Zoroastrianism

[Batavia]

Zoroastrianism is one of the world's oldest continuously practiced religions, based on the teachings of the Iranian-speaking prophet Zoroaster.
The unique historical features of Zoroastrianism, such as its monotheism, messianism, judgment after death, heaven and hell, and free will may have influenced other religious and philosophical systems, including Second Temple Judaism, Gnosticism, Greek philosophy,Christianity, Islam, and the Baháʼí Faith.
I think the Zoroastrianian religion very interesting; after reading Nietzsches Thus spoke Zarathustra I got curious about this religion.

Maybe someone who is familiar with the subject can write something about it?

[sean]

Zoroastrianism is the mother and father of all brown people religions. It's the sister religion of Vedism aka proto-Hinduism. Both Zoroastrianism and Hinduism derived from Proto-Indo-Iranians of Sintashta and Srubnaya cultures, but they are both substantially different in their own ways due to other influences and later developments.

When people call Zoroastrianism and whatever else the "oldest religions" they usually mean the oldest surviving religions. We have records of religions practiced way earlier than that, we have evidence that goes back to pre-history, albeit largely speculative and based on trinkets and cave drawings.

Zoroastrianism was made when Zoroaster got angry because all the ancient Iranic people practiced a form of ancient Hinduism and because of all of the ancient rituals they spent days and days doing, the people in power ignored the problems of the people around them constantly getting killed and raided. It was meant to form a culture that helps the people within it and cares about others.

It was a dualist reaction to Indo-Iranian polytheism, which Sintashta people on the Steppes practiced. On an interesting note, Buddhism was the post Indo-European revival against the Zoroastrian influence in western part of India and on Brahmanism such as metaphysical good and evil, moral liberation ontology, creator God and performing rituals gives good results in the next life.

Cyrus the Great being the only gentile that Jews consider anointed in the Old Testament (however Cyrus was a Mithraist. He wasn't Zoroastrian, Zoroastrianism actually spread from Khorasan).

In Zoroastrianism, there are different explanations depending on school of thought. Alexander destroyed a lot of Achaemenid legacy, so the Sassanian mobed had to salvage what they can based on Gathas (only part to go back to Zoroaster) and other surviving texts.

But Zoroastrianism was not the state religion of the Achaemenid Empire. Codified Zoroastrianism as a big, official religion did not yet exist in this period, and even if it did the Achaemenid rulers do not reflect it in their practices - they acknowledge foreign gods, and do not refer to Ahura Mazda as a monotheistic or supreme deity. They did not build temples to Ahura Mazda in their Empire, nor did they attempt to enforce Persian religious beliefs across the Empire. The rule of the Achaemenid Empire was based on the King's will, not a set of laws.

It's debatable whether Zoroaster was a monotheist. Only the Gathas goes back to him. I believe Ohrmazd has a "latent omnipotence" because he was not involved in the creation of Ahriman, but it is prophesied Ohrmazd will eventually win in the struggle during Frashokereti. In this sense, calling Zoroaster either a ditheist or mitigated dualist makes more sense, but one in which the eventual triumph of Ohrmazd is guaranteed.

Modern Zoroastrianism is very different from the original form. Modern is strict orthodox Zoroastrianism whereas the original form didn't even have temples necessarily or even priests and was more of a philosophy than a strict orthodox organised religion.

One of the official Zoroastrian interpretations is that it's due to a process of creation and that we are God's agents. We are all destined for salvation and we "sin" out of weakness allowing corruption into our mind, body, and soul, which gets cleansed in hell if they are too heavy.

Ultimately all of this is in God's design as he is omniscient and omnipresent and knows how things will ultimately turn out, which is the triumph of his agents (humans) over evil. We do good not because we have to or because we fear, but because we want to because we love.

A good child who is raised right doesn't run off from his parents, neither does he come back to care for his parents out of pity or obligation, he does it because he truly loves his parents and has taken their will within himself.

And Zoroastrianism is an ethnic religion. You can't convert to it. Becoming a European Zoroastrian for instance is akin to becoming a European Shintoist. Zoroastrianism has more in common with Islam (another brownie religion), however, Zoroastrians place heavy emphasis on a messianic figure while Islam does not.

Islamic laws of lashing whores and executing homosexuals have precedent in Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrians, especially during Sassanian Empire, were not forgiving people and didn't have a concept of "repentance". To them, it was about purification via deeds, rituals, and thoughts.

Spoiler!

Also, Sunni Hanafi actually has more Zoroastrian influence than Shia technically speaking. The founder of the Hanafi Sunni sect, for example, came from an area where Zoroastrianism was widespread, so it's obvious Islam was compatible with the psyche of such brown and woggy people.

Even catholic cunts on TA prefer how it extols strength, courage, and being adamant in stamping out degeneracy, which feels more Zoroastrian. Most Hanafi Sunnis will definitely agree that forcefully removing homosexuals, trannies, and adulterers from society serves as one form of purification.

Ironically, Shia is more Christian in mentality than either Zoroastrianism or Hanafi Sunnism. Guilt and penitence are very important parts of Shia and Christian traditions.

Neither Zoroastrians nor Muslims considered man a "fallen being", rather they saw man being born with a soul and some recognition of God, but they could engage in either purifying or impure actions that leads them either closer or farther from God.

The main difference is that Zoroastrians valued the natural world much more. They would execute people for polluting the world or harming animals too. It doesn't matter if defiled or impure people repented prior to execution.

Its a meme religion nowadays anyway. It just seems like one step away from neo-pagan LARPing, though at least the Zoroastrians have their Gathas to go on.

[Hexachordia]

Zoroastrianism in china was mostly remembered as an arabian religion prior to Islamism, like a proto-islamism. But it was the Manichaeism that influenced China the most after Buddhism and Nestorianism, it was said to have been completely eradicated by chinese Ming dynasty, even though Ming dynasty was founded with the help of followers of Manichaeism. Manichaeism was merged with Buddhism closely around the time of Song dynasty and leaving lasting influence untill today. When all you fake christians say humanism, sparing a lot of pedos and beastialists, double-dealing with commies and allies almost with everybody, Buddhism already has expounded the idea of Muni(Man) since 500BC, how presumptious to call Buddhism an indo-european development? Filty Commie Scum. Why Manichaeism succeeded in merging with Buddhism in China probably due to the persian word Man, Manichaeism is virtually a derivative of Muni concept in Buddhism and Hinduism, note the name of Buddha Shyakamuni. Naturally most chinese believe Manichaeism was a form of Shyaka`s teaching, it is almost the exact predecessor of humanism.

[Hexachordia]

I do not get the white complex, aryanism was originated with brown people(called as brown) iranians and zoroasters, indo-european=/=indo-aryan. I do not like to discuss about this, but linguistic relationships with arian languages are also found among brown people. WP is almost identical to jewish racism for the universal double-stands in practice and evolutionist narrative on race. Indo-aryan derivative, probably, is Buddhism, but definitely not indo-european. Not trying to offend europeans, european culture is already great enough without falsely claiming anything, no kidding.

[sean]

When all you fake christians say humanism, sparing a lot of pedos and beastialists, double-dealing with commies and allies almost with everybody, Buddhism already has expounded the idea of Muni(Man) since 500BC, how presumptious to call Buddhism an indo-european development? Filty Commie Scum. Indo-aryan derivative, probably, is Buddhism, but definitely not indo-european.

Leave it to the chink to sound dumb as fuck. The word Buddha itself is Indo-European and means the enlightened or awakened one. Buddha was quite literally what we today call 'woke'. Two cognates are Russian 'budit' (будить) and Sanskrit 'budhyate' (बुध्यते), both meaning 'to wake up'.

Buddha himself was a Shakyan of Scythian descent. Although the mythical genealogy of the Shakyas connects them with the Dravidians and gives a Munda name to one of their ancestors.

It's also tough to separate what is cultural versus what was distinctive to the Buddha, early Buddhist traditions definitely seem to incorporate a lot of Indo-European philosophy and cosmology, and, like all religions, there are a lot of layers of influence from the many different cultures that Buddhism spread through, many of which were (in the early centuries) Indo-European cultures. All Indo-European cultures and mythologies had a non-stop influx of local influences.

Even though the region most commonly connected with the Buddha's biography was definitely on the outer edge of Vedic culture - a 'man from Magadha' is used in the Vedas as an exemplar of an outsider whose presence can disturb or pollute Vedic ritual. The city-states seem to have had a more Vedic culture headed by a king, while the more rural areas like the Buddha's homeland were supposedly governed in the style of an oligarchic republic, with leaders from different families and clans gathering to debate and settle issues.

It could have been an indigenous culture that adopted Indo-European languages, also could have been from an earlier wave of Indo-European migration into Northern India. Buddhist stupas for instance have been modeled on prehistoric cairn burials that already existed in Northern India, and archaeologists have found a number of sites where there is a pre-historic era of megalithic or cairn burials, followed by a Buddhist layer of stupa monuments.

It's intriguing that Buddhists readily adopted these sites as their own and were tolerated to disturb them by local people, but they weren't re-used by other cultural groups in the same way (similar to Celts using pre-PIE megalithic sites as their own religious temples aka Stonehenge or Newgrange).

