“Riposte to ‘acceptance’”

Who can prevent/restrain someone, particularly a scholar, from participation in the euphoria of ‘freedom of thought,’ ‘progress,’ ‘equality,’ etc? If Farrokh Vajifdar, like Ervad (Dr) Kersey Antia, has resolved to do so, so be it. Those whom he calls ‘right thinking Parsis’ ("Riposte to ‘acceptance,’” Readers’ Forum, Parsiana, February 21, 2016) are, really speaking, those who stop at nothing to justify irreligious actions willfully committed by themselves or by their dear ones. It is clear that Antia has the support of Vajifdar while indulging in hair-splitting by attempting to differentiate between ‘acceptance’ into Zoroastrian faith and not within the Zoroastrian faith!
A word regarding Nietzsche’s Zarathushtra: Nietzsche had advised his readers that only after having studied all the remaining works of his should anyone lay one’s hands on Zarathushtra. This advice has been ignored at one’s peril. In case certain works of Nietzsche are not available, the least one can do is to get hold of Beyond Good and Evil, Twilight of Idols and Nietzsche’s autobiography, before taking up Zarathushtra.
While our learned dasturs have been signposting the path for the present as well as the future generations, those bereft of orthodoxy and tradition find such signposting unsavory. Vajifdar’s justification of ideosyncrasy — his own as well as that of Prof (Dr) Kaikhosrov Irani’s — could have been kept apart from extraneous issues like the Mazdic religion, the Sal-i-Denig initiated by Kharshedji R. Cama, the paper presented by Hormazdyar Mirza at the 1993 World Zoroastrian Organisation Gatha Colloquium, etc.
Vajifdar accuses me of misusing quotes from Nietzsche! Perhaps he may find the following interesting. In January 1969 Heimo Rau, a noted German scholar and the then director of Max Muller Bhavan, Bombay, was discussing diverse topics with Prof Pheroze Shroff, the then president of the K. R. Cama Oriental Institute (KRCOI). Rau asked Shroff whether he had any Parsi scholar in mind who would be willing to deliver a lecture on a subject like "Friedrich Nietzsche and Zoroastrian Tradition” and, if so, whether such a program could be arranged in the near future. He added: "Even if such a lecture takes about 90 minutes or more, it should not matter.” Shroff thought for a while and suggested my name, hastening to add, "Only if Rau would be willing to preside over such a program.” Within a week or so it was decided to have the program under the joint auspices of the KRCOI and India-Iran Cultural Society on February 11, 1969.
Besides Dr Pestonji Warden, the then editor of Parsiana and Sohrab Chiniwala (advocate), son of Jehangir Chiniwala, the then editor of Parsi Awaz, a Gujarati weekly now defunct, many scholars and laymen were present for the lecture. After the lecture the president gave sufficient time for questions and answers. Not a single question was asked, though four or five persons requested more information regarding different issues connected with Nietzsche’s life. Incidentally, Parsiana carried a brief report of the program while Parsi Awaz carried a comprehensive report in six installments.
Among the various issues raised by Vajifdar, perhaps the only one in which an orthodox would agree with him is his remark about Ilm-e Khshnoom. Otherwise stated, the present day Khshnoomists seem to consider themselves to be sacred depositories of celestial knowledge. But Vajifdar’s depreciation of the three dasturs apart, we may remind him about a booklet of 41 pages brought out by Zoroastrian Studies in 1985 titled The Facts Versus Dr Kersey Antia’s ‘Argument for Acceptance.’ It has an impressive subtitle: "A Critical Analysis Rejecting his Contentions.” There are some Parsis who, without an iota of competence, are yearning to get a whip-hand over the affairs of the community. To quote an aphorism of Nietzsche: "Not only doth he lie, who speaketh contrary to his knowledge, but more so, he who speaketh contrary to his ignorance.” The booklet divulges how Antia puts in the guise of fact what in reality is only an opinion.
To expect one or more anti-orthodox to solve the bloodcurdling range of problems which increasingly beset our tiny community is nothing short of building castles in the air. FARIBOURZ NARIMAN

Independent researcher Farrokh Vajifdar of London responds:
Had it not been for Parsiana’s urging, this writer would have hearkened to the unwisdom of taking these Acceptance exchanges further. Faribourz Nariman becomes increasingly cantankerous with anyone who challenges: using his obsessive aunt-sallying (fairground game of throwing sticks at the head of an old woman’s likeness, i.e. targeting) for levels of abuse. Where, until the mid-20th century, true blue Zoroastrian priests maintained credibility and respect, Nariman would have the reader venerate the current crop of priests decry any practical moves to restitute Zarathushtrian ordinances.
The latter priests even absurdly challenged conversions on the grounds that they were "illegal and invalid.” In their topsy-turvy world, professional lawyers tamper with the religion, and politicized priests invoke the law to promote their shoddy religiosity!
To clear up this reversal of roles, the priests are directly called upon to explain why, in their public prayers, they intone passages from sacrosanct Old Avestic texts before the flame of truth. These specifically include exhortations to convert and accept newcomers, men and women, who seek spiritual fulfillment through Zarathushtrian teachings against the backdrop of universalism.
It is one thing to impose perverse teachings upon pre-puberty children taught by rote without any explanation; it is quite another to induct adolescents and mature adults who, after sound doctrinal instruction, and of their own volition, have chosen the free spiritual path offered by Zarathushtrian precepts.
The child navjotes, impregnated with Hindu values and customs, performed with flip-flop doctrines, are farcical. For mature seekers who do not really need such rites of passage, the navjote represents but a formality.
For Nariman such "hair-splitting” comes under "orthodoxy” and "tradition,” it being impossible to get him to cease dodging about and concentrate on the subject at hand. He will doubtless continue with his ill-tempered and groundless deceptions as they clearly are.