Vishvavajra
Active Member
This whole thing is based on the similarity of sound between Shakya (an Indo-Aryan clan around what is now Nepal) and Saka (an Iranian tribe). But the fact is that lots of ethnonyms sound similar. Stalin was from Georgia, so that means he was actually from the southern United States, right? Yeah.
Now, early Indo-Aryan and Iranian peoples were linguistically and culturally similar, and they may have been physically indistinguishable. Indeed, it's not inconceivable that the Shakyas might have begun as an Iranian tribe that moved into Northern India and assimilated to the culture there. But Shakyamuni's biography has him living and traveling around NE India as pat of the shramana movement. While it's possible that his biography is more mythic than historical, trying to refute that mythic biography by using details from the same mythic biography really doesn't work. For example, if you think that the whole bit about being from India is bunk, then it's weird to then turn around and uncritically accept the claim that he had blue eyes.
But of course the great thing about Buddhadharma is that it doesn't matter even if Shakyamuni never lived at all, or if he was actually a woman from Azerbaijan. Either the Dharma is true and efficacious, or it isn't. However, it's couched in terms that clearly show its origin in a Vedic/Shramana Indian cultural milieu.
And as for the claim that Buddhism was never a big deal in India... that's just historical ignorance. It was a very big deal for several centuries and left its mark, even though it was eventually eclipsed by other traditions.
Now, early Indo-Aryan and Iranian peoples were linguistically and culturally similar, and they may have been physically indistinguishable. Indeed, it's not inconceivable that the Shakyas might have begun as an Iranian tribe that moved into Northern India and assimilated to the culture there. But Shakyamuni's biography has him living and traveling around NE India as pat of the shramana movement. While it's possible that his biography is more mythic than historical, trying to refute that mythic biography by using details from the same mythic biography really doesn't work. For example, if you think that the whole bit about being from India is bunk, then it's weird to then turn around and uncritically accept the claim that he had blue eyes.
But of course the great thing about Buddhadharma is that it doesn't matter even if Shakyamuni never lived at all, or if he was actually a woman from Azerbaijan. Either the Dharma is true and efficacious, or it isn't. However, it's couched in terms that clearly show its origin in a Vedic/Shramana Indian cultural milieu.
And as for the claim that Buddhism was never a big deal in India... that's just historical ignorance. It was a very big deal for several centuries and left its mark, even though it was eventually eclipsed by other traditions.
Last edited: