Dualism in cosmology is the moral or spiritual belief that two
fundamental concepts exist, which often oppose each other. It is an
umbrella term that covers a diversity of views from various religions,
including both traditional religions and scriptural religions.
Moral dualism is the belief of the great complement of, or
conflict between, the benevolent and the malevolent. It simply implies
that there are two moral opposites at work, independent of any
interpretation of what might be "moral" and independent of how these may
be represented. Moral opposites might, for example, exist in a
worldview which has one god, more than one god, or none. By contrast,
duotheism, bitheism or ditheism implies (at least) two gods. While
bitheism implies harmony, ditheism implies rivalry and opposition, such
as between good and evil, or light and dark, or summer and winter. For
example, a ditheistic system could be one in which one god is a creator,
and the other a destroyer. In theology,
dualism can also refer to the relationship between God and creation or
God and the universe (see theistic dualism). This form of dualism is a
belief shared in certain traditions of Christianity and Hinduism.[1]
Alternatively, in ontological dualism, the world is divided into two
overarching categories. The opposition and combination of the universe's
two basic principles of yin and yang is a large part of Chinese philosophy, and is an important feature of Taoism. It is also discussed in Confucianism.
Many myths and creation motifs with dualistic cosmologies have been described in ethnographic and anthropological literature. These motifs conceive the world as being created, organized, or influenced by two demiurges, culture heroes,
or other mythological beings, who either compete with each other or
have a complementary function in creating, arranging or influencing the
world. There is a huge diversity of such cosmologies. In some cases,
such as among the Chukchi,
the beings collaborate rather than competing, and contribute to the
creation in a coequal way. In many other instances the two beings are
not of the same importance or power (sometimes, one of them is even
characterized as gullible). Sometimes they can be contrasted as good
versus evil.[2] They may be often believed to be twins or at least brothers.[3][4]
Dualistic motifs in mythologies can be observed in all inhabited
continents. Zolotaryov concludes that they cannot be explained by diffusion or borrowing, but are rather of convergent origin: they are related to a dualistic organization of society (moieties);
in some cultures, this social organization may have ceased to exist,
but mythology preserves the memory in more and more disguised ways.[5]
Moral dualism
Moral dualism is the belief of the great complement or conflict
between the benevolent and the malevolent. Like ditheism/bitheism (see
below), moral dualism does not imply the absence of monist or monotheistic
principles. Moral dualism simply implies that there are two moral
opposites at work, independent of any interpretation of what might be
"moral" and—unlike ditheism/bitheism—independent of how these may be
represented.
For example, Mazdaism (Mazdean Zoroastrianism)
is both dualistic and monotheistic (but not monist by definition) since
in that philosophy God—the Creator—is purely good, and the antithesis—which is also uncreated–is an absolute one. Zurvanism (Zurvanite Zoroastrianism), Manichaeism, and Mandaeism are representative of dualistic andmonist
philosophies since each has a supreme and transcendental First
Principle from which the two equal-but-opposite entities then emanate.
This is also true for the lesser-known Christian gnostic religions, such as Bogomils, Catharism, and so on. More complex forms of monist dualism also exist, for instance in Hermeticism, where Nous
"thought"—that is described to have created man—brings forth both good
and evil, dependent on interpretation, whether it receives prompting
from the God or from the Demon. Duality with pluralism is considered a logical fallacy.
History
Moral
dualism began as a theological belief. Dualism was first seen implicitly
in Egyptian religious beliefs by the contrast of the gods Set (disorder, death) and Osiris (order, life).[6] The first explicit conception of dualism came from the Ancient Persian religion of Zoroastrianism around the mid-fifth century BC. Zoroastrianism is a monotheistic religion that believes that Ahura Mazda is the eternal creator of all good things. Any violations of Ahura Mazda's order arise from druj,
which is everything uncreated. From this comes a significant choice for
humans to make. Either they fully participate in human life for Ahura
Mazda or they do not and give druj power. Personal dualism is even more distinct in the beliefs of later religions.
The religious dualism of Christianity between good and evil is not a perfect dualism as God (good) will inevitably destroy Satan (evil). Early Christian dualism is largely based on Platonic Dualism. There is also a personal dualism in Christianity with a soul-body distinction based on the idea of an immaterial Christian soul.[7]
Duotheism, bitheism, ditheism
When used with regards to multiple gods, dualism
may refer to duotheism, bitheism, or ditheism. Although
ditheism/bitheism imply moral dualism, they are not equivalent:
ditheism/bitheism implies (at least) two gods, while moral dualism does
not necessarily imply theism (theos = god) at all.
Both bitheism and ditheism imply a belief in two equally powerful
gods with complementary or antonymous properties; however, while
bitheism implies harmony, ditheism implies rivalry and opposition, such
as between good and evil, bright and dark, or summer and winter. For
example, a ditheistic system would be one in which one god is creative,
the other is destructive (cf. theodicy). In the original conception of Zoroastrianism, for example, Ahura Mazda was the spirit of ultimate good, while Ahriman (Angra Mainyu) was the spirit of ultimate evil.
In a bitheistic system, by contrast, where the two deities are
not in conflict or opposition, one could be male and the other female
(cf. duotheism[clarification needed]). One well-known example of a bitheistic or duotheistic theology based on gender polarity is found in the neopagan religion of Wicca. In Wicca, dualism is represented in the belief of a god and a goddess
as a dual partnership in ruling the universe. This is centered on the
worship of a divine couple, the Moon Goddess and the Horned God,
who are regarded as lovers. However, there is also a ditheistic theme
within traditional Wicca, as the Horned God has dual aspects of bright
and dark - relating to day/night, summer/winter - expressed as the Oak
King and the Holly King, who in Wiccan myth and ritual are said to
engage in battle twice a year for the hand of the Goddess, resulting in
the changing seasons. (Within Wicca, bright and dark do not correspond
to notions of "good" and "evil" but are aspects of the natural world,
much like yin and yang in Taoism.)
Radical and mitigated dualism
Radical Dualism – or absolute Dualism which posits two co-equal divine forces. Manichaeism
conceives of two previously coexistent realms of light and darkness
which become embroiled in conflict, owing to the chaotic actions of the
latter. Subsequently, certain elements of the light became entrapped
within darkness; the purpose of material creation is to enact the slow
process of extraction of these individual elements, at the end of which
the kingdom of light will prevail over darkness. Manicheanism likely
inherits this dualistic mythology from Zoroastrianism, in which the eternal spirit Ahura Mazda is opposed by his antithesis, Angra Mainyu; the two are engaged in a cosmic struggle, the conclusion of which will likewise see Ahura Mazda triumphant. 'The Hymn of the Pearl'
included the belief that the material world corresponds to some sort of
malevolent intoxication brought about by the powers of darkness to keep
elements of the light trapped inside it in a state of drunken
distraction.
Mitigated Dualism – is where one of the two principles is in
some way inferior to the other. Such classical Gnostic movements as the
Sethians conceived of the material world as being created by a lesser
divinity than the true God that was the object of their devotion. The
spiritual world is conceived of as being radically different from the
material world, co-extensive with the true God, and the true home of
certain enlightened members of humanity; thus, these systems were
expressive of a feeling of acute alienation within the world, and their
resultant aim was to allow the soul to escape the constraints presented
by the physical realm.
However, bitheistic and ditheistic principles are not always so
easily contrastable, for instance in a system where one god is the
representative of summer and drought and the other of winter and
rain/fertility (cf. the mythology of Persephone). Marcionism,
an early Christian sect, held that the Old and New Testaments were the
work of two opposing gods: both were First Principles, but of different
religions.[8]
Theistic dualism
In
theology, dualism can refer to the relationship between God and
creation or God and the universe. This form of dualism is a belief
shared in certain traditions of Christianity and Hinduism.[1]
In Christianity
The Cathars being expelled from Carcassonne in 1209. The Cathars were denounced as heretics by the Roman Catholic Church for their dualist beliefs.
The dualism between God and Creation has existed as a central belief
in multiple historical sects and traditions of Christianity, including Marcionism, Catharism, Paulicianism, and Gnostic Christianity. Christian dualism refers to the belief that God and creation are distinct, but interrelated through an indivisible bond.[1]
In sects like the Cathars and the Paulicians, this is a dualism between
the material world, created by an evil god, and a moral god. Historians
divide Christian dualism into absolute dualism, which held that the
good and evil gods were equally powerful, and mitigated dualism, which
held that material evil was subordinate to the spiritual good.[9] The belief, by Christian theologians who adhere to a libertarian or compatibilist view of free will, that free will separates humankind from God has also been characterized as a form of dualism.[1]
The theologian Leroy Stephens Rouner compares the dualism of
Christianity with the dualism that exists in Zoroastrianism and the Samkhya
tradition of Hinduism. The theological use of the word dualism dates
back to 1700, in a book that describes the dualism between good and
evil.[1]
The tolerance of dualism ranges widely among the different
Christian traditions. As a monotheistic religion, the conflict between
dualism and monism has existed in Christianity since its inception.[10] The 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia
describes that, in the Catholic Church, "the dualistic hypothesis of an
eternal world existing side by side with God was of course rejected" by
the thirteenth century, but mind–body dualism was not.[11] The problem of evil
is difficult to reconcile with absolute monism, and has prompted some
Christian sects to veer towards dualism. Gnostic forms of Christianity
were more dualistic, and some Gnostic traditions posited that the Devil
was separate from God as an independent deity.[10] The Christian dualists of the Byzantine Empire, the Paulicians, were seen as Manichean heretics by Byzantine theologians. This tradition of Christian dualism, founded by Constantine-Silvanus, argued that the universe was created through evil and separate from a moral God.[12]
The Cathars,
a Christian sect in southern France, believed that there was a dualism
between two gods, one representing good and the other representing evil.
The Roman Catholic Church denounced the Cathars as heretics, and sought
to crush the movement in the 13th century. The Albigensian Crusade was initiated by Pope Innocent III in 1208 to remove the Cathars from Languedoc in France, where they were known as Albigesians. The Inquisition, which began in 1233 under Pope Gregory IX, also targeted the Cathars.[13]
Gnosticism
Gnosticism is a diverse, syncretisticreligious movement consisting of various belief systems generally united in the teaching that humans are divine souls trapped in a material world created by an imperfect god, the demiurge, who is frequently identified with the AbrahamicGod.
The demiurge may be depicted as an embodiment of evil, or in other
instances as merely imperfect and as benevolent as its inadequacy
permits. This demiurge exists alongside another remote and unknowable supreme being that embodies good.
Bogomils, Paulicans and Cathars
are typically seen as being imitative of Gnosticism. Whether or not the
Cathari possessed direct historical influence from ancient Gnosticism
is a matter of dispute. The basic conceptions of Gnostic cosmology are,
however, to be found in Cathar beliefs (most distinctly in their notion
of a lesser creator god). Unlike the second century Gnostics, they did
not apparently place any special relevance upon knowledge (gnosis) as an effective salvific force.
In Hinduism
The Dvaita Vedanta school of Indian philosophy espouses a dualism between God and the universe by theorizing the existence of two separate realities. The first and the more important reality is that of Shiva or Shakti or Vishnu or Brahman. Shiva or Shakti or Vishnu is the supreme Self,
God, the absolute truth of the universe, the independent reality. The
second reality is that of dependent but equally real universe that
exists with its own separate essence. Everything that is composed of the
second reality, such as individual soul (Jiva), matter, etc. exist with their own separate reality. The distinguishing factor of this philosophy as opposed to Advaita Vedanta (monistic
conclusion of Vedas) is that God takes on a personal role and is seen
as a real eternal entity that governs and controls the universe.[14][better source needed]
Because the existence of individuals is grounded in the divine, they
are depicted as reflections, images or even shadows of the divine, but
never in any way identical with the divine. Salvation therefore is described as the realization that all finite reality is essentially dependent on the Supreme.[15]
Ontological dualism
The yin and yang symbolizes the duality in nature and all things in the Taoist religion.
Alternatively, dualism can mean the tendency of humans to perceive and understand the world as being divided into two overarching categories.
In this sense, it is dualistic when one perceives a tree as a thing
separate from everything surrounding it. This form of ontological
dualism exists in Taoism and Confucianism, beliefs that divide the
universe into the complementary oppositions of yin and yang.[16] In traditions such as classical Hinduism, Zen Buddhism or IslamicSufism, a key to enlightenment is "transcending" this sort of dualistic thinking, without merely substituting dualism with monism or pluralism.
In Chinese philosophy
The opposition and combination of the universe's two basic principles of yin and yang is a large part of Chinese philosophy, and is an important feature of Taoism,
both as a philosophy and as a religion, although the concept developed
much earlier. Some argue that yin and yang were originally an earth and
sky god, respectively.[17] As one of the oldest principles in Chinese philosophy, yin and yang are also discussed in Confucianism, but to a lesser extent.
Some of the common associations with yang and yin, respectively, are: male and female, light and dark,
active and passive, motion and stillness. Some scholars recognize that
the two ideas may have originally referred to two opposite sides of a
mountain, facing towards and away from the sun.[17] The yin and yang symbol in actuality has very little to do with Western
dualism; instead it represents the philosophy of balance, where two
opposites co-exist in harmony and are able to transmute into each other.
In the yin-yang symbol there is a dot of yin in yang and a dot of yang
in yin. In Taoism, this symbolizes the inter-connectedness of the
opposite forces as different aspects of Tao, the First Principle.
Contrast is needed to create a distinguishable reality, without which we
would experience nothingness. Therefore, the independent principles of
yin and yang are actually dependent on one another for each other's
distinguishable existence.
The complementary dualistic concept seen in yin and yang represent the reciprocal interaction throughout nature, related to a feedback loop, where opposing forces do not exchange in opposition but instead exchange reciprocally to promote stabilization similar to homeostasis.
An underlying principle in Taoism states that within every independent
entity lies a part of its opposite. Within sickness lies health and vice
versa. This is because all opposites are manifestations of the single
Tao, and are therefore not independent from one another, but rather a
variation of the same unifying force throughout all of nature.
In traditional religions
Uralic peoples
In a Nenets myth, Num and Nga collaborate and compete with each other, creating land,[18] there are also other myths about competing-collaborating demiurges.[19]
Comparative studies of Uralic peoples and Kets
Among
others, also dualistic myths were investigated in researches which
tried to compare the mythologies of Siberian peoples and settle the
problem of their origins. Vyacheslav Ivanov and Vladimir Toporov compared the mythology of Ket people with those of Uralic peoples, assuming in the studies, that there are modelling semiotic systems in the compared mythologies; and they have also made typological comparisons.[20][21] Among others, from possibly Uralic mythological analogies, those of Ob-Ugric peoples[22] and Samoyedic peoples[23] are mentioned. Some other discussed analogies (similar folklore motifs,
and purely typological considerations, certain binary pairs in
symbolics) may be related to dualistic organization of society—some of
such dualistic features can be found at these compared peoples.[24] It must be admitted that, for Kets, neither dualistic organization of society[25] nor cosmological dualism[26] has been researched thoroughly: if such features existed at all, they have either weakened or remained largely undiscovered;[25] although there are some reports on division into two exogamous patrilinear moieties,[27] folklore on conflicts of mythological figures, and also on cooperation of two beings in creating the land:[26] the diving of the water fowl.[28]
If we include dualistic cosmologies meant in broad sense, not
restricted to certain concrete motifs, then we find that they are much
more widespread, they exist not only among some Uralic peoples, but
there are examples in each inhabited continent.[29]
Chukchi
A Chukchi
myth and its variations report the creation of the world, and in some
variations, it is done by the collaboration of several beings (birds, collaborating in a coequal way; or the creator and the raven, collaborating in a coequal way; or the creator alone, using the birds only as assistants).[30][31]
Fuegians
All three Fuegian tribes had dualistic myths about culture heros.[32] The Yámana have dualistic myths about the two [joalox]
brothers. They act as culture heroes, and sometimes stand in an
antagonistic relation with each other, introducing opposite laws. Their
figures can be compared to the Kwanyip-brothers of the Selk'nam.[33] In general, the presence of dualistic myths in two compared cultures does not imply relatedness or diffusion necessarily.
