it is not terribly unlikely that an Iranic people migrated so far east into India, as many Iranic tribes had by the 5th century BC already made incursions into the subcontinent — be it on their own or in collaboration with the Persians. The Sakas had proven unimpeded by the harsh geography of South-Central Asia when they crossed the Tian Shan mountains into China, becoming the Wusun and Yuezhi.
The second point of note is the mention of incest among the Shakyas. This was a practice associated by Indians and Greeks alike with the Iranic peoples, albeit mostly the Persians and mostly after certain religious corruptions spurred on by the Achaemenid royal court. Practices like this were shunned by the Vedic Aryans but appear in reference even to the lineage of the Buddha himself. Reading Witzel’s religious arguments for an Iranic origin of the Buddha, I can’t say I’m terribly convinced. He mentions some vague mantras shared by Zoroastrianism and Buddhism, as well as the focus on the afterlife in both, but I think the former is meaningless and the latter is not that meaningful since such ideas of heaven and hell had already existed in the Brahmanical religion. In some ways Zoroastrianism is actually more like the opposite of Buddhism — it is anti-ascetic, it posits a linear timeline with a (presumably) final victory of goodness over evil, and it focuses very little (at least exoterically) on any sort of enlightenment or union with the absolute.
However, a lot of these differences may have already existed at the beginning of the Vedic-Ahuric schism. We know that for some reason, the Rigvedic tribes decided to call the deities they worship Devas, and the deities they don’t worship Asuras. While the Iranians called the deity they worshipped Ahura, and the deities they did not worship Daevas. There are clearly deities shared between the two cultures, like Mithras. Tangentially, Æsir might be cognate with Ahura/Asura. Some suspect that there was a sort of religious falling out between the Indo-Aryans and the Iranic tribes because of this.
One could perhaps make the argument that Buddhism is actually more similar than Hinduism to Zoroastrianism in some regards. The strongest similarities are observed in the Zurvanite tradition of Zoroastrianism, which posits the existence of a transcendent being beyond Ohrmuzd and Ahriman called Zurvan, who is identical to eternity (which, in a metaphysical sense, is different from simply being a “time god”). You can more generally argue that the lack of a particular identity associated with an ultimate reality is itself a difference between Zoroastrianism and Hinduism that could generate the synthesis of Buddhism. And this is only considering Zoroastrianism, something most Sakas probably didn’t practice earnestly. What may be more relevant is the religion of the Scythians, Sauromatians, and Alans. Interestingly, the Scythians were said to have a Heraclitan view of the world, with the most primordial element being eternal fire symbolized by the goddess Tapati. It is this view, in the Greek context, which is most often brought up in discussions about similarity with Buddhism. Heraclitus’s eternal flame is parallel to the Buddhist understanding of Sunyata. It isn’t empty in the sense that it is literally nonexistent, it is empty in the sense that it cannot possibly be attributed static qualities or form. When Heraclitus describes the fundamental substance as fire, he is similarly saying that static objects only exist secondarily to an infinite kinesis, a fire which is at every single moment flickering and embodying something different.
If Scythians made it that far east into India there’d be mentions. Ancient Indians mentioned how Mlecchas not only existed in that region around the Indus but even mentioned Vedic Janapadas that were influenced by them such as the Madras (Punjabis) Gandharas or Sindhus. This is especially so considering the Kuru-Panchalas would have therefore had Scythian incursions for them to make it that far into Kosala and Kosala itself would have been invaded. Something that would have had to have mention considering just how much Kuru-Panchala’s & even Koslas lineage/dynasty/history is documented by Ancient Indian scriptures. We need to take into context just how much Ancient Indian literature that was more often than not written by the Kuru perspective talked down of Mlecchas or even Indus tribes. I have a post on this if you’d like to read it on how Ancient Indians viewed Mlecchas or non-Vedic peoples.
