01-09-2006, 10:49 AM
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 <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"Bactria, the basin of the Amu Darya or Oxus river, now northern Afghanistan plus southeastern Uzbekistan, is historically the cradle of Iranian culture."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
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:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Zoroaster</b> or <b>Zarathustra</b> (c 625-c 551BC), Persian prophet. Founder of Zoroastrianism. Little known of his life.
<b>Zoroastrianism</b>, 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).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
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.
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 <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"Bactria, the basin of the Amu Darya or Oxus river, now northern Afghanistan plus southeastern Uzbekistan, is historically the cradle of Iranian culture."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
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:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Zoroaster</b> or <b>Zarathustra</b> (c 625-c 551BC), Persian prophet. Founder of Zoroastrianism. Little known of his life.
<b>Zoroastrianism</b>, 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).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
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.