Mad honey

 

Some more speculations about the elusive "soma" of the Vedic scriptures. The idea that soma was really the lotus is intriguing, to be sure. I think ephedra was the most official proposal 20 years ago (when I studied comparative religion at university level). What it is today, who knows.

It´s fascinating that while the original Veda Samhitas have been preserved for 3000 years, the knowledge of soma (necessary for many of the rituals) has been lost...perhaps forever. 

So strictly speaking the Vedic rituals are no longer efficacious. They are LARP-s. The gods want their mad honey!

Ever-changing identity

 

The Alevis are a religious minority group in the Middle East, mostly in Turkey. This video (made by a US scholar of religion) is an excellent introduction to Alevism. Or perhaps ethnic Turkish Alevism? Kurdish and Zaza versions also exist. 

The Alevis turn out to be a broad religious landscape rather than a specific movement or faith group. They could be described as a heterogenous cluster of nominally Sunni Muslim groups heavily influenced by Shia Islam and Sufi mysticism (which probably strides the Sunni-Shia divide). There are connections to the Bektashi Order and the Kizilbash rebel movement. Conversely, there are no overt connections to the Alawites (except the name), a radical Shia sect mostly based in Syria.

Alevis have continued to redefine their identities throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. They have also been redefined by outsiders. The claim that Alevism is really a primordial form of Shamanism turns out to come from Turkish secular nationalist discourse! Some Alevis emphasize their Muslim identity, while others ("Alevis without Ali") claim to be a separate community altogether and have even been condemned by Turkish president Erdogan himself as dangerous splitters. 

As already indicated, Kurdish Alevism is only mentioned in passing and the Zaza version not at all. Years ago, I met a certain person who told me that the Zaza Alevis have a legend according to which they killed Kemal Atatürk somewhere in Kirmanjiye (in reality, Kemal died of natural causes at Istanbul). Maybe next time, bro?

Recommended. Actually!   

The greatest game?

 

Never heard this before...

The grail is a woman

 

Kind of. John Michael Greer builds up the suspense to his forthcoming analysis of Wagner´s last opera "Parsifal". The idea that the Holy Grail is really the fallen Sophia and has something to do with the Cathars is interesting.

Here is something that struck me: some people in Wagner´s time apparently believed that Parisfal is an Iranian name. And the Cathars were inspired by Manichaeism. Which comes from Persia. 

Other interesting stuff in this essay, too!  

Intermezzo: The Ring and the Grail

Luminous encounters

 

“The Self-Immolation of Kalanos and other Luminous Encounters among Greeks and Indian Buddhists in the Hellenistic World” is a rather short article by Georgios T Halkias published in 2015 in the scholarly “Journal of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies”. Or perhaps not so short, since Halkias has appended a large number of voluminous footnotes! The author further states that his study is “revisionist”, but not being an expert on Kalanos and other luminous beings, I can´t really tell what the “revisionism” entails. Perhaps the identity of the famed gymnosophists, and perhaps…something else. Stay tuned!

During the campaigns of Alexander the Great (here referred to as Alexandros of Macedonia), the Greeks encountered “gymnosophists” or naked wise men, obviously a reference to some kind of Indian ascetics. But what kind? There are many different kinds of ascetics in South Asia, and I suppose the usual guesses are Hindus (or rather what we would call Hindus) or Jains. 

Halkias proposes Buddhists instead. Kalanos accompanied the Greek army of Alexander and then committed suicide by self-immolation on a pyre. Apparently, Jains oppose self-immolation, instead preferring suicide by voluntary starvation. They aren´t even allowed to handle fire, since it can kill flying insects. Nor is there any archeological or documentary evidence of a Jain presence in Taxila, where the Greeks encountered the gymnosophists, during the relevant time frame. But what about the nudity? Halkias believes that nudity was prevalent in many different Indian contexts, not just among Jains, citing as an example near-nude Indian diplomatic envoys to the Persian king.

The author further argues that there is evidence that members of some early Buddhist sects only wore rags or were “open air dwellers” rather than building shelters for themselves. That the gymnosophists allowed women to practice or debate with them also points to Buddhism. So does the fact that Kalanos willingly accompanied the Macedonian army when it departed for another part of the conquered Persian Empire. Missionary work directed at non-Indians was standard Buddhist practice. But apparently the “smoking gun” (pun almost intended) is Kalanos´ self-immolation. This may come as a shock to those who think that Buddhism is a strictly non-violent religion which opposes suicide, but there you go. 

I´ve previously reviewed a scholarly article on ritual suicide among Pure Land Buddhists in China and Japan. If Halkias is correct, acceptance of suicide runs deep within Buddhism, including its earliest forms. It was acceptable for ascetics (not laity) to commit suicide if sickness or old age seriously impaired their meditative practice. Indeed, this seems to have been precisely what Kalanos was doing. Buddhist monks, but not Brahmins, were cremated at death. Brahmin holy men who committed suicide usually drowned themselves in sacred rivers. Therefore, suicide by fire would have been a Buddhist practice.

Halkias references a presumably apocryphal tradition according to which the Buddhist emperor Ashoka killed himself by self-immolation. From a much later period, there is a description of Indian ascetics by the Gnostic Bardesanes which must refer to Buddhist monks, and which also states that they practice self-immolation. More disturbingly, perhaps, Bardesanes states that the ascetics take their own lives *not* when they are sickly or elderly, but when their spiritual practice is most successful! Halkias recounts legends about Buddha´s former lives or about bodhisattvas, which include self-immolation. The point of self-immolation is, Halkias believes, to imitate the Buddha´s funeral pyre and produce holy relics. He even believes that the Buddha himself self-immolated, but I don´t see how the quoted material bears this out.

Here is another bizarre quote: “A Buddhist narrative from the Mahavastu tells that at the moment of Shakyamuni´s conception in his mother’s womb five hundred pratyekabuddhas assembled at the Deer Park in Sarnath (where Shakyamuni would later deliver his first sermon) and liberated themselves from their bodies in a spectacular manner. Rising high up in the air to a height of seven palm trees they immolated themselves, bursting into flames. This pyrotechnic phantasmagoria anticipates the Buddha’s enlightening teachings at the Deer Park and suggests some ancient form of sacrifice/offering that marks the birth of a great leader.”

The author ends his study by arguing that the ancient Greeks didn´t disapprove of the antics of the self-immolating gymnosophists. Quite the contrary, the suicide by fire motif also existed in Greek mythology and tradition…

I admit that I don´t quite like the implications of this revisionist piece of scholarship.

The incoherence of the theologians

 

The YouTube clip above is a surprisingly good introduction to the life, philosophy and (perhaps) mysticism of Muslim polymath Ibn Sina or Avicenna (980-1037). Unsurprisingly, it turns out that Avicenna wasn´t a very orthodox Muslim, at least not in terms of his philosophy. Rather, he was a Neo-Platonist.

His philosophical argument for God´s existence (which sounds very familiar still 1000 years later) goes something like this: all composite things are caused by another thing, the entire chain of composite things we call “the universe” must therefore also have a cause, the ultimate cause of everything must be simple. And that´s what we call God. Or rather: that´s not really the god of classical theism, but The One of Plotinus (whose ideas were known in the Islamic world through a paraphrase called “The Theology of Aristotle”). Avicenna did believe that the universe was eternal, but an eternal chain of composite things still needs an uncaused cause that´s simple. This is also derived from Plotinus, where The One eternally overflows and emanates various lower ontological levels, one of which is our universe. Thus, the universe is both eternal *and* dependent on The One as its eternal cause. The Avicennian-Plotinian god is a primordial and perfect unity and simplicity, which emanates the lower level as part of its very nature, while being completely blissful and unaware of the suffering and privation at the lower levels. This god only knows “universals”, never particulars. He, or rather It, stands outside time and space.

But how can this kind of god ever save anyone? It seems that he strictly speaking cannot – The One can be reached only through philosophical contemplation or perhaps mystical states. The One does emanate two levels in between itself and the universe: the Intellect and the Universal Soul. Strictly speaking, it is the latter that then emanates the universe. The god of classical theism could perhaps be assimilated to the Intellect, while the Universal Soul could be seen as the “anima mundi”. Or they could both be seen as the god of classical theism. But in this system, the apex of the ontological hierarchy is above Allah or God the Father. This makes it problematic when Christian apologists tries to use arguments derived from Avicenna to prove the Biblical God. You simply can´t go from “even the entire chain needs a cause that must be uncaused” to “that uncaused cause is Bible God”, since Avicenna´s whole point was that the uncaused cause must be simple and non-composite. But the god of the theologians is surely anything but simple: he is gendered, personal, can feel both anger and love, is recognized in three persons, one of the persons being born as a man in a specific location on Earth, and seems intensely interested in the behavior and ultimate fate of Homo sapiens. How is this “simple”? Note also that this god isn´t known through philosophical speculation but only through special revelation (or theological speculation on special revelation).

In the Orthodox Church, I suppose the three highest levels of the Neo-Platonist hierarchy are all considered “God”. The One is the dazzling darkness, the unknowable essence of God. The Intellect is God as he appears in the Bible. And the Universal Soul is perhaps the uncreated energies described by Gregory Palamas. But surely this is still composite by Avicenna´s standards? As for modern science, perhaps space and time aren´t “composite” and can hence play the role of uncaused cause Avicenna assigned to The One, but I suspect Ibn Sina would disagree with this. Space and time can certainly be conceptualized as composite. The One, presumably, cannot.

The religion with which Avicenna has most in common is actually Hinduism. The One has a family likeness with Brahman. In certain forms of Hinduism, Brahman brings forth Bhagawan – the personal god (such as Vishnu) – and Bhagawan then emanates Brahma, who creates the universe. This certainly sounds as a personification of the Intellect and the Universal Soul.

Personally, I have some kind of sympathies with both the panentheist-pantheist and theist camps, and mystics certainly report encounters with both kinds of god. Ultimately, humans probably can´t know these things anyway…

The entire history of philosophy is a series of footnotes to Plato. And the entire history of theology is a series of footnotes to Plotinus.    

Barbarian light

 

So I amused myself by trying to decode a very heavy scholarly essay by Jeffrey Kotyk, with the appealing title “Japanese Buddhist Astrology and Astral Magic: Mikkyo and Sukuyodo”, published in the “Japanese Journal of Religious Studies” and copyrighted in 2018. I admit that I hardly got half of it, but it was still a fascinating read, after a fashion. My man Kotyk might be on to something! Perhaps he has a good horoscope?

Apparently, contemporary Japanese astrology is called sukuyo and is attributed to Kukai, the medieval founder of the esoteric Buddhist sect known as Shingon. However, this form of astrology is evidently fully modern and has very little to do with “real” Japanese astrology from the actual Middle Ages (to use European terminology). Kotyk argues that there were two distinct forms of astrology during the period in question. He calls them Mikkyo Astrology and Sukuyodo. The former is part and parcel of esoteric Buddhist practice, while the latter could be regarded as “standard” astrology, including natal horoscopes, predictions of wealth and success for prominent individuals, etc.

Mikkyo Astrology, as should be evident by its name (Mikkyo being the Japanese word for Vajrayana or esoteric Tantric Buddhism), was introduced to Japan from China by Shingon and Tendai monks, including the aforementioned Kukai. The two prominent Tendai monks Ennin and Enchin were two other transmitters. Mikkyo Astrology is based on highly complex Chinese manuals which in turn go back to Indian sources. It was necessary to correctly time various esoteric rituals. Of course, “Vedic” astrology in its turn is heavily influenced by Greek astrology. Mikkyo Astrology also includes astral magic, including worship of planetary deities, to ward off disasters forecasted in the horoscopes. Kotyk therefore regards this form of astrology as non-fatalistic. 

While the system is Indian in origin, the author has also identified Iranian elements in the Chinese sources. These in turn can be traced further back, to Greek or Egyptian sources. The icon of Saturn used in these texts is “Iranian-Mesopotamian” rather than Indian. During the later Tang period in China, the cult of Saturn (seen as a malefic planet to be appeased) became prominent among both Buddhists and Taoists. The main feature of the astral magic, however, is presumably Indian in origin: the cult of a bodhisattva referred to by modern scholars as Tejaprabha (a name unattested in any Sanskrit source). This powerful figure was worshipped when heavenly anomalies disturbed the peaceful skies, such as comets appearing in the “lunar mansion” associated with the incumbent ruler. To complicate the criss-crossing lines of cultural influence even further, Mikkyo Astrology in Japan also interacted with Onmyodo, a school of divination indebted to Taoism. Its practitioners worshipped the Big Dipper as yet another example of astral magic.

Sukuyodo seems to have been originally connected somehow to Onmyodo, but later became an independent lineage or school (or actually several). It had strong support in the medieval Japanese aristocracy. What makes Sukuyodo interesting to the author is that it must be derived from Chinese sources dependent not on any Indian source, but on Iranian sources the contents of which goes back to the Hellenistic astrologer Dorotheus. The lore itself can be traced even further back, to Alexandria or even Babylonia. One intriguing fact is that Sukuyodo used the tropical zodiac (also used in ancient Greek and modern Western astrology) while “Vedic” astrology uses the sidereal zodiac. The positions of the star signs are somewhat different in the two versions. Even Indian traits in Sukuyodo, such as the use of the imaginary planets Rahu and Ketu (actually the lunar nodes) in horoscopes could come from Iranian sources, since these had evidently taken up the practice. What makes all this important is that it could point to a previously unknown path of cultural diffusion from the Near East to China and Japan (without passing India). The author wonders aloud whether music or medicine could have followed this path of transmission, too.

What he doesn´t mention is the profoundly humbling effect all of this should have on Chinese and Japanese nationalists. Much of their “unique” cultures really come from “barbarians”, including the White devils. If they will ever admit it, is another thing entirely. Ex *Occidente* Lux? White Boy Summer is a thing!     

