Re: Is the Swastika evidence of a common origin?
Steve Pridgeon (email@example.com)
Mon, 20 Jan 1997 13:07:25 -0800
Marjorie N. Wisby said:
}On Sat, 18 Jan 1997 19:51:53 -0800, firstname.lastname@example.org (Steve
}> Dan Clore said:
}>}In some traditions the one way is good and the other bad. The pattern
}>}shows up all over the place: in Native American traditions, Hindu,
}>}Buddhist (a sign of a Buddha is being born with the chest hair arranged
}>}as a swastika)...
}>How much chest hair is the average Bhuddist born with?
}It is not the amount that counts, it's whether it is *enlightened*
}hair. Ordinary hair is of no consequence whatsoever.
I thought they had a taboo against dyeing it.
}I am rather shocked that you didn't realise this, Steve.
The full enormity of my ignorance is only now beginning to dawn on me
}Anyway, the sign of a Bhudda - the next will be the 29th - has nothing
}to do with chest hair. Or any other form of physical manifestation.
}Golden thighs, virgin mothers - all are irrelevent. It is not a matter
}of being *born* a Bhudda - it is attaining Bhudda-hood during one's
I thought it had to do with how easily it spreads straight from the
fridge (can *you* tell the difference?)
}The swastika pattern in chest hair is actually a sign of immortality
}amongst the Hoop Snake tribe of Australian Aborigines.
And by a transcription error, became a sign of amorality amongst the
snakes of the European Aryans.
is .sig has been modified. It has been reformatted to fit your scre