Discuss the Extent to Which the Category ‘Monotheism’ Is a Useful Means of

Understanding the Zoroastrian Religion. Can it be considered as a philosophy?

1. Introduction

Ahura Mazda, the beneficent, uncreated ‘Wise Lord’ is revered in Zoroastrianism, as the
supreme deity. One of the most controversial issues in Zoroastrian doctrine is the concept of
monotheism versus dualistic and polytheistic theorems. In Zoroastrian theology, Ahura Mazda is
the supreme universal, transcendent, and all-merciful, uncreated creator God (ahura- means
‘lord’ in Avestan). The Avestan word mazdā- means ‘the Wise one’. In Middle Persian his name
is Ohrmazd. The adherents of the Zoroastrian religion worship Ahura Mazda, as well as a
plethora of other divine beings, or Yazata. The latter includes individual deities such as Anahitā
(the goddess of water and fertility), Mithra (personification of the covenant), Armāiti (‘justice’),
Aši (‘reward’), Sraọša (‘hearkening, attentiveness’) and Rašnu (‘justice’) as well as earth, water,
wind, sun, moon, and stars. In addition, scriptures, ritual plants (including Haoma), and ritual
tools (pestles, mortars, etc.) are also worshipped (Hintze 2014: 225). Beyond that, Ahura
Mazda's creation has its enemies, Angra Mainyu of Avestan and Ahriman in Middle Persian, the
personifications of Evil whose only desire is to bring disorder and destruction to the perfect
world of Ahura Mazda. Therefore, the religion seems to include monotheism, polytheism, and
dual features at the same time (Hintze 2014: 225).

Zoroastrianism's emphasis on “wisdom and knowledge” alongside truth and justice paves the
way for philosophical thought. Zoroastrianism, and in particular the ancient Avestan texts has
inspired modern philosophers for centuries on essential issues like existence, reason, knowledge,
values, and the mind (Williams 1998).

This essay will investigate Zoroastrianism's monotheistic, polytheistic, and dualistic elements
through the lens of the Zoroastrian origin narrative. It is argued that Zoroastrianism can be
considered a form of monotheism. Another portion of this essay will look at Zoroastrianism as a
philosophy rather than as a religion. The research is based on primary sources, Old Avestan,
Pahlavi, and Young Avesta texts, and relevant secondary sources.

2. MONOTHEISM

All discussions of historical Zoroastrianism and its nature must begin with the Gāθās, which is
the oldest part of the Avesta and which adherents and some academics believe was composed by
Zarathustra (Skjaervo 2011: 317). According to Boyd and Crosby’s interpretation (1979: 558),
Zoroastrianism combines cosmogonic dualism and eschatological monotheism in a way that is
unique among the world's major religions. This combination results in a religious viewpoint that
cannot be classified as simple dualism or simple monotheism. In support of a monotheistic
Zoroastrian interpretation, scholars have taken firm steps based on two passages of the Gāθās
(Y.47:3; 44:5,7) and the strongly interrelated twin spirits Spenta Mainyu and Angra Mainyu.
Firstly, Yasna 47:3, speaks of Ahura Mazda as “the father of this spirit (spenta mainyu), who
created for us the luck-bringing cattle” (translation by Bartholomae 1910), (Zaehner 1961: 51–
52). Nevertheless, the notion of “father” does not simply stand for a monotheistic philosophical
point of view, which suggests the existence of a unique, infinite source. As Gershevitch (1964)
states, “the conclusion is inevitable that demonic spirits are also the emanation of Ahura Mazda,
that Evil and Good spirits are God's only true creation” (Fox 1967: 131–132). Yasna 44:7 is also
presented by Gershevitch which obviously indicates that there is just one creator, Ahura Mazda
and is the only one who created everything. By contrast, Hintze (2013: 229) argues rightly,
Ahura Mazda’s creative, life-giving spirit is known as Spenta Mainyu, and this power has a
symmetrical opposite, Angra Mainyu, or ‘destroying force’, and generates ‘life’ and its inverse,
‘un-life,’ i.e., poor life or death (Y 30.4) respectively. Also, the Gathas portray the two powers as
mutually exclusive adversaries with nothing in common (Y 45.2). Other scholars, such as
Zaehner, believe that Zarathustra advocated a creation philosophy that was neither dualistic nor
monotheistic, in which God is the arbitrator and the ultimate creator of all things, both spiritual
and material, and his creation is out of nothing because he thinks all things into being.
Additionally, he is omniscient since he “rules at will” (Y. 43.1). The context of Yasna 44:5
indicates that the focus is on Ahura Mazda's dominance over his beneficial creations and the full
cycle of man's terrestrial existence, from dawn to sunset, rather than his creation of darkness as
the realm of Evil. In Yasna 44:7, the phrase “maker of all” might be interpreted as “maker of all
good things” (Boyd and Crosby 1979: 566-567). In sum “Zoroastrianism has its particular form
of monotheism” (Hintze 2013: 225).

It is critical to distinguish between exterior and interior frames of view while researching
Zoroastrianism, or any cultural or religious system. From the outsider’s point of view, it is clear
that Daevas were gods in Indo-Iranian but were rejected and vilified in the Iranian religion. The
inside viewpoint is the result of studying religion as a member of the system that supports that
structure. The internal viewpoint, according to Zarathustra mythology, splits time continuity into
two periods: before and after Zarathustra. His birth is both a watershed point in history and a
momentous shift in cosmic chronology (Hintze 2015: 32).

On the other hand, the Daevas who were the gods of the Indo-Iranian religion, are presented in
the Gathas as having been deluded and tricked into selecting the evil mind. According to the
insider view, they have always been terrible, and their evilness is never-ending, and they were
strong before Zarathustra. They were defeated when Zarathustra presented them with weapons in
the shape of the Mazda-worshipping faith in order to incapacitate them. In the Avesta, the
Daevas are Ahura Mazda’s immediate cultic opponents, as documented in Daeva inscription as
well. The inside viewpoint connects the transformation to Zarathustra and provides an
explanation of why it occurred: it was owing to the emergence of a new religion, the worship of
Mazdā (Hintze 2012: 17–19), and the destruction of demons, which can be seen in (Yasna. 32.3).

However, Good will become the only at the end, even though he is not yet fully the One and
Only while the current time of Mixture is still in effect. This is because there is no room for
doubt regarding the ultimate triumph of Good over Evil, and dualism will be replaced by
unqualified monotheism when Angra Mainyu and his allies vanish in the final battle at the end of
the world (Ferrero 2021: 100).

3. DUALISM

Depending on the source used as a reference, the source of dualism and Evil in Zoroastrianism
may be analysed from many perspectives. For example, in the Gāθās, there is an initial mention
of two spirits who “in the beginning,” were created with opposing attributes (Y. 30.3; Y. 30.4).
Angra Mainyu is a primordial power that existed before the Wise Lord formed the physical
universe. However, there is no reference to a higher Evil that opposes the Wise Lord in the
Gāθās. Even if the destructive and inventive powers are twins (Y. 30.3), signifying the symmetry
of ability between Good and Evil, Ahura Mazda is not among them. The Gāθās never mention a
direct opponent for the Wise Lord; however, the Daevas are his cultic rivals. The feature of twins
is most likely parallelism in these two opposed, mutually contradictory forces. The Old Avestan's
cosmological structure, which places the Wise Lord above the dualism of the two conflicting
forces, is significantly altered by this. The Bundahišn, where Ohrmazd and Ahriman are equated,
further emphasises this development in Zoroastrian cosmology that Hintze argues appropriately
(2012: 32–35). According to the Avesta, when Ahura Mazda, the “all-knowing wise Lord,”
performed a mythological ritual in which he created the universe's materials and thought forth
the cosmic order, the orderly cosmos was established (Yasna 31.19), causing the celestial
expanses to be saturated with light (Yasna 31.7). The archaic Avesta describes the beginning of
this dualism as “twin powers” (Yasna 30.3), by choosing between the two, all creatures in the
two worlds decide whether the new life will be alive and healthy or sick and dying, which may
be understood as the twin conceptions maturing into the two universes that will be formed by the
sacrifice (Yasna 30.3). The two spirits are personified in a chapter when they discuss how they
differ in every manner (Yasna 45.2), (Skjaervo 2011: 337–340). In addition, the dual dualism
pervades the Young Avesta and the Pahlavi Book, where the entire universe is split into two
worlds (ahu): “that of the spirit (Young Avestan manyawa, Pahlavi mēnōg) and that of living
beings (Young Avestan gaēθiya, Pahlavi gētīg) or that which has bones”. The two spirits are
created, each constructing its universe (Yasna 57.17), (Skjaervo 2011: 59-61).