Why Manichaeism succeeded in merging with Buddhism in China probably due to the persian word Man, Manichaeism is virtually a derivative of Muni concept in Buddhism and Hinduism, note the name of Buddha Shyakamuni. Naturally most chinese believe Manichaeism was a form of Shyaka`s teaching, it is almost the exact predecessor of humanism.

Shakyamuni means sage of the Shakya clan.

Parthian prophet Mani spent much of his life in Persia and Mesopotamia, and was patronised by Shapur I, the territory of Shapur's empire stretched to the Indus river, and included the territory annexed from the Kushan kingdom. Now, the Kushans seem to have practiced a syncretic form of Buddhism that mixed influences from Hellenic, Iranian, Indian, and even Mesopotamian religion.

Mani is said to have spent time with learned men (I believe the term used is "Brahmins") in the far east of the Empire, and so he certainly had access to Buddhist thought one way or another. But when it comes to what Manichaeism seems to have borrowed from it, what is usually pointed to are confluences with Gnostic Christianity: the flesh is corrupt, worldly pleasure is to be eschewed in favour of asceticism, and from this there is a general misogynistic streak portraying women as wicked temptresses.

Gnostic Christianity, which was also dualistic, would have been easily paired with Zoroastrian philosophy, but Buddhism is a rather different tradition entirely, and one which, while present in the Sassanid Empire, would likely have been far more distant and alien to Mani than Christianity or Zoroastrianism.

Nonetheless, Mani seems to have considered Buddha, along with Zoroaster and Jesus, part of a succession of prophets that each revealed part of the truth.

I do not get the white complex, aryanism was originated with brown people(called as brown) iranians and zoroasters, indo-european=/=indo-aryan. I do not like to discuss about this, but linguistic relationships with arian languages are also found among brown people. WP is almost identical to jewish racism for the universal double-stands in practice and evolutionist narrative on race. Not trying to offend europeans, european culture is already great enough without falsely claiming anything, no kidding.

More chink talking points. It's almost like you are too stupid to be aware of what you are saying. Language families are not theorised on the basis of race.

A very relevant example of that are the North Dravidian languages, which are spoken over a wide area in Pakistan that is very far from the rest of Dravidian languages in South India. You usually only see "Aryan" in reference to the Indo-Aryan languages, spoken by peoples in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Northern India.

Ancient Persians used 'ariya' derived from Sanskrit 'arya' (compatriot) to refer to themselves. Sanskrit speakers in India also used 'aryan' or cognates of it to refer to themselves. Note at this point it doesn't refer to a specific ethnicity or race - it's just present in Sanskrit and languages with Sanskrit influence meaning things such as 'people of this land' or 'noble person of this land.'

A Persian using it would be referring to his fellow Persians, or an subject of an Indian kingdom would use it to refer to other people living in the kingdom. The same way we would say 'my fellow countrymen' or in the past might have said 'the people of my tribe.' The meaning is dependent on the individual context of the speaker.

The neutrality of the term was lost in popular usage in Germany through the late 19th and early 20th centuries when 'Aryan' came to mean not just 'Indo-European speaker', the Nazis used terms such as 'ideal Aryan' to refer to Germanic Europeans in popular culture the word took on that meaning and lost its historical contexts.

To avoid confusion in modern usage academics will avoid using 'Aryan'. They'll use 'Indo-European' to refer to the language grouping which Schlegel and Müller used 'Aryan' for. Occasionally 'Aryan' is used in modern contexts to distinguish Indo-European Indian languages from non-Indo-European ones, not the people.

[Hexachordia]

It's also tough to separate what is cultural versus what was distinctive to the Buddha, early Buddhist traditions definitely seem to incorporate a lot of Indo-European philosophy and cosmology, and, like all religions, there are a lot of layers of influence from the many different cultures that Buddhism spread through, many of which were (in the early centuries) Indo-European cultures. All Indo-European cultures and mythologies had a non-stop influx of local influences.

Hinduism certainly has a lot of influences on Buddhism, but it is still baseless to equate whiteness concept to aryanism, this is what I pointed out there. Shiva a god of asceticism, it could be Shivaism`s asceticism that gave rise to the Buddhist practices in asceticism. All these are only theories without possibilities of prooves anywhere, it is up to personal freedom to believe in whatever origin of Budhdism including your indo-european aryan connection of Buddhism. I care nothing about the origin of my believes more than how much I really believe in my own believes. You sound like those atheists which believe more in convincing the others than their own believes.

Shakyamuni means sage of the Shakya clan.

