Ahriman

Angra Mainyu (; ) is the Avestan name of Zoroastrianism's hypostasis of the "destructive/evil spirit" and the main adversary in Zoroastrianism either of the Spenta Mainyu, the "holy/creative spirits/mentality", or directly of Ahura Mazda, the highest deity of Zoroastrianism. The Middle Persian equivalent is Ahriman (anglicised pronunciation: ). The name can appear in English-language works as Ahrimanes.

In the Avesta

In Zoroaster's revelation

Avestan ''angra mainyu'' "seems to have been an original conception of Zoroaster's."

In the Gathas, which are the oldest texts of Zoroastrianism and are attributed to Zoroaster, ''angra mainyu'' is not yet a proper name.Proper names are altogether rare in the Gathas. In these texts, even Ahura Mazda and Amesha Spenta are not yet proper names. In the one instance in these hymns where the two words appear together, the concept spoken of is that of a ''mainyu'' ("mind", "spirit" or otherwise an abstract energy etc.)The translation of ''mainyu'' as "spirit" is the common approximation. The stem of ''mainyu'' is "man", "thought", and "spirit" is here meant in the sense of "mind". that is ''angra'' ("destructive", "chaotic", "disorderly", "inhibitive", "malign" etc., of which a manifestation can be anger). In this single instance – in '' Yasna'' 45.2 – the "more bounteous of the spirits twain" declares ''angra mainyu'' to be its "absolute antithesis".

A similar statement occurs in ''Yasna'' 30.3, where the antithesis is however ''aka mainyu'', ''aka'' being the Avestan language word for "evil". Hence, ''aka mainyu'' is the "evil spirit" or "evil mind" or "evil thought," as contrasted with '' spenta mainyu'', the "bounteous spirit" with which Ahura Mazda conceived of creation, which then "was".

The ''aka mainyu'' epithet recurs in ''Yasna'' 32.5, when the principle is identified with the ''daeva''s that deceive humankind and themselves. While in later Zoroastrianism, the ''daevas'' are demons, this is not yet evident in the Gathas: Zoroaster stated that the ''daevas'' are "wrong gods" or "false gods" that are to be rejected, but they are not yet demons. Some have also proposed a connection between ''Angra Mainyu'' and the sage Angiras of the Rigveda. If this is true, it could be understood as evidence for a religious schism between the deva-worshiping Vedic Indo-Aryans and early Zoroastrians.

In ''Yasna'' 32.3, these ''daevas'' are identified as the offspring, not of Angra Mainyu, but of '' akem manah'', "evil thinking". A few verses earlier it is however the ''daebaaman'', "deceiver" – not otherwise identified but "probably Angra Mainyu" – who induces the ''daevas'' to choose ''achistem manah'' – "worst thinking." In ''Yasna'' 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 ngra Mainyuto reign in hell, since he had created 'death and how, at the end, the worst existence shall be for the deceitful' (''Y.'' 30.4)."

In the Younger Avesta

''Yasna'' 19.15 recalls that Ahura Mazda's recital of the Ahuna Vairya invocation puts Angra Mainyu in a stupor. In ''Yasna'' 9.8, Angra Mainyu creates Aži Dahaka, but the serpent recoils at the sight of Mithra's mace ('' Yasht'' 10.97, 10.134). In '' Yasht'' 13, the Fravashis defuse Angra Mainyu's plans to dry up the earth, and in ''Yasht'' 8.44 Angra Mainyu battles but cannot defeat Tishtrya and so prevent the rains. In '' Vendidad'' 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. In ''Yasht'' 19.96, a verse that reflects a Gathic injunction, Angra Mainyu will be vanquished and Ahura Mazda will ultimately prevail.

In ''Yasht'' 19.46ff, Angra Mainyu and Spenta Mainyu battle for possession of '' khvaraenah'', "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 of '' Vendidad'' 1. In that first chapter, which is the basis for the 9th–12th-century '' Bundahishn'', 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 azda's instrument of creation must have taken place in the 4th century BC at the latest; for it is reflected in Aristotle's testimony, which confronts Areimanios with Oromazdes (apud Diogenes Laertius, 1.2.6)."

