Bad thoughts, bad words, bad deeds
The myth concerning Zoroastrianism

http://www.iranian.com/Opinion/2004/October/PR/index.html

Persia Lover
October 18, 2004
iranian.com

A few months ago, I left Europe for Iran, hoping to join Iranians in their fight for a brighter future. Among the different factions in Iran fighting for liberty are the groups advocating a return to our pre-Islamic past and the "glory" of our Persian empire. These people believe that Iranians have lost their "culture consciousness", some looking to the West and some to the Arabs for answers to their problems. They believe that only by reviving our ancient customs and religion can we retain our pride and glory as a nation. What annoys me most about this group is the myth they have created, concerning Zoroastrianism.

If you read our pre-Islamic history, you realize that, to the Iranians, the Arab invaders" new religion, Islam, seemed to be less rigorous than the corrupt Zoroastrianism prevalent in Persia. To common Iranian people, Islam seemed more tangible and more humane because it denounced the caste system upon which Sassanian Iran was based. In actual fact, Muslim invaders abolished the class society of Sassanian Iran after they brought the whole empire under their domination.

The fact that we hate Arab invaders of Persia should not make us idealize all aspects of our past. Most historians believe that, in the eyes of the Zoroastrian priesthood, ordinary Iranians including artisans and craftsmen were ritually untouchable and unclean and therefore neglective. To these people, Islam spelt liberation from forced labor and military service which the Persians were bound to do in Iran (see Cambridge History of Iran, vol. 4).

If you study the Zoroastrian sacred book, Sad Dar, a compilation of Persian religious traditions, you can clearly see how intolerant and superstitious the Zoroastrians were. Let's have a look at Chapter 9, for example. The chapter is entitled: "The sin of unnatural intercourse to be punished, by any one, by death on the spot". Do you see any difference between the Islamic practice of stoning "sinful" people and this Zoroastrian verdict? You be the judge:

1. The ninth subject is this, that it is necessary to practice abstinence from committing or permitting unnatural intercourse. 2. For this is the chief of all sins in the religion: there is no worse sin than this in the good religion, and it is proper to call those who commit it worthy of death in reality. 3. If any one comes forth to them, and shall see them in the act, and is working with an ax, it is requisite for him to cut off the heads or to rip up the bellies of both, and it is no sin for him. 4. But it is not proper to kill any person without the authority of high-priests and kings, except on account of committing or permitting unnatural intercourse. 5. For it says in revelation that unnatural intercourse is on a par with Ahriman, with Afrasiyab, with Dahak [Zohak], with Tur-i Bradrok-resh who slew Zartosht, with Malkos who will arise, with the serpent Srobovar which existed in the days of Sam Nariman, and as many sins as are theirs. 6. And Ahriman, the evil one, becomes more joyful, owing to this practice, than owing to the other sins which have made high-priests necessary; for the soul itself of that person becomes extinct. 7. And when they commit the sin with women, it is just the same as that with men.

How about Chapter 38 ?

1. The thirty-eighth subject is this, that, so far as effort and endeavor prevail, it is requisite to abstain from the same cup as those of a different religion, and it is not desirable to drink the water of any goblet of theirs. 2. And if the goblet be of copper or of tin, it is requisite to wash it with water, so that it may be proper to drink the water. 3. If the goblet be of earthenware or wooden, it is altogether improper. 4. Because, when any one drinks with a stranger, it makes his heart inclined (mail) towards him, for it would be a sin; and, on account of the sin committed, he becomes bold, and his soul has an inclination for wickedness.

This reminds me of my Muslim Iranian friend who refused to touch books which arrived by post from abroad and had them rinsed before touching them.

Chapter 7 of Sad Dar also caught my attention because I always thought the "sneeze scare" practice in Iran had its origin in Islam but it seems I was wrong:

1. The seventh subject is this, that, when a sneeze ('hatsat) comes forth from any one, it is requisite to recite one Yatha-ahu-vairyo and one Ashem-vohu. 2. Because there is a fiend in our bodies, and she is an adversary who is connected with mankind, and strives so that she may make misfortune ('hillat) and sickness predominant (mustauli) over mankind. 3. And in our bodies there is a fire which they call a disposition -- in Arabic they say tabi'hat -- and they call it the sneezing instinct (gharizi). 4. It is connected with that fiend, and they wage warfare, and it keeps her away from the body of man. 5. Then, as the fire becomes successful over that fiend, and puts her to flight (hazimat), a sneeze comes because that fiend comes out. 6. Afterwards, because it is necessary, they recite these inward prayers and perform the benediction (afrin) of the fire, so that it may remain for a long period while thou art keeping this fiend defeated. 7. When another person hears the sneeze, it is likewise requisite for him to utter; the said prayers, and to accomplish the benediction of that spirit.