Parthian prophet Mani spent much of his life in Persia and Mesopotamia, and was patronised by Shapur I, the territory of Shapur's empire stretched to the Indus river, and included the territory annexed from the Kushan kingdom. Now, the Kushans seem to have practiced a syncretic form of Buddhism that mixed influences from Hellenic, Iranian, Indian, and even Mesopotamian religion.

Mani is said to have spent time with learned men (I believe the term used is "Brahmins") in the far east of the Empire, and so he certainly had access to Buddhist thought one way or another. But when it comes to what Manichaeism seems to have borrowed from it, what is usually pointed to are confluences with Gnostic Christianity: the flesh is corrupt, worldly pleasure is to be eschewed in favour of asceticism, and from this there is a general misogynistic streak portraying women as wicked temptresses.

Gnostic Christianity, which was also dualistic, would have been easily paired with Zoroastrian philosophy, but Buddhism is a rather different tradition entirely, and one which, while present in the Sassanid Empire, would likely have been far more distant and alien to Mani than Christianity or Zoroastrianism.

Nonetheless, Mani seems to have considered Buddha, along with Zoroaster and Jesus, part of a succession of prophets that each revealed part of the truth.

I mentioned in the anti-connnnuism thread that over 80% of genuine chinese buddhist historical documents has been lost, you seem to understand the greatness of Buddhism, but not the abysmal situation of chinese buddhism. Any certain tracking of Buddhist historical connection to India, Nepal, Iran, Manichaeism from China is virtiually impossible now. But it does not matter, because the basic guidelines are preserved and true buddhism can be praticed in all respects. Especially Manichaeism as a religion is said by chinese historians as the first totally eliminated religion.

But, I do not think taking Christ as a mere prophet to be compared to Shyakamuni and Zoroaster making any sense. Buddhism makes sense because he admitted himself to be a man and not a prophet or god, all Buddhist worships are to be taken as a process of learning not deification. I am against making Christ or Krishna, Buddha, Allah, Mahomet into an assorted pantheon, that is utterly stupid. In practices of religious truth, all things automatically converge on the most foundamental principles without necessity of categorizing them. I do not preach in any god, only some foundamental practices to fight against the lies and all difficulties one might face by each in real life. Faith has to be practiced in real life and thinking, not further deification of any god-heads.

The Buddha was not a god or deity, and he cautioned his disciples against thinking of him as one. He also did not condone idolatry. He wanted his life to serve as an example of the fact that by training the mind, any ordinary person could achieve enlightenment and find the same kind of reliable, lasting happiness that he had discovered.

--Do Buddhists worship the Buddha?

Many of people like you have strayed from the real Christianity, taking on the wrong path of inquiry, while condoning evil russian autocrats and capitalo-connnnies worldwide without being aware of. You need to wake up than sticking to pointless debacles like the origins in god-head aryans or annunakis. This is what I want to tell the western people.

[Hexachordia]

The neutrality of the term was lost in popular usage in Germany through the late 19th and early 20th centuries when 'Aryan' came to mean not just 'Indo-European speaker', the Nazis used terms such as 'ideal Aryan' to refer to Germanic Europeans in popular culture the word took on that meaning and lost its historical contexts.

To avoid confusion in modern usage academics will avoid using 'Aryan'. They'll use 'Indo-European' to refer to the language grouping which Schlegel and Müller used 'Aryan' for. Occasionally 'Aryan' is used in modern contexts to distinguish Indo-European Indian languages from non-Indo-European ones, not the people.

Not a bad explanation from you. Aryanism as a culture can span over many cultural heritages across the Eurasian continent, including even Buddhism. Nazis`study of aryanism is certainly a bit colored but not worthless altogather, it is certain that indo-europeans had a process in the earliest history of Indus and central asian civilizations, like tocharians. Racially it is impossible to pinpoint aryan racial characteristics, but culturally and grossly possible.

Gnostic Christianity, which was also dualistic, would have been easily paired with Zoroastrian philosophy, but Buddhism is a rather different tradition entirely, and one which, while present in the Sassanid Empire, would likely have been far more distant and alien to Mani than Christianity or Zoroastrianism.

Gnosticism has hellenic imprints, a merge of Christianity with Hellenism, no big mysteries here, but people can not practice magic and faith at the same time, that is the cause of Satanism. The darkside of gnisticism is dominated by Satanic believes that have impacted the world deeper than the real Christianity. Manichaeism mainly thrived in China than anywhere, it was accepted into Buddhist learning of the time, whether it has some christian nfluence is unclear as to chinese manichaeistic history. Nestorianism was known to have thrived in Mongol age in northwestern China and central Asia as an form of far eastern narrative of Christianity.

