Mazdayasna - a religion, or a philosophy?

The terms religion and philosophy were invented by Europeans to organise a Euro-centric worldview. Consequently, philosophy "was invented" by the Greeks and any decent thinking before the Greeks (500BC) must therefore automatically be doomed as religion. Otherwise the idea that Europeans invented "thinking" would be all wrong.
This is why both Brahmanism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism (especially Chan and Zen) and Daoism have all incorrectly been termed "religions" when they really all are philosophical systems. Zarathushtra's concept of Ahura Mazda has little or nothing to do with the father-figure gods of the four desert religions (Judaism, Islam, Christianity and Bahai). That's my vote!
But why not cover both angles? I suggest we refer to Zoroastrianism/Mazdayasna as a philosophy which has become a religious practice. Much like Buddhism!
Ushta
Alexander

Nothingness and monasteries

Dear Dina

When I speak of druj as "nothingness", I indeed mean this not literally but symbolically.
Or rather than a nothingness in itself, druj is a willingness towards nothingness. The ambition to nullify!!!
Druj is the drive towards the destructive, which in itself is a pleasure born out of bitterness, the enjoyment of bitterness, druj is driven by a hatred towards the new, towards the multiplying, towards growth and expansion, it is a willingness to stop creativity in its tracks, to silence creativity and the enjoyment of life in its fullness.
As with all metaphysics, poetry is perhaps a much better to get at what we are after here than logical reasoning. Which is of course another reason why Zarathushtra was a poet of truth rather than a logician of truth. And therefore a better philosopher and theologian than the thinkers that followed him!
Which in turn is why most attempts to "logicalize" The Gathas so often misses the mark.
As for the "monastery", yes, this is indeed very me. Mazdayasna does not propose any life of abstinence per se - which I believe is absolutely correct. But to have a set of buildings which can serve as ashrams for us when we need to isolate ourselves from the busy modern world would indeed by a good thing for the community. And such a place could of course also serve as a center for learning. I hope we can have many such "Mazdayasna learning and meditation centers" in the future, around the world.

Ushta
Alexander

2007/9/8, DINAMCI@aol.com <DINAMCI@aol.com>:

Dear Alexander,

A "mazdayasna monastery"?!? I have to confess, a monastery is something I never associated with you. Could you help me to understand this wish of yours? What would be the mazdayasna monastery which so appeals to you? But only answer if you wish to. I do not want to invade your privacy.

On the subject of evil, I agree that it is negative and destructive, but I have a hard time seeing it as nothingness, or non-existence. Historically, we have too many instances of the reality of evil -- the tortures of the Inquisition in the Middle Ages, the concentration camps of Hitler. These were very real. I just don't see them as "nothingness or non-existence" (perhaps the non-existence of good, but that is a different thing).

I guess what I see in the Gathas, is that both good and evil, in and of themselves, are just concepts, inclinations, preferences. They are both made real, given substance, through our choices in thought, word and action.

I agree with you, Alexander, when you pointed out in an earlier post the profoundly inclusive reality that thoughts, words and actions encompass. Today, too many folks tend to blow them off as simplistic. But like you, I think they are deeply profound -- encompassing the full spectrum of human expression -- one might almost say, of human existence (setting aside sleep and comas).

Wishing you the best
Dina G. McIntyre

Good vs Evil (beyond good vs evil) - the follow-up comments

Dear Dan

I agree with Dina, you are quite a theologian!!!
We are sooo happy to have you with us.

I believe Zarathushtra's reluctance to define good and evil have two reasons:

First of all, good and evil are RELATIVE. It is in relations, and purely in relations, to something that good and evil appear. This is why there are no clear "good guys" and "bad guys". Good and bad are ever-present and cut through everything. It is only in the moment of things, in the occasional attitude of a decision, that we can trace their almost quantum physics-like appearances of pure good and pure evil. Haurvatat is that glimpse of pure good.

The other reason is that good always has a substance to it, as opposed to evil, which is the lack of substance per se. The something of existence versus the nothingness of non-existence (which is were Mazdayasna agrees with Brahmanism in India). Which is why I have always preferred the translations "constructive" vs "destructive" in contemporary English compared to the Christianized terms good and evil. What is a constructive mentality if not the attitude of building, constructing, adding, including, metamorphosizing, playing, loving, caring? As opposed to a destructive mentality which strives for elimination, subtracting, excluding, demoralizing, distancing itself from the world and whatever it confronts.

Then there is of course also "constructive destruction" and not to forget "destructive constructions" (such as concentration camps). Good and evil is not easy, perhaps it's the most difficult subject of all, and I agree the terms should never be used lightly (and definitely not as proselytization slogans). Rather the terms need to be carefully approached precisely in fora such as Ushta.

I have started longing for a Mazdayasna monastery again. Guess what I want to do when I have finished my career in the music business in a few years' time?

Ushta indeed
Alexander

2007/9/7, Dan Jensen :

Ushta Alexander!

I'm happy that you approve!

Admittedly, I am not sure about what the best wording
ought to be. The sense in which I would use the terms
"ethics" and "morality" might be to define ethics as
the science of morality, where morality is defined as
something like a mysterious, irrational (or
super-rational) sense of value, or meaning. Perhaps
better terms can be found.

Speaking of good and evil is dangerous, and I think I
understand why reasonable people avoid such language.
As soon as you bring up the topic, some people want to
start dividing the good guys from the bad guys.

Here I might need some help from the experts: the
Gathas recognize the spirits of good and bad, but they
do not really personify either. They do, if I recall
correctly, make strong associations between Spenta
Mainyu and Ahura Mazda, but Angra Mainyu is completely
disassociated. It's almost as if Zarathushtra said
"ok, we covered that. Now let's forget it."

It is one thing to acknowledge evil; it is another to
dwell on it. To dwell on evil is, in a sense, to
worship evil. One might say that while Zarathushtra
recognized that ethical/moral antenna inside us, it
may be incorrect to suggest that Mazdayasna, that is
Zarathushtra's form of worship, is dualistic. The
metaphysics (or metaethics?) may be seen as dualistic,
but the yasna of the Gathas appears to have largely
refused to dwell on evil.

What do you think?

Dan

Good vs Evil (beyond good vs evil)

Dear Dan

I must say that this is the first definition of good and evil I have ever heard that I can subscribe to!!!
This is what I would define as en ethical couple of good vs evil rather than a moral or moralistic couple, at least if you use the terms ethics and morality the way they are defined by both Spinoza and Habermas.
Perhaps my couple constructive vs destructive is too limiting, we really do need to speak of good vs evil here? A good vs evil beyond the traditional good vs evil (referring once again to Nietzsche)?
Yes, Zarathushtra and Nietzsche are our brothers and companions. But they are not us and we are not them. Zarathushtra never aspired for more than that. His only ambition was that his words would be taken as seriously as the words from a trusted old friend, not a divinity. This is therefore also how we should read The Gathas when we read the text in a truly gathic way.

It is a true pleasure to get to know you!!!
Ushta indeed
Alexander

2007/9/7, Dan Jensen <kaweah@yahoo.com>:

Brother Alexander!

Since I spout off so much about good and evil, I must
owe you an explanation. I am probably misrepresenting
my position until I do.

Let me begin with a couple quotes from Nietzsche's
Zarathustra:

"Let thy virtue be too high for the familiarity of
names, and if thou must speak of it, be not ashamed to
stammer about it." (V. JOYS AND PASSIONS)

"Similes, are all names of good and evil; they do not
speak out, they only hint. A fool who seeketh
knowledge from them!" (XXII. THE BESTOWING VIRTUE)

I speak with little hesitation of Good and Evil, but I
do not venture, in this context, to assign names to
Good and Evil. These "twins" are far too elusive and
transcendent to be named. That is to say, one cannot
rightly say "murder is Evil" without blinding oneself
to the deep mystery of the moral pulse of existence.
Perhaps a murder feels evil to the mourner, and so it
is evil, but taken out of that tragic context,
"murder" is really only a word.

Morality is wonderful! (This is kind of a sublime
tautology to me)

What is so wonderful about it?

Look at the universe, at all that goes on within it,
and ask the question: from whence comes joy? Nothing
about what science knows about the world explains joy,
or grief for that matter. There is nothing about
objective actuality that is right or wrong. Ok, so
then, why is everything so right and wrong? Why does
anything matter at all?

Why does physical pain "hurt?". Does it always grieve
us? It can sometimes amuse us, no? To me, it is not
the objective circumstances of the joy and pain that
are worth noting, but rather the joy itself, and the
pain itself. I am dumbstruck by the simple wonder of
the world as a value-laden being. I find the battle
between Good and Evil, between joy and grief, courage
and fear, in whatever form it may take, a kind of
beautiful and terrible drama.

Shall we not partake in the drama? Isn't that what
we're here for?

You might say that the question "what is the meaning
of life?" is a question that answers itself.

Back to Nietzsche:

"Thus, steadfast and beautiful, let us also be
enemies, my friends! Divinely will we strive AGAINST
one another!" (XXIX. THE TARANTULAS)

This is not about everybody going out and killing each
other. That's not it at all. It is more about joyously
embracing the good and battling evil as one encounters
them in life, without stooping to name-calling, and
without any need to alienate ones enemies.

Also, I'm not saying that Zarathushtra resembled
Nietzsche's Zarathustra, but I do believe their core
insights were the same. I don't follow either
Zarathushtra or Nietzsche in lock step, but I feel a
profound camaraderie with their words.

Ushta!
Dan

Mazdayasna, Sufism, and Chan and Zen Buddhism

Dear Dan and Parviz and friends

Dan has got it exactly right!!!

Which is why I have so often brought up the historical and philosophical connections between Mazdayasna and Sufism (and also in extension the Mazdayasna origins of Chan and Zen Buddhism). We are indeed "praying" to those built-in capacities within ourselves to be civilized, human, modest, humble, listening, in general good people.

Parviz has also a good point here, Mazdayasna is NOT the religion with a book which is to be hit in the head of the infidels. We should instead remain firmly rooted in the HUMANNESS of all human beings. Mazdayasna is the religion of the little person who struggles in life and with the meaning of living. Not the religion of self-obsessed narcissistic preachers who aim to force their beliefs onto others (if only to cover up for their own doubts). We do not have the finished answer (other than to hold firmly to the belief that the answer remains unanswered, our worldview is never finished, never complete).

Please remember this extremely important fact about Zarathushtra: Zarathushtra is the ONLY prophet ever to address his message as a series of questions, not as a series of answers. Mazdayasna is the religion of the doubt, the religion of the question, the religion of openness, and not the religion of the perfect and finished answer. This is why Mazdayasna takes time to understand and will only spread and grow slowly. But it will always win in the long run. Because Mazdayasna puts the conditions of truth even before the belief in truth itself.

Ushta indeed
Alexander

2007/9/6, Parviz Varjavand <solvolant@yahoo.com>:

Dear Alex, Dan and friends,

I am sorry that I have not lost my ability of at times putting others down. Who am I to tell anybody else what proper prayer is or is not? We each develop our own ways off passing through the dark nights of our existence and hope for the dawn of the bliss and Ushta that we crave so badly. All I have shared is what works for me, otherwise I am sure that the Mass or the Namaz has been the source of comfort for countless human beings.

If Mazdayasna needs NOT to be one thing, it would be the need to point finger at others and call their ways wrong (as long as like circumcision, they are not hurting the young without their permission).

Dan's explanation of prayer works for me. I used to ask the divine outside myself for help a lot and it became very much like begging. I would become less and less in self worth and the divine outside from whom I was requesting things would become colder and more and more impersonal and out of reach. Now I try to ask the divine within me for help and it listens a lot better. I ask it to get up and take me for a walk as my health needs it, and guess what, it gets off its ass and takes me for a walk!

Ushta,

Parviz Varjavand

Dan Jensen <kaweah@yahoo.com> wrote:

Alexander, I'm with you on prayer, as I grew up
reciting canned prayers and became very tired of
begging. Yet I'm struggling to keep my mind open to
different ways of approaching "worship" (yasna).
Here's an attempt:

What if we regard prayer as an appeal to the divine,
universal Power within us? Would that be acceptable in
the context of Mazdayasna? I might reach even further
and quote the Persian Sufi mystic, who said "I am
God", much to the consternation and perturbation of
his fellow Sufis. Would it be begging to appeal for
help from the divine within us?

Ushta!
Dan

Mazdayasna as an existentialist religion, part 2

Dear Mehmet

In the history of philosophy. Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, the two romantic giants of the 19th century, are widely seen as the inventors of existentialism. My point is that Nietzsche got his concept of existentialism from Zarathushtra (whose texts arrived in Europe in the 1850s and were studied precisely by people like Nietzsche, who was a philologist and not a philosopher by academic training). And Kierkegaard got his ideas from the part of Christianity that Christian thinking inherited from Zoroastrianism (the ethical "Jesus" part rather than the moralist "St Paul" part of Christian philosophy). Nietzsche agrees with me in "Ecce Homo" when he states that Zarathushtra is chosen as his ultimate existentialist character precisely because he was the original ethicist, the inventor of ethics, in other words: The original existentialist!

Yes, Mazdayasna is the existentialist religion par excellence. This is the true radical meaning of the motto good thoughts, good words, good deeds. It is not that good thoughts, words and deeds are good and important in themselves that is important. It is the fact that we BECOME the thoughts, the words, the deeds, the histories we create, to ourselves. Every day is our own judgment day. Haurvatat is not located in some distant future, it is right here and now, next to us, as an eternal possibility to ourselves. We have only barely begun to understand the depths of good thoughts, good words, good deeds. Thinking, action and language are the three components of our self-identity. So existentialism was not invented by Kierkegaard or Nietzsche, such a claim is a euro-centric falsification of history. Exstentialism was invented by Zarathushtra 3,700 BC.

Ushta
Alexander

2007/9/6, mehmet azizoglu <maziz69@yahoo.com>:

Dear Alex,

That "Whatever we think, whatever we say, whatever we do, become a part of ourselves, of our historical existence, of our identity" is impressive...

Is there really "positive existentialism"? If yes, then , there should be moderate and negative ones as well?

regards,

Mehmet

Mazdayasna as an existentialist religion, part 1

Dear Jehan

I would say that Mazdayasna is an existentialist religion. Whatever we think, whatever we say, whatever we do, become a part of ourselves, of our historical existence, of our identity. This is what inspired Nietzsche to use the Zarathushtra character in his work. Nietzsche referred to Zarathushtra as "the original ethicist" in his book "Ecce Homo".

So a good thought leading to a good word leading to a good act turn us into a positive existence. Bad thoughts, words, deeds of course have the opposite effect. There is no need for punishment within such a system. We are rewarding and punishing ourselves through the very acts we commit. Actually, all the Indo-European religions look at actions in this ethical rather than moral way. Please compare with the Hinduist concept of karma if you like.

Ushta
Alexander

2007/9/5, Jehan Bagli <jbagli@rogers.com>:

Dear Friends:

So how is sin atoned for in Zarathustra's system of Sacrifice?

The term sacrifice is often loosely used in religious dialogues. It is used by some, for the offerings and veneration in Zarathushtrian system.

However in the belief system of Asho Zarathusht there is no involvement of Punishment or atonement for an act of deceit or evil deed. A sin is a violation of moral law. In zarathushtrian theology any choice that deviates from the law of Asha, the law of what is good and right for a situation, is

bad and deceitful. The way to set this right is for the person to think through a clear and peaceful mind ( Vohu Manah) and seek for the path of honest and righteous way to handle each situation.

The very responsibility of returning to the quest for Truth lies with the individual and not with any power of the Divine. The way to bring evil to the path of Good is through Good thinking. To learn and evolve (both physically and spiritually) from the mistakes that one makes. For the divine is within each human being and each one of us has the responsibility to act in a way that we can bring the Good Rule ( Khshthra vairya) in close proximity to our Corporeal world. A world, that has been flawed and tinted by the evil and undesirable choices. Thereby not only do mankind tend to be one with God individually, but also help others recognize divine within and make the whole world a better place to live in.

With peace and Guidance from Mazda

Jehan Bagli