This is most intetersting, but your first proposal makes perfect sense.
The positivity of Zoroastrianism versus the negativity of Brahmanism is what makes Iranian theology radically different from Indian theology. And why we are Mazdayasni rather than Brahmanist.
And it seems only logical that the negative outlook on existence of Brahmanism (and Hindu theology in general, including Buddhism and Jainism) is a non-Indo-European influence. Which is why Brahmanism is ascetic whereas Zarathushtra spoke out AGAINST al forms of asceticismand revealed the for being merely self-pity and ressentiment, somethig he was aggressively opposed to (which is why we do not have monks and nuns in Zoroastrianism and why we have an egalitarian religion).
Aryan culture did NOT originate in India. The traces of Aryan culture in Central Asia are far older than any traces ever found in India. India was Dravidian before the Aryan tribes arrived. And Iranian Aryan culture is even older than Indian Aryan culture.
- Dölj citerad text -
Actually, the more prevelant school of thought is that Vedic Brahminism acquired its negativity only after entering India through contact with the Mohan-jo Daro culture, which already had a tradition of asceticism and meditation.
And then there are also some recent Indian scholars who insist that the Aryan culture originated in India and then spread out to other parts of the world. There is very little support for this thinking; but if we accept this last hypothesis, then Zarathushtra was definitely a reformer of the world-denying traditions from India and the originator of Mazda-yasna (monotheism).
In a message dated 7/31/2008 8:11:33 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
Parviz Varjavand and I instead promote the idea that Zarathushtra is more a summarizer of the thinking of his time rather than a radicalizer of pre-Zoroastrian Mazdayasna (as a general term for Indo-Aryan religious culture). So what we read into The Gathas etc is not a new religion but a continuum which places Zarathushtra far closer to his contemporary Brahmanist thinkers in India. The only major difference between Zarathushra and the Brahmanists is then Zarathushtra's unique POSITIVITY about existence (the world is good, just like Spinoza believed) against the NEGATIVITY of Brahmanism (most clearly cut out in the disgust towards physicality in Jainism). This belief is shared by the Hindus who have converted to Zoroastrianism (like my old friend Gautam Bhattacharyya). It is therefore not the monism/Pantheism the ex-Hindus are after in Zoroastrianism (which they believe is shared by all Indo-Aryan religions) but rather the POSITIVE attribution of the One (Brahman or Ahura) which is unique to Zoroastrianism.