History of Zoroastrianism/Chapter 37

Heretics detested more than the demon-worshippers. Heresy was one of the greatest crimes of which a Zoroastrian could be guilty according to the ancient texts. It was a criminal offense punishable by law. The severity of the law, however, was considerably modified during the Sasanian period, even though the works written during this period do not show any considerable advance in real religious toleration. In his letter to the king of Tabaristan, Tansar states that, in the statutes which Ardashir had framed, he had greatly modified the rigour of the law; for, whereas formerly a heretic was instantly killed, Tansar's royal master had ordered that such a sinner should be imprisoned for one year, and that the religion of Ormazd should be preached to him daily during that period in order to reclaim him from heresy. If he still persisted obstinately in his heretical belief, capital punishment was to be inflicted upon him as a last resort.^[1] King Noshirvan extirpated heresies when he came to the throne.^[2] Any one also who did not give assent to the dogmatic teachings of the Zoroastrian creed, or expounded views that were at variance with those sanctioned by her authority, incurred the odium of heresy, and came under the ban of ecclesiastical excommunication. The Church forbade with proscription any criticism of its authoritative canon; the ecclesiastical doctrine was fixed, and to think otherwise was heresy. Giving the definition of a heretic, the Dinkart states that whosoever teaches, speaks, or acts respecting the beliefs and practices of the national faith differently from that which the ancients have done is a heretic.^[3] Heretics are of three kinds: the deceiver, deceived, and the opinionated.^[4] All of these misrepresent the teachings of the elders, and pervert ​the sacred writings,^[5] as they declaim against the established teachings.^[6] They promote, in opposition to Ormazd, the wicked religion of Ahriman.^[7] The heretic is possessed by the Evil Spirit.^[8] He is the disciple of the demon of heresy.^[9] The demons lodge in his body;^[10] he is, in fact, a demon in human form.^[11] Even during his lifetime, his body resembles a corpse and the faithful should refrain from coming in contact with him, lest they themselves become defiled.^[12] Bad as is his lot in this world, it is worse in the world to come. His soul is doomed to everlasting torture. It becomes a darting snake, and there is no resurrection for it.^[13] For these reasons, men are warned to guard themselves from anything that savours of heresy.^[14] The Pahlavi writers, in every treatise, are unsparing in their denunciation of heretics, arraigning them for deception, lying, and perversion. The heretic Gurgi is called a disreputable impostor, full of avarice, and worthy of every opprobrium.^[15] In a similar manner, the Pahlavi works swarm with invectives against Mani, an arch-heretic in the third century A.D., to whose account we now turn.

The arch-heretic of the Sasanian period. This remarkable man was born in the reign of Ardavan, the last of the Parthian kings.^[16] He received his first revelation at the age of thirteen, and ultimately claimed to be a prophet, the very seal or the last messenger of God.^[17] He began his propaganda under Ardashir, but worked with greater vigour under Shapur I, who embraced his faith.^[18] Manichaeism flourished with varied suc​cess side by side with the state religion until the time when Bahram I ascended the throne. The teachings of Mani acquired a strong hold over the minds of many, and threatened to be a powerful rival of the ancient faith. The national spirit rebelled against the encroachment of the new cult, and the king strove to extinguish the heresy by the exercise of a firm hand. He confronted Mani with his Dastur, who threw him a challenge that both of them should pour molten lead on their bellies, and whosoever came out unhurt should be declared to be in the right. This Mani did not accept. Consequently in a A.D. 276–277 he was flayed to death and his body was stuffed with straw.^[19] With the removal of Mani from the field of activity, the Manichaean propaganda entered upon its dissolution in Iran, but the seed of the new faith he had sown did not remain unfruitful. Despite the heavy slaughter of the Manichaeans, the new cult spread from the home of its origin to the Far East, reaching even as far as China, and penetrated far into the West in the fourth century, where for some time it contested supremacy with Christianity, somewhat as Persian Mithraism had done before it. St. Augustine was a follower of Manichaeism before he was converted to Christianity He was not able to free himself from the influence of his teachings even after he had joined the Christian Church. He imparted its dualistic philosophy to Christian doctrine.^[20]

