^
2/2
If he is referring to the great savant kR^iShNa dwaipAyana, then that means jaruthaShTra was contemporary of mahAbhArata evenets? Interesting!
Perhaps there were several Zarathushtras? Or maybe it is no more than another instance of the west dating all non-christian events very late, or of them trying to fit their AMT/AITs in the required timeframe. Who knows.
To be fair, different Zarathushtrian sites dated their founder variously with several thousand years of separation. The most recent date for him is in those Zarathustrian sites that repeat western assertions. But one of the earliest dates for him was some thousands of years BCE - IIRC it was much earlier than 3000 BCE (I vaguely remember a 6000 or 8000 BCE?).
Yes, here's something pertinent from <b>page 20-21 of the book "Zoroastrianism. An Introduction to an/the (?) ancient faith" by Peter Clark"</b> at Google books
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Travelling west, we find that a number of Greek writers have placed the prophet at the almost inconceivably early time of before 6000 BCE, writers such as Diogenes who reports earlier attempts to place Zarathushtra at, variously 6480 BCE (citing Xanthus of Lydia), 6200 BCE (from Hermodorus). Eudoxus suggests some six thousand years before Plato, which would put him roughly at 6300 BCE. Plutarch, who dates Zarathushtra "five thousand years before the Trojan War" (i.e. at 6200 BCE), gives a recongizable if inaccurate account of the twin spirits whom he calls "gods":
[...]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The ancient Greeks could have had this account from their contemporaneous Mazdeans themselves.
And if the wackypedia is to be consulted, the section now called "Zoroaster in History" that deals with the methods of dating Zarathustra:
nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Zarathushtra
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Â Â *Â Greek: Based on textual evidence reported in ancient Greece by Plutarch, Plato, Diogenes Laertius, and others.
    <b>These dates suggest 6,500 BCE to 6,000 BCE and are the dates which members of the Parsi Zoroastrians subscribe.</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->IE Studies finds that Hindus aren't the only ones "entirely wrong" when it comes to the antiquity of their Vedas and Jainas' Tirtankaras: the Zarathushtrians are "all wrong" too (and let's not forget the Chinese). After all, what do we know? Our alien masters - who, after the literate Hellenistic GrecoRoman civilisation was murdered, were first more than 99% illiterate (courtesy of christoism) and then 90-95% illiterate and who, by the start of the 19th century, had scrambled to a very respectable 90% illiteracy - may kindly condescend to tell us.
there are many who are called vyAsa-s.
Yes. And there are many who could later have been named Veda Vyasa (not just Vyasa) by eager parents.
Husky: I tend to use Hindu (or Sanatana) Dharma for my religion.
Bodhi: "I", the individual Indic, using traditions of my forefathers, define what is my religion, and refer to it as Hindu Dharma, which may be different from someone else defining his own religion and referring by the same name. That may be a more precise "Hindu Dharma".
I did not actually provide a definition of Hindu Dharma anywhere in my post. My line "I tend to use Hindu (or Sanatana) Dharma for my religion" merely meant to indicate what I'd say if anyone asks me what the name of my religion was.
"Jaina" is indeed a particular religion and philosophy,
Yes? And then what do you say is my particular religion's name? Since we cannot now use "Hindu" all of a sudden. If the Digambaras and Shwetambaras are both called Jainas, then what is the name of the overall group of Dharmics who have since ancient times worshipped our Gods (Shaivas, Shaktas, Vaishnavas, Surya-bhaktas, Mahendra-bhaktas, bhaktas of the Vedic Gods, etcetera)? That is, what's the name of the branch encompassing all those streams where any of my Gods are central, because I belong to *that* super-group. There deserves to be a name for that intermediate branch, just like Digambaras belong to the intermediate Jaina branch (before we are all together combined). Until just now, this branch was called "Hindus" by all other Dharmics, by the outside world, certainly by Indian christomedia, all old encyclopaedias and by its own adherents. Therefore until another satisfactory name comes along, we may have to live with the currently assigned/accepted definition for 'Hindu'.
I know it is rather common for different Natural Traditions not to actually have any name for themselves - as is also the case with what the outside world calls China's "Taoists" (because theirs *is* the ancient religion of their region and they needed no name until Buddhism came along; Confucianism was more a social philosophy that in general just sat on top of Taoism). It was rather unfortunate that they were named after the Tao alone, as this term only reveals one aspect of their religion, and that too one not universally adhered to among the Taoist Chinese populace - a disadvantage not dissimilar from ours: people now find it easy to redefine Hindu Dharma as suddenly consisting of several religions instead ("Vedic Religion" and "Hinduism" and whatever else they fancy will make them score cheap sheep).
But having a name is important. For one thing, without it, the terrorists do what they have done to every other unnamed but ancient religious body: "you don't exist, you have no religion, you are a blank waiting to be saved, you have no memory, we plant our flag on you in the name of our gawd" and then the zombie proceeds to stab you with its cross-crescent=instrument of torture.
It is not as if we don't know ourselves, or who we are. We have existed since ancient times: in the essential points of Hindu Dharma (like affinity to our Gods), we are the same as our ancestors were.
2/2
If he is referring to the great savant kR^iShNa dwaipAyana, then that means jaruthaShTra was contemporary of mahAbhArata evenets? Interesting!
Perhaps there were several Zarathushtras? Or maybe it is no more than another instance of the west dating all non-christian events very late, or of them trying to fit their AMT/AITs in the required timeframe. Who knows.
To be fair, different Zarathushtrian sites dated their founder variously with several thousand years of separation. The most recent date for him is in those Zarathustrian sites that repeat western assertions. But one of the earliest dates for him was some thousands of years BCE - IIRC it was much earlier than 3000 BCE (I vaguely remember a 6000 or 8000 BCE?).
Yes, here's something pertinent from <b>page 20-21 of the book "Zoroastrianism. An Introduction to an/the (?) ancient faith" by Peter Clark"</b> at Google books
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Travelling west, we find that a number of Greek writers have placed the prophet at the almost inconceivably early time of before 6000 BCE, writers such as Diogenes who reports earlier attempts to place Zarathushtra at, variously 6480 BCE (citing Xanthus of Lydia), 6200 BCE (from Hermodorus). Eudoxus suggests some six thousand years before Plato, which would put him roughly at 6300 BCE. Plutarch, who dates Zarathushtra "five thousand years before the Trojan War" (i.e. at 6200 BCE), gives a recongizable if inaccurate account of the twin spirits whom he calls "gods":
[...]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The ancient Greeks could have had this account from their contemporaneous Mazdeans themselves.
And if the wackypedia is to be consulted, the section now called "Zoroaster in History" that deals with the methods of dating Zarathustra:
nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Zarathushtra
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Â Â *Â Greek: Based on textual evidence reported in ancient Greece by Plutarch, Plato, Diogenes Laertius, and others.
    <b>These dates suggest 6,500 BCE to 6,000 BCE and are the dates which members of the Parsi Zoroastrians subscribe.</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->IE Studies finds that Hindus aren't the only ones "entirely wrong" when it comes to the antiquity of their Vedas and Jainas' Tirtankaras: the Zarathushtrians are "all wrong" too (and let's not forget the Chinese). After all, what do we know? Our alien masters - who, after the literate Hellenistic GrecoRoman civilisation was murdered, were first more than 99% illiterate (courtesy of christoism) and then 90-95% illiterate and who, by the start of the 19th century, had scrambled to a very respectable 90% illiteracy - may kindly condescend to tell us.
there are many who are called vyAsa-s.
Yes. And there are many who could later have been named Veda Vyasa (not just Vyasa) by eager parents.
Husky: I tend to use Hindu (or Sanatana) Dharma for my religion.
Bodhi: "I", the individual Indic, using traditions of my forefathers, define what is my religion, and refer to it as Hindu Dharma, which may be different from someone else defining his own religion and referring by the same name. That may be a more precise "Hindu Dharma".
I did not actually provide a definition of Hindu Dharma anywhere in my post. My line "I tend to use Hindu (or Sanatana) Dharma for my religion" merely meant to indicate what I'd say if anyone asks me what the name of my religion was.
"Jaina" is indeed a particular religion and philosophy,
Yes? And then what do you say is my particular religion's name? Since we cannot now use "Hindu" all of a sudden. If the Digambaras and Shwetambaras are both called Jainas, then what is the name of the overall group of Dharmics who have since ancient times worshipped our Gods (Shaivas, Shaktas, Vaishnavas, Surya-bhaktas, Mahendra-bhaktas, bhaktas of the Vedic Gods, etcetera)? That is, what's the name of the branch encompassing all those streams where any of my Gods are central, because I belong to *that* super-group. There deserves to be a name for that intermediate branch, just like Digambaras belong to the intermediate Jaina branch (before we are all together combined). Until just now, this branch was called "Hindus" by all other Dharmics, by the outside world, certainly by Indian christomedia, all old encyclopaedias and by its own adherents. Therefore until another satisfactory name comes along, we may have to live with the currently assigned/accepted definition for 'Hindu'.
I know it is rather common for different Natural Traditions not to actually have any name for themselves - as is also the case with what the outside world calls China's "Taoists" (because theirs *is* the ancient religion of their region and they needed no name until Buddhism came along; Confucianism was more a social philosophy that in general just sat on top of Taoism). It was rather unfortunate that they were named after the Tao alone, as this term only reveals one aspect of their religion, and that too one not universally adhered to among the Taoist Chinese populace - a disadvantage not dissimilar from ours: people now find it easy to redefine Hindu Dharma as suddenly consisting of several religions instead ("Vedic Religion" and "Hinduism" and whatever else they fancy will make them score cheap sheep).
But having a name is important. For one thing, without it, the terrorists do what they have done to every other unnamed but ancient religious body: "you don't exist, you have no religion, you are a blank waiting to be saved, you have no memory, we plant our flag on you in the name of our gawd" and then the zombie proceeds to stab you with its cross-crescent=instrument of torture.
It is not as if we don't know ourselves, or who we are. We have existed since ancient times: in the essential points of Hindu Dharma (like affinity to our Gods), we are the same as our ancestors were.
Death to traitors.