(Moved from the christianism=terrorism thread)
Post 2/3
That link is too entertaining. Must archive its contents.
alaska.net/~peace/krishna.htm
And today's Moronism prize goes to... Bahai. Wow are they embarrassing themselves. If any proof was needed that some religions are entirely made up, then the above link provides a good short example.
These people are almost as debile as the kind of temporary alien converts to Hindu religion who go about terrorising Hindus with "you are monotheists, monotheists".
But next time islamaniacs terrorise the Bahai some more, remind me not to care. (They're obviously *dangerously* delusional themselves: they are a danger to heathenisms.) What with their pretences at "knowing" Krishna better than Hindus (and I'm not even talking about the moronic oryanist example linked in the previous post) and their pretending to know him at all and for their utter delusional dawaganda on Hindu scriptures, Hindu Gods, Avataras and other Hindu terminology and Bahai's audacity to tie all this to totally-unrelated Abrahamistic stuffs. Needless to say, they haven't seen a single one of the characters they commandeered as prophets for their religion, let alone having seen the Hindu Gods or the Buddha. It's bad enough to invent a lame religion - and Bahai is pure, unadulterated, mind-numbing invention, no different from christoislam etc - but to then poach on other people's Gods to peddle your own and to give your invention a longer pedigree should be denounced as an act of anti-heathenism and universally outed as a falsehood.
Baha'i and Manichaeanism etc brings me to a related subject.
Some time back, the Rajeev2004 blog hosted some article whose writers were peddling that Yezidis' religion - which is an "Adamic" religion too (Yezidis claim descent from Adam), and which is often classed as an old Abrahamic one, along with other old and less familiar ME Abrahamic religions like that of the Mandaeans and Samaritans -
Again: the writers were peddling that Yezidis' religion was a "Dharmic" religion and that the primary angel of the Yezidis was moreover an "avataaram" identical to Shiva and Murugan etc. The article at the Rajeev2004 blog further invoked the "Supreme Brahman" and associated this with Adam and Eve and Abrahamic religion and all, just like the Bahai above. (And somewhat like Manichaeanism, which was combining Abrahamic religion and Iranian, Zoroastrian, Buddhist and Hindu religions. And which also rewrote the meaning of avataaram.)
Yezidism is a monotheism and it took a lot of influences from Mithraism and Zoroastrianism (many older ME religions were heavily influenced by Zoroastrianism and Mithraism). It is very likely that Yezidism is about as old as late Mithraism in Rome, or as old as Manichaeanism which is about as old as christianism, since there were lots of religions like Manichaeanism and Yezidism springing up around that time. Back then, features of old Iranian and Babylonian religion were still around and influenced people in nearby regions. Just because a religion X has elements of old Iranian religion does NOT mean that it is coeval with the origins of that old Iranian religion. Just like Manichaeanism is not coeval with older Iranian religions that it poached from.
Historically, Hindu religion was very familiar to people west of the Indian subcontinent too, a path followed by Buddhism later on. And some memory of both and of their popular features lingered for long after. Which is why Yezidism - which has been influenced over time by religions older and younger than itself - has imbibed these notions. Like Manichaeanism - and the very recent Bahai - Yezidism (now) seems to also like to claim Hindu Gods along with Abrahamic entities as "avataaras" [in the re-defined ME sense] of its own mono-deity, within its (very closely related to Abrahamic) cosmology. Doesn't make Yezidism Dharmic, just as it doesn't make Manichaeanism or Bahai etc Dharmic.
Here. Tracked down the link:
rajeev2004.blogspot.com/2014/08/fwd-are-iraqs-vanishing-pagan-yezidis.html
Particularly relevant is the image of a pamphlet/article there, where Hindu stuff is claimed at random for Yezidism and gets forcibly merged with Adam and Eve* and with the late invention of the ME monogawd. Not a decade back, Yezidis were still audibly insisting that they were a Zoroastrian religion, with Zoroastrians heavily denying any relation. Now it seems Yezidis want to be a Dharmic religion. (Tomorrow they may claim relations with Taoism?)
* Some say Adam and Eve has Iranian origins too. Nevertheless, late Iranian religious motif innovations/inventions are still not Hindu.
It's one thing for some religion X to start involving our Gods and religion, it's another for Hindus to fall for their claims and imagine it a long-lost "sister" religion. Yezidism is no more related than Manichaeanism. The links they all make are - like hyperlinks - all *one* way.
