måndagen den 14:e mars 2011

Virtues in Zarathushtra's philosophy: Ahura, Mazda and Asha

Asha literally means "that which works" or "how things work".
So Zoroastrianism is basically a metaphysical version of Pragmatism.
It is not concerned with claiming "The Truth" as in the Abrahamic faiths. It does not consider Language and therefore not Text as capable of producing The Truth (and why should it be, we are after all mind- and not text-worshippers, as opposed to the Abrahamic faiths which are all text-centric rather than mind-centric like us).
Rather we are concerned with the CONDITIONS for producing TRUTHS which of course starts with a SACRED ATTITUDE towards Nature as "that which is" (Ahura) and "how it works" (Asha) which WE then contemplate and enjoy as minds (Mazda).
Ushta
Alexander

2011/3/14 Daniel Samani

Dear Alex and Zaneta,

So you call the ability to gather and INNVENT values that works for you and others. And the ability to put these values into action in effect metavirtues?

I have a radical idea, if we all agree on that the world including mazda (mind in plain English) is one substance. Would it not be possible given present and future advancements in neuroscience to distinguish valutes depending how they WORK? What WORKS for us humans for example, there could be many right answers on what ought to be. My argument is that we could know what values are more likley to be vices.

As by knowing what is we can predict what will be, or the odds of how likley it is. On the same merits we should be able to know what ought to be from what is. But this is maybe an consicvense of modern advancements and not somthing Zharatustra spoke about? Does the Gathas for example give guidelines on a meta level on how to accomplish this? I'm talking about the concept of Asha for example, is it explained in the Gathas?

To me morals is further then just fixed virtues, its making concrete statements on what should be done (virtues does not). Doing this with LIMITED KNOWLEAGE!!! And then calling them absolute, rendering the statements untouchable.

Noblesse oblige,

Daniel

tisdagen den 1:e mars 2011

God, Mind, and The Universe Part 2

Dear Parviz

No, this is NOT dualism, although I agree with you on every other point you discuss. So my disagreement only concerns the terminology.
Mazda is one of many ATTRIBUTES of Ahura, one of many expressions of the one and same substance.
Just like Parviz and Alexander and Ardeshir and Mehrdad and Ali are attributes of Ahura and also attributes of Mazda as they can all hopefully think.
Just so that we don't confuse people with the wrong terms.
There is no dualism involved anywhere in Mazdayasna. It is truly monistic. And mono-theistic.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/2/28 Parviz Varjavand

Ushta Alex,

You say "God is Whatever IS. God is not that which does not exist. So God is The Universe". In my version patented as Mazdaism, Ahoora is whatever IS while Mazda is only whatever THINKS. So Mazda is part of Ahoora but not all of it. The God of Monism is One and there is no other while in Mazdaism, Mazda is where there is a Mind and not in whatever exists. So Mazdaism is dualistic, but not separating body and soul but rather Ahoora and Mazda.

Next, I think you fall in the same trap where Jafarey has been stuck for ever, holding hands with Zoroaster and looking in his eye trying to figure him out. Who knows what Z. wanted to say, I invented Mazdaism, so I hold a patent on what it is ;-) No other Zoroastrian (or non-Zoroastrian) before me defined Ahoora Mazda in the manner I defined it first (talk about big ego, but what can I say? it is the truth ;-). Ushta archives can prove that.

Mehr Afzoon,
Parviz Varjavand

--- On Mon, 2/28/11, Alexander Bard wrote:

From: Alexander Bard
Subject: [Ushta] God, Mind and The Universe

To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Cc: "Ali Jafarey"
Date: Monday, February 28, 2011, 12:02 AM

I would even go as far as to say that according to Zarathushtra (and I agree) The Mind is The Attribute of God, God's most innate expression. When discussing what God is, I prefer to just go straight to the obvious monist conclusion; God is Whatever IS. God is not that which does not exist. So God is The Universe.
To say that Mind is God is somehow just falling into a new dualist trap:
- So you say that Mind is God? Does that mean that God is only Mind and that which does not have mind is outside of God?
There you have the problem with the statement "Mind is God". It is better to say "The Mind is the Expression of God".
Just like for example "Nature is an Attribute of God" or "Space is an Attribute of God".
Zarathushtra called The Universe "Ahura" and Mind "Mazda". One does not make sense without the other to us as humans (which is what interested Zarathushtra, he was NOT interested in an all-encompassing theological explanation of the world but in a pragmatic explanation of how we as humans are bound to EXPERIENCE existence).
One is the Substance (Ahura) and the other the to us humans most meaningful Attribute of the Substance (Mazda). But please not that Zarathushtra actually rarely mentions the two together in The Gathas (clearly indicating that they should NOT be used together as some omnipotent Abarahamic deity).
Ushta
Alexander

2011/2/28 Parviz Varjavand

Ushta Dino,

Thank you very much for trying to make things clear for me without talking down or lecturing. While I do not believe in Goblins or the Soul and I think they are both cut from the same cloth which is creatures made up by Devyasna, I also do not believe that my Mind and my power to think (Mazda) and a Rock are one and the same and cut out of the same cloth of Monism. Will the Rock some day become my Mind (as if it is not already there ;-), I do not know? But it is hard for me to put a Thinking Mind and a Rock in the same shoe box and call them the same thing and both god.

For me, the Mind is God and a small part of the Big Mind (Mazda) which dwells in Life Forms and not in rocks. This is why I have been calling myself a Mazdaist rather than any of the other categorizations you have listed. I worship the Mind in nature and not the rocks or what volcanoes spew out. Am I very off? I specially would appreciate if Mehrdad Farahmand who is a good scientist if he would post a crit about what I am trying to say.

With you in Mazda,
Parviz Varjavand

--- On Sun, 2/27/11, Special Kain wrote:

From: Special Kain
Subject: Re: [Ushta] Monism vs dualism, monotheism vs polytheism - a clarification!
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, February 27, 2011, 2:56 AM

Hi Parviz

Monotheism = there is only one god
Polytheism = there are several gods

Monism = there is only one substance
Dualism = there are two substances

Monism + monotheism = there is only one god and only one substance and they're both one and the same

Ushta,
Dino