The Essence of Zoroastrianism and The Difference of Wills

The Mahayana philosophy is the consequence of the attempt of obtaining DETACHMENT from reality. It is not really concerned with seeing the world correctly, rater it is the consequence of a specific will and the nurturing of this will, the will towards detachment, towards accepting death as the ultimate outcome and possible "essence" of life. In Zoroastrianism, we actualy turn the whole issue around. Our starting point is the will towards INVOLVEMENT. While this will is based on pathology, this is then a conscious encouragement of pathology, we will the impossible, we will the utopian, we will the existence as one with the world (rather than the non-existence). This explains why Zoroastrianism is against monastery lifestyles, against dualism, against the worship of the beyond in relation to the degradation of the here and now and why Zoroastrianism holds the elements of the material world as sacred.
Ushta
Alexander

2009/5/6 Special Kain

The existence or non-existence of the coin is what matters here. Shunyata is the non-self, the void, that which does not exist or, philosophically speaking, Nothingness. Every coin has two sides, but since there are no two sides, there's no coin, either. According to Mahayana Buddhism, there's no substance at all, which is typical for mysticism. There's only one world (monism), which we see as a multitude of things (pluralism), but since all things are one and the same, there's no world at all. It's not supposed to make sense logically, it's really all about experiencing the sacred. Whereas in Zoroastrianism there's positive substance (Ahura) or, philosophically speaking, Existence. Because everything that is is sacred to us. There's no division between sacred and not so sacred experiences, there's just a multitude of sacred experiences.

Ushta,
Dino

--- Alexander Bard schrieb am Di, 5.5.2009:


Von: Alexander Bard
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] Poetic panentheism?
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Dienstag, 5. Mai 2009, 17:14

Correct!!!
And this "obsession with the something rather than nothing" makes Zoroastrianism unique, and different from Buddhist-Hinduist thought.
Although I'm not sure I quite follow the metaphors here. Isn't the point with the expression "two sides of the same coin" to say that what appears as two is really only expressions of one and the same thing.
And this sense, there is indeed a "coin", namely The Universe as whole, nope? But with thousands of sides to the one and same coin.
Ushta
Alexander