måndag 2 februari 2009

The opnness of Zoroastrianism. Why we study science rather than having bible classes

Dear Helen

Very good questions!

What I believe you need to understand is that PRACTICED Zoroastrianism rarely falls into the loop of self-referentiality that is so common in other religions. Christians constantly meet to discuss The Bible, Muslims constantly meet to discuss the Qoran, and they so endlessly - within one single loop - without adding any information from the outside.

This is not the case with Zoroastrianism. The first Zoroastrian congress I ever went to was a shock to me, a positive shock, because most of the lectures were not on The Gathas (which we were all assumed to know anyway) but rather on topics like science and culture. So as a Mazdayasni who is not overtly concerned with any after-life or whether existence is pure monism or some kind of monism-plus (which is what Zoroastrian mental dualism amounts to, people like Ron and Dina are not Platonic or Christian dualists in any way) what I've learned is that me religion is all about being NOT religious but rather to love life to its fullest as if living life itself is the sacred duty and not some kind of Sunday morning religiosity.

Why do you think that Zoroastrianism never promoted asceticism in tbe first place? This is a religion which is rather suspicious towards the overtly "religious" behavior. Our holidays are the equinoxes and solstices, because our lives are always grounded in the here and now which we hold sacred and not to be laughed at or ignored.


2009/2/2 Helen Gerth

Dear all,

There have been several responses to a few comments to conversations here that I have posted.....I appreciate Alexander's stance and do endeavor to only comment on Zoroastrian issues....and I am grateful that others have found value in my thoughts...one post seemed more appropriate than several individual responses and more economical...

I suppose the difficulty is that at times, I see value and interest in the dey-yasna beliefs I find expressed in Zoroastrian....

For some, there is straight from the hip :-)...then there is tactful....then sometimes we all interpret others through our own lenses of experience....we are all in a great big salon discussing ideas that sometimes don't mix....we could take particular currents into a private conversation...but that defeats the purpose except for thank you's and appreciation of the elegance of a thought posted...

Abrahamic 'folktales' and 'mythologies' aside...there are similar currents in Zoroastrianism....and if some choose to strip those away that is fine...if we limit conversations of Zoroastrianism to only that which strips away all of those ideas then what do we talk about? If true Zorastrianism does not discuss a soul, an existence of some kind after death, no divinity...where do we go with the converstaions...

What I am throwing out here is a request for a thread that is wholly Mazdayasni, wholly mind oriented then....yes, I suppose with my upbringing it slips through my mental fingers more easily and I need repitition...

What I value here the most is the discussions of variations in Zoroastrian thought though I know that part of the purpose of the alias is to discuss a particular segment of Zoroastrian thought...

Ushta te,

Inga kommentarer: