Christianity is actually "Krishna Neeti i.e. Geeta"

[aditya]

The new book, titled as 'Jesus the Christ was a Hindu' published by Indian
Foundation for Vedic Science is the English translation of the original book
is authored by the late G.D. alias Babarao Savarkar, a great revolutionary,
who was the elder brother of Veer Savarkar. Babarao
Savarkar was sent to the famous Cellular Jail of the Andamans, for rigorous
imprisonment. In that horrible jail, he was imprisoned from 1910 to 1921.
When he was allowed to read the books available in that jail, Babarao
Savarkar
read many English books on the life of Jesus the Christ and was convinced
that
Jesus Christ was a Tamil Hindu. On release from the jail he wrote a book in
Marathi showing how Jesus Christ was a Hindu. The book was published in
1946; but
before the publication he had lost his life, on 16th March 1945. Dr. P. V.
Vartak
from Pune has translated this marvelous research book in lucid and easy
English.

Apparently, to say that Jesus was a Hindu, appears to be ridiculous, but on
reading this book everybody will be convinced that Jesus was a Hindu. He was
the preacher of Vedic Dharma. Christianity did not denote the religion of
Jesus but it denoted the Krishna nity or Geeta, since Jesus was the
propagator of the theology of Geeta. So Jesus didn't start any new religion.
It was later after his death that Christianity was introduced as a new faith
other than the Vedic one. Deep research of Shri. Babarao Savarkar
presented in this book shows that Jesus was a Tamil Hindu.
Jesus Christ did not go himself to Palestine, but his ancestors migrated
there
long ago. Long before Ramayana, Yayati's sons Anu and Turvasu migrated
there,
from whom arose the Yavanas and Turuks. After the Mahabharata war Yadavas
and
Abhiras migrated there from India. The word Yadava became 'Yada', while '
Abhira' became Habira and then Hibru. Their God Almighty was 'Jehova' the
Fire of yajna which is registered in the Rigveda 7-6-5, where is stated
"Jahvo Agnih".
Aristotal was told by a Jew scholar that Jews were originally Indians. Many
western
scholars admit it. The name 'Aremaik' of Palestinian language has arisen
from a
Sanskrit word 'Arvam' denoting "Tamil". It contains many Tamil words. When
crucified Jesus uttered, "Eloi, Eloi, Lama Sabacthani". This is a Tamil
sentence, its original form being "Eloi, Eloi, Sabikka Lamada Ni ", which
means
"Oh God, why are you crushing or cursing me like this?"
Many ancient European portraits of Christ illustrated in this book show
Hindu signs on him like dark complexion, a sacred thread, hanging from his
left shoulder, a Dhoti around his waist, a Tilaka on forehead, a Mudra of
his fingers, a Danda in his hand and saffron robe. Those portraits are
painted by Christian European artists some 1500 years ago. Jesus was called
'Ben Pandera'. In Tamil 'Ben' means Child and 'Pandera' means Devotee. The
name Mary arose from Marium, which came from Tamil 'Mariamma'. Her portraits
show Hindu signs on her body. Her pictures are also ancient, sketched around
1500 years ago. Sister of Christ was named 'Thamar' which means Lotus in
Tamil, and it is a custom in India to keep name of a girl as lotus. Jesus
often told parables from 'Gheeda'. Gheeda is a corrupt form of 'Geeta'.
There was no such book as Gheeda around Palestine before Jesus. He told
stories of Jash. 'Jash' is a corrupt form of 'Vyasa'. [like Vyankappa =
Yankappa. Yajna = Jajna]. 'Jesus' is derived from Greek 'Jeshua', a
deviation of Keshua or Keshava. He was supposed to be incarnation of
Krishna. The term 'Krishna' corrupted into 'Krishta' and 'Christ'. Therefore
he was termed as 'Jesus the Christ', meaning Keshava the incarnation of
Krishna. Though a carpenter he is called 'Good Shepherd', in memory of
'Gopala' Krishna; because he was supposed to be an incarnation of Krishna.
There are many pictures of Jesus just like lord Krishna and his
incarnations. After his Thread ceremony at 12 years of age, he went to
India for studies and returned at 30. He wore a Philacteris made of Teckilim
or
Darbha. He emphasized a second birth (Dvija) for getting Heaven. This
'Dvija' is
the unique concept of Vedic people. Ample evidence has been showered in the
book to prove that Christ was a Hindu. Savarkar has given evidence to show
connection of Jesus with the Nath cult of Indian Yogis. A Bengali poem sung
traditionally in Nath Cult is cited in the book, in which Jesus is mentioned
as 'Isha Nath', who had gone to Arab country, died there, but revived again.
In that poem Isha Nath is honoured as a Parama Guru.
Finally, Jesus came to India and died in Kashmir. There are three tombs in
Kashmir - of Jesus, of Marium and of John, the Guru of Jesus.
The whole book is fascinating and is full of strong evidences. Life sketch of
Jesus is presented in a respectful manner. The esteem about Jesus increases on
reading this book. The original research of Savarkar is superb and the
translator has been quite successful in plucking out the actual significance
of the original Marathi book in English. If all the Christians read this
book, instead of trying to convert Hindus into Christian sect, they would
like to adopt their original Vedic Dharma. They would like to follow the
great theology of Geeta, preached by Jesus. I have a strong belief that on
reading this book the Hindus and Christians will develop brotherly and
peaceful relations.
If the Pope is lucky enough to this book, he would have to rethink over his
statement made by him during his visit to India in 1999. The Pope boasted
that in the first millennium Christians conquered the Europe, in the second
millennium Christians conquered America and Africa, and in the third
millennium Christians will conquer Asia. On that background Franchois
Gautier wrote an article in the Indian Express dated 25 Oct.1999, showing
how Hindu the Pope is.
A Russian oriental researcher Mr. Sergei Alexeyev in his talk on Moscow
radio said that Jesus Christ was a Hindu Sanyasin, an Indian Hermit. Jesus made
an in depth study of Hindu texts during his visit to India. Christ toured to
Delhi, Jaipur, Varanasi, Rishikesh. ( Ref. The Times of India 1-7-99).
Dr. Notovitch had done a similar research in the past, studying for 25
years.
Dr. Notovitch traveled in India. At the Buddha temple in Himmus, Tibet, he was
shown an ancient book, which records the reports of Christ in India for 17
years. It included one short book written by Christ himself. Dr. Notovitch
prepared three copies of that book and sent one to the Pope. However, the Pope
burnt it and wrote him that he should not do such folly again. Even then,
Dr.Notovitch published the book under title " The Unknown Life of Jesus".

[premjan]

you need to do a better job on your propaganda. beanpie of the sudroid fantasies is currently doing better than this.

savarkar is not even a tamilian. how did he get these ideas? you have to dismiss most of jewish self-history to accept this stuff.

that said, I think christian missionaries need to find something better to do than to convert hindus.

I consider highly scripturalist religions like Islam, Christianity and Judaism to be "secondary" religions rather than primary religions, since the latter, like Hinduism tend to focus much more directly on spirituality and much less on the external forms and beliefs.

[beanpie]

ANACALYPSIS



Godfrey Higgins



1833



Volume I [867 pages]
Volume II [525 pages]



I think I could scarcely have wished for a more complete proof of the truth of my doctrine of the renewal of the Avatars, than the above. It shews, in fact, that both Buddha and Cristna are nothing but renewed incarnations in each cycle.

Mons. De Guignes* states that Fo, or Buddha, was brought forth not from the matrix, but from the right side, of a virgin, whom a ray of light had impregnated. The Manichæans held that this was the case with Jesus Christ, and by this single fact, without the necessity for any others, they identify themselves with the Buddhists. - * Hist. des Huns, Tome I. Part. ii. p.224.

Buddha as well as Cristna means shepherd. Thus, he was the good shepherd. M. Guigniaut says, there is a third Guatama, the founder of the philosophy Nyaya. I ask, may not this be the philosophy of a certain sect, which in its ceremonies chaunts in honour of Crista the word IEYE, in fact, the name of the Hebrew God Ieue, or Jehovah as we disguise it ?* We know that names of persons in passing from one language into another, have often been surprisingly changed or disguised; but there is no change here; it is the identical name. - * See Maur. Hist. Hind. Vol. II p.339, ed. 4to.

Buddha may be seen in the India House with a glory round his head. This I consider of great consequence. The glory round the head of Jesus Christ is always descriptive of his character, as an incarnation of that Higher Power of which the sun is himself the emblem, or the manifestation.

… But yet there is one circumstance of very great importance which is peculiar to Buddha, and forms a discriminating mark between him and Cristna, which is, that he is continually described as a Negro, not only with a black complexion, in which he agrees with Cristna, but with woolly hair and flat face. M. Creuzer observes, that the black Buddha, with frizzled or curled hair, attaches himself at the same time to the three systems into which the religion of India divides itself.

Buddha is stated by Sir W. Jones to be Woden, and not a native of India.* But it is remarkable, that Woden is his Tamul name, and the Tamulese are now in South India. This will be found of importance hereafter.

Previous to this, in the year 63 B.C., the city had been alarmed by a prophecy of one Figulus, that a king or master of the Romans was about to be born, in consequence of which the Senate passed a decree, that no father bring up a male child born that year : but those among the Senators, whose wives were pregnant, got the decree suppressed.* These prophecies were applied to Augustus, who was born 63 years before Christ according to some persons, but 56 according to several writers in the East, such as the author of the Lebtarikh and others. "Hence it is, that Nicolo de Conti, who was in Bengal and other parts of India in the fifteenth century, insists that the Vicramaditya was the same as Augustus, and that his period was reckoned, from the birth of that Emperor, fifty-six years before Christ." Now, it is evident that these fifty-six years before Christ bring us to the æra of the Buddha of Siam, for the beginning of the new æra, foretold by the Cumæan Sibyl, as declared by the Mantuan or Celtic poet, the Druid of Cisalpine Gaul, in his fourth eclogue.** This, in some old manuscripts seen by Pierius, is entitled Interpretatio Novi Sæculi.***

* See Sup. to Tit. Liv. CII. Decad. Cap. xxxix.


much more info may be found at, http://members.tripod.com/~pc93/anacv1b5.htm

[beanpie]

"

Volume one of a two volume set. (This description is for all volumes.) Godfrey Higgins was convinced that a high civilization had flourished prior to all historical records. He believed that there had existed then a most ancient and universal religion from which all later creeds and doctrines sprang. His research lasted over 20 years. "He attempted to establish the existence of a prehistoric universal religion and to trace its development into contemporary times. He believed this religion possessed accurate knowledge of universal and cosmic phenomena and held neither priesthood nor institution as intermediary in man's communion with the Divine." This highly sought after book is extremely rare. Two volumes. Partial Contents: Probable Origin of Numbers and Letters; Etymology and its Use; Origin of the Adoration of the Bull, Phallic and Vernal Festivals; Age of the World; First God of the Ancients, The Sun, Metempsychosis, Moral Evil, Buddha, Genesis; The Sun the first object of Adoration of all Nations; Two Ancient Ethiopias, Great Black Nation in Asia, Hindoos and Egyptians similar; Ancient Persians, First Books of Genesis, Disingenuous conduct in the Translators of the Bible, Abraham acknowledged more than one God; Jewish Trinity; Ancient Jewish Cabala, Sephiroths and Emanations; Melchizedek, Zoroaster, Zendavesta, All ancient Religions astrological; Character of the Old Testament; Orphic and Mithraitic Trinity, Mithra, Opinions of Herodotus, Porphyry, Strabo, Julian, Times of Pythagoras and Zoroaster, The Vedas describe the Persian Religion; The word OM; The Christian Trinity, Its Origin, Philo's Trinity of the Jews; Life of Cristna; Crucifixion of Cristna, Immaculate Conception, from the History of Pythagoras; Buddha the Sun in Taurus, as Cristna was the Sun in Aries, Names and Meaning of the word Buddha; Isaiah's Prophecy known to the Egyptians and the Celts of Gaul, Mystical meaning of the Letter M, Oriental Astronomical Systems; Cross the meaning of it, Monograms of Christ and Osiris, Lama of Tibet, Indra crucified, Jesuits' Account of Tibet; Hercules and Samson the same; Baal, Etymology of the world Bal; Yajna or Passover; Secret Doctrines, Bull-headed and Ram -headed Gods; Disputed Chapters of Matthew and Luke; Flood of Noah, Text of Genesis, Origin of the Delta of Egypt; Adoration of the Virgin and Child; Ionians, Argonauts, Linga and Yoni; The Lotus; The Loadstone, Helen Athena; Ship of Egypt and Greece; Aphrodite and Diana, Thales; Cassandra, Babylonian Mythos, Constantine and Helena, Astrology; Rome, Jewish Pentateuch; Judaism shown by Eusebius to be older than Abraham, Hellenism; Mount of Solomon, Mount of the Cabala, Mount Olympus; Religions of Afghans and Rajpouts; Arabians of India; Jews hate the Female Principle, Jews and Egyptians, Observations on the Jews; Origin of the Sanscrit; Amazons; Cyclopes, all Ancient History Fable or *nigma, Freemasons in Mundore; Serpent of Genesis; Observations on Homer, the Iliad, and the *neid; Fish Avatar, Fish Acrostic; Observations on Templars, Chair of St. Peter, Gospel of St. Joachim, Masons; Freemasons of York and India. "

[Doctor X]

Wow.

Wanders off back to BC&H only stopping to down a dram of Blair Athol. . . .

--J.D.

[hinduwoman]

Still this seems to me to be inversion of the evangelical idea that Christ is the fulfillment of Hinduism and that Krishna was his prefiguration.

[premjan]

there are plenty of indians with semi-wooly (i.e. highly wavy or crinkly) hair, so I guess there is some ground for a "sudroid" hypothesis. however the wooly ones are not only from the "lower" castes (in fact manifestly very fair people are not of the highest castes in India, except in the north; within brahmans especially in south india, there is a tendency for the apex brahmans to be darker in complexion), hence there is a problem with the racist part of your hypothesis. the non-brahman south indian high castes are often quite dark, even semi-"sudroid".

Krishna was a cowherd not a shepherd hence, I find it strange his name would mean "shepherd".

Buddha was not a herder at any point in his life, as far as I know.

[premjan]

I could accept that Jesus was the fulfilment of Hinduism (Kalki the last avatar of Vishnu is even said to be based on the vision from the book of Revelations in the Bible). But Rama is closer to the kind of pure heart that Jesus was (perhaps we should say Ramakrishna (Paramahamsa??) instead of Krishna).

[beanpie]

"ESSAY WRITTEN BY A "DALIT"

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not uncommon to find fair skinned people among Dalits, just like some fair skinned African-Americans."


http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/elango2.html

[premjan]

The Dravidian Kings never succumbed to Aryan "invasion", although they did succumb to Muslim fanatical Mughals. There were vast enormous Dravidian empires stretching all the way to Malaysia and North India right upto pre-Mughal times (the Cholas). Raja Raja Chola is said to have conquered many parts of South-East Asia even.

[premjan]

This indigenous framework - and the indigenous conception of love a symbol of which is, too, Murugan and his consort Valli - was invaded, partly violated and raped,[23] partly adopted and adapted, by the attempts of later commentators to force the Tamil ideology into the Procrustean mould of the Brahminic-Sanskritic models. For the Brahmins became, even in Tamil society, especially after the disappearance of the Buddhists and the Jains, the sole repository of all worthwhile knowledge. Their opinions became authoritative since they were omniscient and almost omnicompetent and omnipotent. They were the rigid dogmatists, subservient to received authority, who were convinced that Sanskrit was "the taproot of all Indian culture as we know it in history."[24] Thus it happened that, since the earliest times, we observe a prevalent tendency in South India, too, to eagerly connect the local, the indigenous, the autochthonous, with the 'Great' Sanskritic (Vedic) tradition. Even in the so-called Sangam poems, Tamil rulers tried to connect themselves with the Mahābhārata. Even the tribes in South Indian backwoods, racially probably Negrito-Australoid and linguistically Dravidian, try to establish 'Sanskritic' and 'Brahminic' connections to raise their prestige. However, we must not - emphatically not - see in this process a simple amalgam of two closed, contrastive, well-delimited cultural categories. On the contrary, there is no sharp division discernible, no sharp boundaries, and, in the resulting synthesis, which is not - and never will be - accomplished, no 'natural' contrast. Like with the "Little" and "Great" Traditions, there is a flux, a continuum. The mythology of the (non-Hindu?) tribes (like the Oraons, Gonds, Korkus, Todas...) almost imperceptibly and step by step transforms into the mythology of the gramadevatā and the kuladevatā of the (Hindu, non-tribal) village masses and further into the 'high' Hindu mythology of the 'Sanskritized' literati. There is a constant diffusion and fusion -- a continuum. Thus, too, with the immensely complex, and ever developing, live phenomenon of Subrahmanya-Murugan.

http://murugan.org/research/zvelebil-tamil_traditions-intro.htm

[beanpie]

genes

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
this woman is actually an example of an "africoid" tribal who is no more "africoid" than many upper-caste hindus (north or south indian).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



A very simplistic idea or, if you prefer, take a VERY simple science class.

Not hardly "propoganda".

http://courses.biology.utah.edu/jorgensen/2030/Lectures/0108%20lecture02%202factor.pdf

[premjan]

I didn't mean that I definitely know more. Just that the propaganda line being propagated by you is a bit thin and only partially factual. There are many threads of chauvinism in India: cultural (Brahminical vs. Dravidian), racial (Aryan vs. Africoid), philosophical (high caste vs. low caste), religious (Hindu vs. Muslim). You cannot compress all the axes into a white vs. black fist fight.

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:XzyIX49CpZUC:www.newgenevacenter.org/portrait/gandhi.jpg

Don't you think Gandhi's nose looks "Africoid"? Nevertheless, Gandhi, is a Baniya and hence one of the upper castes, not a Dalit.

[beanpie]

originally posted by YOU!

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like I speculated, the white race might have developed long noses... in response to altitude...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I believe that people developed flat, broader noses in order to better breath, in moist tropical areas.

Sir, you are STILL under the VERY false impression that, ALL Black people have "africoid"features. According to your flawed logic, the Ethopians and Somalis, are not Black!

[beanpie]

a question, you should be very easily able to answer
Sir,

Is it possible for two Caucasians to have a child w/ black skiin, unless there is the VERY rare situation that, at least one of the parents had a comparitively recent Black ancestor?

[beanpie]

Nevertheless, Gandhi, is a Baniya and hence one of the upper castes, not a Dalit.

In your opinion, is this proof, he was not Black?

[premjan]

Ancestrally perhaps we are all black.

Yet, Gandhi who is upper caste, has a broader nose and only slightly more Aryan features than Abdul Kalam who is of lower "caste" origin (albeit a Muslim).

Hence how meaningful exactly is the distinction in India? I am trying to answer this for myself and I am not really sure.

Generally speaking, I agree that the people who are universally considered the ancestral inhabitants of India (Adi Vasis) are pretty Africoid/Australoid in appearance. As for the remainder, it is not such a clear question.

[beanpie]

noun: a person with dark skin who comes from Africa (or whose ancestors came from Africa)

[premjan]

yes, probably true. I have no argument with that.

[beanpie]

Well in your opinion, where did the skin color of the Indians, originate from?

[premjan]

probably originally from africa.
but the dalit canard that india has been the theatre of vicious racial inequality and battles is IMO a falsehood. Only by imagined symmetry with the history of white slavery of blacks can this be thus constructed.

there are aboriginal people in india who are blacker than the rest, and have probably been displaced by somewhat whiter (aryan) and somewhat sharper-featured (dravidian) peoples. not clear that there were any vicious battles of subjugation however (e.g. the Ramayana and the Mahabharata are not racist tracts).

[beanpie]

You cannot compress all the axes into a white vs. black fist fight.

I am n partial agreement.

Do the majority of Dalits, have brown to dark brown skin? Do you know how this compares, to other castes?

[beanpie]

There are multiple forms of racial discrimination and caste is one. The two can be separated only artificially.

http://www.dalitstan.org/journal/dalitism/dal001/dali0107.html

[premjan]

it takes the spirit of a gutter inspector to read a subtle theory of racial discrimination into the indian caste system.

the dalits are discriminated against because they used to (and still do) perform the primary function of "manual scavengers": i.e. they scoop people's shit out of toilets with their bare hands. This is the reason for untouchability. It is not because Indians are afraid of being polluted by the touch of black people.

[beanpie]

believe what you will...

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,

buddha does not mean shepard.

buddha is from the root sanskrit word "budh" which means "awake". Buddha, thus, means "awakened one".

i 've no idea what those long lists were trying to communicate.. it seemed like PRATT list, though i can't be sure.

[aditya]

Originally posted by premjan
the dalits are discriminated against because they used to (and still do) perform the primary function of "manual scavengers": i.e. they scoop people's shit out of toilets with their bare hands. This is the reason for untouchability.

There is just one caste that performs scanvenging but these so called dalits themselved do not touch people of this caste. They are hypocrites to assume the label of dalit as if they have anything common with them other than seeking job reservations.

How many of these other dalits would marry a girl of scavenging caste?

