Ask Us About Zoroastrianism

[The Emperor of Mankind]

How does Zoroastrianism look upon practises like polytheism or the worshippers of gods? Are they inherently sinful or damned for not recognising Ahura Mazda as the pre-eminent deity? How do Zoroastrians view other gods?

 

[MD]

How does Zoroastrianism look upon practises like polytheism or the worshippers of gods? Are they inherently sinful or damned for not recognising Ahura Mazda as the pre-eminent deity? How do Zoroastrians view other gods?

Other gods are false, Zoroastrianism is a monotheistic faith and Zoroaster spoke against polytheism. You see when Zoroaster got his revelation, there was a pre Zoroastrian faith which was similar to Hinduism and within that faith there was a God of war who was venerated. So Zoroaster wanted to make an example against such gods.

Historically speaking, the Zoroastrian Persian Empires did not engage in war against polytheists or perform genocides like other Abrahamic faiths have done. As long as you aren't harming anyone and doing good, you are helping Ahura Mazda, no matter your beliefs.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Other gods are false, Zoroastrianism is a monotheistic faith and Zoroaster spoke against polytheism. You see when Zoroaster got his revelation, there was a pre Zoroastrian faith which was similar to Hinduism and within that faith there was a God of war who was venerated. So Zoroaster wanted to make an example against such gods.

Historically speaking, the Zoroastrian Persian Empires did not engage in war against polytheists or perform genocides like other Abrahamic faiths have done. As long as you aren't harming anyone and doing good, you are helping Ahura Mazda, no matter your beliefs.

Thanks. I did wonder about this because I was thinking of the Persian Empire; specifically the Achaemenid Dynasty ruled over polytheistic cultures like the Babylonians, Egyptians and the Greeks and, from what I've read, didn't seem overtly bothered about enforcing their religious beliefs on these people. It's good to know that - at least from your standpoint - Zoroastrianism doesn't fixate on what gods others worship like other monotheisms do; rather it emphasises acting as a force for good anyway. If I had to pick a monotheistic religion to follow then Zoroastrianism would be at the top of my list - pending further research.

 

[MD]

Thanks. I did wonder about this because I was thinking of the Persian Empire; specifically the Achaemenid Dynasty ruled over polytheistic cultures like the Babylonians, Egyptians and the Greeks and, from what I've read, didn't seem overtly bothered about enforcing their religious beliefs on these people. It's good to know that - at least from your standpoint - Zoroastrianism doesn't fixate on what gods others worship like other monotheisms do; rather it emphasises acting as a force for good anyway. If I had to pick a monotheistic religion to follow then Zoroastrianism would be at the top of my list - pending further research.

It has it's flaws as well, like all faiths but we try to be honest about them. One of the main reasons the Persian army lost against the Arabs is because it strictly abided by rules of combat, while the Arabs did not. That's why they were dealt crushing defeats against a more mobile and sociopathic enemy, not to mention the inner failings of the Sassanians themselves.

The Persians were engaged in a lot of wars against the Romans who also had their own rules. The arabs were unlike any enemy they had come across.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

It has it's flaws as well, like all faiths but we try to be honest about them. One of the main reasons the Persian army lost against the Arabs is because it strictly abided by rules of combat, while the Arabs did not. That's why they were dealt crushing defeats against a more mobile and sociopathic enemy, not to mention the inner failings of the Sassanians themselves.

The Persians were engaged in a lot of wars against the Romans who also had their own rules. The arabs were unlike any enemy they had come across.

I think that's a sentiment that applies just as strongly today. I was reading on Wikipedia (that fountain of reliability) of why the Sassanian dynasty lost its war with Islam: apparently the religious caste and the warrior caste (a frubal is in it for you if you can guess what TV show I'm referencing) were always trying to exert influence over each other and this internecine squabbling contributed to their defeats.

 

[MD]

I think that's a sentiment that applies just as strongly today. I was reading on Wikipedia (that fountain of reliability) of why the Sassanian dynasty lost its war with Islam: apparently the religious caste and the warrior caste (a frubal is in it for you if you can guess what TV show I'm referencing) were always trying to exert influence over each other and this internecine squabbling contributed to their defeats.

There were a lot of reasons, but the arabian bedouin battle rules were vastly different from the Zoroastrian Persians.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I had known about it for a long while before I seriously began to consider it. It was when I was given a book for Christmas that I really started looking into it. It is "The Great Transformation" by Karen Armstrong and is all about the development of Religions in the Axial Age. It described Zarathustra and his reforms briefly before diverging on to Hinduism and saying no more on the subject. So I decided to research it for myself. At this point I was still a Torah-following, Kashrut-eating Messianic. I was always open to new information though, so I felt very comfortable reading about other Religions older than my own.

Something about Zarathustra and his God Ahuramazda stuck with me and I couldn't get it out of my head. This God seemed far more Good than Yahweh and didn't demand any stringent rule-following from his devotees. It seemed like a purer from of the Faith I was already following, but without the Bible and all the dubious things therein. The idea 'Does God Exist' didn't occur to me because I'd already come to the conclusion that something God-like does exist and I was perfectly happy with that. So I started researching the Religion more and it struck a chord with me, despite my attempts to resist and follow my God, Yahweh and his Messiah, Yeshua. (I still have a soft spot for Yeshua).

It was useless and so I decided to "give it a go". Dropping the Torah made me sad and I still eat Kosher. However, it felt good not to have to defend things like killing someone for not keeping Shabbat, or making a female marry the man who forced himself on her &c. At the same time I was also attracted to Vaisnava Hinduism (and as my Hindu friends may know, bought the Srimad Bhagavatam).

This Faith just seemed right. It resonated with me and the mantra "Good Thoughts Good Words, Good Deeds" seemed a damn sight better than "An eye for an eye". I am still learning and opened this thread just as much for my benefit as yours, so I could learn as I went.

That is wonderful. It makes a lot of sense. The Bible has a lot of baggage that goes along with it, so I understand sweeping that away and getting down to "basics", as it were.

I sided with the Ahuras over the Daevas you guys, so shoot me

(Or maybe, Asuras and Devas? )

No need. They're not jealous.

Cremation is not allowed in Mazdaism

Why is that?

 

[Rival]

Cremation is not allowed because death sort of 'pollutes' the fire, which is a pure element.

 

[InquisitiveScholar]

Hello Rival,

I do apologize for my late arrival. I have not been on the Religious Forums as of late. I am happy to say that I met another Zoroastrian here in Missouri, which makes a total of three I know of, including myself. I would love to jump into this conversation if you would allow me the honor. Although I know it is not common today, does anyone know if there are any towers of silence here in the USA?

 

[InquisitiveScholar]

Thanks. I did wonder about this because I was thinking of the Persian Empire; specifically the Achaemenid Dynasty ruled over polytheistic cultures like the Babylonians, Egyptians and the Greeks and, from what I've read, didn't seem overtly bothered about enforcing their religious beliefs on these people.

Scotsman I would like to point out that by the time the Achaemenid Persian empire was at its height, most of the people in the Middle East and Greece were not true polytheistic peoples. By that time most of them were Henotheistic, which meant that they tended to focus towards one god, but still payed reverence to the other gods in their faith. An example of this would have been the Babylonians, who worshiped the god Marduk as their patron god, but believed in and venerated the other gods of the Mesopotamian pantheon. The place where Henotheism did not exist was Egypt, this actually led to a lot of conflicts between the Egyptians and the Persians. While the Persians didn't try to convert the Egyptians, they did not respect their gods with the same reverence they did to Our Wise Lord. This rubbed the Egyptians the wrong way and caused many rebellions to occur.

Scotsman, I do have a question. What branch of Polytheism do you follow?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Scotsman I would like to point out that by the time the Achaemenid Persian empire was at its height, most of the people in the Middle East and Greece were not true polytheistic peoples. By that time most of them were Henotheistic, which meant that they tended to focus towards one god, but still payed reverence to the other gods in their faith.

I can't agree. While it's true that regions of Greece held different gods in varying levels of importance; they didn't focus on one god for everything or most things. The farmers of Attica would still have prayed to Zeus for rain, Demeter for a bountiful harvest and to bless the new planting etc; not Athena. The Ionians would have prayed to the same gods for those things rather than to Artemis.

An example of this would have been the Babylonians, who worshiped the god Marduk as their patron god, but believed in and venerated the other gods of the Mesopotamian pantheon. The place where Henotheism did not exist was Egypt, this actually led to a lot of conflicts between the Egyptians and the Persians. While the Persians didn't try to convert the Egyptians, they did not respect their gods with the same reverence they did to Our Wise Lord. This rubbed the Egyptians the wrong way and caused many rebellions to occur.

Right; the actual citizens of the city of Babylon would have prayed to Marduk first & foremost, but those who fell under broader Mesopotamian culture might not have. Which is why Mesopotamian culture is polytheistic (I know; I should have said Mesopotamian rather than Babylonian in the first place. That's my error). As for conflict between Egypt and Persia; I wouldn't know too much about that as I haven't studied that region very closely. I'll have to defer to your assumedly superior knowledge on that matter.

