Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
154. It does not appear that the Shayast 14-shayast has ever been hitherto translated into any European language ', nor 1 Except Chap. XVIII, which was translated into German by Justi, as the last chapter of his translation of the Bundahis (see p. xxvi). INTRODUCTION. Ixvii is any Persian or Gugarati translation of it known to the present translator, though a good deal of the matter it contains may be found in the Persian Rivayats, but generally given in a different form. Owing to the technical character of the treatise, it is hazardous for any one but a Parsi priest to attempt to translate it, so that errors will, no doubt, be apparent to the initiated in the present translation. At the same time it must not be forgotten that the laws and customs mentioned in the text were those current in Persia twelve centuries ago, which may be expected to differ, in many details, from those of the Parsis in India at the present day. This is a consideration which a Parsi translator might be too apt to ignore; so that his thorough knowledge of present customs, though invaluable for the decipherment of ambiguous phrases, might lead him astray when dealing with clear statements of customs and rules now obsolete and, therefore, at variance with his preconceived ideas of propriety. 7. CONCLUDING REMARKS. The Pahlavi texts selected for translation in this volume are specimens of three distinct species of writings. Thus, the Bundahis and its appendix, which deal chiefly with cosmogony, myths, and traditions, may be roughly compared to the book of Genesis. The Bahman Yast, which professes to be prophetical, may be likened unto the Apocalypse. And the Shdyast 14-shayast, which treats of religious laws regarding impurity, sin, ritual, and miscellaneous matters, bears some resemblance to Leviticus. But, though thus dealing with very different subjects, these texts appear to have all originated in much the same manner, a manner which is characteristic of the oldest class of the Pahlavi writings still extant. All three are full of translations from old Avesta texts, collected together probably in the latter days of the Sasanian dynasty, and finally rearranged some time after the Muhammadan conquest of Persia; so that, practically, they may be taken as representing the ideas entertained of their prehistoric religion by Persians in the e 2 Ixviii PAHLAVI TEXTS. sixth century, but modified so far as to suit the taste and exigencies of the tenth.
2sixth century, but modified so far as to suit the taste and exigencies of the tenth. But, notwithstanding the wide range of subjects embraced by these texts, it would be rash for the reader to assume that they afford him sufficient information for forming a decided opinion as to the character of the Parsi religion. The texts translated in this volume contain barely oneeleventh part of the religious literature extant in the Pahlavi language, without taking the Pahlavi versions of existing Avesta texts into account, which latter are even more important than the former, from a religious point of view, as they are considered more authoritative by the Parsis themselves, What proportion the literature extant may bear to that which is lost it is impossible to guess; but, omitting all consideration of the possible contents of the lost literature, it is obvious that the remaining ten-elevenths of that which is extant may contain much which would modify any opinion based merely upon the one-eleventh here translated. What the untranslated portion actually contains no one really knows, The best Pahlavi scholar can never be sure that he understands the contents of a Pahlavi text until he has fully translated it ; no amount of careful reading can make him certain that he does not misunderstand some essential part of it, and were he to assert the contrary he would be merely misleading others and going astray himself. How far the translations in this volume will enable the reader to judge of the Parsi religion may perhaps be best understood by considering how far a careful perusal of the books of Genesis, Leviticus, and the Revelation, which constitute one-eleventh part of the Protestant Bible, would enable him to judge of Christianity, without any further information. But, though these translations must be considered merely as a contribution towards a correct account of medizval Zoroastrianism, the Bundahis does afford some very definite information upon one of the fundamental doctrines of that faith. The Parsi religion has long been represented by its opponents as a dualism ;' and this accusation, made in good faith by Muhammadan writers, and echoed more INTRODUCTION. lxix incautiously by Christians, has been advanced so strenuously that it has often been admitted even by Parsis themselves, as re: ids, the, medizval form of their faith. But neither party! ‘séem# to have fairly considered how any religion which admits the personality of an evil spirit, in order to account for the existence of evil, can fail to become a dualism to a certain extent. If, therefore, the term is to be used in controversy, it behoves those who use it to define the limits of objectionable dualism with great precision,|so as not to include most of the religions of the world, their own among the number. If it be necessary for a dualism that the evil spirit be omnipresent, omniscient, almighty, or eternal, then is the
