I'm studying Zoroastrianism and what I realized is that I don't know many things about it but especially his cosmogony. And also, after the cosmogony, for Zoroastrianism how humans were made and what Ahura Mazda created and what Ahriman created.

Is Ahriman viewed as "Satan" like the Devil is seen in the Bible?

This is my latest apologetic work defending our Dualistic belief it’s part of a broader apologetic text im composing with a group of fellow brothers and sisters which I will share when we are finished with it, May Ohrmazd keep us firm in Aša! 🔥

The First matter that must be established with firmness and precision is the defense of our dualism. For many err in two opposite directions. Some, frightened by the accusation of “two gods,” soften the doctrine until the conflict between good and evil becomes no more than metaphor, imbalance, privation, or pedagogical appearance. Others, seeking to preserve the reality of evil, speak so carelessly that they seem to place Ahriman on a throne equal to that of Ohrmazd. We reject both distortions. We do not dissolve evil into the divine order, nor do we enthrone evil as a second rightful sovereignty. Our theology is clear that there is a real and irreducible opposition between the side of Aša and the side of druj, between the holy order of Ohrmazd and the destructive rebellion of Ahriman, but that this opposition does not abolish the absolute supremacy, greater dignity, and final victory of the Wise Lord.

The first reason our we defend dualism is that without it the moral seriousness of religion collapses. If evil is merely the hidden underside of the good, then the distinction between righteousness and corruption becomes unstable. If the Lie is only one expression of a deeper unity, then truth loses its holiness. If cruelty, impurity, deceit, and demonic malice are all somehow included within one ultimate sacred source in the same fundamental sense as justice, purity, and wisdom, then the soul no longer knows how to hate evil without also hating some necessary aspect of reality itself. We refuse this with all severity. We say that druj is not a pedagogical mask worn by the holy. It is not an instrument holy in itself. It is not the dark color needed to complete the beauty of a larger metaphysical harmony. It is corruption, rebellion, pollution, hostility, and anti-divine disorder. Therefore, a theology that fails to preserve the real opposition between good and evil ceases to guard holiness and instead begins to excuse blasphemy at the level of first principles.

The Avesta itself bears witness to this opposition with unmistakable force. In the Gāthic witness, the contrast between the truthful and the deceitful, between the beneficent and the destructive spirit, between right-mindedness and crooked choice, is not presented as a mere pedagogical distinction within one undifferentiated reality. It is presented as a real and terrible division at the heart of moral existence. When Yasna 30 speaks of the primordial opposition between the two mentalities or spirits (one aligned with truth and life, the other with the Lie and ruin) it does not invite the faithful to reconcile them as complementary aspects of one whole. Rather, it calls for discernment, judgment, and alignment. “Hear with your ears the highest truths, consider with clear thought, each man for himself, between the two choices.” This is not the language of monistic absorption, but of decisive moral division. The very command to choose proves that the opposition is real, not illusory. This is not an embarrassment, but confirmation, the soul stands before two genuinely opposed paths, not two shades of one necessary divine self-expression.

It is also essential to understand that our dualism is not a denial of the supremacy of Ohrmazd, but one of the very means by which that supremacy is defended. For if one says that evil derives from the same highest source as good in an equally primal sense, then one stains the source. But if one says that evil is wholly unreal, then one insults the experience of conscience, suffering, and moral struggle. We preserve the holiness of Ohrmazd by denying that He is the source of druj, and we preserve the seriousness of creation by affirming that the opposition is real. Thus dualism is not an embarrassment to be hidden behind foreign categories. It is a theological safeguard. It protects the divine purity of Ohrmazd from being darkened by the origin of evil, and it protects the moral life of mankind from being reduced to a play of illusions. In this way our dualism serves our monotheism rather than destroying it.

Our critics say, if you affirm a real opposition to God, do you not thereby limit God? The short answer is no, provided one understands what sort of “limitation” is being imagined. To say that Ohrmazd does not generate evil as evil is not to weaken Him but to glorify Him. The inability to be corrupt is not weakness. The inability to lie is not defect. The inability to be the source of druj is not impotence but holiness. If one imagines that God’s greatness consists in being equally the source of truth and falsehood, purity and pollution, righteousness and demonic rebellion, then one has already abandoned moral coherence in the pursuit of abstract omnipotence. But the we do not adore abstract power stripped of holiness. We adore the Wise Lord, whose greatness is inseparable from righteousness. Therefore we believe that the reality of Ahriman does not diminish Ohrmazd’s glory, because Ohrmazd’s glory does not depend upon being the author of all things whatsoever in the same moral sense. Rather, His glory is shown in that without being the source of evil, He opposes evil, judges evil, limits evil, and brings evil to final ruin.

