Alt-Hinduism in Persia?

What if the Aryans who settled down in Persia, and Central Asia to a lesser extent managed to create a religion similar to Hinduism, with castes and karma? How could this be possible, and what would effects of this be like?
 
What if the Aryans who settled down in Persia, and Central Asia to a lesser extent managed to create a religion similar to Hinduism, with castes and karma? How could this be possible, and what would effects of this be like?

Persia tended to have more direct contact with the West than India did, so that means a lot more "dharmic" (Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism are sometimes called "dharmic", as opposed to say, "Abrahamic religions" like Christianity, Judaism, Islam) influence in the Middle East and Europe, especially if one of them is a missionary religion like Buddhism. Chances are no Judaism would exist, or would be very different.

Persian influence already lead to things in the West like the Greeks using Zoroaster as a mouthpiece for their philosophies, and the Mithraic cult popular in the Roman military. Hinduism and Zoroastrianism may have a common ancestor, as the Avestan language, especially in the Gathas is quite similar to the Rig-Veda. Cows are (or at least were) sacred in both religions if I remember correctly. There may have been some split between the two in the past. "Devas" are good in Hinduism, but "daevas" are evil in Zoroastrianism. "Asuras" are usually considered evil in Hinduism, while capital-G God in Zoroastrianism is "Ahura Mazda".


Chances are good that a Hinduized Persia could butterfly Zoroastrianism away too, or a similar movement could be shifted somewhere else. It all depends on when the migration begins, as a wide variety of dates are postulated.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.
 
This would require the absence of Zoroaster. The religion of the pre-Zoroastrian Iranic peoples was very similar to the pre-Vedic Indic peoples (same gods, ceremonies, myths, hallucinogenic plants (soma/homa))...theres a reason why the proto-Indo-Iranians are very well understood, because they were a clearly identified single ethnic group prior to their migrations. However, as the Iranians move further west in the Iranian plateau, they would undoubtedly come into contact with Mesopotamian civilizations; whose religious beliefs would influence them, in the same manner that the Indus valley civilizations influenced the development of Hinduism: as a merger between Aryan spirituality and Indus valley civilization religious beliefs.
 
This would require the absence of Zoroaster. The religion of the pre-Zoroastrian Iranic peoples was very similar to the pre-Vedic Indic peoples (same gods, ceremonies, myths, hallucinogenic plants (soma/homa))...theres a reason why the proto-Indo-Iranians are very well understood, because they were a clearly identified single ethnic group prior to their migrations. However, as the Iranians move further west in the Iranian plateau, they would undoubtedly come into contact with Mesopotamian civilizations; whose religious beliefs would influence them, in the same manner that the Indus valley civilizations influenced the development of Hinduism: as a merger between Aryan spirituality and Indus valley civilization religious beliefs.

That would be true as well. Hinduism has a way of assimilating stuff (some Hindus regard the Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu, etc.) I had forgotten to mention that the Indus Valley Civilization might last longer without the Aryans in their territory.
 
This would require the absence of Zoroaster. The religion of the pre-Zoroastrian Iranic peoples was very similar to the pre-Vedic Indic peoples (same gods, ceremonies, myths, hallucinogenic plants (soma/homa))...theres a reason why the proto-Indo-Iranians are very well understood, because they were a clearly identified single ethnic group prior to their migrations. However, as the Iranians move further west in the Iranian plateau, they would undoubtedly come into contact with Mesopotamian civilizations; whose religious beliefs would influence them, in the same manner that the Indus valley civilizations influenced the development of Hinduism: as a merger between Aryan spirituality and Indus valley civilization religious beliefs.

Agreed. By the very nature of arriving in Persia Aryan beliefs won't become Vedic proto-Hinduism but something else instead. Mark Muesse believes the concepts of karma and reincarnation were absent from Aryan spirituality, so there's something to chew on.

Whatever appears in Persia will be more influenced by Mesopotamian beliefs. The Mesopotamians had more interest in the balance of genders and beliefs - counterpart deities, etc.

Cheers,
Ganesha
 
A second note: Ashoka was rumored to have sent Buddhist emissaries to Greece around 240 BCE - it might be eminently possible for the Greek philosophers (Arcesilaus and Chrysippus were prominent) to be heavily influenced by dharmic ideas in that way.

Cheers,
Ganesha
 
The forms of the gods would be different, and as Hinduism was also formed through some mixing with Dravidian religion, many of those aspects would not be in Hinduism either.
 
Agreed. By the very nature of arriving in Persia Aryan beliefs won't become Vedic proto-Hinduism but something else instead. Mark Muesse believes the concepts of karma and reincarnation were absent from Aryan spirituality, so there's something to chew on.

Whatever appears in Persia will be more influenced by Mesopotamian beliefs. The Mesopotamians had more interest in the balance of genders and beliefs - counterpart deities, etc.

Cheers,
Ganesha

I'm sure you know much more about Hinduism than I do, so I'll defer to you on that point. I'll also note that Zoroastrianism (the "Persian Aryan" religion) has a linear time scale. Souls are judged on the Chinwad Bridge (however you want to spell it) rather than reincarnated, so you don't have samsara or anything like that in that religion. The scope of my Zoroastrian studies was mostly up until the Abbasid Caliphate rather than the modern Parsis, so feel free to add any "modern" Zoroastrian developments.

Good post, Ganesha!
 
I'm sure you know much more about Hinduism than I do, so I'll defer to you on that point. I'll also note that Zoroastrianism (the "Persian Aryan" religion) has a linear time scale. Souls are judged on the Chinwad Bridge (however you want to spell it) rather than reincarnated, so you don't have samsara or anything like that in that religion. The Parsis may be different, but the scope of my studies was mainly Zoroastrianism up until the Abbasid Caliphate or so.

Good post, Ganesha!

I'm not so sure I know more about Hinduism at all. Some of my family members are Hindu, but any knowledge I have beyond that is purely from curiosity and Wikipedia. :p

Cheers,
Ganesha
 
I'm not so sure I know more about Hinduism at all. Some of my family members are Hindu, but any knowledge I have beyond that is purely from curiosity and Wikipedia. :p

Cheers,
Ganesha

Oh, I must have assumed that you were Hindu, or your immediate family was. The extent of my Hinduism knowledge comes from an Eastern Religions course and a few general books on religion that feature Hinduism.

I studied Zoroastrianism a lot more than Hinduism because I chose it as the topic for a thesis.
 
That would be true as well. Hinduism has a way of assimilating stuff (some Hindus regard the Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu, etc.) I had forgotten to mention that the Indus Valley Civilization might last longer without the Aryans in their territory.

Yes, the Aryans were very open to outside influence. As you are studying Zoroastrianism as part of your thesis, maybe you can answer this. From my understanding, orthodox Zoroastrianism never penetrated too deeply among the Iranic peoples of the Zagros mountains, and their beliefs were very heterodox, right? I'm thinking of sects like Mazdakism and Zurvanism. I'm also thinking of modern groups like the Ali-Ilahi, Ahl-Haqq, Yezidis, Alevis, Khurammites, and Qizilbash (who later became mainstream Shia)..who seem to have been open to beliefs from everywhere.
 
As a note, I am interested in a scenario in which the Aryans go to India as well, so there would be two "Hinduisms", or, even better, one mega-religion.
 
That would be true as well. Hinduism has a way of assimilating stuff (some Hindus regard the Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu, etc.) I had forgotten to mention that the Indus Valley Civilization might last longer without the Aryans in their territory.

no they wouldn't have, ecologial disaster aka dryup of the saraswati river, and ecological disasters hitting the indus valley region caused the IVC cities to collapse as people moved east. The Indo Aryans did not arrive in the area till 1900-1800 b.c.e at the earliest.Therefore IVC would have collapsed anyway.

Also to get alt hinduism in Persia the main pod would be to butterfly away Zoroaster but even then the proto Indo iranians were not unified religiously. Rather they were split into different groups who all believed one god was the most superior. For Indo aryans you had Asvins, Indra, Varuna, Brhamanspati, Prajapathi, Purusha all being identified as the supreme beings ergo each group had their own main deity, and so dispute already existed among just the indo aryans over which god was superior.

Extrapolating this to the Iranians, one can see they too must have had different views on which deity was supreme.

However you could have Varuna-asura cult become prominent in iran since ahura mahzdha had an equivalent in Varuna and Mithra which I believe are pseudonyms for him. Therefore you could have a "Hinduism" in persia dominated by varuna worshipers since that group was most close in relation to the iranic tribes.

The big issue is conflict though. Once settled in respective regions conflicts were bound to erupt beetween the iranians and indo aryans, therefore both groups came to view each other negatively.

This may have been the cause for the vilification of the daevas and asuras respectivly because even in rgveda the asuras were not evil and the earliest gathas the devas were not demons. So avert conflict perhaps a massive superstate(rejoining of Indo aryans with iranians) and you could see a "hinduism" type persia.
 
Yes, the Aryans were very open to outside influence. As you are studying Zoroastrianism as part of your thesis, maybe you can answer this. From my understanding, orthodox Zoroastrianism never penetrated too deeply among the Iranic peoples of the Zagros mountains, and their beliefs were very heterodox, right? I'm thinking of sects like Mazdakism and Zurvanism. I'm also thinking of modern groups like the Ali-Ilahi, Ahl-Haqq, Yezidis, Alevis, Khurammites, and Qizilbash (who later became mainstream Shia)..who seem to have been open to beliefs from everywhere.

Oh, that thesis was done a few years ago. Too late to change anything now. :)

Zurvanism had the patronage of at least some of the Sassanid emperrors. Remember that long-lived ruler Shapur II named a daughter "Zurvandukht". Later non-Zurvanist Pahlavi writers liked to ignore these inconvenient facts and think that the Sassanid were pure and orthodox.

A big problem with Zoroastrian history is that so much has been destroyed, and may not have even been written until the Sassanid era. Oral tradition played a large role in the early history of the religion. The Avesta as it exists now is incomplete, as historical records indicate there were more books. There is a spurious tradition of an original Avesta being destroyed by Alexander the Great, or "Aleksandr the Roman". This legend was probably created to appease the Muslim rulers, given the anachronism and a desire to gain dhimmi status or something similar.

Another problem is that Zoroaster doesn't even seem to be mentioned in the Achaemenid inscriptions. People think books being written decades after the fact makes Christian history hard; those historians are whiny babies! :) Early Christianity has nothing on the foggy timeline of Zoroastrianism.

Mazdakism was a reaction at what was seen as the excessive wealth and power of the Sassanid priests.
 

katchen

Banned
One interesting POD might be if Asoka had A) stayed Hindu, B) continued conquering and c) turned west into Persia and Mesopotamia. Orthodox Hinduixm might well have gianed a following in parts of the Middle East and Asia Minot, particularly if Asoka conquers as far as Egypt and coastal Arabia Neoplatonism in particular might well be very open to Hindu beliefs in karma and reincarnation expressed directly and there would be many syntheses of Greek and Hindu gods and goddesses under a Mauryan Empire just as Greek and Italian pantheons synthesized under Roman rule.
Any listmembers care to hazard how these classical--Hindu gods equivalences might work out?
 
One interesting POD might be if Asoka had A) stayed Hindu, B) continued conquering and c) turned west into Persia and Mesopotamia. Orthodox Hinduixm might well have gianed a following in parts of the Middle East and Asia Minot, particularly if Asoka conquers as far as Egypt and coastal Arabia Neoplatonism in particular might well be very open to Hindu beliefs in karma and reincarnation expressed directly and there would be many syntheses of Greek and Hindu gods and goddesses under a Mauryan Empire just as Greek and Italian pantheons synthesized under Roman rule.
Any listmembers care to hazard how these classical--Hindu gods equivalences might work out?

One reason Ashoka converted to Buddhism in the first place was that he was appalled at the high casualty rates, indicating that even subduing northern India was difficult. How would he still have enough troops to go on large scale conquests? You have a very interesting POD, and I can see Ashoka wanting to conquer more territory, but finding a way for him to do it can be difficult. His ancestor may have defeated the Seleucids, but they are not a paper tiger even by Ashoka's time. Apparently the Seleucids had problems in the west though, so maybe he could take some eastern territory while they're distracted in another war.

"Orthodox" Hinduism may have a hard time supplanting the Greco-Zoroastrians in Persia too, given the role-reversals of ahuras and asuras and such. The Seleucids tried to emphasize the worship of the Greek gods, but they just assimilated with the yazatas. Zeus was often identified with Ahura Mazda, and Aphrodite was associated with Anahita if I remember correctly.
 
That would be true as well. Hinduism has a way of assimilating stuff (some Hindus regard the Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu, etc.) I had forgotten to mention that the Indus Valley Civilization might last longer without the Aryans in their territory.

Well, there's no need for the Aryans to not settle India in order to get a more *Hindu Iran; just simply eliminate Zoroaster whose faith managed to subsume the traditional Iranian beliefs.

That being said, many of the gods which appear in Hinduism, such as Vishnu, Kali and so forth, appear to have developed more from native Dravidian deities and were not present in the Aryan pantheon. As such, Indra, Agni and the rest of the Aryan gods will remain much more prominent in Iran than they did in Hinduism.
 
One reason Ashoka converted to Buddhism in the first place was that he was appalled at the high casualty rates, indicating that even subduing northern India was difficult. How would he still have enough troops to go on large scale conquests? You have a very interesting POD, and I can see Ashoka wanting to conquer more territory, but finding a way for him to do it can be difficult. His ancestor may have defeated the Seleucids, but they are not a paper tiger even by Ashoka's time. Apparently the Seleucids had problems in the west though, so maybe he could take some eastern territory while they're distracted in another war.

As it was, the Mauryans controlled much of modern-day Afghanistan up to Herat - and even their successors in the region the Indo-Greeks maintained much of Indian culture.

Historians are rethinking how the Maurya worked - it was more likely a network of tributaries than a centralized empire - and it doesn't seem too implausible to make the Persians one of those tributaries.

Cheers,
Ganesha
 
I think in non-Zoroaster world you will end up seeing a religious continuum that encompasses the indo-iranian sphere. One that has a base in Aryan myths and spirituality that incorporates indigenous beliefs to varying degrees. Considering themajor influence that Zoroastrianism had on forming the strict monotheism of the Jews, we probably also wont see the rise of Abrahamic religions. This will make for a world with a lot less religious zealtory.
 
I think in non-Zoroaster world you will end up seeing a religious continuum that encompasses the indo-iranian sphere. One that has a base in Aryan myths and spirituality that incorporates indigenous beliefs to varying degrees. Considering themajor influence that Zoroastrianism had on forming the strict monotheism of the Jews, we probably also wont see the rise of Abrahamic religions. This will make for a world with a lot less religious zealtory.

This is a really interesting point! I've read it that Monotheism emerged amongst the Jewish people during the Babylonian captivity independently of their contact with the Persians, there can be little doubt that Zoroastrianism influenced the development of Judaism past this point (to use a latter example, the Sons of Light and Sons of Darkness mythos which emerged under the Roman period definitely used the language of Zoroastrianism), and I think many of the more apocalyptic overtones really stem from those connections. A Judaism which emerges without that contact would be fascinating; even if we are to assume that *Cyrus (non-Zorastrian, of course) conquers Babylon and allows the Hebrew to return to Israel.
 
Top