“Hidden meaning”

Apropos Vispi M. Ranji’s letter titled "Hidden meaning” (Readers’ Forum, Parsiana, July 7, 2012), the following may suffice to enlighten him in his quest for knowlwedge.

The French scholar mentioned by Ranji’s friend in Vienna should be the late Rev Father Jean de Menasce who read a paper entitled Les mystere et la religion de Iran at the Eranos meeting in 1944. In 1972 I had written to de Menasce that a trip to Europe was in the offing and after attending the International Congress of Iranian Art and Archaeology at Oxford I intended to visit Paris and pay my respects in person. He replied, "I shall be very glad to see you … on your way back from the Oxford Congress concerning which you will no doubt be able to give me interesting information. Because of a stroke I had three years ago, I have great difficulty in speaking, but I have other means of communications such as typing and my hearing is all right.” He suggested that, after reaching Paris, a telephone call to his receptionist would help her to arrange the time of our meeting.

When we met I noticed that he could use only one hand; the other was out of commission. For around 150 minutes we discussed many things. He managed to get up to show me his precious library. One of the things we discussed was his abovementioned paper. Yes, as stated by Ranji’s friend, he had said (in French) that "there is nothing in the Mazdean tradition of revelation to suggest a selective and occult initiation.”

Ranji is on the mark in saying that some of our priests and popular writers/speakers maintain that practically every word of our prayers has a "secret and hidden meaning.” Those who do so do not number more than a dozen, of which just two or three are scholars though all are accustomed to wield this hyperbole only to bewilder their listeners/readers. Simultaneously, they pass themselves off as divulgers of hidden meanings of every word!

The divergence between the stand of the French scholar and the hyperbolists is the one between scholarship and charlatanism. A genuine scholar has no problem about altering or moderating his stand once a colleague demonstrates a better alternative. In the present case, a better alternative, in accordance with the Zoroastrian precept, is moderation (paymaan). And such an alternative was demonstrated by Shaul Shaked in his Esoteric Trends in Zoroastrianism (Jerusalem 1969). When asked about his stand during our meeting regarding the total absence of esotericism in the Zoroastrian scripture, de Menasce replied that after 1944, and particularly in the light of Shaked’s paper, he had no hesitation in saying that, as in other religions, traces of esotericism can be found in Zoroastrianism, too.

As far as the self-proclaimed divulgers are concerned, even if proved wrong by competent authorities they seem to think that they can never be wrong! And if asked for the reason, they would make it appear that they are in direct contact with the sahibs of Damavand! The moment they make use of words like mystical, esoteric, metaphysical, paranormal, etc, a lay person, who cannot distinguish between a mystic and a pseudo-mystic, even as one who cannot tell apart an orthodox and a pseudo-orthodox, comes under a spell.

Ranji’s puzzlement is understandable. Besides, he has hit the nail on the head by realizing that to solve this puzzle is beyond the scope of the ordinary journalist. Subjects of scholarly research papers are meant for discussion among scholars and not for investigation by incompetent persons in dailies, weeklies or tabloids.

FARIBOURZ NARIMAN

faribourz_nariman@yahoo.com