Mithraism vs Mazdaism Part 2

I'm not abandoning anybody here, Parviz! Far from it.
Mithraism is just an old Western extension of Zoroastrianism anyway, with a very central role given to Zarathushtra and his philosophy, actually even more so than within Zoroastrianism.
The problem is that Zoroastrians seem to care too little about their own future and their own religion to really believe it can be a thriving and growing religion for anybody, least of all themselves.
Mithraism simply seems more suitable, in one form or the other, to take global and universal.
Zoroastrians can't seem to talk about their faith without making conversions an issue. And I have grown tired of this. There is no room for visions.
Mithraism I could even take to Burning Man and it would work wonders. It is CULTURALLY exciting, easy to turn into artistry. By comparison, Zoroastrianism is bland and unimaginative. You get the picture!
It's a change of labels, Parviz, not a change of faith!
Ushta
Alexander

2010/9/20 Parviz Varjavand


Dear Alex,

Mithraism also has many who claim to know it better than you, and then when they talk, they dish up loads of trash in the name of Mithraism on your plate that just looking at it will make you want to vomit. Don't go there, you are not safe there either. You are an original thinker and your original thoughts fits more within the framework of Mazda-Yasna than Mithra-Yasna. Mazda-Yasna is a living religion while Mithraism is dead. Living things have permission to change while it is very hard to bring a dead thing back to life and then make this Frankenstein that you have brought to life behave like a living creature and dance a graceful dance on the stage of world thought.

Mazdaism is a version of Zoroastrianism that you helped have a life here on Ushta. Please do not abandon your friends here, me amongst them. If you know any good teacher amongst the Mithraists that you respect, please guide us to his/her writings and teachings, otherwise, please stay here and help us raise this baby that you have helped give life to.

Mehr Afzoon,
Parviz Varjavand

--- On Sun, 9/19/10, Alexander Bard wrote:

From: Alexander Bard
Subject: [Ushta] Mithraism or Mazdaism
To: "Ushta"
Date: Sunday, September 19, 2010, 4:20 AM



Dear Friends


I have decided to stop referring to myself as a "Zoroastrian" and instead decided to refer to myself as a "Mithraist".
Besides the fact that all my Western friends find Mithraism far more attractive and adaptable to a modern society than Zoroastrianism, it also once and for all removes at least me from any conflicts with Parsi isolationists (a pathetic conflict which I have decided to not fight anymore, just let the isolationists kill themselves as a community, I could not care less, I only care about cosmopolitan people interested in Iranian philosophy anyway).
It doesn't change my relationship to Zoroastrianism in general. And Ushta has always been open to both "Zoroastrians", "Mazdaists" and "Mithraists".
It's just that my change of label makes it easier for people to understand where I'm at, and also makes them far more interested and even engaged.
We even started a Swedish Mithraist community last week, founded by people who love to call themselves Mithraists but not interested in the label of Zoroastrians.

Ushta
Alexander

Mithraism vs Mazdaism

Dear Friends

I have decided to stop referring to myself as a "Zoroastrian" and instead decided to refer to myself as a "Mithraist".
Besides the fact that all my Western friends find Mithraism far more attractive and adaptable to a modern society than Zoroastrianism, it also once and for all removes at least me from any conflicts with Parsi isolationists (a pathetic conflict which I have decided to not fight anymore, just let the isolationists kill themselves as a community, I could not care less, I only care about cosmopolitan people interested in Iranian philosophy anyway).
It doesn't change my relationship to Zoroastrianism in general. And Ushta has always been open to both "Zoroastrians", "Mazdaists" and "Mithraists".
It's just that my change of label makes it easier for people to understand where I'm at, and also makes them far more interested and even engaged.
We even started a Swedish Mithraist community last week, founded by people who love to call themselves Mithraists but not interested in the label of Zoroastrians.

Ushta
Alexander

Conversion

Dear Friends

This is absolutely correct. A religion can not be trademarked.
No one can therefore stop for example me from considering me to be whatever religion I prefer.
What people CAN do is to stop me practicing WITH THEM. For example, it is entirely up to Parsees to prevent me and other Western converts to enter certain Parsi buildings etc. This is their prerogative which I of course totally respect. I will probably just return the favor by banning them from entering MY premises. Fair enough.
But whether I call myself a Mazdayasni or a Zoroastrian or a Mazdaist or whatever is entirely up to me.
And however scholars argue, it is a FACT that my conversion to Zoroastrianism (Mazdayasna) was recognized exactly as such by the entire Council of Mobeds in Tehran at the time.
It is not scholars but practicing followers that ultimately decide whether I am allowed to to belong to a certain creed or not. It is a PRACTICAL everyday and not at all a scholarly matter.
What scholars say is actually of no interest whatsoever. Not even the mobeds care about them, to be honest.

Ushta
Alexander

2010/8/24 maneck d

Dear Dr Pallan Ichaporia

Thanks for forwarding the relevant parts from Encyclopaedia Iranica that deal with my query to you on "Acceptance and Conversion".

All that these paras denote is certainly very well known to me and all others who have lived through these years in India and abroad.

But my question was and is to you that after due studies of the Religion and its Scriptures, that you profess to have done, what is your Scholarly Opinion, Personal Inference/Decision in these matters??

And you must have read the four articles that appeared in a magazine (HUMATA) some years ago authored jointly by Professor K D Irani and Vajifdar (UK) written after due research into the matter and with all due refernces to these same Scriptures, and which came to a very different inference.

No one owns A RELIGION, you me and all are just adherents, and so no one can stop anyone from practicing this or any other Religion. Do you agree that far?


With due regards to all

maneck d
NY

----- Original Message -----
From: Soleman2002@aol.com
To: zoroastrians@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 4:28 PM
Subject: [zoroastrians] Conversion - an article from Encyclopedia Iraniac


Following is an article from Encycolpedia Iranica
ALL INQUIRIES SHOULD BE SENT TO ENCYCLOPEDIA IRANICA-Dr.Pallan Ichaporia,Mainz Universitat
CONVERSION. To the Zoroastrian faith in the modern period

CONVERSION

To the Zoroastrian faith in the modern period

Modern Zoroastrians disagree on whether it is permissible for outsiders to enter their religion. Now scattered in small minority communities in Persia, India, Europe, and North America and without a reli gious hierarchy, the Zoroastrians are governed by councils and high priests whose authority is only local. Even within a community an individual may choose not to accept the ruling of the council or high priest. Zoroastrian communities and individuals thus have differing views on conversion. They tend to cluster around two general tendencies, reformist and traditionalist, but even within these groups the variation is considerable. Reformist liberals generally urge accep tance of any individual who chooses of his or her own free will to practice Zoroastrianism. They distinguish between “acceptance,” which implies complete free will, and conversion and proselytism, which carry connotations of coercion or pressure. Nevertheless, there are those who believe in the missionary nature of Zoroastrianism and go so far as to encourage active proselytism. On the traditionalist side some moderates permit the acceptance of spouses and the offspring of mixed marriages, but the strict constructionists refuse to accept as coreligionists even Zoroastrians who marry outside the faith and consider children born of such unions illegitimate. This controversy has become exacerbated in this century, as the scattered Zoroas trian communities are shrinking and experiencing in creasing intermarriage. Opponents of conversion ar gue that, precisely because the community is so fragile, the acceptance of converts will dilute the ethnic strength of the religion and lead to its complete anni hilation. The issue is of practical importance, for it affects admission to fire temples (Boyce, 1984, p. 153) and “towers of silence,” as well as the legal privileges attached to membership in the community.

The Gathas (the part of the Avesta attributed to Zoroaster), as well as other Avestan and Pahlavi texts, are cited by both sides to justify their positions (see i, above). The passage quoted most often by those who favor accepting converts is Yasna 31.3 (yā jvantō vīspəˊng vāurayā “by which I might convert all the living”; Insler, p. 182), cited as proof of the universal character of Zoroaster’s message. Several other verses of the Gathas, especially Yasna 46.12, in which a non- Iranian family (the Turanian Fryāna; Taraporewala, p. 251 n.; Pūr-e Dāwūd, p. 104 n.) is named among the followers of Zoroaster, have furnished liberals with a textual basis for their argument against confinement of Zoroastrianism to a specific race or nationality (letter from Kankāš-e Mūbadān-e Tehran, published in Māh -nāma Markaz-e Zartoštīān-e Kālīfornīā [Monthly newsletter of the California Zoroastrian Center], Westminster, 1/5, Ḵordād 1362 Š./June 1983, p. 2). Moreover, liberals hold that the intrinsically nonritualistic doctrine of the Gathas degenerated into an Iranian ideology as a result of language and other barriers (Antia, pp. 7-9) and of such alterations as the incorporation of stringent purity rituals (Boyce, Zoro astrianism I, p. 295) entailed by the establishment of an organized religion.

Traditionalists, on the other hand, accuse proponents of conversion of heretical distortion of scripture and maintain that blood and faith are a linked heritage. They suggest that the term mazdāyasna (Mazda wor shiping) in scriptural sources—especially in the prayer Yasna 12, in which one declares “I am a Mazda worshiper” before declaring “I am a Zoroastrian”— refers to the religion into which Zoroaster and all his early followers were born (Irani, pp. 6-8). The mission of Zoroaster was thus to purify the mazdāyasna reli gion from alien doctrines, and there was no question, even at the beginning, of forcing or convincing people to abandon their ancestral religion or of accepting people not born into the mazdāyasna religion (Mirza et al., n.d., p. 7). Therefore only a child born of Zoroastrian parents is mazdāyasna by birth, and only such a child may be properly admitted into the Zoroastrian fold through receiving the traditional authorization to wear the outward symbols of the faith—the sacred undershirt (ṣodra) and the girdle (koštī)—at the Nowjat (lit., “new birth”) ceremony (Irani, p. 8).

The divergence in interpretation also extends to history. Traditionalists cite the general tolerance of other religious populations by the Achaemenid and Parthian dynasties as evidence that Zoroastrianism was intended to be the religion of a single ethnic group (Irani, pp. 29-31). Those liberals who hold that the individual must accept the religion of his or her own free will maintain that Zoroaster’s message could have provided no impetus to aggressive proselytizing. On the other hand, those favoring active proselytism cite such incidents as Xerxes’ destruction of the daivadānas (XPh, ll. 37-41; Kent, Old Persian, p. 151: “I de stroyed that sanctuary of the demons . . . . Where previously the demons were worshipped, there I worshipped Ahuramazda”) as evidence that Zoroastrian ism had been imposed by force and thus that the early Zoroastrian kings considered conversion of non-Zoro astrians both permissible and desirable (Antia, p. 30). Sasanian history provides ample evidence for use of both force and persuasion to win over non-Zoroastri ans, but traditionalists argue that such instances as the endeavors of the Sasanian high priest Kerdīr recorded in the inscription on Kaʿba-ye Zardošt (“And there were many who had held the religion of the dēvs, and by my act they abandoned the religion of the dēvs and accepted the religion of the yazads”; Boyce, 1984, p. 113; interview with a member of the California Zoroastrian Center, November 1990) and the forced recon version by Yazdegerd II (438-57) of Zoroastrian Ar menians who had converted to Christianity took place primarily for political reasons (Antia, p. 13; Mirza et al., n.d., p. 7).

After the Arab conquest of Persia in the 7th century and the establishment of Islam as the religion of the new rulers, some Zoroastrians emigrated to India (the Parsis). Whereas the Zoroastrians who remained in Persia were not permitted to proselytize under Muslim rule and the conversion of a Muslim could result in persecution of the entire community, liberals point out that the Zoroastrian literature from after the conquest does include discussions of the possibility that a non- Zoroastrian might seek admission to the faith (Rivayat -i Hemit, pp. 184-88). They also cite the response of the Persian priests to a Parsi inquiry about the conversion of Hindu servant boys and girls (Persian Rivayats, tr. Dhabhar, p. 276), arguing that conversion to Zoroastri anism was certainly considered possible, at least in theory, and that the guidelines stipulated in such medi eval sources reflect faithfully the Zoroastrian practice that prevailed in Sasanian times and thus conform to orthodox Zoroastrian beliefs.

Whereas the Persian Zoroastrian communities never explicitly opposed the acceptance of converts, since the 18th century Indian Parsi councils have generally refused to accept as Zoroastrians persons other than children of Parsi parents, though there have been sporadic rulings allowing acceptance of the children of mixed marriages. This rigor may be ascribed to the pressures of the caste structure in India, reinforced by the growing prosperity of the Parsi social-welfare system, a possible incentive for seeking admission to the Zoroastrian fold.

In Persia the majority of Zoroastrians lived in ex treme poverty and suffered intermittent persecution up to the beginning of the 20th century. The question of conversion to Zoroastrianism would scarcely have arisen there. After the intervention of the Parsis on behalf of their Persian coreligionists, as well as changes in attitudes after the Constitutional Revolution (q.v.), the condition of Persian Zoroastrians gradually im proved. Owing partly to the policies of Reżā Shah (1304-20 Š./1925-41), for example, the adoption of Zoroastrian names for months, in the 1930s there was an awakening of interest in pre-Islamic history and religion. The efforts of several Persians to win recognition of the nobility of the Zoroastrian faith through translations of the Avesta contributed to increased respect for the old religion among the educated (Boyce, 1986, pp. 219-20). Nevertheless, only a few Persian Muslims became Zoroastrians: The Muslim dictum against conversion is very strong. In addition, Persian Zoroastrians, though theoretically adhering to the prin ciple of acceptance, deemed it permissible only if it did not result in harm either to the Zoroastrian community or to the religion into which the individual was born (interview with Mrs. Susan Varjavand). Since the Islamic Revolution of 1357 Š./1978 the Persian Zoro astrian community has evidently become even more cautious about accepting converts.

The issue of conversion has been the cause of great disturbance within the new Zoroastrian communities in North America. Only a handful of non-Persians have been officially admitted to the fold. In the two instances in which information is available to the author, the converts were married to Zoroastrians. So far the religious councils in India refuse to acknowledge these initiates as true Zoroastrians (information provided by the California Zoroastrian Center; Mobad N. Hormuzdiar, who performed the controversial ini tiation of an American in New Rochelle, N.Y., on 5 March 1983; and Mrs. Susan Varjavand, a recent convert from Christianity).

Bibliography : K. Antia, The Argument for Acceptance, Chicago, 1985. M. Boyce, Textual Sources for the Study of Zoroastrianism, Manchester, 1984. Idem, Zoroastrians, repr. London, 1986. S. Insler, The Gathas of Zarathustra, Acta Iranica 8, Leiden, 1975. R. A. Irani, “Acceptance”—Never Ever!, Poona, 1985. H. K. Mirza, K. M. JamaspAsa, and F. M. Kotwal, Conversion in Zoroastrianism. A Myth Exploded, Bombay, 1983. Idem, Antia’s “Acceptance.” A Zoroastrian "Ahrmogih" (Heresy), n.p., n.d. [E.] Pūr(-e) Dāwūd, Gatha I, Bombay, 1952. Rivayat-i Hemit-i Ashawahistan—A Study in Zoroastrian Law, tr. N. Safa-Isfehani, ed. R. N. Frye, Harvard Iranian Series 2, Cambridge, Mass., 1980. I. J. S. Taraporewala, The Religion of Zarathushtra, Bombay, 1965.

(Pargol Saati)

Mehr Afzoon (was: Philosophical vs Religious Zoroastrianism)

Peace is a concept provided by others. Presumably some kind of God. It is a negative reaction to wish peace rather than an active participation.
Love is an activity that indeed does not occur unless it is a product of something done. It is a concept only possible through one's own action. And only maintained through one's own actions.
The difference speaks volumes about the basic premises of the religions involved.
Mehr Afzoon
Alexander

2010/8/18 Parviz Varjavand

Dear Alex,

I also love Mehr Afzoon. Afzoon is almost a command, it is like cheering you to push harder and increase something rather than deal with it as a static given. Love can not be a static given, it is something that we need to push and push to broaden its dimensions and range. Some persons say "I have never fallen in love" or "how does one fall in love?". My answer is "By trying hard and every day trying harder until you set yourself on fire over it".

The Jews and the Arabs have been saying Sallam and Shallom (meaning Peace) to every one and each other for ages, but has this made them any more peaceful persons? If they would only try to love one another a very little bit at first and then increase the tempo of this very irrational act by a little bit every day, they might be surprised of what it may do for them in the long run. May the quality of your love never regress to a static standstill, may it always increase in quantity and quality, may it be Afzoon.

Mehr Afzoon,
Parviz Varjavand

--- On Tue, 8/17/10, Alexander Bard wrote:

From: Alexander Bard
Subject: [Ushta] Mehr Afzoon (was: Philosophical vs Religious Zoroastrianism)
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, August 17, 2010, 1:04 AM


Dear Parviz and Khvetu

"Mehr Afzoon" is the most beautiful greeting phrase I know.
Both phonetically and literally.
Like many Zoroastrian phrases it also encapsulates the ethos of Mazdayasna in one simple phrase.
The will to uphold Civilization and the desire to expand it, as a deep emotion, a genuine pathos pushing the ethos, from within.

Mehr Afzoon indeed
Alexander

Ideology at work in society

Which is precisely why the good old closet Nietzschean Slavoj Zizek does NOT speak of philosophy (he would agree that philosophy never really dictated anything) but instead speaks of IDEOLOGY. And as any good Nietzschean he describes and exposes ideology, not proposes it. For example by looking for how Ideology glued Salinist Soviet Union together and then glued contemporary Europe or America together. This is how it works, this is why we do the things we do instead of doing what we say we should do. Et cetera. I frankly don't see the opposition between Zizek and Rorty on this matter, but then I also believe that the supposed opposition between Hegel and Nietzsche is nonsensical too. Our latest favorite Eva Illouz is also a social critic describing Ideology at work, especially how Psychologism has taken center stage in contemporary culture and thereby has become an incredibly strong ideological factor.
Mehr Afzoon
Alexander

2010/8/17 Special Kain

Frankly, I don't subscribe to the heavy use of post-this and post-that anyway. ;-)
So how does language "actually function", then? There's a variety of explanations and attempts at grasping the essence of language. Just pick the one that suits you best. It's like wearing a dress (and that's why Peirce was right about the similarity between philosophy and the world of fashion).
I'm not totally against Zizek's suspicions, but I don't share his paranoia. The fact that we don't live in a post-ideological society does not necessarily mean that philosophy was the one single and supreme adhesive gluing absolutely everything together. I don't see philosophy on top of it all. Modern societies are far more complex than that.


Ushta,
Dino

--- Alexander Bard schrieb am Mo, 16.8.2010:

Von: Alexander Bard
Betreff: [Ushta] Mazdayasna vs Zoroastrianism (Comparisons of The Mazdaist, Jafareyite and Parsi views)
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Montag, 16. August, 2010 11:22 Uhr


In that case, I'm a pragmatist who agrees with Zizek on this issue. Just as Nietzsche would. Or call me post-pragmatist if you like.

Or rather: This is where it would be wise for pragmatists to not ignore the wisdom of Hegel.
Otherwise they risk getting too naive about how language actually functions. Too autistic.
Ushta
Alexander

2010/8/16 Special Kain

Dear Alexander
"Livsåskådning" is "Lebenseinstellung" in German: one's attitude towards life that shapes our feelings, thoughts, words and actions.
It is exactly Richard Rorty who rejected the idea that philosophy was at the innermost core of our lives (please also see Martin Heidegger). And it is Slavoj Zizek who strongly rejected Rorty's stance for ignoring the ideology at work in an allegedly post-ideological society. So the two thinkers take a radically different stance.

Ushta,
Dino

--- Alexander Bard schrieb am Mo, 16.8.2010:

Von: Alexander Bard
Betreff: [Ushta] Mazdayasna vs Zoroastrianism (Comparisons of The Mazdaist, Jafareyite and Parsi views)
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Montag, 16. August, 2010 10:15 Uhr


Dear Friends

Swedish has a beautiful word "livsåskådning" (I believe there is a similar word in German, perhaps Dino can help us with that?) which perfectly illustrates what Zoroastrianism or Mazdayasna is to me. Unfortunately the word can not be translated to English (freely translated the word would mean somehting akin to "having and oracticing a view on the conditions of existence". The problem here is not our concept of what Mazdayasna is or should be but rather the Ebnlish language's lack of vocabulary to describe our ambition.

And I must disagree there can be a society without philosophy: As Slavoj Zizek has explained and proven: There is always an IDEOLOGY at work in any given society, a matrix of ideas that dominate (precisely through vocabulary), and what is an ideology if not a philosophy, but merely STRONGER by operating as subconscious rather than conscious. So we can live in a society without a conscious philosophy but then only even more controlled by subconscious philosophy or rather ideology. Supersitition is the most perfect example of such subconscious philosophy. What we are doing by giving a vocabulary to philosophy (which is what Rorty would mean is the art of philosophy) is actually to DISTANCE ourselves from ideas that control us uncritically.

Ushta
Alexander

2010/8/13 Parviz Varjavand

Dear Jehan and Dino,

Spirituality connotes the existence of a spirit often perceived as separate from the body, something i do not believe in. Religion on the other hand was a bonding between men, but Agustin turned it into a bonding of men and God. I believe in Religion (Relegare) in its original implication, I share a religion between you, Dino, Alex, Arthur, and many others because we have come to like one another and some kind of a "bond" has been created between us. That "bond" I call Religion.

We are very lucky because our Zoroastrian religion does not have a chain of authority that must be obeyed, so I feel very at ease sailing my ship under that flag.

Parviz

Zizek vs Rorty? The limits of pragmatism?

In that case, I'm a pragmatist who agrees with Zizek on this issue. Just as Nietzsche would. Or call me post-pragmatist if you like.
Or rather: This is where it would be wise for pragmatists to not ignore the wisdom of Hegel.
Otherwise they risk getting too naive about how language actually functions. Too autistic.
Ushta
Alexander

2010/8/16 Special Kain


Dear Alexander
"Livsåskådning" is "Lebenseinstellung" in German: one's attitude towards life that shapes our feelings, thoughts, words and actions.
It is exactly Richard Rorty who rejected the idea that philosophy was at the innermost core of our lives (please also see Martin Heidegger). And it is Slavoj Zizek who strongly rejected Rorty's stance for ignoring the ideology at work in an allegedly post-ideological society. So the two thinkers take a radically different stance.

Ushta,
Dino

--- Alexander Bard schrieb am Mo, 16.8.2010:

Von: Alexander Bard
Betreff: [Ushta] Mazdayasna vs Zoroastrianism (Comparisons of The Mazdaist, Jafareyite and Parsi views)
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Montag, 16. August, 2010 10:15 Uhr


Dear Friends

Swedish has a beautiful word "livsåskådning" (I believe there is a similar word in German, perhaps Dino can help us with that?) which perfectly illustrates what Zoroastrianism or Mazdayasna is to me. Unfortunately the word can not be translated to English (freely translated the word would mean somehting akin to "having and oracticing a view on the conditions of existence". The problem here is not our concept of what Mazdayasna is or should be but rather the Ebnlish language's lack of vocabulary to describe our ambition.

And I must disagree there can be a society without philosophy: As Slavoj Zizek has explained and proven: There is always an IDEOLOGY at work in any given society, a matrix of ideas that dominate (precisely through vocabulary), and what is an ideology if not a philosophy, but merely STRONGER by operating as subconscious rather than conscious. So we can live in a society without a conscious philosophy but then only even more controlled by subconscious philosophy or rather ideology. Supersitition is the most perfect example of such subconscious philosophy. What we are doing by giving a vocabulary to philosophy (which is what Rorty would mean is the art of philosophy) is actually to DISTANCE ourselves from ideas that control us uncritically.

Ushta
Alexander

Mazdayasna vs Zoroastrianism (Comparisons of The Mazdaist, Jafareyite and Parsi views)

Dear Friends

Swedish has a beautiful word "livsåskådning" (I believe there is a similar word in German, perhaps Dino can help us with that?) which perfectly illustrates what Zoroastrianism or Mazdayasna is to me. Unfortunately the word can not be translated to English (freely translated the word would mean somehting akin to "having and oracticing a view on the conditions of existence". The problem here is not our concept of what Mazdayasna is or should be but rather the Ebnlish language's lack of vocabulary to describe our ambition.

And I must disagree there can be a society without philosophy: As Slavoj Zizek has explained and proven: There is always an IDEOLOGY at work in any given society, a matrix of ideas that dominate (precisely through vocabulary), and what is an ideology if not a philosophy, but merely STRONGER by operating as subconscious rather than conscious. So we can live in a society without a conscious philosophy but then only even more controlled by subconscious philosophy or rather ideology. Supersitition is the most perfect example of such subconscious philosophy. What we are doing by giving a vocabulary to philosophy (which is what Rorty would mean is the art of philosophy) is actually to DISTANCE ourselves from ideas that control us uncritically.

Ushta
Alexander

2010/8/13 Parviz Varjavand

Dear Jehan and Dino,

Spirituality connotes the existence of a spirit often perceived as separate from the body, something i do not believe in. Religion on the other hand was a bonding between men, but Agustin turned it into a bonding of men and God. I believe in Religion (Relegare) in its original implication, I share a religion between you, Dino, Alex, Arthur, and many others because we have come to like one another and some kind of a "bond" has been created between us. That "bond" I call Religion.

We are very lucky because our Zoroastrian religion does not have a chain of authority that must be obeyed, so I feel very at ease sailing my ship under that flag.

Parviz

--- On Fri, 8/13/10, Special Kain wrote:

From: Special Kain
Subject: Re: AW: [Ushta] Re: Mazdayasna vs Zoroastrianism (Comparions of The Mazdaist, Jafareyite and Parsi views)
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, August 13, 2010, 1:35 PM


Dear Jehan

Spiritualism is neither superior nor inferior to any other metaphysical concept, such as materialism, idealism, whatever-ism. It's simply another vocabulary that may or may not serve a specific purpose under certain circumstances.

Ushta,
Dino

--- Jehan Bagli schrieb am Fr, 13.8.2010:

Von: Jehan Bagli
Betreff: Re: AW: [Ushta] Re: Mazdayasna vs Zoroastrianism (Comparions of The Mazdaist, Jafareyite and Parsi views)
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Freitag, 13. August, 2010 20:36 Uhr


Ushta Perviz and Dino:


I know that you are both among those Zoroastrians who translate Mazda-Yasna as Philo-Sophia. I am agreeable to that. However I see the need of Parviz to address Mazda-Yasna as something other than Philosophy. Personally I feel that religions by definition are divisive. They tend to attempt to confine the Infinite Reality -God/Mazda whatever it is - into a finite forms and set out limits to it. I think Spiritualism is a much broader concept that would cover an aspect that may be acceptable to masses as Mazda-Yasna Spiritualism or Zarathushtrian Spirituality.

I think people need a crutch to be spiritual following a way of life. Through worship of Mind or Wisdom people can find a path to spirituality.

My two cents

Jehan




On 13-Aug-10, at 1:36 PM, Parviz Varjavand wrote:


Ushta Dino,

There are no buildings housing Spinoza Philosophy but there are so many fire temples dedicated to Zoroastrianism and dating back to ancient times. This is a very precious thing and I do not feel like I would gain anything by throwing it away. There is such an animal as ZoroastrianISM while there is no such animal as SpinozaISM. A philosophy with some structure to it becomes a religion as far as I am concerned. Even the most structured religions can not control subgroups in their religion which do not go with the flow of the sheepish general congregation. So I feel we have a place within the general religion called Zoroastrianism, but I define myself as being amongst those Zoroastrians that translate Mazda-Yasna as Philo-Sophia, and that is that, end of my story.

Ushta,
Parviz
Parviz

--- On Fri, 8/13/10, Special Kain wrote:

From: Special Kain
Subject: AW: [Ushta] Re: Mazdayasna vs Zoroastrianism (Comparions of The Mazdaist, Jafareyite and Parsi views)
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, August 13, 2010, 3:47 AM


Dear friends

I still don't agree with Parviz that Zoroastrianism should be defined as a religion, that is in Christian-Roman terms. For example, I'm far from being religious. There's no reason to go to church other than marvel at the beauty of architecture. I became interested in Zoroastrianism as a philosopher (or, at least, as someone who takes a strong interest in philosophy). To me Zoroastrianism is Mazda-Yasna is Philo-Sophia. You can have Zoroastrian philosophy without buying the whole package.
By the way, the world wouldn't crumble if there was a lack of philosophical convictions tying and gluing all "societal bits" together. Society works perfectly fine without philosophy. Please refer to Martin Heidegger, Jürgen Habermas and Richard Rorty.

Ushta,
Dino