According to later Buddhist sources in Chinese he presented to the throne a Manichean work entitled the Sūtra of the Two principles (Erh-tsung ching, i.e. the the Šābuhragān, q,v.), which was to become the most popular Manichean scripture in China. The religion was clearly popular among the Sogdian merchants and there were attempts to win Chinese converts. In 731 a Manichean priest was asked to provide a summary of the main tenets of the religion. Interestingly, the version of the summary (the Compendium of the teachings of Mani the Buddha of Light) which was found among the Tun-huang documents brought back by Aurel Stein, already shows clear attempts to depict Manicheism as a form of Buddhism since Mani was represented as an avatar (reincarnation or remanifestation) of Lao-tzu, the traditional founder of Taosim in China. Lao-tzu was then believed by many Chinese not to have died but had gone to West where he reappeared as the Buddha. The response of the T’ang government to the Compendium was the law of 731, which permitted the practice of the religion by foreigners in China but banned its preaching to the Chinese. By then a substantial number of Manichean texts had already been translated into Chinese from Parthian and/or Sogdian. For instance the text of the Traité found in Tun-huang had used a Chinese script, a practice forbidden after the reign of Empress Wu.

[sean]

Hinduism certainly has a lot of influences on Buddhism, but it is still baseless to equate whiteness concept to aryanism, this is what I pointed out there. Shiva a god of asceticism, it could be Shivaism`s asceticism that gave rise to the Buddhist practices in asceticism. All these are only theories without possibilities of prooves anywhere, it is up to personal freedom to believe in whatever origin of Budhdism including your indo-european aryan connection of Buddhism. I care nothing about the origin of my believes more than how much I really believe in my own believes. You sound like those atheists which believe more in convincing the others than their own believes.

Nobody is convincing you to believe in anything, I just stated historical facts that apparently you didn't even know. Religion isn't about believing in something retarded, it's about convincing others you're willing to pretend really hard to believe it in order to fit into a group.

Buddhism predates Shiva worship by some 200 years btw, though Rudra was a worshipped diety. However, by the time of the eighteen Buddhist schools and the end of the Mauryan Empire, the Brahminical schools had begun to counter the Sramanas by either providing a stronger philosophical basis for tradition as the Mimamsa did or absorbing Sramana ideals.

As Vaishnavism and Shaivism grew into the dominant forms of Brahminism and layed the groundwork for modern Hinduism, they took both approaches. Vaishnavism tended towards the devotional, emphasising strict varna adherence and roles, although adopting some of the ideas put forth by the Sramanas, while Shaivism tended towards asceticism, more closely resembling the Jains and Buddhists.

In Buddhism, Lord Shiva also known as Mahakala is the link between the Hindu and Buddhist pantheons. Unlike the Hindu version of Him where He is usually seated in a meditative state as an ascetic with His trident, Mahakala is usually standing up with a skull cup on His left hand and a cleaver on His right. He still has His three eyes, and carries a five-skull crown that represents the transformation of the mental poisons of hatred, greed, pride, envy and ignorance.

Some have even drawn comparisons between Wisdom King Acala and Lord Shiva, due to both of Them being associated with reincarnation and the destruction of evil (some even claim They are the same, thought there is not much evidence to suggest this). He is usually depicted seated on a hard rock with a sword and a rope that binds malevolent beings. Along with that, He has a bright flame behind Him called the Garuda flame, named after the legendary Eagle Warrior of Hindu-Buddhist tradition who serves as the mount of the Hindu god Vishnu.

I mentioned in the anti-connnnuism thread that over 80% of genuine chinese buddhist historical documents has been lost, you seem to understand the greatness of Buddhism, but not the abysmal situation of chinese buddhism. Any certain tracking of Buddhist historical connection to India, Nepal, Iran, Manichaeism from China is virtiually impossible now. Especially Manichaeism as a religion is said by chinese historians as the first totally eliminated religion. But, I do not think taking Christ as a mere prophet to be compared to Shyakamuni and Zoroaster making any sense. Buddhism makes sense because he admit himself to be a man and not a prophet or god, all Buddhist worship are to be taken as a process of learning not deification. I am against making Christ, or Krishna, Buddha, Allah, Mahomet into an assorted pantheon, that is utterly stupid. In practices of religious truth, all things automatically converge on the most foundamental principles without necessity of categorizing them. I do not preach in any god, only some foundamental practices to fight against lies and all difficulties one might face by each one in real life. Faith has to be practiced in real life and thinking, not further deification of any god-heads. Many of people like you have strayed from the real Christianity, taking on the wrong path of inquiry, while condoning evil russian autocrats and capitalo-connnnies worldwide without being aware of. You need to wake up than sticking to pointless debacles like the origins in god-head aryans or annunakis. This is what I want to tell the western people.

And who do you think eliminated Manichaeism in China? Many Manichaeans who had been relatively successful in the Sassanid Empire eventually fled toward China with the rise of Islam. Chinese Buddhists didn't receive them very favourably, since they perceived them as false Buddhists. The resulting persecution eventually led to the frequent participation of Chinese Manichaeans in rebellions against the Song rulers.

The Uyghur Khaganate, which appeared in Mongolia around the mid-8th century, was the only state that adopted Manichaeism officially. The political protection they provided meant that Manichaeans in China could at least hope for some amount of support and protection from the Khaganate. The khaganate only lasted about a hundred years, however. Once it collapsed, Manichaeans in China really had no one else to protect them. They lasted for another several hundred years as a religious minority in China and Central Asia, but without any political support. They were increasingly marginalised. China officially banned them during the 14th century. That was pretty much the end.

Chinese Buddhism is a syncretic blend of Ch'an meditation, T'ientai doctrinal studies, Pure Land lay devotional practice, a small amount of Tángmì/Mizhong Vajrayana, San-lun teachings on Madhyamika, Huayan teachings on Avatamsaka, and Faxiang teachings on Mind Only.

All Buddhist traditions would disagree that the Buddha was just a man. He said so himself that he isn't human. Buddhas are considered to be beings of incredible wisdom and power, and are placed above the devas or the gods in Buddhist cosmology.

A buddha is any being who has completely seen through fixation on dualistic perception, thus being free of karma and the six realms. On the one hand that can be "just a man". On the other hand, the trikaya, like the Christian trinity, describes a being who exists in time and space as a person, but has also realised omniscient awareness. The trikaya is presented as the full characterisation of what a Buddha is.

The early Buddhist texts are filled with the miracles of Śākyamuni Buddha. The Mahasanghika school (one of the very earliest schools of Buddhism) believed that the Buddha was an eternal and omniscient being. And it depends on your definition of what a God is.

Then there are deities and demons who were turned to the service of the Dharma like Mahakala. These are called "Dharmapalas" or "Dharma Protectors" whose role is to protect the disciples of the Buddha, Buddhist texts, Buddhist places of practice, etc.

You don't know jackshit about your own religion, you're a moron, please refrain from commenting on subjects you aren't familiar with.

Not a bad explanation from you. Aryanism as a culture can span over many cultural heritages across the Eurasian continent, including even Buddhism. Nazis`study of aryanism is certainly a bit colored but not worthless altogather, it is certain that indo-europeans had a process in the earliest history of Indus and central asian civilizations, like tocharians. Racially it is impossible to pinpoint aryan racial characteristics, but culturally and grossly possible.

It's all worthless. Early Nazis believed that the world was made of ice (Welteislehre). This is why the Nordic race/Aryan connections were so strong back then. 'Humans developed from snow, we are from snowy regions, we are the master race' something along those lines.

One theory popular among the Ahnenerbe was that Noah's ark and the associated tale were mostly true and the survivors of the flood were people living on tall mountains, those in Tibet, Peru, and the Alps and they were the origin of the Aryan race.

Also, in the 12th century BC, there was some sort of collapse of civilisation (you might of heard of the sea people who invaded Egypt but also the Mycenaeans, the Babylonians, Assyrians, pretty much all those great Bronze Age civilisations collapsed at this time). It was originally theorised that this was because of the Indo-European migration (this has been pretty thoroughly disproven). So they thought that they descended from a race that had defeated all these mighty civilisations.

Bruno Beger believed that an expedition to Tibet might produce evidence for the existence of a prehistoric Nordic race that he termed 'Europid' – he hoped that the Tibetan nobility, which he characterised as sharp cheekboned and prone to "imperious, self-confident behaviour", might turn out to be the missing link.

His ideas were based on the concept (backed by his mentor Hans Günther) that it was possible to establish a racial typology from close study of appearance and physical characteristics.

But Beger was a crackpot, one of the key planks of the evidence he dredged up to support these views was the abundance of "Venus" figurines – female fertility statues – found all over Europe, North Africa and the Middle East, which he argued were evidence for the existence of a lost prehistoric Aryan/Nordic civilisation.

Himmler who sponsored the expedition in particular was interested in the search for the origins of the 'elite peoples' of Europe and Asia, a people he believed to be the ancient Aryan race that he, among other things, linked to Atlantis.

One major attraction of Tibet for the Germans was its reputation as a warrior nation, which made it seem a plausible centre for an Aryan people (let's not forget that the troops of the old Tibetan Empire captured the Chinese capital, Xian, in 763, and of course the Steppe-tribes (Huns, Mongols, et al) all have rather notoriously effective warrior cultures).

However, Ernst Schäfer made a point in "Geheimnis Tibet," the film he eventually released to chronicle his expedition, that this so-called military people had begun to decline once they allowed themselves to be corrupted by religion. Schäfer deliberately chose to use the word "Lamaism", not Buddhism, to describe this religion to underscore the contempt that he felt for it (similar to Catholic Church, homosexuality played a central role in Tibetan Lama politics).

Ironically, Catholic missionaries were quick to draw parallels (the Tibetan tendency towards complex ritual and symbolic rites helped draw the comparison as well, a few even going so far as to try and draw a common origin of the Tibetan and Catholic Church, or saying one originated from the other) with their own Church in the hopes of gaining more funding for their missions, implying that they could just swap out the Buddha for the Christ and annoint the Tibetan deities as saints, much as they had done throughout all parts of the world for centuries. But they never had any success. The Jesuit Ippolito Desideri, for example, after having learned Tibetan came to the conclusion that Tibetan religion was far worse than what he thought.

When Evangelical missionaries began plying the Himalayas for converts, they noticed the same hierarchical division in Tibetan religious societies and ecclesiastical infighting their Catholic predecessors noticed. Only, their church never had that going for it. It seemed more like a Papist tradition, so they were quick to draw the comparison between the hierarchical, hypocritical, and exploitative nature that they associated with the Catholic Church with the "Churches" of the Tibetan Plateau.

Gnosticism has hellenic imprints, a merge of Christianity with Hellenism, no big mysteries here, but people can not practice magic and faith at the same time, that is the cause of Satanism. The darkside of gnisticism is dominated by Satanic believes that have impacted the world deeper than the real Christianity.

You are mentally retarded. Gnosticism is an umbrella term referring to a subset of early Christian sects that bare some common properties in their cosmology, cosmogony, eschatology, ontology, christology, soteriology and so on.

A lot of people try to play up Gnosticism as 'satanic' but the texts themselves absolutely do determine God as the cosmic basis for morality. In other words the divine is a basis for morality despite what people may say.

I think only (some) the church fathers describe some Gnostic sects' rituals as repulsive, like orgies or infant eating. But they're the only source for such claims so I think it's agreed by the scholars that they were just trying to play up their religious adversaries as super evil. Gnosticism directly says that the Old Testament fashioner of the world isn't the actual God.

The Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit plays up Sodom and Gomorah as being destroyed because the Demiurge (literally meaning 'fashioner') didn't like they were full of woke gnostic people. Though even then I'm not sure if it says those people did the same things they're accused of in Genesis.

[Hexachordia]

Nobody is convincing you to believe in anything, I just stated historical facts that apparently you didn't even know. Religion isn't about believing in something retarded, it's about convincing others you're willing to pretend really hard to believe it in order to fit into a group.

Typical leftist mentalism, you have informative posts and I need some time to rummage. But for this line I am quite surprised and wondering if you really believe in above lines and still claim anticonnnnunist stance.

Even Buddhism tell people that this world is dying and a carcass: Vanitas Vanitatum-Christianity，万物皆空/everything is a vanity-Buddhism. This doctrine is the essence of all belief systems--by revolting against the self and the material world to seek for an immaterial essence(not necessarily equal to spiritualism, I am trying to free from the dichotomy of materialism VS spiritualism). My narrative is focusing on the revolting itself not asking for specific outcomes--my foundamental motive of my Orosism philosophy. A kind of my personal treatment of western existentialism which also promotes the similar idea that our intentions are futile by themselves therefore, asking for definitive outcomes itself will only courts further dissastisfactions. Therefore: The struggle itself counts/matters(my orosist aphorism shared here).

Your idea about religion is too left-tending, socialistic interest in fitting in is the capitalist mannerism--"I have to fit in"-Patrick Bateman, his character is the archytype of this mentality. Fitting in should be natural, not intentional, this is not promoting antisocietal sentiment, but a neutral perspective toward personal socialization. Taking religion as a part of socialization is nothing further off the point. I am still believing in a tolerance toward peoples and social faults, far from hating the society, as a person gets matured in ideas, he knows he must treats people the way as he wishes to be treated by the others, hatred is a sign of weakness too.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

Leave it to the chink to sound dumb as fuck. The word Buddha itself is Indo-European and means the enlightened or awakened one. Buddha was quite literally what we today call 'woke'. Two cognates are Russian 'budit' (будить) and Sanskrit 'budhyate' (बुध्यते), both meaning 'to wake up'.

