“Riposte to ‘acceptance’”

Among the dhongis (pretenders) with regard to our venerable philosophical religion, their one shaky step forward results in two backwards. Burjor Daboo "Riposte to ‘acceptance,’” Readers’ Forum, Parsiana, June 7, 2016) and his ilk are adept at such smuggled moves where they do not consider Zarathushtra’s Gathas as authoritative, and that as "sole custodians of the Zarathushti religion” the later priest-compiled Vandidad becomes their preferred worshipping guide!
It has escaped notice too that it was Zarathushtra himself who formulated conversion and acceptance into his universalist Mazdaic religion and not the racist, closed-minded Parsi community. If Daboo could study the three main relevant Gathic stanzas dealing with conversion, he would discover their interconnection. The kusti introductory Ka varathram.ja thwa prayer explicitly shows kahmaichit (whomsoever), in relation with universal hearkening to Mazda’s good mind aspect. This and more has been indicated in Prof Kaikhosrov Irani’s and my publication on Conversion in Zoroastrianism: The Truth behind the Trumpery where the texts speak for themselves, and our argumentation, without false interpretations. Daboo and company should seek explanations from the priests who pray these passages, and in the next breath deny the truth of their recitations. A straightforward answer with "religious reason” (!) would be greatly appreciated.
Daboo’s version of early Parsi history is appalling. He simply cannot accept the fact that had it not been for the steadfast Iranian Zardushtis who, despite Arab persecution, had remained in the Fatherland and preserved and copied most of our authentic religious literature, much of which they forwarded to India for safekeeping, we would have become more Hinduized than at present. Just think of our 33 Amshaspands while the Hindus have 33 gods in their pantheon! Are the non-existent Jadi Rana with his sixth condition the writer’s religious signposts?
Daboo talks of logic: what and whose logic where his entire purview is confined to the fantasy of "preservation of religion?” The merest enquiry elicits the bald facts of indifference to and ignorance of its basics, leaving plenty of scope for fantasizers to blatantly fill the vacuum with their own unZoroastrian confections. He misquotes Dr Irach Taraporewala to suit his racist purpose in Ys.53.7, and to advance that purpose conveniently overlooks Taraporewala’s translations of Yss 28.5, 31.3 and 47.6 where the idea of conversion is made very clear.
In the matter of his Yasna 53.7 gobbledegook, is Daboo at all aware that it contains a very explicit sexual reference? Or that the maga is not brotherhood but potlatch (community dining), as in all other Gatha passages?
Daboo has just as shamelessly corrupted the Vandidad section on not consorting with prostitutes — advice which any caring parents would give their progeny. It has nothing to do with outmarried women who have been arbitrarily and automatically deZoroastrianized. It shows only his inherited shallowness and misogyny. Besides, is it any of his business who anyone marries? FARROKH VAJIFDAR
London
f.vajifdar@btinternet.com