Zoroastrians in Turkey?

Dear George and Bahman

I agree that it is a pity that people in Turkey apparently have to declare their religious affiliation.
But at least they accept Zoroastrianism as a viable alternative. And Yezidis are of course welcome to declare themselves as Zoroastrians. The Yezidi community in Stockholm often refers to itself here as "Kurdish Zoroastrians".
Thank you for sharing this most interesting news with us, George!

Ushta
Alexander

2009/12/4 Bahman Noruziaan

I did not expect that in secular Turkey also, people need to reveal and declare their religious beleifs.

Bahman

To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
From: sarideve@yahoo.gr
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 17:35:49 +0000
Subject: [Ushta] "Zoroastrian" in Turkey


Dear friends,

I just came across a turkish website. For the first time in Turkey the word "Zarathushtra" was written on an id card (in Turkey religion is declared) for the religion of a person. It's the id card of a Kurd that lives in Turkey and wanted to identify himself as "Yezidi", without success. Instead of Yezidi the officers accepted the name "Zerdust", Zoroaster in Turkish.
You can see the id card on: http://www.zekirdek.com/forum/226729-turkiyede-ilk-din-hanesine-zerdust-yazildi.html

George

The Relativism of Zoroastrian Ethics

Dear George

I'm very glad that we agree. You're a clever guy too. Now follow me for a while, let's do the tango...
Zarathushtra says that we should think constructively as to speak constructively as to act constructively. Furthermore, he says that we ARE what we think, we ARE what we speak, we ARE what we act, so we should identify ourselves with our thoughts, words and actions. And that's it. He leaves it exactly at that.
Please note that nowhere does Zarathushtra say WHAT is constructive. Only that our minds etc must be constructive TO US. Consequently, the constructive mentality is dynamic and ever-changing depending on the circumstances. More to the point, it is constructive in a SUBJETIVE sense and a subjective sense only.
Now, values are either absolute (objectively always valid for all times and environments, such as The Ten Commandments) or relativistic (subjectively valid only, and not for all times or for all environments, only for a specific person here and now). The whole point with Zarathushtra's ethics - which does not deal with any values at all, but only with meta-values - is of course that values are subjective precisely so that we can identify with them. We create ourselves!
So what is it about Zoroastrianism being relativistic that you don't understand?

Ushta
Alexander

2009/12/3 Georgios



Dear Alexander,

You are indeed a very clever person. Why do you return always to the same point?
1) I agree 100% with you, there is no "good" or "bad" in the Gathas, since these are english words.
2) You made your point and I made mine. When did I claim that there are any commandments in the Gathas? Didn't I agree with you on Zarathushtra being an ethicist and not a moralist?
3) Where did I negate? I just asked a simple QUESTION. It's not a negation! Why do you think it's so bad to ask for help from people that know more than me?


George

--- In Ushta@yahoogroups.com, Alexander Bard wrote:
>
> Dear George
> 1. The Gathas was written in Avesta, not in English. So there is definitely
> no good or bad in The Gathas. And asha means "constructive mentality" and
> druj means destructive mentality". What is about that that is so hard for
> you to understand?
> 2. Since you so adamantly insist that Zoroastrianism is not relativistic,
> against every Zoroastrian scholar there is, can you please give me an
> example of ANY moralistic commandment anywhere in The Gathas taht would
> prove your point?
> 3. As I have told you before: It would be helpful if you suggest an
> alternative rather than just negating what others propose on this forum.
> Otherwise, our discussions are not getting anywhere. Calling for others to
> oppose me borders on sociopathy and not on intelligence or integrity of
> debate, dear George! Don't call on others, make your own propositions, make
> your own arguments instead, just don't only negate!
> Enough said.
> Ushta
> Alexander
>
> 2009/12/3 Georgios

