Zoroastrianism is nonrevelatory

The Indian Origin Of Zoroastrianism & The Parsees | #AskAbhijit E15Q11 | Abhijit Chavda 

@darkprince2490
2 years ago (edited)
This idea that Zoroastrianism is monotheist/revelatory is a colonial Indological fantasy - it traces to the instance in the Bible where "Daniel" secures the obeisance of the Persian King to the monotheist "God". That is typical colonial monotheist history falsification (foreshadowing / predestination / "prophecy") and divide and rule tactics. Asura is, in fact, a name for Vedic Deities in the Veda - it is not used often but important nonetheless. Plus,there is no basis for stating that there was religious conflict between Zoroastrianism and Vedics. It was just fighting between kingdoms as we usually see. It's common to see alternate heroes taken up in Hinduism. There are, for example, temples to Duryodhana and Ravana. Even entire lexicons can be interchanged: Vaishnavas refer to Lord Vishnu as Supreme while Shaivas refer to Lord Shiva as Supreme. Each has their Sahasranama, many of which overlap. Lord Shiva is shown at the feet of Kali. All these "conflicts" are usually taken in the vein of Lila. Same applied to "Zoroastrianism". Hinduism is deep enough and varied enough and ancient enough that this is to be expected and entirely normal.
By default, we should always expect colonial mischief-making and projection in these situations

@aparn[...]
2 years ago
I agree all these separate religion can be easily categorised under an common umbrella Hinduism.
2
@anant[...]
2 years ago
Exact

@darkprince2490
2 years ago
​ @sid7161  You are just projecting the same colonial narrative that has infested itself in every "reading" of Hinduism. How can Zoroaster be against ritual when he uses the Vedic Fire ritual. How can be against the right shouldered Hindu thread when he uses a shawl in the same manner . It is just local variation in custom, which the Colonialists have predictably infused with ideological intent. There are many idols of Zoroastrian Deities including those of Goddesses such as Anahita, so again there is no anti idolatry. By such twisted logic even Hinduism is anti idolatry since the Vedic Yagna is central to much worship.
No one is falling for this colonial mischief making,

@shakyajitmaulik5579
2 years ago
Supreme God of Zoroastrianism i.e. Ahura Mazda is none but Lord Vishnu lol.
32
@gouravdey497
2 years ago
Probably it was Varuna
2
@shakyajitmaulik5579
2 years ago (edited)
 @gouravdey497  Varuna on a Bird...with a chakra ?? That too called as the "Wise Lord" ??
12
@shakyajitmaulik5579
2 years ago
 Badass guy  Yes .
@gouravdey497
2 years ago
 @shakyajitmaulik5579  Varuna is known in RV as an Asura, And moreover Mithra is an attendant of Ahura Mazda, And in RV both Mitra-varuna pair is found.
1
@shakyajitmaulik5579
2 years ago
 @gouravdey497  But the depiction is nowhere close. Varuna has got nothing to do with Vishnu.
And infact...Vishnu is mentioned along with  Mitra in Rig Ved 1.156.1(bhavā mitro na śevyo ghṛtāsutirvibhūtadyumna evayā u saprathāḥ).
Also Vishnu and Varuna are being hailed together(or Vishnu is hailed as Varuna) in Atharva Veda 7.25.
5
@shakyajitmaulik5579
2 years ago
 @darkprince2490  Who ?

@darkprince2490
2 years ago
​ @shakyajitmaulik5579  it was a compliment for you. The truth is always striking in its simplicity. You just reversed a few centuries of western indological dogma with one line of striking commentary.
Everything makes sense now. In India, the "reform" of Zoroaster would correspond to the rise of Vishnu, eg of Lord Krishna over Indra. That is, at least in popular perception since Lord Vishnu was indeed celebrated in the Vedas since early times.
There is also the mural of Lord Rama and Hanuman in Silemania, Iraq. And of course dozens of other correspondences between Persia/Mideast and ancient hinduism.

@shakyajitmaulik5579
2 years ago (edited)
 @darkprince2490  Oh thanks
Actually there was never dominance of Indra over Vishnu. Infact Indra in vedas often refers to Vishnu only.
For eg...
"Indra art thou, Mahendra thou, thou art the world, the Lord of Life. To thee is sacrifice performed: worshippers offer gifts to thee. Manifold are thy great deeds, thine, O Vishnu." (Atharva Veda 17.1.18)
Here Vishnu is directly called as Indra and Mahendra.

Again...throughout RigVed we see that Indra is called the Lord of Maruts...whom they follow.
But suddenly we see this....

"To Viṣṇu, to the Mighty whom the Maruts follow let your hymns born in song go forth, Evayamarut" (Rig Ved 5.87.1)
4
@shakyajitmaulik5579
2 years ago
 @darkprince2490  Vishnu was never a minor deity in Vedas. The greeks favoured Indra more bcoz of his association with soma...and greeks loved every drinkable lol .
So they made Indra specifically famous.
Infact India got its name from Indra.
That Hindu to India with removal of "H" and adding "ia" at end is straight up illogical bullshit.
5
@gouravdey497
2 years ago
 @shakyajitmaulik5579  first of all the context of vishnu in Vedas is slightly doubtful, Vishnu also represent a solar deity in RV.

The supreme god Vishnu probably the Purusha of Vedas

Even Varuna is one of the 101  names of Ahura Mazda
1
@shakyajitmaulik5579
2 years ago
 @gouravdey497  Believe me brother...Vishnu is NOWHERE  a solar deity. How will he be the sun ??
As per Rv 7.99.4 He is the Father of Agni and Sun.
Just like Purusha is called father of Agni and Sun.
Here itself Vishnu is proved to be Veda Purusha.
Again....I've seen repeated claims by ppl that Vishnu in vedas is an aditya....but...Where has he been called an aditya ??
Not even a single veda out of 4 calls him aditya.
Infact...rig veda 1.156.2 calls him to be the "ancient and the last"...the uncreated creator.
Why should the vedas call him aditya ??
After all...the Goddess Aditi is called Vishnu Patni in Yajur veda.
In Taiitiriya Aranyaka Aditi is called as the Mother of all beings(gods humans gandharvas asuras..all)...so as she is VishnuPatni...Vishnu automatically becomes the Father of All.