Authentic Gatha Zoroastrianism

Zoroastrianism, the first Indo-European Monism

It is widely and most erroneously believed that the main theme of prophet Zarathûthrá’s teaching was to replace the numerous ahûrás (Old Norse æsir) or god powers of the ancient Aryan religion with just one ahûrá, the supreme God or ‘Wise Lord’, Ahûrá Mazdá.

But the ancient Aryan prophet Zarathûshtrá talks in his poetic gathas of ma(n)zdá and his ahûrás or the supreme god-powers of Ma(n)zdá.

The Avestan term for Ma(n)zdá and his ahûrás is “ma(n)zd.ávß.čá ahûr.ávñg.hö.” The term appears in the poetic gathas; Yasna 30.9, 2^nd rhymed verse line and Yasna 31.4, 1^st rhymed verse line.

(Compare with Old Norse Skáldskaparmál 41 Óðni ok öllum ásum “to Odin and all the Aesir”, Skáldskaparmál 23 Óðins ok ása “of Odin and the Aesir”, Hávamál 143 Óðinn með ásum “Odin with the Aesir” (also Baldr: Gylfaginning 49 Baldrs ok ásanna Courtesy of Didier Calin)

The ancient commentary translates it as ahûrmazdič, “ahûrá mazdá in plural.” The term “ahûrmazdič,” or ahûrá mazdá in plural appears in addition to the two aforementioned verses, in Yasna 28.3, 2^nd rhymed verse line and Yasna 33.14, 2^nd rhymed verse line.

In the other parts of the Avestan lore, the plural term for ahûrás or supreme god powers “ahûr.ávñg.hö, ahüir.yávñg.hö” appears in the hymn to waters apö or Ábán Yasht. 85. And in the hymn to victory verethrem-já or Vahrám/Bahrám Yasht.39.

Also, in the concise Yasna 38.3, 2^nd rhymed verse line another most beautiful hymn to waters, we read of ahûránîsh ahûrahyá, the ahûrás or god-forces of life giving waters.

In the poetic gathas, ahûrás are the “god beings” of Ma(n)zdá. Ahûrá comes from the root ahü (Compare with Old Norse áss, or óss) and means “god power.” The rune ansuz, the rune of godly and superb powers is connected to the æsirs (Compare with the Avestan ahûrá.)

Ahûrás of Ma(n)zdá are called auspicious or splendid immortals “ameshá/ amertá speñtás” in the later Avestan lore. (Compare with the Vedic Viśve Amṛtās “All the Immortals.”)

In Bagān yašt), in Dēnkard (8.15), Ahura Mazdā, is highest of all the gods (*wisp [ms. ystʾ] bayān abardôm), and the remaining invisible and visible adorable powers in the world (abārīg apaydāg ud paydāg gētīgān-iz yazdān) (Dēnkard, Dresden, p. 105 [82]; Madan, p. 692.

The Avestan and Old Iranian baga- derives from a word meaning “god” in Indo-European. The word for god bogŭ in the Slavonic languages is the same.

Compare with Old Persian Inscriptions . a.o. DPd 13f,21f,23f Aûramazdā … hadā visaibiš bagaibiš “Ahûra Mazdā with all the gods”, DB4 60f,62f Auûramazdā … utā aniyāha bagāha “Ahura Mazdā and the other gods” (Courtesy of Didier Calin)

○ Parthian M 4a II V 14, M 47 I V 8 /harwīn baγān/, M 6 Vii 14f /harwīn frēštagān butān ud baγān/ “all the angels, buddhas and gods” (Courtesy of Didier Calin)

The ahûrás are eternal within Mazdá’s mind/vision; hence they are called “a-paöûrvîm,” (See Yasna 28.3, 1st rhymed verse line.) The term “a-paöûrvîm” is the same as Vedic “apaurashaya,” a word that reveals their eternal and ever pristine status.

Their number has been cited as 7 (eternity, infinity) and 33 (infinite wisdom.) Yet the best description is in Vispered 8.1, where we read that their number is 50, 100, 1000, 10,000, beyond reckoning.

The term ahûrá applies to both spiritual god-powers and to god men.

(See Yasna 29.2, 3^rd rhymed verse line, Yasna 29.10, 1^st rhymed verse line, Yasna 34.15, 3^rd rhymed verse line, Yasna 53.9, 3^rd rhymed verse line. Also Compare with Bahrám Yasht 37, Farvardin Yasht 63, Rám Yasht 28.)

Through “the genius, vision, imagination and mind-power” of Mazdá/Ma(n)zdá; mortals will pass their limitations into ever-expanding horizons, conquering limitation after limitation, to the stature of being immortals, god-like or ahûrá.

Mazdá or more accurately Ma(n)zdá is the same as Vedic meðá, “thinking power, creativity, imagination and vision.”

Ma(n)zdá is the “passion, creativity, imagination, genius and vision, the ever-unfolding consciousness/mind energy in earth, mortal men and cosmos.” The Avestan root man denotes “spirit/mind, will power, sensuous force, fiery passion.” Mazdá, is the paradigm of “spirit/mind, will power, sensuous force, fiery passion, creativity and imagination.” Mazdá and/or Ma(n)zdá (*mens-dheh-) incorporates the Indo European noun *mens of the stem ménos (spirit/mind, will power, sensuous force) and the verb dheh “to set, establish, do, create.” (Courtesy of Didier Calin)

Hence, Mazdá means “setting mind power, spirit, sensuous force, fiery passion to do, create.” (Courtesy of Didier Calin)

Ahûrás are god powers because of their Ma(n)zdá, because of their power of spirit, their passion, their mind-energy, their thinking power, their imagination and their luminous vision.

In Yasna 40.1, 1^st rhymed verse line, the prophet asks Ma(n)zdá ahûrá for Mazdá-ship (áhü at paitî adáhü/ma(n)zdá ahûrá Ma(n)zdám-čá.)

The above verse can be compared with the 3^rd rhymed verse line of Yasna 34.13 where Ma(n)zdá,“passion, the enduring power of the spirit, intuitive vision, imagination, mind-power, wisdom” is the ultimate prize (mîždem.)

Mazdá or Ma(n)zdá is all the wisdom/foresight that the spirit will master, all the wondrous, powers of mind that will be unleashed, all the new horizons and unknown splendors that will be realized through the unseen powers of the spirit/mind.

In the 3^rd rhymed verse line of Yasna 30.5; to have the delightful knowledge of the ahûrás (Literally ahûrem “godhood”) is through choosing Ma(n)zdá with all sincerity in action/enterprise.

In Yasna 39.4, 1^st rhymed verse line, the prophet states that: “Just like you ahura mazda, I strive to be superb/wonderful; in mind/thinking, in words, in doings and in action, ” (Yathá tü î ahûrá ma(n)zdá méñg.ha.čá vaôčas.čá dávß.čá varesh.čá yá vôhü)

The ahûrás are god powers because of their “goodness, virtue and luminosity, because of their relentless striving for excellence, ashá/arthá, Compare with Greek arête.” (Ahûrem ašavanem; See Yasna 31.10,2^nd rhymed verse line, Yasna 46.9, 3^rd rhymed verse line.)

The poetic gathas teach monism and can be compared to a philosophical and poetic monotheism. Since they were composed in the early Iron Age, they represent the earliest documented instance of monism in an Indo-European religion.

In the poetic gathas, “mind, passion, spirit” is the all-pervading, true nature of reality. All existing things go back to a source of “mind-power, imagination and vision.”

The poetic gathas teach a metaphysical dualism, NOT between mind/spirit verses matter, but between states of consciousness, between the nonphysical modes or points of mind energy. Matter while transitory and imperfect is sacred, because it is a manifestation of thoughts, a reflection of the realm of mind/spirit.

The prophet is speaking of god powers or godlike qualities (ahûrás) which every ašavan/arthavan “person striving for virtue, excellence, goodness” must possess in him or herself to become godlike. The concepts, of godhood and passion, spirit or creative powers, seem frequently to blend, through the Immortals emanating from Ma(n)zdá.

The doctrine of the Immortals is thus central to Zoroastrian moral theology. Through worship, meditation, and enterprise/action each individual should strive to bring the spiritual auspicious immortals into his or her own being, thus becoming godlike.

Also there is nothing imaginary or unreal about the diabolic forces in the poetic gathas. The diabolic powers exist, and are very real, but they are destined for doom.

In the 1^st rhymed verse line of Yasna 32.3, the prophet address the deities or demonic powers as “at yüsh daævá vîsp.ávng.hö” In this way, you all the demonic powers.”

The gathic term daævá vîsp.ávng.hö is the same as Vedic vishva dev “all the deities.”

In Zoroastrianism the deities are not worthy of godhood because of their cruelty and choice of limited spirit/mind. Godhood is reserved instead for thinking powers with luminous vision, unbounded spirit, imagination, light and goodness.

ardeshir

Mánthrás, melodious mind-formulas, charms at the basis of all creation

In our past articles we stated that the ancient seer/prophet Zarathûshtrá calls his poetic songs or gathas a “numinous song/poetry” or nem.añg.há, Persian namáz.

In fact, nem.añg.há “numinous poetic formulae” is the 3^rd word of the gathas. The poetic gathas start with these 3 words: ahyá yásá nem.añg.há “I, for the own self (of godhood) yearn, desire; in numinous poetry/song.”

Hence, the poetic gathas are a display, an unfolding of ahüric attributes of Ma(n)zdá, and doing as “God of spirit/mind power, genius, creativity” does and being as Ma(n)zdá “God of spirit/mind power, genius, creativity is.

The ancient Aryan Prophet also calls his sacred verse mánthrán or mánthrá “a melodious mind formulae/counsel that unleashes the powers and/or the godheads of spirit/mind.”

Avestan Mánthrá, Vedic Mantra मंत्र from the root man “to feel, intuitively know, think” is a sacred, wise counsel in Verse, with melodious meters, resonant with numinous qualities and spirit/mind powers.

Mánthrá can be compared with Mentor, a figure in Homer’s Odyssey. Mentor was a most wise advisor entrusted to protect Odysseus’s son, Telemachus; while Odysseus sailed against Troy. Mentor was a male, but Athena, the female goddess of wisdom, assumed Mentor’s form in order to guide, teach, and give insights to young Telemachus. It is interesting to note that the original mentoring archetype embodied both male and female wisdom.

We read in verses 80-81 0f the beautiful farvardin Yasht; mánthrö speñtö “the auspicious mánthrá” is the SOUL “ûrvá” of ahúrá ma(n)zdá.

The auspicious mánthrá is BROAD, WIDE, WHITE “aûrûshö,” Greek eurys, Skt. uruh;” LIGHT, SHINNING and BRIGHT “raôkhshnö,” ancient Germanic leukhtam, and FAR-SEEING “frá-deresrö.”

In the religious Zoroastrian calendar, the 29^th day of each month is assigned to mánthrö speñtö “the auspicious mánthrá” and 30^th day of each month to boundless lights.

As the inner essence or the SOUL (ûrvá) of ahúrá ma(n)zdá; mánthrá or “creative mind melodies” participate in the formation of reality and creation.

“Sacred Verse or mánthrá” is called AVESTA (from the root vid) “invisible wisdom” and/or “veiled knowledge” that serves as the formulating power of creation. Mánthrá is the magical charm of making, a melodious echo from the mind, thoughts of God.

