This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is my first article so please bear with me as I work on it! The history page might get messy as I clean up after myself. I welcome any help - particularly from Farsi and Gujarati speakers, or others who know Zoroastrianism well enough to collaborate with me. Khirad 16:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
"I will worship thee, O Fire, son of Ahura Mazda, ..." -- Vishtasp Yasht "Then forward came Atar, the son of Ahura Mazda ..." -- Zamyad Yasht
But, according to the Ushtavad Gatha (45.4) and the Vendidad (Fargard 19.13), Spendārmad Amesha-Spenta is the daughter of Ahura Mazda. Spendārmad ==> Armaiti, Spenta of the firmament and the luminaries (including fire).
In either case, I don't think son/daughter is meant literally, but as "progeny of ...", or "creation of ..." (although Ameshaspentas are "facets of ..."), but then again what isn't? :)
-- Fullstop 14:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
what does "Baresman" mean? ( 82.131.84.5 19:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC))
In the section headed "The concept", we read the following sentence:
Since it follows a sentence that mentions a date in BCE, it would be helpful if BCE or CE were added after "6th century" to make it clear. In the article on Geographica, it states that the first edition was published in 7 BCE and the final edition was published no later than 23 CE, so "6th century" could equally mean "6th century BCE" and "6th century CE". If someone knows, it would be nice if he or she could add the right information. CorinneSD ( talk) 23:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
In the third paragraph in this section, we read the following sentence:
It is not clear whether "the shrines to the Yazatas" were the first type of place of worship described earlier in this paragraph or the second type. It would be nice if someone could clarify this. CorinneSD ( talk) 23:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
The last sentence in the third paragraph in the sub-section "The concept" in the larger section Fire temple#History and development is the following:
I am concerned about the statement "the shrines to the Yazatas continued to exist" because neither the Yazatas nor the shrines to the Yazatas have been mentioned before this. In order to understand a statement that says in a later period something continued to exist, that "something" really needs first to be introduced. (I wondered whether the Yazatas were the patron saints or angels "of an individual or family and included an icon or effigy of the honored" that were mentioned just prior to this. I read the entire article on Yazatas and could not confirm this.) Could someone add a statement at some point before the sentence beginning "Following the rise of the Sassanid dynasty" introducing Yazatas, or otherwise fix this? CorinneSD ( talk) 17:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
P.S. Right after I saved this, I saw that I had placed a comment expressing this very same concern a year ago, and no one has replied. CorinneSD ( talk) 17:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
The second-to-last sentence in the fifth paragraph in the section Fire temple#Legendary Great Fires is the following:
Everything up to this point is clear. This sentence, however, is not. Something is missing in the first few words that would connect this sentence with what precedes it. It's not clear what "this", in "Darmesteter identified this...", refers to. Quite a few singular nouns come to mind: this mountain, this fire, this location, this account..., and even if one adds a noun there, more words are needed: ...identified this X as being "celebrated"...Some of these nouns would not make sense. Perhaps someone could check the original text and fix this. CorinneSD ( talk) 18:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)