“What distinguishes us”

In his letter "What distinguishes us” (Readers’ Forum, Parsiana, May 21, 2007) Dastur Nadirshah P. Unvalla mentions that no other religion existed at the time Zarathushtra preached his divine message.

Please note that apart from the major religions Hinduism and Judaism, numerous other tribal religions did exist. Each tribe, including the Turanians, had its own religion (or cult). Zarathushtra’s biggest challenge was to preach his divine and universal message to these tribes and expose the existence of tribal religions which were full of ignorance and violence. Had there been no other religion, Zarathushtra’s task might have been less difficult and he may not have had to move from place to place to protect his life. How can one say "no other religions were in existence…”? We are missing Asha here.

The respected dastur then ‘cherry picks’ one sentence from what the learned Dr Dina McIntyre had stated in her lecture under the auspices of the Association for the Revival of Zoroastrianism (ARZ) in Bombay. McIntyre clearly outlined in her speech that she did not agree that we should accept non-Zoroastrians into the religion merely to survive; she said that we must accept non-Zoroastrians into the religion because it is the right thing to do. She then went on to provide numerous source materials from the holy scriptures, including the Ashem Vohu prayer and other historical evidence to support her point.

Unvalla cites interpretations of the Gathas by foreign, non-Zoroastrian scholars versus Zoroastrian scholars to show whether Zarathushtra’s message is universal or not. What about the translations by Piloo Nanavutty, Dastur Bode, Ali Jafarey, Mobed Azargoshasp and others? Are we again missing Asha here? Unvalla mentions that the translations done by non-Zoroastrians evoke admiration, but fail to inspire us. Well, this is one person’s opinion.

Our good religion is the best. The Gathas are thought provoking and timeless, being the living words of the Prophet. The message is as universal today as it was some 4,000 years back. Nobel laureate Rabindranath Tagore had said that Zarathushtra’s religion is a religion for all mankind. There may be some bias in foreign translations, but the Prophet’s words are clear. Interpretations may vary but no one denies the freedom of choice, use of the good mind and the existence of the wise lord, Ahura Mazda. The translators do agree on the Prophet’s high ethical and moral precepts. Zarathushtra’s religion has had a great impact on both Christianity and Judaism, and not the other way round.

Finally, Unvalla blames Parsis for not following the dictates, traditions and customs. Following the wrong calendar is nothing to be proud of. Our young persons who marry outside the religion do believe in our religion and in praying in fire temples. They also want their children initiated into the religion, but our priests prohibit them from entering fire temples, violating their basic birthright to pray to Ahura Mazda.

It is such a mentality that has brought us to ashavans such as those who started ARZ and are exposing the false beliefs generated through ignorance and fear. They are helping educate the young generation in the beauty of our faith. It does not matter which reputed scholar’s translation or interpretation one reads. It is clear that Zarathushtra’s message is universal and Asha will prevail.

The community needs to provide our full-time mobeds with financial security and raise their education above high-school level.

BOMI GHADIALI

Los Angeles, California, USA

I was amazed and somewhat amused on reading D. Wadia’s letter "What distinguishes us” (Readers’ Forum, Parsiana, July 21, 2007). Though we are both ‘bawas’ there is a sea of difference in our thinking on religion. I wish to elaborate on this and request Wadia to respond. Perhaps we can bridge the vast gap in our thinking.

Wadia states that there is no such term as ZOrOstrian religion (I am unable to understand the significance of two capital ‘O’s used by him). Well, his statement comes as a startling revelation for me at the age of 77 — I always thought I was a Zoroastrian and following Zarathushtra’s teachings as a way of life. I also thought that there were more than a lakh of people all over the world who call themselves Zoroastrians and follow a religion called Zoroastrianism!

Wadia says that much before Zarathushtra’s advent certain highly evolved souls called Maghavs took incarnation on planet earth, laid down certain laws and established the Mazdayasni religion. One would like to ask him to reveal the source and authenticity of this statement. Which history book or scriptures is he referring to? Is this not just hearsay or make-believe? Also, what are these ‘certain laws’? Could he please elaborate on these?

Wadia states that Zarathushtra did not establish any new religion but ‘revived’ the Mazdayasni religion. My understanding, based on Zoroastrian Theology by Dastur Dr Dhalla, Chapter 1, is that before Zarathushtra there was a primitive faith prevailing in Iran where people instinctively paid homage to deified elements like Mithra, Verethran­gana, Perendi, Nairyosangha, Vayu, Ushah, and other old Aryan divinities. Every one of these divinities was independent in his or her own sphere and claimed special reverence and sacrifice from devotees.

It was Zarathushtra (who spent 12 years on Mount Ushi Daran in search of truth), who came forth with a brand new monotheistic religion (the first known one) in which he proclaimed that there is only one supreme God – Ahura Mazda, God of Wisdom. He also maintained that the practice of sacrificing animals in religious ceremonies should be stopped and established morality as the basis of religion. He did not recognize any of the old divinities or yazatas of the earlier primitive faith. The Amesha Spentas (and what they stand for) as attributes of Ahura Mazda are his unique contribution, not known in any earlier theology. Zarathushtra presented the principle of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ and exhorted people to follow the path of truth and goodness.

It is, therefore, difficult to accept Wadia’s contention that Zarathushtra merely ‘revived’ the old Mazdayasni religion. Will Wadia elaborate on what basis he is making this statement?

Wadia makes a distinction between morality and religion. To him ‘tarikats, mantras and kriyas have mystic science behind them’ and following them is following real religion. I have a question: The Gathas are the only known scripture to have come from Zarathushtra’s mouth. Where has he said that observing the tarikats, rituals and kriyas is necessary to follow the religion? In fact, the Gathas focus solely on human behavior and leading a good, wholesome life based on truth, righteousness and wisdom.

Wadia states that the ultimate goal of mankind is to reach union with the Almighty and one can achieve this only by following religious practices, depending on the religion one is born in. I do not understand how he can define the goal for all mankind and on what basis he can certify or guarantee a person reaching this goal by following so-called religious rituals! Is this not presumptuous of Wadia? My own goal is to lead a good life based on the principles laid down by Zarathushtra in the Gathas.

Wadia also states "in which group (religion) a soul will be born is determined in advance and the corresponding divine fields are established in that soul.” Surely he is aware that interracial and intercaste marriages have been taking place through the ages and there has been an exponential rise in the last 50 years. How is the religion of the offspring of such unions determined and ‘divine fields’ established? How will the parents come to know about it?

One is born into a religion and we humans have no authority to convert from one to another religion, according to Wadia. Is not the birth of a baby a purely biological phenomenon? A baby could even be born without the two partners being married as well as professing different religions. How and what religion will be ‘ordained’ for the souls of such children? Would it not be more meaningful to accept that babies and children have no religion — that they are initiated into the religion of their parents when a navjote, baptism, janoi or some such ceremony is performed after the child reaches a certain age? Lakhs of people have converted to Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc and they have been living a peaceful and productive life. How can one close one’s eyes to these realities and say that humans have no right to convert to other religions?

To me the purpose of any religion is to teach mankind how to live in peace and harmony with others and in harmony with mother earth. All religions state this. Religion is a way of life — what you think, say and do (manashni, gavashni, kunashni) — every day, every hour, every minute, every second of one’s life.

Each human being has freedom of choice about what to follow based on intelligence (vohu mana) and conscience. This is a very important part of Zarathushtra’s teachings. I also believe that I do not need the services of an intermediary nor any kriyas and tarikats for communication between me and Ahura Mazda!

To quote Dastur Dhalla again (History of Zoroastrianism, Chapter LXI): "Dogmas and rituals are based upon natural laws of growth and decay. They have their place in the spiritual development of man. They are the accompaniments of the religion but not religion itself. Man may fall away from dogmas and rituals, and yet he may remain religious. Righteousness rests on an individual’s piety and not on a scrupulous observance of ceremonials, or a practice of elaborate lustrations. Let the Parsi individually and his community collectively abide steadfast in the path of righteousness and they will be practicing true Zoroastrianism.”

It seems to me Wadia’s entire hypothesis has originated from the priestly class in order to commercially exploit the laity and have control over them. This is not unique to us; perhaps it is prevalent in all religions.

KERSEE KABRAJI

Poona

It was a delight to read D. Wadia’s letter "What distinguishes us” (Readers’ Forum, Parsiana, July 21, 2007). The "Stories from the Shahnameh” make excellent reading for the young and the not so young who need to know about our ancient heritage and history and not just a myth, as western scholars would like us to think.

Wadia’s letter reignited my interest in your magazine as an impartial middle-of-the-road publication. Please continue your policy of giving both the reformists and the traditionalists equal space, which makes for interesting reading. Our community is passing through difficult times when it would be very easy to be swayed by popular but thoughtless solutions to complex questions.

The community needs to realize that there are things one can and should change. These social areas are manmade, such as the way we deal with the need for housing, technical and commercial education among our youth, religious education so that our younger generation is made aware of our ancient heritage and the meanings of our scriptures as explained by knowledgeable Parsi scholars among us. There is a need to have dignified dialog between Zarathushtis holding differing opinions.

There are areas which are God made, where we are guided by the great prophets and their appointed saoshyants, with whose infinite wisdom we have been placed on this earth. How can any of us have the audacity, the gall and the arrogance to believe that we have the mental, spiritual, religious and physical ability to make changes in these areas like the religious tenets, our ancient religious traditions, customs and practices which arise from our own history and from the teachings of the Prophet, our religious ceremonies and centuriesold practices based on these tenets? Only another Zarathushtra or his saoshyant would have the religious authority to make changes in these areas. Do we have in our midst anyone of that caliber today?

MEHLLI BHAGALIA

San Diego, California, USA