Zoroastrianism, or more natively Mazdayasna, is one of the world's oldest religions that remains active. It is a monotheistic faith (i.e. a single creator god), centered in a dualistic cosmology of good and evil and an eschatology predicting the ultimate destruction of evil. Ascribed to the teachings of the Iranian-speaking prophet Zoroaster (also known as Zarathustra), it exalts a deity of wisdom, Ahura Mazda (Wise Lord), as its Supreme Being. Major features of Zoroastrianism, such as messianism, judgment after death, heaven and hell, and free will have influenced other religious systems, including Second Temple Judaism, Gnosticism, Christianity, and Islam.
Following the Iranian Revolution and the arrival of the Islamic
theocracy in Iran, Zoroastrianism is having a strong revival amongst
many Iranians who want to express discontent towards the dictatorial
theocratic regime.
The most important texts of the religion are those of the Avesta, which includes the writings of Zoroaster known as the Gathas, enigmatic poems that define the religion's precepts, and the Yasna,
the scripture. The full name by which Zoroaster addressed the deity is:
Ahura, The Lord Creator, and Mazda, Supremely Wise. The religious
philosophy of Zoroaster divided the early Iranian gods of
Proto-Indo-Iranian tradition, but focused on responsibility,
and did not create a devil per-se. Zoroaster proclaimed that there is
only one God, the singularly creative and sustaining force of the
Universe, and that human beings are given a right of choice. Because of
cause and effect, they are responsible for the consequences of their
choices. The contesting force to Ahura Mazda was called Angra Mainyu,
or angry spirit. Post-Zoroastrian scripture introduced the concept of
Ahriman, the Devil, which was effectively a personification of Angra
Mainyu.[11][12]
Zoroastrianism's creatorAhura Mazda, through the Spenta Mainyu (Good Spirit, "Bounteous Immortals")[13] is an all-good "father" of Asha (Truth, "order, justice"),[14][15] in opposition to Druj ("falsehood, deceit")[16][17] and no evil originates from "him".[18] "He" and his works are evident to humanity through the six primary Amesha Spentas[19] and the host of other Yazatas, through whom worship of Mazda is ultimately directed. Spenta Mainyu adjoined unto "truth",[20] oppose the Spirit's opposite,[21][22]Angra Mainyu and its forces born of Akəm Manah ("evil thinking").[23]
Zoroastrianism has no major theological divisions, though it is
not uniform; modern-era influences having a significant impact on
individual and local beliefs, practices, values and vocabulary,
sometimes merging with tradition and in other cases displacing it.[24]
In Zoroastrianism, the purpose in life is to "be among those who renew
the world...to make the world progress towards perfection". Its basic
maxims include:
Humata, Hukhta, Huvarshta, which mean: Good Thoughts, Good Words, Good Deeds.
There is only one path and that is the path of Truth.
Do the right thing because it is the right thing to do, and then all beneficial rewards will come to you also.
Terminology
The name Zoroaster is a Greek rendering of the name Zarathustra. He is known as Zartosht and Zardosht in Persian and Zaratosht in Gujarati. The Zoroastrian name of the religion is Mazdayasna, which combines Mazda- with the Avestan language word yasna, meaning "worship, devotion". In English, an adherent of the faith is commonly called a Zoroastrian or a Zarathustrian. An older expression still used today is Behdin, meaning "The best Religion | Beh < Middle Persian Weh (good) + Din < Middle Persian dēn < Avestan Daēnā". In Zoroastrian liturgy the term is used as a title for an individual who has been formally inducted into the religion in a Navjote ceremony.
The term Mazdaism (/ˈmæzdə.ɪzəm/) is a typical 19th century construct, taking Mazda- from the name Ahura Mazda and adding the suffix -ism to suggest a belief system. The March 2001 draft edition of the Oxford English Dictionary also records an alternate form, Mazdeism, perhaps derived from the French Mazdéisme, which first appeared in 1871.
Zoroastrian philosophy is identified as having been known to Italian Renaissance Europe through an image of Zoroaster in Raphael's "School of Athens" by Giorgio Vasari in 1550. The first surviving reference to Zoroaster in English scholarship is attributed to Thomas Browne (1605–1682), who briefly refers to the prophet in his 1643 Religio Medici,[25] followed by the Oxford English Dictionary's record of the 1743 (Warburton, Pope's Essay). The Oxford English Dictionary records use of the term Zoroastrianism in 1874 in Archibald Sayce's Principles of Comparative Philology.
Overview
Theology
Zoroastrians believe that there is one universal, transcendent, supreme god, Ahura Mazda, or the "Wise Lord". (Ahura means "Being" and Mazda means "Mind" in a sacred Old Iranian language called Avestan).[26]Zoroaster keeps the two attributes separate as two different concepts in most of the Gathas and also consciously uses a masculine word for one concept and a feminine for the other, as if to distract from an anthropomorphism of his divinity. Zoroaster claimed that Ahura Mazda is almighty, though not omnipotent.
Other scholars assert that since Zoroastrianism's divinity covers both being and mind as immanent
entities, it is better described as a belief in an immanent
self-creating universe with consciousness as its special attribute,
thereby putting Zoroastranism in the pantheistic fold where it can be easily traced to its shared origin with Indian Brahmanism.[27][28] In any case, Ahura Mazda's creation—evident is widely agreed as asha, truth and order—is the antithesis of chaos, which is evident as druj,
falsehood and disorder. The resulting conflict involves the entire
universe, including humanity, which has an active role to play in the
conflict.[29]
In Zoroastrian tradition, the "chaotic" is represented by Angra
Mainyu (also referred to as "Ahriman"), the "Destructive Principle",
while the benevolent is represented through Ahura Mazda's Spenta Mainyu,
the instrument or "Bounteous Principle" of the act of creation. It is
through Spenta Mainyu that transcendental Ahura Mazda is immanent in humankind, and through which the Creator interacts with the world. According to Zoroastrian cosmology, in articulating the Ahuna Vairya
formula, Ahura Mazda made His ultimate triumph evident to Angra Mainyu.
As expressions and aspects of Creation, Ahura Mazda emanated the Amesha Spentas ("Bounteous Immortals"), that are each the hypostasis
and representative of one aspect of that Creation. These Amesha Spenta
are in turn assisted by a league of lesser principles, the Yazatas, each "Worthy of Worship" and each again a hypostasis of a moral or physical aspect of creation.
Zoroastrian theology includes a duty to protect nature. This has
led some to proclaim it as the "world's first ecological religion."
Some have argued that, since the protections are part of a ritual, they
stem from theology rather than ecology. Others have responded that,
since as one of its strongest precepts the scripture calls for the
protection of water, earth, fire and air it is, in effect, an ecological
religion: "It is not surprising that Mazdaism ... is called the first
ecological religion. The reverence for Yazatas (divine spirits)
emphasizes the preservation of nature (Avesta: Yasnas 1.19, 3.4, 16.9;
Yashts 6.3–4, 10.13)." [30] However, this particular assertion is undermined in that Zoroastrians have a duty to exterminate "evil" species.[31]
The religion states that active participation in life through good
deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay. This
active participation is a central element in Zoroaster's concept of free will, and Zoroastrianism rejects all forms of monasticism. Ahura Mazda will ultimately prevail over the evil Angra Mainyu
or Ahriman, at which point the universe will undergo a cosmic
renovation and time will end. In the final renovation, all of
creation—even the souls of the dead that were initially banished to
"darkness"—will be reunited in Ahura Mazda, returning to life in the
undead form. At the end of time, a savior-figure (a Saoshyant) will bring about a final renovation of the world (frashokereti), in which the dead will be revived.[29]
In Zoroastrian tradition, life is a temporary state in which a
mortal is expected to actively participate in the continuing battle
between truth and falsehood. Prior to being born, the urvan (soul) of an individual is still united with its fravashi (guardian spirit), which has existed since Mazda created the universe. During life, the fravashi acts as a guardian and protector. On the fourth day after death, the soul is reunited with its fravashi,
in which the experiences of life in the material world are collected
for the continuing battle in the spiritual world. For the most part,
Zoroastrianism does not have a notion of reincarnation, at least not until the final renovation of the world. Followers of Ilm-e-Kshnoom in India believe in reincarnation and practice vegetarianism, two principles unknown to Orthodox Zoroastrianism,[33] although Zoroaster was himself a vegetarian.[34]
In Zoroastrianism, water (apo, aban) and fire (atar, azar)
are agents of ritual purity, and the associated purification ceremonies
are considered the basis of ritual life. In Zoroastrian cosmogony,
water and fire are respectively the second and last primordial elements
to have been created, and scripture considers fire to have its origin
in the waters. Both water and fire are considered life-sustaining, and
both water and fire are represented within the precinct of a fire temple.
Zoroastrians usually pray in the presence of some form of fire (which
can be considered evident in any source of light), and the culminating rite
of the principle act of worship constitutes a "strengthening of the
waters". Fire is considered a medium through which spiritual insight and
wisdom is gained, and water is considered the source of that wisdom.
A corpse is considered a host for decay, i.e., of druj.
Consequently, scripture enjoins the safe disposal of the dead in a
manner such that a corpse does not pollute the good creation. These
injunctions are the doctrinal basis of the fast-fading traditional
practice of ritual exposure, most commonly identified with the so-called
Towers of Silence
for which there is no standard technical term in either scripture or
tradition. Ritual exposure is only practiced by Zoroastrian communities
of the Indian subcontinent, in locations where it is not illegal and diclofenac poisoning has not led to the virtual extinction of scavenger birds. Other Zoroastrian communities either cremate their dead, or bury them in graves that are cased with lime mortar.
While the Parsees in India have traditionally been opposed to proselytizing, probably for historical reasons, and even considered it a crime for which the culprit may face expulsion,[35] Iranian Zoroastrians have never been opposed to conversion, and the practice has been endorsed by the Council of Mobeds of Tehran.
While the Iranian authorities do not permit proselytizing within Iran,
Iranian Zoroastrians in exile have actively encouraged missionary
activities, with The Zarathushtrian Assembly in Los Angeles and the International Zoroastrian Centre in Paris
as two prominent centres. As in many other faiths, Zoroastrians are
encouraged to marry others of the same faith, but this is not a
requirement.
The roots of Zoroastrianism are thought to have emerged from a common prehistoric Indo-Iranian religious system dating back to the early 2nd millennium BCE.[36]
The prophet Zoroaster himself, though traditionally dated to the 6th
century BCE, is thought by many modern historians to have been a
reformer of the polytheistic Iranian religion who lived in the 10th
century BCE.[37]
Zoroastrianism as a religion was not firmly established until several
centuries later. Zoroastrianism enters recorded history in the mid-5th
century BCE. Herodotus' The Histories (completed c. 440 BCE) includes a description of Greater Iranian society with what may be recognizably Zoroastrian features, including exposure of the dead.
The Histories is a primary source of information on the early period of the Achaemenid era (648–330 BCE), in particular with respect to the role of the Magi. According to Herodotus i.101, the Magi were the sixth tribe of the Medians (until the unification of the Persian empire under Cyrus the Great,
all Iranians were referred to as "Mede" or "Mada" by the peoples of the
Ancient World), who appear to have been the priestly caste of the
Mesopotamian-influenced branch of Zoroastrianism today known as Zurvanism, and who wielded considerable influence at the courts of the Median emperors.
Following the unification of the Median and Persian empires in 550 BCE, Cyrus the Great and, later, his son Cambyses II
curtailed the powers of the Magi after they had attempted to sow
dissent following their loss of influence. In 522 BCE, the Magi revolted
and set up a rival claimant to the throne. The usurper, pretending to
be Cyrus' younger son Smerdis, took power shortly thereafter.[38] Owing to the despotic rule of Cambyses
and his long absence in Egypt, "the whole people, Persians, Medes and
all the other nations" acknowledged the usurper, especially as he
granted a remission of taxes for three years (Herodotus iii. 68).
Darius I and later Achaemenid emperors acknowledged their devotion to Ahura Mazda in inscriptions, as attested to several times in the Behistun
inscription, and appear to have continued the model of coexistence with
other religions. Whether Darius was a follower of Zoroaster has not
been conclusively established, since devotion to Ahura Mazda was (at the
time) not necessarily an indication of an adherence to Zoroaster's
teaching. A number of the Zoroastrian texts that today are part of the
greater compendium of the Avesta
have been attributed to that period. This calendar attributed to the
Achaemenid period is still in use today. Additionally, the divinities,
or yazatas, are present-day Zoroastrian angels (Dhalla, 1938).
According to later Zoroastrian legend (Denkard and the Book of Arda Viraf), many sacred texts were lost when Alexander the Great's troops invaded Persepolis and subsequently destroyed the royal library there. Diodorus Siculus's Bibliotheca historica,
which was completed circa 60 BCE, appears to substantiate this
Zoroastrian legend (Diod. 17.72.2–17.72.6). According to one
archaeological examination, the ruins of the palace of Xerxes
bear traces of having been burned (Stolze, 1882). Whether a vast
collection of (semi-)religious texts "written on parchment in gold ink",
as suggested by the Denkard, actually existed remains a matter of speculation, but is unlikely. Given that many of the Denkards
statements-as-fact have since been refuted by scholars, the tale of the
library is widely accepted to be fictional (Kellens, 2002).
Alexander's conquests largely displaced Zoroastrianism with Hellenistic beliefs,[37]
though the religion continued to be practiced many centuries following
the demise of the Achaemenids in mainland Persia and the core regions of
the former Achaemenid Empire, most notably Anatolia, Mesopotamia, and the Caucasus. In the Cappadocian kingdom,
whose territory was formerly an Achaemenid possession, Persian
colonists, cut off from their co-religionists in Iran proper, continued
to practice the faith [Zoroastrianism] of their forefathers; and there Strabo,
observing in the first century B.C., records (XV.3.15) that these "fire
kindlers" possessed many "holy places of the Persian Gods", as well as
fire temples.[39]
Strabo furthermore relates, were "noteworthy enclosures; and in their
midst there is an altar, on which there is a large quantity of ashes and
where the magi keep the fire ever burning."[39] It was not until the end of the Parthian period (247 b.c.–a.d. 224) that Zoroastrianism would receive renewed interest.[37]
Late antiquity
As late as the Parthian period, a form of Zoroastrianism was without a doubt the dominant religion in the Armenian lands.[40] The Sassanids aggressively promoted the Zurvanite
form of Zoroastrianism, often building fire temples in captured
territories to promote the religion. During the period of their
centuries long suzerainty over the Caucasus,
the Sassanids made attempts to promote Zoroastrianism there with
considerable successes, and it was prominent in the pre-Christian
Caucasus (especially modern-day Azerbaijan).
Due to its ties to the Christian Roman Empire, Persia's arch-rival since Parthian times, the Sassanids were suspicious of Roman Christianity, and, after the reign of Constantine the Great, sometimes persecuted it.[41] The Sassanid authority clashed with their Armenian subjects in the Battle of Avarayr (a.d.
451), making them officially break with the Roman Church. But the
Sassanids tolerated or even sometimes favored the Christianity of the Church of the East. The acceptance of Christianity in Georgia (Caucasian Iberia) saw the Zoroastrian religion there slowly but surely decline,[42] but as late the 5th century a.d.it was still widely practised as something like a second established religion.