Also, Hindu religion is not *their* religion. These are not *their* Gods. They don't know what they're talking about.
If the Bahai (=Abrahamists) are not to be confounded with/conflated as "Dharmic" by Hindus, then may apply the same sense to Yezidis: they are more closely related by far to Zoroastrianism (not to mention Abrahamism). And not even Zoroastrianism can be called a Dharmic religion: Zoroastrianism was itself a missionary religion that *replaced* ancient Iranian religion, which latter admittedly was related to Hindus' religion.
Another thing that seems to blinker (willingly) gullible Hindus is the type of photo also seen at the rajeev link of Yezidis apparently gathered around a painting of a Hindu woman in a saree holding a Deepam/Vilakku with a Mayoora at the top. Yezidis might choose to mistake anyone having a peacock lamp as having something to do with their religion or as being adherents thereof. But there's several issues here:
1. Hindus can show their working of how our deepas including those with mayoora imagery was derived. Shilpis - at least in the south - always learn to create not just moorties of the Gods but also deepams (as these are also our Gods) and this is a *long* tradition in India. Its ancientry and independent (original) derivation among Hindus is easily demonstrated. See also point 3.
[I'd like to see people producing evidence of *ancient* usage of peacock lamps among Yezidis' - older than 2000 years, since we knew even Manichaeanism of 2nd century CE was using some of the Hindu stuffs that were already doing the rounds in W Asia and beyond at least some 2000 years BP. And especially want evidence of peacock lamps being Yezidis' own derivation and not borrowed - considering so many aspects of their religion are owing to borrowing from other religions. If they want to claim it is derived from Hindus, they then need to admit that the source it was derived from used it for Hindu purposes and cosmological views, which had nothing to do with Yezidi beliefs. And which moreover didn't know of Yezidi beliefs: the old Hindu scriptures don't know of Yezidi religion or other Abrahamic religions.]
2. Mayoora aren't the only common motif seen on Hindoos' deepam. There is of course also the typically ornately-rendered Hamsa used on deepas (and IIRC sometimes also Yazhis). In any case, hamsas are just as common as mayoora in deepam. Compare with how certain animals are common on top of the bell that Hindus ring during deepaaraadhanam: e.g. Nandi is often on top of the bell.
3. The blue (deep, royal blue) peacock is exclusively native to the Indian subcontinent. (The similar-looking but beautifully aquamarine - dubbed "green" - peacock is native to some Himalayan nations and SE Asia.*) The blue peacock being native to India, it is natural for it to appear in Hindu religion since ancient times. However, everyone else - everywhere else - *must* have been introduced to the peacock at some point in known history, and if they claim that the peacock motif in their religion goes back to some ur-period, they are backprojecting.
The blue peacock's range is actually confined largely to the bounds of *modern* India and of SL, and is absent from most of Pakistan let alone Afghanistan or Iran, forget Kurdistan. Always did wonder how they found their way into Hellenismos/GrecoRoman religion: blue peacocks, and especially their tail feathers, have since ancient times been closely been associated with Goddess Hera. (It's one of many exclusively-Indian elements that I noticed had somehow appeared in western religions long ago. Something Hindus should have investigated. In contrast I have not yet discovered anything demonstrably exclusively European found in Hindu religion. Obviously not counting oryans claiming that the ancient Vedic heritage of Hindoos was "white"/European and arguing that such a backprojected claim is magically "proof".)
[* I see that according to wackypedia, there's apparently a 3rd and final type of the peacock family: a variant in the Congo, but it doesn't have the long distinguishing tail that we associate with a peacock and looks a bit like a Turkey and like a different type of bird altogether. While wacky further mentions the Indian (blue) peacock's occurrence in Hellenismos, it typically attributes this - as it does all other Indian arrivals in Greece - as something that must have happened after Alexander. There is however a link there to a book - by an Indian, of course - which claims the blue=Indian peacock may been introduced to Greece some centuries before. I doubt western people will publicly take notice of such a book, as it will raise all sorts of other questions the west doesn't like to ponder: a lot of their edifice is built on their needing to assume that Alexander was the first contact between India and Greece. Ooh wackypedia even has a bit on peacock usage - as food and medicine against poison - among Vikings. It is a Hindu view - from experience of peacocks - that peacocks have an anti-poison function, since peacocks eat some snakes. The Vikings would likely have been introduced to both the peacock as well as the notion of it being a deterrent against poision from the same (intermediary) source. Anyway, the peacock's presence in other old religions is one of several things whose direction of travel is definitely known and undeniable. Whereas the longtailed peacock's presence in Indian and Himalayan/SE Asian religion is naturally indigenously-derived.]
