How does one define a religion?

Dear Helen
The concept of religion was invented by Europeans as a distinction against the world of philosophy.
Religion comes from the Latin word for "reconnection".
So Zoroastrianism is not really a religion at all but a complex set of beliefs and cultural codes.
But it is comfortable for Eruopeans to refer to Zoroastrianism as a "religion" because then they can maintain the myth that the Greeks invented "thinking" 1,200 years after Zarathushtra.
Ushta
Alexander

2009/3/3 Helen Gerth

Dear all,

What is the definition of a religion....and how does Zoroastrianism meet this definition?

Up front I will say that I have no expectations...and I realize that there will be numerous different answers...

Thank you for indulging me if you have time or interest...

Ushta te,
Helen

Guiding principles...

Dear Helen

What you seem to be missing is a Zoroastrian MORALITY.
But there is no such thing. Zoroastrians have SUCCESSFULLY lived without a morality for 3,700 years and seeing the misery morality has caused to their neighbors they certainly have no desire whatsoever to introduce a baseless morality NOW. We ahve no ten commandments and there is a REASON for that. It is also a cause of our immense pride.
Rather, Zoroastrians are ETHICAL people, even obsessed with ethics.
You are what you think, you are what you say, you are what you do. If you think, speak and act differently from what you DESIRE to be, then go ahead and CHANGE your thoughts, language and actions. That's Zarathushtra's message in a nutshell that we repeat and meditate over again and again, every day of our lives.
That's all. Now you just need to learn to live with that (or in your case, learn to UNDERSTAND that).
If you miss morality that much (since morality makes life easy to live, but ultimately a fake life) then go somewhere else. The world is full of stupid moralisms. They will welcome you with open arms with their "ready-to-go" religions. But to us the question and the answer remain:
- What is the right or the wrong to do?
- Well, that always DEPENDS ON THE SITUATION.
That's ethics for you, hardcore Zoroastrian ethics!!!

Ushta
Alexander

2009/3/3 Helen Gerth

Dear Dino,

You say "But there are certain guidelines and ideas
that I'm attracted to..."

My sense often is of a contemporary Zoroastrianism that has exceptionally few guidelines when it is described by some....and sometimes your discussions seem more like you see Zoroastrianism as something that you can select parts as from as a philosophy rather than a religion...it lends a 'flavor' of a religion with few if any tenets or guides....

I see Asha presented in discussions as a guiding principle...but there is nothing but one's own internal sense of right and wrong for a compass...

Celebrating 'Mind' and one's own right to ethical choice and making 'good' choices is a guiding principle....but there is no clear definition of 'good' as a compass since it is up to individual interpretation...and the consequences one might be willing to tolerate are different from another's....

If you were to finish the manifesto that was started and post it on the intro to the group...what would it consist of as a clear statement of guiding principles?

These are of course the thoughts of someone who is looking for a clear cut definition of Contemporary Zoroastrianism as some see it here...and of course there may not be one as from the outside the sense I have of some discussions here is that it is in a process of transformation and is constantly evolving...though of course there are some here who have very concrete definitions of what Zoroastrianism is for them.....

Alexander - Is this perhaps something that could be set down and posted on the intro??

Ushta te,
Helen

Mind vs Wisdom (What is Mazda?) Part 3

Arthur is absolutely right and Parviz can rest assured that there is a dramatic difference between the experiments of Aleister Crowley and the ethics of Zarathushtra. Zarathushtra goes way beyond "do what you will". My point is that there is no contradictition in Zarahushtra's message: Zarathushtra is obsessed BOTH with the fact that there is something rather than nothing (and that that which exists has a value precisely because it exists) which is what he refers to as ASHA (and celebrates as asha) and with the fact that we can make choices that we identify with (ethics rather than moralism) and there we should as Zoroastrians and Civilizationists celebrate the GOOD choices over the bad, nurturing a constructive and joyful mentality rather than a destructive and depressed mentality. This is celebrating Ahura Mazda.
Ushta
Alexander

2009/3/2 special_kain

Dear Arthur,

That's all part of what choosing authenticity and making authentic
choices means to me. :-)
You can't make authentic choices without drawing distinctions or
considering others making equally authentic choices. And reality would
be one giant blurred mess, if we didn't draw any distinctions (see
Spencer-Brown and Luhmann, for example).

Ushta,
Dino


--- In Ushta@yahoogroups.com, Arthur Pearlstein wrote:
>
> Friends,
> Zarathustra's philosophy goes beyond doing what " we wilt." I believe
> the key is in the importance he places in the making of distinctions ,
> particularly between creative and destructive thoughts/words/deeds.
> The capacity to make these critical distinctions is an essential part
> of what it is we celebrate in mind, is it not? Is this not why
> Alexander has (correctly) referred to Zarathushtra as the first
> "civilizationist?" We celebrate the existence of mind, yes for sure.
> We identify our desires. But we test our desires in light of these
> distinctions, understanding that there are an awful lot of other
> people doing "what they wilt." Appreciating and applying these all
> important distinctions is what I think is meant by vohuh manah, good
> mind.
> Ushta,
> Arthur

Change is good in itself!

Dear Dino and Dina

Dinos is saying that change is good in itself.
Dino is right.
Dina is arguing that all change is not good in itself.
But that is not what Dino said.
There is a dramatic difference between saying that "change is good in itself" and saying that "all change is good in itself". Does Dina agree with me here?

Ushta
Alexander

2009/2/28 special_kain

Dear Dina,

Please be assured that I don't disagree with you. All I said was that
change is good in itself, which means that we shouldn't demonize
contingency. Life is unfair, but should this make me feel miserable?
Would it help anybody if I felt miserable? I don't think so.
I didn't say that all outcomes of every change are good or that we
should accept the status quo as it is. If you want to change things
for the better, I don't have a problem with that - quite the opposite!
Because Zoroastrianism is the religion of creative openness: We're
encouraged to actively participate in the creating of this world.

Ushta,
Dino

--- In Ushta@yahoogroups.com, DINAMCI@... wrote:
>
> Dear Dino,Â
>
>
>
> I doubt that all change is good in itself. Â To give you some
extreme examples: Â Lenin took over control of the Russian revolution

from the Trotskyites and instituted a repressive regime. That was
change. Â Khomeini's intolerant theocracy took over control of the

Iranian revolution from its secular leaders who wanted to institute a
democratic form of government. Â That was change. Â Not all change is

good.
>
>
>
>
> I also must offer friendly disagreement when you question why we
need a purpose or goal (implicit in the notion of evolving or growing
towards a wholly spenta way of being). Â Acceptance of the status quo

means that we accept all the wrong choices that cause humans misery
and suffering -- injustice, cruelty, fraud, oppression, et cetera. Â I

accept that such things exist, but I cannot accept that I should not
do what I can (in however small a way) to try to change such
destructive conditions, and at least try to alleviate the suffering
they bring about.
>
>
>
>
> Wishing us the best,Â
> Dina G. McIntyre

Mind vs Wisdom (What is Mazda?) Part 2

Dear Dina
Of course there is no celebration of the harmful mind in Zoroastrianism. I never said such a thing.
But neither is there a celebration of the constructive mind only either. Not as a pre-programmed mind that can not choose. You may want that to be the case, for simplicity's sake, but that is not what you find in The Gathas.
What Zarathushtra celebrates is the EXISTENCE of mind and its capacity to choose. This is what the term "Mazdayasna" literally means!
It is the FREEDOM of the mind which we celebrate. Otherwise we could just celebrate robots who can do no wrong. And what's the point with that? It's a dead and unimaginative religion. The beauty is that there IS a mind and that this mind CHOOSES. The outcome of the choice is secondary and not what we celebrate as Mazdayasni.
Just like you as a parent should not celebrate that your child does exactly what you want but that the child does what the child wants to do with his or her own life.
Ushta
Alexander

2009/2/28


Dear Alexander,

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. There is no celebration of a destructive, harmful, inimical mind in Zarathushtra's thought.

I know we all like to gasp in admiration at the ability of a human being to think, to reason -- priding ourselves that this places us at the apex of existence. Well, sure, the ability to think is indeed a great capability. But it is only one of many great tools available for the growth (or evolution) of life forms. Imagine a person who could "think" but not feel any emotion. You would have a robot -- not exactly the apex of existence.

True, as Zarathushtra uses the term mind, it includes not only such things as rationality, judgment, analysis, etc. but also such as emotions, creativity, et cetera. But even with such an expanded idea of 'mind' -- it is still capable of both "good" activities, as well as destructive or harmful activities.

It is not mind, but a good mind (vohu manah) that is celebrated in Zarathushtra's thought.

It is not being (mainyu) but a benevolent way of being (spenta mainyu) that is celebrated in Zarathushtra's thought.

Wishing us the best,

Dina G. McIntyre.



-----Original Message-----
From: Alexander Bard
=0 ATo: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Cc: zoroastrians@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 7:19 am
Subject: [zoroastrians] Mind vs Wisdom (what is Mazda?)

Dear Dina

I must offer friendly but immediate disagreement.
It is true that Mind can be used for both good and bad.
But what we mean with the concept of Mazdayasna is that THE VERY EXISTENCE of Mind in itself is what is worth celebrating.
It is the existence of mind which is sacred to us, not what these minds produce. And there is an enormous difference between the capacity of something and the outcome of something.
So it is indeed MIND we mean with Mazda and not wisdom even though wisdom is of course preferrable to nonsense.

Ushta
Alexander

Change vs. final events of history (part 2)

Dear Ron

Very well said. I agree with you on just about everything you say below.
I would just be a bit careful to refer to The Gathas as a text of teleology or eschatology.
Sure, if we read The Gathas with our post-Abrahamic and post-progessivist glasses we would easily be tempted to think of The Gathas asa teleological and partly also as an eschatological text.
But the emphasis on our free will and the ethics originating from our free will contradicts that history should be determined in any strong sense. Which is why (and you don't have to agree with me here) see the eschatology as poetic and perhaps possible rather than determinated and definite.
So I would say that there is a weak teleology at play and a weak determinism if anything in Zoroastrianism, tied to the concept of asha (which does not mean "truth" as in "scientific truth" but rather "truth beyond truth" or "noumenal truth", "how things really work beyond our knowledge of things"). This leaving the perfect room for the ethical identity of BEING the Mazdayasni who wants to do good, who wants to co-create the future world and identify with this world as such.

Ushta
Alexander

2009/2/27 ztheist
- Dölj citerad text -



Dear Alex & Dino, Ushta!

In this field, the field of historical events and change, we are all
arguing from insufficient verifiable knowledge, we lack certainty and
such is the nature of the beast, because, we are dealing in areas that
cannot be reproduced either in toto or, in some ways, in particular.
Instead of speaking of truth and certainty we ought to be speaking of
validity, possibility, likelihood, probability.

However, I have 2 things to say. Change based on free will can be
used for denying the free will of others and that change, IMO, cannot
be termed as good as it is at odds with itself (I am not talking of
abstract change caused by physical laws)that is if we accept the idea,
( which I do) that Alex hints at, of linking free will to change as
one of its agents.

The other thing I want to state is that, IF, we are discussing the
Gathas and what they say (regardless of whether it is , or we think it
is, ultimately true or not) then there is no question that there is
teleology and, perhaps, escathology as well, in the Gathas. I mean
there is just too many passages that explicitly support this.

IMO, the fact that change may subjectively seem purposeless to us does
not, necessarily, mean that there is not a general and objective
purpose at work nevertheless. Bear with me for a second. If we but
realize, that there are different fields of change ... I mean the fact
that some day the star we call the Sun will become a red giant , is
change, yet, it seems to be programmed as one of the possible outcomes
of a star's existence. Programmed, in the sense that we are observing
many stars that have undergone a set number of changes that are
identical to observations of change in other stars, that is.

Wow! Is this then determinism? No its what is possible and is within
Asha! That is Asha sets the possible variations of change. It is the
framework within change occurs! Furthermore outside the physical laws
Z posits ethical principles : The Fundamental Principles of Life or,
as Jafarey calls them, the Primal Principles of Life. These were later
reduced and joined together into what the latter religion calls Amesha
Spentas , and are Principles and Goals but also essences and/or
Attributes of MA.

