%***„** ^ . <**r

. ' -A ¦
% ¦

ft Vs

"4.^-

': ,." ¦' •

: * : , "W * t

\ .; .

"IgivetAeft Books
-fovMe-tfoiindingiifa, Cotttgt ifctftlsCotd/Ly!'

Deposited by
The Boocock Library of
the Social Sciences
1913

THE
RELIGIOUS SYSTEM OF THE PARSIS.

A LECTURE

DELIVERED BY

JIVATSTJI JAMSHEDJI MODI

-AT THE

TOWN HALL,

ON

MONDAY, the 12th of JANUARY, 1885.

BOMBAY :
PRINTED AT THE BOMBAY GAZETTE STEAM PRESS, RAMPART ROW.
18 8 5.

This lecture was delivered at the Town Hall, on the
12th of January, 1885, before a mixed audience of all
communities, when His Excellency Sir James Fergusson,
Bart., K.C.M.G., CLE., Governor of Bombay, Kindly pre-
sided. It is published in pamphlet form at the suggestion
of some friends. My thanks are due to the Trustees of
the Sir Jamshedjee Jejeebhoy Translation Fund for sup
porting this publication.
JIVANJI JAMSHEDJI MODI.
Colaba, 1st March, 1885.

THE RELIGIOUS SYSTEM OF THE PARSIS.

Ma. Jivanji Jamshedji Modi, B.A., delivered a lecture
yesterday evening (Monday the 12th January), at the
Town Hall, before a large and influential assembly,
mainly consisting of Parsis. The hall was crammed to its
utmost capacity,. and there was a fair sprinkling of Euro
peans and Hindoos present. His Excellency the Governor,
whose arrival was greeted with long continued cheering,
presided ; and he was supported on the platform by the
Hon. Mr. Melvill and the Hon. Sir Charles Sargeant.
His Excellency the Governor, who was received with
cheers, said, — It is always proper on such occasions to
introduce the lecturer. I think it is hardly necessary to
give that introduction here, as the respected gentleman
who is to address you in a moment holds an honorable
position in the Parsi community. (Hear, hear.) I think
therefore it is quite unnecessary that he should be in
troduced like one who is a stranger and is previously
unknown. I should like to say that I myself, and I am
sure my honourable colleague and the Honourable the
Chief Justice and other Europeans present as well, will listen
with great interest to a lecture which will make known
in a popular form the history and the characteristics of
this great community, which is so firmly established

nr
amongst us. I do not think that either the- Governor or
the leaders of society ought to hesitate to give countenance
and pay every mark of respect to a body of their fellow-
citizens who have so well earned it as the Parsi community
of Bombay. (Loud applause.) Their position is unique —
a handful of persons among the teeming millions of Indiay
and yet who not only have preserved their ancient race with
the utmostpurity, but also their religion absolutely unimpair
ed by contact with others. They have risen, as a community
and as individuals, to a position of the highest eminence in
competition with others. (Applause.) Members of the Parsi
community have gained a reputation which is not only
local, but world-wide, for their eminence and their benevo
lence. Long before I came to Bombay, I knew that their
name was a household word in England ; and since I have
been here, I have enjoyed the friendship of many members
of that body, which I trust long to retain. So, gentlemen, it
requires no apology, and little explanation for our presence
here to-night; I can only say that no one will listen
with more interest than myself to the lecture which we are
about to hear, and in the way of which I will no longer
stand. (Loud applause.)— The Bombay Gazette, 13th
January, 1885.

¥otJB Excellency, Ladies and Gentlemen,
The subject of my lecture this evening is "The Reli
gious system of the Parsis " or the, religion founded by
Zoroaster the great Parsi Prophet.
In a mixed community like that of Bombay, people of
different nationalities, castes, and creeds come into contact
with one another every day, but they know very little of
the manners and customs, and almost nothing of the
religious systems of one another. This lecture is intended
to present to non-Zoroasfcrians an outline, a mere outline,
of the religious system of. the Parsis or Zoroastrians, who
form a small, though not an unimportant, part of the
mixed community of Bombay. In the words of The Bight
Reverend Dr. Meurin the learned Bishop (Vicar Apostolic) of
Bombay, the Parsis are " a people who have chosen to
relinquish their venerable ancestors' homesteads rather than
abandon their ancient religion, the founder of which has
lived no less than 3,000 years ago ; a people who for a
thousand years have formed in the midst of the great Hindoo
people, not unlike an island in the sea, a quite separate
and distinct nation, peculiar and remarkable, as for its race,
so for its religious and social life and customs."
The Parsis do not at the present day form more than ten
thousandth part of the population of the whole of our
earth. Yet as Professor Max-Muller says : — " There were

2
periods in the history of the world when the worship of
Ormuzd threatened to rise triumphant on the ruins of the
temples of all other gods. If the battles of Marathon and
Salamis had been lost, and. Greece had succumbed to
Persia, the state religion of the empire of Cyrus, which was
the worship of Ormuzd, might have become the religion of
the whole civilized world. Persia had absorbed the Assyrian
and Babylonian Empires ; the Jews were either in Persian
captivity or under Persian sway at home ; the sacred monu
ments of Egypt had been mutilated by the hands of
Persian soldiers. The edicts of the great king, the king
of kings, were sent to India, to Greece, to Scythia, and to
Egypt ; and if ' by the grace of Auramazda ' Darius had
crushed the liberty of Greece, the purer faith of Zoroaster
might easily have superseded the Olympian fables." The
same learned orientalist further says, " Though every reli
gion is of real and vital interest in its earliest state only,
yet its later development too, with all its misunderstand
ings, faults and corruptions, offers many an instructive
lesson to the thoughtful student of history. Here is a reli
gion, one of the most ancient of the world, once the state
religion of the most powerful empire, driven away from
its native soil, deprived of political influence, without even
the prestige of a powerful or enlightened priesthood, and
yet professed by a handful of exiles — men of wealth, intel
ligence, and moral worth in Western India — with an
unhesitating fervour such as is seldom to be found in larger
religious commuuities. It is well worth the earnest

