Naomi ([info]phrenology_tea) wrote in [info]buddhists,
@ 2006-11-26 21:14:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current mood:Tired

Question.
I went to the Portland Art Museum today for their exhibit, "Questing for Immortality," an Egyptian exhibit. Long story short there were way too many people for a slightly agoraphobic introvert like myself, and I ended up side-stepping the group and finding myself in a quieter wing with a Buddhist art section.

I rather liked the more 'modern' art myself, with the Mandalas and statues and stuff, instead of a lot of the paintings that were just unattractive looking. One thing that struck me was all the statues of the Bodhisattvas were adorned in very pretty jewlery, while those of the Buddhas were bare. There was even a sign explaining that generally Buddhas had a knot on the top of the head and were plainly dressed, while the Bodhisattvas were often very artistically decorated with jewels and ornamentation.

They had some paintings and things that apparently Lamas made for emporers they visited, which were also very ornate.

This brings to mind one time, driving in rural Minnesota, when I happened upon a Cambodian Buddhist temple, and stopped and walked around a bit. It was so beautiful! Everything was painted and there were giant golden Buddha statues and lots of spirals and peaks and other wonderful things.

...But, isn't this kind of off, a bit? Isn't Buddhism supposed to be about eschewing worldly attachments, like pride and material wealth? Why is it that the Buddhists and Bodhisattvas spend what looks to be like a considerable sum of money decorating themselves and their temples, when such things will not aid path-travelling, and the money could be used for helping others? Why is it the Buddhist paid such high and flattering (another fallacy that Buddhists are taught to avoid) compliments in the form of material goods to emporers and other places of authority?

Why did/do they do that?


(Post a new comment)


[info]acertaindoebear
2006-11-27 04:21 am UTC (link)
What do you really like or enjoy?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]phrenology_tea
2006-11-27 04:50 am UTC (link)
As far as art?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]acertaindoebear
2006-11-27 05:48 am UTC (link)
Let's keep this simple. Do you have anything, an object, that you really enjoy? Something of yours?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]phrenology_tea
2006-11-27 06:10 am UTC (link)
Oh, like a thing? I really like my little lavender teapot. But it has a crack in it so I can't use it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]acertaindoebear
2006-11-27 06:33 am UTC (link)
Ok. Why do you really like your little lavender teapot? Take your time (I'm patient); it can have more than one reason.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]dustinashe
2006-11-27 04:36 am UTC (link)
Having things and attachment aren't necessarily the same thing.
Understanding that all the things that can be had are impermanent and will someday fade away,whether by loss or age or whatever, there might be something to that.
Just give it away and see.I myself have attachment issues.Maybe my next life .Or the one after.
I think the thing with those things is that nobody personally owns them.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]phrenology_tea
2006-11-27 04:52 am UTC (link)
That is all fine and good, but what of when those ornamentations could be sold to provide food for the starving, medical treatment for the diseased, care for the broken?

Also, why did they spend so much effort and money flattering emporers?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]dustinashe
2006-11-27 05:09 am UTC (link)
Maybe it's just to make us question.Homage is a human trait.
I don't know .

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]entropicflux
2006-11-27 03:28 pm UTC (link)
to bring more people to the faith, probably. even buddhist monks aren't above corruption or politics. human nature is still human nature...

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]dwaleberry
2006-11-27 04:39 am UTC (link)
Maybe its a sign of devotion from their followers, the way people tried to offer the Buddha the very best food they could afford. While Bodhisattvas surely eschew the egotistic use of materialistic riches, they wouldn't want to deny their followers the accumulation of good karma that results from their selfless donations of expensive stuff. Why the Bodhisattvas have the bling, but the Buddhas don't, I have no idea, however.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]phrenology_tea
2006-11-27 04:51 am UTC (link)
Eh? Karma wouldn't happen if the Bodhisattvas refused the offerings? Isn't it one of those "the thought that counts" things? Do Bodhisattvas have followers?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]dwaleberry
2006-11-27 06:06 am UTC (link)
I guess that thinking about a deed and actually doing it would still count as two seperate actions, but if one offered valuable jewelry to a Buddha and he said that one should better sell it and buy food for the starving with the money, I guess one could still "cash in" the good karma, so yeah, something's off here. Maybe it's just straight out idolatry then? Hmm...
Anyways, I'd say that Bodhisattvas have followers in the way of students who want to learn more about the Dharma, the same way the bhikkus followed the Buddha.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]phrenology_tea
2006-11-27 06:11 am UTC (link)
Ah. It's very hard to keep all this straight as I am new to this, so thank you. :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]ocha_no_hanashi
2006-11-27 04:49 am UTC (link)
Ah but a big fudge-ing Buddha statue made of polished bronze will attract the masses of devoted pilgrims (or tourists).

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]phrenology_tea
2006-11-27 04:53 am UTC (link)
Haha, well, I admit, when that temple with its huge golden Buddha statue arose out of the cornfields, the first thing I thought was like, "HOLY WOW LOOK AT THE SIZE OF THAT THING"

But why would a temple want to attract ignorant, attached people such as myself? XP

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]ocha_no_hanashi
2006-11-27 04:54 am UTC (link)
Because you bring donations. :D

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]phrenology_tea
2006-11-27 04:59 am UTC (link)
Haha, no way, I'm a broke teenager. They don't want me there.

They were so nice tho'! One was in a garden with a kitty.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]margaret_yakoda
2006-11-27 05:10 am UTC (link)
Generally, broke teenagers grow up.

(I'm waving "Hi!" to all because I'm new here)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]phrenology_tea
2006-11-27 06:17 am UTC (link)
Haha, oh so true.

Hallo. :3

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]entropicflux
2006-11-27 03:32 pm UTC (link)
because you need the most help! why would you bother to walk the way if you had already found enlightenment? the buddhas want to attract you to them, so you can learn from each other.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]phrenology_tea
2006-11-29 12:08 am UTC (link)
Clever. = D

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]tundrababe
2006-11-27 05:18 am UTC (link)
That's a good question and I'm not really sure - I hope someone can answer it. I know that Buddha himself didn't even want images made of himself, so I think it's interesting that that Buddha's figure is everywhere. Bodhisattvas are teachers, and I don't know what their individual thoughts were on their own images, but I don't believe they were all living in elective poverty like the Buddha did. What does it teach a person to show someone who's trying to achieve enlightenment an ornately bejewled figure or building? Seems kind of off to me. Unless the idea is to share the wealth with everyone and let them enjoy the fancy temples.

Where in rural Minnesota was that? I'd be interested in checking that out.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]phrenology_tea
2006-11-27 06:13 am UTC (link)
Near Northfield, 30 mi SW of the Twin Cities. There are two, actually, one's just really crazy ornate and the other is more regular looking.

I didn't know that about the Buddha and images; thanks for sharing.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]yougimmepanda
2006-11-27 06:27 am UTC (link)
"I know that Buddha himself didn't even want images made of himself, so I think it's interesting that that Buddha's figure is everywhere"

One of the 10 Commandments is also "You shall not make for yourself an idol"* (*Wikipedia), but what's the first thing you see when you walk into a church? ;) Eh, there are plenty of instances of the people not doing what the leader supposedly tells them to. We are all naughty little monkeys that way, I suppose. :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]entropicflux
2006-11-27 03:34 pm UTC (link)
remember, depends on what church. a lot of the protestants(and especially calvinists)oppose the border-line idolatry of the crucifiction-scene.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]yougimmepanda
2006-11-28 12:12 am UTC (link)
I went to a Zionist Lutheran when I was younger, and of course every single Catholic church seems rife with it. I'm sure that there are those who oppose it, but by and large, there's usually a big ol' Jesus front and center. And lest we forget rosaries and Christian book stores.
My main point is simply that people don't always do what they're told. ;)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]entropicflux
2006-11-28 02:52 am UTC (link)
absolutely agreed. just making sure to keep perspective...

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]wordsonascreen
2006-11-27 06:11 am UTC (link)
One of the most overlooked concepts in Buddhism is that of dana, or generosity. Lay people are encouraged to donate a portion of their income to worthy causes. The sangha of monks and nuns is a worthy cause (to Buddhists). Also, somewhere along the line the idea popped up that more merit was generated by giving dana to spiritual seekers (of all religions) than to other causes. But keep in mind, there was no red cross or unicef back then.

Anyway, monastic communities have always found themselves in precarious positions because of this. At various points in history, the monasteries were the largest land owners outside of the ruling class (yet another reason monks don't delve into politics). But it's been through the generosity of the supporting followers that has kept the various traditions alive and unbroken throughout the years.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]phrenology_tea
2006-11-27 06:15 am UTC (link)
I was wondering if it was something more ritualistic and traditional. I suppose it just seems kind of unBuddhist, from what little I know of Buddhism, to adorn oneself out of tradition.

When I think of change, the two things I think of are the calculus and Buddhism. Shouldn't traditions that would be practical to change be changed?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]wordsonascreen
2006-11-27 07:04 am UTC (link)
They do. All the time. Even the so-called orthodox schools change over time. Impermanence is a universal law, not an option.

But that doesn't mean we can change things on a whim. There's deep wisdom behind many of the things that get discarded on the floor of the Western Buddhist market. But since they do not fit into our paradigms, we can't see their value.

One of the purposes of the monastic-householder relationship is to generate wholesome mind states (generosity, compassion, &c). Wealthy householders tend to donate large sums of money that can be used to build monasteries and schools (a secondary function of monasteries in Buddhist countries). Their generosity is their karma, and we should encourage such mental states. Granted, there are now many causes that can benefit from our donations, but I think having a refuge for those who wish to dedicate their lives to practicing the Dharma is just as worthy as any of them.

But we shouldn't overlook the devotional aspect of Buddhism that has given rise to many of these massive stupas and shrines. This aspect is not at all popular in the West due to our history with Christianity, but it serves as the primary form of Buddhism in many Asian countries. Devotional cults are as old as Buddhism, and therefore aren't easily dismissed as "unBuddhist". But still, I see your point, and I don't entirely disagree.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]thedolphingirl
2006-11-27 06:13 am UTC (link)
I think it's interesting that the Buddhas are plain in paintings, but not the Bodhisattvas. I'm thinking - maybe it's a symbolization of the chains of compassion that bind them to this world as they help other beings to enlightenment. Or something.

But I haven't seen the paintings, so I wouldn't know.

As far as decorating temples - I don't know. Though oftentimes creating art can be very meditative.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]phrenology_tea
2006-11-27 06:18 am UTC (link)
Hmm, interesting point. It didn't mention that at all in the exhibits tho', and they were pretty thorough as to any symbolism.

Ah, yes, art can be for some pepole, I suppose it just struck me as odd that the Lamas seemed to be paying such tribute to the emporers with their art.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]notfromvenus
2006-11-27 06:50 am UTC (link)
Why is it the Buddhist paid such high and flattering (another fallacy that Buddhists are taught to avoid) compliments in the form of material goods to emporers and other places of authority?

I'd guess it's so the rulers would look upon them favorably and allow them to practice and proselytize in peace.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]rhpsoregon
2006-11-27 11:47 am UTC (link)
I've always been led to believe that Buddhism is a non-proselytizing religion.

This leads to another reason for all the big shiny Buddhas. Non-proselytizing religions grow when people come to it through curiosity. A big shiny Buddha in a cornfield brings in the curious, who then ask questions and learn about the tenets of Buddhism. If Buddhism is the right path for them, they stay and learn more.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]fiddledragon
2006-11-27 01:10 pm UTC (link)
Buddhism was at one point a proselytizing religion, mainly in the days of king Ashoka and the other early Buddhist kings. As far as I can tell, it was just sort of...what you did once you had a state religion.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]fiddledragon
2006-11-27 01:16 pm UTC (link)
Bodhisattvas are shown adorned to distinguish them from Buddhas. Typically, Buddhas are portrayed as complete renounciants, and thus eschew all worldly goods and decorations, wearing instead simple monatic robes. Bodhisattvas are traditionally portrayed as kings and other worldly leaders, deeply compassionate and enlightened people but not renounciants, who therefore wear royal clothing.

Nifty decorated temples attract lay followers. The lay followers then either become monks or they donate to the temple, gaining merit for themselves and ensuring that the monks have enough to eat. Especially in some of the more modern groups practicing "engaged Buddhism", there's more of an emphasis on community charity, but traditionally mendicant monastic communities are thought to produce merit for the community through the various spiritual practices they engage in, and lay followers are responsible for their upkeep.

This is all me remembering things from my college course in Buddhism last year; someone actually raised in a Buddhist country could probably give better answers.

(Reply to this)


[info]multidudinous
2006-11-27 03:34 pm UTC (link)
What did the artist(s) do that? We can speculate all day, but in the end, you'd probably just has to ask the artist. There's so many things that go into the why of art, you know? Cultural reasons, the flavor of the times, the political systems at the time, the religious norms of the times. The artist may have visualized it this way. Or been told to portray it this way by the person or people who employed them to do the art to begin with. It's hard to say, and you could write an entire dissertation as to the why of it and still never really know. Still, it's a great question and probably would take anyone down an interesting road as they tried to answer it.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]phrenology_tea
2006-11-27 10:28 pm UTC (link)
Probably the best answer. :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]n_lande
2006-11-27 03:51 pm UTC (link)
This sort of realization has been a big mystery to me as well. Its easy to dismiss forms of Buddhism that i do not agree with as "stupid" Buddhism (and i say this with some facetiousness) but if i want to be nitpickey i can call pretty much any dharma (which seems like just as troubling a problem as pretty statues) materialistic. At a loss of anything more constructive to do, finally i decided to start practicing with a mala. I cant say that i have come to any sort of grand epiphany but my mala sure is pretty and i like the feel of the beads on my fingers. Actually, maybe that is the epiphany.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]phrenology_tea
2006-11-27 10:29 pm UTC (link)
I just have one question: What's a mala? XP

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]n_lande
2006-11-28 03:09 am UTC (link)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japa_mala

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]qui_gon57
2006-11-28 03:38 am UTC (link)
Great picture from a great book! Tao Of Pooh!

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]phrenology_tea
2006-11-29 12:11 am UTC (link)
Tao of Pooh was what originally got me interested in Eastern religions... or rather, was what got me to take them seriously.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…