The Pahlavi writers vehemently attack Mani and his followers. He is dubbed a druj^[21] of evil origin,^[22] and his followers are branded as deceivers, empty-skulled persons that practised witchcraft and deceitfulness, and taught folly in the way of secret societies;^[23] they are denounced as deluding the uninformed and unintelligent, and as capturing the men of little knowledge in their esoteric circle.^[24]

Mani's eclectic system. Mani aimed at forming a world religion and based his new religion on materials drawn from ​Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Christianity, and Syrian Gnosticism. In his synthetic religion he accepts the dualistic theory as the basic doctrine to explain the existence of evil. Light which is synonymous with God existed above and darkness below. Satan arose out of darkness Twice did he invade the kingdom of light. Light and darkness are mingled in the confusion of creation. Light is to be liberated from Darkness and made secure from the assaults of Darkness. That is the function of man' during life. In the final dispensation Light will dispel Darkness for ever. His new religion differed in its cardinal principles from Zoroastrianism. The author of Shikand Gumanik Vijar devotes a chapter (16th) to the teachings of Mani and refutes them. The subject, however, remains incomplete as the latter part of the work is lost. Some of the more prominent features of Manichaeism, which are fundamentally foreign to the spirit of Zoroastrianism, are the ascetic principles of self-mortification, celibacy, fasting, and the vow of poverty. Each of these in turn we shall examine from the point of view of Zoroastrianism, and seek at the same time to determine the basic difference between the two theories of life.

Mani holds matter to be the root of evil, hence self-mortification of the body is a virtue in his system. The body as composed of matter, according to this thinker, is inherently evil On this very ground he denies the final resurrection.^[25] Manichaeism brands all bodily desires as evil and legislates for their stifling and killing. Since all evil has its root in the body, salvation is possible only through the extirpation of bodily desires. Mani's system of religion becomes quietistic, ascetic, and inculcates only passive virtues. He taught his followers to abhor all natural pleasures and abandon them. He strove to extinguish the fire of the bodily desires. The devout was to begin by abstaining from every comfort and from every amusement. In spite of this, temptations assail him on all sides, so long as he lives in the midst of earthly attachments. To adopt a practical image, the centipede does not lose much if one of its legs is broken, so man is not safe when he succeeds in eradicating one desire, for another takes its place and haunts him in the quiet moments, even when the ardent longing of communing with the divine consumes him. He is still overcome by passion, by the ​desire of wife and child, of hearth and home. He feels that he cannot liberate himself from the unbearable yoke of these strong passions, unless he flees from the world to some solitary place where joys and sorrows cannot reach him. Life, such a one thinks, is a fleeting illusion. It cannot give him enduring calm. Accordingly, he breaks his family ties, shuns society, becomes a hermit, and lives a life of complete quiescence. He courts negation.

Zoroastrianism stands for controlling and regulating bodily desires, but not for suppressing and killing them. The antithesis of body and soul, flesh and spirit, is not unknown to the Pahlavi writers. But the body in itself is not evil. According to Zoroastrianism, matter is not inherently evil, and life in the flesh is not necessarily death in the spirit. Zarathushtra legislates for the material as well as the spiritual side of our nature. A healthy body alone can nurture a healthy mind, and it is through the agency of these two prime factors that the spirit can work out her destiny. Man can act righteousness and assail wickedness only with a sound body. The faithful craves for a long life in the body in this world, before he is allotted an eternal life of spirit in heaven. Bodily life in this world is sacred, it is a pledge. Ormazd has confided this most precious of his gifts to man that he may join with his Heavenly Father in securing the ultimate triumph of good over evil and thus usher the divine Kingdom of Righteousness into the world. The soul rules over the body as a householder rules over a family or a rider rides his horse.^[26] It is the stubborn slave of the soul, and with the exercise of self-control it is to be converted into an obedient servant always ready to carry out the mandates of its master.^[27] The body is an indispensable vehicle of the soul and the saintly soul drives in it on the path of righteousness. It is only in the case of the wicked, in whom the flesh gains victory over the spirit, that it becomes a heavy burden, its wheels refuse to move, sticking in the quagmire of sin. But then the fault lies with the driver. It is only when the individual lives solely for the body, feasts his lustful eyes on the vices of the flesh, and is a willing slave to the bodily passions, that the body turns out to be the grave of the soul.^[28] Whoso lives in this world for the body ​alone and is immersed in bodily pleasures, loses in spirit in the next world, but whoso works for the soul, makes the spiritual existence more his own.^[29] Just as a person going without shoes on a road infested with serpents and scorpions is constantly on guard lest the noxious creatures bite him, so a man should always beware of his bodily passions.^[30] The great Sasanian pontiff Adarbad said that whenever any harm befell his body, he took consolation that it did not affect his soul, which was of greater significance.^[31] Whosoever lives in this world with a view to the betterment of his soul, reaps the future reward, but whoso lives exclusively for the body, sees his body ultimately crumbling into dust with no hopes for the welfare of the spiritual existence.^[32] The wicked conducts his soul after the bodily desires, but the righteous man should regulate his body in conformity with the higher desires of the soul.^[33] The body is the halter to the soul, and the faithful one is reminded that he should so act in the world that neither the soul nor the body suffers for the other, but if that is not possible, he should prefer the soul to the body and be prepared to sacrifice it for the good of the soul.^[34] The soul profits when the inordinate bodily pleasures are foregone.^[35] The man who is prepared to dedicate his body for the sake of his soul or religion practises true generosity.^[36] Though the body is the bane of the spirit, it is not branded as inherently evil. Man may work with the body, yet he may live for the soul. Discipline rather than austerity is the Zoroastrian watchword. Self-mortification does not form part of the Zoroastrian theology. With due self-control the devout has to conquer the flesh in order to be victor in spirit; he has to subdue his bodily nature, but not to suppress it. The body is not to be reduced to a skeleton. Zoroastrianism demands a sound and a strong body to enable man to effectively combat the hydra of evil in this world. Uncleanliness of body is one of the ascetic virtues. It is repugnant to the spirit of Zoroastrianism, which stands for the bodily purity. Purity of body contributes to purity of ​spirit. Bodily uncleanliness means spiritual pollution, and wantonly weakening the body is a sin. Monastic life is unknown to the Zoroastrians of all periods. Christianity had entered Iran under the Parthian rule, and monasteries of both the sexes flourished in the Assyrian Church during the Sasanian period. Far from exerting any influence upon the Zoroastrians, they were looked upon with great aversion by them.

Celibacy, a virtue with Mani, a vice with Zoroaster. Manichaeism extols celibacy as the greatest virtue. For those initiated in the higher orders Mani advocated celibacy. When the ardent longing for the love of God swallows up all other desires and becomes the controlling factor of the devout, he is enjoined to take a vow of continence. He should not enter into matrimonial alliance if he desires to serve God whole-heartedly. Marriage is declared incompatible with sanctity; it is accounted impure and defiling. Mani forbids sexual intercourse as the worst type of uncleanliness.^[37] Virginity is the highest form of life. Body being the formation of Ahriman, the propagation of lineage and breeding of families are evil.^[38] Marriage prolongs the life of mankind, and so retards the union of the human species with God.

