The superiority of Zoroastrianism over Islam

What none of these people understand is that it is not good thoughts, good words, good actions in themselves which concern Zarathushtra but THE ORDER IN WHICH THESE PEHENOMENA OCCUR!!!
What Zarathushtra is illustrating is the series of causes and effects in which ethics must be placed. And because THOUGHTS occur before WORDS which in turn occur before ACTIONS, Zoroastrian ethics is obsessed with THINKING. Thinking honestly, thinking constructively, thinking fully, thinking properly!
The Abrahamic gods punish people for not BEHAVING in the proper manner.
That is idiocy. Zarathushtra is much smarter and more realistic than the banal Abrahamic moralists. Whcih is also why our ETHICS has nothing to do with their MORALISM.
Muslim scholars who do not understand Zarathushtra should keep their big and loud hateful mouths shut!
Ushta
Alexander

2011/6/22 osred90
He is right that if Good Thoughts etc is just a slogan and you have no idea what it means then it is not enough.
Zoroastrians should look ultimately to a combination of Sarosh (your inner voice) and Chisti (wisdom/understanding) to help you understand what Good Thoughts etc are in any particular situation.
Getting in contact with Sarosh and Chisti requires personal development such as is provided by Sufi teachers as well as ordinary teachers and by the accidents of life.
In my view to be a good Zoroastrian you should be striving to develop your ability to tell what are Good Thoughts etc as well as your inclination to do them.
Osred.

--- In Ushta@yahoogroups.com, Bahman Noruziaan wrote:
> This is a sermon from a Iranian Shia Muslim cleric (in Iran), with English subtitles.
> Is having Humata, Houkhta and Hvarshta as the guideline enough or as he is claiming not?!
> See for yourself,
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljDR0wjQyos
> Regards
> Bahman

Monism vs Dualism

Good to know. I agree. Our difference is the one between dualist monotheism and monist monotheism.
Dualist monotheism is too Abrahamic to me and you and most others. I can't find any foundation for dualism whatsoever in The Gathas. To me, dualism is not a Persian but a very Egyptian idea. And Judaism, Christianity and Islam have Egyptian and not Persian origins. Persian philosophy is naturally much closer to India culturally and historically than to Egypt. Which is why Zoroastrianism is 1. monist and 2. not Abrahamic.
The soul is the personification of the body itself to Zarathushtra, not some alien thing to be kept clean from a dirty and sinful body. This monism then colors absolutely everything about Zoroastrianism.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/6/5 Parviz Varjavand

Dear Alex,

We are NOT in disagreement, I am a pantheist monist Zoroastrian too; but try to explain this to other Zoroastrians (including Jafarey and Ron), and it is like talking to a wall. It is this wall that I wish to pull down. Monotheism of Mazdaism is not the same as Abrahamic Monotheism, that is the only point I am trying to make. We are being pushed in that corner day after day and text after text that we read and no one has the heart or the mind to object strongly to this push.

Mehr Afzoon,
Parviz Varjavand

Zoroastrianism and Monotheism

Dear Parviz
I must offer friendly but strong disagreement.
Mono means one. As in monologue (one person only speaking) as opposed to dialogue (two people speaking with each other).
All religions that believe in one divinity rather than no or many divinities is monotheistic.
Zoroastrianism is definitely monotheistic. All pantheist and panentheist religions are as monotheistic as for example dualistic monotheism (which is what the Abrahamic religions propose).
Just to avoid any future confusion.
Ushta
Alexander/pantheistic monist Zoroastrian

2011/6/5 Parviz Varjavand

Dear Ostad Jafarey,

Monotheism has come to refer to the belief in the God of Abraham, a God that sits outside His creation and both good and bad comes to us by His Commands. Zarathustra talks about two roots, one good and the other bad in their Essence. Did Mazda Ahoura created them as such, and if not, then where does Bad come from? Who created the Lie, death, decay, and the ascending order from Horvatat and Ameratat side of life? Would you please teach us how the teaching of Zarathustra may be a similar or different than the belief in the God of Abraham? I repeat, Monotheism for all practical purposes, today, means belief in the God of Abraham and not the God of Zarathustra.

Always ready to learn from you,
Parviz Varjavand

From: "Jafarey@aol.com"
To: zoroastrians@yahoogroups.com
Cc: zoroastrianacceptance2@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, June 4, 2011 9:56:02 PM
Subject: Re: [zoroastrians] Against Devas

Ardasher Khorasani wrote: 11:31am May 27
>>"Deus (Latin pronunciation: [ˈde�ʊs]) is Latin for "god" or "deity". Latin deus
>>and dīvus "divine", are descended from Proto-Indo-European *deiwos, from the
>>same root as *Dyēus, the reconstructed chief god of theProto-Indo-European
>>pantheon. Compare Greek Zeus (Ζε�ς, pronounced zdeús), in Aeolic Greek Δε�ς
>>(deús).
In Classical Latin it was a general noun referring to any divine figure. In Late
Latin, it came to be used mostly of the Christian God. It is inherited directly
in the Romance languages, as French dieu, Spanish dios, Portuguese deus, Italian
dio, etc.
In ancient Sanskrit, the word used for 'God'
Great philosopher Zaratushtra teached that there is no
god(deus,theos,zdeus,dieu,dios,dio,deiwa). Any who claim to represent himself as
divine is swindler. There is only Ahura Mazda – supreme wisdom as supreme law of
nature. God=Theos=dues=deiwa. Atheism=adeiwism. Zaratushtra first
atheist-adeiwist in the world."<<
* * * * * *
Dear Friends,
Ushta!
Mr. Ardesher Khorasani has given a good Greek-Latin etymology of “Deus,� deity. I would add that in Avesta, it is "daeva"� and Sanskrit "deva."� It is derived from "div - to shine."� Daeva/deva means "Shining, Bright, Brilliant."� It was originally applied to the brilliant sun, moon, lightening, sky, day and other bright objects, considered by the primitives as deities. Later, with the expansion of belief in deities presiding over natural objects between the sky and earth, they believed them to be super beings ruling the world. Influenced by the human society of a chief and his/her assistants, the deities formed a pantheon of the chief and minor deities. The Indo-Iranians had another term, "ahura/asura - being, essence,"� especially for unseen deities, who existed but were not seen by human eyes. It created what we call "Polytheism."� History shows that polytheism has persisted all over the world since beginning of the human belief in supernatural beings.
Mr. Khorasani concludes his e-mail by stating “There is only Ahura Mazda – supreme wisdom as supreme law of nature. God=Theos=dues=deiwa. Atheism=adeiwism. Zaratushtra first atheist-adeiwist in the world."<< He makes the statement without providing any proof, either from the Gathas, the very words of Zarathushtra or from any other source.
Zarathushtra is historically the foremost person, whose search and research led him to believe that the Cosmos, the highly orderly universe could only be created, maintained and promoted by a super-intellect being. In his language it is "Mazda Ahura - Super-Intellect Essence."� Mazda Ahura creates, maintains and promotes the Cosmos through the "Primal Principles of Existence - Asha (Right, Precision), Spenta Mainyu (Progressive Mentality), Vohu Manah (Good Mind), and a dozen more to make them reach Haurvatat (Entirety) and Ameretat (Eternity). Zarathushtra is again the foremost person who speaks of evolution to perfection. Charles Darwin (1809-1882 CE), the British scientist, who laid the foundation of the Evolution Theory, is well 3,500 years later than him!
He is the foremost MONOTHEIST and can never, never be called an Atheist, Polytheist or Henotheist. His Monotheism is unique - only Mazda Ahura -- Super-Intellect Essence. No pantheon of minor gods and goddesses or archangels and angels. He rejects the notion of "daeva,"� and calls it "deception."� Incidentally, the synonym root "div/dav/dab (Sanskrit dabh) means "to cheat, to deceive"� and therefore "daeva"� can also mean "Deception."�
I have been studying the Gathas since 1938 and a serial part of them includes my daily prayers. I have, so far, not come across any sign of Atheism, Polytheism, Henotheism or Monism in them. It is only his pantheonless Monotheism. (Please refer to my essays “God in the Gathas,� “God in the Gathas, Later Avesta and Pahlavi Scriptures� and more. They provide the scriptural proofs of every statement and if asked, I can repost them.)
I may add that the words god, theism and other related terms have undergone semantic changes and today relate to the Being who has created and maintains the universe. They have their Semitic and Indo-Iranian concepts with their similarities and dissimilarities. To make it simple, they mean “God.�
Ushta,
Ali A. Jafarey
14 Khordad/Haurvatat (Entirety) 3749 ZRE = 4 June 2011 CE

The Depth of Taste

Dear Dino and Parviz

When somebody reacts with an intelligent antithesis to your thesis the trick is not to go back to and insist on the thesis but to go on to the synthesis.
In this case: What you decide to measure is in itself also a matter of taste. So instead of thinking that taste is superificial you should move on to the position that "taste is the deepest thing of all", "taste has more substance than anything else" or actually to move all the way to Zarathushtra's position "taste is what we are".
So those who agree with the stoners are "stoning agreers" and you who aggressively oppose the stoning are "the stoning opposer" or "the anti-stoning militant".
Then you can measure the affects of the positions taken verbally and the actions taken physically: Who is the hero and who is the coward in the eyes of the victim of the stoning?
As you can see, Zarathushtra was a radical pragmatist, hos world was one all about taste. Which is precisely why he defended civilization where the Abrahamic leaders and prophets destroyed it.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/5/30 Parviz Varjavand

Dear Dino and Alex,

I am not in disagreement with you guys. But sometimes stating the obvious is used as a tool to shut the other person who is trying to make a point up. Dino often does that, throws something your way that kills the point you are trying to make and then has nothing to replace it with . There are those who wish to change things and then they are those who just go around measuring things and results. When some people are stoning a woman to death for some small offense, I do not wish to stand there and take pictures and say "it is a matter of taste" for those who are doing it. I want to shout, I want to scream, and I want to throw stones at the leaders of that group. This is why at times I can not stand those who just stand around taking notes and very arrogantly say "Oh, well, it is a matter of taste". As far as I am concerned %90 of humanity are caught in very bad tastes that their religions have entrapped them in. I want my brand of Mazdaism to have an impact and change some of that. I don't want to just stand around taking notes.

Mehr Afzoon,
Parviz


From: Special Kain
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, May 29, 2011 5:13:15 PM
Subject: AW: [Ushta] Spinozist monism - and The Depth of Taste (how there is nothing beyond aesthetics)

Dear Parviz,

What matters here are the effects.
Charles S. Peirce, William James and John Dewey went one step further. They were concerned with how these descriptive vocabularies affects the actions of the persons holding them to be true and how this relates to the bigger pictures in science, religion and society. Materialists may act differently and their behaviours may have other outcomes than the behaviours of spiritualists. Given that vocabularies may have different consequences, it is the total sum of these real consequences plus the total sum of all conceivable effects that define such vocabularies. Things mean what they cause.
The only thing we can measure are the effects. There is no "beyond". Given that the outcomes are the same, we can't find out which vocabulary is "better". This is where our tastes and interests decide.

Ushta,
Dino

--- Alexander Bard schrieb am So, 29.5.2011:

Von: Alexander Bard
Betreff: [Ushta] Spinozist monism - and The Depth of Taste (how there is nothing beyond aesthetics)
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
CC: "Ardeshir Farahmand" , "Mehrdad Farahmand" , "Kambiz yeganegi"
Datum: Sonntag, 29. Mai, 2011 09:42 Uhr

To be honest, Parviz, what else would there be?

Dino never claimed there was no good taste or bad taste, but what do you claim there is beyond taste?
And in what way does this contradict Zarathushtra? Whenever did he claim there was anything beyond taste? Was it not Zarathushtra who taught us that WE BECOME THE ACTS WE CONDUCT?
You are the way you act, you act the way you speak, you speak the way you think, so therefore be careful what you think. Be careful WHAT TASTE you put into your mind. Beyond that very decision, there is nothing but superstitions. Jinns.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/5/29 Parviz Varjavand
Dear Dino,

You are absolutely correct, everything we do is a matter of taste. Why then do we post anything on the net or even talk, there is nothing to talk about. Cannibalism is a matter of taste, roasted babies may actually taste very good! Is this not a matter of taste then!?

Ushta,
Parviz

From: Special Kain
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, May 28, 2011 3:01:44 PM
Subject: [Ushta] Spinozist monism

There was a time when theologicans and philosophers were having metaphysical arguments about the question whether the world was made of ideas and thoughts (spiritualism) or bodies and atoms (materialism). And there were defenders and supporters from both camps on both sides.
Then pragmatism entered the stage: it was Baruch Spinoza who draw the conclusion that both descriptive vocabularies were equally valid and appropriate - because the effects were the same.
Which side you choose is a matter of taste.