Scotsman, I do have a question. What branch of Polytheism do you follow?

Hellenism - the Greek pantheon. My theology is hard polytheistic (the gods are separate, individual entities; even the ones that look and sound very much alike) but my actual religious practice, due to its immaturity and my own lack of confidence in that area, is henotheistic.

 

[Erock13]

Very interesting discussion thus far!

How do Zoroastrians view morality? Where does it come from? Is it dictated by Ahura Mazda, does it exist outside of even Ahura Mazda as an objective code, or is it more aligned with other moral systems that simply take action, consequences, and intent into consideration in order to determine what a "good" deed/word/thought is?

 

[Rival]

Very interesting discussion thus far!

How do Zoroastrians view morality? Where does it come from? Is it dictated by Ahura Mazda, does it exist outside of even Ahura Mazda as an objective code, or is it more aligned with other moral systems that simply take action, consequences, and intent into consideration in order to determine what a "good" deed/word/thought is?

Morality exists outside of Ahuramazda and it is our job to live up to it. We are creatures embedded with a code of justice and ethics, we don't need to teach children how to say "It's not fair". We do good for its own sake. Good is based on those things yes, but it has to be done in conjunction with Good Thought, i.e, you have to do it for the right reason, don't do good only when it also benefits you. This is perhaps a very simplified explanation, I may get back to you later when my fingers aren't freezing off my hands and I can type better

 

[Jumi]

Is all fire without exception considered pure?

 

[Rival]

Is all fire without exception considered pure?

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

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Morality exists outside of Ahuramazda and it is our job to live up to it. We are creatures embedded with a code of justice and ethics, we don't need to teach children how to say "It's not fair". We do good for its own sake. Good is based on those things yes, but it has to be done in conjunction with Good Thought, i.e, you have to do it for the right reason, don't do good only when it also benefits you. This is perhaps a very simplified explanation, I may get back to you later when my fingers aren't freezing off my hands and I can type better

If morality exists outside of Ahuramazda (and presumably the other way around) how can he be called good?

 

[Rival]

If morality exists outside of Ahuramazda (and presumably the other way around) how can he be called good?

Not quite sure what you're asking?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Not quite sure what you're asking?

If good and evil are moral positions; and Ahuramazda exists out-with the morality those positions are based in then how can he be good?

Okay, here's an ASCII-based visual diagram. The brackets represent a system of morality.


Ahura Mazda ( Good ------------------- Evil )


Can you understand my question now? If 'good' can only exist within an established morality but Ahura Mazda - a 'good' god - exists outside of that moral system then how can he be considered good?

 

[Vishvavajra]

Morality exists outside of Ahuramazda and it is our job to live up to it. We are creatures embedded with a code of justice and ethics, we don't need to teach children how to say "It's not fair". We do good for its own sake. Good is based on those things yes, but it has to be done in conjunction with Good Thought, i.e, you have to do it for the right reason, don't do good only when it also benefits you. This is perhaps a very simplified explanation, I may get back to you later when my fingers aren't freezing off my hands and I can type better

Is what is good not necessarily related to what is true? In that sense Ahura Mazda might be said to represent the good, insofar as he represents truth, whereas evil comes from delusion and falsehood, a failure to appreciate the truth behind appearances. The divine beings who are subordinate to Mazda seem to represent various aspects of truth and goodness, or qualities of mind that lead to both.

But of course I'm coming from a Buddhist perspetive in which morality and wisdom (i.e. true understanding of the nature of reality) are not ultimately different. Despite couching things in very different terms, Zoroastrians and Buddhists would seem to have a fair bit of common ground, oddly enough, or at least would be able to live harmoniously together and have fruitful discussions. It's a shame Zoroastrianism is so marginalized today. I'd happily trade a major modern religion or two in order to see it make a comeback.

 

[Rival]

Is what is good not necessarily related to what is true? In that sense Ahura Mazda might be said to represent the good, insofar as he represents truth, whereas evil comes from delusion and falsehood, a failure to appreciate the truth behind appearances. The divine beings who are subordinate to Mazda seem to represent various aspects of truth and goodness, or qualities of mind that lead to both.

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.

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.

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

@A Disgruntled Scotsman : Ahura Mazda doesn't exist outside of the moral system. I didn't mean it like 'He's above morality' Or am I contradicting myself somehow here? By saying Morality exists outside of Ahuramazda I merely meant that he does not issue edicts from on high like Yahweh. Humans are not subject to religious laws like Torah. Morality exists in and of itself, but Good Morality is an aspect of Ahuramazda.

I should have perhaps phrased it better? :s