This is a revised version of one of my thesis papers.
The Gathas of Spitama Zarathushtra are important, being one of the most
ancient and perhaps most sacred of the Zoroastrian sacred texts. Most
unfortunately, the Gathas are only partially understood even by their
most dedicated scholars. Since the Avestan itself is so difficult to
understand, it is inevitable that the translations diverge from each
other enough that one cannot place full faith in any of them.
I believe this state of affairs to be the result of the general decay of Zoroastrianism and the loss of the greater portion of the Avestas. According to some traditions, the Avestas had 21 Nasks (books) when they were revealed to Zarathushtra, each Nask corresponding to a word of the holiest Zoroastrian prayer, the "blueprint of creation", the Ahunvar. Three of these Nasks are said to have consisted of commentaries and explications of the Gathas. But only the tiniest portion of the original Avesta has been preserved to this day. The rest, including these commentaries, was reportedly lost during the invasions of Alexander the Great and the medieval Arabs. Only the 19th Nask, the Vendidad, is said to have survived completely intact. The content of the lost Nasks has been partially preserved through summaries contained in medieval Pahlavi texts such as the Dinkard and the Bundahishn, but these summaries are of course no substitute for the real thing.
As for the Gathas, they are a part of the Yasnas, which are a part of the 21st Nask. The non-Gathic Yasnas, as well as certain other extant portions of the Avesta, are said to complement and expand on the Gathas. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the three Nasks dedicated to the explication of the Gathas must have been necessary to understanding them properly, because if this were not the case, that would imply that those Nasks were rather superfluous and could have been done without. There are a number of different groups of scholars, as well as non-scholars or 'amateur' scholars who have attempted to translate the Holy Gathas into western languages, each with their own views on the meanings of the Gathas, on the correct way to go about discerning these meanings, and also on the historical realities surrounding the Gathas. Before going into detail on the many matters of disagreement, I will briefly describe these groups in what I believe to be the chronological order. And I will be limiting myself to only those groups whose writings on and translations of the Gathas I have encountered; there may well be a fair amount of work on the Gathas by Hindus and Iranian Muslims which I have no means of access to.
The first group is the Orientalists, beginning with the Frenchman Abraham Hyacinthe Anquetil-Duperron, who in the 18th century travelled to India, acquired a large number of Zoroastrian manuscripts from the Parsis, and produced the first western translation of the Avestas. Over the course of the next century or two some more orientalists came along and did some work on the Gathas, noteworthy among them being Arthur Bleeck, Friedrich von Spiegel, and Martin Haug. The second group is 'orthodox' Zoroastrians. These are the inheritors of the Pahlavi traditions, who still care for the entirety of the Avestas and for the diverse rituals, rites and ceremonies associated with them. At some point a new, westernised breed of Zoroastrians came about as the result of the work of western scholars as well as the general Anglicization of the Parsis. They are skeptical towards the so-called traditions and tend to interpret the Gathas in accordance with western ideas; I will call them 'liberal' or 'westernised' Zoroastrians. The next group is the Ilm-e-khshnoom ('science of ecstasy') Zoroastrians. This group was founded in the early 20th century when Behramshah Navroji Shroff began teaching the Parsis of India the mystical doctrines of Ilm-e-kshnoom, which he claimed to have learned from a secluded group of Zoroastrian saints in the mountains of northern Iran. The most recent group to arise is the most recent generation of western scholars, whose work is really only a continuation of the work of their predecessors, but nonetheless the distinction seems worth making.
The first issue I will address is the origins of the Gathas. The consensus of the majority is
that they were authored by (and/or revealed to) Zarathushtra Spitama sometime between 200 B.C.
and 7000 B.C.. Some western scholars, however, have doubted Zarathushtra's very existence.
Others have alleged that some parts of the Gathas were authored by him, while others were not. It
has also been asserted that the name Zarathushtra denotes a collectivity of authors rather than only
one person. Among those who acknowledge that Zarathushtra was a single person and the
author/deliverer of the Gathas, there are some who consider them to be deeply personal prayers
addressed by the prophet to Ahura Mazda, while others say that they are impersonal revelations.
Another prominent issue is how well the Gathas have been preserved. The uncorruptedness of the Gathas has been called into question by a number of western scholars: Stanley Insler, Helmut Humbach, M.L. West, Christian Bartholomae, and Kenneth Guthrie, to name a few. These supposed alterations include changes of grammatical forms, rearrangements of words, and the total reordering of entire hymns. Though I have been unable to determine what the view of the majority of Zoroastrians on the subject is, I have encountered in their writings plenty of support for the idea that the Gathas have been altered somewhat, and even a claim that the extant Gathas are merely 'fragmented and truncated parts of the original'. I don't know if I've ever encountered a claim that the Gathas have been perfectly preserved.
