Talk:Sakaldwipiya

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

there was a clearer and tighter version of this article here, perhaps we should revert to that, or at least remove all the unsourced additions. dab (𒁳) 19:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Overhauled

(moved from user talk page)
Dear FullStop, First of all i appreciate your afford. I have some issue regarding changes. Maga of india and magiof iran is same. Please check this link [[1]] specially point 28. ref: Books:

1. ‘Indo-Iranian relations’ by Dr. Tara Chand, p 4.
2. ‘India and Iran: A Dialogue’, paper by Prof. Lokesh Chandra.
3. `The History of the parsees of India’ paper by P.P. Balsara.

Hope you will do need full. --Devessh S N Bhatta (talk) 16:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

1. that link does not say anything like "Maga of india and magi of iran is same". Moreover, not only is that statement incorrect for formal reasons, even when two words have a common origin, they do not necessarily have the same meaning.
2. you copy-pasted those "books" from the bibliography of the page you linked. It is not legitimate to cite sources that you do not yourself possess. You must cite the sources that you are using, not the sources that someone else is using.
   Even so, no scholar in his right mind will ever say anything like "Maga of india and magi of iran is same", and to illustrate that neither the link nor its sources say that, here is a breakdown or what they are being cited for:
   • ‘Indo-Iranian relations’ by Dr. Tara Chand, p 4. is being cited for
     The Maga priests were the famous Magoi or Magi – Zoroastrian priests who spread the worship of fire and Sun and erected temples at Taxila and Multan.
     The context of this sentence is that Samba was cured by those priests. There is no suggestion that they are Maga Brahmins. Indeed, the sentence says (in bold face!) that they were Zoroastrian priests. Note also the use of the Greek words being applied to Zoroastrian priests.
     Even the Sakaldwipiya myth says the Maga Brahmins came from Shakdvipa (not Taxila/Multan!), and Samba invited the Sakaldwipiya some time after he had been cured.
   • ‘India and Iran: A Dialogue’, paper by Prof. Lokesh Chandra.is being cited for the assertion that "There were Sun temples on the banks of Yamuna."
     Again, no suggestion that "Maga of india and magi of iran is same"
   • `The History of the parsees of India’ paper by P.P. Balsara.
     is being cited for the assertion that "The Maga Brahmins ... were of Iranian origin."
     We already know that, and the article says so in the very first sentence of the "Origin myth" section. Again, this source does not say anything like "Maga of india and magi of iran is same."
     It so happens that I own a copy of this source, which is a harcopy of a lecture, and in which Balsara (besides actually discussing "The History of the Parsees of India") briefly touches on Zoroastrian contact with India prior to the coming of the Parsis. Balsara cites the Maga Brahmins as an example such Zoroastrian contact. This is the only thing that the linked article is citing him for.
3. Finally, the word 'magi' is English, from Greek 'magoi'. The Greek 'magoi' represents a Greek *perception* of a Zoroastrian priest. What the Greeks understood by the word is not the same as the Avestan magu. Neither the Greek nor the Avestan word has the same meaning as the Sanskrit 'maga', which refers to a Hindu Brahmin.

As I said earlier... Even when two words have a common origin, they do not necessarily have semantic equivalence (i.e. the meaning expressed by those words is not the same). In this case, you have 3 different ideas, of 3 different religions, of 4 different cultures, of 5 different eras and of 2 different continents.

-- Fullstop (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)