آئین زروانی
نویسه گردانی:
ʼAʼYN ZRWʼNY
آئین زروانی مشتق از زروان است که به نظر زروانیان وجود غایی است. به عقیدهٔ آنان زروان منشا منشأ غایی هم خیر و هم شر و پدر دو برادر یعنی اورمزد و اهریمن است. به اعتقاد زروانیان وجود مطلق زروان دو قطب متضاد خیر و شر را در خود دارد.[۱] زَروان همچنین یکی از ایزدان آئین مزدیسناست. این نام در اوستا به صورت زَروان یا زُروان آمده‌است. در برخی از نوشته‌های زبان پهلوی از زروان به صورت موجودی برتر از اورمزد سخن رفته‌است. پیدایش این عقیده به دوره‌های بسیار دور، و پیش از ظهور زرتشت انگاشته شده‌است. در گات‌ها زوران اهمیتی ندارد. برخی از دانشمندان جنبشی را که موجب پدید آمدن آئین زروانی شده‌است مربوط به دوران اشکانی و ساسانی می‌دانند[۲] و برخی دیگر آئین زروانی را دین مغان مادی پیش از فرارسیدن دین زرتشت پنداشته‌اند.[۳] مانی با اقتباس از افکار زرتشتی زمان خود نام زروان را به خدای بزرگ که به تصور او خود صاحب دو فرزند بود اطلاق کرده‌است و در واقع در وجود زروان دوگانگی مزدایی به وحدت تبدیل می‌شود. از این رو بعضی از محققان آیین زروانی را گونه‌ای یکتاپرستی دانسته‌اند.[۴]
محتویات [نمایش]
زروان [ویرایش]
زروان یا زمان در آیین ایرانی تاریخی مبهم و طولانی دارد. در لوحه‌های بابلی مربوط به قرن پانزدهم پیش از میلاد از ایزدی به نام زروان سخن رفته‌است. در اوستا نیز به اختصار از این ایزد یاد شده و در متون پهلوی هم دربارهٔ آن سخن رفتا است. زروان اصلاً فرشتهٔ زمان است و با صفت اکرانه (بیکرانه) از او یاد شده. از صفات زروان چنین پیداست که برای زمان آغاز و انجامی تصور نشده و آن را همیشه پایدار و قدیم و جاودانی دانسته‌اند. از این زمان بیکرانه است که زمان کرانمند آفریده شد و ادامهٔ خلقت از طریق توالد و تناسل میسر گردید. در آئین مهرپرستی نیز زمان بیکرانه در رأس قرار دارد و زروان معمولاً به صورت موجودی با سر شیر و جسمی که ماری دور آن پیچیده، تجسم یافته‌است.[۴]
تاریخچه [ویرایش]
برای مدتی دراز آیین زروانی به عنوان یکی از کیش‌های بدعتی تلقی می شد که عاری از اهمیت تاریخی بوده و در زمان ساسانیان در باختر ایران نشأت یافته‌بود ولیکن در سال‌های اخیر و بویژه در اثر کشف متن‌های مانوی از آسیای میانه آیین زروانی اهمیتی کسب کرده و مورد توجه خاص واقع شده‌است. اینک می‌دانیم که به پیروی مستقیم از آیین زروانی است که در دین مانی زروان را آفریدگار و سرور گیهان و پدر اهرمزد انگاشته‌اند.[۵]
یونانیان از دیر باز آیین زمان اکران را به زرتشت و مغان نسبت می‌دادند و آنان آنچنان به این پندار خو گرفته‌بودند که عقاید خودشان دربارهٔ اعصار ازلی تحت تأثیر باورهای زروانی قرار گرفته‌بود و این امر خود قدمت و اهمیت کیش زروانی را آشکار می‌کند. این حقیقت که در سرودهای گاهانی در عین رد و انکار اصول ثنوی محض از دو مینوی همزاد سخن‌رفته، خود دلیل آنست که باوری مشابه پیش از زرتشت وجود داشته‌است.[۶] گمان می‌رود که پیش از زرتشت همین نقشی که زروان در غرب داشته است در شرق اهورامزدا عهده‌دار بوده‌است. باور به همزادها جزء اصلی یک یزدانشناسی سنتی را می‌سازد که پیش از زرتشت در انجمن گاهانی وجود داشت.[۷]
آئین زروانی [ویرایش]
نام خدای زمان در زبان‌های ایرانی میانه زروان یا زوروان است. معنای اصلی این واژه زمان است. آئین زروانی صورتی از دین مزدائی است ولی مسلماً زرتشتی نیست.[۳] اسناد مستقیم دربارهٔ آئین زروانی تقریباً بدون استثنا مربوط به زمان ساسانیان هستند ولی یکی دو تا از افسانه‌های دینی زروان که به دست ما رسیده‌است، به اندازه‌ای ابتدائی هستند که باید به عنوان بازمانده‌ای از دیرینگی بسیار نگریست و احتمالاً نخستین گونهٔ باورهای زروانی را بازگو می‌کنند. ازنیک پدر کلیسای ارمنی پیرامون میانهٔ سدهٔ پنجم میلادی چنین گزارش می‌دهد:
مغان می‌گویند پیش از اینکه چیزی موجود بود، نه آسمان نه چیزهای آفریدهٔ دیگر که در آسمان و زمین هستند یک زروان ویژه‌ای وجود داشت که به معنای سرنوشت (بخت) یا درخشش نیرو (فر یا فرنه) است. هزار سال او قربانی کرد دارای پسری شود که او را می‌خواست اورمی‌زد (اهورامزدا) بنامد که می‌بایست آسمان و زمین و هر چیزی را که در آنها است می‌آفرید. پس از اینکه وی هزار سال قربانی کرد، نشست تا بیندیشد او گفت «قربانی که من پیشکش می‌کنم مگر به چه کار باید بیاید؟ براستی من فرزندی بنام اورمی‌زد دارا خواهم شد یا آنکه تلاش‌های من بیهوده خواهد بود؟» وی در اندیشه فرو رفته بود که اورمی‌زد و اهریمن در زهدان بوجود آمدند. اورمی‌زد در پی قربانی‌هایی که زروان پیشکش کرده‌بود و اهریمن در پی تردیدش. زروان چون از این آگاهی یافت گفت «دو پسر بدنیا خواهند آمد، نخستین را که به پیش من در آید، پادشاه خواهم کرد.»همینکه اورمزد از این اندیشهٔ پدر آگاهی یافت، نزد اهریمن آن را آشکار کرد. اهریمن همینکه این سخن را شنید زهدان را شکافت و رفت تا به پیش پدر در آید. پدر پرسید «تو کیستی؟» اهریمن گفت «من فرزند تو هستم.» زروان پاسخ داد «فرزند من دارای بوی خوش است و روشن تو تاریک و بد بوئی.» هنگامیکه این دو با هم سخن می‌گفتند اورمزد به هنگام درست زائیده شد، روشن و خوشبو و رفت پیش پدر خود درآید. پس زروان دانست که این فرزندش اورمی‌زد است که برایش قربانی کرده‌بود و شاخه‌های قربانی (برسم) را که در دست داشت و با آن قربانی می‌کرد، گرفت و با این سخنان به اورمی‌زد داد. «تاکنون من برای تو قربانی می‌کردم از این پس تو باید برای من قربانی کنی.» در حالیکه شاخه‌ها را به اورمی‌زد می‌داد زروان او را آفرین کرد. در این هنگام اهریمن به پیش زروان در آمد و گفت «آیا تو اینرا پیمان نکرده بودی هر یک از فرزندان من که نخست پیش من آید او را پادشاه خواهم کرد؟» زروان برای آنکه پیمان خود را نشکند گفت «تو ای هستی پلید به تو شهریاری نه هزار ساله داده خواهدشد و ارومی‌زد باید سرور تو باشد. پس از نه هزار سال باید که اورمزد شهریاری کند و هر چه که او می‌خواهد باید که روی دهد.» پس اورمی‌زد و اهریمن در کار پدید آوردن هستی‌های آفریده شدند و هر چه که اورمی‌زد می‌کرد همه خوب بود و راست و هر چه اهریمن می‌کرد پلید و وارونه.[۸]
یک لحن بدبینانه‌ای از افسانه‌های زروان بگوش می‌خورد لحنی است که با دین‌های ایرانی باستان اختلاف دارد. در قطعات زروانی در ادبیات پهلوی اشاره‌هایی بر اینکه اورمی‌زد یک خدای دردکش است، کم نیست. در این افسانه‌ها اهریمن یک خدای بسیار توانا است و تئوپمپوس صریحاً گواهی می‌دهد که مغان برای او قربانی‌هایی پیشکش می‌کردند. برای اهریمن قربانی کردن به هر بهانه‌ای که باشد نزدیک زرتشتی راستین سنت گرا کاری سخت نکوهیده و گناهی نابخشودنی است. اینکه این آئین از آنِ دین کهن مغان بوده‌است، قطعی است. بنونیست به درستی و به حق این آئین را یک آئین زروانی می‌داند.[۳]
ازنیک افسانهٔ دیگری نیز گفته‌است
اهریمن ارمیزد را به خوراکی خواند. ولی چون ارمیزد آمد نمی‌خواست تا هنگامیکه پسرانشان با یکدیگر نجنگیده‌اند، دست به خوراکی زند. همینکه پسر اهریمن پسر ارمیزد را زد، در جستجوی یک داور برآمدند ولی کسی را نیافتند پس (هر دو) آنها خورشید را ساختند تا او داور آنها باشد.
در این گونه افسانه‌ها چهار وجود اصلی فرض شده‌است. نخست خدای نخستین زروان یا زمان یا تاق آسمان و اکنون یک خدای بی اثر از زمانیکه او به دو همزادش فرمانروائی را واگذار کرده‌است . دوم، اهورامزدا آسمان روز، آفریننده و خدای نیکی، بالاترین سرور کیهانی. سوم، اهریمن آسمان شب خدا و آفرینندهٔ زشتی، همچنین خدای جهان مرگ تاریک، فرمانروای زمان حاضر، هر چند که از نظر ترتیب پائین‌تر از برادر همزادش اهورامزدا قرار گرفته‌است. چهارم، میترا مرد میانجیگر، خورشید که در وضع میانین در میان روز و شب، آسمان و جهان مرگ قرار گرفته‌است که هر دو را باید پس از پایان یافتن روز و شب بپیماید، گذشته از این هم میانجی است و هم خدای پیمان. ما در اینجا شکل‌گیری افسانهٔ ابتدائی وجود خدای چهار پیکره را می‌یابیم. ادبیات پهلوی بسیاری از این چهارگانگی‌های زروانی نگاهداشته‌است. این آثار بر روی هم صفات زوروان را به عنوان خدای آسمان و خدای سرنوشت بازگو می‌کنند.[۹]
فقدان زروان در سرودهای زرتشت [ویرایش]
در کهن‌ترین سندهای زرتشتی هیچگونه اثری از زروان یافت نمی‌شود. نخستین بار این واژه در متن‌های مقدس زرتشتی غربی دیده می‌شود یعنی در یسنای نو و سرودها و نمازهای دین و در آنجا نیز جای کمی به آن داده شده‌است که به روشنی دیده می‌شود که مهمان ناخوانده است. در سرودهای گاهانی اهورامزدا بدون تردید بالاترین خداست و تصور و باورداشتی که به موجب آن اهورامزدا یک خدای فرعی و ضمنی باشد با همهٔ یزدانشناسی گاهانی ناسازگار است.[۷]
آئین زروانی و آئین مزدیسنا [ویرایش]
اوستای نو انباشته از عقاید زروانی است. موبدان مزدیسنا حتی پیش از دورهٔ ساسانی نیز از خطر رقابت شدید آیین زروانی با مزداپرستی آگاه شده و بیش از بیش به مبارزهٔ خود بر ضد آن افزودند، در حکمت الهی و یزدان شناسی مزدیسنا با دقت و صراحتی هر چه بیشتر دو گرایش کفر آمیز و بدعتی تقبیح و انکار شده‌است، این دو بدعت و بدکیشی عبارتند از نخست اعتقاد به همسانی و برابری دو بن نیک و بد و دیگری باوری به جبر که هر دو از آیین زروانی سرچشمه می‌گرفت.[۶]
آئین زروانی در ماد [ویرایش]
خدایان زمان در صورت ابتدائی خود در همه جا در دین‌های ابتدائی دیده می‌شوند و غالباً جای ویژه‌ای در میان خدایان ندارند اینها خدایان سرنوشت و خدایان ابتدائی مرگ هستند ولی خدای زمانی که در ماد پرستش می‌شد، بالاترین خداست.[۳]
تأثیر آئین زروانی بر آئین مانی [ویرایش]
در دورهٔ ساسانی اندیشهٔ زروان بر آئین مانی اثر فراوان گذاشت. در افسانهٔ آفرینش این آئین آمده
در آغاز جهان ما نبود، تنها دو گوهر بود، گوهر روشنائی و گوهر تاریکی. گوهر روشنائی زیبا و نیکو بود و گوهر تاریک زشت و بد، قلمرو روشنائی در شمال و بی پایان بود و قلمرو تاریکی در جنوب و به قلمرو روشنائی می‌پیوست. شهریار جهانِ روشنائی زروان بود و بر جهانی از صفا و آرامش حکم می‌راند. در این جهان مرگ و بیماری و تیرگی نبود. در جهان تاریکی دیو آز فرمانروائی داشت. این دو عنصر جدا می‌زیستند. تا آنکه روزی آز به جهان روشنائی برخورد کرد، جهانی آراسته و روشن دید خیره شد و درصدد برآمد آنرا تسخیر کند، پس با گروهی از دیوان به جهان روشنائی حمله برد. زروان شهریار جهان روشنائی آمادهٔ جدال نبود برای نبرد با دیوان دو خدای دیگر از خود پدید آورد و از آن دو هرمزد را که خدای جنگ بود برای نبرد با دیوان فرستاد. اما هرمزد در نبرد شکست خورد و به قعر جهان تاریکی بیهوش افتاد و پس از مدتی به خود آمد و از قعر تاریکی خروش برآورد و از زروان یاری خواست. زروان برای رهائی هرمزد خدایان دیگر پدید آورده مهرایزد نیرومندترین آنها بود او با دیوان نبرد کرد و آنها را شکست داد و بسیاری از آنان را به زنجیر کشید. در نبرد هرمزد با دیوان قسمتی از نور، در دل دیوان بجا ماند. برای رهائی آن مهرایزد و هرمزد به پیش زروان رفته و از او یاری خواستند. زروان برای سومین بار خدایان دیگر از خود پدید آورد و روشنشهرایزد را به ادارهٔ جهان گماشت تا همانطور که زروان شهریار عالم بالاست، روشنشهرایزد شهریار زمین باشد.
[۱۰]
پانویس [ویرایش]
↑ شناخت اساطیر ایران، جان هینلز، ص ۱۱۲
↑ اساطیر و فرهنگ ایران در نوشته‌های پهلوی، رحیم عفیفی، ص ۵۳۹
↑ ۳٫۰ ۳٫۱ ۳٫۲ ۳٫۳ دین‌های ایران باستان، هنریک ساموئل نیبرگ، ص ۳۸۸
↑ ۴٫۰ ۴٫۱ فرهنگ اساطیر، محمد جعفر یاحقی، ص ۲۲۵
↑ دین ایرانی، بنونیست، ص ۷۰
↑ ۶٫۰ ۶٫۱ دین ایرانی، بنونیست، ص ۱۰۸
↑ ۷٫۰ ۷٫۱ دین‌های ایران باستان، هنریک ساموئل نیبرگ، ص ۱۰۴
↑ دین‌های ایران باستان، هنریک ساموئل نیبرگ، ص ۳۷۴
↑ دین‌های ایران باستان، هنریک ساموئل نیبرگ، ص ۳۸۶
↑ اساطیر و فرهنگ ایران در نوشته‌های پهلوی، رحیم عفیفی، ص ۵۴۱
[نهفتن]
ن • ب • و
دین‌های رایج در ایران باستان
آئین عیلامیان · آئین کهن ایرانی · مهرپرستی · دین زرتشتی · زروانی · کیومرثی · بودایی · مانوی · کیش مزدکی · یهودی · مندایی · نسطوری
منابع [ویرایش]
بنونیست، امیل. دین ایرانی بر پایهٔ متن‌های مهم یونانی. ترجمهٔ سرکاراتی، بهمن. چاپ دوم. تهران: انتشارات بنیاد فرهنگ ایران، ۱۳۵۴.
