Post 65 (Romani):
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->They are described as vegetarians,non-violent,whit boll heads(they shave their heads of course),whit no womens.The action of Iliad,the trojan war was in 1200BC,so we find monks similar whit buddhism monks but 600 years before the birth of Buddha.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I don't understand why you assume that only Buddhists were non-violent vegetarians with bald heads and no women.
For instance, much of these descriptions fits certain classes of Jain monks. And more importantly, all brahmana communities then were vegetarian (that they had been non-vegetarian is a recent invention, thanks to the communists for that) and as a general rule did not ever practise warfare. Many brahmana communities tended to shave most of their heads but had a tiny pigtail at the back and a few groups amongst them did not lead a married life. Even as it is, in the brahmachari and sannyasin stage common to all brahmana communities (the latter also available to all Varnas as far as I am aware) they would not get married either.
You forget or might be unaware of the fact that it was wholly brahmanas from whom came the initial Buddhists. This is why early Buddhism was entirely filled with the practises of brahmanas: including the vegetarian diet (some Chinese Buddhists do not feel they need to become vegetarian as they believe Buddha died of eating pork - it was a Hindu brahmana custom to be vegetarian), yoga (according to tradition, Buddha attempted and abandoned yoga as impractical), dress, hair 'style'.
In short, there were definitely brahmanas in 1200bce and before.
By the way, Buddhism's date might also have been affected by AIT. This thread, Post 3 (final paragraphs) discusses this a little.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Zarathustra was seen as a profet ,while Zalmoxes was profet,priest,king,god or even the suprem god,<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->You do not distinguish between the main religion of Persia (Zoroastrianism) and some smaller religions based on it like Persian Mithraism. These were related, by minor traditions on the side. In the Mithraism of Persia, Zoroaster was regarded both profet/priest and an incarnation of the supreme God's spirit. That is why his frozen seed harboured his Divine, indestructible Spirit, to be given a new body: that of Mithra, the Saoshyant recognised as such by the Persian Mithraists. From what I've read, according to them, Zoroaster himself had fulfilled his prediction: which was that his own spirit itself would be reborn as the Saoshyant, seen as an incarnation of the great God.
Though Mithra as the Saoshyant and as the re-emergent divine might not have been recognised as such by the mainstream Persians (Zoroastrians), it was nevertheless what the Mithraist minority among the Persians believed.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->in Parsi religion.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->parsi practice <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->You're use of Parsi is sometimes confusing. Parsi is the language (Arabized to Farsi since Arabic doesn't have a 'p') - I make this mistake too at times. However you refer to Parsees and Zoroastrians as if they were the same. However, the former is a proper subset of the latter.
Parsee is a Zoroastrian Indian who escaped from Persia seeking refuge in India from the Islamic Jihad in circa 1400ce. There are other Iranian Zoroastrians who came to settle in India many centuries later - they have also always been Zoroastrians, but are not called Parsee (because they fled an Iran which was no longer called Persia after Islam had taken over).
There are non-Parsee Zoroastrians: besides the more recent Iranian Zoroastrian refugees in India, the people of ancient Persia were all Zoroastrians (Persians). The Parthians seem to have been of this religion as well. Therefore, speak of Zoroastrian religion.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->They are described as vegetarians,non-violent,whit boll heads(they shave their heads of course),whit no womens.The action of Iliad,the trojan war was in 1200BC,so we find monks similar whit buddhism monks but 600 years before the birth of Buddha.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I don't understand why you assume that only Buddhists were non-violent vegetarians with bald heads and no women.
For instance, much of these descriptions fits certain classes of Jain monks. And more importantly, all brahmana communities then were vegetarian (that they had been non-vegetarian is a recent invention, thanks to the communists for that) and as a general rule did not ever practise warfare. Many brahmana communities tended to shave most of their heads but had a tiny pigtail at the back and a few groups amongst them did not lead a married life. Even as it is, in the brahmachari and sannyasin stage common to all brahmana communities (the latter also available to all Varnas as far as I am aware) they would not get married either.
You forget or might be unaware of the fact that it was wholly brahmanas from whom came the initial Buddhists. This is why early Buddhism was entirely filled with the practises of brahmanas: including the vegetarian diet (some Chinese Buddhists do not feel they need to become vegetarian as they believe Buddha died of eating pork - it was a Hindu brahmana custom to be vegetarian), yoga (according to tradition, Buddha attempted and abandoned yoga as impractical), dress, hair 'style'.
In short, there were definitely brahmanas in 1200bce and before.
By the way, Buddhism's date might also have been affected by AIT. This thread, Post 3 (final paragraphs) discusses this a little.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Zarathustra was seen as a profet ,while Zalmoxes was profet,priest,king,god or even the suprem god,<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->You do not distinguish between the main religion of Persia (Zoroastrianism) and some smaller religions based on it like Persian Mithraism. These were related, by minor traditions on the side. In the Mithraism of Persia, Zoroaster was regarded both profet/priest and an incarnation of the supreme God's spirit. That is why his frozen seed harboured his Divine, indestructible Spirit, to be given a new body: that of Mithra, the Saoshyant recognised as such by the Persian Mithraists. From what I've read, according to them, Zoroaster himself had fulfilled his prediction: which was that his own spirit itself would be reborn as the Saoshyant, seen as an incarnation of the great God.
Though Mithra as the Saoshyant and as the re-emergent divine might not have been recognised as such by the mainstream Persians (Zoroastrians), it was nevertheless what the Mithraist minority among the Persians believed.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->in Parsi religion.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->parsi practice <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->You're use of Parsi is sometimes confusing. Parsi is the language (Arabized to Farsi since Arabic doesn't have a 'p') - I make this mistake too at times. However you refer to Parsees and Zoroastrians as if they were the same. However, the former is a proper subset of the latter.
Parsee is a Zoroastrian Indian who escaped from Persia seeking refuge in India from the Islamic Jihad in circa 1400ce. There are other Iranian Zoroastrians who came to settle in India many centuries later - they have also always been Zoroastrians, but are not called Parsee (because they fled an Iran which was no longer called Persia after Islam had taken over).
There are non-Parsee Zoroastrians: besides the more recent Iranian Zoroastrian refugees in India, the people of ancient Persia were all Zoroastrians (Persians). The Parthians seem to have been of this religion as well. Therefore, speak of Zoroastrian religion.