DISCUSSIONS ABOUT ZOROASTRIANISM
you are invited to join!

# 86) Q:  There's a way of life called "alevi" which looks like zoroastrianizm. In iran we are called sii. But the reality is i believe, because of arabs in the history we re forced to hide our beliefs, forced to live in mountains etc... does anyone know anything about this?i really need more information

A: I have not forgotten your request. I have not been able to find any info on the Alevi. If you would subscribe to Zartosh Yahoogroup (free) and ask the same question, you might get some info. There is a gentleman there, who goes by the name of Ardyco and who might have some info. Good luck!
(If you would need to contact me personally, not a discussion entry, please use this form. Your e-mail address will not be shown on this page, nor elsewhere on the site.)

# 87) Q: Are we of aryan blood like the white people? Are we decendants of the priestly caste?

A: Who is we? If you mean Iranians, yes and also mixed in with Arab, Dravidian, Mongol and Turk. If you mean Parsis, yes, but mixed with Dravidian, Mongol and Arab. There is no such thing as a pure race. Indeed there is no race but the human race. As to priestly class; there was a large priestly component among the Parsi migrants, but no, 'we' are not of priestly blood, not as a whole.

# 88) Q: Interesting, I see that there are trinities etablished here also. I also see that wisdom is something that man grows into, or intelligence,, Now everything is based on something that came before, so Zarathustra Revolted against Mithra, but his revolt led him to his truth about GOD, but it was his conflict that led him to GOD. Zarathustra praised Ahura Mazda (God) as the creator of heaven and earth. Why Zarathustra, revolted against Mithra, that was the Iranian religion before him.  Because, in Mithra, the oneness of God was not known to the people, plus the fact that in Mithra, sacrificing animals and also consumption of narcotics and intoxicating beverages (called Haoma) that desist the people from good reflection, were prevalent in Mithra and Zarathustra was against them.  For such reasons Zarathustra, rose against the Mithra belief system. Zarathustra therefore, based his teachings on three principles: good reflection, good word, and good deed.  A TRINITY

A: The religion that existed prior to Zarathushtra was not Mithraism.  Mithra was but one god among many and shown to be partnered with Varuna which was the head of the asuras. Indeed Zarathushtra revolted against the Daevas, whose head was Indra and not against the asuras and much less against Mithra.

Zarathushtra had already discovered the Super Intellect Supreme being, before he started preaching against the Daevas. He was the only Monotheist
at the time, at least among the Aryas. The asura worshippers worshipped many asuras. There is conjectural evidence to say that Zarathushtra fled a Daeva worshipping group in Eastern Afghanistan/Tajikistan and arrived at Vishtaspa's court (after passing through Turkmenistan, certainly a round
about way.) in north central Afghanistan/Helman.

It is possible, from the conjectural evidence mentioned above, that Vishtaspa and his people were more receptive to Zarathushtra because they
were Asura worshippers and not daeva worshippers. That could also explain, some of the reintroduction of ancient pagan deities after the death of
Zarathushtra, for most of these were Asuras. However, even the Asuras reintroduced (as Yazatas created by Mazda) were depicted in the same manner the Daevas were depicted in the Old Daeva cult, namely in an anthropological way. See, for example, the descriptions of Mihr (Mithra) in the Mihr Yasht.

Mithraism, as a clearly defined independent religion did not exist in Eastern Iran. (Zarathushtra's area, note that Afghanistan and Central Asian Republics are considered to be historical parts of Iran, at the very least in ethnical sense). It is possible that some Western Iranian tribes preferred
Mithra as their god , but this is unlikely as in Western Iran, from what we know, Varuna was also the main god.

Mithraism , as known in the west, was born during the Seleucid (Greeks) reign in Iran, after the death of Alexander and it is an eclectism of Young
Avesta religion and Greek Mystery religions.

# 89) Q: Why would the egyptians report the migration of their workers to the desert?  The Egyptians record keeping was very biased based upon the image of the pharoah. Pharoahs were also known to destroy previous records of thier predecessors, if they did not agree with thier belief system or rule. Why then, would Ramsees let his lineage be known as the pharoah who lost his workers to a more powerful, non Egyptian God? He wouldn't, and if someone had, it could of been destroyed.  As for the Hebrews, they recorded the story....the bible.

A: I am sorry but you miss the point. Its not the Egyptians who tell of a Multi Hundred thousands/million person migration from Egypt. Its the Bible in
Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, etc. Unfortunately, such large migration, for 40 years in the Sinai, would have left a trail (of garbage if nothing else). However, after over 100 years, archeologists have utterly failed to finding any such remains. Because of this fact, a large number of archeologists, including Jewish ones, have come to believe that there was no Exodus (certainly not of the proportions of the Biblical story) from Egypt.

# 90) Q: What is Zoroastrianism Views on Ghosts, The Occult, Judaism, Samaritanism & Christianity & Magic. Thank you.

A: While Zoroastrianism does not believe in Ghosts, its well to note, that we do believe that the selves/souls of those who have not achieved Transcendence (Completeness) return to a form of life; probably a spiritual existence.

As to the Occult, we do not believe there is such a thing. What is hidden ( Which is what occult means), is hidden from the ignorant, wrongful and
unenlightened, those that achieve transcendence achieve full Ushta (Light and Happiness)

All religions, including ours are attempts to understand , commune with and realize the Most Wise. Some are better than others at this and some are down right dysfunctional. Certain religious interpretations, in some religions, are Druj (That is they are wrongful and must be abandoned)

Magic as in what?  As in magical tricks, they are sleights of hand. Magic, as in the power to break natural laws, we do not believe in that, because the
natural laws are part of the nature of the Most Wise and can not anymore be broken that S/He can. Of course, what is the natural is the question.

# 91) Q: How Do Jews & Christians View Zoroastrianism in both Good and Bad terms, I really would like to know since I am a Christian myself and feel Zoroastrianism got it right about the one God. thank you.

A: Well, I can't speak for other religions. I perceive that certain fundamentalist Christians see all other religions as Satanic or delusions. Jews, as far as I know, considers all gentiles  as being under the Noahdic Covenant and have no opinion as to their religion.

# 92) Q: Are the Archangels & Archdemons the same as the Amesha Spentas,Yazatas & Daevas in Christianity Judaism & Islam, thank you.

A: Again there is deep doctrinal dichotomy between the original teachings by Zarathushtra in the Gathas and the latter religion's. Zarathushtra does not even use the term Amesha Spenta. But, in any case, the Amesha Spentas in the Latter Religion they are not really Archangels. The Archangels were sort of super angels and these were basically messengers of Yahweh in the Bibel. There is no such concept of angels at all in Zoroastrianism.

The Amesha Spentas in the latter religion were divine beings which, supposedly, had been assigned certain parts of creation to protect from Angrah Mainyu and help them overcome evil. But originally, in the Gathas, these are seen as  Aspects of God. That is Asha is God as Righteousness, Vohu Mana is God as the Mind which Loves Good, Aaramaiti is God as Bountiful Peace and Serenity etc.

The Izads or Yazatas are altogether an invention of the Latter Religion. They were used to Zoroastrianize some of the older gods of the Aryan pantheon. There are several theories about why this happened. Some point to a tradition that the religion suffered a set back about 300 years after Zarathushtra, and posit that Zarathushtra's people were conquered and that the new rulers might have wanted to unite both Mazdayasna (Zarathushtra's Doctrine) and Daevayasna (the Old Arya religion) into some sort of national cult.

Others believe that the Ahura, Daeva divide was caused by Zarathushtra himself (Moulton) and they subscribe to a variation of the above. Yet others believe (Zaehner) that the Ahura Daeva divide preceded Zarathushtra and that there were Ahura Worshippers and Daeva Worshippers. Zarathushtra, they say, was born among Daeva worshippers and rose against Daevayasna,  discovering the One Ahura (Mazda). Then, so the theory goes, under pressure by the priests and rulers (Karapans and Kavis) he fled to Vishtaspa, who in their theory was an Ahura worshipper. While he converted Vishtaspa and his family, many other Ahura worshippers were not so easily converted and thus, over time, the Zoroastrian Maga (The Brotherhood of the Gifted) sought to convert them, by accepting some of their 'gods' (and traditions) as divine creatures, created by Mazda.

Whatever the case, the difference between Amesha Spentas, Izads and Archangels and Angels is, that while both were created beings, the Amesha
Spenta/Izads were mini deities (To Latter Zoroastrians), who were given worship and sacrifice. Indeed during the late Achaemenian and also under the
Sassanians, the Amesha Spenta and the Izad, were called by an Old Persian word Baga, which came to mean 'god'. Originally though, it meant Apportioner, as in apportioner of divine favors. That is the key difference between these Persian concepts and those of Christianity. Angels and Archangels were messengers of God, telling His will to mortals. The Amesha Spentas and Izads were apportioners of Gods favors and they were intrinsically divine and worthy of worship and praise.

The concept or Archangels, which is elaborated in Deutero-Canonical books, was an adaptation of the Zoroastrian Amesha Spentas. This can be seen in the Book of Tobit, which introduces the Archangels and is a book written in Persia where, even Arch-Fiends such as Aeshma, are Judaized as Asmodeous and made into demons.

# 93) Q: I see many similatities to Hindu and Bhuddhist thought, although you have pointed out differences (I am a lazy buddhist, by the way, who has a hard time not acknowledging a "God" of some type).  What does Zoroastrianism say about suffering?  Is it therefore not natural?  Who has
lived without suffering?  Who, in this world, can?  One of the things I like about Buddhism is the strong and effective methodology of meditation.  Is Zoroaster's idea of enlightenment similar to Buddhism's?  All are descendants of "Aryan" thought...  The Buddha never denied the existance of a "God", but rather said that recognition and veneration of such often leads to spiritually unhealthy attachment to the same, and eschewing of moral responsibility... something I have noticed all to often in ecstatic Abrahamic fanatics.  Lots of questons and observations, I know...

A: Suffering can either be:

1. The unfortunate result of a natural process, which exists because it is essential for creation, or as a chance event, that is a byproduct of the
possibility of free choice.

2. The result of bad choice by its victim or by a third party.

It is not a question of it being natural or un-natural. The natural is evolving to an ideal state. It is, at present, imperfect, like a baby is an imperfect form of a human, that has within it the mature individual in potential. Or like a seed has within it the plant it can become, if it reaches its potential.

In the Plane of Mainyu there will not be suffering (other than perhaps accidental), because the Completed mortals (those who have achieved full
Haurvatat or Completion and have, thus, self realized their ethical potential) will have learned both: How to choose in harmony with the Right
Order. (Asha) And to love how to choose according to that Right Order.

There is no teaching in Zoroastrianism that says there is no suffering in this plane of reality. Indeed the person who fully achieves Haurvatat (The
Complete/Completion) transcends this plane  (Crosses the Chinvat in Zarathushtrian terminology)

Meditation on Zoroastrianism (in the original teachings) has the purpose of assisting us in making the right choice, not of reaching illumination. Illumination can be progressively achieved by increasingly harmonizing our choices with Asha. Understanding Asha and loving it, leads you to possess
it. When you fully do possess it, you are fully enlightened, but you also are beyond this 'world'.

Zoroastrianism is about Thought, (Meditation), Word (Communication) and Action, all in harmony with Asha. Zoroastrianism is pro-active. Meditation
and contemplation are tools to an end. Also Zoroastrianism not only considers creation, and thus this plane, ('World') good,  but in need to be
preserved and improved by eliminating error. Thus it does not consider matter evil and actively seeks to maintain and enhance the environment and
the reasoned and responsible use of its resources.

Indeed, Mazda Ahura as Asha, is immanent in all the processes that sustain creation, so Zarathushtrianism is the first Panentheistic Doctrine, because
it acknowledges transcendence from this plane as a reality, but sees the Creator present in all Creation.

I agree that both 'religions'( I would prefer, to call them doctrines, but there is no easy way to describe them) have similar roots indeed some of the
terminology is somewhat to very similar. However, there is one difference, if I understand and have a true picture of Buddhism. This commandment to
avoid attachment, might prevent some suffering, but if, taken to its logical conclusion, it would be that you then, in avoiding attachment, would not be
able even to love your own family, appreciate beauty, etc.

I think that is not achievable by most humans and nor desirable in any case. For while suffering inevitable follows attachment, in the long wrong, so
does temporal happiness and I mean temporal, as this life is temporal. Personally I rather, at the end, have 'lived' and suffered,  than vainly, in
my opinion, fought to avoid all attachment.

The problem with almost all Abrahamics is that they seek forgiveness without redress! First they seek forgiveness from the Creator, whom they have no power to offend in any case, instead of from, the victims of their wrong doing. And second, they seek absolution for the moral price of their wrongful action. I believe both doctrines to be flawed, but those are only a very few of the flaws of most Abrahamic Doctrine. Ecstatic manifestations are not truly the problem in my view, but the way 'cheap' forgiveness is used, to mask moral bankruptcy and hypocrisy.

next page