Gautama Buddha was White
- Thread starter svejk
- Start date
albion
Registered
Aryan Buddhism
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Aryan Buddha
A Prince Who Did Not Need To Proselytize
4/27/2005 7:19:13 PM
Discuss this story in the forum
Julius Evola
Book Excerpt -- [From Julius Evola's The Doctrine of Awakening:]
We have yet to say something of the "Aryan-ness" of the Buddhist doctrine.
Our use of the term Aryan in connection with this doctrine is primarily justified by direct reference to the texts. The term ariya (Skt: arya), which in fact means "Aryan", recurs throughout the canon. The path of awakening is called Aryan -- ariya magga; the four fundamental truths are Aryan - ariya- saccani; the mode of knowledge is Aryan -- ariya-naya; the teaching is
called Aryan (particularly that which considers the contingency of the world) and is, in tur
n, addressed to the ariya; the doctrine is spoken of as accessible and intelligible, not to the common crowd, but only to the ariya. The term ariya has sometimes been translated as "saint". This, however, is an incomplete translation; it is even discordant when we consider the notable divergence between what is concerned and all that "saintliness" means to a Western man. Nor is the translation of ariya as "noble" or "sublime" any more satisfactory. They are all latter meanings of the word, and they do not convey the fullness of the original nor the spiritual, aristocratic, and racial significance that, nevertheless, is largely preserved in Buddhism. This is why Orientalists, such as Rhys Davids and Woodward, have maintained that it is better not to translate the term at all, and they have left ariya whenever it occurs in the texts, either as an a
djective or as a noun meaning a certain class of individuals. In the texts of the canon the ariya are the Awakened Ones, those who have achieved liberation and th
ose who are united to them since they understand, accept and follow the ariya Doctrine of Awakening.
It is necessary, however, that we should emphasize the Aryan-ness of the Buddhist doctrine for various reasons. In the first place, we must anticipate those who will put forward the argument of Asiatic exclusiveness, saying that Buddhism is remote from "our" traditions and "our" races. We have to remember that behind the various caprices of modern historical theories, and as a more profound and primordial reality, there stands the unity of blood and spirit of the white races who created the greatest civilizations both of the East and West, the Iranian and Hindu as well as the ancient Greek and Roman and the Germanic. Buddhism has the right to call itself Aryan both because it reflects in great measure the spirit of common or
igins and since it has preserved important parts of a heritage that, as we have already said, Western man has little by little forgotten, not only by reason of involved processes of
intermarriage, but also since he himself -- to a far greater extent than the Eastern Aryans -- has come under foreign influences, particularly in the religious field. Buddhist asceticism, when certain supplementary elements have been removed, is truly "classical" in its clarity, realism, rescission and firm and articulate structure; we may say it reflects the noblest style of the Ancient Aryan Mediterranean world.
Furthermore, it is not only a question of form. The ascesis proclaimed by Prince Siddhartha is suffuse throughout with an intimate congeniality and with an accentuation of the intellectual and Olympian element that is the mark of Platonism, neo-Platonism, and Roman Stoicism. Other points of contact are to be found where Christianity has been rectified by a transfusion of Aryan blood that has remained com
paratively pure -- that is to say, in what we know as German mysticism ... To insist here, as in every other field of thought, on the antithesis between East and West is pure dilettantism. The
real contrast exists in the first place between concepts of a modern kind and those of a traditional kind, whether the latter are Eastern or Western; and, secondly, between the real creations of the Aryan spirit and blood and those which, in East and West alike, have resulted from the admixture of non-Aryan influences. As Dahlke has justly said, "Among the principle ways of thought in ancient times, Buddhism can best claim to be of pure Aryan origin."
This is true also more specifically. Although we can apply the term Aryan as a generalization to the mass of Indo-European races as regards their common origin (the original homeland of such races, the ariyanem-vaejo, according to the memory consciously preserved in the ancient Iranian tradition, was a hyperborean region or, more generally, northwestern),
yet, later, it became a designation of caste. Arya stood essentially for an aristocracy opposed, both in mind and body, not only to the obscure, bastard, "demoniacal" races among which must be included t
he Kosalian and Dravidian strains found by the Hyperboreans in the Asiatic lands they conquered, but also, more generally, to that substratum that corresponds to what we would probably call today the proletarian and plebian masses born in the normal way to serve, and that in India as in Rome, were excluded from the bright cults characteristic of the higher patrician, warrior and priestly castes.
Buddhism can also claim to be called Aryan in this more particular social sense also, notwithstanding the attitude, of which we shall have more to say later, that it adopted towards the castes of those times.
... A particular characteristic of the Aryan-ness of the original Buddhist teaching is the absence of those proselytizing manias that exist, almost without exception, in direct proportion t
o the plebian and anti-aristocratic character of a belief. An Aryan mind has too much respect for other people, and its sense of its own dignity is too pronounced, to let it impose its own ideas upon others, even when
it knows that its ideas are correct. Accordingly, in the original cycle of Aryan civilizations, both Eastern and Western, there is not the smallest trace of divine figures being so concerned with mankind as to come near pursuing them in order to gain their adherence and "save" them. The so-called salvationist religions -- the Erlosungsreligionen, in German -- make their appearance both in Europe and in Asia at a later date, together with a lessening of the preceding spiritual tension, with a fall from Olympian consciousness and, not least, with influxes of inferior ethnic and social elements. That the divinities can do little for men, that man is fundamentally the artificer of his own destiny, even of his development beyond this world ...
In point of method and teaching, in the
original texts we see that the Buddha expounds the truth as he has discovered it, without imposing himself on anyone and without employing outside means to persuade or "convert". "He who has eyes will see" -- is a much repeated
saying of the texts. "Let an intelligent man come to me" -- we read -- "a man without a tortuous mind, without hypocrisy, an upright man; I will instruct him, I will expound the doctrine. If he follows the instruction, after a short while he himself will recognize, he himself will see, that thus indeed one liberates oneself from the bonds; the bonds, that is, of ignorance." ...
The original intention of the Prince Siddhartha was, having once achieved his knowledge of truth, to communicate it to no one, not from ill-mindedness, but because he realized its profundity and foresaw that few would understand it. Having then recognize the existence of a few individuals of a nobler nature with clearer vision, he expounded the doctrine out of compa
ssion, maintaining, however, his distance, his detachment, and his dignity. Whether disciples came to him or not, whether or not they follow ascetic precepts, "always he remains the same". This is his manner: "Know persuasion and know dissuasion; knowing persuasion an
d knowing dissuasion, do not persuade and do not dissuade: expound only reality. "It is wonderful," say another text -- "it is astonishing that no one exalts his own teaching and no one despises the teaching of another in an order where there are so many guides to show the doctrine."
This, too, is typically Aryan ...
http://66.101.143.208/lsn/news.asp?articleID=8014
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Aryan Buddha
A Prince Who Did Not Need To Proselytize
4/27/2005 7:19:13 PM
Discuss this story in the forum
Julius Evola
Book Excerpt -- [From Julius Evola's The Doctrine of Awakening:]
We have yet to say something of the "Aryan-ness" of the Buddhist doctrine.
Our use of the term Aryan in connection with this doctrine is primarily justified by direct reference to the texts. The term ariya (Skt: arya), which in fact means "Aryan", recurs throughout the canon. The path of awakening is called Aryan -- ariya magga; the four fundamental truths are Aryan - ariya- saccani; the mode of knowledge is Aryan -- ariya-naya; the teaching is
called Aryan (particularly that which considers the contingency of the world) and is, in tur
n, addressed to the ariya; the doctrine is spoken of as accessible and intelligible, not to the common crowd, but only to the ariya. The term ariya has sometimes been translated as "saint". This, however, is an incomplete translation; it is even discordant when we consider the notable divergence between what is concerned and all that "saintliness" means to a Western man. Nor is the translation of ariya as "noble" or "sublime" any more satisfactory. They are all latter meanings of the word, and they do not convey the fullness of the original nor the spiritual, aristocratic, and racial significance that, nevertheless, is largely preserved in Buddhism. This is why Orientalists, such as Rhys Davids and Woodward, have maintained that it is better not to translate the term at all, and they have left ariya whenever it occurs in the texts, either as an a
djective or as a noun meaning a certain class of individuals. In the texts of the canon the ariya are the Awakened Ones, those who have achieved liberation and th
ose who are united to them since they understand, accept and follow the ariya Doctrine of Awakening.
It is necessary, however, that we should emphasize the Aryan-ness of the Buddhist doctrine for various reasons. In the first place, we must anticipate those who will put forward the argument of Asiatic exclusiveness, saying that Buddhism is remote from "our" traditions and "our" races. We have to remember that behind the various caprices of modern historical theories, and as a more profound and primordial reality, there stands the unity of blood and spirit of the white races who created the greatest civilizations both of the East and West, the Iranian and Hindu as well as the ancient Greek and Roman and the Germanic. Buddhism has the right to call itself Aryan both because it reflects in great measure the spirit of common or
igins and since it has preserved important parts of a heritage that, as we have already said, Western man has little by little forgotten, not only by reason of involved processes of
intermarriage, but also since he himself -- to a far greater extent than the Eastern Aryans -- has come under foreign influences, particularly in the religious field. Buddhist asceticism, when certain supplementary elements have been removed, is truly "classical" in its clarity, realism, rescission and firm and articulate structure; we may say it reflects the noblest style of the Ancient Aryan Mediterranean world.
Furthermore, it is not only a question of form. The ascesis proclaimed by Prince Siddhartha is suffuse throughout with an intimate congeniality and with an accentuation of the intellectual and Olympian element that is the mark of Platonism, neo-Platonism, and Roman Stoicism. Other points of contact are to be found where Christianity has been rectified by a transfusion of Aryan blood that has remained com
paratively pure -- that is to say, in what we know as German mysticism ... To insist here, as in every other field of thought, on the antithesis between East and West is pure dilettantism. The
real contrast exists in the first place between concepts of a modern kind and those of a traditional kind, whether the latter are Eastern or Western; and, secondly, between the real creations of the Aryan spirit and blood and those which, in East and West alike, have resulted from the admixture of non-Aryan influences. As Dahlke has justly said, "Among the principle ways of thought in ancient times, Buddhism can best claim to be of pure Aryan origin."
This is true also more specifically. Although we can apply the term Aryan as a generalization to the mass of Indo-European races as regards their common origin (the original homeland of such races, the ariyanem-vaejo, according to the memory consciously preserved in the ancient Iranian tradition, was a hyperborean region or, more generally, northwestern),
yet, later, it became a designation of caste. Arya stood essentially for an aristocracy opposed, both in mind and body, not only to the obscure, bastard, "demoniacal" races among which must be included t
he Kosalian and Dravidian strains found by the Hyperboreans in the Asiatic lands they conquered, but also, more generally, to that substratum that corresponds to what we would probably call today the proletarian and plebian masses born in the normal way to serve, and that in India as in Rome, were excluded from the bright cults characteristic of the higher patrician, warrior and priestly castes.
Buddhism can also claim to be called Aryan in this more particular social sense also, notwithstanding the attitude, of which we shall have more to say later, that it adopted towards the castes of those times.
... A particular characteristic of the Aryan-ness of the original Buddhist teaching is the absence of those proselytizing manias that exist, almost without exception, in direct proportion t
o the plebian and anti-aristocratic character of a belief. An Aryan mind has too much respect for other people, and its sense of its own dignity is too pronounced, to let it impose its own ideas upon others, even when
it knows that its ideas are correct. Accordingly, in the original cycle of Aryan civilizations, both Eastern and Western, there is not the smallest trace of divine figures being so concerned with mankind as to come near pursuing them in order to gain their adherence and "save" them. The so-called salvationist religions -- the Erlosungsreligionen, in German -- make their appearance both in Europe and in Asia at a later date, together with a lessening of the preceding spiritual tension, with a fall from Olympian consciousness and, not least, with influxes of inferior ethnic and social elements. That the divinities can do little for men, that man is fundamentally the artificer of his own destiny, even of his development beyond this world ...
In point of method and teaching, in the
original texts we see that the Buddha expounds the truth as he has discovered it, without imposing himself on anyone and without employing outside means to persuade or "convert". "He who has eyes will see" -- is a much repeated
saying of the texts. "Let an intelligent man come to me" -- we read -- "a man without a tortuous mind, without hypocrisy, an upright man; I will instruct him, I will expound the doctrine. If he follows the instruction, after a short while he himself will recognize, he himself will see, that thus indeed one liberates oneself from the bonds; the bonds, that is, of ignorance." ...
