monotheism

[s1va]

On March 10, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Marblehead said:

Monotheism started with Zoroastrianism.   No Devil.

 

 

 

I am surprised with that comment.  What makes you say Zoroastrianism is monotheistic?  The Zend Avesta has so many similarities with the Hindu Rig Veda, including fire ceremonies.  There are the equivalent of Asuras and Devas in their belief.  Some say the roles are reversed.  Like Indra is the negative force in Avesta and their supreme God, Ahura Mazda is supposed to be the Asura or the negative force in Rig Vedas.  Anyways, there are many similarities.  I wouldn't call either monotheistic in the way that term is generally used.

 

Edit: The similarities end with the Rig Veda, which is considered the earliest among Vedas.

Edited March 17, 2018 by s1va

[Nungali]

9 hours ago, Marblehead said:

Nope.  I have only one brain.  Certain areas of it control certain aspects of my life.  And yes, the areas switch duties occasionally, especially if one area is damaged.

 

But the two hemispheres of our brain is valid.

 

 

" he had two brains inside his own skull -- as we all do, one on the left and one on the right hemisphere. When it comes to seeing the world around us, each of our two brains works independently and each has its own bottleneck for working memory. "

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110620161313.htm

 

But ... okay  lets ignore that and call it one brain in your head  ..... but you still got another one ;  " Not many people realize they have two brains. Yes, you read that right. And your second brain may have more to do with your health that you ever imagined. "

 

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/tale-two-brains-how-your-second-brain-key-understanding-many-chronic-illnesses

 

Scientists Discovered ‘Second Brain’ in the Human Body

https://www.learning-mind.com/scientists-discovered-second-brain-in-the-human-body/

 

 

 

 

[Nungali]

5 hours ago, s1va said:

 

I am surprised with that comment.  What makes you say Zoroastrianism is monotheistic?  The Zend Avesta has so many similarities with the Hindu Rig Veda, including fire ceremonies.  There are the equivalent of Asuras and Devas in their belief.  Some say the roles are reversed.  Like Indra is the negative force in Avesta and their supreme God, Ahura Mazda is supposed to be the Asura or the negative force in Rig Vedas.  Anyways, there are many similarities.  I wouldn't call either monotheistic in the way that term is generally used.

 

Edit: The similarities end with the Rig Veda, which is considered the earliest among Vedas.

 

'Monotheism'  , under close inspection , usually emerges as a type of  henotheism .   Maybe   not Islam ? 

 

In the earliest Vedas the Asuras  are Gods that later 'fell from Grace'  they become ' well-demonised'  by the later Vedas. This was probably a political move after contention or war between two groups.  Indra, far from being the hero, comes off like a violent self possessed warlord on  crack  ( soma ) and testosterone ( Indra  - ' the thousand testicled one'  - Rig Veda 6.45.3) *

 

After the original  establishment of the Asuras ,   both  people ( who would later become Iranian and Indian ) had a similar religion ( Paoiryo-tkaesha - meaning keepers of the original ancient law. ) , hence the similarities you observed. Then there was a division between the two and the 'proto-Indians' developed a more 'pro military' / warlord  society and gradually demonised the Gods of their now 'enemies'. The 'proto Zoroastrian' branch developed their own way, via Zoroastrianism , which, in this view is seen as a reformation movement of an earlier religion ;   Ahura-tkaesha, the laws of the Lord (Ahura). Later , when there was open contention between the two groups the name (of the 'Zoroastrian religion') became  Mazdayasno Zarathushtrish Vidaevo Ahura-Tkaesho, that is, Zarathushtrian Mazda-Worship opposed to the daeva through the laws of the Lord (Ahura)

 

So, both were new developments and  contrast between the 'old Gods' and the emerging militant 'Aryan Indian' development of the Gods is best observed in this passage  -  Rig Veda (4.42.1-6) ;

 

*   "I, Varuna, am the king; first for me were appointed the dignities of asura, the Lord. I let the dripping waters rise up, and through rta I uphold the sky." Indra replies, "Men who ride swiftly, having good horses, call on me when surrounded in battle. I, the bountiful Indra, provoke strife. I whirl up the dust, my strength is overwhelming... . No godlike power can check me - I who am unassailable. When draughts of Soma, when songs have made me frenzied, then both the unbounded regions are filled with fear."

 

Here we see  a 'Daeva' presiding over power and might while the asuras preside over the establishment of a moral and social order. For instance, the deva Indra  is guardian of  victory in battle while the asuras Varuna   and Mitra   are the guardians of the cosmic and moral laws .

 

Its a usual process, during war or conflict to demonise the Gods of 'the other' , even if previously they were respected .

 

 

Here we have 'Durga devi' killing Mahish-asura who is shown in the form of a buffalo demon.

 

 

 

[Starjumper]

3 minutes ago, Nungali said:

 

 

Here we have 'Durga devi' killing Mahish-asura who is shown in the form of a buffalo demon.

 

 

Any particular reason why the demon is biting Durga in the crotch?

[Nungali]

Oh yes ....  I stand corrected  ....   Indra the 999 testicled one       

 

or... if you look closely Indra's  hand is pulling the snout back  bending the neck to expose the throat to cut wit the sword in his other hand ' .

[s1va]

1 hour ago, Nungali said:

 

'Monotheism'  , under close inspection , usually emerges as a type of  henotheism .   Maybe   not Islam ? 

 

In the earliest Vedas the Asuras  are Gods that later 'fell from Grace'  they become ' well-demonised'  by the later Vedas. This was probably a political move after contention or war between two groups.  Indra, far from being the hero, comes off like a violent self possessed warlord on  crack  ( soma ) and testosterone ( Indra  - ' the thousand testicled one'  - Rig Veda 6.45.3) *

 

After the original  establishment of the Asuras ,   both  people ( who would later become Iranian and Indian ) had a similar religion ( Paoiryo-tkaesha - meaning keepers of the original ancient law. ) , hence the similarities you observed. Then there was a division between the two and the 'proto-Indians' developed a more 'pro military' / warlord  society and gradually demonised the Gods of their now 'enemies'. The 'proto Zoroastrian' branch developed their own way, via Zoroastrianism , which, in this view is seen as a reformation movement of an earlier religion ;   Ahura-tkaesha, the laws of the Lord (Ahura). Later , when there was open contention between the two groups the name (of the 'Zoroastrian religion') became  Mazdayasno Zarathushtrish Vidaevo Ahura-Tkaesho, that is, Zarathushtrian Mazda-Worship opposed to the daeva through the laws of the Lord (Ahura)

 

So, both were new developments and  contrast between the 'old Gods' and the emerging militant 'Aryan Indian' development of the Gods is best observed in this passage  -  Rig Veda (4.42.1-6) ;

 

*   "I, Varuna, am the king; first for me were appointed the dignities of asura, the Lord. I let the dripping waters rise up, and through rta I uphold the sky." Indra replies, "Men who ride swiftly, having good horses, call on me when surrounded in battle. I, the bountiful Indra, provoke strife. I whirl up the dust, my strength is overwhelming... . No godlike power can check me - I who am unassailable. When draughts of Soma, when songs have made me frenzied, then both the unbounded regions are filled with fear."

 

Here we see  a 'Daeva' presiding over power and might while the asuras preside over the establishment of a moral and social order. For instance, the deva Indra  is guardian of  victory in battle while the asuras Varuna   and Mitra   are the guardians of the cosmic and moral laws .

 

Its a usual process, during war or conflict to demonise the Gods of 'the other' , even if previously they were respected .

 

 

Here we have 'Durga devi' killing Mahish-asura who is shown in the form of a buffalo demon.

 

 

 

 

I was merely stating some basic facts in relation to Zoroastrianism and monotheism.  You have  taken that on a different tangent, done a lot of speculation and seem to have arrived at several conclusions based upon those speculations.  The word 'proto' is generally used in linguistics (Ex:- Proto  Indo-European).  I don't think any of the Deva/Asura thing has anything to do with politics also.  The British and some others who wrote the modern Indian history twisted many things to further their agendas.  Some of that is slowly getting discarded these days. The entire Aryan migration  (which was initially termed as  'brutal Aryan invasion' and warlords, when I was in school, now it's revised and termed as Aryan migration) theory is debunked as false and a myth with DNA and other types of evidence.

 

Asuras are sometimes described as demi gods with powers.   Besides this, who is Asura and who is Deva, their roles, characters etc. are clear and consistent among Vedas and later Hindu scriptures.  I have not seen their roles change after victory and losses as you describe.

Edited March 17, 2018 by s1va

[Boundlesscostfairy]

Well I'm of the theory that monotgeism is true.. and polytheism is true as well..

 

So God exists as a soloist..

 

AND all the Gods that you can read about and imagine exist as well..

 

All the Gods deserve sone kind of worship..

[Nungali]

1 hour ago, s1va said:

 

I was merely stating some basic facts in relation to Zoroastrianism and monotheism.  You have  taken that on a different tangent, done a lot of speculation and seem to have arrived at several conclusions based upon those speculations.

 

Its a subject full of speculations , even by the 'experts' .  History is someone's '   story ' , after all, or a combination of 'stories' .   But you bring up some good points below .

