tisdag 16 augusti 2011

Zoroastrianism vs General Pantheism

The interesting thing with Zarathushtra's special brand of Pantheism (as I believed Arthur Pearlstein once pointed out, thereby differentiating it from all other forms of Pantheism; defending Zoroastrianism against General Pantheism) is that Zarathushtra never divinifies Existence (Ahura) as such on its own. There is no Ahura proper without Mazda, so the mind aspect of human existence is also at play. The Universe indeed has no divinity of its own, it only becomes divine through THE ACT OF THE MIND. It is indeed a proclamation, not so much through a choice of the mind but rather through the very existence of mind (as an affirmative and cheerful RECOGNITION of Asha rather than as a choice). Which also explains why we, as Parviz has often pointed out, are not Ahurayasni but Mazdayasni. We celebrate Mind first and Existence second. And all this WITHOUT making History a Necessity as Abrahamic determinism or historicism would have it (material existence exists as to make mind possible), History is still totally contingent according to Zarathushtra, even in itself truly miraculous, not at all Buddha's negation of existence. Like in Hegel's philosophy, Zarathushtra's meaning is always a meaning as after-thought, as a kind of CHOSEN NECESSITY, well after the Act that manifests Substance is established. It's all quite peculiar, but it is very very smart and obviously very truthful. I don't consider myself a Pantheist lightly anymore. ;-)

2011/8/16 Special Kain

Dear sisters and brothers

Asha can mean different things depending on the context.

(1) It is "the truth" and "that which is true", as opposed to illusions, fraud and lies. The world as it is vs. the lies we have been told. Ashavahishta therefore is "the best truth", one's willingness to surrender to what it true, or "furthering the truth", one's willingness to live truthfully through thoughts, words and deeds.

(2) It also is "that which exists" and "that which is real" as in "something that actually exists", as opposed to that which is unreal (illusions, deception). Asha is that which is in conformity with reality. In Heideggerian terms, there is something (asha) rather than nothing (druj).

(3) Eventually, asha also is "that which fits (with what is real)" and "that which works", the mechanisms and laws of nature as discovered and studied by modern science - a rather technical and pragmatic approach towards this issue. Think of agriculture!

Ahura also is "that which exists", but in a different sense. Since "Ahura" also is a title usually given to deities ("supreme being" or "supreme power"), it could mean that existence is sacred - Existence with a capital E.

What do YOU think?


Inga kommentarer: