God of having colds

You may suffer from your cold, but the germs in your body are having a ball and enjoying every second of it. So why not look at it as if your body is the party temple of happy germs? That is what monism means to me. Death is this way a feast for worms.
Ushta
Alexander/is having a cold too...

2010/2/28 Parviz Varjavand

Dear friends,

I have a very nasty cold and I keep calling on God all the time for help. But I have noticed even in my high fever that this God I call on has nothing to do with the Monist God I normally like to communicate with. This God must live outside His creation and be all powerful in order to pull me out of my situation miraculously. So, If I get well, I will go back to my Monist God that is my friend and companion and dwells in his/her creation. But for now when I get high fever and coughs that threaten to choke me, I need the other God, the mightily nasty one with extra ingredients of irrational powers. I am very needy when sick and I can't help but want an extra strenght God to take care of me. Help me O'Lord, I beg you, I beg you, you are the God of sick beggars like me, have pity on me, have pity on me.

Parviz

Tano Pasino (not an Italian Bistro!) Part 2

Exactly!!!
Hierarchy is alien to Zoroastrian thinking.
The whole point with believing in ONE world and a SACRED world as such is that there is no objective hierarchy precisely because WE as minds value the world but there is no exterior mind to value the world for us. There is no better world waiting for us in teh future, we live in there here and now, and the world evolves and changes for THE GOOD OF CHANGE; not for the good of superiority.
This is why all belief in Hierarchy is absolutely alien to Zarathushtra, the author of The Gathas. Let such nutty ideas die with Platonism and the Abrahamic faiths. We don't need it and we don't want it.
Ushta
Alexander

2010/2/24 mehmet azizoglu

Dear Alex,
I totally agree with you..there is no "better" being that we are going to evolve into. In evolutionary biology there is no better or worst evolutionary phase that creatures experience, but rather simple and complex ones (with regards to each other)

It is the great biologist Ernst Mayr who blames Plato's essentialism behind the poor and very late understanding of evolution by us, and I think he is quite right. Our mind has been (and is still) twisted by Plato and subsequent Abrahamic teaching to see that we human being blessed by God are on top ladder down to the inferior creatures...

Thanks to Darwin who helped us ponder our existance in more reasonable way

Ushta

Mehmett

Tano Pasino (not an Italian Bistro !)

Charles Darwin would say that we evolve into a DIFFERENT kind of being from what we have been. Always and constantly. But he would never be so stupid as to say that we evolve into a BETTER kind of being.
The whole idea that there is a hieracrhy between suprior and inferior beings smacks of Plato and Abrahamism. The whole point with Zarathushtra's philosophy is instead to train us to NOT think in terms of hierarchy. There are no better or worse creatures in creation. And there never will be.
That is precisely why ALL of creation is sacred in Zoroastrianism.
Ushta
Alexander/perfectly happy to keep my current body and "the sins" within it too...

2010/2/24 Parviz Varjavand

Dear Ardeshir,

It would be very nice of you to point out my mistakes, I would love to learn from you.
Yes, according to Darwin, we would evolve to a differant creature some day not very soon, but it would not be along the lines of sheding our flesh and become a Tano Pasino kind of creature made of light and free of the sin's of the body. Darwin's kind of science is the kind I belive in but I know that you belive in new frontiers of noetic-science where we will soon be able to see the Jinns by wearing a special kind of glasses or becomes creatures of pure light by shedding our flesh and its sins.

Your friend,
Parviz Varjavand

--- On Tue, 2/23/10, ardeshir farhmand wrote:

From: ardeshir farhmand
Subject: Re: [Ushta] Tano Pasino (not a new Italian Bistro !)
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Cc: "Parviz Varjavand"
Date: Tuesday, February 23, 2010, 8:53 PM


hahahahaha

Dear Parviz,

charles darwin probably would probably agree that man's evolution is NOT final, we will evolve into a better, more advanced specie in the future, hopefully. i am always amazed at ur sense of humor and ur remarkable ability to TWIST things so masterfully around.

CHEERS

ardeshir

On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Parviz Varjavand wrote:

Buyer beware.

So far we have Ervad Pervez D. Mithaiwala teaching us that: >>"... a Zerthosti Rawaan segregates in two parts, say A and B. Part A – a set of three and B comprising of nine, are better known as Rawaan of KSHNAOTHRA AHURAHE MAZADAAO ( Male child) and SPENTA ARMAITY (Female child)respectively. On its yet downward trend, Rawaan of Part A involves itself in constant utterance of “KSHNAOTHRA AHURAHE MAZADAAO”, meaning Glory be Yours, AHURAMAZDA. The moment recitation of this prolific prayer ceases, forces of evil attempt vehement attack but at this juncture, Rawaan of other part B, Spentaa Armaity rushes to its rescue and absorbs the brunt. Whereas the Rawaan of part A enters body of a child in male form, that of B in female physique (Part B). On releasing itself from influence of Burjis Aasmaan, i.e.on achieving state of adolescence, the ugly aura absorbed at instance of bearing brunt, is unleashed in form of menses."<<

We also have the Tano Pasino teaching where Ardeshir Farahmand tells us that: >>"There will be a wonderful transformation of matter, a new and transformed physical body marked by lightness, amazing adaptability, plasticity and luminosity. The new physical will be full of consciousness/ minoo which will drive out all that interia and incapacity which makes matter a drag on the mind/spirit. The bodily transformation will be the culmination of the spiritual rebirth and --adding one more amazing step to the ladder of eternal progress."<<

If you are clever, you will see that the two teachings are the two sides of the same coin and teachings of Mani where the spiritual and the material are considered separate, one dark and bad and ugly like menses blood, the other full of light and luminosity and withought any imperfection, like the Minoo of Ahura Mazda which originally made the world perfect before an afflicted Man brought Sin into it.

Mazdeism or the version of Mazda-yasna I teach is free of such Dark-Light preocupations. Ardeshir calls me a Marxist; if I am one, then Charles Darwin is a Marxist too. (Curse be on Charles Darwin for opening our eyes!)

Mehr Afzoon,
Parviz Varjavand

A pristine world (with no humans in it), really?

Dear Parviz, Ardeshir and friends

As far as I'm concerned, the word "perfection" did not exist in the Avesta language to begin with.
And if the concept of "haurvatat" is what we discuss here, it's not only a term hard to translate to contemporary English but it is also a concept which is always placed in the distant future as an abstract goal by Zarathushtra.
Zarathushtra recommends us to see the world as good in itself, yes, - THROUGH OUR OWN CHOICE - but that is not the same thing as to say that the world IS good in itself. The world just is. Please don't try to sneak Abrahamism into Zoroastrianism again through the backdoor. OK? There is no external judge who has set values for us in Zoroastrianism. We set the values ourselves AS WE SEE FIT.
That is the whole point with Mazdayasna: To realise that we as subjects are our own judges. Nobody else judges for us.

Ushta
Alexander

2010/2/22 Parviz Varjavand

My two cents,

Ardeshir's vision is fascinating and I will have to sit back and just enjoy it, like watching the Avatar film ;-) So far we have Perfect Mind (Minoo) creating our world (Guity) perfect, but we humans plus some other entities (Jinns and cows, I guess) bring evil into it with their wrong choices (choices like humans deciding to walk upright ;-) . This is one rehashing of the story of the Fall and nothing more, but let us enjoy it when told by an artist as skilled as Ardeshir.

About your comments, Bahman, if you want a perfect Guity created by a perfect Minoo and not corrupted yet, go live on Mars or Pluto. Since there is no life there, the perfect Minoo ardeshir adores can play in perfect harmony there as there is no life there to usher in Evil yet.

As far as I am concerned, Guity or the world has to come first for life to evolve out of the mud in it and as this life form evolves, it gets a mind and Minoo is this mind creating a mental world (Jahane Minavi) for itself. To turn this equation the other way around makes us end with a story of the Fall (Hoboot) and tries to put a perfect Mind in the skies that can not Sin and we humans down here responsible for bringing about Evil by our wrong choices (sins). A very muddy vision full of useless guilt and nothing more.

