“A faith-full tryst”

Given that Sheryar Ookerjee is generally right when outlining the essentials of religions, it is difficult to see just where Zarathushtra’s system fits into his tripartite schema ("A faith-full tryst,” Readers’ Forum, Parsiana, June 21, 2007).

By some this ‘minority religion’ of ours has been dismissed as a cult, by others as a dualistic belief, and by yet others as a system solely of ritual and ceremonial. The reasons are not far to seek for these worrisome formulations — our irresponsible preachers have ensured these misrepresentations. But for Ookerjee to casually lump it with poly­the­isms, pseudo-monotheisms, and cryp­to-dualisms shows an abysmal lack of feeling for the true dimensions of Zarathushtra’s teachings, and his great stature as a socioreligious reformer and radical thinker.

Indeed Zarathushtra’s thinking is replete with a consistently argued philosophy — one which works along ethical lines every whit as much as his practical psychology. No other religious system has allowed these in to spoil their fanciful imageries of God, Son, Holy Ghost, virgin birth and, of course, their ever-present and very real devils (aka ha-Satan, Shaitan, Iblis, Diabolos, etc).

Ookerjee surely must know that in repudiating all superstition and infantile beliefs, Zarathushtra had truly brought about emancipation for devil-ridden souls? Undoubtedly, this Iranian genius had also abolished the fear-inspired idea of God as a capricious terrorist, for nowhere in his Gathas do we find the word for God — baga, nor for worship-hungry godlings — yazata. Instead we find Mazda: an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent Wisdom whom he carefully defines through a series of abstractions — good mind, truth/order, right-mindedness and good governance. No God, no devil, no heaven up there, nor hell somewhere below, are to be discerned.

Zarathushtrianism, by which we reasonably mean Zarathushtra’s own unique teachings, is very evidently reflective in its scope. His declarations on the daena, or each one’s inner, spiritual vision, and his insistence on each one’s discernment and practice of rightness of thought, refinement of speech and rationality of action, all indicate the free-willed exercise of his/her daena with the responsibility and consequences that these entail. No religious systems have ever ventured along this bold path of the integrity of body and soul; indeed they generally preach their separation and mutual antagonism.

Yet we are urged by unscrupulous, unprincipled clerics and their acolytes to preoccupy ourselves with the tawdry wrappings instead of the glorious contents of our marvelous spiritual heritage handed down to us from high antiquity. Will Ookerjee at least reconsider his comparativist stance vis-à-vis Zara­thush­tra?

FARROKH VAJIFDAR

London, UK