Damaged Buddha Images

[bangon04]

There was a flurry of interest during the recent protests when a large Buddha image toppled off its stand at the Reds stage and was heavily damaged. This was covered / hushed up very quickly in the media although many Thai acquaintances know about it. It seems to be a matter of shame somehow.

Thais oftem donate damaged images to the temple, I see. I am talking about accidental damage, of course, not deliberate damage such as the Erewan shrine.

So the question is - does this have any relation to Buddhist teachings, or is it simply superstition about good/bad omens and portents? Is a carved or cast statue just an impermanent object once broken, or is there a specific reason why damaged images must be shunned?

[luangtom]

It is tradition and superstition. The Lord Buddha did not condone or advise the reverence for images of himself or any other. It is not a true Buddhist teaching. Mankind needs to grasp or cling to something to pay homage to, not just a theory or a teaching. So, hundred of years after the death of the Lord Buddha images began appearing and it evolved into what we have in the present age.

[rodcourt49]

It is tradition and superstition. The Lord Buddha did not condone or advise the reverence for images of himself or any other. It is not a true Buddhist teaching. Mankind needs to grasp or cling to something to pay homage to, not just a theory or a teaching. So, hundred of years after the death of the Lord Buddha images began appearing and it evolved into what we have in the present age.

..a local Thai Historian friend told me some time ago that Buddha images from India that are in the slightest way damaged hold no value to them religious or intrinsic and are discarded..whereas in Thailand quite the opposite..in fact, the way and how and when the damage occurred could be construed as adding to the value of the relic.

His name is Smarn KITIPARN a charming old gentleman with a wealth of knowledge..he also translates Thai documents to English.

[bangon04]

It is tradition and superstition. The Lord Buddha did not condone or advise the reverence for images of himself or any other. It is not a true Buddhist teaching. Mankind needs to grasp or cling to something to pay homage to, not just a theory or a teaching. So, hundred of years after the death of the Lord Buddha images began appearing and it evolved into what we have in the present age.

So if the image is simply a focus for personal meditation, then reverence for the physical image itself is misplaced / misguided?