Ask Us About Zoroastrianism

[Vishvavajra]

Truth in Zoroastrianism is "Asha", this also means "Righteousness". Truth in Zoroastrianism is the making real of an ideal, i.e, doing the best that can be done in any given situation, to try to turn it into the ideal situation in order to realise Asha. So I suppose in that way, goodness = truth.

So truth is something you create, not something that is just the way it is? That's an interesting way of putting it.

Ahuramazda is seen as a real deity but yes, he can represent goodness and truth. He is good without being THE good. He is incapable of evil.

Why is he incapable of evil, in that case?

And what does "real" mean when talking about a deity? Obviously he doesn't have a physical form, but is he considered to be generally anthropomorphic in his mental faculties, perspective, emotions, opinions, desires, etc.? The Abrahamic God is typically characterized as if he were a disembodied human consciousness writ large. Some would regard that as merely a concession to our limited human understanding, while others see it as more or less literally true. Is there a Zoroastrian perspective on that?

Those divine beings are rather said to be 'aspects' of Ahura Mazda, sort of like Avatars in Hinduism. Vishnu-Krishna, for instance.

Sounds like the Vaishnava idea that all gods are ultimately aspects of Vishnu, the supreme being.

 

[Rival]

So truth is something you create, not something that is just the way it is? That's an interesting way of putting it.


Why is he incapable of evil, in that case?

And what does "real" mean when talking about a deity? Obviously he doesn't have a physical form, but is he considered to be generally anthropomorphic in his mental faculties, perspective, emotions, opinions, desires, etc.? The Abrahamic God is typically characterized as if he were a disembodied human consciousness writ large. Some would regard that as merely a concession to our limited human understanding, while others see it as more or less literally true. Is there a Zoroastrian perspective on that?


Sounds like the Vaishnava idea that all gods are ultimately aspects of Vishnu, the supreme being.

He is not willing to do evil, in which case we say incapable. He will not do it. Others say that Ahuramazda is literally incapable, but this is not my understanding. Especially on how one defines evil.

I mean real by not merely a "personification" of something, like how some Pagans don't view the Gods as "real" but just anthropomorphic aspects of whatever.

Sorry, I'm tired and Shahz isn't here to give a better explanation. :/

 

[Jumi]

Yes, on lighting. If it has been 'defiled' however, by, say, a dead body: no.

Lightning is not pure or is pure? Also is water the other one that has similar purity?

 

[Rival]

Lightning is not pure or is pure? Also is water the other one that has similar purity?

On lighting it is pure. Water is also seen as pure.

 

[MD]

So truth is something you create, not something that is just the way it is? That's an interesting way of putting it.

Truth is part of Ahura Mazda, in the sense that where truth exists, Ahura Mazda exists. It is truth in the objective sense and in a cosmic sense as well. Ahura Mazda has truth and goodness as an integral part of Its own creation.

To be honest I don't know what is the very definition of truth, but I suppose all acts, ideas and notions which contribute towards greater good would be regarded as truth. Facts and reason would also be counted as truth, as would order and limiting harm.

Why is he incapable of evil, in that case?

Because the force which is represented by Ahura Mazda has always existed as a force for good. Evil exists as another cosmic force, aka Ahriman. They are like oil and water.

And what does "real" mean when talking about a deity? Obviously he doesn't have a physical form, but is he considered to be generally anthropomorphic in his mental faculties, perspective, emotions, opinions, desires, etc.? The Abrahamic God is typically characterized as if he were a disembodied human consciousness writ large. Some would regard that as merely a concession to our limited human understanding, while others see it as more or less literally true. Is there a Zoroastrian perspective on that?

Ahura Mazda is not anthropomorphic at all. The only physical manifestation that even comes close to Ahura Mazda is fire, which represents a form of purity. And even that is a metaphor. Ahura Mazda represents all goodness, and justice and truth. In many ways Ahura Mazda is an abstract God, but there are certain attributes which make Ahura Mazda different from something represented as more Deist or Panentheistic, such as the conflict against Evil.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Modern Zoroastrianism still follows the Avesta, but some like myself try to only focus on the Gathas which are Zoroasters words.

The Achaemenians, Parthians and Sassanians incorporated a lot of the pre-Zoroastrian culture and religion into the Avesta, which was similar to Hinduism in some ways. I don't deny Avestan rituals and traditions from a cultural perspective, but I only try to follow what is written in the Gathas.

The worship of Ahura Mazda isn't the most important thing, it is to do good and to help Ahura Mazda which is. Ahura Mazda is basically all that is good, while Ahriman is all that is bad. It doesn't matter what you call God, whether it be Jesus or Ahura Mazda or Allah, for as long as the qualities match those of supreme goodness that's all which matters. In fact most Zoroastrians call God Khuda more than Ahura Mazda, and this name for God was incorporated by the Muslim descendants of these regions.

Regarding the part I've highlighted, I'm rather confused by this. It has been previously stated that as far as Zoroastrianism is concerned polytheism is wrong; you should not worship other gods. But if honouring AM isn't actually that important at the end of the day, how can a heavier emphasis be placed on not honouring other deities? My own understanding is skewed; I've only ever encountered religions where:

There is an equal emphasis on worshipping one god and forsaking all others

or,

There is no emphasis in either direction; you're free to choose.

 

[Jumi]

If AM is good and you are doing good you are on AM's side whether you believe in AM or not. I hope I understood that right because it sounds pretty cool to me.

 

[MD]

Regarding the part I've highlighted, I'm rather confused by this. It has been previously stated that as far as Zoroastrianism is concerned polytheism is wrong; you should not worship other gods. But if honouring AM isn't actually that important at the end of the day, how can a heavier emphasis be placed on not honouring other deities? My own understanding is skewed; I've only ever encountered religions where:

There is an equal emphasis on worshipping one god and forsaking all others

or,

There is no emphasis in either direction; you're free to choose.

Polytheism is wrong in the sense that there are many false gods out there which can promote harm. Worship of money or power or other gods which promote war or violence are wrong.

But polytheism isn't a sin like how it's viewed in Abrahamic faiths. Ahura Mazda derives strength when we do good.

To a Zoroastrian as long as you do good you are helping Ahura Mazda. Although we see other gods as non existent aside from Ahura Mazda, we don't generally deny, hate or prevent people from pursuing those beliefs.

 

[MD]

If AM is good and you are doing good you are on AM's side whether you believe in AM or not. I hope I understood that right because it sounds pretty cool to me.

Pretty much, the core beliefs state Good Thoughts, Good Words, Good Deeds

 

[Alitheia Aylso]

@shahz and I are willing to answer any questions you may have about our Religion. Since it doesn't seem to be very well understood outside of certain circles we've decided to open this thread to enlighten and spark interest.

Thanks!

Why do you believe in your religion?

 

[paarsurrey]

Did Zoroaster prophesy for the downfall of Zoroastrian rule and downfall of the Zoroastrian religion ?
Regards

 

[MD]

Did Zoroaster prophesy for the downfall of Zoroastrian rule and downfall of the Zoroastrian religion ?
Regards

No, you've asked this many times and I've told you no. We do not believe in prophecies in the Abrahamic sense.

 

[paarsurrey]

No, you've asked this many times and I've told you no. We do not believe in prophecies in the Abrahamic sense.

Wasn't Zoroaster a prophet?
Regards

 

[MD]

Wasn't Zoroaster a prophet?
Regards

Disclaimer: this is my personal opinion

Zoroaster was a prophet but I don't think he was a prophet in the Abrahamic sense, where he had to meet this criteria set out. He was a spiritual philosopher imo.

 

[paarsurrey]

Disclaimer: this is my personal opinion

Zoroaster was a prophet but I don't think he was a prophet in the Abrahamic sense, where he had to meet this criteria set out. He was a spiritual philosopher imo.

Isn't a prophet one who prophesies or tells news of past, present and or future on the basis of receiving Word of God? Please
Regards

 

[MD]

Isn't a prophet one who prophesies or tells news of past, present and or future on the basis of receiving Word of God? Please
Regards

A prophet conveys the word of the divine, not necessarily one who prophesied the future.

 

[paarsurrey]

Disclaimer: this is my personal opinion

Zoroaster was a prophet but I don't think he was a prophet in the Abrahamic sense, where he had to meet this criteria set out. He was a spiritual philosopher imo.

I understand that that was your personal opinion.
Please quote from Yasna, where prophet-hood has been described/defined by Zoroaster.
Did he state categorically that a prophet does not tell about future ? Please
Regards

 

[MD]

I understand that that was your personal opinion.
Please quote from Yasna, where prophet-hood has been described/defined by Zoroaster.
Did he state categorically that a prophet does not tell about future ? Please
Regards

I don't know if the Avesta defines prophethood. I mostly follow the Gathas, as I don't fully trust the Avesta and that the Gathas have been mostly preserved for several millennia.

I don't think there are any concrete definitions for prophethood. I see Zoroaster more similar to Gautama Buddha than Jesus or Mohammed, in that he prescribed a philosophy on life and how to attain Asha.

 

[paarsurrey]

I don't know if the Avesta defines prophethood. I mostly follow the Gathas, as I don't fully trust the Avesta and that the Gathas have been mostly preserved for several millennia.

I don't think there are any concrete definitions for prophethood. I see Zoroaster more similar to Gautama Buddha than Jesus or Mohammed, in that he prescribed a philosophy on life and how to attain Asha.

It is OK.
Please quote from Gathas, where prophet-hood has been described/defined by Zoroaster.
Did he state categorically that a prophet does not tell about future ? Please
Regards

 

[MD]

It is OK.
Please quote from Gathas, where prophet-hood has been described/defined by Zoroaster.
Did he state categorically that a prophet does not tell about future ? Please
Regards

The gathas are a guide to life. You are asking me to define things based on Abrahamic definitions, which my religion is not. Zoroaster didn't care about all the usual b.s. Abrahamic faiths talk about, he cared about spreading the message of righteousness.