Who created the scientist?

2009/7/16 Georgios Papadopoulos


There is no "before the Big Bang", no before (as we understand it) before the creation of our world. Our brain cannot conceive the state of the universe at the moment of its creation. If there is a creator, he is obviously not bound by the limits of his creation. If you don't believe in a creator it's all right with me, but this is just as speculative as to believe there is one. You cannot prove or disprove the existence of a creator through solid science.







Is that really so?
Or is that just the sloppy traditional agnostic argument which really doesn't hold?
Your seem to put an EQUAL burden of proof on two arguments when in reality there is no such equal burden of proof.
If I claim that there is a Santa Claus living on the ice of Greenland, then the evidence of proof is NOT equal between you and me. I who have made the claim has to show the evidence, you need to do absolutely nothing but can call me an idiot until I have proven I'm right: Which I of course never will be able to.
The claim that there is a PERSONAL CREATOR behind the existence of The Universe is an equally idiotic statement until it is proven to be correct. But it is not a default position in a debate. Rather it just reveals the enormous need for a father figure, for a control over chaos, a banal urge, within the person who makes the statement.
This is why agnosticism never works in a debate. Because behind every argument presented, there is a PERSON with a specific need and a specific agenda. Statements do not exist without subjects. Which was precisely Zarathushtra's point: If you have your mind set on TRUTH and not on FALSITY, there will be a qualitative difference in your arguments, the very basics for science too. You and the statement are one with each other! That's Zoroastrianism!
Ushta
Alexander

Life is sacred - and does not need spirituality!

Dear Mehran

I actually believe Parviz is a lot lot smarter than you give him credit for.
The problem with your worldview is not so much that you insist on a soul separate from the body despite the fact that you can't prove that it exists (even less tell us why we would need it to begin with).
The problem is your concept of "spiritual life".
What if there is just life? What if there is no spiritual life besides life? What if life is just life and we sometimes experience life as spiritual and sometimes as if it isn't, but that it is all allong the very same life?
You see, you're trying to introduce a spiritual life that is SUPERIOR to all other forms of life.
But this is where we have to stop you in your tracks and protest. Because there is no such ideas of a spiritual life superior to all other forms of life in Zoroastrianism. That is a Muslim and not a Zoroastrian idea.
Do you follow me?
To us, LIfe is sacred, be it inside a television or a human body, that does not matter. Life is sacred!

Ushta
Alexander

2009/7/11 MoobedyAr Mehran Gheibi
- Dölj citerad text -



Dear Parviz
dorood
The thing that you are trying to explain by the example of T.V., is called ahoo or jAn, it is not spiritual life (maiinyoo).
Dear Parviz playing tricky play with words does not solve your proble, If you have any please give some logical question.

Nik-o shAd bAshid
KhodA negahdAr,
MoobedyAr MehrAn Gheibi.
Kerman_Iran




--- On Sat, 7/11/09, Parviz Varjavand wrote:


From: Parviz Varjavand
Subject: [Ushta] Afterlife of a television
To: ushta@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, July 11, 2009, 9:55 AM



I once watched a television die and it was a gruesome experience. I knew the television had problems and several TV repair persons had told me what the problems with it were, but the damn thing was alive and showing me pictures just before it died on me. Then BANG, the damn thing died on me and refused to show me pictures anymore. The same exact television was there and looked exactly like the live one that was working one second ago right before my eyes, but it was dead now.

I lifted my hands to the skies and cried, "O, where have you gone my dear television". "I hope that they have put your soul that is not with its body anymore in the Tane-passin of another wonderful television set in that afterlife area that televisions go to when they die". After crying a lot and asking such questions, I got used to the idea that my television was dead and took it to the dumps.

Parviz

Pantheism in Zoroastrianism (rather than Atheism)

Dear Rory

Exactlly!!! And Blind Faith it is, nevertheless!
Contrast this with Zarathushtra and The Gathas: Zarathushtra NEVER speaks of himself as infallible, he never speaks of himself as the sole bearer of the truth. His mssage is instead a message of meta-truth, a message of how Truth can be found and then followed. So what Zarathushtra set out to do was to formulate a PATHOS for us to follow to find our OWN ETHOS through which we become the very people we are to ourselves. His message is therefore strictly ethical and never moralizing.
And when Zarathushtra was confronted with questions he could not answer, he would just throw his arms up in the air, and admit "I do not know". Followed by a curious: "But let us find out!".
You can't be further from the Judeo-Christian belief in complete revelation than that.
Yes, there is SOMETHING we refer to as The Universe rather than Nothing. And that Something is worthy of our celebration and worship precisely because it exists. Actually, that is what our very bodies, our genes, scream for us to do, to celebrate existence as such.
The question is rather: Why did anybody ever attempt to build philosophy or religion on anything else? ;-)

Ushta
Alexander

2009/7/12 roryyoung15



Dear Dino,

Not only does Catholicism follow the usual Christian idea of Faith to be Trust or Belief in God, but also takes the terms "A priori" and "A posteriori" and warps them to apply as well. So not only is there the usual "blind faith" but also the so-called "rational" ideal of faith. One basically has to accept revelation as being post God's "experience"! Sounds insane but that is how they do it: if a point of doctrine can be obviously/rationally explained it is "A posteriori" which they equate to the reasoned part of the belief system and if it is a point of "revelation" or "mystery" then it is "A priori" for man but "A posteriori" for God (and Angels) and therefore reasonable and to be accepted. So, they don't see it as blind faith.
Of course their definition of "A priori" and "A posteriori" are of course wrong...

Ushta, Rory

--- In Ushta@yahoogroups.com, Special Kain wrote:
>
> Dear Rory,
>
> I agree 90%!!! I'm just not that much into Catholicism, and have never been. ;-)
> As a matter of fact, we even strongly reject blind faith as part of Druj. Asha is whatever is true (science), right (ethics) and genuine (art), that is, we're ethically obliged to pursue the truth relentlessly. This pursuit of the truth goes hand in hand with intellectual integrity. So blind faith has no place in Zoroastrianism.
>
> Ushta, Dino

Drug (ab)use and Zoroastrianism

Dear Dino

I believe Mehran actually agrees with me that your "liberal view" is very Zoroastrian.
As long as you enjoy yourself and do not harm creation, you can in principle use as many drugs as you like.
But drug abuse is an entirely different matter. When the drug takes over your mind and disrupts it, you are denying yourself your right and your sacred duty to nurture your personality. We do love sobriety, you know, the sober mind is sacred to us.
So as Zoroastrians we are obliged to help all those people who end up in self-abuse.
But use and abuse are entirely different matters. Just remember that we don't moralize in Zoroastrianism. Which is why all the fine wines of Iran were produced by Zoroastrians and not by Muslims. They miss out on all the fun. They only serve vinegar on their poorer nowruz tables. We have excellent wines served.
And then we have not even begun to speak of the proud practice of haoma. ;-)

Ushta
Alexander

2009/7/11 MoobedyAr Mehran Gheibi



Dear Dino
dorood
As I have taught from gAthA, some of your words in this letter is in accordance with zartosht'e teaching and one part is not.
Upon gAthA evey one is free to do everything that he/she wants, but as far as results in no harm to others, even world. Sicene and scientist having good mind are the reference /authority that recognizes when a thing is starting to be harmful...
If we say it is not in concern of ous, it would be harmful too. All persons are responsible and this responsibility is universal, not local.

Nik-o shAd bAshid
KhodA negahdAr,
MoobedyAr MehrAn Gheibi.
Kerman_Iran




--- On Fri, 7/10/09, Special Kain wrote:


From: Special Kain
Subject: [Ushta] Drug (ab-)use and Zoroastrianism
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, July 10, 2009, 4:02 PM


Dear friends,

On one hand, living every day to the fullest enjoying ourselves is sacred to us, since we're obliged to love this world as it is and rejoice at being part of it. On the other hand, longevity is part of the Amesha Spenta, and we're obliged to cultivate constructive habits, rather than destructive habits.
Now there's a thin line between drug use and drug abuse. I have no problem whatsoever with anyone who does any drugs in any way. I don't care whether someone's on drugs or not if they're trying to screw up my life or interfere with my plans. I experimented with drugs when I was younger, and one day it wasn't interesting anymore. Quitters usually have very negative views on drugs, but I don't. I neither glamourize nor demonize drugs - it would be irresponsible. I'd support rational drug education, if anything. Fortunately, we have that in Zurich.
Would Zarathushtra share my liberal views? How would he, according to your opinion, react to drug use? Is the distinction between use and abuse plausible at all?

