Buddha statues: idols or icons?
[ by Charles Cameron — Pat Robertson, the Taliban, Bamiyan, Buddha statues, a Zen tale, Petraeus and Pastor Jones ]
.
credits: (a) wikipedia under cc license, (b) dharmashop
.
Here, by way of context, is a story posted on the Treeleaf Zendo site, and widely discussed in the Catholic blogosphere:
On a cold winter night, a big snow storm hit the city and the temple where Dan Xia served as a Monk got snowed in. Cut off from outside traffic, the coal delivery man could not get to the Zen Monastery. Soon it ran out of heating fuel after a few days and everybody was shivering in the cold. The monks could not even cook their meals.
Dan Xia began to remove the wooden Buddha Statues from the display and put them into the fireplace.
“What are you doing?” the monks were shocked to see that the holy Buddha Statues were being burnt inside the fire place. “You are burning our holy religious artifacts! You are insulting the Buddha!”
“Are these statues alive and do they have any Buddha nature?” asked Master Dan Xia.
“Of course not,” replied the monks. “They are made of wood. They cannot have Buddha Nature.”
“OK. Then they are just pieces of firewood and therefore can be used as heating fuel,” said Master Dan Xia. “Can you pass me another piece of firewood please? I need some warmth.”
The next day, the snow storm had gone and Dan Xia went into town and brought back some replacement Buddha Statues. After putting them on the displays, he began to kneel down and burn incense sticks to them.
“Are you worshiping firewood?” ask the monks who are confused for what he was doing.
“No. I am treating these statues as holy artifacts and am honouring the Buddha.” replied Dan Xia.
*
In light of that, compare and contrast this recent video of Pat Robertson:
with this video (I don’t think you need to see all of it, just a taste perhaps?) titled The Beheading of the Buddha, posted on YouTube and “presented” by Al-Muhaajiroun:
and both of those with this third video, of Pastor Jones, discussing both his own burning of the Qur’an and GEN Petraeus‘ powerful and intelligent response…
*
I think we should discuss these matters in an open and respectful way, and hope that this post will provide an appropriately respectful and open-minded framing for such a discussion.
As to my own view – I see a consideration that whatever opens us up to compassion and clarity is an icon and a grace, and another consideration that whatever closes us off from clarity and compassion is an idol or a poison…
***
For those of a scholarly bent, here’s a downloadable fatwa on the Taliban’s destruction of the great Buddhas of Bamiyan — from which the screen-grab below is taken:
May 19th, 2012 at 3:37 am
I read on some website run by break-away “traditional” Orthodox Christians that some of them won’t patronize Chinese restuarants because they have Buddha statues (!) Things just keep getting crazier.
May 19th, 2012 at 2:21 pm
Hi Charles –
.
I think you’ve got it right:
.
I see a consideration that whatever opens us up to compassion and clarity is an icon and a grace, and another consideration that whatever closes us off from clarity and compassion is an idol or a poison…
.
But the thing about graven images is interesting. Some cultures don’t like to be photographed. I’ve usually shied away from being photographed.
.
Does it have to do with inauthenticity – an abstraction of a thing rather than the thing itself, particularly pernicious when the thing is animate, human? And not knowing which is me? And then hardens into dogma as living religion so often does?
May 19th, 2012 at 7:16 pm
The less said about Pat Robinson, the better. The same for Jones. Buddha statues (big or small) are no more idols than the images of saints in Catholic churches. He puts himself in league with the Taliban who blew up the giant Buddhas.
As far as burning Korans goes, I could respect their beliefs a lot more if they respected ours. Neither a Bible nor a Koran is a sacred, holy object – it is the content that is holy (at lease, in one case). Burning a Koran is just like burning a Flag: a sign of contempt for the things it stands for. (I would like to live in a country where anyone could burn the flag – without consequence, but where no one would ever want to.)
May 19th, 2012 at 9:39 pm
“The less said about Pat Robinson, the better. The same for Jones. Buddha statues (big or small) are no more idols than the images of saints in Catholic churches. He puts himself in league with the Taliban who blew up the giant Buddhas.”
.
