The Buddha, Imagination and The Artistic Process

[MayaRefugee]

Kim,

pt1 said in his extremely thorough contribution that "all external materiality (rupa) is conditioned by temperature" - being ignorant of this I used the word God - something arranges/acts upon/conditions the four-elements that is not man and I don't think it's imaginary.

Peace.

[Annapurna]

but bringing 'God' into this discussion as the ultimate creator (i.e. inspiration, if not direct creator) of anyone's art work derails the discussion completely

I think if you believe that is what happened you misunderstood Mays and my exchange.

And actually, YOU are derailing the topic now... We had already cleared it up, and had moved on to something else, when you picked it up.

thought the easiest solution was to cut him/her/it out of the discussion

But hey, please don't try to suffocate our discussion with a gag order...ok?

Since I happen not to believe in the existence of this interventionist kind of God*

Belief in God was no discussion point. "Theist dogma" was. A fine difference.

*FWIW, I have grave doubts about any other kind, too.

Doubt about everything, or how do you mean?

[Annapurna]

Conclusion: For lack of a better word to describe things not man-made, such as nature, Maya used the word 'God'.

Can we agree on that and go ?

[Kim OHara]

Conclusion: For lack of a better word to describe things not man-made, such as nature, Maya used the word 'God'.

Can we agree on that and go ?

Isn't 'nature' a better word for 'nature'?

But OK, use 'God' if you must - so long as you then don't fall into the trap of believing that this "God" has wishes or intentions akin to our own and expressed through direct action in the world. (I know, I shouldn't need to say that. But it can be incredibly difficult to avoid falling back into the mental and verbal habits of our profoundly Christianised culture.)
I really meant it when I said that derails the discussion. There's a logical rule which I think of as, 'If [impossible] then [anything].' I couldn't find it when I went looking for it a minute ago but it does apply.


Kim

[Annapurna]

Conclusion: For lack of a better word to describe things not man-made, such as nature, Maya used the word 'God'.

Can we agree on that and go ?

Isn't 'nature' a better word for 'nature'?

But OK, use 'God' if you must - so long as you then don't fall into the trap of believing that this "God" has wishes or intentions akin to our own and expressed through direct action in the world. (I know, I shouldn't need to say that. But it can be incredibly difficult to avoid falling back into the mental and verbal habits of our profoundly Christianised culture.)
I really meant it when I said that derails the discussion. There's a logical rule which I think of as, 'If [impossible] then [anything].' I couldn't find it when I went looking for it a minute ago but it does apply.


Kim

Isn't 'nature' a better word for 'nature'?

Maya didn't say nature....but "this something other"....that puts it into perspective i think.

As you say chownah, both "ordinary objects" and "works of art" can provoke insight however "ordinary objects" (which by ordinary I'm presuming you mean natural/organic) have been fashioned/shaped by the designs of something other than the body-mind of man - let's call this something other God for convenience, "works of art" obviously haven't been fashioned/shaped by the designs of God.

[Kim OHara]

Hi, Annapurna,
I'm going to emphasise a different part of that quote:

As you say chownah, both "ordinary objects" and "works of art" can provoke insight however "ordinary objects" (which by ordinary I'm presuming you mean natural/organic) have been fashioned/shaped by the designs of something other than the body-mind of man - let's call this something other God for convenience, "works of art" obviously haven't been fashioned/shaped by the designs of God.

"by the designs of" gives away the weasel phrase: nature does not have intentions or designs - only sentient beings do that.
But I'm not going to take this any further. It is a side-issue, really, and we're getting muddled about who said what anyway. If the discussion about art can proceed without invoking this concept, I'll continue to participate; if not, not.


Kim

[MayaRefugee]

Kim,

I know you said you don't want to elaborate but isn't the tendency/instinct of nature to strive toward balance/harmony/a certain order indicative of the fact it has an intention/a design/a purpose?

Peace.

[Kim OHara]

Kim,
I know you said you don't want to elaborate but isn't the tendency/instinct of nature to strive toward balance/harmony/a certain order indicative of the fact it has an intention/a design/a purpose?

