Formal goodness vs Substantial goodness

I agree with Dino. I believe Dino and Ron agree on this issue.
The point is that this is not only a FORMAL goodness Zarathushtra is proposing but also thereby an ETHICAL goodness. The substantial and moralistic "goodness" (with its blind rules, never explained as causes to effects as in Zoroastrianism) belongs to the Abrahamic faiths but is alien to Zoroastrianism. This is why we don't have any commandments, the good act is good AT THE MOMENT of the act to us, but not good in advance as robotically followed, the way it is in the Abrahamic faiths.
Parviz had an excellent point today: The Zoroastrian is the Ethical Entrepreneur!
Ushta
Alexander

2009/1/3 Special Kain
- Dölj citerad text -

Dear Ron,

You think that I got it completely wrong, but when reading your posting I see what we fully agree!!
What I meant by saying that Zarathushtra didn't define goodness substantially was that he didn't write down any rules that have to be followed. Living in accordance with Asha is a FORMAL definition of goodness, even goodness for its own sake is only FORMAL, but not SUBSTANTIAL. He doesn't fill it with rules that say exactly what's in tune with Asha. And that was my whole point. So we don't disagree at all.

Ushta,
Dino


--- ztheist schrieb am Sa, 3.1.2009:

Von: ztheist
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] AW: Thank you for the definition....again :-)
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com, "Helen Gerth"
CC: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Samstag, 3. Januar 2009, 13:01

Dear Fiend< Ushta

I must try to disabuse of this notion that Zarathushtra . as you put it :

" ... Zarathushtra never positively or substantially defined what's good and
what is bad. "

This is a total misunderstanding of the very basics of the Manthra!

Zarathushtra is a Manthran , that is a Thought Provoker. He teaches by
provoking us to think. Therefore he most of the time does not come to a
subject or a teaching in a frontal attack, he shows us different angles of
what he is saying, he looks at the issue from many vantage points. If you
study the Gathas you will find that harmony with Asha is the standard by
which something is defined as Good..Indeed, the very defeat of evil, which
is foretold in Ahunavaiti 3..8 thru 11, is introduced as " ... learning to
deliuver druj unto the j=hands of Asha. ..." This phrase is repeated again
elsewhere and indeed the epitome of a good man is the ashavan all over he
Gathas and the ashavan is, literally, the lover or desirer of Asha. But the
smoking gun, so to speak, is the Ashem Vohu prayer which, when properly
understood, is nothing short of a definition of Asha. In this defintion it
calls Asha Vohu, which is Good, (indeed benevolent) the Best and Highest an
the bringer of illumination (ushta) and coming to those who seek it for its
own sake

You might well ask what is Asha like,? And the answer of the Gathas its
basically what Vohu Manah tells you is Asha like

But the thing is that for some reasons many Zs miss the fact; that Vohu
Manah is not in us unless we choose to acquire it by living and choosing by
and through it. For example: Bendva is pictured as being far from good mind
, and indeed we are counseled to put away fury if we want to enjoy Good
Mind. And, like I implied above Vohu can be seen as something more thatn
simply good. Taraporewalla and others consider it love or desire for good.
They derive it from a root that implies desire and or love If they are
correct, and I believe that the contest of the Gathas at the very least
implies this iis so, then a mind that desires the good is nothing short of a
benevolent mind. A mind that one can reach only when one chooses the Spenta
Inclination or Temperament what is often translated as 'spirit', mentality,
etc; and Dina calls a way of being. Thus if my analysis is correct, and no
one has been able to refute it from the Gathas, Zarathushtrian doctrine and
practice become something like what is sung on the Christmas jingle " ...
So do good for goodness sake... "

Ushta te
Ron