Most of the Sassanid Empire was overthrown by the Arabs
over the course of 16 years in the 7th century. Although the
administration of the state was rapidly Islamicized and subsumed under
the Umayyad Caliphate, in the beginning "there was little serious pressure" exerted on newly subjected people to adopt Islam.[45] Because of their sheer numbers, the conquered Zoroastrians had to be treated as dhimmis (despite doubts of the validity of this identification that persisted down the centuries),[46]
which made them eligible for protection. Islamic jurists took the
stance that only Muslims could be perfectly moral, but "unbelievers
might as well be left to their iniquities, so long as these did not vex
their overlords."[46]
In the main, once the conquest was over and "local terms were agreed
on", the Arab governors protected the local populations in exchange for
tribute.[46]
The Arabs adopted the Sassanid tax-system, both the land-tax levied on land owners and the poll-tax levied on individuals,[46] called jizya, a tax levied on non-Muslims (i.e., the dhimmis).
In time, this poll-tax came to be used as a means to humble the
non-Muslims, and a number of laws and restrictions evolved to emphasize
their inferior status. Under the early orthodox caliphs, as long as the non-Muslims paid their taxes and adhered to the dhimmi laws, administrators were enjoined to leave non-Muslims "in their religion and their land." (Caliph Abu Bakr, qtd. in Boyce 1979, p. 146).
Under Abbasid rule, Muslim Iranians (who by then were in the
majority) increasingly found ways to taunt Zoroastrians, and distressing
them became a popular sport. For example, in the 9th century, a deeply
venerated cypress tree in Khorasan
(which Parthian-era legend supposed had been planted by Zoroaster
himself) was felled for the construction of a palace in Baghdad, 2,000
miles (3,200 km) away. In the 10th century, on the day that a Tower of
Silence had been completed at much trouble and expense, a Muslim
official contrived to get up onto it, and to call the adhan (the Muslim call to prayer) from its walls. This was made a pretext to annex the building.[47]
Another popular means to distress Zoroastrians was to maltreat dogs, as
these animals are sacred in Zoroastrianism. Such baiting, which was to
continue down the centuries, was indulged in by all; not only by high
officials, but by the general uneducated population as well.
Ultimately, Muslim scholars like Al-Biruni found little records left of the belief of, for instance, the Khawarizmians, because figures like Qutayba ibn Muslim
“extinguished and ruined in every possible way all those who knew how
to write and read the Khawarizmi writing, who knew the history of the
country and who studied their sciences.” As a result, “these things are
involved in so much obscurity that it is impossible to obtain an
accurate knowledge of the history of the country since the time of
Islam...”[48]
Conversion
Though subject to a new leadership and harassment, the Zoroastrians
were able to continue in their former ways. But there was a slow but
steady social and economic pressure to convert.[49][50]
The nobility and city-dwellers were the first to convert, with Islam
more slowly being accepted among the peasantry and landed gentry.[51]
"Power and worldly-advantage" now lay with followers of Islam, and
although the "official policy was one of aloof contempt, there were
individual Muslims eager to proselytize and ready to use all sorts of means to do so."[50]
Two decrees in particular encouraged the transition to a preponderantly Islamic society.
The first edict, adapted from an Arsacid and Sassanid one (but in those
to the advantage of Zoroastrians), was that only a Muslim could own
Muslim slaves or indentured servants.
Thus, a bonded individual owned by a Zoroastrian could automatically
become a freeman by converting to Islam. The other edict was that if one
male member of a Zoroastrian family converted to Islam, he instantly
inherited all its property.
In time, a tradition evolved by which Islam was made to appear as
a partly Iranian religion. One example of this was a legend that Husayn, son of the fourth caliph Ali and grandson of Islam's prophet Muhammad, had married a captive Sassanid princess named Shahrbanu. This "wholly fictitious figure"[52] was said to have borne Husayn a son, the historical fourth Shi'aimam, who claimed that the caliphate rightly belonged to him and his descendants, and that the Umayyads
had wrongfully wrested it from him. The alleged descent from the
Sassanid house counterbalanced the Arab nationalism of the Umayyads, and
the Iranian national association with a Zoroastrian past was disarmed.
Thus, according to scholar Mary Boyce, "it was no longer the
Zoroastrians alone who stood for patriotism and loyalty to the past."[52] The "damning indictment" that becoming Muslim was Un-Iranian only remained an idiom in Zoroastrian texts.[52]
With Iranian (especially Persian) support, the Abbasids
overthrew the Umayyads in 750, and in the subsequent caliphate
government—that nominally lasted until 1258—Muslim Iranians received
marked favor in the new government, both in Iran and at the capital in Baghdad.
This mitigated the antagonism between Arabs and Iranians, but sharpened
the distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims. The Abbasids zealously
persecuted heretics, and although this was directed mainly at Muslim sectarians, it also created a harsher climate for non-Muslims.[53]
Although the Abbasids were deadly foes of Zoroastrianism, the brand of
Islam they propagated throughout Iran became in turn ever more
"Zoroastrianized", making it easier for Iranians to embrace Islam.
Despite economic and social incentives to convert, Zoroastrianism
remained strong in some regions, particularly in those furthest away
from the Caliphate capital at Baghdad. In Bukhara
(in present-day Uzbekistan), resistance to Islam required the
9th-century Arab commander Qutaiba to convert his province four times.
The first three times the citizens reverted to their old religion.
Finally, the governor made their religion "difficult for them in every
way", turned the local fire temple into a mosque, and encouraged the
local population to attend Friday prayers by paying each attendee two dirhams.[50]
The cities where Arab governors resided were particularly vulnerable to
such pressures, and in these cases the Zoroastrians were left with no
choice but to either conform or migrate to regions that had a more
amicable administration.[50]
The 9th century came to define the great number of Zoroastrian
texts that were composed or re-written during the 8th to 10th centuries
(excluding copying and lesser amendments, which continue for some time
thereafter). All of these works are in the Middle Persian dialect of that period (free of Arabic words), and written in the difficult Pahlavi script
(hence the adoption of the term "Pahlavi" as the name of the variant of
the language, and of the genre, of those Zoroastrian books). If read
aloud, these books would still have been intelligible to the laity.
Many of these texts are responses to the tribulations of the time, and
all of them include exhortations to stand fast in their religious
beliefs. Some, such as the "Denkard", are doctrinal defenses of the religion, while others are explanations of theological aspects (such as the Bundahishn's)
or practical aspects (e.g., explanation of rituals) of it. About sixty
such works are known to have existed, of which some are known only from
references to them in other works.
In Khorasan
in the northeastern Iran, a 10th-century Iranian nobleman brought
together four Zoroastrian priests to transcribe a Sassanid-era Middle
Persian work titled Book of the Lord (Khwaday Namag) from Pahlavi script into Arabic script. This transcription, which remained in Middle Persian prose (an Arabic version, by al-Muqaffa, also exists), was completed in 957 and subsequently became the basis for Firdausi's Book of Kings.
It became enormously popular among both Zoroastrians and Muslims, and
also served to propagate the Sassanid justification for overthrowing the
Arsacids (i.e., that the Sassanids had restored the faith to its
"orthodox" form after the Hellenistic Arsacids had allowed
Zoroastrianism to become corrupt).
Among migrations were those to cities in (or on the margins of) the great salt deserts, in particular to Yazd and Kerman, which remain centers of Iranian Zoroastrianism to this day. Yazd became the seat of the Iranian high priests during Mongol Il-Khanate rule, when the "best hope for survival [for a non-Muslim] was to be inconspicuous."[54] Crucial to the present-day survival of Zoroastrianism was a migration from the northeastern Iranian town of "Sanjan in south-western Khorasan",[55] to Gujarat, in western India. The descendants of that group are today known as the Parsis—"as the Gujaratis, from long tradition, called anyone from Iran"[55]—who today represent the larger of the two groups of Zoroastrians.
The struggle between Zoroastrianism and Islam declined in the
10th and 11th centuries. Local Iranian dynasties, "all vigorously
Muslim,"[55] had emerged as largely independent vassals
of the Caliphs. In the 16th century, in one of the early letters
between Iranian Zoroastrians and their co-religionists in India, the
priests of Yazd lamented that "no period [in human history], not even that of Alexander, had been more grievous or troublesome for the faithful than 'this millennium of the demon of Wrath'."[56]
Zoroastrianism has survived into the modern period, particularly in
India, where it has been present since about the 9th century.
Today Zoroastrianism can be divided in three different sects or
dominions: restorationists, progressives and traditionalists (or
isolationists). Traditionalists or isolationists are almost solely Parsis and accept, beside the Gathas and Avesta, also the Middle Persian works called 'Nasks of the Sassanians'. They generally do not allow conversion
to the faith. Therefore, for someone to be a Zoroastrian, they must be
born of Zoroastrian parents. Some traditionalists recognize the children
of mixed marriages as Zoroastrians.[57]
From the 19th century onward, the Parsis gained a reputation for
their education and widespread influence in all aspects of society.
They played an instrumental role in the economic development of the
region over many decades; several of the best-known business
conglomerates of India are run by Parsi-Zoroastrians, including Tata, Godrej, Wadia families, and others.
Though the Armenians share a rich history affiliated with
Zoroastrianism (that eventually declined with the advent of
Christianity), reports indicate that there were Zoroastrian Armenians in Armenia until the 1920s.[58]
A comparatively minor population persisted in Central Asia, the
Caucasus, and Persia, and an expatriate community has formed in the
United States (some from India), and to a lesser extent in the United
Kingdom, Canada and Australia. Many of these are titled restorationists,
progressives or "reformists". Progressives generally accept the Yashts and the Visperad texts of the Avesta as obligatory, along with the Gathas. Restorationists refer only to the compositions of Zoroaster, and thus only consider the Gathas, the other texts only having value as far as they elaborate on some Gathic point and do not contradict the Gathic teaching.
At the request of the government of Tajikistan, UNESCO
declared 2003 a year to celebrate the "3000th anniversary of
Zoroastrian culture", with special events throughout the world. In 2011
the Tehran Mobeds Anjuman announced that for the first time in the
history of Iran and of the Zoroastrian communities worldwide, women had
been ordained in Iran and North America as mobedyars, meaning women mobeds (Zoroastrian priests).[59][60][61]
The women hold official certificates and can perform the lower-rung
religious functions and can initiate people into the religion.[62]
Relation to other religions and cultures
The Achaemenid Empire in the 5th century BCE consisted of the largest empire in history by percentage of world population.[63]
The religion of Zoroastrianism is closest to Vedic religion. Some
historians believe that Zoroastrianism, along with similar philosophical
revolutions in South Asia were interconnected strings of reformation
against a common Indo-Aryan thread. Many traits of Zoroastrianism can be
traced back to the culture and beliefs of the prehistorical
Indo-Iranian period, that is, to the time before the migrations that led
to the Indo-Aryans and Iranics becoming distinct peoples. Zoroastrianism consequently shares elements with the historical Vedic religion that also has its origins in that era. An example is the relation of the Avestan word Ahura ("Ahura Mazda") and the Vedic Sanskrit word Asura ("demon; evil demigod"), and Daeva ("demon") and Deva ("god"). They are descended from a common Proto-Indo-Iranian religion. Vedic religious texts are replete with people from far flung countries practising or leaving Aryan teachings.[citation needed]
Manichaeism
Zoroastrianism is often compared with Manichaeism. Nominally an Iranian religion, it has its origins in Middle-EasternGnosticism. Superficially such a comparison seems apt, as both are dualistic and Manichaeism adopted many of the Yazatas for its own pantheon. Gherardo Gnoli, in The Encyclopaedia of Religion,[68]
says that "we can assert that Manichaeism has its roots in the Iranian
religious tradition and that its relationship to Mazdaism, or
Zoroastrianism, is more or less like that of Christianity to Judaism".[69]
They are however quite different.[70]
Manichaeism equated evil with matter and good with spirit, and was
therefore particularly suitable as a doctrinal basis for every form of
asceticism and many forms of mysticism. Zoroastrianism, on the other
hand, rejects every form of asceticism, has no dualism of matter and
spirit (only of good and evil), and sees the spiritual world as not very
different from the natural one (the word "paradise", or pairi.daeza, applies equally to both.)
Manichaeism's basic doctrine was that the world and all corporeal
bodies were constructed from the substance of Satan, an idea that is
fundamentally at odds with the Zoroastrian notion of a world that was
created by God and that is all good, and any corruption of it is an
effect of the bad. From what may be inferred from many Manichean texts
and a few Zoroastrian sources[citation needed], the adherents of the two religions (or at least their respective priesthoods) despised each other intensely.
Present-day Iran
Many aspects of Zoroastrianism are present in the culture and mythologies of the peoples of the Greater Iran,
not least because Zoroastrianism was a dominant influence on the people
of the cultural continent for a thousand years. Even after the rise of
Islam and the loss of direct influence, Zoroastrianism remained part of
the cultural heritage of the Iranian language-speaking world, in part as festivals and customs, but also because Ferdowsi incorporated a number of the figures and stories from the Avesta in his epic Shāhnāme, which in turn is pivotal to Iranian identity.
Religious text
Avestan
The Avesta is the religious book of Zoroastrians that contains a
collection of sacred texts. The history of the Avesta is found in many Pahlavi texts. According to tradition, Ahura Mazda created the twenty-one nasks which Zoroaster brought to Vishtaspa.
Here, two copies were created, one which was put in the house of
archives, and the other put in the Imperial treasury. During Alexander's
conquest of Persia, the Avesta was burned, and the scientific sections
that the Greeks could use were dispersed among themselves.
Under the reign of King Valax of the Arsacis Dynasty, an attempt was made to restore the Avesta. During the Sassanid Empire, Ardeshir ordered Tansar, his high priest, to finish the work that King Valax had started. Shapur I sent priests to locate the scientific text portions of the Avesta that were in the possession of the Greeks. Under Shapur II, Arderbad Mahrespandand revised the canon to ensure its orthodox character, while under Khosrow I, the Avesta was translated into Pahlavi.
The compilation of these ancient texts was successfully
established underneath the Mazdean priesthood and the Sassanian
emperors. Only a fraction of the texts survive today. The later
manuscripts all date from this millennium, the latest being from 1288,
590 years after the fall of the Sassanian Empire. The texts that remain
today are the Gathas, Yasna, Visperad and the Vendidad. Along with these texts is the communal household prayer book called the Khordeh Avesta, which contains the Yashts and the Siroza. The rest of the materials from the Avesta are called "Avestan fragments".[71]
Middle Persian/Pahlavi
Middle Persian and Pahlavi works created in the 9th and 10th century
contain many religious Zoroastrian books, as most of the writers and
copyists were part of the Zoroastrian clergy. The most significant and
important books of this era include the Denkard, Bundahishn, Menog-i Khrad, Selections of Zadspram, Jamasp Namag, Epistles of Manucher, Rivayats, Dadestan-i-Denig, and Arda Viraf Namag.
All Middle Persian texts written on Zoroastrianism during this time
period are considered secondary works on the religion, and not scripture. Nonetheless, these texts have a strong influence on the religion.
Zoroaster
Zoroastrianism was founded by Zoroaster (or Zarathustra), later
deemed a prophet, in ancient Iran. The precise date of the founding of
Zoroastrianism is uncertain.
Zoroaster was born in either Northeast Iran or Southwest Afghanistan. He
was born into a culture with a polytheistic religion, which included animal sacrifice[72] and the ritual use of intoxicants, quite similar to early forms of Hinduism in India. Zoroaster's birth and early life are little documented. What is known is recorded in the Gathas—the core of the Avesta, which contains hymns thought to be composed by Zoroaster himself. Born into the Spitama clan, he worked as a priest. He had a wife, three sons, and three daughters.
Zoroaster rejected the religion of the Bronze Age Iranians, with their many gods and oppressive class structure, in which the Karvis and Karapans (princes and priests) controlled the ordinary people. He also opposed animal sacrifices and the use of the hallucinogenicHaoma plant (possibly a species of ephedra) in rituals, but held the rooster as a "symbol of light"[73] and associated it with "good against evil"[74] because of his heraldic actions.
Vision of Zoroaster
According to Zoroastrian belief, when Zoroaster was 30 years old, he went into the Daiti river to draw water for a Haoma ceremony; when he emerged, he received a vision of Vohu Manah. After this, Vohu Manah took him to the other six Amesha Spentas, where he received the completion of his vision.[75]
This vision radically transformed his view of the world, and he tried
to teach this view to others. Zoroaster believed in one creator God,
teaching that only one God was worthy of worship. Some of the deities of
the old religion, the Daevas (Devas in Sanskrit), appeared to delight in war and strife. Zoroaster said these were evil spirits, workers of Angra Mainyu.
Zoroaster's ideas were not taken up quickly; he originally only had one convert: his cousin Maidhyoimanha.[76]
The local religious authorities opposed his ideas, considering that
their faith, power, and particularly their rituals, were threatened by
Zoroaster's teaching against over-ritualising religious ceremonies. Many
did not like Zoroaster's downgrading of the Daevas to evil spirits.
After 12 years of little success, Zoroaster left his home.
In the country of King Vishtaspa in Bactria,
the king and queen heard Zoroaster debating with the religious leaders
of the land and decided to accept Zoroaster's ideas as the official
religion of their kingdom. Zoroaster died in his late 70s. Very little
is known of the time between Zoroaster and the Achaemenian
period, except that Zoroastrianism spread to Western Iran. By the time
of the founding of the Achaemenid Empire, Zoroastrianism was already a
well-established religion.
Principal beliefs
Humata, Hukhta, Huvarshta (Good Thoughts, Good Words, Good Deeds) are the basic tenets of the religion.
Faravahar (or Ferohar), one of the primary symbols of Zoroastrianism, believed to be the depiction of a Fravashi (guardian spirit)
In Zoroastrianism, Ahura Mazda
is the beginning and the end, the creator of everything that can and
cannot be seen, the Eternal, the Pure and the only Truth. In the Gathas,
the most sacred texts of Zoroastrianism thought to have been composed
by Zoroaster himself, the prophet acknowledged devotion to no other
divinity besides Ahura Mazda.
Daena (din in modern Persian) is the eternal Law, whose order was revealed to humanity through the Mathra-Spenta ("Holy Words"). Daena has been used to mean religion, faith, law, and even as a translation for the Hindu and Buddhist term Dharma.
The latter is often interpreted as "duty" but can also mean social
order, right conduct, or virtue. The metaphor of the "path" of Daena is represented in Zoroastrianism by the muslin undershirt Sudra, the "Good/Holy Path", and the 72-thread Kushti girdle, the "Pathfinder".
Daena should not be confused with the fundamental principle asha (Vedic rta), the equitable law of the universe, which governed the life of the ancient Indo-Iranians. For these, asha
was the course of everything observable—the motion of the planets and
astral bodies; the progression of the seasons; and the pattern of daily
nomadic herdsman life, governed by regular metronomic events such as
sunrise and sunset.
All physical creation (geti) was thus determined to run according to a master plan—inherent to Ahura Mazda—and violations of the order (druj) were violations against creation, and thus violations against Ahura Mazda. This concept of asha versus the druj
should not be confused with the good-versus-evil battle evident in
western religions, for although both forms of opposition express moral
conflict, the asha versus druj concept is more systemic
and less personal, representing, for instance, chaos (that opposes
order); or "uncreation", evident as natural decay (that opposes
creation); or more simply "the lie" (that opposes truth and
righteousness). Moreover, in his role as the one uncreated creator of
all, Ahura Mazda is not the creator of druj, which is "nothing",
anti-creation, and thus (likewise) uncreated. Thus, in Zoroaster's
revelation, Ahura Mazda was perceived to be the creator of only the good
(Yasna 31.4), the "supreme benevolent providence" (Yasna 43.11), that
will ultimately triumph (Yasna 48.1).
In this schema of asha versus druj,
mortal beings (both humans and animals) play a critical role, for they
too are created. Here, in their lives, they are active participants in
the conflict, and it is their duty to defend order, which would decay without counteraction. Throughout the Gathas, Zoroaster emphasizes deeds and actions, and accordingly asceticism
is frowned upon in Zoroastrianism. In later Zoroastrianism, this was
explained as fleeing from the experiences of life, which was the very
purpose that the urvan (most commonly translated as the "soul")
was sent into the mortal world to collect. The avoidance of any aspect
of life, which includes the avoidance of the pleasures of life, is a
shirking of the responsibility and duty to oneself, one's urvan, and one's family and social obligations.
Central to Zoroastrianism is the emphasis on moral choice, to
choose the responsibility and duty for which one is in the mortal world,
or to give up this duty and so facilitate the work of druj. Similarly, predestination
is rejected in Zoroastrian teaching. Humans bear responsibility for all
situations they are in, and in the way they act toward one another.
Reward, punishment, happiness, and grief all depend on how individuals
live their lives.[77]
In Zoroastrianism, good transpires for those who do righteous
deeds. Those who do evil have themselves to blame for their ruin.
Zoroastrian morality is then to be summed up in the simple phrase, "good
thoughts, good words, good deeds" (Humata, Hukhta, Hvarshta in Avestan), for it is through these that asha is maintained and druj is kept in check.
Through accumulation, several other beliefs were introduced to
the religion that, in some instances, supersede those expressed in the Gathas. In the late 19th century, the moral and immoral forces came to be represented by Spenta Mainyu and its antithesisAngra Mainyu,
the "good spirit" and "evil spirit" emanations of Ahura Mazda,
respectively. Although the names are old, this opposition is a modern
Western-influenced development popularized by Martin Haug in the 1880s, and was, in effect, a realignment of the precepts of Zurvanism (Zurvanite Zoroastrianism), which had postulated a third deity, Zurvan, to explain a mention of twinship (Yasna
30.3) between the moral and immoral. Although Zurvanism had died out by
the 10th century, the critical question of the "twin brothers"
mentioned in Yasna 30.3 remained, and Haug's explanation provided
a convenient defence against Christian missionaries, who disparaged the
Parsis for their "dualism".
Haug's concept was subsequently disseminated as a Parsi interpretation,
thus corroborating Haug's theory, and the idea became so popular that
it is now almost universally accepted as doctrine.
Zoroastrianism developed the abstract concepts of heaven and
hell, as well as personal and final judgment, all of which are only
alluded to in the Gathas. Yasna 19, which has only survived in a Sassanid era ([–650 CE] Zend commentary on the Ahuna Vairya invocation), prescribes a Path to Judgment known as the Chinvat Peretum or Chinvat bridge (cf:As-Sirāt
in Islam), which all souls had to cross, and judgment (over thoughts,
words, and deeds performed during a lifetime) was passed as they were
doing so. However, the Zoroastrian personal judgment is not final. At
the end of time, when evil is finally defeated, all souls will be
ultimately reunited with their Fravashi. Thus, Zoroastrianism can be said to be a universalist religion with respect to salvation.
In addition, and strongly influenced by Babylonian and Akkadian practices, the Achaemenids popularized shrines
and temples, hitherto alien forms of worship. In the wake of Achaemenid
expansion, shrines were constructed throughout the empire and
particularly influenced the role of Mithra, Aredvi Sura Anahita, Verethregna and Tishtrya, all of which, in addition to their original (proto-)Indo-Iranian functions, now also received Perso-Babylonian functions.
Creation of the universe
According to the Zoroastrian creation myth, Ahura Mazda existed in light and goodness above, while Angra Mainyu
existed in darkness and ignorance below. They have existed
independently of each other for all time, and manifest contrary
substances. Ahura Mazda first created seven abstract heavenly beings
called Amesha Spentas, who support him and represent beneficent aspects, along with numerous yazads,
lesser beings worthy of worship. He then created the universe itself in
order to ensnare evil. Ahura Mazda created the floating, egg-shaped
universe in two parts: first the spiritual (menog) and 3,000 years later, the physical (getig). Ahura Mazda then created Gayomard, the archetypical perfect man, and the first bull.[77]
While Ahura Mazda created the universe and humankind, Angra Mainyu, whose instinct is to destroy, miscreated demons, evil yazads, and noxious creatures (khrafstar)
such as snakes, ants, and flies. Angra Mainyu created an opposite, evil
being for each good being, except for humans, which he found he could
not match. Angra Mainyu invaded the universe through the base of the
sky, inflicting Gayomard
and the bull with suffering and death. However, the evil forces were
trapped in the universe and could not retreat. The dying primordial man
and bull emitted seeds. From the bull's seed grew all beneficial plants
and animals of the world, and from the man's seed grew a plant whose
leaves became the first human couple. Humans thus struggle in a two-fold
universe trapped with evil. The evils of this physical world are not
products of an inherent weakness, but are the fault of Angra Mainyu's
assault on creation. This assault turned the perfectly flat, peaceful,
and ever day-lit world into a mountainous, violent place that is half
night.[77]
Renovation and judgment
Zoroastrianism also includes beliefs about the renovation of the world and individual judgment (cf. general and particular judgment), including the resurrection of the dead.
Individual judgment at death is by the Bridge of Judgment,
which each human must cross, facing a spiritual judgment. Humans'
actions under their free will determine the outcome. One is either
greeted at the bridge by a beautiful, sweet-smelling maiden or by an
ugly, foul-smelling old woman. The maiden leads the dead safely across
the bridge to the Amesha Spenta
Good Mind, who carries the dead to paradise. The old woman leads the
dead down a bridge that narrows until the departed falls off into the
abyss of hell.[77]
Zoroastrian hell is reformative; punishments fit the crimes, and
souls do not rest in eternal damnation. Hell contains foul smells and
evil food, and souls are packed tightly together although they believe
they are in total isolation.[77]
In Zoroastrian eschatology,
a 3,000-year struggle between good and evil will be fought, punctuated
by evil's final assault. During the final assault, the sun and moon will
darken and humankind will lose its reverence for religion, family, and
elders. The world will fall into winter, and Angra Mainyu's most
fearsome miscreant, Azi Dahaka, will break free and terrorize the world.[77]
The final savior of the world, Saoshyant,
will be born to a virgin impregnated by the seed of Zoroaster while
bathing in a lake. Saoshyant will raise the dead – including those in
both heaven and hell – for final judgment, returning the wicked to hell
to be purged of bodily sin. Next, all will wade through a river of
molten metal in which the righteous will not burn. Heavenly forces will
ultimately triumph over evil, rendering it forever impotent. Saoshyant
and Ahura Mazda will offer a bull as a final sacrifice for all time, and
all humans will become immortal. Mountains will again flatten and
valleys will rise; heaven will descend to the moon, and the earth will
rise to meet them both.[77]
Humanity requires two judgments because there are as many aspects to our being: spiritual (menog) and physical (getig).[77]
Head covering
The Zarathushtri also practice traditional head covering ritual
similar to that of Judaism. It is vital to the practice, and according
to Hoshang Bhadha,[year needed][unreliable source?]
A Zarathustri is enjoined to cover
his head at all times. It is one of the basic disciplines for a
Zarathustri. If you have ever looked at the pictures of Zarathustris
from the past, you will recognize them simply because they were wearing
cap or turban covering their head. If you read the description of
Parsees from the past... it is emphatically described that whether a
child, female or male they all had their head(s) covered. It is
unfortunate that our own community people laugh on us for wearing cap,
which is the foundation of all our religion practices. Needless to say,
today a Zarathustri wearing cap will get strange glances; he/she will
evoke giggles and some people even consider them as one belonging to the
Stone Age. However, such reactions are seldom seen when a Zarathustri
will observe a Muslim or Jew demonstrating their practice of covering
head during and out of their prayer area. It is a common sight to see a
Zarathustri coming out from the Agiary with one hand over his head, not
as a respect but to prepare himself/ herself to remove the cap/scarf
before he/she reaches the main gate. Some people feel embarrassed to
wear in public whereas some remove it to protect their hairstyle. My
dear Zarathustris, wearing cap is not imposed upon us but it is a remedy
to protect oneself from destructive thought process[es]...[78]
Zoroastrian communities comprise two main groups of people: those of South Asian Zoroastrian background known as Parsis
(or Parsees), and those of Central Asian background. According to a
survey in 2004 by the Zoroastrian Associations of North America, the
number of Zoroastrians worldwide was estimated at between 124,000 and
190,000. The number is imprecise because of wildly diverging counts in
Iran.[24] India's 2011 Census found 57,264 Parsi Zoroastrians.[79]
Small Zoroastrian communities may be found all over the world,
with a continuing concentration in Western India, Central Iran, and
Southern Pakistan. Zoroastrians of the diaspora are primarily located in Great Britain and the former British colonies, particularly Canada and Australia, as well as in the American state of California where they form part of the Iranian American community.
In South Asia
ParsiNavjote ceremony (rites of admission into the Zoroastrian faith)
India is considered to be home to the largest Zoroastrian population
in the world. When the Islamic armies, under the first Caliphs, invaded
Persia, those locals who were unwilling to convert to Islam sought
refuge, first in the mountains of Northern Iran, then the regions of
Yazd and its surrounding villages. Later, in the ninth century CE, a
group sought refuge in the western coastal region of India, and also
scattered to other regions of the world.
Following the fall of the Sassanid Empire in 651 CE, many Zoroastrians migrated. Among them were several groups who ventured to Gujarat on the western shores of the Indian subcontinent,
where they finally settled. The descendants of those refugees are today
known as the Parsis. The year of arrival on the subcontinent cannot be
precisely established, and Parsi legend and tradition assigns various
dates to the event.
In the Indian census of 2001, the Parsis numbered 69,601,
representing about 0.006% of the total population of India, with a
concentration in and around the city of Mumbai. Due to a low birth rate and high rate of emigration,
demographic trends project that by 2020 the Parsis will number only
about 23,000 or 0.002% of the total population of India. The Parsis
would then cease to be called a community and will be labeled a "tribe".
By 2008, the birth-to-death ratio was 1:5; 200 births per year to 1,000
deaths.[80]
In Pakistan, they number fewer than 1,700, mostly living in Karachi.[81]
Iran, Iraq and Central Asia
Iran's figures of Zoroastrians have ranged widely; the last census (1974) before the revolution of 1979 revealed 21,400 Zoroastrians.[82]
Some 10,000 adherents remain in the Central Asian regions that were once considered the traditional stronghold of Zoroastrianism, i.e., Bactria (see also Balkh), which is in Northern Afghanistan; Sogdiana; Margiana; and other areas close to Zoroaster's homeland.
In Iran, emigration, out-marriage and low birth rates are likewise
leading to a decline in the Zoroastrian population. Zoroastrian groups
in Iran say their number is approximately 60,000.[83] According to the Iranian census data from 2011 the number of Zoroastrians in Iran was 25,271.[84]
Communities exist in Tehran, as well as in Yazd, Kerman and Kermanshah, where many still speak an Iranian language distinct from the usual Persian. They call their language Dari (not to be confused with the Dari of Afghanistan). Their language is also called Gavri or Behdini, literally "of the Good Religion". Sometimes their language is named for the cities in which it is spoken, such as Yazdi or Kermani. Iranian Zoroastrians were historically called Gabrs, originally without a pejorative connotation but in the present-day derogatorily applied to all non-Muslims.
More recently the Zoroastrian faith has gained strength among the Kurds in Iraq and claims to have 100,000 followers.[85] Zoroastrians currently seek official status for their religion in Iraqi Kurdistan.[86]
Western world
North America is thought to be home to 18,000–25,000 Zoroastrians of both South Asian and Iranian background. A further 3,500 live in Australia (mainly in Sydney).
In recent years, the United States has become a significant destination
of Zoroastrian populations, holding the second largest population of
Zoroastrians after India.
_p012_BAKU,_FIRE_TEMPLE.jpg)
.jpg)
