This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I used the exact format and language as Oxford, since they are qualified and the experts on the field. By using the same format and language as Oxford, then it is no longer assertion related to history, and the citation is exact and proper. Oxford is more of an authority than any person here involved in these discussion. The Oxford dictionary on page 409 states the following: The title of the page is Chronology. “In this chronology broadly ’philosophical’ events mentioned in the body of the dictionary are in the second column.” It dates the events in this order; “1500 BC Beginning of the Vedic period in India.”
“630 BC Zoroaster.”
The readers should know that this is the exact format and language used by Oxford Universityon page 409. ( Dvakili ( talk) 05:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)).
I removed the opening paragraph on the philosophy section for several reasons.
Opinions? I have not reverted the rever to avoid an edit war. -- Snowded ( talk) 00:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
According to Oxford dictionary of philosophy (page 409),the chronology of the subject and science of philosophy originated amongst the Indo-Iranians, by the name of Mazad-Yasna, meaning worship of wisdom. Oxford University dates this event to 3500 years ago. The first philosopher in the chronology of philosophy is Zarathushtra. According to Oxford dictionary of philosophy (page 405) Zarathushtra's philosophy entered to influence western tradition through Judaism, and therefore on Middle Platonism.
Oxford does represent facts. Remember, I am only quoting Oxford, so, your whole argument is that Oxford is wrong. This is what you have failed to prove. Prove that Oxford is wrong in its claims.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvakili ( talk • contribs) 01:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The section could be filled out a bit - I'm still confused about what the philosophy is. Perhaps a link to another page? Also, the poet, is that Zoroaster? Friedonc ( talk) 18:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Without providing any reason for doing so, Jbambo has reinstated his/her original research that
Besides being a completely novel position (i.e OR), it is scientifically unsound, and I have accordingly removed it again. WP:BRD is now in effect, and Jbambo will have to discuss the artifice here first. The editor has been notified on his/her talk page. -- Fullstop ( talk) 17:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to be critical of a piece that's apparently so erudite, but it's also almost unreadable - at least to me. Could someone with some knowledge of the subject as well as the ability to write clear English PLEASE have a go at a rewrite? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Numero60 ( talk • contribs) 20:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
The article contains the following sentence:
The alternate Greek name for Zoroaster was Zaratas/Zaradas/Zaratos (cf. Agathias 2.23-5, Clement Stromata I.15), which—so Cumont and Bidez—did derives from a Semitic form of his name.
There is clearly something grammatically wrong in this sentence. Unfortunately I don't know hot to fix it, because I don't know how Cumon and Bidez are, and thus don't know exactly what is supposed to be stated here. Hopefully somebody more knowledgeable can help out here -- I just wanted to point out the error. Thanks. 98.212.24.54 ( talk) 18:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
the piece {"Nietzsche creates a characterization of Zarathustra as the mouthpiece for Nietzsche's own ideas against morality. Nietzsche did so because—so says Nietzsche in his autobiographical Ecce Homo (IV/Schicksal.3)—Zarathustra was a moralist ("was the exact reverse of an immoralist" like Nietzsche) and because "in his teachings alone is truthfulness upheld as the highest virtue." Zarathustra "created" morality in being the first to reveal it, "first to see in the struggle between good and evil the essential wheel in the working of things." Nietzsche sought to overcome the morality of Zarathustra by using the Zarathustrian virtue of truthfulness; thus Nietzsche found it piquant to have his Zarathustra character voice the arguments against morality.[f]'"} (in the section Zoroaster#In_the_post-classical_era) has to be removed as it is based on quotation from Nietzsche's own work and hence WP:OR. The point is that 1. Nietzsche can not be considered immoralist, the way we understand the word in 2009. (read Nietzsche Morality) 2. A person who wrote Beyond good and evil is certainly moralist.-- Xashaiar ( talk) 22:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
The "Date" paragraph is very in-conclusive. It says that Zorastor was not born in the 6th century BC, but the paragraph does not clearly state what the current opinions on his date of birth are. Kak Dela? ( talk) 15:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Say, would it be out of line to show the opinion that Zarathushtra was a Hindu Brahmin who moved to Iran? According to an English documentary I've seen, entitled "The Story of God", that is precisely who he was, a Hindu Brahmin reformer, much like the Buddha.
I await what will no doubt be a deafening silnce in reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.112.123 ( talk) 04:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Lord Ahura-Mazda! You people do go nuts, don't you? I was actually inquiring as to whether anyone could refresh my memory on this point of Z. being a Hindu Brahmin. Someone did clarify that as well as clarifying the documentary.
Also, to the point of Brahmanism, it is truly misleading to try to say there are "Aryan" Brahmins and "Hindu" Brahmins. Uhhh... who were the Hindus? Oh! ARYANS!
As to certain people's apparently vicious hatred of documentaries, do you think they are any worse than Wikipedia? What, are you now going to shoot down every line in Wikipedia that has a documentary as its source??
Argue away like fools... I'm not coming here to waste any further time with you who feel drunk with power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.112.123 ( talk) 18:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Could some knowledgable person please come in and rectify either the spellings or at least insert the correct pronunciations of names? They are like Sanskrit and require guidance for the lay reader. Thanks! ElKeKomeIKanta ( talk) 11:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi - I was interested to read that Zarathustra's home was said to be on the Ditya River, and went to avesta.org to read more. It turns out that there is no mention whatsoever of any Ditya River or anything similar in Yasna 9 or 17, as translated on that site. Does this article rely on an alternative translation? If so, that should be specified. If not, the error should be corrected. Thanks. Mrcautious ( talk) 04:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
According to tradition, & Greek sources, Zarathushtra was born to the family of Haetat-aspa ( his great grand father) of the Spitaman section of the priestly Athrawan tribe around 7100BC in the town of Rae (Raya), along the banks of the river Veh-daiti, (one of the 6 tributaries of the now dried River Harah-vaiti/Vedic: Saras-wati) north east of Drangiana ( Zarangiana) , a mountainous territory around Lake Hamun and the Helmand river in Seistan (Iran-Afghanistan). In the Vendidad, Raya is listed between the Helmand river and Caxra (assumed to be modern Carx near Ghazna in southeast Afghanistan) and is therefore different from Median Raga and modern Ray. This river Harah-vaiti, prominently mentioned in the Gathas as that purifying celestial river of Prosperity that leads one to self realization, was said to flow from the mountains to the Ocean. A large number of vedic hymns are similarly dedicated to this divine river Saraswati.
In the Avesta, the Khordad Yasht is dedicated to it. (The Vedic “Saa” becomes “Kh” or “Khw” in Avesta)
Zarathushtra is traditionally referred to as one who had achieved “perfection”; the “perfect man” : the Naro-ish Nara & his birthday is thus called Khordad Saal.
This mountaineous land known as Harah-vaiti in Avestic times is listed in the Vendidad as one of the 16 aryan lands. The fertile plains bordering this divine river are mentioned in the Vendidad as the 15th land (out of 16) called Hapta Hendu (Vedic Sapta Sindhu) & located in the modern undivided Punjab. According to Avestan geography the region of the Haêtumant River extends in a southwest direction from the point of confluence of the Arghandâb with the Helmand. (Gnoli, 1980, p. 66) ARACHOSIA, province (satrapy) in the eastern part of the Achaemenid empire around modern Kandahar (southern Afghanistan), which was inhabited by the Iran Arachosians or Arachoti. The Old Persian form of its name is Harauvatis (h-r-u-v-t-i); this form is the etymological equivalent of Vedic Sarasvati - (fem., name of a river, properly "rich in waters/lakes" and derived from saras- "lake, pond"); thus the province is named after its main river, the modern Argandab (in Greek called Arachotos), a tributary of the Helmand. The same region appears in the Avestan Videvdat (Vendidad 1.12) under the indigenous dialect from Haraxv aiti - (whose -axv a- is typical non-Avestan); of these two forms Old Pers. Harauvatis (remodeled nom. -is) is rendered by Elamite Ha(r)-ra-u-ma-ti-is, Ha(r)-ru-ma-ti-is, etc., and "Arachotic" (and Median) *Haraxvati- by Aramaic hrhwty (cf. R.A. Bowman, Aramaic Ritual Texts from Persepolis, Chicago, 1970, p.192b); Elamite Har-ku-(ut-)ti-is (Dsf 39, Xph 16 and Persepolis tablets; see R.T. Hallock, Persepolis Fortification Tablets, Chicago, 1969, p.691a); Greek Arachosia; and, reflecting a form with metathesis, *Harauxati, Babylonian KURa-ru-ha-at-ti(-'), a-ru-hat0 , and Aramaic hrwhty (DB) respectively. (See M. Mayrhofer, Onomastica Persepolitana, Vienna, 1973, p.32; K. Hoffmann, Aufsatze zur Indoiranistik II, Wiesbaden, 1976, p.641 with n.38; R. Schmitt in Sprachwissenschaft 9, 1984, pp.205f.). (Encyclopedia Iranica, Volume II, 1987, Routledge & Kegan Paul. ISBN 0 7100 91109
Spencer gives details from Malcom's "History of Ancient Persia" and states that for 2598 years some four dynasties ruled over Persia from Yama Vivanghao (Yama Vaivaswat in Sanskrit) in whose time the Deluge commenced (end of the ice age), i.e., in 9844 B.C. The rule of these four dynasties ended therefore in approximately 7200 B.C. By this time, Kai Vishtaspa became ruler of Persia. Sage Kaksivan (RV 1-122-13) speaks of one Istasva who is identified with Vishtaspa by E.S.Bharucha (quoted by Hodivala). This king is supposed to have ruled for 120 years, and so his period can be fixed in the vicinity of 7100B.C. Zarathustra was a contemporary of King Vishtaspa, and therefore his date can be worked out to be around 7100BC . On the basis of astronomy, Spencer determines Zarathustra's date to be around 7052 B.C., coinciding with the dates determined above. Traditionally, Zarathushtra has been considered a master mathematician & astronomer. He is said to have calculated the rare coincidence of sunrise in Sistan (Afghanistan)with its longitudinal equinox in 7037BC & called it Nav-roz, or new year.
The Varsagira battle (referred to in hymn I.100 of the Rig Veda) is identified by many Zarathushti scholars as a civil war between the Iranians and Indian (Bharatas) sections of the Indo-Iranian tribes, at the time of Zarathushtra. The hymn (in I.100.17) names five persons as being the main protagonists in the battle: In the Rigveda, Istasva (Vistaspa) is mentioned in verse I.122.13, roughly translated by Sayana as follows: “What can Istava, Istarasmi, or any other princes do against those who enjoy the protection of Mitra and Varuna. Note the reverence to the common divinities. a. The leader of the Varsagiras is Rjrasva. He is identified by most scholars with the Arej-ataspa or Arj-aspa the Turanian, who is referred to in the Avesta as the main enemy of Vistapa and his brothers (Aban Yasht.5.109, 113; and Gosh Yasht, .9.30). Later Iranian tradition (as in the Shahname) goes so far as to hold Zarathustra himself to have been killed by Arjaspa. b. Sahadeva is one of the four companions of Rjrasva in the battle. He is correctly identified by S.K. Hodiwala , with the Hushdiv remembered in the Shahname (Chapter 462) as one of the main enemies of Vistaspa in the battle, who led Arjaspa’s troops from the rear. Although not mentioned in the Avesta, Hushdiv is a natural development of Hazadaeva, which would be the exact Avestan equivalent of the Vedic name Sahadeva. c. The other three companions of Rjrasva in the battle are AmbarIsa, Bhayamana and Suradhas. In the “Cama Memorial Volume, E.” Sheheriarji quotes RV I.100.17 to identify the other persons mentioned in the said Rigvedic verse by showing that the names of certain persons known to be connected with Arjaspa in the Avesta bear the same meanings as the names of the persons in the said verse. Thus he says that AmbarIsa is identical with Bidarfsha (= Av. Vidarafshnik) brother of ArjAspa, since both the names mean ‘one with beautiful garments’. Similarly, Bhayamana = Vandaremaini, father of Arjaspa, both meaning ‘the fearless one’; also Suradhas = Humayaka, brother of Arjaspa, as both the words mean ‘one with much wealth’
Hodiwala correctly identifies Humayaka, Arjaspa’s comrade in the Avesta (Aban Yasht, Yt.5.113) with Somaka, the son of Sahadeva (IV.15.7-10).
There is a strong likelihood that the Suradhas of I.100.17 is the same as the Somaka of IV.15.7-10.
This War also appears to have set the Avestics living in the Sapta-Sindhu homeland towards the North, and West directions . This date is in wonderful agreement with Greek sources about the times of Zarathushtra.
The main priestly enemies of the Zarathushtra & his followers are the Angras (Vedic Angirases) who are condemned throughout the Avesta right down from the Gathas of Zarathushtra. The Angarisas are that section of the Atharwaan tribe that split from the Ahura tradition & took up worship of multiple Devas (Deified Man, elevated to Godly heights). They were the composers of the early portions of the Rig Veda. The Gathas & Avesta refer to the Angirases (from which the term Angra mainyu- the evil mentality is derived), as enemy priests & their two branches, the Usiks (Vedic Usijs/Ausijas) mentioned in Ys 44.20 and Gaotemas (Gautamas), both of whom originated in and dominated the early Period of the Rig Veda compositions. The Angarisas are mentioned by Zarathushtra himself in the Gathas ( Ys48.10 ) & designated as karapan (a derogatory word used in reference to enemy priests who are extremely ritual oriented to the extent of being blind & deaf to righteous intelligent reasoning) & in whose hymns alone we find references to the conflict of the Vedics with the Zarathushtis.
The original Atharwaan priestly tribe had by Zarathushtras’ time split into two sections, the Angirasas, who worshipped Devas & the Brighus (Spitamaas of the Avesta), who worshiped Asuras . One may note that Brighu means blazing white flame & Spitamas means brilliantly bright. We see the Vedics & the Persians use such linguistically interchangeable terms to describe each other throughout. The Brighus had a calender based on the orbit of Venus (Shukra) & the angirasas had one based on Jupiter (Brihas-pati) reflecting their alliance to the specific philosopher.
The Puranas allude to a cosmic war between the Devas, led by Brihaspati of the Angirasa line of seers & the Asuras (Ahuras), led by Shukra (our Kava Ushana) of the Brighu line of seers. As such the Asura-Daeva split was already in place by Zarathushtras’ time.
It should however be noted that Zarathushtra refers to evil “Daevas”, as "Mashya" or mortals, meaning egotistic mortals who have taken the mantle of "God-hood". It refer to un-desirable/degenerate aspects of behaviour, akin to Vedic “Divs”; which is the destructive aspect of Hindu Gods. It has been wrongly assumed for some time that the daevas of the Mazdayasna are the same as the Vedic devas and therefore Zarathushtra inverted the deva-asura dichotomy of the Vedic period. In reality, the situation is much more complex with the Vedic Gods changing their attributes over time. We thus find that the Vedic (middle & later) and the Zarathushtrian systems are much less diverse than is generally assumed. This is borne out in Kashmiri (Pandit) scriptures that considers Divs (Daeva) as evil & opposed to the Devas who are Gods.
On the other hand, nothing can exemplify the hostility faced by Zarathushtra from the Asuras than the fact his chief enemy from infancy, childhood to adulthood was an evil magician, Dur-asuran.
On the other hand the Vedas refer to their enemies , the asuras, as militant, unethical & prone to violence, the almost clinical definition of middle eastern Ashuras, who represent the Priest-Warrior caste split amongst Indo-Iranian times in an earlier time frame.
However the main enemy is defined as the Druj; or the Vedic Druh/Drugh/Dhroga , a word/term derived from the root “Dru” meaning to deceive & identifying the inimical tribe Druhyus . Reference to them occurs throughout the Gathas & Rigveda in the sense of “demonic deceiver”
From the Vandidad portion of the Kem-na Maz-da Prayer:
May the liar, the demonic deceiver, perish, rendering the righteous material world free from its depravations.
It is therefore clear that Zarathushtra arose at this time of multipolar spiritual confusion, to raise the ancient faith out of its failings.
The Ground level situation faced by Zarathushtra can be summed up as follows: During the Indo_Iranian Era the religious doctrine referred to a Single Creator who was both Creator & Destroyer. This exclusive CREATOR was called Ahu-ra (Vedic Asu-ra) or Life Force, & exemplified by the vedics as Shiva/Rudra. Starting from an initial expansion to his spouse (Parvati) & his Son (Ganesh); over a period of time, the term Asura became plural & a galaxy of Asuras take stage, each with his/her own independent existence. This expansion of God-hood ended up encompasing negative entities such as Bhairava, (the wrathfull destroyer), Mahakala, (wrath, druj, adorned with snakes & bones) Kuvera, (4 armed, God of wealth) , Asura-maya (the builder of illusions), Rahu-Ketu (Maleficent last 2 planets of the solar system, or astrologically, the 2 extreme positions of the moon’s orbit), Vasuki and Vritra (Serpents-Gods). This philosophy, exemplified by the Priest-Warrior caste split, spread as far as the middle east where it was called Ashura the warrior God. As the concept of a single exclusive Creator was usurped by a host os Asuras; over time, a class of "Gods" , namely the Devas, the shining, visible, Mortal ones (originally temporal lords, literally lord of the land, a philosopher-king, in the kavya mold, who was Deified ); came about as theological rivals. Devas were originally mortal & “Mashya” (mortal) in the Gathas, Avesta & the Vedas. Thus Kings of the land, based on their material wealth & power appointed themselves God. We see this in the Pharoes of Egypt. Daevas included Indra,(mainly) and others. Indra,was a warrior based entity whose attributes were expanded from the original Aryan hero Vrita. Over time (the Vedas being composed over 6000 years) Previous “asuras” were re-incorporated as devas, over different periods of time, as in Varuna, Shiva, Savitr (our Khwtr), Agni,(our Atar-sh), Soma (our Hoama) , Mithra & Saraswati (our Ha-urva-tat). Society ended up getting classified as Ahuras (those who follow Ahura) & Devas (those who follow Devas).
These were times when belief in multiple Gods was the norm. When each God was feared for his/her wrath, jealousy; & obedience was demanded in ways so demeaning that man was reduced to a thoughtless entity, a plaything for the perverse games of the Gods.
In effect therefore, Zarathushtra challenged the existing definition of Asuras as numerous demi-gods under one supreme, & placed Ahura-Mazda, the Loving, compassionate, lord of intellect & wisdom, as the supreme creator. We are ofcourse believers in Ahura, the single, self created Life force as opposed to numerous Daevas who are mortals (Mashya) elevated to Godhood & having an independent existence. While Ahura Mazda is fashioned along the lines of Rudra/Shiva, being all powerful, self created, there is a vital distinction. Whereas Asura’s attributes is also that of destroyer, Ahura Mazda is the Loving, compassionate God who knows no wrath & whose strength is knowledge & enlightenment. Unlike Shiva who parades around with a Damroo (Drum) made of skulls, Zarathushtra carries a staff with a Gao-mukh (face of a cow) to represent the selfless mother earth (Gey-ush Urvaan). So while Shiva represents a dualist nature of both creator & destroyer, Ahura Mazda is the absolute creator & epitome of perfection (Ha-urva-tat) . Being a loving God, there is no provision for him to be destructive; as destruction is considered evil. Death itself is considered a temporary victory of evil over good. For Zarathushtra, the only source of destruction is poor, unintelligent, un-righteous choices made by man (Angra-Mainyu). He maintains the definition of Ahura as the formless, self created one, jettisons the independent multitude into one single entity. He also jettisons all negative entities such as Vrita (evil snakes), association with bones, destruction & wrath (Asura Bhairav, Mahakala) that have crept into the then existing philosophy. This pits him against his own tribe.
In Ys30.10 Zarathushtra mentions “Skenda” (identified in the hindu scriptures as the son of Shiva, & subject to various trials & tribulations during his lifetime), allegorically, as the self destructive fate of those willfully opposing Truth.
Work is worship (epitomized in the Yenghe Hatam mantra) therefore becomes the epitaph of the Daena, underlining the real reason for preference of worship, facing a living, breathing fire (Atar-sh) as opposed to an idol or image worship. An image although a good focal point of devotion, obscures the true aim of worship, namely the necessity of continuous, Intelligent (Wise), compassionate acts of Selfnessness; in a way mimicking the requirement to regularly & diligently feed the divine fire (Atar-sh).
Kashmiri theology has a three-way division consisting of devas, asuras, and daevas; wherein Deva or devata is a positive (sattwa) power related to knowledge & understanding; Asura (rajas), a power related to activity, & Daeva (tamas), a power related to blind acquisitiveness. Sometimes the term rakshasa (monster) is used interchangeably with daeva. The Rakshasa’s behavior was exemplified by a form of marriage (unfortunately still common in Islamic Iran) involving the violent seizure or rape of a girl after the defeat or destruction of her relatives —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.73.62.215 ( talk) 03:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I waded through the above... what on earth are you trying to say?? Do you have a point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.169.189.226 ( talk) 20:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I've known for awhile now that Zoroaster is an Anglicized version of the name we render as Zarathustra, and that it comes from the Latinized version of the name. But what is the true name of this prophet rendered in English (in other words the direct Anglicized version from the Avestan name)? Is it really Zarathustra, or is it Zartosht as he is known in Persian? Or is it a third Anglicized version that I have not heard?
Also, since Zarathustra is the name which is still the closer rendering of his true name (even if it isn't the exact Anglicized version), shouldn't that be the name of this article? 71.191.199.74 ( talk) 17:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
There is some peculiar language, awkward grammar, and sentences like "thus Nietzsche found it piquant to have his Zarathustra character..." Thus? Piquant? we may be discussing the 19th century. We shouldn't necessarily talk like we are in it. Tao2911 ( talk) 04:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I have no background in studies of this, but this edit a couple of days ago introducing the "Use of Cannabis" section seems suspect.
Googling around I get all sorts of contradictory indications.
Can someone familiar with the topic in real life review if the comment and section are accurate at all; if so, we need to at least fix it significantly, as the modern lingo in use is out of place in a history article. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 02:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
If no one provides sources for the many dates in the begining i will edit it down to the traditional 6th century ad date. Ishmaelblues ( talk) 23:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
In the Philosophy section, it says that Zoroastrians note the similarities between Zoroaster's philosophy and Spinoza's. This may very well be true, but it should at least be cited, and it should ideally specify the ideas in question. Zoroaster and Spinoza certainly wouldn't have agreed on the issue of free will. -- Phatius McBluff ( talk) 20:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
The article previously read:
While the second half of the sentence appears to be superfluous writing, the first part I took as accurate, and after some refactoring, the same passage is part of a different section which integrates the two:
The issue here now is that the phrase "[zarat-] does not itself appear in Avestan" does not appear to be true, or is else referencing zarat- in its exact form explicitly to the exclusion of related zar- based words, which, as online Avestan dictionaries plainly show, are straightforward. For example zairi- (golden/yellow), zairitem (golden/green), zaranaênem (golden, of gold). [7] [8]. So it seems to be a case where the emphasis of "does not itself appear" is strongly typed, to the point of being plainly innacurate. - Stevertigo ( w | t | e) 21:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC) no:Eirik Raude
the section of Muslim view of Zoroaster and his religion is silent on an essential point - for the Muslim rulers of Iran the divine inspiration or lack of it in the local religion was not just an issue of speculative theology. Rather, it was a question of whether to classify Iranians as "pagans" who had to be converted or killed or else let them live as "ahl al kitab". Apparently the first course of action was, at the time, not feasible, which is why they were so quick at figuring out that Zoroaster was in fact a prophet of God. 76.24.104.52 ( talk) 22:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Mary Boyce's scholarship was highly respected, gaining her an international reputation and fellowship at numerous academic societies and institutions. Her speciality remained the religions of speakers of Eastern Iranian languages, in particular Manichaenism and Zoroastrianism. -- McYel ( talk) 21:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
In the first second paragraph it written "...and Iranian tradition places him at about 570 BC", it is not true. Zoroastrians OFFICIALLY (at least in Iran) believe that the prophet was born 3748 years ago (~1738 BC), on 6th day of month Farvardin. So this part of the article is wrong. I will remove it. If you want to change it back to 570 BC, please give a reference this time. 115.133.209.99 ( talk) 20:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Warrior4321's changes ( diff) add some phrasing to the lede, but detract from the article IMHO. He claims that 'if its sourced, it can go in,' but he appears unfamiliar with the issue of WP:UNDUE weight. - Stevertigo ( w | t | e) 18:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
The article is devoid of insight and is hopelessly one-sided. There is no recognition of the fact that Indian and Iranian history and religion are closely interrelated. There is no mention of Gaumata or Gotama buddha who was a contemporary. Herzfeld wrote that Gaumata was Zoroaster's adversary and in the Buddhist texts Devadatta was the adversary of Gotama. In fact the tacit assumtion of all scholars that Zoroastrianism is the oldest religion is untenable. If one rejects the Nepalese frauds it becomes clear that Zoroastrianism and Buddhism belong to the same milieu and were sister religions. That Zoroastrianism was not the religion of the Sakas and Kushanas is stated categorically by Harmatta and other scholars ("History of Civilizations of Central Asia", vol. II by J. Harmatta,p.315). The fact that Gaumata was Gotama and that there were many Buddhas before Gotama is not known to scholars such as Frye, Boyce and Briant. In his work 'Fihrist' al-Nadim also makes no mention of the Zoroastrians and states that the Shamaniya who regarded Buddha as their Prophet formed the majority of the people before Islam. A similar view is expressed by Al-beruni who was a greater scholar than Diodorus. The recently discovered Bactrian Buddhist texts mention six pre-Gotama Buddhas. Mary Boyce wrote much but had a very shallow perspective. Why does the Persepolis tablets make no mention of Zoroaster? The reason may be, as Ranajit Pal maintains in his book "Non-Jonesian Indology and Alexander", p. 190. that Zoroaster was known by the name Devadatta among the Elamite scribes. Pal suggests that Damidada of the tablets may be Zoroaster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mejda ( talk • contribs) 08:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Poor scholarship, perhaps. In fact most of articles here on the Eastern religions sees relatively poor scholarship compared to Judeo-Christian faith, which has been dissected since Enlightenment and is still being dissected. At the very least, scholarly consensus has it that the so-called "pre-Gotama Buddhas" is but a myth conjured by Indian Buddhists to bolster the authority of their faith, much as Jainism's appeal to ancient Tirthankara's and Hinduism's "memory" of Vishnu's Avatara's. That Zoroastrianism and Hinduism are more ancient than Buddhism there is no doubt.
136.142.243.54 (
talk)
14:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
too much far fetched commentries about the origion of the word of old iraninan word "Zerdush"t or "zerdosht" means 'Golden handed" also means generous.. "Ahura mazda" "Aura mazda" means agira mezen or Big fire. the sun and fşre plays an important image in zoroastriasmç you should take arien origion of the word into consideration, not take the english or german spelling of the word while trying explain the etimology of the words. the word in origiıon kurdish not persian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.175.47.159 ( talk) 22:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Zarathushtra, as per Avestan/Vedic Sanskrit is: Za + rath + ush + tra. Za(r) = Vedic Har/Hari = divine, a mortal who has reached perfection (self realization). Rath = Chariot. Ush = Light (of knowledge, wisdom) Tra = concentration of
Thus Zarathushtra = The divine chariot that brings Light(knowledge) to the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.149.106 ( talk) 19:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
The word Zaraθuštra consists from two parts zaraθ 'gold' ( Latvian: zelts, Curonian *zal(a)tan, Russian: zoloto) and uštra 'sunrise' ( Latvian: austra, ausma 'sunrise, dawn', austrumi 'East'). So Zaraθuštra means 'The golden sunrise'. Roberts7 19:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I think this section needs to be re-wording. This is an interesting article, but this lengthy discussion at the very beginning may turn off readers. If no one objects, I'll put the likely meanings of the name first, dicussion after. Friedonc ( talk) 18:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Does all common sense leave you when discussing this topic ? What does Camels have anything to do with Zoroastrians ? Common sense would dictate that the name has absolutely nothing to do with camels, because if it did camels would play some sort of role within the Zoroastrian belief system. Why do they have the eternel fire that burns ? They are followers of the light, not golden camel herders, that makes absolutely no sense —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.80.182 ( talk) 05:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
iblogger.org is on the blacklist [9] so images from it should not be used. See also the whitelist discussion| [10]
Graeme374 ( talk) 04:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
It may be a modern reproduction. There are plenty at http://www.exoticindiaart.com/search.php3?pagecount=1&searchmodifier=allwords&limitfields=all&subcatsearch=all&materialsearch=all&minprice=0&maxprice=1000000&archives=0&searchsorttype=testcode%7Cdesc&searchval=mughal&table=paintings&search_submit=Search
Where is the citation for this in the article? Challenged and removed.
06:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graeme374 ( talk • contribs)
I think it would be pertinent to show the similarities between Zoroastrianism and Christianity's New Testament somewhere in the body of the main article. The similarities are so striking at times that the parallels between the two seem almost like plagiarism. Of course, we'd leave that up to the reader to decide. Specifically, I cite a peer-reviewed article by Susan B. Martinez Ph.D, "A Time Odyssey: From Zarathustra to the Nazarene," from the Journal of Spirituality and Paranormal Studies (pp. 105-110). Leitmotiv ( talk) 15:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Zoroaster was only kurdish pls edit it ,thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.224.187.243 ( talk) 07:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
S. J. Reddi ( talk) 19:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)== Commented-out undocumented paragraph ==
I commented-out a paragraph at the beginning of the "In other religious systems" section, thus:
"Zorastrians do not believe in Abrahamic religions. They do believe that Abrahamic prophets where Ahrimani (Satanic). They also believe the followers of the main three Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) are followers of Ahriman (Satan). Zorastrians keep themselves away from followers of other religions in order to avoid devil's spirit. citation needed (based on an interview with Mr. Abramian, a zorastrian scholar, 2003)"
Aside from the fact that this writer uses a spelling of the name that is inconsistent with the rest of the article (and looks like a typing error), it cites no sources. rowley ( talk) 22:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Usha was a vedic godess, the dawn godess, I therefore interpret Zarathustra to mean 'Zara'=golden, 'us' shine, 'ustra'
= shining star, thus we have "Golden shining dawn star" i.e. Venus and note that the syllable 'us' ocurrs again. The meaning is synomous with the meaning of the surname 'Reddi' i.e. 'Re' a reference to a solar deity and the syllable 'di' is a reference to 'day'. 'Re' thus became 'Redo' a latin verb meaning 'I return', the literal meaning was 'I return the day' hence the dawn. The origins I assume are Indo-Iranian since the ancient name for Tehran was 'Ray'. Reddi is an Indian upper caste name and the people of that name are of Dravidian origin so I must assume that there was some trade and communication between the Iranian plateau and the Dravidian occupied regions of South India. The name was originally accorded to a headman or community leader but later became a caste name and in turn a family name. 86.164.41.251 ( talk) 06:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
It must also be mentioned that the Reddis are a Vishnaivite caste, Vishnu being a solar deity as well, he brings light
for the dawn with his first step, the noon with the second and dusk with his third step hence the tilaka on the forehead represents his step in the form of a 'U' shape as in 'Usha' the vedic dawn godess, Indians are fond of metaphysical conceits of such a nature. Vishnu is also represented by a fire altar, the Yagna-Kunda, which in turn brings us back to Zoroastrianism and the fire temples of the Iranian plateau. The term 'rath' in the name 'Zarathustra' is also synonymous with the word'ratha' which in India means a chariot, which in turn represented the sun. They came from the east where the sun rises. 86.151.51.18 ( talk) 21:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
C.K. Raju, who has done considerable historiographical research on mathematics, suggests that the attibution of Elements to Euclid rose from a translation error from the Arabic uclides, literally ucli (key) + des (direction, space), or "the key to geometry" [1]. Raju goes further in showing that Elements and Proclus' Commentary was edited by the Vatican to make it "theologically correct". Ideas such as "irrefragible demonstration" were added to Commentary, though it did not align with Proclus' philosophy of mathematics, which held that proofs "vary with the kind of being". Interestingly, according to Raju, Proclus, in the same tradition of Theon of Alexandria and Hypatia of Alexandria , believed that mathematics was a window on the soul, being a meditative process, whereas the Church wanted to create a "universal means of persuasion", and mathematics was thus divorced from the empirical, which continues to this day.
It is this “theologification” that has made mathematics difficult to learn or teach. The remedy is to “de-theologify” or secularize mathematics and teach it in the cultural and practical context in which it developed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid%27s_Elements#Uclides_-_The_Key_to_Geometry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tales23 ( talk • contribs) 14:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
This section on some alleged global conspiracy of mathematicians is irrelevant to this discussion and a waste of valuable space. Zarathushtra was not a mathematician, nor did he ever visit Athens. He *probably* never made it west of modern-day Afghanistan. Greek and Hellenistic writers used his name in connection with all sorts of fictions, but nobody who knows anything takes such accounts as history. Kaweah ( talk) 11:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Date of Zoroaster Need to be updated general scholarly consensus is that he lived anywhere around 1400-700BCE-- Rahulkris999 ( talk) 17:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with this assertion. Please provide sources. Kaweah ( talk) 11:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
This version of the article says ...was born in the eastern part of ancient Greater Iran. Idk why was this removed without explanation; I restored it in the lead. 182.181.247.195 ( talk) 17:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
This article appears to be written by someone very familiar with Iran and surrounding regions. Can anyone help out by adding in more modern references (modern day Tehran for example) or a map? Friedonc ( talk) 18:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
As far as I know, Zoraster was born and died in Balk, present-day Afghanistan. Can someone please find the citations to add this?
The exact place isn't known, but there is more proof he was born in North Western Iran in the biggest and oldest fire temple of Zoroastronism. Please do not change it to Balk, the exact place isn't known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.221.160.67 ( talk) 20:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I find it peculiar that the "Place" section argues quite clearly that the specific place of Zoroaster is unknown, yet the introduction claims that his birthplace has been established to be in Sistan! I would prefer that traditional, ancient scholarly accounts, and modern scholarly accounts all be cited with equal regard. Places such as Balkh (Afghanistan) and Urmia (Azerbaijan) should be mentioned. So little is known about "the real Zoroaster" that speaking of a "true birthplace" is in the domain of opinion rather than fact. Kaweah ( talk) 10:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Zoroaster/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Thorough article, but only 1 reference cited. Also has a "needs copy editing" tag. Kaldari 02:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC) All criteria of class B have been fulfilled. The article should be reviewed for raising to GA. Hoverfish Talk 11:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC) |
Last edited at 11:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC). Substituted at 21:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I used the exact format and language as Oxford, since they are qualified and the experts on the field. By using the same format and language as Oxford, then it is no longer assertion related to history, and the citation is exact and proper. Oxford is more of an authority than any person here involved in these discussion. The Oxford dictionary on page 409 states the following: The title of the page is Chronology. “In this chronology broadly ’philosophical’ events mentioned in the body of the dictionary are in the second column.” It dates the events in this order; “1500 BC Beginning of the Vedic period in India.”
“630 BC Zoroaster.”
The readers should know that this is the exact format and language used by Oxford Universityon page 409. ( Dvakili ( talk) 05:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)).
I removed the opening paragraph on the philosophy section for several reasons.
Opinions? I have not reverted the rever to avoid an edit war. -- Snowded ( talk) 00:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
According to Oxford dictionary of philosophy (page 409),the chronology of the subject and science of philosophy originated amongst the Indo-Iranians, by the name of Mazad-Yasna, meaning worship of wisdom. Oxford University dates this event to 3500 years ago. The first philosopher in the chronology of philosophy is Zarathushtra. According to Oxford dictionary of philosophy (page 405) Zarathushtra's philosophy entered to influence western tradition through Judaism, and therefore on Middle Platonism.
Oxford does represent facts. Remember, I am only quoting Oxford, so, your whole argument is that Oxford is wrong. This is what you have failed to prove. Prove that Oxford is wrong in its claims.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvakili ( talk • contribs) 01:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The section could be filled out a bit - I'm still confused about what the philosophy is. Perhaps a link to another page? Also, the poet, is that Zoroaster? Friedonc ( talk) 18:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Without providing any reason for doing so, Jbambo has reinstated his/her original research that
Besides being a completely novel position (i.e OR), it is scientifically unsound, and I have accordingly removed it again. WP:BRD is now in effect, and Jbambo will have to discuss the artifice here first. The editor has been notified on his/her talk page. -- Fullstop ( talk) 17:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to be critical of a piece that's apparently so erudite, but it's also almost unreadable - at least to me. Could someone with some knowledge of the subject as well as the ability to write clear English PLEASE have a go at a rewrite? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Numero60 ( talk • contribs) 20:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
The article contains the following sentence:
The alternate Greek name for Zoroaster was Zaratas/Zaradas/Zaratos (cf. Agathias 2.23-5, Clement Stromata I.15), which—so Cumont and Bidez—did derives from a Semitic form of his name.
There is clearly something grammatically wrong in this sentence. Unfortunately I don't know hot to fix it, because I don't know how Cumon and Bidez are, and thus don't know exactly what is supposed to be stated here. Hopefully somebody more knowledgeable can help out here -- I just wanted to point out the error. Thanks. 98.212.24.54 ( talk) 18:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
the piece {"Nietzsche creates a characterization of Zarathustra as the mouthpiece for Nietzsche's own ideas against morality. Nietzsche did so because—so says Nietzsche in his autobiographical Ecce Homo (IV/Schicksal.3)—Zarathustra was a moralist ("was the exact reverse of an immoralist" like Nietzsche) and because "in his teachings alone is truthfulness upheld as the highest virtue." Zarathustra "created" morality in being the first to reveal it, "first to see in the struggle between good and evil the essential wheel in the working of things." Nietzsche sought to overcome the morality of Zarathustra by using the Zarathustrian virtue of truthfulness; thus Nietzsche found it piquant to have his Zarathustra character voice the arguments against morality.[f]'"} (in the section Zoroaster#In_the_post-classical_era) has to be removed as it is based on quotation from Nietzsche's own work and hence WP:OR. The point is that 1. Nietzsche can not be considered immoralist, the way we understand the word in 2009. (read Nietzsche Morality) 2. A person who wrote Beyond good and evil is certainly moralist.-- Xashaiar ( talk) 22:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
The "Date" paragraph is very in-conclusive. It says that Zorastor was not born in the 6th century BC, but the paragraph does not clearly state what the current opinions on his date of birth are. Kak Dela? ( talk) 15:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Say, would it be out of line to show the opinion that Zarathushtra was a Hindu Brahmin who moved to Iran? According to an English documentary I've seen, entitled "The Story of God", that is precisely who he was, a Hindu Brahmin reformer, much like the Buddha.
I await what will no doubt be a deafening silnce in reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.112.123 ( talk) 04:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Lord Ahura-Mazda! You people do go nuts, don't you? I was actually inquiring as to whether anyone could refresh my memory on this point of Z. being a Hindu Brahmin. Someone did clarify that as well as clarifying the documentary.
Also, to the point of Brahmanism, it is truly misleading to try to say there are "Aryan" Brahmins and "Hindu" Brahmins. Uhhh... who were the Hindus? Oh! ARYANS!
As to certain people's apparently vicious hatred of documentaries, do you think they are any worse than Wikipedia? What, are you now going to shoot down every line in Wikipedia that has a documentary as its source??
Argue away like fools... I'm not coming here to waste any further time with you who feel drunk with power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.112.123 ( talk) 18:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Could some knowledgable person please come in and rectify either the spellings or at least insert the correct pronunciations of names? They are like Sanskrit and require guidance for the lay reader. Thanks! ElKeKomeIKanta ( talk) 11:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi - I was interested to read that Zarathustra's home was said to be on the Ditya River, and went to avesta.org to read more. It turns out that there is no mention whatsoever of any Ditya River or anything similar in Yasna 9 or 17, as translated on that site. Does this article rely on an alternative translation? If so, that should be specified. If not, the error should be corrected. Thanks. Mrcautious ( talk) 04:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
According to tradition, & Greek sources, Zarathushtra was born to the family of Haetat-aspa ( his great grand father) of the Spitaman section of the priestly Athrawan tribe around 7100BC in the town of Rae (Raya), along the banks of the river Veh-daiti, (one of the 6 tributaries of the now dried River Harah-vaiti/Vedic: Saras-wati) north east of Drangiana ( Zarangiana) , a mountainous territory around Lake Hamun and the Helmand river in Seistan (Iran-Afghanistan). In the Vendidad, Raya is listed between the Helmand river and Caxra (assumed to be modern Carx near Ghazna in southeast Afghanistan) and is therefore different from Median Raga and modern Ray. This river Harah-vaiti, prominently mentioned in the Gathas as that purifying celestial river of Prosperity that leads one to self realization, was said to flow from the mountains to the Ocean. A large number of vedic hymns are similarly dedicated to this divine river Saraswati.
In the Avesta, the Khordad Yasht is dedicated to it. (The Vedic “Saa” becomes “Kh” or “Khw” in Avesta)
Zarathushtra is traditionally referred to as one who had achieved “perfection”; the “perfect man” : the Naro-ish Nara & his birthday is thus called Khordad Saal.
This mountaineous land known as Harah-vaiti in Avestic times is listed in the Vendidad as one of the 16 aryan lands. The fertile plains bordering this divine river are mentioned in the Vendidad as the 15th land (out of 16) called Hapta Hendu (Vedic Sapta Sindhu) & located in the modern undivided Punjab. According to Avestan geography the region of the Haêtumant River extends in a southwest direction from the point of confluence of the Arghandâb with the Helmand. (Gnoli, 1980, p. 66) ARACHOSIA, province (satrapy) in the eastern part of the Achaemenid empire around modern Kandahar (southern Afghanistan), which was inhabited by the Iran Arachosians or Arachoti. The Old Persian form of its name is Harauvatis (h-r-u-v-t-i); this form is the etymological equivalent of Vedic Sarasvati - (fem., name of a river, properly "rich in waters/lakes" and derived from saras- "lake, pond"); thus the province is named after its main river, the modern Argandab (in Greek called Arachotos), a tributary of the Helmand. The same region appears in the Avestan Videvdat (Vendidad 1.12) under the indigenous dialect from Haraxv aiti - (whose -axv a- is typical non-Avestan); of these two forms Old Pers. Harauvatis (remodeled nom. -is) is rendered by Elamite Ha(r)-ra-u-ma-ti-is, Ha(r)-ru-ma-ti-is, etc., and "Arachotic" (and Median) *Haraxvati- by Aramaic hrhwty (cf. R.A. Bowman, Aramaic Ritual Texts from Persepolis, Chicago, 1970, p.192b); Elamite Har-ku-(ut-)ti-is (Dsf 39, Xph 16 and Persepolis tablets; see R.T. Hallock, Persepolis Fortification Tablets, Chicago, 1969, p.691a); Greek Arachosia; and, reflecting a form with metathesis, *Harauxati, Babylonian KURa-ru-ha-at-ti(-'), a-ru-hat0 , and Aramaic hrwhty (DB) respectively. (See M. Mayrhofer, Onomastica Persepolitana, Vienna, 1973, p.32; K. Hoffmann, Aufsatze zur Indoiranistik II, Wiesbaden, 1976, p.641 with n.38; R. Schmitt in Sprachwissenschaft 9, 1984, pp.205f.). (Encyclopedia Iranica, Volume II, 1987, Routledge & Kegan Paul. ISBN 0 7100 91109
Spencer gives details from Malcom's "History of Ancient Persia" and states that for 2598 years some four dynasties ruled over Persia from Yama Vivanghao (Yama Vaivaswat in Sanskrit) in whose time the Deluge commenced (end of the ice age), i.e., in 9844 B.C. The rule of these four dynasties ended therefore in approximately 7200 B.C. By this time, Kai Vishtaspa became ruler of Persia. Sage Kaksivan (RV 1-122-13) speaks of one Istasva who is identified with Vishtaspa by E.S.Bharucha (quoted by Hodivala). This king is supposed to have ruled for 120 years, and so his period can be fixed in the vicinity of 7100B.C. Zarathustra was a contemporary of King Vishtaspa, and therefore his date can be worked out to be around 7100BC . On the basis of astronomy, Spencer determines Zarathustra's date to be around 7052 B.C., coinciding with the dates determined above. Traditionally, Zarathushtra has been considered a master mathematician & astronomer. He is said to have calculated the rare coincidence of sunrise in Sistan (Afghanistan)with its longitudinal equinox in 7037BC & called it Nav-roz, or new year.
The Varsagira battle (referred to in hymn I.100 of the Rig Veda) is identified by many Zarathushti scholars as a civil war between the Iranians and Indian (Bharatas) sections of the Indo-Iranian tribes, at the time of Zarathushtra. The hymn (in I.100.17) names five persons as being the main protagonists in the battle: In the Rigveda, Istasva (Vistaspa) is mentioned in verse I.122.13, roughly translated by Sayana as follows: “What can Istava, Istarasmi, or any other princes do against those who enjoy the protection of Mitra and Varuna. Note the reverence to the common divinities. a. The leader of the Varsagiras is Rjrasva. He is identified by most scholars with the Arej-ataspa or Arj-aspa the Turanian, who is referred to in the Avesta as the main enemy of Vistapa and his brothers (Aban Yasht.5.109, 113; and Gosh Yasht, .9.30). Later Iranian tradition (as in the Shahname) goes so far as to hold Zarathustra himself to have been killed by Arjaspa. b. Sahadeva is one of the four companions of Rjrasva in the battle. He is correctly identified by S.K. Hodiwala , with the Hushdiv remembered in the Shahname (Chapter 462) as one of the main enemies of Vistaspa in the battle, who led Arjaspa’s troops from the rear. Although not mentioned in the Avesta, Hushdiv is a natural development of Hazadaeva, which would be the exact Avestan equivalent of the Vedic name Sahadeva. c. The other three companions of Rjrasva in the battle are AmbarIsa, Bhayamana and Suradhas. In the “Cama Memorial Volume, E.” Sheheriarji quotes RV I.100.17 to identify the other persons mentioned in the said Rigvedic verse by showing that the names of certain persons known to be connected with Arjaspa in the Avesta bear the same meanings as the names of the persons in the said verse. Thus he says that AmbarIsa is identical with Bidarfsha (= Av. Vidarafshnik) brother of ArjAspa, since both the names mean ‘one with beautiful garments’. Similarly, Bhayamana = Vandaremaini, father of Arjaspa, both meaning ‘the fearless one’; also Suradhas = Humayaka, brother of Arjaspa, as both the words mean ‘one with much wealth’
Hodiwala correctly identifies Humayaka, Arjaspa’s comrade in the Avesta (Aban Yasht, Yt.5.113) with Somaka, the son of Sahadeva (IV.15.7-10).
There is a strong likelihood that the Suradhas of I.100.17 is the same as the Somaka of IV.15.7-10.
This War also appears to have set the Avestics living in the Sapta-Sindhu homeland towards the North, and West directions . This date is in wonderful agreement with Greek sources about the times of Zarathushtra.
The main priestly enemies of the Zarathushtra & his followers are the Angras (Vedic Angirases) who are condemned throughout the Avesta right down from the Gathas of Zarathushtra. The Angarisas are that section of the Atharwaan tribe that split from the Ahura tradition & took up worship of multiple Devas (Deified Man, elevated to Godly heights). They were the composers of the early portions of the Rig Veda. The Gathas & Avesta refer to the Angirases (from which the term Angra mainyu- the evil mentality is derived), as enemy priests & their two branches, the Usiks (Vedic Usijs/Ausijas) mentioned in Ys 44.20 and Gaotemas (Gautamas), both of whom originated in and dominated the early Period of the Rig Veda compositions. The Angarisas are mentioned by Zarathushtra himself in the Gathas ( Ys48.10 ) & designated as karapan (a derogatory word used in reference to enemy priests who are extremely ritual oriented to the extent of being blind & deaf to righteous intelligent reasoning) & in whose hymns alone we find references to the conflict of the Vedics with the Zarathushtis.
The original Atharwaan priestly tribe had by Zarathushtras’ time split into two sections, the Angirasas, who worshipped Devas & the Brighus (Spitamaas of the Avesta), who worshiped Asuras . One may note that Brighu means blazing white flame & Spitamas means brilliantly bright. We see the Vedics & the Persians use such linguistically interchangeable terms to describe each other throughout. The Brighus had a calender based on the orbit of Venus (Shukra) & the angirasas had one based on Jupiter (Brihas-pati) reflecting their alliance to the specific philosopher.
The Puranas allude to a cosmic war between the Devas, led by Brihaspati of the Angirasa line of seers & the Asuras (Ahuras), led by Shukra (our Kava Ushana) of the Brighu line of seers. As such the Asura-Daeva split was already in place by Zarathushtras’ time.
It should however be noted that Zarathushtra refers to evil “Daevas”, as "Mashya" or mortals, meaning egotistic mortals who have taken the mantle of "God-hood". It refer to un-desirable/degenerate aspects of behaviour, akin to Vedic “Divs”; which is the destructive aspect of Hindu Gods. It has been wrongly assumed for some time that the daevas of the Mazdayasna are the same as the Vedic devas and therefore Zarathushtra inverted the deva-asura dichotomy of the Vedic period. In reality, the situation is much more complex with the Vedic Gods changing their attributes over time. We thus find that the Vedic (middle & later) and the Zarathushtrian systems are much less diverse than is generally assumed. This is borne out in Kashmiri (Pandit) scriptures that considers Divs (Daeva) as evil & opposed to the Devas who are Gods.
On the other hand, nothing can exemplify the hostility faced by Zarathushtra from the Asuras than the fact his chief enemy from infancy, childhood to adulthood was an evil magician, Dur-asuran.
On the other hand the Vedas refer to their enemies , the asuras, as militant, unethical & prone to violence, the almost clinical definition of middle eastern Ashuras, who represent the Priest-Warrior caste split amongst Indo-Iranian times in an earlier time frame.
However the main enemy is defined as the Druj; or the Vedic Druh/Drugh/Dhroga , a word/term derived from the root “Dru” meaning to deceive & identifying the inimical tribe Druhyus . Reference to them occurs throughout the Gathas & Rigveda in the sense of “demonic deceiver”
From the Vandidad portion of the Kem-na Maz-da Prayer:
May the liar, the demonic deceiver, perish, rendering the righteous material world free from its depravations.
It is therefore clear that Zarathushtra arose at this time of multipolar spiritual confusion, to raise the ancient faith out of its failings.
The Ground level situation faced by Zarathushtra can be summed up as follows: During the Indo_Iranian Era the religious doctrine referred to a Single Creator who was both Creator & Destroyer. This exclusive CREATOR was called Ahu-ra (Vedic Asu-ra) or Life Force, & exemplified by the vedics as Shiva/Rudra. Starting from an initial expansion to his spouse (Parvati) & his Son (Ganesh); over a period of time, the term Asura became plural & a galaxy of Asuras take stage, each with his/her own independent existence. This expansion of God-hood ended up encompasing negative entities such as Bhairava, (the wrathfull destroyer), Mahakala, (wrath, druj, adorned with snakes & bones) Kuvera, (4 armed, God of wealth) , Asura-maya (the builder of illusions), Rahu-Ketu (Maleficent last 2 planets of the solar system, or astrologically, the 2 extreme positions of the moon’s orbit), Vasuki and Vritra (Serpents-Gods). This philosophy, exemplified by the Priest-Warrior caste split, spread as far as the middle east where it was called Ashura the warrior God. As the concept of a single exclusive Creator was usurped by a host os Asuras; over time, a class of "Gods" , namely the Devas, the shining, visible, Mortal ones (originally temporal lords, literally lord of the land, a philosopher-king, in the kavya mold, who was Deified ); came about as theological rivals. Devas were originally mortal & “Mashya” (mortal) in the Gathas, Avesta & the Vedas. Thus Kings of the land, based on their material wealth & power appointed themselves God. We see this in the Pharoes of Egypt. Daevas included Indra,(mainly) and others. Indra,was a warrior based entity whose attributes were expanded from the original Aryan hero Vrita. Over time (the Vedas being composed over 6000 years) Previous “asuras” were re-incorporated as devas, over different periods of time, as in Varuna, Shiva, Savitr (our Khwtr), Agni,(our Atar-sh), Soma (our Hoama) , Mithra & Saraswati (our Ha-urva-tat). Society ended up getting classified as Ahuras (those who follow Ahura) & Devas (those who follow Devas).
These were times when belief in multiple Gods was the norm. When each God was feared for his/her wrath, jealousy; & obedience was demanded in ways so demeaning that man was reduced to a thoughtless entity, a plaything for the perverse games of the Gods.
In effect therefore, Zarathushtra challenged the existing definition of Asuras as numerous demi-gods under one supreme, & placed Ahura-Mazda, the Loving, compassionate, lord of intellect & wisdom, as the supreme creator. We are ofcourse believers in Ahura, the single, self created Life force as opposed to numerous Daevas who are mortals (Mashya) elevated to Godhood & having an independent existence. While Ahura Mazda is fashioned along the lines of Rudra/Shiva, being all powerful, self created, there is a vital distinction. Whereas Asura’s attributes is also that of destroyer, Ahura Mazda is the Loving, compassionate God who knows no wrath & whose strength is knowledge & enlightenment. Unlike Shiva who parades around with a Damroo (Drum) made of skulls, Zarathushtra carries a staff with a Gao-mukh (face of a cow) to represent the selfless mother earth (Gey-ush Urvaan). So while Shiva represents a dualist nature of both creator & destroyer, Ahura Mazda is the absolute creator & epitome of perfection (Ha-urva-tat) . Being a loving God, there is no provision for him to be destructive; as destruction is considered evil. Death itself is considered a temporary victory of evil over good. For Zarathushtra, the only source of destruction is poor, unintelligent, un-righteous choices made by man (Angra-Mainyu). He maintains the definition of Ahura as the formless, self created one, jettisons the independent multitude into one single entity. He also jettisons all negative entities such as Vrita (evil snakes), association with bones, destruction & wrath (Asura Bhairav, Mahakala) that have crept into the then existing philosophy. This pits him against his own tribe.
In Ys30.10 Zarathushtra mentions “Skenda” (identified in the hindu scriptures as the son of Shiva, & subject to various trials & tribulations during his lifetime), allegorically, as the self destructive fate of those willfully opposing Truth.
Work is worship (epitomized in the Yenghe Hatam mantra) therefore becomes the epitaph of the Daena, underlining the real reason for preference of worship, facing a living, breathing fire (Atar-sh) as opposed to an idol or image worship. An image although a good focal point of devotion, obscures the true aim of worship, namely the necessity of continuous, Intelligent (Wise), compassionate acts of Selfnessness; in a way mimicking the requirement to regularly & diligently feed the divine fire (Atar-sh).
Kashmiri theology has a three-way division consisting of devas, asuras, and daevas; wherein Deva or devata is a positive (sattwa) power related to knowledge & understanding; Asura (rajas), a power related to activity, & Daeva (tamas), a power related to blind acquisitiveness. Sometimes the term rakshasa (monster) is used interchangeably with daeva. The Rakshasa’s behavior was exemplified by a form of marriage (unfortunately still common in Islamic Iran) involving the violent seizure or rape of a girl after the defeat or destruction of her relatives —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.73.62.215 ( talk) 03:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I waded through the above... what on earth are you trying to say?? Do you have a point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.169.189.226 ( talk) 20:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I've known for awhile now that Zoroaster is an Anglicized version of the name we render as Zarathustra, and that it comes from the Latinized version of the name. But what is the true name of this prophet rendered in English (in other words the direct Anglicized version from the Avestan name)? Is it really Zarathustra, or is it Zartosht as he is known in Persian? Or is it a third Anglicized version that I have not heard?
Also, since Zarathustra is the name which is still the closer rendering of his true name (even if it isn't the exact Anglicized version), shouldn't that be the name of this article? 71.191.199.74 ( talk) 17:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
There is some peculiar language, awkward grammar, and sentences like "thus Nietzsche found it piquant to have his Zarathustra character..." Thus? Piquant? we may be discussing the 19th century. We shouldn't necessarily talk like we are in it. Tao2911 ( talk) 04:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I have no background in studies of this, but this edit a couple of days ago introducing the "Use of Cannabis" section seems suspect.
Googling around I get all sorts of contradictory indications.
Can someone familiar with the topic in real life review if the comment and section are accurate at all; if so, we need to at least fix it significantly, as the modern lingo in use is out of place in a history article. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 02:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
If no one provides sources for the many dates in the begining i will edit it down to the traditional 6th century ad date. Ishmaelblues ( talk) 23:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
In the Philosophy section, it says that Zoroastrians note the similarities between Zoroaster's philosophy and Spinoza's. This may very well be true, but it should at least be cited, and it should ideally specify the ideas in question. Zoroaster and Spinoza certainly wouldn't have agreed on the issue of free will. -- Phatius McBluff ( talk) 20:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
The article previously read:
While the second half of the sentence appears to be superfluous writing, the first part I took as accurate, and after some refactoring, the same passage is part of a different section which integrates the two:
The issue here now is that the phrase "[zarat-] does not itself appear in Avestan" does not appear to be true, or is else referencing zarat- in its exact form explicitly to the exclusion of related zar- based words, which, as online Avestan dictionaries plainly show, are straightforward. For example zairi- (golden/yellow), zairitem (golden/green), zaranaênem (golden, of gold). [7] [8]. So it seems to be a case where the emphasis of "does not itself appear" is strongly typed, to the point of being plainly innacurate. - Stevertigo ( w | t | e) 21:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC) no:Eirik Raude
the section of Muslim view of Zoroaster and his religion is silent on an essential point - for the Muslim rulers of Iran the divine inspiration or lack of it in the local religion was not just an issue of speculative theology. Rather, it was a question of whether to classify Iranians as "pagans" who had to be converted or killed or else let them live as "ahl al kitab". Apparently the first course of action was, at the time, not feasible, which is why they were so quick at figuring out that Zoroaster was in fact a prophet of God. 76.24.104.52 ( talk) 22:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Mary Boyce's scholarship was highly respected, gaining her an international reputation and fellowship at numerous academic societies and institutions. Her speciality remained the religions of speakers of Eastern Iranian languages, in particular Manichaenism and Zoroastrianism. -- McYel ( talk) 21:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
In the first second paragraph it written "...and Iranian tradition places him at about 570 BC", it is not true. Zoroastrians OFFICIALLY (at least in Iran) believe that the prophet was born 3748 years ago (~1738 BC), on 6th day of month Farvardin. So this part of the article is wrong. I will remove it. If you want to change it back to 570 BC, please give a reference this time. 115.133.209.99 ( talk) 20:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Warrior4321's changes ( diff) add some phrasing to the lede, but detract from the article IMHO. He claims that 'if its sourced, it can go in,' but he appears unfamiliar with the issue of WP:UNDUE weight. - Stevertigo ( w | t | e) 18:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
The article is devoid of insight and is hopelessly one-sided. There is no recognition of the fact that Indian and Iranian history and religion are closely interrelated. There is no mention of Gaumata or Gotama buddha who was a contemporary. Herzfeld wrote that Gaumata was Zoroaster's adversary and in the Buddhist texts Devadatta was the adversary of Gotama. In fact the tacit assumtion of all scholars that Zoroastrianism is the oldest religion is untenable. If one rejects the Nepalese frauds it becomes clear that Zoroastrianism and Buddhism belong to the same milieu and were sister religions. That Zoroastrianism was not the religion of the Sakas and Kushanas is stated categorically by Harmatta and other scholars ("History of Civilizations of Central Asia", vol. II by J. Harmatta,p.315). The fact that Gaumata was Gotama and that there were many Buddhas before Gotama is not known to scholars such as Frye, Boyce and Briant. In his work 'Fihrist' al-Nadim also makes no mention of the Zoroastrians and states that the Shamaniya who regarded Buddha as their Prophet formed the majority of the people before Islam. A similar view is expressed by Al-beruni who was a greater scholar than Diodorus. The recently discovered Bactrian Buddhist texts mention six pre-Gotama Buddhas. Mary Boyce wrote much but had a very shallow perspective. Why does the Persepolis tablets make no mention of Zoroaster? The reason may be, as Ranajit Pal maintains in his book "Non-Jonesian Indology and Alexander", p. 190. that Zoroaster was known by the name Devadatta among the Elamite scribes. Pal suggests that Damidada of the tablets may be Zoroaster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mejda ( talk • contribs) 08:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Poor scholarship, perhaps. In fact most of articles here on the Eastern religions sees relatively poor scholarship compared to Judeo-Christian faith, which has been dissected since Enlightenment and is still being dissected. At the very least, scholarly consensus has it that the so-called "pre-Gotama Buddhas" is but a myth conjured by Indian Buddhists to bolster the authority of their faith, much as Jainism's appeal to ancient Tirthankara's and Hinduism's "memory" of Vishnu's Avatara's. That Zoroastrianism and Hinduism are more ancient than Buddhism there is no doubt.
136.142.243.54 (
talk)
14:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
too much far fetched commentries about the origion of the word of old iraninan word "Zerdush"t or "zerdosht" means 'Golden handed" also means generous.. "Ahura mazda" "Aura mazda" means agira mezen or Big fire. the sun and fşre plays an important image in zoroastriasmç you should take arien origion of the word into consideration, not take the english or german spelling of the word while trying explain the etimology of the words. the word in origiıon kurdish not persian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.175.47.159 ( talk) 22:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Zarathushtra, as per Avestan/Vedic Sanskrit is: Za + rath + ush + tra. Za(r) = Vedic Har/Hari = divine, a mortal who has reached perfection (self realization). Rath = Chariot. Ush = Light (of knowledge, wisdom) Tra = concentration of
Thus Zarathushtra = The divine chariot that brings Light(knowledge) to the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.149.106 ( talk) 19:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
The word Zaraθuštra consists from two parts zaraθ 'gold' ( Latvian: zelts, Curonian *zal(a)tan, Russian: zoloto) and uštra 'sunrise' ( Latvian: austra, ausma 'sunrise, dawn', austrumi 'East'). So Zaraθuštra means 'The golden sunrise'. Roberts7 19:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I think this section needs to be re-wording. This is an interesting article, but this lengthy discussion at the very beginning may turn off readers. If no one objects, I'll put the likely meanings of the name first, dicussion after. Friedonc ( talk) 18:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Does all common sense leave you when discussing this topic ? What does Camels have anything to do with Zoroastrians ? Common sense would dictate that the name has absolutely nothing to do with camels, because if it did camels would play some sort of role within the Zoroastrian belief system. Why do they have the eternel fire that burns ? They are followers of the light, not golden camel herders, that makes absolutely no sense —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.80.182 ( talk) 05:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
iblogger.org is on the blacklist [9] so images from it should not be used. See also the whitelist discussion| [10]
Graeme374 ( talk) 04:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
It may be a modern reproduction. There are plenty at http://www.exoticindiaart.com/search.php3?pagecount=1&searchmodifier=allwords&limitfields=all&subcatsearch=all&materialsearch=all&minprice=0&maxprice=1000000&archives=0&searchsorttype=testcode%7Cdesc&searchval=mughal&table=paintings&search_submit=Search
Where is the citation for this in the article? Challenged and removed.
06:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graeme374 ( talk • contribs)
I think it would be pertinent to show the similarities between Zoroastrianism and Christianity's New Testament somewhere in the body of the main article. The similarities are so striking at times that the parallels between the two seem almost like plagiarism. Of course, we'd leave that up to the reader to decide. Specifically, I cite a peer-reviewed article by Susan B. Martinez Ph.D, "A Time Odyssey: From Zarathustra to the Nazarene," from the Journal of Spirituality and Paranormal Studies (pp. 105-110). Leitmotiv ( talk) 15:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Zoroaster was only kurdish pls edit it ,thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.224.187.243 ( talk) 07:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
S. J. Reddi ( talk) 19:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)== Commented-out undocumented paragraph ==
I commented-out a paragraph at the beginning of the "In other religious systems" section, thus:
"Zorastrians do not believe in Abrahamic religions. They do believe that Abrahamic prophets where Ahrimani (Satanic). They also believe the followers of the main three Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) are followers of Ahriman (Satan). Zorastrians keep themselves away from followers of other religions in order to avoid devil's spirit. citation needed (based on an interview with Mr. Abramian, a zorastrian scholar, 2003)"
Aside from the fact that this writer uses a spelling of the name that is inconsistent with the rest of the article (and looks like a typing error), it cites no sources. rowley ( talk) 22:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Usha was a vedic godess, the dawn godess, I therefore interpret Zarathustra to mean 'Zara'=golden, 'us' shine, 'ustra'
= shining star, thus we have "Golden shining dawn star" i.e. Venus and note that the syllable 'us' ocurrs again. The meaning is synomous with the meaning of the surname 'Reddi' i.e. 'Re' a reference to a solar deity and the syllable 'di' is a reference to 'day'. 'Re' thus became 'Redo' a latin verb meaning 'I return', the literal meaning was 'I return the day' hence the dawn. The origins I assume are Indo-Iranian since the ancient name for Tehran was 'Ray'. Reddi is an Indian upper caste name and the people of that name are of Dravidian origin so I must assume that there was some trade and communication between the Iranian plateau and the Dravidian occupied regions of South India. The name was originally accorded to a headman or community leader but later became a caste name and in turn a family name. 86.164.41.251 ( talk) 06:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
It must also be mentioned that the Reddis are a Vishnaivite caste, Vishnu being a solar deity as well, he brings light
for the dawn with his first step, the noon with the second and dusk with his third step hence the tilaka on the forehead represents his step in the form of a 'U' shape as in 'Usha' the vedic dawn godess, Indians are fond of metaphysical conceits of such a nature. Vishnu is also represented by a fire altar, the Yagna-Kunda, which in turn brings us back to Zoroastrianism and the fire temples of the Iranian plateau. The term 'rath' in the name 'Zarathustra' is also synonymous with the word'ratha' which in India means a chariot, which in turn represented the sun. They came from the east where the sun rises. 86.151.51.18 ( talk) 21:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
C.K. Raju, who has done considerable historiographical research on mathematics, suggests that the attibution of Elements to Euclid rose from a translation error from the Arabic uclides, literally ucli (key) + des (direction, space), or "the key to geometry" [1]. Raju goes further in showing that Elements and Proclus' Commentary was edited by the Vatican to make it "theologically correct". Ideas such as "irrefragible demonstration" were added to Commentary, though it did not align with Proclus' philosophy of mathematics, which held that proofs "vary with the kind of being". Interestingly, according to Raju, Proclus, in the same tradition of Theon of Alexandria and Hypatia of Alexandria , believed that mathematics was a window on the soul, being a meditative process, whereas the Church wanted to create a "universal means of persuasion", and mathematics was thus divorced from the empirical, which continues to this day.
It is this “theologification” that has made mathematics difficult to learn or teach. The remedy is to “de-theologify” or secularize mathematics and teach it in the cultural and practical context in which it developed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid%27s_Elements#Uclides_-_The_Key_to_Geometry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tales23 ( talk • contribs) 14:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
This section on some alleged global conspiracy of mathematicians is irrelevant to this discussion and a waste of valuable space. Zarathushtra was not a mathematician, nor did he ever visit Athens. He *probably* never made it west of modern-day Afghanistan. Greek and Hellenistic writers used his name in connection with all sorts of fictions, but nobody who knows anything takes such accounts as history. Kaweah ( talk) 11:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Date of Zoroaster Need to be updated general scholarly consensus is that he lived anywhere around 1400-700BCE-- Rahulkris999 ( talk) 17:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with this assertion. Please provide sources. Kaweah ( talk) 11:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
This version of the article says ...was born in the eastern part of ancient Greater Iran. Idk why was this removed without explanation; I restored it in the lead. 182.181.247.195 ( talk) 17:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
This article appears to be written by someone very familiar with Iran and surrounding regions. Can anyone help out by adding in more modern references (modern day Tehran for example) or a map? Friedonc ( talk) 18:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
As far as I know, Zoraster was born and died in Balk, present-day Afghanistan. Can someone please find the citations to add this?
The exact place isn't known, but there is more proof he was born in North Western Iran in the biggest and oldest fire temple of Zoroastronism. Please do not change it to Balk, the exact place isn't known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.221.160.67 ( talk) 20:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I find it peculiar that the "Place" section argues quite clearly that the specific place of Zoroaster is unknown, yet the introduction claims that his birthplace has been established to be in Sistan! I would prefer that traditional, ancient scholarly accounts, and modern scholarly accounts all be cited with equal regard. Places such as Balkh (Afghanistan) and Urmia (Azerbaijan) should be mentioned. So little is known about "the real Zoroaster" that speaking of a "true birthplace" is in the domain of opinion rather than fact. Kaweah ( talk) 10:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Zoroaster/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Thorough article, but only 1 reference cited. Also has a "needs copy editing" tag. Kaldari 02:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC) All criteria of class B have been fulfilled. The article should be reviewed for raising to GA. Hoverfish Talk 11:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC) |
Last edited at 11:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC). Substituted at 21:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)