DISCUSSIONS ABOUT ZOROASTRIANISM
you are invited to join!

# 26) Q: I would like to comment on the concept of miracles. I believe in miracles.  It is true that many see miracles as something that happens outside of the ordered law. I possess a different concept that I put forth for your consideration. I see miracles as currently unexplained events that are in full accordance with the law. A law that we may not yet comprehend. I believe these miracles inspire us to find the answers so we may progress. What is your view of my definition?

A: Your definition is precisely my definition, moreover it is, in my opinion, the Gathic view. Like I said, what we call miracles, are yet to be explained events that are indeed natural and not Super Natural. Asha is not fully comprehended by man; that is what science is trying to do.  Actually, it is not  as much a matter of comprehension, in my opinion, sure there is lack of that, but I believe it is more; ignorance on our part. We are an emerging and developing species; it's just that we are developing more mentally.

Certainly, unexplained events do inspire us to search for answers, so I also concur with you in that. As a matter of fact, in one of those strange coincidences , what I usually call co-incidinks, I believe that Paul, the Christian, either by association, or even by influence (He was from Tarsus a noted Zoroastrian area with several Fire Temples) gives us what I call a very Zoroastrian glimpse at this. In 1 Corinthians 13, when he talks about something, or actually some stage of development  that will come to man. He calls this the Complete, which, at the very least, is one of the most accurate, if not the literal, definition of Haurvatat, one of the Aspects of the Most Wise One's Nature.

Paraphrasing him, because its late and I do not feel like digging out my Bible, Paul says that 'when the Complete comes we will see (reality) as we are seen, we will know as we are known.'

# 27) Q: I am seriously considering Zarathushtrianism as a religion. I have been seeking for about three years now, and am really impressed by what I see. Anyway, the only issue I have is how do we know that the traditionalists are not right? How do we know that Zarathushtra wrote the
Gathas only? How do we know that Zarathushtra did not envision a "satan" charecter, and did not wish to accept converts, etc, etc, etc?

A: How do we know? Well we have the Sassanians recompiling and editing the Avesta. They placed the Gathas in something they called Stotn Yasn, or Pahlavi for  Reverential Adorations, or Prayers. The Gathas in the Sassanian Stotn Yasn and the Gathas we read today are the same in the original, of course. That means that what the Gathas said 1800 plus years ago and what they say now is the same. This leaves us with the possibility that the Gathas lost parts during the Greek wars. This however is very unlikely. First the Gathas were widely known and sung We know from the Avesta that the populace was very familiar with the Gathas. Not only were they studying it in public 6 times a year at each Gahambar (Gatha Festival), but also during the last 5 days of the year, called Gatha days and one Gatha ( There are 17 individual Songs called sections but 5 Gathas: Ahunavaiti, Ushta Vaiti,  Spenta Mainyu, Vohu Kshahthra Vairyo and Vahista Ishya) was sung in each Gah EVERY DAY.

Since priests studied for years, to memorize them and obviously a lot of the laity had them memorized too, it is almost impossible that any part of them would be lost. This is the more likely since the process of recompiling the material took a long time and started with the Arsacids ( Parthians) and ended well into the Sassanian period. This can only mean, that there was a lot of material to be recompiled, and indeed, Katir, the Mobed Mobedan, who finished the Sassanian recompilation, bragged that he was able to know what to accept and what to reject. This of course means that a sizable part of the material was not accepted, but since we had 21 books and some 22000 lines, according to the Sassanian, precious little could have been totally lost in the Greek period.

This is only logical since the Greeks were in Iran for around 90 years and the much  more fanatical, and thorough, Islamists after 300 years of Islam, only had failed to destroy the Avesta, but had a whole new set of books in Pahlavi and Pazand, published by Zoroastrians in those same 300 years.. It was only after the 10th Century, when the actual number of professing Zoroastrians fell below 50%, that some of the books started to disappear under persecution.

So the Gathas are almost certainly complete, not only because of what I said above, but because no fragments of other Gathas have been found and there is no tradition, or books mentioning any lost Gathas.

We are left then with the possibility, that the so called traditionalists are right in what they interpret. However there are several places  in all, the New Avesta, The Pahlavi writings, the Persian Rivayats and in the Gathas, that enjoin conversion and NOT ONE place, in any Zoroastrian book, that forbids it! The question of an Ahriman or Angrah Mainyu can perhaps be considered more valid,. Except that:
1. Angrah and mainyu are NEVER joined together to express a term, or otherwise, in the Gathas.
2. Mainyu is a synonym for mind and thought and used that way in 22 instances in the Gathas, thus revealing that is not spirit in the Western sense.
3. Spenta is not Holy and there is no such thing as Holy Spirit, in the Gathas. Spenta comes from Spe, meaning to expand, to increase, to build up, OR it comes from Spi, meaning bright or white.