Crazy wisdom

 

An interesting look at the Qalandariyya and some other fringe Sufi groups within medieval and early modern Islam. We are talking "crazy saints" or "holy fools" of a kind that seem to exist within (almost) all religions. Compare the pagan Cynic philosophers, the Eastern Orthodox fools in Christ, the Pashupatas and other antinomian Shaiva sects within Hinduism, and certain siddhas within Buddhism. Among others? 

The Qalandariyya and similar groups deliberately broke social and religious conventions to provoke hostility and ostracism. It´s really a form of ascesis. They didn´t follow sharia, since they were "dead to the world", but they were also indifferent to heavenly rewards, instead preferring a kind of mystical unity with God in the here and now (compare certain "pantheist" forms of Hinduism and Buddhism). Since all of the world is imbued with God´s presence, why insist on leaving it? 

While the origins of this kind of Sufism were apparently Persian, I don´t think it´s a co-incidence that it became so strong in India. However, it also existed in the Middle East. We are clearly dealing with a specific spiritual personality type, otherwise the phenomenon wouldn´t be global.

Which of course raises the question: where are the antinomians today? 

New light or same old?

 

What everyone really wants to know is: was the IVC Dravidian, and did the Aryans really invade/migrate from the north? I assume this study "only" tells us that the ancestors of the IVC were Neolithic farmers from today´s Tajikistan. But we kind of knew that already, didn´t we? 

India´s evolutionary past

No looting please, we´re Egyptians

 

Richard Carrier covers a lot of ground in this article, attempting to summarize and perhaps expand upon a recent debate he had with a particularly ignorant Afro-centrist, one Brother Jabari. 

Among the topics covered: Jewish borrowing from Zoroastrianism, the character of Zoroastrianism itself, the origins of mystery religions in general and the Dionysus cult in particular, the (unknown?) origins of the dying-and-rising god meme, the difference between original Egyptian religion and Hellenistic ditto, the nature of Christianity as a Judeo-Hellenic syncretism, and how to demonstrate cultural diffusion. More in passing, he also disses a certain Herodotus. 

Not sure how Afro-centrism can survive this flexing of intellectual muscle, but there you go! OK, Afro-centrism is actually a much broader concept than just the idea that Christianity "stole" its ideas from ancient Egypt, so there´s that...

Still, an interesting tour de force in its own right.  

No, the original Christians didn´t loot Egypt

Our Mongol predicament

 

"Djingis khan: Erövraren och hans värld" is a recent book by Swedish professor Dick Harrison about - you no doubt guessed it - Genghis Khan, the 13th century Mongol warlord who began the creation of what became the world´s greatest land empire ever. Harrison points out that surprisingly little is *really* known about him. What did his name even mean? Or his original name, Temüjin? When was he born, where is his grave, and how did he look like? All portraits of Genghis Khan are fantasy. 

That being said, Harrison has deep dived in the scholarly literature and written an easily accesible introduction to this notorious character (only available in Swedish). Temüjin must have been an extraordinarily capable leader and warrior, since he managed to unite previously bickering tribes in Mongolia into a "state" and world-conquering army. Steppe nomads had been important before in world history (Attila comes to mind), but Genghis Khan took things to an entirely new level, perfecting the military tactics that usually gave the nomads an advantage in battle against armies of "normal" kingdoms and empires. He also skillfully introduced non-nomad tactics, making the Mongol armies dangerous both in the open field and during sieges. Non-nomad administrators were employed to run the day-to-day business of the Khan´s expanding empire, and skilled craftsmen were forcibly impressed and sent to the Mongolian heartland from conquered regions. Severe repression against anyone who dared to question orders (of any kind) also played an important role in the success story. A peculiar detail is that the laws of the Mongol Empire were secret! How do you follow a secret law code?

What made Genghis Khan most notorious was, of course, his genocidal tactics. The Mongol armies frequently slaughtered the entire population of conquered cities, as a warning to anyone who would dare to resist them. On land, the Mongols were largely undefeated, and after the death of Genghis, pushed as far west as Poland, Hungary and the outskirts of Vienna. The standard interpretation is that medieval Europe wouldn´t stand a chance had the Mongols chosen to continue their invasion (Wikipedia quotes some recent studies which disagree). However, when Genghis Khan´s grandson Kublai Khan attempted to take Japan and Java, which necessitated sea power, the Mongols were actually defeated. Still, for centuries, the Mongols and their successors ("Tartars", Ilkhanids, Mughals and so on) were the most important cluster of land powers in Eurasia. The original Mongol Empire at its height stretched from East Europe and Anatolia all the way to China and Korea (but excluding India). 

What strikes me when reading Harrison´s overview is the contradictory nature of Mongol rule. On the one hand, genocide, plunder and enslavement. On the other, a "Pax Mongolica" which stimulated long-distance trade and meetings between civilizations (Marco Polo visited China when it was ruled by Kublai). Somewhat bizarrely for an empire based on the slaughter of entire populations, there was almost complete religious tolerance. Some of the Mongols were actually Nestorian Christians. Genghis Khan was a traditional shamanist, but tolerated Islam, Christianity, Buddhism,Taoism and so on. The only exception to the rule was halal slaughter, which Genghis found personally distasteful. Muslim halal butchers were sentenced to death by being butchered themselves! 

The Western view of Genghis Khan has been strangely contradictory. In medieval Western Europe (never conquered by the Mongols), the khan was seen as a valiant warrior and wise ruler. During the crusades, the Christian princes hoped that the Mongols would ally with Christentum and attack the Muslims in the rear. The strange legend of Prester John is connected to these hopes. Prester John was supposedly a priest-king ruling a vast Christian empire somewhere in the East. At other times, Genghis Khan, the Mongols and the "Tartars" (compare Tartaros - the lowest level of the underworld in Greek mythology) were seen as menacing and genocidal. The conversion of the Mongols to Islam presumably didn´t improve their reputation. Today, the Western understanding of Genghis Khan is mostly on the genocidal side, although he is sometimes depicted as a comic character. Harrison actually mentions the German hit song "Dschinghis Khan" from 1979! I assume some people might dress up as the old butcher at Halloween parties. Meanwhile in Mongolia - today a very weak nation - Genghis Khan is a national hero, and I think he is venerated in Central Asia as well (sometimes together with Timur Lenk). 

If anything, the life of Genghis Khan and the history of the Mongol Empire shows the contradictory and perhaps absurd character of the human condition...

 

Splits and fusions

 

Credit: Hedwig Storch

“The Ismailis: Their History and Doctrines” is a voluminous and extremely detailed book by Farhad Daftary. I read the first (1990) edition years ago, and now I´ve also devoured most of the second edition from 2007. The Ismailis, Ismaili or Ismailites (not to be confused with the Biblical Ishmaelites) are a branch of Shia Islam. Or rather several branches! Their history is notoriously complex, unfolding in several quite different theatres: North Africa, Syria, Persia, Yemen and India. Sources are often meager, except those written by hostile outsiders. Since the Ismailites were frequently conspiratorial or persecuted, much original literature have been lost or is jealously guarded by small Ismailite communities. For centuries, the Ismailite Fatimid dynasty ruled an empire centered on Egypt, but when their regime was overthrown by Saladin, this "hero" destroyed their House of Learning with its large library...

