Talk:Zoroaster

Template:WP1.0

Place

This article appears to be written by someone very familiar with Iran and surrounding regions. Can anyone help out by adding in more modern references (modern day Tehran for example) or a map?Friedonc (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, Zoraster was born and died in Balk, present-day Afghanistan. Can someone please find the citations to add this?

Philosophy

The section could be filled out a bit - I'm still confused about what the philosophy is. Perhaps a link to another page? Also, the poet, is that Zoroaster? Friedonc (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Origins of Philosophy

I used the exact format and language as Oxford, since they are qualified and the experts on the field. By using the same format and language as Oxford, then it is no longer assertion related to history, and the citation is exact and proper. Oxford is more of an authority than any person here involved in these discussion. The Oxford dictionary on page 409 states the following: The title of the page is Chronology. “In this chronology broadly ’philosophical’ events mentioned in the body of the dictionary are in the second column.” It dates the events in this order; “1500 BC Beginning of the Vedic period in India.”

“630 BC    Zoroaster.” 

The readers should know that this is the exact format and language used by Oxford Universityon page 409. (Dvakili (talk) 05:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)).

I removed the opening paragraph on the philosophy section for several reasons.

• The section is about Zoroasterian philosophy and the opening paragraph is an assertion related to history
• The quotation from the Dictionary of Philosophy is misleading. That states that Zoroasterianism was an event in the history of philosophy (and one earlier one is given so not the first) which does not support the statement that Zoroaster was the first philosopher
• The paragraph is badly phrased and reads as an assertive statement. It may be appropriate to have a phrase at the end (not the start) which states that Zoroaster was one of the key events in the pre-history of philosophy, with a proper citation (rather than a page reference in the text).

Opinions? I have not reverted the rever to avoid an edit war. --Snowded (talk) 00:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Do not reverse material before discussion or you will be banned from editing. You do not own wikipedia. (Dvakili (talk) 00:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC))

Please, I made a change to this page which you reversed, I then moved the discussion to the talk page. That is correct Wiki behaviour. I have been editing for sometime without a warning, you have a months history and one ban already. Please answer the points above. In the meantime I am working on a factual comment that can replace the comment. --Snowded (talk) 01:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Snowded. I don't even see the point of Dvakili's addition. Was it to say that Zoroaster was the first philosopher? That's an absurd and unverifiable claim, even if Oxford makes it (which it doesn't). If anything, the quoted passage implies that Vedic Indians were the first philosphers. Instead of a direct quotation from the dictionary, Dvakili could have simply written "Zoroaster's ministry is the second-earliest event mentioned in the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy's chronology of philosophy." That statement is true and uncontroversial, while still revealing Zoroaster's immense significance in the history of philosophy. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 19:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Recently added

According to Oxford dictionary of philosophy (page 409),the chronology of the subject and science of philosophy originated amongst the Indo-Iranians, by the name of Mazad-Yasna, meaning worship of wisdom. Oxford University dates this event to 3500 years ago. The first philosopher in the chronology of philosophy is Zarathushtra. According to Oxford dictionary of philosophy (page 405) Zarathushtra's philosophy entered to influence western tradition through Judaism, and therefore on Middle Platonism.

The material which was removed [1] does not fit in the section it was added to. Perhaps it be belongs in the section Zoroaster#Western perceptions, though not as written. --NewbyG (talk) 03:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Concur with Newbyguesses. Also to Davakili, you are inserting unsigned comments out of sequence. Please learn to edit by using the sandpit --Snowded (talk) 19:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we are over indulging an editor who insists on inserting more or less the same text here and in the Philosophy article while refusing to discuss matters on the talk page. All we get is assertion rather than engagement. I have further modified the recent generous edit of his/her original material to something which can be sustained by the sources and kept it at the end of the section rather than the start. Davakili, you have to learn to discuss things here. If you insert the text again I will report your behaviour as vandalism and request an admin to get involved. For the moment I have placed a warning on your talk page. --Snowded (talk) 19:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not think correcting and replacing opinions with facts and quotes is vandalism. However, if facts and quotes are replaced or hidden intentionally to serve an agenda, then vandalism has been committed, and that is what you have done with you authoritarian behavior. You do not own wikipedia to dictate the content, when the content is a fact or a quote from a reputable source accepted in academic society. Consensus is facts, academic sources such as Oxford does represent facts. Remember, I am only quoting Oxford, so, your whole argument is that Oxford is wrong. This is what you have failed to prove. Prove that Oxford is wrong in its claims. I stated once before, and I will state this again, we need to get the administer involved.(Dvakili (talk) 23:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC))

I formatted your edit again. If you bother to look at the edit I made it uses the Blackburn quote correctly so please do not say that it is being rejected or make the absurd suggestion that I am saying that Oxford is wrong. Oxford is only one source by the way as has been pointed out to you before. You also need to note the way that citations are done in Wikipedia (note my recent edit). You do not say something like "One page xxx of ...." , you make a supportable statement and then use . Please feel free to raise this on the administrators page if you want.

Oxford does represent facts. Remember, I am only quoting Oxford, so, your whole argument is that Oxford is wrong. This is what you have failed to prove. Prove that Oxford is wrong in its claims.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvakili (talk • contribs) 01:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This argument is becoming absurd.

Dvakili, Snowded's wording does not contradict Oxford. Snowded reworded your insertion because he felt (as I do) that it was awkwardly phrased.

I admit, I have no problem with something like the following: "The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy lists Zoroaster's ministry (630 BC) as the second event on its chronology of major events in the history of philosophy, following the beginning of the Vedic period in India (1500 BC)." That's completely accurate; it's more precise than what Snowded wrote; and it hopefully avoids making the (unsupportable) claim that Zoroaster was the world's second philosopher.

However, I like Snowded's wording much better than yours. In fact, without proper context, it's unclear what your insertion is supposed to mean. If you just say that Oxford has a list of philosophical events containing Vedic India and then Zoroaster, what does that mean? Is it supposed to mean that Zoroaster is the second-oldest philosopher after the Vedic sages? That's an unsupportable assertion. Scholars have no way of determining how many philosophers have existed throughout history. Is it supposed to mean that Zoroaster was a philosopher? That's at least iffy: Zoroaster was much more an Isaiah than a Descartes. As far as I can tell, you wanted to add the quote from Oxford in order to say that scholars recognize Zoroaster as a major figure in the development of philosophy -- and that's exactly what Snowded's wording says.

If I've misinterpreted your intention, then please explain what point you're trying to get across by adding that quote, and we can reword the article accordingly. Remember, we ideally want to write a concise paraphrase of what a source is saying, not simply insert an out-of-context quote from that source. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 02:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Good summary. I am more than open to rewording, but it should be agreed on this page given the history! --Snowded (talk) 02:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

The word Zaraθuštra consists from two parts zaraθ 'gold' (Latvian: zelts, Curonian *zal(a)tan, Russian: zoloto) and uštra 'sunrise' (Latvian: austra, ausma 'sunrise, dawn', austrumi 'East'). So Zaraθuštra means 'The golden sunrise'. Roberts7 19:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Citation? The widely-understood cites all agree that it is means "Having Many Yellow Camels" (literally "Yellow/Gold Camel"). ناهد^𒀭(^dAnāhita) ^𒅴 02:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this section needs to be re-wording. This is an interesting article, but this lengthy discussion at the very beginning may turn off readers. If no one objects, I'll put the likely meanings of the name first, dicussion after. Friedonc (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I wrote that section (and pretty much everything else besides), and I think you are absolutely right. Only,... the whole section can be summarized in one sentence, and in an ideal world the rest of it would be elsewhere (e.g. in a separate "Name of Zoroaster" article). Unfortunately WP is not an ideal place, and there are too many folk etymologies floating around (see Robert7's above). And so its becomes necessary to turn up the volume on the academobabble.

Ditto 'place', which the EIr quite adequately summarizes already.

Ditto 'date', which too has been summarized by the EIr. already. But remarkably enough that has recently vanished from the article, which now doesn't even mention the 1000 BCE date anymore (even though that has been more-or-less settled for almost 30 years now). Most peculiar. Explains the new bump in the carpet, like the one that caused "Eastern Iran" to spontaneously wander 1000 miles westwards 10 days ago.

