Iran And India

[Guest]

From the avesta_archive site, Vendidad 1-1,2, English translation(Note 5):
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><i>"1. Ahura Mazda spake unto Spitama1 Zarathushtra, saying:

I have made every land dear (to its people), even though it had no charms whatever in it2: had I not made every land dear (to its people), even though it had no charms whatever in it, then the whole living world would have invaded the Airyana Vaeja3.

2.4 The first of the good lands and countries which I, Ahura Mazda, created, was the Airyana Vaeja5, by the Vanguhi Daitya6.
Thereupon came Angra Mainyu, who is all death, and he counter-created the serpent in the river7 and Winter, a work of the Daevas8. "</i>

<b>Note 5: Airyanem Vaeja, Iran-Vej, is the holy land of Zoroastrianism: Zarathushtra was born and founded his religion there (Bund. 20.32; 32.3): the first animal couple appeared there (Bund. 14.4; Zadspram, 9.8). From its name, 'the Iranian seed,' it seems to have been considered as the original seat of the Iranian race. It has been generally supposed to belong to Eastern Iran, like the provinces which are enumerated after it, chiefly on account of the name of its river, the Vanguhi Daitya, which was in the Sassanian times (as Veh) the name of the Oxus. </b> But the Bundahish distinctly states that Iran-Vej is 'bordering upon Adarbajan' (29.12); now, Adarbaijan is bordered by the Caspian Sea on the east, by the Rangha provinces on the west, by Media proper on the south, and by Arran on the north. The Rangha provinces are out of question, since they are mentioned at the end of the Fargard (verse 20), and the climatic conditions of Iran-Vej with its long winter likewise exclude Media and suit Arran, where the summer lasts hardly two months (cf. § 4, note 6). The very name agrees, as the country known as Arran seems to have been known to the Greeks as `Ariania (Stephanus Byz.), which brings it close to our Airyanem. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[dhu]

Concerning the beginnings of monotheism in Zoroastrianism: in India, bridegrooms are sometimes goaded by their wives/family to give up active worship of Sri Hanuman after marriage. Wives have been known to oppose Sundarkand Path by their husbands. Similarly, Shiva is not worshipped by females. Couldn't the supposed aggressive monotheism of the zoraastrians have started out as something similar, but when plunged into the religious cauldron of the ANE mutated into something more "prophetic" and "iconoclastic".

A few centuries or millenia later, the Buddhists in the ANE encountered something similar when they tried to discourse with the radical Essene Jews. Christianity was born from that encounter. As detailed by G. Subramaniam, Christianity was "Buddhist experiment gone horribly wrong"

Ant then, there is also the account given by Kak of The Mittani-Kassite traditions mutating into Tutankhamen's exclusive Diety worship. But there is some indication that Tutankhamen's monotheism may just be abrahamic wishful thinking.

I have also read an account of an isolated brahmin group in S india that was iconoclastic in a ritual fashion (Adidasan on Hinduunity, 2-3 years back).

Is there any account of zoroastrians actually being iconoclastic ??
_______________________

Another thing to be considered is that the fifty year hellenistic rule in persia was brought about in large part because of internal sabotaging and slave revolts throughout the empire. In contrast, India has never had such phenomenon as slave revolts, as sardonically noted by our communist pretenders-"india has never had a revolution". Personally, I believe there are some permanent sadistic streaks in the mideast psyche. For a vedic type culture to survive in that type of environment, it was almost a given that the intrusive persians would deviate a little bit.
________________________
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Secondly, Zoroaster (whose work is the Avesta which mentions Airyanam Vaejo) was born in Afghanistan which is east of Iran.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Even the Indologists sometimes let slip that the Avesta corresponds to an Eastern Iranian (afghani) dialect, while the Gathas form the later persian empire era correspond to a western iranian (Farsi proper) dialect. Kashmiri itself is alloted as Dardic and is never allowed to bridge the divide between Indic and Iranian, since this would basically confirm Talageri's proposal of a Kashmiri Airyanam Vaejo. Talageri also gives a warning that the apparent congruency between Avestan and Vedic forms is due to a shared classical period, rather than from a common descent from putative indo-iranian.
___________________________

[Bharatvarsh]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The article written by some Samar Abbas (Indian muslim?) on the Pallavas is absolute rubbish.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Samar Abbas is an Indian Muslim who wants another partition of India to create his dreamland of Mughalistan.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-dhu+Jan 13 2006, 03:49 PM-->QUOTE(dhu @ Jan 13 2006, 03:49 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->A few centuries or millenia later, the Buddhists in the ANE encountered something similar when they tried to discourse with the radical Essene Jews.  Christianity was born from that encounter.  As detailed by G. Subramaniam, Christianity was "Buddhist experiment gone horribly wrong"

___________________________
[right][snapback]44758[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

please elaborate on that.

just how is christianity a buddhist experiment gone wrong, in particular whats this encounter between buddhists (indians??) and essene jews, that gave rise to the biggest religion in the world??

is the story of the saviour indeed a fable?? he never existed?

also whats ANE..... is G.S's book available online??

