| Ahriman | |
|---|---|
Spirit of evil, chaos, destruction,daevas | |
 Drawing of the "leontocephaline figure" of Ahriman, found at the mithraeum of C. Valerius Heracles and sons, dedicated 190 CE atOstia Antica, Italy (CIMRM 312) | |
| Affiliation | Zoroastrianism |
| Region | Greater Iran |
| Part ofa series on |
| Zoroastrianism |
|---|
 |
Divine entities |
Related topics |
 Religion portal |
Angra Mainyu (/ˈæŋrəˈmaɪnjuː/;Avestan:𐬀𐬢𐬭𐬀⸱𐬨𐬀𐬌𐬥𐬌𐬌𐬎,romanized: Aŋra Mainiiu) is theAvestan name ofZoroastrianism'shypostasis of the "destructive/evil spirit" and the main adversary in Zoroastrianism either of theSpenta Mainyu, the "holy/creative spirits/mentality", or directly ofAhura Mazda, the highest deity of Zoroastrianism. TheMiddle Persian equivalent isAhriman𐭠𐭧𐭫𐭬𐭭𐭩 (anglicised pronunciation:/ˈɑːrɪmən/). The name can appear in English-language works asAhrimanes.[1][a]
Avestanangra mainyu "seems to have been an original conception ofZoroaster's."[2] In theGathas, which are the oldest texts of Zoroastrianism and are attributed to Zoroaster,angra mainyu is not yet a proper name.[b] In the one instance in these hymns where the two words appear together, the concept spoken of is that of amainyu ("mind", "spirit" or otherwise an abstract energy etc.)[c] that isangra ("destructive", "chaotic", "disorderly", "inhibitive", "malign" etc., of which a manifestation can beanger). In this single instance – inYasna 45.2 – the "more bounteous of the spirits twain" declaresangra mainyu to be its "absoluteantithesis".[2]
A similar statement occurs inYasna 30.3, where the antithesis is howeveraka mainyu,aka being the Avestan language word for "evil". Hence,aka mainyu is the "evil spirit" or "evil mind" or "evil thought," as contrasted withspenta mainyu, the "bounteous spirit" with whichAhura Mazda conceived of creation, which then "was".
Theaka mainyu epithet recurs inYasna 32.5, when the principle is identified with thedaevas that deceive humankind and themselves. While in later Zoroastrianism, thedaevas are demons, this is not yet evident in the Gathas: Zoroaster stated that thedaevas are "wrong gods" or "false gods" that are to be rejected, but they are not yet demons.[3] Some have also proposed a connection betweenAngra Mainyu and the sageAngiras of the Rigveda.[4][5] If this is true, it could be understood as evidence for a religious schism between the deva-worshipingVedicIndo-Aryans and early Zoroastrians.
InYasna 32.3, thesedaevas are identified as the offspring, not of Angra Mainyu, but ofakem manah, "evil thinking". A few verses earlier it is however thedaebaaman, "deceiver" – not otherwise identified but "probably Angra Mainyu"[2] – who induces thedaevas to chooseachistem manah – "worst thinking." InYasna 32.13, the abode of the wicked is not the abode of Angra Mainyu, but the abode of the same "worst thinking". "One would have expected [Angra Mainyu] to reign in hell, since he had created 'death and how, at the end, the worst existence shall be for the deceitful' (Y. 30.4)."[2]
Yasna 19.15 recalls that Ahura Mazda's recital of theAhuna Vairya invocation puts Angra Mainyu in a stupor. InYasna 9.8, Angra Mainyu createsAži Dahaka, but the serpent recoils at the sight ofMithra's mace (Yasht 10.97, 10.134). InYasht 13, theFravashis defuse Angra Mainyu's plans to dry up the earth, and inYasht 8.44 Angra Mainyu battles but cannot defeatTishtrya and so prevent the rains. InVendidad 19, Angra Mainyu urges Zoroaster to turn from the good religion by promising him sovereignty of the world. On being rejected, Angra Mainyu assails Zoroaster with legions of demons, but Zoroaster deflects them all. InYasht 19.96, a verse that reflects a Gathic injunction, Angra Mainyu will be vanquished and Ahura Mazda will ultimately prevail.
InYasht 19.46ff, Angra Mainyu and Spenta Mainyu battle for possession ofkhvaraenah, "divine glory" or "fortune". In some verses of the Yasna (e.g.Yasna 57.17), the two principles are said to have created the world, which seems to contradict the Gathic principle that declares Ahura Mazda to be the sole creator and which is reiterated in the cosmogony ofVendidad 1. In that first chapter, which is the basis for the 9th–12th-centuryBundahishn, the creation of sixteen lands by Ahura Mazda is countered by the Angra Mainyu's creation of sixteen scourges such as winter, sickness, and vice. "This shift in the position of Ahura Mazda, his total assimilation to this Bounteous Spirit [Mazda's instrument of creation], must have taken place in the 4th century BC at the latest; for it is reflected inAristotle's testimony, which confronts Areimanios with Oromazdes (apud Diogenes Laertius, 1.2.6)."[2]
Yasht 15.43 assigns Angra Mainyu to the nether world, a world of darkness. So alsoVendidad 19.47, but other passages in the same chapter (19.1 and 19.44) have him dwelling in the region of thedaevas, which theVendidad asserts is in the north. There (19.1, 19.43–44), Angra Mainyu is thedaevanam daevo, "daeva ofdaevas" or chief of thedaevas. The superlativedaevo.taema is however assigned to the demon Paitisha ("opponent"). In an enumeration of thedaevas in Vendidad 1.43, Angra Mainyu appears first and Paitisha appears last. "Nowhere is Angra Mainyu said to be the creator of thedaevas or their father."[2]
Zurvanism – a historical branch of Zoroastrianism that sought to theologically resolve a dilemma found in a mention of antithetical "twin spirits" inYasna 30.3 – developed a notion that Ahura Mazda (MP: Ohrmuzd) and Angra Mainyu (MP: Ahriman) were twin brothers, with the former being the epitome of good and the latter being the epitome of evil. This mythology of twin brotherhood is only explicitly attested in the post-SassanidSyriac andArmenian polemic such as that ofEznik of Kolb. According to these sources the genesis saw Zurvan as anandrogynous deity, existing alone but desiring offspring who would create "heaven and hell and everything in between." Zurvan then sacrificed for a thousand years. Towards the end of this period, Zurvan began to doubt the efficacy of sacrifice and in the moment of this doubt Ohrmuzd and Ahriman were conceived: Ohrmuzd for the sacrifice and Ahriman for the doubt. Upon realizing that twins were to be born, Zurvan resolved to grant the first-born sovereignty over creation. Ohrmuzd perceived Zurvan's decision, which he then communicated to his brother. Ahriman then preempted Ohrmuzd by ripping open the womb to emerge first. Reminded of the resolution to grant Ahriman sovereignty, Zurvan conceded, but limited kingship to a period of 9000 years, after which Ohrmuzd would rule for all eternity.[6]: 419–428 Eznik of Kolb also summarizes a myth in which Ahriman is said to have demonstrated an ability to create life by creating the peacock.
The story of Ahriman's ripping open the womb to emerge first suggests that Zurvanite ideology perceived Ahriman to be evil by choice, rather than always having been intrinsically evil (as found, for example, in the cosmological myths of theBundahishn). And the story of Ahriman's creation of the peacock suggests that Zurvanite ideology perceived Ahriman to be a creator figure like Ormazd. This is significantly different from what is found in the Avesta (where Mazda's stock epithet isdadvah, "Creator", implying Mazda isthe Creator), as well as in Zoroastrian tradition where creation of life continues to be exclusively Mazda's domain, and where creation is said to have been good until it was corrupted by Ahriman and thedevs.
In some Zurvanite narratives, it is mentioned that Zurvan had a wife and had children with Ahura Mazda and Ahriman, later, Ahura Mazda married his mother and had children with her, including thesun,dogs,pigs,donkeys, andcattle.[7]
In thePahlavi texts of the 9th–12th century, Ahriman (writtenʼhl(y)mn) is frequently written upside down "as a sign of contempt and disgust."[2]
In theBook of Arda Viraf 5.10, the narrator – the 'righteous Viraf' – is taken bySarosh andAdar to see "the reality of God and the archangels, and the non-reality of Ahriman and the demons" as described by theGermanphilologist andorientalistMartin Haug, whose radical interpretation was to change the faith in the 19th century (see "In present-day Zoroastrianism" below).[8] This idea of "non-reality" is also expressed in other texts, such as theDenkard, a 9th-century "encyclopedia of Mazdaism",[9] which states Ahriman "has never been and never will be."[2] In chapter 100 ofBook of the Arda Viraf, which is titled 'Ahriman', the narrator sees the "Evil spirit, ... whose religion is evil [and] who ever ridiculed and mocked the wicked in hell."
In the ZurvaniteUlema-i Islam (a Zoroastrian text, despite the title), "Ahriman also is called by some name by some people and they ascribe evil unto him but nothing can also be done by him without Time.[citation needed]" A few chapters later, the Ulema notes that "it is clear that Ahriman is a non-entity" but "at the resurrection Ahriman will be destroyed and thereafter all will be good; and [change?] will proceed through the will of God." In theSad Dar, the world is described as having been created by Ohrmuzd and become pure through his truth. But Ahriman, "being devoid of anything good, does not issue from that which is owing to truth." (62.2)
Book of Jamaspi 2.3 notes that "Ahriman, like a worm, is so much associated with darkness and old age, that he perishes in the end."[10] Chapter 4.3 recalls the grotesque legend ofTahmurasp (Avestan: Taxma Urupi) riding Angra Mainyu for thirty years (cf.Yasht 15.12, 19.29) and so preventing him from doing evil. In chapter 7,Jamasp explains that the Indians declare Ahriman will die, but "those, who are not of good religion, go to hell."
TheBundahishn, a Zoroastrian account of creation completed in the 12th century has much to say about Ahriman and his role in the cosmogony. In chapter 1.23, following the recitation of theAhuna Vairya, Ohrmuzd takes advantage of Ahriman's incapacity to create life without intervention. When Ahriman recovers, he createsJeh, the primal seductress who afflicts women with their menstrual cycles. In Bundahishn 4.12, Ahriman perceives that Ohrmuzd is superior to himself, and so flees to fashion his many demons with which to conquer the universe in battle. The entire universe is finally divided between the Ohrmuzd and theyazads on one side and Ahriman with hisdevs on the other. Ahriman slays theprimal bull, but themoon rescues the seed of the dying creature, and from it springs all animal creation. But the battle goes on, with mankind caught in the middle, whose duty it remains to withstand the forces of evil through good thoughts, words and deeds.
Other texts see the world created by Ohrmuzd as a trap for Ahriman, who is then distracted by creation and expends his force in a battle he cannot win. (The epistles of Zatspram 3.23;Shkand Gumanig Vichar 4.63–4.79). TheDadistan denig explains that Ohrmuzd, being omniscient, knew of Ahriman's intent, but it would have been against his "justice and goodness to punish Ahriman before he wrought evil [and] this is why the world is created."[2]
Ahriman has no such omniscience, a fact of which Ohrmuzd reminds him (Bundahishn 1.16). In contrast, inManichaean scripture, Mani ascribes foresight to Ahriman.[11]
Some Zoroastrians believed Ahriman "created dangerous storms, plagues, and monsters during the struggle with Ahura Mazda" and that the two gods weretwins.[12]
In 1862,Martin Haug proposed a new reconstruction of what he believed was Zoroaster's originalmonotheistic teaching, as expressed in the Gathas – a teaching which he believed had been corrupted by later Zoroastriandualistic tradition as expressed inpost-Gathic scripture and in thetexts of tradition.[13]For Angra Mainyu, this interpretation meant a demotion from a spirit coequal with Ahura Mazda to a mere product of Ahura Mazda. Haug's theory was based to a great extent on a new interpretation ofYasna 30.3; he argued that the good "twin" in that passage should not be regarded as more or less identical to Ahura Mazda, as earlier Zoroastrian thought had assumed,[14] but as a separate created entity, Spenta Mainyu. Thus, both Angra Mainyu and Spenta Mainyu were created by Ahura Mazda, and should be regarded as his respective 'creative' and 'destructive' emanations.[14]
