|
|
devkhera
2/15/2005 2:05 PM
|
1 out of 13 |
|
|
|
After learning a little bit about Zoroastrianism from this forum I find it very interesting that Zoroastrianism and Buddhism seem very similar to me except for the presence of God in Zoroastrianism. Is it true? Are these to religions very similar in teaching? Or am I in big illusion?
|
|
|
|
ashai1
2/16/2005 10:19 PM
|
2 out of 13 |
|
|
|
Ushta devkhera
Well, there are several superficial differences, and I am not as well informed on Buddhism as I should be perhaps but I see some major differences also.
Certain terminology, is very similar, that is true. Also the Buddha makes an appeal to reason, that is true, although, some Buddhists that I have debated claim that they believe in irrationality.
But besides the fact that Zarathushtra contemplates a deity in his sytem , something he would probably argue from an origins basis, there are several profound differences:
1. This reality is seen as real and not illusion
2. This reality, such as it is, is good and not evil, It is good because its a place to learn so that we might access and even better indeed a perfect reality.
3. Not all desire is evil and definitely not illusory
4. Not all attachment is evil.
5. Ascetism is against the need to keep one's mind and body in as good a shape as possible , . A need vital in some Zoroastrian theological circles, becuse the body is seen as the instrument for the soul to advance to that above mentioned perfect reality.
There are probably a lot more differences , but these are the obvious ones.
Ushta te
Ron
|
|
|
|
devkhera
2/17/2005 1:53 AM
|
3 out of 13 |
|
|
|
Ushta Ron,
Thank you for your comments. I find them always enlightening and knowledgeable. I did not understand what you meant by "Buddhists that I have debated claim that they believe in irrationality". Also what do you mean by "Zarathushtra contemplates a deity in his system"? Is this deity "every thing" like Abrahmic God or something like a source as Brahman in Hinduism?
I am not a scholar on Buddhism. Though I understood the difference in point 3 and 4; other points I think either you misinterpreted or you are misinformed (I could be misinformed too).
1. & 2. As far as I understood, the Buddha didn’t say that reality is an illusion. Rather he said attachment with reality is an illusion because reality is also fleeting and changing like every thing else.
5. The Buddha stressed on the middle way path, which is neither completely ascetic nor completely indulged in worldly attachments.
It is only my understanding and I am just a student. A Buddhist scholar may disagree with my understanding and correct me.
I enjoy learning about Zoroastrianism from you. I think I only saw the huge similarities because of the rational nature of both religions.
Thanks again,
Dev
|
|
|
|
ashai1
2/20/2005 6:21 PM
|
4 out of 13 |
|
|
|
Ushta Devkhera
Well, this Buddhist that I used to debate , once got sort of cornered when I pointed out that if reality, or attachment to it as you say, was illusory then, experience must be thrown out as gauge for reality. Making the argument one dealing in irrationality. So he said that they are perfectly content with irrationality and irrational arguments.
As to Z 'contemplates a deity in his system', I refer to the idea that if we assume Mazda Ahura to be an allegory for Sovereign Wisdom. It can be argued that it does not refer to God, I do not agree that we can make such assumptions, at least not, without didsegarding clear references made in the Gathas. But that is the argument of the Atheistic Zarathushtis, of which there are quite a few, may I add.
As to illusory reality because of temporaneity, I will argue that Zarathushtra does not ignore the temporary nature of reality , he simply sees temporality as a misnomer. That is reality changes expression but it is not temporary at all.
In other words, while the physical aspect of reality, in this dimension, is more or less temporary , that does not account for the spiritual, or ethical, nor the mental and we do not even know what expressions, if any, physicality will have in any different dimension or plane of existence.
Be sides temporaneity, may make reality fleeting but that does not make it illsusory , at least not, while it lasts and affects us.
As to the middle path, and Zoroastianism: It still does not matter, the Middle Path is also abstinence and ascetism in the eyes of Zoroastrians and, as such, anathema.
I also enjoy our exchanges, it helps me get more information on Buddhism and this leads me to a better understanding!
Ushta te
Ashaii
|
|
|