''Yasht'' 15.43 assigns Angra Mainyu to the nether world, a world of darkness. So also ''Vendidad '' 19.47, but other passages in the same chapter (19.1 and 19.44) have him dwelling in the region of the ''daeva''s, which the ''Vendidad'' asserts is in the north. There (19.1, 19.43–44), Angra Mainyu is the ''daevanam daevo'', "''daeva'' of ''daeva''s" or chief of the ''daeva''s. The superlative ''daevo.taema'' is however assigned to the demon Paitisha ("opponent"). In an enumeration of the ''daeva''s in Vendidad 1.43, Angra Mainyu appears first and Paitisha appears last. "Nowhere is Angra Mainyu said to be the creator of the ''daeva''s or their father."

In Zurvanite Zoroastrianism

Zurvanism – a historical branch of Zoroastrianism that sought to theologically resolve a dilemma found in a mention of antithetical "twin spirits" in ''Yasna'' 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-Sassanid Syriac and Armenian polemic such as that of Eznik of Kolb. According to these sources the genesis saw Zurvan as an androgynous 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. 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 the '' Bundahishn''). 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 is ''dadvah'', "Creator", implying Mazda is ''the'' 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 the '' dev''s.

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 the sun, dogs, pigs, donkeys, and cattle.

In Zoroastrian tradition

In the Pahlavi texts of the 9th–12th century, Ahriman (written ''ʼhl(y)mn'') is frequently written upside down "as a sign of contempt and disgust."

In the '' Book of Arda Viraf'' 5.10, the narrator – the 'righteous Viraf' – is taken by Sarosh and Adar to see "the reality of God and the archangels, and the non-reality of Ahriman and the demons" as described by the German philologist and orientalist Martin Haug, whose radical interpretation was to change the faith in the 19th century (see "In present-day Zoroastrianism" below).
This idea of "non-reality" is also expressed in other texts, such as the '' Denkard'', a 9th-century "encyclopedia of Mazdaism", which states Ahriman "has never been and never will be." In chapter 100 of ''Book of the Arda Viraf'', which is titled 'Ahriman', the narrator sees the "Evil spirit, ... whose religion is evil ndwho ever ridiculed and mocked the wicked in hell."

In the Zurvanite ''Ulema-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." 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 hange?will proceed through the will of God." In the ''Sad 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." Chapter 4.3 recalls the grotesque legend of Tahmurasp (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."

The '' Bundahishn'', 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 the Ahuna Vairya, Ohrmuzd takes advantage of Ahriman's incapacity to create life without intervention. When Ahriman recovers, he creates Jeh, 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 the ''yazad''s on one side and Ahriman with his ''dev''s on the other. Ahriman slays the primal bull, but the moon 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). The ''Dadistan 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 ndthis is why the world is created."

Ahriman has no such omniscience, a fact of which Ohrmuzd reminds him (''Bundahishn'' 1.16). In contrast, in Manichaean scripture, Mani ascribes foresight to Ahriman. p. 392.

Some Zoroastrians believed Ahriman "created dangerous storms, plagues, and monsters during the struggle with Ahura Mazda" and that the two gods were twins.

Ahriman after influence of Islam

Maneckji Nusserwanji Dhalla described the doctrine of the Gayomarthians sect as another attempt to mitigate the dualism that has always been the essence of Zoroastrianism. This was due to the Prophet Muhammad’s emphasis on monotheism and the Muslims’ mockery of the doctrine of worshipping two gods, which made the Zoroastrians view dualism as a defect, so they added monotheism, which led to the Zoroastrians’ division into sects and he mentions examples of the Zoroastrian attempt to establish a monotheistic belief by diminishing the importance of Ahriman, including that Ahura Mazda and Ahriman were created from time, or that Ahura Mazda himself allowed the existence of evil, or that Ahriman was a corrupt angel who rebelled against Ahura Mazda. Then he mentions the name of a Persian book from the 15h century in which it is written that the Magi (Zoroastrians) believe that Allah and Iblis are brothers.

