This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Both Ahriman and Angra Mainyu are the names of monsters in Square Enix's Final Fantasy series of computer role-playing games. Ahriman resembles a winged eyeball, and its signature attack involves inflicting a variety of status ailments (most commonly petrification) on its opponents. Ahriman has appeared in multiple Final Fantasy titles, starting with Final Fantasy III. Angra Mainyu, on the other hand, first appeared as a optional boss in the game Final Fantasy X-2. The two monsters look completely different. Also, in Final Fantasy XI, Angra Mainyu is the "Boss" of the area called Dynamis - Beaudecine. He looks like a demonic Ahriman.
I removed this from the article body. Possibly someone can copy this into a Final Fantasy article. Chelman 21:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
The topic of that subject is a character from Persian Mythology and not one from the computer game. Feel free to create a separte subject for that particular character as well as a disambiguation page if you feel the need to have the topic discussed.
I did not delete the content but moved it to the talk page with the suggestion of someone crating a separate article on the FF character. This is the normal procedure for that kind of topic. See the following examples:
I particularly suggest you check out Tiamat which is not only a mythical figure but also a Final Fantasy character.
It was removed from the article because it bears no relevance to the subject, which relates to the mythical figure Angra Mainyu and NOT the game character. Chelman 12:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Would it not be better to use the standard "Ahriman redirects here. For other uses, see Ahriman (disambiguation)" formula and template, and create the disambiguation page? It's a bit confusing if you come to this article directly to see these messages about something with a different name. Palmiro | Talk 13:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
This link:
Was added by a Columbia University IP along with many other links to the site. I have moved it hear in keeping with our external links guidelines so unconnected editors can evaluate its appropriateness. Many of the websites entries are short and may not contain much more than the articles they have been added to. However, this might be a good source even if editors do not consider it an appropriate external link. -- SiobhanHansa 23:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Strike-through text
Doesn't Ahriman feature in a book of sorts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.74.140.162 ( talk) 12:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with the citation, "The term 'Angra Mainyu' appears once in the Gathas"
I searched the Gathic texts and the term 'Angra Mainyu' is not there. It only appears in the Younger Avestrian Texts.
Here also is a source which confirms this is a fact, "The term spenta mainyu, standing for the divine creative faculty, has no opponent or adversary in the Gathas, and the term “angra mainyu” does not exist in the Gathas. The so-called opponent “spirits” are also a later development."
E-Book: The Gathas, Our Guide - the thought provoking divine songs of Zarathushtra, Translated by Ali A. Jafarey, Ushta Publication, First Edition: June 1989 page 62. http://www.zarathushtra.com/z/gatha/The%20Gathas%20-%20AAJ.pdf
I'm a little hesitant to make my first edit on Wikipedia, so I'm posting this to the discussion page. If this seems reasonable, I would like to edit this section. TruthCkr 04:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the guidance. Instead of stating I disagree, I should have stated that the term or rather name 'Angra Mainyu' does not exist in the older Avestrian of the Gathas. The idea and name of 'Angra Mainyu' could be read into Yasna 45.2, but only by interpreting it by the younger Avestrian texts.
Perhaps this could be more accurately stated as, "The name or term of 'Angra Mainyu' might be alluded to once in the Gathas in Yasna 45.2, but the translation is paraphrased, so the term or name 'Angra Mainyu' does not exist in the Gathas, but could more accurately be translated 'spoke to the evil one' or 'spoke to the destruction' or 'spoke to the disorder' or disease or unholyness, etc.
Here is a second source which cites that 'Angra Mainyu' is not in the Gathas.
E-Booklet: An Introduction to the Gathas of Zarathushtra, Editor: Dina G. McIntyre (It was published in twelve booklets, once a month, from October 1989 through September 1990) Section: Good & Evil by Jehan Bagli
"Much of the corpus of the Gathas has the prescription for its adherent to follow the path of Good. The path that the creator has shown through the Benevolent Mentality -- Spenta Mainyu. The Hostile Mentality -- Angra Mainyu is not mentioned in the Gathas as such."
http://www.zarathushtra.com/z/article/dgm/vol9.htm#article1
TruthCkr 08:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that all appearances of Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu in pop culture (video games, novels and etc.) should be unified and moved to Zoroastrianism in popular culture. Jesus and Moses don't have popular culture sections, even though they appear frequently in modern cultural depictions. The same treatment should be given to the mythology and iconography of other religions. 212.179.71.70 ( talk) 10:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
original exchange on Fullstop's user talk page, copied by Anonymous44: Hi, I see you made my revision more concise, but I think your changes also obfuscated some interesting details. I'd try to re-include them, but since you mentioned some misunderstanding in your edit summary, I thought I should ask you first if there was something you considered inaccurate in my last revision. -- Anonymous44 ( talk) 16:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Here is a breakdown of the fixes of the misunderstanding of Haug and its effects.
In summary, my changes make clear that
If there is anything else to be said about present-day (new?!) Zoroastrian position on Angra Mainyu, these would not really have anything to do with Haug's theory or the acceptance thereof. Cheers. -- Fullstop ( talk) 17:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
A history of Z., by Mary Boyce, Frantz Grenet - 1982
p.193-194
Translation of Y.30.3-5, followed by the following comment:
The "most bounteous spirit", Spenishta Mainyu, who chose asha, is evidently Ahura Mazda himself, "clad in the hardest stones", that is, the crystal sky; and the "two spirits" are duly explained by the Pahlavi commentator on these verses as "Ohrmazd and Ahriman". This and the commoner expression, "Bounteous Spirit", Spenta Mainyu, are used, however, in complex fashion elsewhere in the Gathas; for sometimes they seem to represent the power in Ahura Mazda himself through which he thinks or perceives or acts, at others an independent divinity who hypostatizes that power. The former appears to be the dominant concept, to judge from both the Gathas and the tradition, which usually identifies Ahura Mazda with his "Bounteous Spirit". Later the Zurvanites, a heterodox Z. group, came to interpret literally the words "these two spirits which are twins" as meaning that the 2 great opposing beings were actually twins in the sense of having been born together from one womb; and they postulated accordingly a father of them, namely Zurvan or Time. This doctrine was rejected by orthodox Z.s as flat hersy, demon-inspired; but a number of European scholars have followed the Zurvanites in takeing the expression "twins" literally, and have attempted to justify this by supposing that the "Most Bounteous Spirit" of Y.30 is to be identified with Spenta Minyu as a separate dvinity, Ahura Mazda being the "father" of both Bounteous and Hostile Spirits. This "child-birth" (it has been suggested) "consisted in the emanation by God of undifferentiated "spirit", which only at the emergence of free will split into two "twin" spirits of opposite allegiance".[Note 7 - ref. to gershevitch, 13] But however one may refine upon the interpretation, it remains doctrinally utterly alien to the Gathas and to the whole orthodox Zororastrian tradition that evil should in any way originate from Ahura Mazda; and Lommel was evidently right to reject the hypothesis as "a misunderstanding arising from a rationalistic, lifeless interpretation of the word (twin)."[Note 8 - See his Rel., 27-8. Similarly Schaeder, p.290, Moulton, E.Z.,133, Soederblom, The Living God, p.215, Corbin, Eranos-Jahrbuch XX,1951, p.163 *who stresses that orthodox Zoroastrianism could tolerate no compromise over "the absolute heterogeneity of Ohrmazd with regard to Ahriman"). Further Bianchi, "Zaman i Ohrmazd", Ch.5 The "Zurvanite" interpretation has, however, been upheld by I.Gershevitch, R.C.Zaehner and others.] The "Zurvanite" interpretation ] This term was clearlt chosen by the prophet as a metaphor to express the equality in state of teh two unrelated beings, and their coevity. By using it he emphasized, with characteristic concentration and force, that (despite their total opposition) they were peers at the moment when they made their fateful choice.
