Eastern Symbolism

colinmcgee

Thanks for adding me. Does anyone else find it difficult to relate (as I do) to the Tibetan art and culture that appears to permeate much of Buddhism? I'm a westerner and although I can appreciate it for it's beauty, it doesn't speak to me. It's not part of my "self".

vinlyn

That's why many of us are secular Buddhists.

lobster

Hi.

I find it more interesting than not. It does not permeate that much of Buddhism, they are just more boisterous, louder if you will. What does speak to you? :wave:

anataman

Of course, culturally you are not Tibetan, so why would it speak to you?

I think that the problem with Western buddhism is that it is struggling to find its identity. LOL.

Sorry…

I have integrated tibetan buddhism as well as Zen into my life - how else could I identify with all other beings in this world as being one great happy family.

You need to do something with the concept of your self - you are in the right place btw...

colinmcgee

To reply in order (and thank you for your responses):

1. Secular Buddhism isn't where I am. I looked into it for exactly this reason but I don't identify with it.

2. What does speak to me are the artifacts of my own culture, whether these be in music, art or even food.

3. When you say you've integrated Tibetan Buddhism into your life, do you mean that you've adjusted your view of the world to more closely resemble that of a Tibetan? Or something else? Does this connect with your second sentence about doing something with the concept of one's self?

Zero

colinmcgee said:

I'm a westerner and although I can appreciate it for it's beauty, it doesn't speak to me. It's not part of my "self".

How does this hinder your practice?

Chaz

colinmcgee said:

Thanks for adding me. Does anyone else find it difficult to relate (as I do) to the Tibetan art and culture that appears to permeate much of Buddhism? I'm a westerner and although I can appreciate it for it's beauty, it doesn't speak to me. It's not part of my "self".

I know exactly what you mean. When I first started practicing, I thought Tibetan Buddhism was a bit too cluttered with artefact, such as the art you mention.

On the other hand I also had something of an affinity for symbolism, archtype and so on. As time passed I started to get a handle on what all that stuff meant. It took getting involved with the Shambhala tradition, which has a TB component, and that led to a gradual, gentle, increased understanding.

I've come to the conclusion that it's important, and this artwork - Thankas and such - contain powerful imagery that can transcend the cultural aspects of it. The truths are the same, but this kind of artwork is just another way of communicating it.

And I've come to like the look of it - the art rather than what it symbolizes.

matthewmartin

Stuff I don't relate to:

Sanskrit mantras. I wish they were English ones. Non-linguisitic dharani are fine, because no one ever understood them. I've also read that people figure that mantras are more effective in the orthodox form.

Kanji Calligraphy Mandalas. (Gohonzon, I'm looking at you!). I don't mind mandalas that don't have any linguistic or symbolic meaning in them, and English mandalas would be fine.

My gripe in both cases is that the efficacy comes from using tools that use a prestige dialect. And it just rubs my fur the wrong way to think that salvation (of any sort) is limited to the prestigious people who use the prestigious dialect.

A picture of a Buddha in a triratna/fwbo book I read recently looked familiar... it was .. European stained glass. So the process of reshaping things to fit the west is already going on.

And you ever go to the Subway fast food chain? They sell "veggie delight", which I thought was a peculiar name. But actually, they stole it from Chinese menus that usually have a "Buddha's Delight" (Chinese Buddhists are hard core vegetarians), but since they couldn't have the B word, we get a now thoroughly invisible, Buddhism inspired sandwich name.

Invincible_summer

colinmcgee said:

Thanks for adding me. Does anyone else find it difficult to relate (as I do) to the Tibetan art and culture that appears to permeate much of Buddhism? I'm a westerner and although I can appreciate it for it's beauty, it doesn't speak to me. It's not part of my "self".

@colinmcgee - Sorry for being blunt, but you do know that there are other branches of Buddhism that aren't Tibetan, right?

I've only been practicing Buddhism for a few years now, but I've totally avoided all the Vajrayana stuff because it doesn't speak to me. I've never had to struggle with trying to identify with it since I was immediately drawn to Theravada and Zen Buddhism. I hardly even notice Tibetan Buddhism's influence, except when trying to find a sangha that isn't Tibetan (thanks HHDL ).

Do you identify with Vajrayana Buddhism and find the Tibetan aspects problematic? You may want to look into other schools if that's not the case.

anataman

colinmcgee said:

To reply in order (and thank you for your responses):

1. Secular Buddhism isn't where I am. I looked into it for exactly this reason but I don't identify with it.

2. What does speak to me are the artifacts of my own culture, whether these be in music, art or even food.

3. When you say you've integrated Tibetan Buddhism into your life, do you mean that you've adjusted your view of the world to more closely resemble that of a Tibetan? Or something else? Does this connect with your second sentence about doing something with the concept of one's self?

I am glad you are willing to be open-minded:

In answer to 3. I am open-minded, I am not Tibetan, but there are wisdom teachers in tibetan buddhism, that you get or you don't, if you don't then you are not ready for tibetan buddhism, if you do, then it will resonate with you.

