What was ethnicity of Prince Siddharta?
rohit
Maharrashtra Veteran
In some pali texts of Buddhist scriptures, It is mentioned that the relatives of Prince Siddhartha who were also royal. They were supposed to ethnically different and claimed self superior to other people and other royal families too. Once upon a time a mighty neighboring king asked to get marry with daughter of king who resembled to Shakya clan. King of shakya clan did not able deny him because that king was mighty by his force. Finally he became ready to offer her unofficial daughter for his marriage because he couldn't able to battle.
When British arrived in India they introduced lot theories in India regarding history. They said that indo scythian and Shakya or saka are same. Indo Scythian are also known as 'Jat' in India. Jat is the caste which did not got mixed in Indian Hindu social hierarchy. Although they claim that they are kshatriya/warrior caste in Hindu hierarchy but Hindu priest never approved them as a warrior. Jats have their own culture and males are so dominant.
So, The one theory tells us that Buddha's lineage was from Scythian origin and mother might be mongoloid in origin. I have visited museum of Hyderabad state where i found statues of Buddha from 2BCE.. I doubt it must be greek art. Buddha status is looked like a status of handsome and pleasant looking Greek young boy.
In India many Buddhist and Jains got converted to Islam during several indo religious conflicts and finally due to invasion from Muslim rulers. and there are no Buddhist as you travel from north to south but suddenly in deep south in kerala there is one god named as ayyapa which is having same mudra like Buddha and resembles Buddha and several such cases can be found in several parts of India with evidences to prove. But with huge gap in shrilanka there is presence of Buddhism but they have conflict with Tamils.
When i was reading forum of Scythian Jats, i found that they too having superiority complex as found in Buddhist scripture in regarding to Shakya clan to which Buddha also belonged to.
I really don't know about authentic ethnicity of Prince Siddhartha but in Nepal there is one clan which is known as saka or shakya. They are now absorbed in Hinduism and known as chetryas. They are not mongoloid but resembles to Caucasian.
But in Pali canon it is clearly mentioned that shakya and kolian were supposed to claimed superior so they only intermarried between them.
Comments
Could I ask why this matters?
I mean, I probably (not to say almost certainly) will leave myself open to criticism from other members, but what difference does it make? How would knowing, enhance or further your practice?
There are some who would even point out that the Buddha's historical existence is unproven, so really, his provenance may be both hypothetical and immaterial...
Maybe he's just curious.
I daresay, but to what advantage...?
It solidifies the trust the more I learn about his life.
The easy answer to the question of Buddha's ethnicity is that nobody really knows. The first known surviving images do resemble greek statues of their gods and are about as accurate as those blonde haired, blue eyed Jesus pictures you see everywhere when it comes to telling you what a mid-Eastern Jew looked like around that area.
Also confusing the issue is the famous "32 signs of a Buddha" mentioned in the old Sutras, supposedly describing what he and all Buddhas must look like. It's a strange bit of writing that includes such things as all Buddhas must have blue eyes. Make of it what you will, but the most compelling explanation I know is that it's a bit of surviving mystical symbolism where we've lost the key to translating what they're actually talking about.
Current theory is that Gautama was most likely from the Indo-Aryan group of people. But, that only describes people with a common set of languages, not shared genetic traits. "Aryan" most certainly does not mean white European looking in any way. That was a huge mistake used in Nazi propaganda only. Populations in that part of the world were much more mobile and mixed and best guess is, Buddha looked similar to the Nepal people of today.
This is according to archeology websites and books, by the way. I'm not an authority on Eastern history or people.
That's very interesting, OP. I never connected the Saka/Scythians with the Shakya. If that's a valid connection, then the Buddha was Indo-Iranian.
However, the term "Arya" was a tribal name of both Indo-Iranians and Indo-European peoples who migrated into the Tarim Basin a couple thousand years (or more) before the Buddha's time, and many eventually converted from their sky-god religion (i.e. "paganism") to Buddhism. From there, they migrated west, then into India. Some settled in Ladakh, where they're still found today, as the Dards, still practicing their pre-Buddhist religion.
I think it's impossible to know for sure what ethnicity the Buddha was, because many details of the history of the migration of peoples around that region are still being worked out, and await clarification as more archaeology and genetic studies are done.
OP, perhaps you've seen the discussion I found, from which this quote is taken. It turns out there's a sutra that explains where the name Sakya came from.
Exerpt from the Ambattha sutta:
'Long ago, Ambattha, King Okkâka, wanting to divert the succession in favour or the son of his favourite queen, banished his elder children--Okkâmukha, Karanda, Hatthinika, and Sinipura--from the land. And being thus banished they took up their dwelling on the slopes of the Himâlaya, on the borders of a lake where a mighty oak tree grew.
And through fear of injuring the purity of their line they intermarried with their sisters.
Now Okkâka the king asked the ministers at his court: "Where, Sirs, are the children now?"
"There is a spot, Sire, on the slopes of the Himâlaya, on the borders of a lake, where there grows a mighty oak (sako). There do they dwell. And lest they should injure the purity of their line they have married their own (sakâhi) sisters."
Then did Okkâka the king burst forth in admiration : "Hearts of oak (sakyâ) are those young fellows! Right well they hold their own (paramasakyâ)!'
That is the reason, Ambattha, why they are known as Sâkyas. "
This still doesn't tell us what ethnicity King Okkaka's lineage is, though.
@Cinorjer
Buddha's eyes were black and watery not blue. Watery eyes are misunderstood as blue while translating the text.
According to the Jain texts which is considered as authentic texts says that his mother name was Gautami therefore he adopted name Gautam Buddha. But some people agrue that his gotra was Gautam.
I vaguely remember there being a pillar that was found and translated it was said to be the birth town of the Buddha. The explorers were British and this was in the late 1890.
I think the town was Lombini and all they found was a pillar.
I did find this 2 minute nat geo clip on the earliest buddhist structure dating to 6th century.
I want to find thinking pattern of Siddhartha by finding his origin.
Then you will explore millions of blind alleys before coming to that conclusion.
His origin is obscured by time and the lack of information.
Everything will be hypothesis, especially as you will have to FULLY understand the thinking pattern of that time, that epoch, that society and culture, as well as anything else....
Again I ask, how would knowing this actually enhance your practice?
The Buddha was an English gentleman.
I like history questions like this. Are Buddhist forums limited to questions about practice and scripture, or can we discuss historical questions relating to the Buddha and the development of Buddhism?
No answer.
Indeed. Obviously. Well said. As America was as well as India, also one of our colonies before a misunderstanding about tea and tax returns, I feel tax and 'ownership' of Buddha can be backdated ...
Buddha was American.
If Arya translates to noble, precious or pure then would that make an Aryan more noble, precious or pure than a non-Aryan?
In relation to Aryan, as far as accepted records show, the reference is to Su-Mu-Arya.
Yes, he was born in the suburbian surroundings of London.
Discussing Historical questions is one thing. Asking the imponderable is pointless....
Rohit isn't asking for the sake of 'History'. He's asking
Therefore, it would appear that Rohit's interest isn't historical, it's 'personal'. I pointed out this was going to be an uphill task, and asked how it would help his practice.
came the reply.
We can of course discuss the History of the Buddha. But finding out - for sure, for sure - what his 'thinking pattern' was as a result of his origin, is I think you'll agree, utterly impossible to address. That's why the question was asked.
Jeesh....I apologise to anyone offended, for daring to have an opinion on the matter.
You did a good job fleshing out the wonderings of some here - self included.
Thanks for your efforts there, @Federica.
Well, his motives, aside, I find it an intriguing question. And, look! We discovered a sutra that's new to us, or to most of us. That was worth it, IMO.
But I'm also aware that a question like this can become a political football, to some extent, so you have a point. But I think the members and OP have handled the discussion well, so far, fwiw.
History is what history is. I agree with Dakini, it's an interesting question, and if this forum is going to restrict itself to what is factually know...well, more than half of the posts in the history of the forum need to be deleted.
I think that's the most inaccurate and un-academic thing I've heard...
Insofar as seeking the origins of the Buddha's ethnicity, yes it is, never denied it.
My comment referred more to the OP's motive.
Now, if you'd like to address that specifically - thereby keeping on topic - I'd welcome your authoritative and enthusastic input.
I think you're underestimating the numbers. But I'll start at the top and work down...
Well, just for fun, I'm posting links to a couple of articles, so people can see what the "Westerners" in the Tarim Basin looked like, and read a bit about genetic findings about them. Although these represent the first "Western" (Europoid) migrants into the area, and more came in later from elsewhere in Central Asia (Indo-Iranians), we can at least get a general idea of the appearance of the people who eventually migrated from there into NW India.
http://www.historicmysteries.com/the-tarim-mummies-of-xinjiang/
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/16/science/16archeo.html?pagewanted=all
Now, the question is, was there any mixing between those people and East Asians at any time? And the genetic studies seem to be saying, "yes". So it's possible that some of those who reached NW India and the foothills of the Himalayas had somewhat mixed features, or at least, mixed genetic heritage, even if the mix wasn't always evident. So we can't say whether the Buddha was completely European or Persian in appearance, or if he had a blend of European and Asiatic features. However, paintings in the Buddhist caves in places like Dunhuang, and elsewhere in Xinjiang, portray the Westerners exclusively with European features.
@Dakini
Ya I also visited Ajanta caves several times. I found that he had tanned skin and blend of Nepali and normal features. And looked like a typical royal man having well proportioned body and muscular body and face.
Normal?
Que? I suggest a very subtle agenda is at play here. The appearance of the Buddha is imminent not ethnic.
Here for example is an image of the Buddha considered authentic in unbiased [ahem] Lobsterian historic circles . . .
Ok. I don't want to debate more to avoid debate..Thanks all for inputs .
OK, bear with me, OP. My research on these questions of Scythian, Indo-Iranian, "Arya", etc. migrations is a work-in-progress. You can look up Indo-Scythians on Wikipedia. The Scythians entered India around 200 BC or 150 BC. That's after the Buddha's time. So we can rule out the Scythians. We can also rule out the Tarim Basin "Westerners", because they entered India later, after the Scythians, around 150 AD, or so. This means that it was very early Indo-Iranians (also referred to by some as "Indo-Aryans") who moved into India around 1500 BC from around Central Asia. If the Buddha sprang from descendants of those people, it means he would have been Iranian, or proto-Iranian.
Of course the earliest paintings of him and statuary would have portrayed him as a Greek boy, because it was the Greeks who first did any portraiture of him at all. Prior to the Greeks invading, it wasn't allowed to show him in human form. So we can discount that, as the Greeks using their own artistic conventions to portray the Buddha.
It's complicated with all these migration theories, because experts are still arguing among themselves to some extent, and also, there were people who moved from the Russian steppes into Siberia, then south into the Tarim Basin, while others didn't go that far east at first. They went south from the Caspian Sea toward (now) Kazakhstan and Iran, and from there, they spread out east and west. It's a bit of a jumble, but it's surprising how many Westerners were moving around through Asia in very early times, around 3000 BC and 2000 BC.
I'm not sure what reason we have to believe he was descended from early Iranic people, except that he was a noble. And according to the sutra that discusses his antecedents (posted earlier on the thread), his ancestors were very concerned with maintaining a "pure" bloodline. Apparently they didn't want to intermarry with local people of the areas where they lived. So from that perspective, it seems unlikely that the Buddha would have Nepali features (what does that mean, anyway? Aren't there a variety of tribes in Nepal?). I suppose it's possible that if a local person offered a king a local woman of high birth to take as a wife, it could have happened.
In any case, it's an interesting puzzle. Now, whether you can divine anything from that regarding the Buddha's worldview or thought processes, or whatever, I don't know. What we do know is that he was a maverick who rejected some of the values of his society, like the caste system, for example. So knowing his ethnic origin would only tell you the customs and beliefs of his lineage or ethnic group, which he abandoned when he went forth.
My apologies.
English is not your first language, no slight was intended by you. No offence taken. Your english is very good incidentally. Consider yourself based on the above comment an Honorary English Gentleman . . . like the Buddha.
I'm pulling up this thread because a book by a well-known researcher in Buddhism and also Indo-European prehistory was just published about precisely this topic. And I wonder if the reason the OP, a new member at the time, joined to post this topic was that the author of the new book, Christopher Beckwith, may have given some interviews in India during his research and preparation to publish the book. I don't feel it's a coincidence that a new member from India posted this thread just 6-8 months before the book was published.
I haven't read the book, but according to the reviews, the scholar, after considerable study of archaeological sites in India, texts, prior research, Buddhist canon, etc., said that "Shakya" clan doesn't refer to a local clan, it refers to the Saka people, a tribe of Scythians (Indo-Persians)., as the OP mentions. And he says the Buddha didn't teach reincarnation/rebirth from lifetime to lifetime. Also, that Buddhism influenced Greek philosophy, after the Greeks arrived in India and Bactria.
The book offers a very interesting and thought-provoking view of the Buddha and his teachings, and the history behind it all. Titled: Greek Buddha: Pyrrho's Encounter with Early Buddhism in Central Asia
Persian eh? So that would be Iranian gypsy? So was he teaching in part early Zoroastrian teachings? Nah ... Buddha was English! English is practically American ...
I bet he was related to Jesus ...
Truth - never what you think ...
Well, Indo-Persian or Indo-Iranian means "Aryan". It's a polite way of avoiding the "A"-word. The Scythians were one branch, I guess, of the "A"-people.
Buddha was a woman, no man spends that much time on hair and those long earlobes? Too much heavy jewellery. Plus she wears a sari.
Plus she used to be a cat in a previous life.
Facts! No use to anybody.
Nah, took him six years to figure out that extreme asceticism was pointless. Any woman would have clued in much quicker than that.
Yes, isn't it amazing how most - if not all - of the great religious icons were/are male? Even today, the Pope has no female equal....
Once, Woman was revered as the bestower, giver and maintainer of Life. Then, the Babylonians got in on the act - and women somehow got given the short straw....
That reminds me, it was said that one of the things that pissed off the early settles, such as the Pilgrims, regarding the Native Peoples, was that the women had so much say in tribal affairs. They (the native women) we downright uppity by Pilgrim standards.
You are right, the great religious icons that we know of were male because they came out of male dominated societies.
side note: the Navajo and Zuni don't appear to have that problem.
Have what problem? The Navajos retain aspects of their matriarchal past. But due to the influence on their way of life and on the formation of their formal tribal government, women got sidelined. The men regarded it as a sort of "men's liberation" (as some of them call it), but women still own most of the traditional forms of wealth: the sheep herds and products from the sheep.
The dichotomy between male-dominated Buddhism and the earlier matriarchal traditions of the Tibetans can be seen in Tibetan Buddhism and more broadly in Tibetan society today. Look at all the goddesses in Tibetan Buddhist tradition. Even if their supreme goddess, the Earth Goddess, is no longer recognized and the rituals relating to her have been assimilated to Buddhism, the people still circumambulate their sacred mountains and lakes, even to the extreme extent of crawling inchworm-like, for hundreds of miles, rather than walking. And most oracles (traditional healers and clairvoyants) are women. Some scholars say that the original meaning of "manipadma" in the prayer "Om manipadma hum" was the Earth Goddess' name.
We have stupas with relics. We could clone the Buddha in the future from genetic material?
No, you need viable tissue for that. Currently, that is.
Your point is taken, @Dakini.
Every society has it's own synergy. In many of the 'New World' and Pre-Colonial African cultures, women were either dominant or played a major role and were highly respected.
In Japan, a strongly male dominated society for centuries, there are records indicate that women, at least religiously, held the highest seat. In Japanese myth, a Goddess created the Islands of Japan.
In 'The Lion King', Disney erroneously made the shaman a male. By African tradition, at least for that region, the shaman was/is a woman.
When the Greeks attempted to move beyond Egypt, they were stopped cold by warriors led by a woman.
The Celts had no problem with women as leaders. The Vikings also accepted women in leadership and in combat.
It is not that either a patriarchy or a matriarchy is better. The Navajo and Zuni have their own problems, socially and politically. That is a discussion for the Social Anthropologists.
What we, I hope, are striving for today, socially and politically, is the recognition and reality of the respect and equality of men and women each of the other and of self within our own societies and the recognition that other societies are neither superior nor inferior in and of themselves - they are just different from our own.
I return the soap box to whomever chooses to use it.
Peace to all
Great post, @Lionduck. I see my post was cut off, somehow. My final point there was that some scholars consider that the Tibetan prayer, "Om Mani Padma Hum" originated as a prayer to the goddess, "Manipadma". Typically, prayers to deities were bracketed with sacred syllables (like Om and Hum), and that prayer follows the mold. Buddhists later re-interpreted it, according to those historians. Interesting thought.
I didn't know that women in Japanese culture were spiritual leaders. I wonder if that was back the Taoist days (Shinto), before Buddhism.
Early anthropologists in the West, like Claude Levi-Strauss and Mircea Eliade, focused on male shamans, completely overlooking that the majority of traditional healers in many parts of the world were women. So the public got the impression that shamanism was an exclusively male vocation.
I'm glad gender roles are relaxing, so everyone has a shot at being all they can be, whatever that may be for their unique personality and their gifts.
Oh goodness, please don't get me started, I'm sure it's tiresome to many, and I sound like a stuck record, but there are far too many instances to mention where women have been erased from their historical contribution, and some of their inputs have been whitewashed to lessen the significance of their impact and roles...
Ok, I really am not going to say any more.
And that's just a short 'borrow' of the soapbox.....
And I don't 'awesome' your post because I'm glad you're not going to speak of it any longer, @federica. I'm just elated, glad and relieved that somebody somewhere hasn't forgotten just how much ground has been lost for the vast contributions of the female.