Abstract
The medieval Zoroastrianism, with all its name as the state religion in the Sasanian dynasty, was never firmly unified. According to the Pahlavi books, it seems, some Zoroastrian priests tried to establish the new doctrine different from the mythological dualism by uniting Greek philosophy (especially Neo-Platonism) and Zoroastrian angelology.
Because Zoroastrianism itself, overwhelmed by the offensive of the Muslim power, faced a serious crisis after the 7th century, the new doctrine could not become the mainstream. Therefore, the Yazd-Kermanian Zoroastrians attached importance only to the mythological dualism, and did not show any interest in the philosophical doctrine.
Taking these conditions into consideration, I will examine Zoroastrianism after the Islamic age on the basis of New-Persian books of the 16th century. The materials are hitherto-neglected books, and Iranologists have not so for taken up the subject I investigate. Despite those, I attempt to understand Azar Kayvan's doctrine expressed in those books by tying it to the doctrine of the philosophical priests of the 10th century.
Upon examination, whereas the direct connection can not be shown, it has been confirmed that both doctrines resemble each other in the introduction of the emanationism. And moreover, I have shown that the Shirazian Zoroastrians quitted the mythological dualism more boldly than the priests of the 10th century by symbolizing it as a mere ascetic tale.
Lastly, if I show this hypothesis in the history of Zoroastrianism in a diagram, it would look like the following:
_??_ the medieval priests who attached more importance to the traditional myth (the majority)→the Yazd-Kermanian Zoroastrians after the 13th century→the Gujaratian Zoroastrians→the modern Parsis
_??_ the medieval priests who liked philosophical speculations (the minority)→the Shirazian Zoroastrians after the 16th century→their extinction in the 17th century in northern India
