![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
causticusI've seen this accusation thrown around by a few intellectual hobbyists on various internet message boards. My own answer to this question is a simple, "probably not."
From reading the Gathas of Zarathustra (Zoroaster) many times over and even producing my own English rendering, it seems to me that Zarathustra probably did not intend to "overthrow" the version of the primordial IE tradition practiced in his own neck of the woods (Central Asia), but rather cleanse the religious practices of some of the localized corruptions that had accumulated during his time. The rigid "good vs. evil" dualism we find in the Zoroastrianism of much later times than Zarathustra (that in turn greatly influenced the Abrahamic religions) was only implied in the Gathas and only a philosophical teaching about a metaphysical duality of light vs. darkness and the general ethical orientations which self-conscious individual adopt along these lines.
I suspect that it was Zoroaster's disciples and subsequent generations of priests/practitioners who codified and ossified the original Avestan teachings into a sectarian dogma that eventually became a significant departure from the original paleo-Vedic stream it originated from. By the Achaemenid period, the Mazdean creed (which was still largely an oral tradition and not yet a centralized institution) had absorbed so many Mesopotamian features, aesthetics and attitudes that it bore little resemblance to the original practices found in Bronze Age Central Asia. By the Sassanid period it was a full-fledged Middle Eastern religion and the institutionalized priesthood of this time would have remade Zoroaster into a Semitic-style prophet. When in actuality, the historical Zoroaster (if he did indeed exist and was not just a legend) would have been more like an archaic Maha-Rishi (Great Sage-Seer) rather than a humble figure who passively receives divine grace and revelations from a higher power.
And finally, the religious divisions of Zoroaster's time was probably one small part of a great set of conflicts taking place Central Asia during the very warlike late Bronze Age period (first half of the Age of Aries. From both Vedic and Avestan accounts, it's clear there was a "Deva vs. Asura" war, which in reality would have reflected a broader tribal/factional conflict and of course the respective priesthoods belonging to each faction. Zarathustra's cult were merely one part of the Asura (Ahura) side, with the later non-Mazdean Iranic pagan practices emerging from that stream. The Deva factions would have been the ancestral Indo-Aryans who migrated away from the Aryan homeland in Central Asia (probably indicating they were the losers of the broader conflict) in multiple directions; the most notable being the migration through the Khyber Pass and into the Indian subcontient where they would merge with the Indus Valley remnants (an already-collapsed civilization, not the victims of a grand "Aryan Invasion") and form the nuclear of the great Indian Civilization that would soon emerge. The other Indo-Aryans mostly migrated into the Middle East, where they would mix with peoples native to Eastern Anatolia and become warrior elites lording over several kingdoms in Mesopotamia and Syria (Kassites rulers of Babylon and the Mittani kingdom, respectively).
Anyway, I digress and could babble on about this ad infinitum. The overall point is that the history behind these religious divergences is way more complex and nuanced than any simple narrative would require.
From reading the Gathas of Zarathustra (Zoroaster) many times over and even producing my own English rendering, it seems to me that Zarathustra probably did not intend to "overthrow" the version of the primordial IE tradition practiced in his own neck of the woods (Central Asia), but rather cleanse the religious practices of some of the localized corruptions that had accumulated during his time. The rigid "good vs. evil" dualism we find in the Zoroastrianism of much later times than Zarathustra (that in turn greatly influenced the Abrahamic religions) was only implied in the Gathas and only a philosophical teaching about a metaphysical duality of light vs. darkness and the general ethical orientations which self-conscious individual adopt along these lines.
I suspect that it was Zoroaster's disciples and subsequent generations of priests/practitioners who codified and ossified the original Avestan teachings into a sectarian dogma that eventually became a significant departure from the original paleo-Vedic stream it originated from. By the Achaemenid period, the Mazdean creed (which was still largely an oral tradition and not yet a centralized institution) had absorbed so many Mesopotamian features, aesthetics and attitudes that it bore little resemblance to the original practices found in Bronze Age Central Asia. By the Sassanid period it was a full-fledged Middle Eastern religion and the institutionalized priesthood of this time would have remade Zoroaster into a Semitic-style prophet. When in actuality, the historical Zoroaster (if he did indeed exist and was not just a legend) would have been more like an archaic Maha-Rishi (Great Sage-Seer) rather than a humble figure who passively receives divine grace and revelations from a higher power.
And finally, the religious divisions of Zoroaster's time was probably one small part of a great set of conflicts taking place Central Asia during the very warlike late Bronze Age period (first half of the Age of Aries. From both Vedic and Avestan accounts, it's clear there was a "Deva vs. Asura" war, which in reality would have reflected a broader tribal/factional conflict and of course the respective priesthoods belonging to each faction. Zarathustra's cult were merely one part of the Asura (Ahura) side, with the later non-Mazdean Iranic pagan practices emerging from that stream. The Deva factions would have been the ancestral Indo-Aryans who migrated away from the Aryan homeland in Central Asia (probably indicating they were the losers of the broader conflict) in multiple directions; the most notable being the migration through the Khyber Pass and into the Indian subcontient where they would merge with the Indus Valley remnants (an already-collapsed civilization, not the victims of a grand "Aryan Invasion") and form the nuclear of the great Indian Civilization that would soon emerge. The other Indo-Aryans mostly migrated into the Middle East, where they would mix with peoples native to Eastern Anatolia and become warrior elites lording over several kingdoms in Mesopotamia and Syria (Kassites rulers of Babylon and the Mittani kingdom, respectively).
Anyway, I digress and could babble on about this ad infinitum. The overall point is that the history behind these religious divergences is way more complex and nuanced than any simple narrative would require.
Value Systems of Zoroastrianism and Hinduism
Date: 2021-01-17 01:10 pm (UTC)Hello from Rajarshi on Discord, Laughingsage!
I loved this article, just like so many of your other articles. These are very insightful and deep. I would like to point out a small matter that I understand it would be difficult to know about without having come across without knowing both the Zoroastrian and Hindu Value Systems.
It is often believed that Zoroaster, in opposing the worshipers of Indra and other Vedic deities, was opposing the ideas of Dharmic value systems. This seems to play with the idea of the Deva-Asura conflict, portraying it as a conflict of different systems of morality. For instance, many - including the Hindu author Amish Tripathi - have wrongly concluded that the Value Systems of Zoroaster and the Hindu Rishis were diametrically opposite. Some have brought out the example of the supposed Zoroastrian Monotheism and the archetypal association of Hinduism with Polytheism, for instance, to make this point.
I have met several members of the Parsi community, which is an Indian Zoroastrian community numbering in nearly ninety thousand. I am a Hindu myself. After significant discussion, I discovered that this view-point is entirely wrong. Hindus and Zoroasrians may have very differing beliefs, symbols, theology, and attitude towards some specific deities like Indra, but our value systems are strongly aligned.
The key values of the Hindus are (1) Sanctity of Life, (2) Sanctity of The Truth (and by extension, of Knowledge), (3) Sanctity of Courage, Strength and Dauntlessness, and (4) Sanctity of Duty. The sanctity of life manifests in the practice of Ahimsa, which includes not killing or harming cattle, among other things. The sanctity of truth, of course, directly involves not lying, and also having a reverence for knowledge, and by extension, books. Sanctity of courage is reinforced repeatedly in scripture, especially in the Gita, as is the sanctity of duty.
Now in Zoroastrianism, we see the same virtues reflected. One of the early enemies of Zoroaster was a person mentioned in the Gathas as Rishi Bendva (notice that he was called a Rishi). This man, according to Avestan accounts, was a cruel man who broke all the laws of Aryan morality. The Avesta specifically mentions what he did: he killed and consumed cattle, especially cows. In fact, Zoroaster specifically opposes him because of this practice. He seems to be doing what even a Hindu reformer would have done in this situation.
In fact, the first Gaushala (cow shelter) in Mumbai was jointly constructed by two Parsis and a Jain, for the express purpose of sheltering stray cows in the area.
Zoroaster mentions Truth and Wisdom as high ideals, calling Ahura Mazda the greatest and Wisest. This is significant. He repeatedly insists that his followers remain wise, and then rooted in Truth. That they speak the Truth is one of his key doctrines.
The Zoroastrian name for their value system is Daena, and this system is very close to the value system that is Dharma. The similarities are so great, that the two communities have been able to live side-by-side throughout the Middle Ages, and into modernity.
There are some actual lines in common between the Gathas and the Vedas. In fact, many of the accusations Zoroaster makes against his enemies are the very ones that the Rig Veda and the later Vedas made against the enemies of the Arya people in India - killing cattle, dishonoring scholars, and being liars. It is evident that the Value System which Zarathushtra is defending is the Dharmic one.
Re: Value Systems of Zoroastrianism and Hinduism
Date: 2021-01-19 12:29 am (UTC)