Why didn't Indian civilization spread to its west?

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,798
New Delhi, India
For God's sake, Zoroastrianism did not originate exactly in India but it did originate close to the Hindu cultural area in Afghanistan and was heavily influenced by the Vedic religion of northern India. .. Even Zoroastrian rituals are very similar to Hindu ones. The importance of fire and of the ritual drink of soma .. all attest to the strong Vedic/early Hindu influence over Zoroastrianism. That's why it's not inaccurate to say that Zoroastrianism is Indian, and that Zoroastrianism is a breakaway of Hinduism .. la, la, la, la
Before coming to India the Vedic religion was not at all Hindu or Indian. They had different Gods and Goddesses, and different ways of worship. Since Avesta and Vedas arose from the same oral tradition (pre-Vedic); their language, myths and traditions are similar. Soma (Haoma) is pre-Vedic and does not imply any Hindu influence. Indegenous Hinduism had no Soma. It is the mixing, assimilation of Vedic thought in Hinduism that made us aware of Soma. It is absolutely incorrect to say that Zoroastrianism shows any influence of India or Hinduism.
Any proof for that?
Kizznyc, you cannot convince Aatreya of this or any other Hindu stalwart in the forum, I happen to be an exception.
 
Last edited:
Aug 2019
92
Bengaluru, India/Sharjah, UAE
Before coming to India the Vedic religion was not at all Hindu or Indian. They had different Gods and Goddesses, and different ways of worship. Since Avesta and Vedas arose from the same oral tradition (pre-Vedic); their language, myths and traditions are similar. Soma (Haoma) is pre-Vedic and does not imply any Hindu influence. Indegenous Hinduism had no Soma. It is the mixing, assimilation of Vedic thought in Hinduism that made us aware of Soma. It is absolutely incorrect to say that Zoroastrianism shows any influence of India or Hinduism.Kizznyc, you cannot convince Aatreya of this or any other Hindu stalwart in the forum, I happen to be an exception.
I am asking people to show their book that's it so as to establish fact. Oh hey zorastrianism has influenced hinduism. Fire is the most important aspect isn't it
 

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,798
New Delhi, India
Avestan is later than Vedic. Living rishis in Vedas are ancestors of bygone era in Avesta. Moreover Zoroasterianism is cleary a branched out 'rebel' religion which has adopted many non-Indo European concepts in their religion. Avesta is aware of Vedas but Vedas don't know Avesta at all.
Avest is later than pre-Vedic. Yes, they had common ancestors. Zoroaster himself was an 'Athravan', i.e., descendant of Sage Atharvan of Hinduism. Yeah, Zoroastrianism branched out of pre-Vedic but not from Vedic. Pre-Vedic is what turned into Vedic when Aryans settled in India. Kamayani, there is a difference between 'pre-Vedic' ofCentral Asia and 'Vedic' of India, very apparent in language. Avesta talks of 'kavis' (poets - richakaras, rishis), but did not know Vedas by that name (RigVeda for example).
 

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,798
New Delhi, India
Oh hey zorastrianism has influenced hinduism. Fire is the most important aspect isn't it
Again that is not true. The pre-Vedics worshiped fire (Garhpatya Agni, worship five times a day) and conducted 'yajnas', from which both Zoroastrians and Indian Aryans originated. So, homage to fire was common between them. It is not that Zoroastrians taught Indian Aryans to worship fire. 'Yajna' is 'yasna' in Zoroastrianism (to do something to honor something).
 

Aatreya

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
3,579
USA
Again that is not true. The pre-Vedics worshiped fire (Garhpatya Agni, worship five times a day) and conducted 'yajnas', from which both Zoroastrians and Indian Aryans originated. So, homage to fire was common between them. It is not that Zoroastrians taught Indian Aryans to worship fire. 'Yajna' is 'yasna' in Zoroastrianism (to do something to honor something).
First get conversant with Vedic. Then we'll talk about pre-Vedic.
 

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,798
New Delhi, India
Asuras are not Vedic Gods ! The word Asura is an adjective which has been used for a few Devas in Rigveda.
Asura corresponds to powerful entities which has been menifested from the unmanifested hence have some sort of enigma associated with them.
Don't debate on this with Aupmanyav on this. Aupmanyav is an authority on this. ALL Vedic Gods are called Asuras in the various hymns of Vedas (all except Vishnu. I checked and did not find any instance of that). Even the demons are called Asuras (Vritra, Namuchi, etc.) because Asura meant to Aryans 'one who is powerful'.
 

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,798
New Delhi, India
Avestan and Sanskrit came at about the same time. Sanskrit in fact may have preeminence since the Mittite treaty mentioning Indra and the Nasatya is the first attested Indo-Iranian occurrence in written form, following what appears to be some kind of proto-Vedic hymn. The term Maryannu (chariot warrior) that becomes common after the Mittite conquests throughout the Near East is also nearly in that same form in Sanskrit. Most scholars also date the Gathas after the Rig Veda.
Yes, Mittanis also were (obviously) from the Indo-Iranian Aryan stock, but they followed a different route to reach where they founded their kingdom in Iraq. They followed the coast of Caspian Sea. They probably were not Turanian Aryans as the Indian and Iranian Aryans were.
 
Aug 2018
337
America
Again in line citation or reference aka show me your book
"The Avestan script is known from manuscripts written in Iran (at Yazd and Kerman) and in India (in Gujarat, e.g., Cambay, Broach, Ankleshwar, Surat, and Navsari). The earliest manuscript dates from A.D. 1288."
AVESTAN LANGUAGE I-III – Encyclopaedia Iranica

Even if we include earlier Zoroastrian literature in any language from Iran, the earliest is the Behistun inscription by Darius I that dates from the 5th century BCE. Meanwhile, the Mitanni treaty of Suppiluliuma that mentions Vedic gods is from the 14th century BCE:
Suppiluliuma (Hittite) -Shattiwaza (Mitanni) Treaty
BISOTUN iii. Darius's Inscriptions – Encyclopaedia Iranica

See Encyclopedia Iranica here as well: " The oldest dateable occurrence of the name is in the famous 14th-century Hittite-Mitanni treaty from Boğazköy, where the Mitanni invoke as divine witnesses, in order, Mitra-Varuṇa, Indra, and the Nāsatyā."
INDRA – Encyclopaedia Iranica

Sanskrit-related words like maryannu also from inscriptions of the same era (nearly 1,000 years before the Behistun inscription):
Mitanni - New World Encyclopedia

Gathas dating to later than the Rig Veda:
"In the last ten years a general consensus has gradually emerged in favor of placing the Gāthās around 1000 BCE and assuming that the composition of the best texts of the recent Avesta is more or less contemporary with the Old Persian monuments."
AVESTA i. Survey of the history and contents o – Encyclopaedia Iranica

"...the bulk of Rgvedic hymns is likely to have been composed between c.1250- 1100 BC."
The Rig-Vedic and Post-Rig-Vedic Polity (1500 BCE-500 BCE)
 

Aatreya

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
3,579
USA
Don't debate on this with Aupmanyav on this. Aupmanyav is an authority on this. ALL Vedic Gods are called Asuras in the various hymns of Vedas (all except Vishnu. I checked and did not find any instance of that). Even the demons are called Asuras (Vritra, Namuchi, etc.) because Asura meant to Aryans 'one who is powerful'.
Authority! Your knowledge should speak of your capabilities, not self-proclamation. Asura has many meanings. You should study the BhashyAs properly instead of drumming about your greatness.
 
Aug 2018
337
America
Before coming to India the Vedic religion was not at all Hindu or Indian. They had different Gods and Goddesses, and different ways of worship. Since Avesta and Vedas arose from the same oral tradition (pre-Vedic); their language, myths and traditions are similar. Soma (Haoma) is pre-Vedic and does not imply any Hindu influence. Indegenous Hinduism had no Soma. It is the mixing, assimilation of Vedic thought in Hinduism that made us aware of Soma. It is absolutely incorrect to say that Zoroastrianism shows any influence of India or Hinduism.Kizznyc, you cannot convince Aatreya of this or any other Hindu stalwart in the forum, I happen to be an exception.
The Vedas were composed around the Indus river between Pakistan and northern India. They weren't composed before even if the Vedic gods preceded the composition of the Vedas, so yes, the Vedas are Indian. The Avesta was composed later than the Vedas and is clearly strongly indebted to it and for that reason as well, the Avesta can be considered Indian, or if that offends you, at the very least influenced by Indian culture. It's therefore still the spreading of Indian culture to the west.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rvsakhadeo