AHURAMAZDÀ. – This is the name of the supreme divinity in the doctrine of Zarathustra (in more recent times transcribed as Ormazd), from which the religion derives the name Mazdean. The term means “Wise Lord.” In the ancient Avesta the divinity is designated now as Ahura, now as Mazda, now as Mazda Ahura; in Darius I’s inscription at Behistun, however, it always appears as the fixed compound Ahuramazda, and so it remained thereafter.
From the name itself it may be inferred that the specific attributes Zarathustra assigns to the divinity are lordship and wisdom. In the ancient doctrine it is explicitly affirmed that he creates everything, even darkness, and there is no reference whatsoever to a creation by a rival. Heaven, earth, plants, water, winds and clouds, etc., are his work; and man too is created by him. Besides being creator, he is also lawgiver, both in the physical world, by giving laws to the cosmos, determining the course of the stars, the phases of the moon, the succession of day and night, the alternation of the seasons, etc., and in the moral world, by bestowing moral qualities, righteousness, obedience, rightful authority and benevolence, establishing moral duties and watching over their observance. Such is the doctrine that appears in the Yasna 44.
He dwells in the light above, and manifests his wisdom in knowing the inner movements of the souls of the truthful and the deceitful; victory over the lie, a term designating evil, is attributed to his aid. He is the supreme judge, who finally distributes rewards according to merit. In the description of the divinity in the ancient doctrine, every trace of a mythological or naturalistic conception is absent.
This doctrine is the result of a reform. Deliberately and with inexorable consistency, Zarathustra wished to abolish ancient polytheism, replacing it with the doctrine of one God. The ancient divinities, apart from one or two vague references, are ignored and passed over in silence; indeed, they are degraded to the rank of devils and designated by the generic term daeva, which in itself means “god” and was applied by the polytheists to their divinities, whereas in Zarathustra’s doctrine it is equivalent to “demon.”
Worship of the divinity consists in prayer and good works: in thinking well, in speaking well, in acting well. The reformer combats and abolishes every bloody sacrifice and even the rite of haoma, which was widespread among the Iranians, as among the Indians.
Although Zarathustra attributed to the divinity the attributes of creator, lawgiver and avenger of human actions, he did not arrive at the conception of the omnipotence of God. The reason is to be sought in a dualistic doctrine, which appears in other ancient hymns; since a principle of evil, independent of the principle of good, was also admitted, the work of the latter is obstructed and limited in this world by that of the former (v. AHRIMAN).
The monotheistic and dualistic conceptions, which conflict with one another, are both due to the same author, Zarathustra, or to different authors? The solution of this question depends on whether the ancient hymns, including those that teach dualism, are all by Zarathustra, or whether some are by other authors. But this question cannot be resolved on the basis of the evidence available. In any case, the ancient doctrine appears to show an evolution from the monotheistic conception toward the dualistic one, perhaps due to the concern to explain the origin of evil. Dualism, however, is not as fully developed as it would later become, and no creation is attributed to the evil spirit.
But do we really have a religion in the doctrine of the ancient Avesta, or rather a philosophical doctrine? Its abstract and doctrinal exposition, concise and teeming with technical terms; the almost total absence of any reference to worship, the priestly class, temples or solemn festivals, suggest that it is rather a doctrine than a religion. Such was the impression it made on the Greeks, among them Eudoxus, who defines it as “a most illustrious and useful philosophical sect” (Pliny, Hist. nat., XXX, 3). Moreover, the fact that among the Greeks those who concerned themselves with the doctrine of Zarathustra were philosophers—besides Eudoxus, Hermodorus, Aristotle, Theopompus and others—leads to the same conviction. In its doctrinal aspect it was intended for a small number of initiates, constituted by the Nagi, whereas the ethical and social aspect of the doctrine lent itself to wider dissemination. In any event, there is no document proving that the doctrine of the ancient Avesta became a religion of the people.
Darius I in his inscriptions is not a monotheist: he exalts A. “who created this earth, who created heaven, who created abundance for men,” yet this divinity is not the only one but the greatest. He remains attached to the gods of his house, allows himself to be depicted on the walls of the temple of Hib in Egypt as a devotee of Ammon, and in a message to Gadatas speaks of the good relations between his house and Apollo.
In the more recent Avesta, moreover, it can be seen how the ancient polytheism fought by Zarathustra had gained an undisputed place. A. still remains, but beside him there is the entire vast multitude of the ancient divinities, together with their mythical popular legends. Worship constitutes the fundamental pivot of the religion, with bloody sacrifices and the libation and offering of haoma. The priestly class is developed into a well-ordered hierarchy. Solemn festivals abound. Dualism, moreover, is carried to its ultimate consequences, and the two principles are credited not only with an independent action but also with a creation of their own. What Herodotus tells us about the religion of the Persians likewise shows that polytheism prevailed among them.