Buddha himself was a Shakyan of Scythian descent. Although the mythical genealogy of the Shakyas connects them with the Dravidians and gives a Munda name to one of their ancestors.

It's also tough to separate what is cultural versus what was distinctive to the Buddha, early Buddhist traditions definitely seem to incorporate a lot of Indo-European philosophy and cosmology, and, like all religions, there are a lot of layers of influence from the many different cultures that Buddhism spread through, many of which were (in the early centuries) Indo-European cultures. All Indo-European cultures and mythologies had a non-stop influx of local influences.

Even though the region most commonly connected with the Buddha's biography was definitely on the outer edge of Vedic culture - a 'man from Magadha' is used in the Vedas as an exemplar of an outsider whose presence can disturb or pollute Vedic ritual. The city-states seem to have had a more Vedic culture headed by a king, while the more rural areas like the Buddha's homeland were supposedly governed in the style of an oligarchic republic, with leaders from different families and clans gathering to debate and settle issues.

It could have been an indigenous culture that adopted Indo-European languages, also could have been from an earlier wave of Indo-European migration into Northern India. Buddhist stupas for instance have been modeled on prehistoric cairn burials that already existed in Northern India, and archaeologists have found a number of sites where there is a pre-historic era of megalithic or cairn burials, followed by a Buddhist layer of stupa monuments.

It's intriguing that Buddhists readily adopted these sites as their own and were tolerated to disturb them by local people, but they weren't re-used by other cultural groups in the same way (similar to Celts using pre-PIE megalithic sites as their own religious temples aka Stonehenge or Newgrange).



Shakyamuni means sage of the Shakya clan.

Parthian prophet Mani spent much of his life in Persia and Mesopotamia, and was patronised by Shapur I, the territory of Shapur's empire stretched to the Indus river, and included the territory annexed from the Kushan kingdom. Now, the Kushans seem to have practiced a syncretic form of Buddhism that mixed influences from Hellenic, Iranian, Indian, and even Mesopotamian religion.

Mani is said to have spent time with learned men (I believe the term used is "Brahmins") in the far east of the Empire, and so he certainly had access to Buddhist thought one way or another. But when it comes to what Manichaeism seems to have borrowed from it, what is usually pointed to are confluences with Gnostic Christianity: the flesh is corrupt, worldly pleasure is to be eschewed in favour of asceticism, and from this there is a general misogynistic streak portraying women as wicked temptresses.

Gnostic Christianity, which was also dualistic, would have been easily paired with Zoroastrian philosophy, but Buddhism is a rather different tradition entirely, and one which, while present in the Sassanid Empire, would likely have been far more distant and alien to Mani than Christianity or Zoroastrianism.

Nonetheless, Mani seems to have considered Buddha, along with Zoroaster and Jesus, part of a succession of prophets that each revealed part of the truth.



More chink talking points. It's almost like you are too stupid to be aware of what you are saying. Language families are not theorised on the basis of race.

A very relevant example of that are the North Dravidian languages, which are spoken over a wide area in Pakistan that is very far from the rest of Dravidian languages in South India. You usually only see "Aryan" in reference to the Indo-Aryan languages, spoken by peoples in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Northern India.

Ancient Persians used 'ariya' derived from Sanskrit 'arya' (compatriot) to refer to themselves. Sanskrit speakers in India also used 'aryan' or cognates of it to refer to themselves. Note at this point it doesn't refer to a specific ethnicity or race - it's just present in Sanskrit and languages with Sanskrit influence meaning things such as 'people of this land' or 'noble person of this land.'

A Persian using it would be referring to his fellow Persians, or an subject of an Indian kingdom would use it to refer to other people living in the kingdom. The same way we would say 'my fellow countrymen' or in the past might have said 'the people of my tribe.' The meaning is dependent on the individual context of the speaker.

The neutrality of the term was lost in popular usage in Germany through the late 19th and early 20th centuries when 'Aryan' came to mean not just 'Indo-European speaker', the Nazis used terms such as 'ideal Aryan' to refer to Germanic Europeans in popular culture the word took on that meaning and lost its historical contexts.

To avoid confusion in modern usage academics will avoid using 'Aryan'. They'll use 'Indo-European' to refer to the language grouping which Schlegel and Müller used 'Aryan' for. Occasionally 'Aryan' is used in modern contexts to distinguish Indo-European Indian languages from non-Indo-European ones, not the people.

Do you lurk much on Reddit, Sean? I hope you don't hand the above into class. It would be considered plagiarism.