Page:History of Zoroastrianism.djvu/290

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

CHAPTER XXVII

EVIL

Dualism in evolution. The original Gathic conception of the reality of evil is more emphasized by the theologians of the Later Avestan period, and the personality of the Prince of Evil becomes at the same time more pronounced. The hardest crux that confronts the Zoroastrian divines, as it does every theologian, is how Ahura Mazda, the father of goodness, can be made responsible for the existence of evil in this world. The prophet had already taught the existence of an independent power as the originator of evil. The idea inherent in this teaching is now elaborately worked out until every object that is branded by man as evil is ascribed to the agency of the Evil Spirit. A ban is put upon everything in the universe that is opposed to Asha's realm of righteousness, even to the detail of noxious creatures and poisonous plants. They belong to the evil creation. Herodotus and Plutarch inform us that the Magi held it a virtue to kill noxious creatures.[1] From the standpoint of evil, therefore, it is easy to understand that such a usurper king as Azhi Dahaka, who took a fiendish delight in feasting his eyes upon the most atrocious crimes perpetrated under his rule, was sent to this world by the arch-fiend as the apostle of destruction and death.[2] Hail and hurricane, cyclone and thunderstorm, plague and pestilence, famine and drought, in fact everything that harms man and decimates population, belong to the realm of evil. Angra Mainyu has cast an evil eye upon the good creation of Ahura Mazda, and by his glance of malice introduced corruption and disease into the universe.[3] The opposition between the Good and Evil Spirits is so pronounced that distinctive linguistic expressions are now used for both. There are separate words used for the organs, movements, and speech of the Good Spirit and his creation, and for those of the Evil Spirit and his world;

  1. Herod. 1. 140; Plutarch, Is. et Os. 46.
  2. Ys. 9. 8; Yt. 17. 34.
  3. Vd. 22. 2, 9, 15.

257