Zoroastrianism (c. 1500-1000 BCE)

A comparative analysis with the CoD

The solitary seeker (Zarathuštra) in prayer to Ahura Mazda—by the river of discernment where the light of truth is revealed, a moment from the Gāthās reflecting the ancient Iranian revelation of cosmic dualism (c. 1500-1000 BCE), courtesy of Nano Banana.

I. Abstract

Zoroastrianism’s core ontological claim posits a cosmic struggle between Ahura Mazda (the Wise Lord), the supreme, uncreated deity who embodies Asha—a complex principle encompassing cosmic truth, cosmic order, righteousness, and right functioning—and Angra Mainyu (the Destructive Spirit), a secondary, corrupting force of chaos and falsehood (Druj). This interaction forms the engine of existence, a teleological conflict in which human choice is decisive, ultimately working toward the triumph of Asha and the unification of reality. As mentioned in Methodology, this comparative assessment employs the Ontological Model Assessment Framework (OMAF) to evaluate this model against the Conference of Difference (CoD). An analysis of Zoroastrianism and the CoD reveals a fundamental divergence on the relationship-between-multiplicity-and-unity, highlighting the CoD's distinctive capacity to ground dynamic relationality without recourse to an antagonistic duality or deity. Where Zoroastrianism frames existence as a conflict aiming for the final victory of unity (Asha) over disruptive difference (Druj), the CoD posits the conference of difference (CoD) itself as the constitutive ground of all unity. This analysis demonstrates how the CoD describes the problem of evil not as an external force, but as a sub-optimal mode of operation within the conference of difference of reality itself.

II. Overview of Zoroastrianism

Emerging in ancient Persia, Zoroastrianism presents a profoundly ethical and cosmologically significant ontology. Classical Zoroastrian texts—particularly the Gathas attributed to Zarathustra and later works like the Bundahishn—present what is contemporarily understood as 'Eschatologically Resolved Dualism'.

In this framework:

• Ahura Mazda (the Wise Lord) and Angra Mainyu (the Destructive Spirit) are two independent, uncreated, co-eternal spirits
• They represent primordial opposition: Asha (Truth/Order) versus Druj (the Lie/Chaos)
• The material world is created by Ahura Mazda alone as fundamentally good
• Angra Mainyu invades this good creation, corrupting it with chaos and falsehood
• Cosmic history is a teleological struggle toward Frashokereti (Renovation), where Ahura Mazda triumphs, Angra Mainyu is destroyed, and reality returns to perfected unity

This is not hierarchical dualism (one principle deriving from another) but primordial opposition with eschatological resolution. The asymmetry lies not in origin but in destiny: while both are equiprimordial, only Ahura Mazda is creative, good, and destined for ultimate victory.

The supreme, uncreated deity Ahura Mazda embodies Asha—cosmic truth, order, and right functioning. He creates the material world in a state of perfection. Angra Mainyu, equally uncreated but ontologically distinct, embodies Druj—chaos, falsehood, and destruction. He is not created by Ahura Mazda but exists as an independent counter-principle who chooses to corrupt the good creation.

This creates a sophisticated ontological structure: at the cosmogonic level, two uncreated spirits exist in eternal opposition; at the creative level, Ahura Mazda alone creates material existence; at the historical level, this good creation is corrupted, leading to struggle and human participation; and at the eschatological level, the ultimate triumph of good and destruction of evil is achieved.

For Zoroastrianism, this is not mere moral allegory but the fundamental structure of reality. The created world is the battlefield, and humanity, created by Ahura Mazda, is enlisted as an active participant through their choices ('good thoughts, good words, good deeds') to aid in the eventual triumph of good.

In Zoroastrianism: a CRUP-OMAF case study, its ontology is assessed as follows:

• Primacy-of-existence: Grounded in primordial dualism between two uncreated principles
• Manner-of-existence: Teleological conflict moving from dualistic struggle to monotheistic resolution
• Relationship-between-multiplicity-and-unity: Begins with irreducible duality, ends with subsuming unity through eradication of destructive difference

III. Overview of the CoD

The Conference of Difference (CoD) model claims that, as a 'condition of being', existence is, by extension, a 'process of declaring together of action to be'. This condition: 'process of declaring together' can itself be described as a conference of difference: a 'condition of bearing together' transforming the 'condition of bearing apart'. Logically, every conference is of difference as every difference is born of conference. Critically, this is not a causal circle but a constitutive one: neither term precedes the other; each is intelligible only through the other.^[1] Therefore, the conference of difference is irreducible in and of itself and thus the process primitive of existence.

In the Conference of Difference: a CRUP-OMAF case study, its ontology is assessed as follows:

• On primacy-of-existence: The CoD reveals primacy, not in substance of entities but, in the relational process itself: the conference of difference—relation precedes relata. Entities' are discerned as stabilized patterns within this ongoing process. As declared in Koan 10.1, 'all existence is a conference of difference'. Relation is not something that happens between discerned entities but rather the process primitive that transforms existence itself.
• On manner-of-existence: The manner-of-existence is fundamentally conferential and transformative. Thus, being: 'action to be' is a continuous, dynamic process of 'bearing together' and 'bearing apart' – a constant negotiation that defines the 'condition of being' that is existence. 'All existence transforms via binding, not freedom' (Koan 30.7).
• On the relationship-between-multiplicity-and-unity: Unity is an immanent and continuous achievement of the conference of difference itself. Koan 80.1 frames this as a universal reciprocity that moves toward equilibrium—a self-organizing principle inherent to existence itself.

IV. Comparison

This comparison reveals a nuanced relationship between the two models, with significant convergence on the importance of ethical action and dynamic process, but a fundamental divergence on the nature of the process itself and its ultimate goal.

Criterion 1: Primacy-of-Existence

• Statement: The assessment identifies a foundational divergence on what constitutes the primary ground of existence.
• Zoroastrianism's Position: Classical Zoroastrianism posits a primordial dualism as the ground of existence. Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu are two independent, uncreated, co-eternal spirits representing the fundamental opposition between Asha (Truth/Order) and Druj (the Lie/Chaos). While Ahura Mazda is the sole creator of the material world, Angra Mainyu exists as an equally primordial but destructive counter-principle. The system is thus dualistic in origin but monotheistic in eschatological resolution.
• CoD's Position: The CoD posits that the conference of difference is the process primitive of existence. It does not begin with two (or one) pre-existing entities in relation but asserts that the relational process itself is primary. The 'condition of bearing together' and 'bearing apart' are two aspects of a single, irreducible dynamic. As Koan 70.6 clarifies, 'difference cannot manifest power in division but only in conference'. Existence is not split at its foundation but is a unified, though internally differentiated, process.
• Interpretive Analysis: This difference is not merely taxonomic but foundational. Where Zoroastrianism must posit two eternal, antagonistic principles to account for the phenomena of good and evil, order and chaos, the CoD's insistence on a single, relational process allows it to account for these same phenomena as internal tensions within the conference of difference itself. As Koan 20.6 clarifies, the CoD sees conflict and cooperation as different modes of the same constitutive relationality, not as the products of separate, warring sources.

