Taoism vs Zoroastrianism

I agree fully with Dino and this is also most often mentioned as the reason for people choosing Zoroastrianism over Daoism. Daoism does not have the NEGATIVITY towards drives and desires that is so common in Buddhist philosophy. But neither does Daoism harbor the concept of PRODUCTIVITY of drives and desires inherent to Zoroastrianism. So while Daoism fosters an attitude of CONTROL and BALANCING, within Zarathushra's philosophy the act of balancing is never directed AGAINST DRIVE or DESIRE but rather Zarathushtra discusses the opposites of long-term drives and desires as SUPERIOR to short-term drives and desires. But in Zarathushtra's world drives and desire are good and productive in themselves. No wonder Zarathushtra was opposed to the cultures of monks, nuns, and hermits common to CULTURES OF RESTRAINT. Zarathushtra was opposed t restraint, but he was all for CLEVERNESS. I believe this is what Dino is at too when he points out the small but still existant difference between Zoroastrianism and Daoism, its possibly closest relative in philosophy, and also a dominant influence on Zen, just like Zoroastrianism.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/19 Special Kain

Dear Daniel

The Chinese word "dau" means "road" in modern-day English. In Daoist philosophy, it is the flow and process of reality itself: the dynamic change between "the 10,000 things". The relationships between "the 10,000 things" are in constant flux, nothing is ever settled and fixed. Since these 10,000 things do not merge into one larger whole, but always retain their plurality, we cannot fully grasp "dau". Therefore we cannot name it nor comprehend it. The Chinese word "de" is often translated as "virtue", but it rather means "the order of things" or how things that come together (dau) are being ordered (de). Even though the basic characteristic of this world is change, the world is not merely chaotic.

So the pathos is similar: Daoists examine the nature of this world and then choose to live in accordance with it ("wu wei" as "acting naturally", since "not doing" is a misleading translation). However, the difference between Zoroastrianism and Daoism is PROACTIVITY. Zoroastrianism is much more activist than Daoism.

Ushta,
Dino

Von: Daniel Samani
An: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com"
Gesendet: 11:49 Freitag, 19.August 2011
Betreff: [Ushta] Tao and Asha

"Lao-Tzu considered that ‘When tao is lost only then does the doctrine of virtue arise’. As a practical philosophy Taoism is therefore based on the suppression of desire in favour of natural simplicity and tranquillity." - Oxford Dictionary

So what does this tells us about the diffrence between Asha and Tao? To my mind Zoroastrism talks about that with works for our and others desires in the long run. Does Taoistic Tao consider desires to be virtues? Any thoughts on this?

Ushta
Daniel

The Substance of Humanity (was: Asha and the Bikini)

Dear Parviz

What a wonderful topic and discussion!
The answer to your most interesting question lies in the CONSEQUENCES of the actions. The long-term effects of the actions.
Even humans are known to eat their babies during extreme conditions of war and malnutrition. Even if this sounds horrible to us modern human beings it can still be "asha-vahishta" during extreme conditions when this is THE LEAST BAD ACTION POSSIBLE considering the long-term effects. I would even add that TRUE ETHICS is precisely to be able to take the leats bad option - even if it is horrible - during the most difficult conditions, This is what makes us proud to be humans. Zoroastrianism is not for softies. ;-)
The reason why we humans are ethical beings rather than just animals is precisely because we can speculate and take different possible outcomes into account (what you correctly describe as the realm of minoo). This is why Zarathushtra added the vahishta to the realm of the minoo. And not only did he point out that our mental capacity makes us ethical beings, the true radicality of Zarathushtra is his historically unique claim that OUR ETHICAL BEING IS OUR VERY SUBSTANCE. You minoo is IDENTICAL with your thoughts, words and actions.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/19 Parviz Varjavand

Dear Dino,

I think you are a poet as well as a philosopher and I like your views more and more as I go over them. I know that as men, we tend to purify things and that works at times against us, like making sugar out of beats, while if we ate the beat itself, it would be much more beneficial for us. Now about Asha in the woods, it is Asha in the state that the mind of men has not tried to extract its essence out of it. So if I reach out my hand in the woods and touch a poisonous snake and it bites me and I die, nothing BAD has happened to me, it is just Asha of how things are in the woods that has happened to me. When a cat gives birth, the mother cat is known to eat one or more of its kittens, this is just ASHA then and mama cat is not doing something BAD or DROJ. But if a mama human eats her baby, we do all sit up and shout DROJ, DROJ. So when does the Asha in nature become the DROJ? Qaddafi in Libya is like the snake in the woods, or is there a difference just because we assume that he is more of a human than an animal? How much of the consciousness of a Swede does Qaddafi need to poses before the laws of Alex can apply to him?

Mehr, Parviz


From: Special Kain
To: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com"
Sent: Thu, August 18, 2011 1:13:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Ushta] Asha and the Bikini

Dear Behnaz

Asha is not a state of mind. When you're in the woods, you can reach out your hand and touch asha everywhere. For better or worse, the world is as it is.

Ushta, Dino

Von: Behnaz Larsen
An: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com"
Cc: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com"
Gesendet: 20:36 Donnerstag, 18.August 2011
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] Asha and the Bikini


Dear Dino,
I have to read this a couple of times..... Is Asha then unreachable? I thought we have to strive to reach the state of Asha, as though it were there to be reached with our hands, thoughts, words and deeds. If Asha is there because it is, then cancer cells could also be Asha, assuming they are caused due to genetic irregularities. They are there and we have to decide what attitude we will have towards them.
I guess I should read your respond again.
Thank you

Sent from my iPad

On Aug 18, 2011, at 11:16 AM, Special Kain wrote:

Dear Behnaz

Asha has nothing to do with social norms. Asha is the truth as in "that which truly exists". It has more to do with natural phenomena such as plant growth than with socially accepted behaviors.
Asha as such is neither good nor bad. If we translate asha as "righteousness", it should not be mistaken for a moralistic imperative. It rather refers to the regularities in the natural world (the course of the sun and the stars, certain plants grow under different conditions, etc.). It is the habits that we can observe in the natural world.
There are indeed regularities in human behaviors that can be explained (neuro-)psychologically, physiologically, sociologically and so on. But it says nothing about ethics. The Greek word "ethos" means "Haltung" in German ("attitude" in English). Zarathushtra stressed vohu manah in relation with asha: it is one's attitude towards that which truly exists that matters ethically in this context. For example, one's willingness to live truthfully and in accordance with asha (asha-vahishta, "furthering asha").

As Parviz suggested, we should keep asha and asha-vahishta separate and not confuse them with each other. Asha has to do with the engine of your car, asha-vahishta has to do with the pollution of the environment and constructing eco-friendlier cars in order to protect the environment.

Ushta,
Dino


Von: Behnaz Larsen
An: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com"
Cc: Ushta ; zoroastrians
Gesendet: 1:21 Donnerstag, 18.August 2011
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] Asha and the Bikini


I am not an expert on Asha, but the Asha that I believe in, does not consider a nude person a criminal. You cannot call yourself a wise society when you spend your time and money on arresting people for being nude or ugly or eccentric etc. Not all laws and social norms are wise. Most of the time the laws are out of date. So if the norms are not wise then following them couldn't be according to Asha.

Sent from my iPad

On Aug 17, 2011, at 11:30 PM, Parviz Varjavand wrote:


Friends,

Let me explain why I think there is no fixed Asha when we are in the Minoo or
Mental realm.
How much of their body can they expose when ladies go swimming?
There are some nudist colonies where they can take all their cloths off and
swim in the nude.
Next, in most beaches in the West, ladies are allowed to wear a Bikini and swim.
In many European beaches, ladies can take the top part of their Bikini off and
no one will mind.

In America ladies will get arrested for taking the top part of their Bikini off
as it is considered "Indecent Exposure".
After reading so far you may ask "So what? What is your point?"
My point is that between going around in total nudity and where the women have
to go around totally covered and not allowed to swim in public beaches
altogether, all kinds of laws exists on the book. These laws are man made and
not absolute. One should fight the ones one feels are unjust, but to do the
right thing at the right time to achieve the right results depends on what beach
it is that you want to go swim in. The law that you will sink and suffocate if
your hands and feet are tied by hundred kilos of chain before you are thrown in
the sea is Asha and absolute, the laws of physics will kill you there and not
the laws of man. Laws of Asha in Physics are much more unyealding than man made
laws where you have a wide range of possibilities allowing you to bargain for
Asha-Vahishta or even make Asha Vahishta happen in the shape of changing the
law.

Parviz Varjavand

Zoroastrianism: The Difference between a Philosophical Religion and a Folk Religion

Dear Behnaz

Folk religion has and probably always will exist.
In India, people make the clear distinction between those who believe in Hindu philosophy (Brahmanism) and those who believe in folk religions with gods, angels and all the other bits and pieces (who for example worship Ganesha The Blue Elephant God). A Brahmanist would never worship Ganesha as he or she does not even believe Ganesha exists. Still, the two cultures of Philosophy and Religion co-exist peacefully and to mututal benefit.
Iranian culture somehow lost this dual culture. What was left after Islam came into Iranian culture was the angel worshipping part while the Philosophy (Mazdayasna) went into hiding or even disappeared.
We are now trying to resurrect Iranian philosophy (Mazdayasna) as it was set out from the beginning from Zarathushtra (the original Zoroastrianism). And there is not a single word of angels anywhere in "The Gathas", Ahura Mazda is not Lord Wisdom (a male god figure with male genital organs etc) but rather a principle of existence on which a philosophical religion rather than a folk religion can be based (wherever there is supreme wisdom, this is a menifestation of Ahura Mazda etc).
The angels and other fluffy things are not Zoroastrian, those things are pre-Zoroastrian. But do you honestly believe in the existence of such things? If so, like Dino said, please go ahead! But on the Ushta List we are dealing with the philosophical religion Zarathushra invented which we have inherited and are trying to do something meaningful with. And if Zarathushtra did not believe in supernatural beings, why should we? What's wrong with NATURAL beings as a foundation for a religion. Asha means "that which exists" and not "that which we make up to tell each others as fairytales".

Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/17 Special Kain
Dear Behnaz

There is nothing wrong with you. :-)
You are free to believe in a supreme being. You are free to focus on the big picture rather than the details. A good exercise for you would be to be totally honest with yourself and ask yourself why you have these desires. Not because there would be anything wrong with them, but because this means to live truthfully.
There are so many differences among Zoroastrians, because our faith is 3.700 years old. Zoroastrians have spread and lived among other cultures and religions, and they have adoped and creatively re-used the ideas and theories in their different cultural and religious environments. This perfectly explains the differences between Zoroastrians in Iran and their Parsi sisters and brothers in India. But there are a lot more beliefs that we share.

Ushta,
Dino

Von: Behnaz Larsen
An: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com"
Cc: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com"
Gesendet: 22:50 Mittwoch, 17.August 2011
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] Zoroastrianism is Philosophy as Religion

That is very clear to me. I don't believe in a God either, though I very much want to. However, this is another matter. What I find confusing is that I believed, from what I have read that mazdayasna is straight- forward and not easily misunderstood as for example a faith or philosophy such as Islam, which no one can understand. I cannot see why an idea could be considered and followed by millions, but be only understood by few. Your version and "their" version are not the same and I consider that a failure of the teacher. Yes, I guess that is what I am confused about. If the idea is brilliant, if the teacher was right, then why such differences among the followers? And where is there a place for people like me, people who only see the big picture and only focus on the result? People who want to believe, for the sake of their sanity, in a supreme being without banging their heads on a temple wall? If I am not an orthodox and don't want to be an atheist, then where will I belong to? Do I consult a Mobed for guidance or a philosopher? am I in the wrong forum?

On Aug 17, 2011, at 10:23 PM, Special Kain wrote:

Dear Behnaz

What is it that you find confusing?
There are panentheists and pantheists. There are those who believe in a divine being that once created this world and those who don't. I don't believe in god - like most modern converts and western scholars. Ahura Mazda is a philosophical concept, above all else. It is Mazda that we worship and hold to be sacred, since Mazdayasna is the original name of our faith. And Mazda means "wisdom" in English.

Ushta,
Dino

Von: Behnaz Larsen
An: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com"
Cc: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com"
Gesendet: 21:51 Mittwoch, 17.August 2011
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] Zoroastrianism is Philosophy as Religion

Misleading? The very title of the supreme wisdom, or the very root of the idea of this ideology is Ahura Mazda! Since I am still a student here i will allow myself to ask the above question. I hope you'll understand that I am not criticising but I always thought that the way of the behdins was much more straight forward than the other ideologies.

However, now I am reading that even the Wise lord and righteousness are not what they seem to be and I don't know how to look at it any longer. The beauty of this straight-forward path is no more. I don't disagree with any of you but I am trying to find my place in this. There are the traditionalist, angel worshippers, who follow rituals more than the actual path and here you are entangled in words. Where do you think I could fit in?

Sent from my iPad

On Aug 17, 2011, at 1:32 PM, Alexander Bard wrote:
With one word being feminine and the other word being masculine, Zarathushtra clearly had no "male personality" such as "a lord" in mind when he coined the concept of Ahura Mazda. "Lord Wisdom" is therefore tragically misleadning. "Mind-on-Being-as-a-sacred-unity" is possibly the closest we can get to translating Ahura Mazda to contemporary English.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/17 Special Kain
Asha is the truth as in "that which truly exists" and "how it really works".
Ahura is a title that usually designates the divine as in "that which is divine" and "that which is sacred". It is commonly used for proper deities. Mazda is "wisdom" and "intelligence". So if we speak of Ahura Mazda, we speak of wisdom as sacred and divine. The translation "Lord Wisdom" is not necessarily wrong, but it is misleading. The original Avestan expression literally means that it is a sacred act to place one's mind (e.g. to be wise). ago.

Zoroastrianism is Philosophy as Religion

Very elegantly put!
Philosophy AS religion = The celebration or worship of Philosophy.
That is what Mazdayasna, Zarathushtra's thought system, is all about.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/17 Special Kain

Asha is "that which truly exists". Ahura is "that which is divine". Mazda is "wisdom" (as in "having a wise mind"). Therefore Ahura Mazda means "the sacredness of wisdom" or "to have a wise mind is something sacred and divine". In other words, we hold wisdom and intelligence to be sacred. We take philosophy far more seriously than the Greeks did!

Ushta,
Dino

Von: Alexander Bard
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Gesendet: 18:30 Dienstag, 16.August 2011
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] Asha vs Druj compared to Chaos vs Order

Correct!
Except I would add that for Ahura to be SACREDNESS it is actually Ahura WITH Mazda.
Ahura is what Asha becomes WHEN VIEWED THROUGH Mazda.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/16 Special Kain

Alexander is right.
Asha is that which exists and how it has come into existence (how things work properly), Ahura is the SACREDNESS of existence, druj is that which isn't real. Charles Darwin vs. ignorant creationists!

Ushta,
Dino

Von: Alexander Bard
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Gesendet: 15:05 Dienstag, 16.August 2011
Betreff: [Ushta] Asha vs Druj compared to Chaos vs Order

Chaos and order are GREEK and not Iranian concepts.
I'm not interested in chaos or order, they don't exist as such but are rather just fantasies of our imagination.
Everything is chaos. Chaos only becomes order when we decide to make it order.
Zarathushtra's opposites are instead "that which has existence" versus "that which does not exist". Just like Nietzsche and Heidegger, actually, philosophers who were also against Plato's distinctions of chaos and order.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/16 Behnaz Larsen
Yes, Alexander, however I have a question about this nothingness: chaos versus order, where do they fit in? If druj is "nothing", and "the lack of" etc then chaos could not be categorised under druj. It has been said that in every chaotic situation there is beauty and order. Obviously these people have not seen my kitchen, so I think you are right not to translate these from one language to the next, since words keep failing us.
Behnaz

On Aug 16, 2011, at 2:46 PM, Alexander Bard wrote:
Two things:
1. The Oxford Dictionary has a VERY DIFFERENT understanding of real from Gilles Deleuze. Daniel mixes the two up, please don't.
2. The proper English word for druj outside of our minds is "nothingness". It is the LACK OF EXISTENCE which is druj in its purest sense in the Avestan language. In this sense "Asha" is "Something" or "Substance" or "How Things work" whereas Druj is "Nothingness" or "Lack of substance" or "Illusions of how things actually don't work".
Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/15 Daniel Samani

Great! Then lie is a good translation to the Avestan concept druj, I guess that depends what aspect one empathise. People use the English language with different styles. Some more inflated by vitalism and absolutism then others. If one make the statement that the definition of a lie is that it's not true - it weight heavily on what one mean by truth (that can be coloured heavily on abramitic thought).

