Page 2 of 3

Re: how do we know what the buddha looked like?

Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 6:49 pm
by diamind
So basically its a modern day corruption to have a image of the Buddha? Why is Thailand etc.. full of buddha statues if there is nothing in the cannon about making images. This is strange.

Re: how do we know what the buddha looked like?

Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:55 pm
by Dhammanando
diamind wrote:
Mon Aug 13, 2018 1:22 pm
Did buddha ever say NOT to make images of him?
In Pali sources there is no mention of the question ever being raised.

Re: how do we know what the buddha looked like?

Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 9:34 pm
by cookiemonster
diamind wrote:
Mon Aug 13, 2018 6:49 pm
So basically its a modern day corruption to have a image of the Buddha? Why is Thailand etc.. full of buddha statues if there is nothing in the cannon about making images. This is strange.
I see it as a type of Buddhanusatti.

Re: how do we know what the buddha looked like?

Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2018 1:39 am
by diamind
cookiemonster wrote:
Mon Aug 13, 2018 9:34 pm
diamind wrote:
Mon Aug 13, 2018 6:49 pm
So basically its a modern day corruption to have a image of the Buddha? Why is Thailand etc.. full of buddha statues if there is nothing in the cannon about making images. This is strange.
I see it as a type of Buddhanusatti.
But if there is no mention of his form in the pali cannon where was it adopted? Carelessly from the mahayana?

Re: how do we know what the buddha looked like?

Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2018 2:22 am
by DNS
diamind wrote:
Tue Aug 14, 2018 1:39 am
But if there is no mention of his form in the pali cannon where was it adopted? Carelessly from the mahayana?
see this article:
There is enough incidental information in the Tipiñaka to get a good idea about the Buddha's physical appearance. . . . .

Although statues of the Buddha always show him with hair, this is an iconographic convention and is not historically accurate. After his renunciation, like all other monks, he `cut off his hair and beard' (M.I,163).
http://buddhisma2z.com/content.php?id=310

Re: how do we know what the buddha looked like?

Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2018 3:54 am
by Kusala
diamind wrote:
Tue Aug 14, 2018 1:39 am
cookiemonster wrote:
Mon Aug 13, 2018 9:34 pm
diamind wrote:
Mon Aug 13, 2018 6:49 pm
So basically its a modern day corruption to have a image of the Buddha? Why is Thailand etc.. full of buddha statues if there is nothing in the cannon about making images. This is strange.
I see it as a type of Buddhanusatti.
But if there is no mention of his form in the pali cannon where was it adopted? Carelessly from the mahayana?
Someone please feel free to correct me, but from my limited knowledge, it was the Bactrian Greeks who first created the Buddha statue. The Buddha was modeled after the Greek God, "Apollo", I believe...

Re: how do we know what the buddha looked like?

Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2018 9:29 am
by LG2V
It's possible that Buddha's eyes were not blue at all, but rather brown. 'Nila' translates to "dark color" in general. They could have been brown or blue.

'Nila' is the reason why Moggallana, Krishna and Shiva are often depicted as blue in Indian art. It's modern interpretation means 'blue', but it was often used to refer to black or brown objects. The adjective is used to describe Moggallana's and Uppalavanna's skin.

There's an interesting theory that, linguisticly, the color 'blue' is actually a relatively recent arrival: https://thedoctorweighsin.com/evolution ... olor-blue/

I personally don't agree with it, but it makes for an interesting read.

Re: how do we know what the buddha looked like?

Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2018 11:21 pm
by Kusala
LG2V wrote:
Tue Aug 14, 2018 9:29 am
It's possible that Buddha's eyes were not blue at all, but rather brown. 'Nila' translates to "dark color" in general. They could have been brown or blue.

'Nila' is the reason why Moggallana, Krishna and Shiva are often depicted as blue in Indian art. It's modern interpretation means 'blue', but it was often used to refer to black or brown objects. The adjective is used to describe Moggallana's and Uppalavanna's skin.

There's an interesting theory that, linguisticly, the color 'blue' is actually a relatively recent arrival: https://thedoctorweighsin.com/evolution ... olor-blue/

I personally don't agree with it, but it makes for an interesting read.
That's also possible. However, we have to take into consideration that the meaning of words can change over time. For instance, The word "Arya(n)" originally meant something totally different. See ----> "The ethnic meaning of Arya" http://koenraadelst.blogspot.com/2011/0 ... -arya.html

This is why I think genetics carries more weight than just some ancient texts...

Image

Re: how do we know what the buddha looked like?

Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2018 8:14 am
by pegembara
We know that the Buddha was bald.
(1) the core canon explicitly describes the Buddha as a bald-shaven man; moreover, (2) implicitly, these texts are incompatible with the historically-subsequent assumptions about the Buddha’s physical appearance now commonly found in statuary.

http://www.newmandala.org/the-buddha-was-bald/

Re: how do we know what the buddha looked like?

Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2018 4:26 pm
by dharmacorps
Vasettha Sutta:

599. The world is enlightened, we ask Gotama, does one become a brahmin by birth or else by actions? We do not know this, enlighten us so that we may know the brahmin. "

600. The Blessed One said:

"Vaseññha, I will tell you step by step how it happens, The classification of living things in this and other births.