I think it is time we debunked Zoroastrianism of the myth surrounding it. Zoroastrianism was another intolerant religion which the Iranians wanted to get rid of. Unfortunately, it was too late when our people realized that they were getting out of the frying pan and into the fire. The atrocities committed by Arab invaders were so horrendous that they have made us idealize our dark past.

When Iranians realized that the new religion was as intolerant and sometimes even more cruel than the old faith, they tried to resist the invaders. They took every opportunity to rise up against the blood-thirsty Arabs because what they really wanted was not another fanatic religion but freedom from religion and bigotry. When the Arab Calif, Uthman, was slain, the brave people of Estakhr chose the moment to rise, only to be supressed in a welter of blood by Abdollah ben Abbas on the orders of his cousin, Ali ibne Abi Taleb, the fourth Calif.

The people of Neyshapur, also in the time of Ali, rose against Arab overlordship and refused to pay Jaziyyeh and Kharaj (payments to Arabs for not converting to Islam) so the Calif had to send an army to bring them back into submission. In the Cambridge History of Iran (vol. 4) we read about the marzban (general) of Zarang (Sistan) named Parviz who appeared before the Arab general Rabi" (bin Ziyad Harethi). He found the Arab general sitting on the corpse of a dead Iranian soldier, his head reclining against another. Rabi" had ordered his ontrouge to also provide themselves with such horrible seats. The sight terrified Parviz into submission to spare his people such barbarous cruelties.

Many Iranians accepted Islam to spare their lives such cruelties and to gain exemption from payment of Jaziyeh and Kharaj. They repeatedly found excuses to break free from Islam but I doubt it if they ever yearned to return to their old religion. The memory of Zoroastrian dominance was too fresh to lure them back into it, although that memory has faded now and perhaps that is why a section of our community is longing to go back in time and is finding solace in our ancient religion. For this is human nature: When you stay away from something for a long time, you start romanticizing about it and forget about its nefarious sides.

Well, when the Shah was around, Iranians thought: "Anything other than the Shah", so you end up with a fanatical Islam. So now, you are thinking, "anything other than fanatical Islam", so, Zoroastrianism falls under that.

We need to see someone post pro-Zoroastrian as well, I never knew of any caste system amongst Zoroastrians, I have known some Parsees, who were not really religious or anything though.

"We need to see someone post pro-Zoroastrian as well, I never knew of any caste system amongst Zoroastrians, I have known some Parsees, who were not really religious or anything though."

Just goes to show how closely Hinduism and Zoroastorianism once were...

The religion of zoroaster at the later days pre-ismal was very corrupted and is one of the main reasons why iranians easily converted to islam without real resistance. They corrupt priests called mogh's or magi's in west destroyed the religion from inside. They were also the ones who introduced cast systems into the religion. They took their own ingenious pagan religions and mixed them up with zartoshts religion. Also to note is that the zartoshts of Iran are quite different to the so called parsees from India. The zartoshts from Iran are much more liberal.

LOL, caste system is not Hinduism, but a practice taken up by Hindus, in order to have some people keep others under them, by acting as intermediary to God, pretty much like a mullah.

"LOL, caste system is not Hinduism, but a practice taken up by Hindus, in order to have some people keep others under them, by acting as intermediary to God, pretty much like a mullah."

Have to disagree with you there. Caste system IS PART of the doctrine:

HINDUISM & CASTE
Caste (varna):
Brahmin = Priest Caste;
Ksatriya = Rajanya/Ruler/Warrior Caste;
Vaisya = Commoner Caste;
Sudra = Servant/Slave Caste; and
Avarna = Outcaste/Untouchable/Dalit/Candala/Dog-eater.

There are also many subsets in each caste. Dvija = twice-born (twice-born = upper 3 castes or sometimes just Brahmin caste particularly). Some Hindus have a delusion that caste is not promoted by any of their holy books. Is that really so? Let's find out:

"By his very birth a Brahmin is a deity even for the gods and the only authority for people in this world, for the Veda is the foundation in this matter." -- Manusmrti 11:85.

"People here whose behaviour is pleasant can expect to enter a pleasant womb, like that of a woman of the Brahmin, the Ksatriya, or the Vaisya caste. But people of foul behaviour can expect to enter the foul womb, like that of a dog, a pig, or an outcaste woman." -- Chandogya Upanisad 5:10:7.

"If a man of one birth (Sudra) hurls cruel words at one of the twice-born, his tongue should be cut out, for he was born from the rear-end. If he mentions their name or caste maliciously, a red-hot iron nail ten-fingerslong should be thrust into his mouth. If he is so proud as to instruct priests about their duty, the king should have hot oil poured into his mouth and ears." -- Manusmrti 8:270-272.

"If a man of inferior caste tries to sit down on the same seat as a man of superior caste, he should be branded on the hip and banished, or have his buttocks cut off." -- Manusmrti 8:281.

"If in the process of negotiating betrothal there are first ten suitors of the non-Brahmana varna for a woman (the marriageable girl), all of them lose their claims of marriage and, only the Brahmin, the learned one, if he grasps her hand would be her husband and only he. Not even the man of Ksatriya varna and not even the man of Vaisya varna but only the Brahmin is the husband of the bride in such cases of claimants of betrothal, and the sun, as it appears, revealing this fact to the people of five classes (4 varnas and the fifth avarna) rises up." -- Atharva Veda 5:17:8-9.

"If someone born in a Ksatriya, Vaisya, or Sudra womb should be unable to pay his fine, he may absolve himself of the debt by labour; a Brahmin should pay little by little. The king should have women, children, madmen, and the old, the poor, and the ill chastised with a whip, a bamboo cane, a rope, and so forth." -- Manusmrti 9:229-230.

"The Sudra's duty and supreme good is nothing but obedience to famous Brahmin householders who know the Veda. If he is unpolluted, obedient to his superiors, gentle in his speech, without a sense of 'I', and always dependent on the Brahmins and the other (twice-born castes), he attains a superior birth (in the next life)." -- Manusmrti 9:334-335.

"…thereby the Ksatriya, whenever he likes, says, 'Hello Vaisya, just bring to me what you have stored away!' Thus he both subdues him and obtains possession of anything he wishes by dint of this very energy." -- Satapatha Brahmana 1:3:2:15.

"One-fourth of (the punishment for) Brahmin-killing is traditionally regarded as (the punishment) for the killing of a Ksatriya, one-eighth for (killing) a Vaisya, and it should be one-sixteenth for (killing) a Sudra who knows his place." -- Manusmrti 11:127.

"A Brahmin is a great deity whether or not he is learned, just as fire is a great deity whether or not it is brought to the altar. The purifying fire with its brilliant energy is not defiled even in cremation grounds, and when oblations of butter are placed in it at sacrifices it grows even greater. Thus Brahmins should be revered in every way, even if they engage in all kinds of undesirable actions, for this is the supreme deity. If the Ksatriyas become overbearing towards the Brahmins in any way, the Brahmins themselves should subdue them, for the Ksatriyas were born from the Brahmins." -- Manusmrti 9:317-320.

"A Ksatriya in adversity may also make a living by all of these (means); but he should never be so proud as to assume the livelihood of his betters. If a man of the lowest caste should, through greed, make his living by the innate activities of his superiors, the king should confiscate his wealth and banish him immediately. One's own duty, (even) without any good qualities, is better than someone else's duty well done; for a man who makes his livingby someone else's duty immediately falls from (his own) caste." -- Manusmrti 10:95-97.

"With whatever limb an inferior insults or hurts his superior in caste, of that limb the king shall cause him to be deprived. If he places himself on the same seat with his superior, he shall be banished with a mark on hisbuttocks. If he spits on him, he shall lose both lips; If he breaks wind against him, his hindparts; If he uses abusive language, his tongue. If a (lowborn) man through pride gives instruction (to a member of the highest caste) concerning his duty, let the king order hot oil to be dropped into his mouth. If a (low-born man) mentions the name or caste of a superior revilingly, an iron pin, ten inches long, shall be thrust into his mouth (red hot)." -- Visnusmrti 5:19-25.

"His (Purusa's) mouth became the Brahmin; his arms were made into the Ksatriya, his thighs the Vaisya, and from his feet the Sudra was born." -- Rig Veda 10:90:12.

In comparison, Sudras are as low as feet & Outcastes (avarna) are even below that status of course.

HINDUISM'S TREATMENT OF OUTCASTES (AVARNA)

"Candalas must live out of the town, and their clothes must be the mantles of the deceased." -- Visnusmrti 16:14.