The original intention of the Prince Siddhartha was, having once achieved his knowledge of truth, to communicate it to no one, not from ill-mindedness, but because he realized its profundity and foresaw that few would understand it. Having then recognize the existence of a few individuals of a nobler nature with clearer vision, he expounded the doctrine out of compa
ssion, maintaining, however, his distance, his detachment, and his dignity. Whether disciples came to him or not, whether or not they follow ascetic precepts, "always he remains the same". This is his manner: "Know persuasion and know dissuasion; knowing persuasion an
d knowing dissuasion, do not persuade and do not dissuade: expound only reality. "It is wonderful," say another text -- "it is astonishing that no one exalts his own teaching and no one despises the teaching of another in an order where there are so many guides to show the doctrine."
This, too, is typically Aryan ...
http://66.101.143.208/lsn/news.asp?articleID=8014
albion
Registered
Early Buddhism
by T.W. Rhys Davids
"The Word Aryan. - In the text, preserved in two separate places in the Canon [Samyutta, v. 420, and Vinaya, i. 10.], the Path pointed out is called the Aryan path, the Truths enumerated are called the Aryan truths. The word Aryan is ambiguous. Already in the Vedas it means both 'of Aryan race' and 'gentle, noble, kindly.' Some etymologists give different derivations for the different meanings. It is more probable that the second meaning is derived from the first, just as our word gentle meant originally of gentle birth. By the time of the rise of Buddhism, the secondary meaning had become so fixed in the connotation of the word that it conveyed all the senses of belonging to the Aryan race, gentle and noble. In some passages the stress is laid upon the point of race, in others on the ethical, in others on the aesthetic side
. But all three were present together t
o the minds of speakers and hearers alike. In the text we are now discussing, all three would be applicable, and were probably meant to be implied. I have rendered the word 'noble'; and that translation can easily be defended. But I am inclined to think that at least one idea hinted at by the use of this epithet was, that the new system then promulgated was considered worthy of, suitable for, the free clansmen, for the men of Aryan race. The Buddhist commentators, writing long afterwards, when the word had quite lost its racial sense, always interpret it as meaning 'worthy of, suitable for Arahats.' And there are several passages in the old texts in which Ariya and Arahat are used as synonymous terms. This is only one of many instances of a new, and as the speakers thought, a better, deeper meaning being put into older words, and may, therefore, have been intended by Gotama in this case also...."
http://www.vipassana.com/nl/200405.php
by T.W. Rhys Davids
"The Word Aryan. - In the text, preserved in two separate places in the Canon [Samyutta, v. 420, and Vinaya, i. 10.], the Path pointed out is called the Aryan path, the Truths enumerated are called the Aryan truths. The word Aryan is ambiguous. Already in the Vedas it means both 'of Aryan race' and 'gentle, noble, kindly.' Some etymologists give different derivations for the different meanings. It is more probable that the second meaning is derived from the first, just as our word gentle meant originally of gentle birth. By the time of the rise of Buddhism, the secondary meaning had become so fixed in the connotation of the word that it conveyed all the senses of belonging to the Aryan race, gentle and noble. In some passages the stress is laid upon the point of race, in others on the ethical, in others on the aesthetic side
. But all three were present together t
o the minds of speakers and hearers alike. In the text we are now discussing, all three would be applicable, and were probably meant to be implied. I have rendered the word 'noble'; and that translation can easily be defended. But I am inclined to think that at least one idea hinted at by the use of this epithet was, that the new system then promulgated was considered worthy of, suitable for, the free clansmen, for the men of Aryan race. The Buddhist commentators, writing long afterwards, when the word had quite lost its racial sense, always interpret it as meaning 'worthy of, suitable for Arahats.' And there are several passages in the old texts in which Ariya and Arahat are used as synonymous terms. This is only one of many instances of a new, and as the speakers thought, a better, deeper meaning being put into older words, and may, therefore, have been intended by Gotama in this case also...."
http://www.vipassana.com/nl/200405.php