Professor Mahnaz Moazami, then of Columbia University, contributed the paper on the Golden Rule in Zoroastrianism to the Neusner-Chilton volume.
She opens her paper with a statement that the Golden Rule “is a well-entrenched concept in Zoroastrian ethics”.
Zoroastrianism is the religion of the ancient Iranians, which flourished in the third through the seventh centuries CE. The Avesta, the most sacred of Zoroastrian religious texts, is roughly contemporaneous with the final redaction of the Talmud, which puts it a century or so before the birth of Mohammed and at a time when the Christian community was grappling with the concepts of the unity of Christ’s nature and will.
That “unity problem” that caused so much strife in the Christian community was not shared by the Zoroastrians because “one of the defining features of Zoroastrianism…is the doctrine of dualism.”
The world, in Zoroastrian thought, is:
“a field of conflict in which Order and Chaos, good and bad, truth and falsehood, are constantly locked in a struggle for supremacy. God and the Devil were both involved in the creation process and the world naturally contains good and evil elements.”
Moazami writes that:
“The Zoroastrian religion puts great emphasis on morals and ethics” and, importantly for our purposes,
“in relation to thoughts and words, it is one’s deeds that can effectively be counted and verified (on the day of reckoning), for words are unreliable, thoughts unascertainable, but deeds are palpable, and it is by deeds that human beings are judged.”
This emphasis on action, on the concrete, as opposed to the more emotional or ephemeral is a critical distinction. Love, apart from resulting action, or empathy apart from its expression, have little importance in this calculus.
The Zoroastrian religious leaders had some contact with and exposure to the Jewish, Christian and Greek communities of the first few centuries CE and Moazami notes some influences from those communities apparent in Zoroastrian thought.
There are a number of expressions of the “negative” statement of the Golden Rule to be found in Zoroastrian texts:
Adurbad addresses his son in language very like that of Hillel:
“Do not do unto others what would not be good for yourself.”
And in another source:
“that one disposition (is) good when one does not do unto others (that) which (is) not goodness unto himself”.
In the Pahlavi texts we find:
“Do not do anything for others which is not good for yourself.”
Moazami notes that in the Zoroastrian religion negatively stated rules are more frequent but she does cite texts that seem to closely mirror the “do unto others” version of the Rule. For example:
“…love for people is that he for whom the benefit and well-being of all good men are just as necessary as his own…”
(Note the qualifier “all good men”.)
“…the greatest deed is to be grateful in the world and to desire good fortune unto all…”
“These two instruments are best for men: to be oneself good and to do good to others.”
As is the case in Judaism (according to Neusner): “In Zoroastrianism the Golden Rule evolved from and remained bound to the concept of justice.”
“What is demanded first and foremost is common sense.”
“The Golden Rule mode of thinking in Zoroastrianism expresses a logic of fairness and consideration based on the recognition that others are like oneself.”
So, we find here multiple statements of Golden Rule ideas, some employing a generally “positive” approach but most stated in “do not do” language.
We find an explicit emphasis on the concrete: on actions as opposed to thoughts or emotions.
We find a clear grounding of religious approach in justice, fairness, common sense and moderation.
Nothing in the Moazami paper suggests that the idea of consistency as a benchmark would be objectionable to Zoroastrian thought.
And nothing suggests that a statement couched in terms of the “treatment” of others as a single statement alternative to “do” and “don’t do” would be objectionable.
©Charles R. Lightner