In answer to your question of connection with the above point - yes it does.

Dennis1

have a nice day

colinmcgee

I know there are different branches of Buddhism but so far in my (admittedly limited) experience, they all appear to use symbolism and art as representations of truth. The matter of doing so is perfectly understandable but the fact that they're essentially a different and foreign art to me makes my understanding them more difficult.

I don't think this necessarily hinders my practice except that I'm really not in any position to say that it doesn't - I just don't know enough. What I will say is that art of any sort is able to convey ideas and substance in ways that words can't. Ergo, I must be missing out on something because I don't understand the art as well as I might understand western art.

And if mantras are more effective in their original language as someone suggests here, why is that so? The Christians have used chanting in European languages for centuries and according to their adherents these have power. So isn't it possible for (say) Tibetan mantras to be translated into English - obviously this would need to be done in such a way that not only the words, but also the power is translated.

anataman

Now - you have caught me like a mackerel, with a shiny lure…

You said @colinmcgee: What I will say is that art of any sort is able to convey ideas and substance in ways that words can't. Ergo, I must be missing out on something because I don't understand the art as well as I might understand western art.

Sometimes art conveys much more than any book - I have sat and meditated in a tibetan shrine alone and gently taken in the symbolism of it all - the offerings, the mandalas, the peace and quiet, the statue, and 'bang!" like a bullet ricocheting through my skull, it struck mewas there, I was there - not I but "I", and now I am here. Thank you for reminding me.

You also say: And if mantras are more effective in their original language as someone suggests here, why is that so?

Because if you don't know the meaning of the words, your present awareness is not tainted by preconceptions of your own language.

OM MANI PADME HUM



yep about to meditate to this - btw my kids have been so accustomed to me chanting this mantra that they do it with me...

lobster

So isn't it possible for (say) Tibetan mantras to be translated into English

Yes.
They are and have been. Some western groups do already chant in English.
Heart Sutra

anataman

didn't sound like english to me!

anataman

ok OK on second listening I think I heard some English words there.

Not sure if it was the heart sutra - but will look a little deeper :om:

BhikkhuJayasara

colinmcgee said:

Thanks for adding me. Does anyone else find it difficult to relate (as I do) to the Tibetan art and culture that appears to permeate much of Buddhism? I'm a westerner and although I can appreciate it for it's beauty, it doesn't speak to me. It's not part of my "self".

I'm a theravada buddhist and have nothing to do with Tibetan art and culture or the type of Buddhism in general. There is no buddhist law that says you have to be either LOL. Most westerners probably have their first experiences with Buddhism through the Dalai Lama and Tibetan Buddhism, at least I know I did, but it was Theravada that matched my world view and is what I "subscribe" to now.

so no you are not alone nor should you feel you have to feel this way.

Steve_B

I had a similar but less intense experience. But I was interested more in the "mind" aspects than the culture and art, so I guess I sort of ignored them. Over a long period of time, I gradually got used to the artistic vernacular. Eventually I came to subconsciously associate it with Buddhism, without realizing it. I now find great peace in that style, because I find great peace in the Buddhism that is concomitant with it. And it all happened in the background -- visible to me now because you have brought it up, but not recognizable before.

Jeffrey

In many sanghas some of the people find meaning in these practices such as the Tibetan Buddhists puja, refuge and so forth. And then a lot of people just practice meditation and mindfulness and so forth. There is no right way to do it and I assume any sangha would still respect you if you just wanted the meditation, mindfulness. This is what my teacher says. She says that she likes the 'un-adorned' teachings and she calls them 'formless practice'. So you might feel left out of what the group who is doing the rituals is doing. But that is all; you don't have to like anything.

Invincible_summer

colinmcgee said:

I know there are different branches of Buddhism but so far in my (admittedly limited) experience, they all appear to use symbolism and art as representations of truth. The matter of doing so is perfectly understandable but the fact that they're essentially a different and foreign art to me makes my understanding them more difficult.

I don't think this necessarily hinders my practice except that I'm really not in any position to say that it doesn't - I just don't know enough. What I will say is that art of any sort is able to convey ideas and substance in ways that words can't. Ergo, I must be missing out on something because I don't understand the art as well as I might understand western art.

And if mantras are more effective in their original language as someone suggests here, why is that so? The Christians have used chanting in European languages for centuries and according to their adherents these have power. So isn't it possible for (say) Tibetan mantras to be translated into English - obviously this would need to be done in such a way that not only the words, but also the power is translated.

@colingmcgee - Japanese Zen is pretty art/symbol-free. I mean there may be some brush art that's supposed to represent emptiness or something vaguely Daoist, but it's definitely secondary to the main practice of zazen. Chinese Chan (and I think Vietnamese and Korean versions) tend to incorporate more Pure Land stuff that has more iconography, but again it's secondary to the main practice of meditation.