I have always admired how Zoroastrian and for that matter Indian culture have always solved this dilemma by respecting a folk religion which allows for people to deal with their lives, hopes, wishes, superstitions as best they can, while at the same time maintaining a learned and cultured philosophical religion for those striving for asha and haurvatat as we would describe it. A confrontation between the two is really unnecessary. They can co-exist happily. In India, this is the difference between Hindusim and Brahmanism. I believe the same constructive and respectful division exists within Zoroastrianism too. As Parviz describes it, this is the difference between Mazdayasna and Divyasna. And both are co-existing within Zoroastrianism as a PRACTICE. The urge to "cleanse" Zoroastrianism fro its folk religion element always backfires by making Mazdayasna stupid ad intolerant, even against itself. They need each other. Together they make the culture richer and more humane.
- Dölj citerad text -
2008/11/18 Helen Gerth
Hmmm... perhaps a bit strong....anything can be seen as a pacifier if an individual cannot function without it...it seems there at some point has to be a decision as whether there will be a sense of 'sacred' in the perspective being discussed...and Alexander does use this term below or if it will be strictly a philosophy....and I am not saying either is right or wrong.
in light and understanding
--- On Tue, 11/18/08, Parviz Varjavand
From: Parviz Varjavand
Subject: Re: [Ushta] The problem of justice
Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2008, 12:45 PM
While I agree with what you have to say, I feel that the majority of humanity needs to be like children who refuse to have their pacifiers taken out of their mouths and their security blankets taken away from their ears. Religions even when they do not want to be bad and tell lies are forced to do so by adherents that need their religion to tell them lies and stories so that they can go to sleep sucking on those lies.