buddha the african

Don't feed the troll.

Where is it that one decides to draw the line on cultivating compassion?

In my own personal communication with buddha, he informed me that the Nazi's are the egoless slaves of the universe, having had the first TV broadcast sent out.

Also, in India, the swastika is the wheel of life, as I am sure some one else has mentioned.

Actually, the image of the Buddha was not created until "he" was created in Afghanistan. Because of the Greek colonists in the area who created that culture, they converted to Buddhism and then started sculpting the Buddha. As a result, most Buddhist rupas have 'cornroll" wavy hair, and the first statuary were definitely "Greek" looking (like Apollo actually). This spread through the Mahayana path through China, to Japan, and then back to Vietnam/Cambodia. Then this also spread back through India through the Theravada path. (if I'm not mistaken).

Before this, Buddhists represented their religion as only the 'wheel' and through other symbology. Of course, you could have a rock as a symbolic representation of the Buddhism for all that matters (although most have at least on rupa on their altar, regardless of which sect or path of Buddhism).

The swastika has always in the East been considered different than that in the West. There is also a dissimilar use of white (death)/black (in contrast to the West) and red (anger in the West/prestige and auscipious in the East. So, it's not that shocking, any more than the colors blue, white and red are within many flags and banners of various societies.

As religion passed through cultures, the people changed the image to be more of themselves (the Khmer - with the Wats and full lips that the originator of this threat states, the Tibetans with the Lamas and the various eminations of the Buddha, the Chinese with the various Bodhisattvas (Quan Yin v. Chenrizig, etc.).

I think it's interesting that Christ was always considered white with blond hair and blue eyes when Jews and Mediterraneans at that time in the area were all shorter, darker, hairier, and definitely not Anglo-Saxon/Scandinavian. It's also interesting, that people consider Egyptians white, even though they were only "white" (as in dark Mediterranean Greek) with the Greek domination (after it was controlled after like 600 a.d. when the Persians took over), when in reality they were Egyptian (which is African) or Kushite (which the people's of Kush did take over Egypt for the last period of its great dynasties--if I'm not mistaken).

Going back to the original line, while there are some African features in Asia, they're mainly from Negritos (which are a racial/ethnic group that are found in various areas like the Andamans (sp?), Aborigines, Maldives, various areas of Melanesia, and I think a few Islands all the way to Africa. But, if I'm not mistaken this was during a "first wave" of culture out of Africa, and were distinct from the Africans which came next.

I think what's interesting is that there was trade between China and Zanzibar (on the Eastern side of Africa/Tanzania), but I don't know if this actually caused a transfer of Buddhist thought. I think that there were missionaries from India (usually merchants) who were found in Alexandria though before Christ (if I'm not mistaken, not sure about the time period though, but know that it was probably after several missionaries were sent out by Asoka once he converted to Buddhism).

I think that it should be noted that there are lots of Africans who have attained enlightenment. But, Sakyamuni was not African (in his historical Buddha incarnation), he was definitely from the Sakya tribe. I think it's great though the great celestial Buddhas (Buddha Ratnasambhava, Buddha Amitabha, Buddha Amoghasiddhi, Buddha Vairochana (white) and my personal favorite Buddha Ashobhya) are all of different colors. Also my favorite (if I could have any favorites) are Cittamani Tara (Green Tara) and Medicine Buddha (who is lapiz blue/black in my mind). How wonderful that when you think about it, how Buddhism has incorporated persons of all colors and shapes, and sizes, of multi-universes and trillions of years of existence and non-existence. How wonderful. What's not good though is how many still in Buddhism are not as inclusive to Blacks as they could be (with the possible exception of the S.G.I. Nicherin Buddhist lay organization).

So, ultimately, Buddha was probably black (in his multiple incarations), I was probably black (and I think my previous life was as a wonderful black sister who was vary geared toward social change, and who generally dated white/latin/Italian men, hahaha, but who was very sympathic to the black community and their pain).

I think what we need to consider with this author is that much of African history has been erased (from great Mali, to Zimbabwe, to great Zanzibar) or diminished (from Egypt, that was African for all of it's history until it was taken over by the Persians around 600 b.c.e, that means 2,000 + years of African rule, wow). We even said that it was impossible for Africans to create Zimbabwe, saying that it was most definitely Solomon's mines rather than those who lived in the area who created such an influence civilization. We don't know the extent to how Africa has affected our society ... and it's authors like this that make us (or should make us) really consider (was he black? was he a she?). It makes it so much more sad given the post-colonial state of Africa and its exploitation by corporate and industrial interests, and it's leadership's past, etc.

I think I forgot my train of thought. Anyway, Buddha, yes he was probably black, but Sakyamuni was Indian (guru of the Sakya clan). I'll shut up now.

re: "India is included when I speak of Africa."

-

Um...

And you all our in a buddhist tribe? LOL!

i'm not a troll, i've been a part of this tribe for over a year

i came to bring the truth....

"he is found black as jet, with the flat face, thick lips, and curly hair of the Negro."

In the US the word negro is considered a derogatory term.
Would you call your neighbor negro to his face?
Of course not, because it is a racist term.

Hey Chaz,

This view that Indian Buddhism has origins in African culture is interesting. I have heard a very similar argument about Buddhism only oriented towards the Middle East. Europeans also had the same argument that oriented Indian religion towards Europe. Why can't India just simply have Indian religion?

I can, and will, take your argument piece by piece and deconstruct it if you post it more clearly (meaning with better grammar and articulate argumentation) in my Tribe called "The Academic Study of Buddhism." The link is tribes.tribe.net/academicbuddhism . Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to start an argument but rather start an intelligent conversation. I think it is necessary to challenge ideas and analyze them to reap their benefits.

And just as a side note - the first "Buddhist Art" that we have access to is not iconic at all - but rather ANICONIC and originating in Northeast and Central India. There was no "importing" Buddhist art from Africa during this time. The Aniconic phase is from about 250 BCE to 100 CE. There WAS, in fact, some influence in the Northwestern region of the subcontinent from Greece when Alexander invaded - but this Gandharan art did not become popular until later. It helped make the transition from aniconic to iconic forms. Trade connecting India to Africa came in the later centuries of the Common Era.