In other words, since change can only occur within Asha and since
through the application, the rule if you will, of these ethical
Fundamental Principles of Life, ethical change (again according to Z)
can be directed , how can we then rule out a directed good outcome,
eventually, just because the means of achieving it may seen to
indirect, unrelated and subjective to us?

The thing is, though, that this ethical change depends on our informed
and free choices. If this change is not forthcoming or its not
forthcoming with due diligence, we may find that, as a species, we
might just run out of time. Because one thing we know, (Again,
according to Z)) this reality is unstable and finite (In the sense
that it lacks a Ameretat)

Thus, it all comes back on us. Its WE that have to make the choices We
have been giving the 'tools' to achieve MA likeness, we can't blame MA
if we are just too ignorant , too selfish or too lazy to do what is
needed.

Ushta te
Ron


--- In Ushta@yahoogroups.com, Alexander Bard wrote:
>
> Dear Dino
>
> I completely agree with you, and on both accounts.
> I would say that strong determinism (which teleology and eschatology
> require) is incompatible with any notions of freedom of choice.
Teleology is
> a Judeo-Christian-Islamic idea which I find no basis for in
Zoroastrianism.
> Zarathushtra of course presents many ethical IDEALS in The Gathas
which he
> recommends that we follow, but he most of all insists on our ultimate
> freedom (and our identity as free entities and co-creators of
existence) as
> the absolute essence of his non-moralizing ethics.
> We need to understand the difference here between dogma and poetry.
And see
> the grand overall picture.
>
> Ushta
> Alexander
>
> 2009/2/26 special_kain

>
> > Dear friends,
> >
> > Maybe Zarathushtra believed in the perfection of the world at the end
> > of time, maybe he didn't. But let's see if teleology and eschatology
> > really make any sense in the light of modern science.
> > Teleology states that everything that has happened so far and
> > everything that is currently going on is directed at one final result.
> > Everything matters, everything has a purpose that is causally related
> > to the perfection of the world at the end of time. Just think of
> > something that is continually getting better. This is similar to
> > eschatology, which is a little more religious in nature and can be
> > found in Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, the 17th century Enlightement
> > movement and even transhumanism. There's a linear progress towards a
> > goal set by God, nature, people's inner needs etc. So paradise is not
> > only a possibility, it's the future that we're heading into. Now some
> > of us think that this is also part of Zarathushtra's message, others
> > don't. I'm one of those who disagree in general with such
> > eschatological views, and I'd like to explain why.
> > Firstly, evolution is a non-directed process. There's coincidence
> > (variation and mutation) and necessity (selection), but there's no
> > goal, no purpose, no planning involved. Secondly, societies evolve
> > discontinuously. We never know in what kind of society our children
> > will be living in. We cannot anticipate the future of our society, we
> > can merely guess and discuss how plausible certain trends and
> > countertrends are. In this sense the world is creatively open. All we
> > have is a tangle of non-directed and interrelated changes and events.
> > It's a limitlessly creative process with no clear beginning and no
> > clear end. Any social theory that is saying otherwise has been
> > falsified in the past 20 years. So it seems that there are no
> > metaphysically predetermined or desired final events. All we have is
> > change, which is good in itself, because we're obliged to enjoy and
> > worship existence as such.
> > Any comments?
> >
> > Ushta,
> > Dino // slowly waking up

The depth of play - according to Zarathushtra and Nietzsche

I absolutely agree.
The Avesta arrived to Germany in the 1850s and Nietzsche was actually a professor of philology and not of philosophy. So he knew perfectly well WHY he chose Zarathushtra was his character Zarathustra, as he also later confessed in his book "Ecce Homo". Zarathushtra was the inventor of ethics, according to Zarathushtra. There is nothing deeper than "play" according to both Zarathushtra and Nietzsche.
Ushta
Alexander

2009/2/26 special_kain

If we see the universe and all of existence as a tangle of such
non-directed and interrelated, we can develop a playful child's
attitude - the child that Nietzsche described as the third stage
(after the camel and the lion) in "Also sprach Zarathustra". And since
life is an open-end process, I like to think of Zoroastrianism as the
religion of creative openness. Creating stimulating environments for
like-minded people is far better than accepting things as they are. So
I say that DEFEATISM is the opposite to Zoroastrianism.