Well ... it's your thread more than anyone else's ... here goes:
No. As I said, only sentient beings have intentions, designs or purposes.
Knowingly or (more likely) not, you are actually paraphrasing the classic 'Argument from design for the existence of God'. Look up that phrase or 'Watchmaker'. You will come across Dawkins' 'Blind Watchmaker' which is a thorough refutation, as well as a whole lot of 'Intelligent Design' stuff which is, IMO, best left well alone. :cookoo:


Kim

[Annapurna]

If the discussion about art can proceed without invoking this concept, I'll continue to participate; if not, not.

Oh, Kim, come on.
If you don't want to reply to certain points that arise, then don't. Just ignore them and reply to what you deem fit, but please don't try to control the discussion with subtle forms of blackmail.

"If you....-then I....".

[Kim OHara]

Hi, Annapurna,
I'm not in any way trying to blackmail anyone or control the thread.
I (really truly) didn't want or plan to say any more about 'God' but when the OP'er asked a direct question I figured, as I said, they had the right ...

Kim

[MayaRefugee]

I've done a bit of investigating and have come across this:

the term ‘dhamma-niyama’ is used in the commentaries in a way that leans on the sutta expression ‘dhamma-niyaamataa’, which is a synonym for conditionality in the sense that there is an intrinsic necessity of things in nature and the universe.

It was taken from here: http://www.dhivan.net-a.googlepages.com ... sessay.pdf

Dhamma-niyaamataa: that which, as cause, invariably fixes things in our minds, as effects.

This was taken from here: http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma2/distinction.html

'Bhikkhus, whether there be an appearance or non-appearance of a Tathaagata, this determination of nature (dhamma.t.thitataa), this orderliness of nature [dhamma-niyaamataa] prevails: the relatedness of this to that" [idappaccayataa]'. [S ii. 25].

This was taken from here:http://www.westernbuddhistreview.com/vol2/tanha.html

Things in nature, by obeying or acting in accordance with this "intrinsic neccesity", when observed seem to be carrying out an intent or a purpose - I'm probably anthropomorphizing when I observe this -

Peace.

[pt1]

Things in nature, by obeying or acting in accordance with this "intrinsic neccesity", when observed seem to be carrying out an intent or a purpose - I'm probably anthropomorphizing when I observe this -

It's useful to remember that according to theravada, it's all conditioned. All things - dhammas (except nibbana) are said to arise based on conditions for a very brief moment and then disappear forever, never to arise again. So, it's a bit irrelevant to speak about a purpose/intent behind a conditioned process, just as it is irrelevant to speak about existence or non-existence of self.

You can read more about the 5 niyamas in The Manual of cosmic order, this is a work by a great Burmese scholar monk Ledi Sayadaw - I think he summarizes the commentarial position on the 5 niyamas there. These are basically 5 laws that have to do with temperature (caloric order) acting as condition for other dhammas, kamma as condition (moral order), etc. Either way, these are just laws, kind of like laws of nature, so it's important not to conceive some sort of a being or intent/design behind them, as one would in a theistic religion. Kind of like gravity, it just works when the appropriate conditions are there for it to work (two bodies with masses), and doesn't need some sentient purpose/intent behind it to work.

Best wishes

[MayaRefugee]

Thanks pt1!



It's a very interesting topic and discovering it opened my eyes up to the presence of a "sentience projector" in my mind - I'm always asking what's the reason for or what is the thinking behind things being the way they are - I'm guessing when I understand the 5 niyamas better this will come to an end. When I was young whenever my curiousity had me asking my parents questions they couldn't answer it was always "Gods" doing so that's probably where I got it from.

Anyway, this came about because chownah said "ordinary objects" can be just as insightful/beautiful as "works of art", where are we with this now?

Is it suffice to say temperature can create objects which seem to be at rest that can be insightful/beautiful and an artist can emulate this phenomenon?

[pt1]

Good questions. Sorry, I don't have time at the moment, I'll answer you tomorrow as I'd prefer to give you a proper reply rather than just a few rushed sentences.

Best wishes

[Annapurna]

Hi, Annapurna,
I'm not in any way trying to blackmail anyone or control the thread.
I (really truly) didn't want or plan to say any more about 'God' but when the OP'er asked a direct question I figured, as I said, they had the right ...

Kim