>In Zurvanism, Zurvan was perceived as the god of infinite time and space and also known as "one" or "alone." Zurvan was portrayed as a transcendental and neutral god without passion; one for whom there was no distinction between good and evil. The name Zurvan is a normalized rendition of the word, which in Middle Persian appears as either Zurvān, Zruvān or Zarvān. The Middle Persian name derives from Avestan (Avestan: 𐬰𐬭𐬎𐬎𐬁𐬥, romanized: zruuān, lit.'time', a grammatically neuter noun). >Zurvanism is also known as "Zurvanite Zoroastrianism", and may be contrasted with Mazdaism. I can't really speak for the exact era when the real life Buddha lived, although I'm skeptical of a lot of pop culture's assumptions about him (like that he was Asian or Indian). Saka-muni was probably a Saka, or Scythian, and Buda was a name of one of their tribes.In any case, there's still a question of who he was reacting to. While it's often assumed his message is in response to Hinduism, it makes more sense to me that it was in response to Mazdaism, which is the more specific term for what people call Zoroastrianism today. Zurvanism was an earlier creed that might have a better name if we knew what came before it (I'm thinking Druidism?), and Mazdakite Zoroastrianism was a revision on that, and Buddha was a revision on THAT trying to return everything back to Zurvanism.Thoughts?
Interesting quote I just found:> Manichaeism is the worship of Zurvan/The father of Greatness. Zurvanism started as a Zoroastrian heresy, they believed that there was a higher God above Ahura Mazda who was the father of both Ahura Mazda and Ahriman and both the king of light and darkness. This was seen as heretical as this both implied that Ormazd and Ahriman were brothers. Later Zurvanism was adopted by the Sassanid court though.> In Manichaenism Zurvan is called the father of greatness and is only the king of light. The problem of evil is solved with the Father of Greatness being limited by his own good nature, thus he can not attack and only defend against the kingdom of darkness. It also views Zarathustra, Gautama Buddha, and Christ "the Splendor" as prophets with Mani being the last.> My point is that it obviously has no relation to the ancient Canaanite religion.> The title Baʿal, however, was a synonym in some contexts of the Hebrew adon ("Lord") and Adonai ("My Lord") still used as aliases of the Lord of Israel Yahweh who is considered to be Satan in Manichaenism. Sorry for debunking you OP.Not sure I agree with the timeline, but I like the association of concepts in no particular order.
>>39106367Also, I think Mithra was supposed to be a version or a child of Zurvan. It was an esoteric teaching relative maybe a more banal or exoteric version, Zurvan.So while Zurvan isn't mentioned a lot in history, it's a pretty big deal. This is the real religion of Ararat, Bactria, Arya, and the whole lot of really really ancient times before the fracturing.
I have nothing to add, but I think Zurvanism is pretty cool, and you are probably on to something.
That statue can be used as a dildo.
>>39106569Gods that are transparently symbols for ideas are pretty based in my opinion. A concept that stretches infinite space and time is extra based because it represents the totality of truth, the infinite and ineffable nature of reality, and that humbles you but also focuses you, not on the mundane worship of symbols but on that which is acutely real. You don't have to force through any overused symbols because reality has more than enough of that if you just put in a tiny bit of work.At the same time, you don't want to _worship_ him, otherwise you get into Saturn worship. It's not bad to appreciate the chap, but actual worship will take away a little bit of your humanity, unless you're very careful about the parameters of what "worship" means. Christianity seems to manage this, as it was conceived by Plato and Philo.Also, I wonder if there's maybe an etymology we can tie him to. Zurvan/Zarvan/Zruvan. It just means "god of time". So, Cronos, I guess.
>>39106476>Ararat>Arya>really really ancient times>>39106638>CronosDoes anyone remember that "CIA Anon" who spoke in riddles and socratic dialogue about "people who emerged from underground" after the last cataclysm. He said there were "people of Cronos" and "people of Zeus".I wonder if OP is a description of what that "Cronos teaching" originally was and if it was really that old and if it really emerged from the hills, like he said.
Another quote:> it literally is tho but it wasnt only jews that saw Saturn as God.> Lets leave EL and Elohim alone for a second and lets look at the Zoroastrian myth in which Zurvan was said to have provided, or emitted, the "original unformed matter."> This ancient deity was regarded as the "first principle," the "original seed," and "the father of the> Cosmos."> And yet, once again, Zurvan, also known as Zruan, is referred to as Saturn in Armenian texts.> To clinch the matter, the same Zurvan was also identified as Kronos, the Greek god and planet Saturn.>> In ancient Chinese sources, chaos is equated with the being known as "Huang-Ti", the Yellow Emperor of dim antiquity.> In different versions of the myth, this Yellow Emperor was responsible for having "brought order to the elemental chaos at the beginning of creation."> Huang-Ti, however, also originated as a cognomen of the Saturnian planetary god.> That Huang-Ti was regarded as the Creator is also well known, and that is tantamount to proclaiming that Creation was the work of the Saturnian planetary deity!
>>39106715I wonder if Shem = Samyaza = Saturn = Cronos, Japeth = Jupiter = Zeus. I'm not sure who "Ham" would be, but I don't read it to be a description of the entire world's people, nor is it meant to directly insult anyone not included; it's a story about a people from a place. Noah is Enki or Enoch. Ararat or the Zagros mountains is the place they disseminated from. The names refer to the character of the lives that they took on and the essential metaphysical view that they had. If I'm right, then that means Shemites/Semites include all of those Greeks and Romans too, who placed Saturn atop their pantheon.
>>39106367> Was Buddha just a prophet of ZurvanismYes, all religions are different vehicles driving to the same place
>>39106715>remember that "CIA Anon"I do not, but what you say he described seems likely to me. It could be another way of saying Lucifer and Ahriman.
>>39106367>I'm skepticalBut not skeptical about the "X religion is secretly Y religion" meme which is spammed here every day.There is a connection between the ancient pre-Buddhism Bon religion of Tibet and Iranian religion.
>>39106971Do you think Bon is the seed? I've read a bit about them, and their claim I think is that they've basically been around forever and never moved, which is hard to square with a few things, particularly the fact that the religion we're referring to was spread all over the world at many points in time, and while I could accept the notion of things coming from the east, there's zero account of this in the west. That is, if I'm understanding the whole story correctly. I'm surely not, but I don't know how Bon fits in.
>>39106917Shem was Melchizedek, Zedek means Jupiter, Melchi means my king is. Shem’s god was Jupiter/Zeus. Wouldn’t make sense for him to be ruled by his brother.
>>39107016Ah, so I probably have it backwards then. Jah-peth, Jah-weh.
>>39107016You seem like you know things. What about some other important figures in the Shem line... David is Tammuz, the local Adonis? Moses is an Egyptian pharaoh? How do these things meaningfully add to the story, historically speaking? I imagine that maybe the era of David was related to the group seeking independence in the aftermath of the Greek Dark Ages, and Moses is somehow related to the Hyksos, but I never really figured out the timing for who was kicked out when (if it's 1600 BC, then that's before the Hyksos dynasty falls, so would it be the precursors to the Hyksos who are represented by Moses?
>>39106917where do you get these ideas? how did you come up with this syncretism? it's so strange to me. Enoch and Noah are literally from the same book, I'm my own grandpa...
No. It was apparently not a response but a reformation if you look at the texts the Buddha wanted to return to the ancient ways of the first shramanas(?) or like the priest class of the first generations.
>>39107016>Shem was Melchizedekwhere did you derive this information?
>>39106367no
>>39108928>David is TammuzLike where does this even come from? Their stories don't even interrelate, they're both shepherds but that's it. David is a legendary king, Tammuz is deep myth and literally thousands of years older.>Dumuzid or Dumuzi or Tammuz (Sumerian: 𒌉𒍣, romanized: Dumuzid; Akkadian: Duʾūzu, Dûzu; Hebrew: תַּמּוּז, romanized: Tammūz), known to the Sumerians as Dumuzid the Shepherd (Sumerian: 𒌉𒍣𒉺𒇻, romanized: Dumuzid sipad) and to the Canaanites as Adon (Phoenician: 𐤀𐤃𐤍; Proto-Hebrew: 𐤀𐤃𐤍), is an ancient Mesopotamian and Levantine deity associated with agriculture and shepherds, who was also the first and primary consort of the goddess Inanna (later known as Ishtar). In Sumerian mythology, Dumuzid's sister was Geshtinanna, the goddess of agriculture, fertility, and dream interpretation. In the Sumerian King List, Dumuzid is listed as an antediluvian king of the city of Bad-tibira and also an early king of the city of Uruk.meanwhile:>According to Jewish works such as the Seder Olam Rabbah, Seder Olam Zutta, and Sefer ha-Qabbalah (all written over a thousand years later), David ascended the throne as the king of Judah in 885 BCE. The Tel Dan stele, an Aramaic-inscribed stone erected by a king of Aram-Damascus in the late 9th/early 8th centuries BCE to commemorate a victory over two enemy kings, contains the phrase bytdwd (𐤁𐤉𐤕𐤃𐤅𐤃), which is translated as "House of David" by most scholars. The Mesha stele, erected by King Mesha of Moab in the 9th century BCE, may also refer to the "House of David", although this is disputed. Apart from this, all that is known of David comes from biblical literature, the historicity of which has been extensively challenged, and there is little detail about David that is concrete and undisputed.
>>39109111Shakyamuni Buddha>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakya
>>39109166What is a "house of David" if not a temple of David? And who is the temple for, if not the Adonis, the local god of the region that is also verified by other historical knowledge? And what is the name David but a variation of Dumuzid (without vowels)?
>>39109184>The name of the Shakyas was also derived from the name of the śaka or sāka tree, which Bryan Levman has identified with either the teak or sāla tree, which is ultimately related to word śākhā (शाखा), meaning 'branch,’ and was connected to the Shakyas' practice of worshipping the śaka or sāka tree. Wasn't Jesus' "Nazarene" title simply a reference to him being a "branch"? More evidence of druidry.
>>39109296What is a house of Saxenburg-Gotha if not a t-- Oh, wait.Also, "m" and "z" aren't vowels.
>>39106367The problem with Gautama is quite simple (and I believe he existed), his followers only began writing about him and his teachings a few centuries after his death.Most we know about him are allegories and oral traditions passed down from generation to generation.Now, we could claim the preservation of said traditions was successful and all we know about this man is true (which is impossible because each school of Buddhism has their own historical Buddha traditions) or we need to accept his life as it is told in the earliest text compilation we know, The Dhammapada. Not even Krishna or Jesus had their "biographies" saved from corruption, therefore, we know Gautama won't be different.After his death many Hindu branches began persecuting Buddhists, we know the relationship between both religions was not good. This explains why Buddha seems to one time accept Brahman, in earlier teaching, and other times seems to despise it or reject it all together; it's obvious his later followers edited the master's teaching in order to turn the Hindu religion into a villain.Was he born in Lumbini, Nepal, I think we can all agree on that. However, as OP says, there's a strange similarity between Zoroastrianism and early Buddha's teachings.We need to remember all great masters in history, like Jesus and Gautama, were probably initiated somewhere. Jesus was initiated in Egypt and later on by the Essene. All initiatory schools stem from a single source, lost in history, that's why different religions have equal ideologies.
>>39109737House of Saxe-Coburg isn't written about in myth.
>>39106367Zoroastrianism is the world's oldest religion
>>39109798One of the striking commonalities between the origins of Jesus and Buddha is that their way of life wasn't practiced in a city, even though it came to be preached in a city and understood quite differently as a result.It's not enough to be ascetic to live like Buddha. He lived in an ascetic community, and from the greater knowledge we have of Jesus' community (the Essenes), we know this was about more than pleasure and pain. It was a view that informed their entire social structure.To your point about these initiatory schools — I think these were always communes. It wasn't coincidence that the Essenes at Carmel were a commune. I don't know how the temple at Ephesus or the royal priesthood of the Djedhi in Egypt worked, but my guess is that they built a city around what was once a commune. I do know that the temple handled state finances and distributed grain production, so there's that as evidence of what it once way.I think maybe the gods were initially set up as symbols of this social structure that the temple wanted to create. When the symbols were understood, there was no degeneration of consciousness. When the symbols were misunderstood, people degenerated into worshipping (or hating) the symbol and not caring about their fellow people.I think maybe Jesus and Buddha tried to get people back on the track of living in accordance with the laws that the ancient proto-communes did.
>>39109936David's dynasty is written about in history books that happen to be part of the Christian Bible. That doesn't make the mythical. The books don't even read like myth. They read like history with some theological commentary tacked on top to explain successes and failures of the official policy.
>>39109961Have you heard about how at Plato's funeral, a bunch of people agreed that Zarathustra had lived around 6000 years before?I'm skeptical that any of these people lived when Wikipedia says they did, and I think one of the big points of confusion is over how the ancients saw the concept of life. If you believe in reincarnation and you count lifespan according to one's ability to remember past lives, then a life "starts" with the first human to start a reincarnation sequence. So, some guy in 500 BC could be part of a long bloodline that claims to remember itself for 6000 years, and thus Zarathustra "lived" in 6500 BC as well as 500 BC.The other big problem is the vague difference between gods and humans. When people claim to be incarnations of a god, then the name of that god can be said to "live" whenever _any_ of the people who claimed them were said to have lived. So again, if Gautama Buddha is the 9th incarnation of Vishnu, then we could say Vishnu "lived" at that time, just like he lived 8 other times before, and when we try to reference "when Vishnu lived", we're left with this massive range of dates.
>>39110014Myth can have fact mixed into it. The point is that one ought not take the Bible literally.
>>39109124not everyone believes it, but its a common enough belief in Judaism and Mormonism to be worth mentioning
>>39106367>Saka-muni was probably a Saka, or Scythian, and Buda was a name of one of their tribes.He was a Saka prince from northern India who lived around 2,600 years ago. As such, he would've looked and talked like any other upper-class Indo-Scythian from that time period. Do with this information what you will.
>>39106367
>>39110881
>>39110881That sounds like confirmation bias. I can't speak to whatever his family did, but it was written in 2016 and the Russian/Ukraine stuff started in 2014. Nothing else is verifiable at this point. "Middle East falls apart" — like ya, no shit. A fool could have predicted that.
>>39110530Are you trying to imply something with skin color or dress?The Scythians are such a broad group, ranging from the eventual Germans (I think the Alans coming from the east) to the Yuehzi in the far east. I don't really know what the name denotes because the only common use of the word is in the Greek context, even though some experts in the field seem to knowingly use it as a broad term.
>>39106971All religions are connected though, in the Alawite faith we like to combine Christianity, Islam, Zoroastrianism, and Scientology into one teaching of truth.
>>39111297I agree they are 'connected', in the sense that they evolved against each other, but I disagree with the notion that they are all pointing towards "one truth". There is no one truth. That is a myopic view. I mean, you could create a meta religion that attempts to encompass all of these, but that's not how religion is practiced. You could also acknowledge on some level that religions evolve for various reasons, then attempt to synthesize them all in your own philosophy, which I would respect particularly if you knew what you were doing. I think a lot of this was going on circa Plato and Jesus.
>>39112137It’s either truth or not truth, there is only one truth
>>39112148I'm not just saying it's all relative. I do believe in some universal truths.My point is that a system of symbols, which is largely what an esoteric system is, is more of a looking glass than a factbook. Looking glasses mirror your own expectations. You can project what you want into it, even universal truths.And you might say "well, you wouldn't be able to project truth into it if the truth weren't true", but I don't think that's true. There are a lot of untrue things you can come to by conclusion if you simply manipulate symbols. This is the same sort of error that Aristotle made, and many have followed in his footsteps.
>>39106367Buddhism is a response to suffering.The idea of a being above "God" who "does nothing" has already been discussed in the Suttas. Nirvana is beyond that.
>>39110881>>39110885This is fear porn. Anyone who believes in it has no faith in the goodness of existence.
>>39113907>Buddhism is a response to suffering.It's a lot more than that.>The idea of a being above "God" who "does nothing" has already been discussed in the Suttas.>Nirvana is beyond that.Reincarnation was a tool of the Brahmins to control the rest of the population. "Be good or you'll be a pidgeon in your next life" is a way to make the lower class content and pathetic slaves.Buddhism had no option but to respond to this, because reincarnation was widely believed in. It substitutes its own version of reincarnation, but only to reject the prior version.
