söndag 20 maj 2012
The meaning of Ahura and Monism vs Dualism in Neuroscience
Dear Thomas
I'm neither a materialist nor an idealist, I believe those definitions are dated. I'm a monist. There is one substance but it can come in an infinite number of attributes. As Spinoza so cleverly said. And I don't see in what way science should be any different? Why should we take dualism as a given in some pathetic post-Carteisan way when it is perfectly feasible that the mind is the by-product of a brain's activity to secure its own survival and reproduction? Thoughts are proven to affect materia and vice cersa. So what is ths problem with declaring them all as one substance? Why go for hocus-pocus when it is completely unnecesseray? For what reason?
And we still have the one problem left with dualism that it never overcomes: If there were indeed two substances, how would they communicate with each other? THROUGH WHICH SUBSTANCE? Just like two parallell universa can't communicate with each other, neither can two separate substances. Body and soul never meet anywwhere and can therefore not interact. So philosophically speaking, you will always be thrown back to the ONE substance, and I don't understand what's so upsetting about that, unless you're desperate to save an Abrahamic-Platonist paradigm which is dying anyway?
As for the meaning of "Ahura" as "source", I guess you will have to go with source (or "supreme being") and not with lord if the word is used in a context which is still pre-written language and pre-permanent settlements and therefore pre-feudal. Which is what Zarathushtra's society in Central Asia was, since his words were written down much later long after he was gone. Later meanings of the term are after all meaningless if we what we set out to do is to understand HIM and HIS TEXT. And that is the basis to which contemporary Zoroastrianism is returning to after all. Don't you agree?
Ushta
Alexander
2012/5/17 Thomas Mether
The specialization of knowledge in the sciences does not allow an expert in one filed to decide what the implications are their science implies in another filed. Neuroscience is a separate filed of expertise. The materiliast version of it holds that when physicists claim mental exists and just exists physically, they ar either confused or speaking outside their area of expertise and that the SCIENCE of neurosocience states there IS NO such thing as "mental" at all. I'm sorry people who claim materialism are not science literate in the primary field defining contemporary scientific materialism. It is not physics. In fact, world-class physicists are divided over the issue of whether the mental is an indiependent reality from the physical (standard interpretations of how the wave function collapses and breaks the von Neumann chains as implied in the mathematical foundations of quantum theory in von Neumann's "bible" of quantum theory the Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics and by those like Nobel laureate Brain Josephson in England and the quatum cosmologist Nesteruk at Cambridge) or whether if monism is true it must somehow be a mind-only monism (Bohm) or neutral monism. The majority of working physicists just don't want to get into the issue. So, from the standpoint of physics, if one is a materialist it is not on scientific grounds. And if one IS a materialist on the basis of the primary science responsible, then one must be on neuroscience grounds, of course, then, not only is there no "mental" - you also have no materialist "viewpoints" or can be a "convinced" monist.
And to several, yes, I know Ahura/Asura means "source". What kind of source is meant depends on the outcome of the as yet not fully settled genealogical relationships between Proto-Indo-European 1, whether or not there is also a Proto-Indo-European 2, which depends on when and how Indo-Anatolian split off early, which leads to the internal evolution of Proto-Indo-European into either PIE 2 or PIE 3 (if PIE 3, it is also called by some linguistists "Mature Proto-Indo-European" or simply "Indo-European"). From that last base, one then gets the descendent Western Indo-European, North Central Indo-European, and Eastern Indo-European (also called by linguistists "Eastern Graeco-Aryan" or "Graeco Indo- Iranian"). At issue is the original meaning of the PIE root for "ahura" depending how one weighs the evidence between the Indo-Anatolian languages of Hittite, Luwian, Palaic, and Etruscan and the Eastern Graeco-Indo-European languages of Greek, Phyrgian, Armenian, and Indo-Iranian (from which Avesta and Vedic Sanskrit come). If weight is goven to Indo-Anatolian languages as a more ancient branch that broke away earlier and how the issue is solved for whether Armenian for ahura that is not a Persian loanword comes is indeed an Armenian word and not an earlier loanword imported from the Indo-Anatolian group, then "source" as the original meaning or ahura/asura means two very different things.It is either "source" related to breathe or exhale or it is, reflecting Indo-Anatolian meanings, "source" in the sense of authoritative distributor or apportioner (thus close in meaning to bhaga). If it is the latter, it is roughly synonymous to the Semitc "lord". Otherwise, it is the ahu- exhale as source. At the present time, the issue is undecided because we don't know if what appears to be the indigenous Armenian word for ahura (that is , not a Persian loanword) really is or not (if not, an Indo-Anatolian loanword). If Armenian had stayed with the eastern groups and not ended up in Anatolia at an early date, the the evidence would lean towards "source as exhalation". But since Armenian ended up inside the Luwian-Hittitee world, it is hard to tell if the Armenian word means "source as authoritative distributor" (akin to bhaga) and Hittite hassus (king, lord as distributor of food, grain, wealth). But since Indo-Anatolian is also the earliest branch and Indo-Iranian is comparatively late, some linguists give weight to the Indo-Anatolian meaning regardless of the Armenian issue. Others will concede that but claim that since PIE developed into Mature IE and Eastern Graeco-Aryan after that split, the original word may have evolved and changed in meaning so that the ahu of Indo-Iranian should be taken as normative for Indo-Iranian languages even if there was a change in meaning. Others still, however, counter that since Armenian is the older member of the Graeco-Indo-European family as an actually attested and existing language while Indo-Iranian is a hypothetical reconstruction that may never had existed, "lord as distributor" may well be the normative meaning for that group as well unless it can be shown that Armenian got it from the Indo-Anatolian branch. Unfortunately, the chart of the latest view of the genealogy of these languages from Oxford's textbook on Proto-Indo-European linguistics won't cup and paste into this email. I suppose I could upload it to the file section. Anyway, the meaning of ahura as "source" is in the middle of a lingustic debate as to "source as lord who distributes" from the Indo-Anatolian or as "breathe, exhalation" depending on the origins of the Armenian word for it.
From: Alexander Bard
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 1:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Ushta] Materialism
Two things: Ahura means "being" rather than the Abrahmic "lord". Possibly "being in a supreme state". The term lord however makes non sense since the word is obvioouly far older than agriculture and there are no "lords" in the English sense prior to agriculture.
And no, contemporary physics does not deny mental life. It just places mental life within the physical realm. The brain makes us believe "we exist" in a Cartesian sense, creating a mental life the same way "we see rainbows". You may not like this, but there is no other plausible theory. Feel free to read Thomas Metzinger's "Ego Tunnel" or my own work with Jan Söderqvist, "The Body Machines" now available from Amazon and lulu.com.
Or take ayahuasca to see what the brain is really capable of!
Have a good read!