endeavour of the philosopher and the divine to discover, if
possible, the spell by which this apparently effete religion
continues to command the attachment of the enlightened
Parsis of India, and makes them turn a deaf ear to the
allurements of the Brahmanic worship and the earnest
appeals of Christian missionaries/'
It is the system of such a religion, gentlemen, that is
the subject of my lecture this evening. Before speaking of
the religion itself, it will not be out of place to say here
a few words about the birth place of its founder Zoroaster
or Zarthust, and the age in which he lived.
On these points a great difference of opinion exists
among learned orientalists. Some say he was a Bactrian,
and others that he was a Median. I prefer to call him a
Bactro-Median, or rather a Medio-Bactrian because he was
born in Rae in Media, and he propagated his religion iu
Bactria, the country of the modern Balkh which was the
capital of Gustasp, the then king of Persia. Dr. Spiegel
not only makes him a contemporary of Abraham, but says
that they lived together in the same place. He says that
Haran in which according to the Old Testament, Abraham
lived is the same as Arran or Airyana — vaeja of the Zoroas
trian scriptures, and he attributes the similarity of several
ideas in the two religions to this fact. Max-Muller, however,
differs from him, and attributes the similarity to the fact
that the Avesta and Hebrew manuscripts are very modern,
and to the fact that it was at the same time, in the third

4
century B. C, and at the same place, Alexandria, that the
Old Testament and the Avesta were translated into Greek.
Greek and Roman historians place this law-giver in
times as old as B. C. 5,000 or 6,000. The eminent orienta
list Dr. Haug says " under no circumstances can we assign
him a later date than B. C. 1,000, and we may even find
reasons for placing his era much earlier and making him a
contemporary of Moses."
Whatever difference of opinion there may exist amongst
scholars as to the probable age of Zoroaster there is no
doubt that he lived in very remote antiquity.
From the very high terms in which Cyrus the great
Persian monarch is spoken of in the Old Testament (Isaiah
Chapters 44, 45 and 46,) Dr. Haug infers that " this religion
was not so diametrically opposed to the Mosaic as the other
ancient religions were." Again says Dr. Haug, " the
Zoroastrian religion exhibits even" a very close affinity to,
or rather identity with, several important doctrines of the
Mosaic religion and Christianity, such as the personality
and attributes ofthe devil, and the resurrection of the dead,
which are both ascribed to the religion of the Magi, and
are really to be found in the present scriptures of the
Parsis." Coming to the subject proper of the lecture, viz. the
religion of this very ancient prophet, I will treat the
subject under three heads. I. The theology of the

Zoroastrian religion. II. Its speculative philosophy. III.
Its moral philosophy. THEOLOGY.
Zoroastrianism or Parsiism, by whatever name the
system may be called, is a monotheistic form of religion.
It believes in the existence of one God whom it knows
under the names of Mazda, Ahura,. and Ahura-Mazda, the
last form being one that is most commonly met with in the
later writings of the Avesta. That the religious system of
Zoroaster is monotheistic and not polytheistic is evidenced,
among other things, by the fact that Zoroaster rejected
from his writings the word K daeva" a very ancient Aryan
word for God, derived from the aryan root ' div ' " to shine ."
Most Of the western nations which separating from the
parent stock emigrated to the west, took with them this
word in one form or another for the name of their God.
Thus the Greeks called their God, Deos or Zeus, the
Romans, Deus, the Germans, Teus, the Lithunians Diewas
and so on. The Indian and the Iranian branches had the
word " daeva." But when Zoroaster saw that the belief
of the people of his country and time was tending to
polytheism, and that the sacred word " daeva" instead of
being used for God alone, was being used for many of his
created objects, he stamped the word as unfit for the
name of God, and rejected it altogether from his Avesta.
Bishop Meurin in his pamphlet named " Zoroaster and
Christ " says that the fact " that in no other but the Zoroas-

6

trian religion this name " Daeva '' bears the meaning of an
evil Spirit, is a proof that Zoroaster, on seeing it bestowed
on many Beings who were not God, rejected it altogether
as the name of the only One God, and stamped it in his
reformatory zeal as a designation of the diabolical
opponents of the One Supreme Being." That Zoroaster
preached monotheism and detested polytheism is further
evident from some of his speeches that have come down to
us as preserved in the Gathas which form the oldest part
of the Avesta scriptures. It appears that he explained his
new monotheistic religion to large audiences composed of
learned men who had specially come from different parts
of the country to hear him preach. One of his speeches
begins thus, " All he who have come from near and far
should now listen and hearken to what I shall proclaim."
In another of his speeches (Chapter 30 of the yasna) he
thus addresses his audience, " I will now tell you who are
assembled here, the wise sayings of Mazda the praises of
Ahura, and the hymns of the good spirit, the sublime truth
which I see arising out of these sacred flames'. . . .
Every one both men and women ought to-day to choose his
creed : ye offsprings of renowned ancestors ! awaken to agree
with us." Thus addressing his audience he proceeds to
propound his monotheistic religion. We will not enter here
into this speech, but will give its purport in the words of
Dr. Haug. " The chief tendency of this speech," says this
orientalist, " is to induce his countrymen to forsake the wor
ship of the devas or gods, i.e., polytheism, to bow only before

