Talk:Angra Mainyu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is supported by WikiProject Zoroastrianism, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Zoroastrianism-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.
  The subject of this article is considered to be of Top importance to Zoroastrianism.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Archive
Archives
1

Contents

[edit] Encyclopaedia Iranica link

This link:

Was added by a Columbia University IP along with many other links to the site. I have moved it hear in keeping with our external links guidelines so unconnected editors can evaluate its appropriateness. Many of the websites entries are short and may not contain much more than the articles they have been added to. However, this might be a good source even if editors do not consider it an appropriate external link. -- SiobhanHansa 23:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)