The Religion and Philosophy of the Veda and Upanishads v2.c39.s4.3

v2.c39.s4.3

The contrast here between Indian and Iranian development in religious matters becomes marked. Almost contemporaneously, perhaps, with the development of the thought of the Brāhmaṇas, we find Zoroaster engaged in deepening the meaning of religion for the people of Iran and founding a reasoned ethical system. While Varuṇa was losing ground in India, Zoroaster was developing the figure of Ahura Mazdāh, and depriving him of a rival by degrading Indra, his most serious competitor, as the god of war, to the rank of a demon.² At the same time he removed from the character of the god any suspicion of uncertainty or caprice, such as still clings in the Rigveda to Varuṇa, whose noose and whose punishments appear to afflict at times even the innocent, and who is lord of a Māyā, which may be harmful as well as beneficent. Further, to Zoroaster the powers of evil loomed far greater than they had done to the early Aryan mind, which, as in the Rigveda, knows indeed demons in abundance, but has no doubt in the power of the gods to overcome them, nor indeed of its own ability to win the favour of the gods. Vṛtra may be terrible, but he is never victorious, even if it would be unkind to assert that the Vedic demons exist merely for the gods to slay. Zoroaster accepts the impossibility of explaining the evil in the world, if it be assumed that Ahura is all-mighty, and that all has been created by him at his pleasure. On the contrary, the spirit of evil contends against the good, and only after desperate struggles can good be made to prevail. Moreover, in that struggle each man is free and morally bound to participate; it lies with him to further the conquest of evil; the deeds which he does are not merely personal; they serve to further the constant struggle of good against evil, and have cosmic value. Moreover, by his deeds does a man decide his future fate, in heaven or hell; the intervention of divine favour is excluded;¹ the soul of the dead finds the Cinvat bridge wide or hopelessly narrow, according as his good or evil deeds prevail. Deeds, moreover, are essentially matters of practical utility and activity; prayers and offerings play their part, but the ideal of Zoroaster is the man who founds a family, performs his duties in his tribe, and furthers agriculture, performing useful works, as opposed to the nomad, who is the personification of the lie (*druj*).