I am confident that we will reach an agreement on this matter. This will occur when I have grasped what you have a long time ago. ;) Too me the concept real in itself is confusing this is what Oxford says: "The term is most straightforwardly used when qualifying another adjective: a real x may be contrasted with a fake x, a failed x, a near x, and so on. To treat something as real, without qualification, is to suppose it to be part of the actual world. To
reify
something is to suppose that we are committed by some doctrine to treating it as a thing. The central error in thinking of reality and existence is to think of the unreal as a separate domain of things, perhaps unfairly deprived of the benefits of existence."

At least one thing I agree 100% with, asha is a rather complex concept.

Ushta
Daniel

Zoroastrianism vs General Pantheism

The interesting thing with Zarathushtra's special brand of Pantheism (as I believed Arthur Pearlstein once pointed out, thereby differentiating it from all other forms of Pantheism; defending Zoroastrianism against General Pantheism) is that Zarathushtra never divinifies Existence (Ahura) as such on its own. There is no Ahura proper without Mazda, so the mind aspect of human existence is also at play. The Universe indeed has no divinity of its own, it only becomes divine through THE ACT OF THE MIND. It is indeed a proclamation, not so much through a choice of the mind but rather through the very existence of mind (as an affirmative and cheerful RECOGNITION of Asha rather than as a choice). Which also explains why we, as Parviz has often pointed out, are not Ahurayasni but Mazdayasni. We celebrate Mind first and Existence second. And all this WITHOUT making History a Necessity as Abrahamic determinism or historicism would have it (material existence exists as to make mind possible), History is still totally contingent according to Zarathushtra, even in itself truly miraculous, not at all Buddha's negation of existence. Like in Hegel's philosophy, Zarathushtra's meaning is always a meaning as after-thought, as a kind of CHOSEN NECESSITY, well after the Act that manifests Substance is established. It's all quite peculiar, but it is very very smart and obviously very truthful. I don't consider myself a Pantheist lightly anymore. ;-)
Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/16 Special Kain

Dear sisters and brothers

Asha can mean different things depending on the context.

(1) It is "the truth" and "that which is true", as opposed to illusions, fraud and lies. The world as it is vs. the lies we have been told. Ashavahishta therefore is "the best truth", one's willingness to surrender to what it true, or "furthering the truth", one's willingness to live truthfully through thoughts, words and deeds.

(2) It also is "that which exists" and "that which is real" as in "something that actually exists", as opposed to that which is unreal (illusions, deception). Asha is that which is in conformity with reality. In Heideggerian terms, there is something (asha) rather than nothing (druj).

(3) Eventually, asha also is "that which fits (with what is real)" and "that which works", the mechanisms and laws of nature as discovered and studied by modern science - a rather technical and pragmatic approach towards this issue. Think of agriculture!

Ahura also is "that which exists", but in a different sense. Since "Ahura" also is a title usually given to deities ("supreme being" or "supreme power"), it could mean that existence is sacred - Existence with a capital E.

What do YOU think?

Ushta,
Dino

Zoroastrianism as the Opposite of Islam

Dear Dino and Daniel

What Zarathushtra so vehemently opposes is the human desire to SEEK LEADERSHIP TO OBEY, to masochistically subordinate ourselves to the will of a God, a Father, a Big Other, The Others in a Society, political leaders, idols etc. Therefore he is against all "ought to's" that we possibly could come up with. There are no ought-to's from others, and if there are they should be ignored and overruled and crushed.
All of this to create the ETHICAL BEING that constantly reinvates and expands itself - THROUGH CREATIVE ACTIONS eminanting from creative thoughts and words - and time and space as the Zoroastrian IDEAL OF EXISTENCE. This is what Zarathushtra teaches in The Gathas: We do not BECOME Maxzdayasni by OBEYING (neither by obstructing) but by independently DO WHAT IS US COMING FROM WITHIN US.
You could not be further from the cult of subordination in the Abrahamic religions with their horrible "commandments". Islam for example literally means "Obedience". If anything Zarathushtra's reply should be called "Creation".

Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/16 Special Kain

No, asha DOES NOT SPEAK - it DOES NOT tell us anything about how things ought to be. There is NO NORMATIVITY. Forget about "should do", "has to do", "ought to do", "shouldn't do", etc. here in this context. Asha simply is that which turns out to be real and true. Asha is existence as in "something that really exists" and also the rules that apply here (the laws of nature in the broadest possible sense). It therefore refers to a LEARNING PROCESS that will prove that asha (that which works in the long run) is fundamentally superior to druj (that which deceives us).

Von: Daniel Samani
An: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com"
Gesendet: 16:11 Dienstag, 16.August 2011
Betreff: Re: AW: [Ushta] Meaning of Asha

This makes sense, does asha tell us how things ought to be? Or does this materialise when we see existence for what it is and what it's not?

Ushta
Daniel

16 aug 2011 kl. 14:46 skrev Alexander Bard :

Two things:
1. The Oxford Dictionary has a VERY DIFFERENT understanding of real from Gilles Deleuze. Daniel mixes the two up, please don't.
2. The proper English word for druj outside of our minds is "nothingness". It is the LACK OF EXISTENCE which is druj in its purest sense in the Avestan language. In this sense "Asha" is "Something" or "Substance" or "How Things work" whereas Druj is "Nothingness" or "Lack of substance" or "Illusions of how things actually don't work".
Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/15 Daniel Samani

Great! Then lie is a good translation to the Avestan concept druj, I guess that depends what aspect one empathise. People use the English language with different styles. Some more inflated by vitalism and absolutism then others. If one make the statement that the definition of a lie is that it's not true - it weight heavily on what one mean by truth (that can be coloured heavily on abramitic thought).

I am confident that we will reach an agreement on this matter. This will occur when I have grasped what you have a long time ago. ;) Too me the concept real in itself is confusing this is what Oxford says: "The term is most straightforwardly used when qualifying another adjective: a real x may be contrasted with a fake x, a failed x, a near x, and so on. To treat something as real, without qualification, is to suppose it to be part of the actual world. To reify something is to suppose that we are committed by some doctrine to treating it as a thing. The central error in thinking of reality and existence is to think of the unreal as a separate domain of things, perhaps unfairly deprived of the benefits of existence."

At least one thing I agree 100% with, asha is a rather complex concept.

Ushta
Daniel

Asha vs Druj compared to Chaos vs Order

Chaos and order are GREEK and not Iranian concepts.
I'm not interested in chaos or order, they don't exist as such but are rather just fantasies of our imagination.
Everything is chaos. Chaos only becomes order when we decide to make it order.
Zarathushtra's opposites are instead "that which has existence" versus "that which does not exist". Just like Nietzsche and Heidegger, actually, philosophers who were also against Plato's distinctions of chaos and order.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/16 Behnaz Larsen
Yes, Alexander, however I have a question about this nothingness: chaos versus order, where do they fit in? If druj is "nothing", and "the lack of" etc then chaos could not be categorised under druj. It has been said that in every chaotic situation there is beauty and order. Obviously these people have not seen my kitchen, so I think you are right not to translate these from one language to the next, since words keep failing us.
Behnaz

On Aug 16, 2011, at 2:46 PM, Alexander Bard wrote:
Two things:

1. The Oxford Dictionary has a VERY DIFFERENT understanding of real from Gilles Deleuze. Daniel mixes the two up, please don't.
2. The proper English word for druj outside of our minds is "nothingness". It is the LACK OF EXISTENCE which is druj in its purest sense in the Avestan language. In this sense "Asha" is "Something" or "Substance" or "How Things work" whereas Druj is "Nothingness" or "Lack of substance" or "Illusions of how things actually don't work".
Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/15 Daniel Samani

Great! Then lie is a good translation to the Avestan concept druj, I guess that depends what aspect one empathise. People use the English language with different styles. Some more inflated by vitalism and absolutism then others. If one make the statement that the definition of a lie is that it's not true - it weight heavily on what one mean by truth (that can be coloured heavily on abramitic thought).

I am confident that we will reach an agreement on this matter. This will occur when I have grasped what you have a long time ago. ;) Too me the concept real in itself is confusing this is what Oxford says: "The term is most straightforwardly used when qualifying another adjective: a real x may be contrasted with a fake x, a failed x, a near x, and so on. To treat something as real, without qualification, is to suppose it to be part of the actual world. To
reify
something is to suppose that we are committed by some doctrine to treating it as a thing. The central error in thinking of reality and existence is to think of the unreal as a separate domain of things, perhaps unfairly deprived of the benefits of existence."

At least one thing I agree 100% with, asha is a rather complex concept.

Ushta
Daniel

15 aug 2011 kl. 20:44 skrev Special Kain :

Dear Daniel

I have been actively involved in Zoroastrianism longer than you have. I have a profound knowledge of the history of philosophy. And I check my sources very carefully in order to accurately describe Avestan terms in English.
Druj means "lie" in English, but could also be translated as "that which deceives". It is all the things we believe to be there, even though they don't exist. Simply put, it is that which is not real. And no-one here has ever claimed that there are "more real" and "less real" things. A fleeting idea that we forgot the very moment it popped up in our mind is not less real than Mount Everest.
There are different translations of asha, since the concept is rather complex and means "that which exists" as much as "how it works properly". It refers to something that is in conformity with the workings of nature. Think of engineers, for example! It has nothing to do with the actual/virtual dichotomoy that I find useless in this context.

Ushta,
Dino

Von: Daniel Samani
An: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com"
Gesendet: 19:48 Montag, 15.August 2011
Betreff: Re: AW: [Ushta] Meaning of Asha

So my point is that lies are a bad translation of druj. And that I'm highly skeptic about that stating that what is real is a good translation of asha.

Ushta
Daniel

15 aug 2011 kl. 18:48 skrev Special Kain :

No, LIES do NOT refer to something that is unlikely to happen or something that is irrelevant or even destructive. Lies refer to things that are NOT TRUE. It has nothing to do with probabilities, relevance or destruction. World War II was quite real, wasn't it? And even the most improbable and most irrelevant events are real. And that which is real and which fits with what is real is asha. As Alexander pointed out, there is NOTHING NORMATIVE about asha. The world is as it is. What we are now doing with the facts is a different story altogether.

If you choose to mix Zoroastrianism with Deleuzianism, you should not make things unnecessarily complicated and confusing. ;-)
Ahura is existence as such, but it's also a title usually given to deities (as in designating something as divine). Mazda is wisdom and "the mind". Ahura is the fact that existence is sacred, the universe is sacred, and Mazda is our capacity to think which we as Zoroastrians worship and celebrate.

Ushta,
Dino // is also deeply fascinated with Deleuzianism

Von: Daniel Samani
An: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com"
Gesendet: 18:20 Montag, 15.August 2011
Betreff: Re: AW: [Ushta] Meaning of Asha

Then we might be in disagreement. It's cause lies point to something not durable (as in low probability, low relevance, low effectiveness or destructiveness) that makes them unattractive. Could you define what you mean by real? To me something real is something part of the actual or virtual world. If it's not part of these worlds it can be classified unreal (can anything be classified unreal?).

How does we distinguish what is real from that which is not? Why not distinguish what is actual from what is virtual. And what in this world that are durable. That's my 50 cent.

Side note: Isn't the actual world Ahura and the virtual world Mazda?

Ushta
Daniel

15 aug 2011 kl. 17:48 skrev Special Kain :

Dear Daniel

Forget about Gilles Deleuze for a moment.
Druj is that which isn't real. Lies exist, but they refer to something that isn't true. The liar exists, his words exist, his words reach your ears, and so on - the whole process actually takes place and is 100% real. But not that something that the lie refers to. For example, the liar tells you that rabbits can fly, his statement exists. But there are no rabbits with wings. They don't exist, they are not real.
Got it?

Ushta,
Dino