When the immortal spirits have acquired knowledge in this place of education, their father, “Universal Intelligence,” brings them near himself, and advances them to the rank of holding intercourse with the Lord of Eternity: but the souls which do not acquire knowledge in this school are not allowed access to the world of uncompounded beings, the abode of the Universal Intelligence, and remain banished from the presence of the Creator of the world; so that they make no advance from the material bodies of this abode of the elements, which hold the rank of Rayas, but are excluded from all share in the inheritance of the primary intelligence or the acquisition of knowledge.
Zardusht has also said: “In the upper regions there exists a mighty ocean, from the vapors of which a great mirage appears in this lower world: so that nothing save that illusion subsists here; exactly as nothing besides that ocean exists in the world on high.”
The revered ruler of Húryár, having asked the author the meaning of this parable, received this answer: “‘The mighty ocean’ means the absolute essence and pure existence of God; ‘the mirage’ implies contingent existences, which in truth exist not, but appear to do so, through the inherent property of God’s absolute existence; according to this view, he has said: ‘From the vapors of that ocean has arisen the mirage.’”
It is recorded in the books composed by Zardusht’s followers, and also in the ancient histories of Iran, that at the period of Arjásp’s second invasion of Balkh, king Gushtasp was partaking of the hospitality of Zál, in Sistan, and Isfendiar was a prisoner in Dazh Gambadán; and that Lohorásp, notwithstanding the religious austerities he performed through divine favor, laid aside the robes of mortality in battle, after which the Turks took the city. A Turk named Turbaratur, or Turbaraturhash, having entered Zardusht’s oratory, the prophet received martyrdom by his sword. Zardusht, however, having thrown at him the rosary (Shumar Afin, or Yád Afráz) which he held in his hand, there proceeded from it such effulgent splendor, that its fire fell on Turburatur and consumed him.[523]
[382] If the claims to originality and antiquity of the language in which the Desátir is written were admitted, we should have (pp. 146, 147, Engl. transl.) Hertushád or Hertúrásh, as the first and true name of the Persian prophet who followed immediately Kái Khusro. In Zand, upon which language we are now better informed, the true name of this legislator of the Persians is Zerethoshtró, or Zarathustra, which signifies “star of gold;” of this was formed in the Pehlevi language the name of Zaratesht or Zaratosht, and in Farsi that of Zardúsht or Zaradusht. The Greeks have changed the original Zand name, either by removing the “th” in the middle of it, and thus making it Zereoshtró, Zoroastrés; or by omitting the final syllable “tro,” whence it became Zaratos, Zabratos, Zaradas, Zarasdés, Zathraustés; we find, moreover, Zoromasdrès, Azonaces, and Nazaratús. The most ancient mention of the name of Zoroastrès, in Greek books, is to be found in the works of Plato, and dates therefore from the fourth century before our era. The original word has been translated by ἀστροδύτης, “he who sacrifices to the stars;” by ἀστροδέατης “he who contemplates the stars;” and by “living star.” These interpretations relate to the character of a priest and of an astronomer, generally attributed to Zoroaster, who is also believed to have been the inventor of magic; this word was originally taken in a sense very different from that which has been given to it in later times, and can be referred to the name of Magi, or Mobeds (see [note], p. 17), well known to Herodotus in the fifth century B. C. These Magi are represented as the teachers and priests of a most pure philosophy and religion, the origin of which is placed by the Desátir and the Dabistán in the most remote and ante-historical times of the Máhábádiáns. It may therefore appear less surprising to find in Pliny’s Natural History (I. xxx. c. 1. 2.) Zoroaster placed, pursuant to the authority of Aristotle and Eudoxus, 6000 years before the death of Plato, and, conformably to Hermippus, 5000 years before the Trojan war. The last date is repeated by Plutarch (lib. de Is. et Osir.). Diogenes Laertius says: “Hermodoros, a Platonic philosopher, counts 5000 years from the establishment of the Magi to the destruction of Troy.” According to Suidas, a Zoroaster lived 500 years before the Trojan war; if the number 500 had been erroneously substituted for 5000, which is admissible (see M. de Fortia d’Urban, Mathématiciens illustres, p. 354), we should have the agreement of all these creditable authors just mentioned, from the fourth century before, to the twelfth century after, our era, in fixing the age of Zoroaster and the establishment of the Magi, 6352 or 6194 years B. C.
The epocha of the Magi (putting aside that of the Máhábádiáns) has also been taken for that of Tahmuras and Jemshid, that is, 3460 or 3429 years B. C. According to other accounts (collected in the Hist. Diction. of Moreri, Bayle, etc., etc.), a Zoroaster ruled the Bactrian empire in the times of Ninus, the Assyrian king, 2200 years B. C.; vanquished by the latter, he desired to be consumed by the fire of heaven, and exhorted the Assyrians to preserve his ashes as a palladium of their empire; after he had been killed by lightning, his last will was executed. Some historians (see Herbelot sub voce) admit a Zerdúsht in the age of Feridún, 1729 years B. C. Several other learned men concur in placing him much later, few below the sixth century before our era.
In the utter impossibility to decide upon so many conflicting statements, there is perhaps no better means of reconciling them all, than concluding that Zoroaster having, in the course of ages, become a generic or appellative name for sages, prophets, and kings professing and promoting a certain religion or philosophy, this name could be applied to several individuals who appeared at different times, and in different countries of Asia. Hence we explain in the various accounts a plurality of Zoroasters, and an identity of several personages with one Zoroaster; he has indeed been supposed to be the same with Japhet, Ham (Heemo), Zohak, Nimrod, Buddha, Abraham, Moses, Ezekiel, Balâam, etc., etc. Whatever it be, the Dabistán treats in this chapter of the Zardúsht, who appeared under the reign of Gushtasp, king of Persia, upon whose epocha too our chronologers are not unanimous.
Independently of the Dasátir, written originally in a particular language, the Persians have Zand books which they attribute to the last Zoroaster himself. Except these works, the age of which is a subject of dispute, they have no written records of their great legislator prior to the ninth or tenth century of our era, and these are the poems of Dakiki and Ferdusi. The latter narrates, in his Shah-nameh, the history of Zerdúsht under the reign of Gushtasp. We have besides a Shah nameh naser, or a Shah-nameh in prose, composed by some one of the Magi (Hyde, p. 324). The Zardusht-nameh, and the Changragatcha-nameh are Persian poems, the epocha of which, according to Anquetil du Perron (Zend-Avesta, t. I. pp. 6, can scarcely be fixed farther back than the fifteenth century.—A. T.
[383] This is also related in Mirkhond’s Runzat-us-Safa (Shea’s transl., p. 286).—A. T.
[384] Zaratúsht-Bahram is the author of the Zaratúsht-namah before-mentioned (see Hyde, p. 332). The epoch of this work is uncertain, according to the opinion of the dostúrs of India; yet the author of it informs us, in the 2nd chapter, that he has translated it into Persian from the Pehlvi under the dictation of a Mobed skilled in this language; and in the last chapter in which he names himself he says that he composed the Zaratusht-namah in the year 647 of Yezdegerd, which answers to 1276 of our era (see Zend-Avesta, t. I. 2. P. p. 6).—A. T.