>Buddhist countries are poor, until they become Atheist like Japan, China, South Korea. >Hinduism has… India. >The other three don’t have their own countries.
>People can’t convert to it, and there is no Missionary other than Yoga, and that is only for Health conscious Women in California. >Followers cannot improve their Caste. So if you are Dalit, you are screwed. >Literally eat shit.
>People can’t convert
They certainly can, it's just not a formalized process due to wild levels of philosophical and ritual difference from community to community. Look to Dr. David Frawley for how much they prize converts.
>Followers cannot improve their Caste
I'm sure that's not fun to deal with.
>Literally eat shit
It's nowhere near as common as people like to pretend it is on this site. For the most part, it's rural subliterates engaging in nonsense like that.
About that...
https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/india-fertilitaty-rate-declines-replacement-level-meaning-nfhs-survey-1880894-2021-11-25
Although, unusually for conservative parties the BJP has wanted to lower birthrates.
Indian fertility rate is below replacement level now. They surpassed China only because China's fertility rate has been below replacement level for half a century already. They just had a long way to come down from 1.5 billion people.
Advaita or Vedanta is about self-realization, Moksha, or enlightenment. Zoroastrianism is about autistic dualistic zealotry and "purification".
Zoroastrianism is neither Dharmic nor Abrahamic. Also, during the Sassanian era, Orthodoxy was brutal.
>The cleanser who has not performed the cleansing according to the rites, shall be taken to a desert place; there they shall nail him with four nails, they shall take off the skin from his body, and cut off his head. If he has performed Patet for his sin, he shall be holy (that is, he shall go to paradise); if he has not performed Patet, he shall stay in hell till the day of resurrection[12] >—The Vendidad, Fargard III
There were even apostasy laws and moronic punishments for throwing water on fire and bathing in a river.
I prefer Bactrian Buddhism, and interestingly, they were significantly persecuted by Zoroastrians especially during Kerdir's time. They also slaughtered the adherents of the popular reformer Mazdak the Younger, who I do like a lot.
The Parsees are also some of the most insufferable, arrogant, and dishonest people I've ever encountered, and I am happy they are going extinct.
>The Parsees are also some of the most insufferable, arrogant, and dishonest people I've ever encountered, and I am happy they are going extinct.
tell more
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
They just act like israelites: greedy, inhospitable, think they are the center of everything, endless self-victimization (even though they did countless bad things during Sassanian empire), subversive to their host country, and think they're racially special or "chosen".
I prefer Kushan era and Bactrian/Sogdian Buddhist cultures more honestly. They had a contemplative tradition which Zoroastrianism is not. It was more interesting than either Zoroastrianism or Sufi/Islamic Persian cultures.
Indian Vedic culture was interesting with figures like Adi Shankara.
1. Concept of Dualism: Both religions incorporate dualistic elements, although in different ways. Zoroastrianism emphasizes the dualistic struggle between good (Ahura Mazda) and evil (Angra Mainyu), while Hinduism presents dualities such as Atman (self) versus Brahman (ultimate reality) and the eternal struggle between good (dharma) and evil (adharma).
2. Cosmic Order and Ethics: Both religions emphasize the importance of cosmic order and ethical living. Zoroastrianism promotes the idea of Asha, which represents truth, righteousness, and cosmic order. Hinduism similarly emphasizes the concept of dharma, which refers to righteous duty and moral law governing individual conduct and the universe.
3. Rituals and Sacrifices: Both religions historically involved elaborate rituals and sacrifices, although these practices have evolved over time. Zoroastrianism is known for its fire rituals and sacred texts called the Avesta, while Hinduism has a rich tradition of rituals, ceremonies, and sacrifices described in the Vedas and other scriptures.
4. Reincarnation and Afterlife: Both religions believe in the concept of reincarnation, where the soul undergoes a cycle of birth, death, and rebirth until it achieves liberation (moksha in Hinduism, Frashokereti in Zoroastrianism). Additionally, both religions have beliefs about the afterlife, where the soul’s actions in life determine its fate.
