Talk:Zoroastrianism/Archive 4

First Line

This is the worst religion to do a term paper on! I am working my tail off to get information!!!!

The words "Jesus Loves You" (vandalism) appear and I cannot work out how to delete them or how they were put there. Someone with better knowledge should sort this oout asap. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.152.174.124 (talk) 04:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

addendum: as soon as i typed this and returned to the page these words were deleted. Not sure whats going on, can't see it in the page history, very weird indeed. Can anyone explain this?! Very odd. I checked the page source - and am viewing this with another person - its not my mistake - at the time i checked the page source and it was definitely there. Now, checking the page source, its gone. Surely no hacker types are that bothered about Zoroastrianism? Is very weird though. Explanations please...!?

Lede sentence

Would people please refrain from fiddling with the lede (lead) sentence? Much thought has gone into the "Zoroastrianism is the name of the religion and philosophy based on the teachings ascribed to prophet Zoroaster (Zarathushtra, Zartosht). Mazdaism is the name of the religion that acknowledges the supremecy of Ahura Mazda, proclaimed by Zoroaster to be the one uncreated Creator of all (God).".

In this form, the lede is both historically and doctrinally correct and will not offend any sensibilities. It is not as precise as it could be, but it fulfills its purpose without stepping on any toes. The reason Mazdaism occurs in the lede is because Mazdaism is a redirect to Zoroastrianism, which is ok for now since in the context of (at least) modern Zoroastrianism, the two are synonymous.

The typical (repeatedly inserted) additions listed below (usually by anon editors) are either downright wrong, specious, or misleading:

• "Zoroastrianism is monotheistic"

Zoroastrianism was not always monotheistic. If an established scholar of Zoroastrian history has determined otherwise, then a citation would be in order, and should include a definition of monotheism that does not conflict with other WP articles. Until then, don't propagate the myth.

• "Zoroastrianism is the oldest monotheistic religion"

This cannot be stated as fact. The closest that can be stated as fact would be "Z. is counted among the oldest practiced religions" or "Zoroastrianism has been established as the oldest of the practiced credal religions".

• "Mazdaism is the native name of the religion"

It is not. (whatever "native" is supposed to mean). -isms are in any case not non-English.

• The use of Mazdyasnian or Mazdan or Mazdaist as an adjective.

In the english language, the adjective is "Mazdean".

• "Zoroastrianism <equals/is also known as/etc> Mazdaism"

When stating this, take into consideration that 1) Zoroastrianism is synonymous with Mazdaism ONLY in the present-day form of the religion. 2) A belief in Ahura Mazda predates Zoroastrianism by at least several centuries. 3) Mazdaism continued to be practiced independantly of Zoroastrianism until at least the 3rd c. BCE. 4) Mazdaism was definitely not synonymous with Sassanid-era Zoroastrianism.

• Dates for Zoroaster.

This article is on Zoroastrianism, not on Zoroaster, where the issue is explained at length, and can in no way can be adequately parenthesized, eg. "(12th, else 18th, else 6th century BCE)". For heaven's sake, leave well enough alone. When/Where/How Zoroaster was born/lived/died is entirely irrelevant to a brief description of the religion he founded, and belongs under Zoroaster.

Besides, a lede sentence should be *short* and to the point. Nothing but the simplest terms (that need no further explanation) should be in the lede. -- Fullstop 10:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

GA reinstated

If the ref could be in Footnote style or cite.php style it would be easier to double-check the info. Plus it is needed for FA status. Lincher 15:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Iran

This thing looks like an Iranian propoganda piece. For example:

"Following the Iranian unification of the Median and Persian empires in 550 BCE,"...

If I am not mistaken, Cyrus II melded these two into a greater Persion Empire, right? So why the use of the word Iranian? It is also very clumsy English, by the way. -- The previous unsigned comment was posted at 15:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC) by 169.200.215.34

The name Iranian has always referred to the Aryan tribes that moved to the Iranian Plateau as indicated in the cultural history. In addition, Cyrus had a claim on the Median Throne and the merging of the two Iranian peoples took place without bloodshed. That justifies the term Unification.

You are right. The agenda-pushing [1] (not the only instance in this article either), was not part of my original sentence. -- Fullstop 08:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

there is no agenda, iran has always been iran. the term persia is a western term. do not get persia and iran mixed up. iran has been used by iranians for thousands of years (with different variations ofcourse). Persia was adopted by the west from the greeks.Iranian Patriot 15:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

What's the difference between Iran and Persia?!! --Arch3r25 18:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It's like Paul said: Iran is the name of the region in the native language, Persia is the name that the Greeks gave to the area. See also Iran naming dispute. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 04:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Your are both partly wrong. Iran was always used by the locals to refer to the land (hence the word LAND) of Persians (Parsi's), in similar fashion to United Kingdom being referred to as the land/kingdom of the British people. The people of Iran have always been known as Parsi's (english translation being Persian) since the nomadic roots. However, during the islamic conquest, the Arabs attempt to take out the letter P from the Persian alphabet resulted in most people referring to Parsi as Farsi. To sum everything, Iran is the name for the land of Persians/Aryans. In the same respect as the people of UK being referred to as British people, the People of Iran should be referred to as Persians. This is the only geographic and historically correct term. Infact, the term Iranian is incorrect in many ways although ignorantly being used. Some similar examples to help you grasp this fact, are Dutch people from the Netherland (You wouldn't call the Netherlandis or Hollandians), the British etc. --Sina7 00:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

>> "in similar fashion to United Kingdom being referred to as the land/kingdom of the British people."

Actually, "Britain" is the land of the British people.

>> Some similar examples to help you grasp this fact, are Dutch people from the Netherland (You wouldn't call the Netherlandis or Hollandians), the British etc.

nope sorry. Doesn't help grasp any facts at all because you haven't completed the sentence. But its probably as unconvincing as your British joke. The Dutch are called the Dutch because they speak Dutch. Similarly, Iranians are called Iranians because they speak one one of the many Iranian languages, which you might be surprised to know, is neither limited to the Republic of Iran, nor is it limited to the Persian language.

>> "To sum everything, Iran is the name for the land of Persians/Aryans."

The Aryans are the Indo-Iranians, one branch of which became the Iranians, and one tribe of that eventually became the Persians. Ergo Indo-Europeans => subset Indo-Iranians => subset Iranians => subset Persians.

Consequently, an an encyclopedic article it is important to use precise terminology, and it simply will not do to go around complementing every instance of "Iran" with Persia (or vice-versa).

>> "Infact, the term Iranian is incorrect in many ways although ignorantly being used."

you should probably bring that to the attention of the Encyclopedia Iranica and all the Iranists who work at universities that teach Iranian studies. None of them appear to know these secret that you have just revealed to us. You might want to start at the Wikipedia:Iranian Wikipedians' notice board before trying to convince anyone else. You know, just test the waters and all.

-- Fullstop 17:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

ps: I'm a mindreader. I predict you will now accuse me of anti-somethingortheother. Wanna bet, darkred?

Where do the U.S. pronunciations come from?

I question the American English pronunciations given in this article, and I'm not sure the British English pronunciations are precisely correct, either. I would have written the American English pronunciation of "Zoroastrianism" (based on General American) as /'zo:-ro-'ae-stri-ən-'Izm/ and the American English pronunciation of Mazdaism as /'mɑ:z-də-'Izm/, where ɑ is the IPA symbol for the "a" in "father" or the "o" in "bother," and I is being used for the IPA symbol for the "i" as in "it." -- Bob (19:04, 22 June 2006 141.156.125.226)

I'm beginning to think there is no one 'correct' way to pronounce Zoroastrianism. In my own pronunciation, I drop the second o altogether and my 'Zor' rhymes with "roar". As in zoɹ-æs-trɪn-ɪzm

• OED draft 3/2001 has /'zɒrəʊ'æstrɪən'ɪz(ə)m/ (presumably RP, "Zoroastrian" + "ism" ?)
• Random House 2nd ed. has RHD: zôr'ō-as'trē-u-niz'um (=> IPA: 'zɔr'o-æs-'tri-ə-nɪz'əm ?)
• Somewhere recently I saw it pronounced as zorro-, but I can't remember where.

and for Mazdaism:

• OED: Brit: /'mazdə(r)ɪz(ə)m/, U.S. /'mæzdəˌɪzəm/
• RHD: maz'də iz'əm (=> IPA: mæz'də ɪz'əm).

So, while there doesn't seem to be an established pronounciation for Zoroastrianism, there appears to be some consistancy with respect to U.S. /'mæzdəˌɪzəm/. OED Brit /'mazdəɪzm/ sounds reasonable too. -- Fullstop 11:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Warren H. Carroll

This guy should not be used as a reference. He is an incredibly biased conservative Catholic. I've read his book, he offers no evidence that Zoroastrianism borrowed from Judaism. He simply says something to the effect that Jews have always been faithful to their religion (which even the bible itself says is untrue; Jews falling into idol worship for example) and have kept it under great pressure, hence they could not possibly adopt Zoroastrian beliefs. This is not evidence, this is barely speculation. Even Jews and Christians would say that Judaism was under pressure to change during the Babylonian exile, anyway.-7:06 July, 29 2006

Ok, nuked in 72584760.

However, the removal of the Carroll cite left the next sentence without a context:

... the Encyclopedia Britannica states, "The debt of Israel to its Eastern neighbours in religious matters is easy to demonstrate on a few precise points of minor importance but less so in other more important points, such as dualism, angelology, and eschatology".

Without the Carroll context, that sentence is ambiguous. As it stands, the EB appears to be making a comparison between Judaism and Islam, which is then irrelevant to the Zoroastrianism article.

Does anyone have something that backs up what Carroll said about the Israelites having influenced Zoroastrians during the time of captivity? Or anything else to balance out (what may be construed to be) a one-sided view?

-- Fullstop 11:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Dying out?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/06/us/06faith.html Zoroastrians Keep the Faith, and Keep Dwindling -- Sally Ryan for The New York Times; By LAURIE GOODSTEIN; Published: September 6, 2006

This article says that numbers are down from over 40 million to under 200 thousand, and that the religion clings to ethnic purity, resulting in likely dying out over the next century or so.69.87.193.156 13:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the article does not say numbers are down from over 40 million. What it does say is, <quote>"We were once at least 40, 50 million — can you imagine?" said Mr. Antia.<end-quote> Mr. Antia is speculating, no census figures (that reflect such a number) have survived, if indeed, they ever existed.

Second, the NYT article applies specifically the Parsis, i.e. the Zoroastrians of/from the Indian subcontinent, and addresses an issue specific to the Parsis, but not Zoroastrians in general. The WP article on the Parsi community deals with the issue in depth.

Third, and another sign of poor journalism, is that the NYT article states legend as if it were fact. Example: "Seven boatloads of Zoroastrian refugees fled Iran and landed on the coast of India in 936." Actually, legend (see also Paymaster, 1954) recalls for (variously) 5, 7, 9 or an indeterminate number of boatloads. Similarly, "936" is an abstraction based on the Qissa-i Sanjan, which was composed several centuries after events described therein might have occurred, and it is contradictory with respect to elapsed time (and also does not specify how many boats there were). Again, more on this issue is also under Parsi.

-- Fullstop 11:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Etymology

The article states that the word Mazdaism "probably derives from Mazdayasna." Is there any source for this claim? In the absence of any historical evidence showing derivation (e.g. intermediate forms) the simplest explanation for Mazdaism is that it's formed in the same way as Hinduism, Buddhism, Marxism and practically every other -ism in the English language. PubliusFL 12:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the phrasing currently suggests that the "ism" is possibly somehow a corruption of "yasna". I doubt that's what was intended. It's just slightly unfortunate phrasing. Paul B 12:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 22:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

On Hold/Fail: I suggest leaving the Zoroastrianism article on GA-"hold" for the moment. In its present state (25 Sept. 2006), the article needs work, in particular the History and Principal beliefs sections: History has a focus on political developments (ok, thats my fault) and Principal beliefs has too much history (also my fault, and that history is not even dealt with under History). Moreover, the substantial evolution that the religion went through over its long history is not apparent, which gives the whole article a "time bias". Some of these developments are alluded to here and there, but as an overview of the religion and how it got to be what it is, the article needs significant work. The WP:V and WP:CITE problems are just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. -- Fullstop 15:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no such option provided in the re-review process. The "on hold" feature is only for new nominations - for articles that are already GAs, the review feature is where concerns can be cleared or discussed. The above notice only concerned inline references, a detailed reassessment will follow in due course. Until then, the article remains listed as GA, unless somebody would delist it. If you believe it is not quite there at the moment, try to improve it before the re-review occurs. That said, even if the article would be delisted, it can be re-nominated later on, after the improvements are made. The bottom line is - I am removing the article from the nominations list, because it is not a new nomination. Bravada, talk - 16:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Introductory paragraphs

I edited the first paragraph to be more ambiguous. I am not personally familiar with W.H. Carroll but I was aware of the controversy over the "influence" Zoroastrianism allegedly had on Judaism and thought it best to simply say that some people had one belief and some people had the other. I had not yet seen the discussion page or the interaction between Fullstop and the person who made the Carroll edit.

200.108.27.63 18:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

May I just ask why Masdaism is added to the first paragraph. I was confused. This article seems to need help.69.122.62.231 15:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Mazdaism and Zoroastrianism are (effectively) synonymous. The relationship between the two is explained in the second paragraph of the Terminology section.

But I see your point. The two boldfaced terms in the lead sentences need a "bridge" between them. Perhaps something along the lines of "Z. is also known as M., which ..."

-- Fullstop 01:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

It appears that at the same time I was making my changes, someone else was vandalising the article. I tried to restore it but am not familiar enough with the Wikipedia interface to do so effectively. Please remedy this as soon as possible.

200.108.27.63 18:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

I am concerned with some of the assumptions the article bases itself upon. I realise the topic I am concerned with is especially controversial. I would just like to mention that when laying out the core structures of a religion, the only way to maintain a kind of just neutrality for believers and non-believers is perhaps to approach belief systems phenomenologically. The so-called 'objective' position adopted is situated in opposition to "belief" and that is surely not neutral. For example, the article seems to persistently mention that some of the abrahamic faiths "borrowed" their central ideas from zoroastrianism, which quite directly opposes the understandings and positions of "believers" of these Abrahamic faiths who would regard their respective teachings as divinely received, (while they would either reject affinity with other abrahamic faiths or at least admit that have also been individually and seperately ordained for different groups and eras). A material perspective which appears to suggest that like technology, religions are random collections of rituals and beliefs which have been exchanged and borrowed etc, disrespects the understandings of believers. Finally, since the article is directed towards the global english speaking community on earth, it would be just to reflect and appease the opinions of the large majority of mankind who do indeed hold metaphysical beliefs, rather than attempt to maintain an external secular "objective" perspective, which when analysed in detail, hides significant amounts of JudeoChristian-abrahamic inheritance. 1

Please do not dismiss my concerns. I am sure they are the concerns of many Thankyou —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.46.129.236 (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

So you are saying because there are a large number of adherants to abrahamic religions in the Enlgish speaking world the encyclopedia should appease the opinions of them as a priority over factual information? I cannot think of a worse way to compile an encyclopedia. Vexorg 01:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

zoro stub up for deletion

Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/2006/December/6#.7B.7Btl.7CZoroastrianism-stub.7D.7D_.2F_.7B.7Bcl.7CZoroastrianism_stubs.7D.7D —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dangerous-Boy (talk • contribs) 23:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Noted Zoroastrians

It is mentioned or rather implied in this part of the article that Bollywood actress Smriti Irani is a Zoroastrian. She is not. By the very fact that Zoroastrians do not proselytize and Smriti's navjote has not been performed she is not a Zoroastrian. She is married to an Irani that does not make her Zoroastrian either. As of now and what is widely asserted is that only those whose navjotes have been performed are entitled to be called Zoroastrians. A non-Zoroastrian does not become part of this faith by marriage either. The same could be the case with actress Aruna Irani, the surname cannot be the basis for the assumption that a person is of Zoroastrian faith. Benaifar 02:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

fixed as per your objections. -- Fullstop 13:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

ps: Please don't hesitate to fix things yourself.

Avesta and Veda

While there's almost a glut of information on how Zoroastrianism relates to Abrahamic faiths and much on its socio-religious history, there a strange paucity of information regards to the very clear sisterhood of the Avesta and the Veda(s). The the homa ritual (fire) which is central to Vedic faith (and subsequently Hinduism), the deva-asura split, the extremely close relationship of the holybooks in terms of language and structure.... all these are given an extremely casual glance, which is very strange. The same thing is obvious in the Hinduism page. I wonder if a "Vedism/Hinduism vs. Zoroastrianism" or some such page might be created, exploring this, and referenced in the main body of both the Zoroastrianism and Hinduism articles for those interested in this. I don't know, it seems frightfully more interesting than the way it's currently been presented in both the Z'ism and H'ism articles. --68.173.46.79 02:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Much of the discussion of this isssue is on pages related to Indo-Iranians and the Aryan concept. Paul B 07:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

There's an emphasis on Z'ism's influence on the west because that's where our bias lies. I'd love to see a page showing the connections between the Avesta and Vedas, with a summary here. I didn't find this material on either the indo-iranian or aryan page. Jonathan Tweet 16:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

My three cents:

1) Hindu homa is neither linguistically nor functionally connected to Avestan Haoma. Haoma is linguistically and functionally related to Vedic Soma. Avestan Haoma is also not connected to fire (which is Atar in Avestan, no/unknown Sankrit cognate), but to "the waters" (Apo in Avestan, Apas in Sanskrit).

2) With respect to I wonder if a "Vedism/Hinduism vs. Zoroastrianism" or some such page: There is - Zoroastrianism and Hinduism, but should probably be renamed 'Zoroastrianism and Vedic religion', which could then safely include Hinduism without actually equating 'Vedic religion' with Hinduism (as that article presently does to stay within the confines of the topic).

3) See also Proto-Indo-Iranian religion.

--

btw, it is the reverence for *water*, not fire, that is common to Indo-Iranian religion. In a nomadic herdsmen society on the steppes, it is water and not fire that one would pray for/to. It is water, not fire, that is associated with wisdom ("Mazda" in Avestan. See also Aredvi Sura Anahita). In both Avestan and Rigvedic mythology fire is actually born of the waters (cf. Apam Napat, also an Avestan entity). In the Gathas, Zoroaster is seen to have his revelation on a river bank while making an offering to the waters. In a earlier passage, Ahura Mazda Himself sacrifices to the waters. Even in living Zoroastrian tradition, it is water, and not fire, that is the focus of the Yasna service/purification ritual. See also: Ab-Zohr.

In the Vedas we have (among others) the connected mythologies of Saraswati, Apam Napat, the Apas and Vahuranis. See also Rigvedic rivers. In Hinduism (that is, post-Vedic religion) we have the association of Varuna with the waters (only alluded to in the Vedas, properly developed later in the Puranas). Likewise Ganga/Ganges.

-- Fullstop 14:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

New uploaded picture of ancient Zoroastrian temple.

I just uploaded this picture of a 5000 year old Zoroastrian temple in the Wakhan Valley of Tajikistan. I thought you guys might want to add it to this article. So here it is:

Behnam 03:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Either that construction is not 5000 years old and/or its not Zoroastrian. If it were 5000 years old it would predate Zoroaster. Even if it were half that age, it cannot be a Zoroastrian fire temple. Finally, I must draw attention to the tendency to identify every structure whose purpose is unknown as a fire temple. (eg this) And even if it is indeed a fire temple, it is not necessarily Zoroastrian. (eg, this).

As always, it is extremely important to check sources, which tourist-oriented publications rarely do. For instance, what does the archaelogical survey of Tajikistan say about this structure? -- Fullstop 15:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Exellent Article!

I think that this article is very informative and is full of information. This has not been suect to vandalism and I personally want to keep it that way.

Miscalculation in Demographics

This article says that there are ~69,00 Zoroas. in India, and by 2020 there will only be ~23,00, and then it claims that their percentage of the entire Indian population will go from 0.006 to 0.002. That is more than likely wrong because although there will be only one third the Zoroas. left there percentage will be even less than a third than it's current amount because India's population would've increased. If the percent went from 0.006 to 0.002 after a 46,000 person decrease, it would mean that India's population would've stayed the same for 19 years, even though India has a high growth rate.

Recent removals

"Fullstop (Talk | contribs) m (→Adherents - rm more of the recently inserted "lets call all Iranians Persians" crud.)" - People of Iran are Persians, in a similar way English people are British and people from Netherland/Holland are Dutch. Parsi translated to English is Persian (Persian=Parsi). Unfortunately during the Islamic conquest, the Arab attempt to remove P from the Persian alphabet resulted in a small number of words beginning with P to use F instead. Hence Farsi, which correctly is Parsi. Even today, the Arabs do not have P in their alphabet: Palestine = Falestine (in arabic), Pepsi = Bebsi in Arabic and so on. Anyone who speaks a dialect of Farsi/Parsi is considered a Persian. This includes many Afghani's, Kurds, Azari's and of course, all Iranians. A growing number of Persians have also started to say Parsi instead of Farsi due to their dislike of the unwanted Arab influence. Also on another note, possibly unrelated but good to know: it is wrong to say "the people of Iran speak Parsi/Farsi", the correct way is to say "the people of Iran speak Persian". You wouldn't say "the people of Germany speak Deutsch" or "the people of Denmark speak Dansk", you would offcourse say "the people of Germany speak German, the people of Denmark speak danish.
"Fullstop (Talk | contribs) (Zoroastrianism was not "formed approximately 1600-1200 BCE", nor is "north-eastern region of Iran" "Persia", nor were his teaching recorded as the Avesta, nor is Z. monotheistic per WP definition.)" - According to many books, the BBC, history channel and university professors Zoroastrianism was formed between 1600-1200 BCE, and /Zorostrianism is one of the oldest monotheistic religion. Wikipedia is NOT made for defaming other religions or twisting history.
And why was the picture of Zoroaster removed?
I will revert things back as soon as possible.
--Sina7 00:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sina7 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

Please spare us the bile. Your assertion that "People of Iran are Persians" and "English people are British" etc is completely irrlevant to an article on Zoroastrianism. This article is not about the people of Iran, or about the language they speak, or about what the native name of that language is. That you are not in agreement with what is in academia understood by the term Peoples of Iran is your own personal affair.

As for your "according to many books" etc remark, I suggest you actually read properly cited material, which - even if you don't have a library in your neighbourhood - can also be gathered on Wikipedia itself. For example, for the date of Zoroaster, under Zoroaster. As for being "one of the oldest monotheistic religions", and in connection with what you learn for the date of Zoroaster and at monotheism, you'll have to cite more than the BBC (yes, you will actually have to use an academic source) and you will have to explain precisely what the source considers to be monotheism, which is a very vaguely defined term and very culture-dependant. You should perhaps also read the points listed in #Lede sentence below.

Didn't I bet you would accuse me of being anti-somethingortheother?

-- Fullstop 18:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The BBC who writes academic material for high schools all across the United Kingdom, as well as assisting the Open University with research and academic video's and books is surely a qualifying source. Im sure they are not stupid enough to mislead all the high school population of the United Kingdom and have their information based on globally accpeted studies, books and sources. Not only did I source BBC, but also the World Zoroastrian Organisation etc. If monotheism is a "very vaguely defined term" by your saying, then denying that it is not one of the oldest monotheistic religion is also wrong. If you think the definition is vague, then you could possibly say "Zoroastrianism is seen by many as one of the oldest monotheistic religions, however, some do dispute this". Perhaps you should also go and dispute the "monotheism" tag on Judaism too, since its "very vague". I have asked BBC for their sources which should be interesting and will help shape this article further.

To the other point regarding the Academia, I will send you a reply via a message later on, as I do agree it may be somewhat irrelevant to this discussion page. Never the less, what is Relevant to this article, is the exclusion you made by removing "Persians" or "Persian" when the article was referring to the people of Iran, since both Iranian and Persian serve the same purpose and are both equally right. --Sina7 17:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

On the use of adequate attribution: (see also: WP:Attribution)

• Don't confuse the direct product of a news agency with the product of its research facilities. The BBC has vast research facilities, the contents of which are independently a) used by the company's news delivery channels and b) made available to the public at large. When one cites the BBC, it is the news that is being cited, not any eventual research behind that news. This may be compared to the work of a scholar who uses a library - one cites the scholar, not the library.
• A primary source (which is what the BBC is) is very easy to misuse, and (in Wikipedia) are citable only within a very narrow scope, under very special conditions, and only with an appropriate disclaimer. In the Zoroastrianism monotheism case, one could very carefully cite the BBC as an example that some people consider Zoroastrianism to be monotheistic. Even then, such a citation would have to be very, very, carefully phrased, because even a sentence such "Zoroastrianism is sometimes considered<BBC ref goes here> one of ..." is both original research and a mis-citation.
• Actually, don't *ever* cite a primary source on wikipedia unless you are writing an article on a current event (and this is permissable only because there are no secondary sources yet). An article with credibility is an article that cites only secondary or tertiary sources and only when these secondary/tertiary sources themselves always cite other sources.
• A word of caution while I'm on the subject of citation: There are a few Wikipedia users who quote themselves. That is, they have built a website somewhere suggesting earnestness by stealing reputable articles from elsewhere (giving themselves credibility), then add their own articles to it and then quote those on wikipedia are a "reliable" source. For knowledgeable readers, the errors are blatant and cause wikipedia to lose credibility. If the reader is also an editor, it might discourage them from editing further. But far more insidious are the implications for the user who doesn't know better, who then absorbs it as "fact" and spews it out again elsewhere.

On the removal of "Persians" or "Persian" when the article was referring to the people of Iran:

• In the absence of any modifiers (such as 'Greater'), and in particular when applied to the 'Adherents' section (where your edits were), the term "Iran" refers exclusively to the present-day nation, per the Wikipedia definition of Iran as the proper name of a political entity, known in full as the Republic of Iran.
• Until recently, and continuing at least for the History section, the article uses the word "Persian" exclusively in a specific, narrow, precise context to refer to the tribe of Parsa, Persia proper, for which there is no other name, and following which the two empires are referred to as Persian empires. The term is hence strictly an ethno-linguistic descriptor.
• So, no. As far as this article is concerned, Iran(ian) and Persia(n) are not equivalent, and do not serve the same purpose. This article's references to "to the people of Iran" (as you put it, the brackets so you can check (!) what you are referring to) is not only distinct from Iranian peoples (note plural), but also distinct from Persian people (note singular).

-- Fullstop 13:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

BBC is not just a "news" source. I can see your understanding of the BBC as an organization lacks a wider scope, possibly because you do not live in the United Kingdom. Perhaps you should look at the extensive material BBC writes for schools, colleges and universities. http://www.bbc.co.uk/learning/ , http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/revision/ .. BBC educational videos are the most popular videos used in schools and colleges in the United Kingdom. Alot of people rely on BBC materials for their exams and education up until university. BBC seldom publishes many books and materials to help students.

Persian means Parsi/Farsi and Persia means Fars/Pars. Try typing in "Farsi" in Wikipedia. "Persian" is the name for the language spoken by the People of Iran. In other words, anyone who speaks Farsi are Persians. Don't people refer to people of Holland as the Dutch? Because they speak Dutch? Yes. You speak Deutsch/German, so you are a German/Deutsch. A person who speaks English, is English. A person who speaks Persian, is Persian. But I understand when you say this article restricts its usage due to the Persian tribes \ Parsa's located in India.

--Sina7 01:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

History section

The history section states "The Zoroastrian religion was formed approximately 3000 BC (1200 BCE)". As far as I know, BC and BCE are synonymous, so which number is correct? --Danogo 09:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

According to these following books - "Zoroastrians, Their Religious Beliefs and Practices" by Mary Boyce, "Daily Prayers of the Zoroastrians" by Framroz Rustomjee, "History of Zoroastrianism" by Maneckji K. Dhalla, "Zoroastrianism and Judaism" (1918) by George William Carter, the dating ranges from 1600-1400 BCE. I think the 3000 BC was probably put there by mistake trying to reiterate another dating scale as the BCE is in ( ). BBC's account says 1200 BCE, I have asked them to detail their source. I will remove 3000 BC for now. --Sina7 19:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The 3000 BC may be an error for 3000 years ago, which would roughly fit with the bracketing of 1200BCE, though the 200 year difference is odd. It's probably the result of multiple editors altering bits and messing up the whole. Paul B 12:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The date of Zoroaster does not in any way contribute to a history of Zoroastrianism. Also, whether he lived in the early stone age (3000 BC!) or late bronze age is completely irrelevent to his teachings. Boyce and others have made estimates, but every estimate is (and will forever be) disputed, which is why there is a whole section dedicated to the subject over at Zoroaster. -- Fullstop 17:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You don't mean that really, do you? It is relevant in which age Zoroaster lived. His teachings are a mirror of the troubles of his time. Have a look again at Boyce's work. Just my two cents! Shabdiz | Talk 10:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, his teachings are a mirror of his upbringing and society, not of his time, otherwise we would be able to define with reasonable certainty when he was around. As Gershevitch and Zaehner put it, Zoroaster's teachings were "timeless and ageless" insofar that they were so universal that they could apply to any time and any place.

Then, since you're calling on Boyce, I will too: :) Because Zoroaster's background is that of the arch-conservative priestly traditions of the nomadic pastoral society of the steppes, its hardly relevant whether he lived in 1500 BCE or in 500 BCE - the traditions were the same. (so Boyce, Z1, Ch.1) Indeed, the fundamental assertion that Boyce makes is that (with the exception of the Zurvanite phase and Haug's contributions) Zoroastrianism accurately preserves the conservative traditions of Zoroaster's time.

Further, ask yourself this: What would the improvement to the Zoroastrianism article be if you chose any particular estimate?

a) it wouldn't improve the Zoroastrianism article one iota

b) it would contradict what a whole section over at Zoroaster attempts to address

c) every Tom, Dick and Harry would be trying to "correct" it. This is amply supported by the article's history.

-- Fullstop 18:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

ps: Your two cents are valuable! :)

BCE

It really annoying constantly finding references to BC replaced by BCE. BC doesn't mean anything (B.C. indicates a shortening), moreover B.C. is before Christ (a greek name for an oily person), whereas B.C.E. is before christian era. As this is highly inflamatory to anyone who is not a christian I would have thought this would be the last place to find such terminology.

May I remind you that the Roman calendar was finally sorted out on 26th February 1BC, which whereas Christ was born around 4BC, which makes B.C. refer to a period before the modern calendar (when all dates have to be adjusted) Mike 11:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this a joke? Paul B 12:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Paul, no it is not a joke. I can't see why people are starting to use "Before Christian Era" as a new notation. I'm sick and tired of reading articles and having to stop to think whether it says 4BCE or 48CE - it is no joke - try searching the internet for BC, B.C. BCE, B.C.E. and probably a few others and you'll realise that this PC notion is absurd. Historical texts will always have BC (because that is how they were written), - perhaps we should have another acronym for the 3rd millenium AD (latin for from referring to from the start of the 4yearly leap year cycle in the calednar) and call it "APC" - "after polical correctness" or even better "ACS" - after common sense. Mike 14:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Your original comment was written in such a way that it wasn't very clear what you were saying, especially your weird claims about "Greek for an oily person", which seemed to be rather beside the piont, since the "Christ" in question is obviously Jesus. BCE can be interpreted to mean Before Common Era or Before Christian Era. This is important to some people, not to others. BCE/CE notion is quite common in academic literature, especially on the history of religion. Paul B 14:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Paul, sorry for being obtuse - crestos being annointed coming derived etymologically in greek from oil - without checking it probably could be translated as "oiled". I did for a while use BCE - but it just made tables longer and at made reading documents slower. As I read a lot of historical documents from around "0"BC it is very annoying. Indeed, to search for all English documents within a century of 0BC would require the following searches: require: "0..100BC", "0..100B.C." "0..100BCE", "0..100B.C.E.", "0..100AD", "0..100A.D.", "0..100CE", "0..100C.E.", add to that spanish, etc. and you may understand why I get screaming mad that we didn't just stick with BC & AD, and explain that they had no particularly meaning but if they did it was to refer to the beginning of the modern calendar with 4yearly leap year. From a poll of British archaeologists, I understand that they are sticking to BC/AD, so as BCE has no particular benefit I suspect it won't be long before people start going back to the tried and tested method where 48BC / 48AD can't be confused (both suffixes are same length with no letters in common)whereas 4BCE is easily confused with 48CE (different length, two letters in commons, the difference letter easily confused with 8 - any communications expert will tell you this is a disaster!)Mike 21:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Comparison to Chrisitianity

Someone recently removed the comparison of the flame to the Christian Crucifix. I reverted it because it is an apt comparison. I would not understand that section of the article without the comparison. --Savant13 16:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit baffled.

I've done some research on Zoroastrianism and perhaps what catagory of religion does Zoroastrianism fall under? Abrahamic, Dharmic, or perhaps it falls under Mystery Religion. Can anyone give me an answer? Because I think it should be added to this article. Anker99 04:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi it doesn't fall under any religion! Zoroastrian religion is only non-Semitic faith (apart from Hinduism and Buddhism, subject to considering them as religions); -However, it is considered to be the oldest, and the only Indo-European religion in the world. ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 16:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

@Anker99: The rubric "Abrahamic" and "Dharmic" are used to collectively refer to sets of religions (by name) with common doctrine. This sort of collectivization (by name) is not possible for Zoroastrianism because there are no surviving belief-systems that can be clustered with it.

 

Taxonomically, Zoroastrianism clusters with the other immediate derivative religions of the prehistoric Indo-Iranians. This does not of course mean that Zoroastrianism is itself that old, it only means that there are no other immediate ancestor belief-systems from which Zoroastrianism descends. In turn, Zoroastrianism has no surviving daughter religions. Where historical Vedic religion (taxonomically, Zoroastrianism's nearest relative) has long since evolved into other religions (including the dharmic ones), none of the religions that evolved out of Zoroastrianism have survived. In that sense, Zoroastrianism is a living fossil (or would qualify as one if it were organic): it has no close living relatives (its nearest relative has long since evolved into something else), has survived major extinction events, and has no surviving sub-species (Zurvanism is long dead). But like other living fossils, it is liable to bite when confused with something else. :)

Nonetheless, this hasn't prevented attempts from trying to categorize Zoroastrianism anyway. The two favourite ones are "Eastern philosophy" and "Western philosophy". Both sides have valid points of comparison:

• In favor of the "Eastern" argument we have the derivation from Indo-Iranian culture and the points of comparison in terminology and ritual. Zoroastrianism also clusters with "Eastern philosophies" in many points of its theology - e.g. in its cosmogony; the distinction between mind and matter (later a western philosophical development, eg in Aristotle); the assignation of physical and moral phenomena to hypostatic entities; a monotheistic but non-monist creator principle; the universal coexistence of benign and malign; all being is good; all creatures have a "soul" etc.
• In favor of the "Western" argument we also have numerous points of Zoroastrian theology - such as personal and final judgement; autarky from God (cf. clockmaker hypothesis); that the universe (and life) has a specific purpose and fixed lifespan; that good and evil conflict (not just coexist); the lack of a philosophy of reincarnation; the immensely strong doctrine of free-will and the complementary rejection of pre-determination/"karma" (this is specific to Mazdaism, contra now-extinct Zurvanism with its astrological foundation); the notion of an infallible God; and so on.

Some of Zoroastrianism's basic principles are downright unique, and thus - regardless of geography or epoch - not categorizable at all. For instance, the rejection of asceticism and that mortals have an *active* role to play in the conflict between good and evil. This distinguishing characteristic (which is a doctrinal consequence of Zoroaster's concept of free-will) is so crucial to Zoroastrian theology that placing Zoroastrianism "in a drawer" with another religion would result in most of the doctrine hanging out of that drawer. :)

-- Fullstop 14:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

ps: Notwithstanding the invalidity of the supposition that mystery religions cannot also be something else (Abrahamic, Dharmic whatever), no, Zoroastrianism is not a mystery religion either. Some of the rites/rituals are limited to the initiated only, but that doesn't make any more a mystery religion than, say, the serving of the eucharist in a closed communion. Initiation is by itself of course not unique to mystery religions, otherwise all the Abrahamic and Dharmic religions would also count as such.

pps: your question (posted elsewhere) about the Magi: The common era use of "Magi", in particular in Greek (which the New Testament was originally in) and Latin (and thus also in other European languages), is a reference to either a Zoroastrian in general or specifically a Zoroastrian priest. However, this was a 4th century BCE development and should not be confused with earlier (or non-European language) uses of the word. There is no particular reason to believe that the Magi were specifically Medians (as that article suggests) or of any other particular tribe or people. That the Biblical Magi were supposedly proficient in astrology - as is implied from the 'following a star' story - suggests that they were Zurvanites.

Iranian Zoroastrian and Indian Subcontinental Zoroastrians

With immigration and globalization how often do the two main geo(-ethnic?)groups of Zoroastrians interact? Do they intermarry? What are the religious differences if any? Do they share congregations in the communities outside of the Asia? Arthurian Legend 05:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

the two groups rarely, if ever, interact in/from their own home countries. Notable exceptions are immigrants to a third country (the US or UK for example), where they may come in contact with members of other groups at religious functions. But only a few cities have well-mixed Zoroastrian communities; Toronto, LA and Sydney come to mind. The emigré/exile Iranian Zoroastrian community in India is fairly well integrated as well (though the Indian Zoroastrians won't hesitate to point out the differences).

There are also organized tours that visit the sites of the other group, but like tourists everywhere, they rarely come in close contact with the "natives."