Furthermore Shakyas and especially Kosalas were NOT Mleccha. The Buddha was definitely not stated to be a Mleccha. The dynasty of Kosala and the kingdoms near it were known to be descended from Purus. Later Buddhist scriptures speak disapprovingly of Magis, despite that idea thats being posited here that Zoroastrian philosophy is similar to Buddhist philosophy. Buddhist deities are the same as Vedic deities as well in your point on Devas and Asuras.
The concept of Sunyata is much later albeit influenced by what the Buddha stated on dependent origination or impermanence, but the Buddha was speaking on it from a Vedic context. I guess it makes it easy to say that because the Buddha rejected the line of Vedic philosophy he was kind of an oddball so he must’ve been foreign but then we’d have to contend that with Mahavira, Ajivika philosophers, Charavaka philosophers, Ajnana philosophers and so on. The fact is Ancient India had relative philosophical flexibility and the Vedic religion even allowed for it, this is not unlike Ancient Greece or other Pagan societies.
That good and evil don't exist in real terms is the Achilles heel of the philosophies of our country. They are sophisticated philosophies for their times -- masterful even, for 1000-600BC. But ultimately the cause of our decay. The lack of morality and law-abiding nature in our society is our ruin.
Hinduism and Buddhism have morality and ideas of good and evil. Its commandments they lack. They source goodness and evil philosophically from the nature of things rather than some supposed book of laws handed from god.
See, I agree that Indian religion don't take their morality from commandments. But they are more based in virtues or characters. They are hardly sophisticated moral philosophies suited for a modern nation. Their morality is anything goes. Anyone can justify any action if one were to argue the rightness or wrongness of an action using the philosophy at the base of Indian religion. Hence, majority of our country believe there is no such thing as right or wrong. It all is illusionary and depends on the beholder.
Few modern nations have any guiding moral philosophies. Half of all “modern” nations are atheistic and clearly have no morals.
The moral virtues definitely does not mean “anything goes”. Sure people can argue whats right or wrong but thats whats good about it.
Can you believe stupid arbitrary laws or commandments being held up from thousands of years ago? Look how many retarded rules Muslims have for example. Music is banned in their religion, stoning is a punishment for apostasy, and they believe theres no debating that.
Please compare to people or nations who are better than us. Muslims are at the same plane as India when it comes to moral bankruptcy. Western philosophies have developed sophisticated morality and its clearly visible in their societies -- there is development, justice, compliance with law. Whereas we have aur pollution, garbage and driving on the wrong side. Ours is a country where rich people pay to leak exam papers. Anyone who thinks India has a morality is living under a rock.
Do you live in America? Theres more crime and gangs here. People divorce, cheat, have no sense of loyalty to their community or others, don’t follow god, are materialistic. Just look at the most popular music here. Its all about calling women whores, killing people, and flashing wealth. What makes you think the west is really so moral?
I think you’re conflating their wealth with their perceived morality. Lets not forget this society got rich out of imperialism. Lets also not forget the some of the most brutal wars the world has seen caused by the so called modern west. Of course a more resourceful society can tackle problems like pollution or “compliance with law” better.
Not to mention India itself is a secular country. Just a poor one at that.
Have you lived in India? Ever listened to any Punjabi songs? Ever watched any Bollywood movies? Ever noticed where the camera focusses whenever an actress is dancing?
I wish there was as much divorce in India as in the west. Have you experienced growing up in a broken home, but stuck together due to outdated norms of society?
It is morality that causes people to follow rules. And nobody in India follows any rules.
Buddhism wasn’t “thrown out” of India. It declined at the time of the Islamic invasions in both Afghanistan and India during that period. Buddhism is a Sramana philosophy, just like Jainism. They both are.
Nalanda and Takshila was ruled by both Hindus or Buddhists under various dynasties including many other monasteries across India.
Hindus weren’t against any scientific development, genuinely wtf are you on about? Some of India’s prominent mathematicians and philosophers were Hindu. I don’t really care for your anecdotes.