5. Influence on Other Religions: Both Hinduism and Zoroastrianism have had significant influences on other religions and cultures. Hinduism’s concepts of karma, reincarnation, and yoga have influenced various Eastern and New Age spiritual movements. Zoroastrianism has influenced Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, particularly in concepts such as monotheism, angels, and the final judgment.
They are similar. They are rivals to each other.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
ChatGPT garbage post >Both religions believe in the concept of reincarnation
Zoroastrians do not believe in reincarnation.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
You’re reading Zoroastrianism like a Christian Westerner. The subject of reincarnation is a divisive and controversial issue in the Zoroastrian community. The tiny Zoroastrian community is highly educated and westernized. The Parsis or the Zoroastrians of India are the most anglicised community outside the British Isles. Due to their anglicized and western standards a great number of Zoroastrians respond in a typical western fashion toward reincarnation and deny the existence of “a unique form” of reincarnation in the sacred Zoroastrian poetry, literature and ancient doctrine. Only the very orthodox or the esoteric Zoroastrians openly advocate reincarnation.
It is well known that the judeo-christian concept of time is linear. Yet, the Zoroastrian doctrine like that of the ancient Germanic tribes does not view “time” in a simple matter of past, present and future. Linear time IS NOT an Avestan or Indo-Aryan concept. According to the most ancient sacred poetry of the Zoroastrians or the poetic gathas; Time is conceived of being a PROGRESSION OF CYCLES, not in the sense of going round in a circle for things and events to repeat themselves incessantly, but as a series of CYCLES MOVING FORWARD like the waves on the ocean, moving forward rather than round and round.
Time in the Gathic or Avestan terms is not to be viewed as static but a process of becoming. This concept of Evolving/Becoming/Change to New and Better Re-Making conveys the feeling of EVOLUTION in a PROGRESSIVE sense.
Zoroastrianism teaches about a preexisting brilliant idea, word of knowledge/wisdom, spiritual prototype of things called FRA-VASHI, or the forth spoken word/voice of wisdom, See Yasna 45, 1-6, Yasna 23 and Yasna 26.
The Fact is that Zoroastrianism teaches a unique form of reincarnation very similar to the ancient Germanic tribes and different from the typical Eastern types.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
>It is well known that the judeo-christian concept of time is linear. Yet, the Zoroastrian doctrine like that of the ancient Germanic tribes does not view “time” in a simple matter of past, present and future. Linear time IS NOT an Avestan or Indo-Aryan concept.
Yes, it is. Linear eschatology derived from the Gathas, the oldest part of the Zend Avesta. A linear eschatology that culminates in a "final renovation" was a Zoroastrian creation. >The Parsis
They are dumb elitist brats like israelites. Also, they're not rejecting notions of reincarnation negatively based on Anglical influence, but rather due to strict interpretation of knowledge passed down and texts. The Zoroastrian corpus is clear there is no reincarnation. Rather, it argues in favor of eternal heaven (House of Song) and hell (House of Lies) based on accumulated deeds that's measured at Chinvat Bridge. >The Fact is that Zoroastrianism teaches a unique form of reincarnation...
It doesn't.
Ahura Mazda is latently omnipotent in their texts, and it's predicted that Ahura Mazda will vanquish Ahriman at the end times, thereby renovating the world and "purifying" it.
Zoroastrianism broke off from IE traditions due to Zoroaster's reforms. He was tired of endless cattle raids of Scythian like people, and therefore, he established a kind of ditheism and monolatry to ground a normative ethics based on compassion, honesty, and so on.
Revisionist sorts of historical understanding are becoming more common idpol pseud zoomers like you.
>One tribe of Indo-Europeans were Divas, and the othertribe of Indo-Europeans were Asuras. >They went to war. >Their descendants worshiped them as gods.
That is how Hinduism and Zoroastrianism were born.
In South Asia only Sikhism seemed to have been effective in its short run as well as Hinduism . Hinduism is too large of a “ religion “ it’s akin to abrahamicsm and holds multitude of beliefs within it
Historically however > Hinduism reigns supreme until Turkic invasions and still holds true and gains an upper hand defeating the sultanates until gunpowder Mughals come and still resists and overturns the Mughals with the Marathas until British come
> jainsim doesn’t do anything besides being peaceful monk extrimsits who are against all violence to the point of extreme pacifism making it not the ideal governing religion
> bhuddism goes well with east Asia due to their cultures influencing it but in South Asia dies out due to lack of militarism and is associated with poor ppl who don’t want to fit in society and would rather just meditate and detach themselves rather than nail some boards or farm . They ended up getting genocied by the hunnic hephaltite coalition who converted to shiva worship and lost all their influence prior to Hindus and later to Muslims who wiped them from cites
> Sikhs come as a blend of sufism and vedicsm and become more militaristic towards its end . Ends up uniting different castes and tribes as well as popularizing self communal service . Defeats the Mughals in their heartland and push out the afghans and install their puppet in Kabul but ended up losing to British due to their vassals and kingdom betraying the core military .
> Zoroastrianism just gives birth to abrahamic religions just to get wiped out by the Islamic invasions , essentially getting cucked by its grandson religion
I think it is Sikhism, but I am Sikh so I am biased.
>Hinduism
The problem with Hinduism is that it supports the caste system, ie systemic discrimination. I know it's a problem present in other faiths too but only Hinduism has scriptural support of it.
>Jainism
Jainism is actually the closest thing to a perfect religion IMO. The problem is in its monasticism, which essentially leads to the development of a parasitic class. Ditto Buddhism.
>Morality
Budhism seems the most adapted for the current world. I mean, its core is shaped around morality and attaining nirvana. >Governance
By elimination I would say Hinduism. The others are just incomplete or too niche to have a proper universal government form >Economics
To my knowledge, none have a detailed economic plan apart from some basic "share with your friend" bs so any would do.
>Brahman
Brahman is a principle with numerous definitions, but generally speaking it's an impersonal collective encompassing both the universe (samsara) and the divine in whatever form the specific form of Vedanta in question posits (ishvara). It's not a personal entity because, ultimately, it's not one single thing in like Abrahamic conceptions of Yahweh are.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
>In ancient texts of Hindu philosophy, depending on the context, Ishvara can mean supreme Self, ruler, lord, king, queen or husband.[1] In medieval era Hindu texts, depending on the school of Hinduism, Ishvara means God, Supreme Being, personal God, or special Self.[2][3][4]
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
So literally what I said. Thank you for supporting me in this time of need.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
I don't get it; wikipedia is saying ishvara can be personal. If a part of Brahman were personal, wouldn't it be personal too?
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
Ishvara can be personal, but Brahman would only be personal in as much as Brahman includes Ishvara. So, it's not Brahman that's personal, it's Ishvara.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
>but Brahman would only be personal in as much as Brahman includes Ishvara.
How common is for Brahman to include Ishvara in its definition? Very or little?
They do have an antinomian problem iff reincarnation is rejected.
Dharmic traditions get their morality in tandem to rebirth/reincarnation on a metaphysical hierarchy.
Many Westerners who follow Dharmic traditions reject rebirth/reincarnation and become antinomian edgelords. It's a massive problem.
>Buddhist countries are poor, until they become Atheist like Japan, China, South Korea.
>Hinduism has… India.
>The other three don’t have their own countries.
Buddhism emphasizes simplicity and a life away from consoomerism (of anything in general.) SK, China, and Japan are the opposite of that.
You didn’t refute me.
Buddhism held them back from becoming advanced societies since they only became successful once they abandoned it.
KHALISTAN KHALISTAN KHALISTAN
Based
QRD?
Sikh separatists want to create their own country called Khalistan.
Have they making any progress?
*canadian sikh separatists
Hinduism, as evidenced by the increasing power of the Indian nation and their continued population growth.
>People can’t convert to it, and there is no Missionary other than Yoga, and that is only for Health conscious Women in California.
>Followers cannot improve their Caste. So if you are Dalit, you are screwed.
>Literally eat shit.
>People can’t convert
They certainly can, it's just not a formalized process due to wild levels of philosophical and ritual difference from community to community. Look to Dr. David Frawley for how much they prize converts.
>Followers cannot improve their Caste
I'm sure that's not fun to deal with.
>Literally eat shit
It's nowhere near as common as people like to pretend it is on this site. For the most part, it's rural subliterates engaging in nonsense like that.
About that...
https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/india-fertilitaty-rate-declines-replacement-level-meaning-nfhs-survey-1880894-2021-11-25
Although, unusually for conservative parties the BJP has wanted to lower birthrates.
Indian fertility rate is below replacement level now. They surpassed China only because China's fertility rate has been below replacement level for half a century already. They just had a long way to come down from 1.5 billion people.
>population growth
lmao there's better options
India is a blueprint for like a worst case scenario biologically, racially and in terms of urbanism.
Zoroastrianism is not Dharmic.
They are definitely not Abrahamic. And when you read their holy books, it makes more sense if you read it with a Dharmic way of thinking instead.
It is totally unrelated to Dharmic religion.
They came from the same place.
No, it didn't.
Zoroastrianism is neither, but aspects of its teachings are found in both faith families.
Advaita or Vedanta is about self-realization, Moksha, or enlightenment. Zoroastrianism is about autistic dualistic zealotry and "purification".
Zoroastrianism is neither Dharmic nor Abrahamic. Also, during the Sassanian era, Orthodoxy was brutal.
>The cleanser who has not performed the cleansing according to the rites, shall be taken to a desert place; there they shall nail him with four nails, they shall take off the skin from his body, and cut off his head. If he has performed Patet for his sin, he shall be holy (that is, he shall go to paradise); if he has not performed Patet, he shall stay in hell till the day of resurrection[12]
>—The Vendidad, Fargard III
There were even apostasy laws and moronic punishments for throwing water on fire and bathing in a river.
I prefer Bactrian Buddhism, and interestingly, they were significantly persecuted by Zoroastrians especially during Kerdir's time. They also slaughtered the adherents of the popular reformer Mazdak the Younger, who I do like a lot.
The Parsees are also some of the most insufferable, arrogant, and dishonest people I've ever encountered, and I am happy they are going extinct.
>The Parsees are also some of the most insufferable, arrogant, and dishonest people I've ever encountered, and I am happy they are going extinct.
tell more
They just act like israelites: greedy, inhospitable, think they are the center of everything, endless self-victimization (even though they did countless bad things during Sassanian empire), subversive to their host country, and think they're racially special or "chosen".
I prefer Kushan era and Bactrian/Sogdian Buddhist cultures more honestly. They had a contemplative tradition which Zoroastrianism is not. It was more interesting than either Zoroastrianism or Sufi/Islamic Persian cultures.
Indian Vedic culture was interesting with figures like Adi Shankara.
1. Concept of Dualism: Both religions incorporate dualistic elements, although in different ways. Zoroastrianism emphasizes the dualistic struggle between good (Ahura Mazda) and evil (Angra Mainyu), while Hinduism presents dualities such as Atman (self) versus Brahman (ultimate reality) and the eternal struggle between good (dharma) and evil (adharma).
2. Cosmic Order and Ethics: Both religions emphasize the importance of cosmic order and ethical living. Zoroastrianism promotes the idea of Asha, which represents truth, righteousness, and cosmic order. Hinduism similarly emphasizes the concept of dharma, which refers to righteous duty and moral law governing individual conduct and the universe.
3. Rituals and Sacrifices: Both religions historically involved elaborate rituals and sacrifices, although these practices have evolved over time. Zoroastrianism is known for its fire rituals and sacred texts called the Avesta, while Hinduism has a rich tradition of rituals, ceremonies, and sacrifices described in the Vedas and other scriptures.
4. Reincarnation and Afterlife: Both religions believe in the concept of reincarnation, where the soul undergoes a cycle of birth, death, and rebirth until it achieves liberation (moksha in Hinduism, Frashokereti in Zoroastrianism). Additionally, both religions have beliefs about the afterlife, where the soul’s actions in life determine its fate.
5. Influence on Other Religions: Both Hinduism and Zoroastrianism have had significant influences on other religions and cultures. Hinduism’s concepts of karma, reincarnation, and yoga have influenced various Eastern and New Age spiritual movements. Zoroastrianism has influenced Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, particularly in concepts such as monotheism, angels, and the final judgment.
They are similar. They are rivals to each other.
ChatGPT garbage post
>Both religions believe in the concept of reincarnation
Zoroastrians do not believe in reincarnation.
You’re reading Zoroastrianism like a Christian Westerner. The subject of reincarnation is a divisive and controversial issue in the Zoroastrian community. The tiny Zoroastrian community is highly educated and westernized. The Parsis or the Zoroastrians of India are the most anglicised community outside the British Isles. Due to their anglicized and western standards a great number of Zoroastrians respond in a typical western fashion toward reincarnation and deny the existence of “a unique form” of reincarnation in the sacred Zoroastrian poetry, literature and ancient doctrine. Only the very orthodox or the esoteric Zoroastrians openly advocate reincarnation.
It is well known that the judeo-christian concept of time is linear. Yet, the Zoroastrian doctrine like that of the ancient Germanic tribes does not view “time” in a simple matter of past, present and future. Linear time IS NOT an Avestan or Indo-Aryan concept. According to the most ancient sacred poetry of the Zoroastrians or the poetic gathas; Time is conceived of being a PROGRESSION OF CYCLES, not in the sense of going round in a circle for things and events to repeat themselves incessantly, but as a series of CYCLES MOVING FORWARD like the waves on the ocean, moving forward rather than round and round.
Time in the Gathic or Avestan terms is not to be viewed as static but a process of becoming. This concept of Evolving/Becoming/Change to New and Better Re-Making conveys the feeling of EVOLUTION in a PROGRESSIVE sense.
Zoroastrianism teaches about a preexisting brilliant idea, word of knowledge/wisdom, spiritual prototype of things called FRA-VASHI, or the forth spoken word/voice of wisdom, See Yasna 45, 1-6, Yasna 23 and Yasna 26.
The Fact is that Zoroastrianism teaches a unique form of reincarnation very similar to the ancient Germanic tribes and different from the typical Eastern types.
>It is well known that the judeo-christian concept of time is linear. Yet, the Zoroastrian doctrine like that of the ancient Germanic tribes does not view “time” in a simple matter of past, present and future. Linear time IS NOT an Avestan or Indo-Aryan concept.
Yes, it is. Linear eschatology derived from the Gathas, the oldest part of the Zend Avesta. A linear eschatology that culminates in a "final renovation" was a Zoroastrian creation.
>The Parsis
They are dumb elitist brats like israelites. Also, they're not rejecting notions of reincarnation negatively based on Anglical influence, but rather due to strict interpretation of knowledge passed down and texts. The Zoroastrian corpus is clear there is no reincarnation. Rather, it argues in favor of eternal heaven (House of Song) and hell (House of Lies) based on accumulated deeds that's measured at Chinvat Bridge.
>The Fact is that Zoroastrianism teaches a unique form of reincarnation...
It doesn't.
Ahura Mazda is latently omnipotent in their texts, and it's predicted that Ahura Mazda will vanquish Ahriman at the end times, thereby renovating the world and "purifying" it.
Zoroastrianism broke off from IE traditions due to Zoroaster's reforms. He was tired of endless cattle raids of Scythian like people, and therefore, he established a kind of ditheism and monolatry to ground a normative ethics based on compassion, honesty, and so on.
Revisionist sorts of historical understanding are becoming more common idpol pseud zoomers like you.
>One tribe of Indo-Europeans were Divas, and the othertribe of Indo-Europeans were Asuras.
>They went to war.
>Their descendants worshiped them as gods.
That is how Hinduism and Zoroastrianism were born.