This differs in several substantial ways from the present form of our section. Notably, there has never been any doubt that the "spenishta mainyu" of Y.30 is to be identified as being also the "spenta mainyu" (it's obvious even linguistically). The question has been whether the spenta mainyu in this passage is pretty much identical to Ahura Mazda (the Zurvanite and Orthodox view) or just as separate from him as the "angra mainyu" is (the Haug view); thus, of Haug's "twofold" argument, only the second half is a (new) argument at all. Instead of arguing in detail, I'll just go ahead and make the changes that I think necessary; next, we can discuss them if you identify something that you disagree with.--
Anonymous44 (
talk) 13:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
The problem this raises, then, is whether to categorize Z. as a monotheistic or dualistic religion, and fundamental to this issue is the origin of evil. Monotheism is the term used to define a belief in one supreme exalted God who alone has all the characteristics of a divine being. Dualism has traditionally been understood in a variety of ways in the study of religions. First, it states that reality has a radical twofold nature, and describes the distinction between God and creation in that the two are separate. Second, it says that there are two co-existent and fundamentalyy opoosite forces of good and evil, having neither beginning nor end, which are totally irreconcilable, and thus that the evil in the world cannot be attributed to an all-good God, as is the case with monotheism, but to an adversarial demonc figure who has no dependence on the all-good God, and this leads into an ethical dualismwhich says that humanity is caught up in this batlle between the two forces. Unfortunately the restrictiveness of these definitions has meant that neither is completely descriptive of Z., and indeed the diversity of opinion on this matter which has attended thes cholarly study of Z. practically since its inception suggests that it may never be possible to say once and for all whether Z. is monotheistic, dualistic, or a unique combination of both, and the tradition itself has accommodated without two much difficulty thinkers favouring all these interpretations. One solution has been to say that, since Z. does not recoginze two gods but two co-existent powers, it is dualistic within an overall context of exalted monotheism.
The starting point for any discussion of this matter is Y.30:3-5 (with Y.45:2).
These are the two spirits (existing) in the beginning, twins who have been heard of us as the two dreams, the two thoughts, the two words, and the two actions, teh better and the evil. Between these two the munificient discriminate rightly, but not those who give bad gifts... Of these two spirits the deceitful one chooses to do the worst things, but the most holy spirit, clothed in the hardest stones (chooses) truth (as do those) who, with true actions, devotedly gratify M.Ah.(Y.30:3,5).
Here we are presented with the exalted Lord of Wisdom, Ah.M., his Holy Spirit S.M., and the antagonistic or hostile spirit, An.M.. The most important question that is raised is whether the two spirits existed from the beginning or were created. Answers favouring the former interpretation place the religion firmly in the dualistic camp; answers favouring the latter suppose a montheism. A dualistic interpretation will lead logically to the conclusion that Ah.M. and S.M. are synonymous to the degree that they are hypostatically united, and that the hostile spirit has always enjoyed an independent existence which owes nothing to the Wise Lord. If, on the other hand, the Wise Lord *did* create the "twin" spirits, the implicit monotheism also suggests that A.M. is at least indirectly responsible for the evil in the world since in his omniscience he will have known that An.M. will have chosen to "do the worst things". The dualistic view absolves Ah.M. from any such charge, and it is at least implied in, for example, the following passage, which suggests that S.M., as a creative force, may be intimately identifed with Ah.M. to the extent that the two are, in raeality, one:
Right-mindedness was yours, yours also was the most intellectual fashioner of the cow, when by virtue of your holy spirit you opened ways for her, so that she could join either the herdsman or whoever might not be a herdsman.(Y.31:9).
This would also confirm the independence of the "deceitful" spirit An.M. by virtue of the opposition he represents in Y.30:3-5.
Even so it is clearly a problem that will not be solved easily or totally satisfactorily. ...It is, however, certain that the prophet of Iran would never have considered the Wise Lord responsible for the evil activity he observed around him.... -- Anonymous44 ( talk) 16:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I disagree, and I'm growing tired of this. The things, equations, connections, reasonings that you dispute are all in the text by Boyce that I posted above, and in Haug's own text (the boundary between monism and dualism is of course pretty vague). As for your argument that the stuff is irrelevant for this section, I don't find this reasonable at all. Some discussion of Ah.M, An.M., S.M. etc. inevitably belongs both in the articles on Ah.M., An.M., and S.M. (when there is one). And the precise degree of detail that should be included in each case is really a matter of editorial "feel" - it's definitely not something that it's normal to start a conflict about, as long as the details are accurate. --
Anonymous44 (
talk) 17:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
OMG. OK. Frankly, I don't feel that you are being very constructive, and it probably doesn't matter what I reply to you at all. But OK, I'll reply - again. I've spent too much effort already and I can't let it go waste, so I'm forced to continue this discussion.
That Boyce's pick for S.M./Ah.M equivalence is not universal is noted in her own first footnote on the first page you (mis-)cite. In light of that you may wish to reconsider your idea that I am "disputing" anything other than the fact that a contested item does not have to be stated at all when it is not essential to the topic at hand
For the emptieth time - it is essential, and all the sources say that. The issue of the correlation between S.M. and Ah.M. is absolutely essential and inseparable from the issue of the correlation between An.M. and Ah.M.. This is the way Boyce and Grenet treat the problem in the excerpt, this is also the way Clark treats it in the excerpt that I will post in a separate section below, this is also the way Haug originally treated it when he raised the issue (p.303-305 in the 1878 edition). Repeating, again, for principle's sake: The demotion of An.M. from coeval twin to product, and the promotion of Ah.M. from coeval twin to a single God is only made possible by the assumption that Ah.M. is not An.M.'s twin in the Gathas; instead, S.M. is An.M.'s twin. So the degree of overlapping between Ah.M. and S.M. is absolutely crucial for this point: if they are mostly separate, then the revised scheme is correct; if not, it isn't.
And yes, the S.M/Ah.M. view is not universal. I never claimed it was. The alternative is the monotheistic view, originally proposed by Haug, and it has its supporters, as discussed both above and below.
You provide three citations of alleged support for Haug ... One of them is the Iranica, and I have asked you twice already to explain how you can assert that Iranica supports Haug when the article does not even mention him.