 

1 hour ago, s1va said:

The word 'proto' is generally used in linguistics (Ex:- Proto  Indo-European).

 

Yes it is used in linguistics in a certain way , but also in other definitions. Other fields such as archaeology will use 'linguistic terms'  according to cross referencing in other fields, instead of , for example , referring constantly  to  ' a movement of painted grey ware pottery people' .  

 

1 hour ago, s1va said:

 

 I don't think any of the Deva/Asura thing has anything to do with politics also.

 

Back then there probably was no concept of 'religion' or 'politics' ... like we have.   Both were often more like the same thing and the words they used often equated with 'Law' .   We might see it as religion and we might refer to their system back then as a religion, but consider the name they used themselves to describe their 'religion'  ;  ' Mazdayasno Zarathushtrish Vidaevo Ahura-Tkaesho, that is, Zarathushtrian Mazda-Worship opposed to the daeva through the laws of the Lord (Ahura) ' .

 

I used the term political in a more modern analytical sense.  But I suppose it is a point a view. I would also describe the machinations of the early "Jewish " people in the 'Promised Land' as a political motivation and movement . 

 

1 hour ago, s1va said:

The British and some others who wrote the modern Indian history twisted many things to further their agendas.  Some of that is slowly getting discarded these days.

 

Not just the British. And not just India .  Post WW1 Germany had a lot to do with 'building the story' of ancient Egypt . And when the British took over Egypt from the French, the French had to hand over much of their looted antiquities to the British .

 

For more on the discarding you speak of, I recommend the works of  John Romer , in his History of Ancient Egypt Vol 1. ( First Framers to the Great Pyramid )  he broaches the subject, explains developments of it and introduces 'evidence based research'  - and its implications. In Vol 2 (  Great Pyramid to the Fall of The Middle Kingdom )  he goes into great depth on the subject, tracking the stages in European cultural development and 'mindset'  and how that 'created' the history of ancient Egypt.

 

But evidence based  research can create even more details in 'the story' , as in the case of the recent findings of the ancient 'Merer's Diary' ..... first hand accounts  ( and as usual, backed up with archaeological finds, genetic research, linguistics, etc for a greater understanding )

 

 

1 hour ago, s1va said:

 

 

The entire Aryan migration  (which was initially termed as  'brutal Aryan invasion' and warlords, when I was in school, now it's revised and termed as Aryan migration) theory is debunked as false and a myth with DNA and other types of evidence.

...

Thats right ... an invasion was assumed .....  in India ...   ( but I wasnt talking about that, I was talking about their migrations generally, they were known to be a migratory people , a horse and cattle  culture )  and that has become less popular, but I have heard good researchers still argue for an invasion , not from old school viewpoints but more from 'full circle' .  Also some assert is was not even a migration. Others point to the evidence and say ' well what else caused this '. Others , very strict based evidence research say they only thing proved is some different pottery was found .   Some have the view it all came out of India - OIT  Out of India Theory .

 

My view is the people have been going back and forwards for a very long time , that explains the genetics. We have some archaeology going back the 'other way' ; evidence of an IVC trading post up in Central Asia way before any 'invasion' dates.  .... heck, we even have genetic 'evidence'  of early Australoids in South America .

 

here is 'a story' they built up from that 'evidence' ;

 

https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2015/07/22/discovery-change-view-human-history/'

 

I could probably put up some papers of 'proof'   genetic and otherwise  to support all of the above views . The deeper one gets into the history of it, the deeper and more technical the arguments .

 

If you want to pursue it deeper beyond general opinions ; http://historum.com/search.php?searchid=5074021

 

 

1 hour ago, s1va said:

 

Asuras are sometimes described as demi gods with powers.   Besides this, who is Asura and who is Deva, their roles, characters etc. are clear and consistent among Vedas and later Hindu scriptures.  I have not seen their roles change after victory and losses as you describe.

 

 

It needs to be read in context with Avestas and related 'scripture' .    The idea  ( an Indo-Iranian relationship between asura / daeva  ) became out of fashion  for some time ... until fairly recently with the work of  Asko Parpola   ;

 

http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190226909.001.0001/acprof-9780190226909

 

[s1va]

5 minutes ago, Nungali said:

 

Its a subject full of speculations , even by the 'experts' .  History is someone's '   story ' , after all, or a combination of 'stories' .   But you bring up some good points below .

 

 

Yes it is used in linguistics in a certain way , but also in other definitions. Other fields such as archaeology will use 'linguistic terms'  according to cross referencing in other fields, instead of , for example , referring constantly  to  ' a movement of painted grey ware pottery people' .  

