Drives and Desires (was: Daoism vs Zoroastrianism)

However, all of this needs to have a foundation - you need to also honestly respond to the question: "What is in it for me?". You owe this to yourself before you even make the choice to become a Mazdayasni.
Well, what is the motor of our personalities anyway? In the deepest sense it is drive, and in the immedaite sense it is desire. Zarathushtra fully understood this. Drives and desires motivate people both to live in general and to choose the things they choose for themselves in life. It is self-evident to all actors Zarathushtra portray in "The Gathas".
What he then did in "The Gathas" was to place the drives and desires of himself and others within a bigger and social context. His ethics places drives and desires where they should be as to be fulfilled in their deepest, most long-term, most fulfilling sense.
Not speaking of drives and desires risks losing out on the very foundation of a Zoroastrian ethics. It's like constructing the walls and the roof of a beautiful house while forgetting to build a basement. How do you then expect the house to stay in place?
This is all especially important when showing the differences between Zoroastrianism, Daoism and Buddhism: Zoroastrianism views drives and desires as productive and good in themselves. Daoism views them as possibly productive but equally damaging and problematic. favoring a balancing of drive and desire in themselves. Buddhism sees drives and desires as problematic in themselves, the idea of nirvana is an existence where none of them are left to roam. As do Christianity and Platonism too.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/20 Special Kain

I am not sure if this talk about drives and desires makes things unnecessarily more complicated.
As far as I understand The Gathas, we are encouraged to educate ourselves and then base our choices on long-term thinking. Plus we are requested to nurture good thoughts in order to become better persons, since it is our deeds that make us what we are. We must be brutally honest with ourselves and fully commit ourselves to the truth and contribute to civilization and all its benefits. Because civilizations will prove better in the long run.

Ushta,
Dino

Von: Alexander Bard
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Gesendet: 19:33 Samstag, 20.August11
Betreff: [Ushta] Daoism vs Zoroastrianism

I agree with Dino on the differences between Daoism and Zoroastrianism.
Zoroastrianism is pro-active in a sense that Daoism is not. And Zoroastrianism is not against any drives and desires other than it advocates the LONG-TERM drives and desires when these collide with short-term impulses.
Therefore Zarathushtra's focus on thinking BEFORE speaking BEFORE acting.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/20 Special Kain

Another difference between Zoroastrianism and Daoism is that in Daoism people want to become immortal and live forever. There were several meditation practices and chemical experiments that were devoted to this ideal. For example, there is one Daoist school that would have its followers create an "astral foetus" within their physical bodies in order to survive one's physical death.

Zoroastrianism: I believe there is a universe and I have DECIDED that this universe is sacred to me

I would put it this way: Every man and woman who acts within wisdom is a MANIFESTATION of Ahura Mazda. Even more so, people coming together and acting wisely together are even more a manifestation of Ahura Mazda. When I see young people demonstarting for freedom, liberty and justice in the streets of Cairo and Damascus in 2011, I see manifestations of Ahura Mazda. And I agree with Yazed: To me, The Universe is God because The Universe does exist and is amazing and indeed sacred to me. I will believe this until The Universe itself tells me to believe something else. ;-)
Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/20 SHAHROOZ ASH

Hope all is well and good.

The only god is the wise man/woman (Ahura Mazda), because a wise man/woman is a pure person. In terms of ethics a pure and wise person always acts with good intentions. Thus, never causing harm to any person and environment which supports human life because of greed or fear. A child also falls within this same category because children are pure. Ahura Mazda means; a being that is wise. A human is a being, and if wise, then you have a wise being (Ahura Mazda). The only thing that is praise worthy or worth worshiping is; children and wise persons. The only god (Ahura Mazda) is man.

Wishing you the best (Behesht),
Shahrooz Ash
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
From: ysk@airtelmail.in
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 08:58:02 +0530
Subject: Re: [Ushta] Zoroastianism: I believe there is a universe and I have DECIDED that this universe is sacred to me

There is a lot of debate about whether God exists. I have come to the conclusion, after listening to all arguments, that God could either be the Universe itself or your spirit or conscience. It is difficult to describe Him/Her!

Yezad

On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 3:37 AM, Alexander Bard wrote:
Dear Behnaz
I believe there is a universe and I have DECIDED that this universe is sacred to me.
I don't care about all that God-talk and neither did Zarathushtra. He does not use the term God even once in "The Gathas".
If you share my belief, then you are a true Zoroastrian. And there is no need to look for something bigger and better than yourself or the world around you. Make the best of yourself and the world around you instead. You are divine. The world is divine. Which is precisely why you should be nice to yourself and those around you that you love.

Ushta
Alexander

The Meaning of Asha

Very very good, then have settled on a great and important agreement!!!
If there was confusion on this topic it could be because I don't even talk of asha but of asha-vahishta when it comes to the ETHICAL aspect of asha which can of course only be PRECEIVED as an existential choice by minoo, not in itself as a physical phenomenon only, even though it could be proved to be such a thing deep beneath (pretty much ironically like physics is in itself always in flux, there is no such thing as fixed physics).
The important thing is that the laws are not the same. I would prefer to speak of THE MENTAL REALM as an EMERGENCE coming out of the physical realm, still 100% physical but PERCEIVED as a world of its own.
For example, we all know that the color yellow is a certain wavelength of light but we do not perceive it as such, we percieve the color yellow not for its wavelength but for its YELLOWNESS which our minds add to the wavelengths our sight picks up.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/20 Parviz Varjavand

Dear Alex,

This has been my point all along.
While Asha has hard laws applying to it in the Phisical or Giti realm, it does not have such laws in the Minoo or Mental realm. In the Minoo, you have to choose from amongst many Asha their best. So Asha in Giti and Asha in Minoo are not the same.

Parviz

--- On Fri, 8/19/11, Alexander Bard wrote:

From: Alexander Bard
Subject: [Ushta] The Meaning of Asha
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Cc: "Dina McIntyre"
Date: Friday, August 19, 2011, 3:01 PM

Dear Parviz

I don't think anybody should sign any contract stating that they promise to follow asha.
That would be way too Abrahamic. We as Zoroastrians live with a fluid and flexible ethics, not with a fixed and assumed objectively valid moralism. We become our actions but we are not our actions in advance!
We have no commandments since it is the CIRCUMSTANCES that always determine what is the right thing to do (what is likely to be the best long-term outcome). And this can never be detailed in advance but rather has to always BE LIVED WITHIN THE MOMENT OF DECISION ITSELF.
Zarathushtra was indeed NOT an Abrahamist. So why would he ask us to behave as if we were?

Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/19 Parviz Varjavand
Dear Dina,

First, allow me to apologize for mixing your views and those of Dino, even though I think you are both very close in thinking of Asha as “that which Fits”. In philosophy, abstract thinking is what we need as a tool and not trying to figure out the minds of Mahatma Gandy, Mother Theresa, or Jesus Christ. (You know what I am trying to say here ;-). Mithra is the guardian of contracts and as a lawyer you know how important the precise language and the precise meaning of words are when written in a contract. I feel Mazdayasna in the modern world can be a religion for the intellectuals and as such I wish it to have precise meanings to the key nomenclature it uses. The meaning of Asha as you describe it, is clear in the physical (Giti) realm. It is how physical things behave and the laws that apply to them. Water runs down hill, and that is how it is.

But when we get to separating Asha from Droj in the mental world (Minoo), we as Ashavands need the two words described more clearly. If the way you describe what Asha and Droj are is satisfactory to all who are interested in Mazdayasna, then good for you all. I am the odd man out and to me the words are most confusing. I would not sign any contract in which one of the clauses is, “and Parviz Varjavand hereby promises to act according to Asha in the premises or else loose all the deposit money he has put down.”

There are religions that need the smoke and mirrors and the unclear language so that their Gurus will never be out of a job while sitting on a top of mountain answering the pilgrims what he thinks Dharma or Karma is. I do not feel Mazdayasna need to be one more such path. The old Magi would melt bronze and pour it on the chest of their victims in order to find if they were telling the Asha or Droj of a situation. This is also part of our heritage when it comes to the distinction between Asha and Droj in the mental world. I want the heritage to change so that we can write contracts that Mithra will understand and so will lawyers.

