01-10-2006, 12:12 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,
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> 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.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->He didn't hijack anything, although I can see how encyclopaedic descriptions of him as a "Persian <b>prophet</b>" 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.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->also often in breakaway factions, the good guys according to one culture is considered as the bad guys<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->What 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.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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??<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->(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 <i>were</i> 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?
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,
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> 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.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->He didn't hijack anything, although I can see how encyclopaedic descriptions of him as a "Persian <b>prophet</b>" 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.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->also often in breakaway factions, the good guys according to one culture is considered as the bad guys<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->What 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.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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??<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->(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 <i>were</i> 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?