Iran And India

01-02-2006, 03:20 PM

can someone please tell me about the real connections between india and iran.

whether iranians went west from india, or the other way round. is sanskrit and avestan derived from the same language pool (ie. same root word pool) ??

whether the avesta was written prior to the rig ved (as the AIT proponents claim. they also came indians moved in FROM iran and not the other way round) or was it the other way round.

did persia have a caste system??

how come zorastrianism is so ostentibly monotheirtic??

the westerners have a double reason for putting persian on a pedestal.

cos they somehow feel the need to show how the vedic hindus came from persians.
(though if i remember right the name persia come from purush/puru, descendant of manu.

does anyone know of a book or website from where i can learn about the descandants of manu and who went which way??)

and they also feel the need to show that hinduism is a rip off from zorastrianism.

for them abrahamic types, zorastrianism holds a special place - since its a delivered religion, and is also monotheistic.

only the jews consistently keep debunking zorastrianism - cos they (the jews) did infact rip off a lot of stuff from zorastrianism, esp during the babylonian captivity.

the influence that zorastrianism had on the judaism, X-ianity and i-slam - as well as on roman mithraism (which is almost entirely of zorastrian manufacture - and then itself went on to influence x-ianity as we know it today) - is undeniable.

the reason the western pseudo-scholars keep dating the avesta before the vedas, is because, if the avesta is itself post-rigvedic, then ALL major religions will be shown to be unquestionably influenced by or derived from hinduism.

so whats the real truth?? how's hinduism and zorastrianism similar and how are the different apart from the monotheistic and 'delivered" bit.

i'd appreaicte a few valid links or exerpts from authoritatiove books.

especially books from the horse's mouth - like say what records the iranians themselves have about their history and what records indians have about them.

finally, all this is very ancient history.

iran and india have been close 2 more times (or in two other different eras) too.

one was when the sakas and dhruvas came to india and established kingdoms, and then was when the present day parsees fled from islamic carnage to india.

also indian music and iranian music have common roots. (as does indian and irish music)

can anyone tell me more???

01-09-2006, 04:19 PM

See http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/bo...t/ch46.htm, the section "4.6.6. Iranian Urheimat memory" which talks about the ancient Iranians' memory of migrating to Iran.

http://voiceofdharma.org/books/rig/ch6.htm
"The Indo-Iranian Homeland" chapter of Talageri's The RigVeda - A Historical Analysis. It goes into comparisons.

Also, Elst at http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/bo...t/ch53.htm states QUOTE"Bactria, the basin of the Amu Darya or Oxus river, now northern Afghanistan plus southeastern Uzbekistan, is historically the cradle of Iranian culture."
The original religion of the Iranians wasn't Zoroastrianism, it was a polytheistic religion that had the same Gods as our Vedic Gods. However they were called Ahuras after a while, when ours were called Devas. Their priests were called Magis, and practised similar fire sacrifices to our own priests of today: throwing oil and honey on the fire while reciting verses. Some of that still continued in Zoroastrianism: I think the Magis became the priestly order in the Zoroastrian religion. The Parsi priests have a sacred thread too, but they wear it differently. Maybe the Magis were the Dahyus (priests of the Dasas) described in the link to Talageri's book above. After Zoroastrianism became prominent, which in today's classification-obsessed outlook would be called a monotheistic faith, the old God Mithra made a comeback. His religion was then transported to Rome and the rest is well-known history.

I don't know to what extent Zoroastrianism had a caste system. Persia seems to have been feudal and is definitely the one that introduced this concept to Europe (it had travelled there with Mithraism which in turn greatly influenced Christianity). I think the caste/feudal system was a remnant of the beliefs from before Zoroaster's time.

About dating Zoroastrianism:
Older encyclopaedias consistently dated Zoroaster to the 6th BCE, and Zoroastrianism was founded by Zoroaster.

For instance, the Collins Concise Encyclopedia (1977, updated 1981, version I have here is published 1984) states the following:
QUOTEZoroaster or Zarathustra (c 625-c 551BC), Persian prophet. Founder of Zoroastrianism. Little known of his life.
Zoroastrianism, dualistic religion derived from Persian pantheism of c 8th cent. BC, instituted by Zoroaster. Doctrines stated in Zend-Avesta scriptures: universe dominated by warring forces of good (Ahura Mazdah or Ormuzd) and evil (Ahriman), in which good will triumph. Ceremony centres on purification rites. Survives in Iran and India (known as Parseeism).
Obviously in these two really short paragraphs, some of this is offensive.
Little known of his life? That depends, I think Parsees would know a lot more. Even I've heard something of it, about Zarathustra curing the King's camel and the court and all Iranians following his teachings thenceforth.
Dualistic? No, they have Ahura Mazda presiding over everything. Then there's the spirits Spenta Manyu (Good Mind) vs Angra Manyu (Angry Mind), and another negative in Ahriman. If this is dualistic, then I think Christianity should described the same: dualistic religion with warring forces of good (God, Jesus) and evil (Devil). But wait, that part of Christianity comes from Zoroastrianism, as does the holy spirit (modelled on Spenta Manyu). In fact, the God, holy spirit vs devil scenario only makes sense in Zoroastrianism. As I understand it, in Zoroastrianism one is encouraged to always choose the Good Mind which does honour to Ahura Mazda, instead of Angra Manyu which creates more misfortune in the world. It's like the Gita in a way: always bearing in mind to do the right action because adharmic action leads to adharma in future.

Parseeism? This is news to me, I thought it was called Mazda Yasna, perhaps equivalent to Medha Yagna (gift sacrifice?) in Samskrt. I doubt our Parsees have heard that their beliefs were called "Parseeism".

To be fair, if it weren't for the AIT, Hindus wouldn't care to find out who came first: the Iranians or the Indians, and we wouldn't be dating these or other religions either. But the AIT is a serious issue for us, even more so than for the Iranians. So we are forced to look into it. Their majority is no longer practising Zoroastrianism and isn't threatened by an imposed racial divide. Although they have Arabian, Turkish and Afghan minorities, as well as Iranian subgroups like Armenians and Kurdish people, there's no interest for Christian NGOs to create an ethnic divide where other serious problems already exist that NGOs want to try to take advantage of. Also, some Iranians are hung-up about looking European after WWII, which is more of an identity issue for them: trying to separate themselves from everything Arabian in leaving Islam. The traditional Zoroastrians in Iran (like our own Parsees) don't have this problem. In fact, the long-time Iranian Zoroastrians in Yazd, I think, are said to be much darker than the rest of Iran's population.

01-09-2006, 05:00 PM

I'll just put the descriptions for a few more religions for comparison of dates (taken from same Encyclopedia) according to the 1977 worldview. It's quite instructive.

QUOTEHinduism, Western term for the religion and social system of loosely-related sects which incl. most of India's pop. Has no single founder but grew over period of c 5000 years, assimilating many beliefs. All Hindus traditionally subscribe to caste system and the sacredness of Veda scriptures.
Veda, general term for scriptures of Hinduism. Oldest, Rig-Veda, incl. c 1000 hymns in praise of gods; Sama-Veda, incl. stanzas extracted from the former Yajur-Veda has liturgical formulas and Atharva Veda incantations to appease demons.

Jainism, Indian religion. Arose (c 6th cent. BC) with Buddhism as protest against formalism of Hinduism. Doctrine based on belief in eternity of all living things, stresses ascetism, respect for all forms of life. The soul retains identity through transmigration and eventually attains Nirvana. Adhered to by c 2 million Indians.

Buddha, (Sanskrit, = the enlightened one), title given to Siddhartha Gautama (c 563-483 BC), Indian ascetic, founder of Buddhism. Renounced luxury for ascetism following prophetic vision and after 6 years' contemplation found perfect enlightenment under sacred bo tree in Buddh Gaya, thus becoming the Buddha. Life then devoted to teaching path to enlightenment.
Buddhism, religion of followers of Buddha, widespread in SE Asia, China and Japan; originally related to Hinduism, it was in part reaction against its formalism. The 'four noble truths' are: life is sorrow; origin of sorrow is desire; sorrow ceases when desire ceases; desire is ended by following the 'noble eightfold path'. That path comprises: right belief, right resolve, right speech, right conduct, right occupation, right effort, right contemplation, right meditation. Final goal is Nirvana, the annihilation of desires and passions and the cessation of rebirth. See Mahayana and Zen Buddhism.

Taoism, Chinese religion and philosophy. Based on book Tao-teh-king, traditionally ascribed to Lao-tse (6th cent. BC) but prob. written 3rd cent. By AD 5th cent., developed into religious system with influences from Mahayana Buddhism. Emphasized effortless action, cessation of all striving. Condemned social philosophy of Confucius.

Confucius, latinized form of K'ung Fu-tzu (c 551-c 479 BC), Chinese philosopher and social reformer. Advocate of ethical system founded on absolute justice and moderation with the aim of stabilizing society. Teachings became basis of Confucianism, developed as state religion with adherence to traditional values.
I don't approve of the given dates for old religions like Jainism and Taoism. And the date for Buddhism according to Mahayana Buddhists in China is supposed to be 1000 BCE*, which present Western scholarship is spending a lot of time fighting. Taoism is traditionally dated to the Yellow Emperor - considered mythic in some circles - though said to be written down by Lao-tse in the 6th century BCE, but who will I trust? The Chinese Taoists or the Bible-dependent western 'scholars' dating others' religions?

It's good to see that back in 1977, they didn't lie about the currently popular "Buddhism and Jainism arose as protests against the caste system", but the more accurate version: as protest against ritualism. Although, instead of "Nirvana", Jainism's entry should have contained the word "Kaivalya".
And about Buddhism they accurately said "originally related to Hinduism". Something the secularists are in denial about.
The Vedas here are left without a date, but it's nice to know that at least in 1977-1981, Hinduism was still given an ancientry of 2500 BCE.
The Encarta Encyclopaedia Editions of 1996 and even of 1998 or 1999 had a page on Hinduism that dated the Vedas to 2500 BCE, and a page on the Vedas in the same Encarta edition that dated it to 1500 BCE. Two different both non-Indian non-Hindu authors had written these two articles. Today the online Encarta, like Wikipedia, is open for all to 'contribute', and the Vedas is now dated to 1000 BCE - 800 BCE I think! Probably due to our very own Christian lobby.
Our dates keep getting nearer to present, while Zoroastrianism is starting to get pushed back to 1000 BCE in the present Encarta, Wikipedia and elsewhere and is even moved to further back in time (even 1200 BCE and 1500 BCE). However, the contributors are not consistent as it is a fact that it can not go beyond the date of the Vedas. That's because the Vedic Sanskrit of the Vedas is older than the Iranian language used in Zoroaster's scripture of the Avesta. The Avesta's dating has always been determined by the dating of the Vedas. See http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/bo...t/ch13.htm (look for the word Zoroaster).

Ironically, Jains and Taoists and even some Buddhists are allowed to claim much older dates for their religions (Jains and Taoists date them to somewhere in 1000 BCE or even earlier) at least unofficially. But Hinduism's date isn't allowed to budge. With the invention of the AIT, the Jains belong to invading Aryans too, so upper limit on Jainism's age is also determined by the AIT.

The Zoroastrians themselves seem to give various dates for Zoroaster: 600 BCE, 1000 BCE and 6000 BCE, so perhaps there were several Zoroasters merged into one. On the other hand, that 6000 BCE is likelier when the Vedas gets pushed back to a more acceptable date too (comparatively 8000 BCE or 9000 BCE).

*The preoccupation of dating Buddha in current Indology is quite interesting. Skim the introduction of The Dating of the Historical Buddha: A Review Article for the dates (East-Asia has Buddha's time ranging between 1000 BCE to 700 BCE)
And then read the conclusion of the paper:
QUOTEFrom the point of view of reasonable probability the evidence seems to favour some kind of median chronology and we should no doubt speak of a date for the Buddha's Mahaparinibbana of c.400 B.C - I choose the round number deliberately to indicate that the margins are rather loose.

It follows that the date of Mahavira and kings such as Pasenadi or Bimbisara must be correspondingly brought down, as they are part of the same historical context. Probably also the date of the Upanisads must be later and possible connexions with the Greek world must be rethought.With it they want to not only frustrate Buddhism (setting Buddha's life about a century lower than ever before), but also Jainism and our Upanishads. Negating the well-known and well-researched fact of Buddhist influence on Christianity via Greece seems to be their main goal.
Or perhaps they merely want to undo the results of the research of the book The Shape of Ancient Thought: Comparative Studies in Greek and Indian Philosophies which shows that what's known as the fundamentals of Western civilisation isn't purely western.

**Hauma Hamiddha** · 01-09-2006, 10:50 PM

Judaism and other Abrahamistic anti-Idolatory, monotheistic and dualistic tendencies clear had a source in the Iranian reform of Zarathushtra. While Zarathushtra was pretty inclined towards monotheism in his reform, he did not dispense the old Indo-Iranian religion entirely. He retained the Amesha Spentas and Haoma ritual. In any case in the final official version of the Iranian religion, i.e by the Sassanian times the Older Indo-Iranian deities such as Vayu, Anahita (=sarasvati), Veretreghna (=indra) etc came back. The Christian roman empire in fact waged war on the Iranians declaring them to be polytheists.

"Parseeism? This is news to me, I thought it was called Mazda Yasna, perhaps equivalent to Medha Yagna (gift sacrifice?) in Samskrt. "

The original term for the deitywas Ahura Mazda, the equivalent being deva varuNa of the Indo-Aryans, also known as asura medhira in the vedas. Mazda Yasna means the worship of (Ahura) Mazda

01-09-2006, 11:16 PM

double post - see next post.

01-09-2006, 11:19 PM

thanks both of you. other replies sought and welcome.

and hauma hamiddha, are you a parsee if you dont mind??
would the indian/sanskrit version of your moniker mean Soma Samiddha??

also you said - While Zarathushtra was pretty inclined towards monotheism in his reform, he did not dispense the old Indo-Iranian religion entirely.

so do you imply that Zorathshtra sort of did a brahmo samaj on existing vedic religion in iran and came up with a repackaged version??

i always have had this suspision at the back of my mind - if zorastrianism is younger than hinduism (and it is - language of avesta is more developed than language of rg veda) and if its pretty much same as hinduism in theological content except that their Ahuras (persian word for sanskrit word asura = ahura, just like persian for sindhu = hindu) are the good guys while our asuras are the bad guys, and if iranians indeed have emigrated from india (as both indian and iranian records suggest they did) -
then the clear picture that emerges is that, one extraordinary person sort of highjacked the whole theology (to have one to his own name,) and introduced some cosmetic changes, whilest retaining the core values. also often in breakaway factions, the good guys according to one culture is considered as the bad guys.

am i wrong in my hunch??

if i am - then what explains this similar-yet-oposite-ness of zorastrianism vis.a.vis hinduism??

sushmita i shall check out the references you made and then get back, though i had already been through the first of them (from which i came to know that we both have records saying that persians emigrated from india).

finally, can anyone shed light on this issue in my OP.

>>>>>>>>>(though if i remember right the name persia come from purush/puru, descendant of manu.

does anyone know of a book or website from where i can learn about the descandants of manu and who went which way??)<<<<<<<<<

is there a thread here at IDF, which discusses the hindu story of manu's descendants and who then went on to father which people??
if there isnt a thread, can we start one??

01-10-2006, 05:42 PM

Hauma Hamiddha,
Thanks for correcting my far-off guess on the meaning of Mazda Yasna. I don't even know modern Farsi, let alone ancient Avestan. So I really shouldn't have attempted it.

Ben Ami,
QUOTEcontent except that their Ahuras (persian word for sanskrit word asura = ahura, just like persian for sindhu = hindu) are the good guys while our asuras are the bad guys Here, you're talking about the beliefs of the Iranians that already existed prior to Zoroaster's reforms, when the Persians had many Gods. Although I've been under the impression too (like Hauma Hamiddha indicated) that Zoroaster didn't discontinue the respect for the other Gods. Maybe the mainstream or just the main religious rites and invocations of the Avesta might have focussed on Ahura Mazda. It would make sense that He'd be the main deity invoked for fire sacrifices then. Perhaps He's what we understand under Parabrahman. In which case, in everyday life the Persians would still have known of/heard of the other Iranian Gods, like we know of Indra, Brahma, etc.
Clearly I'm off speculating here (my understanding of Zoroastrianism is obviously coming from the standpoint of my Hindu background), so corrections welcome.

QUOTEone extraordinary person sort of highjacked the whole theology (to have one to his own name,) and introduced some cosmetic changes, whilest retaining the core values.He didn't hijack anything, although I can see how encyclopaedic descriptions of him as a "Persian prophet" immediately conjure up images of the intolerant prophets most people are familiar with. However, Zoroaster was nothing like that. From the little I've gleaned of his behaviour his actions were noble. My own understanding is that Zoroaster was a reformer like Buddha or some of our Rishis, streamlining and clarifying existing beliefs of Iranians for a new age. Similar to how Krishna summarised existing Hindu teachings in the Gita. Although Zoroastrianism is designated by Western scholars as a 'revealed religion', in my opinion encyclopaedias ought from now on to describe Zoroaster in words other than 'prophet' (a term quite loaded with connotations relating to intolerant monotheistic faiths). Perhaps spiritual teacher, guide or reformer would be a better choice of description for him. Also, he wasn't self-oriented, so he never aimed to have a theology to his own name. The case is really completely the opposite to that of Islam.

QUOTEalso often in breakaway factions, the good guys according to one culture is considered as the bad guysWhat you state already happened before Zoroaster was born (i.e. before Zoroastrianism). Indians and Iranians had already split over their differences. Previously, when we were still one people, all the Asuras and Devas were considered good. It was solely a matter of opinion who became good spirits and who were considered dangerous. In fact, there's some indication that only the terminology was different: those they called Ahuras correlated to our Devas and vice-versa. Indra was the name of a Daeva (evil spirit) for them, but he wasn't the one we call Indra, since Persian Inder who was a great Ahura to them was the same as our Indra. Likewise, Mitra and Mithra were good among both people and Varuna and others were also positive spirits with both. Still, a few deities might have been good to them/bad to us and vice-versa.

QUOTEso do you imply that Zorathshtra sort of did a brahmo samaj on existing vedic religion in iran and came up with a repackaged version??(I know this question is addressed to Hauma Hamiddha, but I wished to intervene for other reasons)
Vedic implies Vedas, but the Vedas were composed only by the Puru dynasty who were wholly based in India as were their descendants. The other dynasties - among them those that left, including the Parshu (Persians) and Prthas (Parthians), were therefore not "Vedic". I'll find what I've read by Elst about that and post again. Many of our own Indian dynasties who were also related to the Purus through common ancestry weren't Vedic either. However, the familiar Gods were generally known and shared among them all. Rites differed.

By the way, I know Iranian Haoma/Homa is equivalent to Sanskrit Soma. Is Hauma another way of spelling it?

01-10-2006, 05:59 PM

>>>>>>>He didn't hijack anything,<<<<<<<

i meant in a nice way. became more equal than the others, he got to decide which parts of existing persian religion would get to stay and what the new religion (zorastrianism) would be comprised of chiefly.

>>>>>>>>>>>What you state already happened before Zoroaster was born<<<<<<<<<<<<

in that case, surely there must be a few pre zorasthustra-ic books about the previous persian religion. do you know the names of any of those books from whcih we can say for sure, that yes the persians indeed had what can be called a sister religion of hinduism, and had mythogies about shared (with hindus) gods - indra, mithra and varuna etc.
i mean if we could come to know about the pre zorathustra books of iranian religion, and they turned out to be similar to vedas, then we could say for sure, that before zorathustra indians and iranians were the same people with a same set of religious beliefs.

but so far i know, the oldest religious book from persia is the avesta.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>Vedic implies Vedas, but the Vedas were composed only by the Puru dynasty who were wholly based in India as were their descendants. The other dynasties - among them those that left, including the Parshu (Persians) and Prthas (Parthians), were therefore not "Vedic". I<<<<<<<<<<<<

do you know the whole details of these dynasties. of these peoples sprung from manu - illa, bharat, puru, parashu and pritha etc. thats the one i am really interested in. do you know of a book/site from where i can get the whole details about which offspring of manu went on to father which people. most importantly - where fo the hebrews come from?? from yayati??

>>>>>By the way, I know Iranian Haoma/Homa is equivalent to our Soma. Is Hauma another way of spelling it?<<<<<

lol same frequency at last. thats what i also thought.

samiddha means solution (samiddha comes from the same root as samadhan if i know right).

up to him to tell us whats the real story behind his moniker.

Bhootnath · 01-10-2006, 07:15 PM

Very interesting disc. Thank You All.

01-10-2006, 08:29 PM

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:
QUOTEthe fragmentary Vedic data and the systematic Puranic account tally rather splendidly. The 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, the land of the seven rivers.Â There, the tribe splits into five, after the five sons of the conqueror Yayati: Yadu, Druhyu, Anu, Puru, Turvashu.Â 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.Â Later, the Pauravas (and minor dynasties springing from them) 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.Â 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.Â [B]In the king-lists, a number of kings are enumerated before the first kings appear who are also mentioned in the Rg-Veda. 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.Â To be precise, the Puranic king-list as known to Greek visitors of Candraguptaâs 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.

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:QUOTEPliny wrote that the Indians date their first king, âLiber Paterâ (Roman equivalent of Dionysus), to â6,451 years and 3 monthsâ before Alexander the Great (d. 323 BC), while Arrian puts âDionysusâ 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 Both indications add up to a date, give or take a year, of 6776 BC.Â
...
One of Manuâs heirs was Ila, ancestress of Yayati, whose five sons became the patriarchs of the âfive peoplesâ who form the ethnic horizon of the Vedas, one of them being Puru; in Puruâs tribe, then, one Bharata started the Bharata clan to which most of the Vedic seers belonged. 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
QUOTEWhat is more: the Puranas mention several emigrations. The oldest one explicitly described is by groups belonging to the Afghanistan-based Druhyu branch of the Aila/Saudyumna people, i.e. the Pauravasâ cousins, in the pre-Vedic or early Vedic period.Â They are said to have moved to distant lands and set up kingdoms there.Â Estimating our way through the dynastic (relative) chronology given in the Puranas, we could situate this emigration in the 5th millennium BC.Â It is not asserted that that was the earliest such emigration: the genealogy starts with Manuâs ten successors, of whom six disappear from the Puranic horizon at once, 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.Â 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 Anavas are said to have invaded Panjab from their habitat in Kashmir, and to have been defeated and expelled by the Pauravas in the so-called Battle of the Ten Kings, described in Rg Veda 7:18,19,33,83.Â 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.Â At the same time, they are (except for the Druhyus) collectively called âAnuâs sonsâ, in striking agreement with the Puranic account of an Anava struggle against the Paurava natives of Panjab.Â Not mentioned in the Vedic account, but mentioned in the Puranic account as the Anava tribe settled farthest west in Panjab (most removed from the war theatre), is the Madra (Mede?) tribe.

01-10-2006, 08:57 PM

Sorry Ben Ami,
I know you were also looking for others' input. I just remembered some more bits of Elst's writing that I'd read and thought I'd paste that. Now it's done, I'll wait to read others' posts too.

As an aside, though not quite related to the topic:
Here's something that came from Iranians (and Persians in particular) that is not as well known as it should be: King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table. That part of the Arthur myth comes from Iran and was either part of an Iranian legend or was history. Shahan-Shah, the King of Kings - which actually only makes sense in Iran and not in Druidic Wales. The Merlin part is Celtic, the Excalibur sword and lady of the lake is Sarmatian (Russian).
The Romans probably got the story about Arthur and his Knights from their frequent contacts with Persia either in relation to Mithraism or otherwise. When the Romans took it to Britain, all the different contributions merged to create the Welsh myth.

Hauma Hamiddha,
QUOTEThe Christian roman empire in fact waged war on the Iranians declaring them to be polytheists. That is very true. I'd also read that the Catholic Church didn't just attack Zoroastrians in Persia but tried to end Zoroastrian influence within its own turf. French king Phillip the Fair (Phillipe le Bel) declared war on the Knights of Templar, by request of the holy church, to purge Christianity of Zoroastrianism. By widely denouncing Zoroaster and his teachings, they persecuted the Templars (who weren't real Zoroastrians, but they definitely had retained influences) and many others. The whole effort was to cut all ties of Chrisitianity to its unwitting parent Zoroastrianism.
The Templars were accused of being Soldiers of .... Mithra. And they were, because the Roman "Soldiers of Mithra" had become "Soldiers of Christ" under Christianity. They were thought to have been Freemasons by religion, which was heavily influenced by Roman Mithraism which in turn came from Persia.

01-11-2006, 02:46 AM

no problem sushmita.

you are providing a wealth of info singlehandedly.

01-11-2006, 08:13 AM

I have heard that there were many Indo-Aryans belonging to the Katha sakha of the Yajurveda living in Iran and that they were wiped out either by the Greeks or the Arabs. Is this true?

01-11-2006, 11:52 AM

Ben Ami, I somehow overlooked an earlier post of yours.
QUOTEin that case, surely there must be a few pre zorasthustra-ic books about the previous persian religion. ... but so far i know, the oldest religious book from persia is the avesta.There can be several explanations. Compositions might not have been written down, just orally passed on. Iranians were known to have disapproved of writing for a long time - they felt that once a lie is written down it lasts for a long time, compared to the finite lifespan of a spoken lie. Thus their wariness of writing in general. It's different as to why the Druids' were said to be unwilling to commit their knowledge to writing (regardless of whether the Druids had a borrowed script).
Some western scholars (probably to undermine Zoroastrianism) state that parts of the Gathas were from the older forms of Iranian religion. However, some knowledgeable Zoroastrians who've studied their Avesta don't agree with that. I'll side with whatever the Zoroastrian majority says, as they would know more about their own beliefs and history and they have no ulterior motives.

It's interesting to note that the Romans didn't only adopt Mithra as a state God, but the complex Mithraic rites and ceremonies were obtained from Persia as well. I can't help thinking there must have existed some body of work pertaining to this aspect of the Iranian religious landscape. But there don't seem to be remnants of this information in Iran, Kurdistan or Iraq (Parthia) now.

I forgot about the most likely reason. Can't think why I'd have skipped past the obvious. A large part of the lack of written work can be explained by Alexander's burning of Persia's great library, and by the Muslim Arabians' having brought down a later one. Regarding both occurrences, everyone agrees that a great deal of knowledge, spiritual and otherwise, of Persia's heritage perished in the destruction. Many books of which there were no copies elsewhere.
Iran also sustained continuous onslaughts by the missionary Christianised Armenians who were steadily trying to convert the Persian population, and had to deal with the enmity of the Christian Roman empire as Hauma Hamiddha mentioned.
Who knows what a thorough search for safely hidden/obscured materials in Iranian countries (ranging from Iran, Iraq, Kurdistan to Armenia and Azerbaijan to Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, even parts of Afghanistan and Turkmenistan) might turn up? Zoroastrians themselves or independent non-religious experts unaffected by 'Urheimat' fancies, say from Japan, ought to do this and no one else. I don't think I'd trust most others.

QUOTEmost importantly - where fo the hebrews come from?? from yayati??The DNA/genetics thread showed me that everyone outside of Africa comes from people who left India and that Indians came from Africa. The question is when the people constituting the Hebrew-speaking population moved into Western-Asia/Middle-East and the origin of their cultural and religious history. I have no idea. The sinking of Sundaland and the subsequent flood tradition (Manu) might have either been passed onto the Middle-East as a myth, which would make it a second-hand account for them. Or if they were descended from ancestors common to ours, then it might be a first-hand account. In the first case, they'd have left India and settled in the Middle-East before the flood. In the latter case they'd have split any time after the flood. It could also be anything in between: they could have left after the flood, forgotten about the whole thing and become reacquainted with the myth via other neighbouring countries in the Middle-East.

Mitradena,
That's interesting, but I have no clue as to its veracity. The Zoroastrians had no problem with Hindus, and the borders between India and Persia were open so it's possible.
It's true that there were Indians in general stationed in Iran. The Greeks fought many hired Indian soldiers when warring with Persia and have written about it.

