Zoroastrians Fight Extinction

VOANews ^ | 12/23/03 | VOANews

[Cronos]

have been logistically and culturally extremely difficult.

Not really, the Romans did pick up GReek thoughts (the Roman pantheon become little more than the Greek pantheon renamed). What could have happened was that Roman though became alliend to a far more ancient source -- Persian (preceeding the Greek by at least 2000 years), so we would have been a Judeo-Christian-Persian society.

[Cronos]

If it wasn't for their few supernatural beliefs buddhism would be more a philosophy than a religion.

That depends on which sect of Buddhism you follow. The oldest -- the hinayana (the little vehicle) as practised by the Buddha and by the Sri Lankans holds the Buddha as a holy man but not a God and is atheistic in outlook. The others like Tibetan lamais, Zen etc. have taken Buddhist philosophy and mixed it with local relgiions like adding Buddha to the Hindu/chinese pantheon. The Tibetan lamaism in particular seems to incorporate demons etc. within the religious thinking -- though I'm not sure what part they play I don't think they're worshipped, but these are not classic Buddhism.

[Cronos]

The story of creation (oops I see a big storm over this, but let's push throw in any case) isn't to be taken verbatim. By that reasoning, the world was created in 4004 B.C. Genesis is God's way of explaining the complex to simple people. Try explaining cosmology to even someone in the 18th centruy and you'd have made their head spin.

[SedVictaCatoni]

The Roman Empire could have spread further east -- by becoming more dualist and federalist

In ancient times, a state which had "federated" was a state which had simply thrown off some independent peripheral kingdoms. What reason would a quasi-autonomous Persian "federal province" have had to consider itself part of the Roman Empire?

Not really, the Romans did pick up GReek thoughts (the Roman pantheon become little more than the Greek pantheon renamed).

This is a common misconception. Writers in late antiquity made some attempts to theorize that some specific Roman deities were similar in nature to specific Greek deities. This is not the same thing as saying that the Romans merely worshiped Greek gods with different names. Most beings which the Romans venerated had no Greek "equivalent", and probably the majority of Greek religions never spread to Rome.

hat could have happened was that Roman though became alliend to a far more ancient source -- Persian (preceeding the Greek by at least 2000 years), so we would have been a Judeo-Christian-Persian society.

You've overlooking the enormous cultural barriers between the Mediterranean world and the Persian world. Despite the Hellenization of Persia, Romans still had immeasurably deeper cultural connections with the Greeks than they ever could with Persian thought and culture. Roman contacts with Greek society dated all the way back to Rome's first encounters with the Greek colonies in Magna Graecia.

[little jeremiah]

Compare the babe in the bulrushes story to the story of Karna in the Mahabharat - he was born to his mother before marriage, a great shame, so she placed him in a basket or other small boatlike thing in the river, so he could be found by others. The Mahabharat describes the Kurukshetra War, which occured more than 3,000 BC.

[little jeremiah]

If it wasn't for their few supernatural beliefs buddhism would be more a philosophy than a religion.

I agree - since Buddhism rejects not only the very concept of a Supreme Being but the existence of an eternal individual soul, it isn't a religion. But a very interesting fact is that Buddha is listed in the Puranas (which pre-date Buddha's birth) as an incarnation of God, so in Hinduism Buddha is accepted as an incarnation of the Supreme Godhead.

Buddha is explained specifically in the Bhagavat Purana to have the purpose of misleading certain people who were using the Vedas as an excuse for sacrificing animals into rejecting the Vedas and following him. His main teaching was therefore ahimsa (do no harm to anyone) and by following him, they were following God, even though he taught that there is no God.

[little jeremiah]

Actually, the Vedas of India are in essence monotheistic, and they pre-date any other written literature, having been in written existence since roughly 3000 BC. Many demigods are described but they are very clearly sub-gods, or servants of the one Supreme Godhead. In fact, the Bhagavad Gita explains that only those with distorted minds and desires worship the many demigods for material rewards, and that people who want their eternal benefit worship the Supreme Person.

[ASA Vet]

That depends on which sect of Buddhism you follow.

I don't follow any of them, but my wives have claimed to be buddhists.

[Cogadh na Sith]

You are right on with all your points in that post. I should have said: "Angra Mainyu is a great name for an evil God." Rather than 'evil spirit'.

You really know your stuff.

Do you think that maybe some day once all the troubles are over that we will be able to visit Northern Iran and Iraq? I'm dying to see that part of the world... In addition the The Book of Job, have you studied the parallels between Zoroastrian lore and The Book of Genesis in particular--in relation to the 'daevas' and the temptation of Eve in the Garder?

[HiTech RedNeck]

a reformer like Gautama Buddha (strange how's he's always potrayed as Chinese when he was Indian)

Speaking of which, have you ever seen a skinny Buddha?

[Cronos]

Speaking of which, have you ever seen a skinny Buddha?

Actually that's another misrepresentation -- Chinese in origin. If you look at the Buddhas of South East Asia or India, the Buddha is slim and though not as emaciated as the Jain Mahaviras, is never fat. In fact, that would be against hte middle path. Most likely the Chinese depiction is based on pre-Buddhist chinese Gods.

[Cronos]

Thank you!

Got to admit, got some Parsi friends and am 1/8th Irani (great-grandma). I think Z lore is quite important as most likely God planned it all out -- you notice that Christ is born of the Judaic race yet is heralded by Irani magi? Also Buddha's early teaching (removing all the later God's added) is a sign of man's reaching to God, so perhaps he was a pointer (I don't believe the stories that Christ went to India in his 20s, but Buddhism in those times did spread right up to Palestine.)

[Cronos]

Yeah, most of those fantasies of Roman power spreading east are just that, fantasies, they didn't happen so that's it. What I mean federated is similar to what the Romans tried to do under Domitian -- have two Imperators.

[Cronos]

Most beings which the Romans venerated had no Greek "equivalent", and probably the majority of Greek religions never spread to Rome.

Well, what I have studied is that Roman gods like Jupiter etc. ARE Roman in ORIGIN but took on the aspect of Greek gods when the Roman presence spread south to Neapoli (Naples).

[Cronos]

Rome's ties are with Greece, but Greece took a lot of cues from Egyptian and Persian cultures via the Minoan as well as directly.

[Cronos]

The Mahabharat

Oh, now you're talking about some seriously ancient stuff. The Mahabharat is supposed to be dated back to, as you correctly point out, before 3000 B.C.

I would disagree with the idea of the Aryan invasion of India, because that's was just Max Mueller's theory, with no proof at all. The bodies found in Mohenjo-daro and Harappa (Indus valley cities) are not war victims (this was proven) but buried as we'd expect peopel to be buried during peace times. Most likely there was some ecological disaster and the peoples moved further east to the Ganges and southern India which had more plentiful lakes. The Aryans most likely would have originated in Central Asia-north easter Iran-north western India. The war Gods and their battles may very well have been two related families fighting each other.

Hey, wait a minute, remember what I was saying about the two families of gods (the aesir and the Vanir in the Nordic tales, the Asuras/Ahuras and the Devas/Daevas in the Indic-Irani tales)? Compare this with the sotry in the Mahabharat which deals with two related families fueding, in fact cousins fighting. Since most of the myths are ancient peoples ways of keeping history alive, could it not be conjectured (yes conjecture, no real way of proving it) that around 4000 to 3000 B.C. (or most likely a lot earlier), the Aryans split into two families who warred with each other -- this would explain the stories in the Vedas about Indra, the war god destroying the land of hte Dasyus (Iranic peoples).

The two families would have been elevated to gods. Then later on, the different worshipper had a sectarian war and moved east/west to india/iran. A more primitive group could have moved north west to become the Germanic/Slavic/Celtic/Italic peoples of Europe. THe primitve group would have venerated both families while the more advanced would have considered one family greater.

The Aryans would have moved into Dravidian cities in the Indus valley like how the SEmitic peoples moved into Sumerian cities -- not really by war, but just that the Dravidians.Sumerians were city folk and the Aryans/SEmites were nomads. When the cities could not sustain their people, the people left them and probably intermingled with the Aryans adopting their languages, leaving only the Brahuis to be dravidic speaking people in Baluchistan.

The Central Asian origin of the Aryans makes sense to me, with their later traces being erased by the movements of Turkic peoples into Central Asia.

A very good example of the intermingling of language groups is found in Afghanistan where the Hazaras (literlly thousanders) are Mongol like, supposed descendents of Genghis Khan's hordes, while the Tajik are Irani, the Pashtuns Indic and the Uzbeks, Turkmen, Kazakhs are Turkic.

[Cronos]

And of course, Alexander did leave folks over there, so they would be Greek blood in the tajiks and Pashtuns (witness some folks with Grey-green eyes and the inter-tribal warfares).

[little jeremiah]

Another way of understanding, for instance, the Mahabharat would be to take it at face value - i.e. literally. In that case, the warring clans and alliances of the Kurukshetra War did not evolve (in understanding) into devas and asuras, but in addition to the alliances described, higher beings called devas and asuras exist simultaneously.

[Cronos]

Higher beings exist simultaneously? I kind of disagree with that as most primitive gods do tend to have been originally men elevated to divine status because of their deeds (think Gilgamesh, Heracles etc.). Indra must have been a chieftain or a line of chieftains taking that name, similar to what happened in Egypt with the house of Osiris and Amun-Ra.

Similarly Rama of the Ramayana is quite clearly a human hero, elevated to Godhood because of his deeds. We see the same thing happening to the Buddha even though he insisted that he was not divine.