هستی شناسی انسان در شاهنامه و مهابهاراتا بر بنیاد نیکی و بدی اسطوره (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
یکی از موارد مهم در هستی شناسی انسان در اسطوره، بنیاد نیکی و بدی است. همواره نیروهای بدی و نیکی در جدال با هم هستند و سرانجام نیروی نیکی بر بدی پیروز شده است. بر این اساس، آفرینش انسان، زندگی انسان در جهان، ارتباط او با هستی و فرجامش قابل تفسیر است. در این مقاله، بخش اساطیری شاهنامه فردوسی با مهابهاراتا در این موضوع به شیوه توصیفی-تحلیلی، بررسی تطبیقی شده است. نتایج بررسی، مشابهت را نشان می دهد؛ چنانکه در هردو اثر، بنیاد نیکی و بدی، بر هستی پذیری و آفرینش انسان، اهداف آفرینش انسان، روابط انسان درون خانواده و سطح ملی تأثیر گذاشته است. نیروهای بدی به صورت دیو، اهریمن یا شخصیت های اهریمن صفت، پیوسته در جدال با نیروهای نیکی قرار گرفته اند؛ سرانجام باتوجه به اهداف آفرینش انسان در اسطوره، نیروهای نیکی پیروز می شوند. جدال کیومرث با اهریمن، فریدون با ضحاک و نیز تورانیان و ایرانیان در شاهنامه، درمقابل جدال کوران و پاندوان در مهابهاراتا، نمونه مشخص و مشابهی بوده که به واسطه مطالعه آن، ساختار هستی شناسی انسان بر بنیاد نیکی و بدی، نمایان می شود. در این تشابه، پاندوان و ایرانیان با ذات نیک آفریده شده اند و هدف از آفرینش آن ها مبارزه با نیروی بدی است و اگرچه مدتی بدی چیره شده؛ سرانجام هردو پیروز می شوند و دوره نیکی آغاز می شود.An Ontology of Human in Shāhnāmeh and Mahābhārata Based on Good and Evil in Myths
A major aspect of ontology of human in a myth is how this is founded on good and evil. In a constant conflict between the forces of good and evil, good has eventually overcome evil. This forms a foundation based on which one can interpret creation of human, human life in the universe, human’s connection to his being, and his eventual fate. The present paper takes a descriptive approach to a comparative analysis of the myths portrayed in Ferdowsi’s Shāhnāmeh and the Indian myths depicted in Mahābhārata, with the findings point to some similarities between the two. In both of these works, the foundation of good and evil has influenced genesis and creation of human, the purpose of human creation, and how human relationships develops in families or across a nation. The forces of evil, embodied as dīvs (demons), Ahrīman (destructive spirit) or evil characters, are in a constant battle with the forces of good. But eventually based on the purposes of human creation in a myth, the forces of good have won the fight as they are of a good essence and the nature of their existence come from Ahūrā. The conflicts between Keyumars and Ahrīman, Fereydun and Zahhāk, and the people of Iran with the people of Tūrān in Shāhnāmeh or similarly the battle between the Kurus and the Pandavas clearly exemplify how human ontology is based on good and evil. In this analogy, the Pandavas and Iranians have been created of a good essence and are intended to the forces of evil, and although the evil temporarily prevails, eventually the forces of good overcome to begin a period of goodness.
1. Introduction
A major aspect of myths deals with ontology of human. Thus, human has been and continues to be familiar with this aspect. “Myths of every people speak of creation, divine entities, man, and the fate of the universe, in an attempt to explain social structures, and behavioral and moral models and rituals in any primitive society” (Bahar, 1997: 75-76). Therefore, “It is an interpretation of the manifestations of human life” (Hinnells, 1985: 110). “Despite the cultural diversity of myths, it is still possible to point to common principles shared by myths which in fact form the very foundations of mythologically formulated ontology” (Dehghan, 2015: 100). One such common principle is based on the good and the evil. In mythological ontology, the good has its origin in the holy being of Ahūrā (the holy spirit) while the evil originates from the unholy being Ahrīman (the destructive spirit). Accordingly, the foundation of the good and the evil in human ontology points to several similarities between the myths held by different people and nations comparing them, the ethnic and cultural commonalities of nations can be analyzed.
The problem dealt with by the present study is to examine differences and similarities in human ontology including the views on creation and genesis, objectives of creation, human relations at family and national levels, and teleology in Shāhnāmeh and Mahābhārata. “Cohabitation of Persians of Airyanem Vaejah and Indians of the Vedic period has been established against a common background” (Zarrinkoob, 1985: 18). These, the two nations lived in the same place, “before separation” (Bahar, 1997: 16) and according to scientific evidence, although they started to reside at new places and mix with other people, they still reflected their mythical beliefs in their works. On the one hand, these beliefs reflect a form of ontology and worldview that maintain the views held by ancient humans, and on the other, they feature important characteristics including a foundation based on the “good” and the “evil” which played a major role in Persian and Indian myths.
2. Detailed Research Methodology
The present study was conducted using an analytical descriptive approach. Desk research was used for a literature review to identify the ontological foundations of the good and the evil as they were discussed in Shāhnāmeh and Mahābhārata. Next, the study focused on the main topic of analyzing Shāhnāmeh and Mahābhārata as its main topic.
3. Discussion
In Shāhnāmeh, a work written by Ferdowsi, the mythical era coincides with the beginning of the book while the epic section begins with heroic stories of Zāl and ends with the death of Rostam. As for Mahābhārata, a number of “indologists believe that it was originally called Jaya (meaning victory). The book consists of 8,800 verses and is believed to be a work of Vyasa” (Mahābhārata, 1979, v. 1: 8). The story of Mahābhārata is based on true historical facts” (Tripathi, 2021: 194). However, other stories were added to the original book over time, turning it into an entirely mythical work.
A comparison of these two works regarding creation and genesis and origin of human in the universe indicates general similarities. According to Ferdowsi, God first created the four basic elements, namely fire, air, water, and earth, which combined to make other elements in the universe (Ferdowsi, 2011: 1). In fact, the belief held by Ferdowsi originated from mythical views since these four basic elements always played a significant role in the continuation and quality of human life. The Bhagavad Gita, a section of Mahābhārata which contains deep religious and mythical beliefs, introduced krešn as the creator god. In addition, water was believed to be the origin of material life in Rigveda. In both works, human is created when the conditions have become conducive to human growth. The forces of good, embodied in different forms such as Haoma, help man. While Haoma is a god in Persian myths, he has a human form in Shāhnāmeh and informs Kay Kāvus and Kay Khosrow of Afrāsiyāb’s hideout (Ferdowsi, 2011: 825). Likewise in Mahābhārata, the gods and goddesses known as devatas and apsaras were personified in human figures. An example is the goddess Ganga (ibid., v. 2: 122). The foundation of the good and the evil can be traced to genesis of the children of the Kurus and the Pandavas. The Pandavas descended from gods while the Kurus were the result of a piece of meat converted into human in a jar. The forces of evil and Ahrīman are also actively involved in human genesis, with ill-natured people clearly showing a sense of belonging to the world of darkness and evil. Zahhāk and Afrāsiyāb are two prominent examples in Shāhnāmeh. The two works discussed here highlight that the most important goal behind creation of man was to follow the good and fight the evil. As far as family relations are concerned, Shāhnāmeh and Mahābhārata again show some similarities in terms of how these relations are rooted in the good and the evil. Those originated from a good essence treat their family and people well while those with an evil essence seek enmity. In the mythical section of Shāhnāmeh, the foundation of the good and the evil is reflected in the conflict between the people of Persia and the people of Tūrān. In family relationships, there is also a mixture of good and bad forces, which means that these two forces may live together, such as Afrasiab and Aghirirth. In addition, the forces of Ahrīman are depicted in the form of fratricide and patricide. The conflict between the good and the evil in Mahābhārata coincide with familial relations. The major war depicted in this book breaks between the Kurus and the Pandavas, who are cousins. The conflict in Yudhishthira and Duryodhana is clearly one between the good and the evil. A contrastive analysis of Shāhnāmeh and Mahābhārata supports the idea that hostility always began on the part of humans with evil essence but ended with the victory of those of good essence. Furthermore, the foundation of the good and the evil specifically influence the fate of man. Those of good essence have a good fate and find an eternal life after death. This is exemplified by Yudhishthira and Kay Khosrow, both fighting and overcoming the forces of evil. But out of the fear of falling prey to evil temptations, they both resign their thrones and joined the eternal universe.
4. Results
The findings of this study indicate similarities between the two works. In terms of genesis and creation of man, humans of Ahūrā have good essence while those belonging to the forces of Ahrīman are either dīvs (demons) embodied as human figures or humans reflecting evil essence. In addition, forces of evil transform into different human figures to help humans overcome forces of evil. The same good and evil forces are also present in relationships between humans. The forces of good always do good but people of Ahrīman character always do evil and ignore their familial and blood relations. The effects of the conflict between forces of good and evil go beyond familial relations and get reflected in social and national relations. In both cases, an evil essence causes wars between members of the same family, ultimately resulting in the victory of the good over the evil. As for the fate of man, the forces of evil are destroyed across the universe or remain in captivity to see how the forces of good overcome the forces of evil. But the forces of Ahūrā find an eternal life.
5. References
Aidanlou, S. (2003). Indications of Mythical Nature of Afrāsiyāb in Shāhnāmeh, Literary Research Quarterly, 2: 7-32.
Alaei, M. (2007). Linguistic and Conceptual Analysis of Bhagavad Gita, Ph.D. Thesis, supervised by Mohammad Taghi Rashed Mohassel, Tehran, Research Center for Humanities and Cultural Studies.
Amouzegar, J. (2005). History of Persian Mythology, Tehran: SAMT.
Bahar, M. (1996). A Research in Iranian Mythology, v. 2, Tehran, Agah.
Bahar, M. (1997). Essays in Iranian Culture, Tehran: Fekr-e-Rouz.
Christensen, A. (2014). Les types du premier homme et du premier roi dans l'histoire légendaire des iraniens, translated into Persian by Amozegar, Jaleh & Tafazzoli, Ahmad, Tehran, Cheshmeh, 3<sup>rd</sup> Ed.
Dabir Siaghi, S.M. (2004). A Biography of Ferdowsi and Shāhnāmeh, Tehran: Ghatreh.
Darmesteter, M. J. (1975). Commonalities between Shāhnāmeh and Mahābhārata, translated into Persian by Jalal Sattari, Art & People, 153-154: 17-33.
Dehghanzadeh, S. (2015). Sacred Ontology in Myths, Religious Research, 13 (5). pp. 99-114.
Eliade, M. (1959). the Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion. Translated by Willard R. Trask. New York: Harcourt.
Esmaeilpour, A. (1998). Myth as Symbolic Expression, Tehran: Soroush.
Farnbagdadgi. (1380). Bundahishn, author: Mehrdad Bahar, Tehran: Tos.
Ferdowsi, A. (2011). Shāhnāmeh, v. 1, based on the version printed in Moscow, Tehran: Hermes.
Ghaemi, F. (2015). Comparative Analysis of the Myth of Zahhak, Epic Literature Research Journal, 19: 27-65.
Hinnells, J.R. (2014). Persian Mythology, translated into Persian by Farrokhi, Bajlan, Tehran: Asatir.
Jahanpour, F., Haghparast, L. (2012). Recreating Bundahishn and Mazda Mytholody: Creation in the Story of Zahhak, Literary Essays, 177: 62-83.
Lévi-Straus, C. (2010). Myth and meaning, translated into Persian by Khosrawi, Shahram, Tehran: Markaz.
Mahābhārata. (1979). Mahābhārata (the greatest ancient poetic collection in the world in Sanskrit). translated by Mir Ghias-al-Din Ali Qazvini, aka Naghib Khan, edited and annotated by Seyed Mohammad Reza Jalali Naeeni and Shukla, N. S., Tehran: Tahouri.
Mozaffari, N. (2010). A Comparative Review of Human Status in Shāhnāmeh and Mahābhārata, Tehran: Shalak.
Pourdavoud, E. (2001). Yasna, Tehran: Asatir.
Pourdavoud, E. (2010). Gatha, Tehran: Asatir.
Rigveda. (1973). Excerpts from Rigveda (the Oldest Living Evidence of Hindu Religion and Society). reviewed and prefaced by Seyed Mohammad Reza Jalali Naeeni, Tehran, Noghreh.
Sarkarati, B. (1978). Mythological Foundation of the Iranian National Myth, Tabriz School of Literature and Humanities, 125: 1-61.
Sattari, J. (2009). World of Mythology and Persian Myths, 2<sup>nd</sup> Ed., Tehran: Markaz.
Sen, K.M. (1996). Hinduism, translated into Persian by Pashaei, A., Tehran: Fekr-e-Rouz.
Tripathi, R.Sh. (2014). History of Ancient India, translated into Persian By Alizadeh Tabatabaei, Seyed Abolfazl (2021). Tehran: Avahia.
Van Noten, B. (2018). Mahabharat, the national and mythological epic of India, rewritten by William Buck, translated by Farnoosh Olad, Tehran: Cheshme (electronic book).
Vashghani Farahani, E. (2020). The story of Arash, the survivor of the myth of "The Archer God of Light" in ancient Indo-European peoples, Subcontinent Reseaches, 12(39): 263-282.
Warner, R. (2010). Encyclopedia of World Mythology, translated into Persian by Esmaeilpour, Abolghasem, Tehran: Ostoureh.
Zarrinkoob, A. (1985). History of Iranian People, Tehran: Amir Kabir.
تبلیغات