Related to this is the issue of whether the other surviving parts of the Avestas are authentic, and whether they were really authored by (and/or revealed to) Zarathushtra. The majority, or at least a very substantial amount, of western scholars point to linguistic differences between the Gathas and the 'Younger Avesta' as proof that the latter were composed at a later date and not by Zarathushtra. A number of 'liberal' Zoroastrians have taken after them and adopted this opinion as well. But the opinion of less westernised Zoroastrians is that the other surviving portions of the Avestas were indeed authored by Zarathushtra.
The accuracy and reliability of the Pahlavi texts is another important point of disagreement, and I think it can safely be said that in general the people who have faith in the authenticity of the 'Younger Avesta' also have faith in these Pahlavi texts, while the people who consider the 'Younger Avesta' to be younger than the Gathas also cast doubt on the authenticity and reliability of the Pahlavi texts. The reason this is so important, even crucial, to the understanding of the Gathas is that if the non-Gathic Avestas and Pahlavi texts are accepted, then they provide a framework, a detailed religious system, from which the Gathas must be understood. If these texts are rejected, then this framework must be replaced with another, which can invented and based on fantasy, conjecture, and speculation, or it can be informed by the contents of other sacred texts, or some combination of the two.
Though other sacred texts can be used to provide an ideological framework for the Gathas, the Pahlavi texts and 'Younger Avesta' are indispensable from a philological point of view. The Vedas and other Sanskrit texts are also invaluable because of the close relationship between Sanskrit and Avestan. This is the source of another disagreement, which is over which, the Pahlavi texts or Sanskrit, is more reliable in trying to understand the Gathas. And I know this matter to be intimately related to the following issues, but my near-total ignorance of Avestan, Sanskrit and Pahlavi prevents me from going into detail on precisely how.
The vast majority of Western scholars of the Gathas have found them rife with pastoral themes and terms. This is exemplified most clearly by the phrase geush urvan, which these westerners all translate as 'soul of the bull', 'soul of the cow', or some other equivalent, while the Zoroastrians translate it as 'soul of the world', 'soul of mother earth', and other such equivalents, always on a cosmic scale. Both of these interpretations are valid, so the choice between them for a translator must be determined by their overall approach to the Gathas, and in particular their conceptions of the author's intentions.
The sense of scale and magnitude that comes from translating geush urvan as 'soul of the world' is very appropriate given the importance and universality of Zarathushtra's message. Yet there are many pastoral terms such as 'milk', 'butter', 'pasture', and 'herdsman' which seem out of place when gav becomes world. Zoroastrians often translate these terms differently, making them 'prosperity, 'knowledge', 'protector', and so on. This strikes me as sufficient evidence that the Gathas are full of intentional double meanings. Not every scholar and translator would agree with me, however, and some have argued that the pastoral interpretations are the mere inventions of western scholars, while others have asserted the opposite, namely that the pastoral interpretations are correct and that the other meanings of these words are later inventions, or at least figurative and secondary to the pastoral meanings.
An example of this latter view can be found in the introduction to a very recent western translation, that of M.L. West, who writes, "I disagree fundamentally with those modern scholars who claim that the prophet's style is deliberately esoteric and encrypted, full of intentional double or multiple meanings. In my view, where different interpretations of a sentence are possible, it is the job of the translator or commentator to try to determine which one corresponds to the author's intention."
I believe he has scholars like Helmut Humbach in mind, but this view also opposes the common Zoroastrian viewpoint. M.L. West makes the assumption that Zarathushtra intended there to be only one meaning for everything. In my view, where different interpretations of a sentence are possible, it is indeed the job of the translator to try and discern the primary meaning, but it is also desirable to embed or suggest any other valid meanings insofar as this is possible. Unfortunately keeping multiple layers of meaning intact in a single translation is almost impossible.
Radically different from M.L. West's view is that of by K. Navroz Dastoor, a Zoroastrian mystic and writer for the Ilm-e-Kshnoom magazine, Parsi Pukar. K. Navroz Dastoor is openly critical of western scholars for their overconfidence and even arrogance. In particular he is critical of Professor Humbach's translation, which he calls a "highly evolved product" of "a closed system surrounded by 5 main circles", these statements being accompanied by an illustration of the said circles. The outer circle is 19th century science, the result of which is that "any mystical truth or doctrine is taboo". Next is a hunger for academic honors, distinctions, and degrees. The next three circles, Vocabulary, Grammar and Syntax, are each made up of three circles themselves, representing Sanskrit, Pahlavi and Tradition.
And here is where, Dastoor says, preference comes into play: "A scholar will have his syntax according to his personal preference. With these nine circles within the first two outermost circles, the scholars play their academic game. One scholar would emphasize one out of the three foundations and use the other two to support his meaning and interpretation of a passage. If the other two indicate a meaning contrary to what he desires to give, he ignores them or discards them or even criticizes them. There is no particular reason to do so except that he prefers the meaning he has given. It thus becomes a matter of personal preference of each scholar."
Dastoor encourages his fellow Parsis to ignore all these western scholars, and instead turn to the mystical tradition of Ilm-e-Kshnoom, and to rely on the Kshnoomic translation of Dr. Framroze Chiniwalla. But I myself have to doubt the authenticity of the Kshnoomic 'tradition' due to their belief in reincarnation. It seems exceedingly unlikely that this is an authentic Zoroastrian teaching, so in all probability the Ilm-e-Kshnoom is a 20th century invention and does not go back to the time of Zarathushtra as its followers claim.
MY ISLAMIC APPROACH TO THE GATHAS
I, as a Muslim, am obliged and delighted to interpret the Gathas in accordance with my beliefs. In my efforts to comprehend and translate the Gathas, this is my only real advantage, and it is the only thing that I have to offer that is not adequately provided by the other translations.
Unfortunately, even this advantage is severely limited by my newness to Islam; I have not thoroughly studied the Qur'an or the hadith and I don't even know Arabic. Nevertheless, there are obvious problems in most translations of the Gathas that any Muslim with a rudimentary knowledge of our religion can see, such as Ahura Mazda being called the Father of Asha and Armaiti. But first I will outline my views on the Gathas and on the issues discussed in the previous section.
First of all it should be said that Zarathushtra is a Prophet of Islam. This means that insofar as the Gathas and other Zoroastrian texts are authentic and uncorrupted, they are perfectly compatible with the Qur'an and the hadith of Muhammad. That being said, I do not know how authentic and uncorrupted the Gathas or the other Zoroastrian texts are. Because of the great beauty and ideological purity of the Gathas, I am inclined to regard the losses and alterations they have undergone as minor, with the only exception being the attribution of sons and daughters to Ahura Mazda.
As for the 'Younger Avesta' and the Pahlavi texts, I have not had the time to investigate them more than superficially. There are, however, some obvious doctrinal contradictions between them and Islam, which I will mention further on.
One of my main concerns in translating the Gathas is tawhid, which is the absolute, indivisible Oneness and Uniqueness of Ahura Mazda. In most translations of the Gathas there is a noticeable lack of explicit and unambiguous affirmations of tawhid. I am uncertain as to precisely why this is the case, but this has not deterred me from the Gathas, nor has it shaken my conviction that the Gathas are a monotheistic text rather than a polytheistic one. I have encountered, in both secular and Zoroastrian writings, the claim that the religion of the Gathas is neither monotheism nor polytheism. But there is no room for "non-theism" or "between-mono-and-poly-theism" in a proper Qur'anic worldview, so I must regard the Gathic religion as a subtle, unusual and poorly understood expression of monotheism.
Everywhere in the Gathas, the tawhid of Ahura Mazda is implicit. The followers of false gods are
scorned and promised an enduring punishment, while the followers of Ahura Mazda are promised
everlasting bliss. Why would this be the case if the author believed that Ahura Mazda had equals?
While it is easy for me to accept the Gathas as an authentic and well-preserved revelation, many of the other portions of the Avestas are more difficult to accept, and in fact must be rejected if the translations of them that I have seen are accurate. This un-Islamic content is also contained in the Pahlavi texts, so if any of this content is really the result of a misunderstanding on the part of the translators then these misunderstandings must go back many centuries.
As for what this objectionable content actually consists of, I will provide only two examples. In the Vendidad, Angra-Mainyu (often identified with Satan) is described as creating certain animals. This is unacceptable because Ahura Mazda is the sole Creator of the Heavens and the Earth and all that is therein.
Another major problem, which is present in a huge amount of the 'Younger Avesta', is the excessive praise of the angels, or even 'worship' according to some translations. If this really is worship, as plenty of Zoroastrians unhesitatingly call it, then they are committing shirk (polytheism) and these texts can hardly be considered sacred.
