First, know the difference between South Asia and South East Asia and preach. End of story. I dared not go through the whole of your post as it was laughable. But, I have some response. Arya is not a race. The Indologists stole the idea of Arya from India just to dismiss the philosophical supremacy of Indians/ South Asians. Hitler stole the same idea to look Germans superior to Brits and other Europeans. Scientific studies of Indus Valley Civilization has already ended the debate over Max Muller's Aryan Invasion Theory based on mere assumptions. IVC was aboriginal to South Asia/NW frontier of present-day Indian sub- continent. I agree, the term Arya has taken a whole new meaning. From that perspective, I may be considered as an Arya (based upon culture, rituals, facts, traditions, affinity to Sanskrit etc). So is a redneck (Nazi and white propaganda). Now, let's talk about Buddha. Buddha was not a Tharu. It was a propoganda by a tharu leader few years back. Tharu came to Nepal from Thar desert of Rajsthan and mingled with some mongoloid tribe. They are nomads of Thar. Just compare their outfits/ornaments. Buddha was a Kshatriya, a Sainthwar Rajput, an Arya, of Shakya clan. He was not a mongoloid. Nepali Shakyas have mongoloid admixture as a result of cross marriage with Tibetans. A result of religious and mercantile exchanges between Kathmandu and Tibet. Have a look at an Indian Shakya, Aashis Shakya, of All India Backchod

Have you heard of avalokiteswora mantra of Buddhism? The first two lines would convince you of Buddha being an Arya.

And, IDGAF if Buddha was born in Nepal or India. I consider myself a newbie proponent of Mahayan Buddhism, alongside being a liberal Hindu.

Last edited: 07-Mar-17 10:16 PM