k . JjCKt>J<5*-\

The Aryans in iran and the Zcroastrian Religion.

(1) The two branches 01 the Eastern Aryan stocK, the Aryans of

India and the Aryans of Persia are very closely connected in

origin, but their subsequent divergence is all the more strongly

marked: each people follows a totally dinerent path in cultural

development and most or all in the development of their respective religion.

i. Their original connection is shown most clearly in their language. The earliest of the Persian sacred writings - the Gath-a-s of the Avesta. - resemble the hymns of tne aig Veda so closely as to appear dialects oi the same language rather than difterent tongues. There are certain changes of sound such as the Vedie S for Iranian h. but the syntax, the process of word formation and even the vocabulary are extraordinarily aliKe.

2. Even more remarkable, perhaps, are the signs oi resemblance

between the religions of the two peoples, wnieh are so numerous as

to show that the two peoples must have formerly shared the same

religious oeiieis and practises. The names and iunctions of the

different gods are similar and in many cases almost identical. Both peoples reckon the number of the gods as 55.

Thus we h8ve Persian Mithra - Indian Mitra. Pers. Airyaraan - Ind.Aryaman " Apam Napat " Aparrt Map's, t

" Thrita & Athwiya " Trita Aptya H Gandfcrewa " G/iandsflMfr. " Vayu " Vayu air

" Bagh$e_ (god) " Bhaga The god Bsfhis of gifts. The same words for evil spirits *atu & Druj (Druh) The fkrst man in the Avesta is Yima the son of Vivsnhvsnt, while in the Rig Veda he is Yama the son of Vivasvant. On the other hand while the words for supernatural beings are common to the two languages there is a curious dissimilarity in their use. The gods of the Veda are known as devas, "but the devas of the Avesta are demons. So too the Asurss of the Veda are evil powers, while the corresponding Iranian word Ahura is the name of the supreme god Ahura Maszdah. Nevertheless the word is also used in the Rig Veda in a good sense, and is applied to Varuna who alone among the Indian gods has some resemblance to the Ahura of the Avesta. Both of them are preeminently moral gods who punish sin and falsehood. Both of them are the guardians of order and moral law, and the same importance is attached to Asha or Arta "righteousness" in the religion of Ahura, as is possessed "by the similar word Rita in the worship of Varuna. Finally Varuna is the leader of the seven Adityas, as Ahura is the lord of the seven holy powers - the Ameshas Spentas. 2. Even more striking are the resemblances in cult. In both lands there is a highly developed priestly ritual which centres round the sacred drink and the sacred fire. The Vedie Soma is the Iranian Haoma, the sacred plant that grows upon the mountains, and it is pressed and prepared in a similar way. It is true that the Iranian fire god is not Agni but Atar the hearth fire, but the fire priests bear the same name in each country, being named Athravan in Persia and Atharvan in India. So too the Persian Zaotar corresponds to the Vedie Hotr, originally the offerer of the libation, and we have the same words for sacrifice Yasna and Yajna, and for the sacrificial twigs barhis and baresman. This evidence is sufficient to show that the two peoples shared 5. an almost identical form of religion oi a highly developed and elaborate character. It is therefore clear that for a considerable period oefore the Aryans entered India they must have iormed one people with the Aryans of Persia and shared in the same culture. But it does not necessarily follow tnat this culture was a purely Aryan one. j/ In spite of certain resemblances between the religion of the Eastern Indo-European peoples and those of the West, notably n. the cult of the sacred fire, the religions of the Aryans of India and Persia possess a number of pecuiarities which they do not share with the other Indo-European peoples, and it is highly proDsbie that these were developed in Iran itseli after* one occupation of that region oy the Aryans. For there is no reason to suppose that the early population of Persia was originally Indo-European. In the extreme south-west, in Slam, we know that tnere existed a very ancient civilization, alien to that of tne Suaerians, and that a non-Indo EuropeanJaggiutinative language was spoken. To the south East, in Baluchistan, the, remnants of a Dravidian speaking people exist to this day, while the prehistoric remains recently discovered at wal prove a connection with the Indus valley where there existed in the 3rd miilenium B.C. an advanced civilization of a similar type to that of the ancient Swneriams amd Elamites. For Persia proper, it is true, very little evidence exists. But it is certain that both Seistan and Kherasan were important centres of prehistoric culture, and thepainted pottery that has been found in those regions shows tnat they belonged to the same type of culture as Elam and Baluchistan.

H. el. the cult of Vesta at Rome, and that of Ugnis Szventa among the Lithuanians 4. I rfiience; it is probable that the culture of the Aryans in Iran was no more an unmixed one than that or the Aryans in India. In each case the historic culture resulted from tne contact and blending 01 the same two elements that, nave been already described, a settled civilization of the archaic type and the tribal culture of the warlike Aryan invaders, and since the underlying prehistoric culture was of a similar or related type in both countries, it is probable that both the two conquering peoples were exposed to similar cultural influences. Thus, for example, in both cases a Kind of caste system seems to have grown up. The Iranian word for caste-pistra - has tne same meaning as the Indian vama - i.e. colour, and the names oi the castes themselves Athravan-priests, rathaestar-cnarioteers, and vastrya - fsuyant-herdsmen and huiti-artisams, correspond lairly closely to the Brahmans, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, and Sudras of India, except in the case

I 1^ Pi of the fourth. Jf It is indeed difficult to say how much of the resemblances between the Iranians and the Indo-Aryans is due to their common racial origin, how much to the common culture that they shared before the Aryan invasion or India and how much to the common elements that may nave existed in the Pre-Aryan cultures of Persia and N.W. India. But if all these influences were common to the two peoples historical now are we to explain the striding divergence in their/development? To some extent, no doubt, these may be accounted for oy the difference of climate and natural environment between the Iranian plateau and the steaming lowlands of the Ganges valley - for it was not until the Aryans had reached the Ganges that tne specifically Indian development of their culture took place. But it was the development of the world religions themselves that did more than anything else to cause • 5. divergence between tne two cultures, and this development was due not to the influence of blind natural forces, out to the conscious work of great historic or semi-historic personalities. On the one hand we have jBuddna and the anonymous thinkers of the period of the Upanishads, ' on the other the single figure of Zarathustra, the prophet of Iran. It is difficult to conceive a more complete contradiction that is f presented oy the two resultant attitudes to life. For the Buddhist, on the one hand, the "Aryan law" is a law of renunciation and apathia, life is evil, the body is a source of suffering and the supreme goal of effort is the dreamless peace of Nirvana. For the zoroastrian, on the oj&her hand, the material world is "the holy creation of God", death is the supreme evil. The duty of the Aryan is "to make the world advance" oy husbandry and righteousness, and his reward is eternal life in "the House of Song" and to share in the victory of Ahura, when the servants of the Lie are finally defeated in the aay of the Great Consummation. And yet both these profoundly irreconcileaole views of life agree in that they are both alike reactions from a common type of polytheism and nature worship. Zoroastrianism is no more representat­ ive of the primitive religion of the Aryans than is Buddhism or the religion of the Upanishads. It represents the moraiization ox an oiuer nature religion ol the same t^pe as that which existed in India during the Vedie period. It is true that we have no evidence lor u\ the earlier stage ol Iranian religion such as Rig Veda supplies us with in the case of India. The whole sacred literature of ancient Persia is posterior to the goroasurian reform, and the oldest portion of that literature consists of the utterances ox ZarathUstra himself, or at least oi the prophet and relormer who went by that name. These hymns, which are Known as the Gathas, are comparable from the linguistic r

point of view to those of the Rig Veda, and must be considerably earlier in date than the other portions of tne Avesta, such as the Vendidad and the lashts, which differ both in dialect and metrical forms irom the older elements. Nevertheless it is irom these later texts, together with a lew scattered passages in Greek authors, that our only knowledge ol the older pre Zcroastrian religion of tne Aryans of Persia is derived. /For the religion of the later Avesta is the result of a process of syncretism between the religion of Zarathustra and the old Aryan or Iranian nature worship. The former is completely monotheistic; Mazdah is the one god, the creator, and i. the Aryan nature gods - the daeves-s - are replaced by moral abstracts ions such as Asha - the Right, Vohu Man ah - Good Thought and AjSmaiti - A Piety. *"~"**\Even the sacred Haoma is not mentioned, exceot perhaps in

navcondemnatione returned,/n. Yion longethe rlate asr deevssAvesta, ,i thowever is true, /th e loolrd thanaturt wore deitied now s L_ has an exclusively evil connotation, but as Yazatas or Lords. Mithra, the Sun God, Anahita the Earth Goddess, Tne Moon, the Stars and the Waters are all of them important ligures in the liturgy. The haoma takes tne same place in the cuitas as that occupied oy the Soma in the Vedie ritual, and there are numerous reierences to animal sacrifice, a practise shich is contrary to the v/hole spirit of the £7Zcroastrian reiorm. Thus by the period ox the later Avesta, / U. Zcroastrianism had incorporated practises and beliefs which belonged to the old Aryan nature religion and wtrireh dated back to the age of Indo-Iranian unity, long before the days oi Zarathustra and his preform. It had in fact become the national religion of Persia. n. e.g. Yasna 48.10. "When wilt thou smite the pollution of this intoxicant?" and 32.14. v. Zarathustra still figured as the great prophet of Mazdah and the lounder oi the true religion, but by nis side there appear the national heroes of the legendary Kavi dynasty who fought in "the battles of the world" against Frangrasyen (Afrasyab) and the Turanian enemies of the $uJr Aryans.>- l^When we turn to the older portion of theAvesta - the Gatha^s - we enter an entirely different atmosphere. The religion of Zarathustra is not trie religion of a warlike aristocracy, such as we find in the Rig Veda, nor is it, like that of the later Avesta, the religion oi a national Kingdom, On the contrary Zarathustra is the prophet of the poor and the humble whose only refuge against the oppression of the poweriul is in Anura Mazdah, and the Gathas are inspired throughout oy the need of defending the cause oi tne cattle and the husbandman against the men of violence.,; the Followers of the Lie". It is essentially areligion of the peasant, not of the warnoii as is seated in unraistakeaole terms in the following passage The \

L. TV cattle chose tor itself the cattle-tending husbandman as its lord according to Right (Asha) the men who advances Good Thought. he who is no husbandman however eager he be, has no part in the good messag^^^Yssas 31.10. tr. Moulton) Tnus the dualism of the ^.^gf'rlier Avesta is primarily a social dualism between the men of peace wno cause the world to advance uy piety and good husbandry and the raei of violence, who "destroy the life oi the ox with snouts oi 3oy", "the liars wno destroy life, and are determined to deprive the matron n .and the master of that heritage" . The rulers "who gave the cattle to violence and made them continually to mourn instead of taking care that they may make the pastures prosper through Right". But this social dualism is at the same time a religious one, tor the husbandmen, the followers of Right (Asha) are the servants of Ahura, n. is. 32 JO - 11. 8. wile the men of Violence (Aesma) are the worshippers of the Daevas and the servants of the Lie. How then are we to interpret these opposing forces? The identity of the husbandmen and the worshippers of Ahura is clear enough, but who are the servants of the Daeva worshippers? The traditional explanation is that they were the nomad "Turanian" tribes­ men who raided the Iranian settlements for cattle, like the Turcomans in modern times wno nave ceen such a scourge to the unwariike Persian peasantry. There is however little in the texts to justiiy such an interpretation. The word "Turanian" is only used in the Gathas to describe Fryana, one of the supporters of the prophet. The enemies of the cattle are "the evil rulers", the Kavis and the Karapans, the former of whom are chieftains and tne latter probably priests, and thgre is no suggestion that these are not themselves Iranians. ! Moreover Zarathustra is not tne national champion of the Iranians against a foreign enemy. On the contrary, he complains like i Jeremiah of his unpopularity and isolation. "To what land shall I ilee, wnitner betake myself? From the nobles and the priesthood (•? the peers •aryomanj they sever me, nor are the people pleased with me, nor the rulers of the land that follow the Lie. I know therefore I am without success. Few cattle are mine and 1 have but few rolk. I cry to Thee, see Thou to it, 0 Lora, granting me help, as friend giveth to friend". Ys. 46. 1-2.

It seems on the whole, then, more probable that the opposit­ ion described in the Gathas was a social ramer than a national one. We have seen that the Iranian culture was itself probably of mixed origin and was composed of two distinct elements - a very ancient type oi settled peasant civilization on the one hand and on the other, 9. , the warlike tribal culture of the pastoral Aryan peoples. Wow it is easy to understand how in such a culture, a social opposition may nave existed between the ruling aristocracy which had inherited the |_ ideals of warrior tribesmen and the subject agricultural population. Indeed such a coniiict is implicit in the contract oi warrior lord

JTM/ and peasant sert.:Jff/V Now about this period, in other parts of the world there wer*e arising champions of the poor and the oppressed wno gave voice for the first time in history to the wrongs of the subject classes and to a criticism ol the rulers and the rich. such were Hesiod in Greece, and Amos and Isaiah in Israel, and it is when viewed from a similar point of view piat the utterances ol Zerathustr? became most iully intelligible, jf Take, lor example, one of the y iA r cest Known passages in the Gathas, the complain'i t of the Ox to Ahura /I. To you the soul of the Ox made complaint For whom have you ' formed me? Who has created me? Violence and tyranny and outrage and force nave constrained me. I have no other shepnerd save you; appoint lor me then good pastures" 2. Then the Creator of the Ox asked of Asha (Right) How hast thou a protecter for tne Ox, so that you wno are the masters should give together with pasture such care as is due to the/ox? Whom do you will to be his lord, who may drive oil violence together with the ioliowers oi the Lie? 3. To him Asha replied "Tnere is for the Ox no helper who can keep narm away. Those yonder have no knowledge now right-doers act if I towards the lowly. The Ox soul goes on to appeal to Ahura and to Vohu Manah "the Good Thought",but no protector is to be found save the prophet Zaratnustrs who alone has heard the words oi Asha and Vohu Manah and is willing 10. to impart their message to men. But again the Ox soul complains that it "must be content with the ineffectual word of a man without V power, when I wish lor a chieftain wno commands mightily". Nevertheless in spite of the propnets lack of worldly power, he is supported by unseen helpers, the Holy Spirits of Ahura. His is the everlasting Kingdom, tne Desired Dominion. In the words of tne o Zoroastrian creed, the Ahuna Vairya or Hanover "Dominion beiongeth

to Ahura who has raised up a shepherd for the poor". JfTaus the if forces of the spiritual world/are brought in to redress the balance against the injustice and evil of the present iiie. As Moulton says "The diiigent and peacelul husbandman is to find comfort under n. | oppression in the certainty of a blessed future", N For whatever / the issue of the earthly struggle, the followers of Asha are assured oi victory in the Last Day when the world is judged oy lire, and the servants of the Lie are condemned to eternal torment, while the souls \__oi the righteous snail be happy forever in tne heavenly Kingdom "the Pasture of Right".n ,/ "Then truly on the Lie shall come the destruction of delight, but they that get them good name shall be partakers in the promised reward in the fair anode oi Good Thought. of Mazdah and oi Right". (Ys. 30. 10) n. Early Zcroastrian p.160. N2. Ys 33.3; 45.7; 30.10; Ther« is also a limbo lor those who "make their thoughts now better now worse, wno follow their own inclination and desires" (Ys.48.4) which is known as the Place oi the Mixed in the later Avesta Thus there is no ultimate dualism,for the victory of Asha is assured. Only the regeneration of the world must be worked out slowly and painfully in daily warfare with the powers of evil. The saints are they who "cause the world the advance", by Right, by husbandry and by good works. This is "The Road of Good Thought, built by Asha on which the souls of the Future Deliverers (Saoshyants) shall pass to their reward". Ys.3413. Thus every good act increases the dominion of Ahura and hastens the coming of the kingdom - In the words of the later Avesta, "He who relieves the poor, maketh Ahura King". Consequently the Zcroastrians' hope of a world to come in no sense implies a spirit of other worldliness or any contempt of the present life or of material concerns. The prophet himself sometimes shows a naive anxiety about his material interests, as when he writes "This I ask, tell me truly Ahura - whether I shall indeed, 0 Right, earn that reward even 10 mares with a stallion and a camel which was promised to me, 0 Mazdah, as well as through Thee the future gift of Welfare and Immortality" (in the world to come) Ys. 44.18. In the same way the spiritual nowers, Right, Good Thought, Piety, Ac. which occupy such an important place alike in the religion of the Gathas and In that of the later Avesta are not Metaphysical ideas, like the Platonic L^gas, as Darmsteter supposed. The worship of abstract and impersonal powers is not necessarily philosophic. On the contrary it is often characteristic of quite a primitive type of religious thought, as for example among the ancient Romans who worshipped such vague and impersonal deities as Fides, Ops &c. and yet whose religion was one of the least philosophic that can be imagined. And in the Zcroastrian 12. religion, the spiritual powers which were afterwards known as the Amesha Spentas or Amashspands - the Immortal Holy Ones, in spite of their abstract character possessed a very close relation to the concrete forces of the natural world. * Each of them is linked with some particular province of nature'or some category of objects. Thus Asamaiti - Piety - is the Genius of the Earth, Asha - Right -

IT is the spirit of the Fire. Good Thought - Voku Manah - presides over the Cattle, Kshathra - the Kingdom - is connected with Metals and Haurvatat and Ameretat - Health and Immortality - with Water an Plants respectively. In some passages of the Gathas, the spirit­ ual abstraction seems actually to stand for its material correlative, for example in Ys 47.3 "Thou art the holy Father of this spirit which has created for us the luck-bearing cattle and for its pasture to give it peace (has created) Piety" where Asamaiti - Piety - r seems to stand for its material embodiment the Earth. This gives Zoroastrienism a peculiar interest for the students of comparative religion. For on the one hand it stands out even among the other world religions of the new period by reason of its uncompromising monotheism and its high ethical teaching, while on the other its view of the world still has much in c&mmon with the simple animistic conceptions of the old nature religion. The other world-religions (with the possible exception of Confucianism) tended to turn away from social life and material activity in order to seek a purely spiritual kingdom, and even, like the Buddheits, despised the body and all earthly existence as essentially evil. Zcroastrian alone preserved the spirit of the agricultural religion of the archaic culture, which had regarded the earth and the life of natursacreed aritess holy. , andThroughou looked upot historn the ywor thke of tillage and husbandry as 13. followers of Zarathustra have remained faithful to the teaching which is inculcated so persistently in the Avesta. j? One of the most important sections oi the Vendidad or book of The Law is devoted to the duty oi the religious mPn towards the Earth. 24. "Unhappy is the land that nas long lain unsown with the seed of the sower and wants a good husbandman, like a well shaped maiden wno nas long gone childless and wants a good husband. 2b. He who would till the eartn, 0 Spitama Zarathustra, with the left arm and the right, with the right arm and the left, unto him will she bring forth plenty of fruit: even as it were a lover sleeping with a bride in her bed; the bride will bring forth children, the earth will bring plenty of iruit. 26. He who will till the earth 0 Spitama Zarathustra with the ieit arm and the right ... unto him thus says the Earth "0 thou man who dose till me witn the right arm and tne left ... here snalifc ever go on bearing, bringing forth all manner of food, bringing corn iirst to tnee. 30. 0 maker of tne material world, tnou Holy One.' What is the support of the Law? Ahura Mazdah answered: It is sowing corn again and again, 0 Spitama Zarathustra.' 31. He who sows corn sows righteousness: he makes the Religion of Mazdah walk, he suckles the Religion of Mazdah; as well as he could do with a hundred men's feet, with a thousand women's breasts, with 10,000 sacrificial formulas. 33. Then let the people learn by heart this holy saying "No one who does not eat has strength to do works of holiness, strength to do works oi husbandry, strength to beget children. By eating every material creature lives, by not eating it iaints away. 14. ' » I. Zarathustra asks of Ahura, which are the niaces in which the earth has most joy, and Ahura Mazdah answers "It is the place whereon one of the faithiul erects a house with a priest (a domestic chaplain) within, with cattle, with a wife, with children with good nerds within: and wherein afterwards the cattle continue to thrive, virtue to thrive, fodder to thrive, the dog to thrive, tne wife to thrive, the child to thrive, the fire to thrive, and every blessing of life to thrive 4. It is tiie piace where one 01 the faitniul sows most corn, grass and fruit, 0 Zarathustra, where he waters ground that is cry or drains ground that is too wet. "It is the place wnere there is b, 6 most increase of i'iocks and herds, and where they yield most manure 7 - ii On the other hand the earth is miserable, where there are corpses of men and animals, and where the wile and enildx-en of one oi the

