How can our pre-Islamic ancestors be claimed to be following Brahmanic or Zorastrian traditions if they ate beef and buried their dead?

[ThunderCat]

It's been long mythologized that Brahmanical religions were the religions of Indo-Aryans while Zorastrian religion was the religion of Iranic peoples, derived from the Proto-Eurasian Yamnaya religion.

But claims by Pakistanis on our pre-Islamic ancestors and researching into our post-Yamnaya, Sintashta/Indo-Iranic ancestors contradict this claim.

Brahmans and other people today calling themselves "Hindus", a term first misused in the Ghori period, cremate their dead and abstain from eating beef. This is in contrast to Vedic Aryans, our ancestors.

Or at least the ancestors of modern Punjabis & Sindhis.

Both Indo-Aryans and Iranic peoples buried their dead centuries even before they arrived in the Iranian platue and Indian subcontinent.

So where do chauvinistic claims on our pre-Islamic ancestors come from?

We also know that Zoroastrian funeral traditions and fire building do not coincide with both Bronze Age & later Iron Age religious traditions of Iranic peoples.

So how do some nationalistic Brahmans or Persian Zoroastrian chauvinists justify claims of Indo-Aryan & Iranic peoples following these religions.

It is agreeable that Zorastrinism borrows from Iranic traditions just like Hadith-based Islam takes from Semitic mythical traditions, but still we cannot suddenly give credibility to claims that contradict the archeological evidence.

I want to read everyone's opinion on this.

 

[AA_]

It's been long mythologized that Brahmanical religions were the religions of Indo-Aryans while Zorastrian religion was the religion of Iranic peoples, derived from the Proto-Eurasian Yamanaya religion.

But claims by Pakistanis on our pre-Islamic ancestors and researching into our post-Ymnaya, Sintashta/Indo-Iranic ancestors contradict this claim.

Brahmans and other people today calling themselves "Hindus", a term first misused in the Ghori period, cremate their dead and abstain from eating beef. This is in constraint to Vedic Aryans, our ancestors.

Or at least the ancestors of modern Punjabis & Sindhis.

Both Indo-Aryans and Iranic peoples buried their dead centuries even before they arrived in the Iranian platue and Indian subcontinent.

So where do chauvinistic claims on our pre-Islamic ancestors come from?

We also know that Zoroastrian funeral traditions and fire building do not coincide with both Bronze Age & later Iron Age religious traditions of Iranic peoples.

So how do some nationalistic Brahmans or Persian Zoroastrian chauvinists justify claims of Indo-Aryan & Iranic peoples following these religions.

It is agreeable that Zorastrinism borrows from Iranic traditions just like Hadith-based Islam takes from Semitic mythical traditions, but still we cannot suddenly give credibility to claims that contradict the archeological evidence.

I want to read everyone's opinion on this.

I wrote something on another thread - under the let’s open up spots for Indian kids to attend Pakistans schools…

 

[epebble]

It's been long mythologized that Brahmanical religions were the religions of Indo-Aryans while Zorastrian religion was the religion of Iranic peoples, derived from the Proto-Eurasian Yamnaya religion.

But claims by Pakistanis on our pre-Islamic ancestors and researching into our post-Yamnaya, Sintashta/Indo-Iranic ancestors contradict this claim.

Brahmans and other people today calling themselves "Hindus", a term first misused in the Ghori period, cremate their dead and abstain from eating beef. This is in contrast to Vedic Aryans, our ancestors.

Or at least the ancestors of modern Punjabis & Sindhis.

Both Indo-Aryans and Iranic peoples buried their dead centuries even before they arrived in the Iranian platue and Indian subcontinent.

So where do chauvinistic claims on our pre-Islamic ancestors come from?

We also know that Zoroastrian funeral traditions and fire building do not coincide with both Bronze Age & later Iron Age religious traditions of Iranic peoples.

So how do some nationalistic Brahmans or Persian Zoroastrian chauvinists justify claims of Indo-Aryan & Iranic peoples following these religions.

It is agreeable that Zorastrinism borrows from Iranic traditions just like Hadith-based Islam takes from Semitic mythical traditions, but still we cannot suddenly give credibility to claims that contradict the archeological evidence.

I want to read everyone's opinion on this.

Best to declare all pre-Islamic ancestors did not have any religion and end this argument easily without any controversy.

