AHURAMAZDĀ. — This is the name of the supreme divinity in the doctrine of Zoroaster (recently transcribed as Ormazd), from which the religion derives its name Mazdean. The term means “Wise Lord.” In the ancient Avesta the deity is designated sometimes as Ahura, sometimes as Mazda, sometimes as Mazda Ahura; but in the inscription of Darius I at Behistun the deity always appears as the fixed compound Ahuramazdā, and this form remained in use thereafter.
From the name itself it is clear that the specific attributes which Zoroaster ascribes to the deity are lordship and wisdom. In the ancient doctrine it is explicitly affirmed that he creates all things, even the darkness, and there is no hint of creation by a rival. Heaven, earth, plants, water, winds, clouds, etc., are his work; and man likewise is created by him. Besides being creator, he is also legislator, both in the physical world—giving laws to the cosmos, determining the course of the stars, the phases of the moon, the alternation of day and night, the succession of the seasons—and in the moral world—bestowing moral qualities, rectitude, docility, just authority, benevolence, establishing moral duties and watching over their observance. Such is the doctrine that appears in Yasna 44.
He dwells in the light above and manifests his wisdom in knowing the inward movements of the souls of the truthful and the liar; to his aid is attributed the triumph over falsehood, a term that designates evil. He is the supreme judge, who at the end distributes rewards according to merit. In the description of the deity in the ancient doctrine there is no trace of mythological or naturalistic conception.
This doctrine is the result of a reform. Deliberately and with inexorable consistency Zoroaster wished to abolish the ancient polytheism, replacing it with the doctrine of one God. The old deities, save for one or two vague allusions, are ignored and passed over in silence; indeed they are degraded to the rank of demons and designated by the generic term daeva, which in itself means “god” and was used by polytheists for their deities, whereas in Zoroaster’s doctrine it means “demon.”
The cult of the deity consists in prayer and good works; in good thoughts, good words, good deeds. The reformer fought against and abolished every bloody sacrifice and even the rite of haoma, widespread among the Iranians as among the Indians.
Although Zoroaster attributed to the deity the attributes of creator, legislator, and avenger of human actions, he did not arrive at the conception of God’s omnipotence. The reason is to be sought in a dualistic doctrine that appears in other ancient hymns; since an independent principle of evil is admitted alongside that of good, the work of the latter is hindered and limited in this world by that of the former (cf. AHRI-MAN).
Are the monotheistic and the dualistic conceptions, which are in contrast, both due to the same author, Zoroaster, or to different authors? The solution of this question depends on whether the ancient hymns, including those that teach dualism, are all by Zoroaster, or whether some are by other authors. But this question cannot be resolved with the evidence at hand. In any case, in the ancient doctrine there appears an evolution from the monotheistic conception toward the dualistic, perhaps due to the concern to explain the origin of evil. The dualism, however, is not so developed as it will be later, 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? The abstract and doctrinal exposition, concise and teeming with technical terms; the almost total lack of any mention of cult, of the priestly class, of temples or solemn festivals leads one to think that it is rather a doctrine than a religion. Such was the impression it made on the Greeks, among whom Eudoxus defined it as “a most useful and most illustrious philosophical sect” (Pliny, Hist. nat., XXX, 3). Moreover, the fact that among the Greeks those who concerned themselves with the doctrine of Zoroaster were philosophers such as, besides Eudoxus, Hermodorus, Aristotle, Theopompus, and others leads to the same conviction. Its doctrinal part was intended for a small number of initiates, made up of Magi, while the ethical and social part of the doctrine lent itself to wider diffusion. In any case, there is no document whatever proving that the doctrine of the ancient Avesta became the religion of the people.
Darius I in his inscriptions is not a monotheist: he extols A. “who created this earth, who created the sky, who created abundance for men,” yet this deity is not the only one but the greatest. He remains attached to the gods of his house, has himself depicted on the walls of the temple of Hibis in Egypt as a devotee of Ammon, and in a message to Gadata speaks of the good relations of his house with Apollo.
In the later Avesta one can see how the ancient polytheism, combated by Zoroaster, has regained an unchallenged place. A. remains, but beside him stands the vast throng of the old deities, with their mythical popular legends. The cult constitutes the fundamental pivot of the religion, with bloody sacrifices and with libations and the offering of haoma. The priestly class is developed into a well-ordered hierarchy. Solemn festivals are observed. Dualism is then carried to its ultimate consequences, and to the two principles is attributed not only independent action but also their own creation. What Herodotus tells us about the religion of the Persians likewise shows that polytheism prevailed among them.