Talk:Saoshyant

Interpretation

In the Zoroastrian religion, saoshyant refers to one who will "make existence brilliant".

"Since He is (the One) to be chosen by the world therefore the judgment emanating from truth itself (to be passed) on the deeds of good thought of the world, as well as the power, is committed to Mazda Ahura whom (people) assign as a shepherd to the poor." --Yasna 27:13, the Ahuna Vairya prayer

Noting this similiarity of this figure to that of the Jewish messiah and the Christian Jesus Christ, along with the fact that it is from the same geographic area and predated both by a century or more, many speculate that the very idea of a "christ-figure" has it's origins in this belief. This is, as of yet, unsubstantiated by concrete evidence. '

Yeah, when you read the Zoroastrian texts themselves, you'll see how different the two are. First of all, the post-Jesus texts don't count obviously. When we throw those out, all Saoshyant is one of the various minor gods who comes at the end of time (with his helpers) and makes all the living things on earth come back to life and then never die or decay anymore. (This isn't the place to discuss who stole the idea from whom, (scholars don't seem to buy into the idea that ideas can evolve independently) but I can give you a list of about 20 scholars who are on either side) Yasht 19:19 speaks of the same things that Saoshyant is supposed to do in Yasht 19:89 but doesn't mention him by name. Saoshyant is not some great king who will come one day and make Persia into a great nation after the Persian exiles are brought back, and will more or less, rule the world. Just compare the various texts. The difference in subject and motivation is so great, it's not even necessary (as it usually is) to check when the texts were written. Just for the heck of it, if we want to use the same standards applied to the Bible, we should point out that the Yashts (the older Gathas don't mention Saoshyant in the same way, read the article) weren't written until the Persians had made contact with the Jews. The Yasht that deals mainly with Saoshyant doesn't even mention him (couple sentences back) in his only role (while what he's supposed to do IS) until the very end and I should note that the Avesta wasn't even compiled until two centuries after Jesus died. With this evidence, I propose that the Saoshyant was the name of some deity that got promoted when the magi heard about Jesus and thought he was a good idea (They similar things later on). The texts were redacted (the word that lets you make any text be written in any period you want) to mention him and it's obvious they forget to put his name in the beginning of Yasht 19. While unlikely, and I don't even agree with my idea, so is the opposite when you consider the text themselves.69.254.76.77 (talk) 04:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I checked out the above quotation from the Zend Avesta. It didn't agree with what you've put forth. What translation did you use? --65.30.154.179 12:46, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Umm, it predated it by quite a bit longer than a century. The Ýathā Ahū Vairyō (or Ahunwar, or Ahunavar...) is translated (as well as transliterated) so many different ways[1], here is just one other translation:

"As the Ahu is excellent, so is the Ratu (one who rules) from (his) sanctity, a creator of mental goodness, and of life's actions done for Mazda; and the Kingdom (is) for Ahura, which to the poor may offer a nurturer."

However; this passage has nothing to do with the Saoshyant directly, though it could apply to the Saoshyant as it applies to every person! Though 'shepherd' is a correct translation, it is not necessarily the Christ-like epithet. For more on the meaning of the Ahunwar see [Zoroaster.com]'s word-for-word translation and explanation by a Zoroastrian priest (An 'Ervad' is a rank of priest, which is also a scholar of the scriptures).

Out of curiousity I googled the word 'Saoshyant' and came up with the same new-age "make existence brilliant" quote in a number of pages. The real meaning is much less spectacular[2]. Indeed the Saoshyant to be born of a Virgin mother with a halo of light around his head to redeem mankind at the day of judgement couldn't have NOT inspired Christian soteriology. It's just the shoddy references I'm criticizing. There is soooo much crap out there on Zoroastrianism, I don't begrudge anyone or think less of them for getting the wrong information and ideas.

Halos don't exist in the bible first of all, only art. Secondly, the "virgin birth" you speak of, comes from (correct me if I'm wrong) the Denkard which is a 10th century AD text. Also, while these girls may be virgins, they're still getting Zoroaster's sperm that's been sitting in that lake for the last couple years. That's a little different. Either way, it doesn't matter due to the enormous discrepincies in dates. 69.254.76.77 (talk) 05:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I have so many articles on my Zoroastrian to-do list, but I'll get back to this one hopefully sooner than later. Khirad^talk

Pronunciation

How is one supposed to pronounce the word "Saoshyant"? I have heard it spelt as "Sow-she-ann" before, but I would rather hear it from a specialist in Zoroaster culture than some layman over the Web.

IMHO, it's more likely /sao'ʃjant/ rather than "[soːʃjʌnt]" currently supposed in the article (it's not an English world, but some kind of old-Iranian one). --Djadjko (talk) 22:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I am aware of its origin and I'm a linguist, which is why I put in the pronunciation in the first place. Avestan has a highly peculiar spelling and the romanisation is worse. Ogress _smash! 01:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, then it should be clarified, whether it's an English pronunciation or an Avestan one; from my (amateur linguist) point, it was just doubtful that "-ao-" letter combination produces [o:] sound in a non-English word. --Djadjko (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

It's IPA and a non-English word, what exactly do you want me to explain? Ogress _smash! 22:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Does the suggested IPA transcription ("[soːʃjʌnt]") stand for English pronunciation or for Avestan one? (Compare: "Paris" article, the beginning). --Djadjko (talk) 22:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

How would the IPA pronunciation for an Avestan word be the "English pronunciation"? Comparing "Paris" is irrelevant because French was the language of importance to English speakers from about 1066 to about 1800. It's apples and oranges. This is an exceedingly specialised Avestan and Zoroastrian term, how would there be an English pronunciation for it? Ogress _smash! 00:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

On the English term pronunciation: I'm not sure, but it could be some sort of a scientific professional jargon or adaptation for English speakers to make the pronunciation easier. OK, it would be better for me to put any foreign-loaned scientific term as an example, instead of Paris :) Well, so you claim "[soːʃjʌnt]" is an IPA transcription for the pronunciation of an Avestan word "Saoš́iiaṇt̰". Can you then please provide the source for that Avestan spelling and that IPA transcription? (For me, the IPA transcription looks a bit doubtful, especially "[oː]" corresponding to "-ao-" in the provided modified-Latin transliteration of an Avestan word). --Djadjko (talk) 02:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

There is an entire wikipedia page about Avestan phonology. Given they suggest a slightly different timbre, I have made that adjustment, not that it will help you in any way since you keep asking about high-level details of a subject you apparently know nothing about. Ogress _smash! 08:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, OK, let it be. But it's better to make references to reliable sources in such highly special, non-obvious (as for an amateur linguist) cases. Wikipedia is not for original researches; feel free to cite any relevant publications (including yours, if any). I'm going to add {{Citation needed}}. Thanks. --Djadjko (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Ushídar-Máh and Shah Bahram Varjavand

According to the Bahá'í writings the Báb is identified with Ushídar-Máh and Bahá'u'lláh with Shah Bahram Varjavand. Those pages did not exist, and I have created them today, redirecting them to Saoshyant. Is this redirect correct or not? If not, what should it be? If correct, could these names be added on this page as well? Wiki-uk (talk) 13:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Neither is the Saoshyant.

• Varjavand is a Kayanian king briefly mentioned the apocalyptic Zand-i Vahuman Yasn (compare Peshotan). Also, (and besides the fact that one should avoid honorifics in WP article titles, Kayanians are not called 'Shah's, but 'Kavi's or 'Kay's), that form of the name is the Bahá'í form, and is not typical to indigenous Iranian literature, where his name is not 'Bahram Varjavand' but 'Varjavand', whose stock epithet is "the victorious", i.e. Bahram. Also, Varjavand is a hero figure and not a savior figure, and anyway the prophecies of the Zand-i Vahuman Yasn haven't been fulfilled (they would have taken place in 1575-1576). :-)
• 'Ushidar[-]mah' (or 'Aushedar[-]mah' or 'Hushedarmah' as briefly mentioned in this article) is the second of the three saviour figures that are born "of the seed of Zoroaster" (the first is Ushidar/Aushedar, the third is the Saoshyant). Besides, no one will ever find an article whose title is written with the Bahá'í-typical diacritical marks.

Second, (and assuming the titles were fixed) they would redirect to Zoroastrian eschatology, or better yet, make the reference in the Báb/Bahá'u'lláh more encyclopedic and describe the implication in place (i.e. don't leave the reader to go off to some other article). So, for example, in the Bahá'u'lláh article, one would say [Bahá'u'lláh claimed to be ...] the immortal Varjavand, a hero figure of [[Zoroastrian eschatology]];... Of course, the self-identification as a pre-defined saviour figure is the standard way to start a new religion, and naturally always heretical to an established religion, so if don't want to find such critique being attached to Bahá'u'lláh/Báb I wouldn't recommend transporting such claims into non-Bahá'í articles. -- Fullstop (talk) 17:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have changed the redirects to Zoroastrian eschatology Wiki-uk (talk) 12:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

3k or 6k years

"Zoroastrian tradition envisions three future saviours, one for the end of each 1,000-year period that comprise the last 3,000 years of the world."

My research into Zoroastrianism shows that they believe world history is 6K years long and divided into 3 2k periods. Maybe a source can be provided for this 3k years claim to clear things up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.54.137 (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)