onsdagen den 9:e december 2009

Zoroastrian ethics vs Zoroastrian cosmology

Zarathushtra is not the slighest bit concerned with cosmology, dear Dino!
It is precisely the lack of cosmological speculation - which for example the Bible is embarrassingly full of - which makes The Gathas such a fresh and modern read still today 3,700 years after it was authored. For cosmology, we shold instead read books on quantum physics and superstring theory and the like! ;-)
Zarathushtra is concerned with ETHICS and how ethics must be constructed. And if Ethics can not be based on some ULTERIOR divinity's mischiefs, such as Abrahamic religion, it MUST be based on THE INTERIOR EXPERIENCE, on Mind and on how Mind sees itself. The world of Minoo!
This has nothing to do with cosmology, it does not even have anything to do with ontology or phenomenology, other areas of thought which Zarathushtra completely ignores.
His interest is ETHICS and the self-identity of ETHICAL BEING: How we become one with asha and manifest Ahura Mazda in our lives. This starts with how the mind sees itself, as mind, the same question Hegel (another "idealist" who was not really an idealist at all but rather a good speculative dialectician) addressed in Germany in the early 19th century. Zarathushtra had already done so and done so superbly well.
Ushta
Alexander

2009/12/9 Special Kain

Dear friends,

According to the Gathas, it all starts with the mind. Ethically speaking, the thoughts we think this morning determine which words we will speak and what exactly we will do in the afternoon. But cosmologically speaking this is objective idealism.

Objective idealism states that the mind constitutes the fundamental reality and that solid objects are nothing but «dead thoughts», while subjective idealism denies the existence of solid objects as existing independently of one's mind. The thoughts I have create the world I live in. But objective idealism isn't the opposite of realism, simply because objective idealists take such solid and independently existing objects for granted.

See Charles Sanders Peirce who was ahead of his time and provided an organic and indeterministic understanding of the universe at a time when everybody else took the universe for a big machine that's based on necessity and determinism: «The one intelligible theory of the universe is that of objective idealism, that matter is effete mind, inveterate habits becoming physical laws.»

But if we look closely at the Gathas, it's all about the natural world, and it's a world that constantly changes and is affected by the thoughts we think, the words we speak and the actions we undertake. In this sense all Gathic talk about the creation of our world must be understood ethically and not cosmologically.

Any feedback?

Ushta, Dino


--- Special Kain schrieb am Mi, 9.12.2009:


Dear Fariborz,

But if that's everything as in «100% everything» and not only cultural artefacts, the entire universe was someone's (undeniably great) idea who would then build it out of nowhere. Science tells completely different stories that are far more exciting and fascinating.
When I hear religionists talk about a secular scientist's world view, they always seem to pity him, since «his» disentchanted universe must be a helplessly lonely and depressing universe. But that's just total bullshit: if you listen to the story of cosmology and astrophysics, it's a most fascinating story and truly inspiring! The scientific story is far more exciting and overwhelming than any religionist' s creationistic gibberish. There's definitely some beauty to modern physics and chemistry that's most enjoyable!
If Zarathushtra was a little more «psychological» , then he was totally right: the thoughts we think this morning will determine what we will say and do in the afternoon. So it's better to start the day with a constructive attitude, since what we do will unquestionably shape the world we live in. In this sense the Zoroastrian story about the origin and creation of our world is rather ethical than cosmological.

Ushta, Dino

--- Fariborz Rahnamoon schrieb am Mi, 9.12.2009:


Von: Fariborz Rahnamoon
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] The birth of our universe, the creation of life
An: Ushta@yahoogroups. com
Datum: Mittwoch, 9. Dezember 2009, 6:39



Dear Dino

You are most probably referring to Gatha Yasna 28.11 when you say "Zarathustra repeatedly asks Ahura, Mazda, Asha and others how the universe came into being," my question is Did Ahura Mazda ever reply and give him the answer?

Such translations are influenced by the Greek standards of an anthropomorphic God . Zarathustra in the Gathas mentions "Ahura Mazda" only 8 times. I have explained it in this article Please click to read.
http://ahura. homestead. com/files/ IranZaminSixteen /GATHAS_OF_ ZARATHUSHTRA_ 16_FARIBORZ. mht

What I read in 28.11 is in fact what we so proudly announce as our main principle GOOD THOUGHTS GOOD WORDS GOOD DEEDS while being told how CREATION COMES INTO BEING. Of course he is concerned with the creation On Earth and not the creation Of the Earth,

A free translation of 28.11 will read as follows
Every thing that is created was first a Thought.
So let your Thoughts be Good
Good Thoughts are those that are in harmony with the Wisdom in Creation

Let your Good Thoughts be know through Good Words
For that's when Creation first comes into being
ZARATHUSHTRA - GATHA - YASNA HA. 28.11 (FR)
Therefore
GOOD THOUGHTS - GOOD WORDS - GOOD DEEDS


With Regards & Best Wishes
Fariborz Rahnamoon
http://www.ancienti ran.com

Inga kommentarer: