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.
It is to go beyond the current shell (Lobsterian lore) If a crustacean has outgrown his shell, he has to moult in order to grow.
In a Buddhist sense we are always attached to aspects of right view, right action etc. Someone with more experience and skill may offer an alternative . . .
This is the value of diversity of age, experience, understanding etc. in sangha. A very narrow focus can create tremendous progress, for example during retreat or taking robes. However certain hardening, such as a sense of superiority, misogyny etc have to be carefully guarded against.
Do you wish to be safe?
“Forget safety. Live where you fear to live. Destroy your reputation. Be notorious.” ― Rumi
It seems to me that the Buddhist view would be that iconoclasm is not good or bad, but appropriate to the circumstances or not. Looking for general rules that always apply is hopeless. No two sets of circumstances are ever the same.
So to me the suggestion that Buddhism and iconoclasm are orthogonal concepts seems to miss the point. The Buddha lives beyond such distinctions and categorisations. As @person said, the idea is to travel beyond such dualistic categorisations. They are useless.
Alright, then what is the value of getting over the idea that there are credible icons?
@nevermind -- What is credible/believed, exists only in the past. People live in the present. Better to live the life you are actually leading than to rely on what cannot be grasped, don't you think?
Iconoclasm is the deliberate destruction within a culture of the culture's own religious icons and other symbols or monuments.
People who engage in or support iconoclasm are called "iconoclasts", a term that has come to be applied figuratively to any individual who challenges established dogma or conventions. Conversely, people who revere or venerate religious images are (by iconoclasts) called "iconolaters".
What is the purpose of iconoclasm?
It seems to me that iconoclasm is just busting other people's sh!t, to promote and advance your own sh!t. Basic intolerance and disrespect.
In Zen it might be different, but in the rest of the world it's memetic warfare.
Memetic warfare... well, at least we seem to finally be talking about iconoclasm rather than attachment or duality.
What is this war about? The term "meme" was coined by Richard Dawkins in the book "The Selfish Gene." Perhaps that's a clue.
Yeah, just the basic struggle of idea against idea. Duelling belief systems. Warring for the lebensraum that is the human mind. And iconoclasm is a part of that, because smashing someone's symbols/icons/idols/statues is symbolically smashing their belief system.
For example, the Taliban destroying the Buddhas of Bamian. And the Wahhabi Islamists are smashing stuff up in Mecca right now, in an attempt to destroy the symbols of other Islamic schools, as they believe these sites could become devotional or inspirational places for competing versions of Islam. They bulldozed Mohammad's mother's grave! And lot of his relatives graves, and they even got ready to smash his tomb too, before the authorities said That's One Step Too Far. Anyway, enough of Saudi Arabian current events.
For me, I think it's not worth getting worked up about iconoclasm. Here's Ajahn Brahm on iconoclasm:
Someone once put me on the spot because of lots of articles in the newspaper about an incident where some Americans were accused of flushing the Koran down the toilet. I was giving a talk two nights later in Perth, and someone asked the question, “If someone flushed a Buddhist holy book down the toilet, as a Buddhist monk what would you do?”
What would I do? Call a plumber!
I’m very practical. I’ve made a distinction between the container and the contents. You can destroy the container, but you don’t need to destroy the contents. Please maintain the contents. By which I mean: books are containers.
It’s what the book says – peace, harmony, forgiveness, moving forward rather than remembering the bad of the past. The dhamma – the true teachings that make people peaceful and harmonious, that’s what is important. It’s the contents of the books.
In the same way, when the Taliban destroyed the Bamiyan statues, they never destroyed Buddhism. Just its container, the statues. Buddhists didn’t allow themselves to get angry or seek revenge. If Buddhists sought revenge, then the Taliban would not only have destroyed the statues but also destroyed Buddhism, the contents. It’s the contents that are more important than any container. You can blow up statues and burn monasteries and kill monks, but don’t allow anyone to destroy what those monks are all about.
If we can do that, we don’t mind when people try to upset us by destroying our symbols. Symbols are secondary, it’s what they represent – peace, harmony, love between people, and freedom of the heart. That’s what’s important.
Yeah, just the basic struggle of idea against idea. Duelling belief systems. Warring for the lebensraum that is the human mind. And iconoclasm is a part of that, because smashing someone's symbols/icons/idols/statues is symbolically smashing their belief system.
For example, the Taliban destroying the Buddhas of Bamian. And the Wahhabi Islamists are smashing stuff up in Mecca right now, in an attempt to destroy the symbols of other Islamic schools, as they believe these sites could become devotional or inspirational places for competing versions of Islam. They bulldozed Mohammad's mother's grave! And lot of his relatives graves, and they even got ready to smash his tomb too, before the authorities said That's One Step Too Far. Anyway, enough of Saudi Arabian current events.
For me, I think it's not worth getting worked up about iconoclasm. Here's Ajahn Brahm on iconoclasm:
Someone once put me on the spot because of lots of articles in the newspaper about an incident where some Americans were accused of flushing the Koran down the toilet. I was giving a talk two nights later in Perth, and someone asked the question, “If someone flushed a Buddhist holy book down the toilet, as a Buddhist monk what would you do?”
What would I do? Call a plumber!
I’m very practical. I’ve made a distinction between the container and the contents. You can destroy the container, but you don’t need to destroy the contents. Please maintain the contents. By which I mean: books are containers.
It’s what the book says – peace, harmony, forgiveness, moving forward rather than remembering the bad of the past. The dhamma – the true teachings that make people peaceful and harmonious, that’s what is important. It’s the contents of the books.
In the same way, when the Taliban destroyed the Bamiyan statues, they never destroyed Buddhism. Just its container, the statues. Buddhists didn’t allow themselves to get angry or seek revenge. If Buddhists sought revenge, then the Taliban would not only have destroyed the statues but also destroyed Buddhism, the contents. It’s the contents that are more important than any container. You can blow up statues and burn monasteries and kill monks, but don’t allow anyone to destroy what those monks are all about.
If we can do that, we don’t mind when people try to upset us by destroying our symbols. Symbols are secondary, it’s what they represent – peace, harmony, love between people, and freedom of the heart. That’s what’s important.
"Be iconoclastic, always question and never give up on the pursuit of truth." ~ Ajahn Brahm
As an iconoclast I would like to tear down Richard Dawkins and this daft idea of 'selfish' genes.
Please do. I would very much like to see that. I think it would be highly relevant to the topic.
Was this a challenge? This is not really the place to take it up.
Briefly I think that assigning intentional consciousness to genes confuses the debate and is irresponsible for an academic. I'm not alone in this view. Frankly I find him not very bright, which is ironic since he is the figureheaed of the 'Brights', a global movement that associates a complete and utter failure to understand religion with superior inteliigence. Utter madness. As for his book on God, it's laughably superficial and temperamental.
2
BhanteLuckyAlternative lifestyle person in the South Island of New ZealandNew ZealandVeteran
Briefly I think that assigning intentional consciousness to genes confuses the debate and is irresponsible for an academic.
Please, he does no such thing. Genes do not have consciousness, and neither does he say they do. They are proteins which help shape behaviour, which hopefully leads to procreation, which leads to blah blah, natural selection, evolution etc.
0
BhanteLuckyAlternative lifestyle person in the South Island of New ZealandNew ZealandVeteran
edited May 2013
Or, at least I hope he doesn't say they have consciousness, in one of the books I have not read. Because that would be absurd, nuts.
Briefly I think that assigning intentional consciousness to genes confuses the debate and is irresponsible for an academic.
Please, he does no such thing. Genes do not have consciousness, and neither does he say they do. They are proteins which help shape behaviour, which hopefully leads to procreation, which leads to blah blah, natural selection, evolution etc.
Yes, I know what you're saying. No biologist would misunderstand his metaphor. But it's a dangerous one for the general public and I think these things matter. Small point though. Really it's his general approach and wider views that bug me. I've heard a few scientists complaining about it also, esp. in relation to his religious rantings. I think it is probably his involvement with the 'Brights' that led me to write him off as a serious thinker. Did you ever visit his forum before it closed - subtitled 'An Ocean of Reason'? It was quite hysterical.
The other annoyance was to see a professional scientists writing such a daft and shallow book on religion. I felt it was highly unprofessional and even quite stupid.
As it happens I do believe that genes may have some rudimentary intentional consciousness, but that's another matter.
Sorry if I'm criticising someone you respect, but I can only give my view.
Briefly I think that assigning intentional consciousness to genes confuses the debate and is irresponsible for an academic.
Please, he does no such thing. Genes do not have consciousness, and neither does he say they do. They are proteins which help shape behaviour, which hopefully leads to procreation, which leads to blah blah, natural selection, evolution etc.
So how does this gene expression relate to iconoclasm?
0
BhanteLuckyAlternative lifestyle person in the South Island of New ZealandNew ZealandVeteran
So how does this gene expression relate to iconoclasm?
It does not. I mentioned memes, which are strongly related to religions and thus icons and iconoclasm, and someone else mentioned Dawkins in connection with memes, which led us to genes. And then we got back on topic. :clap:
So how does this gene expression relate to iconoclasm?
It does not. I mentioned memes, which are strongly related to religions and thus icons and iconoclasm, and someone else mentioned Dawkins in connection with memes, which led us to genes. And then we got back on topic. :clap:
The concept of memes can be applied to religions. The mere fact that the purpose of iconoclasm seems so elusive suggest that the concept of memes would not apply to it well. I understand the concept of memes was invented by Dawkins and first mentioned publicly in his book The Selfish Gene.
Though I haven't read The Selfish Gene from what I understand it reports that, in a nutshell, it's most beneficial to act cooperatively rather than competitively. Basically it's optimal to not be selfish. This is shown to be true through a variety of experiments and theories.
Even though we may know that it's most beneficial to act cooperatively for mutual benefit, every day we are presented with the dilemma of not knowing if others will act cooperatively with us in whatever we're doing. We can trust (to act cooperatively or competitively) those we know well, but not strangers. For people that we don't know we're forced to go by signs or **icons** until we get to know them. Sometimes the book matches the cover, so to speak, as Ajahn Brahm might speak. Sometimes the book does not match the cover. Don't judge a book by its cover is good advice, of course.
I'd say with James that memes are very relevant here since often they become icons, or come to be treated like icons.
For a Buddhist the distinction between selfish and unselfish actions is bound to be rather vague, since whenever we help someone else we would be helping ourselves. But if there is a distinction, then I'd guess that it's most beneficial to our personal survival to act selfishly or unselfishly depending on the situation.
It has to be good news when a biologist tries to get rid of the dangerous and iconic meme that says the survival of the fittest means we have to be at each others throats all the time. I wonder how much damage this lop-sided idea has done over the years. It seems to have had an especially damaging effect in US society, but I don't think it's been helpful anywhere.
It is confusing me, the idea that iconoclasm has a purpose. Surely the purpose will depend on the circumstances. It seems rather like saying that irony has a purpose.
Surely, Shakyamuni was an iconoclast showing us that every time we create an 'icon' of reality and think we've 'got it' we have to be prepared to destroy it.
Even to the extent of meeting the Buddha on the road and killing him.
For a Buddhist the distinction between selfish and unselfish actions is bound to be rather vague, since whenever we help someone else we would be helping ourselves. But if there is a distinction, then I'd guess that it's most beneficial to our personal survival to act selfishly or unselfishly depending on the situation.
According to Dawkin's research, when in the company of cooperative or unselfish individuals it's most beneficial for everyone to be cooperative. When in the company of uncooperative or selfish individuals being cooperative will only lead to loss, though it may be possible to teach the benefits of cooperation. Nevertheless, it seems to be the case that there will always be defectors.
In any cooperative group eventually some margin of the population will stop cooperating and act selfishly, effectively becoming a freeloader. Too many freeloaders and the system of cooperation will collapse. Freeloaders pretend to be part of the cooperative group. They bear the **appearance** of a cooperative member, but they take more than they give.
Surely, Shakyamuni was an iconoclast showing us that every time we create an 'icon' of reality and think we've 'got it' we have to be prepared to destroy it.
Even to the extent of meeting the Buddha on the road and killing him.
Significantly, Shakyamuni did not advise killing the Buddha, Linji Yixuan did. Linji is also credited with:
Those who have fulfilled the ten stages of bodhisattva practice are no better than hired field hands; those who have attained the enlightenment of the fifty-first and fifty-second stages are prisoners shackled and bound; arhats and pratyekabuddhas are so much filth in the latrine; bodhi and nirvana are hitching posts for donkeys.
Those who have fulfilled the ten stages of bodhisattva practice are no better than hired field hands; those who have attained the enlightenment of the fifty-first and fifty-second stages are prisoners shackled and bound; arhats and pratyekabuddhas are so much filth in the latrine; bodhi and nirvana are hitching posts for donkeys.
Do you believe Linji?
Believe and raised him.
Those of us in the initial stages of 'praise and raise' must worship, exhalt and attest to the perfect being of the three jewels. If such linji teachings are presented early, we may become disheartened, confused and immersed in criticism without discernment.
However even for us beginners, it is important to comprehend how the Buddhas serve us. How ordinary they are and how close the good shit is - Always.
As it is Mother's Day for some, we should perhaps rather than 'killing the Buddha' be giving her birth.
Surely, Shakyamuni was an iconoclast showing us that every time we create an 'icon' of reality and think we've 'got it' we have to be prepared to destroy it.
Even to the extent of meeting the Buddha on the road and killing him.
Significantly, Shakyamuni did not advise killing the Buddha, Linji Yixuan did. Linji is also credited with:
Those who have fulfilled the ten stages of bodhisattva practice are no better than hired field hands; those who have attained the enlightenment of the fifty-first and fifty-second stages are prisoners shackled and bound; arhats and pratyekabuddhas are so much filth in the latrine; bodhi and nirvana are hitching posts for donkeys.
Do you believe Linji?
Nice quote.
Yes - I believe Linji - because he sounds like a really eloquent iconoclast.
So rather than discovering the truth for yourselves, you guys will trust the words of Linji, a monk who died over a thousand years ago. Should we trust that you will wear Linji's words faithfully?
So rather than discovering the truth for yourselves, you guys will trust the words of Linji, a monk who died over a thousand years ago. Should we trust that you will wear Linji's words faithfully?
Shakyamuni died 2,500 years ago, I trust him.
Should I trust him less than Linji who died only 1,000 years ago?
So rather than discovering the truth for yourselves, you guys will trust the words of Linji, a monk who died over a thousand years ago. Should we trust that you will wear Linji's words faithfully?
I think most people would take Linji's words to be the finger pointing to the moon, not the moon itself. If you are mistaking the finger for the moon, kill it, or maybe cut it off. Also, where did you learn to write? To think? Are you self taught? How much, if any, of your thinking is truly your own? How can you be sure that you aren't just parroting the words of your own teachers and proffessors? Or an attitude or demeanour of theirs that you have attached to and made your own? You may well be mistaking your own finger for the moon. Cut it off!
Thich Nhat Hanh says that Linji (in his book) is an 'enema' (really!) to clean out wrong views and 'attachment to the dharma'. In this book there are examples of masters and students having cutting words and he says that sometimes the master becomes the student and the student the master.
Thich Nhat Hanh says that Linji (in his book) is an 'enema' (really!) to clean out wrong views and 'attachment to the dharma'. In this book there are examples of masters and students having cutting words and he says that sometimes the master becomes the student and the student the master.
With all due respect to TNH, the enema metaphor doesn't really work because there's quite a variety of uses for an enema. Or perhaps you misread it?
So rather than discovering the truth for yourselves, you guys will trust the words of Linji, a monk who died over a thousand years ago. Should we trust that you will wear Linji's words faithfully?
I think most people would take Linji's words to be the finger pointing to the moon, not the moon itself. If you are mistaking the finger for the moon, kill it, or maybe cut it off. Also, where did you learn to write? To think? Are you self taught? How much, if any, of your thinking is truly your own? How can you be sure that you aren't just parroting the words of your own teachers and proffessors? Or an attitude or demeanour of theirs that you have attached to and made your own? You may well be mistaking your own finger for the moon. Cut it off!
When I meet my Self on the road, I expect to be road kill.
How much credence should we give convention over experience? How near are our Buddhas and awakened laughing iconoclasts?
Maybe it is time to lay down and die . . .
One of the techniques of this kind is the meditation of laugh. Its participants lay on the back and completely relax. After meditative attunement, they place one hand on the region of anahata, and another hand — on the region of muladhara, to activate these chakras. Then they begin to move through the organism waves of soft light-laugh (from muladhara — to the head chakras). The meditation of laugh creates a purifying effect and contributes to the development of the chakras, the middle meridian, if it is performed on the due level of subtlety. http://www.encyclopedia-of-religion.org/practices_of_sufism.html
"Ha ha ha, hee hee hee I'm a laughing Gnome and you can't catch me" David Bowie
Comments
:clap:
If a crustacean has outgrown his shell, he has to moult in order to grow.
In a Buddhist sense we are always attached to aspects of right view, right action etc. Someone with more experience and skill may offer an alternative . . .
This is the value of diversity of age, experience, understanding etc. in sangha. A very narrow focus can create tremendous progress, for example during retreat or taking robes. However certain hardening, such as a sense of superiority, misogyny etc have to be carefully guarded against.
Do you wish to be safe?
“Forget safety.
Live where you fear to live.
Destroy your reputation.
Be notorious.”
― Rumi
So to me the suggestion that Buddhism and iconoclasm are orthogonal concepts seems to miss the point. The Buddha lives beyond such distinctions and categorisations. As @person said, the idea is to travel beyond such dualistic categorisations. They are useless.
Can you grasp the present?
What is this war about? The term "meme" was coined by Richard Dawkins in the book "The Selfish Gene." Perhaps that's a clue.
Which is not to say I can't marvel at all the chirping silliness about "living in the present."
And iconoclasm is a part of that, because smashing someone's symbols/icons/idols/statues is symbolically smashing their belief system.
For example, the Taliban destroying the Buddhas of Bamian.
And the Wahhabi Islamists are smashing stuff up in Mecca right now, in an attempt to destroy the symbols of other Islamic schools, as they believe these sites could become devotional or inspirational places for competing versions of Islam.
They bulldozed Mohammad's mother's grave! And lot of his relatives graves, and they even got ready to smash his tomb too, before the authorities said That's One Step Too Far. Anyway, enough of Saudi Arabian current events.
For me, I think it's not worth getting worked up about iconoclasm.
Here's Ajahn Brahm on iconoclasm:
Briefly I think that assigning intentional consciousness to genes confuses the debate and is irresponsible for an academic. I'm not alone in this view. Frankly I find him not very bright, which is ironic since he is the figureheaed of the 'Brights', a global movement that associates a complete and utter failure to understand religion with superior inteliigence. Utter madness. As for his book on God, it's laughably superficial and temperamental.
The other annoyance was to see a professional scientists writing such a daft and shallow book on religion. I felt it was highly unprofessional and even quite stupid.
As it happens I do believe that genes may have some rudimentary intentional consciousness, but that's another matter.
Sorry if I'm criticising someone you respect, but I can only give my view.
And then we got back on topic.
:clap:
Though I haven't read The Selfish Gene from what I understand it reports that, in a nutshell, it's most beneficial to act cooperatively rather than competitively. Basically it's optimal to not be selfish. This is shown to be true through a variety of experiments and theories.
Even though we may know that it's most beneficial to act cooperatively for mutual benefit, every day we are presented with the dilemma of not knowing if others will act cooperatively with us in whatever we're doing. We can trust (to act cooperatively or competitively) those we know well, but not strangers. For people that we don't know we're forced to go by signs or **icons** until we get to know them. Sometimes the book matches the cover, so to speak, as Ajahn Brahm might speak. Sometimes the book does not match the cover. Don't judge a book by its cover is good advice, of course.
For a Buddhist the distinction between selfish and unselfish actions is bound to be rather vague, since whenever we help someone else we would be helping ourselves. But if there is a distinction, then I'd guess that it's most beneficial to our personal survival to act selfishly or unselfishly depending on the situation.
It has to be good news when a biologist tries to get rid of the dangerous and iconic meme that says the survival of the fittest means we have to be at each others throats all the time. I wonder how much damage this lop-sided idea has done over the years. It seems to have had an especially damaging effect in US society, but I don't think it's been helpful anywhere.
It is confusing me, the idea that iconoclasm has a purpose. Surely the purpose will depend on the circumstances. It seems rather like saying that irony has a purpose.
Even to the extent of meeting the Buddha on the road and killing him.
In any cooperative group eventually some margin of the population will stop cooperating and act selfishly, effectively becoming a freeloader. Too many freeloaders and the system of cooperation will collapse. Freeloaders pretend to be part of the cooperative group. They bear the **appearance** of a cooperative member, but they take more than they give.
Believe and raised him.
Those of us in the initial stages of 'praise and raise' must worship, exhalt and attest to the perfect being of the three jewels.
If such linji teachings are presented early, we may become disheartened, confused and immersed in criticism without discernment.
However even for us beginners, it is important to comprehend how the Buddhas serve us. How ordinary they are and how close the good shit is - Always.
As it is Mother's Day for some, we should perhaps rather than 'killing the Buddha' be giving her birth.
It is the 'circle of life'.
:om:
Nice quote.
Yes - I believe Linji - because he sounds like a really eloquent iconoclast.
He must have killed the Buddha already!
Should I trust him less than Linji who died only 1,000 years ago?
...and yes, I wear Linji's words faithfully.
If you meet Linji on the road, kill him!
Also, where did you learn to write? To think? Are you self taught? How much, if any, of your thinking is truly your own?
How can you be sure that you aren't just parroting the words of your own teachers and proffessors? Or an attitude or demeanour of theirs that you have attached to and made your own?
You may well be mistaking your own finger for the moon. Cut it off!
Are we having fun yet?
How much credence should we give convention over experience? How near are our Buddhas and awakened laughing iconoclasts?
Maybe it is time to lay down and die . . .
One of the techniques of this kind is the meditation of laugh. Its participants lay on the back and completely relax. After meditative attunement, they place one hand on the region of anahata, and another hand — on the region of muladhara, to activate these chakras. Then they begin to move through the organism waves of soft light-laugh (from muladhara — to the head chakras). The meditation of laugh creates a purifying effect and contributes to the development of the chakras, the middle meridian, if it is performed on the due level of subtlety.
http://www.encyclopedia-of-religion.org/practices_of_sufism.html
"Ha ha ha, hee hee hee
I'm a laughing Gnome and
you can't catch me"
David Bowie
Trust me I have Buddha Nature.
All too often the either/or way of thinking requires . . . well I trust you know . . .