“The mobedyars’ rites”
The Editorial Viewpoint "The mobedyars’ rites" (Parsiana, July 21, 2013) is an exposé of the sick Parsi mentality. Forget rites, and talk about mobedyars’ rights, and not the obligations foisted on them.
Since their arrival in India some opportunist priests hijacked the community and religion. They made priesthood hereditary, created territories and divided the community between certain priestly families like Sanjana, Rana and others. Parsi families could only utilize the services of particular priests as decided by the latter.
Times have changed; there is shortage of behdins, priests and even of gheedhras (vultures). The sons of priests want to become doctors, lawyers, accountants and engineers while at the same time hanging on to their hereditary pugree and holding on to the monopoly of being the sole guardians of religion authorized to perform rituals, many of them concocted, and foisted on the community, which have nothing to do with Zoroaster or the Zoroastrian religion.
But when the shortage became acute, the clergy had perforce to release their vice-like grip on the community and the religion, and so the mobedyar scheme was concocted with do’s and don’ts according to the priests’ diktats. As the saying goes "Garajé ghadhéra ne baap kéhvo paré (for self-interest it may be expedient to address a donkey as father)."
Sadly, Zoroastrianism has become perhaps the most debased, diluted, decayed, deteriorated, defiled and distorted religion.
I admit I am no scholar of the religion, nor do I hold a PhD in fekology (spinning yarns) in the subject, but I do read about it and, as Zoroaster himself said, listen, then apply your mind and make your choice. I have read in Hamazor, Issue 4, 2012, where Shiraz Patodia, a qualified solicitor, writes about "Parsi women’s right to freely profess, practice and propagate their religion." Even more interesting is Hamazor, Issue 3, 2011, an article by Adi Davar, researcher, writer, and speaker on Zoroastrianism, its history and contemporary issues.
Davar writes that there were three time-periods: the Gatha Period (GP) from around1700 to 1400 BC; the Younger Avestan Period (YAP) from around 1400 BC to 250 AD (the advent of the Haptanhaiti Gathas, until the end of the Parthian era and the Later Avestan Period (LAP) from about 250 AD to 900 AD (Sasanian/Islamic era) up to the present times. In GP there was belief in Zoroaster’s teachings. The monotheistic teachings made it difficult for priests of the pre-Zoroastrian faith to generate fear in the laity that it had to perform expensive rites and rituals to assuage various godheads, primordial and supernatural divinities. Faced with the resulting loss of influence and income the priests began to agitate against the new teachings.
During the YAP this opposition intensified. Zoroaster’s weak successors could not resist the rebellious priests who were determined to revert to pre-Zoroastrian beliefs and practices to regain wealth and power. Ultimately, a grand compromise was forged as reflected in the Haptanhaiti Gathas and later scriptures. In essence, the syncretism introduced was to retain the concept of Ahura Mazda in name while blending pre-Zoroastrian entities and practices into many of the strictly monotheistic doctrinal underpinnings of the Prophet’s teachings. How was this done? It began by keeping Ahura Mazda as supreme, but subtly eroding His omnipotence. His six innate attributes were personified into primordial Amesha Spentas, placing Him at their head. In LAP the seven Amesha Spentas continued as the heavenly council but they were now called Aspandads and Ahura Mazda was renamed Ormazd.
By the Islamic period (around 632 AD) the number of fravashis swelled to 9,999. Yet another change was introduced in fravardigan practice. Fravashis of the deceased relatives accompanied Fravardin Yasht’s 300 fravashis. Family members propitiated them to cajole them into taking care of their relatives’ urwans (souls). The practice again changed in later centuries. These divisions remained. But the urwans for whom no obsequies were done by their relatives went to a lower level of heaven. Those for whom they were done ascended to its highest level, Garothman. Locations of heaven are set in different parts of the cosmos. From the lowest to the highest, they range between stars and moon, moon and sun, and sun to Garothman, and Garothman to endless light where Ahura Mazda resides.
The Yazats, renamed izads, multiplied to over 31,000 by the end of the Sasanian era (632 AD) and continued to be worshipped through an increasing number of prayer ceremonies and rituals, which included recitations of Yashts which had been composed to honor the major ones. The powers and responsibilities of izads now outstripped those of the Aspandads.
It is now left to the palav-daar Parsis to read such articles, along with publications like the Jam-e-Jamshed and Parsiana, and then apply their minds, instead of protesting for no rhyme or reason.
BEHRAM AGA
behram_r_aga@yahoo.co.in
At Parsiana’s request London-based Zoroastrian scholar Farrokh Vajifdar expands on Aga’s historic references:
The hair-raising number crunching that passes for authenticity must be dismissed out of hand. Here’s why: The quite undisciplined, chronologies ignore the religious settings that enveloped Iran from the earliest times. It is fashionable to refer to "crossroad of this" and "juncture of that" without taking serious note of the very real and constant effects of the various invasions — religious and secular — that this ancient land has witnessed.
There were no constant "church-state" unions. The three major pre-Islamic dynasties — Achemenian, Parthian and Sasanian — each had developed its own notions of what Zoroastrianism should be. The religion was never monolithic and had adapted, changed and settled for what seemed most convenient to the populace. That is where the priesthood stepped in to muscle its way into popular affections. Bear in mind always that all the rulers were lukewarm to religion and formed unions with the "church" when it suited them; it was the priesthood who controlled the changing religious needs of vastly superstitious and religiously illiterate masses. That is why, like all other systems distanced by time from their founders, it became prone to factionalism and sectarianism.
Furthermore, there were genuinely learned priests who cared deeply for the spiritual welfare of their various followers, and had to honestly and truthfully explain, via prayers and basic rituals, the essence of their particular religious views. They were the ones who continued to promote the Zoroastrianism of their times, without ever losing sight of the unique teachings of the Sage Zarathushtra. They may or may not have fully understood the ancient pristine teachings, but promote them they most certainly did! How else do your concerned readers think that the Gathas have come down to us? And the Vandidad?And the Yashts? And the bulk of the 72 haitis of the great Yasna corpus?
Aga’s contention is with the modern day dhongis (hypocrites) and the mischief-making arch-dhongis who frighten the feeble-minded by actually dismissing the Gathas from the general perception and shamelessly substituting all manner of perverted formulations and bogus rituals — in Zarathushtra’s name! It is up to the thinking Parsis to reject all such pseudo-religious claptrap together with their proponents and practitioners, and instead of wasting everyone’s time and patience by pretending to solicit "priestly opinions and guidance" (!), to strike out on their own, free of fear and favor. When will it be realized by our "intelligent, advanced, educated" Bombay Parsis that the unZoroastrian and anti-Zoroastrian karpans (priests) utter, mutter and fumble through our prayers and in the next instant deny the very sentiments of what they have mumbled? Why use a noble, universalist, equal-gendered system to further their deceit among trusting, pious folk? They even call such evil practices "tradition!"
Just a recap on dates — Zarathushtra and the Gathas: 7th-6th century BCE, and not 1700 BCE. The Yasna Haptanhaiti (Yss.35-41): some generations after Zarathushtra. The Yashts: the major ones pre-date Zarathushtra, but were superficially Zoroastrianized around the 5th century BCE (refer to the Artaxerxes II inscriptions!).
The Vandidad, a composite work, began life around the late Achemenian period (c. 350 BCE?) and was "finalized" perhaps under the great Khosro I Anushirwan in the 6th century CE. The Yasna of 72 haitis very probably took shape in the times of the deplorable parricide Khosro II Parvez — a monarch only too well known for his horridly superstitious beliefs and practices when he founded several (360?) fire temples, serviced, it is said, by 12,000 priests! I would suggest it was the real start of dhongiism, and it commenced not in India, but in the last stages of the Sasanian empire in Iran itself. This is certainly why the intelligent priesthood so quickly defected to Islam.
As though any serious enquirer needed reminding, Zarathushtra was anti-karpan, and in 17th century western India, the good behdins rejected the priesthood and performed their own ceremonies. "Garothman" (heaven) is within each of us, fully attainable during our very lifetimes, and not some post-mortem location accessible only through priestly intervention. Spread the good word of Zarathushtra and not the drivel of the clergy.
An angry note for Behram Aga — what has he got against pulav-daar? I happen to be extremely partial to it (which probably accounts for my anti-karpan stance!).