Buddhists March In Bangkok To Speak Out To The World To Stop Disrespecting Buddha

[camerata]

Buddhists march in Bangkok to speak out to the world to stop disrespecting Buddha

The Knowing Buddha Foundation is preparing a major march in Bangkok on 30 June, to show their respect for Buddha and to show how so many are disrespecting Buddha.

The KnowingBuddha Foundation is preparing a Buddhist March - the first time in history - on 30 June, in one of the Bangkok's most famous streets, Khao San Road, to speak out against the improper usage of Buddha's image in the modern world.

After being quiet for a long time on how the world uses Buddha's images and name in a disrespectful way, reportedly, Buddhists will be no be longer be queit. The Knowing Buddha organization is gathering a large group of Buddhists who don't want to be quiet any longer, and there message to the world is "Stop Disrespecting Buddha."

The March will contain signs to show that Buddha is their father religion, and they will show how the world should treats Buddha with a variety of signs. The high light of the March will be the enormous size signs depicting "Enough" on the Buddha Bar picture also the sign "No!" on the Disney movie "Snow Buddies" which use Buddha's name as a Dog.

Full article.

[jmdf103]

was the publishing of the danish mohammad cartoons wrong do you think camerata?

sure they were offensive to some, but freedom of expression is more important however

[Xangsamhua]

If the march is peaceful and respectful then the marchers are not imposing on anyone in pointing out that disrespect of Buddha images may be hurtful. I know they're just images and that dhamma practice is what really counts, etc, but if people want to know what Thai Buddhists think about the way images of the Buddha should be treated here's a way to find out.

If people in other countries are not interested in what Buddhists in faraway Thailand think, well so be it, but I suspect many are, and that young travellers in the Khao San precinct are well placed to tell people back home about the preferred and non-preferred way to treat the images.

I have some respect for any religion's images, even the sentimental ones we associate with the Virgin Mary and various saints in unlikely poses. They're important to many people, so why not treat them with respect, and that requires that we know how. The Knowing Buddha organization's advice on do's and don't's about Buddha images is at http://www.knowingbuddha.org/

[montrii]

Buddha himself, from my understanding of his teachings, would say this is a silly and senseless protest. He did not regard himself - let alone images of him - as someone who should be an object of worship, and would have said that it was perfectly permissible for others to disrespect him. These people have the wrong idea of Buddhism.

[Xangsamhua]

Buddha himself, from my understanding of his teachings, would say this is a silly and senseless protest. He did not regard himself - let alone images of him - as someone who should be an object of worship, and would have said that it was perfectly permissible for others to disrespect him. These people have the wrong idea of Buddhism.

Well, we can only speculate on what the Buddha would have thought and said. His first sermon was preached to those who actively disrespected him, though they changed their minds as he approached (or so the story goes). Nevertheless, once he gained the patronage of King Bimbisara, being disrespected wasn't really an issue for him. Even those who argued with him showed the normal courtesies.

In Islam, disrespect for the image of the prophet is impossible, as there are no images, Muslims take serious offence at the creation of any image of the prophet, whether respectful or disrespectful. Buddhists are different. Images are understood as representations, and Buddhism is filled with images of not only the Buddha but various bodhisattvas and saints, some of which are essentially visual personifications of concepts and values. People all over the world like images. They remind us of the people or ideas being represented. Those of Calvinistic bent might disapprove, of course.

We've had this discussion before on this forum and the tendency is to maintain that what people do out of ignorance or disrespect to an image is no big deal. It's superficial. But do members of this forum go out of their way to be disrespectful or inconsiderate themselves? I doubt it. We maintain the normal courtesies and indicators of respect, and if people aren't sure e.g. where to place a Buddha image, they ask. What happens to an image may, in the big picture, be no big deal, but it's also not too much to ask, is it, for us to be respectful of people's sensitivities and to follow fairly standard protocols in regard to images of the Buddha?

[camerata]

Regardless of what the Buddha said, most people born in Buddhist countries do feel a special reverence for images of the Buddha so I don't see any problem with them reminding foreigners that the Buddha isn't just a cool marketing image. I mean, is there a "Jehovah bar" or "Jesus Belly Ice-cream"?

[Xangsamhua]

Regardless of what the Buddha said, most people born in Buddhist countries do feel a special reverence for images of the Buddha so I don't see any problem with them reminding foreigners that the Buddha isn't just a cool marketing image. I mean, is there a "Jehovah bar" or "Jesus Belly Ice-cream"?

You've said in 52 words what took me 278!

