Mazdayasna and the enlightenment

Yes, you're right, Dino!
Mazdayasna is rather the original enlightenment that did not fail. Precisely because it was never built on the false promise of a "cogito" as a certainty in the Cartesian sense. In Mazdayasna, the world as a whole (Ahura Mazda when personified) is the only certainty. Which makes perfect sense until this very day. There is after all SOMETHING there rather than nothing (to use Heidegger's ontological terminology).
The beautiful name Mazdayasna (Mazdayasni) has been in use for over 3,000 years and nobody personifies this name better today than us. It is a proud tradition of thoughts and practices that we will carry forward. So I don't see ny need for any other new name. The world has had enough of new names. Let's just use the old and correct names instead.
I am personally a yasn but not a div person. But I'm perfectly happy to share my religion with those who want to pratice div beliefs and rituals. There is no conflict involved. I just try to stay true to myself and my innermost beliefs. As should all other Mazdayasni.
Ushta
Alexander

2008/11/4 Special Kain
- Dölj citerad text -

Dear Parviz and Alexander,

The reason why we should be using "celebration" rather than "worship" is our non-dualistic understanding of existence, since we do not set up a hierarchical relationship between our physical bodies and our minds - with the mind being superior to anything else. We're monists (me being a neutral monist, for that matter) and there's no ontological difference between mind and body. Thus, we could also consider communicating our pro-science attitude more directly.
I was wondering if we should pick up a name that's more precisely describing what it all comes down to, but, on the other hand, a broader name makes more sense to me now. Also we should avoid turning Zoroastrianism into Enlightement, because we probably would discredit ourselves philosophically by doing so. The Enlightement project has failed on many levels and didn't really make it through postmodernism, poststructuralism and pragmatism unscathed. Am I correct, Alexander?
We should be perfectly clear about what kind of faith we want to convey. Right now Zoroastrianism seems to be nothing more than just another dualistic and monotheistic faith, founded by a sacred prophet revealing god's secrets of life. A better name that is more distinct and doesn't fall into the same traps like Christianity and the Enlightement project would become us better.

Ushta,
Dino


--- Parviz Varjavand schrieb am Di, 4.11.2008:

Von: Parviz Varjavand
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] Framing Zoroastrianism (The Celebration of The Mind)
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Dienstag, 4. November 2008, 10:09

Dear Alex,

Anything that men do in good faith, can be scudding if practiced in earnest, but the key should be for the mind to distinguish what it is doing. The unhealthy mind is one that does one thing while manifesting that it is doing something else. To do rituals for the dead as if they were having some form of life in another world and observing us from there is not a bad thing to do, but it is not Mazda Yasni, It is Dey Yasni (read it Div Yasni). Dey-Yasna Jashns such as Halloween are fun and southing to celebrate, but don't call them Mazda-Yasna while doing them.

A Moobed or a Moobedyars works deals a great amount with the dead and the departed. They do the work for the dead in earnest as they should, but when finished, they insist that they have done MazdaYasni works and curse Div-Yasna. That in my mind is self deception because what they did was Dey-Yasni works and not Mazda-Yasni ones. If we stick to only this one point, our school of Zoroastrianism will be radically different from all other ones on the map at this time. I don't care what kind of mansion they build for themselves in Paris, they do not have worthy mental contents to go in that building and give it life. The Pope lives in the grandest mansion there is, yet he is brain dead for all practical purposes as far as clear Mazda-Yasni thoughts are concerned. (Dina, please say something to us, your silent treatment is killing me).

Ushta Ve,
Parviz Varjavand

Framing Zoroastrianism (The Celebration of The Mind)

Dear Parviz

I agree with you 100% and I will also be happy to use the term Mazdean Zoroastrians to show which kind of Zoroastrians we are. What do you think would be an appropriate term for the movement as such? Mazdayasna? Or do you prefer Mazdeanism in English after all?

I also agree that "Mazdayasna" should be interpreted as "celebration of the mind" in modern English. The whole concept of "worship" is alien to Indo-European cultures, where religion and philosophy were intertwined and part of everyday life, an attitude towards existence more than anything.

To have "worship" you need specifically saced dates and rituals on a specific holy day of the week, for example Sunday mass or The Sabbath. We never had such practices as Zoroastrians, what we celebrated with Norwuz, Tirgan etc was not the days themselves but the CIRCLE of life, as a whole, nothing more, nothing less. So there are no traces of worship in the religious sense. Mazdean Zoroastrianism is indeed a religion of celebration and not worship.

