harj o marj yani chi?
The term mithro-druj is evidence of the creative power of simple negation, since this is probably the first time this phrase has been used anywhere. Beyond that, its applicability is doubtful. It might have been attempted by some early wannabe monotheists, but fell into disuse by the time of the Parthians under popular pressure. Unlike now, that day the existence of multiple gods was too difficult to deny.
It's ironic that a monotheistic sect would paint the Druj as its chief enemy.
Having the symbol of justice and arbitration recast as a betrayer precisely because of those attributes is just one example of the constant need for propaganda in a monotheistic world view.
It's like the guy in the snoop song says: good bad, whatever (paraphrase).
Posted by: god at June 18, 2005 03:33 PMgod,
Thanks for the comment.
>>> harj o marj yani chi?
it's the exact meaning of Druj in its Sanskrit form: radical mess or anarchy (holocaust of freedom?) as the result of reduction of wholeness to zero but not its destruction. In modern farsi it simply means lawlessness. Do you know Farsi btw?
>>> The term mithro-druj is evidence of the creative power of simple negation, since this is probably the first time this phrase has been used anywhere. Beyond that, its applicability is doubtful.
Mithro-druj (or Mehr-e Drujih) in early Avestan scriptures simply means the one who betrayers (or the act of betraying) the religion of Mazdyasna. But in late Parthian and during the Sassanids with the rise of powerful heretic cults mithro-druj is applied and used as a the highest degree of sorcerous insurgency against monotheism, not a betrayal following the logic of negativity or for a purpose but positive affirmation (it know nothing of ‘saying no’ i.e. radical betrayal); such line obviously is in contrast to the affordance-based communication of monotheism for which betrayal (either emerging through negativity or economic(al) restrictions: benefit or even purpose) is an essential function as you suggested. Possibly the first usage of the term Mehr-e Drujih (Mithro-druj) as the manifest of radical betrayal which does not follow any negation but misuses ‘Yes’ to arch-sabotage the divine is in a Greek translation of a Manavi (related to Mani) prayer in which mithro-druj is introduced as tetraprosopos (tetra-faced) which exactly is the description of Zravan Akarana (Zurvan) [see Nyberg and Shaeder’s discussions on this subject or the reference I cited: Texte zum Manichaismus]. Interestingly this tetra-faced Zravan-Arimanus (see Mesopotamian Mithraism I: hyperstition.abstractdynamics.org/archives/005388.html) is later transformed to Janus. I think this subject should be elaborated in the next pieces of Mesopotamian Mithraism since the influence of Mani and his Mithro-Druj on later insurgent heresies and even post-islamic Sufism and khattakoid schisms between Islamic sects is extremely significant.
>>> It's ironic that a monotheistic sect would paint the Druj as its chief enemy.
I guess some misunderstand about the name Druj. Druj or later its Arabic form imported to Farsi as Dorugh (lie) does not actually mean lie or at least the lie we know in judicial systems of morality. There are extensive articles on the hyperstition blog and cold-me website (www.cold-me.net) about the origin of the word and Druj among the people of Iran plateau (before the immigration of the Aryans) and among early Aryans.
By the way, ironically Mithro-Druj is firstly added to the legion of the damned not by monotheists but by appropriated and organized Mithraistic cults (who later form the first foundations of Christianity) molding the white core of the AOE.
Posted by: Reza at June 18, 2005 05:13 PM"not by monotheists but by appropriated and organized Mithraistic cults"
is this distinction as solid as you imply?
BtW, Awesome post, and god's comment also fascinating.
Posted by: Nick at June 19, 2005 01:11 AMThanks Nick.
>>> is this distinction as solid as you imply?
In early times and in some regards yes, the distinction is highly palpable; some of these appropriated cults of mithra (mehr: love, love for the Sun, etc.) were even anti-monotheistic ... the sin of revealing the secrets of the order to a monotheist is usually death but revealing it to pagans and polytheistic religions is not as harsh, the punishment is usually encouraging the sinner to purify himself by stepping to the next rank of the order or being purified by his brethren. Within the highly protected order, these cults of mithra are oscillating between an incredibly ramified, untraceable type of polytheism and Sufism (I mean early Sufism not the later pacified one), even their pier-e pieraan (the elder of the elders or sometimes Pater Patrum or Pater Leonum) which is rigidified as Pope later by Christians is not what it should be but something closer to a Dervish or the highest degree of Sufism (the one who has been submersed in Eshragh -- Zurvanite enlightenment -- and for whom everything stressing on a religiously consolidated orientation is considered as a threat to the order. This topic is fascinating, extremely complex and vast; my actual problem is that as soon as I try to write something on Mithraism, hundreds of subjects rush in. IMHO, the best solution is starting from the margins, very slowly. Because as Dr. Mohammad Tunji in the preface on his work about Yezidism writes, these belief dynamics are entirely alien and hard to understand for western and even far eastern occulture not because they are concealing the beliefs but because diversification has been the only way of survival for belief dynamics in middle east (Iran, Syria, Turkey, Afghanistan, Jordan and Israel in particular), a path which lead to the emergence absolutely sophisticated cults if not impossible but very hard to be explored.
In Avestan wouldn't mithro-druj mean Mithra the liar, rather than betrayer of the Mazdayasna?
That would be very weird, especially when we consider the large amount of Avestan texts in the Zoroastrian corpus devoted specifically to the praise of Mithra :
mithrem vouru gaoyaoytim yazamaide, ARSH VACANGHEM (whose word is true) vyaxanem etc...
I understand that these texts are attributed to the Sassanian period when the monotheistic powers that be had to relent and allow a worship of the old Aryan gods in the guise of angels. This was due to the extreme popularity of the worship of Mithra and Anahid under the Parthians, which was by the Sassanian period so deeply rooted that it hasn't disappeared even until today with Ali and Fatemeh replacing the original names.
Despite my doubts,I can imagine someone like Kartir using the term, and can even see how someone like Salman Parsi would have taken it to heart and sown the seed for the monotheistic holocaust otherwise known as the birth of Islam. I'm just wondering if this is what you mean to say.
In any case, I have to come back to Snoop, this time without the paraphrase:" sometimes you gotta take the good with the bad. sometimes you gotta do bad in order to do good." Are the the last words of the Baba of the Ismailis
In this context, Mithro-Druj becomes similar to the concept of Taghiyeh in Shia Islam and is probably its direct antecedent. The people in Alamut are still living with these ideas, but they are only poor villagerseven if they do faithfully pay their annual dues to some faraway playboy.
Are you implying that this phenomenon has any current applications besides filling the coffers of the Agha Khan, and by extension the car salesmen and architects whom he keeps employed?
Posted by: god at June 19, 2005 06:12 AMThanks very much for the insightful comment.
>>> In Avestan wouldn't mithro-druj mean Mithra the liar, rather than betrayer of the Mazdayasna?
No we don’t have such a thing as ‘Mithra, the Liar’ at least as mithro-druj or mehr-e drujih.
>>> That would be very weird, especially when we consider the large amount of Avestan texts in the Zoroastrian corpus devoted specifically to the praise of Mithra :
Yes, these texts are the products of the flourished monotheistic mithraism during the Sassanids and majority of them have been written in Dabiri Pahlavi [Mānsr-dubāk] (the official Pahlavi for writing all Mansr-related subjects, so you can easily figure out all domestications.). during the Sassanids even the statue of mithra from that early (unfathomably ancient) frightening demon-like figure transforms into a Christian-like martyr (his face signified by suffering [victim-complex], forgiveness, sentimental beauty and despotic look). For example see the copy of Ardaviraf Nameh (collected by Anktil De Peron) ... during this period even mithra loses its confused gender and becomes male, Zurvan becomes an Ahurai entity, etc.
>>> allow a worship of the old Aryan gods in the guise of angels.
Well, actually some of them but most of the old mighty Aryan gods turned into chief deavas of Angra-Mayniu. See Vendidad for example. Indra, Khrvignu, Buidzi, Nâwanghaiθya, Vâta, Muidzi and so on. (sorry for using accents because as you know Pahlavi is full of vowelless letters and there are no letters for some phonetics)
>>> This was due to the extreme popularity of the worship of Mithra and Anahid under the Parthians, which was by the Sassanian period so deeply rooted that it hasn't disappeared even until today with Ali and Fatemeh replacing the original names.
Such derivations from Mithra is actually wider than is generally believed among scholars, for example see Hashem-e Razi extensive masterwork.
>>> Despite my doubts,I can imagine someone like Kartir using the term, and can even see how someone like Salman Parsi would have taken it to heart and sown the seed for the monotheistic holocaust otherwise known as the birth of Islam. I'm just wondering if this is what you mean to say.
Interestingly Salaman Parsi hasn't had any significant role in exporting Mithraism or Persian beliefs to the heart of monotheism -- there are only rumors, no documents available – mainly because Zurvanism and early Mithraism were imported to Arabic cultures from Mesopotamia long ago. Among the most influential people who undermined monotheism or even fortified it with Mithraism are Abidullal Ibn Maymun, Mulana Fazlollah Astarabadi, Ibn Saba, Moghairat-ibn Saeed, Bayan-ibn Samaan, Abu Hashem, Abulfotooh Ahmad-ibn Mohammad Ghazali (the brother of Abu Hamed Ghazali), et al.
>>> In this context, Mithro-Druj becomes similar to the concept of Taghiyeh in Shia.
Absolutely. On this subject (the origin of political taghieh) see the fragments of the Persian guerilla expert, occultist, conspirator, hidden Imam and the agent of the Fatemids, Ibn Maymun (a couple of articles on Taghiyeh and ibn maymun are available in the Hyperstition’s archive).
>>> Islam and is probably its direct antecedent. The people in Alamut are still living with these ideas, but they are only poor villagerseven if they do faithfully pay their annual dues to some faraway playboy.
Actually the influence is far greater and yes more diversified than the Ismailies and Prince Agha Khan (lol ... spot on), I'd like to recommend some extensive and fantastic work on the anomalies and heavy influences of the middle eastern belief dynamics on the hardcore monotheism (there are also many articles on the Hyperstition blog about the connections with Jihadism and Khattakoid agitations):
Tribes and State Formation in the Middle East, Philip S. Khoury and Joseph Kostiner (eds.)
Khomieni’s Politics Toward Ethnic and Religious Minorities, Esman and Rabinovich (eds.)
Muhammad Sardar Khan Baluch, The History of Baluch Race and Baluchestan
Amnd lectures or works of Hamid Ahmadi
The History of Shia ideologies and religions (Al-maghalat), Yousef Fazaie (trans.)
Jameol Tavarikh, Rashidodin Fazlullah Hamedani, Mohammad Roshan and Mostafa Mousavi (ed.)
On Iranology (Iran-shenasi), Changiz Pahlevan (ed.)
Lobbol Tavariekh, Yahya-ibn Ghazvini
Investigations about Ideologies and social movements in Iran, Ehsan Tabari
----------------------------------------------
If you are interested there are more references which I have forgotten but can find them for you.
Hope to see you around more often.
Posted by: Reza at June 19, 2005 10:14 AMSorry, just corrected a horrible technical typo in my last comment.
+ yes, g(G)od must be a lurker and a powerful contributor.