Topic of the Month - July & August 2008

[Admin]

Can Zoroastrianism survive the modern world?

Fashion is a good example to consider. Today, the sudreh is being modified so that it may better "fit" underneath our every day clothes. Does it really consist of all correct nine parts? Similarly, some kustis are much more thin so that they are less visible under our clothes. Are these kustis actually made with 72 threads of lamb's wool? These are merely two examples.

As Zarthushtis, what are our responsibilities? Is it possible to stay true to our religion and keep up with change?

[Nasha]

Sudreh and kusti are meant to be a part of our life, but every now and then, if we bend the rules, I do not think that makes us horrible as people. We are still fulfilling our duties, and practicing good thoughts, good words and good deeds. That is our responsibility.

The community does not condemn someone for not wearing sudreh-kusti, as that does not make them any less Zoroastrian. However, it is recommened to wear it to identify with Zoroastrianism and to be closer with God.

[manubanu]

I'm not going to say ppl who take it off so they can wear their backless dress are going to the hot place downstairs...
but I think a lot of people just don't bother at all to try to integrate their religious wear with their fashion wear.

Most girls when dressing up, decide on the outfit first and then whether or not to wear the S&K with it.
Others it's the opposite, their S&K will determine if they even buy the top.

Regardless, there are several ways to "cover up" all signs that you might be <gasp!> wearing something underneath.

btw Nasha, there are many who'd say that S&K is actually a very big part of practicing Zoroastrianism and are important tools in the fight against evil.
.
.

[Jimmy]

In terms of S+K you already know how i feel from my post in that thread :) Its definitely a required part of a Zoroastrians life.

More on the topic at hand. Zoroastrians can adapt and change with the times as long as the fundamental rules of the religion are not broken. We cant disregard these rules because then our religion becomes a philosophy.

For example: we arent supposed to have electricity, but who can go a day without that? But at the same time in our atash behrams and some agyaris they uphold this rule. So where it matters the most the rules are upheld and thats ok.

We cant use nirang to wash our hands after going to the toilet, nor can we use it to bathe which is what we are supposed to do. Today modern soap substitutes for this function and we are clean. Again its ok for our daily lives but when it comes to religious ceremonies the Nirang is kept (where available) because it too has its intrinsic religious properties.

We are supposed to pray 5 times a day but we squeak by with 2 times or even once.

etc etc etc. if Z's did their best best to follow the rules without disregarding them completely for arbitrary reasons and I think we would be in a much better place. Sure you cant follow everything to the T, but at least put fourth the effort to try! (not directed to anyone... unless they arent trying :))

[Nasha]

Is Nirang from a bull's urine?
How come when I had my navjote done, I never had to drink it? Is it not required?

[manubanu]

No fair!! I had to! Nasha we're going to a cattle farm and settle this...

Thought it was from a white cow.

[Senorita]

Is Nirang from a bull's urine?
How come when I had my navjote done, I never had to drink it? Is it not required?

Nirang is urine from a bull/cow that has been subjected to various prayers and rituals to purify it before it is classified as "nirang".
You definitely have to drink it. It's part of the cleansing ritual of the navjote ceremony. Are you sure you're not just supressing that memory?

[Roopkirani]

Is Nirang from a bull's urine?
How come when I had my navjote done, I never had to drink it? Is it not required?

It's a little more complicated than the question of it being required or not. Where in North America are you likely to find actual nirang?

[Nasha]

It's a little more complicated than the question of it being required or not. Where in North America are you likely to find actual nirang?

Sharon, yeah. That's true.

Shanaeya, I was raised since I was two in Atlanta, Georgia. I am 100% sure I never drank anything like that. Neither did my elder brother or elder sister.

What does it taste like?

[Bennie]

Nirang is urine from a bull/cow that has been subjected to various prayers and rituals to purify it before it is classified as "nirang".
You definitely have to drink it. It's part of the cleansing ritual of the navjote ceremony. Are you sure you're not just supressing that memory?

Not to make the procedure sound more complicated, but I thought it was from a white bull...

[Jimmy]

Taro is the 'raw' form of bull urine which can only be taken from a special unblemished pure white bull. This bull is called a Varasya or Varasyaji. Even his tounge has to be checked and found to be completely pink, there cant be even one black hair on his body. Taro is then consecrated in the very elaborate nirangdin ceremony to produce Nirang. It is clinically proven against a control from a farm that nirang compared with standard bull urine is bacteria free whereas the bull urine from the control bull without the nirangdin ceremony was teaming with bacteria after the same amount of time.

Because the nirangdin is so elaborate and ceritan religious facilities are needed for this ceremony obtaining Nirang in anywhere thats not india is close to impossible. Therefore orange juice or something similar is substituted in for the nirang.

[Nasha]

Because the nirangdin is so elaborate and ceritan religious facilities are needed for this ceremony obtaining Nirang in anywhere thats not india is close to impossible. Therefore orange juice or something similar is substituted in for the nirang.

I believe I had some type of holy water or milk.

[Jazzi]

Is Nirang from a bull's urine?
How come when I had my navjote done, I never had to drink it? Is it not required?

make sure u dont miss the opportunity to drink at at ure wedding then ;) ....im not sure if its even a requirement to drink it at weddings??

[Jimmy]

it is a requirement where available for weddings and navjotes!

[Bennie]

Because the nirangdin is so elaborate and ceritan religious facilities are needed for this ceremony obtaining Nirang in anywhere thats not india is close to impossible. Therefore orange juice or something similar is substituted in for the nirang.

Paakzaad had orange juice for his wedding in Canada. We are nirang at our navjote ceremony in India.

[Jazzi]

cant someone just send/bring it with them from india when they come for the special occasion?

[Jimmy]

I dont know if customs would allow it :P ..i wonder if it has been done before.

[Jazzi]

i dont think customs would be an issue with the amount of stuff my family just brought back from india :P...obviously u wouldnt be able to carry it in hand luggage though

[Jimmy]

hahaha you made it sound like you were smuggling drugz :P:twisted:

[Jazzi]

now now jimmy, only u would think such things :P

[Jimmy]

:cool:

[sanaya83]

Hmm my older sis and I had to drink the nirang but my younger sis was made to drink a pink juice instead even though she had her Navjote in Bombay...
Coming back to what Jimmy said I do agree that we should try to follow the rules of the religion as much as possible but I for one find that the more I listen to others the more confusing it gets..And yeah everyone seems to come up with their own set of rules besides the basic of wearing a sudreh and kusti..even from the Traditional zoroastrians that I know of each one of them follows different rules and rituals..After a point I have to wonder how man-made it is...

[Senorita]

Because the nirangdin is so elaborate and ceritan religious facilities are needed for this ceremony obtaining Nirang in anywhere thats not india is close to impossible.

Just thought I'd throw this in here...last time I was in Surat I attended a nirangdin ceremony. It really is very elaborate and long! It started at about 2am and the dasturji's prayed non-stop till about 7am or so. Elaborate doesn't even begin to describe it!

[Jimmy]

Hmm my older sis and I had to drink the nirang but my younger sis was made to drink a pink juice instead even though she had her Navjote in Bombay...
Coming back to what Jimmy said I do agree that we should try to follow the rules of the religion as much as possible but I for one find that the more I listen to others the more confusing it gets..And yeah everyone seems to come up with their own set of rules besides the basic of wearing a sudreh and kusti..even from the Traditional zoroastrians that I know of each one of them follows different rules and rituals..After a point I have to wonder how man-made it is...


You are right sanaya. I think many of our customs have been adopted/made up, but our religious rituals and ceremonies i think have been well preserved since we left Iran. When it comses to religious items there really should be no variation from the 'norm'. I find that the ones creating arbitrary new religious rules or lack thereof and confusing people are the liberal minded folks in the reilgion. The conservatives seem to be pretty consistent with regards to the basic fundamental do-s and dont-s of our religion. What has your experiences been and what do you see differ?

[Roopkirani]

Paakzaad had orange juice for his wedding in Canada.

Yep. I had lime juice.

[manubanu]

Hmm...there was this one girl on the facebook Zoro group who drank pomegranate juice for her navjote and said it was totally fine. :-P

[Nasha]

Is there something wrong with pomegranate juice?

[Senorita]

There's nothing wrong with pomegranate juice or orange juice or lime juice. I'm just not entirely sure what purpose these serve within our religious rituals though. I mean we don't just drink nirang because we're meant to be drinking something. There's a reason we drink it.
I guess its ok to have an alternate if you don't have access to the real thing but if you do and you choose to drink something else then I don't see the validity of the ritual in a religious sense.

[Number 96]

It is clinically proven against a control from a farm that nirang compared with standard bull urine is bacteria free whereas the bull urine from the control bull without the nirangdin ceremony was teaming with bacteria after the same amount of time.

Jimmy do you know where I can find any studies to this effect? I am really eager to read stuff like this - I have heard references to such studies but am yet to see it for myself!
Anyone with studies of prayers changing chemical composition of materials can you please let me know where I can find it?

[narius]

Can Zoroastrianism survive the modern world? Yes.

Will Zoroastrianism survive the modern world? Probably not.

:D

[Parizad]

interesting you say that Narius. why do you suppose it won't survive the modern world?

[narius]

Anything that doesn't change with the times, won't last the modern world.

[Roopkirani]

And what exactly is it about Zoroastrianism that is meant or should "change with the times"?

[Jimmy]

I dont think the modern world will survive the modern world.

[narius]

True, considering on Wednesday the entire earth might be sucked into a black hole that we created. ;)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1051070/Landmark-experiment-unlock-secrets-Big-Bang-cause-end-world-say-scientists-court-bid-halt-it.html

[Nasha]

True, considering on Wednesday the entire earth might be sucked into a black hole that we created. ;)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1051070/Landmark-experiment-unlock-secrets-Big-Bang-cause-end-world-say-scientists-court-bid-halt-it.html

Umm...it was nice knowing you all. Have a nice afterlife.

[friya]

I think Zoroastrianism does have a very strong chance to survive in the modern world.
Some of the reasons why we wont survive would be:
1. Not allowing conversions into Zoroastrianism
2. Misinterpretations of the religion and different idealogies
3. Marrying outside the community

I think its a pity we dont allow conversions into Zoroastrianism. I can completely understand the facts regarding diluting the religion and mixing the blood lines. But the questions I ask myself here are, how mnay of us born into the religion can actually claim that we follow it correctly and consistently, respect it, and really understand it. Many of us probably can. But I'm sure that there are loads of us who cant/dont. Look at the number of us who dont wear our Sudreh-Kusti's or pray five times a day. If there is someone willing to practise Zoroastrianism truly, why not allow them into the religion. What I fear is the creation of a parallel religious group in the future and God forbid, a huge fight that will go on for generations.
A question on this point of conversion. I've heard that this rule of not allowing conversions was brought in only once we came to India so that we could conserve Zoroastrianism(I mean afterall, we did flee Iran to conserve the religion). Any one have any thoughts or formal literature to support this point?
I try to follow 'Good Thoughts, Good Words and Good Deeds' as much as possible. I dont think that wearing my Sudreh-Kusti makes me remember that I'm not supposed to do wrong or protects me from evil. (Someone on one of the forums said, its all depends on your aura. I couldnt agree more. We each have our own and we create it with out thoughts and actions. The power of positive thinking and law of attraction is very strong.) I think religion was created to lead people onto the path of good. How many more wars, fights and acts of terrorism do we see in the name of religion? It doesnt take a very smart person to know that all of this is wrong.
With respect to marrying outside the community. I've been told that in the States, a child born to a Zoroastrian mother (non Zoroastrian father) can have their Navjotes performed. I am from India but havent lived there very much, so I may be completely wrong, but I understand that children of non-Zoroastrian fathers cannot have their Navjote's performed. Is this a true? Can anyone confirm this? Also, why is that children of Zoroastrian mothers cannot have their children's Navjote performed? Why cant a child of a mixed marriage be intiated into both religions when they're young and then be given the option to choose if they want to when they're older?

[Senorita]

Friya,
You raise some great questions and I'll try and respond to your question in as succinct a manner as I can as most of these issues have been covered on various other forums here.

I think its a pity we dont allow conversions into Zoroastrianism....
A question on this point of conversion. I've heard that this rule of not allowing conversions was brought in only once we came to India so that we could conserve Zoroastrianism(I mean afterall, we did flee Iran to conserve the religion). Any one have any thoughts or formal literature to support this point?

This is a theory that does get thrown around a lot. Truth is conversion has never been practiced in Zoroastrianism, not even back in Persia/Iran. Furthermore, there is no ritual or ceremony in Zoroastrianism to convert someone into the faith. One must be a mazdayasni to have their navjote performed to be initiated into the faith but there is nothing in the scriptures to suggest that conversion may be performed.

I try to follow 'Good Thoughts, Good Words and Good Deeds' as much as possible. I dont think that wearing my Sudreh-Kusti makes me remember that I'm not supposed to do wrong or protects me from evil.

Our religion makes very few demands on us compared to some other religions but this isn't the reason one should follow all the tarikats. Wearing the sudreh-kusti protects us from evil. Whether you believe it or not is a personal choice and no one can force you to believe one way or the other. But if you believe in the teachings of the religion then you will follow it to the best of your ability.

With respect to marrying outside the community. I've been told that in the States, a child born to a Zoroastrian mother (non Zoroastrian father) can have their Navjotes performed. I am from India but havent lived there very much, so I may be completely wrong, but I understand that children of non-Zoroastrian fathers cannot have their Navjote's performed. Is this a true? Can anyone confirm this? Also, why is that children of Zoroastrian mothers cannot have their children's Navjote performed? Why cant a child of a mixed marriage be intiated into both religions when they're young and then be given the option to choose if they want to when they're older?

Children from mixed marriages are not allowed to have their navjotes performed. That doesn't mean that it doesn't happen but at the same time if it does happen it is not as a result of correct religious procedure. It happens across the world not just in the States but even in India. Sadly, if you are willing to pay enough, you will find a dastoor or even a fake (self-proclaimed) "dastoor" to do your bidding. In the States, I believe it is a result of "modernising" the religion that sees children of either non-Zoro parent having their navjote performed.
Why can't navjotes of these children be performed? This relates once again to the point I raise in the conversion explanation. A child must be a mazdayasni to have their navjote performed to be initiated into the faith.

[Parizad]

Friya,
You raise some great questions and I'll try and respond to your question in as succinct a manner as I can as most of these issues have been covered on various other forums here.



This is a theory that does get thrown around a lot. Truth is conversion has never been practiced in Zoroastrianism, not even back in Persia/Iran. Furthermore, there is no ritual or ceremony in Zoroastrianism to convert someone into the faith. One must be a mazdayasni to have their navjote performed to be initiated into the faith but there is nothing in the scriptures to suggest that conversion may be performed.

I must have missed that section in religious classes when we were talking about how Zoroastrianism came to exist in the first place. Sadly or fairly, some Zoroastrians only hold true whatever we can decipher from scriptures that weren't destroyed in the times of Alexander and Muslim conquest.


Our religion makes very few demands on us compared to some other religions but this isn't the reason one should follow all the tarikats. Wearing the sudreh-kusti protects us from evil. Whether you believe it or not is a personal choice and no one can force you to believe one way or the other. But if you believe in the teachings of the religion then you will follow it to the best of your ability.

Actually, through our discussions on Zpeakerbox, I have come to learn that not wearing your sudreh-kusti (or sudreh-pushi) and not following the number of rituals of our religion actually makes you a bad Zoroastrian. you may take the philosophies of the faith and put it to practice in your own daily life but that only makes you a good person, not a good Zoroastrian.


