šak-ud-gumānīh-vizār | The Doubt-removing book (ŠGV) (Chapter 6-13)

šašum darag

XI

(1-2) az ēdar nibēsam hambasānīh ī-šān drāyišn. ud rāstnigerišnīhā ē handāzed ped hān ī dānāg cašm.

(3-5) naxvist ōy ī ēk-bunēšt-uskār kē gōbend kū: ēk ast yazd ī kirbakkar ud dānāg ud tuvānīg xvābar ud abaxšāyišngar; kū kirbag ud bazag, ud rāstīh drōzanīh, ud zīndagīh margīh, ud vehīh vattarīh, az ōy.

(6-7) nūn azišān pursed kū: yazd hamēšag xvābar abaxšāyand ud kirbakkar dādestānīg, ud harvisp ast būd baved dāned, ped harv cē-š kām kāmravāg, ē-z kū dādestānīg meyānjīg, ayāb ka ēdōn, ka ēdōn nē?

(8) cē agar xvābar, kirbakkar, abaxšāyand, ēgiš Ahrmen ud dēv ud dušox ēn hamāg vad drōšag ped xvēš xvābarīh ud kirbakkarīh ud abaxšāyandīh ō xvēš dāmān cim abgand?

(9) agar-š nē dānist ā-š dānāgīh ud harvispāgāhīh kū?

(10) agar-š nē kāmist anāgīh ud vad az dāmān abāz dāštan, ud harv kas ēkānag nēkīh dādan, ā-š dādestānīgīh ud meyānjīgīh kū?

(11) agar-š nē šāyist kū nē dād hē, ā-š visptuvān az cē?

(12-14) ī harv cōn nigerān ud uskārān hamē ka harv nēkīh ud anāgīh az yazd būd gōbend, bē ka ēn cahār hunar ī ped yazdīh andar abāyed, ī ast harvispāgāhīh ud visptuvānīh ud vehīh ud abaxšāyandīh, aziš judāgēnend, enyā cār nēst.

(15) ka-z-iš ēk az ēn cahār hunar aziš jud kunend, ēg-iz ped yazdīh nē bavandag.

(16) cē hān ī nē vispāgāh, nē visptuvān, ud nē veh, ud nē abaxšāyišngar nē yazd.

(17) did ēn kū: ka ped harv kas ud tis kāmravāg xvadāy, ā-š šahr ud šahriyārīh ī xvēš az harv dušmen ud pedyārag ī az xvēš kunišn, cim ōn abēzār nē dāšt kū-š ēc kas andar šahriyārīh tis-iz must ud stahm ud adādīh ud garzišn nē hē?

(18) cē xvadāy ud šahriyār mard xvadāyīh ud šahriyārīh, ēg burzišnīg ka-š xvēš šahr ud šahriyārīh ped xvēš xrad ōn pādan ud dāštan tuvān kū-š az xvēš kunišn dušmen āxistan ud vināh ud zyān kirdan nē ayārend;

(19) ayāb ka-š, az xvēš kunišn, dušmen āxēzed, ā-š az xvēš menišnīg dōstān abāz dāštan, harv kas abēmust kirdan, tuvānēned.

(20-21) did ēn kū: ka abarvēz ud cēr ud pādyāvand, ā-š abarvēzīh ud cērīh ud pādyāvandīh abar kē?

(22) cē abarvēzīh ud cērīh abar dušmenān hambidīg baved.

(23) hambidīg dušmen xvad nē ō xvēš sazed būdan.

(24-25) dā ka-š dušmen hambidīg nēst kē-š abar abarvēz ud cēr baved, ā-š abarvēzīh ud cērīh abar nē gōbīhed.

(26) cē abar xvēš tan gāv-iz ud gōspend, ka-šān hamēstār ud vizūdār nēst, cēr ud abarvēz hend!

(27) did ēn kū: ped yazdīh ud vazurgīh ī xvēš dānāg ud hunsand ayāb nē?

(28-29) agar dānāg ud hunsand, ēgiš ped xvēš dānišn ud kām, dušmen ud bazakkar kirdan, hamāg andar šahr višōb abgandan, ped vadagīh ī šahr ud dāmān hunsand būdan, bazag ud anāgīh-išān xvāstan, xvad abar-šān dušmen ud nifrīngar būdan, mardōm anāgīh-madār ud dušoxīg kirdan cē sazed?

(30) did ēn kū: harv cē gōbed, rāstīhā vābar gōbed ayāb nē?

(31-33) agar rāstīhā vabar gōbed, hān ī gōbed kū kirbag-dōst ud bazag-dušmen hum, hamē bazag ud bazakkar vēš dahed kū kirbag ud kirbakkar, ā-š rāst gōbišn kū?

(34) did ēn kū: -š kām vehīh ayāb vattarīh?

(35) agar-š kām vattarīh, ā-š yazdīh az cē?

(36) agar-š kām vehīh, ēg cim vattarān ud vattarīh vēš hend kū vehān ud vehīh?

(37) did ēn kū: abaxšāyišngar ast ayāb nē?

(38) agar-š nē abaxšāyišngar, ā-š yazdīh az cē?

(39) agar-š abaxšāyišngar, ēg cim gōbed kū: «-m dil, gōš, cašm ī mardōmān bē āvašt kū-šān nē tuvān menīdan, guftan, kirdan, bē hān ī man abāyed».

(40) ast ī-š, ped handāz, meh ud āzād kird;

(41) ast ī-š, ped vas ēvēnag marg, ōzad, abesihēnīd, ō dušox ī jāyēdānag abgand.

(42) «kū dā hān ī abāz kunam, veh ud kirbakkar hend».

(43-44) nūn-z hān ī abāz kird bē xvazārag enyā az hān ī pēš vas bazakkardar ud vināhgārdar hend.

(45-46) did ēn kū: agar harv cē kuned dānāgīhā ud ped cim kuned, ēg ka-š ēc hamemāl ud pedyārag nē būd, cim āfurišn ī naxvistēn ī-š vīrāst peristagān ō dēvīg aburdframānīh ī-š andar mardōm ō durvandīh ud dušoxīgīh vašt hend?

(47) agar-š nē dānist kū vardend, ā-š uzmāyišn kār sazed framūdan.

(48) cē nūn vasān hazārān, bēvarān ī-š vīrāst kū-š peristend, u-š xvadāyīh mehēnend, hāmōyēn aburdframān, aniyūšhandarz būd hend.

(49-51) cē abāg hān kamdānišnīh ī mardōm, ī nē ōn virāyīhed pesāzīhed kū mardōm kāmag, agar-z baved tis ī pesāzend, virāyend ī nē ōn abar āyed ud baved (/šaved) cōn-šān kāmag, did abāz ō virāyišn ī hān tis nē ēstend ud pahrēzend, ā ōy xvadāy ī visptuvān, vispāgāh dā nūn vasān amar tis kird ud vīrāst, ēk-iz nē ōn abar āyed ud baved cōn-š kāmag; pas-iz az vīrāstan ud dādan ī nōg nōg nē hamē pahrēzed.

(52-53) cōn ka-š hān ī naxvistēn frēstagān dādār ī-šān, grāmīgīh rāy az ātaš vīrāst, cand hazār sāl ī cōn gōbend kū peristišn ī ōy hamē kird;

(54-59) abdum ped ēk framān agird ī-š dād kū «namāz ō ēn mardōm ī naxvistēn ī-m az gil vīrāst bared!», u-š būzišn ī ped nē sazed burdan, cimīgīhā, guft, ēgiš ped vīr ud nifrīn ud xēšm tar ud xvār kird, ud ō dēvīg ud druzīg vardēnīd ud az vahišt bērōn kird, hazāragīhā zīndagīh ud xvadāyīh ī jāyēdānag dād kū: «šavam, bannagān ud peristagān ī tō abērāh ud viyābān kunam.»

(60) u-š ō xvēš kām vizūdār ud pedyārag kird.

(61-64) abdum hān-z mard kē-š, grāmīgīh ud āzarm rāy, ōy ī frēstag mahist, abāg vasān peristagān, namāz aviš burdan framūd, ō bōyestān ī vahišt kird kū varzed ud harvisp bar xvared, bē hān ēk draxt ī-š framūd kū mā xvared.

(65-66) u-š abāg avēšān frēftār ī viyābānīdār vīrāst ud andar bōyestān hišt.

(67) ī ast kē mār gōbed, ast kē Ahrmen.

(68) u-š cihr ī xvardārīh ud āzvarīh ham xvad ō ōy mardōm dād.

(69) pas hān viyābāngar frēft hend kū: «az hān draxt xvared!»

(70-71) ast kē Ādam gōbed. u-šān ped hān cihr ī xvardārīh xvard.

(72) pas az xvardan ōn dānišnumand būd hend kū-šān veh ud vattar šnāxt ud dānist.

(73-76) az hān and āzarm ud grāmīgīh ped hān ēk handarz ī-šān framōšīd, ud hān framōšīdārīh ham az ōy vahān, abāg zan, avēšān ped grān xēšm ud anāzarmīh az vahišt bōyestān bērōn kird hend, ō dast ī ōy dušmen ī frēftār ud viyābāngar abespārd hend, kū-šān kām ī xvēš abar rāyēned, abar-šān kārēned.

(78) nūn, kadām ast adādīh, abēcimframānīh, pasxradīh, kamdānišnīh ī az ēn zīfāndar ud anāgdar?

(79) ēn-z kū-š hān bōyestān cim ōn drubušt ud avistvār nē kird kū hān viyābāngar andar nē šud hād?

(80) nūn-z vasān bannagān ud peristišnīgān ī ōy viyābān kird ud kuned.

(81-83) u-š ped ham cim vasān peygāmbarān vaxšvarān āvām āvām ō gētīg brihēnīd kū: bannagān ī man az dast ī ōy viyābāngar būzend, ō rāh ud ristag ī rāst āvarend.

(84-86) u-š avēšān frēstagān, peygāmbarān ī xvēš kē-šān xvēškārīh mardōm ō rāh ud pand ī frārōn āvurdan būd hāmōyēn ped xvēš kām ped vad marg ōzad ud ānāft hend, hān ī bun viyābāngar ud abērāhēnīdār jāyēdān zīndag hišt ēsted. dā-z nūn kām ī ōy ped viyābāngarīh ud abērāhēnīdārīh abarvēzdar ud kāmgārdar kū hān ī yazd.

(87) cē viyābānān ud abērāhān vas frāydar hend kū rāstrāhān ud aviyābānān.

(88) did ēn kū: harv cē kuned ped cim kuned ayāb nē?

(89-90) agar abēcim kuned halakkunišn. ud ōy ī halakkunišn ped yazdīh ī frazānag nē sazed stāyīdan.

(91) agar ped cim kuned, ēg ka-š ēc hamemāl ud pedyārag nē būd, ēn hamāg dām ī cōn dēv-iz ud mardōm ī aburdframān ī pedīrag kām ī ōy kōšāg ud viyābānēnīdār ud amar dām ī abēsūd āfrīdan cim?

(93-94) did ēn kū: agar harvisp ast, būd ud baved dāned, ā-š nē sazed, ped xvēš dānišn ud kām, tis āfrīdan kē-š aziš pašīmān, u-š pedīrag kām ud framān ēsted, u-š peygāmbarān kāmišngarān pedyārag baved.

(95-96) agar gōbend kū: ēn pedyārag az bun veh ud nēk āfrīd, pas ō vattarīh ud dāmān abērāhēnīdārīh vašt, ā ē gōbed kū, ka ōy visptuvān cim kām ī pedyārag ped vaštan ī ō vattarīh ud dāmān abērāhēnīdārīh cērdar ud pādyāvanttar kū hān ī yazd?

(97) cē vattarīh andar āvām nērōgdar kū vehīh.

(98-102) did ēn kū: ka bazakkar ham ped kām ī ōy, u-š menišn ī bazakkarān xvad vīft, u-š tōhm ī bazag xvad kišt ka rust az bunēšt, ēk ōzad, ēk pādāšnēnīd, az kadām nērōg ī dādestānumandīh?

(103) did ēn kū: -š ēn gēhān, ped cim, ō rāmišn ī xvēš, āsānīh ud nēkīh ī mardōmān rāy kird ud dād, ayāb abēcim, ō dušrāmīh ī xvēš, ud avištāb, ērang ud dard ud marg ī mardōmān rāy?

(104-105) cē agar-š abēcim kird, halakkārīhā; abēcim tis az dānāgān nē pedīrišnīg.

(106-107) agar-š ped cim kird, u-š ō rāmišn ī xvēš, ud āsānīh ud nēkīh ī mardōmān dād, ā-š ābādān, purnēkīh cim nē kird?

(108) agar-š az vīrāyišn ī mardōm ud dām rāmišn ud nēkīh, ā-š az ōzanišn ud višōbišn sūd cē?

(109) agar-š menišn ī bazag nē xvad ō mardōmān dād, ā kē ast kē jud az framān ud kām ī ōy menišn ī bazag dahed?

(110) agar-š xvad dād u-šān nūn āhōg abar dāred, ā-š rāstīh ud meyānjīgīh az cē?

(111-114) cē ka mardōm abāg kamdānišnīh ud kamxradīh, pas-iz šagr ud gurg ud abārīg xrafstarān, cand-išān tuvān, ō rēdakān ud ābastān ī xvēš nē hilend dā kū-šān tabāhēnend; nūn, yazd ī abaxšāyišngar Ahrmen ud dēv ped xvēš dām cim andar hišt (abgand) kū-š kōr ud karr, vīftag, durvand ud dušoxīg kird hend?

(115-116) agar uzmāyišn rāy kird, –cōn hān ī gōbend kū «-š vad uzmāyišn ī abar dāmān rāy dād»–, ā-š, pēš az hān, mardōm ud dām cim nē šnāxt?

(117) cē kēš dastvar uzmāyišn, vispāgāh nē xvānišn.

(118) hangird ēn kū: yazd ka-š ēc hamemāl ud pedyārag nē būd, ā-š abēvizendīhā harv dām ud dahišn dādan tuvān būd, cim nē dād?

(119) ayāb-iš kāmist, nē tuvān būd?

(120) agar-š kāmist, nē tuvānist, nē bavandag tuvānīg.

(121) agar-š tuvānist, ud nē kāmist, nē abaxšāyišngarīhā.

(122-124) agar-š dānist kū az ēn dām ud dahišn ī daham, tis kas baved ī nē andar kām ī man, ud abdum kird, ēg nūn ēn hamāg ahunsandīhā ped xvēš dām kirdan, peyvastag xēšm ud nifrīngarīh ud abgandan ī ō pādifrāh ī dušox, abēcim.

(125-128) did ēn kū: agar hamāg bazag-menišnīh, bazag-gōbišnīh, bazakkunišnīh, vināh ī mardōm menend, gōbend ud kunend, ēdōn-z dard, vēmārīh, driyušīh, pādifrāh ud anāgīh ī dušox bē ped kām ud framān ī yazd būdan nē šāyed, yazd kām ud tuvān hamēšag, cē-š xvadīh-iz hamēšag, nūn kas-iz hamēšagīh az anāgīh ud pādifrāh bōxtan anumēdīh, ēvar.

(129-131) cē gugānīhā pēdāg kū, ēc frahangbed, avistād nēst kē-š az ēn anāg ud vad-kāmagīh abāz dāred, agar pargast hamgōnag ī avēšān frēstagān ud dastvarān kē ō mardōmān handarz ēn kird kū: bazag ud vināh mā kuned! cē kām ud framān ī yazd spuxtan kāmend.

(132) ēn-z kū: cōn-š harv do kām, ham bazag ud ham kirbag, nē pēdāg kū kirbag ī kirbakkarān vēš pesanned ayāb bazag ī bazakkarān.

(133-136) ē-z: avēšān bizeškān kē, umēd ī ruvān rāy, vēmārān dārūg kunend, u-šān dard ud vēmārīh spōzend ud hilend kū-šān, az hān kunišn, kirbag xvēšīhed; bē ō pādifrāh ī dušox peyrāst ēstend;

(137-140) ud avēšān kē, ruvān dōšārm rāy, driyuš niyāzumand acār mardōm tis dahend, u-šān niyāz ud driyušīh aziš ōgārend ud hilend kū-šān, az hān kunišn, kirbag xvēšīhed, bē-šān vināh ī grān baved, ped tāšt.

(141-143) agar gōbend kū: avēšān bizeškān darmān ī barend, avēšān kē-z driyušān ud acārān tis dahend, hamāg ped kām ī yazd, ā, ka yazd abedyārag ud ahamēstār, ā-š vemārīh ud driyušīh nē dādan āsāndar ud cimīgdar, ud ō yazdīh pesazagdar, az hān kū-šān xvad vēmār ud driyuš kirdan, ō mardōmān framūdan kū «ašmāh-išān drust ud abēniyāz kuned!»

(144-146) agar gōbend kū: -š kām ēn kū avēšān bizeškān ud dādārān ped hān pādāšn ī nēkīh-išān pediš kuned u-šān ō vahišt nēkīh ī jāyēdānag zāmēned, ā, ē nigered kū: cōn adādestānīhā, atuvānīhā ka nēkīh ud ābādīh abar ēv bannag kāmag būd rāy, vasān avināhān ī mustumand driyuš, niyāzumand, vēmār, anāgīh-madār kuned!

(147-148) ēn-z kū: agar-š nēkīh ud ābādīh abar ēk bē ped must ud dard ud bēš ī anī kirdan nē tuvān, ā-š ō tuvān-kirdārīh, kāmgārīh, ahamēstārīh nē pesazag.

(149-150) agar gōbend kū: «avēšān vēmārān, driyušān, ped mēnōg, ped hān pādāšn ō vahišt ud nēkīh ī jāyēdānag zāmēned», ā, agar-š pādāšn ī ped mēnōg bē ped anāgīh ī gētīg dādan nē tuvān, nē spurrīgtuvān.

(151-152) ēn-z kū: -š mustkirdārīh ī ped gētīg, abēgumānīhā, pēšdastīhā, ud abēcimīhā; pādāšn ī mēnōg gumānīhā, avurravišnīhā, ud pas az mustgarīh.

(153) cōn must ī pēš abēcim, pādāšn ī pas ham abēcimīhā halagīhā.

(154) ēn-z kū: ēc āzādīh ī pas ō must ī pēš, ped avahānīh, nē ayābīhed.

(155-157) did ēn kū: az ēn si ēvēnag ēk būdan acār. ēk, harv cē andar ēn gēhān ast ud būd ūd baved, hamāg ped kām ī ōy ayāb nē; ayāb ast ī-š ped kām, ast ī nē.

(158) cōn tis-iz nē ayābīhed ī nē nēk, ayāb vad, ayāb āmixtag ī az harv do.

(159) agar gōbend kū: -š hamāg kām, ā-š nēk ud vad harv do kām.

(160-161) agar-š nēk ud vad harv do kām, anespurrīkkām. ped ēk-iz nē spurrīg.

(162-163) ud ōy ī anespurrīkkām, anespurrīg-xvadīh šāyed būdan, cōn azabar nimūd.

(164-165) agar-š ēc nē kām, ēc kām nē būdan rāy, nēstkām.

(166) ud ōy ī nēstkām, cihrīkkunišn.

(167) ud ōy ī cihrīkkunišn, cihrēnīdag ud kirdag.

(168-171)  agar ast ī-š kām, ast ī-š nē kām, tis-iz andar gēhān nē ayābīhed ī nē nēk ud nē vad, ā, agar yazd nēk kām, ā-š vad nē kāmīg, āšnāg; ud hān ī vad nē ped kām ī ōy.

(172-173) agar-š vad kām, ā-š nēk nē kāmīg, acār; hān ī nēk nē ped kām ī ōy.

(174) agar hān ī nēk kām ī yazd, hān ī vad az anī kām būd<an>, āšnāg.

(175) agar hān ī vad kām ī ōy, hān ī nēk az anī kām būd<an>, acār; acārīg, pēdāgīhed hambidīg ī kām ī yazd.

(177-182) agar vad az mardōm uzīd gōbed, ā, cōn mardōm nē hamēšag xvadīh, ā acārīg, ayāb vad pēš az mardōm būd ayāb pas, ayāb abāg mardōm būd. agar «pēš az mardōm būd» gōbend, ā, cōn jud az yazd anī āfrīdār ud dādār nē būd, ā, vad ayāb yazd dād, ayāb xvad xvad-iš dād, ayāb xvad hamēvīg būd.

(183) agar «pas az mardōm būd» gōbend, ā, ka gōhr ī mardōmīh ham dahišn ī yazd, ud mardōm vadīh yazd andar gōhr nē dād, ped kunišn cōn aziš uzīhed?

(187-191) agar-šān vad ped kunišn kird jud az kām ī yazd, ud yazd dānišn ī ped kirdan pediš būd, ā, yazd ped xvēš kām anespurrīg; ud mardōm, ped kām ud framān ī yazd spuxtan, ud hambidīg ī kām ī yazd vad kirdan, cēr ud abarvēz hend, ud yazd andar xvēš kām ud xvēš bannagān zōr abādyāvand, pēdāg.

(192-193) agar gōbend kū: -šān pas ō dušox pādifrāh ī škeft zāmēned, ā, agar yazd tuvān-kirdār bazag kirdan nē hištan ud az menišn-išān bē kirdan sūttar, ō-z xvābarīh ī yazd pesazagdar kū kirdan hišt<an>.

(194) acārīhā, pediš hunsand būd.

(195) pas, hunsandīhā, xvēš dāmān pādifrāhēned.

(196) ped kār ēk ī uskāram, ayāb atuvānīgīh, ayāb kamdānišnīh, ayāb kamvehīh aziš pēdāgīhed.

(197-198) agar gōbend kū: «yazd vad dād ud āfrīd ped hān cim kū dā mardōm arzumandīh ī nēkīh bē šnāsend», ā, ē nigered kū: agar vad šnāxtan ī <arzumandīh ī> nēkīh rāy, abāyišnīg ud sūdumand, ā vad ast veh-kām.

