Readers' Forum
“Riposte to ‘acceptance’”
Faribourz Nariman has, as is evident from his letter "Riposte to ‘acceptance,’” (Readers’ Forum, Parsiana, January 7, 2016), lost none of his flair for slanderous outbursts against right-thinking Parsis who do not meet with his strictures but have shown great integrity in high-mindedly following Zarathushtra. This is evident in his abysmal argument against the Chicago priest Ervad (Dr) Kersey Antia who had initiated Joseph Peterson into the Zoroastrian faith.
Short of sharing initials with Friedrich Nietzsche, Nariman has nothing in common with the philosopher, having elected to misuse quotations from Also Sprach Zarathustra in his vituperation against Antia for adhering to the sage’s precepts and not traducing them as did the triad of high priests, Dasturs (Drs) Hormazdyar Mirza, Kaikhusroo JamaspAsa and Firoze Kotwal in their concoction titled Antia’s ‘Acceptance’: A Zoroastrian ‘Ahrmogih’ (Heresy). Nariman operates a cute trick by transposing Nietzsche’s intended targets — the steadfastly pro-Zarathushtra philosopher opposed to the devious religiosity of the Germano-Christian establishment (more so in Der Antichrist). Nariman supports a stubbornly introverted Parsiism against the open universality of the Gathas.
Antia’s book The Argument for Acceptance is just that — acceptance into the Zarathushtrian faith and not within the Parsi fold! Nobody in their right mind would wish to become engulfed in communal infighting on every level at any opportunity presented for unseemly wrangles. No newly initiated non-Irano Parsi Zoroastrian would rightly think to profane prayer halls, desecrate dakhmas and jinx jashans. As for Parsi housing being requisitioned for alien neos/outmarrieds — banish that bogey!
Interesting also — yet another Freudian slip? — is Nariman’s characterization of the Peterson navjote as a vohujote. Did he not realize, in his unseemly rush to lambast the officiant and initiate, that vohujote actually spells "good novitiate?” Or does he now relent towards Peterson even as he rages against Antia?
One of the three named authors in Nariman’s harangue has publicly come out against Zarathushtra’s Gathas with his long remembered thoughtless declaration: "It is the fondness for the Gathas that is leading the community astray!” Really? Why then, assuming that his co-signatories were of like mind, did they not condemn all Parsis who declared themselves to be Mazdayasno Zarathushtrish as "heretics?” Who then are the real heretics? Was Nietzsche not right in his unambiguous denunciation of such priests?
The Parsi priesthood, generally unchecked by the current high priests for its aberrations, remains unaccountable for its hostile attitude towards the Mazdaic religion (a timeless humanitarian philosophy by any reckoning). Not to be outdone, another priest chimed in with his ill-advised taunt of "Gatha-only-ists,” himself having no clue of the sublime Gathic message for all mankind, but for his Ilm-e-Khshnoomism which is anything but Zoroastrian. Why the silence over deviants?
Nariman’s advocacy of the trio’s Heresy blast is doubtless a great idea by his tortuous standards; is he at all acquainted with the self-same trio’s absolute howler strewn "riposte” against the K. R. Cama initiated Sal-i Denig ("Fasli”) calendar?
An unwelcome tidbit for Nariman: a little before Mirza was due to present his paper at the 1993 World Zoroastrian Organisation Gatha Colloquium, that worthy priest had approached me to re-draft parts of his speech. Without my amending any of his prepared piece, he himself boldly deleted items before delivery. The paper, ventured before the finest Gathicists of the time, went off unremarkably until his anti-conversion stance came up. The good Dastur met with another "heretic” trio, myself included, at the ensuing reception with the terse remark: "We have difficulties in Bombay!” Work your way out of that!
Shortly after that, Prof Kaikhosrov D. Irani and I published a reference laden article "Conversion in Zoroastrianism – The Truth Behind the Trumpery.” It did not elicit any response from the Bombay priests; they had retreated into an accustomed silence.
FARROKH VAJIFDAR
London, UK
f.vajifdar@btinternet.com
Short of sharing initials with Friedrich Nietzsche, Nariman has nothing in common with the philosopher, having elected to misuse quotations from Also Sprach Zarathustra in his vituperation against Antia for adhering to the sage’s precepts and not traducing them as did the triad of high priests, Dasturs (Drs) Hormazdyar Mirza, Kaikhusroo JamaspAsa and Firoze Kotwal in their concoction titled Antia’s ‘Acceptance’: A Zoroastrian ‘Ahrmogih’ (Heresy). Nariman operates a cute trick by transposing Nietzsche’s intended targets — the steadfastly pro-Zarathushtra philosopher opposed to the devious religiosity of the Germano-Christian establishment (more so in Der Antichrist). Nariman supports a stubbornly introverted Parsiism against the open universality of the Gathas.
Antia’s book The Argument for Acceptance is just that — acceptance into the Zarathushtrian faith and not within the Parsi fold! Nobody in their right mind would wish to become engulfed in communal infighting on every level at any opportunity presented for unseemly wrangles. No newly initiated non-Irano Parsi Zoroastrian would rightly think to profane prayer halls, desecrate dakhmas and jinx jashans. As for Parsi housing being requisitioned for alien neos/outmarrieds — banish that bogey!
Interesting also — yet another Freudian slip? — is Nariman’s characterization of the Peterson navjote as a vohujote. Did he not realize, in his unseemly rush to lambast the officiant and initiate, that vohujote actually spells "good novitiate?” Or does he now relent towards Peterson even as he rages against Antia?
One of the three named authors in Nariman’s harangue has publicly come out against Zarathushtra’s Gathas with his long remembered thoughtless declaration: "It is the fondness for the Gathas that is leading the community astray!” Really? Why then, assuming that his co-signatories were of like mind, did they not condemn all Parsis who declared themselves to be Mazdayasno Zarathushtrish as "heretics?” Who then are the real heretics? Was Nietzsche not right in his unambiguous denunciation of such priests?
The Parsi priesthood, generally unchecked by the current high priests for its aberrations, remains unaccountable for its hostile attitude towards the Mazdaic religion (a timeless humanitarian philosophy by any reckoning). Not to be outdone, another priest chimed in with his ill-advised taunt of "Gatha-only-ists,” himself having no clue of the sublime Gathic message for all mankind, but for his Ilm-e-Khshnoomism which is anything but Zoroastrian. Why the silence over deviants?
Nariman’s advocacy of the trio’s Heresy blast is doubtless a great idea by his tortuous standards; is he at all acquainted with the self-same trio’s absolute howler strewn "riposte” against the K. R. Cama initiated Sal-i Denig ("Fasli”) calendar?
An unwelcome tidbit for Nariman: a little before Mirza was due to present his paper at the 1993 World Zoroastrian Organisation Gatha Colloquium, that worthy priest had approached me to re-draft parts of his speech. Without my amending any of his prepared piece, he himself boldly deleted items before delivery. The paper, ventured before the finest Gathicists of the time, went off unremarkably until his anti-conversion stance came up. The good Dastur met with another "heretic” trio, myself included, at the ensuing reception with the terse remark: "We have difficulties in Bombay!” Work your way out of that!
Shortly after that, Prof Kaikhosrov D. Irani and I published a reference laden article "Conversion in Zoroastrianism – The Truth Behind the Trumpery.” It did not elicit any response from the Bombay priests; they had retreated into an accustomed silence.
FARROKH VAJIFDAR
London, UK
f.vajifdar@btinternet.com
◆ ◆ ◆
From the archive