Children from mixed marriages are not allowed to have their navjotes performed. That doesn't mean that it doesn't happen but at the same time if it does happen it is not as a result of correct religious procedure. It happens across the world not just in the States but even in India. Sadly, if you are willing to pay enough, you will find a dastoor or even a fake (self-proclaimed) "dastoor" to do your bidding. In the States, I believe it is a result of "modernising" the religion that sees children of either non-Zoro parent having their navjote performed.
Why can't navjotes of these children be performed? This relates once again to the point I raise in the conversion explanation. A child must be a mazdayasni to have their navjote performed to be initiated into the faith.

What do you mean they are not allowed to have their navjotes? In so many family where a father is Zarthushti, his children are allowed to become members of the faith. That has been a practice for a very long time. There was a bit of a "crisis" issues when some Zoroastrian mothers who had married out wanted to initiate their children in the faith... from my understanding (and I could be wrong) that was all settled when we realized that our faith promotes the equality between men and women.


Senorita, I may not share your views on these points as we likely sit across the political spectrum on religious matters but I am sincerely disappointed that you talk about our priests this way: that if willing to pay for prayer services, you can find one to do our bidding. Many of our priests are selfless and are bound only by their duty as dasturs. Many of them sacrifice time with their friends and families to perform their ceremonial duties so that the rest of us can be enchanted in hymns and prayers. Even if there are some greedy and money hungry priests out there, chalni, let's even give you the benefit of the doubt... at least show a little respect when you talk about such people also. Being a dastur in our faith is a 24/7 job you don't get paid for. It's a commitment they take as young children instead of using that time to play with their Xbox or taking playing games in their baug or ball hockey on the street. Your comment is narrow-minded (let's be clear here, I'm not saying you're narrow-minded) because it assumes that a priest who doesn't share the same beliefs as you with respect to conversion or performing navjotes is a greedy bastard who will do anything for a few extra dollars, pounds, or rupees.

[Jimmy]

Dont have time to write up a usual lenght post but just from the previous few posts I have to comment...

In the parsi father non parsi mother case I have yet to find a high priest that accepts this as the norm. Yes this does happen and some Parsis take this as a self imposed rule. Our faith does promote equality of the sexes: equality of neither of them to marry out. The fact of the matter is when you say 'this has been practiced for a very long time' that only = at most 120 years. Prior to that it was absolutley unheard of. It created a literal and philosophical riot back then as much as it does today. It was only after some very rich parsi's exerted their monetary and political power to influence both the court of law and yes in my opinon one or two "greedy bastard who will do anything for a few extra dollars, pounds, or rupees" priests to recognize their marriage and subsequently their kids did all of this suddenly become the norm. All of a sudden Aapro wadia, Appro Tata .. etc was marrying out and therefore it became OK, but not because it is religiously sound, therefore not OK at all. This is a symptom of what i call shrunken parsi brain syndrome.

When you are initiated as a priest its almost like being sworn in as a police officer. You are duty bound to uphold the laws of the religion and ensure that you guide people on the right path. I think what Senorita was getting at was the priests who do perform these controvertial ceremonies are going against the very oath they took and pledge they made to do the right thing.

There are two main reasons for why this happens:

Priests are human beings and they are at worst corruptable(aforementioned bastards), and at best exploitable. Even the priests who KNOW what they are doing is wrong have no choice but to do so. Their very livlihood depends on it. When you are a 70 year old Priest who has no skill or training other than to serve the community and a trustee comes and tells you "do this navjote or you can pack up your things tomorrow" What choice do you have? I know you may say "but its also possible that they could legitmately believe what they are doing is right". If they are a learned priest who has really studied the religion indepth and especially the controvertial topics, and found the answers to why we do the things that we do, the chances of that being the case are probably about 1/1000.

Our religious rules are controlled not by the priests but the people in power with money (trustees). Can you think of one religion that functions this way? Just wait for the real fun to start after the BPP elections are over this year. You may not even recognize your own religion.

So much for brevity.

[Parizad]

just to clarify... what you're saying then, Jimmy, is that once our priests have learned what is "right" and "true" about our religion, they can not and will not have any reason to doubt otherwise, nor will they have a differing opinion. correct?

ah Jim, I don't think so...

and just to be sure I haven't misunderstood you completely, what you're saying is that a priest may perform a conversion navjote (or one where both children's parents are not Zarthushti) if either:

a. a priest's personal belief system interferes with wholeheartedly believing everything he was told to be TRUE and RIGHT... which really then would be a disobedience to his duty as a priest; or

b. the priest, "who has really studied the religion in depth and especially the controversial topics, and found the answers to why we do the things that we do," and even truly believes in such truths himself, has no spine to stand up for what is RIGHT (when it comes to this issue) and face the consequences of his actions; thus, disobeying his oath as a priest.

still doesn't say much about our priests, no?

[Jamsheer]

Since priests are humans, is it not possible that they perform conversions/navjotes etc. because they believe it is the right thing to do rather than them having no spine, being corrupt etc. etc.?

Our religion IS changing. It IS different from what is was 100 years ago and it WILL will be different 100 years from now. This is neither a good nor a bad thing. This is a natural progression in terms of changing societies, moralities etc. To deny that is a rather naive, head-in-the-sand approach.

[Senorita]

Actually, through our discussions on Zpeakerbox, I have come to learn that not wearing your sudreh-kusti (or sudreh-pushi) and not following the number of rituals of our religion actually makes you a bad Zoroastrian. you may take the philosophies of the faith and put it to practice in your own daily life but that only makes you a good person, not a good Zoroastrian.

