So if there was no Abrahamic religions, which Dharmic religion would be best for Europe?
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
So if there was no Abrahamic religions, which Dharmic religion would be best for Europe?
Sikhism
Elaborate.
I don't feel like it but all of the other ones don't have langar
>In Sikhism, a langar (Punjabi: ਲੰਗਰ, pronunciation: [lʌŋɾ], 'kitchen'[1]) is the community kitchen of a gurdwara, which serves meals to all free of charge, regardless of religion, caste, gender, economic status, or ethnicity.
>The meals served at a langar are always lacto-vegetarian.[3]
>vegetarian
Lame.
It is vegetarian so that all kinds of people can eat the food given out.
>Sikhism
I'm convinced that were it not for their stupid mandatory turbans, we would have tons of Sikh-chuds claiming that Sikhism is le most trad, based masculine and aryan religion that will save The West.
So the turban is only mandatory if you’re part of the Khalsa. You can apply the teachings without joining
It’s so anyone can eat there
That’s a nihang they’re known for big turbans and weapons
The reason they wear the turban is so they stand out, so you can spot them out easily.
Sikhs adopted this practice during a time when Sikh heads were hunted for bags of gold by the Islamic Mughal authorities.
They wear the turban as a duty, to stand up for the freedom of religion of all people on this earth.
This. It’s as much for you to know they’re a Sikh and you can look to them for help as it is a reminder of their duty to people
The only religion that makes sense to me as a Christian
>Sikhism
islam and vedanta bastard child
Love Sikh History
True
>So the turban is only mandatory if you’re part of the Khalsa. You can apply the teachings without joining
If they actually emphasised this and preached it, they would easily get converts
buddhism is the only cult which works, all the other stuff is a dead end
Dead end? What do you mean?
Vajrayana/Tibetan Buddhism and Bön, the native religion of Tibet, both were started by Buddhas and both have a practice called Dzoghen, which, when practiced for a lifetime, leads to the attainment of the rainbow body:
>https://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Rainbow_body
Any religion that can't get you there is inferior to Dzogchen.
>rainbow body
>Through the practice of trekchö, the practitioner can attain the so-called ‘rainbow body’, in which the body becomes smaller and smaller as it dissolves, emanating rainbow light, and finally only the hair and nails are left behind
>Akhyuk Rinpoche passed away at his hermitage on 23 July 2011. It is reported that after his passing the body of Achuk Rinpoche shrunk from a height of 1.8 meters shrunk to about 1 inch tall, a sign of achieving the rainbow body[7] [8].
Ugh, any photos?
this is the only one I have. it's a rare phenomenon
Probably Buddhism because of it's Mutability. But I doubt any Dharmic religions would catch on in europe even if israelites went extinct in 500 BC.
Also take Sikhism off that chart. Without Islam there's no Sikhism. It's so abrahamic inspired it's not even funny.
Here's why the rest wouldn't work:
>Hinduism is basically a pajeet only ethno-religion and the only reason you'd adopt it is if you wanted to appropriate their government. This is not the case for Europe at any time in history.
>Jainism: No reach outside india. Peaked in the 600s BCE as a Sramana school
>Zoroastrianism: Persian ethno-religion they had no intention of imposing on anyone. They literally didn't convert people.
Most likely candidate for a big religion in the west sans Abraham is probably something vaguely Hellenic.
This doesn't seem very european. More psychotic than anything.
>Hinduism only ethno religion
FALSE
It Sanskritized persian ethnicities like pashtuns, balochis and tajiks, east asian ethnics like ahoms and meities.
Brahmins exists in all tribes and ethnicities even stretching to Indonesia and Japan.
Ok but those were pretty close to India. My point is that Hinduism rarely ever left the subcontinent and its surroundings. Aside from a few hundred years where it flourished in SEA (because the local kings wanted to co-opt Indian administrative practices) it never went beyond India.
