Talk:Zurvanism

message: :Yezidism might be related to the ancient Zurvanism. Especially the dual character of it and the fact that they allegedly respect devil is very similar to Zurvanism, in that in Zurvanism acknowledges Angra Mainyu and Ahura Mazda as opposite equals! --Babakexorramdin (talk) 15:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that Zurvanism was actually a little less dualistic than most other forms of Zoroastrianism... AnonMoos (talk) 08:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It depends on how you look at it. In Zurvanism Ahura Mazda and Angra mainyu, in other words the God and devil are both equal and subjugated to Zurvan (=Time). If time is considered as the Creator then it is a monist religion, but traditionally the God is thought to be the creator. It is still dubious whether we can regard the Malik Tavus of Yezidis as the devil. It is also not said that they see it as equal as to God, but the very fact that they respect it and recognize it as one of the two major forces makes the Yezidism more look like Zurvanism, I think.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 13:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The relation of Yezidism with Zurvanism 

message: My impression of classical, orthodox Zoroastrianism is that it was fundamentally dualistic, and that Zurvanism was a monist heresy rather than "extreme dualism" (to quote the present article). Furthermore, I find the frequent references to a modern monotheistic religion in this article irrelevant. Modern Zoroastrians have been subjected to a lot of pressure from aggressive monotheists for a long time. In Islamic Iran, one had to call oneself a monotheist as a matter of necessity, or rather, survival. Also, this article references the Gathas without citation or reference to translators, as though the doctrines expressed in the Gathas are undisputed.
The article indicates that Y 45.2 speaks of Mazda as the one uncreated God. I beg to differ:
:Then shall I speak of the two primal Spirits of existence, of whom the Very Holy thus spoke to the Evil One: "Neither our thoughts nor teachings nor wills, neither or words nor choices nor acts, not our inner selves nor our souls agree." Y 45.2 [Boyce, Textual Sources for the Study of Zoroastrianism]
:I shall tell you now of the Two Spirits at the beginning of Creation. The Holier of the two thus speaks to the Evil One: "Neither our thoughts nor our teachings, Neither intentions nor choices, Neither our words nor our deeds, Neither our consciences nor our souls ever agree" [trans. Irani]
The article also provides Y 44.7 as an example of monotheism in the Gathas, but I don't see it:
:This I ask Thee, tell me truly, O Ahura; Who established blessed Armaity, the spirit of Benevolence, in the exalted dominion? Who, with foresight, made the son reverential to the father? Thus I seek to comprehend Thee, O Mazda, Through the Benevolent Spirit, the Giver of all! [trans. Irani]
What Zarathushtra really said is a matter of scholarly dispute. I find the references to monotheism in the Gathas highly questionable, but that is another discussion. The fact of the matter is that the Avesta, as the Persians of antiquity knew it, is full of dualism. The present article gives the impression that Zoroastrianism can be either monotheistic, polytheistic, or Zurvanist. I think this needs to be corrected to make clear the fact that the dualism is essential to Zoroastrianism, whether we regard "true" Mazda worship truly monotheistic or not. Because "monotheism" is being used in such an unclear way in this article, I suggest that the term not be applied without clarification.
To cite an example of the present article's confusion about the subject:
:That Zurvanism is altogether considered the heresy is however remarkable since the strict dualism that was implicit to the cult was more in line with the dualism alluded to in Zoroaster's own Gathas ...
It's not remarkable, because the heretical aspect of Zurvanism was not its dualism. Its dualism was not strict, but rather, its dualism was watered down with monism. The heretical aspect was the monism--the monotheistic bent--of Zurvanism. The fact that Zurvanism attempted to usurp Zoroastrian dualism with a higher, amoral monotheism (a deity that, as Nietzsche would put it, was "beyond good and evil") is what would have upset dualist Zoroastrians. For this very reason, Zurvanism is far from dead. It is alive and well in modern monotheistic Zoroastrianism under the guise of, well, monotheism.
Mary Boyce gives a highly pertinent example of Zurvanism in modern monotheistic Zoroastrianism:
:[Maneckji] Dhalla explicitly accepted a modern Western version of the old Zurvanite heresy, according to which Ahura Mazda himself was the hypothetical 'father' of the twin Spirits of Y 30.3 ... Yet though Dhalla thus, under foreign influences, abandoned the fundamental doctrine of the absolute separation of good and evil, his book still breathes the sturdy, unflinching spirit of orthodox Zoroastrian dualism. [Zoroastrians, 1979]
Kaweah (talk) 16:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zurvanism and Monotheism 

message: The relationship between Zurvanism and Roman Myhtrism is far from being discounted by mainstream scholars.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.1.146.100 (talk) 00:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed 'mistaken identity' section 

message: This article repeatedly uses the word "divinity" where the word "god" would typically be used in English (e.g., "the Greek divinity of Time (Chronos)"). Is there a reason for that? I'd suggest that the word "god" should be used instead. RobertM525 (talk) 18:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If that change was made, then some people might think that we are saying that Zoroastrianism is non-monotheistic, which could be a sensitive issue (already debated above on this page)... AnonMoos (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verbiage: "divinity" rather than "god"? 

message: Given that the  Sarvāstivāda school arose in India, not Persia, and that its name and doctrinal content are well already accounted for without bringing in talk of a completely different religion and cultural sphere, I think it's safe to conclude this is wild speculation, unless very strong evidence is forthcoming. The word "sarva" simply means "all" — does this claim of Iranian influence then extend to the wide variety of other things whose name also includes this element?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prime Entelechy (talk • contribs) 09:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supposed relation to Sarvāstivāda 

message: I'm looking for information regarding the sword of zurvan.
Someone. Anyone.
Please provide me the information I need to properly understand the visions I've seen.
P.s. you don't have to believe me but I am the Saoshyant. 174.90.223.147 (talk) 22:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prophecies of Zurvan