/lit/ - Literature

>>19091033
Zoroaster's Gathas are more interesting.
I think Nietzsche was cursed by Ahura Mazda.
Zoroaster's philosophy was inspired from the abuse he saw cattle endure; Nietzsche had a mental breakdown from seeing a horse being whipped. Ahura Mazda forsake Nietzsche but blessed Zoroaster.

>>18266356
Just become Zoroastrian. Read Mardanfarrox's Doubt-Removing Book.
All of West Eurasia was meant to be Zoroastrian but devious Semites won in the end for some reason. Leave behind the druj of daevas and embrace the Gathas.
Also, I am a prophet, so you can follow me instead.

>>17979883
The Gathas. Read multiple translations.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/25676936?seq=1

It makes more sense than Abrahamic monotheism.
You can believe in God without the problem of evil. Note, this article gets kind of complex with its argumentation, so I recommend reading it.

>>16513570
>f*rsian
Are you a T*rk or Ar*b because they're the only ones who say f*rsian.
20% of Iran was Zoroastrian before Safavid autism, idiot. Warriors like Mardavij didn't just pop out from nowhere.

>>16485143
Stupid daeva.

>>15336035
actually i am, good call.

i also agree with what you said about norm/exception; i wanted to offer OP merely one way of "convincing on strictly material [grounds]"
but i think you are generally correct.

>>14902252
The Gathas

>>14890433
A lone cypress and clean stream are far superior to your Faustian and clunky bullshit. I am more impressed by the scenery of Alm Valley rather than such grandiose and gaudy architecture. How much forest did you have to cut down to build that ugly and wasteful space of a building? I feel bad for the birds who have to fly past it... or the ones that unfortunately hit it. You can go eat shit in the House of Lies with your beloved kike.

>>14775831
Zarathustra was better than Jesus, and he had more white admixture too. Read the Gathas.

>>14351197
There is no oneness. There is only a dualism.

>>13918848
Zarathustra.
His teachings are encapsulated in the Gathas, which is the only portion which goes back to him.

A lot of idiots, typically followers of the Abrahamic faiths, claim that Zoroastrians have no preserved written texts dating to Zarathustra's time. This is patently false. The Gathas dates to Zarathustra's time (~1000-1500 BCE) and is written in ancient Old Avestan that's drastically different from the rest of the Younger Avestan of Zend-Avesta (i.e., compilation of Zoroastrian scriptures). Linguistic and cultural analysis of this ~6000 word text shows it is of a very ancient lost language, originating near the regions of Turkmenistan or Kazakhstan. However, unlike the Dhammapada, Bible, Koran, Bhagavad Gita, and so forth, the Gathas is typically not read in most college World Religion classes, though some are trying to change that.

The best two translations of the Gathas comes from Mary Boyce and Piloo Nanavutty. Note, Boyce did a partial translation whereas Nanavutty did a full one, but they are both very good. The message of the Gathas conforms to inscriptions of Darius I at Nashq-e Rostam. It is one where honesty and good-will are held in higher-esteem than deceit and ill-will:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naqsh-e_Rostam#Darius_I_inscription

Anyways, here you go:

Mary Boyce's translation:
https://www.amazon.com/Textual-Sources-Study-Zoroastrianism-Religion/dp/0226069303/

Piloo Nanavutty's translation:
https://www.amazon.com/Gathas-Zarathushtra-Hymns-praise-wisdom/dp/8185822565/

One can, in some sense, consider Darius I's inscription a very brief summary of the Gathas' message and more.

There has been a large attempt to ignore or demonize Iranian cultural legacy in order to rev up the war engines.

>>13857479
>>13857500
Zarathustra > Jesus > Muhammad

Empedocles was better than Heraclitus because he was not afraid to privilege a pole in the "transient conflicting forces". It's more that one side will overcome the other depending on the area, individual, etc. These conflicting forces are not a part of any One, but rather, they are of their own self-contained realities. The world could easily be caused by a collision of different processes, realities, or what have you, and what we see is the conflicting activity from said collision. One can describe reality as a hierarchy and structure of a non-"naturalistic" kind with conflicting processes or "forces" of various types. Moreover, it can also lead to the view of value as a modality of the real and having an epistemic function. No need for a One, which typically leads to antinomianism.
What I am arguing against is the "coalescence of conflicting forces". It could be the mind is creating the illusion of unity in the world (i.e., look up "Binding Problem"). We could more precisely define "the world" as made up of conflicting and irreconcilable forces without much difficulty. The point is, the conflicting forces never blur or lose their distinguishing characteristics.
When you see a being in pain or acting from greed, hatred, or delusion, that is Strife or Angra Mainyu. When you see a being in happiness or acting from wisdom, generosity, or kindness, then that is Love or Spenta Mainyu. The idea that these two opposing forces come together in harmony or as a complementary dynamic is nonsense; in fact, they frequently overcome or override one or the other, depending on context. For example, there are places where nothing but hatred, despair, or misery, and likewise, there are areas where nothing but love, happiness, or tranquility exist. Yes, they may be transitory, but the idea that one requires the other for mutual self-identification is nondualist nonsense that ignores the qualitative dimension of each opposing side. Thus, the world becomes more of a collision where it becomes a matter of temporal context of degrees of various kinds rather than a whole that blurs or unites all differences.
Ahura Mazda can never be Ahriman, Ahriman can never be Ahura Mazda. There is definitely a kind of recurring pattern that preserves their identities and functions relative to their opposites.
All monists, monotheists, and nondualists are fundamentally evil. Cosmological Dualism is the way because it treats truth and lie & good and evil as having fundamental, impenetrable differences that never unify. It's not that light and darkness are two sides of the coin, but it's that light and darkness are in continuous tension, with one side eventually banishing the other.

>>13583722
What are you talking about? None of the translations I referenced were from 19th century. Here let me give you texts I referenced:

Mary Boyce's partial translation of Gathas is here (~28 USD):
https://www.amazon.com/Textual-Sources-Study-Zoroastrianism-Religion/dp/0226069303

Piloo Nanavutty's is here used (~20 USD):
https://www.amazon.com/Gathas-Zarathushtra-Hymns-Praise-Wisdom/dp/1890206091/

These two are the best translations. Piloo Nanavutty is a bit better imo.

Starting with the Persians makes more sense than Greeks. The ideas of truth vs. lie, good vs. evil, moral progress, and much more originated from the Gathas. The holy Gathas, which dates to ~1000-1500 BCE, are the unaltered words of Zarathustra. Both Piloo Nanavutty and Mary Boyce's translations are good, though it should be noted Boyce did not translate all of it.

Ultimately, the problem with the modern West is the fear of authoritarianism. A society that bases itself on a rigid sense of right and wrong will typically have more stability than one which fixates on a libertine notion of "freedom". The concepts of Wisdom, Order, Compassion, and Goodness have historically been associated with one another for a reason. However, the spirit of freedom can occasionally lead to the worship of chaos, subversion, and transgression, hence the phenomenon of "edgelord" (which can become darker when one looks into dark net). Saying one "should broaden his or her horizons" is fundamentally destructive because it leads to slippery slope in the sense that one could begin questioning his or her biological sex, trying out destructive drugs, foregoing his or her duties, and so forth. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with theocracy, and I think many traditionalist Catholics make a valid point when they subtly argue this. What I am saying is you should see the value of the spirit of the Persians for once, which is fundamentally authoritative and tilted to theocracy since ancient Sassanian times. The Greek spirit of constant inquiry and freedom leads to some kind of deracination and loss of direction in life.

If people need me to clarify more, then I can do so. However, I require politeness considering this topic may piss off some people.

>>13490055
Historically, the first book to discuss good vs. evil was the Gathas. I recommend both Mary Boyce and Piloo Nanavutty's translation. It's the only part of the Zend Avesta that goes back to Zarathustra, and it dates somewhere between 1000 to 1500 BCE.

>>13369056
>>13369095
Part 01/02

Summary of Chapter 7 of Michael Stausberg's Zarathustra and Zoroastrianism. It was actually written by Anders Hultgard.