Anyway, Yezidis can argue that the above 3 points are owing to Hindu influences that they had brought with them from their origins in India, since the article posted at Rajeev2004 has some Yezidis asserting Indian origins. But if Yezidis' ancestors *did* have a history in India, it was very clearly *before* the invention of Yezidi religion: ancient India had no knowledge of Yezidi religion, Yezidi religion obviously postdates post-Vedic Iranian religions and movements (since Yezidi religion has no features of original Iranian religion, only inheriting stuff that existed from the time of Zoroastrianism and Mithraism and the general breakup/obscuring of old Iranian religion), plus Yezidis must have come by their Yezidi religion *after* leaving India and probably after settling in the ME. All this only applies if they still want to claim that their people originated in India. Because India - and Hindu/Vedic religion especially - knows nothing about Adam and abrahamisms. So Yezidis should halt attempts at forcibly merging their religion onto Hindus' religion. These attempts can't be that old either. Because, less than a decade back (when I first looked up info on them), Yezidis still insisted uni-directionally that their religion was a Zoroastrianism. And Zoroastrianism was never Indian but Iranian: it was born in NW Afghanistan or Iran (NW Afghanistan was, at least at that time, Persian territory / Iranian-inhabited).
Further, Zoroastrians denied any original association between Zoroastrianism and Yezidism, so why should today's new-agey Hindus (desperate?) seek to imagine an even more tenuous (or rather untenable) connection between Hindus' religion and Yezidism, merely because a western convert to Hinduism and some Yezidis want to promote such a connection? (In fact, many a site on Yezidism online which claim elements in common with Hindu religion, further claim that theirs is the original and originating world religion, that it and its God is at the root of all others such as Judaism/christianism/islam - i.e. the abrahamisms - and Hindu religion, etc, etc. Then again, even islam claims to be not only The One True religion but also The Sole Original religion, contrary to all evidence.) Any Hindus eager to entertain notions of an association with Yezidism should then have the honesty to equally claim that Bahai and Manichaeanism are ancient "Dharmic" religions and related to Hindu religion too, even though Bahai is closer to islam and Manichaeanism is closer to Zoroastrianism and even though both the Iranian religions of Bahai and Manicheaeanism are known historic inventions.
That Kurdish is classed an Indo-Iranian language is not the question (Kurdish is IIRC Iranian?). Whether the speakers merely adopted the language or not is not certain - at least, that was a point of discussion by Persian Zoroastrians - but, either way, the religion [Yezidism] is NOT related to Hindus' religion. And they may prove from genetics that they are "more" related to Hindus than -say- (non-Russo) Armenians, if they really want to insist on it.
None of this is to say that Hindus should not support the Yezidis - monetarily or at the very least morally - in the horrors they face under their current predicament vis-a-vis islamania, since Yezidism is not a missionary religion (unlike Bahai) and so poses no threat to heathens in that sense. However, even when sympathising, people may use some sense to draw the line. Hindus don't even conflate Zoroastrianism with our religion, why conflate a religion that is partially a spin-off from Zoroastrianism (plus Zoroastrianism is itself a prophetic, monotheistic and once-missionary tradition) and which was moreover significantly influenced by Abrahamic religions? Hindus should for Yezidis' *own* sake defend the latter's right to exist as a non-belligerent people and to be left in peace.
How to put it... By all means support Yezidis, but not because Hindus think they can squeeze Yezidis to fit into the same... 'box' as Hindus. And Yezidis need not imagine that the only way they will win Hindus' sympathy is by appealing to 'connections' between the two religions. (Actually, that is offputting.) Hindus need no convincing to muster at least moral support for non-threatening populations.
Lots of religions historical and modern make ridiculous claims on Hindu religion (while not even being heathenisms). Modern "Hindus" seem intent in falling for the claims of each and subvert their own religion thereby by peddling partial info. (For instance, the article re-posted at Rajeev2004 didn't even seem aware that Yezidism is no more uniquely "Dharmic" - in whatever respect it supposedly is "Dharmic" - than Bahai, say, or that other example: Manichaeanism.) Consider how much ur-Shramanism has seeped into modern Hindus' psyche to the extent that a great many of them have revealed subscribing to one or other ur-Shramanist make-beliefs concerning Indian and especially Hindu history.
The other weird behaviour is that when modern Hindus take a moment from looking ever westward for approval and turn to notice what's to the east of us, they always tend to assume everything further east "must be" derived from Indic religions, even though religions like Taoism can show indigenous derivation of key aspects of their religion such as martial arts or medicine or other religious practices and views - which are often the very aspects encroached upon by others for Buddhism (or PIE/Oryanism) - no less than Hindu religion can show native derivation of Hindu stuffs.
In highlighting modern Hindus' tendency to not take the religions further east seriously despite these being ancient and original/native heathenisms, I'm not hereby claiming Hindus and their religion are ..."genetically" related to Taoism etc. And one can't technically foist the term Dharmic on Taoists and Shintos (especially not in any set where the non-Hindu Dharmic religions of Buddhism/Jainism/Sikhism are a part), but insofar as Hindoos' religion is the subcontinent's native ancestral heathenism and Taoism, Shinto, Hellenismos etc are the native ancestral heathenisms (a.o.t. locally derived spin-offs and missionary religions) of their various parts of the world - in *that* sense perhaps one is allowed to refer to all these as the Sanatana Dharmas of their respective ethnic populations/regions.
Post 2/3
That link is too entertaining. Must archive its contents.
alaska.net/~peace/krishna.htm
Quote:Introduction to the Baha'i Faith for the Followers of Krishna(Comments in purple expanded to be more complete.)
The 'Song of God' or Bhagavad-Gita was first given to Arjuna around 1246 B.C. by Krishna. It is considered the 'gospels' of Hinduism. The essence of the teachings of Krishna is this: that we should detach from materialism in order to evolve spiritually. In the Baha'i Faith, we have a similar teaching that we should detach from all save God.
The full teaching to the Indian people are called the Vedas. They constitute six times the bulk of the Bible and recount similar stories and figures; such as the coming of Adam, the flood of Noah, and the missions of Shem and Abraham.
(Amazing how Bahai have become the experts on the Vedas. The proof that they have no idea what they're spewing is in how they have imagined Adam, Noah and Shem/Abraham into the Vedam - and convenient ignorance about how deluge stories are present in most ancient heathen religions, which is where they were copied into the missionary religions.
Bahai is right up there with how oryanists like to read themselves - Europeans "Oryans" - into the Vedas.)
For example, one of the oldest figures in the Vedas was Manu. He was the "progeniter of humanity." His followers were known as the Manus. "According to the Vedas, the Manus represent the earliest Divine Lawgivers, who established sacrificial acts and religious ceremonies." (Encyclopedia of Eastern Philosophy and Religions, pg. 220) An enlightening parallel when compared with the book of Genesis which recounts Adam as the first divine lawgiver. It was Adam who taught his descendants their rituals of sacrifice. This is but one of the numerous parallels that occur throughout the texts of all the world's religions.
(Huh. Not sure what the World's Stupidest Invented (AKA Missionary) Religion is any more. Each one is more delusional than the one before. It's like they're competing for "the most mentally-regressing" prize. This one is pure drivel.)
There is a relationship between the Vedas to the Holy Bible. In part, this is due to the lineage of Krishna and the Indian people which can be traced back to Adam. Krishna is a descendent of Adam (Manu) through Abraham's third wife Keturah. Moses and the Israelites share a lineage tracing back to Adam through Abraham's first wife Sarah. More importantly, the religions of the Hindus and of the Jews and Christians all originate from the same, Omniscient Creator of the universe. All dissimilarities are due to the tamperings of the clergy classes.
(Since the Vedas have zip-all in common with the Abrahamic religions, the entire Vedam must therefore be dubbed one big dissimilarity. So Bahai should explain the *entire* vedam away as "the tampering of clergy classes", and leave the Vedas and Hindus out of their insane and late mythmaking.)
The Hindu texts speak of teachers or prophets that are sent from Brahma (the One True Invisible God). They call them Avatars which means, "an incarnation of divine consciousness on Earth." These teachers have this title because they recieve the "Logos" which is "thought of God." Baha'is refer to these great Avatars as "Manifestations" because they manifest the attributes of God to mankind. They come progressively and teach humanity spiritual truths and reveal laws for an ever advancing civilization. The Vedas speak of 10 Avatars that are to come in this cycle of humanity known as the Adamic cycle which was started with the coming of Adam 6000 years ago.
(Avataras are not "prophets", which is a feature of ME and W-Asian religion. Avataras are full manifestations of the Hindu - note not Bahai or any other - Gods.
And of course, other self-delusional Bahai lies in the above para need correction too, like: 1. the Hindu God Brahma is not invisible nor the sole Hindu God: he is for example part of a trinity of male Gods and is further married to female Goddesses. That's as per *Hindu* texts, hence totally contrary to Bahai make-believe about what said Hindu texts have to say. 2. Plus the Vedas don't speak of 10 avataras, but other Hindu texts do speak of the 10 avataras. 3. And they're not of any random invisible=invented monogawd's avataras either: the Hindu texts - i.e. the only legitimate texts to speak of 10 avataras or of any avataras for that matter - speak of the particular Hindu God *Vishnu's* 10 avataras.)
These Avatars, chronologically, were Adam, Moses, Krishna, Zoroaster, Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, the Bab and Baha'u'llah. Baha'u'llah was the 9th Avatar (aka - the "reincarnation of Krishna). Baha'u'llah revealed the "New" Song of God for this day. His is the message desperately needed for a demoralized society. The 10th Avatar is called Kalki Avatar; he appears at the end of this cycle or age (now) with his sword drawn for the final destruction of the wicked. What you will find here is Proof that Baha'u'llah truly is the one sent from Brahma. His proof is given from The Holy Bible because we live in a predominately Christian society. If you would like to read the proof for the Kalki Avatar, please download Over the Wall from our homepage.
(All missionary religions that poach on one of the Dashaavataram, always poach on Kalki to close as the 10th. This is because Hindus' religion made the 10 famous and always held up Kalki as a future avataaram, which was well-known. Can see several Buddhisms use Hindus' Kalki in a manner similar to the Bahai, while declaring it all a Buddhism and peddling it about as Buddhism.
Plus need to negate further deranged Bahai lying: 1. The 10 avataras as per Hindu texts - which are again the only texts that can legitimately speak of avataras at all, all else are late and bad copies=invented religion - are nothing to do with Zoroastrianism let alone anything Abrahamic. 2. Again: Hindu texts/religion had never heard of anything Abrahamic. 3. The 10 avataras of Vishnu are - as anyone except adherents of invented=fake=lying religions would know: The Fish Matsya, the Tortoise Koorma, the Boar Varaha, the Man-Lion Narasimha, Vamana, Parashurama, Rama, Balarama, Krishna, Kalki. This is the predominant southern Hindu tradition, including of Shri Vaishnavas and Madhvas, Shankara Mathas and southern Shaivas incl. Shaktas. The northern Hindu tradition puts Balarama with Krishna - or makes Krishna a special case - and introduces Buddha between Krishna and Kalki. So either way, most of the invented Bahai list of alleged 10 avataras is just Bahai lying/drivel. 4. Also, the Hindu texts don't only speak of Vishnu's 10 avataras, but of his 24 avataras too - none of which includes anything from alien and late/invented religions eiter, but only includes further Indian-onlee avataras. In other words: Bahai can only make converts among idiots.)
And today's Moronism prize goes to... Bahai. Wow are they embarrassing themselves. If any proof was needed that some religions are entirely made up, then the above link provides a good short example.
These people are almost as debile as the kind of temporary alien converts to Hindu religion who go about terrorising Hindus with "you are monotheists, monotheists".
But next time islamaniacs terrorise the Bahai some more, remind me not to care. (They're obviously *dangerously* delusional themselves: they are a danger to heathenisms.) What with their pretences at "knowing" Krishna better than Hindus (and I'm not even talking about the moronic oryanist example linked in the previous post) and their pretending to know him at all and for their utter delusional dawaganda on Hindu scriptures, Hindu Gods, Avataras and other Hindu terminology and Bahai's audacity to tie all this to totally-unrelated Abrahamistic stuffs. Needless to say, they haven't seen a single one of the characters they commandeered as prophets for their religion, let alone having seen the Hindu Gods or the Buddha. It's bad enough to invent a lame religion - and Bahai is pure, unadulterated, mind-numbing invention, no different from christoislam etc - but to then poach on other people's Gods to peddle your own and to give your invention a longer pedigree should be denounced as an act of anti-heathenism and universally outed as a falsehood.
Baha'i and Manichaeanism etc brings me to a related subject.
