Verbal paralells in religion: All just just coincidence?

I'm reading an introductory-level book on Hinduism now; something I know very little about, so I decided to edumacate myself

In India, there are demons (which, in former times, had godlike status) called the "Asura." The Japanese have a class of Buddhistic "god-beings" they call the "Ashura." In Zoroastrianism, the main god is called "Ahura Mazda." In Norse mythology, there is a class of gods called the "Aesir."

Don't all of these names sound rather similar to each other? Or is it just me?

When I start to look at similar correspondences, others pop up. For example, in Nordic mythology there is a being called "Ymir" who was a kind of primordial creature. Another primordial figure (said to be the first man) in Hindu mythology is "Yama."

And so on. I keep running into these paralells of similar-sounding names for mythological beings with similar functions that seem to stretch from one end of Eurasia all the way to the other. This suggests some kind of very primal collective origin somewhere, at least to me. The India-to-Japan stuff is not such a stretch (I assume Indian-sounding terminology floated thatway with the spread of Buddhism) but its interesting to see very close paralells in Iranian/Persian Zorastrianism and Nordic mythology...all this seems very wide-ranging to me.

Any ideas?

I really don't know much about what you are talking about and would like to know more

but what I do know is, is that hinduism and buddhism are not really religions but more of a philosophy

It all goes back to Sanskrit, mostly, and the language that preceded Sanskrit (I think it's called proto-Sanskrit, but I could be mistaken).

India and Persia are closely related by language and history. In fact, most of the languages of Europe are related to Sanskrit. They're in the family of languages called "Indo-European". That's why you get so many similar-sounding words. They go back to the original language.

The asura (demon) of Hinduism became a deity in Zoroastrianism, which originated in Persia. Buddhism was imported into Japan, and the various terms were transliterated into the Japanese language. So asura became "ashura". In China, Bodhidharma became Bu-Di-Da-Mo. And so on. "Dhyana" (meditation, in Sanskrit) became "chan" in Chinese; in Japanese they pronounce it "Zen".

Meanwhile, Persia was interacting with the Middle-East, so some of their concepts and sounds found their way into Hebrew, Arabic, and other local languages.

I have always wondered whether the word "amen" is related to the Egyptian deity Ammon-Ra (spelled variously); and whether it might even go back to the Hindu sacred syllable "aum". It's a bit of a stretch, but... you never know.

reply to post by chiron613

---

about ammon-ra or amen-ra:
i don't think so, but i do think amen is related to amen.
the "ra" addition, i think indicates a special god word or an adjectve. sorta like
you have ba'al and ba'al-zebub. ba'al means LORD and zebub is something to do with flight/flying things/flies around dead things or something like that. by itself, ba'al could be applied to gods or kings/rulers. so there were different kinds of ba'al. i think that's true for amen, as well.
there's a generic amen and a more specific amen, which in the case of ammon-ra, was probably like saying Lord Ra. i think. i've got so much
research like this stuck in my head, my brains are starting to leak outta my ears.

Well first off the Æsir are not a class of gods but are the gods, except for Frey and Freyja, who are Vanir, sort of like a different tribe...

Second I think you should study up on language, Ymir and Yggdrasil are not pronounced how you think they are... Ymir does not sound like Yama.
Also in Japanese Yama means mountain... maybe the first 'man' was mountain..?

I think you will be more interested in the first 2 people created by the gods: Ask and Embla. Sound like anyone from Genesis?

reply to post by undo

---

Ba'al means master or lord (not as in Lord God, just a lord). Zbub is "fly". So Beelzebub is Lord of the Flies. It is sometimes translated as "Lord of the Dung Heap", for reasons that elude my feeble grasp. Dung is "zebel" in Hebrew, which might or might not have something to do with it.

Here's to the sun god
Sure is a fun god
Ra! Ra! Ra!

Amen, by the way, is Hebrew for "so be it".



Oh, well. Another brilliant theory dies a shameful death...

In the Hindu pantheon, Yama is the god of death. I believe the OP was referring to that deity.

reply to post by silent thunder

---

It's what is in a name that makes it special. It is what the name means that defines the persons character, not the "characters" of them. This is why you will see commonly "In the name of".

I promise you, if you were to find out what the name means, in any language, but the etymology of the name and what it means...usually a verb in substance. I promise a lot of what is hidden will become revealed even though it is in front of you every day. Nothing is really hidden.