هینلز، جان. شناخت اساطیر ایران. ترجمهٔ ژالهٔ آموزگار و احمد تفضلی. چاپ سوم. تهران: نشر چشمه، ۱۳۷۵. ISBN 964-6194-06-0.
نیبرگ، هنریک ساموئل. دین‌های ایران باستان. ترجمهٔ نجم آبادی، سیف الدین. چاپ سوم. تهران: مرکز ایرانی مطالعهٔ فرهنگ‌ها، ۱۳۵۹.
عفیفی، رحیم. اساطیر و فرهنگ ایران در نوشته‌های پهلوی. تهران: انتشارات توس، ۱۳۷۴. ISBN 964-315-737-8.
یاحقی، محمد جعفر. فرهنگ اساطیر و اشارات داستانی در ادبیات فارسی. تهران: مؤسسهٔ مطالعات و تحقیقات فرهنگی وابسته به وزارت فرهنگ و آموزش عالی و سروش، ۱۳۶۹.
رده‌های صفحه: ادیان ادیان توحیدی دین در ایران باستان دین زرتشت فرهنگ در ایران
قس ترکی استانبولی
Zurvanism is a now-extinct branch of Zoroastrianism that had the divinity Zurvan as its First Principle (primordial creator deity). Zurvanism is also known as Zurvanite Zoroastrianism.
In Zurvanism, Zurvan is the god of infinite time (and space) and is aka (“one", "alone”) deity of matter. Zurvan is the parent of the two opposites representing the good god Ahura Mazda and the evil Angra Mainyu. Zurvan is regarded as a neutral god; being without gender (neuter), passion, one whom there is no distinction between good or evil. Zurvan is also the god of destiny, light and darkness. Zurvan is a normalized rendition of the word, which in Middle Persian appears as either Zurvān, Zruvān or Zarvān. The Middle Persian name derives from Avestan zruvan-, "time" or "old age".
Zurvanites considered Ahura Mazda and Spenta Mainyu one of two equal-but-separate divinities under the primacy of Zurvan. The central Zurvanite belief made Ahura Mazda the middle god and Angra Mainyu the fallen twin brother. Mazdeans consider the divinity of Ahura Mazda the transcendental creator.
Contents [show]
[edit]Origins and background
Although the details of the origin and development of Zurvanism remain murky (for a summary of the three opposing opinions, see Ascent and acceptance below), it is generally accepted that Zurvanism was a branch of greater Zoroastrianism (Boyce 1957:157-304); that the doctrine of Zurvan was a sacerdotal response to resolve a perceived inconsistency in the sacred texts (Zaehner, 1955, intro; See development of the "twin brother" doctrine below); and that this doctrine was probably introduced during the second half of the Achaemenid era (Henning, 1951; loc. Cit. Boyce 1957:157-304).
Zurvanism enjoyed royal sanction during the Sassanid era (226-651 CE) but no traces of it remain beyond the 10th century. Although Sassanid era Zurvanism was certainly influenced by Hellenic philosophy, whether Zoroastrian Zurvan was an adaptation of an antecedent or alien divinity of Time (Greek Chronos) has not been conclusively established.
Non-Zoroastrian accounts of typically Zurvanite beliefs were the first traces of Zoroastrianism to reach the west, leading European scholars to conclude that Zoroastrianism was a monist religion, an issue of much controversy among both scholars and contemporary practitioners of the faith.
Iranian Zurvan is related to the Sanskrit word Sarva and carries a similar semantic field in describing monistic deity.
[edit]Evidence of the cult
The earliest evidence of the cult of Zurvan is found in the History of Theology, attributed to Eudemus of Rhodes (c. 370-300 BCE). As cited in Damascius's Difficulties and Solutions of First Principles (6th c. CE), Eudemus describes a sect of the Persians that considered Space/Time to be the primordial "father" of the rivals Oromasdes of Light and Arimanius of Darkness (Dhalla, 1932:331-332).
Most of what is known of Zurvanism during the Sassanid period is from contemporaneous Christian Armenian and Syriac sources. The Kartir inscription at Ka'ba-i Zartosht and the edict of Mihr-Narse are the only contemporaneous native sources that reveal anything about Zurvanism, the latter being the only native evidence from that period that is frankly Zurvanite. The few other Persian language commentaries on the religion of the Sassanid period were all composed after the fall of the empire.
While the Armenian and Syriac sources depict the religion of the Sassanids as having been distinctly Zurvanite, the later native commentaries are primarily Mazdean and with only one exception (10th c. Denkard 9.30) do not mention Zurvan at all. Of the remaining so-called Pahlavi texts only two, the Mēnōg-i Khrad and the "Selections of Zatspram" (both 9th c.) reveal a Zurvanite tendency. The latter is considered to be the latest Zoroastrian text that provides any evidence of the cult of Zurvan. The foreign accounts of the Zurvanite father-of-twins doctrine is substantiated by only a single Persian language source, the Ulema-i Islam ("Doctors of Islam", 13th c.), that, notwithstanding the title, is evidently by a Zoroastrian.
There is no hint of any worship of Zurvan in any of the texts of the Avesta, even though the texts (as they exist today) are the result of a Sassanid era redaction. Zaehner proposes that this is because the individual Sassanid monarchs were not always Zurvanite and that Mazdean Zoroastrianism just happened to have the upper hand during the crucial period that the canon was finally written down (Zaehner, 1955:48; Duchesne-Guillemin, 1956:108). In the texts composed prior to the Sassanid period, Zurvan appears twice, as both an abstract concept and as a minor divinity, but there is no evidence of a cult. In Yasna 72.10 Zurvan is invoked in the company of Space and Air (Vata-Vayu) and in Yasht 13.56, the plants grow in the manner Time has ordained according to the will of Ahura Mazda and the Amesha Spentas. Two other references to Zurvan are also present in the Vendidad, but although these are late additions to the canon, they again do not establish any evidence of a cult. Zurvan does not appear in any listing of the Yazatas (Dhalla, 1932).
[edit]History and development
[edit]Ascent and acceptance
The origins of the cult of Zurvan remain debated. One view (Zaehner, 1939; Duchesne-Guillemin, 1956; Zaehner 1955, intro) considers Zurvanism to have developed out of Zoroastrianism as a reaction to the liberalization of the late Achaemenid era form of the faith. Another opinion (Nyberg, 1931; Zaehner 1955, conclusion) proposes that Zurvan existed as a pre-Zoroastrian divinity that was incorporated into Zoroastrianism. The third view (Cumont and Schaeder; reiterated by Henning, 1951; Boyce 1957) is that Zurvanism is the product of the contact between Zoroastrianism and Babylonian/Byzantine religions (for a summary of opposing views see Boyce, 1957:304).
Certain however is that by the Sassanid era (226–651 CE), the divinity "Infinite Time" was well established and enjoyed royal patronage. It was during the reign of Sassanid Emperor Shapur I (241-272) that Zurvanism appears to have developed as a cult and it was presumably in this period that Greek and Indic concepts were introduced to Zurvanite Zoroastrianism.
It is however not known whether Sassanid era Zurvanism and Mazdaism were separate sects, each with their own organization and priesthood, or simply two tendencies within the same body. That Mazdaism and Zurvanism competed for attention can been inferred from the works of Christian and Manichean polemicists, but the doctrinal incompatibilities were not so extreme "that they could not be reconciled under the broad aegis of an imperial church" (Boyce, 1957:308).
[edit]Decline and disappearance
The Sassanid Empire at its greatest extent. (ca. 610 CE)
Following the fall of the Sassanid Empire in the 7th century, Zoroastrianism was gradually[citation needed] supplanted by Islam. The former continued to exist but in an increasingly decimated state and the remaining Zoroastrians appear to have gradually returned to the Mazdean doctrine prescribed by Zoroaster in the Gathas (see also legacy, below). By the 10th century, Zurvanism had ceased to exist, leaving Mazdaism the sole remaining form of Zoroastrianism.
Why the cult of Zurvan vanished (while Mazdaism did not) remains again an issue of scholarly debate. Arthur Christensen, one of the first proponents of the theory that Zurvanism was the state religion of the Sassanids, suggested that the rejection of Zurvanism in the post-conquest epoch was a response and reaction to the new authority of Islamic monotheism that brought about a deliberate reform of Zoroastrianism that aimed to establish a stronger orthodoxy (Boyce, 1957:305). Zaehner is of the opinion that the Zurvanite priesthood had a "strict orthodoxy which few could tolerate. Moreover, they interpreted the Prophet's message so dualistically that their God was made to appear very much less than all-powerful and all-wise. Reasonable as so absolute a dualism might appear from a purely intellectual point of view, it had neither the appeal of a real monotheism nor had it any mystical element with which to nourish its inner life." (Zaehner, 1961)
Another possible explanation postulated by Boyce (1957:308-309) is that Mazdaism and Zurvanism were divided regionally, that is, with Mazdaism being the predominant tendency in the regions to the north and east (Bactria, Margiana, and other satrapies closest to Zoroaster's homeland), while Zurvanism was prominent in regions to the south and west (closer to Babylonian and Greek influence). This is supported by Manichean evidence that indicates that 3rd century Mazdean Zoroastrianism had its stronghold in Parthia, to the northeast. Following the fall of the Persian Empire, the south and west were relatively quickly assimilated under the banner of Islam, while the north and east remained independent for some time before these regions too were absorbed. (Boyce, 1957:308-309). This could also explain why Armenian/Syriac observations reveal a distinctly Zurvanite Zoroastrianism, and inversely, could explain the strong Greek and Babylonian influence on Zurvanism (see types of Zurvanism, below).
[edit]The "twin brother" doctrine
"Classical Zurvanism" is the term coined by Zaehner (1955, intro) to denote the movement to explain the inconsistency of Zoroaster's description of the 'twin spirits' as they appear in Yasna 30.3-5 of the Avesta. According to Zaehner, this "Zurvanism proper" was "genuinely Iranian and Zoroastrian in that it sought to clarify the enigma of the twin spirits that Zoroaster left unsolved." (Zaehner, 1961)
As the priesthood sought to explain it, if the Malevolent Spirit (lit: Angra Mainyu) and the Benevolent Spirit (Spenta Mainyu, identified with Ahura Mazda) were twins, then they must have had a "father", who must have existed before them. The priesthood settled on Zurvan - the hypostasis of (Infinite) Time - as being "the only possible 'Absolute' from whom the twins could proceed" and which was the source of good in the one and the source of evil in the other (Zaehner, 1961).
