Talk:Ahriman/Archive 1

Final Fantasy

The Ahriman from Final Fantasy IV

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)

As to User:freestylefrappe's restoration of the Final Fantasy content:

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:

Revenant

Thor (disambiguation)

Zeus

Siva (disambiguation)

Tiamat (disambiguation)

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)

Ahriman - redirect

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)

Encyclopaedia Iranica link

This link:

• Angra Mainyu entry in Encyclopaedia Iranica

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)

Encyclopedia Iranica is produced by Columbia University and is a scholarly source. It should not be removed from the articles as they are pertinent sources of reference.--Zereshk 12:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I've incorporated the url into the <ref> that already referred to that EI article (albeit, the paper version of it).

Zereshk, what SiobhanHansa is trying to say is that WP is not a link farm. He/She is not questioning the merit of the text behind the link.

Moreover, a reliable source should actually be *used* (i.e. referenced) by the article itself, and not just hang in "External link" space. Which is (presumably) why SiobhanHansa saved the link to the talk page instead of simply deleting it. Sources that are not referenced by an article itself are - by definition - not pertinent. This in turn makes their being listed questionable.

"Further reading" is really the more correct name of a section for "if you want more info go there" links. Such a section is however rarely needed: For one, these can easily be incorporated into the bibliography as well. For another, they are only meaningful for stubs or minimalistic articles.

-- Fullstop 21:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Strike-through text

Ahriman in other culture

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)

In Zoroaster's revelation

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)

You've misunderstood something (I've explained lower down), so I'm glad you asked.

In response to how to correct a statement in an article:

• Hypothetically, you can disagree with a statement by putting an opposing statement alongside it. This is called "neutral point of view" and is wikipedia policy, so this *always* works (caveats below).
• In some cases, when you see a blatant error, and you are *sure* about something than can be empirically proven (not just an opinion), you can remove the faulting statement. Use your judgment. :)
• In this case however, the citation is from the Iranica (this is also supported by Boyce and numerous others btw), so its on a very solid foundation, and you would have to come up with a lot more than one source to give it weight. Another tertiary source for instance, or an opposing opinion from several academics, or an opposing opinion from the commentary of the standard translations, i.e. Humbach, Insler etc.

The misunderstanding:

• What Jafarey is saying (and what the article says as well) is that - in the Gathas - angra mainyu is still not an entity. Like spenta mainyu, angra mainyu is a just two Avestan words that only later came to be proper names of entities.
• As for "so-called opponent 'spirits' are ... a later development," well, without specifics its difficult to see what he's referring to. It could well be the Haug interpretation, or he may himself have misinterpreted what other people mean when they say "spirit" (see details below). It could also be something else entirely. I wouldn't take it too literally.

This is what Y. 45.2 says in the raw: (I've retained the crucial Avestan words)

now I speak of the twin mainyus, primordial, and the spenta one spoke to the angra one: <followed by declaration of opposition>

How "mainyu", "spenta" and "angra" are translated will of course vary. Jafarey translates them as "mentalities", "progressive" and "retarding". Thats ok. The idea is the same.

The usual translation of mainyu as "spirit" is influenced by German "Geist", which means something like "essence" or "intellect" or "mind" or "thought" or "the thing that makes humans human" or something like that. So, "spirit" is quite ok, as it encapsulates all these properties. That Jafarey chooses to use "mentality" is perfectly ok. As we can see on page 57, its the same thing being expressed in "Geist."

What Jafarey is implicitly saying is "don't think of 'spirit' in the sense of 'being'." This is quite correct.

-- Fullstop 03:53, 3 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've amended the first paragraph to make it (I think) absolutely clear that the Gathic form is not a proper name. I hope thats better now, while still maintaining the the structural flow to the next paragraph.

-- Fullstop 19:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

In popular culture

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)

Misunderstanding "in present-day...."

[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)

I've explained the problems at Talk:Angra Mainyu#Misunderstanding "in present-day...." -- Fullstop (talk) 17:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)]

Here is a breakdown of the fixes of the misunderstanding of Haug and its effects.