It is obvious in names that we might skim from the American Indians as familiar. A pop culture example would be "Dances with wolves". Most ancient names describe a trait and are in turn an action, a purpose and a will...."the spirit of the cause"

For example this is why it would be said "God loves those who do his will". When you do his will, you are his will. What is his will for you? Not a clue other then for you to live healthy (which is what "Holy" means) and produce "your name" that only you will know. Your children s names or name.

My take...Peace

[edit on 7-10-2009 by letthereaderunderstand]

All mountains crumble to the sea, eventually.....even castles made of sand.

You betcha! It's Hebrew in origin, actually.
[


Not quite. The ancients often combined two gods into one, and this is the case with Amun combining with Ra. Amun was originally a minor god of Heliopolis (Thebes) and doesn't become important until the 18th dynasty. Ra was originally a "father-god" and father of gods, so when the group worshipping Amun came into political power they began saying "see? Our god is the same as your god!" and combining the names.

"Amun" and "Ra" are not EXACTLY the way they were pronounced. "Ra" actually sounds a lot more like "Reeh" and Amun is more like "Amoun" or "Immon".

reply to post by Byrd

---

we won't get into my theories about "Ra" or "Re"
you know me, byrd. we've had some discussions in the past about ancient egypt!

good post btw

[edit on 7-10-2009 by undo]

reply to post by chiron613

---

interesting text for you to read, keeping in mind that
what you are reading is thought by some to be the egyptian equivalent of the flood story
www.africawithin.com...

Thanks for your replies, everyone. I've learned some interesting stuff from this thread...the ATS braintrust comes through again.

Ok Folks

Yes indeed it is “interesting” that you find some very similar sounding words in some religions.

Here is the thing about most of the ones you have listed. They are all from Indo-European (IE) language cultures. The Indus Valley (India) and Persia (Zorastrianism) which you have listed are linguistically very close on the IE language tree. Their culture was very similar too. When Zorastarism came along it departed from the traditional Indo-European myth and religious structure quite a bit, however it borrowed from the religions which were there before

The Asier and Vanier as pointed out were two “tribes” of Divine beings. Similar to the Irish (my area of expertise) Tuatha De Dannan (People of Art is the most likely translation not People of the Goddess Dannu), and the Fir Bolg. You in the Germanic/Scandinavian faiths have the Giants (Jötnar) and in the Irish myths you have the Tuatha De Domman aka Fomaire. Linguistically quite different from each other and the Eastern IE cultures. But I am sure I could do some linguistic wankery/gymnastics and show a link

reply to post by silent thunder

---

Yes, it's known as comparitive mythology. There's a whole field of study examining the similarities between religions and mythologies.

reply to post by silent thunder

---

Avesta and Vedas are similar in Language but teach the exact opposite philosophy. For instance Avesta is to imply Avedic or opposite of Vedas. Avesta says "we are against the daevas and are for the Ahuras" and worship Ahura Mazda meaning Exalted Ahura or Exalted Asura. The Vedas state that the devas are beings of light that do good and asuras are beings of darkness that do bad. So as you can see almost same language but opposite teaching.

My opinion would be for you to read through the Bagvath gita and the Upanishads to get a better perspective of hinduism and not some book about hinduism itself written by some crazy lunatic.

reply to post by CuteAngel

---

now now, would a "Cute Angel" call other people crazy lunatics ?

having a difference of opinion doesn't mean the other person is nuts!

reply to post by undo

---

What I meant to say is that in order for someone to know about a religion it would be better to read the holy scripture of that religion itself rather than get a book written by some author which goes in the lines of ABCs of hinduism. That is one of the main reasons for confusion...

reply to post by CuteAngel

---

Agreed! and not only read it, but get the original word meanings and their etymologies. Alot of data that will unravel the confusion in many of the ancient texts, is currently buried in original words and etymologies of those words. Entire religions are formed based on the differences of 1 or 2 letters in some cases, and in many cases, there was no need to strain so hard at it since the older records reveal the etymology and therefore the correct interpretation.

Manou, Minos, Mises, Moses


Many myths, gods, and legends evolve over time the same way that language does.

Similar to the way the "germanic" languages have common pronunciations for many words, such as "Gott" and "God", "und" and "and", "pfeffer" and "pepper"


The problem with this simple and easily understood idea is that it suggests that our rock-solid faith systems have actually changed along side us as history unfolds. If that is true, then the question isn't "which faith should i believe in?" but also "at what date in the history of my faith was it truest?"

Both absurd questions.