Religious Based Asset Development

[Number 96]

Our community has many problems, and as the flame bearers of generations to come, these issues will fall upon us as they have our parents.

Recent conversations have further supported a notion I have harboured concerning the global Zoro community - people are aligning themselves toward a political perspective (i.e. reformist or conservative). Personally, this only seems like fuel to a fire; politics are the reason ALL religions are failing across the globe. It is us humans that destroy something beautiful and perfect.

After all, isn’t there a great deal of good that comes out of some reform? Can not the staunch conservative teach us using history how to improve the religion for the future? Why is it people from both “sides” are not participating in discussion to overcome issues we are facing? Surely, there are things polar opposing political-religious groups disagree on BUT more important is what they do agree on, can work on and improve on.

In my opinion, we need to think of ways to see past our differences and look within our similarities. The people who bother to post, argue, think, speak, read etc. obviously care enough about the religion for them to do so. There will of course be those who remain apathetic, but by and large those on this forum show concern and rationale. It is with this thought that I realize this forum is a suitable one to create new solutions for old problems.

Below are issues that are both controversial and stonewalled. There has not yet been progression past these issues agreeable to each polar perspective’s values.

1 – Conversion
2 – Intermarriage

MY INTENT IS NOT TO HAVE THESE ABOVE ISSUES DISCUSSED HERE.

There are also issues that are not so flammable yet some how are not recognized or at least do not have the same level of debate nor attention.

1 – Priests, their well being and advancement of priesthood (decrease in new priests, respect for their position in our community and religion, status)
2 – Increasing awareness of the shrinking religion (assimilation vs. isolation)
3 – Youth initiatives and inclusion (identity loss, lack of religious education and understanding)

And of course my favourite:

4 – Unity of people adhering to either political faction (how to facilitate civil discussion around the taboo issues)

We are of the same people and believe the same philosophy. It is foreseeable that we should each have something positive to add pertaining to the latter 4 issues mentioned above.

-Rayomand

[Jimmy]

Rayo.... in a rush ...but your last sentence illustrates the whole problem with conservatives and liberals talking out important issues. They dont believe the same philosophies. If by philosophy you mean good thoughts, words, deeds, then yes sure we agree there. But I think i have more in common with a Conservative Christian/Muslim/Jew than I have in common with a very liberal Zoroastrian.

Secondly your thoughts on separating religion from politics is a noble one and I sure wish that was possible. However in the case of the first group...as you can see in india now there are groups who are working very hard to promote the welfare of the preist in general, however they do so with political intentions not really because they really give a crap about the priest or the religion. (ok thats really overarching and cynical but thats my thoughts) I know there are good folks out there who really do care but to say the big guys dont have an agenda is a bit naieve.

Increasing awareness about the 'shrinking religion'... I really challenge you to have that convo with either conservatives or liberals and see if issues 1 and 2 dont come up.

I realize that you think that i may have blinders on and think that problems 1 and 2 need to be overlooked so that we can move forward as a community. I think its the opposite: Untill problems 1 and 2 are fully addressed we will not prosper as a community. We can sweep it under the rug and ignore the huge white elephant in the room... but its only going to come back to bite us in the end.

[Jamsheer]

Jimmy, what do you mean by "fully addressed...?" What resolution will satisfy you?

[Jimmy]

A solution that I would find mutually acceptable is that the liberals did what they wanted to do without interfereing or trying to control historically traditional places of worship/baugs/colonies etc etc. This way they get to do what they want and we get to do what we want. We built the agyari's and Atash Behrams and do everything in our power to ensure they are maintained to our standards. If they have different standards why should we be forced to follow them? Why should they be forced to follow ours?

You can eat, dance, play, sing, work together, but when it comes to controlling anything religious there is always going to be a fight. Its so deep rooted that it will eventuall seep into the non-religious aspects as well and sour things for both sides. Is it possible to live happily under one roof, sure but its highly improbable.

[Jamsheer]

So, its the "Us vs. Them" argument. Disappointing, and sad to hear, buddy. We are one, and in spite of our differences, we should try to remain as one. It is our banding together as one community in the face of outside forces that has maintained and protected us todate. If we start splitting up then I see a future a few decades down the line where we become like the muslim shias and sunnis. Basically the same religion, but cannot stand each other, and even kill in the name of religion.

[Jimmy]

How long can we pretend that what the liberals and conservatives follow is the same religion? Its not. Its fundamentally very different. Its not all happy-happy nice-nice as i would like but its the truth. Whats more is that both sides are essentially forcing the other to change. Where is the freedom in that? How is that right? What the liberals are asking the conservatives to accept and swallow goes against everything they stand for. (and proabably vice versa) With that type of extreme opposite thoughts how do you expect anyone to get along? You see violence if we split? While I dont see violence (internal) ever for our small group, if we keep forcing things down other peoples throats its not going to be a pretty scene. If we were truly one then we should have stayed as one in thought. These issues are binary, unfortunately there really is no middle ground. I hate to be glum but these are my thoughts.

[Jamsheer]

Liberals and Conservatives DO follow the same religion. I do not presume to judge someone else for following Zoroastrianism in a way that is different from me, and I would appreciate the same courtesy in return.

People follow religion as they see it because their thoughts, ideas, customs, traditions, ideals etc. are different from others. The flowing, inclusionary nature of religion gives it it's inherent beauty.

All Zoroastrians build atash behram's, agyari's etc. Nowhere does it say these places of worship were built by "conservative" zoroastrians. Once we go down this path of building seperate locations for liberals and conservatives, where will it end? What about the moderates? Where will they go? The proverbial "no man's land?" Such concepts reek of fear, arrogance and self-importance. We are all Zoro's, there is no "us/we...them."

[Jimmy]

Again, Jamsheer, I respectfully beg to differ.

First, my previous post may have come off rude or arrogant, didnt mean to make it sound that way. Im not saying that conservatives are better or liberals are worse... I am not judging anyone. I am sticking straight with the facts that the conservatives and liberals are different. Period. No better or worse.

We may follow the same religion on paper, but when we argue about something as simple as "What is the definition of a Zoroastrian" ... if we cant agree on something as fundamental as that concept, that is a really big issue. It is an issue of identity at its very core. I simply cannot relate or identify with most of what liberal Zoroastrians do/practice/believe in the name of religion, and probably vice versa.

"thoughts, ideas, customs, traditions, ideals etc." Are more of cultural nuances which Parsi's tend to get commingled in the Religious sphere. This is the other part to this equation. Liberals on the whole place less of an importance on the rituals and tenets of our religion; but further even wish to change them. Whereas the conservatives find it paramount to maintain them as is.

We cant agree on identity or rules, or rituals, ... what else is left?

Lastly, all zoroastrians build Atash Behrams? Agyaris? ... Atash Behrams, agyaris were not built by tradtional/conservative minded folks? Perhaps you should re-think or research those statements. Atash behrams and Agyaris dont just get built, they get consecrated. Not only were they consecrated by conservative zoroastrians (i.e. the high priests who were absolutely without a doubt not just conservative, but super conservative). Thousands of man hours of prayers along with maintaining the strictest spritual and physical purity while performing numerous rituals led to their consecration. Furthermore, they were built and are owned by the founding families who paid to have them consecrated (not the Parsi Population), all of which were conservative minded and only intended the use of the Atash Behrams for Parsi's only. Remember all the signs outside of our places of worship? It may not explicitly say 'liberals keep out' but if a Zoroastrian who married out or their non-zoroastrian spouse and children are not allowed to enter per the rules of the premise, wouldn’t you take that as conservative minded? (the latter may not be enforced due to politics seeping in and priests have no powers, therefore no one to enforce the rules, but that is a separate issue alltogether).

[Jamsheer]

Jimmy, we can differ, we can disagree...that's alright. I have no problems with that. It leads to discussion, which is good.

Conservatives and liberals may be different, but that does not make either of them less zoroastrian, whatever that entails.

Let me put it to you this way: at the time most atash behram's and agyari's were built/consecrated, they were done so by people who mostly believed in the same thing. They canot be called conservatives, they can be called religious/spiritual. However, due to the passage of time, relocation, etc. some peoples' values have changed. That does not make them any better or worse than others, it is just a natural progression and evolution. Labeling people as one or the other does not help, it just makes their spines stiffen and then more determined to prove their "right" or "righteousness" over the other side.

My one big worry with different places of worship for liberals and conservatives is if one side starts barring the other from entering. That could then lead to tit-for-tat responses on both sides in terms of praying, friendship, marriage etc. That leads to what i was referring to earlier in the case of some muslims.

[Number 96]

So, its the "Us vs. Them" argument. Disappointing, and sad to hear, buddy. We are one, and in spite of our differences, we should try to remain as one. It is our banding together as one community in the face of outside forces that has maintained and protected us todate. If we start splitting up then I see a future a few decades down the line where we become like the muslim shias and sunnis. Basically the same religion, but cannot stand each other, and even kill in the name of religion.

Jamsheer mate you have articulated the very reason I wrote this thread. I am impressed how similar our thoughts on this particular topic seem to coincide.

Jum, you have made some interesting points and I think Jamsheer has done a great job discussing them. The only points I could think of that were left out are as follows.

1 -

We may follow the same religion on paper, but when we argue about something as simple as "What is the definition of a Zoroastrian" ... that is a really big issue. It is an issue of identity at its very core. I simply cannot relate or identify with most of what liberal Zoroastrians do/practice/believe in the name of religion, and probably vice versa.
[/COLOR]

Jum firstly, I think that Zoroastrian identity is slightly different for everyone. The way we pray and the purpose behind our religion is one that makes it stand out from the rest. That is that each Zoro is blessed with conscious and the power to do what it is they feel is right for the sake of righteousness. The two themes repeated constantly in the Gathas are that of Truth and Righteousness. These are the fundamentals of Zoro philosophy.

2 -
Increasing awareness about the 'shrinking religion'... I really challenge you to have that convo with either conservatives or liberals and see if issues 1 and 2 dont come up.

I think its the opposite: Untill problems 1 and 2 are fully addressed we will not prosper as a community. We can sweep it under the rug and ignore the huge white elephant in the room... but its only going to come back to bite us in the end.

I agree these issues need to be tackled. But I feel we would be better equipped to take them on once we have agreed on the foundation principals that link us. This thread is an attempt to build those foundations.

3 - A solution that I would find mutually acceptable is that the liberals did what they wanted to do without interfereing or trying to control historically traditional places of worship/baugs/colonies etc etc.
We built the agyari's and Atash Behrams and do everything in our power to ensure they are maintained to our standards. If they have different standards why should we be forced to follow them? Why should they be forced to follow ours?

Is it possible to live happily under one roof, sure but its highly improbable.

This argument is completely exclusionary based. Segregating populations is neither an answer nor a fix by any means. Our religions small population has thus far meant we are not subjected to meaningless violence that other religions are. Imagine if humans did not ruin the beauty of Islam or Christianity and there were only one faction of each religion…. It would literally be a different world today.

It is fear that divides and rapes religion of its meaning. Let us not follow the same path other religions have gone down.

The point of religion and prayers are not only personal and based on guidance. They are also intrinsically although fortuitously built towards growth and unity. People should practice TOGETHER. People should relate and converse. Our religion does not exclude – it brings people together.

4 - Whats more is that both sides are essentially forcing the other to change. Where is the freedom in that? How is that right?

I agree – there is no freedom in total compromise. But TOTAL compromise is not necessary for the two factions to cooperate. Just because it isn’t easy doesn’t mean you give up and divide the religion into groups. It means you have civil discussion, find common belief and try to develop it.


Lastly, I understand that people reading this will not instantly change their opinion, but that is not the point of the thread. I am hoping we can come closer to solutions of the topics raised in the first post…

-Rayo

[Jimmy]

Let me put it to you this way: at the time most atash behram's and agyari's were built/consecrated, they were done so by people who mostly believed in the same thing. They canot be called conservatives, they can be called religious/spiritual. However, due to the passage of time, relocation, etc. some peoples' values have changed. That does not make them any better or worse than others, it is just a natural progression and evolution. Labeling people as one or the other does not help, it just makes their spines stiffen and then more determined to prove their "right" or "righteousness" over the other side.

