The Ongoing Process (was: The Enchanting Immortals)

While Greek thught was divided between process philosophers like Heraclitus and dualists like Plato, they got their inspiration from either Iranian thinking (such as Heraclitus) or Egyptian thinking (such as Plato). This is important when we look the Greek term logos which therefore can mean both "establishment of movement" and "establishment of fact". In the Bible, it is clearly the Platinist view which dominates, this is for example obvious in the famous first chapter of The Gospel of John. But here it is important that we stress that Zarathushtra was a process philosopher (which goes for Iranian and also Indian thinking in general) and that when HE and his contemporaires speak of "word" they do so precisely in the meaning that Kamran enlightens us with. So here I would agree that both Dino and Kamran are 100%. And Dino is right to stress that a consequence of process philosophy is that it is by nature devoid of morality (morality requires a non-changing existence since valuations and their base are non-changing) but instead focuses on ETHICS as the basis for values and valuations. We could therefore not arrive further from the Abrahamic religions and Platonism than this. There is nothing to heal in Zoroastrianism, no sins to forgive, no links to ressurect. Instread there are endless possibilities for US as Mazdayasni to choose to materialize. We give meaning to existence as we choose to give meaning to existence, meaning is not external to us, arriving to us as a doomed fact (the way it does in Abrahamic Re-Ligions). Strictly speaking, Mazdayasna is therefore not a Re-Ligion, it is a Mazda-Yasna (a Philo-Sophia).
Ushta
Alexander

2010/2/9 Kamran Jamshidi

Dear "hamporses" (the meaning comes later in this text!)

Let us now have a little "word" play which could be interesting. It is for me anyway.

Lets take the word " ruvishni/ growth/progress" mentioned by Ardeshir, as it is one of the main words/concepts of our philosophy/world view.

{note: It is really a challenge to put a vast concept into short sentences/text and both could explain what you want to say and yet not become tiresome/boring!!}

So let me put it this way:

1- First let us look at the word "word" itself!

In Persian/Farsi "word" means vâzh(e) = vâch(e) = wax (to grow) = växa (= wax in Swedish) , and of course many other forms/variations which if needed could be taken them into account also later.

So a word is something that grows/varies/take different forms. It is not "absolute". Everyone may see/choose some of its forms! So we all grow with words. we seek their meanings together. We are doing "ham-porsi" (to seek/search together. It does not mean to ask each other but ask/search with each other!)

this is one of the meanings/interpretations of "ruvishni" = "ravân" = "urvân" (spirit!?) . It is why urvar=plant, and it is why "Ameretât" symbolizes "plants"=growth.

one other interesting form of "word" = vakhsh= rakhsh=rakhs=raghs (to dance!) . The "creation/generation=growth" is a cosmic dance! (sounds familiar?)

Let us stop here and get reactions/reflections. For example what "word" means in other related languages.
"Ord" in Swedish Alex?

Kamran


2010/2/9 Special Kain


Dear Ardeshir

This perfectly demonstrates - once again! - that Zarathushtra was concerned with The Ongoing Process (as a metaphysical concept) rather than The Static Being. Zarathushtra was the first process philosopher in a long line with Heraclitus, Charles Darwin, Friedrich Nietzsche, Alfred N. Whitehead, Gilles Deleuze and the pragmatists and existentialists. When many philosophers and thinkers would see The Ongoing Process as a good reason to establish a sense of alienation, Zarathushtra was one of the thinkers that actually would praise this concept.

My two cents,
Dino

--- ardeshir farhmand schrieb am Mo, 8.2.2010:

Von: ardeshir farhmand
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] The enchanting immortals
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
CC: kamran.jamshidi@gmail.com
Datum: Montag, 8. Februar 2010, 23:12


Dear Alexander, Parviz and Mobed Kamran,

on haurvatat and ameretat or "weal " and "imperishablity/ indestructabilit y"
the ancient exegesis translates them respectively as hamishak ruvishni; forever growth/progress- ---and amrag ruvishnish: etrenal/deathless growth/progress;

just wanted to add that to our ancient sages the duo simply represented the idea of "weal/wellbeing and eternal/imperish able progress and growth.
by the way the greek "amborsia" seem to be very close!!!
just another thought

ardeshir

On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Kamran Jamshidi wrote:

And just another thought:
Haurvatât ameretât are almost always together.
Another simple and yet mundane interpretation could be:
ever/long-lasting good/happy life!

As some of you use to say: my 2 cents.

Shâd zi
Kamran Jamshidi

The Enchanting Immortals

Dear Ardeshir

You're doing excellent work clarifying the Zoroastrian texts.
Translations are then always hard to conduct and of course open to different interpretations.
This is why it is wise of you to use several different words for a comparative study.
For example I have always found amesha to be better translated to English as "that which transcends" or just "transcendence" but I find your suggestion "eternity" or "that which transcends time and space" equally good. I just try to avoid the translation "immortality" as much as possible. It is an Egyptian term to me, an Abrahamic concept, that doesn't cover the aspect of ameshta which transcends time and space beyond birth as well as death.
But here we can have many different interpretations and lively and fruitful discussions. Just as an example.

Ushta
Alexander

2010/2/8 ardeshir farhmand
Hi Ushta Alexander, Parviz, Dino,

i am humbled by ur kind words, there were HEAVY storms in my part of los angeles, and that is why i was not participating. i thank all fellow zoroastrians and the entire ushta community for their kind regard. i write based on my understanding and comparative analysis of the ancient exegesis. it is one view among OTHERS, just my small contribution that adds a new dimension and is continuation of some forgotten traditions.
all the best

ardeshir
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 3:38 AM, Parviz Varjavand wrote:

I offer thanks to the Amesha Spentas that Ardeshir is sharing with us his profound thoughts once again. It is a pleasure for me to read his writings even if I do not agree with all that is being expressed. The important thing is that it makes me proud to read a fellow Zoroastrian who does invest all his being in what he writes so elegantly.

Parviz Varjavand

--- On Sun, 2/7/10, ardeshir farhmand wrote:

From: ardeshir farhmand
Subject: [Ushta] the enchanting doctrine of the auspicious immortals
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Cc: "mehrdad farahmand"
Date: Sunday, February 7, 2010, 9:39 PM


Ameshá Speñtá is a beautiful gathic concept of profound importance. It refers to the eternal spirits of ahurmazd or aspects of his wit/profound understanding/ mind/spirit. The term appears in the poetic Gathas as "Mazdá and his power supremes or ahurás/plural," (See Yasna 30.9, second line and Yasna 31.4, first line.) They see the mind/spirit of Mazdá each time reflected anew, and learn/discover yet more of his wisdom and vision. Each time, they discover a brilliant thought and a new vision of Mazdá, they begin a new theme like and yet unlike to the former creation theme, and create new beauty, awe, and wonder in being and time. Mazdá shows them a new vision each time, and they unfold a new reality/world based on this newly discovered vision/wisdom. As it is written in the prelude to the poetic gathas or the "yánim manö" formula, the Ameshá Speñtá took forth the enchanting melody, and held them forth or manifested it in the world. Their role is make the existence brilliant, ever afresh and new.
Ameshá or Amertá means immortality, eternity, forever. Ameshá or Amertá refers to the indestructible, ever-thriving and eternal charm, magnetism and fascinating powers of Ahurmazd, (See Yasna 28.3, second line.) Speñtá on the other hand means auspicious, successful, and having great powers of achievement and realization. It comes from the same exact root as the Vedic Shivá. These Immortals flow from the ever-renewed energy and brilliance of Ahurmazd, (See Yasna 33.8, third line.)
They are the great beings of light and vision. They are the wondrous shapes/vafüsh of God, (See Yasna 29.6, first line.) They are the glorious formations of the spiritual light/knowledge that emanate from the thoughts/vision of Ahurmazd, (See Yasna 31.7, first line and Farvardin Yasht. 81.) Also we read in Mēnōg ī Khirad 8.2 that they are formed from Mazda's own light (az hān ī khwēš rōshnīh), while in the Ayādgār ī Jāmāspīg 3.3-7 their illumination is compared to the lighting of a torch from a torch. They have been kindled with the flame imperishable, See Yasna 46.7, the third line. and their adoration themes is to make being and time brilliant and ever new.They were with Ahurmazd's thought/vision before anything else was made, hence they are called "a-paourvîm," (See Yasna 28.3, the first line.) The term "a-paourvîm" is the same as vedic "apaurashaya," a word which reveals their eternal and ever pristine status. Their number has been cited as 7 (eternity, infinity) and 33 (infinite wisdom.) Yet the best description is in Vispered 8.1, where we read that their number is 50, 100, 1000, 10,000, yet beyond reckoning.
They are masters of their own will, and are of the same passion, will/desire and harmony with Mazdá and each other, (See, Yasna 51.20, the first line.) We read in Yasna 45.4 and Bundahišn 1.44 that Ahurmazd gave them being from his own selfhood, through perfect contemplation. The idea is repeated also in denkard exegesis and also in the bundahishn, (az hān ī khwēš khwadīh.) In other words, they are luminous aspects of God’s own nature.
They are like a new light/vision each time, filling the world with a new wonder and joy, (See Yasna 30, the third line,) For the delight of Mazdá is in the deed of making, and in the things most amazingly made, wherefore he passes ever on to some new brilliant work. So, they are the world's life, eternal progress and every new discovery is theirs. Thus was the habitation of the ahurás or immortals established in eternity and infinite vastness of Vohümanö or wonderful wit/vision of GOD, See Yasna 39.3.
This beautiful doctrine has also a physical dimension, in that each of the immortals is linked with one of the “creations” (Middle Persian. dahišnān), which the ancient Iranian thinkers held made up the world. These links are systematically listed in the Zand and later middle Persian texts, and each of them is subtly mentioned in the poetic Gāthās, where Zoroaster sometimes names the creation in order to represent the divinity, and vice versa. The first to realize this, among Western scholars, was H. Lommel; the grandson of the great philosopher Hegel. The doctrine of the auspicious immortals thus links spiritual, ethical, and material in a manner, unique to to Zoroastrianism. As Lommel puts it; the doctrine represents an ancient, mystical way of looking at reality, at a time when, it seems, “abstract and concrete . . . appeared to the human spirit as of unified being, the abstract as the inner reality of the concrete, so that, for instance, perfect contemplation/ serenity and the earth were the spiritual and material aspects of the same thing” (B. Schlerath, ed., Zarathustra, pp. 31-32). The link between the creations and the spiritual immortals is reaffirmed in the 5 daily acts of worship everyday, so to say that they are mere abstracts is ignoring the fact, that real/true knowledge is alive, knows and affects.
ardeshir

Liberalism vs Orthodoxy (The Case for Orthodox Zoroastrianism)

Dear Parviz and Ardeshir

I actually find it very interesting that "liberal" and "orthodox" are not opposites but rather the same thing within Zoroastrianism. In thise sense we are all thre eboth liberal and orthodox and I'm happy to call myself an orthodox Zoroastrian too.
It seems deifferences are rather between which texts we find important and how we relate to them (if giving priority to texts at all).

Ushta
Alexander

2010/2/1 Parviz Varjavand

Hi Ardeshir,

As you may know by now, I do not accept the authority of any Sacred Book be it the Denkart or The Tibetan Book of the Dead, I accept the authority of clear thinking minds expressing their ideas in as plain a language as even a child can understand. Plain talking is the greatest art in Philo-Sophia or Mazda-Yasna. The most important persons we should be talking to are children because it is their fresh minds that is being formed by our talks to them. As for Dastoor Kotwal or others of his rank wanting to debate you, "Good Luck", they are too busy hiding behind their interpretations of their Sacred Books (Vandidad and the likes) mumbling to themselves pronouncements that only they can decipher.

I do understand English to some degree, but when it comes to understanding what you are trying to express, I am still at a loss. You say "by hostile energies/forces i mean "angra" and other limiting energies that believe in determinism and fixed, bleak world". Do these "hostile energies" exist in our minds created by the way we think or do they have an existence independent of our minds? Where do "the hostile influences and forces which would have the creation stick as tightly as possible to the disorder, unregenerate habits and ugliness to which it has been reduced.(A.F.)" come from? Do you believ that they are the "TWIN" of the Good Forces, as the Gatha seems to suggest?

