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
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar