Buddha statues are not idols?..

[dagon]

How are Buddha statues not idols?..

If a Buddha statue to someone is an idol - then it is an idol to that person. That does not mean that the representation is wrong, just that the person seeing the image holds wrong views (in my opinion).

The Buddha taught us the path that could lead to the end of my suffering and even reduce my suffering in this life. Bowing down to a Buddha statue is a way of paying respect to the teacher that gives you the direction to the most valuable thing. In doing so it reminds me of the teacher of the Dhamma, the one that showed the way through his life. By remembrance of the teacher and Dhamma I remember that the power and responsibility to act on the Dhamma (taught by the Buddha) and move towards enlightenment is within me. To me this is the real power of the Buddha statue – unlocking what is with in me by using his direction. Bowing down with humility and respect should be the natural thing to do.

As for the “western view” I still remember my WTF moment when I first was dragged in to a church when I was about 7 and seeing “Christ nailed to the cross”.

Metta
paul

[chownah]

What's the difference between honor and worship?

This is a very very good question and I hope that there is some discussion on this....for me they look a lot like two ends of a continuum of attitude.
chownah

[Kusala]

phpBB .

[Virgo]

Statues are just ruupa, elements, just like the body of a Buddha is. It is what they represent to us mentally that we pay respect to. The best way to pay respect, however, is to respect the Dhamma.

"He who sees Dhamma, Vakkali, sees me; he who sees me sees Dhamma. Truly seeing Dhamma, one sees me; seeing me one sees Dhamma." - Vakkali Sutta

All the best,

Kevin

[chownah]

What is an idol? Got to know what an idol is before you can say something is not.
chownah

[Sekha]

The best way to pay respect to the Buddha is to walk single-mindedly the path to the Deathless he has shown. The rest is just an emotional game with oneself. I have remarked that generally those who are the most attached to paying respect to statues are also those who slack off the most when it comes to actual practice.

We have evidence that representations of the Buddha as a person were not allowed in Buddhist iconography by the time of Asoka. This strongly indicates imo that Buddha statues were forbidden in the early days, and I disagree with the source quoted by Cooran. The reason of this interdiction is simple to understand: to prevent the quest of the Deathless from being replaced by rituals of worship. The reason why the rule may have disappeared from the Vinaya is also easy to understand.

[Jeffrey]

What evidence of prohibition do we have, Sekha?

[manas]

The best way to pay respect to the Buddha is to walk single-mindedly the path to the Deathless he has shown.

Totally agree with you there, sekha.

However:

I have remarked that generally those who are the most attached to paying respect to statues are also those who slack off the most when it comes to actual practice.

I'd be careful not to make generalizations like that one. How could you possibly know this? On a personal note I can recall that a number of months ago, when I was actually meditating every morning with a decent amount of effort, that after some of my more insightful meditations I wanted to physically bow down low, with my actual body, to the Buddha, out of gratitude...and there being no flesh-clad Buddha available, the Buddha-rupa had to do.

kind regards

[Dhammanando]

What evidence of prohibition do we have, Sekha?

I don’t think it’s terribly weighty. It seems there’s a rule against making images of the Buddha in one of the non-Theravādin recensions of the Vinaya (I forget which one). But since it’s not found in any other recension it’s doubtful whether it was present in the ur-Vinaya.

Then there’s the fact that the earliest artistic depictions of the Buddha’s life didn’t represent the man himself. But this can be (and has been) plausibly accounted for in a number of different theories, of which iconophobic interdiction is only one.

[Jeffrey]

This is my understanding as well, Ven Dhammanando, but I thought perhaps Sekha had something else in mind.

While on the topic, I wonder if there are commentarial traditions regarding the use of Buddha statues or paintings.

[Dhammanando]

While on the topic, I wonder if there are commentarial traditions regarding the use of Buddha statues or paintings.

Nothing comes to mind. Though that's not really saying much, since I'm rather indifferent to Buddha statues, so if I ever did come across anything about them I'd probably forget it pretty quickly.

[Jeffrey]

For those who think images are nothing more than images, you might find this of interest, a quote (p181) from the Consecration article (by Donald Swearer) in The Encyclopedia of Buddhism:

The cult of relics, images, portraits, mummified remains,
and other representations of the Buddha and
Buddhist saints reflect a thaumaturgical belief that the
miraculous powers associated with extraordinary spiritual
attainment can be objectified in material form.
Thus, consecration rituals incarnate the Buddha and
ARHATs not primarily as idealized spiritual mentors
and personifications of the dharma but as wonderworkers,
protectors, and grantors of boons. Consecration
rituals, therefore, infuse into these icons a variety
of powers associated especially with the mental and
physical attributes acquired through ascetic practices,
especially meditation.

Since from the outset the Buddha was venerated not
only as a teacher but as a miracle worker, representations
of the Blessed One can be seen in similar terms.
The cult of the power of relics and images should not
be understood as a later, degenerate form of Buddhist
piety but as one of the ingredients of Buddhist belief
and practice from its earliest days. Consecration rituals,
in this regard, can be seen as a practical means by
which this aspect of Buddhism spread and flourished
throughout Buddhist Asia.

[Sekha]

What evidence of prohibition do we have, Sekha?

Well, I said, exactly:

We have evidence that representations of the Buddha as a person were not allowed in Buddhist iconography by the time of Asoka.

..not that we have direct evidence of such a prohibition in terms of rules. From this point, I have no facts to add to the discussion, only opinions based on what makes sense to me. The existence of a prohibition is imo the best explanation to that absence of Buddha images in early Buddhist iconography. I would be interested in seeing what the other explanations are, and if they are really robust.

[appicchato]

http://bcove.me/1ee3ud44

[robertk]

Thanks venerable, I noticed that billboard driving back from the airport in Bangkok last month.