For in the poetic gathas, Ma(n)zdá ahûrá creates the worlds through his power of imagination and mind. The God of mind-power, spirit and genius, Ma(n)zdá; thinks and his thoughts become melodies that create the worlds. Each creation is a melodious song, a symphony of creative thoughts or mind-formulas.

Zarathûshtrá sees the mánthrás or the creative charms with the mind’s eye, with the eye of the spirit.

He calls himself in Yasna 50.6, the 1^st rhymed verse line yé mánthrá váčem ma(n)zdá baraití; “one who bears, carries the voice/word of the mantra, the mind formulae of Ma(n)zdá.”

Incidentally the word for Prophet in Persian is Payám-bar or Pæygham-bar “one who bears, carries the tidings, message, divine communications.” Zarathûshtrá calls himself mánthrá ma(n)zdá baraití “one who bears, carries the wise counsel, mind-formulae of Ma(n)zdá” in his poetic gathas.

In Zoroastrianism, the prophet is a seer, knower of the mánthrás “creative mind melodies,” as well as the vehicle through which the mánthrás or melodious charms, find poetic expression.

In the Indo-European religious experience, although the visual aspects of the prophet’s experiences as a seer are emphasized, the oral-aural dimensions are given distinct priority, for that which the prophet saw and heard was preserved orally through sacred speech and/or melody, and not through the visual medium of writing.

Hence, the mánthrás as the melodious rhythms at the basis of all creation are also called sravá from the root srû “that which is HEARD, a melodious, delightful song.

ardeshir

The god-force of waters ahúrání and the Norse sea-god ægir

October 26^th is the most joyous feast of waters in the seasonal Avestan calendar. Ábán, is the middle Iranian term for “the waters.” The Avestan term for water is apö, compare apö with Lithuanian term for river uppe, Vedic ap and Latin aqua.

In the Zoroastrian calendar the eighth month is dedicated to Waters.The tenth day of every Zoroastrian month is also dedicated to the Waters, and so the tenth day of the eighth month, Ábán Rooz (day of waters) of Ábán Máh (month or moon of waters), is the great feast day of waters called Ābānagān.

On this day Zoroastrians go to streams, rivers, lakes, seas or the ocean. They pray Avestan prayers of hymn to the waters known as Ábán Niyáyesh, Yasna 38, Yasna 68, and/or the 5^th Yasht known as Ábán Yasht dedicated to the “fair, mighty, unblemished lady of waters” known as ardevi sürá anáhitá or simply anáhitá “pure, unblemished.

According to the tradition, the prayers to waters are never recited before a fire, but only within the sight of water.

The prayers offered have the regular dedication/delight (khšnüman) of the tenth day, the day of “the good, Mazdá created Waters; of all Mazdá created waters and of all Mazdá created plants and life-giving powers.” Khšnüman from khšnüm is a religious Zoroastrian term meaning “delightful knowledge, German kenntnis, Latin Gnosis.”

In Indo-Iranian the word for water is grammatically feminine. Water itself is associated in the Avesta with “wisdom, spirit and intuitive knowing.”

In Yasna Haptaŋ-háiti or the Seven Chapters (Yasna 38.3) the Waters are venerated as ahúrání. The name Ahúrání is derived from Ahúrá (god-force, Old Norse æsir) with a feminine suffix –ání. (Compare with, tištryaæiní- “stars near the star Tištrya”)

So the waters as “Ahúrá (Old Norse æsir) or god force’s female, nurturing aspect (ahúrání) are parallel to Old Norse sea god Ægir and the varuṇānī of Varuṇa in the Rig Veda. (Also compare the Gothic word for waters, rivers “ahua”)

In conclusion, It is of great importance to recognize that the connection between waters, wells and rivers to the god-force, spirit, feeling and intuitive knowing has been always celebrated in Zoroastrianism along the holy element of fire.

ardeshir

Nemö, “hail, prayer in the poetic gathas,” Persian namaz

The common word for “mental focus/prayer” in the poetic gathas is nem.añg.há, nem.añg.hö, nema, nemas, nemö.

Greek neuein, Latin numen from nuere “to nod,” Proto Indo European neu; “nod, give regard to, assent;” Vedic नमस् namas नम nama, and नमो namo are almost identical and all come from the same root.

The word is commonly translated as “making a bow, salutation, hailing by inclining the head in connection with a divine name or god-force.”

However in the poetic gathas and the Avestan lore, nemö is more like “turning the focus of mind/thoughts onto something, reflection, giving regard to,” Compare Greek noesis, “thought, mental focus.”

Also Persian namáyesh, nemú-dan come from the same Avestan root, namely “allow or cause to be visible, a display of something impressive.”

Hence the gathic nem.añg.há, nem.añg.hö, nema, nemas, nemö is “a show of godly powers and names through mental focus and prayer.”

In fact, the sacred gathic poetry is all a prayer/mental focus that reveals/manifests the god-powers of Ma(n)zdá; the God of mind-energy, passion, spirit, creativity.

The common shia moslem word for prayer or namáz comes from the Avestan root nema, nemö.

Also the Japanese Buddhist recitation called Namu Amida Butsu (南無阿弥陀仏, “Hail the Amitābha Buddha” is most likely influenced by both Sanskrit and the gathic Avestan formulas. In fact, Amitabha Buddhism shows a great deal of Zoroastrian influence.

ardeshir

Lactose tolerance among ancient Indo Europeans and its praise in the Avesta

We read in the Vársht-mánßar commentary of the poetic gathas Yasna 53.7, 4^th rhymed verse line about the characteristics of those who are preparing the end of time: They are a manifestation of those, O Spitáman Zartösht who shall cause this renewal/fresh splendor in the worldly existences; they are…. fully mindful and when milk reaches them, they thoroughly digest it.

The Vársht-mánßar commentary continues about the characteristics of those disturbing the end of time and opposing the fresh new splendor of the worlds: ‘They are a manifestation of those, O Spitáman Zartösht who are destroying the existences, they become very quickly devoured and are in the torment of the vicious and grievous abode; they are not mindful, so that it is not possible for them to digest milk.

The Vársht-mánßar commentary is derived from a word play of the sacred gathic verse. In the 4^th line of Yasna 53.7 of the poetic gathas, there is talk of añg-haití apémem vačö “the voice/verdict at the end/conclusion of the worldly existence.” The word for the end/maturity of existence apémem is by a word play linked to the word for milk in the Avestan, Compare with Lithuanian pienas Latvian piens.

The gáthic Vársht-mánßar commentary links the ability to digest milk with mental alertness and preparing the end of times and ushering in of a fresh, new universe. It shall be noted that lactose tolerance is/was unique among ancient Aryans or Indo Europeans. Many Africans and Asians are not able to digest lactose at all.

Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending picture the IE expansion as beginning with a very rapid spread across the steppe as soon as the increased frequency of the lactase-persistence mutation became common enough to allow the switch to a dairying economy. Harry Harpending speculates whether the lactose tolerance mutation may have contributed to the first Indo-European expansion.

We also read in the 16^th Chapter of Menög Khirad

1. The sage asked the spirit of wisdom (2) thus: ‘Of the food which men eat, and the clothing which men put on, which are the more valuable and good?’
2. The spirit of wisdom answered (4) thus: ‘Of the food which men eat, the milk is more valuable and good. 5. Because, as to men and quadrupeds, who are born from a mother, until the time when food is eaten by them, their growth and nourishment are then from milk, (6) and on milk they can well live. 7. And if men, when they withdraw from the milk of the mother, make thorough experience of the milk of livestock, (8) then bread is not necessary for use among them. 9. Since it is declared, (10) that “the food of mankind, who are in Arežahi and Savahi, Frada-ðafshü and Vida-ðafshü, Voúrú-bareshti and Voúrú-jareshti, is the milk of goat, sheep and cows; (11) other food they do not eat.” 12. And he who is a milk-consuming man is healthier and stronger, and even the procreation of children becomes more harmless.

Keeping cattle for their milk is/was more efficient than raising cattle for slaughter; it produces about five times as many calories per square kilometer. As the Proto-Indo-Europeans became dairymen they relied more on cattle and less on grain farming, which gave them a major advantage in mobility over other populations.

The archaeological Yamna culture north of the Black Sea from around 3500 BC is according to the Kurgan hypothesis of Marija Gimbutas often identified with speakers of PIE. They appear to have been primarily dairy farmers. Interestingly, the bodies found in Kurgan burials seem to have been much taller than was common in those days, which indicates that these people were more physically fit than their neighbors.

Drinking milk from cows, sheep, goats, horses or camels was a shared trait among many conquering peoples.

In Commentarii de Bello Gallico (Commentaries on the Gallic War), Julius Caesar provides a personal account, written as a third-person narrative, of the Gallic Wars in France, Belgium and parts of Switzerland and the first Roman incursions into Britain. Although written to boost Caesar’s personal standing in Rome and reflecting the traditional disdain for non-Roman “barbarians,” the text nevertheless contains useful bits of historical information. While writing about one Germanic tribe, Julius Caesar mentions that they did not live on grain as much as on milk and cheese and suggests that this diet helped to make them tall, strong warriors.

In conclusion, I shall add that when men benefit from the milk of an animal its flesh because automatically forbidden in the Zoroastrian religion. Zoroastrianism does NOT allow the slaughter and milking of the same animal. Furthermore, the consumption of beef is not allowed in the Zoroastrian religion. While milk is the best of foods, however if it is obtained by cruel methods, or if the animal welfare is not observed, it becomes strictly forbidden; for animal welfare and good treatment of pets and cattle are of paramount importance in Zoroastrianism.

ardeshir

October 12^th marks the beginning of the Ayáthrem thanksgiving festival. For the ancient Iranian Zoroastrians, Ayáthrem festival was an amazingly colorful spectacle that lasted for 5 days.

The Ayáthrem was celebrated when cattle that have been grazing all summer on pastures and meadows of high mountains were herded back to their warm cowsheds in the valleys, right before the winter snow arrived.

This was the ancient way of giving thanks for a good grazing season and robust healthy animals.

The summer spent by the cattle in the mountain meadows closed with ayáthrem. The ancient Aryan herders celebrated the return of their animals in good health in the autumnal festival of ayáthrem. The herds were adorned with wild mountain flowers, intricately embroidered head-dresses, mirrors and bells to ward off against the evil spirits.

Ancient charms from the poetic gathas of the Prophet were recited, a colorful banquet was prepared and the God of Genius, Mind-Power, and Creativity “Ma(n)zdá” was wholeheartedly thanked.

For we read in the Vársht-mánßar commentary of Yasna 29 of the poetic gathas that; the Mazdá worshipping religion of Zartösht is the creation of creatures, the best and the greatest in the world for the advancement, assistance and preservation of cattle and other good creations.

Mazd-yasná or Zoroastrianism is an animal loving religion. Happy ayáthrem to you all!

ardeshir

On Mithra and Mithraism

October 2^nd marks the beginning of Mithrá festival culminating on October 8^th. It is a most happy festival of love, red wine, pomegranates, nuts and amore.

The name of the Indo-Aryan god-force (Avestan Mithrá, Vedic Mitrá,) is based on the common noun mitrá “to mediate, bring about a meeting of spirits/minds, mutual understanding, agreement.” (Compare with Latin mediari)

The ancient Aryan seer/prophet Zarathúshtrá uses the noun mithrö.ibyö in the sense of “ mutual understanding, like feelings, compassion, love, meeting of minds/spirits,” in his poetic gathas, Yasna 46.5, 2^nd rhymed verse line.

Also 2 other Avestan passages viz. Vendidad 4 and Mithr Yasht 10.116-17 are key in understanding the meaning of Mithrá.

In Vendidad 4, mithrá means “mutual understanding, agreement, contract.”

Mithr Yasht 10.116-17 gives a list of the degrees of sanctity of different mithrás: between friends it is 20-fold, 30-fold between fellow-citizens, 40-fold between partners, 50-fold between husband and wife, 60-fold between fellow students, 70-fold between disciple and teacher, 80-fold between son-in-law and father-in-law, 90-fold between brothers, 100-fold between father and son, 1,000-fold between two countries; 10,000-fold is the mithrá of the Mazda (mind-power, wisdom) worshipping religion. Here mithrá appears in the sense of “affinity, like feelings, compassion, love.”

On Isis and Isiris (46-7), Plutarch speaks of Mithras as “in the middle” (meson) between the good Horomazes and the evil Areimanius, adding “and this is why the Persians call the Mediator Mithras, the referee, arbiter, or judge between the two warring parties.” (On the passage and its interpretation, see de Jong 1997: pp. 171-7; on Mithra as judge, see Shaked 1980.)

The Avestan hymn to Mithrá starts with the statement of Ahúrá Mazdā that he created Mithrá and made him worthy of worship and prayer like (yatha) himself (10.1).

Mithrá catches the person who thinks that the god powers do not see all the evil and deceitful deeds (10.105). Mithrá is the first ahúrá or godly power to approach across the mountain-range Hará in front of the sun; from there he surveys the whole Aryan dominions (10.13).

Mithrá is called upon for mercy (marždiká, 10.5) and is very merciful (hú-ámarždika, 10.140), Mithrá can become angry/enflamed (zarəmna, 10.47 Compare with German Zorn.)

Haômá or “the sacred mead” worshipped mithrá on the highest peak of the mountain range Hará (10.88). The auspicious or splendid immortals (ameshá pr amertá speñtás) consider Mithrá as one of the supreme god powers (ahü) and a wise counsel (ratü) of the living beings (10.92).

Mithrá is the beneficent protector and guardian of all creatures (10.54; cf. 103).

Mithrá Ahúrá (mithra of ahüric power) strikes down the evil sons of those who offer bloody sacrifices (10.113), like the diabolic (daævic) Viiāmburas (Yt. 14.57).

Mithrá’s most frequent epithet “wide cattle-pastures or wide living spaces” (vóurú.gaô-yaöiti) reflects his concern with the welfare of the cattle and peaceful conditions.

Mithrá’s association with the sun is clearly defined in Mithr Yasht 10.13: Mithrá is the first of the spiritual godly powers to rise over the mountain range Hará before the swift-horsed, immortal sun.

Strabo (first century B.C.) states that in their worship the Persians call the sun Mithrá (Geographica15.13.732). However, Curtius Rufus (Historia Alexandri 4.13.12) has Darius III invoke the Sun, Mithrá, and the blazing Fire before the battle. It appears that in Achaemenid times there was no consistent identification of Mithrá with the sun therefore.

Although there is an attempt in academic circles to talk of a pre-Zoroastrian Mithraic religion but there is NO single proof or evidence for such hypothesis whatsoever.

It shall be stressed that the term “Mithraism” is a modern coinage and a fairly recent academic invention. In the Rig Veda there exists only a pale and insignificant hymn to Mithrá. The Vedic hymn must have consisted of two parts originally (3.59.1-5 and 6-9).

Most Interestingly, the Vedic Mitrá lacks the heroic and splendid qualities of the later Avestan Mithrá almost completely. These are in the Veda taken over by the warrior god Indrá.

In Roman Empire the so-called mithraic religion was known as “the mysteries of the Invincible Mithrás (Sol Invictus Mithras)” or “the Persian religion.”

The ancient Roman followers of Mithrás themselves were convinced that their wisdom was founded by the ancient Aryan seer/Prophet Zarathúshtrá.

They believed that the ancient Aryan Prophet dedicated to Mithras, a cave in the towering mountains of Persia,” an idyllic setting “abounding in flowers and springs of water” (Porphyry, On the Cave of the Nymphs 6).

Cumont correctly argues that Roman worship of Mithrá in the West was Romanized Mazdáism. And was still at its core a Zoroastrian Persian religion, though one that had undergone extensive metamorphoses in its passage (see Cumont 1931, Beck 1995).

ardeshir

The ancient Iranian or Indo-Aryan influence on Judaism through the Babylonian Talmud

The Babylonian Talmud (Bavli) has over 300 ancient Iranian loanwords and shows undeniable Zoroastrian influence

For example the resurrection of the dead in the Babylonian Talmud and Judaism is rooted in the Avestan idea of frashö-kereití, “the splendid, fresh, renewal of the creation” and the promise of an ever-youthful future physical form/body in the poetic gathas, (See Yasna 30.7, 2^nd rhymed verse line.)

(The Avestan frashö-kereití is almost identical to the Old Norse Ragnarøk.)

However, the Babylonian Talmudic rabbis went to great efforts to prove that resurrection of the dead is derived from the ancient Israelite scriptures. The extensive space given in the Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin, fols. 90b-91b) to proving that resurrection of the dead is a biblically mandated doctrine, as well as attributing its denial to Job (Bava batra, fol. 15a), stands in gross contrast to the Yerushalmi’s glancing treatment of the issue.

Despite all the vain attempts to argue otherwise, the fact remains that Torah is a law book for here and now and the idea of the resurrection of the dead is ENTIRELY ABSENT in the Torah. It simply entered Judaism during the Persian period.

Also, the laws of purity set forth in the Leviticus and in the Mishnah, the 2nd-century CE law code of Judaism, exhibit remarkable affinities with the Zoroastrian purity laws.

(It shall be noted that impurity held a much more serious consequences for the Zoroastrians, since, theologically, impurity was a weapon of the afflicted, gloomy spirit or añgrá mainyü while, for the rabbis, impurity was a strictly technical category.)

For nine centuries Babylonian Jews lived under ancient Iranian/Aryan rulers, from the middle of the 2nd century BCE to the 7th century CE. This timeline covers the entire period of the formation of the Babylonian Talmud (220-500 CE).

The Middle East was divided into three cultural units:

(1) Hellenistic-Roman,

(2) Indo-Iranian/ancient Aryan,

and (3) the world of Semites.

It was to that third division, the Semitic, Aramaic-speaking part of it, that the rabbis of the Talmud belonged.

The ancient Indo-Iranians were an aristocracy in the conquered Mesopotamia. They made very little effort to Aryanize the lowlands of the Mesopotamia situated in the present-day Iraq.

The Talmudic rabbis seem to have known a good deal about the ancient Iranian religion and culture.

On the contrary the ancient Iranians seem to have been most oblivious toward the ancient Hebrews and their faith.

Hence, the Talmud associates the ancient Indo Iranian elites with ARROGANCE (Shabbat, fol. 94a), a charge also echoed for the ancient Persians by Procopius (History of the Wars, passim).

Talmud says concerning the ancient Iranian Magi “Those men are very tall, and their hats are a cubit high, referring to the pointed wizard cap brought by the ancient Indo Iranians from the Siberian steppes.

Talmud further elaborates concerning the Magi that they have outlandish names, like Arda and Arta (excellence, luminosity, virtue, Greek arête, Hebrew Sadoq.)

(Bavli Gittin 14a-b)

Concerning their religious freedom under the ancient Iranians, as Rabbi Huna, puts it, the Babylonian “exiles” were AT EASE under the Indo-Iranian rule, as the other Jews in the Roman world were not (Menahot, fol. 110a).

Unlike Christians, who might become a fifth column once Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire in 313, the Jews posed no security threat to the Indo Iranian rulers and dynasties. They were left alone to practice their religion per the Zoroastrian religious rules for other nations.

However, Rava (mentioned some 3800 times in the Talmud,) criticizes the Indo-Iranian ruling elite with the words that “we are still the slaves of Ahasuerus” (i.e., Xerxes, the Achamenid king). He also commands the celebration of the Purim festival.

The same Rabbi in light of the ever increasing adoption of the Zoroastrian ideas, commands that it is forbidden to learn from a Magi (magus.)

Another clear Zoroastrian influence upon the Babylonian Judaism was a much more relaxed attitude toward sexual ethics.

Zoroastrian texts (in contrast to Manichaean and Christian texts), reveal a much more relaxed attitude toward sexual ethics than do Greco-Roman pagan, Christian, and classical Jewish texts.

Under direct Zoroastrian influence, Babylonian Talmud reflects a much more positive sexual stance than do Palestinian sources, (Satlow, pp. 175-83; Rubenstein, pp. 67-79, 147-54).

Rabbi Nahman (mentioned more than 1500 time in Talmud) who used Persian terms rather than rabbinic or Aramaic ones; allowed the women of his household a degree of freedom that more conservative rabbis disapproved of.

Rabbi Yehudah criticizes Rabbi Nahman for his elitist, Iranicized language, and his permitting freer social mixing of the sexes as it was in Zoroastrian Magi customs, (Qiddushin, fol. 70a-b).

While, the Talmud mocks the practice of the Zoroastrian kin-marriage; (xvēt-vad-dā; marry/wed only among self/own kind Yevamot, fol. 97a-b) two prominent rabbis contracted temporary marriages in accord with the Zoroastrian Sassanid institution.

For example, Rabbi Nahman contracted temporary marriages and also introduced the Sasanian institution of temporary or conditional “ownership” in his legal decisions (Bava batra, fol. 137b), especially in the area of ritual law (Elman, 2008, pp. 150-95).

Another Zoroastrian influence is the clear prominence and sacredness of the oral transmission of the sacred verse.

To the Zoroastrians the sacred verse/charm is a portal to eternity. The spoken word has a whole system of magical sound play and an array of interpretation possibilities. It must be transmitted orally to preserve its melodious magic. The holy Denkart thus without hesitation states that the living spoken word is much more important than the written one.”

Rava (Eruvin, fol. 21b) responds by quoting Ecclesiastes 12:12, “Of the making of books there is no end,” that is, rabbinic law is too voluminous to be reduced to writing.

Another clear Zoroastrian influence in the Talmud and Zohar is the prohibition against allowing the rays of the sun to fall upon fire.

Another significant Zoroastrian Indo Aryan borrowing by the babylonian Jews is in the adoption of the sacred belt (Hebrew avnet, Aramaic hemyana, MPkustīg) by Babylonian Jewish society, to the point that wearing a belt was considered a preparation for prayer (Shabbat, fol. 9b; Zevahim, fol. 19a; Elman, 2007c, pp. 181-82).

Also, the Babylonian Talmud’s suggestion that nail-parings should be buried in the earth, accompanied with utterance of charms shows a direct Zoroastrian, ancient Indo-European influence going back to holy Vi-daæv-dátá literally the rulings against demons also known as Vendidad, (Williams, II, pp. 61-62; Gafni, 1990, p. 171; Elman, 2007a, pp. 141-44; idem, 2007c, p. 179; Vidēvdād, chap. 17).

It has long been apparent that the Talmud’s recommendation regarding the disposal of fingernail parings in Niddah, (fol. 17a) has a Zoroastrian origin.