[hinduwoman]

I could accept that Jesus was the fulfilment of Hinduism (Kalki the last avatar of Vishnu is even said to be based on the vision from the book of Revelations in the Bible). But Rama is closer to the kind of pure heart that Jesus was (perhaps we should say Ramakrishna (Paramahamsa??) instead of Krishna).
We might as well as say that the Book of Revelations was stolen from kalki's story.
Rama was a warrior and the purity of his heart had been hotly debated by Hindus through the centuries over the killing of Bali and banishment of Sita.



The dalits themselves are divided into a number of hierarchically ordered castes. If the sudroid theory is correct then each caste should display different racial characteristics. But of course they do not.
Castes are not based on race but on the economic, political and social power they control. In USA blacks were not discriminated because they were blacks, but because they were slaves. The racist theory came later to justify the institution of black slavery.

[premjan]

I think true. unfortunately, slavery has been more associated in recent times with blacks. but in the old days, the egyptians (black according to beanpie's theory) kept the jews as slaves (the jews are apparently not black but more white). hence it is just a function of political and economic power, not of race. few nations have completely escaped having a socio-economic underclass.

[beanpie]

"The original Biblical Jews were a Black African people.

The original Jews in Africa 2000 years ago were a Black African people as an
ethnic group. (Massey: Egypt Light of the Word p501) Many of them still
are Black, in northenrn Africa such as the Falasha Jews of Ethiopia. A
New York Times editorial (3/2/84) described them as "a lost tribe that
has kept it identiy for more than 2,000 years in a remote corner of
Africa." Abraham, ancestor of the Hebrews, was from Chaldea; the ancient
Chaldeans were Black. In fact, Africa takes it name from Ophren, a son
of Abraham by his wife, Keturah (Whiston: The Life and Works of Flavius
Josephus p50) Like Jesus, Mary and Joseph, the lineage of Ethiopian
Emperor, Haile Selassie also goes back to Judah -through Solomon/Queen of
Sheba and King David. Roman historian Tacitus wrote that many of his
time believed that the Jews "were a race of Ethiopian origion." The
Bible classifies the Ethiopians & Jews together, "Are ye not as children
of the Ethiopians unto me, O children of Israel? saith the Lord." (Amos
9:7) Black Paul is mistaken for an "Egyptian" and declares himself to be
a "Jew." (Acts 21:37-39, 22: 2,3) That the Jews got their language,
religion & culture from the Canaanites & Sumerians through Babylon, is
well documented by historians. The original ancient Hebrew alphabet was
identical to that of the Phoenicians. "Semitic languages" are really
dialectical variants of African languages."

http://www.ibiblio.org/nge/blacked/bl4.html

[beanpie]

(the jews are apparently not black but more white).

"more white"
Now, what does this mean?

[premjan]

everybody's favorite loved and hated people, are probably neither white nor black, since I know that indian jews look like indians, chinese jews a lot like chinese and european jews mostly look like europeans. since the jews came out of babylon and egypt to the holy land at some point in time, I suppose the ones that came out of bablylon may have looked like the babylonians (e.g. saddam hussein) and the ones that came from egypt, more like egyptians (e.g. gamal abdul nasser or anwar sadat). of course nasser is more white and sadat is more black. I suppose the egyptians were a mixed race, with some being white and some being black. I have heard it said that the early egyptian dynasties were more black and the later ones more white. of course I also heard that the people of the sudan and ethiopia were of more ancient extraction than the egyptians who were more recent arrivals on the cultural scene. Definitely it says somewhere in the bible that ham begat cush who begat others. and cush is known to be ethiopian. so there was definitely some black african blood in the jews. the somalians are more dolichocephalic than the people of sub-saharan africa. also, the dravidian languages are said to be similar to the tribal languages of north-east africa. black peoples are known to once have inhabited europe. and the blackish peoples of new guinea and melanesia are surely once upon a time from africa. I would say there were waves of migration out of africa. some of the early migrants (e.g. the australian aborigines) were more black than white. some of the later migrants (e.g. the canary islanders and the tocharians) were probably more white than black. and the sahara was once a grassland, not a desert, hence it may have provided a vast savanna on which many races competed for supremacy and the ones who came out on top were able to migrate outwards. these migrants included both whites and blacks. some of these migrants (probably more whites) were unable to cross the gobi desert without adapting their eyes to the bactrian dust and hence arose epicanthic folds or slant eyes in the mongolians of china, japan and korea. some of the brown peoples of polynesia and the black peoples of melanesia and the ?? merely gorgeous-looking ?? people of micronesia may have come from africa by boat via the malagasy islands. and the brown ancient men of the south african cape known variously as hottentots, kalahari bushmen and khoi san, speaking in wonderful click sounds not found in any other language group within africa or without are definitely closest to the latest common ancestor of man, having as they do, so many more chimpanzee genes than the rest of us. Of course, some kenyan tribes vie for that distinction. I personally have a soft corner for the east african rift valley which has given to the world the promised land of israel-palestine which is being so tumultously fought over by the residents of these countries, and I am grateful for the similar gift of volcanism and alluvium caused by upheaval of the earth's crust similarly gifted to the indian subcontinent that so many millennia ago crashed its snout against the underbelly of asia and may be steadily boring its way to oblivion under the waters of the indian ocean some short million years hence.

that's my most current take on it. I think it is a fascinating topic nevertheless and needs a lot more research by a lot more people.

[beanpie]

and the ones that came from egypt, more like egyptians (e.g. gamal abdul nasser or anwar sadat). of course nasser is more white and sadat is more black
THIS REFERS TO THE "MODERN" EGYPTIANS AND NOT THE "ORIGINAL" INHABITANTS.

of course nasser is more white and sadat is more black
HOW DOES ONE MAKE THE DETERMINATION THAT, A PERSON IS "MORE" WHITE OR "MORE" BLACK".

PLEASE, EXPLAIN

[beanpie]

I suppose the egyptians were a mixed race, with some being white and some being black
present just one pic, of an indisputable Caucasian pharoah, prior to the rule of the Romans.

[beanpie]

QUOTES BY AN AMERICAN, CAUCASIAN DOCTOR


"Israel also came into Egypt...the land of Ham." (Psalm 105: 23).


...examinations of the epidermis of the mummies of Egyptian kings for verification of their melanin content; precise osteological measurements and meticulous studies in the various relevant areas of anatomy and physical anthropology; careful examinations and comparisons of modern Upper Egyptian and West African blood-types; detailed Afro-Egyptian linguistic studies and the corroboration of distinct Afro-Egyptian cultural traits; documents of racial designations employed by the early Africans themselves; Biblical testimonies and references that address the ancient Egyptian's ethnicity, race and culture; and the writings of early Greek and Roman travelers and scholars describing the physical characteristics of the ancient Egyptians.

The original Egyptians were unmixed pure black folks. When they were at the pinnacle of their glory they were not a mixed group by any means. During the middle dynasties especially (and later) when people migrated to this great land there was some intermarrying. This is natural and doesn't need to be debated. It was even done within royalty lines at times to solidify alliances, which was a common practice between powers during that period of history. Chancellor Williams refers to this phenomenon in his book "The Destruction of Black Civilization." And frankly, he theorizes that this mixing was part of the reason for the fall of Black Civilization. Nevertheless, there was never so much of this that at any time the ancient Egyptians could ever be classified as other than a black people.