• faithful are driven aiong tne v/ay oi captivity, the dry way, the dusty way, and lift up a voice of wailing*. ("SfeiidtdHdzgaEgaEctziEt—t;e.—s&iauste-teji_) It is true that this eminently sane and practical ideal ol conduct is obscured oy an elaborate growth of magical conceptions and ritual practises which oiter appear uosurd and revolting to the modern mind. Tne slightest contact with a corpse involves a state - of uncleaness which must be counteracted by a rigid method of purification and ritual quarantine. Nevertheless tnese practises in spite of their crudity, are often of real hygienic value, and it has been truly said thet the Zcroastrian attitude towards the spirit ol death and disease - the Nosu - is muca the same as that of the modern educated European towards bacteria ana oacteriological 1 iniection. For instance it is taught in the Vendidad that wet

i.Vendidad pargard m tr. Darmsteter. t 10. matter is agreater conducter-oi uncleaness than ory matter, and that metal can be cleansed of infection more easily than wood. This practical and utilitarian spirit is however only one side of tne Zcroastrian religion. It survives in its full strength among the existing remnant of the followers of Zarathustra, the Pa^sis of Bombay and the G^ebres oi N.W.Persia, but it has had

r little influence on the outside world. It is the more spiritual elements of Persian religion - its eschato'logy, its duaiistic theory of the eternal conflict of the forces of Light and the forces °** darkness, and its teachings with regard to guardian angels &c, wnich have been of most importance lor thehistory of I! religion. In the early centuries oi the Christian era above all Iranian culture and Iranian religion made their influence felt in all directions. It is to be seen in the spread of the worship oi Mithras in the Roman Empire, in tne rise of new syncretistic types of religion, such as Manicnaeanism and some of the Gnostic sects and even in the transformation winch the Buddhist religion underwent in Northern India and Central Asia during this period. It is however a very difficult problem to decide how far Zcroastrian influence afiected the earlier development of religion in Western Asia. There are obvious resemblances between the religion oi tne Avesta on the one hand, and both Judaism and early Christianity on the other, and the changes that took place in later Judaism with its increased emphasis on eschatological and apocalyptic teachings, suggest an even closer parallelism. There has oeexi a widespread tendency, especially among German , n writers to attribute the new developments, mainly to Zcroastrian I / influence, and even to regard the idea of the redemption of the -"•—-'••Hi s i / • 16. world oy a supernatural deliverer and of the Last Judgment as actually of Zoroastrian origin. Now it is true that the Jews were in contact with Persian influences from the 6th century onwards, and it may Well be from this source that they derived the new beliefs in angels and demons which appear in the books ol Daniel and Tobit. In the latter case Persian iniluence is certain since the evil spirit Asmodeus bears the name of a Zcroastrian demon Aeshama Daefa. On the other hand the Jewish beliet in the corning of theKingdom of God and the Messianic deliverer is deeply rooted in the whole tradition of the religion of Israel, and there is no need to invoke foreign influences to explain its subsequent development. It has even been maintained that the resemblance between the two religions points to an iniluence of Judaism on Zoroastrianism rather than vice versa, JT This is the view oi one oi the modern writers on Zoroastrianism St.Pettazzoni, who argues that since the whole development of monotheistic religion in its existing forms, both Jewish, Christian and Moslem, goes back to a common root in ancient Israel, there is a prima iacie improbability that the Zcroastrian monotheism should have haa an entirely independent origin. Now after the fall of SarrifcrlBi in 722 some of the exiled Israelites were settled "in the Cities, of the Medes" (2 Kings 17.6) and S&t. Pettazzoni believes that the rise of the Zeroastrian reform may have been due to the influence or ideas propagated Oy the exiles among the population where they were settled. .XBut though this view is not impossible it is purely hypothetical, and the uncertain­ ty of the date of the Gathas ad of the Zoroastrian reiorm itself t6 ipiskes it difficult to at firm anything definite about the historical circumstances ox its origin. Consequently it is saiest to assume a completely independent origin tor the monotheism of Israel and that of Iran, and to confine the question oi mutual iniluence to a secondary stage.