Buddhism in China

[Gibbs]

Shakyas are not mongoloid. His family lineage is traced to Ikshvaku dynasty of Ayodhya. He was most probably a brown Caucasoid or mixed. How on earth Brits came up with this potrait of his ??

More likely to have looked Nepali than current day average Indian..

 

[LURKER]

Rig veda was composed in Pakistan Punjab, are you going to argue Vedic/Hinduism originated in Pakistan? Nepal has equal claim to Buddhism. Give Nepal its due credit!

Buddha totally opposed Hindu Brahminism, Hindu caste system, god and idol worship....After Buddhism became popular, Hindu Brahmins turned around and claimed Buddha as one their own, an avatar of Hindu god.

Buddha would've have jumped in his grave in protest, if he knew.

What a bucket load of BS. Rigveda was not composed in any one particular region and there are three Vedas apart from rig Veda. Hinduism does not ends with Vedas.

Buddha was opposed to grandiose ritualism ,animal sacrifices and heredity in varna order. There was no idol worship back then and he never said anything about it, infact it was his own followers who started his idol worship after his death.

More likely to have looked Nepali than current day average Indian..

You do realize half of Nepal is non mongoloid and they look like average North Indians. The mongoloid stock lives up north in the valley and the place where Buddha is believed to be born is stone's throw from border with Uttar Pradesh of India.

 

[Fattyacids]

What a bucket load of BS. Rigveda was not composed in any one particular region and there are three Vedas apart from rig Veda. Hinduism does not ends with Vedas.

Are you trying to imply Rig Veda came from God? This is not a spiritual/religion forum.
Vedic started in Pakistan Punjab, the rivers are described in Rig Veda. It later spread across to Ganges region in India. Hinduism evolved out of Veda.

Buddha was opposed to grandiose ritualism ,animal sacrifices and heredity in varna order. There was no idol worship back then and he never said anything about it, infact it was his own followers who started his idol worship after his death.

More than that, Buddha opposed the idea of God in Hinduism.

 

[LURKER]

Are you trying to imply Rig Veda came from God? This is not a spiritual/religion forum.
Vedic started in Pakistan Punjab, the rivers are described in Rig Veda. It later spread across to Ganges region in India. Hinduism evolved out of Veda.



More than that, Buddha opposed the idea of God in Hinduism.

There are atheist school of thoughts in Hinduism which have nothing to do with Vedas . Vedas have important place in Hinduism but it is ignorant to say Hinduism evolved out of Vedas , it is not an organised religion that has a start date or founder or based on a single book. Vedas came from various saints who lived at various places across the sub continent.

There were many atheist school of thoughts among the hindus at the time of buddha and he himself was influenced by samkhya. As i said earlier and let me reiterate for your high IQ brain to grasp the fact that he opposed elaborate ritualism and sacrifices and proposed a middle path to attain nirvana.

 

[BoQ77]

Journey to the West (Chinese: 西遊記; pinyin: Xī Yóu Jì) is a Chinese novel published in the 16th century during the Ming Dynastyand attributed to Wu Cheng'en. It is one of the Four Great Classical Novels of Chinese literature. In English-speaking countries, the work is widely known as Monkey, the title of Arthur Waley's popular abridged translation.

The novel is an extended account of the legendary pilgrimage of the Tang dynasty Buddhist monk Xuanzang who traveled to the "Western Regions", that is, India, to obtain sacred texts (sūtras) and returned after many trials and much suffering. It retains the broad outline of Xuanzang's own account, Great Tang Records on the Western Regions, but the Ming dynasty novel adds elements from folk tales and the author's invention, that is, that the Buddha gave this task to the monk and provided him with three protectors who agree to help him as an atonement for their sins. These disciples are Sun Wukong, Zhu Bajie, and Sha Wujing, together with a dragon prince who acts as Xuanzang's steed, a white horse.
--------------

 

[grand]

Shakyas are not mongoloid. His family lineage is traced to Ikshvaku dynasty of Ayodhya. He was most probably a brown Caucasoid or mixed. How on earth Brits came up with this potrait of his ??

i'm not sure but they say this is the buddha painting from the british museum. don't know if it's authentic.

buddha was from today's nepal not from india. buddha was born into shakya family,which were mongoloid race, this seems to be confirmed by the buddha painting in the british museum. buddha is known as "sakyamuni"("sage of the shakyas").

india was a geography term, back then there wasn't a united country called india. buddhism did have hindu influence.

 

[Water Car Engineer]

i'm not sure but they say this is the buddha painting from the british museum. don't know if it's authentic.

buddha was from today's nepal not from india. buddha was born into shakya family,which were mongoloid race, this seems to be confirmed by the buddha painting in the british museum. buddha is known as "sakyamuni"("sage of the shakyas").

india was a geography term, back then there wasn't a united country called india. buddhism did have hindu influence.

Buddha was born into a Hindu Kshatriya family. Mongoloids were mostly outsiders, frontiers peoples, until later.

There's no images of the Buddha back then, like I said, he was shown in symbolic form.









Emply throne, chariot, horse, or as a stupa, chakra, bodhi tree, etc.

This started to change around 1st century AD, but that was even 600-700 years after him.




That British museum painting means nothing.

 

[Gibbs]

Buddha was born into a Hindu Kshatriya family. Mongoloids were mostly outsiders, frontiers peoples, until later.

There's no images of the Buddha back then, like I said, he was shown in symbolic form.


Emply throne, chariot, horse, or as a stupa, chakra, bodhi tree, etc.

This started to change around 1st century AD, but that was even 600-700 years after him.




That British museum painting means nothing.

Those are Ghandara Buddhist sculptures.. Particular to Pakistan.. And found no where else.. It's the only art form where the Buddha is depicted with European features, owing to the proximity of Asia minor and Greek influence but elsewhere the Lord Buddha is depicted with more Asiatic features

But i do agree with you depicting Buddha in human form is relatively more recent in timeline

 

[Water Car Engineer]

Those are Ghandara Buddhist sculptures.. Particular to Pakistan.. And found no where else.. It's the only art form where the Buddha is depicted with European features, owing to the proximity of Asia minor and Greek influence but elsewhere the Lord Buddha is depicted with more Asiatic features

But i do agree with you depicting Buddha in human form is relatively more recent in timeline

They were one of the first to show him in human form. Everything else was symbolic.


baby Siddhartha




However, there are some unusual images such as these from 2nd century BC, Eastern India, Sungas. Areas were it's very cultural similar to Buddhas birth place, but it's not hundred percent if these are showing human form of him. If it is, it's very rare sight.

 

[Steakhouse]

Before the Greek invasion into South Asia, there were no statue of Buddha in the subcontinent, Buddha statue greatly influence when subcontinent in contact with the Greek invader.

 

[LURKER]

i'm not sure but they say this is the buddha painting from the british museum. don't know if it's authentic.

buddha was from today's nepal not from india. buddha was born into shakya family,which were mongoloid race, this seems to be confirmed by the buddha painting in the british museum. buddha is known as "sakyamuni"("sage of the shakyas").

india was a geography term, back then there wasn't a united country called india. buddhism did have hindu influence.

British painting does not prove anything, its just a figment of someone's imagination. Nepal is not all mongoloid, the areas bordering India are populated by non-mongoloids where buddha was born. Moreover Shakyas are not mongoloid they are kshatriyas and they live in north India and south Nepal . shakya muni does not mean sage of shakyas , it means sage who was a shakya.

 

[Fattyacids]

There are atheist school of thoughts in Hinduism which have nothing to do with Vedas . Vedas have important place in Hinduism but it is ignorant to say Hinduism evolved out of Vedas , it is not an organised religion that has a start date or founder or based on a single book. Vedas came from various saints who lived at various places across the sub continent.

There were many atheist school of thoughts among the hindus at the time of buddha and he himself was influenced by samkhya. As i said earlier and let me reiterate for your high IQ brain to grasp the fact that he opposed elaborate ritualism and sacrifices and proposed a middle path to attain nirvana.

Who're you trying to fool? Hinduism, whichever form/derivative, is an offshoot religion of Vedic. The vast majority, mainstream, form of Hinduism is rooted in the idea of the creator and other gods, which Buddha opposed. You need not reiterate, any high IQ knows better than to plainly take your words.

 

[LURKER]

Who're you trying to fool? Hinduism, whichever form/derivative, is an offshoot religion of Vedic. The vast majority, mainstream, form of Hinduism is rooted in the idea of the creator and other gods, which Buddha opposed. You need not reiterate, any high IQ knows better than to plainly take your words.

Hinduism is conglomerate of different religions or sects , Hinduism today is a syncretic faith with pre vedic, vedic and post vedic practices incorporated in it. Atheism was very much mainstream in the hindu society at Buddha's time as it is today with schools of thought like samkhya and even materialists carvakas and his views on god were influenced by his interactions with sages and brahmins . He rejected Vedas as the supreme authority and its views on Brahma, not that it was anything new as there were at least 4-5 more nastik school of thoughts at that time and each have a role in shaping of what is today Hinduism. Anything Indic is Hindu whether vedic or nastik unless one specifically classifies himself as different or outside the superset of Hinduism like Buddhists or jains else they are just another nastik school of thoughts in Hindu fold for us. Your lack of knowledge is apparent when you say Hinduism is offshoot of vedic religion. Try reading more about Vedas and Hinduism and then come back. I don't have time and energy to keep running around in circles after a persistent troll trying to spoonfeed with what is common knowledge in history, neither do I get paid for endlessly ranting over the internet. I have said what i had to say. Spare me your bs.

 

[TaiShang]

China's religion is called pragmatism and progress under scientific and empirical guidance.

 

[doppelganger]

China's religion is called pragmatism and progress under scientific and empirical guidance.

And its less than a hundred years old.

What is empirical guidance?