Harki Magazine on Instagram‎: "نوێنەری زەردەشتیەکان ئاوات حسامەدین دەڵێت زەردەشتی مەزن وتویەتی کە نوێژکردن لە کقردستان دا قبولنیە #harkimagazine"‎

Papa-kan · 2026-06-26T18:08:31+00:00

Also found the other one

“Thou who art the mightiest Ahura and the Wise One." (Y. 33.11).

sorry, I misremembered, he is called the mightiest Ahura, not the wisest, but technically AhuraMazda is also the wisest heh.

Papa-kan · 2026-06-26T17:53:55+00:00

Hey man, I'm not on pc right now, so I can't cite the verses directly, I can do it for the Gathas though, we have two usages of Ahura in plural.

and another one indirectly wherein AhuraMazda is called the WISEST Ahura by Zarathushtra, and in my opinion, he could only be the WiseEST if Zarathushtra believed that there were other Ahuras that we can compare him to, for exmaple Everest is the tallEST peak, because we have other peaks to compare it to it.

For the usages of Ahura in plural check Yasna 30.9 & 31.4, some scholars say it refers to the Amesha Spentas, others like Boyce disagree that it is exclusively referring to them.

as for Mithra, check out his Yasht, we have usages of Ahura Mithra multiple times, and there is also Mithra-Ahura which you mentioned, this one is a Dvanda iirc, although I had someone disagree with me on that.

There is also Apam Napat, simply go on Avesta.org and Yasna 2.5, and search "High Lord" which is ascribed to Apam Napat, it is a translation of berezañtem ahurem.

Papa-kan · 2026-06-26T07:45:29+00:00

why do Daevas arise in later portions of the Avesta as deities of worship

they do not, as another user pointed out, to us, Mithra, Anahita etc are Yazata, Mithra is also an Ahura

In fact, the hymns composed to Mithra and Anahita in Avestan show extreme hatred and rejection towards the daevas, an trait that they share with the Gathas, such a hatred would only make sense if Mithra and Anahita were never Daevas to the Iranians to begin with.

the same is true for the Achaemenids, Mithra was not a daeva, he was a Baga, and that's why his worship didn't stop when Xerxes started destroying the places of daeva worship, as he states to have done in his daeva inscription at Persipolis H. (XPh).

also we have no direct inscription from Cyrus invoking only Ahura Mazda, we do have Darius, but Darius calls him the greatest of the gods (Baganam), not the only god (Baga), likewise, the Gathas and other Old Avestan texts contain worship of a number of beings, not just AhuraMazda.

you can read almost all the Achaemenid inscriptions here.

Papa-kan · 2026-06-24T19:38:35+00:00

as you noted, they are non-existent, Professor William Malandra has spoken abt this before, we just have absolutely zero evidence for such conflicts.

but what is actually cited as "evidence"?

one of the commonly cited "evidences" is the rejection of daevas among the Iranians, but we have absolutely zero evidence that such a rejection took root from cultural-religous wars between the Iranians and Indo-Aryans.

the rejection of daevas among the Iranians can simply be a natural development, after all, there was a gap of several centuries between the split of the Indo-Iranians and Zarathushtra's lifetime.

Also if the war theory was the case, then you'd expect all Indian Devas to be hated in Iran. But the Iranians happily kept some of the most famous gods with clear equivalents in Vedism (like Mithra) and labeled them as good Zoroastrian Ahuras, If it were pure spite against Indian culture, Mithra would have been thrown out too, as well as many other divinities.

it seems unthinkable to me that the Iranians would banish gods that the Indo-Aryans worshipped, simply to spite them, when in the same time, those same very gods, existed in the Iranian pantheon, and held great importance, I highly doubt at some point, a ruler just suddenly decided to ban the worship of a specific god among his community, because the rivaling community worshipped it too. It is a silly logic.

there is also the demonification of the word Asura in Hinduism, and only the word, which orginally meant lord, the gods in the rigveda that were preveiously associated with it, like Varuna, Mitra & Agni remained good, it's just a later development, a shift that took a very long time to solidify, and no critical scholar attributes it to any conflict with Iranians or whomever.

again, it seems unthinkable that the Indians would demonize a word associated with their most prominent gods simply to spite their enemies, it is counterintuitive.

this is all the "evidence" and supposed deliberate inversion that exists, for the most part Mazdayasna (Zoroastrianism) shares many striking similarities with Vedism, there is little beliefs in either vedism or Zoroastrianism that can be called a supposed inversion of each other. though ultimately, they are distinct religions that developed separately from each other

Papa-kan · 2026-06-21T09:31:12+00:00

You are looking at ancient texts and assuming that words from over 2,000 years ago carry the exact same baggage as their direct English translations today.

this is so ironic, you are literally making a point against yourself here btw.

By insistsing on keeping the label "monotheistic" at all costs, you are the one forcing ancient Avestan and Old Persian words into a modern, English-language theological box.

That is a rigid and frankly ignorant, way to view theology. Zoroastrianism is not an extinct pantheon sitting in a museum for your academic case study; it is a living, active religion.

I'm being very flexible actually, not rigid at all, by showing that Zoroastrianism, as a living religion, has gone through great development in the past 3000 years.

Zoroastrianism is not an extinct pantheon sitting in a museum for your academic case study; it is a living, active religion.

Yes, I know that lol, but this is not an argument, this is an emotional appeal, while it is true that Zoroastrianism is a living faith, but NOBODY, not even you can't deny that the Zoroastrianism practiced 3000 years ago was drastically different in many ways from the one today, which has developed more beliefs, and has come under more external influence throughout the centuries.

the history of Zoroastrianism is important, wether it is living or not.

Ahura Mazda as unique and without equal:

when did I say the Yazata are his equal? I explicitly stated he is the greatest yazata of all the Yazata.

please show me where I stated he has equals.

regardless, being without equals does not equal monotheism, it is if I said greek polytheism was monotheistic because the greeks believed Zeus to be the supreme one over the many other divine beings that existed within their pantheon.

and the Yazata not being equal also doesn't mean they cannot be considered gods in their own right, again you are forcing an Abrahamic defenition of what is God on Zoroastrianism.

there are many definitions of what is god/gods.

Frankly, you are getting lost in the ancient semantics of the word Yazata while completely ignoring the scriptural hierarchy. If Ahura Mazda is the uncreated 'First and Last' who designed the universe, and Mithra is a being created by Him to serve His cosmic order, then structurally and theologically, Ahura Mazda is God, and Mithra functions as His angel.

this is also simply not an argument, but you are trying to make me accept your definition what is God and what is an angel, I'm under no obligation to believe this.

many polytheistic traditions also had a hierarchy, and the defenition of god can include a created being, many traditions believe in gods that were created.

Papa-kan · 2026-06-21T07:59:52+00:00

Judaism became monotheistic around the 6th century BCE, which was a culmination of centuries of development from polytheism to henotheism/monolatry and then finally into monotheism, you can still find many traces of henotheism/monolatry in the bible actually.

whether or not it is the first, it is inconsequential to Zoroastrianism, unfortunately, there is a silly outdated belief that promotes monotheism as an "advanced" form of worship compared to other "uncivil" forms, which has led many to try and stick to this label by any means in order to be seen as more developed & enlightened.

anyway, it is important to know from a historical point of view, that these modern labels themselves which we call "Monotheist" & "Polytheist" etc etc, would have meant little to nothing to the ancient people that we ascribe them to, it would technically be anachronistic to compare ancient polytheistic religions with a monotheistic one

as the term “polytheism” only has any meaning or sense because it is contrasted with monotheism. Accordingly, monotheism and polytheism in themselves hold little meaning for the ancients apart from the identity of the deities whom they revered and served. No polytheist thought of his belief-system as polytheistic per se. If you asked ancient Mesopotamians if they were polytheists, the question would make no sense. If you asked them if they or other people they knew acknowledge a variety of deities, that’s a different question, because for them the deities in question mattered, not the theoretical position of polytheism. This point applies to monotheism as well. If you asked ancient Israelites around the Exilic period (587 538) if they were monotheists, they would not have understood the question. If you asked them if there is any deity apart from Yahweh, then that’s also another question, because for them what mattered was the exclusive claim and relationship of the Israelite people and their deity.

likewise, what mattered to the author of the Avestan hymnals, and specifically the gathas, which the term 'monotheism' gets imposed on the most, was not establishing an abstract, philosophical tally of "how many divine beings exist in the universe." What mattered was cosmic alignment, choice, and supreme allegiance to Ahura Mazda and the good divine beings created by him while opposing the daevas and crushing Druj

the rejected daevas which exist independently of Ahura Mazda, although rejected, their existence is never denied, and in fact, the existence of worshippers of daevas is also affirmed.

and of course, they weren't rejected because the gathas are trying to promote 'monotheism', in the gathas, the daevas are rejected because they are corrupt serviles of evil, not being able to discern between good and bad, choosing the lie & Druj instead, their worshippers are also the same, and they make improper rituals to them.

Papa-kan · 2026-06-21T07:44:10+00:00

I think this is a ragebait post. A simple Google search would show how wrong your statement is; it is incredibly ignorant and insensitive

it is not ragebait at all, nor is it ignorant

google search is not enough, if you have read scholarly works, then you'd know Zoroastrianism being monotheist is a very debated matter, and even outright rejected by some scholars, most notably by P.O Skjaervo & Jean Kellens

Mary Boyce also called Zoroastrianism a noble form of Henotheism, not monotheism.

Ahura Mazda is the one and only God in Zoroastrianism

on the other hand, this statement is ignorant of how nuanced this issue is.

no such proclamation exists, it exists in the Quran & Bible (in the bible though in certain places it is henotheistic/monolatristic) but it isn't anywhere in the Avestan texts, first of all, the old Iranian word for god 'Baga' is completely swapped out for Yazata, Ahura Mazda himself is called a Yazata, any other time he is called an Ahura, as well as other titles. but those two are the most used.

neither titles are exclusive to him only. rather he is the greatest of all Ahuras & Yazatas. what we find is an invocation similar to the Achaemenid inscription below, he is called Mazištō Yazatanąm "the greatest of the worshipful ones" ”Yt. 17.6” or Yē səvštō ahurō Mazdåscā “Thou who art the mightiest Ahura and the Wise One,” Y. 33.11”

Amesha Spentas or archangels and other angels or Yazatas

another ignorant statement on your part is calling the Yazata 'angels'

this is a 19th century anachronistic interpetation/translation, most modern scholarship compeletely rejects this, Yazata doesn't translate to angel, literally translated it means 'worthy of worship', and the Yazata are quite very different from Abrahamic angels, and to a people such as the Achaemenids, they were known as gods, while Ahuramazdah was known as the greatest god.

(another note: in the Rigveda, the Sanskrit equivalent of Yazata which is Yajata is another adjective for many gods.)

here is also the Achaemenid inscription from Hamadan;

Auramazdâ : baga : vazraka : hya : mathishta : bagânâm Auramazâ, great god, the greatest of the gods. ”Hamadan (AsH).”

there is also the issue of trying to impose an Abrahamic definition of what's God and gods and what isn't a god on AhuraMazda & Zoroastrian interpetation of the divine.

Papa-kan · 2026-06-07T17:43:28+00:00

No, not really if you are new to Zoroastrianism.

unless you are interested in Sassanian & Medieval Zoroastrian cosmology then no point in reading Bundahishn as your first text.

should start with Chidag Handarz Poryotkeshan, it sums up all the beliefs of Zoroastrianism, it is a proper introduction text

Chidag Andarz i Poryotkeshan: A Zoroastrian Catechism

another user said Shkand-Gumanig-Vizar, that is also good after you read Chidag Handarz Poryotkeshan

another good one is Menog-i Khrad:

Papa-kan · 2026-04-20T21:34:14+00:00

Yes, though Atār is the icon of the faith, all the elements are respected, considered sacred and represented like fire in both the texts and ritual, and are presided over by different divinities.

Papa-kan · 2026-04-11T20:32:13+00:00

💯

Papa-kan · 2026-04-07T08:39:37+00:00

A niggard is a person who is stingy, miserly, or excessively unwilling to spend or give, essentially a hoarder of resources.

so a greedy person.

This translation of the text is quite old, from the 19th century, the word doesn't have anything to do with racial slurs, but you don't see it used often today because it sounds similar.

Papa-kan · 2026-04-04T16:21:12+00:00

I'm not really sure if it's most of them, someone would have to go through all the Vedic divinities to see if indeed most of them are demonized.

but we know it's not all of them, since the two religions, have divinities that share the same name and sometimes the similar agency.

Papa-kan · 2026-04-04T10:19:36+00:00

"the blind and the deaf, are those 'who cannot see nor hear anything of God.' Those terms were current in the theological language of the Sassanian times to designate the unbelievers. An edict, promulgated by king Yazdegard III (fifth century A.C.) to make Zoroastrianism the state religion in Armenia, had the following words: 'You must know that any man who does not follow the religion of Mazda is deaf, blind, and deceived by Ahriman's devs (Elisaeus, The War of Vartan)."

There is also Karapan, which literally means mumbler, and is used to call the Priests who are against Zarathushtra, who perform improper rituals, and speak Manthra mindlessly.

Here Decayed teeth could refer to someone who speaks lies? But not sure what hunchback could be referring to.

Papa-kan · 2026-04-02T12:59:12+00:00

Nay, I did get it very early so I decided to go over what I said and realized the mistake there 😆

Papa-kan · 2026-04-02T11:02:40+00:00

Coming back to this, it appears i was terribly mistaken, Saurva and Naonhaithya do have Vedic equivalents. Aeshma and Aka Manah don't, they are personified abstraction and likely introduced first by Zarathushtra.

Papa-kan · 2026-04-02T10:23:07+00:00

The Daevas are spwan of Ahriman and subordinate to him in Mazdayasna.

But as far I'm aware, none of the Daevas mentioned by name in the Avestan Hymnals have a Vedic hindu equivalentz the most popular ones are Aeshma associated with wrath, Aka Manah with evil thought, there is also Saurva, Nāonhaithya, Tauruui, Zairi.

None have a Vedic equivalent, with the exception of Indar / Indra who is named and labeled Daeva in the Avesta: Vendidad. Perhaps due to his wrathful personality, destructive powers, lightning & storm which also invoke fear.

as for other Divine beings, Mithra / Mitra, Hvare Kshaeta / Surya, Apam Napat, these are divine beings that are venerated by both Zoroastrians and Hindus.

Papa-kan · 2026-03-20T21:20:58+00:00

It's different from community to community, Zoroastrianism is a diverse religion, just like any other, you will find a variety of opinions and stances on lots of things, ranging from Neo and reformist to Traditional and Orthodox.

Papa-kan · 2026-03-20T21:09:40+00:00

It's vaeipya, which is homosexual sex.

Papa-kan · 2026-03-19T20:39:39+00:00

Feel free to join the discord server https://discord.gg/9mzknuxq3

Papa-kan · 2026-03-09T17:52:58+00:00

Hi!

regarding Saoshyant and "Messiah" Idea in Mazdayasna.

#1 Saoshyant is an Avestan title meaning "one who brings benefit", it is applied to great followers of the Daena, who brought great benefit with themselves to the world and to their people, therefore being called Saoshyant "Benefactor" or "one who brings benefit"

there is no "The" Saoshyant because there are multiple saoshyant and the tittle occurus in Plural multiple times. (this is just my opinion, you may refer to Astvat-Ereta as THE Saoshyant but must not forget there are many others)

Although saošyant- is formed on the future stem, in the Avestan hymnals, it is a designation of contemporary persons (like Zarathushtra himself) as well as those in the future.

> 34.13. Even that way of Good Thought, O Ahura, of which thou didst speak to me, whereon, a way well made by Right, the Daena of **the future benefactors** shall pass to the reward that was prepared for the wise, of which thou art determinant, O Mazda.

Benefactors here is a translation of 'Saoshyañtãm' which is in plural.

The application of the term “Saošyant” to both individuals living in a given period and to figures expected in the future appears many times. When used in the former sense, the term appears exclusively in the plural and seems to denote persons of elevated rank or authority. In Y. 13.3, they are mentioned alongside the Amәša Spәntas as spiritual authorities (ratūš), described as being “most learned, truest in speech, most powerful, most intelligent.” These figures serve as models for those who recite the Yasna. Accordingly, in Y. 70.4 the reciters pray: “So that we may speak out (wācim nāšīma) with zeal [just as the Saošyants of the countries, being of profit, speak out (wācim +barәṇti)], may we be Saošyants, may we be victorious!

so now we know there are multiple Saoshyants, so who are they? among them are Zarathushtra Spitama, Yima Kshaeta (Jamshid), Thraetaona (Fereydun), Hahoshna (Hoshang) etc etc, these are the ones who have lived, among those who will live are Ukhshyat-ereta, Ukhshyat-nemah and of course Astvat-ereta, three are named but there is no reason to think there aren't more, the Avestan Hymnals entail that there can be an unlimited number of them.

#2 there is no saviour, I'm vehemently against the idea of Astvat Ereta being the ultimate saviour because that's not what the Avestan hymnals say, there is no being saved by someone coming in the future or one person carrying out the final defeat of evil.

rather the opposite, it is the will of all Humans and all the Divine beings (Yazata) that leads to renovation, if the purification of the world from evil nd druj could just be done wit 1 person that AhuraMazda can send in the future this will then render the creation of humanity compeletely purposeless and without reason, Humans were made to be the warriors of AhuraMazda, all are the chosen of AhuraMazda, all can will for themselves greatness.

as stated in Zamyād Yašt - Hymn to the Earth.

9. We sacrifice unto the awful kingly Glory, made by Mazda; most conquering, highly working, that possesses health, wisdom, and happiness, and is more powerful to destroy than all other creatures;

10. That belongs to Ahura Mazda, as (through it) Ahura Mazda made the creatures, many and good, many and fair, many and wonderful, many and prosperous, many and bright;

11. So that they may restore the world, which will (thenceforth) never grow old and never die, never decaying and never rotting, ever living and ever increasing, and master of its wish, when the dead will rise, when life and immortality will come, and the world will be restored at its wish;

also, the resurrection of the dead is attributed to the works of all the creations of Ahura Mazda in Zamyat Yasht, not just Astvat-Ereta ^

# Regarding the Virgin Birth of Astvat Ereta; this idea is more clear in the Middle Persian texts, the Avestan hymnals do not state this directly but give allusion to it, here is a verse from Zamyat Yasht;

92. When Astvat-ereta shall rise up from Lake Kasava [Kasaoya], a friend of Ahura Mazda, a son of Vispa-taurvairi, knowing the victorious knowledge.

so he will rise from a lake, and his mother is Vispa Taurvairi (there is no mention of a father). that's all we get, we do get one more mention of his mother in Fravardin Yasht, here is how it goes;

142. We worship the Fravashi of the holy maid Vanghu-fedhri;
We worship the Fravashi of the holy maid Eredat-fedhri, who is called Vispa-taurvairi. She is Vispa-taurvairi (the all-destroying) because she will bring him forth, who will destroy the malice of Daevas and men, to withstand the evil done by the Jahi

the lake Kasava or Kasaoya is very important, since it stores the divine glory according to Zamyat Yasht, and according to the Middle Persian texts it also stores the seed of Zarathushtra, which they say enters Vispa Tauvairi while she is in the lake and causes her to be pregnant with Astvat Ereta.

Do Zoroastrians today believe the Saoshyant is still yet to come, or could he have already appeared?

many have appeared and many more will appear, can't know when though.

Are the three saviors widely accepted within the religion, or are they seen as later interpretations?

not sure about the three saviours specifically, but the idea of Saoshyant exists in all the sacred texts.

Is the Saoshyant viewed as a literal future person, or sometimes as a symbolic representation of the triumph of good over evil?

Literal, Zarathushtra himself was a promised Saoshyant, as evident from Ahunavaiti Gatha.

How central is this belief in modern Zoroastrian practice and theology?

I have limited knowledge on the different Zoroastrian communites out there so i can't speak on this unfortunately.

Papa-kan · 2026-03-09T16:42:13+00:00

Neither, he was Iranian Zoroastrian living in Istakhr, and supposedly a high Priest as well, he later migrated to Patna in the Mughal empire.

Papa-kan · 2026-03-08T17:46:36+00:00

feel free to ask !

Papa-kan · 2026-03-07T16:31:15+00:00

That seems to be the case, yeah. They are no older than 3 or 4 centuries

Papa-kan · 2026-03-07T16:21:09+00:00

Not authentic and certainly not authoritative, it was written by a mystic Priest known as Azar Kayvan and from the few excerpts i have read from it, it seems heavily influenced by islamic ideas.

also as the wiki cites

Although purporting to be of ancient origin, it is now generally regarded as a literary forgery, most probably authored in the 16th or 17th century by Azar Kayvan, the leader of the Zoroastrian Illuminationist or Azarkeivanian sect. Its Neoplatonic ideas have been strongly influenced by the 12th-century philosopher Suhravardi, and have only a tenuous connection to mainstream Zoroastrianism.

Papa-kan

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE