'Daeva' (''daēuua'', ''daāua'', ''daēva'') is the
Avestan language term for a particular sort of supernatural entity with disagreeable characteristics.
In the
Gathas, the oldest texts of the
Zoroastrian canon, the ''daeva''s are 'wrong gods' or 'false gods' or 'gods that are (to be) rejected'. This meaning is – subject to interpretation – perhaps also evident in the
Old Persian '''daiva'' inscription' of the 5th century BCE. In the Younger
Avesta, the ''daeva''s are noxious creatures that promote chaos and disorder. In later tradition and folklore, the ''dēw''s (Zoroastrian
Middle Persian;
New Persian ''div''s) are personifications of every imaginable evil.
Origin and development
;Etymology
Old Avestan ''daēuua'' or ''daēva'' derives from Old Iranian ''
★ daiva'', which in turn derives from Indo-Iranian ''
★ devá-'' "god," reflecting Indo-European ''
★ deiu̯ó'' with the same meaning. For derivatives in a European context, see
Tyr.
The
Vedic Sanskrit cognate of Avestan ''daēuua'' is ''devá-'', continuing in
Dharmic religions as ''dəv''. Equivalents in
Iranian languages include
Old Persian ''daiva'',
Middle Persian ''dēw'' and
New Persian ''dīv''.
;Problems of interpretation
While it is likely that the ''daeva''s were once the "national" gods of pre-Zoroastrian Iran,
[1] there is "no known
Iranian dialect attests clearly and certainly the survival of a positive sense for [Old Iranian] ''
★ daiva-''."
[2] This "fundamental fact of Iranian linguistics" is "impossible" to reconcile with the testimony of the Gathas, where the ''daeva''s, though rejected, were still evidently gods that continued to have a following.
[2]
This essential contradiction has yet to be conclusively explained. Given the fragmentary and discontinuous information in the sources, it is an extremely difficult issue. In general, "rejection of the [''daeva''s] is linked to Zoroaster's reform"
[4] and Gershevitch
[5] and others following Lommel
[6] consider the progression from "national" gods to demons to be attributable to the "genius of Zoroaster."
[2]
;In comparison with Vedic usage
Although with some points of comparison such as shared etymology, Indic ''devá-'' is thematically different from Avestan ''daēva''. In the
RigVeda (10.124.3), the ''daeva''s are the "younger gods", in conflict with the
''asura''s, the "older gods". There is no such division evident in the Zoroastrian texts.
In the later Vedic texts (not generally a source of comparison with Iranian texts), the conflict between the two groups of ''deva''s and ''
asuras'' is a primary theme. This theme is not attested in an Iranian context where conflict occurs between ''
asha'' and ''druj'', and the respective supporters on either side.
The Zoroastrian
''ahura''s (etymologically related to the Vedic ''asura''s) are only vaguely defined and only three in number. Similarly, the use of ''asura'' in the RigVeda is unsystematic and inconsistent and "it can hardly be said to confirm the existence of a category of gods opposed to the ''deva''s." Indeed, RigVedic ''deva'' is variously applied to most gods, including many of the ''asura''s.
Moreover, the demonization of the ''asura''s in India and the demonization of the ''daeva''s in Iran both took place "so late that the associated terms cannot be considered a feature of Indo-Iranian religious dialectology."
[2] The view - popularized by Nyberg
[9], Duchesne-Guillemin
[10] and Widengren
[11] of a prehistorical opposition of ''
★ asura/daiva'' involves "interminable and entirely conjectural discussions" on the status of various Indo-Iranian entities that in one culture are ''asura''s/''ahura''s and in the other are ''deva''s/''daeva''s (see examples
in the Younger Avesta, below).
In scripture
In Zoroaster's revelation
In the
Gathas, the oldest texts of Zoroastrianism and believed to have been composed by
Zoroaster himself, the ''daeva''s are not yet the demons that they would become in later Zoroastrianism.
In these pre-historic texts, where the term occurs 19 times, the ''daeva''s are a distinct category of "quite genuine gods, who had, however, been rejected."
[1] In ''
Yasna'' 32.3 and 46.1, the ''daeva''s are still worshipped by the Iranian peoples. ''Yasna'' 32.8 notes that some of the followers of Zoroaster had previously been followers of the ''daeva''s.
In the Gathas, the poet censures the ''daeva''s as being incapable of discerning truth (''
asha-'') from falsehood (''druj-''). They are consequently in "error" (''aēnah-''), which led them to have accepted the bad religion. Simultaneously, the Indo-Iranian legacy of the ''daeva''s as beneficient gods is still evident in numerous expressions that appear in both Avestan and Vedic Sanskrit. Further, although the ''daeva''s are described as being incapable of proper discernment, they are never identified with the ''druj'' itself. The ''daeva''s are never themselves ''druj'' "false" or ''dregvant'' "of the lie."
From such ambiguity it has been concluded that – at the time the Gathas were composed - "the process of rejection, negation, or demonization of these gods was only just beginning, but, as the evidence is full of gaps and ambiguities, this impression may be erroneous."
[1]
Although the ''daeva''s are clearly identified ''with'' evil (eg ''Yasna'' 32.5), they are not identified ''as'' evil. They deceive mankind and themselves but they are not ''aka mainyu'' (''aka'' being the Avestan language word for "evil". Hence, 'aka mainyu' is the "evil spirit" or "evil mind" or "evil thought").
In Yasna 32.4, the ''daeva''s are revered by the ''Usij'', described as being a class of "false priests" - devoid of goodness of mind and heart - that are hostile to cattle and husbandry. (''Yasna'' 32.10-11, 44.20) Like the ''daeva''s that they follow, "the ''Usij'' are known throughout the seven regions of the earth as the offspring of "evil thought" (''aka mainyu''), "lie" (''druj''), and arrogance. (''Yasna'' 32.3)."
[14] ''Yasna'' 30.6 suggests the ''daeva''-worshipping priests met often with Zoroaster to argue but fail to move him.
The Gathas only speak of the ''daeva''s as a group. The hymns also do not mention the individual ''daeva''s by name. Although the polemic against the ''daeva''s is a major theme in the Gathas, in other older sections of the Avesta the ''daeva''s are not mentioned at all.
In the Younger Avesta
In the Younger
Avesta, the ''daeva''s are unambiguously hostile entities.
In contrast, the word ''daevayasna-'' (literally "one who sacrifices to ''daeva''s") denotes adherents of other religions and thus still preserves some semblance of the original meaning in that the ''daeva-'' prefix still denotes "other" gods. In ''
Yasht'' 5.94 however, the ''daevayasna-'' are those who sacrifice to
Anahita during the hours of darkness - i.e. the hours when the ''daeva''s lurk about - and ''daevayasna-'' appears then to be an epithet applied to those who deviate from accepted practice and/or harvested religious disapproval.
[15]
The ''
Vendidad'' – a contraction of ''vi-daevo-dāta'', "given against the ''daeva''s" – is a collection of late Avestan texts deals almost exclusively with the ''daeva''s, or rather, their various manifestations and ways to confound them. ''Vi.daeva-'' "rejecting the ''daeva''s" qualifies the faithful Zoroastrian with the same force as ''mazdayasna-'' ('Mazda worshiper').
[16]
In ''Vendidad'' 10.9 and 19.43, three divinities of the
Vedic pantheon follow
Angra Mainyu in a list of demons. Completely adapted to Iranian phonology, these are ''Indra'' (Vedic
Indra), Sarva (Vedic
Sarva,
Shiva) and Nanghaithya (Vedic
Nasatya). The process by which these three came to appear in the Avesta is uncertain. Together with three other ''daeva''s – Tauru, Zairi and Nasu - that do not have Vedic equivalents, the six oppose the six
Amesha Spentas.
''Vendidad'' 19.1 and 19.44 have Angra Mainyu dwelling in the region of the ''daeva''s, which the ''Vendidad'' sets in the north and/or the nether world (''Vendidad '' 19.47, ''Yasht'' 15.43), a world of darkness. In Vendidad 19.1 and 19.43-44, Angra Mainyu is the ''daevanam daevo'', "''daeva'' of ''daeva''s" or chief of the ''daeva''s. The superlative ''daevo.taema'' is however assigned to the demon Paitisha ("opponent"). In an enumeration of the ''daeva''s in Vendidad 1.43, Angra Mainyu appears first and Paitisha appears last. "Nowhere is Angra Mainyu said to be the creator of the ''daeva''s or their father."
[17]
The ''Vendidad'' is usually recited after nightfall since the last part of the day is considered to be the time of the demons. Because the ''Vendidad'' is the means to disable them, this text is said to be effective only when recited between sunset and sunrise.
In inscriptions
Old Persian ''daiva'' occurs twice in
Xerxes' ''daiva inscription'' (XPh, early 5th century BCE). This trilingual text also includes one reference to a ''daivadana'' "house of the ''daiva''s", generally interpreted to be a reference to a shrine or sanctuary.
In his inscription, Xerxes records that "by the favour of
Ahura Mazda I destroyed that establishment of the daivas and I proclaimed, 'The daivas thou shalt not worship!'"
[18] This statement has been interpreted one of two ways: Either the statement is an ideological one and ''daiva''s were gods that were to be rejected, or the statement was politically motivated and ''daiva''s were gods that were followed by (potential) enemies of the state.
[19]
In tradition and folklore
In Zoroastrian tradition
In the
Middle Persian texts of Zoroastrian tradition, the ''dew''s are invariably rendered with the
Aramaic ideogram ''ŠDYA'' or the more common plural ''ŠDYAˀn'' that signified "demons" even in the singular.
''Dew''s play a crucial role in the cosmogonic drama of the ''
Bundahishn'', a Zoroastrian view of creation completed in the 12th century. In this text, the evil spirit ''Ahriman'' (the middle Persian equivalent of Avestan
Angra Mainyu) creates his hordes of ''dew''s to counter the creation of ''Ormuzd'' (Avestan
Ahura Mazda). This notion is already alluded to in the ''Vendidad'' (see Younger Avestan texts above), but only properly developed in the ''Bundahishn''. In particular, Ahriman is seen to create six ''dew''s that in Zoroastrian tradition are the antitheses of the ''Amahraspand''s (Avestan
Amesha Spentas).
Mirroring the task of the Amesha Spentas through which Ahura Mazda realized creation, the six antitheses are the instrument through which Angra Mainyu creates all the horrors in the world. Further, the arch-''daeva''s of ''
Vendidad'' 10.9 and 19.43 are identified as the antithetical counterparts of ''Ardawahisht'' (Avestan
Asha Vahishta), ''Shahrevar'' (Avestan
Kshathra Vairya) and ''Spendarmad'' (Avestan
Armaiti).
The six arch-demons are respectively
★ ''
Akoman'' of evil thought and equivalent to Avestan ''Akem Manah''
★ ''Indar'' that freezes the minds of the creatures from practicing righteousness
★ ''Naonhaithya'' of discontent
★ ''Saurva'' of oppression and desire
★ ''Taurvi'' the destroyer
★ ''Zauri'' who poisons plant creation
This assignment (''Bundahishn'' XXVII.2ff) is slightly at odds with scripture, where the moral principles (that each Amesha Spenta represents) have other immoral principles that they are opposed to. This is not however a complete breach, for while in the Gathas ''asha'' - the principle - is the diametric opposite of the abstract ''druj'', in Zoroastrian tradition, it is ''Ardawahisht'' – the
Amesha Spenta that is the
hypostasis of ''asha'' – that is opposed to by Indra, who freezes the minds of creatures from practicing "righteousness" (''asha'').
Also mirroring Ormuzd's act of creation, i.e. the realization of the Amesha Spenta's by His "thought", is Ahriman's creation of the ''dew''s through his "demonic essence." Other texts describe this event as being to Ahriman's detriment for his act of "creation" is actually an act of destruction: Ahriman is the very epitome (and hypostasis) of destruction, and hence he did not "create" the demons, he realized them through destruction, and they then became that destruction. The consequence is that - as Ahriman and the ''dew''s can only destruct - they will ultimately destroy themselves (''Denkard'' 3). As the medieval texts also do for Ahriman, they question whether the ''dew''s exist at all. Since "existence" is the domain of Ormuzd, and Ahriman and his ''dew''s are anti-existence, it followed that Ahriman and his ''dew''s could not possibly exist. One interpretation of the ''Denkard'' proposes that the ''dew''s were perceived to be non-existent physically (that is, they were considered non-ontological) but present psychologically.
[20] (see also:
Ahriman: In Zoroastrian tradition)
For a different set of texts, such as the ''Shayest ne shayest'' and the ''Book of Arda Wiraz'', Ahriman and the ''dew''s were utterly real, and are described as being potentially catastrophic. In such less philosophical representations, the ''dew''s are hordes of devils with a range of individual powers ranging from the almost benign to the most malign. They collectively rush out at nightfall to do their worst, which includes every possible form of corruption at every possible level of human existence. Their destructiveness is evident not only in disease, pain, and grief but also in cosmic events such as falling stars and climatic events such as droughts, cyclones and earthquakes. They are sometimes described as having anthropomorphic properties such as faces and feet, or given animal-like properties such as claws and body hair. They may produce semen, and may even mate with humans as in the tale of ''Jam'' and ''Jamag'' (''Bundahishn'' 14B.1).
But with the exception of the ''Book of Arda Wiraz'', the ''dewa''s are not generally described as a force to be feared. With fundamental optimism,
[21][4] the texts describe how the ''dew''s may be kept in check, ranging from cursing them to the active participation in life through good thoughts, words and deeds. Many of the medieval texts develop ideas already expressed in the ''
Vendidad'' ("given against the demons").
A fire (cf. ''
Adur'') is an effective weapon against the ''dew''s, and keeping a hearth fire burning is a means to protect the home. The ''dew''s are "particularly attracted by the organic productions of human beings, from excretion, reproduction, sex, and death."
[4] Prayer and other recitation of the liturgy - in particular the recitation of ''
Yasht'' 1 (so ''Sad-dar'' 57) - is effective in keeping the demons at bay.
[24] Demons are attracted by chatter at mealtimes and when silence is broken a demon takes the place of the angel at one's side.
[25] According to ''Shayest-ne-Shayest'' 9.8, eating at all after nightfall is not advisable since the night is the time of demons. In the 9th century ''Rivayat''s (65.14), the demons are described to issue out at night to wreak mayhem, but forced back into the underworld by the divine glory (''khvarenah'') at sunrise.
The Zoroastrianism of the medieval texts is unambiguous with respect to which force is the superior. Evil cannot create and is hence has a lower priority in the cosmic order (''asha''). According to ''Denkard'' 5.24.21a, the protection of the
''yazata''s is ultimately greater than the power of the demons. The ''dew''s are agents ("procurers - ''vashikano'' - of success") of
Ahriman (Avestan ''Angra Mainyu'') in the contests that will continue until the end of time, at which time the fiend will become invisible and (God's) creatures will become pure. (''Dadestan-i Denig'' 59)
But until the final renovation of the world, mankind "stands between the
''yazad''s and the ''dēw''s; the [''yazad''s] are immortal in essence and inseparable from their bodies (''mēnōg''), men are immortal in essence but separable from their bodies (moving from ''gētīg'' to ''mēnōg'' condition), but ''dēw''s are mortal in essence and inseparable from their bodies, which may be destroyed."
[4]
In addition to the six arch-demons (see above) that oppose the six Amesha Spentas, numerous other figures appear in scripture and tradition. According to ''Bundahishn'' XXVII.12, the six arch-demons have cooperators (''hamkars''), arranged in a hierarchy (not further specified) similar to that of the
''yazata''s. These are "''dew''s [...] created by the sins that creatures commit." (''Bundahishn'' XXVII.51)
★ ''Akatash'' of perversity (e.g. ''Gbd'' XXVII)
★ ''Anashtih'' "strife" (e.g. ''Chidag Andarz i Poryotkeshan'' 38)
★ ''Anast'' that utters falsehood (e.g. ''Gbd'' XXVII)
★ ''Apaush'' and ''Spenjaghra'' who cause drought (e.g. ''Gbd'' XXVII)
★ ''Araska'' of vengeance (e.g. ''Gbd'' XXVII)
★ ''Ashmogh'' of heresy (Avestan ''Ashemaogha'')
★ ''Az'' of avarice and greed (e.g. ''Gbd'' XXVII)
★ ''Buht'' of idolatry (e.g. ''Gbd'' XXVII)
★ ''Bushasp'' of sloth (Avestan ''
Bushyasta'') (e.g. ''Gbd'' XXVII)
★ ''diwzhat'' (Av. ''daebaaman''), the deceiver, the hypocrite
★ ''Eshm'' of wrath (Avestan ''
Aeshma'') (e.g. ''Gbd'' XXVII)
★ ''Freptar'' of distraction and deception (e.g. ''Gbd'' XXVII)
★ ''Jeh'' the whore (Avestan ''
Jahi'')
★ ''Mitokht'' (also ''Mithaokhta'') of scepticism and falsehood (e.g. ''Gbd'' XXVII)
★ ''Nang'' of disgrace and dishonor (e.g. ''Dadestan-i Denig'' 53)
★ ''Nas'' or ''Nasa'' (Avestan ''Nasu'') of pollution and contamination (e.g. ''GBd'' XXVII)
★ ''Niyaz'' causes want (e.g. ''Gbd'' XXVII)
★ ''Pinih'' of niggardliness and who hoards but does not enjoy its hoard (e.g. ''Gbd'' XXVII)
★ ''Rashk'' (Avestan ''Areshko'') "envy" (e.g. ''Denkard'' 9.30.4)
★ ''Sij'' who causes destruction (e.g. ''Gbd'' XXVII)
★ ''Sitoj'' that denies doctrine (e.g. ''Dadestan-i Denig'' 53)
★ ''Spazg'' of slander (e.g. ''Gbd'' XXVII)
★ ''Spuzgar'', the negligent (e.g. ''Andarz-i Khosru-i-Kavatan'')
★ ''Taromaiti'' of scorn (e.g. ''Gbd'' XXVII)
★ ''Varun'' of unnatural lust (e.g. ''Gbd'' XXVII)
Other entities include:
★ ''Aghash'' of the evil eye (e.g. ''Gbd'' XXVII)
★ ''Astwihad'' of death (Av. ''Asto-widhatu'') (e.g. ''Gbd'' XXVII)
★ ''Azi Dahak'' (Avestan ''
Azi Dahaka''), a serpent-like monster king.
★ ''Cheshma'' who opposes the clouds and causes earthquakes and whirlwinds (e.g. ''Gbd'' XXVII)
★ ''Kunda'', the steed that carries sorcerers (e.g. ''Gbd'' XXVII)
★ ''Uta'' who brings about sickness through food and water (e.g. ''Gbd'' XXVII)
★ ''Vizaresh'' that fights for the souls of the dead (e.g. ''Gbd'' XXVII)
The most destructive of these are ''Astiwihad'', the demon of death that casts the noose of mortality around men's necks at birth, and ''Az'', who most capable of destroying the "inate wisdom" of man. ''Az'' is thus the cause of heresy and blinds the righteous man from being able to discern the truth and falsehood.
In the Shahnameh
A list of ten demons is provided in the ''
Shahnameh'':
[27] Besides the afore-mentioned ''Az'' "greed", ''Kashm'' "wrath" (MP: ''
Aeshma''), ''Nang'' "dishonor," ''Niaz'' "want," and ''Rashk'' "envy", the epic poem includes ''Kin'' "vengeance", ''Nammam'' "tell-tale", ''Do-ruy'' "two-face", ''napak-din'' "heresy", and (not explicitly named) ungratefulness.
Some of the entities that in the Middle Persian texts are demons, are in the Shahnameh attributes of demons. So for instance, ''varuna'' "backwards" or "inside out", reflecting that they tend to do the opposite of what they are asked to do. Although
Ferdowsi generally portrays ''div''s as being distinct from humans, the poet also also uses the word to denote "evil people."
[27]
One of the more popular stories from the Shahnameh is that of ''
Rostam and the
Dīv-e Sapīd'', the "white demon" of
Mazandaran, who blinds Rostam's men but who are then cured with the blood of the demon's gall.
In popular culture
★ In
Final Fantasy X-2, a ''daeva'' is a demon-like enemy.
★ The game
Aveyond features a demon with powerful servants he refers to as ''daeva''s.
★ In
Supernatural (TV series) Sam and Dean encounter a ''daeva'' when Meg summons one to kill them both.
★ In the
Prince of Persia series, Kaileena is thought to be a ''daeva'' because she has abilities to read the timeline of fate, turn people into monsters, etc.
★ In
The Redemption of Althalus (by
David and Leigh Eddings), Daeva is an evil god, brother to Deiwos and Dweia.
★ In , from the new
World of Darkness role-playing game line, the ''daeva''s are a clan of sensually decadent vampires.
References
1. .
2. .
3. .
4. .
5. .
6. .
7. .
8. .
9. .
10. .
11. .
12. .
13. .
14. .
15. .
16.
17.
18. .
19. .
20. .
21. .
22. .
23. .
24. .
25. .
26. .
27. .
28. .
Bibliography
★
★
★ :602-603.
★
★
★
★
★
★
★
★
★
★
العربية
中国
Français
Deutsch
Ελληνική
हिन्दी
Italiano
日本語
Português
Русский
Español