A particularly noteworthy difference between the two groups is their observance of different religious calendar(s) (cf Zoroastrian calendar), which effectively defines religious observance and the observance of the Zoroastrian festivals. These differences also contribute to the isolation of the two communities outside their respective home countries, since there is then no particular day when the groups are likely to meet.

In general and in particular with respect to rites and rituals, the Iranian Zoroastrians are far less pedantic then their Indian co-religionists. This is in part due a more pragmatic world-view by Iranian Zoroastrians, and in part due to a lack of an Iranian orthodoxy/formal priesthood: most (if not all) Iranian places of worship are managed/maintained by laypersons. There are very, very few (only 2 or 3 IIRC, with one over 90) professional Iranian priests left, so there isn't much religious guidance available from that quarter. There are also a handful of priests of Indian origin who provide ritual services. Little else however because of language difficulties and because of their attitude - the Indian priests frequently see it as a "punishment" posting, a time to be bridged until they get a position back home.

Although doctrinal differences are few, there are some customs preserved in one country that have either long since died out in the other. Each group also has a few distinguishing customs/characteristics that have come about through the syncretic influences of their respective environments. Further, the naming conventions (not only pronounciation) of the one group are not necessarily the same as those of the other.

-- Fullstop 14:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info!Arthurian Legend 17:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

"unnecessary baggage"?

In this edit, User:Bobisbob justified the removal of For example, one of the popular strains within Zoroastrianism considers both good and evil as creations of God. This relatively recent development is attributed to influence from Christianity ... as "unnecessary baggage."

• As is evident from the edit immediately preceding Bobisbob's, this "unnecessary baggage" is actually a very commonly identified (whether correct or not is here immaterial) characteristic of Zoroastrianism.
• Even if something were actually been "unnecessary baggage," it seems rather remarkable that precisely that one sentence but no other would qualify as 'unnecessary' or 'baggage'.
• But it is precisely that sentence and no other that an anon had only a few edits ago and (repeatedly) over many days attempted to mangle.
  But a quick scan of the other edits of the anon - 69.29.10.36 aka 69.179.63.191 aka 69.179.62.52 aka 69.179.104.64 - and those of Bobisbob, demonstrate a consitant edit pattern. They are obviously all the same person, who has now finally gotten around to creating an edit account, but who just "happened" to fly-by this article in his 27th edit.

Anyway, the sentence is not 'unnecessary', so back it comes. Bobisbob is of course quite welcome to share his take on it here on talk. Perhaps that sentence really has a problem and only Bobisbob has noticed. But if so talk is in order.
-- Fullstop 00:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I didn't think we needed an example of Zoroastrian influence since it already discussed that in the following paragraph. Plus correct me if I am wrong, but the sentence says that Zoroastrianism was influenced by Christianity but the scholar cited (Boyce) says the opposite Bobisbob 00:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You have again tried the "unnecessary" argument, even though I have already explained that that sentence is anything but unnecessary.

Anyway,...

• No, the sentence you removed is not an example of Zoroastrian influence. It is quite specifically an example of influence on Zoroastrianism.
• An example of influence, irrespective of direction, is quite appropriate in a section titled "Relation to other religions."
• And no, it is not being discussed in the following paragraph, which until the addition of the Bahai stuff a few days ago, deals only with the prehistoric/formative influences on Zoroastrianism.
• And no, Boyce is not being cited, and even if she were, she does not say the opposite.

Please read the sentence/paragraph/section again.

-- Fullstop 13:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay then, sorry for the trouble Bobisbob 16:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

monotheism, monism

but the Zoroastrian definition of monotheism is neither comparable nor compatible with the monotheism of other religions because, unlike other monotheistic religions, Zoroastrians are not monist.

but which monotheistic religion is monist ?
they are exclusively different, should this phrase be removed ?
--Khaled Khalil 13:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Somehow I get the impression that the "monotheism" tag is being treated as some kind of "Quality Approved" stamp.

In any case, "exclusively different" is not quite true for Christianity where God is the creator of everything, including the fallen Angel Satan, aka the epitome of evil.

So, IMO,

"unlike other monotheistic religions ... not monist"

could be read as ...

"unlike religions in which the (the epitome of) evil was at some point created by God (fallen Angel etc), evil in Zoroastrianism does not originate in God, who is only benevolent."

Does that make more sense? I really dislike the "monotheistic" stamp though. Because it depends on the definition of "God", its so vague that it can be interpreted to mean just about anything (or nothing). Go ahead and remove the statement.

-- Fullstop 17:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I first tried to incorporate Run4fun's addition, but then decided it was not this article's place to make sense of vague/subjective labels. Either readers know that "monotheism" is a dumb label (in which case the article doesn't have to explain its caveats), or they are going to have inapplicable preconceived notions (which then can't be fixed with two sentences). -- Fullstop 04:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Circumcision

Are Zoroastrianists circumcised? Just curious. 62.128.42.30 06:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

If you meant "is there a religious commandment...," the answer would be "no." -- Fullstop 16:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Huh?

I'd never even HEARD of this religion before I saw the name in a BBC World news article online in the sentence "Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and Zoroastrians are attending the event organised by the Sant'Egidio Community, a Catholic lay organisation." Weird.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.235.192.165 (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Asians know math. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.39.21.10 (talk) 18:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Basic beliefs should be clear and at the top of this article

I noticed months ago when I cam here, I read the article, and it got into some details and such, but unlike many wikipedia articles I did not come away quickly and clearly with what zoroastrians beliefs. I think that what most people want when they come here is a two to three sentence understand of what zoroastrians beliefs. so i would recommend making that concise and right at the topic of the article. I had added to the page, hope that is helpful. Cheers! Webulite 01:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Not coming away with "quickly and clearly" with a summary of Zoroastrian beliefs is without a doubt a serious problem. However, the reasons for this are manifold, and not solvable with "a two to three sentence" summary. Some of the reasons are...

1. Zoroastrians don't have a (central) authority that decides what or what is not a "standard" belief, nor does it have a tradition of interpretation - Zoroastrian priests do not preach or give sermons or in any way formulate religious "policy".
2. there is no such thing as formal religious instruction - other than learning the basic prayers by rote, in an extinct language, with no - oh fear! Zandiks! - "interpretation" to accompany them.
3. Historical developments and influences are another factor, and Indian Zoroastrianism is in many respects different from its Iranian cousin. This is a completely natural development for any minority (and I mean *minisculine* minority) that has had to adapt with the times.

Zoroastrianism is hence a very personal affair, for modern Zoroastrians also a question of self-tutorship, and thus for each individual as unique as the nose on their face.

---

However, there are some basic precepts that are indeed universally understood, and what better way to explain these than to address your summary?

• Communication between Himself and humans is by a number of Attributes, called Amesha Spentas

In neither ancient nor present-day Zoroastrianism is this true. In traditional Zoroastrianism there is no communication at all. Either one lives his life in furtherance of asha or one doesn't. "Free Will" is literally free will. No waffling! No "saviour" (poor boy, you did bad, oh, my, never mind, you can be saved now). Nobody died for you, so get tough and fight.

In present-day Zoroastrianism, "communication" occurs in the form of "conscience" (sarosh, hypostatized as Sarosh) and has nothing whatsoever to do with the Amesha Spenta. Because its a relatively modern construct I would also not count "communication" as a "Basic belief". Zoroastrianism is not Christianity, and one does not talk to/with God (who in any case has better things to do that listen to puny humans who should be out doing what they were created to do - see explanation below).

The Amesha Spenta are - in the Zoroastrian cosmological model - the principle emanations, and through which the physical universe is created. This idea is only alluded to in the Zoroastrian canon, but nonetheless reasonably well established (cf Bundahishn). Incidentally, Zoroastrian cosmology is not Zoroastrian doctrine, ergo not a "Basic belief".

• One school of thought promotes a cosmic dualism between: ... Ahura Mazda ... and Angra Mainyu"

This "school of though" is Zurvanism, a heretical (or not, again depending on interpretation) branch of Zoroastrianism that was popular in the 2nd-7th centuries, but is now long extinct.

• The ... cosmic conflict [involves] humanity who is required to choose which to follow.

Although the idea of a cosmic conflict is Zurvanite, in Zurvanite philosophy, there is no need to choose because Ahura Mazda is going to triumph anyway. Hence "Zurvanite fatalism" (contra "Mazdaen optimism")

In Mazdaism, with its Free Will, humanity (collective noun) does not choose. Each one to his own, and in any case one does not become good or become bad. One does good or does bad, in accord with the precept of good/bad words/thoughts/deeds, but one cannot become one or the other.

Later in the section you note that in the present world where good and evil are mixed, but this implies that they are admixable. They are not. Good "is" (see Asha below). Bad "isn't". A physicist might say matter and anti-matter. Matter has order - Asha - protons, neutrons, atoms doing their thing. Anti-matter and matter cancel each other out, and if allowed them to mix, kaboom, no Creation left.

• Another school of thought perceives the battle between Good and Evil as an ethical dualism, set within the human consciousness.

This is only true for present-day Indian Zoroastrianism. It is based on a very Christian take on the faith.

• Asha is a form of righteous, all encompassing, natural law.

Asha is *THE* basis of Zoroastrian philosophy. The manifest evidence that God exists. The (defence of which is) reason why mortals are created. The reason why words/thoughts/deeds are important. Asha is not a law (of God), Asha is "is". Empirical truth.

The concept of Asha is impossible to explain in one sentence, or even three. There is no book that doesn't devote a whole chapter to it. I've tried to explain it in summary in the article, but even then I appear to have failed miserably.

With respect to the rest of your "Basic beliefs" summary, as you note, these are of (eschatological) tradition, and (with one exception) certainly not "basic" beliefs. The one exception is People's good works are seen as gradually transforming the world towards its heavenly ideal; but you have it the other way around.

The world was Created perfectly (Creation=Ahura Mazda, perfection=order=Asha again). Mortals have the duty (indeed, it is their purpose) to *maintain* the order, otherwise decay/chaos will prevail causing grief and misery, causing grief and misery, causing grief and misery,...

---

What "Basic belief(s)" then boils down to is...

1. the Creator is (all) Good, the essence of Good
2. the (manifest) universe is a product of the Creator, hence all good.
3. the (manifest) universe was created and runs according to an intrinsic plan.
4. [everything in] the (manifest) universe, including plan, is (an aspect of, a manifestation of) the Creator.
5. that plan is asha, and asha is the empirical truth because mortals can actually see the plan in every aspect of creation (everything happens according to a repeatable pattern == order, plan). Hence the plan is what "is", and the empirical truth is in turn evidence ("is") of Creation and of the Creator.
6. the (manifest) universe is inclined to fall apart because of the effect of chaos and decay, that which "isn't"
7. because "isn't" isn't, "isn't" is not a created "is" (hence, like Ahura Mazda, uncreated).
8. all mortal beings are created to preserve/maintain what "is"
9. not doing so allows things to decay (they revert to becoming "isn't").
10. how a mortal preserves/maintains asha is his/her own business. (free will!)
    • bad thoughts/words/deeds are destructive because they cause grief and misery which distracts from maintaining the order.
    • no thoughts/words/deeds is not constructive, hence allowing decay and chaos to prevail
    • good thoughts/words/deeds maintain the order by not causing grief and unhappiness

Does that make sense? The logical weaknesses in this listing are my fault, and no way reflect the remarkable coherence of the Gathas. *sigh* But I did my best. -- Fullstop 17:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Oldest monotheism, vol. 451

I'd like to know how anyone comes up with the line in this article that Z. is the oldest monotheistic religion...I happen to be Jewish and our religion started with Abraham 2000 BCE, which from trying to piece together the different years mentioned in the article and in the discusion page makes Judaism older. Plus, the Pharoah Akenaton experimented with monotheism under a sun god a couple hundred or so years earlier I believe. Hinduism often claims to be montheistic at the core because they believe their many gods/goddesses are simply aspects/personas of One. Who is to say there weren't other experiments in monotheism earlier than all of that? An obscure monotheistic tribal religion in new guinea or the amazon perhaps that was wiped out with the coming of Europeans perhaps? But...personally it doesn't matter in most Jews eyes whether or not Z. is older or not, it is simply doesnt meet the Jewish definition of monotheism which is that there is ONE God and only ONE God. The very belief in duality of good and evil and TWO equal deities in conflict goes against that belief. Camelbinky (talk) 03:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Feeling better now? :)

1. the Jewish concepts of exclusive monotheism date to Isaiah, not to 2000 BCE. But yes, the oldest bit (for any religion) is indeed myopic.
2. To (mis)use your own words (sans shouting): Zoroastrianism too "has one God and only one God" (line #1 of "Basic beliefs"). No, it does not have "two equal deities in conflict."
3. dualism has nothing whatsoever to do with any understanding of the concept of "God." Neither historically or otherwise. The word was in fact originally coined to specifically represent a particular concept unique to Zoroastrianism, but even so, it is not what you evidently think it is. What this unique concept is, is explained in detail here. In case it sounds familiar, you might want to follow up with this.
4. yes, just because "it is simply doesn't meet the Jewish definition of monotheism" doesn't mean a religion can't be monotheistic according to its own definition of "God."
5. before 2 December, the Zoroastrianism article specifically did not use the word "monotheism" precisely because it was subject to misunderstanding. An anon inserted it into the article in early December and it wasn't caught. I've removed it (again!).

No need for aggressiveness. There aren't (at the moment) any fanatics around here that you need to do battle with. Nice username by the way. :)

ps: see also Talk:Zoroastrianism#monotheism.2C_monism

-- Fullstop (talk) 04:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

well, sorry you believe i was being aggressive, and what is with the idea that capitals mean "shouting", people used capitals for emphasis LONG before the internet was even science fiction, im typing and using a medium of writing, not a medium of talking. but back to the topic, zoroastrianism does indeed use the idea of two equal deities, if you dont get that from this article then the article is wrong, if you want a list of comparative religion books to look through i'd be happy to supply that with you along with the fact that they all explain why Z. sometimes is called monotheistic and is not. it seems this article uses too much information from websites and the Z. community itself and not from academic sources, especially books, but thats a common lacking in wikipedia, people dont cite actual books, just websites —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.78.243.25 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope, Zoroastrianism does not have an idea of two equal "deities" (whatever "deity" might mean). The two principles are co-eternal antitheses, but not deities, not even in the sense of Judaism's many "deities".

I have a fairly clear idea of what kind of "comparative religion books" you might be reading, but the 'pedia is not a forum, so I'll desist from addressing them. It doesn't matter anyway, at least not for people who are not tainted by the idea that "monotheism" is some kind of ideal or seal of approval.

btw, this article is based on academic sources. The article is poorly implemented, but (in the main) based on real books. Mostly the authoritative kind, and made out of dead trees. No "web" sources here.

-- Fullstop (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I can understand you not wanting to address the "comparative religion books" that I was required to read GOING TO COLLEGE. We all know those can be very unscientific and not very authoritative. If you don't know what a deity is perhaps you should look it up. Judaism was monotheistic long before Isaiah, what you mistake for accepting that others have many deities does not make judaism polytheistic. Z. has two deities, deal with it. "two co-eternal anti-theses" means the same thing —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camelbinky (talk • contribs) 02:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Good grief. No actually, you can't understand, because you aren't reading what I wrote nor thinking about what I said. So, you're all blood-rushed. Like your initial post all over again.

And (though irrelevant) yes, required reading can indeed be unscientific and un-authoritative.

And "two co-eternal anti-theses" does not mean the same thing as having two deities. Except of course for persons suffering from the errant supposition that 'eternity' automatically implies 'deity'. Thankfully, most educated people (after Heraclitus anyway) are free of this. Like Philo, for example.

In any case, your ideas of Z. are as uninformed as that of the missionaries who framed the polemic in the first place (and that your "comparative religion books" faithfully reproduce). So do us all a favor and find somewhere else to regurgitate the swill. Wikipedia is not a forum. If you wish to educate yourself, fine. For continued soapboxing, you might find blogs or newsgroups more suitable to handle your needs.

-- Fullstop (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

wrong?

This article contains the quote, "Death and burial: Religious rituals related to death are all concerned with the person's soul and not the body." But, I just read the article on "Towers of Silence" and it's all about how corpses are considered unclean, and that the ceremony is about disposing of the body in a way that avoids tainting other things as much as possible. That pretty much completely contradicts the aforementioned assertion. Anyone know the resolution to this?65.183.135.40 (talk) 23:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Its down to poor phrasing really. What its (presumably) trying to say is that nothing in Zoroastrianism is ever directed at/for mortals themselves.

Let me try to explain...

A little backround information first:

Zoroastrianism doesn't really have a concept comparable with what is immediately associated with the word "soul". The nearest phrase that might explain the Zoroastrian principle is "collection of experiences." The body is in turn the means to collect those experiences.

But "soul" can be used anyway because its a convenient handle for the essence of the person, or to put it another way, the things that make a person distinct from everyone else, i.e. his/her character. And the things that make up character are of course the experiences gathered.

Now, according to belief, some time after death, the "collection of experiences" are reunited with their fravashi (lets just call it "guardian spirit" for the sake of convenience, but its not really that), who use those experiences to continue the battle of asha vs druj elsewhere.

Before the reuniting with the fravashi, it is supposed that the "character" has to cross the chinvat bridge, the bridge of the separator. This "trial" is mediated by several divine judges.

So, when the article speaks of rituals for the soul, its speaking of prayers invoking the judges to be gracious in their judgment. According to belief, what the judges effectively do is simply decide whether reuniting occurs immediately, or at "some" point in the future. The reuniting always happens eventually. There is no eternal damnation in Zoroastrianism, and there is no such thing as a cardinal sin. (heck, there are no sins at all, there are only things that don't further good).

As I said before, nothing in Zoroastrianism is ever directed at/for mortals. And this is what the article is (presumably) trying to say with "rituals related to death are all concerned with the person's soul and not the body."

The rites involving the corpse are purificatory, they are no "memorial services" or whatever. Harsh as it sounds, after death, a corpse is just meat. Dead, bang, gone. Thus the idea of letting dogs/birds have it. At least there'd be some use to it.

-- Fullstop (talk) 01:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Relation to Other Religions

There is a line in this section that says, "In Christian Theology, evil is the absence of God, as also seen in nature that Darkness is the absence of light." Actually, that is a Neoplatonist thought, and one that has been rejected by Christian Theology for the most part. Perhaps a better statement would be, "In Christian Theology, evil is disobedience to God." —Preceding unsigned comment added by PneumaPilot (talk • contribs) 17:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

is zarathustra zoroaster?

I have a question of a general nature. Was Nietzsche referencing Zoroaster with his title Thus Spoke Zarathustra? And if so, should this be articulated in the article or at least mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by C.H. Dowd (talk • contribs) 15:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

See the Zoroaster article. Paul B (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

yes they are the same just different languages

Please sign (~~~~) your comments. ناهد/(Nåhed) _speak! 21:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Population

The population figures have changed dramatically. It is now estimated that the population of Zoroastrians in the world is from 2 to 3 million. This figure is in terms of self identity (people who consider themselves of the Zoroastrian religion) This new figure is due to several reasons.

• 1.) Prior to very recent reforms, Zoroastrians didn't accept conversions or children of mixed marriages (which make up the majority of Zoroastrians today).
• 2.) After the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and U.S. intervention in the Middle East, the Zoroastrians of Iran, Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan have been receiving less religious persecution than before, and have been less reticent about identifying themselves
• 3.) there seems to be an increased respect for and interest in this classical Persian religion which was once one of the largest in the world.

This figure does not represent an increase in population, but rather a re-evaluation of the current numbers. -- User: cbhadha April 28, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbhadha (talk • contribs) 01:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Given that I have seen zero discussion of this sudden boom, either in academic journals nor in the Zoroastrian press, I'm afraid this 4000-fold leap in numbers will have to take a back-seat until reliable sources (government censuses would be a good start) can substantiate it.

And given that there have been no censuses (at all) since 2001 that take religion (other than "Shia" or "Sunni") into consideration, these figures have no doubt been obtained from a crystal ball, which though suitable for anti-Islamic propaganda, are not worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. Welcome to common sense.

But... thank you for the circumspection you have shown in providing your thoughts here on talk, and not just changing the article. I wish everyone were as courteous. Thanks again. -- Fullstop (talk) 03:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

How is it suitable for "anti-islamic" propganda? Do you consider all other religions islamophobic or is it only when it comes to the zoroastrians and their numbers you feel like if your religion is in danger? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.47.140 (talk) 17:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The fictional numbers first appeared in the aftermath of 9/11 on a certain Christian fundamentalist website. The comment posted by Cbhadha above is in fact a copy-paste from another website that itself copy-pasted it. This latter website not only uncritically regurgitates the fictional number for Zoroastrianism, it also uncritically regurgitates a great deal more. The identity of the author(s) of the supposed "re-evaluation" are not mentioned anywhere. -- Fullstop (talk) 19:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Then Fullstop, it is your statement that "christian fundamentalist websites" in fury of the aftermath of 9/11 faked the Zoroastrian population. In my opinion that's a bit far-fetched. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ingesnus (talk • contribs) 22:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say "faked". No need to attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. That they can't themselves explain their flaky stats (on the order of a magnitude in one year?) is rather obvious.

Actually, even adherents.com knew better. -- Fullstop (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Catholic fixup

The section Other characteristics said:

focus, much like the crucifix in Catholicism.

I substituted "Catholicism" for "Christianity" – none in Christianity worship the cross (it would be a very weird idea to worship an execution device, although quite usable for the uncyclopedia ;^) – and "Catholicism" just refers to the concept "a church for all". The Roman Catholics were probably those intended, but the Lutheran Catholics, the Free Catholics, the Liberal Catholics, and foremost the Anglican Catholics might feel forgotten. Said: Rursus (☻) 07:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

(FYI: the opposites of "Catholic" is "Sect" and "Cult". Said: Rursus (☻) 07:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC))

Yes, "Catholic" means "inclusive" as an ordinary word. In religion, as you say, it's usually just an abbreviation of "Roman Catholic", but it can be used to refer to all episcopal forms of Christianity. Crucifixes are not exclusive to Catholicism in either definition. Paul B (talk) 08:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

There'sno such thing as a "Lutheran Catholic" et. al. All those denominations you listed vroke from the Catholic (note, large "C") church.Jersey John (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The reference for Zoroastrianism as statist

I find the claims introduced by this edit very likely and reasonable. I was interested, so I searched for more details related to these publications. The problem is that googling and searching on google books does not produce any non-wiki hits for the title of the article cited, for the title of the book, or for the names of the editor and the author as scholars of Zoroastrianism or religion in general. This is pretty unusual for a mainstream scholarly publication. I have come across fake references (to non-existing publications) previously, so I have some doubts about this case.--Anonymous44 (talk) 22:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur with your findings. Moreover, the url being cited is for an article titled "The Evils of Christianization: A Pagan Perspective on European History", and in which the words "Zoroastrianism" (or variants) and "Sassanian" (or variants) do not even occur.

Even so, the claims made by that inserted paragraph are not reasonable at all.

• No religion can hope to survive if were to discourage "Loyalty to the state". Zoroastrianism is not special in this regard. Indeed, Zoroastrianism has itself no doctrinal identification with the *state* at all. This must be distinguished from *nation* -- the Iranian *nation* was not a *state* until the Sassanians made it so.
• Zoroastrianism was not "particularly statist" in relation to other religions. *All* surviving religions were at some point state-sponsored. Heck, there would have been no Mayflower pilgrims or "Church of England" if England had not been "particularly statist". Nor would there be Islamic law in the countries of the Middle East if these were not "particularly statist". Closer to the point, the Zoroastrians would (probably) not have migrated to India if the Caliphate (note the name) had not been "particularly statist".
• The identification of rule with religion is equally universal, e.g. in the notion of divine empowerment as a legitimation of rule. Greek tyche baileos, Latin fortuna regia, Chinese tianming all express the same idea and were invoked long before the Sassanians came along and invoked khvarenah. Babylo-Akkadian and Egyptian rulers were "god kings" long before there was even such a thing as Zoroastrianism, leave alone Sassanians.

During Sassanid times Iranian *national* identity was used as a justification for imperial aspirations. Religion was only one aspect (albeit a crucial one) of this identity. Moreover, the Sassanid-era nationalism has to be understood in the context of the preceding five centuries of Hellenistic influence, the "corruptions" of which the Sassanians declared themselves to be in opposition to, and which they defined as their mission to get rid off. The uniquely Iranian Zoroastrianism fits into this picture, and the nationalistic (not "statist") Iranian (not "Persian") nature of Zoroastrianism was (next to language) the significant unifying factor among the multitude of Iranian tribes. This is presumably what the source meant. The editor's portrayal of "Loyalty to the state" as a "characteristic" of Zoroastrianism is false. That Zoroastrianism is "particularly statist" is also false. The Zoroastrian concept of an "Iranian glory" is inherently nationalistic, but not statist and not bound to any time frame or political entity.

Assuming the paragraph were corrected (and the source was properly cited), a description of Sassanian-era religion belongs under "History" and not under "Characteristics".

-- Fullstop (talk) 13:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I do believe that some religions are much more inherently statist than others but I won't argue here. BTW, the online Iranica article on Zoroastrianism has a similar argument regarding Sassanid times and even tries to explain the conversion to Islam by it. Since that is an available source, maybe the current claim should be replaced with a paraphrase of the Iranica argument. I don't feel like doing it, though. It does seem kind of misleading to make such a statement specifically for Zoroastrianism, since I'm sure that the Islam, Judaism and Christianity articles don't discuss their "statism".--Anonymous44 (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

this religion is tight —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.151.95 (talk) 22:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

130,000

Regarding the figure of 130,000 practitioners in total, can't it be added somewhere else as the total amount of practitioners all over the world? --Enric Naval (talk) 16:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

There used to be citations in the "Demographics" section, but somehow those vanished and the only one now there is some lame link to a newspaper article. The previously cited sources were...

• Eliade, Mircea; Couliano, Ioan, eds. (1991), "Zoroastrianism", The Eliade Guide to World Religions, San Francisco: Harper Collins, p. 254, ISBN 0-06-062145-1.
• Melton; Baumann, Martin, eds. (2002), "Zoroastrianism", Religions of the World: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and Practices, Oxford: ABC-CLIO, p. 634, ISBN 1-57607-223-1 {{citation}}: |first= missing |last= (help).

These two plus the next one are cited elsewhere on WP...

• Hopfe, Lews M.; Woodward, Mark R., eds. (2003), "Zoroastrianism", Religions of the World: Media And Research Update, New York: Prentice Hall, p. 313, ISBN 0-13-183007-4.

Hopfe & Woodward is required reading at some universities, but the article on Zoroastrianism is quite bad (more precisely: it reads like it were based on 19th century sources, even terminologically). These three sources (Eliade, Melton/Baumann, Hopfe/Woodward) and an earlier edition of the "130,000" Fisher book also appear at adherents.com. The citation for the Fisher book used by the diff would be:

• Fisher, Mary Pat (1996), Living Religions: An Encyclopaedia of the World's Faiths, London: I B Tauris, p. 214, ISBN 1-86064-148-2.
  "Few followers remain of this ancient way of combating evil with goodness. There are thought to be only about 130,000 living Zoroastrians."

Although that book has a remarkably good section on Zoroastrianism (in contrast to most encyclopedias), I'd prefer not to use it if it can be helped. Like most general-audience encyclopedias, it has no sources.

Reliable sources include:

• Boyce, Mary (1979), Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, p. 226, ISBN 0-7100-0121-5.
  ..."total of 129,000 souls, with 82,000 in India, 5000 in Pakistan, and 500 in Ceylon; 25,000 in Iran (of whom about 19,000 [in 1976] lived in Tehran); 3000 apiece in Britain, Canada and the USA, and 200 in Australia. There are also small groups still in Hong Kong and Singapore."
• Palsetia, Jesse S. (2001), The Parsis of India, Leiden: Brill, p. 1, 1 n. 1, ISBN 90-04-12114-5.
  "Parsis presently number approximately 110,000 individuals worldwide [, of which India per Census 1981, X] 71,630; [Per Hinnells] Britain, 5,000; USA, 6,500; Canada, 4,500; Australia, 300; Pakistan, 3,000; Hong Kong, 150; Kenya 80; [Per Amighi] Iran 20,000 [but] estimates based on official statistics places the population [Z in Iran] at 50,000 individuals out of a world Zoroastrian population of 150,000 [more refs]"
• Hinnells, John R. (2005), The Zoroastrian Diaspora: Religion and Migration, Oxford University Press, p. 6, ISBN 0-19-826759-2.
  "[Iranian sources] claim that there are more than 100,000 in the mother country. [Parsis worldwide number] 100,000 to 120,000"

These three are authoritative. -- Fullstop (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Fullstops numbers only counts parsees and not all Zoraoastrians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.47.43 (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Each provided quotation says precisely what it is for. In Fischer's case total Zoroastrians, and the others have numbers for both Parsis and for non-Parsis. -- Fullstop (talk) 23:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Britannica Info

Zoroastrianism

Main

the ancient pre-Islamic religion of Iran that survives there in isolated areas and, more prosperously, in India, where the descendants of Zoroastrian Iranian (Persian) immigrants are known as Parsis, or Parsees. In India the religion is called Parsiism.

Founded by the Iranian prophet and reformer Zoroaster in the 6th century bc, the religion contains both monotheistic and dualistic features. It influenced the other major Western religons—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. For a discussion of the context in which Zoroastrianism arose, see Iranian religion.

Nature and significance

The ancient Greeks saw in Zoroastrianism the archetype of the dualistic view of the world and of man’s destiny. Zoroaster was supposed to have instructed Pythagoras in Babylon and to have inspired the Chaldean doctrines of astrology and magic. It is likely that Zoroastrianism influenced the development of Judaism and the birth of Christianity. The Christians, following a Jewish tradition, identified Zoroaster with Ezekiel, Nimrod, Seth, Balaam, and Baruch, and even, through the latter, with Christ himself. On the other hand, Zoroaster, as the presumed founder of astrology and magic, could be considered the arch-heretic. In more recent times the study of Zoroastrianism has played a decisive part in reconstructing the religion and social structure of the Indo-European peoples.

Though Zoroastrianism was never, even in the thinking of its founder, as aggressively monotheistic as, for instance, Judaism or Islām, it does represent an original attempt at unifying under the worship of one supreme god a polytheistic religion comparable to those of the ancient Greeks, Latins, Indians, and other early peoples.

Its other salient feature, namely dualism, was never understood in an absolute, rigorous fashion. Good and Evil fight an unequal battle in which the former is assured of triumph. God’s omnipotence is thus only temporarily limited. In this struggle man must enlist because of his capacity of free choice. He does so with his soul and body, not against his body, for the opposition between good and evil is not the same as the one between spirit and matter. Contrary to the Christian or Manichaean (from Manichaeism—a Hellenistic, dualistic religion founded by the Iranian prophet Mani) attitude, fasting and celibacy are proscribed, except as part of the purificatory ritual. Man’s fight has a negative aspect, nonetheless: he must keep himself pure; i.e., avoid defilement by the forces of death, contact with dead matter, etc. Thus Zoroastrian ethics, although in itself lofty and rational, has a ritual aspect that is all-pervading. On the whole, Zoroastrianism is optimistic and has remained so even through the hardship and oppression of its believers.

History » Pre-Zoroastrian Iranian religion

The religion of Iran before the time of Zoroaster is not directly accessible, for there are no reliable sources more ancient than the prophet himself. It has to be studied indirectly on the basis of later documents and by a comparative approach. The language of Iran is closely akin to that of northern India, and hence the people of the two lands probably had common ancestors—the Indo-Iranians, or Aryans. The religion of the latter has been reconstructed by means of common elements contained in the sacred books of Iran and India: mainly the Avesta and the Vedas. Both collections exhibit the same kind of polytheism, with many of the same gods, notably the Indian Mitra (the Iranian Mithra), the cult of fire, sacrifice by means of a sacred liquor (soma in India, in Iran haoma), and other parallels. There is, moreover, a list of Aryan gods in a treaty concluded about 1380 bc between the Hittite emperor and the king of Mitanni. The list includes Mitra and Varuṇa, Indra, and the two Nāsatyas. All of these gods also are found in the Vedas, but only the first one in the Avesta, except that Indra and Nāñhaithya appear in the Avesta as demons; Varuṇa may have survived under another name. Important changes, then, must have taken place on the Iranian side, not all of which can be attributed to the prophet.

The Indo-Iranians appear to have distinguished, from among their gods, the daiva (Indo-Iranian and Old Persian equivalent of Avestan daeva and Sanskrit deva, related to the Latin deus), meaning “heavenly,” and the asura, a special class with occult powers. This situation was reflected in Vedic India; later on, asura came to signify, in Sanskrit, a kind of demon, because of the baleful aspect of the asura’s invisible power. In Iran the evolution must have been different: the ahuras were extolled, to the exclusion of the daevas, who were reduced to the rank of demons.

History » The reformation of Zoroaster

Zoroaster (Zarathushtra) was a priest of a certain ahura (Avestan equivalent of Sanskrit asura) with the epithet mazdā, “wise,” whom Zoroaster mentions once in his hymns with “the [other] ahuras.” Similarly, Darius I (522–486) and his successors worshipped Auramazda (Ahura Mazdā) “and the other gods who exist” or “Ahura Mazdā, the greatest god.” The two historically related facts are evidently parallel: on both sides the rudiments of monotheism are present, though in a more elaborate form with the prophet Zoroaster.

It has not yet been possible to place Zoroaster’s hymns, the Gāthās, in their historical context. Not a single place or person mentioned in them is known from any other source. Vishtāspa, the prophet’s protector, can only be the namesake of the father of Darius, the Achaemenid king. All that may safely be said is that Zoroaster lived somewhere in eastern Iran, far from the civilized world of western Asia, before Iran became unified under Cyrus II the Great. If the Achaemenids ever heard of him, they did not see fit to mention his name in their inscriptions nor did they allude to the beings who surrounded the great god and were later to be called the amesha spentas, or “bounteous immortals”—an essential feature of Zoroaster’s doctrine.

Religion under the Achaemenids was in the hands of the Magi, whom Herodotus describes as a Median tribe with special customs, such as exposing the dead, fighting evil animals, and interpreting dreams. Again, the historical connection with Zoroaster—whom Herodotus also ignores—is a hazy one. It is not known when Zoroaster’s doctrine reached western Iran, but it must have been before the time of Aristotle (384–322), who alludes to its dualism.

Darius, when he seized power in 522, had to fight a usurper, Gaumata the Magian, who pretended to be Bardiya, the son of Cyrus the Great and brother of the king Cambyses. This Magian had destroyed cultic shrines, āyadanas, which Darius restored. One possible explanation of these events is that Gaumata had adopted Zoroastrianism, a doctrine that relied on the allegiance of the common people, and therefore destroyed temples or altars to deities of the nobility. Darius, who owed his throne to the support of some noblemen, could not help favouring their cult, although he adopted Auramazda as a means of unifying his empire.

Xerxes, successor to Darius, mentioned in one of his inscriptions how at a certain (unnamed) place he substituted the worship of Auramazda for that of the daivas, which does not mean he opposed the daeva cult as such, as a true Zoroastrian would have done, but only that he eradicated somewhere—probably in Babylon—the cult of deities alien to the religion of the ahuras. It points to a change of attitude, compared with Cyrus’ tolerance of alien religions, such as the Babylonian or the Jewish religions.

From Artaxerxes II (404–359/358) onward, the inscriptions mention, besides Auramazda, Mithra and the goddess Anahita (Anahit), which proves only a change of emphasis, not the appearance of new deities.

History » The Arsacid period

In consequence of Alexander’s conquest, the Iranian religion was almost totally submerged by the wave of Hellenism. At Susa, for instance, which had been one of the capital cities of the Achaemenids but where the religion of Auramazda was not indigenous, the coinage of the Seleucid and Arsacid periods does not represent a single Iranian deity.

Then the Iranian religion gradually emerged again. In Commagene in the middle of the 1st century bc, gods bear combinations of Greek and Iranian names: Zeus Oromazdes, Apollo Mithra, Helios Hermes, Artagnes Herakles Ares. The first proof of the use of a Zoroastrian calendar, implying the official recognition of Zoroastrianism, is found some 40 years earlier at Nisa (near modern Ashkhabad in Soviet Turkmenistan). By then some form of orthodoxy must have been established in which Auramazda and the entities (powers surrounding him) adjoin other gods such as Mithra, the Sun, and the Moon.

In Persis (modern Fars), from the beginning of the Christian Era to the advent of the Sāsānians (early 3rd century ad), any allusion to the fire cult disappears. The coins seem to indicate, in not showing the fire altar, that the prince had lost interest in the Iranian religion.

History » The Sāsānian period

With Ardashīr, the future founder of the Sāsānian dynasty, the situation was different; and this may suggest that his religious zeal—as a hereditary priest of Staxr (Istaxr)—may have helped him seize power in his native province, even before he started attacking his Arsacid suzerain, Artabanus V.

