The Purpose of Iconoclasm?

Nevermind

Iconoclasm is the deliberate destruction within a culture of the culture's own religious icons and other symbols or monuments.

People who engage in or support iconoclasm are called "iconoclasts", a term that has come to be applied figuratively to any individual who challenges established dogma or conventions. Conversely, people who revere or venerate religious images are (by iconoclasts) called "iconolaters".

What is the purpose of iconoclasm?

genkaku

What is the purpose of iconoclasm?

To get over the notion there were credible icons in the first place... icons like "iconoclasm."

Nevermind

Alright, then what is the value of getting over the idea that there are credible icons?

John_Spencer

Iconoclasm can function to remind us that icons are just that (symbols) and not the thing itself.

So when you accidentally drop and break your beloved little Buddha that has sat on your shrine for ages you realise it's just a thing and that it can't bring you seven years bad luck.

poptart

The trouble with icons, and dogma of any kind, is people come to rely on them as a way of avoiding thinking for themselves. If iconoclasm achieves nothing else but making people reevaluate their beliefs it is a good thing.

fivebells

What do you mean by purpose? There isn't always an explicit intention behind cultural movements. It can be that some organization fostered the movement for some specific purpose, but that is relatively rare. Other movements spread because they improve people's lives, or because they encourage their followers to proselytize and/or persecute outsiders.

Iconoclasm became popular in the abrahamic religions because of the prohibition against graven images in the ten commandments. Are you asking about the purpose of that prohibition? I think any answer would be highly speculative.

Jeffrey

I wonder if you could look within some of the iconoclast movements and read about the history.

I think a lot of people enjoy a shrine and so forth so I think many would be 'put off' by any notion that they are not credible. Do your own thing let others be.

riverflow

The problem lies in the attachment to the icon as something final, definitive, as an absolute truth which is graspable, which can be "captured" in the icon or symbol itself.

Insofar as the icon or symbol is seen as a sort of meaningful "bridge" to understanding, then it is being used skillfully and so it is beneficial to practice.

But insofar as the icon or symbol is seen as an end in itself, this is unskillful and may cause more harm than good in one's practice.

So both icon and iconoclasm have their place, as long as neither become an end in itself.

Jeffrey

riverflow said:

The problem lies in the attachment to the icon as something final, definitive, as an absolute truth which is graspable, which can be "captured" in the icon or symbol itself.

Insofar as the icon or symbol is seen as a sort of meaningful "bridge" to understanding, then it is being used skillfully and so it is beneficial to practice.

But insofar as the icon or symbol is seen as an end in itself, this is unskillful and may cause more harm than good in one's practice.

So both icon and iconoclasm have their place, as long as neither become an end in itself.

Well Buddhist schools teach emptiness. The skhandas as not the self is a popular version of emptiness, the Shravaka view. The tantric dieties are empty of a nature as a being. Same with all of the icons (within Buddhism I am aware of)

riverflow

Jeffrey said:

Well Buddhist schools teach emptiness. The skhandas as not the self is a popular version of emptiness, the Shravaka view. The tantric dieties are empty of a nature as a being. Same with all of the icons (within Buddhism I am aware of)

This is certainly true, but it is still easy for anyone in any tradition (Buddhism included) to get caught up in any symbol or doctrine as final--something Nagarjuna warns about, for example, in taking emptiness as a sort of metaphysical substratum, which is to misunderstand emptiness (hence the "emptiness of emptiness"). Otherwise "emptiness" just becomes another concept to cling to. In Zen this is expressed along the lines of "If you see the Buddha by the side of the road, kill him!" (what is killed is remaining stuck on a conceptualisation of the Buddha's teachings, not moving beyond those conceptualisations).

In theistic religions, the apophaticism functions in the same way (where God does not exist, nor does he not not [sic!] exist).

The point of this "epistemological fail-safe device" which is built into most religious traditions (usually more on the mystical end of the spectrum) is to not get stuck on the symbol or the concept but to actualise it in one's own life. So the symbol or concept is necessary, but it is also necessary to recognise that awakening does not reside in clinging to them--otherwise the symbol or concept ceases to be transparent. The error is in thinking that "truth" has a definitive form, when symbols and doctrines can only point the way. The rest is up to us to do the work. That is where fundamentalism falls into a trap of passive assent, as if knowing the truth were merely a matter of agreeing with a set of propositions.

Symbols and concepts should be doorways, not walls and barriers. That's where emptiness and apophaticism are useful in correcting this all-to-human tendency.

riverflow

TO ADD:

Its like reading about music theory and reading about how to play the piano, listening to lots of piano music and revering (for example) Glenn Gould-- but thinking that that is enough to warrant being a pianist. All these things may be necessary and also inspirational, but that is hardly synonymous with playing the piano! The point is to engage in the very act of creating music with the piano, not to be stuck on the provisional tools needed to learn how to create that music.

vinlyn

John_Spencer said:

Iconoclasm can function to remind us that icons are just that (symbols) and not the thing itself.

So when you accidentally drop and break your beloved little Buddha that has sat on your shrine for ages you realise it's just a thing and that it can't bring you seven years bad luck.

Don't tell you average Thai person that!

More than 20 years ago I had a Thai friend here in the States. He had a rather serious heart problem...bad enough that if you sat next to him you would hear his heart beat and skip beats, etc. One day I stopped to see him, and he said, "I will die within the next 3 days." I asked him why he though that, and he said, "Last night I dropped my Buddha on the floor." I thought he was just crazy, so I paid no attention.

vinlyn

Oh...but...he did die within 3 days of it happening!

vinlyn

riverflow said:

The problem lies in the attachment to the icon as something final, definitive, as an absolute truth which is graspable, which can be "captured" in the icon or symbol itself.

Insofar as the icon or symbol is seen as a sort of meaningful "bridge" to understanding, then it is being used skillfully and so it is beneficial to practice.

But insofar as the icon or symbol is seen as an end in itself, this is unskillful and may cause more harm than good in one's practice.

So both icon and iconoclasm have their place, as long as neither become an end in itself.

I think you've got it.

Many icons in society are worthwhile, it's just that they are not the be-all and end-all.

karmablues

Jeffrey said:

I think a lot of people enjoy a shrine and so forth so I think many would be 'put off' by any notion that they are not credible. Do your own thing let others be.

@Jeffrey I would go as far as saying that the Buddha actually encouraged his disciples to pay respect to religious symbols/shrines so long as it was for the purpose of calming the mind and establishing the mind in faith. This can be inferred from the following passages of the Maha-parinibbana Sutta where the Buddha encourages the erection of stupas:

"...and at a crossroads also a stupa should be raised for the Tathagata. And whosoever shall bring to that place garlands or incense or sandalpaste, or pay reverence, and whose mind becomes calm there — it will be to his well being and happiness for a long time."

"And why, Ananda, is a Tathagata, an Arahant, a Fully Enlightened One worthy of a stupa? Because, Ananda, at the thought: 'This is the stupa of that Blessed One, Arahant, Fully Enlightened One!' the hearts of many people will be calmed and made happy; and so calmed and with their minds established in faith therein, at the breaking up of the body, after death, they will be reborn in a realm of heavenly happiness."

Silouan

The purpose of iconoclasm really depends upon the iconoclast's preconceived notion about the use of icons.

That being said, the use of Icons are a very important traditional aspect of Eastern Christianity and have many spiritual applications, one of which is not idol worship because that would in fact be considered a heresy.

My family and I have several in our home and they are used in our spiritual practice. They are venerated where the veneration is passed to the archetype and not the object itself. They are considered to be written, and read and interpreted in a way similar to that of Holy Scripture. They are considered windows into heaven and never contain three dimensions, shadows, or worldly symmetry. The spiritual meanings they contain are especially conveyed to the illiterate of which was the majority in ancient times.

Another tradition of the Church is that God works through His creation, and these being made of created materials would be no exception. There are those who have personally witnessed myrrh streaming Icons.

kashi

wfc

Jeffrey

@riverflow

Emptiness is not a thing. Form is emptiness. The form is empty of a permanent, ultimate definition, and is not satisfying when clung to. Also emptiness is a quality of awareness which is our direct experience rather than analyzing a chariot. Concepts about emptiness are also insubstantial and cannot pin it down. Otherwise we could just memorize some words and bullet points and say we understood emptiness.

Jeffrey

Stupas are said to have power to help overcome obstacles, some hidden from us. Just by thinking of them even. The power comes from the beings who you have a connection to even if it is just a warm thought/intention. The meaning of the various parts of a stupa are quite interesting.

vinlyn

Jeffrey said:

Stupas are said to have power ...

Ah, sort of like the burning bush?

Jeffrey

I don't know if it is the same, @vinylyn. It relates to the connection to awakened beings and the heart of the universe. In these traditions two of the qualities of the universe are that it is moving and ungraspable, impermanent. Another quality is that there is an emotional quality to the universe as we experience. Because all of the beings in the sangha(s) honor the stupa there is a connection you can make with the tradition. We here this all the time in people wondering about tradtions. They say "I visited the sangha and there was good energy, or a good vibe, or something profound in the gathering that speaks to them". The burning bush was where God talked to Abraham and I guess it is like that. Something speaks to people. It depends on the person. Some people might not like the features of Buddhism such as bowing or chanting to the heart sutra. That stuff isn't necessary, you can just practice with your own consciousness, so called formless practice. But the stupa for many people has a power to inspire them in their practice. There is a mahayana sutra about stupas but I forgot what it is called.

riverflow

Jeffrey said:

@riverflow

Emptiness is not a thing. Form is emptiness. The form is empty of a permanent, ultimate definition, and is not satisfying when clung to. Also emptiness is a quality of awareness which is our direct experience rather than analyzing a chariot. Concepts about emptiness are also insubstantial and cannot pin it down. Otherwise we could just memorize some words and bullet points and say we understood emptiness.

I think you're misunderstanding -- I have no disagreement with you at all -- but what I'm talking about is the potential misunderstanding that others may have thinking that emptiness IS a metaphysical substratum, not realising that emptiness too is empty. Obviously there were those in Nagarjuna's day who didn't understand that, hence his need to point this out.

Jeffrey

Got you @riverflow, I was just adding to the vibe of your post rather than contradicting it. Kinda jazz improv Buddha jamming.

Nevermind

@riverflow

riverflow said:

Its like reading about music theory and reading about how to play the piano, listening to lots of piano music and revering (for example) Glenn Gould-- but thinking that that is enough to warrant being a pianist. All these things may be necessary and also inspirational, but that is hardly synonymous with playing the piano! The point is to engage in the very act of creating music with the piano, not to be stuck on the provisional tools needed to learn how to create that music.

I like the metaphor but it's not clear what role iconoclasm plays in it. Significantly, iconoclasts destroy icons, not "tools." Indeed it is the fundamentalist or iconolaters who burn books and records. Not the tools and works which celebrate their own icons of course.

Are you suggesting that the purpose of iconoclasm is to destroy tools and works so that others are forced to create new tools and works? If so, what is the point of that? It would only be more difficult to create new tools and works from scratch, and in the end it would be no different, there would only be a different set of tools and works.

Nevermind

John_Spencer said:

Iconoclasm can function to remind us that icons are just that (symbols) and not the thing itself.

Symbols are inseparable from what they represent.

riverflow

In the context of Buddhism, I'd say that its the clinging to the doctrines (which are naturally expressed conceptually) which turns a a useful tool into something very non-useful, even detrimental. The point of the doctrines is not to believe in them but to incorporate them skillfully (indeed, as a skill) so that their provisional purpose is fulfilled. In the case of Buddhism, non-attachment can't be realised by attaching to doctrines ABOUT non-attachment, but by learning how, in fact, to not be attached.

In such a context, clinging to doctrines needs to be undermined--not in order to destroy the doctrines, but to loosen one's grip of the attachment to them because that attachment can lead one further from the path, even if technically speaking the doctrines were parroted "correctly."

Jeffrey

Yes the Buddha said the dharma is a raft.

riverflow

Or... another way of putting it: We can't say we truly know how to ride a bicycle if we absolutely insist on keeping the training wheels on the bicycle. What is more important? the training wheels or actually riding the bike?

Nevermind

riverflow said:

Or... another way of putting it: We can't say we truly know how to ride a bicycle if we absolutely insist on keeping the training wheels on the bicycle. What is more important? the training wheels or actually riding the bike?

You're overlooking the fact that riding a bike with training wheels is still riding a bike, just with extra wheels for needed stability.

Nevermind

Nevermind said:

riverflow said:

Or... another way of putting it: We can't say we truly know how to ride a bicycle if we absolutely insist on keeping the training wheels on the bicycle. What is more important? the training wheels or actually riding the bike?

You're overlooking the fact that riding a bike with training wheels is still riding a bike, just with extra wheels for needed stability.

riverflow

But you're missing the whole point of the analogy-- it isn't about the bicycle itself, but about learning the skill of actually riding it.

Nevermind

riverflow said:

But you're missing the whole point of the analogy-- it isn't about the bicycle itself, but about learning the skill of actually riding it.

Perhaps I wasn't clear before. Riding a bike with training wheels is RIDING a bike. The only difference is that there are extra wheels for needed stability.

riverflow

The point of training wheels is to train yourself how to ride a bike--that is, after all, why they are called "training wheels." And a bicycle is called a bi-cycle because it has two, not four, wheels......

fivebells

riverflow said:

In the context of Buddhism, I'd say that its the clinging to the doctrines (which are naturally expressed conceptually) which turns a a useful tool into something very non-useful, even detrimental.

Yes, from a practice perspective, emptiness as a perceptual mode can totally be pinned down. It only gets mysterious when it's discussed in ontological terms. (E.g., "Emptiness is empty, too.") It wasn't intended as an ontological position ("A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with.") It's pointing to an aspect of Right View as a practice:

Thanissaro said:

As it focuses on the phenomenon of origination and passing away, it reduces its terms of analysis to more and more basic levels until reaching the point where it sees even such simple categories as "being" and "non-being" as extraneous, inappropriate, and irrelevant to the simple flow of events arising and passing away in the present [§186]. As a result, it strips everything down to the most basic categories of experience — the presence and absence of stress — without adding anything further. This phenomenological mode of perception, or "entry into emptiness," sees things simply in terms of what is present and what is not [MN 121; MFU, pp. 82-85]. Here, realizations are expressed merely as pointers to present phenomena without any content that would point to anything outside of direct experience: "There is this," [MN 102; MFU, pp. 81-82] "Such is form, such is feeling," [§149] etc. The Pali name for this/that conditionality, idappaccayata, points to the fact that not only the phenomena but also their relationships are a matter of immediate, "right here-and-now" insight.

Wings to Awakening

Nevermind

riverflow said:

The point of training wheels is to train yourself how to ride a bike--that is, after all, why they are called "training wheels." And a bicycle is called a bi-cycle because it has two, not four, wheels......

Ah, two wheels and not four, good point. So... I don't think you mean to say that iconoclasm seeks to destroy methods of training, such as Buddhist training. And I also don't think you mean to say that iconoclasm seeks destroy dependence on training tools, works, teachers, etc., because they are obviously useful and needed, like training wheels. So it's still not clear if you are trying to express what the purpose of iconoclasm is. Are you trying to do that?

person

The morning after Philip Kapleau and Professor Phillips arrived at Ryutakuji Monastery they were given a tour of the place by Abbot Soen Nakagawa. Both Americans had been heavily influenced by tales of ancient Chinese masters who'd destroyed sacred texts, and even images of the Buddha, in order to free themselves from attachment to anything. They were thus surprised and disturbed to find themselves being led into a ceremonial hall, where the Roshi invited them to pay respects to a statue of the temple's founder, Hakuin Zenji, by bowing and offering incense.

On seeing Nakagawa bow before the image, Phillips couldn't contain himself, and burst out: "The old Chinese masters burned or spit on Buddha statues! Why do you bow down before them?"

"If you want to spit, you spit," replied the Roshi. "I prefer to bow."

Iconoclasm can become an attachment towards icons just in a negative way. Ultimately the important thing isn't whether we use icons or destroy them but rather the attitude and the amount of clinging we have towards them.

riverflow

In this context, iconoclasm function as a reminder that the raft is not "where its at." If you see the Buddha by the side of the road, kill him! That "Buddha" is the Dharma turned into mere external trappings by someone who is attached to parroting doctrines. It is that "Buddha" that must be killed (it isn't even a real "Buddha" but an imagined one to which one is attached conceptually).

Training is always provisional. It has its use. It is a means to an end. The point is to learn the lesson, not to keep clinging to the training. A teacher wouldn't want his or her students to remain dependent, but to possess those skills the teacher is teaching. There is no growth in clinging to anything. This is true in any field of learning.

Nevermind

Let's see if I've got this straight, the sacred Buddhists narratives about non-attachment are iconoclastic?

person

Nevermind said:

Let's see if I've got this straight, the sacred Buddhists narratives about non-attachment are iconoclastic?

Perhaps, I'd say that they strive to move beyond the dualism of iconoclast/iconolater so that the notion isn't even a concern in ones mind.

Nevermind

person said:

Nevermind said:

Let's see if I've got this straight, the sacred Buddhists narratives about non-attachment are iconoclastic?

Perhaps, I'd say that they strive to move beyond the dualism of iconoclast/iconolater so that the notion isn't even a concern in ones mind.

Iconoclasm strives to move beyond the dualism of iconoclast/iconolater? Are you serious?

person

Nevermind said:

person said:

Nevermind said:

Let's see if I've got this straight, the sacred Buddhists narratives about non-attachment are iconoclastic?

Perhaps, I'd say that they strive to move beyond the dualism of iconoclast/iconolater so that the notion isn't even a concern in ones mind.

Iconoclasm strives to move beyond the dualism of iconoclast/iconolater? Are you serious?

No, not iconoclasm, the "Buddhist narratives about non-attachment"

Jeffrey

I say if you see the Buddha by the road stop and ask him a question.

fivebells

The Buddha was not an iconoclast. Buddhism and iconoclasm are orthogonal concepts.

Nevermind

person said:

Nevermind said:

person said:

Nevermind said:

Let's see if I've got this straight, the sacred Buddhists narratives about non-attachment are iconoclastic?

Perhaps, I'd say that they strive to move beyond the dualism of iconoclast/iconolater so that the notion isn't even a concern in ones mind.

Iconoclasm strives to move beyond the dualism of iconoclast/iconolater? Are you serious?

No, not iconoclasm, the "Buddhist narratives about non-attachment"

Indeed. Well, I'm interested in the OP question if you or Riverflow would care to address that question. Not that what you've shared so far is unappreciated.

Jeffrey

The dharma is not existent nor does it exist. It is not both or other than these two. Impossible to analyze and escaping all description. And realized by the self alone. Namo to this stainless light of wisdom who banishes darkness caused by attachment to the sense desires.
~My sangha's liturgy (if I have it memorized correctly)

riverflow

Clinging to the Buddha's teachings as conceptualised truth (rather than learning to actualise in your own life what those narratives point toward) is to not really understanding the very purpose of those teachings: non-attachment. This is to mis-use those teachings because they are not merely beliefs to have conviction in, but methods to learn non-attachment.

If a peace protestor ends up committing acts of violence, he doesn't really get the whole "peace" thing. If a Buddhist clings to Buddhist doctrines rather than actualising what those doctrines point toward, then he doesn't get the whole "non-attachment" thing.

There are many Zen stories of teachers who made sure certain students of theirs (depending on their own situations in their practice) didn't get attached-- chopping up wooden Buddha statues to use for firewood, pissing next to shrines, etc. These were individual instances that the teacher used for particular students at a particular point in their practice in order to get over their own attachments in their practice. Personally, I'm not much into shock tactics (in any context), but it seemed to work for these students to get them unstuck (they probably didn't even realise they were stuck!).

Nevermind

riverflow said:

If a peace protestor ends up committing acts of violence, he doesn't really get the whole "peace" thing. If a Buddhist clings to Buddhist doctrines rather than actualising what those doctrines point toward, then he doesn't get the whole "non-attachment" thing.

Are you saying that the hypocritical Buddhist and peace protestor are iconoclasts?

riverflow

No--they may be people in need of an iconoclast to get them back on track. Such people are missing the boat on understanding the aims of a Buddhist practitioner and the aims of a peace protestor respectively. Their clinging to concepts has distorted their very purpose--in fact, they have undermined their purpose because of their clinging.

This was the thing that those Zen teachers tried to shock their students (in an iconoclastic way) into realising what the students were doing wrong--that is, clinging to the very teachings that aim at actualising non-attachment.

Nevermind

Assuming that the aim of the teachings is actualizing non-attachment, has any Zen teacher ever achieved non-attachment? or perhaps more to the point, does it matter if any Zen teacher has ever achieved non-attachment?

As chance would have it, I believe that @genkaku, the first responder in this topic, was a student of Soen Nakagawa. Maybe he will be good enough to offer what he may know regarding Soen Nakagawa's non-attachment.

genkaku

Alright, then what is the value of getting over the idea that there are credible icons?

@nevermind -- What is credible/believed, exists only in the past. People live in the present. Better to live the life you are actually leading than to rely on what cannot be grasped, don't you think? Bit by bit, practice (experience) dispatches belief.

As to being Soen's student, that would not be entirely accurate. I was the student of one of his Dharma offspring, Kyudo Nakagawa. I met Soen and did a couple of sesshins/retreats where he was on hand. I thought highly of him and he helped me out in straightforward ways that I was and remain grateful for. He was a good teacher for me. Whether he was brimming over with non-attachment or drowning in attachment ... well, I figure that was his business.

BhanteLucky

Nevermind said:

Iconoclasm is the deliberate destruction within a culture of the culture's own religious icons and other symbols or monuments.

People who engage in or support iconoclasm are called "iconoclasts", a term that has come to be applied figuratively to any individual who challenges established dogma or conventions. Conversely, people who revere or venerate religious images are (by iconoclasts) called "iconolaters".

What is the purpose of iconoclasm?

It seems to me that iconoclasm is just busting other people's sh!t, to promote and advance your own sh!t.
Basic intolerance and disrespect.

In Zen it might be different, but in the rest of the world it's memetic warfare.