 

[ThunderCat]

Best to declare all pre-Islamic ancestors did not have any religion and end this argument easily without any controversy.

I got a better one: Bangladesh is getting "richer" lol

 

[AA_]

I got a better one: Bangladesh is getting "richer" lol

Is that guy Bengali?

 

[ThunderCat]

Is that guy Bengali?

Don't know but he sure does believe Bangladesh is something besides the world's second poorest country with some of the highest levels of pollution and over three million illegal migrants in Pakistan, just because the Bangladeshi government produced a bunch of flashy nonsensical stats that contradict basic common sense.

I wouldn't be surprised if he is.

 

[epebble]

Don't know but he sure does believe Bangladesh is something besides the world's second poorest country with some of the highest levels of pollution and over three million illegal migrants in Pakistan, just because the Bangladeshi government produced a bunch of flashy nonsensical stats that contradict basic common sense.

I wouldn't be surprised if he is.

I don't know what you have with Bangladesh. But, according to IMF, there are 12 countries poorer than Bangladesh within Asia. So, your sense of seeking facts is very questionable.

North Korea *	Asia	—	—	1,700	2015
Yemen *	Asia	2,136	2022	3,437	2013	2,500	2017
Afghanistan *	Asia	2,456	2020	1,666	2021	1,500	2021
East Timor *	Asia	3,904	2022	5,529	2021	5,000	2021
Nepal *	Asia	4,677	2022	4,210	2021	3,800	2021
Tajikistan *	Asia	4,803	2022	4,288	2021	3,900	2021
Myanmar *	Asia	4,830	2022	4,430	2021	4,400	[n 12]2021
Cambodia *	Asia	5,583	2022	4,784	2021	4,400	2021
Kyrgyzstan *	Asia	5,771	2022	5,290	2021	4,800	2021
Palestine *	Asia	6,354	[n 10]2022	6,200	[n 10]2021	5,600	[n 11]2021
Syria *	Asia	6,374	[11]2010	—	2,900	2015
Pakistan *	Asia	6,662	2022	5,748	2021	5,200	2021
Bangladesh *	Asia	7,985	2022	6,494	2021	5,900	2021

 

[ThunderCat]

I don't know what you have with Bangladesh. But, according to IMF, there are 12 countries poorer than Bangladesh within Asia. So, your sense of seeking facts is very questionable.

Yeah? How about World Bank listing half the world's poorest living in just five countries, including Bangladesh, but not Pakistan? How about second largest levels of urban pollution? You really expect me to believe infant mortality has decreased there with such high concentration of pollution; especially in that population density?

How about increasing gap between rich & poor there? How about over three million of their migrants living in Pakistan illegally? Why don't you advertise for them to get the f***ck out and go back to that "richer" country? Like seriously.

Tell me again I have no sense of seeking facts? You think stupid stats without any supporting evidence exported abroad by the Bangladeshi government are going to fool me?

Even one of your chums PakFactor wrote he doesn't care if Bangladesh has so many people living below the poverty line. Because according to you types, the situation of the people does not count in a country's ranking.

BTW that ranking looks very questionable. Bangladesh "richer" than Kyrgyzstan & Tajikistan? Yeah right.

Now get back to topic and leave the satire out for later.

 

[Mirzali Khan]

It's been long mythologized that Brahmanical religions were the religions of Indo-Aryans while Zorastrian religion was the religion of Iranic peoples, derived from the Proto-Eurasian Yamnaya religion.

But claims by Pakistanis on our pre-Islamic ancestors and researching into our post-Yamnaya, Sintashta/Indo-Iranic ancestors contradict this claim.

Brahmans and other people today calling themselves "Hindus", a term first misused in the Ghori period, cremate their dead and abstain from eating beef. This is in contrast to Vedic Aryans, our ancestors.

Or at least the ancestors of modern Punjabis & Sindhis.

Both Indo-Aryans and Iranic peoples buried their dead centuries even before they arrived in the Iranian platue and Indian subcontinent.

So where do chauvinistic claims on our pre-Islamic ancestors come from?

We also know that Zoroastrian funeral traditions and fire building do not coincide with both Bronze Age & later Iron Age religious traditions of Iranic peoples?

So how do some nationalistic Brahmans or Persian Zoroastrian chauvinists justify claims of Indo-Aryan & Iranic peoples following these religions.

It is agreeable that Zorastrinism borrows from Iranic traditions just like Hadith-based Islam takes from Semitic mythical traditions, but still we cannot suddenly give credibility to claims that contradict the archeological evidence.

I want to read everyone's opinion on this.

It is hard because everyone's perception of things like Hinduism today kinda fogs what Hinduism or anything of pre-Islamic era was back then. It also does no favor as in Islam, we say that pre-Islamic Arabia was the era of Jahalliya (ignorance) so naturally we will think our pre-Islamic history is an era of jahalaat and should not be looked into.

For us Pashtuns, the theory of origin is unclear, but there is ample evidence to amount that there was a tribe called the Pakhtas and were mentioned in the Rigvedas. Herodotus's writings contain references to the Pakhtas.

"The Pakthas, Bhalanases, Vishanins, Alinas, and Sivas were the five frontier tribes. The Pakthas lived in the hills from which the Kruma originates. Zimmer locates them in present-day eastern Afghanistan, identifying them with the modern Pakthun."[15]

In addition to that we also probably followed some form of an ancient Iranic indigenous religion, Zoroastrianism, and Buddhism.

"Before the arrival of Islam Southern Afghanistan used to be a stronghold of Zoroastrianism. There were close relations between Persia and Arachosia concerning the Zoroastrian faith.[5] It is believed that the Avesta had arrived in Persia through Arachosia. Thus the region is also considered as a "second fatherland for Zoroastrianism".[6]"

It is very unclear though, but through artifacts there are evidences of massive Buddhist presence in KPK and Balochistan with Buddhist artifacts in Swat Valley and writings from Chinese writers about Buddhist temples in Makran. There are some remnants in the Godrani Caves in Bela.

 

[ThunderCat]

@Mirzali Khan I never claimed Zoroastrianism was not practiced there. But clearly it came later. Also clearly it is NOT the original religion of Iranic peoples whom practiced burying their dead as opposed to the Zoroastrians.

 

[Vikramaditya-I]

It's been long mythologized that Brahmanical religions were the religions of Indo-Aryans while Zorastrian religion was the religion of Iranic peoples, derived from the Proto-Eurasian Yamnaya religion.

But claims by Pakistanis on our pre-Islamic ancestors and researching into our post-Yamnaya, Sintashta/Indo-Iranic ancestors contradict this claim.

Brahmans and other people today calling themselves "Hindus", a term first misused in the Ghori period, cremate their dead and abstain from eating beef. This is in contrast to Vedic Aryans, our ancestors.

Or at least the ancestors of modern Punjabis & Sindhis.

Both Indo-Aryans and Iranic peoples buried their dead centuries even before they arrived in the Iranian platue and Indian subcontinent.

So where do chauvinistic claims on our pre-Islamic ancestors come from?

We also know that Zoroastrian funeral traditions and fire building do not coincide with both Bronze Age & later Iron Age religious traditions of Iranic peoples?

So how do some nationalistic Brahmans or Persian Zoroastrian chauvinists justify claims of Indo-Aryan & Iranic peoples following these religions.

It is agreeable that Zorastrinism borrows from Iranic traditions just like Hadith-based Islam takes from Semitic mythical traditions, but still we cannot suddenly give credibility to claims that contradict the archeological evidence.

I want to read everyone's opinion on this.

This historical monstrosity you wrote as a fact is hilarious. There is absolutely zero evidence for your claim of the Vedic people, who created the Vedas, buried their dead in fact the oldest written Rig Veda itself contradicts your claim. The prayers found in RV are still followed to this day when we cremate the dead.
Rigveda 10.16.1
"Burn him not up, nor quite consume him, Agni: let not his body or his skin be scattered." Agni means fire. Do a simple google search of the entire hymn and its English translation you will get your answer. I'm calling bullshit on your claims, sorry.

Secondly, during the Vedic period, the belief system of Indian and Iranic people was deemed quite opposite, for example, Devas are evil in Zoroastrianism while Devas are gods according to Vedas, Asura or Ahura as they call it are gods, while they are demons according to Vedas. The similarities are often contradictory. Just because Zoroastrians buried their dead, doesn't mean Hindus did too. In fact, we did quite the opposite, didn't we?

Now, I don't care about what Zoroastrians did to their religion in 2000 BCE, or how Vedic people practised their faith. Our fundamental religious text which is the Vedas does not have directions for humans. It is simply a collection of prayers, hymns, and rituals to the gods, later over hundreds of years post-Vedas, different customs were written down. We also don't follow the same way we practice in some 2000 BCE.

Note : There is no single point source for Hinduism hence no single point failures, Vedas were written over a course of hundreds of years, we adopted different customs like idols, temples etc mostly a post-Buddha, and Jain era customs, and we questioned our own religious texts, and critically reviewed them argued with different faiths at the time, adopted and adapted to the time.

 

[ThunderCat]

This historical monstrosity you wrote as a fact is hilarious. There is absolutely zero evidence for your claim of the Vedic people, who created the Vedas, buried their dead in fact the oldest written Rig Veda itself contradicts your claim. The prayers found in RV are still followed to this day when we cremate the dead.
Rigveda 10.16.1
"Burn him not up, nor quite consume him, Agni: let not his body or his skin be scattered." Agni means fire. Do a simple google search of the entire hymn and its English translation you will get your answer. I'm calling bullshit on your claims, sorry.

Secondly, during the Vedic period, the belief system of Indian and Iranic people was deemed quite opposite, for example, Devas are evil in Zoroastrianism while Devas are gods according to Vedas, Asura or Ahura as they call it are gods, while they are demons according to Vedas. The similarities are often contradictory. Just because Zoroastrians buried their dead, doesn't mean Hindus did too. In fact, we did quite the opposite, didn't we?

Now, I don't care about what Zoroastrians did to their religion in 2000 BCE, or how Vedic people practised their faith. Our fundamental religious text which is the Vedas does not have directions for humans. It is simply a collection of prayers, hymns, and rituals to the gods, later over hundreds of years post-Vedas, different customs were written down. We also don't follow the same way we practice in some 2000 BCE.

Note : There is no single point source for Hinduism hence no single point failures, Vedas were written over a course of hundreds of years, we adopted different customs like idols, temples etc mostly a post-Buddha, and Jain era customs, and we questioned our own religious texts, and critically reviewed them argued with different faiths at the time, adopted and adapted to the time.

Your post shows how confused you are and how indoctrinated you might be. Zoroastrians do not bury their dead.

They place them on higher building structures for animals to eat the carcass. They do not cremate or bury. Zoroastrianism started in the 6th century BCE according to what I read.

This is way after the Sintashta culture appeared around 2100 BCE and is the root if Vedic Aryan culture. Even before entering the subcontinent, pre-Rigvedic Aryans buried their dead.

The related Kurgan culture was the same. Most related cultures was the same. Sintashta people or the Proto-Indo-Iranic peoples also buried their dead.

So how do modern Brahmans claim the the Rigvedic Aryans? Even the Kalash whom Brahman nationalists claim as "Hindus" placed their dead in coffins.

Even Alexander supposedly reported this and he arrived in the area during the Iron Age. So where does this claim hold up?

The concept of "Hinduism" appeared in the British era while the concept of "Hindu" appeared in the Ghori period. It's a mislabel for all the indiginious religions of Asia that existed in the area before Islam & Christianity.

 

[TNT]

Who cares and what difference does it make? Better think about the present and future.

 

[Neelo]

Who cares and what difference does it make? Better think about the present and future.

A nation unaware of its past is doomed for the future.

If you want to understand Pakistan’s prehistoric past I’d recommend following “Ancient Pakistan” on Facebook and Instagram.

https://www.facebook.com/AncientPakistan.pk/posts/pfbid0pt7mxDDWuaaLVJ3cT2xw86ggUfMdwdGTghwXyHswCMit4c47FWbjrTvKNFijk4Aal

 

[AlKardai]

A nation unaware of its past is doomed for the future.

If you want to understand Pakistan’s prehistoric past I’d recommend following “Ancient Pakistan” on Facebook and Instagram.

https://www.facebook.com/AncientPakistan.pk/posts/pfbid0pt7mxDDWuaaLVJ3cT2xw86ggUfMdwdGTghwXyHswCMit4c47FWbjrTvKNFijk4Aal

This is actually correct. Pakistanis and the Indus Valley civilisation have close links to Mesopotamia and Persia