چکیده :
حکیمان و فیلسوفان همواره دربارۀ آرمان‌شهر و مؤلفه‌های آن بحث می‌کرده‌اند.
از دغدغه‌های اساسی آرمان‌شهر این بود که جامعۀ آرمانی چه مؤلفه‌هایی دارد و چه اقداماتی باید از طرف شهریاران و شهروندان صورت گیرد تا گذاری از وضع موجود به وضع مطلوب صورت گیرد.
در بین حکیمان و فیلسوفان، زرتشت و کنفوسیوس به فراخور زمان، موقعیت، مبانی سیاسی، اخلاقی و دینی دربارۀ آرمان‌شهر بحث می‌کرده‌اند.
مؤلفه‌های آرمان‌شهر زرتشتی خرد، اشه و قدرت شهریاری و مؤلفه‌های آرمان‌شهر کنفوسیوسی تربیت و پرورش الگوهای اخلاقی، حکومت حاکم - حکیم، رعایت اصل لی و اصلاح عناوین است.
آرمان‌شهر زرتشتی و کنفوسیوسی در شکل‌گیری تدریجی، جایگاه شهریار، اشه و هماهنگی، بایسته‌های شاهی، عدالت شاه آرمانی و اصلاح عناوین، رابطۀ مردم و حکومت و جایگاه انسان در جامعۀ آرمانی وجه اشتراک دارند و در منشأ و منبع قدرت شهریار، موروثی‌بودن پادشاهی، کارکرد نظام طبقاتی و اصلاح عناوین و روش نهادینه‌کردن فضیلت‌های اخلاقی در جامعه با یکدیگر تفاوت دارند.
این پژوهش بر آن است تا با رویکردی تحلیلی و نظری و با هدف مقایسۀ آرمان‌شهر و مؤلفه‌های آن بین دین زرتشت و آیین کنفوسیوس به این سؤال پاسخ دهد که وجوه اشتراک آرمان‌شهر زرتشتی و آرمان‌شهر کنفوسیوسی چیست.
zoroaster was born in an era that iran was experiencing political and social unrest.
he brought a new religion based on several thousand years of history of thought and wisdom in ancient iran.
as he mentions in the gathas, the new religion created immense changes in the iranian society.
he says in the gathas that his goal is to build a new utopian ruling and social system that guarantees welfare and prosperity.
the political thoughts of zoroaster are intertwined with his religious ideology and the utopia he pictures is an earthy replication of the minavi utopia ruled by ahura mazda.
the utopian rules are based on wisdom and his power is legitimized by amshasepand shahrivar.
the outcome of such a ruling is a world of order.
confucius was also born during an era of chaos and bloodshed caused by civil wars.
the chinese society of that era was struggling with war, poverty, corruption, and insecurity.
by studying the golden age of mythology of ancient china, confucius introduced a moral-political system for the chinese society.
he believes that utopia becomes possible when virtues become the foundations of ruling and society.
he argues that virtues are attainable through educating moral role models, respecting the principle of lee or social system goal and the law of titles reform or creating order in the principles of sovereignty, placing everyone in their rightful position, and choosing a wise ruler for society.
the zoroastrian and confucian utopias are both affected by the orient political thought.
they both emphasize concepts like asha and ming (i.e.
global order and harmony), training and educating rules, and institutionalizing virtues in society.
zoroaster and confucius both preached about comprehensive political and social reforms and both tried to achieve a world with an order.
the present study is an attempt to investigate the utopia in zoroaster and confucius religions following an analytical and theoretical approach through library and descriptive methods.
the main objective is to examine the concept of utopia and its elements from zoroaster and confucius’ viewpoints and find the common aspects and differences.
the main questions to be asked are: 1) what is the source of the idea of utopia in zoroastrianism and confucianism?; 2) what are the differences and similarities of these two utopias?
the source of zoroastrian utopia is in minavi and all affairs of the utopia are explained based on the minavi world and creatures.
as such, the specifications of the minavi world are combined with earthy and gitavi life.
he develops an extensive moral system for his followers based on good thoughts, good words, and good deeds.
on the other hand, confucian utopia is earthy and all its affairs are explained based on human and man’s attention to humanistic behavior, charity, and performing rituals.
this moral system is based on zen and charity.
both of these utopias start with making internal changes in man and both are attainable gradually.
the universe order has a special position in the moral systems of zoroaster and confucius.
asha in zoroastrianism and ming in confucianism are the keys to achieve utopia.
they both put emphasis on educating rulers and citizens.
zoroaster and confucius believe that the ruler must be wise and knowledgeable to create peace and welfare in the society.
they argue that the ruler must be just and define justice as placing everyone in their proper place to fulfill their responsibilities.
justice in confucianism appears as title reforms while in zoroastrianism, it appears as the preservation of social classes.
the relationship between the ruler and people in confucianism is a cycle in such a way that people affect the state, and the state affects people.
in zoroastrianism, on the other hand, there is a linear relationship between people and state and it is the state’s responsibility to affect people.
punishment and enforcement of the law are not desirable in confucianism as confucius believes that virtues must be institutionalized in people and the shame felt by a wrongdoer should be enough to prevent others from doing the same mistake.
in zoroastrianism, we see punishment so that people feel the responsibility to be accountable.
zoroastrianism and confucianism are different in terms of the roots of their utopias.
still, both define an extensive ethical system.
the outcome of such a system is the same: the society is supposed to be led towards prosperity, welfare, security, and peace.
نویسنده :
سید سعید رضا منتظری ، نرگس خاندل
منبع اصلی :
https://coth.ui.ac.ir/article_25891_574f11922240875434ad5a6eb28b569d.pdf
پایگاه :
پایگاه مجلات 5
(الهیات تطبیقی- سال 1400- دوره 12- شماره 26- از صفحه 1 تا 12)
یادداشت :
کلیدواژه‌ها
آرمان‌شهر زرتشتی آرمان‌شهر کنفوسیوسی اشه مینگ عدالت اصلاح عناوین
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
Zoroastrian Utopia Confucian Utopia Asha Ming Justice Title Reform