The Haoma plant identification

“The Farvahar, the soul of Zarathushtra, descended into the physical world in the form of the um. The haoma – In Middle Persian hum, and in Sanskrit soma – is a plant that was used for worship purposes in the ancient Indo-Iranian religion. Scholars differ in their opinions regarding its identification. The meaning is “squeezing”, and the properties of the plant the name , according to the hymn dedicated to him in the Vesta, are healing, sexual excitement, intellectual stimulation and intoxication. Today’s Zoroastrians worship an extract of Chinese ephedra (ephedra sinica), from which the drug ephedrine is also produced. In some Iranian languages, Chinese ephedra is still called hum. Other scholars have identified and identify the plant as cannabis or various types of hallucinogenic plants. However, according to Zoroastrian mythology, Zarathushtra’s soul came down to the world in the form of the haoma plant that was as tall as a man, and grew at the top of a particularly tall tree that grew in the area where Zarathushtra’s father grazed. Pourušaspa Spitāma, inspired by the gods of course, coveted the attractive nation. He thought he would have to cut down the tree in order to reach it, but miraculously, the haoma came down half way towards him, he climbed half way towards it and shortened it all.” From “The Good, the Bad and the World“, by Thamar Eilam Gindin , p. 25, Ministry of Defense, 2011

Chris Bennett argues in his books (” cannabis and the soma solution” etc.) that haoma and soma are cannabis, basing this on the work of several Indologists and Iranologists. For example, Elizabeth Wayland Barber suggests that the name “haoma” developed from the Chinese term “hu-ma”, meaning “fire-cannabis”, because in the rituals of the Indo-Europeans who lived there, cannabis was burned, then pressed, mixed with milk, and strained (they called this “bhang”). Since it is known that there are Chinese words of Indo-European origin, she does not rule out the possibility that the influences were bidirectional. Just as the word for “silk” originated from *s’eg”, she claims the same situation could take us from hu-ma to haoma.

The main proponent of the identification between soma and cannabis is Syed Mahdihassan. According to him, the Chinese confused it with ephedra, partly because their galls are yellow-red. Consequently, the words for cannabis and ephedra are similar and actually mirror images: cannabis is huang-ma, and ephedra is ma-huang. The origin was “hu-ma”, and in Sanskrit, the h turned into s and not the other way around. He claims that the Chinese became acquainted with this drink through contact with Aryan ascetics and adopted the practice. Thus, we find evidence of Taoist sages who burned cannabis in incense burners and traveled to the “land of the immortals”.

While Zoroaster preserved the use of ephedra, he abandoned the use of cannabis, but the Scythians retained it. He attacks them for this. It turns out that the name of the Scythians in Avestan was “Sakā haumavargā”, meaning “Scythians who prepare haoma.”

Ali Jafarey argues that although Zoroaster tried to eliminate the use of cannabis, he was not entirely successful, and “heretic” sects preserved its use. These sects were orthodox Persians who struggled to accept the reformist religious practices. We see that various Persian sects remained faithful to cannabis, such as the Manichaeans, the Mazdakites, and of course, the Sufis and Hashishin, who used it for what they called jihad—holy war meant to be both internal (Sufis) and external (Hashishin).

The Dragon Slayer Archetype

In the Aarne-Thompson Motif Index, motif number 300 is “The Dragon Slayer” which involves a hero who defeats a fearsome dragon and cuts off its head. Sometimes, the hero doesn’t kill the dragon but only neutralizes it. Since the dragon has magical powers that allow it to rise from its ashes or strengthen in other ways, it remains a threat and will one day return, needing to be defeated again. The one who will defeat it will be the same hero, a reincarnation, or one of his descendants. In the “Motif-Index of Folk-Literature”, Stith Thompson expands on the character of the dragon, its hatching from an egg, being a hybrid with terrifying elements from various animals, having multiple heads (usually three), its appearance resembling a snake and perhaps even being a snake itself, and so on.

