Minds vs Books - What do Zoroastrians worship? Part 2

Dear Ardeshir

You go on and on and on about your books.
If you only stayed with The Gathas, this would be OK.
But you seem to read all kinds of amazing things into all kinds of old books.
Fine with us all. But any idea of YOUR OWN is more sacred and interesting than all the ideas you claim to find in these old books. They are not moldy in themselves, it is the mindless worship of them that makes them moldy.
As I said before, this religion is about mind worship and not book worship.
Otherwise we might as well stay with The Bible of The Qoran. If this is just going to be another stupid book faith, then forget about me and most other people too.
I take the world Mazdayasna literally, you see. If this was the term Zarathushtra chose, then he surely most have MEANT something using it.

Ushta
Alexander

2010/6/20 ardeshir farhmand


the only record we have of the brilliant mind of a genius called zarathushtra is his poetry/book called the enchanting gathas; the only record the future generations will have of our minds is what we commit to writing. what we know of great minds such as Nietzsche comes from his writings. calling the message and record of such great minds/spirits MOLDY BOOKs can come only out of arrogant, disrespectful MOLDY minds such as PV and the like of his .


ardeshir




On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 5:53 AM, Alexander Bard wrote:

Dear Mehrdad

You have completely missed the point of this discussion.
It is the STRENGTH of Zoroastrianism that we DO NOT have to rely on old books to LIVE our religion.
And this disregard is not Western arrogance.
IT WAS WESTERNERS THEMSELVES WHO INTRODUCE THE RIDICULOUS IDEA OF BOOK WORSHIP.
It came to Iran from THE WEST, from Europe and from the Middle East.
Now, let's get rid of it.
BOOKS ARE DEAD MATTER. What is important is top have LIVING MINDS. This is what Mazdayasna (and not Book-Yasna) is all about, by its very definition!!!
Zarathushtra never quoted old books, he did not hold any books as sacred. It is an Abrahamic idea.

Ushta
Alexander

2010/6/20 mehrdad farahmand

I cannot believe my own senses when I read that you guys call the scriptures of a religion as old moldy books. It is like telling a Hindu that the Vedas and the Upanishads are nonsense, telling a Buddhist that the Sutras and the Dhammapada are junk, like telling a Jew that Torah has to be abandoned, and so on.
This is another example of your Western arrogance, which prompts you to tell us that after four thousand years we do not know the product of our own thoughts and beliefs and you 'Johnny Come Latelys' can tell us what it all means and what the way is. This is nothing new for us. The Greeks did in the name of civilization and democracy, while they were the most oppressive forms of government themselves. The Romans did in the name of Pax Romana, while they were most brutal and barbaric of all. The Christians in the name salvation, while they raped the spirit of million, while burning their bodies. The Colonialist did in the name of progress, while all they did was rape, pillage, and steal, and now you do it in the name of science, while you would not what science is even it bit you in the ass.
How many of you are scientist? Have you ever been in a lab? Have you ever published anything in a credible scientific journal for your for your peers?
I am physician, neurologist-neurosurgeon-neuroscientist. I have a doctorate i philosophy of mind and spend most of my adult life, if not all of it, study mind and consciousness and diseases thereof. I have not even come across one credible scientist, who make these naive and informed claims that we understand and explain everything. In contrary, we do not even know what to do with ideas such as mind, consciousness, etc. We know somethings about brain FUNCTIONS, but what is a mind. Don't even mention consciousness. They idea of faculties such as cognition, emotions, and volition refer back to platonic idea of tripartite notion of mind. That does not pan out on the brain functions. Ask any credible physicist whether we understand and explain the workings of the universe and he will smile and tell you we have made great progress but we are not even close.
You fellas identify Mazda with collection of human intelligence and minds. Whose intelligence and mind? Yours maybe and people who think like you. Shall we worship you O Master?
Your arguments would not pass even in philosophy the laugh test. Hanging your hat on the Derridas, Delleuzes of the world does not buy much truth, only more confusion, narccisism, and arrogance.
A religion is based on some foundations, most notably its scriptures that must be living. It means that they must evolve with time WHILE MAINTAINING ITS IDENTITY. That is precisely the challenge. If you fellas are interested in creating your own religion, go ahead nobody wants or would stop you. Nobody could stop you from stealing the label from another religion and call yourself zoroastrians, but do not have the audacity to tell us that we are not zoroastrians.
Emergence and creation of the world is one the main things that any religion tries to explain and also where do humans fit in. How can the grounds of existence be the collection of human minds while the world and the universe existed for billions of years before any nervous system? That is nonesense. I have news for you there are not many sane minds in this world and intelligence is also a rare commodity. We could say that human mind is the inflection of that universal mind through our nervous system and brains. This is a philosophical question outside the realm of science. Science works with hows, philosophy works with whys. This is a metaphysical question and not a physical one no matter how the post-modern and post-structuralist bull-shit artists try to twist and turn it.
You guys would be well advised to read the moldy books from across traditions, modern philosophical works on mind and consciousness, and some real science and not play science cheer leaders.

mehrdad