Talk:Zoroastrianism/Archive 3

The Law

Can their possibly be a way, either on this article or in a seperate, for a listing of Mazdaist Law? (since their is a page dedicated to all 613 Mitzvot for the Torah). For Zoroastrians (or those prospecting to be such), it will make it a little easier to study the faith. -- IdeArchos 20:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Create it if you think we need it. Paul B 21:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Alright, here is the information for study [1]. -- IdeArchos 22:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

"Holy Book" (????)

Boy, that section is so bad.

>> The Holy Book of Zoroastrianism is called the Zend Avesta.

First off, there is no "Holy Book" (singular) of the Zoroastrians. Even if there were, it would be the Avesta, and not the "Zend Avesta", which is a nomenclatorial error.

>> The Zend is the commentary on the teaching and the Avesta is the original teaching in these sacred texts.

The Zend is a commentary on (portions of) the Avesta. The Avesta is a collection of texts, liturgical and general.

>> Avesta ... was finally written down in Sassanian Times.

The term Avesta itself dates to the Sassanid period, but that does not mean that some of the texts that make up the Avesta did not exist before then. (earlier?, sassanid?, later?) so perhaps an absolute statement like this needs citation.

>> Before the invasion of Alexander and the Islamic conquest of Persia
>> there were a total of 21 Books followed by Zoroastrians called Nasks.

According to Dinkard 3.175, the nasks were composed 550 years after Alexander. But perhaps another source was used for this, in which case a citation would be in order.

Oh, and Alexander's invasion was 330 BCE, the Islamic conquest was in 651 CE. A 981 year gap to drive three dynasties through.

>> Only one of these Nasks remains complete, called the Vendidad. The
>> traditional explanation for the loss of most of the Nasks is persecution of the
>> faith by Alexander, though this is questioned by some historians.

Not only by historians. How on earth did Alexander manage to destroy something that did not exist until 550 years after his death? Moreover, Alexander didn't hang around long enough to do any persecution.

>> The 21 Nasks did not only contain religious literature but also
>> included works on Medicine, Astronomy, Botany and Philosophy.

on Astronomy? As in how God created the firmament? Botany as in the the Hoama tree? Or in the protective powers of Amardad? Medicine in the sense that hygiene and medicine both deal with the preservation of health?

>> In any case, complete copies of most writings from the ancient world are fairly rare.

a factually accurate sentence. :)

>> Besides the Avesta, the Yashts are smaller books for Prayer, often to a specific
>> being. Other books included are the Afringan, Nyayish, Gah and Sirozah which
>> partially contain some scriptures of the lost 14th and 21st Nasks (Lost books).

Besides the Avesta? The Yashts are part of the Avesta!
Other books included in what? (no previous context)
A Gah is a period of time, not a text, unless Gathas were meant, which are all in the 21st nask, which in turn is all in the Yasna.
The 14th nask, the Bhakan nask is also called the Bhakan Yasht, which might indicate where that went.

"(Lost books)" sounds like those were the only two lost, when in fact all but the 19th nask has been lost to some degree. Or, if "lost completely" was meant, then "other books partially contain their content" can't be true can it?

>> Other teachings are the Yasna which means sacrifice and contains prayers >> for sacrificial rituals;

Yasna does not mean "sacrifice". It means "worship, offering, surrender, oblation". The Yasna is the (primary) liturgical collection of texts in the Avesta. The texts in it are the foundation of Zoroastianism.

>> the Visperad is a collection of doctrines that are used for exorcism and religious
>> law. The Visperad also includes cosmological, historical and eschatological material.

The Visperad is a collection of supplements to the Yasna that invokes the Angels (particularly when the Visperad is recited at the Gahambars).