Worship is to pray to a god asking for favors. We meditate and celebrate as to strengthen ourselves to produce the favors at our own accord. That is radically different from the worshipping faiths. So by studying our culture, our practiced beliefs, we also better understand our own terminology.

Ushta
Alexander

Parviz Varjavand wrote:

Dear Alex,

We are having talks very similar to when you started the Ushta site and we talked about what to call our new site. One needs a name and one has to choose a good one and the go forward using it.

As you remember, it was work to show that Mazda did not mean Big or God (as the bearded maker in the sky). It simply meant "Thinker" or "That which has a Mind". In that sense, man is a mini Mazda. I will still have problems in Iran because the Tehran Anjoman'e Moobedan never followed our discussions to the point that even Jafarey accepted Martin Schwartz's explanation about the linguistic lineage of Mazda. They will still insist that it means Big or Great. (Mashalh Jan, please try and explain this to the Kankash'e Moobedan, if you see it in your heart. It will be hard to tell them that Moobed Azargoshasb had got it wrong).

So, we are Mazdeans in the sense that we believe in the Mind as the best tool we have in life. Since I do not deny the existence of the minds of others or a collective Mind in creation, then I am not denying God in the sense that Deists insist one must believe in as a precaution to having ones throat cut in the middle of the night by one of them.

And we are Zoroastrians not because we worship the man or every word that is ascribed to him, but as persons that honor him as a great pathfinder on the path that we are traveling on. So, we are Mazdean Zoroastrians. This is why I feel safe with that frame to our name.

I know that I am on solid grounds linguistically when I say that Yasn is related to Jashn and means celebration, but then there is Dina and many in her school that will argue that this is not so and Yasn means worship. Like Dino, the word "worship" leaves a bad taste in my mouth and I hate to be called "Mind-Worshiper". (still searching for a name)

Parviz

Platonists

Dear Brothers Parviz and Dino

I prefer to see Zarathushtra as an asset rather than a hindrance for us as Mazdayasni. A good starting point ("yes, we are called Zoroastrians but in between us we call each other Madayasni" is one of my favorite opening lines when discussing our religion with strangers). So Zarathushtra can be used as a creative starting point rather than as the one and all of our religion. This is why I rarely step into "Gathas-wuoting" discussions myself. The Gathas is a given (and a sueprior text to the Vendidad for example) but "Zoroastrianism" is far more than The Gathas only.

Iäm also a Mazdayasni because I agree with Zarathushtra's basic and fundamental ideology: To think and make judgments for ourselves is the fundmantal CONDITION for our faith even to the extent that this precise ACTIVITY is exactly what we worship!!! So I'm consequently allowed to disagree with other sentiments of Zarathushtra as long as I agree with him on this fundamental notion. The interesting thing is therefore that Parviz is the 100% Zoroastrian of all of us in real life. Gathas-worshipping is alien to the very Gathas itself!

And I'm not a Platonist (and neither was Zarathushtra) because I'm forst of all not a dualist and second I therefore do not believe that any spiritual or ideal existence has superiority to physical and material existence. I don't even believe that the spiritual or ideal existence exists, it's an illusionary hoax invented by the Egyptians and developed by the Greeks but alien to Iranian, Indian and Indo-European thinking.

Ushta
Alexander

2008/11/2 Special Kain

Dear Parviz,

It is perfectly normal that people label things. They turn Zarathushtra's philosophy into Zoroastrianism for easy handling. It's quite user-friendly, and people just look at the label to see whether they should continue reading or refrain. Since Zoroastrianism is - first and foremost! - seen as a monotheistic religion, it makes perfectly sense to examine Zarathushtra's personal life. That's just how things usually roll when it comes to religious leaders. Westerners have always identified a personality cult within religions, for better or worse.
The Gathas do not suggest any of that. And we don't follow the 'labeling tradition' here, either, since most of us think of Zarathushtra as one thinker in a long line of scientists and philosophers - just think of mentioning Laotse, Spinoza, Nietzsche and Rorty, existentialism and pragmatism at Ushta!
It's on us to free Zarathushtra from the religious context and establish him as one of history's first philosophers. The labeling also applies to philosophy (with poststructuralism as a striking example), but it could be one first step away from people's obsessions with biographies. On the other hand, some people try to find inspiration in the way other people used to live. They sometimes want to know if someone truly lived up to his own teachings and communicated insights.
When Aleister Crowley came up with Thelema as a new religious movement more than 100 years ago, his self-proclaimed Christian enemies dismissed his philosophy (originally called 'Thelema') as Crowleyanity - as if it was a personality cult!
When Marilyn Manson said that Jesus Christ was the world's first rock star - with the cross as the most popular article of merchandise -, we was totally right. There's a personality cult in Christianity, since you can only find salvation through Jesus. There's no talk of any kind of salvation through Zarathushtra in the Gathas.
This problem is also a good reason to talk of Mazdayasna, instead of Zoroastrianism, by the way. It's a Christianized reading of Zoroastrian philosophy, people projecting their beliefs.

Ushta,
Dino

--- Parviz Varjavand schrieb am So, 2.11.2008:

Von: Parviz Varjavand
Betreff: [Ushta] Platonists
An: "Ushta"
Datum: Sonntag, 2. November 2008, 19:13

Platonists,

I had a friend who was a Platonist. He not only knew the writings and teachings of Plato, but he also belonged to a society of Platonists whose membership was very exclusive and some very prominent persons belonged to this club globally. At the time (some forty years ago) I was designing a very plush mansion for this person and he had guest quarters designed for the international members of the Platonist Club that would come to visit him. This is how I got to know about this group. He was interested in having me join, but when we talked about Plato, he relined that I would not make a good Platonist and dropped me from his list of potential converts.

Now I fear that Zoroastrianism is similar in concept to Platonism for many persons. Just because the name of Zarathushtra is there, they think that you have to dedicate your full attention to that one person, Zoroaster or Zarathustra. Every lecture about Zoroastrianism begins and ends with the preoccupation about who Zarathustra was, when did he live, where did he live, and what he said in his Gahan. This is why I say that what Mrs. MacIntyre and Mr. Delavega have to tell us is the same in its basic structure. They argue about what Zoroaster wanted to say one way or another and they argue about that. That kind of Zoroastrianism is very boring for me. It does not differ for me if Mr. Jafarey lets others in that club or Dastoor Kotwal does not.

Parviz Varjavand

Beyond conversion and acceptance

Hi Helen and Mickey

I believe Mickey's point is that there is a new Zoroastrian movement of young Iranians and Indians who have mainly emigrated to Europe and America, joined by converts in America, Europe, Eastern Europe and Latin America, who together have turned their back on "the dying isolated faith" and instead created a reinvigorated religion in various forms which actually happens to be the world's fastest growing religion at the moment.

In this new movement you may marry whoever you like, converts are more than welcome, even often taking on leadership responsibilities, and funeral rituals are a subjective and private matter of little concern to the community as a whole (I would personally be happy to be either creamated or buried in earth when I die, worms are animals as much as vultures, the important Zoroastrian idea is the principle of recycling and of not holding corpses in high regards as we worship minds and not dead human bodies).

The Ushta forum is just a small part of this major movement. What is tiring is not so much the endless tirades within the limited community of Parsi isolationism (which is now mainly an isolated Indian phenomenen) but rather the constant misunderstandings in the media about what constitutes "Zoroastrianism". Mickey has many reasons for being tired of the status quo in that department, with or without the harsh words. So am I, sharing his sentiments fully.

Ushta
Alexander

2008/11/2 Helen Gerth

Mickey,

I mean no disrespect....and in no way am taking either side....yet, I would gently point out that everyone is entitled to take pride in their heritage...is it wrong for them to wish to keep their heritage alive....there are many who do who are not angry or harsh in their words or way of doing so...perhaps the last paragraph was a bit harsh?

Respectfully, Ushta te
Helen

--- On Sat, 11/1/08, mickey patel wrote:

From: mickey patel
Subject: Re: [Ushta] FW: Conversions and Acceptance
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com, vohuman@yahoogroups.com, ushta@yahoogroups.com, creatingawareness@yahoogroups.com, ahura-mazda@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, November 1, 2008, 4:33 PM

With respect to this topic.

To be honest I am really sick to see that since
23 years my Navjote ceremony has been done
the same issues are discussed and there is no
answer

1. Intermarraige
2 Dokhma
3. Conversion and Acceptance

I am sure Zoroastrianism is a very interesting and
deep topic and the Persian culture is rich enough
but instead of focussing on that endless years
of energy is being spent on the above 3 topics
and will be done for another 20-30 years more

A person who has to follow Zoroastrianism philosophy
and way of life will do so and wont even care
for acceptance of the community

Why to care for acceptance and from whom? A bunch
of retarded Priests whose lifes are spent reciting
prayers whom they dont understand nor care
or a Bunch of Rich Trustees who take bribes to
allocate
flats under the table instead of the needy ones.

I think intelligent people should stop wasting their
times discussing this topic and instead spread
awarness, teach the Zoroastrian philosophy and way
of life to interested people - doesnt matter who they
are which race they belong to or what their ancestors
are. In this way atleast there will be some hope

No point in worrying about a dying community which
still hasnt come to terms that by the end of this
century it will wiped of and future generations will
only see them in British Museam as an extinct
community.

The soft deontology of Zoroastrian ethics

Dear Dina

I agree with you 100%.
But Dino was testing the hypothesis that Zoroastrian ethics would also include a responsibility for the outcomes of our actions. I disagreed with this hypothesis and so do you.
Furthermore, I believe that it is precisely because Zarathushtra connects thoughts, words and actions in a feedback loop, each part relating to the other two - the fundament of Zoroastrian ethics - that he also excludes the outcomes of our actions as part of our self-identity (within which ethics belongs).
It is therefore the intentions that we identify with. I am that within me which does what I desire to do, rather than I am that within me which is causing everything that happens to me to happen.
Desire (or even drive) is what is ethical, occurance is not.
In the world of ethics - as Dino correctly pointed out - this is called soft deontology.
- Dölj citerad text -


Ushta
Alexander

2008/10/23

Dear Alexander,

I agree that Zarathushtra does not say that we are responsible for the outcomes of our choices, where such outcomes are beyond our control, or caused by others. I do not think any one would disagree with that.

Essentially Zarathushtra's teaching is one of individual responsibility for our own choices. So far as I am aware, he does not explicitly get into intent vs. outcome, as articulated by you.

In the law there is the concept that a person is responsible for damages that are proximately caused by his negligence, where he knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that his action would result in such consequences. In the law, there is no concept of responsibility for outcomes caused by other factors. Zarathushtra does not use the vocabulary of American civil law, but I think his ideas are consistent with them in this regard.


Wishing us the best,

Dina G. McIntyre.


-----Original Message-----
From: Alexander Bard
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 9:14 pm
Subject: [Ushta] Identity and responsibility

Dear Dina

Yes, we are reponsible for that part of what happens to us which comes back to us as a direct result of our own actions. We are even obliged to identify with those outcomes of our actions.
But far from everything that happens to us is directly caused by our choices. And there is no indication anywhere in The Gathas that Zarathushtra holds us responsible for that which happens to us which is outside of our control. This is the major difference between an ethics of intentions and an ethics of pure effects. The whole concept of ethics based on intentions is what Zarathushtra launched historically, which was Nietzsche's point when choosing Zarathushtra as his main character (as he declared later in "Ecce Homo"). This is also what Jesus mainly preached, although St Paul later reintroduced moralism from Judaism into Christianity where it has since remained a central dogma. Not so within Zoroastrianism, however.

Ushta
Alexander

2008/10/23

Dear Dino and Alexander,

I see Zarathushtra's thought a bit differently from Alexander in this respect (although it is possible that I have misunderstood Alexander).

As I understand it, we are indeed responsible for our choices in thought, word and action. And this has nothing to do with a judgmental "God". Zarathushtra teaches that everything we do comes back to us -- that we reap what we sow, the good and the bad -- but this is not done for punishment. It is done for enlightenment, as part of an educational process. Part of an evolutionary process, whereby our understanding, compassion, etc. are increased. One of the unique aspects of Zarathushtra's teachings (in my view) is that his solution for the defeat of evil (or destructiveness, as Alexander prefers) is not punishment, but changing minds and preferences, freely, from within, based on our choices, and on earned and unearned experiences.

Wishing us the best,

Dina G. McIntyre.



-----Original Message-----
From: Special Kain
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 12:33 pm
Subject: AW: [Ushta] Identity and responsibility

Dear Alexander,

This is a very important note, indeed, and absolutely not minor at all!
We become our decisions, our thoughts, words and deeds.
So is there no responsibility, whatsoever? Why does the concept of responsibility always rely on a judgmental god? I'm sure that we're partly responsible for the things we happen to experience, because we could've made a different choice before, whether most events are out of our hands or not.

Ushta,
Dino

--- Alexander Bard schrieb am Do, 16.10.2008:

Von: Alexander Bard
Betreff: [Ushta] Identity and responsibility
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Donnerstag, 16. Oktober 2008, 18:56

Dear Dino

A minor but perhaps important note here:
You will not really find any support for the idea that we are responsible for the outcome of our decisions in Mazdayasna. We ARE our decisions, we identify with our decisions. But that is not the same as saying that we are RESPONSIBLE for our decisions. First, because such a concept reintroduces an Abrahamic judgmental god through the backdoor - if we are responsible for something we also need somebody to be responsible before - and there is no such judgmental divinity in our faith. Second, existence is CONTINGENT, lots of things happen and interfer with the outcomes of our choices that are outside of our control. Zarathushtra constantly returned to this theme, that existence is contingent rather than a set of necessities. So I would be careful and not use the term responsibility here. Identification with our choices is strong enough and coherent with Zarathushtra's teachings.

Ushta
Alexander

2008/10/16 Special Kain

Dear Ronald,

I partly agree!
We punish ourselves through bad thoughts, bad words and bad deeds. But I prefer to say that we're responsible for the outcome of our decisions. We are responsible for our own good and evil, for heavenly and hellish experiences. "Punishment" is a nasty word that is important to people with a Manichaean background or who masochistically enjoy to suffer from a guilty conscience. And that's not my cup of tea.
Please read the other members' postings CAREFULLY: I haven't written about a physical heaven and a physical hell as physical places in this world. I described those two places in psychological terms as two different states of mind. Neither heaven nor hell exist.

Kind regards,
Dino

--- Ronald Tell schrieb am Do, 16.10.2008:

Von: Ronald Tell

Betreff: Re: AW: [Ushta] We the Mazdeans
An: Ushta@yahoogroups. com
Datum: Donnerstag, 16. Oktober 2008, 17:15

dear dino
in accordance to the gatha there is no physical place like heaven and hell.this is my opinion and maybe this is wrong, but zartosht nevers told us about a physical punish place like a hell.
there is no punishment like in islam or christianity. we punish ourselves in this life, in frotn of bad actions we do.

ushta

ronald

----- Original Message ----
From: Special Kain
To: Ushta@yahoogroups. com
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 12:09:48 PM
Subject: AW: [Ushta] We the Mazdeans

Dear Moobed,

As far as I know Zarathushtra was aware that people do not learn through punishment and reward. That's why their stay in hell is only temporary. If he knew that people don't learn through punishment and reward, why should he stress it? Heaven and hell are not astral theme parks beyond the physical world. They are two different states of mind, caused by the outcome of our thoughts, words and deeds. Our mindsets shape the experiences we're making. And the experiences we're making will always hunt us down. There's no sacred justice beyond the petty games we're playing.
Frankly, I don't see why there should exist such places like heaven and hell, when all people are born equal and are granted the gift of freedom of choice. We may choose as we wish and account for the long string of experiences and events that this process entails.
Why should I not make mistakes? Being wrong also incites a learning process. Why should I not want to learn anything more about this beautiful world?

Ushta,
Dino

Identity and responsibility, part 2

Well, first of all, Weber is wrong!!!
It is precisely Christ's introduction of the ethics of intentions which is the ETHICAL aspect of Christianity.
Please note that Nietzsche LOVED Christ and HATED St Paul!!! And Nietzsche and Lacan understand ethics far better than Weber (who is a decent sociologist but a crappy philosopher).
Christ got this ETHICAL approach from Zoroastrianism (possibly the schools and sects he attended before he began preaching) which was the ethical religion par excellence in the Middle East at the time of Christ.
What St Paul later did was to REINTRODUCE moralism to Christianity from Judaism. Moralism has since THEN dominated both Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Bahai, the four Abrahamic faiths.
Ethics is the ethics of IDENTITY. It is values originating from and reflecting back on OURSELVES as existential creatures. This was Zarathushtra's point, this was Spinoza's point, this was Nietzsche's point, this was Lacan's point, this has been the point of ethics all along. Nothing else.
We are ONLY reponsible to ourselves for the decisions we make ourselves. So we decide both what is RIGHT for us and what IS us at the same time. We identify with our actions (and our words and our thoughts) according to Zarathushtra, NOT with any outcomes. Zarathushtra never states any such thing in The Gathas.
The thing is that there is NO external reponsibility (because there is no extrernal judge to whom we are responsible). Ahura Mazda is our point of REFERENCE in existence but not our point of judgment. This is a DRAMATIC difference between Zoroastrianism and the Abrahamic faiths.
Christ wasn't bad at all. It is the storytelling surrounding him (his resurrection etc) which is disturbing. But there is a lot about Christ's teachings which is very much in sync with the teachings of Zarathushtra. He clearkly had good teachers. Unfortunately St Paul never did and HE shaped the church and the faith with his letters and other texts.
Ushta
Alexander

2008/10/16 Special Kain

Dear Alexander,

Yes, I can easily follow your explanation. :-)
But there's one thing that is really disturbing me. You differentiate between our intentions - with Zoroastrianism as an ethics of our intentions and identities - and the outcome of our actions, the latter being moralistic of some sort. This is exactly opposite to Max Weber's concept of ethics: the ethic of intentions being moralistic and perfectly in tune with Christian morals, the ethic of responsibility being entirely different from that and undeniably Machiavellian. I am a supporter and defender of the latter, because things mean what they cause.
But, of course, I can't be held responsible for the outcome of my actions. An artist can't be held responsible for how people react to his works. If a kid chooses to shoot his classmates, and the religious right put the blame on Marilyn Manson, I would most certainly defend Marilyn Manson. On the other hand, reactions are part of that particular work of art. People's interpretations and misconceptions contribute to its meaning and artistic value, for better or worse.
So where did I get completely wrong? Please let me know, I'm DESPERATELY eager to learn more! :-)


Ushta,
Dino

Identity and responsibility

Dear Dino

A minor but perhaps important note here:
You will not really find any support for the idea that we are responsible for the outcome of our decisions in Mazdayasna. We ARE our decisions, we identify with our decisions. But that is not the same as saying that we are RESPONSIBLE for our decisions. First, because such a concept reintroduces an Abrahamic judgmental god through the backdoor - if we are responsible for something we also need somebody to be responsible before - and there is no such judgmental divinity in our faith. Second, existence is CONTINGENT, lots of things happen and interfer with the outcomes of our choices that are outside of our control. Zarathushtra constantly returned to this theme, that existence is contingent rather than a set of necessities. So I would be careful and not use the term responsibility here. Identification with our choices is strong enough and coherent with Zarathushtra's teachings.

Ushta
Alexander

2008/10/16 Special Kain

Dear Ronald,

I partly agree!
We punish ourselves through bad thoughts, bad words and bad deeds. But I prefer to say that we're responsible for the outcome of our decisions. We are responsible for our own good and evil, for heavenly and hellish experiences. "Punishment" is a nasty word that is important to people with a Manichaean background or who masochistically enjoy to suffer from a guilty conscience. And that's not my cup of tea.
Please read the other members' postings CAREFULLY: I haven't written about a physical heaven and a physical hell as physical places in this world. I described those two places in psychological terms as two different states of mind. Neither heaven nor hell exist.

Kind regards,
Dino

--- Ronald Tell schrieb am Do, 16.10.2008:

Von: Ronald Tell

Betreff: Re: AW: [Ushta] We the Mazdeans
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Donnerstag, 16. Oktober 2008, 17:15

dear dino
in accordance to the gatha there is no physical place like heaven and hell.this is my opinion and maybe this is wrong, but zartosht nevers told us about a physical punish place like a hell.
there is no punishment like in islam or christianity. we punish ourselves in this life, in frotn of bad actions we do.

ushta

ronald

----- Original Message ----
From: Special Kain
To: Ushta@yahoogroups. com
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 12:09:48 PM
Subject: AW: [Ushta] We the Mazdeans

Dear Moobed,

As far as I know Zarathushtra was aware that people do not learn through punishment and reward. That's why their stay in hell is only temporary. If he knew that people don't learn through punishment and reward, why should he stress it? Heaven and hell are not astral theme parks beyond the physical world. They are two different states of mind, caused by the outcome of our thoughts, words and deeds. Our mindsets shape the experiences we're making. And the experiences we're making will always hunt us down. There's no sacred justice beyond the petty games we're playing.
Frankly, I don't see why there should exist such places like heaven and hell, when all people are born equal and are granted the gift of freedom of choice. We may choose as we wish and account for the long string of experiences and events that this process entails.
Why should I not make mistakes? Being wrong also incites a learning process. Why should I not want to learn anything more about this beautiful world?

Ushta,
Dino