WI Zoroastrian China.

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.

I'm not denying that Sassanid orthodoxy was intolerant by today's standards. However, Sassanid zoroastrianism wasn't the only version available at the time, before or after the Sassanids. The gathas certainly don't call for racism. As with most religions, anyone can interpret it how they want.
 
I'm not denying that Sassanid orthodoxy was intolerant by today's standards. However, Sassanid zoroastrianism wasn't the only version available at the time, before or after the Sassanids. The gathas certainly don't call for racism. As with most religions, anyone can interpret it how they want.

But how did orthodox scholars and priests such as Kartir see it? Mind you these people basically wrote the Avesta and Menog-i Khrad and studied it endlessly, I doubt anyone has the knowledge of the Zoroastrian religion as Kartir or other Sassanid high priests. Therefore I will trust them on the true belief of the Zoroastrians, not small tribes on the fringe of the Sassanid empire.
 
But how did orthodox scholars and priests such as Kartir see it? Mind you these people basically wrote the Avesta and Menog-i Khrad and studied it endlessly, I doubt anyone has the knowledge of the Zoroastrian religion as Kartir or other Sassanid high priests. Therefore I will trust them on the true belief of the Zoroastrians, not small tribes on the fringe of the Sassanid empire.

There's no particular reason, especially in the OP, why you should assume that the Chinese must assume Sassanid orthodoxy in order to adopt Zoroastrianism. Pretty much every religion around has a variety of branches, some of which may be more successful in different cultural contexts than others, and which people have no trouble considering the same religion (to this level of detail, e.g. the variety of "Christian" churches with wildly different doctrines). Besides that, there's no particular reason to assume that the Sassanids or their views on Zoroastrianism will come to power in the first place; a different dynasty with different views on the religion ruling Persia could, in fact, be a major PoD to achieve the goal in the first place.

It's also strange that you assume that there is a "true belief of the Zoroastrians," as opposed to a collection of practices and beliefs that vary from place to place. Religions are not monolithic, unchanging, and fixed objects, even those like Islam that are based on fixed texts, but instead collections of local spiritual practices that group closer to each other than to other families of practice. The Zoroastrianism of Ctesphion was not the Zoroastrianism of Bactria was not the Zoroastrianism of the steppes, and all of them were perfectly valid (that is to say, Bactrians were not "wrong" because their Zoroastrianism was not identical to Kartir's). What Kartir and other priests thought is, frankly, irrelevant except inasmuch as it affects Persian efforts to spread Zoroastrianism and its ability to propagate within China.

(In point of fact, Zoroastrianism was a (fairly) major religion in China, along the lines of Christianity, and was persecuted during the Tang dynasty, along with Christianity and Buddhism)
 
There's no particular reason, especially in the OP, why you should assume that the Chinese must assume Sassanid orthodoxy in order to adopt Zoroastrianism. Pretty much every religion around has a variety of branches, some of which may be more successful in different cultural contexts than others, and which people have no trouble considering the same religion (to this level of detail, e.g. the variety of "Christian" churches with wildly different doctrines). Besides that, there's no particular reason to assume that the Sassanids or their views on Zoroastrianism will come to power in the first place; a different dynasty with different views on the religion ruling Persia could, in fact, be a major PoD to achieve the goal in the first place.

It's also strange that you assume that there is a "true belief of the Zoroastrians," as opposed to a collection of practices and beliefs that vary from place to place. Religions are not monolithic, unchanging, and fixed objects, even those like Islam that are based on fixed texts, but instead collections of local spiritual practices that group closer to each other than to other families of practice. The Zoroastrianism of Ctesphion was not the Zoroastrianism of Bactria was not the Zoroastrianism of the steppes, and all of them were perfectly valid (that is to say, Bactrians were not "wrong" because their Zoroastrianism was not identical to Kartir's). What Kartir and other priests thought is, frankly, irrelevant except inasmuch as it affects Persian efforts to spread Zoroastrianism and its ability to propagate within China.

(In point of fact, Zoroastrianism was a (fairly) major religion in China, along the lines of Christianity, and was persecuted during the Tang dynasty, along with Christianity and Buddhism)

Zoroastrianism in China during the Tang dynasty? I have never read about that, perhaps I am mistaken but as far as I know there were no large communities of Zoroastrians in the Tang dynasty at that time. Again, it is easy to just say, well a new dynasty rises and for some reason throws away 100s of years of tradition over night. I personally see it as at least taking time. Zoroastrianism again is not a religion like the Abrahamics, it in its social application is like Hinduism (or religions making up), the religion of a ethno-region rather than the whole world. While again I understand your point, but why exactly would Bactrian Zoroastrians reform and run off to China and begin to convert the masses whenever there was no effort beforehand and that it is not supported by other Zoroastrians? How is Kartir irrelevant to Zoroastrians in Bactria? That is like saying the Caliph is a nobody to Sunni Muslims in India during the 1100s.

Also ,I might be ignorant, but I thought it was during the Ming that Christians were persecuted in China and were thus removed from the region.
 
That being said, I will have to reflect on Sogdian Zotoastrian works to figure out how different they were. I am more knowledgable on Sassanid era Zoroastrians and their connection to Manichaeism.
 
Zoroastrianism in China during the Tang dynasty? I have never read about that, perhaps I am mistaken but as far as I know there were no large communities of Zoroastrians in the Tang dynasty at that time.
During the Great Anti-Buddhist Persecution, monasteries (or so they were called) of Christians and Zoroastrians were lumped in with Buddhists and forced to integrate back into the population. Compared to the Buddhists this was not so many people, but it probably amounted to a fairly large number of people in an absolute sense. Zoroastrianism existing in the Tang dynasty should maybe not be so surprising given Persia's position on trade routes between China and the Mediterranean, and how religions tend to spread along trade routes. It would really be more surprising if there weren't any adherents of the ~1000+ year old religion from right there in China.

Again, it is easy to just say, well a new dynasty rises and for some reason throws away 100s of years of tradition over night. I personally see it as at least taking time.
But there were earlier dynasties that had different policies. There's nothing saying that you couldn't make changes much earlier than the Sassanids, with Zoroaster himself if necessary. As I keep saying, the Sassanids only defined Sassanid Zoroastrianism, not Zoroastrianism as a whole.

Zoroastrianism again is not a religion like the Abrahamics, it in its social application is like Hinduism (or religions making up), the religion of a ethno-region rather than the whole world.
Interestingly, Hinduism has actually been quite successful in spreading, historically, to Southeast Asia. And of course the Hindu-derived Buddhism quite successfully spread to China and other regions of East Asia. Zoroastrianism itself was closely related to Hinduism (also being derived from the proto-Indo-Persian religion) and had some success in spreading into the steppe, so it's quite plausible that a more missionary branch arises.

While again I understand your point, but why exactly would Bactrian Zoroastrians reform and run off to China and begin to convert the masses whenever there was no effort beforehand and that it is not supported by other Zoroastrians?
For the same reason that Bactrian Buddhists ran off to China and began to convert the masses? In any case you're missing my point, which is that the religion itself had a diversity of practices and beliefs (as all religions do), and the practices and beliefs of Kartir, while inapt for converting China, are not the totality of nor define Zoroastrianism.

How is Kartir irrelevant to Zoroastrians in Bactria?
I didn't say he was irrelevant to Zoroastrians in Bactria specifically, I said what he thought was irrelevant as far as analyzing the religion for the purpose of the discussion is concerned except inasmuch as it impacts the conversion of Chinese. Kartir does not define Zoroastrianism, he defines Kartir's Zoroastrianism, which is no one else's Zoroastrianism. It is true that he had the ability to make other people emulate his Zoroastrianism much more closely than usual, but this should not be mistaken for defining the religion.

In the event, the point is that too much shouldn't be read into his beliefs about Zoroastrianism. While his version of Zoroastrianism is inapt for transmission into China, and the Sassanids little invested in it, that does not mean that the religion is identically inapt, nor that other people have other beliefs that might be more apt for transmission into China, nor that other practices and beliefs might be adopted that would be more attractive to the Chinese.

That is like saying the Caliph is a nobody to Sunni Muslims in India during the 1100s.
The Caliph was a nobody to Indian Muslims in the 1100s, or, rather, irrelevant (just as I was saying Kartir was). He had no practical ability to enforce any decisions he might make about what practices were orthodox and which were not, meaning that practices which did not conform to his conception of orthodoxy had the ability to thrive--as, indeed, they did, at that time and later (as with, e.g., Sikhism or Sufism). There were many such regions of the Islamic world where the Caliph's writ was merely moral in force, and where subsequently many non-Caliphal religious practices ended up growing. The fact that he had a certain moral influence shouldn't be taken indicate he had any practical influence.

Also ,I might be ignorant, but I thought it was during the Ming that Christians were persecuted in China and were thus removed from the region.
Christianity has flourished and been suppressed in China several times.
 
During the Great Anti-Buddhist Persecution, monasteries (or so they were called) of Christians and Zoroastrians were lumped in with Buddhists and forced to integrate back into the population. Compared to the Buddhists this was not so many people, but it probably amounted to a fairly large number of people in an absolute sense. Zoroastrianism existing in the Tang dynasty should maybe not be so surprising given Persia's position on trade routes between China and the Mediterranean, and how religions tend to spread along trade routes. It would really be more surprising if there weren't any adherents of the ~1000+ year old religion from right there in China.


But there were earlier dynasties that had different policies. There's nothing saying that you couldn't make changes much earlier than the Sassanids, with Zoroaster himself if necessary. As I keep saying, the Sassanids only defined Sassanid Zoroastrianism, not Zoroastrianism as a whole.


Interestingly, Hinduism has actually been quite successful in spreading, historically, to Southeast Asia. And of course the Hindu-derived Buddhism quite successfully spread to China and other regions of East Asia. Zoroastrianism itself was closely related to Hinduism (also being derived from the proto-Indo-Persian religion) and had some success in spreading into the steppe, so it's quite plausible that a more missionary branch arises.


