| Part ofa series on |
| Zoroastrianism |
|---|
 |
Divine entities |
Related topics |
 Religion portal |
Adaeva (Avestan: 𐬛𐬀𐬉𐬎𐬎𐬀daēuua) is aZoroastriansupernatural entity with disagreeable characteristics. In theGathas, the oldest texts of the Zoroastrian canon, thedaevas are "gods that are (to be) rejected". This meaning is – subject to interpretation – perhaps also evident in theOld Persian "daiva inscription" of the 5th centuryBCE. In theYoungerAvesta, the daevas aredivinities that promote chaos and disorder. In later tradition and folklore, thedēws (ZoroastrianMiddle Persian;New Persiandivs) are personifications of every imaginable evil. Over time, the Daeva myth asDiv became integrated toPersian mythology.
Daeva, theIranian language term, shares the same origin of "Deva" ofHinduism, which is a cognate withLatin deus ("god") andGreekZeus. While the word for theVedic spirits and the word for the Zoroastrian entities are etymologically related, their function and thematic development is altogether different. Originally, the term was used to denote beings of cultural folklore which predate use in scripture.
Equivalents for Avestandaeva inIranian languages includePashto,Balochi,Kurdishdêw,Persiandīv/deev.[1] The Iranian word was borrowed byOld Armenian asdew,Georgian asdevi,Urdu asdeo, andTurkish asdev[2] with the same negative associations in those languages. In English, the word appears asdaeva,div,deev, and in the 18th century fantasy novels ofWilliam Thomas Beckford asdive.
It has been speculated that the concept of the daevas as a malevolent force may have been inspired from theScythian gods.[3]
Old Avestandaēuua ordaēva derives from Old Iranian*daiva, which in turn derives from Indo-Iranian*daivá- "god", reflectingProto-Indo-European*deywós with the same meaning. For other Indo-European derivatives, seeDyeus. TheVedic Sanskrit cognate of Avestandaēuua isdevá-, continuing in laterIndo-Aryan languages asdev.
Because all cognates of Iranian*daiva have a positive connotation, but "no knownIranian dialect attests clearly and certainly the survival of a positive sense for [Old Iranian]*daiva-",[4] in the 19th- and 20th-century a great deal of academic discussion revolved around questions of how Iraniandaeva might have gained its derogatory meaning. This "fundamental fact of Iranian linguistics" is "impossible" to reconcile with the testimony of the Gathas, where thedaevas, though rejected, were still evidently gods that continued to have a following.[4] The same is true of thedaiva inscription, where thedaiva are the gods of (potential) rebels, but still evidently gods that continued to have a following.
The issue is related to the question of how Zoroaster's own contribution to Iranian religion might be defined. In the older early/mid 20th-century view (so-called reform hypothesis), in which Zoroaster was perceived to be a revolutionary reformer, it was assumed that thedaevas must have been the "national" gods (seecomparison with Indic usage, below) of pre-Zoroaster-ianIran, which Zoroaster had then rejected.[5] This attribution to Zoroaster is also found in the 9th/10th-century books of Zoroastrian tradition,[6] and Gershevitch[7] and others following Lommel[8] consider the progression from "national" gods to demons to be attributable to the "genius of Zoroaster".[4] Subsequent scholarship (so-called progressive hypothesis) has a more differentiated view of Zoroaster, and does not follow the unprovable assumption that prehistoric Iranian religion ever had "national" gods (and thus also that thedaevas could have represented such a group), nor does it involve hypothetical conjecture of whose gods thedaevas might/might not have been. While the progressive hypothesis gives Zoroaster credit for giving Iranian religion a moral and ethical dimension, it does not (with one notable exception[9]) give Zoroaster credit for the development of thedaevas into demons. It assumes that the development was gradual, and that a general distrust of thedaevas already existed by the time the Gathas were composed.[4]
Although with some points of comparison such as shared etymology, Indicdevá- is thematically different from Avestandaēva.[citation needed]
While in the post-Rigvedic Indic texts the conflict between the two groups ofdevas andasuras is a primary theme, this is not a theme in either the Rigveda nor in the Iranian texts,[citation needed]
..."returning I protect the kingdom which awaits me" (from asuras)
— Dr. H. R. Vemkata Rao, Rig veda Smhita – Part 20
and therefore cannot have been a feature of a common heritage. The use ofAsura in the Rigveda is unsystematic and inconsistent and "it can hardly be said to confirm the existence of a category of gods opposed to thedevas". Indeed, RigVedicDeva is variously applied to most gods, including many of theasuras. Likewise, at the oldest layer, Zoroastrianism'sdaevas are originally also gods (albeit gods to be rejected), and it is only in the younger texts that the word evolved to refer to evil creatures. And the Zoroastrianahuras (etymologically related to the Vedicasuras) are also only vaguely defined, and only three in number.
Moreover, the daemonization of theasuras in India and the daemonization of thedaevas in Iran both took place "so late that the associated terms cannot be considered a feature of Indo-Iranian religious dialectology".[4] The view popularized by Nyberg,[10]Jacques Duchesne-Guillemin,[11] and Widengren[12] of a prehistorical opposition of*asura/daiva involves "interminable and entirely conjectural discussions" on the status of various Indo-Iranian entities that in one culture areasuras/ahuras and in the other aredevas/daevas (see examplesin the Younger Avesta, below).
In theGathas, the oldest texts of Zoroastrianism and credited toZoroaster himself, thedaevas are not yet the demons that they would become in later Zoroastrianism; though their rejection is notable in the Gathas themselves. The Gathas speak of thedaevas as a group, and do not mention individualdaevas by name. In these ancient texts, the termdaevas (also spelled 'daēuuas') occurs 19 times; whereindaevas are a distinct category of "quite genuine gods, who had, however, been rejected".[5] InYasna 32.3 and 46.1, thedaevas are still worshipped by the Iranian peoples.Yasna 32.8 notes that some of the followers of Zoroaster had previously been followers of thedaevas; though, thedaevas are clearly identified with evil (e.g.,Yasna 32.5).
In the Gathas,daevas are censured as being incapable of discerning truth (asha-) from falsehood (druj-). They are consequently in "error" (aēnah-), but are never identified asdrəguuaṇt- "people of the lie". The conclusion drawn from such ambiguity is that, at the time the Gathas were composed, "the process of rejection, negation, or daemonization of these gods was only just beginning, but, as the evidence is full of gaps and ambiguities, this impression may be erroneous".[5]
In Yasna 32.4, thedaevas are revered by theUsij, described as a class of "false priests", devoid of goodness of mind and heart, and hostile to cattle and husbandry (Yasna 32.10–11, 44.20). Like thedaevas that they follow, "theUsij are known throughout the seventh region of the earth as the offspring ofaka mainyu,druj, and arrogance. (Yasna 32.3)".[13]Yasna 30.6 suggests thedaeva-worshipping priests debated frequently with Zoroaster, but failed to persuade him.
In the YoungerAvesta, thedaevas are unambiguously hostile entities. In contrast, the worddaevayasna- (literally, "one who sacrifices todaevas") denotes adherents of other religions and thus still preserves some semblance of the original meaning in that thedaeva- prefix still denotes "other" gods. InYasht 5.94 however, thedaevayasna- are those who sacrifice toAnahita during the hours of darkness, i.e., the hours when thedaevas lurk about, anddaevayasna- appears then to be an epithet applied to those who deviate from accepted practice and/or harvested religious disapproval.[14]
TheVendidad, a contraction ofvi-daevo-dāta, "given against thedaevas", is a collection of late Avestan texts that deals almost exclusively with thedaevas, or rather, their various manifestations and with ways to confound them.Vi.daeva- "rejecting thedaevas" qualifies the faithful Zoroastrian with the same force asmazdayasna- ('Mazda worshiper').[6]
InVendidad 10.9 and 19.43, three divinities of theVedic pantheon followAngra Mainyu in a list of demons: Completely adapted to Iranian phonology, these areIndra (VedicIndra), Sarva (Vedic Sarva, i.e.Rudra), and Nanghaithya (VedicNasatya). The process by which these three came to appear in the Avesta is uncertain. Together with three otherdaevas, Tauru, Zairi and Nasu, that do not have Vedic equivalents, the six oppose the sixAmesha Spentas.
Vendidad 19.1 and 19.44 have Angra Mainyu dwelling in the region of thedaevas which theVendidad sets in the north and/or the nether world (Vendidad 19.47,Yasht 15.43), a world of darkness. In Vendidad 19.1 and 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."[15]
TheVendidad is usually recited after nightfall since the last part of the day is considered to be the time of the demons. Because theVendidad is the means to disable them, this text is said to be effective only when recited between sunset and sunrise.
Old Persiandaiva occurs twice inXerxes'daiva inscription (XPh, early 5th century BCE). This trilingual text also includes one reference to adaivadana "house of thedaivas", generally interpreted to be a reference to a shrine or sanctuary.
In his inscription, Xerxes records that "by the favour ofAhura Mazda I destroyed that establishment of the daivas and I proclaimed, 'The daivas thou shalt not worship!'"[16] This statement has been interpreted either one of two ways. Either the statement is an ideological one anddaivas were gods that were to be rejected, or the statement was politically motivated anddaivas were gods that were followed by (potential) enemies of the state.[17]
In theMiddle Persian texts of Zoroastrian tradition, thedews are invariably rendered with theAramaic ideogramŠDYA or the more common pluralŠDYAʼn that signified "demons" even in the singular.
Dews play a crucial role in the cosmogonic drama of theBundahishn, a Zoroastrian view of creation completed in the 12th century. In this text, the evil spiritAhriman (the middle Persian equivalent of AvestanAngra Mainyu) creates his hordes ofdews to counter the creation ofOrmuzd (AvestanAhura Mazda). This notion is already alluded to in theVendidad (seeYounger Avestan texts above), but only properly developed in theBundahishn. In particular, Ahriman is seen to create sixdews that in Zoroastrian tradition are the antitheses of theAmahraspands (AvestanAmesha Spentas).
Mirroring the task of the Amesha Spentas through which Ahura Mazda realized creation, the six antitheses are the instrument through which Angra Mainyu creates all the horrors in the world. Further, the arch-daevas ofVendidad 10.9 and 19.43 are identified as the antithetical counterparts of the Amesha Spentas. The six arch-demons as listed in theEpistles of Zadspram (WZ 35.37) and theGreater Bundahishn (GBd. 34.27) are:[18]
These oppositions differ from those found in scripture, where the moral principles (that each Amesha Spenta represents) are opposed by immoral principles. This is not however a complete breach, for while in the Gathasasha—the principle—is the diametric opposite of the abstractdruj, in Zoroastrian tradition, it isArdawahisht, theAmesha Spenta that is thehypostasis ofasha, that is opposed to by Indar, who freezes the minds of creatures from practicing "righteousness" (asha).Greater Bundahishn 34.27 adds two more arch-demons, which are not however in opposition to Amesha Spentas:[18]
Also mirroring Ormuzd's act of creation, i.e., the realization of the Amesha Spentas by his "thought", is Ahriman's creation of thedews through his "demonic essence". Other texts describe this event as being to Ahriman's detriment for his act of "creation" is actually an act of destruction. Ahriman is the very epitome (and hypostasis) of destruction, and hence he did not "create" the demons, he realized them through destruction, and they then became that destruction. The consequence is that, as Ahriman and thedews can only destruct, they will ultimately destroy themselves (Denkard 3). As the medieval texts also do for Ahriman, they question whether thedews exist at all. Since "existence" is the domain of Ormuzd, and Ahriman and hisdews are anti-existence, it followed that Ahriman and hisdews could not possibly exist. One interpretation of theDenkard proposes that thedews were perceived to be non-existent physically (that is, they were considered non-ontological) but present psychologically.[19] (see also:Ahriman: In Zoroastrian tradition)
For a different set of texts, such as theShayest ne shayest and theBook of Arda Wiraz, Ahriman and thedews were utterly real, and are described as being potentially catastrophic. In such less philosophical representations, thedews are hordes of devils with a range of individual powers ranging from the almost benign to the most malign. They collectively rush out at nightfall to do their worst, which includes every possible form of corruption at every possible level of human existence. Their destructiveness is evident not only in disease, pain, and grief but also in cosmic events such as falling stars and climatic events such as droughts, cyclones and earthquakes. They are sometimes described as having anthropomorphic properties such as faces and feet, or given animal-like properties such as claws and body hair. They may produce semen, and may even mate with humans as in the tale ofJam andJamag (Bundahishn 14B.1).
But with the exception of theBook of Arda Wiraz, thedews are not generally described as a force to be feared. With fundamental optimism,[20][21] the texts describe how thedews may be kept in check, ranging from cursing them to the active participation in life through good thoughts, words and deeds. Many of the medieval texts develop ideas already expressed in theVendidad ("given against the demons").
A fire (cf.Adur) is an effective weapon against thedews, and keeping a hearth fire burning is a means to protect the home. Thedews are "particularly attracted by the organic productions of human beings, from excretion, reproduction, sex, and death".[20] Prayer and other recitations of the liturgy, in particular the recitation ofYasht 1 (soSad-dar 57), is effective in keeping the demons at bay.[22] Demons are attracted by chatter at mealtimes and when silence is broken a demon takes the place of the angel at one's side.[23] According toShayest-ne-Shayest 9.8, eating at all after nightfall is not advisable since the night is the time of demons. In the 9th centuryrivayats (65.14), the demons are described as issuing out at night to wreak mayhem, but forced back into the underworld by the divine glory (khvarenah) at sunrise.
The Zoroastrianism of the medieval texts is unambiguous with respect to which force is the superior. Evil cannot create and is hence has a lower priority in the cosmic order (asha). According toDenkard 5.24.21a, the protection of theyazatas is ultimately greater than the power of the demons. Thedews are agents ("procurers—vashikano—of success") ofAhriman (AvestanAngra Mainyu) in the contests that will continue until the end of time, at which time the fiend will become invisible and (God's) creatures will become pure. (Dadestan-i Denig 59)
But until the final renovation of the world, mankind "stands between theyazads and thedēws; the [yazads] are immortal in essence and inseparable from their bodies (mēnōg), men are immortal in essence but separable from their bodies (moving fromgētīg tomēnōg condition), butdēws are mortal in essence and inseparable from their bodies, which may be destroyed."[20]
In addition to the six arch-demons (see above) that oppose the six Amesha Spentas, numerous other figures appear in scripture and tradition. According toBundahishn XXVII.12, the six arch-demons have cooperators (hamkars), arranged in a hierarchy (not further specified) similar to that of theyazatas. These are "dews [...] created by the sins that creatures commit." (Bundahishn XXVII.51)
Other entities include:
The most destructive of these areAstiwihad, the demon of death that casts the noose of mortality around men's necks at birth, andAz, who is most capable of destroying the "innate wisdom" of man.Az is thus the cause of heresy and blinds the righteous man from being able to discern the truth and falsehood.
A list of ten demons is provided in theShahnameh:[24] Besides the afore-mentionedAz "greed",Kashm "wrath" (AvestanAeshma),Nang "dishonor",Niaz "want", andRashk "envy", the epic poem includesKin "vengeance",Nammam "tell-tale",Do-ruy "two-face",napak-din "heresy", and (not explicitly named) ungratefulness.
Some of the entities that in the Middle Persian texts are demons, are in theShahnameh attributes of demons, for instance,varuna "backwards" or "inside out", reflecting that they tend to do the opposite of what they are asked to do. AlthoughFerdowsi generally portraysdivs as being distinct from humans, the poet also uses the word to denote "evil people".[24]
One of the more popular stories from theShahnameh is that ofRostam and theDīv-e Sapīd, the "white demon" ofMazandaran, who blinds Rostam's men (who are then cured with the blood of the demon's gall).
