AMEŠA SPENTA. – Under the Persian name A. is understood a group of entities, which appear frequently, now one, now another, now several together, in almost every stanza of the hymns of the ancient Avestā. The term A. itself, whose first part ameśa means “immortal” and whose second part spenta probably means “beneficent,” hence “immortal beneficences,” does not appear in the Gāthā but is found for the first time in a composition in seven chapters (Yasna, 39, 3), which in language and content stands very close to them.
The A. constitute one of the fundamental pivots of Zarathustra’s system and one of the most original parts of his doctrine. The following figures are numbered among the A.: Aśa vahīṣta “the best rectitude,” Vohu manah “right thinking,” that is, equity, Xāthra vairya “the desirable kingdom,” Spenta ārmaiti “beneficent docility,” Haurvatāt “integrity,” Ameretāt “immortality.” They are therefore six forces; and the Greeks likewise know six, as appears from Plutarch (De Is. et Os., 47), who probably derives his information from Theopompus and calls these forces gods. The number seven, which in any case is not explicitly mentioned in the ancient Avestā, is obtained by adding Ahuramazdāh or sometimes Sraośa to the group; but this number does not remain constant, because other figures are sometimes included.
They are creatures of Ahuramazdāh (v.), who is also called the father of some of them; as for their nature, some see in the A. divine beings or deified and personified ethical abstractions, while others regard them simply as attributes or aspects of the one divinity, essential parts of its being. But since the six forces are attributed both to the divinity and to man, this dual aspect must be borne in mind, and they must be understood as properties of the divinity, by means of which it governs the world, dispenses graces and aids, and the final reward or punishment, etc., and at the same time as qualities of the faithful, which make them capable of doing good. They most often occur in the instrumental case, indicating the means or instrument by which the divinity and the faithful act; and they also appear personified.
In the later Avestā the six forces appear unequivocally as divinities, but they have completely lost the importance they possessed in the ancient doctrine; they are associated with various elements of the world, whose care and protection are entrusted to them: fire to Aśa, animals to Vohu manah, metals to Xāthra, earth to Ārmaiti, water to Haurvatāt, and plants to Ameretāt. These relationships with the elements are also alluded to in the ancient Avestā (cf. Yasna, 51, 7; 47, 3). Which of the two aspects is primitive in the A., whether the spiritual or the physical, cannot be decided; what is certain is that in the ancient Avestā the ethical and moral aspect predominates almost without opposition. The translation of some of the names of the A. is still debated today; nor is it always easy to render their equivalent in another language with a single term, since in the ancient Avestā they designate not univocal but complex notions. Moreover, the functions attributed to them in Zarathustra’s system are not distinguished with such precision as to permit the sharply defined and precise contours of their activity to be established. Does this derive from the fact that the system is more sketched than completed, or perhaps from the small number of hymns that have survived?
Aśa corresponds to the Indian ṛta, which means right, the order of the world insofar as it conforms to a norm of right. In the Avestā, Aśa is applied to the material world only rarely (Yasna, 44, 3 is probably, according to the context, to be translated “order of the world”); most often, however, it is attributed to the divinity and to men. It is a property of Ahuramazdāh’s action, and a quality by which men must be guided in their conduct. Some translate it as “truth,” while others as “justice, right.” Ancient authors likewise fluctuate between the two notions; while Plutarch (De Is. et Os., 47) and the Arab writer Biruni (Chron., 219, V. 204; ed. E. Sachau) render it “truth,” Philo of Byblos (in Eusebius, Praep. ev., I, 10, 42; ed. Th. Gaisford) translates it as “justice.” In fact, both notions of truth and justice are included in the term aśa; one can only debate which is predominant and supplies the tonal emphasis. But since the entire tradition of the later Mazdean books, as well as the non-Iranian languages into which the word has entered, understands it as “justice,” we believe this to be the prevailing meaning. In Zarathustra’s system, however, it does not designate an exclusively objective norm, but rather a moral quality, a habitual disposition of thought, will, and action, conforming to the right norm. The Italian term that would render its complex nuances more adequately is “rectitude,” that is, conformity of thought and will to the norms of truth, truth in action. Translating it in this way would take account of the two notions of justice and truth found in the Avestic term. This A. is the first and most important in Mazdean doctrine; and just as it constitutes the essential property of Ahuramazdāh, so it must be the fundamental disposition of anyone who follows his doctrine. For this reason, the Mazdean believer is simply called “one who possesses rectitude, the upright, the just.”
Vohu manah means “good thought,” better, “right thinking or feeling,” and indicates a disposition that is not merely intellectual but above all volitional. Plutarch faithfully transmits its meaning by translating it as “benevolence.” After Aśa, it is the most important force in Zarathustra’s doctrine; indeed, in the tradition subsequent to the Gāthā it unambiguously takes first place, and likewise in Plutarch and Philo of Byblos (loc. cit.). The difference between this entity and the preceding one would seem to consist chiefly in the following: whereas “rectitude” concerns the norms of justice and truth, “right thinking or feeling” concerns above all the norms of equity; between the first and the second there is, in a certain sense, the same difference as that found between justice and equity. Its function is among the most important: “right feeling” is chiefly credited with extending the dominion of Ahuramazdāh and increasing his power; likewise, with the success of the mission of his envoy, Zarathustra, and with the growth, well-being, and prosperity of human society. It also appears as the vehicle through which the divinity transmits its laws and norms.
Xāthra has a double meaning and sometimes indicates “sovereignty” or simply “authority,” and sometimes the territory in which it is exercised, the “kingdom.” In the first sense it is attributed to the divinity and also to man, for example, to the head of society, the tribe, or the household. Supreme authority belongs to Ahuramazdāh, and in his manner of expression Zarathustra always has him accompanied by sovereignty, and through it causes him to act and speak. By means of its “sovereignty,” the divinity grants the good their reward; through it, it will ultimately give the world a marvelous form. But authority also belongs to the leaders of human society at its various levels, and it must be characterized by “strength with rectitude and dominion with right feeling (equity).” When the term is used in the sense of “kingdom,” it predominantly means the kingdom.
future kingdom, the one that will be established at the end of the world after the definitive defeat of evil: it is the blessed kingdom «of long duration», splendid and resplendent like the sun, adorned with magnificent lights by Ahuramazdāh himself; the dominion of rectitude and right-mindedness, where the word of the divinity will have full and undisputed authority. Its inhabitants will feed on integrity and drink immortality, and will possess everlasting well-being and strength. The idea of a kingdom of God on earth, as it appears in the Old Testament, composed of an elect people, with its own territory and under the direct rule of God (theocracy), is absent from the doctrine of Zarathustra, although attempts have been made to find it there.
Armaiti is «docility», the quality with which one must respond to the authority of Ahuramazdāh and to every earthly authority founded on rectitude and right-mindedness. In a hymn Zarathustra explains the contrast between the daevas on the one hand and pious men on the other, tracing its origin to the fact that the former rebelled against the authority of the divinity, whereas the latter were docile and possessed «docility». And he asks for the grace that «docility» may spread among all who hear his word. Whoever is animated by docility «will cause rectitude to grow in the world through his thoughts, words, and deeds»; in this the reformer sees the purpose of his mission.
Different in nature from the preceding ones are the last two A., which represent a future reward, a gift promised by the divinity in the life to come, as recompense for the good works accomplished on earth. They are Haurvatāt and Ameretāt.
Haurvatāt means «integrity, wholeness» and indicates the accumulation of goods that will make the righteous person happy after death, granting him absolute spiritual and bodily well-being.
Ameretāt, «immortality», denotes the eternal duration of the future happy life, which will know no setting.
If we set aside these last two, which have an eschatological character, the first four A. represent the fundamental pillars of a well-ordered religious and social life. In it there prevails an authority which, in Zarathustra’s conception, must be associated with rectitude and right-mindedness (equity); this must be met by docility, that is, obedience, together with rectitude and equity. Such are the relationships that must bind man to the divinity in the spiritual life, and man to his leaders in the various forms of social coexistence. When there is perfect cooperation among the four great pillars—authority, rectitude, equity, and docility—society will have harmony and prosperity, and people in that well-ordered society will be able to attain the ultimate purpose of their life, summed up in the two terms: integrity and immortality.
ASSESSMENT. - A relationship has been observed between the doctrine of the A. and that of the angels in the Old Testament, and the latter has been derived from the former. Moreover, using a biblical term, some designate the A. by the name of archangels or angels. But the differences are so considerable that they rather suggest a contrast.
The A. present themselves as ethical abstractions, in some way personified, which cannot be regarded simply as hypostases of divine attributes, since they are also qualities of pious men. This conception differs from that of the angels, who have a distinct personality and names that cannot be regarded as abstractions; they are clearly distinguished from God and, for all these reasons, do not lend themselves to being conceived as his hypostases; on the other hand, they are distinct from human beings and cannot be regarded as concretizations of human virtues. Nor can an argument be drawn from the number seven, which is said to be identical in both doctrines, in order to affirm that one derives from the other; for the number seven is absent from the ancient Avestā, and in the later one it is not only inconsistent, but whenever it occurs it is the result of an artifice, that number being formed by adding Ahuramazdāh or Sravā, which do not belong to the group of the A. The number, therefore, is not original to the doctrine. Nor, on the other hand, is it certain that the number seven in the Old Testament (Tob. 12:15) is to be regarded as an actual number and not rather as an expression of an indeterminate quantity, as occurs in other biblical passages. If one then wished to establish a comparison between the angels and their activity, on the one hand, and the A. and their function, on the other, one would find not the slightest parallel, since the function of the two is radically different.