"These (castes) should live near mounds, trees, and cremation-grounds, in mountains and in groves, recognizable and making a living by their own innate activities. But the dwellings of 'Fierce' Untouchables (candala) and 'Dog-cookers' (svapaca) should be outside the village; they must use discarded bowls, and dogs and donkeys should be their wealth. Their clothing should be the clothes of the dead, and their food should be in broken dishes; their ornaments should be made of black iron, and they should wander constantly. A man who carries out his duties should not seek contact with them; they should do business with one another and marry with those who are like them. Their food, dependent upon others, should be given to them in abroken dish, and they should not walk about in villages and cities at night." -- Manusmrti 10:50-54.

"If one who (being a member of the Candala or some other outcaste) must not be touched, intentionally defiles by his touch one who (as a member of a twice-born caste) may be touched (by other twice-born persons only), he (or she) shall be put to death. If a woman in her courses (touches such a person), she shall be lashed with a whip." -- Visnusmrti 5:104-5.


CASTE IN THE GITA

There is ample justification in the Gita alone to maintain caste divisions & oppressions; here are Lord Krsna's words:

"It is far better to perform one's svadharma (prescribed duties), even though faultily, than another's duties perfectly. Destruction in the course of performing one's own duty is better than engaging in another's duties, for to follow another's path is dangerous." -- Bhagavad-Gita 3:35.

"According to the three modes of material nature (goodness, passion, ignorance) and the work associated with them, the four divisions of human society (Brahmin/Ksatriya/Vaisya/Sudra) are created by Me. And although I am the creator of this system, you should know that I am yet the nondoer, being unchangeable." -- Bhagavad-Gita 4:13.

"It is better to engage in one's own svadharma (occupation), even though one may perform it imperfectly, than to accept another's occupation and perform it perfectly. Duties prescribed according to one's nature are never affected by sinful reactions." -- Bhagavad-Gita 18:47.

Lord Rama (who, like Lord Krsna, is an Avatar of Lord Visnu) would be in complete accord with the above quotes; afterall, he killed an innocent Sudra, Sambuka, only because he was performing austerities which were not prescribed duties for low-castes (ref. Ramayana 7:88-89).



HINDUISM & SLAVERY (BY CASTE)

"(The king) should make a Vaisya engage in trade, lend money, farm the land, or keep livestock; and (he should make) the Sudra the slave of the twice-born. A Brahmin should out of mercy support both a Ksatriya and a Vaisya if they are starved for a livelihood, and have them carry out their own innate activities. But if a Brahmin, out of greed and a sense of power, makes twice-born men who have undergone the transformative rituals do the work of slaves against their will, the king should make him pay a fine of six hundred (pennies). He may, however, make a Sudra do the work of a slave, whether he is bought or not bought; for the Self-existent one created him to be the slave of the Brahmin. Even if he is set free by his master, a Sudra is not set free from slavery; for since that is innate in him, who can take it from him? There are seven ways that slaves come into being: taken under a flag (of war), becoming a slave in order to eat food, born in the house, bought, given, inherited from ancestors, or enslaved as a punishment. A wife, a son, and a slave: these three are traditionally said to have no property; whatever property they acquire belongs to the man to whom they belong. A Brahmin may with confidence take away any possession from a Sudra; for since nothing at all can belong to him as his own, his property can be taken away by his master. (The king) should make the Vaisya and the Sudra carry out their own innate activities diligently; for if the two of them should slip from their own innate activities, they would shake this universe into chaos." -- Manusmrti 8:410-418.



LOW-CASTES SHOULD HAVE GARBAGE NAMES


"The Namadheya (naming-rite) must be performed as soon as the term of impurity (caused by the birth of the child) is over. (The name to be chosen should be) auspicious in the case of a Brahmana; Indicating power in the case of a Ksatriya; Indicating wealth in the case of a Vaisya; Indicating contempt in the case of a Sudra." -- Visnusmrti 27:5-9.






LORD SIVA CONDEMNED FOR ALLOWING A LOW-CASTE (A SUDRA) TO READ VEDAS

Women & Sudras (& outcastes) are not allowed to study the Vedas; this is one reason this "God" Siva is denounced for allowing a Sudra the Vedic teachings. Daksa's curse is as follows:

"The Brahmins will not sacrifice to you along with the other gods, for Siva has defiled the path followed by good men; he is impure, an abolisher of rites and demolisher of barriers, [who gives] the word of the Vedas to a Sudra. He wanders like a madman, naked, laughing, the lord of ghosts, evil-hearted. Let Siva, the lowest of the gods, obtain no share with Indra and Visnu at the sacrifice; let all the followers of Siva be heretics, opponents of the true scriptures, following the heresy whose god is the king of ghosts." -- Brahma Purana 2:13:70-73; Garuda Purana 6:19; Bhagavata Purana 4:2:10-32.






HINDU GODS DO NOT COMMUNE WITH LOW-CASTES

In Hinduism, it is understood that women cannot sacrifice or conduct official yajnas (nor become priests of course) because a male relative is required. However, the unfortunate news is that Hindu Gods do not talk to those detested things called 'low-castes' either:

"Now the gods do not commune with everyone, but only with a Brahmin, or a Rajanya (Ksatriya), or a Vaisya; for these are able to sacrifice. Should there be occasion for him to converse with a Sudra, let him say to one of those, 'Tell this one so and so! Tell this one so and so!' This is the rule of conduct for the consecrated in such a case." -- Satapatha Brahmana 3:1:1:10.

Low-castes do not need to despair; Hindu scriptures are utterly ruthless in degrading almost anyone who is Hindu (mortal or divine). Perhaps Brahmins are the exception to the rule though (not women of Brahmins however).




LOW-CASTE WIVES ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SERVE THE GUESTS

According to the timeless Visnusmrti, only the twice-born caste wives (Brahmin wives, Ksatriya wives & Vaisya wives) of a twice-born man, but not the Sudra wife, are allowed to serve the guests during the sacrifice. He (and she) will be barred from entering heaven if he permits a low caste wife to offer such hospitalities:

"A union of a twice-born man with a Sudra wife can never produce religious merit; it is from carnal desire only that he marries her, being blinded by lust. Men of the three first castes, who through folly marry a woman of the lowest caste, quickly degrade their families and progeny to the state of Sudras. If his oblations to the gods and manes and (his hospitable attentions) to guests are offered principally through her (a Sudra wife's) hands, the gods and manes (and the guests) will not eat such offerings, and he will not go to heaven." -- Visnusmrti 26:5-7.

Where'd you get this, ihatehindus.com, or dalitistan.com?

Historically, castes have been everywhere, in India, in Iran, in Europe (feudal system), in China, amongst Muslims, etc.

Now, caste oppression is a different issue. The Manu Smriti is a relatively recent code on society (written after Muhammed), and it has an author--Manu, unlike texts like Geeta or Rig Veda, which we don't know who wrote them.
Manu isn't some saint or prophet, he just wrote his own opinions on what certain castes, women and dogs should be treated like, and those opinions got popular.

Bharat when it comes to your outlook on iran or anything to do with it, I rather not take it too seriously(there is no caste system in islam or christianity or judiaism).
I do remember reading in the Gathas about castes (1- warriors 2-commoners 3-priests) and the importance of the cow (just like hinduism).

As for those sources, some are from the gita and others from the veda. I have more but I rather not post it since this is not a religious forum.

"there is no caste system in islam or christianity or judiaism"

But it was practiced by Christians and Muslims, just like it was by Hindus, doesn't have to be written in the religious texts.
Explain the feudal system, explain the guild system of medieval Europe, just because in India, they are called castes, it makes no difference.

All settled societies and cultures had castes in one form or another.

The Hindus were just clever enough to work it directly into the religion!

A rather effiecient approach, if you ask me...

Even there, look at the feudal system. The King had been chosen by God to rule over the people. The nobles were also chosen by God.
In Egypt, Pharoah was chosen by God.

Faith is different from religion. Faith is personal, religion is when someone manipulates your faith to say that they are the intermediary between you and God.
When the Brahmin, Mullah, Bishop or witch-doctor claims that you must suck their dick to reach God, you know that is manipulation, and nothing to do with faith or God.

PS: I am a Brahmin from my mother's side, Kshatriya (warrior) from my father, so, I am a Bastard technically, and damn proud to be one!!

Bharat Wrote:

"PS: I am a Brahmin from my mother's side, Kshatriya (warrior) from my father, so, I am a Bastard technically, and damn proud to be one!!"


B, you will always be a bastard to me!


P.S...I am a bigtime bastard myself, as I am sure you know.

"Faith is different from religion. Faith is personal, religion is when someone manipulates your faith to say that they are the intermediary between you and God."

stop telling what faith and religion is "Avarna"

LOL Kurosh, what is Avarna?

And Paddy, dun worry, you always bastard too. Bastards of the world unite!!