01-11-2006, 06:22 AM
Ben Ami, I somehow overlooked an earlier post of yours.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->in 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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->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 <b>can be explained by Alexander's burning of Persia's great library, and by the Muslim Arabians' having brought down a later one</b>. Regarding both occurrences, everyone agrees that <b>a great deal of knowledge, spiritual and otherwise, of Persia's heritage perished </b>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.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->most importantly - where fo the hebrews come from?? from yayati??<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->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 <b>when</b> the people constituting the Hebrew-speaking population moved into Western-Asia/Middle-East and the origin of their cultural and religious history. I have <b>no idea</b>. 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]
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->in 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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->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 <b>can be explained by Alexander's burning of Persia's great library, and by the Muslim Arabians' having brought down a later one</b>. Regarding both occurrences, everyone agrees that <b>a great deal of knowledge, spiritual and otherwise, of Persia's heritage perished </b>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.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->most importantly - where fo the hebrews come from?? from yayati??<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->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 <b>when</b> the people constituting the Hebrew-speaking population moved into Western-Asia/Middle-East and the origin of their cultural and religious history. I have <b>no idea</b>. 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]