Some time back, the Rajeev2004 blog hosted some article whose writers were peddling that Yezidis' religion - which is an "Adamic" religion too (Yezidis claim descent from Adam), and which is often classed as an old Abrahamic one, along with other old and less familiar ME Abrahamic religions like that of the Mandaeans and Samaritans -
Again: the writers were peddling that Yezidis' religion was a "Dharmic" religion and that the primary angel of the Yezidis was moreover an "avataaram" identical to Shiva and Murugan etc. The article at the Rajeev2004 blog further invoked the "Supreme Brahman" and associated this with Adam and Eve and Abrahamic religion and all, just like the Bahai above. (And somewhat like Manichaeanism, which was combining Abrahamic religion and Iranian, Zoroastrian, Buddhist and Hindu religions. And which also rewrote the meaning of avataaram.)
Yezidism is a monotheism and it took a lot of influences from Mithraism and Zoroastrianism (many older ME religions were heavily influenced by Zoroastrianism and Mithraism). It is very likely that Yezidism is about as old as late Mithraism in Rome, or as old as Manichaeanism which is about as old as christianism, since there were lots of religions like Manichaeanism and Yezidism springing up around that time. Back then, features of old Iranian and Babylonian religion were still around and influenced people in nearby regions. Just because a religion X has elements of old Iranian religion does NOT mean that it is coeval with the origins of that old Iranian religion. Just like Manichaeanism is not coeval with older Iranian religions that it poached from.
Historically, Hindu religion was very familiar to people west of the Indian subcontinent too, a path followed by Buddhism later on. And some memory of both and of their popular features lingered for long after. Which is why Yezidism - which has been influenced over time by religions older and younger than itself - has imbibed these notions. Like Manichaeanism - and the very recent Bahai - Yezidism (now) seems to also like to claim Hindu Gods along with Abrahamic entities as "avataaras" [in the re-defined ME sense] of its own mono-deity, within its (very closely related to Abrahamic) cosmology. Doesn't make Yezidism Dharmic, just as it doesn't make Manichaeanism or Bahai etc Dharmic.
Here. Tracked down the link:
rajeev2004.blogspot.com/2014/08/fwd-are-iraqs-vanishing-pagan-yezidis.html
Quote:Monday, August 11, 2014
Fwd: Are Iraq's Vanishing Pagan Yezidis the Hindus' Last Dharmic Cousins in the Middle-East ?
Particularly relevant is the image of a pamphlet/article there, where Hindu stuff is claimed at random for Yezidism and gets forcibly merged with Adam and Eve* and with the late invention of the ME monogawd. Not a decade back, Yezidis were still audibly insisting that they were a Zoroastrian religion, with Zoroastrians heavily denying any relation. Now it seems Yezidis want to be a Dharmic religion. (Tomorrow they may claim relations with Taoism?)
* Some say Adam and Eve has Iranian origins too. Nevertheless, late Iranian religious motif innovations/inventions are still not Hindu.
It's one thing for some religion X to start involving our Gods and religion, it's another for Hindus to fall for their claims and imagine it a long-lost "sister" religion. Yezidism is no more related than Manichaeanism. The links they all make are - like hyperlinks - all *one* way.
Also, Hindu religion is not *their* religion. These are not *their* Gods. They don't know what they're talking about.
If the Bahai (=Abrahamists) are not to be confounded with/conflated as "Dharmic" by Hindus, then may apply the same sense to Yezidis: they are more closely related by far to Zoroastrianism (not to mention Abrahamism). And not even Zoroastrianism can be called a Dharmic religion: Zoroastrianism was itself a missionary religion that *replaced* ancient Iranian religion, which latter admittedly was related to Hindus' religion.
Another thing that seems to blinker (willingly) gullible Hindus is the type of photo also seen at the rajeev link of Yezidis apparently gathered around a painting of a Hindu woman in a saree holding a Deepam/Vilakku with a Mayoora at the top. Yezidis might choose to mistake anyone having a peacock lamp as having something to do with their religion or as being adherents thereof. But there's several issues here:
1. Hindus can show their working of how our deepas including those with mayoora imagery was derived. Shilpis - at least in the south - always learn to create not just moorties of the Gods but also deepams (as these are also our Gods) and this is a *long* tradition in India. Its ancientry and independent (original) derivation among Hindus is easily demonstrated. See also point 3.