It's reasonable to say that Egypt was a gateway for the meeting and interchange of goods, ideas, and people; and that the Egyptians were themselves a unique expression of human strength, beauty, intelligence and diversification. Ancient Egypt was an African civilization. It is also interesting to note that the Biblical record states "Israel also came into Egypt...the land of Ham." (Psalm 105: 23).


[QUOTE]Plus we need to be reminded that Egypt is in Africa (not the Middle East) and that all of the Pharaohs (up to and including the 25th Dynasty) would have been required to "sit at the back of a bus" in the 1940s in Montgomery Alabama. Let's allow the pictures to speak for themselves...Ready?
http://www.freemaninstitute.com/RTGhistory.htm

[premjan]

well, I suppose by skin color or genes, or even by the way people look (their features). I suppose Egypt may have been all black rather than part white and part black. The interpretation of these histories will surely vary with time and context. Meaning is in the mind of the interpreter.

You should note however, that among apes, there is not only one skin color of the epidermis: gorillas have black skin, but chimpanzees have white skin. Already, there is more than one possibility among apes. Why should it be surprising that this is also the case among humans.

Of course gorillas are bigger and stronger than chimps. Does that prove anything about humans?? Maybe in some indirect way it does do that. I'm really not sure.

PS: the Sphinx does look black to me too.

[beanpie]

So, what do you consider the 'light-skinned",so called Blacks, to be?

[premjan]

I really don't know what you are getting at here. You can spell it out for me.

[hinduwoman]

Beanpie, the original humans seem to have come from Africa and so in that sense all of us have black genes. But the way you define it, everyone seems to be black to you!

OK whom do you consider to be black and whom white?

[premjan]

blacks are people whose skin color is closest to the color black (noone is fully black) and whites are people whose skin color is closest to the color white (noone is truly white). if we were to make a statistical plot of skin color over different populations, we could easily come up with some statistically unbiased separators for black/white.

then there are people who are negroid or of the statistically black race. and similarly, mongoloid and caucasoid.

[beanpie]

everyone seems to be black to you!
Because, in my opinion, everyone HAS TO BE.
If Black was original and we are all from Black, it is only logical that...
OK whom do you consider to be black and whom white?
I belive that BLACK is on one end of the spectrum and WHITE , is on the other end. I believe it is fairly easy, to tell when a person is on the "white" end.

[premjan]

basically, I think there is a high degree of correlation between black race and black spirit (i.e. they are often the same thing). However not always the same, since the basic tendencies can be reversed through enculturation in the opposing culture.

[premjan]

I think you mentioned that black people tend to be more spiritual / happier than white people. This may be related to their blood circulation or some differences in their central nervous system (degree of branching et cetera). Or the pineal gland function.

[beanpie]

I think you mentioned that black people tend to be more spiritual / happier than white people.
To my knowledge, I never mentioned this.

[premjan]

i think this may be partially true. it might be a function of culture rather than race of course.

[beanpie]

a very simple challenge...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
I suppose the egyptians were a mixed race, with some being white and some being black

present just one pic, of an indisputable Caucasian pharoah, prior to the rule of the Romans.

very simple

[beanpie]

I suppose the egyptians were a mixed race, with some being white and some being black QUOTE

Now, I ask, what the hell is a "mixed race"? Are the Blacks of America "mixed" and not Black?

[premjan]

dear beanpie, I'm brown and I probably don't fit into the original racial classification of white / black / yellow. What about Tiger Woods: Is he Black or is he Yellow? I really don't know what the Egyptian pharaohs looked like for sure.

[beanpie]

I really don't know what the Egyptian pharaohs looked like for sure.
please, see the "photo gallery"...

http://www.freemaninstitute.com/RTGhistory.htm

[beanpie]

What about Tiger Woods: Is he Black or is he Yellow?
In America, he is considered "Black".

[premjan]

In America, he is considered "Black".

Since I am from South Asia, I could easily take exception to that and claim that since his mother is Malaysian, we should classify him as of Asian descent. Seeing as how another golfer of Asian descent (Vijay Singh) is also doing very well, I could claim that people of South Asian and South-East Asian descent are doing very well in golf due to their genetics. You might not like this classification, and would like to claim that Tiger Woods is doing well at sport due to his black genes, which he shares with basketballers such as Michael Jordan. Now it is a toss-up whether in fact golf requires the same kinds of skills as basketball. I think it ends up being more a matter of racial / national pride than anything else. So let's leave the issue lie if possible.

[beanpie]

So let's leave the issue lie if possible.
ok but, In America, he is considered "Black".

[premjan]

please, see the "photo gallery"...

http://www.freemaninstitute.com/RTGhistory.htm

I suppose they could all be "black" and certainly all of them were "african". Akhenaton doesn't look typically african, but then again I don't know what the typical egyptian african of that period looked like.

[premjan]

ok but, In America, he is considered "Black".

when I was in America I did not consider him solely "black" so let's the matter lie.

[premjan]

Akhenaten may have been a Hyksos semite identical with Moses.





Akhenaten, meanwhile, was banished from Egypt. He fled with some retainers to the remote safety of Sanai, taking with him his royal sceptre topped with a brass serpent. To his supporters he remained very much the rightful monarch, the heir to the throne from which he had been ousted, and he was still regarded by them as the Mose, Meses or Mosis (heir/born of) - as in Tuthmosis (born of Tuth) and Rameses (fashioned of Ra).

Evidence from Egypt indicates that Moses (Akhenaten led his people from Pi-Rameses (near modern Kantra) southward, through Sanai, towards Lake Timash. This was extremely marshy territory and, although manageable on foot with some difficulty, any pursuing horses and chariots would have foundered disastrously.

Among the retainers who fled with Moses were the sons and families of Jacob (Israel). Then at the instigation of their leader, they constructed the tabernacle at the foot of Mount Sanai. Once Moses had died, they began their invasion of the country left by their forefathers so long before. But Canaan (Palestine) had changed considerably in the meantime, having been infiltrated by waves of Philistines and Phoenicians. The records tell of great sea battles, and of massive armies marching to war. At length, the Hebrews (under their new leader, Joshua) were successful and, once across the Jordan, they took Jericho from the Canaanites, gaining a real foothold in their traditional Promised Land. http://www.greatdreams.com/moses.htm


Such study of his personality could never be fulfilled without noticing his characteristic physical features. His mummy, statues and reliefs were meticulously studied and assessed by physicians, particularly endocrinologists, since the start of the 20th century AD. His odd features could not be simply attributed to his foreign descent (Asian blood) from his maternal side. His undue tall stature and feminine-like appearance has raised suspicion that he was suffering from a certain medical syndrome.

Akhenaten definitely was of mixed race.

http://www.egyptmonth.com/mag06012000/magf1.htm

[beanpie]

Akhenaten definitely was of mixed race
Are you suggesting that, any amount of blood, a person may have that is not Black, makes that person not "Black"?

[beanpie]

(Queen Tiye)
Akhenaton's Mother

http://www.freemaninstitute.com/Gallery/Egyp031_big_copy.jpg

[premjan]

Are you suggesting that, any amount of blood, a person may have that is not Black, makes that person not "Black"?

works for any genetic group, not just "black".

