The problem is that "good thoughts, good words, good deeds" is such a sloppy and outright poor translation.
It invokes simplicity and moralism where Zarathushtra instead understood that life is complex and one should be ethical and not moralizing (ethics is values that refer to cause and effect, morality is values that are just blindly obeying the orders of superiors, such as the Abrahamic gods).
So a much better translation would be: "A constructive mindset fosters a constructive language which in turn fosters constructive actions which in turn fosters constructive thoughts." A strictly ethical feedback loop putting causes and effects together, exactly the way the world works.
What is the right thing to think, say and act then? Well, it is what inside of you which makes you truly you. It is that which you define yourself with. What kind of person are you to yourself? It is not even what you should do but in a deeper sense what you WILL do.
Which is why it is so crucial to us as Mazdayasni to FIRST decide who we are to ourselves. This is why we meditate and this is what we meditate on in the mornings.
Who are you today? How do you plan to meet and greet the world? This is what we focus on when we recite the Ashem Vohu.
Plato wrote a lot of great stuff. But his dualism is problematic to us as Zoroastrians. The same thing goes for Aristotle. Among the Greeks, the Stoics and Heraclitus have much more in common with Persian philosophy.
Ushta
Alexander
2009/12/15 Tomash
Dear Dino,
I'm having hard time understanding what is good and what is bad. In a moralistic sense it is easy to understand it: what the society sees as good or bad. But I still haven't grasped what it means in Zoroastrianism. What does Good Thoughts, Good Words and Good Deeds actually mean. And whether this is an accurate rendition into modern languages.
Ushta,
Tomash / still a pathfinder
--- In Ushta@yahoogroups.com, Special Kain
>
> Dear Tomash
>
> If there's an infinite number of worlds and there's always a smaller or bigger world, you could easily remove all judgments and drop the words "better" and "worse", simply because they don't make any sense anymore. It's a multi-layered world, and each layer is fascinating and beautiful in its own right! There's no better or worse dimension, there's a multitude of dimensions that we celebrate and enjoy and curiously examine!
> And there are no absolutes. What used to be good can easily become bad. We succeed with different strategies everytime the conditions and circumstances change. There's nothing timeless about good and bad.
>
> Ushta, Dino // a Zoroastrian, not a Platonist
>
> --- Tomash
>
> Von: Tomash
> Betreff: [Ushta] Re: Zoroastrianism and the Greeks
> An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
> Datum: Montag, 14. Dezember 2009, 23:16
> > Dear Dino,
>
> I personally believe in an infinite number of worlds and realities, but in a monistic way. I theorize that some of these worlds are better and some are worse, because the ladder on which our world stands has no ending in both directions. There is always something bigger and something smaller. What is bigger than the known universe? What's behind it? Using computer terms from video games, we could "Zoom Out" forever. What is smaller than the subatomic particles? We could "Zoom In" forever. This is all speaking in our 3D perception of the world, but scientist claim there can be an indefinite number of dimensions. In what way one could move forever then?
>
> But I all see that as one. We are here and now. Even though our dreams are realities on their own, we can only be in this world and not striving for something we aren't even sure what it is can only lead to a path of misery in this world.
>
> Plato may have been a dualist, undoubtedly, but he was here and now and didn't dream of going into the afterlife because his afterlife, the world of ideas was only a place from where we will eventually come back into this world again. I think this is the most crucial point in his philosophy: the emphasis on this world and not the other ones we aren't even sure exist. Plato didn't worship the afterlife. He just created it as an explanation for some of his ideas, nothing more. Under the influence of Abrahamic faiths however, later Neo-Platonists turned this world ideas into Paradise, it was not what Plato had in mind, much like later Zoroastrian Magi corrupted the teaching of Zarathushtra and created a dualist faith.
>
> Ushta,
>
> Tomash
>
> --- In Ushta@yahoogroups. com, Special Kain
>
> > Dear Tomash
>
> > I agree!
>
> > But there's no dualism in Zoroastrianism as we understand it. Fariborz Rahnamoon wrote about this in his brilliant and fascinating way, and quite convincingly so. But Plato was a dualist: there's the supreme original "X" and here's the stained and imperfect copy "x". I don't see any of this in Zoroastrianism, so Plato creatively invented something new and profoundly influential.
>
> > Secondly, Zarathushtra didn't say anywhere that one world was superior to another. That's why I've recently said that the question whether there's only one world or a multitude of different worlds is less important than the fact that he didn't impose any hierarchical relationships between them. And Plato most certainly did.
>
> > To Zarathushtra Asha applies to all that is, so the doctrine of Asha is monistic. Whether it's the natural world or any other world - Asha applies to all of them. If anybody claims that this world is inferior to another, why should people care about this world at all? But, as you've clearly understood, Zarathushtra placed great emphasis on our natural world. Only if you believe in another superior world far away, you wouldn't place such great emphasis on this world.
>
> > I 100% agree with anything else, dear Tomash!!! Especially the bits on noocracy and sophocracy are 100% in tune with Zoroastrianism. If people choose and strive for wisdom, they will increasingly attain more freedom and experience much more pleasure and happiness. If people choose stupidity, they will most certainly do many stupid things tomorrow. So what good would it be to remain stupid?
>
> > It's a pity that Western philosophy was much more concerned with gloom'n'doom than the joys of life. It's very common to think of intelligence and science as related to melancholy and nerdy seriousness - as if depressed people would see things for what they are (that would make the world a horribly miserable place!!!), which isn't true at all. Happiness is related to learning and also to intelligence via Dopamine. For example, I judge people by their intellectual integrity and how well they've managed to cope with contingency.
>
> > So if someone chooses to see thinking as something boring and a complete waste of time that's counterproductive, they're doomed to do stupid things and enjoy less freedom than the nerds! Because the nerds are the ones that get better jobs and make much more money. ;-)
>
> >
>
> > Ushta, Dino
> > Betreff: [Ushta] Re: Zoroastrianism and the Greeks
>
> > An: Ushta@yahoogroups. com
>
> > Datum: Montag, 14. Dezember 2009, 19:44
> > > I didn't say he's teaching were like that of Zarathushtra, but I think it is of little relevance whether he thought there is another perfect world and that our is just a shadow. What I think is more important is that his teachings placed great emphasis on wisdom and ethnics. He after all created a political system in which the wisest rule, called Noocracy (rule of mind) or Sophocracy (rule of wisdom) and that all humans should strive towards wisdom. His ethics are also important since in his works he abolished a sexist, racist and a slave-owning system and created an idea of a world where all humans had equal rights. This he took from the ever so tolerant Persia and its Zarathushtran philosophy which all of the wisest Greek philosophers praised for being ethically and culturally much more advanced than their City States, especially placing emphasis on how well-mannered and good the Persians were in all the situations of life. Despite his dualism,
>
> > his cheerful attitude towards life and his preoccupation with ethics rather than moralism shows Plato was not a worshipper of afterlife, even if theorized there was one.
>
> > Ushta,
>
> > Tomash
>
> > --- In Ushta@yahoogroups. com, Special Kain
>
> > > Dear Tomash
>
> > > Plato was the great dualist in human history, but there's no ontological dualism in Zoroastrianism. According to Plato, our natural world is nothing but a shadow and stained copy of The Supreme Reality behind the curtain. There's no such notion of our world in Zoroastrianism. There's only one world: the natural world as we know it. Zoroastrian dualism (if there is any) is all about choosing between Asha and Druj, it's about developing constructive or destructive mentalities, but there are many paths that lead to Asha.
>
> > > Stoicism has a lot in common with Zoroastrianism, as I've already explained, but the Stoics are indifferent towards the world, whereas Zoroastrians are joyfully amazed by the fact that there is something rather than nothing. We have positive feelings for existence, the Stoics try not to have any feelings for existence at all.
>
> > > Ushta, Dino
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar