“The temples of the fires”

The question whether Parsis could be called fire-worshippers crops up occasionally. Now Brig N. B. Grant states that calling Parsis as fire-worshippers is not correct. According to Grant, the terminology actually refers to the intrinsic fire in one’s heart and not to the extrinsic fire on the hearth ("The temples of the fires,” Readers’ Forum, Parsiana, October 2004).

A reference to the King’s English Dictionary shows:

The words ‘Gueber’ or ‘Gheber’ originating from Persian mean a fire-worshipper and a follower of Zoroaster and the ancient Persian religion.

The words ‘fire-worship’ and ‘fire-worshipper’ mean worship of fire which prevailed in Persia among the followers of Zoroaster and among the Indian Parsis.

In view of these definitions from a standard English dictionary, the said controversy should end once and for all. Let us also consider how the worshippers of other religions are defined:

Hindus (idol-worshippers or graven image worshippers).

Christians (worshippers of the Cross because they pray in front of the Cross).

Muslims (worshippers of the Kebla be­cause they always face Mecca when praying).

Hence, it is quite befitting for Parsis to be called fire-worshippers because we either pray in front of an oil-wick flame (divo) in our house or in front of a wood fire (atash) in a fire-temple or alternatively we face the eternal blazing sun which is a symbol for the extrinsic fire on the hearth.

Dr P. D. SUNAVALA

The state of our agiaries is a subject that crops up in Parsiana from time to time. We need to realize that they are an important asset of the community. They provide not just a place to pray but also a place to deliberate in peace and quiet on issues, personal, financial, community, etc. Whether we are practicing Zoroastrians, whether we believe in rituals or Gathas, as people we all have decisions to make, problems to solve and issues to resolve. It is important to make the right decision or find the best solution. Peace and quiet helps us think clearly. In Bombay such places are hard to come by. A visit to the agiary, for deliberation and reflection, if not prayer can be salutary.

The upkeep of our agiaries can be facilitated if Parsis in Bombay were to adopt one or two and donate Rs 51 or 101, occasionally, if not regularly. Those who do not visit agiaries could adopt ones visited by parents or grandparents. I certainly intend to do so.

We seem to be at odds on a multitude of issues. Let us at least agree that our agiaries are important, both at a community and individual level, and collectively seek to preserve them in a good state.

FURROKH PANTHAKI

London, UK