Zoroastrians pray around a fireplace inside their temple in the village of Chak Chak.Posted on 12/15/2008 10:15:56 AM PST by BGHater
Far removed from Tehran's bustling tin-roofed teashops and Isfahan's verdant pomegranate gardens, the deserts known as Dasht-e Kavir and Dasht-e Lut meet at the city of Yazd,once the heart of the Persian Empire.
Walking across the wind-whipped plains of the forgotten city, a young Iranian woman dressed in colorful floral garbs points out a sand-dusted tower hovering in the distance like a dormant volcano under a relentless sun. "This is where we put tens of thousands of corpses over the years," she explains with a congenial smile.
The funerary tower is part of the ancient burial practice of Zoroastrianism, the world's oldest monotheistic religion. Zoroastrians (known in India as Parsis) regard sky burials, in which the bodies are exposed to natural elements including vultures in open-topped "Towers of Silence," as an ecologically friendly alternative to cremation, consistent with their religion's reverence for the earth. A Zoroastrian priest clad in a long, cotton robe explains: "Death is considered to be the work of Angra Mainyu, the embodiment of all that is evil, whereas the earth and all that is beautiful is considered to be the pure work of God. We must not pollute the earth with our remains."
The priest believes that open burials are a fulfillment of the central tenet of his religion, which is to practice good deeds. With a forlorn expression, he notes that, 3,000 years after the tradition of open burials began, there are not enough Zoroastrians left alive to keep the tower in Yazd open. Instead, today's Zoroastrians who want to observe traditional burial practices must request in their will that their body is sent to a forested suburb in Mumbai, India, where the last Tower of Silence still operates.
Zoroastrians pray around a fireplace inside their temple in the village of Chak Chak.
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
Freddy Mercury from ‘Queen’ was a Zoroastrian as I recall....
Bit of trivia, the “Wise Men” of the Christian New Testament -— non Jewish monotheist sky-watchers from the “East” -— were almost certainly Zoroastrians.
Something to consider, as the muslims wipe them out.
I’m not falling for this “green” funeral crap.
However, if the other side were to reach across and say...leave Ted Kennedy’s corpse out for the crows to pick...that would go a long way into changing my mind.
Who says we neocons won’t compromise?
Zoroastrianism doesn’t allow converts (or at least traditionally hasn’t). That’s presumably a key factor in why it’s shrinking off the face of the planet.
Well, that and the muslims killing them and the Jizyah taxes (taxes on non-muslims) that made life unbearable.
Zoroastrians do not seek converts and bother no one at all.They of course are considered lower than Jews and Christians by the moslem animals who run Iran.The same scum also hate Buddhists and Bahais.The moslem animals who run Iran also hate other,more normal Muslims.BTW I didn’t make capitalization errors.
Agreed that this is almost certainly true. Also note that the earliest recorded references to the religion (~600 BC) tend to coincide with the time of Daniel's captivity and the later liberation of the Jewish people by Cyrus the Great of Persia. History says Cyrus the Great was a Zoroastrian. The Bible calls him the anointed servant of God.
It is interesting that when secular scholars speak of the "three Abrahamic faiths" that they include Islam and ignore Zoroastrianism, when the later has much more of a historical link to Judaism than the former. It is also disappointing to see the animosity between modern Persia and Israel, considering that the Jewish people might not even exist today if not for the Persians who freed them.
Persia was once the center of culture of the world and tolerant of other religions. Not anymore thanks to Islam.
“It is also disappointing to see the animosity between modern Persia and Israel, considering that the Jewish people might not even exist today if not for the Persians who freed them.”
Well, the Persians also conquered and enslaved Israel in the first place, and if my Purim over-consuptions didn’t cloud my memory too much, it wasn’t that great of a time while there.
In any case Persian rule was more lax and granted more authonomy than the subsequent Hellenistic and Roman yoke.
Nope; that was the Babylonians who did that.
and if my Purim over-consuptions didn’t cloud my memory too much
Probably just a bit. The time of Haman was under Darius, which was a couple of generations later. Under Cyrus, Daniel was essentially the prime minister, and even under Darius Esther was considered his favorite and named Queen. Those two positions aren't exactly held by the oppressed.
Interesting tidbit... during the late 1920’s-30’s some advisors suggested to Reza Shah Pahlevi (father of the last Shah) to make Zoroastrianism/Mazdaism the state religion of Iran, abolishing islam. However it wasn’t ever pulled through, as it was probably too radical a change (though a noble idea) and the Shah preferred general secularization/westernization instead. However he inivited the Indian Zoroastrians to return to Iran... although few came. Still the time until 1979 saw a very obvious rennaissance of Zoroastrian symbolism and thought supported by the Monarchy. I am confident if Zoroastrians would accept converts millions of Iranians would espouse it. Islam is a cult forced upon a superior civilization. Everything that is claimed to be great achievements of islamic culture are in fact Persian, Hellenistic and Christian achievements taken over by the Arabs. This includes architecture, warfare, administration, science, medicine... you name it.
Fair enough, I (apparently unfairly) tend to lump them together!
That said, both the “Haman” episode and the treatment of Daniel cloud my judgment . . .
In any case the Bible is very clear that of all foreign rules, the Persian rule was the most tolerant (also in religion), lax and beneficial, not at least because of the federalism and authonomy granted by the Persian kings. Aramaeic even became the lingua franca of the Persian empire and Jews served as local sub-kings in Persia (even outside of Israel/Judea).
Very different from the murderous Assyrian and Babylonian enslavement and later the hated Greek and Roman yoke, against which the Jews rebelled.
It is interesting to note the very different perspectives on the Persians from Jewish/Biblical perspective on the one hand, and the Greek perception on the other.
Well, a conquerer is still a conquerer.
It’s like “oh, he was a NICE slave master.”
Sure. I think we can agree that this was the way the (ancient) world worked without exception. They all conquered or were conquered at some point. I think it’s thus fair to look at what set the respective conquerors apart. Just giving a bit of biblical perspective on the matter, instead of the usual Greek Persian-bashing. ;o)
Could be; I always get Xerxes, Artaxerxes, and the various Dariuses mixed up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.