Back Ethnic Euromazdaism (and dualism commentary)- June 2022

Ethnic means People. So Ethnic Euromazdaism is a religious movement which works to see a people living in flourishing community.
Euromazdaism is a westernized variety of the originally Persian Mazdaism (Zoroastrianism) - and is the religious foundation of the movement.
The English word Heathen probably comes from the Greek word Ethnic and in any case has a similar meaning. In Latin the equivalent is Gentiles.
The original Heathens reported in the Bible were the free self-governing peoples who worshipped their gods on mountain-tops before they came under the yoke of Empire that had its temple in Jerusalem.

I am suggesting Mithras, Anhita and Vatis as the three most prominent deities. Mithras is concerned for the good order of society, the good relations between people. Anhita is the ideal mother who nourishes, supports and protects her children. Vatis is the overcomer of obstacles - restrictions on thinking and restrictions on living.

Q: Mazdaism is known for its dualism? More or less except - that in some versions there is Zurvan the GOD and the dualistic gods are under him !? If I understand correct?

A: Yes, the orthodox zoroastrian mazdaism is dualist, however there have been other varieties of mazdaism in history that weren't. Ethnic Euromazdaism is Zurvanist and not very dualistic.

GS: Keeping an open mind. That is, as a person who, in the first place, was attracted to Zoroastrian ideas because I felt that dualism explained a lot of the world, where monotheism fails.

A: Dualist thinking says that there are good 'processes' which cause good results and bad 'processes' that cause bad results. 'Pagan thinking' says that only the results can be judged good or bad and that the processes which cause things are neutral in themselves.
Both kinds of thinking have their place. However in my own work I have split 'Euromazdaism' into two varieties - Ethnic Euromazdaism which is non-dualist and pagan and Chrestic Euromazdaism which is dualist and closer to orthodox Zoroastrianism and Christianity.

SZ: I'm in the same boat, or at least a similar one going in a similar direction... but I think "dualism" is lacking, as some things are better considered as a trinity... and then some better as having five aspects... and of course the various periodic tables of elements provide very useful maps which are much more detailed (useful) than "everything is made of Earth, Air, Fire, Water, and Spirit"... So I do my best to balance, or maybe I should say "juggle", my spiritual (and emotional) needs/interests and my functional interests... That is the best way I can briefly expand on your short comment.

GS: True enough, dualism does not explain everything. Especially the relevant dualism of good and evil, or, perhaps, the constructive and the sinister. But seeing these dual aims in conflict makes more sense to me than a single, benevolent, all-powerful God who nevertheless uses or tolerates evil and defilements. Other alternatives exist to explain the mixed results of this world. But the crux for me is, if you once accept that a sinister force exists in this world, and not mere imperfection or lack of development or lack of coordination between three, five, 92, or 300 million principles... Well, if some power exists that is sinister per se, a counterforce surely exists as well. And the two have differing designs toward, let us say, the innocent and unaligned, the goat kids and grasses and ravens, the young and the old optimists and cynics, that is, all the other participants in the story.

SZ: Thanks for the reply. Yes, I agree... And yes, even most (if not all) monotheistic paradigms acknowledge some type of anti-god force or entity (or entities) even if they claim "the one true God" has "a divine plan" and will triumph over evil in the end, so kind-of dualistic IMO. But again, for me, a common idea/ beLIEf of many people who think in a simplified dualistic manner, that all actions (or worse, people) are either "good" or "evil" seems to cause so many problems that I often feel a need to say something like "well, it is a little more complicated than that..." - and it seems to me you basically agree; yes?

GS: Yes, indeed, I agree. And it is much too easy for two sides in opposition to each other to both regard each other as "evil," and from that belief, do things to each other that really are evil. The truly "good," as opposed to the unobjectionable, is rare, in my view. It would be tempting to say that there is no person or force that is evil in its essence. But I think there is: a force that is malicious, against life, and especially against anything that turns out well. At large, in principle, and not just born out of particular circumstances, in dislike against particular people or things. And I think that most of what it targets for despoiling is not the "good," but simply the innocent. I do find the Zurvanistic perspective conducive, on one level, and appealingly broad-minded. But I find it difficult to be so philosophical as to take Ahura Mazda and Ahriman as two counterbalancing principles, constructive and destructive, and not take sides.