Championing Zoroastrian dualism

"The sudreh is like Ahura Mazda’s heaven and the kusti separates good impulses from evil impulses in humans. The Sasanian priests talk about it a lot… If you look at the human being as a microcosm of the world, then the sudreh is the clear sky — your thought should be like the clear sky — and the kusti is the symbol of the Mazda­yasni religion,” says Prof (Dr) Prod Oktor Skjaervo, Aga Khan Professor of Iranian at Harvard University.

Prof (Dr) Prod Oktor Skjaervo: "Tradition is like an ocean"

"I am not a historian or a theologian,” says the scholar, describing himself as a philologist. His job, he maintains, is to research what the languages reveal and leave it to others to use the information that surfaces. His new book, The Spirit of Zoroastrianism, should be hitting the bookstalls shortly and will be easily available on Amazon.com He describes it as one of a series of semantic translations of old and later religious texts showing the development of ideas, in this case Avestan, Pahlavi and later texts about ethics, kingship, rituals, etc with a short introduction. "It is non-controversial stuff though some items may be considered controversial” such as the material on intra family marriages. I have no agenda except to make these texts available.”
Skjaervo states that there is so little interest in Zoroastrianism because there are not good texts to introduce the subject. So he is working to produce tools for learning Zoroastrianism, teaching manuals for Gathic Avestan, Young Avestan, Persian and, currently, Pahlavi, putting everything on-line for anyone who is interested, getting e-mails from South Pacific and China, he notes. "If there is more interest in Zoroastrianism and more people want to learn about it, universities might institute positions… There is incipient interest in the Iranian and Parsi communities in the US,” says the professor, hoping they will endow them. But he does concede that academia is moving away from ancient languages, because after the students graduate, where can they go?
He considers ethics ("as good as Christian ethics”) as the core of the Zoroastrian religion. The adjective he uses to describe it is "sensible — it doesn’t expect people to do what they can’t, recommends moderation… Speaking the truth, being generous are capital virtues, speaking badly of others is wrong.” But from the scholarly standpoint, is its answer to the problem of evil. As against the theological position of monotheistic Christianity, Judaism and Islam who struggle to explain why the good creation generates evil, Zoroastrianism maintains that evil has existed from eternity and in the course of time will be overcome. "It is a remarkable theological position from the 2nd millennium BC!” The Gathas speak of the two Mainyus, opposed to each other in every way, he reminds us. "Evil is deceptive. It deceives people as well as deities. The daevas chose to do evil because they were confused and deceived. So there are those who control by deception and those who uphold Ahura Mazda’s world.
"It became a problem when learned Zoroastrians discussed the issue with Jews and Christians. In most religions God is omnipotent. Why doesn’t he get rid of it (evil)? Some Christian theologians say it is meant for the purification of sinners. Zoroastrianism is the only religion where there’s no eternal punishment because at the end of time evil will be burned out and everyone will be saved.
"Dualism is the worst heresy in the eyes of the Catholic Church. It became a big issue in the 18th and 19th centuries and also in discussions with Muslims. The Sasanian priests’ answer was that evil is something that’s in the fabric of the universe. It can’t be changed. God is not stupid, he won’t do what he cannot do. There is a lot of intellectual discussion in the Pahlavi texts; they saw the alternation in the fabric of the universe: light and darkness. It has to run its course; it can only change at the end of time. They say that the universe started out as chaos; then it was ordered. They don’t talk about what was before. Chaos is a deceptive force…”
According to Skjaervo there was a big debate in the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries on whether Zoroastrianism was monotheistic or dualistic. The creation is "clearly dualistic,” he maintains and from the point of view of divinity, "Ahura Mazda was not alone. There are other divinities like Verethragna, Anahita, Mithra, Trishtriya, etc.” But Ahura Mazda is at the top. "He is the king of the world, the father of other divinities.” According to Western scholars it is a henotheistic order (where there is one main god and others under him). They are nature deities. "In modern Zoroastrian thought they have become abstract concepts rather than primal deities.” This development of the worship of natural phenomena, initially as deities, later turned into abstractions, is part of the development of many religions, he notes.
Tracing the religion under the Achemenians, the scholar speaks of the rock inscriptions and notes that they describe the king’s relationship to Ahura Mazda, but don’t say much about the religion. "There is an agenda here: they describe themselves as Ahura Mazda’s chosen ones to restore order to the world… There are palace records detailing expenses, the resources that went into yasnas and sacrifices and which deity got what. All the deities are mentioned, as also the fravashis of ashavans — basically the same as in the Younger Avesta. There are also some Elamite gods mentioned.” The Parthians probably had the same concepts, perhaps more developed, but there is not much direct evidence available, only some archeological evidence, he notes.
The Sasanian inscriptions of the 3rd century AC and the rock relief of the investiture of the king also depict Anahita or Mithra which also indicate the king’s political and religious attitude, says the professor. Ahura Mazda was the main god, most often mentioned. There was also a temple to Anahita near Persepolis. "We don’t know how old it was, but it was there in the 3rd century.” She was the biggest deity after Ahura Mazda, connected with the people, ensuring procreation, purifying wombs and semen, while Mithra was the lord of contracts, he added.
According to Skjaervo, Zoroastrians didn’t have scriptures until modern times. The entire heritage was an oral tradition. "The Avesta was probably written after Islam came in the 7th century, the Pahlavi texts in the 9th century and after,” he notes, adding, "Tradition is like an ocean or a river. It touches everybody. Whatever you believe was in this tradition… It is possible that the priests manipulated the tradition which is why it is not uniform; there were differences. It is through this tradition that we are trying to understand the oldest texts and apply them to contemporary life. It is hard to believe that anyone would say ‘the tradition is not correct.’ Mazdak and Mani did say that but they were considered to be heretics… In the case of the Parsis, there is also the British influence to contend with. Wilson viewed it as a barbaric philosophy.”
The Norwegian Lutheran Christian says he was led into the study of Zoroastrianism by his youthful interest in comparative Indo-European linguistics where all languages within the group are related. "Looking for the strangest, most exotic language brought me to Sanskrit. We Norwegians learn up to five languages in school — English, French, German, Old Norwegian and current Norwegian,” he told Parsiana in the course of an interview on August 3, 2011 at the K. R. Cama Oriental Institute on his first ever visit to Bombay. At the university level where he took up the study of Sanskrit, one of his professors, an Iranist who knew the Avesta and the Vendidad, introduced his protégé to Pahlavi and Avestan literature which he then followed up by spending a year in Tehran.
When he got to Harvard in 1991, he says he discovered a lot of disagreement about what Zoroastrianism’s Old Avestan texts say. "The Zoroastrian tradition had its own views. In the Pahlavi texts the priests wrote what the Gathas are all about. What they said was very different from what the Western scholars say. The message of Zarathushtra in the West is a construct of Western scholars who wanted Zoroastrianism to be as good as Christianity. They put in what they thought Zarathushtra should have said.
"The Gathas are very difficult texts. There is lots of disagreement about what they mean, perhaps less among Zoroastrian than among Western scholars… The main message is the Yatha Ahu Vairyo. (It’s about) looking after the poor, separating what’s good and what is not. It’s about society and the rights of people, social justice, the distribution of property. Who has the right to have a cow? The cow is symbolic for valuable property. Any farmer will say animals are the most important thing he has.
"It doesn’t really change in the later texts. Social justice, the care of the poor is very important. There was a special institution for looking after the poor. It survives to modern times. Social justice goes right through the history of Zoroastrianism. Fighting evil underlies everything as does truth and generosity.”
How would you interpret the religion to heal the community? we ask him. "Would I be able to give an answer to an unanswerable problem?” he counters. Then he adds, "It depends on how the young generation takes care of itself if the older generation takes their convictions with them. In the diaspora there is more intermarriage. Keeping a very strict attitude is not helping the survival of the community. Young people don’t care about tradition. If you embrace outsiders, accept spouses into the community and the religion…” he trails off. A helpless shrug underscores the unpredicta­bility of a catch 22 situation.