Alexander/firmly and happily convinced monist
2012/5/15 Thomas Mether
P.S. Of course, if materialism (only matter exists) is true, there also is either no Ahura Mazda (there is no nonmaterial spiritual stuff - only matter exists) or Ahura Mazda is a material and nonconscious "zombie" biounit. But then, the name becomes problematic since "ahura" meaning something like "lord" denotes a social or interpersonal status between superior and subordinate persons, and ex hypothesi, there are no such things as persons or statuses and a nonconscious zombie also would not have another nonexistent property of wisdom, hence the "mazda" part also goes by the wayside since there is no such thing if materialism is true.
From: Thomas Mether
To: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com"
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 1:26 PM
Subject: [Ushta] Materialism
In light of others outside this forum who have no clear idea of what contemporary scientific versions of materialist neuroscience means in all its ramifications, it probably shouldn't be surprising some here have not read enough of the research literature or even just thought through the implications of their half-thought out and mostly unexamined materialist outlook.
Contemporary materialism is not a denial of the existence of the soul or an afterlife, it is a more thorough denial. It comes in two main flavors: eliminative and functionalism materialist neuroscience. In both versions, it is not only the existence of an immortal soul that is denied, it is a thorough-going denial of any mental life at all. There is no such thing as subjectivity, inner psychological life or interior life. There is no inner I as my subjective identity, no desires, beliefs, viewpoints, ideas, opinions, inner psychological states of any kind, no first-personal experience, and no consciousness. Death is just a transition from a nonconscious biological state maintaining a biological organism to another nonconscious biological state where the organism breaks down and is assimilated to the eco-sytems.
Contemporary scientific materialism in neuroscience in both its forms agrees with nonmaterialists that a very long history of trying to "reduce" mental states to neural brain states has failed and is probably impossible. So, they deny the existence of any alleged "mental states" that need to be "reduced" to neural states at all (which means death is a nonevent since you were never conscious or psychologically alive in the first place).
Eliminative materialism in contemporary neuroscience is probably most well-known and represented by Paul and Patricia Churchland, authors of the neuroscience textbook The Computational Brain, and who recently retired last summer from the Salks research center in San Diego, CA. They are trained both as neurosicnetists and philosophers.
Functionalism is also known as token-identity theory. It arose because its earlier theoretical predecessor collapsed and was experimentally disconfirmed. Its predecessor was type-identity theory. It asserted that mind states just were neural states (we will get to what identity theorists generally mean when they use "mental" since they deny like the eliminative materialists that "mental" as most people does not exist) and that for every type or kind of "mental state" there was a corresponding type or kind of "neural state" in the brain. This turns out to be experimentally false. Luckily, computer science saved the day for this model. Software states just are hardware states; software processes just are harware processes but they have "multiple realizability". By "multiple realizability", a single computer can on two occasions be in the same computational software state but not in the same hardware state and any two or more computers can be in the same computational software states while being in different hardware states of even have different hardware. This means that every "token" instance of a software state or process is identical to a "token" hardware state even though every type of software state does not have a corresponding type of hardware state. So, the identity theorists revamped type-identity theory in light of these findings into token identity theory. Now, by mental they do not mean what we typically mean about it. They also deny the existence of consciousness, subjectivity, beliefs, desires, any "inner psychological states" (usually referred to in the professional literature as a denial of "inner qualia" or "privileged access" - the last means you have no inner private life only you have access to because apart from your body, "you" don't exist.) Thus, as one of the leading token-identity functionalists has famously put it, we are nonconscious "zombies". "Mental" states as a technical term means nonconscious "software" or "computational" states: just as a computer has more going on than just its hardware's electrical states and processes but is not conscious, so are people. Functionalism holds that the older behaviorism was inadequate because external behavior can't account for the complexity of the input and output conditions in the brain. So, as Heil (in his book on contemporary materialist models of "mind") puts it, functionalism posits "inner behavior" to supplement external behaviorist approaches. Thus, token-identity functionalism is also called "inner black-box behavorism".
Ethical, political, social consequences of these two versions of contemporary materialism in neurscience: if there is no inner private subjective life, no mental life, no personal identity or inner subjective I, then everything that presupposes the existence of such things is to go by the wayside as part of a superstitious "folk theory" that needs to also be eliminated. Thus, there are no ethical concepts (since there are no persons, there are no rights, no responsibility or obligations, no justice nor appeals to justice, no injustice or moral evil -- the Holocaust was not a moral horror but just a population reduction of biounits, heterosexuals and homosexuals have no rights nor has any rights been suppressed or denied by one group for another because there is no such thing,). Politically, since there are no persons and no rights, a cyber-technocracy should be put in place to "program" the biounits, eliminate defective biounits. There is no educational institutions because they maintain and foster the superstitious "folk theory" that there are persons that learn; rather programing of biounits is the replacement. Those biounits with interests in religion, spirituality, arts, social justice, and ethics will either be re-programed or eliminated as defective biounits. No criminal justice systems because they foster and continue the illusion of their being such things as persons, ethical responsibility, and right and wrong. Criminal behavior is defective biounit. Oddly, sometimes this contemporary materialism looks like it is "green" in what looks like a concern with the natural environment but it really turns out that since there are no such things as persons with intrinsic worth or rights, since there is no such thing as having "moral standing", a human biounit does not count for more than a rock or tree. Probably another population reduction of such defective biounits that breed until they are a pestilence on the planetary eco-system and whose activities have toxic side-effects is called for.
Finally, if you happen to disagree with these versions of materialism, or even, have just a comment or opinion, you really don't because there is no such thing as a "disagreement" or "opinion" or "you" you malfunctioning and defective biounit.
A fairly lengthy bibliography is available (except for those who are materialists since there is no such thing as "reading further" or "investigating further" or "learning".
torsdag 26 januari 2012
Fate vs Asha in Zoroastrian philosophy
Exactly!
And to Zarathushra Asha also IMPLIES an ethics (not a morality) based on a life in accordance with truth, honesty, science, the here-and-now rather any fantasy place somewheer distant in time and space.
All of this taught by Zarathushtra remarkably 3,600 years ahead of Hegel, Nietzsche, and Heidegger.
The Scandinavian Wyrd (Ödet in contemporary Swedish) is probably more pre-Zoroastrian by nature. Something to confront and deal with, rather than Zarathushtra's EMBRACING and more Spinozist attitude towards "Asha".
Ushta
Alexander
Den 24 januari 2012 00:07 skrev Special Kain:
Dear Kenneth
Asha is that which exists, which is real, the facts. It is what is "right" in the sense that it works and fits with reality. You can think of scientists as Ashavands: as those practising and promoting Asha through thoughts, words and actions. Think of methodologists, for example. Whereas Druj is that which deceives (see the German word "Trug" which is rooted in the Avesta word "druj") or that which simply isn't true.
Ushta,
Dino
Von: Kenneth Christensen
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Gesendet: 19:43 Montag, 23.Januar 2012
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] Zoroastrianism vs The Abrahamic Faiths
Interesting. This brings up another topic. I am fascinated with the concept of Asha. It seems very complicated. Maybe Alexander having grown up in Scandinavian culture might be able to elaborate on this. From what I read Asha seems to be similar to a concept in Scandinavian cosmology called Wyrd. Modern English will translates it to mean Fate. I think that is an injustice to the word as the word has nothing to do with pre-destiny. The best way I can explain it is that it deals with what everything in the universe is becoming. This could a concept dealing with the way of the world as you described Asha. It would make sense that both religions would have similar concepts since the languages in both those religions have a common ancestor. Like Wyrd does Asha deal with accountability for one's actions?
Kenneth
"Life-- The opposite of life is not death, but non-existence. To die means having lived-- but to not exist means being nothing! To live means to influence the cosmos! Ones actions-- ones presence-- changes every being he meets! The cosmos is everything! To affect any part of the cosmos is to affect the totality! Life is the most precious gift the cosmos can bestow....." --Steve Englehart: Marvel Premiere Featuring Doctor Strange # 12
--- On Sun, 1/22/12, Special Kain wrote:
From: Special Kain
Subject: Re: [Ushta] Zoroastrianism vs The Abrahamic Faiths
To: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com"
Date: Sunday, January 22, 2012, 11:14 PM
Dear Kenneth
There are pantheists as well as panentheists in Zoroastrianism. Either way our world is regarded as that which we should hold sacred. People are defined as co-creators and not as God's subordinates and servants. We are ethically obliged to live in accordance with asha which is nothing less than The Way of The World.
Ushta,
Dino
Von: Alexander Bard
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Gesendet: 12:14 Sonntag, 22.Januar 2012
Betreff: [Ushta] Zoroastrianism vs The Abrahamic Faiths
Dear Kenneth
You're absolutely right.
The WORLD AFFIRMATIONCition to the Abrahamic faiths) has a very obvious origin: Zarathushtra does NOT believe in sin!!!
The idea of sin, of original sin, of a gap between God and Man created by Man, which is at the very ROOT of all Abrahamic faiths, has no bearing within Zoroastrianism at all. There is not even a word for sin in Avesta.
Instead. Zarathushtra is completely focused on THOUGHT and HOW THOUGHT WORKS. It is in this process that he separates between Asha (constructive mentality) adn Druj (destructive mentality).
The result is an ETHICAL FAITH without moralism. There are no rules to break. But there is a firm belief that "you are your thoughts", "you are your words" and "you are your actions".
Which is of course radically different from Abrahamism and its obsession with sin.
Ushta
Alexander
Den 22 januari 2012 04:23 skrev Kenneth C:
Hello
I am starting some Ethnographic field work research on Zoroastrianism. I have been very inspired by the Gathas. I am a Danish American and have studied a lot of Scandinavian spirituality and that is my background. Even though Zoroastrianism is often associated with Judeo-Christian thought, from what I read it seems to be a completely different thought process all together.
One of the major things that impresses me about Zoroastrianism and where I think it is way different than the Abrahamic religions and in this regard there would be more similarity to older Scandinavian religion, is that from my understanding Zoroastrianism is very world affirming. In other words it seems to promote a spiritual view of the here and now and what should be done on this earth without hoping for a better afterlife in another reality which is intangible. One of the major things that upsets me about the desert religions is that they use phrases like "earthly" or "of the flesh" in the negative. Even more tolerant religions like Gnosticism can use those terms in a negative light. It's as if suggesting that while we're here on this earth in our bodies we are trapped. I find that ideology ultimately destructive and in many ways can be harmful. One example of how harmful world rejecting dualistic ideology can be is if you go back to 1996 when the Heavens Gate cult committed mass suicide because they felt they were trapped in this lower dimension and in their physical bodies. Anyone who believes that the earthly is something we're trapped in and that we must attain somewhere higher that we cannot even see is not being honest with themselves. If the flesh or the earthly is bad than why did I come out of my mother's womb? And since I am a firm supporter of evolution where did all life come from down to the very first ancestor on this planet. To me these world rejectors are making something up and saying that it comes from something intangible that we can never put a finger on.
I remember one part of the Gatha's where Zarathustra pays respect to the waters and earth. So there seems to be quite a bit of world affirming ideology in the philosophy. Now I don't know, but from my interpretation, would you as Zoroastrians even say that Ahura Mazda is not separate from nature. If so, I find Zoroastrianism hard to disagree with.
btw my next post will be a question regarding my field work research. I want to do a study on Zoroastrianism and how it relates to Psychology.
Kenneth
And to Zarathushra Asha also IMPLIES an ethics (not a morality) based on a life in accordance with truth, honesty, science, the here-and-now rather any fantasy place somewheer distant in time and space.
All of this taught by Zarathushtra remarkably 3,600 years ahead of Hegel, Nietzsche, and Heidegger.
The Scandinavian Wyrd (Ödet in contemporary Swedish) is probably more pre-Zoroastrian by nature. Something to confront and deal with, rather than Zarathushtra's EMBRACING and more Spinozist attitude towards "Asha".
Ushta
Alexander
Den 24 januari 2012 00:07 skrev Special Kain
Dear Kenneth
Asha is that which exists, which is real, the facts. It is what is "right" in the sense that it works and fits with reality. You can think of scientists as Ashavands: as those practising and promoting Asha through thoughts, words and actions. Think of methodologists, for example. Whereas Druj is that which deceives (see the German word "Trug" which is rooted in the Avesta word "druj") or that which simply isn't true.
Ushta,
Dino
Von: Kenneth Christensen
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Gesendet: 19:43 Montag, 23.Januar 2012
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] Zoroastrianism vs The Abrahamic Faiths
Interesting. This brings up another topic. I am fascinated with the concept of Asha. It seems very complicated. Maybe Alexander having grown up in Scandinavian culture might be able to elaborate on this. From what I read Asha seems to be similar to a concept in Scandinavian cosmology called Wyrd. Modern English will translates it to mean Fate. I think that is an injustice to the word as the word has nothing to do with pre-destiny. The best way I can explain it is that it deals with what everything in the universe is becoming. This could a concept dealing with the way of the world as you described Asha. It would make sense that both religions would have similar concepts since the languages in both those religions have a common ancestor. Like Wyrd does Asha deal with accountability for one's actions?
Kenneth
"Life-- The opposite of life is not death, but non-existence. To die means having lived-- but to not exist means being nothing! To live means to influence the cosmos! Ones actions-- ones presence-- changes every being he meets! The cosmos is everything! To affect any part of the cosmos is to affect the totality! Life is the most precious gift the cosmos can bestow....." --Steve Englehart: Marvel Premiere Featuring Doctor Strange # 12
--- On Sun, 1/22/12, Special Kain
From: Special Kain
Subject: Re: [Ushta] Zoroastrianism vs The Abrahamic Faiths
To: "Ushta@yahoogroups.com"
Date: Sunday, January 22, 2012, 11:14 PM
Dear Kenneth
There are pantheists as well as panentheists in Zoroastrianism. Either way our world is regarded as that which we should hold sacred. People are defined as co-creators and not as God's subordinates and servants. We are ethically obliged to live in accordance with asha which is nothing less than The Way of The World.
Ushta,
Dino
Von: Alexander Bard
An: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Gesendet: 12:14 Sonntag, 22.Januar 2012
Betreff: [Ushta] Zoroastrianism vs The Abrahamic Faiths
Dear Kenneth
You're absolutely right.
The WORLD AFFIRMATIONCition to the Abrahamic faiths) has a very obvious origin: Zarathushtra does NOT believe in sin!!!
The idea of sin, of original sin, of a gap between God and Man created by Man, which is at the very ROOT of all Abrahamic faiths, has no bearing within Zoroastrianism at all. There is not even a word for sin in Avesta.
Instead. Zarathushtra is completely focused on THOUGHT and HOW THOUGHT WORKS. It is in this process that he separates between Asha (constructive mentality) adn Druj (destructive mentality).
The result is an ETHICAL FAITH without moralism. There are no rules to break. But there is a firm belief that "you are your thoughts", "you are your words" and "you are your actions".
Which is of course radically different from Abrahamism and its obsession with sin.
Ushta
Alexander
Den 22 januari 2012 04:23 skrev Kenneth C
Hello
I am starting some Ethnographic field work research on Zoroastrianism. I have been very inspired by the Gathas. I am a Danish American and have studied a lot of Scandinavian spirituality and that is my background. Even though Zoroastrianism is often associated with Judeo-Christian thought, from what I read it seems to be a completely different thought process all together.
One of the major things that impresses me about Zoroastrianism and where I think it is way different than the Abrahamic religions and in this regard there would be more similarity to older Scandinavian religion, is that from my understanding Zoroastrianism is very world affirming. In other words it seems to promote a spiritual view of the here and now and what should be done on this earth without hoping for a better afterlife in another reality which is intangible. One of the major things that upsets me about the desert religions is that they use phrases like "earthly" or "of the flesh" in the negative. Even more tolerant religions like Gnosticism can use those terms in a negative light. It's as if suggesting that while we're here on this earth in our bodies we are trapped. I find that ideology ultimately destructive and in many ways can be harmful. One example of how harmful world rejecting dualistic ideology can be is if you go back to 1996 when the Heavens Gate cult committed mass suicide because they felt they were trapped in this lower dimension and in their physical bodies. Anyone who believes that the earthly is something we're trapped in and that we must attain somewhere higher that we cannot even see is not being honest with themselves. If the flesh or the earthly is bad than why did I come out of my mother's womb? And since I am a firm supporter of evolution where did all life come from down to the very first ancestor on this planet. To me these world rejectors are making something up and saying that it comes from something intangible that we can never put a finger on.
I remember one part of the Gatha's where Zarathustra pays respect to the waters and earth. So there seems to be quite a bit of world affirming ideology in the philosophy. Now I don't know, but from my interpretation, would you as Zoroastrians even say that Ahura Mazda is not separate from nature. If so, I find Zoroastrianism hard to disagree with.
btw my next post will be a question regarding my field work research. I want to do a study on Zoroastrianism and how it relates to Psychology.
Kenneth
måndag 23 januari 2012
Alain de Botton, Slavoj Zizek, and the ideas of a New World Religion Part 2
Dear Kenneth and friends
The last time Zoroastrianism spread in the West was through Mithraism in the Roman Empire, a religion with Zoroastrian roots which was for a time the most widespread and popular religion in the entire empire. It was ultimately defeated by Christianity through imperial decree and mass prosecution of its practitioners. I actually believe it is in a new version that Zoroastrianism and its philosophy will take hold in the west again. At least Parsi Zoroastrianism is too frought with infighting and resistance to change to become a credible alternative. A Zoroastrian revival in a post-mullah Iran could however be extremely attractive to western masses (when they finally discover that Iranian philosophy is on an equal level with Indian and Chinese thought). But until then I keep my hopes for a Hegelian-style religion in the west, referring credibly back to Zarathushtra and his philosophy. The next ten years will decide.
Ushta
Alexander
Den 23 januari 2012 19:59 skrev Kenneth Christensen:
Interesting. I live in a College town in California. This city is quite a center for ideas. After reading the Gatha's I started discussing the philosophy to some friends and college professors. Many of them said how from what I've been describing Zarathustra's philosophy is very logical and compatible with science. One guy even told me after I described the philosophy that he wants to look into it because from what I told him, Zoroastrianism makes more sense than any other religious ideology he has heard. Zoroastrianism could have the potential to spread tremendously in the West because it is compatible with the western values of logic, reason, and the scientific method.
Kenneth
"Life-- The opposite of life is not death, but non-existence. To die means having lived-- but to not exist means being nothing! To live means to influence the cosmos! Ones actions-- ones presence-- changes every being he meets! The cosmos is everything! To affect any part of the cosmos is to affect the totality! Life is the most precious gift the cosmos can bestow....." --Steve Englehart: Marvel Premiere Featuring Doctor Strange # 12
The last time Zoroastrianism spread in the West was through Mithraism in the Roman Empire, a religion with Zoroastrian roots which was for a time the most widespread and popular religion in the entire empire. It was ultimately defeated by Christianity through imperial decree and mass prosecution of its practitioners. I actually believe it is in a new version that Zoroastrianism and its philosophy will take hold in the west again. At least Parsi Zoroastrianism is too frought with infighting and resistance to change to become a credible alternative. A Zoroastrian revival in a post-mullah Iran could however be extremely attractive to western masses (when they finally discover that Iranian philosophy is on an equal level with Indian and Chinese thought). But until then I keep my hopes for a Hegelian-style religion in the west, referring credibly back to Zarathushtra and his philosophy. The next ten years will decide.
Ushta
Alexander
Den 23 januari 2012 19:59 skrev Kenneth Christensen
Interesting. I live in a College town in California. This city is quite a center for ideas. After reading the Gatha's I started discussing the philosophy to some friends and college professors. Many of them said how from what I've been describing Zarathustra's philosophy is very logical and compatible with science. One guy even told me after I described the philosophy that he wants to look into it because from what I told him, Zoroastrianism makes more sense than any other religious ideology he has heard. Zoroastrianism could have the potential to spread tremendously in the West because it is compatible with the western values of logic, reason, and the scientific method.
Kenneth
"Life-- The opposite of life is not death, but non-existence. To die means having lived-- but to not exist means being nothing! To live means to influence the cosmos! Ones actions-- ones presence-- changes every being he meets! The cosmos is everything! To affect any part of the cosmos is to affect the totality! Life is the most precious gift the cosmos can bestow....." --Steve Englehart: Marvel Premiere Featuring Doctor Strange # 12
Alain de Botton, Slavoj Zizek, and the ideas of a New World Religion
Dear Friends
I have some very interesting news to share.
The Swiss-British philosopher Alain de Botton has a brilliant new book out called "Religion for Atheists".
You can hear his presentation of the book at the latest TED conference here:
http://www.ted.com/talks/alain_de_botton_atheism_2_0.html
Interestingly, it seems Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek's new massive "Less Than Nothing" - 1 200 pages of Hegel applied on contemporary society, argues along similar lines to de Botton: What society needs today is a new world religion which is monist and denies the existence of the supernatural but which in every other aspect acts as a religion-proper. And Zizek is probably the world's most reknown and influential philosopher today.
But isn't this precisely what Zoroastrianism already is and has been for 3,700 years? At least this is what I argued with my co-writer Jan Söderqvist when we wrote "Det globala imperiet" in Swedish in 2002 (this book is finally out in English later this year as "The Global Empire").
Maybe we should now seriously consider marketing Zoroastrianism as "The Religion for Atheists" in contemporary society as a radical departure from the Irano-centric presentation of an "ancient philosophical faith"? An alternative is of course to join and work towards a Religion for Atheists first (an "atheology") and then connect it properly to Zarathushtra's philosophy afterwards. After all, there are quite a lot of dualists and panentheists among Zoroastrians too, and they would disagree with RFA on basic fundaments.
I truly believe this is the big opening to present Zarathushtra's philosophy to the West that I have been waiting for for over two decades!!!
Ushta
Alexander
I have some very interesting news to share.
The Swiss-British philosopher Alain de Botton has a brilliant new book out called "Religion for Atheists".
You can hear his presentation of the book at the latest TED conference here:
http://www.ted.com/talks/alain_de_botton_atheism_2_0.html
Interestingly, it seems Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek's new massive "Less Than Nothing" - 1 200 pages of Hegel applied on contemporary society, argues along similar lines to de Botton: What society needs today is a new world religion which is monist and denies the existence of the supernatural but which in every other aspect acts as a religion-proper. And Zizek is probably the world's most reknown and influential philosopher today.
But isn't this precisely what Zoroastrianism already is and has been for 3,700 years? At least this is what I argued with my co-writer Jan Söderqvist when we wrote "Det globala imperiet" in Swedish in 2002 (this book is finally out in English later this year as "The Global Empire").
Maybe we should now seriously consider marketing Zoroastrianism as "The Religion for Atheists" in contemporary society as a radical departure from the Irano-centric presentation of an "ancient philosophical faith"? An alternative is of course to join and work towards a Religion for Atheists first (an "atheology") and then connect it properly to Zarathushtra's philosophy afterwards. After all, there are quite a lot of dualists and panentheists among Zoroastrians too, and they would disagree with RFA on basic fundaments.
I truly believe this is the big opening to present Zarathushtra's philosophy to the West that I have been waiting for for over two decades!!!
Ushta
Alexander
söndag 22 januari 2012
Zoroastrianism vs The Abrahamic Faiths
Dear Kenneth
You're absolutely right.
The WORLD AFFIRMATION of Zoroastrianism (in opposition to the Abrahamic faiths) has a very obvious origin: Zarathushtra does NOT believe in sin!!!
The idea of sin, of original sin, of a gap between God and Man created by Man, which is at the very ROOT of all Abrahamic faiths, has no bearing within Zoroastrianism at all. There is not even a word for sin in Avesta.
Instead. Zarathushtra is completely focused on THOUGHT and HOW THOUGHT WORKS. It is in this process that he separates between Asha (constructive mentality) adn Druj (destructive mentality).
The result is an ETHICAL FAITH without moralism. There are no rules to break. But there is a firm belief that "you are your thoughts", "you are your words" and "you are your actions". So Zarathushra's question is: Who are you? Who do you want to be? To yourself?
Which is of course radically different from Abrahamism and its obsession with sin and The Judgment Day. ;-)
Ushta
Alexander
Den 22 januari 2012 04:23 skrev Kenneth C:
Hello
I am starting some Ethnographic field work research on Zoroastrianism. I have been very inspired by the Gathas. I am a Danish American and have studied a lot of Scandinavian spirituality and that is my background. Even though Zoroastrianism is often associated with Judeo-Christian thought, from what I read it seems to be a completely different thought process all together.
One of the major things that impresses me about Zoroastrianism and where I think it is way different than the Abrahamic religions and in this regard there would be more similarity to older Scandinavian religion, is that from my understanding Zoroastrianism is very world affirming. In other words it seems to promote a spiritual view of the here and now and what should be done on this earth without hoping for a better afterlife in another reality which is intangible. One of the major things that upsets me about the desert religions is that they use phrases like "earthly" or "of the flesh" in the negative. Even more tolerant religions like Gnosticism can use those terms in a negative light. It's as if suggesting that while we're here on this earth in our bodies we are trapped. I find that ideology ultimately destructive and in many ways can be harmful. One example of how harmful world rejecting dualistic ideology can be is if you go back to 1996 when the Heavens Gate cult committed mass suicide because they felt they were trapped in this lower dimension and in their physical bodies. Anyone who believes that the earthly is something we're trapped in and that we must attain somewhere higher that we cannot even see is not being honest with themselves. If the flesh or the earthly is bad than why did I come out of my mother's womb? And since I am a firm supporter of evolution where did all life come from down to the very first ancestor on this planet. To me these world rejectors are making something up and saying that it comes from something intangible that we can never put a finger on.
I remember one part of the Gatha's where Zarathustra pays respect to the waters and earth. So there seems to be quite a bit of world affirming ideology in the philosophy. Now I don't know, but from my interpretation, would you as Zoroastrians even say that Ahura Mazda is not separate from nature. If so, I find Zoroastrianism hard to disagree with.
btw my next post will be a question regarding my field work research. I want to do a study on Zoroastrianism and how it relates to Psychology.
Kenneth
You're absolutely right.
The WORLD AFFIRMATION of Zoroastrianism (in opposition to the Abrahamic faiths) has a very obvious origin: Zarathushtra does NOT believe in sin!!!
The idea of sin, of original sin, of a gap between God and Man created by Man, which is at the very ROOT of all Abrahamic faiths, has no bearing within Zoroastrianism at all. There is not even a word for sin in Avesta.
Instead. Zarathushtra is completely focused on THOUGHT and HOW THOUGHT WORKS. It is in this process that he separates between Asha (constructive mentality) adn Druj (destructive mentality).
The result is an ETHICAL FAITH without moralism. There are no rules to break. But there is a firm belief that "you are your thoughts", "you are your words" and "you are your actions". So Zarathushra's question is: Who are you? Who do you want to be? To yourself?
Which is of course radically different from Abrahamism and its obsession with sin and The Judgment Day. ;-)
Ushta
Alexander
Den 22 januari 2012 04:23 skrev Kenneth C
Hello
I am starting some Ethnographic field work research on Zoroastrianism. I have been very inspired by the Gathas. I am a Danish American and have studied a lot of Scandinavian spirituality and that is my background. Even though Zoroastrianism is often associated with Judeo-Christian thought, from what I read it seems to be a completely different thought process all together.
One of the major things that impresses me about Zoroastrianism and where I think it is way different than the Abrahamic religions and in this regard there would be more similarity to older Scandinavian religion, is that from my understanding Zoroastrianism is very world affirming. In other words it seems to promote a spiritual view of the here and now and what should be done on this earth without hoping for a better afterlife in another reality which is intangible. One of the major things that upsets me about the desert religions is that they use phrases like "earthly" or "of the flesh" in the negative. Even more tolerant religions like Gnosticism can use those terms in a negative light. It's as if suggesting that while we're here on this earth in our bodies we are trapped. I find that ideology ultimately destructive and in many ways can be harmful. One example of how harmful world rejecting dualistic ideology can be is if you go back to 1996 when the Heavens Gate cult committed mass suicide because they felt they were trapped in this lower dimension and in their physical bodies. Anyone who believes that the earthly is something we're trapped in and that we must attain somewhere higher that we cannot even see is not being honest with themselves. If the flesh or the earthly is bad than why did I come out of my mother's womb? And since I am a firm supporter of evolution where did all life come from down to the very first ancestor on this planet. To me these world rejectors are making something up and saying that it comes from something intangible that we can never put a finger on.
I remember one part of the Gatha's where Zarathustra pays respect to the waters and earth. So there seems to be quite a bit of world affirming ideology in the philosophy. Now I don't know, but from my interpretation, would you as Zoroastrians even say that Ahura Mazda is not separate from nature. If so, I find Zoroastrianism hard to disagree with.
btw my next post will be a question regarding my field work research. I want to do a study on Zoroastrianism and how it relates to Psychology.
Kenneth
onsdag 11 januari 2012
Zoroastrianism and Satan
Dear Kenneth
I guess you have to ask Muslims and Christians what kind of devil they believe in. I have personally never grasped their beliefs as find them both contradictory and totally uncredible. But then again, I'm not a Muslim nor a Christian and that for very good reasons.
There is no such thing as a personal Satan in Zoroastrianism proper. Sure there are devils in folk religion in the Indo-Aryan cultures, but Zarathushtra does not believe in any satanic being. However, there are obviously stagnant or destructive minds around and this is what "Angra Mainyu" means. I would even stretch the concept and speak of "minds of bitterness" or "minds of ressentiment" as proper translations of Angra Mainyu. We all have to fight a daily struggle against such a mentality taking over our minds. But this is precisely what the life of a Zoroastrian proper is all about.
Ushta
Alexander
Den 11 januari 2012 20:03 skrev Kenneth C:
Hello
I am an Anthropology student who would like to focus his studies on a combination of Religious Anthropology and psychological anthropology. I am a practitioner of a religion that is a reinvention of an older Scandinavian religion called Asatru. In Sweden I think Alexander Bard might know it as Asatro. Alexander I hope you don't mind me saying. I grew up in the metal scene. Your music was music I found catchy and liked, but was embarrassed to admit it to my macho Heavy Metal friends. I do sincerely mean that as a compliment, so I hope you do not take offense.
Zoroastrianism and Indo-European thought in general if fascinating to me as it deals a lot with matters of mind, and consciousness. I have found that Zoroastrianism has the most emphasis on matters of the mind. After reading the Gatha's I came to the conclusion that Zoroaster was the first Psychologist. In Zoroastrianism there are thousands of years studying the mind and western culture is just starting. One reason why I am hoping to do ethnographic field work on Zoroastrianism.
Now because I do not think like my ultra conservative, American nationalist, evangelical family, I have been at war with myself between what my family told me I was not capable of (because I am on the autistic spectrum, what they wanted me to be, what am capable of, and what I really am. This has caused much mental stress which has lead to severe stomach problems. Because of this I often wondered if I was in fact a child of the devil, so to overcome this anxiety I considered the possibility. Then suddenly the voice of Terence Mckenna saying "Well if I am a disciple of Satan, it is an unknowing disciple." I felt at ease. A just parent would never punish a child for not knowing what he or she is doing is wrong. Therefore if God exist and God is just, why should I be punished for not knowing. That kind of God cannot be good.
It was then that I came to the conclusion that the devil is not real. The devil is nothing more that a cartoon character created by human thought as a way to scare people from thinking. Fascinating thing is I started reading more on Zoroastrianism and I am by no means trying to simplify Angra Manyu as a devil. However I remember reading that the two words translate to Dead Mentality or Stagnant mind. A ha! I am seeing synchronicity. So my question is could the devil as a concept in the Christian or Muslim in fact be something that promotes the Stagnant mind? It would appear that most Christian or Muslim motivation is from the concept of fear of the devil rather than a love for God. I remember reading in the Gatha's and this saying really hit me like a lighting bolt. What I read was "Do good for the sake of doing good, without fear of punishment or expectation of reward." This is the utmost way to practice altruism. Ayn Rand would not be proud. I do not consider myself a Zoroastrian because I don't feel that I live up to such an altruistic standard. For that reason I am not worthy to call myself that. Well back to the point. How many Christians or Muslims are doing good because the act of good gives a better quality life, or how many of them are doing it because of a combination of hopes for rewards in Heaven or Fear of suffering in Hell. One Muslim at my school said "Well if you aren't doing it to be in Heaven than what are you striving for?" In which my response was "but if you are striving for that, than does that not cheapen your action by intention?" I ended up stumping her with that.
I guess what I am getting at is I find the goal of Heaven, or fear of Hell is the leading cause in this world today of human strife, not advancing in science (like how in America people want to teach Intelligent Design in Schools) and people's inability to think outside their cultural conditioning. It seems that the fear of the devil is a bigger motivation in these religions, than a hope for reward. So are they really serving God, or are they really serving the concept of a devil? This would be an interesting discussion. I would like to know what the Zoroastrians here think.
Kenneth
I guess you have to ask Muslims and Christians what kind of devil they believe in. I have personally never grasped their beliefs as find them both contradictory and totally uncredible. But then again, I'm not a Muslim nor a Christian and that for very good reasons.
There is no such thing as a personal Satan in Zoroastrianism proper. Sure there are devils in folk religion in the Indo-Aryan cultures, but Zarathushtra does not believe in any satanic being. However, there are obviously stagnant or destructive minds around and this is what "Angra Mainyu" means. I would even stretch the concept and speak of "minds of bitterness" or "minds of ressentiment" as proper translations of Angra Mainyu. We all have to fight a daily struggle against such a mentality taking over our minds. But this is precisely what the life of a Zoroastrian proper is all about.
Ushta
Alexander
Den 11 januari 2012 20:03 skrev Kenneth C
Hello
I am an Anthropology student who would like to focus his studies on a combination of Religious Anthropology and psychological anthropology. I am a practitioner of a religion that is a reinvention of an older Scandinavian religion called Asatru. In Sweden I think Alexander Bard might know it as Asatro. Alexander I hope you don't mind me saying. I grew up in the metal scene. Your music was music I found catchy and liked, but was embarrassed to admit it to my macho Heavy Metal friends. I do sincerely mean that as a compliment, so I hope you do not take offense.
Zoroastrianism and Indo-European thought in general if fascinating to me as it deals a lot with matters of mind, and consciousness. I have found that Zoroastrianism has the most emphasis on matters of the mind. After reading the Gatha's I came to the conclusion that Zoroaster was the first Psychologist. In Zoroastrianism there are thousands of years studying the mind and western culture is just starting. One reason why I am hoping to do ethnographic field work on Zoroastrianism.
Now because I do not think like my ultra conservative, American nationalist, evangelical family, I have been at war with myself between what my family told me I was not capable of (because I am on the autistic spectrum, what they wanted me to be, what am capable of, and what I really am. This has caused much mental stress which has lead to severe stomach problems. Because of this I often wondered if I was in fact a child of the devil, so to overcome this anxiety I considered the possibility. Then suddenly the voice of Terence Mckenna saying "Well if I am a disciple of Satan, it is an unknowing disciple." I felt at ease. A just parent would never punish a child for not knowing what he or she is doing is wrong. Therefore if God exist and God is just, why should I be punished for not knowing. That kind of God cannot be good.
It was then that I came to the conclusion that the devil is not real. The devil is nothing more that a cartoon character created by human thought as a way to scare people from thinking. Fascinating thing is I started reading more on Zoroastrianism and I am by no means trying to simplify Angra Manyu as a devil. However I remember reading that the two words translate to Dead Mentality or Stagnant mind. A ha! I am seeing synchronicity. So my question is could the devil as a concept in the Christian or Muslim in fact be something that promotes the Stagnant mind? It would appear that most Christian or Muslim motivation is from the concept of fear of the devil rather than a love for God. I remember reading in the Gatha's and this saying really hit me like a lighting bolt. What I read was "Do good for the sake of doing good, without fear of punishment or expectation of reward." This is the utmost way to practice altruism. Ayn Rand would not be proud. I do not consider myself a Zoroastrian because I don't feel that I live up to such an altruistic standard. For that reason I am not worthy to call myself that. Well back to the point. How many Christians or Muslims are doing good because the act of good gives a better quality life, or how many of them are doing it because of a combination of hopes for rewards in Heaven or Fear of suffering in Hell. One Muslim at my school said "Well if you aren't doing it to be in Heaven than what are you striving for?" In which my response was "but if you are striving for that, than does that not cheapen your action by intention?" I ended up stumping her with that.
I guess what I am getting at is I find the goal of Heaven, or fear of Hell is the leading cause in this world today of human strife, not advancing in science (like how in America people want to teach Intelligent Design in Schools) and people's inability to think outside their cultural conditioning. It seems that the fear of the devil is a bigger motivation in these religions, than a hope for reward. So are they really serving God, or are they really serving the concept of a devil? This would be an interesting discussion. I would like to know what the Zoroastrians here think.
Kenneth
måndag 19 december 2011
The Zoroastrian call for secular democracy
Dear Shahrooz
As long as Zoroastrianism is viewed as a religion rather than a philosophy, all talk about a Zoroastrian state will only do us enormous harm and not any good at all. It is better to speak of a secular and democratic state rather than a Zoroastrian state even if we all know that philosophically speaking Zoroastrianism is the INVENTOR of democracy.
We need to be clever now. The public demand for democracy heard across the Middle East and many other parts of the world (Russia, Congo, Kazachstan, only this week) is a demand for secular democracy with FREEDOM OF RELIGION as an integral part. Any talk of a Zoroastrian state in the midst of all this will just smack of another set of mullah or military dictatorship rule. Let's stop speaking such nonsense once and for all! We all need to be a part of this brand new movement, not be viewed as eccentric enemies of secular democracy!
Ushta
Alexander
Den 20 december 2011 05:35 skrev SHAHROOZ ASH:
Dear Alex,
Hope all is well and good.
As I stated before, a Zoroastrian-State will be compatible with secular society. The Zoroastrian-State will be based on Vohu-Khshathra, with true freedom and liberty for all; including any individual who is not Zoroastrian. This form of state does not exist in our world today. Because, in Vohu-Khshshthra the value is that which is right because it is right and not it is right if it makes money. This is the path to true freedom and liberation. Once we establish this liberation in our own state, then we begin to export it, and liberate the rest of our human brothers. The world is on the wrong path, the path of destruction.
And also, all nations have lead to disaster at some point in their history regardless to the form of the state. The level of success; that Zoroastrian Iran achieved far exceeds its recession.
Wishing you the best (Behesht),
Shahrooz Ash
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
From: bardissimo@gmail.com
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 11:18:22 +0100
Subject: Re: [zoroastrians] Re: [Ushta] Encroachment of Zoroastrian properties in Yazd
Dear Shahrooz
Yes, I believe it would be much better if Israel was a secular state. I would never want to live in a Zoroastrian state where non-Zoroastrians would be treated as inferiors. Ideas should be fought for in democratic elections and not be forced upon people from a religious constitution. And every time there has been a Zoroastrian state, it has lead to disaster to Zoroastrianism as a religion. It was one of the reasons why the Arabs managed to invade Iran in the first place. It is a really bad idea. Zoroastrianism is not suitable to FORCE people to do anything, it is the religion of ethical choice! Zarathushtra would have strongly disagreed with you.
Ushta
Alexander
Den 17 december 2011 23:54 skrev SHAHROOZ ASH:
Hope all is well and good.
1. Israel is a Jewish-State. Should we dismantle this country because it is not a secular society?
2. A Zoroastrian-State, the way I see it can be, by definition a Zoroastrian-state & Secular at the same time; both ideas are compatible. And also, my view of secular is different than what people think secular is today. What this world calls secular today, I call it cultural destruction. I am against the secular system of the world today. Want nothing to do with it. It is a western capitalist scam.
The fall of Iran at the hands of Muslims had nothing to do with the Iranian government at the time. If bunch of invaders come to attack you for no good reason, for example; Changis Khan, and you lose the battle, then this does not necessary mean the government was bad. The fact that the Sassanians are being blamed for the fall of Iran, under the pretense of Zoroastrian Religion is propaganda of the: West, Jews, Christians & most of all the Muslims. I personally do not buy that story, never have & never will. I am not going to get fooled by the hands of the enemy. Zoroastrians have many enemies and not just one.
NO PERSON WILL EVER CHANGE MY MIND IN ANY OF THE ISSUES ABOVE, EVER. And, I will propagate my own position as much as I can and will work towards my own idea of a Zoroastrian-State as long as I am able. And the entire greater Iran must be a Zoroastrian-State. If any person disagrees, then can leave Iran and go some other place. The archeological evidences are all over the place.
Wishing you the best (Behesht),
Shahrooz Ash
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
From: behnaz.larsen@yahoo.com
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 18:08:16 +0300
Subject: Re: [zoroastrians] Re: [Ushta] Encroachment of Zoroastrian properties in Yazd
I understand your frustration.
