In the issue of Parsiana of January 7, 2007 we have two remarkable quotes. The first is by Dastur N. P. Unvalla who concludes his letter "Deadly campaign” with: "We the high priests do not want to preach Bhagvath to the buffaloes.” Strong language by any standards; astonishing when it comes from one whom Faribourz Nariman calls "our orthodox scholar-priests who have distinguished themselves for their command over scriptural matters” in his article "Just a charade.”
In the high priest’s letter we have an entire column of denouncements but not one scriptural reference to substantiate what he claims "our scriptures clearly define and insist on.” If it is so clearly defined and so emphatically insisted on, why not spell it out and quote the scripture to dispel all the doubts and incessant arguments? Why are the high priests shy of presenting this clear-cut religious scriptural reference? Indeed, can they? Or, are they apprehensive that this reference would, in turn, be subjected to further enquiry and study and even more questions? Is there in reality a clear, distinct line which separates religion from custom and tradition? Whereas the religion has only indirect references is it actually the old customs and tradition which some priests insist on following?
I might observe that there is nothing wrong or misguided in trying to adhere to an age old tradition. But to make it a religious tenet and brand those not in favor of this tenet as ‘heretics’ definitely calls for solid scriptural references. Surely if the mode of disposal of the dead is so very paramount to the Zoroastrian religion – enough for priests to actually stop prayers for a departed Zoroastrian’s soul – it must clearly be enunciated as such in the holy Avesta. Is it? To duck under cover that much of our books were destroyed is to throw dust in willing believers’ eyes: for surely there would be enough references to verify such an important aspect or belief — if, indeed, it really were so important.
"Our scholar-priests and scholars have jurisdiction over religious and socioreligious matters,” writes the venerable scholar Nariman in his scathing, bombastic article. Fair enough. By the same logic the scholar-priests are also accountable to give just and objective unprejudiced rulings, with scriptural references, to all doubts and queries of the laity. Surely it is unacceptable if ‘fatwas’ are issued, revoked, amended and the final ruling in the matter left in limbo. The ‘old tradition’ recognized a leader of the community (called the Hudinan peshobay as late as the time of the Caliphs in the ninth century AD, when the Denkard, mentioned by Nariman, was written). Sadly, in India with the progress of time and place, we have six high priests — or seven, I am not sure —and no single leader any more. (It would be an interesting exercise if the laity should insist on this tradition and exhort the high priests to elect only one chief priest from amongst themselves.)
Which direction should the community take if the seniors themselves are ambivalent? It is precisely this vacuous zone which the ‘sundries’ of Nariman try to fill. Why is this zone vacant in the first place? If it is for the high priests to clearly indicate the way and their ‘judgment to be final and binding’ how do we reconcile their ambivalence and what do we say to Unvalla who would not have high priests preach to the proverbial buffaloes?
Lastly, I am constrained to make a distasteful observation on Nariman’s article. "Literacy,” he points out, "is not the criterion for expounding on religion, but rather a thorough knowledge of the subject and ancient Avestan languages.” I take it the learned writer knows these ancient languages as he would have us believe – and good for him too! However, for lesser mortals a quest for knowledge and subsequent enlightenment is no mean pursuit. And it certainly is not the exalted preserve of those who "know the Avestan languages.” Indeed, to take Nariman’s exhortation to its logical end, may we request him to author, bi-monthly, scholarly articles on various issues, starting (may my temerity be excused) with an introductory one explaining broadly the various "Avestan” languages used in our prayers, orally or in writing, as it progressed through the ages to modern times. Surely he must agree that only with enquiry and progressive study can anyone further reason and understanding – especially so of such an ancient ancestry as ours.
And logically, with study – however perfunctory – come opinions. These opinions, in turn, cannot be struck down as ‘heresies and charades.’ In the absence of clear-cut religious direction, the vacuum created needs to be filled by opinion. It is for senior scholars to guide, direct and even help these noble endeavors at reaching for the truth, and certainly not to discourage or dampen the spirit of enquiry.
The renowned scholar of our scripture Professor L. H. Mills prefaces his translation of the Yasna (including the Gathas), Visperad, Afringan, etc as follows: "It would savor of affectation for me to say very much by way of meeting the necessary disadvantages under which I labor as in any sense a successor of Prof Darmesteter.” His genuinely scholarly work which followed reflects a humility worthy of emulation and certainly a lesson to lesser scholars in pomposity and smugness.
SHEEROY SUNAWALA
Bangalore
In his article "Just a charade” (Parsiana, January 7, 2007), scholar of Zoroastrian religion Faribourz Nariman writes: "Only scholar-priests and scholars qualified in the ancient languages of the Zoroastrian scriptures, theology and history can speak, write or give decisions on matters of the Zoroastrian religion.”
So far so good. But half way through the article Nariman criticizes and even jeers at some other scholar-priests of the mid and late 20th century — Dasturs M. N. Dhalla, Framroze Bode and K. S. Dabu — who held reformist views. In his haste and enthusiasm Nariman overlooks the fact that all these three were also full-fledged scholars of Iranian languages and religion, as well as high priests, and yet held reformist views. Nariman calls the three past scholar-priests ‘anti-traditionalists’ and dismisses them ungracefully. In the concluding paras of his article, Nariman reiterates that in all religious matters "the decision-making should be left to the scholar-priests, and their judgment should be final and binding.”
Alas, Nariman has landed himself in a tangle of two contradictory statements. If the present day scholar-priests hold ultra-orthodox views, we should also note the fact that there have been equally qualified scholar-priests in the past who held the opposite or reformist views and suggested practical reforms and changes in our religion, though these were not accepted by people like Nariman and other diehards. So where does Nariman stand? Where are the present day scholar-priests heading? The Zoroastrian religion upholds righteousness and rational thinking, not blind adherence to tradition.
ERUCH D. MISTRY