• The amendation of "According to Haug, the "twins" of 30.3 were Angra Mainyu and Spenta Mainyu,..."
  to "According to Haug, the "twins" of 30.3 were not Angra Mainyu and Ahura Mazda himself, but rather Angra Mainyu and Spenta Mainyu"
  was not valid. No one reads 30.3 as referring to Angra Mainyu and Ahura Mazda himself. That is exactly the Zurvanite interpretation! In fact, this half of Haug's interpretation (i.e. the identification of the twins as Angra Mainyu and Spenta Mainyu) is today well accepted, as was also noted as such at the beginning of the next paragraph.
• Although the subsequent contra of Haug was materially valid, it was out of context. The context is the ramifications of Haug, and not really whether Haug was correct or not, or what "Many scholars" (ugh!) believe "original Zoroastrianism" was like. The context also remains Haug's (continuing) interpretation of Y. 30.3, and the context is not general Zoroastrianism, and certainly not "original Zoroastrianism" (indeed, in "original" -- i.e. Gathic -- Zoroastrianism Angra Mainyu is not an entity at all, and this is quite clear from the article itself).
  Moreover, the general opinion that prevailed at the time (which Wilson was simply reflecting, and which goes back to Thomas Hyde's translation of medieval Arabic/Islamic tracts) is not the general opinion that prevails today, and it is anachronistic to "contrast" Haug to Clark without qualification.
  Altogether, the stuff about how the dualism is seen today (based as it is on tradition) is not really relevant when summarizing what Haug caused to happen. And that Haug was not supported by tradition was noted in the next paragraph. (I have pulled this up for an "Although").

In summary, my changes make clear that

• A) Haug's theory vis-a-vis Y. 30.3 are two-fold. One half (the identity of the twins) is well accepted. The other half (that both twins both have their origin in Mazda) is thoroughly rejected because it is not supported by either scripture or tradition.
• B) Even though the idea of an origin in Mazda has no basis in tradition, the upper-crust Parsis (being under pressure from Wilson) accepted Haug's interpretation. Note that the following paragraph refers to the objections of the priesthood.

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)

1.You say: "No one reads 30.3 as referring to Angra Mainyu and Ahura Mazda himself".

Answer: IMO, the text needed to clarify, not whether someone reads it like this today, but how it was read before Haug - in other words, what was so new about Haug's new idea and how the old one differed from it. You are quite correct that this is the Zurvanite interpretation, and since I'm not aware of any other attested or probable pre-Haug interpretation, I mentioned it; I wasn't sure that other pre-Haug Zoroastrians would have disagreed with it either, since it would fit into the overall "dualism" of the tradition - but perhaps I was wrong and they did have a different stance? BTW, contrary to what you say, even today's consensus isn't so clear-cut. Boyce in the online Iranica article on Ah.M. calls Ah.M. and An.M. twins; and, amazingly, in "Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices" (p.20) she cites precisely Y.30.3-5, essentially equating Ah.M. and Spenta Mainyu, making them An.M.'s twin.

I quote: "And in vision he beheld, co-existing with Ahura Mazda, an Adversary, the "Hostile Spirit", Angra Mainyu, equally uncreated, but ignorant and wholly malign. These two great Beings Zoroaster beheld with prophetic eye at their original, far-off encountering: "Truly there are two primal Spirits, twins, renowned to be in conflict ... etc. ... (Y.30-35)"." Likewise Nigosian in "The Zoroastrian Faith", p.22: "Zoroaster's concept of dualism and free choice seems to have derived from an ancient Iranian myth of 'the two uncreated Mainyu' (Spirit/Being): Spenta Mainyu (Spenta = Good, Bonteous, Holy = the later Ahura Mazda) versus Angra Mainyu (Angra = Evil, Destructive - the later Ahriman)." Clark also suggests that "Spenta Mainyu, as a creative force, may be intimately identified with Ahura Mazda to the extent that the two are, in reality, one."(p.8)

In any case, instead of deleting the "not Angra Mainyu and Ahura Mazda himself", one can simply add "as the Zurvanists had thought".

2. You say: "The context is the ramifications of Haug, and not really whether Haug was correct or not, or what "Many scholars" (ugh!) believe "original Zoroastrianism" was like"

Answer: as you mention below, you actually did state "whether Haug was correct or not, or what many scholars believe" - or in your words, what is "well accepted" and what is "thoroughly rejected". And rightly so, because it clearly is interesting, also in this context, to know whether Haug was right or not. Before my edits, the text also dimly suggested that he was wrong, it just didn't explain how. So I think we both actually agree that some discussion of Haug's theory is indeed relevant (admittedly, these issues should also be more visible in the earlier sections of the article, but that is hardly a reason to remove them from the article altogether!), and both your version and mine contain such a discussion.

