Fontes do Zoroastrismo

The surviving Avesta, which is only that fragment of the whole which is indispensable for the performance of the liturgy, falls into three distinct parts; and the disparity of these parts enables us to form some idea of the vicissitudes through which Zoroastrianism went before it became crystallized into a dogmatic religion during the reign of Shāpūr II. First we have the Gāthās, ‘songs’ or ‘odes’ which are generally and rightly ascribed to Zoroaster himself, secondly the Yashts or ‘sacrificial hymns’ addressed to various deities, and thirdly the Vendidad or Vidēvdāt, ‘the law against the demons,’ which is a treatise dealing mainly with ritual impurity and in which the dualism initiated by Zoroaster is carried to absurd lengths in the sphere of practical life.

The Gāthās give us the doctrines proclaimed by Zoroaster himself, but unfortunately linguistic science has only partially succeeded in eliciting the meaning from these obscure texts. The extent to which translators can differ is best illustrated by comparing the translation of Dastur Bode in this series with that of Professor Duchesne-Guillemin in the sister ‘Wisdom of the East’ series. Yet despite the many obscurities of the Gāthās it is nevertheless true to say that the Pahlavī tradition, excerpts from which we offer in this book, is the natural continuation of the Gāthic doctrine: it is recognizably the re-affirmation of Zoroaster’s own teaching as against the religion of the Yashts which represents a relapse into paganism.

In the Yashts we find a polytheism which is very similar to that of the great hymn-cycle of the earliest Indo-Aryans, the Rig-Veda,—a polytheism against which Zoroaster rebelled. Both in the Yashts and in the Rig-Veda we have a plurality of gods and demi-gods, and many of them have the same names. Thus in the Rig-Veda we meet with Mitra, Aryaman, Vāyu, Vāta, and Yama, and in the Yashts we have Mithra, Airyaman, Vayu, Vāta, and Yima. These gods and demi-gods succeeded in re-establishing themselves after the Zoroastrian reform, and in the Yashts they are very definitely ‘high Gods,’—at least in the cases of Mithra and Vayu,—and not, as they subsequently became in the later Zoroastrian orthodoxy, what we would call ‘angels.’ Similarly we find entities which are important gods in the Rig-Veda, but which appear as demons in the Avesta: the principal among these are Indra, Sarva (Saurva), and Nāsatya (Nānghaithya). This was the direct result of the Zoroastrian reform, for all these gods are called deva in the Veda, and this name (daēva) they retain in the Avesta; but in the mouth of Zoroaster and his successors this term means not ‘god’ but ‘demon.’

Thus the Zoroastrian reform demonized that class of deity which was called daēva and eliminated the other class of deity called ahura by the Iranians and asura by the Indians with the single exception of Ahura Mazdāh (later called Ohrmazd) who was elevated to the status of the one true God from whom all other divinities proceeded. Over against this God stood Angra Mainyu (Ahriman), the Destructive Spirit; and life on earth is represented as a battle between Ahura Mazdāh and his attendant Powers on the one hand and Angra Mainyu and his demonic hordes on the other. For Zoroaster it was a very real battle since the worshippers of the daēvas were still the representatives of the traditional religion, and these he roundly identified with all that is evil. Among their practices seems to have been an animal sacrifice in which a bull was the victim; and this sacrifice Zoroaster vigorously attacks. In the Yashts, however, we again find repeated references to animal sacrifice on the grand scale. It is, then, clear that the state of religion existing in the Yashts represents a re-paganization of the Zoroastrian reform.

In the Pahlavī books, however, with which we are alone concerned in this volume, we find a return to the spirit of the Gāthās. The old Ahura Mazdāh, whose name has by now developed into Ohrmazd, is now the principle of good and Ahriman (Angra Mainyu) is the principle of evil. Neither the entities with which Zoroaster surrounded his supreme deity (the Amesha Spentas or Amahraspands) nor the old gods later reintroduced into the system, are more than created spirits, subservient absolutely to the One Creator God. Similarly, in his own realm Ahriman is supreme and the other demons are his creations. Zoroaster’s dualism has been systematized into a compact theology, and it is with this system that this little book is concerned. Apart from the Zervanite issue the only matter of controversy that still existed within the Zoroastrian ‘Church’ appears to have been that of animal sacrifice: this we shall have occasion to mention in our eighth chapter.