You present what I call a "sophisticated Panentheism" and I find it perfectly agreeable with The Gathas. I am a monist myself and I and many many others - including many mobeds and scholars - see evidence of the author of The Gathas being a monist too (the question of Pantheism or Panentheism in itself clearly did not bother Zarathushtra, possibly it was not even raised at his time or in his society, but is a debate of a much later date, it was a huge issue to the ancient Greeks). But most importantly, I believe we can agree to disagree, both interpretations are credible and what is at the core of The Gathas is not a Zoroastrian scientific phenomenology but rather a Zoroastrian PATHOS leading to a Zoroastrian ETHOS. What concerned Zarathushtra was not the natural sciences, but how we deal with our minds and make them constructive in attitude rather than destructive. This search for the pathos of good thoughts (leading to good words, leading to the ethos of good actions) is what is at heart of the Gathic message and what should and would unite all Mazdayasni!
> CC: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
> To: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
> Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 22:07:12 -0400
> From: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: A Question for dear Dina
> Dear Parviz,
> I agree with Mobed Kamran Jamshidi's view below in all respects:
> 1. I agree when he says that there is no definitive answer, the best
> we can do is give our opinions of what Zarathushtra's thought may have
> been on these issue; and
> 2. I agree when he says that "Ahura Mazda, is the seed/essence/ start
> point/ sub total of everything. As it is the seed/essence then it IS
> inside every creation/being It is ONE with everything. One is all, all
> is one." Although Kamran says this is his opinion, in my view I see
> evidence in the Gathas, that it is also Zarathushtra's opinion, and it
> is a view that makes more sense to me than the notion of a 'God' who
> is separate and apart from the rest of us, was perfect from the
> beginning, but created us imperfect (i.e. a mix of wrong and more good).
> It is significant that in more than one verse, Zarathushtra uses the
> verb 'zatha-' in connection with Mazda's creation of the world. This
> word 'zatha' means 'birthing'. Thus we see an idea of creation by
> birthing, by emanation. So as Kamran says, this life force is the
> seed, and is in everything, is a part of everything -- all is one and
> one is all.
> You asked me about intelligent design. I agree with Hoyle that it is
> impossible to (logically) view the natural order of things -- in
> biology, in physics, in chemistry, in all existence -- without
> concluding that there is some order, some principles, some rules, some
> laws, call it whatever you want, but some principles that result in a
> design that makes things work the way they do -- even chaos is a part
> of that order (an interesting paradox!). That is how I understand
> 'intelligent design'. There is an intelligence which generated this
> order, this design.
> But where I disagree, with due respect, from Jehan and Dr. J, is that I
> do not think this 'order' of the universe was created by an agency that
> is separate and apart from the rest of what exists -- i.e. a separate
> In my view, Zarathushtra's idea of "God" is that of a life force that
> has evolved from a mixed state of being to a purely 'good' ashavan
> state of being. This state of being is his notion of 'heaven'. This
> state of being is his notion of 'God'. That which Zarathushtra calls
> 'Mazda' (Wisdom personified) are those parts of the life force which
> have so evolved to a state of perfect goodness, perfect wisdom --
> truth, its comprehension (vohu manah), it embodiment in thought, word
> and action (aramaiti) -- which generate good rule (vohu xshathra),
> completeness and non-deathness (haurvatat / ameretat). That (in my
> opinion) is why he sometimes refers to Mazda in the singular and also
> in the plural.
> I know you don't like long answers, so I will not elaborate. That, in
> a nutshell, is what I see in the Gathas -- ideas that I find a lot less
> problematic than any other notion of 'God' or 'creation' that I have
> come across.
> I hope I have answered your questions.
> Wishing you the best,
> Dina G. McIntyre.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Parviz Varjavand
> To: DINAMCI@aol.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
> Cc: email@example.com
> Sent: Fri, Oct 30, 2009 6:15 pm
> Subject: Re: [Ushta] A question for Moobed Kamran Jamshidi
> --- On Fri, 10/30/09, Kamran Jamshidi <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> From: Kamran Jamshidi <email@example.com>
> Subject: Re: [Ushta] A question for Moobed Kamran Jamshidi
> To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Friday, October 30, 2009, 5:50 AM
> Dear Parviz
> As you have pointed me a direct question then there is my short answer:
> First, I have to remind that whatever the answer(s) are, there is no
> good or bad, right or wrong answers but only "point of views" /
> "beliefs" .
> I believe in a monist view of the world.
> For me, Ahura Mazda, is the seed/essence/ start point/ sub total of
> As it is the seed/essence then it IS inside every creation/being
> It is ONE with everything.
> One is all, all is one.
> That is my belief.
> Mobed kamran Jamshidi
> 2009/10/30 Parviz Varjavand <solvolant@yahoo. com>
> I have talked to many Iranian and Parsi Zoroastrians and when asked if
> this creation needs a Creator just as a shoe needs a shoe maker, almost
> all of them answered "YES". So this places Alex and Dino and Arthur and
> Me in a very small minority when compared to most born Zoroastrians or
> Mr. Jafarey type converts. Wishing an issue to go away will not make it
> go away and I am grateful for Moobedyar Mehran not letting go of his
> belief in an Ahoora Mazda who has MADE Asha, but is not part of Asha.
> For him and most Zoroastrians (including Mr. Jafarey and Mr. Khojeste
> Mystry) I have talked to, Ahoora Mazda is a wise creator and we are
> His/Her creation and separate from Him/Shim! (He-She, Him-Shim, why
> Let me put what Mehran wants to say in terms of what the astronomer
> Fred Hoyle puts it. He says, "the likelihood of even the simplest
> biological cell arising via random process is comparable to that of a
> tornado sweeping
> through a junkyard assembling a Boeing 747". What do you say, dear
> Moobed Kamran Jamshidi?
> Parviz Varjavand