A BRIEF SUMMARY OF ZOROASTRIAN COSMOLOGY AND ANGELOLOGY
Before I move on to discussing my efforts to understand and translate the Gathas, I will briefly outline the Zoroastrian cosmology as I understand it. My main sources of information are the Lesser Bundahishn, which is a medieval Pahlavi text, and Henri Corbin's Cycical Time and Ismaili Gnosis.
It begins with Ahura Mazda, Lord and Creator of the Universe. He dwells in endless light, in His own omniscience and goodness. This omniscience and goodness is identified with Dîn, 'the eternal religion' or revelation, which is in turn identified with the fravashi. The fravashis are the celestial archetypes/angels which watch over everything and constitute the innermost aspect of every human being, acting as our tutelary angels in this world and becoming fully united with us in the hereafter. They seem to correspond quite closely to Plato's Eternal Ideas, and they also call to mind the angels mentioned in the Qur'an, who record our every deed in the books of our lives which will be presented to us on Judgment Day. Curiously enough, the fravashis are not mentioned at all in the Gathas.
So, Ahura Mazda was being Himself. Meanwhile, Angra Mainyu inhabited an abyss which is endlessly dark, and in place of omniscience and goodness he had misunderstanding and a desire for destruction. He and his abyss seemingly came from nowhere, for no reason, and this is one of the aspects of Zoroastrianism that utterly baffles me. Now Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu both went and created their creations, respectively good and bad, and Angra Mainyu saw that his creations were inferior. And Ahura Mazda decided to allow a period of contest, after which Angra Mainyu would be cast into total destruction and the creation would be renovated and brought to completion and final perfection.
Of the very many details of the Zoroastrian creation myth I have skipped over (contained in the Bundahishn), one is particularly relevant to this paper. It is a story concerning the aforementioned geush urvan. In this myth Angra Mainyu afflicts the whole of creation, including the primeval bull. Ahura-Mazda gives the bull a medicine but it dies anyways. And as it dies its 'vegetable principle' and 'seminal energy' create sixty-seven species of plants. This seed or seminal energy is delivered to the moon, purified by its light, and somehow refracted back upon the earth so as to create two cows, one of each sex, from which proceed two hundred and eighty-two species, the ancestors of all good animals. Thus, according to this myth, the soul of the bull is also the soul of all plant and animal life.
Concerning the angels, it should first be said that in general Zoroastrians are much more fixated on and fascinated by them than Muslims. This love and reverence for the angels is taken to extremes in many non-Gathic texts, whereas in the Gathas it is limited to the Ameshaçpentas, who are in fact among the only celestial beings mentioned in the Gathas. This word, Ameshaçpenta, literally means 'bounteous immortal', and they have also been called 'Essences of God', 'Divine Sparks', 'Divine Attributes', and Archangels. According to Zoroastrian doctrine, Ahura Mazda Himself is an Ameshaçpenta. The term Ameshaçpenta does not appear at all in the Gathas, but I will use it anyways when speaking of them, for lack of a better term.
The Ameshaçpentas are Asha, Armaiti, Kshathra, Haurvetat, Ameretat, Vohu-Mana, and Ahura-Mazda, though I really don't like including Him among them because He is above them. I suppose this is similar to the way Allah is a name, but it is also the supreme and all-encompassing name.
Asha is utterly untranslatable but people often translate it anyways, usually as Truth, Right, or
Righteousness. Other translations include Law, Reality, Good Order, Beauty, Purity, Holiness,
Freedom, Superb Brilliance and Excellence, and Artistic Ingenuity. Asha is, as the Ashem Vohu (the
second most important Zoroastrian prayer) says, the greatest good, and a supreme source of
happiness for all who seek it.
Armaiti is also utterly untranslatable, yet people often translate it anyways. These translations include Faith, Piety, Devotion, Love, Service, Peace, Serenity, Tranquility, Divine Wisdom, and Contemplation.
Kshathra is comparatively easy to translate. It means Dominion, Power, and Sovereignty.
Sometimes it is used to refer to the 'Kingdom of Heaven', sometimes to speak of benevolent
political rulership, and sometimes to speak of a person's benevolent sovereignty over their own self.
Haurvetat means perfection, integrity, completeness and wholeness. It is usually paired with
Ameretat, which means immortality.
Vohu-Mana is also relatively easy to translate. Vohu means good, and Mana has been translated variously as thought, mind, mindedness, thinking, and disposition. One translator has it as Conscience, and others have equated it with reason. René Guénon has identified Vohu-mana with the sufi concept of Universal Man, and I believe this is correct.
The Ameshaçpentas seem to be situated somewhere in between archangels and attributes of Ahura Mazda. On the one hand, they seem to be essential attributes of Ahura-Mazda that he shares with us and with the angels: truth/justice, piety/serenity/love, dominion/might, perfection, immortality, good mindedness... If this approach is taken the ameshaçpentas can be matched up with the Arabic names of Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala, though some of them would be better described, in Muhammadan terms, with different words depending on whom they are being spoken of in relation to; for example Vohu-mana corresponds to 'aql (reason/intellect), wisdom, or conscience on a human level but it is really only a manifestation of the Divine Names al-'Alim (The Knower), al-Muqsit (The Equitable) al-Hadi (The Guide), Al-Latif (The Subtle, etc.), and so on; Armaiti corresponds to iman (faith), sabr (patience), and love as well as a number of Divine Names such as as-Sabur (The Patient) and al-Wadud (The Loving).
The only problem with this approach is that the Ameshaçpentas are explicitly described as being created, both in the Gathas and in the other Zoroastrian texts. This issue can be addressed by saying that insofar as they can be attained and understood by the human individual, they are created, and insofar as they can be used to describe Ahura Mazda, they must be uncreated because He is uncreated.
Besides the Ameshaçpentas there are countless other angels, the most noteworthy of them
being Sraosha and Mithra, the angels of obedience and light. The Gathas, the Ashem Vohu, and the
Ahunvar are also said to literally be angels, and perhaps this is the case with the entire Avesta
insofar as it has been preserved.
By invoking the angels and striving valiantly to realize and embody the Ameshaçpentas, Zoroastrians participate in the overthrowing of Angra Mainyu and his minions and, according to their doctrine, help usher in the final renovation of the universe. These minions of Angra Mainyu are diverse, but the main category, which is the one most frequently mentioned in the Gathas, is the Daevas. These are false gods who follow and partake in druj (evil/lies). I may be mistaken, but I believe they are exactly the same thing as satans.
Beginning My Translation
Now that all these preliminary matters have been addressed, I will commence with a narration of my efforts to understand and translate the Gathas. The first translation of Gathas I encountered was that of Arthur Bleeck. This was the first English translation of the Gathas, completed in 1864. His translation is based on the German translation of Professor Spiegel, and he also consulted the Avestan original and an esteemed Gujarati translation. Bleeck confesses that his translation is "more literal than elegant", but personally I have found it to be more elegant than most. In fact, I have a such a preference for the archaic, poetic and very formal English of Bleeck's translation that I originally intended to use it as the primary basis for mine. Even now that I no longer have this intention, I still feel compelled to try and mimic its wonderful style.
Besides its aesthetic merits, his translation also has the advantage of leaving many terms untranslated, in particular the names of the Ameshaçpentas (though Bleeck is not entirely consistent in this). This is necessary with the names of the Ameshaçpentas because they have no equivalents in English. I also have the strong impression that Bleeck's translation is closer to the word-order of the original Avestan than any other translation, which is another admirable quality that I desire for my own translation.
When I began my translation, my intention was only to take Bleeck's translation and make it
even prettier while clarifying the unintelligible verses. In order to discern the meaning of the
unintelligible passages I had to consult other translations. And I quickly noticed how different the
other translations were, and soon I found myself consulting more and more, hoping in vain to find a
truly accurate one. It was my hope that this ideal translation might be in agreement with all the
other translations, or that it might illuminate the source of their disagreements, thus demonstrating its own superiority, or that it might encompass their meanings through its own clever wording, or that it might somehow demonstrate them all to be false through its sheer brilliance. I of course have found no such translation, and while some translations are better than others it is impossible for me to say with any certainty that one is more accurate than all the others.
I remain attached to Bleeck's translation, and began to favor others over it only towards the end of my translating endeavor, in which I translated three chapters. Thus, in two of the three Yasnas I have translated thus far, my preference for his translation is quite manifest. Concerning the unintelligible verses, they are not entirely unintelligible. Bleeck says in the introduction that he fears that some verses might be found to be no more intelligible in his translation than in the Avestan original, but this is certainly not the case. Some verses are indeed confusing, but with effort they can be made sense of. To me this occasional lack of clarity in his translation is only a mark of honesty. Ambiguity to the point of near-incomprehensibility is not desirable, but it is no worse than assigning false meanings to poorly understood verses, which is what one inevitably risks in trying to present an easy to understand translation of the Gathas.
Now I will discuss in detail the problems I encountered in translating some of the more and less troublesome stanzas I have dealt with, beginning with this one:
YASNA 29, STANZA 3
ahmâi ashâ nôit sarejâ
advaêshô gavôi paitî-mravat
avaêshãm nôit vîduyê
ýâ shavaitê âdrêñg ereshvånghô
hâtãm hvô aojishtô
ýahmâi zavêñg jimâ keredushâ.
M.L. West
To him Right, no breacher of unity, no enemy of the cow, will answer:
'Of those things there is no knowing. He by whom the upright invigorate the weak
is the mightiest of beings; to his calls I will respond, my ear reaches no further:
Bleeck
Him answered Asha: There is not a lord for the Cow who might be without tormenting.
It is not known to them, what manifestly rejoices the righteous,
He is the mightiest among beings at whose call come the workers.
Jafarey
Righteousness replied:
There is no authority in the world who is free from malice.
Of those yonder, I know none who would activate the noble to help the meek.
Had there been one person strong enough among them, I would have hurried to his call.
Chatterji
To Him replied Asha, "There is, in the world, not a hero who is (himself) free from
arrogance. Of them I know not one, who can make the lowly great. Of these beings, he is the
real worthy, to whom the call duty reaches."
In this stanza it is clear that Asha is replying to the query of the Fashioner of the Cow, who in Stanza 2 asked if a zealous and benevolent guardian could be found for the cow. Almost all of the translators agree on this. But in between ahmâi asha and paitî-mravat ('him asha answered') are four words: nôit sarejâ advaêshô gavôi. Some translators think these words are descriptive of Asha, while others think they are descriptive of the ideal lord of whom Asha is speaking. Both interpretations are perfectly plausible, and perhaps Zarathushtra intended for them both to be understood at once. But for the purpose of translation this level of ambiguity will not do. So now a decision must be made as to the subject of these descriptions, and this matter is inextricably tangled up with the precise meaning of these words, something that is poorly agreed upon.
Gavôi means 'for the cow' (or 'for the world'), and advaêsho means 'free from hatred' as well as 'harmless'. These two meanings of advaêsho must be chosen between because there is no English word that contains both meanings. Other translations for this word include 'without hostility', 'no enemy', and 'without tormenting', but the aforementioned two are the most common and most likely possibilities. Nôit means 'no', 'none', or 'not', and the truly problematic word here is sarejâ. Some translate this word as 'chief', 'lord', 'companion' or 'helper'. I used 'lord' for the previous stanza so that would be a good option. But there is also another group of possible meanings that must be considered: 'slayer/destroyer of the alliance/protection', 'smasher of an association', and 'breacher of unity'. And there are a few other odd translations of sarejâ: 'cruel' and 'head-smasher'.
Possibilities So far: Him answered Asha,
no harmless Lord for the Cow,
no Lord for the Cow who is free from malice
no breacher of unity, no enemy for the cow
no smasher of associations, yet not cruel to the cow
The decision as to the meanings of these words must be made with not only the above mentioned
uncertainty concerning who they apply to in mind, but also with the following phrase in mind: avaêshãm nôit vîduyê ýâ shavaitê âdrêñg ereshvånghô. These words are either the first words being spoken here by Asha, who has just been described, or they are a statement concerning the 'lord' or 'helper' who has just been described by Asha. At this point the stanza becomes impossibly confusing: avaêshãm has been translated as 'this', 'that', and 'amongst them'; and vîduyê is usually translated as 'see' or 'know'. Some take this to be the end of the sentence, in which case the possible meanings include "of those I see none", "of that none knows", and "of those none know", and the subject, if the sentence ends here, can be none other than the hypothetical benevolent lord spoken of in the previous stanza.
Possibilities So far: Him answered Asha,
(there is) no harmless Lord for the Cow,
of those none knows.
of those I see none.
(there is) no Lord for the Cow who is free from malice
of those none knows.
of those I see none.
no breacher of unity, no enemy for the cow
of those none knows.
of those I see none.
no smasher of associations, yet not cruel to the cow
of those none knows.
of those I see none.
Yâ has been translated as 'who', 'what', 'which', and 'by which'. At this point the phrase could mean "none know who/which/what", or "I see none who/which/what". If this is the beginning of a new sentence, however, 'who' seems to be the only sensible option, with a 'He' in parentheses before it.
Possibilities So far: Him answered Asha,
(there is) no harmless Lord for the Cow,
(there is) no Lord for the Cow who is free from malice
no breacher of unity, no enemy for the cow
no smasher of associations, yet not cruel to the cow
of those none knows. (He) who
of those I see none who
of those none knows who
of those none knows what
of those none knows that by which
The next word, shavaitê, means to 'drive forth', 'advance', or 'set in motion', and may be related to the horse-racing metaphors M.L. West and Humbach have found in the Gathas. Adrêñg has been given a number of meanings, some of which somewhat contradict each other: 'lowly', 'meek', 'dependent' (noun), 'respected', and 'honorable'. And the last word in this sequence, ereshvånghô, means 'righteous', 'truthful', or 'lofty'. As for the exact relation between these words, there is little agreement. Are the righteous 'driving back' the wicked, smiting them? Are the wicked being advanced to loftiness and rectitude by "(He) who none of those (wicked lords) yonder know of"? Or are the righteous being protected from the wicked by a third party?
Possibilities So far: Him answered Asha,
(there is) no harmless Lord for the Cow,
(there is) no Lord for the Cow who is free from malice
no breacher of unity, no enemy for the cow
no smasher of associations, yet not cruel to the cow
of those none knows. (He) who
of those I see none who
of those none know who
of those none knows what
advances the lowly to the righteous,
protects the righteous from the lowly,
compels the righteous to (uplift) the lowly,
of those none knows that by which
the lowly are advanced to the righteous,
the righteous are protected from the lowly,
the righteous are compelled to (uplift) the lowly,
The last portion of this stanza is comparatively simple. Hâtãm means 'of/among beings', hvô means 'he', aojishtô means 'mightiest', ýahmâi means 'to whom', zavêñg means 'calls' or 'requests', and jimâ means 'come' or 'go', adding up to "of beings he (is) mightiest to whose calls come". The last word, keredushâ, is another problematic word, its various interpretations being quite disparate from each other: 'send', 'having sent out', 'workers', 'helpers', 'protection', et cetera. The majority view is that Ahura-Mazda or Asha is the one "coming with help".
There are two interpretations of this whole phrase that I have considered: the first is that the mortal to whose call Ahura-Mazda and/or Asha comes becomes the strongest of beings through their divine assistance, and the second is that the speaker, Asha or Zarathustra in this case, is stating that they are at the service of Ahura-Mazda, who is the strongest of beings. The interpretation of this last phrase can of course not be entirely separated from the rest of the stanza, which is a confounding tangle of semantic and grammatical ambiguity. Now instead of choosing between all the options I outlined above, for my translation I ended up reverting to Bleeck's translation out of sheer confoundedness.
Goertzel
Him answered Asha: There is not a lord for the Cow who might be without tormenting.
It is not known to them, what manifestly rejoices the righteous.
He is the mightiest of beings at whose call I come to serve.
I don't see how Bleeck arrived at his translation of the second verse, but this translation is delightfully simple so I decided to keep it. Only the last verse has been changed from Bleeck's translation. This is a novel interpretation of the stanza, and has no equivalents in the other translations, but I feel that it is equally trustworthy. The phrase "there is not a lord for the cow who might be without tormenting" is quite ambiguous, and I can only hope that this ambiguity is a reasonable approximation of the ambiguity intended by Zarathustra, presuming that this verse was intended to be ambiguous. There are two meanings suggested by this phrase. The first is that the cow must be tormented, because suffering is a fundamental part of existence. A 'cow' who cannot bear suffering (and is thus ever discontent) can have no earthly lord of the type it wants, one who can protect it from all adversity; such a cow can also have no true guidance or peace in life (and will thus be rejected by its true Lord Ahura-Mazda). The second meaning is that the only lords who are available for the cow are unjust and therefore must be tormented in Hell.
With many of the stanzas I have translated thus far, I did not have time to look up the meanings given for every Avestan word and instead had to limit myself to combining and modifying the other translations, with guesswork unfortunately but necessarily also being a part of the process. When my only intention in translating the Gathas was to clarify and enhance Bleeck's translation, it did not seem necessary to involve myself with the Avestan so much. Thus, for much of the first two Yasnas I translated (29 and 30), I looked at the Avestan little or not at all. Considering how confusing the Avestan can be, I do not think this was a grave mistake.
YASNA 47, STANZA 1
speñtâ mainyû vahishtâcâ mananghâ
hacâ ashât shyaothanâcâ vacanghâcâ
ahmâi dãn haurvâtâ ameretâtâ
mazdå xshathrâ ârmaitî ahurô
Chatterji
May Ahura Mazda grant us, through Spenta Manyu all six holy institutes, viz. 1. Vahista
Mana (best i.e. broadest Conscience) 2. Along with Asa (rectitude) in deeds and words 3.
Haurvatat (spirituality) 4. Ameretatat (godliness) 5. Kshathra (nonchalance) and 6.
Armaiti (faith).
Azargoshasb
One who is led by Thy Holy Spirit and Thy love, his thought, word and deed are good and in
tune with truth. He shall be granted perfection and eternity by Mazda Ahura through his
strength and love.
Nanavutty
Through Your Spirit of Benediction and Your Supreme Mind
You will grant Perfection and Immortality to him
whose words and deeds are in harmony with Truth,
with the Sovereignty of Mazda and the Devotion of Ahura.
Bleeck
Through this holiest Spirit and through the best-mindedness,
Which springs from purity with words and works,
To us has given fullness and immortality,
Good things and understanding, Mazda-Ahura.
This seems to be one of the less misunderstood stanzas, largely due to the fact that half of the words are the names of the Ameshaçpentas, all of whom are mentioned here. Spenta Mainyu and Vahishta-mana are the sole inhabitants of the first line, and for this reason I am inclined to regard them as a pair here, after the manner of Bleeck and Nanavutty. And I am assuming that Vahishta-mana is identical with Vohu-mana.
The meaning of the next word, hacâ, is quite uncertain to me. My best guess is 'with'. The other possible meanings which I have been able to discern are 'owing to', 'actuated by', and 'through'. The next word after this is some conjugation of Asha, and shyaothanâcâ and vacanghâcâ are deeds and words. Ahmâi means 'him', 'us', or 'one', and Dãn means 'give' or 'grant'. Unfortunately the translators are not in agreement as to what tense this Dãn is in, or should be translated in. Most of them have it in the future tense, some have it in the present tense, and Bleeck alone has it in the past tense.
Possibilities:
Spenta Mainyu and Vahishta-mana
with/because of/through deeds and words (done and spoken with) Asha
(To) him/us/one gives (or is given or has been given) Haurvetat and Ameretat
Mazda Kshathra Armaiti Ahura
The last verse consists of Ahura Mazda's name and two of His Ameshaçpentas. I take this verse to mean that we/him will be (or are or have been) granted Haurvetat and Ameretat through Kshathra and Armaiti and also within them. That is to say, in addition to being granted Haurvetat and Ameretat through Kshathra and Armaiti, we will be granted Kshathra and Armaiti themselves, through themselves but from Ahura Mazda. Unfortunately this interpretation seems impossible to contain in any translation. I have produced three renditions of this stanza:
Goertzel (literal)
Spenta Mainyu and Vahishta-mana,
With Asha in deeds and words,
To him grants Haurvetat and Ameretat
Kshathra of Mazda, Armaiti of Ahura
Goertzel (preferred)
Through Spenta Mainyu and Vahishta-mana,
With Asha in words and works,
To us is granted Haurvetat and Ameretat
By the Kshathra of Mazda and the Armaiti of Ahura
Goertzel (clearer)
Through the Holiest Spirit and Best Mind,
To one with Asha in words and works,
is granted Perfection and Immortality
By the Kshathra of Mazda and the Armaiti of Ahura
This stanza demonstrates well how even when the meanings of most of the words in a stanza are agreed upon, the grammar remains ambiguous. The language of the Gathas is extremely terse, to a degree that cannot be preserved in translations into English without violating the rules of English grammar. 'To', 'through', 'from', 'with', 'by', 'for', and all manner of English particles must be inserted where they are only implied in the Avestan. And with the particles that are present in the Avestan, even when their meaning is agreed upon it is often uncertain what their relation to the words around them is.
The best way to deal with all these ambiguities is, in my estimation, to have as clear a vision as possible of Zarathushtra's overall message, and to approach each Yasna, stanza, and verse with this message in mind, using it as a measure to judge between the different possibilities. Zoroastrians believe this overall message to be Zoroastrianism, I believe it to be Islam, and Western scholars are divided on the matter.
All my work and research of the Gathas thus far has really only been the beginning of what I
hope will be a fruitful lifelong endeavor. Through the process of translating the Gathas, I have
come to a more intimate understanding of them and also of the Ameshaçpentas. But this work has
been of much more benefit to me than to anyone else; I have not yet witnessed anyone developing a
sudden interest in the Gathas or being inspired with a great love and reverence for Ahura Mazda and
the Ameshaçpentas as the result of my translations. In order to do a truly thorough study of the
Gathas and produce a more trustworthy translation, I would need to learn Pahlavi, Sanskrit, Avestan, and Arabic.
No comments:
Post a Comment