Talk:Ahura Mazda

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ahura Mazda article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is supported by WikiProject Zoroastrianism, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Zoroastrianism-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.
	The subject of this article is considered to be of Top importance to Zoroastrianism.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	Ahura Mazda is part of WikiProject Iran, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Iran-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.
	After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

Contents 1 Good versus Evil 2 Wishmaster movies 3 What is Name's origin? 4 In Popular Culture 5 Question 6 Hormuz

[edit] Good versus Evil

There is more to this religion than is mentioned here. For instance, there is supposed to be a clash between good and evil. I can remember the name Ahrima in the role as demon. I checked this out. --Wereldburger758 07:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It is now there in the article. So my previous remark is not longer relevant. -- Wereldburger758 06:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the sections which describes 'the Lie' as chosing to reject Ahura Mazda does anyone else see the parallels with the Christian idea of the rebellion of Lucifer against God? Its worth noticing that Lucifer means 'Born of the Light' and that the word Devil comes from the Greek word Diabolos which means 'Liar'. The verbal parallels are very interesting. The Dualistic Christian sect known as the Cathars saw the created world as coming about through the rebellion of Lucifer/Satan who was the Darkness against God who was the Light. As in this acticle's description of the principle idea of Zoroastrianism, the Cathars' task was to reconnect with God who was separated from us by Lucifer's world of created matter. The imagery of Light vs Darkness is very similar. Some commentators trace the Cathars back to Mani who was himself a prophet who grew out of the Persian tradition, uniting Zoroastrian ideas with Christianity. Very interesting. --ThePeg 17:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Check Lucifer for a discussion on that name. The concept of druj as 'the Lie' is fascinating to me, as an amateur philosopher. I've been focusing lately on a semi-materialistic interpretation of such things. This section:

"chaos (that opposes order); or 'uncreation', evident as natural decay (Avestan: nasu) that opposes creation; or more literally 'the Lie'"

reminds me of entropy. The equivalent concept in Christianity might be the sin nature of Adam's children. It describes the wasting and dispersal of energy from a system, the reduction of order and usability, the increase of unusable chaos and disorder, and the fatigue and breakage of materials. Of course, I can't think of a decent way to add this to the article at the moment. --BlueNight 07:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

actually, take a look at Devil, in particular the Judaism section. -- Fullstop 05:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

"This concept of asha versus the druj should not be confused with the good-versus-evil battle evident in western religions, for although both forms of opposition express moral conflict, the asha versus druj concept is more subtle and nuanced."

This appears to me--how its written--a value statement. The main difference between the two concepts is the focus; asha vs druj refers to something materially universal; while good and evil refers to the realm of the psyche. Whats more nuanced is the implications of the concept, because you have to explain asha vs druj extends to a lot of different spheres. Good vs evil is more direct. But as a religious concept itself isn't more nuanced. The reason Christianity, for instance, focuses on good vs evil, because it treats the world as governed by Logos, so everything in nature is inherently treated as a product of reason, and the focus shifts to the psyche and human volition (the psyche doesn't recognize the order behind things), with conflict in free will, even though thats generally thought of as part of God's plan. While here, everything thats in disorder is out of Ahura Mazda's control. The difference can easily be explained in a way that doesn't sound like its talking down on the good vs. evil concept. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brianshapiro (talk • contribs) 20:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

I'm not certain that your assessment is entirely correct. In particular the view that Christianity sees the world governed by reason; On an intellectual plane this could be one way to explain it, but for the common man and until the 21th century certainly for most clerics as well, faith is not dealt with on an intellectual plane, and indeed could safely be considered to be the sphere opposing reason. Also, the observation that "everything thats in disorder is out of Ahura Mazda's control" is quite ingeneous. :) In Zoroaster's view of Free Will, God does not control. Period. That disorder is out of Ahura Mazda's control is simply a logical consequence of that idea. The way you put it however sounds as if Ahura Mazda has everything but disorder under control. ;)

Nonetheless, you are quite right in observing that from a philosophical point of view "is more subtle and nuanced" could be interpreted to mean "more intellectually appealing [than plain old good vs. evil]". That is, as you also point out, an issue of semantics and could be rephrased, for instance as "not as concrete as". The question is however whether any rephrase would change anything for the world at large,... after all, its all a matter of interpretation, and hence subject to the eye of the beholder. -- Fullstop 12:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

ps: I'm having a hell of a time coming up for a simple coherent and yet comprehensive explanation of the philosophical concept of asha/arta in all its senses of "right" (equitable, fair[ness], honest[y], law[ful], just[ice], accurate, true/truth, proper, moral, virtue[ousness], rightful/right[eousness], integrity, equity, rectitude). Can you help?

[edit] Wishmaster movies

Ahura Mazda is referenced heavily in some of the Wishmaster movies... should there be a paragraph on this? --Ifrit 09:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you link me to "wishmaster movies"? Is it Wishmaster (film)? Sure we can have a part about it under popular media section or something --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 10:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is Name's origin?

I doubt that name is Indo-European origin. Although I don't believe in connection between Indians & Europeans(anthropologically).

Well, I heard Buryat shamanistic(probabily Tengriistic origin) prayer on New Lunar Year celebration(Sagalgaan). It starts & ends by this verse: Xaan Hormasta(Aramazd?) huhe nomyn tenger manai.

I also think that Zarathushtra have anciet Altaic or Proto-Turkic origin. He was born in Central Asia & only Altaic people live there & ever lived.

I know that some of you'll claim that Indo-European people emmigrated from Centra Asia to Europe & India, and I respect your opinion. But I'm find such version very strange, because if it's really so, then where did Kipchaks(Turkic) came from?

P.S: I also know that ancient Turkic people were monotheists(tengriists) & called God with different names: Tenger (Tanri, Tengri, Tener) Alla (this name means - the One who gives & takes, from turkic word 'al' - take) Gozbodi (I doubt about correctnes of this, origin for russian word Gospodi(The Lord))

--—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.204.190.187 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC).

The name 'Ahura Mazda' is not of Indo-European origin, and the article does not presume to say so. As for the name appearing in Buryat recitation...

the name "Hormasta (Aramazd?)" could derive from pre-Zoroastrian times, and/or ...

Zoroastrian influence (or even Zoroastrian derivation) is also quite possible. After all, Zoroastrianism was once the predominant religion throughout the Greater Iranian world, and its quite possible that ritual invocations have survived to the present day even if they have little (if any) relationship to Zoroastrianism any more.

-- Fullstop 05:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In Popular Culture

I've erased this section partly because polluting articles with encyclopedic knowledge of comic books, Wonder Woman and other fiction is not encyclopedic, and partly because it was embarassing and irrelevant. Wikipedia administrators should reconsider permitting users to start headings in articles titled "In Popular Culture" and take a stand against this stupid fad. Scary Monster

I have suggested this be moved to Zoroastrianism in popular culture, in line with other cultural depictions of deities. 212.179.71.70 (talk) 10:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Is Ahura Mazda the same as the Abrahamic God, or is there no way to determine this?--The4sword 01:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hormuz

Is the Persian Hormuz really derived from Ahura Mazda? The reason is that it was the name of several Sassanid Kings. I believe the Shahnameh has ارمزد (Ormazd) and Hormuz (هرمز) which might signify different meanings. Indeed Hor/Khwar means Sun as in Khwurshid or Hurakhsh (Suhrawardi's term for highest light) --alidoostzadeh (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The distinction between o(h)r- and (h)or- is negligible and can simply be attributed to dialectal differences. The theophoric name of the Sassanid kings could be written either way. Its not as if there is a phonetic distinction that needs to be preserved.

or- is distinct from kho-, which is a gutteral consonant (xo, xɔ, xa).

Notwithstanding the later conflation of Mazda with light, the roots are different and developed differently:

• The IIr root of ahura is asu "to be", hence asura, "to make/facilitate being." asu -> Av:ahu -> MP:ho -> o(h)
• The IIr root of hvar is sva "to shine," hence "hvara" "to make/facilitate shining." sva -> Av:hva -> MP:khwa -> kho

Given that Perso-Arabic is essentially an abjad, its rather silly to pretend to represent "correct" pronunciation using it. Just sticking it in is worthless nationalistic preening. Instead of saying "In Shahnameh <chapter:verse> the word is rendered XYZ" and so actually contributing something of substance, the word just hangs there doing nothing. Not that ارمزد is even correct per the Shahnameh. It has a vau, اورمزد.

-- Fullstop (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually I am referencing Dehkhoda's dictionary. Under ارمزد it has

يکی کودک آمدش ارمزدروز بنيک اختر و فال گيتي‌فروز (فردوسی) It is referring to the day of Ormazd Of course there is the more popular اورمزد as well. شب اورمزد آمد و ماه دی So both versions are represented. I'll include both. I think it is important to have this word, since Old Persian and Middle Persian and Modern Persian all have the native word for it. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 03:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• You will never get it, will you?

OR #1: Claiming a source different from the one you are using. (Shahnameh is not Daekhoda)

OR #2: Using a source out of context. (reference to Ormazd roz & Ormazd mah when the subject is neither)

• >>"I think it is important to have this word since since Old Persian and Middle Persian and Modern Persian all have the native word for it"

Please don't insult my intelligence. If you can't think of a reason, then don't come up with a stupid one. Your (plural) parochial/tribal/petty pride/exuberance/naivete is not a secret. That you (plural) are bored is not a secret either. So, unless you have something encyclopedic to discuss/contribute, go bother someone else.

• It doesn't matter if you provide 1 or 2 or 10 "versions." They are all useless. They don't do anything for anyone.

-- Fullstop (talk) 09:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are arguing about. Of course Shahnameh is not Dekhoda, but the Dehkhoda dictionary quotes Shahnameh, Sanai and Abu Shukur Balkhi. So in essense, I am quoting the Shahnameh via Dehkhoda. I would read the dictionary before trying to make a point, just for the sake of argument. Second Ormazd is separate from the word from Rooz. Sanai anyhow does not connect it to the day. Both ارمزد and اورمزد Have been used as shown in the Dehkhoda dictionary, so both are correct.--alidoostzadeh (talk) 19:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)