My one big worry with different places of worship for liberals and conservatives is if one side starts barring the other from entering. That could then lead to tit-for-tat responses on both sides in terms of praying, friendship, marriage etc. That leads to what i was referring to earlier in the case of some muslims.

Yea I guess you are right, when 95% of the population believes what we term as conservatisim today then yes there was no disctinction back then. But the fact still remains that they were constructed under conservative laurels for conservative folks. You NEVER saw someone even dare try to bring a Non-Zoroastrian in the temple or at the Dokhma in those days and if they tried, well they would have gotten it. If you were to ask any of the priests who consecrated the dokhmas and Atash behrams if we should be allowing non-parsi's or parsis who were married outside , their spouces, or children into our places of worship their answer would be a resounding NO.

The problem is Liberalism from abroad is facing resistance from conservatives abroad. Therefore they find it necessesary to cut us out at our roots. As one of the people running for BPP said "Parsi's must be wiped out so that Zoroastrianism can survive" Jamsheer I urge you to really look closer at this situation that we are facing. Unlike the conservatives, the LIberals of our religion do NOT employ a live and let live ideology. Conservatives are unanimous that as long as our religious rules/places of worship are respected liberals can do whatever they want. Liberals on the other hand insist that they and whoever else be allowed into our places of worship etc. If that is allowed to happen there is no conservatism left. You may take this as dramatic but I have heard liberals say time and itme again "i cant wait for you guys to be wiped out/exticnt/die off" etc etc. Thats the ideology that we are faced with. So can you blame us for defending our viewpoints and ideology?

[Jimmy]

RAYO:

1) Again, us Z's have the power of will to do what is right.. not change the rules of our religion, that would be.. well.. wrong!

2) Ray, besides good thoughts good thoughts, words, deeds, the name Zoroastriansim and the farvarhar.. what links so called Conservatives with so called liberals.. what is their common ground? Name one thing that both sides wish to preserve and perpetuate into tomorrow. We can take it from there if you can find something.

3) " Segregating populations is neither an answer nor a fix by any means. Our religions small population has thus far meant we are not subjected to meaningless violence that other religions are." Its interesting you mentioned this. The Militant wing of Islam has threatend the BPP that if we started to convert we would be met with "fire and sword" ... Is this something thats really going to help our population or hurt it.. lets think.. millions of them.. thousands of us. You want us to pray together, again how is that possible when conservatices believe that non -Zs cannot enter the places of worship. We arent going to budge on that rule, and why should we be forced to?

4) Little things here and there we can comprimise on.. shoot we HAVE TO. There is no way anyone can practice everything that we are supposed to do. How can we come together when one side wants change an the other wants to preserve. They are fundamental opposites. The more you try and force both sides to live together the more things are going to boil over. The only middle ground is one where each side minds thier own business and lets the other do what they want.

[Jamsheer]

Yea I guess you are right, when 95% of the population believes what we term as conservatisim today then yes there was no disctinction back then. But the fact still remains that they were constructed under conservative laurels for conservative folks. You NEVER saw someone even dare try to bring a Non-Zoroastrian in the temple or at the Dokhma in those days and if they tried, well they would have gotten it. If you were to ask any of the priests who consecrated the dokhmas and Atash behrams if we should be allowing non-parsi's or parsis who were married outside , their spouces, or children into our places of worship their answer would be a resounding NO.

The problem is Liberalism from abroad is facing resistance from conservatives abroad. Therefore they find it necessesary to cut us out at our roots. As one of the people running for BPP said "Parsi's must be wiped out so that Zoroastrianism can survive" Jamsheer I urge you to really look closer at this situation that we are facing. Unlike the conservatives, the LIberals of our religion do NOT employ a live and let live ideology. Conservatives are unanimous that as long as our religious rules/places of worship are respected liberals can do whatever they want. Liberals on the other hand insist that they and whoever else be allowed into our places of worship etc. If that is allowed to happen there is no conservatism left. You may take this as dramatic but I have heard liberals say time and itme again "i cant wait for you guys to be wiped out/exticnt/die off" etc etc. Thats the ideology that we are faced with. So can you blame us for defending our viewpoints and ideology?

Jimmy, I am looking at the situation very closely and I am very concerned. I can honestly say that I have never heard either side say things like "wiped out" or "die off" etc. If that is the case, then that kind of talk is certainly not on, I don't care who said it. I do not disagree with a lot you say, but I do disagree on a few points. Having said that, I am glad that we are able to discuss and communicate our opinions freely without finger pointing. That is very important. I fear that this situation will never be resolved amicably and to the satisfaction of everyone. Perhaps the answer lies in taking a public world-wide vote on the major issues and let the majority decide. That may put an end to this constant bickering once and for all and we as a community could move on. Doubt it though!

[Jimmy]

Perhaps the answer lies in taking a public world-wide vote on the major issues and let the majority decide. That may put an end to this constant bickering once and for all and we as a community could move on. Doubt it though!

Even still then.. You are going to have a group of disenfranchised people who will refuse to accept the outcome no matter where it falls. They will udoubtedly split and do their own thing. You cannot stop the inevitable. Other religions have gone down this road. NONE of them today really take the 'we are one people' standpoint (unless attacked by an outside group..but then they go back to being separate entities) In a way its sad but at the same time its just not realistic to say that we are. No one is going to be told what to do in the religious realm via a vote. If there was a vote that forced you to follow something that was fundamentally against what you believed in, would you follow it? I know I wouldnt. I agree its great to discuss these things politely, perhaps somewhere there lies an answer to this mess.

[Behram]

Interesting discussion with both sides having very valid points of argument and the best part of this debate is its so rational, polite and dignified unlike the ones on other websites / blogs.

Why have the liberals become liberal ? What is it that has pushed them away from their religion and their traditions ? Conversely how have the conservatives retained their traditional values and not changed with the times ?

Can we enumerate the reasons ? I can see some light at the end of the tunnel.

[Jimmy]

you see liberals and conservatives both in their own right want to 'save' the religion they just have drastically differing opinions on how to do so. 'liberals' want it to open up to everyone and change with the times, as our ancient religion is too old for the modern day. 'Conservatives' just want to do what we have been doing for milllenia. They believe that no mere mortal has the power to change the religion for their fancy and to do so would only set us back and would forsake our forefathers who sacrificed everything to save what shreds we have remaining today.

[Behram]

So as I see it the answer lies in educating the liberals. If the liberals feel the religion is too old and laws and customs which existed 9000 years ago are not applicable now, they should be somehow convinced that laws of nature do not change with time. If the sun rises in the east today, it did so 9000 years ago. After all zoroastrianism is all about being in tune with nature and that the adage good thoughts, good words, good deeds are only relative. What maybe good for one maybe bad for another and secondly what was good 9000 years ago may not be good at all today.

So where do we draw the line? The next solution lies in turning towards our scriptures. But there is again a catch 22 situation. Only 5% of our scriptures are intact, the rest having being destroyed by Alexander and the Arab invasion. This means though we can give scriptural references, all questions cannot be answered by scriptures alone. Which is why as many scholars, as many translations and as many opinions. So how do the conservatives answer the doubting Thomas’s ?

On the other hand the liberals argue that what appears "rational" and "logical" to the human psyche needs to be accepted, the rest to be discarded or modified. The question here is rational to whom? Rationality differs from person to person and also is dependant on change of environment. Is the human mind capable of perceiving rationalty as it pertains to truths of nature? Here too what appears rational today may not be the same tomorrow. Even science discredits most of its past theories and these theories change with time and with advancement in science they too fall flat.

Where do we go from here ?

[Zmanuk]

Our community has many problems, and as the flame bearers of generations to come, these issues will fall upon us as they have our parents.

Recent conversations have further supported a notion I have harboured concerning the global Zoro community - people are aligning themselves toward a political perspective (i.e. reformist or conservative). Personally, this only seems like fuel to a fire; politics are the reason ALL religions are failing across the globe. It is us humans that destroy something beautiful and perfect.

After all, isn’t there a great deal of good that comes out of some reform? Can not the staunch conservative teach us using history how to improve the religion for the future? Why is it people from both “sides” are not participating in discussion to overcome issues we are facing? Surely, there are things polar opposing political-religious groups disagree on BUT more important is what they do agree on, can work on and improve on.

In my opinion, we need to think of ways to see past our differences and look within our similarities. The people who bother to post, argue, think, speak, read etc. obviously care enough about the religion for them to do so. There will of course be those who remain apathetic, but by and large those on this forum show concern and rationale. It is with this thought that I realize this forum is a suitable one to create new solutions for old problems.

Below are issues that are both controversial and stonewalled. There has not yet been progression past these issues agreeable to each polar perspective’s values.

1 – Conversion
2 – Intermarriage

MY INTENT IS NOT TO HAVE THESE ABOVE ISSUES DISCUSSED HERE.

There are also issues that are not so flammable yet some how are not recognized or at least do not have the same level of debate nor attention.

1 – Priests, their well being and advancement of priesthood (decrease in new priests, respect for their position in our community and religion, status)
2 – Increasing awareness of the shrinking religion (assimilation vs. isolation)
3 – Youth initiatives and inclusion (identity loss, lack of religious education and understanding)

And of course my favourite:

4 – Unity of people adhering to either political faction (how to facilitate civil discussion around the taboo issues)

We are of the same people and believe the same philosophy. It is foreseeable that we should each have something positive to add pertaining to the latter 4 issues mentioned above.

-Rayomand

Why not Rayomand ??, this is a youth forum after all, how can we tackle the future without unpolarising Item 1 & 2 first.

There is so much in what you three have to say. Why not discuss, perhaps, a moratorium for Z intermarrieds, First, to have their children attend a college of 'Z' education and then choose to Navjote or otherwise.
Perhaps understand the nature of why the items 1 & 2 are so polarising to the adults and by extension the youth.

[faredoon]

So as I see it the answer lies in educating the liberals. If the liberals feel the religion is too old and laws and customs which existed 9000 years ago are not applicable now, they should be somehow convinced that laws of nature do not change with time. If the sun rises in the east today, it did so 9000 years ago.


--SNIP--


The question here is rational to whom? Rationality differs from person to person and also is dependant on change of environment. Is the human mind capable of perceiving rationalty as it pertains to truths of nature? Here too what appears rational today may not be the same tomorrow. Even science discredits most of its past theories and these theories change with time and with advancement in science they too fall flat.


You got that right Behram, the laws of nature have not changed for a VERY long time indeed, for far more than just a couple of thousand years.

"Rational" would mean anyone who looks at evidence and makes logical deductions based on it.

Coming to your point of scientific theories "falling flat": Any scientist would, without batting an eyelid, gladly abandon a lifetime of research if new evidence presents itself that exhibits laws of nature that are different from the ones on which current scientific laws are based.
On the contrary, a religious person would never do that with his/her scriptures. If a deeply religious person's rational thought is tainted by, say, scriptural beliefs, then that's his/her problem.

So, you're probably saying the same thing when you said "What appears rational today may not be the same tomorrow" - just not in so many words.

[faredoon]

Jimmy,

I think it would be heartening to see the so-called conservative side accept the fact that their religion and scriptures are not infallible, and that they are subject to scrutiny and criticism like all other religions and texts.
The argument that the religion is old and carefully preserved is noble, but unfortunately fallacious. Just because something is old or antiquated does not automatically exempt it from criticism.

The scriptures are inherently not factual in nature. Additionally, their translations, speaking about the ones mainly for the English-speaking world which came about by efforts of Western scholars, are known to have had problems with interpretations. Yes, these are the same texts that have been followed for centuries by Parsis before they were interpreted by Western scholars, but the texts themselves are not perfect. For e.g. the most basic of them, the Gathas, although being the prophet's own words were reproduced based on verbal transfer. Later texts have been passed down over centuries, destroyed and restored over millennia, across different governments and political rules.
I am quite surprised to see the overweening confidence of the conservatives in the verity of religious elements and their passage across politically and culturally tumultuous periods in its history. If they could admit that their "version" is not a special one that commands special treatment, that it's merely just another version, it would be a huge leap forward.

This is not a case in defense of the so-called "liberal" cause. All I am saying is that before the conservatives arm themselves with ammunition to counter the liberals, the least they can do is make sure that it can hold it's ground.

you see liberals and conservatives both in their own right want to 'save' the religion they just have drastically differing opinions on how to do so. 'liberals' want it to open up to everyone and change with the times, as our ancient religion is too old for the modern day. 'Conservatives' just want to do what we have been doing for milllenia. They believe that no mere mortal has the power to change the religion for their fancy and to do so would only set us back and would forsake our forefathers who sacrificed everything to save what shreds we have remaining today.

[Behram]

On the contrary, a religious person would never do that with his/her scriptures. If a deeply religious person's rational thought is tainted by, say, scriptural beliefs, then that's his/her problem.


A deeply religious person's thought process would be in accordance with the scriptures and never contrary to them and still be rational, for he/she understands where and why it has been stated, has made a conscious effort to find it out and most importantly gains knowledge by practicing the religion of his/her birth.

The scriptures are inherently not factual in nature.

What makes you say that ?

Additionally, their translations, speaking about the ones mainly for the English-speaking world which came about by efforts of Western scholars, are known to have had problems with interpretations.


Very True. Agree with you here.

the most basic of them, the Gathas, although being the prophet's own words were reproduced based on verbal transfer.


This is incorrect. Though it has been stated many times over by many "scholars" the Gathas are not the ONLY words of the prophet. The Gathas form 17 Ha's of a complete text called the Yasna (72 Ha's) and cannot exist by themselves. Which is why the ceremony known as the Yazashne where the entire Yasna is recited including the Gathas was passed down verbally as a complete ritual.

Later texts have been passed down over centuries, destroyed and restored over millennia, across different governments and political rules.


Yes, it has but it is interesting to know how it is done and presrved till date and why the "original texts" CANNOT be used by the followers of prophet Zarathushtra as of today.

If they could admit that their "version" is not a special one that commands special treatment, that it's merely just another version, it would be a huge leap forward.


This is where the difference between practicing a religion and studying it academically comes into the picture !

[faredoon]

A deeply religious person's thought process would be in accordance with the scriptures and never contrary to them and still be rational, for he/she understands where and why it has been stated
If something in the texts is inherently vacuous, there is no "rational" reason to believe it. I don't think the two co-exist. What you have described is unquestioning faith.


has made a conscious effort to find it out and most importantly gains knowledge by practicing the religion of his/her birth.


"Religion that his/her parents follow and force down to their children", is a more accurate way to describe religious indoctrination.


What makes you say that ?


Anybody who has read that Masha and Mashyane are (were?) his/her biological ancestors, that there is a hell waiting for you if you have not lived according to the tenets of the religion, etc. would (and should?) say that.


--SNIP--
The Gathas form 17 Ha's of a complete text called the Yasna (72 Ha's) and cannot exist by themselves.


That may be true, if you have any some solid citations, do post them here so that they can be discussed. My point was that any belief that goes through such a series of transformations, e.g. from verbal to written over thousands of years, should be looked at with some skepticism.


Yes, it has but it is interesting to know how it is done and presrved till date and why the "original texts" CANNOT be used by the followers of prophet Zarathushtra as of today.


Of course, nobody said you cannot use them; one can use anything one wants to (which has happened and will continue to happen). But it so happens that these texts are purported to be some kind of unadulterated version. Preserved they might be, "but is it possibly a distorted, biased form?", we must ask.


This is where the difference between practicing a religion and studying it academically comes into the picture !
So, in a way you are saying that academic study be damned, followers must just follow it, regardless of what any academic or scientific studies might show.

[Behram]

If something in the texts is inherently vacuous, there is no "rational" reason to believe it. I don't think the two co-exist. What you have described is unquestioning faith.

Let me explain this with a concrete example. A mobed saheb offers Boi ceremony to an Atash Adarian saheb five times a day. He does so with complete faith and devotion and as a call of duty to the sacred fire. He may not even know the reason why he does so but he performs his duty diligently and faithfully. This is only FAITH.

To a "rational" Parsi this may seem to be just a way of creating employement for the poor priest or to keep the fire burning by constant supply of fuel. Therefore to the "rational' zarathushtri, this is just a symbolic representation of worship. Nothing religious about it and in no way relates to the adage "Good thoughts, good words, good deeds" which is so often repeated as being the underlying message of our religion. Rationally this fire can also be kept burning by a constant supply of gas or other fuel without human intervention. Rationally also there would be no need to even have a fire temple because as we all know God is everywhere. Therefore to the rational Parsi this is totally irrational and absurd !

When we delve a little deeper as to why a Boi ceremony is done and why specifically 5 times a day, there is a detailed explanation which only the religion can provide but many do not know. When these same "rational" people are made aware, they are then awe struck at the grandeur of nature's functioning and its relationship with our intricate rituals, in this case the Boi ceremony. They then learn to appreciate and respect the ceremony and find it worthwhile. Same be the case with a host of other "irrational" rituals and customs.

that there is a hell waiting for you if you have not lived according to the tenets of the religion,

The concept of heaven and hell is present in all revealed religions but in case of zoroastrianism the "hell" is described as Drujodeman which is the same place we are in. Again this is a subject by itself.

That may be true, if you have any some solid citations, do post them here so that they can be discussed. My point was that any belief that goes through such a series of transformations, e.g. from verbal to written over thousands of years, should be looked at with some skepticism.

Open a Yasna book and flip through the pages, you will then find out what I said above. Belief does not undergo transformations, it remains the same unless you can cite some examples to highlight your point.

these texts are purported to be some kind of unadulterated version. Preserved they might be, "but is it possibly a distorted, biased form?", we must ask.

No it is not distorted because of the simple reason that it has not been preserved by sinful people like us but by Nar Ashvans.

So, in a way you are saying that academic study be damned, followers must just follow it, regardless of what any academic or scientific studies might show.
Only partly right. You yourself had rightly stated that "efforts of Western scholars, are known to have had problems with interpretations." Why was it so ? Because of the fact that they relied on rules of grammar for their dissection of the religion. They were unable to practice it.

Religion cannot be studied academically. If it is, we then get 50 different translations of each of our prayers. Which one are we supposed to follow? Its one thing to get fabulous degrees behind one's name to be proven as a scholar and another to study religion by practicing it.

I take the liberty to quote a beautiful pasage from a popular book :

Faith and Credulity

"Faith is natural and spontaneous overflow of sincere powerful devotion; credulity is
unnatural and imposed from outside simply out of the false consideration or respect for great men of learning and education Occultism and mysticism never lead to credulity. Belief in the existence of soul after the departure from the physical body, its state after death, all the unseen laws of nature at work, the functions of angels and other spiritual unseen intelligence, does not imply credulity. Very few souls who are fortunate enough to have sincere immaculate faith and devotion - souls who are not derailed from the lines of Spiritual Progress - can be naturally led to believe in mysticism and occult laws of nature. On the contrary the majority who are derailed from the lines of Unfoldment, who live only for the sake of the enjoyment of this world, who laugh out things beyond the power of physical vision, have, in the absence of faith, to lean upon credulity, and believe what the ostentatious persons have pronounced to be right."

Ervad Phiroze S Masani in Zoroastrianism Ancient and Modern Pg 443

[faredoon]

Appreciate that you've explained the basic nature of faith, and I'll mention that in this post later. But I don't see why anyone who is rational should be "awe-struck" at fake imagery and fairy tale myths.

I would like to come back to my main point in this thread. Take this example:

A group believes in faith Z based on a private revelation made to prophet P, who reveals it to them. P is a reformer, so he asks them to believe that his word is the true word. They follow it for thousands of years and try to preserve their scriptures (and do so partly).
Along came a group of "liberals" or "reformists" who start believing in Z', a bas****ized version of Z. The adherents of Z' truly believe and have complete faith in Z'. The former adherents of Z have problems with Z' because they believe that P has nothing to do with them and Z' is not based on P's concepts. The problem is:

Z' is not an original concept like Z was, with a truly creative prophet P. If the year was 1500 B.C. and not 2010 A.D., and if only a new prophet P' would have come along propagating Z', it would probably have flourished (like Mani who was a self-proclaimed prophet whose religion Manichaeism actually flourished. But, those were different times. And maybe because he was really original, Mani was flayed alive by Zoroastrian priests).

Therefore, the adherents of Z give the adherents of Z' some hell (excuse the pun) for not being completely original, and not having a creative prophet at the helm of their faith.


Let me explain this with a concrete example. A mobed saheb offers Boi ceremony to an Atash Adarian saheb five times a day. He does so with complete faith and devotion and as a call of duty to the sacred fire. He may not even know the reason why he does so but he performs his duty diligently and faithfully. This is only FAITH.

To a "rational" Parsi this may seem to be just a way of creating employement for the poor priest or to keep the fire burning by constant supply of fuel. Therefore to the "rational' zarathushtri, this is just a symbolic representation of worship. Nothing religious about it and in no way relates to the adage "Good thoughts, good words, good deeds" which is so often repeated as being the underlying message of our religion. Rationally this fire can also be kept burning by a constant supply of gas or other fuel without human intervention. Rationally also there would be no need to even have a fire temple because as we all know God is everywhere. Therefore to the rational Parsi this is totally irrational and absurd !

When we delve a little deeper as to why a Boi ceremony is done and why specifically 5 times a day, there is a detailed explanation which only the religion can provide but many do not know. When these same "rational" people are made aware, they are then awe struck at the grandeur of nature's functioning and its relationship with our intricate rituals, in this case the Boi ceremony. They then learn to appreciate and respect the ceremony and find it worthwhile. Same be the case with a host of other "irrational" rituals and customs.


The concept of heaven and hell is present in all revealed religions but in case of zoroastrianism the "hell" is described as Drujodeman which is the same place we are in. Again this is a subject by itself.


Open a Yasna book and flip through the pages, you will then find out what I said above. Belief does not undergo transformations, it remains the same unless you can cite some examples to highlight your point.



No it is not distorted because of the simple reason that it has not been preserved by sinful people like us but by Nar Ashvans.


Only partly right. You yourself had rightly stated that "efforts of Western scholars, are known to have had problems with interpretations." Why was it so ? Because of the fact that they relied on rules of grammar for their dissection of the religion. They were unable to practice it.

Religion cannot be studied academically. If it is, we then get 50 different translations of each of our prayers. Which one are we supposed to follow? Its one thing to get fabulous degrees behind one's name to be proven as a scholar and another to study religion by practicing it.

I take the liberty to quote a beautiful pasage from a popular book :

Faith and Credulity

"Faith is natural and spontaneous overflow of sincere powerful devotion; credulity is
unnatural and imposed from outside simply out of the false consideration or respect for great men of learning and education Occultism and mysticism never lead to credulity. Belief in the existence of soul after the departure from the physical body, its state after death, all the unseen laws of nature at work, the functions of angels and other spiritual unseen intelligence, does not imply credulity. Very few souls who are fortunate enough to have sincere immaculate faith and devotion - souls who are not derailed from the lines of Spiritual Progress - can be naturally led to believe in mysticism and occult laws of nature. On the contrary the majority who are derailed from the lines of Unfoldment, who live only for the sake of the enjoyment of this world, who laugh out things beyond the power of physical vision, have, in the absence of faith, to lean upon credulity, and believe what the ostentatious persons have pronounced to be right."

Ervad Phiroze S Masani in Zoroastrianism Ancient and Modern Pg 443

[Behram]

Faredoon,

I am quite surprised by your statement
But I don't see why anyone who is rational should be "awe-struck" at fake imagery and fairy tale myths.
What Fake imagery and fairy tale myths ?
Do you know the reason as to why this Boi ceremony is performed or is it only from guess work that you state this ?
　
Some liberals have actually altered their thought process on being fed with the right religious information. They were liberals before as they did not have access to that information and repeated attempts to find things out proved futile. This answers the question in my first post dated Feb 20th viz :

Why have the liberals become liberal ? What is it that has pushed them away from their religion and their traditions ?

At times it is due to family pressures when siblings or children intermarry and face flak from the community. Sometimes they are struck by a catastrophy and then put the blame on the religion or seek solace elsewhere.

As regards your example of Z and Z' you seem to have overlooked the fact that religious saviours appear from time to time to bring about corrections / modifications in rituals, prayers etc. to suit that time period and to suit the classification of souls that descend during that period. These saviours are known as Saoshyants or Rainidars. These Rainidars draw their knowledge and inspiration from the "original scriptures" which have been preserved from centuries over in their pristine form. Needless to say they are vested with this authority by none other than Asho Zarathushtra himself.

[faredoon]

You shouldn't be surprised Behram, because all religions have their basis in myths; For one, the texts are already wrong about Masha and Mashyane being biological ancestors. I was not talking about the Boi ceremony or any one in particular, I was talking about a general trend.


As regards your example of Z and Z' you seem to have overlooked the fact that religious saviours appear from time to time to bring about corrections / modifications in rituals, prayers etc. to suit that time period and to suit the classification of souls that descend during that period. These saviours are known as Saoshyants or Rainidars. These Rainidars draw their knowledge and inspiration from the "original scriptures" which have been preserved from centuries over in their pristine form. Needless to say they are vested with this authority by none other than Asho Zarathushtra himself.

I hadn't forgotten the saviours, in fact I was waiting for the point to come up.

Who is to say what is pristine and what is not? What if Zarathustra was wrong himself? When he got rid of a lot of pagan aryan god worship and instituted Ahura Mazda as the true god, that's a pretty rude shock to someone following those gods with true faith (yes, just like the one we talked about earlier).

If we are all so sure that the Saoshyants are coming and of the glory that only they're capable of, why don't we allow them do some work for a change? After all they haven't bothered so show up in 4 thousand years and things are already pretty bad anyway.

Faredoon,

I am quite surprised by your statement

What Fake imagery and fairy tale myths ?
Do you know the reason as to why this Boi ceremony is performed or is it only from guess work that you state this ?
　
Some liberals have actually altered their thought process on being fed with the right religious information. They were liberals before as they did not have access to that information and repeated attempts to find things out proved futile. This answers the question in my first post dated Feb 20th viz :



At times it is due to family pressures when siblings or children intermarry and face flak from the community. Sometimes they are struck by a catastrophy and then put the blame on the religion or seek solace elsewhere.

As regards your example of Z and Z' you seem to have overlooked the fact that religious saviours appear from time to time to bring about corrections / modifications in rituals, prayers etc. to suit that time period and to suit the classification of souls that descend during that period. These saviours are known as Saoshyants or Rainidars. These Rainidars draw their knowledge and inspiration from the "original scriptures" which have been preserved from centuries over in their pristine form. Needless to say they are vested with this authority by none other than Asho Zarathushtra himself.

[faredoon]

Behram, let's take a break here.

All I am saying is: Lets try not to judge based on books or scriptures because that way we're just passing the buck, ultimately to god or to some other thing.

In fact, Jimmy here has said this time and time again, and I agree with him, that there's no real way to deal with this than simply the two parties going separate ways.

[Behram]

A 'devotee' once wrote a letter to the editor of a newspaper and complained that it made no sense to go to the Temple .

I've gone for 30 years now, he wrote, and in that time I have heard something like 3,000 mantras. But for the life of me, I can't remember a single one of them. So, I think I'm wasting my time and the Gurus are wasting theirs by giving services at all.

This started a real controversy in the 'Letters to the Editor' column, much to the delight of the editor. It went on for weeks until someone wrote this clincher:

I've been married for 30 years now. In that time my wife has cooked some 32,000 meals. But, for the life of me, I cannot recall the entire menu for a single one of those meals. But I do know this... They all nourished me and gave me the strength I needed to do my work. If my wife had not given me these meals, I would be physically dead today. Likewise, if I had not gone to the Temple for nourishment, I would be spiritually dead today!

May you and your family be blessed. :D

[faredoon]

The "clincher" was amusing.

Using a similar analogy:

"Someone told me to consume junk food. That's the only food I know. So I have been consuming junk food for 30 years now. It has given me strength I need to do my work, nourished me (I genuinely believe that it is nourishing). So, I'll continue consuming it. No thinking required!"

As Marx so rightly said "Religion is the opium of the masses".

A 'devotee' once wrote a letter to the editor of a newspaper and complained that it made no sense to go to the Temple .

I've gone for 30 years now, he wrote, and in that time I have heard something like 3,000 mantras. But for the life of me, I can't remember a single one of them. So, I think I'm wasting my time and the Gurus are wasting theirs by giving services at all.

This started a real controversy in the 'Letters to the Editor' column, much to the delight of the editor. It went on for weeks until someone wrote this clincher:

I've been married for 30 years now. In that time my wife has cooked some 32,000 meals. But, for the life of me, I cannot recall the entire menu for a single one of those meals. But I do know this... They all nourished me and gave me the strength I needed to do my work. If my wife had not given me these meals, I would be physically dead today. Likewise, if I had not gone to the Temple for nourishment, I would be spiritually dead today!

May you and your family be blessed. :D

[Behram]