(Off topic) Hindus should take pride in all our ancestors' written and oral traditions. The Vedas are not our only heritage. Even though the Purus did spread the Vedic knowledge they accumulated around, they did not do so at the expense of the other extant works. There's the Puranas, Agamas and Tamil Sangam literature, the more Eastern traditions - there is so much for us all. Very few populations in the world have been as fortunate when it comes to what our ancestors have beqeathed us and what we've managed to retain. Because of missionaries and indologists stressing only the Vedic heritage, they have intentionally minimised the contributions of our other ancestors. It's them that have continuously insulted and negated "Dravidians", "Adivasis", "Tribals", etc. Firstly by inventing these categories which we did not have, then by holding them up as inferior to "Indo-European" culture, and finally by neglecting or masking their tremendous contributions.
I'm surprised that missionaries are making any inroads. It must be the "love your oppressor" syndrome. [END RANT]

**Hauma Hamiddha** · (This post was last modified: 01-11-2006, 12:12 PM by Hauma Hamiddha.)

Briefly:
The comparison between Brahmo of Ram Mohan Rai and the Zarathushtrian reform is indeed reasonable. Just that the I believe Zarathushtra was an internal rebel not influenced greatly by external ideas as seen in the case of the British influence of Ram Mohan. Zarathushtra was definitely of a high priestly class of Haoma sacrificers related to the bhR^igus of the Indo-Aryans. So he did not modify many of the basic features such as Yasna (fire and soma sacrifice) and composition of Gathas (hymns similar to R^igvedic sUkta-s). While Zarathushtra presents devas as evil even in his gathas the old terms are not entirely purged: for example we see daevitana= divine, daevanjyati= divine lustre. But he did have a rather exclusivist tirade on idols. We see the following in the gathas of Zarathushtra:

"kadA ajem murthem ahya maghahya ya AngrayA Karpanao urupayeinti"

When shall I be able to uproot the idol from this assemblyâthis [idol] set up by the A~Ngirasas and the karpaNas?

Here you can see the roots of Abrahmistic exclusivism in Zarathushtra's words.

QUOTE(mitradena @ Jan 10 2006, 09:43 PM)I have heard that there were many Indo-Aryans belonging to the Katha sakha of the Yajurveda living in Iran and that they were wiped out either by the Greeks or the Arabs. Is this true?


A branch of kaThas were prominent in what is now TSP. They fought Alexander with much fury when he tried to storm a brAhmaNa town of theirs. The subsequent ravages of their land destroyed them. Our forum member Rajita's family belongs to this shAkha- fragmentary communities descending from the old kaTha ritualists were in Kashmir and Himachal but largely extinct now. They had somewhat different sacrificial traditions from those of the taittirIyas, kANvas, mAdhyaMdina etc, which might show slight overlap with the Iranian practices such as use of the yaGYa varAha in place of the horse.

BTW samidh in Vedic means fire sticks which in Iranian becomes Hamiddh

01-11-2006, 12:25 PM

Hauma, that was fascinating.
I didn't know about Zarathustra's disapproval of idols. At least Zoroastrian Persia didn't invade India to convert us or destroy our temples. And the Parsees have never hurt us at all. The behaviour of adherents says a lot about their religion. Perhaps the rule on idols is only for those that are Zoroastrian? It doesn't appear to have been a missionary religion once Iranian lands had adopted it.

I've read that some Sassanian rulers did persecute people, but since this is not corroborated by similar behaviour in the earlier Akkamenian dynasty, I'd have guessed it not to be dependent on the religion. Also, the Sassanians had to deal with Armenians who were quite aggressive in missionary activity in their new-found religion. Not trying to excuse them, just trying to get a better idea of the context.

Thanks.