According to this ultimate conception, the creation of both the good spiritual and material worlds
is an artifice devised created by Ohrmazd to prepare the framework for the struggle against Evil.
Moreover, the Avestan epithet Mainyu derives from a man's thinking, and its characteristics,
Spenta and Angra Mainyu represent life-giving and destructive powers, respectively. Human
terms characterise Spenta Mainyu and Angra Mainyu as life-giving (Good) and destructive (Evil)
thoughts, resulting in the human person being “a dualistic being in himself” (Hintze 2012: 32–
35).

As Malandra (1983: 19–22) states, according to Zoroastrianism, Ahura Mazda, the unchallenged
ruler at the highest cosmic level, did not create Evil, but rather the physical realm to confine the
false spirit. Humanity, with its free volition and choices, plays a vital role in a cosmic war. The
cosmic conflict is replicated in the human microcosm, and the individual who is a direct
descendant of Ahura Mazda via his spiritual creation does not produce Evil, just as the Wise
Lord did not (Y. 44.12; Y. 44.13; Y. 44.14), (Kronen, Menssen 2010: 185-205); but according to
Henning (cited by Boyd and Crosby 1979: 561), any assertion that the world was created by a
good and benign God must raise the issue of why the world, in the end, is so far from good.
Zoroaster's argument, that the universe was created by a good deity and an evil spirit of equal
strength who set out to destroy the good effort, is a complete solution; it is rational. This
interpretation means humans are free to choose to assist Ahura Mazda in his war against the
primal power of evil, and their contributions are greatly appreciated and depended upon.

Two characteristics of Zoroastrian religious practice are consistent with the notion that the
material world originates from the spiritual. The first is worshipping both the material and
spiritual Yazatas. As Ahura Mazda created the material world, it is in theory equally good as the
spiritual one and deserving of adoration, or yazata-, just like the spiritual world and Ahura
Mazda himself. So, since all of Ahura Mazda's spiritual and material creations ultimately stem
from him and are made of his substance, worshipping them is quite appropriate (Hintze 2012:
244).

To elaborate, dualism in Zoroastrianism is the presence of, but the absolute separation of Good
and Evil. This is acknowledged in two ways: cosmically (opposing forces across the cosmos) and
ethically (opposing forces inside the psyche). To explicate, celestial dualism refers to the
universe's continuous conflict between Good (Ahura Mazda) and Evil (Angra Mainyu).

4. “Monotheism” as a Beneficial Way of Understanding the Zoroastrian Faith

Many gods and goddesses are children of Ahura Mazda and Spentā Ārmaiti in the Young Avesta
(e.g., Yasht 17.16), and they are all in Ahura Mazda's abode (Yasht 1.25). In the Old Persian
inscriptions, Ahura Mazda is described as having ordered the world and is also described as the
greatest of the gods (baga) and as the king’s particular defender (Kent 1936: 221). Individual
ceremonies are dedicated to Zoroastrian deities, for instance, on the 13th day of the 4th month,
Jashan of Tir, or Tiregan, celebrates Tishtrya and the rains (1 st July) (Peterson 1995) or Jashan of
Aban, or Abanegan, is a celebration of Apas, the waters, specifically Aredvi Sura Anahita (26 th
October) (Boyce 1975: 71). In this perspective, the Yashts’ declarations that specific deities were
constituted as equal to Ahura Mazda are of particular relevance, for example, “I have created, O
Spitama Zaraϑštra, this star Tištria to such an extent worthy of worship, to such an extent
worthy of prayer, to such an extent worthy of satisfaction, to such an extent worthy of
celebration as myself, Ahura Mazdā” (Yasht 8.50, edition and translation by Panaino 1990: 74)
or in (Yasht 8.25). The inscriptions of Artaxerxes II and III (359–338 BCE) are the first to
specifically mention other gods when Anāhitā and Mithra are invoked (Kent 1936: 221); but, the
problem of Ahriman’s ontological character is frequently raised. Ohrmazd and Ahriman have
always existed and still do in the Pahlavi literature, but only Ohrmazd will continue to exist.
Ahriman is claimed to not influence the living world and only exists in the other world once the
original existence is finally reinstated at the end of time. Young Avestan and Old Persian
Zoroastrianism are unquestionably monotheistic in the sense of henotheism, with dualistic
cosmogony and cosmology (Skjaervo 2011: 349–350).

However, Ahriman never existed and does not exist, according to the Dēnkard, the gods exist but
the demons do not (Dēnkard 6.278, 6.98 cited by Shaked 1979: 39, 109). Also, according to
Hintze (2014: 239), Ahura Mazda is referred to in the Avesta as the finest and best of all yazatas
(Yt 17.16, Y 16.1). The belief that whatever originates from Ahura Mazda is “worthy of
worship” allows the Mazdayasnian tradition to absorb other deities, both ancient and new (such
as Mithra), and include them into its own cosmos and pantheon as long as they remain
subservient to Ahura Mazda (Hintze 2014: 240). Thus, according to the etic viewpoint,
monotheism replaces polytheism and dualism within the context of the Zoroastrian theory of
creation.

“Wisdom” is defined in philosophy and Zoroastrian theology. Philosophy is described as the

“love of wisdom” in its Greek word meaning (Mark 2020). Yet the worshipped Ahura Mazda is
defined as the “Wise Lord” in the Zoroastrian religion. “Zarathushtra's message is mostly ethical
and rationalistic” (Williams 1998). Zoroastrianism's doctrines promote leading a life centred on
two principles: avoiding Evil by firmly distinguishing between Good and Evil, and serving
wisdom (Williams 1998). At its foundation, Zoroastrianism philosophy is quite reasonable
(Williams 1998). Many of Zarathushtra’s Gathaic verses are the questions that Zarathushtra asks
Ahura Mazda; however, Ahura Mazda never replies to him, and Zarathushtra figures them out
using his Vohu Manah (vohu- ‘good’ and manah- ‘mind’), (Duchesne-Guillemin 2016). The
concept of ‘mind’ and ‘good mind’ is so important in the Zoroastrian doctrine that the Vohu
Manah is the closest Amesha Spenta to Ahura Mazda. According to Zoroastrian doctrine,
because the prophet Zoroaster (Zarathustra) was led into the presence of Ahura Mazda by Vohu
Manah in a vision, any individual who seeks to know the Wise Lord must approach him through
this “life-giving immortals” (Duchesne-Guillemin 2016). The focus on ‘good mind’ and
‘knowledge’ abide as important aspects deep in the dogma and basis of Zoroastrianism. They
make it better suit the concept of philosophy than religion because religious thoughts are founded
on obedience and belief, which may or may not be reasonable.

The trinity of good thoughts, good words, and good acts is the cornerstone of Zarathustra's
ethical philosophy. Good thoughts are inspired in a person by Vohu Manah, and good words and
good acts flow from good thoughts (Iyer 2009: 51-52). This definition of a universal law in
Zoroastrianism basics is the most similar to the famous “categorical imperative” of 18 th - century
German philosopher Emanuel Kant’s famous “categorical imperative”. “Act only according to
that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”
(Yoshimoto 2004). Perhaps, it was not only Zarathustra’s hymns of Gathas but their
philosophical methodology that inspired “Nietzsche” to inaugurate the composition of “Thus
Spoke Zarathustra”. He scribbled something by Friedrich von Hellwald about Zarathustra in a
notebook a few weeks after meeting this idea. This paraphrasing became the opening of Thus
Spoke Zarathustra (Parkes 2005: x- xvii).

5. Conclusion

In its historical form, dualism appears to be a multidimensional phenomenon, rather than merely
the conflict of two opposing forces. Two aspects of Zoroastrian religious practice support the
idea that the material world arises from the spiritual. Therefore, the first is to worship both
material and spiritual Yazatas. Since Ahura Mazda is the source of all things, theoretically the
material world is equally as good as the spiritual realm and deserves to be worshipped, or yazata,
just as the spiritual realm and Ahura Mazda himself. Thus, with regard to Zoroastrianism,
dualism cannot be regarded as a distinct religious concept. Its relationship with monotheism is so
tight that it is required to believe that dualism exists only as an amplification of a feature intrinsic
to all monotheisms which concentrates universal force in the form of a single supernatural being.
Monotheism is forced to deal with the existence of Evil far more severely than polytheism, and it
must find a response that puts Evil within the path that extends from God to the cosmos. In this
sense, every monotheism is a dualism. Every dualism is, in fact, monotheistic because it places
Evil on a lower plane than God (Kersey 2019).

From the perspective of the religion's literary tradition, Zoroastrians consider themselves to be
worshippers of one deity, Ahura Mazda. They demonstrate their support for his cosmic purpose
by worshipping his physical and spiritual creations and resisting the power that ruins them,
Angra Mainyu. According to the ideographic worldview, monotheism assimilates dualism and
polytheism within the context of the Zoroastrian idea of creation (Hintze 2014: 244). As a result,
“monotheism” is important in comprehending the Zoroastrian faith.
But with consideration to it as a philosophy rather than religion, the interpretation of “wisdom”
controls Zoroastrian philosophy. In its Greek word meaning, philosophy is defined as “loving of
wisdom”. In addition to such a definition, Zoroastrian narratives in general, and the Gathas in
particular, address fundamental concerns regarding existence, reason, values, mind, and wisdom.
The duality theorem in Zoroastrian philosophy addresses these fundamental questions.
Zoroastrian philosophy has a particular edge over religion since it uses rational arguments rather
than supernatural notions. “According to Duchesne-Guillemin, Zoroaster will be revealed to us
as an innovator who crossed at one step a decisive stage in the history of human thought,
Zoroaster is, in fact, [and] in the full sense of the word; the first theologian” (Motameni 2014:
100).

Although the supernatural components and visionary descriptions such as “Arda Viraf Namak”
gave the Zoroastrian theory a religious garment in the early Avesta and later Pahlavi literature,
according to chronology, Zoroastrian teachings evolved from a philosophy to a religion over
time.

Word count: 3101

Bibliography

Boyce, Mary. 1982. “A History of Zoroastrianism”. Under the Achaemenian. Vol. 2. (Leiden,
Koln. E.J. Brill.1982).

Boyd, James, and Crosby Donald. 1979. “Is Zoroastrianism Dualistic or Monotheistic?” Journal
of the American Academy of Religion. Fox, Douglas. Volume 47. Issue 4. 557–588.
https://academic.oup.com/jaar/article-abstract/XLVII/4/557/744081?
redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false#no-access-message#no-access-message

Duchesne-Guillemin, Jacques. 2016. "Vohu Manah". Encyclopedia Britannica.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Vohu-Manah. https://www.britannica.com/topic/amesha-
spenta

Ferrero, Mario. (2021). “From Polytheism to Monotheism: Zoroaster and Some Economic
Theory”. Homo Oeconomicus. 38.77-108. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41412-021-
00113-4

Fox, Douglas. 1967. “Darkness and Light: The Zoroastrian View”. Journal of the American
Academy of Religion. Volume XXXV. Issue 2. 129–137. https://academic.oup.com/jaar/article-
abstract/XXXV/2/129/697826

Gershevitch, Ilya.1964. “Zoroaster's Contribution”. Journal of Near Eastern Studies. Volume 23.
Number 1. 12-38. https://www.jstor.org/stable/543177.

Hintze, Almut. 2005. “Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu”. Encyclopedia of Religion (Detroit:
Thomson Gale). edited by Lindsay Jones. 203-204.

Hintze, Almut. 2013. “Change and Continuity in the Zoroastrian Tradition”. An Inaugural
Lecture was delivered on 22 February 2012. London: School of Oriental and African Studies,
University of London.
Hintze, Almut. 2014. “Monotheism the Zoroastrian Way”. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society.
Vol. 24. Issue 2. 225-249.

Hintze, Almut. 2015. “Zarathustra’s Time and Homeland: Linguistic Perspectives.” In:
Stausberg, Michael and Vevaind, Yuhan Sohrab-Dinshaw, (eds.). The Wiley Blackwell
Companion to Zoroastrianism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chapter 2. 31-38.

Iyer, Meena. 1 Jan. 2009. “Faith and Philosophy of Zoroastrianism”. Kalpaz Publications. 51-
52. https://books.google.co.uk/books?
id=4lNPn6kQEAcC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

Kent, Roland. G. 1936. “The Present Status of Old Persian Studies”. “Journal of the American
Oriental Society”. 56(2). 208–225. https://doi.org/10.2307/594668

Kersey, Antia. Apr 20, 2019. “Monotheism or Dualism”. updated Jan 16, 2020.
http://www.avesta.org/antia/Monotheism_or_dualism.pdf

Kronen, John, and Menssen, Sandra. 2010. “The defensibility of Zoroastrian dualism”. Journal
of Religious Studies. Vol. 46. Issue. 2. 185-205. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0034412509990357

Malandra, William. 1983. “An Introduction to Ancient Iranian Religion”. Minneapolis. The
University of Minnesota Press. https://www.scribd.com/doc/93738990/Malandra-1983-an-
Introduction-to-Ancient-Iranian-Religion-Readings-From-the-Avesta-and-Achaemenid-
Inscriptions#

Mark, Joshua J. published on 16 October 2020. “Philosophy.”

https://www.worldhistory.org/philosophy/

Motameni, Ahmad. 2014. “Iranian Philosophy of Religion and the History of Political
Thought” Peer-reviewed Thesis/dissertation, UC Riverside Electronic Theses and Dissertations.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. W. & Parkes, Graham. 2005. “Thus spoke Zarathustra: a book for
everyone and nobody” / Friedrich Nietzsche; translated with an introduction and notes by
Graham Parkes. Oxford; Oxford University Press.

Panaino, Antonio. 1990. “Tištria”. Part 1. The Avestan Hymn to Sirius. Roma. Instituto Italiano
Per IL Medio (ed) Estremo Oriente. Serie Orientale Roma LXVIII,1.

Peterson, Joseph. 1995. “Avesta: Khorda Avesta, Tishtar Yasht (Hymn to Tishtrya)”. Translated
by James Darmesteter, From Sacred Books of the East, American Edition, 1898.
http://www.avesta.org/ka/yt8sbe.htm
Shaked, Shaul. 1994. “Dualism in Transformation Varieties of Religion in Sasanian Iran”.
Jordan lecture 1991. London: SOAS. School of Oriental and African Studies.

Skjærvø, Prods Oktor. 2019.” The Gathas, a Forgotten Masterpiece”. In A Companion to World
Literature, K. Seigneurie (Ed.).
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/9781118635193.ctwl0020

Skjærvø, Prods Oktor. 2011. “Reconsidering the Concept of Revolutionary Monotheism” In: B.
Pongratz-Leisten (ed.), University in Reconsidering the Concept of Revolutionary Monotheism.
Winona Lake, Indiana. Eisenbrauns.
https://www.academia.edu/37410828/Reconsidering_the_Concept_of_Revolutionary_Monotheis
m_Beate_Pongratz_Leisten_Winona_Lake_Indiana_EisEnbrauns_2011_Offprint_frOm
https://harvard.academia.edu/POktorSkjaervo

Skjærvø, Prods Oktor. 2011. “Zoroastrian Dualism,” in Eric M. Meyers et al. (eds.), Light
Against Darkness: Dualism in Ancient Mediterranean Religion and the Contemporary World,
Journal of Ancient Judaism. Supplements II, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. 55-91.
https://www.academia.edu/15629179/_Zoroastrian_Dualism_in_Eric_M_Meyers_et_al_eds_Lig
ht_Against_Darkness_Dualism_in_Ancient_Mediterranean_Religion_and_the_Contemporary_
World_Journal_of_Ancient_Judaism_Supplements_II_G
%C3%B6ttingen_Vandenhoeck_and_Ruprecht_2011_pp_55_91

Stausberg, Michael. (2008). “On the State and Prospects of the Study of Zoroastrianism”.
Numen, 55(5), 561–600. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27643340

Williams, Alan. 1998. “Zoroastrianism”. In The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Taylor

and Francis. Retrieved 12 Feb. 2023, from doi:10.4324/9780415249126-N090-1
https://philarchive.org/archive/WILZ-3

Yoshimoto, Saori. 2004. “Explain what Kant meant by the categorical imperative”.
https://www.markedbyteachers.com/as-and-a-level/religious-studies-and-philosophy/explain-
what-kant-meant-by-the-categorical-imperative.html#:~:text=The%20'universal
%20law'%20'Act,and%20applied%20to%20every%20situation.

Zaehner, Robert Charles. 1961. “The dawn and twilight of Zoroastrianism”. New York: Putnam.
The Putnam history of religion. https://archive.org/details/dawntwilightofzo0000zaeh
M. Boyce, “Zoroastrianism”. In: J.R. Hinnells (ed.), A new handbook of living religions.
London: Penguin, 1997, 236–260.

Click https://docs.google.com/a/soas.ac.uk/uc?
id=0B6yuPT09EeNycUx2Nl85OGROVFU&export=download link to open resource.