Ahura as Lord vs Ahura as Being

Dear Dina

There are no lords in nomadic tribes. Because a lord needs serves to be a lord and there are no such agrarian relationships in a nomadic tribe.
So the concept of a lord can not have existed anywhere before permanent settlements arrived. Which is in Mesopotamia some 5,000 years ago. You therefore find "lords" everywhere in Abrahamic religions as a heritage from Babylonian culture.
Why Zarathushtra would pick up a Babylonian concept in his abode in Central Asia and then turn into a divinity and preach its religion, actually beats me.
I believe we can find a far better translation of "Ahura" than that coherent with what we know about history. Being plus intellect sound far more plausible to me. It makes sense and keeps us within the Indo-European post-nomadic culture. That's why I place my ten cents there.

Ushta
Alexander

2009/1/26

Dear Alexander,

Anyone who has ever tried to translate a joke from another language into English understands that the nuances of meaning that a word has in English may be somewhat different from what a word means in another language. "Lord" (ahura) is one such word. So is "truth" (asha). So we cannot ascribe, to Gathic, the nuances and limitations that the word "lord" may have in English.

Moreover, I am not sure that I agree with you that even in English, the word "lord" only pertains to lordship over persons and property.

Wishing us the best,

Dina G. McIntyre.


-----Original Message-----
From: Alexander Bard
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 10:55 am
Subject: [Ushta] Ahura, Mazda, Ahura Mazda, and the origin of the two revolutions in Zoroastrianism

Dear Dina

I'm afraid that you are contradicting yourself.
The term "lordship "IMPLIES the control over land and the resources and products of the land.
There is no lordship outside of land ownership. To say that "Ahura Mazda is a different type of lord" is tantamount of saying that "Ahura Mazda" is not a lord. You have just negated your own statement.
So the English term "lord" is really nonsensical towards a translation of the term "Ahura" which was clearly in wide use among Indo-Europeans long before individual land ownership had become a part of Iranian and Central Asian culture.
We need to come up with a better, more accurate translation then the term "lord" which to me only smacks of Judeo-Christian projections onto Zoroastrianism (in hindsight).

Ushta
Alexander

2009/1/24

Dear Alexander,

I must offer friendly disagreement. "Ahura" was simply an appellation or title given to various Indo-Iranian gods, such as Varuna et cetera. But the ways in which such gods were worshipped were very different from the way in which Zarathushtra tells us to worship Mazda Ahura. So I do not think it is accurate to say that what you call "ahurayasna" was something that Zarathushtra carried into his religious perceptions.

I know that you and Parviz are very partial to translating Ahura as pertaining to life. But it means "lord". But herein lies another difference between Zarathushtra's thinking and the conventional religious thought of the culture in which he was raised. Because if you look at the ways in which Z uses "ahura" in the Gathas, you will see that it is not a lordship over people or property. It is a lordship over (or mastery of) the attributes that comprise divinity -- truth (asha), its comprehension (vohu manah), its embodiment in thought, word and action (aramaiti), its rule (vohu xshathra), its complete and undying attainment (haurvatat / ameretat) -- the concepts that were later called the amesha spenta.

So what you call the "ahurayasna" of the pre-Zarathushtrian Indo-Iranian religion(s) was quite different from the "ahurayasna" of Zarathushtra.

Wishing us the best,

Dina G. McIntyre.



-----Original Message-----
From: Alexander Bard
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 4:59 pm
Subject: [Ushta] Ahura, Mazda, Ahura Mazda, and the origin of the two revolutions in Zoroastrianism

Dear Dina

I believe you are absolutely correct!!!
Furthermore, I believe that it is the Ahura part which is the original pagan Indo-European part of Zarathushtra's concept. This would make perfect sense. The Mazda part is then what Zarathushtra and/or his contemporary culture added (without removing Ahura, so thereby reforming rather changing the religion), which also explains why it is precisely the Mazda part which is UNIQUE to Zoroastrianism.
There is no concept of Mazda in Indian or European mythologies or philosophy, for example. The Indian concept of the Brahman is the same as Ahura, without the Mazda.
Arthur has brought this up before and so has Parviz. It is the Mazda part of Ahura Mazda which makes Ahuramazdaism different from any other Pantheism or Panentheism.
It doesn't even fit with any of the two labels of Pantheism or Panentheism to be honest about it. The concept is that unique.
So let's say that we have strong reasons to believe that Ahurayazda predates Zarathushtra and his generation but that Mazdayasna is the paradigm we live within afterwards. That much we should know for certain.

Ushta
Alexander