Ads by Yahoo!

" *crickets* "

" VoiceinWilderness,
I apologize if you felt attacked by my comments, that absolutely wasn't my intention. All I meant was that if you are interested in the show you should come support the McLean County Arts Center by showing up to view it, and visiting the actual exhibit might illuminate some of your questions. I just don't think it's fair to turn Mai's exhibit into a criticism of our education system, which is what I interpreted your question, "Is this the definition of "sacred" that's being taught in our schools, too?" to mean.

As for your question, I am puzzling out my own definition of sacred. However, if the idea of sacrifices bothers you, as I can completely understand it might, you can rest assured that most of the scenes Mai depicts are not sacrificial sites. I would especially draw your attention to the image on the back of the wall with the title of the exhibit on it, which is the "Mahabodhi Mahavihara -- Place of Buddha's enlightenment, in Bodhgaya" piece.

Thanks! "

" So, Isabelle and Larson, am I correct in interpreting your posts that you think the ones I pointed out are sacred? Your insults are obvious, but I'd love to know if you actually think they are sacred(as per Larson's quote of the dictionary.[in every possible way?) I'll stand by my disdain with calling Mayan Temples "sacred" and one other site. "Archaically..formerly, sacred"..yes. Sacred to me, no. I did say the exhibit sounds useful & fascinating, judging from the sample pictures on the internet version of the story. Ignorant peasant? I appreciate your suggestion Isabelle, but I saw enough in the article and the pictures and have studied enough to be entitled to an opinion on what is "sacred" or not. Don't expect another answer, either of you, if you are going to insult me again. There's a big difference between civil discussion and meanness.
All of those places are interesting to me and you chose to attack me for a "simple"{albeit, 'peasant-like} statement about some, thankfully, sites thata no longer practice "sacred" rites. "

" definition of sacred, by merriam-webster: 1 a: dedicated or set apart for the service or worship of a deity b: devoted exclusively to one service or use (as of a person or purpose) , 2 a: worthy of religious veneration : holy b: entitled to reverence and respect, 3: of or relating to religion : not secular or profane , 4 archaic : accursed, 5 a: unassailable, inviolable b: highly valued and important . VoiceInWilderness, if you're trying to sound like an uneducated peasant from the dark ages, hiding in caves from his own shadow, you're doing a fine job. I have no idea what word or term you are ranting about, but "sacred" works in every possible way here, every single possible way. And yes, it is a great exhibit. "

" VoiceInWilderness:
I would encourage you to view the exhibition before judging its content! The exhibit at the MCAC is actually titled "A Place for Everything" with a subtitle of "Panoramic Photographs of Cosmic Architectures and Sacred Precincts". Mai is interested in the spiritual aspects of the sites as well as the cosmic alignment (north to south, etc). I think it's a bit of an extrapolation to call our children's educations into question based on this article by Mr. Arney. "

" Mr Mai says, ""These are manifestations of the sacred as it exists in the world, at all levels -- from the smallest small to the largest large."
Sacred places? Sacred? A tomb for one woman? Ancient Mayan ruins where humans were sacrificed, first their virginity to a 'religious' leader and then their hearts cut out while they were alive to appease a 'god'? Sacred is REALLY being used loosely in the context of this exhibit. Is this the definition of "sacred" that's being taught in our schools, too? One person's sacred site is another's reminder of the evil some do in the name of "god" but learning the various interpretations of so called eternal truths is certainly useful. The exhibit at the McClean Arts Center sounds fascinating even if it is so elaborately & inaccurately titled. "

" According to a recent TV magazine article from the History Channel, the Taj Mahal is usually photographed from the back. The original front is on the river side, since the Prince built it as a mosoleum for his Princess and travel by the royals took place on the river and not over land at the time. Originally it was to be the white marble tomb for his wife and he intended an identical construction in black marble for himself as a mirror image of the Princess' tomb. He did not complete the black marble tomb before either his brother or his son, (can't remember which) overthrew and bannished or killed him. Taj Mahal is basically just a tomb though. "