-- Fullstop 18:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism/Archive 3 removed from Wikipedia:Good articles

Zoroastrianism/Archive 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because there is a content dispute on the page, as described above by Fullstop. Delisted by Fieari 08:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion (and reward)

Fullstop, I noticed that you criticised the article and it was removed from good articles list. It seems that you are knowledgable on this matter, then why did you not fix it instead?! In any case I have put a small reward to inspire people to work on the article and make it featured if this happens I am willing to pay the reward via paypal (See Wikipedia:Reward_board#Zoroastrianism). Much thanks, -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 11:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

My comment on the talk page is not a criticism of the article, it is a criticism of that particular section. The good articles flag is not appropriate for articles that contain obvious errors (of which there are plenty, my note on one section is not comprehensive by far). As to the question why I didn't fix it: Well, I expected the errors which I pointed out to be discussed, but you are right, I should fix them. In any event, I had already rewritten the Avesta article and added Zoroastrianism under Religious texts, and as such there was sufficient information in both brief and depth to quickly replace that section. Nonetheless, I disagree with your estimation that the article is "already pretty good". In my opinion, the article is of inconsistant quality, to a large extent simplistic, to some extent misleading, and some sentences are just flat-out wrong (and contradict other articles). Don't get me wrong: I'm not disparaging your attempts to improve the article's quality, I just disagree with your opinion on its current quality. -- Fullstop 13:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I came to that conclusion because it was marked as a "good article", I have really not even had the time to read it all and check it yet, but thanks for your suggestions. -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 18:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

OK I have edited it to remove the dodgy parts, it needs expansion and sourcing. Feel free to contribute --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 01:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

done -- Fullstop 09:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

ps: I'm working on some text re:principles/philosophy, and will send it to you for review when its ready.

Remove Yazidis from the Portal

Please remove Yazidis from the portal. They are not Zoroastrian, and their religion Yazidi is very different than Zoroastriansim since Yazidis do not believe in Ahriman or Devil as an independent entity. They do not have a fallen angel, and believe that good/evil exist only inside human mind or soul.Heja Helweda 02:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Also the idea and belief of God and Satan predates Zoroastrian religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.197.141.33 (talk • contribs)

1- Zoroastrianism - the original concept - does not believe that there is such a thing as "devil", but Ahriman is the devil in what we do, the bad that we do, that is Ahriman. Not that there is a devil created by Ahura because Ahura would not create anything bad or impure.

2- Idea of God and Satan pre-date Zoroastrianism but monotheism is generally believed to have been ideas of Zoroastar, as well as idea of heaven and hell and others -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 21:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems that there is a misunderstanding here. Yazidis are not Zoroasterian. So their inclusion in the people section is totally wrong. They do not believe in Zarathustra as their prophet, and their holy book is not Avesta.Heja Helweda 03:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Yazidis are not Zoroasterian. Bidabadi 10:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I can not see any mention of them at Portal:Zoroastrianism so I am not sure what you are talking about -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 10:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed it yesterday. Bidabadi 16:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Aspects of Dualism

We've had this discussion on the Christianity page, Talk:Christianity#Four_types_of_monotheism_and_the_exercise_of_a_double_standard.

It's regarding Zoroastrianism being considered monotheism, without any doubt shed on it, in violation of WP:NPOV. People are gathering references right now, and it is intended to change it to mention that there are both monotheistic and dualistic aspects to Zoroastrianism.

KV 15:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I was content to list both Zoroastrianism and Christianity as monotheistic; to deny either is an outsider's view that is likely to be a misunderstanding. However, here's a selection of sources from a quick scan of Google Books:

• Carter, George William. Zoroastrianism and Judaism 1918 pg. 42. c. 2003. Describes Zoroastrianism as "monotheistic dualism."

• Boyce, Mary. Textual Sources for the Study of Zoroastrianism. pg. 134. c. 1984. "The Parsi religion has long been represented by its opponents as a dualism; and this accusation, made in good faith by Muhammaden writers, and echoed more incautiously by Christians, has been advanced so strenuously that it has often been admitted even by Parsis themselves, as regards the mediaeval form of their faith."

• Zaehner, R. C. The Dawn and Twilight of Zoroastrianism, pg. 183. C. 2003. Discusses dualism in various strands of Zoroastrianism. Also mentions Zurvanism, which recognizes and worships a third deity, Zurvan.

• Kirk, G.S, J. E. Raven, M. Schofield. The Presocratic Philosophers, pg. 65. C. 1983. "More of genuine Zoroastrianism (dualism of good and evil, importance of fire)was to be found in these works than in the earlier group."

• Shaked, Shaul, Dualism in Transformation. c. 1994. Dualism in Zoroastrianism and related religions.

Here's the full list of sources: [2]

Zoroastrianism as bitheism:

• Aldrich, Chris, The Aldrich Dictionary of Phobias and Other Word Families, pg. 378. Lists Zoroastrianism and Manicheism as examples of ditheism.

• Barrett, David V. "The New Believers: A Survey of Sects, Cults and Alternative Religions," pg. 344. c. 2003. Comparing Angra Maidu in Zoroastrianism and Satan in Christianity: "not quite, but almost, ditheism, the difference being that Christianity has changed the Devil from an evil God into powerful but limited angel."

• Billington, Ray. Religion Without God, pg. 23, c. 2002. In a section on Dualism (Ditheism), describes Zoroastrianism as "the most overtly dualistic of the world's religions."

• Full list: [3]

Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 16:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion dualism has nothing to do with monotheism, in the case of Zoroastrianism. I read somewhere that you posted Zoroastrians worship the evil spirit. You are obviously misinformed about that, I have to say. Also you have said Ancient Zoroastrianism was not monotheistic, which is contradictory with a quick look at those books on your research where it says that the dualistic approach is not even apparent in achamenids scriptures in ancient Persia [4] -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 17:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

True, I was misinformed to say that Zoroastrians worship the evil spirit, and I may also have been wrong about other aspects of your religion. For that, I apologize; it's simple ignorance, and is not meant as mailice. However, as I said on the other page, I think others are just as misinformed to describe Christianity as tritheism (the rest of that discussion belongs on the other page). Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 17:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, no problem -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 19:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added my mustard to Talk:Christianity#Four_types_of_monotheism_and_the_exercise_of_a_double_standard. Okay, its a bit more than that. Oh, well. :)
With respect to dualism vis-a-vis ditheism/bitheism, I suspect Arch O. La/KV have confused the terms. Ditheism is the term for two gods, which Zoroastrianism doesn't have. Dualism is a vague term to denote two sides of anything and can be applied to pretty much every present-day religion that sustains concepts of good and bad.
Arch O. also misunderstood Billington. The reference to Zoroastrianism as overtly dualistic isn't a description of two gods. In Zoroastrianism, good/bad have a logical coherence, easiest understood from the credo "Good thoughts, good words, good deeds" as the way to happiness, and bad thoughts/words/deeds the way to unhappiness. These are _explicit_ and fundamental expressions in Zoroastrian doctrine, and completely absent in the Abrahamic faiths. And that is what is meant by "overtly dualistic". -- Fullstop 14:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright, then. I thank you for correcting my misunderstanding. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 16:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Zoroastrianism/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article is inaccurate as zoroasterism was founded by zoroaster during the 7th century BC at the start of persian rule but after Egypt and mesopotamian societies started to spread; it was never close to india. Zoroasterism is the thought that there are many gods but our one god, Yahweh, is the only one that matters; this was the major role in zoroasterism as it influenced our current religions. zoroaster: 1) Turned polytheism into monotheism 2) believed there were two opposite forces (proved by Isaac Newton later on) of good and evil and evil will always prevail; called dualism.(so far throughout history this has been true over the long haul) 3) Believed that in the end of times a messiah or savior would come (difference betwen christians and jews is jews believe he has not came) to prepare for the end. (see escatology)and miraculously born.

Last edited at 18:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 21:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)