Chapter II

Clues furnished by our Master to Huafrit and Kudarvand Dynasties Unknown to Scholars

In the matter of the history of ancient Iran our Master not only gave clues to the two dynasties of Huafrit and Kudarvand unknown to scholars, but also showed when and how the Kayanian dynasty was terminated. The absence of chronicles pertaining to. these three dynasties which ruled combinedly for some 5375 years has been the second principal cause that has misguided the scholars and led them to the belief in a very near date. According to the method of calculations explained in the next chapter, the said date comes to 7,551 B.C. This long period may be broadly divided into three categories, which may be reproduced from the schedule given at the end of the foregoing chapter:

(1) the period of some 2,000 years marked against (A) represents the period after king Kae Gustasp, during which the Kayanian dynasty had continued to rule, but its history has been completely lost by destruction at the hands of the enemies, both outside and inside Iran as will be seen from same evidence given hereunder:

(2) the period of 3,255 years shown against (D) is not destroyed, but has been rendered sacrosanct, as our Master informed, for valid reasons to be revealed at the proper time and by the proper authority; and

(3) the period of 2,026 years B.C. including 1561 years shown against (E) plus 465 years from king Behman (Ardashir Longimanus) to the Christian era, the history of which exists in the writing of Greek and others.

 

Destruction of Records Alexandrian Library Burnt By Christian Priest and Monks

The following quotation is taken from "Oahspe The Kosmon Bible" (p.l).

“Zarathushtra" erroneously called Zoroaster, a Persian Law Giver, who lived in the cycles of Fragapatti, eight thousand nine hundred years ago, the farthest back of all historical characters. Both Buddhist and Christian religions are said to be made up chiefly from the history and miracles of Zarathushtra. It was to obliterate such history that Coatulus, a Christian priest, burned the Alexandrian library in the year 390. And for the same purpose and more effectually, did three Christian monks again bum it in the year 640. ZARATHUSHTRA WAS OF ENORMOUS SIZE, AND OF NEITHER SEX, being an i-e-su.”

Alexander Consigns the Zoroastrian Scriptures to the Flames.

"Great as was' this national catastrophe, still greater was the spiritual loss involved in the destruction of the holy scriptures of Zoroastrianism, which perished in the conflagration of Persepolis ……….Fire, the most sacred emblem of Iran, was wantonly utilized in consuming the word of Ormuzd, The ill-fated Darius had ordered the two archetype copies to be preserved in the Dizh-i-Nipisht and- Ganj-i-Shapigan. The first, deposited in the archives of Persepolis perished in the conflagration. The second copy of the sacred writings in the Ganj-i-Shapigan, we are informed, was done into Greek, though more probably it met with a similar fate………. After a long period of darkness, following his ill-destined invasion of Persia, Iran once more recovered her political autonomy, but she never regained, in their pristine fulness the holy works of her great Prophet."^[1]

 

Burning of Zoroastrian Religious and Historical Writings by the Arabs

With regard to the destruction by the Arabs, the learned Mr. J.D. Daruvala, who is a deep student of Iranian literature and was a representative to Iran of the Iranian Zoroastrian Amelioration Society of Bombay, in his article (in Gujarati) in the "Jam-e- Jamshed" weekly edition dated 9.10. 1955 writes as follows:

"After the subversion by the Arabs of Iran's crown and throne and the extinction of the Sassanian dynasty, books relating to the Zoroastrian religion and history were burnt by the edict of Khalifa Umer….It was ordered that everyone who desired to adhere to one's own religion must, for declining to accept Islam, surrender one maund of one's own religious books to the Arab chiefs, besides the payment of a per caput tax per annum of one hundred gold Dinars as Jazia. Only those that could fulfill these conditions were allowed to observe their own religion…. Of course in fulfilling these conditions what religious books were left were consigned to the flames

The rich Iranians purchased their religious books at any price, and handed them over to the chiefs according to the orders of the Arabs and remained as Zoroastrians, while those that had no money, but yet were unwilling to accept Islam, surrendered their heads to the Arab sword. Every Sunday the Arabs used to make a burning festival of religious books received from Zoroastrians. In doing this the object of the Arab leaders was to obliterate from the minds of the Iranians all memories of their religion and culture."

Besides these, during certain periods the new converts to Islam from the Zoroastrians who had become bitter enemies to their own race and religion, weeded out every available writing, displaying the ancient Zoroastrian religion and history or glory and fame, and fed the flames with the same.

In this way not only the ancient Zoroastrian libraries but also books in possession of private individuals relating to history and religion, after king Kae Gustiisp, comprising a period of some 2000 years were wantonly and completely destroyed by the enemies of the Faith, without and within Iran, after the down fall of the Iranian empire.

 

100 Years' Indian Rule Over Iran

After 40 years of Shri Krishna's birth, during which he got revelation, there was Indian rule over Iran for about a hundred years. In Dastur Peshotan Sanjana's Dinkard Vol V (p. 311) and in S.B.E. Vol. XLVII (p .84 & Intra. p. xii) the names of kings Karishak and Rashne Rish occur, which seem to be Indian rather than "Rumi" as stated in the footnote, yet it cannot be said with certainty that they ,were the two kings that ruled over Iran between B.C 5381 and B.C 5281. Then Huafrit arose, and defeated the Indians, and founded the Huafritan dynasty.

 

(1) Huafrit Dynasty

Huafrit is the name of a king who founded a new dynasty over Iran some 2,000 years after Kayanian king kae Vishtasp in whose royal court the holy Prophet revealed the Zoroastrian Faith (in about 7,551 B.C.). The term Huafrit, occurring in Aban Yt. 130 being not known to the scholars as the name of a king (and hence a proper noun) has been treated otherwise and rendered - etymologically - as "after my own pleasure" in Spiegel-Bleeck's translation. Though Prof. Darmesteter has also treated Huafrito as an adjective in S.B.E. Vol. XXIII his rendering "fully blessed" is nearer to the true sense of the exalted name, and that too of the founder king of an Iranian dynasty entirely lost to modem history.

How a proper noun misconstrued as a common, becomes ridiculous would be understood if we substitute the name, say, Gladstone, the Prime Minister of Queen Victoria of England for Huafrit and render the former (Gladstone) etymologically as "a jubilant piece of rock" from the literal derivation" of the word 'glad' plus 'stone'. The above Aban-Yasht passage would then read "I, jubilant piece of rock may protect wide realms"?

It appears the only scholar who understood the word Huafrit correctly was the late learned Ervad Sheriarji Bharucha, as is evident from his contribution in the Sir Jamsetjee Jeejeebhoy Madressa Jubilee Volume pp. 223-225, which is also referred to by Dr. Modi in the book entitled "The Influence of Iran On Other Countries", published posthumously in 1954. Ervad Bharucha has referred to Huafrit as the founder of a new dynasty after Kayanian.

Ervad Bharucha contends that "The Avesta word (Huafrito) must not be considered an adjective of "azem" (i.e. I) (preceding the word 'Huafrito'), but as a proper name of some particular person."

 

Ervad Bharucha's Quotation from Rehetseck's Appendix II, Manuscript Dinkard No. 11

In support of his opinion Ervad Bharucha gives also the Pahlavi reference fromManuscript Dinkard No. 11, (Rehetseck's Appendix II, in the Mulla Firuz Library of Bombay) as under:

"Hukhudaih been Jam-tokhmagan akhar min Fredun pavan fradum pavan Manushchiharam u dadigar pavan Kayan u cidigar pavan Huafritan e min ham Kayan e Sasanan".

(Translation).

"Among the descendants of Jamshed, there was good rule after Faredun..............first by the successors of Minocheher, and secondly by the Kayanis and thirdly by the descendants of Huafrit, - and the Sasanians descended from the same Kayanis."

After citing the above Pahlavi reference Ervad Bharucha observes, "Here we find the trace of a certain dynasty of kings established by a person named Huafrit. Now if the prayer in the above Avestic passage befits any person, it is most likely that the person Huafrito was the founder of a dynasty or a descendant of a certain royal dynasty after Kae Gustasp (Aban Yt. 130) who must have asked this boon from Ardvi Sura. Thus we find that besides the well-known dynasties, of ancient kings of Persia there was one more dynasty of Kings of Persia in the Avestic rimes after that of the Kayanians and preceding that of the Achaemenians."

Ervad Bharucha then discusses over the phrase "Masa Khshathra" which means 'large kingdoms' and erroneously believes that the kingdoms concerned were those of "Masra" meaning Egypt and that Masra was corrupted into "Masa" meaning large by the dropping of Av. letter "r". This supposed corruption he attributed to careless recitations and erroneous writings of Manuscripts in the later periods. This mistaken conception is probably due to the fact that the learned scholar was not aware that 100 years prior to Huafrit, Iran was under the yoke of Hindu kings whom Huafrit defeated and himself sat on the ancient patriarchal Kayanian throne. Thus the kingdom referred to by Huafrit in his supplication to Ardvi Sura cannot be "Masra", Egypt, but Iran herself, and thus the word. "Masa" meaning 'large' is not corrupted as that learned scholar believes, but is correct.

This Huafrit dynasty continued for about 1626 years, on the termination of which period the king of the same dynasty that came to the throne assumed the title of "Kudarvand".

 

(2) Kudarvand Dynasty

Now with respect to the Kudarvand dynasty the late Mr. P.B. Desai, has under the heading "Zoroastrian kings of Babylonia" (p. 497) of his book entitled "History of the Kaianians" quoted from Godspeed's "History of Babylonians and Assyrians" which runs as under:

(Translated from Gujarati). "There was a race called Elami that invaded Southern Babylonia in about 2,400 B.c. and assumed mastery over that territory. The name Elam which occurs in the Bible is also found in the Babylonian inscriptions and the race above-named ruled over the same territory. It is known to be a very ancient race that had come in contact with the Sumerian and Accadian races since 4,000 B.c. These two races were masters of the territory between the Tigris and the Euphrates in ages much remoter than 4,000 B.C

This Elam is the modern Khujistan known in ancient times as Susa (Susiana). We believe that the eight kings that ruled over Babylonia are the same as those referred to by Berosus, and according to Rawlinson and others these eight kings mentioned by Berosus ruled from 2,448 B.C. to 2,224 B.C. that is, for 224 years. According to Godspeed (p.67) this rule of those eight kings extended over 200 years from 2,450 B.C. to 2,250 B.C Elam brought the rule of Ur (in Babylonia) to an end in about 2,300 B.c. and established its independent sovereignty.

This very nearly agrees with what Berosus has stated.

 

"Ham and Media"

“But the question arises that Elam is not Media. Hence how can it be said that the rule of the Medians referred to by Berosus was identical with the Elami kings mentioned in the inscriptions? The reply to this is that Elam and Media are not much removed from each other and in the time of Berosus the rule of Elamis might have gone out of memory and that of Medians must have remained fresh. Hence Berosus must have reported the rule of Median kings instead that of EIamis."

"Now if it be proved that the rule of Medians was that of Elamis, then the Elami kings must be Zoroastrian by religion, and they must belong to the Iranians of the Aryan race. The Elami king who terminated the rule of Ur kingdom has been known by the name of Kudur-Nankhundi (Kutir - Nakhkhunte, Kudur--Nakhunta) who must have conquered Babylonia between 2,285 and 3,000 B.C^[2] Just as the first word in the name of this king is 'Kudur', so it is in the names of other kings also who ruled over Babylonia after him; for instance, Kudur-Nankhundi, Kudur-Lagmar, Kudur Mabug,^[3] etc. Could the names of these Kings be such from the beginning? These names are what have been mentioned in Babylonian writings. These are Semitic names. If Elamis be of Zoroastrian race, then the names of their above mentioned kings must be quite different. If they be Iranians, these are not Iranian names. The only possibility of finding those names lies in future excavations carried out in Elam proper. But the Elami rule has furnished a clue to the gap of 300 years in Babylonian history."

"This proves that what has been stated in Pahlavi writings concerning the termination of Zoroastrian religion 300 years after king Gustasp was not true; that the religion was in currency simultaneously with the Kayanian rule for many many years. And during that period the Zoroastrian race had ruled over Babylonia, for three centuries. Still more proofs are essential in this matter."

Mr. Desai then refers to the existence of Zoroastrian nation after the name of Huafrit, which has already been dealt with above. With respect to the above mentioned footnote concerning the names beginning with Kudur, it may be stated that Kudur- Nankhundi is the corrupt reading of Pahlavi Kudur-Nanavandi. Mr. Desai believes it to be the name of some Babylonian goddess like that of Ishtar. Na-Naa are the holy individuals of Garo-Nmana which literally means the Abode of Songs, and refers to the sublime 6th planetary Heaven of Jupiter where the Celestial Note of Ahunavar pervades (Ysn; 51:15; Ardvi Sura Nyaish; 8). The above said holy individuals are those that follow the "Das Andarz", the Ten Commandments of Ahura. Na-Gena (Ysn. 46,10) and Na-Nairi (Ysn. 35,6) are rendered in philology as (ordinary worldly) man and woman.

But correctly speaking they are terms for holy man and holy woman. This becomes amply clear from Farvardin Yasht; 18 where "Na" is used for the "holy man" and "Mashyanam" for worldly people ('Yo' na sasta hamokhshathro", holy man who (is) all powerful king). In those ancient times kings of Paradat (Pishdad), Paairyotkaesha and other dynasties were not ordinary temporal kings, but belonged to the highly advanced holy class of souls next below the Nabanazdishtanam, the highest class, (lit. nearest to the centre which is the seat of the Creator).

Thus it will be seen that Na-Gena (Nairi) do not stand for ordinary worldly man and woman. The kings of the Kudarvand dynasty were not merely worldly emperors but also highly advanced souls, many of whom belonged to the Magava class, i.e., those who were most advanced perfected saintly souls, by which is meant those whose Spiritual Masculinity and Spiritual Femininity are merged into one. Holy Zarathushtra was the foremost amongst these Magavans (as referred to in Ysn. 33,7), and styled Magavan-Magav or Magapatan Magapat, the Magapat of Magapats. Such being the case the term Magavan in Sanskrit means a deity as referred to by Dr. Mills in footnote to the above stanza in S.B.E. Vol. XXXI, where he compares Magavan to "Indra and other Gods".

Such highly advanced kings of Iran of the Kudarvand dynasty assumed their regal title not of worldly pomp or grandeur, but of great spiritual exaltation as the followers of Na-Naa explained above. It will thus be understood that Kudur- Nanavandi or Kudurvandi was the regal title assumed by those exalted kings and not their personal names, the seeming queerness whereof surprised Mr. Desai. However, the reference made by Mr. Desai provides a proof of the Kudarvand dynasty, the clue to the existence of which was furnished by our Master, Behramshah.

This Kudarvand dynastry ruled for almost the same period as the Huafrit, namely 1629 years. According to planetary Time cycles this dynasty began with the inception of the ministry of Moon, which exercises placid influence on the earth. But in its last magistrate (minor) cycle of Mercury of 262 years, idolatry gained strength on the far western borders of Iran, because that planet influences such worship. Consequently, there were rebellions in these western borders including Babylonia and Assyria, but they were put down in large battles, because of the inter cycle of the Moon and the major cycle of Jupiter. However, with the adverse planetary change in the heavens from the Lunar to Saturnian ministry, king Zarathushtra otherwise called Hukhshathra (oxyartes) was defeated by the Assyrian monarchs, Ninus and Semiramis in B.c. 2026. As stated already, the history of Huafrit and Kudarvand dynasties has not been destroyed, but rendered sacro-sanct. However, what sparse history exists with the Greeks pertains to the terminal Mercurial period of 262 years mentioned above.

 

Historical Evidence even up to. B. C. 2,458 Disproves the General Belief of Scholars in Era of 600 B.C.

It has been shown that the scholars of philology have been unaware of the two dynasties of Huafrit and Kudarvand, which two combinedly ruled over Iran for 3,255 years. The former draws its name from its founder, while the latter came to an end with the defeat of its king Zarathushtra, also known as Hukhshathra (Oxyartes) by the Assyrian monarchs Ninus and Semiramis in B.C. 2026.

In the history Of Berosus" 8 Median kings are mentioned to have ruled over Babylonia for 224 years, and according to M.c. Muller, quoted by Dr. Geiger, the name of their first ruler was "Zaroaster".^[4] Mr. P. B. Desai, the Parsi historian, mentioned above, has in his "History of the Kings of Iran" Vol. I (in Gujarati p. 357)_ cited a schedule given by Rawlinson of seven dynasties that ruled over Chalde (Babylonia) between B.c., 2,458 and B.c. 536. The first, that is the earliest of them, was Median, eight kings of which ruled for 224 years from B.C. 2,458 to B.c. 2,234. The founder of these Median kings was a Zarathushtrotemo (lit. one most like Zarathushtra). Thus we find that there is historical record of Zoroastrian rule over Iran at least up to B.C., 2,458, out of the correct date B.C. 7,551.

However, even B.C. 2,458 when placed vis-à-vis the modern scholars' so-called traditional date of 600 B.c., the gross incorrectness of the latter becomes self-evident.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

"Zoroastrian Theology" p. 184 by Dastur Dr. Dhalla quoted by the learned Ervad P. S. Masani, in his book entitled "Zoroastrianism Ancient &Modern" (p. 45),

[2]:

"According to Godspeed, this occurred in 2,290 B.C. (p. 67). Others give the year as 2260. According to Mr. Regozin the Elami rule extended over Babylonia for 285 years between 2285 and 2000 B.c.Chaldea (p. 219)."

[3]:

(Mr. Desai's Footnote) "At present it is not known what these names convey, but Nankhundi is the name of Babuli Nana or Goddess Ishter, and Kudur means "Servant" so the whole name Kudur-Nankhundi ought to mean "the servant of Goddess Nana", just as amongst the Hindus, Ambaidas is taken from Goddess Amba and "Kalidas" from Goddess 'Kali', similarly, "Kudur-Nankhundi" from 'Nankhundi' means 'Nana-das', i.e., servant or worshipper of Nana. All the other above names should have prefix meaning "servant".

[4]:

Geiger-Sanjana-"Eastern Iranians" Vol. II (P. 185).