In present-day Zoroastrianism

In 1862, Martin Haug proposed a new reconstruction of what he believed was Zoroaster's original monotheistic teaching, as expressed in the Gathas – a teaching which he believed had been corrupted by later Zoroastrian dualistic tradition as expressed in post-Gathic scripture and in the texts of tradition.
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 of '' Yasna'' 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,

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.

Haug's interpretation was gratefully received by the Parsis of Bombay, who at the time were under considerable pressure from Christian missionaries (most notable amongst them John Wilson)

who sought converts among the Zoroastrian community and criticized Zoroastrianism for its alleged dualism as contrasted with their own monotheism.

Haug's reconstruction had also other attractive aspects that seemed to make the religion more compatible with nineteenth-century enlightenment, as he attributed to Zoroaster a rejection of rituals and of worship of entities other than the supreme deity.

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 to English language literature, Haug's ideas were more often repeated than those of the Gujarati language objections of the priests, with the result that Haug's ideas became well entrenched and are today almost universally accepted as doctrine.

While some modern scholars
have theories similar to Haug's regarding Angra Mainyu's origins,
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.

The Worship of Ahriman

According to Plutarch, Zoroaster taught the worship of Ahriman. The Encyclopedia of Iran claims:

Islam

In Islamic discourse, Ahriman embodies the absolute evil (the Devil) in contrast to Iblis (Satan) who represents an original noble being still under God's power. Although the ''divs'', the creations of Ahriman in Zorastian beliefs, entered Islamic literature, to the point of being identified with the demons of Islamic religion, Ahriman is mostly a stylistic device to refute the idea of absolute evil.

Rumi denies the existence of Ahriman completely:

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?

Anthroposophy

Rudolf Steiner, who founded the esoteric spiritual movement Anthroposophy, used the concept of Ahriman to name one of two extreme forces which pull humanity away from the centering influence of God. Steiner associated Ahriman, the lower spirit, with materialism, 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-Christian millennium.

''Opus Sanctorum Angelorum''

The '' Opus Sanctorum Angelorum'', a debated group inside the Roman 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.''Das Handbuch des Engelwerkes''. Innsbruck, 1961. p. 120.

In popular culture

* " Temple of Ahriman" is a 2016 song by Swedish black metal band Dark Funeral, about Angra Mainyu and the Towers of Silence.
* Various incarnations of Angra Mainyu appear in Type-Moon's ''Fate'' series.
* Various incarnations of Angra Mainu and Ahriman appear in ''Final Fantasy'' game series.
* The character Ahzek Ahriman from the ''Warhammer 40,000'' setting is based on Angra Mainyu, and his brother Ohrmuzd is based on Ahura Mazda
* DRAUGA by Michael W. Ford is an occult work exploring the lore, mythology and modern magical practice of Yatuk Dinoih (witchcraft) and daeva-yasna (demon-worship) from ancient Persia from a Luciferian approach.
* Angra Mainyu is the lead "deity" of the Mahrkagir of the Drujan kingdom in '' Kushiel's Avatar'', the third book in the '' Kushiel's Legacy'' series by Jacqueline Carey.
* Ahriman is a major character in the JRPG '' Felvidek''.
* Ahriman is a major antagonist in the JRPG '' Shin Megami Tensei III: Nocturne''.

See also

* Arimanius
* Armilus
* Cronos
* Dystheism
* Ereshkigal
* Erlik
* Hades
* Isfet
* Satan
* Ur
* Yama
* yaldabaoth
* demiurge
* Aryaman
* Airyaman

Footnotes

Citations

External links

*

{{Authority control

Ancient Iranian gods
Chaos gods
Daevas
Demons in the ancient Near East
Destroyer gods
Devils
Evil gods
Iranian words and phrases
Zoroastrianism
Yazatas
Iranian deities
Iranian gods
Divine twins