JAL BIRDY'S RESPONSE ON 'HAOMA'
I am pleased to see my
posting of 29 February has motivated Ervad Jal Birdy, President of the North
American Mobeds Council and the Vice-President of the Traditional Mazdayasni
Zoroastrian Anjuman, to break his month-long silence. He, in his response of 6
March, ends his posting of 2,340 word or 199 paragraphs or 239 lines by
declaring all in capital letters: >> NO! MR. JAFAREY, I DON'T THINK YOU
HAVE SILENCED ME ONE LITTLE BIT. IF
ANYTHING, YOU HAVE FIRED ME UP EVEN MORE.>> He also says: >>Nothing
could be further from the truth, however, since he has not managed to make a
single dent in my earlier arguments. The
only reason for my silence is because some of us have to work at a full-time job
in addition to writing rebuttals on the Internet.>>
In his letter of 30
January, he had given three samples of my "letters" on what he called
and every Traditionalist leader poised against me calls, were three of my essays
which, within their relevant subjects, discuss in brief:
(1) Essay on "Woman in the Gathas and the Later Avesta," 9 pages of 5,097 words of which only 163 words are devoted to pre-Aryan temple prostitution and another 486 words speak about "Prostitution and Seduction" as given in the Vendidad and a Pahlavi passage. This has been intentionally transferred by these Traditionalists to "fire-temples" with ulterior motives all readers see for themselves.
(2) The note on the original intoxicant Haoma (Duraosha) condemned by Zarathushtra and its later substitution by the Post-Gathic priests is a footnote of 282 words (less than one page) in my book "The Zarathushtrian Religion, A Chronological Perspective" of over 200 pages and 62,000 words. The background intentionally ignored to take up the post-Gathic mild drink of Ephedra and raise an uproar about the Yasna Ceremony and its alleged relation to the soul of a departed person.
(3) The Hormazd Yasht
is again a one-page part of my "The Avesta, A Glance" (Book N Bits
publication, 1999) of 87 pages. I write that the Yashts and are the compositions
by priests of the pre-Gathic and post-Gathic eras. It is propagated to mean
"fabricated by mobeds to elevate their status."
The Ervad's second
response to me is again about "Haoma," and he completely leaves the
other two issues. Why? He knows best.
Let us walk through his
response:
<<Dear Friends:
I have read Mr.
Jafarey's posting on the Listbot alias (February 29th, 2000), in which he gloats
over his presumed success in silencing me by his recent postings.
Nothing could be further from the truth, however, since he has not
managed to make a single dent in my earlier arguments.
The only reason for my silence is because some of us have to work at a
full-time job in addition to writing rebuttals on the Internet.
Mr. Jafarey criticizes
me for using a cut-and-paste technique and not presenting his complete essays on
Haom earlier. In view of the
long-winded and confusing nature of his essays, I had no other choice.
My including the full text would have been too distracting for the reader
and also totally unnecessary. I
therefore stand by everything I have said and the manner of presentation.
This posting of mine is
directed towards refuting some of Mr. Jafarey's arguments designed to mislead
the reader, particularly on the subject of Haom. Unfortunately my posting is
also lengthy because it responds to the many points raised by Mr. Jafarey.
The reader may refer to Mr. Jafarey's postings of February 7th and 8th if
he/she has the time or patience.
As a general background
to this discussion, Haom is a plant, which is pounded and made into a drink
during the larger Ijashne ceremony performed to this day inside consecrated fire
temples in India/Pakistan. Devout
Parsi/Irani Zarathushtis have this ceremony performed to help the souls of their
dear-departed relations, since Haom Yazad is believed to assist a soul's
progress in the spiritual world. The present discussion on Haom is therefore
more or less academic for the West, but nevertheless necessary to dispel
misinformation that is being propagated on the Internet by Mr. Jafarey on the
subject.
Mr. Jafarey tells us
that Zarathushtra strongly condemned Haom and its ritual in the Gathas because
He considered Haom to be a strong intoxicant, which led the ruling class to
oppress and mistreat their subjects in their fits of drunkenness.
He also tells us that Zarathushtra never performed this ceremony, which
was really only concocted by priests for their own benefit.
These statements have hurt and distressed many devout Zarathushtis and
have made them speak out against Mr. Jafarey, or anyone else, making such
misleading statements at their community gatherings.
1)
In an effort to discredit the Haom ceremony, Mr. Jafarey first tries to
convince the reader by citing the Gathas (Yasna 32.14 and 48.10), and also the
translations of Kanga, Taraporewala, Mills, Darmesteter, Schwarz, Humbach/Ichaporia,
Azargoshasb and Doostkhah for support. In
fact, all that Mr. Jafarey is able to show by bringing these illustrious
translators to the table is the utter chaos that exists between their various
translations.
He then asks: "What would Ervad Birdy say about this?"
