Discuter:Açoura
Un article de Wikipédia, l'encyclopédie libre.
 |
Açoura fait partie du projet Monde indien et entre dans le cadre du projet Wikipédia 1.0 qui a pour but d'évaluer les différents articles. Si vous voulez participer, vous pouvez évaluer l'article Açoura en vous référant au mode d'emploi. Pour toutes questions ou remarques vous êtes invités à visiter notre page de discussion. |
| À évaluer | Cet article a été classé comme d'Avancement ? selon le Tableau d'évaluation du projet. (Voir les statistiques) |
| À évaluer | Cet article a été classé comme d'Importance ? selon le Tableau d'évaluation du projet. (Contester?) |
[modifier] Apropos "opposé"
Apropos...
- ... sont des esprits démoniaques opposés aux deva
- ... les dénominations ahura et deva dans le zoroastrisme mais les significations sont inversées
...
- ... the demonization of the asuras in India and the demonization of the daevas in Iran both took place "so late that the associated terms cannot be considered a feature of Indo-Iranian religious dialectology."[2] The view - popularized by Nyberg,[6] Duchesne-Guillemin[7] and Widengren[8] of a prehistorical opposition of *asura/daiva involves "interminable and entirely conjectural discussions" on the status of various Indo-Iranian entities that in one culture are asuras/ahuras and in the other are devas/daevas.
- ... The notion of an "inverted morality" and the supposition that a dichotomy between ahuras/asuras and daevas/devas already existed in Indo-Iranian times is not supportable from either the Iranian or Indian perspective. Not only is such a dichotomy not evident in the earliest texts of either culture, neither the RigVeda's asuras nor the Gathas' daevas are demons. ... [in Zoroastrianism, ahura] applies to a very specific set of divinities, only three in number (Mazda, Mithra and Apam Napat). For another, there is no direct opposition between the ahuras and the daevas: The fundamental opposition in Zoroastrianism is not between groups of divinities, but between asha "Truth" and druj "Lie/Falsehood." The opposition between the ahuras and daevas is an expression of that opposition: the ahuras, like all the other yazatas, are defenders of asha; the daevas on the other hand are in the earliest texts divinities that are to be rejected because they are misled by "the Lie".
- ... The idea of a prehistorical opposition between the *asurás/*devás, originally presented in the 19th century but popularized in the mid-20th century had for some time already been largely rejected by Avesta scholars when a landmark publication (Hale, 1986) attracted considerable attention among Vedic scholars. Hale discussed, "as no one before him" (so Insler's review), the attestations of ásura and its derivatives in chronological order of the Vedic texts, leading to new insights into how the asuras came to be the demons that they are today and why the venerated Varuna, Mithra, Indra, Rudra, Agni, Aryaman, Pusan and Parjanya are all asuras without being demonic. Although Hale's work has raised further questions - such as how the later poets could have overlooked that the RigVeda's asuras are all exalted gods - the theory of a prehistoric opposition is today conclusively rejected.
Following Hale's discoveries, Thieme's earlier proposal[4] of a single Indo-Iranian *Asura began to gain widespread support. In general (particulars may vary), the idea runs as follows: Indo-Iranian *Asura developed into Varuna in India and into Ahura Mazda in Iran. Those divinities closest related to that "asura [who] rules over the gods" (AV 1.10.1, cf. RV II.27.10) inherit the epithet, for instance, Rudra as devam asuram (V 42.11).