(199) agar-š vad ast veh kām, ud abāyišnīg ud sūdumand, ō hān ī gōbend kū-š vad nē kām hambasān.

(200-203) hān-z ī gōbend kū: «-š marg, dard, driyušīh hān cim rāy dād kū dā mardōmān arzumandīh ī zīndagīh, ud drustīh, ud tuvānīgīh abērdar šnāsend, andar yazd spāsdārdar bend», ā, ē nigered kū: cōn abēcimkunišnīhā, ped hān ēvēnag ī ōy kē, arz ud vahāg ī pādzahr abzōn rāy, zahr ō mardōmān dahed, kū dā pādzahr grāndar ud arzumanttar frōšed.

(204) ēn az kadām meyānjīgīh-kunišnīh, kū šnāxtan ī arzumandīh ī nēkīh ī anī rāy, dard ud marg ud anāgīh abar anī avināh hiled?

(210-212) ā, ē dāned kū: agar, pādixšāyīh rāy, hān-z kē must kuned, nē mustgar xvānišn; ā, ōy-iz kē pādixšāy drō gōbed, rāst-gōbišn ast; ōy-iz kē, pādixšāyīh rāy, bazag, vināh ud duzīh ud appar kuned nē vināhgār xvānišn.

(213-216) ōn cōn hān ī hufravard Rōšn ī Ādurfarrōbayān ped hangōšīdag guft kū: «-šān mard-ē dīd kē xar-ē hamē marzed. ka-šān aziš pursīd kū: ēn nikōhīdag kār cim kuneh?

u-š ped būzišn guft kū: xar-ē-am xvēš».

(217-218) did ēn azišān ē pursed kū: yazd ēn dām ud dahišn ī-š kird, avišān dōst ayāb dušmen?

(219-220) agar dām dōst, ā-š nē sazed vad ud anāgīh ī dāmān abāyistan ud dādan, xvēš āfurišnān az višōbišn ud anāgīh-išān hagriz sagr nē būdan.

(221) agar dām dušmen, ā-š nē sazed ped xvēš tuvān ud dānišn hān tis āfrīdan ud dādan ī-š dušmenyādīhā, u-š pedīrag kām kuxšed.

(222-226) ēn-z ē pursed kū: yazd hamēšag hudānāg, hubādišāy, āzādīhgar, ayāb dušdānāg, dušpādišāy, mustgar, ayāb ast hangām ka hudānāg, hubādišāy, āzādīhgar, ud ast hangām ka dušdānāg, dušpādišāy ud mustgar?

(227-232) agar hamēšag hudānāg, hubādišāy, āzādīhgar, ā-š nēst andar šahr ud pādišāyīh stahm ud must ud garzišn; u-š dām dōstīh, ud dām aviš dōstīh, abēzag; az ham cim, abar xvēš dāmān abaxšāyišngar; u-š dām spāshangār, aviš stāyīdār, abēzag dōst, u-š nām-iz ī yazdīh arzānīhā xvēš.

(233-238) agar dušdānāg, dušpādišāy ud mustgar, ā, xvad ō dām abēzag dušmen, u-š dām-iz aviš hamēvēnag; az ham cim, dām vināstār murnzēnīdār ud viyābāngar; u-š dām aziš garzīdār, aviš kuxšīdār, abēzag dušmen; u-š nām-iz ī yazdīh anarzānīg nām axvēš. u-š hamēšagīh-iz rāy, dāmān akanārag-zamānīhā az must ud anāgīh abēbīm būdan anumēd.

(239) agar ast hangām ka hubādišāy, hudānāg, āzādīhagar, ud ast hangām ka abāz-vaštag az ēn, ā-š dōstīh ī dām gumēzag;

(241-242) az gumēzag-dōstīh gumēzakkunišnīh; az gumēzakkunišnīh gumēzag xvadīh-iz pēdāgīhed.

(243) u-š dām-iz aviš gumēzagdōst.

(244) az hambāy(an) nē agar dōst ī-š nē dušmen, ud nē spāsdār ī-š nē garzišnīg, nē-z stāyīdār ī-š nē nigōhišnīg, ēn ēvēnag abar hamāg dām cihrīg pēdāg.

(245-247) did ēn kū: cōn hamāg tis ī andar gēhān, az ēn do nām ī nēk ud vad nē bērōn, ā, agar nēkīh ud vadīh harv do az yazd, ud ped kām ī yazd gōbīhed, ā, mustumand Ahrmen abēcim dusravēnīdag, avināh, abunēšt, hagriz vad ud abāzsār nē būd ud nē baved.

(248) hān ī andar nibēg gōbed kū: «Ahrmen abāz-sār būd, u- šān az vahišt bērōnēnīd» abēcim.

(249) cē hān-z abāzsārīh ud aburdframānīh ham ped kām ī yazd.

(250) agar-z nēkīh az yazd, ud ped kām ī yazd, vad az mardōm gōbīhed, ēg Ahrmen abunēšt, abēvināh; u-š nifrīn ud nigōhišn abēcim.

(251-252) agar pargast ēn hamāg anāgīh ud vad nē az judgōhrīh, bē az xvadīh ud ēvgōhrīh ī xvad yazd, ā yazd ō xvēš rōn dušmen ud pedyārag ast.

(253-254) ēn-z kū: «bē az gōhr ī bazag bazagīh būd» guftan abēr viyābānīg. cōn bazag az gōhr ī veh hangārdan viyābānīg, ā Ahrmen kē bun bunēšt ast ī harv bazag, az dahišn ud āfurišn ī yazd hangārdan viyābānīgdar.

(255-256) hangird ēn kū: agar fradum tis ast ī nē andar kām ī yazd, agar harv tis ped kām ī yazd, kas-iz nē vināhgār, peygāmbar-z ud dēn brihēnīd abēcim.

(257) agar ped vināhgārīh kas ēranzēnīdan sazed, ōy ēranzēnīdan sazāgdar kē bun kirdār, dāštār, āfrīdār ī harv vad ud bazag.

(258-259) agar-z vad ud bazag az Ahrmen ayāb mardōm gōbīhed, ā cōn avēšān ham āfrīdag ud dādag ī yazd hend, ā-š bunxān ham ōy kē bunxān ī vad, az vad vattar.

(260) ēn-z ē nigered kū: hāmōyēn kēšān az xvēš dastvar ud frēstag ēn gōbend kū-š guft ud handarzēnīd ō xvēš ram kū: «kirbag kuned, az bazag pahrēzed!»

(261) viyābānīh rāy, ēn nē handēšend kū: bazag ī-š framūd kū «mā kuned, kē kuned ō dušox ī jāyēdānag abganam», hān az kū ud kadām bun sazed būdan?

(262) kū agar ham az yazd, ā-š nē dādan āsānīhādar hād kū pas az dādan ud ō pēdāgīh āvurdan aziš pahrixtan framūd.

(263) ōh-iz ka ēc sūd ud vahān ī dādan ud āfrīdan ī vad nē šnāsum.

(264-267) did: andar-šān nibēgān abar kirbag ud bazag hambasānīhā gōbed kū: «kirbag ud bazag harv do az man; nē dēvān, nē jādōgān ādōg hend ped kas vizend kirdan; nē kas dēn pedīrift kirbag kird, ud nē kas ped akdēnīh raft bazag kird, bē ped kām ī man!»

(268-269) andar ham nibēg vasīhā pedist bared, ud nifrīn ō dāmān kuned kū: «cim mardōm hān bazag, – ī man ped avēšān kāmum– , kāmend ud kunend?»

(270) abar kām ud kunišn ī xvēš dast baved, u-šān ō pādifrāh ī abar tan ud ruvān bīmēned.

(271) ud anī gyāg gōbed kū: «an xvad ham viyābāngar ī mardōm. cē agar-am kāmag hād, ēg-am rāh ī rāst nimūd hānd. bē-m kāmag kū ō dušox šavend.»

(272) ud anī gyāg gōbed kū: «mardōm xvad hend kirdār ī bazag.»

(277) ped hān ī gōbed kū: «mardōm bazag xvad kunend», ā-š xvēš tan ped dūrīh ī az bazag abāg Ahrmen hambāy kird.

(278) cē agar mardōm bazag kunend az xvēš gōhr ud xvēš viyābānīh, ā yazd abāg Ahrmen az bazagīh dūr.

(279) cē cōn nē az yazd, nē-z az Ahrmen.

(280-281) did: az avēšān kē-šān mutazalīg xvānend ē pursed kū: yazd hamāg mardōm ped āzādkāmīh az bazag pahrixtan ud az dušox bōxtan ud ō vahišt zāmēnīdan kām ayāb nē?

(282-283) agar gōbed kū «nē», ā-š vizīrēned abar kamvehīh ī yazd ud vattarīh ī-š kām.

(284) az im cim, ped yazdīh stāyīdan nē sazāg.

(285-286) agar gōbed kū: «-š kām», ā-š vizīrēned abar veh-gāmīh ī yazd.

(287) az ham cim, ped yazdīh stāyīdan sazāg.

(288) ēn-z kū: agar-š kām kirdan tuvānīg ayāb nē?

(289-290) agar gōbed kū «nē», ā-š vizīrēned abar atuvānīgīh ī yazd ped hān ī-š kām;

(291) az ham cim, ped yazdīh ī visptuvān stāyīdan nē sazāg.

(292-293) agar gōbed kū «kām kirdan tuvānīg», ā-š vizirēned abar tuvānīgīh ī hān ī-š kām;

(294) az ham cim, ped yazdīh ī visptuvān stāyīdan sazāg.

(295) did ēn kū: ka-š kām kirdan tuvānīg, kuned ayāb nē?

(296-297) agar gōbed kū «kuned», ā pēdāgīhist hē abar hamāg mardōm pahrixtan ī az vināh, bōxtan ī az dušox, rasīdan ī ō vahišt.

(298) ēn hān ī-š astīh abēdāg, ud xvēš-iz dēn drōzangar.

(299-300) agar gōbed kū «-š kām kirdan tuvānīg, bē nē kuned», ā-š vizīrēned abar anabaxšāyišngarīh ī yazd ud mardōm-dušmenīh ud xvēš kām aravāgīh.

(301) cē agar kuned, ā-š xvad nē zyān, ud mardōm sūd, u-š xvēš kām ravāg.

(302) agar nē kuned, ā-š xvad nē sūd, ud mardōm zyān, u-š xvēš kām aravāg.

(303) did ēn kū: ped kām nē kuned ayāb agām?

(304-305) agar gōbed kū «ped kām nē kuned», ā-š vizīrēned kū yazd nēk-kām, u-š nēk kirdan nē kām.

(306) ēn hambasānīh rāy handēšīdan-z zīfān.

(307-308) agar gōbed kū «agām, ē rāy nē kuned», ā vizīrēned abar nizārīh ī yazd andar xvadīh, ayāb astīh ī vizūdār ī-š kām.

(309) hangird ēn kū: ēn gētīg rāyēnīdār ī ahamēstār ī ahambidīg ī spurr ped dānāgīh ud vehīh ud tuvānīgīh hād, ēn hamāg asazākkunišnīh ud must ud anāgīh ud dard ud bēš frāyist mardōm ud abārīg dām nē hē.

(310) cē ka rāyēnīdār, ahamēstār, ped dānāgīh spurr, vad nē būdan cār, ud darmān ī vad bē burdan-z dāned.

(311) ka ped vehīh spurr ud abaxšāyīdār, vad būdan fradumīg nē kām, ud nēstīh kām.

(312) ka ped tuvānīgīh spurr, vad hambun-z nē būdan tuvānīg.

(313) nūn, cōn andar gētīg kē-š rāyēnīdār yazd ast, vad astīh agumānīhā vēnābdāg, pas az ēn and nē jud: ayāb kū rāyēnīdār hamēstārumand, ayāb ahamēstār.

(314) agar vad nē būdan cār, ud darmān ī vad bē burdan, nē dāned, pēdāgīhed aziš abavandag-dānāgīh ī yazd.

(315) ayāb-iš vad ast veh kām, pēdāgīhed abavandagvehīh ī-š kām.

(316) ayāb vad nē būdan, ud bē burdan nē tuvānīg, pēdāgīhed abavandag-tuvānīgīh ī yazd.

(317) ud ka ped dānāgīh ayāb vehīh ayāb tuvānīgīh ēk-iz nē bavandag, ā ped yazdīh ī visptuvān ī vispveh ī vispdānāg stāyīdan ud peristīdan nē sazāg.

(318-319)  ēn-z ē dāned kū: cōn ēc astag tis ī kunāg kāmagumand bē cōnīh nē ādōg būd, ā agar dādār bun astīh yazdīh, u-š cōnīh rōšnīh ud huzihrīh ud hubōyīh ud pākīh ud vehīh ud dānāgīh, ēgiš hān ī cōn tārīkīh ud dušcihrīh gennagīh ud rīmanīh ud vattarīh ud adānāgīh xvad dēvīh cōnīh, aziš dūr sazed būdan.

(320) agar-š bun astīh tisīh dēvīh, u-š cōnīh tārīkīh, dušcihrīh, gennagīh, rīmanīh, vattarīh, adānīh, ēgiš hān ī yazdīh cōnīh aziš begānag ēsted.

(321) agar ēk ast kē-š ēn harv aziš, andar-iš xvadīh ī avizārišnīg gumixtag, ā-š aziš avizārišnīgīh rāy ped nēkīh andar xvēš anāgīh vizārdagīh nēst.

(322) nūn-z umēdvārān umēd uzīhed.

(323) cē ōy-iz kē kirbakkarīh rāy ō vahišt šaved, ānōh-iz ped vad ud anāgīh;

(324) cē ānōh-iz nēkīh ī az vad jud ud vizārišnīg nēst.

(325) agar hambun-z nēkīh ast ī jud az anāgīh, ā anāgīh-iz ast ī az nēkīh jud ud vizārdag.

(326) ēn āšnāg kū: nēkīh ud anāgīh judīh az judgōhrīh.

(327-328) ka-šān judīh ud vizārišn ī ēk az did ī judgōhrīhā do bun pēdāg, ā umēdvārān umēd rāst, u-šān dānāgīh parvānag.

(329) ēn-z ē dāned kū: harv soxan ī nē ped xvēš vimand, abēbrahm ud ….

(330) ēn-z kū: vimand ī yazdīh māyagvar dānāgīh.

(331) vimand ī dānāgīh, ēk, sūdumandkunišnīh.

(332) sūdumandkunišnīh nē zyāngārīh.

(337) ud yazd ī dānākkār az āfrīdan ī Ahrmen ud dēvān xvad nē sūd, anīz zyān;

(338) u-š xvēš kām az xvēš kunišn aravāgīh hamē pēdāgīhed.

(339-342) ēn-z kū: agar yazd kām vehīh, u-š kām hamēšag, ud ped sazed kām tuvānīg hē, hān pēdāg kū az bun dā frazām, andar gēhān, hamāg vehīh ud frārōnīh ī yazd kām raft hē;

(343) nūn pēdāg kū, vattarīh ud abārōnīh vas vēš hamē raved.

(344) pas az ēn do ēk: ayāb ped kām ī yazd hamē raved, ayāb agām.

(345) agar ped kām ī yazd hamē raved, ā pēdāg kū-š kām-iz ped vattarīh hamcōn ped vehīh.

(346) ayāb, ped kām, atuvānīg ud vardišnīg.

(347-348) cōn kām bē az vahān, ayāb bē az vardēnīdār nē varded, ā az ēn do ēk: ayāb vahān-ē rāy, ayāb-iš anī ast vardēnīdār ī-š kām.

(349-350) agar nē ped kām ī yazd hamē raved, ā pēdāg kū yazd andar xvēš kām acārag, u-š kām nē spurrīg.

(351) ayāb-iš ast vizūdār-ē ī abāzdāštār kām.

(352-354) ēn-z kē gōbend kū: «yazd ō Ādam framūd kū, az ēn ēk draxt, ī andar vahišt, mā xvared!», az-išān ē pursed kū: framān ī yazd ō Ādam dād kū «az ēn draxt mā xvared» nēk būd ayāb vad?

(355-356) agar framān nēk būd, pēdāg kū draxt vad būd. nē sazed yazd tis ī vad āfrīdan

(357) agar draxt nēk būd, framān vad būd. ā nē sazed yazd vad framān dādan.

(358) agar draxt nēk būd, u-š framān ī ped nē xvardan dād, ā ō vehīh ud abaxšāyīdārīh ī yazd nē pesazag nēkīh az bannagān ī avināh ī xvēš abāz dāštan.

(359) ēn-z kē gōbend kū: «yazd harv kē-š kāmed, ō vurravišn ud rāh ī rāst āvared, u-š ped hān pādāšn ō nēkravišnīh ī jāyēdānag zāmēned;

(360-362) kē-š nē kāmed, ā-š ped adēnīh ud yazd-nē-šnāsīh hiled, u-š ped hān cim ō dušox ud anāgīh ī jāyēdānag abganed», az avēšān ē pursed kū: ōy veh kē-š abāyist ud kām ped dēn ud vurravišn ī yazd ud rāh ī rāst, ayāb ōy kē-š abāyist ud kām ped abērāhīh ud adēnīh ud yazd-nē-šnāsīh?

(363-365) agar gōbed kū: «ōy veh kē-š abāyist ud kām ped dēn ī yazd ud rāh ī rāst»; nūn ōy mardōm kē yazd kāmag ī pediš ēn kū-š ped adēnīh ud abērāhīh ud yazd-nēšnāsīh hiled, peygāmbar ayāb anī mardōmdōst ō-š dēn ī yazd ud rāh ī rāst xvāned, ā-š yazd pediš veh ud sūdumanttar ayāb hān peygāmbar, ōy mardōmdōst.

(366) agar gōbed kū: «-š kām ī yazd pediš veh», ā-š guft baved kū «yazd nē šnāxtan ud dēn nē pedīriftan ud abērāhīh veh», ēn zīfān nē pedīrišnīg [ud nē cāsišnīg].

(367-368) agar gōbed kū: «-š ō rāh ī rāst āmadan, ud yazd šnāxtan, pediš veh ud sūdumanttar», ā-š āškārag guft baved kū «peygāmbar ud mardōmdōst pediš veh az yazd.»

(369-370) cē mardōm kē-š abar mardōm rāstrāhīh ud yazdešnāsīh abāyed, u-š kām pediš, vas veh az ōy ī yazd kē-š abāzrāhīh ud anešnāxtārīh ud adēnīh abar-šān kāmag, yazd vas vattar az ōy mardōm.

(371-372) ēn-z kū: agar bazagmenišnīh ud bazakkarīh ī mardōm ped kām ī yazd, nūn hān kē yazd bazagmenišnīh dād u-š bazag andar menišn kišt, u-š Ahrmen ēvāz ō bazag kirdan xvāned ud nixvāred, ā-š bazagmenišnīh ī yazd ud abāyist-iz ī pediš zōrumanttar ud vattar kū xvandan ī Ahrmen.

(373) ka-š niyūšīdārīh-iz ī az Ahrmen kirdan ī bazag, ham az bazag-menišnīh ī yazd dād, ud abāyist-iz ī pediš, nūn āšnāg kū yazd az Ahrmen vas vattar ud vināhgārdar.

(378) agar hamāg rāst, harv soxan ī ō ēn soxan nē sazed, drō; ud tis do: rāstīh ud drōzanīh.

(379) agar hamāg drō, harv soxan ī ō ēn soxan nē sazed rāst; ud tis ham do.

(380-382) agar ast ī rāst ud ast ī drō, ēg hān ī rāst az gōhr ud nāf ī rāstīh, ud hān ī drō az gōhr ud nāf ud bunēštag ī drōzanīh.

(383) bun do: ēk kē rāstīh aziš, ēk kē drōzanīh.

Sixth Chapter

XI

(1-2) From here on I write about the inconsistency of their (insane) discourses.

May you cast an upright glance on it with wise eyes.

(3-5) First about the monotheists who state thus: “There is only one god, who is benefactor, wise, powerful, clement and merciful, so that both pious deed and crime, truth and falsehood, life and death, good and evil come from him”

(6-7) Now ask them: Is god always beneficent and merciful, benefactor and law-abiding? Does he know all that is and was and will be? Does he attain whatever he wills? And this too: Is he law-abiding and interceding, or is he once thus and another time not thus?

(8) For if he be clement, benefactor and merciful, then why has he thrown Ahrmen (here, Satan) and the demons and the hell and all this much evil and these marks (of punishment) at his own creatures, through his clemency and benefaction and mercifulness?

(9) If he knew nothing of it, then where are his wisdom and omniscience?

(10) If he did not wish to keep calamity and evil away from his creatures, and to give only benefit to every person who is loyal, where is his law-abidingness and intercession?

(11) If it were not possible for him to not create it, then how is he omnipotent?

(12-14) Anyhow we may observe and consider that: when they say that “everything good and evil has arisen from god”, then there is no possibility except if they separate from him these four virtues which are requisite for divinity, i.e., omniscience, omnipotence, goodness and mercifulness.

(15) When only one of these four virtues is separated from him, then he is not complete in his divinity (godhead).

(16) For, he who is not omniscient, or not omnipotent, or not good, or not merciful is not god.

(17) Further: When he is a successful ruler over every person and thing, then why did not he exempt his world and kingdom from every enemy and adversary of his activities, so that there would not be anything whatever of offence, oppression, injustice and complaint for any one in his kingdom?

(18) Since the kingdom and or lordship of a human king and or lord is at that time esteemed when he can protect and take care of his country and kingdom, through his wisdom, so that the enemies of his activities may not dare to rise up against him, and to commit sin and harm;

(19) or, when the enemies of his activities rise up against him, then he can keep them away from his bosom friends, and make every one exempt from offence.

(20-21) Further: If he be victorious, prevailing and dominating, then over whom are his victory, prevalence and domination?

(22) For victory and prevalence are over the enemies who take the opposite side in a conflict.

(23) It is not proper to be oneself the enemy who takes the opposite side towards his own.

(24-25) As long as there is no enemy and opponent over whom he becomes victorious and prevalent, victory and prevalence will not be attributed to him.

(26) For even cattle and sheep, when they have no adversary and injurer, are prevailing and victorious over themselves!

(27) Further: Is he contented and acquainted with his divinity and grandeur, or not?

(28-29) If he be contented and acquainted with, then he is contented to make enemies and criminals knowingly and voluntarily, and to cause a disturbance in the world, and to be content with the misery of the world and creatures. But is it proper to want them crime and calamity, and to be indeed their enemy and curser, and to make man calamitous and hellish?

(30) Further: Whatever he says, does he speak truthfully and credibly, or not?

(31-33) If he speaks truthfully and credibly, then when he says that “I am a friend of good deed and an enemy of crime”, and however he creates more crime and criminals than good deed and benefactors, then where is his truthful speaking?

(34) Further: Is his will good, or evil?

(35) If his will be evil, then from what is his divinity?

(36) If his will be good, then why are the evil ones and evil more than the good ones and good?

(37) Further: Is he merciful, or not?

(38) If he be not merciful, then from what is his divinity?

(39) If he be merciful, then why does he say that: “I sealed the heart, ears and eyes of men, so that it is not possible for them to think, speak or do anything but that which is desired by me”.

(40) Some of them were by chance made great and free (noble);

(41) and some others were killed and annihilated by many kinds of death, and were thrown to eternal hell.

(42) “So that those whom I make anew, become good and pious.”

(43-44) Now those who were made anew, are, except a few, much more criminal and more sinful than those who were before.

(45-46) Further: If whatever he does, he does with wisdom and with (good) reason, then when he had no opponent and adversary, as soon as he prepared the creation of the first [man], why did his servants turn, to demoniacal disobedience toward the (first) man, and to the infidelity deserving hell?

(47) If he did not know that they would turn, then it is convenient (to suppose that) he resorted to trial [and error].

(48) Because he has prepared many thousands and ten-thousands so that they may serve him and honour his lordship, but all have become disobedient and heedless.

(49-51) For people, with their little knowledge, cannot prepare and fashion (things) according to their will, and however, if they prepare and fashion something which does not so appear and become as is their will, they do not insist to prepare it again, but they keep themselves from doing it again. Whereas the omnipotent and omniscient lord, of the numerous and innumerable things he has hitherto made and prepared, not even one appears and becomes as is his will, and yet still he does not keep himself from preparing and creating anew.

(52-53) As the creator prepared the first angel, on account of respect out of fire, for several thousand years, as they say, [the angel] served him through worship.

(54-59) At last, (the first angel) did disobey only one command that was given by him thus: “Pay homage to this first man whom I prepared out of clay!”, And he, reasonably, apologised as to what ought not to pay (homage). Then he (the creator) despised and humiliated him with hurt and curse and wrath, and turned him into the state of a demon and a devil, and sent him out of heaven, and gave him several millennia of perpetual life and dominion, so that: “I will go and make your servants astray and deluded”.

(60) Thus [god] made him voluntarily injurer and adversary.

(61-64) Later on, the man to whom the supreme angel and many other worshippers were ordered to pay homage, on account of respect and honour, was put in the garden of paradise, so that he may cultivate and eat all the produce, except of that one tree of which he ordered thus: “You shall not eat of it!”

(65-66) He prepared with them (the first man and woman) a deceiver and seducer, and let him into the garden.

(67) Some say he is a serpent, and some say he is Ahrmen (Satan).

(68) God himself gave to men the nature of eating and greediness.

(69) Then the seducer deceived them saying: “Eat of that tree!”

(70-71) Some say [he addressed] Adam. And they ate through the nature of eating.

(72) Having eaten, they became so knowing that they discerned and knew good and evil.

(73-76) Because of that one injunction which they forgot, and he himself was the cause of that forgetfulness, he deprived him of that enormous respect and honour, and he forced him with his wife out of the garden of paradise by grievous wrath and disrespect, and delivered them to the hands of the enemy who is deceiver and seducer, to impose his own will on them and to gain control of them.

(78) Now, which injustice, unreasonable order, slowness-in-wisdom, and little knowledge are more wrongful and more calamitous than that?

(79) Moreover, why did not he make that garden so fortified and firm that that seducer could not have gone into it?

(80) Henceforth, he (the seducer) has seduced and seduces many servants and worshippers [of the creator].

(81-83) And, for this reason [the creator] has sent from time to time, many apostles and prophets to the world, so that: “They may save my servants from the hands of that seducer, and bring them into the right path and way”.

(84-86) The apostles and prophets whose duty was the bringing of mankind into the right way and path were all slain by a horrible death or banished according to ( creator’ ) own will, the original seducer and deluder is left alive forever, and till now his will to seduce and delude is more victorious and successful than that of god.

(87) Because, those seduced and astray are much more numerous than those in the right way and not seduced.

(88) Further: Does he do whatever he does with a motive, or not?

(89-90) If he does it without a motive, then he acts at random, and it is not convenient to praise him who acts at random as a wise god.

(91) If he does it with a motive, then, when he had no opponent and adversary, what is the motive and reason of creating all these creatures, such as demons and men who are disobedient, who strive against his will, and who are seducer, and these innumerable useless creatures?

(93-94) Further: If he knows all that is, was and will be, then he ought not to create, through his knowledge and will, anything of which he may be regretful, and which opposes his will and command, and becomes an adversary of his apostles who fulfil his will.

(95-96) If they say that: “This adversary was created good and nice in the beginning, but afterwards changed into evil and the deluding of the creatures”, Then you should reply that: If he be omnipotent, why is the will of the adversary, in changing into evil and the deluding of the creatures, more prevailing and more dominating than that of god?

(97) For in the (temporal) world the evil is more powerful than the good.

(98-102) Further: If the criminal too be out of his will, and he himself led the minds of criminals astray, and he himself sowed the seed of crime, when [the seed of crime] grew from the root, he slew one, and rewarded another, where then is his power of law-abidingness?

(103) Further: Did he make and create this world with a motive, for his beatitude and for the sake of the ease and benefit of men, or without a motive, for his distress, and [for the sake of] the oppression, guilt, suffering and death of men?

(104-105) For if he made it without a motive, then he acted at random. An act without a motive is not acceptable on behalf of the wise.

(106-107) If he made it with a motive and he created for his own beatitude and for the ease and benefit of men, why then did he not bring forth prosperity and much-benefit?

(108) If his beatitude and benefit arise from the preparation of man and animal, what profit will he gain out of their slaughter and destruction?

(109) If it was not he himself who gave the thought of crime to man, then who is he who dared to give the thought of crime contrary to his command and will?

(110) If it was he himself who gave it, and now he considers it a fault, then where is his rightfulness and intercession?

(111-114) While man, with little knowledge and small wisdom, does not, as far as he is able, allow lion and wolf and other beasts into his plantations and barren lands, lest they may spoil them, why has the merciful god let (/thrown) Ahrmen (Satan) and the demons upon his own creatures, so that they have made them blind and deaf, astray, deceitful, and hellish?

(115-116) If he did (so) for testing – as they say that “he created the evil for testing the creatures”–, then why did he not know in advance man and animal?

(117) Because he whose authority is (dependent upon) testing is not to be called omniscient.

(118) In brief: If god had no opponent and adversary, and was able to create all the creatures and creations free from harm, then why did he not create so?

(119) Or maybe did he wish it, but he was not able to do so?

(120) If he wished it, but he was not able, then he is not completely powerful.

(121) If he was able (to do so), but he did not wish it, then [he a ed] unmercifully.

(122-124) If he knew “there will be something or someone, among these creatures and creations which I create that will not be according to my will”, and however he made (the world of life), then, it is unreasonable to be constantly so discontented and angry with his own (creatures), and to curse them, and to cast them away for punishment in hell.

(125-128) Further: If the crime in thought, crime in word, crime in deed, and the sin which man thinks, speaks, and does, as well as aching, illness, poverty, and the punishment and calamity of hell, all of these are not possible to exist except through the will and command of god, as long as the will and power of god are eternal, because his essence is also eternal, it is then certain that, for ever, there is no hope for any one to be saved from calamity and punishment.

(129-131) For it is thoroughly evident that there is no teacher or master whatever who keeps him away from this wicked and evil will, if, Heaven forbid, that (poor man) follow the advice of the apostles and religious authorities, i e. “Commit no crime and sin!” For they intend to reject the will and command of god.

(132) Likewise: As both crime and good deed are his will, it is not clear whether he approves the good deeds of the good doing, or the crimes of the criminal.

(133-136) Likewise: The physicians who, in the hope of (the salvation of) the soul, prepare medicines for the sick, and remove and dispel their pain and sickness, so that owing to that action they possess merit; however they are made ready for the punishment of hell.

(137-140) Those who, for the love of the soul, give something to the poor, needy, helpless, and thereby remove want and poverty from them and release them from (these calamities), so that owing to that action they possess merit; however they certainly have (charge of) grievous sin.

(141-143) If they state that: “The physicians who concoct remedies, and those who give things to the poor and helpless, all this is through the will of god”, then if god be without an adversary and without an opponent, then it is easier and more reasonable and more appropriate for him not to create sickness and poverty, than this: He himself makes them sick and poor, and he commands people thus: “Do make them healthy and free from want”.

(144-146) If they say that “His will is this that he may recompense the physicians and donors, in gratitude for their goodness, and make them proceed to Paradise and eternal beatitude”, then notice that: How unlawfully and weakly he acts when, willing beneficence and prosperity for only one servant, he makes many innocents indigent (/oppressed), poor, needy, sick, and calamitous!

(147-148) Moreover, if he be not able to bring beneficence and prosperity to one, except by indigence (/oppression) and pain and harm to the other, then he does not deserve to be empowered, successful, and free from opposition.

(149-150) If they say that: “He makes the sick and the poor proceed in the world of thought, and as a recompense, to Paradise and eternal beatitude”, then (notice that), if he be not able to give the recompense in the world of thought, except through the calamity in the world of life, then he is not almighty.

(151-152) Moreover, his production of indigence (/violence) in the world of life is doubtless, precipitate, and unreasonable, but the recompense (in) the world of life is doubtful, unbelievable and after the production of indigence (/violence).

(153) Since the previous violence is without a motive, the subsequent recompense will be alike without a motive and absurdly.

(154) Moreover, no subsequent liberty (/nobility) is found after a previous violence without a cause.

(155-157) Further: One of these three states is inevitably right: The things that are, or were, or will be in the world, are all by his will, or they are not, or there are some that are by his will and there are some that are not.

(158) For nothing whatever is found which is not good, or evil, or a mixture of both.

(159) If they say that “all (things are according to) his will”, then good and evil are both his will.

(160-161) If good and evil be both his will, he is of imperfect will, he is not perfect even as to one (good or evil).

(162-163) He who is of imperfect will may be of imperfect essence, as is shown above.

(164-165) If nothing be according to his will, on account of nothing being according to his will, he is will-less.

(166) He who is will-less, his action is natural (or, instinctive).

(167) He whose action is natural, he has received a nature and is made.

(168-171) If some be according to his will, and some be not according to his will, (and if) nothing be found in the world which is neither good nor evil, then, if god be of good will, it is acknowledged that he is not malevolent, and that which is evil is not according to his will;

(172-173) and if he be of evil will, then he is inevitably not benevolent, and that which is good is not according to his will.

(174) If that which is good be according to the will of god, it is acknowledged that that which is evil is from the will of another one.

(175) If that which is evil be according to his will, then that which is good is inevitably from the will of another one. It is (then) inevitable and manifest the contrary of the will of god.

(177-182) If one says that “the evil originates from man”, then since the essence of man did not always exist, it is inevitable that evil existed before man, or after, or it was concomitant with man. If they say that “it was before man”, then, since there was no other creator of spiritual and material (worlds) apart from god, then, either god created evil, or it created its own essence, or it was itself eternal.

(183) If they say that “it was after man”, then, since human substance is likewise a creation of god, and god did not create the evil of man in his substance, how does evil originate, by (human) activities, from him?

(187-191) If by his activities man produced evil in spite of the will of god, and god was well aware of this production by man, then it is manifest that god is imperfect in his will, and man is prevailing and victorious in repelling the will and command of god, and in committing evil contrary to the will of god, and the power of god in his own will and his servants is feeble.

(192-193) If they claim that “he makes them proceed afterwards to the hard punishment of hell”, then, if god be an agent endowed with power, then not to let men commit crime but to expel it from their hearts (/thoughts) would be more advantageous and more befitting to the clemency of god than to let them commit.

(194) It is inevitable that he was contented with it (i.e., with the committal of crime by man);

(195) and afterwards he contentedly punishes his own creatures.

(196) Indeed, (if) I consider one (principle), then either impotence, or little knowledge, or scanty goodness becomes manifest.

(197-198) If they say that: “God spiritually and materially created evil; for the reason that man may appreciate goodness ”, then you should notice that, if evil be requisite and advantageous for appreciating goodness, then his will is (both) good and evil.

(199) If his will be evil and good, and (evil) be requisite and advantageous, then this is in contradiction with what they say that “evil is not (through) his will”.

(200-203) Concerning that also which they say that: “He created death, pain and poverty for the reason that people may much more appreciate life, health and opulence, and become more thankful unto god”, you should notice that taking such actions is unreasonable, after the manner of him who gives poison to people for the sake of increasing the value and price of an antidote, so that he may sell the antidote more expensive and more costly.

(204) What kind of interceding act is this that in order to make known the value of goodness to some people, he lets pain and death and calamity come on some innocent people?

(210-212) You should therefore know this that: If, on account of sovereignty, he who oppresses is not to be called oppressor, then he who is a sovereign and tells a lie, is veracious; and he who, on account of sovereignty, commits crime, sin, theft and robbery is not to be called a sinner.

(213-216) As the blessed Rōšn, son of Ādurfarrōbay, related as a parable: «They saw a man who was fucking an ass. When they asked him: Why do you commit this obscene act?

He replied thus, in excuse: The ass belongs to me.»

(217-218) Again, you should ask them: Is god a friend, or an enemy, to these creatures and creations which he has created?

(219-220) If he be a friend of creatures, then it is not convenient to him to desire and create the misery and calamity of the creatures, and to be never satisfied of the disturbance and calamity of his own creations.

(221) If he be an enemy of the creatures, then it is not convenient to him to create, through his power and knowledge, that thing which behaves like an enemy, and strives against his will.

(222-226) This also you should ask: Is god always an erudite, good sovereign, and producing freedom (/nobility), or an ignorant, bad sovereign, and oppressor, or sometimes an erudite, good sovereign, and producing freedom, and sometimes an ignorant, bad sovereign, and oppressor?

(227-232) If he be always an erudite, good sovereign, and producing freedom, then there is not, in his kingdom and sovereignty any tyranny, oppression, or complaint; and his friendship towards the creatures and the friendship of the creatures towards him are sincere. For this reason, he is merciful to his creatures, and his creatures are thankful, praise him, and are sincere friends towards him. Thus he deserves the name of “god”.

(233-238) If he be an ignorant, bad sovereign, and oppressor, then he is a true enemy to the creatures, and his creatures are alike (enemy) to him. For that very reason, he is a corruptor, destroyer, and seducer of the creatures, and his creatures complain of him, strive against him, and are his true enemies. And he does not deserve the name of “god”. Since he is eternal, the creatures have no hope to be made free from fear of oppression and calamity to all eternity.

(239) If he be sometimes a good sovereign, erudite, and producing freedom, and sometimes the reverse, then his friendship towards the creatures is mingled.

(241-242) From a mingled friendship appears mingled action, and from a mingled action a mingled essence.

(243) His creatures also are mingled friends towards him.

(244) One’s rival, not if he be a friend, is not an enemy, not if he be a thankful, is not a complaining one, not if he be a praiser, is not one who blames him, that’s the way it is among all natural creatures, it is manifest.

(245-247) Further: Since all things, in the world (of life), are not outside of these two (descriptive) names, good and evil, if good and evil be said to be from god and out of god’s will, then the poor Ahrmen (Satan) who is not sinful nor the principle (of evil), and never was, nor will be evil and rebellious, is unreasonably defamed.

(248) That which is mentioned in the Qur’ān that “Ahrmen (Satan) became rebellious, and they (=He) put him out of heaven” is unreasonable.

(249) Because even that rebellion and disobedience were likewise out of god’s will.

(250) Even if it be said that “the good comes from god, and out of god’s will, and the evil from man”, then Ahrmen is not the principle (of evil) nor he is sinful; and the curse on him and the blame of him are unreasonable.

(251-252) If, Heaven forbid, all this calamity and evil be, not out of a different substance, but out of one substance and from the essence of god himself, then god is his own enemy and adversary.

(253-254) Further: To speak of “the existence of crime without a substance of crime” is very puzzling, as it is puzzling to suppose evil out of the substance of good is deluding, then it is more puzzling to suppose Ahrmen who is the origin and principle of every crime out of the spiritual and material creation of god.

(255-256) In short: If there be nothing which is not within the will of god, and if everything be out of the will of god, no one is sinner, and also there is no reason to send the prophet and religion.

(257) If it be convenient to condemn any one for sinfulness, it is more convenient to condemn him who is the original agent, keeper and creator of every evil and crime.

(258-259) If it be said that evil and crime come from Ahrmen or man, and since they are likewise created by god, then the source – i.e., he who is the source (original cause) of evil– is worse than evil.

(260) This also you should notice that: All sects attribute this saying to their (religious) authorities and apostles prescribed to their own “community”: “Perform good deeds, abstain from crime!”.

(261) On account of seduction, they do not think this that: From where and from what principle does proceed the crime about which it is commanded that “You shall not commit it, and I will cast him who commits it into eternal hell”?

(262) For if (the crime) be out of god, then it would be easier for him not to create it, than, after having created it and made it manifest, to command us to abstain from it.

(263) Thus, I do not find any advantage and cause in the spiritual and material creation of evil.

(264-267) Moreover: In their Scriptures about good deed and crime there are contradictory statements, (for example): “Good deed and crime proceed both from me. Neither demons, nor sorcerers are capable to harm any one; no one who accepts religion or does good, and no one who walks in infidelity or commits crime, except through my will”.

(268-269) In the same scripture (Qur’ān), he threatens a lot and utters curses on the creatures thus: “Why do men will and commit that crime which I will for them?”

(270) the will and act are in his own hands, and even so he frightens them with punishment in body and soul.

(271) In another place he states thus: “I myself am the seducer of people. For if it be my will, I would show them the right way, but it is my will that they go to hell”.

(272) And in another place he states thus: “Man himself is the agent of crime”.

(277) Through that which he states that “Man himself commits crime”, he joins his own with Ahrmen in avoiding crime.

(278) For if men commit crime because of their substance and their own misleading, then god, with Satan, is far from the crime.

(279) Because, as it is not because of god, it is not even because of Ahrmen.

(280-281) Again: You should ask those celled Muʿtazilites thus: Is it the will of god for people to abstain from crime, through their free will, to be saved from hell, and to lead them forward to heaven, or not?

(282-283) If one says that “it is not (his will)”, then he affirms the little goodness of god and the wickedness of his will.

(284) For this reason, he is not worthy to be praised as a divinity.

(285-286) If one says that “it is his will”, then he affirms the good will of god.

(287) For this reason, he is worthy to be praised as a divinity.

(288) Besides: “Is he capable to fulfil his will , or not?”

(289-290) If one says that “he is not”, then he affirms the incapability of god (to fulfil) his will.

(291) For this reason, he is not worthy to be praised as an almighty divinity.

(292-293) If one says that “he is capable of fulfilling his will”, then he affirms the capability of god (to fulfil) his will.

(294) For this reason, he is worthy to be praised as an almighty divinity.

(295) Further: When he is capable of fulfilling his will, does he fulfil it, or not?

(296-297) If one says that “he fulfils it”, then the abstaining from sin, being saved from hell, and attaining heaven would be manifest for all people.

(298) But the reality is not manifest so, and makes (or, proves) his religion false.

(299-300) If one says that “he is capable of fulfilling his will, but does not fulfil it”, then he affirms the mercilessness of god, his misanthropy, and his failure to fulfil his will.

(301) For if he fulfils it, then it is no loss to him, and is a profit to people, and his will is fulfilled.

(302) If he do not fulfil it, then it is no profit to him, and it is a loss to people, and he fails to fulfil his will.

(303) Further: Does he not fulfil it willingly, or unwillingly?

(304-305) If one says ha “he does not fulfil it willingly”, then he affirms that god is good-willed, but has no will to do good.

(306) Since this statement is contradictory, to think it is even wrong.

(307-308) If one says that “he is unwilling, therefore does not fulfil it”, then he affirms the weakness of god per se, or the existence of the injurer of his will.

(309) In short: [If] this world of life had a director who was without opponent, without rival, and perfect in wisdom and goodness and power, then there would not be all these unfair deeds, oppression, calamity, pain and sorrow (of which suffer) most of men and other creatures.

(310) Because, when a director is without opponent, and perfect in wisdom, he knows means for evil not to exist, and also remedies for removing evil.

(311) When he is perfect in goodness and merciful, he first of all has no will for the existence of evil, but rather the will for its non-existence.

(312) When he is perfect in power, he has the power (to prevent) any evil from coming into existence.

(313) Now, as in the world of life whose director is god, the existence of evil is undoubtedly obvious, we are faced with this alternative: Either the director has an opponent, or has not an opponent.

(314) When he does not know means for evil not to exist, and remedies for removing evil, the imperfect wisdom of god is thereby proved.

(315) Or, his will is both evil and good, the imperfect goodness of his will is proved.

(316) Or he is not able to prevent the existence of evil, and to remove it, then the imperfect power of god is proved.

(317) When he is imperfect in even one (of the qualities), wisdom, goodness, or power, then he is not worthy to be praised and worshipped as a divinity that is omnipotent, all-good, and omniscient.

(318-319) You should know this also: Since any existing thing which is acting and willing, is not capable (of acting or willing) except if it be provided with qualities, then if the original existence of the creator be divinity, and his attributes be light, beauty, fragrance, purity, goodness, and wisdom, then darkness, ugliness, stench, filth, wickedness, and ignorance, which are the demoniacal qualities, ought to be far from him.

(320) If his original existence and quiddity be devilry, and his qualities be darkness, ugliness, stench, filth, wickedness and ignorance, then the qualities of divinity remain strange to him.

(321) If there be any existing to whom all these (attributes) belong, and they are mingled, inseparably, with his essence, then because of this inseparability, there is no distinction between his goodness and his own evil.

(322) In this case, the hope of the hopeful is gone out.

(323) For, he who goes to heaven through doing good, is even there in evil and calamity.

(324) Because, there also, goodness is not distinct and separate from evil.

(325) If there be the least goodness which is distinct from evil, then there will be also the evil which is distinct and separate from goodness.

(326) This is acknowledged that the difference of good and evil is because of difference of substance.

(327-328) When the difference and separation of the two principles, from each other, are proved, then the hope of the hopeful will be true, and wisdom will be their guide.

(329) You should know this also: Every word which is not (used) according to its definition (limit), is amorphous and …

(330) Likewise, the limit of “divinity” is principally wisdom.

(331) The limit of “wisdom” is one ( thing, i.e.,) beneficial action.

(332) A beneficial action is not an action inflicting loss.

(337) From the creation of Ahrmen and the demons there is no benefit for the god who acts wisely, but there is even loss for others;

(338) and failure to fulfil his own will, owing to his own action, is revealed.

(339-342) Moreover: If the will of god be goodness, and his will be perpetual, and he be able (to fulfil) what is convenient to his will, then, from the beginning to the end, all the goodness and righteousness in the world would have proceeded (according to) the will of god.

(343) Now it is manifest that wickedness and unrighteousness proceed much more.

(344) Therefore, we are faced with this alternative: Either they proceed through the will of god, or against his will.

(345) If they proceed through the will of god, then it is manifest that his will is for wickedness as well as for goodness.

(346) Or he is feeble and changeable in will.

(347-348) Since a will does not change, unless because of a cause or because of a changer, then, one of these two [is true]: Either, his will changes because of a cause; or, there is another one who changes his will.

(349-350) If they do not proceed through the will of god, then it is manifest that god is poor in his own will, and his will is not perfect;

(351) or, there is some injurer who wards his will off.

(352-354) As to this also which they say that “god commanded Adam thus: You should not eat of this one tree which is in paradise”, you should ask them: The command which god gave to Adam, i.e. “you should not eat of this tree”, was it good or evil?

(355-356) If the command were good, it is manifest that the tree was evil, and it is not proper for god to create any thing that is evil.

(357) If the tree were good, the command was evil, then it is not proper for god to give an evil command.

(358) If the tree were good, and in spite of this, he commanded them to not eat it, then it is not proper for god’s goodness and mercifulness to keep a benefit away from his own innocent servants.

(359) As to this also which they say that: “God guides every one whom he wills to the right way and belief, and, as the recompense, he leads him to the eternal beatitude;

(360-362) and him whom he does not will, he leaves him in irreligion and godlessness, and for this reason, he casts him into the eternal hell and a ami”, you should ask them: Is he good whose desire and will are for the religion and faith in god and the right way, or he whose desire and will are for the misguidance, irreligion and godlessness?

(363-365) If one says that “he is good whose desire and will are for the religion of god and the right way”, now as to that man god wills him to be left in irreligion and misguidance and godlessness, [but] an apostle or another philanthropist invite him to adhere to the religion of god and the right way, is god better and more advantageous to that man, or that apostle and or that man (philanthropist)?

(366) If he says that “the will of god is better to him”, then he implicitly affirms that “not acknowledging god, not adhering to the religion, and being misguided are good”. This is false and unacceptable [and not worthy to be taught].

(367-368) But if he says that “coming to the right way and acknowledging god are better and more advantageous to him”, then he explicitly affirms that “the apostle and philanthropist are better to him than god”.

(369-370) Because, a man who desires and wills the right way and theism for men, is much better than that god, who wills error and agnosticism and irreligion for them; hence god is much worse than that man.

(371-372) Further: If the crime in thought and the crime in action of men be according to god’s will, now that god created the crime in thought and sowed crime in their mind, and Ahrmen (Satan) merely invites and hastens them to the committal of crime, then the crime in thought which is out of god and god’ desire for it is even stronger and worse than the invitation of Satan.

(373) If their listening to Satan as to the committal of crime is due to the crime in thought which god created, and [their committal of rime] is likewise out of [god’s] desire, then it is acknowledged that god is much worse and more sinful than Ahrmen.

(378-382) If all be true, every saying that does not agree with these sayings is false. One of these two things [must be satisfied]: truth and falsehood.

(379) If all be false, every saying that does not agree with these sayings is true. [For] one of these two [must be satisfied].

(380-382) If some be true and some be false, then, the true [sayings] are from the substance and family of truth, and the false [sayings] are from the substance and family of falsehood.

(383) There are two origins: One from which proceeds truth, and one from which proceeds falsehood.

darag ī haftum

XII

(1) anī abar hambasānīh ī-šān gōbišn, vāzag ēcand ī az dēnkird nibēg:

(2) hān ī gōbed kū: «yazd pērāmōn harv tis, ēc tis nē andarōn ōy;

(3) ud andaron harv tis, ēc tis nē pērāmōn ōy;

(4) azabar harv tis, ēc tis nē azēr ōy;

(5) ud azēr harv tis, ēc tis nē azabar ōy;

(6) abar taxt nišīyed, nē gyāgumand;

(7) ud andarōn asmān, nē kūmand;

(8) ud andar ēc gyāg nēst ud ast;

(9) harv gyāg ast, u-š gyāg nēst;

(10) u-š harv tis ped kām ī xvēš, xvēš ōh baved;

(11) bunēštag kēn ud veh;

(12) ud jāyēdān anāmurz ud xvābar;

(13) ud mustpeyrāy ud nē mustgar;

(14) u-š framūd ō kē kirdan, spuxtan atuvānīg yazdīg framān;

(15) u-š hān ī avināh dušoxīg āfrīd nē mustgar;

(16) az durvandīh dušoxīgīh būd ī mardōm āgāh, u-š kām pediš;

(17) ud veh kām ayāb-iš nē kām būd;

(18) cārag dād ud xvad bēš;

(19) ayāb-iš nē cārag, bē acārag dād. nē hamēstārumand;

(20) uzmāyišnniyāz ud harvispāgāh;

(21) framānspōz u-š xvadkām;

(22) ud ōy kē spōzed bavandag-dādīh, kuned hupādixšāy.

(23-25) u-š framān hamāg ravāg, ud framānspōz ī ōy ayābišnīg; u-š kām ast ī nē ravāg;

(26) u-š spōzkām, nē vizūdārgām;

(27) u-š framūd hān ī-š nē kām;

(28) u-š framān ō kām nē hambasān, u-š framān ō kām hambasān, harv do frārōn;

(29) u-š nēkkām, nē aravākkām;

(30) u-š vadkām, kē tis ī vad kuned, hān ast dādestānīg.

(31) anīz vas hambasānīh ī andar gōbišn ī kēšān.

(32) agar peymānīg dēn az ē vas ēvēnag hambasān gōbišn nē šāyed būdan abēcār.

(33-34) enyā hān ī gōbend kū: «do-bunēštag-hangārān kār ī yazd nizār ud abādyāvand, nē cōn ō vazurgīh ī yazd pesazag gōbend»;

(35-36) abar-z ēn dar, ast ī gōbem rōšnīhā ē framāyed dānistan kū: tis ī yazdīg ōy nizārdar ud abādyāvanttar kuned?

(37-38) kū kē gōbed kū: āfurišnān ī xvēš ī-š āfrīd hamāg andar aburdframān aniyūšhandarz būd hend, dā-z xvārtandum dām pedīrag kām ī ōy kuxšed.

(39) ēdōn-z: avēšān vasān vaxšvarān peygāmbarān ī ōy ī-š brihēnīd hend, ōzad, ped dār kird;

(40) ud ast ī tar, xvār ud anāzarm kird.

(41-44) ēn-z kū: nē ēvāz xvadāyīh ī xvēš az vattarān ī-š āfrīd nē pād, bē xvadāyīh-iz ī xvēš xvad pedyāragēned; ud kirdārīh ī xvēš acārīhā xvad višōbed; ud dahišn ī xvēš xvad zaned; ped vināhgārīh ī xvēš bannagān ī avināh ī xvēš xvad zaned.

(45) dōst ī ēkānag ī xvēš xvad nizār ud niyāzumand ud vināhgār ud viyābān kuned.

(46) ud xēšm ī ped ēk bannag ī avināh ī cōn Ahrmen, amar dām ī xvēš vin ud viyābān kuned.

(47) abar vināh ī sāmānumand ī-š az xvēš kunišn anī pādifrāh ī asāmān abar avināhān nihed.

(48) dar ī āmurzišn sarumandīhā frāz banned.

(49) u-š az dard ud bēš ud anāgīh ī xvēš dāmān sagrīh nēst.

(50) ud hamēšagīhā andar kunišn ud rāyēnišn dāred.

(51) ud bun ud meyān ud frazām framānīhā ī dahed abar ēstādan nē šāyed.

(52-53) ayāb ōy kē gōbed kū: ōy yazd ī hamēšag xvadāy ī vispdānāg ud visptuvān; kē-š xvadāyīh ud dānāgīh ud tuvānīgīh hamēšag akanārag-zamān;

(54) u-š nēkīh ī vehīh aziš;

(55) u-š kunišn cimīgīhā, framān sūdumandīhā;

(56-58) abar xvēš bannagān xvābar ud abaxšīdār; ud ōy ī pērōzīh-burdār bannag pur-pādāšnēnīdār; abar ōy ī vināhgār kē xvēš vināhīh rāy dastgravīg ī dušmen baved, ped vizārdan-vināhīh, ud šustan az bazagīh ud rīmanīh āmurzīdār;

(59) abdum ēc veh dām andar dastgrav ī dušmenān nē hištār;

(60) u-šān andar ardīg ud kušišn ī abāg dušmenān ped tan ud gyān pādār ud dāštār ud parvardār;

(61) ud šahriyārīh ī xvēš az hamemāl ī judgōhr pur-pāsebānēnīdār;

(62-63) u-š gund ud spāh ped kušišn ud ardīg pērōzgar baved; ped frazām, pērōzīh-burdār ī xvēš dām az harvisp bazagīh.

(64) ud ka ō rōšnīh, dānāgīh, vēnāgīh ud zīndagīh ud drustīh ud abārīg yazdīg dahišn nigerīhed kū abar tārīkīh ud adānīh ud kōrīh ud margīh ud vēmārīh ud abārīg dēvīg jadišn pur-pādyāvand ud abzōnīg.

(65-67) cē ēn āšnāg kū, rōšnīh spōzāg ast ī hamāg tārīkīh; ud dānāgīh abar adānīh pērōz; ud zīndagīh abar margīh ōzumand ud abzōnīg.

(68-69) cē ōzumandīh ud abzōnīgīh ī zīndagīh rāy a-marravišnīh ī dām az do mardōm baved; amaragān-z pediš xustōgīh.

(70) ēdōn-z vēnāgīh ud drustīh abar kōrīh ud vēmārīh cand pērōzīh ud ōzumandīh pēdāg.

(71) ēn-z nigerīdan sazed kū: hamēstār druz cē xvāhed, spāh ī yazd abar cē kuxšend?

(72-74) ōy ī hamēstār ēn xvāhed kū: «ēn zamīg ud asmān ud dām ud rōšnān anast kunam, ayāb ō xvēšīh baram, az xvēš gōhr vardēnam, kū mā yazd ristāxēz ud frašegird kirdan ud dām ī xvēš abāz ārāstan tuvān hād.»

(75) spāh ī yazd abar ēn kuxšend kū ōy ī hamēstār ped abāyist ud kāmag mā jahād.

(76) ēn-z kū: spāh ī Ohrmazd az bun dahišn ōrōn ped kuxšišn cēr ud ped kām pērōz.

(77-78) az ē pēdāg ka: yazd ēn zamīg ud asmān brihēnīd, kū-š hamāg dām ud dahišn anast kirdan tuvān, bē ēk-iz xvārtandum dām ī yazd anast kirdan atuvānīg.

(79) cē agar-z ped vahān ī margīh tan az gyān judāgīhed nē anastīh ud vaštagīh ī gōhr az xvadīh, bē vihirišn ī jadišn ud vihēzišn ī az gyāg ō gyāg, az kār ō kār.

(80) enyā tan ud gyān gōhr, harv ēk ped xvēš gōhrīg abāz ō anī xvēškārīh ēstādan, cōn pēdāg.

(81) ud ēn dām ud dahišn pur-ravišnīhā, hamēšakkārīhā dā hangām ī abāyišnīg sūdumandīhā astīh, pēdāg.

(82) dā ēdar abar ēn dar bavandag sahist.

Seventh Chapter

XII

(1) Another [chapter] concerning the inconsistency of their discourse, some sayings from the book of the Dēnkird.

(2) As to that which they say that: “God is around everything, but nothing is inside him;

(3) he is inside everything, but nothing is around him;

(4) he is above everything, but nothing is below him;

(5) he is below everything, but nothing is above him;

(6) he sits upon a throne, but is not localised;

(7) he is inside heaven, but has no whereabouts;

(8) he is nowhere, and at the same time somewhere;

(9) he is in any place, and yet he has no place;

(10) everything is according to his will, and thus belongs to him.

(11) He is the principle of both evil and good.

(12) He is eternally merciless and clement.

(13) He prepares violence and is not violent.

(14) He has commanded him who is unable to perform (and him who is unable) to reject divine commands.

(15) He has created hellish him who is innocent, and (nevertheless) he is not cruel.

(16) He is aware of the infidelity and hellishness of some men, and he wills them thus.

(17) The good that he wills (he does not do it) or he does not will it.

(18) He has created a remedy, and is himself affliction.

(19) Or rather he has created want of remedy, and not a remedy. And yet he is free from opposition.

(20) He needs to take [men] on trial, and yet he is omniscient.

(21) He who rejects [his] commands does it according to his will.

(22) And he who rejects his principle, he makes him sovereign.

(23-25) His commands are all executed, and yet can be found those who tread on his commands, and there is some of his will which is not fulfilled.

(26) He who rejects his will, does not injure his will.

(27) He has commanded that which is not his will.

(28) The command which is not inconsistent with his will, and the command which is inconsistent with his will, are both righteous.

(29) His will is good, and not unfair;

(30) and his will is evil, that makes evil things, [and nevertheless] that is lawful.

(31) There are also many other inconsistencies in the discourses of the (Islamic) sects.

(32) Therefore, it is impossible that a measured religion come from these manifold inconsistent statements.

(33-34) Moreover, as to that which they state thus “the dualists suppose the acts of god weak and feeble, and not compatible with the grandeur of god”;

(35-36) on this subject, I shall clearly state some words, thus: You should know that: Which one [of these two] has supposed divine acts weaker and feebler?

(37-38) The one who states that: His own creations that were created by him, all have become disobedient to him and heedless of his advices, till even the smallest creatures strive against his will.

(39) Besides, they slew and crucified many prophets and apostles who were sent by him;

(40) and they abused, humiliated and treated with disrespect some of them.

(41-44) Moreover, not only his own dominion was not protected by him from the wicked created by him, but even he has himself counteracted his own dominion, and himself disturbs irremediably his own activities, and himself smites his own creations, and himself smites, by reason of his sinfulness, his own sinless servants.

(45) He himself makes his own loyal friends weak, needy, sinful, and seduced.

(46) [On account of his] anger on one sinless servant, that is Ahrmen (Satan), he makes his own innumerable creatures confused and astray.

(47) For a limited sin which is out of his own action, he puts the sinless to unlimited punishment.

(48) He shuts eternally the door of forgiveness.

(49) He is not filled with the pain, affliction, and calamity of his own creatures.

(50) He has perpetually in his possession the activity and management [of affairs].

(51) Yet he is unable to persist in the commands which he gives in the beginning, middle or end.

(52-53) Or, the one who states thus: He is the deity (lit. ‘worthy of worship’) who is eternally lord, omniscient and omnipotent, whose dominion, knowledge and power are perpetual and of unlimited time.

(54) And benefit comes out of his goodness.

(55) His activities are with a motive, and his commands are advantageous.

(56-58) He is clement and compassionate as regards his servants, and bestows more rewards on the servant who succeeds [in dispute], and forgives the sinful who, on account of his own sinfulness, becomes captive in the hands of the enemy, through absolution and cleansing from crime and filth;

(59) finally, he does not leave any good creature in captivity in the hands of the enemy.

(60) He is, with all his heart, their protector, keeper and nourishing in their battle and strife with enemies.

(61) He guards heavily his kingdom against the opponent of a different substance.

(62-63) His troop and army become victorious in the strife and battle, and he makes his creatures succeed, as regards every crime.

(64) When it is observed to light, knowledge, sight, life, health and other divine creations, [it is manifest] that they are dominating and increasing over darkness, ignorance, blindness, death, sickness and other demoniacal accidents.

(65-67) Because, this is acknowledged that light expels all darkness, and knowledge is victorious over ignorance, and life is powerful and increasing over death.

(68-69) For, owing to the powerfulness and increase of life, there is the increasing of population from the [first human] couple; and all acknowledge it.

(70) Likewise, the victory and power of sight and health over blindness and sickness are manifest.

(71) It is also convenient to observe this that: what does the demon (druj) that is the adversary (of Yazata) want? Against what does the army of God strive?

(72-74) The adversary wants thus: “Either I will annihilate  this earth and sky and the creatures and luminaries, or I will bring them into my possession, and will change them from their own substance, so that God shall not be capable to prepare the resurrection and to bring about the renovation, and to restore his own creatures.”

(75) The armies of God strive for this purpose that the adversary shall not be according to his desire and will.

(76) Moreover, the armies of God have been, since the primal creation, triumphant in strife and successful.

(77-78) From this it is manifest that: God has destined this earth and sky; and it would be possible for him to annihilate all creatures and creations; but he is unable of annihilating even one of the smallest creatures of God.

(79) Because, if, by reason of death, the body be separated from the breathing soul, it is not the annihilation and change of substance from its essence, but rather is the change of accidents and the movement from place to place, from act to act.

(80) Moreover, each one of the substances of one’ body and (breathing) soul will be again, in it’s own substance, for other functions, as is revealed.

(81) These creatures and creations will subsist increasingly and perpetually active and advantageously until the requisite time, [as] is revealed.

(82) As far as here, concerning this chapter, it seems [to me] complete.

aštum darag

XIII

(1-4) did abar hambasānīh ud zīfāngōbišnīh ī naxvistēn nibēg, ī-š «āzād» xvānend. u-š hāmōyēn pediš hamdādestān hend kū, yazd ped xvēš dast nibišt, ō Mūše dād. kū cōn purērang az harv dušīh, ud az vas ī-š andar nihang-ē āgāhīh ī ašmā rāy ēdar pēdāgēnam.

(5-7) gōbed ped-bun nibēg kū: fradum būd zamīg ī boh ud toh ud tārīkīh ud āb ī syāh, ud vaxš ī yazd abar rōy ī hān āb ī syāh hamē vihēzed.

(8-9) pas yazd guft kū: «bād rōšnīh!», ud būd rōšnīh.

(10) u-š abēr nēkōg sahist hān rōšnīh.

(11) u-š vizārd rōšnīh ō rōz, ud tārīkīh ō šab.

(12) u-š ped šaš rōz āfrīd ēn gēhān ud asmān ud zamīg.

(13) cē andar haftum rōz haspīn ud āsān būd.

(14) ped hān ham rāz, nūn-z jehūdān rōz ī šambad haspīnumand.

(15-17) ēn-z kū-š Ādam ud zan ī xvad Havā āfrīd, andar bāvestān-ē ī vahišt kird, kū Ādam andar hān bāvestān varz kunād ud pās pāyād.

(18-20) Ādōn ī xvad yazd ast ō Ādam framūd kū: «az harvisp draxt ī andar ēn bāvestān xvar, bē az hān draxt ī dānišn! cē ka-š aziš xvared mīred.»

(21) u-š pas mār-ē andar bāvestān kird.

(22) hān mār Havā frēft, guft kū: az ēn draxt cin xvaram, ō Ādam daham!

(23-25) u-š hamgōnag kird. Ādam ham cōn xvard, dānišn ōn būd ī-š vizārd nēk az vad, ud nē murd hend.

(26) u-š dīd ud dānist kū brahnag ast.

(27) azēr draxt nihān būd.

(28) u-š varg ī draxt abar xvēš tan nihuft, šarm ī brahnagīh rāy.

(29) pas Ādōn ō bāvestān šud, Ādam ped nām xvand kū: kū he?

(30) Ādam pāsox dād kū: an ham azēr draxt. ē rāy cē brahnag ham.

(31-33) Ādōn xēšm grift. guft kū: kē āgāhēnīd he kū brahnag he? mā agar-it az hān draxt ī dānišn ī-m guft kū «mā xvared» xvard?

(34) Ādam guft kū: ēn zan ī-t ō man dād, frēft ham, u-m xvard.

(35) ud Ādōn ō Havā pursīd kū: -t cim ēdōn kird?

(36) Havā guft kū: ēn mār frēft ham.

(37) u-š Ādam ud Havā ud mār harv si ped nifrīn az vahišt bāvestān bērōn kird hend.

(38-40) u-š ō Ādam guft kū: -t xvarišn ped ustarišn ī xvēy ud damišn ī vēnīg bād, dā frazām ī zīndagīh! u-t zamīg hamāg xār ud kirm ud mār rōyād!

(41) u-š ō Havā guft kū: -t ābustanīh ped dard ud dušvār, u-t zāyišn, ped grān avištābišn bād!

(42-45) u-š ō mār guft kū: az meyān cahārbāyān ud dadān ī daštīg ud kōfīg nifrīdag bāš! u-t pāy mā bād! u-t ravišn ped eškamb ud xvarišn xāk bād! ud meyān frazendān ī tō abāg zan kēn ud dušmenyādīh ōn bād kū avēšān frazendān sar gazend.

(46-47) ēn-z gōbend kū: -š ēn gētīg abāg harv cē andar, harv tis, mardōmān rāy kird ud dād. u-š mardōm abar hamāg dām ud dahišn, xvēd ud hušk, pādixšāy kird.

(48) nūn gōbem nihang-ē abar andarg ī-šān drāyišn ud zīfānīh ī-šān gōbišn kū:

(49) hān zamīg ī bohū ud tohū ud tārīkīh ud yazd u-š vaxš ud āb ī syāh kū ud ped kadām vimand būd?

(50) ayāb xvad yazd cēēvēnag būd?

(51) pēdāg kū, nē rōšn būd.

(52-53) cē, ka-š rōšnīh dīd, hān rāy kū-š nē dīd ēstād nēkōg sahist.

(54) agar gōbend kū «tārīk būd», ā pēdāg kū tārīkīh bun ud nāf nē rōšn ast.

(55-56) agar gōbend kū «nē tārīk, bē rōšn būd», ā ka xvad rōšn būd, cim ka-š rōšnīh dīd škeft sahist?

(57-58) ud agar gōbend kū «nē rōšn būd nē tārīk», ā-šān sidīgar pēdāgēnīdan abāyed ī nē rōšn ud nē tārīk.

(59) enyā, hān kē-š gāh ud mānišn andar tārīkīh ud āb ī syāh būd, u-š hamēšag rōšnīh nē dīd ēstād, ā-š rōšnīh dīdan cōn tuvānist?

(60) u-š yazdīh az cē?

(61) cē nūn-z harv kē andar tārīkīh māned, ā-š rōšnīh dīdan nē tuvān.

(62) ēn-z kū: agar-š bun ud mānišn tārīkīh būd, ā-š pedīrag rōšnīh ēstādan cōn tuvānist?

(63) cē ēn āšnāg kū, tārīkīh pedīrag rōšnīh ēstādan nē tuvān. cē-š spōzed, ānāmed.

(64-67) did ēn kū: hān zamīg ī boh ud toh kanāragumand būd ayāb akanārag? agar kanāragumand būd, ā-š bērōn aziš cē būd? agar akanārag būd, ā-š akanāragīh ō kū būd? ka cōn hamē vēnam ēn zamīg ud gētīg nē hān ī naxvistēn ast.

(68-70) hān ī Ādōn guft kū: bād rōšnīh! ud būd; pas dānistan sazed kū Ādōn pēš az hān kū rōšnīh būd.

(71) ka-š rōšnīh hamē kāmist kirdan, u-š framān ī ped bē būdan dād, pas ped menišn handēšīd kū, rōšnīh cē-ēvēnag, huzihr baved ayāb dušcihr.

(72-73) ud agar-š rōšnīh, ped xvēš cōnīh, andar dānišn ud handēšišn ī Ādōn ayāft, hān pēdāg kū, rōšnīh hamē būd, ham andar dānišn ud menišn ī Ādōn, ud ham bērōn aziš.

(74) cē ēc tis nē šāyed dānistan ud ayāftan bē astīh pēdāgīh.

(75) agar rōšnīh hamē būd, hān nē āfrīdag ī Ādōn ast.

(76) ud agar gōbend kū «rōšnīh ped xvēš cōnīh andar dānišn nē būd», ā-š rōšnīh xvāst ī-š nē dānist kū cē-ēvēnag, abēr adānīhā.

(77) ayāb cōn šāyed hān ī-š hagriz nē menīd ud dānist, ped menišn handēšīdan?

(78) ud ēn-z kū: hān framān ī ped būdan ī rōšnīh ō tis dād ayāb ō adis?

(79) cē ēn ēvar kū, framān ō framāngar šāyed dādan.

(80) agar-š ō astīh-ē dād ī rōšn, ā rōšn xvad būd.

(81) ud agar-š framān ō nēstīh dād, ēg nēstīh framān ī Ādōn cōn ašnūd?

(82) ayāb-iš cōn dānist kū: Ādōn ēdōn kāmag kū rōšn bavam?

(83) cē nēst, framān ī Ādōn ham ōn nē ašnūd cōn ka-š nē dād.

(84) cē nēstīh ped ēc ēvēnag menīdan nē šāyed.

(85) hān ī nēst brihēnīd kū nēst, bē ast dānāg pēš-vēn būd kē-š dānist kū: Ādōn cē-ēvēnag hamē xvāhed kū bavam, ped hān ēvēnag ī-š xvāst būd!

(86-87) agar gōbend kū «rōšnīh az gōbišn ī Ādōn būd ī-š guft kū ‘bāš’ ud būd», ā ka Ādōn, u-š xvadīh, tārīk būd, u-š hagriz rōšnīh nē dīd ēstād, ā rōšnīh az gōbišn cē-ēvēnag šāyed būdan?

(88) cē ēn āšnāg kū: gōbišn zāyišn, menišn ast.

(89) agar gōbend kū-š gōbišn rōšn būd, ā abēr škeft. cē pas rōšnīh bar ī tārīkīh, ud tārīkīh tōhmag; u-š rōšnīh daxšag. ayāb ēn kū: rōšnīh andar tārīkīh nihuftag būd.

(90) cōn-am guft kū: framān bē framāngar dādan nē šāyed, pēdāg kū: ahī rōšnīh būd, pas framān sazist dādan.

(92-95) did ēn kū: -š ēn dām ud dahišn, ud asmān ud zamīg cē-š ped šaš rōz virāst ud dād, haftum haspīd aziš, ēg ka-š ēn gēhān nē az tis dād beš ēvāz az framān būd kū «bāš» ud būd, ā-š šaš rōz dagrandīh az cē?

(96-97) cē kē-š ranz ēvāz and baved cand bē bāš ped guftan, hān šaš rōz dagrandīh būd vas dušmānāg. u-š ranz aziš nē sazed būdan.

(98) agar nēst ast kirdan šāyed, tuvānīg abēdagrand-iz dādan šāyed.

(99) ud agar bē ped rōz zamān dādan atuvānīg, ā-š az nēst dād guftan nē sazed.

(100) ud did ēn kū: ka ešmār ī rōzān az xvaršēd dānīhed, ēg pēš az āfrīdan ī xvaršēd rōz mar, nām-iz ī rōzān az cē dānīhed.

(101) cē gōbend kū: -š xvaršēd rōz ī cahārum, ī xvad cahār-šambad, dād.

(102-104) ēn-z kū: -š rōz ī haftum āsān haspīn az cē abāyist kirdan, ka-š ped āfrīdan ud dādan ī gēhān dagrand ud ranz and būd cand guft kū «bāš», ā-š rōz cōn ušmārīhed kū-š haspīn abāyist kirdan kē-š ranz ōgārīhed.

(105) cē agar-š bē bāš ped ham zamān guft, ā-š rōz ī āsān ham zamān sazed būdan.

(106-107) did ēn kū: -š Ādam abāg Havā cē cim ud vahān rāy dād? kū dā-š kām varzend? ā-š cim ōn nē dād kū-š az kāmišngarīh nē vardānd?

(108) cē ka-š pēš az kunišn dānist kū-š framānniyūš nē bend, u-š abdum dād, ā-š nūn āhid būdan ud xēšm abar-šān griftan abēcim.

(109) cē pēdāg kū, xvad Ādōn pur-ravāg nē būd ī-š xvēš kām kāmagumand, ud ō xvēš kām hamēstār ud pedyārag, pēdāg.

(110) agar-š pēš az kunišn nē šnāxt hend, u-š nē-z dānist kū framān ī ōy nē niyūšend, pas adān ud vad-šnās ast.

(111) agar gōbend kū-š xvad kām ped nē kirdan būd, ā-š pas framān ī ped kirdan cim dād?

(112) u-š ped nē kirdan cē vināh? ud cōn raved

(113) asp-ē kē-š ped rah ham-āyōzend, u-š ped tāzānag avištābend?

(114-115) az ēn gōbišn nišān ud daxšag ī frēftārān pēdāgīhed, kēšān kām ud framān ēk ō did hambasān, asāxtār.

(116-117) ud agar-š kām ud abāyist ēn būd kū-š az kām nē vardend, nūn zōr ud abāyist ī avēšān ped vaštan ī az kām ī ōy vas ōzumanttar ud pādyāvanttar kū hān ī ōy ped nē vaštan.

(118) agar-š kām pešān vaštan ī az ōy kām, ud dānišn-z pediš būd, u-š framān ped nē vaštan dād, nūn mustumand Ādam cōn tuvānist kū nē varded?

(119) u-š bundāšt-iz kām nē sazed būdan.

(120) cē-š ped vaštan ī az ōy framān ēvāz framān druzed; ped nē vaštan kām ud dānišn-z harv do druzīg baved.

(121) did ēn kū: -š hān bāvestān vīrāst, cim rāy ud cē sūd rāy dād?

(122) ud xvad draxt ī dānišn ī-š framūd kū «mā xvared», u-š handarz-iz ī ped nē xvardan kird, ā-š āfrīdan cim abāyist?

(123-125) u-š az handarz ud framān pēdāg kū-š kamdānišnīh ud adānīh dōšīdagdar; ud kāmag ī pediš vēš kū dānišn ud dānāgīh; u-š sūd-iz az adānīh vēš būd.

(126) cē dā-šān draxt ī dānišn nē xvard ēstād, adān būd hend, ud andar ōy aburdframānīh ud anekīh nē.

(127-130) hamcōn-išān dānišn būd, andar-iš aburdframān būd hend, u-š az adānīh ī avēšān tēmār-ē nē būd, hamcōn-išān dānišn būd, abar-šān āhid ud xēšmēn būd; u-š ped grān axvārīh ud anāmurzīh az vahišt bērōn kird, ō zamīg abgand hend.

(131) hangird ēn kū: ēn dānišn zāyišn ī mardōmān andar gētīg vahān az mār frēftārīh būd.

(132-133) ēn-z gōbend kū: hāmōyēn tis mardōm rāy āfrīd, kē rāy pēdāg kū-š hān draxt-iz mardōm rāy āfrīd; ud mardōm ped harv dām ud dahišn pādixšāy kird.

(134) ā, agar hamgōnag nūn az hān draxt, ī-šān xvēš, būd kāmag, vizūdan cim?

(135) az ēn gōbišn ēn-z pēdāg kū: -š hambun-z dānišn nē būd.

(136-137) cē agar frāz ō bāvestān mad, u-š vāng kird ud Ādam ped nām xvand kū «kū he?» ōn cōn ka-š kū-gyāg-astīh anāgāh būd; agar-š abāsox būd hē, kū-gyāg-astīh ī Ādam anāgāh būd <hē>.

(138) agar-š nihang-iz pēšvēnišn nē būd kū-š az hān draxt xvard ayāb nē, ēn-z kū kē ud cōn ud kay xvard, ud kē frēft, anāgāh būd.

(139) agar āgāh būd, ā-š mā hagriz tō az hān draxt ī-m framūd kū mā xvared, xvard pursišn kirdan cim?

(140) ud ped naxvist ka frāz mad nē āhid būd, pas ka-š dānist kū xvard, abar-šān āhid ud xēšmēn būd.

(141-142) u-š kamdānišnīh-iz az ēn ka: mār ī-š xvad pedyārag āfrīd ud abāg avēšān ō bāvestān kird, ayāb-iš cim bāvestān ōn drubušt nē kird kū-š mār ud anīz dušmen pediš andar nē šavād?

(143-144) u-š drōzanīh-iz az ē pēdāg ka-š guft kū: ka az ēn draxt xvared, mīred. u-šān xvard ud nē murd hend, bē dānišnumand-iz būd hend; u-šān nēk az vad uzvārd.

(145) ēn-z kū-š cōn hambasān hambidīg dānišn abāg kām ud framān.

(146) cē agar-š kāmist xvardan az hān draxt, u-š framān ped nē xvardan dād, dānišn ī pediš būd kū xvard, nūn pēdāg kū, harv si ēk ō did hambasān: kām ud dānišn ud framān.

(148) ēn-z kū: ka Ādam vināh kird, nifrīn ī-š kird, abar hāmōyēn mardōm ī āvām āvām rased, adādīhā.

(149) ped harv ēvēnag ī uskāram, abēuš ud adān ud halag-gōbišn.

(150) ped ēn dar, dagrandīh rāy, ēn and bavandag sahist.

Eighth Chapter

XIII

(1-4) Another [chapter] concerning the inconsistency and false discourses of the first scripture, which they call Ōryātā; and about which all of them are of the same opinion, that god wrote it by his own hand and gave it to Moses. Since it comprises many errors from every evil, I shall here reveal, for your information, a few of many it contains.

(5-7) In the beginning of the scripture it states thus: “At the beginning were the earth where there was chaos, and darkness, and black water, and the spirit of god was gliding upon the face of that black water.

(8-9) Then god said: ‘Let there be light!’ and there was light.

(10) And the light seemed very good to him.

(11) And he separated (the light from the darkness, and placed) the light for the day, and darkness for the night.

(12) And, in six days, he created this world, the heaven(s) and the earth.

(13) For, on the seventh day he was reposing and at rest”.

(14) In like manner, nowadays the Jews are at rest on the Sabbath day.

(15-17) This also: “He created Adam and his woman Eve, and put them into the Garden of Paradise so that Adam might do work in his garden and keep it”.

(18-20) “Adonay, who is god himself, commanded Adam thus: “Of every tree of the garden thou mayest eat, except of that tree of knowledge. For when thou eatest thereof thou shalt die.”

(21) Afterwards, he put a serpent into the garden.

(22) That serpent deceived Eve, saying: Pick [fruits] from this tree so that I eat, and give to Adam.

(23-25) She did likewise. As soon as Adam ate, his knowledge was such that he distinguished good from evil. They did not die.

(26) [Adam] looked and knew that he was naked.

(27) He was hidden under a tree.

(28) And, on account of the shame of his nakedness, he put the leaves of tree on his body.”

(29) Afterwards, Adonay went to the garden, and called Adam by name, thus: Where art thou?

(30) “Adam replied thus: Here I am, under the tree, because I am naked.

(31-33) “Adonay became angry. He said: Who informed thee that thou wast naked, unless thou hast eaten from the tree of knowledge, whereof I said thee that thou shouldest not eat?

(34) “Adam said: The woman whom thou gavest to me beguiled me, and I did eat.

(35) “And Adonay asked Eve: Why hast thou done this?

(36) “Eve said: the serpent beguiled me ”

(37) “He expelled from the Garden of Paradise Adam and Eve and the snake, all three, under curse”.

(38-40) “He said to Adam thus: Thy eating shall be by the outpouring of thy sweat and the heaving of the nostrils, until the end of thy life, and thy land shall grow all thorns, worms, and snakes”.

(41) “Then unto Eve he said: Thy pregnancy shall be in pain and suffering, and thy giving birth in grievous sorrow”.

(42-45) “And unto the serpent he said: Thou shalt be cursed from among the quadrupeds and beasts of the plain and mountain, and thou shalt not have feet, and thy movement shall be upon thy belly, and thy food shall be dust, and between thy offspring and the woman’s there shall be such hatred and enmity that they will <smite> the head of thy offspring, <and thy offspring> will bite <the heel of the offspring of woman> ”.

(46-47) This also, they state that: “He made and created this material world, and all that is in it, for mankind, and he made man sovereign over all creatures and creations, wet and dry”.

(48) Now I will say a little against their speech, and [about] the falsehood of their discourses:

(49) Where and with which limits were the earth of bohū-and-tohū, darkness, god and his spirit, and the black water?

(50) Or, how was god himself?

(51) It is manifest that, he was not light.

(52-53) For, when he saw the light, because he had not seen it before, it seemed good to him.

(54) If they state “he was dark”, then it is manifest that darkness is [his] origin and family and not light.

(55-56) If they state “he was not dark, but light”, then if he himself were light, why when he saw the light did it seem astonishing to him?

(57-58) And if they state “he was neither light nor dark”, then they have to make known a third [state] which is neither light nor dark.

(59) Moreover, he whose place and dwelling was in darkness and dark water, and who had never seen the light, how was he able to see light?

(60) From what is his divinity?

(61) For, even now, any one who remains in darkness, cannot see light.

(62) Further: If his base and dwelling were darkness, then how could he stand opposite the light?

(63) For, this is known that darkness cannot stand opposite the light, for [light] repels and drives it away.

(64-67) Furthermore: Was that earth of bohū-and-tohū limited or unlimited? If it were limited, then what was outside of it? If it were unlimited, then whither did his unlimitedness reach? As we see, this earth and material world are not the same as the primal [earth and world].

(68-70) As to that which Adonay said that “let there be light”, and it was, it is convenient to conclude that: Adonay was before [the existence of] light.

(71) When he willed to make the light, and he commanded that it come into being, then, in mind, he thought, how might this light be, beautiful or hideous?

(72-73) If the light, by its qualities, was found in the knowledge and thought of Adonay, then it is manifest that light was ever alike in the knowledge and mind of Adonay, and, alike outside of him. (74) For, it is not possible to know and find anything unless its existence be manifest.

(75) If the light were ever, then it could not have been the creation of Adonay.

(76) If they say that “light was not, by its qualities, in [his] knowledge”, then he besought light without knowing how it is, [he was] totally ignorant.

(77) Or, how is it possible ever to imagine in mind something about which one has never thought or known?

(78) This also: That command for the becoming of light, did he give it to something, or to nothing?

(79) For, this is certain, that it is possible to give a command (only) to someone who is commanded.

(80) If he gave it to an existent light, then light itself already existed.

(81) And if he gave a command to a non-existent, then how did a non-existent hear the command of Adonay?

(82) Or, then how did he know that Adonay thus willed that “I should become light ”?

(83) For, what did not (yet) exist did not hear the command of Adonay, since he had not yet created it.

(84) For, it is not possible to think, in any way, a non-existence.

(85) The non-existent is destined non-existent, but the existent was wise and foresighted [ o] that he knew “how Adonay wants me to become”, and he became in the manner [ Adonay] wanted him to become.

(86-87) If they state: “The light became from the word of Adonay that he said ‘thou shalt become’, and it became”, since Adonay and his essence were dark, and he had never seen light, then how was it possible for that light to become from that word?

(88) For it is acknowledged that: word is born from mind (/though ).

(89) If they state “this word was light”, this is very astonishing. For, it would signify that light will then be the fruit of darkness, and darkness is the seed [of light], and light is its mark. The light was hidden in the darkness.

(90) As I mentioned [above], it is not possible to give a command except to someone who is commanded, [then] it is known that, light existed first, and then he could give a command.

(92-95) Further: He has arranged and created these creatures and creations, the heaven(s) and earth, in six days. The seventh (day) he rested therefrom. If he created this world not from something, but only from this command, ‘thou shalt become’, and it became, what is then the reason of this length of six days?

(96-97) For, if his labour were only as much as to say ‘thou shall become’, then that length of six days was very unlikely, and [so much] toil could not have come to him therefrom.

(98) If it be possible to make the non-existent exist, he is capable to create even without delay.

(99) And if he be incapable to create except through the days and hours, then it is not fitting to say that he created out of non-existent.

(100) Further: Since the reckoning of days is known from the sun, then before creating the sun, how did he know the number of the days , and their names?

(101) For, they state: “He created on the fourth day, that is, Wednesday”.

(102-104) This also: On the seventh day, why did he have to rest and repose? Since in creating the world, the length and toil were only so much as that he spoke thus: “Thou shalt become”, how then were contented the days that he had to rest and repose when his toil should be removed?

(105) For, if in the same moment that he said “thou shalt become” [and it became], then the day of rest should also have taken place instantaneously.

(106-107) Further: For what purpose and cause did he create Adam and Eve, so that they perform his will, and why did he not so make them that they would not turn from performing his will?

(108) For if before making [them] he knew that they would not listen to his commands, and nonetheless he made them, then it was unreasonable for him to become ill-humoured and angry with them.

(109) It appears that Adonay himself was not satisfied with the realization of his will, and he was manifestly an opponent and adversary of his own will.

(110) If he did not know them before making them, and did not know that they would not listen to his commands, then he is ignorant and ill-informed.

(111) If they state that “his will itself was that they not (listen)”, why then did he give the command that they do (listen to) him?

(112) Then why is not(-listening to his commands) a sin?

(113) How does a horse move whom they harness to a chariot and hurry on with a whip?

(114-115) From these statements are manifested the signs and marks of deceivers, whose will and command are inconsistent and incompatible one to the other.

(116-117) If his will and desire were such that they shall not turn away from his will, then nonetheless their power and desire for turning away from his will were much stronger and more predominating than his [power] for not tuning away.

(118) If the will for their turning away from his will, and the knowledge of it, were his, and he gave the command for not turning away, then poor Adam, how could he not turn away?

(119) He is not even worthy to be the principle of that.

(120) For by turning away from his command, he only made a command into a lie; while by not turning away are made both will and knowledge into a lie.

(121) Further: This garden which he prepared, for what purpose and advantage did he create it?

(122) As to the tree of knowledge itself, concerning which he commanded “Ye shall not eat”, and issued the injunction for no eating of it, why then did he desire to create it?

(123-125) It appears from his injunction and command, that he prefers more little knowledge and ignorance, and wills them more than knowledge and wisdom, and his advantage is greater from ignorance.

(126) For while they had not eaten from the tree of knowledge, they were ignorant, and neither disobedient nor mischievous unto him.

(127-130) But as soon as they acquired knowledge, they became disobedient. He did not care about their ignorance, but as soon as they acquired knowledge, he became ill-humoured and angry, and expelled them from Paradise with grievous unhappiness and pitilessness.

(131) Briefly: The cause of the birth of man’s knowledge in the world is the deceit of the serpent.

(132-133) They also say this: All things were created for man, wherefore it is apparent that he created the tree for man, and that he made man dominant over all creature and creation.

(134) If that were so, why then did he injure [them] when they desired [to eat] from that tree which was theirs?

(135) From these statements, it appears that: He had not a bit of knowledge.

(136-137) For, if he came forth to the garden, and cried, and called Adam by name, “where art thou”, it is as if he were unaware of the place where Adam was.

(138) He did not a bit foresee whether or not [Adam] had eaten from the tree, and he was unaware of this also: Who had eaten and what and how and when he had eaten, and by whom he had been deceived.

(139) If he were aware, then why had he to ask thus: “Mayest thou not have eaten of that tree about which I commanded: Thou shouldest not eat?”.

(140) At first, when he came forth, he was not ill-humoured, but after he knew that he had eaten, he then became ill-humoured and angry.

(141-142) His little knowledge is [manifest] from this also: He created the serpent, as his own adversary, and put it into the garden with them. Or else, why did not he make the garden so fortified that the snake and other enemies might not enter it.

(143-144) His mendacity is manifest from this, when he said: “When you eat from this tree, you will die”. They ate and did not die, but became knowledgeable, and they distinguished good from evil.

(145) This also [shows] how inconsistent and opponent is his knowledge with his will and command.

(146) If he willed them to eat from the tree, and nonetheless he gave the command of not eating it, and knew that they would eat, then it is manifest that all [these] three are inconsistent, one towards the other: will and knowledge and command.

(148) This also: When Adam committed sin, the curse which [Adonay] inflicted applies unlawfully to all, age after age.

(149) By whatever respect in which I deliberate, [I find Adonay] dull, ignorant, and nonsensical.

(150) Concerning this chapter, on account of length, this much seems enough.

nōhum darag

XIV

(1-3) u-m kām kū nihang-ē az ham hambasānīh ud purērangīh ī ham nibēg nibēsam, kū pur az harv bazagīh ud dēvīh, ud az hazār ēk ī aziš pēdāg hangirdīg-ē nigēzam. pediš framāyed nigerīdan:

(4-8) naxvist ēn ī gōbed abar xvēš cōnīh kū: «an ham Ādōn, kēnxvāh ud kēntōz.

(7-8) ud kēn ī haft āvādag ped frazendān tōzam. u-m bun kēn nē framōšam.»

(9) ud anī gyāg gōbed kū: «āsiftag-xēšm, ud grān-menišn.

(10-13) u-š lab pur-zahr, ud ezvān cōn ātaš ī sōzāg, ud vaxš cōn rōd ī arvanddāg; u-š vāng ō garrānāg humānāg, hān ī dēv vāng-iš humānāgdar.

(14) u-š nišast andar tam ud nazm ud abr.

(15) u-š bārag vād ī hōšēnāg.

(16) u-š az ravišn ī pāy xāk gard āxēzed.

(17) ka raved, ā-š az pasī āxēz ī ādar.»

(18-19) ud anī abar xēšmēnīh ī xvēš gōbed kū: «cahal sāl abar īsrāēlān ped xēšm būd ham.»

(20) u-š guft kū: «vīftag-dil hend īsrāēlān.»

(21-23) anī gōbed kū: «kē ast kōr bē agar bannag ī man? kē karrag bē frēstag ī hamē brihēnum? kē ast kōr cōn pādišāy?» – pēdāg kū pādišāy ī avēšān xvad Ādōn.

(24) anī ēn-z gōbed kū: «-š peristagān ī ātaš vīftag hend.»

(25-26) ēn-z kū: «-š kunišn dūd ud xvarg bared; ud kuxšišn xūnrēzišnīh».

(27-28) ēn-z kū: «mardōm ēk abar did sārēnam. abar asmān nišīyam ud abar-šan xannam.»

(29) ēn-z kū: «-š ped ēk šab sad-ud-šast-hazār az gund ud spāh ī māzandarīgān ped vad marg ōzad.

(30-31) ud anī jār-ē šaš-sad-hazār mard zad, az zan ud rēdak ī aburnāy az īsrāēlān andar viyābān ōzad, bē do mard ī bē rast hend.»

(32) did nimāyed kū-š frazāmgārīh hamāg pašīmānīh.

(33) cōn ēn ī gōbed kū: «zarīgāvand būd”. u-š guft kū “pašīmān ham ped kirdan ī mardōmān ped zamīg.»

(34) ēn-z gōbed kū: «abar taxt nišīyed kē cahār frēstag abar parriš dārend; kē-šān az sang bāl harv ēk rōd-ē ī ātašīg aziš hamē raved.»

(35) nūn ka ōy mēnōg ast nē tanēgird, ēgiš hān cahār mustumand, ī xvār ī gilagōbār ped ranz dāštan cim?

(36) did ēn kū: harv rōz, ped xvēš dast, navadhazār frēstag vīrāyed, u-š dā šabā-gāh hamē peristend. u-šān pas ped rōd-ē ī ātašīg ō dušox hiled.

(37) ka dīd must ud abēdādīh ī ped ēn ēvēnag, ped kār ud kirbag ud hukunišnīh gētīgān būdan cōn sazed?

(38-39) ka ōy mustumand frēstag ī tarsāgāh ī framānniyūš ī abēzakkunišn jumā abārīg vināhgārān ō dušox ī jāyēdānag abganed, cōn hān-z ī anī grōh-ē gōbend kū: «yazd rōz ī ristāxēz xvaršēd ud māh jumā abārīg vināhgārān ō dušox dahed, ped hān cim kū ast mardōm kē-šān namāz aviš burd.»

(40-41) anī gyāg ēn-z gōbed kū: «ka mahādar Abrāhīm, ī dōst ī Ādōn, cašm dardīhist, ā-š xvad Ādōn ō pursišn mad, u-š bālēn nišast, ud drūd pursīd.

(42) ud Abrāhīm Īshāg, ī-š dōšist pus, ped nihān xvand ud guft kū: ō vahišt šav, may ud xvār ī pāk āvar!

(44) šud u-š āvurd.

(45-46) ud Abrāhīm vas xvāhišn ō Ādōn kird kū: andar mān ī man may ud jō xvar!

(47) Ādōn guft kū: nē xvaram. cē nē az vahišt, ud nē pāk.

(48) pas Abrāhīm gugāyīh dād kū: pāk. hān may az vahišt Īshāg, ī-m pus, āvurd.

(49) pas Ādōn abēgumānīh ī-š ped īshāg ud gugāyīh ī ped Abrāhīm rāy may ud jō xvard.

(50) pas ka-š raftan kāmist, nē hišt dā-š ped sōgand ī grān ēk ō did xvard.»

(51-52) nigered ō ēn pur-ērang drāyišn ī ēk-iz ped ēk-iz nē pesazag; cōn āmadan ī-š ped tanumandīh ō mān ī Abrāhīm, ud nān xvarišn, ud may xvārišn, ī-š ēk-iz aviš nē pesazag.

(53) ēn-z aziš pēdāg kū, hān dard ī Abrāhīm nē az Ādōn būd, bē az anī kirdār.

(54) u-š bēnīh ī az dānišn ud abē(y)ušīh ōn būd kū-š pākīh ud azkūīh ī may nē dānist.

(55-56) u-š drōzanīh-iz ēn ka-š nē-xvārišnīh ī may guft ud abdum xvārd; pas xustōgīhed kū, abēzag ud pāk ast.

(57) nūn ōy kē-š ēn cōnīh, ped yazdīh ī harvispāgāh ī visptuvān peristīdan cōn sazed?

(58) ud anī gyāg gōbed kū: «būd ēk az vēmārān kē abāg xvēš zan ud frazend abēr acārag ud driyuš abēbahr būd.

(59) hamvār ped namāz ud rōzag ud peristišn ī yazd abēr toxšāg ud kirdār būd.

(60-61) u-š ē rōz andar namāz ud rāz, āyaft xvāst kū: man frāxīh-ē ī ped rōzīg dah, ī-m zīvistan āsāndar bād!

(62-63) u-š frēstag-ē abar frōd āmad. guft kū: -t rōzīg az ēn vēš ped axtar, yazd nē baxt ēsted. az nōg baxtan nē šāyed.

(64) bē-m tō rāy ped pādāšn ī peristišn ud namāz taxt-ē kē-š cahār-bāy az gōhr andar vahišt dād ēsted.

(65) agar abāyed dā-t az hān taxt ēk pāy daham.»

(66) hān peygāmbar āfrāh az hān ī xvēš zan xvāst.

(67-68) zyānak guft kū: -mān ped kam rōzīg ud vad zīvišn ī ped gētīg hunsand būdan veh kū agar-mān ped vahišt, meyān hamālān taxt si pāy.

(69) bē agar-it šāyed, ēg-imān rōzīg-ē az anī dar framāy!

(70) did hān frēstag āmad ud guft kū: bē agar spihr višōbam, ud asmān ud zamīg az nōg daham, ud ravišn ī stārān az nōg pesāzam ud daham, az hān frāz nē pēdāg kū-t baxt veh ōftād ayāb vāttar.

(71-72) az ēn soxan ōn pedāg kū, nē xvad ōy ast baxtār ī rōzīg; ud brīn ud baxšišn nē ped kām ī ōy. ud baxt vardēnīdan nē tuvān.

(73) ud gardišn ī spihr ud xvar ud māh ud stāragān nē andar parvastag ī dānišn ud kām ud framān ī ōy.

(74) ēn-z kū: taxt ī-š nivēyēnīd kū andar vahišt daham nē az kunišn ud dahišn ī ōy.

(75-76) ud anī gyāg, abar drāyišn ī xvēš gōbed kū: «man jumā ram ī vināhgārān candān amar avināhān ōzad.»

(77-78) ka, frēstagān abēcimkunišnīh ī vas guft, ēgiš guft kū: «an ham Ādōn ī kāmagxvadāy, ud abargar, ud ahambidīg, ud kāmgār. ud kas nē ayāred abar man drenzišn guftan.»

(79-81) frāyist vas drāyišn ī pur-ērangīhā ī-m nibištan dagrand sahist. kē nigīrā ud abāzvašt az ēn gōbišn, hān-iš rāy, gōbišn ī Āzād dastvar-ē bād dā baved āgāh az cōnīh ī ham nibēg ud rāstīh ī hān ī-m guft.

(82-86) nūn agar hān yazd kē-š ēn nišān ud daxšag, ā-š rāstīh aziš dūr; ud abxšāyišn aziš begānag; u-š dānāgīh abar nē baxt. cē ēn xvad ast druz ī dušox, sālār ī tār gilistag ī tam-tōhmag, kē-š vīftagān ī dēvīg vadagān ped Ādōn nām stāyend ud namāz barend.

(87) abar ēn dar dā ēdar bavandag.

Ninth Chapter

XIV

(1-3) I intend to write a little of the much inconsistency and abundant fallaciousness of the same Scripture, which is full of every evil and demonism. And I shall expose a summary, one-thousandth of it. May you observe [subtly] thereon.

(4-8) First, this is what he says about his own quality: “I am Adonay, seeking vengeance, and repaying vengeance.

(7-8) I will repay vengeance upon the children so far as the seventh generation, and, nonetheless, I do not forget the original vengeance”.

(9) Somewhere else he states: “[He is] raging, and heavy-hearted.

(10-13) His lips are full of poison, his tongue a burning fire, and his breath as an overflowing stream, and his voice as a thunder – it is even more like the voice of demons.

(14) His seat is in the gloom, dew and cloud.

(15) His mount is the parching wind.

(16) From the movement of his feet arises the whirlwind.

(17) When he walks, behind him arises the fire”.

(18-19) Elsewhere, he said about his wrathfulness: “I was forty years in wrath about the Israelites”.

(20) And he said: “The Israelites are erring-in-heart”

(21-23) Elsewhere, he aid: “Who is blind but my servant? Who is deaf but the messenger whom I am destining? Who is blind as he that is sovereign?” – It is clear that their sovereign is Adonay himself.

(24) Elsewhere, he said thus: “The fire-worshippers are misled”.

(25-26) This also: “His action produces smoke and (live) coal; and his strife bloodshed”

(27-28) This also: “I incite men, one against the other. I sit upon the sky, and laugh at them”.

(29) This also: “In one night, he slew 160000 of the army and troop of the giants, with a horrible death.

(30-31) Another time, he slew 600000 men, besides women and young children, out of the Israelites, in the wilderness, except two men who escaped”.

(32) Further, this demonstrates that: His final outcome is all regret.

(33) For, he said: “He was regretful”. And he said: “I regret making men on the earth”.

(34) This also, he said: “He sits upon a throne which four angels hold on their wings, so that from each one of their stone wings flows out a river of fire”.

(35) Now, if he be spiritual, and not physical, then why does he trouble these four poor small [angels] who suppress complaint?

(36) Furthermore: Every day, he prepares, with his own hand 90000 angels, and they worship him until night-time, and then he dismisses them to a fiery river in hell.

(37) When violence and injustice of this description are seen, how then is it convenient, for the worldlings, to live through the exercise of virtue and good deed?

(38-39) When he casts poor angels who are respectful, obedient, and pure-in-action, together with others who are sinners, to eternal hell, it is like that which another group says that: “God, on the day of the resurrection, give he sun and moon both together with sinners to hell, because there are men who have offered homage to them”.

(40-41) Elsewhere, it is stated that: “When the eyes of the elder Abraham, the friend of Adonay, were afflicted, Adonay himself went to pay him a visit, and sat at his bedside, and inquired after his health.

(42) Abraham secretly summoned his dearest son, Isaac, and said: “Go out to Paradise, and bring beer that is light and pure!”

(44) He went and brought it.

(45-46) Abraham prayed much Adonay: “Please drink beer (or, wine and bread), in my house!”

(47) Adonay said: “I will not taste it. For, it is not from Paradise, and [then] is not pure”.

(48) Then Abraham attested that: “The wine (of barley) is pure, and Isaac, my dearest son, brought it from Paradise”.

(49) Thereupon Adonay, convinced by Isaac, and because of Abraham’s attestation tasted the beer.

(50) Then, when he desired to go, he would not let him until he took a solemn oath, one to the other.

(51-52) [If we] observe this “speech” of abundant fallaciousness, not even one of its statements will be worthy [of god], such as his coming corporally to the house of Abraham, and eating bread, and drinking wine, none of these [statements] is worthy of him.

(53) It appears that the ailment of Abraham was not from Adonay, but from another agent.

(54) His want of knowledge and lack of intelligence were such that he knew nothing about the purity and origin of wine.

(55-56) And his lying was this that he said he would not drink the wine, but at last drank it, then he admitted that [wine] was pure.

(57) Now, he whose quality is this, how is he worthy of worship as a divinity that is omniscient and omnipotent?

(58) Elsewhere, it is stated that: “There was one, among the sick, who with his wife and children, was poor and unfortunate.

(59) He was ever very diligent and active in prayer, fasting and the services of god.

(60-61) One day, in prayer, he begged a favour: Give me affluence in my daily bread, so that it may be easier for me to live!

(62-63) An angel descended, and said: God has not allotted thee, through the constellations, a daily bread more than this, and a new allotment is impossible.

(64) But [he says] I have created for you in Paradise a jewelled throne with four legs, as recompense for thy service and prayer.

(65) If you desire, I will give you one leg of thatthrone”.

(66) The prophet asked advice of his wife.

(67-68) The wife said: It is better for us to be content with the little daily bread and distress in this world than that our throne in paradise among our equals be three-legged.

(69) But if it is possible for thee, then tell [him to bestow] us a daily bread otherwise.

(70) The angel came again and said: [He says:] Unless I disturb the celestial sphere, and create anew the heavens and earth, and fashion and set the motion of the stars anew, still before it is not known that thy destiny will fall out good or bad”.

(71-72) From this word, it is so manifest that: He himself is not the bestower of daily bread; and fate and destiny are not by his will, and he cannot change destiny;

(73) the revolutions of the celestial sphere, the sun and moon and stars are not within the enclosure of his knowledge, or will, or command.

(74) This also: The throne as to which he announced “I will give it in Paradise” is not [the result] of his action or creation.

(75-76) Elsewhere, he himself spoke thus: “I have slain the herd of sinners as much innumerable as the innocents”.

(77-78) When the apostles (/angels) protested this much unreasonable action, then he spoke thus: “I am Adonay, with absolute power, supreme, without rival, and successful. No one dares to complain against me”.

(79-81) There are much more statements, of abundant fallaciousness, it seemed to me too long to mention them. Whoever would deny or return from these words, should refer to the canon, that is the Āzād (Ōrāytā), until he becomes aware of the qualities (/contents) of the same book, and of the truth of that which I have stated.

(82-86) Now, if there be a god to whom these signs and marks apply, then truth is far from him, forgiveness strange to him, knowledge is not bestowed upon him, because he himself is the Demon of the hell, the Archont of the dark dwelling (of demons) of the gloomy seed, whom those misled by the demonic evil praise by the name of Adonay, and pay him homage.

(87) This chapter is here completed.

dahum darag

XV

(1-3) anī abar hambsānīh ud abēvimand gōbišn ud abēbrahm pehikārišn ī tarsāg grōhān xvazārag nihang pēdāgēnam. cē cōn harv si az ēk bun, ī jehūdīh, hān ka andarg ī ēk guft, ā-šān hāmōyēn hamayyārīhā ērang ī xvēš.

(4-6) ē dāned kū: bun ī kēš ī tarsāgīh az kū bē āmad, kū: andar ūrīšlem deh, az ham jehūdān zan-ē ī ped dušīzagīh āšnāg būd, ābustanīh pediš pēdāgīhist.

(7) ka-šān pursīd kū: «-t ēn ābustanīh az kē?»

(8) ōy ped pāsox guft kū: «-m Gabriyēl frēstag abar āmad, u-š guft kū: az vād ī pāk ābustan he.»

(9) ā ē nigered kū: Gabriyel frēstag, jud az hān zan, kē dīd, kē rāy hān zan ped rāst sazed dāštan?

(10-11) agar gōbend kū «hān frēstag, mēnōgīh rāy, kas dīdan nē tuvān», ā agar vahān ī nē-dīdan ī hān frēstag mēnōg-cihrīh ast, im cim rāy, hān-z zan dīdan nē ādōg.

(12-14) agar gōbend kū «yazd ō hān zan dīdār kird, arzānīh ī hān zan rāy, u-š anī kas arzānīg nē kird», ā ēn kū hān zan rāst guft pēdāgīh kū?

(15) ayāb ka-š ō hān zan ped rāstīh pēdāg būd, ā-š ō anī kas nimūdan-z sazed, kū-šān hān gugāyīh rāy abērdar ped rāsttar dāšt hē?

(16) u-š nūn ēvāz ō hān zan nimūdan, kas ped rāst nē dāšt.

(17) nūn ē nigered cē bun ī-šān dēn hamāg az ēn gugāyīh ī zan-ē bē āmad ī-š abar xvēš dād.

(18-19) did kū: agar Mašīhā az vād ī pāk, ī yazd būd, gōbend, ā agar ēvāz vād ī pāk ī az yazd, hān ēk ast, hān abārīg vād ī jud az hān nē az yazd ud nē pāk; anī āfrīdār pēdāgīhed acārīg.

(20) agar vād hamāg az yazd, ud yazdīg ast, hamāg pāk sazed būdan.

(21-22) agar ēvāz hān ēk vād pāk, abārīg vād rīman, nē yazdīg, cōn bē yazd ēc āfrīdār nēst, hān rīmanīh ud nē-pākīh ī abārīg vād az yazd.

(23) ud agar abārīg vād hān ī yazd, ud yazdīg ast, hamāg pāk sazed būdan.

(24) nūn hān ēk ped pākīh dāšt, abārīg rīman būd, cim?

(25-26) did ēn kū: agar Mašīhā pus ī yazd būd, ped hān cim kū yazd pid ī vispān, ped dādārīh ud āfrīdārīh ud parvardārīh, ā Mašīhā ped pusarīh ī yazd nē juttar kū xvārtan  dām ī yazd dād ud āfrīd.

(27-28) agar az abzārīh ī narīh māyagīh zād, ā agar yazd zāyišn az narīh māyagīh sazed, ah-iz abar amehrspendān mēnōgān hamgōnag, zāyišn būdan rāy, margīh-iz būdan sazed.

(29) ēdōn abar ham yazd [<margīh>] būdan nē gumānīg.

(30) cē ānōh kū zāyišn ī ped hān ēvēnag, xvarišn, xvārišn ud margīh-iz ēvar.

(31) ud ast ī kē-z gōbed kū: «Mašīhā xvad yazd ast.»

(32) nūn ēn škefttar ka yazd ī vazurg, ī do oxān dāštār parvardār, ped cihr ī mardōmīh būd, ō eškamb ī zan-ē jehūd šud.

(33-35) xvadāyīh gāh, asmān, zamīg, spihr, abārīg, ham az rāyēnīdārīh ud pānāgīh hišt ud ped nihuftagīh ō rīman ud tang gyāg ōbast, ud abdum xvēš tan ō zanišn ud dārgirdīh ud dast ī dušmenān abespārd, dā-šān jud az marg vas zēštīh, anēvēnīh abar ārāst.

(36-38) agar-š andar eškamb ī zan-ē būd, ped hān cim gōbend kū yazd harv gyāg ast, ā ped harv-gyāg-astīh andar eškamb ī hān zan nē juttar kū rīmandar ud gennagdar gyāg, abāg hān kū hamāg gyāg xvadīh ī yazd būd guftan, zīfānīh vas.

