Introduction

1

Āẕar Kaivānīs is a syncretistic religious school combining elements from Islam, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism and Ešrāqī philosophy; its major texts were composed in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The texts name a certain Kaivān, probably from Estaḫr, near Shiraz, as founder of the school. According to the Dabestān-e maẕāheb (The School of Religious Teachings),¹ a heresiographical work from the mid-seventeenth century (see below) whose author must have belonged to this school, Kaivān lived from 943/1533 to 1028/1618. He must have left his homeland for India under pressure resulting from the intolerant Safavid religious policy to enjoy the religious freedom of the Mughal empire, and settled in Patna, probably in the year 1001/1592–3, or at the end of the sixteenth century.² The Dabestān-e maẕāheb (Āẓar Sāsānī 2010, 4r) refers to the school by various names: Īzadīyān, Yazdānīyān, Ābādīyān, Sepāsīyān, Āzādān, Sorūšān, Hūšīyān, Anūšagān, Āẕar-hūšangīyān and, last but not least, Āẕarīyān.³

2

The Dabestān-e maẕāheb presents a hagiographical biography of Āẕar Kaivān, making it difficult to attempt a historical contextualization of the founder’s activities. Given the strong syncretism of the Āẕar Kaivānī school, it is difficult not only to identify the origin of its ideas, but also to trace the religious contours of the school, i.e., to demarcate it from its neighboring religious groups and clearly define its ideas. One could even raise the question of whether the representation of the school in the Dabestān-e maẕāheb is a heresiographical⁴ categorization of the Dabestān-e maẕāheb’s author, an idealized depiction of the school, or a historical description. In contrast to their diverse content, Āẕar Kaivān’s texts feature a homogeneous form: They are written in Persian, the official language of Safavid Iran and Mughal India, and clearly strive to avoid Arabic words. The texts’ preoccupation with a ‘pure’ Persian language also caught the attention of nineteenth-century philologists;⁵ this fascination was short-lived, however, since later research proved that the word formations encountered in these texts are highly artificial and often do not follow Persian morphology. The scholarly disappointment reached its highest point in the investigations into a book which the Āẕar Kaivānīs represent as ‘heavenly’: the Dasātīr-e Āsmānī.

3

The title dasātīr-e āsmānī literally means ‘Heavenly Professors.’ Given the Āẕar Kaivānīs’ efforts to avoid Arabic words, it might come across as an accidental irony that the title of their heavenly book, dasātīr, is the Arabic plural of the Persian word dastūr. The book includes 16 chapters: the first 15 chapters are ascribed to 15 shats, or prophets, starting from Mahābād and ending with Zarathustra, Sāsān I. and Āẕar Sāsān. The text does not mention any of the prophets known from the Abrahamic traditions; instead, the prophets’ names derive from Iranian mythology, Zoroastrian cosmogony or anthropogony or, in other cases, they remain unknown. A chapter titled Pand-nāma-ye eskandar ‘Alexander’s Book of Advice’ is placed after the chapter Nāma-ye šat zartošt ‘Prophet Zarathustra’s Book.’ Alexander is not called a prophet in the Dasātīr, yet Zarathustra is quoted as saying that “No one can receive the meaning of my words as he [Alexander] did” (D, 222).

4

The Dasātīr is a bilingual text. Its first language is an artificial encrypted language; the second is a specific form of New Persian, i.e., one which includes few Arabic words. The Dabestān-e maẕāheb represents the pseudo-language of the Dasātīr as follows:

6

Some volumes of that [scil. the Dasātīr] are/were in a language which does/did⁶ not resemble any language of the people of lower religions and that is called ‘the Language of Heaven’⁷.

7

The Dasātīr describes itself as a heavenly book sent by God to Mahābād, the first prophet of the Dasātīr. In the first decades after the discovery of the Dasātīr, scholars made valiant efforts to decipher this ‘language of Heaven.’ Once scholars understood that it was an invented language, interest in the Āẕar Kaivānī texts waned.

8

In a recent article, Daniel Sheffield (2014) made the case that the concept of heavenly language in the Āẕar Kaivānī school is directly connected to older notions of Horūfīya. The arguments he presents to support this hypothesis can be summarized as follows:

9

• The Āẕar Kaivānīs belong to the context of Horūfīya and more especially to Noqṭavīya, founded by Mahmūd Pasīḫānī (Sheffield 2014, 165–69).
• There were artificial languages in the Ottoman-Safavid-Mughal world, as illustrated by the dictionary Kitāb-e Baleybelen, assigned to the Hurufist author Mohyī Golšanī (Sheffield 2014, 169f.).
• Similar concepts existed in the discussions of celestial language among the Hurufists. Also, Sheffield points out the Hurufist distinction between two languages: an absolute, limitless and celestial language, which is opposed to unfolded, limited and terrestrial language (Sheffield 2014, 171).
• There were similar claims of linguistic miracles in the Āẕar Kaivānī school as well as in (other) Hurufists authors, as well as by the poet Fayżī (Sheffield 2014, 171f.).

10

Whereas Sheffield’s hypothesis about the Hurufist influence on the concept of celestial language is plausible, it cannot, on its own, explain the construction of the Dasātīr-e Āsmānī as a whole. In this article, I would like to argue that the Āẕar Kaivānīs might have used the general paradigms of Horūfīya and Noqṭavīya, but employed the Zoroastrian Zand as a model for the construction of the Dasātīr. We know already that the Āẕar Kaivānīs were aware of the Zoroastrian New Persian literature, as the Dabestān-e maẕāheb explicitly shows. Furthermore, this article will show that they were familiar with the Zoroastrian Middle Persian literature as well, if perhaps only superficially. I will also show that the Āẕar Kaivānīs did not use the concept of secrecy in their encounter with Zoroastrianism in order to draw in-group and out-group distinctions. On the contrary, I argue that the Zoroastrian concept of secret language and the necessity of its translation and interpretation provided the Āẕar Kaivānīs with the possibility to include the notion of a secret book in their own system of thought.

Celestial Language, Translation and Commentary in the Dasātīr-e Āsmānī

11

This investigation begins with a straightforward analysis of the structure of the Dasātīr. In each chapter of the book, a phrase, or often a sentence, is rendered in the celestial language, followed by a Persian ‘translation’ of the phrase from the celestial language. Occasionally some sentences are added to the translation and are offered as the commentary on the original text. The celestial language is demarcated from its Persian translation by the number of the passage, which appears at the beginning of the phrase in the celestial language, and by the letter ت‌ (t; for tarğoma ‘translation’) at the beginning of the translation, as is illustrated, for instance, in the Haydarabad manuscript of the book. In this manuscript, the beginning of the commentary is marked with the letter ش (š; for šarḥ ‘commentary’). These signs, moreover, are written in this manuscript in red ink, whereas the texts in both languages are written in black.⁸ This striking structure did not escape the attention of the first editor of the text, although he regarded the New Persian text as an actual translation of the Dasātīr text in its ‘heavenly’ language. In the epilogue to this edition, Mulla Firuz b. Kaus writes:

13

It should be known that the original language of the revealed books does not resemble the languages Zand, Pahlavi, Dari or even any famous language of the different contemporary people at all. In the era of Ḫosro Parvīz, Majesty Sāsān V. translated these books into Persian with the highest correctness, fluency and eloquence. For each verse that needed a commentary he wrote a clear commentary after its translation so that the students could easily apprehend it.

14

To provide an example for this text structure I render in the following the paragraphs 40-44 and 47-52 of the chapter Nāma-ye šat vaḫšūr yāsān (D, 97-9). To allow better visualization of the text structure, I have rendered the texts in the celestial language red, the translation black, and the optional commentary blue. The sign for the demarcation of the celestial language from the translation is replaced by an asterisk:

27

It is important to highlight at this point again that the celestial text of the Dasātīr is represented as the original text, and was considered as such in the nineteenth century scholarly research as well. As far as the genesis of the book is concerned, however, it is the Persian text, encrypted into an artificial language, which should be considered the original. Interestingly, one can find a reflection on the ‘original text’ and its translation in the Dasātīr itself. The 70^th paragraph of Jī-āfrām’s Book of the Dasātīr reveals the language of the ‘original text’ and its translation as well as the necessity of translation for the purpose of accessibility:

28

New Persian ‘translation’:

30

It is worthy knowing the speech of God, the book of God, the angel of God, and the envoy of God.

31

Commentary:

33

“The speech of God exists not by means of the throat, the mouth or the tongue: It is a will and a speech without any of these. For when He commanded, the chief of angels, Bahman, came into existence, and with this pen, he [i.e. Bahman] wrote the world with the hand of might. There are two divine books. The first book is the two worlds, and it is called The Great Book [mihīnnāma], and in the language of Farzābād, it is called the Farz-Dasātīr, that is, The Great Book of God. And there is another dasātīrī book, the meaning [chim] of which Mahābād and the other prophets from Mahābād down to me have acquired, and it is a signification [āriš] which shines on the heart, not [comprehended through] the breath of the voice. This breath of the voice is a mere from [kālbod] for it in order to make it heard [bahr-i shinavānīdan]. In the heavenly language [farātīn navād], it is called Darīk Dasātīr, which is The Small Book of God [kehīnnāma-ye yazdān]” (Sheffield 2014, 170). Its great convey is knowledge […]. This is called Farz-Farğīšvar in the language of the Dasātīr. This means ‘Great Envoy’ in Dari Persian, and designates the second envoy of people. He has been commissioned to call inferior people.”

34

The text structure of the Dasātīr, as shown in the above paragraphs, reveals three distinct components: the revelation to the prophets in a celestial language; the translation of the revelation; and finally, a commentary on the revelation. Both translation and commentary are represented as deriving from ancient times and are hence endowed with more value. As a result, not only the constructed celestial language is important for the composition of the Dasātīr, but also the artificial Persian language of the translation—from which words of Arabic origin are expunged.⁹ In my opinion, the systematically antiquated language of the translation and commentary are also an aspect of the author’s intention to present a ‘celestial language.’ The celestial message can only be received through prophetic mediation; therefore, divine action is expressed in the celestial text as well as in the translation and commentary of the prophetic figures. The purpose of the ‘pure’ language of the translation and commentary is not only to suggest their ancient origins, but also to allude to an idealistic past, namely the Sasanian period. In this way, their ancient character also confers authority on them.

Exegetical Traditions in the Āẕar Kaivānīs’ Environment

35

The most influential religious traditions in the Āẕar Kaivānīs’ milieu which possessed an exegetical tradition include the Vedic tradition, Zoroastrianism and Islam. For the sake of argument, I assume that the author of the Dasātīr was familiar with these exegetical traditions and might have used them as models for the construction of his ‘heavenly book.’

36

There is no doubt that the Āẕar Kaivānīs became familiar with the religious books of India after their migration to the subcontinent, if not even earlier; this is proven by the use of Sanskrit words in the Dasātīr as well as in other Āẕar Kaivānīs treatises. The following passage of the Dabestān-e maẕāheb, moreover, demonstrates the Āẕar Kaivānīs’ familiarity with the Vedas:

38

They regard the celestial language as a language in which none of the elemental forms have been expressed. Although the Qurʾān is a divine revelation, the Arabs speak in its language. The four Vedas, however, which they consider a heavenly book, are in Sanskrit, a language not spoken in any region and found nowhere other than in the books of this group. They maintain that this [scil. celestial language] is the speech of angels, and that the Vedas are the speech of Brahmā for the arrangement of the worldly affairs.¹⁰

39

This passage might even give the impression that the author of the Dasātīr used the Vedas as a model for the construction of the celestial language in his heavenly book. It states that the Brahmans regard the Vedas as a heavenly book. This claim is justified with the argument that Arabic is the language of some people and therefore a terrestrial language, while Sanskrit, in contrast, is not a spoken language. Considering the existence of a commentary in the Dasātīr, a commentary on the Vedas could have served the model for the construction of Āẕar Kaivān’s heavenly book if Sanskrit had been used as a model for its celestial language. The Veda exegeses of Sāyaṇa ācārya, one of the most prominent intellectuals of medieval India,¹¹ are considered the most important exegeses of the Vedas.¹² He authored them at the height of Indian literature in the fourteenth century in the Vijayanagra Empire. Sāyana and his team penned 18 comprehensive exegeses on different Vedic works, which rapidly won authority. Their historical proximity to the Dasātīr’s creation, and their widespread reputation in India, allow us to assume that they were not unknown to the author of the Dasātīr. If he had aimed to construct his heavenly book modeled on a commentary on Vedic texts, it is logical to assume that he must have chosen a commentary by Sāyana, perhaps specifically the Ṛgvedasaṃhitābhāṣya,¹³ his commentary to the Ṛgveda. It should be noted, however, that this commentary—as virtually every other authoritative commentary on the Vedas—is written in Sanskrit. The original text and the commentary are thus written more or less in the same language, even if a speaker of Sanskrit cannot always understand a Vedic passage. Moreover, this commentary evidences a textual structure¹⁴ which definitely differs from one of the Dasātīr. In Ṛgvedasaṃhitābhāṣya the commentary encloses the commented text,¹⁵ whereas in the Dasātīr the commentary follows the original text.¹⁶

40

Commentators writing in the same language as the original text are not unique to the Vedas; this was true for some Qurʾān exegeses in Iran as well, where the most important commentaries were often written in Arabic. Commentaries with a Persian translation, however, were not infrequent in Iran. According to Zadeh (2012, 264–66), they linked the original and the translation in two forms: often through an interlinear translation, or by putting the translation at the end of a liturgical unit. The second form was not so current as the first one but common. The Persian translations of the Qurʾan thus incorporate three components similar to the Dasātīr: the original sacred text in Arabic, the translation, and the commentary in Persian:

41

Yet it is not uncommon for translations to fully envelop the text with the commentarial expansions. In these instances, the original Arabic text of the Qurʾan is not only contained between interlinear translations, above and below, but is also surrounded by marginal commentaries which fill the entire page so that the sacred scripture is visually afloat in a sea of exegetical expansion.¹⁷

42

As a consequence, it cannot be ruled out that Persian exegeses of the Qurʾan served as a model for the construction of the Āẕar Kaivānīs’ heavenly book. Nevertheless, there are some decisive differences between the Dasātīr and the exegeses of the Qurʾān or Vedas: in the commentary on Vedas, there are only two textual components, the original and its commentary. The Dasātīr has three components, however. In the Qurʾān, the original text is in a real, generally comprehensible human language, whereas in the Dasātīr, the original language is an artificial one. The texture constitutes the next major difference: The Ṛgvedasaṃhitābhāṣya, for example, exhibits a ring structure not present in the Dasātīr. In the case of the Persian commentaries on the Qurʾan, we frequently see an interlinear translation. Even when the translation appears at the end of a liturgical unit, the commentary, however, is often written on the margin. The commentary is thus not an integral part of the text as is the case for the Dasātīr. These differences make it improbable that these commentary traditions would have functioned as models for the Dasātīr.

The Zoroastrian Exegetical Tradition

43

In the second millennium CE, Zoroastrians, laity as well as religious specialists, believed that Avestan was a heavenly language. They regarded it as the language in which Zarathustra communicated with Ahura Mazdā. The knowledge that Avestan, as an Old Iranian language, had been spoken by a group of eastern Iranian people was promoted by Iranian philologists in the eighteenth and nineteenth century.¹⁸ Afterwards, Zoroastrians adopted this conclusion as well. Before these philological investigations, the general opinion did not consider Avestan to be a dead language but a language of revelation, not spoken by people on the earth. A thirteenth century Zoroastrian text adopts this perspective on the Avestan language:¹⁹

45

About those 21 nasks [scil. books] of the Avesta which they recite: Avestan is Ahura Mazdā’s language, Zand is our language and Pāzand is the one of which everybody knows what it [scil. Avesta] says.²⁰

46

In the Zoroastrian tradition, Middle Persian (and its Pahlavi script) thus occupied an intermediate position between Avestan as an ideal language and New Persian (or Gujarati) as a spoken language. On the one hand, Middle Persian made the content of Avestan liturgical texts accessible to Zoroastrian priests; on the other hand, it historically stands at the interface between a language projected back into the mythical past and a living language.

47

The quoted passage, moreover, not only claims that Avestan is the language of Ahura Mazdā; it also introduces two other Zoroastrian linguistic components, Zand and Pāzand, which are relevant for our discussion. As we know, the Avestan texts were translated into Middle Persian and were commented upon.²¹ The commented translation written in the Pahlavi script is also known by the technical term zand, lit. ‘interpretation.’²² Since the complexity of the Pahlavi script hampers the reading of Pahlavi texts, some of these texts were re-rendered in the more distinctive Avestan script. So, the Middle Persian texts, occasional exegeses of Avestan texts, written in the Avestan script, are called pāzand. Therefore, we have to differentiate between the pair translation-commentary and zand-pāzand. The definitions of Zand and Pāzand in the quotation above are consistent with their definitions in Iranian philology (Andrés-Toledo 2015, 524). The quotation defines zand as ‘our language,’ i.e., the Middle Persian language, the literary language of the Zoroastrian priests in the Sasanian and early Islamic period, written in Pahlavi script, which in the period after the eleventh/twelfth century, in particular, Zoroastrian priests were able to read. In contrast, Pāzand is represented as a text form “of which everybody knows what it says.” The author presumably intends ‘everyone’ to mean lay Zoroastrians, who must have been able to read the Avestan script.

48

To illustrate the overall structure of the Zand texts,²³ I will quote two verses of the Yasna text, Y. 9.1-2, from the exegetical tradition.²⁴ These texts comprise, like the Dasātīr, three components: the original text, its translation, and the commentary. In the Zand texts, the Avestan passages are mainly translated phrase for phrase. In order to do this, first the Avestan original phrase is written (here rendered in red). Secondly, its translation follows (here rendered in black). Thirdly, a short or long commentary is occasionally added after the translation (here rendered in blue). In manuscripts, the original Avestan text is demarcated from the translation by a decorative character (here marked by an asterisk). Moreover, some words, such as hād, mark the beginning of the commentary.

49

Y.9.1

50

hāuuanīm ā ratūm ā haomō upāit̰ zaraθuštrǝm * pad hāwan radīh [[pad hāwan gāh]] hōm abar raft ō Zardušt

51

* ātrǝm pairi yaoždaθǝṇtǝm gāθåsca srāuuaiiaṇtǝm * pad ātaxš-gāh pērāmōn yōǰdahrēnišnīh ka-š [[ān Ašem-wohū sē]] guft [[kē Frawarānēy ō pēš]]

52

* ādim pǝrǝsat̰ zaraθuštrō kō narǝ ahī * u-š az ōy pursīd Zardušt kū kē mard hē [[hād nē pad yašt ī fradom būd az pēš paydāg. u-š dānist kū hōm ōh rasēd ud ka mad būd ā-š pursīd abāyist mad miθrō upāit zardušt ān paydāg kū-š šnāxt ēd rāy čē ān zamān abāg yazdān wēš būd ēstād u-š yād āšnāgtar būd hēnd. u-š ēn fragard warm būd u-š abāyist rāy abāg hōm ul guft. * ast kē ēdōn gōwēd hād * Ohrmazd guft ēstād kū harw dō ōh rasēnd ud ka hōm mad būd ā-š madan šnāsēd.]]