Most Indian cultures are Hindu, thats a fact even if you deny it.
https://substack.com/@deepenmehra1111/note/c-102518179?r=5cafb4&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
Hy kindly check this article, its about krishna and rama , and why they were depicted as blue in colour.
it is not terribly unlikely that an Iranic people migrated so far east into India, as many Iranic tribes had by the 5th century BC already made incursions into the subcontinent — be it on their own or in collaboration with the Persians. The Sakas had proven unimpeded by the harsh geography of South-Central Asia when they crossed the Tian Shan mountains into China, becoming the Wusun and Yuezhi.
The second point of note is the mention of incest among the Shakyas. This was a practice associated by Indians and Greeks alike with the Iranic peoples, albeit mostly the Persians and mostly after certain religious corruptions spurred on by the Achaemenid royal court. Practices like this were shunned by the Vedic Aryans but appear in reference even to the lineage of the Buddha himself. Reading Witzel’s religious arguments for an Iranic origin of the Buddha, I can’t say I’m terribly convinced. He mentions some vague mantras shared by Zoroastrianism and Buddhism, as well as the focus on the afterlife in both, but I think the former is meaningless and the latter is not that meaningful since such ideas of heaven and hell had already existed in the Brahmanical religion. In some ways Zoroastrianism is actually more like the opposite of Buddhism — it is anti-ascetic, it posits a linear timeline with a (presumably) final victory of goodness over evil, and it focuses very little (at least exoterically) on any sort of enlightenment or union with the absolute.
However, a lot of these differences may have already existed at the beginning of the Vedic-Ahuric schism. We know that for some reason, the Rigvedic tribes decided to call the deities they worship Devas, and the deities they don’t worship Asuras. While the Iranians called the deity they worshipped Ahura, and the deities they did not worship Daevas. There are clearly deities shared between the two cultures, like Mithras. Tangentially, Æsir might be cognate with Ahura/Asura. Some suspect that there was a sort of religious falling out between the Indo-Aryans and the Iranic tribes because of this.
One could perhaps make the argument that Buddhism is actually more similar than Hinduism to Zoroastrianism in some regards. The strongest similarities are observed in the Zurvanite tradition of Zoroastrianism, which posits the existence of a transcendent being beyond Ohrmuzd and Ahriman called Zurvan, who is identical to eternity (which, in a metaphysical sense, is different from simply being a “time god”). You can more generally argue that the lack of a particular identity associated with an ultimate reality is itself a difference between Zoroastrianism and Hinduism that could generate the synthesis of Buddhism. And this is only considering Zoroastrianism, something most Sakas probably didn’t practice earnestly. What may be more relevant is the religion of the Scythians, Sauromatians, and Alans. Interestingly, the Scythians were said to have a Heraclitan view of the world, with the most primordial element being eternal fire symbolized by the goddess Tapati. It is this view, in the Greek context, which is most often brought up in discussions about similarity with Buddhism. Heraclitus’s eternal flame is parallel to the Buddhist understanding of Sunyata. It isn’t empty in the sense that it is literally nonexistent, it is empty in the sense that it cannot possibly be attributed static qualities or form. When Heraclitus describes the fundamental substance as fire, he is similarly saying that static objects only exist secondarily to an infinite kinesis, a fire which is at every single moment flickering and embodying something different.
If Scythians made it that far east into India there’d be mentions. Ancient Indians mentioned how Mlecchas not only existed in that region around the Indus but even mentioned Vedic Janapadas that were influenced by them such as the Madras (Punjabis) Gandharas or Sindhus. This is especially so considering the Kuru-Panchalas would have therefore had Scythian incursions for them to make it that far into Kosala and Kosala itself would have been invaded. Something that would have had to have mention considering just how much Kuru-Panchala’s & even Koslas lineage/dynasty/history is documented by Ancient Indian scriptures. We need to take into context just how much Ancient Indian literature that was more often than not written by the Kuru perspective talked down of Mlecchas or even Indus tribes. I have a post on this if you’d like to read it on how Ancient Indians viewed Mlecchas or non-Vedic peoples.
Furthermore Shakyas and especially Kosalas were NOT Mleccha. The Buddha was definitely not stated to be a Mleccha. The dynasty of Kosala and the kingdoms near it were known to be descended from Purus. Later Buddhist scriptures speak disapprovingly of Magis, despite that idea thats being posited here that Zoroastrian philosophy is similar to Buddhist philosophy. Buddhist deities are the same as Vedic deities as well in your point on Devas and Asuras.
The concept of Sunyata is much later albeit influenced by what the Buddha stated on dependent origination or impermanence, but the Buddha was speaking on it from a Vedic context. I guess it makes it easy to say that because the Buddha rejected the line of Vedic philosophy he was kind of an oddball so he must’ve been foreign but then we’d have to contend that with Mahavira, Ajivika philosophers, Charavaka philosophers, Ajnana philosophers and so on. The fact is Ancient India had relative philosophical flexibility and the Vedic religion even allowed for it, this is not unlike Ancient Greece or other Pagan societies.
That good and evil don't exist in real terms is the Achilles heel of the philosophies of our country. They are sophisticated philosophies for their times -- masterful even, for 1000-600BC. But ultimately the cause of our decay. The lack of morality and law-abiding nature in our society is our ruin.
Hinduism and Buddhism have morality and ideas of good and evil. Its commandments they lack. They source goodness and evil philosophically from the nature of things rather than some supposed book of laws handed from god.
See, I agree that Indian religion don't take their morality from commandments. But they are more based in virtues or characters. They are hardly sophisticated moral philosophies suited for a modern nation. Their morality is anything goes. Anyone can justify any action if one were to argue the rightness or wrongness of an action using the philosophy at the base of Indian religion. Hence, majority of our country believe there is no such thing as right or wrong. It all is illusionary and depends on the beholder.
Few modern nations have any guiding moral philosophies. Half of all “modern” nations are atheistic and clearly have no morals.
The moral virtues definitely does not mean “anything goes”. Sure people can argue whats right or wrong but thats whats good about it.
Can you believe stupid arbitrary laws or commandments being held up from thousands of years ago? Look how many retarded rules Muslims have for example. Music is banned in their religion, stoning is a punishment for apostasy, and they believe theres no debating that.
Please compare to people or nations who are better than us. Muslims are at the same plane as India when it comes to moral bankruptcy. Western philosophies have developed sophisticated morality and its clearly visible in their societies -- there is development, justice, compliance with law. Whereas we have aur pollution, garbage and driving on the wrong side. Ours is a country where rich people pay to leak exam papers. Anyone who thinks India has a morality is living under a rock.
Do you live in America? Theres more crime and gangs here. People divorce, cheat, have no sense of loyalty to their community or others, don’t follow god, are materialistic. Just look at the most popular music here. Its all about calling women whores, killing people, and flashing wealth. What makes you think the west is really so moral?
I think you’re conflating their wealth with their perceived morality. Lets not forget this society got rich out of imperialism. Lets also not forget the some of the most brutal wars the world has seen caused by the so called modern west. Of course a more resourceful society can tackle problems like pollution or “compliance with law” better.
Not to mention India itself is a secular country. Just a poor one at that.
Have you lived in India? Ever listened to any Punjabi songs? Ever watched any Bollywood movies? Ever noticed where the camera focusses whenever an actress is dancing?
I wish there was as much divorce in India as in the west. Have you experienced growing up in a broken home, but stuck together due to outdated norms of society?
It is morality that causes people to follow rules. And nobody in India follows any rules.
Buddhism wasn’t “thrown out” of India. It declined at the time of the Islamic invasions in both Afghanistan and India during that period. Buddhism is a Sramana philosophy, just like Jainism. They both are.
Nalanda and Takshila was ruled by both Hindus or Buddhists under various dynasties including many other monasteries across India.
Hindus weren’t against any scientific development, genuinely wtf are you on about? Some of India’s prominent mathematicians and philosophers were Hindu. I don’t really care for your anecdotes.
Most Indian cultures are Hindu, thats a fact even if you deny it.
Yeah man totally