7. Zoroastrianism. The teaching of Zarathustra (in
Greek, Zoroaster) conceives of mankind as decisively
implicated in a cosmic struggle between the principles
of Good and Evil. Zarathustra regarded himself as
commissioned by Ahura Mazdā (the Wise Lord) to
set before his contemporaries the fateful choice that
confronts each: “Hear with your ears the best things;
look upon them with clear-seeing thought, for decision
between two beliefs, each man for himself before the
Great Consummation, bethinking you that it be ac-
complished to our pleasure” (Yasna 30:2; trans. J. H.
Moulton). Each individual had thus personally to de-
cide on which side of the contending forces to align
himself; and upon his choice his destiny depended. In
the extant teaching of Zarathustra only cryptic refer-
ences are made to the consequences of this choice.
Thus there was to be an awful ordeal of crossing the
Bridge of the Separator (Činvat); but the devotees
of Ahura Mazdā are assured that they would be led
safely across by Zarathustra himself (Yasna 46:10).
Mention is also made of molten metal and fire as forms
of Ahura Mazdā's retribution (Yasna 30:7; 51:9). The
just are promised that they will abide with Ahura
Mazdā in the House of Song (Yasna 45:8, 48:7), while
the unjust are doomed to the House of the Lie
(Drūjō·nmāna 46:11). There is reason for thinking that
the Bridge of the Separator was an ancient Iranian
concept, concerned with proving the ritual fitness of
the dead to enter the next world, and that Zarathustra
readapted it as a post-mortem test of allegiance to
Ahura Mazdā.
The dualism of Zarathustra's teaching had a strong
moral character. For though the cosmic struggle was
basically that of Life against Death and Light against
Darkness, Zarathustra designated the Angra Mainyu,
the Enemy Spirit, as the Drūj or Lie. Moreover, the
emphases which he laid upon the momentous character
of the individual's choice assumed a decisive measure
of human free will that is truly unique in the history
of religions. However, Zarathustra seems to have
ignored the consequent problem of accounting for the
variation of human choice, particularly, why some
should decide to align themselves with the Drūj. No
notice, also, appears to be taken of the inherited dispo-
sition to sin, with which the Christian doctrine of
Original Sin attempts to deal. The logic of Zarathustra's
teaching implies that the individual could, and was
expected to, work out his own salvation. Zarathustra's
own role was primarily that of a prophet or interpreter
of Ahura Mazdā's will. Although he would lead the
faithful in safety across the Bridge of the Separator,
he does not appear to claim that he would or could
save them from the Angra Mainyu.
In the later eschatology of Zoroastrianism the post-
mortem destiny of the individual is described in great
detail. According to the Dâtistân-i Mēnōk-i-Krat, a
Pahlavi writing of about the ninth century A.D., the
deeds of the deceased were weighed by Rashnu at the
Bridge of the Separator. After that ordeal, the soul
meets a personification of its past conduct: to the just
the personification appears as a beautiful maiden, but
to the unjust as an awful hag in whose baleful company
it goes to hell. Zoroastrian dualism was not, however,
an eternal conflict between good and evil, and it was
believed that ultimately Ohrmazd (i.e., Ahura Mazdā)
would overcome Ahriman (i.e., the Angra Mainyu of
Zarathustra). An eschatology was accordingly elabo-
rated which looked forward to the coming of the
Saoshyans or Savior, who would resurrect the dead for
judgment. The righteous would then pass to heaven,
and the wicked to hell where they suffer physically
for their sins. But their punishment is not eternal; for
the victory of Ohrmazd and the destruction of Ahriman
led finally to the Fraškart, the ultimate “making excel-
lent” or rehabilitation of those who had allied them-
selves with Ahriman.
