DUALISM OF BRAHMANICAL AND ZOROASTRIAN PHILOSOPHERS. 27 
trianism.” He goes on to compare this to the disadvantage of 
“ Brahmanism as it appears in the gigantic conceptions of Vedic 
Naturalism.” He points out that, ‘‘in detaching itself more 
decidedly from God and Nature, Zoroastrianism has certainly 
taken more account of man than Brahmanism,” and has “ gained 
in depth what it has lost in extent.” And, what is more to the 
purpose of my query, he considers it ‘“‘a system which tends to 
develop the noblest instincts of our nature, and which imposes on 
man as the most important of his duties that of striving constantly 
against the principle of evil.” 
‘hen the moral aspects of Zoroastrianism are opened up with 
much clearness in Mr. Dadabhai Naoroji’s paper on the Huropean 
and Asiatic Races, read before the Ethnological Society, March, 
1866, at p. 7 (C. L. Parekh; collected essays, writings, and 
speeches of the Hon. Dadabhai Naoroji, Bombay. Caxton 
Printing Works, 1887)—he quoted from Zoroaster—‘ I understand 
truth-telling exalted; all the days of the holy man are with 
thoughts of truth, words of truth, and deeds of truth . 
What is the high religion? that which promotes my holiness 
and truth, with good thought, word, and deed.” ‘Then follow 
other citations to similar effect, and Sir. G. Rawlinson is quoted 
as saying that in “ their (Zoroastrian) system, truth, purity, piety, 
and industry were the virtues chiefly valued and inculcated.” 
But I need not further cite testimonies not only to the high 
ethical teaching of Zoroastrianism, but also to the moral quality 
of modern Parsiism, which must be familiar to Sir Monier as an 
eclectic philosopher. Hence I feel confident that he can, on due 
reconsideration, somewhat raise “the religious Indian Parsi” in 
the scale of comparative ethical quality. 
THE AUTHOR’S REPLY. 
August, 1891. 
I have nothing to add to Mr. Orde-Ward’s interesting remarks, 
and I agree with nearly everything in Mr. Martin Wood’s re- 
marks, but I think that he will find, on reading my paper attentively, 
that I have said nothing to derogate from the ethical position of 
the Zoroastrians. Can there be a higher standard of morality 
than aiming at absolute purity in thought, word, and deed ? 