As for the philosophy section being too terse... Well, yes, thats one of the dangers of wielding occams's razor. Would you like me to explain it to you? (elsewhere, irc maybe?)

-- Fullstop (talk) 00:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm just suggesting a summary of the first, explanation second (isn't this the way newspaper articles are written?), the wording is fine. Am I off base there? As to the the 'philosophy section too terse' is this aimed in my direction? I am not familiar with the concepts at all - I suppose I'd make a good target reader - but by the end, I'm still not sure what the philosophy is. Perhaps I'm thick, but if I don't 'get it' I'm guessing the article needs a little more detail or a link to another page about the religion, not the 'founder.' Perhaps you are too familiar with the topic? I can jump all over the place when discussing some of my areas of interest. Friedonc (talk) 01:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Birthdate & historicity of Spitama Zarathushtra

According to tradition, & Greek sources, Zarathushtra was born to the family of Haetat-aspa ( his great grand father) of the Spitaman section of the priestly Athrawan tribe around 7100BC in the town of Rae (Raya), along the banks of the river Veh-daiti, (one of the 6 tributaries of the now dried River Harah-vaiti/Vedic: Saras-wati) north east of Drangiana ( Zarangiana) , a mountainous territory around Lake Hamun and the Helmand river in Seistan (Iran-Afghanistan). In the Vendidad, Raya is listed between the Helmand river and Caxra (assumed to be modern Carx near Ghazna in southeast Afghanistan) and is therefore different from Median Raga and modern Ray. This river Harah-vaiti, prominently mentioned in the Gathas as that purifying celestial river of Prosperity that leads one to self realization, was said to flow from the mountains to the Ocean. A large number of vedic hymns are similarly dedicated to this divine river Saraswati.

In the Avesta, the Khordad Yasht is dedicated to it. (The Vedic “Saa” becomes “Kh” or “Khw” in Avesta)

Zarathushtra is traditionally referred to as one who had achieved “perfection”; the “perfect man” : the Naro-ish Nara & his birthday is thus called Khordad Saal.

This mountaineous land known as Harah-vaiti in Avestic times is listed in the Vendidad as one of the 16 aryan lands. The fertile plains bordering this divine river are mentioned in the Vendidad as the 15th land (out of 16) called Hapta Hendu (Vedic Sapta Sindhu) & located in the modern undivided Punjab. According to Avestan geography the region of the Haêtumant River extends in a southwest direction from the point of confluence of the Arghandâb with the Helmand. (Gnoli, 1980, p. 66) ARACHOSIA, province (satrapy) in the eastern part of the Achaemenid empire around modern Kandahar (southern Afghanistan), which was inhabited by the Iran Arachosians or Arachoti. The Old Persian form of its name is Harauvatis (h-r-u-v-t-i); this form is the etymological equivalent of Vedic Sarasvati - (fem., name of a river, properly "rich in waters/lakes" and derived from saras- "lake, pond"); thus the province is named after its main river, the modern Argandab (in Greek called Arachotos), a tributary of the Helmand. The same region appears in the Avestan Videvdat (Vendidad 1.12) under the indigenous dialect from Haraxv aiti - (whose -axv a- is typical non-Avestan); of these two forms Old Pers. Harauvatis (remodeled nom. -is) is rendered by Elamite Ha(r)-ra-u-ma-ti-is, Ha(r)-ru-ma-ti-is, etc., and "Arachotic" (and Median) *Haraxvati- by Aramaic hrhwty (cf. R.A. Bowman, Aramaic Ritual Texts from Persepolis, Chicago, 1970, p.192b); Elamite Har-ku-(ut-)ti-is (Dsf 39, Xph 16 and Persepolis tablets; see R.T. Hallock, Persepolis Fortification Tablets, Chicago, 1969, p.691a); Greek Arachosia; and, reflecting a form with metathesis, *Harauxati, Babylonian KURa-ru-ha-at-ti(-'), a-ru-hat0 , and Aramaic hrwhty (DB) respectively. (See M. Mayrhofer, Onomastica Persepolitana, Vienna, 1973, p.32; K. Hoffmann, Aufsatze zur Indoiranistik II, Wiesbaden, 1976, p.641 with n.38; R. Schmitt in Sprachwissenschaft 9, 1984, pp.205f.). (Encyclopedia Iranica, Volume II, 1987, Routledge & Kegan Paul. ISBN 0 7100 91109

Spencer gives details from Malcom's "History of Ancient Persia" and states that for 2598 years some four dynasties ruled over Persia from Yama Vivanghao (Yama Vaivaswat in Sanskrit) in whose time the Deluge commenced (end of the ice age), i.e., in 9844 B.C. The rule of these four dynasties ended therefore in approximately 7200 B.C. By this time, Kai Vishtaspa became ruler of Persia. Sage Kaksivan (RV 1-122-13) speaks of one Istasva who is identified with Vishtaspa by E.S.Bharucha (quoted by Hodivala). This king is supposed to have ruled for 120 years, and so his period can be fixed in the vicinity of 7100B.C. Zarathustra was a contemporary of King Vishtaspa, and therefore his date can be worked out to be around 7100BC . On the basis of astronomy, Spencer determines Zarathustra's date to be around 7052 B.C., coinciding with the dates determined above. Traditionally, Zarathushtra has been considered a master mathematician & astronomer. He is said to have calculated the rare coincidence of sunrise in Sistan (Afghanistan)with its longitudinal equinox in 7037BC & called it Nav-roz, or new year.

The Varsagira battle (referred to in hymn I.100 of the Rig Veda) is identified by many Zarathushti scholars as a civil war between the Iranians and Indian (Bharatas) sections of the Indo-Iranian tribes, at the time of Zarathushtra. The hymn (in I.100.17) names five persons as being the main protagonists in the battle: In the Rigveda, Istasva (Vistaspa) is mentioned in verse I.122.13, roughly translated by Sayana as follows: “What can Istava, Istarasmi, or any other princes do against those who enjoy the protection of Mitra and Varuna. Note the reverence to the common divinities. a. The leader of the Varsagiras is Rjrasva. He is identified by most scholars with the Arej-ataspa or Arj-aspa the Turanian, who is referred to in the Avesta as the main enemy of Vistapa and his brothers (Aban Yasht.5.109, 113; and Gosh Yasht, .9.30). Later Iranian tradition (as in the Shahname) goes so far as to hold Zarathustra himself to have been killed by Arjaspa. b. Sahadeva is one of the four companions of Rjrasva in the battle. He is correctly identified by S.K. Hodiwala , with the Hushdiv remembered in the Shahname (Chapter 462) as one of the main enemies of Vistaspa in the battle, who led Arjaspa’s troops from the rear. Although not mentioned in the Avesta, Hushdiv is a natural development of Hazadaeva, which would be the exact Avestan equivalent of the Vedic name Sahadeva. c. The other three companions of Rjrasva in the battle are AmbarIsa, Bhayamana and Suradhas. In the “Cama Memorial Volume, E.” Sheheriarji quotes RV I.100.17 to identify the other persons mentioned in the said Rigvedic verse by showing that the names of certain persons known to be connected with Arjaspa in the Avesta bear the same meanings as the names of the persons in the said verse. Thus he says that AmbarIsa is identical with Bidarfsha (= Av. Vidarafshnik) brother of ArjAspa, since both the names mean ‘one with beautiful garments’. Similarly, Bhayamana = Vandaremaini, father of Arjaspa, both meaning ‘the fearless one’; also Suradhas = Humayaka, brother of Arjaspa, as both the words mean ‘one with much wealth’

Hodiwala correctly identifies Humayaka, Arjaspa’s comrade in the Avesta (Aban Yasht, Yt.5.113) with Somaka, the son of Sahadeva (IV.15.7-10). There is a strong likelihood that the Suradhas of I.100.17 is the same as the Somaka of IV.15.7-10. This War also appears to have set the Avestics living in the Sapta-Sindhu homeland towards the North, and West directions . This date is in wonderful agreement with Greek sources about the times of Zarathushtra.

The main priestly enemies of the Zarathushtra & his followers are the Angras (Vedic Angirases) who are condemned throughout the Avesta right down from the Gathas of Zarathushtra. The Angarisas are that section of the Atharwaan tribe that split from the Ahura tradition & took up worship of multiple Devas (Deified Man, elevated to Godly heights). They were the composers of the early portions of the Rig Veda. The Gathas & Avesta refer to the Angirases (from which the term Angra mainyu- the evil mentality is derived), as enemy priests & their two branches, the Usiks (Vedic Usijs/Ausijas) mentioned in Ys 44.20 and Gaotemas (Gautamas), both of whom originated in and dominated the early Period of the Rig Veda compositions. The Angarisas are mentioned by Zarathushtra himself in the Gathas ( Ys48.10 ) & designated as karapan (a derogatory word used in reference to enemy priests who are extremely ritual oriented to the extent of being blind & deaf to righteous intelligent reasoning) & in whose hymns alone we find references to the conflict of the Vedics with the Zarathushtis.

The original Atharwaan priestly tribe had by Zarathushtras’ time split into two sections, the Angirasas, who worshipped Devas & the Brighus (Spitamaas of the Avesta), who worshiped Asuras . One may note that Brighu means blazing white flame & Spitamas means brilliantly bright. We see the Vedics & the Persians use such linguistically interchangeable terms to describe each other throughout. The Brighus had a calender based on the orbit of Venus (Shukra) & the angirasas had one based on Jupiter (Brihas-pati) reflecting their alliance to the specific philosopher.

The Puranas allude to a cosmic war between the Devas, led by Brihaspati of the Angirasa line of seers & the Asuras (Ahuras), led by Shukra (our Kava Ushana) of the Brighu line of seers. As such the Asura-Daeva split was already in place by Zarathushtras’ time.

It should however be noted that Zarathushtra refers to evil “Daevas”, as "Mashya" or mortals, meaning egotistic mortals who have taken the mantle of "God-hood". It refer to un-desirable/degenerate aspects of behaviour, akin to Vedic “Divs”; which is the destructive aspect of Hindu Gods. It has been wrongly assumed for some time that the daevas of the Mazdayasna are the same as the Vedic devas and therefore Zarathushtra inverted the deva-asura dichotomy of the Vedic period. In reality, the situation is much more complex with the Vedic Gods changing their attributes over time. We thus find that the Vedic (middle & later) and the Zarathushtrian systems are much less diverse than is generally assumed. This is borne out in Kashmiri (Pandit) scriptures that considers Divs (Daeva) as evil & opposed to the Devas who are Gods.

On the other hand, nothing can exemplify the hostility faced by Zarathushtra from the Asuras than the fact his chief enemy from infancy, childhood to adulthood was an evil magician, Dur-asuran.

On the other hand the Vedas refer to their enemies , the asuras, as militant, unethical & prone to violence, the almost clinical definition of middle eastern Ashuras, who represent the Priest-Warrior caste split amongst Indo-Iranian times in an earlier time frame.

However the main enemy is defined as the Druj; or the Vedic Druh/Drugh/Dhroga , a word/term derived from the root “Dru” meaning to deceive & identifying the inimical tribe Druhyus . Reference to them occurs throughout the Gathas & Rigveda in the sense of “demonic deceiver”

From the Vandidad portion of the Kem-na Maz-da Prayer:

“ Apa-nasyat Druksh, nasyat druksh, dvarat druksh vinasyat, apaakhedhre apa-nasyehe, maa merin-chainish gaethaao, astavaitish ashaahe.”

May the liar, the demonic deceiver, perish, rendering the righteous material world free from its depravations.

It is therefore clear that Zarathushtra arose at this time of multipolar spiritual confusion, to raise the ancient faith out of its failings.

The Ground level situation faced by Zarathushtra can be summed up as follows: During the Indo_Iranian Era the religious doctrine referred to a Single Creator who was both Creator & Destroyer. This exclusive CREATOR was called Ahu-ra (Vedic Asu-ra) or Life Force, & exemplified by the vedics as Shiva/Rudra. Starting from an initial expansion to his spouse (Parvati) & his Son (Ganesh); over a period of time, the term Asura became plural & a galaxy of Asuras take stage, each with his/her own independent existence. This expansion of God-hood ended up encompasing negative entities such as Bhairava, (the wrathfull destroyer), Mahakala, (wrath, druj, adorned with snakes & bones) Kuvera, (4 armed, God of wealth) , Asura-maya (the builder of illusions), Rahu-Ketu (Maleficent last 2 planets of the solar system, or astrologically, the 2 extreme positions of the moon’s orbit), Vasuki and Vritra (Serpents-Gods). This philosophy, exemplified by the Priest-Warrior caste split, spread as far as the middle east where it was called Ashura the warrior God. As the concept of a single exclusive Creator was usurped by a host os Asuras; over time, a class of "Gods" , namely the Devas, the shining, visible, Mortal ones (originally temporal lords, literally lord of the land, a philosopher-king, in the kavya mold, who was Deified ); came about as theological rivals. Devas were originally mortal & “Mashya” (mortal) in the Gathas, Avesta & the Vedas. Thus Kings of the land, based on their material wealth & power appointed themselves God. We see this in the Pharoes of Egypt. Daevas included Indra,(mainly) and others. Indra,was a warrior based entity whose attributes were expanded from the original Aryan hero Vrita. Over time (the Vedas being composed over 6000 years) Previous “asuras” were re-incorporated as devas, over different periods of time, as in Varuna, Shiva, Savitr (our Khwtr), Agni,(our Atar-sh), Soma (our Hoama) , Mithra & Saraswati (our Ha-urva-tat). Society ended up getting classified as Ahuras (those who follow Ahura) & Devas (those who follow Devas).

  These were times when belief in multiple Gods was the norm. When each God was feared for his/her wrath, jealousy; & obedience was demanded in  ways so demeaning that man was reduced to a thoughtless entity, a plaything for the perverse games of the Gods. 

In effect therefore, Zarathushtra challenged the existing definition of Asuras as numerous demi-gods under one supreme, & placed Ahura-Mazda, the Loving, compassionate, lord of intellect & wisdom, as the supreme creator. We are ofcourse believers in Ahura, the single, self created Life force as opposed to numerous Daevas who are mortals (Mashya) elevated to Godhood & having an independent existence. While Ahura Mazda is fashioned along the lines of Rudra/Shiva, being all powerful, self created, there is a vital distinction. Whereas Asura’s attributes is also that of destroyer, Ahura Mazda is the Loving, compassionate God who knows no wrath & whose strength is knowledge & enlightenment. Unlike Shiva who parades around with a Damroo (Drum) made of skulls, Zarathushtra carries a staff with a Gao-mukh (face of a cow) to represent the selfless mother earth (Gey-ush Urvaan). So while Shiva represents a dualist nature of both creator & destroyer, Ahura Mazda is the absolute creator & epitome of perfection (Ha-urva-tat) . Being a loving God, there is no provision for him to be destructive; as destruction is considered evil. Death itself is considered a temporary victory of evil over good. For Zarathushtra, the only source of destruction is poor, unintelligent, un-righteous choices made by man (Angra-Mainyu). He maintains the definition of Ahura as the formless, self created one, jettisons the independent multitude into one single entity. He also jettisons all negative entities such as Vrita (evil snakes), association with bones, destruction & wrath (Asura Bhairav, Mahakala) that have crept into the then existing philosophy. This pits him against his own tribe.

In Ys30.10 Zarathushtra mentions “Skenda” (identified in the hindu scriptures as the son of Shiva, & subject to various trials & tribulations during his lifetime), allegorically, as the self destructive fate of those willfully opposing Truth.

Work is worship (epitomized in the Yenghe Hatam mantra) therefore becomes the epitaph of the Daena, underlining the real reason for preference of worship, facing a living, breathing fire (Atar-sh) as opposed to an idol or image worship. An image although a good focal point of devotion, obscures the true aim of worship, namely the necessity of continuous, Intelligent (Wise), compassionate acts of Selfnessness; in a way mimicking the requirement to regularly & diligently feed the divine fire (Atar-sh).

Kashmiri theology has a three-way division consisting of devas, asuras, and daevas; wherein Deva or devata is a positive (sattwa) power related to knowledge & understanding; Asura (rajas), a power related to activity, & Daeva (tamas), a power related to blind acquisitiveness. Sometimes the term rakshasa (monster) is used interchangeably with daeva. The Rakshasa’s behavior was exemplified by a form of marriage (unfortunately still common in Islamic Iran) involving the violent seizure or rape of a girl after the defeat or destruction of her relatives