DISCUSSIONS ABOUT ZOROASTRIANISM
you are invited to join!

# 24) Q: What happens after death and what is the concept of immortality in Zoroastrianism, Heaven, Hell, or what? Does Zoroastrianism believe in reincarnation and if so, in what way it is equal to, or different from other religions, such as Hinduism?

A: Great questions! Zarathushtra talks mainly about this, physical, life. For two reasons. First and foremost, this physical life is a chance to gain Completion (Haurvatat), by learning to make Asha like choices * (Choices in harmony with the Physical and ethical laws of the Cosmos) Not only that, but, as a result of our learning to make Asha like choices, we will renew (literally Make Wonderful) the world. So this physical life, is of the utmost importance and Zarathushtra talks about it primarilly. So much so, that some have come to believe that Zarathushtra does not talk about an after life. But he does, the Urvan ( A term that means self or perhaps soul) is metaphoirically pictured attempting to Cross a bridge that separates ( Chinvat) this existence from the House of Good Mind * (Vohumanah Demana) also called the House of Song (Garo Demana).

Indeed the Urvan judges itself and is also judged by its Conscience (or Ethical Conception, Daena in Old Avestan). This judgement involves self recrimination. The Urvan that has not achieved the Complete, that is, Haurvatat, cannot attain Ameretat (Immortality) and cross the bridge.

In a much discussed passage it is said to return back from the Bridge, if its wrongful (Evil), because it has always lived in the House of Wrong (or lie, called Drujo Demana in Old Avestan). Some translate as the soul getting served foul food, which truly does not make much sense. Some see in this, and other passages, a hint or inference of Reincarnation. Others claim that Reincarnation is foreign to Zarathushtra because the New Avesta does not mention it. However, I must say, that the New Avesta cannot be  the arbiter of what Zarathushtra taught, for it contradicts many of Zarthushtra's teachings.

Whatever the case, whether there is reincarnation, or a return to some form of existence that is not physical,  the Urvan returns to a life where there is a House of Wrong, that is where Wrong Abides and, therefore, must be eliminated by right choices. Personally, I think, that Zarathushtra here
means reincarnation; but it really does not make any difference. the self that is not Complete , that has not achieved Haurvatat, returns to learn to choose how to deliver wrong unto Asha (Right).

Heaven and Hell, do not exist as geographical places; they are conditions of the mind. Indeed, Hell (The House of Wrong) can be experienced  right here, on Earth, while it is hinted that at the Chinvat it gets worse for the Wrongful. It is also impossible in Garo Demana, for there is no wrong there. Heaven can also be experienced here, however not fully, since in this plane, or existence, wrong and thus evil is eminently possible.

If reincarnation, is the way, it would not be anything like in Hinduism or Buddhism for many reasons; a few of them would be:

1. In Zoroastrianism, life is the Good Creation of an absolutely Good God and not a place of misery that has to be escaped, or an unreal nightmare.

2. Asha is not Karma. Karma is a mechanical retribution for actions. Asha is an aspect of the Nature of God and works to promote Haurvatat. Thus Asha has no such thing as the concept of 'Karmic Debt"  which is totally foreign to Zarathushtra's teaching of free will. Asha's Law of Just Returns, is not for punishment, but for teaching, thus as soon as the lesson is learned ( that is as soon as one learns to deliver wrong to right), then there is no need to make that some one 'pay'.

3. This physical life, is our classroom to learn to be Asha like, thus abandoning it, or trying to avoid reincarnation, like in other religions, is not seen as good.

4.Evil is not an illusion, neither are desires. Desires, that are wholesome and asha like, do not bind some one to a chain of cause and effect. Rather, learning to desire the right, is one of the conditions for reaching the Complete.

# 25) Q: Are you of the Mazdaznan Movement of Zoroastrianism? It would seem that, as well as the Parsis, there are also at least 6 other Sects of Zoroastrianism. They all seem to have  different ideas on how important the Avesta is, how other, later writings are considered Holy and Scripture just like the Avesta & some have beliefs in minor deities that seem to be contradictory to a Monotheistic belief. Which Sect has a strictly monotheistic belief in Ahura Mazda/God/Yahweh/Lord?

A: No Mazdasnam is not a truly Zarathushtian movement . It follows the supposed teachings of some enlightened ones, that the founder of the movement 'discovered' in some isolated village, somewhere in the mountains of South Central Asia. It takes Aaramaiti, which was never a godess or a person, and makes her the Precursor of Zarathushtra and some sort of priestess. Besides, they have largely become a Profit based organization, selling some tapes and books of spiritual exercises.

I do not know were you get 6 sects. Offically there are none. In practice there are only three, which are Restorationists, Progressives and Isolationist, or Closed Religion. There are 2 occultist groups , but
certainly they are as Zarathushtrian as Santeria is Catholic. In general, of all three groups, the breakdown as to the Avesta is as follows:

Most Progressives accept some of the Yashts, the Vispered and the Haptanghaiti as binding. Some do not. No progressive believer accepts the Vendidad, nor the Pahlavi writings as binding.

The Isolationists are almost exclusively Parsis and called themselves Traditional Mazdayasnies ( They even mispell the name of the religion,  which is kind of ironical to me). They claim to believe in all the so called 21 Nasks of the Sassanian, recompiled Avesta, most of which are NOT extant. (the Sassanian recompiled the Avesta and by their own admissions, elected themselves the arbiters of what to include and what not to include in it). In practice they do not keep most of the regulations of the Vendidad. Their
main interest is to avoid conversions, so that their caste is not polluted by the inferior raavans of Non-Zarathushtis ( Raavan is the Parsi perversion of the Old Avestan Urvan, which means self, or soul).

The Restorationists simply have returned to the only compositions of Zarathushtra. In doing so they have discovered  many things. Chief among them is, that the New Avesta directly contradicts the teachings of
Zarathushtra in many instances and violates the spirit in which they were given. They also fail to find no elaborate rituals in the Gathas. So the Restorationists make Zarathushtra's Gathas, the sole rule and authority for faith and practice. The Haptanghaiti and other fragments in Old Avestan have value only as far as they expand on some Gathic point and not directly contradict a Gathic teaching. The Visperad is seen as a description of the Festivals and practices of some early Zarathushtis, but not in anyway
authoritative. The Yashts and Nyashes are seen as largely unacceptable, as are the Vendidad and the Pahlavi writings.

The Korde Avesta, is a prayer book with rote prayers which traditionally are recited by priests; but are not even understood by most of them, let alone by the laity. It is written, basically in Middle Persian and Gujerati, with a sprinkle of Pahlavi, New Avestan and Old Avestan words, often misspeled and mispronounced.

Having said, this there are many passages, often isolated ones, in almost every book of the New Avesta and even in Pahlavi writings, that are in harmony with Zarathushtra's teachings. Therefore Restorationists value these writings from a historical and anthropological point of view. The term "scriptures' I use as  a term you can understand, but not one with the same sense as it has in the Abrahamic based religions. This is so because Zarathushtra's Gathas are poetic songs, akin to the Rig Vedda and the Nordic Rhunes and thus were sung, perhaps for millennia, before they were actually written. Indeed, a special Alphabet with 48 letters was created for the Gathas, so that the pronunciation would remain the same.

Neither is it claimed to be the Word of God, like the Bible and The Quran are claimed to be. True, Seraosha is said to be in the very words of the Gathas, but Seraosha is more like a dicovered insight and/or inspiration, than God speaking. The Gathas are said to be Zarathushtra's words . Of course they do explain the Message of Mazda , but they are not a direct communication from Her/Him, nor is Holy their right appelation. The Gathas are introduced as Righteous. It is the Sassanians that mistranslate Asha as Holyness, and so do many Parsi writers. Indeed, the concept of Holy, in the Abrahamic sense, is not present in the Gathas . Yes the whole of creation is seen as sacred as is God , but sacred is not Holy. For Holy connotes radical pureness and separation from any impurity (Specially in the Old Testament). This does not exist in the Gathas, although it is present, in an extreme sense, in some of the latter literature, like the Vendidad.

Now to answer you about which group is Monotheist. Most Progressives are Monotheists, some are Henotheists. Most Isolationists are Henotheists, some are Monotheists and some are Sassanian Dualists. Restorationists are almost all Monotheists, but we do have some Atheists, that metaphorize God as an excuse used by Zarathushtra, to explain his doctrine. They are very few but they are out there and must be acknowledged.

One more explanatory point. Mazda means Wisdom or Wise One and Ahura has been translated as Lord by most translators. However, like Yahweh, Ahu refers to being; indeed to a being of high position and ra is an augmentative particle, so this is a very High Being. Sovereign and Lord are thus used for him, but Supreme could also. Having said this, Mazda is not a Lord that lords over  Her/His creatures.

Next page