Ushta, Dino

The Body/Soul Divide

Dear Iris

No, your reasoning is actually extremely illogical.
The fact that a body can exist WITHOUT a soul does not in any way prove that a soul can exist without a body. Rather the other way round. The fact that one thing is independent of another thing does not in any way say anything about the opposite.
Rather I would say that there is no soul, there is just a body. And that body can be switched on (appear to include a soul) or be switched off (appear to contain no soul). But there can be no light without the lamp.
THAT is logical.
The whole idea of a soul separate from the body is Egyptian. It's just not harbored in Indo-European thought. We have to stop read Zarathushtra as if he was an Egyptian. He was not. He was a Central Asian Persian.

Ushta
Alexander

2009/7/9 irisfilpot



Hi

>>If Humans want to have afterlife, then Humans have to create, design and build afterlife themselves.<<

Leaving what one wants or desires aside. This is an observation I have made. I have seen people with bodies who are alive. I have seen bodies that are dead. And I have seen a body where the life is there one second and gone the next. (ie watched someone die.)
I read alot about soul not existing separate from the body, life isn't separate from the body etc. But we all agree that there are bodies that have no life in them when they did at one time. Bodies exist without life and they exist with life. I have to wonder why I would decide from this observation that life can not exist without a body? It seems more logical to conclude to me that life exists without a body in the same way a body can exist without life. Life isn't something we see in a tangible way, but we can tell the difference between a dead body and a living one.

--- In Ushta@yahoogroups.com, SHAHROOZ ASH wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear Friends,
>
> Hope all is well and good.
>
>
>
> If Humans want to have afterlife, then Humans have to create, design and build afterlife themselves.
>
> With Vohu-Mana and Mazda, all things are possible.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Heaven and Immortality
>
> By Shahrooz Ash
>
> Any idea in the human mind can become a reality for human.
> Every idea in the human mind will become a reality by human's own doing.
> All humans need, is the knowledge and wisdom to make the idea real.
> Heaven and Immortality is only an idea, yet to become a reality.
> So with knowledge and wisdom, heaven and Immortality, can become reality.
> The creator left the world unfinished, so that man can play a role in it, by finishing it.
>
> Human existence is necessary for this dream to become a reality.
> If humans obtain this knowledge in the distant future,
> Then they can resurrect every person who had existed in the past.
> They can enter the new creation, Heaven, which is perfect.
> A dominion where death and imperfection will no longer exists.
> Heaven is real because it exists in the mind.
> Heaven is real, because it will be actualized one day in the future and become a reality.
> If something does not exist today, then it is possible for it to exist in the future.
> There is no conceptual contradiction in the process and development of the model presented here.
> Hence, Heaven is manmade, and the only god is the wise man, this is a practical way to look at things.
>
> That is why the human mind and wisdom is divine.
> Anything the human mind wants, the mind can create, because the mind has the capacity to do so.
> Nothing is impossible for wisdom, even the creation of the idea of Heaven and Immortality.

Zarathushtra The Magi vs Zoroaster The Magician

Dear Iris

The Greeks turned Zarathushtra (a brilliant philosopher) into Zoroaster (a hocus-pocus wizard from the exotic east). The desire was to make Persians look stupid and irrational.
Zoroastrianism has suffered from this lie ever since. The word "magi" meaning an intelligent thinking pries-philosopher has in Western tongues been turned in the degrading "magician".
So you will soon discover that there is a deep mistrust in the Z community towards attempts from Westerners to turn Zaratushtra into a "mysical magician" or anything even resembling that.
But a transrationalist "mysticism" WITHIN Zarathushtra's understanding of the world as both Science and Art (but not hocus-pocus), sure, go ahead, many Mazdayasni are developing that, I'm all for it!
But then take yourself as inspiration, leave the guy in The Gathas with HIS own words and deeds.

Ushta
Alexander

2009/7/1 irisfilpot



Hi

>>A rationalist mysticism<<

I think Zartuch, Zoroaster, Mr. Z was doing that. I don't think there is major writings on it because mysticism was status quo at his time. Why would anyone write down the obvious? What he was bringing was rationality which then let's mysticism not range into the artifical and bizarre.


--- In Ushta@yahoogroups.com, Alexander Bard wrote:
>
> Dear Iris
>
> If you want to call this mysticism, THEN Zoroastrianism certainly has a
> mysticism.
> This is all fine with us, but here the word "mysticism" and also
> "illumination" seems to have been applied onto something which is rarely
> referred to as mystic or illuminating anywhere else.
> But her, why not develop a Zoroastrian mysticism according to these ideas? A
> rationalist mysticism? I'm all for it, it's creative!!!
>
> Ushta
> Alexander
>
> 2009/7/1 irisfilpot

>
> >
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > Do you all disagree with this article?
> > http://www.zarathushtra.com/z/article/zmysticism.htm

Meditation, self-actualization, consumerism

We have to understand the CONTEXT of Zarathushtra's words.
What we refer to as "prayer" is a Judeo-Christian concept.
But Zarathushtra's prayers are left UNANSWERED.
Now, think for a minute. Why do you think this is?
Simpky because in Mazdayasni thought THE QUESTION is of central interest, not the answer.
Because we address issues and WE solve the issues with our own creativity and take pride in doing so. Identifying ourselves with our creative solutions is not only independent, this is exactly what is sacred to Zarathushtra.
Then look at Zoroastrian culture:
Do you find any monks and nuns? No. Any monastreries? No. Any hermits? Any pyramids? No.
Putting together Zarathushtra's focus on questions as POSSIBILITIES for creative expression rather than PROBLEMS requiring outside supernatural help with Zoroastrian cultural behavior and it all makes sense.
It's just radically different from what we are used to read, think or see...
Having said this, a MYSTICISM within these confines makes sense. Go ahead and develop your thoughts and actions! A mysticism that digs deeper into our obsession with the here and now, with nature, with reality, sure this could be fabulous practiced Mazdayasna.
Ushta
Alexander

2009/7/2 Special Kain



Dear Iris,

Yes, it's New Age esotericism that is shaping the notion of mysticism, unfortunately. That's why I wrote WESTERN Buddhism. I agree that mysticism already existed long before 19th century occultism (as did occultism). But that's not the point. We're children of our times, thus our cultural situation is always an influence when looking back in time.
Ahura simply is existence as such: the amazing fact that there is something rather than nothing. Mazda is the mind, our mental faculties, wisdom and knowledge. So was Zarathushtra worshipping an astral entity called "Mazda" or the fact that people are able to philosophize and draw conclusions? There are both interpretations. But I'm sticking to the interpretation dear to philosophers and scientists like myself.

Ushta, Dino


--- irisfilpot schrieb am Do, 2.7.2009:


Von: irisfilpot

Betreff: [Ushta] Re: Meditation, self-actualization, consumerism
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Donnerstag, 2. Juli 2009, 17:59

Hi

The drift I am kind of getting is that Mr.Z's idea was to use the rational mind to create good and perpepuate good. That he was taking contemplation and meditation past just thinking and transforming it into action. Bringing in the idea of social responsibility.
I can't separate the idea of prayer and mysticism in my mind. Mr. Z seems to be asking a force outside himself for answers. Asking from something that is beyond the physical reality.
Like this line
"Accept O Mazda the homage of thy faithful worshipper." Part of yasna 33:8
I can't agree that mysticism is from the 19th century onwards. People have been practicing it for centuries. Religious texts encourage contemplation etc. MAybe if you want to say The New Age brand of mysticism is from the 19th century, but that would just be a different take on something already practiced.

--- In Ushta@yahoogroups. com, Special Kain wrote:
>
> Dear Iris,
>
> It's my experience that our current understanding of mysticism is also heavily influenced by 19th century occultists's investigations. It's not only thanks to scholars and American self-help literature that mysticism has spread in Europe. Frankly, I don't see any of that mysticism in the Gathas, but there certainly are several Zoroastrians that do, since we're the children of our times. There's also cultural exchange, so Eastern mysticism may have influenced Zoroastrianism at a later stage. Mysticism is about contemplating, not necessarily acting. Zoroastrianism is a lot more activist in nature than Buddhism and Daoism.
> But we can add anything to our daily practice that increases our understanding and enjoyment of life, so there's nothing wrong with taking inspiration from mysticism. Since mysticism can never be rationalist, our only option is to take mysticism to a transrationalist level.
>
> Ushta, Dino