>
> >
> >
> > Dear Alexander,
> >
> > I accept your description of Zarathushtra being an ethicist, but I can't
> > understand WHY ethics must be relativistic. We are different persons, with
> > different ideas and different standards, but does this mean that "good"
> > could be defined differently for all of us? If you accept Mehr's definition
> > about "good" then there is no need for relativity. Something can be dynamic
> > without being relativistic. Evolution of the species is an example of a
> > dynamic state: species evolve and there is nothing relativistic about it.
> > There are no commandments due to the principle of Asha, the eternal law of
> > Mazda. We just warned, but the decision is left to us.
> > I can't read avestan, so I'd like to hear it from the experts: in the
> > Gathas isn't there any mention to good or bad? I've always thought that the
> > motto of the 3Gs belongs to Zarathushtra. I would really like to hear more
> > on this.
> > It's all inside our heads, but we are related to other humans too, so for
> > an action to be good or bad, it's dependent to the effect it has on all of
> > us… It's all about actions as well, not just about thoughts…
> >
> >
> > George

The Relativism of Mazdayasna

Dear George
1. The Gathas was written in Avesta, not in English. So there is definitely no good or bad in The Gathas. And asha means "constructive mentality" and druj means destructive mentality". What is about that that is so hard for you to understand?
2. Since you so adamantly insist that Zoroastrianism is not relativistic, against every Zoroastrian scholar there is, can you please give me an example of ANY moralistic commandment anywhere in The Gathas taht would prove your point?
3. As I have told you before: It would be helpful if you suggest an alternative rather than just negating what others propose on this forum. Otherwise, our discussions are not getting anywhere. Calling for others to oppose me borders on sociopathy and not on intelligence or integrity of debate, dear George! Don't call on others, make your own propositions, make your own arguments instead, just don't only negate!
Enough said.
Ushta
Alexander

2009/12/3 Georgios

Dear Alexander,

I accept your description of Zarathushtra being an ethicist, but I can't understand WHY ethics must be relativistic. We are different persons, with different ideas and different standards, but does this mean that "good" could be defined differently for all of us? If you accept Mehr's definition about "good" then there is no need for relativity. Something can be dynamic without being relativistic. Evolution of the species is an example of a dynamic state: species evolve and there is nothing relativistic about it.
There are no commandments due to the principle of Asha, the eternal law of Mazda. We just warned, but the decision is left to us.
I can't read avestan, so I'd like to hear it from the experts: in the Gathas isn't there any mention to good or bad? I've always thought that the motto of the 3Gs belongs to Zarathushtra. I would really like to hear more on this.
It's all inside our heads, but we are related to other humans too, so for an action to be good or bad, it's dependent to the effect it has on all of us… It's all about actions as well, not just about thoughts…

Goodness related to Growth (was: Ethics vs Morality)

What a brilliant posting, Ardeshir!!!
We're looking forward very much to your upcoming postings on this issue on Ushta!
Ushta indeed
Alexander

2009/12/3 ardeshir farhmand



i greatly concur with alexander on most points. in discussing ethics and morality, it is imortant to remeber the root of evil in the gathas. an illuminating passage is Yasna 30.3, 2nd and 3rd line. we have two words here: "akem" meaning "worst," and "vahyö" meaning "better."

it is very important to discuss the 2 words here and their implications. as one of the ancient commenatries points out, "akem" limits the "worst." there is always a bottom for the worst.
yet "vahyö" is ever better, there is no end in sight for how good it can get.

there is a recurring sound play in the gathas between "vah," good, wonderful and "vakhsh," to grow.

Good always gets better, infinitely better because it GROWS in understanding and consciousness. evil is beaten and inflicted (akem) understanding and is static and frozen.
evil has stopped growing,

accordingly, it is the degree of growth in understanding and consciousness or 'bewusstsein" that establishes their difference. i posted an article on facebook before, about a sinister parllel universe and i discussed how in gathic view, remnants of bygones ideas and broken down creations and depleted mental/creative energies that are the source of evil in mazdyasna. they were once divine and stopped growing, thus became inflicted, beaten and broken="akem."

i try to post a more extensive article this weekend and post it here. again i concur greatly with alexander,

ardeshir


On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 12:12 AM, Alexander Bard wrote:



Dear Yezad

Yes, good question, there definitely is. Ever since Baruch Spinoza defined morality as values emanating from a higher power (basically values of a THEOLOGICAL kind) and ethics as values emanating from causes and effects in reality without the involvement of a higher power (the work of PHILOSOPHERS rather than theologians) the two have been kept separate in the world of philosophy. Morality is now a discipline of theology and ethics is what philosophers are concerned with even if the latter category - just to confuse people - often refer to their work as the art of "moral philosophy".
Jurgen Habermas had made a sensible distinction between morality and ethics in a modern context: He defines morality as the opposition of good versus evil and ethics as the opposition of right versus wrong.
The irony in all this is that it means that the common translation of asha versus druj as good versus evil is outright wrong.
When Zarathushtra discusses asha versus druj he DOES define two ethical principles: Right versus wrong and not good versus evil. Or rather Asha means "constructive mentality" and Druj means "destructive mentality".
Spinoza was an ethicist and not a moralist. He wanted humanity to get rid of moralism and replace it with ethics once and for all. Modern philosophers agree. So should we.
Morality is a concern for the Abrahamic religions (The Ten Commandments in The Bible is moralism par excellence). However, religions of a philosohical inclination, like Zoroastrianism, Brahmanism, Buddhism and Taoism do not have morality, they are all ETHICAL belief systems.
In other words: Here is anothe rimportant reason why we do not want Zoroastrianism to be intertwined with the Abrahamic faiths. We don't even share basis for our values and valuations!

Ushta
Alexander

2009/12/3


Dear Dino,

I am a bit perplexed. Is there a distinction between morality and ethics?

Yezad





----- Original Message -----

From: Special Kain
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 8:31 PM
Subject: AW: [Ushta] Zoroastrianism and Stoicism



Dear Tomash,

Welcome to Ushta!!! :-)

We don't have asceticism in Zoroastrianism, so we don't share the Stoics' indifference towards existence, since we're ethically obliged to live our lives to the fullest and develop a constructive and co-creative attitude towards existence.

But, however, Stoicism and Zoroastrianism also have many things in common as you have so intelligently discovered: (1) we want to live in accordance with nature, the universe, Asha, (2) Zoroastrian philosophy is purely ethical and not the slightest bit moralistic, (3) Zarathushtra probably was one of the first rationalists in human history, (4) there are Zoroastrian pantheists and panentheists. The first three points sum up Stoic ethics perfectly, but there's this enjoyment of life and a constructive and proactive mentality in Zoroastrianism that can't be found in Stoic philosophy.

Rather than grow indifferent towards the world around us, we want to contribute creatively and constructively to civilization.

Ushta,
Dino

--- tomispev schrieb am Mi, 2.12.2009:


Von: tomispev
Betreff: [Ushta] Zoroastrianism and Stoicism
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Mittwoch, 2. Dezember 2009, 15:34



Hello,

My name is Tomash, I'm from Serbia (I'm not a Serb however) and I have become very interested in Zoroastrianism after reading the book"Zarathoustra et la transfiguration du monde" by Paul du Breuil, in Serbian translation. Before being introduced to Zoroastrianism I read a lot about Stoicism and thought about becoming a Stoic.

What I am interesting is if someone could help me draw parallels between Zoroastrian and Stoic philosophy, their differences and commonalities. I know for example that Stoics are pantheists and are ruled by a maxim that one should try to live according to nature. They also practice great tolerance and compassion for others. Stoicism has a lot in common with Buddhism actually. It is very logical, a very rationalistic philosophy. But being quite impressed with Zoroastrianism, with Zarathushtra and his teaching, has got me torn between the two philosophies. I have read a Medieval philosopher Gemistus Pletho was also interested in both of them, but his understanding of Zoroastrianism might be just through the teachings of Plato, who he considered to be a reincarnation of Zarathushtra.

I do believe I do not understand much about Zoroastrianism, but I intend to learn as I have been so far.

Pozdrav,
Tomash

Zarathushtra, Spinoza, and the need for intuition and passion to understand The Gathas

Dear Ardeshir and Dino

I believe Dino's point is that for those who do NOT understand the Avesta it is second best to read different translations and preferrably also translations to several different languages to better understand the Gathic text. Train your critical thinking! And Ardeshir is right that a "rationalist interpretation" is not enough since it is based on the incorrect assumption that there is a human ratio to be used while human intuition would be secondary and untrustworthy.

It is of course the other way round. We need rationalism PLUS intuition to grasp The Gathas and Zoroastrian philosophy. This is why "the rationalists" often fall into the trap of interpreting Zoroastrianism as some sort of inferior older take of Abrahamic religion when it in reality is nothing of the sort. You can not understand concepts like "Ahura Mazda", "asha" or "haurvatat" without studying them within context and using both your ratio and your patio when doing so. Meditation on these concepts should be a requirement before pronounving theories on them, to be honest.

Ardeshir, believe it or not, but for many of us the connection to Spinoza is even stronger! Emotional! Most contemporary western converts to Zoroastrianism (like myself, Dino Demarchi, Arthur Pearlstein, and many many others) are all Spinozists who just want to recognize that "Spinozist thinking" did not start with Spinoza or even with any of the Greeks (like Heraklitus) but in Iran 3,700 years ago with Zarathushtra.

This is why we have chosen to convert! Because by becoming a part of Zoroastrianism, Spinozism is no longer just "philosophy" but also becomes a religion. And recognition is long overdue: It was Zarathushtra who originated this whole school of thought. Spinoza was just his "western ambassador" for which we as westerners are all deeply grateful.

Ushta
Alexander

2009/12/3 ardeshir farhmand


Dear Kain

learning gathas or avestan language and their correct prounounciation should be rather EASY for a german or swedish speaker, since almost every word in the gathas or avesta has a parallel in old norse.

i do not agree that comparing translations, without refering to the original language is helpful. becz many translations are rather deductions of the translators/missionaries. Furthermore, the superb poetic and intuitive style of the gathas can be grasped ONLY in its ORIGINAL language.

being Rational and acting according to reason is "the command of our religion." yet, denying intution and vaster horizons behind our mundane understanding is sheer ignorance.
in other words, sounding rational but being blind to higher understanding and intuitive knowledge is not rational but ignorance.

a scholar job is not to please others, and present a so-called scientifically accepted theory that will be discredited in time to sugarcode something to make it more palable.
a scholar job is to be as inquisitive as possible, discuss various commentaries and exegesis accurately and fairly, draw his/her conclusions and be open to other commentaries based on credible citations and not personal fantasies.

the problem is that we have either sheer ignorance of the wisdom of the ancient commentaries on the part of the so-called traditionalists and /or zero knowledge of, plus total refutal and hostility toward the ancient exegesis on the part of the so-called reformists.

we MUST cite the actual text and discuss the words, their etymology, roots, sound play, most ancient commentaries on the subject, and compare it to related traditions of vedas, vedanta, and norse and then make a sound judgment.

what i see in both camps is expression of persoanl fantasies and opinions that might or might not agree with the message of the ancient seer Zarathushtra.

On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Special Kain wrote:



Dear Ardeshir,

For non-Avestan speakers I would suggest to cross-read and compare different translations also in different languages, such as comparing English translations with the only German translation available or with French and Swedish translations. But we also have to see that Zarathushtra considered himself as a teacher and was hoping for future teachers to take on where he left.
Personally, I embrace that rationalistic movement that's stripping the Kaplans's superstitions off the Gathas. Bahman Varza who translated the Gathas to German made some smart remarks about the Kaplans's involvement and interests and that some verses probably were inserted many years or even decades after Zarathushtra's death.

Ushta, Dino

--- ardeshir farhmand schrieb am Do, 3.12.2009:


Von: ardeshir farhmand
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] Re: Alexander Bard speaking out about Zoroastrianism on Kurdish International Te
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Donnerstag, 3. Dezember 2009, 16:07



I should add and really stress that a good book on zoroastrian philo is the 3rd book of Denkard with numerous gathic references. unfortunately the english TRANSLATION is poor, and has a biblical tone to it.

Mr. Mehr is a prominent zoroastrian, but his book is based on personal convictions and opinions rather than a exegesis of the gathas or cittation of the relevant gathic/avestan sources. He is part of a so-called "rationalist" movement that tries to deny every spiritual and intuitive understanding of the gathas, in favor of a so-called scientific method that has long been outdated and discredited.

i suggest books by "dhalla" posted on avesta.org, also iraj taraporwala, has illuminating writings on the subject.

i caution again that every argument should be based on the original gathic texts and their most ancient commentaries with a comparative study of the vedas, vedanta, and norse mythology. reyling on personal views of so-called rationalists is a grave mistake in true understanding of the gathas.

also, i strongly concur with alexander on his views on spinoza and the analysis of the zoroastian philo and comparing it with spinoza.

Ardeshir


On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 1:24 AM, Georgios wrote:



Dear Alexander,

I don't know if some values are indeed relative in Zoroastrianism. Farhang Mehr in his book "The Zoroastrian tradition" states that good is what benefits you AND the society-nature. I agree with this definition of "good". It's not a static-moralistic definition, but rather a dynamic one.

George

Zoroastrian ethics: Relativism vs Dynamism

OK, I'm with you, George, let's stay with your definitions then. You've made a good point.

To clarify why Farang Mehr (who I know rather well) and say Ali Jafarey and I and Parviz Varjavand and all Zoroastrian scholars I know agree strongly on this issue:
Zarathushtra is the first ethicist (rather than moralist) in history who dictates that ethics must be relativistic precisely as to be dynamic because the world is dynamic and human society is dynamic. So if relativistic and dynamic are not synonymous, then they are most definitely mutually dependent on each other. As to BE dynamic values and valuations have to be RELATIVISTIC, able to change when circumstances change. Which is why Zarathustra ORDERS us to IDENTIFY WITH what we think, speak and most of all DO.

Which in turn is precisely why we do not have commandments or even concrete do's and dont's in Zoroastrianism. Are you with me?

The words good and bad are never used by Zarathushtra. Such concepts are not even part of Zoroastrian ethics in any other environment either. We deal with constructive versus destructive MENTALITIES. There is no good or bad in nature or outside of our ambitions. It's all inside our heads, as Mehr and Jafarey and Varjavand would all agree.

Ushta
Alexander

2009/12/3 Georgios

Dear Alexander,

Yes, I believe there is a difference between relative and dynamic.
Dynamic means something that is "characterized by constant change, activity or progress", while relative means that something is "considered in relation or in proportion to something else".
For a given circumstance there shouldn't be any doubt about something being good or bad. Good is not relative in a given time & place but it might change in a different environment, so it might be dynamic.

George

--- In Ushta@yahoogroups.com, Alexander Bard wrote:
>
> Dear George
>
> This is precisely my point! I have always agreed with Fahrang Mehr.
> Or do you mean that there is a difference between "relative" and
> "dynamic"???
> Zoroastrians do not answer questions like "Is abortion right or wrong?".
> Our answer to that question, because it is trying to unjustly simplify what
> is a complex structure, is rather "That depends on".
>
> Ushta
> Alexander

The Real Yazdgerd to Omar Letter: Iranian Zoroastrians against Arab Muslims

Thank you for a brilliant posting, Ardeshir, and giving us a proper clarification of the issue.
In other words: The Yazdgerd letter to Omar exists but what we read here was a spiced up version of the original text which should be read with caution.
Ushta
Alexander

2009/12/3 ardeshir farhmand

There was indeed a letter from the noble Yazdgerd to omar the third caliph. however, this letter on youtube is NOT authentic. Yazdgerd did advise omar that the persians worshipped, the One and only GOD, Wisdom; and that his symbol was light in the physical creation. He told him to go back to his lizard and snake infested wasteland for his ways were ungodly and murderous. He also talked about the adoration of elements, the love of animals, and persian warrior women in his letter, and reminded omar that arabs were ashamed of their women and buried them alive. there was nothing in the new teachings that contained a wiser or better message that did not already existed in the ancient religion.

furthermore, the local nobles and many priests were tired of central sassanid gov, and the heavy taxes. They decided to sell their faith and country, thinking that they can strike a much better bargain with the arabs. as we read in this great preface to the bun-dahishn"

"Owing to the coming of the Arabs to Iran-shahr, and their promulgation of heterodoxy and ill-will, orthodoxy has vanished and fled from the magnates (Magi), and respectability from the upholders of religion; deep wonderful utterances, and the proper reasoning of things, meditation for action, and word of true reason, have faded from the memory and knowledge of the populace.

"On account of evil times, even he of the family of nobles, and the magnates (Magi) upholding the religion, have joined the faith and path of those heretics; and for the sake of prestige, they have defiled, with blemishes, the word, dress, worship and usages of the faithful. 4. He too, who had the desire to learn this science and secret, could not possibly appropriate them, from place to place, even with pain, trouble and difficulty."

The following scenes from "lord of the ring" could have been a replica at what happened to the zoroastrian priesthood and nobility.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8CNdyHL6XY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLTyBxvum48

Ardeshir