First, I want to thank the many readers who contributed ideas on my last post about the future direction of this blog. Right now my inclination is to follow Bruce Siegel's suggestion and post less often, while still keeping the focus on the paranormal. I also think Roger Knights had a good idea about reposting older material, though I don't plan to do so on a regular basis. Julie Baxter had good thoughts about Leslie Flint and other psi phenomena that have not been treated thoroughly, or at all, in this forum. I think Eric Newhill is right in saying that political discussions become too contentious; and there are plenty of political sites already.
I'm no doubt overlooking a lot of other people who made valuable contributions. The bottom line is that I appreciate all your input.
And yes, I am open to guest posts. This has been my policy for a while, so please don't be shy about taking me up on it.
This new post is on a subject that I admittedly know little about. Until recently the only thing I'd read about Zoroastrianism was Gore Vidal's historical novel Creation, which takes place during the so-called Axial Age and features Zoroaster's (fictional) grandson as the narrator. It's a good book, but I read it years ago and don't remember it very well. Recently, however, I did some online research into Zoroaster, also known as Zarathustra, and the religion he founded, which predates Christianity by at least 500 years and which was a major belief system in the ancient world. Zoroastrians practice their faith to this day, though in greatly reduced numbers.
Two things in particular interest me about Zoroastrianism. The first are certain obvious similarities to Christianity, and the second are parallels with modern spiritualism, including some of the speculations that I've offered right here.
I'll start with the Christian parallels. I should point out that I'm deriving most of this information from the Wikipedia entry on Zoroastrianism, which seems to be well-sourced. As always when dealing with Wikipedia, some skepticism may be advisable, since the quality of the entries varies tremendously, and the content is constantly changing.
According to Wikipedia, Zoroaster was drawing water from a river for use in a ritual when a spiritual being appeared to him and allowed him to see God. In Matthew 3:16, Jesus was undergoing baptism in a river when the spirit of God descended on him like a dove.
Afterward, Zoroaster encountered six other spiritual beings who taught him the rest of what he needed to know; only after this did he begin his ministry. After his baptism, Jesus is said to have gone off into the desert for an extended period, during which he saw visions and overcame temptations, before commencing his ministry.
Zoroaster acquired only one follower in his homeland and found success only after traveling abroad. Jesus acquired no followers in his home village and reportedly said (Mark 6:4) that a prophet is without honor in his own town.
Zoroaster taught that there is only one God, that God is entirely good, that the various pagan gods are inferior heavenly beings (many of them demons), and that man's free will is (at least partly) responsible for his pain and suffering in what would otherwise be a paradise on earth. All these views are consistent with Christianity and also with Judaism, which was developing into its modern form during the Axial Age.
Zoroaster taught that the forces of chaos and order were perpetually in conflict, and that our free will allows us to choose which side to take. It is the individual's responsibility to choose rightly. The darker forces will eventually mount a final assault at the end of days, but will be decisively defeated by a savior-figure who will be born of a virgin. After their defeat, the dead will be raised and restored to earthly life, this time with immortality. Needless to say, all of this is strongly reminiscent of Christianity.
The parallels I've selected may make it seem as if the two belief systems are virtually identical, but that's only because I have cherry-picked the most interesting similarities. I could have selected other details highlighting notable differences between the two faiths. For instance, Zoroastrianism emphatically rejects asceticism and monasticism, insisting that the purpose of life on earth is to participate in life and gather experiences, not to shut oneself off in a monastic cell or to deprive oneself of any experience, including physical pleasure. Zoroastrianism also rejects spirit-body dualism, conceiving of both earth and heaven in similar terms. In these respects, Zoroastrianism is arguably similar to Gnostic Christianity, but not to Christianity as generally practiced today.
Still, it would be hard to argue that even orthodox Christianity was not, at the very least, influenced by Zoroastrianism in its formative centuries.
What about modern spiritualism? Zoroastrianism holds that the individual soul preexists earthly incarnation. During this pre-birth phase, the soul is joined with its guardian spirit. While incarnated on earth, the soul is separated from its guardian, which watches over it and attempts to protect and guide it when possible. After death, the soul is reunited with its guardian spirit, achieving wholeness again.
This is pretty similar to the spiritualist idea that the individual soul is an extension of a higher self or oversoul, from which it detaches during its period of earthly incarnation and to which it returns after the incarnation is complete.
After death, Zoroastrianism tells us that souls are judged according to their thoughts, words, and actions while on earth. Souls that pass the test will enjoy paradise, but with the caveat that continuing spiritual struggles can be expected even in postmortem existence. The ongoing battle between order and chaos is apparently not limited to this physical plane.
Souls that fail the test of judgement are relegated to a hellish sphere of existence – but not for purposes of punishment and not for all eternity. Instead, the sojourn in hell is temporary, and the purpose is to reform the soul. Ultimately this process must prove successful; it is the destiny of every soul to be reunited with its guardian spirit (= higher self) and with God.
The Zoroastrian concept of God transcends gender. God is called Ahura Mazda, a name that connotes both male (Ahura = Lord, masculine) and female (Mazda = Wisdom, feminine). It can be translated as Wise Lord. Yet God, for all his/her power, is not omnipotent. This idea of a less-than-omnipotent God has led some commenters to classify Zoroastrianism as a form of pantheism in which God/consciousness emerges from a self-creating universe, although this seems to be a later interpretation and probably not the original idea.
I find it interesting that as we go back in time to a comparatively early stage of religious development, we find a number of ideas that match up quite well with spiritualist teachings today: a pre-incarnational existence for the soul; separation from and reunion with a higher self; a division of the spiritual world into heavenly and hellish spheres, with the hellish spheres intended as temporary way stations for the moral improvement of the soul; a God that is neither male nor female, is not omnipotent, and may be immanent, not transcendent; a universe that is still a work in progress, with the balance between systemic order and chaos determined by the choices of individual incarnated beings.
Again, I don't want to exaggerate the parallels. There are certainly differences. For example, many people in the spiritualist community embrace reincarnation, but Zoroastrianism rejects reincarnation except in the limited sense of the resurrection of the dead after the final judgment.
Even so, the similarities are at least worth looking at.
Oh, and for the dog lovers out there: the dog is sacred in Zoroastrianism. This in itself strikes me as a pretty good recommendation of the religion.
Nice post, Michael. Thanks for deciding to continue your blog.
My father's people, the Armenians, inhabited what is today Turkey and Northern Syria. They were devout practitioners of Zoroastrianism, perhaps even the original devotees along with the people known as "Persians".
The ancient land of the Armenians became the first official Christian kingdom(s) - well before Rome made that choice. The reason that they did so readily is, as you note, the similarities between the religions and the promise of a savior born of a virgin. It was an easy and reasonable switch. So I would say that you are right on target Wikipedia or no Wikipedia :-)
Posted by: Eric Newhill | April 09, 2017 at 10:13 PM
Great overview!
I first learned about Zoroastrianism in 1984, when I bought a book called (IIRC) "The World Bible," scriptures from all of the major religions. It truly is an interesting religion.
I don't have any additions to make--you pretty much covered all I know--and then some.
Posted by: Matt Rouge | April 11, 2017 at 12:30 AM
IIRC, there are a few hundred thousand Zoroastrians living in India, where they are known as "Parsees" (from "Persians"?).
Posted by: Roger Knights | April 11, 2017 at 04:54 PM
"the dog is sacred in Zoroastrianism."
The cat was sacred in ancient Egyptian religion. The lamb is Christianity's unofficial animal. What about other religions—anybody have any nominations?
Posted by: Roger Knights | April 11, 2017 at 05:09 PM
Nice post Micheal. Yes, Zoroastrianism seems to be the source of much of what we consider Christian thought. The spiritualism parallels are particularly interesting. One thing you didn't mention is the idea of Satan as a person, and more than a mere demon, probably first comes from Zoroastrianism. The idea of good and evil battling it out at the end of the world is also from Zoroastrianism. I believe the Magi in the bible were also followers of Zoroaster.
Posted by: Steven Smith from ABQ | April 11, 2017 at 06:14 PM
"Oh, and for the dog lovers out there: the dog is sacred in Zoroastrianism. This in itself strikes me as a pretty good recommendation of the religion."
Not bad. But is there a religion where the horse is sacred? :)
BTW, do you have a dog, Michael? I've noticed before that you seem to like them. Some of the most important relationships of my life have been with animals - and still are (in the nicest possible sense).
Posted by: Julie Baxter | April 12, 2017 at 05:56 AM
"The cat was sacred in ancient Egyptian religion. The lamb is Christianity's unofficial animal. What about other religions—anybody have any nominations?"
The cow is sacred in Hinduism, of course. I believe the snake was sacred to many ancient religions. The Garden of Eden story may have cast the snake as the villain in response to rival religions that honored snakes. Some feminist anthropologists have argued that prehistoric peoples practiced a goddess religion in which the butterfly was sacred, though more mainstream anthropologists say that the "butterfly" symbol was actually a double-headed axe.
Besides liking dogs, Zoroaster also reportedly had a high opinion of the rooster.
"do you have a dog, Michael?" I do like them, but I live in a condo, and I don't think a dog is a good pet for an apartment dweller, so I don't have one.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | April 12, 2017 at 10:10 AM
Great post. Just FYI, Edgar Cayce identified Zoroaster's father as a past life of Jesus of Nazareth. Read more here. I also have a web page about the similarities between Zoroastrianism and Judaism and Christianity. It's a fascinating subject because Zoroaster's teachings greatly influenced many religions.
Posted by: Kevin R. Williams, B.Sc. | April 13, 2017 at 01:20 AM
An extract from a book about the historical development of religions, written by NDEer Nanci Danison:-
“According to Zoroastrianism, the present age is a time of great crisis, but “Saviors will come from the seed of Zoroaster, and in the end, the great Savior” shall restore all goodness. One such savior, according to Zoroastrian teaching, will be born of a virgin, bring about the resurrection of the dead, and make humankind immortal. It is not difficult to see connections between the anticipated Zorosastrian savior and the Christian savior, Jesus.” (Wray and Mobley, Birth of Satan, 87).
This book is Nanci Danison making her case for what she learnt in the afterlife about the development of religions, particularly Judea-Christianity. She compares what she learnt with what bible scholars say about how Christianity developed (ironically her book was criticized for being too well-researched by some reviewers, who were expecting only her afterlife memories). Particularly noteworthy is the fact that (allegedly) the biblical Jesus was a myth. Nanci does however concede to the possibility of a historical figure called Jesus from Nazareth, who might have something to do with the origins of the mythical Jesus.
On the same page Nanci points out particular claims from the gospel writer Luke could not have possibly been true. The example cited is that of Jesus being thrown out of the synagogue at Nazareth for reading scripture, and being chased up a hill by an angry mob who were intent on tossing him off the edge of the cliff (somehow he got away). Archaeological excavations have apparently proven there were no synagogues in Nazareth, and thus no rolls of scripture (and apparently no hills either). Also the idea that a man from a peasant village could read is highly questionable, given that the literacy rate for the region stood at about 5%.
A common counter-argument to this is the claim that these are shared rather than derived beliefs. However it is hard to see how anyone could reasonably come to that conclusion when presented with striking examples such as those mentioned in this blog post. And anyway, even the idea of shared beliefs arguably detracts somewhat from the alleged divine origins of the scriptures.
So is the Holy Bible a pack of porkies? Probably.
Having said all this Nanci presents a diplomatic conciliatory tone in the book by conceding to the fact that spiritual truths do become naturally entwined within most religions due to possible residual memory traces of divine truths we might have whilst inhabiting humans.
“Zoroastrianism also rejects spirit-body dualism, conceiving of both Earth and heaven in similar terms.”
I reject this as well. At least the manner in which this separation is commonly conceived. I think really there is only one reality. We only perceive and access a very small portion of reality whilst in physical form, and hence it is semantically meaningful at make a distinction between a ‘spirit realm’ and ‘physical realm’. But this separation is not literal, as there is only one reality. What we call physical matter is really only configurations (for lack of a better word) of energy which from our limited perspective appear solid, but would appear entirely illusory from higher perspectives of reality.
We might regard Earth life as mundane whilst here, but imagine for a moment an existence consisting purely of a mental life. The idea of taking physical form (or at least being fooled into believing you are inhabiting a physical realm) would seem very miraculous and very non-trivial. Having said this, the grass still looks greener on the other side, at least when hearing the accounts of those claiming to have experienced the spiritual realm.
Posted by: Mark Green | April 13, 2017 at 10:42 AM
"So is the Holy Bible a pack of porkies? Probably."
I've often suspected it might be. But the best bits read like profound psychological insights expressed before academic psychology was invented. Certainly the parables.
Posted by: Julie Baxter | April 13, 2017 at 03:52 PM
Mark writes: "We might regard Earth life as mundane whilst here, but imagine for a moment an existence consisting purely of a mental life. The idea of taking physical form (or at least being fooled into believing you are inhabiting a physical realm) would seem very miraculous and very non-trivial."
Not sure about this. According to accounts which I have read it is actually possible to experience physicality in the afterlife via 'manifesting'. So would a physical experience really seem so magical in light of this fact?
Posted by: Rob G | April 14, 2017 at 10:10 AM
"According to accounts which I have read it is actually possible to experience physicality in the afterlife via 'manifesting'."
I do hope so! I would be lost on the 'other side' if I couldn't ride and care for my horses. There's nothing and no one in the world that I love more than animals - especially horses.
Posted by: Julie Baxter | April 14, 2017 at 12:30 PM
Rob writes: “Not sure about this. According to accounts which I have read it is actually possible to experience physicality in the afterlife via 'manifesting'. So would a physical experience really seem so magical in light of this fact?”
I have had lucid dreams which are every bit as real as the physical world I experience in waking life; the feel of solid ground beneath my feet as I walk along, the shifting feeling of my body weight under gravity as I move (and g-forces if I am flying), intricate tactile sensations, and a visual clarity that either rivals or surpasses (more commonly) real life. In fact strictly speaking all we ever experience in our waking life are mental events. There is nothing we ever directly experience which is not a mental event. But there is a key difference – we buy into it. We totally believe ‘real life’ is real. Of course this applies to normal dreams as well, but as far as I am aware they do not have the real-life nature of lucid dreams. Certainly mine don’t anyway.
We can of course know intellectually that what we experience as physical reality is not real, but that intellectual knowledge in itself would not normally take away very much from the compelling feeling that our ‘physical’ world is real. In my case it certainly doesn’t.
I also am familiar with NDE accounts which describe the phenomenon of manifesting. In fact, supposedly, our reality is in some sense a collective manifestation anyway. Allegedly we have the ability in our natural spiritual state to manifest what humans perceive as physical reality. But if all one has ever experienced is a manifestation accompanied by an acute awareness of the non-real nature of that manifested reality, it would still seem quite far out to have an experience of physicality that completely fools us, as does our ‘physical’ world.
Posted by: Mark Green | April 14, 2017 at 12:41 PM
Scholars are almost unanimous that Jesus was a real historical figure; although there are a lot of mythology associated with him and all the other "dead-and-rising God-men-saviors" in history. And it is true the Bible is filled with errors and contradictions. But it must be remembered that Jesus appears in a large number of NDEs. And one particular NDEr, Howard Storm, was informed by Jesus during his NDE that the reason he could only see the contradictions whenever he read the Bible was because the Bible had to be read spiritually (i.e., metaphorically) and not literally. For example, Edgar Cayce gave a very interesting dream interpretation of the Book of Revelation. The reason Zoroastrian Magi astrologer-priests are on your Christmas cards is because they saw the "star of Bethlehem" -- a conjunction of Jupiter (the planet of kings) with Saturn (ther planet of Israel) and knew that a great king was about to be born to Israel. So, one mustn't throw out the proverbial "baby" with the "bath water" when it comes to historical figures and the mythology surrounding them. For example, it is possible to be a good Christian and believe the "Resurrection of the Dead" on Judgment Day does not mean "dead bodies coming out of tombs", but rather "live babies coming out of wombs". Even the resurrection of Jesus could have been merely a spiritual after-death communication and not a literal "Lazarus-type" resuscitation. The idea of corpses coming out of their graves like "Night of the Living Dead" at the End of Days never really appealed to me.
Posted by: Kevin R. Williams, B.Sc. | April 15, 2017 at 01:25 AM
It's true that Jesus appears in many NDEs - although we should be careful about this, because in many cases the person reports seeing a glowing energy source or a vaguely angelic figure and simply labels it "Jesus."
In any event, NDErs see Hindu deities and other religious figures also. I suspect this has everything to do with the way one's personal belief system colors the experience, and little or nothing to do with the reality of such figures - though I guess one could argue that if enough people believe in a certain mythical or legendary figure, then the figure could achieve a certain quasi-reality as a thought form or archetype.
I don't doubt there was a real historical Jesus, but I suspect that nearly all of what we know about him is invented or heavily embellished.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | April 15, 2017 at 12:09 PM
MP: It's true that Jesus appears in many NDEs - although we should be careful about this, because in many cases the person reports seeing a glowing energy source or a vaguely angelic figure and simply labels it "Jesus."
Yes, one has to be very careful. Within the community of NDE researchers there is some concensus on this. For want of better descriptions of these awesome presences, one chooses the holy figure which is the most important in their culture.
For atheistic NDE'rs this is something they tend to struggle with. They know it is divine what they have encountered, but have no word for it.
Posted by: Smithy | April 16, 2017 at 11:47 AM
I am very cautious about the Church's view of Christianity and Jesus simply because when the state became aware that there was a powerful message within the early Church ,the state under the Emperor Constantine swallowed the teachings whole and transplanted everything onto existing setups and effectively stole it from the people , one week it was the pontifax maximus and next week he became Pope and all our holy days are the old pagan days transformed and the council of Nicea threw out everything which did not fit with the idea of Jesus being the actual son of god and nothing else and the leaders had authority under God and it kept the whole rotten structure going until now which is why people are turning away from it
But thanks to this blog entry I have found which I believe is the way towards the truth of god and existence which the early followers glimpsed and which is a powerful message which would have been dangerous to rulers of then and even nowadays
Thank you
Posted by: Ken Lee | April 20, 2017 at 01:09 PM
Speaking of NDE and religion, have anybody ever heard of Chuang Tzu, one of the Taoism founding father? Seems like his entire philosophies are build on his OBE/NDE. For those where are interested, here is a link to paper discussing the similarities between Chuang Tzu teachings with NDE experiences:
http://www.newdualism.org/nde-papers/Hermann/Hermann-Journal%20of%20Near-Death%20Studies_1990-8-175-190.pdf
Posted by: Pin | April 22, 2017 at 08:26 PM
Great job Michael,
It seems that you are on the right track to find the answers that you seek, the opinions of others are an invaluable resource,
when it comes to discerning what is of man and what is divine is a fuzzy zone to interpret with your intuition,
as the religions go, they all have their value as long as it is realized that they have all been written by a man with some sort of divine inspiration,
nevertheless, they have ultimately been written by a man that does have free will and the superstitions and dogma of the eras have their social power over the beliefs presented, the parallels are a great overlap, all of the prophets from all of the religions have the same inspiring gestalt, each religion has its own portion of reality to present for each culture to digest and now the time has come for us all to be able to use our great internet to read all of the translated scriptures to determine what is worthwhile and what threatens us with fear, we are all part of the whole that is adding to the knowledge of "all that is" so there is no wrong way about life, just lessons to learn.
Posted by: Lance | July 04, 2020 at 05:58 PM