Buddha (DN3: Ambaṭṭha Sutta): "The rāja Okkāka is the ancestor of the sakyas."srkris wrote:thomaslaw wrote:Could you give your Pali evidence that the Buddha regarded himself as Indo-Aryan?
Okkāka (Ikṣvāku) was a famous Vedic (pre-buddhist) king mentioned in the Ṛgveda and in many other pre-buddhist texts. The buddha traces his descent from this king.
Thomas: I think this as empty speculation.
In the Buddha's day, it did very much primarily refer to the Indo-Aryan ethnicity & its culture in India (and in nearby Achaemenid Persia it was used in pretty much the same sense, as an ethnic self-designation of the Persians). By calling it the Aryan eightfold path, the buddha was emphasizing that it was in accord with the high culture and ideals of the Aryan community, and was therefore not vile or blameworthy. As Buddhism in the centuries following the buddha's time became internationalized (spread to Sri Lanka and other countries), the ethnic sense was lost, and it was interpreted as an ethical ideal.The term Aryan used in 'arya atthangika magga' does not refer to the path of Aryan race.
This is what the PTS Dictionary says:
Ariya (adj. -- n.) [Vedic ārya, of uncertain etym. The other Pāli forms are ayira & ayya]
1. (racial) Aryan D ii.87. <->
2. (social) noble, distinguished, of high birth. --
3. (ethical) in accord with the customs and ideals of the Aryan clans, held in esteem by Aryans, generally approved. Hence: right, good, ideal.
When the commentators, many centuries afterwards, began to write Pali in S. India & Ceylon, far from the ancient seat of the Aryan clans, the racial sense of the word ariya was scarcely, if at all, present to their minds. Dhammapāla especially was probably a non -- Aryan, and certainly lived in a Dravidian environment. The then current similar popular etmologies of ariya and arahant (cp. next article) also assisted the confusion in their minds. They sometimes therefore erroneously identify the two words and explain Aryans as meaning Arahants (DhA i.230; SnA 537; PvA 60). In other ways also they misrepresented the old texts by ignoring the racial force of the word. Thus at J v.48 the text, speaking of a hunter belonging to one of the aboriginal tribes, calls him anariya -- rūpa. The C. explains this as "shameless", but what the text has, is simply that he looked like a non -- Aryan. (cp ʻ frank ʼ in English).
Thomas: It certainly does not mean that the ethnic/racial sense being used for the eightfold path (for the cessation of dukkha).
I see this as empty speculation.Also, being a Kshatriya, or accessing to the Brahmanical study, does not mean the 'racial appearance' of the Buddha must be an Aryan.
Thomas: No it is not. E.g. those who speak only English do not mean they must be English persons.
Said who?[/quote]the kingdom called Videha (capital city: Mithilaa), whose people were not Aryans.
Thomas : You may try to do some studies about the kingdom of Videha.
Here two cf: A History of India (1990; by Hermann Kulke and Dietmar Rothermund), pp. 50 ff), and 'Appendix 1: Historical and Textual Background of Buddhism' in the book, Annotated Translation of Sutras from the Chinese Samyuktaagama relevant to the Early Buddhism Teachings on Emptiness and the Middle Way (reprinted 2010, by Mun-keat Choong), pp. 80, 82).