[dhu]

just how is christianity a buddhist experiment gone wrong, in particular whats this encounter between buddhists (indians??) and essene jews, that gave rise to the biggest religion in the world??

there was a lot of buddhist influence in the ME or ANE (ancient near east), including that upon apollonius which was detailed in McEllivey's book, referred to previously by member sushmita. But apparently the mideast culture could not digest the buddhist influence, and we did get such monstrosities as iconoclastic Christianity coming out of the exchange. In East Asia, by contrast, the integration of buddhist teaching was near seamless.

Apollonius the Nazarene - Part 8:
Events in the life of Apollonius of Tyana Visit to the Gymnosophists as recorded in "The Life of Apollonius of Tyana" by his biographer, Philostratus
By: Dr. R. W. Bernard, B.A., M.A., Ph.D.

..Indeed, the Gymnosophical community that Apollonius visited could very well have been one of the Therapeut communities described by Philo and which he
visited at about the same period.* [*See the books by Arthur Lillie ("Buddhism in Christianity" and "India in Primitive Christianity") for details on the contribution of travelling Buddhist monks to Palestine, Egypt, Syria and Asia Minor, to the formation of the early Essene/Therapeut/Nazarite communities in these areas, which later became the base upon which Christianity was raised. A large number of the volumes in the Library of Alexandria were likewise of Buddhist origin.

According to Mead, this Gymnosophical community was originally of Buddhist origin, having been established by Buddhist monks. The origin of the Essene and Therapeut doctrines has been traced by some of the Buddhist missionarie sent out in the middle of the third century B.C. by ASHOKA, Buddhist Emperor of India, who traveled to Syria, Egypt, Macedonia and those parts of Asia Minor where the Essene communities were later known to exist. While it is possible that these communities may have existed previously and have been of Orphic and Pythagorean origin, it is probable that these Buddhist missionaries found in them a responsive audience.

Mead writes, "Just as some would ascribe the constitution of the Essene and Therapeut communities to Pythagorean influence, so others would ascribe their origin to Buddhist propaganda; and not only would they trace this influence to the Essene tenets and practices, but they even refer to the general teachings of the Christ to a Buddhist source in a Jewish monotheistic setting. Not only so but some would have it that two centuries before the direct general contact of Greece with India, brought about by the conquests of Alexander - INDIA, through Pythagoras, strongly and lastingly influenced all subsequent Greek thought.")

<b>Alot has been covered up by western societies' need to have the Buddha as a contemporary of their socrates figure. </b>Socrates was a relative unknown in the ancient world -

[qoute]is the story of the saviour indeed a fable?? he never existed?[/quote]

Alot of the elements of the christ fable such as the virgin birth and resurrection of a dead god, and almost the entire repertoiry of parables was manufactered from previous existing traditions, including those of the persians. The buddhist influence was paramount, however.

[Guest]

thanks very much for the elucidation.

i knew that such a thing existed (koenraad elst's reply #1 in this here interview - http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/inte...s/sulekha.html)
but didnt know what exactly were the influences and from which source.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-Sushmita+Jan 10 2006, 08:29 PM-->QUOTE(Sushmita @ Jan 10 2006, 08:29 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Here's some of what Elst wrote about the Purus (Pauravas), the Vedas, migrations, etc:

Same link as the first one given in the earlier post, but read section 4.6.3. Dynastic history in the Puranas
Even the movement within India was first east to west and then the Purus went back east:
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->the fragmentary Vedic data and the systematic Puranic account tally rather splendidly. The <b>Puranas relate a westward movement of a branch of the Aila/Saudyumna clan or Lunar dynasty from Prayag (Allahabad, at the junction of Ganga and Yamuna) to Sapta Saindhavah</b>, the land of the seven rivers.  There, the<b> tribe splits into five, after the five sons of the conqueror Yayati: Yadu, Druhyu, Anu, Puru, Turvashu.</b>  All the rulers mentioned in the Vedas either belong to the Paurava (Puru-descended) tribe settled on the banks of the Saraswati, or have come in contact with them according to the Puranic account, whether by alliance and matrimony or by war.  Later, the Pauravas (and minor dynasties springing from them) <b>extend their power eastward, into and across their ancestral territory[B], and the Vedic traditions spread along with the economic and political influence of the metropolitan Saraswati-based Paurava people.

This way, the eastward expansion of the Vedic horizon, which has often been read as proof of a western origin of the Aryans, is integrated into a larger history.  The Vedic people are shown as merely one branch of an existing Aryan culture, originally spanning northern India (at least) from eastern Uttar Pradesh to Panjab.
...
Puranic history reaches back beyond the starting date of the composition of the Vedas.  [B]In the king-lists, a number of kings are enumerated before the first kings appear who are also mentioned in the Rg-Veda. </b>In what remains of the Puranas, no absolute chronology is added to the list, but from Greek visitors to ancient India, we get the entirely plausible information such a chronology did exist.  To be precise, the Puranic king-list as known to Greek visitors of Candragupta’s court in the 4th century BC or to later Greco-Roman India-watchers, started in 6776 BC. Even for that early pre-Vedic period, there is no hint of any immigration.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/books/ait/ch24.htm continues with the Puranic king-list known to the ancient Greeks and Greco-Romans familiar with India:<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Pliny wrote that the Indians date their first king, “Liber Pater” (Roman equivalent of Dionysus), to “6,451 years and 3 months” before Alexander the Great (d. 323 BC), while Arrian puts “Dionysus” as head of the dynastic list at 6,042 + 300 + 120 = 6,462 years before Sandrokottos (Chandragupta), to whom a Greek embassy was sent in 314 BC.23 <b>Both indications add up to a date, give or take a year, of 6776 BC</b>. 
...
One of Manu’s heirs was Ila, ancestress of Yayati, whose five sons became the patriarchs of the <b>“five peoples” who form the ethnic horizon of the Vedas, one of them being Puru; in Puru’s tribe, then, one Bharata started the Bharata clan to which most of the Vedic seers belonged</b>. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->So the Vedas were the compositions of seers part of the Bharata clan of the Puru tribe.
Greeks chose a name familiar to them (the God Dionysus) to identify our first king (generally they call our Shiva "Dionysus"). "Liber Pater" is suggestive if it means Deliverer-Father, i.e. Manu who as per tradition saved humanity from the great flood. Not knowledgeable about Latin though.

4.6.4. Emigrations in the Puranas
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->What is more: <b>the Puranas mention several <i>emigrations</i>. </b>The oldest one explicitly described is by groups belonging to the Afghanistan-based Druhyu branch of the Aila/Saudyumna people, i.e. the Pauravas’ cousins, in the pre-Vedic or early Vedic period.  They are said to have moved to distant lands and set up kingdoms there.  Estimating our way through the dynastic (relative) chronology given in the Puranas, we could situate this emigration in the 5th millennium BC.  It is not asserted that that was the earliest such emigration: <b>the genealogy starts with Manu’s ten successors, of whom six disappear from the Puranic horizon at once</b>, while two others also recede m the background after a few generations; and many acts of peripheral tribes and dynasties, including their emigration, may have gone unnoticed.  But even if it were the earliest emigration, it is not far removed from a realistic chronology for the dispersion of the different branches of the IE family. It also tallies well with the start of the Kurgan culture by Asian immigrants in ca. 4500 BC.

Later the <b>Anavas are said to have invaded Panjab from their habitat in Kashmir</b>, and to have been defeated and expelled by the Pauravas in the so-called <b>Battle of the Ten Kings</b>, described in Rg Veda 7:18,19,33,83.  <b>The ten tribes allied against king Sudas (who belonged to the Trtsu branch of the Paurava tribe) have been enumerated in the Vedic references to the actual battle, and a number of them are unmistakably Iranian: Paktha (Pashtu), BhalAna (Bolan/Baluch), Parshu (Persian), PRthu (Parthian), the others being less recognizable: VishANin, AlIna, Shiva, Shimyu, BhRgu, Druhyu.</b>  At the same time, they are (except for the Druhyus) collectively <b>called “Anu’s sons”, </b>in striking agreement with the Puranic account of an Anava struggle against the Paurava natives of Panjab.  Not mentioned in the Vedic account, but mentioned in the Puranic account as the <b>Anava tribe settled farthest west in Panjab (most removed from the war theatre), is the Madra (Mede?) tribe</b>. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[right][snapback]44570[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

so we know which tribe descended from Manu wrote the vedas, which were the iranians etc.
which tribe descended from which offspring of manu was the progenitor of the peoples who speak the aggulutinative languages of southindia??
and which tribe descended from which offspring of manu was the progenitor of the tribals??

[Guest]

Ben Ami, first a reply to your question:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->is the story of the saviour indeed a fable?? he never existed?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let's put it this way: so many Godmen born of virgins, so many pre-Christian crucifictions (the Greek God Dionysus was depicted as such on a cross centuries before Christ was, in the same pose!), so many resurrections, so many "saviours". Entire chapters of the Bible are from other religious sources (as I recall, the Book of Revelations is Zoroastrian and Egyptian scripture). Parts of the "Fall in the Garden of Eden" story was similar to a story native to Greece, see http://www.greatlie.com/en/bookphotos.cfm?id=8&photo=2
One of the two <i>contrary</i> creation myths of the Bible, is from Zoroastrian and taken from the Avesta:
http://www.africawithin.com/jgjackson/jgja...ican_origin.htm (look for the word "Bundahish").

Jesus' supposed life is assembled from the lives of, amongst others, Krishna and Buddha. It includes, but is not limited to, Kamsa mirrored in Herod's actions, Buddha's dealings with a woman of low caste copied into the story of the Good Samaritan, etc. Likewise, other parts of Jesus' life are taken from other Gods' and heroes life stories*.
Many sayings attributed to Jesus in the New Testament, were stolen from Krishna's words in the Gita, from Buddha, as well as from famous heroes and Gods from other parts of the world.
Jesus turning water into wine which is celebrated during the "Epiphany(?)", was taken over from the celebration of Dionysus's miracle of water-into-wine which had previously occurred during the same time-period. Dionysus was the Greek God of Wine and Joy who yearly turned entire rivers into wine, so it only makes sense when Dionysus did it.
Baptism was performed by many people in the Middle-Eastern region. Many Biblical scholars and critics actually think it was taken over from an Indian tradition.
The Persian influences on Christianity (example, the word "paradise" entered Hebrew as "pardes" from the Iranian word Paradaiza which in Samskrt is Paradesha) are too numerous to list. But they include the story of the three "Magis" (Zoroastrian priests) guided by a bright star to visit the baby Jesus. This is said to lifted from the prediction of the Saoshyant, the Zoroastrian Saviour who will restore the world to right, mixed with the birth of either Zoroaster himself or Mithra.

In short, the Jesus of the New Testament was a construction that brought together the most common or out-of-context components of previous Gods and great men. Out-of-context is the key phrase as nothing makes sense in the setting of the New Testament or as enacted by Jesus. But when one finds it in the original source, the meaning becomes clear. Even the Gospel of St Thomas (likely to have been written down long after Thomas could have existed, if he ever did, although written before the 4 officially recognised gospels), has phrases that are extremely familiar to anyone who's read the Gita. Note: it's mentioned in another thread here, but the St Thomas Gospel has never been in the possession of the "Syrian" Christians of India.

In addition to all this, Christianity is in irreconcilable conflict with Judaism on the most important point. Christians conflated the Jewish term Messiah with the Zoroastrian Saoshyant. The Jewish Messiah was not someone who was to bring a spiritual world about which is the definition of the Saoshyant. The Messiah was to be a political leader (of the line of King David I think), who was to restore the temple of Jerusalem and end the oppression of the Hebrew people (under Rome, I believe) and lead them to have their own nation. The Messiah has nothing to do with anyone sent to "save souls" from the "original sin" or any other sin. So according to the Jews, the Messiah never came. We must believe the Jewish people on this, because after all Messiah is their term for something unique to their religion. It was (mis)appropriated by the early Church which, being mainly Roman or Byzantine, had little understanding of Hebrew and Judaism and made this colossal error in translation.

Finally, there were many Jesuses in the time that JC was claimed to have lived. None of them, in any important respect, matches the description of the JC of faith/of the Bible. There is ample historical evidence for the many Jesuses, none for the JC of Christianity.

More information can be found at:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com (the name of the site is clear in itself)

*There is more than enough reason to suspect that the story of Jesus having been in Kashmir was not that of Jesus but Apollonius of Tyana who is known to have travelled and learnt spiritual teachings in India (even as per his own admission). See http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/074...onius.html and http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0685L...html#Apollonius. He had performed the same miracles that the Jesus of Christianity is claimed to have performed, but Apollonius referred to them as being based on the laws of nature. Come 4th century, the by then well-established Christianity declared Apollonius an anti-Christ. A big surprise. Some people can't take competition for their mythical creation in the form of historically attested characters who led a similar life to the invented character (i.e. Christ).

Make up your own mind: take away all the plagiarism inherent in Jesus' life and sayings and what have you got? Nothing. Well, that's exactly how much historians, biblical scholars and archaeologists have been able to find about the Jesus of history: nothing. (The recent James' brother of Jesus ossuary has been declared a fake like all the many 'proofs of Jesus' existence' before and doubtless all of them to come).

[Guest]

Ashok Kumar,
Something very interesting came up in your post #41. "Vanguhi <b>Daitya</b>" which - as per the link you got the excerpt from ( http://www.avesta.org/vendidad/vd1sbe.htm ) - means 'the Vanguhi of the Law'.
So Daitya is a reference to something Iranian. Adityas vs Daityas is like Suras (Devas) vs Ahuras, when it comes to terminology. Once again, a word that so many people have assumed as referring to the "Dravidians" turns out to refer to an Iranian element.

For the next section and the subsequent post I'll be referring to the part from the Avesta you pasted along with "Note 5" about Airyanem Vaejo, Oxus, "Adarbajan", etc.
If Iran proper was the homeland of the Iranians, how does one make sense of the early Avesta references to Hapta Hendu. From Elst' in http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/books/ait/ch46.htm <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Iranian homelands Airyanam Vaejo, described as too cold in its 10-months-long winter, and Hapta-Hendu, described as rendered too hot for men (i.e. the Iranians) by the wicked Angra-Mainyu, are Kashmir and Sapta-Saindhavah (Panjab-Haryana) respectively.54 They are considered as the first two of sixteen countries successively allotted to the Iranians, the rest being the areas where the Iranians have effectively been living in proto-historical times. This scenario tallies quite exactly with the Vedic and Puranic data about the history of the Anavas, one of the five branches of the Aila/Saudyumna people: from Kashmir, they invaded Sapta-Saindhavah, but were defeated by the Paurava branch (which composed the Rg-Veda) and driven northwestward.

<b>Those who deny this scenario have had to invent a second “land of seven rivers” as the common Indo-Iranian homeland, from which the Iranians’ Vedic cousins took the name but not the memory into India;</b> or to interpret the Avestan river-name Ranha (correlate of Sanskrit RasA, the Puranic name of the Amu Darya or Oxus) as meaning the Volga.55 It is a safe rule of scientific method that <b>“entities are not to be multiplied without necessity” (Occam’s razor)</b>, and therefore, until proof of the contrary, we should accept that the term Sapta Saindhavah and its Iranian evolute Hapta Hendu refer to the same region historically known by that name. Both Indian and Iranian sources situate the break-up between Indians and Iranians, Deva- and Asura-worshippers, in Sapta-Saindhavah. Before such a concordant testimony of all parties concerned, it is quite pretentious to claim that one knows it all better, and that they separated in Iran or Central Asia instead. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Even in the consideration (going against Occam's Razor) of there being a reduplication of Sapta Sindhu in Afghanistan under the name "Hapta Hendu" - it's still in Afghanistan and not Iran. But Hapta Hendu has been identified with India's Punjab by Gnoli (who has studied the Avesta):<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Kochhar is mistaken when he claims that "India does not figure in the Avestan and Pahlevi literature at all" (p.97). <b>The land of seven rivers, Hapta Hendu, mentioned in Videvdad 1, is none other than Sapta-Sindhu, northwestern India (confirmed e.g. by Gherardo Gnoli: De Zoroastre à Mani, Paris 1985, p.26)</b>, and not the Afghan Farah-rud as Kochhar arbitrarily claims. Also, Airyanam Vaejo, mentioned ibidem, is a bit of a mystery to iranologists, but one serious candidate is certainly Kashmir, where summer does indeed last only two months, in conformity with the description given. The Persian word Hindu for "Indian" confirms that, contrary to Kochhar's claim, Hindu/Sindhu was their name for the Indus river and not merely a generic term for "river".<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

Talageri's book at http://voiceofdharma.org/books/rig/ch6.htm refers to <b>Gherardo Gnoli</b>'s work (The <b>VidEvdAt or VendidAd is abbreviated to Vd</b>):<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->But the <b>geographical facts of the Avesta, as set out by Gnoli</b> in great detail in his book <i>Zoroaster’s Time and Homeland</i>, show very <b>clearly that the oldest regions known to the Iranians were Afghanistan and areas to its east</b>. They also show (and he says so specifically in no uncertain terms) that <b>areas to the west, and also to the north, were either totally unknown to the Iranians, or else they were areas newly known to them and which did not form a part of their traditional ethos. Any references to migrations, in his analysis, are always to migrations from east to west or from south to north.</b>
...
Gnoli repeatedly stresses “the fact that Avestan geography, particularly the list in Vd. I, is confined to the east,”30 and points out that this list is “remarkably important in reconstructing the early history of Zoroastrianism”.31
Elsewhere, he again refers to “the entirely eastern character of the countries listed in the first chapter of the VendidAd, including Zoroastrian RaYa, and the historical and geographical importance of that list”.32
The horizon of the Avesta, Gnoli notes, “is according to Burrow, wholly eastern and therefore certainly earlier than the westward migrations of the Iranian tribes.”33
...
In great detail, <b>he rejects theories which seek to connect up some of the places named in the Avesta (such as Airyana VaEjah and RaYa) with areas in the west</b>, and concludes that this attempt to transpose the geography of the Avesta from Afghanistan to western Iran “was doubtless due to different attempts made by the most powerful religious centres of western Iran and the influential order of the Magi to appropriate the traditions of Zoroastrianism that had flourished in the eastern territories of the plateau in far-off times. Without a doubt, the identification of RaYa with AdurbAdagAn, more or less parallel with its identification with Ray, should be fitted into the vaster picture of the <b>late location of Airyana VaEjah in ADarbAyjAn</b>.”34
The crucial geographical list of sixteen Iranian lands, in the first chapter of the VendidAd, is fully identified: “From the second to the sixteenth country, we have quite a compact and consistent picture. The order goes roughly from north to south and then towards the east: Sogdiana (Gava), Margiana (Mourv), Bactria (BAx?I, Nisaya between Margiana and Bactria, Areia (HarOiva), KAbulistAn (VaEkArAta), the GaznI region (UrvA), XnAnta, Arachosia (HaraxvaitI), Drangiana (HaEtumant), a territory between Zamin-dAvar and Qal‘at-i-Gilzay (RaYa), the LUgar valley (Caxra), BunEr (VarAna), <b>PañjAb (Hapta HAndu)</b>, <b>RaNhA … between the KAbul and the Kurram, in the region where it seems likely the Vedic river RasA flowed.</b>”35
<b>Gnoli notes that India is very much a part of the geographical picture: “With VarAna and RaNhA, as of course with Hapta HAndu, which comes between them in the Vd. I list, we find ourselves straight away in Indian territory</b>, or, at any rate, in territory that, from the very earliest times, was certainly deeply permeated by Indo-Aryans or Proto-Indoaryans.”36
Although the scholars are careful to include “northeastern modem Iran” in their descriptions, the <b>areas covered by the VendidAd list only touch the easternmost borders of Iran</b>: but they cover the whole of Afghanistan, the northern half of present-day Pakistan (NWFP, Punjab), and the southern parts of Central Asia to the north of Afghanistan, and, again, in the east, they enter the northwestern borders of present-day (post-1947) India.
...
RaNhA itself leads Gnoli “to think of an eastern mountainous area, Indian or Indo-Iranian, hit by intense cold in winter”.38
<b>In sum, the geography of the Avesta almost totally excludes present-day Iran </b>and areas to its north and west, and consists exclusively of Afghanistan and areas to its north and east, including parts of Rigvedic India (see map opposite p.120).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->When it comes to Zoroaster, it is generally accepted that he was born in Balkh. Since Iranians settled in Iran after Afghanistan, as indicated by the Avesta, Balkh seems more than a possibility.
I don't know which place the Avesta refers to when speaking of "Airyanam Vaejah", but because most of Iran was unknown to the Iranians prior to them settling there, it seems to rule out its chances of being the Iranian homeland.

[Guest]

Ben Ami,<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->so we know which tribe descended from Manu wrote the vedas, which were the iranians etc.
which tribe descended from which offspring of manu was the progenitor of the peoples who speak the aggulutinative languages of southindia??
and which tribe descended from which offspring of manu was the progenitor of the tribals?? <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><b>(1) South Indian languages and speakers</b>
Why assume that the South Indian people descended from Manu? Why not the other way around? After all, according to genetics, India was populated starting from the South (S -> E -> NW -> Afghanistan -> Iran). If in doubt about the S -> N part, see G. Subramaniam's very succinct summary of current genetics research in Post#191 of the What DNA says about AIT thread:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->What DNA shows is that north Indians are descended from south Indians
who were the main migrants into India through the coastal route<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't know about the language differences between N & S, although there might be some indication to it in the very name of <i>Samskrt</i>: "well created/well designed". It seems to be constructed for a purpose, so for all we know our ancestors could all have been speaking Tamil or its parent-language (if Tamil wasn't the first). Shame I know nothing about the language.
Alternatively, the Dravidian speakers and Manu's ancestors might have split long before already. Many Dravidian speakers might still have remained in Kumari Kandam and South India, with only a few venturing into the North-East. I don't know. Nevertheless, the split has to be recent, because as G. Subramaniam has indicated: <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->DNA also shows that most of the Indian population has been present in India for over 20k years<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><b>(2) Tribals</b>
Dhu had already provided a very clear post on the strong genetic links we share with Indians classed as "tribals" in What DNA says about AIT <b>Post #72</b>. He refers to the paper "The genetic heritage of the earliest settlers persists both in indian tribal and caste populations" Kivisild et al (2003) and has already highlighted relevant statements in bold. Read that post of his. I'll paste the stuff he put in bold here for other reasons:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Haplogroup R1a, previously associated with the putative Indo-Aryan invasion, was found at its highest frequency in Punjab but also at a relatively high frequency (26%) in the Chenchu tribe.</b> ... suggests that southern and western Asia might be the source of this haplogroup. <b>Taken together, these results show that Indian tribal and caste populations derive largely from the same genetic heritage of Pleistocene southern and western Asians and have received limited gene flow from external regions since the Holocene. </b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> Note: <b>Western Asians</b> is mentioned also - i.e. Iranians. The tribals (designated as such by today's colonials, to differentiate them from the rest of us Indians) share the same R1a Haplogroup with not only the rest of India but with Iranians.
The R1a's pervasiveness in India and West Asia is clearly the major reason why other 'scientists' have quickly dissociated themselves from their previous theories about the "R1a is the invasion marker". Doubtless they tried to find some other "invasion gene marker" but have now given up since it's so obvious there's very little of the "Central Asian" in any of us. And most likely the only bit of those tiniest of tiny Central Asian input came to us with the Shaka invasions.

Interestingly Shakas weren't all European either. Western Shakas were Iranian speakers, and so Iranian for all intents and purposes. Eastern Shakas were closely related to Mongolians, which is probably the reason why neo-nazis are still hesitant to connect themselves with the Shaka label. So for neo-nazis, "Arya" is starting to become really distasteful since it means having to be connected to Dravidian and tribal Indians and much of the rest of the world (according to the Indian and Iranian meaning of Arya) and "Shaka" includes a group of East Asians. Perhaps nazis should stick to "Caucasian" as a self-identifying label, except that it implies the Caucasus region where many people still speak Iranian languages: those languages linked to West-Asians who share the R1a with Indian "tribals"....

Going back to Dhu's post, the paper he referred to investigated 2 tribes <b>known</b> to be ancient to India. The paper correctly did not consider some other Indian groups classified as tribals who are actually recent entrants to India and thus far "less indigenous" than any mythical Aryan-invaders from 1500 BCE. (The later paper by Sforza et al comparing Indian tribal and caste populations is seriously suspect. I've outlined some of obvious objections to it in the thread Aryan Invasion/migration Theories & Debates Post #170.)

[Guest]

does anyone knwo the connections between indian and persian music and mutual influences.

[dhu]

blogger Subhash Kak:

The Indian Religion In Ancient Iran And Zarathushtra
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->From Kashmir, which belongs square within the Vedic world, comes crucial evidence regarding a three-way division consisting of devas, asuras, and daevas. The scheme reflects the three fundamental gunas of Indian thought: sattva, rajas, and tamas.

Deva, or devata (sattva): power related to understanding
Asura (rajas): power related to activity
Daeva (tamas): power related to acquisitiveness

Kashmiri folklore is full of tales where daevas are counterpoints to devas and asuras. Sometimes the term rakshasa is used as a synonym for daeva. This term rakshasa occurs very frequently in Sanskrit literature. The word rakshas appears in the Rigveda, the Aitareya Brahmana and it is also considered equivalent to Nirriti. The rakshasa form of marriage is the violent seizure or rape of a girl after the defeat or destruction of her relatives.

It is entirely possible that the term daeva came into Kashmir late as a result of the immigration of Persians. If that were the case, the reason why it took root is because it served as a synonym for an existing idea. <b>It is equally possible that the term has been current in Kashmir from ancient times and its usage there parallels that by Zarathushtra from the nearby Bactria. </b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

who exactly were the Dhruvas and who were the Sakas?

[Guest]

The historical identity of the Vedic Aryans themselves, as we have seen, is quite specific: this identity does not embrace all the tribes and peoples named in the Rigveda, but is confined to the PUrus (and particularly the Bharatas among them) who are alone called Aryas in the Rigveda.

All the other people, i.e. all non-PUrus, are called DAsas in the Rigveda. While it is natural to infer that the term DAsa was a general term for all non-PUrus as well as a specific term for the particular non-PUrus who existed “side by side” with the PUrus (i.e. for the Iranians), there must also have been a specific tribal name for these particular non-PUrus.

The Rigveda (in agreement with the PurANas) classifies the PUrus as one of the five tribes: namely, the Yadus, TurvaSas, Druhyus, Anus, PUrus (I.108.8). Prima facie, the Iranians must be identifiable with one of the remaining four.

Of the four, all sources locate the Yadus and TurvaSas together in the interior of India, and the Druhyus are located outside the frontiers of India. The most likely candidates are therefore the Anus who are located “side by side” with the PUrus in all geographical descriptions (and, incidentally, even in the enumeration of the names of the five tribes in I.108.8).

And an examination of the evidence demonstrates beyond the shadow of any doubt that the ancient Indian tribes of the Anus are identical with the ancient Iranians:


from http://voiceofdharma.org/books/rig/ch6.htm

[Guest]

in all the discussions about AIT and aryans etc, there is none more important than the relation between indians and persians. with that relation, and with its chronology (of the Rg veda and Avesta), lives or falls (i hope falls) the ait.

please everyone contribute whatever info you can to this thread.

[Guest]

An interesting hypothesis about the fate of Anus after the Battle of the Ten Kings can be found in David Frawleys "The RigVeda and the History of India". He suggestes that the entire Anu tribe got split into two, one branch headed West towards present day Iran. The other branch headed East to present day Bengal.

[Guest]

here is the whole of Frawley's book available for online reading -

http://www.indiaforum.org/india/hinduism...index.html

[Guest]

To Ashok Kumar, in reference to post 21:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->the term "Arya" was in common usage amidst persians<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes. The Greeks called the Persians <i>Arians</i> (possibly a phonetic transliteration into English), probably after the manner in which the Persian royalty referred to themselves.
Diodorus of Sicily, 1st century bc wrote the following about the Zoroastrian Iranians and their teacher:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Thus it is recorded that among the Arians Zathraustes claimed that the Good Spirit gave him his laws<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

To Sushmita, in reference to post 10:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"Liber Pater" is suggestive if it means Deliverer-Father, i.e. Manu who as per tradition saved humanity from the great flood. Not knowledgeable about Latin though.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> <i>Liber Pater</i> is the reverential title given to the Roman solar God Apollo. (Apollo, though a solar deity was <i>not</i> the Sun God, that was Helios).
It is very possible that they identified Apollo with one of our own Gods, heroes or kings. The Greeks and Romans saw their Gods reflected in other peoples'. There's the ancient pluralism for you, trying to identify the elements people had in common.
Father Liberator as Manu is interesting. Is there any other Indian character of that period in time that could be considered equivalent to Apollo?

[Guest]

Mithraism was diferent then Mithra cult from Iran ,see on wikipedia MIthraism. The rituals,dress of Mithra it self ,the 7 initiation steps,the astrologic input and many other similarites show a conection whit geto-dakian thracian religion of Zalmoxes ; Zalmoxes was a religios reformer in 600BC (while others put his birth at 1300-1200BC,whit the birth of the first university in the world in Balkan) .The substart of mithraism was spread alot whit macedonians which they was not greeks at all ,but thracians.Thats why we find mithraism in the elenistic kingdoms (fonded by macedonians)were was mixed whit some iranian elements. The mithra cult was mixed whit apollo cult and foundet the sol invictus cult.