01-12-2006, 04:13 AM

Note: Post #10 of this thread contained excerpts of Elst's articles who was referring to the works of S. Talageri on the Puranas and the Rig Veda.
About the Bhrgus, Elst again at http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/books/ait/ch46.htm:QUOTETalageri tentatively identifies the other tribes as well: the Druhyu as the Druids or Celts (untenable)48; the Bhrgus as the Phrygians (etymologically reasonable); the AlInas as the Hellenes or Greeks (shaky); the Shimyus with the Sirmios/Srems or ancient Albanians (possible), etc. It is hard to prove or disprove this; all we can say is that along with the Iranian tribes, there may have been several non-Iranian tribes who emigrated from northwestern India after the Battle of the Ten Kings. So the identification of the Bhrgus as Phrygians by Talageri is based on his reasoning about the Rg Veda and on etymological grounds. But there seems to be further evidence for this, provided at a site of a Greek person. (Looking around his site, I didn't agree with most of his conclusions on genetics research papers because he reads the AIT into everything, even where it is in direct disagreement with the genetics paper itself). But he pasted something about the Phrygians that is not based on his opinion at http://dienekes.blogspot.com/ under the section "Some random (?) facts"
QUOTEThe Phrygians had an equipment very like that of the Paphlagonians with some slight difference. Now the Phrygians, as the Macedonians say, used to be called Brigians during the time that they were natives of Europe and dwelt with the Macedonians; but after they had changed into Asia, with their country they changed also their name and were called Phrygians. The Armenians were armed just like the Phrygians, being settlers from the Phrygians. Of these two together the commander was Artochmes, who was married to a daughter of Dareios." Herodotus, vii, 73Although Herodotus relates that the Phrygians were natives to Europe when they were still called Brigians, Herodotus was relatively recent. It is still entirely possible and likely that the Bhrgus moved out of Indian-Iranian lands into Southern Europe while still being called Brigians, then moved back into Asia* and changed their name to Phrygians as their memories of older times grew remote.

*The distance between near-Greece in Europe and near-Armenia in Asia is not too great, so they could have made the move from Asia to Europe and back, de-emphasising the impression of having traversed "two continents".

01-12-2006, 02:21 PM

QUOTEWhat is more: the Puranas mention several emigrations. The oldest one explicitly described is by groups belonging to the Afghanistan-based Druhyu branch of the Aila/Saudyumna people, i.e. the Pauravasâ cousins, in the pre-Vedic or early Vedic period.Â They are said to have moved to distant lands and set up kingdoms there.Â Estimating our way through the dynastic (relative) chronology given in the Puranas, we could situate this emigration in the 5th millennium BC. 

Acharya Chaturasen, a hindi writer and scholar, wrote a voluminous novel on the life and times of rAvaNa, titled "vayaM rakShAmaH"

First 10 or so chapters in the novel are purely historical, based on his own researches on ancient India, and he goes into great detail into vedic people, their migrations etc.

He specifically connects descendents of ilA (or idA, the "l" or "d" is pronounced more like marAtahI second "l", which explains why "idA" and "ilA" are often used interchangeably), called "aila", to the region of persia/mesopotamia. The above quote also connects "ailas" with migrations from India to distant lands. His derivation of the name Iran and also Iraq is from "ilA" or "idA" and not from "Arya" as Iranians tend to do nowadays. This derivation of name Iran from "Arya" is quite concocted, although Hauma had once mentioned some philological evidence.

purANAs do mention several "Avartas" within the "jambUdvIpa". "AryAvarta" is specifically identified with India. Others that are mentioned are "ilAvarta", "apavarta" etc. According to Acharya Chaturasen, ilAvarta is the west-persia/mesopotamia region.

01-12-2006, 04:48 PM

Ashok Kumar,
not meaning to contradict you, but Persian king Darius the ?th left an edict where he spoke of himself as: "Parshya, Parshya Putra; Arya, Arya Chitra". (Persian, son of Persian/of Persian dynasty; Noble, of noble family).
At least as per this edict the Iranians had and did use the word Arya. However, if you were right, then perhaps they never used the word 'Airya' in their countryname, only in the descriptions of their families? It is possible, but I still find "Airyana" as Iran's name a possibility too.

Interesting that Darius used Arya and not Airya as was usual in Iran. And I'm inclined to think that the ancestors of present-day Iranians used it not as a racial or even ethnic term (Parshya is their ethnic/dynastic/tribal affinity, Parshu in Rg Vedic Samskrt - Darius had already mentioned his ethnicity in the edict), but in the same spirit as we used it. This would make Airyana mean land of noble people. Since the Persian Zoroastrians, like ancient Indians, valued speaking only the truth, 'noble' does seem appropriate. Another indication that Airyana was the name of their country comes from the fact that the "Airyanam Vaejo" mentioned in the Avesta was the original homeland of the Iranians before they came to Iran.

Interestingly, it seems that the Persians refused to apply the title "Airya" to the Scythians (Shakas) who were people who spoke Iranian languages too - by all accounts an "Indo-European" people. Probably the Persians thought of them as barbarians, as Indians likewise did when the Shakas first invaded India. So race had nothing to do with it, neither for the Persians nor for us.

01-12-2006, 10:04 PM

QUOTEHis derivation of the name Iran and also Iraq is from "ilA" or "idA" and not from "Arya" as Iranians tend to do nowadays. This derivation of name Iran from "Arya" is quite concocted, although Hauma had once mentioned some philological evidence.


I am inclined to accept this.
I don't see how gramatically Iran can be derived from Arya/Aryan.

Of course the Parsas (Persians) were aware of the word Arya and used it to mean "noble", but I am questioning the derivation of Iran from Arya.

Is there any evidence that the vowel "A" can get transformed into "i"?

Login




Remember me Lost Password?