• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Conversion to traditional Zoroastrian.

Jeremy Taylor

Active Member
As a non Zoroastrian I am perplexed that you push your own interpretation as correct and deny mine as 'young people not following Zoroaster'.

There are female priests, they're called mobedayars. I know one in fact. They are allowed in Iran and North America. India's Parsis are backwards. Persia was patriarchal but a lot more egalitarian than other civilizations at the time. Zoroastrianism was always meant to treat women and men equally.

A lot what Zoroaster said from the Gathas is about freedom of will and the fight between good and evil. The other parts of the Avesta is a bunch of pre Zoroastrian religious superstition, which had nothing to do with what Zoroaster said.
Thank you for comments on conversion. From all I know, I think you are correct.

However, this above is troubling. You appear to be attacking Zoroastrianism as a religion. I'm not that surprised that some would not be content with such a perspective on Zoroastrianism, if they did not follow this modern distinction between a secular philosophy and what, in your words, is religious superstition.
 
Last edited:

MD

qualiaphile
I will try to answer your questions as best as I can, as I myself am learning.

1.)What are the rules of morality?

The rules of morality are pretty much what influenced all the Abrahamic faiths. The concept of good vs evil, light vs dark originated largely from Zoroastrianim. The main aspect of our faith is Good Thoughts, Good Words, Good Deeds and to practice all three as much as we can.

Basically the whole religion is built around the notion that God and Evil are separate and have always existed. As such our whole existence revolves around fighting evil and chaos by doing good. Each one of us is responsible for doing good in the world and it is a part of our own individual imperative to promote good and limit evil, pain and suffering. Although Ahura Mazda is extremely powerful, we need to do good to prevent Ahriman, or the evil entity in the universe to prevail.
There is a lot of importance placed on the actions of the individual. To me this has satisfied my own explanation for evil, while the Abrahamic faiths think of evil as either some sort of mistake in God's creation or the fact that God created evil to 'test' us, I think the concept of evil as a separate entity makes more sense.

2.) Is there an afterlife?

The concept of heaven and hell are also Zoroastrian concepts. The word Paradise is from the Zoroastrian word Parizadea. When we die we are meant to cross a bridge where we are judged for our sins.

However one major distinction between the Abrahamic versions of heaven and hell and the Zoroastrian ones is that the joys and punishments are mental, rather than actual things. In hell there is no fire or brimstone, but negative energies and thoughts. Hell isn't eternal either.

Eventually there will be a Messiah or a Sayoshant who will resurrect the dead.

3.) Is there any kind of dress code in the way that some religions promote modesty?

In public not really it depends on the culture, in place of worship the women cover their heads and dress modestly, with skirts below the knees and nothing too revealing. The men are supposed to wear pants and cover their heads when we pray as well with a cap that's similar in size to what muslims wear. We have to cover our heads when we pray.

4.) What might be a good book to get started in learning more? Since in the Southern parts of the US I only heard of Zoroastrians in religious studies class.

There are several sites on the internet which are good. I would suggest you stay away from a lot of Parsi material as it's filled with ethnic issues and superstition and try to stick more to Iranian and other sources written by Parsis in the West who have distanced themselves from the Indian views.

Here's a good site I like to visit and read: CONVERSION IN ZOROASTRIANISM; The Truth Behind the Trumpery - (The Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies - CAIS)©

If you live in the South I don't know much, since I live in the North. The biggest communities in North America are in Toronto and California. I think Texas might have a few as well.
 
Last edited:

MD

qualiaphile
Thank you for comments on conversion. From all I know, I think you are correct.

However, this above is troubling. You appear to be attacking Zoroastrianism as a religion. I'm not that surprised that some would not be content with such a perspective on Zoroastrianism, if they did not follow this modern distinction between a secular philosophy and what, in your words, is religious superstition.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but the Parsis of India have largely lost the general understanding of what Zoroaster has said in the gathas and have focused tremendously on rituals and superstitions.

Zoroaster brought a tremendously monotheistic perspective and I choose to follow his teachings rather than the myths and gods of pre Zoroastrian Iran. The Indian Parsi priests have completely distorted the religion.
 

Buttercup

Veteran Member
If I may be so bold, I'd recommend to Huey09 The History of Zoroastrianism by Mary Boyce as well. Fascinating work and information.
 

Huey09

He who struggles with God
Both of these help greatly thank you :) However Shaz I was wondering a few more things. I was looking in the articles and realized the need for a head covering. I have a large afro I keep out so would anything covering my head be ok? Also I would like to hear your thoughts on purity and purification for prayer. Do you need to do this every time before prayer or only formally?
 

Jeremy Taylor

Active Member
I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but the Parsis of India have largely lost the general understanding of what Zoroaster has said in the gathas and have focused tremendously on rituals and superstitions.

Zoroaster brought a tremendously monotheistic perspective and I choose to follow his teachings rather than the myths and gods of pre Zoroastrian Iran. The Indian Parsi priests have completely distorted the religion.

Well, I don't know enough to make a detailed comment, including about your exact views. But I would caution dismissing such additions to a religion, without trying to discern whether they represent intrinsic possibilities of the faith that become actual in circumstances where they are required.

I'm also somewhat sceptical of desires of those with a Western mindset to strip off such accretions, in Buddhism and Taoism, for example.
 

wgw

Member
Could a convert hypothetically become a mobed and learn to offer the Yasna? I am not saying that I want to do that, rather, I watched a video documentary on the Yasna and was impressed, in that it was as complex and ornate as our Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy. I find myself most interested by those hieratic religions that have the most complex and ornate liturgical rites (Mandaeism being another that is very similar in some respects to Zoroastrianism, then the ancient Vedic rites of the Brahmins which seem to resemble the Yasna but be in direct opposition to it, and the priestly rites of the Samaritans, who alone still do the things described in Leviticus; also some Taoist and Shinto observances are most impressive). I could never be a member of a religion without elaborate ritual.
 

MD

qualiaphile
As Zoroastrianism faces extinction in India and a growing interest in Iran, conversions will not only happen but become encouraged in the future. I see no reason why a convert can't become a mobed.
 

wgw

Member
Could you see the Yasna being recited in the vernacular except perhaps for certain key phrases? (A common practice in Russian Orthodox churches in the US with a convert pastor is the convert pastor memorized certain phrases like Lord Have Mercy, the Words of institution and so on).
 

MD

qualiaphile
Could you see the Yasna being recited in the vernacular except perhaps for certain key phrases? (A common practice in Russian Orthodox churches in the US with a convert pastor is the convert pastor memorized certain phrases like Lord Have Mercy, the Words of institution and so on).

No one would be able to tell the difference, except a priest. I don't even know the details of Yasna recitation to be honest. It would be best to ask an Iranian Zoroastrian organization with Iranian priests these questions. Indian priests are generally opposed to conversion.
 

wgw

Member
Note that I don't wish to convert, but I do consider Zoroastrianism a branch of the holy hieratic religion that culminated in second temple Judaism, which was very possibly influenced by Zarathustra in its conception of a devil. I believe there was a hieratic religion that began with the descendants of Noah, distinguished by a priestly caste and hero theism or monotheism and a strict moral code, and Judaism is a branch of this, from whence emerged Christianity, which in its Orthodox form Inregard as the hieratic religion par excellence. I believe most of the worlds religions were created either as variations (or you might say heretical branches) of, or reactions against, this religion. Consider how Zoroastrianism is in many respects anti-Hinduism, or anti-Vedic Brahminism, regarding the Daevas as evil, but retaining the mantras and Fire offerings.

One of my best friends is a Zoroastrian who converted to Christianity. He is such a good man though, I believe his moral character stems from his Zoroastrian upbringing. Next to Christianity and Judaism, Zoroastrianism is certainly my favorite religion and it would be tragic if it became extinct. I would love to watch a Yasna ritual in person. The Yasna is strongly evocative of the elaborate Eucharist celebrated by Orthodox, Catholics and high church Anglicans.
 

Vishvavajra

Active Member
Zoroastrianism was a the religion of Persia for millennia. It spread through conversions. The no conversion thing is only with Indian Parsis. I hope I have answered your questions.
Indeed, if one could not convert to Zoroastrianism, then there would be no Zoroastrianism. In ancient Iran it seems they were happy for anyone who wanted to practice the teachings of Zoroaster to do so, as well as for people to continue practicing their native religious traditions if they preferred, as most subjects of the Persian & Parthian empires continued to do. Strict religious divisions like the ones we know today didn't exist in antiquity for the most part.

I think the Indian Parsis adopted the insular, no-conversion stance for historical reasons, as a way to keep their culture pure and avoid upsetting their Muslim and Hindu neighbors. It's not really a religious position.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but the Parsis of India have largely lost the general understanding of what Zoroaster has said in the gathas and have focused tremendously on rituals and superstitions.

Zoroaster brought a tremendously monotheistic perspective and I choose to follow his teachings rather than the myths and gods of pre Zoroastrian Iran. The Indian Parsi priests have completely distorted the religion.
I can't speak to the authenticity of Parsi practices, but my understanding is that ancient Zoroastrianism was not monotheistic and that in fact much of the everyday worship was directed at Yazatas rather than everybody praying to Ormazd for everything. Having a supreme being isn't the same as being monotheistic. The latter precludes worship of any other being whatsoever.
 

MD

qualiaphile
I can't speak to the authenticity of Parsi practices, but my understanding is that ancient Zoroastrianism was not monotheistic and that in fact much of the everyday worship was directed at Yazatas rather than everybody praying to Ormazd for everything. Having a supreme being isn't the same as being monotheistic. The latter precludes worship of any other being whatsoever.

While this partially true, the Gathas which are Zoroasters revelations are strongly monotheistic and places an emphasis on truth and good vs evil. The Avesta has the Gathas and elements of the pre Zoroastrian religion infused into it.
 

Vishvavajra

Active Member
While this partially true, the Gathas which are Zoroasters revelations are strongly monotheistic and places an emphasis on truth and good vs evil. The Avesta has the Gathas and elements of the pre Zoroastrian religion infused into it.
So I'm getting the feeling that modern Zoroastrianism is strongly monotheistic and sees that as the original view, whereas what little we know about it under the Achaemenids, Arsacids, and Sassanids suggests it was not, at least in terms of practice. Is it the current view that the understanding of the religion in historical antiquity was imperfect and syncretic with traditional Iranian and other religious forms, or was it simply an alternative but valid way of approaching the teachings? Is worship of a being that is considered to be an aspect of the One God acceptable and still regarded as an expression of monotheism? Or should all reverence be reserved for Ahura Mazda under that name alone?
 

Phil25

Active Member
However one major distinction between the Abrahamic versions of heaven and hell and the Zoroastrian ones is that the joys and punishments are mental, rather than actual things. In hell there is no fire or brimstone, but negative energies and thoughts. Hell isn't eternal either.
Not to derail this thread but in Orthodox Christianity, hell is seen as Separation from God rather than a lake of fire etc.
 

Vishvavajra

Active Member
But aren't we separated from God via sin right now? Doesn't that mean that our current existence is technically Hell?
That's one way to look at it. And it depends what "separation from God" is understood to mean. Does sin really cut people off from God in a literal sense, or is that rather just a way of expressing how people can fail to recognize the true nature of things because of their delusion and self-centeredness? But it's true that the "death" that the Christian scriptures speak of doesn't have to refer to the literal death of the body; it's often used of living people, whose existence is a kind of death. And salvation liberates people from that.

I think the framing of sin strictly as a transgression of a law that offends God is characteristic of Western Christianity, whereas the Orthodox take a much less legalistic (and in my opinion much more sensible) view. Christianity is a very diverse family, although some branches don't talk to the others so much anymore.

But lest we go off on a Christian tangent, perhaps we should take this opportunity to ask our Zoroastrian friends if their tradition has similar ideas. For example, what is the cause of the mental anguish that is identified as hell? Is it strictly an eschatological thing, or can it be interpreted as a basic human pitfall that proper thoughts and/or behaviors can remedy?

I understand that most religious traditions aren't overly concerned with questions of the afterlife or eschatology, at least not in their day-to-day practice, but these ideas are interesting points of comparison between kindred traditions with many similarities.
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
I'm a White Zoroastrian convert and I've found nothing in the texts themselves that prohibit conversion. Even if there were such a tradition, it would make no sense now in light of the fact that we are a rapidly declining Religion.

Please, feel free to convert if you are sincere :)
 

MD

qualiaphile
That's one way to look at it. And it depends what "separation from God" is understood to mean. Does sin really cut people off from God in a literal sense, or is that rather just a way of expressing how people can fail to recognize the true nature of things because of their delusion and self-centeredness? But it's true that the "death" that the Christian scriptures speak of doesn't have to refer to the literal death of the body; it's often used of living people, whose existence is a kind of death. And salvation liberates people from that.

I think the framing of sin strictly as a transgression of a law that offends God is characteristic of Western Christianity, whereas the Orthodox take a much less legalistic (and in my opinion much more sensible) view. Christianity is a very diverse family, although some branches don't talk to the others so much anymore.

But lest we go off on a Christian tangent, perhaps we should take this opportunity to ask our Zoroastrian friends if their tradition has similar ideas. For example, what is the cause of the mental anguish that is identified as hell? Is it strictly an eschatological thing, or can it be interpreted as a basic human pitfall that proper thoughts and/or behaviors can remedy?

I understand that most religious traditions aren't overly concerned with questions of the afterlife or eschatology, at least not in their day-to-day practice, but these ideas are interesting points of comparison between kindred traditions with many similarities.

I tend to follow the Gathas themselves, as they are the revelations of Zoroaster. Within the gathas, hell is a metaphorical mental state which can occur during life or after life. In hell destructive thoughts lead to ones own mental anguish,and as long as you continue these thoughts your mental anguish continues. Now the Avesta describes hell as an actual place, with a bridge and 3 judges (I think), but the Gathas leave the interpretation much more open to it being a mental state than an actual location.
 
Top