1 Preliminaries

To the contemporary observer, Zoroastrianism offers the perplexing picture of a religion whose followers worship one god, Ahura Mazdā, or, in the Middle Persian form of his name, Ohrmazd, and alongside him a host of other sacred beings, or yazatas. Footnote ¹ The latter include not only individual deities, such as Anāhitā (a water and fertility deity), Mithra (the personification of ‘contract’), Ārmaiti (‘right-mindedness’), A i (‘reward’), Sraoša (‘attentiveness’) and Rašnu (‘justice’), but also natural phenomena, such as the earth, water, wind, sun, moon and stars. Moreover, the sacred texts, ritual plants (such as haoma) and ritual implements (such as pestle and mortar) are also worshipped. In addition, the good, divine creation of Ahura Mazdā has an enemy, Angra Mainyu in Avestan and Ahreman in Middle Persian, the embodiment of Evil, whose sole desire is to bring disorder and destruction to Ahura Mazdā's perfect world. The religion thus seems to involve monotheistic, polytheistic and dualistic features simultaneously.

In the ongoing scholarly debate on the classification of Zoroastrianism according to the terms just mentioned views differ according to which of these features is given most prominence, and usually the labels attached to Zoroastrianism combine two features out of a possible three (or four).Footnote ² For instance, Boyd and Crosby's answer to the question posed in the title of their article “Is Zoroastrianism Dualistic or Monotheistic?, is that the religion starts from a cosmogonic dualism, but over time moves towards an eschatological monotheism.Footnote ³ Schwartz, with regard to the oldest texts of the Zoroastrian tradition, the Gathas, defines the religion as a “monotheistic dualism”Footnote ⁴ and Gnoli, who considers dualism to be incompatible with polytheism, as a “dualistic monotheism”Footnote ⁵ while Panaino considers Mazdāism to be synonymous with monotheism because of Ahura Mazdā's sovereign role in the religious system.Footnote ⁶ By contrast, Skjærvø admits both dualism and polytheism but excludes monotheism.Footnote ⁷ As far as the Gathas are concerned, Kellens accepts cosmic dualism for the opposition between a a- ‘order’ and druj- ‘deceit’, but not for that between the two mainyus or ‘spirits’ which in his view denote right and wrong human mental forces.Footnote ⁸ Regarding the terms polytheism and monotheism, Kellens, while emphasizing the pre-eminent role of Ahura Mazdā, comments that the two alternatives are “just as absurd as that of the half-full or half-empty bottle”, and rightly notes the inadequacy of any of these terms on its own.Footnote ⁹

One of the difficulties arises from the fact that the notions of monotheism, polytheism and dualism are defined not on the basis of Zoroastrianism but on that of other religions, in particular the Judeo–Christian tradition. Denoting the worship of ‘false’ gods in contrast to that of the one God of the Jews and Christians, the term ‘polytheism’ has had negative connotations from its earliest attestations onwards. The Greek word πολυϑεΐα, from which the term derives, first occurs in the works of Philo of Alexandria (ca. 15 BCE–ca. 50 CE) who uses it polemically in the sense of the ‘idolatry’ practised by non-Jewish people, and Jean Bodin borrowed it in his Démonomanie des sorciers, published in 1580. The expression ‘monotheism’ was subsequently coined as its antonym to denote belief in one single god, and is first attested in 1660 in the writings of the English philosopher Henry More in relation to his own religion, Christianity.Footnote ¹⁰

Having been defined from the scholarly perspective of the Judeo-Christian tradition since the period of the Enlightenment, the two terms came to constitute a dichotomy of mutually exclusive opposites. Consequently “monotheism” was claimed as the label of the Judeo-Christian tradition and endowed with greater prestige than the “polytheism” attributed to some non-Judeo-Christian religions and perceived as both challenging to and in opposition to monotheism.Footnote ¹¹ In other words, the emic self-perception of the Judeo-Christian tradition has provided value-laden parameters for the etic scholarly discourse on monotheism and polytheism.Footnote ¹² In recent decades the suitability of such a monotheism – polytheism dichotomy has been rightly questioned on the grounds that it entails categories which are unsuitable for describing religions which the dichotomy classifies as “polytheistic”.Footnote ¹³ In this period the term “polytheism” has gradually come to be freed from some of its pejorative connotations,Footnote ¹⁴ to the extent that a new definition of “polytheism” has been proposed, namely “polysymbolic religiosity”.Footnote ¹⁵ The notion of monotheism, however, continues to be widely circumscribed by the perception of the god of the Jews, Christians and Muslims, one of whose distinctive features is omnipotence. As Alan Williams rightly notes,

and postulates that it is necessary to understand Zoroastrianism, as any other religion, on its own terms and in its own context.Footnote ¹⁶ The problem of classification is compounded by that of translation, since many standard renderings of Zoroastrian technical terms in modern European languages conjure up images derived from the Judeo-Christian tradition.Footnote ¹⁷

An adequate characterization of Zoroastrianism is obviously not possible by imposing terms the contents of which have been defined on the basis of other religions. Rather than asking whether Zoroastrianism is monotheistic or polytheistic – a question the legitimacy of which has rightly been doubted – in what follows I hope to throw light on and suggest an explanation for the mixture of seemingly monotheistic, polytheistic and dualistic features mentioned above, which Zoroastrianism presents to the observer. I shall do so by examining one particular aspect of the Zoroastrian creation myth, namely the well-known concept of Ahura Mazdā as the maker both of the good spiritual creations and of the material world, and I shall argue that Zoroastrianism has its own particular form of monotheism – which is the Zoroastrian way.

2 The omniscience of Ahura Mazdā

There is general agreement among scholars that that there is one supreme god in Zoroastrianism, Ahura Mazdā. From the oldest sources, the Gathas and Yasna Haptanghaiti, to present day religious practice, all worship, both ritual and devotional, is focused on him, albeit on occasion indirectly, as we shall see. The hymn dedicated to Ahura Mazdā, Yašt 1, offers lists of his names which conceptualize different aspects of his personality. These names describe him as the truthful creator and organizer of the world, beneficent, healing and protecting, providing prosperity and fertility. He has authority, rules at will, is glorious, powerful and unassailable, but above all, is intelligent, wise, all-seeing, all-knowing and generous. In his edition of this text, Antonio Panaino has shown that the qualities attributed to Ahura Mazdā cover the semantic fields of creation and order, protection and benevolence, happiness, wisdom and insight, majesty, glory and splendour. Panaino rightly emphasizes omniscience as his most prominent feature.Footnote ¹⁸

The notion of omniscience is also lexicalized in the name of the god, Ahura Mazdā, or Wise Lord. The first of this two-part name, ahura-, is an ordinary substantive meaning ‘lord’. The noun functions as an honorific title and is used of both divine and human beings, just like English ‘lord’ or German ‘Herr’.Footnote ¹⁹ The second part, the noun mazdā-, seems to be equivalent to medh - ‘wisdom’ in the closely related Vedic language of Ancient India. Such correspondence, however, is only apparent, because in the syllable-counting metre of the Gathas, the Avestan acc.sg. mazdąm, which occurs four times there, represents trisyllabic mazd m. By contrast, the Rigvedic acc.sg. medh m is disyllabic. While incorporating the same lexical constituents, namely the IE noun *m s- (the double zero grade of the s-stem *menos- ‘thought’) and the verb*dʰeh₁ ‘to set’, such a metrical distinction indicates that the Av. and Ved. nouns are morphologically different. The Av. divine name mazdā- is a masculine agent noun, a root noun which literally means ‘the one who sets his thought’. By contrast, in Ved. medh - the same root noun has been extended with the suffix -ā- to form a feminine abstract substantive which as a nomen actionis denotes the action of ‘setting one's thought’, and as a nomen rei actae what is produced by such an action, that is ‘wisdom’. Incidentally, the feminine abstract noun also occurs once in the Avesta, in the form of the acc.sg. mazdąm. At first sight it is indistinguishable from the deity's name. However, in the context of the Yasna Haptanghaiti (Y 40.1), in which it occurs, the noun cannot be part of the deity's name, but only the abstract noun ‘wisdom’.Footnote ²⁰

The meaning of the name of the Zoroastrian god, Ahura Mazdā, may therefore be posited as ‘Wise Lord’. The name incorporates the idea of him as an agent who actively ‘sets his thought’, manah-, on something and notices everything. Such a meaning fully agrees with the description of the deity's personality in the texts. In the Avesta, for example, one of his epithets is ‘all knowing’ (vīspō.vīδuu Yt 12.1),Footnote ²¹ and the Pahlavi sources give ‘omniscience and goodness’ as Ohrmazd's chief characteristics:

1. (1) IrBd TD2 2.12–13 Ohrmazd bālistīg pad harwisp-āgāhīh ud wehīh

   Ohrmazd (was) on high in omniscience and goodness.Footnote ²²

While Ahura Mazdā's personality is primarily circumscribed by the notions of omniscience and goodness, omnipotence, which may be considered to be one of, or even the most salient feature of the Abrahamic god, is not prominent, although it does occur on occasion. Epithets such as ‘ruling at will’, vas .xšaiiąs Y 43.1, indicate that Ahura Mazdā is seen as being in control. Such an attribute, however, may be associated with him not because he is seen as encompassing everything, including evil, as is the case with the Abrahamic god, but for two other reasons. One is his intelligence which surpasses all and by virtue of which he is able to understand everything, including evil. He de facto rules over evil by virtue not of his power but of his intelligence. The second reason is that in the theological system of the Avesta Ahura Mazdā is alone and above all, without either equal or negative counterpart. It is against this background that one needs to see occasional references to the ‘omnipotence (wisp tawānīh) of the creator Ohrmazd’ in the Middle Persian texts, where Ohrmazd does have a direct opponent, Ahreman.Footnote ²³

3 The origin of the spiritual creation

In addition to omniscience and goodness, creativity is the third most salient characteristic of Ahura Mazdā. His creative, life-giving force has the name spəṇta- mainiiu-, and it is this energy which has a symmetrical opposite, aŋra- mainiiu-, or ‘destructive force’, the Ahreman of the just mentioned Middle Persian texts. The Gathas present the two forces as mutually exclusive opponents that have nothing in common (Y 45.2) and produce ‘life’ and its negation, ‘un-life’, i.e. bad life or death (gaēmcā ajiiāitīmcā Y 30.4) respectively.

In the Gathas Ahura Mazdā is said to be the ‘father’ (ptā) of Truth (a a- Y 44.3, 47.2), of Good Thought (vohu- manah- Y 31.8, 45.4), of the Life-giving Force (spəṇta- mainiiu- Y 47.3),Footnote ²⁴ and of Right-mindedness (ārmaiti- Y 45.4), which is described as his ‘daughter’ (dugədā). Ahura Mazdā thus generates them out of himself as his children.Footnote ²⁵ In the Gathas their relationship is described in biological terms not only by means of kinship nomenclature, but also by the expression ‘birth, begetting, procreation’, Avestan ząϑa-, a noun derived from the root zan ‘to give birth, beget’:

1. (2) Y 44.3 kasnā ząϑā ⁺ ptā a ahiiā paouruiiō

   Who is the primordial father of Truth by begetting?

The answer is, of course, Ahura Mazdā. In Y 43.5, the speaker (‘I’) mentions his vision of Ahura Mazdā in the begetting of existence:

1. (3) Y 43.5 spəṇtəm a ϑβā mazdā m ṇghī ahurā

   hiia ϑβā aŋh uš ząϑōi darəsəm paouruuīm

   Life-giving indeed I think that you are, O Wise Lord,

   when I see you as the primeval one in the begetting of life.Footnote ²⁶

Kinship terminology with regard to his spiritual offspring is also found in the Younger Avesta, where Ahura Mazdā is said to be the ‘father and master’ of the Amesha Spentas:

1. (4) Yt 19.16 ( = Yt 13.83)

   yaēšąm asti haməm manō

   haməm vacō haməm iiaoϑnəm

   hamō pataca frasāstaca

   yō daδuu ahurō mazd

   (The Life-giving Immortals) who have the same thought,

   the same word, the same action,

   the same father and master,

   the creator Ahura Mazdā.

A ‘second generation’ of spiritual creations appears when in the Younger Avesta Ahura Mazdā is presented as the ‘father’ (pitar-) and ārmaiti- Footnote ²⁷ (whom the Gathas describe as his ‘daughter’) as the ‘mother’ (mātar-) of Reward (a ;i-, Yt 17.16). Reward has Attentiveness (sraoša-), Justice (rašnu-) and Contract (miϑra-) as ‘brothers’ (brātar-) and she is the ‘sister’ (x^vaŋhar-) of the Mazdā-worshipping Belief (daēnā- māzdaiiasni- Yt 17.16) and of the Amesha Spentas (Yt 17.2).

A variation of the metaphor that the spiritual creations are the offspring of Ahura Mazdā is the description of the Amesha Spentas as the ‘beautiful forms’ or ‘bodies’ (kəhrpasca . . . srīr ) which Ahura Mazdā adopts:

1. (5) Yt 13.81 ye he uruua mąϑrō spəṇtō

   aurušō raoxšnō frādərəsrō

   kəhrpasca y raēϑβaiieiti

   srīr amə anąm spəṇtanąm

   vərəzd amə anąm spəṇtanąm

   (Ahura Mazdā), whose soul (is) the Life-giving Formula,

   white, shining, seen afar;

   and the forms which he adoptsFootnote ²⁸

   (are) the beautiful (forms) of the Life-giving Immortals,

   the matureFootnote ²⁹ (forms) of the Life-giving Immortals.

Ahura Mazdā is here seen as comprising like a human being, a spiritual part consisting of a soul (uruuan-), which in his case is the Life-giving Formula, and a material part, a visible form (kəhrp-), the Life-giving Immortals.Footnote ³⁰ The noun kəhrp- denotes Ahura Mazdā's visible form in the Yasna Haptanghaiti, where ‘this light here’, which includes the ritual fire inhabited by Ahura Mazdā's heavenly fire, is declared to be the god's most beautiful ‘body’, or ‘form’:

1. (6) Y 36.6 sraēštąm a tōi kəhrp m kəhrpąm

   āuuaēdaiiamahī mazdā ahurā

   imā raoc

   barəzištəm ⁺barəzəmanąm auua

   yā huuar auuācī

   We now declare, O Wise Lord,

   that this light here

   has been the most beautiful form of your forms,

   ever since yonder highest of heights

   was called the sun.

Moreover, that all his forms are worshipped is summarized in

1. (7) Y 71.4 vīspəmca kərəfš ahurahe mazd yazamaide

   And we worship each form of the Wise Lord.

Against this Avestan background one may interpret the following passage from the Middle Persian Bundahišn:

1. (8) IrBd TD2 11.2–3 Ohrmazd az ān ī xwēš xwadīh ⁺kē gētīy rōšnīh kirb ī dāmān ī xwēš frāz brēhēnīd.

   From his own essence, which is material light, Ohrmazd brought forth the form of his own creatures.Footnote ³¹

When seen in the light of the Avestan idea that Ahura Mazdā takes on a ‘body’ (kəhrp-) in the form of the Amesha Spentas, the Pahlavi kirb ī dāmān ī xwēš ‘the form of his own creatures’ in the above passage refers to Ohrmazd's spiritual creation,Footnote ³² which elsewhere in the Middle Persian creation myth is described as one occurring in the ‘spiritual’, mēnōyīhā state:

1. (9) IrBd TD2 4.4–5 u-š mēnōyīhā ān dām ī pad ān abzār andar abāyēd frāz brēhēnīd

   And in a spiritual state he brought forth that creation which is necessary as an instrument.Footnote ³³

Thus, in both the Avestan and Middle Persian creation myths all good spiritual or mainiiauua- beings descend directly from Ahura Mazdā. The notion that they are made of the same substance as the god is expressed in the Avesta by the noun ‘birth, begetting’ (ząϑa-) and by kinship terms (‘father’, ‘daughter’) and in the Middle Persian texts by Ohrmazd's ‘own essence’ (xwēš xwadīh) from which the spiritual creatures are made.

The idea that Ahura Mazdā produced the spiritual world out of himself is found in the later tradition as well as in the Avesta and Pahlavi literature. One instance occurs in the manuscripts Pt4 and Mf4, which contain the Avestan text of the Yasna with its Pahlavi translation and commentary. Both manuscripts were presumably written around 1780 and descend from one which was copied by the scribe Hōšang ī Syāwaxš ī Šahryār ī Baxtāfrīd ī Šahryār in Isfahan in 1495 ce (864 Anno Yazdegerd). The introduction on the first folios not only includes two colophons, one of which is by Hōšang, but also a summary of Zoroastrian doctrine:

1. (10) Pt4 fol.2v20–3r6; Mf4 fol.2r1–9Footnote ³⁴

   ud čiyōn ohrmazd ī xwadāy ī mēnōyān mahist ud abzōnīgtom

   pad bun dahišn ud pad dād ud rawāg būdan ī dām ī xwēš

   ud abāz dāštan ī ēbgat ud petyārag az dām ī xwēš

   ud abaydāg kardan ahreman ud dēwān ud har druzīh ud wattarīh

   ud kardan ī rist-āxēz ud tan ī pasēn rāy

   amahraspand ud hamāg yazad ud dēn ī weh ī mazdēsnān

   az tan ī xwēš tāšīd ud āfrīd ud pad abēzagīh frāz brēhēnīd

   And inasmuch as Ohrmazd, the lord, the greatest and most bountiful of the spiritual beings

   — in the primal creation and in his own creation becoming created and current,

   and in order to keep the enemy and adversary away from his own creation,

   and to annihilate Ahreman and the demons and every deceitfulness and wickedness,

   and to bring about the resurrection of the dead and the future body —

   from his own body shaped, created and in purity brought forth

   the Amahraspands and all sacred beings and the good religion of the Mazdā-worshippers.Footnote ³⁵

4 Ahreman and his evil creation

In the Gathas and Old Persian inscriptions the cultic competitors of Ahura Mazdā are the daēuuas, the Iranian equivalent of the Vedic ‘gods’ (devá-), rather than Angra Mainyu.Footnote ³⁶ From a systematic point of view, the latter is the opponent not of Ahura Mazdā, but of Spenta Mainyu. Since the Daivas and their cult are both vehemently rejected and associated with the lie, the Mazdayasnian religion exhibits features belonging to what Jan Assmann has described as ‛the Mosaic distinction’.Footnote ³⁷ The development in the Younger Avesta and subsequent tradition is that the daēuuas are ‘downgraded’ and become Angra Mainyu's evil products and handiwork, the dēws of the Pahlavi texts,Footnote ³⁸ while Spenta Mainyu is ‘upgraded’ to the extent that he merges with Ahura Mazdā.Footnote ³⁹ This progression eventually results in the direct opposition of Ahura Mazdā and Angra Mainyu in the Younger Avesta and Ohrmazd and Ahreman in the Pahlavi texts. Such antagonism has at times been misinterpreted by outside observers to mean that the two are on equal footing, and even that Zoroastrianism entails two gods, one good and the other evil. However, such a concept, which would need to be described as ‘ditheism’, does not apply to the Zoroastrian tradition.Footnote ⁴⁰

Angra Mainyu's fashioning of his own, evil creation is described in the Avesta by the verb fraca kərət- (e.g. Y 9.8 fraca kərəṇta ), literally ‘to cut forth’. The fact that this Avestan verb is the etymological antecedent of the Middle Persian frāz kirrēnīdan, which is used in this context in the Pahlavi texts, is a further indication of the extent to which Pahlavi accounts are based on Avestan traditions.Footnote ⁴¹ In the Pahlavi texts, Ahreman's creative activity is described in parallel though negative terms to that of Ohrmazd. While Ohrmazd created ‘the form of his own creatures’ (i.e. his spiritual creations, which include the spiritual forms of the material creations) ‘from his own self’ (az ān ī xwēš xwadīh), from his ‘material light’ (gētīy rōšnīh), ‘from his own body’ (az tan ī xwēš),Footnote ⁴² Ahreman produced his creation (dām frāz kirrēnīd) from ‘material darkness’ (az gētīy tārīgīh), eg. in TD2 11.10 and

1. (11) TD2 12.1–2 az gētīy tārīgīh ān ī asar tārīgīh dād

   az asar tārīgīh drō-gōwišnīh frāz būd

   From material darkness he created endless darkness;

   from endless darkness false speech came forth.Footnote ⁴³

From the ‘endless darkness’, Ahreman produced the ‘form’ (kirb) of his own spiritual creation:

1. (12) TD2 12.5–6 az asar ī tārīgīh ān tan frāz kirrēnīd

   u-š xwēš tan dām andar ān kirb bē dād

   From the endless darkness he brought forth that body

   and he created his own creation in that form.Footnote ⁴⁴

In the Pahlavi sources the view is stated that Ahreman has no material creation that would correspond to his spiritual one.Footnote ⁴⁵ The Avesta, by contrast, lists the ‘reddish snake’ (Vd 1.2), ‘dragon Dahāka’ (Y 9.8) and ‘corn-bearing ants’ (Vd 1.6) amongst Angra Mainyu's material products alongside a host of evils of less material nature, such as undesirable natural phenomena (winter Vd 1.2 and 19, heat Vd 1.18, death and disease Vd 20.3, 22.2) and those involving human action (doubt Vd 1.7 and 15, excessive lamentation Vd 1.8 and burying or boiling corpses Vd 1.12, 16).Footnote ⁴⁶ However, although some of Angra Mainyu's products have a material form, they all are nothing but negative counter-creations which Angra Mainyu produces in order to harm Ahura Mazdā's creatures.Footnote ⁴⁷

5 The origin of the material world

The worship of Ahura Mazdā as the creator of both the spiritual and material worlds is found in the Gathas (e.g. Y 44.3–5) and the Yasna Haptanghaiti, from which the beginning of Y 37 also forms part of the Khorde Avesta as a grace to be said before mealsFootnote ⁴⁸ and is often quoted within the Zoroastrian tradition:

1. (13) Y 37.1 iϑā ā yazamaidē ahurəm mazdąm

   y gąmcā a əmcā dā

   apascā dā uruuar scā vaŋ^vhīš

   raoc scā dā būmīmcā

   vīspācā vohū

   Y 37.2 ahiiā xšaϑrācā maz nācā hauuapaŋhāišcā

   In this way we now worship the Wise Lord,

   who has createdFootnote ⁴⁹ the cow and truth,

   (who) has created the waters and the good plants,

   (who) has created light and the earth

   and all that is good

   Y 37.2 by his rule, greatness and skill.

In one of the oldest Younger Avestan, or rather Middle Avestan (see fn.50 and 51), texts the worshippers refer to the ‘cattle breeder’ as the ‘father’ of the ‘cow’, of ‘truth’ and of the ‘existence’ of the truthful person:

1. (14) Y 58.4 fšūm astī a auuā vərəϑrajā vahištō

   fšūš carəkərəmahī

   h ptā g ušcā a a hācā

   a aonascā a āuuairii scā stōiš

   haiϑiiō vaŋhud

   The cattle breeder is truthful, resistance breaking, best.

   We celebrate the cattle owner.

   This one (is) the father of the cow and of truth.Footnote ⁵⁰

   (He is) the real provider of good (things)

   for the existence of the truthful male and truthful female one.Footnote ⁵¹

Bartholomae's Reference Bartholomae1904, 1029 interpretation that Y 58.4–5 are spoken by the cow is difficult to reconcile with the 1pl. form of the verb. It is more probable that the words are uttered by the worshippers, and that fšūmaṇt- ‘possessing cattle, cattle breeding’ refers metaphorically to Ahura Mazdā. Such a view is supported by Yt 1.13, where the adj. is one of Ahura Mazdā's names, alongside the name of the text:

1. (15) Yt 1.13 fšūm nąma ahmi

   fšūšō.mąϑra nąma ahmi

   I am ‘Cattle Breeder’ by name.

   I am ‘Formula of the Cattle-Owner’ by name.

Y 58.4, as well as the Gathas (Y 44.3, 47.2), then presents Ahura Mazdā as the ‘father’ of Truth. The collocation of ‘truth’ and ‘cow’ as Ahura Mazdā's ‘children’ recalls the expression y gąmcā a əmcā dā of Y 37.1, quoted above no.13, which presents the pair as the god's creations.Footnote ⁵² In the ensuing invocations the worshippers address the Life-giving Immortals as their own creators, quoting passages from the Gathas to corroborate their requests:

1. (16) Y 58.5 yaϑā n dātā amə ā spəṇtā

   aϑā n ϑrāzdūm ( = Y 34.7c)

   ϑrāzdūm n vaŋhauuō

   ϑrāzdūm n vaŋ^vhīš

   ϑrāzdūm n amə ā spəṇtā huxšaϑrā huδ ŋhō

   naēcīm t m anii m yūšma vaēdā a ā aϑā n ϑrāzdūm ( = Y 34.7c)

   As you have created us, O Life-giving Immortals,

   “Therefore protect us!” ( = Y 34.7c)

   Protect us, O good (male) ones,

   Protect us, O good (female) ones,

   Protect us, O Life-giving Immortals of good rule, of good gifts,

   “Through Truth I do not know anyone else than you: therefore protect us!” ( = Y 34.7c)

Also in the Younger Avesta, both Ahura Mazdā and the Life-giving Immortals are presented as creators of the material world. In particular, the idea that Ahura Mazdā is such a ‘creator’ (dātar-, his standing epithet) is formalized in his standard address, which is usually abbreviated but occurs in its full form, for instance, in Vd 2.1 and in Yt 1.1:

1. (17) Yt 1.1 ahura mazdā mainiiō sp ništa

   dātarə gaēϑanąm astuuaitinąm a āum

   O Wise Lord, most Life-giving Force,

   creator of the material world, truthful one!

Ahura Mazdā is here identified with the ‘most Life-giving Force’. Elsewhere, the texts refer to the ‘creations of the Life-giving Force’, spəṇtahe mainii uš dāmąn (Yt 10.142), and Spenta Mainyu has the same epithet as Ahura Mazdā, daδuu , meaning ‘the one who has created’, for instance:

1. (18) Yt 10.143 yō daδuu spəṇtō mainiiuš

   the creator, the Life-giving Force.

It has already been mentioned above, that while Ahura Mazdā is without negative counterpart in the Avesta, spəṇta- mainiiu- has an opponent in aŋra- mainiiu-. Both of them create, the good force producing a good creation, the bad force a bad one, as stated, for example, in

1. (19) Y 57.17Footnote ⁵³ yō nōi pascaēta hušx^vafa

   ya mainiiū dāmąn daiδītəm

   yasca spəṇtō mainiiuš yasca aŋrō

   hišārō a ahe gaēϑ

   yō vīspāiš aiiąnca xšafnasca

   yūiδiieiti māzaniiaēibiiō haδa daēuuaēibiiō

   (Sraoša), who afterwards has not slept

   ever since the two spirits used to createFootnote ⁵⁴ the creations

   – he, the Bounteous Spirit and he, the Evil One –,

   watching over the living beings of Truth;

   (Sraoša,) who, every day and night

   fights with the Māzanyan demons.

The passage could be seen as further developing the Gathic idea that each of the two spirits or ‘forces’ (mainiiū) generates handiwork corresponding to its own nature:

1. (20) Y 30.4 a cā hiia tā h m mainiiū jasaētəm paouruuīm dazdē

   gaēmcā ajiiāitīmcā yaϑācā aŋha ap məm aŋhuš

   acištō drəguuatąm a a āunē vahištəm manō

   And when these two spirits initially come together, they create

   life and unlife respectively and that ultimately the life

   of the deceitful ones will be very bad, but for the truthful one (it will be) the best thought.

Not only Ahura Mazdā and spəṇta- mainiiu-, but all the Life-giving Immortals are presented as creating and protecting the material world. In addition to Y 58.5, quoted above no.16, for instance in

1. (21) Yt 19.18 yōi həṇti ŋhąm dāmanąm

   ya ahurahe mazd

   dātarasca marəxštarasca

   ϑβarəxštarasca aiβiiāxštarasca

   nipātarasca nišharətarasca

   (The Amesha Spentas,) who are the creators and formers,

   the fashioners and guardians,

   the protectors and watchers

   of these creatures

   of Ahura Mazdā.

While the Avesta provides little further insight into exactly how the material world is thought to have come about, it is clear that it is presented as coming from Ahura Mazdā via the Amesha Spentas. In this connection one may view the occasional, although, as Narten has shown, in the Avesta not yet systematic, correlation between the material and spiritual creations, in so far as, for example, the earth corresponds to ‘right-mindedness’ (ārmaiti-), the cow to ‘good thought’ (vohu manah-), metal to ‘desirable rule’ (xšaϑra- vairiia-), water to ‘wholeness’ (hauruuatāt-) and plants to ‘immortality’ (amərətatāt-).Footnote ⁵⁵ The later full and systematic development of such a correlation, as found in the Pahlavi texts, can be seen as corresponding to the idea, amply attested in the Avesta, that Ahura Mazdā made the material world out of the Amesha Spentas, following their generation out of himself.

The notion that the material creation is secondary to and derives from the spiritual one also occurs in the Middle Persian sources. Thus, the Bundahišn states that the spiritual creation is first, and the material one emerges from the Amahraspands:

1. (22) TD2 14.1–2 mēnōy nazdist gētīy az amahraspandān

   The spiritual (is) first, the material from the Life-giving Immortals.Footnote ⁵⁶

The way in which the material world derives from the spiritual one is described in different ways in the various Pahlavi sources, but all agree that there are two phases, one before and one after the Assault of Evil. According to the Bundahišn, in the phase before such an attack, Ohrmazd made one archetype of each material creation first in spiritual and then in material form.Footnote ⁵⁷

According to an account preserved in chapter 46 of the Pahlavi Rivāyat of the Dādestān ī Dēnīg, Ohrmazd made components of the material creation one by one out of ‘his own body’ (u-š pas ēk ēk az tan ī xwēš hamē brēhēnīd 46.3), the sky from the head and the earth from the feet,Footnote ⁵⁸ just as he had produced those of the spiritual creation out of himself. In preparation for the material creation, he ‘kept them in his body for 3,000 years’ and ‘caused them ever to increase and made (them) ever more beautiful’. Like the spiritual one, which in the Avesta (Yt 13.81, see above no.5) is said to have ‘matured’, the material creation in the spiritual phase of its production is here also seen as having undergone a period of ‘gestation’ before being made in material form. In other words, Ohrmazd was, so to speak, ‘pregnant’, first with the spiritual, and then with the material creation in its spiritual state.Footnote ⁵⁹ In this connection one may also see the statement of the Bundahišn, that Ohrmazd has the ‘motherhood’ (mādarīh) of his spiritual creation and the ‘fatherhood’ (pidarīh) of the material one.Footnote ⁶⁰

The one representative of each creation, which Ohrmazd had produced, was subsequently polluted and killed by Ahreman. According to one version of the creation myth, related in Bundahišn, chapter 7 (TD2 71.12–73.5), Ohrmazd, in his omniscience, had made one exemplar of each of the seven material creations in the spiritual as well as the material state. Then, following Ahreman's Assault, he took the (indestructible) spiritual version of each material creation, referred to as its ‘mirror-image’ (ēwēnag) and ‘form’ (kirb), and purified each of them respectively in the sun, moon and stars, that is to say in those celestial spaces which were inaccessible to Ahreman. From the purified ‘blueprint’ he subsequently recreated the material creation in material form, but this time in multiplicity.Footnote ⁶¹ It is this ‘post-Assault’ phase of the material creation that the texts offer the greatest variety in the way the creation myth is formulated.Footnote ⁶²

6 The Worship of the Yazatas

The correlation between the material and spiritual worlds, which, as we have seen, is fundamental to Zoroastrian thought, is based on the idea that the material world derives from the spiritual one, and the latter from Ahura Mazdā. Everything that belongs to Ahura Mazdā's spiritual and material worlds is potentially capable of being worshipped (yaz) and is therefore yazata- ‘worthy of worship’.Footnote ⁶³ By contrast, anything connected with Angra Mainyu is a-iiesniia- ‘unworthy of worship’. The Avesta describes Ahura Mazdā as the greatest and best of all the yazatas (Yt 17.16, Y 16.1). There is in fact a host of unnamed spiritual and material Yazatas, of which the spiritual ones are in their hundreds and thousands, as stated in Yt 6.1:

1. (23) Yt 6.1 huuarəxšaētəm amə əm raēm

   auruua .aspəm yazamaide

   āa ya huuarə raoxšnō tāpaiieiti

   āa ya huuarə raocō tāpaiieiti

   hištəṇti mainiiauu ŋhō yazat ŋhō

   satəmca hazaŋrəmca

   We worship the splendid sun, the immortal splendour

   who has swift horses.

   When the shining sun waxes warm

   when the sun, the light, waxes warm,

   (then) the spiritual venerable ones are standing up

   in their hundreds and thousands.

In addition, named spiritual Yazatas include the Amesha Spentas (Vr 8.1, 9.4), Contract (miϑra- Yt 10.6, 98 etc.), Hearkening (sraoša- Y 3.20), Breaking of Resistance (vərəϑraγna- Yt 14.1), Dāmōiš Upamana (Y 2.15 etc.), Nairyō.saŋha (Ny 5.6 etc.), the Scion of the Waters (apąm napāt- Yt 19.52) and Uprightness (aršti- Y 57.33). Material Yazatas mentioned by name include the Wind (vaiiu- Yt 15.1), Fire (ātar- Y 3.21), the Mountain uši.darəna- (Y 2.14), the Earth (zam- S 1.28, 2.28) and Zarathustra (Y 3.12).Footnote ⁶⁴ A Yazata may be praised ‘with a ritual in which his or her name is uttered’ (aoxtō.nāmana yasna),Footnote ⁶⁵ but they are all seen as being in relation to Ahura Mazdā. This connection is expressed in the formula āhūiriiehe aoxtō.nāmanō yazatahe ‘of the sacred being belonging to the Lord, invoked by its own name’ (Y 3.20 of Sraoša, Y 3.21 of Ātar).

The view that anything that comes from Ahura Mazdā is ‘worthy of worship’ enables the Mazdayasnian tradition to absorb other deities, old (such as Mithra) and new, and incorporate them into its own world and pantheon provided they are subordinate to Ahura Mazdā. Thus, for instance, Ahura Mazdā enjoins the worship of deities such as Arəduuī Sūrā Anāhitā (Yt 5.1 = Yt 13.4, Y 65.1) and in this way legitimizes the cult of a major goddess alongside himself, without threatening his own primacy:

1. (24) Yt 5.1 ( = Yt 13.4, Y 65.1)

   mrao ahurō mazd spitamāi zaraϑuštrāi

   yazaēša mē hīm spitama zaraϑuštra

   yąm arəduuīm sūrąm anāhitąm

   pərəϑū.frākąm baēšaziiąm

   vīdaēuuąm ahurō. kaēšąm

   yesniiąm aŋ^vhe astuuaite

   vahmiiąm aŋ^vhe astuuaite

   Ahura Mazdā said to Spitāma Zarathustra:

   “You may worship on my behalf, O Spitāma Zarathustra,

   Arəduuī Sūrā Anāhitā

   who is far-reaching, provides healing

   who is opposed to the demons and follows the teachings of the Lord,

   who is to be worshipped by the bodily life,

   who is to be prayed to by the bodily life.”

Rather than being cultic competitors, the Yazatas thus strengthen and support Ahura Mazdā.

In the Gathas, Ahura Mazdā is described as possessing a body just like human beings: he has ears (Y 51.3 g uša-), eyes (Y 31.13 cašman-), hands (Y 43.4 zasta-), a tongue (hizū- Y 31.3) and a mouth (āh- Y 28.11, 31.3) and he sees, hears, speaks and teaches. His description in anthropomorphic terms is also found in the later Pahlavi texts. Šāyast nē Šāyast 15.1–4, for example, describes the deity as a person, but nevertheless as an entirely spiritual being, and therefore intangible.Footnote ⁶⁶ The text relates that as he was sitting before Ohrmazd to consult him, Zardušt perceived the deity as having ‘a head, hands and feet, hair, face and tongue’ and even as wearing clothes just like human beings. Zardušt then asked to take the deity's hand, but the god answered that this was not possible because of his nature as an intangible spiritual being (mēnōy ī agriftār hom dast ī man griftan nē tuwān ŠnŠ 15.2). Zardušt confirmed that he was aware of this and of the fact that wahman, ardwahišt, šahrewar, spandarmad, hordād and amurdād are equally intangible and would become invisible the moment he departed from Ohrmazd's presence. He therefore asked the god whether after his return to the material world in addition to Ohrmazd and the ‘seven Amahraspands’ he should also worship the ‘person’ (kas) whom he could see and of whom there was ‘something’ (tis) in the material world. Ohrmazd replied:

1. (25) ŠnŠ 15.4 Ohrmzad guft kū šnawē ō tō gōwam spitāmān zarduxšt kū amā har tan-ē dāyag-ē xwēš ō gētīy dād ēstēd kē rāy ān xwēškārīh ī pad mēnōy kunēd pad gētīy andar tan ī ōy rawāg kunēd.

   Ohrmazd said: “Listen, I tell you, Spitāmān Zarduxšt, that each of us individuals has given his own wet-nurse to the material world, whereby in its body it manifests in the material world that proper function which it performs in the spiritual world.”

The term dāyag ‘wet-nurse’ is a further instance of the use of the vocabulary of biological procreation in expressing the way the world is imagined to have come about. In the present passage it could be another metaphor for the material creation in its spiritual form, which elsewhere is denoted by the term ēwēnag ‘mirror-image’ or kirb ‘form’ (see above). Ohrmazd then states that each of the spiritual beings has its material counterpart:

1. (26) ŠnŠ 15.5 gētīy ān ī man kē ohrmazd hom mard ī ahlaw ud wahman gōspand ud ardwahišt ātaxš ud šahrewar ayōšust ud spandarmad zamīg ud nāirīg ī nēk hordād āb ud amurdād urwar.

   “My, namely Ohrmazd’s, material form is the righteous man, and Wahman (is) cattle, and Ardwahišt (is) fire, and Šahrewar (is) metal, and Spandarmad (is) earth and the virtuous woman, and Hordād (is) water and Amurdād (is) the vegetation.”

He further explains that by caring for the material creations, their spiritual counterparts are also being looked after and that everyone should learn and practise such care:

1. (27) ŠnŠ 15.6 kē pahrēz ī ēn har haft hammōxtēd xūb kunēd ud šnāyēnēd ā-š hagriz ruwān ō xwēšīh ī ahreman ud dēwān nē rasēd

   ka-š pahrēz ī awēšān kard ā-š pahrēz ī ēn har haft amahraspandān kard bawēd ud pad gētīy hamāg mardōm hammōxtan abāyēd.

   “The one who learns the care for these seven behaves and pleases well. Then his soul will never be possessed by Ahreman and the dēws.

   When he practises care for them, then the care of these Amahraspands is practised. And in the world all mankind must learn (it).”

The rest of this chapter, ŠnŠ 15.7–31, sets out in detail the various ways in which each of the seven spiritual beings is pleased and promoted when its respective material (gētīy) counterpart (hangōšīdag) is well treated. By practising such care, people accumulate good deeds on their individual accounts in preparation for the judgement after death.

The idea that by worshipping the material world one worships the spiritual is also found in the Avesta,Footnote ⁶⁷ for instance in

1. (28) Yt 6.4 yō yazaite huuarə ya amə əm

   raēm auruua .aspəm . . .

   yazaite ahurəm mazdąm

   yazaite amə spəṇt

   yazaite haom uruuānəm

   xšnāuuaiieiti vīspe mainiiauuaca yazata gaēϑiiāca

   yō yazaite huuarə ya amə əm

   raēm auruua .aspəm

   The one who worships the sun, the immortal,

   swift-horsed splendour, . . .

   he worships Ahura Mazdā,

   he worships the Life-giving Immortals,

   he worships his own soul.

   The one who worships the sun, the immortal,

   swift-horsed splendour,

   he gratifies all spiritual and material venerable ones.

This attitude of respect and care for the material world is also incorporated in prayers of the Khorde Avesta which are to be recited at the sight of a mountain (namāz kūh, Y 6.13), cattle (namāz gōspandān, Vd 21.1–2) and running water (namāz āb, in praise of Ardvisūr Anāhitā).Footnote ⁶⁸ Seeing the sun, the moon, rivers and mountains, having food and drink to sustain the body and medicine against illness, all these are perceived as religious actions in praise of Ahura Mazdā's presence in the material world.Footnote ⁶⁹ Gherardo Gnoli summarized this concept as follows:

Homage paid to the material world was perhaps one of the most distinctive markers of the Mazdā-worshippers. In their persecution of Zoroastrians who had converted to Christianity, the mobeds of the Sasanian period demanded from the apostates that they should revert to their old faith and prove that they had done so by worshipping the elements, especially fire, water and the sun. Thus, in the Sogdian history of Persian martyrs under Šāpūr II, the great mobed demands from the Christian men:

1. (29) C2 68R.22–23 n(m)[ʾ]c brtʾ qw xwr sʾ ʾt žw ʾ

   Offer homage to the sun and you will live.Footnote ⁷¹

From the mobed's point of view such veneration was the ultimate proof of the veneration of Ahura Mazdā as the maker of a perfect spiritual and material world, but for the Christian martyrologists such an action was to be rejected as pure idolatry. Ranging from disputations with apostates of the Sasanian period to John Wilson in the 19^th century, the worship of the Yazatas, especially of the material ones, was one of the areas in which Mazdā-worshippers were particularly targeted by polemical attacksFootnote ⁷² and described as ‘fire worshippers’.