To understand Zoroastrianism better we have to understand that
Mazdayasna has never been a religion of dogma but rather a religion of
dialogue. Zarathushtra emphasized the dialogue with Ahura Mazda as the
ESSENTIAL ingredient in his own faith - look at all the questions
raised, often without answers, all over The Gathas - the dialogue
itself was more important than whatever conclusions the dialogue
reached. It is the ENJOYMENT of the conversation which is Zoroastrian.
Spinozizt philosophy and Brahmanism in India share this shift of focus
away from dogma.
One we understand this we can also better understand dilemmas as to
what the meaning of "ahura" is. The term is clearly older than the
agrarian concept of "lordship". So ahura has other roots and meanings
from long before the concept of lordship even existed (that ahura has
something to do with "being" or "the origin of being" as Mehran says
seems spot on).
But this doesn't mean that the later application of "lord" as the
meaning of "ahura" is incorrect. Ahura as a metaphor for lordship did
become prevalent and is obviously a popular translation up until this
day. But the important thing to stress is that Zoroastrianism has
always seen itself as a religion of mobility, there was never any
belief in fixed formulas to begin with, Zoroastrians never fought over
or killed each other over dogma the way Muslims and Christians have
always done. Neither with the pre-Zarathushtrians, not with
2009/1/25 Parviz Varjavand
> Der Helen,
> I don't know why there are some posts that I do not get. I never got this
> post of yours and i am rescuing it from some post by Dina.
> If you read the Gathas enough times, you begin to read between the lines
> too. The passage where the Cow is not that impressed with Zara is very
> revealing. To me, it shows that the old cult was not very impressed with
> Zara. Neither Zara could read or write nor the cults that predated him.
> Gathas reads as the cronicle of a social climber who is after the job of an
> older pristely class. Once Zara gets the power, he is going to destroy the
> oral traditions that predated him and replace it with his own. So indeed it
> is natural not to find anything that predates him.
> Zaratustra wanted the post of the pristhood that was in power, and once he
> got it, he destroyed their rituals and teachings. Not only that, he heaped
> curses and insults upon them too so that they would not come back. This was
> done all over the place in anciant times. In the name of Christ, the
> pristhood destroyed most of the documents pre dating him.
>> Dear Parviz,
>> Someone from the traditional list explained to me some of
>> the history and understanding of the Kavar (philosopher
>> kings-my spelling??) which were pre-Zarathushtra
>> tradition... .which I understand to be the origin of the
>> Mazdayasna tradition... .they see Zarathushtra as one who
>> renewed the original belief in a time when the people had
>> become confused and wandered from the truth....and
>> originally he didn't write anything down and it was kept
>> an oral tradition for thousands of years.....
>> In this light Zarathushtra would still be following in the
>> tradition you feel so deeply about....is it not the icon he
>> has been made of that is the issue rather than the man
>> himself..... people need beacons, an individual to hold to
>> who has accomplished the journey as an example that they may
>> too...musings perhaps, not excuses but understandings one
>> If I understand you....it is the codification of his
>> thoughts that are painful..... .for in focusing on the words
>> one misses the deeper intents....and looses the will to seek
>> independently. ...in seeking to save the Cow....purification
>> laws become so involved, the doctrine so intricate that the
>> initial intent becomes obscure and the focus is on putting
>> out a match while the forest continues to burn....
>> Am I understanding? ?.....
>> Ushta te,