Angra Mainyu
| Part of a series on |
 |
| Primary topics |
|
Zoroastrianism / Mazdaism |
| Angels and demons |
|
Overview of the Angels |
| Scripture and worship |
|
Avesta · Gathas |
| Accounts and legends |
|
Dēnkard · Bundahišn |
| History and culture |
|
Zurvanism |
| Adherents |
|
Zoroastrians in Iran |
| See also |
Angra Mainyu (alt: Aŋra Mainiuu) is the Avestan-language name of Zoroastrianism's hypostasis of the satanic "destructive spirit." The Middle Persian equivalent is Ahriman.
In the Avesta
In Zoroaster's revelation
The term 'Angra Mainyu' appears once in the Gathas, the oldest hymns of Zoroastrianism and attributed to Zoroaster himself. The principle "seems to have been an original conception of Zoroaster's."[1] In the one instance where it does appear, in Yasna 45.2, - the "more bounteous of the spirits twain" declares 'angra mainyu' to be his absolute antithesis.
A similar statement occurs in Yasna 30.3, where the antithesis is however 'aka mainyu', aka being the Avestan language word for "evil." Hence, 'aka mainyu' is the "evil spirit" or "evil mind" or "evil thought," as contrasted with 'spenta mainyu', the "bounteous spirit" with which Ahura Mazda conceived of creation, which then "was."
The 'aka mainyu' epithet recurs in Yasna 32.5, when the principle is identified with the daevas that deceive mankind and themselves. While in later Zoroastrianism, the daevas are demons, this is not yet evident in the Gathas: In Zoroaster's view the daevas are "wrong gods" or "false gods" that are to be rejected, but they are not yet demons.[2]
In Yasna 32.3, these daevas are identified as the offspring, not of Angra Mainyu, but of akem manah, "evil thinking." A few verses earlier it is however the daebaaman, "deceiver" - not otherwise identified but "probably Angra Mainyu"[1] - who induces the daevas to choose achistem manah - "worst thinking." In Yasna 32.13, the abode of the wicked is not the abode of Angra Mainyu, but the abode of the same "worst thinking." "One would have expected [Angra Mainyu] to reign in hell, since he had created 'death and how, at the end, the worst existence shall be for the deceitful' (Y. 30.4)."[1]
In the Younger Avesta
Yasna 19.15 recalls that Ahura Mazda's recital of the Ahuna Vairya invocation puts Angra Mainyu in a stupor. In Yasna 9.8, Angra Mainyu creates Aži Dahaka, but the serpent recoils at the sight of Mithra's mace (Yasht 10.97, 10.134). In Yasht 13, the Fravashis defuse Angra Mainyu's plans to dry up the earth, and in Yasht 8.44 Angra Mainyu battles but cannot defeat Tishtrya and so prevent the rains. In Vendidad 19, Angra Mainyu urges Zoroaster to turn from the good religion by promising him sovereignty of the world. On being rejected, Angra Mainyu assails the prophet with legions of demons, but Zoroaster deflects them all. In Yasht 19.96, a verse that reflects a Gathic injunction, Angra Mainyu will be vanquished and Ahura Mazda will ultimately prevail.
In Yasht 19.46ff, Angra Mainyu and Spenta Mainyu battle for possession of khvaraenah, "divine glory" or "fortune." In some verses of the Yasna (eg Yasna 57.17), the two principles are said to have created the world, which contradicts the Gathic principle that declares Ahura Mazda to be the sole creator and which is reiterated in the cosmogony of Vendidad 1. In that first chapter, which is the basis for the 9th-12th century Bundahishn, the creation of sixteen lands by Ahura Mazda is countered by the Angra Mainyu's creation of sixteen scourges such as winter, sickness and vice. "This shift in the position of Ahura Mazda, his total assimilation to this Bounteous Spirit [Mazda's instrument of creation], must have taken place in the 4th century B.C.E. at the latest; for it is reflected in Aristotle's testimony, which confronts Ariemanios with Oromazdes (apud Diogenes Laertius, 1.2.6)."[1]
Yasht 15.43 assigns Angra Mainyu to the nether world, a world of darkness. So also Vendidad 19.47, but other passages in the same chapter (19.1 and 19.44) have him dwelling in the region of the daevas, which the Vendidad asserts is in the north. There (19.1, 19.43-44), Angra Mainyu is the daevanam daevo, "daeva of daevas" or chief of the daevas. The superlative daevo.taema is however assigned to the demon Paitisha ("opponent"). In an enumeration of the daevas in Vendidad 1.43, Angra Mainyu appears first and Paitisha appears last. "Nowhere is Angra Mainyu said to be the creator of the daevas or their father."[1]
In Zurvanite Zoroastrianism
Zurvanism was a branch of Zoroastrianism that sought to resolve the dilemma of the "twin spirits" of Yasna 30.3. The resolution, which probably developed out of the contact with Chaldea, was to have both Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu as twin sons of the First Principle "Time" (Avestan: Zurvan). Zurvanism was strongly criticized as a heresy during the Sassanid period (225-651) of Iranian history, an era in which it probably also had its largest following. Although the monist doctrine is not attested after the 10th century, some Zurvanite features are nonetheless still evident in present-day Zoroastrianism.
Zurvanism's principle feature is then the notion that both Ahura Mazda (MP: Ohrmuzd) and Angra Mainyu (Ahriman) were twin brothers, with the former being the epitome of good and the latter being the epitome of evil. Further, this dichotomy was by choice, that is, Angra Mainyu chose to be evil: "It is not that I cannot create anything good, but that I will not." And to prove this, he created the peacock.
The mythology of the twins is only attested in the post-Sassanid Syriac and Armenian polemic such as that of Eznik of Kolb. According to these sources the genesis saw Zurvan as existing alone but desiring offspring who would create "heaven and hell and everything in between." Zurvan then sacrificed for a thousand years. Towards the end of this period, androgyne Zurvan began to doubt the efficacy of sacrifice and in the moment of this doubt Ohrmuzd and Ahriman were conceived: Ohrmuzd for the sacrifice and Ahriman for the doubt. Upon realizing that twins were to be born, Zurvan resolved to grant the first-born sovereignty over creation. Ohrmuzd perceived Zurvan's decision, which He then communicated to His brother. Ahriman then preempted Ohrmuzd by ripping open the womb to emerge first. Reminded of the resolution to grant Ahriman sovereignty, Zurvan conceded, but limited kingship to a period of 9000 years, after which Ohrmuzd would rule for all eternity.[3]
In Zoroastrian tradition
In the Pahlavi texts of the 9th-12th century, Ahriman (written ˀhl(y)mn) is frequently written upside down "as a sign of contempt and disgust."[1]
In the Book of Arda Viraf 5.10, the narrator - the 'righteous Viraf' - is taken by Sarosh and Adar to see the "the reality of God and the archangels, and the non-reality of Ahriman and the demons." [4] This idea of "non-reality" is also expressed in other texts, such as the Denkard, a 9th century "encyclopedia of Mazdaism",[5] which states Ahriman "has never been and never will be."[1] In chapter 100 of Book of the Arda Viraf, which is titled 'Ahriman', the narrator sees the "Evil spirit, ... whose religion is evil [and] who ever ridiculed and mocked the wicked in hell."
In the Zurvanite Ulema-i Islam (a Zoroastrian text, despite the title), "Ahriman also is called by some name by some people and they ascribe evil unto him but nothing can also be done by him without Time." A few chapters later, the Ulema notes that "it is clear that Ahriman is a non-entity" but "at the resurrection Ahriman will be destroyed and thereafter all will be good; and [change?] will proceed through the will of God." In the Sad Dar, the world is described as having been created by Ohrmuzd and become pure through His truth. But Ahriman, "being devoid of anything good, does not issue from that which is owing to truth." (62.2)
Book of Jamaspi 2.3 notes that "Ahriman, like a worm, is so much associated with darkness and old age, that he perishes in the end."[6] Chapter 4.3 recalls the grotesque legend of Tahmurasp (Avestan: Taxma Urupi) riding Angra Mainyu for thirty years (cf. Yasht 15.12, 19.29) and so preventing him from doing evil. In Chapter 7, Jamasp explains that the Indians declare Ahriman will die, but "those, who are not of good religion, go to hell."
The Bundahishn, a Zoroastrian account of creation completed in the 12th century has much to say about Ahriman and his role in the cosmogony. In chapter 1.23, following the recitation of the Ahuna Vairya, Ohrmuzd takes advantage of Ahriman's incapacity to create life without intervention. When Ahriman recovers, he creates Jeh, the primal whore who afflicts women with their menstrual cycles. In Bundahishn 4.12, Ahriman perceives that Ohrmuzd is superior to himself, and so flees to fashion his many demons with which to meet Creation in battle. The entire universe is finally divided between the Ohrmuzd and the yazads on one side and Ahriman with his devs on the other. Ahriman slays the primal bull, but the moon rescues the seed of the dying creature, and from it springs all animal creation. But the battle goes on, with mankind caught in the middle, whose duty it remains to withstand the forces of evil through good thoughts, words and deeds. Other texts see the world created by Ohrmuzd as a trap for Ahriman, who is then distracted by creation and expends his force in a battle he cannot win. (The epistles of Zatspram 3.23; Shkand Gumanig Vichar 4.63-4.79). The Dadistan denig explains that God, being omniscient, knew of Ahriman's intent, but it would have been against His "justice and goodness to punish Ahriman before he wrought evil [and] this is why the world is created."[1]
Ahriman has no such omniscience, a fact that Ohrmuzd reminds him of (Bundahishn 1.16). In contrast, in Manichean scripture, Mani ascribes foresight to Ahriman.[7]
In present-day Zoroastrianism
In 1878, Martin Haug proposed [8] a new interpretation of Yasna 30.3 that provided an escape from the dualism implicit in the Gathas. According to Haug, the "twins" of 30.3 were Angra Mainyu and Spenta Mainyu, which Zoroaster (so Haug) viewed as the respective 'destructive' and 'creative' emanations of Ahura Mazda. Haug's theory effectively identifies Angra Mainyu as a product of the Creator, and further, that – as also in Zurvanism - Angra Mainyu was evil by choice.
While Haug's identification of the twins as Angra Mainyu and Spenta Mainyu is not contested,[9] the details of his conclusions on the "twins" passage remain controversial. Nonetheless, Haug's interpretation was gratefully received by the Parsis of Bombay, who at the time were under considerable pressure from Christian missionaries (most notable amongst them John Wilson[10]) who sought converts among the Zoroastrian community.[11]
Although Haug's interpretation was not substantiated by Zoroastrian tradition, the ideas were subsequently disseminated as a Parsi interpretation, which eventually reached the west and so in turn corroborating Haug's theories. Among the Parsis of the cities, who were accustomed to English language literature, Haug's ideas were more often repeated than those of the Gujarati language objections of the priests, with the result that Haug's ideas became well entrenched and are today almost universally accepted as doctrine.[11]
In other religious systems
Rudolf Steiner, the initiator of the Anthroposophical movement, published detailed and elaborate studies on Ahriman, a spiritual entity whom the author associates with materialism. Ahriman fulfills the role of influencing and undermining events which occur in contemporary society. Steiner writes that Ahriman, the biblical Satan, (different from Lucifer) and the demon Mephistopheles can be considered the same entity. According to Steiner, the biblical demons Mammon and Beelzebub are Ahriman's associates.
Ahriman's assignment, according to Steiner, is to alienate the human being from his spiritual roots and to inspire materialism and heartless technical control of human activity. As such, his influence is highly relevant to present-day Western culture. His great opponent is the archangel Michael, who Steiner equates with Babylonian Marduk. Ahura Mazda and the Vedic Vishva Karman represent Christ's spiritual aura around the Elohim, the spirits of the Sun sphere.
Notes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 AHRIMAN - Retrieved September 20, 2007.
- ↑ Daiva - Retrieved September 20, 2007.
- ↑ ZAEHNER, R. C. Zurvan, a Zoroastrian dilemma Oxford: Clarendon, 1955, OCLC 395217
- ↑ Horne, Charles F. The Sacred books and early literature of the East, with historical surveys of the chief writings of each nation. New York: Parke, Austin, and Lipscomb, 1917, OCLC 557745
- ↑ Menasce, Jean de. Une encyclopédie mazdéenne, le Dēnkart; quatre conférences données à l'Université de Paris sous les auspices de la Fondation Ratanbai Katrak. Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1958, OCLC 11584352
- ↑ Modi, Jivanji Jamshedji Modi (1903), Jamasp Namak ("Book of Jamaspi"), Bombay: K. R. Cama Oriental Institute
- ↑ Dhalla, Maneckji Nusservanji. History of Zoroastrianism New York: AMS Press, 1938, ISBN 0404128069, p. 392
- ↑ Haug, Martin, Edward William West, and E. P. Evans. Essays on the sacred language, writings, and religion of the Parsis. London: Trübner, 1884 OCLC 6822299
- ↑ Gershevitch, Ilya. Zoroaster's Own Contribution Journal of Near Eastern Studies, volume 23, issue 1, January 1964 pgs 12-38.
- ↑ Wilson, John. The Parsi religion: Unfolded, Refuted and Contrasted with Christianity Bombay: American Mission Press , 1843, pp. 106ff. OCLC:2773478
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 Maneck, Susan Stiles. The Death of Ahriman: Culture, Identity and Theological Change Among the Parsis of India. Bombay: K. R. Cama Oriental Institute, 1997 pp. 182ff. OCLC: 39291745
Credits
New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:
The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:
Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.