Ushta te,
Parviz Varjavand

P.S. May you not give me "Good Forces have "Existance" while bad forces have "Non-Existance" just as Darkness is the absence of Light"; that answere is such a joke, philosophically speaking.


--- On Sun, 1/31/10, ardeshir farhmand wrote:

From: ardeshir farhmand
Subject: Re: [Ushta] Is Zoroastrianism really dualistic??? ///A View!
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, January 31, 2010, 1:28 PM

Hi Parviz,

My views are very orthodox, if u read or accept the authority of Denkard or any other ancient exegesis; u will find out that the whole body of our avestan literature and their commentaries has been formed as a footnote to and a commentary around the enchanting gathas.

dr jaffary merely reminded the zoroastrians of this forgotten FACT, he did not invent something new in that aspect. however, his utter dismissal of the ancient exegesis and reliance on western scholars instead, and his mechanical science txt-book translation are his unique approach.

there is a diffrence between orthodoxy and orthopraxy or concieved orthopraxy. furthermore, i cite my sources, and i believe every traditionalist should do the same. so if u do not agree with me, ask mr.mistry or dastoor kotwal to please cite their opposition, i think it would be lively debate.

now, as far as what u did not seem to be clear on; by hostile energies/forces i mean "angra" and other limiting energies that believe in determinism and fixed, bleak world

ardeshir.

On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Parviz Varjavand wrote:

Hi Ardeshir,

High Dastoor Kotwal calls his views of Zoroastrianism as being "The Orthodox Views" (in his Harvard papers) and the best teacher of the Orthodox Views today is Khojeste Mistry of Zoroastrian Studies, Bombay. To base all that Zoroastrianism IS on the Gathas is a path that Ali Akbar Jafarey made popular and is a close parallel to how Islam is based primarily on the Sacred Koran. So, I do not agree that there is anything Orthodox about your views, you are inventing your vision of Zoroastrianism as much as anyone else coming up with fresh ideas about it today. We would love to hear your views, but please do not try to protect yourself behind the shield that your views are Orthodox while that of others are not.

Since in a post of yours that followed this, you seem to feel that this post of yours is very important, I took the time to read it many times. I may be a dunce, but the more I read, the less I understood what your exact vision of our Din is. For example, could you please explain to me what you are trying to say in this passage:

>>"According to the enchanting Gathic teachings; to suggest that everything is equally the will of God is a very convenient suggestion of the hostile influences and forces which would have the creation stick as tightly as possible to the disorder, unregenerate habits and ugliness to which it has been reduced."<< A.F.

I would appreciate your kind patience with me.
Parviz Varjavand


--- On Sun, 1/31/10, ardeshir farhmand wrote:

From: ardeshir farhmand
Subject: [Ushta] Is Zoroastrianism really dualistic??? ///An orthodox View
To: Ushta@yahoogroups. com
Cc: "mehrdad farahmand"
Date: Sunday, January 31, 2010, 9:11 AM


Hi Martin,

Welcome to ushta, an intellectual zoroastrian discussion group. i am an orthodox zoroastrian and here is the the orthodox view/take on ur question.

Zoroastrianism has been labeled as a dualistic faith, mostly since its coming into contact with biblical religions/culture. To begin with, comparing biblical tradition with Mazdyasna/Zoroastri anism is not a wise or correct approach. They come from vastly different cultural and historical backgrounds and understanding Zoroastrianism in biblical terms leads only to confusion and misunderstanding of Zoroastrianism. A better approach would be comparing the compatible Vedic and Vedantic tradition and/or ancient Norse literature with Mazdyasna.

An important part/element of the above dualism charge against Zoroastrianism has its roots in the notion that since all things owe their origin to God/Divine Source, all their activities also proceed directly from God. According to the poetic Gathas and the established Zoroastrian tradition it is truly a TERRIBLE theory to attribute all that takes place as God's direct working.

According to the enchanting Gathic teachings; to suggest that everything is equally the will of God is a very convenient suggestion of the hostile influences and forces which would have the creation stick as tightly as possible to the disorder, unregenerate habits and ugliness to which it has been reduced.

According to the enchanting songs of Zarathushtra the ultimate nature/origin of the world/existence is "khratü" or "speñtá mainyü" or Vohümanö; described respectively as an insight/wisdom/ will that knows, effects and realizes, an auspicious spirit/understandin g, and an energy, passion, spirit, wit/awareness which is imbued with awe, wonder, beauty and amazement. (look at the third line of Yasna 28.1, the fifth line of Yasna 44.7 and the first line of Yasna 34.2.)

Yet, despite the world's divine origin, here in the material nature the "foresight, wisdom and vision/mazdá," is veiled by ignorance, inconscience, interia and lack of vision; and what takes place here does NOT proceed directly from the divine meta-knowledge.

Hence evil is closely associated with lack of vision and growth (Yasna 30.3,) and is a non-being, non-living phenomenon (Yasna 30.4,) a truly non-existent delusion or "drüj."

When Vohümanö is established its rule in the world, then the world will be a genuine expression of the divine will/wisdom. It is the struggle between the outdated/old/ stagnated and the vibrant/growing/ fresh and new that forms the crux of our religion (Yasna 34.15.)

The truth/ashá of Vohümanö/vast wit and vision; has got mistranslated, tainted and distorted (Yasna 32.9.)

We see the falsehood in the world and the distortion of the pristine truths, and realize that this illusion must be replaced with the pristine energy and passion that manifested this creation. And to express the pristine vision, spiritual wisdom and progress in every thought, word and act is indeed our beautiful religion (See the thirld line of Yasna 28.11.)

Ardeshir

Zoroastrianism vs Judaism

Dear Martin

Please note that the concept of sin does not exist in Zoroastrianism.
It is basically an ethical philosophy and not a moralizing religion like the Abrahamic religions.
We do not have any commandments but merely believe that our actions become one with ourselves.
THIS is why it is important to us what we think, say and how we act.
But there are no preset rules in Zoroastrianism. Not judgment day towards which we are reponsible for our actions. We are only responsible to ourselves and our fellow human beings.

Ushta
Alexander

2010/1/31 Martin Grossmann


That is going pretty well for the beginning ;)

Well to your statements Bahman. Thank your for explanation of Dualism and also wanted to thank the previous poster but cant remember his name ;)

Now to the jewish and refering to the things you mentioned.

In Judaism a physical entity as satan as a special angel or opposing force doesnt exist. In the hebrew bible, the world "ha-satan" is meaning "the opposing / accusing one" and refers mostly to various angels, that are taking the position of a prosecutor towards humankind and its evil deeds. But still as angels, they are controlled by g-d and have no free will. They are mostly send by g-d to test mens loyalty to his ehtical and moral principles.
So basically ha-Satan is not an equal opposing negative force, but certainly pre-existant and still part of this eternal and universal balance.
A interesting as it is, in the story of creation, the serpent is never mentioned to be ha-Satan (and certainly ha-Satan mentioned in the other scripture has never had a physical appearance), but is seen to be figurative or a symbol for the sin, that persuaded men to break the covenant. That is why in Gen. 3:15, the Almighty is talking directly to the serpent and cursing it (another viewpoint, why not ha-Satan can be meant since its not under g-ds control and so resulting out of free will of humankind).

The christian interpretation later stated a diffuse interpretation, that resulted in following Christianity a dualis approach although it is based on Judaism, that doesnt have one in the methaphysical sense (meaning a bad and good force, but that evil results out of the will of men to do bad things)

Now to the second point. Certainly if man was created by g-d and he had full control over his creation and created a sinful creature, then that would mean he has to be sinful too. Now that is partly correct. Since everything else that exists besides men is under his control as an eternal and universal deity, everything else in in balance and so you cant contribute to it a certain characteristic.

As the saying goes....g-d is everything and nothing.
The reason why men, as his greatest creation, is sinful derives from the fact, that we have been given free will. If we wouldnt have free will, we wouldnt need a covenant or a savior. With free will, we expand over natural and ethical limits.

But you are right. Still he would have to be existant in men since he is a part of them as its creator. But men is not born bad or good, is it ? We become sinful throughout our lives by influences from our surrounding.

Now that was the jewish viewpoint and hope I could clear some stuff up. Thank you for the great interest and that is why I joined this channel ;)

Have a nice day.






2010/1/31 Bahman Noruziaan


Hello Marcin,

The Dualism of the Gathas refers to after creation of the world as we see. Dualism in my understanding, appears to have been the necessity of the world to come about, based on Zarathushtra's vision.
The dual entities were the primal building blocks of this universe. They however, in human's mind, are interpreted as better and the worst. They manifest themselves in our being (thoughts, words and deeds as good and bad). There is no dualism in the nature of Ahura Mazda, but its material creation.


Referring to what wyou wrote as:

"The creation of men (and the existence of evil deeds and actions) challenged this balance and so evil became existent."
I am not sure how Judaism then explains the rebellion of Satan against Yehwa's will and its act of deceiving Eve and as a result Adam? Was not this act, an evil act, a sin, which is attributed to Satan that pre-existed man?



Also you wrote:
"The Creation of Men changed this balance and Sin (as human trademark) is seen in Judaism as the opposing force towards the balance made by this universal deity."
Now, if man which is a creation of Yehowa was capable of Sin, then was not it embedded in the blueprint of its making, which was planned by Yehowa?
So, how the deity created a potentially sinful creation, if itself is devoid of any sin?

Regards

To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
From: marcin.grossman@googlemail.com
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 03:03:11 +0100
Subject: [Ushta] QUESTION DUALISM [BEGINNER]



Dear Friends,

I am new to this group and interested in the zoroastrian religious ( or philosophical ) views.

Please correct any of my thinking processes, since I am new to this.
As I understand, the Zoroastrains believe in Dualism as existent in a positive and negative entity. If that is so, then I would like to understand following. If we say that dualism (for example interaction of a good divine entity and bad divine entity) is something that surrounds any particle in the universe, then it should have existed already before the creation of men. But since nature or universe itself is always in balance, there is never really an out-of-balance state, meaning that you logically cant call either of the two forces positive or negative. Evil doesnt exist in nature or the universe since there is no cause to it. The creation of men (and the existence of evil deeds and actions) challenged this ballance and so evil became existent.

I am jewish and judaism is not based on dualism. As explained, I see no confirmation in the existence of two opposing forces if a. everything is in balance and b. therefore you cannot attribute them (by saying this one is positive and this one is negative).

Following this statements, I support the idea that if the divine deity exists, it should logically be one spiritual and universal deity with no physical or philosophical trait (no dualism).

The Creation of Men changed this balance and Sin (as human trademark) is seen in Judaism as the opposing force towards the balance made by this universal deity. So maybe I would call it dualism between balance and inbalance, but between Humankind and its creator. And since this creator existed before humankind, you cant attribute any trademarks to him and so dualism cant exist. (or is always in balance what makes it unnecessary to distinguish between these forces)

I see no logical signal for the existence of a negative entity ( as the devil or bad spirit ) equal to g-d.

Could you explain to me, how Zoroastrians are viewing this situation and what kind of role men is playing in it ?

Thank your for your time and reading.

Best regards,

Marcin

The Consequences of Monism Part 2

Dear Ardeshir

Please don't turn yourself into just another quote-queen. Please don't just become another Ali Jafarey. We are sooo tired of self-righteous quote-queens who insist that they are right and that only THEIR interpretation of the sacred text is right bla bla bla.
The point with The Gathas is NOT to quote like an automatic robot. It is TO THINK!!!
The point is to GET TO KNOW a PERSON called Zarathushtra (who is NOT a scientist and NOT a prophet and NOT a god and never claimed to be ANY of those things!) and then try to understand HOW HE THINKS AND WHY and then APPLY that to our contemporary society and OUR lives.
The question is not how the quotes in The Gathas run.
The question is HOW WOULD ZARATHUSHTRA THINK AND ACT IF HE HAD BEEN AROUND WITH US HERE TODAY?
This is what it means to be a true Maxzdayasni IN SPIRIT and not just a dead and mindless quote queen without a heart.
You're brilliant, Ardeshir, you're absolutely brilliant! Just don't turn yourself into something we do NOT need: Just another Ali Jafarey. That is not what the world needs now. OK?
You're way too good for that.
Now, what was your argument for your latest position again?

Ushta
Alexander


2010/1/25 ardeshir farhmand

Dear Alexander,

there are many born zoroastrians who might firmly feel that way and that is their every right. we are free to believe whatever, yet i really invite each and every one of these fine people to clearly cite the gatha passages and even other avestan texts in support of their views. i also ask them to respond to my meticulous objective rebuttals, in case their citing turn out to be TWISTED TRANSLATIONS.

what u refer to is about personal beliefs and convictions. I AM MOT SAYING AGREE WITH ZARATHUSTRA OR HIS FASCINATING GATHAS UNCONDITIONALLY, IF U and MANY FINE OTHERS FEEL HE MIGHT NOT BE RIGHT on this subject or the other, then respectfully DO NOT AGREE with him.

I AM CLEARLY SAYING HOWEVER THAT NO ZOROASTRIAN/born or chosen, OR NON ZOROASTRIAN HAS THE RIGHT TO LABEL THEIR OWN IDEAS, LIKES AND DISLIKES AS THAT OF GATHAS AND ZARATHUSTRA unless he/she can reasonably, objectively and convincingly cite and argue the meanings of his/her supported cited passages in favor of his/her arguments.

is that really too much to ask???? is this an unfair proposal???? that is exactly the point that should set "ushta" group aside from the gatha cult. for the gatha cult simply twist the key gatha concepts and words without any precedence; and when confronted with an objective counter-argument and preponderance body of evidence against their views, they just become hostile, dismissive and resort to name-calling and belittling the established opposite views!!!

so do we want to argue further on this simple point?????
by the way, the following off-hand passages in the poetic gathas clearly counter the view that reality is restricted to physical matter alone; Yasna 28.2, Yasna 43.3, Yasna 31.7, Yasna 31.11, Yasna 34.15 and many other passages. n case any one interested, i would be happy to argue them and go through them word by word.

and u know, i try to keep my personal beliefs apart from Zarathushtra's views, so do not pre-suppose that i am necessarily in agreement or dis-agreement with him. i just want to make sure that i differentiate between the two and not label mine as his. i aslo ask of everyone to do the same or if they claim that Zarathushtra said such and such to prove it objectively from his poetic gathas and not rely on the personal views of this person or the other and/or twisted and unsubstantiated translations.

enough said!

ardeshir


On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Alexander Bard wrote:

Dear Ardeshir


There are many many many eduacted Zoroastrians - who are as educated as you and me - who disagree with you on this issue. They firmly believe that there is physical reality only (the complete nature of which we still do not know, of course, but nevertheless) and they firmly believe that this is COMPATIBLE with the Gathic text. Simply because any EXTRA-physical reality requires dualism, which is an Egyptian-Greek invention which does NOT exist in Indo-Iranian cultures prior to Manicheism.

The vast majority of the people I talk about are not even converts or westerners but rather Iranians and Indians born into the Zoroastrian faith.

Please argue for your case, but don't tell people who have lived as Zoroastrians for thousands of years that they can not be Zoroastrian. What would you possibly gain by that? Live and let live. OK?

Ushta
Alexander/has not seen any evidence yet of any extra-physical reality whatsoever and does not think it is SMART to argue for one either, as Zarathushtra would happily agree when he said that "good thoughts" foster "good words" within the one and only world which he belived in...

2010/1/24 ardeshir farhmand
Dear Alexander

The whole point i am making here is that we all have our niche of expertise.
some of us might be excellent in philosophical thoughts/studies, some of us might be good with poetry and might be fluent/well-versed in the original gathic language and comparative studies, another one might be just a bright/unique mind and a sharp intellect; and one might be the voice of common sense,.........
and one might be just a cynic with some good point nevertheless here and there.

all this said, we are here to compare and exchange our ideas and learn from each other since Zoroastrianism per Yasna 43.10 is all about discovery and freedom of spirit/awareness.

for example when Dino suggested "awareness" for "minoo/manesh" i felt it is an additional good idea/explanation that could be used in EXPLAINING/NOT TRANSLATING the concept.
when alexander, suggested "dynamic universe" i strongly felt he is right, since it avoids misunderstandings by the public. i incorporated the above changes in my FB articles.

The problem arises when we start using an unpleasant and hostile approach when we encounter a poetic language not to our personal liking, or when we find out that the original text has concepts that DO NOT agree with our personal beliefs.
Is the whole point here not to professionally discuss alternatives and suggest constructive ideas, or agree to widen our horizons and admit brighter and smarter possibilities????

Anyone with reasonable familiarity with the ORIGINAL GATHIC TEXT and the rich and truly brilliant ZOROASTRIAN EXEGESIS and TRADITION has no difficulty in objectively establishing that Zoroastrianism does not in any way agree with and/or is limited to PHYSICAL REALITY ATTITUDE ONLY.

Zarathustra was much smarter than that. when he talks about MAZDA, he is talking about insight, vision, wisdom and intelligence not just expressed in man, but in animals and all other possible sparks/manifestations/forms/expressions of vision and genius.

i think it is extremely cynical and unprofessional when e.g. parviz attacks my extensive knowledge of the gathic text; and sarcastically equates his mis-understanding of meta-physics or new age hocus pocus with my writings.

we say in every morning meditation/havan gah: we adore FREEDOM OF SPIRIT and LEARNING and STUDY.
yet reducing Zarathushtra's message to a cynical short-sighted materialism and ambigous "cow worship" is SIMPLY UNSUBSTANTIATED and NOT TRUE.

ZARATHUSTRA and HIS ENCHANTING GATHAS are all about VISION, FAR SIGHT, and WIDER AND MORE LUMINOUS HORIZONS AND POSSIBILITIES.

It is a very dynamic, fluid, luminous, and optimistic message; and that is precisely why is it NOT restricted to cynical and limited materialism. IT IS A MESSAGE THAT CELEBRATES BOTH SPIRIT and MATTER, e.g look at Yasna 16 among many other Yasnas and Sirozae.

so, calling this "ardeshir's version of the gathas" without any credible gathic citation to the opposite, and at the same time talking about "GAAUOOSH URVA" without even admitting its real meaning shows simply personal bias and unconditional favoritism for one's own personal convictions.

By the way, it is "GEUSH URVA" with a long french sounding "e," and it refers to "the spirit of life" in general and "the intuitive soul of animal kingdom" in particular. see Yasna 29.1 Yasna 29.2 and Yasna 29.9.

Zoroastrianism is NOT A RIGHT, IT IS A PRIVILEGE THAT MUST BE EARNED, and we are here to earn it through exchange of our higher awareness/spirits of understanding and brilliant ideas.

There are many jews that do not believe in TORAH or agree with it on every aspect, but they are still culturally jewish and more importantly do not label their personal beliefs as TORAH and/or HALACHA.

Zoroastrianism is not rigid or dogmatic. Zoroastrianism has nevertheless very "clear and established spiritual message and fundamentals". and is certainly not "post modernist polemic ambiguity" and/or "short-sighted and limited absolute materialism."

all i am saying is: let us first understand the enchanting gathas accurately, discuss them, try to express them in best possible manner through OBJECTIVE exchange of ideas, and always admit "wider horizons and better possibilities" in true harmony with the spirit of the gathas.

each one of us has his/her unique expertise and valuable contribution to make, let us admit that and try to work together and refrain from cynical, personal attacks and/or using less than collegial language.

my contribution to ushta is simply: try my best to clearly advise everyone as to the original and fascinating speech of the gathas; and through every one's help find brilliant but nevertheless CONSISTENT language to express them. if this can be done ONLY objectively and collegialy i would be happy to share my niche here.

Ardeshir



On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 4:09 AM, Alexander Bard wrote:

Dear Ardeshir


I don't believe any Zoroastrian has the right to say that he or she is the sole interpretor of the Zoroastrian religion or Mazdayasna philosophy. This amounts to sectarianism and extremism. Zoroastrianism is a religion that has been PRACTICED for 3,700 years in a myriad of MULTIPLE ways and we need to respect this and be humble towards this fact.
Having said this, I agree with you on YOUR specific sentiment. Basically, I'm a huge fan of Zarathushtra too, I believe that The Gathas is an excellent text on which I'm happy to base my worldview and my philosophical conviction.
But unless you can prove that Mazda has taken other forms or manifestations than human minds, you risk turning Mazda into something superstitious and supernatural, and that is opposed to what Zarathushtra himself preached. Mazda MAY have othe rmanifestations, but Zarathushtra ever claims that Mazda DOES have other manifestations, and so far Sceinvce has not found any (as Parviz and Dino have both rightly pointe dout).
I would therefore recommend you to be careful to say YOUR interpretation is the OBJECTIVE one. It smacks more of pomposity rather than the amazing intelligence and integrity which you otherwise show so often. Just propose your arguments for what they are, SUBJECTIVE and learned interpretations, and you will be listened to much more and accepted for your wisdom, rather than being seen as a highly questionable sectarian. OK?
I have always said that Zoroastrianism, historically and Gathas-studies based, can be both Pantheistic and Panentheistic. Consequently, Mazda can be seen as Human Minds only and also possibly extrernal to human m inds (which however remains to be proven and can only be believed and not be a requirement for calling onseself a Mazdayasni). The one thing Zoroastrianism is and should not be, however, is sectarian and rigidly dogmatic. It would be the very opposite of The Geist of Zarathushtra himself who wanted nothing of the sort. Don't you agree?

Ushta
Alexander

2010/1/23 ardeshir farhmand
it is truly regrettable if we choose to deviate from the true "Zarathushtiran Mazdyasna," and create our own cult/religion.
although, parviz or anyone else here is entitled to their opinion, yet NO ONE has the right to twist the words of Zarathushtra
or hijack Mazdyasna's name and create their own religion and call it Mazdyasna.
Mazdyasna is the name of Zarathushtra's message ONLY,
There HAS NEVER BEEN a MAZDYASNA WITHOUT ZARATHUSHTRA AND HIS POETIC GATHAS
i am solely here, because i am interested in an OBJECTIVE comparative study of Mazdyasna with other similar philos.
I simply can not believe my eyes when parviz suggests to remove our spiritual scripture, the poetic gathas and their avestan commentaries;
and become a philo without a pristine bardic source.
also, claiming that MAZDA is nothing more than our minds,
that no awareness/consciousness exists outside the material brain, and that "GAUSH URVA" alone is alive;
all this amounts to creating a brand new religion.
no much worse, it is using ZARATHUSHTRA's TERMINOLOGY and twist it around and call it mazdyasna.
The very name GEUSH URVA suggests a soul for the dynamic universe, a soul for all life.
disregarding tiese FACTS and presenting contrary and opposite ideas to our personal liking;
and call it MAZDYASNA is simply unsubstantiated and without legitimate authenticity.
either we are MAZDYASNI
or we are creating our own religion in accordance with our personal beliefs e.g cow worship as parviz likes to call it.
ZOROASTRIANISM IS NOT A RIGHT, IT IS A PRIVILEDGE that must BE CHOSEN.
if we are born into it and does not like the message of zarathushtra, well then, we are not mazdyasni or zoroastrian,
simple as that.
THE FACT IS THAT There is a CONCEPT of a GREAT BEYOND of GREAT, AWESOME and REAL POSSIBILITIES
BEYOND IN THE GATHAS AND MAZYASNA, there is RENOVATION OF THE EXISTENCE in the GATHAS,
there is PASSION, ENERGY, SPIRIT awareness in the GATHAS,
and many other concepts that will not please or agree remotely with a "PHYSICAL REALITY ONLY" attitude.

If we can not objectively study and understand that, there is no point for me to post or discuss anything further here.
we can disagree, but we can not create a new cult of our personal likes/dislikes in the name of Zarathushtra and Mazdyasna.

The Consequences of Monism

Dear Ardeshir

There are many many many eduacted Zoroastrians - who are as educated as you and me - who disagree with you on this issue. They firmly believe that there is physical reality only (the complete nature of which we still do not know, of course, but nevertheless) and they firmly believe that this is COMPATIBLE with the Gathic text. Simply because any EXTRA-physical reality requires dualism, which is an Egyptian-Greek invention which does NOT exist in Indo-Iranian cultures prior to Manicheism.

The vast majority of the people I talk about are not even converts or westerners but rather Iranians and Indians born into the Zoroastrian faith.

Please argue for your case, but don't tell people who have lived as Zoroastrians for thousands of years that they can not be Zoroastrian. What would you possibly gain by that? Live and let live. OK?

Ushta
Alexander/has not seen any evidence yet of any extra-physical reality whatsoever and does not think it is SMART to argue for one either, as Zarathushtra would happily agree when he said that "good thoughts" foster "good words" within the one and only world which he belived in...

2010/1/24 ardeshir farhmand
Dear Alexander

The whole point i am making here is that we all have our niche of expertise.
some of us might be excellent in philosophical thoughts/studies, some of us might be good with poetry and might be fluent/well-versed in the original gathic language and comparative studies, another one might be just a bright/unique mind and a sharp intellect; and one might be the voice of common sense,.........
and one might be just a cynic with some good point nevertheless here and there.

all this said, we are here to compare and exchange our ideas and learn from each other since Zoroastrianism per Yasna 43.10 is all about discovery and freedom of spirit/awareness.

for example when Dino suggested "awareness" for "minoo/manesh" i felt it is an additional good idea/explanation that could be used in EXPLAINING/NOT TRANSLATING the concept.
when alexander, suggested "dynamic universe" i strongly felt he is right, since it avoids misunderstandings by the public. i incorporated the above changes in my FB articles.

The problem arises when we start using an unpleasant and hostile approach when we encounter a poetic language not to our personal liking, or when we find out that the original text has concepts that DO NOT agree with our personal beliefs.
Is the whole point here not to professionally discuss alternatives and suggest constructive ideas, or agree to widen our horizons and admit brighter and smarter possibilities????

Anyone with reasonable familiarity with the ORIGINAL GATHIC TEXT and the rich and truly brilliant ZOROASTRIAN EXEGESIS and TRADITION has no difficulty in objectively establishing that Zoroastrianism does not in any way agree with and/or is limited to PHYSICAL REALITY ATTITUDE ONLY.

Zarathustra was much smarter than that. when he talks about MAZDA, he is talking about insight, vision, wisdom and intelligence not just expressed in man, but in animals and all other possible sparks/manifestations/forms/expressions of vision and genius.

i think it is extremely cynical and unprofessional when e.g. parviz attacks my extensive knowledge of the gathic text; and sarcastically equates his mis-understanding of meta-physics or new age hocus pocus with my writings.

we say in every morning meditation/havan gah: we adore FREEDOM OF SPIRIT and LEARNING and STUDY.
yet reducing Zarathushtra's message to a cynical short-sighted materialism and ambigous "cow worship" is SIMPLY UNSUBSTANTIATED and NOT TRUE.

ZARATHUSTRA and HIS ENCHANTING GATHAS are all about VISION, FAR SIGHT, and WIDER AND MORE LUMINOUS HORIZONS AND POSSIBILITIES.

It is a very dynamic, fluid, luminous, and optimistic message; and that is precisely why is it NOT restricted to cynical and limited materialism. IT IS A MESSAGE THAT CELEBRATES BOTH SPIRIT and MATTER, e.g look at Yasna 16 among many other Yasnas and Sirozae.

so, calling this "ardeshir's version of the gathas" without any credible gathic citation to the opposite, and at the same time talking about "GAAUOOSH URVA" without even admitting its real meaning shows simply personal bias and unconditional favoritism for one's own personal convictions.

By the way, it is "GEUSH URVA" with a long french sounding "e," and it refers to "the spirit of life" in general and "the intuitive soul of animal kingdom" in particular. see Yasna 29.1 Yasna 29.2 and Yasna 29.9.

Zoroastrianism is NOT A RIGHT, IT IS A PRIVILEGE THAT MUST BE EARNED, and we are here to earn it through exchange of our higher awareness/spirits of understanding and brilliant ideas.

There are many jews that do not believe in TORAH or agree with it on every aspect, but they are still culturally jewish and more importantly do not label their personal beliefs as TORAH and/or HALACHA.

Zoroastrianism is not rigid or dogmatic. Zoroastrianism has nevertheless very "clear and established spiritual message and fundamentals". and is certainly not "post modernist polemic ambiguity" and/or "short-sighted and limited absolute materialism."

all i am saying is: let us first understand the enchanting gathas accurately, discuss them, try to express them in best possible manner through OBJECTIVE exchange of ideas, and always admit "wider horizons and better possibilities" in true harmony with the spirit of the gathas.

each one of us has his/her unique expertise and valuable contribution to make, let us admit that and try to work together and refrain from cynical, personal attacks and/or using less than collegial language.

my contribution to ushta is simply: try my best to clearly advise everyone as to the original and fascinating speech of the gathas; and through every one's help find brilliant but nevertheless CONSISTENT language to express them. if this can be done ONLY objectively and collegialy i would be happy to share my niche here.

Ardeshir



On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 4:09 AM, Alexander Bard wrote:

Dear Ardeshir


I don't believe any Zoroastrian has the right to say that he or she is the sole interpretor of the Zoroastrian religion or Mazdayasna philosophy. This amounts to sectarianism and extremism. Zoroastrianism is a religion that has been PRACTICED for 3,700 years in a myriad of MULTIPLE ways and we need to respect this and be humble towards this fact.
Having said this, I agree with you on YOUR specific sentiment. Basically, I'm a huge fan of Zarathushtra too, I believe that The Gathas is an excellent text on which I'm happy to base my worldview and my philosophical conviction.
But unless you can prove that Mazda has taken other forms or manifestations than human minds, you risk turning Mazda into something superstitious and supernatural, and that is opposed to what Zarathushtra himself preached. Mazda MAY have othe rmanifestations, but Zarathushtra ever claims that Mazda DOES have other manifestations, and so far Sceinvce has not found any (as Parviz and Dino have both rightly pointe dout).
I would therefore recommend you to be careful to say YOUR interpretation is the OBJECTIVE one. It smacks more of pomposity rather than the amazing intelligence and integrity which you otherwise show so often. Just propose your arguments for what they are, SUBJECTIVE and learned interpretations, and you will be listened to much more and accepted for your wisdom, rather than being seen as a highly questionable sectarian. OK?
I have always said that Zoroastrianism, historically and Gathas-studies based, can be both Pantheistic and Panentheistic. Consequently, Mazda can be seen as Human Minds only and also possibly extrernal to human m inds (which however remains to be proven and can only be believed and not be a requirement for calling onseself a Mazdayasni). The one thing Zoroastrianism is and should not be, however, is sectarian and rigidly dogmatic. It would be the very opposite of The Geist of Zarathushtra himself who wanted nothing of the sort. Don't you agree?

Ushta
Alexander

2010/1/23 ardeshir farhmand
it is truly regrettable if we choose to deviate from the true "Zarathushtiran Mazdyasna," and create our own cult/religion.
although, parviz or anyone else here is entitled to their opinion, yet NO ONE has the right to twist the words of Zarathushtra
or hijack Mazdyasna's name and create their own religion and call it Mazdyasna.
Mazdyasna is the name of Zarathushtra's message ONLY,
There HAS NEVER BEEN a MAZDYASNA WITHOUT ZARATHUSHTRA AND HIS POETIC GATHAS
i am solely here, because i am interested in an OBJECTIVE comparative study of Mazdyasna with other similar philos.
I simply can not believe my eyes when parviz suggests to remove our spiritual scripture, the poetic gathas and their avestan commentaries;
and become a philo without a pristine bardic source.
also, claiming that MAZDA is nothing more than our minds,
that no awareness/consciousness exists outside the material brain, and that "GAUSH URVA" alone is alive;
all this amounts to creating a brand new religion.
no much worse, it is using ZARATHUSHTRA's TERMINOLOGY and twist it around and call it mazdyasna.
The very name GEUSH URVA suggests a soul for the dynamic universe, a soul for all life.
disregarding tiese FACTS and presenting contrary and opposite ideas to our personal liking;
and call it MAZDYASNA is simply unsubstantiated and without legitimate authenticity.
either we are MAZDYASNI
or we are creating our own religion in accordance with our personal beliefs e.g cow worship as parviz likes to call it.
ZOROASTRIANISM IS NOT A RIGHT, IT IS A PRIVILEDGE that must BE CHOSEN.
if we are born into it and does not like the message of zarathushtra, well then, we are not mazdyasni or zoroastrian,
simple as that.
THE FACT IS THAT There is a CONCEPT of a GREAT BEYOND of GREAT, AWESOME and REAL POSSIBILITIES
BEYOND IN THE GATHAS AND MAZYASNA, there is RENOVATION OF THE EXISTENCE in the GATHAS,
there is PASSION, ENERGY, SPIRIT awareness in the GATHAS,
and many other concepts that will not please or agree remotely with a "PHYSICAL REALITY ONLY" attitude.

If we can not objectively study and understand that, there is no point for me to post or discuss anything further here.
we can disagree, but we can not create a new cult of our personal likes/dislikes in the name of Zarathushtra and Mazdyasna.

The Road to a Pragmatist Metaphysics

Dear Mehrdad

Very well put!!!I
But why assume that there are not new solutions around the corner? Philosophy evolves too.
I actually present a pragmatist metaphysics with my co-author Jan Soderqvist in "The Global Empire", one of the two new books that will come out in English later this year.
We organise phenomenology as an interplay between eternalism and mobilism, instead of the old Kantain duality of phenomena and noumena. Our point is that the inaccessibility of reality is based on the fact that everything is in flux whereas our perception only works as a sorting process where flows of flux are FICTIVIZED and even eternalized as OBJECTS. We even draw a parallel to Physics where fields and particcles are not so much co-existence as actually ordered: It is the FIELD which is primary and the particle which by necessity must be produced by the observer for the field to become an object (this will shake Physics too, which so far has been based on an inadequate phenomenology!).
The system is called "the dialectics between eternalism and mobilism" and there are five chapters devoted to it. The system has won wide approval among Scandinavian philosophers and scientists, it should be interesting to see how readers in English, Russian and French react to it next year.
The point is that mobilism is what is REAL (as Dino and all Pragmatists would insist, and any modern Kantian who has studied Physics would agree to) and eternalism is an illusion. But eternalism is the metaphysical necessity to be handle the mobilist reality phenomenologically. We MUST create and live with illusions for the world to work. This is why truth can not be absolute, it is PHENOMENOLOGICALLY as impossible as it is to travel faster than the speed of light. But there are differences of QUALITY between different eternalizations. Some are closer to the flows of fluxes than others.
So Metaphysics is a necessity becasue we are HUMANS and not gods. And in this sense, langauge is by necessity an operation of ontology. It would be naive to argue otherwise. And futile. So why the anti-metaphysical hostility? It is perfectly possible to create a creative and useful Metaphysics, it will certainly help Physics.

Ushta
Alexander

2010/1/24 mehrdad farahmand

Hi Dino,
I would say to say 'to be' is positing existence and with that you open up the question the essence and nature of what you assert and describe. Here, physics is occupied with structures, relations, causes, correlations in time. Metaphysics is concerned with time itself, the essence as a construct or a process or a substance, the essence of causality and synchronicity. In other words, metaphysics works with all the presuppositions of physics. In that ontology is different from all other endeavors. It has no presuppositions. It studies presuppositions.
One more point about souls, consciousness, and minds in nature. The question whether it is limited to organic brain and nervous system. There is no good argument that would limit mind to brain and organic matter. Although, that is what we empirically observe. However, we should differentiate the notion of soul, nous, from ghosts. The judeo-christian tradition assumes ghosts that are eternal, a kind of caspar. However, if you study Aristotle notion of entelechy, you will see that for him a soul is a self-organizing creative inherently intelligent (information processing) process that is inherently temporal and it is self-actualizing. From this perspective the universe and everything in the universe has souls. That does not mind it has a conscious mind as we do with perception, sensation, etc as we do. However, it is has a soul. You find the same notions in neoplatonism of plotinus, and in modern physics in the works of Bohm, Weizecker, Heisenberg.
Remember the problem of subjective consciousness is intractable unless we reevaluate our notions of what physicality is at all. You could read a good treatment of that in the works david chalmers and jaegwon kim.

mehrdad