A Zoroastrian Iran might be a possibility in the future but not by law, force, manipulation or mass conversions. We need to inspire people to be Good. If they conclude that being good requires a conversion, so be it. But in no way should we mix our religion/ideology with politics of how to govern a society. Politics in itself is a lie. It is based on how to manipulate the mass in order to guide them towards a common goal. As zoroastrians we cannot lie. Our way of influencing is everlasting and a lie, no matter how convenient, is not a sustainable approach. Our country should be governed by people we choose based on their abilities to tackle challenges and not based on their religious believes. And yes, they will need to lie here and there to get things moving.
God bless our mother land,
Sent from my iPad
On Dec 16, 2011, at 12:12 PM, Alexander Bard wrote:
Dear Shahrooz
No, we don't need any Zoroastrian state. We need a secular, democratic state in Iran where people are allowed to choose any religion they wish and where religion is separated from government. This is the proper Zoroastrian thing. When a religion takes over a state both the religion and the state become corrupt and totalitarian. This is what has happened in Iran now with Shia Islam. And this was the problem wtih Zoroastrianism in Iran before the Arab invasion. It was precisely when Zoroastrianismn became a state religion in Sassanian Iran that it begun to fail and lose its once widespread respect and popularity.
Ushta
Alexander
Den 16 december 2011 04:18 skrev SHAHROOZ ASH:
Hope all is well and good.
This is the reason why we need a Zoroastrian-State. We have paid with our lives for centuries.
The only way we are going to be safe and protected is to have a Zoroastrian-State.
Therefore Iran must become a Zoroastrian-State.
Wishing you the best (Behesht),
Shahrooz Ash
As long as Zoroastrianism is viewed as a religion rather than a philosophy, all talk about a Zoroastrian state will only do us enormous harm and not any good at all. It is better to speak of a secular and democratic state rather than a Zoroastrian state even if we all know that philosophically speaking Zoroastrianism is the INVENTOR of democracy.
We need to be clever now. The public demand for democracy heard across the Middle East and many other parts of the world (Russia, Congo, Kazachstan, only this week) is a demand for secular democracy with FREEDOM OF RELIGION as an integral part. Any talk of a Zoroastrian state in the midst of all this will just smack of another set of mullah or military dictatorship rule. Let's stop speaking such nonsense once and for all! We all need to be a part of this brand new movement, not be viewed as eccentric enemies of secular democracy!
Ushta
Alexander
Den 20 december 2011 05:35 skrev SHAHROOZ ASH
Dear Alex,
Hope all is well and good.
As I stated before, a Zoroastrian-State will be compatible with secular society. The Zoroastrian-State will be based on Vohu-Khshathra, with true freedom and liberty for all; including any individual who is not Zoroastrian. This form of state does not exist in our world today. Because, in Vohu-Khshshthra the value is that which is right because it is right and not it is right if it makes money. This is the path to true freedom and liberation. Once we establish this liberation in our own state, then we begin to export it, and liberate the rest of our human brothers. The world is on the wrong path, the path of destruction.
And also, all nations have lead to disaster at some point in their history regardless to the form of the state. The level of success; that Zoroastrian Iran achieved far exceeds its recession.
Wishing you the best (Behesht),
Shahrooz Ash
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
From: bardissimo@gmail.com
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 11:18:22 +0100
Subject: Re: [zoroastrians] Re: [Ushta] Encroachment of Zoroastrian properties in Yazd
Dear Shahrooz
Yes, I believe it would be much better if Israel was a secular state. I would never want to live in a Zoroastrian state where non-Zoroastrians would be treated as inferiors. Ideas should be fought for in democratic elections and not be forced upon people from a religious constitution. And every time there has been a Zoroastrian state, it has lead to disaster to Zoroastrianism as a religion. It was one of the reasons why the Arabs managed to invade Iran in the first place. It is a really bad idea. Zoroastrianism is not suitable to FORCE people to do anything, it is the religion of ethical choice! Zarathushtra would have strongly disagreed with you.
Ushta
Alexander
Den 17 december 2011 23:54 skrev SHAHROOZ ASH
Hope all is well and good.
1. Israel is a Jewish-State. Should we dismantle this country because it is not a secular society?
2. A Zoroastrian-State, the way I see it can be, by definition a Zoroastrian-state & Secular at the same time; both ideas are compatible. And also, my view of secular is different than what people think secular is today. What this world calls secular today, I call it cultural destruction. I am against the secular system of the world today. Want nothing to do with it. It is a western capitalist scam.
The fall of Iran at the hands of Muslims had nothing to do with the Iranian government at the time. If bunch of invaders come to attack you for no good reason, for example; Changis Khan, and you lose the battle, then this does not necessary mean the government was bad. The fact that the Sassanians are being blamed for the fall of Iran, under the pretense of Zoroastrian Religion is propaganda of the: West, Jews, Christians & most of all the Muslims. I personally do not buy that story, never have & never will. I am not going to get fooled by the hands of the enemy. Zoroastrians have many enemies and not just one.
NO PERSON WILL EVER CHANGE MY MIND IN ANY OF THE ISSUES ABOVE, EVER. And, I will propagate my own position as much as I can and will work towards my own idea of a Zoroastrian-State as long as I am able. And the entire greater Iran must be a Zoroastrian-State. If any person disagrees, then can leave Iran and go some other place. The archeological evidences are all over the place.
Wishing you the best (Behesht),
Shahrooz Ash
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
From: behnaz.larsen@yahoo.com
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 18:08:16 +0300
Subject: Re: [zoroastrians] Re: [Ushta] Encroachment of Zoroastrian properties in Yazd
I understand your frustration.
A Zoroastrian Iran might be a possibility in the future but not by law, force, manipulation or mass conversions. We need to inspire people to be Good. If they conclude that being good requires a conversion, so be it. But in no way should we mix our religion/ideology with politics of how to govern a society. Politics in itself is a lie. It is based on how to manipulate the mass in order to guide them towards a common goal. As zoroastrians we cannot lie. Our way of influencing is everlasting and a lie, no matter how convenient, is not a sustainable approach. Our country should be governed by people we choose based on their abilities to tackle challenges and not based on their religious believes. And yes, they will need to lie here and there to get things moving.
God bless our mother land,
Sent from my iPad
On Dec 16, 2011, at 12:12 PM, Alexander Bard
Dear Shahrooz
No, we don't need any Zoroastrian state. We need a secular, democratic state in Iran where people are allowed to choose any religion they wish and where religion is separated from government. This is the proper Zoroastrian thing. When a religion takes over a state both the religion and the state become corrupt and totalitarian. This is what has happened in Iran now with Shia Islam. And this was the problem wtih Zoroastrianism in Iran before the Arab invasion. It was precisely when Zoroastrianismn became a state religion in Sassanian Iran that it begun to fail and lose its once widespread respect and popularity.
Ushta
Alexander
Den 16 december 2011 04:18 skrev SHAHROOZ ASH
Hope all is well and good.
This is the reason why we need a Zoroastrian-State. We have paid with our lives for centuries.
The only way we are going to be safe and protected is to have a Zoroastrian-State.
Therefore Iran must become a Zoroastrian-State.
Wishing you the best (Behesht),
Shahrooz Ash
Prenumerera på:
Inlägg (Atom)