Talk:Zoroastrianism and Hinduism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Bias

This article makes it seem like Zoroastrianism arose as a deviant from Hinduism rather than the truth, which was that both came from a common set of religious practices. Parts of this article need to be re-written to conform to standards of NPOV. Afghan Historian 19:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This appears to be the theme of the "article" used as "reference" [1] for Maleabroad's version of the article, as summarized in the first sentence of the "Concluding remarks": The extensive spread of the Vedic religion in Iran prior to Zarathushtra explains how the Zoroastrian reform left the basic system unchanged. Er, huh?

Even if it does fly in the face of all established scholarship, what makes that article unacceptable as the only reference for a WP article is its poor scholarship. Anyone can write a blog, and many do, but that doesn't make such a source a valid one. -- Fullstop 06:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fact or fiction?

This article has serious faults, ranging from ingenious mis-representation to bad factual errors:

1. A Hindu would say Om tat sat while a Zoroastrian would say, On Ashem Vohu. false Zoroastrianism has no "perfect vibration" word, and the Ashem Vohu is a full-blown prayer (even if it is only 7 lines long), and the second-most sacred of all prayers.
2. The Magi were a group of priests that were of the same origin and function as the Brahmins. false The Magi are of West-Iranian origin. They also are not of the same function = the Brahmins have always been a sacerdotal caste, while the Magi are a tribe or clan, later becoming the tribe, i.e. the priestly tribe. Moreover, Iranians did not have castes in the same way the Indians developed them, and with the exception of the present-day Zoroastrian priesthood (not to be confused with Magi), these divisions are not hereditary.
3. The Magas of Hinduism are the Atharvans (Athwya in the Rigveda). false The atharvan are not mentioned in the Rigveda, Athwya is not the same thing.
4. Zarathustra, who might be the Vedic Zuryastata ("restorer of sun worship") also belonged to the Maga clan. false First, it is hardly likely that the etymology/meaning of "Zoroaster" - which is not established - should conveniently find a literal translation in a foreign language. Second, the theory that Zoroaster was a Maga was propagandized by the Maga themselves in order to give themselves legitimacy. In the same breath they moved his origin from the Central Asian steppes to Rae in Upper Medea, and "moved" all references to Eastern Iranian geography to Medea. So, if the authors of this article are pushing the Maga angle, they can hardly simultaneously conclude that Zoroaster was of Indo-Iranian origins.
5. Animal Sacrifice This section is crud from beginning to end. We don't know what the dietary habits of the Indo-Iranians were, but can infer that they were not vegetarians from the fact that they were nomadic cattle herders. Zoroastrianism also gradually gave up its practice of the ritual, but it was still preserved by those who worshipped Mithra (Sanskrit Mitra). false Zoroastrians eat meat, lots of it, in all possible forms and combinations. Vegetarianism among Zoroastrians is as common as meat-eaters amongst Jains. [meat eating] later spread abroad in tandem with Mithra worship. false The "export" of Mithra worship is highly speculative, and in any case, the Indo-Europeans (and earlier peoples) were meat eaters long before the advent of the Indo-Iranians.
6. Both religions have triangular flags as the symbol of their religion. false First, Zoroastrianism has no flag whatsoever. Second, the Shiv Sena may have a triangular flag, but we don't know what kind of flag (if any) earlier Hindus (or any other Vedic religion) had.
7. Strict Monotheism false Indo-Iranian religious tradition is anything but monotheistic, and Zoroastrianism is in any case hardly a good example for "strict monotheism" because of the western religious implications involved.
8. Early Vedic Hinduism did not utilize idol worship. ^{[citation needed]} and highly doubtful
9. Idols were initially used in Buddhism ^{[citation needed]} and very highly doubtful
10. while the Iranian branch switced the dichotomy to good Ahuras and bad Daevas. false In Zoroaster's revelation, the Daevas are not in fact evil. These are the "false gods", or "wrong gods", but not evil.
11. Shri Varuna who Zarathustra referred to as the Ahura Mazda FALSE. Zarathustra did not refer to Varuna as the Ahura Mazda. Ahura Mazda predates Zoroaster, and may refer to a common predecessor *Varouna, but this is far from certain.
12. Ahura Mazda (Rigvedic Assur Mehda or Assur Mahadeo) false.
13. [Ahura Mazda] was God Almighty while all other spirits were given the status of angels. false Angels are a modern construct in Zoroastrianism.
14. In Zarathustrianism however, the Avesta is at the centre. The Avesta is not a book. It is a collection of texts spanning 10 centuries.
15. the Gathas and other scriptures are the commentaries on the Avesta. FALSE

This article is indeed in need of a massive rewrite, and must decide whether it intends to refer to common origin (covered by Proto-Indo-Iranian religion), or if wants to compare the two religions, which it is presently failing to do. At present this article is just a disjointed collection of factoids (many not even factual) with no common thread or idea running between them. So, I have to ask... what purpose does this article serve? -- Fullstop 10:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your work. Most of the false or doubtful information is not mine. However, I did put in that vedic religion initially didnt use idol worship. I got this from Will Duran'ts The Story of Civilization vol 1 - Our Oriental Heritage. He says Hinduism borrowed full idol worship from the Greeks via their influences on Buddhism in northwest India (Pakistan). Like you, I also had my doubts about om and "on", knowing that Om is somewhat unique to Hinduism. But, I wasnt too well read on Zoraostrianism to actually remove the sentence about the similiarity. Afghan Historian 06:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

little (if anything) about pre-historic Indo-Iranian religion is actually known, but given that no icons have ever been recovered from that period, it is indeed likely that idol worship was not a part of Indo-Iranian religious tradition.

However, the article in question is not on Indo-Iranian religion, or even Vedic religion in general but specifically Hinduism. Although I haven't read Durant, the hypothesis (as you present it) is valid only if Durant is speaking of Hellenistic influence (and not the Greeks) which of course occurred during Arsacid (in particular the Indo-Parthian) times. Not only is that period not pre-history, Zoroastrianism at this stage used idols/icons too (and had been doing so since at least the 4th century BCE).

Moreover, if Durant is speaking of Hellenistic influence through the Parthians and Indo-Parthians, then it might be worthwhile to remember that the Parthians were Zoroastrians too. Many "practices" that are today associated with Zoroastrianism are in fact Parthian-era developments, including Fire Temples, Towers of Silence, the Vendidad, etc. Sogdian Buddhism was indeed influenced by Parthian (hellenized) Zoroastrianism, for instance, Śakra was also known as Xwrmzt (probably pronounced Khwaramazd).

The Zoroastrian iconoclastic movement (and the subsequent decline of the temple cults) didn't gain the upper hand until about the 4th century CE, when the shrine cults were outlawed.

For an example of Zoroastrian shrine cults, see Aredvi Sura Anahita and Vahram and read the 'History and Development' section (and also description of Darb-e Mehr lower down) at Fire temple. -- Fullstop 09:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Do you have any evidence that the Magi are not Brahmins? They were a heriditary priestly clan.
• Of course the Atharvans are the Athwya of the Rig Veda. Who else would they be?
• Of course the Zoroastrians eat mean, when did I say they didn't? It was the Indians who were vegetarians and gave up animal sacrifice
• Concerning Vedic Zuryastata: This is merely one view because the title Zuryastara is used.
• Zoroastrian flag: You do not know Zoroastrianism if you believe that it does not ahve a flag. All religions have a flag and the Zoraostrians (as even depicted from the reference link) have a triangular flag. What does the Shivsena have to do with this section? The saffron flag is a symbol of Hindu dharma and (and sometimes even of India). The Shiv Sena uses it as their symbol also.
• Concerning Assur Mahadeo: Of course this term is the same as Zarathustra's "Ahura Mazda." Give a reason as to why not!

Please show reasons as to why the views are not true. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maleabroad (talk • contribs) 00:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

• First, please tone down your language and write in a civil fashion. So far, your edits and edit remarks[2][3] have been the epitome of rudeness and uncouth behaviour. Please be Wikipedia:Civil.
• Second, please read Wikipedia:Vandalism before using the term "vandalism".
• Third, Wikipedia policy calls for Wikipedia:Verifiability, which may be summarized as: noone has to provide evidence that something is not. You (the author) has to provide evidence that something is. I don't have to "show reasons as to why the views are not true". They are your views. You have to demonstrate that they are justified. See WP:CITE and Wikipedia:No original research policy.
• Finally, your refusal to address issues in a civil manner is no encouragement to engage in discourse. If you would like to have answers, you might get results by *asking* questions. Politely. As Afghan Historian has done above.

-- Fullstop 10:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You yourself are not a Zarathustrian, neither are you a historian. It is a proven fact that Varuna is indeed the Vedic Assur Medha. What do you mean that Daevas were "wrong gods"-that they are non-existant? In later Iranian mythology many all of the demons are known as daevas. Also, the Magas were not a nation as your claim they were. They were one of the many tribes (or castes) of the Medes. Herodotus, i. 101, lists the names of six Mede tribes: Thus Deioces collected the Medes into a nation, and ruled over them alone. Now these are the tribes of which they consist: the Busae, the Paretaceni, the Struchates, the Arizanti, the Budii, and the Magi. Furthermore, Persia used to be called Magan. Regards, Maleabroad. The above comment was first posted 21:06, 14 December 2006[[4]] by 136.159.32.138, subsequently identified as a sockpuppet of blocked user User:Maleabroad, and hence deleted[5] As 136.159.209.120, Maleabroad reverted the removal at 22:52, 4 January 2007[6]

1. what I am or am not is entirely immaterial. Your lack of even rudimentary detective skills notwithstanding, it is also none of your business. Moreover, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and even less your soapbox as you appear to believe[7][8]

2. in my response of December 12th, I had politely asked you to remain subjective and refrain from incivility. Unfortunately, and even after being repeatedly blocked[9] for violation, you still appear to have not learnt.[10]

3. but for the moment, I'm going to choose to ignore your uncouth attitude and assume that you simply lack the ability to articulate without throwing a tantrum. That said, I'm going to give you *one* last chance to behave with courtesy. Consider this your chance to respond with civility and respect, and not as if you owned the article or that you know everything.

Now, addressing your points one by one:

a) "It is a proven fact that Varuna is indeed the Vedic Assur Medha."

1. "proven fact"? Proven by whom? When? Where? Based on what authority? With what justification? Supported by who else? In short, what are your Wikipedia:Reliable sources?
2. I am intimately familar with the arguments for and against an identification of Ahura Mazda with Varuna. I myself support it to some extent.
   But noone in the history of legitimate Indo-Iranian studies has been so reductionist as to state "... Shri Varuna who Zarathustra referred to as the Ahura Mazda". As that stands, this is simply. not. true. for no lesser reason than a) Zarathustra himself never once refers to Varuna, b) no other contemporaneous text ever said he did.
   Secondly, your expression "Ahura Mazda (Rigvedic Assur Mehda or Assur Mahadeo)" is equally disingeneous. First, Mahadeo is not Rigvedic but Puranic, and refers not to Varuna, but to Shiva. Second, you have used a name of Varuna (and of Shiva), and stuck it in brackets to *explain* Ahura Mazda. That is, you have literally translated "Lord Wisdom" as "Assur Mehda", which is an epithet/name of Varuna, and then used that basis to equate Varuna with Ahura Mazda. That is unsound science (in logic called prescisive abstraction), and is akin to concluding that germans give each other poison at christmas time because the German language word for "poison" is etymologically related to the English language word "gift". To be fair, the association between wisdom as Varuna and wisdom as Mazda is one of the more important points of comparison between Varuna and Ahura Mazda, but it does not make it possible to *equate* the two. Or to put it another way: Both you and your cousin have a common genes. Does that mean you are your cousin? Naturally not. There are remarkable parallels between Varuna and Ahura Mazda, but there are also remarkable parallels between Ahura Mazda and other deities in the Vedic pantheon such as Brahma, Mitra, Apam Napat, and - like Mazda - the equally anonymous Kya (and yes, I know what WHAT means) and Bhaga. Similarly, there are also remarkable parallels between Varuna and entities of the Zoroastrian pantheon. Likewise, just because two names have a common meaning does not mean that two entities with those two names have the same function. It must always be kept in mind that Zoroastrianism and Hinduism, though coming from a single origin in Indo-Iranian times, evolved differently.

