The ninth section explains the Paikárián creed.—Paikár was a virtuous sage from Iran, who appeared about the middle of Zohák’s reign. He thus addressed his disciples: “The Almighty is the same as fire, from the effulgence of which stars have been formed, and the heavens from its smoke; as fire is both hot and dry, from its heat proceeded the air, which is hot and humid; and from the humidity of the air came water, which is cold and humid; also from the coldness of water proceeded the earth, which is cold and dry; and from these conjointly came the compound productions, both perfect and imperfect.” Two individuals of this sect, Paikár Pazhuh and Jahan Navard, who were unequalled in drawing out astronomical tables, painting, and inlaying, were met by the writer in the year 1059 (A. D. 1649) in Gujarát, in the district of Panjab.
The tenth section of the Dabistan explains the Míláníán system.—Mílán was one of the brave champions of Iran and contemporary with Paikár; he exhorted many people to adopt his faith, which was as follows: “The air is the truly self-existent God, as it is both hot and humid; from its heat proceeded fire, and from its humidity, water; from the effulgence of fire came forth the stars; from its smoke the heavens (as before mentioned); and from the frigidity of water proceeded the earth.”[376] One of this sect was Rohám, who passed under the designation of a draughtsman; he was in truth a painter possessed of European skill; the hand of Bahzad[377] and the finger of Mani,[378] who never remained long in one place. In the year of the Hejirah 1040 (A. D. 1630) the author beheld him in Kashmir, in the house of Shídosh.
[376] Vitruvius (who lived shortly before J. C.) says (I. iv. Præf.): Thales Milesius omnium rerum principium Aquam est professus, Heraclitus Ignem, Magorum sacerdotes, Aquam et Ignem. As to the earth proceeding from the frigidity of water, we read in Macrobius (In Somno Scip. I. 1) what follows: “Terra est sicca et frigida: aqua vero frigida et humecta est; hæc duo elementa, licet sibi et per siccum humectumque contraria sint, per frigidum tamen commune junguntur.”—A. T.
[377] Bahzad was a celebrated painter.
[378] In the Desátír (English transl., pp. 188, 1889) it is stated that Mani came into Iran during the reign of Ardeshir, and made himself notorious by curious paintings and a new doctrine which he exhibited: he permitted the killing of harmless animals, and forbade all intercourse with women. After a controversy upon these two points with the king Shapur, he was driven out of the court, and then lapidated and torn to pieces by the people of the town. According to Sharistani, Mani was the son of Fáten or Fater; according to Mohammed Ben Ishak, his father was Fettak Ben Ebi Berdsâm. He was born about the year 240 of our era, but his birthplace is differently stated to have been in Persia, in Babylonia, in Nishapúr, in Khorossan. He is reputed as a learned man, as will be shewn in a subsequent note. He appeared at the court of king Shápur, the son of Ardeshir Babegan, but inhabited chiefly Turkistan. As a painter, he exhibited a set of pictures, called ارتنگ, artang; or ارژنگ, arzhank; or ارچنگ مانی, archang Máni, which he said he had brought from heaven, where he pretended to have dwelt, whilst in reality he was concealed in a cavern during one year. The baron Hammer Purgstal suggests that the artang might have been a banner or ensign, upon which astronomical or cabalistical figures were represented, and which the Mongols and Buddhists used to call Máni (see Jahrb. der Lit., for April, May, June, 1840, p. 28). Máni was besides a skilful musician, and inventor of a musical instrument, called âu´d by the Arabs, chelys by the Greeks. He was put to death by order of king Bahram, the son of Hormuz, about the year 278; by some authors his life and death are placed later.—See about Máni, Hyde, pp. 282, 290, and Beausobre, Histoire critique de Manichée.—A. T.
The eleventh section describes the system of the followers of Álár.—Alar was a native of Iran, celebrated for his extensive knowledge, who lived in reputation and dignity about the end of Zohák’s reign, under whose command he distinguished himself in the erection of forts and other architectural works. His belief was, that God is the same as water, from the ebullition of which proceeded fire; from the fire came forth the heavens and the stars (as before stated); from the humidity of water proceeded the air, and from its frigidity, the earth. To this sect belonged Andarímán, who was well skilled in the management of the bow, archery, wielding the lance, horsemanship, and other military accomplishments; he gave instructions in these sciences to the sons of great men, in which occupation he passed his life. In the year of the Hejirah 1040 (A. D. 1630) the author met him in Kashmir at the house of Shidosh. To this sect also belonged Mílád, who possessed consummate skill in writing, and was held in great respect by men of high station: he was in truth unequalled in the recitation of histories, the narration of stories and romantic tales. The author enjoyed his society also in Kashmir.
The twelfth section treats concerning the Shidabian faith.—Shádíb who lived about the end of Zohák’s reign, was an eminent physician of Iran, held in great estimation by nobles and princes. He maintained that the self-existent lord is the same with the earth, from the dry propensity of which was produced fire; and from fire the heavens and stars, as before mentioned; from its frigidity proceeded water; from the humidity of which was formed the air; and when the four elements were mixed together, the three kingdoms of nature were then manifested. The physician Mihrán was also of this sect. In the year 1018 of the Hejirah (A. D. 1638) the author joined him, and travelled in his society from Lahore to Kashmir. Among those who held these tenets was one named Khákí, who followed the profession of a merchant and possessed great wealth: him the author met in Lahore. In that same year and in the same place, he became acquainted with a young man named Shír, who excelled in writing the Nishki and Taalik characters, and was one of the chosen followers of Shídáb.
The thirteenth section describes the system of the Akhshíyán sect.—The Mobed Akhshí was by origin a Persian, possessed of great knowledge, and full of kindness towards the creatures of God; he was contemporary with Shídáb, and promulgated his sentiments openly, inviting all men to embrace his faith: he maintained God to be the essence of the elements; so that when people say, “God is not visible,” this implies the elemental essence, which presents no form to the sight; when they assert the ubiquity of God, they style that the essence, as he is every where under his fourfold form; their proposition of all things excepting God being perishable, means that the elements admit of change, but that their essence remains for ever in the same state. They hold the sun to be the source of fire and of the other stars, such as the falling and shooting stars, comets with tails, etc. One of those sectaries was a person named Shídáb, whom the author met in the costume of a merchant, in Kashmir in the year of the Hejirah 1040 (A. D. 1631), and from whom he heard what has now been written, and which was partly recited out of the book of Akshí. The same Shídáb, called also Shams-ud-dîn, or “the sun of faith,” composed a treatise entitled Rázábád in proof of his system, which he demonstrated by texts of the Koran and the traditions. According to these sectaries, which became known after the Radiyán, there is no resurrection nor return to life but after this manner: the seminal principle being derived from food, when the body of a living creature is dissolved, it becomes grass and constitutes the food of some other animal: as to future rewards and punishments, they enter not into the faith or practice of this sect: their paradise consists in having fine raiment, in carousing, riding, sensual enjoyments, and such like pleasures, which alone they esteem the chief good; torment, according to them, consists in being separated from such objects: however, the founders and followers of this faith carefully avoid all kind of cruelty towards living creatures.
According to them, intercourse with daughters, sisters, mothers, maternal aunts, and their children is allowable;[379] as there can exist no antipathy between the source and what is derived from it: no degree of relationship in their opinion should be a bar to the intercourse of the sexes: nay, on the contrary, it is highly to be commended, as the nearer the degree of consanguinity, the greater will be the friendship between the parties.[380] They however regard adultery as highly criminal, unless the husband should willingly sacrifice his wife’s honor. They in fact maintain that marriage between any two parties, however nearly related, is perfectly allowable if the parties agree among themselves. They also regard the ceremonial ablutions enjoined by the law as absurd and unnecessary.[381] They also say, that men assume a particular nature by means of laws and institutions, and on that account regard good as evil, and evil as good. When they desire to make a sacrificial offering, they kill some harmless animal and count it not a foul crime. Nay, some religionists who partake of swine’s flesh, scrupulously avoid that of cows, and vice versâ. Whoever shall appeal to the intelligence, which is the gift of God, will be convinced that our discourse is true; that is, all we have narrated from the fifth chapter to the present. The professors of this belief are mixed up with the Muhammedans, and travel about under that mask, assuming the name of true believers, but having a distinct appellation for their peculiar creed; they are scattered over Iran and Turan, remote from and averse to the fire-worshippers.
[379] According to Philo and to Diogenes Laertius, the Persians used to marry their mothers and sisters. Alexander abolished these incestuous marriages (see Brisson, p. 290). We know from Herodotus (I: 111) that Cambyses married his sister Atossa. According to Strabo, the law permitted the Magians union with their mothers. Plutarch, in the life of Artaxerxes, relates that this king took to wife his two daughters Atossa and Amestris; but his mother Parysatis (Pari-dokht, “daughter of a fairy”), at the very time she was engaging him to marry the first of his daughters, said that he must, in doing so, place himself above the laws of the country. Zoroaster, in the Zand books, recommends but the marriages between the children of brothers and sisters as actions deserving heaven. We observe that the author of the Dabistan speaks here only of a particular sect, the custom of which might have been attributed to the whole nation of the Persians, but without sufficient foundation. This is confirmed by the ancient tradition mentioned by Agathius (l. 11), who says, that Ninus killed his own mother Semiramis, because she had proposed to him an unnatural connection with her. For this same reason, according to the author just quoted, Artaxerxes is said to have discarded from him with great indignation his mother Parysatis, although he did not decline the marriage with his two daughters.—(See Hyde, p. 421.)—A. T.