Did my explanation lead you to believe otherwise? That is exactly what I meant. But that is my belief. If you simply believe in the "philosophies" of Zoroastrianism and don't follow the rituals then I personally don't believe you're even following the religion but just aligning with a particular school of thought. So yes if one Zoroastrian wears their S+K versus another who doesn't, then ceteris paribus, the former is a better Zoroastrian.



What do you mean they are not allowed to have their navjotes? In so many family where a father is Zarthushti, his children are allowed to become members of the faith. That has been a practice for a very long time. There was a bit of a "crisis" issues when some Zoroastrian mothers who had married out wanted to initiate their children in the faith... from my understanding (and I could be wrong) that was all settled when we realized that our faith promotes the equality between men and women.


Once again there are varying views on this topic. It is long standing practice in the States that kids of either Zoro parent are able to get their navjote done. Even in India, children of a Zoro father only were able to get their navjote done. Jimmy has already explained as to how this practice started and how it has formally been rejected by the clergy as standard practice.



Senorita, I may not share your views on these points as we likely sit across the political spectrum on religious matters but I am sincerely disappointed that you talk about our priests this way: that if willing to pay for prayer services, you can find one to do our bidding. Many of our priests are selfless and are bound only by their duty as dasturs. Many of them sacrifice time with their friends and families to perform their ceremonial duties so that the rest of us can be enchanted in hymns and prayers. Even if there are some greedy and money hungry priests out there, chalni, let's even give you the benefit of the doubt... at least show a little respect when you talk about such people also. Being a dastur in our faith is a 24/7 job you don't get paid for. It's a commitment they take as young children instead of using that time to play with their Xbox or taking playing games in their baug or ball hockey on the street. Your comment is narrow-minded (let's be clear here, I'm not saying you're narrow-minded) because it assumes that a priest who doesn't share the same beliefs as you with respect to conversion or performing navjotes is a greedy bastard who will do anything for a few extra dollars, pounds, or rupees.

Parizad, whilst its clear that we don't share the same religious views, one similarity in belief we do share is in our deep respect for the clergy. My comment was in no way meant to disrespect the hardwork that the majority of the clergy do put in to tending to the agiaries and religious duties in return for very little reward. I completely agree with you that "Many of our priests are selfless and are bound only by their duty as dasturs. Many of them sacrifice time with their friends and families to perform their ceremonial duties so that the rest of us can be enchanted in hymns and prayers."
However, I thought my comment about "self-proclaimed" priests was also quite clear. I was referring to the Ali Jafferey's of this world who claim to be Zoroastrian priest when in fact they are either not even Zoro's or if they are, then they have no formal training. And yes, it did also refer to those corrupt priests who for some financial reward do the wrong thing in performing the navjotes. I assume when I make such a statement that these priests do recognise that this practice is wrong.
So you may go ahead and call it narrow-minded but just as I believe a corrupt cop who devotes his time to law and order and risks his life rather than partaking in some other frivolous activity is simply a corrupt and unethical person, so do I believe the same for those corrupt dasturs who perform such ceremonies for financial reward knowing it is wrong and therefore don't respect them.
I'll borrow from Jimmy's analogy here that if you take an oath to perform the tarikats and rituals of our religion and completely believe in the reasoning behind it then there would be no question of what is correct practice. Just as a cop can't go ahead and make his own laws and has to simply uphold those that he swears to, so should a priest. And allow me to make it clear as well that this does not make them brainless, spineless individuals, but rather, up-holders of our faith.

[Parizad]

I'm glad you have cleared up these points, Senorita.

Therefore, based on the arguments made by Senorita and Jimmy, I don't believe Zoroastrianism will survive the modern world.

Senorita, just be sure, if I don't do my kusti after I go to the washroom, does that also make me a bad Zoroastrian?

[Jimmy]

Parizad think of it as a sliding scale with various categories holding different weights. No one person is ever going to be at 100%.. do as much as you can in your capacity to follow the proper tenets of the religion without making silly excuses. I know people (our age) who DO in fact perform their kusti after they go to the washroom. They are better off spritually than those of us who do not do this.

Its not about being a bad or good Z. There are people who pray the 'required' 5 times a day same goes there. In an increasingly modern world it becomes literally impossible to follow every rule to the letter. However if you didnt even try, dismiss all our practices as bogus/archaeic and proclaim that we live in a modern world and that stuff wasnt needed anymore then IMHO you are not a bad Z but rather an ignorant one. Even if we do as much as we can there reaches a saturation point where its hard to do much more. I can name quite a few number of things we are supposed to do that I dont. However instead of me saying 'we dont have to do that" I recognize that we do and realize that me not doing them undermines my own sprituality. Perhaps one day I can work myself up to those things.

Im not singleing you out Parizad, but I hear this "well do you pray your kusti everytime you exit the washroom" argument from so many people who think liberally. I wonder if they even know why we are supposed to do that. Everytime we pray our kusti it has a clensing effect both physically and spritually. We all know that anytime our body releases fluids(urine, defication, women with her period, man after a wet dream, any wound that bleeds) we are in an impure state. With the exception of the menses the usual prescription would be to wash up and perform your kusti. This mitigates trace amounts of impurities left on our body and returns us back to a spritually stable state. For the modern day lay Z soap and water may suffice. A Kusti afterwards though would be the best for those who can swing it. For Priests who are performing cermonies however its a must.

