Zoroastrianism is the origin of universal human rights

Dear Ferri

Yes, there is. It is called universal human rights, and it was invented by Zoroastrians (based on the ethics of Zarathushtra himself, and his idea that diversity and pluralism are sacred and should be encouraged and not fought against). Cyrus The Great formulated these rights for the first time in history (a copy of them written on a cylinder can be found at the entrance of the United Nations building in New York) when he conquered Babylon.

Cyrus reportedly not only thought and spoke tolerance, he also practiced it, as a proper Zoroastrian should. The first thing Cyrus did after conquering Babylon was to enter the Temple of Marduk, the highest of the Babylonian gods, and kissed the feet of the statue of Marduk. He also consequently set the Jewish people, trapped in Babylon, free, sending them back to Palestine, with the explicit order to rebuild their temple and follow THEIR OWN RELIGION when doing so. Universal human rights is consequently at the heart of Zoroastrian ethics!

Ushta
Alexander

2009/12/6 ferritafreshi

All,

Is there anything called Global Ethics that be followed by all people? How would it be applied to cultural relativism or ethical relativism?

Regards
Ferri

Yazdani and Yazdanism

Yazdanism is the term for all THREE Kurdish religions: Yazidism, Alevism and Yarsan (also known as Ahl-e Haqq).
But Yazdani is both a Kurdish and an Iranian term (Kurdish is an Iranian language) so a person's last name can be Yazdani without that person being Kurdish. Yazdani is after all the same root as Yazda as in Mazdayasna, meaning "celebration" or "that worthy of celebration". That's my ten cents on the issue.
Ushta
Alexander

2009/12/5 Justin

Alexander are you saying that if someone's last name is Yazdani then they are probably Kurdish Zoroastrian?
The reason i'm asking, My mother is a Irani Zoroastrian from India and my father is German/Swede from Minnesota. My grandmother once told me that her mother's maiden name was Yazdani.
In fact, that was why my great uncle, Rustomjee Irani, after striking a deal with Ideal Jawa (the Czechoslovakian Motorcycle)to produce a similar bike for India, but with a different name. The name my Great Uncle chose for this new bike would be Yezdi. Maybe some Parsis in this group are familiar with the bike or have owned one in the past?
My grandma says he chose the name Yezdi because our family came to India from Yazd in the late 1800's.

Ushta Te
Justin Haubrich

Zoroastrianism and Yazidism

Dear Friends

Ardeshir is right!!!
The Yazidis in Sweden call themselves both Yazidis and "Kurdish Zoroastrians" out of free choice (Sweden has complete freedom of faith). They have not been forced to take on these umbrella identities at all.
I agree with my Kurdish friends that Yazidism is closely related to what I call "folk Zoroastrianism", the popular Zoroastrian religion as practiced by most bedins througout most of Iran's history and very much the religious practice of most Parsees in India too.
In addition to folk Zoroastrianism there is also as we know "philosophical Zoroastrianism" which is what we try to define for example here on Ushta. It is for this practice that we use the term "Mazdayasna" since this term is identical to the Greek term "Philo-Sophia" in meaning.
The relationship between the two practices is very similar to the relationship between Hinduism (as practiced by the masses) and Brahmanism (as practiced by the yogi) in India. We need and should tolerate and encourage both!
Consequently, many Kurds take a strong interest in Mazdayasna too, also here on Ushta, without feeling alienated by the folk religion of Yazidism in any way. This should be most welcomed.
That's my ten cents on the issue. Let's pursue these issues further and with open eyes and minds.

Ushta
Aexander

2009/12/5 ardeshir farhmand

Hi Yezad,

"yazat," comes from the root "yas" meaning to "yearn," to "adore," to "intensly desire." "yazata" is hence an adorable being/energy, a being or concept that is "fervently desired." "Yasna" which is my son's name also means "fervent adoration." it should be noted that "yas" is both in sound and etymology connected to "yaj," yoke, CONNECT. sanskrit "yajna" or "yoga" all come from the same root and have extremely close meanings with "yas," "yasna" and "yazshn."

so simply put, the root we discussed means "intense desire," "yearning," "fervent adoration" that invoke a CONNECTION (avestan:yaoja sanskrit: yoga) to what is worshipped/desired.

so "yazeshn" or festivity/ceremony is really an act of adoring the desired ahuric concepts/beings and establishing a connection with them.

In other words, "connecting" to a higher relam of vision, understanding and consciousness via intense desire/yas.

yezidi is a dregatory arab name. however, it is almost certain that their name is originally Yazdani, from the ancient "Yazata" or adorable/angelic beings.

they seem to have an elaborate anglogy. They do indeed worship a great number of the zoroastrian divine concepts and adorable spiritual manifestations and hence the origin of their names.

they are known as Yazata/Yazdani, people who worship adorable, angelic beings and an adorable supreme FORCE/Yazdan.


On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 7:02 PM, wrote:

Can anyone enlighten me on the Yezidi community?

When I was born the official name registerd was Yezdi, until a scholar, Behramgor Anklesaria, told my parents that the correct word is Yezad and not Yezdi. Is there a distinction between Yezdi as a name and the Yezidi as a community? Surely there has to e a connection!.

Yezad

----- Original Message -----
From: Alexander Bard
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2009 2:10 AM
Subject: [Ushta] "Zoroastrian" 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 Zarathushtra's teachings

Dear George

Yes, well, it's great that we can sort this out, because actually I DO object strongly to this. As would Zarathushtra.
His whole point is that you can NOT in advance say what is right or wrong for everybody given an isolated situation, for TWO reasons: 1. There are no isolated situations, all situations are interdependent of each other (a holistic rather than linear worldview). 2. CHOICE is fundamental to Zarathushtra, it is through choice that we define who we are. When Zarathushtra says that we should do what is good, he literally means what is good for us, what makes us WHO WE ARE, unique and not standardised. Find your own way, define yoursekf through your own truth, do NOT follow a pattern taught to you!
I believe you have some Christian thinking here to get rid of before approaching Zarathushtra's philosophy. Not meant to degrade you in any way, but just to get at what Zarathushtra is actually SAYING. That desire for a universal formula has to go. It is alien to Zarathushtra and his worldview.
So he is very much a relativist. Not even an intersubjectivist, but a true relativist. The only credible asnwer from a Zoroastrian to the question: "What is the right to do, given..." is "That still depends on, because there is no such thing as a given situation, and each situation is confronted by a NEW human being, unique in his or her own being."
Now, THAT is what Zoroastrian ethics is all about, and what a Zoroastrian ETHOS of what it means to be human is all about.

Ushta
Alexander

2009/12/5 Georgios
- Dölj citerad text -



Dear Alexander,

There is nothing wrong with what you write. To your phrase "Only that our minds etc must be constructive TO US" I would also add "and to our environment and fellow humans", which is what Mehr writes.
Now, please follow my steps :-)
I think you just confuse relativistic and dynamic. I believe that, for a GIVEN circumstance and by Zoroastrian ethics, we should be able to judge if an action is good or not, constructive or destructive, for that SPECIFIC action and there is nothing subjective about this judgment. This does not mean that our judgment will be valid forever, everyone or everywhere, as circumstances change (they are dynamic and so are our judgments). Do you have any objection to that?
I think we have similar beliefs, using different words. If you prefer "relativistic" it's OK with me, I would personally prefer "dynamic". The two concepts are not identical though.

George

PS If you think this is getting us nowhere, we can drop this here and move on.


--- In Ushta@yahoogroups.com, Alexander Bard wrote:
>
> 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

Zoroastrianism on You Tube

A summary of the Zoroastrian religion and philosophy and its history is now available on You Tube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K83F4URTS9I

Ushta
Alexander

Civilization vs Culture

I believe we need to connect the terms to their original meanings in Latin.
"Civilization" is originally synonymous with "domestication". Those who are wild and unerliable and break the law on purpose etc are to be called "uncivilized". "Culture" on the other hand is what is opposed to "nature".
In other words: All human activities, especially if they make us distinctly different from other animals (such as language) are in principle cultural. But Civilization is the process which starts with the domestication of animals, plants, and eventually ourselves, in Mesopotamia some 6,000 years ago.
The original nomads were therefore cultural but not civilized. In other words, they were "primitive" (strictly meaning they were pre-historical, no valuations attached).
I try to move away from VALUATIONS tied to any of these terms, but I realise this is hard work. But if I have to choose between Civilization and Domestication, I prefer to speak of Civilization as an ideal. And I have no problem with Nature as a concept. Nature is great and good in itself. It's just that as humans we are Nature Plus, which to me is another way of saying that we are cultural rather than just natural creatures.

Ushta
Alexander

2009/12/4 tomispev

Hello,

It is true. In my native language and other East and Central European languages I am familiar enough with, the word culture is used in a similar manner as behaviour or etiquette. Saying someone is cultural means he/she is well mannered, takes care of hygiene and speaks properly. The antonym of cultural would be boorish.

Unfortunately, being civilized is considered being Western-like in all aspects of life, from decorating one's home to manners. Opposed to civilized is being Native-like which is considered primitive by most members of our societies.

Pozdrav,
Tomash


--- In Ushta@yahoogroups.com, Special Kain wrote:
>
> Dear friends,
>
> As a sociologist I'm really fascinated with the fact that the distinction between «culture» and «civilization» didn't exist in Ango-Saxon countries, but was of high concern in European countries, especially France (see Marbeau in the 18th century) and Germany (see Immanuel Kant, Marx/Engels, Friedrich Nietzsche, Oswald Spengler, Horkheimer/Adorno and Norbert Elias who radically changed the meaning of the sociological term «civilization»). Civilization was often used pejoratively and opposed to the emotionally richer and warmer culture, since civilization stood for cold machines (science and technology) and lifeless and impersonal formalisms in speech and behavior.
>
> Since many of us agree that Zarathushtra was the first civilizationist thinker in human history, we have to clearly and distinctly define what «civilization» means to us. Let me please drop a few pieces of information on civilization as a topic of sociological and historical research:
>
> The history of «civilization» as a sociological concept allegedly goes back to the Roman Empire where the term «civitas» described the economically and politically privileged classes. In the Middle Ages «civilitas» became a set of principles and values - as most clearly expressed in educational humanism and the Enlightenment project a few centuries later. In 18th century France «civilité» meant the economically and intellectually powerful bourgeoisie as a means to oppose the courty «politesse». This gave way for Mirabeau's «civilisation» as opposed to «culture» and refers to scientific achievements and technological progress as well as to codes of behavior. What's also important is to see that it's also a word that was strongest in the historical context of colonization and imperialism, and that's also why it's often used pejoratively still today. Civilizationism is a progressive and imperialistic attitude that wants to share its
> scientific, technological and intellectual benefits and accomplishments with the rest of the world, thus imposing their values onto allegedly less civilized cultures.
>
> Norbert Elias was the first to focus on codes of behavior only and leave out the imperalistic and technological implications: an internalization of formerly external and psychologized constraints and civilized manners as a means to reduce social complexity (see Niklas Luhmann's systems theory for reduction of complexity in sociological theory). It seems that «civilization» and «culture» are still synonymously used in Anglo-Saxon countries.
>
> Ushta,
> Dino

Transrationalism (was: People and Rationalism)

The Russian Futurists in the early 20th century actually launched an excellent concept for what Ardeshir is describing, namely "transrationalism". Transrationalism can be understood as a rationalism undertaken with the explicit advance knowledge that rationalism on its own is limited - as the post-structuralists following Nietzsche later pointed out too - and that a wider understanding of the world has to take in information which can not be viewed as explictly "rational". I would add that taking a transrational stance is an act of intellectual modesty. Rationalism can only take us this far. Beyond the limit of rationalism we need other means, such as Art or what Ardeshir refer to as "Wisdom" and "Intuition" to understand the world and our existential condition better. In this sense, it would be correct to call Zarathushtra "the original transrationalist".
Ushta
Alexander

2009/12/4 ardeshir farhmand
>
>
>
> Dear Tomash
>
> Zoroastrianism is very rational, however, exactly as u said its form of rationality has nothing to do with the "cult of the so-caled scientific rationalism" of the 18th and 19th century.
>
> Zoroastrianism puts immense emphahsis on "intuitive understanding" and "knowledge by seeing" and goodthinking/genius.
> Vision, Wisdom, Ingenuity, Imagination and Creativity summon up the Zoroastrian Supreme Force/God.
>
> In addition, Zoroastrianism enjoins the widening of one's bewusstsein/consciousness into better/more luminous possibilities and higher truths that yet need to be realized in our mundane world of limitations.
>
> Ardeshir
>
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 8:44 AM, tomispev wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Zdravo,
>>
>> I was interested about Zoroastrian views on Rationalism in the modern world. As I mentioned before, I studied a bit about Stoicism, which is a very rationalistic philosophy.
>>
>> Many people today claim they are rational, but is this the same as being an adept of rationalism? How can we tell if we are rational? Did at some point rationalism become a form of idolatry of reason? Instead of being rational people are only thinking they are rational, instead of thinking rationally they are rationalizing.
>>
>> I have the feeling I'm tossing terms too much around here. I had a D in philosophy. :-)
>>
>> What I'm interested partly what is the Zoroastrian stance(s) on rational, rationalism and rationalizing.
>>
>> Pozdrav,
>> Tomash