WI Zoroastrian China.

The Persians and Chinese had wen on contact for a long time prior china went Buddhist. So what would make China Zoroastrian and how would that effect China and the rest of the Far East.

EDIT: Was it possible for China to convert to another religion.
 
Last edited:
Why would China even consider converting to the ethnic religion of the Iranian/Aryan people? To do so would take the Chinese to consider the culture of Iran superior to their own and thus adopt Zoroastrianism. However I doubt this would ever happen, China considered themselves to be superior so why would they give that up to then turn around and say some faraway culture is greater than theirs?
 
Most Zoroastrians won't even accept converts, you know?

I'd much rather see what would happen in a China where Taoism managed to overtake Confucianism as the guiding philosophy of the people, because that is not a philosophy that maintains a vast celestial empire.
 
Most Zoroastrians won't even accept converts, you know?

I'd much rather see what would happen in a China where Taoism managed to overtake Confucianism as the guiding philosophy of the people, because that is not a philosophy that maintains a vast celestial empire.

Well, it wasn't just Persians who practiced it. Besides other Iranian peoples, its quite possible some Turkic tribes practiced Zoroastrianism as well. It depends on which theory of the identity of the "Turanians".
 
This is all irrelevant, Zoroastrianism glorified the Iranian Aryan stories and history above all else. It also seemed that being a good Aryan was as important as ones relationship with Zurvan. Thus we see a religion built entirely around Iranian/Aryan culture. A Turk could be a Zoroastrian, however he would have to leave his old culture behind. So China can become Zoroastrian, but it is ASB because they would simply not adopt the Aryan culture over their own.

Buddhism is not steeped into a particular culture as Zoroastrianism.
 
IOTL, Manichaeism, an offshoot of Zoroastrianism, made major headway in China, even contributing to the founding of one of its dynasties: Ming Dynasty.

That should be close enough.


Manichaeism is not necessarily a Zoroastrian offshoot. Aside from belief in Zoroaster as an aspect of Zurvan and persian terms; Manichaeism was more a Gnostic religion and was more popular in the Syriac world than in the Iranian world. It's ideas are extremely similar (at its heart) to other Gnostic religions of the day.
 
This kind of makes one wonder if there was ever a window of opportunity for a Persian state to invade China and install their Shahanshah as Emperor of China.
 
I think the idea that buddhism was universal whilst Zoroastrianism had to be strictly an Iranian phenomenon is shallow.

Buddhism did not just enter china as a revolutionary new idea. One of the reasons that buddhism did so well in china is because it entered a culture that thanks to the daoists was rich in ideas that made it so translatable. We should remember of course the notable fact that many saw the 2 philosophies as so similar that the buddha must have been a reincarnation or even still breathing incarnation of Lao Tzu.

Where emptiness was a hard concept to sell even in India, the Daoists had prepared the ground in china for emptiness as a common concept. Inevitably, buddhism as it passed through china took on the language of the Daoists to form some of the most notable schools of buddhist thought (mainly Chan or Zen Buddhism).

Now I am not saying there is such fertile ground for Zoroastrianism as we know it, but I could see an offshoot religion thrive in a chinese cultural context. Perhaps have a sect which sees Angra Manyu and Ahura Mazda (sorry if the names are incorrect, can't easily check right now so that is off he top of my head) as the embodiments of, or driving force behind Ying and Yang. Better yet, perhaps have Zoroastrianism be supported and bolstered by the language of Confucius, acting as a direct criticism of why light and darkness should not mix.
 
I think the idea that buddhism was universal whilst Zoroastrianism had to be strictly an Iranian phenomenon is shallow.

Buddhism did not just enter china as a revolutionary new idea. One of the reasons that buddhism did so well in china is because it entered a culture that thanks to the daoists was rich in ideas that made it so translatable. We should remember of course the notable fact that many saw the 2 philosophies as so similar that the buddha must have been a reincarnation or even still breathing incarnation of Lao Tzu.

Where emptiness was a hard concept to sell even in India, the Daoists had prepared the ground in china for emptiness as a common concept. Inevitably, buddhism as it passed through china took on the language of the Daoists to form some of the most notable schools of buddhist thought (mainly Chan or Zen Buddhism).

Now I am not saying there is such fertile ground for Zoroastrianism as we know it, but I could see an offshoot religion thrive in a chinese cultural context. Perhaps have a sect which sees Angra Manyu and Ahura Mazda (sorry if the names are incorrect, can't easily check right now so that is off he top of my head) as the embodiments of, or driving force behind Ying and Yang. Better yet, perhaps have Zoroastrianism be supported and bolstered by the language of Confucius, acting as a direct criticism of why light and darkness should not mix.

But would that be orthodox Zoroastrianism? Whether you see my view as shallow or not, it does not matter, Zoroastrianism (orthodox version) would almost never flourish in China for reasons stated in earlier posts.

Either ways I see your point and it is interesting, however the traditional Zoroastrianism is almost impossible to make as much headway as Buddhism in China.
 
This kind of makes one wonder if there was ever a window of opportunity for a Persian state to invade China and install their Shahanshah as Emperor of China.

That would be a logistical nightmare. To make it all the way across the silk road, and maintain some kind of semblance of authority? Even with satraps that would be impossible to manage.

IMO Persia has better luck conquering India than China, and even that's a tall feat.
 
But would that be orthodox Zoroastrianism? Whether you see my view as shallow or not, it does not matter, Zoroastrianism (orthodox version) would almost never flourish in China for reasons stated in earlier posts.

Either ways I see your point and it is interesting, however the traditional Zoroastrianism is almost impossible to make as much headway as Buddhism in China.

Shallow is probably the wrong word sorry. I wrote that at 1 in the morning when I ahold have been sleeping :L

Back on topic: the orthodox thing is actually an interesting discussion in itself. I entirely agree that Zoroastrianism wouldn't survive in is orthodox state, but a radical departure could become a religion in itself.

Going back to buddhism we also have a similar issue. The initial buddhism of India became hugely distorted as part of its travels too even if the core ideas remained.
The Lotus Sutra is arguably one of the most influential texts in religious history, being the basis for the magical cosmology including dragons, hell realms etc. beyond religious claims that Siddartha Guatama wrote it and that Nagarjuna found the texts are talking to an underwater snake people; the Lotus Sutra has nothing to do with original buddhism.

At this point we have incredibly radical departures that are (IMO) on the level of Judaism > Christianity > Islam. The pure land sect (which if memory serves me correctly was the most popular version of buddhism amongst the general population of china) rejects a lot of the practice emphasis of early buddhism with more of a focus towards worshipping and meditating on a Buddha (I want to say Ahimsa?) who through sheer love creates an afterlife for everyone who believes in them, arguably rejecting the traditional view of the importance of Enlightenment.

Zen or Chan Buddhism has further weird departures. It recognises one of its patriarchs as the early philosopher mentioned as Nagarjuna. Now whilst Nagarjuna does maintain the idea that feeling is important to understanding a rational claim, his poetry is very rationally put forward and is almost Socratic. It looks at the early buddhist texts and rationally argues emptiness being the key insight of the Buddha. Zen however is famous for taking the feeling and understanding part but generally throwing out the early buddhist texts to rely solely on practice and intuition rather than logical discourse (note this is not to say that Zen conclusions are crazy or irrational, but that it is an intuitive way of understanding greater truths).

So from a wandering man in India who preached a life of discipline to end suffering and a psychology firmly routed in a "this world" basis (beyond reincarnation); from travelling to China we have numerous ofshoots which completely change the focus and even radically depart from core aspects of Buddhism.

We still however call them buddhist. Not to sound like a hipster, but in the eastern sense you can have so much variation and understand it as the same religion. In this sense I do genuinely believe that Zoroastrianism could survive and thrive in china but not neccesarily by a western standard.

Edit: apologies for the grammar. I need to turn off autocorrect on this phone.
 
Hmm, I see, however you can say the same things for other religions such as Islam or Christianity which have major departures which are only called Islam or Christianity only for the sake of brevity. However Zoroastrianism is different, it was not a religion for all of the world as Siddtharta Gautama saw his preaching. Zoroastrianism once fully developed was the religion of all Aryans (ideally) and was tied to the Iranian state. This is one of the least likely religions to spread to China, without mass immigration.

I understand your point, I was just assuming that the poster wanted Orthodox Zoroastrianism rather than a completely different religion built from a Zoroastrian base.
 
Hmm, I see, however you can say the same things for other religions such as Islam or Christianity which have major departures which are only called Islam or Christianity only for the sake of brevity. However Zoroastrianism is different, it was not a religion for all of the world as Siddtharta Gautama saw his preaching. Zoroastrianism once fully developed was the religion of all Aryans (ideally) and was tied to the Iranian state. This is one of the least likely religions to spread to China, without mass immigration.

I understand your point, I was just assuming that the poster wanted Orthodox Zoroastrianism rather than a completely different religion built from a Zoroastrian base.
I was under the impression that Zoroastiranism as a more nationalist religion was a later development? I may be incorrect though as beyond modern Zoroastrianism, I am not as familiar with the history of Zoroastrian theology as I am with buddhism :p
 
I was under the impression that Zoroastiranism as a more nationalist religion was a later development? I may be incorrect though as beyond modern Zoroastrianism, I am not as familiar with the history of Zoroastrian theology as I am with buddhism :p


You are right it did become more so, with some cases of no converts ever allowed (Parsi), how ever the religion has always been the nationalist religion of the Iranian people's and glorified the history of the Aryans. As well, even before the Parsi, the Sassanids and Parthians used the religion as the ultimate stabillity religion for the Iranian people, notice how the Sassanids did not care if the Assyrians and other Semites were Christian, Mandaen or Manichaen, as long as they did not try to creep into the Iranian plateau and convert native Iranian/Aryans.
 
You are right it did become more so, with some cases of no converts ever allowed (Parsi), how ever the religion has always been the nationalist religion of the Iranian people's and glorified the history of the Aryans. As well, even before the Parsi, the Sassanids and Parthians used the religion as the ultimate stabillity religion for the Iranian people, notice how the Sassanids did not care if the Assyrians and other Semites were Christian, Mandaen or Manichaen, as long as they did not try to creep into the Iranian plateau and convert native Iranian/Aryans.

The Sassanids attempted on more than one occasion to convert the Armenians, who were consider anIran. Also, Sassanid orthodoxy wasn't the only version around. The Sogdians had their own version of Zoroastrianism which was much more tolerant. We also have examples in history of non Iranians becoming Zoroastrians and one tribe of the Pechengs also becoming Zoroastrian. The ban against conversion is a post Islamic thing and is still not universally accepted.
 
The Sassanids attempted on more than one occasion to convert the Armenians, who were consider anIran. Also, Sassanid orthodoxy wasn't the only version around. The Sogdians had their own version of Zoroastrianism which was much more tolerant. We also have examples in history of non Iranians becoming Zoroastrians and one tribe of the Pechengs also becoming Zoroastrian. The ban against conversion is a post Islamic thing and is still not universally accepted.



When did I say there was a ban on conversion? Read my previous posts... Either ways I am aware of different sects within the religion, however these were considered heterodox and were persecuted fiercely, especially the tolerant version of the Parthians (often referred to as Zurvanism). Read up on Kartir the high priest during the 300s.

One could convert to Zoroastrianism, however if it was to be orthodox, it would require the concert to admit the superiority of the Aryan/Iranian culture.
 
Read up on the fact that tolerant versions were considered heresy and how the High Priest and reformer Kartir persecuted any heterodox version of the religion. If it was considered "not Aryan" and thus impure it was then a corruption of the purity that is their religion. It is not by coincidence this happened, the Sassanids who were Iranian and highly conservative attacked the more liberal views of the Parthians, claiming a reform of their faith to its pure origins.
 
Top