(39) cē agar hamgōnag, ā ēc tis ī jud az yazd astīh guftan vaxr.

(40) did hān ī gōbend kū: «-š margīh ud dārgirdīh ristāxēz ō mardōmān nimūdan rāy ō grīv pedīrift.»

(41) ā agar-š ristāxēz ō mardōmān nimūdan bē ped hān rusvāyīh ud marg ud zēštīh ī xvēš enyā nē tuvān būd, ā-š visptuvānīh nē pesazag.

(42) ayāb ka-š ēc hamemāl ud pedyārag nē būd, ā-š mardōm cim ōn rōšndānišn ud ped ristāxēz vēnāg ud abēgumān nē kird hend kū-š niyāz ō ēn ēvēnag zēštīhā, rusvāyīhā, vidangīhā dušmenān-gāmagīhā nimūdan nē būd hād.

(43-44) agar-š hān margīh nōgēvēnagīh rāy, ped xvēš kām, ō grīv pedīrift, ā-š nūn vay ud nifrīn ō ōzanāgān xvandan, avēšān jehūdān ped xēšmenīh dāštan abēcim.

(45) nē-z nifrīn ud vay abar-šān kirdan, bē-šān ped hān kunišn pādāšnumand sazed būdan.

(46-47) did ēn ī gōbend kū: «pid ud pus ud vād ī pāk si nām, ī ēk az did nē juttar; nē pēš ēk.»

(48) ēn-z kū: ka «pus ī nē keh az pid, ped harv dānišn hāvand kū pid», ā nūn ped nām ī jud xvandan cim?

(49-50) agar si ēk sazed būdan, ā si būdan noh, ud nōh si būdan, šāyistn ēvar. abārīg <vas> marag ped ēn pedisār abēvimandīhā šāyed guftan.

(51) ēn-z kū: agar pus nē keh az pid, ā pid-iz az pus nē meh.

(52) ā agar pid az pus, ayāb pus nē az pid gōbīhed šāyed.

(53-54) ud ēn ēvar kū harv aziš. az hān ī-š aziš, ī xvad māyag ud tōhmag, keh šāyed būdan, agar ped zamān, agar-z ped peyvann.

(55-58) agar pus nē keh az pid, ā kirdār az kirdag nē pēš, nē-z meh. harv do bunēštag sazed būdan. ud dahišn az dādār nē keh, ud dādār az dahišn nē meh. harv cōn gōbīhed abēvimand.

(59-60) ēn-z kū: agar pus ped harv dānišn hāvand kū pid, ā pid-iz ōn adān cōn pus kē az marg ud dārgirdīh ī xvēš anāgāh būd, dā-šān griftan ud ped vad marg ud zēštīh rusvāy kirdan ōzad.

(61) nē dānist ped hān cē-šān aziš pursīd kū: «rōz ī āxēzišn kay?»

u-š pāsoxēnīd kū: «ēn nē kas āgāh bē pid.»

(62) cōn ka pus ped nē-dānišnīh tāštīg, pid ped ēdōn.

(63) ēn-z kū: -š hamāg dām ud dahišn, xvēš-iz pedyārag, az nē-tis āfrīd ud dād, ud ōzanāgān ī-š pus viyābānēnīd hend.

(64-66) agar yazd ōzanāgān ī-š pus, xvēš-iz pedyārag, abēcim abēvahān xvad dād, u-šān pus, ped hamdānišnīh ī ōy, ōzad, ā nūn abēgumān šāyed būdan kū, ōzadār ī-š pus xvad būd.

(67) agar-š dānist kū «pus ka brihēnam ēgiš ōzanend», ud abdum brihēnīd, halagīhā ud adānīhā.

(68) agar-š nē dānist, kamdānišn.

(69) did ēn kū: agar yazd ēn dām ud dahišn az nē-tis āfrīd, u-š pedyārag-iz ham az nē-tis āfrīd ud dād, ā-šān gōhr ēk sazed būdan.

(70) nūn cim pedyārag ōn nē būzed cōn abārīg dām?

Tenth Chapter

XV

(1-3) Another (chapter) about the inconsistency and illogical discourses and unformed disputations of Christian groups, I express [my thoughts in] a few [words]. Since all three are from one origin, which is Judaism, if anything be said against the one, it helps [to show] the error of all [three].

(4-6) You should know whence the origin of the Christian doctrine has come forth: In the country of Jerusalem, there was a woman of the same Jews who was known as “the Virgin”, and yet she was found pregnant.

(7) When they asked her: “Who is your pregnancy by?”

(8) She replied: “The angel Gabriel came unto me, and he spoke thus: You are pregnant by the Pure Wind”.

(9) Then you should notice this: Who saw the angel Gabriel, apart from that woman wherefore it ought to consider that woman veracious?

(10-11) If they say that, “On account of the noetic state of that angel, no one was able to see him”, then, if the cause of not seeing the angel be the noetic nature (of the angels), that woman also, for the same reason, was not capable to see him.

(12-14) If they state that, “On account of the dignity of that woman, god made [the angel] visible to her, and he did not grant [this favour] to anyone else”, however where is the evidence that the woman has spoken veraciously?

(15) Or [even] if that woman were well-known for veracity, then it is expedient to show [the angel] to other persons, so that, they might consider that testimony much more veracious.

(16) Now he has shown (the angel) to that woman only, and (for this reason) no one considered her as veracious.

(17) Now, you should notice that: All their religion is based on the saying of a woman who has given this evidence about herself.

(18-19) Further: If they state that, “Messiah received existence from the Pure Wind of god”, then if that [wind] be the only pure wind which comes from god, then the other winds, which are different from that, do not come from god, and are not pure, and inevitably another creator is demonstrated.

(20) If the winds be all from god and divine, they ought to be all pure.

(21-22) If only that one wind be pure, and the other winds filthy and not divine, as there is no creator whatever except god, that filth and impurity of the other winds are likewise from god.

(23) And if the other winds be those of god and divine, they ought to be all pure.

(24) Now, why do they consider that one as pure, and the other [winds] as impure?

(25-26) Further: If Messiah were the son of god, for the reason that god is, through material production and spiritual creation and nourishing, the father of all, then Messiah, as a son of god, is not different from a minor (or, negligible) creature produced materially or created spiritually by god.

(27-28) If he were born by means of generation (male nature) and conception (female nature), and if the birth of god ought to be through male and female, then, in like manner, as the spiritual archangels are born, they ought to die too.

(29) Then, as regards the god also, [his] death will be doubtless.

(30) Because, where there is birth in such a manner, eating and drinking and even death will be certain.

(31) Some even claim that “Messiah is god himself”.

(32) Now this (claim) is more astonishing, that the great god who holds and maintains both worlds (of thought and life), became with human nature, and went into the womb of a Jewish woman.

(33-35) He left the royal throne and abandoned the government and protection of the sky and earth and the celestial sphere, etc., and fell, in secret, into a filthy and narrow place, and, finally, delivered himself to smiting, crucifixion, in the hands of enemies who, apart from death, perpetrated much obscenity and iniquity.

(36-38) If they state that “He was inside the womb of a woman because god exists in every place”, then, being inside the womb of a woman, through existence in every place, is not different from being in any very filthy and very foul place. Although, saying “every place has been the essence of god” is an enormous fallacy.

(39) For if it be so, then any speech about the existence of anything except god would be false.

(40) Thereupon they state thus: “He submitted himself to death and crucifixion, for the sake of demonstrating the resurrection to men”.

(41) If he were not able to demonstrate the resurrection to men, except through that infamy and death and obscenity, then he does not deserve (the quality of) omnipotence.

(42) Or if he were without an opponent or adversary, then why did not he make men enlightened, insightful and without doubt as to resurrection, so that there would have been no need of perpetrating such obscenities, infamies, troubles which succeed to the wishes of his enemies.

(43-44) If he submitted himself, through his will, to death, [for the purpose of] innovating (or, for making available the New Covenant), then it is not now reasonable to invoke woe and curse upon his slayers, and to vent his anger upon the Jews.

(45) They indeed ought not to invoke curse and woe upon them, but ought to reward them for their action.

(46-47) Further, they state this, that: “Father and Son and Pure Wind are three names which are not different one from the other, nor one id before the other”.

(48) This also: If “the son is not less than the father, but in all knowledge equal to the father”, what then is the reason of calling him by a different name?

(49-50) If it be proper for three to be one, then it is certainly possible for three to be nine and for nine to be three, and it may be said, in this sequence, illogically for other numbers.

(51) Besides: If the son be not less than the father, then the father is not greater than the son.

(52) Then it is possible to say either that the father is from the son, or that the son is not from the father.

(53-54) This is certain, that anyone who is from him who is indeed his matter and seed, ought to be less than him from whom he is, either through time or through filiation.

(55-58) If the son be no less than the father, then the maker is not before what he has made, nor yet is greater; both ought to be principles, and the creature is not less than the creator, nor the creator greater than the creature. Whatever is said of this kind is illogical.

(59-60) This also: If the son be equal to the father in all knowledge, then the father also is as ignorant as the son who was unaware of his death and crucifixion until they captured him and caused him infamy and outrage and put him to a tragic death.

(61) He did not know (the answer) when they asked him: “When is the day of resurrection?”

And he responded: “Of this no one knows but the father”.

(62) Since therefore the nescience of the son is certain, the father likewise (is ignorant).

(63) This also: He created all the creatures and creations, and even his own adversary, out of nothing, and led astray the slayers of his son.

(64-66) If god himself created the slayers of his son, and even, his own adversary, without a motive and without a cause, and they slew the son in spite of the knowledge of his (father), then it ought to be without doubt that, he himself was the slayer of his son.

(67) If he knew that, “when I create a son, they will then slay him”, and finally, he created him, [he acted] absurdly and unwisely.

(68) But if he did not know it, he is of little knowledge.

(69) Furthermore: If god produced these creatures and creation out of nothing, and also produced and created the Adversary out of nothing, then their substance ought to be one.

(70) So why will not he save the Adversary in the same manner as the other creatures?

yāzdahum darag

XV

(71) anī abar hambasānīh ī-šān gōbišn az dastvar nibēg-išān.

(72) ud hān ī gōbed kū: «nē ōfted nē-tis az draxt, ud nē baved vāng ped šahr, ud nē do murv āgenīn kuxšend, bē ped framān ī pid.»

(73) kē nimūdār ast ēn gōbišn kū «bunēštag ēk», u-š visp ped kām.

(74-75) nūn Mašīhā, ī-š pus, ped cē kār brihēnīd, u-š kadām rāh nimūdan ī ōy nē-kām, ka-š visp kām, u-š ēc nē-kām nē anād. ēn-z az ham vizār kū jehūdān Mašīhā ī-š pus ped kām ī pid ōzad.

(77-78) did hambasānīh abar āzādkāmīh ī evangelion gōbed kū: «-š mardōm āzādkām dād hend.»

(79) ēdōn, āhōg ud vināh ī mardōm kunend āzādkāmīh ast.

(80-81) u-š āzādkāmīh xvad ō mardōm dād, ā ham ōy ped vināhgār sazed dāštan kē bun vahān ī vināh.

(82-83) agar mardōm vināh ud bazag ped āzādkāmīh ī xvēš kunend, nē ped kām ī yazd, ā šagr, mār, gurg, gazdum, xrafstar ī gazāg ud ōzanāg, ī cihrīkkunišn, vināh ud bazag ī-šān aziš hamē raved, ped kadām āzādkāmīh ud kē vināh?

(84) ēdōn-z zahr ī ōzanāg ī andar bīš ud abārīg urvar-sardagān, ī-šān nē az āzādkāmīh vahān, kē bun dāšt?

(85-87) agar gōbend kū «hān zahrīhā ped vasān dārūg, ī vēmārān vēmārīh spuxtār, sūdumand abāyišnīg», ā ē pursed kū: xvad vēmārīh ud zyān ī aziš kē dād, u-š cē abāyišnīgīh kē-š pas ped ōy dārūg ī zahr ī ōzanāg āfrīd ud abāyist?

(88) ayāb hān vēmārīh ka-š ō bē burdan anōš-dārūg dād hē sazāgdar būd hē kū zahr dārūg.

(89) ēn-z kū xvad nām «zyāngārīh» az kadām bun kē-š «sūdumandgārīh» pedīrag abāyišnīg?

(90) abar ēn dar vasīhā šāyed guftan. ō hangirdīg handāxt.

Eleventh Chapter

XV

(71) Another (chapter) about the inconsistency of their discourses. From their canonical scriptures.

(72) It is said that: “Nothing falls from a tree, and no voice arises in a land, nor two birds strive together, unless by the command of the father”.

(73) This statement demonstrates that: There is one principle, and everything is by his will.

(74-75) Then, for what purpose did he fashion (/“send”) Messiah, who is his son; and which way did he fail [to show, and now the son] should show it? If all be by his will, and never were unsuccessful, the same explanation implies this that: The Jews slew his son, Messiah, through the will of the father.

(77-78) Again, it says inconsistently about the free will of the individuals (or, the bishop states?): “He has created man with free will”.

(79) Thus, the fault and sin which mankind commit are [the effects of] the freedom of will.

(80-81) He himself has given the freedom of will to man. Then, it ought to consider him as a sinner who is the original cause of sin.

(82-83) If man, by their free will, commit sin and crime, and not through the will of god, then, the sin and crime which, by nature, proceed from the lion, serpent, wolf, scorpion and [other] stinging and slaying monsters, where is the freedom of will, and whose sin is it?

(84) Besides, the deadly poison which is in the aconite and other species of plants, the cause of which is not owing to free will, what is its principle?

(85-87) If they state that, “these poisons are useful and necessary in many medicines which expel the disease of the sick”, then you should ask them: Who has created the disease itself and its noxious effect, and what is its necessity, that, afterwards, he created and needed the medicine of the deadly poison?

(88) Or, would (not) be more proper if he had created an elixir for removing that disease than a medicine of poison?

(89) This also: From what origin is the name “noxiousness” whose antonym, “usefulness”, will be necessary?

(90) Upon this chapter, it is possible to speak abundantly. I contented myself to explain succinctly.

dvāzdahum darag

XV

(91-92) anī az gōbišn ī Pāulus ī-šān dastvar, hān ī-šān ō xvēšīg bun hambasān.

(93-94) ēn-z gōbend  kū: «nē kirbag ī kāmam, bē bazag ī nē kāmam, kunam.

(95) ud nē an kunam, bē hān kuned ī andar man āvurd ēsted.

(96) cē hamē vēnam kū-m rōz ud šab abāg kuxšišnīg.»

(97-98) did az gōbišn ī Mašīhā gōbend kū: «yazd bunēštag rōšnīh ud vehīh, vattarīh ud tārīkīh aziš jud.»

(99-102) ēn-z kū: «cōn šubān kē-š gōspend sad andar pānāgīh gīred, ēk aziš gurgān barend, az pas ī hān ēk šaved ī gurgān burd kū dā-š abāz ō ram nayed; u-š hān navad-nōh ped dašt hiled.

(103) ōn-z an ō hāxtan ī vīftagān āmad ham, nē ō rāstān.

(104) cē ōy ī rāst ō rāh āvurdan abēniyāz.»

(105) ā agar bunēštag ēk, u-š vispān kām, ā kas-iz nē abērāh ud vīftag.

(106-107) gurg-iz gōspend kuštan ham ōy kām. u-š gurg-iz xvad āfrīd.

(108) gōbišn ī Mašīhā frāyist hambasānīhā abar do bunēšt nimūdār.

(109) cōn gōbend az ham gōbišn ī Mašīhā ēn ēk kū: «ast anī bunēštag, dušmen ī-m pid. an, ōy yazd kirbakkar ham.»

(110) az ēn gōbišn pēdāg kū xvēš pid az ōy dušmen vizāred, jud kuned.

(111) ēn-z kū: «yazd ō rāstīh, ud ped rāstīh brihēnīd ham.

(112-113) u-m Ahrmen bazakkar ō vidardan āmad. u-š ped vas ēvēnag frēftan kāmist ham.»

(114) nūn agar bunēštag ēk, u-š ēc hambidīg nēst, Ahrmen cim ēdōn tuvānīg kū-š pus ī yazd kāmist viyābānēnīdan?

(115-116) agar xvad yazd dād hān bazakkar, ēgiš hān viyābānīg kirdan ped dānišn ud kām ī xvad. viyābāngar-z ī pus ham xvad!

(117-118) ēn-z gōbed kū: «ka jehūdān pedīrag pehikār ēstād hend, ā-š ō jehūdān guft kū: «ašmā az ōy ī ērdar; ud an az abardar ham. ašmā az ēn šahr hed; an nē aziš ham».»

(119) u-š ēn-z guft kū: «dānam kū ašmā az tōm ī abrāhām hed, hān ī az pēš mardōm ōzad būd;

(120) man-z kāmist ōzadan.

(121) an hān kunam ī-m pidar dīd. ašmā hān kuned ī-tān ped xvēš pidar dīd.»

(122) ēn-z kū: «agar yazd ast hān pid ī ašmā, ā-tān man dōst hād.

(123) ē rāy cē, an az yazd uzīd ham, nē az xvēš kāmišn āmad ham.

(124) ōy yazd kirbakkar brihēnīd ham, ā ašmā cē rāy soxan ī man nē niyūšed?

(125-126) bē ē rāy cē az bazakkar hed, ā-tān nē tuvān niyūšīdan, ud kāmag ī xvēš pidar kāmed kirdan.

(127) ped ōy rāstīh nē anād, harv cē gōbed hān drō gōbed. ē rāy cē drōzan hed, xvad abāg pidar-dān.

(128) an kē rāstīh gōbam, ā-m vābar nē kuned.

(129) ud hān ī kē az yazd, soxan ī yazd niyūšed. bē ašmā, ē rāy cē nē az yazd hed, soxan ī man nē niyūšed»

(130) u-š ped ēn gōbišn hamāg hān nimūd kū: ast do bunēštag. «ēk, kē-š man brihēnīd; ēk, kē-š jehūdān.»

(131) u-š hān nē kirbakkar, beš bazakkar xvand.

(132) u-š ēn-z guft kū: «nē ādōg draxt ī kirbag bar ī bazag, nē hān-z ī bazag bar ī kirbag dādan.»

(133) ēn-z kū: ayāb hamāg draxt abāg bar ī kirbag kuned, ayāb hamāg draxt abāg bar ī bazag kuned.

(134) cē harv draxt az bar pēdāg baved, agar kirbag ud agar bazag.

(135) u-š hamāg draxt guft, nē nēm draxt.

(136-140) nūn cōn sazed nēm draxt rōšn, ud nēm tār, nēm kirbag ud nēm bazag, nēm rāstīh ud nēm drōzanīh, ka ēn harv do āgenīn hambidīg ēstend, ēk draxt būdan nē šāyed.

(141-142) u-š, did, jehūdān ‘mār ī kōfīg jehūdak’ xvand; u-š guft kū: «cōn-tān kirbag tuvān kirdan ka bazakkar jehūdīg hed?»

(143) u-š nē ō xvēš pid ‘bazakkar’ xvand.

(144) ēn-z gōbed kū: «harv draxt ī pidar nē kišt, kanīhād ud ō ādar abganīhād.»

(145) kē rāy az ēn soxan šāyed dānistan kū ast draxt ī pidar nē kišt, kandan abgandan abāyed.

(146) did ēn kū: «ō xvēš āmad ham, ud xvēš nē pedīrift ham.»

(147) kē rāy šāyed dānistan kū xvēšīh axvēšīh do ast.

(148) ēn-z gōbed kū: «pidar-mān ī ped asmān, a-t bād šahriyārīh, u-t ē bād kām ped zamīg cōn ped asmān.

(149) u-mān dah nān ī rōzgārīg, u-mān mā bar ō gumāngarīh.»

(150) az ēn gōbišn pēdāg kū-š kām ped zamīg nē ōn abēzag cōn ped asmān.

(151) ēn-z kū: «gumāngarīh ī mardōm nē az yazd.»

(152) u-š ēn-z guft ped naxvist kū: «nē ped hān āmad ham kū ēvēn ī Mūše višōbam, bē ped hān āmad ham kū bavandagdar bē kunam.»

(153-154) u-š hamāg gōbišn ud framān hān kē ō ēvēn ud dād ī Mūše višuftār ud hambasān būd.

(155) abar-z ēn dar dā ēdar bavandag.

Twelfth Chapter

XV

(91-92) Another (chapter) from the discourses of their (religious) authority Paul, which are in contradiction with their proper principles.

(93-94) They say this also: “The good that I desire, I do not do; but the evil which I do not desire, I do.

(95) It is no more I that do [it], but [sin] which dwells in me.

(96) For, I see [it] quarrelling against me, day and night.”

(97-98) Again, they say, from the discourse of Messiah: “God is the principle of the light and goodness, in him are no evil and darkness at all”.

(99-102) This also: “Just as a shepherd who provides protection for an hundred sheep, if the wolves carry off one of them, he goes after that one which the wolves carried off until he leads it back to the flock, and leaves the ninety and nine in the wilderness.

(103) So I came to lead the misled, not the righteous.

(104) Because, those who are righteous have no need to be brought into the right way”.

(105) If the principle be one, and his will be wholly [fulfilled], then no one shall be astray and misled;

(106-107) even the wolf’s slaying of the sheep is likewise his will, and he himself created the wolf too.

(108) The extremely inconsistent discourse of Messiah may appear in the case of the two principles.

(109) As they say, from the same discourse of Messiah: “There is another principle, an enemy of my father. I am the benevolent god ”

(110) It is manifest, from this discourse, that he (Messiah) separates and distinguishes his own father from that enemy.

(111) This also: “God has fashioned (“sent”) me for truth and through truth.

(112-113) The evil-doer Evil Spirit came to me to transgress (the law), and he desired to deceive me in many ways”.

(114) Well, if the principle be one, and there be no contrary to it, why then was the Evil Spirit so powerful that he dared to make wander the son of god?

(115-116) If god himself created that evil-doer, then that making wander (“temptation”) was knowingly through the will of [god] himself, and he himself made wander (/was the “temper” of) the son.

(117-118) This also, it says, that: “When the Jews disputed against him, he said to the Jews: ‘Ye are from beneath; and I am from above. You are from this world; I am not from this world’.”

(119) This also he said: “I know that you are Abraham’s seed, who was homicide from before.

(120) You desire to kill me.

(121) I do that which I have seen with my father; you do that which you have seen with your father”.

(122) This also: “If god be our father, you would be my friend.

(123) For, I have proceeded forth from god; neither have I come of my own desire.

(124) He has fashioned (“sent”) me as a benevolent god. Then why do you not bear my word?

(125-126) Because you are from the evil-doer, you cannot bear [it]. And the will of your father you will do.

(127) He was not in the truth, whatever he spoke, he spoke a lie. For, you are liar, you and your father.

(128) I that tell the truth, you believe me not.

(129) He who is of god, hears god’s words. But you do not hear my words, because you are not of god”.

(130) By all these words, it is demonstrated that: There are two principles: “One that fashioned (“sent”) me; one that fashioned the Jews”.

(131) He called this [second] principle i.e., the evil-doer, and not the benefactor.

(132) This also he said: “A tree of good cannot bring forth the fruit of evil, neither can a [tree] of evil bring forth the fruit of good.”

(133) This also: He either makes the whole tree with fruit of good, or makes the whole tree with fruit of evil.

(134) For, every tree is known by [its own] fruit, either of good or of evil.

(135) He said “the whole tree”, and not “half the tree”.

(136-140) How is it convenient that half of a tree be light and half dark, half good and half evil, half veracity and half mendacity? If these two contend with each other, they cannot be one tree.

(141-142) He also called the Jews “the hill-serpent Jew”, and he said that: “How can you do good, when you are Jewish evil-doers?”.

(143) And he did not call his own father “the evil-doer”.

(144) This also, he says that: “Every tree which the father has not sown should be hewn down, and be cast into the fire”.

(145) It may be known, from this saying, that there is a tree, which the father has not sown, and it should be hewn down and cast away.

(146) Furthermore: “I came unto my own, and my own received me not”.

(147) It may be known, from this word, that what is his own and what is not his own are two.

(148) This also, it says, that: “Our father that is in heaven, may your kingdom come. May your will be done in earth, as in heaven.

(149) Give us daily bread! And do not bring us to temptation!”.

(150) It is known, from this saying, that his will is not pure on earth as in heaven.

(151) This also: “the temptation of mankind is not out of god”.

(152) This also, he initially said, that: “I have not come to disturb the Law of Moses, but I have come to make it more complete”.

(153-154) Nevertheless all his words and commands were inconsistent with the ordinances and laws of Moses and disturbed these laws.

(155) On this chapter, as far as here is complete.

sizdahum darag

XVI

(1-4) did nibēsīhed abar ērang ī Mānī az hazārān bēvarān ēk. cē ērang ud drāyišn ud frēb ī Mānī ud māniyīgān ped-bavandagdar nibištan anādōg hem. u-m ranz ī vas ud rōzgār ī dagrand andar abāyed.

(4-7) nūn ē dāned, mazdesn ī Zardušt, kū: bun gōbišn ī Mānī abar akanāragīh ī bunēštagān; ud meyān abar gumēzišn; ud frazām abar vizārišn ī rōšn az tār, hān ī ō avizārdārīh vas mānāgdar.

(8-9) did ēn kū: gētīg tanēgirdīg ī Ahrmen; hāmis tanēgirdīg, dahišn ī Ahrmen.

(10-13) u-š gugān ēn kū: asmān az pōst, ud zamīg az gōšt, ud kōf az ast, ud urvar az vars ī kandag dēv.

(14) vārān šuhr ī māzandarān ī ped spihr bast ēstend.

(15) ud mardōm dēv ī dobāy. ud gōspend [hān] ī cahārbāy.

(16-17) ud kandag [dēv] spāhsālār ī Ahrmen kē-š ped nox fradum ardīg rōšnīh az Ohrmazd-bay rubūd ud ōbārd.

(18-20) u-šān ped didum ardīg kandag dēv abāg vasān dēvān grift. ud ast ī ped spihr bast; ud kandag dēv ōzad, ēn dām ī vazurg aziš dāšt ud kird.

(21-22) ud xvaršēd, māh, bērōn asmān ped bālist vinārd; kū dā hān rōšnīh ī dēvān ōbārd, andak andak, ped ahrāmišn ud pālāyišn ī xvaršēd ud māh pālāyend ud ahrāmēnend.

(23) pas Ahrmen pēš-vēnāgīhā dānist kū ēn rōšnīh, ped xvaršēd ud māh ahrāmišn, zūd pālend ud vizārend.

(24) zūd nē vizārišn ī rōšn az tār rāy, ēn gēhān ī kōdak – ī cōn mardōm ud gōspend ud abārīg gyānvar – hampecēn ud hangōšīdag ī gēhān ī vazurg, abāg abārīg tanēgirdīg dahišn, vīrāst.

(25) gyān ud rōšnīh andar tan bast ud zēndānīg kird, kū dā hān rōšnīh, ī ped xvaršēd ud māh ahrāmed, did ped marzišn ud zāyišn ī gyānvarān pādīrānīhed, vizārišn dagranttar bād.

(28-33) ud vārān šuhr ī māzandarān būd, ped hān cim ka, māzandarān ī ped spihr bast ēstend, kē-šān rōšnīh ōbārd, ud ped nōg ēvēn ud nizūmānīh ud kirrōgīh ī zurvānīg rōšnīh azišān vizārdan rāy, dvāzdahān naxvrēg duxtarān ī zurvān, handēmān māzandarān ī nar vēnēnend, kū dā hān māzandarān az dīdan ī avēšān varan ašān hangēzīhed, ud šuhr azišān vizārīhed.

(34) hān rōšnīh, ī andar šuhr, ō zamīg rēzīhed.

(35) urvarān, draxtān, jōrdāyān azišān rōyīhend.

(36) ud rōšnīh ī andar māzandarān ped šuhr vizārīhed.

(37) hān ī ped zamīg ped vahān ī urvarān az zamīg vizārīhed.

(38) did abar judgōhrīh ī gyān ud tan. ēn kū: gyān andar tan bast ud zēndānīg.

(39) cōn dādār ud dāštār ī visp astumandān tanēgirdān Ahrmen ast.

(40) im cim rāy nē sazed zāyišn kirdan ud peyvann rāyēnīdan;

(41) cē hamayyār abāg Ahrmen ast ped dāštārīh ī mardōm ud gōspend, ud pādīrān-kirdārīh ī gyān ud rōšnīh andar tanān, nē-z kištan ī urvarān ud jōrdāyān.

(42-45) did, hambasānīhā, ēn-z gōbend kū: murnzēnīdār ī dām im Ahrmen ast. im cim rāy, nē sazed ēc dām ōzadan; cē ahrmen-kunišnīh ast.

(46-47) did ēn kū: cōn gēhān Ahrmen dāšt, frazām pērōz yazd ast, ped vizārdārīh ī gyānān az tanān;

(48-50) ēn gētīg ped abdum višōbīhed, nōg nē ārāyīhed; nē baved rist-virāstārīh, tan ī pasēn.

(51-52) did ēn kū: hān do bunēštag hamēvīgīhā-ēstišn, hamvimandīhā ōn būd cōn abdāb ud sāyag; u-šān nē būd ēc vehmīh ud višādagīh meyān.

(53-54) nūn gōbem naxvist abar būdan-nē-šāyistan ī ēc astag tis ī akanārag, bē ēvāz hān ī akanārag xvānam tuhīgīh ud zamān.

(55) hān-z ī ō ast andaron ped gyāgumandīh ud zamānīgīh astān tisān kanāragumand vēnīhed.

(56-59) ēn-z kū: agar-šān ēkīh ud doīh abar gōbīhed, az hān cōn ēkīh bē ped hamāgīhā-parvastagīh ī tis enyā nē baved, cē ēk ēn kū, nē do; do ēn kū bun ēk, ud judāgīh ī ēk az did, ī nē do xvānīhed.

(60-62) ka ēk bē ped hamāg-parvastagīh ī ēkīh enyā nē šnāsīhed, ud doīh bē ped judāgīh ī ēk ēk enyā nē šāyed būdan. ēk hān ī ped ēkīh ēk, ud ōstīgān ped ekīh.

(63) ēk ud do andar tōhmag ī candīh ud marumandīh.

(64) ud candīh ud maragumandīh ud hamāgīh ud judāgīh, ī cōn man guft, bē kanāragumandīh enyā būdan nē šāyed.

(65) ō-z meyānag-dānišnān rōšn.

(66) did ēn kū: akanārag hān baved ī ped dānišn nē parvannīhed.

(67) ka ped ēc dānišn parvastan nē šāyed, andar dānišn ī yazd parvastan nē šāyed, acār.

(68) ā yazd xvadīh ī xvēš, hān-z ī tār bunēštag, hamāgīhā andar dānišn nē parvannīhed.

(69) ka-š xvēš xvadīh andar xvēš dānišn nē parvannīhed hān vispveh ud vispvēn guftan vaxr.

(70) cē visp «hamāgīh» vizāred.

(71) ud hamāgīh, hamākkustagparvastagīh rāy, «hamāg» xvānīhed.

(72) hamākkustagparvastag kanāragumandīh acār.

(73) hān yazd ka az hamāgparvastagīh ī xvēš āgāh, kanāragumand sazed hangārdan.

(74) agar akanārag, anāgāh.

(75) fradum dānišn ī dānāg aziš avizīrišnīg dānistan ī xvēš xvadīh ud cōnīh ud candīh.

(76) kē hān ī xvēš hamāg xvadīh ud cōnīh ud candīh anāgāh, abar-z abārīg cōnīh ud candīh dānāg būd guftan, vaxr.

(77-78) ēn-z kū: cōn akanārag, abarvastagīh rāy, ped dānišn nē parvannīhed, ā ēn kū-š hamāg xvadīh dānāg ayāb ast ī adān, hamāg rōšn ayāb ast ī tārīk, hamāg zīndag ayāb ast ī murdag, aziš anāgāh.

(79) did ēn kū: rōšnīh ud gyān ī ēdar ayābam bahr ī az ham zurvānīg ast ayāb nē.

(80) ka bahr ī az xvadīh ī zurvān ast hān ē ezvārānd kū tis kē-š bahr aziš baxtan šāyed bahrumand šāyed būdan.

(81) bahrumand bē ka hamēnīdag enyā nē šāyed.

(82) ud hamēnīdag bē az hamēnīdār kē-š hān hamēnīdag hamēnīd enyā nē vizīred.

(83-84) ud ka bahr kirdag kanāragumand, vēnīhed, bun kē-š bahr aziš ham ēvēnag kirdag, kanāragumand būdan agumān. ped hān cē gōbend kū visp bar, bahr, ō bun gugāyīh-dādār.

(85) hān ka bahr kirdag kanāragumand, ayābam, hān-z bun bē ka kirdag ud az bahrān hamēnīdag kanāragumand enyā būdan nē šāyed.

(86) ēn-z kū: akanārag nē baxšīhed.

(87-88) cē bahr az hamāgīh baxšī ud hamāgīh abar kanāragumandīh gugāyīh.

(89-90) cōn man azabar nimūd kū astīh cōnīh ī bun bē az humānāgīh ud hangōšīdag ī bar enyā nē ayābam.

(91-92) harv cē ped bar ayābīhed, ped bun hamēvēnag būdan ēvar.

(93) hān ka kirdagīh ud kanāragumandīh ped bar ayābišnīg, ham az vizār, bun-z – kē-š bar aziš – ped kanāragumandīh agumān.

(94) did ēn kū: akanārag hān baved ī abardaxt-gyāg, ud avimand-xvadīh.

(95) u-š anī gyāg, vehmīh aziš pardaxt nēst.

(96) hān ka do bunēštag akanārag ud asāmān-xvadīh gōbīhed, asmānān, zamīgān, hāmis tanēgirdān, vaxšān, gyānān, rōšnān, bayān, amehrspendān, vasān āvarišnān kē-šān judnāmīh az judāgīh ī ēk ēk az ōy did, nē sāmānumand šāyed būdan.

(97) ēg hamāg andar cē, ud kū, dād?

(98-99) ka do bunēštān hamēšagīhā abardaxt-gyāg būd hend, bē agar-šān xvadīh ī akanārag kanāragumand kird, ud gyāg ī ēn hamāg astān, būdān ud bavedān kird budan cōn šāyed?

(100) agar gōhr ī hamē-akanārag kanāragumand būdan šāyed, hān ī nēst-iz būdan šāyistan, ēvar.

(101) hān ī abar avardišnīh ī gōhr gōbend, vaxr.

(102) ēn-z ē dāned kū: aknārag hān baved kē-š pardaxt ī aziš fradum nē vaxt.

(103-105) ēc tis jud az ōy, judāg aziš būdan nē šāyed, bē az vimand ī akanāragīh nē šnāsīhed, ayāb, stardagīhā, hān tis ī nē dāned kū cē, hamē gōbed ud stēzed ud soxan abar rāyēned, kōdakān, kōdakdānišnān pediš viyābānēnend, dā rāh ō cāh?

(106-107) agar-iš axradīhā ēn-z gōbed kū-š xvadīh akanārag, u-š dānišn-z akanārag, ped akanāragdānišnīh dāned kū akanārag ast. hān vaxr ud do-bār vaxr.

(108) ēk ēn kū dānišn abar tis hān ī ped dānišn ayāftag, ud andar dānišn parvastag.

(109) tis-iz bē hān ī andar dānišn hamāgīhā parvastag, ud ayāftag, enyā bavandag, nē šnāsīhed.

(110) ud tis dānišn, ped hamāg šnāxtan ī tis baved.

(111) hamāg šnāxtan ī tis, ped hamāgparvastagīh ī tis andar dānišn baved.

<…>

Thirteenth Chapter (On Manichaeism)

XVI

(1-4) Moreover, is here written about the errors of Mani, one out of a thousand and ten thousand; because I am unable of more completely writing of the errors, (insane) speech, and deceit of Mani and the Manichaeans, much pain and long life would be necessary for me therein.

(4-7) Now, O Mazdayasnian of Zaraθuštra, you should know that the initial discourse of Mani is about the infinity of the principles; and the middle is about the mixture; and the final is about the separation of Light from Darkness –that which is more similar to non-separation.

(8-9) Moreover, [Mani states that]: This world is the corporeal body of Aŋra Mainyu; every corporeal being is a production of Aŋra Mainyu.

(10-13) In detail: The sky is from the skin, the earth from the flesh, the mountains from the bones, and the plants from the hair of the Flayed Demons.

(14) The rain is the sperm of the Giant Demons who are bound on the celestial sphere.

(15) Mankind are two-legged demons, and cattle (/animals) four-legged.

(16-17) The Flayed [demons] are the commanders-in-chief of Aŋra Mainyu, who, in the beginning, in the first battle robbed the light from the god Ohrmazd (i.e. the First Man) and swallowed it.

(18-20) In the second battle, [the sons of light] captured the Flayed Demons (i.e. the sons of darkness) together with many demons, and bound some [of them] to the celestial sphere; and slew the Flayed demons, and maintained and made from them this Great Creature (i.e. macrocosm).

(21-22) The sun and moon were placed outside the sky [of stars], in the highest, so that, little by little, the light which the demons swallowed, be raised and purified through the leading up and purification by the sun and moon.

(23) Afterwards Aŋra Mainyu, through foresight, knew that that light, through the leading up by the sun and the moon, would be purified and separated.

(24) He quickly arranged, this Little World (/microcosm) –that is, man and cattle and other animals – like a copy and an example of the Great World, with the other corporeal creation, so that the light might not be separated from the dark;

(25) he bound and imprisoned the soul and light in the body, so that that light which ascends to the sun and the moon, shall again be restrained through the copulation and birth of living beings, and the separation shall be postponed.

(28-33) The rain was the semen of the Giant Demons, for the reason that when the Giant Demons were fastened to the (celestial) sphere they who had swallowed the light, in order to separate the light from them, by a new manner, skill and art of Zurvān, they show the twelve First-born Daughters of Zurvān before the male Giant Demons, so that the lust of those Giant Demons is aroused from seeing them, and semen is separated from them;

(34) the light which is within the semen is poured upon the earth;

(35) plants, trees and grain are grown therefrom; the light which is within the Giant Demons is separated through the semen;

(37) [the light] which [falls] on the earth, is separated from the earth by means of the plants.

(38) Furthermore, about the difference of substance of (vital) soul and body [they state] thus: Soul is bound and imprisoned within the body.

(39) Since the creator and maintainer of all corporeal and material beings is Aŋra Mainyu;

(40) for this reason it ought not to procreate and propagate lineage;

(41) because the maintaining of man and cattle means collaboration with Aŋra Mainyu and the remaining of soul and light into bodies –nor even to cultivate plants and grain.

(42-45) Furthermore, they inconsistently state thus: The destroyer of creatures is likewise Aŋra Mainyu; for this reason, it ought not to kill any creature whatsoever, because it is a work of Aŋra Mainyu.

(46-47) Moreover, whereas Aŋra Mainyu maintained the world, God is finally victorious, through the separation of (vital) souls from bodies.

(48-50) This world will be destroyed in the end, a new [one] will not be arranged, nor will there be the Resurrection and the Future Body.

(51-52) Moreover, the two principles coexist perpetually and contiguously just as sunshine and shadow, and not any width and breadth exist between them.

(53-55) Now, I shall first speak about the impossibility of any existent thing being unlimited, except only Space and Time, which I call unlimited.

(55) The existent things which are within locality and temporality are seen to be limited.

(56-59) This also: If one says unity or duality about them, whereas unity does not exist except through the total comprising of a thing, for one is that which is not two; and two is the original one and the separation of this one from the other which is not called two;

(60-62) if one be not conceivable except through the total comprising of unity, and duality cannot occur except through the separation of unit from unit, the one is that which is one in unity, and is steadfast in its unity;

(63) one and two are in the seed of quantity and numerality;

(64) and quantity, numerality, totality, and separation, as I have said, cannot occur except [through] limitation.

(65) This is clear even to those with average knowledge.

(66) Furthermore, the unlimited is that which is not comprised by the science.

(67) If it be not possible to be comprised in any science, then it is inevitably not possible to be comprised in the science of god.

(68) Thus the essence of God and that of the Dark principle are not totally comprised within the science of god.

(69) If his own essence be not comprised within his own science, then to call him all-good and all-seeing is untrue.

(70) For, “all” means totality.

(71) A totality, because it comprises on all sides, is called “totality”.

(72) The limitedness of that which is comprised on all sides is inevitable.

(73) A god, who is aware that he is comprised on all sides, ought to be considered as limited.

(74) If he be unlimited, he is unaware [of it].

(75) The first knowledge of a knowing one concerning himself is the indispensable knowledge of his own essence, quality, and quantity.

(76) If one who be unaware of total essence, quality, and quantity, then to state that he is knowing concerning the [essence,] quality, and quantity of others, is untrue.

(77-78) This also: Since an unlimited [being] which is not comprised, is not comprised by the science, then he is unaware whether his total essence is wise or ignorant, light or dark, alive or dead.

(79) Moreover: The light and soul, which we find out hither, is it a particle from that same [essence of] Zurvān or not?

(80) If it be a particle from the essence of Zurvān, then we should point them out that: A thing from which a part can be divided, can be itself divisible.

(81) That which is divisible cannot be unless it is composite.

(82) That which is composite cannot be without a composer by which it is composed.

(83-84) Since a divided part is visibly limited, so also the origin from which the part is made is undoubtedly limited, in accordance with the statement that has been put forward that every result and part bears witness of its origin.

(85) Since we find the divided part limited, so also the origin from which [derive] the division [to parts] and the composition of parts, cannot but be limited.

(86) This also: The unlimited is not divided.

(87-88) For the part is divided from the totality, and totality bears witness of limitation.

(89-90) As I have demonstrated above, we cannot find out the existence and quality of the origin except by comparison and analogy with the result.

(91-92) Whatever is found out in the result (or, effect), must certainly, in like manner, apply to the origin.

(93) When the division and limitation are found out in the result, it may undoubtedly be deduced that the origin from which the result derives is also limited.

(94) Further: The unlimited is that which is endless in space, and boundless in essence;

(95) there is no other place or area that is devoid of it.

(96) If it be said that the two principles are unlimited and boundless in essence, then the heavens and earths together with all corporeal beings, spirits, souls, lights, gods, elements, and the numerous abodes –whose different names are owing to the difference of one from the other – cannot be bounded.

(97) Then inside what, and where, have all these things been created?

(98-99) if the two principles were always endless in space, and how is that possible unless their unlimited essence be made limited, and the place of all that is and was and will be?

(100) If it be possible that an ever-unlimited substance become limited, it is certainly possible that it may also become non-existent.

(101) What they say about the immutability of substance is untrue.

(102) You should know that: the unlimited is that which does let nothing be from the first devoid of it;

(103-105) anything else than it cannot exist separate from it. Apart from the limit, the infinity cannot be known. Or, he (i.e. Mani) confusedly discusses and contends and bandies words, about the thing of which he does not know what it is, for leading astray the immature and those of immature knowledge to a road which leads to a well.

(106-107) If he foolishly asserts that: Its essence is unlimited, and its science is unlimited, it knows, through its unlimited science that it is unlimited, that is untrue and doubly untrue.

(108) For, once science is about the things which are found out by science, and comprised within science;

(109) and nothing can be perfectly known except that which is totally comprised within science and found out by it.

(110) Science of a thing is [obtained] by the total knowledge of it;

(111) and the total knowledge of a thing is [obtained] by the total comprehension of it within science.

<…>