How a Sasanian king was instrumental in
making the Zoroastrian priesthood hereditary
Meheryar N. Rivetna
The recent criticism of Ervad Tehemton Mirza, president of the North American Mobeds Council (see "Clergy wary of change,” Zoroastrians Abroad, Parsiana, November 21-December 6, 2024) is unfounded and baseless. His comment, "any Zarathushti can become a mobed” is spot-on and in line with fundamental Zoroastrian principles. The priestly profession is, like any other profession, an occupation. The priestly profession serves the religious needs and education (not illogical ideas) of adherents of the Zoroastrian religion. Any one, male or female, whether offspring of the clergy or not, can enter the priestly profession. The medical profession is not restricted to the sons of physicians nor does one have to be the son of an accountant to practice that profession.
The deficiency of historical and religious knowledge among Parsis worldwide, and particularly in India, is staggering. So, what is the origin of this tradition of hereditary priesthood?
During the reign of the Sasanian King Kavad I (488-531 CE), the citizens of the empire experienced social and economic unrest. Power and wealth remained in the hands of the nobility and the clergy. Mazdak-i-Bamdad (Mazdak, son of Bamdad) rose to prominence, proclaiming to be an apostle of the Zoroastrian religion. He was committed to peace and justice, vowing to mitigate the social and economic inequalities from which the masses were suffering. He envisaged an egalitarian society and the nation’s "have-nots” gravitated to his ideas and teachings, as noted in Ehsan Yarshater’s Mazdakism; The Cambridge History of Iran Vol. 3 (2); Cambridge University Press (1983).
A refresher course for behdin pasbans conducted by the Athornan Foundation
The nobles and clergy of the Sasanian court having undermined Kavad’s authority, the king accepted Mazdak’s interpretation of the good religion. As a result, Mazdak further empowered the common citizens to embrace his teachings. Historians deem Mazdak to be the first communist.
Towards the end of Kavad’s life, the followers of Mazdak, many faithful to Kavad, wanted the king’s eldest son Kavus to ascend the Sasanian throne, whereas Kavad favored his third son Khosrow to be the next king. Supported by the Zoroastrian priesthood and anti-Mazdakite nobles, Khosrow prevailed and was crowned King Khosrow I (Khosrow Anoshirwan, 531-579 CE).
The Zoroastrian priests and nobles then urged Khosrow I to have Mazdak executed, which he did.
Having "put down heresy and irreligion,” Khosrow called for a council of priests from across the land and proclaimed that "the truth of the Mazda-worshipping religion” was now known. He asked that "the religion now be propagated by progressive propaganda, not through discussion, but through good thoughts, words and actions with conformity to the Holy Word” [see Philip G. Kreyenbroek’s Zoroastrianism Under the Sasanians; in Teachers and Teachings in the Good Religion: Opera Minora on Zoroastrianism, (Ed) Kianoosh Rezania; Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden. 2013].
To quash any further religious uprisings by the likes of Mazdak, the priests wanted autonomy and Khosrow obliged. He actively promoted the power of the priesthood at the cost of certain freedoms of the laity, according to Kreyenbroek. [For those skeptical of Kreyenbroek’s research and scholarship, he has co-authored numerous publications with Dastur (Dr) Firoze Kotwal. Kotwal is unlikely to co-author any publication with anyone who lacks solid credentials.]
In the Zand I Wahman Yasn, we are told: "…it is revealed that once the accursed Mazdak, son of Bamdad, the adversary of the religion, appeared and his followers brought detriment to the religion of the yazads…Khosrow of immortal soul son of Kavad summoned before him (several priests). And he asked an agreement from them, "Do not keep these Yasnas in concealment, but do not teach the Zand outside your offspring.” The priests made the agreement with Khosrow.
As a result of Mazdak promoting a distortion of Zarathushtra’s doctrines, Khosrow proclaimed that the true religion would henceforth consist mainly in obedience to established priestly authority; discussions among priests were permitted, but not encouraged; and the laity was allowed to learn the (what was incomprehensible to them) Avestan texts by heart, but banned from attending priestly studies where exegesis of the Avesta formed part of the teaching of Zand. The study of the meaning of the religion effectively remained a prerogative of the Zoroastrian priesthood from this time onward and the tradition of a hereditary priesthood was created.
These developments meant that the interests of the social establishment could effectively prevent the religion from developing new ways to understand the message of the Zoroastrian religion. That the laity was denied access to the sources of religious knowledge had the effect of limiting any interaction between the priesthood and laity which was, in fact, a key factor to help the Zoroastrian religion develop and keep in touch with social realities, as noted by Kreyenbroek.
