Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register
Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
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.

Will the true iconoclasts please stand

ozenozen
edited May 2012 in General Banter
What does Buddhism inform us about grasping?

People who revere or venerate religious symbols are called iconophiles.

So, who are the true iconoclasts?

Comments

  • ArthurbodhiArthurbodhi Mars Veteran
    edited May 2012
    It is iconoclasm same like iconodulism be an extreme? If that if true then is grasping too.

    I prefer be a icono-meh :)
  • genkakugenkaku Northampton, Mass. U.S.A. Veteran
    Maybe the iconoclasts are the ones who stop creating the icons they insist on knocking down.
  • ozenozen
    They say that in order to create we must destroy. I would agree that creation is a messy business, even on the best days, but to say "destroy," well, seems a bit dramatic. Maybe it will be dramatic though, but why? Because change, though inevitable, is resisted. So the balance may be something like iconoclast (change agent) vs iconophile (resisting change).

    We resist change because we don't want to lose something. We want change when something is unsatisfactory, generally speaking.

    Is seems that in order to keep something we must resist change. Resisting change often proves destructive to the very thing that we desire to keep. So, who is the true iconoclast?

  • ArthurbodhiArthurbodhi Mars Veteran
    edited May 2012
    So, when iconoclast achieve the change they want, they will easily accept change with the iconophile like new change agent? Is that the same that can be said about all antagonic positions?
  • personperson Don't believe everything you think The liminal space Veteran
    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."

    http://viewonbuddhism.org/resources/buddhist_stories.html
  • ozenozen
    So, when iconoclast achieve the change they want, they will easily accept change with the iconophile like new change agent? Is that the same that can be said about all antagonic positions?
    I suppose that what I'm suggesting is that the iconophile is just as destructive, if not more so, as the iconoclast.

    Perhaps a metaphor will help. An iconoclast will bend like a reed in the wind of change. An iconophile will break. So, which is ultimately more destructive or iconoclastic???
  • ArthurbodhiArthurbodhi Mars Veteran
    edited May 2012
    Is not the reed that bend resisting to break? To change? :)

    Friend, if you ask me which is more destructive, I say both, the two are craving IMHO.

    Is all I have to say.

    Blessings.
  • ozenozen
    edited May 2012
    Is not the reed that bend resisting to break? To change? :)
    Uh, no, it's b-e-n-d-i-n-g or changing form.
    Friend, if you ask me which is more destructive, I say both, the two are craving IMHO./blockquote>
    You mean craving? If change and resistance to change is craving then... what isn't craving? But in any case, I'm glad you think it a good question.
  • ArthurbodhiArthurbodhi Mars Veteran
    edited May 2012
    A last word about the metaphore, what produce a most significative change, bending or breaking? :)

    Blessings friend.
  • ozenozen
    edited May 2012
    A last word about the metaphore, what produce a most significative change, bending or breaking? :)

    Blessings friend.
    The significance depends on the purpose of course. Do you know what the purpose is, friend?
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    What's the purpose of this thread....?
    Damned if i know what you're talking about....

    Getting a bit airy-fairy....:rolleyes:

    Images assist.
    Images personify.
    If images go beyond that, they are a pointless attachment.
    Islam forbids images for many reasons this being one of them.
    We like imagery, it's pretty, decorative and enhances our environment.
    Images act as a reminder.
    If Images become more important than the purpose of their presence, something is awry.
    all this rubbish about "Don't put Buddha statues on the floor" and don't put Buddha in the bedroom" is laughable, in my opinion.
    The Buddha laid on the ground to sleep, and i know he had sex at least once before he became enlightened, so I really don't figure he'd mind where he sits...

    I have a Buddha picture in my toilet.
    Let's just say when i sit - i sit. ;)
  • ozenozen
    Damned if i know what you're talking about....
    Okay.
Sign In or Register to comment.