Talk:Homa (ritual)

Untitled
> ''Can someone please help with the homa page? I am totally naive on this subject, but created a Zoroastrian stub for it since there was a link to it but no article. Thank you.'' Chris 01:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

You confused the Hindu/Buddhist ritual with the plant of Zoroastrianism, which is already covered under Soma. In any event, it really is not necessary (or desirable) to create articles about which you know nothing. Even if "there is a link to it but no article". Moreover, if you had read the passages which contained the links you refer to, you yourself would have determined that they nothing to do with Zoroastrianism, which may have spared yourself some research. In cases such as what you did with Homa, it pushes the onus of expansion off onto someone else, which is not very considerate. Please refrain from making stubs in the future (on subjects you admit to know nothing about). We all have our hands full, no need to make it worse. -- Fullstop 14:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Fullstop, You cannot simply remove a stub. It is there to be improved and corrected. Please improve it if you do not agree. Do not simply remove it. I have tried very hard to get help with this entry from experts on the Zoroastrian and Nath and Hindu sites. Do not remove. Thank you. Chris 17:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Nothing to improve if the whole text is false. I don't know much about Hinduism, but I know something about Zoroastrianism. If what is obviously a Hinduism/Buddhism article contains only (supposedly Zoroastrian) information that is false to boot, what am I to do but delete it all? Well, thats what your two edits, seen back-to-back, sound like. "Give me a fire-ritual, any fire-ritual, and I'll show you that the root of that fire-ritual is Zoroastrian."
 * Sure I can.
 * >> Please improve it if you do not agree
 * If anything, Homa (ritual) should minimally have been a #REDIRECT Yajna, but I didn't know that, because as I said, I don't know much about Hinduism.
 * I wouldn't be so bold as to assume that the homa ritual is equivalent to Yajna either (as you initially did).
 * Now, its apparent from your writeup at Dhuni that you guessed Zoroastrianism had nothing to do with that ritual, but you left it in anyway. Keeping that in mind, what impression do you think someone would have who ran into similar guesswork from the same person on the same day?
 * Note that by calling your edits guesswork, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. It really is pure negligence though, because it effectively says you don't care what the reader thinks.
 * Have you seen "My Big Fat Greek Wedding"? There is a line in there that goes something like this: "Give me a word, any word, and I'll show you that the root of that word is Greek".
 * -- Fullstop

Please see: Answers.com for info on "homa." I do not think that "homa" is the same as "soma" or "haoma" as you say. For information about "haoma" see Encyclopedia Mythica. Thanks. Chris 17:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You apparently didn't note where the text from Answers.com comes from, or you wouldn't have cited it. Anyhow, I don't have a problem with Homa (ritual) referring to a fire ritual - That is exactly what is is. But not in Zoroastrianism, which is what you are implying.
 * You yourself equated homa with haoma/soma
 * Quote (of quote): "The Homa ceremony consisted in the extraction of the juice of the Homa plant".
 * If you read Haoma, you'll know exactly what he's referring to, which certainly is not a fire-ceremony. Whether the author of the quotation calls it homa or haoma is immaterial. He is talking about one and the same thing. The Plant. (See also: Zoroastrian names).
 * Homa (and Hom, long O) is a middle Persian corruption of the Avestan word Haoma, the plant, which is a derivative of *sauma, which is also the root of the Sanskrit word Soma, the plant. Which is not Homa the ritual.
 * In linguistic terms, Homa (the ritual) vis-a-vis Homa (the plant) is called a false friend.
 * The term also exists other Iranian language derivates, such as Balochi hum/huma/uma, which is the local names for Ephedra (cf: first sentence of Ephedra).
 * What I did say (and which still applies) was "You confused the Hindu/Buddhist ritual with the plant of Zoroastrianism"
 * 1. The word "Homa" in the text you are quoting is referring to the plant (Soma, Haoma).
 * This is a Zoroastrian ritual
 * The Zoroastrian ritual is not called Homa, the plant is.
 * The Zoroastrian ritual honors a plant, not a fire ("Adar").
 * The Zoroastrian "Homa" descends from Avestan Haoma
 * 2. The word "Homa" in the Homa (ritual) article is term for a fire-puja.
 * This is a Hindu/Buddhist ritual (as was evident from the articles that linked here which were all Hinduism/Buddhism references)
 * The Hindu/Buddhist ritual is called Homa.
 * The Hindu/Buddhist ritual is an offering (any offering, which may or may not include Soma) to a fire.
 * The Hindu/Buddhist "Homa" does not descend from Avestan Haoma
 * -- Fullstop 13:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

We could look to various sources for a definition of the word "homa". One such can be found in the Glossary of Robert E. Svoboda's "Aghora II" Kundalini. "Homa- General term for any ritual in which offering into a consecrated fire is the primary action." The relation between Agni and Soma has been explored by some writers, but the use of the word Homa as used by Chris could find any number of references and citations.--Chai Walla 18:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Right. All in the same context as that of the Kundalini. ie, Tantric (or at least Vedic) use.
 * An equivalent of the Hindu/Buddhist Homa ceremony simply does not exist in Zoroastrianism, and would certainly not be called "Homa". H[a]oma may be used to refer the plant, or to its extract, to which divine powers are attributed and which is personified by the minor Yazata "H[a]oma", or "Hom" (a middle Persian, long O, corruption of H[a]oma, and literally means "flight", stupefied, perhaps from the effect of being narcotized). All of these are references to the plant, ie Haoma/Soma. Not to the fire.
 * Fire is a manifestation of the incorruptability of Ahura Mazda, personified by the Yazata "Adar". Even though fire almost always accompanies Zoroastrian rituals, a fire ritual in Zoroastrianism is something else, and can take up to a year. The only thing that goes into those fires are (upto) seven other kinds of fire. Such fires are never put out (cf: Agni, which is relit daily).
 * The ritual where Homa/Haoma is extracted from the plant takes a few minutes (at the most), and doesn't involve fire. Not only is the Zoroastrian Homa ritual not comparable to the Vedic Homa ritual, it is directly related to the Vedic Soma ritual.
 * With respect to the connection between Agni and Soma: sure, why not. If the effect achieves another mental plane, so much the better. (wouldn't be the first time that worshippers or priests are narcotized ;)
 * -- Fullstop 13:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I found this link possibly helpful in regards to Hinduism: Homa FAQ. Chris 20:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You also apparently found http://www.crystallotus.com/Zorastra/06.htm which you had copied word-for-word.
 * By the way, "the primary ritual of Zoroastrianism" is the kushti ceremony, which is not necessarily done anywhere close to a fire.
 * -- Fullstop 13:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Very good information. Maybe we should remove the reference to Zoroastrianism altogether in this usage (i.e. homa as a fire ritual) and only include the others. Zorastrianism is known for the centrality of fire in its beliefs, but they do not have a fire ritual or do by another name. Chris 20:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, you should (remove the reference to Zoroastrianism).
 * You might also wish to add the quotation under Soma->Zoroastrian Haoma->In Western Scholarship, since it also addresses the narcotic (or not) debate within the Zoroastrian community.
 * The "primary ritual of Zoroastrianism" sentence is totally false.
 * -- Fullstop 08:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

No one will accidentally confuse the fire ritual with the drink homa or the Zoroastrian rites now, since the word "Homa" typed directly into Wikipedia takes you to the disambiguation page. Chris 15:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Good. Incidentally, for the Homa disambig you might wish to rewrite "Homa is a general term for any ritual in which offering into a consecrated fire is the primary action.[1]" to better reflect that it is a "general term" only within the context of Indic religions, i.e. not generally "general". :) No citation is necessary there. The second entry "Homa, also called Yajna, a general term for Hindu fire-sacrifices" is of course now covered by the first entry.
 * -- Fullstop 17:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Chris 19:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * sigh* Quote: "for the Homa disambig" (from my last comment to which you replied "Done")
 * But never mind. I've fixed it. -- Fullstop 09:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Check your sources!

 * Check your sources!
 * 1. Homa (ritual) Quote: "Ancient Rome had a similar cult of fire"
 * Is that "similar" cult of fire called Homa? If not, can you cite a source that draws a connection between the cult of Vesta and the Indian ritual? If not, then remove it.
 * 2. Homa (ritual) Quote: "The Dhuni fire ritual ..."
 * You made up that connection.
 * 3. Homa (ritual) Quote: "Homas have been performed in India by the Vedic sages for over 5000 years"
 * Check your sources! Quite remarkable how those "Vedic" sages happened to around before the Vedas. Also, did you make up the word "Homas"?
 * 4 Homa (ritual) ==External Links==
 * Answers.com Homa
 * You still haven't bothered to read where Answers.com gets its "answers". Look closely to the two lines in italics under the text.
 * Chinese Homa Rituals
 * You obviously did not actually read that text. Just because they are written in chinese by a chinese doesn't make them chinese, just as little as Homa (ritual) written by an American makes it american.
 * I can't say this often enough... Check. your. sources.
 * I've already said this before: If you don't know anything about a subject, don't start a wikipedia article on it - unless you are 100% sure you can support what you write. Empirical evidence can be ok too, but in this case you obviously don't even have that. Write a blog or whatever if that makes you happy, but for everyone's sake (including your own), please lay off on the assumptions/presumptions/deductions.
 * -- Fullstop 09:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Everything I wrote was taken from a soucre. I did not invent a single line. If my sources were wrong then I apologize. As you know I have sought help and invited and used yours. What are you so upset about? Just make the edits you think are right. Chris 12:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, then cite your sources.
 * Where did that Dhuni thing come from?
 * Where does 5000 years come from?
 * What leads you to conclude that this link is a _chinese_ Homa?
 * Whats the connection between the Vesta cult and Homa?
 * What is the external link to Answers.com supposed to establish? (you can't cite Answers.com. For obvious reasons).
 * With respect to what I'm getting upset about... I'm not. The reason why I'm not editing it directly is because you get upset if I were to nuke the text thats not supportable.
 * -- Fullstop 13:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Judging from your last edit, or rather, the lack of an edit, you obviously can't cite your sources, so I must assume you faked the statements. Really, how hard can it be to write accurately when you have all the information at your fingertips to begin with? Oh well. Fixed. No thanks to you for the drain on other people's time. -- Fullstop