First I told you clearly "prior to your edit, my text included the referenced fact ... the source was an article in Iranica", so you could see the reference to the online edition in my last revision to see which article it was, and then, when you asked again, I said it was "the "Ahriman" article in Iranica by J. Duchesne-Guillemin". There is no reference to Haug personally, inasmuch as later scholars have taken Haug's place as representatives of that view, but the interpetation of Y.30 is quite obviously the monotheistic one proposed by Haug: originally the twins are Ah.M.'s sons An.M. and S.M., then stupid Zoroastrians confuse Ah.M. with S.M., with dualism being the result. That this is Haug's theory is not my OR, that's what the article said before I even started editing it, except that it didn't mention precisely how the stupid Zoroastrians had got it wrong in Haug's view. I quote the Ahriman article:
"The myth of the Twin Spirits is a model he set for the choice every person is called upon to make. It can not be doubted that both are sons of Ahura Mazdā, since they are explicitly said to be twins, and we learn from Y. 47.2-3 that Ahura Mazdā is the father of one of them. Before choosing, neither of them was wicked. There is therefore nothing shocking in Angra Mainyu’s being a son of Ahura Mazdā, and there is no need to resort to the improbable solution that Zoroaster was speaking figuratively. That Ohrmazd and Ahriman’s brotherhood was later considered an abominable heresy is a different matter; Ohrmazd had by then replaced the Bounteous Spirit; and there was no trace any more, in the orthodox view, of the primeval choice, perhaps the prophet’s most original conception."
You have added Gershevitch as supporting Haug's monist theories, although he says nothing of the kind. Indeed, you simply moved the citation from one context to another.
Yep, 'cause I think it was wrong. Boyce umabiguously cites Gershevitch as a supporter the monist theory, with "Ahura Mazda being the "father" of both Bounteous and Hostile Spirits" (note 7 in the excerpt I posted above). Likewise Nigosian 1993, p.23, who explicitly lists Gershevitch (along with Duchesne-Guillemin) among the proponents of the idea that Zoroaster was a monotheist, as opposed to those scholars who describe him as a dualist. BTW, even the text before my edits indicated that Gershevitch supported the Haugish identification of the twin as S.M. - since S.M. literally means "holy/bounteous spirit" the only new thing in this "identification" is the assumption that this is a S.M. separate from Ah.M., which is, as repeated above, a vital part of the monotheistic theory.
You cite "Boyce-Grenet, 1982" (you actually mean "Boyce, 1975", as I have already noted)
Just one of many instances of, um, non-constructive and non-well-meaning arguing on this talk page. I assume you have read the same or similar passage in Boyce, 1975, and then you refuse to figure out that Boyce-Grenet, 1982 might contain it as well, or to check whether it does, because the objective is to prove that you're great and I'm an idiot by all means available. It's available on Google Books, BTW.
The phrase "A number of European scholars have followed the Zurvanites in taking the expression "twins" literally" is not the same as "A number of European scholars follow Haug. And "European scholars" does not mean "modern scholars".
Except that the theory that they then attribute to these scholars is precisely Haug's ("by supposing that the "Most Bounteous Spirit" of Y.30 is to be identified with Spenta Minyu as a separate divinity, Ahura Mazda being the "father" of both Bounteous and Hostile Spirits") and the scholars cited in the footnote as an example are precisely modern. Boyce repeats this in "Textual source", p.16 in chapter 1.4. "some reasons for diversity in modern studies of Z." in almost the same terms: "They (Christian scholars) postulated therefore that he had been a strict monotheist; and after the Avesta became known, they maintained this position by interpreting the relevant Gathic passages as implying that Ah.M. was the "father" of both S.M. and A.M., i.e. the source of both good and evil. This 'European heresy', which was inspired by the Z. Zurvanite heresy, requires the rejection of all post-Gathic Z. literature, in so far as it concerned dualism and the doctrine of the Heptad, as being grounded in error. This Western hypothesis influenced Parsi rerormists in the nineteenth century, and still dominates much Parsi theological discussion, as well as being still upheld by some Western scholars." Once again, the description of this theory repeats almost literally the description in the section as it was before I ever edited it, but I suppose you feel that the theory in question can't be identified as Haug's, because he is not mentioned by name, right?
The "precise degree of detail" is not a matter of editorial "feel". It is a matter of usefulness to the reader.
Yes, "feel" for the usefulness. I feel that what I have added here is either absolutely necessary for the reader to understand the problem (as in the case of S.M.), or something any reader would expect to be told (whether Haug was correct), or something that sets things in a useful intellectual context (the Enlightenment stuff). Before my edits, it was hard to understand precisely what Haug had changed in the theology and whether he was right to change it.
In the present version (which doesn't even have any particularly grand ideas)
I love you too. -- Anonymous44 ( talk) 16:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for finally providing a point of reference. That wasn't so difficult was it?
As I said, it was there for you to see from the start.
You may not however legitimately use that in this context since you are interpreting the source.
Good, you've learned to play with the NOR policy, I see you've been around for some time. You know very well that any reading - hence any citation of a source - includes some interpretation, the question is how much. When you see that A says "Ah.M. is An.M.'s father", B says "Ah.M. is An.M.'s father", and C says "Ah.M. is An.M.'s father", then it is not OR to say that "A says that Ah.M. is An.M.'s father, and B and C are of the same opinion".
"Context fixed" means not "monist", but "monotheistic", since DG is one of those people who thinks "monotheism" and "dualism" are opposite poles (unlike the usual case of "monism" and "dualism" being the opposite poles).
The whole issue has traditionally been muddled because of people arguing about (ambiguous) words instead of concepts. Nobody, including Boyce, denies that Z. is monotheism in the sense that only one supreme entity is supposed to be worshipped. "Monism" is more accurate as an expression of the theogonic primacy of Ah.M. with its philosophical implications. But I don't very much mind dropping the word "monist" altogether, if this contributes to world peace.
"Citing properly" means that when you refer to an example of something, you add a cf. to the reference. Without the cf. you are suggesting that your text is a paraphrase of the source, and that the source says exactly what you are saying.
There's no such requirement or practice on Wikipedia (I don't know about academia, I'm more used to Harvard style there), but it's certainly a good idea for a guideline, I've always felt unease about the ambiguity in such instances on Wiki. It could be proposed for inclusion here.
Just for the record, "prior to your edit" is still my edit. I wrote the section (and the article). Don't you think it is a bit presumptuous of you to think that I do not know what I myself mean?
Yes, I was wondering when you'd finally spit it out. *sigh*. Now we're in deep ... discussion. Nice article, BTW.
You "think" it was wrong cite Gershevitch (p. 32!) for "identification of the twins as Angra Mainyu and Spenta Mainyu is not contested." ... "the dual yəmā, "twins", refers to the dual mainyū, the two spirits."
No, I certainly never denied that G. would condone this statement, as would everyone else. But the statement itself is irrelevant for the Haug topic in its original form and misleadingly ambiguous in its retold form. The crucial and innovative idea is not that one of the twins is (a/the) S.M., it is that this S.M. is (originally) as separate from Ah.M. as (the) An.M. is. Thus, the alleged correct "first part" of Haug's argument, if stated correctly, is inseparable from the alleged incorrect, monist "second part"; and, contrary to what your wording implied, G. largely agrees with both (more on that below).
Page 13 is not the same as page 32
You're right. This was an oversight on my part, I forgot to change the page.
Third, the notion that "he mentions X so he condoned it" is a logical fallacy. A person can discuss something without necessarily also believing in it.
Fourth, Boyce is not "umabiguously" citing anyone as a supporter of the monist theory
Finally, in the sentence immediately preceding the one quoted by Boyce, Gershevitch says "We need not go so far as to assume that Z. imagined the Devil as having directly issued from God.". This is a rejection of Haug-like theory
Gershevitch follows in the tradition of Hermann Lommel, down to the distinction between "Zarathustrianism" and "Zarathustricism". This is the very same Lommel who dismissed Haug, and is the very same Lommel who is cited two sentences after Boyce's quotation of Gershevitch.
Ooh, nice try, especially the last few sentences! Rather hopeless, though. This is becoming a Baghdad Bob thing.
DO NOT INTERPRET and DO NOT CITE A SOURCE THAT YOU HAVE NOT READ YOURSELF.
I'm forced to rely on another source where the first source is cited, when those who have read the first source clearly miscite it - originally by mistake, and then intentionally.
<quote>"... and still dominates much Parsi theological discussion, as well as being still upheld by some Western scholars." Why on earth don't you simply quote that in the article? </quote>
OK, if you insist, I'll cite it. It's not different from my own claim.
Again, IT IS NOT NECESSARY to dig up sources who uphold Haug
But I can do it, you see. While you thought until recently that the view "that both twins both have their origin in Mazda is thoroughly rejected", (something that I've now proved to be wrong with a multitude of sources), and this you thought despite having cited, in the Wiki article, the very Iranica article by Duchesne-Guillemin which endorses that view! Not to mention your recent belief that "No one reads 30.3 as referring to Angra Mainyu and Ahura Mazda himself. That is exactly the Zurvanite interpretation!", and then your helpless attempt, when confronted with the question what the pre-Haug interpretation was, to claim that it was that the twins were, I quote, "vohu-mano and akem-mano" - when Boyce explicitly states in the excerpt posted above that in Y.30.3-5, one of the twins "is evidently Ahura Mazda" and that "the 'two spirits' are duly explained by the Pahlavi commentator on these verses as 'Ohrmazd and Ahriman'". All that while envoking your expertise and erudition in the area of Z.. I tried not to emphasize this and similar stuff from the start, hoping to avoid serious conflict, but apparently this doesn't work well with you.
her pet theory that Z. doctrine remained unchanged through the centuries
Agreed, she carries it too far.
Boyce-Grenet, 1982 ... Well, I did check, and I even checked for you etc.
You could have got there by searching for any phrase from the quote I posted.
Admittedly Google Books appear to be the only ones who choose to list both as authors of the series as a whole, resulting in some confusion; I'll fix that.
You also make yourself look silly when you cite google books even though you know damn well that I have the real (physical, dead tree, print) books in front of me
Wish you had used them better, though.
You may not identify a theory as following X when X is not cited. ... when those authors do not cite X, you may say "Similar ideas have also been expressed by ..."
I certainly can say they happen to have the same view as he does as stated above in the section. This is easily verifiable, provided there is a desire to do so. But I will re-word it, the present wording may indeed be too strong.
they should be quoted exactly. Either inline, or in a footnote. For DG you should cite DG personally, e.g. La religion de l'Iran ancien, 1962 p. 393-398.
I see no reason to cite DG personally. I'll add the quotes, you're entitled to request them.
Stanley Insler is quite capable of coming to that conclusion by himself
"... my precioussss!" ... ?
Why do you insist on stuffing Zoroastrian dualism into that section anyway?
You want to discuss Ahriman without discussing dualism. This is actually not even the first time you say it. My Lord Jesus, did I really deserve this? I guess so. Yahweh without monotheism and the Holy Spirit without trinitarianism would be cool, too.
it is not necessary to get into a discussion about Ah.M's relationship to S.M. ... In Iranica's Ahura Mazda article Boyce does not mention it in the discussion of Haug
"His interpretation was refined on in the 19th century by M. Haug, who, making a new interpretation of Y. 30.3, attributed to Zoroaster the doctrine that the twin Spirits of that verse were Spənta Mainyu and Angra Mainyu, and that the “father” of both was Ahura Mazdā."
She doesn't need to explain more in that passage, because the relationship between Ah.M. and S.M. has been discussed throughout her article before the Haug section - because hers is, in fact, an article about Ah.M.. (and S.M.).
The Iranica article on Ahriman does not discuss the equality of Ah.M./S.M. either.
"This shift in the position of Ahura Mazdā, his total assimilation to this Bounteous Spirit, must have taken place in the 4th century B.C. at the latest"
Your presupposition and insistence that S.M/Ah.M. are equal is clouding your judgment. you have reverted to the supposition that there is only S.M.=Ah.M. or (the other extreme) S.M.!=Ah.M.
I've been simplifying things to make sure you hear something. Here are, *again*, some more precise wordings. Boyce: "supposing that the 'Most Bounteous Spirit' of Y.30 is to be identified with Spenta Mainyu as a separate divinity". Clark: "Ah.M. and S.M. are synonymous to the degree that they are hypostatically united", "S.M., as a creative force, may be intimately identifed with Ah.M. to the extent that the two are, in reality, one"
The real problem with Haug's theory is his novel "An.M. from Ah.M" and that that is really the only bit that is actually "special". Getting into S.M.=Ah.M. is a ball of wax
I refuse to answer this. Again. Read Clark (the excerpt below), and read Boyce with your eyes open. You didn't understand this when you wrote the article, and now you refuse to understand it because you don't want to admit you were wrong.
You have (in principle) the necessarily detachment and disenchantment, and that is a rare thing, and is very cool. But you also need to be a little more scientific; i.e. no second-guessing, no polemic, no "absolute" truths, less lackadaisical citation, more specialized reading, and less of that being more sure than necessary. In these matters the only certainty is that nothing is certain.
Thanks for the advice.-- Anonymous44 ( talk) 18:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
You haven't answered as of now, but I have no doubt that a new arrogant and twisty diatribe is coming shortly. Even having been caught red-handed lying, as with the Gershevitch thing, and crucially uninformed, as with quite a few things (some I have enumerated above, search for "thought until recently"), won't make you stop. However, I can't afford to spend any more time on this. It's now a week since I've been forced to defend about five accurate sentences from the jealous territorial male of the species. Answering to tireless, dumb and malicious attacks takes a lot of time and strain and already threatens to interfere with my everyday work in real life. That's just not worth it. I've done all that is humanly possible. This is my last post on this discussion page. -- Anonymous44 ( talk) 12:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello everyone.
Someone should point to references of Ahriman from the old Avestan litterature For example, the persian classical writing "Drayishn-i Ahriman o Divan" should be mentioned, and also "Arda Viraf". The seven Divas (demons) should also be named
The seven archdemons of the Daevas are: Aesma Daeva, Aka Manah, Indra, Nanghaithya, Saurva, Tawrich and Zarich.
It should probably also be mentioned that in the theosophic writings of Rudolf Steiner and H.P. Blatavsky, Ahriman is used as a term for describing their "Ahriman-Lucifer" model, which has nothing to do with Ahrimans original role in the Persian writings.
The three-headed dragon Azi-Dahaka is a very important demon in old persian literature, and his strong link with Ahriman should be mentioned in this article.
I think scholars have drawn comparisons between the Seven Daevas and the classical Seven Demons of ancient Sumerian litterature. (and also the obvious parallells between the christian seven deadly sins, and the Seven Hells from hebrew/jewish literature.
There also exists a very famous legend about Ahriman as the creator of the Peacock. This has an esoteric weight to it, and should be mentioned. I think the story can be found at www.avesta.org, but we should have a summary of it, at least. The story proves an interesting point, that Ahriman has a free will and is not restricted to merly replicate/mirror the actions of the Creator Spirit Ahura Mazda.
And what about this ancient demonologys influence over modern Arabic religion like Islam? (where Daevas become Djinn and Ahriman becomes Iblis)
These are my comments anyway, hope they prove valuable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.125.176.40 ( talk • contribs).
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Both Ahriman and Angra Mainyu are the names of monsters in Square Enix's Final Fantasy series of computer role-playing games. Ahriman resembles a winged eyeball, and its signature attack involves inflicting a variety of status ailments (most commonly petrification) on its opponents. Ahriman has appeared in multiple Final Fantasy titles, starting with Final Fantasy III. Angra Mainyu, on the other hand, first appeared as a optional boss in the game Final Fantasy X-2. The two monsters look completely different. Also, in Final Fantasy XI, Angra Mainyu is the "Boss" of the area called Dynamis - Beaudecine. He looks like a demonic Ahriman.
I removed this from the article body. Possibly someone can copy this into a Final Fantasy article. Chelman 21:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
The topic of that subject is a character from Persian Mythology and not one from the computer game. Feel free to create a separte subject for that particular character as well as a disambiguation page if you feel the need to have the topic discussed.
I did not delete the content but moved it to the talk page with the suggestion of someone crating a separate article on the FF character. This is the normal procedure for that kind of topic. See the following examples:
I particularly suggest you check out Tiamat which is not only a mythical figure but also a Final Fantasy character.
It was removed from the article because it bears no relevance to the subject, which relates to the mythical figure Angra Mainyu and NOT the game character. Chelman 12:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Would it not be better to use the standard "Ahriman redirects here. For other uses, see Ahriman (disambiguation)" formula and template, and create the disambiguation page? It's a bit confusing if you come to this article directly to see these messages about something with a different name. Palmiro | Talk 13:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
This link:
Was added by a Columbia University IP along with many other links to the site. I have moved it hear in keeping with our external links guidelines so unconnected editors can evaluate its appropriateness. Many of the websites entries are short and may not contain much more than the articles they have been added to. However, this might be a good source even if editors do not consider it an appropriate external link. -- SiobhanHansa 23:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Strike-through text
Doesn't Ahriman feature in a book of sorts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.74.140.162 ( talk) 12:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with the citation, "The term 'Angra Mainyu' appears once in the Gathas"
I searched the Gathic texts and the term 'Angra Mainyu' is not there. It only appears in the Younger Avestrian Texts.
Here also is a source which confirms this is a fact, "The term spenta mainyu, standing for the divine creative faculty, has no opponent or adversary in the Gathas, and the term “angra mainyu” does not exist in the Gathas. The so-called opponent “spirits” are also a later development."
E-Book: The Gathas, Our Guide - the thought provoking divine songs of Zarathushtra, Translated by Ali A. Jafarey, Ushta Publication, First Edition: June 1989 page 62. http://www.zarathushtra.com/z/gatha/The%20Gathas%20-%20AAJ.pdf
I'm a little hesitant to make my first edit on Wikipedia, so I'm posting this to the discussion page. If this seems reasonable, I would like to edit this section. TruthCkr 04:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the guidance. Instead of stating I disagree, I should have stated that the term or rather name 'Angra Mainyu' does not exist in the older Avestrian of the Gathas. The idea and name of 'Angra Mainyu' could be read into Yasna 45.2, but only by interpreting it by the younger Avestrian texts.
Perhaps this could be more accurately stated as, "The name or term of 'Angra Mainyu' might be alluded to once in the Gathas in Yasna 45.2, but the translation is paraphrased, so the term or name 'Angra Mainyu' does not exist in the Gathas, but could more accurately be translated 'spoke to the evil one' or 'spoke to the destruction' or 'spoke to the disorder' or disease or unholyness, etc.
Here is a second source which cites that 'Angra Mainyu' is not in the Gathas.
E-Booklet: An Introduction to the Gathas of Zarathushtra, Editor: Dina G. McIntyre (It was published in twelve booklets, once a month, from October 1989 through September 1990) Section: Good & Evil by Jehan Bagli
"Much of the corpus of the Gathas has the prescription for its adherent to follow the path of Good. The path that the creator has shown through the Benevolent Mentality -- Spenta Mainyu. The Hostile Mentality -- Angra Mainyu is not mentioned in the Gathas as such."
http://www.zarathushtra.com/z/article/dgm/vol9.htm#article1
TruthCkr 08:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that all appearances of Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu in pop culture (video games, novels and etc.) should be unified and moved to Zoroastrianism in popular culture. Jesus and Moses don't have popular culture sections, even though they appear frequently in modern cultural depictions. The same treatment should be given to the mythology and iconography of other religions. 212.179.71.70 ( talk) 10:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
original exchange on Fullstop's user talk page, copied by Anonymous44: Hi, I see you made my revision more concise, but I think your changes also obfuscated some interesting details. I'd try to re-include them, but since you mentioned some misunderstanding in your edit summary, I thought I should ask you first if there was something you considered inaccurate in my last revision. -- Anonymous44 ( talk) 16:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Here is a breakdown of the fixes of the misunderstanding of Haug and its effects.
In summary, my changes make clear that
If there is anything else to be said about present-day (new?!) Zoroastrian position on Angra Mainyu, these would not really have anything to do with Haug's theory or the acceptance thereof. Cheers. -- Fullstop ( talk) 17:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
A history of Z., by Mary Boyce, Frantz Grenet - 1982
p.193-194
Translation of Y.30.3-5, followed by the following comment:
The "most bounteous spirit", Spenishta Mainyu, who chose asha, is evidently Ahura Mazda himself, "clad in the hardest stones", that is, the crystal sky; and the "two spirits" are duly explained by the Pahlavi commentator on these verses as "Ohrmazd and Ahriman". This and the commoner expression, "Bounteous Spirit", Spenta Mainyu, are used, however, in complex fashion elsewhere in the Gathas; for sometimes they seem to represent the power in Ahura Mazda himself through which he thinks or perceives or acts, at others an independent divinity who hypostatizes that power. The former appears to be the dominant concept, to judge from both the Gathas and the tradition, which usually identifies Ahura Mazda with his "Bounteous Spirit". Later the Zurvanites, a heterodox Z. group, came to interpret literally the words "these two spirits which are twins" as meaning that the 2 great opposing beings were actually twins in the sense of having been born together from one womb; and they postulated accordingly a father of them, namely Zurvan or Time. This doctrine was rejected by orthodox Z.s as flat hersy, demon-inspired; but a number of European scholars have followed the Zurvanites in takeing the expression "twins" literally, and have attempted to justify this by supposing that the "Most Bounteous Spirit" of Y.30 is to be identified with Spenta Minyu as a separate dvinity, Ahura Mazda being the "father" of both Bounteous and Hostile Spirits. This "child-birth" (it has been suggested) "consisted in the emanation by God of undifferentiated "spirit", which only at the emergence of free will split into two "twin" spirits of opposite allegiance".[Note 7 - ref. to gershevitch, 13] But however one may refine upon the interpretation, it remains doctrinally utterly alien to the Gathas and to the whole orthodox Zororastrian tradition that evil should in any way originate from Ahura Mazda; and Lommel was evidently right to reject the hypothesis as "a misunderstanding arising from a rationalistic, lifeless interpretation of the word (twin)."[Note 8 - See his Rel., 27-8. Similarly Schaeder, p.290, Moulton, E.Z.,133, Soederblom, The Living God, p.215, Corbin, Eranos-Jahrbuch XX,1951, p.163 *who stresses that orthodox Zoroastrianism could tolerate no compromise over "the absolute heterogeneity of Ohrmazd with regard to Ahriman"). Further Bianchi, "Zaman i Ohrmazd", Ch.5 The "Zurvanite" interpretation has, however, been upheld by I.Gershevitch, R.C.Zaehner and others.] The "Zurvanite" interpretation ] This term was clearlt chosen by the prophet as a metaphor to express the equality in state of teh two unrelated beings, and their coevity. By using it he emphasized, with characteristic concentration and force, that (despite their total opposition) they were peers at the moment when they made their fateful choice.