Humbach and other translators that insist on Holy for Spenta, have to go all the way to Estonian to find a similar word that means Holy (Sventa). Moreover, the concept of Holy, as understood in the West and in Abrahamic religions, involves absolute purity, separated from all impurity. This is not
the meaning of Spenta at all. Indeed the concept in both the Gathas and the Vedas is that the whole of creation is sacred, that is consecrated and as such not impure. There is no concept of sin in the Gathas. simply wrong and right, good and evil. Creation is good not fallen and is sacred and not
unholy and in need of cleansing.

In the New Avesta this concept changes into something more like the Abrahamic concept, but this change is gradual. It is only in the Vendidad , whose final form is considered to have been reached in the mid to late Parthian period, that the whole complex of Purity laws were incorporated into what traditionalists call 'scripture'. However, we know from several ancient historians, both Greek AND Roman, that the extreme purity regulations were originally only the belief and practice of the Magans.

The process of deviation  was very long, it started , innocently enough, in the first 7 Chapters of the Seven Chapter Gatha , the Haptanghaiti, which, revealingly, has 8 Chapters, because some one who did not dominate the language added it to the rest. Here the Aspects of Mazda Ahura were limited to 6 ( Or in some versions 7) and called Amesha Spentas.  However, the term might not even had refered to the Aspects of God, but rather to the departed Ashavans. Be that as it may, the Amesha Spentas were made into beings, even though they lacked a mythology of their own and were often presented in totally abstract and depersonalized forms, something that NEVER happens to actual beings.

The group or tribe that added the 8th Chapter to the 7 Chapter  Gathas were probably an Aryan people, hostile to Zarathushtra's, whom they conquered since their language was related, but not the same. In any case, either these, or some one else started reintroducing the Daevas into the new religion. Just a simple reading of the New Avesta amply demonstrates the following unsalvageable conflicts between it and the Gathas. There is an evil Being opposed to Mazda Ahura in the Avesta , not so in the Gathas. Spenta Mainyu is identified as being the same as Mazda Ahura, not so in the Gathas. Haoma is introduced as both a God and a Yazata in the Avesta and condemned in the Gathas. Other Gods are mentioned, worshipped and sacrificed to in the Avesta, not so in the Gathas. Sacrifice, specially meat, is offered to these gods in the Avesta and never endorsed in the Gathas. Mazda Ahura is pictured begging for boons from these other gods in the Avesta, while in the Gathas Mazda is the ONLY God.

Of course since Zarathushtra addresses all humanity and not a tribe, his call to deliver wrong unto right was a call to convert. But if that is not enough for you, I invite you to read  12.6 , which states that fire (In other words the dawning to light, or Ushta, that accompanies astuye, or appreciation for Mazdayasna) increases serenity and righteousness (Aaramaiti and Asha) in both parties (that is in the wrongful and the righteous) will convert many a seeker.

# 28) Q: Has there been, or is there, any discussion on the reincarnation of Zarathustra in present times?

A: Yes, although is not very heated. In general some Parsis believe in it, some Iranians do not. There is some evidence for it in the Gathas , but not conclusive. It does talk about soul return, however it can be returning to a physical life in a body, or to some alternate life. It is not clear. The only clear thing is that it is a return to a place where wrong is possible, that it abides.

In the Better Existence, attainable after the 'crossing' of the Chinvat, there is no wrong or evil, so returning to the House of Druj can only mean returning to a place, where wrong is an option, that can be chosen.

Personaly, I find that much of the opposition to reincarnation is based on a dislike for the Hindu/Buddhist model. But a Zoroastrian reincarnation would be totally different. For one, it would not entail punishment or karmic debt, since it is our conscience that both judges us and rebukes the wrongful at the Chinvat , so there is no  room for vengeance, nor retribution. These, in any case, are anathema to Mazda, who is All Good and can do no harm.

# 29) Q: I just want to say that most kurds were Zarazustrians before converting to Islam by sword. And even after converting it still influenced on the back mind of kurdishes. There are still Zarathustrians in kurdistan and most Kurds now like Zarathustra and consider him as a prophet for them and hope to get rid of Islam.

A: I agree.

Next page