Criterion 2: Manner-of-Existence

• Statement: The models further diverge in their characterization of how existence unfolds and manifests.
• Zoroastrianism's Position: The manner-of-existence is teleological conflict. The cosmos is moving through a linear narrative from a primordial state of mixed struggle toward a final, eschatological victory (Frashokereti) where Ahura Mazda triumphs, Angra Mainyu is defeated, and reality is perfected into a unified state of Asha. The process is directional and goal-oriented. This process aims for the final annihilation of Angra Mainyu and the principle of Druj, resulting in a perfected, unified reality cleansed of all opposition.
• CoD's Position: For the CoD, the manner-of-existence is a-telic transformation. As stated in Koan 100.1, existence 'has no beginning or end, only ceaseless transformation'. The CoD is not moving toward a final victory but is rather the perpetual process engine of reality. Transformation, the 'process of forming beyond' (Koan 100.2), is the 'condition of being' that is existence itself.
• Interpretive Analysis: Zoroastrianism provides a powerful moral and narrative arc but imports a specific teleology. The CoD, by contrast, describes an open-ended, perpetual process. It reframes the 'struggle' not as a war to be won between good and evil but as two modes of operation (co-petitive vs competitive) within the conference of difference. The CoD's 'salvation' (Koan 90.7) is found in the continuous, harmonious balance of atonement: the 'action to be at one' and forgiveness: a 'measure of giving away' i.e co-petitive operation within the ongoing conference of difference, not in extinguishing one side of the differential equation.

Criterion 3: Relationship-Between-Multiplicity-and-Unity

• Statement: The most significant divergence emerges in how each model conceptualizes the interplay of the one and the many.
• Zoroastrianism's Position: The relationship is initially one of irreducible multiplicity (the Two Spirits) and is ultimately one of subsuming unity. The desired end-state is the eradication of the destructive difference (Druj) and the unification of all reality under the benevolent unity of Asha. Multiplicity, in the form of evil (Druj), is a problem to be solved and ultimately eradicated.
• CoD's Position: The CoD posits a relationship of co-constitution. Unity and multiplicity are not opposed. As Koan 70.6 clarifies, difference cannot manifest power in division but only in conference: the 'condition of bearing together'. A genuine unity is not an homogeneity but a productive conference of difference—co-petition. Multiplicity (difference) is not the enemy of unity; it is its prerequisite. Koan 100.6 states this unequivocally: 'Without difference, there is nothing to relate to; without relation, no potential for transformation—no existence.'
• Interpretive Analysis: This difference throws the CoD's commitment to dynamic relationality into sharpest relief. Zoroastrianism’s ontology, for all its dynamism, culminates in a static perfection—a universe purged of its antagonistic element. The CoD offers no such final peace. Its ontology requires the conference of difference as the very ground of being. The 'evil' of Druj, from the CoD perspective, would be reframed not as a destructive spirit, but as a profound failure of reciprocity (Koan 80.3) or a breakdown in the conference of difference, where difference manifests as pure division (competition) rather than productive bearing-together (co-petition). The CoD thus provides a ground for ethics and transformation that does not rely on the eventual annihilation of difference itself but on harmonizing them to create synergy.

V. Implications

The central philosophical lesson from confronting Zoroastrianism with the CoD is that a coherent and ethically potent ontology can be grounded in ceaseless process rather than narrative finality. Zoroastrianism’s great strength is its moral clarity and its empowering vision of human agency in a cosmic war. However, it achieves this by projecting the problem of evil onto an external, metaphysical antagonist, a move that risks simplifying the immanent complexity of ethical life.

The CoD, by internalizing this tension as a corresponding aspects of the conference of difference, offers a more immanent and perhaps more profound solution. What Zoroastrianism calls 'evil' (Druj) arises in the CoD model from the breakdown or imbalance in relationality—from the failure of reciprocity, or the dominance of competition (petitioning against) over co-petition (petitioning together) (Koan 20.6). It is not a separate, malevolent principle but a dysfunctional mode of the same relationality that constitutes being.

This comparison strengthens the case for the CoD by demonstrating its ability to account for the same existential phenomena—conflict, order, chaos, transformation—without requiring a primordial dualism or a final, eschatological resolution. It reframes the cosmic drama from a war between good and evil to the perpetual, challenging, and creative work of sustaining a viable conference amidst inevitable difference. This opens a new line of inquiry into ethics as a practice of ontological maintenance.

The Gospel of Being

by John Mackay

Discover the first principle of existence in 30 seconds.

Discover the book