Ahura and Mazda are constantly used separately in The Gathas, it is actually the combination of the two concepts that is rare. I believe there is a purpose for this. Also, I wonder where you get the sense that intelligence causes creation according to The Gathas? Besides the illogical aspect of the statement (if intelligence proceeds creation, then how did intelligence come about?), what are the literary grounds for this statement? I would say that Zoroastrianism uniquely demonstrates that Intelligence and Creation are mutually dependent and therefore co-creating and co-created. Whether we place divinity in the transcendental (panentheism) or purely in the immanent (pantheism) we arrive at contemporary Zoroastrianism and both options are compatible with The Gathas. However, I don't see anybody studying neither The Gathas nor folk Zoroastrianism arriving at a "one-caused-the-other" logic. What do you think?
Looking at this again.
>>The Mazda part of Ahoora is that part of Ahoora who somehow miraculously has become alive and then has developed to the level of being able to Think. The Ahoora that thinks is Ahoora Mazda. <<
HUMMMM I find this kind of different. So your pretty much on the God came out of creation instead of creation out of God?
The Gathas though seem to be saying intelligence caused creation.
This statement you made also makes me ask. Why do you separate Ahura Mazda into parts instead of thinking about it as they are not separate but two inseparately concepts that seem separate but are not?
(No right or wrong answer here.)
--- In Ushta@yahoogroups.com, Parviz Varjavand
> My dear teacher Jafarey.
> Flowery speech and writing often tries to hides the naked truth of what is being talked about. Part one of the ideas you express in your post below is known as the carpenter and the chair story and no amount of fancy imagery and wording thrown in changes the core idea being presented. The second statement sandwiched in after the first seems to be what you expect me to want to say, and it is not. It may be what the Monists or Pantheists say, but it is not what I am saying. I am a Mazdaist and Mazdaism is different from Monism, Pantheism, or Athaism.
> As a Mazdaist, there is two parts to my God, there is the Ahoora and there is the Mazda. The Ahoora is all that IS. Stars, galaxies, rocks, rivers, these are just so much stuff that exist, and what ever exists has an Ahooraic reality. But ninety-nine percent of what is Ahoora, is not Mazda and can not THINK! The Mazda part of Ahoora is that part of Ahoora who somehow miraculously has become alive and then has developed to the level of being able to Think. The Ahoora that thinks is Ahoora Mazda. I have reverence both for Ahoora and Mazda.
> Please share with me any objections or comments you may have to my school of Mazdaism if you find the venture worth your while. I wish you Ushta in all phases of your very rich and productive life.
> Mehr Afzoon,
> Parviz Varjavand