The Ancient Aryan Split

[Rival]

I accept that the Mazdayasnian religion (Zoroastrianism) and the Vedic religion(s) (broadly, Hinduism), stem from a common Indo-Aryan core. Avestan and Sanskrit are clearly related (Ahura/Asura, Daeva/Deva, Mazda/Medha, Asha/Rita etc). While attempts at reconstructing the ancient Aryan beliefs have not been as successful as, say, Roman Pagan reconstruction, we do find some general themes. For instance, there was a war; the worshippers of the Ahuras/Asuras and the Daevas/Devas split.

So what I'm proposing is a discussion or debate about the Vedic-Mazdayasnian split, the war, etc. between Hindus and Zoroastrians. Was Zarathustra a reformer? Was it a real war, or a mythic war? When did the split happen? etc.

No petty squabbling over whose religion is older and such.

However, and I know this may sound counter-productive, but I'm wary of people referring to their scriptures for argument. I know the Hindu texts broadly mention this and so do some later Mazdayasnian scriptures (which I mostly do not use), but these are by their very nature biased and sectarian, so I would appreciate not being too heavy handed with the scripture references, though I'm not saying don't use it at all.

@Kirran @Mazdaian @StarryNightshade @Corthos @A Greased Scotsman @Terese @Chakra

 

[Kirran]

Hmm. Well, first proviso: the Vedic religion is one strand within the Hindu tapestry

But as for the split and Zoroaster's role in it, I think the traditions likely split before his reform movement began - it seems there was a split along cultural/linguistic lines between two groups, one of which became the Vedic people and the Mittani (I think?) and the other the Proto-Iranians.

 

[Rival]

Hmm. Well, first proviso: the Vedic religion is one strand within the Hindu tapestry

I said Vedic because, as far as I know, the Vedas are the oldest of the scriptures for Hindus and there is some idea that modern Hinduism/s is not the same as the ancient Vedic Religion, and what we're discussing is not the modern forms of the faiths but the forms they took then.

 

[Nietzsche]

What makes you assume that the first split was either Zoroastrian or proto-Zoroastrian?

 

[Rival]

What makes you assume that the first split was either Zoroastrian or proto-Zoroastrian?

I'm not necessarily saying that, I just mean when did the split in general occur and what made it occur, and did Zoroastrianism have anything even to do with it?

 

[Chakra]

Although I don't necessarily agree with what he says, @Aupmanyav should be able to help you out.

 

[Aupmanyav]

No petty squabbling over whose religion is older and such.

I understand your point and like it. There is no question of a religion being older or newer. Both the religions are younger than the common Aryan beliefs before the divide. Actually the Indian Aryans were not at all aware that a split had taken place in Bactria. There is no mention of that in any of our scriptures.

They were happy in their new land of seven rivers. They had named one of its rivers as 'Saraswati' (Harahvaiti). They were to name another river far East as 'Sarayu' (Haroyu) in later times. They had forgotten Bactria, it was not even a memory. That tends to tell me that the break occured very early. Actually, one of the great researchers here, Bal Gangadhar Tilak puts the date earlier than 2,250 BC (before the writing of Taittiriya Samhita of YajurVeda).

They were having inter-tribal marriages with the indigenous people (the Nagas*, etc.). When asked, they only said that the Kurus came from Uttara Kuru, the Madras came from Uttara Madra and the Kambojas came from Uttara Kamboja (basically 'from somewhere in the North').

Oh, you do not know about the four Vedas. The old lore had been re-compiled under the supervision of a scholar of mixed Aryan-indigenous parentage, VedaVyasa, son of Satyavati and Parashara, in four parts. He is also known as Krishna Dwaipayana (the dark one born on an island - I do not know which river-island is being mentioned). VedaVyasa is known as a partial avatara of Lord Vishnu and is supposed to have authored 18 puranas, the Mahabharata and the Brahmasutra in addition of supervising the compilation of Vedas.

The Indian Aryans had their Puru, Kuru and other kingdoms in India. The last contact they had with Central Asians was during the 'Battle of Ten Kings' (Dasarajna war) fought on the banks of River Ravi (Vedic Parushni). A conglomerate of ten Central Asian and Indian tribes was defeated by King Sudasa, son of Divodasa, a puru, who ruled the Rawalpindi region or what is known as Potohar plateau. The battle must have taken place in rainy season, because the enemies of Purus were washed away in a flood, not an opportune time to conduct a war in India. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Ten_Kings

* Naga kanya: Daughter of an Indigenous person, perhaps because they worshiped snakes or perhaps Lord Shiva, Matsya kanya: Daughter of a indigenous fisherman.
Satyavati, wife of Kuru king Shantanu, great grandmother of Kauravas and Pandavas, was a Matsya kanya, and was supposed to have been very beautiful.

 

[Corthos]

Wow... I have to say I feel totally ignorant here, but that's good! Opportunities to learn. =)

I won't contribute much, but I will certainly do some research and run it by you guys as I find things you folks might find interesting. I will definitely keep tabs on this thread. I love ancient history... and this is all new stuff for me! =)

 

[Aupmanyav]

But as for the split and Zoroaster's role in it, I think the traditions likely split before his reform movement began - it seems there was a split along cultural/linguistic lines between two groups, one of which became the Vedic people and the Mittani (I think?) and the other the Proto-Iranians.

I think it was a locational/Geographic split rather than a cultural/lingusitic split.

What makes you assume that the first split was either Zoroastrian or proto-Zoroastrian?

That is the question.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I'm not necessarily saying that, I just mean when did the split in general occur and what made it occur, and did Zoroastrianism have anything even to do with it?

My guess is that the split occurred after the Indian Aryans had settled in India and there was no appreciable interaction between the Bactrian and Indian Aryans at that time. Probably the result of the Battle of Ten Kings contained the Bactrian and Indian Aryans in their own separate regions.

"if of the tribes mentioned in 7.18, the Turvasas, Yadus, Matsyas, Bhrgus, Druhyus, Pakthas, Bhalanas, Alinas, Shivas and Visanins are counted, the full number is reached, leaving the Anavas (7.18.14), the Ajas and Sigrus (7.18.19) and the "21 men of both Vaikarna tribes" (7.18.11) without a king, and implying that Bheda (7.18.19, also mentioned 7.33.3 and 7.83.4, the main leader slain by Sudas), Shimyu (7.18.5), and Kavasa (7.18.12) are the names of individual kings. The Bharatas are named among the enemies in 7.33 but not in 7.18.

Alinas: One of the tribes defeated by Sudas at the Dasarajna, and it was suggested that they lived to the north-east of Nuristan, because the land was mentioned by the Chinese pilgrim Xuanzang.
Anu: Some place them in the Paruṣṇī (Ravi) area.
Bhrigus: Probably the priestly family descended from the ancient Kavi Bhrigu. Later, they are related to the composition of parts of the Atharva Veda (Bhṛigu-Āṅgirasa) .
Bhalanas: Fought against Sudas in the Dasarajna battle. Some scholars have argued that the Bhalanas lived in the Bolan Pass area.
Druhyus: Some align them with the Gandhari (RV I 1.126.7).
Matsya are only mentioned in the RV (7.18.6), but later in connection with the Śālva.
Parsu: The Parśu have been connected by some with the ancient Persians.
Purus: one of the major tribal confederations in the Rigveda.
Panis: also the name of a class of demons; later associated with the Scythians."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Ten_Kings#Belligerents (All references from RigVeda)

 

[Kirran]

I think it was a locational/Geographic split rather than a cultural/lingusitic split.That is the question.

They tend to go together, historically.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Well, most of India adopted Sanskritic languages and a lot of Aryan culture as well.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The battle:

The warriors of Sudas are described as white-robed (shvetyancha), wearing hair-knots on the right side of their heads (daksinataskaparda), having flying banners (krtádhvaj) (RV 7.83.2), while the ten kings do not sacrifice (áyajyavaḥ). It appears (7.18.5) that Sudas managed to cross the Parushni safely, while his foes, trying to pursue, were scattered by a flood and either drowned or were slaughtered by Sudas' men:

7.18.9 As to their goal they sped to their destruction: they sought Parusni; even the swift returned not.
Indra abandoned, to Sudas the manly, the swiftly flying foes, unmanly babblers.
7.18.9 They went like kine unherded from the pasture, each clinging to a friend as chance directed.
They who drive spotted steeds, sent down by Prsni, gave ear, the Warriors and the harnessed horses. (trans. Griffith)

Kavaṣa and the Druhyu were "overwhelmed by Indra" while still in the water (7.18.10). The slain warriors of the Anu and Druhyus are numbered 6,666 (7.18.14).
In the aftermath of the battle, the Bharatas under Sudas (7.33.6), received tribute from the Ajas, the Sigrus and the Yaksus (= Yadu, 7.18.20), and Indra destroyed the seven fortifications of the enemies, and gave the treasures of Anu to Sudas (7.18.13). 7.18.17 stresses that this was a victory against all odds, compared to a lamb defeating a lion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Ten_Kings#The_battle

This is why RigVeda is important. Where else we will find this kind of information?

 

[Random]

It was a split between dualism (bi theism/two gods) and pantheism (as related in ancient terms to polytheism, where there were many gods but all encompassed in one immanent god of nature and the universe - this was essentially paganism as well in its latter degraded stages where it was assumed by certain priests that all of the gods ultimately represented aspects of one unified whole; however, when this proved not to be the case, religious reforms rapidly occurred resulting in divisions and new sects such as that of the Indo-Aryan Zoroastrianism; incidentally, it was around the same time in Hebrew circles that the Pharisees and Sadducees arose causing a split with the traditional Hebrews giving rise to their enemies the Essenes and Zadokim).

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. in its latter degraded stages where it was assumed by certain priests that all of the gods ultimately represented aspects of one unified whole; ..

Why is that a degraded stage .. because it is your opinion. In India, the idea worked very well. It allowed polytheism to exist along with monotheism or monism.

.. when this proved not to be the case, ..

Who proved it and when. How come I did not hear or read about it?

The split took place in Bactria. There was no split in India. The polytheists, dualists, monotheists, monists, non-dualists and atheists are are happily singing their own lines in Hinduism. We accept each others' views as valid variations.

 

[Corthos]

I saw this, and though I am not sure of it's validity, I thought it was interesting. =)

Time to learn about ancient Bactria!

 

[Aupmanyav]

I prefer written description, because I have problem in hearing. There was an tribal/Aryan Bactria before the Iranian Bactria. Which one would you be interested in?

 

[Corthos]

I prefer written description, because I have problem in hearing. There was an tribal/Aryan Bactria before the Iranian Bactria. Which one would you be interested in?

Ahhh I see. =) The older one would be great!

Been reading up on some things, but it's mostly based off religious texts... Interesting to read about the dichotomy between Ahuras and Devas. They are opposites in many ways. =)

 

[Aupmanyav]

Blame Zoroaster. In Vedas, both the words are used for divinities, Ahura perhaps for the older Gods, Varuna, Mitra, etc. But Ahura Mazda was his creation. There is none in RigVeda.
Once checked, could find no hymn in RigVeda with Vishnu being termed as an Asura/Ahura in RigVeda, many others were.

 

[Corthos]

Blame Zoroaster. In Vedas, both the words are used for divinities, Ahura perhaps for the older Gods, Varuna, Mitra, etc. But Ahura Mazda was his creation. There is none in RigVeda.
Once checked, could find no hymn in RigVeda with Vishnu being termed as an Asura/Ahura in RigVeda, many others were.

Hmmm... This site seems interesting, what do you think about it?

http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/aryans/religion.htm

"In the Avesta's book of Yashts, verse 13.87 of the Farvardin Yasht as well as the Middle Persian Denkard at 3.35 mention that Mazda, God, was worshipped by the Aryans from the time of the first Aryan king Gaya Maretan - in other words from the outset of Aryan history. This statement is corroborated by the poet Ferdowsi's epic, the Shahnameh, and by Middle Persian Zoroastrian texts. In these texts, Gaya Maretan and his people were the first Mazdayasni meaning Mazda worshippers, the worshippers of God."

Now, keep in mind that the sources that are used to make these claims are all MUCH newer than Zoroaster, and so I question their validity. An interesting thing, however, they seem to think there is some kind of connection between Varuna and Ahura Mazda. Wikipedia also mentions a connection...

"Some scholars (Kuiper. IIJ I, 1957; Zimmer. Münchner Studien 1984:187–215) believe that Ahura Mazda originates from *vouruna-mitra, or Vedic demigod Varuna"

To me, Ahura Mazda seems more Brahman-esque in scale... But I know nothing about Brahman, so that's what I'll look into next. =)