53

* yim azǝm vīspahe aŋhǝ̄uš astuuatō sraēštǝm dādarǝsa xᵛahe gaiiehe xᵛanuuatō amǝṣ̌ahe * kē man az harwisp axw ī astōmand ā-m nēktar dīd hē čē-t ān ī xwēš ǰān nēk kard ēstēd ud amarg [[hād ā-š pad frārōnīh ā amarg kerd estēd nē ēdōn čiyōn awēšān kē gōšt ī ǰam ǰūd u-šān andar tan amarg kerd estād tā bē az tan harw kas-ēw amarg […]]]

54

Y.9.2

55

āat̰ mē aēm paitiiaoxta haomō aṣ̌auua dūraošō * ō man ōy passox guft hōm ī ahlaw ī dūrōš [[hād dūrōšīh-iš ēd kū ōš az ruwān ī mardōmān dūr dārēd * rōšn guft ay ahōšīh pad hōm bawēd.]]

56

* azǝm ahmi zaraθuštra haomō aṣ̌auua dūraošō * an ham Zardušt hōm ī ahlaw ī dūrōš

57

* ā mąm yāsaŋᵛha spitama frā mąm hunuuaŋᵛha xᵛarǝtǝ̄e * ān ī ān ī man ōh ān xwarišn xwāhēd Spitāmān frāz man hūn ō* xwarišn [[xwarišn rāy bē hūn * xwarišn xward]]

58

* aoi mąm staomaine stūiδi yaθa māf aparacit̰ saošiiaṇtō stauuąn * abar man pad stāyišn stāy [[yazišn]] čiyōn man pas-iz sūdōmand stāyēnd [[ā-š ān ī tō ud tō ud ašmā rāy]]

59

The migration of the Avestan texts from Eastern Iran to Western Iran, as well as some probable discontinuity in the Zoroastrian textual tradition, led to a situation in which the Zoroastrian priests of the post-Achaemenian period were not able to produce new texts in Avestan. It moreover undermined their competence in understanding the Avestan language. Due to these circumstances, translation of the Avestan texts became necessary and also increased the necessity for explanatory exegesis. Therefore, the Avestan original and its translation always accompany the exegeses. Consequently, Zand designates both the translation and the commentary of the Avestan text, although the Zoroastrian priests differentiated between them in their textual tradition. In the late or post-Sasanian period, the translation and the exegesis became fixed and acquired an authoritative status, which is partly projected in the Zoroastrian tradition on the Middle Persian language and the Pahlavi script. Whereas Avestan was considered Ahura Mazdā’s language, Pahlavi was represented as the language and the script of its mediators, that is, the Zoroastrian authorities. The 99th chapter of the Zoroastrian book Saddar-e nas̱r (Hundred Chapters in Prose), a Zoroastrian treatise from the fifteenth century or earlier, illustrates this Zoroastrian perception:

61

Passage 99: (1) It is not allowed that mūbeds, dastūrs, radān and hīrbeds teach Pahlavi to everybody. (2) For Zarathustra asked Ahura Mazdā who is allowed to be taught Pahlavi. (3) Ahura Mazdā answered in detail, whoever is of your descendants (and) is a wise mūbed or dastūr or hīrbed. (4) Otherwise, nobody is allowed. If someone teaches someone other than those whom I have mentioned, s/he commits a huge sin. Even if s/he has many virtues s/he will be finally brought to hell.

62

Passage 99 limits instruction in the Pahlavi script and language to the Zoroastrian priests. It is worth noting that the restriction of teaching to priests refers only to the Pahlavi script and language. In contrast, Zoroastrians must learn the Avestan script to be able to accomplish their liturgical tasks, and priests must help them do so, as passage 98 of the same text requires:

64

Passage 98: (1) The Avestan script must be taught to Zoroastrians by hīrbeds and masters so that there will not be any mistakes in the recitation of prayers and Yašts. (2) It is more imperative to hīrbeds and masters to teach the Avestan scripts to all Zoroastrians. If a hīrbed neglects their teaching s/he commits a huge sin. (3) Ahura Mazdā emphasized to Zarathustra: ‘I will take every hīrbed and master who neglects teaching Avesta to Zoroastrians as far away from Paradise as the breadth of the earth.’²⁵

65

Both passages attempt to authorize the presented direction through two postulates. The first postulate refers to the representation of the instruction as a divine provision, which was revealed to Zarathustra in a dialogue with Ahura Mazdā. The second postulate alludes to the representation of its violation as a severe sin, which leads the offender to hell even if s/he has acquired numerous virtues.

66

It is worth noting that these chapters are paraphrased in chapters 99 and 100 of the Dabestān-e maẕāheb:

69

Passage 99: Zoroastrians must know the Avestan and the Zand script.

70

Passage 100: Mūbeds must not teach Pahlavi words to others, because Yazdān [scil. Ahura Mazdā] has said to Zarathustra: ‘Teach this science to your children.’²⁶

71

This demonstrates that this emic perspective on Zoroastrian exegetical literature was known to the Āẕar Kaivānīs, as the section on the reception of Zoroastrian exegetical tradition below will attempt to investigate in more detail.

Comparing the Structures of Exegetical Texts in Zoroastrianism and in the Dasātīr

72

The evidence presented above allows us to infer that, even if the Āẕar Kaivānīs took over the concept of celestial language from their immediate religious environment (Horūfīya and Noqṭavīya), their construction of the Dasātīr-e Āsmānī obviously imitates the Zoroastrian Zand. This hypothesis is supported by the following evidence:

73

• In both the Zoroastrian tradition and in the Dasātīr, the transmission of the divine revelation consists of three components: a) the language of heaven (Avestan or the constructed language in the Dasātīr), b) translation and c) commentary.
• The celestial language in both the Dasātīr and the Zoroastrian Zand-Avesta is inaccessible. Although it has been shown that the constructed celestial language of the Dasātīr morphologically and syntactically resembles New Persian, and was likely invented using New Persian as a model, it is worth investigating whether the Āẕar Kaivānīs attempted to make this language phonologically similar to Avestan.
• The inaccessibility of the celestial language is compensated for by its translation into an understandable language.
• Dasātīr’s celestial text is not translated into the spoken form of a contemporary language, but into an artificially antiquated New Persian. It seems that the author aimed to make the language of the translation and commentary similar to Middle Persian.
• Both in the Dasātīr and in the Zoroastrian exegetical tradition, the exegesis depends on the translation and is based upon it.
• Both in the Dasātīr and in the Zoroastrian exegetical tradition, the original, the translation and the exegesis immediately follow each other.²⁷
• Translation and exegesis of phrases in an invented language must have been put together according to a preexisting model. Otherwise one might expect that the author either translated or commented on the phrases.

74

If we accept that the author of the Dasātīr used the Zoroastrian Zand tradition as a model for his book, there would be no doubt that the Zoroastrian exegetical texts were known to the Āẕar Kaivānīs at the latest after their migration to India. Now the question can be posed to what extent these texts were known in the broader context of early Modern Iran and India and how deeply Āẕar Kaivānīs authors were acquainted with them.

Reception of the Zoroastrian Exegetical Tradition in Early Modern Indo-Iranian Culture and in Āẕar Kaivānī Literature

Some Pahlavi Terms in the Dasātīr

106

In the previous sections, I investigated the structural analogy of the construct Dasātīr and the Zoroastrian Zand tradition of the Avestan texts. I tried to demonstrate the Dasātīr’s structural dependence on the Zand tradition. Moreover, I tried to infer from the Āẕar Kaivānī literature that these authors were familiar with the Zoroastrian text tradition and knew Zand and its structure. In the following I would like to point out some terms in the Dasātīr that must have found their way to the Dasātīr from Zoroastrian Middle Persian literature. For this, I will concentrate on terms related to the concept of time. For my conclusions in this part, I formulate two explicit premises:

107

• Premise 1: The Āẕar Kaivānīs had at their disposal only those Zoroastrian sources that are available to us today. This premise rules out the possibility that the Āẕar Kaivānīs could have received terms from Zoroastrian New Persian texts that are not transmitted to us.
• Premise 2: The Āẕar Kaivānīs had no access to the Zoroastrian side-traditions from the first millennium CE in non-Iranian languages such as Syrian, Armenian or Greek. This premise rules out the possibility that the Āẕar Kaivānīs could have received terms from non-Zoroastrian texts.⁴¹

108

Both premises seem probable enough to be accepted as true and presupposed in the following. The first terms to scrutinize come from the commentary on section 29 of the chapter Šāy Kelīyo in the Dasātīr. There, we find two terms representing time which could be revealing for identifying the sources of the Dasātīr. The section reads:

110

mīlād var vard * The creator and revealer is completely immaterial and without duration [damān-keš]⁴² It should be known that time [damān] is the measure of the rotations of the great sky, “and the relation of one fleeting and unfixed subject with another fleeting and unfixed subject; as for example, the relation of new events and fresh occurrences in the world, with the revolution of the Heavens and the motion of the spheres.”⁴³ In the celestial language [farātīn-navād], it is called zorvān.

111

Striking in this passage is the word form damān, in damān-keš, instead of the New Persian word zamān ‘time.’ One might think this is a mere spelling mistake, where the letter <z> was replaced with <d> in the Persian-Arabic script. Although this confusion cannot be ruled out, it is hardly likely because of its repetition in different parts of the book. Much more likely is a misreading of a text in the Pahlavi script: In Pahlavi, the word zamān is written in two ways: <zmʾn’> or <dmʾn’>, where <d> is the corrupted form of the letter <z> (hence transliterated as <ẕ>). It is worth pointing out that before modern philological investigations, Zoroastrian priests read the word as damān. The use of the letter <d/y/g>⁴⁴ instead of <z> is a well-attested phenomenon in the Pahlavi script, as the following Middle Persian words demonstrate:

112

The word form damān appears in other passages in the Dasātīr as well, where its meaning ‘time’ is explicitly confirmed:

114

Temporal [damānī] is called that which can be created only in time [damān], which is the measure of the rotations of the greatest firmament. The existence of Intelligences does not depend on time [damān]. Making the First Intelligence dependent on an existence in time [damān] produces circular reasoning because time itself depends on the firmament for this (form) of its force, and the existence of firmament itself depends on the existence of the First Intelligence.

116

And the existence is manifest to His knowledge at once, without time [damān] and duration [hengām]; and nothing is hidden to Him. His knowledge is expressive because His knowledge does not have duration. It is impossible to ascribe to Him past, present and future. The progress of time [damān] and the length of duration, with renovations, which occur in continuous divisions, which are its [scil. time’s] divisions, are manifest to God at once.

118

The cock is an astronomer who knows time [damān] and the duration [hengām] of the day and night right well.

120

Without hope of return, only for generosity and beneficence, the unique One, first of all, created an essence free and unlimited, independent, boundless, immaterial, formless, timeless [(bī)-damān], without duration [(bī)-hengām], without body and bodiness, without need and wish to body […]

121

The use of the word form damān instead of the New Persian zamān in the quoted passages from the Dasātīr can be explained with one of the following reasons:

122

• The reproduction is based directly on an original in the Pahlavi script. The author read the word in a piece of text in the Pahlavi script.
• The reproduction is based indirectly on an original in the Pahlavi script. The author had a reproduction, e.g., in the Persian-Arabic script, in which the Middle Persian original was read as damān.
• The author was informed that the word form damān was the Middle Persian counterpart to the New Persian word zamān. This information must have also been based on a reading of the word zamān in the Pahlavi script.

123

Since in the sixteenth century only the Zoroastrian priests had the competence to read the Pahlavi script, one is forced to conclude from this word form that either the author belonged to this circle, which current scholarship does not support, or obtained his information from Zoroastrian priests. In any case, he must have used a Pahlavi text as a source, directly or indirectly.

124

Decisive is likewise the time term used in the celestial language (farātīn navād),⁴⁵ zorvān. The word derives from MP zurwān, which in turn is a loan word from Avestan zruuan- ‘time,’ and appears as a New Persian word only in the Zoroastrian literature. In the sixteenth century, the name could have been derived from a Pahlavi text, an Arabic work of heresiography such as al-Šahrestānī’s al-Milal wa-l-niḥal, its translation into New Persian, or a New Persian Zoroastrian account of the Zurwān myth.⁴⁶

125

The only New Persian treatises known in the scholarship that deal with the Zurwān myth or the Zoroastrian theory of time are ʿOlamā-ye eslām (UI), ʿOlamā-ye eslām be dīgar raveš (UIbdR) and a short passage quoted below. The word zorvān, however, does not appear in these works; to denote profane time, UIbdR uses zamān, zamān-e derang-ḫodāy (mp. zamān ī dagrand-xwadāy) (UIbdR, 81.13) or zamāne (UIbdR, 84.8); for the designation of the sacred time, it uses zamān (UIbdR, 81.6-9, 82.16) and zamāne (UIbdR, 82.16,18). Similarly, UI uses zamān, zamāne and rūz(e)gār to denote profane time.⁴⁷ In another New Persian passage,⁴⁸ which alludes to the Zurwān cosmogony, sacred time is again referred to as zamāne. In other New Persian Zoroastrian accounts that the Āẕar Kaivānīs received, such as Zarātošt-nāme, Ardā vīrāf nāme and Ṣaddar, the word zorvān—as far as I discovered—does not occur. Therefore, the word zorvān could not have been taken from these New Persian Zoroastrian works in the mentioned section from the Dasātīr.

126

Some Arabic heresiographies deal with the Zurwān myth, especially the al-Šahrestānī’s al-Milal wa-l-niḥal. It is obvious that the Āẕar Kaivānīs knew and received al-Šahrestānī’s book. The Dasātīr even contains direct quotations from the Arabic original, and not its New Persian translation.⁴⁹ Therefore we are tempted, at first glance, to assume that Āẕar Kaivān adopted the word zorvān from Šahrestānī’s book. A more attentive examination of the text passages in question, however, shows that zorvān does not have the meaning ‘time’ in these passages.⁵⁰ There, zurwān is only presented as a primordial principle; the word does not represent a concept of time or eternity. This is true also for other Arabic heresiographies that narrate the Zurwān cosmogony.⁵¹ In some descriptions of Zoroastrianism in the Dabestān-e maẕāheb, one can recognize Zurvanite traits. None of these sections, nonetheless, indicates that the author used the word zorvān or azorvān to mean ‘time; eternity.’ These passages are listed below:

128

The Zoroastrians believe that Zarathustra brought a branch from paradise and planted it at the gate of Kashmir; this grew up into a cypress. According to Yazdānīyān, this saying alludes to the fact that the incorporeal soul is vegetable. Some Yazdānīyāns narrate that Zarathustra asked the lord of cypresses, who is called Azarvān, to carefully nourish this (tree) that he had planted. They narrate the following from one of the ascetic savants: “I saw the lord of cypress, and he commanded: ‘I ordered that Motevakkel be slain for the crime of cutting that cypress.’”⁵²

130

It is now time to present some of the enigmas and allusions of the prophet Zarathustra, as enigma guards wisdom from falling into the hands of ignorant, and only perfect ones can benefit from its content. For example, Zarathustra’s adherents believe in two creators of the world: Yazdān and Āherman. Yazdān conceived an evil thought and uttered: “Perhaps, an antagonist may arise against me who shall be my enemy.” Āherman arose from this thought of him. Otherwise, it is attested in some places that Yazdān was alone, a fear overwhelmed him, he had an evil thought and Āherman arose.⁵³

132

The Zoroastrians believe that Āherman arose from time, and that the angels, skies and stars existed and will exist, but are the result of births. The period of this creation is twelve thousand years. Afterwards, the resurrection will occur. Yazdān will resurrect the people and transform this material world into the eternal paradise. He will annihilate Āherman, his adherents and hell.⁵⁴

133

The word zorvān is not used in the time theory of the Āẕar Kaivānīs as described by the Dabestān-e maẕāheb,⁵⁵ although pseudo-words are artificially constructed to designate different time periods of the multi-period world age. These periods and their relations are shown in the following table:

134

Consequently, no other literature remains except Zoroastrian Pahlavi literature to serve in the quoted section of the Dasātīr as a source for the use of the word zorvān. Accordingly, the author of the Dasātīr must have taken the two words for time, damān and zorvān, from the Zoroastrian Middle Persian literature, directly or indirectly through the Zoroastrian priests. The assertion that in the celestial language ‘time’ means zorvān is also decisive for the following reason: it explicitly shows that for Āẕar Kaivān the template for the celestial language was the Avestan language, in which the word zruuan means ‘time.’ Dasātīr’s designation of the celestial language, farātīn-navād, mentioned in the quotation above, occurs in three places in the book (D., 69, 78 and 263). Besides the passage quoted above, the following passage is significant for identifying the template of the celestial language:

136

As it has been shown, it is called essence, and in the celestial language [farātīn-navād] fravahr/frūhar.

137

The author here again uses a Zoroastrian terminus technicus, which derives from Avestan (< frauuaṣ̌i-), as a celestial term. This usage increases the probability that the Dasātīr’s author designed his book after Zoroastrian Zand texts, with Avestan in mind as a template for his celestial language.

The ‘Where’ and ‘When’ of the Religious Contact

138

The historical contextualization of Āẕar Kaivān’s encounter with Zoroastrianism faces many difficulties, and this is true even for the historical contextualization of the school itself. When did Aẕar Kaivān live? And when did he migrate to Patna? Who authored the Dasātīr, and when? Even these most basic questions can be answered only tentatively because we have only late manuscripts of the Āẕar Kaivānī texts at our disposal. The same questions can be raised regarding the Dabestān-e maẕāheb, a text whose authorship has been the subject of controversial discussion. The discovery of an old Dabestān manuscript, however, contributes enormously to answering some of these questions.

139

Some years ago, the Cultural Center of Iran in New Delhi acquired a Dabestān manuscript dated to 8 Shawwāl 1060 H. (1650 A.D.). The colophon of the manuscript reads:

141

Written by poor, abject Muḥammad Šarīf b. Šayḫ Mīyān, soldier, born in the land Mīdak, resident of Banda-ye Tabalhūr (?), recorded in the date, 8, month Šavvāl, year 1060 [October 4 1650]. finitur, completed, Satan became slave.⁵⁶

142

This makes it the oldest known Āẕar Kaivān manuscript, 15 years older than the Mashkut manuscript of the Nāme-ye zardošt or Zūre-ye bāstānī. The most salient feature of this manuscript is that, on the 23 Shawwāl of the same year, a student of the author compared this manuscript with what was apparently the original text of the author and noted the differences on the margin of the manuscript. He records his activity in an epilogue to the manuscript as follows:

144

It has been finished: the comparison of twelve teachings from the book Dabestān, composed by the elder of the truth-seekers, the leader of the scrutinizers, perfect mystic, the arrived sufi, the sage of the house of wisdom, where to perceive the truth, the recognizer of the teachings of the honored Absolute Existent, confirmed by praised affirmations, the arch-healer, the master Mirzā Ẕolfaqār Āẕar-sāsānī, with the pen name Mūbed, may God elongate his age, (which) was authored in the year 1060. I corrected it to the limit of my endurance, and I did (this) as much as constraints allowed, and to the extent of my recognition. I noted (the differences) at the margin with the character mīm. Hopefully, it will stay in God’s safety, away from error. If God wills, may what will be authored later be recorded. The humble student, Mağd-al-dīn Muḥammad, is the one who compared this magnum opus of the honored master. Redacted on 23 Šawwāl 1060 h. [October 19, 1650].⁵⁷

145

This epilogue provides a definite answer to the question of the text’s authorship. The author was a certain Mīrzā Ẕolfaqār Āẕar Sāsānī, who wrote under the pen name Mūbed.⁵⁸ It moreover gives a terminus ante quem for authoring the Dabestān-e maẕāheb as well as for the other Āẕar Kaivānī treatises mentioned in this book. Hence, the Dabestān-e must have been authored before 1060/1650. A terminus post quem of 1653 for the Dabestān-e maẕāheb has been already inferred from the events mentioned in its edition text (Keyḫosro 1362, 1/122, 2/20): Welcome to the paradox! The inconsistency consists in major differences between the text of this manuscript (Āẓar Sāsānī 2010) and the published text of the Dabestān (Keyḫosro 1362, 1362). Comparing the volume of Reżāzāde Malek’s edition with this manuscript shows that the text was expanded by ca. 16.4%, or about 23,000 tokens.⁵⁹

146

In his notes to the edition of the Dabestān-e maẕāheb, Reżāzāde Malek lists the dates explicitly mentioned in the Dabestān-e maẕāheb (Keyḫosro 1362, 2/10-16). To find the terminus post quem for the Dabestān-e maẕāheb I went through this list in reverse chronological order and checked for the existence of the passages involving these dates in the manuscript from 1060/1650. The passages consisting of the dates 1063/1653 and 1061/1651, which are attested in the edition, are not present in this manuscript.⁶⁰ The migration of Šāh-Badaḫšī to India, his initiation into the Mīr-Qāderī order and his acceptance of Moḥyī-al-dīn Moḥammad as a student, which is the last event in Reżāzāde Malek’s list, are absent in the manuscript as well.⁶¹ By this, the latest date mentioned in the manuscript is 1059/1649. The corresponding passage reads:

148

Peykarpažūh and Ğahān-navard were two persons of the group of Peykarī, who were unique in creating rule-borders, illustrating and painting. This author visited both of them in the 59th year [= 1649 M.] in Gujarat from Punjab.⁶²

149

Two other passages in the book give information about the period of its writing:

151

And now, the year 1055 Hiğrī [= 1645 M.], the son of Mihravān, whom Ūbarğī (?) succeeds, […]⁶³

153

And now that the time of written of this book, the Hiğrī year 1055 (1645 m.) has come […]⁶⁴

154

At the beginning of the second chapter of the book in its published edition, which is about Hindus, the author adds an editorial note revealing that the author visited a group of Hindus in 1063/1653. This visit led to revision of this chapter of the book specifically. The author writes at the end of this editorial note: “Consequently a difference occurred between the first and second edition [lit. order].”⁶⁵ Consequently, the manuscript of 1060/1650 should represent the manuscript of the first recension of the book, while later manuscripts represent the latter recension after the year 1063/1653. The author must have worked on the text of the first recension for a period of at least five years, from 1055/1645 to 1060/1650. The differences between the two recensions of the text are not limited to the chapter on Hindus, although this chapter remains the most heavily revised part of the book. The author enlarged this chapter in his second recension by about 10,000 tokens. This means that he added another 13,000 tokens to other parts of his book in its second recension.

155

The epithet āẕar in the name of the probable founder of the school, Āẕar Kaivān, helps to illuminate the interreligious contact between the school with Zoroastrianism. According to the Dabestān-e maẕāheb the epithet āẕar, ‘fire,’ was assigned to the names of all of his precedents as well. Moreover, the author of the Dabestān-e maẕāheb, another prominent member of the school, also bore the title āẕar. One of the names given by the Dabestān-e maẕāheb to the school, Āẕarīyān, seems to be connected to this epithet. The epithet in the name of some members of the school, and the importance of fire in religious theories of the school, is emphasized in Āẕar Kaivān’s genealogy as well as in the name Āẕarīyān for the school.

156

On his expedition to Gujarat, Akbar made the acquaintance of Mūbed Meherjī Rānā’ and invited him to the courtly discussions of 1578 and 1579. Consequently, he spent 1578–79 in Fathpur as the first representative of a non-Islamic religion in order to participate in the discussions in the ʿebādat ḫāna ‘House of Worship’ founded by Akbar. In 1581–82, Akbar introduced a form of the Zoroastrian cult of fire to his court. The sojourn of Meherji Rānā at the court was presumably influential in this measure.⁶⁶ Afterwards, the compatibility of this cult of fire with Islamic monotheism was intensively discussed at the court. The Zoroastrian theological interpretation of fire as the everlasting symbol of God on earth must have ensured that it took a prominent place in the theological discourse of this period. Consequently, the bearers of the epithet āẕar were connected to ancient Iranian cultural assets, as well as endowed with theological prestige. Therefore, I would like to propose the date of Akbar’s introduction of the cult of fire at his court as the terminus post quem for the authoring of the Dasātīr. Accordingly, it can be hypothesized that the Dasātīr was written after 1581-82. Because of the influence of Sanskrit on the heavenly language of the Dasātīr (Mojtabaʾī 1994), we can assume that it was authored after the migration of Āẕar Kaivān to Patna, assuming Āẕar Kaivān was its author. By assuming that Āẕar Kaivān migrated to Patna in 1001/1593 we can even limit the terminus post quem to this date. We can regard the date of the first recension of Dabestān-e maẕāheb, 1060/1650, or even the date of death of Āẕar Kaivān, 1028/1618, as the terminus ante quem of the Dasātīr. Subsequently, the Dasātīr must have been authored between 990/1581-2 and 1060/1650, or Āẕar Kaivān must have authored it between 1001/1593 and 1028/1618. The encounter of the Dasātīr with Zoroastrian Middle Persian literature, thus, must have occurred in the same period, and likely took place in Patna in India.

