söndag 24 januari 2010

New or old cults?

Dear Bahman

Thank you for your wise words!
My point is that we should learn from history and past mistakes and accept a certain humility before we pose with requirements of this or that Mazdayasna as the only true Mazdayasna etc.
Instead we should be proud of the pluralism of our religion and the fact that it encompasses so many variations during its 3,700-year long existence. We are a human religion, created by and for humans, using their best knowledge and intentions, as Zarathushtra wished, this is what makes it beautiful, tolerant and creative. Let's avoid going down the road of extremist madness that the religions of divine intervention (and single interpretations) so sadly have gone before us.


2010/1/24 Bahman Noruziaan

Dear members of the list,

Here, Alex refers to interpretation of a text.
For interpretation of the Gathas, one can refer to Mazdayasni Zartoshti texts, i.e. the whole Avesta as the base and platform as well as other Zoroastrian literature plus linguistic methods and other branches of science, or only refer to linguistic methods plus all other mind searching and intellectual methods.
The result could be very different and at times in disagreement. The Mazdayasni Zoroastrian religion up to a a couple of decades ago, was Avesta centric, in which the Gathas were embedded. From a couple of decades ago, interest in understanding the Gathas as the trure words of Ashoo Zarathishtra became very popular among Zoroastrians. In this trend however, we see those who see the Gathas from the view point of traditional Zoroastrianism and those who try to interpret and understand it regardless of the well established and a few millennia old Zoroastrian/Mazdayasni religion.
The second movement is certainly a new movement.


To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
From: bardissimo@gmail.com
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 13:44:21 +0100

Subject: [Ushta] New or old cults?

Dear Ardeshir

Who has the old and who has the new cult here?
And a text may be objective but its INTERPRETATION is per definition always subjective. There is after all always somebody who interprets the text and that person is a subject and not an object.
I have certainly not started any new cult. How about yourself? So what is then the problem?


2010/1/23 ardeshir farhmand
If we can not objectively study and understand that, there is no pont for me to post or discuss anything further here.
we can disagree, but we can not create a new cult in the name of zarathushtra.


On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Parviz Varjavand wrote:

Dear Alexander,

Many old words have been corrupted by the wrong usage over the ages. So even if they can have very good and legitimate meanings, one must move away from them and coin new words in order to get the mothball smell out of the ideas being presented. Maybe you remember that I had coined new words in order to better express my thoughts when we had long discussions with our dear Dina McIntyre. She considered the translation of God-Worship as the only legitimate translation for Mazda-Yasna (Mazda=God Yasna=Worship) and I was proposing Philo-Sophia (Sophia=Mazda Philo=Yasna). After the arguments dragged on too long, I proposed the word "Manesh-Jashni" for the school of thought we were formulating instead of Mazdayasna. We did not agree on that, so until the end of time, all shades of born and unborn Zoroastrians will attack us and say that we have stolen Mazdayasna from them and it does not mean what we say it means.

Methaphisics is another one of those words which has been corrupted by the wrong usage over a long period of time. If somebody does not know Billy Graham (the famous Christian evangelist) and wants to go to one of his speeches and asks me about what he may expect to hear there, I will tell him that "you are going to be in for an evening of talks about Metaphysics and not Philosophy". What I say will give a clear image of what Billy Graham will be all about that evening as Metaphysics is not Philosophy for the average man regardless of what Vicapedia says about it.

This is why when I say OUR brand of Philo-Sophia=Mazda-Yasna must move past Metaphysical parameters into a Post-Metaphysics realm, I do not think what I am saying is Gibberish. My assumptions may be wrong and I welcome being corrected.

Ushta Te,
Parviz Varjavand

--- On Sat, 1/23/10, Alexander Bard wrote:

From: Alexander Bard
Subject: Re: [Ushta] Post-Metaphysics
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, January 23, 2010, 2:59 AM

Dear Parviz and Dino

You are using the term "metaphysics" here at least as sloppily and out of context as Ardeshir does when he says that "the universe is alive".
There is and there never will be a post-metaphysical Mazdayasna. There is not even any post-metaphysical atheism if that is what you desire.
The Universe is DYNAMIC and not alive. Mazdayasna strives to be post-supernatural or anti-supernatural (which I believe is the term you are lacking) but never post-metaphysical.
Just so that we can have a debate which we and outsiders too can all understand and that makes sense.


2010/1/23 Parviz Varjavand

Dorood Dino,

The problem is that the Gatha may be mostly metaphysical talks if in the hands of those who get high only on metaphysical gibberish (as you put it). Can we move Gatha to a post-metaphysics level? I have given up on that because I say that if we want post-metaphysical Mazdayasna, we should be brave enough to make all sacred books irrelevant for our new school of thought. Sorry Zanetta, we may not be the best guys to get high on Zoroastrian Metaphysics here on the Ushta site.


--- On Fri, 1/22/10, Special Kain wrote:

From: Special Kain
Subject: AW: [Ushta] One more long title that does not tell us what is beeing talked about.
To: Ushta@yahoogroups. com
Date: Friday, January 22, 2010, 3:39 PM

Dear Parviz

The problem is not whether one's philosophy is earth-centered or not, but it's all just metaphysical gibberish in the sense that they are making outrageously bold claims about something that we can never prove right or wrong. So this is where blind faith starts: metaphysics. And that's why I went post-metaphysics 9 years ago.


--- Parviz Varjavand schrieb am Fr, 22.1.2010:

Von: Parviz Varjavand
Betreff: [Ushta] One more long title that does not tell us what is beeing talked about.
An: Ushta@yahoogroups. com
Datum: Freitag, 22. Januar 2010, 22:52

My feelings towards Ardeshir's writings is the same as Dino's.
Clear thinking and clear talking go hand in hand.
>>>>"Our minds are limited":
Sure they are, but show me a mind outside the brains of humans and I will shut up. This is the best that you can get, so why put it down.
>>>>"Cosmos is alive":
Where? Where other than on earth have you found life?
>>>"Christianity was Earth Centered, let us not be like them":
Just because the Church thought that the planets rotated around the earth does not make the philosophy of Christianity "Earth Centered". Their vision was always Heaven centered, Earth was a place of damnation and Heavens was a place of bliss and perfection for the Church. This is so plain to anybody that knows history that to present it otherwise is pure ........ My (Parviz's) Mazdayasna is Earth Centered because I can find life only on earth. I will move my center of attention from Earth to any other place you want me to as soon as you find life anywhere else other than Earth.

Nice to see that at least Dino is also with us here catching the .......
Parviz Varjavand
Meditating as usual upon cow plops because more life exists in a cow plop here on earth than in all of the cosmos beyond the earth.

--- On Fri, 1/22/10, Special Kain wrote:

From: Special Kain
Subject: WG: Re: [Ushta] Manifestations of Mazda and the Pathos of Mazdayasna
To: Ushta@yahoogroups. com
Date: Friday, January 22, 2010, 9:10 AM

--- Special Kain schrieb am Fr, 22.1.2010:

Von: Special Kain
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] Manifestations of Mazda and the Pathos of Mazdayasna
An: "ardeshir farhmand"
Datum: Freitag, 22. Januar 2010, 18:08

I just don't want to turn this all into some metaphysical hocus-pocus that even parapsychologists don't care about anymore. That's all.
But your description always sounds like: There's a Great Beyond where Mazda is resting, and we only see just a tiny bit of Mazda's excellence. Here I strongly disagree, because I don't buy into the Kantian distinction between The Phenomenal and The Noumenal. Such distinctions died the moment North American pragmatism popped up. I have been dealing with post-ontology and post-metaphysics since I was 21 years old.
No offense!


--- ardeshir farhmand schrieb am Fr, 22.1.2010:

Von: ardeshir farhmand
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] Manifestations of Mazda and the Pathos of Mazdayasna
An: Ushta@yahoogroups. com
CC: "Special Kain"
Datum: Freitag, 22. Januar 2010, 17:51

Dear Dino,

i really did NOT expect this kind of talk from u. u said something that made sense, i came up with a suggestion that was also poetic. there is NO need to import dregatory remarks in between. since u are both sensible and smart.

the FACT is MAZDA is wisdom, vision, insight and genius and IS NOT A LIMITED CONCEPT, our minds/intellectual powers on the other hand are limited.
so, what word would u suggest that would best fit our context here????

i think, u should not read too much into something that IS SIMPLY NOT EVEN IMPLIED. if new-age people use a similar terminology, oh well. we have not to discredit poetic language becs someone else is abusing it???

also becuase if some of us are allergic to a certain style of language; DOES NOT mean that we should read more into it than what it simply says, u can suggest alternatives, because u fully grasp the main concept here!


