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.
We all see the Buddha through our pair of glasses. For some people he is a gnome, for some a man, and for some nirmanakaya. Who am I to tell YOU what you should make of the Buddha?
But they should respect it more than a garden gnome, just because its not in their custom too but because it is the customs people who actually first use those statues, if they're going to mimick others ideas they should respect it, I as a Buddhist am very offended by people who just see it like that and after all it belongs to us not them so should they have it if they are not Buddhist anyway? No one expects them to treat the buddha statues the way that they do just not use them instead, I am originally a non-buddhist and I think they should stick to their own culture instead of nicking others, it kind of makes the west look like it has no culture of its own.
You don't "own" the image of man...which is what Buddha was.
You know, in Thailand when you buy a statue of Buddha -- which most everyone has at least one in their house -- you are considered to be using it for the present time...not actually owning it.
I'm not a Buddhist. And anyone who displays art in their house is expressing themselves, in some way.
Well still, your interested in it and your clearly not just showing off, you are an exception, the funny thing is the person who I am talking about claims to be interested in Buddhism but is actualy the opposite off one and I am sure they are just doing it to show off because its in that person's nature.
Maybe we can get back to the question of who would be impressed by Buddhist statues etc. I really don't get that.
I'm not a Buddhist. And anyone who displays art in their house is expressing themselves, in some way.
Well still, your interested in it and your clearly not just showing off, you are an exception, the funny thing is the person who I am talking about claims to be interested in Buddhism but is actualy the opposite off one and I am sure they are just doing it to show off because its in that person's nature.
Maybe we can get back to the question of who would be impressed by Buddhist statues etc. I really don't get that.
Well tons of people who don't really know what Buddhism is may think it is exotic to have one.
I'm not a Buddhist. And anyone who displays art in their house is expressing themselves, in some way.
Well still, your interested in it and your clearly not just showing off, you are an exception, the funny thing is the person who I am talking about claims to be interested in Buddhism but is actualy the opposite off one and I am sure they are just doing it to show off because its in that person's nature.
Maybe we can get back to the question of who would be impressed by Buddhist statues etc. I really don't get that.
Well tons of people who don't really know what Buddhism is may think it is exotic to have one.
I'm not a Buddhist. And anyone who displays art in their house is expressing themselves, in some way.
Well still, your interested in it and your clearly not just showing off, you are an exception, the funny thing is the person who I am talking about claims to be interested in Buddhism but is actualy the opposite off one and I am sure they are just doing it to show off because its in that person's nature.
Maybe we can get back to the question of who would be impressed by Buddhist statues etc. I really don't get that.
Well tons of people who don't really know what Buddhism is may think it is exotic to have one.
And that's bad, okay.
It's bad that people have Buddha statues just to appear exotic and cultured.
Well, like only 1% of the population is Buddhist. They with the statues may have read some eastern religion things like Beginners Mind, the Tao Te Ching, or other panoramas of the kernel of Buddhist thought.
So from that perspective they may actually be more cultured then average and they may enjoy exotic things. The dharma is composed of non-dharma elements according to Thich Nhat Hanh's interpretation of the diamond sutra. He said by that he means that our western wisdom can be part of the dharma since dharma and non-dharma must interbe. I see no harm in having a liking to eastern religous forms. No harm, no foul.
But they should respect it more than a garden gnome, just because its not in their custom too but because it is the customs people who actually first use those statues, if they're going to mimick others ideas they should respect it, I as a Buddhist am very offended by people who just see it like that and after all it belongs to us not them so should they have it if they are not Buddhist anyway? No one expects them to treat the buddha statues the way that they do just not use them instead, I am originally a non-buddhist and I think they should stick to their own culture instead of nicking others, it kind of makes the west look like it has no culture of its own.
