Traditions: Bahá’í interpretation in Some Answered Questions,Zoroastrian Gathic Yasna Motif: nature of evil Connection verdict: substantive conceptual contrast; direct textual dependence unproven Article status: Expanded Date: 2026-11-04
Summary
Both sources refuse to treat moral evil as a trivial illusion.
Read the two scenes
The Bahá’í chapter distinguishes sensible from intelligible realities, then argues that evil is not an independently existing substance: ignorance is lack of knowledge and blindness lack of sight. Yasna 30 instead structures its appeal around two spirits and the choosing of truth or the Lie; its language is dramatic, ethical, and eschatological. The contrast should not be exaggerated into a simple opposition between “monism” and “dualism,” since each text has a wider theology. Still, their selected passages give sharply different ways to describe the reality of wrongdoing and its relation to divine order.
What connects—and what does not
The Bahá’í talk argues evil lacks positive existence, as blindness lacks sight; Yasna 30 dramatizes opposed spirits and the destructive Lie in moral choice.
An early-twentieth-century Bahá’í argument and an Old Avestan hymn are historically distant and genre-distinct; Persian setting alone does not document use of this exact Gathic passage.
Why read them side by side?
A named Bahá’í and Gathic pairing shows why similar opposition to evil need not imply a common metaphysical account.
Sources and reading notes
- ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions, ch. 74, On Good and Evil (2014 English edition) — The chapter argues that evil is privation, using ignorance, blindness, and sickness as examples.
- Yasna 30.3–6, L. H. Mills translation, Zoroastrian Archives — The Gathic hymn contrasts the Better and Bad spirits and the choices of the truthful and the deceitful.
- Bahá’í Reference Library, Some Answered Questions publication overview — Official overview dates the ‘Akká table talks to 1904–06, first publication to 1908, and extensively retranslated English edition to 2014.
Research limit
A named parallel can establish literary reuse or related tradition; a general resemblance alone cannot prove borrowing. Linked editions and translations vary. Where a source is identified as secondary orientation, the comparison does not claim direct close reading of that tradition’s primary text.