[camerata]

was the publishing of the danish mohammad cartoons wrong do you think camerata?

sure they were offensive to some, but freedom of expression is more important however

I don't want to get into this specific case, as it will quickly go off-topic. But in general what matters to Buddhists is Right Speech, not freedom of speech. If you know something you say will be hurtful, you choose not to say it (with a few exceptions noted in our recent thread on Right Speech).

[montrii]

Buddha himself, from my understanding of his teachings, would say this is a silly and senseless protest. He did not regard himself - let alone images of him - as someone who should be an object of worship, and would have said that it was perfectly permissible for others to disrespect him. These people have the wrong idea of Buddhism.

Well, we can only speculate on what the Buddha would have thought and said . . . Nevertheless, once he gained the patronage of King Bimbisara, being disrespected wasn't really an issue for him.

You're right, I can't know exactly what he would have said. That would be an impossibility, anyhow, as he isn't alive in this age. But I believe I have a pretty good idea of what he thought, and can extrapolate his general attitudes to such things from what's been passed down. This kind of speculation has a foundation. And I don't think it depended on patronage of whomever. Actually, no matter who is your sponsor, be it the Czar of All The Russias, Napoleon, or Mohammed himself, there are gonna be people who disrespect you. The Taliban blowing up those ancient statues in Afghanistan was certainly disrespectful. I'm saying that this sort of disrespect is the sort of thing that Buddhism would say is unimportant, except to the people who committed the disrespect. And that's their business, it should have nothing to do with the way we live our own lives - except, perhaps, to serve as an example of the human tendency to attach oneself to illusion. We shouldn't take it personally and if what I understand of Buddha is correct, he wouldn't have.

On the other hand, I take your point. I personally am respectful to the images. They have a certain kind of power, to me as well as to others. I just don't believe in getting all worked up about people not being that sensitive, or even downright insensitive. As another poster says, Buddhism is about not doing harm, not hurting others. And in the "sticks and stones may break my bones . . ." tradition, I'd say that disrespect shown to images, while maybe distasteful and repugnant, does not need to provoke us to anger, most especially if we are Buddhist. To get upset about such things is to miss the whole point.

Edited June 30, 2012 by montrii

[Xangsamhua]

Buddha himself, from my understanding of his teachings, would say this is a silly and senseless protest. He did not regard himself - let alone images of him - as someone who should be an object of worship, and would have said that it was perfectly permissible for others to disrespect him. These people have the wrong idea of Buddhism.

Well, we can only speculate on what the Buddha would have thought and said . . . Nevertheless, once he gained the patronage of King Bimbisara, being disrespected wasn't really an issue for him.

You're right, I can't know exactly what he would have said. That would be an impossibility, anyhow, as he isn't alive in this age. But I believe I have a pretty good idea of what he thought, and can extrapolate his general attitudes to such things from what's been passed down. This kind of speculation has a foundation. And I don't think it depended on patronage of whomever. Actually, no matter who is your sponsor, be it the Czar of All The Russias, Napoleon, or Mohammed himself, there are gonna be people who disrespect you. The Taliban blowing up those ancient statues in Afghanistan was certainly disrespectful. I'm saying that this sort of disrespect is the sort of thing that Buddhism would say is unimportant, except to the people who committed the disrespect. And that's their business, it should have nothing to do with the way we live our own lives - except, perhaps, to serve as an example of the human tendency to attach oneself to illusion. We shouldn't take it personally and if what I understand of Buddha is correct, he wouldn't have.

On the other hand, I take your point. I personally am respectful to the images. They have a certain kind of power, to me as well as to others. I just don't believe in getting all worked up about people not being that sensitive, or even downright insensitive. As another poster says, Buddhism is about not doing harm, not hurting others. And in the "sticks and stones may break my bones . . ." tradition, I'd say that disrespect shown to images, while maybe distasteful and repugnant, does not need to provoke us to anger, most especially if we are Buddhist. To get upset about such things is to miss the whole point.

Well said.

[Para]

IMO people that show disrespect to Buddhist Images don't understand Buddhism so having a march to tell them to stop and start showing respect is a little impractical.

A Buddhist knows what is right and what is wrong who do you even start explaining incorrect behavior for example the pointing of ones toes towards an Icon to say a Christian or a Muslin? Not disrespecting either religions because as sure as eggs are eggs I wouldn't know what either of those religions would consider disrespectful.

Aside from blatant disrespect of course.

Anything that can potentially cause people to become even slightly interested in Buddhism has to be good.

[Several]

In the Buddhas time there were no images of him, I believe. The wheel and the footprint were the original iconography. The images we see now are based on Greek sculpure. Also I am not so sure what Buddhas opinion would hve been. More concerned with Dhamma than cult of personaltiy?

In Australia there is a bumper sticker that says 'I have the body of a god. Unfortunately its Buddha.' Its funny, but it is disrespectful (part of Aussie culture. Nevermind) and innacurate. I doubt Buddha was portly on one meal a day and frequent walks.

As long as those within the Sasana are respectful its ok. The non-religious will say whatever they please. As Camerata pointed out we must observe right speech, others can choose.

So I don't think its such a bad thing provided we respond to disrespect with Dhamma and not get dragged into argument.

[camerata]

These jokes about the Buddha being fat of course refer to the "laughing Buddha," who isn't a Buddha at all. There was one on the series Finder the other night, something like: "You're an over-achiever. Unfortunately, like the Buddha, you're an over-eater too." It's kind of weird that many in the West think the Buddha is a grinning fat guy with beads round his neck.

[huli]

These jokes about the Buddha being fat of course refer to the "laughing Buddha," who isn't a Buddha at all. There was one on the series Finder the other night, something like: "You're an over-achiever. Unfortunately, like the Buddha, you're an over-eater too." It's kind of weird that many in the West think the Buddha is a grinning fat guy with beads round his neck.

yesterday I was at a Japanese restaurant in Chiang Mai. They had the Buddha shrine with both a Thai Buddha image and one of the fat, laughing fellow. The Thai Buddha image was towards the back in the middle with the other one more to the front on the side. They were both gold color. The Thai one was slightly higher. My wife and I both noticed the inclusion of the fat fellow. I have also seen them on temple grounds, I think because of a hefty donation by perhaps a Japanese or Chinese. My wife says the fat Buddha originates in China, named "Pasankajai". Like many of the Mahayana inventions, I don't care for him. They ought to charge those guys for disrespecting Buddhism.

Edited July 7, 2012 by huli

[Xangsamhua]

My wife says the fat Buddha originates in China, named "Pasankajai". Like many of the Mahayana inventions, I don't care for him. They ought to charge those guys for disrespecting Buddhism.

Well, the Chinese don't see it that way. I suppose we could charge them for all the visual monstrosities they seem to like, but that would be unfair as well as racist.

The Wikipedia article on Budai (the "Laughing Buddha") is quite interesting. But you're right, there is something rococo about some Mahayana representations (not Zen though).

Edited July 7, 2012 by Xangsamhua

[camerata]

The Chinese Laughing Buddha was incorporated into the Japanese "Seven Lucky Gods" as Hotei. Perhaps that explains its presence in a Japanese restaurant?

I don't know about rococo... most statues of the Laughing Buddha in Thailand seem just plain tacky to me. The only beautiful ones I've seen are the white jade statues at Wat Phra Kaeo, Chiang Rai.

[Xangsamhua]

The Chinese Laughing Buddha was incorporated into the Japanese "Seven Lucky Gods" as Hotei. Perhaps that explains its presence in a Japanese restaurant?

I don't know about rococo... most statues of the Laughing Buddha in Thailand seem just plain tacky to me. The only beautiful ones I've seen are the white jade statues at Wat Phra Kaeo, Chiang Rai.

Tacky is right. I guess I find rococo pretty tacky, too, but maybe that's not fair.

[Jawnie]

Respecting (or disrespecting) images of the Buddha is not about the Buddha. It's about maintaining and extending mindfulness of the Buddha and his teachings. As one progresses along the path from Theravada to Mahayana and Vajrayana, devotion to the teacher (in living form or as an image) becomes an "escalating" requirement.

[hookedondhamma]

Respecting (or disrespecting) images of the Buddha is not about the Buddha. It's about maintaining and extending mindfulness of the Buddha and his teachings. As one progresses along the path from Theravada to Mahayana and Vajrayana, devotion to the teacher (in living form or as an image) becomes an "escalating" requirement.

Hi Jawnie - maybe I ate too much somtam this morning and the peppers are messing with my head, but I'm confused.

What exactly do you mean by 'As one progresses along the path from Therevada to Mahayana and Vajrayana'?

Do you mean that each branch is a step higher than the other, or holds practices that are more refined than the others? Or did you mean 'as one progresses along the path following the teachings of his/her respective sect'?

[Several]

My brother is a Vajrayana practitioner. His knowledge is great, his understanding is... discernable.

[Jawnie]

Respecting (or disrespecting) images of the Buddha is not about the Buddha. It's about maintaining and extending mindfulness of the Buddha and his teachings. As one progresses along the path from Theravada to Mahayana and Vajrayana, devotion to the teacher (in living form or as an image) becomes an "escalating" requirement.

Hi Jawnie - maybe I ate too much somtam this morning and the peppers are messing with my head, but I'm confused.

What exactly do you mean by 'As one progresses along the path from Therevada to Mahayana and Vajrayana'?

Do you mean that each branch is a step higher than the other, or holds practices that are more refined than the others? Or did you mean 'as one progresses along the path following the teachings of his/her respective sect'?

Yes, Mahayana and Vajrayana practices are more 'refined', more direct, and work more quickly than Theravada. Theravada does not have the guru-disciple relationship; Mahayana has the relationship; and in Vajrayana, one surrenders completely to one's guru as being a living embodiment of the enlightened mind of the Buddha.

[hookedondhamma]

Respecting (or disrespecting) images of the Buddha is not about the Buddha. It's about maintaining and extending mindfulness of the Buddha and his teachings. As one progresses along the path from Theravada to Mahayana and Vajrayana, devotion to the teacher (in living form or as an image) becomes an "escalating" requirement.

Hi Jawnie - maybe I ate too much somtam this morning and the peppers are messing with my head, but I'm confused.

What exactly do you mean by 'As one progresses along the path from Therevada to Mahayana and Vajrayana'?

Do you mean that each branch is a step higher than the other, or holds practices that are more refined than the others? Or did you mean 'as one progresses along the path following the teachings of his/her respective sect'?

Yes, Mahayana and Vajrayana practices are more 'refined', more direct, and work more quickly than Theravada. Theravada does not have the guru-disciple relationship; Mahayana has the relationship; and in Vajrayana, one surrenders completely to one's guru as being a living embodiment of the enlightened mind of the Buddha.

Ah, ok - thanks for the clear-up :-)

[meatboy]

its a pity they dont practice what they preach,after seeing the film on the news of young monks being beaten black and blue then locked up in a cage like a wild animal they dont get my respect.

[Several]

its a pity they dont practice what they preach,after seeing the film on the news of young monks being beaten black and blue then locked up in a cage like a wild animal they dont get my respect.

Did they say where this happened? Or give much background? Sounds bad, but you can't trust news services to provide 100% truth. Its usually their opinion on part of what may have happened. Allegedly.

[meatboy]

its a pity they dont practice what they preach,after seeing the film on the news of young monks being beaten black and blue then locked up in a cage like a wild animal they dont get my respect.

Did they say where this happened? Or give much background? Sounds bad, but you can't trust news services to provide 100% truth. Its usually their opinion on part of what may have happened. Allegedly.

the actual film showed the monks badly bruised on the back of their legs with the cage in the temple grounds,their parents are to take legal action against the person or person's that did this but i understand they have dissapeared,every one is third party to this or did they[monks] think they were monkeys in the cage.

[camerata]

Did this happen in Thailand? Do you have a link to the film or the name of the film?

[Several]

It does sound bad, but you can' t convict without evidence. Was it supposed to be monks who administered the beating? I read many things like this in forums and news where accusations are made but there are few supporting facts. I have also heard of some bizarre things happening in Temples but these things, even if proven to be true, are not the norm.

Is it possible nobody saw anything because the victims did this to each other playing games and are trying to pass the blame? Is there footage of them actually in the cage/s or just the cages themselves? You can't say for sure without more proof.

One thing you can say is that you can't see bruises on monkeys.

[meatboy]

it was either on channel 3or 7, 7am-8am,3young monks in robes with the bruising on the back of the legs,they interveiwed a senior monk who said the monk responsible had left the temple.the 3youn monks explained how they were beaten and locked in the cage for not leaning the prayers.

[camerata]

So, basically an isolated case of a rogue monk who has since fled the scene. I don't think this has much to do with Thais wanting foreigners to be more respectful towards images of the Buddha.

[Several]

Perhaps there is a slim connection. Some major news channels fill in time by reporting on 'unorthodox' occurences in Buddhism. I remember seeing a particular journalist interview a monk who wound up on utube kicking things. The media rarely go into positive messages of any kind. When farangs arrive in Thailand they often see whats 'bad' about Buddhism, a view supported by media. This attitude can carry over to the imagery. As I said, slim.

Another one I saw was a teacher I worked with just prior to my ordination had two prominent Buddhist tattoos. I later heard that when this man met another young man who was considering ordaining he advised the youth to forget it, better to get drunk and chase girls. Surely there are enough guys doing this already as it is an industry, but it struck me as hypocritical and downright rude. Why parade around with images of Buddha on your skin giving ill considered advice in direct opposition to Dhamma? Luckily the young fella ignored him. But I personally found it disrespectful and I expect at least some Thais would too.

Edited July 17, 2012 by Several