“The Parsi stamp”

As a most amateurish and indiscriminate stamp-collector, I bow to Noshir M. Lam’s superior knowledge on every score of philately.

When, however, it comes to the vexing question of whether Cyrus the Great was a Zoroastrian ("The Parsi stamp,” Readers’ Forum, Parsiana, September 2004) he is, in the space of one short paragraph, hopelessly wrong on just about every point apart from 1879 and the British Museum.

The Cyrus Cylinder is not of stone but clay.

Nowhere on it does he mention Ahura Mazda, leave aside implore him.

The dispute centers on his religion — on his edict he is emphatically neither Mazdayasnian nor Zoroastrian.

For the information of your readers who might want further light shed on this matter, the Cyrus edict extends over 45 lines of Akkadian (not Old Persian) cuneiform. He refers to the legitimate god Marduk of Babylon as "king of the gods,” "great lord,” and even "my lord.” He himself is "king of the world,” "great king,” "mighty king,” "king of Babylon, of Sumer, of Akkad,” "king of the four regions of the world” — all these because of Marduk, there being no trace of Ahura Mazda!

What then was his religion? Cyrus was probably a Mithraist. Possible clues to this are afforded by archeologists and art historians. At Parsagada in Fars, Iran, is the tomb of Cyrus. Traces of a mostly eroded floral emblem were discerned on it some 30 years ago, corresponding to the rosette-cum-lotus on the extremely well-known sculpture at Taq-e-Bostan where Mithra is the figure on the left standing on the stylized flower. His is the figure on which countless depictions of Zarathushtra are erroneously based. That relief panel dates from the times of Ardashir II (see crown).

All is not lost, however! When Zara-thushtra realized his sole deity Ahura Mazda in his Gathas, he founded this tremendously vital divinity mainly on two earlier Aryan gods, Varuna and Mitra, respectively the heavenly creator of the Cosmic Order, and the keeper and enforcer of solemn oaths and contracts on earth. They figure together in the Rig-Veda as Mitra-Varuna. Mitra/Mithra was very much a major part of Mazda the Ahura’s make-up, and his "incorporation” through his attributes in fact was a masterstroke of Zarathushtra’s genius. Mazda remains unique and omnipotent.

A bonus point: Darius I was definitely a Mazdayasnian, but because Zarathush-tra’s name was never mentioned in his inscriptions, some scholars have rather jumped the gun and firmly denied that he, Great King, King of kings (from a collateral branch of Achaemenes’ line), was ever a Zoroastrian. That dispute still continues. It may be noted that Zarathushtra/Zartusht does not figure on either the Old Persian cuneiform or on the Pahlavi inscriptions. That absence certainly does not make us doubt the existence of our Prophet, nor the fact that the early Achaemenians were monotheists. I trust, nevertheless, that we continue to pray mazdayasno ahmi, mazdayasno zarathushtrish without any doubts or ambiguities!

FARROKH VAJIFDAR

London, UK