DISCUSSIONS ABOUT ZOROASTRIANISM
you are invited to join!

# 100) Q:  I know some one who describes Asha as the "transcendent Harmony with/of the universe"   how apt is that discription?

A: How apt? Well its partly correct, in the sense that, to be in Asha or rather to possess it; its to be in harmony, not only with the Cosmos, but with the Creator. But Asha is far more than that; it is multi-faceted, being both the Order of Laws of the Universe (Physical and Ethical) and an Aspect of the nature of the Creator. In a sense, Asha is God as Righteousness, Precision, Truth, Reality and the Order of the Cosmos

Zarathushtra defines Asha in the ashen Vohu ' a prayer', which is not a true prayer in the usual sense, but a doctrinal declaration, which a maxim that resumes and important teaching. In the Ashem Vohu, The Benevolent Asha , that is the Benevolent Order of God and God as the Benevolent Order, is described as Vohu (which is usually translated as good but, in my opinion, is more like benevolent) and Vahishta (Best and/or Highest) and Ushta (Literally radiant light, but comprehending both Illumination and Happiness).

Moreover, this Illumination and Happiness is to be achieved by being for the Benevolent Order and The Best and Highest, only for the sake of that Benevolent Order. In other words, One is for Asha for the sake of Asha and
only for the sake of Asha. Asha is its own reward. It is the right thing to do, say and think. This is nothing short of a call to do, say, preach and think Goodness for Goodness Sake.

# 101) Q:  I have recently been reading Thomas Paines book "the age of Reason",  while much of it is a critique of what Paine saw as the flaws with biblical chritianity,  many of the ideas he expressed, about natural justice as the basis of ethics  and mans relationship with the Divine  seem to me to  hold resonaces with Zoroastrianism.

A: Ancient Greek philosophers were the source of much of Mr Payne's and other late renaissance and early modernistic era philosophers and thinkers. What is neither known, nor accepte4d in the West is, that these Greeks drank heavily at the head waters of Zarathushtra's thought.

# 102) Q: WHERE DO BAD FOLKS GO WHEN THEY DIE IF THEY ARE NOT RELIGIOUS BUT BELIEVE IN A CREATOR BUT DO NOT WORSHIP?

A: It's a food question, specially since it lets us compare the Judeo-Christian -Islamic view with the Zarathushtrian. To Zarathushtra death is not the end of life but the separation of the ethical conscience (Daena and the Self (urvan from the body. These two parts of us will continue to live as the body, that now, without a life force, decomposes.

This is a somewhat similar idea as the Abrahamic religions mentioned above, except that they  basically demonize the body as the corrupted part of man to one degree or another and we in the other hand, consider the body and indeed the material world, not only good, but in Zarathushtra's words joy bringing. However, the big difference comes when we compare what happens to souls and/or spirits in the Abrahamic religions and our ethical consciences and selves in Mazdayasna.

We have no geographical hell nor heaven, instead the House of Song,or of Good Mind, is deemed to be a state of being and consciousness and it's the equivalent of heaven and The House of Wrong or Deceit is the same type of
state but it's the equivalent of hell. But the greatest difference between both God-views is, that we do not look at
man as a fallen creature, that was created to uphold a certain standard and failed and must now be punished for such a failure. We find this idea highly offensive because to us, Mazda is Most Wise and therefore would not engage in such unwise behavior. Why would God create creatures capable of failing and then punish them when they do fail? This simply makes God into an irrational entity.

Moreover while the Abrahamic God gives both good and evil both weal and woe, Mazda is all good. His purpose in creation is to have ethical cognizant beings choose for themselves to be like him, Wise, Beneficent, Righteous in
all their endeavors, out of a conviction so strong that it eventually becomes their nature. In that spirit, Mazda teaches, not condemns. Thus He has designed life in such a way, that we all will eventually reap the full consequences of our life choices. Jesus himself echoes Zarathushtra when he exclaims, according to the Gospels, " Ye shall reap what Ye sows" To know Mazda and to understand life, makes one Wise.

Mazda teaches us what is right (Asha) by the consequences of our actions, good for the good, bad for the bad. Thus, to be for Mazda's established order (Asha) is good, to be against it, is bad. BUT since Wisdom is acquired by learning and learning to know Mazda and all His Aspects, then Good also equals right and evil also equals wrong. Characteristically, Zarathushtra emphasizes that evil men are first and foremost wrongfully ignorant of
life's established order and of its creator and His will. Thus they are more than evil, ignorant of the truth and reality of life

Because of this and because by his nature he is incapable of wrong. Mazda does not condemn men to punishment rather our consciences will judge us and the consequences of our acts will find us. There is then no need for a hell
of torment in Mazdayasna. Such a concept is an abomination to the All Good and a totally unacceptable theology.

So wrongful men, whether they belief or not, will receive somewhere along their life (and remember, this life still exists beyond the body) the full consequences of their deeds AND, at body separation, they will be judged by
their own ethical consciences and suffer terrible remorse for their misdeeds, as they contemplate the Truth and Reality of existence.

That my friend is what happens to 'bad' folk, when they die according to mainstream Mazdayasni thought. One last point, Mazda does not loose His creatures to a Hell. It is said that the wrongful will return back from the Chinvat, so that they will again receive the opportunity to learn how to choose in accordance to God's order. This has created a dispute as to whether thus teaching of return (Soul or Self Return) teaches reincarnation. However, this is far from clear since returning from the Chinvat does not necessarily imply a return to the flesh.

Whatever the case is that death is not the end of life and that , wherever one goes after the Chinvat, the wrongful will not attain to the Abide of Mazda (the House of Song) , until he learns to choose right and Good, whether in another body, or in some other form of spiritual existence.

# 103) Q: I've read that most Zorastrians in Iran and Centralasia are cryptoreligious. How many Zoroastrians are there worldwide? The official numbers I found varies greatly between 100.000-2.500.000. Like in the link below:
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html#Zoroastrianism

A: It truly depends on what you mean by Zoroastrian. To Parsis and a very small fringe of Iranians, Zoroastrians, are only persons born into the religion and whose parents (both) are Zoroastrians. However if you were to count converts, the issue will change radically. Also, if you made accomodations for people who claim to be Zoroastrians, but cannot practice their faith because of persecution ( this is so in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Iraq and Pakistan,as well as, in some portions of Central Asia,  notably, Azerbaijan).

Then there is the fact that in the West there are very few temples and most Associations or Anjumans (dahr e Mehrs) are ethnically oriented, so that many converts do not routinely visit them, nor practice communal religion with them often. All in all I would say that the 2,500,000 million number is very high. I would venture to calculate between 1 million and 2 million, probably closer to 2, when every one is counted.

# 104) Q:What is the make up of the Zoroastrian group (ie. clergy, hierarchy etc...) and what are its institutions?

A: Good question. for which there is no easy answer.Restorationists, generally, see in the Gathas Zarathushtra denying the institution of the Clergy, and substituting it by teachers of righteousness ( Ratus). Indeed the term Magavan, from which Magus might have come, could be translate as 'Great Possesors of the Hymn or Songs'. The concept of intercessors between god and men is alien to Zarathushtra, which basically considered priests to be ritual mongers and parasites, manipulating the laity and keeping it away from Asha, Vohu Manah, and indeed, from Mazda and all His Aspects.

The latter religion and to a large extent the present day religion in both Iran and India, is priest driven to an extent that reminds one (among conservatives) of the obeissance a medieval priest enjoyed from the laity. So, if we are talking about conservatives, they have priests and in Iran these elect a head priest, called Mobed Mobedan ( literally 'priest of priests'). In India they they have some 6 Vada ( Best) Dasturjis. Many Iranians are Parsis and do not follow or agree with the Priesthood as an institution. Yet individual priests are held in high steem, even in Restorationist and Progressive circles.. Hope this answers your question?

# 105) Q: I read in the gathas about the sacred cow and was wanting to know if zarathustra was vegitarian or did they eat other meat than cows, maybe lamb?

A: In the Gathas, Cow, or actually 'The Soul of the Cow', is a metaphor in much the same way Shepherd, Flock, sheep, etc are metaphors in Christianity. The cow by itself usually stands for the animal kingdom, but Geush Urvan  (The soul of the cow),  which actually means the self of the cow, more than the soul of the cow, stands for the living creation , the living world.

Zarathushtra never mentions anything about what to eat and not to eat, what to wear, where to go to fellowship, etc. His was not that type of teaching. Rather he tells us to listen to the highest things, study them with a logical and open mind and then each of us, by ourselves, ought to choose what to do while trying to do good for goodness sake (Asha). Mazdayasna (Zoroastrianism) has no list of thou shall not's. Its a different teaching from other religions.

next page