Urvan as "self" - and not "soul"...

Dear Ron

This is most interesting.
If we can remove the label "soul" to the term "urvan" and replace it with "self", this would make much more sense. It would amount to one more step in transferring Zoroastrianism from a moralistic to an ethical belief system in the English language. And much closer to the truth of Zarathushtra's intentions.
Don't you agree?

Ushta
Alexander

2009/2/3 ztheist

Ushta Dino

Well :)! I do believe that the Bible in its 2 versions of NT and OT
give an answer to what the soul is , alas! the 2 answers are
different! But still they are answers. The OT's nephesh is living
creatures, the life force there of. IE what makes one be alive.
Strangely the Vulgata in Latin agrees translating it as anima. It
stands precisely for that. However the NT was written in Koine Greek
and soul there is Psuche a cognate of Psyche and therefore something
like mentality

So one answer would imply that the soul either lives on after death
(or not) but cannot manifest that life lacking a body Or is the mental
nature of a self which might or might not survive bodily separation.
Now you might not like these answers but they are there.

Interestingly urvan who many translate as soul its said to literally
refer to the part of a being that is concerned with making a choice.
In other words, it includes the will and the ego and its consciousness
of ethics or conscience. Because of,I prefer to translate it as self.

By the way I have not read all of helen's messages but I have yet to
eadr one in which she depicts after life as seating in a garden, :):)

Ushta te
Ron

Plato and the Persians

Dear Dino and Ron

I believe we have to credit PERSIAN thought with the origin of both monism and dualism.
My point is that one does not make sense without the other. They share origin as the very definition of one includes the other as its dialectical opposite (there is no point in talking about men unless you also have women in mind, etc).
In Greek thought, Plato was the great dualist and Heraclitus was the great monist. Both were clearly inspired by Persian philosophy (for good or bad, Greece was a small country and Persia its neighboring empire at the time).
Whether Zarathushtra is a monist or a dualist is something we can discuss forever, regardless of which he was clearly a rather sophisticated sort. So Zoroastrian culture has always included both interpretations and seems all the richer for it. It is after all more of an intellectual exercise debating the issue and not really an important division. out ethics (rather than our moralism) and our beliefs in a conscious or non-conscious or even non-existant after-life is not dependent on the monist/dualist discussions.
So Plato may have learned from the Persians, or rather, that is quite likely (even Zoroastrianism's total opposite Manicheism has Persian origin) even though his heriarchization is un-Zoroastrian. Ideas are not superior to physical existence, regardless of whether they are of the same substance or not, they are of equal value. Mazda and Ahura are of the same value, only together do they have value to begin with.

Ushta
Alexander

2009/2/2 special_kain

Dear Ron,

Very well put!!!
I'm sorry I can't comment on the Zarathushtra-Plato connection. I
don't know if there was any. But I don't think that we should stress
any dualism between heaven and earth, because Asha applies to all
which is. So there's no major difference between any worlds.

Ushta,
Dino

--- In Ushta@yahoogroups.com, "ztheist" wrote:
>
>
> Ushta Dino
>
> No I am not , but if there is a mental dimension or plan , ... maybe
> they could. I believe Plato was highly influenced by Zarathushtrian
> thought, but that he adapted z thought to other beliefs that have
> nothing to do with Z.
>
> In general , while I may agree that Z treats abstract ideas as persons
> or personalities, which in turn have led some to a greater reality
> made up of live ideas, I think that what Z is doing is something else.
> First he teaches by a unique method, inference. He infers, hints and
> suggests the same things from totally different angles , like a spider
> weaving a web. In this case, he weaves songs that make up the patterns
> of his doctrine.
>
> So he wants us to think of these abstractions as being alive but alive
> in the sense that they are Objective and part of the Supreme ( ahura)
> Wisdom (mazda) That is one of the things I believe he is saying.
> Another is that he uses these Essences, Aspects and attributes , to
> both show us a the very wide scope of MA's nature plus the immensity
> of His complexity. In other words he is inferring that MA is so
> immensely complex that we can only hope to understand Him/Her through
> understanding His Aspects and Attributes
>
> And again from a different vantage point he is telling us that these
> aspects make up , not the full divinity like Dina suggests, since MA's
> power is never said to given or made accesible to us , BUT his
> ethical nature and its attributes. And, in a less subtle sense, that
> in order to share this ethical nature with our divine 'soul mate'
> (Urvatho) we must choose His/Her Attributes and Essences, which Z
> calls the Fundamental Principles of Life, (latter writers call these
> the now famous Amesha Spenta) by and for ourselves and leave by and
> through them harmonizing , through them , our life choices with Asha
>
> I am a theist unlike many hamdins here, so I would agree, with Helen
> and Dina, let alone with Zaneta, on the very real possibility of life
> continuing after what we call death. And like Dina I don't think this
> is preaching Xianity. In fact it does not teach Xianity anymore that
> believing in Monistic Atheism teaches Buddhism , Hinduism or Taoism,
> for example.
>
> If we are to accept that there is a possibility that Z thought can be
> interpreted as both Monistic Atheism and Panentheistic, or even as,
> Dualistic Theism . Then we must respect those that disagree with one
> or the of these interpretations.
>
> Moreover, I do not believe that Helen has been spreading Xian
> teachings. (obviously her like all Westerners, even atheists, and
> even including me, have been influence by Xianity but, let us remember
> and acknowledge that Buddhists, Hindus and Taoists have been influence
> by a Monist paradigm as well) Again, let's stay away from what
> separates us. We have much common ground and indeed more in common
> than not.
>
> The day you, Helen, I, Alex, or whomever, teaches 'another' religion
> or philosophy from under the covers of Ziism; that would be the day to
> oppose it. But not before and, in her case, I fail to see how Helen is
> teaching Xianity, by just expressing her views on the so called 'after
> life'. Tolerance my dear friends, tolerance.
>
> Ushta te
> Ron

Rituals in everyday life

No no no, there are LOTS of rituals in contemporary Zoroastrianism.
The vast majority of them are meditative. Others are social and connected to the festivals.
But then you also have to understand that for example EATING DINNER in connection to the nowruz or tirigan tables is a ritual in Zoroastrianism. Again, you have to look in places where your western eyes are not trained to see the religion in practice. To a Zoroastrian, merely taking a walk in a park is a religious ritual. Therefore, the minimal need for specific rituals-as-rituals-only.
Ushta
Alexander

- Visa citerad text -
2009/2/2 Helen Gerth

- Dölj citerad text -

Dear Alexander,

Actually, not quite my only reference to be honest...but I do see the difference you are noting....and very much agree...ritual is a focus to bring our mind into a particular state....so the attitude behind it is the most important...but ritual is another whole conversation that doesn't fit here...

I suppose I asked because you made reference to there being some observances in contemporary Zoroastrianism which surprised me as it seemed that one of the significant differences was the lack of ritual...and so I guess I expected there to be few if any beyond the Navjote ceremony...


Ushta te,
Helen :-)

Spirits and memories

Dear Kenneth

It is actually historically a common practice in Zoroastrian culture to "celebrate" the departure of the dead ones (as you all know, we do not have any funerals) not when they literally die but rather 70 years later when their "conscious place in the community" has evaporated. So your ideas seem to have a very strong bearing within Zoroastrian culture and tradition.

Ushta
Alexander

- Dölj citerad text -
2009/2/2 Kenneth Christensen

- Dölj citerad text -

I am a student in Anthropology and hope to be an ethnobotanist. So with my studies I am both a religious scholar and a scientist. The reason why I think after we die our spirits live on in people's minds or memories is because, well let me elaborate.

Let us say there is a man named John who would drink everyday. Yet when his mother died he stoped drinking on sunday because he knew should would not be happy.

This right here says a lot about the power of the memories of the once living.

I personally believe that people like Gandhi, Cyrus, Budha, ect have the most powerful spirits (metaphorically speaking) because they so many people revere and remember them.

Kenneth

The minimalist aesthetics of Zoroastrianism

Dear Helen

Don't get blinded by the many rituals and ceremonies.
Behind the rituals and ceremonies there is an ATTITUDE towards the rituals and ceremonies which is radically different from the Abrahamic religons (which after all is your only reference), an attitude despising the kind of sabbathical "religiosity" prevalent in the Abrahamic faiths (please note that Zoroastrianism does NOT have a sabbath).
Remember that Zoroastrianism aesthetically is a MINIMALIST religion, just like Zen Buddhism. Iranian culture is minimalistic too, similar to Japanese aesthetics. This is all part of the Zoroastrian culture. That's why new age people are not attracted to Zoroastrianism, all for the better.
This collective ALLERGY against bling bling is grounded within the faith itself. Just like Zen is in Japan and Chan is in China. It speaks volumes about the religion and its beliefs.

Ushta
Alexander

2009/2/2 Helen Gerth

Dear Alexander,

We are very similar in our conclusions on the purpose of life and religion...we do see some differences in using religion but the aims are the same :-)

You said, "This is a religion which is rather suspicious towards the overtly "religious" behavior."
This is a paradoxical statement for me in some ways....I see the more conservative and what I tend to call 'historical/traditional' perspective actually frustrated and angry because they see others in contemporary Zoroastrianism seeking to remove precisely this type of behavior...though I am taking this to mean that this is how you see Zarathushtra's original message to mean...

"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."

One's rituals and practices of this nature should never be laughed at or ignored by anyone...they are sacred if I might use that term...special...the equinoxes and solstices are imbued with an energy that is significant...

Which leads me to ask...there are many rituals and observances in traditional Zoroastrianism that are related to these events are there not?

Which holidays/observances are held in common? Are the dates the same but with just different observance practices or the same or variations...

I am not asking for specifics unless yourself or others are comfortable sharing... many feel that one way to keep others from ridiculing them is not to talk about them (first hand experience)...and others feel that to do so would somehow take away from their special quality...

Ushta te,
Helen

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.

Ushta
Alexander

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,
Helen

Haurvatat

Dear Helen, Dina, Ron

I agree about completion here. The Latin meaning of the word (if English doesn't fully cover the difference from perfection, well then that is beside the point, the terms are Latin and should be viewed as Latin and not English terms). Perfection assumes that there must be a PRIOR FORM to which somehting is moulded in order to become its own idea. A very Platonistic concept. There is no such prior form involved in completion (please remember that Zoroastrians do NOT believe in predestination). I can for example complete my journey (I have reached my destination) which does not assume that the journey was perfect in any way. This is why the translation of "haurvatat" as perfection is both wrong and dangerously misguiding. Mazdayasna is not interested in perfection, it is rather the religion par excellence of movement, change, transformation as metaphysical ideals. In that "completion" is fine for haurvatat while en expression like "being in harmony with itself" may hit the meaning of "haurvatat" even better.

Ushta
Alexander

2009/1/31 ztheist

Ushta Helen

These are eureka moments! Ziism has a term Chisti , something like a
spark, that means, an intuitional moment and or conception. Haurvatat
is something else It is a goal and a tool at the same timeIt is
something like what salvation means to Christians Its like fulfilling
one's potential . Perfection implies spotlessness, absolutenes of
realization, and that is not in the cards in this plane of existence.
Now, in the next dimension ... well in the next we do not know for
sure ... but I will say that when we do reach full Completion and
'cross' the Chinvat, we will know as we are known ...

Ushta te
Ron

--- In Ushta@yahoogroups.com, Helen Gerth wrote:
>
> Ushta te,
>
> Would not perfection be the attainment of such fullness of
expression as you define below? I've always thought of those
'perfect' moments in life as such because an act drew together all of
the threads into a silent meaningful whole, a harmonious blending of
various sensory inputs and thought, a fullness of a gleam of light
across the water for example that brings all the potential within them
to fruition.... if even only for a brief moment a reaction in us of
full appreciation and/or understanding..
>
> they are the moments that stop us in our tracks....
>
> Helen