The Zurvanite "twin brother" doctrine is also evident in Zurvanism's cosmogonical creation myth, that in its "classic" form, does not contradict the Mazdean model of the origin and evolution of the universe, which begins where the Zurvanite model ends. It may well be (as proposed by Cumont and Schaeder) that the Zurvanite cosmogony was an adaptation of an antecedent Hellenic Chronos cosmogony that portrayed Infinite Time as the "Father of Time" (not to be confused with Cronus, a Titan and father of Zeus) whom the Greeks equated with Oromasdes, i.e. Ohrmuzd/Ahura Mazda.
The "classic" Zurvanite model of creation, preserved only by non-Zoroastrian sources, proceeds as follows: In the beginning, the great God Zurvan existed alone. Desiring offspring that would create 'heaven and hell and everything in between,' Zurvan sacrificed for a thousand years. Towards the end of this period, androgyne Zurvan began to doubt the efficacy of sacrifice and in the moment of this doubt Ohrmuzd and Ahriman were conceived: Ohrmuzd for the sacrifice and Ahriman for the doubt. Upon realizing that twins were to be born, Zurvan resolved to grant the first-born sovereignty over creation. Ohrmuzd perceived Zurvan's decision, which He then communicated to His brother. Ahriman then preempted Ohrmuzd by ripping open the womb to emerge first. Reminded of the resolution to grant Ahriman sovereignty, Zurvan conceded, but limited kingship to a period of 9000 years, after which Ohrmuzd would rule for all eternity (Zaehner, 1955:419-428).
Christian and Manichean missionaries considered this doctrine to be exemplary of the Zoroastrian faith and it was these and similar texts that first reached the west. Corroborated by Anquetil-Duperron's "erroneous rendering" of Vendidad 19.9, these led to the late 18th century conclusion that Infinite Time was the first Principle of Zoroastrianism and Ohrmuzd was therefore only "the derivative and secondary character." Ironically, the fact that no Zoroastrian texts contained any hint of the born-of-Zurvan doctrine was considered to be evidence of a latter-day corruption of the original principles. The opinion that Zoroastrianism was so severely dualistic that it was, in fact, ditheistic or even tritheistic would be widely held until the late 19th century (Dhalla, 1932:490-492; cf. Boyce, 2002:687).
[edit]Types of Zurvanism
According to Zaehner, the doctrine of the cult of Zurvan appears to have three schools of thought, each to a different degree influenced by alien philosophies: "materialist" Zurvanism, "aesthetic" Zurvanism and "fatalistic" Zurvanism. All three have "classical" Zurvanism as their foundation.
[edit]Aesthetic Zurvanism
Aesthetic Zurvanism, which was apparently not as popular as the materialistic kind, viewed Zurvan as undifferentiated Time, which, under the influence of desire, divided into reason (a male principle) and concupiscence (a female principle).
According to Duchesne-Guillemin, this division is "redolent of Gnosticism or – still better – of Indian cosmology." The parallels between Zurvan and Prajapati of Rig Veda 10.129 had been taken by Widengren to be evidence of a proto-Indo-Iranian Zurvan, but these arguments have since been dismissed (Duchesne-Guillemin, 1956). Nonetheless, there is a semblance of Zurvanite elements in Vedic texts, and as Zaehner puts it "Time, for the Indians, is the raw material, the material prima of all contingent being."
[edit]Materialist Zurvanism
Materialist Zurvanism was influenced by the Aristotelian and Empedoclean view of "matter", and took "some very queer forms" (Zaehner, 1961).
While Zoroaster's Ormuzd created the universe with his thought, materialist Zurvanism challenged the concept that anything could be made out of nothing. This was a patently alien idea, discarding core Zoroastrian tenets in favor of the position that the spiritual world (including heaven and hell, reward and punishment) did not exist.
While the fundamental division of the material and spiritual was not altogether foreign to the Avesta (Geti and Mainyu, middle Persian: menog, are terms in Mazdaist tradition, where Ahura Mazda is said to have created all first in its spiritual, then later in its material form), the material Zurvanites redefined menog to suit Aristotelian principles to mean that which did not (yet) have matter, or alternatively, that which was still the unformed primal matter. Even this is not necessarily a violation of orthodox Zoroastrian tradition since the divinity Vayu is present in the middle space between Ormuzd and Ahriman, the void separating the kingdoms of light and darkness.
[edit]Fatalistic Zurvanism
The doctrine of limited time (as allotted to Ahriman by Zurvan) implied that nothing could change this preordained course of the material universe, and the path of the astral bodies of the 'heavenly sphere' was representative of this preordained course. It followed that human destiny must then be decided by the constellations, stars and planets, who were divided between the good (the signs of the Zodiac) and the evil (the planets). "Ohrmazd allotted happiness to man, but if man did not receive it, it was owing to the extortion of these planets" (Menog-i Khirad 38.4-5). Fatalistic Zurvanism was evidently influenced by Chaldean astrology and perhaps also by Aristotle's theory of chance and fortune. The fact that Armenian and Syriac commentators translated "Zurvan" as "Fate" is highly suggestive.
[edit]Mistaken Identity
In his first manuscript of his book 'Zurvan', R C Zaehner incorrectly identified the Mithraic lion-headed deity with the representation of Zurvan. He later admits at the proof stage that this was a "positive mistake"; the lion-headed deity being a representation of the evil being deus Ahreimanius or Ahriman (Zaehner, 1972). However, this has not stopped the fallacy, which Zaehner attributes to Franz Cumont, from proliferating on various websites.
[edit]The legacy of Zurvanism
No evidence of distinctly Zurvanite rituals or practices have been discovered, so followers of the cult are widely believed to have had the same rituals and practices as Mazdean Zoroastrians did. This is understandable, inasmuch as the Zurvanite doctrine of a monist over-Creator did not preclude the worship of Ohrmuzd as the Creator (of the good creation). Similarly, no explicitly Zurvanite elements appear to have survived in modern Zoroastrianism, though Western influences have encouraged monotheistic theologies among some modern Zoroastrian reformists that replace the omniscient (but not omnipotent) Mazda with a new doctrine of an omnipotent Mazda that is more like the omnipotent, more strictly monotheistic deities of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam:
[Maneckji] Dhalla explicitly accepted a modern Western version of the old Zurvanite heresy, according to which Ahura Mazda himself was the hypothetical 'father' of the twin Spirits of Y 30.3 ... Yet though Dhalla thus, under foreign influences, abandoned the fundamental doctrine of the absolute separation of good and evil, his book still breathes the sturdy, unflinching spirit of orthodox Zoroastrian dualism. [Boyce, Zoroastrians, Their Religious Beliefs and Practices, 1979, pg. 213]
The sacrilege of Zurvanism begins with a heterodox interpretation of Zarathushtra's Gathas:
Yes, there are two fundamental spirits, twins which are renowned to be in conflict. In thought and in word, in action they are two: the good and the bad. … Y 30.3 [trans. Insler]
Then shall I speak of the two primal Spirits of existence, of whom the Very Holy thus spoke to the Evil One: "Neither our thoughts nor teachings nor wills, neither or words nor choices nor acts, not our inner selves nor our souls agree." Y 45.2 [trans. Boyce, Textual Sources for the Study of Zoroastrianism.]
A literal, anthropomorphic "twin brother" interpretation of these passages gave rise to a need to postulate a father for the postulated literal "brothers". Hence Zurvanism postulated a preceding parent deity that existed above the good and evil of his sons. This was an obvious usurpation of Zoroastrian dualism, a sacrilege against the moral preeminence of Ahura Mazda.
The pessimism evident in Zurvanite fatalism existed in stark contradiction to the positive moral force of Mazdaism, and was a direct violation of one of Zoroaster's great contributions to religious philosophy: his uncompromising doctrine of free will. In Yasna 30.2 and 45.9, Ahura Mazda "has left to men's wills" to choose between doing good and doing evil. By leaving destiny in the hands of fate (an omnipotent deity), the cult of Zurvan distanced itself from the most sacred of Zoroastrian tenets: that of the efficacy of good thoughts, good words and good deeds.
That the Zurvanite view of creation was an apostasy even for medieval Zoroastrians is apparent from the 10th century Denkard, which in a commentary on Yasna 30.3-5 turns what the Zurvanites considered the words of the prophet into Zoroaster recalling "a proclamation of the Demon of Envy to mankind that Ohrmuzd and Ahriman were two in one womb." (Denkard 9.30.4).
The degree of sacrilege evident in this amoral doctrine struck at the heart of Zoroastrianism, so it was considered the great heresy of Zoroastrianism, in spite of the fact that polytheism ran rampant in classical Zoroastrianism. It thus appears that pre-Sassanid Zoroastrians were not generally as exclusivist and intolerant of other gods as monotheistic religions tend to be.
The fundamental goal of "classical Zurvanism" to bring the doctrine of the "twin spirits" in accord with what was otherwise understood of Zoroaster's teaching may have been excessive, but (according to Zaehner) it was not altogether misguided. In noting the emergence of an overtly dualistic doctrine during the Sassanid period, Zaehner (1961) asserted that
[there must] have been a party within the Zoroastrian community which regarded the strict dualism between Truth and the Lie, the Holy Spirit and the Destructive Spirit, as being the essence of the Prophet's message. Otherwise the re-emergence of this strictly dualist form of Zoroastrianism some six centuries after the collapse of the Achaemenian Empire could not be readily explained. There must have been a zealous minority that busied itself with defining what they considered the Prophet's true message to be; there must have been an 'orthodox' party within the 'Church'. This minority, concerned now with theology no less than with ritual, would be found among the Magi, and it is, in fact, to the Magi that Aristotle and other early Greek writers attribute the fully dualist doctrine of two independent principles - Oromasdes and Areimanios. Further, the founder of the Magian order was now said to be Zoroaster himself. The fall of the Achaemenian Empire, however, must have been disastrous for the Zoroastrian religion, and the fact that the Magi were able to retain as much as they did and restore it in a form that was not too strikingly different from the Prophet's original message after the lapse of some 600 years proves their devotion to his memory. It is, indeed, true to say that the Zoroastrian orthodoxy of the Sassanian period is nearer to the spirit of Zoroaster than is the thinly disguised polytheism of the Yashts.
Thus, - according to Zaehner - while the direction that the Sassanids took was not altogether at odds with the spirit of the Gathas, the extreme dualism that accompanied a divinity that was remote and inaccessible made the faith less than attractive. Zurvanism was then truly heretical only in the sense that it weakened the appeal of Zoroastrianism.
Nonetheless, that Zurvanism was the predominant brand of Zoroastrianism during the cataclysmic years just prior to the fall of the empire, is, according to Duchesne-Guillemin, evident in the degree of influence that Zurvanism (but not Mazdaism) would have on the Iranian brand of Shi'a Islam. Writing in the historical present, he notes that "under Chosrau II (r. 590-628) and his successors, all kinds of superstitions tend to overwhelm the Mazdean religion, which gradually disintegrates, thus preparing the triumph of Islam." Thus, "what will survive in popular conscience under the Muslim varnish is not Mazdeism: it is Zervanite fatalism, well attested in Persian literature" (Duchesne-Guillemin, 1956:109). This is also a thought expressed by Zaehner, who observes that Ferdowsi, in his Shahnameh, "expounds views which seem to be an epitome of popular Zervanite doctrine" (Zaehner, 1955:241). Thus, according to Zaehner and Duchesne-Guillemin, Zurvanism's pessimistic fatalism was a formative influence on the Iranian psyche, paving the way (as it were) for the rapid adoption of Shi'a philosophy during the Safavid era.
According to Zaehner and Shaki, in Middle Persian texts of the 9th century, Dahri (from Ar.-Persian dahr, time, eternity) is the appellative term for adherents of the Zurvanite doctrine that the universe derived from Infinite Time. The later Persian and Arabic literature, the term would come to be a derogatory term for 'atheist' or 'materialist'. The term also appears - in conjunction with other terms for skeptics – in Denkard 3.225 and in the Skand-gumanig wizar where "one who says god is not, who are called dahari, and consider themselves to be delivered from religious discipline and the toil of performing meritorious deeds" (Shaki, 2002:587-588).
[edit]Bibliography
Boyce, Mary (1957). "Some reflections on Zurvanism". Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies (London: SOAS) 19/2: 304–316.
Duchesne-Guillemin, Jacques (1956). "Notes on Zurvanism". Journal of Near Eastern Studies (Chicago: UCP) 15/2 (2): 108–112. DOI:10.1086/371319.
Frye, Richard (1959). "Zurvanism Again". The Harvard Theological Review (London: Cambridge) 52/2: 63–73.
Shaki, Mansour (2002). "Dahri". Encyclopaedia Iranica. New York: Mazda Pub. pp. 35–44.
Zaehner, Richard Charles (1940). "A Zervanite Apocalypse". Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies (London: SOAS) 10/2: 377–398.
Zaehner, Richard Charles (1955). Zurvan, a Zoroastrian dilemma. Oxford: Clarendon. ISBN 0-8196-0280-9 (1972 Biblo-Moser ed).
Zaehner, Richard Charles (1961). The Dawn and Twilight of Zoroastrianism. New York: Putnam. ISBN 1-84212-165-0 (2003 Phoenix ed). A section of the book is available online. Several other websites have duplicated this text, but include an "Introduction" that is very obviously not by Zaehner.
Zaehner, Richard Charles (1975). Teachings of the Magi: Compendium of Zoroastrian Beliefs. New York: Sheldon. ISBN 0-85969-041-5.
[edit]Further reading
Yasna 30 translated by Christian Bartholomae. In Taraporewala, Irach (ed.) (1977). The Divine Songs of Zarathushtra. New York: Ams. ISBN 0-404-12802-5.
The 'Ulema-i Islam. In Dhabhar, Bamanji Nasarvanji (trans.) (1932). The Persian rivayats of Hormazyar Framarz and others. Bombay: K. R. Cama Oriental Institute.
The Selections of 'Zadspram' as translated by Edward William West. In Müller, Friedrich Max (ed.) (1880). SBE, Vol. 5. Oxford: OUP.
Denkard 9.30 as translated by Edward William West. In Müller, Friedrich Max (ed.) (1892). SBE, Vol. 37. Oxford: OUP.
The Kartir Inscription as translated by David Niel MacKenzie. In Henning Memorial Volume. Lund Humphries. 1970. ISBN 0-85331-255-9.
[show] v t e
Theology
View page ratings
Rate this page
What's this?
Trustworthy
Objective
Complete
Well-written
I am highly knowledgeable about this topic (optional)
Submit ratings
Categories: ZoroastrianismHeresyMonotheistic religions
قس ترکی استانبولی
Zurvanizm, Zerdüştçülüğün bugün inananı kalmamış bir dalıdır. Zurvanizmde, Zerdüştçülükten farklı olarak, "İlk Prensip" (primordiyal yaratıcı tanrı) olarak Zurvana inanılır. Nitekim bu sebeple Zurvanizm olarak anılan inanca Zurvanit Zerdüştçülük de denmiştir. Zurvanizmde, Zurvan Zamanın (ve Mekanın) hipostazıdır. Orta Pers dilinden olan ismi, Avesta dilindeki zruvan- yani "zaman"dan gelmektedir. "Zurvan" isim olarak, "zaman" gibi, birçok farklı inanç sistemlerinde yer almıştır; bununla birlikte bu dinler veya inançlar Zurvanizmdeki Zurvan ile sadece ismen alâkalıdırlar.
Din ile ilgili bu madde bir taslaktır. İçeriğini geliştirerek Vikipedi'ye katkıda bulunabilirsiniz.
[göster] g · t · dTeoloji
Kategoriler: Din taslaklarıZurvanizm
واژه های همانند
هیچ واژه ای همانند واژه مورد نظر شما پیدا نشد.