RELIGIOUS.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 907, 19 July 1889, Page 6

RELIGIOUS.

THE PARSI RELIGION. Dadabhai Naoroji, in ‘Time.’

The Parsis are called by some ‘ Fire Worshippers,’ and they defend themselves by saying that they do not worship the fire, but regard it and other great natural phenomena and objects as emblems of the divine power. r o me it appears that the imputation, on the one hand, is wrong, and the defence, on the other hand, a little overshot. Though tho Farsi ‘ remembers, praises, loves, or regards holy,' whatever is beautiful, or wonderful, or harmless, or useful in nature, ho nevera asks from an unintelligent material object, assistance or benefit; he is, therefore, no idolator, or worshipper of matter. On the other hand, when the Pam addresses his prayers to Hormuzd, or God, he never thinks it at all necessary that he should turn his face .to any particular object. He would say, and does say, ffis * Hormuzd yasht ’ (prayer to Hormuzd) anywhere whatever without the slightest misgiving. Again, when he addresses the angel of water, or any other but that of lire, he does not stand before the fire. It is only when he addresses the angel of tire that he tarns his face to the fire. In short, in addressing any particular aogel, he turns his face to the object of that angel's guardianship as his emblem. But, in hiß prayers to Hormuzd, he recognises, or uses, or turns his face to no emblems whatever. Since fire only could be brought within the limits of a temple—any of the grand objects of nature (as the sea, the sun, &c.) being unavailable for this purpose—the temples naturally became the sanctuaries of fire alone, and hence has arisen the mistake of the Parsis being regarded as ‘ Fire Wor* shipers,’ This much is clear in Hd 30— ‘He who knows Gods through his works reaches him ;’ but I do not recollect meeting with any text enjoining a Parsi to turn his> face to any particular object as an emblem of God ; though he is directed, as in the above text, to rise from Nature to Nature’s God. The doctrine of any sort of form of ‘ propitiation of the devil ’ does not find place in their books. To struggle for doing good and destroying evil is an emphatic inj unction. Suoh was the state of tho religious belief of the Parsis till a generation ago. But the study of the Zend Avesta has been since carried on with increasing zeal, activity, and intelligence by Parsi educated scholars. The ‘Ruhanumai,’ of whioh I have been president for some years, has been, through the means of such scholars, carrying oa its researches in the ancient literature, and from time to time bringing the results before the communities by public meetings and publicat.ons of their proceedings. The viewj now held by such scholars are that some of those religious bookß, which the Parsis oom sidered canonical, were not so ; that, with the exception of a certain portion, called tho G&thas, they were not the words of Zarthusht or his contemporary disciples and coadjutors—that before Zarthusht’s time the religion was almost a polytheism. Zarthusht made a complete revolution—preached the worship of the one great supreme God, as the beginning and end of the holy religion and that God alone was the creator and giver and all-in-all of everything. He threw aside the earlier gods or spirits; addressing God,—‘Thou and thou alone does my mind’s eye see.’ The monotheism of Zarthusht was complete and unequivocal; and his monogamy was as clear. The present Parsi scholars maintain that the other books are later compilations by piiests ; that after the death of Zarthusht the priest rehabilitated, though in subordinate positions, the earlier spirits which were considered as presiding over fire, water, earth, and all the great creations of nature; and established the ritual and ceremonies as they thought desirable or profitable to themselves, as has happened with other religions,—that ail the invocations to the various spirits for aid were not a part of - the religion as Zarthusht established it; aud that the Parsis should return to the original spirituality, simplicity, and purity of their religion,—that it is clear from Zarthusht’s words, that the eternal principles of the worship of one God, and of purity in thought, word, and deed were alone binding for ever. But all customs, ritual and oeremonies adopted according to the circumstances of time, place, and civilisation, can be altered as the good and the physical wants and spiritual wantb of the community may require. These scholars therefore urge that, whatever might have been the justifications or. reasons of many religious customs and ceremonies at the time when they were first adoptsd, they were not binding on the community for ever, and that they must reform their customs and ritual as time and circumstances might demand, after careful consideration by the community. One of the books (the Vandidad) which was considered, in ignorance, as most Bacred, is a compilation of various times, and is mainly directed to the inculcation of cleanliness. It is an elaborate sanitary code, according to the lights, requirements, and influences of the times and conditions of life of the Parsis. I may conclude by remarking that, though the Parsis are a small number—only about 84,000 in all India, in the midst of a population of .254,000,000 —I think one important reason why they occupy such a large space in the mind of the world is that

influence of their religion which imposed upon them love of God, love of truth, of charity in all its senses, and an earnest Btriving after doing some good as the mission of life, and which embraced their morality o: life in pure thought, word and deed. May they always continue to follow in these pathß !