What would Hinduism even offer the average Herion, Brennus, Casius, and Arnulf, anyway? They already have their own governing traditions, and there's nothing Hinduism can bring them Hellenic or local paganism won't.
Assuming this is a world where the greeks still dominate west asia and impose their culture over most of southern and western europe. Rome or not.
Biggest hindu temple is not even in India, its in USA and Cambodia.
I think we are literally everywhere in the globe right now
>USA
Modern phenomenon, doesn't apply to this hypothetical because the U.S would not possibly exist without Abrahamic religions.
Same for Indians in all ex-british colonies. The british sent you there to work their sugar plantations and do boring clerical work while technically not being slaves.
>Cambodia.
I've already accounted for this. Hindus never went anywhere (on their own) outside of India and SEA.
Also, please answer the question below, this is more out curiosity:
>What would Hinduism even offer the average Herion, Brennus, Casius, and Arnulf, anyway?
What does Hinduism have that the local european traditions don't?
Sorry for sounding kind of aggressive.
>What does Hinduism have that the local european traditions don't?
Ethnoreligions have a tendency to be influenced by universal world-religions that they are in proximity to but not actually in danger of being attacked by. Zoroastrianism did this with Christianity (hence why you see people say Zoroastrianism is "monotheistic" despite it being obviously not if you take a single glance at it), and the Mari religion (the ethnoreligion of a Finnic people in Russia) did this with Islam. Assianists did this alternatingly with Islam and Christianity. The Germanic peoples themselves actually did something similar with the Celts (the Germanic warband-society is an importation from the Celts).
All of this is to say that Northern Europe could have buddied up with Persia or India as a counter to Roman influence. Emphasis on "could", the developments in Northern Europe were going to occur no matter what due to nonreligious factors, and it's not like Northern Europe every buddied up with Byzantium or Russia as a counter to Mediterranean influence, in fact it buddied up with the Mediterranean to counter Byzantine/Russian influence.
There are sects of Hinduism that do proselytize, like the Hare Krishnas. It's interesting that this seems to be more common outside of the West than inside it, however. Hindu proselytism is stronger in Russia than it is in Europe, and it's stronger in Europe than it is in the US.
>I doubt any Dharmic religions would catch on in europe
but Dharmic religions were the norm in europe before christianity
This is technically true. All of them even had some form of reincarnation.
Yes, so true: for example, all finnish pagan dead went to Tuonela - never to return.
Asatru swedes went to Hel, Freijas Hall or Asgård - returning only on Ragnarök, the end of the current unverse.
Go home, pajeet, you're drunk.
Everything you said, was only because of influenced by Christian. For example:
Elves in Norse mythology, are literally the humans who are reincarnated as Demi-gods.
[CITATION NEEDED]
You do know that many Norse Kings traced their ancestry back to Elves and Odin right?
That would be Moses actually, when they started writing down this stuff norse were christian.
So again:
go home, pajeet, you're drunk.
No. They were not. Dharmic religions are an India thing.
Still, no reason for anyone to convert.
Geography makes a connection between germany and Persia/India very improbably.
Huh?
>Zoroastrianism
>ethno-religion
it's not an ethno religion and they do accept converts, they just aren't big on proselitism of pushing their religion on others
Same goes for hinduism
This guy is so obviously hindu it hurts to read
I don’t think Zoroastrianism is a Dharmic religion. Sure they have the whole Ashurs vs Diva with Hinduism, but aside from being a Iranian religion, I would place them with the Abrahamic religions if I had to choose Abrahamic vs Dharmic.
I said it once, and I say it again:
Zoroaster is a composite of Vedic priests and Prophet Daniel.
No. What's your argument for that? They originated from different regions.
Zoroaster(c, 628 BCE also dated c. 1500 BCE) also called Zarathustra, was the founder of Zoroastrianism. Nothing concrete is known. He is said to have been born in ancient Persia (modern Iran). According to tradition in theGathashe was trained as a priest from age 7. At age 15 he became a priest, more likely some form ofMagusan ancient Persian priesthood. He served one of the many early Persian polytheistic beliefs, until he receives a vision at the age of 30. He saw a shining being calledVohu Manah(Good Mind) who taught him aboutAhura Mazda(Wise Lord) the supreme God, several times Zoroaster is taken into the presence of Ahura Mazda to learn. From then forth he receives teachings through visions and is given a mission to spread the teachings.
Among the many teachings are dietary reforms; certain meats were considered evil and some good. It seems these visions lead Zoroaster on a quest to reform the Persian religions, through socio-economic reform. It appears he was not interested in driving out or eliminating the older traditions. Persia at the time was predominantly polytheistic and followed many of the Vedic traditions of ancientIndo-Europeans. He spent his days teaching about the one God and eventually gained influence in Persia. He was said to be acontemporary of Cyrus the Great and Darius Ic. 700-500 BCE; but it unclear whether traditions hold that he met with either. UnderDarius Ireign, it seems Zoroastrianism flourished the most andDarius made it the state religion of Persia. Whether Zoroaster was a contemporary influence to Darius is unclear.
The details of Zoroaster's death, like his life is not certain. There is a tradition, like the writings in theShahnamehthat holds that he wasmurdered by a priest of the old persian religions. Granted this writing is dated well into the 9th century CE.
1/?
DANIEL IN HISTORY
Daniel(c. 620 BCE more safely c. 600-500 BCE ) was a Hebrew prophet said to have lived during the captivity and exile of Israel in Babylon. Nothing concrete is know about him either. He starts out as a young male captive of the Babylonians being trained to serve the then king of BabylonNebuchadnezzar II(c. 630-561 BCE). It seems he is trained in the capacity of a Babylonian wise man, possibly as a Magus who were a popular priesthood. He denies certain foods and declares dietary restrictions for himself and his company. His devotion to ancestral God of Israel however, leads to him having visions of a supreme God called theAncient of Daysand conversing with a spirit being identified asGabrielwho teaches him future events.
During his life however, according tothe book of Daniel, He is said to have lived through the during the exile, in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II and through thePersian conquest of Babylon(c. 539 BCE) byCyrus the Great. The book of Daniel however, speaks ofDarius the Mede, supposedly the ruler who deposedBelshazzar(c. 539) the ruling prince during the fall of Babylon. It is not exactly clear whether Darius the Mede is meant to be Darius I; though several theories exist. InDaniel 6:28It states Cyrus was ruling contemporarily with Darius the Mede; this would seemingly eliminate Darius I as He is said to have ruled after Cyrus. Going forward, through Daniel's influence and miracles,Darius the Mede converts to monotheistic beliefand creates laws throughout Persia for Daniels one God.
2/?
Not much, if anything, is known about the death of Daniel. It is not mentioned anywhere. But Talmudic tradition holds he died at the hands ofHaman the Agagite; a minister underKing Ahasuerus(Assumed to beXerxes Ic. 486-465 BCE) mentioned in the book Esther. Though the timeline would mean Daniel lived well over a 100 years.
The book of Daniel is believed to be compositionhistorically dated c. 175-163 BCE, and is attributed to 2nd century BCE israeli writers relating visions ofpersecution under Antiochus IV Epiphanes. In the israeli Talmud and Tanakh,Daniel is not listed among the prophetsbut is only considered a wise man of his time. Later Christian and israeli tradition seems to elevate him to prophethood.
Aside from the canonical book of Daniel, there are other supposed sources that may be tied to the name Daniel. There is aCanaanite Ugarit tale(c. 1350 BCE) called the "Legend of Aqhat" in which a character called Danel is a loyal and righteous servant of the canaanite godEl. Bearing a strong similarity to the Daniel, in that they are both associated servants of El; the root of both names is the Hebrewdin El(Judge El); they are both righteous and well known among their god/s.
3/?
ZOROASTER AND DANIEL
Daniel bears striking similarity to Zoroaster. Now, going off what is found in their origins, we can compile a set of similarities. At least in as far as their traditions go; which as of now it is not so easily to date the origins of their traditions. So the list as follows:
>Both are dated to within several years, or a few centuries apart at most. Zoroaster is dated around 700-500 BCE (c. 628) and earliest around1500-1000 BCE(though earlier dates are suggested). Daniel is dated around 700-500 BCE (c. 620 BCE). According to the Ugarit legend of Aqhat, a tradition of a heroDanel servant of Eldates back to around 1500-1300 BCE.
>Both have ties to ancient Persia. Zoroaster is born in Persia and is raised as a priest of high status, with supposed contemporary ties to rulers such as Cyrus the Great and Darius I. Daniel while not born in Persia, eventually ends up the regions around ancient Persia and Babylon (modern Iran and Iraq).; he also has contemporary ties to Cyrus the Great though Darius I is uncertain.
>Both were of a priestly class. Zoroaster was supposedly trained as a Magus from the age of 7 and joined the priestly class as a young man of 15; here is shown to have much influence and wisdom. Daniel is seemingly placed in a priestly class and was possibly close to a Magus; he displays influence and wisdom.
>Both have dreams and visions of one God. Zoroaster is said to have been taken into the presence of Ahura Mazda where he was taught by spirit beings; this is through dreams and visions. Daniel also has visions where he taken into the presence of the Ancient of Days where he taught prophetic insights; both through dreams and visions.
4/?
>Both taught the monotheism of one God with multiple spirit beings contrary to the dominant religions of their time. Zoroaster comes to prominence as a priest in of the Vedic traditions but inevitably teaches one god and transforms the Persian religious landscape to monotheistic belief. Daniel comes to prominence in a priestly class and transforms the Persian kingdom to a predominantly monotheistic culture through the influence of kings.
>Both advocated dietary restrictions. Zoroaster seemingly reformed dietary laws by declaring some animals evil and others good. Daniel adheres to the original Judaic dietary laws and refuses the Persian meat.
>Both according to some traditions, die in a similar manner. Murdered by a Persian who served the one of the religions supplanted by monotheism.
5/?
Similarities Between Zoroastrianism and Judaism-Christianity
ZOROASTRIAN BELIEFS
>Ahura Mazda is the highest God and Creator of the universe
>Ahura Mazda is surrounded by seven beings calledAmesha Spentas(Holy Immortals)
>The greatest Holy Immortal is calledSpenta Mainyu(Holy Spirit) who is also the spirit of Ahura Mazda
>The number seven is a sacred number symbolizing the Amesha Spentas and recurs several times; e.g. there are seven divisions of earth.
>Fire is a holy and sacred symbol of purity and righteousness. It symbolizes the Holy Immortal,Ashta Vahishta(Truth and Justice) who is the light of Ahura Mazda.
>Ahura Mazda's opponent is Angra Mainyu (Destructive Spirit) also called Arhiman
>Angra Mainyu is the twin of Spenta Mainyu and they are both sons of Ahura Mazda who war against each other
>Angra Mainyu and Spenta Mainyu met at the beginning to choose between "life or not life"; Spenta Mainyu chose life (Good), Angra Mainyu chose not life (Evil).
>Angra Mainyu rules all that is Druj ("The Lie")
>Angra Mainyu created theDaevas(Sanskrit for "Divine") subordinate evil spirits.
>Angra Mainyu will be destroyed at the end
JUDAIC CHRISTIAN BELIEFS
>YHWH is the Most High God and Creator
>YHWH is surrounded by Seven Spirits like flaming candles
>The greatest Spirit is the Holy Spirit who is also the spirit of YHWH
>Seven is a sacred number symbolizing YHWH's Spirits, creation, completion, cycles and totality; e.g. seven days of creation.
