DISCUSSIONS ABOUT ZOROASTRIANISM
you are invited to join!

# 43) Q: what is the zoroastrianism solution to sin? I know the view of sin is that it is anything that is not righteous, progressive, or good? So what is the solution to sin?

A: "Sin" in Mazda Yasni, theology, is error. It is not considered like a force or power that enslaves men. The Latter religion, eventually,  and probably under semitic influence , yielded to a view similar to Christianity. But here we are talking about the teachings of Zarathushtra and not what unknown authors, some as much as 2000 years removed from the Manthran (thought Provoker), postulated.. How we deal with error then? Simply put, we correct error by doing right, and, if need be, addressing any harm that has been done to third parties . As an aside, repentance is also not  an experience of sorrow and remorse only; it simply is a change of mind about what has been done or believed. Indeed, that was the meaning of the Koine Greek word for repentance Metanoia, and,  the same can be said of 'sin'; since the Greek word, Hamartia, means to miss the target or, in other words, a mistake.

Sin and repentance for it, moreover, have to be addressed to the victims of it. God can not be harmed by men and therefore asking for forgiveness from Him is unnecessary.. We should ask for forgiveness from those which our error has harmed, that is the implication of the Gathas. Sure, God is merciful and expects His creatures to be merciful and forgive those that harm them, but, He cannot impose forgiveness any more that he can force some one to choose to follow him. Both are negations of free will and against His nature and will. To forgive, or not, is our choice, as the aggrieved party, not His.

Error is indeed what is not progressive, beneficial and righteous. All these things are good and, therefore, it is wrong and evil not to seek them. But the doctrine teaches a pro-active, and deceptibly simple, way of avoiding error. Namely it defines Asha or Righteousness/Right Law as Good and Best
( Ashem Vohu) then it asks the faithful to:  Think, Speak and Do, Good, in the famous Triad: 'Good Thoughts, Good Words Good Deeds.' If one does this, not an easy task but still achievable through self control, ( One of the meanings of Kshahthra, by the way) one cannot help but be right except, of course, in the areas where one may lack knowledge. That, too, is addressed by the so called Principle of Choice. Listen, with your ears, to the Best. Ponder with a clear mind on these same things, and then, each individual by her or him self choose. This Principle is outlined most succinctly, like Zarathushtra always does, in Y30.2 ( Song 3.2)

For more on this subject and others, you can download:  The Gathas: Our Guide  by Ali Jafarey at www.zoroastrian.org They even come with a commentary. Or, if you must buy them, they are available, in booklet form, at bksnbts@aol.com

Thank you for your question!!!

# 44) Q: I am a Scandinavian with a 4500 year old persian name, meaning "the whirlwind that makes revolt". Since many of the scandinavians came from the areas of the black Sea and Assyria in the period 300 BC to 1400 AC, there are many words particularly in our ancient language we have inheritet from the sumer, caldean, arian / persian languages. In fact the word zoroashta seems to be a combination of zero, meaning woman and astha meaning seed. An other interesting thing is that our word Gud, which has becom your word God from influence by the Viking dominance over England, is in fact the sumerian word gud which means mighty. So is the meaning of the hebrew El. The word God is therefore merely a descriptive title as is Allah and Zoroaster. The term "the seed of the woman" in fact comes from an expression you will find in the hebrew texts Gen.1:15 where the woman is synonymous with the administration of JHVH and the seed is synonymous with the anointed one, also called Meschaia or Xristos in greek. If you search history and museums, you will probably find that zoroashta refer to the founder of Babylon, the first human that tried to present himself as the savoiur of mankind, The Messias, and the man born without a father thus clean, who should give man everlasting life. I deeper reseach into the basics of the religion preached by Zoroashta is in fact early Babylonial. From this religion, almost all known religions have evolved with all the fake gods, idolatry, Xmas, the Xmas tree, the celebration of Easter, the nordic mythologic gods like Tor an Ty etc etc. It is in fact easier for us to understand this, since we are closer to this ancient culture than most

A: I cannot say that I agree with much of what you have said. First there are NO 4500 year old Persian names. Persia, Persians and the Persian language did not exist 4500 years ago. At that time your ancestors, mine and most 'whites', were living in a vast area from Eastern China to the Ural mountains. In fact Nordic types were not predominant in the Caucasus, but further north. They started to break up into migrations that went West, South, South West ( Mesopotamia) and South East (India). The Vikings themselves are a latter sub-section of, mainly, Germanic tribes. Indeed, they did sojourn for some time in both the general South West  Caucasus area and in Turkey. At this time, however, they were not in contact with a strictly Semitic culture, but with a culture that already contained a large Aryan  ( Indo-European ) admixture. For before the Vikings ever made it to these areas, other Aryan tribes, the Mitanni, the Kassaites, the Hittites, the Hyksos etc had already invaded this area and indeed had flourishing empires.

Therefore, the Semitic influence in the Vikings is mostly third hand. Moreover your analysis of the name of Zoroaster, is invalid. If the original name had been Zoroaster , you might have had a case. However, Zoroaster is a Greek corruption of a North Eastern Aryan name!!! It had no relationship with Babylonia whatsoever! The Aryan name is Zarath,  meaning Golden  and Ush, meaning light of dawn and Thra, a suffix of character. Thus it can loosely be translated as the One with the Golden Dawn, or Golden Light , which it so happens, its the original concept of the Halos, that were added to Middle Age and before saints, prophets, teachers and to the purported son of God.

The teachings of Zarathushtra, have nothing to do with Babylonian religion, as any one reading the Gathas, his only compositions, can attest. Babylonian religion was fixated on spells; it held to fatalism, predestination, astrology, and augury ( oracles). Zarathushtra's, on the other hand, was rational, condemning irrational practices, sacrifices and excessive ritualism. It emphasizes, over everything else, free choice and free destiny. It considers star gazing as superstition, augury as hocus pocus and holds fatalism and predestination as anathema.

In fact, if one were to have thought of an Anti- Religion from a Zoroastrian point of view, Babylonian religion would have fit almost perfectly. Some minor Semitic attitudes did influence the Eastern Iranians ( Medes) and from them, some cross pollination did occur with Persian religion. However, all these happened at around a millennia, after Zarathushtra.

In fact, the influences were overwhelmingly the other way around. Zarathushtra's older faith influenced the Eastern Iranians ( Both Medes and Persians) and through them, influenced  the Greek  Mystery religions, Judaism, Christianity,  Mithraism and, in fact, Eastward bound, it influenced Taoism and through its close cousin, Rig-Veda religion, influenced latter Upanishadic, Hinduism and Buddhism.

The generic term god has some affinities, regardless of religion, since it talks about an abstraction that can be similarly described. However, the particular names of God are quite different, Yahweh,  ( I am),  Pta ( Father), which was the original father of the Egyptian Gods and Mazda (Most Wise), have little in common.

# 45) Q: What is the difference between Zoroastrianism & Bahai?

A: Good question! Bahai faith started out as an off-shoot of the now much smaller Baabist movement. It is an updated and improved version of the Abrahamic Faith,  as such it draws heavily from Islam and Xianity. It is also Eclectic in that it includes several Zoroastrian concepts, notably the idea of World Assembly is very similar to the Zoroastrian Airyamna and Maga Assemblies and the Divine Principle of Xsathra ( Often translated as Rule, Dominion, Kingdom)

However Bahaism is an Ultra messianic faith, by which I mean it fully believes in the Prophet? Savior? Messiah ? Avatar Divine Emanation model. Bahaullah is God, just as Jesus is God and the Hindu Avatars are God. In Mazdayasna, in the original faith, there are no prophets, no messiahs and no incarnations of deity in human flesh.

Some Gathic ( From the Gathas the only compositions of Zarathushtra) have been seen, by some, to be equivalent of these Abrahamic and Hindu terms, but if one examines them in their context they are not. Ratu and Manthran titles given to Zarathushtra, are both accessible to any one else. They mean Teacher of Righteousness and Thought Provoker respectively . Saoshyant means Benefactor and not Savior or Messiah and it applies to any person in any land, that is a benefactor of Mankind and/or Creation, in any field of endeavor. Thus there are Saoshyants in medicine, Architecture, Environmental Science , Engineering, Religion, Psychology etc. They are pictured as Zarathushtrians, indeed, the religion is called the Conscience of the Saoshyants.

Besides these differences there are others, pertaining mostly to practice and the nature of God. Bahais, together with all Abrahamics, even if to a lesser extent, picture God as master and men as subjects. Mazda Yasna sees God as a friend, Beloved and Soul Mate of man, who wants men as partners in defeating wrong. Zoroastrianism is more of like an earth based religion, in that it makes
nature, that is, creation itself, the object of what the Abrahamics call redemption and Zoroastrians Renovation, together with mankind as a whole. There is also the matter of Freedom of Choice and rationality. Mazda Yasna makes these central. It also is not like Bahai and the other Abrahamic
Faiths, a Prescriptive religion were you are told specifically what to do, what to wear, what to eat , when to worship, when to rest , how to pray etc.

MazdaYasna, is what we call a Reflective Religion. We are supposed to use our God Given minds to reflect and inform ourselves, based on the Divine Principles, given to us as gifts by Mazda , on  how to conduct ourselves, what to do etc. In short, Mazda is not concerned with the details. S/He wants us to be in harmony with Righteousness, the very Law of the Universe and Aspect of deity. This Law is defined as Good, What is Right and What is Best, in  the ethical sphere.

Bahai practice things like numerology and Mazda Yasnis just pray and have festivals and  a few ceremonies for the different stages of life, like birth, adulthood, Religious Acceptance, marriage etc.. Bahai's Messianism leads them to search through all other scriptures and even myths for past Messiahs and for 'prophecies ' of the coming of Baha Ullah. This has led to friction with others faiths, who accuse Bahais of Hi-Jacking their scriptures, to attempt to justify Bahai claims for Baha Ullah. 

This last has led to some rather bizarre claims. For example, Bahais claim that there is a prophecy by Zarathushtra of the coming of Baha Ullah. Firstly, Zarathushtra never prophesied in the sense the Abrahamic religions understand prophecy. Secondly, they based themselves on a legend of a Fourth
Savior ( Zoroastrians who came hundreds of years after Zarathushtra claimed that there would be 3 Saviors), which was propagated in Iran after the fall of the, Zoroastrian, Sassanian Empire.

This legend, originally was based on Shah Behram , that being Behram the song of the last Sassanian Emperor. Some how  this non-scriptural myth, was turned into a prophecy by Zarathushtra of the coming of Baha Ullah, an utterly fantastic affirmation. This penchant by Bahais for these fantastic claims, has created some ill feelings and worse from  well informed Zarathushtrians, who feel that this is a crass attempt to proselytize some of their less informed co-religionists.

next page