Spinozist monism - and The Depth of Taste (how there is nothing beyond aesthetics)

To be honest, Parviz, what else would there be?
Dino never claimed there was no good taste or bad taste, but what do you claim there is beyond taste?
And in what way does this contradict Zarathushtra? Whenever did he claim there was anything beyond taste? Was it not Zarathushtra who taught us that WE BECOME THE ACTS WE CONDUCT?
You are the way you act, you act the way you speak, you speak the way you think, so therefore be careful what you think. Be careful WHAT TASTE you put into your mind. Beyond that very decision, there is nothing but superstitions. Jinns.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/5/29 Parviz Varjavand
Dear Dino,

You are absolutely correct, everything we do is a matter of taste. Why then do we post anything on the net or even talk, there is nothing to talk about. Cannibalism is a matter of taste, roasted babies may actually taste very good! Is this not a matter of taste then!?

Ushta,
Parviz

From: Special Kain
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, May 28, 2011 3:01:44 PM
Subject: [Ushta] Spinozist monism

There was a time when theologicans and philosophers were having metaphysical arguments about the question whether the world was made of ideas and thoughts (spiritualism) or bodies and atoms (materialism). And there were defenders and supporters from both camps on both sides.
Then pragmatism entered the stage: it was Baruch Spinoza who draw the conclusion that both descriptive vocabularies were equally valid and appropriate - because the effects were the same.
Which side you choose is a matter of taste.

The problem with vultures

Dear Zaneta

Since there are now thousands of Zoroastrians living in areas of the world where there are no wild vultures to begin with (like Sweden where you and I reside), we need alternative Zoroastrian burial methods anyway. I would even go as far as to say that we should refer to these practices as corpse disposal methods and not burials since this is what they are. Or else we need to eliminate the idea of the dead body as an unhealthy dirty thingand start practicing burials proper. After all, the current Zoroastrian corpse disposal practices are not Gathic although I do believe they are good traning for a comunity to view a dead body as "only a dead body" as opposed to the detailed burial practices of other religions and cultures involvning "sacred bodies".

Ushta
Alexander

2011/5/29 Zaneta Garratt
Here is a modern problem that is caused by our unhealthy environmental practises- It is indeed sad that there are so few vultures today in Bombay and that the trials to preserve these beautiful birds are not as successful or quick as they should be since powerful chemicals, now banned, have damaged the vultures and folk have tried to raise them in captivity-I sincerely hope that folk will continue to try to bring these birds back to the environment as they are very much needed to clean up the countryside but, since at the moment the progress is so slow, as far as I understand, would not Freeze Drying be an alternative burial method that does not pollute water, fire nor earth?

The Difference between asking HOW and asking WHY

No, Parviz, these things have not WORKED. Jesus never returned. And Messiah never showed up. Muslims have to kill infidels because their Allah is too lazy to do the job himself. Their theories are actually completely dysfunctional.
These things were SUCCESSFUL, yes, but they did not work. These are very different things.
This is precisely why people have to look for other answers. And do so. We owe them to provide them with something better since this is what we found. Whether we call it Zoroastrianism for historical reasons or Spinozism or Nietzscheanism or Pragmatism for eurocentric reasons, but we should give them the proper answer.
As Daniel said, the question has to be the proper one. We are not concerned with why (as we make that up ourselves and it is not a given) but with HOW.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/4/24 Parviz Varjavand

Dear Daniel (and Alexander too)

I tend to come back too quickly at times in res ponce to others and that can cost me. I went over and over what you are trying to say and it has been educational; educational but also depressing. It has been depressing since it almost establishes it for a fact that the minds of us humans must be flawed and it must have a built in self destruct factor in it. This is why we are destroying the planet because this is built in and hardwired in our systems.

Alexander may say that no one is paying attention to the three sister religions any more, but he is wrong. The majority of earth's population (by a very very large margin the majority compared to those who think otherwise) are being born and die in religions that are hardwired to destroy the planet. You say >>"One thing that seprerates the living from the dead is that living creatures make choices. The choices ether don't work satisfactory or they do work brillant."<<. I say that mankind has chosen to let grow religions that are based on Earth Destroying Principals and these principals have worked brilliantly for these religions. The "Fall From Grace", the "Original Sin", the Books of "Revelation", the "Judgment of Souls" and many more of these concepts have succeeded, so I must shut up and go suck an egg because these things HAVE WORKED, THEY HAVE WORKED BRILLIANTLY.

Mehr Afzoon,
Parviz Varjavand