Abstract
This article explores the dualistic conception of evil in Zoroastrian religious texts, focusing specifically on the ontological and functional distinctions between Ahriman (Angra Mainyu) and the divs (demons) as they appear in the Avesta and Middle Persian (Pahlavi) literature. By comparing their roles, representations, and theological significance, this study examines how these figures evolved from early cosmogonic forces into complex entities within the moral, ritual, and cosmic orders of Zoroastrianism. The research also engages with comparative mythology to position these Zoroastrian constructs in relation to analogous figures in other Indo-European traditions, thereby enriching our understanding of the Persian conceptualisation of evil. Ultimately, the article offers a nuanced view of how ancient Iranians imagined, ritualised, and confronted evil — not merely as mythic adversaries, but as active agents in a cosmological drama between order (asha) and chaos (druj).
Introduction
Among the world’s oldest religious traditions, Zoroastrianism presents one of the most elaborate theological models of cosmic dualism. Central to its doctrine is the stark opposition between good and evil, embodied in the two primal spirits: Ahura Mazda, the Wise Lord and source of all that is good, and Angra Mainyu (later known as Ahriman), the destructive spirit who embodies evil, deceit, and chaos[1].
This fundamental dichotomy is further elaborated in a wide-ranging hierarchy of spiritual beings — most notably, the divs or demons — who serve Ahriman and oppose the divine forces of truth and order[2].
The concept of evil in Zoroastrianism is neither static nor monolithic. It undergoes significant transformation from the Gathic hymns — traditionally attributed to Zoroaster himself — to the later Avestan texts and culminates in the rich demonological framework of Pahlavi writings, such as the Bundahišn, Dēnkard, and Mēnōg-ī Xrad[3].
1. Ontological Status of Ahriman and the Divs in Zoroastrian Cosmology
In Zoroastrian cosmology, evil is not merely a by-product of human moral failure but is instead rooted in a metaphysical dualism that predates creation. The core theological narrative posits the eternal opposition between Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu, two uncreated spirits (mainyus) with fundamentally antithetical essences — one wholly good (spenta), the other wholly destructive (angra)[4]. This dichotomy is particularly evident in later Avestan texts such as the Yasna and the Vendidad and reaches its most systematic expression in Pahlavi works like the Bundahišn[5].
Angra Mainyu, later known as Ahriman in Middle Persian, is not a subordinate creature but an independent and eternally existing being who chooses evil voluntarily. According to the Bundahišn, Ahriman is “without knowledge, without light, and without end” — an inversion of Ahura Mazda, who represents omniscience, radiance, and order[6]. Unlike the monotheistic Satan, Ahriman is not a fallen angel but a primordial anti-spirit, co-eternal with the force of good yet antithetical to it[7].
In contrast to Ahura Mazda, whose creative impulse is purposeful and orderly, Ahriman’s nature is reactive and chaotic. His principal motive is to corrupt and destroy creation (gētīg), which he does by unleashing an army of demonic forces upon the material world[8].
The divs, often translated as demons, are not equivalent to Ahriman but are his creations or emanations. In the Vendidad, divs are associated with filth, disease, and falsehood, embodying the concept of druj — the cosmic lie[9].
While Ahriman represents the essence of evil, the divs operationalise his intentions. Each div is often personified with a specific function: Akoman (evil thought), Indar (apostasy), Taromaiti (excessive pride), and Bushasp (sloth), among others[10].
These demons mirror and invert the Amesha Spentas, the seven divine emanations of Ahura Mazda, suggesting a kind of demonic counter-hierarchy. This structure becomes especially pronounced in Middle Persian texts, where each virtue is shadowed by its demonic opposite[11].
Some texts imply that the divs were independently existent but rallied to Ahriman’s cause, while others suggest that they were created by him specifically to oppose the creation of Ahura Mazda. The Bundahišn suggests that Ahriman, in his fury and envy at the perfection of Ahura Mazda’s creation, fashioned the divs to corrupt each element of the world — fire, water, plants, animals, and humans[12].
Thus, while Ahriman embodies the principle of metaphysical evil, the divs are its diverse manifestations within the cosmic order. This division is crucial: Ahriman is transcendentally evil, while the divs enact that evil immanently in the world.
2. The Evolution of Demonology: From the Avesta to the Pahlavi Texts
While the earliest Zoroastrian scriptures — particularly the Gathas — focus primarily on ethical dualism (asha vs. druj) and individual moral choice, later Avestan and Middle Persian texts gradually construct a more elaborate demonology centred on ontological evil. The shift from abstract moral dualism to cosmic myth is not merely literary but reflects evolving theological, cultural, and even political concerns[13].
From Gathic Ethics to Later Avesta Mythology
In the Gathas, attributed to Zarathustra himself, the emphasis lies in moral choices and the inner battle between truth (asha) and lie (druj). There is little mention of a personified evil being. The antagonists are forces of disorder and deceit, yet they remain somewhat metaphorical. For instance, Angra Mainyu is not named in the Gathas but emerges later in the Yasna and Vendidad as a central demonic figure[14].
In later Avestan texts, Angra Mainyu becomes personified and set in direct opposition to Spenta Mainyu. This conceptual development signals a shift: evil is no longer a by-product of moral lapse but an active, self-conscious force in the universe. Simultaneously, a detailed pantheon of divs emerges, each associated with specific vices and cosmic disruptions — disease, decay, heresy, and so on[15].
Middle Persian Expansion and Narrative Elaboration
The Pahlavi literature — particularly the Bundahišn, Dēnkard, and Škand Gumānīg Wizār — exhibits a more structured and mythological theology. Ahriman becomes the architect of all destruction, and his narrative arc is fleshed out: he invades the created world, introduces death and pain, and is eventually defeated in the final cosmic battle (Frashokereti). His creation of demons, the strategies of corruption, and even his ignorance of the Light are all systematically detailed[16].
These texts do more than repeat Avestan demonology; they develop a comprehensive theology of evil. The divs are now given elaborate genealogies, rival hierarchies, and even internal characteristics — some ambitious, others slothful, many cunning and deceitful. In a way, the Pahlavi texts “anthropomorphise” evil, giving it depth, structure, and dramatic agency[17].
Historical and Cultural Contexts
This shift from abstract to mythic evil corresponds with the sociopolitical changes of the Sasanian period, where Zoroastrianism became the state religion. A more concrete depiction of evil would serve both theological clarity and sociopolitical control. Heretics, foreign religions, and moral deviants could now be “demonised” — literally — within the framework of an official, state-endorsed cosmology[18].
Moreover, contact with other religious traditions — particularly Manichaeism, Christianity, and even Hellenistic dualisms — influenced the shaping of Zoroastrian demonology. Elements such as a last battle, resurrection, and the ultimate defeat of evil mirror broader eschatological motifs of Late Antiquity[19].
The Case of Aeshma/Xeshm: The Demon of Wrath
Among the many divs in Zoroastrian demonology, Aeshma (later Middle Persian Xeshm) stands out as one of the most enduring and symbolically rich figures. Etymologically derived from the Avestan root aesh- (meaning “rage” or “fury”), Aeshma represents violence, aggression, and impulsive wrath, traits diametrically opposed to the Zoroastrian ideal of Vohu Manah (Good Mind). His name survives in the later Persian khashm (anger), reflecting his persistent influence on Iranian ethical vocabulary.
Aeshma appears prominently in both Avestan and Pahlavi texts. In the Vendidad, he is described as a powerful demon who disturbs the sacred rituals and distracts priests from performing yasna correctly. He is a force of chaos, not merely in the cosmic sense, but also in the social and religious order. As Mary Boyce observes, Aeshma “personifies unbridled rage and is especially dangerous in disrupting ritual purity and community stability.[20]
In Middle Persian literature, particularly the Bundahišn and Dēnkard, Aeshma is elevated in status as a leading commander in Ahriman’s army. His opposition to Vohu Manah is no accident; it reflects a deliberate inversion of Zoroastrian virtues.[21] Shaul Shaked notes that this dualism is not just structural but ethical, mapping vice and virtue onto opposing spiritual beings.[22]
In the Škand Gumānīg Wizār, Aeshma is one of the seven chief demons who mirror the Amesha Spentas. While Vohu Manah promotes thoughtfulness and wisdom, Aeshma inflames rashness and animalistic fury. This binary underscores the psychological dimension of Zoroastrian cosmology: humans must control internal wrath as part of their spiritual struggle.
The demon’s symbolic function also finds echoes in Indo-Iranian comparative mythology, where demonic wrath is a common adversary. Aeshma’s thematic parallels with figures such as the Vedic Asura Vrtra or even Homeric Ares reinforce his Indo-European heritage as a deity of warlike chaos.
Az: The Demon of Greed and Excess
Another prominent figure in Zoroastrian demonology is Az, the demon of greed, insatiable desire, and excessive consumption. In Avestan and Middle Persian cosmology, Az functions not merely as a destructive appetite but as a cosmic force of devouring and imbalance, antithetical to the ordered and measured universe of Ahura Mazda.
The term Az in the Avesta denotes gluttony and rapacity. In the Dēnkard and Bundahišn, Az is described as a voracious, all-consuming entity, who swallows everything but is never satiated.[23] His role is not only to encourage material hoarding but also to distort the proper functioning of the moral order by promoting self-interest over communal harmony. As Alberto Cantera remarks, Az “represents the corrosion of the ethical will by excessive desire.[24]
Importantly, Az’s influence is not limited to individuals. He is seen as an agent of social and spiritual corruption, leading kings to tyranny, priests to exploitation, and merchants to dishonesty.[25] His insatiable nature reflects a metaphysical disorder: a world where boundaries are transgressed, and balance is lost.
In the symbolic cosmology of the Pahlavi texts, Az is also linked to hunger, poverty, and inequality — not because he is their cause per se, but because his essence creates scarcity by hoarding and withholding. Thus, he represents both moral weakness and systemic injustice. The contrast with Spenta Ārmaiti (Holy Devotion) is notable, as Az distorts the devotional impulse into selfish craving.
From a comparative perspective, Az can be paralleled with other demonic personifications of greed — such as Lobha in Hindu texts or Mammon in Christian tradition — all of which identify excessive desire as a spiritual peril.[26] His presence across such traditions highlights a shared Indo-European anxiety about imbalance, and a belief that unregulated consumption is tantamount to metaphysical disruption.
Aži Dahāka: The Serpentine Monarch of Chaos
Among the most terrifying and symbolically rich figures in the Zoroastrian and post-Zoroastrian demonological imagination is Aži Dahāka, the three-headed dragon-demon whose very name evokes serpentine terror. In the Avestan texts, Aži denotes “dragon” or “serpent,” and Dahāka is the proper name of this fearsome creature. While not listed among the standard div hierarchy, Aži Dahāka occupies a unique space: a hybrid of mythic beast, historical tyrant, and metaphysical threat.
In the Vendidad, Aži Dahāka is presented as a monster spawned by Angra Mainyu, who spreads suffering, falsehood, and violence.[27] Later Pahlavi texts, especially the Bundahišn and Zand-ī Wahman Yasn, elaborate on his biography: he rules the world tyrannically for a thousand years, introduces cannibalism, and enslaves humanity.[28] In these narratives, he becomes a fusion of chaos and kingship, a symbol of corrupted authority and cosmic inversion.
Perhaps most famously, Aži Dahāka’s image transforms in the Shahnameh of Ferdowsi, where he appears as Zahhāk — a once-human king who becomes the vessel of demonic possession. The serpents that grow from his shoulders — nourished by human brains — become a lasting metaphor for tyranny, gluttony, and loss of moral conscience.[29] This literary transformation serves to bridge myth, history, and ethics, situating Aži Dahāka not only in the realm of the supernatural but also in political and cultural critique.
Comparatively, Aži Dahāka shares traits with multi-headed dragon foes in Indo-European mythologies — such as Vṛtra in the Vedic tradition and Fafnir in Norse lore — all of whom represent chaos, obstruction, and hoarding.[30] In Zoroastrian theology, however, Aži Dahāka’s defeat is eschatological. According to apocalyptic texts like the Zand-ī Wahman Yasn, he will rise again at the end of time but will ultimately be slain by Keresasp, a resurrected hero from ancient legend.[31] His destruction signifies the final purging of evil from the world, alongside Ahriman himself.
Thus, Aži Dahāka stands as both a cosmic monster and cultural archetype: a narrative vessel through which Zoroastrianism expresses its deepest fears — unending tyranny, moral decay, and apocalyptic threat — and its ultimate hope for divine restoration.
3. Comparative Demonology: Ahriman, Satan, and the Principle of Evil Across Traditions
Evil is a universal motif in religious thought, yet its representation varies significantly across theological systems. In this section, we compare Ahriman with analogous figures such as Satan in Judeo-Christian and Islamic traditions, Māra in Buddhism, and the Gnostic Demiurge, to highlight both structural parallels and conceptual divergences.
Ontological Status: Co-Eternal Evil vs. Created Rebel
One of the defining features of Zoroastrian dualism is the co-eternality of Ahriman (Angra Mainyu) and Ohrmazd (Ahura Mazda) in some Middle Persian texts, particularly within the Zurvanite interpretation[32]. Ahriman exists not as a fallen being but as an independent, primeval force — a principle of destruction from the beginning of time.
In contrast, Satan in monotheistic traditions is often a created being — originally an angel or jinn — who rebelled against God[33]. He is not co-eternal with the Divine but subordinate in origin and power. This fundamental theological distinction shifts the nature of the cosmic struggle: in Zoroastrianism, evil is a cosmic counterforce; in monotheism, it is a deviation from divine order.
Eschatology and the Defeat of Evil
All traditions envision an ultimate resolution of the problem of evil, yet the modalities differ. In Zoroastrianism, Ahriman is ultimately annihilated at the end of time during the Frashokereti (renewal of the world)[34]. Evil is not reconciled or redeemed but destroyed — the universe is restored to its original purity.
In Christianity and Islam, Satan is cast into Hell but continues to exist eternally — either as a punished rebel or a warning symbol[35]. Buddhism offers a different model: Māra, as a personification of delusion and temptation, is overcome through enlightenment. Evil is thus not destroyed externally but transcended internally[36].
Ethical and Psychological Dimensions
Zoroastrianism uniquely links cosmology with ethics: every good thought, word, and deed contributes to the weakening of Ahriman[37]. Humans are not passive victims but cosmic agents in the moral battle. Similarly, in Sufism and Christian mysticism, the inner struggle (jihad al-nafs, spiritual warfare) mirrors the outer conflict with demonic forces — a dualism not only of cosmos but of soul.
However, the personalization of evil varies. Zoroastrian divs often have symbolic and psychological functions (e.g., Indar representing arrogance, Bushasp representing sloth)[38]. This internalisation of evil suggests a subtle overlap with Buddhist and mystical models, despite the stronger mythological framing.
Theological Implications
The way a religion frames evil reveals its deeper metaphysics:
Zoroastrianism: a dualistic cosmos requiring human participation for restoration.
Christianity/Islam: a moral universe where rebellion is judged, not co-equal to good.
Buddhism: illusion as the root of suffering, evil as mental defilement.
Gnosticism: the material world as a prison created by a false god[39].
Thus, Ahriman stands out as both a metaphysical force and a narrative character in a cosmic drama, positioned uniquely in world demonologies.
4. Conclusion: The Legacy of Ahriman and the Human Imagination of Evil
The figure of Ahriman occupies a distinct and formative position in the history of religious thought — not only as the antagonist in Zoroastrian cosmology but as a conceptual archetype of evil in the broader imagination of humanity. Across the centuries, his shadow stretches from the hymns of the Avesta to theological debates of Late Antiquity and even echoes in modern philosophical and literary reflections on the nature of evil[40].
The Metaphysics of Moral Choice
One of the enduring contributions of Zoroastrianism — and particularly its demonology — lies in the fusion of ethical responsibility with cosmic dualism. Unlike deterministic models where evil is either ordained or accidental, the Zoroastrian worldview insists on choice: humans are the battleground upon which the struggle between asha (truth) and druj (lie) is enacted. Ahriman is not merely a mythic enemy; he is the sum of falsehoods, cruelty, arrogance, and apathy manifested in the world and in ourselves[41].
Transformation Through Texts
From the moral abstractions of the Gathas to the richly woven mythologies of the Pahlavi books, Ahriman evolves — not because his essence changes, but because the cultural and religious contexts demand it[42]. He becomes more vivid, more personified, more narratively compelling — a mirror to humanity’s fears, ethical concerns, and need for metaphysical structure.
The Pahlavi texts, in particular, offer a fully fleshed demonology that rivals any in the world. These writings are not only theological but also pedagogical: they teach, warn, and interpret the world through the lens of divine struggle. In these pages, the divs are not monsters in the dark — they are vices cloaked in metaphor[43].
Ahriman’s Place in Comparative Perspective
Placed alongside figures like Satan, Māra, or the Gnostic Demiurge, Ahriman remains unique in his co-eternality and ontological depth. He is not a fallen angel, or a test sent by God; he is anti-creation, a principle of negation that must be actively overcome, not just endured[44]. This places Zoroastrianism at the crossroads of myth and philosophy, where evil is both a narrative character and a metaphysical challenge.
The Contemporary Relevance
In a world still grappling with systemic injustice, ecological crisis, and the rise of disinformation, Ahriman remains relevant — not as a literal demon but as a symbolic reflection of the forces that threaten harmony, clarity, and compassion. The Zoroastrian call to “good thoughts, good words, good deeds” is not a slogan; it is an ethical resistance to Ahriman’s persistent temptations[45].
In this light, studying Ahriman is not merely an academic exercise. It is a means of understanding how human cultures name and confront what threatens them, and how ancient traditions, far from being obsolete, still whisper wisdom to a world in need of moral clarity.
Primary Sources
1.The Avesta: Sacred Texts of Zoroastrianism. Trans by James Darmesteter and L. H. Mills. Sacred Books of the East Series, Vols. 4, 23, 31. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1880–1897.
2.The Vendidad (Videvdat). In The Zend-Avesta, Part II. Trans by James Darmesteter. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1880.
3.Bundahišn (“Creation”). Translated by E. W. West. In Sacred Books of the East, Vol. 5. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1880.
4.Dēnkard (Dēnkart). Trans and ed by Jean de Menasce. Le troisième livre du Dēnkart. Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck, 1973.
5.Mēnōg-ī Xrad (“Spirit of Wisdom”). Translated by E. W. West. In Sacred Books of the East, Vol. 24. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1885.
Secondary Sources
1.Boyce Mary, Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices. London: Routledge, 2001.
2.Cantera Alberto, “The Transmission of the Avesta.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 131, no. 2 (2011): 195–206.
3.Hintze, Almut. “Avestan Literature.” In The Literature of Pre-Islamic Iran, edited by. Emmerick Ronald E., and Maria Macuch, 1–30. London: I.B. Tauris, 2009.
4.Kellens Jean, “Zoroastrianism and the History of Religions.” Iranian Studies 31, no. 1 (1998): 53–70.
5.Shaked Shaul, Dualism in Transformation: Varieties of Religion in Sasanian Iran. London: Variorum, 1994.
6.Skjaervo Prods Oktor, Introduction to Zoroastrianism. Harvard University Online Course Reader, 2006.
7.Stausberg Michael, Zoroastrianism: An Introduction. New York: Routledge, 2008.
8.Williams Alan, “Evil and the Concept of Ahriman in Zoroastrianism.” Religion fifteen, no. 3 (1985): 341–356.
9.Zaehner R. C., The Dawn, and Twilight of Zoroastrianism. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1961.
[1] Boyce Mary, Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices (London: Routledge, 2001), 16–18.
[2] Williams Alan, “Evil and the Concept of Ahriman in Zoroastrianism,” Religion 15, no. 3 (1985): 341–356.
[3] West. E. W., trans, Bundahišn, in Sacred Books of the East, vol. 5 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1880).
[4] Skjaervo Prods Oktor, Introduction to Zoroastrianism, Harvard University Online Course Reader (2006), 15.
[5]West E. W., trans, Bundahišn, in Sacred Books of the East, vol. 5 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1880), 10–12.
[6] Ibid., 13.
[7] Shaked Shaul, Dualism in Transformation: Varieties of Religion in Sasanian Iran (London: Variorum, 1994), 23.
[8] Jean de Menasce, trans, Le troisième livre du Dēnkart (Paris : Klincksieck, 1973), 62–64.
[9] Darmesteter James, trans, The Zend-Avesta, Part II: The Vendidad (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1880), 54–57.
[10] Williams Alan, “Evil and the Concept of Ahriman in Zoroastrianism,” Religion 15, no. 3 (1985): 344.
[11] Stausberg Michael, Zoroastrianism: An Introduction (New York: Routledge, 2008), 78.
[12] West E. W., Bundahišn, 15–16.
[13] Boyce Mary, Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices, 2001.
[14] Skjaervo Prodos Oktor, Introduction to Zoroastrianism, Harvard Course Reader, 2006.
[15] Darmesteter James, The Zend-Avesta: Vendidad, 1880.
[16]West. E.W, Bundahišn in Sacred Books of the East, Vol. 5, 1880.
[17] Menasce, Le troisième livre du Dēnkart, 1973.
[18] Shaked Shaul, Dualism in Transformation, 1994.
[19] Zaehner R. C., The Dawn, and Twilight of Zoroastrianism, 1961.
[20] Boyce Mary, Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices (London: Routledge, 2001), 64.
[21] West E.W., Bundahišn, in Sacred Books of the East, Vol. 5 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1880), 46–47.
[22] Shaked Shaul, Dualism in Transformation: Varieties of Religion in Sasanian Iran (London: Variorum, 1994), 118–119.
[23] West E.W., Bundahišn, in Sacred Books of the East, Vol. 5 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1880), 62–63.
[24] Cantera Alberto, “The Transmission of the Avesta,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 131, no. 2 (2011): 198.
[25] Jean de Menasce, Le troisième livre du Dēnkart (Paris : C. Klincksieck, 1973), 134.
[26] Stausberg Michae, Zoroastrianism: An Introduction (New York: Routledge, 2008), 157.
[27] Darmesteter James, trans., The Zend-Avesta, Part II: The Vendidad, Sacred Books of the East, Vol. 4 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1880), 170–171.
[28] West E.W., Bundahišn, in Sacred Books of the East, Vol. 5 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1880), 89–91.
[29] Ferdowsi, Shahnameh, trans. Dick Davis (New York: Viking Penguin, 2006), 5–23.
[30] Boyce Mary, Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices (London: Routledge, 2001), 87.
[31] Shaked Shaul, Dualism in Transformation (London: Variorum, 1994), 46–48.
[32] Zaehner R. C., The Dawn, and Twilight of Zoroastrianism (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1961), 127–130.
[33] Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Ideals and Realities of Islam (London: Allen & Unwin, 1966), 57–60.
[34] Boyce Mary, Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices (London: Routledge, 2001), 164–168.
[35] Russell Jeffrey Burton, The Prince of Darkness: Radical Evil and the Power of Good in History (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1988), 75–81.
[36] Gethin Rupert, The Foundations of Buddhism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 126–129.
[37] Stausberg Michael, Zoroastrianism: An Introduction (New York: Routledge, 2008), 98–102.
[38] Hintze Almut, “Ahriman and the Demons,” in The Literature of Pre-Islamic Iran, ed. Ronald E. Emmerick and Maria Macuch (London: I.B. Tauris, 2009), 160–162.
[39] Hans Jonas, The Gnostic Religion (Boston: Beacon Press, 1958), 42–48.
[40] Williams Alan, “Evil and the Concept of Ahriman in Zoroastrianism,” Religion 15, no. 3 (1985): 341–344.
[41] Boyce, Zoroastrians, 121–124.
[42] Kellens Jean, “Zoroastrianism and the History of Religions,” Iranian Studies 31, no. 1 (1998): 58–61.
[43] Shaked Shaul, Dualism in Transformation (London: Variorum, 1994), 79–84.
[44] Zaehner, Dawn and Twilight, 145–148.
[45] Stausberg Michael, Zoroastrianism, 187–190.