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.
octathlon wrote: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.
Hi Lazy Eye,
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).
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
tiltbillings wrote:Isn't that Laurence Olivier over there on the left?
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
"Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business. Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison.
"These are the five types of business that a lay follower should not engage in."
Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 8 guests