Ancient Black Buddha

ANCIENT BLACK BUDDHA

The statues of ancient Buddahs of the East depected him as having wolly hair is always shown in corn rows, or in a pepper corn style with small tight curls. Original statues of Buddha clearly show him to be Africoid, with the wide nose, thick lips and frizzy, nappy, hair which are distinctive Negro characteristics. In most ancient temples throughout Asia where he is still worshipped, he is shown as jet Black. In fact, in most of the ancient temples of Asia and India, statues of the gods and goddesses have Africoid features with woolly hair in the pepper corn style, while some even have dreadlocks. These pictures of Buddha portray him in no uncertain terms as a Negro with kinky, coiled hair, a flat nose and full lips


Buddha Vietnam

Buddha Thailand

Buddha China

Buddha India

Note the ears of this modern Massai man from Kenya and compare to the Buddhas

Buddha Thailand

There are absolutely no historical records that portray Buddha as Aryan or White.
The first people who conceptualized and worshipped the divine image of the Negroid mould of humanity were the Negroes, and they actually started the practice of Buddhism, the world's first missionary religion.
 Buddha was an Enlightened Master from the Sakya clan of the Naga Race, and was the first man on earth to preach the great principles of equality, liberty and fraternity. He caused the Nagas to become conscious of their own mind power as opposed to the mantra power.
Buddhism, whose doctrines include the Golden Rule, was established 500 years before Christianity in the area now called the Middle East (Africa). Buddha is not a name but a title meaning Enlightened One, Blessed One, or to Become awake. Over the centuries, there have been several recorded Buddhas like Gautama, Sakayanumi, and Siddhartha. Black Buddhist missionaries introduced Buddhism to China, Japan and other countries.
It is clear therefore that Buddhism did not start in Japan nor China, yet it is professed and practiced by millions of devotees throughout Asia. Under the Black King Ashoka, the religion of this Negro God was spread throughout Europe, even into the remotest parts of Britain. Buddhism actually started on the India Continent where the first inhabitants were Black people who had migrated from Ethiopia some 50,000 years earlier, establishing what is known as the Indus Valley Civilization.
There were two types of Blacks from Africa who created the first civilization of mankind. One was the Nubian, who had broad features and Woolly, Nappy hair, while the other had the aquiline nose with straight hair,(Dravidian) but both were early descendents straight out of Black Africa.


Southern Indian Man

Modern Black people of Southern India.This Negrito or Ethiopian Black initiated the first migration out of Africa. The next migration was by the Australian Aboriginal. Intermixing between the two groups produced the people of the Indus Valley, then the Paleo Mongoloid race or the Mediterranean Black Mongoloid also came and intermixed, and together, these types made up what is known as India (which means Black). During the time of the Buddha 2,500 years ago (500 B.C.), Black-African people were in the seat of world power, but about 500 years ago the Aryans invaded Northern India causing the native inhabitants to seek sanctuary in the southern areas of India. Battles for supremacy in the Indus Valley between these savage white barbarians and the indigenous Blacks for control of the Black lands lasted for over 1,000 years, and were recorded in The Rig Veda in the form of hymns, which were actually prayers to white Gods to defeat the Blacks. Being unable to defeat the Black Nagas outright because of their advanced military tactics, these nomadic Ayans resorted to corrupting and distorting the Ancient Texts written by the Blacks to create this racist colour caste as a last resort to dominate the Blacks. This corrupted version of the Black's religion (varna system), ensured their superiority while suppressing the Blacks, in much the same way that their European cousins did later through Christianity and Judaism.These nomadic, uncivilized, barbaric tribes of whites who invaded India were in fact civilized by the Blacks, but like their Greek relatives, these whites overthrew the Blacks and destroyed their magnificent civilization.


Orissa women from northeast India. Note the similarity in jewellery worn compared to the African women below.




Woodabi woman from West Africa


Ndabele woman from South Africa

After defeating the Black people, the Aryans (whites) instituted the worst kind of inhumanity in human history against this group of people, in the form of a caste system where Black people were treated worst than animals.
This anti-Black caste system was originally called Brahmanism but is better known as Hinduism, the greatest curse to the Blacks (Sutras) of India. This Aryan, Hindu religion, which is a form of sanctified racism and the source of their devious, oppressive religious ideology, was designed to control and enslave the mind, body and soul of the indigenous Black people of India who had respect for all human beings, and even assured equal status to women. Although a type of caste system was already in place before the whites arrived, the Brahmin intensified and exploited it, putting themselves at the top of the Hindu caste system, while the heavily exploited, degraded, humiliated, slave-like, impoverished so called �Untouchables� who carry the weight of the entire population on their shoulders, are on the bottom rung of this social ladder. These Blacks are the worse victims of Hindu society.

Indian society consisted of four basic groups.
1. Brahmins (priesthood)
2. Kshatriyas (the warrior class)
3. Vaishyas (the merchant class)
4. Sudras / Untouchables / outcastes, the hated ones who refused to compromise or surrender to Aryan dominance.

 � These outcast in India consist of the agricultural labourers who are kept segregated in every village.

� They had to eat the carcasses of dead animals.
� They could only eat from broken plates.
� They had to tie a cup around their necks to catch their spit because it was considered to be contaminating.
� They had to tie a broom to their rear ends to hide their tracks, since crossing such tracks was forbidden and deemed to be polluting.
� They could only enter the white neighbourhood at night because their shadow was defiling.
� Blacks had to clean corpses and wear the clothes of the dead.
� Their women were relegated to the function of common prostitutes.
This racist system goes hand in hand with the Brahmin religion which is disguised as Hinduism.


Buddha Thailand
9th Century

 In between the wars and the beginning of Brahminism, the Black Buddha and his Buddhist teachings emerged, starting out as a type of reformist Hinduism to eradicate this demonic system and teach enlightenment for all. King Ashoka and Buddha fought against this Aryan penetration and racist caste system, helping to bring the Black Naga Indians back to a level of high civilization. However, this reign by the Blacks of India was hindered mainly because of disunity among India's Blacks, combined with trickery and deceit by the Aryan invaders.
Aryans did not practice this Black Buddhist religion, neither was Buddha an Indo Aryan as advocated by World Buddhist leader Daisaku Ikeda. In fact the Aryans despised Buddhism and destroyed Buddhist universities, even murdering Buddhist scholars, because it preached equality. Though the caste system was originally based on skin colour, it is not the main problem since some dark skinned people can be found at the top of this corrupt, immoral, ungodly system. The problem is the sanctioned oppression of the Black Untouchables for whom there is no justice, and against whom crimes by caste Hindus go unpunished.By the way, those whites are erroneously referred to as Aryan by historians, which is in fact a stolen word from the Sanskrit language of India's Blacks, meaning Noble Cultivator or The Holy, a title reserved for the Rishis or sages who had mastered the sacred science of Aryasatyani. White Christians exploited Christianity and persuaded the Roman Catholic Church to authorize slavery in America, setting out to prove that Black people were lower than the chimpanzee and without a soul. They concealed and distorted the history of this ancient great Black civilization. However, seeing that there was no need for slave labour in India as it existed in America, the White Indians reduced Blacks to an inferior slave position through the Brahman/Hindu religion. Historians, scientists and archaeologists for centuries have covered up and made insignificant historical findings that reveal an African creation or even a connection to many of the world's first civilizations as was the case in Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, Moorish Spain, Shang and Shia China and Mexico. The denial of the contributions to ancient civilizations and the systematic cover-up is based on the maintenance of the myth that Black/African people are inferior as was promoted in Europe, India and the Americas to make slavery acceptable.

Source: http://mindwarz.com/media/buddah

thanks for spreading such knowledge. Just like most people dont realize a significant part of Egypts history consisted of Black Pharoahe's, history which is usually whitewashed by Westerners.

As much as one would like to claim that the Buddha was an African, it simply isn't true and one can't base an opinion on the website because it's very poorly written, riddled with errors and even tainted by racism.

Buddha was born in Lumbini and raised in the small kingdom or principality of Kapilvastu, both of which are in modern day Nepal.
His father was King Suddhodana, the chief of the Shakya nation (the website has conveniently left the letter "H" out of Shakya), one of several ancient tribes in the growing state of Kosala; Gautama was the family name. His mother, Queen Maha Maya (Māyādevī) and Suddhodana's wife, was a Koliyan princess. One thing that cannot be forgotten is that the ancient Indians were documentors. They kept very good records. There is no record of an African people either ruling over or inhabiting the area where Buddah was born and raised.

The Buddah would not have been white or black, but a mixture of Chinese and Indian.

The website given says some silly things:


Nobody has ever claimed it began in Japan or China. It has always been claimed as starting in India.