Rabbi Nahman command to kill noxious insects as narrated in Talmud is directly influenced by Zoroastrianism. For the Zoroastrians, the killing of noxious insects is a virtuous act of great religious significance as is so reported also by Herodotus.

(Rabbi Nahman is reported to have told his daughters regarding the killing of lice: “Kill the hated ones and let me hear the sound!”Shabbat, fol. 12a).

Michael Satlow has pointed out that the rabbinic emphasis on the severity of the sin of emitting seed/sperm vainly (hotzaʾat zerʿa le-vattalah) is due to the work of the editor and redactor(s) of Niddah (fol. 13a-b). He suggests that “they adopted this concept from Zoroastrian notions, to which, they were exposed” (Satlow, 1995b, pp. 137-75).

The rabbinic concept of onaʾah, “overreaching” in sales, may be paralleled by Mādayān ī hazār dādistān (37:2-10), with the same three-day period stipulated and a similar profit-margin (Bava metzia, fols. 49b-50a, 69a).

Then there is the institution of meʾun (refusal), whereby a underage girl could be married off by her mother or brothers, but could, upon reaching her majority, leave her husband (Mishnah yevamot 13:1, 4, 7; Yevamot, fol. 107a; for the parallel, see Mādayān 89:15-17).

Reference is also made to ancient Iranian Zoroastrian festivals in the Babylonian Talmud, two of them being days on which taxes were paid.

Concerning the ancient Iranian Zoroastrian festivals the Talmud says they are Mutardi, Turyaskai, Muharnekai, Muharin. (Bavli Abodah Zarah 11b)

Mutardi refers to the winter festival Maið-yaar; Turyaski, to Tiragān (13th of the 4th month); Muharnekai, to Mehregān or the fall festival of love/amoré; Muharin, to Nauv-rooz (see Taqizadeh, pp. 632-39).

Talmudic Aramaic is influenced by Indo Iranian syntax (ō lō/lā as a reflex as ayāb nē, for example) and even its propensity to use the Persian verb kardan (to create, make, do, perform) in compounds as u hizzuq in place of the Semitic heheziqu (Bava metzia, fol. 55b; Elman, 2007b, p. 15).

The Babylonian Talmud says concerning the ancient Iranian that it involves a writing that can’t be forged without leaving some sort of evidence.

The evidence cited here, indicates that ancient Iranian, Zoroastrian attitudes and doctrines made inroads in many areas of Babylonian rabbinic culture, in law, in theology, and in general cultural attitudes.

This is to be expected, because of the Jewish long, peaceful sojourn under the ancient Iranians rule in the conquered Mesopotamia. Zoroastrianism was a more benign presence than Roman Christianity.

While Zoroastrianism greatly influenced Judaism in ideas such as the resurrection of the dead or the idea of future saviors; the messianic advent for the Zoroastrians was also in the future, and therefore not a subject for adversarial debate as it was with Christianity.

ardeshir

Everlasting fame of the soul and charitable giving in Zoroastrianism

A predominant feature of Zoroastrianism is a strong sense of personal responsibility and duty towards immortality/everlasting fame of the soul. (See poetic gathas, Ysana 45.7, 3^rd rhymed verse line.)

As each man or woman is held responsible for the fate and everlasting fame of his or her own soul. Thus, it is a religious duty for each Zoroastrian individual to designate a sizeable part of his or her fortune for the immortality and/or everlasting fame of his or her own soul.

According to the Zoroastrian jurisprudence property is divided into three categories law: “designated for the individual/self” (pad xvíshí), “In trusteeship, literally to attend, stand by ” (pad stürí), and “for the upholding of the soul” (pad rúván dáshtan). See Mādayān ī hazār dādestān pt. 2, p. 21.2-3.

Accordingly a considerable portion of each individual’s estate is set apart for the everlasting fane and immortality of his or her own soul.

The testator could specify the purpose of the fund set­ aside for his or her soul, called “property of the soul” (xvástag í rúván) by means of a specific formula in his or her will. (See Mādayān, pt. 1, p. 71.1-2)

For example the individual can specify (rúván yazishn ráy) “for ceremonies for the soul,” e.g. religious rites and ceremonies to be performed after death. Or the individual can simply specify the simpler expression (rúván ráy) “for the soul.”

In the latter case the administrator or guardian has the right to use the endowment money in any way he/she deems as “most beneficial for the soul” like for building roads, bridges, irrigation canals, etc., as alms for the poor and needy, or for other charitable acts such as animal shelters and hospitals, all of which are considered to benefit the deceased soul. (Mādayān, pt. 1, p. 34.3-6

An individual could also establish a foundation for the souls of friends or relations. The declaration could be either verbal or written as part of a will or as a separate document (rúván í xvísh ud aníz kas ráy.) See Mādayān, pt. 1, pp. 24.17-25.1.

For example Shápür I, in his inscriptions at Naqš-e Róstam, states that he has founded a fire temple “for the mightiness of his soul’” (pad amáh rúván) and four fire temples for the souls of members of the royal family (Back, pp. 331­-69).

The declaration of the founder of the foundation shall also contain a provision that no person has the right to alienate property dedicated for the upholding of the soul: “Neither the trustee of the foundation nor any other person is authorized to sell or give away that property.” See Mādayān, pt. 1, p. 35.3-6).

In addition, the founder has the right to assign guardianship (sálaárí) or trusteeship (dáštárí) of the foundation to anyone he or she chooses, whether a member of family or not. See Mādayān, pt. 1, p. 27.12-14)

If the founder did not explicitly assign trusteeship to a particular person, it remains within the family and his or her relatives are obligated to serve as guardians. (See Mādayān, pt. 1, pp. 29.9-11, 45.15-17, 46.9)

The requirements that has to be met by the founder are similar to those in other legal Zoroastrian contexts, namely to be of full/legal age (púrnáy, i.e., at least fifteen years old), Zoroastrian (hú-daæn, lit. “of the good re­ligion”, be intelligent (höshyár), and “not guilty of a mortal, deadly sin ” (ní marg-arzán).

It shall be emphasized that both men and women can establish a charitable foundation and like everything else in Zoroastrianism, sexes have the same rights as well as the same responsibilities. (See Mādayān pt. 1, p. 27.15-16; pt. 2, p.

The property set apart for charitable purposes is viewed to consist of a principal, or base (bün), and the income, profit or what it bears, brings forth (bar.), arising from it.

By preference the bün is productive fixed property: cultivated land, vineyards, orchards, and the like.

The principal cannot be alienated or encroached upon (Mādayān, pt. 1, p. 35.3-6).

Fire temple endowments are furnished with income-producing property such as vineyards and are designated as “fire’s own” xvíší í átaxš. (See Mādayān, pt. 2, p. 39.6.)

In his inscriptions Shápūr I reports having conveyed property to the five fire temples that he had established.

There is NO distinction in Zoroastrian legal terminology between private endowments of a public character like bridges and fire temples, intended to benefit the com­munity, and family endowments, intended mainly to ensure income for the children and descendants of the founder.

Charitable endowments are safe from confiscation by government authorities in Zoroastrian jurisprudence, and can provide income for the families of the founders.

The principal of the foundation remains a distinct part of the property of the founder’s family and is inherited by his or her descendants, though they have no right to change its legal charitable status or function (See Mādayān, pt. 1, pp. 24.16-17, 24.17-25.1, 25.2-5, 46.4-9).

If the founder has transferred trusteeship to a person outside his or her family, the principal of the foundation and the right to its use transmits to that person’s descendants (See Mādayān, pt. 1, pp. 35.3-6, 24.13-16, 25.2-5, 25.17-26.1, 29.3-6).

I shall like to conclude that much of what we know of moslem shia waqf can be traced back to the Persian Zoroastrian jurisprudence.

In both, the principal (bün, Ar. mawqūf) can not be consumed, and the income (bar, Ar. manfaʿa) is used for charitable purposes specified by the founder. (including, in the waqf ahlī, the right of usufruct to his family).

The stipulation of the founder contains the same passage forbidding alienation of the principal. Similarly, the founder has the right to designate a trustee or guardian (Pers. sālār; Ar.  motawallī) of his or her choice.

ardeshir

The use of Aramaic cryptic symbols in ancient and middle Iranian Indo European texts

Aramaic is the name a Semitic language very closely related to Arabic and Hebrew.

Aramaic was chosen as the written language of the Aryan Achaemenid Empire. When the Indo-European Achaemenids extended their rule westward into Mesopotamia, they adopted Aramaic language for written communication between themselves and the NON Indo-European subjects of their vast empire to the West.

It was the simplicity of the Aramaic script that recommended the use of Aramaic as the official written language of the Achaemenid Empire.

The ancient Iranian alphabet in use before Aramaic was cuneiform. Cuneiform was also an adaptation of Mesopotamian writing.

Scribes in the Achaemenid period simultaneously translated and wrote down in Aramaic a text spoken in a local Indo-European Iranian language.

The Indo-European Iranian words in the text were restricted to personal names, technical words for which they had no Aramaic equivalent.

There were in fact many ancient Iranian/Aryan loan words that later entered Aramaic, mainly because there were Iranian administrative, cultural, and technical terms that did not lend themselves to translation into Aramaic and because the knowledge of Aramaic on the part of Iranians was minimal.

Over time the remaining hundred or so Aramaic words served only as ideograms or cryptic symbols, and were automatically read and understood, NOT in Aramaic, but as into their Indo-European Iranian equivalents.

In the post-Achaemenid period, the scribes became entirely ignorant of Aramaic. The scribes were only trained to use the complex system of Aramaic cryptic words. They read and understood the foreign cryptic writing, in its Indo European Iranian equivalents.

The use of Aramaic words for the purpose of cryptography in Middle Persian is attested by Ebn al-Nadim; he quotes the 8th-century author Ebn al-Moqaffaʿ, who explains the following examples: for /gōšt/ “meat” one writes BSRʾ (actually BSLY.)”

This was not entirely dissimilar to the use of Sumerian cryptic symbols in Akkadian texts.

The cryptic Aramaic words so written were just the graphic representation of their ancient or Middle Persian equivalents.

Though not the first one to recognize the cryptic symbols as such, Theodore Nöldeke played an important part in (re-)establishing this fact. In 1879 he translated Kār-nāmagī Ardeshir and gave non-heterographic readings in the annotations.

Carl Salemann in 1887 (Salemann, in Grundriss I, p. 252, sec. 8, n. 1). Salemann (Grundiss I, p. 250) pointed to the lack of Aramaic loanwords in New Persian and in the Armenian, Syrian, and Greek sources dependent on Middle Persian.

There is also internal evidence for the cryptic character of the Aramaic elements in parallel passages that vary between “cryptographic” and “phonetic” writing (Humbach, 1973, p. 121).

At the start of the 20th century new discoveries gave clear support to the view that the hundred or so Aramaic cryptic symbols were part of masking the writing system rather than being part of the language.

The Middle Persian and Parthian texts in Manichean script found in Central Asia contain no Aramaic Cryptography whatsoever, but obviously represent the same languages as the ones used in the Sasanian bilingual inscriptions and Pahlavi texts.

A particularly telling demonstration of the purely graphic character of the crypto Aramaic symbols is provided by the Sogdian “Tale of the Pearl-borer” (Henning, 1945, pp. 465-69), of which two copies exist, one in Sogdian script, with the usual sprinkling of Aramaic cryptography, and one in Manichean script without any.

ardeshir