“Zoroastrianism enjoins...”

I refer to the article "Zoroastrianism enjoins conversion” by Kaikhosrov D. Irani and Farrokh Vajifdar (Parsiana, October 2001) wherein scriptural references on conversion are given from the Gathas, the Vendidad and the Fravardin Yasht.

I would like to add one more reference from the Khordeh Avesta by Ervad Kavasji Edalji Kanga in Sarosh Yasht Vadi-ni-Nirang, wherein we pray Sarosh Yazad-ni-Panha Hojo for "Hamé Iranian (all Iranians), O Pairo-Dakeshan ...Gehan Daman (all living beings)... Behdinan (behdins)... Tajiane Beste­kustiaan,” which is translated as "kusti-tying Arbo (Arabs who have accepted the Zarathushti religion).”

This proves that conversion was permitted and enjoined even during the time of Prophet Zarathushtra.

DARA DARABSHAW ARIA

Bangalore

Much of today’s practice of our faith is as per the view of the conservative "no change is the best change” lobby.

If these views and practices are acceptable to the majority of the laity of an anjuman or punchayet, so be it. But let the righteous not frighten the gullible, innocent, trusting and simple-minded sections of the community, that anything contra is un-Zoroastrian.

The opposite view can be practiced and propagated to prepare people for change. One day, the minority may become the majority.

Aha, but that is exactly what the diehards would not wish. Stamp out pragmatism and reasoning — and if the community goes the way of all nature’s endangered species, so be it.

Controversial subjects such as conversion, intermarriage, navjote of children with one Zoroastrian parent, disposal of the dead, to name a few, are basically self serving Parsipanu, not religion.

Readers of Parsiana ("Zoroastrianism enjoins conversion,”) would have digested the research and views of two respected Zoroastrian experts stating positively that the Zoroastrian religion enjoins conversion.

In 1944-45, it was stated in court under oath in the deposition by Dr Jamshedji Maneckjee Unvala, MA, PhD of Bombay and Heidelberg University, Germany, a scholar of Avesta and other ancient languages, that a sub-committee appointed by the Parsi Punchayet, comprising men of great eminence like Dasturs Kaikhusroo Jamasji and Dorab Peshotan Sanjana, Behramjee S. Anklesaria, Ervad Bomanjee Nusser­wanji Dhabar and seven others was of the unanimous view that the Zoroastrian religion enjoins conversion. He stated, however, that apart from himself (who did not subscribe to this view) there is not a single student who says that the Zoroastrian religion does not enjoin conversion.

In conclusion, the above witness is recorded to have stated, "It is particularly on the basis of custom that we Parsi Zoroastrians have ceased to practise conversion.”

This letter holds no brief for conversion but it does behove the preachers and leaders to be honest with the laity. The same Unvala in the same testimony clarified that there is no religious firman (obligation), either in Avesta, Pahlavi or Pazand texts, which stipulates that a dakhma and aramgah cannot coexist. Several customs for which the Vendidad is said to be the authority are "...primitive and nearly impossible to perform or observe today... most of these customs are not observed today even by those who should observe them.”

Unvala stated that the first Parsis came to India in the beginning of the ninth century. Yet, the first record of a dakhma in India is found only in the 14th century. The dakhma in Tehran was closed before 1926 and burial is practiced.

I do not decry customs, which are Parsipanu. But let not these customs be equated with religion, the non-observance of which brands an individual as un-Zoroastrian or non-Zoroastrian. Zoroaster preached good thoughts, good words, good deeds. This is the bottom line of the Zoroastrian faith. To sack people from the community, or to call the child of one Zoroastrian parent a bastard brands the perpetrators and not the victim as bigots of the Zoroastrian faith.

RASHID MINOCHER

Bangalore