Jal Birdy's Response on Haoma

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 monthlong 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 "firetemples" 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.

http://www.factnfalse.com/Jal%20Birdy's%20Response%20on%20Haoma.htm[20-Nov-11 20:24:50]

Jal Birdy's Response on Haoma

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

http://www.factnfalse.com/Jal%20Birdy's%20Response%20on%20Haoma.htm[20-Nov-11 20:24:50]

Jal Birdy's Response on Haoma

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.
http://www.factnfalse.com/Jal%20Birdy's%20Response%20on%20Haoma.htm[20-Nov-11 20:24:50]

Jal Birdy's Response on Haoma

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 Anhi 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 Foreword Analysis of the 26-page "Global Protest"

http://www.factnfalse.com/Jal%20Birdy's%20Response%20on%20Haoma.htm[20-Nov-11 20:24:50]