Zoroastrian Dualism against its Critics

This paper discusses chapter 142 of Dēnkard 3 entitled ‘On Light and Darkness’ (abar rōšnīh tārīkīh); this is an important chapter for many reasons; first, it contains a short excerpt from Ādurfarrōbay’s lost Ēwēn Nāmag, which a second voice quotes and clarifies; these clarifications indicate that Ādurfarrōbay was arguing against the monist thesis that darkness is the nonexistence of light. The second reason this chapter is important is that the second voice seeks to rationally justify a uniquely Zoroastrian style of dualism against the monism of these unidentified ‘sectarians’ (kēšdārān). Zoroastrian dualism is distinct from other sorts of dualism — e.g. the contemporary Manichaean style of dualism — and it is also what firmly distinguishes Zoroastrian philosophy from Greek influence, since any foreign ideas entering Zoroastrian philosophical speculation must be harmonized with this dualistic framework. So, contemporary Neoplatonic monism is shown to be incompatible with Zoroastrian philosophical dualism. The second voice presents two basic arguments against monism: first, monists ignore the law of non-contradiction; second, their position is based on absurdities entailed by admitting that nonexistence exists. In this way, this chapter of the Dēnkard is particularly important, since it contains the arguments supporting the uniquely Zoroastrian style of dualism, and these arguments also appeared with much greater clarity in Mardānfarrox’s treatise.