Why didn't Indian civilization spread to its west?

Aug 2018
337
America
Because it actually did. The famous Mittanni inscription with Vedic gods is an attestation to that, so is the fact that the Vedic god Mithra was worshipped by the Romans as far as Britain. Buddha also became a Christian saint whose cult spread all over Europe. The Pachantantra was translated into Latin and even Spanish in the Middle Ages. Chess, backgammon and dice games of course also spread west, so did Indian numerals. Zoroastrianism is basically a culturally Indian religion even if one that broke away with Hinduism even more strongly than Buddhism did, and we all know that the Zoroastrian Persians conquered a part of Eastern Europe. Other elements include sugar and rice, whose etymologies are even Sanskrit in origin. Alexander's conquest of India's borders influenced European literature from the Hellenistic to late medieval periods. Sure, Europe and the Middle East ultimately did not adopt an Indian religion or an Indian language, nor did any major Indian polity came to conquer Europe or the Middle East after the fall of the Sassanians (again, if we understand Zoroastrianism as an Indian religion, as I am wont to do), but that is still not the same as saying that Indian civilisation didn't spread west when in fact it did.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rvsakhadeo

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,783
New Delhi, India
Buddha also became a Christian saint whose cult spread all over Europe. .. Zoroastrianism is basically a culturally Indian religion even if one that broke away with Hinduism even more strongly than Buddhism did, ..
Welcome Escritor to the Forum. Read more, write less - otherwise the slip shows. :)
 
Aug 2018
337
America
Welcome Escritor to the Forum. Read more, write less - otherwise the slip shows. :)
What "slip"? I guess you're saying that I attacked Hinduism by stating the simple fact that Zoroastrianism did break with it, but this is like saying Christianity broke with Judaism, and that is no attack on Judaism, that is a mere fact. Zoroastrianism is still strongly culturally Hindu, but that it replaced Sanskrit with Avesta, demonised the devas and no longer recognised the authority of the Vedas even when the Gathas can't hide that they are rewritten versions of them is true. In no way did I ever intend to say that this makes Zoroastrianism or Zoroastrian civilisation somehow better or superior to Hinduism or Hindu civilisation, if that's what you're trying to say. I mean, compare this with the breaking of Buddhism from Hinduism. Buddhism retained Sanskrit as a sacred language and retained the devas as well, even the same Vedic devas. Zoroastrianism most certainly tried to show Hinduism as some kind of heretical demonic cult that wasn't in accordance to the will of the Creator, even while retaining its Hindu essence. Buddhism also attacked Hinduism, but theologically at least (in reality is another thing seeing the many persecutions of Hindus in Buddhist lands) it never did so as much as Zoroastrianism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rvsakhadeo

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,783
New Delhi, India
:) Zorastrianism is surely an off-shoot of Vedic religion, but that is no reason we can term it Hindu. We sure had the same oral tradition (Vedas, Gathas, Yasnas), but we separated (the Indian branch migrated here). Much was added in later times (Book 1 and Book 10). Much of the philosophy (Upanishads) were written here in India. The Zoroastrians changed their views and became monotheists. In their attempts to be different they demonized Devas. At a later date they had the support of Iranian emperors.

Same thing happened in India. Indigenous people did not accept the Vedic Gods (Asuras) and demonized Asuras, as they had their own Gods and Goddesses (Rama, Krishna, Shiva, Mother Goddess Durga). Hinduism too got support from the Gupta emperors. Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism were 'matas' (opinions), 'panthas' (a different way) for a long time before they became separate religions.
 
Aug 2018
337
America
:) Zorastrianism is surely an off-shoot of Vedic religion, but that is no reason we can term it Hindu. We sure had the same oral tradition (Vedas, Gathas, Yasnas), but we separated (the Indian branch migrated here). Much was added in later times (Book 1 and Book 10). Much of the philosophy (Upanishads) were written here in India. The Zoroastrians changed their views and became monotheists. In their attempts to be different they demonized Devas. At a later date they had the support of Iranian emperors.
I mean, that's exactly what I said. What are you complaining about? I guess that you're complaining about me calling Zoroastrianism Indian because Hindu and Indian are the same thing. They're not.
 

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,783
New Delhi, India
Zoroastrians had nothing to do with India except trading with Gujarat in the Sassanid era (224 to 651 AD) till they came to India when they faced persecution in Iran by Muslims in the 8th Century. They were neither Hindu nor Indian. That they once followed the pre-Vedic culture in Central Asia does not make them Hindus. Hinduism is the product of assimilation of Vedic culture and the indigenous Indian religion and philosophy. Of course, Zoroastrians who settled in India are very much Indians.
 

Aatreya

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
3,578
USA
Zoroastrians had nothing to do with India except trading with Gujarat in the Sassanid era (224 to 651 AD) till they came to India when they faced persecution in Iran by Muslims in the 8th Century. They were neither Hindu nor Indian. That they once followed the pre-Vedic culture in Central Asia does not make them Hindus. Hinduism is the product of assimilation of Vedic culture and the indigenous Indian religion and philosophy. Of course, Zoroastrians who settled in India are very much Indians.
Neither is Vedic Central Asian nor is Zoroastrian.
 

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,783
New Delhi, India
Well, Vedas and Gathas have one common ancestor. You might agree to that since you say that Sanskrit travelled from India to Iran, Turkey and up to Iceland from India and all the languages between India and Iceland have languages which arose from Sanskrit. :)
 

Aatreya

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
3,578
USA
Well, Vedas and Gathas have one common ancestor. You might agree to that since you say that Sanskrit travelled from India to Iran, Turkey and up to Iceland from India and all the languages between India and Iceland have languages which arose from Sanskrit. :)
There is nothing comical about that assertion. Go check the root words.
 

Aatreya

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
3,578
USA
:) Zorastrianism is surely an off-shoot of Vedic religion, but that is no reason we can term it Hindu. We sure had the same oral tradition (Vedas, Gathas, Yasnas), but we separated (the Indian branch migrated here). Much was added in later times (Book 1 and Book 10). Much of the philosophy (Upanishads) were written here in India. The Zoroastrians changed their views and became monotheists. In their attempts to be different they demonized Devas. At a later date they had the support of Iranian emperors.

Same thing happened in India. Indigenous people did not accept the Vedic Gods (Asuras) and demonized Asuras, as they had their own Gods and Goddesses (Rama, Krishna, Shiva, Mother Goddess Durga). Hinduism too got support from the Gupta emperors. Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism were 'matas' (opinions), 'panthas' (a different way) for a long time before they became separate religions.
What are you smoking? First of all there is nothing like indigenous and non-indigenous Hindu religion. Second, Rama, Krishna, etc.. are Vedic names and characters. And third, no non Vedic culture ever demonized asuras, and definitely nobody meant Vedic Gods to be asuras in India (only in your fertile imagination these things exist).
 
  • Like
Reactions: rvsakhadeo