A Sanskrit Version of Kaena-na Mazda

Summary

In this contribution the author examines a little‑known Sanskrit version of a prayer to Ahura Mazda, the supreme deity of Zoroastrianism, preserved in a medieval manuscript discovered in Gujarat. The text, rendered into polished classical Sanskrit, parallels the Avestan hymn known as the Kaena‑na Mazda or ‘Whom shall I praise but Mazda?’. After describing the manuscript’s provenance and paleographic features, the author transliterates the opening verses and compares them with the original Avestan, line by line. He notes that while the translator follows the structure of the Avestan gatha, he introduces Hindu philosophical terminology to convey concepts such as asha (truth) and vohu manah (good mind). The Sanskrit version addresses Ahura Mazda as maheśvara and equates the Amesha Spentas with Vedic deities. The article situates this translation within the broader context of cultural exchange between Zoroastrian refugees who settled on the western coast of India and their Hindu neighbours. The author argues that the Sanskrit text was likely composed by a Parsi scholar seeking to integrate the Zoroastrian prayer into an Indian intellectual milieu, perhaps to present it to a Sanskrit‑literate audience. He discusses evidence of other Pahlavi and Persian texts translated into Sanskrit or Gujarati in early modern India and considers the role of the Bhagavata Purana and Vedanta commentaries in shaping this syncretic style. Linguistic analysis reveals occasional phonetic transcriptions of Avestan words, such as Mazda becoming Mazdā, and rhetorical devices borrowed from Sanskrit kavya. By providing a critical apparatus, the article lays the groundwork for a future edition and highlights the importance of cross‑cultural transmission in the medieval Indian Ocean world. The article is meticulously organised with an introduction, several analytical sections and a concluding discussion. The author draws on a wide range of sources, including primary texts, inscriptions, chronicles and modern scholarship, and consistently references them in notes and bibliographies. The argument is developed logically, with careful consideration of opposing views and potential counterarguments. Technical terms are explained for the benefit of readers unfamiliar with the subject. Throughout, the article emphasises the importance of situating the topic within its broader historical, cultural and intellectual context, and it often suggests directions for further research. In addition to the substantive analysis, the article places its findings in relation to existing scholarship, discussing how it confirms, refutes or refines earlier interpretations. It outlines methodological challenges such as dating of sources, textual corruption and biases in historical records, and explains the criteria used to evaluate evidence. The author also reflects on the contemporary relevance of the study, suggesting how a better understanding of the past can illuminate present cultural dynamics.