On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 8:29 AM, Special Kain wrote:

Dear Ardeshir

That's exactly the kind of statement I would get from all the New Age esotericists and occultists I have met so far. ;-)
And all decent parapsychologists I know have gotten past such metaphysical gibberish.

My two cents,

--- ardeshir farhmand schrieb am Fr, 22.1.2010:

Von: ardeshir farhmand
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] Manifestations of Mazda and the Pathos of Mazdayasna
An: Ushta@yahoogroups. com
Datum: Freitag, 22. Januar 2010, 17:24

Dear Dino,

how about a SPARK OF instead????see the point is MAZDA is infinite wisdom, insight, genius, vision. our minds/awareness is ont he other hand mostly limited. so we have to be careful not to limit an infinite concept/genial energy.


On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 8:17 AM, Special Kain wrote:

Dear Ardeshir and Alexander

There's no difference between something's own nature and its manifestation. Anything else is metaphysical gibberish about artificial distinctions - please see Plato and Arthur Schopenhauer, for example.
To say that Mazda is X is no different from enlisting the manifestations of Mazda. Simply because things mean what they cause, things are what they do - I am the thoughts I think, the words I speak, the actions I undertake. And as soon as we discover other manifestations of Mazda, we can see what else Mazda is.
And since we're here on earth, Mazda is (= is manifested as) the total sum of all wise minds on our dear planet. This definition doesn't rule out the possibility of other intelligent lifeforms in our overwhelmingly big and fascinating universe and beyond.
At the end of the day, we don't disagree, since it's not about philosophical hairsplitting, but empirical consequences (from a pragmatist's point of view).

Dino // has never liked Kant's distinction between The Phenomenal and The Noumenal and prefers pragmatism combined with existential philosophy

--- Alexander Bard schrieb am Fr, 22.1.2010:

Von: Alexander Bard
Betreff: [Ushta] Manifestations of Mazda and the Pathos of Mazdayasna
An: Ushta@yahoogroups. com
Datum: Freitag, 22. Januar 2010, 16:58

Dear Ardeshir

I totally agree!!!
This is also why "modern concepts" like the equality between all humans and an ecological approach towards nature are not new or "modern at all, these were always Zoroastrian concepts and have been so for at least 3,700 years. This is what we need to teach the world about Zoroastrianism!


2010/1/22 ardeshir farhmand


u got it right and u put it very well, every spark of "wisdom, insight, vision and genius" is a MANIFESTATION of MAZDA; be it human or non-human, here on earth or elsewhere in this amazing web of existence.

i think it is of paramount importance to realize that the gathas of zarathushtra are NOT earth -centric or human centric. they are centered on wisdom, insight, genius; and passion, awareness and spirit with an emphasis on the GREAT CELEBRATION of the MATERIAL LIFE.

human centrism or earth centrism are church dogmas not ours.


On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 6:47 AM, Alexander Bard wrote:

Or to take an example from the best part of Christianity and twist around to re-Zoroastrianize it:
"Wherevere two of you gather, Mazda is present."
I would be a bit careful to say that this or that IS Mazda. I prefer to say that this or that is a MANIFESTATION of Mazda.
Zarathushtra was smart enough not to limit Mazda only to what he and his contemporaries knew or took for granted.
Because Mazda is likely to be present in many other forms and places in this wonderful universe. Our divine minds is just one manifestation among possibly millions.

2010/1/22 Special Kain

Dear Alexander

The internet is both: Ahura (infrastructure and technology) and Mazda (user- and talent-generated content). Ahura is the simple fact that both you and I are alive and communicating with each other online. Mazda is whatever text we're about to co-write together and the ideas and identities emanating from such a creative process. «Yahoo!» is Ahura to us, «Ushta» is Mazda.
In this sense Mazda is the total sum of all wise minds on our dear planet that contribute constructively and creatively to civilization and have learned to cope with their existence creatively and intelligently.
Freedom is entangled with our surroundings (civilization) and intelligence (education). So rather than repeat classical liberalism and see people as opposed to an oppressive society, we see that there's no Mazda without Ahura - and that Mazda has the potential to reshape Ahura, which will affect Mazda - and so on, and so forth.
Zoroastrian philosophy has always understood freedom in terms of civilizationism and social evolutionism. This is exactly why Zoroastrianism has become so tremendously relevant!

My ten cents,

Inga kommentarer: