onsdagen den 10:e augusti 2011

Constructive thoughts, constriuctive words, constructive actions (not good thoughts, good words, good actions)

Correct, Parviz!
Which is precisely why I never speak of "good" or "right" in connection to asha since "good" or "right" are meaningless terms unless you specify "goof for WHOM?" or "right according to WHOM?". It's platitudes that mean nothing. Or rather they become CONSERVING terms of death rather than life.
Better to speak of "constructive thoughts", "constructive words", constructive actions" since this is what Zarathushtra spoke about. He was certainly not an idiot and he hated meaningless clichés that made people stop thinking rather than thinking new and fresh and creative ideas. Otherwise you just end up with "conservative thoughts", "conservative words", and "conservative actions" as Parsi isolationists and those with Islam-envy mistakenly interpret Zarathushtra's excellent concepts.
To this mistreatment of Zarathushtra's philosophy, we should of course respond with a "constructive and creative mentality" and be vehemently opposed to "conservatism". Asha does mean "the which fits" or "how things work". But Asha is not what we should do as much as how things work. How we then think, speak, and act in relation to Asha is an entirely different matter which the translation in itself is not enough to answer.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/10 Parviz Varjavand

Dear Ostad Jafarey,

I thank Ms. Zaneta for coming to my rescue. I do not keep a files on you as I do not feel that I am in a legal battle with you. We are discussing philosophical issues here and what you say “Asha is the right thing to do, at the right time, at the right place and with the right means to have the right result” and what Mr. Dino Kane says Asha is “That which FITS” sounds pretty much the same to me. Can you see someone using “..the right thing to do, at the right time, at the right place and with the right means to have the right result” and producing a result that does not “FIT” the situation at hand? I rest my case and promise to try and not mention you by name again in any non substantiated reference

Your very dumb ex-student,
Parviz Varjavand

From: Zaneta Garratt
To: jafarey@aol.com; solvolant@yahoo.com; group
Sent: Tue, August 9, 2011 4:13:34 AM
Subject: RE: [zoroastrians] A Scientist and a Judge

My best wishes to everyone, As i recall, I think it is Dina who explains Asha in a simple way to make it easier to understand as "that which fits"
best wishes from zaneta

To: solvolant@yahoo.com; zoroastrians@yahoogroups.com
From: Jafarey@aol.com
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 21:22:36 -0400
Subject: Re: [zoroastrians] A Scientist and a Judge


My dear Mr. Parviz Varjavand

Dorud!

Although with what I have experienced and am observing, the best way is not to enter into, what I have been saying for years, <> arguments, your statement ascribed to me, has made me to post this. You state: <>

I do not recall any statement of mine to resemble this. I have, in my 200+ essays published in books and magazines since 1960s, defined Asha, more or less, as <> and have always emphasized that it should be done with Vohu Manah, Good Mind. This is what I have stated. Will you, please, now provide me with the evident as to where I have stated, in English or Persian, that it means <>? I will be obliged and correct my statement.

Let me emphasize here that we, the followers of the Pristine Divine Doctrine of Zarathushtra, well defined by us in 1990, are going on our way, and you have chosen your way and have begun defining it. Let us go each our way and give up finger-pointing at the other.

Awaiting your reply,

Ali A. Jafarey



In a message dated 8/8/2011 8:09:52 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, solvolant@yahoo.com writes:

If you go in a lab that some scientists are experimenting on some physical i.e
Gitik phenomenons, you call them "scientist", what they are doing has to be
endorsed by the scientific method for them to be paid at the end of the months.
Here, they are using the Asha or laws of nature to do their work.

If you go into a court of law, a Judge sits there passing Judgments on others. A
judge is not a scientist, he/she uses a softer kind of Asha, a relative Asha
called Asha-Vahishta. Druj and Asha are mixed in the mental world, so a judge
has to find out not an absolute Asha but who has Asha-Vahishta or more Asha in a
mix of Asha and Druj that is being presented in his court. Those who say that in
a Monist sense a Judge is also a Scientist and a Judge and a Scientist both use
Asha in order to do their work do not convince me that they are right. Jafarey
first came up with calling Asha as "that which fits" and that definition has not
fitted in my mind too well ever. Anything can be called "That Which Fits"
depending on who is writing the review on what it is that has to FIT what.

Parviz

Inga kommentarer: