In defense of Mazdaism

I'm certainly not cutting down Mazdaism, Parviz, I'm merely cutting down your guruhood on the grounds that you defended it. I expect more from a guru than just negations of what other previous gurus have claimed. I want substance. I believe Mazdaism can deliver that substance. But Parviz The Prophet needs to sharpen his arguments. ;-) Let's try that together!
By the way, to say that "something can not be known" is unfortunately a self-contradictory statement. If something CAN NOT be known, then how come we can know for sure that this can not be known? Of course we can't.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/4/22 Parviz Varjavand

Dear Alex,

First you say that you like Mazdaism and that you have found a new translation of Gatha that fits its mold and next you cut it down like this! I have posted plenty here on Ushta telling all about the many positive points of Mazdaism. In the post that I repeated "We Don't Know", pay attention that I did not say "I don't know". Here We stands for all of humanity, or at least, the four members that this new religion has ;-) There are questions to which We humans "Can not know the answer". A Mazdaist says "We Don't Know" to them and then finishes with them. This means a Mazdaist does not go chasing after new translations of Gatha that MAY say "We don't know if there is life after death", no more drooling at the mouth so that some sacred text may agree with us. We establish once and for all that if you are a Mazdaist, you have filed these questions in the dead file of "We Don't Know" and will not bother looking for an answer for them, not in this book, not under that rug, not in the corner of that cave in Damavand, nor anywhere any more. Finish, Khalass, No More Discussion. This is an answere in itself and not a question.

You can be a Zoroastrian Mazdaist, a Christian Mazdaist, a Budhist Mazdaist, an Atheist Mazdaist, Etc. Etc. As a Mazdaist, you refuse to look for an answere to Devyasna questions any more. In that way, you cut away all the dead weight of that school of thought and you concentrate on all the positive that may still be left in that mother religion after you have discarded the "We Don't Know" parts of it. This is an answere in itself, so do not belittle it.

Parviz Varjavand

--- On Fri, 4/22/11, Alexander Bard wrote:

From: Alexander Bard
Subject: Re: [Ushta] Re: What is Mazdaism?
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Cc: zoroastrians@yahoogroups.com, mithras@egroups.com
Date: Friday, April 22, 2011, 1:42 AM

Saying that you don't know is the easy way out, Parviz!
It doesn't say anything in itself.
Just that the other guys got it wrong (surprise!).
But in what way do you get it right then? Saying they're wrong doesn't make you right. A negation is just a negation, it's not an answer.
Why even bother with your religion if negation is all you can service?
The RELEVANT QUESTION in the world in 2011 is in what way can you serve people something that is better than just atheism with hedonism? No intelligent person cares about Abrahamic faiths etc anymore anyway.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/4/22 Parviz Varjavand

Alexander,

First of all, you do not say "Get It" to the G.G. (Grand Guru) of Mazdaism! He's "Got It", or else he would not be starting a new religion!

Second, by the time you go try >>> "Based on a constantly more intensive search of understanding reality and even critically understanding how our reality is produced by us. This is also how we can separate asha from druj"<<< by reading more and more translations of moldy books, your brain gets moldy, and you may come out of the closet some day calling yourself the G.G. of Mazdaism, or as you have done, the G.G. of some secret Mithraic sect.

Mehr Afzoon!
Parviz Varjavand

--- On Thu, 4/21/11, Alexander Bard wrote:

From: Alexander Bard

Subject: Re: [Ushta] Re: What is Mazdaism?
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Cc: zoroastrians@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, April 21, 2011, 2:07 PM

Parviz

I believe you misunderstood Daniel's statement. With HOW statements are legitimized is precisely the question of how statements get their value: Based on a constantly more intensive search of understanding reality and even critically understanding how our reality is produced by us. This is also how we can separate asha from druj (and therefore also make an opposition against those who lazily adher to druj rather than asha and who thereby personify druj rather than asha). Get it?

Ushta
Alexander

2011/4/21 Parviz Varjavand

Dear Daniel Samani

Question: Are your values legitimized based on LIES?

Parviz

--- On Thu, 4/21/11, Daniel Samani wrote:

From: Daniel Samani
Subject: Re: [Ushta] Re: What is Mazdaism?
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, April 21, 2011, 6:05 AM

Essentially we are concerned with HOW values are legitimized, and NOT what values and why those values are valid.