Zen Buddhism
In South Asia only Sikhism seemed to have been effective in its short run as well as Hinduism . Hinduism is too large of a “ religion “ it’s akin to abrahamicsm and holds multitude of beliefs within it
Historically however
> Hinduism reigns supreme until Turkic invasions and still holds true and gains an upper hand defeating the sultanates until gunpowder Mughals come and still resists and overturns the Mughals with the Marathas until British come
> jainsim doesn’t do anything besides being peaceful monk extrimsits who are against all violence to the point of extreme pacifism making it not the ideal governing religion
> bhuddism goes well with east Asia due to their cultures influencing it but in South Asia dies out due to lack of militarism and is associated with poor ppl who don’t want to fit in society and would rather just meditate and detach themselves rather than nail some boards or farm . They ended up getting genocied by the hunnic hephaltite coalition who converted to shiva worship and lost all their influence prior to Hindus and later to Muslims who wiped them from cites
> Sikhs come as a blend of sufism and vedicsm and become more militaristic towards its end . Ends up uniting different castes and tribes as well as popularizing self communal service . Defeats the Mughals in their heartland and push out the afghans and install their puppet in Kabul but ended up losing to British due to their vassals and kingdom betraying the core military .
> Zoroastrianism just gives birth to abrahamic religions just to get wiped out by the Islamic invasions , essentially getting cucked by its grandson religion
Zoroastrianism was already dying out for Nestorianism, especially since the popular reformer Mazdak the Younger was killed.
I think it is Sikhism, but I am Sikh so I am biased.
>Hinduism
The problem with Hinduism is that it supports the caste system, ie systemic discrimination. I know it's a problem present in other faiths too but only Hinduism has scriptural support of it.
>Jainism
Jainism is actually the closest thing to a perfect religion IMO. The problem is in its monasticism, which essentially leads to the development of a parasitic class. Ditto Buddhism.
Sallekhana does lead to enlightenment.
Honestly, I think Sikhism is more Abrahamic then Dharmic anyway.
It's definitely straddling the line
interesting
>Morality
Budhism seems the most adapted for the current world. I mean, its core is shaped around morality and attaining nirvana.
>Governance
By elimination I would say Hinduism. The others are just incomplete or too niche to have a proper universal government form
>Economics
To my knowledge, none have a detailed economic plan apart from some basic "share with your friend" bs so any would do.
Does any Dharmic religion present solutions to the Problem Of Evil? Just curious.
It’s just a part of the world.
But why does Brahman allow it, for example, in Hinduism?
How?
What about Brahman? It's just that it's not personal or something?
>Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism
Ignorance.
>Zoroastrianism
Angra Manyu fricking things up.
>Sikhism
Ignorance + Muslims
>Brahman
Brahman is a principle with numerous definitions, but generally speaking it's an impersonal collective encompassing both the universe (samsara) and the divine in whatever form the specific form of Vedanta in question posits (ishvara). It's not a personal entity because, ultimately, it's not one single thing in like Abrahamic conceptions of Yahweh are.
>In ancient texts of Hindu philosophy, depending on the context, Ishvara can mean supreme Self, ruler, lord, king, queen or husband.[1] In medieval era Hindu texts, depending on the school of Hinduism, Ishvara means God, Supreme Being, personal God, or special Self.[2][3][4]
So literally what I said. Thank you for supporting me in this time of need.
I don't get it; wikipedia is saying ishvara can be personal. If a part of Brahman were personal, wouldn't it be personal too?
Ishvara can be personal, but Brahman would only be personal in as much as Brahman includes Ishvara. So, it's not Brahman that's personal, it's Ishvara.
>but Brahman would only be personal in as much as Brahman includes Ishvara.
How common is for Brahman to include Ishvara in its definition? Very or little?
Yes, they all do.
Dharmic religions don't have an omnipotent omniscient, all loving capital G God that is the only one that exist, so they don't have a problem of evil
They do have an antinomian problem iff reincarnation is rejected.
Dharmic traditions get their morality in tandem to rebirth/reincarnation on a metaphysical hierarchy.
Many Westerners who follow Dharmic traditions reject rebirth/reincarnation and become antinomian edgelords. It's a massive problem.
Sikhism.
Christianity is the ultimate Dharma, it is the Tao (Way).