[I'd like to see people producing evidence of *ancient* usage of peacock lamps among Yezidis' - older than 2000 years, since we knew even Manichaeanism of 2nd century CE was using some of the Hindu stuffs that were already doing the rounds in W Asia and beyond at least some 2000 years BP. And especially want evidence of peacock lamps being Yezidis' own derivation and not borrowed - considering so many aspects of their religion are owing to borrowing from other religions. If they want to claim it is derived from Hindus, they then need to admit that the source it was derived from used it for Hindu purposes and cosmological views, which had nothing to do with Yezidi beliefs. And which moreover didn't know of Yezidi beliefs: the old Hindu scriptures don't know of Yezidi religion or other Abrahamic religions.]
2. Mayoora aren't the only common motif seen on Hindoos' deepam. There is of course also the typically ornately-rendered Hamsa used on deepas (and IIRC sometimes also Yazhis). In any case, hamsas are just as common as mayoora in deepam. Compare with how certain animals are common on top of the bell that Hindus ring during deepaaraadhanam: e.g. Nandi is often on top of the bell.
3. The blue (deep, royal blue) peacock is exclusively native to the Indian subcontinent. (The similar-looking but beautifully aquamarine - dubbed "green" - peacock is native to some Himalayan nations and SE Asia.*) The blue peacock being native to India, it is natural for it to appear in Hindu religion since ancient times. However, everyone else - everywhere else - *must* have been introduced to the peacock at some point in known history, and if they claim that the peacock motif in their religion goes back to some ur-period, they are backprojecting.
The blue peacock's range is actually confined largely to the bounds of *modern* India and of SL, and is absent from most of Pakistan let alone Afghanistan or Iran, forget Kurdistan. Always did wonder how they found their way into Hellenismos/GrecoRoman religion: blue peacocks, and especially their tail feathers, have since ancient times been closely been associated with Goddess Hera. (It's one of many exclusively-Indian elements that I noticed had somehow appeared in western religions long ago. Something Hindus should have investigated. In contrast I have not yet discovered anything demonstrably exclusively European found in Hindu religion. Obviously not counting oryans claiming that the ancient Vedic heritage of Hindoos was "white"/European and arguing that such a backprojected claim is magically "proof".)
[* I see that according to wackypedia, there's apparently a 3rd and final type of the peacock family: a variant in the Congo, but it doesn't have the long distinguishing tail that we associate with a peacock and looks a bit like a Turkey and like a different type of bird altogether. While wacky further mentions the Indian (blue) peacock's occurrence in Hellenismos, it typically attributes this - as it does all other Indian arrivals in Greece - as something that must have happened after Alexander. There is however a link there to a book - by an Indian, of course - which claims the blue=Indian peacock may been introduced to Greece some centuries before. I doubt western people will publicly take notice of such a book, as it will raise all sorts of other questions the west doesn't like to ponder: a lot of their edifice is built on their needing to assume that Alexander was the first contact between India and Greece. Ooh wackypedia even has a bit on peacock usage - as food and medicine against poison - among Vikings. It is a Hindu view - from experience of peacocks - that peacocks have an anti-poison function, since peacocks eat some snakes. The Vikings would likely have been introduced to both the peacock as well as the notion of it being a deterrent against poision from the same (intermediary) source. Anyway, the peacock's presence in other old religions is one of several things whose direction of travel is definitely known and undeniable. Whereas the longtailed peacock's presence in Indian and Himalayan/SE Asian religion is naturally indigenously-derived.]
Anyway, Yezidis can argue that the above 3 points are owing to Hindu influences that they had brought with them from their origins in India, since the article posted at Rajeev2004 has some Yezidis asserting Indian origins. But if Yezidis' ancestors *did* have a history in India, it was very clearly *before* the invention of Yezidi religion: ancient India had no knowledge of Yezidi religion, Yezidi religion obviously postdates post-Vedic Iranian religions and movements (since Yezidi religion has no features of original Iranian religion, only inheriting stuff that existed from the time of Zoroastrianism and Mithraism and the general breakup/obscuring of old Iranian religion), plus Yezidis must have come by their Yezidi religion *after* leaving India and probably after settling in the ME. All this only applies if they still want to claim that their people originated in India. Because India - and Hindu/Vedic religion especially - knows nothing about Adam and abrahamisms. So Yezidis should halt attempts at forcibly merging their religion onto Hindus' religion. These attempts can't be that old either. Because, less than a decade back (when I first looked up info on them), Yezidis still insisted uni-directionally that their religion was a Zoroastrianism. And Zoroastrianism was never Indian but Iranian: it was born in NW Afghanistan or Iran (NW Afghanistan was, at least at that time, Persian territory / Iranian-inhabited).
Further, Zoroastrians denied any original association between Zoroastrianism and Yezidism, so why should today's new-agey Hindus (desperate?) seek to imagine an even more tenuous (or rather untenable) connection between Hindus' religion and Yezidism, merely because a western convert to Hinduism and some Yezidis want to promote such a connection? (In fact, many a site on Yezidism online which claim elements in common with Hindu religion, further claim that theirs is the original and originating world religion, that it and its God is at the root of all others such as Judaism/christianism/islam - i.e. the abrahamisms - and Hindu religion, etc, etc. Then again, even islam claims to be not only The One True religion but also The Sole Original religion, contrary to all evidence.) Any Hindus eager to entertain notions of an association with Yezidism should then have the honesty to equally claim that Bahai and Manichaeanism are ancient "Dharmic" religions and related to Hindu religion too, even though Bahai is closer to islam and Manichaeanism is closer to Zoroastrianism and even though both the Iranian religions of Bahai and Manicheaeanism are known historic inventions.
That Kurdish is classed an Indo-Iranian language is not the question (Kurdish is IIRC Iranian?). Whether the speakers merely adopted the language or not is not certain - at least, that was a point of discussion by Persian Zoroastrians - but, either way, the religion [Yezidism] is NOT related to Hindus' religion. And they may prove from genetics that they are "more" related to Hindus than -say- (non-Russo) Armenians, if they really want to insist on it.
None of this is to say that Hindus should not support the Yezidis - monetarily or at the very least morally - in the horrors they face under their current predicament vis-a-vis islamania, since Yezidism is not a missionary religion (unlike Bahai) and so poses no threat to heathens in that sense. However, even when sympathising, people may use some sense to draw the line. Hindus don't even conflate Zoroastrianism with our religion, why conflate a religion that is partially a spin-off from Zoroastrianism (plus Zoroastrianism is itself a prophetic, monotheistic and once-missionary tradition) and which was moreover significantly influenced by Abrahamic religions? Hindus should for Yezidis' *own* sake defend the latter's right to exist as a non-belligerent people and to be left in peace.
How to put it... By all means support Yezidis, but not because Hindus think they can squeeze Yezidis to fit into the same... 'box' as Hindus. And Yezidis need not imagine that the only way they will win Hindus' sympathy is by appealing to 'connections' between the two religions. (Actually, that is offputting.) Hindus need no convincing to muster at least moral support for non-threatening populations.
Lots of religions historical and modern make ridiculous claims on Hindu religion (while not even being heathenisms). Modern "Hindus" seem intent in falling for the claims of each and subvert their own religion thereby by peddling partial info. (For instance, the article re-posted at Rajeev2004 didn't even seem aware that Yezidism is no more uniquely "Dharmic" - in whatever respect it supposedly is "Dharmic" - than Bahai, say, or that other example: Manichaeanism.) Consider how much ur-Shramanism has seeped into modern Hindus' psyche to the extent that a great many of them have revealed subscribing to one or other ur-Shramanist make-beliefs concerning Indian and especially Hindu history.
The other weird behaviour is that when modern Hindus take a moment from looking ever westward for approval and turn to notice what's to the east of us, they always tend to assume everything further east "must be" derived from Indic religions, even though religions like Taoism can show indigenous derivation of key aspects of their religion such as martial arts or medicine or other religious practices and views - which are often the very aspects encroached upon by others for Buddhism (or PIE/Oryanism) - no less than Hindu religion can show native derivation of Hindu stuffs.
In highlighting modern Hindus' tendency to not take the religions further east seriously despite these being ancient and original/native heathenisms, I'm not hereby claiming Hindus and their religion are ..."genetically" related to Taoism etc. And one can't technically foist the term Dharmic on Taoists and Shintos (especially not in any set where the non-Hindu Dharmic religions of Buddhism/Jainism/Sikhism are a part), but insofar as Hindoos' religion is the subcontinent's native ancestral heathenism and Taoism, Shinto, Hellenismos etc are the native ancestral heathenisms (a.o.t. locally derived spin-offs and missionary religions) of their various parts of the world - in *that* sense perhaps one is allowed to refer to all these as the Sanatana Dharmas of their respective ethnic populations/regions.