(9) For the Word of the Father of the universe is not the uttered word (logou proForikou), but the wisdom and most manifest kindness of God, and His power too, which is almighty and truly divine, and not incapable of being conceived by those who do not confess - the all-potent will. But since some are unbelieving, and some are disputations, all do not attain to the perfection of the good. For neither is it possible to attain it without the exercise of free choice; nor does the whole depend on our own purpose; as, for example, what is defined to happen. "For by grace we are saved:" not, indeed, without good works; but we must, by being formed for what is good, acquire an inclination for it. And we must possess the healthy mind which is fixed on the pursuit of the good; in order to which we have the greatest need of divine grace, and of right teaching, and of holy susceptibility, and of the drawing of the Father to Him. For, bound in this earthly body, we apprehend the objects of sense by means of the body; but we grasp intellectual objects by means of the logical faculty itself. But if one expect to apprehend all things by the senses, he has fallen far from the truth. Spiritually, therefore, the apostle writes respecting the knowledge of God, "For now we see as through a glass, but then face to face." For the vision of the truth is given but to few. Accordingly, Plato says in the Epinomis, "I do not say that it is possible for all to be blessed and happy; only a few. Whilst we live, I pronounce this to be the case. But there is a good hope that after death I shall attain all." To the same effect is what we find in Moses: "No man shall see My face, and live." For it is evident that no one during the period of life has been able to apprehend God clearly. But" the pure in heart shall see God," when they arrive at the final perfection. For since the soul became too enfeebled for the apprehension of realities, we needed a divine teacher. The Saviour is sent down - a teacher and leader in the acquisition of the good -the secret and sacred token of the great Providence. "Where, then, is the scribe? where is the searcher of this world? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?" it is said. And again, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent," plainly of those wise in their own eyes, and disputatious. Excellently therefore Jeremiah says, "Thus saith the Lord, Stand in the ways, and ask for the eternal paths,"what is the good way, and walk in it, and ye shall find expiation for your souls." Ask, he says, and inquire of those who know, without contention and dispute. And on learning the way of truth, let us walk on the right way, without turning till we attain to what we desire: It was therefore with reason that the king of the Romans (his name was Numa), being a Pythagorean, first of all men, erected a temple to Faith and Peace. "And to Abraham, on believing, righteousness was reckoned." He, prosecuting the lofty philosophy of aerial phenomena, and the sublime philosophy of the movements in the heavens, was called Abram, which is interpreted "sublime father." But afterwards, on looking up to heaven, whether it was that he saw the Son in the spirit, as some explain, or a glorious angel, or in any other way recognised God to be superior to the creation, and all the order in it, he receives in addition the Alpha, the knowledge of the one and only God, and is called Abraam, having, instead of a natural philosopher, become wise, and a lover of God. For it is interpreted, "elect father of sound." For by sound is the uttered word: the mind is its father; and the mind of the good man is elect. I cannot forbear praising exceedingly the poet of Agrigentum, who celebrates faith as follows: "Friends, I know, then, that there is truth in the myths Which I will relate. But very difficult to men, And irksome to the mind, is the attempt of faith."

(11) And when shall the (Divine) Righteousness, the Good Mind (of the Lord, and His) Sovereign Power (come) hastening to me (to give me strength for my task and mission), O Great Creator, the Living Lord! (For without his I cannot advance or undertake my toil.) Do ye now therefore assign unto us your aid and in abundance for our great cause. May we be (partakers) of the bountiful grace of these your equals (your counsellors and servants) ! 4:1 Something like this is implied. 4:2 If verses 4, 5, 6, were originally connected. 4:3 Or possibly a company of the religious chiefs poetically conceived to be present. 6:1 Ke ma tashat can only mean this here. The Pahlavi translator probably read kahmâi. He has val mûn li tukhshîd (?) hômanam. 6:2 One might think of 'inertia' as a rendering for remô, (if read), but the afflictions complained of seem rather to imply active violence. 6:3 Or read tâyuskâ (robbery?) with the Pahlavi translation; 'yu' and 'vi' would be written much alike in a manuscript. 6:4 Vastâ has been found, as I understand, in some manuscripts. The Persian manuscript of Haug has a curious vâstîrîdâr (vâsta-rîdâr?) in the Pahlavi text, which seems to confirm vastâ in the sense given. 6:5 As there are very many non-specialists to whom it is important to weigh this present subject as closely as it may be possible, and as everything here is a matter of the keenest questioning among experts, I add occasionally a word-for-word rendering, although necessarily very uncouth: To you the Kine's soul cried-complaining: For whom me did ye fashion? Who me made? Against me assaulting-rapine, violence-and, desolations-[blow], daring-insolence-and, (thievish) might-and (possibly change the text). Not for me a pasture-giver than-you other; therefore to-me teach-ye good (things) for-the-pasture (adj. acc. pl. neut.). 6:6 I fear that I cannot follow Haug in his later view, where he follows tradition in rather an extreme manner, rendering 'the cutter (wounder) of the Ox.' Neither Spiegel nor Justi would confide to a later myth to this degree (see Y. XXXI, 9 and XLVI, 9). This is p. 7 mentioned, however, not as complaining of an error, but solely to guard the reader against the mistake of an eminent authority. (See also Roth, Z.D.M.G., Bd. 25, s. 9.) 7:1 Observe the personification of righteousness. 7:2 Or, 'what salvation-lord,' governed by dâtâ from the preceding line; so also the Pahlavi translator mûn avo pavan nadûkîh khûdâî. Ustâ occurs only here as a verbal form. Supply anghat in b. 7:3 The Pahlavi aêshmo anâêr zanisno. 7:4 Or read ashem. The Pahlavi has ashavahisto pasukhvo gûft. I am not at all inclined to accept vocatives for nominatives in the Gâthas. 7:5 Sar-gan, compare Verethragan. The Pahlavi indicates this by tanû sardârîh. 7:6 Possibly, 'by which he approaches.' 7:7 The Pahlavi rôshano î râsto. 7:8 Cp. Y. XXX, 1: yâ raokebîs daresatâ urvâzâ. 7:9 The Pahlavi indicates a third person; and keredushâ is far the most simply explained as a nom. pl. Recall mâ mashâ and man (?) mathâ. Otherwise, 'to whom I will come with activity and invoking.' 8:1 A verse or verses may here have fallen out. 8:2 I cannot persuade myself to accept the nearly universally accepted comparison of Mazdau and medhâ. See note on p. 104. 8:3 Or, 'He has done by Daêvas?' If thus, absolute and not qualified sovereignty would be indicated. See the last line 8:4 Observe that while 'by Daêva-worshippers' would be an admirable rendering for Daêvâis, because more commonplace and therefore safer, it is here impossible on account of mashyâiskâ. We are closely confined to the acceptance of a large idea. Ahura was mindful of what transpired in the deeds of Daêva-gods and not in those of Daêva-worshippers alone. The inst. must be modified. 8:5 As varshaitê is elsewhere used in an active sense, it is possible, but not probable, that a special predestination may be indicated. 'He shall do by means of Daêvas and men.' 8:6 'To us men,' not to us Ameshôspends, of course! 8:7 Verbatim. Mazda the-words most-mindful which for have-been-fulfilled before by-means-of- (the actions of) Daêvas-and men-and what-and (shall)-be-done after, He the discriminating lord; so to-us shall-it-be as He shall-choose. 8:8 This seems to prove positively that a human being speaks here and in the previous verse; 'the soul of Righteousness' is of course impossible. 8:9 Some have referred the word to the root zan obscurely present in it; otherwise a drivable cow; one mature and fit for use. The term used in the Vendîdâd in a common meaning as merely p. 9 designating a cow at a certain age, may be the familiar use of an adjective here applied in the ancient Gâtha in a sacred sense. 9:1 This passage is one of the strongest for the comparison of Mazdau and medhâ. The sense 'asking wisdom in our doubt,' is admirable. I cannot however accept the comparison. 9:2 Pavan gômânîkîh hampûrsânî; root dî. 9:3 The Pahlavi awasînisnîh*, but in other connections fragyâitis might well mean 'continued life;' 'life long endured with the wicked.' 9:4 The Pahlavi has vishûpisnŏ, which here affords a better meaning; see however Y. XLVIII, 9. We might read as alternative here, 'knowing the calamity to be averted.' 9:5 Uncertain. The Pahlavi however indicates 'discernment.' 9:6 One is strongly tempted to read aêvô, 'not a single chief,' but the ancient writing read by the Pahlavi translator had aêvâ ahû. 9:7 This indicates that Zarathustra had been the speaker in the previous verses. 9:8 Appointed. 9:9 Verbatim. Thereupon spake Ahura Mazda knowing the-wonderful (thing) through-insight (?) not thus a master found, nor a ruler righteous-order-from-even from, therefore for thee to-the-thrifty-and to-the-husbandman-and (I) as-a-creator I-have-made. 10:1 Or a company of the saints conceived to be present. 10:2 So some writers, accepting an irregular reading hvarushaêibyô after the indication of the Pahlavi translation. Otherwise compare 'rush' (?), uru = ru, and render 'to the estranged.' We have often to stretch the meaning more than this. Converting instructions are elsewhere suggested for 'all mankind.' 10:3 The translation of Neryosangh is added here not merely because it is of interest, but because it is, together with the Pahlavi translation, of the last importance in forming correct conclusions. It may be rendered as follows; and the reader may regard it as a specimen, but by no means a particularly favourable one. At the words âzûtôîs and maretaêibyô different texts were before him and the Pahlavi translator as well. Those words are elsewhere rendered by the latter karpîh and ansûtâân: This greatest magnitude (sic) of the Mãthra, the Lord produced together with righteousness as his fellow-worker [ ]. The Great Wise One discloses the herds to the eaters; and he discloses also the great matter to the well-taught scholars. Who is thine, who endowed with the best mind, gives the two things, with the mouth to those who are prosecuting studies (sic)? To expect an ancient rendering to be closer would be unreasonable. The errors (as to root) are not errors, but the certain signs of differing MSS. This constantly occurs; and it is hardly necessary to add that sometimes from such supposed mistakes we get the only possible means of recovering the original text. 10:4 Repeating the announcement in verse 6. The aêvâ in 6 would incline one to read aêvâ (ye ne aêvâ), but the manuscript before the Pahlavi translator read aêvô = khadûk. It is quite out of the question to suppose his aêtûno and khadûk to be accidental. A sharp distinction is made. 11:1 So the Pahlavi translator, giving the only critical etymology in his hûdemûnîh, the gloss aside. 11:2 The Pahlavi text corrected by the Persian MS. may be rendered as follows: This gift I obtained [ ]. For this one is he who was listening to that which is our teaching, Zartûsht, the Spitâmân. For us, Aûharmazd, and for Aharâyîh is his desire, [that is, that perfectly performed duty, and good works are desired by him]. He recites also a remedy-making (free or erroneous), [that is, he declares a remedy-making against the Drûg who is in the world]; on account of which saying for his word of piety which he utters, they give him a good abode [ ]. (The glosses are often from a later hand and erroneous. Sometimes, however, they contain the truth while the text is futile. I drop them in the present citations when they are of no importance.) 11:3 Observe that Zarathustra, like other prophets, met at times little honour from his fellow-countrymen who are here well represented by the voice of the Kine's Soul. (See Y. XLVI, 1.) 11:4 Or could not hôi be taken in a reflective sense, and referred to the first person like the possessive sve; see the connection. 11:5 Verbatim. Thereupon-and the Kine's Soul wept: (I) who p. 12 (lament) one-not-able-to-effect-his-wish in-wounding as-a-master (or, I established?) [ ], whom as-against I-wish one wish-controlling-and-effecting-as-a-sovereign. When ever he may-(shall)-be who to her (possibly to-me-myself?) shall-give effected-by-the-hand help. 12:1 Zarathustra, having accepted his call to be the Ratu or his substitute, at once interposes with a prayer for his suffering charge. 12:2 See verse 1, to which reference is continually made as the chief expression of the sufferings to be remedied. 12:3 The Pahlavi without glosses may be rendered as follows: Give ye assistance to these, O Aûharmazd, Ashavahist and Khshatraver! So also Vohûman, who gives him a pleasing habitation, and also joy. I also think that the first gain and obtaining of this is from thee. (With the gloss slightly different; but valman should be rendered according to ahyâ.) The text literally is as follows: (Do) ye to these, O Ahura! happiness (? possibly strength; see the Pahlavi) grant, O Asha! Khshathra-and (=the Kingdom) such (kingdom as) by Vohu Manah by-which amenities peaceful-joy-and (one) may give-or-establish; I-even of this, O Mazda! Thee I thought foremost possessor. 12:4 So the Pahlavi translation indicates; compare gimâ and frâ man (?) mathâ; otherwise mâmashâ = I hasten (to fulfil my mission). 13:1 The Pahlavi has kabed. For the fundamental idea compare priksh + suffix. 13:2 The Ameshôspends just mentioned, together with whom Ahura governs and blesses His people. Ahmâ (so conjecturing with Barth.), is also quite sufficiently indicated by the lanman of the Pahlavi. Whether an instrumental ehmâ can be accepted is doubtful. The form should be altered. If ehmâ stands, istem must be understood, or the instrumental taken in a possessive sense. Ahmâ has no authority from MSS., but is better than anghâmâ, as being nearer the MSS. 13:3 As an impartial specimen I render Ner. thus: Whence will that gift come to me, (the gift which is) Asavahista, Gvahmana, and Saharevara, [that is, sanctity, the highest (best) mind, and the sovereignty, where is the place of the reward which will thus come to me?]. (Here the translation falls into confusion from an error which is most interesting and instructive, because it is corrected by Ner. in an alternative rendering in the gloss. As has been seldom noticed his original was the Pahlavi word pâdadahisnînêd, rather than the Gâthic paitî-zânatâ. This Pahlavi form he could not at first believe to be a second plural. Indeed the Pahlavi glossist may have taken it as a third sg. Neryosangh therefore abortively renders word-for-word as follows: You, O Great Wise One! it offers or presents more excellently through the 'greatest exaltation' (the holy cause). But he recovers himself in the gloss by reading the Pahlavi pâdâdahisnŏ vâdûnyên as an imperative: [Provide a reward through that spotless exaltation (the irreproachable cause)] continuing: Here, O Lord! is the gift (which is) ours, and (which comes) to us from Thee.) Next: Yasna XXVIII Sacred Texts | Zoroastrianism « Previous: The Zend Avesta, Part III (SBE31): The Gâthas: Intr... Index Next: The Zend Avesta, Part III (SBE31): The Gâthas: Yasn... » Sacred Texts | Zoroastrianism

(11) (Him would we magnify and praise) who hath despised the Daêva-gods and alien men, them who before held Him in their derision. Far different are (these) from him who gave Him honour. This latter one is through the Saoshyant's bounteous Faith, who likewise is the Lord of saving power , a friend, brother, or a father to us, Mazda Lord ! 125:1 Ish means 'to come seeking.' The bavîhûnêd of the Pahlavi, followed by many, is by no means incorrect. 125:2 The reading mãzdaunghôdûm was suggested to me by Dr. Aurel Stein previously (as I believe) to its announcement elsewhere. Before this the indication of the Pahlavi (which always hesitates to change a MS. regarded at the time as sacred) had been followed by all with its necessary error. 125:3 The 'e' in kithre must represent a nasalised vowel, as in mehmaidî. 125:4 Îm may be merely a particle. 125:5 I would here strongly insist upon an alternative rendering in the sense of the Pahlavi. The rendering above is given on principle. A text should never be changed, if it is possible to render it as it is. Read, 'the wicked confessing (varetô, active sense) evil beliefs with his tongue.' The Pahlavi has zakas sarîtar kâmakŏ va zakas darvandîh pavan hûzvânŏ hêmnunêd. Many, with this view, would at once read varetâ without MSS. 125:6 Observe the peculiar pouruyê (pourviyê, if not a locative), the two first things, principles, forces; so in Y. XXX, 3. 125:7 Notice that vahyô akemkâ (in Y. XXX, 3) necessarily apply to the mainyû, and not only because, as nominatives, the words fall to the end of the sentence. Here we have analogous adjectives applied unmistakably to the two. The neuters correspond with vahistem manô and akistem manô, and are of capital importance as p. 126 expressing that abstract conception which renders the Gâthas so much more impressive as the earliest documents of their kind. 126:1 The Pahlavi thus glosses: I do not think what thou thinkest, [for I think what is pious, and thou thinkest what is impious]; nor our teachings, [for I teach what is pious, and thou, what is impious]—nor our religions, for mine is the Gâthic, and thine that of the sorcerer; nor our souls, [for he who takes his stand on my religion, and he who takes his stand on thy religion, are apart; their souls do not occupy the same position]. Ner.: naka dînih [yato me dînih gâthabhavâ teka râkshasî*]. 126:2 The 'first teaching' was a prominent idea with the Zarathustrians. Z. is called in the later Avesta the paoiryôtkaêsha (sic). He hardly plays the rôle of a reformer in the Avesta. He is mentioned after others chronologically, not as repudiating them. He might better be termed reviver. Yãm is difficult; perhaps daênãm is to be understood, or yem (mãthrem) read; see verse 4, angheus ahyâ vahistem. Neither pourvîm nor vahistem are adverbs. 126:3 Some change the text here to another which corresponds to some of the terms better. It should, however, first be rendered as it stands; the obscurities may well be owing to idiosyncrasy it the composer; possibly also to an affectation of obscurity (or 'dark speech'). How can Mazda be said to 'know Himself?' or how could any but Ahura be spoken of as 'the Father of Vohu Manah and Âramaiti?' He recognised Himself as having generated V. M. and Â. He was conscious of the completed relation. 127:1 Hishas looks irresistibly like a nom. sing., but may it not be a nom. actoris from the redup. root? Compare hîshasat (although the Pahlavi renders with a different cast of meaning). What Indian word to compare here is hard to say. I prefer Bartholomae's earlier view (as to the meaning) with the Pahlavi harvispŏ nikîrîdar. By dropping the later glosses, the sense of the Pahlavi comes out as usual, much closer to the Gâtha. 127:2 Observe the vigour possessed by 'Sraosha.' It designates the angel of Obedience; and at the same time it is the only word which can here bring out the sense when it is understood in its actual meaning; so continually with the words Vohu Manah, Asha, &c. 127:3 Lit. 'Him who I, doing aright, (praising Him with His immortals) who (all likewise) are (beneficent).' Or it may be 'that which.' 127:4 So with many who hold the least to the hints of the Pahlavi. Otherwise I would render 'there is furtherance,' comparing afrashîmantô. 128:1 Bvaintikâ (sic) seems, as elsewhere, to express 'those who are becoming.' 128:2 The Pahlavi uniformly errs, or is strangely free, with this word. The sense 'continuous' is here admirably adapted. 128:3 This word seems evidently used almost in a modern sense of 'character,' 'disposition.' Elsewhere we are in doubt whether to refer it to the Spenista Mainyu of Ahura, or to Ahura Himself. 128:4 Paradise; possibly 'home of sublimity.' 128:5 The change from singular to plural is frequent. Ner. varies from the Pahlavi in the last verse, improving upon it: Evam tasmai pranâmam antar Garothmâne nidadâmahe. This was probably an intentional improvement, as the Persian MS. follows our Pahlavi text. His MS. of the Pahlavi probably read barâ yehabûnd. 128:6 Or, 'who has created weal and sorrow for us with good intention, (and as our discipline);' but this is hardly probable. Ahura did not originate evil. Spenkâ, aspenkâ are used adverbially (see Y. XXXIV, 7). 128:7 I hardly agree to reading verezenyau (sic) here in the sense of 'homes.' The meaning is 'endow us with efficiency' in the pursuit of the objects mentioned in the context. Or 'the propitiation and p. 129 reverential honour' may have been more directly in the composer's mind; 'may He endow our (worship) with efficiency that it may accomplish its desired result.' See the positions of the words. The Pahlavi translation also bears witness to the rendering above, with its erroneous or free varzîdâr ayŏ lanman. 129:1 As it is impossible for those who have studied the subject to believe that the Pahlavi translator did not know the meaning of amavandîh in Zend, we must suppose him to have had some form like hazah before him instead of huzã(thwât). 129:2 The Pahlavi translator, rendering this word in the two other places by pavan astûbîh, had evidently some reason for seeing a form of nãman here. The natural conclusion is that his MS. read differently in this place. Ner. renders him appropriately. 129:3 Dãn looks like an accusative infinitive here (Bartholomae); otherwise the two verbs must be regarded as having indefinite pronouns understood, 'one assigns,' and 'they grant.' 129:4 I cannot see the applicability of Agni's title 'house-lord' here; compare dámsupatnî as adj. referring to páti. 130:1 He who despised the Daêvas, they returning the contempt is probably the same person expressed by the two hôi in the previous verse. It is therefore Ahura, but the words which mean friend, brother, father, are grammatically connected with ye—mainyâtâ. the one who reverenced Ahura. The expression 'father' gives a strong impression that Ahura is referred to, notwithstanding the vocative. Particularly as we have father in verse 4. The word 'brother,' however, inclines one to the more closely grammatical view. Next: Yasna XLVI Sacred Texts | Zoroastrianism « Previous: The Zend Avesta, Part III (SBE31): The Gâthas: Yasn... Index Next: The Zend Avesta, Part III (SBE31): The Gâthas: Yasn... » Sacred Texts | Zoroastrianism

(18) Seeking Him, seek nothing of Him outside; within is to be sought what follows upon Him; Himself do not attempt. He is, Himself, that outer, He the encompassment and measure of all things; or rather He is within, at the innermost depth; the outer, circling round Him, so to speak, and wholly dependent upon Him, is Reason-Principle and Intellectual-Principle-or becomes Intellectual-Principle by contact with Him and in the degree of that contact and dependence; for from Him it takes the being which makes it Intellectual-Principle.

A circle related in its path to a centre must be admitted to owe its scope to that centre: it has something of the nature of that centre in that the radial lines converging on that one central point assimilate their impinging ends to that point of convergence and of departure, the dominant of radii and terminals: the terminals are of one nature with the centre, separate reproductions of it, since the centre is, in a certain sense, the total of terminals and radii impinging at every point upon it; these lines reveal the centre; they are the development of that undeveloped.

In the same way we are to take Intellectual-Principle and Being. This combined power springs from the Supreme, an outflow and as it were development from That and remaining dependent upon that Intellective nature, showing forth That which, in the purity of its oneness, is not Intellectual-Principle since it is no duality. No more than in the circle are the lines or circumference to be identified with that Centre which is the source of both: radii and circle are images given forth by indwelling power and, as products of a certain vigour in it, not cut off from it.

Thus the Intellective power circles in its multiple unity around the Supreme which stands to it as archetype to image; the image in its movement round about its prior has produced the multiplicity by which it is constituted Intellectual-Principle: that prior has no movement; it generates Intellectual-Principle by its sheer wealth.

Such a power, author of Intellectual-Principle, author of being- how does it lend itself to chance, to hazard, to any "So it happened"?

What is present in Intellectual-Principle is present, though in a far transcendent mode, in the One: so in a light diffused afar from one light shining within itself, the diffused is vestige, the source is the true light; but Intellectual-Principle, the diffused and image light, is not different in kind from its prior; and it is not a thing of chance but at every point is reason and cause.

The Supreme is cause of the cause: it is cause preeminently, cause as containing cause in the deepest and truest mode; for in it lie the Intellective causes which are to be unfolded from it, author as it is not of the chance- made but of what the divine willed: and this willing was not apart from reason, was not in the realm of hazard and of what happened to present itself.

Thus Plato, seeking the best account of the necessary and appropriate, says they are far removed from hazard and that what exists is what must exist: if thus the existence is as it must be it does not exist without reason: if its manner of being is the fitting, it is the utterly self-disposing in comparison with its sequents and, before that, in regard to itself: thus it is not "as it happened to be" but as it willed to be: all this, on the assumption that God wills what should be and that it is impossible to separate right from realization and that this Necessary is not to God an outside thing but is, itself, His first Activity manifesting outwardly in the exactly representative form. Thus we must speak of God since we cannot tell Him as we would.