“Errors in prayer books”

A number of questions arise on reading Ratan Damanwala’s letter "Errors in prayer books” (Readers’ Forum, Parsiana, June 21, 2015).
Kem na Mazda comprises four parts, the first two being stanzas from Ushtavaiti Gatha (kemna to fravaocha, ke verethrem to kamai chitt). Para 3 appears to be in prose as a sort of charm to ward off evil (paatno to ashai) while para 4 is a single line from Gatha Spenta Mainyu (namescha to ijjascha). Ahura Mazda Khodae is entirely (except for para 5: khashnothra Ahura to before stomi ashem) in the late Pazand language. Para 5 is a partial quotation from Ushtavaiti Gatha Ys 46:19. Jas Me Avengha Mazda is made up of the last two verses of Yasna 12. Din no Kalmo is, from rajistaicha to mazdysnoush, in Avestan while the second verse is in the late Pazand language. A Few Daily Prayers (1959) by Iraj J. S. Taraporewala may be consulted.
Are these correct? If so, why has this knowledge not been shared with all Parsis? Who has spliced these prayers together in the sequence we now pray in? Why are we not mandated to recite the Pazand pieces in the obligatory whispers which priests lapse into while reciting such pieces within Avestan prayers (as during baj)?
All practicing Zoroastrians must demand clarifications — or remain ignorant when their own children age ask them about our prayers. Clarifications are a litmus test that the Parsi community is thinking, investigating and concerned with the truth. Elders and priests must issue clarifications, with appropriate scriptural references, without rancor or superiority or being overcome by a feeling of being under siege. Enquiry, if honest, is to be encouraged and indeed nurtured.
One often hears elders saying, "Kétli vakhat té nu té clarification aapya karu (how many times should I repeat these clarifications to the same old questions)?” My reply would be "Keep clarifying. After all it is your primary job. You are mandated by our religion to do just that. And if the process is tiresome, have a xeroxed copy of the ‘oft-repeated’ answers at hand to give to the questioner.”
To dodge answering a genuine query is prevarication and a complete dereliction of ecclesiastic duties.
SHEEROY SUNAWALA
Bangalore
sunawalas@gmail.com

At Parsiana’s request London based independent researcher on Zoroastrianism, Farrokh Vajifdar explains:
Our kusti ritual has a composite structure: the opening introductories of the Kamna mazda (Ys.46.7) and Ka varathram.ja (Ys. 44.16) are Zarathushtra’s very words in these two widely separately Gathic Avestan verses. The writer’s words do no favors to the precision that the extensive Avestan alphabet demands to convey the full force and power of genuinely offered prayers.
Then follows the kusti proper with the Standard Avestan Pata.no prose passage from the priest compiled Vandidad VIII.19-21; 72. The later Pazand addition by way of super commentary, the Hormazd khodai, would have been tacked on in the late 15th century India when the Persian Rivayat exchanges commenced. Knowledge of Gathic and Standard Avestan was then insecure to the point of scrappiness; witness the insertions of stray Avestic lines and the Jasa.me avanhe mazda (end of Ys.12) to round off the kusti ritual.
In response to the Pazand portion, Hormazd khodai, to be "in baj,” why should a private kusti tying ritual be in sotto voce (undertone) or even silence? That is only meant for priests to observe in open recital to signal the super commentarial portion during jashan performance.
Transcribing these essential elements thus and suggesting clarification from priests is likely to compound the irksome problem. Perhaps the entire ritual, so painstakingly assembled by serious minded priests and scribes, is henceforth to be seen as mere jantar-mantar. If so, as may be suspected from this offering, there is much to be deplored, and even more to be properly rectified. If not, then it is goodbye to Zoroastrianism, and welcome to Parsiism on the sub-continent. However ugly be the present day situation, truth remains as truth. The real ever unanswered question is, "What are we doing about it?”