[premjan]

(Queen Tiye)
Akhenaton's Mother

http://www.freemaninstitute.com/Gallery/Egyp031_big_copy.jpg

The mother is definitely Asian. No question about it. Totally parallel case to Tiger Woods.

BTW: Buddha was definitely not black. There is no record of his mother and father as being from different tribes. Buddha was called "SakyaMuni" and the Sakyas were a Scythian tribe. The Scythians were a Caucasian group, speaking a Middle Iranian language, genetically may have been related to Highland Scots and the Kurgan people, who originated from the Lake Balkhash region and were late settlers in India, like the Huns and other central Asian groups. Buddha was most likely a Caucasian prince.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/1605/KINGDOMSL-Z.html

[ichabod crane]

I'm not going to address all the stuff posted by aditya, but I will comment on a couple of points.

Aditya: Their God Almighty was 'Jehova' the Fire of yajna .

As is well known, "Jehovah" was a mistransliteration from the Hebrew done by someone around the time of the reformation who didn't understand vowel pointing.

Aditya wrote: "When crucified Jesus uttered, "Eloi, Eloi, Lama Sabacthani". This is a Tamil sentence, its original form being "Eloi, Eloi, Sabikka Lamada Ni ", which means "Oh God, why are you crushing or cursing me like this?"

In fact, "Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?" is a quote (in Aramaic) from Psalm 22:1, which reads 'Eli, 'Eli, lamah `azavtani. There is no question that Hebrew is of Canaanite origin, not Indian. Canaanite works such as the Ugaritic texts show this conclusively. The word "'El" (with the pronomial suffix "my", this becomes "'Eli"), was the generic Canaanite name for deity and also the name of the chief deity in their pantheon. Judaism probably started as a Canaanite sect of 'El worshippers. But it ain't got nothin' to do with Hinduism.

Aditya: 'Jesus' is derived from Greek 'Jeshua', a deviation of Keshua or Keshava.

No it isn't, it's from the Hebrew Yeshua`, which is from the hif`il stem of the verb yasha`, meaning to save. In Greek this became Iesous. There is no letter "j" in Greek!

Aditya: Aristotal was told by a Jew scholar that Jews were originally Indians. Many western scholars admit it.

Please name one.

Aditya: Many ancient European portraits of Christ illustrated in this book show ...

How European artists portrayed Christ 500 years after he lived is completely irrelevant, as they had no information at all on which to base their paintings.

Aditya: Dr. Notovitch had done a similar research in the past, studying for 25 years.

"Dr" Notovitch's work has been conclusively demonstrated to be a hoax.

[premjan]

It's actually a philosophical problem with Hinduism which leads Hindus to attribute all things to Hinduism. The Buddhists would be better able to elaborate. Something to do with a false sense of "Self" and the doctrine of Anatta.

However, another person who was most likely a Tamilian (born there at any rate) was Bodhi Dharma the monk who carried Buddhism to China (so Tamilians may rejoice!).

Woods made his remarks on "Oprah," when he was asked if it bothered him to be called an African-American. "It does," he said. "Growing up, I came up with this name: I'm a 'Cablinasian.'" As in Caucasian-black-Indian-Asian. Woods has a black father (or to be precise, if I am interpreting Woods' reported ancestry correctly, a half-black, one-quarter American Indian, one-quarter white father) and a Thai mother (or, with the same caveat, a half-Thai, half-Chinese mother). "I'm just who I am," Woods told Oprah Winfrey, "whoever you see in front of you."

http://www.salon.com/april97/tiger970430.html



This will be a short update, for now, and I will fill in more information, hopefully within the next few days or weeks. Swami Abhedananda (1866-1939) was a disciple of Swami Ramakrishna (1836-1886). There are critics, as you saw, who claim that Nicholas Notovitch never made the trip to the Hemis Monastery, never found any manuscripts, and that no one at the Hemis Monastery had ever heard of him.

Well, Swami Abhedananda read Notovitch's account, and in 1922 he decided to travel to the Hemis Monastery himself to attempt to verify whether or not documents actually existed that documented the sojourn of Jesus Christ in India before the crucifixion (there are some, such as Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, who believe that Jesus was too young to have embarked on such an arduous trip alone as a young boy, and only came to India after the crucifixion). In 1929, the Swami published an account of his journey under title, Kashmir O Tibbate. The Swami claimed that he personally handled the ancient manuscripts, and, with the help of a lama that was attending to him, produced his own, independent translation of the documents.

amazon (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0874816432/qid%3D1019051318/sr%3D1-9/ref%3Dsr%5F1%5F9/002-5218638-2898446)

Although the bulk of this book is worth reading for its detailed description of the author's 1923 trip, its real value for me is in Appendix 2, which is the complete text of an English translation of a French translation of a Russian translation of a Tibetan translation of a document written about the life of Jesus in the Pali language. The document begins with Moses and the Exodus and describes the activities and travel in the East of Jesus from age 12 to 29. Jesus apparently achieved fluency in Sanskrit, Pali and Tibetan. Along with his Hebrew/Aramaic, probable knowledge of the ubiquitous Greek and maybe some Latin, this gives a picture of Jesus as a scholar more than a carpenter and establishes Buddhism as one foundation of Christianity.

[ichabod crane]

Information on Notovitch:

Notovitch's book "The Life of the Holy Issa" was published in France, Britain and America. But criticism hit hard. None less than Max Müller, the foremost expert on Indian literature in the Western world, pulverized the hoax in a magazine article, pointing to numerous errors and inconsistencies. Further, an English lady travelling in those parts of the world went to the Himis monastery and asked around. She was told that no Russian had visited the monastery for many years and nobody had been treated for any leg injury there, and that they never heard of an "Issa".

The final judgement on Notovitch's hoax came two years later from professor Archibald Douglas in Agra. He also went to the monastery and read aloud from Notovitch's book to the abbot, who was very surprised at the account of what he himself was supposed to have said to Notovitch a few years earlier. Douglas published his interview with the abbot, who claimed to have been abbot there for 15 years and denied every syllable of Notovitch's story. He also remarked that he could not think of a punishment suitable for scum who invented such lies as Notovitch. The interview was witnessed and signed by Douglas, the abbot and the interpreter, and officially sealed by the abbot.

Notovitch tried for some time to defend his story with various dodges, but finally gave up and returned to being a war correspondent. Unlike most hoaxers, he had no ideological motives for the hoax, just a desire to create a sensation. His thin story would probably not have received much attention at all if it had not been published at the peak of the 19th century Indian romanticism, just after Queen Victoria had been crowned Empress of India.

[premjan]

I haven't been to that monastery, but if you read the link I posted, you will see that the information YOU posted is not the whole story. There were some manuscripts stolen from that monastery. Furthermore, a subsequent traveller who tried to verify Notovitch's claims of manuscripts, found that such manuscripts really did exist (not just one, but multiple such).

Moreover, the individual importance of Notovitch diminishes when you consider that both records and myths of a Jesus visit to India are quite widespread in India. You have to explain all of them away as a different kind of Indian romanticism about Jesus, some of it since relative antiquity.

[ichabod crane]

At the moment I can't verify one way or the other your claims about the traveller, but if such manuscripts existed, the simple thing to do would be to actually produce them so that they can be studied by scholars and critically analyzed. But the idea that Jesus travelled half way across the world and back without leaving any evidence of this in any writings originating in Palestine is far-fetched, to say the least.

