It’s a Sin

We’re all familiar with the way that many of the world’s religions have a tradition of barefootedness, particularly in holy situations. I wrote a bit about the Abrahamic religions in Discalceation. Of course there are also the Franciscans and Carmelites, and bare feet are required in Buddhist temples.

So I was a bit surprised to find a religion for which going barefooted, at all, is a sin.

That religion is Zoroastrianism.

The Faravahar of Zoroastrianism

[Image from Wikipedia.]

Now keep in mind that almost all of what I know about it comes from this Wikipedia article. Zoroastrianism is named after Zoroaster, the founder of the religion, and dates back to 1000 BC (more or less, with a lot of uncertainty). It was founded in ancient Persia. It tended to die out when the Sassanid Empire was overthrown by Arabs in the mid-600s. According to Wikipedia, there are still about 200,000 adherents today.

Many of those are in the Yazd province of Iran, and there is also a fairly large group called the Parsi (obviously a cognate of “Persia”) in India and Pakistan.

By the way, if you are familiar with the opening music of 2001: A Space Odyssey, that opening music is from “Also Sprach Zarathustra”, a Richard Strauss tone poem inspired by a Nietzsche philosophical treatise. Zoroaster is the anglicized version of “Zarathustra”.

The main precept of the religion is the balance between good and evil, or similarly, order and chaos. As per Wikipedia, those two opposing forces are Ahura Mazda (Illuminating Wisdom) and Angra Mainyu (Destructive Spirit). One’s duty as an adherent is to defend order, which would otherwise decay into chaos.

When it comes to sacred texts, there is the Avesta, much of which is no longer extant, as far as I can tell. However, there are also various commentaries and other writings that put forth what is required.

It is from those that the stricture against going barefoot is known. I’ll quote from them.

Most of these come from a huge work called “The Sacred Books of the East”, from 1897 or so (different volumes in different years).

From what I can tell, the reason not to go barefoot is that you pollute yourself from the ground, from all the death (i.e., disorder/chaos) that is there. There are other buried people, and I suppose all sorts of dead animals.

In the Shâyast lâ-shâyast, Chapter X, Number 12, it says

The rule is this, that one should not walk without boots; and his advantage therefrom is even this, that when a boot is on his foot and he puts the foot upon dead matter, and does not disturb the dead matter, he does not become polluted; when a boot is not on his foot and he puts the foot upon dead matter, and does not disturb it, he is polluted.

And the more you walk barefoot, the worse it is. From Chapter IV, Number 12:

Walking with one boot [this is generally regarded as a transcription error, and really meant “without boots”, which is very similar] as far as four steps is a Tanâpûhar sin, when with one movement; and after the fourth step as much as one shall walk is a Tanâpûhar; and when he sits down and walks on the sin is the same that it would be from his starting point; and there were some who said it is a Tanâpûhar; for each league.

This restriction of walking barefoot is emphasized in an accompanying footnote.

But whatever may have been the original meaning of the word, Parsis nowadays understand that this forbids their walking without shoes; this should be recollected by any European official in India who fancies that Parsis ought to take off their shoes in his presence, as by insisting on such a practice he is compelling them to commit what they believe is a serious sin.

There are even news stories about this, about a Parsi (Parsee) in a courtroom.
In Indian courtrooms in the mid-1800s you were expected to go barefoot as
a sign of respect. (Hey, how about trying that here?!) Here’s what happened
in 1862, via the Allens Indian Mail.

The Shoe Question Again.—The long-pending shoe question, never yet satisfactorily settled, threatens to be again brought on the carpet by an occurrence, which a correspendent of the Summachar Durpun describes as having taken place, on the 16th Oct., in the Court of the Judge of Surat. An influential young Parsee gentleman from Bombay, who attended the Court that day on business, was, on his entering the room, stopped by the judge and desired to take his shoes off if he wished to sit in the Court. The Parsee declined to do so, stating that he had English shoes and stockings on, and that the homage of walking barefooted is not exacted even in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The judge told him that he would be guilty of contempt of Court if he did not put his shoes off, and that if he did not respect the hookum of the Court, he should expect no respect from it. The Parsee was at last forced to find a seat on a bench instead of a chair, which he might otherwise have occupoed. The following day, in the presence of the Parsee, one Vishnoopunth Bulwunt, a witness was permitted to enter the Court with his English shoes on; and this unequal application of the “shoe regulations” is said to have much disturbed the equanimity of the fire-worshipper.

The Sad Dar also mentions this sin, in its 44^th subject.

1. The forty-fourth subject is this, that it is not desirable for those of the good religion, so far as they are able to manage it, to put a bare foot upon the ground, because it is a sin, and injury occurs to Spendârmad, the archangel. 2. And they call that the sin of running about uncovered.

There is a footnote here that also relates this to having corpses below the ground (in Zoroastrianism corpses were supposed to be left out for the vultures to consume) as also making Spendârmad shudder. (Spendârmad is one of the Holy Immortals.)

There are also commentaries from the 1500s or so, called the “Rivayats”. See here.

According to Kamdin Shapur, referring to the above:

About walking bare-footed, they should know that when they put their bare feet on the ground, there is a farman sin for every three steps for every one of those steps, and when they take the fourth step, it is a tanapuhr sin. If they walk with one boot on in one leg and with the other foot bare, it is a sin of a like nature. Both man and woman have the same merit and sin in connection therewith. If any member of the body of a menstruous woman touches the ground, it is a greater sin, and Spandarmad Amshaspand trembles.

According to Shapur Bharuchi, things are even more dire:

Again, if a person walks bare-footed, then for one step, the milk of 200 cows, sheep, and camels decreases, and for the second step, the milk of 200 animals decreases, and for the third step, the milk of 300 cows and sheep decreases, and at the fourth step, the milk of all the cows, sheep, and animals on the seven regions of the earth decreases.

And in the Bundahishn (Ch. 27, 13), going barefoot makes the demon (lie) Taurvi the smiter rejoice.

 

---

 

So, while a lot of religions take bare feet as a sign of purity and humility, that is not a forgone conclusion. Bare feet are not seen as being able to draw spirituality from the earth, but decay and chaos.

But either way, I think there is a realization of a connection to the earth: the only issue is what arises from that connection.

Of course, all of us barefooters probably see the good of that connection, not the bad.