In his letter "The dual spirits” (Readers’ Forum, Parsiana, November 21-December 6, 2022) Jehangir Sarosh has requested readers to respond to his views on dualism in Zoroastrianism — a subject often misinterpreted by scholars and overlooked by laypersons. I have studied this aspect in detail and my views are available on www.avesta.org, along with my research on many important subjects that concern us.
Our Prophet’s own vision and views have been drastically altered by later Pahlavi writers who placed Ahura Mazda alongside Angra Mainyu (Ahriman) instead of Spenta Mainyu (Holy Spirit), as was the case in the Gathas. Some scholars now realize that this was an astute attempt to expose the lacunae in their alien British rulers’ theology of absolute monotheism which lacked explanation for the presence of evil in the world.
It is often maintained, mostly by foreign scholars, that exposure to Christianity and western education inspired Parsis to claim to be monotheistic rather than dualist. However, Parsis have been firmly opposed to westernization interfering with their religious beliefs even though they were exposed to Christianity since its arrival in Gujarat. Even the evidence quoted by Prof Mary Boyce shows that in remote villages around Surat in the 19th century Parsis firmly believed in the superiority of Ahura Mazda. It is not surprising therefore that religious scholar Behramgore Anklesaria who translated these Pahlavi texts denounces them as "folklore” (dantkatha, in Gujarati).
The argument westernized Parsis used against being dualist seems based on an assumption rather than on objective data. My research shows that Zoroaster preceded the Hebrew prophets in preaching monotheism. I was perplexed about scholars denying Zarathushtra his destined role as the first monotheist. I am thankful for the views of the late Shaul Shaked, scholar of comparative religion, who enunciated them in the presence of Boyce, a proponent of dualism. I, for one, find the problem rooted in the concept of Gomezishn, a time when good and evil are mixed in the world, the two spirits remaining equal until Frashokereti (perfection/resurrection of the world). This concept was propounded by the Pahlavi texts (and discovered by me only when I read them). While a later Pahlavi legend cannot possibly match the Prophet’s profound logic, its fallacy is not difficult to dismantle.
Since only Ahura Mazda grants freedom of choice, it is difficult to maintain, as Sarosh does, that there is no "all-powerful entity in Zarathushtra’s philosophy.” What Mazda wants is for man to follow him in every way and be like himself (Yasna 34.1) by exercising his free will rightly by being Spenta and not Angra, a very formidable choice to make each waking minute of our lives. This is the essence of Zarathushtra’s representation or explanation of the two spirits, Mainyu, which is often translated as "mentality.” Yasna 44 is explicit about Ahura Mazda being the author of everything in the universe, even of night, which was later attributed to Ahriman. But even the Pahlavi books take a firm stand that Ahura Mazda does exist while Ahriman does not, as he is only a negative entity. Both spirits are the design or handiwork of God, at least as per the Gathas, or else how could they come into existence? And making the world perfect (Frasha) by science, technology, education, benevolence, etc is what is meant by Frashokereti-Frashigard.
Ervad (Dr) KERSEY H. ANTIA
Chicago, Illinois, USA