Related somewhat to this discussion I wish to share some valuable information from the book:
"Spiritual Intelligence the Ultimate Intelligence" By Danah Zohar and Ian Marshall.
Very briefly the book says that as psychologists discovered ways and means to measure intelligence, Aristotle's definition of man as a rational animal developed into an obsession with IQ. To be more specific the author says that there are three kind of thinking and three kind of intelligence (IQ) attached with it. They are
1) IQ - or Intellectual Quotient or Rational Intelligence
2) EQ- Emotional Intelligence
3) SQ- Spiritual Intelligence.
The common notion that exists is that the higher a person's IQ the higher the intelligence, because by disciplined thinking he is exercising his brain to function more effectively and efficiently. With IQ the Intellect is used by rationally trying to reason with our intelligence only that which is visible with our eyes, and heard with our ears and by making use of our five senses. But by mid 1990 Daniel Goleman popularized research that EQ or Emotional Intelligence is of equal importance. EQ gives us awareness of our own and other people's feelings. It gives us empathy, compassion, motivation, and the ability to respond appropriately to pain and pleasure. As Goleman pointed out that EQ is basic requirement for effective use of IQ. If the Brain area with which we feel is damaged, we think less effectively. A very good example is when we are very angry we cease to think momentarily that is why it is called as blind rage. What does not change is the spiritual Intelligence known as SQ for it remains ineffective of the emotional storms which our mind so often plunges into it whether voluntarily or involuntarily. One needn't be high on IQ or SQ to be high in EQ. One could be high in IQ but low in both EQ and SQ, and so on.
Three Psychological Processes:-
The whole of Western Psychology rests on two processes- IQ, and EQ. The SQ is the third process calling for expansion of psychology as a science. Sigmund Freud initially defines the two processes as primary and secondary. Primary process is associated with the body, its id, the emotion, instinct; The secondary process is associated with the EGO with the big "I" which is on the whole logical, rational, and linear.
As shown by the author and which can be seen from the scientific structure of brain that he has explained he adds further that there is third process or third kind of thinking- the unitive all encompassing thinking, to be know as Tertiary process. These three processes can be linked to three kind of thinking of the brain which can be represented by three concentric circles of the human mind.
The outer layer of concentric circle is the secondary process - the rational - the Logical - EGO - IQ
The middle layer of concentric circle is the primary process- Associated with body - its id - Emotion - EQ
The core centre layer of concentric circle -is the third tertiary process- Integrative - Higher self - Coherent - SQ
If we let go our EGO, than all our emotions dissolve and merge into the higher self and that is called as spiritual intelligence known in our Zoroastrian religion as Asneh Kherad or Hosh.
We do not require worldly academic intelligence but divine intelligence known as Asneh Kherad to know the sublime truths so cleverly camouflaged in mere external meanings of our scriptures.
Testing for SQ (as shown by the author)
The indications of highly developed SQ - Spiritual Intelligence include:-
1) The capacity to be flexible
2) A higher degree of self awareness.
3) A capacity to face and use suffering.
4) A capacity to face and transcend pain.
5)The quality of being inspired by vision and values.
6) Reluctance to cause unnecessary harm.
7) The tendency to see the connections between diverse things (being Holistic).
8) A marked tendency to ask "Why" or 'what if " questions and to seek "Fundamental Truth" answers, and not merely to ask question for the sake of asking or to show off and brag.
9) A servant leader for bringing higher vision and value to others

[faredoon]

First thoughts: deplorable piece of text, because it's fundamentally telling readers to stop thinking critically.
Some glaring points any reader in their sane mind should heed:

cleverly camouflaged





3) A capacity to face and use suffering.
4) A capacity to face and transcend pain.

[Behram]

Faredoon,

The lines below are not from the book and is my own interpretation from our scriptures which I explain below.

If we let go our EGO, than all our emotions dissolve and merge into the higher self and that is called as spiritual intelligence known in our Zoroastrian religion as Asneh Kherad or Hosh.
We do not require worldly academic intelligence but divine intelligence known as Asneh Kherad to know the sublime truths so cleverly camouflaged in mere external meanings of our scriptures.

You seem to be amazed at the words cleverly camouflaged. In the above discussions we have agreed that Western Scholars have been unable to decipher the exact meaning of the Avesta literature and their interpretations of our scriptures are far from accurate.

Reason ? They use rules of grammar and Avesta does not follow rules of grammar. Avesta is written in Razeng or mystical language. To decipher it correctly we require the key to unlock this mystery which is known as Taavil. This key is not available to everyone and only to those who develop their Kherad or intelligence to the higher levels required. The reason our scriptures are made in this fashion is it constitutes a sin to teach our manthravani to a juddin and so it should not fall into the wrong hands. For an outsider who reads these translations it appears to be dry and devoid of substance. That is the way it is meant to be.

Testing for SQ ---->3) A capacity to face and use suffering. (from the original book)

The highlighted word is "use" and not inflict. There is a world of difference.

I was under the impression that we needed to take a break ! :eek:

[faredoon]

Faredoon,

The lines below are not from the book and is my own interpretation from our scriptures which I explain below.



As with any interpretation, this one deserves to be looked at with the same skepticism.




You seem to be amazed at the words cleverly camouflaged. In the above discussions we have agreed that Western Scholars have been unable to decipher the exact meaning of the Avesta literature and their interpretations of our scriptures are far from accurate.

Reason ? They use rules of grammar and Avesta does not follow rules of grammar. Avesta is written in Razeng or mystical language. To decipher it correctly we require the key to unlock this mystery which is known as Taavil. This key is not available to everyone and only to those who develop their Kherad or intelligence to the higher levels required. The reason our scriptures are made in this fashion is it constitutes a sin to teach our manthravani to a juddin and so it should not fall into the wrong hands. For an outsider who reads these translations it appears to be dry and devoid of substance. That is the way it is meant to be.


Ditto as above. Well, I was not amazed any more than I would be if I read some pure fiction that Dan Brown concocts.



Testing for SQ ---->3) A capacity to face and use suffering. (from the original book)
The highlighted word is "use" and not inflict. There is a world of difference.


And neither was I suggesting that it meant "to inflict suffering"; You brought it up. I think this suggests that suffering has to be looked upon as having merit.


I was under the impression that we needed to take a break ! :eek:
We should, but it gets amusing all the time. :-)

[Jimmy]

Good discussion here guys, and im glad things are remaining civil :D

[Zmanuk]

RAYO:

1) Again, us Z's have the power of will to do what is right.. not change the rules of our religion, that would be.. well.. wrong!

2) Ray, besides good thoughts good thoughts, words, deeds, the name Zoroastriansim and the farvarhar.. what links so called Conservatives with so called liberals.. what is their common ground? Name one thing that both sides wish to preserve and perpetuate into tomorrow. We can take it from there if you can find something.

3) " Segregating populations is neither an answer nor a fix by any means. Our religions small population has thus far meant we are not subjected to meaningless violence that other religions are." Its interesting you mentioned this. The Militant wing of Islam has threatend the BPP that if we started to convert we would be met with "fire and sword" ... Is this something thats really going to help our population or hurt it.. lets think.. millions of them.. thousands of us. You want us to pray together, again how is that possible when conservatices believe that non -Zs cannot enter the places of worship. We arent going to budge on that rule, and why should we be forced to?

4) Little things here and there we can comprimise on.. shoot we HAVE TO. There is no way anyone can practice everything that we are supposed to do. How can we come together when one side wants change an the other wants to preserve. They are fundamental opposites. The more you try and force both sides to live together the more things are going to boil over. The only middle ground is one where each side minds thier own business and lets the other do what they want.

Jimmy, item (2) can be answered by understanding the nature of duality, amongst other things 'The so called two' are also joined at the hip by it. One is governed by the mind and science the other the heart and spirituality, yet both essential for balance.