12-08-2006, 07:39 PM
So what do we gain from these brief glimpses into Zoroastrianism and Persia of the 7th century AD and let me simultaneously compare it with situation in India.
1. Zoroastrianism came too closely to be identified with the state and political power of the day. This was its strength in the short term, but its doom in the long term. For if any religion bases its followers adherence to it based on political power and state patronage, it will have to risk political vicissitudes. So when the political masters lost out whether temporarily to Mazdakism or permanently to Islam, Zoroastrianism went down with it.
Compare this with India, where the various kings were tolerant and gave patronage to different religions irrespective of what they practiced. Hinduism or Vedic philosophy was not dependant on the politcal patronage of any single king, so it did not die out or go down with the loss of politcal power of those kings to any invaders
2. Zoroastrianism had become rigid, it could not assimilate contrary doctrines to its fold. So it had to persecute them, in turn others persecuted it. Read how Khosrau launched a campaign against Mazdakis. The Mazdakis were fighting against the Sassanids as well as Zoroastrianism, both were so closely identified.
Compare it with our thought which constantly accomodated the various schools of thought by a fertile Indian brain into its fold. Buddhism was not looked upon as another religion, but just as another school of thought as Nyaya, Mimamsa etc. Since we accomodated, we tolerated we survived.
3. By 6th century Zoroastrianism was tottering. It was not a strong religion that faced Islam in Persia, but a weak one whose adherents were already leaving it for rival doctrines. Also in the period between 628-635, within a decade, there were some twleve different kings, which weakened Sassanid hold and Zoroastrianism. Zoroastranism was looked upon as the tool of a tyrannical government which imposed big taxes, which had ruined the economy by constant wars with the Byzantines and which had no stability to provide to the country.
Compare it with India in 10th-13th centuries and thereafter. Hinduism because of its inherent tolerant spirit was going through a period of revival after the degradation to tantrism etc in the post Gupta period. We are really fortunate that we had a figure like Adi Shankara at the right time. I can tell you with some confidence, that India is Hindu today is in no small measure due to this great saint and scholar. Adi Shankara made us spiritual yet again, gave us faith, put in a framework and system to accomodate all strands of thought. Then came Ramanuja, the Saivite Nayanars and Vaishnavite Alwars, who brought a belief in devotion to God in the laity. India at the advent of Islam in India was politically weak, but religiously strong and the general public had faith in their religious beliefs.
1. Zoroastrianism came too closely to be identified with the state and political power of the day. This was its strength in the short term, but its doom in the long term. For if any religion bases its followers adherence to it based on political power and state patronage, it will have to risk political vicissitudes. So when the political masters lost out whether temporarily to Mazdakism or permanently to Islam, Zoroastrianism went down with it.
Compare this with India, where the various kings were tolerant and gave patronage to different religions irrespective of what they practiced. Hinduism or Vedic philosophy was not dependant on the politcal patronage of any single king, so it did not die out or go down with the loss of politcal power of those kings to any invaders
2. Zoroastrianism had become rigid, it could not assimilate contrary doctrines to its fold. So it had to persecute them, in turn others persecuted it. Read how Khosrau launched a campaign against Mazdakis. The Mazdakis were fighting against the Sassanids as well as Zoroastrianism, both were so closely identified.
Compare it with our thought which constantly accomodated the various schools of thought by a fertile Indian brain into its fold. Buddhism was not looked upon as another religion, but just as another school of thought as Nyaya, Mimamsa etc. Since we accomodated, we tolerated we survived.
3. By 6th century Zoroastrianism was tottering. It was not a strong religion that faced Islam in Persia, but a weak one whose adherents were already leaving it for rival doctrines. Also in the period between 628-635, within a decade, there were some twleve different kings, which weakened Sassanid hold and Zoroastrianism. Zoroastranism was looked upon as the tool of a tyrannical government which imposed big taxes, which had ruined the economy by constant wars with the Byzantines and which had no stability to provide to the country.
Compare it with India in 10th-13th centuries and thereafter. Hinduism because of its inherent tolerant spirit was going through a period of revival after the degradation to tantrism etc in the post Gupta period. We are really fortunate that we had a figure like Adi Shankara at the right time. I can tell you with some confidence, that India is Hindu today is in no small measure due to this great saint and scholar. Adi Shankara made us spiritual yet again, gave us faith, put in a framework and system to accomodate all strands of thought. Then came Ramanuja, the Saivite Nayanars and Vaishnavite Alwars, who brought a belief in devotion to God in the laity. India at the advent of Islam in India was politically weak, but religiously strong and the general public had faith in their religious beliefs.