For the same reason that Bactrian Buddhists ran off to China and began to convert the masses? In any case you're missing my point, which is that the religion itself had a diversity of practices and beliefs (as all religions do), and the practices and beliefs of Kartir, while inapt for converting China, are not the totality of nor define Zoroastrianism.


I didn't say he was irrelevant to Zoroastrians in Bactria specifically, I said what he thought was irrelevant as far as analyzing the religion for the purpose of the discussion is concerned except inasmuch as it impacts the conversion of Chinese. Kartir does not define Zoroastrianism, he defines Kartir's Zoroastrianism, which is no one else's Zoroastrianism. It is true that he had the ability to make other people emulate his Zoroastrianism much more closely than usual, but this should not be mistaken for defining the religion.

In the event, the point is that too much shouldn't be read into his beliefs about Zoroastrianism. While his version of Zoroastrianism is inapt for transmission into China, and the Sassanids little invested in it, that does not mean that the religion is identically inapt, nor that other people have other beliefs that might be more apt for transmission into China, nor that other practices and beliefs might be adopted that would be more attractive to the Chinese.


The Caliph was a nobody to Indian Muslims in the 1100s, or, rather, irrelevant (just as I was saying Kartir was). He had no practical ability to enforce any decisions he might make about what practices were orthodox and which were not, meaning that practices which did not conform to his conception of orthodoxy had the ability to thrive--as, indeed, they did, at that time and later (as with, e.g., Sikhism or Sufism). There were many such regions of the Islamic world where the Caliph's writ was merely moral in force, and where subsequently many non-Caliphal religious practices ended up growing. The fact that he had a certain moral influence shouldn't be taken indicate he had any practical influence.


Christianity has flourished and been suppressed in China several times.

Interesting. Still though I feel that those Zoroastrian merchants are a little to late. Even if they went full on in their conversion mission, it does not mean that they could make the same headway as Buddhism. If you say that they were already converting some people in China, then why hadn't they converted more if their religion was so infectious? As well, it speaks volumes on how Chinese authorities treated foreign religions within its realm, really only Buddhism, modern Christianity and Manichaeism has flourished amongst the Han Chinese. Either ways Zoroastrianism is on the clock and it does not have much time left, once the Sassanid empire fell it was KO for Zoroastrians (and Abbassids crushing revolt after revolt in Mazandran).

It is irrelevant what the Parthians thought, they were barely even Zoroastrians and were only tolerant because they had a more feudal system of government that gave huge amounts of local autonomy compared to the imperial Sassanids. As well, please do not underestimate the power that the Sassanid state had over the religion and the prestige it had. The Zoroastrians in Sogdia were not some sort of separate sect as Twelver Shia is from Sunni, but is was the same religion just outside of the Sassanid realm. If the Sassanids are not attacked by the Rashidun, what is stopping them from enforcing orthodoxy on Sogdia? Most likely a new persian dynasty will be more xenophobic than the Sassanids and will retreat into the Iranian plateau and will blame their losses on not following the "pure" orthodoxy and will thus (instead of fighting Byzantium) enforce it's orghodoxy on surrounding Zoroastrians. How exactly would Sogdia or whoever stop this? Surely it is more likely for the Iranian state to look inward after its crushing defeat and shun decadence in favor of the religious fervor that served them well in the 200-300s.

You are right that South East Asian kings adopted Hinduism, but did they not adopt titles such as Raja? Thus they adopted the Indian sub continents culture and religion in order to have better social and economic ties to India, just as those same people would do with Islam.

The Caliph had enormous authority before 1258, and had influence in all Sunni Muslims in the world at the time. There is huge religious evidence for the importance of the Khalifa that I can qoute if you like, that the Ummah agreed upon at that time whether in India or in Iraq. If the Caliph had begun to rise against their Turkish overlords, they would have HUGE support from the Ummah as all the Sunni Ulema of the time agreed that the caliph will be subjugated then he will rise up whenever Allah wills it. Thus there is a religious power that the Caliph controlled, much more than what you portrayed, ask any Sunni Muslim of that time if the caliph was important or not to their religion, lol I doubt they would say no. In same way the high priest had a similar role in Zoroastrianism, we have to understand that the Sassanids was the pinnacle of pre-Islamic Iranian culture and that they (Sassanids) collected all of the modern Avesta, wrote the Menog-i Khrad and put the Gathas to pen. They invented the sacred languages that Zoroastrianism was to worshiped in, they built the religion completely. How in the world would you say that the Sogdians no matter how heterodox they were, did not at least look at the Sassanids and think, my these guys know a lot about the religion they have basically wrote the book on it.

If you make changes to Zoroaster himself or before the Sassanids wrote almost all pre-Islamic Zoroastrian literature, then I concede. However during the Sassanid reign I disagree.
 
Based on the practices of the Sogdians I would argue that they were of a different Zoroastrian sect than the Sassanids. As Sogdia was a rather decentralized area, who's to say how many different sects existed there.
 
Well ther was a community of manchieans in China so maybe you have them be more widespread?

It's a bit harder to do than many other pods
 
Top