Talk:Zoroastrianism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓
Good article Zoroastrianism has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
June 16, 2006 Good article nominee Listed
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Zoroastrianism as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Polish language Wikipedia.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4

Contents


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Population

The population figures have changed dramatically. It is now estimated that the population of Zoroastrians in the world is from 2 to 3.5 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)