Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T13:42:30.710Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Zoroastrian bāj and drōn—l

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 December 2009

Mary Boyce  and
Firoze Kotwal
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The word bāj (older wāj) has been an important part of Zoroastrian religious vocabulary from at least Sasanian times; and the act of ‘taking the bāj ‘is so general and significant that in a Jewish-Persian text the Zoroastrians are distinguished thereby from those of other faiths: gabragān abā bāj-stānš ān ‘the Zoroastrians with their taking the bāj ‘.1 Down the centuries the word has acquired additional meanings; but the range of its usages in older times was already so wide that E. W. West, working on the Pahlavi texts, applied for an interpretation of them to Tehmuras D. Anklesaria. This Anklesaria admirably provided, in a letter which he himself subsequently published among the appendixes to the Gujarati translation of the first part of the Dādestdn ī dīnīg, made by him in collaboration with S. D. Bharucha.2 This was the pioneer treatment of the term.

Type
Research Article
Information
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , February 1971 , pp. 56 - 73
Copyright
Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See MacKenzie, D. N., ‘An early Jewish-Persian argument’, BSOAS, xxxi, 2, 1968, 260 Google Scholar (fol. 6v., 5); and cf. Firdausī, , Sāhnāma, Tehran, ed., 1934–1936, VII, p. 1820 Google Scholar, 1. 214.

2 See their Dādestān-i dīnī, Bombay, 1926, 48–54 Google Scholar.

3 See his Ristisān yāne gajarel arathośtīo-nī kriyāo-nũ varṇan, Bombay, 1917 (written 1882), 440 Google Scholar ff.

4 See his Religious ceremonies and customs of the Parsis, Bombay, 1922, second ed., 1937, 333 ffGoogle Scholar.

5 op. cit.; in this he was followed by Duchesne-Guillemin, J., La religion dp. I'Iran ancien, Paris, 1962, p. 104 Google Scholar, n. 1.

6 Bombay, 1936, 50–3.

7 See his edition of Šāyast nē-sāyast, Hamburg, 1930 Google Scholar, passim; and his article‘Ordeal in Yasna hā; 8’, Dinshah Irani memorial volume, Bombay, 1948, 2–19 Google Scholar.

8 Notes for the present article were made in 1966, when F. Kotwal was studying in London, and the authors were accordingly able to discuss the subject in detail and at length. Writing the article devolved subsequently on M. Boyce, but there was full consultation at this stage also, by letter. We remain indebted to our friend the late Dr. Peshotan K. Anklesaria, who on hearing of our interest most generously sent us in London a copy of his great-uncle's translation of part I of the Dd.

9 See Kotwal, Firoze M. P., The supplementary texts to the Šāayest nē-šāyest, Copenhagen, 1969, 56–7Google Scholar (=Snl, xv.l).

10 On the development in Ossetic of related wāxš and other derivatives of wẵk see Gershevitch, I., ‘Word and spirit in Ossetic’, BSOAS, XVII, 3, 1955, 478–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and further Benveniste, E., Études sur la langue ossète, Paris, 1959, 133–7Google Scholar.

11 Tavadia, , Dinshah Irani memorial volume, 2 Google Scholar.

12 See, e.g. Šnš. (ed. Tavadia, ), iv. 3 Google Scholar.

13 With the loss of force of bễ in Persian the Pahlavi idiom is sometimes rendered by circumlocutions; e.g. Unvala, M. R., Dārāb Hormazyār's Rivāyat, Bombay, 1922 (hereafter abbreviated as MU), I, 604 Google Scholar.13–14: bāj giriftan… va dīgar bāre bāj guftan ‘to take the bāj… and to say the bāj again (i.e. leave it)’.

14 The short prayer known thus by its opening words is made up of Y, XLVI.7, Y, XLIV.16, Vd., viii.21, and Y, XLIX.10; see Modi, , op. cit., p. 180 Google Scholar, n. 1.

15 This prayer consists of the four opening words given here, followed by Y, xn.9.

16 See T. D. Anklesaria, Yazishna bā nīrang, Bombay, 1888, reprinted 1957, 4–5.

17 , T.D.A., op. cit., 9 Google Scholar.

18 T.D.A., 10–11.

19 T.D.A., 12.

20 T.D.A., 23.

21 ibid., where only the introductory words of these prayers are given, as here. Together this group of prayers forms the end of a number of final bāj, and can be found therefore (e.g. at the end of the Srōs bāj) in any Xorda Avesta. The words which followjasa mē avanhe mazdā in this set of prayers are not those of Y, XII. 9. For the Pahlavi of the whole group (including the final ‘Pazand’ κәrƒә muzd see Dhabhar, B. N. (ed.), Zand-i Khūrtah Avistāk, Bombay, 1927, 10–11 Google Scholar (= Sroš wāj, 9–10), (tr.), Bombay, 1963, 17.

28 See his Aērpatastān and Nīrangastān, Bombay, 1915, 120 el passim Google Scholar.

23 ibid., 121 et passim.

24 See , T.D.A., op. cit., 29 Google Scholar, 36, 69, 103, 122–3, 130, 159, 178, 288, 296, 306, 318. On this dialogic form of the ahunvar see Darmesteter, J., Le Zend-Avesta, I, 163–4Google Scholar.

25 Occasionally the exchange appears to mark the conclusion of a piece of ritual, in which case it has presumably rather the protective function of a final bāj.

26 e.g., T.D.A., 376.

27 T.D.A., 408 (srαοšᾱυαrәzū) and 416 (ƒrαbαrәtō).

28 See Sanjana, D. P. (ed.), Nirangistan, Bombay, 1894, fol. 153v., 5–13 Google Scholar; Bulsara, S. J. (tr.), Aērpatastān and Nīranqastān, 382 Google Scholar.

29 T.D.A., 353 (where the wāj is exchanged seven times, the double formula being repeated with variations on zaotā and ātarəvaxsō, and some other brief Avestan sentences being said in between).

30 Nīr., 56r.–56v.

31 Nīr., 56r., 9 f.; cf. Nīr., 55v., 11(xšnūman wizārišnīh ayāb wāj-gīrišnīh ‘omitting the dedication or taking of bāj’) and further the Rivāyats, MU, II, 26.6, Dhabhar, 412 (if thezōt vāj kam u bīš be kunad, the yasna is vitiated).

32 Nīr., 31r., 3 f.; cf. Šnš., x.15 (with Tavadia's note, p. 132, n.).

33 Nīr., 56v., 2.

34 MU, 1, 593.9–11, Dhabhar, 368 (with some amplifications for clarity).

35 Nīr., 152v., 7–153r.; Bulsara, 380 f., with notes.

36 Nīr., 59r., 4–13, Bulsara, transl., 127. Th e liturgy of the unabridged yasna which is recited during an d between these rituals fills pp. 3–36 of T.D.A.'s Yazishna bā nīrang.

37 ‘Retur n’, because he has already, on entering th e pāvi, offered incense to th e fire.

38 At the end of Y, 0.2, see T.D.A., 34.

39 Y, 0.3.

40 i.e. th e Avestan dedication which follows the fravarāne, as distinct from th e Pazand dedication of th e introduction (dībāča) to the service.

41 See Geldner, K. F., GIP, II, 9 Google Scholar, with n. 9.

42 See Boyce, , ‘Haoma, priest of the sacrifice’, in Boyce, M. and Gershevitch, I. (ed.), W. B. Henning memorial volume, London, 1970, 70 Google Scholar.

43 For a detailed Pahlavi description of the drōn and its significance see Asa, Kaikhusro Dastur Jamaspji Jamasp, ‘On the symbolism of the darūn’, Dastur Hoshang memorial volume, Bombay, 1917, 201–5Google Scholar.

44 See Boyce, , art. cit., 68–9Google Scholar.

45 The term bhaṇtar is used by th e Parsis for th e liturgy as distinct from th e ritual (hriyā).

46 Nīr., 168r., 9; see Tavadia, , Dinshah Irani memorial volume, 2 Google Scholar.

47 See Darmesteter, J., Le Zend-Avesta, I, 49 Google Scholar.

48 See, e.g., MU, I, 25 f., Dhabhar, 411. On further occasions for th e celebration of th eyašt ī drōn with the šnūman of Srōš, and for the use of the term Srōš dro for the actual bread consecrated in the service, see part II of the present article, BSOAS, xxxiv, 2, 1971 Google Scholar.

49 For the final prayers of this bāj see in part above, p. 59, n. 21. The closing words are taken fromY, XII.8–9.

50 Dādestān ī dīnīg (ed. Anldesaria, T. D., Bombay, no date)Google Scholar, Purs, lxxviii.7–9.

51 Ardā Virāf nāmag (ed. Asa, H. Jamaspji and Haug, M., Bombay and London, 1872), ii. 28, 31Google Scholar.

52 See the Rivāyat of Bharuchi, Shapur, MU, I, 33.18, Dhabhar, 32Google Scholar.

53 In the Rivāyats the term luivōg is used for additional bread consecrated at the service (for the purposes of general communion or participation in the rite), and not for thedrōn itself. See Dhabhar, p. 168 with n. 9, 169,177,178. The luwōg were probably then as now made of leavened flour. Nowadays luwōg is the popular term for the drōn also, which at present in Iran likewise contains leaven.

54 i.e. for distinguishing the marked breads (drōn) from the unmarked ones (frasast), see Kotwal, , The supplementary texts to the Šāyest nē-Sāyest, 142 Google Scholar, s.v. frasast. For Irani behdīns the term drōn now only signifies the service.

55 All these usages are recorded by Modi, , op. cit., 335 Google Scholar ff. It was the use of bāj for the food-offerings which led both Anklesaria and himself to seek a second word, other than Pahl. wāj, to account for this meaning.

56 See the Rivāyats, MU, i, 33.14, Dhabhar, 31 with n. 10.

57 See, e.g., MU, I, 316.8, 9, Dhabhar, 301. The Avestan pr. n. Μᾳθrυᾱκα, belonging to a professional priest, had presumably something of the same connotation.

58 See Jamasp-Asana, J. M. (ed.), The Pahlavi texts, II, Bombay, 1913, 157 Google Scholar.10, transl., Tavadia, J. C., ‘Sūr saxvan’, Journal of the K.R. Cama Oriental Institute, 29, 1935, 45 Google Scholar. ( Tavadia, , op. cit., 19 Google Scholar, takes drōn-yaz to be a particular term, for those priests who had solemnized the drōn yašt before the feast; but since the word occurs in a general list of social categories of those to be honoured there, this explanation seems less likely.)

59 Dhabhar, B. N., (ed.), The Pahlavi Rivāyat accompanying the Dādistān ī dīnīk, Bombay, 1913, lviii.41 (p. 180)Google Scholar; transl. H. F. Mirza, University of London Ph.D. thesis, 1940, p. 329.

60 Pahl. Riv. Dd., lviii.38.

61 So distinguished from ašaya… at the beginning of vii.l, because at the phrase ašaya.nō paiti.jamyāt of VIII.2 the barsam is put in its vessel.

62 For the cāšnī of the shared drōn yašt see also Asa, Kaikhusro D. Jamaspji Jamasp, Dastur Hoshang memorial volume, 201–2Google Scholar.

63 Ed. Dhabhar, 180–1.

64 On this passage see Tavadia, , Šnš., 122–3Google Scholar, n.

65 Šnš., xiv.3, ed. Kotwal, 54–5 with note, p. 107.

66 AVN, iii.20.

67 MU, II, 8.14 = 9.3; Dhabhar, 396.

68 MU, I, 17 f., Dhabhar, 28. Cf. MU, I, 33.7, Dhabhar, 29, an d further MU, I, 33.10–16, Dhabhar, 30–1, where th e validity is questioned of drōn yaštan va vāj giriftan with defective sudra.

69 MU, i, 609.1 ff., Dhabhar, 393.

70 Nīr., 67r.-v.

71 Barthélemy, A. (ed.), Gujastak Abolish, Paris, 1887, i.3–9 Google Scholar; = Chacha, H. F. (ed.), Gajastak Abālish, Bombay, 1936, 0.1–2 Google Scholar.

72 See his p. 41, n. 6.

73 See his pp. 52-3.

74 Nīr., 67r., 10 f., Bulsara, 147.

75 Nīr., 65v., 13–14, Bulsara, 144.

76 Nowadays this priest performs a small ritual of his own, with eight flowers; but this seems late development, in imitation of the ritual performed by the zōt.

77 Rivāyats, MU, i, 600.1, Dhabhar, 370.

78 See his appendix on bāj to the Gujarati transl. of part I of Dd., pp. 53–4. He pointed out, in support of the connexion with mauna-, that Dhaval, Neryosangh rendered Mēnōg ī Xrad, Purs. i.33 Google Scholar, ‘Do not eat chatteringly’ (drāeā.joišnī ma kun), by Skt. maunamadhye jalpaṃ mā kuru. Anklesaria's reading and interpretation have been adopted by Kanga, M. F., ‘Pursišnīhā ī Boxt-Mārā u-šān passoxuīhā —a Pahlavi text’, Indian Linguistics, XXV, 1964–5, 4, 9. The spelling of the Pahl. word varies between *m'w'g and*m'yw'g. On mauná-, *mu-n°, seeGoogle Scholar Mayrhofer, M., Kurzgefasstes elymologisches Wōrterbuch des Altindischen, Lief. 17, 1963, 655 Google Scholar.

79 The one passage with th e abstract, māwāgīh, appears to be Dīnkard, ed. Madan, D. M., Bombay, 1911, 467 Google Scholar.1.

80 Dd., Purs, xxxix. 13.

81 Pahl. Riv. Dd., lviii.39, with Mirza's readings.

82 i.e. by counting, since the šnūman of the yazad of the day is according to the number of the day of the month.

83 See Anklesaria, T. D., Yazishna bā nīrang, 11 Google Scholar.

84 ibid., 335. (The a. v. 1 given there in the middle of the Pazand bhaṇtar is not recited by the Bhagaria priests.)

85 Šnš.,-z.Zn.

86 The extensive use by Muslim Persians of zamzam(e) for Zoroastrian prayers is probably also due to the fact that these were in a language unfamiliar to them, so that the words seemed indistinguishable. Further, private daily prayers (which the unbeliever overhears more readily than formal ceremonies) are naturally said with the rapidity of constant use, and often without much volume of sound.