History of Zoroastrianism/Chapter 51

Theological disputations. We find from the extent Persian literature that the writers of this period occupied themselves in minute quibbling and barren discussions of the ritualistic ceremonies and purificatory rites. There is no trace of original thinking on vital problems. Their energy was wholly expended on endless wranglings about dogmas and theological disquisitions. Questions were raised whether it was essential to cover the face of a corpse with the penom, or mouth-covering white veil; whether the legs of a corpse should be folded or left lengthwise, before it was removed to its final resting place.^[1] The community was actually divided into two parties over the first question, and so bitter was the feeling aroused that at Surat the corpses without such coverings were refused a resting-place in the Tower of Silence. The relatives of the dead had under these circumstances to carry dead bodies to Navsari for their final disposal. This resulted in the erection of separate towers for the contending parties.

Intercalation controversy provides a powerful incentive to the study of the ancient Zoroastrian scriptures. In 1720 were planted seeds of a controversy which gave, however, a real and abiding impetus to religious studies. A learned Mobad named Jamasp, who came to India from Persia, in 1721, found that the Indian Parsis were one month behind the Zoroastrians of Persia in the calculation of their year, and he strongly advocated a reform in the matter. The question at first did not arouse much attention, but later it developed into a serious problem that led to a display of strong passion and to the exchange of bitter words on both sides in the community. Learned priests in each party zealously turned to the study of the original scriptures, as a source to decide the matter, and the question was threshed out in detail, accompanied by the publication of innumerable tracts ​and pamphlets. While the learned in the community were thus engaged in ransacking their ancient records, the masses took up the controversy acrimoniously, resorting to abuses and sometimes even to blows. The Shahinshahis, or the Imperials, represented the old order, and the dissenters styled themselves the Kadimis, or the Ancients. The former annoyed the latter by their mocking derision. Social intercourse between the two became most strained, the community was split into two sects, and separate places of worship were founded. The division of the community into two sects endures to the present day, but despite the differences obtaining between the two, time and the growth of education have obliterated the bitter feelings. Modern researches have proved that both the parties were wrong in their calculations. The accidentals of the controversy have changed during the long period of hard-fought battles, but the main question has still remained as unsettled as before. Among the chief causes that have contributed to the indefinite postponement of the reform are the indifference and apathy of the community. The question is looked at with misgivings, as not falling in the arena of practical reform, because fraught with many complications. What we are more concerned with is, that the controversy gave new life to literary activities, and encouraged studious habits among the learned.