>Fire is a sacred tool of purification in israeli and Christian theology. YHWH dwells in sacred fire that does not burn the righteous and truthful.
>YHWH opponent is Satan (The Adversary), a destructive spirit
>Satan's spirit is opposed to the Holy Spirit and the two wage war through the deeds of humans.
>Satan existed at the beginning of creation and chose evil
>Satan is the liar, who was the liar from the beginning
>Satan has subordinate evil spirits called Demons.Note: the greek for demon from which get the english word is Daemonius; the Sanskrit for divine is Daevas (Zoroastrian demons); more learned people could address if this is mere coincidence
>Satan will be destroyed at the end
7/?
Zoroaster-Daniel-Jesus Connection?
This is just a stretch, but for the sake of it, here goes. In Matthew 2, there is an odd story of Magi who come from the East to find Jesus.
Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem, saying, “Where is he who has been born king of the israelites? For we saw his star in the East and have come to worship him.” - Matthew 2:1-2
They follow His star and somehow find Him in Jerusalem. From their meeting with Herod and their bringing gifts, expensive gifts, suggest they were very wealthy individuals. Considering a likely connection between Zoroaster and Daniel; supposing these two were the same person, we could establish a narrative.
Daniel is renowned among evangelical and protestant Christianity for the 70 weeks prophecy. A prophecy that seemingly accurately predicted the time of the Messiah's arrival. Without going in detail, the specific of the prophecy interpretation can be found throughthis link. He is well known for his prophetic abilities. Supposing there is an individual Q, off whom the traditions of Zoroaster and Daniel are based; who began a tradition in Persia very similar to Judaism, that constituted several prophecies about a coming divine king. Daniel and Zoroaster similarly had the prominence to do such.
Such a view could explain the relevance of the Magi in Jerusalem. They may have been keepers of an ancient tradition of prophecies passed down by this Q individual; which would explain their readiness for the Messiah's arrival. Again, this is just a hypothesis. But is it likely?
8/8
Explain it in 2 sentences
1. Read it again.
2. Slowly.
Stfu, rambling pseud.
Why would Zoroastrianism be considered Dharmic? Persianate religion should be its own category
Zoroastrianism is often considered a distinct religious tradition separate from the main categories like Asian religions, Abrahamic and Dharmic. However, some scholars might argue that it shares certain elements with both Dharmic and Abrahamic traditions, given its influence on later religions and its geographical location. Ultimately, the classification of Zoroastrianism into a fourth category depends on the criteria used and the perspective of those doing the classifying.
Zoroastrianism predates Abrahamic religions
Learn to read.
How can Zoroastrianism merely 'share certain elements' of Abrahamic religions when it pre-dates Abrahamic religions?
Holy shit you are actually moronic.
>However, some scholars might argue that it shares certain elements with both Dharmic and Abrahamic traditions,
>given its influence on later religions and its geographical location.
This is the reading comprehension of the average IQfy poster.
those are two separate independent clauses, anon
I'll spell it out for you: Zoroastrianism shares elements with Abrahamic religions because it inspired them. Do you get it now? You must have a 50 IQ.
you're moronic, Abrahamic religions share elements with Zoroastrianism, not the other way around, which you tried to sneak into your statement
Do you know what share means? It goes both ways, you share between two or more people. Illiterate.
I accept your concession.
>when it pre-dates Abrahamic religions?
You think that, but
.
That is a theory. But there sacred text was coincidentally a oral traditions for a long time, until the Muslims came, then they somehow produce their book; saying they are the people of the book too.
>zoroastrism
>dharmic
hahaha what
(Neo) Plantonism
Like… Judaism or Muslim?
those aren't even close to platonism or any other hellenistic philosophy, no matter how much they cope and attempt to twist it to fit their religions
theyre too antisocial
Hinduism is literally just paganism + pantheism which makes perfect sense for Europeans.
Baha'i