If you look at the illustrations of Buddhist mythologies and the people. You notice they are white people. I think Buddhism has Indo-European origins.

Not the philosophy of it I think. The Buddha teachings originated from ancient India (or present-day Nepal).

However, from what I understand, the image of Buddha actually came from modeling ancient Hellenistic Greek Gods.




"Gandhāra (also Ghandara, Ghandahra, Chandahara) is the name of an ancient country in eastern Afghanistan and north-west Pakistan."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Buddhist_art


Indo-Greek influence
http://www.religionfacts.com/buddhism/hist...hellenistic.htm

Although the real face of Buddha may not really look like what we see in the statues, it is really symbolic than actually representing a historical figure.

Evolution of the Buddha image
http://www.exoticindiaart.com/article/lordbuddha

Also, since Buddhism did not began its written record centuries after the Buddha has left, how were the monks able to remember what he look like? I remember reading a book talking about different religions and it show the early Buddha statue being actually very thin (from fasting), long beard, and somewhat Pakistan looking. Eventually, different cultures later on modeled the Buddha image to look like their own people (Asian looking)

Not white people. Light skinned Indians.

The so-called "Indo-Greek" culture were a result of Alexander the Great's incursions beyond Persia into what is now considered India. The "Indo-Greek" territory is the region which was ruled by racially Greek kings, but existed in NW india.

During the two centuries of their rule, the Indo-Greek kings combined Hellenistic and Indian cultures and art, and some were strong patrons of Buddhist thought and philosophy. It's even possible that Greco-Buddhist syncreticism ultimately provided some impetus in the creation of Mahayana sects.

Get an education. Indo-European is a reference to these North/North-Western Indian people. The illustrations in Buddhist art and mythologies indicate that the first Buddhists were racially Indo-European. Now I've yet to learn Buddhism enough to really understand when it split from Hinduism. Hopefully some more knowledgeable posters will bring light to this topic.

I guess the split happened when Buddha began to teach. There are some fundamental differences between the two faiths. Hindus worship Gods and their definition of the actual mode of true existence is at variance to that of Buddha.

Within Hinduism there are numerous sects and philosophies. Buddhists have debated with these, in a mutually beneficial manner, for centuries. The great Buddhist university of Nalanda also admitted Hindus.

well if you believe that Hinduism is the amalgam of indo european and native Indian (if you also believe that Aryans did exist and attack India) then yes it is part or indo european then.

Wait, so Hinduism and Buddhism were just one philosophy/religion together right? After the split, the teaching of Buddha coined the term "Buddhism"?

no, take off the political and social hierarchial and most hardcore theological aspects of hinduism, and take only some of it's philosphical and asceticism then you'd come close to buddhism.

learning so much

You answered your own question, that Buddhism is Indian(atleast the now extinct Indian buddhism). Besides in Indo-Euoropean, Indo stands for India. Also, i think ppl did not try have a statue of buddha, Gandhar kings were patrons of Buddhism, and hence combined with hellenism you have the current Buddha. Buddha was kshatriya right? So he would look like either a modern kshatriya indian or a kshatriya nepali. I don't see how is buddha's race is important.

Buddhism isn't a white man's religion, if anything the pillar of western civilization, the Greeks of Gandhara completely adopted buddhism, heck they even went to war with India to preserve it.

No, the Illustrious One, is from Magadh, modern day Bihar.