So when you compare clensing rituals to critial tarikats which define us as Zoroastrians (marrying within the faith, wearing sudreh and K, saying your prayers etc..) you are really comparing apples and oranges in the spritual realm. When you dont do your kusti after the washroom, you are at worst a not so clean Zoroastrian. But if you marry outside of the religion or perform rituals on people who are not Zoroastrian that is a whole different level of wrong.

[Jimmy]

Since priests are humans, is it not possible that they perform conversions/navjotes etc. because they believe it is the right thing to do rather than them having no spine, being corrupt etc. etc.?

Our religion IS changing. It IS different from what is was 100 years ago and it WILL will be different 100 years from now. This is neither a good nor a bad thing. This is a natural progression in terms of changing societies, moralities etc. To deny that is a rather naive, head-in-the-sand approach.

Only people who have profound knowlege of the spritual realm are allowed to make changes to religion. That is true for any major religion. Furthermore as with other religions if lay people try and alter any sacred texts or rituals its considered a sin.

Even our saints of the latter years, who have performed countless miracles, have urged us to continue to do what we have been doing. Even they did not promote change. If that dosent tell you something I dont know what will.

[Senorita]

Senorita, just be sure, if I don't do my kusti after I go to the washroom, does that also make me a bad Zoroastrian?

I never said one is bad and the other is good. I simply said one who follows the rituals as specified in our religion for spiritual enhancement is a "better" zoro vs someone who doesn't.
I'm not saying that I pray 5 times a day or that I do my kusti after each visit to the bathroom. But I do believe that if I did do those things that I would be a better Zoroastrian. That I would attain greater spiritual fulfilment. And I am not ashamed to say that someone who does these things is a better Zoroastrian than me.

What I do have a problem with as far as this topic goes is the concept of the "modern world". Is that not a relative concept? Every century that has past since the revelation of the religion has been more modern than the one before. Despite this, we have managed to preserve the rituals and tarikats to the best of our ability to present day. So why is it all of a sudden unbearable to be expected to wear a S+K 24/7? Why do we now simply think it is enough to think like a Zoroastrian rather than be a Zoroastrian? It almost seems as if the year 2000 was the "best before" date on Zoroastrianism, and for sheer convenience we've moved on to practicing philosophy rather than the religion itself.

[Parizad]

However instead of me saying 'we dont have to do that" I recognize that we do and realize that me not doing them undermines my own sprituality. Perhaps one day I can work myself up to those things.

I agree with you about that Jimmy; however, who has said that "we don't have to do that"? What I'm saying is that just because we may HAVE to do it doesn't mean that everyone does it, as you've said. And over time, just as you and I do not practice all the rituals of our religion, so too will the future generations practice fewer and fewer rituals. But then this leads to question that if rituals alone are what define spirituality (and I'm not saying that you are suggesting this), then how closer are ritualistic Zarthushtis to supreme spirituality than ritualistic members of another faith? Rituals are specific to the religion itself, right?

Im not singleing you out Parizad, but I hear this "well do you pray your kusti everytime you exit the washroom" argument from so many people who think liberally.

I'm sorry that you hear this from us liberal minded people so often, Jimmy. I suppose it might be the same reason we liberal minded people are a little tired of hearing Ali Jaffrey's name put into context of every liberally charged debate Ref:
I was referring to the Ali Jafferey's of this world who claim to be Zoroastrian priest when in fact they are either not even Zoro's or if they are, then they have no formal training.

While I definitely appreciate you clarifying and explaining a ritual of our religion for likely the umpteenth time (because this discussion has definitely come up for the umpteenth time), it doesn't explain the double standard that a lot of Parsis have. To preach the greatness of certain rituals and why they must be practiced and yet not to practice it yourself. I'm not faulting you of any lack-of-doing, Jimmy because I do think that some of these rituals are impractical for every day life -if they weren't, you would be practicing them, right? Should we do them? Yeah, we probably should. Do we do them? No, some of us don't. But if you don't, then be an educator of a ritual and practice that is being faded out, give us our history lesson because it is important, but don't judge us for not doing something that you also don't do. That's fair, non?

[Parizad]

I never said one is bad and the other is good. I simply said one who follows the rituals as specified in our religion for spiritual enhancement is a "better" zoro vs someone who doesn't.
I'm not saying that I pray 5 times a day or that I do my kusti after each visit to the bathroom. But I do believe that if I did do those things that I would be a better Zoroastrian. That I would attain greater spiritual fulfilment. And I am not ashamed to say that someone who does these things is a better Zoroastrian than me.

What I do have a problem with as far as this topic goes is the concept of the "modern world". Is that not a relative concept? Every century that has past since the revelation of the religion has been more modern than the one before. Despite this, we have managed to preserve the rituals and tarikats to the best of our ability to present day. So why is it all of a sudden unbearable to be expected to wear a S+K 24/7? Why do we now simply think it is enough to think like a Zoroastrian rather than be a Zoroastrian? It almost seems as if the year 2000 was the "best before" date on Zoroastrianism, and for sheer convenience we've moved on to practicing philosophy rather than the religion itself.

Are you 100% sure that our parents and grandparents ALL wore their sudrehs and kustis? Are you primarily referring to the Parsis in India? I don't think the "best before" date was the year 2000, give or take a year. This is definitely not a new debate that has begun with this generation.