Ervad Birdy would say what he has said on many occasions before, that it
is an utter folly to rely on the translations of the Gathas alone to understand
our religion, particularly translations made by those who have not lived our
faith every day of their lives. There
are over 45 different translations to the Gathas, each one violently different
from the other; and they are still growing by the day. This case in point is a prime example of the chaos caused by
these translations. The meaning of
just one phrase containing three
words ranges from madness, infatuation, intoxication, urine of intoxication,
rotting mass of infatuation, rotting mass of lies, urine from the ritual, etc.,
all the way to "Haoma", a word which is never even mentioned directly
in the Gathas anywhere.
Further, it is one
thing to embark on the "study" of this ancient work for private,
scholarly satisfaction or discussion at universities, as many non-Zarathushti
folk have done over the decades. It
is, however, quite wrong to
air its doubtful translations to devotees of the faith and mislead them into
believing that their age-old beliefs and practices were only dreamed up by
mobeds for their own benefit. By
doing this Mr. Jafarey deliberately confuses, confounds and deceives the
ordinary believer who relies on his faith for spiritual solace. Before another
furore starts over a priest making such comments about the Gathas, let me hasten
to add that there is much good contained in this much-acclaimed work of our
Prophet and I have nothing but the most profound respect and admiration for
them. However, there are many
passages in the Gathas
that cannot be deciphered by present day translators and which can
lead to a lot of is interpretation, confusion and bickering as we are
seeing today. One of the more
well-known recent translators, Stanley Insler, has an opening statement in his
book, which states that because of their relative brevity and the almost total lack of other earlier
works of the old Iranian literature, the Gathas are truly a text BOUND WITH
SEVEN SEALS. Also, he states that
what we are saying about the Gathas today could very well be a far cry from what
the Prophet really intended to convey to us.
If such statements, coming from one of the foremost modern translators,
do not corroborate my earlier statement about the Gathas, I don't know what
does.
2)
Continuing with the deceit, having pronounced Haom as the substance that
Zarathushtra condemns in the Gathas as an intoxicant, Mr. Jafarey now finds
himself in a tight corner. He knows
fully well that the Haom that is used in our rituals today is not strong enough
to really intoxicate anyone (Mr. Jafarey has apparently himself drunk glassfuls
without any side effects). So he
proceeds to invent through his research" another substance, like
"Bhang" - a much stronger intoxicant, which he incidentally also calls
"Haom" and asserts that it was this substance that was really used in
pre-Gathic times by the priests and which was condemned by Zarathushtra.
It almost seems like Mr. Jafarey was present there, in a previous
incarnation perhaps, to be able to make such wild statements.
If this is not causing deliberate confusion and deception among the
devotees, I don't know what is.
3)
Next, Mr. Jafarey asks us that "If the Haom and its ceremony were of
such importance, then why did Zarathushtra, who was well advanced in his mission
and age, not mention it in his sublime songs? Have the Traditionals any
explanation?"
Of course they have!
The answer, quite simply, is because the Gathas are like the constitution
of the United States, while the other scriptures are like its by-laws, giving
more detailed do's and don'ts. Just
as you will not find detailed laws pertaining to a traffic violation in the
Constitution, you will not find the Haom ceremony in the Gathas.
This is why the whole corpus of our scriptures needs to be followed; not
just the Gathas, as advocated by Mr. Jafarey.
4)
Next, Mr. Jafarey surprisingly cites the Haom Yasht, where Haom Yazad
makes his first personal encounter with Zarathushtra.
Because of the conversation that ensues where Haom Yazad urges
Zarathushtra to pound Haom into a drink, he concludes that Zarathushtra did not
know what Haom was, nor did He ever perform the Haom ritual.
These are again misleading statements.
In fact, it is in the Haom Yasht and not in the Gathas that we find the
true relationship explained between Zarathushtra and Haom.
In the remainder of the Haom Yasht, which Mr. Jafarey conveniently
decides to ignore, Zarathushtra has nothing but praise for Haom Yazad.
Some examples of His reverence towards Haom are given below (from Kanga's
Khordeh Avesta Ba-Maeni):
1-17: O! Green-hued
Haom; grant me thy wisdom, courage, victory, health, prosperity, strength, so
that I may move about like an independent Sovereign, destroyer of malice and
vanquisher of druj.
2-1: O! Haom; I praise thee with manthra when I pound thee using the
mortar and pestle. (So much for Mr.
Jafarey's repeated assertions that Zarathushtra was not an Athravan and never
conducted the Haom ceremony).
2-8: Intoxicating drinks of all other kinds lead to wrath, but the
intoxication of Haom pounded through ceremony leads to delight and
righteousness.
2-17: O! Haom; I
filter thee from the silver saucer into the golden one.
I do not pour thee on the ground because thou art precious.
(Similar filtering takes place in the Ijashne ceremony.
Notice that here Zarathushtra is performing the Haom ritual).
2-18: O! Haom; these
Gathas are for thee; these hymns of praise are for thee; these tasty meals are
for thee; and these truly spoken prayers are for thee.
I
ASK YOU, DEAR READER, IF YOU WERE TRYING TO ESTABLISH A NEW ZARATHUSHTRIAN CULT,
DEVOID OF ALL PRIESTHOOD, LAWS AND RITUALS, WHAT WOULD YOU DO FIRST?