I am currently reading the new book by our group member Sarah Kugel, “Iranian Mythology”, while also browsing Thamar Eilam Gindin’s book “Heroes, Kings, and Dragons”. Both books deal with Iranian mythology, and one of the central stories is about the evil king “Zahhak” who turned into a dragon or, alternatively, grew two man-eating snakes from his shoulders after being kissed by the devil. This king was wicked and represented Iran’s enemy, and only after a thousand years did the national hero, Fereydun, manage to depose him. Fereydun is a later iteration of the original Avestan word Traitaunas, meaning “possessor of three powers”. Zahhak is a later iteration of the Avestan word “Azi Dahaka,” meaning “man resembling a dragon,” and perhaps even “the laughing dragon”. Perhaps he laughs because he is invincible, and even when defeated, he is not truly dead and always has more strength, at least until the final victory, which no one knows when it will come.

It’s easy to see that this story is essentially a prototype of the “Whore of Babylon” in the Book of Revelation, who will only be defeated at the end of days. It’s no coincidence that Babylon is mentioned since, in these Iranian stories, Zahhak is originally Babylonian or at least built a fortress in Babylon. Gindin mentions that in one version, he misled the Babylonians into believing in sacred scriptures he wrote called “Oritā” (from the Aramaic ‘Oraiyta’, the Torah) as if he were a reincarnation of Ahriman himself, posing as the good god, for Ahriman once tempted the first humans, infiltrated their thoughts, and made them worship demons. Such is also the Antichrist. The Gnostics (as well as the Manicheans who incorporated Zoroastrian elements into Gnosticism) claim that the God of the Jews is the god who created the material world, so it’s clear why his sacred texts are referred to as the Jewish sacred texts. By the way, the Gnostics worshiped a being called Hermes Trismegistus, which means “the three times greater”, or “the three times stronger”. The fact that Megistus mentions the Zoroastrian Magus or Magi is very welcoming.

The deeds of Fereydun are based on another hero whose name is derived from the number three: Trita, an Indian hero (mentioned in the Vedas) who is also credited with killing a three-headed dragon named Trisiras. This story is an iteration of another story attributed to the god Indra, who killed a dragon named Vritra. Indra also fought with Varuna, the guardian of immortality, and took his place—a myth that reminds us of Yahweh’s battle with Leviathan or Marduk’s with Tiamat.

So much for comparative mythology. From here on, I will mention that Indra’s favorite drink was soma, an intoxicating beverage he consumed before the battle with the dragon-serpent. This dragon was the leader of the “Asura”, who were actually “Devas,” gods who fell and became demons. They pretended to be benefactors, though they were power-hungry and deceitful. Three Devas—Varuna, Soma (Chandra), and Agni—who were initially on the dragon’s side and called him “our father,” were eventually bewitched and helped Indra defeat him.

The Indo-European warriors would drink soma to get the war frenzy, and Zarathustra did not like the uncontrolled way they consumed the sacred drink because it led to chaos and bloodshed. Alternatively, the priests of the false gods consumed haoma (which is the same as soma, just in Avestan) and through it worshipped demons, something Zarathustra despised. He called those demons daêva, and their worshippers “daêvan.” Indra himself was called daêva. Zarathustra detested the haoma cult, and one of his reforms was to replace the intoxicating substance with ephedra, whose psychoactive effect is much lower. Some say he did not prohibit the use of the intoxicating drink but merely restricted its consumption because irresponsible people would have a “bad trip” or simply lose their inhibitions because of it.

At this point, I will mention, as Lewis Ungit already pointed out, that the dragon-serpent symbol they fight is essentially a personification of the psychedelic experience. Some people drink the intoxicating drink and get lost with it, fighting and being defeated by the dragon. Conversely, some people defeat it and cut off its head, but this does not make them immune later because the severed head will grow back, and the dragon will always be strong enough to attack the next time. Only at the end of days will that dragon, who disguises himself as a beautiful woman, truly die, and the one who defeats him will win the grand prize, perhaps even marry the princess—more and more elements recurring in Stith Thompson’s index, which are probably now better understood.