Discover the 7 Transformative Truths of Zoroastrianism: affectionate Your Spiritual Journey

Zoroastrianism Religion: An Ancient Iranian Religion with Monotheistic and Dualistic Features

Zoroastrianism Religion

In Zend Avesta Farvardin Yasht chapter 28 verse 129 (Sacred Books of the East, volume 23, Zend Avesta Part II pg. 220), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroaster a profound prophecy unfolds within the rich tapestry of Zoroastrianism Religion: “Whose name will be the Victorious, Soeshyant, and whose name will be Astvat-area. He will be Soeshyant (The Beneficent one) because he will benefit the whole bodily world. He will be Astvat-ereta (he who makes the people, bodily creatures rise up) because as a bodily creature and as a living being, he will stand against the destruction of bodily beings, withstanding the drug of the two-footed brood, and resisting the evil done by the faithful (idolaters and the like and the errors of the Mazdaynians).”

This prophecy, deeply rooted in Zoroastrianism Religion, becomes even more intriguing when considered in connection with other religious figures, particularly a potential link to Muhammad (pbuh). Some scholars assert a connection to Muhammad (pbuh), citing his victory at Fatah Makkah and his merciful approach towards adversaries, echoing the prophecy of the Victorious and the Beneficent one. The term Soeshyant, meaning the ‘praised one,’ aligns remarkably with the Arabic translation of Muhammad (pbuh).

These verses, nestled within the teachings of Zoroastrianism, not only offer profound insights into the faith but also provoke contemplation on the potential intersections with other spiritual traditions. The layers of meaning added to the prophetic words spark a dialogue on the shared threads that weave through diverse religious narratives.

Astvat-ereta, derived from the Sanskrit and Zend root word Astu, meaning ‘to praise,’ and the Persian root word istadan, signifying ‘one who makes a thing rise up,’ translates to ‘the one who praised.’ This aligns remarkably with the Arabic word ‘Ahmed,’ another name for Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), as mentioned in the prophecy. The revelation explicitly cites both names of the Prophet, Muhammad (pbuh) and Ahmed (pbuh).

The prophecy foretells that this divine figure will benefit the entire bodily world, a concept mirrored in the Qur’an’s affirmation in Surah Al-Anbiya, chapter 21, verse 107:

“We sent thee not, but as a mercy for all creatures.” [Al-Qur’an 21:107]

Sanctity of Prophet’s Companions:

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Zarathustra

Zend Avesta Zamyad Yasht chapter 16, verse 95, emphasizes the virtuous qualities of Astvat-ereta’s friends, who are fiend-smiting, well-thinking, well-speaking, well-doing, and truthful followers of the good law. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is explicitly mentioned by name as Astvat-ereta, with a clear reference to his companions, the Sahabas – pious, holy men of good moral values and truthfulness.

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in Dasatir:

The prophecy in Dasatir anticipates a time when the Zoroastrianism people forsake their religion, and a man in Arabia, likely Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), will rise. His followers will conquer Persia, subjugate the arrogant Persians, abandon fire worship for the Kaaba of Abraham (pbuh), and become masters of Persia, Madain, Tus, Balkh, and other sacred places. This prophecy unmistakably points to Muhammad (pbuh).

Muhammad (pbuh) as the Last Prophet:

Bundahish chapter 30, verses 6 to 27, states that Soeshyant will be the last Prophet, implying that Muhammad (pbuh) will be the final Prophet. The Qur’an confirms this in Surah Ahzab:

“Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Messenger of Allah, and the Seal of the Prophets: and Allah has full knowledge of all things.” [Al-Qur’an 33:40]

The intricate connections between these prophecies and Zoroastrianism Religion underscore the profound intersections between religious traditions. 🌐 #ZoroastrianismReligion #ProphetMuhammad #InterfaithConnections

 Exploring the Rich Heritage of Zoroastrianism Religion

Zoroastrianism religion, also known as Zarathustrianism, stands as a testament to the enduring power of faith and wisdom. Dating back over three millennia, this ancient religion, founded by the prophet Zoroaster (Zarathustra) in ancient Persia, holds a unique place in the history of human spirituality.

Foundations and Beliefs

At the heart of Zoroastrianism lies a dualistic cosmology, with the eternal battle between the forces of good, represented by Ahura Mazda, and evil, embodied by Angra Mainyu. This duality shapes the ethical framework of the faith, emphasizing the importance of free will, truth, and righteousness in upholding cosmic order.

Worship and Practices

Zoroastrian worship predominantly takes place in fire temples, where the sacred fire symbolizes the presence of Ahura Mazda. Purity and ethical conduct are central to Zoroastrian practices, evident in rituals such as the purification rites and prayers. The respect for nature and creation is reflected in traditions aimed at maintaining harmony with the environment.

Influence and Legacy

Zoroastrianism‘s influence extends far beyond its origins, with its concepts of heaven, hell, and the final judgment echoing in various global religious traditions. The faith’s emphasis on truth, justice, and the pursuit of good deeds has left an indelible mark on moral thought and ethical principles across cultures.

Challenges and Revival

Despite its rich heritage, Zoroastrianism faces challenges related to its dwindling global population. Efforts to preserve and revitalize the faith are underway, with a focus on interfaith dialogue, cultural heritage preservation, and engagement with the younger generation.

In conclusion, Zoroastrianism religion stands as a beacon of ancient wisdom, inviting all to explore its teachings and embrace its enduring legacy. Its profound impact on the spiritual and intellectual heritage of humanity makes it a compelling subject of study and contemplation. The timeless principles of Zoroastrianism continue to inspire and resonate with people around the world, reaffirming the enduring relevance of this ancient faith.

The Sasanian period

With Ardashīr, the future founder of the Sasanian dynasty, the situation was different, and this may suggest that his religious zeal—as a hereditary priest of Staxr (Istaxr)—may have helped him seize power in his native province, even before he started attacking his Arsacid suzerain, Artabanus V.

Two persons are recorded, in different sources, as helping to establish Zoroastrianism under the first Sasanians: Kartēr and Tansar. Whereas Kartēr is known through contemporary inscriptions, most of which were written by himself, Tansar (or Tosar) is only remembered in later books. The latter tell us that Tansar, an ehrpat, or theologian, undertook the task, under Ardashīr’s command, of collecting the sacred texts and fixing the canon. Kartēr, who was already active under Ardashīr I but more so under Shāpūr and his successors, recounted his brilliant career, which reflects the birth of a hierarchy. He was still an ehrpat under Shāpūr, as he restored the “Mazdean religion…in the land of non-Iran reached by the horses and men of the king of kings.” Under Hormizd he was made Ormazd’s magupat, a term apparently created for him and meaning “chief of the Magians of Auramazda.” Under Bahrām I (273–276), Mani, the founder of Manichaeism, who had enjoyed a degree of tolerance under the two preceding kings, was sacrificed to the interests of Zoroastrianism and died in prison. Bahrām II named Kartēr “Saviour of the Soul of Bahrām,” elevated him to the rank of the “grandees of the realm,” and gave him the additional titles of “judge of the empire,” “master of rites,” and “ruler of the fire of Anahit-Ardashīr at Staxr and of Anahit the Dame.” Promoted to the apex of his career, Kartēr persecuted “Jews, Buddhists, Brahmins, Nasoreans [Judeo-Christians?], Christians, Maktaks [Mandeans, Manichaeans?], and Zandīks [Mazdean heretics].” Narses (293–302), who began his struggle for power when Bahrām II was still on the throne, seems to have recovered the title of chief of the Staxr temple that his predecessor and adversary had surrendered to Kartēr. Under Shāpūr II, the high priest Aturpāt, at a council summoned to fix the text of the Avesta, proved the truth of his doctrine by submitting to the ordeal of molten metal poured on his breast and was victorious over all kinds of sectarians and heretics.

Under Bahrām V (420–438), presumably, the title magupatān magupat (chief magus of the chief magi) was created. Under Qobād (or Kavādh; 488–496 and 498/499–531), Iran traversed its gravest social and religious crisis under the impact of Mazdak. This reformer, whose doctrines were partly inspired by those of Mani, was granted an interview by Qobād—as Shāpūr I had received Mani a long time before, but with a more decisive success. Perhaps the king hoped that by abolishing property and the family he would reign over a docile mass. The Mazdakites favoured the abolition of all social inequalities, chiefly of private property, the main cause of all hatred. Everything was to be held in common, including women. These views directly threatened the rich as well as the Mazdean clergy, who soon understood this. Qobād was dethroned and replaced by his brother Jāmāsp. After two years in exile, Qobād recovered his throne, but he had been cured of his egalitarian views and decided to liquidate the Mazdakites.

Khosrow I continued the work of his father, Qobād, and thus the Mazdakite upheaval made way for a strong state and an established Mazdean Church. The religious books give Khosrow the unique title of anōshirvan, “with the immortal soul,” probably for having crushed Mazdakism and for enabling the “good religion” to triumph.

Khosrow II (590/591–628) married a Christian woman and showed sympathy toward his Christian subjects. He was superstitious and dabbled in astrology.

Post-Islamic Iranian Zoroastrianism

Islam won a decisive victory at al-Qādisiyyah in 635 over the armies of Yazdegerd III, the last Sasanid. Islam, in principle, tolerated the ancient religion, but conversions by persuasion or force were massive in many provinces. Zoroastrianism fomented rebellion and brought persecutions upon itself. There were pockets of survival, notably in Persis, the ancient centre of the Achaemenian and Sasanian empires. Books were produced to save the essentials of the religion from a threatened disaster. The disaster did occur, but exactly why and how is not known. Zoroastrians, called Gabars by the Muslims, survived in Iran as a persecuted minority in small enclaves at Yazd and Kerman.

The Parsis in India

From the 10th century onward, groups of Zoroastrians emigrated to India, where they found asylum in Gujarat. Their connection with their coreligionists in Iran seems to have been almost totally broken until the end of the 15th century. Reestablished in 1477, the connection was kept up chiefly in the form of an exchange of letters until 1768. Under British rule, the Parsis, who previously had been humble agriculturists, started to enrich themselves through commerce, then through industry. They became a most prosperous and “modern” community, centred in Bombay (Mumbai). Formerly they had adopted the Gujarati language and the dress of their Hindu milieu. Later they adopted British customs, British dress, the education of girls, and the abolition of child marriage. In their enterprises as well as in their charities, they followed the example of the West. From the 19th century on, they were able to help their less-favoured brethren in Iran, either through gifts or through intervention with the government.

They also adapted themselves to their Indian culture by minimizing what was repugnant to the Hindus—namely, blood sacrifice—and they surrendered to some extent to the vogue of astrology and to theosophy. On the other hand, ever since they were attacked by Christian missionaries for their dualism, they have been emphasizing the monotheistic aspect of their doctrine.

Beliefs and mythology

Sources

Only the hymns, or Gāthās, are attributable to Zarathushtra. They are written in various metres and in a dialect different from the rest of the Avesta, except for seven chapters, chiefly in prose, that appear to have been composed shortly after the prophet’s demise. All these texts are embedded in the Yasna, which is one of the main divisions of the Avesta and is recited by the priests during the ceremony of the same name, meaning “sacrifice.” The Visp-rat (“All the Judges”) is a Yasna augmented here and there by additional invocations and offerings to the ratus (lords) of the different classes of beings. The Vidēvdāt, or Vendidad (“Law Rejecting the Daevas”), consists of two introductory sections recounting how the law was given to human beings, followed by 18 sections of rules. The Siroza enumerates the deities presiding over the 30 days of the month. The yashts (hymns) are each addressed to one of 21 deities such as Mithra, Anahita, or Verethraghna. The Hadhoxt Nask (“Section Containing Sayings”) describes the fate of the soul after death. The Khūrda Avesta, or “Small Avesta,” is made up of minor texts.

The Avesta is, therefore, a collection of texts compiled in successive stages until it was completed under the Sasanians. It was then about four times larger than what has survived. A summary of its 21 books, or nasks (of which only one is preserved as such in the Vidēvdāt), is given in one of the main treatises written during the brief Zoroastrian renascence under Islam in the 9th century: the Dēnkart, the “Acts of the Religion.” It is written in Pahlavi, the language of the Sasanians.

Other works in Pahlavi include, besides a translation and commentary on the Avesta, the Bundahishn (“Primal Creation”), a cosmology. Most Pahlavi books are anonymous, such as Mēnōk-i Khrat (“Spirit of Wisdom”), a lucid summary of a doctrine based on reason, and the Book of Artāy Virāf, which describes Virāf’s descent into the netherworld as well as heaven and hell and the pleasures and pains awaiting the virtuous and the wicked. There are also a few signed works, such as those of the two brothers Zātspram and Mānushchihr, or Mardān-Farrukh’s Shkand-Gumānīk Vichār (“Final Dispelling of Doubts”), an apology of the Mazdean religion directed against ManichaeismChristianityJudaism, and Islam.

Finally, there are Zoroastrian books written in Persian, either in verse or in prose. The latter include the correspondence exchanged between Zoroastrians of Iran and India and the treatise entitled ʿOlemā-ye Islām (“The Doctors of Islam”), with decidedly Zurvanite tendencies.

God

Zarathushtra’s silence on Mithra is not easy to interpret. Since this god was closely associated with Varuna in India and with Varuna’s likely substitute in Iran, Zarathushtra can hardly have ignored one-half of this divine pair without a definite purpose. Otherwise, it might be presumed that Mithra was included in the formula “Mazdā and the [other] ahuras”; however, Mithra is called in the Later Avesta (non-Gāthic) an ahura; so is Apām Napāt, a fire or brightness in the waters, corresponding to the Vedic Apam Napat. As for Verethraghna (the entity or spirit of victory), it seems that since he took over the function of Indra, who was a daeva, he could not be called an ahura, but in order to mark his belonging to the world of ahuras he was called ahuradāta, “created by an ahura.”It is in the framework of the religion of the ahuras, hostile to the cult of the daevas, that Zarathushtra’s message should be understood. He emphasized the central importance of his god, the wise Ahura, by portraying him with an escort of entities, the powers of all the other gods, in an array against the forces of evil.The moral dualism expressed in the opposition Asha–Druj (truth–falsehood) goes back at least to Indo-Iranian times, for the Veda knows it too, as rita-druh, though the contrast is not as sharply defined as in the Avesta. Between these two principles, the Twin Spirits made an ominous choice, the Bounteous One becoming in thoughts, words, and deeds a partisan of Asha, ashavan, while the other became dregvant, partisan of the Druj. After them it was the daevas’ turn, and they all chose wrongly. Ever since, the daevas have tried to corrupt each human being’s choice also.

To the army of the ashavans, headed by the Bounteous Spirit, was counterposed the host of the dregvants, under the Destructive Spirit, Angra Mainyu. Each combatant faced his exact counterpart: the Good Mind opposing the Bad Mind and Aramaiti being countered by Taromaiti.

In this battle the whole material universe is, through the entities, potentially enrolled, the Bounteous Spirit being the patron of humankind, Asha of fire, the Good Mind of the Ox, the Dominion of the metals, Aramaiti of the earth, Integrity and Immortality of the waters and plants. Moreover, since the entities are at once divine and human (because both the spiritual and material qualities of man partake of divine), everyone faithful to the wise Ahura can commune with him.

After Zarathushtra, considerable changes occurred in the theology he had professed. The entities were reduced to mere deities, which were even separated into male and female. Never again were their names used to designate human faculties. This is probably a consequence of the resurgence of the ancient gods.

It is not known to what extent Zarathushtra’s system was meant to be exclusively the cult of Ahura Mazdā. In the Later Avesta all the gods he had ignored emerged again, such as Mithra, Airyaman (whom he had replaced by Sraosha), Anahita, Apām Napāt, Verethraghna, and Vayu. This vast pantheon, still nominally headed by Ahura Mazdā, is similar to the compromise that Darius, according to the interpretation cited above, made between the cult of Auramazda and that of the gods of the nobility.

Not only did Zarathushtra’s theology thus lose its exclusive position, but an internal change also modified its equilibrium and even threatened its very essence. The Bounteous Spirit was almost completely reabsorbed into Ahura Mazdā. Whereas in a yasht the two Spirits fought each other, in the Vidēvdāt Ahura Mazdā and the Destructive Spirit opposed each other by creating, respectively, the good and the bad things. This profoundly affected Zarathushtra’s system, for Ahura Mazdā could no longer be the father of the Twin Spirits; he now faced, on equal terms so to speak, a sort of antigod. This alteration probably dates back at least to the 4th century BCE, for Aristotle said in the Peri philosophias (“On Philosophy”) that the Magi preached the existence of two principles, Oromasdes and Areimanios.

 

 

define zoroastrianismwhat is zoroastrianismzorastrianzorastrianismzoroastrianzoroastrian religionzoroastrianism beliefszoroastrianism founderzoroastrianism originzoroastrians
Comments (1)
Add Comment
  • AffiliateLabz

    Great content! Super high-quality! Keep it up! 🙂