Page:History of Zoroastrianism.djvu/533

The reformers took up the question and said that Zoroastrianism enjoined that a man went to the abode of weal or woe according to his deserts, and that no amount of ceremonials performed by the living could either mitigate his sufferings or improve his condition in the spiritual world. His sins could not be atoned for by elaborate rituals performed in his name, nor would he be one whit the happier for them. It is true, they further said, that according to the scriptures, the benefit of the ceremonials performed for the dead accrues to the soul during the first three nights after death, while it still hovers over the body, but from the period of the dawn of the fourth day, when justice is administered to the soul, and it is awarded its special place, the rituals do not affect its position. Any ceremonies performed after this day, that is, on the monthly and yearly anniversaries or on any other occasions, are mainly for the Farohar of the dead man, and not for his soul. In fact, it was claimed, these rites are more for the interest of the living than for the imagined interest of the dead. Zoroastrianism, they said, never stood for any kind of vicarious salvation, for the question of salvation or damnation rested on the individual's own deeds. Neither would the expiatory prayers recited by the living wash out the sins of the dead, nor would the propitiatory sacrifices offered by them induce the heavenly judges to revoke their decision. As the man sows, so shall he reap, is the immortal truth taught by Zoroaster. Merit, they contended, cannot be purchased at a price, and sin cannot be expiated by proxy. It was destroying the true spirit of the prophet's great religion to entertain such degrading ideas of vicarious expiation which had been fastened on Zoroastrianism.

These scathing criticisms seriously wounded the religious susceptibilities of the orthodox, who became unsparing in the vehement denunciation of the reformers, charging them as reactionaries with carrying the religious barque to ruin. They branded the attempts of the reformers as blasphemous and as an irreverent prying into the divine work of Ormazd. Bitter words were exchanged between the rival parties, and abuses and invectives, ridicule and obloquy, became rampant over these and several other controversial questions.

The good sense of the disputants saved the community from being split into sects. The reformers were termed the