Page:History of Zoroastrianism.djvu/426

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
393
EVIL

of Renovation.[1] He is unobservant, stupid,[2] and ill-informed.[3] He is the after-thinker. Ignorance is the parent of many evils, and Ahriman is the very personification of it. Mani, in his heresy, ascribes foresight to Ahriman.[4]

As the arch-enemy of Ormazd, Ahriman swears vengeance upon the good creation. The Evil Spirit is the avowed enemy of the creatures of Ormazd.[5] Being of malicious nature,[6] and a blemish-giver,[7] he ever wishes evil to all.[8] As the enemy of mankind, he ever strives to make man unhappy;[9] he is filled, in fact, with rancour against the entire creation; he is bent upon its destruction and never thinks, speaks, or does anything but harm to mankind.[10] Ormazd saw through his omniscience that the Evil Spirit would find scope for his work up to the time that the imperfections of the world were removed, and evil became eradicated. He therefore proposed peace to Ahriman, asking him to bring help unto the good creatures, and offering to make him in return immortal, undecaying, hungerless, and thirstless.[11] The Evil Spirit thought that it was. helplessness and weakness on the part of Ormazd that had thus compelled him to proffer peace, and rejected the divine offer.[12] He then defiantly answered the Good Spirit that not only would he never bring help and praise unto the good creation, but he would ever seek to destroy it and force the creatures into disaffection to Ormazd and affection for himself.[13] Ever since this first dispute with the Deity, Ahriman has firmly adhered to his resolve, and is so absorbed in contriving the ruin of his rival's creatures that he has never rested at ease since creation began.[14] He is bent upon perverting creatures from their own nature, in order, if possible, to prevent Ormazd from bringing about the resurrection and the renovation of the world and restoring his creatures.[15] Having

  1. ↑ Dk., vol. 2, p. 108.
  2. ↑ Bd. 1. 19.
  3. ↑ Dk., vol. 5, p. 324.
  4. ↑ Sg. 16. 23.
  5. ↑ Dd. 3. 7; Dk., vol. 4, p. 208, 270; Gs. 127.
  6. ↑ Bd. 1. 10; Dd. 37. 8, 10; Mkh. 10. 5, 10.
  7. ↑ Dk., vol. 5, p. 324, 325; vol. 6, p. 421; vol. 7, p. 445.
  8. ↑ Bd. 1. 8; Mkh. 8. 23; Sg. 3, 5.
  9. ↑ Dk., vol. 7, p. 461.
  10. ↑ Bd. 28. 2.
  11. ↑ Bd. 1. 13.
  12. ↑ Bd. 1., 15; Dk., vol. 8, p. 484, 485.
  13. ↑ Bd. 1. 14; Zsp. 1. 6, 8; Sg. 4. 12.
  14. ↑ Bd. 28. 3.
  15. ↑ Sg. 12. 72–74.
This article is issued from Wikisource. The text is available under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 unless otherwise noted. Additional terms may apply for the media files.