present, Mr. Dadabhai Naoroji gives us two distinct accounts--first of
the old, secondly of the new school. He describes the incidents in the
daily life of a Parsi of the old school, from the moment he gets out
of bed to the time of his going to rest, and the principal ceremonies
from the hour of his birth to the hour of his burial. Although we can
gather from the tenour of his writings that the author himself belongs
to the Liberals, we must give him credit for the fairness with which
he describes the party to which he is opposed. There is no sneer, no
expression of contempt anywhere, even when, as in the case of the
Nirang, the temptation must have been considerable. What this Nirang
is we may best state in the words of the writer:
'The Nirang is the urine of cow, ox, or she-goat, and the
rubbing of it over the face and hands is the second thing a
Parsee does after getting out of bed. Either before applying
the Nirang to the face and hands, or while it remains on the
hands after being applied, he should not touch anything
directly with his hands; but, in order to wash out the
Nirang, he either asks somebody else to pour water on his
hands, or resorts to the device of taking hold of the pot
through the intervention of a piece of cloth, such as a
handkerchief or his Sudra, i. e. his blouse. He first pours
water on one hand, then takes the pot in that hand and
washes his other hand, face and feet.'
Strange as this process of purification may appear, it becomes
perfectly disgusting when we are told that women, after childbirth,
have not only to undergo this sacred ablution, but have actually to
drink a little of the Nirang, and that the same rite is imposed on
children at the time of their investiture with the Sudra and Kusti,
the badges of the Zoroastrian faith. The Liberal party have completely
surrendered this objectionable custom, but the old school still keep
it up, though their faith, as Dadabhai Naoroji says, in the efficacy
of Nirang to drive away Satan may be shaken. 'The Reformers,' our
author writes, 'maintain that there is no authority whatever in the
original books of Zurthosht for the observance of this dirty practice,
but that it is altogether a later introduction. The old adduce the
authority of the works of some of the priests of former days, and say
the practice ought to be observed. They quote one passage from the
Zend-Avesta corroborative of their opinion, which their opponents deny
as at all bearing upon the point.' Here, whatever our own feelings may
be about the Nirang, truth obliges us to side with the old school, and
if our author had consulted the ninth Fasgard of the Vendidad (page
120, line 21, in Brockhaus's edition), he would have seen that both
the drinking and the rubbing in of the so-called Gaomaezo--i. e.
Nirang--are clearly enjoined by Zoroaster in certain purificatory
rights. The custom rests, therefore, not only on the authority of a
few priests of former days, but on the ipsissima verba of the
Zend-Avesta, the revealed word of Ormuzd; and if, as Dadabhai Naoroji
writes, the Reformers of the day will not go beyond abolishing and
disavowing the ceremonies and notions that have no authority in the
original Zend-Avesta, we are afraid that the washing with Nirang, and
even the drinking of it, will have to be maintained. A pious Parsi has
to say his prayers sixteen times at least every day--first on getting
out of bed, then during the Nirang operation, again when he takes his
bath, again when he cleanses his teeth, and when he has finished his
morning ablutions. The same prayers are repeated whenever, during the
day, a Parsi has to wash his hands. Every meal--and there are
three--begins and ends with prayer, besides the grace, and before
going to bed the work of the day is closed by a prayer. The most
extraordinary thing is that none of the Parsis--not even their
priests--understand the ancient language in which these prayers are
composed. We must quote the words of our author, who is himself of the
priestly caste, and who says:
'All prayers, on every occasion, are said, or rather
recited, in the old original Zend language, neither the
reciter nor the people around intended to be edified,
understanding a word of it. There is no pulpit among the
Parsees. On several occasions, as on the occasion of the
Ghumbars, the bimestral holidays, the third day's ceremonies
for the dead, and other religious or special holidays, there
are assemblages in the temple; prayers are repeated, in
which more or less join, but there is no discourse in the
vernacular of the people. Ordinarily, every one goes to the
fire-temple whenever he likes, or, if it is convenient to
him, recites his prayers himself, and as long as he likes,
and gives, if so inclined, something to the priests to pray
for him.'
In another passage our author says:
'Far from being the teachers of the true doctrines and
duties of their religion, the priests are generally the most
bigoted and superstitious, and exercise much injurious
influence over the women especially, who, until lately,
received no education at all. The priests have, however, now
begun to feel their degraded position. Many of them, if they
can do so, bring up their sons in any other profession but
their own. There are, perhaps, a dozen among the whole body
of professional priests who lay claim to a knowledge of the
Zend-Avesta: but the only respect in which they are superior
to their brethren is, that they have learnt the meanings of
the words of the books as they are taught, without knowing
the language, either philosophically or grammatically.'
Mr. Dadabhai Naoroji proceeds to give a clear and graphic description
of the ceremonies to be observed at the birth and the investiture of
children, at the betrothal of children, at marriages and at funerals,
and he finally dismisses some of the distinguishing features of the
national character of the Parsis. The Parsis are monogamists. They do
not eat anything cooked by a person of another religion; they object
to beef, pork, or ham. Their priesthood is hereditary. None but the
son of a priest can be a priest, but it is not obligatory for the son
of a priest to take orders. The high-priest is called Dustoor, the
others are called Mobed.
The principal points for which the Liberals among the Parsis are, at
the present moment, contending, are the abolition of the filthy
purifications by means of Nirang; the reduction of the large number of
obligatory prayers; the prohibition of early betrothal and marriage;
the suppression of extravagance at weddings and funerals; the
education of women, and their admission into general society. A
society has been formed, called 'the Rahanumaee Mazdiashna,' i. e. the
Guide of the Worshippers of God. Meetings are held, speeches made,
tracts distributed. A counter society, too, has been started, called
'the True Guides;' and we readily believe what Mr. Dadabhai Naoroji
tells us--that, as in Europe, so in India, the Reformers have found
themselves strengthened by the intolerant bigotry and the weakness of
the arguments of their opponents. The Liberals have made considerable
progress, but their work is as yet but half done, and they will never
be able to carry out their religious and social reforms successfully,
without first entering on a critical study of the Zend-Avesta, to
which, as yet, they profess to appeal as the highest authority in
matters of faith, law, and morality.
We propose, in another article, to consider the state of religion
among the Parsis of the present day.
_August, 1862._
II.
The so-called Fire-worshippers certainly do not worship the fire, and
they naturally object to a name which seems to place them on a level
with mere idolaters. All they admit is, that in their youth they are
taught to face some luminous object while worshipping God (p. 7), and
that they regard the fire, like other great natural phenomena, as an
emblem of the Divine power (p. 26). But they assure us that they
never ask assistance or blessings from an unintelligent material
object, nor is it even considered necessary to turn the face to any
emblem whatever in praying to Ormuzd. The most honest, however, among
the Parsis, and those who would most emphatically protest against the
idea of their ever paying divine honours to the sun or the fire, admit
the existence of some kind of national instinct--an indescribable awe
felt by every Parsi with regard to light and fire. The fact that the
Parsis are the only Eastern people who entirely abstain from smoking
is very significant; and we know that most of them would rather not
blow out a candle, if they could help it. It is difficult to analyse
such a feeling, but it seems, in some respects, similar to that which
many Christians have about the cross. They do not worship the cross,
but they have peculiar feelings of reverence for it, and it is
intimately connected with some of their most sacred rites.
But although most Parsis would be very ready to tell us what they do
not worship, there are but few who could give a straightforward answer
if asked what they do worship and believe. Their priests, no doubt,
would say that they worship Ormuzd and believe in Zoroaster, his
prophet; and they would appeal to the Zend-Avesta, as containing the
Word of God, revealed by Ormuzd to Zoroaster. If more closely pressed,
however, they would have to admit that they cannot understand one word
of the sacred writings in which they profess to believe, nor could
they give any reason why they believe Zoroaster to have been a true
prophet, and not an impostor. 'As a body,' says Mr. Dadabhai Naoroji,
'the priests are not only ignorant of the duties and objects of their
own profession, but are entirely uneducated, except that they are able
to read and write, and that, also, often very imperfectly. They do not
understand a single word of their prayers and recitations, which are
all in the old Zend language.'
