(also called Shikand-gumanik Vichar and abbreviated as SGV) is a Zoroastrian theology book of 9th century Iran, written by Mardan-Farrukh.
This article includes a description and analysis of the text, and also briefly addresses its context and relevance, with respect to other religions and to the continuing traditions of Zoroastrianism.
[7] Based on references made in his book to the then editions of other Zoroastrian works (e.g., the Dinkart), Mardan Farrukh has been dated to the 9th century.
"[12] A practicing layman who drew on priestly Zoroastrian books in the Pahlavi, his work "is distinguished by its clarity of thought and orderly arrangement.
Mu'tazilites, or Islamic free-thinkers, many of whom were Persians, had created an atmosphere of free debate and interest in philosophical and theological questions.
As he sees it, the acute moral quandary is how and why a wise and powerful God would create a world that seemingly has turned out so imperfect, which can at times appear merciless and cruel to creatures living in it.
[19] In a limited sense his work might be described as a nascent, adumbrated forerunner of comparative religion studies with the understanding, of course, that it is rendered from the view point of a 9th-century Zoroastrian.
The author justifies this belief by pointing to the universal presence of good vis-à-vis bad everywhere in the world, e.g., "darkness and light, knowledge and ignorance, perfume and stench, life and death, sickness and health, justice and disorder, slavery and freedom... visible in every country and land at all times."
[32][33] The late Zoroastrian Dastur, Maneckji Nusservanji Dhalla, writes: "The author of the Shikand Gumanik Vijar, who is himself a dualist of the most pronounced kind, strongly urges in his polemics against other religions that good and evil can on no account have originated from one and the same source.
Ahriman being aggressive, rash and ignorant (he "does not know the final outcome"), as against the thoughtful and prudent Ohrmazd, certainly the ultimate result will be the triumph of good; undoubtedly creation will be restored.
Along with the Amesha Spenta, humankind plays a vital rôle in the defeat of Druj (the Lie) and victory of Asha (the Truth).
At one point Mardan-Farrukh describes several specific approaches to discovering the true (the matter at issue being the existence of the "exalted sacred being").
Knowledge by analogy announces something invisible derived from the visible through similarity or resemblance, e.g., from the presence of a thing made one may infer the absent maker.
[47] This attention to methods (logic, analogy and inference, testimony, and tangible evidence) demonstrates some respectful rigor and craft in persuasion.
Further, Mardan-Farrukh invokes what he calls in humankind "the manifestation of the maintenance of a hope for a supreme inspection over mankind, and indeed, over wild animals, birds, ad quadrupeds.
"[50] The sophist may argue that no distinctions can be made, as honey is sweet, but "bitter to those abounding in bile" or that bread is both pleasant "to the hungry and unpleasant to the surfeited."
It was then that the founding fathers of the Parsi community left their homeland to seek religious freedom in exile in India, and thereafter those who held by their ancient faith in Iran were steadily ground down into the position of a small, deprived, and harassed minority, lacking all privileges or consideration.
[57][58] Relentlessly from different points of view and using various illustrations, Mardan-Farrukh asks why the sacred being, with Divine wisdom and concern for the happiness of humankind, would have chosen freely to create the world as it is, a dangerous and contentious realm where evil exists and people suffer.
"[71] Mardan-Farrukh also finds fault with this story in that the curse of God on Adam affects everyone, "reaches unlawfully over people of every kind at various periods.
[75] During the prior Sasanid era (224–651), "non-Zoroastrians frequently occasioned heated polemics in which virulent criticism and derisive terms were exchanged between the Zoroastrian priests on the one side and the prelates of the rival faith on the other."
"[80] He demonstrates a studied knowledge of the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation, although the premise of God taking the status of human being evokes no response, other than to call it "very strange".
[86][87][88] Mardan-Farrukh's analysis of free will in Christianity likewise (absent Ahriman) results in his ascribing to God responsibility for sins committed by humankind.
"[T]hey say, from the words of the Messiah, that the original evolution from the sacred being is light and goodness; evil and darkness are separate from him.
"[94] Apparently our author is indicating an analogy to the cosmic contention between good and evil of Zoroastrian teaching, so that here Ohrmazd will surely dig up and cast away trees sown by Ahriman.
"[95] So does the author work to appropriate to the Zoroastrian dualist view the words of the Christian Messiah, i.e., that Ahriman has corrupted the earth and injected doubt into mankind.
"[99][100][101][102][103]Notwithstanding, Mardan-Farrukh asks why (if no adversary like Ahriman pre-existed as an independent source of evil) would the sacred being, who acts judiciously and desires universal "happiness and prosperity", come to create a world that results in "misery for multitudes of the innocent who are distressed, poor, necessitous, and sick.
"[118]Following a method found in modern comparative religion, more than one answer is possible, and several views may respectfully co-exist whatever the apparent mutual contradiction.
[119] Hence, the Zoroastrian position as discussed more than a thousand years ago by Mardan-Farrukh in his Shikand-gumanik Vichar may be said to embody a rational search by an inquiring mind as befits a creature of God.
The 'dualist' danger was strongly felt by these early theologians though it is not clear what they effectively meant by dualism (thanawiya, zandaqa) and we have sufficient data to believe that they often confused Mazdaism and Manichaeism.
""Yahweh, however, could get inordinately excited about man as a species or men as individuals if they did not behave as he desired or expected, without ever considering that in his omnipotence he could easily have created something better than these 'bad earthenware pots'."