All this is in direct antagonism to the teachings of Zoroaster. In no period of the history of his religion was celibacy ever held a virtue. Those practising it were not considered more holy and held in higher reverence, as among the Manichaeans, but their action was strongly reprehended. Even the priests were not to be celibates, for it is a cardinal point of the faith of every true Zoroastrian that he shall marry and rear a family.^[39] Ormazd prefers the man who lives a life of marital happiness to the one who lives in continence.^[40] Whoso does not marry and propagate lineage hinders the work of Renovation, and is wicked.^[41] Marriage is doubly an obligation, being a religious duty to the Church, a civic duty to the State. Hence both the Church and the State encouraged married life in Iran. It is considered a highly meritorious form of charity to help a poor man to marry.^[42] Herodotus remarks that the Persian kings gave ​The prizes to those who were blessed with many children.^[43] Zoroastrian works of all periods exhort the faithful to enter into matrimony Mar Shiman, the chief bishop of the Christian settlers in Iran, was accused by the Mobads before Shapur II to the effect that he and his clergy were teaching men to refrain from marriage and the procreation of children.^[44] King Yazdagard II saw great danger to the State in the spread of such doctrines among the masses. If they caught the contagion, says his royal edict, the world would soon come to an end.^[45] Such were the strong feelings against any form of celibacy that prevailed at all times in Persia; and even in Mani's system the stringency was generally relaxed in case of the masses. Marriage was tolerated as a source of relief to their unrestrained sexual appetites. It was a necessary evil in their case. But in the case of the clergy and of other righteous persons who aimed at higher life, it was obligatory that they should be celibates. Zoroastrianism legislates for the clergy and the laity alike. In Mani's system marriage was a vice for the priest, a reluctant concession to the layman. According to the religion of Zoroaster, it is neither the one nor the other, it is a positive virtue for both. Sacerdotal piety does not tend to celibacy in Iran It is disapproved for ali and under all circumstances. In no stage of the individual's moral and spiritual development is marriage ever considered as incompatible with saintliness.

Fasting recommended by Manichaeism, condemned by Zoroastrianism. Mani advocated the abstinence from food as a means of expiation for sin.^[46] Nearly a quarter of the year was set apart by him as the period of fast. If there is one thing more than another which Zoroaster teaches, it is that man shall never serve Ormazd by fasting and austerities, but only by prayers and work. Far from recommending these ascetic practices as virtues, he prohibits them as sins. Fasting formed no part of the religion of ancient Iran at any period of her history. It is strongly reprobated in the works of all periods. Fasting is a sin, and the only fast that the faithful are exhorted to keep is the fast from sin.^[47] The wilful abstinence from food is a deliberate ​disregard of the bounty of Ormazd. In his exaggerated idea of the need of fasting, the ascetic weakens his body, and practically starves himself to death by a rigorous system of fasts. Zoroastrianism enjoins that man should take sufficient food to keep his body strong and active, and not make it languid by withholding the due share of food from it. With a feeble body man could not work strenuously for the furtherance of the world of righteousness, and carry on a vigorous warfare against the world of wickedness; and this, according to the Zoroastrian belief, is the chief object of man's life on earth.

Mani's doctrine of poverty in the light of Zoroastrianism. The saint in Mani's system holds earthly things as so many distractions. The things of sense are impure. He tries to avoid them, and gradually gives them up one by one. He makes a vow of poverty. Wealth is looked upon as a source of temptation. Material commodities are regarded as satisfying the lower nature of man. The accumulation of property beyond that which would enable him to purchase food for one day or clothing for one year is forbidden.^[48] The true hermit renounces all personal effort, does not think of providing for the morrow, and with passive resignation looks to God for what he may send to him. All ascetic orders where the vow of poverty is overemphasized give rise to mendicants and beggars living upon the alms of others. Among other evils mendicancy brings a drain on the resources of a society. For that reason it is not consecrated in Zoroastrianism. In fact it was not recognized at any period in the religious history of Iran. It is not a sin to acquire riches and accumulate property. The sin originates with the improper use of one's possessions, and the faithful are expressly warned not to lust for and indulge exclusively in the accumulation of the material wealth at the expense of the spiritual.^[49] This reprimand serves as a corrective to the unbridled desire to covet earthly riches.^[50] Wealth of the spirit is undoubtedly superior to that of the body. As regards the use of the wealth of this world man should work as if he were going to live a life of a thousand years, and as if what he failed to do to-day he could easily perform the next day. But when it comes to the question ​of the spiritual riches, he should act with the fear that he might perhaps live only a day more in this world, and that if he postponed to-day's good work till to-morrow, death might overtake him and prevent him from accomplishing it.^[51] One should choose rather to be poor for the spirit than to be rich without it. Losing the spirit for the sake of earthly riches is wrong. But accumulating earthly riches with upright means and expending them for the welfare of the spirit is meritorious. Srosh helps the man who has riches and plenty, and who, far from yielding to temptations, makes good use of his fortune.^[52] Wealth helps a righteous man to perform meritorious deeds,^[53] whereas grinding poverty at times occasions wickedness.^[54] If a man craves for a vast fortune with a firm resolve to spend it for charitable purposes, his desire is laudable.^[55] It is praiseworthy that man should spend his earthly riches for his spiritual welfare.^[56] Wealth is given to man not to squander on himself, but to help the poor and the needy, and assuage the wrongs of suffering humanity.^[57] When misused, wealth becomes a halter to the body, and the wise one should sacrifice it, for the good of his soul.^[58] Man should not be intoxicated with pride when he is in the plenitude of his riches and at the height of fortune, and must not hate the poor, for his fortune might leave him at any moment and place him in the class of the paupers.^[59] He is reminded that howsoever rich he grows, his wealth could never exceed that of Jamshid. And yet that great king found his wealth deserting him when his end approached.^[60] The kingdoms of the kings with all their fabulous fortunes are not everlasting.^[61] One should not be proud of his fortune. It is but vanity; it is as fleeting and transient as a dream.^[62] It changes its masters like a bird that flies from one tree to another, only to leave that in turn for still another.^[63] At death wealth and property do not ac​company the owner, but go into others' possessions.^[64] None should be proud of his possessions and count upon them as exclusively his own, for at the time of death even the palaces and treasures are of no avail, and the owner does not take them with him on his journey heavenward.^[65] A wealthy man rolling in riches is healthy in the morning, becomes ill at noon, and quietly passes from this world before night; his fortune does not help him to avert this calamity.^[66] Wealth and rank are the accidents of life, they do not constitute the real greatness of man. Righteousness alone is the true riches and man cannot get it in the next world on loan.^[67]

The economic basis of his religious reform. The second great heretic of this period who had a considerable following was a pious Mobad named Mazdak, son of Bamdat.^[68] A Pahlavi treatise named Mazdak Namah, Book of Mazdak, is said to have been rendered into Arabic by Ibnul Muqaffa. The work has been lost, but its contents have been preserved in other Arabic works.^[69] The author of Dabistan says that he met some Mazdakites who practised their religion secretly among the Mohammedans. These showed him a book called Desnad, written in Old Persian.^[70] There are references to Mazdak and his teachings in Greek and Syriac, Arabic and Persian. He is called the accursed heterodox who observes fasts,^[71] who appeared to cause disturbance among the faithful.^[72] He was contemporary with Kobad.^[73] Mazdak agreed with the fundamental doctrine of Zoroastrianism in respect to the indelible antithesis between the two principles, Light and Darkness, or Ormazd and ​Ahriman.^[74] Masudi calls him a Zendik.^[75] Tabari, Mirkhond, and others accuse him of teaching the doctrine of the community of wives.^[76] The Dabistan repeats the statement.^[77] Mazdak's revolutionary reform, however, was not so much religious as it was social and economic, for he preached communism, pure and simple.

The account of Mazdak's system is very meagre; but it is known that he accounted Jealousy, Wrath, and Greed as the three main causes of all evil in the world. Everyone, according to Mazdak's teachings, should be given equal opportunity and equal share of the enjoyment of the earthly possessions of God. So it was originally ordamed by God, but that natural order has been upset by the aggressive strong for their own self-aggrandizement.^[78] Society should therefore return to that original ideal state These revolutionary teachings thrilled for a time Iran, and exercised a powerful fascination on the masses. The crisis was brought to a head when, far from taking any initiative to stamp out the heresy, the king encouraged it, and finally embraced it. His son, Prince Noshirvan, summoned the Dasturs and Mobads to consider the situation It was certain that the cult would spread and the young prince adopted severe measures to suppress it, lest it should menace the public peace. The clergy, who viewed the new heresy with great alarm, advised rigorous measures to extirpate the threatening creed. Mazdak did not live long to preach his doctrine, for the prince arranged a banquet for him and his followers and put them all to the sword in A.D. 528.

This communistic socialistic sect received therewith a fatal blow from which it never wholly recovered, but it maintained a feeble spark of life for a considerable time. The Rawandis, Babak, called al-Khurrami, and al-Muqanna, the Veiled Prophet of Khurasan, later embodied the salient teachings of Mazdak in their system.^[79]