i i^ -f. ' .; if--.
Ahura-Mazda, and to separate tlifefn selves entirely* from the
idolaters. In order to gain the object wished for, he pro
pounds the great difference which exists between the two
religions, Monotheism and Polytheism, showing that where
as the former is the fountain of all prosperity both in this
and the other life,- the latter is utterly ruinous to man
kind." Ahura-Mazda is represented in the Zoroastrian Scriptures
as omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. A long list of
all his attributes is given in Ahura-Mazda Yasht.
Instead of entering into that long list I will here quote
Dr. Haug on the picture of God as drawn in the Parsi scrip
tures. u Spitama Zarathushtra's conception of Ahura Mazda
as the Supreme Being is perfectly identical with the notion
of Elohim (God) or Jehovah, which we find in the Books
of the Old Testament. Ahura-Mazda is called by him " the
Creator of the earthly and spiritual life, the Lord of the
whole universe, in whose hands are all the creatures." He
is the light and source of light; he is the wisdom and
intellect. He is in possession of all good things, spiritua1
and worldly, such as the good mind (Vohu-mano), immorta
lity (AmeretM), health (Haurvatad), the best truth (Asha-
vahishta), devotion and piety (Armaity), and abundance
of every earthly good (Khshathra-vairya) . All these
gifts he grants to the righteous man, who is upright in
thoughts, words and deeds. As the ruler of the whole

8
universe, he not only rewards the good, but he is a punisher
of the wicked at the same time. All that is created, good or
evil, fortune or misfortune, is his work."
This religion requires no images or idols for the purpose
of worship. What that great and ancient historian Hero
dotus, who lived in the 5th Century B. C, said ofthe Persians
of his time is true of the Parsis of the present day. The
great historian says " they (the Persians) have no images
of the gods, no temples, nor altars, and consider the use of
them a sign of folly."
I will here say a few words on the reverence paid to
fire by the Parsis. A foreigner coming to Bombay, and
moving about its streets comes across several places of
worship called Fire-temples. The very name Fire-temple
perhaps strikes him as an unusual form of worship. I
. will not enter here into the history of the so-called fire-
worship, nor enter into the different grounds, religious,
moral and scientific, which actuate and even justify a
Parsi in offering his reverence — which it must be remember
ed is something different from worship — to fire. Suffice it
here to say that the Parsii do not worship fire as God.
They merely regard fire as an emblem of refulgence, glory
and light, as the most perfect symbol of God, and as the
best and noblest representative of His divinity. In the
words of a learned author " In the eyes of a Parsi his
(fire's) brightness, activity, purity and incorruptibility bear
the most perfect resemblance to the nature and perfection

9
of the Deity." A Parsi looks upon fire " as the most
perfect symbol of the Deity, on account of its purity,
brightness, activity, subtilty, fecundity and incorruptibility."
I will here again quote Dr. Meurin on this point. This
learned divine says " Zoroaster restored not only the unity
of God, bu6 also the most ancient and characteristic Aryan
form of divine service, the worship of fire, as the most suitable
representative of God, corresponding to their high idea
of God as Eternal Light.. ... A pure and undefiled
flame is certainly the most sublime natural representa
tion of Him, who is in Himself Eternal Light."
Anquetil du Perron, the first European who studied the
Avesta, says on this point, " The religion prevalent in Persia
till the destruction ofthe empire, and carried into India by the
Parsis, who still possess it, merits more attention than
almost any other. It was at first a pure theism though
even in the time of Abraham debased by heterodox opinions ;
but they have ever zealously preserved the doctrine of
the Unity of God ; and we are not to consider from the
veneration they showed, and still show to fire and the
sun that they have ever adored either the element or the
luminary. Zoroaster their great teacher dictated them
to turn towards the sun or the fire when they prayed,
but the prayers which they recite in this position are
addressed solely to the Sovereign Being, and not to the
symbols of Him."
According to Professor Max-Muller the feeling which the

10
Parsis have about the fire is " similar in some respects
to that which many Christians have about the cross. They
do not worship the cross but they have peculiar feelings
of reverence for it and it is intimately connected with some
of their most sacred rites."
From similar considerations Dr. Meurin says " I am,
therefore, very far from supposing that' the Parsi fire-
worship is idolatry. Whoever accuses the Parsis of that
most heinous of all crimes, and is not able to prove that
they believe fire or the sun to be God Himself, is certainly
guilty of the most detestable sin of calumny."
IL— SPECULATIVE PHILOSOPHY.
We have seen that Ahura-Mazda or God is, according
to Parsi scriptures, the causer of all causes. He is the
Creator as well as the Destroyer, the Increaser as well
as the Decreaser. He gives birth to different creatures
and it is he who brings about their end.. How is it,
then, that he brings about these two contrary results ?
In the words of Dr. Haug " Having arrived at the grand
idea of the unity and indivisibility of the Supreme Being,
he (Zoroaster) undertook to solve the great problem which
has engaged the attention of so many wise men of antiquity-,
and even of modern times, viz., how are the imperfections
discoverable in the world, the various kinds of evils,
wickedness, and baseness, compatible with the goodness,
holiness, and justice of God ? This great thinker of
remote antiquity solved this difficult question philosophic

