Mithraism as Western Zoroastrianism

Five million???
Let's just say that the European and Russian mobeds are doing a wonderful job at converting and including new members into a Zoroastrian community here that shows no interest in Abrahamification whatsoever.
I'm not saying no to Zoroastrianism. Mihthraism is just western Zoroastrianism by another name. The more the merrier.
Ushta
Alexander

2010/11/1 Parviz Varjavand

Dear Alex,

For many years Jafarey used to say that he has five million converts!? ;-) How many converts and to what ;-) do YOU have in Europe? Do not go behind the walls of Mithraic secrecy, it is childish. We need to choreograph our acts and have meaningful and wholesome conversion ceremonies and be a good gathering of wise persons. We should be counted and proud to be what we are, otherwise we will only repeat the mistakes that others made in their attempts to revamp Zoroastrianism and put it on the world stage.

Mehr Afzoon,
Parviz Varjavand

--- On Mon, 11/1/10, Alexander Bard wrote:

From: Alexander Bard
Subject: [Ushta] Zoroastrianism in Europe: Mazdayasna as the Mainstream
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, November 1, 2010, 12:54 AM



My point is simply that Jafarey's attempt to "Islamize" Zoroastrianism has not worked outside of his own community in Los Angeles and - according to you - with some impressed and confused locals in Iran. The version of "Mazdayasna" that we have been discussing here on Ushta for some time is the mainstream version in most of Europe today. This is apparently the result you get within a community consisting of Iranian intellectuals in exile mixed with European converts, critical of all traditional and especially all Abrahamic religion.

Ushta
Alexander

2010/10/31 Parviz Varjavand

Absolutely false! ( trying to begin my posts like Alex does! )

So we have a Jafareyan Zoroastrianism and a Scandinavian Zoroastrianism already!? Where did these categorizations come from? You Alex, you dared to identify them and give them these names, they did not come out of the pandoras box of gods with these names on them. We are godlike because We give names to things. If someone comes to one of your performances and comments that what you are doing is not Art, your response, at least in your heart, should be "..@$% you..". That is the best answer because who is anybody else to tell you that you are or are not an artist, art is what you make it to be.

Sophia means Wisdom and Philo means lover-of something. So Philosophy is The Love of Wisdom, and I dared equate it with Mazda-Yasna. Now you say that Love of Wisdom is the same as Art? I say No, it isn't. Art is art and there may not be any love of wisdom involved in it and there may be, but this Love of Wisdom stuff is not a given in Art. You can not readily equate Art with Mazdayasna, but it is most logical to equate Philosophy with Mazdayasna. This is my Nomenclature and I will live by it and I don't give a damn what someone else's nomenclature may say Mazda or Yasna or Sophia is. Most scholars may not equate Mazda with Sophia and Wisdom, but I do, and that is that (for me).

Ushta,
Parviz

--- On Sun, 10/31/10, Alexander Bard wrote:

From: Alexander Bard
Subject: [Ushta] Zoroastrianism: The Differences between Philosophy, Religion and Science
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, October 31, 2010, 6:34 AM



Not true.

Jafarey's version of Zoroastrianism was never very popular in Scandinavia.
I had not even heard of it until I came to America and met the wonderfully sweet Ali Jafarey himself, who I dearly love but also disagree with on the basic tenets of Mazdayasna.
The version of Mazdayasna discussed here on Ushta is the mainstream version within at least European Zoroastrianism.
And in any case, none of this affects the defnitions of Philosophy, Religion and Science and the differences between the three. Philosophy is an art form, Religion a social practice tied to certain beliefs, and Science is the social evaluation of hypotheses in relation to physical experiments that can be repeated and verified.
Ushta
Alexander

2010/10/31 Parviz Varjavand

Dear Alexander and Dino,

Alex says that Zarathustra is a great philosopher because he invented Mazda, Asha, Ahoora, etc..etc.. But what IS Mazda, Asha, Ahoora, ..etc.? They are what meaning we mortals give these words depending on who we are and how our minds are working at any particular time. The meanings of these words shifts depending on who is using the word, why, and when. Ostad Jafarey is honest when he says that Mazda means a BIG WISE GUY who sits outside His creation and creates and maintains it just as a shoe maker makes a shoe (we being the shoe and the BIG WISE ONE being the shoe maker). He says this because most (%99.9999) of those who get involved with Zoroastrianism have to work with this GIVEN definition of MAZDA, so he is being honest in saying that this is what you get when you join. Alex, you joined a religion in which this was a given at the time you joined it, are you still staying with the same solemn wows that you undertook when you joined the religion? I do not think so, I think you have moved out of living under the shadow of the BIG ONE being a shoe maker and you being a shoe.

The same is true of Sophia, Sophia is what YOU and I make of it, and when I say "I am a lovers of Sophia", I want My Sophia to love and not any Sophia which is pushed on me down the street. A Philosopher is a Lover of Sophia, a name I equate with Mazda. I live by my definition of what Sophia is to ME, I do not care what Sophia means to the guy who lives next door to me. If you do not get to the level of defining every key word of the school of thought you want to be a teacher in, and stick to that key definition the way you want it, it is best not to pretend to have anything deep to say and just dance with the crowed and have a fun party.

Mehr Afzoon,
Parviz Varjavand