How not to foil customs

Recently a devotee complained about a new practice she had observed at jashans. Instead of placing ash and then sandalwood directly on the metallic circular dish atop the afarganyu, the dish, or sarposh as it is termed, was covered with foil and only sandalwood was placed on top. When she complained to the presiding priest, he justified the new practice explaining that the aluminium foil facilitated the transfer of fire embers after the ceremony. As per the former custom, the sarposh bearing the ash and fragments of sandalwood would be carried in a khumcha (platter) covered with another khumcha.

Unmoved by the explanation she complained to one of the high priests who empathized with her sentiments and said he would speak with the concerned priest. The practice, however, continues. When Parsiana inquired from Dastur (Dr) Firoze Kotwal about the custom he explained the method was probably followed in Iran and was imported to India "sagwar né maté (for convenience)." Carting of hot embers in vehicles or by foot which was earlier troublesome, has now been simplified. Kotwal did not see much harm in the procedure nor a need to make a "tofan (storm)" about the change.

In the past years and even decades, when Parsiana representatives have been invited to be present at the re-enthroning of sacred fires in Surat, Udvada and Bardoli, aside from the officiating priests, no one else was permitted to be present at the ceremonies that preceded the shift. Nor were the ceremonies performed subsequently explained to the gathering present. One wondered if there was uniformity in the three instances, allowing for the distinction in the grades of fire (an atash behram fire may require additional or other rites to be performed).

Aside from the laity being in the dark, one cannot be certain that even the priests follow the same procedure in all instances. For example do the Kadmi, Shahenshahi and Fasli fire temples follow similar or different rituals when shifting fires? Sir J. J. Modi’s landmark book, The religious ceremonies and customs of the Parsees appears to have no reference as to what procedures to follow when moving fires. Kotwal feels this may be an oversight and cites Ervad Hormuz Pavri’s book on religious customs which is written in Gujarati and may outline the procedure to be followed.

Kotwal explains that the room in which the fire is temporarily housed has to be cleaned with nirang and water, following which three ijashnis and one vendidad are to be recited. After that no one should enter the room. The fire can then be shifted there. A similar procedure is to be followed when reinstalling the fire.

But if the custom is not stated in writing there is a possibility that each priest will follow his own diktat. Over the years when photographing religious ceremonies in fire temples Parsiana has found that while some priests and even high priests have no objection to photographs being taken as long as it is not of the consecrated fire, other priests object to photographs being shot of jashans, even though the fire lit is not a consecrated one. One panthaky even objected to flash photography being taken in the main hall of the fire temple even though tube lights were on in the room.

A Parsiana reader wrote complaining about a mobed not permitting her to place sukhad (sandalwood) on the fire after a khushali nu jashan (thanksgiving) instructing her "Khaali chokha thi atash né vadhaavi lèv (just sprinkle rice over the fire) (see "Khushali nu jashan," Readers’ Forum, Parsiana, August 21, 2013)." When Parsiana queried London based scholar Farrokh Vajifdar on the issue he replied there is "no such interdict — indeed it would be dishonorable and disrespectful." Ervad (Dr) Ramiyar Karanjia principal of the Dadar Athornan Institute stated "the practice of not allowing people to put loban has been introduced in some places. According to me it is not older than two decades. This practice seems to have stemmed from the notion loban mukvanu (placing) is associated only with death rituals. This is wrong as loban is offered to the fire to spread fragrance in the house to welcome energies and beings (Yazads, Asho Farohar, etc)… I do not see any wrong in offering sandalwood and loban after a khushali nu jashan. In fact it should be done."

Similarly, another reader complained about the incorrect nomenclature used when referring to priests (see "Misnaming our priests," Readers’ Forum, Parsiana May 21, 2014). "Most of us refer to our priests as mobed or dasturji…They should be called ervads." He then listed four categories of priests. Here also Vajifdar offered clarifications and corrections.

Years ago when the ill-fated Council of High Priests was formed, the body barely lasted a few months. Internal differences over controversial issues such as interfaith marriages and disposal of the dead divided the dasturs. The community heaved a sigh of relief. The last thing one needed was a reinforcing of fundamentalist viewpoints. Several of the high priests for example have supported the Bombay Parsi Punchayet in the so-called renegade priests’ case as well as the Valsad Parsi Anjuman in the Goolrookh Gupta case. Both matters are presently before the Supreme Court.

But there is no reason why the Council should not reconvene to standardize religious practices, customs, rites and rituals. If changing times dictate procedures be modified, let the amendments be discussed, agreed upon and sanctioned. The laity should not feel each priest is a law unto himself or is denying the devotees their due. There should be clarity on nomenclature, the permitted participation of laity in the ceremonies, which prayers are to be recited at which ceremonies, the approximate length of time required for the prayers to be recited correctly and meaningfully, and so forth. The priests and the laity are interdependent. The clergy rely on the lay persons for their income and the laity looks to the priesthood for spiritual salvation. Priests following different practices countermines religious fervor and results in mistrust and skepticism. Lay people persistently questioning priestly practices, may undermine the clergy’s standing.

Just as the question whether muktads should be performed for 10 or 18 days was decided (though not always accepted) after much discussion and debate, similarly the dasturs need to sit together and arrive at agreed guidelines. These should then be committed to writing and disseminated among both the clergy and laity. Where there is disagreement, the differences should be enunciated. If the priests in Udvada follow a different procedure from the ones in Bombay or Ahmedabad, devotees should be made aware of the variations. This will help remove doubt, or worse, suspicion. With knowledge comes respect, both for the priesthood and the religion.