Daftary begins his "door-stopper" by debunking the myth of "The Old Man on the Mountain" and "The Assassins". Apparently, all the stories we´ve memorized by heart about the hashish, the paradise garden and the beautiful young maidens are just romantic tall tales, mostly of a medieval Crusader provenance (and Marco Polo). What *is* true is that the so-called Nizari Ismailites really did carry out a long string of assassinations of political opponents (or acts of terrorism, if you like). Their Arab opponents referred to the Nizaris as "hashasheen" or hash-smokers, from which the European word "assassin" is derived. And, of course, all the hash legends! In Arabic, however, the word´s connotation at the time was "underclass rabble" rather than literal users of cannabis-derived drugs.

To summarize Daftary´s 760-page long book is impossible (over 200 pages seem to be footnotes), but a few things stand out. It´s frequently asserted that Khomeini turned Shia Islam revolutionary, probably inspired by Communism, and that the original religion was quietist. In reality, Shia Islam has always oscillated between revolutionary and conservative periods, and also between openness and concealment. Khomeini´s activities are no mystery. The original Shiites were probably revolutionaries, including the proto-Ismailites. On the "far left" of the Shia spectrum stood the Qarmatians, who ruled a "socialist" state centered on Bahrain. The Qarmatis even attacked Mekka and stole the black stone! On the "far right" we have Jafar al-Sadiq, who could perhaps be regarded as the "founder" of Shia Islam proper. Jafar is recognized as an imam (spiritual leader and esoteric exegete) by Ismailites and Twelver Shias alike, and is respected even by Sunni Muslims. The Fatimids ended up somewhere in the center of this spectrum, while the Nizaris are more to the "left". 

Another thing that stands out is that history always repeats itself (it´s almost as if the Shia idea of "cycles" is true - or not really, since their cycles are supposed to have a Messianic consummation). The Middle East has virtually always been war-torn, brutal and Machiavellian. In Daftary´s book, the Crusaders are a supporting act, not the evil imperialists everything revolves around (a common trope in both the modern Muslim world and among Western leftists). Oh, and suicide attacks were just as common during the Middle Ages as they are today. It´s not clear what could impose order on this volatile region - a centralized empire, perhaps, and even that only barely (since there is usually more than one). Another repeating theme is the revolution betrayed by its own leadership. The Abbasids used revolutionary Shia ferment to overthrow the Umayyads...and then quickly turned against the radicals, becoming aristocratic Sunnis instead. The Safavids used the Qizilbash to take power in Persia, and of course turned against them and other radical Shia or Sufi groups while consolidating their quasi-theocratic Twelver Shia regime. Even the Ismailite Fatimids follow this pattern, becoming more conservative and "Byzantine" when firmly entrenched in power in Egypt than they had been ditherto. 

And speaking of the Fatimids...

Fatimid Egypt is sometimes used as a splendid example of "Muslim religious tolerance", but the background is never explained. As a ruling Shia minority in predominantly Sunni Egypt, the Fatimids tried to broaden their social base by allying with Coptic Christians and Jews. As already noted, Saladin - often depicted as some kind of Christ-like figure by Western Islamophiles - was the destroyer of this relatively tolerant dynasty in the name of orthodox Sunni Islam (when he wasn´t busy executing Suhrawardi). It´s also interesting to note that the Fatimids even when settling down as the rulers of an imperial polity nevertheless fomented rebellious sentiments in other Muslim lands through a vast network of Ismaili missionary organizations. In modern times, we have an obvious parallel case in...Soviet Communism.

Daftary is very positive towards the Nizari Ismailites during their "Alamut period", precisely the period when they were known as the Assassins. To Daftary, the Persian Nizaris were a kind of Persian nationalists against foreign (Seljuk and Mongol) domination. They also represented the interests of the poor, downtrodden and oppressed masses in both town and country. Hasan-i Sabbah (the bad guy of much anti-Ismailite polemics) is the hero of this story. Although the author never says it aloud, Hasan-i Sabbah comes across as a Lenin: an austere, ascetic and stern man who was also a genial organizer and revolutionary strategist. But somewhere here, we also see a problem. The leaders of the Nizari Ismailites were obeyed almost without question, they were seen as infallible gurus or even god-like figures, and the Nizaris suffered virtually no splits even though the U-turns of the leadership could be pretty dramatic. In other words: the Assassins were a cult! Or perhaps an early version of a Stalinist vanguard party...

Which brings me to the religious aspect of the equation. Shia Islam believes that while prophets reveal an exoteric or public message (as when God instructed Muhammad to reveal the Quran), there is also a hidden revelation. This esoteric message is explained (perhaps only to initiates) by the imam. The first imam of the Islamic dispensation was Ali. All subsequent imams are supposed to be descendants of Ali, and they are also supposed to be designated by the previous imam during his lifetime. Sometimes, this goes together with strong apocalyptic expectations. All these things create constant problems for the Shia, when imams are killed before they can appoint a successor, change their designations, or fail to inaugurate the parousia. Hence, the constant disputes over who has the right to the imamate, and all the creative theological "solutions" to the inability of the imams to live up to the expectations. There are "hidden" imams, representatives of the imams, and (I think) representatives of the representatives. The prophetic cycles are constantly prolonged with various excuses. In one form of Ismailism, the final Qaim (Messiah) won´t appear until 130 billion years into the future, although I´m sure even on this reckoning you could get in trouble if some partial Qaim doesn´t show up on time! On the "positive" side, I suppose the ability of the imams to simply change the message at will does give the Ismailites a certain resilience, since they can simply adapt to changed circumstances. The modern Nizaris, led by the Aga Khan, are far from revolutionary...

The esoteric side of Ismailism is fascinating, but also difficult to understand. The various systems have affinities with Gnosticism, Neoplatonism and Kabbala. There are similarities to Hindu notions of gurus, avatars and cycles. Daftary makes a valiant attempt to sort out these doctrines, but I´m not sure if he entirely succeeds. As an aside, he also mentions the peculiar Druze religion, since it began as an Ismaili faction devoted to the deification of Fatimid caliph-imam al-Hakim.

"The Ismailis: Their History and Doctrine" is hardly an introductory work in any sense of that term, but if you really are into Shiite historiography (or even hierohistory), I suggest you give it a try!  

  

  

    

The Silk Road religion

 

Two "scholarly" YouTube clips about Manichaeism, an extinct creed which used to be a world religion during Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. There were followers of the prophet Mani from the Roman Empire in the west to China in the east. Manichaeism was a "Persian" religion with Zoroastrian, Christian and Buddhist traits. It´s sometimes described as Gnostic. Mani himself was raised in a "heretical" Christian community in Mesopotamia.  

