© 1979 by American Academy of Religion
Articles |
Is Zoroastrianism Dualistic Or Monotheistic?
The question raised in the title has been much debated by past and present interpreters of Zoroastrianism. In the first two parts of this paper we present some dualistic and monotheistic interpretations of the religion. The interpretations can be labeled as follows: I. DUALISTIC INTERPRETATIONS 1. The View That Angra Mainyu Is Primordial But Lacks Omnipotence And Omniscience (Dhalla, Henning) 2. The View That Angra Mainyu Is Primordial But Lacks A Physical Nature (Shaked, Boyce) II. MONOTHEISTIC INTERPRETATIONS 1. The Created Spirits View (Zaehner, Fox, Gershevitch) 2. The Transformationist (Maskhiyya) View 3. The Zurvänite View 4. The View That Good And Evil Are Coeternal Only In A Logical Sense (Moulton, Bode and Nanavutty, Duchesne-Guillemin)
We present each of these views and discuss it critically in light of the following criteria: (1) textual evidence; (2) the continuity of the religion throughout its history, including the present time; (3) philosophical cogency; and (4) religious satisfaction. Our conclusion is that each of the above positions, despite its elements of strength, falls seriously short of one or more of these criteria, and hence that there is need for a more adequate interpretation of Zoroastrianism than any of them can offer. Accordingly, we present another interpretation in order to provoke further discussion and, hopefully, to advance the cause of trying to gain a more precise grasp of the teachings of this remarkable religion.
In brief, the interpretation we favor is that Zoroastrianism combines cosmogonic dualism and eschatological monotheism in a manner unique to itself among the major religions of the world. This combination results in a religious outlook which cannot be categorized as either straightforward dualism or straightforward monotheism, meaning that the question in the title of this paper poses a false dichotomy. The dichotomy arises, we contend, from a failure to take seriously enough the central role played by time in Zoroastrian theology. Zoroastrianism proclaims a movement through time from dualism toward monotheism, i.e., a dualism which is being made false by the dynamics of time, and a monotheism which is being made true by those same dynamics of time. The meaning of the eschaton in Zoroastrianism is thus the triumph of monotheism, the good God Ahura Mazdä having at last won his way through to complete and final ascendancy. But in the meantime there is vital truth to dualism, the neglect of which can only lead to a distortion of the religion's essential teachings. We develop this interpretation in the last part of our paper and argue for its satisfaction of the four criteria.