Two persons are recorded, in different sources, as helping to establish Zoroastrianism under the first Sāsānians: Kartēr and Tansar. Whereas Kartēr is known through contemporary inscriptions, most of which were written by himself, Tansar (or Tosar) is only remembered in later books. The latter tell us that Tansar, an ehrpat, or theologian, undertook the task, under Ardashīr’s command, of collecting the sacred texts and fixing the canon. Kartēr, who was already active under Ardashīr I but more so under Shāpūr and his successors, recounted his brilliant career, which reflects the birth of a hierarchy. He was still an ehrpat under Shāpūr, as he restored the “Mazdean religion . . . in the land of non-Iran reached by the horses and men of the king of kings.” Under Hormizd he was made “magupat of Ormazd,” a term apparently created for him and meaning “chief of the Magians of Auramazda.” Under Bahrām I (ad 273–276), Mani, the founder of Manichaeism, who had enjoyed a degree of tolerance under the two preceding kings, was sacrificed to the interests of Zoroastrianism and died in prison. Bahrām II named Kartēr “Saviour of the Soul of Bahrām,” elevated him to the rank of the “grandees of the realm,” and gave him the additional titles of “judge of the empire,” “master of rites,” and “ruler of the fire of Anahit-Ardashīr at Staxr and of Anahit the Dame.” Promoted to the apex of his career, Kartēr persecuted “Jews, Buddhists, Brahmins, Nasoreans [Judeo-Christians?], Christians, Maktaks [Mandeans, Manichaeans?], and Zandīks [Mazdean heretics].” Narses (293–302), who began his struggle for power when Bahrām II was still on the throne, seems to have recovered the title of chief of the Staxr temple that his predecessor and adversary had surrendered to Kartēr. Under Shāpūr II, the high priest Aturpāt, at a council summoned to fix the text of the Avesta, proved the truth of his doctrine by submitting to the ordeal of molten metal poured on his breast and was victorious over all kinds of sectarians and heretics.

Under Bahrām V (420–438), presumably, the title magupatān magupat (chief magus of the chief magi) was created. Under Qobād (or Kavādh; 488–496 and 498/499–531), Iran traversed its gravest social and religious crisis under the impact of Mazdak. This reformer, whose doctrines were partly inspired by those of Mani, was granted an interview by Qobād—as Shāpūr I had received Mani a long time before, but with a more decisive success. Perhaps the King hoped that by abolishing property and the family he would reign over a docile mass. The Mazdakites favoured the abolition of all social inequalities, chiefly of private property, the main cause of all hatred. Everything was to be held in common, including women. These views directly threatened the rich as well as the Mazdean clergy, who soon understood this. Qobād was dethroned and replaced by his brother Jāmāsp. After two years in exile, Qobād recovered his throne, but he had been cured of his egalitarian views and decided to liquidate the Mazdakites.

Khosrow I continued the work of his father, Qobād, and thus the Mazdakite upheaval made way for a strong state and an established Mazdean Church. The religious books give Khosrow the unique title of Anōsharvan, “with the immortal soul,” probably for having crushed Mazdakism and for enabling the “good religion” to triumph.

Khosrow II (590/591–628) married a Christian woman and may have been a Christian himself. He was superstitious and dabbled in astrology.

History » Post-Islāmic Iranian Zoroastrianism

Islām won a decisive victory at al-Qādisīyah in 635 over the armies of Yazdegerd III, the last Sāsānid. Islām, in principle, tolerated the ancient religion, but conversions by persuasion or force were massive in many provinces. Zoroastrianism fomented rebellion and brought persecutions upon itself. There were pockets of survival, notably in Persis, the ancient centre of the Achaemenian and Sāsānian empires. Books were produced to save the essentials of the religion from a threatened disaster. The disaster did occur but exactly why and how is not known. Zoroastrians, called Gabars by the Muslims, survived in Iran as a persecuted minority in small enclaves at Yazd and Kerman.

History » The Parsis in India

From the 10th century onward, groups of Zoroastrians emigrated to India, where they found asylum in Gujarāt. Their connection with their coreligionists in Iran seems to have been almost totally broken until the end of the 15th century. Reestablished in 1477, the connection was kept up chiefly in the form of an exchange of letters until 1768. Under British rule, the Parsis, who previously had been humble agriculturists, started to enrich themselves through commerce, then through industry. They became a most prosperous and “modern” community, centred in Bombay. Formerly they had adopted the language (Gujarati) and the dress of their Hindu milieu. Later they adopted British customs, British dress, the education of girls, and the abolition of child marriage. In their enterprises as well as in their charities they followed the example of the West. From the 19th century on, they were able to help their less favoured brethren in Iran, either through gifts or through intervention with the government.

They also adapted themselves to their Indian culture by minimizing what was repugnant to the Hindus, namely, blood sacrifice; and they surrendered to some extent to the vogue of astrology and to theosophy. On the other hand, ever since they were attacked by Christian missionaries for their dualism, they have been emphasizing the monotheistic aspect of their doctrine.

Beliefs and mythology » Sources

Only the hymns, or Gāthās, are attributable to Zoroaster. They are written in various metres and in a dialect different from the rest of the Avesta, except for seven chapters, chiefly in prose, that appear to have been composed shortly after the prophet’s demise. All these texts are embedded in the Yasna, which is one of the main divisions of the Avesta and is recited by the priests during the ceremony of the same name, meaning “sacrifice.” The Visp-rat (“All the Judges”) is a Yasna augmented here and there by additional invocations and offerings to the ratus (lords) of the different classes of beings. The Vidēvdāt, or Vendidad (“Law Rejecting the Daevas”), consists of two introductory sections recounting how the law was given to man, followed by 18 sections of rules. The Siroza enumerates the deities presiding over the 30 days of the month. The Yashts (hymns) are each addressed to one of 21 deities such as Mithra, Anahita, or Verethraghna. The Hadhoxt Nask (“Section Containing Sayings”) describes the fate of the soul after death. The Khūrda Avesta, or Small Avesta, is made up of minor texts.

The Avesta is, therefore, a collection of texts compiled in successive stages until it was completed under the Sāsānians. It was then about four times larger than what has survived. A summary of its 21 books, or Nasks (of which only one is preserved as such in the Vidēvdāt), is given in one of the main treatises written during the brief Zoroastrian renascence under Islām in the 9th century; the Dēnkart, the “Acts of the Religion.” It is written in Pahlavi, the language of the Sāsānians.

Other works in Pahlavi include, besides a translation and commentary on the Avesta, the Bundahishn (“Primal Creation”), a cosmology. Most Pahlavi books are anonymous, such as Mēnōk-i Khrat (“Spirit of Wisdom”), a lucid summary of a doctrine based on reason, and the Book of Artāy Virāf, which describes Virāf’s descent into the netherworld as well as heaven and hell and the pleasures and pains awaiting the virtuous and the wicked. There are also a few signed works, such as those of the two brothers Zātspram and Mānushchihr, or Mardān-Farrukh’s Shkand-Gumānīk Vichār (“Final Dispelling of Doubts”), an apology of the Mazdean religion directed against Manichaeism, Christianity, Judaism, and Islām.

Finally, there are Zoroastrian books written in Persian, either in verse or in prose. The latter include the correspondence exchanged between Zoroastrians of Iran and India and the treatise entitled ʾOlemā-ye Islām (“The Doctors of Islām”), with decidedly Zurvanite tendencies.

Beliefs and mythology » God

Zoroaster’s silence on Mithra is not easy to interpret. Since this god was closely associated with Varuṇa in India and with Varuṇa’s likely substitute in Iran, Zoroaster can hardly have ignored one-half of this divine pair without a definite purpose. Otherwise, it might be presumed that Mithra was included in the formula “Mazdā and the [other] ahuras”; however, Mithra is called in the Later Avesta (non-Gāthic) an ahura; so is Apām Napāt, a fire or brightness in the waters, corresponding to the Vedic Apām Napāt. As for Verethraghna (the entity or spirit of victory), it seems that since he took over the function of Indra, who was a daeva, he could not be called an ahura; but in order to mark his belonging to the world of ahuras he was called ahuradāta, “created by an ahura.”

It is in the framework of the religion of the ahuras, hostile to the cult of the daevas, that Zoroaster’s message should be understood. He emphasized the central importance of his god, the wise Ahura, by portraying him with an escort of entities, the powers of all the other gods, in an array against the forces of evil.

The moral dualism expressed in the opposition Asha–Druj (truth–falsehood) goes back at least to Indo-Iranian times, for the Veda knows it too, as ṛta-druh, although the contrast is not as sharply defined as in the Avesta. Between these two principles, the Twin Spirits made an ominous choice, the Bounteous One becoming in thoughts, words, and deeds a partisan of Asha, ashavan, while the other became dregvant, partisan of the Druj. After them it was the daevas’ turn; they all chose wrongly. Ever since, the daevas have tried to corrupt man’s choice also.

To the army of the ashavans, headed by the Bounteous Spirit, was counterposed the host of the dregvants, under the Destructive Spirit, Angra Mainyu. Each combatant faced his exact counterpart: the Good Mind opposing the Bad Mind and Aramaiti being countered by Taromaiti.

In this battle, the whole material universe is, through the entities, potentially enrolled, the Bounteous Spirit being the patron of man, Asha of fire, the Good Mind of the Ox, the Dominion of the metals, Aramaiti of the earth, Integrity and Immortality of the waters and plants. Moreover, since the entities are at once divine and human (because both the spiritual and material qualities of man partake of divine), everyone faithful to the wise Ahura can commune with him.

After Zoroaster, considerable changes occurred in the theology he had professed. The entities were reduced to mere deities, which were even separated into male and female. Never again were their names used to designate human faculties. This is probably a consequence of the resurgence of the ancient gods.

It is not known to what extent Zoroaster’s system was meant to be exclusively the cult of Ahura Mazdā. In the Later Avesta all the gods he had ignored emerged again, such as Mithra, Airyaman (whom he had replaced by Sraosha), Anahita, Apām Napāt, Verethraghna, and Vayu. This vast pantheon, still nominally headed by Ahura Mazdā, is similar to the compromise that Darius, according to the interpretation cited above, made between the cult of Auramazda and that of the gods of the nobility.

Not only did Zoroaster’s theology thus lose its exclusive position, but an internal change also modified its equilibrium and even threatened its very essence. The Bounteous Spirit was almost completely reabsorbed into Ahura Mazdā. Whereas in a Yasht the two Spirits fought each other, in the Vidēvdāt Ahura Mazdā and the Destructive Spirit opposed each other by creating, respectively, the good and the bad things. This profoundly affected Zoroaster’s system, for Ahura Mazdā could no longer be the father of the Twin Spirits; he now faced, on equal terms so to speak, a sort of antigod. This alteration probably dates back at least to the 4th century bc, for Aristotle said in the Peri philosophias (“On Philosophy”) that the Magi preached the existence of two principles, Oromasdes and Areimanios.

Beliefs and mythology » Cosmogony

In the cosmogony as expounded in the Bundahishn, Ormazd (Ahura Mazdā) and Ahriman are separated by the void. They seem to have existed from all eternity, when Ahriman’s invidious attack initiates the whole process of creation. The question of their origin is ignored, but it was implied, ever since Ormazd had taken the place of his Bounteous Spirit in the struggle against the Destructive Spirit. Since Ahura Mazdā could no longer be the father of the two adversaries, the question of their origin was inevitable.

A solution was provided by Zurvanism; it is Zurvān (Time) who is the father of Ormazd and Ahriman. But this solution upset the very essence of Mazdaism and was therefore condemned as heretical. Zurvanism was widely accepted, however, perhaps even prevalent, in Sāsānian times. Traces of it are found in Mazdean orthodoxy, some features of which cannot otherwise be explained.

In Mazdean orthodoxy, when Ormazd created the material world, he first produced from Infinite Light a form of fire, out of which all things were to be born. This form of fire is “bright, white, round, and visible from afar.” Gayōmart, the Primal Man, was also conceived as spherical, in the image of the sky. Mānushchihr writes that “Ormazd, the lord of all things, produced from Infinite Light a form of fire whose name was that of Ormazd and whose light was that of fire.” This phrase can be accounted for only as a clumsy adaptation of a Zurvanite text that must have said, in effect, that Zurvān created Ormazd.

The Mazdean quaternity can hardly be explained except as an adaptation of the Zurvanite one. The latter is attested in several texts citing, besides Zurvān, three other names given as those of separate gods but that must be hypostases (essences) of the first one, also called in Manichaeism the god with four faces. Among the various forms under which the Zurvanite quaternity manifested itself, the one associating Zurvān with Light, Power, and Wisdom seems to be the origin of the Mazdean quaternity. Ormazd, in the Bundahishn, has three other names, namely Time, Space, and Religion. To obtain this quaternity, it was sufficient to replace Zurvān by Time, Light by Space, Wisdom by Religion, and Power by Ormazd and to put the latter at the end of the series.

The Mazdean quaternity is reflected in the calendar at Nisa in 90 bc. The Zurvanite speculation that preceded it probably dates back to the first centuries of the Arsacid period and thus was born in the wake of Hellenism and in connection with the spread of astrology.

Beliefs and mythology » Cosmology

In order to vanquish Ahriman, Ormazd created the world as a battlefield. He knew that this fight would be limited in time—it would last 9,000 years—and he offered Ahriman a pact to that effect. After they had created their respective material creations, Ahriman’s first attack was defeated by Ormazd with the help of the Ahuna Vairya prayer (the most sacred Zoroastrian prayer), and he lay prostrate for another period of 3,000 years, the second in a total of four. He was then stirred up by the prostitute (Primal Woman) and went back to the attack, this time in the material universe. He killed the Primal Bull, whose marrow gave birth to the plants and whose semen was collected and purified in the moon, whence it would produce the useful animals. Ahriman then killed Gayōmart, the Primal Man, whose body produced the metals and whose semen was preserved and purified in the sun. A part of it would produce the rhubarb from which the first human couple would be born.

The first human couple were perverted by Ahriman, and it is only with the advent of Zoroaster, after 3,000 years, that Ahriman’s supremacy came to an end. Ormazd and Ahriman then fight on equal terms until Ormazd, at the end of the last 3,000 years, finally will triumph.

Beliefs and mythology » Concepts of man

The idea of man as a microcosm, already illustrated in the cosmogony, is further developed in the Bundahishn .

As a result of the aggressor’s attack, man is mortal. But he does not die altogether. There are five immortal parts in him: ahu (“life”), daēnā (“religion”), baodah (“knowledge”), urvan (“soul”), and fravashi (“preexistent souls”). The latter term seems literally to mean “preeminent hero.” The conception that caused this term to be applied to the “manes” (spirits) or pitarah of Iran is that of a defensive, protective power that continues to emanate from a chief even after death. This originally aristocratic notion seems to have been vulgarized in the same way as, in Greece, any dead person came to be considered a hero, or, in Egypt, an Osiris. Zoroaster ignored the fravashi, but he was familiar with the daēnā. The latter term meant “religion” in both its objective and subjective senses.

Indian and Iranian beliefs in the afterlife have many features in common, probably dating back to the Indo-Iranian period: a feminine encounter, a bridge with dogs watching it, a heavenly journey. In the ancient Indian texts, the Upaniṣads, the soul is welcomed in heaven by 500 apsaras (cloud maidens). In Iran the soul meets his own religion (daēnā) in the form of a beautiful damsel if he has lived justly; otherwise, he meets a hideous hag.

Either before this encounter or after, according to the various texts, the soul must cross a bridge. This, with the young girl and the gods, is attested in India in the Yajurveda and the Upaniṣads. In the Gāthās it is called the Bridge of the Requiter. It leads the good souls to paradise, but the bad ones fall into hell.

The soul has also to undergo a judgment; it appears before Mithra and his two companions, Sraosha and Rashnu. Finally it ascends through successive stages representing respectively his good thoughts (the stars), good words (the moon), and good deeds (the sun) to the paradise (of infinite lights). In the Veda it is said only that the sojourn of the good deed is beyond the path of the sun. In paradise the soul is led by Vohu Manah, the Good Mind, to the golden throneof Ormazd.

Hell also has, symmetrically, four levels. And there is, for the souls whose good actions exactly balance their evil ones, an intermediate place.

Beliefs and mythology » Eschatology

Zoroaster used to invoke saviours who, like the dawns of new days, would come to the world. He hoped himself to be one of them. After his death, the belief in coming saviours developed. Zarathushtra (Zoroaster) was expected to return, if not personally, at least in the form of his three sons who would be born, at intervals of a thousand years, from his semen. The last of these saviours, Astvat-ereta, or justice incarnate, was also simply called the Saviour (Saoshyans).

Only in the Pahlavi books is this theme systematically developed. It is dominated by the idea of a final return to the initial state of things. The first human couple had at first fed on water, then on plants, on milk, and at last on meat. The people in the last millennia will, at the advent of the three successive saviours, abstain in the reverse order from meat, milk, and plants to keep finally only water. The primeval combatants also have their counterparts at the end of time. The dragon that was killed in order to liberate the imprisoned waters will appear again at the resurrection to be killed by another hero. In the last great struggle, the host of good and the host of evil will vie with each other, and each soldier of Ormazd will defeat and kill his own special adversary. This will restore the state of peace that had prevailed initially. The wicked will then submit to an ordeal of molten metal and fire. Fire and Airyaman will cause the metals of the mountains to melt and to flow down as a river of fire. The whole of resuscitated mankind must traverse it; it will burn only the wicked, whereas to the just it will be as sweet as warm milk. The suffering of the wicked will last only three days, however, after which all mankind will enjoy much happiness. On the flattened earth (for the metal will fill in all the valleys), men and women, henceforth shadowless since they are sinless, will taste the bliss of family life. Hell will be sealed forever, and Ahriman will be either powerless or annihilated.

Practices and institutions » Priesthood

The Magians, though not originally Zoroastrian, apparently became acquainted with the prophet’s teachings not later than the 4th century bc. They had the monopoly on religion at the Achaemenian court. The term magus was still used in the Arsacid period. Thereafter, under the Sāsānians, a hierarchy developed, with the creation of the magupat, or chief of magi, and of its superlative magupatān magupat (coined on the model of shāhanshāh, “king of kings”). The ehrpat, originally a religious teacher, was especially entrusted with the care of the fire. The modern equivalent of the word, herbad or ervad, designates a priest of the lower degree, who in the more important ceremonies only acts as the assistant priest. Above him is the mobed. Ranked above all of these functionaries is the dastūr, a kind of bishop, who directs and administers one or more important temples. Priesthood is hereditary, but all priests have to go through one or more ceremonies of investiture over and above those practiced by all the faithful.

Practices and institutions » Ceremonies

All young Parsis must be initiated when they reach the age of seven (in India) or 10 (in Persia). They receive the shirt (sadre) and the girdle (kusti), which they are to wear their whole life.

There are three types of purification, in order of increasing importance: the padyab, or ablution; the nahn, or bath; and the bareshnum, a complicated ritual performed at special places with the participation of a dog—whose left ear is touched by the candidate and whose gaze puts the evil spirits to flight—and lasting several days.

Penance entails reciting the patet, the firm resolve not to sin again, and the confession of sins to a dastūr or to an ordinary priest if a dastūr is not obtainable.

The chief ceremony, the Yasna, essentially a sacrifice of haoma (the sacred liquor), is celebrated before the sacred fire with recitation of large parts of the Avesta. There also are offerings of bread and milk and, formerly, of meat or animal fat.

The sacred fire must be kept burning continually and has to be fed at least five times a day. Prayers also are recited five times a day. The founding of a new fire involves a very elaborate ceremony. There are also rites for purification and for regeneration of a fire.

Practices and institutions » Burial rites

After death, a dog is brought before the corpse; it should preferably be a “four-eyed” dog (i.e., it should have a spot above each eye, as this is said to increase the efficacy of its look). The rite is repeated five times a day. After the first one, fire is brought into the room where it is kept burning until three days after the removal of the corpse to the Tower of Silence. The removal must be done during the daytime.

The interior of the Tower of Silence is built in three concentric circles, one each for men, women, and children. The corpses are exposed there naked. The vultures do not take long—an hour or two at the most—to strip the flesh off the bones, and these, dried by the sun, are later swept into the central well. Formerly the bones were kept in an ossuary, the astodān, to preserve them from rain and animals. The morning of the fourth day is marked by the most solemn observance in the death ritual, for it is then that the departed soul reaches the next world and appears before the deities who are to pass judgment over it.

Practices and institutions » Festivals

Festivals, in which worship is an essential part, are characteristic aspects of Zoroastrianism, a faith that enjoins on man the pleasant duty of being happy. The principal festivals in the Parsi year are the six seasonal festivals, Gahānbārs, and the days in memory of the dead at year’s end. Also, each day of the month and each of the 12 months of the year is dedicated to a deity. The day named after the month is the great feast day of that particular deity.

The New Year festival, Nōrūz, is the most joyous and beautiful of Zoroastrian feasts, a spring festival in honour of Rapithwin, the personification of noonday and summer. The festival to Mithra, or Mehragān, was traditionally an autumn one, as honoured as the spring feast of Nōrūz.

Practices and institutions » Ethics

The precepts of Mazdean ethics focus upon the maintenance of life and the fight against evil. In order to maintain life one must earn one’s living by means of cattle raising and agriculture, and one must procreate. To fight against evil is to combat the demons and whatever beings, men or animals, belong to them. The two points of view seem to coincide, considering that the forces of evil are the forces of death: good is opposed to evil as light is to darkness, as life is to nonlife. The life precepts can be transposed into fight precepts; for instance, eating and drinking are interpreted by Zātspram as a struggle against the she-demon Āz, “Concupiscence.” The two points of view, however, are also contradictory: how can man fight the forces of evil without suppressing certain lives, such as baleful animals? The second viewpoint prevails: Iran ignores, even in theory, the universal respect of life that is preached by Buddhism or that justifies the vegetarian diet of Brahmanic India.

Social reasons (e.g., the desire to maintain family privileges) apparently explain the development of consanguineous marriage, an acute form of endogamy.

Future life should be determined by the balance of the good and evil deeds, words, and thoughts of the whole life. This principle, however, is tempered to allow for human weakness. All faults do not have to be registered or weighed forever on the scales. There are two means of effacing them: confession and the transfer of supererogatory merits (the equivalent of the Roman Catholic “Treasury of Merits” of Christ and the saints). The latter is the justification for the prayers and ceremonies for the departed.

Iconography

There is no Zoroastrian art. Be it in the Achaemenid, Arsacid, or Sāsānian period, Iranian art was predominantly royal. Only one god is represented during the first period: Auramazda, as a winged disk hovering above the king. It is known, however, that Artaxerxes II introduced statues of Anahita into her temples, after the Greek fashion. In the Arsacid period, Greek models also served for the representations of Iranian gods ordered by the kings on reliefs or coins. In the Sāsānian period, deities were represented only in the giving of the royal investiture, as is the case with Ormazd and Anahita at Naqsh-e Rostam, or Ormazd and Mithra at Taq-e Bostan. The frequency of the bullman in Achaemenid and Sāsānid iconography may be due to the obviously royal character of this personage: on seals he wears a crown, and the Pahlavi text calls him Gopatshāh, “King of Gopat.”

Relation to other religions

The debt of Israel to its Eastern neighbours in religious matters is easy to demonstrate on a few precise points of minor importance but less so in other more important points, such as dualism, angelology, and eschatology.

Isaiah 40–48 offers striking parallels with the Gāthā 44:3–5, as has been shown by Morton Smith. Besides the common procedure of rhetorical questions, there is the notion of a god who has created the world and, notably, light and darkness. The very idea of a creator god may be common to all of the western part of the Semitic world. But the notion that God created light and darkness appears in both prophets. It is true that Zoroaster associates light and darkness only to waking and sleep and that no Iranian text says that God created good and evil. Nevertheless, the juxtaposition, in Isaiah, of light–darkness with good–evil sounds remarkably Iranian.

After the exile, the traditional hope in a messiah-king of the House of David who would reestablish Israel as an independent nation and make it triumph over all enemies gave way gradually to a concept at once more universal and more moral. The salvation of Israel was still essential, but it had to come about in the framework of a general renewal; the appearance of a saviour would mean the end of this world and the birth of a new creation; his judgment of Israel would become a general judgment, dividing mankind into good and evil. This new concept, at once universal and ethical, recalls Iran so strongly that many scholars attribute it to the influence of that country. John R. Hinnells has seen this influence especially in the saviour’s defeat of the demons, his gathering of men for the judgment scene, his raising of the dead, and his administration of the judgment. The occasion of this influence, according to Hinnells, may be found in the contacts between the Jews and the Parthians that were initiated in the 2nd century bc but that reached a climax in the middle of the 1st century bc.

Although Pythagoras cannot have been a pupil of Zoroaster, there are striking similarities of doctrine between Iran and Greece. Anaximander’s world picture corresponds to that of the Avesta. Heracleitus seems to have been impressed, in Ephesus, by the practices of the Magi, if not by their theory on the fiery nature of the soul. This would account for the emergence, in 5th-century Greece, of the belief in the heavenly fate of the soul.

The search for an Iranian background to Gnosticism must be placed in a new perspective if the recent view that Gnosticism is really a Christian heresy is accepted. Conclusion

Zoroastrianism is not the purely ethical religion it may at first seem. In practice, despite the doctrine of free choice, a Zoroastrian is so constantly involved in a meticulous struggle against the contamination of death and the thousand causes of defilement, and against the threat, even in his sleep, of ever-present demons, that he does not often believe that he is leading his life freely and morally.

Apart from this attitude, the belief in the power of destiny sometimes culminates in fatalism. The latter is easily associated with Zurvanism, itself sometimes tainted with materialism. In the Mēnōk-i Khrat, it is stated that “though one be armed with the valour and strength of wisdom and knowledge, yet it is not possible to strive against fate.” On the whole, however, as R.C. Zaehner notes, “the theological premises” of Zoroastrianism “are based on an essentially moralistic view of life.”

--Xenovatis (talk) 16:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)