What, then, do the laity know about religion? What makes the old
teaching of Zoroaster so dear to them that, in spite of all
differences of opinion among themselves, young and old seem equally
determined never to join any other religious community? Incredible as
it may sound, we are told by the best authority, by an enlightened yet
strictly orthodox Parsi, that there is hardly a man or a woman who
could give an account of the faith that is in them. 'The whole
religious education of a Parsi child consists in preparing by rote a
certain number of prayers in Zend, without understanding a word of
them; the knowledge of the doctrines of their religion being left to
be picked up from casual conversation.' A Parsi, in fact, hardly knows
what his faith is. The Zend-Avesta is to him a sealed book; and though
there is a Guzerati translation of it, that translation is not made
from the original, but from a Pehlevi paraphrase, nor is it recognised
by the priests as an authorised version. Till about five and twenty
years ago, there was no book from which a Parsi of an inquiring mind
could gather the principles of his religion. At that time, and, as it
would seem, chiefly in order to counteract the influence of Christian
missionaries, a small Dialogue was written in Guzerati--a kind of
Catechism, giving, in the form of questions and answers, the most
important tenets of Parsiism. We shall quote some passages from this
Dialogue, as translated by Mr. Dadabhai Naoroji. The subject of it is
thus described:
_A few Questions and Answers to acquaint the Children of the
holy Zarthosti Community with the Subject of the Mazdiashna
Religion, _i. e._ the Worship of God._
_Question._ Whom do we, of the Zarthosti community, believe
in?
_Answer._ We believe in only one God, and do not believe in
any besides Him.
_Q._ Who is that one God?
_A._ The God who created the heavens, the earth, the angels,
the stars, the sun, the moon, the fire, the water, or all
the four elements, and all things of the two worlds; that
God we believe in. Him we worship, him we invoke, him we
adore.
_Q._ Do we not believe in any other God?
_A._ Whoever believes in any other God but this, is an
infidel, and shall suffer the punishment of hell.
_Q._ What is the form of our God?
_A._ Our God has neither face nor form, colour nor shape,
nor fixed place. There is no other like him. He is himself
singly such a glory that we cannot, praise or describe him;
nor our mind comprehend him.
So far, no one could object to this Catechism, and it must be clear
that the Dualism, which is generally mentioned as the distinguishing
feature of the Persian religion--the belief in two Gods, Ormuzd, the
principle of good, and Ahriman, the principle of evil--is not
countenanced by the modern Parsis. Whether it exists in the
Zend-Avesta is another question, which, however, cannot be discussed
at present.[51]
The Catechism continues:
_Q._ What is our religion?
_A._ Our religion is 'Worship of God.'
_Q._ Whence did we receive our religion?
_A._ God's true prophet--the true Zurthost (Zoroaster)
Asphantaman Anoshirwan--brought the religion to us from God.
Here it is curious to observe that not a single question is asked as
to the claim of Zoroaster to be considered a true prophet. He is not
treated as a divine being, nor even as the son of Ormuzd. Plato,
indeed, speaks of Zoroaster as the son of Oromazes (Alc. i. p. 122 a),
but this is a mistake, not countenanced, as far as we are aware, by
any of the Parsi writings, whether ancient or modern. With the Parsis,
Zoroaster is simply a wise man, a prophet favoured by God, and
admitted into God's immediate presence; but all this, on his own
showing only, and without any supernatural credentials, except some
few miracles recorded of him in books of doubtful authority. This
shows, at all events, how little the Parsis have been exposed to
controversial discussions; for, as this is so weak a point in their
system that it would have invited the attacks of every opponent, we
may be sure that the Dustoors would have framed some argument in
defence, if such defence had ever been needed.
* * * * *
The next extract from the Catechism treats of the canonical books:
[Footnote 51: See page 140.]
_Q._ What religion has our prophet brought us from God?
_A._ The disciples of our prophet have recorded in several
books that religion. Many of these books were destroyed
during Alexander's conquest; the remainder of the books were
preserved with great care and respect by the Sassanian
kings. Of these again, the greater portion were destroyed at
the Mohammedan conquest by Khalif Omar, so that we have now
very few books remaining; viz. the Vandidad, the Yazashne,
the Visparad, the Khordeh Avesta, the Vistasp Nusk, and a
few Pehlevi books. Resting our faith upon these few books,
we now remain devoted to our good Mazdiashna religion. We
consider these books as heavenly books, because God sent the
tidings of these books to us through the holy Zurthost.
Here, again, we see theological science in its infancy. 'We consider
these books as heavenly books because God sent the tidings of these
books to us through the holy Zurthost,' is not very powerful logic. It
would have been more simple to say, 'We consider them heavenly books
because we consider them heavenly books.' However, whether heavenly or
not, these few books exist. They form the only basis of the
Zoroastrian religion, and the principal source from which it is
possible to derive any authentic information as to its origin, its
history, and its real character.
* * * * *
That the Parsis are of a tolerant character with regard to such of
their doctrines as are not of vital importance, may be seen from the
following extract:
_Q._ Whose descendants are we?
_A._ Of Gayomars. By his progeny was Persia populated.
_Q._ Was Gayomars the first man?
_A._ According to our religion he was so, but the wise men
of our community, of the Chinese, the Hindus, and several
other nations, dispute the assertion, and say that there was
human population on the earth before Gayomars.
The moral precepts which are embodied in this Catechism do the highest
credit to the Parsis:
_Q._ What commands has God sent us through his prophet, the
exalted Zurthost?
_A._ To know God as one; to know the prophet, the exalted
Zurthost, as the true prophet; to believe the religion and
the Avesta brought by him as true beyond all manner of
doubt; to believe in the goodness of God; not to disobey any
of the commands of the Mazdiashna religion; to avoid evil
deeds; to exert for good deeds; to pray five times in the
day; to believe on the reckoning and justice on the fourth
morning after death; to hope for heaven and to fear hell; to
consider doubtless the day of general destruction and
resurrection; to remember always that God has done what he
willed, and shall do what he wills; to face some luminous
object while worshipping God.
Then follow several paragraphs which are clearly directed against
Christian missionaries, and more particularly against the doctrine of
vicarious sacrifice and prayer:
'Some deceivers, [the Catechism says,] with the view of
acquiring exaltation in this world, have set themselves up
as prophets, and, going among the labouring and ignorant
people, have persuaded them that, "if you commit sin, I
shall intercede for you, I shall plead for you, I shall save
you," and thus deceive them; but the wise among the people
know the deceit.'
This clearly refers to Christian missionaries, but whether Roman
Catholic or Protestant is difficult to say. The answer given by the
Parsis is curious and significant:
'If any one commit sin,' they reply, 'under the belief that
he shall be saved by somebody, both the deceiver as well as
the deceived shall be damned to the day of Rasta Khez....
There is no saviour. In the other world you shall receive
the return according to your actions.... Your saviour is
your deeds, and God himself. He is the pardoner and the
giver. If you repent your sins and reform, and if the Great
Judge consider you worthy of pardon, or would be merciful to
you, He alone can and will save you.'
It would be a mistake to suppose that the whole doctrine of the Parsis
is contained in the short Guzerati Catechism, translated by Mr.
Dadabhai Naoroji, still less in the fragmentary extracts here given.
Their sacred writings, the Ya_s_na, Vispered, and Vendidad, the
productions of much earlier ages, contain many ideas, both religious
and mythological, which belong to the past, to the childhood of our
race, and which no educated Parsi could honestly profess to believe in
now. This difficulty of reconciling the more enlightened faith of the
present generation with the mythological phraseology of their old
sacred writings is solved by the Parsis in a very simple manner. They
do not, like Roman Catholics, prohibit the reading of the Zend-Avesta;
nor do they, like Protestants, encourage a critical study of their
sacred texts. They simply ignore the originals of their sacred
writings. They repeat them in their prayers without attempting to
understand them, and they acknowledge the insufficiency of every
translation of the Zend-Avesta that has yet been made, either in
Pehlevi, Sanskrit, Guzerati, French, or German. Each Parsi has to pick
up his religion as best he may. Till lately, even the Catechism did
not form a necessary part of a child's religious education. Thus the
religious belief of the present Parsi communities is reduced to two or
three fundamental doctrines; and these, though professedly resting on
the teaching of Zoroaster, receive their real sanction from a much
higher authority. A Parsi believes in one God, to whom he addresses
his prayers. His morality is comprised in these words--pure thoughts,
pure words, pure deeds. Believing in the punishment of vice and the
reward of virtue, he trusts for pardon to the mercy of God. There is a
charm, no doubt, in so short a creed; and if the whole of Zoroaster's
teaching were confined to this, there would be some truth in what his
followers say of their religion--namely, that 'it is for all, and not
for any particular nation.'
If now we ask again, how it is that neither Christians, nor Hindus,
nor Mohammedans have had any considerable success in converting the
Parsis, and why even the more enlightened members of that small
community, though fully aware of the many weak points of their own
theology, and deeply impressed with the excellence of the Christian
religion, morals, and general civilisation, scorn the idea of ever
migrating from the sacred ruins of their ancient faith, we are able to
discover some reasons; though they are hardly sufficient to account
for so extraordinary a fact?
First, the very compactness of the modern Parsi creed accounts for the
tenacity with which the exiles of Western India cling to it. A Parsi
is not troubled with many theological problems or difficulties. Though
he professes a general belief in the sacred writings of Zoroaster, he
is not asked to profess any belief in the stories incidentally
mentioned in the Zend-Avesta. If it is said in the Yasna that
Zoroaster was once visited by Homa, who appeared before him in a
brilliant supernatural body, no doctrine is laid down as to the exact
nature of Homa. It is said that Homa was worshipped by certain ancient
sages, Viva_n_hvat, Athwya, and Thrita, and that, as a reward for
their worship, great heroes were born as their sons. The fourth who
worshipped Homa was Pourusha_s_pa, and he was rewarded by the birth of
his son Zoroaster. Now the truth is, that Homa is the same as the
Sanskrit Soma, well known from the Veda as an intoxicating beverage
used at the great sacrifices, and afterwards raised to the rank of a
deity. The Parsis are fully aware of this, but they do not seem in the
least disturbed by the occurrence of such 'fables and endless
genealogies.' They would not be shocked if they were told, what is a
fact, that most of these old wives' fables have their origin in the
religion which they most detest, the religion of the Veda, and that
the heroes of the Zend-Avesta are the same who, with slightly changed
names, appear again as Jemshid, Feridun, Gershasp, &c., in the epic
poetry of Firdusi.
Another fact which accounts for the attachment of the Parsis to their
religion is its remote antiquity and its former glory. Though age has
little to do with truth, the length of time for which any system has
lasted seems to offer a vague argument in favour of its strength. It
is a feeling which the Parsi shares in common with the Jew and the
Brahman, and which even the Christian missionary appeals to when
confronting the systems of later prophets.
Thirdly, it is felt by the Parsis that in changing their religion,
they would not only relinquish the heirloom of their remote
forefathers, but of their own fathers; and it is felt as a dereliction
of filial piety to give up what was most precious to those whose
memory is most precious and almost sacred to themselves.
If in spite of all this, many people, most competent to judge, look
forward with confidence to the conversion of the Parsis, it is
because, in the most essential points, they have already, though
unconsciously, approached as near as possible to the pure doctrines of
Christianity. Let them but read the Zend-Avesta, in which they profess
to believe, and they will find that their faith is no longer the faith
of the Ya_s_na, the Vendidad, and the Vispered. As historical relics,
these works, if critically interpreted, will always retain a prominent
place in the great library of the ancient world. As oracles of
religious faith, they are defunct, and a mere anachronism in the age
in which we live.