DISCUSSIONS ABOUT ZOROASTRIANISM
you are invited to join!

# 80) Q:  Why is zoroastrianism referred to as the basis of today's major monotheistic religions (islam, christianity, and islam)?

A: I would not use the term basis. Xianity and Islam have several sources. It is true however that they have, apparently, borrowed heavily from Persian religions, mostly from the Institutionalized Latter Zoroastrian Religion, that followed the founder, starting several centuries after his demise.

For example: Resurrection and the Kingdom of God are teachings of this form of Zoroastrianism ( the Kingdom of God is also a teaching of Zarathushtra himself, but with slightly different emphasis). Final judgment, a devil as Satan, that is an adversary of god, even such imagery as a lake of fire, god as fire, three days on the tomb before resurrection, King of Kings and Beelzebub are apparently 'borrowings' from either original, or latter Zoroastrianism.

Islam has borrowed the five prayer times  and the ablutions, as well as descriptions of the soul at death, hell, etc. Muhammad's Night Journey has strong parallels to a Sassanian era story and Shia concepts, such as the Sarat Bridge, are Zoroastrian. Indeed Salman Farsi, one of Mohammad's companions, was supposedly a renegade Zoroastrian priest of the Sassanian era. But Islam also borrowed heavily from Judaism and Christianity and obviously, Sassanian Era Zoroastrianism borrowed from Xianity as well.

Still, when very major doctrines of a religion, that claims divine inspiration as its origin, are proven to belong originally to another religion, it is a major blow to its credibility and claims.

# 81) Q: I have two questions that may seem (for lack of a better word) immature, but nonetheless lead to my reluctance to believe in an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent God.  More importantly, in my view, they also lead to a reluctance to believe in true happiness.  My first question is: What is the purpose of eternal happiness after death?  Or, maybe I should say: How is eternal life after death meaningful?  I have come to the conclusion that happiness is directly related to man's purpose and meaning. If this is true, how is there any purpose without a conclusion, such as an extinction of the soul?  Similarly, where is there purpose in eternity?

And my second question (which is, in many ways, a continuation of the first): why does Ahura Mazda create life?  In Catholicism, if I'm not mistaken, God creates life to serve and worship him (pardon my ignorance if
I'm mistaken).  This idea seems overtly illogical, and begs the question as to why an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-powerful God would need lower beings to worship him.  It sort of points to the conclusion that the Catholic God is egoistical, and bored of his company and existence, which is undoubtedly untrue.

I actually have a third question.  How would you respond to this next... hypothesis? (which, I've discovered is, in a way Jung's):  All of the ideas and emotions of humans are essentially the same.  Because we all participate in the form of man (as Plato would say), our minds are essentially limited to the scope of the form's boundaries.  Support of this is the repetition of ideas and concepts, such as the eternal soul and the
existence of God/gods throughout history and, on opposite ends of the planet at the same time.

There are two possible conclusions: the first, and most-likely most supported, is that all humans participate in nature, which, in its entirety contains Truth.  Because of this fact, humankind can know Truth.  This would
also explain why many wisemen and/or prophets (essentially) express the same ideas on happiness and life.

The second, and more pessimistic, is that because all humans are limited by the scope of their spiritual imagination.  The wisemen and prophets all convey the same message because it is a characteristic of humans to want happiness.  Happiness for humans is the known possibility of the attainment of their desires (or their knowledge of purpose).  This claim is supported by the fact that humans are happy when they know they have the possibility of buying an expensive car.  When the expensive car is bought, the happiness is extinguished and is replaced with despair, as the desire has been fulfilled, leaving an emptiness where purpose once sat.  Naturally, the wisemen and prophets in history realize this fact.  On the most part, as a result, they (more or less, given the Middle Way of Buddha and the Golden Mean of Aristotle) condemn the material world, concluding that it ultimately leads to despair.  Instead, the wisemen and prophets subconsciously create a desire which cannot be known during our bodily life.  In doing so, they create source of happiness, and an unattainable (on Earth, I mean) desire... an ultimate purpose. Connected to this idea is the fact that no human has a logical proof for existence, as we cannot prove something we know no opposite for.  This is the fundamental assumption, upon which all thought is innately based.

I have no motive behind these questions other than a calmness of mind.  If I seem like I am trying to disprove any religion, I definitely am not.  I firmly hold the belief that all human ideas portray some sort of truth, and are equal in their search for calmness/happiness/wisdom.  If you can shed some light onto me, I will be in eternal thanks.

Finally, if I have said anything disrespectful about Zoroastrianism or Catholicism or any other religions, I had no intent on doing so, and apologize for my ignorance if I unknowingly offended any followers of either.  I do feel that Zoroastrianism is/was an avante-garde religion (in the sense that it (among many other things) fully recognizes human freewill), and that WHEN I do choose to follow a religion, Zoroastrianism will be the first one I think of.

A: Thanks for your questions and please do not consider questions immature,
ever. Questions  are the ideal tool to grab information. Eternity is the normal state that exists in the plane of transcendence. In Zoroastrian terms this would be the Best Life of in Christian terms "Heaven". The Universe is described as existing in time. Apparently, transcendence implies no time and thus eternity. I say apparently because the way is, put in the original language, that in the best Life we would be immortal and live in something caledl Time of the Long Dominion, which, if not eternity, is for all purpose eternity. There are also references to a 'turning' of creation which some believe implies that the cosmos expands , collapses and expands again.

Soul extinction, its not a Zarathushtrian concept. Rather, 'sou'l (or perhaps 'self' might be closer in Zoroastrian terms), is assumed to be eternal within Zoroastrianism. It would not make any sense in a system that is centered on what I will call, 'Soul Progress' and that is , in my opinion, a central teaching of the Gathas.

Now to address happiness.  To a Zarathushtrian happiness lies in growing into godlikeness. In this world that means fighting, and replacing, wrong with right. This 'right' is defined as whatever is in agreement with Asha, the Cosmic Law of Right  ( and thus by inference righteousness),  in both its physical and ethical dimensions. The purpose of this Right Law is to protect, uphold, nurture and promote the progress or development of Creation.

This Right Law is not only a creation, but an Aspect of the very nature of the Creator. It is inferred that, since Ahura Mazda ( The Most Wise and Superior Being and thus God) is Most Creative, or Progressive by nature, those who after death attain to the "Best and Highest Life' ( also called House of Song and the House of Highest and Best Mind), would continue to grow in God likeness and, in that way, in happiness.

In other words, eternal life will be meaningful and happy; as one learns to become increasingly Godlike. It's the inference of the Gathas that Ahura Mazda is All Good and the original source of its manifestation in the Cosmos. To join commune with Him, would be unspeakable Bliss. From a anecdotal point of reference (not only mine, but well spread even across several 'religions'), this is absolutely so, considering that even partial communion with Ahura Mazda ( full cannot be experienced in immaturity and maturity implies transcendence to the Best Life) is so overwhelming blissful and ineffable.

Ahura Mazda creates with two purposes. To help His ethically endowed children in eliminating wrong by replacing it with right through free and informed choice. As they eliminate wrong, they become increasingly God like in thought, word and action.  The second purpose, which is a result of the first, is to have everything in Creation perfected or realized (Literally, Completed).

Your analysis of the God of Catholicism ( and all Christian and Islamic sects) is right on. One caveat there is no Catholic, Islamic, Zarathushtrian, or  any other god but One that is 'seen' through our ethical consciousness (Daenas) and theologies. Needless to say, if our theology does not make sense, it does not mean that God does not make sense, but simply that the way we think about the Blessed Creator is logically invalid and almost certainly wrong.

Now your third question is truly a series of questions rolled into one You first say: " All of the ideas and emotions of humans are essentially the same.  Because we all participate in the form of man (as Plato would say), our minds are essentially limited to the scope of the form's boundaries.  Support of this is the repetition of ideas and concepts, such as the eternal soul and the existence of God/gods throughout history and, on opposite ends of the planet at the same time."

Well it is a tautology that all humans share the human condition. I would face the question from another angle. Why are these ideas and emotions common to man? Essentially Zoroastrianism answers that with the following:

O Most Wise One, at the beginning You, through Your Mind, fashioned for us the living world, ethical consciousness and discerning intelligence. You, put life in the physical frame and gave deeds and words, so that one makes his, or her choice through free will.

In other words , we share ideas and emotions to a remarkable degree, because we were fashioned that way. Specifically the concept of an immortal soul comes, partially, from a belief in a purposeful creation, and a good Creator. If there was no immortal soul, we would all cease to exist with no hope of avoiding extinction, which would remove a benignant purpose from life and goodness from Ahura Mazda.

Besides, by participating in Creation, we all participate ( Imperfectly and immaturely) in some of the Aspects of Ahura Mazda's nature. Ahura Mazda is inferred to have manifested what is by emanation. In other words we and everything that is, are made of an undifferentiated energy or essence, in lack of better words, which comes out of Ahura Mazda. That is why Ahura Mazda is said to be immanent and transcendent at the same time, in and through Creation.

When this is  understood, and assimilated, the very every day reality that we perceive, becomes undeniable proof of Ahura Mazda's existence. That is why 'faith' ( In the sense of the Christian definition of faith) is not a central concept of Zoroastrianism. You are not asked to believe blindly on an 'god' that can
at best be experienced, only, in a beatific trance, or by the authority of a book. You are simply asked to acknowledge the presence and existence of the Divine, in and by His very creation.

But I would not be so sure that all 'prophets' and 'religions' have the same message. I mean, for example, do you believe that Jesus claims that life was an illusory perception of our senses, which chain us to an unending chain of reincarnations and sufferings? Do you believe that Buddhism pictures a God that loves (an emotion that leads to attachment and thus to suffering, according to Buddhists)? His creation but then turns around and punishes, that same creation he loves, in a place of eternal torment, because they disobeyed a set of laws which, according to Christian Theology, they could not keep in any case?

True there are certain similarities, mostly superficial, but there are just as many differences. Zoroastrianism infers that this is so, because there is a component, to what we call religion, that is missing from today's definition of the word. Namely, thatreligion is not Divine. Rather, it is a consciousness, a perception, a vision of the nature of reality and thus of God, elaborated by mortals.

The Hindu parable of the blind men and the elephant  fits perfectly here. Because, just as each blind man came away from the elephant with a different mental view of its nature, so do mortals do the same with God. Since God, however, is not an elephant and we are not blind, but rather ignorant of Absolute Truth, the more we insist in 'seeing' our God/Elephant, the more we see in Him some of our own characteristics.

That is why we see a god ordering genocide, 'rewarding' goodness with sex, judging, condemning ,jealous, vengeful, wrathful, indifferent, impersonal, of and all the human attributes we give Her/Him, because, even sex, we transfer unto God.

Ahura Mazda is said to be Good because good results are seen and experienced in Creation and He has manifested it. It is to be assumed that when He first chose, He chose in the fullness of his nature. That being Wisdom manifested, what was in accord with His nature, that is good. Indeed, because good and evil are words that can only have full meaning for beings endowed with ethical discernment and analytical minds, capable of abstract discourse and perceiving the so called greater good. In Zoroastrianism we do not believe they have an existence independent of ethical choices.

A dog for example can perceive something as good or evil, only in relation to itself and its immediate surroundings and relations. Thus it can sense that a large object, speeding towards a toddler, belonging to its 'household', is a dangerous and 'evil' thing. But it cannot perceive or conceive of genocide as an evil thing, or as anything at all.

So to return to evil and good, they need observers to call them such and not just any observers, but the afore mentioned type of observers, that are ethically aware ones. An earthquake of 15 in the Richter scale occurring in Southern California in 2006 would be called evil and a disaster. The same earthquake, occurring in the same location 150 million years ago, would not have been called evil, because there were no ethically aware observers at the time.

That of course leads to the problem of evil. Did then Ahura Mazda manifest evil, as well as good? To be manifested evil and good  must be observed and acted upon ( that is chosen) by an ethically aware being. The question then is, did Ahura Mazda chose to do evil? According to Zoroastrianism, Mazda is described as Benignant to All the living and All Good, so whence evil?

It is said that there are two 'mainyus'. These are translated as spirits, mostly, but sometimes as minds. This is because, Philological speaking, they are related to mind and thinking and not to a spirit in the sense of a spiritual force, or being. SINCE MAIN MEANS MIND, (indeed, mind in English is its cognate) and yu is instrumentality, then we are looking at what literally means an instrumentality of the mind . This is thinking, but also feeling. (its not the heart, but the mind that is the seat of passion and feeling). Thus what we have here is a Mental Inclination to act , think and speak in a certain way.

Ahura Mazda, being Perfect, or Complete, chooses according to His Inclination, but mortals, being Incomplete, sometimes choose wrongly out of wrong Inclination. Mainyu is also translated as mentality, way of thinking, way of being, but regardless of the translation, the underlying meaning is that of an inclination to choose in one way.

If you know that the Cosmos is the creation of a Good and righteous being and that by choosing according to His law you can become like Him; most sane individuals would do just that. However, one must believe this is so and believe that denying our selfish and ignorant inclinations and all the apparent gratification that they bring, is something that must be done.

Moreover that it must not be done for selfish ( that is for reward) reasons, but for its own sake. Goodness, righteousness, etc, are good in and of themselves and are their own reward. To put it another way, Zarathushtra taught the same thing that the Christmas jingle says: "Be good for goodness sake!".

So, in an overly long and round about way, I have come to what I BELIEVE IS THE ANSWER TO YOUR 3 rd QUESTION (FINALLY!!) It's not that man is or is not spiritually limited; it is that, this life, has been designed for us to learn, through our choices and their consequences, to choose according to the same inclination that is Ahura Mazda's , that is goodness. The standard for that goodness is His Right Law, an Aspect of His very nature.

We are offered a certain amount of gifts, graces if you will,  (charismas, the early Christians called them) by Ahura Mazda. These are to be used as tools to grow into His likeness, by appropriating them, through, choosing them in thought, word and action and letting them come to rule our lives and become part of our nature. The emphasis here is on our letting them, for it must be a conscious and free choice.

These gifts, which later came to be limited to 6 or 7 and called Amesha Spentas, (Beneficial, Creative//Progressive, Immortals), help us discern what is Asha like ( what is in harmony with the Right Law) in all our alternatives, whether major, or apparently, trivial.

Thus, it's not man that is the issue but, man and Ahura Mazda. For He is our partner/ally/soul mate ( urvato. We are not along and we have an all Good Benignant Creator, self evident in his creation; who has designed the cosmos, so that we learn how to put away wrong, that is, ignorance, selfishness, myopic self interest and supplant it with good, beneficence justice and self realization for all.

next page