DUALISM OF BRAHMANICAL AND ZOROASTRIAN PHILOSOPHERS. 11 
The two spirits were merely antagonistic in name. 
They were in reality co-operative and mutually helpful. 
They were essential to the alternating processes of con- 
struction and dissolution, through which cosmical being was 
perpetuated. 
The only real antagonism was that alternately brought 
about by the free agent, man, who couid hasten the work of 
destructicn or retard the work of construction by his own acts. 
It is therefore held that the so-called dualistic doctrines of 
Zoroaster were compatible with the absolute unity of the 
one God (symbolized especially by Fire). 
Ultimately, however, Zoroastrianism crystallized into a 
hard and uncompromising dualism. 
. That is to say, in process of time, Spento-Mainyus became 
merely another name for Ahura Mazda, as the eternal 
principle of good, while Angro-Mainyus or Ahriman became 
altogether dissociated from Ahura Mazda, and converted into 
an eternal principle of evil. 
These two principles are believed to be the sources of two 
opposite creations which were incessantly at wavr. 
On the one side is a celestial hierarchy, at the head of 
which is Ormazd; on the other side, a demoniacal, at the 
head of which is Ahriman. : 
They are as opposed to each other as light to darkness-— 
as falsehood to truth. 
The whole energy of a religious Indian Parsi is concen- 
trated on the endeavour to make himself—so to speak— 
demon-proof, and this can only be accomplished by absolute 
purity (in thought, word, and deed), symbolized by whiteness. 
He is ever on his guard against bodily defilement, and 
never goes out to his daily occupations without first putting 
on a sacred white shirt and a sacred white girdle. Even the 
most highly educated, enlightened, and Anglicized Parsis 
are rigorous observers of this custom, though it seems 
probable that their real creed has little in common with the 
old and superstitious belief in demons and evil spirits, but 
rather consists in a kind of cold monotheistic pantheism. 
How far Zoroastrian dualism had affected the religious 
opinions of the Babylonians at the time of the Jewish cap- 
tivity is doubtful, but that the Hebrew prophets of those 
days had to reckon with dualistic ideas seems probable from 
Isaiah xlv, 6: “I am the Lord, and there is none else. I 
form the light and create darkness, I make peace’and create 
evil. I, the Lord, do ali these things.” The New Testament, 
on the other hand, might be thought by a superficial reader 