Regarding the Indian stories, that's not hard to explain. The person of Jesus was known in the subcontinent from early times. Nestorian Christians made it as far as China, and Muslims conquered parts of India, bringing with them stories of Jesus. What I would challenge you to do is give me *specific* manuscript evidence that predates either Christian or Muslim influence.

[premjan]

I have no agenda to convince you; however, there is quite a lot of evidence out there that needs to be examined prior to being dismissed completely as fabrication.

Swami Abhedananda has a book out which is available on Amazon.

[ichabod crane]

Fair enough! All the best anyway in your spiritual journey, wherever that may lead you ...

[premjan]

http://www.essene.com/Issa.htm

[beanpie]

Buddha was definitely not black.
"The religion of Buddha, of India, is well known to have been very ancient. In the most ancient temples scattered throughout Asia, where his worship is yet continued, he is found black as jet, with the flat face, thick lips, and curly hair of the Negro. Several statues of him may be met with the East-India Company. There are two exemplars of him brooding on the face of the deep, upon a coiled serpent. To what time are we to allot this Negro ? He will be proved to have been prior to Cristna. He must have been prior to or contemporaneous with the black empire, supposed by Sir William Jones to have flourished at Sidon. The religion of this Negro God is found, by the ruins of his temples and other circumstances, to have been spread over an immense extent of country, even to the remotest parts of Britain, and to have been professed by devotees inconceivably numerous. …"
http://members.tripod.com/~pc93/anacv1b1.htm

ANACALYPSIS



Godfrey Higgins



1833



Volume I [867 pages]
Volume II [525 pages]

[premjan]

how come he was a sakya (scythian)? the scythians are the nomads of the central asian steppe; the emperor Kanishka was another prominent sakya.

how come buddha was not of the same racial composition as the other sakyas?

plus, Sidon is supposed to be a Phoenician city. What makes you think the Phoenicians (today's Lebanese) were black? They all look pretty white to me, and I see quite a few where I am located.

I think the reason Buddha was portrayed as black (the color used is not a dark chocolate which is the real skin color of "blacks" but jet black) is because:

1) it represents his philosophy of sunya (the void)
2) stylistically black is used for a lot of subjects who are not black
3) often the materials constrain the final color of the statue

His "curly" hair is because of the effect caused by shearing his head hair which came off in snail ringlets. This does not have anything to do with the naturally curly hair of black people.

Have you verified the accuracy of Godfrey Higgins' sources, or do you just believe him like you believe that Tiger Woods is "black"?


The religion of Buddha, of India, is well known to have been very ancient. In the most ancient temples scattered throughout Asia, where his worship is yet continued, he is found black as jet, with the flat face, thick lips, and curly hair of the Negro. Several statues of him may be met with the East-India Company. There are two exemplars of him brooding on the face of the deep, upon a coiled serpent. To what time are we to allot this Negro ? He will be proved to have been prior to Cristna. He must have been prior to or contemporaneous with the black empire, supposed by Sir William Jones to have flourished at Sidon. The religion of this Negro God is found, by the ruins of his temples and other circumstances, to have been spread over an immense extent of country, even to the remotest parts of Britain, and to have been professed by devotees inconceivably numerous. …

http://members.tripod.com/~pc93/anacv1b1.htm

Don't you think Higgins is pretty vague on why he believes what he does?

[premjan]

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm

There are a few parallels, indicating that Krishna was mythologized in a manner parallel to Horus.

There was an attempt on his life in his infancy.

I think it unlikely that Buddha was earlier than Krishna. The volume of documentation on the former is much greater than the latter, while the latter is more myth than man.

[beanpie]

how come he was a sakya (scythian)?
Please, make me aware that he was!

[beanpie]

receiving an email from Michael Moore of Wednesday January 5, 2000 at 10:27 p.m. we read into the fact that Michael Moore had written to us some B.S.. Michael Moore wrote " I am familiar with Mr. Higgins work, unfortunately he is known as a sensationalist historian and didn’t back up his research as he should’ve that is often the case of Victorian historians". We at this Proud Black Buddhist web site write "Shame on you Michael Moore" and with such nonsense remarks you have breached the trust that we could have in you. Michael to be point blank about it, Michael you are shooting a lot of Bull and nonsense. The "Anacalypsis" by Sir Godfrey Higgins is one of the most researched works of the origin or religions in History and Michael Moore you are an outright liar to write me an email that maliciously state that Godfrey Higgins did not back up his research. Mr. Higgins spent 20 years for ten hours a day researching his work. Also I challenge you to present me any document that is better and show me one document that research the religions in India like Mr. Higgins? We find it difficult trying to find documents about Indian Religions and what better document tell of the Brahmins in India?

[beanpie]

"...site hold a great interest at the study of Buddhism.
Many are quick to challenge our attempt to uncover a hidden Black Buddhist past and some
have gto call our attempt to seek historical accuracy racist. one so far as The major question
asked to us is what difference does it make? We ask the question what difference did it make
for the Japanese at an ancient Buddhist temple in Nara Japan to make a Black Buddha? Why
are there Black Buddha statures in ancients temples Worldwide? Why does such a question
bring criticism and contempt? Does it matter to learn that the first recorded Buddha was
not Chinese or Japanese or Indo Aryan? We at the Proud Black Buddhist web site hold
that there has been a racist attempts to hide or cover up the fact that Shakyamuni the first
recorded Buddha was Black and not Indo-Aryan. Ask questions someone need to explain
these Black Buddhas. Ask Ikeda or Ask your Priest or Ask us at Proud Black Buddhist Web
Site. By all means ask questions, learn more about Buddhism."

http://www.proudblackbuddhist.org/Challege_2000/Page_2x.html


PICS OF BLACK BHUDDAHS, SOME W/RATHER "INTERESTING" FACIAL FEATURES
http://www.proudblackbuddhist.org/Buddhist_Lectu/Page_5x.html
http://www.proudblackbuddhist.org/Challege_2000/Page_2x.html


http://www.proudblackbuddhist.org/Buddhist_Lectu/Page_1x.html

[premjan]

Please, make me aware that he was!

well, he was referred to as "sakyamuni" which means sakya monk. sakya was the indian word for scythian much as "jat" was the indian word for Goth.

As for all the "black photographs" if you found a large number of golden statues (as there definitely are) would you conclude that the Buddha was of a race of "golden" men?

[beanpie]

would you conclude that the Buddha was of a race of "golden" men?
No because, THERE IS NO RACE OF "GOLDEN MEN"!

well, he was referred to as "sakyamuni" which means sakya monk. sakya was the indian word for scythian much as "jat" was the indian word for Goth.
You call this compelling evidence? Please!

[beanpie]

Buddha was called "SakyaMuni" and the Sakyas were a Scythian tribe. The Scythians were a Caucasian group,
Buddha is also referred to as ‘Sakyamuni’ which means Sage of the Sakyans, since he belonged to the kingdom of the Sakyans.
http://home.si.rr.com/buddhadhamma/Bd-07.htm
I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying among the Sakyans at Kapilavatthu in the Banyan Park. Now at that time a new reception hall [1] had just been built by the Kapilavatthu Sakyans, and it had not yet been dwelled in by any contemplative, priest, or anyone at all in human form. So the Kapilavatthu Sakyans went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down, sat to one side. As they were sitting there they said to him, "Lord, a new reception hall has just been built by the Kapilavatthu Sakyans, and it has not yet been dwelled in by any contemplative, priest, or anyone at all in human form. May the Blessed One be the first to use it. When the Blessed One has used it first, the Kapilavatthu Sakyans will use it afterwards. That will be for their long-term welfare and happiness."
http://www.buddhistinformation.com/ida_b_wells_memorial_sutra_library/sekha.htm

Don't sound like Caucasians, to me!

[premjan]

No because, THERE IS NO RACE OF "GOLDEN MEN"!


You call this compelling evidence? Please!

I don't see that you have made any point here at all. you call that froth spouted by Higgins to be evidence? there is no good evidence to conclude that Buddha was black. you're clutching at straws. find a better way to feel good about yourself.

Over 2,500 years ago, the Sakyas were a warrior tribe who lived in northern India is what we now call Nepal. The capital city, Kapilavatthu, stretched across the Himalayan foothills and their king was named Suddhodana. Their neighbours were the Koliya. King Suddhodana was married to the daughter of Anjana, the King of the Koliya tribe, Queen Maha Maya. They had called her Maya, which meant "vision", because of her extraordinary beauty but she was also virtuous, talented, highly intelligent and pious. King Suddhodana was honoured and respected by nobility and commoners alike. He was called the "King of the Law" because he ruled according to the law. King Suddhodana and Queen Maha Maya were destined to be the parents of the Buddha.

http://members.tripod.com/TarotCanada/BuddhaEmperorEmpress.html

[beanpie]

the Sakyas were a Scythian tribe. The Scythians were a Caucasian group,
" the Sakyas were "...CAUCASIANS??? :confused:

[beanpie]

you call that froth spouted by Higgins to be evidence?

Mr. Higgins spent 20 years for ten hours a day researching his work.

[beanpie]

Quote:
Originally Posted by beanpie
Are you suggesting that, any amount of blood, a person may have that is not Black, makes that person not "Black"?


works for any genetic group, not just "black".

SO, YOU OBVIUSLY ARE, SUGGESTING THAT. THEN, I SUPPOSE ALL OF THE SO-CALLED BLACKS, IN AMERICA, ARE NOT REALLY "BLACK", ACCORDING TO YOU.

[beanpie]

PICS OF BLACK BHUDDAHS, SOME W/RATHER "INTERESTING" FACIAL FEATURES

http://www.proudblackbuddhist.org/Challege_2000/Page_3x.html
http://www.proudblackbuddhist.org/Challege_2000/Page_5x.html
http://www.proudblackbuddhist.org/Challege_2000/Page_6x.html

Do you fee these statues are incorrectly attributed, to Bhudda?

[premjan]

As to why Higgins researched so much and produced only froth: If he spent such a lot of time, perhaps he was a bit dull, or a bit confused and that was the best he could come up with. Or perhaps you are not posting the relevant bits of his work which will really do him justice. Try making a better argument.

The various statues that you posted, the Greek and the Thai and the Vietnamese inclusive probably represent the sculptural biases of the individual sculptors. To imagine that the blackness of the Buddha has been systematically covered up to deprive some group of people of racial credit is a bit much, to my mind. You might think differently on that point.

[premjan]

" the Sakyas were "...CAUCASIANS??? :confused:

Well, more or less. Here we come to one's preferred definition of these racial terms. The Sakyas were the nomads of the Central Asian steppe. They were probably a bit like Kurds or Iranians since their language is from the same group. Hence their skin was probably more light than dark. Just a probability estimate based on what we currently know. You would have to drag in better evidence to show that there was a significant number of very dark-skinned people among the Scythians (which is not impossible).

[premjan]

SO, YOU OBVIUSLY ARE, SUGGESTING THAT. THEN, I SUPPOSE ALL OF THE SO-CALLED BLACKS, IN AMERICA, ARE NOT REALLY "BLACK", ACCORDING TO YOU.

Some of them are really quite close to the original genetic group which we have chosen to label "black" which is not strictly a term based on color -- that is just a convenience.

Some of them are not. One example of a person commonly classified as "black" who is in reality only "half black" would be our mutual favorite: Tiger Woods.

[beanpie]

Or perhaps you are not posting the relevant bits of his work which will really do him justice
http://members.tripod.com/~pc93/anacv1b1.htm


Quote:
Originally Posted by beanpie
" the Sakyas were "...CAUCASIANS???

Well, more or less....
Just a probability estimate ...
...a significant number of very dark-skinned people among the Scythians (which is not impossible).
SO, IN OTHER WORDS, YOU ARE MERELY "GUESSING" SINCE, YOU DON'T REALLY KNOW.

[beanpie]

who is in reality only "half black"
I HAVE NEVER, EVER MET A PERSON WHO IS "HALF-BLACK".

[premjan]

SO, IN OTHER WORDS, YOU ARE MERELY "GUESSING" SINCE, YOU DON'T REALLY KNOW.

neither do you, but I'm posting better arguments.

I HAVE NEVER, EVER MET A PERSON WHO IS "HALF-BLACK".

you have to be one quarter american indian in order to get benefits from the US government. it's quite easy for a person to be half X and half Y. Indeed, some people are half man and half woman (hermaphrodite).

[beanpie]

I HAVE NEVER, EVER MET A PERSON WHO IS "HALF-BLACK".
I'm posting better arguments.
IN "YOUR" MIND.

[premjan]

buddha was indubitably black because


there are some black statues of him (but also some golden-colored ones)
some of the statues have somewhat african features (mainly snub noses)
some snot called Godfrey Higgins who can't even spell half the Indian words right thinks he was, based on vague and unconvincing evidence
you would like to believe he is


you're doing good beanpie. I wish you well selling that theory to anyone.

[premjan]

Welcome to HalfBlack.com! (http://www.halfblack.com/community/index.php)

A site for people who have melanated African ancestry in their blood. A site that is focused and dedicated to addressing the needs of a group of individuals who are either too dark for one group, too light for another group, or are told that they must decide if they are black or white.

[beanpie]

Quote:
I HAVE NEVER, EVER MET A PERSON WHO IS (considers themself)"HALF-BLACK".

Your previos post has done absolutely nothing, to change the above fact.

[premjan]

Quote:
I HAVE NEVER, EVER MET A PERSON WHO IS (considers themself)"HALF-BLACK".

Your previos post has done absolutely nothing, to change the above fact.

I think Tiger Woods gives the lie to your statement. Take a look at his quote a little earlier in the thread.

[beanpie]

Quote:
I HAVE NEVER, EVER MET A PERSON WHO IS (considers themself)"HALF-BLACK".

SORRY, BUT, I'VE NEVER HAD THE PLEASURE OF, MEETING MR. WOODS, WHO NEVER CLAIMED TO BE "HALF-BLACK", TO MY KNOWLEDGE.

[beanpie]

A site for people who have melanated African ancestry in their blood.
I do not believe that makes one "half-Black".

[premjan]

black, white, blue, they're just words to me anyway.

[beanpie]

Obviously

[premjan]

to you they are not?