Mazdaism

Dear Parviz and Dino

I definitely agree with both of you. Totally.
Mazdayasna is Pantheism Plus - as I have often referred to our faith.
And I became convinced about this during one of our debates. It was Parviz and Arthur - and to some extent Dina - who brought me in this direction.
This is precisely why I describe Mazdayasna as a PANTHEISTIC religion rather than just plain Pantheism.
To call yourself a Pantheist is basically saying that you believe that everything in the world is interconnected as one substance (monism) and that this whole is sacred, as a whole.
Mazdayasna covers far more than Pantheism. This is why it is Pantheism Plus. I can even tell the diference in how Mazdayasni see the world and how other Pantheists see the world. Our faith features far more.
And I agree with Dino that the concept of Ahura Mazda covers both immanence and transcendence, both Becoming and Being. With the added belief that Becoming takes precedence to Being.
Or to use Parviz' terminology: Will is fascinating, Mind is not just fascinating but also sacred.

Ushta
Alexander

2008/9/25 Special Kain :

Maybe this is too daring, but why don't we define Ahura Mazda as the unity or rather union of transcendence and immanence? Since Ahura is "all which exists", it is immanence. Mazda as "the mind" could therefore be seen as transcendence, since we're able to change all which exists (poetically, not empirically).
To me, the dao always seemed to represent this union or identity of transcendence and immanence, and it is what the German sociologist Niklas Luhmann once coined as GOD.

My two cents,
Dino

--- Parviz Varjavand schrieb am Do, 25.9.2008:

Von: Parviz Varjavand
Betreff: [Ushta] Mazdaism
An: "Ushta Ushta"
CC: "Ali Jafarey"
Datum: Donnerstag, 25. September 2008, 5:55

Dear Alexander,

I would like to bring up once more the idea that Mazdaism is different from Pantheism. I feel that when we describe Mazdaism as a Pantheist phenomenon, we are trying to pour it into a Western mold of measuring religious ideas and some very important distinctions may get washed out in the process.

Ahoora pointing to "Existence or Universe as a Whole" is correct. AH is "That which Exists" and Ahoora is anything and all that has existence. But Mazda or that part of existence that has a Mind is a very special and limited part of Existence. A rock is not part of a process of "Becoming" or "Moving" in order to progress and some day have a Mind, or is it? Also you talk about cosmos and chaos; Ahoora is clearly the Cosmos, but Mazda is not Chaos, is it? Do you suggest that Chaos is that part of the Cosmos that Thinks?

I feel amongst religions, Mazdaist Zoroastrianism is the only school giving emphasis to the role of the Mind, and as such, we need to discuss it at length in order to get a special feel for it.

Ushta,
Parviz Varjavand