It´s possible that Manichaeism´s syncretistic character was the result of its world-wide spread, with believers in, say, Egypt being more "Christian", and those in Central Asia becoming more similar to Buddhism. The most well-known (ex)-Manichean is of course Augustine, who later became a famous Church Father.

The Manichean speculations sound both very exotic and strangely familiar at the same time...

Interesting contributions!    

"Darius the Mede" and all that crap

Atheist gadfly Richard Carrier takes on the Book of Daniel, often considered "the best" Biblical book, due to its striking prophecies about Jesus and the Roman destruction of the Temple. Or maybe not. Carrier believes Daniel is a forgery. These days, I tend to be skeptical to almost everything, but even I was surprised that Daniel was *this* bad. 

In particular, note the section on Josephus. Note also Carrier´s exegesis of the weird math, pointing out (among other things) that the years of the prophecy are overlapping?! Und so weiter. 

Politically, Carrier is a left-liberal disaster area, but he´s strong on matters like this one.

How we know that "Daniel" is a forgery

Empires of the Silk Road

“Empires of the Silk Road: A History of Central Eurasia from the Bronze Age to the Present” is a grossly mistitled volume by Christopher Beckwith. I say that with a smile, since Beckwith happens to be my favorite distracted professor. This 471-page tome could best be described as a long compilation of topics, some connected to Central Eurasian history, which the author feels need further scholarly attention, since most research published so far have been found wanting, at least on the author´s revisionist scales. I un-ironically sympathize with the agenda! Of course, I can´t vouch for Beckwith´s particular reinterpretations, except to say that they are interesting. So is “Greek Buddha”, another work by the same writer which I review elsewhere on this site.

The term Central Eurasia refers to the vast steppe regions spanning from East Europe to northern China. In ancient and medieval times, this was the home to a bewildering maze of “barbarian” peoples rightly or wrongly associated with nomadism, pastoralism and mounted warriors: Proto-Indo-Europeans, Scythians, Huns, Turks, Mongols, Tatars and many others. The author could be described as “pro-barbarian” or “pro-Central Eurasian”. He often refers to the settled high cultures and empires of Europe and Asia as “peripheral”. He doesn´t deny that the steppe peoples were frequently brutal, but so were the “peripheral” empires, so on *that* score there is little difference between them. On a micro-level, ordinary people living in the “great” empires sometimes tried to abscond to the “barbarians”, suggesting that they felt freer among them. To Beckwith, the Central Eurasians were not parasitical nomads who plundered big cities or forced empires to pay huge tributes. All powerful nomadic peoples controlled “empires” of their own, which always included agricultural land and towns alongside the vast steppes. Their primary non-pastoral activity was not plunder, but trade. The nomads controlled the so-called Silk Road, really a vast and ancient trading network connecting China, India and Europe. As long as the steppe peoples were strong, trade was relatively easy and secure. Not only did the nomads promote trade among the empires, they were also keenly interested in luxury products themselves. One example: the Scythians traded in silk, with the Greeks paying them in gold, the same gold used for the exquisite Scythian handicraft later found by archeologists. The fact that the nomads only destroyed cities which resisted them (standard practice among the “peripheral” empires, too) shows that they didn´t “hate cities” á la Pol Pot, but preferred to integrate them into their spheres of influence as hubs for commerce and taxation. The awful tributes supposedly paid by the Byzantine Empire to the Huns and other steppe marauders only constituted a tiny percentage of the total Byzantine budget.

Beckwith believes that many steppe peoples shared something he calls the Central Eurasian Culture Complex. Its origins are probably proto-Indo-European. An important part of this culture complex is the comitatus, a tightly knit band of male warriors sworn to defend the ruler to the death. The ruler and the members of the comitatus were not blood relations, nor were the members of the war-band usually related to each other. If the ruler died or was killed before the comitatus, its members usually commited suicide or were ritually executed! Why would anyone risk such a fate by binding himself to a non-blood-relative? The answer is that the ruler was expected to bestow fabulous riches on the members of the band, including gold, jewels and silk. While plunder was an obvious way of getting such things, a more important one was trade. Thus, the mercantile orientation of the steppe peoples was in large part a function of their peculiar culture, and this also explains the importance of trade in luxury products. (Later, the comitatus system spread to the Muslim world through Central Asia and Persia. The Mamluks and the Ottomans had distinct versions of the system.)

Beckwith regards the Celtic and Germanic peoples of Iron Age Europe as part of the same Central Eurasian Culture Complex as the nomads further east. He is critical of the usual theories about the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. The “barbarians” weren´t responsible. Rather, internal problems in the Roman Empire made it less interested in trading with the “barbarian” peoples. This forced the “barbarians” to move ever closer to the metropolitan areas of the Empire in order to safeguard their trading rights. This, then, are the so-called “barbarian invasions” much maligned by historians ever since.

Being a trained linguist, the author has appended a chapter on the Indo-European language family. Here, too, the tendency is revisionist. Beckwith believes that the remarkable similarity between Avestan and Sanskrit is no mystery: Avestan *is* an Iranicized form of Sanskrit, rather than the ancestral Indo-Iranian language. The oldest preserved copies of the Avesta, the sacred scripture of the Zoroastrian religion, are from the 13^th century AD. Old Persian inscriptions are known from the 5^th or 6^th centuries BC, and are very different from the Avestan language. Also, the Zoroastrian belief system as recorded in the Avesta isn´t attested from such early times. So why is Avestan regarded as an extremely ancient language at all? Everyone seems to agree that Avestan is weird compared to other members of the Iranian branch of the Indo-European language family. Also, the original Vedic scriptures aren´t really attested before 1000 AD, and Beckwith believes that it´s “romantic” to date them from thousands of years earlier. Presumably, this has consequences for how to look upon Sanskrit and its place in the Indo-European language family tree. He doesn´t say, but the implication seems to be that Sanskrit could be from a later period than the Prakrits! Beckwith also argues that the Indo-European languages simply couldn´t have developed by a “glacially slow process” over many millennia. Rather, they must be the result of rapid changes due to creolization between the language spoken by the Indo-European invaders and the that of the natives. Needless to say, the author doesn´t believe it´s possible to *really* reconstruct a Proto-Indo-European language!

In several chapters, Beckwith attacks the modern world, including democracy (really the rule of a new modern elite), secularism, Communism, postmodern discourse, modern art and modern music. In a very curious footnote, he briefly discusses Frank Zappa´s music. This in a book supposedly about Central Eurasian steppe empires! The author sounds “traditionalist”, but it´s a traditionalism with several twists. His ideal isn´t the landed aristocrat nor the lofty philosopher, but rather the dynamic merchant, including merchants who trade in pure luxuries. He is both generally pro-Central Eurasian and specifically pro-Germanic, viewing the Early Middle Ages less as a Dark Age than as an age when Europe was dominated by a dynamic mixed Germano-Roman culture connected with the steppe empires. He also seem to regard the European colonialists, including the early exploits of the Portuguese, as somehow connected to the general dynamism of the Germanic peoples. Beckwith says very little about the only Indo-European people known to have many female warriors: the Sarmatians. Yet, unless I misunderstood him completely, he also suggests that patriarchy and warfare are ultimately bad things!

If "Empires of the Silk Road" has a central point, it is that historians should stop underestimating how all of Eurasia was connected through an overland route since ancient times, thanks to the "barbarians", and how this positively affected cultural diffusion and economic growth. 

I could probably continue this review indefinitely, but for reasons of space (mine being less expansive than the pusztas of Central Eurasia), I simply stop it right here!

A sympathetic faith

“The Zoroastrian Faith: Tradition and Modern Research” is a book by S A Nigosian, originally published in 1993. Unfortunately, I don´t know where the modern research stands 27 years later. Judging by Nigosian´s book, very little is certain concerning the origins and history of Zoroastrianism, one of the world´s first monotheist faiths. It seems we can only be sure of three things: Zoroastrianism was founded by a prophet known in Greek as Zoroaster, Zoroaster lived in an area where some archaic dialect of Persian was spoken (his real name would have been Zarathustra), and he lived at some point before Cyrus the Great created the first Persian Empire circa 559 BC, since Cyrus is believed to have been a Zoroastrian (whatever that meant exactly at the time). And that´s basically it! But did Zoroaster come from Azerbaijan, Media or Bactria? Did he live 8000 years ago during the Neolithic, or shortly before the ascension of Cyrus? And what exactly was his religious message, anyway? While Nigosian cautiously tries to answer these questions, I think it´s obvious that nobody really knows. Or knew in 1993 (AD).

It´s often claimed that Zoroastrianism heavily influenced Judaism. Through Judaism, it also had an impact on Christianity and Islam (Islam could also have been directly influenced by the Zoroastrian faith). Among ideas that supposedly comes from Zoroaster are: strict monotheism, belief in archangels, the immortal soul, the resurrection of the body, the millennium, the Messiah, jihad, Heaven and Hell, and the Devil. No less! However, it´s not at all clear to me whether this can really be proven in a robust way. The holy scripture of the Zoroastrians, the Avesta, is really a patchwork of texts from entirely different time-periods, and the oldest portions (the Gathas) are written in an obscure Old Persian dialect (simply called Gathic) which was a dead language at the time the Avesta in its present form was assembled about 700 years after the death of the prophet. Or was it 7000 years? The exact meaning of the Gathas was unclear to the medieval scribes who translated the Avesta into Middle Persian and attempted to comment on it. My impression is further that many of the doctrines traditionally associated with Zoroastrianism (such as dualism or the Messiah figures) come from the Bundahishn, also a medieval work. If so, Zoroastrianism might very well have been influenced by Islam and Judaism, rather than the other way around. Perhaps the dualism is a Manichean idea?

I´m not entirely surprised. As of late, I´ve begun to suspect that most world religions didn´t really have a “founder”, per se, or if they did, it wasn´t the guy everyone thinks it was. Examples of religious founders who might not have existed include Abraham, Moses, Jesus, the Buddha and Lao-tse. Did Nichiren exist? Muhammad probably did exist, but since the traditions concerning his life weren´t written down until centuries later, they might not be entirely true either. So why should Zoroaster be any different?

The most likely scenario, judging by this and other books, is that Zoroaster did have a monotheist message, elevating the traditional Iranian sky-god Ahura Mazda into the role of sole deity. This religion was for one reason or another taken up by the Achaemenid dynasty and became the state religion of the Persian Empire. Over time, Zoroastrianism accommodated to polytheist and dualist notions prevalent in the Empire. This is how the faith acquired its belief in angelic beings which are de facto worshipped, and also effective veneration of the sun, the fire, the earth, the sacred waters, etc. Originally a tolerant faith, the Zoroastrian priesthood and the imperial authorities started to persecute followers of other religions during the Sassanid dynasty, interestingly enough at about the same time as the Roman Empire became Christian (and just as intolerant). The execution of Mani, the founder of Manichaeism, is the most notorious example of this. Another is the anti-Christian persecutions in Persian-occupied Armenia. 

When Persia became Muslim after the Arab conquest, Zoroastrianism seems to have been heavily persecuted in turn – despite Zoroastrians being declared “a people of the book” – unless, of course, the accounts are heavily polemical. What if the Persians converted to Islam tired of their old priesthood? What *is* clear is that Zoroastrianism, for almost one thousand years the dominant religion in Iran, was reduced to a small minority. Today, most Zoroastrians live in India, where they are known as Parsees (“Persians”) and have, at least to some extent, assimilated into Indian society. The Parsee community is apparently split between “reformist” and “traditionalist” factions.

Some of the traditions described by Nigosian strike the outsider as somewhat bizarre, such as purification of the body by cow urine, the custom of letting deceased relatives be eaten by vultures, or the idea that killing snakes is meritorious. (OK, not really – I hate snakes.) Otherwise, Zoroastrianism strikes me as more logical than I expected, and also more sympathetic than certain other religions, none mentioned here.

Zoroastrianism doesn´t claim that the good god Ahura Mazda and the evil “god” Ahriman are equally strong or have been fighting for eternity. While Ahriman has existed since beginningless time, for most of that period he lived in the “abyss”, the dark dimension of the world, completely oblivious to the existence of Ahura Mazda and the world of light. Only about 6000 years ago did Ahriman became aware of the light and rose from the pit, filled with a desire to take possession of Ahura Mazda´s domain. Thus began the conflict between the Wise Lord and the Adversary, a conflict that will end with Ahura Mazda crushing the evil powers once and for all. The physical world was created by Ahura Mazda as an arena for the struggle. The world was originally perfect, but has been deformed by the activity of Ahriman and his demonic minions (all those snakes!). Humans have an absolutely free will, and can choose between the Good and the Evil.

Surprisingly, Zoroastrianism is postmillennial. The millennium won´t be established until a majority of humanity has already chosen the path of light and embraced the good religion, making the Earth a much better place. Thus, the establishment of the millennium is dependent on humanity´s free will. It won´t arrive until most of us actually become Zoroastrians. Also surprisingly, Zoroastrianism is universalist. In the end, even the evil people will seek Ahura Mazda´s forgiveness and receive it. Hell is temporary, really a kind of purgatory. Ahriman and the demons, by contrast, will be annihilated completely. Thus, Zoroastrianism is “universalist” for humans and “annihilationist” for demons! 

One thing that struck me when reading Nigosian´s account is that Zoroastrianism sounds like a peculiar hybrid of Judaism (or Islam) and Manichaeism. The dualism is similar to Mani´s religion, while the notion that the material world is at bottom a good creation and that history has a meaning and culmination, sounds like “Late” Judaism or Islam. So does the emphasis on free will. I suppose Ahriman is similar to the Christian Devil, but what´s lacking is the Christian notion of the atonement. As already mentioned, the faith even has some “polytheist” or “animist” traits, since its followers really do seem to worship or honor the sun, the earth, the rivers, and so on. That´s of course my interpretation – others may see it differently.

“The Zoroastrian Faith” (the book) is recommended reading.

Scythian Buddha

“Greek Buddha: Pyrrho´s Encounter with Early Buddhism in Central Asia” is a book by Christopher I Beckwith, a distinguished professor in Central Eurasian studies based in Indiana, US. I never read Beckwith´s other works (they seem interesting!), but this work comes across as something of a “teaser trailer” with the author constantly veering off topic, trying to cover at least a dozen different subjects. I admit, however, that I *was* properly teased. I might return to Beckwith in the future.

“Greek Buddha” has been described as iconoclastic, and the book certainly has a “revisionist” tendency. To summarize, everything you (and me) learned when we studied comparative religion in our sadly misspent youth is, well, wrong. No hard feelings, btw. Beckwith argues that Early Buddhism was very different in character from Normative Buddhism. The earliest written sources about Buddhism are *not* Buddhist and far from “normative”. They include the Greek descriptions of the Buddhists encountered during Alexander the Great´s military campaign in India. These are also some of the earliest preserved sources on Brahmanism, what later developed into “Hinduism”. By contrast, the canonical Buddhist scriptures were written down centuries later, and the earliest preserved manuscripts are even later. The well-known story of the Buddha´s childhood, life and death – often treated as sort of true even by Western scholars – is sheer fiction. The earliest preserved Buddhist sources are the so-called rock and pillar edicts of Ashoka, but Beckwith believes that many of them are later forgeries. The genuine ones were created under the reign of Devanampriya Priyadarshi, who was later conflated with other Mauryan rulers into the composite character of “Ashoka”. The author also claims that archeology disproves the official Buddhist version of events. For instance, a separate monastic order can´t have been part of Early Buddhism, since the first excavated monasteries are from a later period and the “wrong” area (Taxila in modern Pakistan) if you believe Buddhism originated at Bodh Gaya (in modern Bihar, India).

Beckwith´s chain of events look roughly like this: Early Zoroastrianism, a staunchly monotheist faith based on an absolute dichotomy between the True and the False, was introduced into ancient India by the Persian Empire. (Interestingly, the author argues that monotheism first emerged among the Scythians and was part of a Central Eurasian culture complex.) Buddhism was a reaction against Zoroastrianism, Buddha teaching a crypto-atheist message of skepticism coupled with yogic practices to still the mind. Buddha was Scythian, Beckwith arguing that “Shakyamuni” means “sage of the Sakas”, a Scythian people. It was this Early Buddhism which influenced Pyrrho when he accompanied Alexander on his invasion of India. Indeed, Early Pyrrhonism is almost identical to Early Buddhism (I admit that the parallels between Pyrrho and the Buddha are striking). Already at the time of Alexander, however, a “popular Buddhism” had begun to develop, which included notions of karma, soul and rebirth in Heaven. These ideas are really Zoroastrian. This popular Buddhism was promoted by the Mauryan dynasty, including “Ashoka”, the Mauryans being heavily influenced by the Persians and also having good relations with the Greeks. Beckwith also believes that Early Taoism was heavily influenced by Early Buddhism, indeed the Old Master (Lao-tse) is really the same person as the Buddha! Normative Buddhism is an eclectic compromise between Early Buddhism, Early Popular Buddhism and later developments, which explains its contradictory nature. For instance, why did Buddha refuse to discuss metaphysics, when Normative Buddhism is fiercely metaphysical? How could he remember all his past lives, when there is no soul? And so on. Beckwith also argues that Early Brahmanism was very different from later “Hinduism”. Here, too, the Zoroastrian influence was crucial. The ascetic sects within “Hinduism” plus the Jains are also later developments influenced by Buddhism, rather than the other way around, and the Upanishads were written in response to the success of Buddhism rather than being earlier works.  

I long suspected that we don´t know as much about the Buddha and Early Buddhism as often claimed, precisely because the sources are so late. Also, the canonical story about the Buddha´s life is obviously legendary and didactic. However, I also suspected that Early Buddhism was just as “religious” as Later Buddhism, the “philosophical” Buddhism so popular today being a *much* later development (so-called Protestant Buddhism, not to mention “Alan Watts is the Man”). If Beckwith is right, Early Buddhism really was a non-theistic philosophy with attendant yoga, all the religious strapping evolving later when some Buddhist sects turned towards the broad masses. I also suspect that the Buddha may not even be a real historical person – Moses is pretty much disproved, a case could be made for Jesus not being a historical person either, and the origins of Islam are probably much different from what we think. Beckwith himself doesn´t believe Lao-tse to be real. Why should the Sage of the Sakas be the sole exception?

Other topics dealt with in “Greek Buddha” include a discussion of David Hume, who Beckwith believes had an “esoteric” message which was really atheist (compare Leo Strauss here). The professor believes that Humean skepticism, if properly interpreted, doesn´t threaten science. To the contrary, it´s its only proper foundation! There is also a discussion on Zoroastrianism. If I understand him correctly, Beckwith believes that Zoroaster lived shortly before Cyrus the Great (i.e. “late” compared to the very early dates preferred by the Zoroastrians themselves and also some scholars). Cyrus was the founder of the Persian Achaemenid Empire. He and his successor Cambyses were Zoroastrians. Under the short reign of Gaumata, a mysterious usurper, the old polytheist “Magian” faith was restored. (Compare Julian the Apostate in the Late Roman Empire.) However, the Zoroastrians staged a comeback when Darius overthrew Gaumata. Eventually, however, a kind of religious compromise was reached, whereby Zoroastrianism de facto incorporated the old polytheist deities into its pantheon as “angels”. This is the Zoroastrianism we know today. (Compare how Catholicism de facto compromised with paganism.)  I´m not entirely sure how Beckwith looks at the origins of the Mahayana. He seems to regard the Pure Land sect of Buddhism as a kind of throwback to the monotheism of the Central Eurasian culture complex. Note also that the Pure Land was a paradise in the West – that is, west of China, where this Mahayana sect was successful. That would be Central Asia…

Did I miss something? Well, Professor Beckwith´s son used to read “Almagest” at the age of nine. Wow. Not even I did that. At the age of nine, I was still reading children´s books about Odin and Ragnarök. But YMMV.

Teaser trailer, but still recommended. 

In the land of the original Aryans

”The Tajiks in the Mirror of History. Volume One: From the Aryans to the Samanids” is a book attributed to Tajikistan´s president Emomali Rahmonov (today known as Emomali Rahmon). Curiously, it has no publication date, but was probably printed around the year 2000. The book is bilingual. One language is English. The other is presumably Tajik, but written in Persian (or Arabic) script. This is curious, since Tajik is usually written using the Cyrillic alphabet. Perhaps the book was intended for a wider Persian audience?

Tajikistan is an ex-Soviet republic which became independent after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. The Communist Party morphed into secular nationalists and managed to stay in power after fighting a bloody civil war with Sunni Muslim fundamentalists. Tajikistan is clearly in the Russian geopolitical orbit, while also cultivating good relations with China. Indeed, Rahmon looks like a typical boring Communist apparatchik circa 1975 and could very well pass for Brezhnev´s next cousin or something to that effect. His administration is widely seen as an authoritarian de facto one party state (like most other governments in the post-Soviet near abroad).

