Talk:Fire temple

Untitled
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)
 * Well, I'll leave this one to Wikimagic for now. I honestly could have added more, but wanted to stay way from really arcane terminology and information (plus which term should you use, the Pahlavi, the Gujarati, Modern Persian, Avestan, etc.??? *headache*). Zoroastrianism is arcane enough for 99.99% people. I'm far, far, far from satisfied with this, but I'm a perfectionist and would never really be satisfied with it anyhow! I do rue that I'm leaving it a little messy. There's more Zoroastrian related articles for me to write though. But knowing Zism I'll probably be back to fix this page up, add better links, a picture of a Sassasian coin (with the Fire Alters on the back), etc.; before anyone even reads this! On a last note, this article really needs to be moved to Fire Temple, as it is the most common English term outside of India and avoids the language issues already mentioned. Ushta! Khiradtalk 05:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

"son of Ahura Mazda"
"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)

Baresman
what does "Baresman" mean? (82.131.84.5 19:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC))


 * A baresman (alt: Barsom, Bareshnum) is a bundle of twigs or wire held/touched by a priest during (parts of) a recitation of the Yasna liturgy. It has no apparent function (in the sense that nothing is actually done with it). There is some reason to believe that it may have once been a symbol of priesthood.
 * During earlier periods (Achaemenid, Sassanid) the Baresnum appears to have been quite long, about a meter or so in length (like this). In the present day its much shorter, about 20-30 cms long.
 * -- Fullstop 14:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Reminder to self - write an article on it. :)

The concept
In the section headed "The concept", we read the following sentence:


 * "Strabo confirms this, noting that in the 6th century, the sanctuary at Zela in Cappadocia was an artificial mound, walled in, but open to the sky (Geographica XI.8.4.512)."

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)

The concept
In the third paragraph in this section, we read the following sentence:


 * "Following the rise of the Sassanid dynasty, the shrines to the Yazatas continued to exist, but with the statues – by law - either abandoned or replaced by fire altars."

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)

Yazatas
The last sentence in the third paragraph in the sub-section "The concept" in the larger section Fire temple is the following:


 * Following the rise of the Sassanid dynasty, the shrines to the Yazatas continued to exist, but with the statues – by law – either abandoned or replaced by fire altars.

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)

Legendary Great Fires
The second-to-last sentence in the fifth paragraph in the section Fire temple is the following:


 * Darmesteter identified this "celebrated for its sacred fire which has been transported there from Khvarazm as reported by Masudi" (Jackson, 1921:89).

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)