“Double standards”

I have seen Ervad Kersi Kapadia’s letter "Double standards” (Readers’ Forum, Parsiana, December 21, 2008), in response to my earlier letter on the same subject. My initial reaction was not to respond as the whole dialog seemed futile to me. The root cause of our difference in thinking stems from our basic concept of "religion.” For me, religion means following high morality in everyday life, as proclaimed by our Asho Zarathushtra in his Gathas. For Kapadia, religion also means following tarikats, mantras and kriyas.

Kapadia also rightly refutes my quotes from the Rivayats stating that these are "mere opinions by some persons of later times as they humanly thought fit.” Quite right, but then were not all the other scriptures he is referring to, including the Vendidad, written by other persons (over hundreds and thousands of years after Zarathushtra) as per their understanding or misunderstanding of the religion? Are these also not their "mere opinions?” Why should anyone follow them unless they make sense?

Kapadia perhaps rightly calls my knowledge of religion "shallow” and I accept it humbly as I am a mere student of our religion and nothing more. I believe in following Zarathushtra’s Gathas as to me that is the fountainhead of the great philosophy of life proclaimed by him. The rest of the scriptures, which are written by persons whose identity is not known, nor is it known when they were written, are nothing to me and I do not wish to deepen my knowledge by reading these, as Kapadia recommends I do.

In my opinion tarikats, mantras and kriyas are creations of the priestly class to generate income for themselves and to keep control over the laity, as is seen in all religions. They have no place in my thinking and hence I consider continuing this dialog meaningless. However, just to put the record straight on the subject of conversions/acceptance, I’d like to quote the following which has come directly from the mouth of Zarathushtra himself who proclaimed this great universal religion:

Yasna 49, Song 5:

"But that man, positively any-one-so-ever, who has mastered the true faith by praise and invocation of Vohu Mana, can become through Asha, a good companion of Aramaiti, and with the help of them all dwell in Thy Kingdom, O Ahura.”

Yasna 29, Song 10:

"O Ahura Mazda, and O Spirit of Truth and Right!/ Do Ye grant me and my followers such authority and power through Truth,/ That with the Good Mind, we may bring the world peace and happiness,/ Of which, Thou, O Lord, art indeed the first possessor.”

KERSEE KABRAJI

Poona

kersee@kabraji.com

There are some inaccuracies in Kersi Kapadia’s letter "Double standards” (Readers’ Forum, Parsiana, December 21, 2008).

Naushirwan Adil’s son was Hormuz IV (579-590 AD) and not Hormuz II (303-310 AD) as claimed by Kapadia.

The downfall of the Sasanian dynasty was due to regicide and homicide of the royalty by the orthodox fanatic nobles and priests during the period 628-632 AD and not because of fratricide and parricide as claimed.

Kapadia’s contention that Khusroo Perviz married several foreign wives is incorrect. He was married to only two Christian wives and that too on account of his obligation to Emperor Maurice of Rome who had helped him fight the rebel Behram Chobin who was trying to capture the throne. It was his second wife, the beautiful Queen Shirin (née Irene) who bore him 15 sons according to Firdausi (Tabari stated 16 while Thomas of Maraga made it 24). It’s possible that several children may have died during infancy or childhood and the royal princes surviving to full adulthood might have been only 15 as claimed by Firdausi (see my letter "The challenge within,” Readers’ Forum, Parsiana, May 7, 2008).

Dr P. D. SUNAVALA