جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "اهریمن" در نشریات گروه "ادیان و عرفان"

The issue of Ahriman’s knowledge versus Ahura Mazda’s knowledge from the perspective of Zurvanism and its comparison with Scandinavian beliefs and traditions has not been examined so far. According to Zurvanism, Ahriman was an unwanted child of Zurvan, portrayed as dumb, stupid, and unintelligent, while Ahura Mazda, his favored child, was knowledgeable of secrets, enlightened, absolutely aware, and omniscient. In ancient Scandinavian texts and traditions, Ahriman or the demon is depicted as knowledgeable of secrets, smart, inventive, and skilled in instrument-making, such that his wisdom occasionally resolves the problems of gods. The present article adopts a critical view, relying on evidence extracted from Ferdowsi’s Shahnama (Book of Kings) and other ancient sources to explore the Zurvanist perspective on Ahriman’s knowledge. Drawing upon a verification methodology and employing content analysis, we initially elucidate the characteristics of Ahriman concerning knowledge and awareness of secrets in Iranian ancient heroic texts in comparison to Shahnama. Moreover, we explore the connections that these characteristics have with Ahriman’s knowledge in Scandinavian texts and traditions. This research provides a comparative study of the texts and verses that evidently attest to Ahriman’s knowledge in ancient Iranian and Scandinavian beliefs. Finally, we conclude that Ahriman was not unintelligent, as Zurvan the deity predicted. Given the evidence at hand, Ahriman possessed a significant share of knowledge, foresight, awareness, and knowledge of the future. Furthermore, in ancient Scandinavian texts and traditions, Ahriman is not portrayed as dumb and stupid; instead, he presents himself as knowledgeable of secrets, intelligent, inventive, skillful in instrument making, and at times, a problem-solver. Overall, it may be said that, considering the variety of his creation and intelligent acts, Ahriman’s knowledge surpasses that of the Scandinavian demon.

The problem of evil is one of the ancient questions of mankind. Why does God, or the being who is the creator of the world, not do anything to remove human suffering? In non-monotheistic religions, the problem of evil is not raised much because of the special and often evil nature of gods. But with the growth of human thought, this issue was raised in a more tangible way for humans. One of the most interesting solutions in this regard can be seen in Zoroastrianism. According to Shikand Gūmānīk Vijār's account, all human sufferings are from the Ahriman, and Ormazd is only the creator of good deeds, and he created man to destroy him in a joint battle with the Ahriman, and purify the world once again, and end the sufferings of human beings. In Zoroastrianism, Ahriman has an independent origin and is the principle of all evil, none of which can be attributed to Ormazd, who, due to need to his creatures and some other features, is not an almighty creator.

Augustine creates his City of God according to ChristianDemonology and Angelology. In his opinion, God has bestowed the good nature upon all the angels but what makes some of them go astray is their negligence of God's love. In fact, arrogance is the first step in creating a gap between the angels, which divides them into two categories holy angels and evildoers, so they form two cities. This Augustine's perspective raises this question: why did the angels fall? Augustine himself relying on the teachings of the Bible answer that autonomous and self-initiated sin of pride caused the angles to divert from God's will. Augustine, in this way, arranges and explains one of the most important concepts of Christian theology on the basis of angelology, in such a way that no one has done this before in the Christian theology.

Despite the suggestion made by one of the Zoroastrian scholars, Mary Boyce (1920-2006) in her late life, the Zoroastrian Studies has not taken into account the Islamic resources yet, and paid a little attention to them. Negligence of such an important issue is made when a number of Iranian old works have been translated into Arabic, Arabicised, and placed among lots of newly texts during the period of transferring Sassanid Iran to Islamic Iran. Undoubtedly, using this great heritage will expand the extent of resources and make a great help in finding the complexities of Zoroastrian Studies. In the present paper, we see that even in a popular and famous book, “Al- mellal val- Nehal”, written by Mohammad Abdul Karim Shahrestani, a passage of true Zoroasrian texts can be found that it may have been directly translated from Pahlavic into Arabic. Though there may be some changes when translating into Arabic, there are some vague hints to Devil and its creaturres in the passage.

Surūsh (Av. Səraoša), as one of the most venerated deities in Zoroastrian religion, holds a special position in the hierarchy of Zoroastrian deities. Surūsh is one of the few among Zoroastrian deities who are attested in the Gathas. These questions will be addressed in this research: What is the relation Surūsh with other Zoroastrian deities? What is Surūsh's status in Gathas and other Avestan and Pahlavi texts? What is his function in the events of after life? In Avestan and Pahlavi texts, Surūsh is the Deity of obedience and observance in the Mazdean tradition. Surūsh receives and obeys the divine instructions and is ever-vigilant to guard the people against the threats of Ahriman (angra Mainyu). Surūsh would evaluate the works of every person together with two other deities, Mithra and Rashnu, before the soul crosses the Chinvat Bridge. This research is based on the careful study of the Avestan and Pahlavi texts

Zoroastrianism is one of the religions the followers of which regard themselves as following a monotheistic religion. According to Zoroastrian doctrines, man’s soul does not annihilate with death; it continues to live. From a Zoroastrian point of view, death means the separation of soul and body and man’s transfer into the other world. What distinguishes Zoroastrianism from other monotheistic religions is this religion’s idea about the quiddity of death. The followers hold that death is one of the evils in the world the creator of which is devil and Ahura Mazda has no direct interference in it. Death is imposed on the world’s creatures and a Zoroastrian believer is duty- bound to fight against it and the other evils. The present descriptive-analytical paper is written based on the Avesta and Pahlavi texts and documentations of Zoroastrian scholars. In the end, assuming the monotheistic nature of Zoroastrianism, the author reviews the attribution of these beliefs to the true religion of Zoroastrianism.

To save the Iranian identity, Hakim Abu Al-Qasim Ferdowsi Tusi composed the epic of Shahnameh (book of kings). Due to the indisputable belief of people in mythology in his time, Ferdowsi transformed the myth to epic by combining the former with pre- and post-Islam Zoroastrian and non- Zoroastrian texts which led to the creation of Shahnameh. Accordingly, Shahnameh is not just an exclusive report of Iranian beliefs and rites before the advent of Islam. The present article seeks to compare and contrast Shahnameh, Avesta and Pahlavi texts in terms of their arguments about the characteristics of Ahriman and his relationship with Ohrmazd and the universe. To this end, Ferdowsi’s depiction of the nature and attributes of demons, their relation with Ohrmazd and His creations, how to struggle with them and the characteristics of three main demons (i.e. envy, greed, and wrath) are carefully compared and contrasted with ancient Zoroastrian texts. The similarities and differences of these texts are then clarified. This study suggests that, Ahriman and demons have lost their old status in Shahnameh, to the extent of extreme reduction of their influence and power in the world. They have thus approached their inferior status assumed in Islamic texts and culture

Having faced numerous vicissitudes, Zoroastrianism has had a variety of experiences throughout the history. This religion is full of ambiguities, ranging from the birth date and birth place of Zoroaster -as the founder of this religion -to its being monotheistic or polytheistic. The present article is an attempt to remove a part of these ambiguities. It deals with the position of this religion and studying it as a monotheistic or a dualistic one. The outcome of the article is that Zoroastrianism has originally been a monotheistic religion having gradually turned towards dualistic leanings. At the time being, the traces of monotheism may be found in it. However, the central topic of the article is the final truth or the final objective of this religion.