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

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

God, Mind, and The Universe

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

--- Parviz Varjavand schrieb am Sa, 26.2.2011:

Von: Parviz Varjavand
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] Monism vs dualism, monotheism vs polytheism - a clarification!
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Samstag, 26. Februar, 2011 22:24 Uhr


Hi Alex,

You say you are a "Monist Monotheist". I thought that a Monist Monotheist is called just a Monist because you can not have a Monist Dualist, but I think that you can not have any Monotheism other than Dualistic Monotheism.

Parviz

--- On Wed, 2/23/11, Alexander Bard wrote:

From: Alexander Bard
Subject: [Ushta] Monism vs dualism, monotheism vs polytheism - a clarification!
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Cc: "Ali Jafarey"
Date: Wednesday, February 23, 2011, 10:50 PM


Dear Parviz and friends

Let's clarify one thing once and for all: Monism and monotheism are not opposites.
The opposite of monism is dualism (or even polyism), the idea that there are at least two radically different substances in the universe that are somehow mystically interacting with each other (although no dualist has ever been able to explain exactly how this would work since it remains to be explained through which substance the two communicate). The belief that God and Creation are two separate entities is a perfect example of dualism (where it remains to be explained how God interacts with Creation in that case). While making God and The Universe synonymous is a requirement for monism.
As you can tell, I'm very much a monist myself. I do not find any credible evidence of any second substance anywhere. If there is a soul it is very much a part of the body itself, as modern neuroscience has also shown to be the case (every emotion or feeling we experience corresponds to en exact physical reaction in the brain).
The opposite of monotheism is polytheism, the belief that there are several rather than just one god.
Needless to say, I'm a monist monotheist, which is another word for a pantheist (The Universe and God are one and the same thing and substance). The famous atheist activist Richard Dawkins calls pantheism "the thinking man's atheism"; in other words he considers pantheism the only credible religious belief of all. The intelligent choice we can make is between atheism and pantheism, anything else is basically humbug.
I agree with Dawkins 100%.
And I'm convinced Zarathushtra, the author of The Gathas, and his contemporaries, were pantheists too. I don't see any evidence of dualism in his worldview as dualism was introduced by the Egyptians and the Babylonians to control their agricultural societies much later in history. Which in turn explains why the Abrahamic religions are dualist and not monist like Mazdayasna.

Ushta
Alexander

Monism vs dualism, monotheism vs polytheism - a clarification! Part 4

2011/2/27 Peter Schogol
Dear Alexander,

As I understand it, there are a number of alternatives to pantheism. Panentheism, in which the sum is more than the totality of the parts; theism, in which the totality moves the parts but not vice versa; polytheism, in which there is no one overarching totality rather a multiplicity of near- or quasi-totalities; henotheism, in which the totality is refracted in a multiple of hypostases or avatars; atheism, in which the totality, if there is one, is not an agent; and so on.

Zarathushtra broke aggressively with polytheism and panentheism requires dualism of which there is no trace before Egyptian agricultural feudalism and certainly not in Central Asia 3,700 years ago. So logically you will have to remove all alternatives until you end up with monist monotheism. None of the others apply to the Gathic author.

To say that it is up to the questioner to demonstrate that Zarathushtra was not a monist doesn't strike me as intellectually honest.

To say that somebody is intellectually dishonest strikes me as being intellectually dishonest in itself. Back to you: Where do you find any traces of dualism in The Gathas, centuries before such ideas developed in a very different part of the world?

One cannot prove a negative. If there are passages in the Gathas which may be read monistically or pantheistically, we should be able to identify them.

Not necessarily. You need to KNOW within which society a certain text was produced. For example: You would not ask me to prove that America does not exist in a European text from the 12th century because you KNOW that America was discovered by Europeans in the late 15th century. To still debate whether America as a continent is a conscious phenomenon with 12th century authors is fruitless if not outright idiotic. How could dualism possibly serve what Zarathushtra tried to communicate? It serves no role whatsoever within his ethical system.

Also, you say that Zarathushtra precedes Judaism by at least 700 years. What are you using for a start date for Judaism?

King David is the first know historically existent person in Judaism so Judaism as Judaism would have developed some decades before King David steps onto the historical scene. There are for example not a shred of evidence that Abraham or Moses ever existed, we have to refer to them as mythological creatures. As we have to with Judaism before the exile in Babylon where the faith was properly developed.

Ushta
Alexander

Monism vs dualism, monotheism vs polytheism - a clarification! Part 3

Dear Peter

The alternative to pantheism (montheism with a monist worldview) is dualism but there is not a single trace of dualism in any culture on this planet before the arrival of organised feudalism (likely Egypt but could also be Babylon). So the question is not whether Zarathushtra contemplated monism versus dualism, dualism was simply unheard of in his culture and at his time in history.