3If it be necessary for a dualism that the evil spirit be omnipresent, omniscient, almighty, or eternal, then is the ’ Parsi religion no dualism. \(The Bundahis distinctly asserts that the evil spirit is not omniscient and almighty (Chap. I, 16); that his understanding is backward (I, 3, 9), so that he was not aware of the existence of Adharmazd till he arose from the abyss and saw the light (I, 9); that he is unobservant and ignorant of the future (I, 19) till it is revealed to him by Adharmazd (I, 21); that his creatures perish at the resurrection (I, 7, 21),and he himself becomes impotent (I, 21, III, 1) and will not be (I, 3, XXX, 32). Nowhere is he supposed to be in two places at once, or to know what is occurring elsewhere than in his own presence. So far, his powers are considerably less than those generally assigned by Christians to the devil, who is certainly represented as being a more intelligent and ubiquitous personage. | (On the other hand, Aharman is able to produce fiends and demons (Chap. I, 10, 24), and the noxious creatures are said to be his (III, 15, XIV, 30, XVIII, 2);: in which respects he has probably rather more power than the devil, although the limits of the latter’s means of producing evil are by no means well defined. ‘The origin and end of Aharman appear to be left as uncertain as those of the devil, and, altogether, the resemblance between these two ideas of the evil spirit is remarkably close; in fact, almost too close to admit of the possibility of their being ideas of different origin. “The only important differences are that Zoroastrianism does not believe in an Ixx PAHLAVI TEXTS. eternity of evil as Christianity does} and that Christianity has been content to leave all its other ideas about the devil in a very hazy and uncertain form, while Zoroastrianism has not shrunk from carrying similar ideas to their logical conclusion, If, therefore,a belief in Aharman, as the author of evil, makes the Parsi religion a dualism, it is difficult to understand why a belief in the devil, as the author of evil, does not make Christianity also a dualism. At any rate, it is evident from the Bundahis that a Christian is treading on hazardous ground when he objects to Zoroastrianism on the score of its dualism.
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
154. It does not appear that the Shayast 14-shayast has ever been hitherto translated into any European language ', nor 1 Except Chap. XVIII, which was translated into German by Justi, as the last chapter of his translation of the Bundahis (see p. xxvi). INTRODUCTION. Ixvii is any Persian or Gugarati translation of it known to the present translator, though a good deal of the matter it contains may be found in the Persian Rivayats, but generally given in a different form. Owing to the technical character of the treatise, it is hazardous for any one but a Parsi priest to attempt to translate it, so that errors will, no doubt, be apparent to the initiated in the present translation. At the same time it must not be forgotten that the laws and customs mentioned in the text were those current in Persia twelve centuries ago, which may be expected to differ, in many details, from those of the Parsis in India at the present day. This is a consideration which a Parsi translator might be too apt to ignore; so that his thorough knowledge of present customs, though invaluable for the decipherment of ambiguous phrases, might lead him astray when dealing with clear statements of customs and rules now obsolete and, therefore, at variance with his preconceived ideas of propriety. 7. CONCLUDING REMARKS. The Pahlavi texts selected for translation in this volume are specimens of three distinct species of writings. Thus, the Bundahis and its appendix, which deal chiefly with cosmogony, myths, and traditions, may be roughly compared to the book of Genesis. The Bahman Yast, which professes to be prophetical, may be likened unto the Apocalypse. And the Shdyast 14-shayast, which treats of religious laws regarding impurity, sin, ritual, and miscellaneous matters, bears some resemblance to Leviticus. But, though thus dealing with very different subjects, these texts appear to have all originated in much the same manner, a manner which is characteristic of the oldest class of the Pahlavi writings still extant. All three are full of translations from old Avesta texts, collected together probably in the latter days of the Sasanian dynasty, and finally rearranged some time after the Muhammadan conquest of Persia; so that, practically, they may be taken as representing the ideas entertained of their prehistoric religion by Persians in the e 2 Ixviii PAHLAVI TEXTS. sixth century, but modified so far as to suit the taste and exigencies of the tenth.
2sixth century, but modified so far as to suit the taste and exigencies of the tenth. But, notwithstanding the wide range of subjects embraced by these texts, it would be rash for the reader to assume that they afford him sufficient information for forming a decided opinion as to the character of the Parsi religion. The texts translated in this volume contain barely oneeleventh part of the religious literature extant in the Pahlavi language, without taking the Pahlavi versions of existing Avesta texts into account, which latter are even more important than the former, from a religious point of view, as they are considered more authoritative by the Parsis themselves, What proportion the literature extant may bear to that which is lost it is impossible to guess; but, omitting all consideration of the possible contents of the lost literature, it is obvious that the remaining ten-elevenths of that which is extant may contain much which would modify any opinion based merely upon the one-eleventh here translated. What the untranslated portion actually contains no one really knows, The best Pahlavi scholar can never be sure that he understands the contents of a Pahlavi text until he has fully translated it ; no amount of careful reading can make him certain that he does not misunderstand some essential part of it, and were he to assert the contrary he would be merely misleading others and going astray himself. How far the translations in this volume will enable the reader to judge of the Parsi religion may perhaps be best understood by considering how far a careful perusal of the books of Genesis, Leviticus, and the Revelation, which constitute one-eleventh part of the Protestant Bible, would enable him to judge of Christianity, without any further information. But, though these translations must be considered merely as a contribution towards a correct account of medizval Zoroastrianism, the Bundahis does afford some very definite information upon one of the fundamental doctrines of that faith. The Parsi religion has long been represented by its opponents as a dualism ;' and this accusation, made in good faith by Muhammadan writers, and echoed more INTRODUCTION. lxix incautiously by Christians, has been advanced so strenuously that it has often been admitted even by Parsis themselves, as re: ids, the, medizval form of their faith. But neither party! ‘séem# to have fairly considered how any religion which admits the personality of an evil spirit, in order to account for the existence of evil, can fail to become a dualism to a certain extent. If, therefore, the term is to be used in controversy, it behoves those who use it to define the limits of objectionable dualism with great precision,|so as not to include most of the religions of the world, their own among the number. If it be necessary for a dualism that the evil spirit be omnipresent, omniscient, almighty, or eternal, then is the
3If it be necessary for a dualism that the evil spirit be omnipresent, omniscient, almighty, or eternal, then is the ’ Parsi religion no dualism. \(The Bundahis distinctly asserts that the evil spirit is not omniscient and almighty (Chap. I, 16); that his understanding is backward (I, 3, 9), so that he was not aware of the existence of Adharmazd till he arose from the abyss and saw the light (I, 9); that he is unobservant and ignorant of the future (I, 19) till it is revealed to him by Adharmazd (I, 21); that his creatures perish at the resurrection (I, 7, 21),and he himself becomes impotent (I, 21, III, 1) and will not be (I, 3, XXX, 32). Nowhere is he supposed to be in two places at once, or to know what is occurring elsewhere than in his own presence. So far, his powers are considerably less than those generally assigned by Christians to the devil, who is certainly represented as being a more intelligent and ubiquitous personage. | (On the other hand, Aharman is able to produce fiends and demons (Chap. I, 10, 24), and the noxious creatures are said to be his (III, 15, XIV, 30, XVIII, 2);: in which respects he has probably rather more power than the devil, although the limits of the latter’s means of producing evil are by no means well defined. ‘The origin and end of Aharman appear to be left as uncertain as those of the devil, and, altogether, the resemblance between these two ideas of the evil spirit is remarkably close; in fact, almost too close to admit of the possibility of their being ideas of different origin. “The only important differences are that Zoroastrianism does not believe in an Ixx PAHLAVI TEXTS. eternity of evil as Christianity does} and that Christianity has been content to leave all its other ideas about the devil in a very hazy and uncertain form, while Zoroastrianism has not shrunk from carrying similar ideas to their logical conclusion, If, therefore,a belief in Aharman, as the author of evil, makes the Parsi religion a dualism, it is difficult to understand why a belief in the devil, as the author of evil, does not make Christianity also a dualism. At any rate, it is evident from the Bundahis that a Christian is treading on hazardous ground when he objects to Zoroastrianism on the score of its dualism.
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
No commentary for this page.