Haurvatat as forever evolving, not perfection!

The terms perfection and imperfection mean nothing unless you SPECIFY what you mean.
"Haurvatat" for example has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with perfection. Haurvatat means "in constant progress" or "forever evolving" as opposed to that which has stabilized and stopped progressing (which Zaratushtra as process philosopher is always opposed to).
Mazda is whatever it is. Ascribing perfection or imperfection to Mazda is just childish to me. Itäs just a view. It doesn't alter or explain what Mazda is.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/7/13 Parviz Varjavand
You can not be a Monist if you have a PERFECT Mazda at the start.
Since my Muzda is as imperfect as I am when we start, my Muzdaism has no problem with Monism.
You have to choose, Is it Mazda for you or Muzda?

The Basics of all Religion: The Cutting of The Chord vs The Story of The Fall

Yes, it is the fall story.
But the cutting of the chord is THE DRIVING FORCE behind The Fall Story, it is the universal sense of "homelessness" which is the motor. You don't really need the fall story for that. For example, in Nazism there is no fall story, there is the cutting of the chord being blamed on an EXTERNAL force (in that case: The Jews). The same thing goes with the hatred of the west in the Middle East (always blaming America för eveything that goes wrong) and these days its opposite (Americans always blaming "terrorists" for everything, soon probably also the U.S. budget deficit).
What I'm talking about is to look beyond the Abrahamic religions and find the true course of what I would refer to as "The Popularity of The Druj". And it always refers back to The Cutting of The Chord.
Our answer is that life WITH The Chord equals Death (actually in a positive sense). When we die "we return to the one-all rather than the current one-as-separate during life". Because that is the way it is, that is the truth.
Ushta
Alexander

2011/7/13 Parviz Varjavand

Dear Alex,

SEPARATION of the IMPERFECT from a PERFECT that made it, is "THE FALL" story!
I say that Uhoora Muzda was as imperfect as everything else and IT and I where as united then and as imperfect then as we are now. We are both going towards a destiny that we hope is somekind of Perfection, but "WE DON'T KNOW THIS" (Purviz Vurjavand's Muzdaism 101). We do not know because we never had a platonic idea of the Ideal from whose perfect state we have fallen.

What you are trying to say may sound good for half a second to the armature ear, but it runs into a million muddy philosophical issues next. Besides, who died and made you the spokes person for Zoroastrianism? I can speak for Muzdaism because I am the inventor of Muzdaism. And it is Muzdaism from now on and not Mazdaism any more. I worship Uhoora Muzda from now on and not Ahoura Mazda as you do. Why? Because Uhoora Muzda told me to do so, so go perfume your lovely red beard some if you do not like it!

Mehr Ufzoon,
Purviz Vurjavund
P.S. Go to the site dubire dot com to see why I write Persian words as I do.

Zoroastrianism as the opposite of Abrahamic religion

It's not even a FALL story, Parviz, it is a story of SEPARATION.
Originally this is when the mother and the child are physically separated at birth. The cutting of the chord.
But where Abrahamism makes this cutting the FAULT OF THE CHILD (original sin) we should proudly state that Zarathushtra said that the cutting of the chord instead is the very ORIGIN OF LIBERTY and EXISTENCE (Haurvatat)!
Zoroastrianism is therefore fundamentally the OPPOSITE of Abrahamism, as Spinoza and Nietzsche wanted. Interestingly also the opposite of Buddhism!
In other words: If we had believed in the Garden of Eden we would have been HAPPY for Eve to eat the fruit. We are The Snake! And to Buddha we say: If the world is full of suffering, why don't you just take prozac and get over it? Not that there isn't suffering but it is not PRIMARY; it is always CAUSED rather than unavoidable. Primary is just Existence itself, Mazda!
Ushta
Alexander
- Dölj citerad text -

2011/7/12 Parviz Varjavand

Dino and Daniel,

Many Zoroastrians believe in a perfect Ahoora Mazda as the first cause and existing in a state that we are to reach eventually. This is the core story of the FALL and the original sin is just an addendum to the FALL story.

If you do not want to be FALLEN creatures, you can not place a perfect creator at the beginning of it all.

Yours,
Parviz

From: Special Kain
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, July 12, 2011 4:24:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Ushta] The superiority of Zoroastrianism over Itself.

Daniel is right!!!
There is no original sin in Zoroastrianism, thus there is no need for salvation.
Western societies should get rid of their collective obsession with self-actualisation.

Ushta,
Dino

--- Daniel Samani schrieb am Di, 12.7.2011:

Von: Daniel Samani
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] The superiority of Zoroastrianism over Itself.
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Datum: Dienstag, 12. Juli, 2011 08:28 Uhr

Dear Parviz,

I need no salvation - if it's somthing I need then it's exactly this! That I have nothing to be saved from - and that I am sublime as I am.

Indeed so are you aswell! This insight are not an insight under to rules of reason - instead an emotional one.

When Zarathustra in the Gathas talk about Khashatra - to my mind he talk about this exactly. And I can't do anything more then to agree with him full hearted with astonishment!

Our mission is to kill the neurotic neurons (those who enable us to be emotional instable) within us!!

Ustha,
Daniel

The superiority of Zoroastrianism over Islam

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

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

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

Monism vs Dualism

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

2011/6/5 Parviz Varjavand

Dear Alex,

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

Mehr Afzoon,
Parviz Varjavand

Zoroastrianism and Monotheism

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

2011/6/5 Parviz Varjavand

Dear Ostad Jafarey,

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

Always ready to learn from you,
Parviz Varjavand

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

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

The Depth of Taste

Dear Dino and Parviz

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

Ushta
Alexander

2011/5/30 Parviz Varjavand

Dear Dino and Alex,

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

Mehr Afzoon,
Parviz


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

Dear Parviz,

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

Ushta,
Dino

--- Alexander Bard schrieb am So, 29.5.2011:

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

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

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

2011/5/29 Parviz Varjavand
Dear Dino,

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

Ushta,
Parviz

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

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