That means that the burden of evidence does not lie with me when I claim that Zarathushtra is a monist monotheist (the world is one substance and this substance is Ahura, to which Mazda is added as the expression of Ahura; the same as Indian Brahmanism by the way, which no Indian intellectual would ever dream of regarding as dualist), the burden lies with those who claim that Zarathushtra for some strange reason was a dualist a thousand years before any feudalist culture takes off. It makes absolutely no sense to refer to Zarathushtra as a dualist. The only reason I can find to do so is when people try to make Zarathushtra an Abrahamist long before Abrahamistic faiths even existed. Which is of course utter nonsense.

Zoroastrianism is an Indo-European belief system and not a Semitic one. It is also at least 700 years older than Judaism.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/2/27 Peter Schogol

I have been away from the universe of Zoroastrian discourse for several years, and while I am aware of your conviction, Alexander, that Zoroastrianism is or could be reckoned to be pantheistic I don't recall how you arrived at that belief. I am not saying it's implausible -- far from it. But if the Gathas are where the buck stops it would seem that the Gathas should be able to provide a grounding for a pantheistic interpretation. In my ignorance I can't make out that connection.

Rather than ask you to sum up your conviction (unless you wouldn't mind doing that), I would ask to be directed to the most salient post to this group where the ground for a pantheistic interpretation may be read.

Ushta,
Peter (Skye) Schogol
Lexington, KY

Monism vs dualism, monotheism vs polytheism - a clarification! Part 2

Exactly!!!
Which is why there is no point going on about monism and then attacking monotheism. Makes absolutely no sense.
If one is a monist one has to be either an atheist (one substance which is not divine) or a pantheist (one substance which is divine or should be treated or observed as divine). And pantheism is monotheistic, one divine substance = one and only god = monotheism.
The Abrahamic faiths are also monothestic but dualistic. That is the difference from Zoroastrian Pantheism.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/2/27 Special Kain

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

--- Parviz Varjavand schrieb am Sa, 26.2.2011:

Von: Parviz Varjavand
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] Monism vs dualism, monotheism vs polytheism - a clarification!
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Samstag, 26. Februar, 2011 22:24 Uhr

Hi Alex,

You say you are a "Monist Monotheist". I thought that a Monist Monotheist is called just a Monist because you can not have a Monist Dualist, but I think that you can not have any Monotheism other than Dualistic Monotheism.

Parviz

--- On Wed, 2/23/11, Alexander Bard wrote:

From: Alexander Bard
Subject: [Ushta] Monism vs dualism, monotheism vs polytheism - a clarification!
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Cc: "Ali Jafarey"
Date: Wednesday, February 23, 2011, 10:50 PM

Dear Parviz and friends

Let's clarify one thing once and for all: Monism and monotheism are not opposites.
The opposite of monism is dualism (or even polyism), the idea that there are at least two radically different substances in the universe that are somehow mystically interacting with each other (although no dualist has ever been able to explain exactly how this would work since it remains to be explained through which substance the two communicate). The belief that God and Creation are two separate entities is a perfect example of dualism (where it remains to be explained how God interacts with Creation in that case). While making God and The Universe synonymous is a requirement for monism.
As you can tell, I'm very much a monist myself. I do not find any credible evidence of any second substance anywhere. If there is a soul it is very much a part of the body itself, as modern neuroscience has also shown to be the case (every emotion or feeling we experience corresponds to en exact physical reaction in the brain).
The opposite of monotheism is polytheism, the belief that there are several rather than just one god.
Needless to say, I'm a monist monotheist, which is another word for a pantheist (The Universe and God are one and the same thing and substance). The famous atheist activist Richard Dawkins calls pantheism "the thinking man's atheism"; in other words he considers pantheism the only credible religious belief of all. The intelligent choice we can make is between atheism and pantheism, anything else is basically humbug.
I agree with Dawkins 100%.
And I'm convinced Zarathushtra, the author of The Gathas, and his contemporaries, were pantheists too. I don't see any evidence of dualism in his worldview as dualism was introduced by the Egyptians and the Babylonians to control their agricultural societies much later in history. Which in turn explains why the Abrahamic religions are dualist and not monist like Mazdayasna.

Ushta
Alexander

Monism vs dualism, monotheism vs polytheism - a clarification!

Dear Parviz and friends

Let's clarify one thing once and for all: Monism and monotheism are not opposites.
The opposite of monism is dualism (or even polyism), the idea that there are at least two radically different substances in the universe that are somehow mystically interacting with each other (although no dualist has ever been able to explain exactly how this would work since it remains to be explained through which substance the two communicate). The belief that God and Creation are two separate entities is a perfect example of dualism (where it remains to be explained how God interacts with Creation in that case). While making God and The Universe synonymous is a requirement for monism.
As you can tell, I'm very much a monist myself. I do not find any credible evidence of any second substance anywhere. If there is a soul it is very much a part of the body itself, as modern neuroscience has also shown to be the case (every emotion or feeling we experience corresponds to en exact physical reaction in the brain).
The opposite of monotheism is polytheism, the belief that there are several rather than just one god.
Needless to say, I'm a monist monotheist, which is another word for a pantheist (The Universe and God are one and the same thing and substance). The famous atheist activist Richard Dawkins calls pantheism "the thinking man's atheism"; in other words he considers pantheism the only credible religious belief of all. The intelligent choice we can make is between atheism and pantheism, anything else is basically humbug.
I agree with Dawkins 100%.
And I'm convinced Zarathushtra, the author of The Gathas, and his contemporaries, were pantheists too. I don't see any evidence of dualism in his worldview as dualism was introduced by the Egyptians and the Babylonians to control their agricultural societies much later in history. Which in turn explains why the Abrahamic religions are dualist and not monist like Mazdayasna.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/2/24 Parviz Varjavand

My very dear Ostad Jafarey,

For me, the whole history of man's intellectual development does not pivot on Zarathustra and we would be talking about Mazdayasna and Devyasna today regardless of his being there or not. We just would call it as having our thoughts Science-happy or Faith-happy, or something like that. Since Science does not support the existence of any single Supper Intellect making everything else up as a Carpenter (God) would sit in his workshop and make Chairs (Me and the rest of creation), I give myself permission to dismiss that idea as unscientific.

I however can not dismiss that there is a lot of intelligences at work in nature and that I am also part of this whole mix. So I see some kind of intelligence at work every time I blow my nose, and I think to myself that I must be some kind of God that just blew its nose. That is all that makes sense to me and makes me happy when I think of God-power. The bigger picture of a Supper Duper God having made me in a way that I can blow my nose and that I must bow down to Him and say thank you every time I blow my nose does not make me happy, does not turn me on, does not make me go into Yasna.

So I am Mazda-yasna as one that gets happy that as a creature it has the power to blow it's own nose. This I call Monist Mazda Yasna. I do not get happy if I have to thank some Supper Intelligence for making me in a way that I can blow my nose every time I blow my nose, so I do not think that I am a Monotheist Mazda Mazdayasni person.

If my version of Monist Mazdayasna is not one hundred percent scientific, I do not care. It just makes me more happy (go more into Yasna) than the Monotheist Mazdayasna version of our religion. The Monotheist Mazdayasna version of Zoroastrianism looks an awful lot like the other versions of Monotheism that is gobbling up the minds of the masses of humanity on the globe and I do not feel there is any glory in riding that train.

Mehr Afzoon,
Parviz Varjavand

--- On Wed, 2/23/11, Jafarey@aol.com wrote:

From: Jafarey@aol.com
Subject: Re: [zoroastrians] The Paradox of Choice, and the PIR
To: solvolant@yahoo.com, zoroastrians@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, February 23, 2011, 12:19 PM



In a message dated 2/22/2011 8:23:04 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, solvolant@yahoo.com writes:
For me anything scientific is Mazdayasni and anything unscientific (if talked about in a religious context) is Devyasna. So if Zaratushtra has things to say about rewards and punishments I may encounter after death, he is talking about Devyasna. Also, if he talks about a God that is separate from his creation, he is again talking about Devyasna and I have to reley on Faith to understand him.

I can take Devyasna if a very pretty woman talks about it, because I would concentrate on her cute lips as they move withought having to understand anything they are saying. But when bearded men dead long ago talk Devyasna, I have a hard time with that.

Yours as always,

Dorud, my dear,

For me too <> And for the last 80+ years of cool and collected, search and research study of the Gathas (Gahan), I have found it quite scientific.

My request is: Please read the Gahan coolly and collectedly and you will see that <> He speaks only about the consequences of one's acts. Yes, <> His search and research helped him to discover that the universe is <> an orderly harmonious systematic universe. This could not happen unless there is some super-intellect being behind it. In his language it becomes Mazda Ahura. It is after his cosmic, environmental, and social studies that he founded his <> to present a fresh and ever-refreshing guidance to the Way of Good Life.

Here I would like to be enlightened on Monism, because so far I have not been able to understand it. We are as creators, maintainers and promoters of things, from the stick and stone tools of the Stone Age, 650,000 years ago to our up-to-date electronics, but why are we separate from them all along and yet say that the Cosmos is either its own creator and maintainer or is one with the creator and maintainer? Please, give me a single instance of Monism. Which branch of proven science shows it?

I am sure that you know that the word mazda/medha for super-intellect existed in the Indo-Iranian language but it was Zarathushtra who applied it to his discovery of the Creator-Maintainer-Promoter, and that he is the first person to deny <> as a deity and reject superstitions, and that his immediate followers coined the terms Mazdayasna and Daeva-yasna.

You conclude: <> Yes, Zarathushtra was as bearded as other contemporary men and dead long ago, but he was the FIRST to talk against Daevayasna and today we are only the multi-millionth. If there were no Gahan, you and I would not be talking about Mazdayasna and Daevayasna.

Mehr afzoon,

Ali A. Jafarey