11
cally by the supposition of two primeval causes, which,
though different, were united, and produced the world of
material things, as well as that of the spirit."
These two primeval causes or principles are called in the
Avesta the two " Mainyus." This word comes from the
ancient Aryan root " man " to " think " which corresponds
to the Latin root from which our English word " mind "
is derived. It may be properly rendered into English by
the word " spirit " meaning that which can only be
conceived by the mind but not felt by the senses. Of
these two spirits or primeval causes or principles one is
Creative and the other Destructive. The former is known
in the Avesta by the name of " Spenta-mainyush " or the
Increasing spirit and the latter by that of " Angra-
mainyush " or the Decreasing spirit. These two spirits work
under one God, Mazda, who through the agency, as it were,
of these two spirits is the causer of all causes in the uni
verse, the Creator as well as the Destroyer. These two
spirits work under the Almighty day and night. They
create and destroy, and this they have done ever since the
world was created.
The very roots of the words Spenta and Angra show
the functions of the two spirits. The former comes from
the Avesta root (Span=Sanscrit Shvi) meaning to increase.
The latter comes from the root Ang=Sanscrit Anh==Lat.
angere (to press together, to annoy).
"According to Zoroaster's speculative philosophy our

12
world is the work of these two hostile principles, Spenta-
mainyush, the good principle, and Angra-mainyush the evil
principle, both serving under one God. In the words of
that learned orientalist Professor Darmestetter " All that is
good in the world comes from the former, all that is bad in
it comes from the latter. The history of the world is the
history of their conflict, how Ahgra-Mainyu invaded the
world of Ahura-Mazda and marred it, and how he shall be
expelled from it at last. Man is active in the conflict, his
duty in it being laid before him in the law revealed by Ahura-
Mazda to Zarathushtra. When the appointed time is come
 Angra-Mainyu and hell will be destroyed, man will
rise from the dead, and everlasting happiness will reign
over the world."
I will here describe the functions of the two spirits
in the words of European scholars. In the words of
Dr. Haug " Spento-mainyush was regarded as the
author of all that is bright and shining, of all that is
good and useful in nature ; while Angro-mainyush called
into existence all that is dark and apparently noxious.
Both are as inseparable as day and night, and though
opposed to each other, are indispensable for the preservation
of creation. The beneficent spirit appears in the blazing
flame, the presence of the hurtful one is marked by the
wood converted into charcoal. Spenta-mainyush has creat
ed the light of day, and Angro-mainyush the darkness
of night ; the former awakens men to their duties, the latter
lulls them to sleep. Life is produced by Spento-mainyush,

13
but extinguished by AngrS-mainyush, whose hands, by
releasing the soul from the fetters of the body, enables her
to rise into immortality and everlasting life/'
According to Professor Darmestetter Spenta-mainyush
"is all light, truth, goodness and knowledge; Angra-
mainyu is all darkness, falsehood, wickedness, and igno
rance. Ahura (i. e. Spenta-mainyu) dwells in the infinite
light, Angra-mainyu dwells in the infinite night. Whatever
the good Spirit makes the evil Spirit mars." According
to the well-known Pehelvi book Bundehesh, this conflict
between the good and evil spirits, will, in the end, end
in favour of the former.
These philosophical notions have led some learned men to
misunderstand Zoroastrian theology. Some authors enter
tain an opinion that Zoroaster preached Dualism. But this
is a serious misconception. On this point Dr. Haug says " the
opinion, so generally entertained now, that Zarathushtra
was preaching a Dualism, that is to say, the idea of
two original independent spirits, one good and the other
bad, utterly distinct from each other, and one counteracting
the creation of the other, is owing to a confusion of his
philosophy with his theology. . . A separate evil spirit
of equal power with Ahura-Mazda, and always opposed to
him, is entirely foreign to Zarathushtra's theology."
The reason why the ,f the original Zoroastrian notion of
the two spirits the creative and the destructive which form
only two parts of the Divine Being" is misunderstood as

14
dualism is this. In the Parsi scriptures, the names of
God are Mazda, Ahura, and Ahura-Mazda, the last word
being a compound of the first two. The first two words are-
common in the earliest writings of the Gatha, and the third
iu the later Scriptures. In later times the word Ahura-
Mazda instead of being restricted like Mazda to tbe name
of God began to be used in a wider sense and was applied to
Spenta-mainyush the Creative or the Good principle. This
being the case, wherever the word Ahura-Mazda was used
in opposition to that of Angro-Mainyush, later authors took
it as the name of God, and not as the name of the Creative
principle which it really was. Thus the very fact of Ahura-
Mazda's name being employed in opposition to that of Ahri-
man led to the notion that Zoroastrian scriptures preached
dualism. Dr. West, the late Dr. Haug's coadjutor in some of his
works, and a well-known Pehelvi scholar, takes another view
of this question and rebuts the charge of dualism in the
sense in which it is ordinarily understood. This learned
orientalist, in the Introduction to his English Translation
of the Pehelvi Bundehesh, one of the series of Max-Muller's
sacred books of the East says, " The Parsi religion has
long been represented by its opponents as a dualism ; and
this accusation, made in good faith by Muhammadan
writers, and echoed more incautiously by Christians,
has been advanced so strenuously that it has often been
admitted even by Parsis themselves, as regards the
mediaeval form of their faith. But neither party seems

15
to have fairly considered how any religion which admits
the personality of an evil spirit, in order to account for the
existence of evil, can fail to become a dualism to a certain
extent. If, therefore, the term is to be used in contro
versy, it behoves those who use it to define the limits of
objectionable dualism with great precision, so as not to
include most of the religions of the world, their ownamong
the number.
'" If it be necessary for a dualism, that the evil spirit be
omnipresent, omniscient, almighty, or eternal, thenis the Parsi
religion no dualism. The Bundahis distinctly asserts that
the evil spirit is not omniscent and almighty ; that his under
standing is backward, so that he was not aware of the exist
ence of Auharmazd, till he arose from the abyss and saw
the light ; that he is unobservant and ignorant of the future
till it is revealed to him by Auharmazd ; that his creatures
perish at the resurrection, and he himself becomes impo
tent and will not be. Nowhere is he supposed to be in
two places at once, or to know what is occuring elsewhere
than in his own presence So far, his powers are consider
ably less than those generally assigned by Christians to the
devil." " The origin and end of Aharman appear to be
left as uncertain as those of the devil, and, altogether, the
resemblance between these two ideas of the evil spirit is
remarkably close ; in fact, almost too close to admit of the
possibility of their being ideas of different origin. . .

16
, . If, therefore, a belief in Aharman, as the author of
evil, makes the Parsi religion a dualism, it is difficult to
understand why a belief in the devil, as the author of evil,
does not make Christianity also a dualism."
We see from this passage that not only is tho charge o,f
dualism as levelled against Zoroastrianism, and as ordi
narily understood groundless, but that there is a_ close
resemblance between the ideas of the devil among the
Christians, and those of the Ahriman among the
Zoroastrians. Dr. Haug says the same thing in the following words.
" The Zoroastrian idea of the Devil and the infernal king
dom coincides entirely with the Christian doctrine. The
Devil is a murderer and father of lies according to both the
Bible and the Zend Avesta."
Thus we see that according to Zoroaster's philosophy there
are two primeval principles which are, as it were, two parts
of the Divine Being, that produce our material world.
Consequently though the Almighty is the creator of all, a
part of the creation is said to be created by the good prin
ciple, and a part by the evil principle. Thus, for example,
the heavenly bodies, the earth, water, fire, horses, dogs, and
such other objects are the creation ofthe Good Principle, and
serpant, ants, locusts, &c, are the creation ofthe Evil Prin
ciple. In short, those things that conduce to the greatest good
of the greatest number of mankind fall under the category
of the creations of the Good Principle, and those that lead

17
to the contrary result, under that of the creations of the
Evil Principle.
This being the case, it is incumbent upon men to do
actions that would support the cause of the Good Principle,
and destroy that of the Evil One. Therefore the cultiva
tion ofthe soil, the rearing of the domestic animals, &c, on
the one hand and the destruction of wild animals and other
noxious creatures on the other are considered meritorious
actions by the Parsis.
Under the Good Principle of Spenta-mainyush or Ahura-
Mazda are six Ameshaspends (lit. immortal increasers) who
correspond to the Christian Archangels. They are Known
by the names of Beheman, Ardebehesht, Shehriver, Aspen-
dad, Khurdad, and Amerdad. In the oldest Scriptures ofthe
Gath as, where God is almost always known by the name of
Mazda, these names are as Dr. Haug says " nothing but
abstract nouns and ideas, representing all the gifts which
Ahura-Mazda, as the only Lord, grants to those who
worship Him with a sincere heart, by always speaking truth,
and performing good actions. In the eyes of the prophet
they were no personages ; that idea being imported into
the sayings of the great master by some of his successors."
As there are six angels under the Good Principle so there
are six devils under the Evil Principle.
Now as there are two primeval principles united in
Ahura-Mazda, that produce our material world as seen
above, there are two principles inherent in the nature of

18
man which encourage him to do good, or tempt him to do
evil. One asks him to support the cause of the Good or
Creative Principle, the other to support that of the Evil or
Destructive Principle. The first is known by the name of
vohu-mana, which word was afterwards changed into
Beheman meaning " good mind." The prefix " vohu" or
" beh" is the same word as that of which our English word
"better" is the comparative. " Mana" is the same as the
word " Mainyu " previously considered and means " mind"
or " spirit." The second is known by the name of Aka-
mana, i.e., bad mind. The prefix " Aka" means " bad " and
is the same as our English word " ache " in " headache."
This leads us to the third part of our lecture, viz., Zoroas
ter's moral philosophy. But before passing to that subject
I will, under the head of speculative philosophy allude to
a few other notions of Zoroastrianism, because the belief in
these notions is to a great extent necessary for a belief in
the truth of moral principles.
The Zoroastrian religion believes in a life to come. The
Avesta writings of Hadokht Nushk, and pf the 19th chapter
of the Vendidad, and the Pehelvi books of Minokherad, and
Viraf-nameh, treat of the fate of the soul after death. The
last mentioned book contains an account of the journey of
Arda-Viraf through the heavenly regions. This account
corresponds to that ofthe ascension ofthe prophet " Isaiah."
Its notions about heaven and hell correspond to some
extent to the Christian notions about them. According to