Having respect for other people is a good thing, and most people would agree that burning holy books, defacing places of worship, etc. are things that should not be done. But it's not so clear cut in the case of displaying art pieces. No one is destroying anything, no one is making any kind of intentional negative statement about Buddhists and Buddhism. The display of a typical Buddha statue alone doesn't even give false information. People are going to draw the line at different places on this issue, because of that. You are a Buddhist who is offended by the display of statuary or paintings in the home of nonBuddhists. I am a Buddhist who is not offended by said displaying of art. Who is right? What is the tipping point where the use of a statue becomes unacceptable? Since there is never going to be a consensus, and most people here probably aren't living in Buddhist theocracies you are going to have to be able to tolerate a certain amount of this kind of thing.
I don't see the appreciation of Asian art to equal theft (unless someone actually stole a statue or something). Likewise, people in Asia can collect Western art if they like, and there's plenty of Christian themed pieces that are bought, sold and collected. Culture isn't something that is so rigidly defined or something that must always be kept with in certain bounds. You said that displaying Buddhist themed art made the West look like they have no culture. I live in the US. Our culture is made up of a lot of different cultures because this country is so diverse. Thanks to advances in travel and communication, there is much greater interaction between people from different areas of the world. It's getting harder to put people in neat little cultural boxes as people the world over adopt things from other people they meet (this has always been the case too). It is possible to cross the line in terms of cultural appropriation, but much of what you're complaining about is pretty harmless.
If someone has a Buddha statue in their garden, it's probably because it creates some positive reaction within them. It may not be religious in nature, but perhaps it gives their garden some aura of peace. I doubt they're being that show-offy, since having Buddhist stuff doesn't confer all that much status, as far as I can tell. Now when you start talking about Buddhist images used in commercial situations such as advertising/logos/etc. there's more room for crossing that line since businesses are making a public statement, but I still wouldn't say it's 100% clear cut.
1
zombiegirlbeating the drum of the lifelessin a dry wastelandVeteran
But they should respect it more than a garden gnome, just because its not in their custom too but because it is the customs people who actually first use those statues, if they're going to mimick others ideas they should respect it, I as a Buddhist am very offended by people who just see it like that and after all it belongs to us not them so should they have it if they are not Buddhist anyway? No one expects them to treat the buddha statues the way that they do just not use them instead, I am originally a non-buddhist and I think they should stick to their own culture instead of nicking others, it kind of makes the west look like it has no culture of its own.
I can almost guarantee that in most of these cases, these people have no idea that others could find it offensive. Like zenff said, you can't expect other people to understand your sensitivities and you have to be forgiving when people do things out of ignorance. As a gay person, I've gotten pretty used to this. There is a big difference between willful ignorance and just plain naivety. (This is the whole idea behind that "When you say 'gay,' do you know what you say?" campaign.)
So when you see something like this that bothers you, realize that they probably mean no offence and have a compassionate talk with the person. What else could you do? Sit and quietly stew very passive aggressively over a supposed offence the other person has no idea they are committing? I don't recommend that...
Y'all might be interested in this website: The Worse Horse. It collects pictures/stories about the pop-culture appropriation (they refer to them as "dharma burgers") of Buddhist imagery.
On a similar note, I always laugh when I see the word "Zen" used in all sorts of ridiculous ways.
I did a Google search the other day for Zen and the name of the county where I live, looking for local groups, and the results came back with a few night clubs using the word 'Zen' in the name. Not exactly the quiet atmosphere that I was looking for.
What comes to my mind when I read this is when I was little, I had a friend that I would go to his house after school (I had no idea about Buddhism at the time), and when you walked into the door to his house, there was a 2 foot tall Buddha statue holding a lotus flower, and the lotus flower was rather big so it could be used to old a lot of things, however, what this family used it for was placing it on a table, so when they walked in, they would throw their change into the lotus flower that the Buddha was holding. To this day I wonder if they had any idea about Buddhism, if that was just some conveinent change holder for them, I often laugh at the irony. Disrespectful? I never take anything like that disrespectful unless it is intentional, it's never good to over analyze things such as this in life I have learned.
the first "image" related to the buddha was the footprint with the 8 spoke wheel at the heel. Then hundreds of years later the statues came to being.
I think if we have the right mindset to use the image as intended(a reminder of how to live dhamma) then they are ok.. when you go further then that and worry about if it's being displayed properly and all of these rites and rituals and superstitions.. then it loses it's meaning and is a hindrance.
I use to have an altar with a Buddha state and all that because thats what I thought a "buddhist did"... now I realize I need no such thing so I no longer have one. They can be beneficial if used in the right mindset for the right purpose though i'm sure.
The Buddha several times during his life was asked about having a statue of himself. He declined, out of respect no images were created for several hundred years. Then his wishes were disrespected. Those using Buddhas as door stops, may be be teaching us an important lesson . . . Not sure what . . . something about respecting the meaning not the rock perhaps?
the first "image" related to the buddha was the footprint with the 8 spoke wheel at the heel. Then hundreds of years later the statues came to being.
I think if we have the right mindset to use the image as intended(a reminder of how to live dhamma) then they are ok.. when you go further then that and worry about if it's being displayed properly and all of these rites and rituals and superstitions.. then it loses it's meaning and is a hindrance.
I use to have an altar with a Buddha state and all that because thats what I thought a "buddhist did"... now I realize I need no such thing so I no longer have one. They can be beneficial if used in the right mindset for the right purpose though i'm sure.
But the non-buddhists who have the statue don't have it for a reminder to follow the Dharma, just for frivellous, selfish, arrogant reason just to appear in a certain wa to people and increase there own egos.
I dont see the showing of respect to the statue as a contradiction to the encouragement it gives to follow Dharma, instead if you do that in the same mind set as well it actually encourages you further and makes you develop respect for the Buddha and if you do that you will inturn develop respet and the wish to practice the Dharma
I think that is extreme to say a statue for decoration is: ego, selfish, and arrogant. Can we give people a break and lighten up? Couldn't we say that of any decoration? Aren't decorations to make us feel good?
I think that is extreme to say a statue for decoration is: ego, selfish, and arrogant. Can we give people a break and lighten up? Couldn't we say that of any decoration? Aren't decorations to make us feel good?
The reason why they have decorations is too look exotic and show off to other people not to feel good and to use someone elses religious object for this frivellous puprous is so tackless and disrepectful even more so is using it for commercial use such as using it to advertise or decorate a bar so the owner can use it to make a profit and we obviously could not say this about an other decoration because they are religious objects.
There is nothing wrong with enjoying exotic things. Everybody likes to show off to guests. That's why we clean our house and decorate it. Should we live with bare walls and no decorations?
I'll agree to disagree.
If I have a print of 'the Last Supper' apparently that is wrong to have in my home if I am not a Christian. I don't understand that mentality. In my family we keep a kresh at Christmas even though we are not Christian, though my mom believes in God just not Old Testament brutality.
There is nothing wrong with enjoying exotic things. Everybody likes to show off to guests. That's why we clean our house and decorate it. Should we live with bare walls and no decorations?blockquote>
There is nothing wrong with decorating just decorating in a way that may offend people or exploit there religion. If people do have these statues just to be a show off ton guests just like a potted plant or lamp then they lose there meaning and becoming no more than that, which is completely unfair because that's not what they are there for and really, really unbeliebley insulting and disrespectful to do that to someones religion.
Meaning is in the eye of the beholder. These statues might represent beauty and serenity. That could be that person's only connection to the dharma. Buddha had no copywrite
@TheEccentric, personally I think you've gone over the deep end about this, and I think you should be able to see that most of us aren't in much agreement with you over it. I have seen sacrilegious treatment of Buddhist and Christian images, but, frankly, what you describe really isn't.
But I'd suggest you think of the following prayer, although it happens to be a Christian one: "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference."
It's an opinion and it is in fact legal. A videogame fallout 3 was banned in India because it had mutated cows in the game. From their perspective the game was sacrilege. But it is going much further to say that it was a fact that the game makers had done sacrilege and ascribe a universal worldwide sanctity to cows.
But cows aren't specifically Hindu, where as Buddha statues are specifically Buddhist like how the cross is specifically Christian, star of david specifically jewish etc
Well I disagree from the standpoint of the freedom of an individual to place what religious symbols that they wish in their home. It's your choice how to react to a symbol of another person. You can get upset or not, but you have no control over another person's property.
1
DaftChrisSpiritually conflicted. Not of this world.Veteran
This is not meant to be condescending. In fact, far from it.
You're 13, correct? You're still young; you have a whole lifetime of trials, lessons and compassion ahead of you. Don't let the "sacrilege" I'd statues be your hinderence.
When I was 13, that was the beginning of my brief stint with atheism. I hated any other view and thought that if you even considered God as a possibility, then you were an idiot. Now, I can't stand that mentality and love exploring other faiths and philosophies.
@vinlyn no, it is sacrilege, treating something that is sacred to someone else like a garden gnome is sacrilege, that is a fact
Not necessarily, the social environment needs to be taken into account. From within a religious tradition alone there can of course be sacrilegious acts. But in a larger framework it's not so black and white. Freedom of speech, for instance, would be impossible if we held large societies accountable for all acts of sacrilege in all the belief systems within that society.
This is not meant to be condescending. In fact, far from it.
You're 13, correct? You're still young; you have a whole lifetime of trials, lessons and compassion ahead of you. Don't let the "sacrilege" I'd statues be your hinderence.
When I was 13, that was the beginning of my brief stint with atheism. I hated any other view and thought that if you even considered God as a possibility, then you were an idiot. Now, I can't stand that mentality and love exploring other faiths and philosophies.
Just give it time.
I have given it more than enought time, about 6 years (how long I have been trying to form my own decision on spirituality for) and have settled entirely on Athiesm, even if the abrahamic God was real I would not worship him, I would rather go to hell.
I explore loads of different philosophies and spiritualities still and am very open to them and in the future I would like to perhaps start practicing Daoism and Confucianism along with Buddhism and many more philosophies that are compatible with Buddhism but when it comes to the existence of Gods I am set in stone about Atheism and imo the belief in God is pointless, primitive and causes so much strife.
the first "image" related to the buddha was the footprint with the 8 spoke wheel at the heel. Then hundreds of years later the statues came to being.
I think if we have the right mindset to use the image as intended(a reminder of how to live dhamma) then they are ok.. when you go further then that and worry about if it's being displayed properly and all of these rites and rituals and superstitions.. then it loses it's meaning and is a hindrance.
I use to have an altar with a Buddha state and all that because thats what I thought a "buddhist did"... now I realize I need no such thing so I no longer have one. They can be beneficial if used in the right mindset for the right purpose though i'm sure.
But the non-buddhists who have the statue don't have it for a reminder to follow the Dharma, just for frivellous, selfish, arrogant reason just to appear in a certain wa to people and increase there own egos.
I dont see the showing of respect to the statue as a contradiction to the encouragement it gives to follow Dharma, instead if you do that in the same mind set as well it actually encourages you further and makes you develop respect for the Buddha and if you do that you will inturn develop respet and the wish to practice the Dharma
at least the people just using it as a statue are not in danger of turning it into rite and ritual and worship. A statue is a hunk of metal after all.. we add on significance to it.
I'm not Hindu, but I want a Ganesha statue to go with my Buddha. I love what he represents (wisdom and removal of obsticles).
Am I being disrespectful?
@zenff, how is it humanly possible for anyone to impose their sensitivities (religious or irreligious) on anyone else? You have lost me entirely. If what you mean is that no society can expect you to act in a respectful way towards people with different values, then that might be possible. However, that society would neither be very deep nor would it be interested in peace and understanding among the peoples.
You stated the following, also, but I do not believe you meant it; for the implications would be terrible indeed: "The way I feel about it I’m the product of my culture and I’m entitled to it. I can pick and choose from other cultures what I want. That’s not stealing..." I suspect that how you really feel is very different, because you're bigger than that. I really don't think aspects of your culture or society that exploit people and hurt them are deplorable to you and that the following statement is closer to your heart:
My heritage is not worth two cents if it damages the lively aspirations and faith of a people. I accept from other traditions with gratitude the good things they have to offer and I will return those gifts with my own gift of an open mind and an open heart. Where I learn, there I shall return, and acknowledge the sources of joy and wisdom, repaying them as best I can.
Meaning is in the eye of the beholder. These statues might represent beauty and serenity. That could be that person's only connection to the dharma. Buddha had no copywrite
This is a good point. We really have no way of knowing just why they're displaying the statue. Even if it's simply because it represents something "peaceful" to them, then isn't that bringing a little Dhamma into their lives?
I have given it more than enought time, about 6 years (how long I have been trying to form my own decision on spirituality for) and have settled entirely on Athiesm, even if the abrahamic God was real I would not worship him, I would rather go to hell.
I explore loads of different philosophies and spiritualities still and am very open to them and in the future I would like to perhaps start practicing Daoism and Confucianism along with Buddhism and many more philosophies that are compatible with Buddhism but when it comes to the existence of Gods I am set in stone about Atheism and imo the belief in God is pointless, primitive and causes so much strife.
I don't mean to derail the thread or sound patronizing... but you started forming your "decision" on spirituality (as if it's a concrete thing) since you were 7 years old?
I have given it more than enought time, about 6 years (how long I have been trying to form my own decision on spirituality for) and have settled entirely on Athiesm, even if the abrahamic God was real I would not worship him, I would rather go to hell.
I explore loads of different philosophies and spiritualities still and am very open to them and in the future I would like to perhaps start practicing Daoism and Confucianism along with Buddhism and many more philosophies that are compatible with Buddhism but when it comes to the existence of Gods I am set in stone about Atheism and imo the belief in God is pointless, primitive and causes so much strife.
I don't mean to derail the thread or sound patronizing... but you started forming your "decision" on spirituality (as if it's a concrete thing) since you were 7 years old?
Honestly, I think I have been since then, that was when I first tried to decide whether I believed in God or not, I'm not sure when exactly tbh, 6 years was just a guestimate but it's 4 years at the minimum.
@zenff, how is it humanly possible for anyone to impose their sensitivities (religious or irreligious) on anyone else? You have lost me entirely.
@Nirvana, what I mean is that sometimes religious people expect everyone else to behave according to their standards or they will feel hurt and get angry. They impose their standards of behavior on other people.
Where I live there were towns where you really shouldn’t hang the laundry out on a Sunday. Religious people would feel offended and get angry with you because you don’t keep rest on God’s Sunday.
Some years ago A Danish cartoonist made a cartoon of Mohammed. Some Muslims got really upset about that because they feel it is inapropriate to make an image of Mohammed.
Nobody forces the Christian people to do the laundry on Sunday though. Nobody forces Muslims to make cartoons of Mohammed either. Similarly I don’t force anyone who wants to bow for his Buddha statue and revere it like a sacred object, to put it in the garden.
Religious people can do their thing but it would be nice when they would not bother the rest of the world with their particular sensitivities.
I myself know some people who have dozens of Buddha statues in their house and garden in not particularly respectful places who are non Buddhists as decorative pieces, and paint images of the Buddha and I think they are just doing it to kind of show off and it is a bit disrespectful. If someone who wasn't a Christian or Hindu started decorating there houses for non religious purposes with Jesus, Virgin Mary or Krishna or Ganesh statues it would not be respectful.
It depends on which tradition of Buddhism you are talking about. Zen Masters have been known to make firewood from Buddha statues, and Buddhist scriptures too! And I would not be surprised if they used one for toilet paper! And there was no disrespect there. Since "holy and unholy" are created by your mind, and your mind alone, if you don't make "holy and unholy", then you don't get "holy and unholy". There is nothing intrinsically holy or unholy about a block of wood or a piece of rock.
Firstoff, I am sorry that my last post, done from my iPad quoted DaftChris without my comment: PRICELESS! And, secondly, @zenff, that I didn't edit the "don't" out of what I really meant, "I really think... things that...hurt people are deplorable to you."
Nonetheless, you know that no Muslim expects you to revere the Quran the way Muslims do. One simply cannot impart sensitivities/sensibilities in their fulness to anyone; they come from within, since that's where they're built. Kinda like a mark on the heart, a sweetheart or a magnamimous tradition or something along those lines, are the only agents capable of such a feat.
@zenff opined: Religious people can do their thing but it would be nice when they would not bother the rest of the world with their particular sensitivities.
Why single out the religious? Everybody does this. Everybody expects the other guy to be nice, to play fair, and "fair" is more commonly judged from the eyes of the beholder than from those of the doer. I'd argue that playing fair begins with good manners and that good manners is grounded in being sensitive to the sensibilities of others. My mother always taught me that a Gentleman always makes the people around him feel comfortable and at ease.
David Brooks quotes André Comte-Sponville along with Jane Austen and others in a January 3, 2013 New York Times editorial, SUFFERING FOOLS GLADLY: In his extremely French book, "A Small Treatise on the Great Virtues," the contemporary philosopher André Comte-Sponville argues that "Politeness is the first virtue, and the origin perhaps of all the others." Politeness is a discipline that compels respectful behavior. Morality, he writes, "is like a politeness of the soul, an etiquette of the inner life, a code of duties, a ceremonial of the essential." (I told you it was very French.)
This is friendliness. In formal Buddhist parlance, the cultivation of friendliness is not simply a matter of personality, but also a deep acceptance that openness and kindness and receptivity are the marks of good conduct. Zen meditation, more than any other of which I know, is tethered to this aspect of friendliness. Wisdom as a perfected motivation means to find the ideal mixture of non-attachment and friendliness.
--Barra, quoting Wayne Codling, in the current thread Zen Meditation and the Art of Good Conduct
Question: Are a lot of us too attached to our rights of free speech and to express ourselves in any way that profits us that World Peace is its casualty?
For myself, I find the Danish cartoonists selfish opportunists who are just for-profit capitalist pigs.
@Vinlyn That is interesting and I wasn't aware of it. Now that you mention it, at Sukhothai I did see some intact Buddha feet where the body may well have been removed. These Buddhas, which I imagine you have seen, at Si Satchanalai, north of Sukhothai, appear to be weathered beyond recognition, but are still adorned with gold leaf and such.
@Vinlyn That is interesting and I wasn't aware of it. Now that you mention it, at Sukhothai I did see some intact Buddha feet where the body may well have been removed. These Buddhas, which I imagine you have seen, at Si Satchanalai, north of Sukhothai, appear to be weathered beyond recognition, but are still adorned with gold leaf and such.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhh....SUkhothai.....my favorite historical place in all of Thailand!
Yes, I was at Si Satchanalai a couple of times. I love the setting by the river!
I think that is extreme to say a statue for decoration is: ego, selfish, and arrogant. Can we give people a break and lighten up? Couldn't we say that of any decoration? Aren't decorations to make us feel good?
@TheEccentric, personally I think you've gone over the deep end about this, and I think you should be able to see that most of us aren't in much agreement with you over it. I have seen sacrilegious treatment of Buddhist and Christian images, but, frankly, what you describe really isn't.
@zenff, not pigs, but capitalist pigs! You are showing your extreme youthfulness, I am afraid. Back in the sixties the counterculture kids in the big urban areas called the police "pigs." Back then the term "capitalist pig" referred to anyone who made a lot of money and either drove off all their competitors and/or walked over others in their way. Though they broke no actual criminal code, they hurt a lot of people. I guess the police were called pigs because they enforced unfair laws protecting these profiteers. I referred to the Danish cartoonists as capitalist pigs because they were profitting by selling more papers in their stirring up Muslim objections. The word got out and people bought more newspapers to see what was going on. A very good marketing strategy this.
The matter of the iconoclasm (or anti-iconographic heritage) of the Muslims, I think, ties into some of the things we have been discussing in this thread, most notably the theme of sacrilege. Sacrilege, according to my wikipedia dictionary, "is the violation or injurious treatment of a sacred object or person. It can come in the form of irreverence to sacred persons, places, and things." Now, in a religion with an anti-iconographic underpinning such as Islam, making images and cartoons just simply is not done, full stop. It's a sacrilege just as much as maltreating a sacred painted object or sculpture would be.
I maintain that if a conflict arises between a Western European vehemently asserting his Right to express himself in whatever way he likes regarding Moslem topics and a pious Muslim who just wants to live a calm and peaceable life, it's most likely the Western European who's at fault.
Comments
You know, in Thailand when you buy a statue of Buddha -- which most everyone has at least one in their house -- you are considered to be using it for the present time...not actually owning it.
So from that perspective they may actually be more cultured then average and they may enjoy exotic things. The dharma is composed of non-dharma elements according to Thich Nhat Hanh's interpretation of the diamond sutra. He said by that he means that our western wisdom can be part of the dharma since dharma and non-dharma must interbe. I see no harm in having a liking to eastern religous forms. No harm, no foul.
I don't see the appreciation of Asian art to equal theft (unless someone actually stole a statue or something). Likewise, people in Asia can collect Western art if they like, and there's plenty of Christian themed pieces that are bought, sold and collected. Culture isn't something that is so rigidly defined or something that must always be kept with in certain bounds. You said that displaying Buddhist themed art made the West look like they have no culture. I live in the US. Our culture is made up of a lot of different cultures because this country is so diverse. Thanks to advances in travel and communication, there is much greater interaction between people from different areas of the world. It's getting harder to put people in neat little cultural boxes as people the world over adopt things from other people they meet (this has always been the case too). It is possible to cross the line in terms of cultural appropriation, but much of what you're complaining about is pretty harmless.
If someone has a Buddha statue in their garden, it's probably because it creates some positive reaction within them. It may not be religious in nature, but perhaps it gives their garden some aura of peace. I doubt they're being that show-offy, since having Buddhist stuff doesn't confer all that much status, as far as I can tell. Now when you start talking about Buddhist images used in commercial situations such as advertising/logos/etc. there's more room for crossing that line since businesses are making a public statement, but I still wouldn't say it's 100% clear cut.
So when you see something like this that bothers you, realize that they probably mean no offence and have a compassionate talk with the person. What else could you do? Sit and quietly stew very passive aggressively over a supposed offence the other person has no idea they are committing? I don't recommend that...
On a similar note, I always laugh when I see the word "Zen" used in all sorts of ridiculous ways.
I think if we have the right mindset to use the image as intended(a reminder of how to live dhamma) then they are ok.. when you go further then that and worry about if it's being displayed properly and all of these rites and rituals and superstitions.. then it loses it's meaning and is a hindrance.
I use to have an altar with a Buddha state and all that because thats what I thought a "buddhist did"... now I realize I need no such thing so I no longer have one. They can be beneficial if used in the right mindset for the right purpose though i'm sure.
Not sure what . . . something about respecting the meaning not the rock perhaps?
Dharma, just for frivellous, selfish, arrogant reason just to appear in a certain wa to people and increase there own egos.
I dont see the showing of respect to the statue as a contradiction to the encouragement it gives to follow Dharma, instead if you do that in the same mind set as well it actually encourages you further and makes you develop respect for the Buddha and if you do that you will inturn develop respet and the wish to practice the Dharma
I'll agree to disagree.
If I have a print of 'the Last Supper' apparently that is wrong to have in my home if I am not a Christian. I don't understand that mentality. In my family we keep a kresh at Christmas even though we are not Christian, though my mom believes in God just not Old Testament brutality.
But I'd suggest you think of the following prayer, although it happens to be a Christian one: "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference."
This is not meant to be condescending. In fact, far from it.
You're 13, correct? You're still young; you have a whole lifetime of trials, lessons and compassion ahead of you. Don't let the "sacrilege" I'd statues be your hinderence.
When I was 13, that was the beginning of my brief stint with atheism. I hated any other view and thought that if you even considered God as a possibility, then you were an idiot. Now, I can't stand that mentality and love exploring other faiths and philosophies.
Just give it time.
I explore loads of different philosophies and spiritualities still and am very open to them and in the future I would like to perhaps start practicing Daoism and Confucianism along with Buddhism and many more philosophies that are compatible with Buddhism but when it comes to the existence of Gods I am set in stone about Atheism and imo the belief in God is pointless, primitive and causes so much strife.
@zenff, how is it humanly possible for anyone to impose their sensitivities (religious or irreligious) on anyone else? You have lost me entirely. If what you mean is that no society can expect you to act in a respectful way towards people with different values, then that might be possible. However, that society would neither be very deep nor would it be interested in peace and understanding among the peoples.
You stated the following, also, but I do not believe you meant it; for the implications would be terrible indeed:
"The way I feel about it I’m the product of my culture and I’m entitled to it. I can pick and choose from other cultures what I want. That’s not stealing..."
I suspect that how you really feel is very different, because you're bigger than that. I really don't think aspects of your culture or society that exploit people and hurt them are deplorable to you and that the following statement is closer to your heart:
My heritage is not worth two cents if it damages the lively aspirations and faith of a people. I accept from other traditions with gratitude the good things they have to offer and I will return those gifts with my own gift of an open mind and an open heart. Where I learn, there I shall return, and acknowledge the sources of joy and wisdom, repaying them as best I can.
Where I live there were towns where you really shouldn’t hang the laundry out on a Sunday. Religious people would feel offended and get angry with you because you don’t keep rest on God’s Sunday.
Some years ago A Danish cartoonist made a cartoon of Mohammed. Some Muslims got really upset about that because they feel it is inapropriate to make an image of Mohammed.
Nobody forces the Christian people to do the laundry on Sunday though. Nobody forces Muslims to make cartoons of Mohammed either.
Similarly I don’t force anyone who wants to bow for his Buddha statue and revere it like a sacred object, to put it in the garden.
Religious people can do their thing but it would be nice when they would not bother the rest of the world with their particular sensitivities.
Nonetheless, you know that no Muslim expects you to revere the Quran the way Muslims do. One simply cannot impart sensitivities/sensibilities in their fulness to anyone; they come from within, since that's where they're built. Kinda like a mark on the heart, a sweetheart or a magnamimous tradition or something along those lines, are the only agents capable of such a feat. Why single out the religious? Everybody does this. Everybody expects the other guy to be nice, to play fair, and "fair" is more commonly judged from the eyes of the beholder than from those of the doer. I'd argue that playing fair begins with good manners and that good manners is grounded in being sensitive to the sensibilities of others. My mother always taught me that a Gentleman always makes the people around him feel comfortable and at ease.
David Brooks quotes André Comte-Sponville along with Jane Austen and others in a January 3, 2013 New York Times editorial, SUFFERING FOOLS GLADLY:
In his extremely French book, "A Small Treatise on the Great Virtues,"
the contemporary philosopher André Comte-Sponville argues that "Politeness
is the first virtue, and the origin perhaps of all the others." Politeness is a discipline
that compels respectful behavior. Morality, he writes, "is like a politeness of the
soul, an etiquette of the inner life, a code of duties, a ceremonial of the essential."
(I told you it was very French.) --Barra, quoting Wayne Codling, in the current thread Zen Meditation and the Art of Good Conduct
Question: Are a lot of us too attached to our rights of free speech and to express ourselves in any way that profits us that World Peace is its casualty?
For myself, I find the Danish cartoonists selfish opportunists who are just for-profit capitalist pigs.
These Buddhas, which I imagine you have seen, at Si Satchanalai, north of Sukhothai, appear to be weathered beyond recognition, but are still adorned with gold leaf and such.
SACRILEGE: A violation or misuse of what is regarded as sacred.
Yes, I was at Si Satchanalai a couple of times. I love the setting by the river!
"If you see the Buddha- Kill the Buddha."
The matter of the iconoclasm (or anti-iconographic heritage) of the Muslims, I think, ties into some of the things we have been discussing in this thread, most notably the theme of sacrilege. Sacrilege, according to my wikipedia dictionary, "is the violation or injurious treatment of a sacred object or person. It can come in the form of irreverence to sacred persons, places, and things." Now, in a religion with an anti-iconographic underpinning such as Islam, making images and cartoons just simply is not done, full stop. It's a sacrilege just as much as maltreating a sacred painted object or sculpture would be.
I maintain that if a conflict arises between a Western European vehemently asserting his Right to express himself in whatever way he likes regarding Moslem topics and a pious Muslim who just wants to live a calm and peaceable life, it's most likely the Western European who's at fault.