Talk:Zoroastrianism/Archive 3

message: Can their possibly be a way, either on this article or in a seperate, for a listing of Mazdaist Law? (since their is a page dedicated to all 613 Mitzvot for the Torah). For Zoroastrians (or those prospecting to be such), it will make it a little easier to study the faith. -- IdeArchos 20:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Create it if you think we need it. Paul B 21:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Alright, here is the information for study . -- IdeArchos 22:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Law

message: Boy, that section is so bad.
>> The Holy Book of Zoroastrianism is called the Zend Avesta. 
First off, there is no "Holy Book" (singular) of the Zoroastrians.
Even if there were, it would be the Avesta, and not the "Zend Avesta", which is a nomenclatorial error.
>> The Zend is the commentary on the teaching and the Avesta is the original teaching in these sacred texts.
The Zend is a commentary on (portions of) the Avesta. The Avesta is a collection of texts, liturgical and general.
>> Avesta ... was finally written down in Sassanian Times.
The term Avesta itself dates to the Sassanid period, but that does not mean that some of the texts that make up the Avesta did not exist before then. (earlier?, sassanid?, later?) so perhaps an absolute statement like this needs citation.
>> Before the invasion of Alexander and the Islamic conquest of Persia 
>> there were a total of 21 Books followed by Zoroastrians called Nasks.
According to Dinkard 3.175, the nasks were composed 550 years after Alexander. But perhaps another source was used for this, in which case a citation would be in order.
 
Oh, and Alexander's invasion was 330 BCE, the Islamic conquest was in 651 CE. A 981 year gap to drive three dynasties through.
>> Only one of these Nasks remains complete, called the Vendidad. The  
>> traditional explanation for the loss of most of the Nasks is persecution of the 
>> faith by Alexander, though this is questioned by some historians.
Not only by historians. How on earth did Alexander manage to destroy something that did not exist 
until 550 years after his death? Moreover, Alexander didn't hang around long enough to do any persecution.
>> The 21 Nasks did not only contain religious literature but also  
>> included works on Medicine, Astronomy, Botany and Philosophy.  
on Astronomy? As in how God created the firmament? Botany as in the the Hoama tree? Or in the protective powers of Amardad? Medicine in the sense that hygiene and medicine both deal with the preservation of health?
>> In any case, complete copies of most writings from the ancient world are fairly rare.
a factually accurate sentence. :)
>> Besides the Avesta, the Yashts are smaller books for Prayer, often to a specific 
>> being. Other books included are the Afringan, Nyayish, Gah and Sirozah which 
>> partially contain some scriptures of the lost 14th and 21st Nasks (Lost books). 
Besides the Avesta? The Yashts are part of the Avesta!
Other books included in what? (no previous context) 
A Gah is a period of time, not a text, unless Gathas were meant, which are all in the 21st nask, which in turn is all in the Yasna. 
The 14th nask, the Bhakan nask is also called the Bhakan Yasht, which might indicate where that went.
"(Lost books)" sounds like those were the only two lost, when in fact all but the 19th nask has been lost to some degree. Or, if "lost completely" was meant, then "other books partially contain their content" can't be true can it? 
>> Other teachings are the Yasna which means sacrifice and contains prayers 
>> for sacrificial rituals;
Yasna does not mean "sacrifice". It means "worship, offering, surrender, oblation". The Yasna is the (primary) liturgical collection of texts in the Avesta. The texts in it are the foundation of Zoroastianism.
>> the Visperad is a collection of doctrines that are used for exorcism and religious
>> law. The Visperad also includes cosmological, historical and eschatological material.
The Visperad is a collection of supplements to the Yasna that invokes the Angels (particularly when the Visperad is recited at the Gahambars).
-- Fullstop 18:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Holy Book" (????) 

message: Please remove Yazidis from the portal. They are not Zoroastrian, and their religion Yazidi is very different than Zoroastriansim since Yazidis do not believe in Ahriman or Devil as an independent entity. They do not have a fallen angel, and believe that good/evil exist only inside human mind or soul.Heja Helweda 02:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It seems that there is a misunderstanding here. Yazidis are not Zoroasterian. So their inclusion in the people section is totally wrong. They do not believe in Zarathustra as their prophet, and their holy book is not Avesta.Heja Helweda 03:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Yazidis are not Zoroasterian.  Bidabadi 10:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, but I can not see any mention of them at Portal:Zoroastrianism so I am not sure what you are talking about -- -  K a s h  Talk | email 10:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it yesterday. Bidabadi 16:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove Yazidis from the Portal 

message: We've had this discussion on the Christianity page, Talk:Christianity#Four_types_of_monotheism_and_the_exercise_of_a_double_standard.
It's regarding Zoroastrianism being considered monotheism, without any doubt shed on it, in violation of WP:NPOV.  People are gathering references right now, and it is intended to change it to mention that there are both monotheistic and dualistic aspects to Zoroastrianism.
KV 15:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion dualism has nothing to do with monotheism, in the case of Zoroastrianism. I read somewhere that you posted Zoroastrians worship the evil spirit. You are obviously misinformed about that, I have to say. Also you have said Ancient Zoroastrianism was not monotheistic, which is contradictory with a quick look at those books on your research where it says that the dualistic approach is not even apparent in achamenids scriptures in ancient Persia  -- -  K a s h  Talk | email 17:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, I was misinformed to say that Zoroastrians worship the evil spirit, and I may also have been wrong about other aspects of your religion. For that, I apologize; it's simple ignorance, and is not meant as mailice. However, as I said on the other page, I think others are just as misinformed to describe Christianity as tritheism (the rest of that discussion belongs on the other page). Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 17:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

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

text: Alright, then. I thank you for correcting my misunderstanding. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 16:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aspects of Dualism 

message: Substituted at 21:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment