“Dispel these doubts”

Sheeroy Sunawala has dialectically resolved most of his own queries in his letter "Dispel these doubts” (Readers’ Forum, Parsiana, June 21, 2008). But, in seeking answers from scholars, scholar-priests and such-like, he has to be extremely wary for we have self-appointed guides who think nothing of misinforming, and indeed disinforming trusting querists. For these pretenders facts are not allowed to get in the way of their empty rhetoric and rampant fictionalizing. So, purely from a resear­cher’s perspective, let me offer some straightforward responses to Sunawala’s specific questions.

Our kusti prayers start off with two separate verses in Gathic Avestan, the refined language used by Zarathushtra himself in addressing, questioning and praising Ahura Mazda. They are the Kemna mazda and the Ka varathramja taught to us from our navjote days. Then follows the Patano in Standard/Younger Avestan, composed very much later, in Zarathushtra’s name, by the Vendidad’s priestly compilers — which finishes up with a Gathic Avestan line!

To complicate matters further, we then recite the Pazand Ahura mazda khoday which again finishes up with two Gathic Avestan lines. Front and back knots are tied in the thrice-wound kusti, and hey presto, we are almost done. But not quite yet, for then follows the crucial profession of the faith — the Jasame avanghe mazda in which, in good Standard Avestan we truthfully declare that we follow Zarathushtra’s way of Mazda-worship. Ashem vohu follows.

And this is where our troubles start, for, having made these most solemn declarations of our Zoroastrianness, we promptly repudiate them by denying Zarathushtra in favor of all manner of antithetic productions over which our priests are either ignorant or deliberately silent. This is also where our theosophists, babaists, messiahs and spaghetti-monsterists jump in with assurances that we needn’t bother with meanings for they don’t at all matter! Relying on the fears and ignorance of the superstitious and the frightened in our midst, these stalwarts of deceit — against which the whole of Zarathushtra’s teaching is directed — make free with their own insidious travesties of our unique Mazdayasnian system. They all know better than Zarathushtra!

The dakhmenashini issue has been more than adequately dealt with through the consistent guidelines of our Vendidad as frequently explained in these columns. To indicate just how farcical is the actual midnight-to-dawn ceremony, one has only to understand for oneself what this priestly text actually says, and then to see and hear the officiants declaim it and promptly argue against its clear directives! It is yet another instance of double-speaking deception!

Sunawala’s statement about the Bangalore Anjuman must remain for us a regional issue, and on reading it we sadly condemn its irreligious processes. The fiction about Zoroastrian tenets and precepts from persons who simply haven’t a clue as to what they are is what the self-styled orthodoxists thrive on. This is why the fitting term dhongidoxy is gaining currency everywhere.

Yes, there were several religions before Zarathushtra’s. Yes, Zarathushtra’s system was universal in extent. No, he did not distinguish between men and women as bearers of his message. No, he was not the first to preach monotheism — there were others elsewhere, much earlier, who had reasoned towards and practised the worship of their one God. Their priesthoods soon put an end to such aspirations for they had realized the adverse financial prospects facing them, and the worship (!) of various gods, goddesses, and godlings would be to their pecuniary advantage. Simple paisa-cum-ego matter! For the information of those minded to see through the deceptions of our unprincipled clerics, monotheism does not require priestly intervention between worshipper and the divine. [For an enlightened Parsi priest’s forceful conclusion on this issue, refer to Shams-ul-ulama Ervad (Dr) Jivanji Modi’s Guide to the Navjote Cere­mony.]

Reasons of space preclude the inclusion of textual references in support of our answers; suffice it to know that there are no contradictory texts in our wonderfully unique religious system. Such counter-productive teachings as exist are from those whose preferences are for wholly unZoroastrian self-serving propagandas even as they use his august name as cover.

In closing, let it not ever be forgotten that it was in Parsiana’s very pages that a vada dastur publicly declared that the Gathas were mere poetry and that it was the fondness for the Gathas that was leading the community astray! Would you consult such a character to obtain facts?

FARROKH VAJIFDAR

London

f.vajifdar@btinternet.com