This differs in several substantial ways from the present form of our section. Notably, there has never been any doubt that the "spenishta mainyu" of Y.30 is to be identified as being also the "spenta mainyu" (it's obvious even linguistically). The question has been whether the spenta mainyu in this passage is pretty much identical to Ahura Mazda (the Zurvanite and Orthodox view) or just as separate from him as the "angra mainyu" is (the Haug view); thus, of Haug's "twofold" argument, only the second half is a (new) argument at all. Instead of arguing in detail, I'll just go ahead and make the changes that I think necessary; next, we can discuss them if you identify something that you disagree with.--
Anonymous44 (
talk) 13:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
The problem this raises, then, is whether to categorize Z. as a monotheistic or dualistic religion, and fundamental to this issue is the origin of evil. Monotheism is the term used to define a belief in one supreme exalted God who alone has all the characteristics of a divine being. Dualism has traditionally been understood in a variety of ways in the study of religions. First, it states that reality has a radical twofold nature, and describes the distinction between God and creation in that the two are separate. Second, it says that there are two co-existent and fundamentalyy opoosite forces of good and evil, having neither beginning nor end, which are totally irreconcilable, and thus that the evil in the world cannot be attributed to an all-good God, as is the case with monotheism, but to an adversarial demonc figure who has no dependence on the all-good God, and this leads into an ethical dualismwhich says that humanity is caught up in this batlle between the two forces. Unfortunately the restrictiveness of these definitions has meant that neither is completely descriptive of Z., and indeed the diversity of opinion on this matter which has attended thes cholarly study of Z. practically since its inception suggests that it may never be possible to say once and for all whether Z. is monotheistic, dualistic, or a unique combination of both, and the tradition itself has accommodated without two much difficulty thinkers favouring all these interpretations. One solution has been to say that, since Z. does not recoginze two gods but two co-existent powers, it is dualistic within an overall context of exalted monotheism.
The starting point for any discussion of this matter is Y.30:3-5 (with Y.45:2).
These are the two spirits (existing) in the beginning, twins who have been heard of us as the two dreams, the two thoughts, the two words, and the two actions, teh better and the evil. Between these two the munificient discriminate rightly, but not those who give bad gifts... Of these two spirits the deceitful one chooses to do the worst things, but the most holy spirit, clothed in the hardest stones (chooses) truth (as do those) who, with true actions, devotedly gratify M.Ah.(Y.30:3,5).
Here we are presented with the exalted Lord of Wisdom, Ah.M., his Holy Spirit S.M., and the antagonistic or hostile spirit, An.M.. The most important question that is raised is whether the two spirits existed from the beginning or were created. Answers favouring the former interpretation place the religion firmly in the dualistic camp; answers favouring the latter suppose a montheism. A dualistic interpretation will lead logically to the conclusion that Ah.M. and S.M. are synonymous to the degree that they are hypostatically united, and that the hostile spirit has always enjoyed an independent existence which owes nothing to the Wise Lord. If, on the other hand, the Wise Lord *did* create the "twin" spirits, the implicit monotheism also suggests that A.M. is at least indirectly responsible for the evil in the world since in his omniscience he will have known that An.M. will have chosen to "do the worst things". The dualistic view absolves Ah.M. from any such charge, and it is at least implied in, for example, the following passage, which suggests that S.M., as a creative force, may be intimately identifed with Ah.M. to the extent that the two are, in raeality, one:
Right-mindedness was yours, yours also was the most intellectual fashioner of the cow, when by virtue of your holy spirit you opened ways for her, so that she could join either the herdsman or whoever might not be a herdsman.(Y.31:9).
This would also confirm the independence of the "deceitful" spirit An.M. by virtue of the opposition he represents in Y.30:3-5.
Even so it is clearly a problem that will not be solved easily or totally satisfactorily. ...It is, however, certain that the prophet of Iran would never have considered the Wise Lord responsible for the evil activity he observed around him.... -- Anonymous44 ( talk) 16:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I disagree, and I'm growing tired of this. The things, equations, connections, reasonings that you dispute are all in the text by Boyce that I posted above, and in Haug's own text (the boundary between monism and dualism is of course pretty vague). As for your argument that the stuff is irrelevant for this section, I don't find this reasonable at all. Some discussion of Ah.M, An.M., S.M. etc. inevitably belongs both in the articles on Ah.M., An.M., and S.M. (when there is one). And the precise degree of detail that should be included in each case is really a matter of editorial "feel" - it's definitely not something that it's normal to start a conflict about, as long as the details are accurate. --
Anonymous44 (
talk) 17:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
OMG. OK. Frankly, I don't feel that you are being very constructive, and it probably doesn't matter what I reply to you at all. But OK, I'll reply - again. I've spent too much effort already and I can't let it go waste, so I'm forced to continue this discussion.
That Boyce's pick for S.M./Ah.M equivalence is not universal is noted in her own first footnote on the first page you (mis-)cite. In light of that you may wish to reconsider your idea that I am "disputing" anything other than the fact that a contested item does not have to be stated at all when it is not essential to the topic at hand
For the emptieth time - it is essential, and all the sources say that. The issue of the correlation between S.M. and Ah.M. is absolutely essential and inseparable from the issue of the correlation between An.M. and Ah.M.. This is the way Boyce and Grenet treat the problem in the excerpt, this is also the way Clark treats it in the excerpt that I will post in a separate section below, this is also the way Haug originally treated it when he raised the issue (p.303-305 in the 1878 edition). Repeating, again, for principle's sake: The demotion of An.M. from coeval twin to product, and the promotion of Ah.M. from coeval twin to a single God is only made possible by the assumption that Ah.M. is not An.M.'s twin in the Gathas; instead, S.M. is An.M.'s twin. So the degree of overlapping between Ah.M. and S.M. is absolutely crucial for this point: if they are mostly separate, then the revised scheme is correct; if not, it isn't.
And yes, the S.M/Ah.M. view is not universal. I never claimed it was. The alternative is the monotheistic view, originally proposed by Haug, and it has its supporters, as discussed both above and below.
You provide three citations of alleged support for Haug ... One of them is the Iranica, and I have asked you twice already to explain how you can assert that Iranica supports Haug when the article does not even mention him.
First I told you clearly "prior to your edit, my text included the referenced fact ... the source was an article in Iranica", so you could see the reference to the online edition in my last revision to see which article it was, and then, when you asked again, I said it was "the "Ahriman" article in Iranica by J. Duchesne-Guillemin". There is no reference to Haug personally, inasmuch as later scholars have taken Haug's place as representatives of that view, but the interpetation of Y.30 is quite obviously the monotheistic one proposed by Haug: originally the twins are Ah.M.'s sons An.M. and S.M., then stupid Zoroastrians confuse Ah.M. with S.M., with dualism being the result. That this is Haug's theory is not my OR, that's what the article said before I even started editing it, except that it didn't mention precisely how the stupid Zoroastrians had got it wrong in Haug's view. I quote the Ahriman article:
"The myth of the Twin Spirits is a model he set for the choice every person is called upon to make. It can not be doubted that both are sons of Ahura Mazdā, since they are explicitly said to be twins, and we learn from Y. 47.2-3 that Ahura Mazdā is the father of one of them. Before choosing, neither of them was wicked. There is therefore nothing shocking in Angra Mainyu’s being a son of Ahura Mazdā, and there is no need to resort to the improbable solution that Zoroaster was speaking figuratively. That Ohrmazd and Ahriman’s brotherhood was later considered an abominable heresy is a different matter; Ohrmazd had by then replaced the Bounteous Spirit; and there was no trace any more, in the orthodox view, of the primeval choice, perhaps the prophet’s most original conception."
You have added Gershevitch as supporting Haug's monist theories, although he says nothing of the kind. Indeed, you simply moved the citation from one context to another.
Yep, 'cause I think it was wrong. Boyce umabiguously cites Gershevitch as a supporter the monist theory, with "Ahura Mazda being the "father" of both Bounteous and Hostile Spirits" (note 7 in the excerpt I posted above). Likewise Nigosian 1993, p.23, who explicitly lists Gershevitch (along with Duchesne-Guillemin) among the proponents of the idea that Zoroaster was a monotheist, as opposed to those scholars who describe him as a dualist. BTW, even the text before my edits indicated that Gershevitch supported the Haugish identification of the twin as S.M. - since S.M. literally means "holy/bounteous spirit" the only new thing in this "identification" is the assumption that this is a S.M. separate from Ah.M., which is, as repeated above, a vital part of the monotheistic theory.
You cite "Boyce-Grenet, 1982" (you actually mean "Boyce, 1975", as I have already noted)
Just one of many instances of, um, non-constructive and non-well-meaning arguing on this talk page. I assume you have read the same or similar passage in Boyce, 1975, and then you refuse to figure out that Boyce-Grenet, 1982 might contain it as well, or to check whether it does, because the objective is to prove that you're great and I'm an idiot by all means available. It's available on Google Books, BTW.
The phrase "A number of European scholars have followed the Zurvanites in taking the expression "twins" literally" is not the same as "A number of European scholars follow Haug. And "European scholars" does not mean "modern scholars".
Except that the theory that they then attribute to these scholars is precisely Haug's ("by supposing that the "Most Bounteous Spirit" of Y.30 is to be identified with Spenta Minyu as a separate divinity, Ahura Mazda being the "father" of both Bounteous and Hostile Spirits") and the scholars cited in the footnote as an example are precisely modern. Boyce repeats this in "Textual source", p.16 in chapter 1.4. "some reasons for diversity in modern studies of Z." in almost the same terms: "They (Christian scholars) postulated therefore that he had been a strict monotheist; and after the Avesta became known, they maintained this position by interpreting the relevant Gathic passages as implying that Ah.M. was the "father" of both S.M. and A.M., i.e. the source of both good and evil. This 'European heresy', which was inspired by the Z. Zurvanite heresy, requires the rejection of all post-Gathic Z. literature, in so far as it concerned dualism and the doctrine of the Heptad, as being grounded in error. This Western hypothesis influenced Parsi rerormists in the nineteenth century, and still dominates much Parsi theological discussion, as well as being still upheld by some Western scholars." Once again, the description of this theory repeats almost literally the description in the section as it was before I ever edited it, but I suppose you feel that the theory in question can't be identified as Haug's, because he is not mentioned by name, right?
The "precise degree of detail" is not a matter of editorial "feel". It is a matter of usefulness to the reader.
Yes, "feel" for the usefulness. I feel that what I have added here is either absolutely necessary for the reader to understand the problem (as in the case of S.M.), or something any reader would expect to be told (whether Haug was correct), or something that sets things in a useful intellectual context (the Enlightenment stuff). Before my edits, it was hard to understand precisely what Haug had changed in the theology and whether he was right to change it.
In the present version (which doesn't even have any particularly grand ideas)
I love you too. -- Anonymous44 ( talk) 16:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for finally providing a point of reference. That wasn't so difficult was it?
As I said, it was there for you to see from the start.
You may not however legitimately use that in this context since you are interpreting the source.
Good, you've learned to play with the NOR policy, I see you've been around for some time. You know very well that any reading - hence any citation of a source - includes some interpretation, the question is how much. When you see that A says "Ah.M. is An.M.'s father", B says "Ah.M. is An.M.'s father", and C says "Ah.M. is An.M.'s father", then it is not OR to say that "A says that Ah.M. is An.M.'s father, and B and C are of the same opinion".
"Context fixed" means not "monist", but "monotheistic", since DG is one of those people who thinks "monotheism" and "dualism" are opposite poles (unlike the usual case of "monism" and "dualism" being the opposite poles).
The whole issue has traditionally been muddled because of people arguing about (ambiguous) words instead of concepts. Nobody, including Boyce, denies that Z. is monotheism in the sense that only one supreme entity is supposed to be worshipped. "Monism" is more accurate as an expression of the theogonic primacy of Ah.M. with its philosophical implications. But I don't very much mind dropping the word "monist" altogether, if this contributes to world peace.
"Citing properly" means that when you refer to an example of something, you add a cf. to the reference. Without the cf. you are suggesting that your text is a paraphrase of the source, and that the source says exactly what you are saying.
There's no such requirement or practice on Wikipedia (I don't know about academia, I'm more used to Harvard style there), but it's certainly a good idea for a guideline, I've always felt unease about the ambiguity in such instances on Wiki. It could be proposed for inclusion here.
Just for the record, "prior to your edit" is still my edit. I wrote the section (and the article). Don't you think it is a bit presumptuous of you to think that I do not know what I myself mean?
Yes, I was wondering when you'd finally spit it out. *sigh*. Now we're in deep ... discussion. Nice article, BTW.
You "think" it was wrong cite Gershevitch (p. 32!) for "identification of the twins as Angra Mainyu and Spenta Mainyu is not contested." ... "the dual yəmā, "twins", refers to the dual mainyū, the two spirits."
No, I certainly never denied that G. would condone this statement, as would everyone else. But the statement itself is irrelevant for the Haug topic in its original form and misleadingly ambiguous in its retold form. The crucial and innovative idea is not that one of the twins is (a/the) S.M., it is that this S.M. is (originally) as separate from Ah.M. as (the) An.M. is. Thus, the alleged correct "first part" of Haug's argument, if stated correctly, is inseparable from the alleged incorrect, monist "second part"; and, contrary to what your wording implied, G. largely agrees with both (more on that below).
Page 13 is not the same as page 32
You're right. This was an oversight on my part, I forgot to change the page.
Third, the notion that "he mentions X so he condoned it" is a logical fallacy. A person can discuss something without necessarily also believing in it.
Fourth, Boyce is not "umabiguously" citing anyone as a supporter of the monist theory
Finally, in the sentence immediately preceding the one quoted by Boyce, Gershevitch says "We need not go so far as to assume that Z. imagined the Devil as having directly issued from God.". This is a rejection of Haug-like theory
Gershevitch follows in the tradition of Hermann Lommel, down to the distinction between "Zarathustrianism" and "Zarathustricism". This is the very same Lommel who dismissed Haug, and is the very same Lommel who is cited two sentences after Boyce's quotation of Gershevitch.
Ooh, nice try, especially the last few sentences! Rather hopeless, though. This is becoming a Baghdad Bob thing.
DO NOT INTERPRET and DO NOT CITE A SOURCE THAT YOU HAVE NOT READ YOURSELF.
I'm forced to rely on another source where the first source is cited, when those who have read the first source clearly miscite it - originally by mistake, and then intentionally.
<quote>"... and still dominates much Parsi theological discussion, as well as being still upheld by some Western scholars." Why on earth don't you simply quote that in the article? </quote>
OK, if you insist, I'll cite it. It's not different from my own claim.
Again, IT IS NOT NECESSARY to dig up sources who uphold Haug
But I can do it, you see. While you thought until recently that the view "that both twins both have their origin in Mazda is thoroughly rejected", (something that I've now proved to be wrong with a multitude of sources), and this you thought despite having cited, in the Wiki article, the very Iranica article by Duchesne-Guillemin which endorses that view! Not to mention your recent belief that "No one reads 30.3 as referring to Angra Mainyu and Ahura Mazda himself. That is exactly the Zurvanite interpretation!", and then your helpless attempt, when confronted with the question what the pre-Haug interpretation was, to claim that it was that the twins were, I quote, "vohu-mano and akem-mano" - when Boyce explicitly states in the excerpt posted above that in Y.30.3-5, one of the twins "is evidently Ahura Mazda" and that "the 'two spirits' are duly explained by the Pahlavi commentator on these verses as 'Ohrmazd and Ahriman'". All that while envoking your expertise and erudition in the area of Z.. I tried not to emphasize this and similar stuff from the start, hoping to avoid serious conflict, but apparently this doesn't work well with you.
her pet theory that Z. doctrine remained unchanged through the centuries
Agreed, she carries it too far.
Boyce-Grenet, 1982 ... Well, I did check, and I even checked for you etc.
You could have got there by searching for any phrase from the quote I posted.
Admittedly Google Books appear to be the only ones who choose to list both as authors of the series as a whole, resulting in some confusion; I'll fix that.
You also make yourself look silly when you cite google books even though you know damn well that I have the real (physical, dead tree, print) books in front of me
Wish you had used them better, though.
You may not identify a theory as following X when X is not cited. ... when those authors do not cite X, you may say "Similar ideas have also been expressed by ..."
I certainly can say they happen to have the same view as he does as stated above in the section. This is easily verifiable, provided there is a desire to do so. But I will re-word it, the present wording may indeed be too strong.
they should be quoted exactly. Either inline, or in a footnote. For DG you should cite DG personally, e.g. La religion de l'Iran ancien, 1962 p. 393-398.
I see no reason to cite DG personally. I'll add the quotes, you're entitled to request them.
Stanley Insler is quite capable of coming to that conclusion by himself
"... my precioussss!" ... ?
Why do you insist on stuffing Zoroastrian dualism into that section anyway?
You want to discuss Ahriman without discussing dualism. This is actually not even the first time you say it. My Lord Jesus, did I really deserve this? I guess so. Yahweh without monotheism and the Holy Spirit without trinitarianism would be cool, too.
it is not necessary to get into a discussion about Ah.M's relationship to S.M. ... In Iranica's Ahura Mazda article Boyce does not mention it in the discussion of Haug
"His interpretation was refined on in the 19th century by M. Haug, who, making a new interpretation of Y. 30.3, attributed to Zoroaster the doctrine that the twin Spirits of that verse were Spənta Mainyu and Angra Mainyu, and that the “father” of both was Ahura Mazdā."
She doesn't need to explain more in that passage, because the relationship between Ah.M. and S.M. has been discussed throughout her article before the Haug section - because hers is, in fact, an article about Ah.M.. (and S.M.).
The Iranica article on Ahriman does not discuss the equality of Ah.M./S.M. either.
"This shift in the position of Ahura Mazdā, his total assimilation to this Bounteous Spirit, must have taken place in the 4th century B.C. at the latest"
Your presupposition and insistence that S.M/Ah.M. are equal is clouding your judgment. you have reverted to the supposition that there is only S.M.=Ah.M. or (the other extreme) S.M.!=Ah.M.
I've been simplifying things to make sure you hear something. Here are, *again*, some more precise wordings. Boyce: "supposing that the 'Most Bounteous Spirit' of Y.30 is to be identified with Spenta Mainyu as a separate divinity". Clark: "Ah.M. and S.M. are synonymous to the degree that they are hypostatically united", "S.M., as a creative force, may be intimately identifed with Ah.M. to the extent that the two are, in reality, one"
The real problem with Haug's theory is his novel "An.M. from Ah.M" and that that is really the only bit that is actually "special". Getting into S.M.=Ah.M. is a ball of wax
I refuse to answer this. Again. Read Clark (the excerpt below), and read Boyce with your eyes open. You didn't understand this when you wrote the article, and now you refuse to understand it because you don't want to admit you were wrong.
You have (in principle) the necessarily detachment and disenchantment, and that is a rare thing, and is very cool. But you also need to be a little more scientific; i.e. no second-guessing, no polemic, no "absolute" truths, less lackadaisical citation, more specialized reading, and less of that being more sure than necessary. In these matters the only certainty is that nothing is certain.
Thanks for the advice.-- Anonymous44 ( talk) 18:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
You haven't answered as of now, but I have no doubt that a new arrogant and twisty diatribe is coming shortly. Even having been caught red-handed lying, as with the Gershevitch thing, and crucially uninformed, as with quite a few things (some I have enumerated above, search for "thought until recently"), won't make you stop. However, I can't afford to spend any more time on this. It's now a week since I've been forced to defend about five accurate sentences from the jealous territorial male of the species. Answering to tireless, dumb and malicious attacks takes a lot of time and strain and already threatens to interfere with my everyday work in real life. That's just not worth it. I've done all that is humanly possible. This is my last post on this discussion page. -- Anonymous44 ( talk) 12:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello everyone.
Someone should point to references of Ahriman from the old Avestan litterature For example, the persian classical writing "Drayishn-i Ahriman o Divan" should be mentioned, and also "Arda Viraf". The seven Divas (demons) should also be named
The seven archdemons of the Daevas are: Aesma Daeva, Aka Manah, Indra, Nanghaithya, Saurva, Tawrich and Zarich.
It should probably also be mentioned that in the theosophic writings of Rudolf Steiner and H.P. Blatavsky, Ahriman is used as a term for describing their "Ahriman-Lucifer" model, which has nothing to do with Ahrimans original role in the Persian writings.
The three-headed dragon Azi-Dahaka is a very important demon in old persian literature, and his strong link with Ahriman should be mentioned in this article.
I think scholars have drawn comparisons between the Seven Daevas and the classical Seven Demons of ancient Sumerian litterature. (and also the obvious parallells between the christian seven deadly sins, and the Seven Hells from hebrew/jewish literature.
There also exists a very famous legend about Ahriman as the creator of the Peacock. This has an esoteric weight to it, and should be mentioned. I think the story can be found at www.avesta.org, but we should have a summary of it, at least. The story proves an interesting point, that Ahriman has a free will and is not restricted to merly replicate/mirror the actions of the Creator Spirit Ahura Mazda.
And what about this ancient demonologys influence over modern Arabic religion like Islam? (where Daevas become Djinn and Ahriman becomes Iblis)
These are my comments anyway, hope they prove valuable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.125.176.40 ( talk • contribs).