Zarathustra vs. Confucius (rituals, punishment, tradition, soul, doctrine)

[Mr Spinkles]

I had to write a short response about the similarities/differences between Zarathustra's ideas and Confucius' ideas for a class I'm taking. I thought it might make a good starting point for some discussion on these two thinkers.

The ideas of Zarathustra and Confucius stem from two very different worldviews: one that is focused on the spiritual world, and one that is focused on the here-and-now. According to Zarathustra, the supreme and benevolent god Ahura Mazda fights for the forces of good against Angra Mainyu, “the hostile spirit”, and the forces of evil—a conflict which will one day result in the triumph of good and the judgment (and subsequent eternal reward or punishment) of each human soul (Traditions 174). Thus, Zarathustra’s teachings are founded on a worldview of cosmic absolutes, divine purpose, and reward/punishment in the afterlife. Loyalty to Ahura Mazda and the assurance of reward in the afterlife serves as the motivation to live a life of high ethical standards—a life which, as depicted in the Gathas, requires frequent worship and praising of the gods. To Confucius, however, the gods and the afterlife—issues of a religious nature—are incomprehensible to mortal minds (Traditions 183). Confucius therefore focuses his teachings on practical matters, like how to behave in order to solve political and social problems (Traditions 183). In the Confucian worldview, there is no cosmic battle between competing entities, but only a state of chaos which can be replaced by order by fostering wise and educated junzi (Traditions 183). Although Confucius’ teachings share a fundamental optimism with Zoroastrianism, this optimism is tempered by the absence of any guarantee that order will replace chaos, and it serves as a call not to worship or prayer, but to civil action—public education and virtuous government. This focus on the present and the practical separates Confucius’ ideas from Zarathustra’s, which emphasize theology and teleology.

So basically, I think that although Zarathustra is more concerned about the transcendent, and Confucius about the here-and-now, both philosophies are fundamentally optimistic.

[lilithu]

Hey Spinks, namaste.

Very interesting. May I ask why you had to compare these two particular philosophers? I mean, I understand it was a class assigment, but what, if any, was the reasoning that a comparison between these two would be more informative than between others? Usually when to belief systems are contrasted and compared they share significant things in common as well as having differences. The teachings of Zarathrustra and Confucius strike me as apples and oranges.

I'm not sure that I've ever heard Confucius' philosophy described as optimistic. I agree with you that for Confucius the cure to our ills was structure and order. As long as society followed the right order, things would go well. When society veered from that order, things went badly. But this structure was sooo rigid, this fear of chaos so great, that Confucius strikes me as more of a pessimist than an optimist.

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings! :-)

This may be why we Baha'is consider Zarathustra/Zoroaster a Divine Messenger, but Confucius a secular philosopher....

Regards,

Bruce

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by BruceDLimber

Greetings! :-)

This may be why we Baha'is consider Zarathustra/Zoroaster a Divine Messenger, but Confucius a secular philosopher....

Regards,

Bruce

Namaste Bruce,

might not another reason be that Confucius never claimed to be a divine messenger? He based his spiritual authority on his own observations and reason, not on any type of recieved revelation. The Chinese considered him to be a Sage, as opposed to a Prophet.

Also, Confucius was no more secular than Mohammed was secular. "Secular" is a modern distinction. Confucius made no distinction between religious practices and non-religious practices. All of his suggested rules and regulations for society were based on the idea that by conforming ourselves to the Way, we will prosper. In short, he sought to institutionalize faith.

(I don't mean to paint him with too broad a brush. Confucius did recognize that different people required different things, and it is clear from his Analects that he was a wise and compassionate man. But his overall doctrine was one of conformity to order.)

Do Baha'is believe that there is an on-going cosmic struggle between the forces of good and the forces of evil?

thanks,
-lilith

[Mr Spinkles]

lilithu--

Gaah, I replied to you yesterday, but my post was lost because of some kind of error with the "database".

Originally Posted by lilithu

May I ask why you had to compare these two particular philosophers?

The real reason was to demonstrate that we had read the assigned readings.

Originally Posted by Confucius

I'm not sure that I've ever heard Confucius' philosophy described as optimistic. I agree with you that for Confucius the cure to our ills was structure and order. As long as society followed the right order, things would go well. When society veered from that order, things went badly. But this structure was sooo rigid, this fear of chaos so great, that Confucius strikes me as more of a pessimist than an optimist.

I think a rigid structure and a strong fear of failure/chaos is the mark of a perfectionist, but not necessarily a pessimist. After all, Confucius believed that we do indeed have the power to solve social/political problems--in other words, there is hope. That seems fundamentally optimistic, especially when compared to philosophers who believe that current problems are unfixable because they are inherent in human nature.

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by Mr Spinkles

I think a rigid structure and a strong fear of failure/chaos is the mark of a perfectionist, but not necessarily a pessimist. After all, Confucius believed that we do indeed have the power to solve social/political problems--in other words, there is hope. That seems fundamentally optimistic, especially when compared to philosophers who believe that current problems are unfixable because they are inherent in human nature.

Good point!

I must admit that some of my reaction against Confucius has less to do with his philosophy than the rigid society that resulted from it - feudal China. If one reads the Analects directly, the Master comes across as a pleasant, even happy man. But the society upon which his teachings were based was dour, rigid, and repressive. (Tho it did provide the opportunity for class advancement thru scholarship.)

To be fair, I can no more blame Confucius for feudal China than I can Marx for "communist" China.

[Bennettresearch]

Hi Spinks and Lil,

I can't help in a comparison because I have not studied the two enough. I do have an observation about your posts and would like to pose it to you both. I see Confucious as being pragmatic, meaning he doesn't represent the supernatural in his teachings. Zoroaster does represent a supernatural element in his. Some rituals like Easter have been traced back to him. So let me know, do you agree or do I stand corrected here?

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by Bennettresearch

Hi Spinks and Lil,

I can't help in a comparison because I have not studied the two enough. I do have an observation about your posts and would like to pose it to you both. I see Confucious as being pragmatic, meaning he doesn't represent the supernatural in his teachings. Zoroaster does represent a supernatural element in his. Some rituals like Easter have been traced back to him. So let me know, do you agree or do I stand corrected here?

Depends on what you mean by "supernatural." I agree with Spinks and you that Confucius was pragmatic, more concerned with the here and now than some afterlife. But he did believe that there is a natural order to the world that should be followed. The question is what determines that natural order? Confucius believed that the natural order was determined by something that often gets translated into English as "heaven." Heaven "decides" the order of the world. But heaven is not a deity. It's more of an impersonal force that flows thru all things. (In truth, Confucianism and Taoism are flip sides of the same coin.) So you tell me, is this "heaven" supernatural or not?