Is Hindi-Urdu Closer to Persian or Turkic?

[TMA]

Apologies, the second paragraph is my reply to the first. It appears not the case

 

[vsdoc]

Not clear at all. The Indo-Iranian split has always been a bit curious. Those advocating the conventionally held theory suggesting that the split happened somewhere in central Asia or Northern Iran have never been able to reconcile it with the fact that the commonality of language in the Rg Veda is noticed in a very late part -the 8th Mandala, not as would be expected if the split happened earlier where the commonality should have shown up, if at all, in the early parts. No scholar has been able to explain it. Add to it, the fact that known Iranian mythology starts of from late Rg vedic mythology has been noticed by all top Avesta/n scholars. Also the fact that the Avesta is ignorant of western Iran while being both aware & claiming as part of their lands the Hapta Hendu. Makes no sense if they came in directly from the north & settled in Iran.

A few points of my own:

1) Mazdayasni Zoroastrians are referred to as “pitrayanis” or “forefathers” in the Vedas, as documented by the Vedantin Scholar Mohandas J Chatterjee in his book “Hymns of Atharvan Zarathushtra”

2) The Avesta, like the Vedas, is not a single entity. From a single epoch. Like the Rig Veda predates the later Vedas, there is the Old Avesta and the New Avesta. Then there are the Gathas, many of which predate greatly Zarathushtra's time.

3) Neither is Zoroastrianism the beginning of the Iranian (Persian) civilization. It is a much later continuum of very ancient Mazdayasni. Pre-Zoroastrian Mazdayasni were called paoiryo-tkaesha meaning keepers of the original ancient law.

The Farvardin Yasht's verses 89 & 90 mention that later in Aryan history, Zarathushtra proclaimed the Ahura-tkaesha, the laws of the Lord (Ahura). If the word 'mazda' related to the creative aspect of the divinity grounded in an ultimate concept of wisdom, the word 'ahura' related to the aspect of having dominion over creation through order and laws that are innate in every part and particle of creation (cf. fravashi).

Zarathushtra used these two concepts to propound a belief described as Mazdayasno Zarathushtrish Vidaevo Ahura-Tkaesho, that is, Zarathushtrian Mazda-Worship opposed to the daeva through the laws of the Lord (Ahura). For the sake of brevity, we can call Zarathushtrian Mazda-Worship (i.e. post Zarathushtra) as Mazdayasni Ahura-Tkaesha.

4) The "split" we talk about probably happened some time before or just around Zarathushtra's times. Because he is seen as a Prophet but also as the first Revealer, and Reformer.

The daeva and div in the Avesta and other Persian texts, are evil qualities, personification of evil qualities and demons. The terms 'demon', evil person and 'negative value' (or 'base quality') are freely interchangeable in the Zoroastrian concept of the daeva or div (as mentioned earlier, div is the later version of the Avestan word daeva).

The demonization of the Rig Vedic deva, primarily Indra, in the Avesta, the naming of a book of the Zoroastrian scriptures, the Avesta as the Vi-daevo-data (modern name: Vendidad) meaning the law against the daeva, as well as the name of the religion preached by Zarathushtra: Mazdayasno Zarathushtrish Vidaevo Ahura-Tkaesho, that is, Zarathushtrian Mazda-Worship opposed to the daeva through the laws of the Lord (Ahura), together signify the strong opposition of the Mazda worshippers to the daeva and the defining of Zoroastrian Mazda worship through it opposition to the daeva.

Look forward to learning more.

Cheers, Doc

 

[Joe Shearer]

A few points of my own:

1) Mazdayasni Zoroastrians are referred to as “pitrayanis” or “forefathers” in the Vedas, as documented by the Vedantin Scholar Mohandas J Chatterjee in his book “Hymns of Atharvan Zarathushtra”

2) The Avesta, like the Vedas, is not a single entity. From a single epoch. Like the Rig Veda predates the later Vedas, there is the Old Avesta and the New Avesta. Then there are the Gathas, many of which predate greatly Zarathushtra's time.

3) Neither is Zoroastrianism the beginning of the Iranian (Persian) civilization. It is a much later continuum of very ancient Mazdayasni. Pre-Zoroastrian Mazdayasni were called paoiryo-tkaesha meaning keepers of the original ancient law.

The Farvardin Yasht's verses 89 & 90 mention that later in Aryan history, Zarathushtra proclaimed the Ahura-tkaesha, the laws of the Lord (Ahura). If the word 'mazda' related to the creative aspect of the divinity grounded in an ultimate concept of wisdom, the word 'ahura' related to the aspect of having dominion over creation through order and laws that are innate in every part and particle of creation (cf. fravashi).

Zarathushtra used these two concepts to propound a belief described as Mazdayasno Zarathushtrish Vidaevo Ahura-Tkaesho, that is, Zarathushtrian Mazda-Worship opposed to the daeva through the laws of the Lord (Ahura). For the sake of brevity, we can call Zarathushtrian Mazda-Worship (i.e. post Zarathushtra) as Mazdayasni Ahura-Tkaesha.

4) The "split" we talk about probably happened some time before or just around Zarathushtra's times. Because he is seen as a Prophet but also as the first Reveler, and Reformer.

The daeva and div in the Avesta and other Persian texts, are evil qualities, personification of evil qualities and demons. The terms 'demon', evil person and 'negative value' (or 'base quality') are freely interchangeable in the Zoroastrian concept of the daeva or div (as mentioned earlier, div is the later version of the Avestan word daeva).

The demonization of the Rig Vedic deva, primarily Indra, in the Avesta, the naming of a book of the Zoroastrian scriptures, the Avesta as the Vi-daevo-data (modern name: Vendidad) meaning the law against the daeva, as well as the name of the religion preached by Zarathushtra: Mazdayasno Zarathushtrish Vidaevo Ahura-Tkaesho, that is, Zarathushtrian Mazda-Worship opposed to the daeva through the laws of the Lord (Ahura), together signify the strong opposition of the Mazda worshippers to the daeva and the defining of Zoroastrian Mazda worship through it opposition to the daeva.

Look forward to learning more.

Cheers, Doc

I ran out of positive ratings! Perhaps it'll come back on its own?

Thanks anyway, Doc. That was good.

 

[vsdoc]

I ran out of positive ratings! Perhaps it'll come back on its own?

I believe its because the topic has been created in the "Member's Club"

Where the frivolity and light heartedness of the banter and the brevity of the posts caused the admins some time in the distant past to proclaim that all posts made here do not count towards your post count, and ditto the thanks you receive.

The good thing I guess for some would be that if you cannot get a positive rating here, in all likelihood you cannot get a negative one either.

But thanks for the appreciation all the same. As I've said before, the importance of a rating is wholly dependent on the one it is coming from.

Cheers, Doc

 

[Joe Shearer]

Sanskrit flourished in the royal Mughal court primarily under three emperors: Akbar, Jahangir, and Shah Jahan. However, we should not make the error of attributing Aurangzeb’s lack of interest in Sanskrit to his alleged bigotry. Aurangzeb is a severely misunderstood historical figure who has suffered perhaps more than any of the other Mughal rulers from present-day biases. There are two main reasons why Sanskrit ceased to be a major part of Mughal imperial life during Aurangzeb’s rule. One, during the 17th century, Sanskrit was slowly giving way to Hindi. This was a wider literary shift in the subcontinent, and even under Shah Jahan we begin to see imperial attention directed towards Hindi-language intellectuals at the expense of Sanskrit. Aurangzeb’s reign simply happen to coincide with the waning of Sanskrit and the rise of literary Hindi.[/quote]

This is why I loathe the uneducated gibbering that we have been subjected to by some of the posters, including the village idiot.

 

[Levina]

An iron find in the Deccan hardly indicates indigenous origins. Why did you say that?

I meant the knives and other metallic objects found at the site in Telangana indicates indigenous origins.
The iron artefacts found at the site date back to 2200 BC, afaik the Iron production(outside India) is known to have taken place in Anatolia around 1200 BC. So you see, the gap is huge. We precede the world in iron production by about 1000yrs.

Second, where did you dig up that 3 BC date?

I think it was Michel Danino who gave me that idea..... (hmmm i'm not so sure whether it was his book or if it was one of his speeches which gave me that idea

).

what route are you looking at, Central India via the Deccan?

Not applicable!

 

[Bang Galore]

A few points of my own:

1) Mazdayasni Zoroastrians are referred to as “pitrayanis” or “forefathers” in the Vedas, as documented by the Vedantin Scholar Mohandas J Chatterjee in his book “Hymns of Atharvan Zarathushtra”

2) The Avesta, like the Vedas, is not a single entity. From a single epoch. Like the Rig Veda predates the later Vedas, there is the Old Avesta and the New Avesta. Then there are the Gathas, many of which predate greatly Zarathushtra's time.

3) Neither is Zoroastrianism the beginning of the Iranian (Persian) civilization. It is a much later continuum of very ancient Mazdayasni. Pre-Zoroastrian Mazdayasni were called paoiryo-tkaesha meaning keepers of the original ancient law.

The Farvardin Yasht's verses 89 & 90 mention that later in Aryan history, Zarathushtra proclaimed the Ahura-tkaesha, the laws of the Lord (Ahura). If the word 'mazda' related to the creative aspect of the divinity grounded in an ultimate concept of wisdom, the word 'ahura' related to the aspect of having dominion over creation through order and laws that are innate in every part and particle of creation (cf. fravashi).

Zarathushtra used these two concepts to propound a belief described as Mazdayasno Zarathushtrish Vidaevo Ahura-Tkaesho, that is, Zarathushtrian Mazda-Worship opposed to the daeva through the laws of the Lord (Ahura). For the sake of brevity, we can call Zarathushtrian Mazda-Worship (i.e. post Zarathushtra) as Mazdayasni Ahura-Tkaesha.

4) The "split" we talk about probably happened some time before or just around Zarathushtra's times. Because he is seen as a Prophet but also as the first Revealer, and Reformer.

The daeva and div in the Avesta and other Persian texts, are evil qualities, personification of evil qualities and demons. The terms 'demon', evil person and 'negative value' (or 'base quality') are freely interchangeable in the Zoroastrian concept of the daeva or div (as mentioned earlier, div is the later version of the Avestan word daeva).

The demonization of the Rig Vedic deva, primarily Indra, in the Avesta, the naming of a book of the Zoroastrian scriptures, the Avesta as the Vi-daevo-data (modern name: Vendidad) meaning the law against the daeva, as well as the name of the religion preached by Zarathushtra: Mazdayasno Zarathushtrish Vidaevo Ahura-Tkaesho, that is, Zarathushtrian Mazda-Worship opposed to the daeva through the laws of the Lord (Ahura), together signify the strong opposition of the Mazda worshippers to the daeva and the defining of Zoroastrian Mazda worship through it opposition to the daeva.

Look forward to learning more.

Cheers, Doc

I'm not sure what I should reply to your post or even if I should attempt one. I now generally avoid any discussion on this subject here because too many times have I ended up being sucked into a debate where my positions have tended to be harder & more certain than I feel or the evidence suggests, simply because those arguing opposite take their positions with absolute certainty. I have generally restricted myself to the very occasional bouts of discussion with @Joe Shearer (even my reply to your post was largely as a response to his) and even that these days is more general than specific.The reason to go with @Joe Shearer is because the debate stays largely on facts & evidence and is not driven by identity since neither of us bother with our identities being connected to what might or might not have happened some 3500-5000 years ago. Nor are either of us of a religious bent. While JS does approach the subject as a historian of a certain inclination, he has been pretty open to engaging in a debate & taking into account the arguments made when formulating his replies while remaining partially on the side of a particular line of thought on the subject. I on the other hand have no natural inclination to support a particular side on the debate, simply preferring to stick with the facts available. I have absolutely no problem in either jettisoning or altering my position if the evidence requires it to and I have never supported a particular theory of who went where or who came from whom. You, on the other hand have a strong sense of identity & I must necessarily step gingerly into any discussion with you on the topic.

There is not much in your post that needs refuting but it does very little to alter what I stated in my earlier post. On the issue of the "pitrayanis" and the reference cited to the Vedas, I must confess ignorance of where such a reference is made. Not, I think in the Rg Veda. Btw, pitrayanis is more accurately read as "those who follow the way of the fathers", not as "forefathers" . Similar to "devayanis" - those following the path of the Devas.

I will leave the references to Iranian/Zoroastrian mythologies largely untouched, leaving with only a quote by the Avestan scholar Helmut Humbach (Helmut Humbach (Author of The Gathas Of Zarathushtra) who says:


"It must be emphasised that the process of polarisation of relations between the Ahuras and the Daevas is already complete in the Gathas, whereas, in the Rigveda, the reverse process of polarisation between the Devas and the Asuras, which does not begin before the later parts of the Rigveda, develops as it were before our very eyes, and is not completed until the later Vedic period. Thus, it is not at all likely that the origins of the polarisation are to be sought in the prehistorical, the Proto-Aryan period. More likely, Zarathustra's reform was the result of interdependent developments, when Irano-Indian contacts still persisted at the dawn of history. With their Ahura-Daeva ideology, the Mazdayasnians, guided by their prophet, deliberately dissociated themselves from the Deva-Asura concept which was being developed, or had been developed, in India, and probably also in the adjacent Iranian-speaking countries; All this suggests a synchrony between the later Vedic period and Zarathustra's reform in Iran."

- The Gathas of Zarathushtra and the Other Old Avestan Texts, Part I: Introduction - Text and Translation

by Helmut Humbach, Josef Elfenbein , Prods O Skjaervo

(The Gathas of Zarathushtra and the Other Old Avestan Texts, Part I: Introduction - Text and Translation by Helmut Humbach — Reviews, Discussion, Bookclubs, Lists)

In the early parts of the Rg veda, there is no sharp divisions with devas & asuras which develops slowly in the later parts & more in the post vedic scriptures. One of the main gods of Rg Veda , Varuna (as also Mitra, another important character in Iranian mythology, here part of Mitra-Varuna ) are classified as asuras along with being referred to as devas..


Nothing that I have written above precludes your argument & that of @Joe Shearer from being true. We simply cannot know for certain but as I said in my post, the most that can be said is that "it's not clear at all". My signature probably says it best.

 

[vsdoc]

@Bang Galore

Are you open to the idea and the possibility that the Rig Veda was not conceived and written in what we broadly know as India?

That really is where a lot of the arguments and counter arguments and theories stem from.

And we are talking a very short period of time here. 500 to max a 1000 years.

In effect: That the Rig Veda was early Iranian.

Pre-dating the split.

And was carried to India.

Cheers, Doc

 

[Bang Galore]

@Bang Galore

Are you open to the idea and the possibility that the Rig Veda was not conceived and written in what we broadly know as India?

That really is where a lot of the arguments and counter arguments and theories stem from.

Cheers, Doc

The evidence for it being composed in India is overwhelming. Other than the absolutely loony, no one suggests that it is outside the Indian subcontinent+Afghanistan. I'm far more in favour of the argument that it is composed in the Indian heartland.The geography is far too specific to be anywhere else. The references to the flora & fauna are distinctly Indian. As is the climate which is a monsoon land. Edward Washburn Hopkins, one of the most famous Rg vedic scholars said so as far back as 1898 and he was no anti AIT right winger. It would require some very special pleading to suggest that the Rg Veda was composed anywhere but in India.

In any case, that still won't help your case. What on earth were the Iranians doing in Hapta Hendu?

 

[vsdoc]

In any case, that still won't help your case. What on earth were the Iranians doing in Hapta Hendu?

That's exactly it.

They were not "Iranians." And were progenitors to the split.

Just as were not the arm further to the east in the valley of the Indus.

Also, on the Avesta, most of what we talk about is Sassanian. The surviving codex and manuscripts that most scholars refer to.

The Achaemenid part (written on ox hides) was destroyed in the sack of Persepolis by Alexander.

Yes you could say that would be convenient to my theory of primi-progenitor.

But would you argue that there was no Iranian (and Mazdayasni) existence in Achaemenid times and prior?

I guess not ....

Cheers, Doc

 

[Bang Galore]

That's exactly it.

They were not "Iranians."

Just as were not the arm further to the east in the valley of the Indus.

Also, on the Avesta, most of what we talk about is Sassanian. The surviving codex and manuscripts that most scholars refer to.

The Achaemenid part (written on ox hides) was destroyed in the sack of Persepolis by Alexander.

Yes you could say that would be convenient to my theory of primi-progenitor.

But would you argue that there was no Iranian (and Mazdayasni) existence in Achaemenid times and prior?

I guess not ....

Cheers, Doc

I use Iranian very loosely here. My reference was to it being among the 16 districts.Nothing more.

AVESTAN GEOGRAPHY – Encyclopaedia Iranica

 

[vsdoc]

I use Iranian very loosely here.

Which was my point. There was no one single epochal wave of people from West to East. They moved. They settled. They moved again. Some remained settled. Some moved. Some moved even further.

Back on the issue of scriptures and language ..... here is what Dr. Martin Haug, the famous German orientalist and expert on both Sanskrit and Avestan studies (incidentally did a lot of his work in Poona), has to say in his treatise, Essays on the sacred language, writings and religion of the Parsees and The Language of the Parsi Scriptures ....

"The language of the Gathas , Yasnas & Yashts, including those written in later Avestan are in closer proximity to Rig Vedic Sanskrit, than the classical Sanskrit of today. According to Dr. Martin Haug; as per the rules of philology they can accurately be called sister dialects, not independent languages."

Dr Haug, further states that ....