Yours in friendship,
Parviz Varjavand

--- On Sun, 2/21/10, ardeshir farhmand wrote:

From: ardeshir farhmand
Subject: Re: [Ushta] a pristine world
To: "Bahman Noruziaan"
Cc: kamran.jamshidi@gmail.com, "mehrdad farahmand" , Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, February 21, 2010, 10:17 AM


Dear Bahman,

material manifestation was beautiful, pristine and far less rigid. the wrong CHOICES
turned it into rigid and limited. please look at the first chapters of the farvardin yasht in addition to the poetic gathas, for they provide an illuminating commentary.

and u are bringing another good point. evil has not to do just with human choices. it also encompasses wrong choices by other beings/powers, past remnants of other creations that stopped growing and evolving, the hostile force or daevas.

power of choosing is GOOD, now, if material manifestations choose to make wrong decisions with their power to choose is a wholly different matter. it does not make the material world evil. ur point is correct; evil CREPT later into the material universe, it was NOT there to begin with. but it came about as a result of STUPIDITY and not just the stupidity of humankind, but other conscious entities/energies and was magnified by humans later.

MAZYASNA does NOT see the material world as evil or even remotely as the cause of the evil. it looks at evil as a by-product of WRONG CHOICES by CONSCIOUS BEINGS/ENERGIES, human or non-human.

and calls evil a delusion becz it has no permanent/lasting quality, it is temporary and will disappear, as soon as it has served its purpose in the learning/growth process of the universe. evil will disappear, since it has no place in the fabric of being or existence it simply will melt away as material universe evolves and grows and becomes more dynamic and intelligent.

remember "anygra" comes from the root "ag" namely beaten: it simply means a beaten, depleted mind/spirit; limited, stagnated, and unable to grow and unable to be dynamic anymore.

good and evil depends on choices and on understanding/ wit/mind/ spirit/MINOO and if it is auspicious, growing and vibrant, OR beaten, stagnated and limited.
the whole depiction in Yasna 30 is about the passion/energy level/vibrant power of consciousness in general, not about human minds necessarily.

limiting it to the human mind is the much later insertion and wrong deduction of some western scholars and dr. jaffary in particular, talking about APOLOGIST reasoning, this is a good instance of such.

ardeshir

On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 9:03 AM, Bahman Noruziaan wrote:
Hello Ardeshir,

Humans lie, hurt, kill and do other "evils" or "wrong" or "unrighteous acts".
Humnas are the work of creation and not out of the realm of creation.
Then why such a pristine universe or existence has ended up creating such a wrong doing creature, one wonders?
My understanding from Mazdayasna is that when "Gaiti" came into existence out of "Mainyoo", imperfection, decay, corruption and death and so on crept into the material world.
It was the nature and necessity of this material world to come about.
It does not do anything with our perception nor it is an illusion.
It is the true nature of the material world.

Regards
Bahman

Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 11:25:41 -0800
Subject: Re: [Ushta] a pristine world
From: ardeshir72@gmail. com
To: Ushta@yahoogroups. com
CC: bahman_noruziaan@ hotmail.com; special_kain@ yahoo.de; solvolant@yahoo. com; eeduljee@yahoo. ca

Dear Bahman, Dino, Parviz

let me use an example, let us take sexuality for example; it is good and healthy. a natural, pristine and beautiful force. now when people try with their limited, crude physical mind to turn it into something bad or something to feel guilty about; it becomes a source of tension, suffering, guilt, shame, honor killings and.........

yet it is good and wonderful in essence. it is the wrong choices based on crude, limited physical minds that created ideas like say abstinence, monk hood and .... that turn this pristine goodness into a cause of suffering, disease and guilt.

and exactly similar crude choices on various levels have prevented the physical universe to manifest itself from being less rigid, more luminous and flexible.

and parviz, about ur contention that the physical is the source of mind/spirit, i disagree with u 1000%. the fact is that such materialistic ideas that u try give them scientific credibility are being discredited more and more in the scientific community.
true, still some hold out to such outdated and fossilized ideas among scientists, but their materialistic views has come under serious questioning and assault, as horizons are widening in every scientific field.

what u like to label as ur brand of "Mazdaism" is nothing more than an evolved and refined "Marxism," with pure supremacy given to the unfinished and still evolving material over anything else. and u even admitted it in ur last correspondence, when u declared that matter has given birth to mind/spirit and not the other way around.

as i said, i do ENJOY ur oppositions and read them with interest and fun. however, it is my firm belief that humans are utterly in love with their own limitations and inferiority, and can NOT bear to admit a higher possibility /reality. this desire to deny a higher and more evolved reality and stick to our crude, limited, physical humanity and call all else a fantasy is the very stamp of humanity and the very cause of misery and suffering in the world. take it with good cheers and my best wishes.

ardeshir

Pathos, not politics!

Dear Parviz

I really and truly honestly believe that the world would be a much better and more fascinating place if dualism was just gone. It has nothing to do with politics but everything to do with my pathos. This is why I prefer to deal with modern atheists who find atheism shortcoming and are looking for NEW ways of living life spiritually and creatively fulfilling than dealing once more with the old dualists trying to find excuses to act stupidly as if Nietzsche's tearing down of their pants had never happened. Let's make new and fresh and exciting things, history has only become a burden (I even envy Zarathushtra and his generation in this sense, they had no history to relate to, wonderful!). Having said this. I don't mind traditions, of course I don't, and I love our traditions within Z (spending some time in Mobed Jamshidi's white prayer room at the European Zoroastrian Center in Paris last week was wonderful!!!), but spare me the dualist rabble. Please.

Ushta
Alexander

2010/2/10 Parviz Varjavand

Dear Alex,

My post was not an old post, so why did you change its title if you are addressing the issue I brought up? I like it that you are a good politician and do not want to irritate others, I wish I could also do things as tactfully as you. But you know Alex, if you become too much of a politician, others will not wake up to notice fine points.You know what I am talking about, so why do you try not to let others develop a sensitivity to the smell, the smell of a Platonist world view gone dead, a Minoo up there basking in its perfection and a Guity down here caught in mundane imperfection struggling to get Up-There. We need to develop a sensitive nose for the smell of this dead idea, no matter how poetically and beautifully it is being expressed.

I know a lot of Masnavi by hard and I enjoy chanting it, Rumi's poetry is truly beautiful and relaxing to get drunk on. One of my friends, Parviz Sahabi, who was a student of Allameye Jafarey (a great Persian scholar of Rumi's Masnavi) conducts seminars teaching Rumi. In his class once, I just mentioned that I smell this smell and they had to kick me out of the Seminar. They could not stand the fact that all their bells and whistles was so that they would be able to keep a dead concept alive in-spite of the smell in the air.

Why do you think they chant and burn so much incense in the Churches? It is to keep the smell down. Our concepts should be boldly frank and fresh, otherwise the fumes of incense and the chanting of poetry will drown the smell and no one will notice that something is dead here, no one but a few like you and Dino.

Yours as always,
Parviz


--- On Wed, 2/10/10, Alexander Bard wrote:

From: Alexander Bard
Subject: [Ushta] Zarathushtra in the Gathas vs Zarathustra in Nietzsche's philosophy
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, February 10, 2010, 2:29 AM


When Friedrich Nietzsche's Zarathushtra said that God is dead he meant that the PLATONIST IDEA was dead.
The idea that there is a perfect world superior to our imperfect world is dead. This is death of OBJECTIVITY and the realisation that all truths are by necessity subjective and this is something we have to deal with.
Nietzsche's dead God certainly does NOT include Ahura Mazda. Instead, Nietzsche would be a strong proponent of Ahura and quite likely of Mazda too. His central ethical concept of "amor fati" is as Zoroastrian as anything could possibly be. It could just as well have come from Zarathushtra's own mouth in The Gathas.
The widespread idea that Nietzsche picked Zarathushtra by chance has repeatedly been proven wrong. Nietzsche was well versed in Sanskrit and Avesta since he was a professor of PHILOLOGY rather than Philosophy and there was a tremendous scholar interest in all things Indo-Iranian in Germany in the mid 19th century.
Nietzsche also confirms this himself in his later work "Ecce Homo" where he states that he picked Zarathushtra as his lead figure since he saw Zarathushtra's deliberations as the Birth of Ethics in human history (or the birth of moral philosophy, as most translations to English would suggest). Who would then be better suited to ask the questions confronting modern man than Zarathushtra himself?
Ushta
Alexander

2010/2/10 Parviz Varjavand

I feel that there are two Zarathustras. One is the Zarathustra of the Gathas, the other is the Zarathustra of Nietzsche. When Nietzsche's Zarathustra said that "God is Dead", was he also talking about Ahoora Mazda? When so many of us talk about Ahoora Mazda, we argue very hard that He/She is not dead like the others, but why is there a slight smell of death in the air? We will not get rid of that smell if we do not make a clean break with the other Dead Paradigms. Who amongst us is doing this? We need a new Zoroastrianism that Nietsche would want to convert to, not one that fools would gravitate to in order to dull the pain of their meaningless existences.

Zoroastrian kids on You Tube

I agree 100% with Dino.
This is why Nietzsche's "amor fati" is a much more Zoroastrian motto than the deceitfulness of "positive thinking". The "constructive thinking" of Zarathushtra is honest and straight-forward and open and tolerant and self-critical, but it is neither positive nor negative but rather neutral in that regard.
But always nice with cute kids doing their best on You Tube! We need more of that.
Ushta
Alexander

2010/2/10 Special Kain

Dear Bahman

It's really cute!!! It's great to see young kids being creative and smart! Because their minds are the future.
But what's less good is the fact that Zarathushtra's motto is often mixed up with that dreadful doctrine of "positive thinking". That kid's video has just reminded me of the North American cult following where people who think critically and voice their concerns are being sacked - only because they allegedly have spoiled the company's working atmosphere.
That's why we have to teach the world that our motto is not about good or positive thoughts, but about constructive thoughts leading to constructive words leading to constructive deeds - and that there's a huge difference between "positive thinking" (self-deceit) and a constructive mentality that starts with being brutally honest with ourselves and taking this as our starting point when making the wisest choice possible.
"Positive thinking" usually makes everything worse, Zarathushtra's motto is totally devoted to wisdom, creativity and smart decisions. It would be smart and wise to reject that doctrine of "positive thinking".

Ushta,
Dino

--- Bahman Noruziaan schrieb am Mi, 10.2.2010:

Von: Bahman Noruziaan
Betreff: [Ushta] Zoroastrianism from a youth's point of view
An: "mainstream main" , "Mazdayasna Mazdayasna" , "Ushta Ushta"


This is a youth's view of Zoroastrianism. It is nice I think.

http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=r2q6IdKWA64

Zarathushtra in the Gathas vs Zarathustra in Nietzsche's philosophy

When Friedrich Nietzsche's Zarathushtra said that God is dead he meant that the PLATONIST IDEA was dead.
The idea that there is a perfect world superior to our imperfect world is dead. This is death of OBJECTIVITY and the realisation that all truths are by necessity subjective and this is something we have to deal with.
Nietzsche's dead God certainly does NOT include Ahura Mazda. Instead, Nietzsche would be a strong proponent of Ahura and quite likely of Mazda too. His central ethical concept of "amor fati" is as Zoroastrian as anything could possibly be. It could just as well have come from Zarathushtra's own mouth in The Gathas.
The widespread idea that Nietzsche picked Zarathushtra by chance has repeatedly been proven wrong. Nietzsche was well versed in Sanskrit and Avesta since he was a professor of PHILOLOGY rather than Philosophy and there was a tremendous scholar interest in all things Indo-Iranian in Germany in the mid 19th century.
Nietzsche also confirms this himself in his later work "Ecce Homo" where he states that he picked Zarathushtra as his lead figure since he saw Zarathushtra's deliberations as the Birth of Ethics in human history (or the birth of moral philosophy, as most translations to English would suggest). Who would then be better suited to ask the questions confronting modern man than Zarathushtra himself?
Ushta
Alexander

2010/2/10 Parviz Varjavand

I feel that there are two Zarathustras. One is the Zarathustra of the Gathas, the other is the Zarathustra of Nietzsche. When Nietzsche's Zarathustra said that "God is Dead", was he also talking about Ahoora Mazda? When so many of us talk about Ahoora Mazda, we argue very hard that He/She is not dead like the others, but why is there a slight smell of death in the air? We will not get rid of that smell if we do not make a clean break with the other Dead Paradigms. Who amongst us is doing this? We need a new Zoroastrianism that Nietsche would want to convert to, not one that fools would gravitate to in order to dull the pain of their meaningless existences.