torsdagen den 31:e december 2009

The Concepts of Asha and Asha-Vahishta

Dear Parviz and Ardeshir

I agree with Parviz 100% in that there are "many ashas". I believe the whole point is that Zarahushtra and the other Mazdayasna philosophers stipulated our world as one based on "ahura" and one on "mazda" and of course "asha" must relate to this BASIC CONDITION too. So when we speak of many ashas it is not as if asha is divided in itself (Ardeshir does not have to worry) but rather that Asha (as the organisation of a Monist Universe) has an endless number of ATTRIBUTES and what is driving this division into attributes is precisely Mazda. This fits with Mazdayasna philsophy, not least with Zarathushra himself, and with where phenomenology is at in contemporary philosophy too. Mazda is what chooses the specific expression of Asha in a specific situation (thereby creating "a specific asha"). Does this make sense to you guys too?

Zaneta is sweet to quote lexicons here but her suggested translations are either off the mark of what we are trying to discuss here, or actually just poor translations not worthy of comment. Parviz has already translated the expressions involved far better.

Ushta
Alexander

2009/12/31 ardeshir farhmand

Dear Parviz, and DEAR Zanetta;

i made my point that based on the poetic gathas, there is NO difference between ashaa and ashaa vahishtaa. ashaa is the wondrous truth of ahurmazd, it is the ahuric effortless ease. vahishtaa is the sense of awe, beauty and wonder of this divine truth. i cited my argument on many passages on the poetic gathas and their brilliant ancient exegesis.

now, if u disagree and still believe them to be 2 separate concepts, u are free to do so. however, if u agree that zoroastrianism is pretty much a monistic worldview, which i fully agree with such assessment. u can not claim that they are 2 sepereate ashaas. there is ONE ashaa and it applies to infinite dimensions. the same way, that that there is one vohueman that applies to infinite dimensions.

furthermore, our literature is affirmative that all these AUSPICIOUS and ETERNAL ATTRIBUTES are ONE.

Ardeshir
On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 12:26 AM, Parviz Varjavand wrote:

Alex managed to f**k up the point I was trying to make and Ardeshir and Zaneta are running with the ball now to I don't know where. My point was that when one is dealing with complex social issues, there are many Ashas that are at work: you must choose the best Asha, the Vahishtaye-Ashem, or else lesser Ashas will get you "Some" results, but they will not be the best.

What are the points you guys (Alex, Ardeshir, Zaneta) are trying to make? Yes Alex, I know that it will be very hard for persons with cut off hands to pick their nose as they used to ; your observations are brilliant as usual, but how do they relate to Asha versus Asha-Vahishta?

Parviz


--- On Wed, 12/30/09, ardeshir farhmand wrote:

From: ardeshir farhmand
Subject: Re: [Ushta] The Concept of Asha/Asha vs Dao
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, December 30, 2009, 7:06 AM


Dear Zanetta

YES, thanks for all ur wonderful postings and the heartfelt comment on this one.

Ardeshir

On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 3:20 AM, Zaneta Garratt wrote:

hi Alexander,

this statement is indeed very true-


This is why countries with sharia law have such a huge problem with endemic corruption. They focus on the small fish and miss the big fish instead.

and this is also a problem in the western lands as the big fish have both power, influence and money behind them and with a set of excellent ruthless lawers working for them as well, they are very very hard to catch-they are the great evil behind the drug pushers,forced prostitution, many murders and theft-and many of them are psychopaths as well, THIS meaning THAT they haVE NEITHER EMPATHY NOR CONSCIENCE-the kind of rotten evil that Zarathustra spoke up about and faught against-unfortunate ly male-chauvenist countries are places where this type of person thrives as the caring empathetic women are so squashed down that they have no influence in the ruling of the land-

best wishes from zaneta



To: Ushta@yahoogroups. com
From: bardissimo@gmail. com
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:19:04 +0100

Subject: [Ushta] The Concept of Asha/Asha vs Dao


May I point out that cutting off hands of thieves does NOT work?
First, they become uncapable of every doing decent work with their hand ever again should they (as they often do) become constructive towards the rest of society later in their lives.
Second, while this method catches petty thieves it misses the big thieves in any given society, the robbers that REALLY destroy a society from within. It misses the thieves that do not tough stolen goods with their own hands.
This is why countries with sharia law have such a huge problem with endemic corruption. They focus on the small fish and miss the big fish instead.
The lowest rates of thievery and corruption in the world are in Scandinavia and Japan. These cultures do not cut off the hands of thieves. They never did, actually.
So you need a better example than this one if it is used to make a point. Zoroastrian ethics does not exclude people from society for the rest of their lives.
Ushta
Alexander

2009/12/29 Parviz Varjavand


Dear Ardeshir,

I am a Mazdayasni and not a Zartoshtyasni. I do not care what Z. said if it does not appeal to my Mind-Mazda. I find the exercise of reducing the Gathas to another one of those books (the names of which I do not want to mention because persons hypnotized by those books can kill you with greatest of ease on their conscience just because they think you are insulting their book) is in very poor taste.

We all want to stop thievery because thieves upset the balance in our society. Some Books tell us how we may cut off the hands of a thief and stop thievery. This solution really works. Is this solution an ASHA to solve that particular problem of thievery or not? Please be kind enough to answer me this one simple question of mine before we go any further and a "YES" or "NO" answer is all I want at this point. If you go into further elaboration than a Yes or No answer, you will be venturing into the Asha-Vahishta realm and stealing the point I want to make.

Yours,
Parviz Varjavand

P.S. I see that I have given away the plot, so I will make my point. For me, to cut off hands has its own ASHA of stoping theivery, but it is not the ASHA-VAHISHTA in my mind to accomplish this job.


--- On Wed, 12/23/09, ardeshir farhmand wrote:

From: ardeshir farhmand
Subject: Re: [Ushta] The Concept of Asha/Asha vs Dao
To: Ushta@yahoogroups. com
Date: Wednesday, December 23, 2009, 1:23 PM



Dear Parviz,

my arguments are all based on the poetic gathas and their ancient exegesis.
vahishtaa, is the element of "infinite awe, wonder and beauty" in ashaa, or in other words it is the "infinite awe, wonder and beauty" in the essence/core/ truth of the universe, man and GODHEAD.

There are really NOT many different ashaas. There is only ONE infinitely creative and intelligent principle/ashaa, that applies to many spheres of existence including our human realm.

this concept is almost identical to the vedic idea of "rta." there is one "rta" also known as dharma in later literature. While dharma is one, when it applies to human society and ethics it becomes known as human dharma, or when it is applied to the dynamic principle behind cosmic laws, it becomes known as cosmic dharma. but "rta aka dharma," is a creative, luminous principle at the core of existence and is really one.

if u still disagree, i ask that u cite poetic gathic verses that support ur point of view. because what i wrote above is based on the enchanting gathas, and is further confirmed by their ancient exegesis.

ardeshir



On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Alexander Bard wrote:

Dear Parviz

In what way do we not see the difference between Asha and Asha-Vahistha?
And why this constant attempt at creating conflict? Just get to the point, please! Just don't throw invectives at us, what good does that do?

Ushta
Alexander

2009/12/23 Parviz Varjavand


Dear Ardeshir,

I am glad that you are in Law. When in Sassanian times they wanted to judge if a person was telling the Truth, Asha, they would hold the person's head under water while a person would shoot an arrow and a horseman would gallop and try to retrieve the arrow and bring it back. If by the time the arrow was brought back, the poor person had not drowned, he/she was telling the truth, was an Ashavand. If the person had drowned, he /she was a lier, a Drojwand. I can see you and Alex beeing confortable in such a court of law, because you do not diffrenciate between Asha and Asha-Vahishta. Those who think of Asha as a monolit can do such things. If you do not get wat I want to say, have a happy day! I hate to waste my breath.

Karma be with you!
Ardeshir

On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 5:27 AM, Parviz Varjavand wrote:

Dear Alex,

Asha (for me) is also the profound stupidity of men who put too many things in one bag and call them all ASHA. All stupid religious person do this. Karma of taking a monumental crap. Thao of falling off the stairs and breaking your neck. etc..etc...

Parviz

Inga kommentarer: