by Jayaram V
The ancient Indians and ancient Iranians had many in things in
common. They
worshipped many identical gods, spoke languages of common
origin, performed rituals that had many things in common both in the
method and manner in which they were performed and the purpose for which
they were performed. Their religious beliefs and practices drew
inspiration from similar sources. The ancient Iranians spoke Avestan which was a sister
language of Sanskrit, spoken by the vedic Indians. Both groups
worshipped several gods and performed elaborate sacrificial rituals (yagnas
or yasnas) at the end of which they feasted and drank an intoxicating
drink called Soma in India or Haoma in Iran. The Iranians recited verses to invoke
ancient gods just as the Indians performed rituals to invoke the deities
of the heavenly region. Some of the deities they worshipped
had similar names, such as Airyaman, apam Napat, Atharvan/Atar/Agni,
Sraosa/Brihapsati, Mitra/Mithra, Vauy/Wayu, Tvastar/Thworeshter, Datar/dadar,
Indra/Werethragna, Varuna/Rashnu. Usha/Usa, Yama/Yima, Vayu/Vay, and so on. Both groups believed in the
existence of a three tier cosmos consisting of an upper heavenly region, a
middle atmospheric region and the earth. Some of the terminology they
used in the practice of rituals was also similar such as zaotar and
hotar, athaurwan and atharvan, manthra and mantra, asha and arta and so
on.
Incidentally, at some stage in their development, both groups parted
their ways and developed differences. Some of the differences may be
attributed to the geography and some to the new political and social
developments that took place in the respective regions. They also came
into contact with new religions and new religious ideas of other
traditions that came from across the borders through conquests or
through traders, merchants and immigrants or grew indegenously. While
the vedic Indians interacted with the pre-vedic traditions of India,
dating back to the Indus period and even earlier, the ancient Iranian
religion which was rooted in the vedic beliefs, faced opposition from Zoroastrianism,
which was gradually emerging in the region as the most organized and
appealing religion of
ancient Iran, backed by the support of some rulers and the teachings of
Zoroaster who clamed he had a direct communication with God and obtained
the seal of approval to spread the new ideas. Zoroaster elevated Ahura Mazda as the highest God and
introduced the element of monotheism in an otherwise polytheistic
religion of ancient Iran. He introduced the practice of worshipping one God, (Madayasna),
in contrast to the vedic practice of worshipping multiple divinities (devayagna).
He laid more emphasis on ethical living rather than on ritual purity and
sacrificial ceremonies as the dominant theme of religious practice. There was no place in his
teachings for the old practice of sacrificial rituals involving animal
and human sacrifices, which were deemed agonizing and cruel and
antithetical to the revelations received by him. He brought into focus a
dynamic universal God as a protector of the righteous and opposed to
evil, in place of an enigmatic and passive God who remained in the
background while the divinities battled with various dark forces and
claimed divine authority to themselves. However he did not discard
old religion entirely. He retained
those ideas, divinities, practices and doctrines that fitted well in his new teachings
and declared the rest to be antithetical to the new dogma. As a result
most of the erstwhile devas, who were found to be in direct
opposition to the principles represented by God, were categorized as demonic spirits and unworthy of
honor and worship.
Zoroaster brought into focus the ethical dualism perceived in
the entire creation as an ongoing conflict between the forces of good
and evil, a conflict that was already perceived in the ancient religion but
interpreted rather anecdotally. He shifted the focus of the religion from ritual purity to ethical
purity and from individual divinities to a central God, who combined
within Himself all the qualities represented by them as
their lord, creator and sustainer. His
teachings portrayed the conflict between good and evil beyond the known theological speculation,
as an ethical battle of universal proportions between the creative forces of good
led by God and the destructive forces of evil led by an anti-God principle. This
ethical view of religion as the means to maintain the spiritual purity
of not just men but the entire creation, resulted in the polarization of the classical deities into
two groups, the followers of Truth (ashawan) and the followers of
falsehood (drugwant), the former portrayed as benign and beneficial, representing the ideals to be cultivated by men; and the latter as evil,
harmful and destructive forces, representing the dangers to which humanity
might succumb if they were careless. What the ancient Iranians
practiced was a tradition that was grounded in the history of their
ancestors and their beliefs, without being inimical to new ideas. What the
new prophet taught was an uncompromising new dogma that had elements of
intolerance and rigidity, which was so characteristic of the new
religions that descended upon earth a few centuries later in the
Mediterranean and engulfed nation after nation obliterating all traces
of ancient religions.
In the process of this social and religious
churning in the ancient Iran, some well
known popular divinities
of the ancient world, like Indra, Natasya (Naonhaitya) and
Rudra (Saurva) lost their status as recipients of ritual honors. The
reasons are not difficult to find. All the gods, who lost their status
as divinities in the new religion, possessed qualities and indulged in
actions that could not be categorized strictly as pure and virtuous
according to Zoroastrian values.
From a purely ethical point of view, they had qualities with shades of gray, suggestive of contamination, which would disqualify
them, in the new religion, as beings of pure light or forces of a just
and righteous God. In a religion that rested on the foundation of
uncompromising purity and an unambiguous approach towards good and evil,
it was not possible to continue their worship and still convince the new
converts about the importance of purity and righteousness. So all the popular divinities of the old tradition that
seemingly possessed questionable qualities were pushed into the dark side
and disqualified from receiving sacrificial offerings. Those who fitted
into the new pantheon with their exemplary qualities, such as Mithra and Yama
(Yima), continued to receive the honors as forces of light. In a move
that smacked of religious intolerance, but for reasons understandable
from a Zoroastrian perspective, Zoroaster
declared that impure gods should not be worshipped and no
sacrifices should be offered to them. He introduced new
rules for the sacrificial rituals, prohibiting certain old methods and
practices which were used to invoke them, such as the haoma rituals involving intoxicating drinks, which
were pleasing to the daevas.
The Indo Iranian connection in a different perspective
Subhash K. Kak, a noted Indologist, draws some parallels between the
Indian and Iranian religions and presents the developments in
Zoroastrianism in a
new perspective. In his research paper entitled, "Vedic Elements in Ancient
Iranian Religion," he provides a comprehensive list of deities present in both
traditions who had identical names with some phonetic variations to
present the view that both religions had many things in common. He then
goes on to argue that the Vedic and the Zarathushtrian systems were much less different than
was
generally supposed and that the three way division of devas,
asuras and daevas was not an entirely unknown classification to the Indian tradition as it
was familiar to the inhabitants of Kashmir who had contacts with both. He believes
that subsequently the Indian writers brought into focus the same dichotomy
between the divine and evil forces in the Puranas, with Vishnu or Siva
as a Supreme Being, acting as an adjudicator between the two, in a terminology that was familiar to the Indians. Before
concluding that the even after the Zoroastrian reform, the basic system
in ancient Iran remained unchanged, he makes the following observations.
"The list of common deities and concepts will make it clear
that the Zoroastrian system is essentially the same as the Vedic one.
The presence of Indra in the list of the daevas seems to mirror the
relegation of Indra that started in the Puranic times where instead
of connecting to Svar through the intermediate region of which Indra is
lord, a direct worship of the Great Lord (Vishnu or Siva) was stressed.
This innovation is not counter to the Vedic system since the triple
division is a recursive order. The devas are a part of the good forces
in the Zoroastrian system under the label of yazata (yajatra, the
adored- ones).
"The Zoroasatrian mythology remembers the Vedic sages and
heroes such as Kavi Susravah (Kay Khosrau), Kavi Usanas (Kay Us). The
names Ksatra Virya (Shahriyar) and Suvarn ah (Khwarrah, Farrah) helped the logic of late Persian names. The daeva in modern Persian are
known as deev.
"The commonality of the fire ritual is well known. Less
known is the ritual of the nine-nights (barashnom i noshab) which is
like the Indian ritual of the same name (navaratri). The No Roz
occurs on the day of the spring equinox just as the festival of Indra."
Conclusion
Due to the geographical proximity, there was a regular exchange of
ideas and practices between India and Iran from the early vedic period
till the Mughal period. As early as 1400 BC, the Hittites and the
Mittanis were familiar with the Sanskrit names of many Indian gods.
Their kings bore Sanskrit names. Like the ancient Iranians, they
probably followed a religion that bore many resemblances with the vedic
religion of ancient Indians. Afghanisthan and Baluchistan acted as
the connecting link between the two regions. India was known to the
Persians, in the Avestan, as Hapta Hindu (Sapta
Sindhu), a land that existed beyond Kubha (Kabul), Kurmu (Kurrum) and
Gomti (Gomal. King Darius ruled an empire which included parts of India.
He employed an Indian army that was well equipped and fit to fight, with
infantry, archers, cavalry and chariots. The Persians continued to hold
their sway on parts of India till Darius III (300 BC). The invasion of
Alexander contributed further to the cultural exchanges. The continued
presence of Persians on the Indian soil led to the intermingling of ideas
and practices. Indian goods were popular in Persia. So was the knowledge
of metallurgy and other sciences, while elements of Persian architecture
found their way into many monuments constructed curing the Mauryan rule.
The Mauryan emperor Chandragupta employed women bodyguards of probably
Persian origin and adapted the hair washing ceremony of the Persian
kings. In the religious sphere a number of new developments took place
in the Indian subcontinent. The vedic religion transformed itself into a
complex religion incorporating the best of all the prevailing ideas of
the time, challenged by Buddhism and Jainism and other rival traditions.
In Persia the opposite happened. Zoroastrianism developed into an
organized religion. Its strict adherence to the teachings of Zoroaster,
intolerance of other religions and puritanical approach to religious
practice, made any changes in its basic fabric impossible, till it met
its own match in Islam several centuries later and was completely wiped
out from Iran.
Suggested Further Reading
|