19
Dr. Haug its description of hell, and some of the punish
ment suffered by the wicked there, bears a striking resem
blance to that in the Inferno of the Italian poet Dante.
Thus Zoroastrianism believes in the immortality, of the
soul. A plant called the Homa-i-saphid or white Homa,
a name corresponding to the Indian Soma of the Hindus,
is held to be the emblem of the immortality of. our. soul.
According to Dr. Windischmann and Professor Max-Muller
this plant reminds us of the " Tree of Life" in the garden
of Eden. As in the Christian scriptures the way to the tree
of life is strictly guarded by the cherubim, so in the Zoro
astrian scriptures the Homa-i-saphid or the plant which is
the emblem of immortality is guarded by innumerable
Fravashis that is guardian spirits. The number of these
guardian spirits, as given in various books, is 99,999.
The Mahomedan Scriptures also say that there is a tree
called " Lidra" or " Lotus " in heaven near the seat of
the Almighty and it is guarded by 70,000 angels. But the
relation of this tree to the immortality of soul is not
specially mentioned.
A good deal of importance is attached iu the Avesta
and in the later Pehelvi writings to this question of the
immortality of soul, because a belief in this dogma is essen
tial to the structure of moral principles. The whole edifice
of our moral nature rests upon its ground-work. Dr.
Thomas Dick in his " Philosophy of Future State " very
rightly says that " This is an enquiry far more interesting

20
and important, to every individual of mankind, than any
other which comes within the range of the human mind.
Next to the Being of a God, the doctrine of the immor
tality of man, lies at the foundation of all religion, and of
all the animating prospects which can cheer us in the land
of our pilgrimage. Remove from the mind the belief of a
future existence, and the hope of immortality, and religion .
becomes a shadow, life a dream, and the approach of death
a scene of darkness and despair. Upon this short ques
tion, " Is man immortal, or is he not ?" depends all that is
valuable in science, in morals, and in theology, — and all
that is most interesting to man as a social being, and as a
rational and accountable intelligence. If he is destined to
an eternal existence, an immense importance must attach to
all his present affections, actions, and .pursuits ! and it
must be a matter of infinite moment, that they be
directed in such a channel, as will tend to carry him
forward, in safety, to the felicities of a future world.
But if his whole existence be circumscribed within the
circle of a few fleeting years, man appears an enigma,
an inexplicable phenomenon in the universe, human life a
mystery, the world a scene of confusion, virtue a mere
phantom, the Creator a capricious Being, and his plans
and arrangements an inextricable maze."
Again Zoroastrianism believes in Heaven and Hell.
Heaven is called Vahishta-ahu in Avesta. It literally
means the best life. This word is afterwards contracted
with a slight change into the Persian word " Behesht ''

21
which is the superlative form of " Veh " meaning " good "
and corresponds exactly with our English word " best."
Hell is known by the name of " Achishta-ahu." Heaven
is represented as a place of radiance, splendour and glory,
and hell as that of gloom, darkness, and stench.
Between heaven and this world there is supposed to be*a
bridge named " chinvat." This word from the Aryan root
" chi " meaning to pick up, to collect, means the place where
a man's soul has to present a collective account of the actions
done in the past life. This bridge reminds us of a
bridge called " Al-sirat " among the Mahomedanr.
According to the Parsi scriptures, for three days after a
man's death, his soul remains within the limits of this
world under the guidance of the angel " Srosh." If the
deceased be a pious man, or a man who led a virtuous life
his soul utters the words " Ushta-Ahmai Yahmai Ushta-
Kahmai-chit " i. e., " well i3 he by whom that which is his
benefit becomes the benefit of any one else." If he be a
wicked man, or one who led an evil life his soul uttera
these plaintive words " Kim Nemoi Z&m ? Kuthra" nemo
ayeni " ? i. e„ " to which land shall I turn ? whither shall I
go"? On the dawn of the third Dight the departed souls appear
at the " Chinvat bridge. " This bridge is guarded by the
angel Meher Daver, i. e., Meher the Judge. He presides there
as a judge assisted by the angels Rashne and Astad, the
former representing Justice, and the latter Truth. At this

22
bridge and before this angel Meher, the soul of every man has
to give an account of its doings in the past life. Meher Diver
the judge weighs a man's actions by a scale pan. If a
man's good actions outweigh his evil ones, even by a small
particle, he is allowed to pass from the bridge to the other
end to heaven. If his evil actions outweigh his good ones,
even by a small weight, he is not allowed to pass over the
bridge, but is hurled down into the deep abyss of hell.
If his meritorious and evil deeds counter -balance each
other he is sent to a place known as " Hamast-gehan"
corresponding with the Christian purgatory and the Maho-
medan " Aeraf." His meritorious deeds done in the past
life would prevent him from going to hell, and his evil
actions would not let him go to heaven.
The soul remains in these conditions* until the day of
Frasho-Kereti. The first part of this word Frasha is the
same as German " Frisch" and English " Fresh" and the
second part comes from the root Kar=L creare:=Fr Creer=
to create. The whole word means the "fresh creation."
Thus Zoroastrianism also believes in Fresho-Kerti, i.e.,
resurrection or the " renovation of the world," which is
one of the chief dogmas of Christian, Jewish, and Maho-
medan religions. This is an old doctrine of Zoroastrian
scriptures. Dr. Haug says on this point " That the
resurrection of the dead was a common belief of the Magi,
long before the commencement of our era, may be learnt
from the statement of Theopompos.'' This Greek writer
and philosopher Hermippos who lived in the third century

23

B. C. are reported by Phutfcr&illS' mj that *"' the Mfsfeis be
lieved that finally " Areimanios, (Ahriman) is to perish,
mankind is to enjoy a blessed state of life ; men will neither
be any more in need of food, nor will they cast shadows ; the
dead are to rise again, men will be immortal, and everything
is to exist in consequence of their prayer." According to Dr.
Haug this belief in the resurrection " agrees completely with
the spirit and tendency of the Parsi religion. All life of
the good creation, especially that of man, bodily as well as
spiritual, is a sacred pawn intrusted by God to man, who
must keep his body free from impurity, and his soul from
sin. If death destroy the body (in the natural course), it is
not the fault of man who falls to an inexorable fate ; but it
is considered as the duty of God, who is the preserver of all
life, to restore all life that has fallen a prey to death, to
destroy this arch-enemy of human life, and so make life ever
lasting. This is to be done at the time of the resurrection."
From these considerations we see that according to the
Zoroastrian scriptures, a pious man or a man who leads a
moral life is allowed to go across the " Chinvat Bridge" to
heaven, and the wicked or immoral man is committed to hell.
Well then, what constitutes according to Zoroastrianism
a moral or pious life ? This leads us directly to the third
part of the subject of the lecture, viz., the moral
philosophy of the Parsi religion.
III.— MORAL PHILOSOPHY.
Mon. Harlez in the introduction to his French translation

24
of the Avesta says " The Mazdian religion distinguishes
itself from all other ancient religions in this, that it has a
moral systematized and founded upon. philosophic principles.
And this moral is certainly the purest and soundest that has
been produced, Judaism excepted." We will see, how it is
systematized and founded upon philosophic principles.
The late Dr. Haug rightly observed that " the moral
philosophy of Zoroaster was moving in the triad of thought,
word, and deed." These three words form, as it were, the
pivot upon which the moral structure of Zoroastrianism
turns. Ib is the ground-work upon which the whole
edifice of Zoroastrian morality rests.
We have seen that there are two principles inherent in
the nature of man, viz , Vohumana, and Akamana, i.e., Good
mind £fnd Evil mind. Now both these principles exert their
influence upon a man's manashni, gavashni, and kanashni,
i.e., upon a man's thoughts, words and deeds. When the
influence of the former, i. e., the Good mind predominates,
our thoughts, words and deeds, result in humata (good
thoughts), hukhta (good words) and hvarshta (good deeds),
but when that of the latter, i. e., the Evil mind predominates
they result in dushmata(evil thoughts) , duzukhta (evil words)
duzvarshta (evil deeds). The prefix "hu" in the first
set of words corresponds to the Greek " eu " as in eulogium
euphony, and the prefix "dush" in the second set to the
Latin " dis " as in dislike, disapprove.
Now the 5th chapter of the Vendidad gives, as it were, a

25
short definition of what is morality or piety. There, first of
all the writer says that " Yaozdao Mashiyai aipi Zanthem-
vahishta " i. e., as Dr. Spiegel puts it " Purity is the best
thing for man after birth." This you may say is the motto
of the Zoroastrian religion. Therefore Mon. Harlez very
properly says that according to Zoroastrian scriptures the
" notion of the word virtue sums itself up in that of the
' Asha.' " This word is the same as the Sanscrit " rita "
which word corresponds to our English " right." It means
therefore righteousness, piety, or purity. Then the writer
proceeds to give a short definition of piety. It says that " The
preservation of humata, hukhta, and hvarshta, i. e., good
thoughts, good words, and good deeds, is piety." In these
three pithy words ." humata, hukhata and huvarshta " is
summed up,so to say, the whole of the moral philosophy ofthe
Zoroastrian scriptures. It says that if you want to lead a
pious and moral life and thus to show a clean bill of
spiritual health to the Angel Meher Da ver who watches the
gates of heaven at the Chinvat Bridge, practice these three.
Think of nothing but the truth, speak nothing but the
truth, and do nothing but what is proper. In short,
what Zoroastrian moral philosophy teaches is this, that
your good thoughts, good words, and good deeds alone will
be your intercessors. Nothing more will be wanted. They
alone will serve you as a safe pilot to the harbour of heaven,
as a safe guide to the gate of paradise.
The following dialogue in the Pehelvi Pandnameh of
Buzurche-Meher shows in a succint form what weight is

26
attached to these three pithy words in the moral code of
the Zoroastrians : —
Question. — Who is the most fortunate man in the
world ?
Answer. — He who is the most innocent.
Question. — Who is the most innocent man in the
world ?
Answer. — He who walks in the path of God and shuns
that of the devil.
Question. — Which is the path of God ? and which that
of the devil ?
Answer.— -Virtue is the path of God, and vice that of
the devil.
Question. — What constitutes virtue ? and what vice ?
Answer. — Humata, hukhta, and hvarshta, i.e., good
thoughts, good words, and good deeds,
constitute virtue, and dushmata, duzu-
khta, and duzvarshta, i.e., evil thoughts,
evil words, and evil deeds constitute vice.
Question. — What constitute humata, hukhta, and
hvarshta, i.e., good thoughts, good
words, and good deeds, and dushmata,
duzukhta, and duzvarshta, i. e., evil
thoughts, evil words, and evil deeds ?
Answer — Honesty, charity, and truthfulness constitute

27

the former, and dishonesty, stinginess,
and falsehood constitute the latter.
From this dialogue it will be seen that a man who acquires
humata, hukhta, and hvarshta, i.e., good thoughts, good
words, and good deeds, and thereby practises honesty,
charity, and truthfulness is considered to walk in the path
of God, and therefore to be the most innocent and fortunate
man. It also appears from the dialogue, that honesty,
charity and truthfulness are considered, as it were, the
three cardinal virtues by the Parsis. These virtues are
enjoined in many parts of the Zend Avesta, and later
Pehelvi books. Speaking on the subject of charity, here
referred to,' Dr. Haug, alluding to the injunctions of Viraf-
nameh and Minokherad says, " It is regarded as the highest
virtue by the Zoroastrians which circumstance explains the
princely donations made by the Parsis up to the present
day for public purposes."
In the Vendidad, three kinds of charitable deeds are
especially mentioned as meritorious. I. To help the poor
with money. II, To help a man to marry and thus
to enable him to lead a peaceful and honourable life.
III. To give education to those who are in search of it. If
one were to look to the long list of Parsi charities, headed
by that of that prince of Parsi charity, the first Parsi
Baronet, he will - find these three kinds of charity especially
attended to.
As for the third virtue of truthfulness, it is well known
c

28
that there were three things that the ancient Persians were
taught first ; to be a good rider ; to be a good archer ; and
to speak the truth. ¦ Again the Parsi scriptures abound with
precepts that teach a Parsi to love his neighbour as he loved
himself. This is also a Christian doctrine. This is shown
very forcibly from the fact that in a short prayer called
Tan-darusti, which is recited by a Parsi at the end of his
usual prayers, he beseeches his Almighty to confer - his
blessings firstly upon his sovereign, then upon his fellow sub
jects, and lastly upon himself, his parents, wife, children,
and other near relatives whose names he enumerates. He
beseeches the Almighty in the following words which being
written in the modern Persian will be easily understood by
those who know the Hindustani language : — " YS, bari
Khoda Khodavand-i-alamra", hame" Anjumanrader b^dar, &c,
*. e., Oh Almighty God ! confer thy blessings upon my
sovereign, upon my fellow subjects, upon myself, &c."
I will here conclude my lecture by quoting two learned
authors on the subject of the influence exerted by the
writings of the Parsi law-giver upon the people of his
time. From a consideration of the great philosophical thoughts
expressed in the Zoroastrian scriptures, Dr. Haug says
of its founder that " Having regard to the early period
at which he must have lived, long before the Greeks were
acquainted with anything like philosophical speculation,
we cannot expect him to have established a complete and

29
developed system of philosophical thoughts, which cannot
even be said of Plato ; but the few philosophical ideas which
may be discoverable in his sayings, show that he was a great
and deep thinker, who stood far above his contemporaries,
and even above the most enlightened men of many subse
quent centuries. The great fame he enjoyed, even with
the ancient Greeks and Romans who were so proud of their
learning and wisdom, is a sufficient proof of the high and
pre-eminent position he must once have occupied in the
history of the progress of the human mind.
From a consideration of the moral notions inculcated in
the Zoroastrian scriptures, Mr. Francis Power Cobbe in
his " Studies new and old of ethical and social subjects "
thus writes of the founder of the religion : " Should we in
a future world be permitted to hold high converse with the
great departed, it may chance that in that Bactrian sage
who lived and taught almost before the dawn of history,
we may find the spiritual patriarch, to whose lessons we
have owed such a portion of our intellectual inheritance
that we might hardly conceive what human belief would be
now had Zoroaster never existed." This opinion has been;
endorsed by Miss Francis Cobbe in her " Essays moral and.
physical."

The lecturer concluded by thanking His Excellency for
the kindness and honour done him by presiding on the
occasion. (Applause.) He regarded it as an honour to
the whole Parsi community, and attributed His Ex
cellency's presence to his desire to know everything that
concerned those placed under His Excellency's sway.
(Applause.) The lecturer concluded by reading a letter
from Sir Jamsetjee Jejeebhoy, who regretted his inability
to attend the meeting owing to indisposition. He said it
was a matter of gratification to the lecturer, and of con
gratulation to the entire Parsi community, that His
Excellency should have honoured the occasion by his kind
presence, and thus testified to the great interest he was al
ways ready to evince in the well-being not only of the
Parsis, but of all other communities in general. (Applause.)
The lecturer then offered his best thanks to the
audience. The Governor then said — Gentlemen, the learned lecturer
has noticed my presence here in terms of too high com
mendation because I felt it no more than my duty to be
here, when invited so cordially as I was, and also because
I have really had great pleasure in coming as well to show
my respect to this community, as also to benefit by the
most lucid lecture we have heard. (Applause.) I am sure
it must have struck you all that it is honourable to the
professors of this ancient religion that they should make
no secret of it, but be glad to explain to their fellow-
citizens the principles on which they conduct their lives

and on which they rest their faith. Of course we must
all love our own religion, which we consider to be the best.
At the same time, I think we cannot without pleasure
trace the community of the source from which the princi
ples of all our religions have proceeded ; and still more the
sentiments which we possess in common. I am sure I may
say that although we may value above all things the
principles of our own religion, still we must honour the
high principles which have been explained to us as ruling
in the Parsi religion, and I- think I may go so far as to say
this— that we recognize in the actions of the Parsi race
their fidelity to those principles. (Hear, hear and
applause.) There are, I conceive, in this great assembly
representatives of a great many races and faiths, and I have
no doubt I have expressed the sentiments which have
brought them here, and with which they have heard this
lecture. I trust the result of our meeting to night may
tend to cement more closely the ties which bind us together,
the respect with which we regard each other, and parti
cularly the respect we feel for this community, which has
done so much for our common nation.
His Excellency resumed his seat amidst much cheering.
The assembly then broke up. — The Bombay Gqzette, 13th
January, 1885.

BOMBAY :•
PRINTED AT THE BOMBAY GAZETTE STEAM PRESS, RAMPART BOW.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08866 4538

¦

STY. 
ft1

,'.7

| | 1 1 1 1

...III

V . ::ak
ji  .¦.

¦*>\. ¦¦,

'»*-A-

- ,*T v .A:- —
A--AjA . ,-•
A:/. *¦ "
A;~ •<•-';*..
-
' «'-¦ ¦ '- "t '¦