Haug's interpretation was gratefully received by theParsis of Bombay, who at the time were under considerable pressure fromChristianmissionaries (most notable amongst themJohn Wilson)[15]who sought converts among the Zoroastrian community and criticized Zoroastrianism for its alleged dualism as contrasted with their own monotheism.[16]Haug's reconstruction had also other attractive aspects that seemed to make the religion more compatible with nineteenth-centuryenlightenment, as he attributed to Zoroaster a rejection of rituals and of worship of entities other than the supreme deity.[17]
These new ideas were subsequently disseminated as a Parsi interpretation, which eventually reached the west and so in turn corroborated Haug's theories. Among the Parsis of the cities, who were accustomed toEnglish language literature, Haug's ideas were more often repeated than those of theGujarati language objections of the priests, with the result that Haug's ideas became well entrenched and are today almost universally accepted as doctrine.[16]
While some modern scholars[d][e]have theories similar to Haug's regarding Angra Mainyu's origins,[14][f]many now think that the traditional "dualist" interpretation was in fact correct all along and that Angra Mainyu was always considered to be completely separate and independent from Ahura Mazda.[14][20][21]
According toPlutarch, Zoroaster taught the worship of Ahriman. TheEncyclopedia of Iran claims:[22]
that there existed Ahriman worshippers is attested by Plutarch and in a Dēnkard passage. The former (Isis and Osiris, 46) says that Zoroaster taught the Persians to sacrifice to Areimanios “offerings for averting ill, and things of gloom. For, pounding in a mortar a herb called omomi, they invoke Hades and darkness; then having mingled it with the blood of a slaughtered wolf, they bear it forth into a sunless place and cast it away.” And the Dēnkard (p. 182.6) says: “The perverted, devilish, unrighteous rite of the ‘mystery of the sorcerers’ consists in praising Ahriman, the destroyer.” Such a cult must have passed to the mysteries of Mithra, where dedications are found Deo Arimanio. The possibility of statues of Ahriman will be discussed below.
InIslamic discourse, Ahriman embodies the absolute evil (the Devil) in contrast toIblis (Satan) who represents an original noble being still underGod's power.[23] Although thedivs, the creations of Ahriman in Zorastian beliefs, entered Islamic literature, to the point of being identified with the demons of Islamic religion,[24][25](p 34) Ahriman is mostly a stylistic device to refute the idea of absolute evil.
Rumi denies the existence of Ahriman completely:[26]
This is our main quarrel with the Magians (Zoroastrians). They say there are two Gods: the creator of good and the creator of evil. Show me good without evil – then I will admit there is a God of evil and a God of good. This is impossible, for good cannot exist without evil. Since there is no separation between them, how can there be two creators?
Rudolf Steiner, who founded theesotericspiritual movementAnthroposophy, used the concept of Ahriman to name one of two extreme forces which pull humanity away from the centering influence ofGod. Steiner associated Ahriman, the lower spirit, withmaterialism,science,heredity,objectivity, and soul-hardening. He thought that contemporary Christianity was subject to Ahrimanic influence, since it tended towards materialistic interpretations. Steiner predicted that Ahriman, as a supersensible Being, would incarnate into an earthly form, some little time after our present earthly existence, in fact in the third post-Christianmillennium.[27]
TheOpus Sanctorum Angelorum, a debated group inside theRoman Catholic Church, defines Ahriman as a "demon in the Rank of Fallen Powers". It says his duty is to obscure human brains from the Truth of God.[28]
 | This sectiondoes notcite anysources. Please helpimprove this section byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged andremoved.(October 2022) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Lecture given by Rudolf Steiner in Zurich October 27th, 1919
Media related toAhriman at Wikimedia Commons