No. But there are physical descriptions that point to him not being black.


Buddha is not and never has been considered a god by Buddhists.


Gautama, Sakayanumi, and Siddhartha are all the same Buddah.

The website then goes onto to make questionable claims about Africans in Southern India which is totally irrelevant as Buddhism began in Northern India. It also makes what seems to be some racist claims about the whites and Aryanism that have no foundation in fact or anthropology. The theory regarding Aryan invaders being white is in fact propaganda that the British spread when they colonised India. It has no basis in fact and the author of the website is just perpetrating British lies. Quite ironic.

The claim about cornrows is very misleading. The photographs do not show cornrows. They show a Buddhist cap:



The comparison with the Massai man is also misleading. In ancient India, men and women commonly wore ear plugs. Children’s ear lobes were pierced and a small clay cylinder was put in the holes. As the child grew, increasingly large cylinders were put in the lobes until they had stretched enough to accommodate plugs with diameters of up to 6 centimetres. Hundreds of these objects have been found by archaeologists and are displayed in some museums in India. The Buddah would have worn such ear plugs when he was a lay man and would have taken them off when he renounced the world, leaving his ear lobes elongated. Elongated ear-lobes are not the exclusive feature of the Massai.

Whoever made the website has absolutely no concept of the Buddah. One of the most important aspects of Buddhism and it's sacred writings is that the physical form of the Buddah is irrelevant. A follower should never, ever concentrate on the Buddah's physical form. The only way to know him is through the spiritual.
The website also continually states that Buddhism is a religion that started in Africa. This is wrong on two counts. First, Buddhism is not a religion. It is a way of life. No practitioner of Buddhism nor any serious scholar would ever refer to Buddhism as a "religion". Secondly, there is absolutely no evidence that any African religion contained the main concepts of Buddhism. For example, there is no comparison with Nirvhana in any native African religion. Buddhist scripture points to the Buddha being raised as a Hindu, just as all his compatriots were, before he became Enlightened. This is backed up by the fact that there are many aspects of Hinduism contained within Buddhism.

Let me add a bit of what i learnt about buddhism.
The assertions of the poster is totally wrong and i agree with bastage.

It is very misleading to assert that all the statues of Bhuddha is that of the first Bhuddha (Gautama Siddhartha). There were thousands of Buddhas after Gautama. A buddha is simply someone who has attained enlightenment and has broken the death - Birth cycle.  So we can have a black, white or molatto Buddha.

No. You can clearly see that. I see the hat made out of Yak wool that the Buddha was famous for wearing.

It's not a case of "not wanting to see". It's a case of taking everything one knows about the Buddha and then weighing up the logic. I'm afraid your argument does not sit well in the logical department.

And what about the thousands upon thousands of other statues that do not show the Buddha to have "negroid features". Are we to disregard them simply because of the couple that you've shown? What about documented history? Does that go in the bin too? What about archeology? Anthropology? Sociology? The list goes on and on. The origin of Buddhism is probably one of the best understood of all religions/spiritual movements, yet you want it all thrown away on the assumption that a couple of statues look like Negroes?

No my friend. Logic is logic. It's not a case of seeing what one wants to see. It's a case of seeing the truth.

@wirinet. You are of course, correct. There were thousands of Buddhas. Which is why we always refer to Gautama Siddhartha Buddah as the Buddha.

Dude. Your argument rests on a mis-spelling.


It was the Shakya.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakya


No. When he's not wearing the woolly hat, he's depicted as bald!!!

Wikipedia is pretty good. Not just anybody is authorised to write on it and it's constantly updated by people who have expert knowledge on the subject. If there's ever a question about authenticity or relevance, there's normally a disclaimer at the top of the page. But heck!!. If you Google "Shakya", you'll come up with thousands of pages that connect the Buddha to the Shakya clan.
There is a Sakya school of Buddhism but they're based in Tibet, were founded relatively recently in Buddhist terms and have no connection to Africa. Ironically, they got their name because the word "sakaya" means "pale" or "grey", chosen after describing the landscape where they lived.

You say the older statues have negroid features but that's not true. Look at the countries where those statues come from. They aren't from where Buddhism originated. They're from where it eventually spread to centuries later - the Far East. Even if one could say that erosion wasn't an issue, we can't say that they are the first statues of the Buddha or anywhere near the oldest.

And what about the ancient paintings of the Buddha? I've spent hours and hours looking around Buddhist Temples in India and Sri Lanka yet never have I seen a negroid Buddha.

Sorry. As much as I'd like to, I simply can't buy it.

on the Aryan theory:






the British didnt invent the caste system in India, so were they the ones who wrote these penalties? They may have simply tried to deduce the history of the culture they found in India, not invent one outrightly.

how old is your description of buddha?

To me, its like saying Jesus was a blonde blue eyed Aryan.

People are free to believe whatever they like (to some, Jesus was a black negro), but it still doesnt mean others have to ignore the facts on ground.


_{had to make a few corrections to my post.}

afrocentrism is just as bogus and history revisionist as eurocentrism. lunacy

Nope a significant part of Egypt did not consist of black pharaohs. Western media created that impression because they had been boxed into a corner, they could no longer lie about it, hence they decided to smartly phrase their words to make it look like Egypt having black pharaohs was just a coincidence and passing occurence.
You just feel for the trick they were actually trying to propagate.

Egypt was a descendant of Ham in the Bible, hence common sense dictates even from the most racist person that Egypt is expected to be a nation of black men. Just as Cush were also descendants of Ham and are more less still considered to be amongs the black people of today.

Egypt is known as Kemet

Egypt was never a White man's nation, instead it was ruled for a period of time during its last days by people that could be considered to be Whites by today's standards

Egypt was never an Arab nation, instead it was invaded by Arabs during its last days by people considered to be Arabs who now live and dominate there till today.

Egypians and Nibians in nature, physical attributes and culture the same way that Somalians and Ethiopians are related.

The the period that Egypt had significant white rulers was during the Ptolemic period (very very very late dying stages of egypt around the time of romans and before the subsequent invasion by the Arabs) when they were ruled by people that some argue to have white blood in them i.e. people not necessarily considered egyptians by historical standards.

Egypt always had black rulers, their tombs decoration and idols and statues basically had african features. Even history tells us of how Egyptians then considered the Caucasians i.e. white people to be barbarians of that period. Hence don't be suprised the most people that try to deny the Black origins and development and historical roots of Egypt usually turn out to be Caucasian in descent and Eurocentric in world view.

Am sure even only a few people know that the so called renaissance period of europe was kick-started by the Black people known as the Moors (one of whom brought about mathematics known as Algebra)

Even the Egyptians themselves referred to Nubia as the place they came from.

Things found in Egypt have much older versions in the interior of Africa, meaning that Egyptians actually brought their knowledge from within the Interior of Africa (Where the nubians and Tai seti people were living). Things found in Egypt have little or no roots in any other place apart from the interior of Africa.
Whites out of racism and jealousy even go as far as say that Pyramids of Egypt was built by Aliens, just so that they would not have to give credit to the fact that Black people more or less brought the rest of humanity of the dark ages.

So please reconfigure your brain from the brainwashing that the media has already done.

Egypt was black
Descendants of Egyptians were invaded by Whites hence the period wen Egypt ever had anything resembling a white ruler.
Greeks were taught by Egyptians.
Arabs are not Egyptians even though they occupy the country now.
Napoleon intentionaly caused the destruction of the face of the sphinx in other to hide the fact that Egyptians monuments were monuments made to Black people.
Most Museums and Archeologist are constanty suppressing, whitewashing and covering up any information that constantly shows that egypt was basically a country founded, developed and sustained by black people for thousands of years.

The Olmecs of South America have an history that is easily traceable to Egypt.

Pyramids in South America started showing up after the arrival of the Black people known as the Olmecs.

all the black people in America are not slaves, there are actually black people indigenous to America.

PEOPLE PLEASE DON'T ALWAYS BELIEVE AND SWALLOW EVERYTHING SAID BY THE MEDIA, STUDY FOR YOURSELF AND FIND OUT THE TRUTH YOURSELF.

IT WOULD BE STUPID AND IGNORANT OF A BLACK MAN TO THINK THAT THE WHITE MEDIA WOULD NOT ALWAYS DO AND SAY THINGS THAT MAKES WHITES LOOK GOOD AND BLACKS LOOK BAD.

CHANGING HISTORY AND WHITEWASHING HISTORY IS ONE WAY THAT WHITES HAVE BEEN ABLE TO ACHIEVE THIS.

you seem to think all blacks are automaticaly african.  aboriginal peopple of australia look aftican yet they have been there for 14,000 years.  there are groups in southern asia that look african though they have been there for 16,000 years.