He does and probably ( I don’t know for certain) would consider images of Catholic saints idolatrous as would the Taliban and Salafi Islamists ( who do not approve of commemorative practices of other Muslims, such as tombs of Caliphs, graves of Sufi saints or lingering your gaze too long on the Prophet’s House in Medina, which can result in being accosted by the Mu’atawain). This visceral iconoclasm is partly behind the Saudi disregard of antiquities in their building projects, even Islamic ones.
May 19th, 2012 at 10:07 pm
Hi all:
.
Cheryl:
.
I don’t have a response as yet, but really like that question you pose.
.
Quoth Zen:
It doesn’t sound like it.. The question raised, somewhat in the manner of requesting a fatwa, is:
Robertson’s answer is:
No mention there of destroying the Christian statues next to her Buddha one — “No it’s not. Take them all our and break them” would have covered that possibility.
.
There certainly are those who would regard statues of the saints as idols — but PR doesn’t appear to be one of them, or at least not intent on making that particular point on this occasion.
.
How does PR think someone should be breaking someone else’s stuff anyhow?
May 20th, 2012 at 12:24 am
I’ve always understood the technical distinction to be: Idols are worshiped as if they are God, or an embodiment of God on Earth; icons are utilized as reference points to turn our mind to God (or to anything, really. E.g., a sports icon might turn our minds toward the idea/concept of excellence and dedication.)
.
But in practice, particularly when it comes to religious idolatry and iconography, so much blur and overlap occurs, the differences often disappear.
.
Cheryl’s question is prescient. Does it have to do with inauthenticity – an abstraction of a thing rather than the thing itself…? I’ve always admired the Islamic principle of avoiding graven or drawn images, which you can see reflected in their art, in which they use geometric figures, lines in complex designs, and so forth, in order to avoid representing “directly” humans (and prophets, and gods.) In fact, you have more examples of iconography (perhaps idolatry also) in your post: Videos from YouTube. Those are mere pixels on a computer screen; yet, as with movies, television shows, and talking heads on cable news, they are taken to be authentic, real.
.
For some time now, I’ve told myself after seeing a particularly good movie that seemed to represent Something ™ that this representation I’ve just watched came from the head of another human being, or several: story creator, screenwriter, director, actors, set designers. It isn’t necessarily a message from the Universe or from God, a crack in the Veil. Most significantly however, for me, the fact that the same movie can inspire thousands or millions people in exactly the same way seems amazing to me, especially also because it came from the mind of only a handful of people. So, also, those science fiction movies that seem to represent the future, or historical biographies which seem to represent the past, are merely the imaginings of a handful. Some viewers might see a particular movie and interpret it for days later as an icon, a suggestion of ideas and realities; but others may think it is something more, e.g. a stunning event in world history. It is funny that the term “cult following” can be used both for movies and for religious groups. Or “fans” comes from the word “fanatics.”
.
But when it comes to religion, ZZMike’s comments are prescient also. Burning a Koran is just like burning a Flag: a sign of contempt for the things it stands for. It is almost as if the Koran embodies God, or the flag embodies the U.S. In other words, God or the U.S. has descended to take form in that book or flag. So are they therefore idolatries for some, but icons for others? A holy book may be a special case, insofar as the believers believe it was inspired by God in a very direct way.
.
But a final note. Humans have a propensity for iconography. When we see fried chicken for instance, we may think, Yummy! and eat it; but, we never saw the salmonella in it. The same goes for when we see anything. We only see the surface, or what is readily available to our senses. When we see a tree, we see an image of a whole, we think, but we aren’t seeing those parts within the bark or under the ground. When we see a person, we only see the surface and behaviors, not the inner workings and beliefs and motives. I lump this whole dynamic into the idea of performativity….but that’s a subject that would require a much longer comment!
May 20th, 2012 at 12:41 am
Want to note, and forgot to, that Pat Robertson’s advice could be a response to iconography rather than idolatry. Having an icon of Buddha might turn the Christian’s mind and thoughts toward Buddhist teachings and away from Christian teachings, or might muddle or muddy the Christian teachings.
May 20th, 2012 at 2:44 am
Hi Charles,
.
” No mention there of destroying the Christian statues next to her Buddha one — “No it’s not. Take them all our and break them” would have covered that possibility.”
.
The key words are “Christian statues”. Well, does PR consider Catholics to be Christians? Some fundamentalist Protestants view the Catholic Church as the Whore of Babylon – ex. Rev. Ian Paisley, or the Pope as the Antichrist, see here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/michele-bachmanns-former-church-explains-popeanti-christ-claims/2011/07/15/gIQAzMG7FI_story.html
May 20th, 2012 at 6:26 am
Hi Zen:
Apparently he does. Here’s his comment on the death of Pope John Paul II :
Another time, he said of JPII:
Either way though, PR is condemning a Buddhist statue, not the Christian ones.
May 20th, 2012 at 6:55 am
Curtis:
.
Terrific comments, especially the first! Many thanks!
.
Looking at this from the theological side, there’s one more distinction made by Catholics that may be of interest — the distinction between doulia and latria: doulia in Catholic theology is the worship due only to God, while latria is the reverence paid to the saints. But that’s a distinction of spiritual target, if you like.
.
The ikonostasis in an Orthodox church serves a double purpose, as I understand it: it veils the laity from a metaphysical mystery — that of the Eucharistic transformation of bread into Body, wine into Blood — so bright it might overwhelm them (as one shields one’s eyes from the midday sun), while at the same time providing them with a contemplative representation through which they may deepen themselves towards and into that mystery.
.
Here’s one explanation of that deepening:
Theotokos, God-bearer, is the general Orthodox title of the Virgin Mary.
May 24th, 2012 at 3:58 pm
A little late returning to this.
.
From the quoted description, it would seem that the Iconostasis may be a special kind of icon: a kind of doorway. Not only does it serve as a guide for turning eyes/mind toward God, but it actually opens up the connection or permits passage from Here to There.
.
There does seem to be a tendency in iconography to take a more-than-intellectual approach to icons. A great deal of transference occurs, and intellectual, emotional, and even spiritual confusion results. Identities become mixed up. So, we sometimes see riots at soccer stadiums, or bickering over American Idol winners, etc.
.
Let us say that, in some circumstances, the doorway itself is no longer seen. Either the thing it represents or symbolizes is seen instead — the icon becomes the thing, or becomes an idol — or perhaps one’s emotional attachment to the represented thing is seen instead of the door, so that an attack on the icon becomes an attack on oneself.
.
A little backtracking. I used the example of trees in my previous comment when explaining what I consider to be a natural state of humanity. We see surfaces and are prone to fill in the blanks, as a matter of course. Aside from the case of a religious worship of trees (say, druidism), there is nonetheless a tendency to idolize all that we see. I’d mentioned that an idol, unlike an icon, is thought to be an embodiment of God or worshiped as if it is God, but then such a definition would require us to have a firm definition of “God”—and I doubt we’ll find a definition with any specificity upon which we can all agree. So I’m reminded of the old saw about worshiping coin or wealth vs worshiping God: These trees, other material objects are given reverence merely by being thought real. Or rather, the whole we imagine from the surfaces we see is thought real. I think there is a case to be made for a definition of idolatry as opposed to iconography that does not require a too-narrow use of God.
.
Finally, something that has occurred to me since leaving my original comments. Begging the question that my description of our interactions with the world are as I’ve described them above, then we find a very, very special case, and consequence: From infancy, we are constantly surrounded by persons who we only see partially but in whom we must infer greater depth. I.e., we see their surfaces and behaviors, but our interactions with others always reinforce the idea that something else is going on within them (motivations, feelings, and so forth.) I wonder if this habitual and well-trained process leads us to be far more susceptible to idolatry of persons, and specifically of images of persons. So for the Buddha statues or the Islamic proscription against representing persons in art (or at least, prophets and Allah)….I can see where a defacement of those statues might work as a suitable barrier to a too-easy idolatry. The eyes have it, in other words.
May 24th, 2012 at 8:37 pm
Very interesting thoughts, Curtis. I need to ponder them, but wanted to say a quick word of thanks in case other things intervene and i fail to respond more fully.