I agree on this 100%!!!
And I actually always to refer to the IDEAS of thinkers and then to Zarathushtra's ideas more than any other thinker's.
This is why I take care to quote only when I explicitly have to, to avoid quoting out of context, the most common mistake of all discourse of theology and philosophy.
2010/1/9 ardeshir farhmand
first of all, western scholars DID NOT compiled the gathas. if u study their poetic measure/rhymes, u see that they STAND OUT for themselves in comparison to the rest of the avestan literature. in fact, the whole avestan literature has been composed around them and/or as a footnote/commentary to them. the gathas were orally transmitted for thousand of years, and in achaemenid times or at the time of darius the great, were committed to official writing. yet the oral tradition has continued even up to today and has been given clear precedence.
secondly, we have no-problem quoting Hegel, Heraclitus, Plato, and the great Nietzsche or Spinoza here, so the great seer deserves the same courtesy. Furthermore, i think the main problem in this approach is; that some of us can not quit comparing zarathushtra's poetry with entirely and fundamentally different biblical literature. comparing these 2 is erroneous. it is like comparing apples and pineapples for lack of a better example.
so the moment we see zarathushtra as a great seer, and his profound poetry AS NOT GOSPELS, we would have no problem quoting him like we quote other great thinkers and visionaries. in the same light, we would be far less concerned with the person of zarathushtra, rather than his thoughts, ideas and visions, eternally memorialized in his songs. we are not concerned with the person of Hegel are we??? but with his thoughts, ideas and vision fascinates us. the same apply to great zarathushtra.
I believe that Zarathushtra's central point is that we should think clearly and critically for ourselves and then IDENTIFY with our thinking, speaking and acting. Everything else is dependent on how we handle this ethical imperative. Zoroastrian culture ever since Zarathushtra has always had this at its very center.
Especially as Zarathushtra gave priority to his IDEAS which he wanted to share with us. He never actually intended to write any sacred book of any kind. We, or rather Western scholars, compiled The Gathas and chose to attrubute these texts to Zarathushtra in the 19th century.
This doesn't mean we can't quote The Gathas - of course we can - but we do so much more the way the followers of a philosopher quotes the philosophical texts and put them into context rather than the way Abrahamic fanatics quote their holy books.
To me, there is no higher or lower awareness and I can't see any support for such a concept in The Gathas too. There is just awareness and its opposite, ignorance. I much prefer to be aware rather than be ignorant, of course. Clarity and creativity of mind, what could be more Minoo than that?
2010/1/9 ardeshir farhmand
while i agree with u in principal, i need to ascertain an important point that is being overlooked here. first comparing zarathushtra and his poetry, to jesus and the gospels is erroneous.
gospels are all about jesus's life. gathas have LITTLE if anything to do with zarathushtra' s life. they ALL are about his VISIONS and an are an Odyssey of understanding and higher awareness. and how would u know his visions without understanding/FEELING his profound poetry???????
so quoting gathic songs does NOT amount to "quote queen-ness." like any powerful literature, his words/songs if understood with emotional intelligence enables one to live and see his visions. and by seeing his visions/intuitive wisdom, our individual journey into the realm of MINOO or Spirit in Hegelian sense, just begins.
so i find parviz's repetitive arguments erroneous, and in reckless disregard of the fundamental difference between 2 extremely different literary works.