tisdag 16 augusti 2011

Zoroastrianism as the Opposite of Islam

Dear Dino and Daniel

What Zarathushtra so vehemently opposes is the human desire to SEEK LEADERSHIP TO OBEY, to masochistically subordinate ourselves to the will of a God, a Father, a Big Other, The Others in a Society, political leaders, idols etc. Therefore he is against all "ought to's" that we possibly could come up with. There are no ought-to's from others, and if there are they should be ignored and overruled and crushed.
All of this to create the ETHICAL BEING that constantly reinvates and expands itself - THROUGH CREATIVE ACTIONS eminanting from creative thoughts and words - and time and space as the Zoroastrian IDEAL OF EXISTENCE. This is what Zarathushtra teaches in The Gathas: We do not BECOME Maxzdayasni by OBEYING (neither by obstructing) but by independently DO WHAT IS US COMING FROM WITHIN US.
You could not be further from the cult of subordination in the Abrahamic religions with their horrible "commandments". Islam for example literally means "Obedience". If anything Zarathushtra's reply should be called "Creation".


2011/8/16 Special Kain

No, asha DOES NOT SPEAK - it DOES NOT tell us anything about how things ought to be. There is NO NORMATIVITY. Forget about "should do", "has to do", "ought to do", "shouldn't do", etc. here in this context. Asha simply is that which turns out to be real and true. Asha is existence as in "something that really exists" and also the rules that apply here (the laws of nature in the broadest possible sense). It therefore refers to a LEARNING PROCESS that will prove that asha (that which works in the long run) is fundamentally superior to druj (that which deceives us).

Von: Daniel Samani
An: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com"
Gesendet: 16:11 Dienstag, 16.August 2011
Betreff: Re: AW: [Ushta] Meaning of Asha

This makes sense, does asha tell us how things ought to be? Or does this materialise when we see existence for what it is and what it's not?


16 aug 2011 kl. 14:46 skrev Alexander Bard :

Two things:
1. The Oxford Dictionary has a VERY DIFFERENT understanding of real from Gilles Deleuze. Daniel mixes the two up, please don't.
2. The proper English word for druj outside of our minds is "nothingness". It is the LACK OF EXISTENCE which is druj in its purest sense in the Avestan language. In this sense "Asha" is "Something" or "Substance" or "How Things work" whereas Druj is "Nothingness" or "Lack of substance" or "Illusions of how things actually don't work".

2011/8/15 Daniel Samani

Great! Then lie is a good translation to the Avestan concept druj, I guess that depends what aspect one empathise. People use the English language with different styles. Some more inflated by vitalism and absolutism then others. If one make the statement that the definition of a lie is that it's not true - it weight heavily on what one mean by truth (that can be coloured heavily on abramitic thought).

I am confident that we will reach an agreement on this matter. This will occur when I have grasped what you have a long time ago. ;) Too me the concept real in itself is confusing this is what Oxford says: "The term is most straightforwardly used when qualifying another adjective: a real x may be contrasted with a fake x, a failed x, a near x, and so on. To treat something as real, without qualification, is to suppose it to be part of the actual world. To reify something is to suppose that we are committed by some doctrine to treating it as a thing. The central error in thinking of reality and existence is to think of the unreal as a separate domain of things, perhaps unfairly deprived of the benefits of existence."

At least one thing I agree 100% with, asha is a rather complex concept.


Inga kommentarer: