Asha and Monism

Asha is the combination of the two. Therefore meaningless to translate to English.
In a MONIST universe this makes sense, because what is right and what is true is and SHOULD BE interconnected. This only becomes a problem in dualism.
Which again strengthens the idea that Zarathushtra and early Zoroastrians in general were all monists. They sought that which was true in order to find that which was right as the two are interconnected in a world which is ONE and not fundamentally divided.
Ushta
Alexander

2009/8/3 Special Kain



Right as in ethics, true as in science.

--- Parviz Varjavand schrieb am Mo, 3.8.2009:


Von: Parviz Varjavand
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] Re: Asha is Not.
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Montag, 3. August 2009, 3:58



Dear Rory and Dino,

Is Asha "What is Right" in Science or is it "What is Right" in a Moral and Legal way?
The two are not the same!?

Parviz

--- On Sun, 8/2/09, roryyoung15 wrote:


From: roryyoung15
Subject: [Ushta] Re: Asha is ...
To: Ushta@yahoogroups. com
Date: Sunday, August 2, 2009, 10:56 AM



Dear Dino,

Yes, I believe you are correct.

Ushta, Rory

--- In Ushta@yahoogroups. com, Special Kain wrote:
>
> Dear Rory,
>
> But there's nothing more to it. It's the order of things (we see that trees grow and people refine what nature has given to them), it is whatever is objectively true, normatively right and genuine. And it applies to all that is - whether in the heavens or down here on Earth. That's why there can't be any hierarchical relationship between the physical world as we know it and those fancy astral amusement parks.
>
> Ushta, Dino
>
> --- roryyoung15 schrieb am Fr, 31.7.2009:
>
> Von: roryyoung15
> Betreff: [Ushta] Re: FAQs, data base
> An: Ushta@yahoogroups. com
> Datum: Freitag, 31. Juli 2009, 8:28
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Dino,
>
>
>
> Agreed, we can't travel back in time. However because the Gathas are written in a dead language they will retain their original meaning to a large extent because a dead language is no longer evolving. I don't believe anyone is trying to elevate the word Asha above all else. What led you to that idea? As it is such a crucial part of the religion does it not deserve special attention? I agree that the meaning has to change or rather that the meaning/understandi ng of "Asha" should progress and become more precise in keeping with the principles of the Amesha Spentas.
>
>
>
> Ushta, Rory
>
>
>
> --- In Ushta@yahoogroups. com, Special Kain wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Dear Clint and Rory,
>
> >
>
> > We can't travel back in time to dig up the original and true meaning of much cherished words and concepts. All we have are words and concept that we're using today. Words take their meanings from social uses. Times change, and words change with them, so to speak. Radically elevating the word "Asha" above all else and beyond the conceivable doesn't get us anywhere in this context. All we can do is throwing the concepts we live with at the word "Asha" and see what fits historically and linguistically.
>
> > Taken this radically pragmatic stance for granted, doesn't the meaning of the word "Asha" change, too? Yes, it does, it changes with everything said about and everything acted upon it.
>
> >
>
> > Ushta, Dino