måndagen den 28:e juni 2010

What is Ushta?

We can already be permanently happy if we want to.
There are drugs that make us permanently happy.
Still we don't take those pills. This reveals that deep down happiness is not what we are after, as humans or as Zoroastrians.
I would say that what we strive for is a sense of self-authenticity. To be at one with ourselves, with our destiny. There are no proper words in English for "asha" and "ushta". We should therefore introduce those terms and concepts to the English language.
Ushta indeed
Alexander

2010/6/29 Parviz Varjavand

Ushta has been translated as Happiness or Bliss, but in the Ashem Vohou mantra we say that "Ushta is for the one who seeks the Highest Asha or Vahishtayi Ashem. So Ushta is not the kind of happiness that you can have if you lobotomize yourself in some kind of happiness that brings that glowing smile painted on the faces of mindless religious True Believers. What is your take on that; would you rather be stupid and happy or conscious and aware but not so happy?

Parviz

söndagen den 27:e juni 2010

Zoroastrianism and The Superego Command

The imperative "Enjoy!" invokes a sense of MAXIMIZATION of enjoyment at all times.
This is why it becomes a form of slavery to the superego.
You can't be too rich, you can't be too thin, you can't be too beautiful, you can't be too successful, you can't have too much good food, great sex, etc. But you also can't be too intelligent or too funny too social.
It is this lack of balance (for lack of a better world), and this state of unawareness of being a slave to one's superego that makes it so tyrannical.
Zarathushtra's credo is here similar to those of Spinoza and Nietzsche: If we become aware of the tyranny of the superego, we make it possible for ourselves to balance between supergo, ego and id as categories of psychoanalysis. We need to learn to handle all this PERMISSION we have arrived at historically.
So "Live!" or even better "Asha!" captures this balance where "Enjoy!" does not.
Ushta
Alexander

2010/6/27 Special Kain

Dear Rory
The problem with "Exist!" is that our philosophy is about Mazda, not Ahura. We're Mazdayasni, not Ahurayasni. All philosophy begins with the existentialist experience: the amazing fact that there is something rather than nothing (and I owe this to Alexander).
Then, "Enjoy!" is a really twisted and cynical superego command which is to typical of our society. You're not allowed to be sad, you're not allowed to do something else than have fun all the time, you're not allowed to not enjoy sex and care about becoming a sexually and emotionally healthy person - even though we still don't know what that healthy person would look like, since it's such a confusingly vague ideal. That's just too much pressure and, as I strongly believe, this ideology is probably related to the significant increase in clinical depression and impotence. There are other influencing factors, such as the food we eat, but "Enjoy!" is a very tricky thing.
This is where demonstrating that you don't like sex that much becomes a revolutionary act!!!
"Asha!" is our superego command, simply because we are obliged to pursue the truth relentlessly and live in accordance with the truth. Just do away with all superstitious bullshit and see the world for what it is, be brutally honest with yourself.

My ten cents,
Dino

--- Rory schrieb am So, 27.6.2010:

Von: Rory

Betreff: [Ushta] Re: The Superego Command
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Sonntag, 27. Juni, 2010 10:44 Uhr


We need to link exist and Asha somehow. The problem with "exist" is it's pretty hard not to unless you're dead... By "live" I meant "with/in Asha". By live I mean actively exist along the lines of "enjoy", not passively exist.

Ushta,

Rory

--- In Ushta@yahoogroups.com, Alexander Bard wrote:
>
> I prefer asha to live, as I don't know what the imperative "Live!" means.
> It is also better than "Exist!" which I like poetically speaking, but which
> unfortunately makes very little sense.
> Imperatives don't work if they are too vague, too abstract. They then mean
> nothing to us, which means we subconsciously orientate ourselves towards
> another more concrete imperative.
> Worth keeping in mind. ;-)
> Ushta
> Alexander
>
> 2010/6/26 Special Kain
>
> >
> >
> > Dear Rory
> > And why do you suggest this superego command?
> > I think "Asha!" is the ultimate superego command, simply because we're
> > ethically obliged to live in accordance with Asha - (1) the true order of
> > things and (2) the relentless pursuit of the truth.
> >
> > Ushta,
> > Dino
> >
> > --- Rory ** schrieb am *Sa, 26.6.2010:
> > *
> >
> > *
> > Von: Rory
> > Betreff: [Ushta] Re: The Superego Command
> > An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
> > Datum: Samstag, 26. Juni, 2010 15:43 Uhr
> >
> > *
> > * * * *
> > * *
> >
> > *Dear Dino,
> >
> > "Live!"
> >
> > Ushta,
> >
> > Rory
> >
> > --- In Ushta@yahoogroups.com,
> > Special Kain wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear friends
> > > It started with the psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan and the cultural theorist
> > Slavoj Zizek, please see here:
> > >
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Umwetjs_Ja4
> > >
> > > According to them, the superego command in our society and our age is
> > "Enjoy!". You MUST enjoy, you MUST have fun all the time, you MUST be happy!
> > > That's when Alexander suggested that the superego command in
> > Zoroastrianism is "Exist!", so let me please make my own suggestion: our
> > superego command is "Asha!".
> > >
> > > Any feedback, suggestions, anything?
> > >
> > > Ushta,
> > > Dino

Zoroastrianism - A Way of Life (was: AFDI - Archiv für Forschung und Dokumentation Iran (Berlin))

Dear Dino

This has always been my motto too: Zoroastrianism is what Zoroastrians make of it!
I'm happy to hear young radical Iranians take such a positive view of Zoroastrianism.
It bodes well for the future.
All we need to do is to let them know Zoroastrianism is the philosophical heritage of Iranian culture rather than a specific religion, and they will be even more interested.
Especially as they are already living Zoroastrian LIVES!!!

Ushta
Alexander

2010/6/27 Special Kain

Dear friends
Yesterday I met some Iranians at the so-called "Transgenialer CSD" (the allegedly "political" Gay Pride Berlin) and they gave me a new address: AFDI - Archive for Research and Documentation Iran (see link below).

http://www.comm-online.de/afdi/

So if you happen to be in Berlin, don't hesitate to visit their premises in Berlin-Kreuzberg. And, once again, these Iranians said exactly the same thing about Zoroastrians: liberal and generous people who strongly support environmentalism and gender equality and don't see any problem with homosexuality or different types of sexuality.
Zoroastrianism is what Zoroastrians make of it!!!

Ushta,
Dino

onsdagen den 23:e juni 2010

Zoroastrianism and Process Philosophy

Exactly!!!
Zarathushtra never quoted any books himself.
As a matter of fact, he probably never wrote any books either.
The Gathas is probably a text written by followers of Zarathushtra after his death who just wanted to help people remember the wisdom of his MIND, not create a law to be followed blindly. Otherwise, The Gathas would have been full of all sorts of commandments but the text is not!
Sure, it's a brilliant text, but it's MINDS that are holy to Zoroastrians, not books. As the author of The Gathas himself is adamant in pointing out. And as ANY process philosopher would be adamant in pointing out too.
To me there are two decent religions that hold up well in the 21st century and they are Zoroastrianism and Taoism. Which one we choose to belong to is a matter of taste.
Ushta
Alexander

2010/6/23 Special Kain

Thirdly, if Zoroastrianism was all about worshipping old and dusty books - no matter how inspiring their contents may be to someone who's reading them -, why would Zarathushtra have stressed ACTIONS and THE CAPACITY TO THINK and WISE CHOICES? If all answers could be found in such old books, why would he want to stress this genuine curiosity about existence?

--- Special Kain schrieb am Mi, 23.6.2010:

Von: Special Kain
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] The End of a Conflict - and what we can learn from it
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
CC: "Mehrdad Farahmand"
Datum: Mittwoch, 23. Juni, 2010 10:46 Uhr


In other words, we have to make it abundantly clear to everyone - and I'm repeating myself here - that Zarathushtra was probably the first process philosopher (and I'm sure our dear brother Mehrdad will agree) and the first existentialist and pragmatist. Persian philosophy at its best!!!

--- Special Kain schrieb am Mi, 23.6.2010:

Von: Special Kain
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] The End of a Conflict - and what we can learn from it
An: Ushta@yahoogroups. com
CC: "Mehrdad Farahmand"
Datum: Mittwoch, 23. Juni, 2010 10:42 Uhr


That's great news!!!
I actually got worried that contemporary Zoroastrianism would mainly be nothing but primitive pre-Islam, since so many brothers and sisters are drawing such a picture of our philosophy on The Ushta List. And then there would be no need to pursue anything Zoroastrian anymore, because I'm not a Muslim and never will be.
To me Zoroastrianism is existentialism without Sartre's or Camus' horribly annoying "gloom and doom" attitude, but combined with what such brilliant American minds as Whitehead, Peirce and Dewey would propose many, many centuries after Zarathushtra' s death. Then please add the wonderful praise of intelligence and creativity, and I'M ALL FOR IT!!!

Ushta,
Dino

--- Alexander Bard schrieb am Mi, 23.6.2010:

Von: Alexander Bard
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] The End of a Conflict - and what we can learn from it
An: Ushta@yahoogroups. com
CC: "Mehrdad Farahmand"
Datum: Mittwoch, 23. Juni, 2010 09:54 Uhr


Dear Dino

What makes you think that?
I know hundreds of Iranian, Indian and Western Zoroastrians, few if any of them show any traits of Islamic or Christian thinking in their ideas during conversation. I have even often been forced to claim that "Zoroastrians are more Zoroastrian than they even know themselves". This shows in their lifestyles and appearances rather than in their theorizing. So it is all very pragmatist.
There are a few rather loud voices around to seem to suffer from some kind of "Islam-envy" , but I can assure you they are a small minority.
I wouldn't even have considered my conversion to Zoroastrianism otherwise.
Older Zoroastrians love Immanuel Kant and not the Abrahamic prophets. Younger Zoroastrians take naturally to postmodern theory and pragmatism. The rest is up to people like us to change and influence.
Ushta
Alexander

2010/6/23 Special Kain

Dear friends
Ardeshir has proved to be a great contributor to The Ushta List. But I personally won't miss his lengthy linguistic analyses. Etymology doesn't dictate my life.
But we should keep Mehrdad!!! He seems to be a really, really smart guy, and it's best to keep the scientists! We need people who think critically.
What I have learned from this silly conflict is that the less Islam and Christian theology I see in Mazdayasna philosophy, the more I'm part of a minority group WITHIN a minority group.

Ushta,
Dino



--- Alexander Bard schrieb am Mi, 23.6.2010:

Von: Alexander Bard
Betreff: [Ushta] The End of a Conflict - and what we can learn from it
An: Ushta@yahoogroups. com
CC: "Mehrdad Farahmand"
Datum: Mittwoch, 23. Juni, 2010 01:26 Uhr


Dear Parviz


In all honesty, I have no problem disagreeing with people, but when I get shouted at for disagreeing with them and for not bowing to their "truths", that is when my patience starts to vain. Isn't that the case with us all?
When they then move on to attack my friends and try to organise conflicts in between us, that's when I have had enough. Ushta is a forum for contemporary Zoroastrianism, it's not a battlefield.
I frankly don't know what Ardeshir is up to. But I can't help noticing that he has basically taken over this forum say the last six months with endless tirades that really are not communicating anything but rather just DICTATING. And that is not what a mailing list like Ushta is about. This forum is all about civilized dialogue.
Ardeshir is likely to continue posting his lengthy lectures online. Good! Those who are interested may ask him to send them his postings directly. We don't need Ushta for that. Most people here are more interested in a proper dialogue. Count me in!
But if Mehrdad leaves - who DOES communicate and does discuss and does so in a very cilivized manner too - this would be sad loss for us all on this forum. Is there anything we can do to make Mehrdad stay?

Ushta
Alexander

2010/6/22 Parviz Varjavand

Hi Dino,

Our problem is that our conversations with the Farahmands deteriorated on two level. One was the realm of personal insults, a very very sad and unfortunate part indeed. I had an episode with someone named Ardalan many years ago and this was the second time that the insults got downgraded to very personal levels. The second part was calling the point of views of each-other names. I feel that this second unfortunate episode was even worst than the first misunderstandings between the two sides of this arguments. It deprived us of learning from each other, and learning is all that we are here for and that we feel our religion is all about.

I wish that Mr. Ardeshir and Dr. Mehrdad Farahmand would give us a second chance in us learning from them, and maybe even them learning from us. I promise, but you and Alex and the rest of the readers should also agree to hold back on any show of emotions which may make others loose it. We are not street people fighting over drug turf here, we are supposed to be Ashavans, always seeking the highest truth, Vahishtayi Ashem.

Ushta,
Parviz

måndagen den 21:e juni 2010

The meanings of Mazda and Minoo

Dear Ardeshir

Thank you for an EXCELLENT scholarly odyssey on the meanings of "mazda" and "minoo".
I would like to point out that nobody I know has said that "mazda" literally means "mind" in contemporary English. But for lack of a good word for "mazda", mind is a better translation than most other suggestions.
Mazda is however more powerful and indicates process and action in a way that mind does not.
Which is very much in line with what we all discussed here on Ushta when tryingv to identify what "Mazdayasna" truly means.

Ushta
Alexander

2010/6/21 ardeshir farhmand

Dear Friends,


I have posted this before and i will repeat again
Mazda is related to sanskrit Medha and greek Metis;
in all these languages the word means: creativity, ingenuity, know-how, skill, craft.
as evidenced by many passages in the gathas including second line of Yasna 31.5, second line of Yasna 44.8, and third line of Yasna 53.5, the word is connected with ability to see, know/figure out, and be creative. "

The word is also connected to creative thoughts, memory and brilliant ideas,
Lith. mintis "thought, idea, and vision;
greek mantis "one who divines, prophet, seer.

More interestingly the word is related to Skt. mahan/mahas: "the world of amazing possibilities." This is strongly confirmed by the ancient exegesis. accordingly, this shows most interesting connection to O.E. mæg (inf. magan, pt. meahte, mihte), from P.Gmc. root mag-, O.N. mega, Ger. mögen, Goth. magan "to be able"), from PIE *mogh-/*megh- "power to realize." O.C.S. mogo "to be able," mosti "power, force," ."

Mazda is not only vision and creativity, but also the power to realize that vision and make it happen and möglich.

Also compare Gk. Medeia, lit. "skill, craft ," related to medos "counsel, plan, device, clever skill," median "to rule over, to be able."

the word is almost identical to avestan khratü and sanskrit kratu: namely power/ability, skill to realize a vision or brilliant idea.

Furthermore, the avestan word manö DOES NOT MEAN MIND in its modern use.

manö and mainyü refer to "wit, spirit, ability to see/know/realize, also passion, intense energy."

The farsi words MINOO and MANESH have pretty much retained the original indo-european sense of spirit, consciousness, seeing, knowing
and mode/manner of consciousness, seeing, knowing and realizing.

ardeshir

Zoroastrianism and The Theory of Mind

Dear Mehrdad

Philosophy deals with "theory of mind" all the time.
Mazda is Avesta for "mind" or rather "that which thinks". Please note, it is WHATEVER IT IS THAT THINKS.
Zarathushtra was concerned with mind AS mind. He was not and did not claim to be a scientist.
So Science is welcome to ADD its bits to our understanding of what MIND is.
Now, once you put Zarathushtra's thoughts IN MOTION and SET THEM ALIVE you realise how extremely suitable they are to our modern understanding of the world (Zarathushtra himself was NOT obsessed with his forefathers and upholding traditions and quoting books,m let's therefore live within his sprit and follow him as an example and THINK criticially for ourselves!!!).
So DUALISM was indeed alien to Zarathushtra. You are mixing up Zoroastrianism (or rather Zoroastrian philosophy) with MANICHAEISM.
If Zoroastrianism would indeed have been Platonist, then why on earth would Manichaeism have been invented in the first place, and as such became Zoroastrianism's fiercest rival in the Middle East???
So the Greek thinker who was TRULY Zoroastrian was Heraclitus and not Plotinus. Plotinus and the Platonists were the Manichaeists of the Greeks!

Ushta
Alexander

2010/6/21 mehrdad farahmand

Dino,
I am not interested in rehatching this one more.
I am happy that you graduated from a prestigious university and my deepest congrats. However, you should have mentioned the field as well.
As for Alexander, I have nothing but respect for him and I do value his philosophical works. Although, I believe he is wrong in his understanding of the basic principles to some degree. I believe he reads too much humanistic enlightenment philosophy into zoroastrianism. Spinoza is a radical shift from the traditional judeo christian tradition, but he is not zoroastrianism. Neoplatonism of plotinus comes closest to zozoastrianism in the western tradition. Closest philosophies to zoroastrianism are the advaita vedanta of ramanuja and shankara and in the modern philosophy sri aurobindo. Also Nagarjuna's notion of shunyata and alaya vijnana are also good points of comparison, which is tathagata buddhism and vajravanya. Zoroastrianism is not spinoza 's pantheism.
you identify mazda with mind. then the question is what is mind? define it!
science will benefit from you definition. mind is a folk psychological concept, which is very difficult to pack out in terms of neuroscience. As I said before, we know of brain activities which correlate to brain functions. When you talk about mind, are you talking about the collection of these activities or a central command post. there is no evidence of either. this is the famous binding problem in neurosciences.
So you throw around folk psychological terms that remains of enlightenment period and the Newtonian physics era and believe you are talking current science. There is not even a shred of notion where the so called mind begins and the normal physiological process of the brain and the nervous system end. Add to it that the immune system seems to be as complex as nervous system and we have second independent nervous system in out gastrointestinal tract, which is more complex than some simpler animals with relatively complex behavior. So where is this mind? this is the question, which Hume posed and it would be good to review it again.
in all this complexity and sometimes confusion you compound the confusion and identify mazda with human mind or set of all the minds in the universe.
we don't even know what the role consciousness is or the unconscious aspects of the brain function. we dont even know what to do with qualia and subjectivity and what is the role awareness and attention with respect to consciousness. is it thalamus reponsible for these functions? or is it a universal function of the brain. we have found a whole new level of information processing above the molecular level and below the cognitive level and that is the systemic level corresponding to the electrical activity of the brain as it is reflected in the EEG with gama waves at 40 hz and spikes at 200 300 hz range. so tell me where is the mind?

now you tried to insult me by saying 'obviously' in response to me saying intelligence is rare commodity etc. listen i did not name names in my email and did not insult any person. i just called the statements nonesensical. you made this personal. just know this and i say this very bluntly: don't f.. with me. I have chunk of guys bigger than you in my sh...
be nice!

let us keep this at a higher level and not insult each other personally.
the problem with your understanding of this religion is that you have mistaken it for another version of enlightenment philosophy. that is utterly false. that was never so. zoroastrianism values human mind and the power to choose but it never identified mind with mazda. here you have to know the difference between sense and reference, intension and extension of a concept. the question what is the extension of mazda, to what does it refer.









On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Special Kain wrote:

Dear Mehrdad

> 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.

Nobody is telling anyone to abandon any books. Alexander, Parviz and I merely insist that it's not about the books THEMSELVES or their ALLEGED SACREDNESS, it's about what we LEARN from reading such books that matters.
Everyone is free to worship whatever books they like. But Zoroastrianism does not end with reading Zoroastrian scriptures.

> 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 studied at the prestigious University of Zurich and the Free University Berlin. I graduated at the University of Zurich with best and second-best grades. Yes, I am a scientist. Yes, I have conducted some research. Yes, I know what science is.

> 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.

Guess what: the people that you're so strongly criticizing ACTUALLY AGREE WITH YOU ON THIS!!! The world itself is the most amazing miracle there is.

> 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?

Please stop this nonsense and start reading our postings CAREFULLY!
Mazda is "the mind". As long as there is no other mind than the human mind, why not fallibilistically assume that Mazda is the total sum of all human minds? Please look for the term "fallibilistic" in my previous postings.

> 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.

We don't tell our fellow Zoroastrians that they're not Zoroastrians. Many, many members of the The Ushta List have repeatedly made perfectly clear that Zoroastrian philosophy embraces Pantheism and Panentheism. And I'm perfectly fine with that. It's just that modern science is a much better guide now than religion. Science has even already replaced philosophy!

> 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.

Yes, this is nonsense, and no-one has ever seriously stated anything as ridiculous as this. So let me please again tell you to read other members' postings carefully.

> I have news for you there are not many sane minds in this world and intelligence is also a rare commodity.

Obviously!


> 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.

Absolutely. I agree 100%. But I try not to concern myself with too much metaphysics. ;-)


> 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.

So the research that I have conducted so far doesn't really exist? And Alexander's best-selling philosophical books - including all translations in more than ten languages - have never been written?

This is indeed a strange world.

Ushta,
Dino

Dead Religion vs Living Religion

Dear Bahman

Do you know what?
You religion is DEAD religion.
If it had life in it, it would be about what YOU think and what YOU believe.
But all you are concerned with is upholding some traditions that you think that you know and understand.
I frankly do not share your dead religion at all. I'm not your kind of Zoroastrian. I could not care less about a pathetic dead religion. I don't believe in your big father fugure in the sky with his giant penis. HE DOES NOT EXIST. And I do not believe in your stupid angels. THEY DO NOT EXIST.
But I read Zarathustra's text "The Gathas" 27 years ago and I fell in love with the text and I have been a follower of HIS (and not YOUR) religion ever since.
And his religion is called Mazdayasna and you know what? IT IS ALIVE!!!

Ushta
Alexander

2010/6/21 Bahman Noruziaan

Alexander!

Ardeshir Farahmand is consistent!
He talks about Mazdayasni Zartoshti Religion, based on Zoroastrian literature and tradition. This gives a good credibility to what he says.
He does not mix all sort of isms such as Pantheism, Monism, Panentheism, etc. with Zoroastrianism to make it modern and attractive for today intellectuals. He talks about Zoroastrianism with all its Goods and Bads, Beauties and Ugliness.
He does not care whether people call Zoroastrianism, out dated, stupid, fairytale, superstition and so on! He states the facts about Zoroastrianism and based on Zoroastrian literature and tradition!
And here is not inquisition to ask about one's belief system.
Ardesihr only says what Zoroastrianism is and not what he wants it to be! His belief is his and it could be all, or part of the spectrum of ideas in traditional Zoroastrianism!






To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
From: bardissimo@gmail.com
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 23:30:57 +0200

Subject: Re: [Ushta] Healing by angels


Pseudo-intellectual cheerleaders???
In what way is Ardeshir Fahrmand suddenly a proper intellectual and the rest of us pseudo-intellectuals? How did this come about? Have we become pseudo simply because we do not cheer Ardeshir's own postings? Isn't it better to point out exactly what is wrong with our objections instead of making personal attacks?
I only have one straightforward question to Ardeshir Fahrmand:
Do you believe that there are angels?
After Ardeshir has answered that question, I will be more than happy to move on to some other topic.

Ushta
Alexander

2010/6/20 ardeshir farhmand

PV

the only "somewhat of scientist" are u and ur kind of pseudo-intellectual cheerleaders,
otherwise scientific credentials of a REAL scientists are easily verifiable;
furthermore, u even distort and twist the philosophical concept of "Monism" and equate it only with material monism, denying the philosophical existence of main monistic schools of thought.
u guys are masters of distortion and post modernist BS.

ardeshir


On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 8:47 AM, Parviz Varjavand wrote:


Ushta Dr. Mehrdad Farahmand,

Welcome to our discussion, but why with so much anger?
The point is not that anybody is denying the value of the written word. If we praise ideas of Spinoza or Darwin, we indeed learn about them from their books and what others also write about their ideas. However we have Bibles which are books that get elevated to a level of infallibility and many become addicts to them. At times it is hard to take the opium away from an addict, so in order to shock that addict, it may not be bad idea to call that opium "moldy" or some such things. The addict gets very angry when you do that because an addict does not want to give the opium up, but to play along with addicts and their opium eventually can put them in charge of your mind, your life, the education of your young, your very political system at times, and result in the enslavement of many healthy minds under the control of the Biblical Addicts.

Now as far as mind is concerned and consciousness of the mind, could you as somewhat of a scientist show me any other creature that has it and uses it as man? The bee? the termites? Angels? Demons? Jinns? the mosquito? gorillas? What? What? What? You that are so easily provoked to anger, give us an example to chew on while you go cool off! It is silly for all humanity to have to wait until a spaceship lands and some creatures come out of it with better minds than that of man, so that you could be proven right and say "see, see, I told you there were better minds than ours in the universe, and you did not believe me, you s.o.b. arrogant bastards".

With respect,
Parviz Varjavand

--- On Sun, 6/20/10, mehrdad farahmand wrote:

From: mehrdad farahmand
Subject: Re: [Ushta] Healing, angels and other superstitious nonsense
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, June 20, 2010, 5:44 AM


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

On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 2:37 PM, Alexander Bard wrote:

Dear Bahman

You wrote to Dino:

"You are absolutely entitled to believe and preach and talk about whatever you believe in. Calling your belief however, Mazdayasa is a misnomer! It is misleading, since Mazdayasna refers and has referred to an old age religion and tradition whether fairytale or otherwise; which is not what you are stating."

I believe that what Dino has presented is indeed what Mazdayasna is all about and AT LEAST as much Mazdayasna as any dying historical project is.

Ushta
Alexander

2010/6/20 Bahman Noruziaan


Now refer to the posting in which I called Dino not a Zoroastrian!

"And Bahman should not tell Dino that Dino is not a Zoroastrian. That is a preposterous statement!"

Bahman




To: Ushta@yahoogroups. com
From: bardissimo@gmail. com
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 20:50:15 +0200

Subject: [Ushta] Healing, angels and other superstitious nonsense


Mind is JUST brains and neurons and strictly material. Period!!!
To believe anything else is just to believe in fantasies and fairytales, the exact opposite of what Zarathushtra preached.
Craig Venter just invented artificial life that can reproduce itself. He used ONLY CHEMICALS and nothing else whatsoever. So everything is material, there is only one substance in the universe. Materia!!!
Which is what the Indo-Europeans always believed as they were always MONISTS. Both the early Zoroastrians (before the adevnt of Manicheism and Islam) and the Brahmanists in India were always MONISTS.
DUALISM (the belief that there is a spiritual substance separate from materia) is both unscientific, nonsensical and Abrahamic, and certainly not Zoroastrian.
And that's that.
And Bahman should not tell Dino that Dino is not a Zoroastrian. That is a preposterous statement! Especially coming from somebody whose idea of Zoroastrianism seems to be that Zoroastrianism is a form of Shia Islam.
Ushta
Alexander

2010/6/19 ardeshir farhmand

Dino,

so this is the brilliant analysis of one of the self proclaimed promising minds/philosophes of switzerland; not only he dodges a number of rational questions, but simply states that things beyond our understanding do not exist, HOW BRILLIANT;

so, dino, ur idea of mazda is that mazda is the sum of the wise minds of human beings and restricted to humans only ?????
so, was there genius, creativity, vision and ingenuity before men?????
will there be one thereafter?? ????
also define mind????
is that just brain cells and neurons or more to consciousness than the material aspect of the brain and the nervous system?????
also is consciousness wholly material???? ???

since u state u are a scientist;
all the things that are beyond our scientific reach today are fiction????? ?
so, 100 years ago, if someone predicted our advances today that was fiction at the time, correct????? ?

the problem here on this list is; that people like alexander, dino and P.V are ALWAYS RIGHT, there is NO healthy debate but one sided, repetitive, amateur psuedo rationalism incapable of withstanding rational examination.

ardeshir

What is Mazdayasna?

I agree 100% with Parviz!!!
Bahman thinks Zoroastrianism is a solid RELIGION with only one faith and only one interpretation. Like Catholicism under The Pope or Shia Islam under The Ayatollah. But there are no popes or ayatollahs in Zoroastrianism, there were never was, and there never should or will be. Zoroastrianism is NOT Abrahamic!
Interestingly, Bahman does not quote Zarathushtra himself to make his claim!!!
The truth is that Zoroastrianism always incorporated a MULTITUDE of faiths and beliefs, and this begins ALREADY with Zarathushtra Spitama himself.
Because Zarathushtra did NOT promote ONE FAITH ONLY.
He promoted Truth BEFORE Faith. Zarathushtra said that we should not take his views for granted but rather RENEW AND REFRESH OUR LOOK AT THE WORLD over and over again.
This is the very FUNDAMENT of Zarathustra's message.
Also, Ahura and Mazda do NOT mean the same thing. The name Ahura Mazda is not tautological. Ahura , means "being" and Mazda means "mind" and of the two, mind is what we are mostly concerned with. This is why we are Mazdayasni and NOT Ahurayasni!
At least Parviz and I are. We have never recognized any other religion than Mazdayasna or Mazdaism!!!
Ushta
Alexander

2010/6/21 Parviz Varjavand

Bahman,

Are the high dastoors of India followers of your "old age Mazdayasni Zartoshti Religion"? How about the Pundol and the Ilm Khoshnoom groups? How about the Mehr Babayi Zartoshties? What I want to say is that any religion comes in many shades of interpretations. As a small group of Mazdaists, we have our own nomenclature and what we say Ahoora means to us may be different from what Ahura means to 99.99 percent of other Zoroastrians. We feel this is an absolutely legitimate and moral venture and you seen to feel differently. If it was ancient times, you would probably burn few of us at the stakes to stop our line of thinking. For now, I guess your showing your anger and disappointment at us is the best you can do, so we should get used to it and go on with our lives and our Din. By Din we do not mean religion, we mean Da'ena or that inner vision that has to make seance to us as we look at the world. Your vision does not make sense to us, so what use is the exchange of insults and show of anger.

Parviz

--- On Sun, 6/20/10, Bahman Noruziaan wrote:

From: Bahman Noruziaan

Subject: RE: [Ushta] Healing, angels and other superstitious nonsense
To: "Ushta Ushta"
Date: Sunday, June 20, 2010, 7:15 PM



Alexander,

2500 years ago, Darius the Great the Achaemneid King has said:

Great God is Ahura Mazda, who created the Earth, who created Man, who created happiness for Man. He asks Ahura Mazda to protect this land (Iran) from lie, draught and war.

Darius was 2500 years closer to you and I to Zarathushtra! He is not asking human mind to protect his land nor he claims human mind has created Earth!

The words Mazda, Ahura, Ahura Mazda, Mazda Ahura, Ohrmazd, Ourmazd are all the same in Zoroastrianism.

Even in cotemporary Iran, non-Zoroastrian Iranians use terms such as "Iran-e Ahuraii", "Azar-e Ahuraii", "Sarzamin-e Ahuraii", meaning Goldy Iran, Goldy Fire, Goldy Land.

The above words all refer to a being which is beyond human existence/mind and is the source of life and wisdom!

And this does not do anything with Shia Islam Alexander!!! !
It is the old age, Mazdayasni Zartoshti Religion!


To: Ushta@yahoogroups. com
From: bardissimo@gmail. com
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 23:09:51 +0200
Subject: Re: [Ushta] Healing, angels and other superstitious nonsense


Dear Bahman

AHURA means BEING, MAZDA means MIND.
We are Mazdayasni and not Ahurayasni.
It is not being that we worship, but being WITH mind.
Enough said.

Ushta
Alexander

2010/6/20 Bahman Noruziaan


Alexander:



So what?

I can not express my opinion about this matter. I can not say that claming that Mazdayasna as preached by Zarathustra and Zoroastrianism has not been the worship of human mind but believing in a being that is beyond our human existence and is the source of life and wisdom; is misnomer and is wrong! I should not say that beacuse you do not like it!

Then how about this when you write:

“And Bahman should not tell Dino that Dino is not a Zoroastrian. That is a preposterous statement! Especially coming from somebody whose idea of Zoroastrianism seems to be that Zoroastrianism is a form of Shia Islam.”

You may have very little idea of what my idea of Zoroastrainism is, very little if any! And you, claim that my understaning of Zoroastrainism is close to Shia Islam! I guess you claim to be expert in both Zoroastrainism and Shia Islam as well, that gives you the authiroty to make such a claim!

I was born in a Zoroastrian family, I was raised with Zoroastrian tradition and did my Navjote at the age of about 15, and have been with this community from my birth. You converted to it a couple decades ago but find it right to judge me, and say that my idea of Zoroastrian is a form of Shia Islam!










To: Ushta@yahoogroups. com
From: bardissimo@gmail. com
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 14:37:41 +0200

Subject: [Ushta] Healing, angels and other superstitious nonsense


Dear Bahman

You wrote to Dino:

"You are absolutely entitled to believe and preach and talk about whatever you believe in. Calling your belief however, Mazdayasa is a misnomer! It is misleading, since Mazdayasna refers and has referred to an old age religion and tradition whether fairytale or otherwise; which is not what you are stating."

I believe that what Dino has presented is indeed what Mazdayasna is all about and AT LEAST as much Mazdayasna as any dying historical project is.

Ushta
Alexander

2010/6/20 Bahman Noruziaan

Now refer to the posting in which I called Dino not a Zoroastrian!



"And Bahman should not tell Dino that Dino is not a Zoroastrian. That is a preposterous statement!"

Bahman




To: Ushta@yahoogroups. com
From: bardissimo@gmail. com
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 20:50:15 +0200

Subject: [Ushta] Healing, angels and other superstitious nonsense


Mind is JUST brains and neurons and strictly material. Period!!!
To believe anything else is just to believe in fantasies and fairytales, the exact opposite of what Zarathushtra preached.
Craig Venter just invented artificial life that can reproduce itself. He used ONLY CHEMICALS and nothing else whatsoever. So everything is material, there is only one substance in the universe. Materia!!!
Which is what the Indo-Europeans always believed as they were always MONISTS. Both the early Zoroastrians (before the adevnt of Manicheism and Islam) and the Brahmanists in India were always MONISTS.
DUALISM (the belief that there is a spiritual substance separate from materia) is both unscientific, nonsensical and Abrahamic, and certainly not Zoroastrian.
And that's that.
And Bahman should not tell Dino that Dino is not a Zoroastrian. That is a preposterous statement! Especially coming from somebody whose idea of Zoroastrianism seems to be that Zoroastrianism is a form of Shia Islam.
Ushta
Alexander

2010/6/19 ardeshir farhmand

Dino,


so this is the brilliant analysis of one of the self proclaimed promising minds/philosophes of switzerland; not only he dodges a number of rational questions, but simply states that things beyond our understanding do not exist, HOW BRILLIANT;

so, dino, ur idea of mazda is that mazda is the sum of the wise minds of human beings and restricted to humans only ?????
so, was there genius, creativity, vision and ingenuity before men?????
will there be one thereafter?? ????
also define mind????
is that just brain cells and neurons or more to consciousness than the material aspect of the brain and the nervous system?????
also is consciousness wholly material???? ???

since u state u are a scientist;
all the things that are beyond our scientific reach today are fiction????? ?
so, 100 years ago, if someone predicted our advances today that was fiction at the time, correct????? ?

the problem here on this list is; that people like alexander, dino and P.V are ALWAYS RIGHT, there is NO healthy debate but one sided, repetitive, amateur psuedo rationalism incapable of withstanding rational examination.

ardeshir

söndagen den 20:e juni 2010

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

Minds vs Books - What do Zoroastrians worship?

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



On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 2:37 PM, Alexander Bard wrote:

Dear Bahman


You wrote to Dino:

"You are absolutely entitled to believe and preach and talk about whatever you believe in. Calling your belief however, Mazdayasa is a misnomer! It is misleading, since Mazdayasna refers and has referred to an old age religion and tradition whether fairytale or otherwise; which is not what you are stating."

I believe that what Dino has presented is indeed what Mazdayasna is all about and AT LEAST as much Mazdayasna as any dying historical project is.

Ushta
Alexander

2010/6/20 Bahman Noruziaan


Now refer to the posting in which I called Dino not a Zoroastrian!


"And Bahman should not tell Dino that Dino is not a Zoroastrian. That is a preposterous statement!"

Bahman




To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
From: bardissimo@gmail.com
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 20:50:15 +0200

Subject: [Ushta] Healing, angels and other superstitious nonsense


Mind is JUST brains and neurons and strictly material. Period!!!
To believe anything else is just to believe in fantasies and fairytales, the exact opposite of what Zarathushtra preached.
Craig Venter just invented artificial life that can reproduce itself. He used ONLY CHEMICALS and nothing else whatsoever. So everything is material, there is only one substance in the universe. Materia!!!
Which is what the Indo-Europeans always believed as they were always MONISTS. Both the early Zoroastrians (before the adevnt of Manicheism and Islam) and the Brahmanists in India were always MONISTS.
DUALISM (the belief that there is a spiritual substance separate from materia) is both unscientific, nonsensical and Abrahamic, and certainly not Zoroastrian.
And that's that.
And Bahman should not tell Dino that Dino is not a Zoroastrian. That is a preposterous statement! Especially coming from somebody whose idea of Zoroastrianism seems to be that Zoroastrianism is a form of Shia Islam.
Ushta
Alexander

2010/6/19 ardeshir farhmand

Dino,

so this is the brilliant analysis of one of the self proclaimed promising minds/philosophes of switzerland; not only he dodges a number of rational questions, but simply states that things beyond our understanding do not exist, HOW BRILLIANT;

so, dino, ur idea of mazda is that mazda is the sum of the wise minds of human beings and restricted to humans only ?????
so, was there genius, creativity, vision and ingenuity before men?????
will there be one thereafter??????
also define mind????
is that just brain cells and neurons or more to consciousness than the material aspect of the brain and the nervous system?????
also is consciousness wholly material???????

since u state u are a scientist;
all the things that are beyond our scientific reach today are fiction??????
so, 100 years ago, if someone predicted our advances today that was fiction at the time, correct??????

the problem here on this list is; that people like alexander, dino and P.V are ALWAYS RIGHT, there is NO healthy debate but one sided, repetitive, amateur psuedo rationalism incapable of withstanding rational examination.

ardeshir

What a Mazdayasni LIFE is and should be about

Precisely!!!
This is why I have become allergic to every kind of statement along the lines of "The correct interopretation of this or that quote in this or that book is...".
I DO NOT CARE!!!
What I do care about - what Zarathushtra would care about - is HOW WE LIVE OUR LIVES.
So if a book quote can INSPIRE you to live a worthier and richer life, then all the better. If you can do so without books, then even better. Often an art exhibition or a mediation under a tree is MUCH BETTER than just quoting even more books.
It's just that I don't see in what way any book claiming to be "Zoroastrian" does "Zoroastrianism" any better than any other book does. I much rather read modern science or any good ethics book and PRECISELY THEREBY become a BETTER MAZDAYASNI!
Mazdayasna is NOT, I repeat NOT, an Iranian history club. It is a LIVING and THRIVING WAY OF LIFE.
History is fine, Iran is interesting as a culture, sure. But that is all SECONDARY when it comes to define what a Mazdayasni life IS.
This argument "because our forefathers did things this or that way we have to do like them" is pathetic. Our forefathers did not live in 2010, we live in an entirely different world. For example a world were we KNOW that angels do not exist. So speaking about angels anyway, as if we could pretend that we don't know that they don't exist, is indeed idiotic!
We must be able to do much better than that.
Ushta
Alexander

2010/6/20 Special Kain

Take the worship of moldy books, add what Dostojevskij called "the selfishness of suffering" (which would later heavily influence Nietzsche's criticism of religion), and you end up with Christianity's despicable culture of self-vicitimization and dependence.
Nothing could be further from Zarathushtra's AFFIRMATIVE philosophy! We're ethically obliged to REJOICE and be BRUTALLY HONEST with ourselves and strive for AUTHENTICITY in the face of the relentless disenchantment of reality. This is Spinozist ethics, this is Lacanian ethics, this is neo-existentialist ethics!
So it's never the moldy books that we should worship - there's nothing to be worshipped at all! -, it's what we LEARN from such moldy books that matters, and how they affect our thoughts, words and deeds.

Ushta,
Dino


--- Alexander Bard schrieb am So, 20.6.2010:

Von: Alexander Bard
Betreff: [Ushta] Clarification - indeed!
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Sonntag, 20. Juni, 2010 12:57 Uhr


EXACTLY, dear Brother Dino!

Or to put it buntly:
If our life was meant to be an obsession with OLD BOOKS, then why on earth did Zarathushtra not spend his whole life READING AND QUOTING OLD BOOKS?
Isn't the whole point that we should live our lives as EXAMPLES of how Zarathushtra LIVED?
Books MUST therefore be secondary and NOT primary in the Mazdayasna LIFE!
And Mazdayasna is about LIVING LIFE TO ITS FULLEST, not about degrading Life by not living at all and turn ourselves into book-quoting robots.
I really really wish we once and for all could get that boring ABRAHAMIC MENTALITY out of Zoroastrianism, It is nowhere to be found in The Gathas, so why should we then force it into our beatiful religion and philosophy AFTERWARDS. Zarathushtra deserves much better than by turned into a primitive version of Muhammed.
To me, there is absolutely nothing to envy about Abrahamic religion!

Ushta
Alexander

Living the Mazdayasna LIFE is NOT about quoting books!

EXACTLY, dear Brother Dino!
Or to put it buntly:
If our life was meant to be an obsession with OLD BOOKS, then why on earth did Zarathushtra not spend his whole life READING AND QUOTING OLD BOOKS?
Isn't the whole point that we should live our lives as EXAMPLES of how Zarathushtra LIVED?
Books MUST therefore be secondary and NOT primary in the Mazdayasna LIFE!
And Mazdayasna is about LIVING LIFE TO ITS FULLEST, not about degrading Life by not living at all and turn ourselves into book-quoting robots.
I really really wish we once and for all could get that boring ABRAHAMIC MENTALITY out of Zoroastrianism, It is nowhere to be found in The Gathas, so why should we then force it into our beatiful religion and philosophy AFTERWARDS. Zarathushtra deserves much better than by turned into a primitive version of Muhammed.
To me, there is absolutely nothing to envy about Abrahamic religion!

Ushta
Alexander

2010/6/20 Special Kain

Dear Ardeshir, Bahman and Martin
You seem much more concerned with metaphysics than Persian philosophy being put to practice. I'm a scientist, so I got stuck with pragmatism and neo-existentialism a few years ago - for better or worse.
For example, I attended Berlin Gay Pride yesterday, and it was a wonderful and most Zoroastrian experience: celebrating and promoting diversity and tolerance, enjoying life to the fullest, partying with friends, making new friends, and having great sex.
In the light of such events, all further talk about moldy books telling us sweet promises and fairy tales about The Initial Mind creating our universe becomes absolutely meaningless. Even if Zarathushtra himself believed in such nonsense, we know better - thanks to modern science. We have to cope not only with the disenchantment of the world (please see Max Weber), but also with the disenchantment of reality.

My two cents,
Dino // is perfectly aware of the fact that Gay Pride has more to do with the economy than politics, but it's the little deviations in our actions that make the difference, and our dear Judith Butler received the Civil Courage Prize yesterday


--- Alexander Bard schrieb am Sa, 19.6.2010:

Von: Alexander Bard
Betreff: [Ushta] Clarification - indeed!
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Samstag, 19. Juni, 2010 21:11 Uhr


And in what way are you any better, Ardeshir?

In what way are your postings not narcissistic and pompous?
I actually believe that Martin is wrong here.
So I do not mind your pomposity and narcissism.
What I object to is that you are wrong ON THE ISSUES WE ARE DISCUSSING.
You worship books, you do not worship minds. So in what way do you mean that your position is Mazdayasna?? ?
And you advocate all kinds of nonsense that modern science has done away with a long long time ago just because you claim to have found your arguments in OLD BOOKS from before science even existed.
If OLD BOOKS is your excuse for throwing forward supertitious nonsense, then we certainly do not not share then same belief and possibly not even the same religion.
And in that case it is better to be HONEST about that then to start attacking PEOPLE for being pompous and narcissistic.
Especially when those traits are the most dominant in ONE'S OWN BEHAVIOR!!!
So letäs not beat around the bush here: Do you believe in supersitions, Ardeshir? Come on now, tell us the truth, what DO YOU BELIEVE, not what does any book say???
Ushta
Alexander

2010/6/19 ardeshir farhmand

Dear Martin;


Thanks for this BRILLIANT posting. the problem on this list is that there is NO respectful, healthy debate;
There is ONE way and that is the way of narcissistic, pseudo-rationalism which is incapable of withstanding any intelligent inquiry/examination .

anyone that does NOT subscribe to and/or dares to question their superficial knowledge is treated in the most condescending, hostile manner possible;
furthermore, any legitimate question is ignored and the same old positions are repeated.
alexander asked me to refrain from engaging PV and cool off, instead he goes on and attacks my record as "idiocy."

as i said, alexander, dino, the scientist and PV are always right; they do not even consider that their position could be wrong, so what is point??????? we are dealing with god-syndrome here.

bottom line is this PV is BORED and enjoys all this noise and commotion, the point is not learning something new, but shooting down anyone who offers s different point of view than theirs.
me for my part do not have the time or interest to partake in this unfruitful arguments anymore.
i like to be a true mazdyasni and LEARN something new and better, instead of being bored by the same old, repetitive, counter-productive arguments!!! !!!

it would be interesting to see if they would engage and legitimately answer the question posed to them or continue with their self-fixated, condescending style.


ardeshir

lördagen den 19:e juni 2010

Clarification - indeed!

And in what way are you any better, Ardeshir?
In what way are your postings not narcissistic and pompous?
I actually believe that Martin is wrong here.
So I do not mind your pomposity and narcissism.
What I object to is that you are wrong ON THE ISSUES WE ARE DISCUSSING.
You worship books, you do not worship minds. So in what way do you mean that your position is Mazdayasna???
And you advocate all kinds of nonsense that modern science has done away with a long long time ago just because you claim to have found your arguments in OLD BOOKS from before science even existed.
If OLD BOOKS is your excuse for throwing forward supertitious nonsense, then we certainly do not not share then same belief and possibly not even the same religion.
And in that case it is better to be HONEST about that then to start attacking PEOPLE for being pompous and narcissistic.
Especially when those traits are the most dominant in ONE'S OWN BEHAVIOR!!!
So letäs not beat around the bush here: Do you believe in supersitions, Ardeshir? Come on now, tell us the truth, what DO YOU BELIEVE, not what does any book say???
Ushta
Alexander

2010/6/19 ardeshir farhmand

Dear Martin;


Thanks for this BRILLIANT posting. the problem on this list is that there is NO respectful, healthy debate;
There is ONE way and that is the way of narcissistic, pseudo-rationalism which is incapable of withstanding any intelligent inquiry/examination.

anyone that does NOT subscribe to and/or dares to question their superficial knowledge is treated in the most condescending, hostile manner possible;
furthermore, any legitimate question is ignored and the same old positions are repeated.
alexander asked me to refrain from engaging PV and cool off, instead he goes on and attacks my record as "idiocy."

as i said, alexander, dino, the scientist and PV are always right; they do not even consider that their position could be wrong, so what is point??????? we are dealing with god-syndrome here.

bottom line is this PV is BORED and enjoys all this noise and commotion, the point is not learning something new, but shooting down anyone who offers s different point of view than theirs.
me for my part do not have the time or interest to partake in this unfruitful arguments anymore.
i like to be a true mazdyasni and LEARN something new and better, instead of being bored by the same old, repetitive, counter-productive arguments!!!!!!

it would be interesting to see if they would engage and legitimately answer the question posed to them or continue with their self-fixated, condescending style.


ardeshir





On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 8:16 AM, Martin Grossmann wrote:

Dear Friend on the Ushta List,

I have been reading the last days the posts of this list and certainly I understand all the points made. I love Ardeshirs articles and I learn much from the different opinions on this forum. Discussion in a healthy manner is always a good contribution to one`s education and further path in life.

All of the positions here are different viewpoint that will always exist in MZ. Persons in Iran or India, people with heritage from there but living in the western world and convert / interested people in the western world will perceive MZ differently due to the different identities of these people. Cultural influence is leading our minds towards certain thing schemes and we would like to open ourselves but sometimes we are caught and cannot get out to understand others.

Some of you perceive MZ MORE as a philosophical system where there is a goal (good actions, etc) and besides that rules are based on righteous / healthy balanced manners. Some of you perceive MZ MORE as a religion with a spiritual and cultural tradition contained in books, legends and rituals.

Depending on your cultural influence and individuality, the definition of a supreme power or reality. Was a power existent before us or does it exist because we believe it. Is the world influenced by this power or is this power a regulation inside the system of creation. What is the soul or are we just a biological machine consisting of parts that fall apart when death comes to us.

Many famous and intelligent people since the ancient times have asked themselves these questions. In Philosophy and Religion. These two do not have to contradict themselves as many suppose on this list. Religion is more strict and some people feel more secure in such systems. Some do not even believe in the strictness and still are members of a religion. Some do the rituals because it belongs to their heritage.

At the end we realize that the people make the world and not the world makes the people.
MZ is a system that has a goal (one sentence) but there are many paths. Sometimes I believe people forget this and want to make their way the best way because it is more logical or efficient or whatever. The results counts.

Some people on this list might believe in good deeds, actions and thoughts, but then in their postings you hear a self-loving intellectual esteem that you might ask yourself if they really are that good to think they are better or their ways are better. We have to understand there is no sense to discuss this. Religious leaders and Philosophers have talked about this many thousand years and Zarathustra is actually personality that is showing us that both do not have to contradict itself. The balance is the importance.
We need people to talk about different views to give us other options and angles. But is there really sense of talking about who is right or wrong ? There are people that I do not understand, people with (after my opinion) unlogical thinking or sometimes fanatical neglect of other ways. But I dont interfere as long as they hold themselves accountable to the one sentence MZ is all about. If they understand where the limits are, then we are on common ground. That makes us Adherents of Zarathustra and not our differences.

In the last days I thought I have been reading post from a christian list. Not because of the questions or opinions, but the treatment and behaviour towards others.
We have to concentrate ourselves on being truthful and righteous, and if you need a book to read how to do it (and understanding what it means) or your own intelligence fulfills the task, then so be it.

But talking about differences that existed before us (as long as people asked themselves these questions), exist now and will exist, are not of any value towards our path. How are you going to change a path if you live by something that nobody can prove or knows.
WE are just human. Live as you are pleased and tolerate others that are pleased by something else. The only difference on this list is the goal of life. And THAT is the same for all of the members of this list.

I think it is a waste of energy and a sign of ignorance of mankind to make claims or think about subjects, that are unimagineable or
not proven. Any scientist could tell you that. We can guess and some members here do that. But taking their guess to be universal is wrong.

AS long as the way is clear, the shoes are not important. Some feel better with such types, some with others.
Please keep that in mind and let us concentrate on the basic of MZ.

"Good actions, words and deeds"

And last time I looked that meant not towards oneself ;)

Ardeshir you can post your articles and if someone wants to understand something or contribute, that has to happend in a good manner and with good words. Other opinions will be tolerated, but repetition of clear opinions of a person is just a waste of time.

Example: Ardeshir is the more spiritual type with references towards cultural and religious tradtions (books)
Parviz does not like books. Parviz criticizes books. Ardeshir likes books. Differences are set and not changeable.

Does a discussion each time make sense ? A repetition of the same process is not really contructive on a list. But at least Ardeshirs articels are informative while Parviz`s opinion repeats itself and I get nothing out of this as long as I understand that there are these counterparties as mentioned in the example.

So I do not read his opinion. It gives me no additional utility towards my understanding or intelligence. Not because I am that smart but I do understand that there are things that are not changeable. if you talk about such things and come again, again criticising them, then probably you like to hear yourself talking.

Martin

What is Mazda? Part 2

I TOTALLY and ABSOLUTELY agree with you, wise Parviz!!!
And I'm getting tired of these people who advance an islamic agenda among us by believeing in all kinds of superstitious nonsense and trying to turn the Gathas into an inferior older Qoran.
Nothing could do Zoroastrianism a bigger disservice than that. Mazda is NOT ALLAH!
Mazda means "mind". Period. A Mazdayasni is somebody who is proud of his own capacity TO THINK. This does not require any book whatsoever.
So The Gathas is a decent inspiration, but it is certainly not a holy book in any way.
To believe that a book if holy is IN ITSELF Islamic. That's where all the problems begin. With people who can't and don't dare to THINK FOR THEMSELVES but only behide behind their own belittleing guesses of WHAT OTHER PEOPLE THINK.
That is not mind-ful, that is MIND-LESS!
Ushta
Alexander

2010/6/19 Parviz Varjavand


Dear Alex and Dino,

Sometimes back we wasted much time and exchanged in excess of twenty posts so that I could show that there is no "Great" in breaking down the word Mazda anywhere embedded in it. Mazda does not mean "Great Mind", it simply means "Thinker" or "That Which has Mental Ability". The collective of all forms of life which can reason one way or another are very wast and that may give us the notion of a "Great Mind"; but in breakdown of the word Mazda itself, we do not have "Great" incorporated anywhere in it. One translation of "Mazda" could be "Minder", a new word coined, but rather to the point as far as the meaning goes.
Next we must try and see what we mean by a "Minder" or one who uses its Mind to do something. The Venous Fly Trap is a plant that does very clever things in order to catch insects and eat them. But is the venous fly trap using its Mind to do so? The King Salmon swims great distances to get back to its spawning ground and lay its eggs there, but is the Salmon using its Mind to do so? These are questions worth discussing for me, otherwise the old argument that a Big Mind in heavens is behind all that is happening is so primitive that any time devoted to it seems like a waste of time to me.

If we say that in ALL that IS, a great mind is manifesting itself, I feel that is a Mazdaist and a Monist position and I will go along with it. But the Monotheist position that the "Great Mind" was first and MADE US exactly as a carpenter makes chairs is almost a dead argument amongst the intellectuals of today. Wake up and smell the roses, o bible class graduates of all shade form and shape!

Mehr Afzoon,
Parviz Varjavand


--- On Sat, 6/19/10, Alexander Bard wrote:

From: Alexander Bard
Subject: [Ushta] What is Mazda?
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, June 19, 2010, 1:20 AM



Dear Bahman and Dino

I agree with Dino 100%.
As far as I know, the human minds are the ONLY manifestations of Mazda we have enocuntered so far.
This does not exclude that there could be other intelligent beings out there. But humanity has not met any of them so far.
This is of course the Zoroastrian stance on the issue. We only believe what we can experience, no more hocus pocus. Mazda means "Mind" and is not LITERALLY one person.
The idea that there is huge father in the sky with an enormous penis to match is ABRAHAMIC. It is NOT Zoroastrian. Zarathushtra's concept of The Divine was far more sophisticated.

Ushta
Alexander

2010/6/19 Special Kain

Dear Bahman
So what was first, then? The chicken or the egg?
So far we only know that Mazda means "great wisdom". As Mazdayasni we are worshipping and celebrating great wisdom. And Mazda is therefore the total sum of all wise minds in this world. Everytime someone has learned to cope with existence creatively and intelligently, to make wise decisions that turn out to be constructive in the long run, it's a good excuse for another party.
We don't know about other wise minds yet, so until some highly intelligent alien lifeform appears on this planet, we fallibilistically claim that we're the only wise minds there are.
There are priorities and statements that are most important. For example, the doctrine of Asha is 100% monistic. Secondly, Asha means two things: the true order of things and the relentless pursuit of the truth.
So theres no reason to take someone's fairy tales for granted if their stories have turned out to be nothing but fairy tales. Even if it were Zarathushtra's very own fairy tales!

My ten cents,
Dino

--- Bahman Noruziaan schrieb am Sa, 19.6.2010:

Von: Bahman Noruziaan
Betreff: RE: [Ushta] Healing, angels and other superstitious nonsense

An: "Ushta Ushta"
Datum: Samstag, 19. Juni, 2010 02:43 Uhr


Aleander:

"But he would have taken us all to Cern in Switzerland to see how marvelous modern science is and what a magnificent world it is exposing."

I have a very strong feeling that he would! But I can not assure anyone, that is too strong to claim!

"And don't degrade the human mind. It is the OUTMOST MANIFESTATION of Mazda". So what then, is Mazda human mind itself or human mind is a manifiastation of Mazda?

Bahman


To: Ushta@yahoogroups. com
From: bardissimo@gmail. com
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 01:41:33 +0200
Subject: [Ushta] Healing, angels and other superstitious nonsense


Dear Ardeshir

The texts are absolutely useless if you read them without using your MIND.
They are not there to be followed, they are there to inspire you to THINK for yourself and to think fresh.
Otherwise you have just turned Zoroastrianism into Shia Islam.
And what's the point then? If we are to worship books instead of minds, then why be Zoroastrians at all and not just go Shia?
I can assure you one thing, if Zarathushtra was alive today and had joined us here he at Ushta he would not even mention the term "angel". But he would have taken us all to Cern in Switzerland to see how marvelous modern science is and what a magnificent world it is exposing.
Now, THAT is what motivated Zarathushtra! THIS is what his worship is all about.
And don't degrade the human mind. It is the OUTMOST MANIFESTATION of Mazda. It is sacred and not something marginal in Zarathushtra' s worldview.

Ushta
Alexander

Thinking Gimmick

The need for GOOD RELIGION increases and the need for STUPID RELIGION vanishes.
But the need for religion in itself does not vanish, Martin!
Because Science explains how the world works but it does not provide existence with any VALUE whatsoever.
Only Religion and Art can do that!
This was Zarathushtra's most important point for advocating Mazdayasna!
Ushta
Alexander


2010/6/19 Martin Grossmann

Dear Friends

Just a small addition.

Basically people become more intelligent and so the relation from explainable changes to unexplainable phenomena changes. Humans with small brains will perceive more things unexplainable as people with higher brain function.

So although Science cannot exist without religion, the more religion we have, we have more science and so the influence of religion unto science becomes smaller, but never disappears because unexplainable phenomena still always will exist.

So if the amount of unexplainable things becomes smaller (as we would suggest that this amount is considered finite by science), then the sense for religion (although it never disappears) becomes more unclear since the nature of unexplainable phenomena changes. More underdeveloped humans perceive physical things as unexplainable while more advanced humans perceive unimaginable (metaphysical) things as unexplainable. Makes sense since metaphysical things are hard to prove or perceive.

So from a scientific point of view, the sense and logical ground for religion diminishes (although never disappears). But by questioning this sense (in this model and the positive relation between religion and science on a rational level)

the scientist questions his own existence. If a scientist would say that religion is stupidity and madness of mankind, then he would actually mean himself and tell us, that he spend his time searching for proof of this fact, although this fact made this effort possible in the first place ;)

Martin

What is Religion?

No, that is not religion at all.
That is just Abrahamic religion!!!
There are MANY RELIGIONS which do NOT believe in anything superior before and after humanity.
Buddhism, Taoism and Zoroastrianism are three such religions.
So your very basic premise here is wrong. Think again!
Ushta
Alexander

2010/6/19 Martin Grossmann


Dear Friends,

Here a final version.

I am on a roll here and I was learning something about an economic model and then a thought popped into my head that actually confronted the comparison of religion and science in the long run. Thoughts are welcome ;)

Religion is the belief in a supreme power / deity in existence that came before all and will exist after all. Now a scientific person would say that religion is a way of clarifying the impossible. So basically religion was established for understanding unexplainable phenomena (from a scientific point of view).

Now when we suppose that science is just existent or developing under the assumption, that the brain has to be of a certain size and structure, we get a clear view of establishing proof against unexplainable phenomena. The brain power and structure grows with a certain rate (and this rate is influenced by challenges in the surrounding or existence of unexplainable phenomena).

Let us consider both options here.

1. Development of science (and understanding) is just possible if the brain reaches a critical point to increase its ability. The development of this mind (and brain) is influenced positively by yet unexplainable phenomena (religiously: by a supreme power)

2. Unexplainable Phenomena will always exist, if we suppose that we are a restricted species with limited capability of development (realistic). So after the scientific explanation, RELIGION will always be pursued during the existence of mankind.

The conclusion of this model (after my opinion)

By the definition of GOD (and so the belief in this god) being a word for yet unexplainable phenomena, in both options there is a supposed divine intervention.
[In 1. we are just developing if (after scientific definition) there is the existence of religion. And in 2. religion will always exist because we are limited.]

Religion will win on the long run, since limits are always given but science has to develop and can be lost again.
[although the existence of science (no matter what level) is always given by the first conclusion]

Just a small addition.

Basically people become more intelligent and so the relation from physical (unexplainable) to metaphysical (unexplainable) phenomena and the amount of unexplained p. changes. Humans with small brains will perceive more things unexplainable as people with higher brain function.

So therefore if Science cannot exist without religion, the more religion we have, the more science we have and so the influence of religion unto science becomes smaller (less physical (unexplainable) phenomena), but never disappears because unexplainable phenomena still always will exist (just in smaller number and with metaphysical characteristics).

So if the amount of unexplainable (physical less, metaphysical stay same) things becomes smaller (as we would suggest that this amount is considered finite by science), then the sense for religion (although it never disappears) becomes more unlogical since the nature of unexplainable phenomena changes. More underdeveloped humans perceive more physical things as unexplainable while more advanced humans perceive unimaginable (metaphysical) things as unexplainable. Makes sense since metaphysical things are hard to prove or perceive.

So from a scientific point of view, the sense and logical ground for religion diminishes (although never disappears). But by questioning this sense (in this model and given the positive relation between religion and science on a rational level) the scientist questions his own existence. If a scientist would say that religion is stupidity and madness of mankind, then he would actually mean himself and tell us, that he spend his time searching for proof of this stupidity, although this fact made his effort possible in the first place.

If we assume then, that the question of ones own existence cannot be proven, then is this scientist really very intelligent in trying to disprove his own existence.

After this model, there is no difference between "worship of a great mind"² or "worship of mind (things with mind)".³

[² religion - ³ worship of mind is associated with scientific development, since human development and scientific development both need a greater understanding of our environment and that needs both higher brain function]

What is Mazda?

Dear Bahman and Dino

I agree with Dino 100%.
As far as I know, the human minds are the ONLY manifestations of Mazda we have enocuntered so far.
This does not exclude that there could be other intelligent beings out there. But humanity has not met any of them so far.
This is of course the Zoroastrian stance on the issue. We only believe what we can experience, no more hocus pocus. Mazda means "Mind" and is not LITERALLY one person.
The idea that there is huge father in the sky with an enormous penis to match is ABRAHAMIC. It is NOT Zoroastrian. Zarathushtra's concept of The Divine was far more sophisticated.

Ushta
Alexander

2010/6/19 Special Kain

Dear Bahman
So what was first, then? The chicken or the egg?
So far we only know that Mazda means "great wisdom". As Mazdayasni we are worshipping and celebrating great wisdom. And Mazda is therefore the total sum of all wise minds in this world. Everytime someone has learned to cope with existence creatively and intelligently, to make wise decisions that turn out to be constructive in the long run, it's a good excuse for another party.
We don't know about other wise minds yet, so until some highly intelligent alien lifeform appears on this planet, we fallibilistically claim that we're the only wise minds there are.
There are priorities and statements that are most important. For example, the doctrine of Asha is 100% monistic. Secondly, Asha means two things: the true order of things and the relentless pursuit of the truth.
So theres no reason to take someone's fairy tales for granted if their stories have turned out to be nothing but fairy tales. Even if it were Zarathushtra's very own fairy tales!

My ten cents,
Dino

--- Bahman Noruziaan schrieb am Sa, 19.6.2010:

Von: Bahman Noruziaan
Betreff: RE: [Ushta] Healing, angels and other superstitious nonsense

An: "Ushta Ushta"
Datum: Samstag, 19. Juni, 2010 02:43 Uhr


Aleander:

"But he would have taken us all to Cern in Switzerland to see how marvelous modern science is and what a magnificent world it is exposing."

I have a very strong feeling that he would! But I can not assure anyone, that is too strong to claim!

"And don't degrade the human mind. It is the OUTMOST MANIFESTATION of Mazda". So what then, is Mazda human mind itself or human mind is a manifiastation of Mazda?

Bahman



To: Ushta@yahoogroups. com
From: bardissimo@gmail. com
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 01:41:33 +0200
Subject: [Ushta] Healing, angels and other superstitious nonsense


Dear Ardeshir

The texts are absolutely useless if you read them without using your MIND.
They are not there to be followed, they are there to inspire you to THINK for yourself and to think fresh.
Otherwise you have just turned Zoroastrianism into Shia Islam.
And what's the point then? If we are to worship books instead of minds, then why be Zoroastrians at all and not just go Shia?
I can assure you one thing, if Zarathushtra was alive today and had joined us here he at Ushta he would not even mention the term "angel". But he would have taken us all to Cern in Switzerland to see how marvelous modern science is and what a magnificent world it is exposing.
Now, THAT is what motivated Zarathushtra! THIS is what his worship is all about.
And don't degrade the human mind. It is the OUTMOST MANIFESTATION of Mazda. It is sacred and not something marginal in Zarathushtra' s worldview.

Ushta
Alexander