
I thought some of the images looked like they were from Java actually, and certainly some were not from India but South-east Asia which undermines the claim to be "early". But this theory might explain the traditional tight curls the in the hair of the Buddha. There were "people" in India about 400,ooo years before the present, and another wave of African immigrants is thought to have arrived around 70,000 years ago. There is a theory that the descendants this wave are the ancestors of all non-African peoples in the world. (It was in Michael Wood's doco on India).
View two.
The Buddha was fair skinned and blue eyed, the Śakyans (in this view) can be identified with the Scythians who are said to have originated from around the eastern shores of the Black Sea. As such the Germanic peoples and the Aryans in fact are linked, and more closely related that more dark skinned Indians. The "evidence" is from the Dīgha Nkāya.
Although I haven't checked the references I do think the person in this case has made a stupid error. The Scythians do indeed feature in Indian history but not until well after the time of the Buddha, post Aśoka; and post the Indo-Greek realm established in Gāndhāra, the most famous king of which is Menander (aka Milinda). In order to get to Indian before this, the Scythians would have had to cross Achaemanid Persian territory and that seems a bit unlikely as they were at the peak of their power at that time - Alexander did not smash the great empire until the 320's BC. At the time of the Buddha the Achaemanid's ruled Indian up to and a little beyond the Indus river. This may explain why no scholar, to my knowledge, has ever linked the Scythians to an Indian tribe.
Whatever the truth of the Buddha's origins I find this desire to claim him is fascinating. Hindus too claim him as an Avatar of Viṣṇu. In the West the Buddha is being absorbed into popular culture. I wonder how long it is before someone claims he was a European of some sort... perhaps they already have?
posted by Jayarava @ 8:50 am
0 comments