FYI the religion and its rituals and practices are based first on its philosophy. Why are you dismissing philosophy as if that's a bad thing?

[Senorita]

I can speak for my parents, grand-parents and great-grand-parents when I say that they ALL wore their S+K ALL the time. And since my maternal grand-parents were from Iran, I am not only referring to Parsis in India.

I'm not dismissing the philosophy as a bad thing but I'm trying to convey the point that its not the ONLY thing.

[Senorita]

I'm sorry that you hear this from us liberal minded people so often, Jimmy. I suppose it might be the same reason we liberal minded people are a little tired of hearing Ali Jaffrey's name put into context of every liberally charged debate


Parizad that was in no way meant to be a snipe at you or the liberal minded people. I think we can all be in agreement that Ali Jaffery does not practice nor preach Zoroastrianism, liberal or otherwise.

[Jimmy]

just to clarify... what you're saying then, Jimmy, is that once our priests have learned what is "right" and "true" about our religion, they can not and will not have any reason to doubt otherwise, nor will they have a differing opinion. correct?

ah Jim, I don't think so...

and just to be sure I haven't misunderstood you completely, what you're saying is that a priest may perform a conversion navjote (or one where both children's parents are not Zarthushti) if either:

a. a priest's personal belief system interferes with wholeheartedly believing everything he was told to be TRUE and RIGHT... which really then would be a disobedience to his duty as a priest; or

b. the priest, "who has really studied the religion in depth and especially the controversial topics, and found the answers to why we do the things that we do," and even truly believes in such truths himself, has no spine to stand up for what is RIGHT (when it comes to this issue) and face the consequences of his actions; thus, disobeying his oath as a priest.

still doesn't say much about our priests, no?

in the case of a) yes he is definitely going against his duty as a priest.
In the case of b).. you are saying the priest in question believes that it is incorrect to perform a 'conversion' but does so anyway because he has no spine?

In the latter case Parizad, its not so cut and dry with regards to existance of a spine. If you were a priest.. making the shitty wages that a priest makes, (one rupee coin anyone?) living in pathetic conditions though you have to be thankful because its a place to live, and you really have no means to support you or your family rather than to do what the trustees tell you to do...not a nice situation to be in is it? Many priests and their famalies have been thrown out onto the street to fend for themselves because they stood up for what is right. Its is definitely something easiser said than done.

[Jimmy]

I agree with you about that Jimmy; however, who has said that "we don't have to do that"? What I'm saying is that just because we may HAVE to do it doesn't mean that everyone does it, as you've said. And over time, just as you and I do not practice all the rituals of our religion, so too will the future generations practice fewer and fewer rituals. But then this leads to question that if rituals alone are what define spirituality (and I'm not saying that you are suggesting this), then how closer are ritualistic Zarthushtis to supreme spirituality than ritualistic members of another faith? Rituals are specific to the religion itself, right?

Everyone does not do it because they think they don’t have to! It really is the same argument. Ritualistic Zoroastrians are equally close to high spirituality as holy men of other religions. Yes rituals are indeed specific to the religion and its followers.

I'm sorry that you hear this from us liberal minded people so often, Jimmy. I suppose it might be the same reason we liberal minded people are a little tired of hearing Ali Jaffrey's name put into context of every liberally charged debate Ref:

And what reason would that be..?

While I definitely appreciate you clarifying and explaining a ritual of our religion for likely the umpteenth time (because this discussion has definitely come up for the umpteenth time), it doesn't explain the double standard that a lot of Parsis have. To preach the greatness of certain rituals and why they must be practiced and yet not to practice it yourself. I'm not faulting you of any lack-of-doing, Jimmy because I do think that some of these rituals are impractical for every day life -if they weren't, you would be practicing them, right? Should we do them? Yeah, we probably should. Do we do them? No, some of us don't. But if you don't, then be an educator of a ritual and practice that is being faded out, give us our history lesson because it is important, but don't judge us for not doing something that you also don't do. That's fair, non?

I do not believe that I have ever judged others for something I also do not do, have I? Or anyone for that matter? When have I ever said “I cant believe we as a people don’t pray 5 times a day.. that’s an abomination… by the way I only pray twice a day” ..What are you referring to? They may not be feasible, but that does not mean they are useless and obsolete. That’s one thing that conservatives battle with. So many regard our rituals as antiquated…yes the original purpose for doing the s+k after the washroom was to purify ones self, we have soap and water now, but that does not forgo the s+k, and we would be better off spiritually if we did do that, if we could fit it into our daily lives.

Again, im confused, you said you are thankful that I explained the ritual for the upteenth time but at the same time you want me to educate people on how its historically and religiously important? The way i see it there are two types of rituals, rituals of definition (wedding, navjote, nirangdin, yejeshni, dokhmanashini, boi, and other high liturgical rituals that priests perform) and rituals of routine(5 times a day prayer, prayer after washroom..). Rituals of definiton are a must and must be adhered to as is at all costs because they define us as a religion. Rituals of routine should be done to the extent possible that it fits into our daily lives, and shouldnt be overlooked becease 'everyone does not do it'.

[sam.vesuna]

I definitely think it can, mainly because we have been so dynamic in how we adapt to new environments and cultures. I think that Zoroastrianism in general lends itself to integrate well.

[faredoon]

One way to answer this question is to look at all the things that Zoroastrianism isn't.

About reach:

It's not a pervasive religion unlike the three major monotheistic religions of the world. I think using religion to push political agendas and ideologies, and basically reigning over people and places was, and still is, the primary use of religion. I'm sure Zoroastrianism in it's heyday used to serve that purpose too. It's a good thing that Zoroastrianism currently does not suffer from all the trappings of a hugely popular and pervasive religion. Think of it like a "niche" player. I think that if it becomes commercialised and organisation-like the worse it is for itself. We have plenty of evidence from the other three major monotheistic religions that such propagation would result in a colossal mess - with offshoots, sects, internal strife between the sects, violent sects etc. So here, simply additional numbers would most likely be a bane to Zoroastrianism's existence. Which makes the "conservative" viewpoint understandable.

About lack of a forceful ideology:

Zoroastrianism has not been, so far, involved in condemning defectors to death or something as drastic as that. So, it's "followers" are practically free to do as they please (choose?). Nobody is held back on a short leash. If the "adherents" wish to marry outside, they can simply leave the fold (I am mainly referring to the Parsi Zoroastrian fold). That poses as a little bit of a problem for survival. So it might be becoming more and more of a "niche" player. Again as a business analogy, customers are switching to other brands because they cannot meet "high-end" requirements. It's a terrible paradox, because the more the religion maintains it's close-knit tradition, the more "customers" it loses. Coupled with an ideology that by rooting itself in the purest ideals, the religion will be automatically safeguarded and will continue to thrive, it might seem like a perfect recipe for an implosion.

P.S. I have written this as a detached, unbiased spectator, merely thinking about the state of affairs. No offense to anyone.

[Behram]

cant someone just send/bring it with them from india when they come for the special occasion?

This is not allowed. Nirang is not just consecrated bull's urine, it is an Alaat and commands the respect that is due. Strictly speaking Nirang can only be transported on foot (walking) not even in any vehicle, else it loses its intrinsic value. Also it needs to be stored in smoked glass bottles without the metallic or plastic cover.

Food for thought : Why do we have to drink bull's urine to purify ourselves, now that there are so many antispectic lotions, soaps, moisturizers,.....available ?

[Jazzi]

Strictly speaking Nirang can only be transported on foot (walking) not even in any vehicle, else it loses its intrinsic value.

Fair point, but that means when the dasturji travels locally in the rickshaw or his car to get to the baug to perform the navojte it has lost its value in any case.

[Behram]

True. Some of our Baugs have Agyaris attached to them in the same compound and Nirang is stored there for these joyous occasions. In some cases the candidates call the mobed saheb home to administer Nahn. This is usually done from an Agyari in the vicinity where the distance is less so Nirang can be transported.

Wedding / Navjote should be performed in an Agyari / Atashbehram to maintain the sanctity of the ceremony. The reception can be given anywhere else. Nowadays those Parsis who realize the importance of this practice are doing so.

There are stray instances being reported where the person getting married refuses to drink "Bullpiss". Some Panthakis bow down to their demands and fill the bottle with Pepsi / Coke which is happily gulped down by them since the colour is the same.

[Jazzi]

Why does it lose its purity via different means of transport? Has it been prayed on before hand?

[Behram]

It is the same esoteric reason that we take a head bath or a Sadu Nahn before we visit the Padshah saheb of an Atashbehram. Our pure Aipi (Khoreh), sometimes spoken of as "Aura" gets polluted from time to time. The reasons are many and are related to the so called technological advances which we today cannot do without.

Nirang is a consecrated form of Taro. The kinetics involved in the consecration process make sure it is elevated to the stature of an Alaat. An Alaat by definiton is a requisite used in a religious ceremony. When this Alaat is transported in a vehicle the friction between the wheels of the vehicle and the ground cause damage to its spiritual status and hence loses its stature (Gujarati=Darajjo). This is the same reason where after having a bath we neeed to walk towards an Atashbehram and not travel in a vehicle even if it is "Parsi owned". Our sagacious forefathers knew these reasons and therefore built houses and Dharamshallas close to these places of worship. It is a different story that we now turn a blind eye to these practices.

For a detailed explanation refer to "A Zoroastrian Life Procedure Code" by B.B. Rivetna Pg 156-157.

[ORBITRANS]

Can Zoroastrianism survive the modern world?

Fashion is a good example to consider. Today, the sudreh is being modified so that it may better "fit" underneath our every day clothes. Does it really consist of all correct nine parts? Similarly, some kustis are much more thin so that they are less visible under our clothes. Are these kustis actually made with 72 threads of lamb's wool? These are merely two examples.

As Zarthushtis, what are our responsibilities? Is it possible to stay true to our religion and keep up with change?

Wearing a thin sudreh or kushti is moderate but it is disgusting to see a Bawa in the same Sudreh Kushti smoking brazenly standing on his verandah in full public view,or inducing a ghatin servant as his livin partner in a charitable colony built by a philantrophic devout Zoroastrian with the sole aim that his fellow bretherens would live their lives and follow his principles of a true Zoroastrian in the protected environs of his Parsee baug.Or a young educated Bawi walking away in marriage with a non Zoroastrian without batting an eyelid.
The need of the hour is a strong Religious Head in our community just like the Bohras or bahais who have multiplied in lakhs in the last decade.
may AhuraMazda bless our community memebers with foresight and good sense.