YOU
HAVE GUESSED IT! GET RID OF ALL
SCRIPTURES (SUCH AS THE HAOM YASHT AND OTHERS),
WHICH PORTRAY ZARATHUSHTRA AS A PRIEST INVOLVED IN RITUALS.
THIS IS WHAT MR. JAFAREY IS
TRYING TO DO TODAY, THEREBY GROSSLY INSULTING THE ORIGINAL
ADHERANTS OF THE FAITH.
5)
Continuing the dialogue, Mr. Jafarey asks what I would dare to say about
Ervad Dr. Jehan Bagli's posting of August 30th,, 1998, on Haom Yasht.
I have to say that I do not know, since I do not have that posting. If he would be kind enough to send it to me for review I may
dare to say something in my humble capacity if required.
6)
Next, Mr. Jafarey accuses me of arousing emotions against him by making a
connection between the Ijashne ceremony and its beneficial effects on a departed
soul. He should know better than to
make such a statement. I have not
dreamed this up myself. In Haom
Yasht (1-16), while praising Haom Yazad, Zarathushtra declares: "Just as
Haom is best for the drinker, so also is he best for leading the soul on to its
heavenly path." (Kanga).
7)
Further, Mr. Jafarey informed everyone on this alias that I was lacking
in scholarly religious knowledge. He
is right, of course. I have never
considered myself to be a linguist or a scholar, nor do I wish to become one
where my religious beliefs are concerned. It
is one thing to learn about one's history and culture, but I believe it is an
utter folly to turn matters of faith and devotion into some sort of an
intellectual exercise. We are
clearly seeing the effects of this folly today by the bickering that is going on
when everyone thinks he/she is some kind of a scholar on matters of faith.
This is rapidly leading to the destruction of whatever little faith we
have cultivated towards Ahura Mazda and Asho Zarathushtra since our childhood.
I
would much rather like to see some of the mystery, enchantment and beliefs
retained in the religion instead of trying to fit an answer to everything. We
humans are just not endowed with the Supreme Vohu Manah required to fathom every
word uttered by the Prophet through divine inspiration or every mystery
of nature.
8)
Also, citing my scholarly ignorance, Mr. Jafarey unkindly mocks me for
being the President of the North American Mobeds Council (NAMC).
The truth is that I had no aspirations of being elected President four
years ago and being reaffirmed two years ago.
By making such a statement, Mr. Jafarey is insulting the intelligence of
all of the North American mobeds who give freely of their time and energy to
satisfying the spiritual needs of the community.
I should also point out
that this discourse on the Internet is purely in my personal capacity.
I am not writing on behalf of NAMC or being instructed or forced by
others, as Mr. Jafarey frequently insinuates.
As a mobed, I consider it my duty, not only to perform ceremonies, but
also to do my best to provide guidance to my community and speak up when I see
my community being threatened or harmed. If
in the process I have to attract abuse and ridicule, so be it.
9)
Lastly, it is true that I perform religious ceremonies mostly by rote,
like all other priests I know. This
is because I believe it is more important to create the right vibrations by
chanting the Avesta Manthras with faith and devotion, than it is to understand
every syllable of the chant. That
is the way spiritual needs of our people have been satisfied for countless
centuries. I do not expect Mr. Jafarey, who is an outsider to our faith
and beliefs, to ever understand this fact.
Our religion will remain merely a matter of intellectual gymnastics to
him forever. Anyone who did not
fall into his intellectual mould will stand to be instantly shunned and
ridiculed.
In conclusion, I would
like to caution the reader not to believe everything that Mr. Jafarey and his
followers tell him/her or post on the Internet. Mr. Jafarey's modus operandi has been to cram his postings
with everything he can lay his hands on, frequently citing them as his research,
which he knows very few will ever understand and fewer still will have the time
or the inclination to dig deep and verify.
He then conveniently intersperses his postings with his devastating
messages that he wishes to get across to his reader. He hopes the reader would have become so numb or impressed
with the volume of his composition that he will swallow his real message hook
line and sinker without question. This is illustrated by his current postings
being discussed.
I hope this will be my
last posting on the matter of Haom. I
have no doubt, however, that Mr. Jafarey and his friends will once again shower
me with their usual torrent of abuse and ridicule. By the Grace of God, I shall try to bear them with a smile on
my face as usual ] Az Anâhi Khorsand Hom (Patet Pashemani (12-2).
NO! MR. JAFAREY, I
DON'T THINK YOU HAVE SILENCED ME ONE LITTLE BIT.
IF ANYTHING, YOU HAVE FIRED ME UP EVEN MORE.
With best wishes to
all,
In the service of my
community,
Ervad Jal N. Birdy.
03-04-00
* * * * * *
LINKS:
To read the Relevant Reply, CLICK
Introduction & Gist of The Plain Reality behind The Intricate Falsity
(Allegations Nos. 6 & 7)
also see the This Side for
HAOMA Its Original and Later Identity
and
HAOMA by Dasturji Dhall
TABLE OF CONTENTS and Their Links
Analysis of the 26-page "Global Protest"