From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Veda-Avesta comparison[edit]

This section sounds like one person's theory; especially the footnote saying that Antequil-Duperron deliberately omitted all material bearing a resemblance to Hinduism, that the Avesta is the missing part of the Vedas and that Iranian and Zoroastrian topics are referred to in the Vedas. It certainly bears no resemblance to anything I have read in normal scholarship about Zoroastrianism.

If it is not substantiated within a reasonable time, I shall remove it. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Now done. The only link given was to one man's conspiracy blog, about how Zoroaster came from India, Western scholarship of Zoroastrianism was founded by an agent of the "French Jew Rothschild", HIV does not cause AIDS etc etc. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 15:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, even this version of events seems to be doubtful opinion[edit]

I arrived here having read a rather different version of events elsewhere. In this, a history beginning around 600 BCE, a rather different Avesta was first compiled by Zoroaster. However that version and anything related to it (including priests who could have memorized it) were destroyed by Alexander when he conquered the region around 300 BCE.

Now that version of events does have something of the ring of indignation and color that might be taken with a degree of caution. But the dismissal here of all such ideas as "legend and myth" seems equally improbable without a substantiated case.

Of the two heaps of what appear to be rubbish, so far I lean to the first.

-- (talk) 22:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)