I found Rahmon´s book on Tajik history interesting, at least as an exercise in political propaganda. Most Tajiks are Sunni Muslims, but Rahmon´s secular administration obviously cannot use Islam for its political ends. Nor can it use Communism, except to a very limited extent. For instance, the national anthem is actually the old anthem of the Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic. The solution is to make copious use of nationalism. The Tajiks speak Persian, the same language as in Iran, so Rahmon´s strategy is to claim as much as possible of the Persian legacy. Indeed, he seems to be claiming virtually all of it! Apparently, Tajik nationalists have long harked back to the Samanid Empire, a Sunni Muslim and ethnically Persian empire of the Early Middle Ages. The Samanids were centered on Central Asia, while also controlling large parts of Persia. Rahmon argues that Tajik history goes back much further, indeed all the way to the Indo-European migrations and perhaps even earlier.

Rahmon doesn´t deny that the Indo-Europeans came from somewhere else in Eurasia, presumably much further north than Central Asia. When the “Aryans” arrived in Central Asia, they split into three groups: Indo-Aryans, Irano-Aryans and the original Aryans. The latter group stayed behind in Central Asia when the two former moved east and west, respectively. This latter group is the ancestor of the Tajiks, who are thus the original Aryan culture. In historical times, the original Aryans inhabited the areas today known as Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Afghanistan. Rahmon uses the Persian epic Shahnameh to prove his theories, including the sections usually regarded as mythological (the stories of the Pishdodid and Kayanid dynasties). He argues that these stories took place in “Eastern Iran” rather than “Western Iran”. Since the Tajik language, really a dialect of Persian, is classified as a “Western Iranian” language, “Eastern Iran” is here used as a geographical designation referring to the Eastern part of the Persian cultural area. It seems the Tajiks were not only the original Aryans, but also very specifically the original Persians. Just to be on the safe side, Rahmon also claims the legacy of the Scythians, whose language is classified as “Eastern Iranian” and hence distinct from Persian!

The most intriguing part of “The Tajiks in the Mirror of History” is Rahmon´s use of Zoroastrianism. This was the religion of the Persians before their conversion to Islam. Today, the number of Zoroastrians in Tajikistan must be about zero, yet Rahmon comes across as a kind of pseudo-Zoroastrian, constantly paying homage to this great ancient Persian prophet. He even claims to have secretly studied his writings when he was the head of a collective farm during the Soviet period! Naturally, Rahmon supports the theory that Zoroaster was very early and that he came from Bactria (northern Afghanistan) which would place him in “Eastern Iran”. As a secularist, however, Rahmon can´t really support Zoroaster´s religious ideas, and they are indeed hardly mentioned in the book. Instead, he paints Zoroaster as an advanced ethical teacher, and also as a firm supporter of farming and animal husbandry. According to one theory, Zoroaster called upon the previously nomadic tribes of the area to settle down and become farmers, thereby civilizing them. Rahmon also paints Zoroaster as the first Tajik nation-builder, uniting previously disparate tribes into one kingdom.

Rahmon paints the Tajiks as constant victims of foreign aggressors. He singles out two for special mention. One is Alexander the Great, who destroyed the Persian Empire and did much damage to Zoroastrianism. The other is the Arab conquest, which (of course) *also* destroyed a later Persian Empire and Zoroastrianism. However, Rahmon doesn´t paint the Scythian invasions of Central Asia as equally destructive. As already noted, he rather tries to claim the “Saka” as a kind of honorary Tajiks.

The photos in the book, with a few exceptions, have little to do with archeology or history, but rather show President Rahmonov at various summits, often together with other Central Asian presidents, and sometimes with Vladimir Putin and Chinese leader Jiang Zemin. The purpose is obviously to picture Rahmon as an international dignitary of some standing. At one photo, he addresses the UN General Assembly. There are also pics of Rahmon as he is inspecting various building projects in Tajikistan. No photos show him together with Zoroastrians, but there is one where he is conferring with Aga Khan, the leader of the Shia Muslim branch known as Nizari Ismailites. Apparently, some ethnic minority groups in Tajikistan follow this form of Islam.

I´m not sure if even the most avid readers of this blog care about Tajikistani government propaganda, but in case you do, I just indulged some of your curiosity…

Spätantike geist

Geo Widengren was a Swedish professor of comparative religion. One of his books was “Religionens värld”, also available in a German translation as “Religionsphänomenologie”. This is a translation of one particular chapter from that book, a chapter which apparently is considered particularly important by scholars in the field. The chapter does contain some interesting angles, but it's difficult to read and hardly for the general reader. It also lacks context. For instance, why does Widengren suddenly start quoting Swedish poet Eric Johan Stagnelius?

Widengren believes that Gnosticism has Indian and Iranian roots. He sees parallels between the New Testament, Gnosticism and Zoroastrianism. Less controversially, he sees similarities between Gnosticism, Zurvanism and various forms of Hinduism. Widengren believes that the Gnostic redeemer figure should be seen as a personification of an impersonal deity (such as Brahman). The redeemer is also the “heavenly twin” of the earthly prophet preaching the Gnostic message. Thus, Mani received revelations from his “twin”, which in Widengren's interpretation is Mani's Atman, which in turn is identical to Brahman. He also claims that Zoroaster was seen as a “Son of God”, which would have obvious implications for later Christology (especially if the Son of God is actually a manifestation of Brahman). The author sees traces of Gnostic influence in Ephesians.

Widengren describes various Hindu and Iranian myths in which the soul of the accomplished mystic is seated on the throne of a personal creator-deity and *becomes* this deity, by putting on his “world garment”. The author apparently believes that this should be interpreted symbolically, presumably as a merger of the soul with the World-Soul. However, it's easy to see parallels to Jewish “throne mysticism”, the idea that Enoch became Little Yahweh, ancient Israelite coronation rituals, and Jesus Christ. These are not intended to be interpreted as allegories for pantheist merger with the Impersonal Beyond!

The main take away from this text is that Christian (and Gnostic) notions have a long pre-history. Combine this with the idea of a suffering, dying and resurrecting god (also very old) and some interesting theological discussions might follow…

If not, I suppose you could always read Birger Pearson's inspired translations of Eric Johan Stagnelius!

Nothing to see here?

A review of "Esoteric Trends in Zoroastrianism" by Shaul Shaked 

This is a short, super-scholarly and not particularly interesting article (unless you are a budding specialist in the field) on esoteric strands within Sasanian Empire Zoroastrianism. Or the lack of them, since the author reaches the conclusion that, strictly speaking, there were no such strands. The article has also been reprinted in a volume titled “From Zoroastrian Iran to Islam”, available free on the web and containing other contributions to Zoroastrian studies by Shaul Shaked. I admit I was somewhat disappointed by the contents of Shaked's article, but I suppose the esotericism of Zardusht is so esoteric that ordinary mortals stuck in Sasanian “getig” don't know about it…