During the Achaemenid Empire, Cyrus the Great freed Jews from Babylonian captivity, allowing them to practice their religion, and contact between Jews and Persians continued in the Hellenistic and Roman periods. In the Hebrew Bible, Cyrus the Great is referred to as the “Messiah” by Isaiah, making him the only gentile to be praised to such high regards, and other kings such as Darius, Xerxes, and Artaxerxes are frequently mentioned; the books Esther and Daniel, draws significantly from the life at the Persian royal court, and the feast in the Book of Esther, celebrating the liberation of magus Haman’s evil plot, is an adaptation of the Iranian Farvardigan. Palestine was also under Persian rule for two-hundred years and there were large Jewish diaspora in Western Iran and Mesopotamia; the religious ideas of the imperial elite most likely became well-known by the Jews, and the Judaism, being a minority religion without a state to back the authority of the faith, did not arouse much interest in the Persians. Due to the following significant interactions between Persians and Jews, there is substantial reason to believe Zoroastrianism heavily influenced the Judeo-Christian tradition with the dualism between the forces of good and evil, introduction of angels, personified evil figures (e.g., Asmodeus is based off daeva Aēšma), the eschatological reward for the just and punishment for the wicked, the struggle between truth (Av. Asha) and lie (Av. Druj), and the resurrection of the dead (check Yasna 19).

>>13310566
Zoroastrianism.
Only the Gathas goes back to Zarathustra, and they date to approximately 800-1100 BCE. I recommend Mary Boyce's translation first. I have heard Piloo Nanavatty's translation is good too.

>>13278547
Pettson and Findus is close to Ahura Mazda's House of Song.

>>13262038
>says this while he can't help but define certain processes/things/spirits/entities as good or evil
Sorry, but you won't ever get rid of all dualism, bud.

>>13261648
My approach is called "Rudimentary Dualism", and I think it can help the modern world's predicament in the sense antinomian tendencies have become widespread. I define Rudimentary Dualism as an established basic dichotomy between "good" and "evil", and one privileges "good" over "evil" for certain end goals or what have you. The issue is that naturalism and physicalism do not allow for Rudimentary Dualism due to the absence of a telos, so the goal of my movement is to point out all the flaws in the modern physicalist worldview in order to offer justifications to be "good" based on equally plausible soteriological schemes.

It has become common in this time-period to say good and evil are relative or arbitrary. To many nihilists, even a picture book of dismembering or disemboweling someone can be considered "good". I take issue with this because 1) we do not know if eternal oblivion truly awaits us after death -- there could be more complex soteriology 2) the qualia associated with good and evil have essential distinction and one cannot create a 'good' picture book of dismemberment since it becomes horror. There is no blurry line between good and evil, and I take issue with some Zen Buddhists and Advaitan Hindus who try to deconstruct good and evil; even the Buddha argued that enlightenment is only possible through the three antidotes of generosity, loving-kindness, and wisdom. However, many later Buddhists tried to blur the antidotes with the poisons such as greed, hatred, and delusion, so in their worldview, an enlightened serial killers who murders without a sense of self is possible.

I believe Derrida was a very evil man, and my philosophical approach is a more honest assessment of his views in order to make it better. Good and evil are not indeterminate and there are no undecidables when we establish some viable cause in any kind of soteriology (e.g., rebirth, heaven/hell, inward involution of dreams, etc.) Rudimentary Dualism is not the same as Ontological Dualism, but it is more of an acknowledgment that there is some very Rudimentary Dualism in all meta-ethics and normative ethics when we take it very sincerely and try to consider all metaphysical possibilities. I would accuse Langan of going against Rudimentary Dualism also.

I blame certain high-profile Jews and indulgent Boomers for pushing against Rudimentary Dualism in the modern era, and I doubt I can ever get these views out there since my approach is inspired by the Zoroastrian Gathas and I am Persian. Jews like Derrida and Susan Sontag are my archenemies, and I hope there is a hell awaiting them.

>>13261145
I was born in the USA as an Iranian, but I did not understand the nonsensical metaphysics of Cuckstianity until after 20 years old. Also, when I was 12, I realized Islam was retarded after seeing how brutal the Koran was towards "idol-worshipers", no joke. Better to be an idol-worshiper than one who prostrates before that infernal black stone.

I've always been a crypto-Zoroastrian ever since I was young, I said stuff that conformed with the Gathas. It's like the Gathas is in my blood, and it could be I am some kind of descendant of mobed? I like older non-antinomian Buddhism too though.