Re "No one could have gone out of his way more to say that he *was* an ordinary human being with no special birth or powers than the original Buddha, so in the case of devotees trying to make his birth seem more miraculous, I would suggest they are actually *distorting and perverting* his teachings.":
The Buddhist legend surrounding the appearance of Buddha says that immediately after his birth he stood up, took seven steps north, and uttered: "I am chief of the world, Eldest am I in the world, Foremost am I in the world. This is the last birth. There is now no more coming to be." That's the kind of cocky impertinence that would make me want to slap the little bugger rather than worship him. However, one Zen master, when asked for the sense of the Buddha's "birth sermon", responded by screwing up his face and bursting into tears. Get it? He was imitating the action of every new-born baby. Crying is exactly what we are all supposed to do immediately following birth. The Zen chap's performance was intended to awaken his students and show them that acting according to your true nature is what we all naturally do until education and conformism distort our original nature. That is the Buddha's message in a nutshell. When I now hear that traditional miracle birth story (which before always struck me as a typical, sycophantic piece of superstitious claptrap) I remember that Zen adept and see the tale via his insight. Christians need modern saints to perform the same task re the Nativity. Merry Christmas! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <turquoiseb@...> wrote : Much better reply. I'm not going to argue with any of it, because I'm really NOT into arguing, especially about subjects that are purely a matter of opinion/belief and can never be resolved. The only reason I replied earlier was my surprise at you characterizing my posting of Valerie's article as "tacky" or exhibiting a "low level of consciousness," simply because (from my point of view) you didn't *like* my or Valerie's point of view on the subject matter. I am just making the case that we are *allowed* to view Biblical events/myths from different points of view from the ones that Jews or Christians prefer. *They* are allowed to continue with their "in the box" points of view. I don't think that *either* of these points of view is "the truth" and don't think I ever suggested that. It isn't "reducing" the story of Christ's birth to introduce the issue of sexism and male power over women into it; it's *expanding* that story, and seeing other sides of it. As you suggest below, you view the metaphor of the virgin birth (or miraculous birth) as inspiring or uplifting. I can see other sides of it, not least of which is the attempt to portray the Messiah as being "not really human," and "not really born as the result of sex." I think that's a BAD teaching to imply, just as I similarly think that bhaktified versions of Buddha's birth to make him seem less human and make his birth seem more miraculous is a BAD teaching. No one could have gone out of his way more to say that he *was* an ordinary human being with no special birth or powers than the original Buddha, so in the case of devotees trying to make his birth seem more miraculous, I would suggest they are actually *distorting and perverting* his teachings. I feel similarly to the "tacking on" of the virgin birth to the Christ myth. While I understand why devotees may have done this, I think that in so doing they created a weaker and less admirable being in the supposedly "supernatural Christ" than possibly existed in the "completely human Christ." I'm not the only person to feel this way, that the myths attached to Christ's story had little to do with his message. Here is an interesting exchange between historian Resa Aslan and a number of other historians and theologians about the differing interpretations of Christ's life. I like one quote early in the exchange, which seems to me to really "get" this "mythification" process: "The 'Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth' http://www.strandbooks.com/product/zealotauthor argues that a tension exists between the historical and theological narratives of Jesus, as 'many Christians would say Jesus fulfilled' the prophecies detailed in the Bible, while 'many historians would say Jesus' life was crafted so that it would fulfill these prophecies.'" Reza Aslan And Theological Scholar Spar Over History Of Jesus http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/22/reza-aslan-jesus_n_6367402.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/22/reza-aslan-jesus_n_6367402.html Reza Aslan And Theological Scholar Spar Over History Of Je... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/22/reza-aslan-jesus_n_6367402.html The different historical and religious interpretations of Jesus are general... View on www.huffingtonpost.com http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/22/reza-aslan-jesus_n_6367402.html Preview by Yahoo From: "s3raphita@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2014 1:20 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fascinating essay to read during this Christmas period Re "I had forgotten how attached people can get to their fictional characters.": That's cute coming from a dedicated fan of Sherlock! Re "I should probably consider myself lucky that you didn't consider my presentation of an alternative Santa Claus": Well, Santa is a bit of a bore - unless you're 5 years old (and even then). But these characters of myth are not *fictional* characters. Indeed in the case of those like Mary and Jesus they are real people whose life stories have been submerged under a mythology. The difference? Myths emerge from the "collective unconscious" (whatever that means!) whereas fiction is a conscious creation. As an example, traditional fairy stories can carry some of the disturbing other-worldliness of myth; but modern re-workings of fairy stories, like those of Angela Carter, though they can be superb stories are too in debt to the writer's surface prejudices and biases to tap that deeper level. What you (Barry) miss is that the story of the Virgin Birth is simply one of a series of miraculous births that crop up in other myths across cultures. It's the deeper message they carry that is powerful as it activates levels of the self not touched by a merely fictional character. (I can't tell you exactly what the deep message is. Why? Because if it could be expressed in prosaic language we wouldn't need to bother with myths!) From the web: About 2,000 years before the Christian era Mut-em-ua, the virgin Queen of Egypt, was said to have given birth to the Pharaoh Amenkept, who built the temple of Luxor, on the walls of which were represented: 1) The Annunciation: the god Taht announcing to the virgin Queen that she is about to become a mother. 2) The Immaculate Conception: the god Kneph (the holy spirit) mystically impregnating the virgin by holding a cross, the symbol of life, to her mouth. 3) The Birth of the Man-god. 4) The Adoration of the newly born infant by gods and men, including three kings (or Magi?), who are offering him gifts. In this sculpture the cross again appears as a symbol. Why such stories are so appealing (to most of us, if not for others such as yourself) is an intriguing question. The point of my original response is that to reduce that appeal to a rape-narrative, as your linked article did, is just the kind of move that makes me despair of all kinds of reductionism, and is no doubt why I'm more drawn to idealist (mind-dependent) philosophies than to materialist ones. I'm "top-down" rather than "bottom-up" as they say. Even if I turn out to be wrong about that at least, like Oscar Wilde, while I've been lying in the gutter I've also been looking at the stars. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <turquoiseb@...> wrote : awakens our From: "s3raphita@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> I see you're in troll mode today. Me? YOU are the one replying to a post that wasn't sent to you, just so you can dump on me. :-) Re "Reposted it in case someone had anything intelligent to say about it. Too bad you didn't": Define "intelligent". I wasn't exactly having a rant! Re "I'm sorry you thought my post was "tacky." I think your reply was somewhat more so.": You think wrong. Whatever. What probably misled me was you calling my alternative take on a fictional character a "slur." I had forgotten how attached people can get to their fictional characters. I should probably consider myself lucky that you didn't consider my presentation of an alternate Santa Claus a "slur" against *his* good name and go ballistic about that as well. :-) Re "As you actually imply in your reply, s3raphita, she should have looked at being told she was about to get knocked up by god as a "unique, world-historical privilege." You don't see a little MALE "privilege" built into this concept?": The idea that if a god makes a move on a human they are *equal* partners is a little naive. Gods have privileges denied to lesser mortals. Not so sure about the MALE bit either. In the legend of Hippolytus, Aphrodite is the cause of his death. He scorned the worship of Aphrodite, preferring Artemis. Aphrodite caused his stepmother, Phaedra, to fall in love with him, knowing Hippolytus would reject her. This led to Phaedra's suicide, and the death of Hippolytus. So goddesses can be bitches just as gods can be pigs. Hint: gods and goddesses are fictional. So are the Bible stories and myths you're describing. HOWEVER, they have import for the people who read them AS stories. The story is, in fact, what they remember, not that "it's a metaphor for something." So when you've got gods and goddesses treating themselves like masters and treating the humans they interact with as their slaves, that *story* -- that relationship -- leaves an impression. I am suggesting there is something wrong with the basic stories. You seem just fine with them. I would write this off as "different strokes for different folks" and forget it, except that you *also* seem fine with the idea that Mary *should* feel grateful and privileged for being selected as a brood mare for a god in one of these stories. I kinda think that this attitude -- coming as it does *from* a woman -- kinda proves my point. The story had lasting impact on those who heard it, and I'm not convinced that the lasting impact was a good one. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <turquoiseb@...> wrote : Just to follow up, I found time to read a Babelfished version of the German article, and found it interesting. But not interesting enough to really comment on. Thanks, though for your comments, and the invitation to a discussion. Trouble is, I am the furthest person you have ever met from a Biblical scholar, or even a person with any interest in the Bible. It's not that I haven't read it; it's that I have, and don't have the slightest desire to *ever* read it again. So although I can see that the changing views over time of these various books of the Bible, influenced by the politics and the social forces of various eras, would be fascinating to those who know those books, it isn't fascinating to me because I don't. To clarify about my unwillingness to correct this deficiency and learn more about the Bible, it's more a preference issue for me than it is a religious/atheist issue. I still read the occasional "spiritual" work for purposes of inspiration. The issue is that I'm just not *inspired* by most of the stories in the Bible. They just don't turn me on or resonate with my inner being. They often seem simplistic or obvious or distasteful or all of the above. If I were looking to read things that are regarded as scriptures and actually be *inspired* by them, I'd have to turn to Tibetan works, or Native American shaman tales. Or old Celtic or Norse myths. I don't know why this is. I just can't get it up for *any* of the three major Middle Eastern monotheist religions, or their scriptures. Given how all three have turned out over these last 2-3 millennia, I'm not exactly drawn to them as a source of wisdom. :-) From: "TurquoiseBee turquoiseb@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 11:08 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fascinating essay to read during this Christmas period Good response. I have to work today so don't have time to dive into the translation of the German article or reply in depth (and may not have anything to say when I do have time), but your mention of the political and social forces that influenced the different books of the Bible reminded me of -- of all things -- this article that I stumbled upon yesterday. In it, the author Phil Zuckerman rather eloquently deals with the rise of secularism and pooh-poohs the rather egotistic notion from "modern atheists" that THEY are responsible for it. He makes some valid points that reveal the political and sociological forces that have been working for many years to move people away from belief in religion and towards belief in more humanist philosophies. We’re putting an end to religion: Richard Dawkins, Bill Maher and the exploding new American secularism http://www.salon.com/2014/12/20/were_putting_an_end_to_religion_richard_dawkins_bill_maher_and_the_exploding_new_american_secularism/ http://www.salon.com/2014/12/20/were_putting_an_end_to_religion_richard_dawkins_bill_maher_and_the_exploding_new_american_secularism/ We’re putting an end to religion: Richard Dawkins, Bill ... http://www.salon.com/2014/12/20/were_putting_an_end_to_religion_richard_dawkins_bill_maher_and_the_exploding_new_american_secularism/ Religious right extremism, new atheists & late-night mockery have religion on the run. American secularism's rising View on www.salon.com http://www.salon.com/2014/12/20/were_putting_an_end_to_religion_richard_dawkins_bill_maher_and_the_exploding_new_american_secularism/ Preview by Yahoo From: aryavazhi <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 10:58 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fascinating essay to read during this Christmas period "I like thinking about religion and spirituality in "out of the box" ways, ways that approach the old stories from new perspectives, and that challenge us to step out of the conditioned boxes we've been taught to think within and approach these stories from wholly new perspectives.". I too like 'out-of-the box' thinking. I just recently came across this article in a German magazine: Das Buch der Bücher: "Zum historischen Kern wurde einfach hinzugedichtet" - SPIEGEL ONLINE http://www.spiegel.de/spiegelgeschichte/bibel-wie-die-heilige-schrift-entstand-a-1005418.html Wow - that really did it for me. If you happen to know German, somewhat at least, or if you can find a somwhat acceptable online translator - Google translate is sometimes okay, just to get an idea - it seems too much to translate it now, or even summarize it somewhat. The article makes a point that the whole collections of books in the bible spans a time frame of about 1000 years. The article is an interview with a biblical historian, probably a theologian as well, about the emergence of the different books, the time frame, and the social and political reasons behind it. What really struck me, was how recent this all is. 1000 years seem to be a long time, but if you look at it a little closer, the older books of the old testament, the pentateuch, was only fixed and finalized a few centuries before Christ, maybe 6 centuries before. And it was mainly a text of law. If you extrapolate this to our time, it's like saying, we have here this very ancient book from the 15 century, the book of all beginnings. Come on, how old is that? Of course antiquity doesn't mean anything really, but that it has some value is still lurking in our subconscious somehow. And if you look at his analysis, it's all political. He says, that what is called 'Babylonean exile' was just concerning a few elite people who were taken there, away from palestine. When they were released from the exile, they tried to impose their own religion - that is basically, what they had adopted abroad, like monotheism in persia I think, so they came back as an elite, and tried to establish themselves by publishing some lawbooks - the pentateuch - weaving it in with some other, known and older stories, and establish the temple they were building, in Jerusalem, as the center of their power. There was a competing temple elsewhere, and they tried to fight, and I think destroyed the other temple. This is portrayed in the bible as the fight with other tribes, but it wasn't, it was really their own palestine people they were trying to rule, who hadn't followed to the exile. And it seems that Salomon had belonged to the other group. Again, the united the two groups of people by making Abraham the father of Jacob, but originally there were two tribes, one thinking themselves to be in the lineage of Abraham, the other's being the lineage of Jacob, but with this trick, they united the people. Not that I expected that the bible is historically acurate, but it still strikes me, how this emergence of it, the way it came to be, actually spans just a few centuries - if you think of the real long history of human beings on earth - it's just nothing. Of course these men made the rules to dominate their people in their time, and it reflects the social status of these people. In my opinion, this is all political. That is of course not only true for Judaism and Christianity - which was formed to be a state-religion by the Romans. But then in Hinduism, which is anyway more like a collection of religions, there I recently heard, that there is a version, where Ravanna is the good guy, and not Rama, there are temples dedicated to Ravanna in Sri Lanka, and according to their story, Ravanna was married to Sita, and Rama abducted her. There are even temples of Ravanna on mainland India, and he is also regarded as an incarnation of Shiva. And just think how Rama abundoned Sita and put her on a fire-test(!). Then, one of the most famous Shiva temples is Rameshvara, where Rama, an incarnation of Vishnu, worshipped Shiva, just on the way to Lanka. Hello? Looks like a rededication of a temple to me, and that didn't happen the first time, it happened many times. wrt the bible I think the later philosophical and theological interpretations are on a much higher level than any of the original books where. The same may be true for much of Hinduism. http://www.spiegel.de/spiegelgeschichte/bibel-wie-die-heilige-schrift-entstand-a-1005418.html