b) "What do you mean that Daevas were "wrong gods"-that they are non-existant?"

I suggest you again read the sentence from which you quote out of context: What I wrote was "In Zoroaster's revelation, the Daevas are not in fact evil. These are the 'false gods', or 'wrong gods', but not evil." Which part of that sentence is unclear?

c) Also, the Magas were not a nation as your claim they were.

That is not my opinion, has never been, and I never claimed such a thing.

d) Furthermore, Persia used to be called Magan.

Although this sentence of yours is completely irrelevant to this article or anything else you've written so far, I'll address it anyway because its symptomatic for much of the rest of your remarks:

Rule #1: THINK! (For example: What is the name of Persia in all Indo-Iranian languages, including Sanskrit [or Hindi] and Persian itself?)

Rule #2: Check your sources! And then check them against other sources! Even if you don't have access to a library, you could still check the web (or even Wikipedia!). There are people who will not hesitate to expose you as a fool if you do not check your sources.

-- Fullstop 15:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Reminder: respond with civility! I have again taken time and effort to address your "comments", and as always expect an equal measure of respect and courtesy.

Am I not responding with civility? Is this just an attempt to make Hindus look bad?

You said, '"proven fact"? Proven by whom? When? Where?'

Response: This is proven, if Assur Medha is not Ahura Mazda, then nothing in the world makes any sense. How can you possibly believe that the same term in 2 different langauges is not related? You also said, 'Second, you have used a name of Varuna (and of Shiva), and stuck it in brackets to *explain* Ahura Mazda.' Scholors such as Wash Edward Hale[11] have written that the two are definetly related. Plus this makes sense as in the Rig Veda, Lord Varuna lost his status as the greatest god and the Iranic tribes in their pantheon reassigned Lord Indra as an enemy of the Ahuras. Also, it was Vishwamitra the Brahmana who led the tribes in opposition of the Pauravas in the Dasarajna war. Why did you delete this?

You also said, 'Although this sentence of yours is completely irrelevant to this article or anything else you've written so far, I'll address it anyway because its symptomatic for much of the rest of your remarks:'

Response: The fact that Magan is a name for ancient Persia CANNOT be irrelevant to this article because we were discussing the Maga and their origin. YOU COMPLETLEY DELETED MY SECTION OF THE MAGI! The Magas in Hindu Dharma are Magacharyas and of course Athwya is Atharvan. What else could it be that you think? You said 'false' to what I said that, 'The Magi were a group of priests that were of the same origin and function as the Brahmins.' Of course they were heriditery preists! What text have you read suggesting that they were not? You also said, 'Second, the theory that Zoroaster was a Maga was propagandized by the Maga themselves in order to give themselves legitimacy.' Again, which text have you read that advocates this?

You also said, 'I suggest you again read the sentence from which you quote out of context'

Response: Why did you feel nescessary to delete what I wrote about Devas (or Adityas) descending from Aditi and Daityas from Diti?

You keep complaining to Wikipedia that I am not behaving with "civility" so that my responses cannot be seen by Wiki users. Furthermore, you still haven't answered me whether you are or are not a Zoroastrian.

Maleabroad —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.159.32.176 (talk) 19:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC).