JSAI 17

ON THE CONCEPT OF SPIRITUAL AUTHORITY

IN ZOROASTRIANISM

Philip G. Kreyenbroek
Exaggerated and ill-founded views of the Shi'a as an ‘Iranian Islam’
have probably done much to make some Islamicists wary of all claims
that Zoroastrianism influenced the development of Islam in Iran to any
significant extent.1 Yet it is well known that the ‘proto-Shi'a’2 and the
early Imami Shi'a evolved in an environment where people of Iranian de­
scent played a prominent role.3 There is nothing improbable, therefore,
in the idea that, in some areas, attitudes and concepts deriving originally
from Zoroastrianism may have influenced the way these people looked
at the (Islamic) issues of their day. It is entirely possible, moreover, that
elements of Zoroastrian origin lived on in popular Islam, and came to be
accepted as Shi'ite at a much later date.
A sober and factual investigation of such matters cannot be made,
however, until a detailed account of the Zoroastrian side of things is
available. The present paper therefore intends to examine the evidence
of the Zoroastrian tradition on the subject of spiritual authority, and
to draw attention to the striking similarities between Zoroastrian and
later Shi'ite ideas and practices in this sphere. A detailed analysis of the
evolution of the concept of spiritual authority in Iranian Islam would, of
course, lie far beyond the scope of this paper, and no more can be done
here than to suggest a few possible lines of development.

1 If generally accepted ideas about the origin and early history of

Zoroastrianism are correct, what distinguished that religion from the
older ‘Indo-Iranian’ faith was that it was a revealed religion, based on
the message of one Prophet, which differed fundamentally, on a number
of points, from the traditional beliefs of the time. This would seem to
suggest a priori that, in order to guard the purity of Zarathustra’s teach­
ings, the need for some kind of spiritual leadership must have made itself
felt relatively soon after the Prophet’s death. Apart from a statement in
a late source,4 however, to the effect that Jamaspa — Zarathustra’s son-
1Cf., e.g., W. Ende, ‘Der shiitische Islam’, in: W. Ende and U. Steinbach (eds.),
Der Islam in der Gegenwart, Munich 1984, pp. 84-85.
2 See W. Montgomery Watt, ‘The Significance of the Early Stages of Imami
Shi'ism’, in: N.R. Keddie (ed.), Religion and Politics in Iran, New Haven and London
1983, pp. 21-32.
3See Watt, ‘Imami Shi‘ism’, p. 27 (on the NaubakhtT family), and S.H.M. Jafri,
Origin and Early Development of Shi'a Islam, London and New York 1979, pp. 113ff.
4 See B.T. Anklesaria, Vichitakiha~i Zatsparam, Bombay 1964, XXV.7, p. 92.

1
2 Philip G. Kreyenbroek

in-law and counsellor to his patron Vistaspa — became Mobedan Mobed

(i.e., head of the Church) after Zarathustra, the Zoroastrian tradition
appears to offer no explicit information on the subject. A few terms are
found in the Avesta, however, which appear to have a connection with
spiritual leadership. The most important of these are zaraBustrdtama-,
‘the one who is most like Zarathustra’, and ratu-, a word which, in the
Young Avesta, appears to denote ‘one who is in authority’ in a spiritual
or religious sense.

2 The word zaraBustrdtama- occurs most often in the Avesta at the

head of a sequence whose other members are nmdniia-, ‘the one of the
house’, visiia-, ‘the one of the village’, zantuma-, ‘the one of the district’,
and daxiiuma- ‘the one of the country’. These beings are called ratus.5
In some texts they are closely associated with the watches (gak) of the
day and night and, as such, they are objects of worship.6
The passage which suggests most strongly that these words originally
denoted the members of a priestly hierarchy is Y. 19.18:

kaiia ratauud? nmdniid visiid zantumo daxiiumo zaraBustro

pux6d agham daxiiungm yd aniid rajdit zaraBustrdit. caBru.
ratus ra^a zaraBustris. kaiia ayha ratauuo? nmaniiasca
visiiasca zantumasca, zaraBustro tuiriid.
Who are the ratus? The nmdniia, the visiia, the zantuma,
the daxiiuma, Zarathustra is the fifth in countries other
than Zoroastrian Ragha. Zoroastrian Ragha has four ratus.
Who are its ratus? The nmdniia, the visiia, the zantuma,
Zarathustra is the fourth.7
(The passage is part of what purports to be a dialogue between Zarathus­
tra and Ahura Mazda, and therefore logically substitutes the name of
the Prophet for the title of what may have been his successors.)
Since it seems unlikely that one divinity would be said to be absent
from Zoroastrian Ragha, there can hardly be any doubt that human
ratus are meant here. Gershevitch8 plausibly regards this meaning as the
original one, and argues that the divinities connected with the watches
must have taken their names from the priests. The strange character of

5 See Y. 19.18 below, and Yt. 10.115. For the Avestan texts, see K.F. Geldner,
Avesta: The Sacred Books of the Parsis, 3 vols., Stuttgart 1896; a German translation
is found in F. Wolff, Avesta: die heiligen Bucher der Parsen, Leipzig 1910.
6 G. 1.1, 6, 7; 2.1, 6, 8, etc., and Y. 2.3-6, 3.5-9, etc. These beings are thus formally
yazalas or ‘divinities’.
7 Unless otherwise stated, all translations of Avestan and Pahlavi passages are by
the author.
81. Gershevitch, The Avestan Hymn to Mithra, Cambridge 1967, pp. 265—66;
cf. pp. 296ff., and J. Darmesteter, Le Zend-Avesta I, Paris 1892, repr., pp. 27ff.
 Spiritual authority in Zoroastrianism 3

another group of ‘associates’ (hamkar) of the gdhs, which appear to have

evolved from old epithets,9 suggests that the divinisation of some of these
beings was due to priestly speculation rather than popular devotion, and
the priests who composed the passages in question may well have been
capable of arbitrarily associating a five-fold hierarchy of priestly ratus
with the five watches (Av. ratu-) of the day. This would seem the more
likely if, at the time when these texts were given their final form, the
words were no longer commonly used to denote human prelates, and
there is some evidence that this may have been the case.10
That a connection was perceived between early spiritual leaders and
the division of territories into ‘houses, villages, districts and countries’,
is also shown by other passages, notably Yt. 13.151:11
paoiriian tkaess yazamaide nmdnangmca visgmca
zantunamca daxiiungmca nmanayhand visdno zantusdnd
dayhusano ...
We worship the first teachers of the houses, the villages, the
districts and the countries, who have won for themselves the
houses, who have won for themselves the villages, who have
won for themselves the districts, who have won for themselves
the countries ...
The passage also shows that members of an ancient priesthood could, at
a later period, come to be ‘worshipped’, and thus provides a parallel for
the divinisation of the five-fold hierarchy.
Although it thus seems likely that the words zaraffustrotama-, etc.,
originally referred to actual, human priests, the passages in question
can hardly be taken as proof that a unified, formal hierarchy existed
at such an early period. They do suggest, however, that the ideal of a
hierarchically structured priesthood, headed by a supreme pontiff, was
present in early Zoroastrianism.

3 The term most frequently used in the Young Avesta for those who
are ‘in authority’ is ratu-, which can refer both to divinities and humans.
Thus it is used of Ahura Mazda12 and of other divinities such as Tistriia,
9 Viz., barajiia-, ‘to be welcomed’, for the dawn watch; sduuanhi-, ‘of the morning’,
for the first watch of the morning; fradat.fsu-, ‘increasing livestock’, for Rapifipina,
which is not celebrated in autumn and winter but returns in spring; fradat.vira,
‘increasing men’, for the afternoon watch; and fradat.vispam.hujiiaiti-, ‘furthering
all that belongs to the good life’, for the first night watch. See C. Bartholomae,
Altiranisch.es Wdrterbuch, Strassburg 1904, repr. (hereafter AirWb), s.vv.
10 The fact that in Y. 17.18 l=Y. 26.1, Yt. 13.21), the words occur as adjectival
accusatives qualifying frauuasaiid, instead of the genitives normally used when refer­
ring to individuals, suggests that the terms were no longer generally understood to
denote contemporary priests at a time when Avestan texts were still being composed.
11 Cf. also Yi. 13.150 and Y. 52.7.
12 Y. 27.1, 70.1, etc.
4 Philip G. Kreyenbroek

‘whom Ahura Mazda made ratu and overseer of all stars, as (he made)
Zarathustra over men’.13 At the human level, the foremost ratu is, of
course, Zarathustra ( Yt. 13.152); after him, as was shown above, the title
is used for priests who apparently derive their authority from his (such
as the Zaraftustrotsma), and then also for priests whose authority was
of a more limited nature, such as those who supervised the performance
of rituals.14 In what appears to be a late text,15 the word ratu- is even
used for all priests who take part in the performance of a ritual under
the chief officiating priest.
The relations between a human ratu and those under his authority
(ratunaiia-) are illustrated by the passages from the Afrinagan prayer
for the Gahambar festivals, where it is said that, if a ratunaiia failed to
bring offerings for the Gahambar, the ratu could exclude him from the
ceremony,16 declare him untrustworthy,17 impose fines,18 or even ‘deny
him the Ahurian Teaching’,19 i.e., probably, refuse to act as his ratu until
he had made amends.
This text, which presumably reflects the state of affairs of an early
period,20 helps to define the position and functions of this type of ratu;
he must have been the religious leader of a local community,21 who knew
his followers personally and had considerable power over them since, by
refusing to act as their ‘teacher’ (tkaesa), he could virtually excommu­
nicate them. As will be shown below, the Pahlavi books frequently refer
to the obligation of ‘having a spiritual leader’; in the Avesta, the word
adsrstd.tkaesa-, ‘not having a teacher’, occurs once, showing that those
who had no spiritual leader were beyond the pale:

[Vend. 16.18] vispe druuantd tanu.druxs yd adantb.tkaesb,

vispe adsrstd.tkaesd yd asraosd, vispe asraosd yd
anasauuand, vispe anasauuand yd tanu.parddd.
all those are evil, embodying Untruth, who have no teacher,
all those have no teacher who are disobedient, all those are

13 Yt. 8.44: yim ratum paiti.daemca vispaesam staram fradabat ahurd mazdd yaba
naram zarabustram.
^ Vend. 5.26, 7.71, 8.11.
15 Viz., the Nerangestan; for references see AirWb, 1501.
16 Afr. 3.7: aiiasnim daste.
17 Afr. 3.8: a-uuacd.uruuaitim daste, and probably Afr. 3.9: * a-garamd.varayham
daste (so AirWb, q.v.: MSS.: garamd°).
la Afr. 3.10, 11.
19 Afr. 3.12: ahuirim ikaesam fraparanaoiie. AirWb, 850: ‘verurteilt . . . zum Ver­
lust des ah. Richters’. In most contexts, however, the words dhuiri- tkaesa- denote
the ‘Ahurian Teaching’, cf. AirWb, 812-13.
20 Witness the apparently archaic punishments, see n. 17, above.
21 Afr. 3.5: ‘bring ... (firewood) to the house of the ratu’ (ratdus nmdnam
frdndsaiiata), suggests that the Gahambar assemblies were also held in the house
of the ratu. The word ratu-, however, may also refer to the festival itself.
 Spiritual authority in Zoroastrianism 5

disobedient who are unrighteous, all those are unrighteous

who are in a state of mortal sin.22

4 Thus, while the Avesta is vague about relations between higher-

ranking priests (though apparently postulating that a hierarchical struc­
ture existed), it is fairly explicit about the functions of the local ratu,
who is depicted as a priest whose responsibility it was to ensure that
all those under his authority obeyed the laws and requirements of the
religion in matters of ritual and observance, and who was entitled to
impose quite drastic penalties if they failed to do so.

5 The scarcity of our data concerning the Achaemenid, Seleucid and

Parthian eras makes it impossible to follow developments in the religious
life of these periods in any detail. As M. Boyce has shown,23 it seems
likely that regional priesthoods enjoyed a large measure of independence
during these periods. Early Sasanian propaganda, moreover, claims that
the religion had become corrupt because ‘Alexander burnt the books of
our religion — 1,200 ox-hides — at Istaxr. One third of it was known by
heart and survived, but even that was all legends and traditions, and
men knew not the laws and ordinances ... Therefore the faith must
needs be restored by a man of true and upright judgement”.24 Although
probably untrue as far as the reference to the ox-hides is concerned,25
this passage strongly suggests that there can have been no question, in
the preceding centuries, of a Church united under an uninterrupted line
of generally recognised authoritative supreme pontiffs.
When the Sasanians first came to power, their high priests set out
to bring the whole Zoroastrian community under a strong centralised
religious leadership,26 and in the course of time a hierarchy evolved of
officially appointed ‘administrative’ priests, whose duties included such
functions as jurisdiction and the administration of the institutions of the
Church.27

6 There appears to be no evidence in the Pahlavi books, however, that

this hierarchy and the old ‘zara^ustrotama-pentad’ were normally iden-
22 I.e., presumably, ‘excommunicated’, cf. AirWb, 636, s.v. tanu.psrsffa-.
23 A History of Zoroastrianism II, Leiden and Cologne 1982, p. 230.
24 M. Boyce, The Letter of Tansar, Rome 1968, p. 37.
25 On the fact that the sacred texts were transmitted orally in this period see Boyce,
History of Zoroastrianism II, pp. 123, 179, 275.
26 See for instance the inscriptions of Kirder, cf. Ph. Gignoux, ‘1’Inscription de
Kartir a Sar Mashad’, in: Journal Asiatique CCLVI, 1968, pp. 386-417.
27 Cf. Ph. Gignoux, ‘Die religiose Administration in sasanidischer Zeit: ein
Uberblick’, in: H. Koch and D.N. MacKenzie (eds.), Kunst, Kultur und Geschichte
der Achdmenidenzeit und ihr Fortleben, Archaologische Mitteilungen aus Iran,
Erganzungsband 10, Berlin 1983, pp. 253-66.
6 Philip G. Kreyenbroek

tified with each other.28 (This would have been unlikely a priori, since
the members of the old pentad were now presumably worshipped ev­
ery day in the gdh-prayers.) In the Epistles of Manuscihr 29 the word
zardustrotom (< Av. zaradustrotama-) appears to be used for a hypo­
thetical high priest who has the entire religious tradition by heart:

[EM. I.iv.ll] ud ka hamag abestdg ud zand warm, abar-tom

dgdh-mdnsar zardustrotom ... mad estdd he ...
and (even) if a Zardustrotom, who knew the entire Avesta
and Zand by heart, and had supreme knowledge of the Sacred
Word ... had come ...

Other passages also suggest that the Zardustrotom is an ideal, probably

mythical supreme priest. The proper functioning of the religion is said
to come about through the xwarrah (‘charisma’)30 of a ZaraOustrotama,
just as temporal authority is established through the xwarrah of the (leg­
endary) Kayanians.31 As a healer of the soul, the Zara3ustrdtama, called
‘ratu of the world’, is again associated with the (ideal) temporal ruler
(dahibed);32 his universal ratw-ship is also referred to in DkM. 86.16ff.:
‘all the people of the world, who are linked in thought (?) with the Lord
through the ratw-ship of the one Zaradustrotama' (hamist gehan mardom
i menisnig abag axw *hamydst pad radih i ek zardustrotom}.
That a distinction was felt to exist between ideal spiritual authority
(as personified by the Zardustrotom), and the actual leadership of the
‘administrative’ hierarchy, is also suggested by a number of passages in

28 In texts where the members of the ‘old pentad’ are worshipped as hamkars of the
watches (Ph.1. Y. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7; for the text see B.N. Dhabhar, Pahlavi Yasna and
Vispered, Bombay 1949), Av. nmaniia- is said to denote ‘the people under the juris­
diction of a religious judge’ (mardom i andar xweskarih i dadwar), rather than the
judge himself; visiia- is associated in the same way with the Mobed, zantuma- with the
Rad, daxiiuma- with the Moy Handarzbed, and zaraBustrotsma- with the Mobedan
Mobed. Such evident mistakes, moreover, as the statement that the Zardustrotom
has ‘five helpers’, the fifth of whom is ‘his own wife’ (see F.M. Kotwal, The Supple­
mentary Texts to the Shdyest Ne-Shayest, Copenhagen 1969 [hereafter SupplSnS],
p. 53, §13.44), could hardly have occurred if the older terms were understood to
denote members of a contemporary hierarchy.
29 See B.N. Dhabhar, The Epistles of Manushchihar, Bombay 1912 (hereafter EM).
30 This is an approximate rendering of the meaning of Phi. xwarrah. None of the
explanations of the concept offered so far seems entirely satisfactory. For references
to recent publications see G. Gnoli (ed.), Oommemoration Cyrus 2, Acta Iranica 2,
Tehran and Liege 1974, p. 172, n. 308.
31 D.M. Madan, The Complete Text of the Pahlavi Dinkard, 2 vols., Bombay 1911
(hereafter DkM), 396.15ff.: ... xwadayih winnarisn pad Payan xwarrah ... ud den
i mazdesn rawdgih pad han i zardustrotom xwarrah.
32 DkM. 160.13ff.; see also J. de Menasce, Le Troisieme Livre du Denkart,
Paris 1973, p. 162.
 Spiritual authority in Zoroastrianism 7

the Denkard.Ji These show that some priests were extremely critical of
the mentality of such priestly officials, whose spriritual authority they
can hardly, therefore, have regarded as absolute.

7 As the ZaraOustrotoma is a ratu, so the Zardustrdtom is a dastwar.^

The word dastwar, ‘one who is in authority’, though not exclusively
used in a religious sense,35 is often found in the Pahlavi books as a
rendering of Av. ratu-. (Phi. rad is either used in the same sense, or
for the incumbent of a specific ‘administrative’ office.)36 Like Av. ratu-,
Phi. dastwar can be used of divinities, of Zarathustra, and of later human
‘authorities’ of different grades (on the latter see further below). This
is aptly illustrated by the Dasturi formula, which priests recite to claim
authority (NP dasturi) from Ahura Mazda, the Amasa Spantas, Sraosa,
Zarathustra or Adurbad i Mahraspandan, and from the Dastur of the
Age.37
The concept of dastwarih was of fundamental importance in the re­
ligious life of a Zoroastrian, for it is repeatedly said that every believer
must ‘have a dastwar'1 [dastwar ddstan), without whom the benefit from
his good deeds does not accrue to him, e.g.:38

[DkM. 793. Off.] ... dy ke dastwar ne dared pad dad, xwesih

i ec kirbag i kuned ne rased d han i pahlom axwdn.
he who does not have a dastwar (as is prescribed) by the law,
the ownership of any good deeds that he does will not reach
the Best Existence (i.e. Heaven).

One of the areas in which one must be guided by a dastwar (or rad) is
that of religious donations:

[DkM. 331.4ff.] . . . kirbaggarih madayan dahisn i d ahlaw

mard, ud pad-is abayisnig ast ddsn tis ud dgdhih i az den-
dastwar pad dahisn aydb ne-dahisnih i han tis d kas.

33 See Sh. Shaked, The Wisdom of the Sasanian Sages (Denkard VI), Boulder,
Colorado 1979, pp. 177-83 (D2, D3, D5); and G. Kreyenbroek, ‘The Zoroastrian
Priesthood After the Fall of the Sasanian Empire1, in: Ph. Gignoux (ed.), Transition
Periods in Iranian History: Actes du Symposium de Fribourg-en-Brisgau (22 21 mai
1985), Studia Iranica, Cahier 5, 1987, pp. 151-66.
34 DkM. 157.1.
35 Cf. for instance early NP dastur ‘minister, vazlr’ (see F. Wolff, Glossar zu Firdosis
Schahname, Berlin 1935, repr., p. 384), and the reference to the dastwarih of the head
of the family in B.T. Anklesaria, The Pahlavi Rivdyat of Aturfarnbag and Farnbag-
Sros, 2 vols., Bombay 1969; vol. I, p. 40 (Q. LXIII).
36 See latterly Kreyenbroek, ‘Zoroastrian Priesthood’.
37 See, with references, Kreyenbroek, Sraosa in the Zoroastrian Tradition, Lei­
den 1985, p. 151.
38 For further references see Kreyenbroek, Sraosa, pp. 122f.
8 Philip G. Kreyenbroek

doing meritorious deeds consists mostly in giving to the right­

eous man, and for this one needs something to give, and also
information (obtained) from a dastwar of the faith, as to
whether to give or not to give that thing to someone.
Another such area is the confession of sins:
[SnS. 8.14]39 ka-s windh andar hamemdldn kard ested ... a-s
pes i hamemdldn pad petit bawisn, ud ka ne, pes i radan pad
petit bawisn.
if one has committed a sin against the opponents ... then
one must confess it before the opponents, and if not, one
must confess it before the rads.
The Rad, however, could authorise a lower-ranking priest to hear a con­
fession:
[SnS. 8.10] Adurbad i Zardustan hdwist-e pad en kdr
paydagenid estdd ku petitigih padir; u-s ew bar rdz burd, u-s
framud ku az nun frdz pad en kdr hagriz ma bas. u-s pas
az han abar han hdwist abaxsih ud pasemdnih i was did, u-s
eg-iz abar dastwar ne bud.
Adurbad son of Zardust had summoned a disciple for this
work, saying, ‘receive the confession’; and he betrayed the
secret once, and he ordered him, ‘from now on, never engage
in this work (again)’. And after that he saw much repentance
and regret in that disciple, yet even so he did not become
dastwar over him (again).
It would seem, then, that a layman could not act in matters of religion
without the authority of a dastwar, who advised him about religious
gifts, heard his confession and instructed him how to expiate his sins
(SnS. 8.13c), and presumably also gave him advice as to which rituals he
must perform for the sake of his soul. A spiritual leader could evidently
delegate some of these duties to a priest who was under his authority; on
the other hand, he himself had to recognise the authority of a superior
dastwar:
[DkM. 822.1 Iff.] pad sdldrih ud dastwarih awesdn sayistan ke
abdg astih i-s abarig hunar ke xwadayih ud dastwarih pad-is
xwesihed xwad-iz xwaday ud dastwar darend.
(that) for leadership and dastwarih those are fitting who,
besides their other virtues, because of which lordship and
dastwarih are theirs, also have a lord and a dastwar them­
selves.
39 See J.C. Tavadia, Sayasi-ne-Sayast, Hamburg 1930 (hereafter SnS).
 Spiritual authority in Zoroastrianism 9
[DkM. 784.19f.] handarz abar wizidan ud dastan i mendgig
ud getigig dastwar, ud pad dastwar kardan i harw kdr, ud
dastan i han-iz dastwar dastwar.
Advice about choosing and having a spiritual and (a?) world­
ly dastwar, and performing each action with (the authority
of) the dastwar, and (about) that dastwar also having a dast­
war.
The layman’s dastwar thus appears to be the last link in a chain of
authority descending ultimately from Ahura Mazda and Zarathustra,
and must be chosen with care:
[DkM. 855.8ff.] abar griftan ud dastan i han i axwomand
ud radomand dastwar ud niyoxsidan i-s hammdg ud pad-is
o Ohrmazd dastwarih ... ud 6 kirbag mizd i han i pahlom
axwan paywastan.
On taking and having a dastwar who has an ahui0 and
ratu, and hearkening to his teachings, and being connected
through him with the authority of Ohrmazd ... and with the
reward for good deeds in the Best Existence (i.e. Heaven).
In the course of time, choosing a good dastwar appears to have become
as important for a Zoroastrian, in many ways, as the choice between
good and evil itself. Thus it is said that a religious person with a wicked
dastwar, and a worldly-minded person with a good dastwar may both
find salvation, ‘for the one with inclination for the soul who has a wicked
dastwar may come to salvation because of his inclination for the soul, and
the one with inclination for the body who has a good dastwar may (do
so) because of having a good dastwar'1 (DkM. 93.17ff.: ce ruwan-kamag i
dusdastwar sayed pad ruwan-kamagih, ud tan-kamag i hudastwar sayed
pad hudastwarih *o bozisn madan).

8 The emphasis laid on the importance of ‘choosing’ the right dastwar

suggests that there may have been weightier grounds for choice than
individual differences in piety and learning. Contrary to what might be
expected in a religion which recognises, in theory at least, a hierarchical
structure of spiritual authority, the teachings and judgements of various
dastwars could differ materially from one another:
[EM. I.x.7] ... be maydn-iz xwad abar-tom rast dastwaran—
be andar astih ud ham-hayydrih ud dosaram i-san dgenen —
jud-sahisnih, jud-dadestanih, jud-castagih, jud-griftarih ud
jud-kardagih bud.
40 On Av. ahu- see AirWb, 281-82; the word is often associated in Pahlavi texts
with xwaday ‘lord’ (e.g. Phl.Y. 19.8).
10 Philip G. Kreyenbroek

... indeed, even among the supreme just dastwars —albeit in

the peace, good-fellowship and love which they (shared) to­
gether— there were differences in opinion, judgement, teach­
ing, interpretation and practice.
In a number of Pahlavi books — notably those dating from the post-
Sasanian era — three accepted ‘teachings’ (castag) are mentioned, prob­
ably those of Medyomah, *Abarag and Sbsans.41 A characteristic feature
of most of the texts where judgements from such teachings are discussed
is that these judgements are mentioned side by side, without comment
on the intrinsic merits of each. Traditionally, it seems, all rulings by
recognised dastwars were held to be valid, and could not be abrogated
even though a different judgement might later be officially preferred:
[EM. I.iv.15-16] ... han i andsag-ruwdn Weh-Sabuhr i
Mobedan Mobed ud ani-z Ohrmazd mobedan guft ud castag
i az-isan, pas-iz kardag pad-is ne wardenidan ud gowisn i
any dastwar pad-is ne agarenidan, be han i-sdn pad ewarih
padirift az gowisn i abdrig dastwaran pad abar-tar dastan ud
kardag i any-ewenag-gowisndn ne wardenidan dadig sahist.
... (as to) what was said by Weh-Sabuhr of immortal soul,
the Mobedan Mobed, and the other Mobeds of Ohrmazd,
and as to the teachings which (came) from them, it was
deemed right not to alter a single section (kardag') in those
(texts) afterwards, and not to let the pronouncements of
other dastwars be abrogated by them, but to consider what
they (i.e. Weh-Sabuhr c.s.) accepted as true, to be supe­
rior to the words of other dastwars, and not to alter a single
kardag of those who judged differently.
According to an old text, religious authorities must judge on the basis of
the Avesta and Zand, or of the consensus of the faithful.42 Later sources
add that a dastwar’s freedom of judgement is restricted by the rulings
of earlier authorities,43 and particularly by those of the three accepted
Teachings:

[REA. XXI.2]44 han ke kas i pad harw 3 castag ne reman,

pad remanih wizir pad-is kuned, pad dastwar ne sayed.

41 See, e.g., the references in the Epistles of Manuscihr (below), but cf. SnS. 2.3-4,
where the ‘three teachings’ are mentioned, but more than three names are given.
42 DkM. 712.20f.: ud abar ku dadwar wizir az Abestag ud Zand kunisn ayab az
ham-dadestanih i wehan; the Denkard passage is based on the Avestan Nigadum
Nask.
EM. I.iv.7, I.iv.lOff.
44 See B.T. Anklesaria, Rivayat-i Hemit-i Asavahistan, vol. I, Pahlavi Text, Bom­
bay 1962.
 Spiritual authority in Zoroastrianism 11

he who pronounces a person unclean who, according to all

three Cdstags is not unclean, is not fit to be a dastwar.

Manuscihr, moreover, repeatedly states that even a priest of considerable

standing, such as his brother Zadsparam, needs the approval of superior
dastwars, and ultimately that of the Leader of the Faithful himself, for an
important ruling.45 The fact that this needed to be pointed out, however,
in itself suggests that the limits of a dastwar's authority were not always
clearly delineated; the existence of three Teachings of equal validity,
moreover, presumably gave lower-ranking dastwars a considerable degree
of independence.
There appears to have been a logical contradiction, therefore, be­
tween the existence of a plurality of authoritative teachings, and the
theory that supreme spiritual authority, and responsibility for the reli­
gion, rest with a single leader. This contradiction was probably felt more
keenly in the post-Sasanian era, when the Zoroastrian community grew
smaller, the official religious leadership concerned itself more exclusively
with spiritual and ritual matters, and, gradually, a wider use came to
be made of the written word (see further below). The 9th-century high
priest Manuscihr, who clearly wrestled with this question in his efforts
to refute the teachings of his brother Zadsparam, apparently sought to
solve the problem by advocating eclecticism:

[EM I.ix.10] ud ne pad han dm ku Medyomah pad nerang-e

bdzisndmand-tar— ud pas any tis i *Abarag bdzisndmand-
tar — kdr az gdwisn i Medydmdhig kunisn. harw han ce
Medydmah bozisndmand-tar az Medydmah, harw han ce
*Abarag bdzisndmand-tar az *Abarag, ud han i any dastwar
bdzisndmand-tar az han dastwar padirisn i wes-bdzisn-tar
*hangard.
And, (just) because Medyomah is the most ‘redeeming’ in
one instruction — whereas another thing by *Abarag is more
redeeming — one should not perform the (whole) work ac­
cording to the words of Medyomah. Everything in which
Medyomah is more redeeming should be accepted from
Medydmah, everything in which *Abarag is more redeem­
ing (should be accepted) from *Abarag, and that in which
another dastwar is more redeeming should be accepted from
that dastwar who is considered most redeeming.

45 E.g., EM. II.v.2-4, II.i.8, 9. On Manuscihr and Zadsparam see further Anklesaria,
Vichitahitia-i Zatsparam, Introduction, passim.
12 Philip G. Kreyenbroek

9 The question remains, however, how to decide which judgement is

the most ‘redeeming’. Evidently, the 9th-century Zoroastrian priests
had not developed a coherent system of criteria sophisticated enough
to enable them to judge the intrinsic merits of different rulings (which
would, theoretically, have made it possible to draw up a unified code of
preferred judgements). Manuscihr, writing towards the end of the era
of Zoroastrian intellectual activity, could do no more than refer to the
weight of personal authority supporting each judgement:46
[EM. I.vi.6] ek dy abarig wizid; pdryotkesan pad en bud hend
ku vikaiiehe, kar ciyon-is wizdrisn en ku dadestan i-s md'yan
abar jud-pahikar hend, han i mo^-e ewenag gowed ud 2 mo^
i-s hdwand any-ewenag *gowend, kar az han 2 gugdy kunisn.
he alone (i.e., *Abarag) judged differently; the ancient teach­
ers adhered to vikaiiehe, a practice which is explained as fol­
lows: a case about which the priests disagree, if one priest
says (it should be done) one way, and two priests who are
his equals say that (it should be done) another way, then the
work is to be done according to those two witnesses.
[EM. II.ii.7] han i *Abarag guft ku 2 ydjdahrgar oh abayed,
Medyomah-iz guft ku ek was; az han ciyon-is castag, Sosans
ham-gugdy pad han i-s guft; edon ham-dddestan-tar bud hend
ku ka ek ast *a sayed. ciyon ham-gugay-iz cand dastwar
paydagenid *bawend, xwad *Abarag ud abarig-iz herbedan
ham-dadestan bud hend ku *biuuakaiiehe kar i Medyomah
boxtag.
As to that which *Abarag said, viz., that two purifiers are
necessary — Medyomah, on the other hand, said that one is
sufficient; (as is clear) from the way (it is said in) his Castag,
Sosans also bore witness to what he (i.e., Medyomah) said.
Thus they have been more in agreement to the effect that
when there is (only) one (purifier), it is allowed. Since a
number of dastwars have also been found to bear witness
to this, *Abarag himself and other teachers (herbedan) have
agreed that, according to *biuuakaiiehe,i7 Medyomah’s case
is victorious.
The latter passage seems to beg the question why, if * Abarag had con­
ceded ‘victory’ to his opponents, he had not retracted his own judgement

46 In one passage (RAF, vol. I, p. 82, vol. II, pp. 40-41, Q. LXXIII), it is stated
that rulings which are based on Avestan evidence are superior to those which are not.
Such rudimentary principles, however, were hardly sufficient to serve as a basis for a
systematic evaluation of the judgements from the various Castags.
47 Cf. AirWb, 965, s.v.
 Spiritual authority in Zoroastrianism 13

or, if he had, why it was obviously still in circulation at a later period.

The most probable explanation for this appears to be that, while the in­
fluence of the written word increasingly made itself felt, the system was
still largely based on an oral tradition: if a judgement had been taught
orally to a number of students, who had since departed and perhaps
handed down the ruling to their own followers, to revoke it may have
been next to impossible. The relative crudeness of the principles used
for evaluating different rulings also points to an oral system.
A written tradition developed slowly in Zoroastrianism, and compi­
lations on specific themes (which would have been a prerequisite for a
detailed comparison between teachings) were apparently introduced in
the late Sasanian period or even after that.48 The existence of such
sources, moreover, probably affected the structure of the system only
gradually. If Zoroastrianism had continued to flourish, this transition
to a written tradition might eventually have had the effect of curtail­
ing the independent authority of individual dastwars (Manuscihr’s plea
for eclecticism, which presupposes the use of written sources, and per­
haps the limitation of the ‘accepted teachings’ to three, can be cited
as instances of such a development). As long as the system was based
predominantly on an oral tradition, however, the practical limitations
of such a tradition would presumably have made it impossible for the
highest authorities to control the teachings of local or regional dastwars,
except when these were felt to pose a serious threat to the integrity of
the faith or the unity of the Church.49

10 It seems, therefore, that the later Pahlavi books are beginning to

show the influence of a written literature on a system which had, until a
few centuries earlier, been based largely on oral transmission. If some of
the features of the Zoroastrian concept of spiritual authority are regarded
in this light, it is clear that they can be understood as deriving at least
partly from ideas and attitudes engendered by an oral tradition:
— Oral transmission implies a chain of personal contacts between
teacher and disciple, which ultimately links the living priest with Zara­
thustra himself.
— For this reason, and also because he ‘embodies’ the Sacred Word,50
which has no objective existence except through him, the personal au­
thority of the living priest is of paramount importance for the faith.

48 Cf. M. Boyce, ‘Middle Persian Literature’, in: B. Spuler (ed.), Handbuch der
Orientalistik 1.4.2, Leiden and Cologne 1968, pp. 36, 39, and Zoroastrians: Their
Religious Beliefs and Practices, London, etc. 1979, pp. 136ff.
49 On such occasions, councils were probably held, such as the Council of Khosraw I,
on which see EM. Liv.17, 15-16 (see above), and Boyce, Zoroastrians, p. 133.
50 Cf. Av. lanu.maftra- ‘having the Sacred Word for body’ (cf. Gershevitch, Avestan
Hymn to Mithra, pp. 180-81), which can be used of priests (Yi. 5.91, Vend. 18.5).
14 Philip G. Kreyenbroek

— In the absence of written texts, those who had memorised and

studied a larger part of the religious tradition were necessarily better
qualified to judge in matters of the faith than those who knew less.
— These factors taken together suggest that, in theory, a spiritual
hierarchy must exist in Zoroastrianism. This in turn may have led to, or
helped to keep alive, the concept of an ideal supreme priest who knows
the entire religious tradition (den), and is thus ‘most like Zarathustra’
(zardustrotom), except for the fact that he brings no revelation. In fact,
from a purely theoretical point of view, there could be no sound basis
for spiritual authority unless it was postulated that a figure who knew
the religious tradition in its entirety was somehow present in the world
in every age. Originally, the title Zaradustrotama may well have referred
to an actual human priest, but in the course of time, as the faith spread
and the religious tradition became too extensive for any ordinary man to
commit to memory, the Zardustrotom apparently became an ideal figure
who was held to be present, yet not necessarily manifest, in the world.
— Since communications between dastwars in a largely oral system
were necessarily limited, the authority of the supreme dastwar(s) could
presumably only have been imposed in matters of major importance,
thus leaving a certain measure of independence to local or regional ‘au­
thorities’.
— The authority of the latter group over their own followers, how­
ever, who depended on the personal guidance of a dastwar for the sal­
vation of their souls, was probably considerable.

11 In the light of the above, it seems likely that such attitudes as a

special veneration for a living Imam, whose authority derived from a
direct connection with the Prophet, would have come easily to people
of Iranian descent. The concept of an omniscient Hidden Imam, more­
over, who is present in the world and yet invisible, is strikingly similar
to that of the Zardustrotom as inferred from the — admittedly scanty —
Pahlavi passages. If, in addition, one takes into account the fact that
the concept of the Occultation (ghayba) evolved at a time when the
Naubakhti family — whose name suggests that it had at least some link
with Iranian culture — “were probably the chief influence in the forma­
tion of Imamism”,51 it becomes clear that it would be rash to rule out
any possibility of Zoroastrian influence in this respect.
Also, early Iranian Muslims may well have perceived the ‘ulamd’ on
the one hand, and lower-ranking ‘religious professionals’,52 on the other,
as Islamic counterparts of the Zoroastrian dastwars and their ‘disciples’
51W. Montgomery Watt, The Formative Period of Islamic Thought, Edin­
burgh 1973,p. 276.
52 For these see S. NafisI (ed.), Qabusnama, Tehran 1347 (1968/9), ch. XXXI,
pp. 112ff.
 Spiritual authority in Zoroastrianism 15

(hawist), and continued to depend on them to an extent not generally

found in the rest of the Islamic world. This tendency — which need
not, of course, have been confined to Muslims of Shi'ite leanings53 —
may in turn have been one of the major factors that contributed to the
emergence in Iran of something very like an Islamic priesthood.
As is well known, the believer’s obligation to choose and follow a spir­
itual director (marja' al-taqlid), without whose authority his ritual acts
are not valid, came to be fully accepted by a majority of Shi'ite ‘ulama’
only comparatively recently.54 The fact, however, that this custom has
an exact counterpart in Zoroastrianism could lead one to suppose that
these ‘ulamd’ merely sanctioned a dependence on ‘priestly’ authority
which may have continued in popular religion from the beginnings of
Islam in Iran.

53 On the existence of an estate of Islamic ‘clerical notables’ in Iran before the Shi'a
was introduced as the state religion see S.A. Arjomand, The Shadow of God and the
Hidden Iman: Religion, Political Order, and Social Change in ShTite Iran from the
Beginning to 1890, Chicago and London 1984, pp. 122IT.
54 See J.R. Cole, ‘Imami Jurisprudence and the Role of the Ulama: Mortaza Ansari
on Emulating the Supreme Exemplar’ in Keddie, Religion and Politics, pp. 33-46.