AHURA MAZDA. - It is the name of the supreme deity in the doctrine of Zarathustra (in recent times transcribed Ormazd), from which the religion takes the 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; in the inscription of Darius I at Behistun, however, it always appears as the fixed compound Ahuramazda, and so it remained thereafter.
From the name itself it is evident that the specific attributes which Zarathustra gives to the deity are lordship and wisdom. In the ancient doctrine it is explicitly affirmed that he creates everything, even the darkness, and there is no hint of a creation by any competitor of his. Heaven, earth, plants, water, winds and clouds etc. are his work; and man is likewise 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 succession of day and night, the alternation of the seasons etc., and in the moral world, bestowing moral gifts, uprightness, 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 on high, and manifests his wisdom in knowing the inner movements of the souls of the truthful and the lying man; to his help is attributed the triumph over the lie, a term that designates evil. He is the supreme judge, who in the end distributes rewards according to merits. From the description of the deity in the ancient doctrine every trace of a mythological or naturalistic conception is absent.
Such a doctrine is the result of a reform. Deliberately and with inexorable consistency Zarathustra wished to abolish the ancient polytheism, replacing it with the doctrine of a single God. The ancient deities, apart from one or two vague allusions, are ignored and passed over in silence, indeed 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 deities, whereas in the doctrine of Zarathustra it is equivalent to "demon."
The cult of the deity consists in prayer and in 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, very widespread among the Iranians, as among the Indians.
Although he attributed to the deity the attributes of creator, legislator and avenger of human actions, Zarathustra 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 that of good, is also admitted, the work of the latter is hindered and limited in this world by that of the former (v. AHRIMAN).
Are the monotheistic conception and the dualistic one, which are in conflict, 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 there are also some by other authors. But this question cannot be resolved with the elements available. In any case there appears in the ancient doctrine an evolution from the monotheistic conception toward the dualistic one, due perhaps to the concern to explain the origin of evil. Dualism, however, is not as developed as it will be later, and no creation whatever is attributed to the evil spirit.
But do we truly 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 allusion to the cult, to the priestly class, to temples or solemn festivities leads one to think that it is a matter rather of doctrine than of religion. Such was the impression the Greeks had of it, among them Eudoxus, who defines it as "a most illustrious and most useful philosophical sect" (Pliny, Hist. nat., XXX, 3). The fact, moreover, that among the Greeks those who deal with the doctrine of Zarathustra are philosophers such as, besides Eudoxus, Hermodorus, Aristotle, Theopompus and others, leads to the same conviction. In its doctrinal part it was destined for a small number of initiates, consisting of the Magi, while the ethical and social part of the doctrine lent itself to a broader diffusion. In any case there is no document whatever that proves the doctrine of the ancient Avesta to have become a religion of the people.
Darius I in his inscriptions is not a monotheist: he exalts 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, allows himself to be carved on the walls of the temple of Hib in Egypt as a devotee of Amun, and in a message to Gadatas speaks of the good relations of his house with Apollo.
In the recent Avesta, moreover, one sees how the ancient polytheism, combated by Zarathustra, has won an uncontested place. A. still remains, but beside him is found the whole vast crowd of ancient deities, with mythical popular legends. The cult constitutes the fundamental pivot of the religion, with bloody sacrifices and with libation and the offering of haoma. The priestly class is developed into a well-ordered hierarchy. Solemnities abound. Dualism, furthermore, is carried to its ultimate consequences, and to the two principles is attributed not only an independent action but also a creation of their own. What Herodotus tells us about the religion of the Persians likewise shows that polytheism prevailed among them.