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.
Would Buddha really care about this?
zenguitar
Bad BuddhistNew England Veteran
Charged with "insulting Buddhism" for depicting the Buddha with headphones:
0
Comments
i think he would have immediately called a press conference and cleared to general public through media that he does not promote drinking so it was a fake poster of his on the advertisement, rather he promote the 5 precepts. after that, he would have just followed on his daily routine as if nothing has happened. he would have been quite a chill person.
I joke, of course.
I am quite ad to see though that buddhism in a sense is also becomming maybe an nationalistic thing. Us versus them etc, well not us as in the forum here of course.
The Buddha probably would not care, but laws are man-made and meant to be respected.
A German tourist was years ago condemned to life sentence with possibility of death penalty in Singapore for carrying pot in her luggage.
One of my Swiss friends found the whole affair preposterously exaggerated.
But honestly, on every single tourist guide on Singapore, all over the airport when you land in Singapore and probably already on the plane, you have big billboards warning you of the possibility to face death penalty if you are found handling drugs.
Given the circumstances, you'd have to be a total jerk to dare carry pot in your bag.
Burmese law considers it illegal to insult or damage any religion.
Before using a religious symbol as advertisement, you'd better find out how your plan could inadvertently contravene an existing law.
Whether it is extreme, or chauvinistic, the law is there and you have to abide by it.
During visits to Sri Lanka I cannot imagine myself acting in a way that would offend local sensibilities. When in doubt it seems a good thing idea to ask. Some western buddhists were escorted out of the Temple of the Tooth during one of my visits.
No, of course not. But Myanmar is in the middle of a collective paranoid meltdown right now with an off and on again ethnic cleansing of Muslims, and Buddhism is the symbol of the national identity. When you read the article, you find out people are getting in trouble for suggesting Buddhism shouldn't be used to discriminate against non-Buddhists, because they've "offended Buddha".
And the law might claim that "it's illegal to insult any religion" but you know only insults against Buddhism are being prosecuted. Their ethnic war against Muslims certainly hasn't encountered any problems with that law. It's also illegal to convert from Buddhism to Islam, but they don't care if it goes the other way.
This particular Buddhist culture is the exception to the rule that at the least, wars are not fought in the name of Buddha unlike other religions. It shows that people's ability to justify hatred and intolerance is infinite and not even the Dharma can get in the way.
And if I was living in Myanmar, the words I've just posted would get me arrested and monks would testify that I insulted them and the Buddha.
Sad.
My headphones are insulted by this decapitated statue . . .
Yes but should we point out others failings? That poor man-buddha with the ice cream cornet on his head does not seem to mind . . .
These young men didn't appear to intend to insult Buddhism. Buddhist imagery is part of every western culture, like Getty images. Considering their location, it would have been wise to ask around before posting such an ad. They are guilty of being careless, rather than intending to insult Buddhists.
There's good reasons to have a law to prevent indecent use of religious images. The law itself means well. That it's become some huge semi-political drama is probably not the intent of the law. I guess if they are making an 'example' of the young men, we get the point!
It's over the top but at least they ain't chopping off heads and suchlike.
Even if it is just blatantly unjust? How do laws get changed if people don't object? Universal suffragism? Slavery? Yes - you have to take the consequences of not abiding by it but laws are not always good laws.
Dharma riot!
Kiss a Buddha now . . . Theravadin extremists need to be hit with cushions. Send in the killer Buddha drones . . . leave no stone unturned . . .
http://yinyana.tumblr.com/day/2013/07/07
[lobster rants into the distance . . . ]
I don't feel we have a right to tell people how to do their laws in their own country.
It is an internal maturing process each culture has to undergo on their own, and it is not up to a foreigner to point the finger and impose that change, especially after violating, even if inadvertently, existing laws.
And though slavery was abolished in the southern states of America at the end of the Civil War, it took at least a hundred years more to even begin to glimpse something which could decently be called equality of rights towards minorities.
And they're not even there, yet.
A law no matter how absurd is respected so you don't go to jail, simple self preservation!
It has to be respected for your own sake. You can't do a thing about it locked up. Maybe you can't do a thing about it at all. It could be that the law is none of our business, it being a law in a country we don't live in.
We can still regard a law as inhumane, wrong headed, evil, whatever. If it is our country's law, there are actions to take against it. If it is in another country, there are world wide organizations that can intervene in the case of human rights.
It's just down home self preservation to not go 'round defying every law we think is wrong. I think stopping at a red light on a lonely crossroads with no other cars and waiting for it to turn green is stupid. I might risk it, but god knows where they are putting cameras now!
Until on that road, you eventually go through that red light, a police car comes out of nowhere, kindly lets you off of going through the red light and finds another minor infringement to fine you in court over. Yes it happened to me . . . [Mr Cushion says he confirms I am stupid]
We do defy laws and ideas that statues are anything but a courtesy item (which the Buddha of him, did not condone incidently). Just as we do not go into a Catholic Church and chant aloud to Tara if asked not to. The truth is most of us are civil and do not need to be reminded.
. . . and now back to the dharma law compliance . . .
Gandhi? Mandela?
Perhaps he'd point out that he doesn't condone substances that cause heedlessness and maybe even ask that his image be removed but that's a far cry from being offended.
You know, until you pointed it out just now, the absurdity of being offended by putting headphones on Buddha and not because they're using Buddha to promote a place that serves alcohol? That shows you the danger of these types of laws against "offending people".
I've stayed out of the debate about outsiders needing to respect the laws of a nation, no matter how stupid or unfair, or they deserve what they get. I think it misses the point. We might only sit up and take notice when someone from our own nation gets arrested, but these laws are designed to oppress the minority in their own country, not the occasional tourist. It's a way to prevent criticism of the ruling powers.
In this case, the law is designed to prevent the Muslims being oppressed from even complaining about the Buddhist temples leading the effort to burn them out of their homes. It is designed to prevent any moderate Buddhist voices from criticizing the monks for preaching hatred. There have been arrests in both cases so far. It has nothing to do with some poster of Buddha with headphones on, really. That's just the unintended consequences of establishing morality laws like this.
Whatever the case, I hope this man can make a good case for himself.
I hope that too. In a fair world, the judge would tell him to be more careful next time and let him go with a warning. After all, they've already had their club shut down and he's lost his livelihood.
How far from the dharma can the righteous be?
@Cinorjer is right. It's all smoke and mirrors and has nothing to do with offending Buddha.
I'm not too concerned about who's country it takes place in because it's all really one place and nobody really owns it.
I have not been allowed into churches in Italy for wearing sleeveless t-shirts, I've had to cover my head when visiting mosques, Malaysian men would leave me out of conversations for being a woman... wish I could claim Buddhism is the exception to the rule, but as we see, it is usually men's interpretation that is the problem.
Gods, avatars and prophets don't give a hoot about one's clothes or gender.