We will welcome all of you in the audience tonight, particularly those who travelled a long way to be here, Prof Alman Hinss, Friends, Colleagues and Family, husband, some William and Annice are here. Some William said to me at least it meant he did not have to do his physics homework. I would like to extend a special welcome to those guests in the Zoriastruing community, which has been very supportive to SIRS over the years. We have guests from all over the place tonight. Felly,wn hyn wedi cael ei weld yn ddim yn eu rhan o ganai gyda'r swedgyntiau sylwethaf. A'r swedgyntiau seilfyr i'r swedgyntiau seilfastau fel'r swedgyntiau. Mae'r cyrraed, mae'r rywbeth hynny, mae'r cyrraed ymddangos gerchelwyd yw rhan o'r cyfisiwn iawn, a mae'r gweithas i llegarol yn y cyrraed cymunityni'i. Felly, o wneud wrth yn gweithio fydd, yn gwneud wrth i'r cael ei wnaeth i'r cael ein ei bachydd ar y pryd. felly rydyn ni'n dwy'n amlwg ymddangos eu mobile. Rydyn ni'n dwych yn fwych ar gweithio'r odd. Rydyn ni'n dwy'n arwg ar gweithio'r mobile. Salladwch. Rydyn ni'n dweud yw'r rhai eich exid. Rydyn ni'n dweud yw rhai eich exid. Rydyn ni'n dwy'n dweud i gyd oes byddwch ar y lles arweithio, bod y lles arweithio arweithio'r lles arweithio'r lles arweithio'r lles arweithio. Mae'r lles yn y diogel i'n gweithio. Y cwbl y gweithio, 3 yw gweithio, fe wnaeth y byddwn i'n gweithio y Zoriastryn Cenedlau yn Rhain, ac rwy'n credu i bethau gan ddechrau. Rwy'n credu i'r cyfrifio gyda'r mewn ei bod yn rhan i'r cyfreithio. Rwy'n credu i ddim yn ei bod yn dweud y ffarnsion ar yr archaic ac yn ymgyrchwch gweithio ar gyfer Zoriastryn Y Llywodraeth a Lrydymaeth, ond Almych yn ei gynhwys ar gyfer amgylcheddau ac mae yna'r rhaid yn ystod i'r ystod yn oed yn dweud, I will understand more after this lecture. Professor Hintzer will be introduced by Professor John Hinnells, who is very well known to all at Sius. Professor Hinnells has held professorial appointments at the University of Manchester, Derby, Liverpool, Hope, but most importantly of all at Sius. He is a scholar of very great distinction. He has published very widely in the area of South Asian religion in particular Parsies and the Comparative Study of Religions more widely, and we're very grateful to you indeed, John, for coming here tonight. At the end, the vote of thanks will be given by Professor Maria Matsu, who you saw come on, of the Free University Berlin. She's Professor of Iranian Studies. She's been head of the Institute of Iranian Studies in Berlin since 1995. She's been editor of the series Iranica since 1993 and a main area of research focused on pre-Islamic Iran, especially Zoriastrian, Sasanian legal system. I hope I pronounced that correctly, and its impact on other legal cultures. We're also very grateful to you, as well, Maria, for turning up to this event. It should be wonderful. So, to introduce Professor Hintzer, I'm now going to pass over to Professor Hinnells. Over to you. It's a great joy to me to introduce Professor Almot Hintzer tonight. We have known each other for many years, and we first met in the early 1980s, and we've remained friends ever since. When I wrote a few years ago a reference for her promotion to a senior lectureship, I said I thought it would not be long before the school was considering her for a professorship. And I'm delighted that she now has that post and rightly deserves it. There could not be a better holder of the first Zortashti professorship in Zoriastrian studies. She has, as I shall outline in a moment, the highest academic qualifications. She has a deep love for the Zoriastrian community, and they for her. And it's a tribute to her that so many of the community are here tonight. She has had a distinguished career. She did her early graduate studies at Heidelberg before starting her postgraduate work at Waddon College, Oxford. She moved into Iranian and Zorastrian studies at Erlangen for her PhD on the important text, the Zamiad Yash. After that she did her habilitation in Berlin where she became an assistant professor. She has had visiting posts at the Institute for Advanced Studies at Princeton, and at Cambridge equivalent Claire Hall, a college exclusively concerned with research. She has been associated with Zorast now for 14 years, rising from a part-time lecturer to a full professor. She has held many distinguished awards, for example the Heisenberg Research Scholarship at the German National Research Association in Bonn, and a British Academy readership from 2004 to 2006. She is being recognised in many international-learned bodies, notably as Secretary of the Corpus in Scripteonum at Ironicarum, in which role she is following in the footsteps of Professor Mary Boyce. She has been elected president of the Societas Ironicarum for the Year 2011 to 2015. She has been trustee, secretary and treasurer of the learned body of the ancient India and Iran Trust in Cambridge. Her career achievements are based on a fine linguistic ability, and her profound grasp of Zorastrian doctrine and practice. She has authored 16 six scholarly books, edited three more and written 25 chapters in learned books, all of a very high scholarly standard. She has several scholarly articles and two books in hand at the moment, leading towards her introduction to Zoroastrianism at Cambridge University Press. A book I anticipate will become a standard work. I've read most of her publications and they're all characterised by rigor, originality, clarity of argument and clarity of structure. I'm sorry, two pages have got stuck together and they've been very stubborn and absolutely refusing to come apart. The excellence of her work and the reason why she was elected as secretary of the Corpus in Scriptionum is because of her brilliant linguistic skills and the fact that she's very fortunate to have a scholar of her caliber on the staff. Tonight's lecture is on the subject of great debate in the current world of Zoroastrian studies. There are at least three interrelated questions behind what she's talking about. First of all, did Zoroastr introduce a new religion or did he reform an old one? Secondly, to what extent should Zoroastr's teaching be interpreted in the light of the Indo-Iranian parallels as evidenced in the Vedas? Thirdly, did Zoroastr exist? Or is he simply a mythological figure created by later members of the religion? The first two questions are exemplified by the contrasting starting point of two relatively recent authors. Zana, in his 1961 book The Dawn and Twilight of Zoroastrism, started his account of Zoroastrism with Zoroasta and his vision. It did not consider it was necessary to introduce any account of the earlier Indo-Iranian religion because he thought Zoroastrism was a new religion drawn straight from Zoroasta's visions. In contrast, Mary Boyce, in her 1975 book The History of Zoroastrism Volume 1, had five chapters on the ancient Indo-Iranian tradition because she thought as a trained priest in the old tradition he would have been deeply influenced by that tradition and that he was immersed in it and his visions deployed much of the ancient material. So Zana saw what Zoroasta had done to introduce a dramatic change, a new religion, Boyce thought there was substantial continuity. She went on to argue there was continuity between Zoroasta and his followers, for example in the later Middle Persian books, but that's another question. For the third question tonight is an example of post-modern thought. Was there a human being Zoroasta who propounded his own personal and individual religious experience? Or is he a later community myth? These questions involve a detailed study of the literary style and structure of the Garthers by looking in particular at the figure of Horomaster and the Davos and their respective roles. Professor Hintzer addresses the first two questions and overall she looks back at the third question. She's therefore engaging through a detailed linguistic study with some vibrant debates that are taking place in modern Zoroastrian studies. Professor Hintzer, will you now please deliver your inaugural lecture? Change and continuity in the Zoroastrian tradition. Sorry, I'm just waiting for Professor Hintzer and the director to come through. I would like to dedicate this lecture to Mehraban Sartoshti and to the memory of his brother Faridun and to that of Professor of Mary Boyce. Lord Billy Moria, Professor Webley, colleagues and friends, ladies and gentlemen. The Zoroastrian's love for superlatives, the first, the oldest, the best, the smallest, is not least inspired by some basic facts relating to their religion. Going back as far as the second millennium BCE and rooted in Indo-Iranian prehistory, Zoroastrianism is one of the most ancient living traditions, although its community today is microscopically small, an estimated 130,000 adherents worldwide. Most of them live in India, particularly in Mumbai and Gujarat, where they became known as Parsees because they originally came from Persia. They had started to leave Iran for India in the 7th century of the Christian era after the last Zoroastrian empire, the Sasanian state had succumbed to Arab Muslim invaders. Between 10,000 to 30,000 Sartoshti are estimated to be living in Iran today with the rest in a global diaspora, especially in the English-speaking world, the oldest centre being here in London. Characteristic of the Zoroastrian religion are two towering figures, the god Ahura Mazda, usually translated as Lord Wisdom, and the man Zarathustra, to whom Ahura Mazda revealed the Mazda worshipping or Mazda-Yasnian religion. As the name suggests, the focus of this religion is the worship of Ahura Mazda. To this day, such worship typically takes the form of priestly and lay rituals in which the performance of precisely prescribed actions accompanies the recitation of texts composed in an ancient Iranian language called Avestan. The most important ritual and the core of all the other major priestly rituals is called worship or yasna. The text we cited during the yasna ceremony consists of 72 sections, which have at their centre 17 hymns, the gatas, and a liturgy in seven sections, the yasna haptanghaiti. Since the language of this composite centre is more archaic than that of the surrounding material, scholars distinguish it from the latter as the older Avesta. The younger Avesta is not only linguistically more recent, but it is also evidence of a more advanced state of the religion's development. It is comprised of invocations, hymns and purity laws composed at different periods of the oral tradition. These younger Avestan texts reach the petrified form in which they have come down to the present day, sometime between 1500 BC. The gatas and the yasna haptanghaiti must be older. Composed probably between 1500 and 1000 BCE, they constitute the oldest extant witness, not only of the Zoroastrian religion, but also of any Iranian language. Up to the present, no other texts of the Zoroastrian tradition are held as dearly as the gatas by both priests and laypeople. Even today, most Zoroastrians will know at least some stanzas by heart in the original Avestan language, as they recite them in their daily prayers. Moreover, the gatas and the yasna haptanghaiti served as sources for many of the younger Avestan liturgical compositions and are frequently quoted verbatim to give greater authority to the later younger Avestan texts. Connection between Zarathustra and the gatas emerges from the fact that he features in them as the major human character. Moreover, on two occasions, the speaker, the I, identifies himself by name as Zarathustra. Such a connection is reinforced in the younger Avesta, which mentions the five gatas of Zarathustra and represents him as reciting them while performing the yasna ritual. Thus, not only the gatas, but also the later tradition, links these hymns with the Zarathustra. Furthermore, the younger Avesta presents Zarathustra as the individual to whom Ahura Mazda communicated the Mazda worshipping religion, the Daina Mazda yasni, so that he could pass it on to the rest of humanity. The figure of Zarathustra, thus, connects the Mazda yasni and religion with the gatas, and the letter are perceived as the earliest extant sources of the religion as illustrated in the diagram, which you can see there. According to tradition, Zarathustra composed the gatas and brought the Mazda yasni and religion to humankind, thus marking the beginning of this religion. Those who have accepted it declare themselves as Mazda yasni and Zarathustrian, and that's where the name Zarathustra comes from. Such a perception of Zarathustra's role, which the texts present from an insider's point of view, has led external observers to regard Zoroastrianism as a prophetic religion which was started by Zarathustra. This model has been described as historical, and many scholars have accepted it as providing a likely scenario for how the prehistoric beginnings of the Zoroastrian tradition could be imagined. In recent decades, however, an alternative model which has been referred to as mythological has been gaining ground amongst scholars. According to this view, Zarathustra neither composed the gatas nor was a historical person. The Mazda worshipping religion thus has no known beginning at a certain point in time through the intervention of an individual. Instead, it is argued that it evolved organically over a long period out of the prehistoric Indo-Iranian religion. In this process, the gatas gradually cohered over time in the anonymous collective mentality of the priests and eventually crystallized and petrified into the composition which have come down to the present day, while at the same time being handed down from one priestly generation to the next in the oral tradition. The figure of Zarathustra, in turn, is seen as the product of priestly cosmological speculation according to which his arrival and that of the Mazda worshipping religion marks the midpoint of cosmic history. It emerges from the summary of the two models that what is at stake here is how we should imagine the genesis of this religion. Was there really ever a religious reformer, a prophet, a person as real as you and me, as the tradition would have us believe, a human being who claimed to have received a divine revelation and initiated a new religion, or is the figure of Zarathustra an invention of that tradition, a fiction projected back into the past and produced by anonymous priestly cosmological speculation? At first, I was tempted to adopt the current terminology and refer to the former model as historical and the latter as mythological. On reflection, however, such terminology seems to be inadequate because, in fact, myth plays a major part in both. Moreover, both models draw on the notion of history, the difference being that the former allocates historical reality to both Zarathustra and the tradition, while the latter does so only to the tradition represented by the priests, the so-called poet sacrifices. It therefore seems to me that the contrast between the two models in fact consists not in history versus myth, as widely claimed, but rather in the way the growth of the Zarathustra tradition is perceived. The second model operates with the assumption of a gradual but continuous development at the point where the first postulates a break in the tradition, a fundamental and, presumably, sudden change brought about by an individual. I therefore prefer to call the first model, perhaps somewhat pointedly, revolutionary and the second evolutionary. There are parallels to both in other religions. The first revolutionary model applies to those traditions which were started off by individuals. They include Judaism with Moses, Buddhism, Siddhartha Gautama, Christianity, Jesus of Nazareth and Islam, Mohammed. Examples of the second evolutionary model are harder to find, but they include Hinduism. Regardless of this difference, however, change and continuity play an important part in all religions and also in both models. The traditions just mentioned which were started off by individuals did not emerge out of nothing but are rooted in their respective historical ancestors. In some of the more recent instances such as Buddhism and Christianity, the historical ancestors are even documented and it is therefore possible to study the relationship between the older and the younger religions. In the case of Zoroastrianism, we are in the fortunate position of having the evidence of a sister belief system, the Vedic religion of ancient India. Thanks to this comparative evidence, we are able to identify features which the two traditions share in common and which are therefore likely to be archosans inherited from their common Indo-Iranian ancestor. We are thus able to know a little about the prehistoric world from which Zoroastrianism emerged. However, it is the innovations which serve, so to speak, as index fossils or isogloses for identifying features which are peculiar to Zoroastrianism. But the question remains, how did the innovations of Zoroastrianism come about? Did they evolve organically out of the Indo-Iranian ancestor or did an individual intervene? Or should we consider a combination of the two models and assume that some innovations already in process were accelerated by an individual? If you are now hoping that the ultimate answer will emerge from this lecture, I'm afraid I have to disappoint you. While the notions of myth and historical reality of fiction and truth are subject to extensive and ongoing theoretical debates, the nature and age of our source material, some of which takes us into central Asia of the second millennium BCE, simply do not allow us to be certain one way or the other. Some of you might be inclined to interpret such lack of proof as revealing a weakness of our discipline, but we will do better if we turn it into a virtue and regard it as an opportunity to apply certain transferable, sought-after skills in which students of the humanities are trained. Four, in the absence of even the possibility of verifying or refuting our results, we have to examine our sources like detectives looking for clues which might enable us to argue in favour of the probability and the plausibility of one theory over against the other. Most of recent scholarship on our problem has focused on arco-isms in the Zoroastrian tradition, that is to say on features which it shares with the Vedic religion and which Govel is the evolutionary model. However, in order to find out the more probable scenario on the account for the growth of Zoroastrianism, we need to look at the innovations. Four, it is not continuity but change which requires an explanation. In this talk, I propose to focus on one particular well-known innovation which is central and distinctive of the Zoroastrian tradition, the rejection and eventual demonisation of the old Indo-Iranian gods, the divers and the concomitant elevation of Ahura Mazda as the only god to be worshipped. Indo-Iranian prehistory, the word for god was diver. The noun characterises the gods as the heavenly ones and lives on as diva in the closely related Vedic and Hindu cultures and in many other Indo-European languages such as Latin deus and the adjective divilus from which we get the English divine. In all Indo-European languages, except Iranian, diver means god. But in the Zoroastrian tradition, diver has the opposite meaning. In the Gatas, it signifies a force or a fake god while in the younger of eston in addition a demon. The divers are a major concern in the Gatas. One of the 17 hymns, Yasna 32, is virtually entirely devoted to this theme. In the opening stanza, three constituents of ancient Iranian society, namely the family, the community and the entire Aryan tribe ask Ahura Mazda for his gift of bliss or happiness. In this request they are joined by a fourth group the gods of old, the diver. The family asks for his happiness, the community together with the Aryan tribe asks for his happiness. In my manner, the fake gods ask for his happiness for the happiness of the wise lord. We want to be your messengers in order to restrain those who are hostile to you. In the first which follows, Ahura Mazda speaks and responds to the requests. First, he addresses the family, community and Aryan tribe accepting their right-mindedness, our mighty. The wise lord, uniting himself with good thought and in the good company of sun-filled truth answered them according to his rule. We choose your life-giving good right-mindedness. She shall be ours. But in the next verse he rejects the fourth group, the divers.  Seed from deceit and neglect are moreover the repeated actions by which you are known in the seventh part of the earth. These lines are perhaps the strongest expression in the entire avesta of the outright rejection first of a whole set of deities, divers, second of those who worship them and third of the ritual practices by which such deities are worshipped. Thus the gods, their followers and the associated cultic and religious practices are here declared by Ahura Mazda to originate from bad thought. To ensure that the rejection is wholesale and complete the divers are comprehensively referred to as Diva Respaung Ho, all the divers. It has long been recognized that the expression corresponds also in an inverted word order to the Vedic Vishwe Deva, all the gods, in the tradition of ancient India which shares a common heritage with the Iranian people. For example, in Rig Vida 652.7 all gods come here, listen to my call, sit down at the sacrificial straw here. In the Gothic hymn by contrast not only the old word for God, Diva has a negative meaning but the gods of old are declared to originate from bad thought. Thus in contrast to the prehistoric Indo-Iranian religion where the divers are the gods in the earliest sources the Zoroastrian religion, the Gatas the divers are products of evil of bad thought. They are thus subordinate and secondary to that destructive force. The downgrading of the gods of earlier generations and their subordination to another force forms part of a system in which everything that exists is aligned either with a camp of good or with that of evil. These two distinct groups are mutually exclusive and diametrically opposed to one another. At the apex of the good camp is the god Ahura Mazda by birth as the god has put it out of himself he brings out of himself spiritual qualities such as creative force spent a mine new truth, Russia, good thought Wahu Manach and right mindedness, Armaiti. In a second state of creation he makes the material world out of such spiritual qualities. Both the spiritual and the material worlds thus ultimately originate from Ahura Mazda and are therefore perfect and holy good. His material creation is called the world of truth, Asha and anyone who supports it is Asha one, truthful. Moreover, everything and everyone belonging to Ahura Mazda's world is worthy of worship, Yazata. This includes pre-Zoroastrian deities such as Mithra, Anahita and Hauma who have now been incorporated into the good camp. None of the Yazatas is a culti competitor of Ahura Mazda. Rather, the opposite is the case. The cult of any Yazata supports and strengthens Ahura Mazda. Furthermore, not only is the cult of a Yazata legitimate but Ahura Mazda demands that each of them be worshipped. For example, at the beginning of the hymn to Mithra of God Contract Ahura Mazda enjoins his cult. Ahura Mazda said to Spitha Hazarasustra When I set forth Mithra of white cattle pastures of Spitha, then I made him as much worthy of worship as much worthy of praise as myself, Ahura Mazda. The Indo-Iranian deity Mithra is aligned with a good camp and his worship legitimised by and subordinated to Ahura Mazda. Just as the divers originate from and is subordinated to bad thought so Mithra and any other Yazata originates from and is subordinated to the greatest and best of all of them, Ahura Mazda. The Yazata system thus enables the religion to absorb both old and new deities and perpetuate their cultic worship without threatening the supremacy of Ahura Mazda. Indeed, the more Yazatas there are, the better as they all strengthen Ahura Mazda and simultaneously weaken the evil camp. The genesis and structure of the evil camp is formulated in parallel but negative terms. At its apex is the destructive force Angra Mainu. From a systematic point of view however Angra Mainu constitutes the negation not of Ahura Mazda himself and does not have a negative counterpart but of his creative force Spenta Mainu. Angra Mainu produces out of himself bad qualities such as deceit bad thought and arrogance terror mighty. Evil forces are described as unworthy of worship and those who associate themselves with them are deceitful in addition the divers are associated with the bad camp and they include some gods inherited from Indo-Iranian times such as Indra. They are the product of Angra Mainu who is the diver of the divers. There is no evidence in the Zoroastrian tradition that the destructive force Angra Mainu was ever a cultic competitor of Ahura Mazda. He is but an enemy who counteracts everything Ahura Mazda does and who needs to be destroyed. Furthermore, already in the Gartars the divers are described as obnoxious creatures as rafstras and the tendency to downgrade and belittle them as nasty and distestable demons whom no sensible person would ever consider worshipping continues in the Yunga Avesta in the Pachlawi literature. Yet, the downgrading of the old Indo-Iranian gods as products of that destructive force could be interpreted as a device to weaken and incapacitate Ahura Mazda's real competitors namely the old Indo-Iranian gods, the divers. For our sources provide evidence that the divers were indeed serious cultic competitors for Ahura Mazda not only at the time of the Gartars but also later on in the history of the Zoroastrian tradition. In addition to the two camps Diva and Yazata the Avesta are also distinguishes between two groups of people those whose yasna is for the divers the diver yasna and those whose yasna is for Mazda the Mazda yasna is a cognate of Vedic Yajna sacrifice worship the Avestan word yasna is also inherited from Indo-Iranian the same is true of the compound Diva yasna and the corresponding Vedic Diva yasna Avestan Diva yasna is an adjective and describes a person as someone whose sacrifice is for the false gods The compound Mazda yasna however has no equivalent to Vedic being characteristic of the Zoroastrian tradition it is a more recent formation and was probably formed on the model of the older Diva yasna Both Diva yasna and Mazda yasna perform cultic worship but the yasna of the former group is directed towards the old gods the divers while that of the latter is for Mazda it is not the yasna as such but it's recipient that constitutes the distinctive and contrasting feature of the two groups there is one Avestan hyn that to anahita in which the deity is recipient of sacrifices not only of Mazda yasnas but on four occasions also of Diva yasnas for example the Mazda yasna offers to anahita sacrifices of a hundred stallions a thousand bulls ten thousand sheep just like his arch enemy the Diva yasna Arjad Aspa the tradition tells us that the Mazda yasna Vistaspa accepted Zarasushitwa's teachings became his royal patron and provided decisive support for the new religion by fighting and winning battles against the enemies by contrast Arjad Aspa and other Diva yasnas try to obstruct the spreading of the new religion Vistaspa implores the deity to grant him success in his battles against the Diva yasnas and in particular victory over Arjad Aspa and other enemies while Arjad Aspa in turn as he sacrifices to the same deity in the same manner wishes to defeat Vistaspa and smite the Aryan people of course the goddess does not grant any of the wishes of the bad ones but does grant those of Vistaspa the two sacrifices are carried out in exactly the same way and some of the words of the sacrifices prayers are even identical but the former is successful and the latter is not success is determined neither by the form and manner in which the sacrifice is performed nor by the recipient but by the purpose of the ritual here as in the other three unsuccessful attempts in this hymn the suppliant's wishes are directed against Ahura Mazda's plan to establish the Daina Mazda ysni in this world for the three enemies of Vistaspa are identified by their attribute as belonging to the bad camp Tathriavant of bad belief and Pashana whose worship is of the divers and deceitful Arjad Aspa the avestan word for belief religion Daina literally means perception or vision although the verb di corresponds to Vedic dihi and both mean to see in one's mind to see with an inner eye the noun Daina from which we get new person Dean religion is confined to Iranian like Mazda ysni it is a Zoroastrian technical term and denotes the way a person interprets the meaning and purpose of his or her life there is a good and a bad Daina worshipers of Mazda are who Daina of good belief and their Daina is Mazda ysni the belief which belongs to a person who worships Mazda the expression entails an individual by contrast anonymous group an anonymous group is implied by the equivalent negative term the Daina of those who worship the divers the Daina Diva Ysnanon it applies to people like Arjad Aspa who are therefore Dujd Daina of bad belief they are evil and deceitful and that is driven because of their Daina in addition to Diva ysni at Mazda ysni offering up competing sacrifices to the same deity with diametrically opposed requests the texts also present the two groups as living in close proximity to one another in the younger of eston rules for keeping away the divers they read if that Saraswstwa asks Ahura Mazda whether Mazda worshipers aspiring to become surgeons should test their surgical skills first on Mazda or on Diva worshipers the answer is then said Ahura Mazda let them first try out their skills on Diva worshipers rather than on Mazda worshipers if for the first time he operates on a Diva worshipper and he dies because of that if for the second time he operates on a Diva worshipper and he dies because of that if for the third time he operates on a Diva worshipper and he dies because of that then as a result such a person will be unfit forever and ever texts then goes on and states that if in spite of having failed the three tests .. trying in allu tystiad, the aspiring surgeon still operates on Mazda worshippers. And harms his patient, then such a person is liable for delivery bodily injury. If three Diva worshippers survive the operation, may the candidate operate on Mazda worshippers. If for the first time he operates on a Diva worshipper and he survives, If, for the second time, he operates on a diver worshipper and he survives, if for the third time he operates on a diver worshipper and he survives, then, as a result of this, he will be fit forever and ever. At will shall they subsequently attend as physicians to Mazda worshippers? At will let them operate on Mazda worshippers? At will let them heal by means of the knife? As it shows that the life of a diver worshipper is considered to be of little value and serves at best for experiments. Moreover, physically harming another person is prosecuted only if the victim is one who worships Mazda rather than divers. The teaching is given divine authority by means of the literary form in which all the Avesta is couched, that is, the question and answer mode of dialogue between Zarasustra and his god Ahura Mazda. Evidence for conflict and competition between Mazda and diver worshippers is found not only throughout the Avesta, but also in a non-religious source from the early 5th century BCE, the so-called diver inscription by the Achaemenid king Xerxes I, who ruled the Persian Empire from 486 to 465 BC. The inscription exists in three versions, Babylonian, Elomite and Old Persian. It was found at Persepolis in 1935 and is a major witness for the diver cult in Zoroastrian Iran, independent of the Avesta. In this inscription, Xerxes proudly records that he destroyed divers places of worship in the lands which were part of his vast empire and that he replaced their worship with that of Ahura Mazda. Among those countries, there were some where formerly the divers had been worshipped. Afterwards, by the will of Ahura Mazda, I destroyed that place of the divers and I gave orders that divers shall not be worshipped any longer. Wherever formerly the divers had been worshipped, there I worshipped Ahura Mazda in accord with truth at the sacrificial straw. The experts amongst you will notice that I have here returned to the old interpretation of Brazmania in line 41 as sacrificial straw. The expression ertacha brazmania occurs three times in this text. If the first part ertacha represents as widely assumed ertacha hacha in accord with truth with Avestan rather than Persian word order, then one would expect an Avestan connection also for the second part. Such connection is supported by the fact that the Babylonian and Elamite versions do not translate but simply transliterate the old Persian form. Also the Elamite transcription favours the reading Brazmania rather than Barzmania. Avestan liturgical formulae show that the sacrificial straw of Avestan Barzman is not a minor detail of the cult, as has been claimed, but plays a major part in the Ysna ritual. For example in Ysna 22, at this libation and sacrificial straw I bring here with worship Ahura Mazda, the truthful model of truth. Moreover Mazda Yasnians are described as worshipping their yazatas with Barzman in their hands. For example in Ysht 5, around whom, that is Anahita, the Mazda worshippers took position with Barzman in their hands. The Huwva's worshipped her, the Naotairia's worshipped her, etc. And a gold plaque from the Achaemenic period represents a presumably Zoroastrian priest holding Barzman twigs in his right hand. At any rate, as in the Avesta, in the Diva inscription, the divers are Ahura Mazda's direct cultic competitors. Xerxes presents himself as the royal defender of Ahura Mazda's cult just as Vistaspa does in the Avesta. So far we have seen that even at the time when Zoroastrianism was well established in Iranian lands, the divers were not merely vile demons but also real gods who received cultic worship. We have found traces of the old meaning in the Avestan expression Diva Yasna, which is inherited from Indo-Iranian. And it is very unlikely that a Diva Yasna should worship an evil being such as Angramainu or any of his creatures. Rather, it denotes a person who worshiped the old gods, the divers. The four episodes in Yst 5 in which Diva Yasna sacrifice unsuccessfully to the Yazata Anahita suggests that Anahita is, like Mithra, a prezoroastrian goddess who came to be incorporated into the Yazata camp. The episodes illustrate that the success of the ritual is determined by the sacrifices dinar, the belief that is to say whether the worshipper believes in the divers or in Mazda. The episode which we discussed of Diva Yasna's serving as guinea pigs for aspiring Mazda Yasnian surgeons suggests that Diva Yasna's and Mazda Yasna's lived in close proximity to one another. It also illustrates the Mazda Yasnian perception that the value of a Diva Yasna's life is negligible. Such an estimation is based on the view that Diva Yasna's support the evil camp. Furthermore, in Xerxes's inscription we have seen evidence for the divers as culti competitors of Aghura Mazda even in historical times the fifth century BCE. The existence of Diva establishments, Diva Danas which Xerxes raised to the ground indicates that the worship of the prezoroastrian gods continued in the Aryan lands. The evidence of the Diva inscription is particularly valuable in the religious history of Iran because it is a historical monument from outside the religious tradition of the Avesta. Its mindset, however, and even some of its wording as we have seen is fully in line with the Avesta. Evidence for the old meaning of Diva as God also survives in some Soctian personal names. Such names must have been formed at a time when Diva meant God and God at least for those who formed them. The people who did so could have been what the Avesta calls Diva Yasna's who lived as we have seen alongside Mazda Yasna's. Of particular interest is the name Vave Ash Teach given to a king who ruled at Samarkand in the 8th century of the Christian era and whose archives of legal and economic documents were found at the castle of Mug east of Samarkand. That the meaning of the name had become opaque to the Soctian speakers of the 8th century of the Christian era from which the documents date and probably long before emerges from its non-onomastic function in the form of the adjective Vave Ash Teach for the adjectives meaning has undergone demonisation. It means devilish, ahrimanian and functions as the antonym of Ahurmas Teach Ahura Mazdian. While curses and Kave Vistaspa appear from our sources as those who fight with Diva worshipers and defend the cult of Mazda against that of the divers Sarasustra is the one who takes on the divers directly. In the Sarasustra myth the divers are presented as being hostile to Ahura Mazda's creation. They have always been around and being the issue of Ahura mind you they have always been bad. The Gatas relate that in primordial times the divers were given the choice between the life giving and the destructive force and they chose the latter. Between these two forces the fake gods, the divers indeed failed to discriminate rightly because as they were deliberating with one another deception came over them so that they chose the worst thought. Thereupon they rushed into violence by which they sickened the existence of the mortal. Before Sarasustra was born there was no way of keeping the divers under control they went about unrestrained and violently attacked human beings. One particular aspect which the Avesta highlights and which is also found in later representations of the divs for example in manuscripts of the Shahnameh of the Safavid period is their lascivious behaviour with one another.  Before his time, that's before Sarasustra's time, the demons used to rush about visibly. Their pleasures of lust used to take place visibly. Visibly they used to drag the women away from their men and the demons used to subject to violence those crying and lamenting women. A single Ahunavairia prayer which Trusful Sarasustra recited divided four times into sections. The last section with louder recitation drove under the earth all demons which are unworthy of worship unworthy of praise. Here and elsewhere Sarasustra's weapon against the divers is the Ahunavairia prayer. The latter in fact constitutes the first stanza of the first garter. Thus here too the garters are connected with the figure of Sarasustra. In the course of the tradition this prayer came to be regarded as the holiest of all the Rastian prayers. It is believed to encapsulate in a nutshell all the knowledge of the Avesta of the Dainar Maastayasni. The texts tell us that Sarasustra was born, the son of Porusaspa, and that the divers dreaded him. They realised their defeat at the moment of his birth since they say, born indeed is Trusful Sarasustra of the house of Porusaspa. How shall we procure his destruction? He is the weapon against the divers. He is the antagonist of the divers. He is the deceit free one against deceit. Vanished are the diver worshipers. Vanished is the decay made by the divers. Vanished is the full speaking lie. Sarasustra is thus the arch enemy of the divers because he carps their unrestrained rule. It is with his birth that the divers withdraw, run away, hide under the earth. The weapon by which he drives the divers underground is the Dainar Maastayasni in the form of the Ahunaviria prayer. The internal perception as expressed in the Sarasustra myth divides the time continuum into period before and one after Sarasustra. His birth constitutes a watershed which marks the turning point in cosmic history. The divers have always been bad and their badness constitutes an unchanging continuum. But they were powerful only at the time before Sarasustra. They lost their power when Sarasustra brought the weapon in the form of the Mazda worshipping religion for fighting them successfully. The change here consists in the divers losing their power. Contrary to what the Sarasustra myth would have us believe, from the external perspective the divers cannot always have been bad for on the basis of the comparative evidence we know that in Indo-Iranian diver must at one stage have meant God. From the external point of view we observe that the divers were gods in Indo-Iranian but were rejected and demonised in Iranian. Because of the positive meaning of diver in all non-Iranian languages, their demonisation must have happened after the Indo-Iranians had split into two separate peoples. A process which archaeological evidence and relative chronology indicate to have happened around 1000 BCE. The external perspective therefore postulates a semantic redefinition of the meaning of diver at some point after the breaking up of the Indo-Iranian community. While both perspectives envisage a change for the worse affecting the divers they define its substance differently. From the inside perspective the change consists in the divers losing power. While from the outside point of view diver changes its meaning from God to false God or demon. The divers lose prestige. As to the question how the change came about the inside perspective attributes it to Zarasustra and also offers a reason why it happened. It was due to the arrival of the new religion, the worship of Mazda. From the external perspective we have to account for how and why the meaning of diver changed from God to demon, to false God and demon. The explanation of how such a semantic redefinition came about is the bone of contention between the revolutionary and the evolutionary models presented at the beginning of this lecture. The revolutionary model attributes the change to Zarasustra and explains it by the introduction of the new religion thus appropriating answers to the questions how and why from the inside perspective. By contrast the evolutionary model assumes that the meaning of diver gradually changed from God to demon. Instead of a sudden change a gradual one is thus assumed but no attempt is made to account for such a leisurely development. Also diver has a negative denotations throughout virtually the whole of the Iranian speaking world. The assumption of a gradual change of diver from God to demon could be supported by reference to its occasional positive meaning in Sogdian onomastics together with the personal evidence that the cult of the divers continued in Iran and competed with that of Mazda well into historical times. Moreover the Avesta attests to the gradual spreading of the Mazda Yasmian religion among the Iranian people and to mission reactivity of the Mazda worshippers. However not only the fact that the gods of old are rejected but especially the vehement way in which this is done and the uncompromising attitude which does not tolerate the divers points to a major indeed a violent break in the religious history of the Iranian people. The rejection and demonization of the divers and their cult in the Avesta has all the features which characterise a monotheistic movement whereby the elevation of one deity in our case Ahura Mazda is concomitant with the rejection of all the other gods. The internal perspective tries to deal with the fact that once upon a time the divers were God by representing them as having always been bad and by making them the products of bad thought. That this was a struggle emerges from the way that we have seen in which diver worshippers are represented in the Avesta and in the Xerxes inscription. From the outside perspective therefore a repudiation of the former gods and the accompanying exaltation of Ahura Mazda make a sudden and deliberate rather than a gradual and organic change more probable. Proponents of the evolutionary model criticised adherence of the revolutionary one for borrowing the figure of Zarathustra as religious innovator from the inside perspective. But it is true that the Zarathustra myth is unavailable as a source for the outside perspective as long as myth is defined as pure fiction as a set of unexamined assumptions as soon as one allows for the possibility that factual material may over time acquire elements of fiction and be gradually transformed into myth then myth may in fact encapsulate historical reality and experience and truth. The Zarathustra myth then acquire explanatory force for the outside perspective of how and why the divers were demonised and the figure of Zarathustra becomes pivotal again. We have thus finally arrived at Zarathustra and with him at the older Avesta, the Gatas in particular. Recent research has revealed the sophisticated poetic devices and compositional structure of the Gatas their personal character and tone and evidence for an individual speaking with religious authority and charisma all of which is without parallel in the Rigveda just listen to this. I shall proclaim the principle of this life, the formulation which the knowing one, the wise lord has told me those of you who do not put into practice formulation here as I shall think and speak it to them woe will be the conclusion of life. Further study of old Avestan poetry on the one hand and on the other of myth and historical reality in relation to the Zarathustra legend could throw further light on the origins of the Zoroastrian tradition but this will be the topic of another lecture. Tonight I have deliberately steered away from the figure of Zarathustra and focused not on this contested figure but on the substance of the most important change which separates the Zoroastrian tradition from its Indo-Iranian ancestor. That is the demonization of the old gods and the elevation of the Buddha master as the only god to be worshipped. I thank you for your attention. Ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues and friends it is an honour and a heartfelt pleasure to present a short synopsis of the main aspects of Professor Hinz's lecture especially since the subject matter of her elaborate discussion is of eminent importance for a common field of Iranian studies. She poses a fundamental question regarding the genesis of the Zoroastrian or Mastayasnian religion which has been the subject of famine controversies in recent research. Was there a historical person called Zarathustra a religious reformer or prophet responsible for the beginning of a new tradition associated with his name or is the figure of Zarathustra a fiction of this tradition invented by priests and projected back into the past. She does not aspire to offer an ultimate answer to this difficult problem but proposes to examine the text in minute detail in search of the most probable and plausible interpretation. According to Iranian sources Zarathustra is the one individual who after having received a divine revelation by the god Ahura Mazda leads humankind to the Mazda worshipping religion by the means of the Gathas, the oldest hymns of the ritual composed by the prophet himself. Due to his decisive part in establishing the tradition observers from outside this tradition have accepted him as a historical person and as the initiator of the religion known by his name. In recent decades this model labeled as historical has been questioned by scholars who neither accept Zarathustra as the composer of the Gathas nor as a historical person. According to a second model referred to as mythological, the Mazda worshipping religion evolved over a long period of time out of the prehistoric Indo-Iranian religion. The priests, the so-called poet sacrifices, were the anonymous composers of the Gathas and also invented the figure of Zarathustra within the framework of cosmological speculations. Amutinsa questions the current terms used to designate the two models. The contrast between them is not that between history versus mythology since both models include myths and draw on the notion of history. But rather the contrast consists in the manner the growth of the Zarathustra tradition is perceived. She describes the second model as evolutionary since it assumes a continuous and gradual development from the common Indo-Iranian religious tradition to the Iranian one. The first model on the other hand is revolutionary since it postulates a break in this process, a sudden important change caused by an individual. Arguing that not continuity but change requires an explanation Professor Hinzef focuses her discussion on one of the most prominent features of Zoroastrianism. The rejection of the gods of the Indo-Iranian pantheon called the divers. In contrast to the prehistoric Indo-Iranian religion in which the divers are gods, the earliest Zoroastrian sources, the Gathas, present them as products of evil and reject not the whole set of societies but also those who worship them and their ritual practices. These gods are downgraded and the term diver takes on the meaning of false or fake god in the Gathas and demon in the younger Avesta and later sources. Professor Hinzef provides evidence that the divers were in fact serious competitors of Ahura Mazda at the time of the Gathas and also later on in the history of the Zoroastrian tradition. The sources also allow the conclusion that worshipers of Mazda and the divers lived in close proximity. In the Zoroastrian myth it is Sarathustra himself who takes on the struggle with the divers by using the weapon of the Ahunaviria prayer which constitutes the first stanza of the first Gatha, thus connecting the Gathas to the figure of Sarathustra. There is a discrepancy in how the divers are perceived in the Zoroastrian myth on the one hand and the scholarly discussion on the other. From the inside point a few of Zoroastrian texts the divers have always been evil but their rule is ended by Sarathustra and the advent of the Mastayasnian religion. Time is clearly divided into periods before and after Sarathustra. He marks the turning point in history by introducing the Mastay worshiping religion as the means of fighting the divers successfully. The scholarly or outside perspective by contrast postulates that the divers were rejected and demonised after breaking up of the Indo-Iranian community. However both the revolutionary and the evolutionary models still have to explain how and why the meaning of the word changed from God to false God and demon. Whereas the revolutionary model follows the inside perspective and attributes the change to Sarathustra and his introduction of the new religion the evolutionary model assumes that a gradual change of the words meaning took place but is not able to explain why. Professor Hinzer concludes that although there is evidence for the continuing cult of the divers in Iran the vehement manner in which these gods are rejected in the Gathas points to a sudden break in the religious history of the Iranians rather than an unexplained gradual change of perspective. I would like to thank Almud for allowing us to partake in her meticulous research and for innovative comprehensive and convincing lecture.


From wherever we are To everywhere you are We're AdWiG Together Bringing you news, insights, tips, guidance, and community From Minneapolis, Minnesota To Portland, Oregon To Austin, Texas To Cleveland, Ohio From Connecticut To New Jersey From sunny Florida To right here in New York City The AdWiG team is here for you Together


Yeah, super excited to be here. This venue is amazing. And anytime I grew up outside of Boston in Marlboro, worked for Bose and EMC, so any chance that I get to come back to Boston is I jump at it. So anyone here an enterprise architect or an enterprise architecture or ever been an enterprise architecture? I'm raising my hand too. Had an enterprise applied architect title at Nordstrom. They attached applied to it because that made them feel good about calling me at 2 in the morning when something I signed off on failed usually spectacularly and usually right before a sale event. So that was awesome. Thank you. I promise, EAs, you're all lovely, excellent people. This is not going to be a riff on enterprise architecture completely, so it'll be good. So we should always start with a why. Why are we here? This is going to be different for different people, but for me, I want to deliver customer value faster and more humanely. This is kind of what's top of mind for me always. In a slalom, it's super cool. I get to see clients at all different stages of this. And what I observe is that what I get most interested about is the intersection of tools, people, and how you organize. And for me, that's what really unlocks lasting change. So when we talk about faster, that's code for speed to value, or cycle time, or make more money, or do more good, my favorite. And then humanely, don't burn people out while you're doing that. So don't work 80 hours a week. Don't be waking people up at 2 o'clock in the morning for no good reason. So how do you combine all of that to do better? This is one way. So I come across this quite a bit by modal IT. You get mode 1 systems of records. So these are the stable commodity systems. And they're usually legacy. And they're usually super, super critical to your business. And so they're heavily governed by enterprise architecture. There's a lot of process wrapped around these. And that's because every time there was a failure, the team would look at that and like, we are never going to have that happen again. And some process gets layered on. And then another failure happens, and more process gets layered on. And so you end up with a set of systems in an organization where people are very, very stable. It's difficult to change, even if you want to. And because they're inward looking, they're focused on the systems and making sure they're stable and making sure they're available, they're often not looking outward at the larger customer. They don't have line of sight to that customer. It's not because they're bad people. It's not because they don't know to do that. It's not because they don't know the larger customer exists. The incentives are all inward. And then you have mode 2. So this is a wholly separate part of your organization, systems of innovation. They get all the cool things. And then I say maybe. So they're the ones likely to be doing agile. They're likely to be practicing lean. And they don't get all the governance that the mode 1 gets. I say maybe because it turns out they still super rely on mode 1 systems. And if they want to do something that requires a change back there, it's kind of a sad panda all around. So I look at this simple model, mode 1, mode 2. CIOs love this because it's really easy to understand. And I struggle because I think of organizations as complex systems. So we kind of think about that. And this is a definition from the book Thinking in Systems. So if systems theory or systems thinking is new to you, definitely check out the book Thinking in Systems by Daniella Meadows. But a system is more than the sum of its parts. It may exhibit adaptive, dynamic, goal-seeking, self-preserving, and sometimes evolutionary behavior. So this is what every large organization, even small ones, that I come across, if you look carefully, you see this going on.  And we see there's no flow between mode 1 and mode 2. And that's intentional. But you're isolating parts of the system. Complex systems, they love inputs. They love outputs. They love feedback loops. And when you start isolating them, things start to stagnate and they slow down. So in summary, bimodal is an overly simplistic way to organize. So be just very careful of anyone who tells you, I got anything that's simple in your organization. It is likely sketch. Be very careful. So what actually works after I ranted on bimodal IT a little bit? We first need an acknowledgment that innovation and change is required throughout the entire organization. You cannot have a group of haves and a group of have-nots. You need a system that takes into account transition states and feedback loops throughout the organization. Your most critical systems, those are the ones that you want to be able to change the fastest actually and recover the fastest and be the most adaptable. So we're going to talk about this idea of pioneers, settlers, and town planners. And if you haven't heard of this, this is Simon Wardley's terminology in his model. Check out his blog, his Twitter feed. He's got a lot of great stuff that goes in depth on this model. He also talks about mapping, which is how do you come up with a solid strategy of understanding where you are today and where you need to go. It's good stuff. So I'm going to cover each of the pioneers, the settlers, the town planners, kind of high level what they do, some of their traits. And then we'll talk about some aspects of the model. And then we'll get into a real example of it. And then we'll get into anti-patterns that will cause this to completely fail. So pioneers, these are the people that in your organization bring in the new idea, either they've adopted it from somewhere outside of the org, or they've kind of been influenced by a lot of ideas and come up with something brand new. There's a minority of people in your org are actually pioneers. They're building new things. And they're building things that the rest of the org is going to look at me like, I don't quite trust that. I'm not getting on that way again and going cross country. But it's a critical part of all this. They live outside of standards in ITIL. You could maybe think of this as shadow IT. They fail quite a bit. What they build usually isn't trusted and probably shouldn't be. And they're comfortable going with gut feel. They are not going by metrics. They don't have any data to back up that the thing they want to do is the thing you're going to be doing. They're just feels good in their gut. Turns out you need these people. You just don't need everyone to be a pioneer. OK, so settlers. Yep, we have some gamers in here. So these are the people. These are the teams and the people in your org that see what those pioneers are doing. And they're like, I'm not getting on that. But I have some ideas to make that even better. And I can actually use it in production. So they're the ones who are starting the village and helping build trust that actually this is a thing that we can do. So some traits. They're the ones making prototypes real. So they're actually being used. And by doing that, they're building trust throughout the organization. They adopt each other's ideas with some customization. They make it their own. So now you get the beginning of an ecosystem. And they're focused on continuous improvement. So what this means, though, is as they're adopting the thing that the villager next to them adopted, say a house. Say they're all building houses, they're going to improve it a little bit. So not every house is going to look the same. And then you're going to get occasionally someone like, yeah, a house is a good idea. I want to do this completely different design. So you end up with kind of a proliferation problem, we'll say in quotes. Because I don't think it's actually a problem. But now you get town planners. They're like, if this village keeps growing like this, it's going to be crazy. It's going to look like downtown Boston. So what they do, they excel at looking at the overall village, the system, and saying, hey, we think we can turn this into a commodity and scale it and making it more efficient. Not everyone wants to or needs to or should be building their house. They want to come into the village and then go to their work. So they're the ones who are going to be like, yep, we're going to build that for you. You push the easy button. Hillcopter plops a prefab house down into your lot. You get a few options for customization, but if you're off to the races, go do your job. These people, so they focus on what is common and well-defined. They're able to industrialize and scale. They have a focus on operational efficiency. They build the services that pioneers and settlers are going to rely on for future experimentation. And they're very metric driven, unlike the pioneers. So they are all about the data. Otherwise, how else do you become efficient? So a few things about this model that makes it very different from others that you might see. It's a theft-based poll model. So in nowhere in this model are things being pushed or mandated. In all cases, it's being pulled. So the pioneers bring in the idea. The settlers take that idea. They take it. It's stolen and pulled in, and they make it their own. The town planners are looking at what's going on, and they are taking that idea. They're stealing that idea and making it their own. And then the reuse is your feedback loop. If what the town planners are building isn't being used, they're not building the right thing, and they need to re-examine that. But no one is mandating anything here. It's all being, it's all poll system. Compare that to bimodal IT, where things are contained into each of these modes, and there's a lack of flow or poll system, or even mandates necessarily between the two. Some other things to know. Pioneers, settlers, and town planners are all roles with excellent people. So don't ever get the idea that the pioneers are some kind of rock star. I mean, they are good people. They are excellent people. The settlers are excellent people because they are able to take those ideas and make them real. The town planners are super excellent people because they can build something that scales and is usable in the future. So everyone is excellent in all these roles. So there needs to be a lot of empathy between these different teams and realizing that, hey, we all bring different skill sets to the table. You can have and should have pioneers, settlers, and town planners even within a team. So don't get the idea that you have a team of just pioneers and a team of just settlers and a team of just town planners. Even within a team, you need someone who's taking that crazy idea and trying to make it work. You need a couple other people on the team who are like, yeah, that's cool. We can make that actually work. And then you need the town planners on the team that turn it into something that the team is actually able to use in the future and have it be sustainable. So it's a strong argument for diverse teams and making sure you have diverse skill sets represented within that team. You can maybe think of this as a subsystem of the larger system. OK, so this is so important to this model that I say it again. Foster the feedback loops and maintain the pole nature. If you get into a spot where everything is being mandated because you think you've figured it out and like this is the one true way, you're moving away from this model and you're going to get yourself stuck and start to stagnate a little bit. OK, it's all great theory. So let's make it real. This is a story of continuous delivery adoption. Names are removed to protect the innocent, but it's a real story. There was a small group of pioneers and they were like, we need to do better. This was a large organization, thousands of people in technology, had no continuous delivery, very little build automation. And we had a small group that said we need to fix this. We're under too much stress. We cannot meet the needs of our customer. So they came up with this idea of let's do continuous delivery. We know where to do it. We're just going to make this happen. We had sponsorship and common vision from the top. CIO got on board with it. And the team over a period of time got to a near minimum viable product state, like could ship code to production? Ultimately, though, this particular model or what the team built was not adopted. And where we fell down on that was we're trying to push it onto a team. And I should say, I had no idea this model was a thing. When we were going through this, it happens to map to it really well. But we were trying to push it on a team. And that team was like, no, I don't think so. We're not adopting that. You pioneers, we do not trust what that thing was. So that was the failure. However, everything we did up to that point was had a strong focus on how do we make it easy for the rest of the org to see what we're doing and adopt these ideas? So we had weekly demos. We had all our code internally open sourced. Later, some of it got externally open sourced. So everyone had access to what we were doing, what we were learning, and what our plans were. Because of that, another team, a completely different team, they saw that, and they're like, we want to do that. And they took those ideas. So they pulled and stole the ideas with our excited blessing and then shipped that thing into production. And now they're able to do continuous delivery into production. They made it their own. And it was awesome. We completely celebrated that. But it really demonstrates and made it solid for me that it has to be a pull model. That was quickly followed by other teams adopting something very, very similar. They either took the same exact code and continued to build a pipeline and put it in their team. Or they started customizing it and modifying it, like different styles of house. And some even radically different. They went with completely different tool choices. So you have a lot of the teams using Go CD. And then someone's like, oh, no, Bamboo's better. Someone else is like, no, I'm sticking with my Jenkins. But so now we have what a typical CIO or enterprise architecture team would say is now we have a proliferation problem. I saw it as a huge success because we had continuous delivery going on everywhere that we didn't have it before, even if people are using different tools. However, it turns out, like houses, not everyone wants to build their house, not everyone wants to put together their own pipeline. In fact, most people don't. So I enter the town planners. So then our idea is we're going to build a commodity pipeline and a platform for the organization to adopt with the intent of the pioneers and the settlers can now just provision and deliver on this pipeline and focus on what the next thing is. This is still kind of TBD, whether this ends up being successful. I will say here it's super tempting to have the pioneers who came up with that idea enter and build this platform. You have to make sure you have some actual town planners, some people that understand scale and understand operational efficiency and understand how to make something a commodity because I promise you the pioneers don't know that and it ends up going a little sideways. All right, to recap, you're going to love my graphics. These are awesome. OK, the blue is your org. The low dot is your pioneers. The color of the dot is their tool choice, we'll say. So you have one team trying out a thing. And it could be any team. They're the pioneers. The settlers started adopting that. So now you have lots of tools throughout your org, lots of teams doing the thing. But success, because now they're doing continuous delivery where they weren't before. Now it's time to turn it into a commodity. Most of the teams are now using that platform that got built. So make sure you go through this process. Don't land like we're going to build this platform and commodity before you've seen pioneers and settlers take over the start adopting the idea. Don't jump into a enterprise-wide continuous delivery pipeline. I mean, I'd be super happy to build it for you, but I would be super sad when it doesn't stick. Notice there's still a couple people, a couple teams, using different tools here. That's OK. That's good. It's even desired. You need something to test against to make sure that your platform or your commodity, whatever you've built, it's still the right thing. So you have a couple teams you can compare against. And if they come up with some ideas that are good, you just steal those ideas and put them into your platform. You need to maintain that theft-based pull nature of what you're building. OK, anti-patterns. What is going to cause this to be chaos and sadness? First, lack of a shared vision and common outcome. And this goes for almost anything, really, in a complex organization. Everyone needs to have a shared vision and a shared purpose. Like, where are we going and how are we going to get there? And that enables teams to experiment but be pointed in the right direction. Everyone needs to be incented on a common set of outcomes. If you're back in that bimodal IT model, you remember, mode one is incented looking internally, making sure their system is safe and protected. Mode two is incented on, like, let's change features as fast as we possibly can. And there's direct conflict there. Everyone needs the same incentive. Don't jump into a new model all at once. We see this with agile a lot. Hey, I have a 400-person delivery team or a delivery org. We're going to be agile. I heard agile is a cool thing. It's going to solve all our problems. I am declaring tomorrow agile day. And we hired some scrummasters. It's going to be all good. And then it's not. You get, at best, teams doing stand-ups and saying they're agile. So be really intentional about this. Start small, typical change management things. And then the other one is using enterprise architecture to prevent waste and forced adoption. It is the wrong way to use enterprise architecture. From a leadership level, it is super tempting to do this. Like, no, no, we got this figured out. All these teams just have to snap to this. Not the correct way to use enterprise architecture. In an existing org with legacy systems and large complex interconnectivity, enterprise architecture are going to be your best friends for figuring out how all of that is tied together. Likely, everyone in the org thinks they know how it all works and maybe EA is the only one who does because they see the wider picture. So use enterprise architecture and use your EAs to uncover where to start, to start untangling all that complexity and making it visible. They're going to be your best friends here. Do not use them to push or mandate things or as a gate to get into production. That's my other favorite one. I think there could be a whole talk on innovation labs. Do not rely on innovation labs or centers of excellence for your pioneers. This gets into sometimes mode two where they get all the cool things and no one else does. Innovation labs tend to be set up off to the side of your organization and that's intentional because they need to be outside of all your existing process. It sounds like a really fantastic idea. The challenge is it's outside of your existing process. So whatever they built and the way they built it, when they toss it over the wall into your org to actually build, it doesn't work, often doesn't work and sometimes makes things worse. So I would say if you're in an innovation lab, the best thing you can do is be super, super public about what you're doing, what you're succeeding at, what you're failing at and making it really, really easy for the settlers in your organization to steal your ideas and when they do steal them, celebrate that. Celebrate it as the settlers idea. Make sure there's, make it really easy for the org to pull from you. Same deal with centers of excellence. This is easily fixed. Change excellence to practice. So now you're not centering all the excellence and only the excellence is on this little ivory tower. You now have a center of practice that is open and welcoming and inclusive to the rest of the organization. And now the rest of the org is able to distribute the excellence and pull from it and steal it and make it their own. Centers of excellence often kind of get into a habit of mandating things, coming up with standards, coming up with the best practices. Change that to be a practice. Okay. Do not forget that your organization requires a systems thinking approach. There could be a whole talk on defining what systems thinking is and how it works. That book, Thinking and Systems is a great, great introduction to it. Organizations are complex. There are inputs. There are outputs to everything. There are feedback loops and your org will want to kind of maintain the same level. So the classic example is maybe a bathtub. You have an input, which is water, right? And you're filling up the bathtub. You have an output, which is the overflow drain, hopefully. Your tub will maintain some amount of equilibrium. No matter how much water you put into it or take out, it's not gonna overflow. But if you put in too much, you inject too much change or too much water in this case, it will overflow. So you just, you need to be cognizant of that. And maybe you do want a transition state. Maybe you want to get a bigger tub, but that's what tells you you need a bigger tub. So watch your inputs, your outputs and your feedback loops. Water's filling out of your tub would be a horrible feedback loop because now you gotta fix your whole bathroom. Okay, so key takeaways. Create flows and not barriers or mandates or gates or long checklists that you have to sign off on. And each role is filled with excellent people. If you can remember those two things, you'll be in good shape. So this is evolving and we're not finished. I'm really excited to hear what everyone else is doing and how you're approaching this and how you're optimizing your organization and ideas for how to do it in the future. So thank you very much. You can hit me up on my email or on Twitter. It's probably easiest. Thank you. I appreciate it.


Write down the question, a ball is dropped from a high edge in the last second. It travels a distance of 9 inch by 25. Find out the edge. A ball is dropped from a high edge 9 inch by 25. Find out the edge. It travels a distance of 9 inch by 25. Find out the edge. It is dropped from a high edge 9 inch by 25. Find out the edge. Find out the edge. Find out the edge. Suppose I take the 10th second. Then total time of the journey starts the end. Solve it at any time. You have to find what is the last second. What it is? It is between this point and that point. She is not zero at this point. So, come forward. Last second of journey is. You remember this thing? What it like last second? Which second it is? Third second, fourth second, fifth second. What it is? Okay, now I will solve this. Yeah, wait. Ignore it. Example is proper. A lot of software is required. Fine, now I will do it. Distance travel and the second is 9 inch by 25. Okay, U is what? Zero? Half into A is 10, let us say. 10 into 2N minus 1. Okay? Yes or no? Edge is equal to? 250 by 2, which is 125. Okay, another question will come. The copy is from the board. So, we will take one more question. What? So, if you use edge, equation is G, U is zero. So, total time taken is 9 seconds. Okay, for that. This is wrong. Okay, can we put T equal to 1 second and S is equal to 9 inch by 25? And my initial logic will be zero. What is wrong here? T equal to 1 second. But the mission for it is to just reach the top of the tower. Understood? No, no. Listen to the question. From a four-hour tower, see if that's top. Okay? Can you find this velocity quickly? Find the velocity. Then I will tell you a complete question. G is, if you take G as 9.8 properly, a perfect square root will come. But you can take G as 10. But look at our respect. Right? Right, the equation? Then we take G as 10. You have a wish. You can take anything. I don't care what I answer. If you take that cookie, I will answer them. No. I will come and see how you have done it. So, the food of the tower is sufficient for it to reach the top of the tower. Forty-one? Yes, sir. Forty-one. Forty-one? Forty-one. I think it's a perfect square root. This is my initial point. This is U square plus 2A s minus 10. And displacement? Nineteen. So, U is under root of 19 to 20, one tower length accurate, which is 42.5 meter per second. Okay? But this was not the question. Listen to the question. Two seconds later, once you throw the stone from the bottom of that velocity, two seconds later, another stone is dropped from the top of the tower. Other stones end later. After you... if they are moving in the same straight line. How long will it take? What did you point out? Something is coming. Now, you might appreciate that it is almost made to say that carry mechanics. All the chapters and mechanics are played personally. They are... 70,000 of the syllabus and mechanics are laid out. Should I give you a hint? Ah, I'll see those again. What? What's funny, sir?  See, guys, in two seconds, it would already travel some distance this stone. Okay? So, let's say that distance you have found it as X1. So, the remaining distance is 90 minus X1. X1 you can find out on the object if velocity is this much. In two seconds, how much it travels? You can find... 65. This is bigger than that.  Okay, guys, 62, 63.5, whatever it is. You can write down half 80 square U is 42.5. This is equal to minus half 12. So, like this, you get it 65. 35. All okay with this? Understood? I'm following you. So, let's do... 25. I'm going to clean. What's going to be cleaning? Yeah, close. What is it? It's a root 5 centimeter. Huh? Root 5 centimeter. Root 5 centimeter. No. Can you write down the equation and show it to me? I don't care what the final answer is. Just write down the equation and show it to me. Let me know what's your thought. Write the equation and show it to me. So, I don't want the final answer. No, it's not coming from the final answer. It's coming from the final answer. Can you write down the equation? I'm going to do my own equations. Don't calculate them. Just show me the equations. X and Ix. Which one? You take 26 here. Do you want to write the last one? Yes, 22. And then... Correct. Same? First one is the last one. The last one is the last one. We just have to do that. I have the first stone. It is covered 65 meters. After 65 meters, you can read both the stones are in together. So, my timer is zero. After the first second, I can reset the timer so that this T minus 2 T plus 2 R. Write the equations now.  One set is that after two seconds, the object will reach from point A to point B. This object, nothing is happening. Till two seconds. Yes or no? Second ball is dropped from point C. Now, I am separating these two events. So, I'll be for the first ball. The first ball, when I... then minus half G is there into T square. Right? But velocity... Initial velocity. Minus 10 into 2. So, I'm getting it as 22.5 meter per second. So, this UB is 22. So, you have to solve these two equations. If you add these two equations, you'll see that 2.5 is the answer.


Run run run What's up money geeks mr. V here welcome to another video guys so in this video we are going to talk about ticket symbol TDOC tail-a-dock This is a company that provides virtual health for people across the country And so far the company has been doing excellent. They've made some great acquisitions like Levango and so the company has been just performing good until These news landed which completely changed my take on the company I did videos here on the channel when they did the merger with Levango homes like this is excellent I think TDOC is the future. Oh boy big brother has spoken and I have to listen so that's what I wanted to talk into this video But before we get started guys if you're new to the channel We took about how to earn money how to save money how to invest and build wealth So if that's something that interests you go ahead and hit that subscribe button and your notification belt So you don't miss out on new content the elephant in the room finally stood up Here is the news on CNBC. So Amazon is expanding Amazon care Telehealth service Nationally for its employees and other companies guys. This is massive We're talking about Amazon and so I did like Taylor dock when there was just the leader in that space But if you bring in a company like Amazon to come in and compete in the space I There's no way I want to go to war with Amazon because they would crush you like a cockroach And I don't want that they have to fist. They have all the infrastructure They have the network. They have everything that they would take to crush you They can expand to any state. They can bring in any companies They have the money to even subsidize so companies can come on to their platform Before they start paying so guys, this is I'm really really worried for telly ducking. So this is what I did Let's jump right here if you can see here tell the dog just crumbled After that news came out. So right now just just today tell the dog is down almost about where 15% That's not good. That's not good because investors are scared because Amazon has actually stepped to the plate We can see this just before market open look at that tip and since then the stock has not recovered Again, my personal take here is that Amazon stepping into this space is not good for telly duck because Like I said one Amazon has the infrastructure if we take the AW as which is our Amazon web services For hosting and providing the service to all other companies Amazon is in a better position to really function And I think they have the technology and expertise to work on this better that any other company And no disrespect to telly duck. They've done a great job so far in actually providing the service But if you have to go up against Amazon, this is bad news I am not excited about this again if you can see here Amazon telly duck expansion pushes shares of rival telly duck lower That is what we should expect in Amazon. So they're gonna roll out this summer to all 50 states They're potentially start bringing in other companies and I don't see companies not being excited to work with Amazon You want to work with a company that has a proven steady Just not just the infrastructure But also a team that has proven that they can do it from a technological standpoint because this is virtual health Is more of a technology infrastructure than just providing that service So Amazon has all of that in-house and then all they have to do is hire some some doctors and nurses And who wouldn't want to work for Amazon, right? So I am selling as a matter of fact I sold everything in telly duck I'm just putting this out so you guys know because when I did that video said I was I bought it and now now I'm selling I don't want to just lift you guys dry. I want to let you guys know I'm out of it. If if it turns out I was wrong. I would admit it But for now, I'm skeptical of the company going up against Amazon because this is not a win situation for telly duck There might be in the picture, but they cannot lead that space anymore If Amazon decides that they want to take this serious, which it looks like that's where they are going So that is my take on these guys. I'm worried for telly duck. I'm out of the stock I'm gonna just wait and see what happens and then I'll look for another opportunity To see where I can put that money But I don't want to be caught in this fight because like I said Amazon is an elephant. It would crush you like a cockroach. You cannot go up against them toe to toe They have everything so I'm out of it So again, if you see here, like I said the stock is really really struggling to recover even just from that that news So let me know in the comment section what you guys think about is do you think Amazon is just out there to scare Companies like telly duck or you think they're gonna follow through with this and really push it nationally My personal opinion I don't think Amazon comes out and make this announcement if they're not serious about it because they've spent the last Year or so doing a pilot where they were providing this to just their employees out in Seattle or in Washington state now they're rolling it out across the entire country So they've done the test. They've done their work. They've to see that This is there's something that works and they want to show the data that they have with other companies and bring them on board so Guys if you are still in telly duck good for you for having that courage I'm a wimp. I'm gonna get out of this one and hopefully Find some other place to put that money and and let it grow So let me know in the comment section what you guys think and if you're new to the channel We took about how to earn money how to save money how to invest and build wealth So if that's something that interests you go ahead and hit that subscribe button any notification bell to you Don't miss out on new content also guys if you're looking to invest Webo is not doing a promotion where if you sign up and deposit hundred dollars you get free stocks somewhere between 250 and 1400 or $1,600 links in the description below and as always guys do your due diligence Don't be a greedy savage and stay motivated


Welcome learners. In this video lecture I will be discussing about small enterprises and village industries. So, this will be the first video lecture and I am Dr. Smitishika Sothri from Krishna Kanta Handy State Open University. So, this unit is explained in two video lectures. After completion of each part of the video lecture, you need to self check your progress at the end of the lecture. You need to participate in the discussion forum so that you can communicate with us about your level of understanding. So, part one of this video lecture will deal with small enterprises, its definition, characteristics, relationship between small and large enterprises and the second part of the video lecture will deal with objectives and scope of small enterprises, role of small enterprises, prices in economic development and problems of small-scale earnings. So, first we will discuss about the definition of small-scale industries. There was no such definition for small-scale industries earlier. The first official definition of small-scale industry in India was conjoined in 1950 in terms of the size of gross investment in fixed assets that is plant and machinery or land building as well as on the strength of the workforce concerned. The criteria underwent a number of modifications over the years. In the later part of the 50s, there was a change in definition of small-scale industries. There was a shift from workforce criteria to investment criteria. The micro, small and medium enterprises development act 2006 have provided the definitional framework. So, under the act, enterprises have been categorized broadly into those engaged in manufacturing and services. Both categories have been further classified into micro, small and medium enterprises based on their investment in the plant and machinery. In case of manufacturing enterprises and equipment in case of service enterprises. So, now let us discuss those in detail. So, first about manufacturing enterprises. The investment limit of various categories of manufacturing enterprises are first micro enterprise the investment limit should be up to Rs. 25 lakhs. So, those enterprises where the investment limit is maximum up to 25 lakhs those were considered as micro enterprise. Then those enterprise where investment limit is above 25 lakhs and up to Rs. 5 crore those were considered as small enterprise and medium enterprise where those where investment is above Rs. 5 crore and up to maximum of Rs. 10 crore. Then for service enterprises the investment limit of various categories are first one is for micro enterprise investment limit is up to Rs. 10 lakhs. Then for small enterprises the investment limit is above 10 lakhs and up to Rs. 2 crore and for medium enterprises the investment limit is from Rs. 2 crore to up to Rs. 5 crore. The village and small industries sector and compasses are continuum of artisans handicrafts units at one end and modern production units with significant investment in other end. So, the various sectors of village and small industries are consist of one is traditional cottage and household industries like khadi village industries hand loom industries city culture industries handicrafts coir etc and when we considered about modern scale industries it includes tiny units power looms etc there has been an increase in the variety of products manufactured by small scale sectors they have ventured into the manufacture of many new and sophisticated items. Now we will discuss about the characteristics of small scale industries. So, first is one person show in case of small scale industries generally it is considered as one person show because the sole person who runs the organization he or she monitors the every activities of the organization then the second thing is managed in personalized fashion as the entrepreneur okay the sole person he managed he or she managed the activities of the organization in their personalized fashion like whatever they feels they likes based on that they runs the organization. Then third characteristic is about gestation period as small industries they runs quickly there is lesser red tech easy man all so because of that the gestation period for small industry is shorter that means they gets the return on investment more quickly compared to the large organization. Then another characteristic is scope of operation the scope of operation of small industry undertakings is generally localized catering to the local and regional demands. Our next characteristic is availability of resources small units use indigenous resources and therefore they can be located anywhere subject to the availability of those raw materials and flavors so wherever the resources were available for them they runs their industry in that area and another characteristic is labor intensified small industries are fairly labor intensive with comparatively smaller capital investment than larger units because small industries they don't have much fun so instead of going for everything mechanized they prefer to be labor intensive. Then balance region and development small units are dispersed to rural areas they use local resources thus the growth of small scale industries in rural areas promotes more balanced regional development it helps in the development of that particular area and then last characteristics which I will be going to discuss is about adaptable to changes they are highly reactive to changes in environment and receptive to socio economic conditions they are more flexible to adapt changes like introduction to new products new methods of production new materials etc so they are also adaptable to changes now we will discuss about the relationship between small and large units first I will be discussing about the competition small scale industry cannot compete with large industry in certain circumstances in selected products as like small scale industries have lesser resources they have lesser fun so they cannot compete in all sectors in with large scale industries then second point is about supplementary small scale industry can fill in the gaps in case of excess demand the large industries has got their fixed production capacity installed in case of excess demands the small industries can supplement their activities so as to meet the excess demand suppose some large industry they were operating as their production unit is very huge they have some fixed kind of production setup so even if demand increases like those demands can be met by these small scale industries then complementary apart from the supplementary relationship with large scale industries small industry has been complementary to its large counterparts in the real world many small units produce intermediate products for large units so sometimes it will be more helpful for some customers if they gets the products locally so these small scale industries they were also like working as complementary services they were providing to the large scale industries then about initiatives accepted by the high profits of large units small units can also take initiative to produce the particular product if it succeeds the small unit grows to a large one over a period of time so suppose if any small small scale industry if they were producing something and it's growing after certain period of time they can become a large large scale production unit servicing small industries also do install servicing and repairing shops for the plants of large units suppose for example car so these four wheelers production units were large scale industries but repairing of those four wheelers or maybe servicing of those four wheelers then there are some small scale industries which helps in running those organizations such small services units can be seen proliferating in respect to our large industries like refrigerators radio television set watch and clocks cycle and motorcycle etc so we will see plenty of such small scale industries where who are offering these services for the large industries hope you have understood so far so here i have put one question for you like what are the characteristics of small scale enterprise please write it down in your notebook and if you have any queries any doubts regarding this video lecture you can mail to us thank you