Now, prior to your edit, my text included the referenced fact that not all modern scholars disagree with Haug's monistic "second half" (the source was an article in Iranica, now I can add another book by Boyce as well). Furthermore, my text distinguished between the question of the "second half"'s consistency with overall Zororastrian tradition (which it doesn't have and which Haug never meant it to have) and its consistency with the assumed "original", Gathic, Zarathushtrianism (which Haug certainly did mean it to have). I think both of these things are relevant and important. --Anonymous44 (talk) 18:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: #1 You can see how it was read before Haug in Haug (p. 304) itself:

"These two principles, if supposed to be united in Ahuramazda himself, are not called vohu-mano and akem-mano but spento-mainyush ... and angra-mainyush. That angra-mainyush is no separate being is to be gathered...".

I suppose that the prior identification can be delegated to a footnote; its not really on-topic but a "^ prior to Haug, ..." blurb wouldn't hurt.

Re: #2 (A) yes, we are in agreement.

Re: #2 (B) *of course* there are sources that agree with Haug. The article says so in the third paragraph: "The new interpretation ... eventually reached the west and so in turn corroborated Haug's theories." If you know who they are, then add ", and the hypothesis was subsequently reiterated in ..." [IIRC Jackson is one]
Incidentally, on what page is Haug being referred to in the Iranica?
And... are you suggesting that the arch traditionalist (and strictly anti-monist) Boyce is agreeing with Haug, or simply noting someone who did/does? The former would really be something.

Re: #2 (C) I don't understand what you said re: "question of the "second half"'s consistency". Also, Haug doesn't limit himself to the Gathas in his monist argument: "And, indeed, we never find angro mainyush mentioned as a constant opponent of Ahuramazda in the Gathas, as is the case in the later writings." ... followed by "later writings" stuff, even a reference to rock-face inscriptions.

Anyway, isn't the discussion of how academics view the original/traditional dualism unrelated to the Haug effect "In present-day^* Zoroastrianism^*"? If we want to discuss the merits/demerits of Haug's arguments (which are very many, and on very many different topics) we need to find another for it. e.g. For a discussion of "original"/Zarathustrian/Gathic dualism, Zoroaster#Philosophy is an imminently more suitable place than a section titled "In present-day^* Zoroastrianism^*".

Something else: I hadn't previously been aware that Haug stresses a distinction between "philosophy" and "theology".

"The opinion, so generally entertained now, that Zarathushtra was preaching a dualism, that is to saym the idea of two original independent spirits, ... utterly distinct from one another, ... is owing to the confusion of his philosophy with his theology." (p. 303)

The quotation above from p. 304 is "theology". But "philosophically", so Haug in the commentary on the translation of 30.3 (p. 149), Zoroaster is said to be speaking of the twins as "primeval causes" and refers to the two as "existence" and "non-existence". This is not really contra tradition. Should this philosophical/theological distinction be (foot)noted? -- Fullstop (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

ps: Yes, in tradition Spenta Mainyu is identified with Ah.M (more below) but

a) this is not related to Haug (i.e. the notion of Angra Mainyu not being distinct).

b) (paraphrasing Boyce from memory) the relationship between Spenta Mainyu and Ah.M. is as subtle as that between Christianity's "the father" and "the Holy Ghost".

Very roughly, the distinction is this: Ah.M is not immanent in the world. Spenta Mainyu is immanent in the world. Ah.M is immanent in the world through S. M. The two are close but not equivalent. Aaargh! I think you've made clear that I need to write an article on S.M. :)

pps: Kudos for your fine edits/talk. Its a huge relief, and much appreciated. -- Fullstop (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad I've inspired you with more wikipedian enthusiasm! :)

For the specifics:

Re:#1: I don't think Haug actually explains what the previous interpretation of Y.30 was on p.303-304. He doesn't say anywhere "before they thought it referred to A, but I'm telling you it refers to B". All he says is "people thought him dualist, but I say he was a monist". Next, he admits that later Zoroastrians thought (mistakenly, in his view) that (the) Spenta Mainyu was no-one but Ahura Mazda who had always co-existed with (the) Angra Mainyu. And now I recall also the Iranica article on "Zoroastrianism": the alternative to Zurvanism was "the dualistic theology that held Ohrmazd and Ahriman to be primordial, uncreated spirits" and "radical dualism prevailed in the latter part of the period". Caeterum censeo - this latter theology, mistaken or not, must have dominated up until Haug, and it would obviously require "the better one" of the "twin spirits" of the Gathas to be nobody else but Ahura Mazda, precisely as I had originally written.

Re:#2b. The passage you are quoting basically says that some people 100 years ago were tricked into believing that Haug's reconstruction was correct because they read Parsis who had read Haug. This is not the same as decent modern scholars supporting the monist stuff. I had a reference to the "Ahriman" article in Iranica by J. Duchesne-Guillemin (which clearly disagrees with the "Ahura Mazda" article in the same encyclopedia by Boyce). In the intro to "Textual Sources for the Study of Zoroastrianism" (p.16), Boyce also notes that this is "still upheld by some Western scholars".

Re: #2 (C). I'll repeat it - the current text says that monism isn't to be found in post-Gathic scripture and tradition, but it doesn't say whether monism is to be found in original Zarathushtric (Gathic) tradition. These are two separate questions and both should be addressed. Haug purported to reconstruct Zoroaster's original thought, which had allegedly been corrupted by the post-Gathic retards. That's what made it possible for the reformist Parsis to accept it. Concerning the place where you say "Also, Haug doesn't limit himself to the Gathas in his monist argument" - yes, he also endorses the cuneiform inscriptions, but turn to the next page - everything after that is 'changed and corrupted, in consequence of misunderstandings and false interpretations'.

You ask: "Anyway, isn't the discussion of how academics view the original/traditional dualism unrelated to the Haug effect "In present-day^* Zoroastrianism^*""

Answer: as I said, it's obviously a very exciting and important question whether the Haug effect was what it purported to be (a restauration of truth) or not. Agreed, the section title doesn't seem to fit in with that, but hey, the Haug effect itself took place a hundred years ago, so maybe the section title should be changed instead. The era of Protestant missionaries wreaking theological havoc in British India is long gone, thank goodness.

Re "Philosophy vs theology" - I think this had better be ignored.

Re "Yes, in tradition Spenta Mainyu is identified with Ah.M (more below) but this is not related to Haug" - it is very much related: if S.M.=Ah.M., then Ah.M. is indeed one of the spirits twain (as I wrote) and Haug's monist scheme crumbles; that's why he goes mad when "Spento^-Mainyush was taken as a name of Ahuramazda himself", the initial distortion that he thinks unleashed all the other developments towards the dualism that he loathes.--Cheers, Anonymous44 (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Excerpt, regarding precisely our issue

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)

Extract from Clark (p.7-8) regarding our issue again

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)

Following discussion

1. yes, that extract is a fine encapsulation of how weak Haug's hypothesis was. But the article already says his hypothesis was not supported by scripture and tradition. That is enough! Don't muddle the issue! Stick to the topic!
   • The topic is NOT Zoroastrian dualism.
   • The topic is NOT Yasna 30.3.
   • The topic is NOT the twins.
   • The topic is NOT the Gathas.
   • The topic is NOT Spenta Mainyu.
   • The topic is NOT Ahura Mazda.
   Instead...
   • The topic of the article IS Angra Mainyu.
   • The topic of that section IS the latter-day Zoroastrian position on Angra Mainyu
   There is no limit on the number of sections in an article (or of articles on WP), so create a new one if you need to, but please DO NOT MUDDLE unrelated issues.
   ps: You needn't take the trouble of transcribing from the texts. I have the texts, so page #s are quite sufficient.
   pps: that commentary is from Z1/1975/Boyce not Z2/1982/Boyce and not Z3/1991/Boyce and Grenet.
2. the extract does cause the first half of Haug's interpretation to be not Haug's interpretation. He was the first western scholar to make the identification, and therefore -- on the scientific stage which is obliged to be falsifiable and supportable -- it is his identification.
   Haug's first half is accepted precisely because it is supported by tradition. From a philological, scientific point of view, Haug's theory is Haug's theory. The authors of 1500-year-old texts are not subject to peer-review, and these are not valid unless a scientist has accepted them as such.
   Moreover, Haug was objecting to the akem-manah/vohu-manah identification. It will not do to say "Haug objected to X, but seriously folks, what he really should have done is object to <something else>."^[not]
3. The assumption that "spenta mainyu in this passage is pretty much identical to Ahura Mazda" is
   • a) is not related to Haug or 1800s theological developments
   • b) not related to Angra Mainyu
   More on that in the last point in this reply.
4. Re: "the dualistic theology that held Ohrmazd and Ahriman to be primordial, uncreated spirits" is perfectly valid.
   But the conclusion "Caeterum censeo - this latter theology, mistaken or not, must have dominated up until Haug, and it would obviously require "the better one" of the "twin spirits" of the Gathas to be nobody else but Ahura Mazda, precisely as I had originally written." is not valid. The former is not tied to the twins, or even to Y. 30.3 or even to Y. 30. It is not even tied to the Gathas since the term angra mainyu (lower case) only occurs once in those texts, and the A/O dichotomy is only properly developed in the later texts.
   Is this the basis of the misunderstanding? If so, here is the heads-up:
   • There is no 1:1 correspondence between the dualistic theology and the twins of 30.3.
   • There is no 1:1 correspondence between dualistic theology and A/O.
   Zoroastrian dualistic theology is multifaceted, and extremely well developed. The A/O thing and the twins thing are not one and the same. They are however -- like everything else in Zoroastrian theology -- both expressions of the same underlying concept. That concept is the super-duper-ultra-cardinal-fireworks-and-drumroll asha vs druj, which is unaffected by any specific identification of the twins, and indeed of any interpretation of any isolated verse.
5. Re TSSZ: That Haug's theory is "still upheld by some Western scholars" is indeed very worthy of note. Excellent! I'll check this too later today. But I don't see any sign of such a statement (or indeed of any reference to Haug) in the Iranica though. Which page is that on?
6. Re "restoration of truth": Yes, its truly a fascinating development. Haug's book precipitated the "Back to the Gathas" movement. I have described this in detail in an article I am preparing (still in draft) on "History of Z". No harm briefly alluding to it here, but to go into detail of what else Haug caused is (IMO) a bit too far OT. The one relevant instance of the (more general) "betrayal" (so Henning) of their own scripture and tradition is mentioned, and that ought to suffice.
7. Re: "if S.M.=Ah.M., then Ah.M. ..."
   I have already noted why the assumption "S.M.=Ah.M." is not correct (see also your own Boyce quotation). The "then" does not follow.
   Besides, "If X=Y then ..." is OR. Even if the two were identical (and not just merely effectively equivalent), you can't jump the "then" conclusion yourself. That "Haug's monist scheme crumbles ... when S.M.=Ah.M." is an evaluation that you may not make (in an article) without someone else having previously established that
   • a) "S.M.=Ah.M." and
   • b) that that is also true for Y. 30.3 and
   • c) that Haug's theory crumbles because of it.
   And in any case, its quite sufficient for the article to say "not supported"; it is not necessary to describe the 200-year-old pimples on Haug's derrier, and the (in)validity of Haug does not further any article on Angra Mainyu.

Again,... Please STICK TO THE TOPIC. *sigh* -- Fullstop (talk) 17:50, 24 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)

I'm tired too. But I still take care to not misread/miscite my sources. 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. (B) You might also consider that I might have read a great deal more than you have, and so might have a significantly better idea of what academics other than Boyce think. For instance, Humbach who Boyce cites for contra in that footnote, but also a number of those that she does not. Like Duchesne-Guillemin or Gershevitch, whom you incidentally stuck with a label that not does not apply, but is also not yours to give away. But more on that below.

-

You provide three citations of alleged support for Haug when

• 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. Haug does not even appear in the list of references, so there is presumably no indirect allusion to Haug anywhere in the article either. I have also previously asked you for a page number, which you also failed to provide.
• 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. Such a shuffle of a source does not work. You presumably saw Gershevitch being referred to in Boyce, and since he was also referred to in the article you added 2 and 2 and got ... awesome.
• You cite "Boyce-Grenet, 1982" (you actually mean "Boyce, 1975", as I have already noted) although -- again -- the author does not mention Haug or who follows Haug. And because you think I am discounting the Boyce text you posted, I will explain in detail:
  Haug's "AM from Ah.M" is alluded to, but that is not sufficient to conclude anything about "modern scholars" that support Haug. 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".
  The 'European scholars' who took "twins" literally includes (at least) Hyde, Duperron, Westergaard, Haug. The first three precede Haug. Who follows Haug?

I really don't know why you are trying to find someone who followed Haug anyway. The theory of AM's origin in Ah.M. is stone dead. End of story. What good it is to know who followed Haug way back when people still read by candlelight? Its just "degree of detail" that obliterates the punchline.

-

The "precise degree of detail" is not a matter of editorial "feel". It is a matter of usefulness to the reader. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collector of information.
It would be one thing if some *crucial* piece of information were missing. But nothing we have discussed here is crucial. The adoption of "AM's origin in Ah.M" theology was the topic of the section, and that was all. Now we have a digression into the degree with which Spenta Mainyu is/was/should be identified with Ah.M. even though there is no such (perforce arbitrary) measure that everyone agreed/agrees upon. Given this and the fake refs noted above, "falsely-precise degree of detail" would seem to be a more appropriate term.
But, remarkably enough, "precise degree of detail" does not seem to extend to proper (complete/structured) citation of sources. And this happened even though the sources (with the exception of pseudo-BoyceGrenet) had been previously completed.

-

"Some discussion" does not extend to the point where the subject of the article becomes a sub-plot. In the present version (which doesn't even have any particularly grand ideas) Haug is referred to 10 times, Ahura Mazda thrice, Spenta Mainyu twice. Against all that, Angra Mainyu is referred to three times. A ratio of 5:1 is not "some discussion". It calls for a sharp shave with Occam's razor.

-- Fullstop (talk) 07:36, 25 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)

Indeed OMG. Since you keep going on and on about how "absolutely essential" SM/AhM is, then yes, it doesn't probably doesn't matter what you reply to me at all. Because that means you are not reading, and it means that I am wasting my time. If that is the case, then please say so. I can then just go ahead and fix the madness and goodbye.

In quick succession:

• <quotation of Iranica's Ahriman article>
  Thank you for finally providing a point of reference. That wasn't so difficult was it? For the record: That quotation is at p. 670, column 2, 9th line from the top.
  You may not however legitimately use that in this context since you are interpreting the source. In this case however it is a correct interpretation (which is not always the case, as you see shortly), so I don't really mind (read: I would turn a blind eye) if it were properly cited and the context fixed.
  "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).
  "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.
• First I told you clearly "prior to your edit..."
  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?
• >> [my note re: mangling Gershevitch citation]
  Yep, 'cause I think it was wrong.
  I see. You "think" it was wrong cite Gershevitch (p. 32!) for "identification of the twins as Angra Mainyu and Spenta Mainyu is not contested." That is a quite remarkable thing to "think" when you do not have the source, and do not know what is being referred to.
  You "think" wrong: "all translators [of Y 30.3] except one agree that in it the dual yəmā, "twins", refers to the dual mainyū, the two spirits. The divergent view is W. Lentz ([full cit], 1962)"
  ... followed by Gershevitch's dismissal of Lentz using analysis of the dual form of the enclitic pronoun hi "Their".
• Boyce umabiguously cites Gershevitch as a supporter of the monist theory
  • First of all, Gershevitch p. 32 was being cited for "identification of the twins as Angra Mainyu and Spenta Mainyu is not contested,[9]". As noted above, the page number I had cited (p. 32) has Gershevitch saying precisely that. It is a citation for the status of general opinion, and is not even close to anyone saying anything monist.
  • Secondly, Boyce's quotation is from is page 13. My reference was to page 32. Page 13 is not the same as page 32. The ref in the article is still for page 32.
  • 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 until she also "unabiguously" (i.e. explicitly) says "X is a supporter of the monist theory" (or something to that extent).
  • 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.
    DO NOT INTERPRET and DO NOT CITE A SOURCE THAT YOU HAVE NOT READ YOURSELF.
  FYI: Gershevitch's commentaries are linguistic and philological masterpieces, in this case of the exegesis of the ethical values that are the bedrock of Zoroastrian dualism. 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.
• <quote>"... and still dominates much Parsi theological discussion, as well as being still upheld by some Western scholars."</quote>
  Why on earth don't you simply quote that in the article? Direct quote. That is an excellent summary of the stance within and without the community!
  Again, IT IS NOT NECESSARY to dig up sources who uphold Haug. You have a source that says "still upheld" and that is not only all you need, it is infinitely more valuable than your own interpretation.
• And yes, the S.M/Ah.M. view is not universal. I never claimed it was. The alternative is the monotheistic view...
  This is painting in black and white. There is a whole spectrum of opinions in between, each one expressing a different shade of equivalence, subject to the weight given to immanence (as I had already told you).
  The grounds for the gamut of opinion is also alluded to in Boyce (p. 193), where she notes that the term(s) 'Spenta Mainyu'/'spenta mainyu' are used "in complex fashion elsehwere in the Gathas; for sometimes they seem to represent the powers in Ah.M. himself ... at others as an independent divinity who hypostatizes this power."
  Your presupposition and insistence that S.M/Ah.M. are equal is clouding your judgment. Boyce's suggestion that this only occurs "elsewhere" (everywhere except in 30.3) is of course itself exceptional. As Humbach (and numerous others) noted, there is no reason why 30.3 should be an exception to the rule.
  FYI: the harsh stance you see in Boyce's writing reappears whenever everything contradicts her pet theory that Z. doctrine remained unchanged through the centuries (i.e. that the "9th century books" and original Z. thought are a perfect reflection of each other). It reappears in Hinnells, and it has colored some of my writing as well.
• >> 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.
  Good heavens. Foot-in-mouth polemic like that deserves to ridiculed, so here goes.
  For the record:
  • The book you are citing from is Volume 1, "the early period", which is by Boyce alone, 1975, 2nd ed. 1989, 3rd ed. 1996.
  • The book published in 1982 is volume 2, "under the Achaemenians" and is also Boyce alone, 2nd ed. 1996
  • And Boyce and Grenet is Volume 3, "under Macedonian and Roman Rule", 1991.
  you refuse to figure out that Boyce-Grenet, 1982 might contain it as well,
  As noted above, there is no Boyce-Grenet for 1982, so it can't possibly "contain it as well."
  or to check whether it does,
  It would be a remarkable coincidence for three otherwise completely different books to have exactly the same content at exactly the same page, but yes, I did actually check both the other volumes. But you can check it yourself.
  • Here is p. 192 of the one and only book written by "Boyce and Grenet". Yes, Google screws up the year for that book too; as the title pages notes, it was published in 1991, and not "1975" (which is the pub year of vol. 1)
  • Pages 192-194 of the "1982" History of Zoroastrianism (i.e. Volume 2 of that series) is in the middle of a chapter on Artaxerxes I. Unfortunately, Gbooks does not serve the relevant pages, or I would give you a link to that too. Needless to say, its not the same content as p 192-194 in the one you quote, which (as I've said) is Volume 1, 1975, Boyce only.
  because the objective is to prove that you're great and I'm an idiot by all means available.
  This is the second time you suggest that you can read my mind, so if you think you look like a fool, then that is your doing entirely.
  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. The first time qualifies as a mere mistake, and truly idiotic is only your insistence (like the Gershevitch thing) that you are correct. To top it all off, not only do you not check yourself, but you even have the chutzpah to assert that I am not checking. Well, I did check, and I even checked for you.
  Ok, I think I've rubbed it in enough. Consider yourself thoroughly clown-ified. :)
• Except that the theory that they then attribute to these scholars is precisely Haug's ... 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?
  Yes, you suppose correct. You may not identify a theory as following X when X is not cited.
  But while you may not say anything like "X's theories are followed by ..." when those authors do not cite X, you may say "Similar ideas have also been expressed by ...".If that is in fact what they express, which -- as we have seen -- is not a given.ps: Also, because they conflict with Boyce's rather militant stance, 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.
  A parallel to illustrate the point: A recent (and well regarded) translation of the Gathas states "the focus and emphatic insistence of the prophet's hymns are directed towards a purpose and unity of thought which oppose the empty, mechanical methods of the ritual."
  This is exactly the same sort of ex silencio argument that Haug expresses (i.e. that rituals are not mentioned in the Gathas, ergo they are post-Zoroaster and a corruption).
  The author is not however following Haug. Stanley Insler is quite capable of coming to that conclusion by himself. And even if when a new interpretation reaches the same conclusion as a previously dismissed one, it still requires a new rebuttal (which of course is free to reiterate the old conclusions). FYI: Science demands falsifiability, so any "he doesn't mention X ergo he rejected it" argument is by definition invalid. Gathic studies are littered with ex silencio arguments.
• >> In the present version (which doesn't even have any particularly grand ideas)
  I love you too
  Here too you assume malice.
  As you might have inferred from the count that I provided (but which you choose to not respond to), my point was that your changes turn the subject of the article (An.M.) into an passing note. The edit does this even without going into details of the theological changes involved (i.e. those that we had both previously spoken of, and which you yourself had described as "exciting"). This is what I was referring to with "particularly grand ideas", which I now see was a poor choice of words.
• Yes, "feel" for the usefulness.
  While you are absolutely correct to note that any reader would expect to be told whether Haug was correct (I am not however convinced that this can be done), and something that sets things in a useful intellectual context (the Enlightenment stuff, such an allusion suffices, as I already said) is also helpful, it is not necessary to get into a discussion about Ah.M's relationship to S.M. (more below). This article is not about that, and a discussion of it is also not essential to the change that occurred "In present-day Zoroastrianism", or to the present-day acceptance of Haug's view.
  Why do you insist on stuffing Zoroastrian dualism into that section anyway?
  it is essential,
  It is not necessary to discuss it at all.
  • In Iranica's Ahura Mazda article Boyce does not mention it in the discussion of Haug (see also what else Boyce says about S.M. in that article).
  • The Iranica article on Ahriman does not discuss the equality of Ah.M./S.M. either.
  • Nor does Manek mention it; indeed she gracefully sidesteps all discussion of 30.3. by merely observing that "philologists still are not agreed as to the proper interpretation of its most crucial passages." (p. 231)
  Here you have three sources in which it is not even mentioned. Ergo, "essential" it is not.
  Moreover,
  • I had already told you that your S.M.-is-equal-to-Ah.M. model was not correct
  • and you had even momentarily let it go after you read/quoted Boyce,
  you have reverted to the supposition that there is only S.M.=Ah.M. or (the other extreme) S.M.!=Ah.M.
  This supposition is incorrect. Let it go!
  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 that should not be unrolled in an article on An.M. It is a very "complex" issue (apud Boyce) of its own, and it is sufficient to just allude to it (as was done before). Painting in black and white presents a false picture.
  -- Fullstop (talk) 04:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

   

ps: I repeat: Since you keep going on and on about how "absolutely essential" SM/AhM is, then yes, it doesn't probably doesn't matter what you reply to me at all. Because that means you are not reading, and it means that I am wasting my time. If that is the case, then please say so. I can then just go ahead and fix the madness and goodbye.
On the other hand, If you can put away your preconceptions long enough to make the article better then more power to everyone. 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. - 00:21, 2008 September 27 Fullstop (Talk)

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.

• First of all, Boyce does not just have a quote from G. expounding the monist theory (a quotation that would, in usual academic practice, imply that these are G.'s own views), she also says "Lommel was evidently right to reject the hypothesis ... the 'Zurvanite' interpretation has, however, been upheld by I.Gershevitch" ('Zurvanite' in quotation marks referring to the "European heresy" that Lommel rejects, as obvious from the previous sentences).
• Second, the full relevant quote from Gershevitch is: "The conclusion that the Fiendish Spirit, too, was an emanation of Ahura Mazdah's is unavoidable. But we need not go so far as to assume that Zarathustra imagined the Devil as having directly issued from God. Rather, since free will, too, is a basic tenet of Zarathushtrianism, we may think of the 'childbirth' implied in the idea of twinship as having 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." In other words, despite your effort to deceive me, what Boyce quotes (italicized in the above) and condemns as an example of the "European heresy" is indeed Gershevitch's own view. The only difference from Haug is that the spirit is assumed to have split into two after having been created. This difference is one of nuance - in case you try to dispute that, check out Boyce, who mentions it as a mere "refinement" of the hypothesis, and you own formulation: everything that you yourself chose to say about Haug's "incorrect" and "universally rejected" monist "second part of the argument" ("the identification of Angra Mainyu as a product of Mazda", "the 'twins' as the respective 'destructive' and 'creative' emanations of Ahura Mazda", "Angra Mainyu was evil by choice") is true of Gershevitch's version as well.

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.

[1]

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)

Conclusion

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)

>> a new arrogant and twisty diatribe will be coming shortly

I'll pass. Yours was quite sufficient.

>> Answering to tireless, dumb and malicious attacks

Is that an example of a "tireless, dumb and malicious attack"?

>> having been caught red-handed lying

Is that another "tireless, dumb and malicious attack" or merely selective perception?

>> jealous territorial male

Surely not yet another "tireless, dumb and malicious attack" undeserving of response?

>> I've done all that is humanly possible.

...to make a simple thing complicated, and simultaneously turn an exception into a rule.

>> This is my last post on this discussion page.

Too bad. Goodbye. If I wasn't sure that you'd take it as a "tireless, dumb and malicious attack" I'd even wish you good luck.

-- Fullstop (talk) 14:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

comments

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).

Sign your posts, please. ناهد/(Nåhed) _speak! 01:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)