It was during the era of Khosrow I that a priest, Veh-Shabuhr, published the 21 books (nasks) of the Avesta which were sent to all provinces whose religious leaders set their seals on them, as per Kreyenbroek as well as Prof Mary Boyce in her Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices. (Boyce had mentored Dastur Kotwal during his student years and later.)
The nasks did not exist before this time. The Parsis need to learn their rich history and not create their own version of the Zoroastrian religion.
Hence, Mirza has not done anything wrong in saying that any Zoroastrian can enter the priesthood at his/her will. There is no proscription to anyone becoming a priest in our scriptures. Where do these "orthodox” Parsis get this idea? The tradition of a hereditary priesthood was introduced by a Sasanian monarch, not Zarathushtra. In fact, in Zarathushtra’s day anyone could become a priest.
The Sasanians are not, by any stretch of the imagination, saviors of the Zoroastrian religion. What they saved was their brand of the faith which is practiced to this day, with a modicum of Zarathushtra’s tenets.
Mirza is an honorable man. The criticism levied against him is fallacious and lacking in merit.
Preserving our traditions
Dastur (Dr) Firoze Kotwal
Response from the High Priest when Parsiana sent him Meheryar Rivetna’s article for his comments.
Since we arrived in Hindustan over a 1,000 years ago, we have preserved our priestly traditions, the genealogy of our priests and our ritual practices, which have their roots in the Sasanian period. No other Parsi or Irani community outside of India has succeeded in preserving this tradition. For example, I am 29th in line from the great Sanskritist and Pahlavi scholar priest Naryosangh Dhaval, and we have preserved and published our genealogy and continue to record the navar initiations. Our adherence as priests in India has always been to uphold the time-tested practices of the faith. Our traditions and religious reet rivaj are not an exercise of academic writing. It is a life that we live every day as priests of the Zoroastrian faith.
There are variations that may occur owing to the exigencies of time, which are not completely in our hands, but as far as possible the learned members of the Zoroastrian priesthood have strived to preserve the practices of the faith even during dangerous times in our history. For example, the texts mention the sacrifice of a lamb or a goat. This was a vibrant practice that has fallen into disuse owing to multiple social reasons, but in Iran this is still carried out in religious places. All long-held practices conceived by the buzorgans of our faith must be held to be sacred in form and spirit.
Our manthravanis on which Mahraspand Yazad presides in that khshnuman, i.e. the dedicatory formula, it affirms dareghaam upayanaam vanghuhim mazdayasnim, i.e. upholding the long (cherished) traditions of the good Mazdayasni faith.
In India, where we have our sacred fire temples with ever-burning fires and well trained yaozdathragar priests, we have a duty and responsibility to follow and preserve our traditions.
Dastur (Dr) FirozeKotwal (seated) at the refresher program for behdin pasbans
In the diaspora, where consecrated places of worship and fully practicing yaozdathragar priests are not available, they may choose to take all sorts of liberties; and if a version of a navar ceremony is done there, such initiations cannot be recognized in India. As a High Priest, I cannot recognize such practices, and I cannot lend such acts any legitimacy. Becoming a behdin pasban as they do in India is an entirely different matter as they are not recognized as mobeds but are trained as those who are allowed to do the outer rituals of the faith and are seen as helpers of the mobed sahebs provided they are properly trained and well versed in prayers.
Our mobed sahebs who perform the navar ceremonies are highly trained yaozdathragar priests who, despite their years of training, always enact high rituals under the supervision of another, more experienced, priest or high priest. In my opinion, there are no mobeds abroad today who know and understand the intricacies of the many rituals done or have the sacred aalaat for the performance and initiation of a navar. I reiterate that such navars performed abroad without the sacred aalaat cannot be recognized within the Indian context.
The Athornan Mandal in Bombay, which is a priestly administrative body of our seminary, The Dadar Athornan Institute, has rightly upheld the traditions and practices of our ancient faith by stating that it "is fully in consonance with all the time-tested customs and traditions of the Zoroastrian religion and is always in support of the pristine perpetuity of the Parsi and Irani community” and that they endorse in every way "hereditary priesthood only, and that of having the sons of Parsi/Irani Zoroastrian parents to be initiated navar maratab, as per the long-standing traditions.” I compliment the Athornan Mandal on this stand and fully support their position.