 

 

Back then there probably was no concept of 'religion' or 'politics' ... like we have.   Both were often more like the same thing and the words they used often equated with 'Law' .   We might see it as religion and we might refer to their system back then as a religion, but consider the name they used themselves to describe their 'religion'  ;  ' Mazdayasno Zarathushtrish Vidaevo Ahura-Tkaesho, that is, Zarathushtrian Mazda-Worship opposed to the daeva through the laws of the Lord (Ahura) ' .

 

I used the term political in a more modern analytical sense.  But I suppose it is a point a view. I would also describe the machinations of the early "Jewish " people in the 'Promised Land' as a political motivation and movement . 

 

 

Not just the British. And not just India .  Post WW1 Germany had a lot to do with 'building the story' of ancient Egypt . And when the British took over Egypt from the French, the French had to hand over much of their looted antiquities to the British .

 

For more on the discarding you speak of, I recommend the works of  John Romer , in his History of Ancient Egypt Vol 1. ( First Framers to the Great Pyramid )  he broaches the subject, explains developments of it and introduces 'evidence based research'  - and its implications. In Vol 2 (  Great Pyramid to the Fall of The Middle Kingdom )  he goes into great depth on the subject, tracking the stages in European cultural development and 'mindset'  and how that 'created' the history of ancient Egypt.

 

But evidence based  research can create even more details in 'the story' , as in the case of the recent findings of the ancient 'Merer's Diary' ..... first hand accounts  ( and as usual, backed up with archaeological finds, genetic research, linguistics, etc for a greater understanding )

 

 

...

Thats right ... an invasion was assumed .....  in India ...   ( but I wasnt talking about that, I was talking about their migrations generally, they were known to be a migratory people , a horse and cattle  culture )  and that has become less popular, but I have heard good researchers still argue for an invasion , not from old school viewpoints but more from 'full circle' .  Also some assert is was not even a migration. Others point to the evidence and say ' well what else caused this '. Others , very strict based evidence research say they only thing proved is some different pottery was found .   Some have the view it all came out of India - OIT  Out of India Theory .

 

My view is the people have been going back and forwards for a very long time , that explains the genetics. We have some archaeology going back the 'other way' ; evidence of an IVC trading post up in Central Asia way before any 'invasion' dates.  .... heck, we even have genetic 'evidence'  of early Australoids in South America .

 

here is 'a story' they built up from that 'evidence' ;

 

https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2015/07/22/discovery-change-view-human-history/'

 

I could probably put up some papers of 'proof'   genetic and otherwise  to support all of the above views . The deeper one gets into the history of it, the deeper and more technical the arguments .

 

If you want to pursue it deeper beyond general opinions ; http://historum.com/search.php?searchid=5074021

 

 

 

 

It needs to be read in context with Avestas and related 'scripture' .    The idea  ( an Indo-Iranian relationship between asura / daeva  ) became out of fashion  for some time ... until fairly recently with the work of  Asko Parpola   ;

 

http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190226909.001.0001/acprof-9780190226909

 

 

Thanks for the detailed reply.  Perhaps I misunderstood some of what you said.  I still stand by the consistent definition and use of the terms within the Vedic context.  You certainly seem to be  knowledgeable on the topic.  I personally don't have any vested interest in any of the positions regarding  linguistic or other originations.   But, I do believe there are vested interests that engage in distorting facts to this day.  I used to be passionate on some of these discussions including linguistics, ancient Sanskrit etc.  Not anymore!  Just wanted to point out the distortions  in written history and speculations on what is accepted as history in this area.  Sorry, I have no interest to pursue any of this deeper. but your post is very informative.

[Nungali]

2 minutes ago, s1va said:

 

Thanks for the detailed reply.  Perhaps I misunderstood some of what you said.  I still stand by the consistent definition and use of the terms within the Vedic context.  You certainly seem to be  knowledgeable on the topic.  I personally don't have any vested interest in any of the positions regarding  linguistic or other originations.   But, I do believe there are vested interests that engage in distorting facts to this day.  I used to be passionate on some of these discussions including linguistics, ancient Sanskrit etc.  Not anymore!  Just wanted to point out the distortions  in written history and speculations on what is accepted as history in this area.  Sorry, I have no interest to pursue any of this deeper. but your post is very informative.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Marblehead]

10 hours ago, s1va said:

 

I am surprised with that comment.  What makes you say Zoroastrianism is monotheistic?  The Zend Avesta has so many similarities with the Hindu Rig Veda, including fire ceremonies.  There are the equivalent of Asuras and Devas in their belief.  Some say the roles are reversed.  Like Indra is the negative force in Avesta and their supreme God, Ahura Mazda is supposed to be the Asura or the negative force in Rig Vedas.  Anyways, there are many similarities.  I wouldn't call either monotheistic in the way that term is generally used.

 

Edit: The similarities end with the Rig Veda, which is considered the earliest among Vedas.

I won't deny what you have said but I will suggest that this is true only after Zarathustra died and the concept of a devil was introduced into the religion.  There are still some Zoroastrians who follow the original teachings which has no devil.  Same with the Jews, there are some who follow the teaching that there is only a God, no devil.

 

 

[Marblehead]

4 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

" he had two brains inside his own skull -- as we all do, one on the left and one on the right hemisphere. When it comes to seeing the world around us, each of our two brains works independently and each has its own bottleneck for working memory. "

 

 

Okay.  You have two brains.  I have one brain composed of two hemispheres.  

[Marblehead]

45 minutes ago, Boundlesscostfairy said:

Well I'm of the theory that monotgeism is true.. and polytheism is true as well..

 

So God exists as a soloist..

 

AND all the Gods that you can read about and imagine exist as well..

 

All the Gods deserve sone kind of worship..

I realize that I am being a little outside the box what with being a Materialist and an Atheist.

 

But back in the day when I was looking for a religion to call my self Zoroastrianism was the closest I could get to an acceptable religion I could accept because of the monotheistic origins of that religion.  Regretfully there were other aspects of the religion I couldn't accept so I had to put it aside.

 

[Marblehead]

BTW  My new car is a Mazda.  Is that irony or what?

 

[Boundlesscostfairy]

Isn't Mazda another word for Messiah.. or prophet?

[de_paradise]

On 3/11/2018 at 6:23 AM, SHINTO said:

Isaiah 45:7 King James Version (KJV)

⁷ I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

 

 

There are two different possible conceptions of God in this verse. One is  panentheist (not pantheist) where God is everything and creates everything including what we call "evil" which is not evil if God created it. This is a Kabbalist or higher understanding, a kind of enlightened understanding similar to Buddist or Taoist, which is why the Kabbalists hid this kind of teaching. Most people are not ready to step out of ethical monotheism  because many people would not act in a virtuous or healthy way if they understood that pursuing evil was as much of God as pursuing good.  They would simply just follow their pleasures and ego inclinations or worse. 

 

Ethical monotheism sets out what is right and wrong. This is orthodox Judaism, who would interpret the verse as something like God created evil so that you may go towards the good. Link to article

Further in Isaiah 45,  God says further qualifications similar to this, 

25Through the Lord shall all the seed of Israel find righteousness and boast.

 

You can study this concept and others in a book called, The Secret Life of God

 

[Marblehead]

8 hours ago, Boundlesscostfairy said:

Isn't Mazda another word for Messiah.. or prophet?

Spoiler

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahura_Mazda

So I suppose it would be valid for me to say that wisdom is the only God one should follow.

 

[Nungali]

On 18/03/2018 at 1:06 PM, Marblehead said:

BTW  My new car is a Mazda.  Is that irony or what?

 

 

Its your Fraveshi calling to you     

 

If it is a new car, better do what my Persian friend did; place an egg under each wheel then drive forward slowly .

[Nungali]

So I suppose it would be valid for me to say that wisdom is the only God one should follow.

 

 

" Thou shalt have no other car before me  "

 

 

Spoiler

 

Edited March 19, 2018 by Nungali

[Marblehead]

5 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

Its your Fraveshi calling to you     

 

If it is a new car, better do what my Persian friend did; place an egg under each wheel then drive forward slowly .

Strange.  No, I wouldn't want to do the clean-up after  did something like that.

 

[Marblehead]

4 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

" Thou shalt have no other car before me  "

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Yeah, some car owners are as bad as some Harley Davidson owners.

 

Little wonder that guy was pissed off - his steering wheel was on the wrong side.

 

[Nungali]

10 hours ago, Marblehead said:

Strange.  No, I wouldn't want to do the clean-up after  did something like that.

 

 

Well, it doesnt have to be in your driveway 

[Marblehead]

48 minutes ago, Nungali said:

 

Well, it doesnt have to be in your driveway 

But I'm not that kind of guy.

 

[Maddie]

I wonder why there was a general shift from polytheism to monotheism

[Sketch]

It's an example of the fragmentation of spirit into mere intellect, the trend that leads to (and includes) atheism. It makes it difficult to conceptualize things; people have to keep recreating the language and models for things from the point of view of spiritual experiences. A gift of civilization. 

Edited December 28, 2020 by Sketch