Persian Propaganda vs Historical Fact?

Dear Mickey

There was no clear cut theology to be followed anywhere in ancient Persia simply because Zoroastrianism has never been a dogmatic religion. So there were always a VARIETY of isms in circulation, often popularised by kings and courts and then followed by the middle classes etc. I believe it is wise to refer to this myriad of beliefs as "folk Zoroastrianism" and Mithraism is one of the most prominent examples of it. This also explains why it is hard to follow any specific idea like "human rights" within such a multitude of thinking and beliefs. The fact that Cyrus The Great was inspired by Zarathushta's IDEAS when he authored the Babylonian cylinder is without doubt. It is also without doubt true that Cyrus was as cruel and cynical in his methods as any emperor of that age.

Ushta
Alexander

2010/4/5 mickey patel

Alexander/Dino

Do you academic/concrete sources which you can share to prove if the Achimenian
Kings were indeed Zoroastrians or followed Mithraism?

I have read different articles with no unanimous agreement if indeed Zoroastrianism
was followed by Achemanians
Same applies with Parthians - who might have followed Mithraism instead of Zism.
Why would Sassanians be so cruel to Parthians labelling Arsacids Pagans at times?



--- On Mon, 5/4/10, Alexander Bard wrote:

From: Alexander Bard

Subject: Re: [Ushta] Persian propaganda vs. historical fact?
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, 5 April, 2010, 11:33 PM



Good, agreed!!!
Any enlightenment on the issue from you or anybody else here on this forum would be much appreciated.
Whether Cyrus The Great really was the innovator of human rights or not will eternally be an issue of debate.
Let's just agree we have a very strong case for the innovator of the IDEA that human rights are not merely rights but also a good for society as a whole, or rather a sacred exercise, was Zarathushtra.
Cyrus The Great is after all secondary to us as Zoroastrians.
Ushta
Alexander

2010/4/5 Special Kain

Dear Alexander

Please don't confuse the messenger with the sender. I was simply asking for the truth, reliable sources, feedback, etc. I did not stand up for anyone's truth here, neither for that alleged campaign against Cyrus The Great nor for anyone else's agenda. I just wanted to discuss whether Cyrus The Great was the originator of human rights. Nothing more, nothing less.

Best wishes,

Dino

--- Alexander Bard schrieb am Mo, 5.4.2010:

Von: Alexander Bard
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] Persian propaganda vs. historical fact?
An: Ushta@yahoogroups. com
Datum: Montag, 5. April, 2010 14:36 Uhr


Dear Dino

Nobody has claimed that Cyrus The Great was good-hearted or noble. And The Bible is as good or bad as any other source. The Jews being liberated by the Persians in Babylonia is by the way not a Biblical myth but rather an established historical fact from a myriad of sources. One of them of course being The Talmud which is NOT in The Bible.
The claim is rather that Cyrus introduced a more efficient way of running an empire where multitude was included as principle, where several nations were included under one central rule. The model was later copied by both the Hellenists and the Romans. We all know that the model itself ORIGINATED within Zoroastriant thinking which is PRECISELY beyond good and evil and just an ethical pragmatism.
And human rights has its origin precisely in this principle.
You have nasty habit of telling people off with a condescending attitude and then we you are opposed you don't argue for your statements but rather just tell people off in return.
This is hardly the best way to network and learn from and inspire each other, don't you agree?
I'm not saying that I'm necessarily any nicer, but at least I TRY not to put people off because I frankly don't see the point. What do you think? Do you think I'm overreacting?
Or do you think you have a successful way of communicating?
Either you think Zoroastrianism is a grand principle that needs to be put to use. Or you are just wasting other people's valuable time. What is your ambition?

Ushta
Alexander

2010/4/5 Special Kain

Dear Alexander

I have never claimed that somebody else had claimed that Cyrus The Great was a democrat. So please stop making me look more stupid than I ever was, OK?
And I'm not talking about the fulfilment of the human rights, but exactly their birth. And there's still little evidence that Cyrus The Great was that good-hearted and noble liberal - no matter how eagerly one chooses to see such critical remarks as Islamic or Eurocentric propaganda. I just don't count The Bible as evidence.
Secondly, I am merely suggesting to see him as a brilliant strategist and much more Machiavellian in acting rather than humanistic. Not everyone who's a Zoroastrian is automatically a better person, too.
But all of this is futile. I just wanted to know the truth, but raising such questions makes people go mad and see me as a poor victim of (usually) Islamic propaganda. What a pity.

Best wishes and good-bye,

Dino

--- Alexander Bard schrieb am So, 4.4.2010:

Von: Alexander Bard
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] Persian propaganda vs. historical fact?
An: Ushta@yahoogroups. com
Datum: Sonntag, 4. April, 2010 22:42 Uhr


Well, I strongly disagree simply because you are now distorting the facts to fit ANOTHER political agenda.
Sure, Cyrus was no western democrat from the late 20th century. But nobody ever claimed that he was.
We are dicussing the birth of the concept of human rights here, not its fulfilment.
And I would be very happy to see which other inventors of human rights predated Cyrus. I have never seen any. None whatsoever. Not even Akhhanten was the slighest bit interested in letting people choose religion and ethnicity for themselves. Babylonian historians were shocked about Cyrus kissing Marduk's feet. That's not even Iranian history-writing.
Ushta
Alexander

2010/4/4 Special Kain

Yes, the cylinder is there. It's not made up. But it's how we CHOOSE to read the text that matters in this context. And some of the liberal ideas ascribed to Cyrus The Great had already been in practice hundreds of years before his birth. Thirdly, such liberal texts were no exception, but often the rule. So there's only little originality left with the alleged originator of human rights.
The only fact we can draw from this picture - combined with all the other evidence - is that Cyrus The Great was an incredibly successful ruler. He was a pragmatist and a brilliant strategist. And he tortured his enemies brutally and mercilessly. So why not act like a decent and good-hearted person as long as there's no threat, but turn to inhuman practices as soon as someone stands up against the ruler? It's perfectly Machiavellian.

Ushta,
Dino

--- Alexander Bard schrieb am So, 4.4.2010:

Von: Alexander Bard
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] Persian propaganda vs. historical fact?
An: Ushta@yahoogroups. com
Datum: Sonntag, 4. April, 2010 14:19 Uhr


Dear Dino

I will happy to look into Fragner's theory please, especially as I'm likely to disagree with him. Any links you could provide are most helpful.
I'm not a Christian, dear Dino, and I resent being called one. I just don't think German Iranologists are necessarily any better than Iranian Iranologists. What counts is the facts.
And the question remains unanswered: Who originated the concept of human rights if Cyrus The Great did not? I have read the Babylonian cylinder, it's an undeniable historical fact. So who explored those ideas prior to Cyrus (unless we count Zarathushtra himself)?
That I would indeed like to know.

Ushta
Alexander