Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
@footiam, If it's "Buddha" (Dharmakaya, Emptiness or Mind) rather than "the Buddha", then yeah it'd look like everything (I think that's what @TheBeejAbides was referring to).
But I think your initial question was about Siddhartha Gautama, no?
You know... Buddha statues are always fat, but he was probably pretty skinny, right? I like him better fat though, the skinny Buddha pictures freak me out a little
And plus the really skinny Buddha you see that freaks you out, that was Siddhartha Gautama before he started doing things in moderation, when he was still doing ascetic practices and not eating much. (The ones where you see his ribs and stuff.)
@footiam, If it's "Buddha" (Dharmakaya, Emptiness or Mind) rather than "the Buddha", then yeah it'd look like everything (I think that's what @TheBeejAbides was referring to).
But I think your initial question was about Siddhartha Gautama , no?
It's about Siddhartha. You don't happen to have a pic of him at home like a pic on Jesus with that nice lock of hair and beard.
And plus the really skinny Buddha you see that freaks you out, that was Siddhartha Gautama before he started doing things in moderation, when he was still doing ascetic practices and not eating much. (The ones where you see his ribs and stuff.)
I thought the 49 days of fasting and meditation was the very last step toward enlightenment at Bodhgaya, and demonstrated that he had ultimate control over his body, and that it was almost immediately before he sat under the bodhi tree and became enlightened.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
And weaknesses. if you're talking physical strength, doubtless you are correct.
if you're speaking of emotional strength and resilience, I am convinced - both by men and women I have known - that women are by far the more powerful of the two.
My step-son told me yesterday that he envies this in women, because in his short time on this planet, he too, has come to the conclusion that when it comes to moral, ethical and emotional principles, he is already utterly convinced that women are - and I quote - "Miles, miles miles better at dealing with that whole shit than we are." That is why when he has a practical dilemma, he goes to his father.
If he has something paying on his mind - it is always to me he turns.
Your stepson is smart. He knows just who to approach for his problem. Some women have very strong physical strength too just like some men are emotionally strong. Being feminine or masculine should not be a defect. Otherwise, one would replace the other.
Interesting observations from Exotic India Art, Evolution of the Buddha Image:
"The image proper, that is, a fully evolved image with anthropomorphic dimensions, appears around the 1st century A.D. There is, amongst the Buddha statues, reported from Mathura, a dated one of A.D. 81.
Buddha Image (Stucco), Mathura, 1st century A.D.
There are numerous other Buddha images, which do not have inscriptions on them, but stylistically they, too, belong to the 1st century A.D. or the earlier part of the 2nd. Such massive bulk of them, multiplicity of mediums, unique dynamism, spirituality and stylistic perfection could not be their character unless the Buddha image, even as a concept of mind, had a long period of maturity.
Gandhara images of Buddha are more akin to Greek models, whereas Mathura images show a continuity of its own indigenous tradition.
In Mathura art tradition [R], Buddha image has longer earlobes, thicker lips, wider eyes and prominent noses. In Gandhara images [L], eyes are longer, chin more angular, earlobes shorter and noses more sharp and better defined.
Pursuing Greek models the Gandhara sculptors preferred voluminous drapery with heavy pleats for their images. It covers almost the entire figure of the Great Master. In Mathura, the drapery is thin and transparent, has subdued pleats and usually covers his person only partially. In Gandhara images the curls of hair in jatamukuta are more pronounced, while in Mathura images the jatamukuta rises as coils a rope and is more like that of a recluse in Vedic tradition."
Sile,I do find your information interesting.I suppose there is no specific reason why the Buddha image in Mathura has longer earlobes, thicker lips, wider eyes and prominent noses while in Gandara, the eyes longer, chin more angular, earlobes shorter and noses more sharp and better defined. Or perhaps, people are making Buddha into images of themselves just like God is supposed to be an image of man?
This is sooo damn stupid but it has ties with my childhood and I suppose that is why this always comes to my head, but when I was little, I was watching Aladdin with my cousin and he mentioned Buddha, it was the first time I ever heard of him before, well at that time that he was explaning to me who Buddha was the Aladdin movie was just starting and so the Arab merchant was being introduced...
So just about everytime I hear the word Buddha for the past 15 years, this image shines in my head... It's odd, but I can't seem to control it... It is rather annoying actually
Well, he started out looking like the starving forest yogic he was. A young Gandhi after his first hunger strike type image. I don't think his begging transient lifestyle put much fat on him, even though he had to have put on a few pounds at the end with endless dinner invitations as his fame spread.
Beyond that, I doubt any of us would recognize him.
"In retrospect, we seem to have a very casually adopted heresy: the notion that the Buddha had hair (after becoming a monk) seems to have become a normal assumption among many Buddhists in the 5th century —despite the fact that it was blatantly contradicted by the most ancient (and most sacred) of Buddhist texts. Clearly, people continued to make new statues and tell new stories, regardless of this contradiction....
For Theravāda Buddhists who are alive today, and who continue to paint new images of the Buddha on temple-walls, there is a genuine question of why they (or anyone) should value a tradition that actually contradicts the writ of their own religion’s canon. If the Buddha was bald, why is he everywhere shown with a full head of hair?"
My question is this, does it even matter? Maybe the guy has 3 arms or a dent in his forhead. I don't see why it matters personally... Unless ancient aliens are involved and then it is a very important matter.
^^ Tom, I agree...especially since I don't think we really know. I always assumed that most of the statues in Thailand didn't look like Buddha, since they are not all the same. Particularly with the enhancements of the various designs at different historical times (since as the very long ear lobes).
Since there is soooo much emphasis on the body as being a non permanent, ever changing bag of bones that we just rent for a while, it doesn't matter what he looked like IMO. Sorry for anyone who is offended by the image above, but again, it is only an image and don't go hunting me or the makers of south park down for this
I agree, Tom. I think this thread, early on, was just being sort of fun, but has lately gotten more serious. Particularly since images of Buddha were pretty much verboten for several hundred years after his death (at least that's what I have read), I always assumed what we see is rather idealized...and something to focus on during meditation (more than anything else).
One thing I have noticed here in Thailand which kind of ties into my thread about Thai Buddhists is that they are for the most part quite knowl edged about monks. They know acclaimed monks from name to name, my pendant I have which I wear has a monk on it like all of them, I have no clue which monk it is but many times I have had Thais ask me if they could have a look whilst in conversation, and then they say 'oh that is a good monk'. Kind of seems like collecting pokemon lol. But one thing I would like to point out, why is the Thai buddha so thin, sometimes stupidly thin and the other common form fat?
Comments
With metta _/|\_
if not it is hard to explain
because
Buddha is same as Dhamma
'if you see dhamma you see me' said Buddha once
But I think your initial question was about Siddhartha Gautama, no?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budai
Oh well. I guess if I ever meet him I'll just have to cook him some hearty meals
LOL
Shakyamuni would have laughed for sure..
:wtf:
:screwy:
I think I'd need clarification of that question....
if you're talking physical strength, doubtless you are correct.
if you're speaking of emotional strength and resilience, I am convinced - both by men and women I have known - that women are by far the more powerful of the two.
My step-son told me yesterday that he envies this in women, because in his short time on this planet, he too, has come to the conclusion that when it comes to moral, ethical and emotional principles, he is already utterly convinced that women are - and I quote - "Miles, miles miles better at dealing with that whole shit than we are."
That is why when he has a practical dilemma, he goes to his father.
If he has something paying on his mind - it is always to me he turns.
Being feminine is a compliment, not a defect.
"The image proper, that is, a fully evolved image with anthropomorphic dimensions, appears around the 1st century A.D. There is, amongst the Buddha statues, reported from Mathura, a dated one of A.D. 81.
Buddha Image (Stucco), Mathura, 1st century A.D.
There are numerous other Buddha images, which do not have inscriptions on them, but stylistically they, too, belong to the 1st century A.D. or the earlier part of the 2nd. Such massive bulk of them, multiplicity of mediums, unique dynamism, spirituality and stylistic perfection could not be their character unless the Buddha image, even as a concept of mind, had a long period of maturity.
Gandhara images of Buddha are more akin to Greek models, whereas Mathura images show a continuity of its own indigenous tradition.
In Mathura art tradition [R], Buddha image has longer earlobes, thicker lips, wider eyes and prominent noses. In Gandhara images [L], eyes are longer, chin more angular, earlobes shorter and noses more sharp and better defined.
Pursuing Greek models the Gandhara sculptors preferred voluminous drapery with heavy pleats for their images. It covers almost the entire figure of the Great Master. In Mathura, the drapery is thin and transparent, has subdued pleats and usually covers his person only partially. In Gandhara images the curls of hair in jatamukuta are more pronounced, while in Mathura images the jatamukuta rises as coils a rope and is more like that of a recluse in Vedic tradition."
Lots more here: http://www.exoticindiaart.com/lordbuddha.htm
So just about everytime I hear the word Buddha for the past 15 years, this image shines in my head... It's odd, but I can't seem to control it... It is rather annoying actually
Beyond that, I doubt any of us would recognize him.
"The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name
The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth"
http://redneckmath.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/drinking-caesars-urine.html
"In retrospect, we seem to have a very casually adopted heresy: the notion that the Buddha had hair (after becoming a monk) seems to have become a normal assumption among many Buddhists in the 5th century —despite the fact that it was blatantly contradicted by the most ancient (and most sacred) of Buddhist texts. Clearly, people continued to make new statues and tell new stories, regardless of this contradiction....
For Theravāda Buddhists who are alive today, and who continue to paint new images of the Buddha on temple-walls, there is a genuine question of why they (or anyone) should value a tradition that actually contradicts the writ of their own religion’s canon. If the Buddha was bald, why is he everywhere shown with a full head of hair?"