Mehr Afzoon,

Parviz Varjavand

Daoism vs Zoroastrianism

I agree with Dino on the differences between Daoism and Zoroastrianism.
Zoroastrianism is pro-active in a sense that Daoism is not. And Zoroastrianism is not against any drives and desires other than it advocates the LONG-TERM drives and desires when these collide with short-term impulses.
Therefore Zarathushtra's focus on thinking BEFORE speaking BEFORE acting.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/20 Special Kain
Another difference between Zoroastrianism and Daoism is that in Daoism people want to become immortal and live forever. There were several meditation practices and chemical experiments that were devoted to this ideal. For example, there is one Daoist school that would have its followers create an "astral foetus" within their physical bodies in order to survive one's physical death.

Von: Special Kain

An: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com"
Gesendet: 12:47 Samstag, 20.August 2011
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] Tao and Asha

Dear Daniel

You are right. Daoism and Zoroastrianism put their focus on the physical world around us and encourage us to live in accordance with the flows and complexities of life. But Zoroastrian philosophy is also concerned with civilizations and therefore more proactivist in nature than Daoism. For example, I act as a Zoroastrian and I rest as a Daoist.

Ushta,
Dino

Von: Daniel Samani
An: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com"
Gesendet: 12:39 Samstag, 20.August 2011
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] Tao and Asha

Dear Dino,

Indeed I agree here. I don't know what "Daudejing" intention is when they talk about natural flows. I do like activism more, I just want to have a clear understanding of the difference. Both seem to focus on roughly the same thing to my mind.

Ushta
Daniel

20 aug 2011 kl. 11:47 skrev Special Kain :
Dear Daniel

There is no talk about our drives and desires in the "Daudejing". It is rather a practical guide concerning lifestyles that are in conformity with nature. As such, it states that we should not freeze and stiffen, but rather go with the flow of nature, because this flow overcomes all obstacles in time. So Daoist philosophy is more about surrendering to natural flows, rather than proactively change the way streams flow.

Ushta,
Dino

Von: Daniel Samani
An: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com"
Gesendet: 9:07 Samstag, 20.August 2011
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] Tao and Asha

Are you saying that Zoroastrianism is more clear when defining long term desires as the better choice. While Daoism use wage words as balance? To be against short term desires is to be against some sort of desire is it not? You just stated that Daoism wasn't negative towards restraint, so not pro-restraint then? How is Daoism and Zoroastrianism different in regard to productivity of drives and desires?

Ushta
Daniel

19 aug 2011 kl. 23:51 skrev Alexander Bard :
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

Was Zarathushtra a teleologist? My answer is no!

However, the one thing that DOES change over time is technological complexity.
This means that we both get wonderful new tools like computers and the internet that connects people productively and creatively around the world.
But technology also creates rampant pollution and atomic bombs.
But as far as human beings are concerned, we are the same people and have the same genes we did 100,000 years ago.
And I mustoffer friendly disagreement with Dina on the supposed teleology of Zarathushtra. I don't see any such traces in "The Gathas". Zarathushtra is an ETHICIST and not an historicist.
And if teleology was correct, then why would we listen to a man from 3,700 years ago. We should then all be infinitely smarter than him by now. Which I happen to think is obviously not true. ;-)

Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/19 Special Kain

Dear Dina

As a sociologist I am very sceptical when it comes to teleology. My inner scholar tells me that we are not progressing towards a better state. We are not progressing towards The Ultimate Democracy (as in Hegel's "the end of history"). Times just change, and we change with them, for better or worse. What we can't deny is an increase in complexity and the creation of new and more efficient technologies. And if we're not completely deranged, we can learn from previous experiences. I would recommend "soft teleology" that does justice to the fundamental uncertainty of social change.

Ushta,
Dino

----- Weitergeleitete Message -----
Von: "dinamci@aol.com"
An: special_kain@yahoo.de; bardissimo@gmail.com
Gesendet: 16:10 Freitag, 19.August 2011
Betreff: Re: Reply to Dino The Meaning of Asha

Dear Dino

I hope that you are well and in good spirits. Thank you for your kind words. Your comment regarding 'teleological misunderstanding' sent me flying to the dictionary (so much for my 'brilliant mind' which I assure you is far from it!). According to my dictionary 'teleological' means 'exhibiting or relating to design or purpose', so yes, I do see that in Zarathushtra's thought, and I am inclined to agree with him.

You are indeed accurate when you say that social change is hard to predict. And I fully agree that our society is not 'objectively superior' (I really dislike the notion of 'superiority' in any event). But I (with due respect) do not agree that as a society we have not, slowly but surely, improved in many (though not all) respects over our past. Let me give you a few examples:

In the Middle Ages in Europe, people who dared to think differently from the established Church -- whether in matters of science, or 'morals' or philosophical belief, were condemned as heretics. Many of them were tortured by the Inquisition, imprisoned for long years, or burned alive at the stake. This kind of control also extended to secular rulers, with Protestant rulers burning Catholics, and Catholic rulers burning Protestants. And prisoners were routinely tortured to obtain 'confessions' which were admissible in court and used to condemn them. Today, it is true that religious authorities still exercise a measure of control over people's minds (witness the fundamentalist sects in various religions, and even in mainstream sects, the control that is exercised through fear of damnation and 'hell' ), but neither church nor state has such pervasive control over human thought as they did in the Middle Ages. It is true that we do take steps backwards, (witness the brutalities and controls of the Soviet Union and the Nazis), and it is also true that we do still have the torture of individuals to obtain information, some times by a government (as we know to our shame and sorrow), but again, not to the pervasive extent that was prevalent during the Inquisition. Then it was considered "right". Today it is condemned by most people. And most courts in our societies do not accept testimony obtained through torture. It is also true that we have terrorists who blow people up, but again not to the extent of the systematic and frequent (almost routine) burning at the stake of those who were 'different' in thought, word or action, that occurred in the Middle Ages.

So yes, I do think, that slowly, with many ups and downs, -- two steps forward, one step backwards -- we nevertheless are progressing towards a better society. According to Zarathushtra, (as I understand his thought) this occurs because of the way things have been ordered (asha) which includes many factors -- the law of consequences (that we reap what we sow), the ability to think / feel, and mutual loving help, which helps to break destructive cycles (such as the abused abusing others, cycles of injustice, hatred and revenge etc.). This ability to think/feel, is a part of asha (good thinking is the comprehension of the true (correct) order of things, however incrementally). This mutual loving help is also a part of asha. It is delivered through words and actions that embody the true (correct) order of things. Such words and actions which embody asha are (in my view) the concept of aramaiti.

So I do not think that in Z's thought there is any teleological misunderstanding. I think he did see a design and purpose in the experiences that engender an evolution in our thoughts, words and actions. And I have to say that I find his idea persuasive. But my dear friend, it is perfectly all right for you to disagree with me. Zarathushtra's whole idea of the freedom to think requires that we respect differences of opinion, or it would be a hollow freedom indeed.

You are welcome to forward this to the Ushta list if you think it appropriate.

Wishing you the best,

Dina.

-----Original Message-----
From: Special Kain
To: Ushta ; dinamci
Sent: Fri, Aug 19, 2011 9:19 am
Subject: Re: [Ushta] The Meaning of Asha

Dear Dina

Thank you very much for sharing your knowledge and wisdom with us. I have always loved your brilliant mind!
If asha also applies to the mind, then should we see ourselves as progressing towards a better society built on wisdom? Isn't this a teleological misunderstanding? Frankly, I don't believe in teleology as a sociologist. Social change is hard to predict. Our future society isn't "objectively superior" to our current or any past societies.
What do you think?

Ushta,
Dino

Zoroastianism: I believe there is a universe and I have DECIDED that this universe is sacred to me

Dear Behnaz

I believe there is a universe and I have DECIDED that this universe is sacred to me.
I don't care about all that God-talk and neither did Zarathushtra. He does not use the term God even once in "The Gathas".
If you share my belief, then you are a true Zoroastrian. And there is no need to look for something bigger and better than yourself or the world around you. Make the best of yourself and the world around you instead. You are divine. The world is divine. Which is precisely why you should be nice to yourself and those around you that you love.

Ushta
Alexander

2011/8/18 Behnaz Larsen

Dear Alexander
Right now I don't believe in much. Have a hard enough time believing in a God. Angels, I am afraid have taken a backseat and believing in them would simply be too much to ask.
I am though aware of a desire that I have which pushes me forward to find peace with something else, a bigger, better being. Believing in angles and gods and extra ordinary beings take practice. So far I haven't had the time or the desire for it but I want a God! I want to listen to my instincts and look for it. I might find myself after a long search but then I will believe in me!
I am afraid I am not as advanced in this as you are. I have just began but you are inspiring me with the words you write and I am finding a new path. I am afraid I can never be a blind follower but I do envy them. Life is just easier when you have another watching over you. Keep on writing. I am listening.

Sent from my iPad

On Aug 18, 2011, at 9:33 AM, Alexander Bard wrote:

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

The Meaning of Asha

Dear Parviz

I don't think anybody should sign any contract stating that they promise to follow asha.
That would be way too Abrahamic. We as Zoroastrians live with a fluid and flexible ethics, not with a fixed and assumed objectively valid moralism. We become our actions but we are not our actions in advance!
We have no commandments since it is the CIRCUMSTANCES that always determine what is the right thing to do (what is likely to be the best long-term outcome). And this can never be detailed in advance but rather has to always BE LIVED WITHIN THE MOMENT OF DECISION ITSELF.
Zarathushtra was indeed NOT an Abrahamist. So why would he ask us to behave as if we were?

Ushta
Alexander
- Dölj citerad text -

2011/8/19 Parviz Varjavand

Dear Dina,

First, allow me to apologize for mixing your views and those of Dino, even though I think you are both very close in thinking of Asha as “that which Fits”. In philosophy, abstract thinking is what we need as a tool and not trying to figure out the minds of Mahatma Gandy, Mother Theresa, or Jesus Christ. (You know what I am trying to say here ;-). Mithra is the guardian of contracts and as a lawyer you know how important the precise language and the precise meaning of words are when written in a contract. I feel Mazdayasna in the modern world can be a religion for the intellectuals and as such I wish it to have precise meanings to the key nomenclature it uses. The meaning of Asha as you describe it, is clear in the physical (Giti) realm. It is how physical things behave and the laws that apply to them. Water runs down hill, and that is how it is.

But when we get to separating Asha from Droj in the mental world (Minoo), we as Ashavands need the two words described more clearly. If the way you describe what Asha and Droj are is satisfactory to all who are interested in Mazdayasna, then good for you all. I am the odd man out and to me the words are most confusing. I would not sign any contract in which one of the clauses is, “and Parviz Varjavand hereby promises to act according to Asha in the premises or else loose all the deposit money he has put down.”

There are religions that need the smoke and mirrors and the unclear language so that their Gurus will never be out of a job while sitting on a top of mountain answering the pilgrims what he thinks Dharma or Karma is. I do not feel Mazdayasna need to be one more such path. The old Magi would melt bronze and pour it on the chest of their victims in order to find if they were telling the Asha or Droj of a situation. This is also part of our heritage when it comes to the distinction between Asha and Droj in the mental world. I want the heritage to change so that we can write contracts that Mithra will understand and so will lawyers.

Mehr Afzoon,
Parviz Varjavand

From: Alexander Bard
To: Ushta
Cc: jafarey@aol.com; Dina McIntyre
Sent: Fri, August 19, 2011 5:39:54 AM
Subject: [Ushta] The Meaning of Asha


Dear Friends


We thank our dear friend Dina McIntyre for making this posting available to us all on the Ushta List.

Please read and feel free to comment!
Alexander

2011/8/18
Dear Alexander,

It is kind indeed of so many of you to copy me on these interesting discussions. I note that Zaneta mentioned in one of these emails that I had defined asha as 'what fits' although Dino seems to have got the blame for it in subsequent exchanges. I thought, in the interests of integrity, I should set the record straight, and I apologize for waiting for so long to do so. You are welcome to copy this email to any List that you think appropriate. The following represents my opinion on what meaning Zarathushtra ascribes to asha, based both on linguistics, and also on the ways in which he uses the word in the Gathas.

The literal meaning of asha (according to many first class linguists) is indeed 'what fits' as in what is ordered in a system. It corresponds to the Vedic rta, and the Old Persian arta, which have roughly the same meaning. The question of course arises (for anyone interested in Zarathushtra's ideas) what does Zarathushtra have in mind when he uses the word 'asha'. This question is relevant, not for the purpose of slavishly following Zarathushtra's ideas, but for the purpose of understanding his ideas. Before any of us can decide whether we agree or disagree with his ideas, we have to first understand what his ideas may have been in this (as in any other) instance.

Based on its Vedic and Old Persian cognates, Asha has been variously translated as 'truth' 'order' and 'righteousness'. It would be reasonable to question how one word could possibly have three such different meanings. Well, Zarathushtra did not think in English (or any other language in existence today). So to understand what he may have had in mind, we have to think outside of the box of the English language, and try to look at the matter through his eyes.

Zarathushtra sees (our) reality as the existences of matter and of mind, which (in our reality) are integrated, and asha 'what fits' applies to both existences.

In the existence of matter, 'what fits' is what is correct -- as in factually (physically, materially) correct -- the natural laws that order the universe, the laws of what today we call science -- physics, chemistry, biology, etc. So asha is the true, (correct) order of things in the existence of matter.

In the existence of mind, 'what fits' is also what is 'correct' -- as in what is right. But in the Gathas, what is 'right' is not a judgmental, puritanical rectitude. If we look at all the evidence of what Zarathushtra sees as 'right' we see that it comprises such notions as truth, goodness, beneficence, lovingkindness, generosity, solicitude, friendship, compassion, justice, being constructive, not being destructive, not being inimical, et cetera. In short, asha in the existence of mind includes all the good values we cherish which befit the true (correct, right) order of things in the existence of mind.

So in essence, asha means the true (correct) order of things in the existences of matter and of mind. There is no one-word equivalent in English that comes even close. The word 'truth', is an inadequate equivalent but the best one word equivalent I can think of.

And what I really like is that in speaking of this true (correct) order of things, Zarathushtra does not give us fact specific answers. Indeed, he endearing admits he does not have all the answers. He says "...As long as I shall be able and be strong, so long shall I search in quest of truth. Truth, shall I see thee as I continue to acquire ... good thinking..." Y28.4-5. In other words, he tells us to search for the true, (correct) order of things in the existences of matter and of mind.

This quest for truth, with good thinking, includes searching for the physical (factual) truths of our universe. Zarathushtra does not tell us, as an article of faith that the sun revolves around the earth. Instead, he demonstrates his quest for truth in the existence of matter, not by giving fact-specific answers, but by asking all sorts of questions pertaining to such things: "...Which man did fix the course of the sun and of the stars? Through whom does the moon wax (now) and wane later?" Y44.3; "...Which man has upheld the earth below and the heavens (above) from falling? Who the waters and the plants?..." Y44.4; "...which craftsman created the luminous bodies and the dark spaces? ... sleep and activity? Through whom does the dawn exist along with midday and evening?..." Y44.5. Gallileo would have been happy with this approach.

This quest for truth, with good thinking, also includes searching for what is correct (right) in the existence of mind. What is 'right' in one generation, or in one culture, may be very different from what is 'right' in another culture. So is Zarathushtra's idea of 'right' subjective? I do not think it is. I think it is our perceptions of 'truth' or 'right' that are subjective. But as we evolve or grow, through time and experiences, our perceptions change. A hundred years ago in the US, women were not allowed to have careers, own property, or vote. That was considered 'right'. Today no one (in the US) would consider that state of affairs as 'right'. Over time, through thinking, and experiencing, and debating, our perceptions change, and change, and change, until eventually, 'truth' and 'right' and our perceptions of it, are the same. And that is wisdom personified (mazda). I am persuaded by Thieme's view that mazda means not just wise, but wisdom personified. Mazdayasni (in my opinion) means the worship of wisdom. And in Zarathushtra's thought, we 'worship' with truth, good thinking, and embodying the truth with each thought, word and action. A living, loving worship. So (as in philosophy which means love of wisdom) in Zarathusthtra's thought, mazdayasni does indeed mean loving wisdom.

Also (for what it's worth) do not think there are two kinds of asha -- asha vahishta and just plain asha. Vahishta simply is the superlative degree of 'good' vohu. So asha vahishta simply means the most-good asha. Asha (truth) has also been called 'the most beautiful'. It is just a way of describing the nature of asha, bearing in mind that it applies to both the existences of matter and mind -- the physical and the abstract.

I hope that above clarifies any misunderstandings that may have occurred as to my views on asha, and especially I hope that it relieves Dino of any blame for what may not be his views at all.

Wishing us the best,

Dina G. McIntyre