“The differences between Vedic Sanskrit and the Avesta language are very little in grammar, but are chiefly of a phonetical and lexicographical nature, like the differences between German and Dutch. There are certain regular changes of sounds, and other phonetic peculiarities perceptible, knowledge of which enables the philologist to convert any Avesta word easily into a pure Sanskrit one.

Judging from these peculiarities, there seems no doubt that the dialect of the Gathas shows some traces of a higher antiquity than can be claimed for the ordinary Avesta. But the differences are not as great as that between Vedic and classical Sanskrit, or between the Greek of Homer and that of the Attic dialect, the two dialects of the Zend-Avesta being much closer to each other. They represent one and the same language, with such changes as may have been brought about within the space of one or two centuries”.

The Gatha dialect is therefore, only one or two centuries older than the ordinary Avesta language, which was the standard language of the ancient Iranian empire. The variation is due to geographic spread of the Aryan tribes & movement necessitated due to political loss of territory.

According to Dr Arthur McDonnell, the famous Indian (Muzaffarpur) born Sanskrit Oxford scholar .....

“In their structures, the Vedic meters come half way between the meters of the Indo Iranian period (Gathas) & that of classical Sanskrit.” This implies that at least the Gathas were composed in a time frame preceding the Rig Veda.

Cheers, Doc

Zoroastrianism (Za-rath-ush-ti) Basics: The common heritage language of the Avesta & Vedas

 

[Bang Galore]

Back on the issue of scriptures and language ..... here is what Dr. Martin Haug, the famous German orientalist and expert on both Sanskrit and Avestan studies (incidentally did a lot of his work in Poona), has to say in his treatise, Essays on the sacred language, writings and religion of the Parsees and The Language of the Parsi Scriptures ....

"The language of the Gathas , Yasnas & Yashts, including those written in later Avestan are in closer proximity to Rig Vedic Sanskrit, than the classical Sanskrit of today. According to Dr. Martin Haug; as per the rules of philology they can accurately be called sister dialects, not independent languages."

Dr Haug, further states that ....

“The differences between Vedic Sanskrit and the Avesta language are very little in grammar, but are chiefly of a phonetical and lexicographical nature, like the differences between German and Dutch. There are certain regular changes of sounds, and other phonetic peculiarities perceptible, knowledge of which enables the philologist to convert any Avesta word easily into a pure Sanskrit one.



Judging from these peculiarities, there seems no doubt that the dialect of the Gathas shows some traces of a higher antiquity than can be claimed for the ordinary Avesta. But the differences are not as great as that between Vedic and classical Sanskrit, or between the Greek of Homer and that of the Attic dialect, the two dialects of the Zend-Avesta being much closer to each other. They represent one and the same language, with such changes as may have been brought about within the space of one or two centuries”.

The Gatha dialect is therefore, only one or two centuries older than the ordinary Avesta language, which was the standard language of the ancient Iranian empire. The variation is due to geographic spread of the Aryan tribes & movement necessitated due to political loss of territory.

Except that this similarity is noticed in Mandala 8, a late part of the Rg Veda. (Also noted by the eminent Zoroastrian scholar Jehangir C.Tavadia if non-Zoroastrian scholars don't count )
TAVADIA, JEHANGIR C. – Encyclopaedia Iranica

According to Dr Arthur McDonnell, the famous Indian (Muzaffarpur) born Sanskrit Oxford scholar .....

“In their structures, the Vedic meters come half way between the meters of the Indo Iranian period (Gathas) & that of classical Sanskrit.” This implies that at least the Gathas were composed in a time frame preceding the Rig Veda.

Not quite correct. The range of meters used in the Gathas are predominantly found in the late period of the Rg Veda. The very fact that the mythology in the Gathas are connected to late Rg Vedic mythology makes that a difficult idea to sell anyways.

Will stop here. Let us agree to disagree.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I meant the knives and other metallic objects found at the site in Telangana indicates indigenous origins.
The iron artefacts found at the site date back to 2200 BC, afaik the Iron production(outside India) is known to have taken place in Anatolia around 1200 BC. So you see, the gap is huge. We precede the world in iron production by about 1000yrs.

I think it was Michel Danino who gave me that idea..... (hmmm i'm not so sure whether it was his book or if it was one of his speeches which gave me that idea

).


Not applicable!

Try not to have anything to do with that pinhead. Your brain might melt and dribble down your trousers.

 

[Levina]

Try not to have anything to do with that pinhead. Your brain might melt and dribble down your trousers.

Michel Danino??
What's wrong with him???
Whatever I read in his book are consistent with the findings of excavations at Dholavira and other SSC sites (by RS Bhist).