I thank you for giving space to my queries and observations regarding our kusti prayers ("Errors in prayer books,” Readers’ Forum, Parsiana, August 7, 2015). That you sought explanations from London-based independent researcher Farrokh Vajifdar itself speaks of the fog that envelops the Indian Parsi laity and the indifference of the priesthood.
We are mandated to say the kusti prayers daily (and are happy to do so), but are not informed that the individual prayers are in a medley of languages, which is strange to say the least. Also, it gives the lie to all those pseudo-scholars who shout themselves hoarse claiming our prayers have a magical resonance because they are worded in one very special, ancient sacred language.
Invariably, certain questions are left unanswered or obfuscated. For example, is it true that the Kem na Mazda prayer has "two widely separated Avestan verses” and words followed by a prose piece (not in Avestan), and then is rounded off with the last line (now in Gathic Avestan again!)?
Who has spliced these prayers together as one composite whole? Why should this prayer take precedence over another that would contain one thought, one plaint, in one language? Where was the need to interject a Gathic Avestan prayer with prose? Did it have any edifying effect on the Gathic part, or was it required as a clarification, or in which way was it even necessary to juxtapose?
Are we also, therefore, to understand that there were no kusti prayers before the advent of the Pazand language which was formulated much later? Or were the kusti prayers different prior to that?
Why are we as Zoroastrians not taught from childhood more of the Gathic Avestan prayers rather than this hotch-potch of mixed versions? Will our learned priests clarify? SHEEROY SUNAWALA
Bangalore
sunawalas@gmail.com
In response to Parsiana’s request, Ervad (Dr) Ramiyar Karanjia explains:
The Kem na mazda prayer has been collated from four different sources — three Gathic (poetic) and one Avesta prose. All these are in the Avestan language. Poetic pieces are interspersed along with prose at many places in Avestan prayer texts.
The final redaction of the Avesta — which includes kusti prayers and the Khordeh Avesta — was done by Dastur Adarbad Mahraspand who lived in the early fourth century in Sasanian times. Regarding the composition of prayers, I feel we are not in a position to question the wisdom of the Sasanian priest who has been respectfully followed since the past 1,600 years.
The meaning and message of the Kem na mazda prayer is universal consciousness and energy and why they are needed for the world to progress. It also tells us about the necessity to have divine knowledge, talks about good and evil and the need to protect ourselves from the latter. What more edifying teachings do we require from our basic prayer? As for different lines of thoughts in a single prayer, even the Yatha ahu vairyo has three lines of thought. Finally, all thoughts are connected with a unity of purpose — that of personal and universal evolution.
The tying of the kusti while reciting the prayers is a very ancient, pre-Zoroastrian practice. Those prayers were different; we do not exactly know them. The only Pazand prayer in the kusti is Hormazd Khodai which was composed during the Sasanian times. In Hormazd Yasht it is stated that one should remember Ahura Mazda while untying and tying the kusti.
The kusti prayers are taught at an age when the child may not be able to comprehend their deep, intricate, metaphysical messages. Hence the practical explanations of the "pseudo scholars” explaining the spiritual impact of the prayers is a good option. It is a gross insult to our prayers to refer to them as "hotch potch.” Most of our basic prayers, including the gahs and nyaishs are compilations from larger prayers by competent priestly authorities of yore. There is sacredness in prayers because it is mentioned at several places in our ancient texts. Our millennia old tradition has accepted, venerated, revered and recited them, which included great priests and saints as well as millions of lay people.
Why are we so adamant over clinically dissecting our prayers on linguistic and syntactical grounds instead of enjoying the uplifting experience? Do we ask medical doctors to inform us about the chemical composition of the medicines prescribed or musicians to explain each note of a beautiful composition? Linguistics and syntax are meant for understanding the prayers and not experiencing their recitation which is a highly subjective and personal matter.