601. Look at the grass and trees, although they are not aware, This and the other have attributes peculiar to their births.
602. So also insects, like grasshoppers and ants They have attributes peculiar to their births.
603. Look at the animals small and large They have attributes peculiar to their births.
604. Look at the serpents with long backs going on their bellies, They have attributes peculiar to their births.
605. Look at the fish too, who find food in the water. They have attributes peculiar to their births.
606. Look at the birds flying through the air. They have attributes peculiar to their births.
607. Although these have various attributes, at birth, In humans various attributes are not evident at birth.
608. They are not in the hair, head, ears or eyes Not in the mouth, nose, lips or eye-lashes
609. Not in the neck, flanks stomach or back, Not in the buttocks, chest, pudendum, nor in the sexual intercourse.
610. Not in the hands, feet, fingers or nails, nor in the knees and calves, Not in the hue or voice, by which to know their birth.

Re: how do we know what the buddha looked like?

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2018 9:46 am
by Kusala
LG2V wrote:
Tue Aug 14, 2018 9:29 am
It's possible that Buddha's eyes were not blue at all, but rather brown. 'Nila' translates to "dark color" in general. They could have been brown or blue.

'Nila' is the reason why Moggallana, Krishna and Shiva are often depicted as blue in Indian art. It's modern interpretation means 'blue', but it was often used to refer to black or brown objects. The adjective is used to describe Moggallana's and Uppalavanna's skin.

There's an interesting theory that, linguisticly, the color 'blue' is actually a relatively recent arrival: https://thedoctorweighsin.com/evolution ... olor-blue/

I personally don't agree with it, but it makes for an interesting read.
Shravasti Dhammika wrote an interesting piece on "Krishna". I used to wonder why Hindu deities were depicted as blue in Indian art. Know I know why...See ----> "The Buddha Meets The Dark Lord" http://sdhammika.blogspot.com/2009/07/b ... -lord.html

Re: how do we know what the buddha looked like?

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:01 am
by Crazy cloud
Is the image of Lord Buddha, experienced by numerous meditators after his paranibba, actually not the true and right picture of him ...

:sage:

Re: how do we know what the buddha looked like?

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:30 am
by markandeya
Kusala wrote:
Tue Aug 14, 2018 3:54 am
diamind wrote:
Tue Aug 14, 2018 1:39 am
cookiemonster wrote:
Mon Aug 13, 2018 9:34 pm


I see it as a type of Buddhanusatti.
But if there is no mention of his form in the pali cannon where was it adopted? Carelessly from the mahayana?
Someone please feel free to correct me, but from my limited knowledge, it was the Bactrian Greeks who first created the Buddha statue. The Buddha was modeled after the Greek God, "Apollo", I believe...
This seems to be right as far as I know. Early Buddhist sites would mostly display the asthamangala or eight auspicious symbols/signs.

Endless knot,Lotus flower,Dhvaja,Dharmachakra, Bumpa,Golden Fish,Parasol,Conch.

It became more anthropomorphic due to western influences.

Re: how do we know what the buddha looked like?

Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 1:24 am
by Kusala
Crazy cloud wrote:
Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:01 am
Is the image of Lord Buddha, experienced by numerous meditators after his paranibba, actually not the true and right picture of him ...

:sage:
I don't remember the exact Sutta, but I recall the Buddha saying after his Parinibbana, gods and men can't see him...

On a different note, this article might explain why the Buddha's clan, the Sakyans, appear very prideful...According to the Buddhist scriptures, the fear of contaminating their gene pool prompted them to breed with their own sisters...hence the saying, "Proud as a Sakyan"...unfortunately, their hubris led to the destruction of their kingdom and clan...

History of Ancient Indian Conquest Told in Modern Genes, Experts Say https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/ASI ... 928833.php



...The gene patterns "are consistent with a historical scenario in which invading Caucasoids -- primarily males -- established the caste system and occupied the highest positions, placing the indigenous population, who were more similar to Asians, in lower caste positions."

...The data imply, then, "that there was a group of males with European affinities who were largely responsible for this invasion 3,000 or 4,000 years ago," said geneticist Lynn Jorde of the University of Utah.

...But, he added, "when we look at the Y chromosome DNA, we see a very different pattern. The lower castes are most similar to Asians, and the upper castes are more European than Asian."

Further, "when we look at the different components within the upper caste, the group with the greatest European similarity of all is the warrior class, the Kshatriya, who are still at the top of the Hindu castes, with the Brahmins," Jorde said.

"But the Brahmins, in terms of their Y chromosomes, are a little bit more Asian."

Re: how do we know what the buddha looked like?

Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 2:50 am
by Volo
I have heard in one of the Dhamma talks of Ven. Aggacitta, that when Ven. Sujiva (both of them are famous monks from Malaysia) was in Bodhgaya meditating, he asked deities to show him how the Buddha looked like. They did. Since he is also a painter he drew what he saw. The image should be in his center in Kota Tinggi (may be also in some of his books). Unfortunately, I haven't seen the image, but Ven. Aggacitta said there was no protuberance on on his head (which makes sense to me). In case somebody goes to this center, please, share a picture with us.