The Celebration of Existence (Zoroastrianism vs Manicheism)

Dear Ardeshir and Bahman

Ardeshir is absolutely right!!!
I even believe that this CELEBRATION of reality, of existence as such, of universe and nature as fundamentally sacred and worthy of celebration and good care simply for the fact it exists, is the very fundament of what I call the Zoroastrian PATHOS.
This is the one thing on which we can not compromise. The idea that the world is fundamentally evil and that we must reach ANOTHER world which is superior is the idea that the Egyptians developed and which later became the Abrahamic faiths, Manicheism and Gnosticism.
This is precisely what we as Zorastrians are AGAINST.
Just look at our holidays: There are four main holidays, all which together celebrate nature and the world as it is! Abrahamic holidays by comparison are all about how horrible the world is and how it always needs to be saved. All of which is alien to us as Mazdayasni.

Ushta
Alexander

2010/1/22 ardeshir farhmand

Bahman,

i agree with Dino and Alexander here. the two spirits in the gathas are about understandind/consciousness verses lack thereof. please be careful, manichaeism sounds a lot like zoeroastrianism BUT IS FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT from it.
.
matter/physical is celebrated in zoroastrianism but NOT SO IN MANICHAEISM. let us, examine both carefully. i will write on article on this subject this weekend.


ardeshir
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Bahman Noruziaan wrote:

In the middle of this dicsussion, I'd like to point out one further distinct resemblence of the Gathic concept of dualism and the cosmic dualism of Bundahishn.
In both, i,e the Gathas and the Bundahishn; there is absolutley no reconciliation between the two entities, whether Ahura Mazda and Ahriman of the Bundahishn, or the two Mainyoos of the Gathas. No compromise, no go in between.



Regards


To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
From: bardissimo@gmail.com
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 09:30:34 +0100
Subject: [Ushta] Bundahishn in light of the Gathas


Manicheism is precisely what we try to REMOVE from Zoroastrianism all the time.
Cosmic dualism is wrong. It is simply not true. There is no such thing.
And it is Manicheism and its HATRED towards the very physical world that we as Mazdayasni regard as holy and sacred that is precisely what is wrong with Abrahamic religion.
Ushta
Alexander

2010/1/20 Bahman Noruziaan

Hello Ardeshir,

Could it be that Mani himself was a Zoroastrian, trying to make sense of the Gathic concept of two spirits?

Bahman


To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
From: ardeshir72@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 20:28:52 -0800
Subject: Re: [Ushta] Bundahishn in light of the Gathas



Dear Bahman

"bun-dahishn" or the "fundaments of creation," is certainly interesting. it is supposedly an account of "chithr-dat" nask, or a lost avestan book. however, this account has been heavily tainted and shows EXTREME MANICHAEAN ELEMENTS, in its composition, views and writing. therefore it is considered NOT TRULY ZOROASTRIAN. it is neverthless interesting reading material and provides some valuable clues here and there.

a book that is TRULY MONUMENTAL and a BRILLIANT EXEGESIS of the POETIC GATHAS is DENK-ART, the true and proud record of our ancient sages. DENK-ART by far is an AMAZING and TRULY ZOROASTRIAN DISCOURSE AND STUDY book.

Ardeshir
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 7:43 PM, Bahman Noruziaan wrote:


Bundahishn in light of the Gathas


Coming from Zoroastrian community in Iran, I have had some interest in reading and thinking about Zoroastrian literature and tradition.

One of the books among the rich Zoroastrian literature is the Bundahishn. These are some of my thoughts about the Bundahishn in the light of the Gathas.

Bundahishn is absolutely dualistic, cosmic dualism. Ahura Mazda and Ahriman, in Bundahsihn are primal. The Gathas however, mention Ahura Mazda as being primal. It however, refers to two Mainyoos (forces, spirits, beings) that were there at the dawn of creation. They are adversaries, opposite and in constant challenge. In Bundahishn Ahura Mazda and Ahriman are also in conflict.

In the Gathas, one Maniyoo is superior to the other and eventually will overcome the other. In Bundahishn, Ahura Mazda will eventually overcome and defeat Ahriman.

Ahura Mazda in Bundahshin in all knowing. It was aware of the existence of Ahriman. Ahriman on the other hand, was and is ignorant. It did not know of the existence of Ahura Mazda. It found it later and as a result it fainted into its dark abode.

Ahura Mazda in Bundahishn is peaceful, so at the beginning offers peace to Ahriman as long as it does not attack Ahura Mazda’s realm of light. In the Gathas as well, Ahura Mazda is all peace and all knowledge. Ahriman, however, as pictured in Bundahishn, out of its aggressive and stupid nature did not accept the offered peace.

The all knowing Ahura Mazda then, designed a plan to entrap and annihilate Ahriman for ever. In this chess game, Ahura Mazda is the active player whereas Ahriman is the reactive and spoiler. It is Ahura Mazda who is running the show.

At the end however, Ahura Mazda wins the fight and becomes the undisputable and unchallenged ruler of the universe. That would be Farshogard. In the Gathas however, Ahura Mazda has been, is and will be the only ruler of the world. Freshokereti, in the Gathas will come with the effort of humanity as is the case in Bundahishn were humanity is the forefront fighter on the side of Ahura Mazda to bring Farshogard about.

One then wonders, was the author Bundahishn a humble Zoroastrian thinker who had tried to interpret and make sense of the Gathic ideas of the two Minyoos? How about the author or authors of Vandidad?


Regards
Bahman Noruziaan