Actors go to Hell?
Re: Actors go to Hell?
If anything, this is more relevant today, not less. The art forms are now much more sophisticated and even better at manipulating and evoking the emotions and passions. Plus some of the actors we have now -- political talk show hosts -- generate huge amounts of delusion, fear, and outrage in their audience, who get addicted to it and keep tuning in for more, and spreading it to others. It's easy to see this behavior leading to hell.
Re: Actors go to Hell?
I would take issue with the generalization that theatre, in all forms, serves only to increase the veils of delusion in others, or to stir up emotional tempests. That's simply an inaccurate statement. Theatre over the ages has served different functions (depending on what genre we're talking about). In some cases, as with medieval morality plays, it was designed to teach lessons of virtue and vice. I think it was Samuel Johnson who said the purpose of theatre was to "entertain and instruct".
In ancient Greece, it provided a means for viewing existential problems with discernment. Aristotle argued that the function of drama was to help people become less entrapped by their emotions and better understand reality. Theatrical "catharsis" refers to a kind of purifying or cleansing (this is what the word "catharsis" literally means) which enables clear reflection to take place. In the modern period, Berthold Brecht said that theatre can have a distancing effect which strips away the fantasies that reinforce the existing power structures and allows people to look at society with a critical/dispassionate eye.
To put Shakespeare, Chekhov and Euripides in the same boat as Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck seems to me like a gross oversimplification. The goals of serious theater are directly opposite to that kind of demagoguery.
In ancient Greece, it provided a means for viewing existential problems with discernment. Aristotle argued that the function of drama was to help people become less entrapped by their emotions and better understand reality. Theatrical "catharsis" refers to a kind of purifying or cleansing (this is what the word "catharsis" literally means) which enables clear reflection to take place. In the modern period, Berthold Brecht said that theatre can have a distancing effect which strips away the fantasies that reinforce the existing power structures and allows people to look at society with a critical/dispassionate eye.
To put Shakespeare, Chekhov and Euripides in the same boat as Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck seems to me like a gross oversimplification. The goals of serious theater are directly opposite to that kind of demagoguery.
Re: Actors go to Hell?
Hi Lazy Eye,Lazy_eye wrote:To put Shakespeare, Chekhov and Euripides in the same boat as Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck seems to me like a gross oversimplification. The goals of serious theater are directly opposite to that kind of demagoguery.
If you read my post, I said that the admonitions are even more relevant in today's entertainment than in the Buddha's time. I didn't mention the time of Shakespeare, Chekhov and Euripides. Also, I used the political talk shows (and I should add in Keith Olbermann to avoid seeming to only include the right wing) as examples of the more dangerous types of entertainment today, in terms of the negativity and even violence that they promote. So I don't understand why you interpreted my post that way; it was not meant to say the things you attribute to it at all. So, do you disagree with anything I actually said? (fine of course if you do, but you were arguing against stuff I didn't even say).
Re: Actors go to Hell?
Octathlon,octathlon wrote:Hi Lazy Eye,Lazy_eye wrote:To put Shakespeare, Chekhov and Euripides in the same boat as Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck seems to me like a gross oversimplification. The goals of serious theater are directly opposite to that kind of demagoguery.
If you read my post, I said that the admonitions are even more relevant in today's entertainment than in the Buddha's time. I didn't mention the time of Shakespeare, Chekhov and Euripides. Also, I used the political talk shows (and I should add in Keith Olbermann to avoid seeming to only include the right wing) as examples of the more dangerous types of entertainment today, in terms of the negativity and even violence that they promote. So I don't understand why you interpreted my post that way; it was not meant to say the things you attribute to it at all. So, do you disagree with anything I actually said? (fine of course if you do, but you were arguing against stuff I didn't even say).
You wrote that "the art forms are now much more sophisticated and even better at manipulating and evoking the emotions and passions" and then compared theatre to political talk shows. The meaning I got from this was that you were using talk show hosts to support the general principle that art is bad for you -- in other words, you were mounting a kind of straw man argument by offering the worst possible examples.
Was that not the case?
And Chekhov is modern period, by the way.
LE
Re: Actors go to Hell?
I find the idea of a literal "hell of laughter" laughable.
I think it should be kept in mind, however, that when the Buddha talks about hell (niraya), he's often talking about unpleasant or painful painful mental feelings "like those of the beings in hell" (AN 4.235). As I've mentioned elsewhere, I think the Buddha held a more nuanced position than a lot traditionalists believe. For example, David Kalupahana notes in his book, Buddhist Philosophy, that:
I think it should be kept in mind, however, that when the Buddha talks about hell (niraya), he's often talking about unpleasant or painful painful mental feelings "like those of the beings in hell" (AN 4.235). As I've mentioned elsewhere, I think the Buddha held a more nuanced position than a lot traditionalists believe. For example, David Kalupahana notes in his book, Buddhist Philosophy, that:
- A careful study of these concepts of heaven and hell, gods and evil spirits, reveals that they were accepted in Buddhism as regulative ideas or concepts only. The fact that they are merely theories based on speculation is well brought out it certain statements by the Buddha. To a Brahman who questioned the Buddha as to whether there are gods, the replied, "It is not so." When asked whether there are no gods, the Buddha’s reply was the same, "It is not so." And finally to the Brahman who was baffled by these replies, the Buddha said, "The world, O Brahman, is loud in agreement that there are gods" (ucce sammatam kho etam brahmana lokasmin yadidam atthi devati). The same is the attitude of the Buddha with regard to the concept of hell. In the Samyutta-nikaya he is represented as saying that it is only the uneducated ordinary man (assutava puthujjano) who believes that there is a hell beneath the great ocean. According to the Buddha's view, hell is another name for unpleasant feelings (dukkha vedana). [The first reference is MN 2.213, the second is S 4.206]
"Sabbe dhamma nalam abhinivesaya" (AN 7.58).
leaves in the hand (Buddhist-related blog)
leaves in the forest (non-Buddhist related blog)
leaves in the hand (Buddhist-related blog)
leaves in the forest (non-Buddhist related blog)
Re: Actors go to Hell?
Chekov is pre-TV and movies. Before the modern forms of entertainment I'm talking about.
My opinion is posted above where it can be read as many times as necessary until it becomes obvious that I didn't equate movies and theatre with political talk show hosts. But I did say that both of those evoke emotions.
To clarify: I said we EVEN have these talk show hosts. As in: Not only are the movies nowadays really good at evoking the emotions and passions (which BTW is what they are designed to do after all), but we even have these other actors/talk show hosts who evoke really strong negative emotions in their audience. I hope that is clear now.
My opinion is posted above where it can be read as many times as necessary until it becomes obvious that I didn't equate movies and theatre with political talk show hosts. But I did say that both of those evoke emotions.
To clarify: I said we EVEN have these talk show hosts. As in: Not only are the movies nowadays really good at evoking the emotions and passions (which BTW is what they are designed to do after all), but we even have these other actors/talk show hosts who evoke really strong negative emotions in their audience. I hope that is clear now.
Re: Actors go to Hell?
"The ripening of action, monks, is unthinkable, should not be thought; for one thinking (it) would come to madness and distraction." Aiv, vii, 8
But how much of what is contained in the Suttas is put into jeopardy by that admonishment?
But how much of what is contained in the Suttas is put into jeopardy by that admonishment?
"Dhammā=Ideas. This is the clue to much of the Buddha's teaching." ~ Ven. Ñanavira, Commonplace Book
Re: Actors go to Hell?
Ok, then, so who exactly is going to hell? Talk show hosts? Hollywood stars? Shakespearean actors? The Manhattan Rep? Since you say the teaching is more relevant today than before, perhaps you can clarify how it should be applied?octathlon wrote:Chekov is pre-TV and movies. Before the modern forms of entertainment I'm talking about.
My opinion is posted above where it can be read as many times as necessary until it becomes obvious that I didn't equate movies and theatre with political talk show hosts. But I did say that both of those evoke emotions.
To clarify: I said we EVEN have these talk show hosts. As in: Not only are the movies nowadays really good at evoking the emotions and passions (which BTW is what they are designed to do after all), but we even have these other actors/talk show hosts who evoke really strong negative emotions in their audience. I hope that is clear now.
Re: Actors go to Hell?
Hi Lazy Eye,Lazy_eye wrote:Ok, then, so who exactly is going to hell? Talk show hosts? Hollywood stars? Shakespearean actors? The Manhattan Rep? Since you say the teaching is more relevant today than before, perhaps you can clarify how it should be applied?
I just gave my opinion that the teaching is "if anything, more relevant today, not less" in response to someone suggesting that it might not be relevant today. Of course you don't have to believe in it, or anything else. I'm not here to try and convert anyone.
Re: Actors go to Hell?
None whatsoever. You didn't give the full quote. It simply means that attempting to work out of the results of kamma is so complicated that it would bring madness and vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. This is one of the famous Four Unconjecturables which the Buddha taught about.pulga wrote:"The ripening of action, monks, is unthinkable, should not be thought; for one thinking (it) would come to madness and distraction." Aiv, vii, 8
But how much of what is contained in the Suttas is put into jeopardy by that admonishment?
Acintita Sutta AN 4.77
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
with metta
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
Re: Actors go to Hell?
Individual wrote: I seem to vaguely recall a certain modern Theravadin monk who ran a blog -- can't remember his name... It was dhamma-something or something-dhamma.
Anyway, despite being an ordained Theravada monk, he stated that he still watched films and television from time-to-time because his interpretation was that modern artistic works have a capacity for enlightenment that was not found in ancient times, where the acting and comedy was something like vaudeville.
Re: Actors go to Hell?
Very good points.Lazy_eye wrote:I would take issue with the generalization that theatre, in all forms, serves only to increase the veils of delusion in others, or to stir up emotional tempests. That's simply an inaccurate statement. Theatre over the ages has served different functions (depending on what genre we're talking about). In some cases, as with medieval morality plays, it was designed to teach lessons of virtue and vice. I think it was Samuel Johnson who said the purpose of theatre was to "entertain and instruct".
In ancient Greece, it provided a means for viewing existential problems with discernment. Aristotle argued that the function of drama was to help people become less entrapped by their emotions and better understand reality. Theatrical "catharsis" refers to a kind of purifying or cleansing (this is what the word "catharsis" literally means) which enables clear reflection to take place. In the modern period, Berthold Brecht said that theatre can have a distancing effect which strips away the fantasies that reinforce the existing power structures and allows people to look at society with a critical/dispassionate eye.
To put Shakespeare, Chekhov and Euripides in the same boat as Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck seems to me like a gross oversimplification. The goals of serious theater are directly opposite to that kind of demagoguery.
I have wept in movies, but not because I had only emotions stirred up, but because I experienced an expansion of my understanding, enlightening moments, and the ensuing thoughts triggered a cleansing process manifesting in tears, a mix of shame, gratitude, and hope.
I do need hope.
So I think it also depends on what is staged, and with which intention.
But who knows.
Re: Actors go to Hell?
tiltbillings wrote:Isn't that Laurence Olivier over there on the left?
Nope. Only comedians. I think that's Bob Hope.
adosa
"To avoid all evil, to cultivate good, and to cleanse one's mind — this is the teaching of the Buddhas" - Dhammapada 183
Re: Actors go to Hell?
No one asked for my view, so here it is anyway - chuckle. I did years as a musician, did a tiny bit of acting, and eventually grew to be a media artist as my preferred expression of the "artistic compulsion." So I guess I get to pick my hells out of the many that are available to me.??
It's been hinted several times, if not said outright, that the arts are like anything else. It is their use that makes them wholesome or unwholesome, conducive to the goal or to distraction, etc. If an actor stands on a stage, uttering lines that she has learned, to no audience, in what way is she distracting others from the path? Is she stepping off the path herself? And who are we to make that judgement. The artist usually has an urge related to his/her art...to compose, perform, create or interpret, for example. That urge is no different than the urge to eat. We can eat, speak, act, etc., mindfully or not.
The other point the Buddha made seems to agree with this. He commented that the actor that believes he is going to the land of laughing Devas by his acting is expressing Wrong View - and it is Wrong View that leads to Hell.
And what of the audience? Are the audiences any less kamma-inflicted than the performers - they choose to go and escape from reality, through the laughter, distraction, etc.
JMHO, but art is not wrong livelihood. Viewing art is not wrong action. What we do with that can be "Right or Wrong," but that is our choice, just like anything else.
These are just my views, so feel free to take them with a grain of salt or dismiss them entirely
Who, having trouble remembering my name today
It's been hinted several times, if not said outright, that the arts are like anything else. It is their use that makes them wholesome or unwholesome, conducive to the goal or to distraction, etc. If an actor stands on a stage, uttering lines that she has learned, to no audience, in what way is she distracting others from the path? Is she stepping off the path herself? And who are we to make that judgement. The artist usually has an urge related to his/her art...to compose, perform, create or interpret, for example. That urge is no different than the urge to eat. We can eat, speak, act, etc., mindfully or not.
The other point the Buddha made seems to agree with this. He commented that the actor that believes he is going to the land of laughing Devas by his acting is expressing Wrong View - and it is Wrong View that leads to Hell.
And what of the audience? Are the audiences any less kamma-inflicted than the performers - they choose to go and escape from reality, through the laughter, distraction, etc.
JMHO, but art is not wrong livelihood. Viewing art is not wrong action. What we do with that can be "Right or Wrong," but that is our choice, just like anything else.
These are just my views, so feel free to take them with a grain of salt or dismiss them entirely
Who, having trouble remembering my name today
Re: Actors go to Hell?
I'm not denying that the Buddha encouraged a belief in kammavipaka, of course he did. But the suttas (and the later Abhidhamma) are obsessed with the idea to the point where the Buddha's admonition seems warranted.cooran wrote:[quote="pulgaNone whatsoever. You didn't give the full quote. It simply means that attempting to work out of the results of kamma is so complicated that it would bring madness and vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. This is one of the famous Four Unconjecturables which the Buddha taught about.
Acintita Sutta AN 4.77
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
with metta
Chris
"Dhammā=Ideas. This is the clue to much of the Buddha's teaching." ~ Ven. Ñanavira, Commonplace Book