--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wgm4u <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > ...who tend to be homophobic and look down their noses > > at Buddhist monks who protest Chinese atrocities by > > committing suicide. Consider the case of Aravan, who > > offed himself to ensure a victory during the glorify- > > war era of the Maharbarata. That was OK, right, because > > he was offing himself to win a war. > > > > But wait, not only did Aravan off himself, he got to > > spend the night *before* offing himself having sex with > > a *guy* who had transformed himself into a woman for the > > occasion. > > > > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/01/koovagam-festival-2012-india-hindu-transgender-photo_n_1468687.html > > > > I simply can't wait for the JohnR's and the Nabby's > > and the BillyG's to "explain" the cosmic significance > > of all of this to us. It should be entertaining... > > Suffice it to say what Jerry Jarvis was purported to have > said and that was, "the ignorance in the World is so thick > you could cut it with a knife".
While I do not disagree, I contend that "scriptures" based on fantasy only *increase* this ignorance. > Scripture is designed by definition to illustrate some > spiritual value, what it is here is lost on me!? I disagree with your definition. Scripture (as viewed by religious sociologists) almost always had a *social* value that superceded and predated any of its supposed "spiritual" qualities. Thus the overriding message of the Mahabharata was that 1) war is good, 2) you should follow the advice of your betters (and kill who they tell you to kill because they are "bad" and your betters are "good"), and that the current social order is never to be questioned. > Maybe YOU know what it is, care to share? Or do you think > it was encouraging transsexualism in some twisted way? I suspect it was some guy (a priest, who *made his living* by getting people to pay him to perform yagyas and other ceremonies) trying to drum up more money by making up a tale that inspired *him*, hoping it would inspire others. So to him (a priest, and thus expected to be celibate for life), the fantasy of some guy getting to magically do what the priest could not (uh...get laid at least once before he died) was a Big Deal; he assumed it would be a Big Deal for others as well. I doubt that the priest who made up this story never thought about the fact that his character was *getting it on with Krishna* for a moment; he only thought about 1) the all-important "magical thinking" of Krishna (another made-up character) transforming himself into a woman because it was...duh...magic, and 2) the idea of doing oneself in to win a war (and thus preserve the all-important social order) inspired him. Celibates tend to have weird ideas about what is "noble" and what is not. :-) Hey, you asked. :-) > I guess if Krishna transformed himself INTO a woman he'd > no longer be a guy, right? (Not meant to be taken literally > Turq!) That is not possible for mere mortals, IMO. Because in my opinion no one *other* than "mere mortals" have ever dwelled on this planet, or ever will, I agree with you that the possibility that Krishna (who never existed) transformed himself into a woman for a night (which never happened) is...uh...not to be taken literally. Such stories should IMO be looked at as what they are -- insights into the thinking of those who thought them up. And into the thinking of those who assign to them the "value" of "scripture," even though they're clearly more akin to The Lord Of The Rings or to Norse myth- ology than they are to reality. Still, one wonders whether the made-up Krishna actually *enjoyed* gettin' it on with the oh-so-noble (and equally made-up) Aravan. Did Krishna mope around afterwards for a few days thinking, "OMG...am I really GAY?" :-)
