6 ms·

The most ancient book of India is Rigveda. The first of Vedas. Exact timing is up for debate but could be easily 5000+ years old. I think in one of the early ch

The most ancient book of India is Rigveda. The first of Vedas. Exact timing is up for debate but could be easily 5000+ years old. I think in one of the early chapters the book describes a war, a war of 10 kings it is called. Leaving the mystical elements aside this war would shape future of India and Persia going forward. The historians I know believe that this war is not pure fiction but rooted in truth. In this war 9 Persian tribes unite to finally destroy the one king on India's western border (modern day Pakistan). All those tribes are named and it turns out all except 2 still exist in modern day Iran. The defeat of Indian king is certain except that Persians make a terrible mistake, they try to cross a shallow river to pursue Indian king and a sudden cloudburst in mountains wipes off majority of the army. Persians see this as Gods favouring Sudas, the Indian King, Indian King Sudas believes this to be the doing of his God Indra. Defeated Persians walk back. It is a long journey and by the time they reach home their numbers are low and moral is broken, one of those tribes would split further to become the modern day Zoroastrianism. World's first monotheistic religion. Technically, Zoroastrianism is at direct conflict with Hinduism and yet both religions have thrived side by side in India and average Hindu has very positive opinion of Parasi people (Zoroastrianism). Examine the language of both religions. In Sanskrit Asura means evil people (demon), in Persian Asura becomes Ahura which means Lord. I have always felt that Parasi and Hindu communities are exceptional example of how religious groups with opposite viewpoints can live next to each other and peacefully.

yumraj 5y ago
> I have always felt that Parasi and Hindu communities are exceptional example of how religious groups with opposite viewpoints can live next to each other and peacefully. I think the primary reason for this is that neither religion has a concept of converting someone to their religion. Same is true for Judaism, and probably for most ancient religions. As no one was actively trying to convert the other person, wars were fought over territory and resources, and not over who had better gods. It is only when proselytizing became a requirement did we start seeing religious wars.
- kleton 5y ago
  The Zoroastrians who became Gujarati Parsis made an agreement with a Hindu ruler to be allowed in as refugees, as long as they do not proselytize or allow conversions to Zoroastrianism. Previously, it was not a strict ethno-religion.
  - peanutz454 5y ago
    You are right, but there is also the net positive Hindus feel about Zoroastrians. The (probably made up) story that I heard was that when the Zoroastrians (Parsi as they are called in India) came to Indian land escaping persecution from Islam, an emissary was sent by the Indian king of the state of modern day Gujarat with a bowl filled to the brim with milk - to indicate that the kingdom was already filled and there was no space for new people. The Parsi leader added a pinch of sugar to the milk to indicate - there is still space for us, and we can sweeten the milk too. This story sums up how as a minority Parsi's have come to occupy an important space in Hindu dominated India. They were provided a safe space, and in return for it they made a net positive contribution to India.
- KorematsuFred 5y ago
  Yes. I think not having a 'homeland' that pumps in money to spread the God's word like Joshua Project also helps a great deal. Many years ago I attended "Meeting of Elders" an amazing conference between Hindu monks and Native American Shamans. It was pretty cool to see who quickly they were comfortable with each other's traditions.
  - yumraj 5y ago
    > It was pretty cool to see who quickly they were comfortable with each other's traditions. Thank you for sharing that. That was exactly my point, when neither group is interested in converting the other and are comfortable in their own traditions, the interaction is very civil and beneficial to all parties. Hinduism had a rich tradition of Shastrartha (Sanskrit शास्त्रार्थ) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shastrartha https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shastrartha where scholars debated the meaning and their interpretation of scriptures. Which meant that the religious books were always open to interpretation and never taken literally, which is unlike what we see in several modern religions where the text is applied literally and interpretations are considered sacrilegious.
danans 5y ago
> I think in one of the early chapters the book describes a war, a war of 10 kings it is called. Leaving the mystical elements aside this war would shape future of India and Persia going forward. In fact, it may have echoed forward directly for centuries. The daasharajna yuddha, as it is called in Sanskrit, may have both inspired the epic Mahabharata composed centuries later, and which is also centered on a great war. Even more, the tribes and kingdoms that participated in Mahabharata war may have been descendants of Sudas from the battle of 10 kings. They are certainly cultural descendants, as they carried forward the story of the 10 Kings' Battle in the Vedas. We also know with near certainty that those tribes mentioned in the Mahabharata inhabited the area spanning modern Afghanistan through the Gangetic plain [1], which is just east of the border region between the Vedic/Indian and Persian/Zoroastrian worlds. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panchala#/media/File:Late_Vedic_Culture_(1100-500_BCE).png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panchala#/media/File:Late_Vedi...
pmoriarty 5y ago
"In Sanskrit Asura means evil people (demon), in Persian Asura becomes Ahura which means Lord." In the essay I refer to elsewhere in this thread [1], Zaehner writes: "What do we know of these so-called "demon worshippers"? The Persian for demon is div (Middle Persian dev , Old Persian daiva, Avestan daeva). All these words correspond to the Sanskrit deva and are etymologically connected with the Latin deus. Originally, they must have been gods. In the Avesta there are two words for supernatural beings, ahura and daeva , and these correspond etymologically exactly to the Sanskrit asura and deva. In the Rig-Veda, the earliest literary monument of the whole Indo-European group of races, both terms mean divine beings, the asuras being more remote from man, the devas closer to him. In the course of time, however, the asuras, who always had an uncanny element in them, became purely maleficent powers, whereas the devas remained gods similar to the gods of Greece and Rome and other Indo-European peoples. In Iran, however, exactly the opposite happened. Owing to the reform of the Prophet Zoroaster, no ahura was any longer allowed to exist in his own right, and Ahura Mazdah, the "Wise Lord", was raised to the position of the one true God, maker of heaven and earth and all that in them is. The daevas, on the other hand, were regarded by the Iranian Prophet as being maleficent powers, the henchmen of Angra Mainyu or Ahriman, whose real origins remain obscure. The Zoroastrian reform, however -- which put an exalted monotheism in the place of the more ancient polytheism which the Iranians had formerly shared with their Aryan cousins who had moved on into India -- this Zoroastrian reform was far too radical and politically too weak to eliminate the worship of the daevas altogether. In what was later to become Zoroastrian orthodoxy, a place was made for many of the old ahuras like Mithra and Anahita, but not for the old daevas, whose cult was in all probability associated with bloody sacrifice; and it is this cult, in my opinion, which reappears in Mithras' sacrifice of the Bull in the Mithraism of the Roman Empire. It seems plain, however, that the cult of the daevas co-existed with orthodox Zoroastrianism until the reign of Xerxes, when it seems to have been suppressed, at least officially. It maintained an underground existence, however, in all probability up to Muslim times as the constant attacks on it in the Pahlavi books show..." [1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27522709 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27522709
- bane 5y ago
  This dual-deity system reminds me quite a bit of the divide between the Grecco-Roman Gods and Titans.
chupchap 5y ago
> In Sanskrit Asura means evil people (demon) Are you sure? I was under the impression this is a mistaken translation. Rakshasa would be the more demonic one and not asura.
- Arnavion 5y ago
  Do you have a reference to it being a mistaken translation? I'm a native Hindi speaker, and I would've told you asura and rakshasa are both demons. "Asura" == "not sura" == "not good" sounds generic, sure, but everyone grows up hearing that word only used for demons in mythological stories. (This is far from the only case where a generic word ends up being used to refer to something specific that has that category. Everyone in Hindu mythological stories has a bajillion alternative names that are generic-sounding but only apply to them, based around some aspect of their personality or actions.)
  - qart 5y ago
    Current Indian mythology has a lot of differences from ancient Indian mythology. The nature of asura is among them. Many of the then major gods were described in Rig Veda as asuras. Wikipedia gives a good overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asura https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asura
  - naruvimama 5y ago
    Very many Indian words that have exact meaning loose their meaning when they get translated to English. A Rakshas is just someone blinded by the need to accumulate wealth and power, they may be kind but often take the wrong path.
  - chupchap 5y ago
    I used to think so as well till I read more about it. Asuras are equivalent to lords and divine beings equivalent to devas and not inherently evil. Even more interesting is how Asuras are treated in Budhism and in Hinduism-like religions that are prevelant in various parts of SE Asia.
- gautamdivgi 5y ago
newyankee 5y ago
Unfortunately an objective comparison with other religions is not possible without going into political territory. There are religions where people feel they are the only truths and the adherents mostly believe everything seriously and there are some where adherents follow what they consider the good parts.
dravidian 5y ago
> The most ancient book of India is Rigveda. Uhm... no
Ar-Curunir 5y ago
The Rigveda is not 5000yrs old, but rather is closer to 3900 years old, at most. This is based on linguistic evidence, as well as geographic and biological names in the Rigveda
- adictator 5y ago
  The same linguistic, geological & climatological evidence points to the RigVeda being at least 24000 years old. Please refer to extensive research done in the last decade or so. Nilesh Oak et al.
- naruvimama 5y ago
  The reason for the number 3900, is that most British historian who were the authority were Christians. They refused to accept any civilizational could be older than 4000 years because of the great flood. So often they tried to fit the evidence into their narrative. As we know today very many civilizations can be dated to much further in time.
  - Ar-Curunir 5y ago
    No, it is based on both linguistic and archaeological evidence. For example, read The Horse, The Wheel, and Language, which corroborates these two kinds of evidence Fwiw I’m Hindu.
    - srean 5y ago
      Friendly, good faith hint: dont fall in to the trap of feeding trolls. Take a look at comment history to see what I mean.
      - chakkepolja 5y ago
        I know these people are hard to convince, just writing factual evidence so that outsiders don't believe all the stuff these people write.
      - naruvimama 5y ago
baybal2 5y ago
They have very telling surnames. Poonawalla, Gheewalla, Daruwalla, Canteenwalla, Something-wala. Or even more straight: Driver, Carpenter, Broker, Sethna etc all real surnames.
adictator 5y ago
> In Sanskrit Asura means evil people (demon), in Persian Asura becomes Ahura which means Lord. Just want to point out that "Asura" does not mean evil in Sanskrit. In fact there were many great Asuras - Ghatothkacha, Barbareek, King Mahabali in whose honor we celebrate Onam etc etc. Asura if anything means materialistic, one who has not detached themselves from worldly pleasures. In point of fact, all humans today are Asuras by that definition

yumraj 5y ago

> I have always felt that Parasi and Hindu communities are exceptional example of how religious groups with opposite viewpoints can live next to each other and peacefully. I think the primary reason for this is that neither religion has a concept of converting someone to their religion. Same is true for Judaism, and probably for most ancient religions. As no one was actively trying to convert the other person, wars were fought over territory and resources, and not over who had better gods. It is only when proselytizing became a requirement did we start seeing religious wars.

kleton 5y ago
The Zoroastrians who became Gujarati Parsis made an agreement with a Hindu ruler to be allowed in as refugees, as long as they do not proselytize or allow conversions to Zoroastrianism. Previously, it was not a strict ethno-religion.
- peanutz454 5y ago
  You are right, but there is also the net positive Hindus feel about Zoroastrians. The (probably made up) story that I heard was that when the Zoroastrians (Parsi as they are called in India) came to Indian land escaping persecution from Islam, an emissary was sent by the Indian king of the state of modern day Gujarat with a bowl filled to the brim with milk - to indicate that the kingdom was already filled and there was no space for new people. The Parsi leader added a pinch of sugar to the milk to indicate - there is still space for us, and we can sweeten the milk too. This story sums up how as a minority Parsi's have come to occupy an important space in Hindu dominated India. They were provided a safe space, and in return for it they made a net positive contribution to India.
KorematsuFred 5y ago
Yes. I think not having a 'homeland' that pumps in money to spread the God's word like Joshua Project also helps a great deal. Many years ago I attended "Meeting of Elders" an amazing conference between Hindu monks and Native American Shamans. It was pretty cool to see who quickly they were comfortable with each other's traditions.
- yumraj 5y ago
  > It was pretty cool to see who quickly they were comfortable with each other's traditions. Thank you for sharing that. That was exactly my point, when neither group is interested in converting the other and are comfortable in their own traditions, the interaction is very civil and beneficial to all parties. Hinduism had a rich tradition of Shastrartha (Sanskrit शास्त्रार्थ) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shastrartha https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shastrartha where scholars debated the meaning and their interpretation of scriptures. Which meant that the religious books were always open to interpretation and never taken literally, which is unlike what we see in several modern religions where the text is applied literally and interpretations are considered sacrilegious.

danans 5y ago

> I think in one of the early chapters the book describes a war, a war of 10 kings it is called. Leaving the mystical elements aside this war would shape future of India and Persia going forward. In fact, it may have echoed forward directly for centuries. The daasharajna yuddha, as it is called in Sanskrit, may have both inspired the epic Mahabharata composed centuries later, and which is also centered on a great war. Even more, the tribes and kingdoms that participated in Mahabharata war may have been descendants of Sudas from the battle of 10 kings. They are certainly cultural descendants, as they carried forward the story of the 10 Kings' Battle in the Vedas. We also know with near certainty that those tribes mentioned in the Mahabharata inhabited the area spanning modern Afghanistan through the Gangetic plain [1], which is just east of the border region between the Vedic/Indian and Persian/Zoroastrian worlds. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panchala#/media/File:Late_Vedic_Culture_(1100-500_BCE).png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panchala#/media/File:Late_Vedi...

pmoriarty 5y ago

"In Sanskrit Asura means evil people (demon), in Persian Asura becomes Ahura which means Lord." In the essay I refer to elsewhere in this thread [1], Zaehner writes: "What do we know of these so-called "demon worshippers"? The Persian for demon is div (Middle Persian dev , Old Persian daiva, Avestan daeva). All these words correspond to the Sanskrit deva and are etymologically connected with the Latin deus. Originally, they must have been gods. In the Avesta there are two words for supernatural beings, ahura and daeva , and these correspond etymologically exactly to the Sanskrit asura and deva. In the Rig-Veda, the earliest literary monument of the whole Indo-European group of races, both terms mean divine beings, the asuras being more remote from man, the devas closer to him. In the course of time, however, the asuras, who always had an uncanny element in them, became purely maleficent powers, whereas the devas remained gods similar to the gods of Greece and Rome and other Indo-European peoples. In Iran, however, exactly the opposite happened. Owing to the reform of the Prophet Zoroaster, no ahura was any longer allowed to exist in his own right, and Ahura Mazdah, the "Wise Lord", was raised to the position of the one true God, maker of heaven and earth and all that in them is. The daevas, on the other hand, were regarded by the Iranian Prophet as being maleficent powers, the henchmen of Angra Mainyu or Ahriman, whose real origins remain obscure. The Zoroastrian reform, however -- which put an exalted monotheism in the place of the more ancient polytheism which the Iranians had formerly shared with their Aryan cousins who had moved on into India -- this Zoroastrian reform was far too radical and politically too weak to eliminate the worship of the daevas altogether. In what was later to become Zoroastrian orthodoxy, a place was made for many of the old ahuras like Mithra and Anahita, but not for the old daevas, whose cult was in all probability associated with bloody sacrifice; and it is this cult, in my opinion, which reappears in Mithras' sacrifice of the Bull in the Mithraism of the Roman Empire. It seems plain, however, that the cult of the daevas co-existed with orthodox Zoroastrianism until the reign of Xerxes, when it seems to have been suppressed, at least officially. It maintained an underground existence, however, in all probability up to Muslim times as the constant attacks on it in the Pahlavi books show..." [1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27522709 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27522709

bane 5y ago
This dual-deity system reminds me quite a bit of the divide between the Grecco-Roman Gods and Titans.

chupchap 5y ago

> In Sanskrit Asura means evil people (demon) Are you sure? I was under the impression this is a mistaken translation. Rakshasa would be the more demonic one and not asura.

Arnavion 5y ago
Do you have a reference to it being a mistaken translation? I'm a native Hindi speaker, and I would've told you asura and rakshasa are both demons. "Asura" == "not sura" == "not good" sounds generic, sure, but everyone grows up hearing that word only used for demons in mythological stories. (This is far from the only case where a generic word ends up being used to refer to something specific that has that category. Everyone in Hindu mythological stories has a bajillion alternative names that are generic-sounding but only apply to them, based around some aspect of their personality or actions.)
- qart 5y ago
  Current Indian mythology has a lot of differences from ancient Indian mythology. The nature of asura is among them. Many of the then major gods were described in Rig Veda as asuras. Wikipedia gives a good overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asura https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asura
- naruvimama 5y ago
  Very many Indian words that have exact meaning loose their meaning when they get translated to English. A Rakshas is just someone blinded by the need to accumulate wealth and power, they may be kind but often take the wrong path.
- chupchap 5y ago
  I used to think so as well till I read more about it. Asuras are equivalent to lords and divine beings equivalent to devas and not inherently evil. Even more interesting is how Asuras are treated in Budhism and in Hinduism-like religions that are prevelant in various parts of SE Asia.
gautamdivgi 5y ago

newyankee 5y ago

Unfortunately an objective comparison with other religions is not possible without going into political territory. There are religions where people feel they are the only truths and the adherents mostly believe everything seriously and there are some where adherents follow what they consider the good parts.

dravidian 5y ago

> The most ancient book of India is Rigveda. Uhm... no

Ar-Curunir 5y ago

The Rigveda is not 5000yrs old, but rather is closer to 3900 years old, at most. This is based on linguistic evidence, as well as geographic and biological names in the Rigveda

adictator 5y ago
The same linguistic, geological & climatological evidence points to the RigVeda being at least 24000 years old. Please refer to extensive research done in the last decade or so. Nilesh Oak et al.
naruvimama 5y ago
The reason for the number 3900, is that most British historian who were the authority were Christians. They refused to accept any civilizational could be older than 4000 years because of the great flood. So often they tried to fit the evidence into their narrative. As we know today very many civilizations can be dated to much further in time.
- Ar-Curunir 5y ago
  No, it is based on both linguistic and archaeological evidence. For example, read The Horse, The Wheel, and Language, which corroborates these two kinds of evidence Fwiw I’m Hindu.
  - srean 5y ago
    Friendly, good faith hint: dont fall in to the trap of feeding trolls. Take a look at comment history to see what I mean.
    - chakkepolja 5y ago
      I know these people are hard to convince, just writing factual evidence so that outsiders don't believe all the stuff these people write.
    - naruvimama 5y ago

baybal2 5y ago

They have very telling surnames. Poonawalla, Gheewalla, Daruwalla, Canteenwalla, Something-wala. Or even more straight: Driver, Carpenter, Broker, Sethna etc all real surnames.

adictator 5y ago

> In Sanskrit Asura means evil people (demon), in Persian Asura becomes Ahura which means Lord. Just want to point out that "Asura" does not mean evil in Sanskrit. In fact there were many great Asuras - Ghatothkacha, Barbareek, King Mahabali in whose honor we celebrate Onam etc etc. Asura if anything means materialistic, one who has not detached themselves from worldly pleasures. In point of fact, all humans today are Asuras by that definition