157

Were the Āẕar Kaivānīs the first non-Zoroastrian New Persian speakers who detected Middle Persian texts and developed a fascination for it? This was the assumption in the scholarship of the last centuries. Recently, Ali Ashraf Sadeghi (2020) made a significant discovery which sheds light on the acquaintance of early modern New Persian-speaking literates with Middle Persian literature. Previously, the scholarship assumed that the Borhān-e Qāṭeʿ was the oldest dictionary citing ‘dasātīrī’ terms. Sadeghi shows that the ‘dasātīrī’ terms are actually older than the Dasātīr. According to him, the Farhang-e Moʾaiyad al-fożalāʾ, authored by Moḥammad b. Lād Dehlavī in 925/1519, had already cited such words at least 65 years before the Dasātīr saw the light of day. Sadeghi shows, moreover, that the Farhang-e Moʾaiyad al-fożalāʾ cites not only ‘dasātīrī,’ i.e., artificially antiquated New Persian words famously used in the Dasātīr, but also Middle Persian lexemes. He lists, for example, odardan ‘to pass away’ (gained from MP widardan <wtltn>)⁶⁷, basrīyā ‘meat’ (gained from MP gōšt <BSLYA>), baytā ‘house’ (gained from MP xānag <BYTA>), pāteprās ‘punishment’ (gained from MP pādifrāh <pʾtplʾs>), čīčast ‘mountain’ (gained from MP čēčast <čyčst> ‘a mythical sea’), and finally čīnvad ‘bridge to the hereafter’ (gained from MP činwad (puhl) [cynwt] ‘bridge to the hereafter’). This evidence asserts that the New Persian speaking literates in India were already acquainted with and fascinated by Middle Persian in the first decades of the sixteenth century. The Āẕar Kaivānīs were thus not the initiators of this contact with Zoroastrianism and the Zoroastrian Middle Persian—they were its consumers. As early as 925/1519, there was contact between Muslim literates and Zoroastrian texts in India. The Āẕar Kaivānīs, however, extended this literary contact to a religious one.

Conclusions: the Dasātīr and Secrecy

158

As we saw above, the Avestan texts are represented in younger Zoroastrianism as concealed texts, and Avestan as a celestial language which was spoken only in the communication of Ahura Mazdā and Zarathustra. This perspective, however, was not adopted by older Zoroastrianism when Avestan was still used for text production. Even in the Sasanian and early Islamic periods, the Avestan language was not perceived or represented as a secret language. The Zoroastrian priests were engaged in the translation of, and commentary on, these texts. Because of the reduced competence of the priests in understanding the Avestan language in the first half of the second millennium A.D., perspectives on the Avestan language underwent significant change. Avestan texts came to be perceived as secret texts which were not supposed to be understood by Zoroastrians, and which were accessible only through translations and commentaries. In this way, the Zoroastrians in this period constructed an ‘other-world’ by relocating the Avestan language to the transcending divine sphere. They did not use this emerging secrecy to establish an insider-outsider distinction. Rather, they highlighted the inherent potential of a secret language for communication with the divine sphere, modeled upon Zarathustra’s communication with Ahura Mazdā and unceasingly re-exemplified in Zoroastrian rituals, i.e., in priests’ communication with the divine world.

159

By adopting the concept of a secret, celestial language from Zoroastrian Zand literature, the Āẕar Kaivānīs remained within the Zoroastrian conceptual framework of secrecy. The Āẕar Kaivānīs did not use the secret language to establish an in-group / out-group distinction vis-à-vis other religions, because they did not claim the ability to understand and translate it. Interestingly, they also made clear that the competence to understand and translate the heavenly language was restricted to older prophets; not even Āẕar Kaivān or the author of the Dasātīr claimed this competence for himself. The Āẕar Kaivānīs even dispensed with claims of access to the heavenly language, which in Zoroastrianism was an intra-religious demarcation parameter between a group of specialists and other Zoroastrians. It is true that, in the early modern period, they did not know that the Zoroastrian priests were able to translate and comment the Avestan texts in the Sasanian period. Nevertheless, they hypothetically could have constructed their Dasātīr in such a way as to show that a specific group of their circle would have access to the language of heaven. Hence, we can conclude that the Āẕar Kaivānīs did not use the secrecy of their celestial language for purposes of inter- or intra-religious demarcation or to gain intra-religious authority or inter-religious superiority.

160

Rather, the Āẕar Kaivānīs’ strategy of secrecy seems to be a sort of double coding (Boneberg 2005, 461). Knowledge is encoded on two layers: communicated in translation and commentary as well as encoded in celestial language. The Āẕar Kaivānīs developed a strategy of secrecy rather than distinction. They used secrecy to construct an other-world which cannot be reached directly, but only through the mediation of translation and commentary. This secrecy is not characterized as a mode of exclusion; in contrast, it is extremely inclusive. The constructed other-world applies to all religious traditions in the same way and is or is not available to them to the same degree. Their secrecy is not a concealment of knowledge but a sharing of the concealed. Dasātīr’s approach to secrecy is in perfect accord with the religious discourse emerging at the court of Akbar, namely dīn-e elāhī.

161

This investigation shows that the contact with the Zoroastrian Middle Persian texts was established in the early Modern Persian speaking elite circles and outside of the religious field. Presumably, it was the lexicographical interest which first led to the re-discovery of Middle Persian as an antique form of New Persian. To include noble forgotten Persian words in their dictionaries, the lexicographers gained Middle Persian lexemes from the Zoroastrian texts. The Āẕar Kaivānīs presumably became acquainted with the Middle Persian literature through these lexicographical activities in India. They, however, extended this language contact to a religious contact. They created a heavenly language and a heavenly book after the Zoroastrian Zand texts. They avoided Arabic words and created a form of Persian imitating Sasanian Middle Persian. Whereas the form of Zoroastrian literature must have strongly influenced Āẕar Kaivānī literature, their contents do not seem to have been influential for this school.

Abbreviations