Zoroastrianism is for example neither optimistic nor pessimistic. It believes the future is largely in the hands of us as human beings (at least what we make of the world to ourselves) but it leaves the choice to us as a collective with an open ending.
When I speak of positive vs negative when comparing Mazdayasna with Brahmanism, this has nothing to do with optimistic or pessimistic.
However, a direct result of the positivity of Mazdayasna is that we are not concerned in our everyday lives with any after-life or second coming or the like, The here and now is what interests us. Because the lives we live are SACRED and the world we live in is SACRED.
But I would be careful to call this optimistic. Zoroastrian history is far too rough for us to seriously consider us "optimistic", donät you agree?
- Dölj citerad text -
I think the main divide is between 'optimistic' religions that
believe that the world can be changed for the better,
and 'pessimistic' ones that say people must just learn to be adapt to
their lot in life.
My theory is that optimistic religions flourish where the living
conditions allow people to control their lives, whereas pessimistic
religions flourish where people are overwhelmed by their
Perhaps people living in mountainous areas are more likely to have
local political autonomy than those living on plains. This might make
them more optimistic.
Also if the weather is mild - or at least has plenty of rainfall -
then this may lead to greater optimism than if the land is parched by
the sun for most of the year.
So it could be something about the Indian geography that affects the
kind of religions that flourishes there - the same also for the