Preserving Zoroastrianism

There is a lot of confused debate going on about preserving Zoroastrianism (and Parsi-ism) and relegating the survival of the Parsis to the backwoods. Some scholars (and many pseudo-scholars) think that Zoroastrianism will survive even if we become a shrinking tribe.

May I ask these scholars without the Parsis who will maintain our atash behrams, atash adarians, dadgahs and dakhmas? Who will preserve our rituals?

The fate of Zoroastrianism and Parsi-ism is intertwined. One cannot be separated from the other. There is an "umbilical cord” connecting the survival of both.

The so-called purists seem to have lost their vision and become hide-bound, in the rage of this controversy, which is uncalled for.

No child was born with a religious label on its forehead or on its navel. The original Mazdayasnis were converts in the true sense. After centuries, Zara­thushtra reconverted them to the present form of the Mazdayasni Zarath­ushti religion — ridding the latter of dogmas, fetishes, black art, sorcery, witchcraft and all ethical and non-ethical practices which were alien to our faith.

Can the scholars (and the pseudo-scholars) deny that all the religions in the world started with conversions?

Our Aivisuthrem Geh, Heptan and Din Yashts, Naameh Khaver and Mares-pand Roz Ni Setayash specifically mention about (the need) for spreading our religion, far and wide. Have the scholars (and the pseudo-scholars) the gall to contest our scriptures? If so, shame on them!

B. T. DASTUR