Was Zoroaster the most influential human ever?

Forums: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Religion
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I'm listening to an audiocourse from the Teaching Company about religions of the axial age, roughly 800-200 BCE.

I've never known much about Zoroaster (though I've known some Zoroastrians), but it seems to me a case can be made that he was the single most influential person in human history.

Zoroaster was the first religious figure ever to propose the following ideas:

1) There is only one god who is 'uncreated'

2) Human destiny consists in an afterlife in which they are judged

3) Humans are judged on their moral and spiritual decisions

4) There is a paradise and a hell

5) There is an evil, corrupting god as well as the good god

6) Time is linear, and there will be a great battle between good and evil at the end of days

7) There will be a savior at the end of days who is born from a virgin mother

And the list goes on. Zoroaster probably lived around 1000-1200 BCE. The above notions never entered Jewish writing until the Babylonian exile, in the 6th century BCE, when they came into close and sustained contact with Persians (who were Zoroastrian). These ideas had developed for centuries within Jewish culture by the time they found their way into Christianity. The influences on Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are so fundamental as to be nearly foundational -- i.e. the Abrahamic religions' basic moral and theological tenets bespeak Zoroastrian influence. Islam was perhaps the most heavily influenced since there was so much geographic overlap.

But the influence didn't stop with West Asian religions, because Zoroastrian ideas found their way into Confucianism, Daoism, and all the religions of South Asia.

And he was also apparently influential on Greek philosophy, particularly Heraclitus.

Amazing how someone so influential on basically everyone on earth to this day, more than 3000 years hence, is quite poorly known.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 4,154 • Replies: 25

No top replies

@Aedes,

Yeah but then we're all of us descended from some bloke who lived around 60,000 years ago. And all he could do (as far as we know) was kill and butcher animals with stone tools. You'd never guess, looking at us now.

I don't know much about Zoroaster, but maybe there were great religious geniuses who lived in the distant past who had similar influence on the whole human species, of which he was one. I do recall from my comparitive religion classes that Christian and Jewish eschatology (=fate of souls) and maybe also the images of hell and heaven, were considerably influenced by his teaching.

So - peace be upon him!

0 Replies

@Aedes,

Nietzsche wrote Thus Spoke Zarathustra, in which the Zoroaster was the main character, because according to N, he is the originator of the idea of good and evil. Thus, N intended Zarathustra to be the one to end it as well. That would add more basis for the idea that the Zoroaster was the most influential man in history.

On top of that, Zoroastrianism was the first known monotheistic religion.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

I suppose that the inventor of stone tools or of fire or of agriculture would be the most influential, but these things probably came about independently in many different places.

I'm sure Zoroaster wasn't transmitting 100% completely novel thoughts, but they were radically divergent from the prevailing religions at the time and it was his rendition of them that became influential.

It's been a loooong time since I read Also Sprach Zarathustra, but I've read / heard in many places that it doesn't bear much resemblance to the actual person, his writings, or his religion.

2 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes;113730 wrote:

It's been a loooong time since I read Also Sprach Zarathustra, but I've read / heard in many places that it doesn't bear much resemblance to the actual person, his writings, or his religion.

Nor was it meant to; despite being written in a style purposefully reminiscent of archaic thinking and expression, Nietzsche's Zarathustra-Dionysus was the very opposite of the original Zoroaster---one might consider the whole book as an attempt to overcome the latter's disastrous teachings.

0 Replies

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus;113692 wrote:

Nietzsche wrote Thus Spoke Zarathustra, in which the Zoroaster was the main character, because according to N, he is the originator of the idea of good and evil. Thus, N intended Zarathustra to be the one to end it as well. That would add more basis for the idea that the Zoroaster was the most influential man in history.

On top of that, Zoroastrianism was the first known monotheistic religion.

Even if Z. originated the idea of good and evil (which is dubious, to say the least) that, of course, does not mean that he originated good and evil. Animals and humans suffered before Zaroaster was even conceived (and I don't mean the idea of Zaroaster). And, if Zaroaster, by some miracle, could end the ideas of good and evil, that would not do much toward ending good and evil.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;113742 wrote:

Even if Z. originated the idea of good and evil (which is dubious, to say the least) that, of course, does not mean that he originated good and evil. Animals and humans suffered before Zaroaster was even conceived (and I don't mean the idea of Zaroaster). And, if Zaroaster, by some miracle, could end the ideas of good and evil, that would not do much toward ending good and evil.

I don't think that's what T. is saying. He wasn't implying that anyone was going to actually end good and evil; it's literary prose with metaphor. It was suiting that N. chose Z. to "end" good and evil, since he (Z.), assumingly, was the first to propose the idea of the good and evil spectrum (even if he didn't originate the idea).

At least, that's how I interpreted what T. wrote.

Aedes wrote:

I'm sure Zoroaster wasn't transmitting 100% completely novel thoughts, but they were radically divergent from the prevailing religions at the time and it was his rendition of them that became influential.

Right, it's hard to really say X originated an idea. But that usually isn't of much interest to people. We are interested in who proposed the idea, or who is known to popularize an idea.

2 Replies

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;113746 wrote:

I don't think that's what T. is saying. He wasn't implying that anyone was going to actually end good and evil; it's literary prose with metaphor. It was suiting that N. chose Z. to "end" good and evil, since he (Z.), assumingly, was the first to propose the idea of the good and evil spectrum (even if he didn't originate the idea).

At least, that's how I interpreted what T. wrote.

Right, it's hard to really say X originated an idea. But that usually isn't of much interest to people. We are interested in who proposed the idea, or who is known to popularize an idea.

I was just trying to distinguish the idea of good and evil from good and evil. People constantly confused the idea with what it is the idea of. Especially, Idealists, like N..

0 Replies

@Zetherin,

Kenneth Galbraith suggested that this Iranian perspective was the beginning of our idea of progress. In the Zoroastrian view, you were born knowing the difference between good and evil. You reach out for good and turn away from evil. It means that to be a good person means to be continuously in motion, always learning, always evolving, always becoming better.

1 Reply

@Arjuna,

I reckon Pythagoras was the most influential myself - maths and music being better inventions than folklore in my opinion.

0 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes;113730 wrote:

.....radically divergent from the prevailing religions at the time and it was his rendition of them that became influential.

Any idea as to which were those prevailing religions? What were their basic tenets? And where?

2 Replies

@rajiraouf,

I think that's a very important point. No one has much of an idea of when Zoroaster lived or if he truely innovated these ideas.

For example - I know the Sassanids (a later Persian dynasty than the Achemenids who first made Zoroastrianism the state religion) subjected Zoroastrianism to a major revision before which Ahriman (the Zoroastrian lord of lies - Satan equivalent in many ways) was seen as being as important as Ormazhad (the benign creator - God equivalent in many ways).

So therefore was it fair to call early Zoroastrianism a monotheism? Is was more akin to a duotheism I reckon.

There is also a great deal of debate over when Zoroaster lived. Archeological and historical accounts place him rather later than he is often supposed to have been. However, the holy books he is credited with writing (the devas I think they are called) are written in a language much older than hebrew or greek or the Persian that was contemporary with hebrew or greek.

Therefore he is supposed to be older than the fathers of other monotheistic sects - but is the language used in his writings a good guide to that? Many charlatans use archaic language to imbue their 'prophecies' with an air of authority - look at the Book of Mormon.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

But how influential was Pythagoras in the end over either, especially music?

0 Replies

@Aedes,

Well he invented the circle of fifths. And notes A-G. And major and minor keys.

Pretty much every piece of music you listen to would sound different were it not for Pythagoras unless you stick to samba or other strictly percussive stuff. Even Indian classical is hugely influenced by his ideas (it just adds more intervals to the 'octave'). Even atonal stuff defines itself by breaking his rules (and so therefore prety much exists because of him, I suppose).

Perhaps Chinese and Japanese folk music is pretty free of his influence - I dunno.

I realise it's all subjective - and that Pythagoras probably improved on older systems himself - but as far as I see codifying morality has probably been going on since humans began discussing behaviour - and good and evil are still argued about.

Whereas inventing a conception of melody that pervades the lives of almost everyone on the planet strikes me as far more difficult, and maybe more worthy of considering as influential.

But because it's a joyful thing like art, it's not considered with the same gravity as something like the evolution of morality.

0 Replies

@rajiraouf,

rajiraouf;113984 wrote:

Any idea as to which were those prevailing religions? What were their basic tenets? And where?

Yes, the original religion of the Aryans, who by then had migrated all the way through Europe, Asia, and South Asia. There are two main written sources for these earliest beliefs. One is the Rig Veda, which before its current written form was believed to have been passed on for thousands of years. Of course to Hindus it is a book of the highest holiness, but historically seen (i.e. without eye to what Hinduism would evolve) it tells us in great detail about the forms of devotion among the Aryans.

The second are the Avestas, which are quite similar to the Rig Veda, but from Persia and not South Asia. The Gathas written by Zoroaster are in the Avestas, but there is much religious text that predates him in the Avestas.

I'm not expert in this, but what I've learned from this audiocourse is that 1) there were multiple gods, many of whom were sort of peaceful and innocuous, 2) after the Aryans and Mesopotamians made contact the Aryans began to use chariots and weapons, and correspondingly the more 'warlike' god Indra became popular.

Zoroaster it seems had a 'moral' reaction to his increasingly lawless society (that had no central god, no divine moral authority, and was being run by warlords). He exhorts devotion to Ahura Mazda, the one 'uncreated' and good god, and considers that the path to good and to salvation.

So his religion was greatly simplified, at least in terms of divinity, than the rigvedic / avestan religions. It also had eschatology and morality, which the others did not.

That's about as much as I know. There's a lot written about this subject:

Gathas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Avesta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Rigveda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Indo-Iranians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Historical Vedic religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Zoroastrianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

0 Replies

@Aedes,

Ah yes, Gathas were on my mind when I wrote Devas, which are of course the Zoroastrian equivalent of demons.

0 Replies

@Aedes,

It's amazing to consider the linguistic cognates of the word "devas", which originates in the Proto-Indo-European language. Divine / divinity, devotion, devil, devas, devi, divas, deus, dios, zeus...

0 Replies

@Aedes,

Are you aware of the fact that many aspects of Jesus seem rather unimaginative plagarisms of aspects of Mithra - who is an addition to the Zoroastrian pantheon?

Virgin Birth during midwinter, portrayed as bearded chap with halo, miracles, sacrifical proxy of the gods, etc...

Jesus as a reincarnation of Mithra

The Sassanids are also sadly neglected in history lessons. Invented the armoured noble cavalrymen we'd come to know as knights. Duffed up the roman empire on a number of occasions (an early Sassanid ruler apparently kept a captured roman emperor as a slave and used to stand on his cowering body in order to mount his horse).

2 Replies

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;113998 wrote:

Are you aware of the fact that many aspects of Jesus seem rather unimaginative plagarisms of aspects of Mithra - who is an addition to the Zoroastrian pantheon?

Virgin Birth during midwinter, portrayed as bearded chap with halo, miracles, sacrifical proxy of the gods, etc...

Jesus as a reincarnation of Mithra

The Sassanids are also sadly neglected in history lessons. Invented the armoured noble cavalrymen we'd come to know as knights. Duffed up the roman empire on a number of occasions (an early Sassanid ruler apparently kept a captured roman emperor as a slave and used to stand on his cowering body in order to mount his horse).

Jesus is also Horus... god/man. Mary holding the baby Jesus is just like images of Isis holding baby Horus. Particularly important image tomorrow! Happy Beginning of Winter! Smile

0 Replies

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;113998 wrote:

Are you aware of the fact that many aspects of Jesus seem rather unimaginative plagarisms of aspects of Mithra - who is an addition to the Zoroastrian pantheon?

Virgin Birth during midwinter, portrayed as bearded chap with halo, miracles, sacrifical proxy of the gods, etc...

The lecturer from the Teaching Company points this out (the virgin birth aspect of the savior at the end of days).

He also points out that in virtually all of the major religions the prophet has his revelation or seminal experience at roughly the age of 30, and there is usually a reference to water at the time of this experience. This was true for Siddhartha Gautama, for Jesus, and for Mohammed, and the story originated with Zoroaster.

The eschatology in the New Testament is very similar to that of Zoroastrianism, and the lecturer points out that the maggi (the men from the east guided by the stars) are thought by some scholars to be Zoroastrians (because of their attention to the stars in their religion, and because Persia was to the east).

0 Replies

Was Zoroaster the most influential human ever?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know