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