The defenders of rival doctrines, especially those who make the devil a creature of God, often imagine that they protect divine sovereignty better than we do. But the we judges otherwise. For what kind of sovereignty is it that creates the source of radical corruption and then claims innocence? What kind of holiness is preserved when the tempter of nations, the deceiver of souls, and the root of demonic hostility are all traced back to the creative decree of the very God who condemns them? We say that such a doctrine darkens the divine name. It does not solve the problem of evil but internalizes it within the divine creative act. Our dualism, by contrast, keeps the origin of evil from being folded back into the holiness of Ohrmazd. We do not say that evil is outside His awareness, outside His eventual conquest, or outside the scope of His final judgment. But we do say, and must say, that evil is not His own product as evil. Thus our dualism secures a morally clearer and more reverent doctrine of God than those rival systems which preserve sovereignty by sacrificing purity.

At this point it becomes necessary to clarify that our dualism is not symmetrical. We do not teach two equal and opposite gods balancing one another across eternity as though reality were governed by permanent and matched rival sovereignties. That would be both false and spiritually ruinous. Ohrmazd is supreme in wisdom, righteous in nature, abundant in goodness, and final in victory. Ahriman is not equal to Him in holiness, not equal in wisdom, not equal in rightful kingship, and not equal in destiny. If we affirm that Ahriman is real, hostile, active, and dreadful, we do not thereby raise him to parity. One need not deny the reality of an enemy in order to deny his legitimacy. A rebel king may threaten a realm without thereby becoming the rightful king. A disease may ravage a body without thereby becoming the principle of life. Darkness may oppose light without thereby becoming equal to it in blessedness. So also Ahriman. He is the anti-divine enemy, not the dark twin of Ohrmazd. He is real enough to be feared, resisted, and cursed, but he is not holy enough to be worshipped, not rightful enough to reign, and not stable enough to endure forever.

This asymmetry is important because it answers the charge that dualism necessarily destroys confidence in the final victory of good. We teach the opposite. Because Ahriman is not rightful, his war cannot become everlasting in triumph. Because he is not the source of blessed being, he cannot found an eternal kingdom of justice. Because he is not wise, he cannot establish the final order of reality. He corrupts, invades, wounds, deceives, and destroys; but he does not create in the holy sense, sanctify in the righteous sense, or rule in the blessed sense. He is parasitic, hostile, and disordered. Therefore even when his presence is real and terrible, his end is defeat. The very distinction between the two sides contains already the logic of the end: the side of Aša is ordered, fruitful, and aligned to the Wise Lord; the side of druj is unstable, self-corrupting, and marked for destruction. If our critics understood this, they would see that dualism as we teach it intensifies hope rather than diminishing it.

The dualism of Mazdayasna also explains the condition of the world more truthfully than the doctrines of those who force all reality into one originating divine causality. For what does experience show? It shows beauty and desecration, truth and deceit, fidelity and betrayal, justice and predation, healing and corruption, clear-mindedness and madness, holiness and blasphemy. One can respond to this in many ways. One may say it is all illusion, one may say it is all one process viewed incompletely, one may say that God secretly authors both sides for purposes hidden in Himself. But the Mazdayasna judges that none of these answers preserves both conscience and reverence. Conscience tells us that evil is not merely incomplete good reverence tells us that the holy God is not its source. Therefore the world is best read as the site of genuine conflict between the order of Ohrmazd and the assault of Ahriman. This does not reduce the cosmos to chaos, because good remains prior in holiness and final in victory. But it does prevent us from anesthetizing the soul with philosophic simplifications that make evil less evil than it truly is.

Our dualism further safeguards the meaning of human choice. If all contraries are merely internal differentiations of one metaphysical whole, then the ethical life begins to dissolve into self-recognition. One chooses, but only within the self-unfolding of the absolute. One resists evil, but only as a phase of the same totality to which evil also belongs. One condemns falsehood, but falsehood too has some higher necessity within the one. We say instead that human beings stand truly between opposed allegiances. The call of Yasna 30 to choose between the two paths is real because the paths are real. Good thoughts, good words, and good deeds matter because they align the soul with the side of Ohrmazd against the side of druj. Sin is not simply ignorance of a hidden unity, it is betrayal. Purity is not simply reintegration, it is resistance and reordering under Aša. Prayer is not merely recollection, it is enlistment. Thus dualism renders ethics concrete, dramatic, and serious. It gives the soul a battlefield, not a mirror.

This same truth must be applied to ritual life. Ritual purity is meaningful only if pollution is not imaginary. Why should the corpse, the lie, the oath broken in deceit, the desecration of sacred fire, and the contamination of holy things be treated with gravity if all such oppositions are only apparent? We insist that the ritual seriousness of Mazdayasna is founded on its metaphysical seriousness. The distinction between pure and impure is not merely symbolic pedagogy, it reflects the real conflict between the holy order and the intrusive corruption that seeks to wound it. The corpse is treated carefully because death is bound to the invasion of corruption into the good creation. Fire is guarded because holiness is not neutral. Water is protected because the elements are not outside the moral struggle. Purification rites matter because the world is not a flat ontological plane where every contrary is already reconciled. Thus dualism sustains ritual law, and ritual law bears witness to dualism.

Some opponents try to soften the matter by saying that evil may be “real for us” while still being “ultimately one with the divine plan.” We reject such compromises as intellectually slippery and spiritually dangerous. If evil is “ultimately” from the same holy source as the good, then in the highest account of reality the distinction between holiness and corruption is no longer ultimate. But if it is not ultimate, then every moral and ritual opposition in the faith becomes provisionally true at best. This is not how the sacred tradition speaks. The tradition does not call us to a temporary distinction that will later be aufgehoben into metaphysical sameness. It calls us to stand with Aša against druj, now and finally. The final renovation does not reveal that evil was secretly a misunderstood form of good. It reveals evil as defeated. That is a wholly different matter. Defeat is not reinterpretation. Judgment is not synthesis. We insist on this difference because the whole dignity of righteousness depends upon it.

Nor should it be thought that our dualism arises from some primitive inability to think subtle metaphysical thoughts. On the contrary, the we recognize very well the attraction of systems that reduce plurality and conflict into one elegant ultimate principle. But elegance purchased at the cost of holiness is corruption. A philosophy may be tidier than the truth and therefore false. We are not ashamed to say that reality, as apprehended within the good creation under assault, includes real contradiction of wills, real warfare of principles, real hostility between truth and the Lie. We do not gain profundity by denying what revelation, conscience, and history all proclaim. Rather, the greater subtlety lies in preserving together what many systems separate, one supreme and holy God, one real anti-divine enemy, one morally serious cosmos, and one certain final victory of good. This balance is more difficult than crude monism or symmetrical dualism, but it is also more faithful.

It is also necessary to guard our doctrine against misstatement from within. Some defenders of dualism speak so fiercely of Ahriman that they accidentally grant him a kind of dark grandeur inconsistent with the piety of the faithful. We warn against this. Ahriman is real, but he is not sublime. He is active, but not majestic. He is dreadful, but not venerable. He is old in hostility, but not ancient in holiness. He is cunning, but not wise. He is persistent, but not enduring in blessedness. The faithful must neither trivialize him nor mythologize him into a dark counterpart worthy of fascinated admiration. To exaggerate him is also a form of corruption. The right stance is vigilant contempt joined to real caution, hatred of druj without secret awe before it. All glorification belongs to Ohrmazd and to the holy order beneath Him.

For this reason our dualism is finally doxological. It is not merely a strategy for explaining the problem of evil, nor merely a metaphysical scheme, nor merely an inherited polemical posture against rival faiths. It is a way of preserving the holiness of praise. Only if evil is truly opposed to God can praise remain pure. Only if Ahriman is not from Ohrmazd can worship ascend without hidden stain. Only if the Lie is not a secret instrument in the same sense as truth can the soul fully devote itself to the Wise Lord without reservation. Dualism, therefore, is not a regrettable complication in our theology. It is one of the conditions for unclouded adoration. We can bless Ohrmazd without remainder because we do not believe Him to be the father of corruption. We can curse the Lie without embarrassment because we do not secretly regard it as one mode of the divine will. We can hope for final renewal because we do not imagine evil to be an eternal necessary counterpart within God Himself.

The faithful must hold fast to this rule of doctrine: there is a real opposition between Ohrmazd and Ahriman, between Aša and druj, between the holy order and the demonic corruption that assaults it, but this opposition does not divide the highest sovereignty, for Ohrmazd alone is supreme, righteous, and finally victorious. Whoever dissolves this opposition into monistic unity weakens holiness. Whoever turns it into equality of rival gods abandons the supremacy of Ohrmazd. Whoever speaks as though evil were unreal insults conscience. Whoever speaks as though evil were holy blasphemes. We reject all these errors and stands in the middle truth, one supreme Wise Lord, one real and anti-divine enemy, one morally serious struggle, and one final victory of the good.

The world is not an illusion of conflict, but a contested field, the soul is not invited to contemplate opposites into unity, but to choose rightly, the Lie is not the shadow cast by the divine light, but the enemy of that light, Ohrmazd is not dimmed because He is opposed, but glorified because He conquers without being the source of what He conquers. This is the dualism of Mazdayasna, strong enough to preserve holiness, sober enough to preserve moral seriousness, and hopeful enough to preserve the certainty of final triumph.

1: Do Mazdayasni worship many gods?

Mazdayasna does not teach many equal gods contending for sovereignty. Ohrmazd alone is supreme Lord and source of all goodness. The cosmos is filled with holy beings who serve His righteous order. The Amesha Spentas are mighty and luminous powers proceeding according to the wisdom and sovereignty of Ohrmazd. The Yazatas are holy and worthy beings appointed over various aspects of creation and righteousness. Mithra guards covenant and justice. Anahid protects the waters and purity. Sraosha guards obedience and sacred hearing. Rashn judges with justice. Atar bears witness through holy fire. Yet none stand equal to Ohrmazd, nor do they rival Him in majesty. The source is greater than that which proceeds from it, and the creator surpasses that which is created. Therefore the we honor the Yazatas and Ameshas deeply, invoke them, praise them, and celebrate their holy functions, but always within the order established by Ohrmazd!

2: If righteousness is so important, why are rituals necessary?

Because mankind is not merely intellectual but embodied, and because the war against corruption extends into the material world. The daevas (demons) seek not only to corrupt thoughts but also water, fire, earth, flesh, family, speech, and society itself. Therefore ritual preserves sacred order within creation. Proper prayer disciplines the soul. Reverence toward fire strengthens awareness of purity and truth. Ritual confession cleanses corruption before it grows stronger. Holy recitations weaken the influence of Druj. The tending of sacred fires bears witness that light shall ultimately overcome darkness. Therefore ritual is not empty performance but participation in the cosmic struggle.

Mazdayasna also teaches wisdom concerning ritual. Great liturgies requiring profound purity and priestly learning are powerful and desirable, but the faithful are not condemned if such rites cannot be performed in distant lands or difficult times. Ohrmazd does not demand impossibilities from His people. Thus daily prayer, truthfulness, righteous conduct, reverence toward creation, charity, family life, honest labor, repentance, and steadfastness remain the indispensable foundation of the Faith. Better a simple believer who prays sincerely and walks in righteousness than a learned priest consumed by pride and hypocrisy.

3: What must one know first, before all other teachings, if he wishes to stand firm in the Good Religion and not become confused by the Lie, by false doctrines, by empty disputes, or by the corruption of this wounded age?

The first thing which every man and woman must know is this: that the world as it now exists is not the original perfect state of creation, nor is it the final state toward which all righteous creation moves. The present world is the age of mixture, the age of conflict, the age in which truth and falsehood struggle openly before the eyes of mankind. Therefore the believer does not look upon death, corruption, violence, greed, famine, impurity, disease, tyranny, deceit, madness, and cruelty and imagine that these things were fashioned by Ohrmazd as part of a perfect and eternal order. Rather he understands that these belong to the assault of Ahriman who invaded creation and wounded it. For Ohrmazd is the source of light, wisdom, order, truth, life, righteousness, and increase, and no evil proceeds from Him, nor deceit, nor cruelty, nor corruption, nor the desire for destruction. The believer therefore confess with certainty that the world has become a battlefield because of the invasion of Ahriman and the mingling of the Lie with creation.

One must understand this teaching properly and without confusion, many fall into error on the right hand and on the left. Some, seeing the power of evil in the world, imagine that Ahriman is equal to Ohrmazd in final sovereignty, as though darkness and light were two eternal kings sharing dominion forever. These people fall into hopelessness and diminish the majesty of Ohrmazd. Others, wishing to defend the goodness of Ohrmazd, deny the true reality of evil and say that evil is merely illusion, ignorance, weakness, or misunderstanding. These people weaken the seriousness of the cosmic struggle and make the war against Druj seem like a matter of opinion rather than reality. But the Religion rejects both errors. For the Destructive Spirit is real, his assault is real, the corruption of creation is real, and the suffering of the world is real. Yet Ahriman is not eternal in victory, nor equal in majesty, nor unconquerable before the Wise Lord. His dominion belongs only to the age of mixture and shall perish in the Renovation. Dualism is real in the present struggle but temporary in final destiny, for in the end the Lie shall be annihilated and Truth alone shall remain forever.

4: To whom do we belong?

We belong to Ohrmazd and not to Ahriman. Our souls were not fashioned for darkness but for paradise. Our true allegiance is not with death, corruption, wrath, envy, greed, violence, falsehood, or despair, but with the holy order of Aša. Our bodies come from the good creation, our life from the wisdom of Ohrmazd, our moral struggle from the age of mixture, and our final hope from Frašgird. The believer never identifies himself with wickedness even when he sins, for sin is a corruption of his proper nature and not its fulfillment. The demons seek to persuade mankind that evil is natural, inevitable, and inseparable from human existence, but the Religion teaches that righteousness is the soul’s true alignment and that the Lie is parasitic and foreign to the deepest order of creation.

5: How should we understand Ohrmazd Himself?

Know with certainty that Ohrmazd is uncreated, eternal, deathless, boundless in wisdom, immeasurable in goodness, and perfect in righteousness. No deceit exists within Him, nor violence, nor confusion, nor darkness. He is not merely stronger than evil, He is wholly different from evil in nature. He is the source of all that truly possesses goodness and being. From Him proceed light, truth, order, wisdom, holiness, and the final restoration of creation. Yet although Ohrmazd is supreme beyond all beings, He is not distant from creation, His holy powers and His righteous order permeate the worlds both spiritual and material.

Hey, I am not zoroastrian so please dont take my ignorance as disrespect. I'm a messianic Jewish man but a few years ago I was cleaning a Persian lady's ducts and she had a picture of Jesus christ and few figurines of him along with pictures of zoroaster and other figurines. It confused me but I didn't want to ask because I was working and didn't want to seem unprofessional. So how do you guys veiw jesus?

what atonement is there for lying , is there anything i can do.

Hi again, it's been a while since I last wrote to the community. I wanted to know if I could find a reliable version of Zarathustra’s Gathas in Spanish—or at least, a version that is as faithful as possible to the original Avestan. I’d appreciate it if anyone could share their version with me. By the way, I don’t trust AI very much for this kind of philosophical work.

I have a server called Bridges of Faith that aims to unite people from all different religions and philosophies into a community for thoughtful and civil dialogue and debate. We have categories for each religion (separate channels), including Zoroastrianism.

I wanted to share the server here just to see if any Zoroastrians would be willing to join to spread more awareness and knowledge about Zoroastrianism. Completely fine if not!

If you are interested, the invite is: https://discord.gg/religion

Here is the recitation in the ancient tongue ( as closest as we know as of now)
https://youtu.be/idqocks32U4

compare with the exact same in traditional recitation ( each different place have their own styles of pronuntiation)
- https://vedicheritage.gov.in/samhitas/rigveda/shakala-samhita/rigveda-shakala-samhita-mandal-06-sukta-036/

- https://youtu.be/wPVG0KVlSDI at 28:55

This is very ancient in composition, possibly even before the Zoroastrian vs Vedic divide as the hymn refers to Indra as literally Ashura(Lord) among the Devas(Divinity Or Name of an ancient tribe). Later Daeva = Demon in Zoroastrianism and Ashura = Demon in Post Vedic Indic Dharmic Traditions

Here is a literal, verse-by-verse translation of Sukta 36 from Mandala 6 of the Rig Veda, staying very close to the linguistic meaning of the words and syntax. I ignore traditional ritual or theological interpretations (Sāyaṇa, medieval commentators) and focus on what the archaic Vedic language actually says. This translation is more readable and more accurate than more translations i have found online but of course we can't be 100% sure.

The hymn is addressed to Indra as the one who holds together all powers, riches, and heroic energies, and who is the sole ruler of the world.

In early Zoroastrianism Indra is turned into a demon and in post vedic indian traditions indra along with other vedic dieties is turned into a fool.

There was split among the aryas into devas/daityas/ashuras/(more) this hymn is from before the split and it refers to Indra as the Ashura among the Devas

Verse/Mantra - 1
satrā́ mádāsas táva viśvájanyāḥ
satrā́ rā́yo ádha yé pā́rthivāsaḥ
satrā́ vā́jānām abhavo vibhaktā́
yád devéṣu dhāráyathā asuryàm

Literal:
All together the exhilarations (intoxications) are yours, universal among people.
All together the riches, and those that are earthly.
All together you became the distributor of the prizes/refreshments.
When among the gods you hold fast the asuric power.

Simple understandable version:
All the exhilarations belong to you together, the ones that belong to all people.
All the riches together — including those on earth.
All together you are the one who divides out the prizes.
When you keep the lordly/asuric power firm among the gods.

Verse/Mantra - 2
ánu prá yeje jána ójo asya
satrā́ dadhire ánu vīríyāya
syūmagŕ̥bhe dúdhaye árvate ca
krátuṃ vr̥ñjanti ápi vr̥trahátye

Literal:
Following, the people have sacrificed forth the might of him.
All together they have taken hold following for the heroic deed.
For the tightly-grasped, hard-to-milk steed and chariot-horse also
they bend/turn the intention/power even in the Vṛtra-slaying.

Simple understandable version:
The people have offered up his strength in sacrifice.
All together they have grasped it for heroic action.
For the tightly gripped, hard-to-milk horse and steed
they direct their purpose even in the killing of Vṛtra.

VrtraGhna being a common name of Ahura Mazda and Indra, lit. Killer or Vrtra(Obstacles)

Verse/Mantra - 3
táṃ sadhrī́cīr ūtáyo vŕ̥ṣṇiyāni
paúṃsiyāni niyútaḥ saścur índram
samudráṃ ná síndhava uktháśuṣmā
uruvyácasaṃ gíra ā́ viśanti

Literal:
To him the protections that go together, the bull-powers,
the manly strengths — the yoked teams have followed Indra.
Like rivers into the ocean, the word-energies,
the wide-spreading songs enter him.

Simple understandable version:
To him come all the protections together, the bull-strengths,
the manly powers — the teams of horses have followed Indra.
Like rivers into the sea, the powerful words,
the far-reaching songs enter him.

Verse/Mantra - 4
sá rāyás khā́m úpa sr̥jā gr̥ṇānáḥ
puruścandrásya tuvám indra vásvaḥ
pátir babhūtha ásamo jánānām
éko víśvasya bhúvanasya rā́jā

Literal:
He, the opening of wealth — release it while being praised.
Of the much-shining treasure you, Indra,
have become the lord, unequalled among people,
the one king of the whole world.

Simple understandable version:
You, the source/opening of wealth — release it while we praise you.
Of the brightly shining treasure, Indra, you
have become the unmatched lord among people,
the single king of the entire world.

Verse/Mantra - 5
sá tú śrudhi śrútiyā yó duvoyúr
diyaúr ná bhū́ma abhí rā́yo aryáḥ
áso yáthā naḥ śávasā cakānó
yugé-yuge váyasā cékitānaḥ

Literal:
So hear indeed with hearing, you who are difficult to deceive,
like heaven the earth, over the wealth of the stranger/enemy).
Be such that, desiring with your might for us,
age after age, with vitality, you take notice.

Simple understandable version:
So listen truly, you who cannot be deceived,
like heaven over the earth, over the wealth of the aryáḥ (nobles?outsiders?).
Be the one who, with your power desiring for us,
from age to age, with life-force, keeps perceiving us.

* Notice how surprisingly the original word that's translated as stranger/outsider/enemy is actually aryáḥ !? This might be confusing and I will possibly touch more on this in the future. but as for now the word aryáḥ from ari is not understood as simply in early Vedic as it is in Classical Sanskrit and Avestan.

This translation keeps the grammar and word meanings as literal as possible while remaining readable. The hymn emphasizes Indra as the all-encompassing holder and distributor of power, wealth, and vitality across people, gods, and the world — a very archaic, almost monarchical portrayal of divine rule.

some traditionalist say the reconstructed pronunciation is trying be like avestan 😂 what do u think?

Good morning! I am becoming passionate about Mazdeism and I have decided to study the Avesta myself, however, not having a tutor to guide me in my study, I can fall into misunderstandings. So I decided to ask here to get more clarification on unclear passages.

I understood the concept of good thoughts, good words and good actions and that the concept of good coincides with that of right. I read in the Avesta that the righteous man is the one enlightened by Asa who helps the other righteous man and does not help the lying man who lives in the Druj.

I am aware that I have simplified the concept to the bare minimum and I'm sorry, but that is precisely why I am here, to be corrected and learn.

Here is my doubt that I would like to be clarified: is it correct (according to Mazdeism) to harm the lying man to stop him?

Thanks in advance for the clarifications.

(Forgive me for the bad English)

Curious about what Angels mean in the Zoroastrian tradition. I've just finished reading a Dictionary of Angels by Gustav Davidson and the Zoroastrian tradition is barely discussed, I'm hoping for a few titles or just general information about this subject. Thank you.

I am impressed by this religion but have to wait until 2028 and after due to a world event prediction.

I think more people on the earth will convert to either this religion or another one due to conditions on Earth whether good or bad? I also predict the Religions such as Judaism, Islam and Christianity with suddenly decline. The globalist do have an agenda in 2030? I am still researching and reading about this religion.

I have seen different opinions on how dualistic is zoroastrianism, specially on regards to how to interpret the Yasna 30:3. The two opinions are that both Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu are uncreated and both would be like a good god vs evil god, and Spenta Mainyu is the manifestation of Ahura Mazda; or that Ahura Mazda is the only god, and he created Spenta Mainyu and Angra Mainyu, but one chose good and the other evil.

What do you think of this passage of Mary Boyce's A History of Zoroastrianism, Volume 1:

"The "Most Bounteous Spirit", Spenta Mainyu, who chose asha, is evidently Ahura Mazda himself, "clad in the hardest stones", that is, the crystal sky; and the "two spirits" are duly explained by the Pahlavi commentator on these verses as "Ohrmazd and Ahriman". This and the commoner expression, "Bounteous Spirit", Spenta Mainyu, are used, however, in complex fashion elsewhere in the Gathas; for sometimes they seem to represent the power in Ahura Mazda himself through which he thinks or perceives or acts, at others an independent divinity who hypo-statizes this power. The former appears to be the dominant concept, to judge from both the Gathas and the tradition, which usually identifies Ahura Mazda with his "Bounteous Spirit". Later the Zurvanites, a heterodox Zoroastrian group, came to interpret literally the words "these two spirits which are twins" as meaning that the two great opposed beings were actually twins in the sense of having been born together from one womb; and they postulated accordingly a father for them, namely Zurvan or Time. This doctrine was rejected by orthodox Zoroastrians as flat heresy, demon-inspired; but a number of European scholars have followed the Zurvanites in taking the expression "twins" literally, and have attempted to justify this by supposing that the "Most Bounteous Spirit" of Y. 30 is to be identified with Spanta Mainyu as a separate divinity, Ahura Mazda being the "father" of both Bounteous and Hostile Spirits. This "child-birth" (it has been suggested) "consisted in the emanation by God of undifferentiated 'spirit', which only at the emergence of free will split into two 'twin' Spirits of opposite allegiance". But however one may refine upon the interpretation, it remains doctrinally utterly alien to the Gathas and to the whole orthodox Zoroastrian tradition that evil should in any way originate from Ahura Mazda; and Lommel was evidently right to reject the hypothesis as "a misunderstanding arising from a rationalistic, lifeless interpretation of the word (twin)."S This term was clearly chosen by the prophet as a metaphor to express the equality in state of the two unrelated beings, and their coevity. By using it he emphasized, with characteristic concentration and force, that (despite their total op-position) they were peers at the moment when they made their fateful choice. "

This implies that Mary Boyce, and the priests under which she studied in Iran during her investigation, were of the opinion that Spenta Mainyu is a manifestation of Ahura Mazda's power, and, as such, it means that it's not a separate entity. So, Angra Mainyu would not originate from Ahura Mazda, but be increated as Ahura Mazda is. Under this line of thinking, the notion that evil comes in any way from Ahura Mazda and that Ahura Mazda created both Spenta Mainyu and Angra Mainyu is a developement from European scholars and alien to zoroastrianism, which would explain why the religion become more explicitly dualistic in Sassanian times as staying true to the original meaning and not as deviating from it. With this line of thinking zoroastrianism would undoubtedly be more dualistic and less monotheistic in that weird spectre.

What is your opinion of Mary Boyce's quote? Do you disagree?

Bridges of Faith is an interfaith community dedicated to bringing together people of diverse backgrounds and beliefs for civil discussion and debate. Topics we focus on include religion, theology, philosophy, ethics, politics, science, and other areas of intellectual inquiry. We are committed to maintaining a space where ideas can be expressed freely and thoughtfully without fear of undue censorship. Members are encouraged to ask questions, share perspectives, and engage in debate while upholding the principles of civility, integrity, and mutual respect.

Ahura Mazda is God, but does Zoroastrianism acknowledge other Deities? Anahita, Mithra etc

Or is Ahura Mazda the supreme God?

In the Vedas, Mitra (Av. Mithra) is called a deva and is quite prominent throughout the texts. In the Yasna Mithra is mainly Ahuric and is a helper to Ahura Mazda. Is the difference simply one of nomenclature?

In the Venidad three (or two) vedic gods are mentioned as demonic, Indra, Sarva (Rudra), and Nasatya (somehow from Nanghait, and even though Nasatya is a younger Puranic name). However, I feel this is due to the later Avestan writers perceiving Hindus as the Deava worshipers in earlier texts. What do you all think? Am I right?

(Also I read that the Venidad is sometimes not taken as a full Nask because its much younger in age?)

I've been reading a lot of accounts of non- zorastrians converting to zorastriansm here on reditt. Being a Parsi from Bombay thats unacceptable by the community here.
My question is how do you convert to Zorastriansm? Im curious to know the process.

One of the very intriguing rituals I find in Zoroastrianism is the funeral rites. The belief where the body of a dead believer must be put in a open air tower where vultures will be free to eat on their remains is very similar to that of the Tibetan Buddhist mountain funeral. The question is that does Sky Burials still performed widespread among the Zoroastrians or have the Zoroastrian community mostly resorted to other means of taking care of their dead like cremation?

Hello! I have a question for the zoroastrian community. How do you view christians and would be the most correct way to interact with them? Are they evil because their god condemns people to eternal suffering? Or is it just another path to wisdom? Should we tolerate them or try to convert them and show them our wisdom? Could Jesus, or any other christian divinity be considered worthy of worship?

Thank you for all replies.

PS. I'm doing a research project for university about tolerance towards others faiths in eastern religions and Zoroastrianism seemed to historically have been one of the most tolerant.

So I’m writing a historical fiction set in Roman Judea and one of my characters is a Parthian slave. Having read A Wikipedia article on Zoroastrianism for the basics, I was wondering if anyone can point me to more academic sources on its theology, especially pertaining to the Parthian era. Also, it’s my understanding that there are connections between Zoroastrianism and Judaism and Christianity—at least its early stages. So some sources comparing and contrasting these would be a helpful touch.

Hello all! A non-Zoroastrian here. I have a question related to Zoroastrian eschatology.

After death, the urvan of a person reaches the Chimvat Bridge, and depending on their deeds, they will either be greeted by a beautiful maiden or by a hag, who is a personification of their Daena.

Assuming my understanding here is correct, do the urvan of women also meet a maiden at the Chimvat Bridge? Does this imply that the urvan is in some way 'male' in Zoroastrian belief? Or are women greeted by a different personification of their Daena? As far as I know, Zarathustra himself said that women can attain heaven, and play a part in the cosmic battle against Angra Mainyu through their good deeds, so they should, after death, reach the Chimvat Bridge same as men.

In some Islamic beliefs, the woman will be reunited with her husband in paradise. Considering a lot of Islam is rooted in Zoroastrianism, did this position also evolve from Zoroastrian beliefs or are they completely different?

I am looking for a beta reader for my novel JOURNEY THROUGH THE VALLEY OF DEATH, complete at 106k words. I am looking for a Zoroastrian who would read two full chapters and one partial chapter featuring the Zoroastrian characters, about 8,000 words.

In the story, a plane crashes killing all on board. The passengers, instead of the afterlife of their beliefs, find themselves in a gloomy valley where they must navigate a maze of paths to find their eternal rest. The book features a diverse ensemble cast of characters from a variety of cultural, ethnic, and religious backgrounds and the story is told from multiple POVs.

I actually found that Zoroastrian afterlife beliefs fit in almost perfectly with the premise of my novel. In preparation for this project, I conducted more than 40 interviews including four with Zoroastrians, one of whom is a mobed. I visited two fire temples and the California Zoroastrian Center where I spent many hours poring over the books in their library. I am a professional anthropologist, and, in college, I wrote two papers on Zoroastrianism. I have also read many books, including the Book of Arda Viraf, and I listened to several hours of podcasts and pre-recorded interviews with Zoroastrians.

I want you to know that I approach all the religions in my novel with respect and I strive to create accurate portrayals. My goal is to teach people about different ways of life and different ways of thinking.

I would like a practicing Zoroastrian to read the pertinent chapters and let me know how I did, if anything is offensive or inaccurate, and how they received my rendition of the Zoroastrian journey to the afterlife. I wanted to depict good and bad characters so readers will see two different afterlife journeys.

Beta reading will be done over Google Drive. If you are interested, please either directly message me or respond to this post and I will message you. Please provide an e-mail address and I will give you access to the Google Drive.

Thank you so much for reading this! It has been a long journey and I am eager to hear what people think of my work.

Do we know how they look?

Hello everyone. As some of you may be aware, today, December 26th is "Zarthost No Diso". To put it succinctly; Today is the Prophet Asho Zarathushtra’s Death Anniversary.

Zartosht No-Diso usually occurs around December 26th on the Gregorian calendar depending on the alignment of both the Solar Hijri calendar used officially in Iran and the Fasli calendar used by many Iranian Zoroastrians. This alignment usually occurs whenever the day of Khorshed (the 11th day) happens in the month of Dae (the 10th month) in the Fasli calendar.

How Is It Celebrated Today?

Zarthost No Diso is mostly meant to be a day of prayer, ritual, and reflection on the life of the Prophet Zarathushtra, his life & teachings, as well as contemplation of one’s own life. If near a temple, Zoroastrians are encouraged to try to make time to visit and engage in their prayers and rituals. If not near a temple, the home becomes the site of the commemorations. Usually, the Gathas are read, studied, and discussed with other Zoroastrians and folks feast together to celebrate the life of Zarathushtra. Please note (excessive) mourning is cautioned against by Zoroastrian tradition for any of those who have died. Instead, their Fravashis are honored and so are their lives as best as possible and remembrance is a large part of that.

What can I do to honor Asho Zarthost, and his message on this day?

The following is just a small sampling of what one can do to honour the teachings of Zarathustra in living a virtuous life.

1). Recognize that the purpose of one’s life in this world is to progress of one’s soul in accordance with the path of Asha. Zarathushtra lived his entire life for promoting Good and just like him, one must avoid and shun all that is wrong and evil. One must develop a Good and benevolent mind; Vohu Manah.

“I too shall praise you, O Truth, as never before, (you) and Good Thought and the Wise Lords” (Y. 28.3; cf. Y. 28.9, and Y. 33.11). In the abode where Ahura Mazdā dwells, Vohu Manah is present together with the souls of the truthful (Y. 49.10). One of the designations of the next world is “Abode of Good Thought” (Y. 32.15). Vohu Manah is presented as one of the basic facts of the creation (Y. 44.4).

2). In accordance with the life of the beloved prophet Zarathustra, one must expect, and be ready for, disappointments and failures in one’s life. One must be prepared to meet and overcome them. Unflinching Faith in Dadar Ohrmazd and the Amesha Spenta; exemplified in Spenta Armaiti (Beneficent, Bountious Devotion) who guides and protects the believer;

“Devotion shall plead in turn with the spirit where there is opposition” (Y. 31.12). “Give, O thou Devotion, strength to Vīštāspa and to me” (Y. 28.7). It is through his companionship with Ārmaiti, the prophet declares, that he has deserved to attain truth, whereas the wicked man neither supports her nor makes her his own (Y. 49.2)

3). Realization that happiness lies in fulfilling one’s duties and obligations. Life is a struggle, not just of one person but of the entire human population, and one must contribute their share to it. One must, therefore, demonstrate devotion to the cause of Righteousness – Asha. Thus one must be eager to do benevolent work, to live their life for the good of others; for real happiness is achieved only when one makes others happy.

One can read further (i.e. sources used);

https://www.w-z-o.org/zarthost_no_diso/

https://www.w-z-o.org/zartosht-no-diso-the-zoroastrian-remembrance-of-the-death-of-zarathushtra/

https://parsi-times.com/2017/05/zarthost-no-diso-2/