Buddha images should not be used as items of living room decoration.
fernrichardson wrote:1) Is it appropriate for non-Buddhists to use Buddhist statuary in their gardens?
2) If there are circumstances in which such people could respectfully use Buddhist statuary in their gardens, are there guidelines for use, placement, care of the statuary, etc?
fernrichardson wrote:Thank you very much for your responses Individual and theravada_guy!
Individual--Since it seems that you feel that the lack of scriptural guidance on the matter of Buddha statues means that you're agnostic on whether non-Buddhists should use Buddha statues, do you care how they treat the statue in their garden?
clw_uk wrote:Its just a statue...
Goofaholix wrote:I don't know about other asian cultures but i think most Thais would consider it wrong to put a Buddha image in the garden
It could be, but it's also an important symbol!
Is the American flag "just a flag"?
If symbols of America or Buddhism, or pride in America or Buddhism... if these things lead to an appreciation of freedom, then good. But if they lead to anything bad, then... burn the flag and smash the statue; it's just a flag or a statue, after all.
clw_uk wrote:It could be, but it's also an important symbol!
Its a statue. If you get upset because someone throws it on the flow or uses it as decoration, that is aversion
Show me a case and I'll tell you what I think. Otherwise, a grand declaration on how Buddha statues always ought to be used or not used seems rather arrogant. If people don't follow what I'd say, then what? Become angry? Shun them? Think of them as bad or ignorant people?
Ask yourself, would you put a crucifix in the garden?
If I threw you on the floor and you got upset, wouldn't that be aversion too?
In the case of pleasant feelings, O monks, the underlying tendency[1] to lust should be given up; in the case of painful feelings, the underlying tendency to resistance (aversion) should be given up; in the case of neither-painful-nor-pleasant feelings, the underlying tendency to ignorance should be given up.
"If a monk has given up the tendency to lust in regard to pleasant feeling, the tendency to resistance in regard to painful feelings, and the tendency to ignorance in regard to neither-painful-nor-pleasant feelings, then he is called one who is free of (unwholesome) tendencies, one who has the right outlook. He has cut off craving, severed the fetters (to future existence), and through the full penetration of conceit,[2] he has made an end of suffering."
If one feels joy, but knows not feeling's nature,
bent towards greed, he will not find deliverance.
If one feels pain, but knows not feeling's nature,
bent toward hate, he will not find deliverance.
And even neutral feeling which as peaceful
the Lord of Wisdom has proclaimed,
if, in attachment, he should cling to it,
he will not be free from the round of ill.
And having done so, in this very life
will be free from cankers, free from taints.
Mature in knowledge, firm in Dhamma's ways,
when once his life-span ends, his body breaks,
all measure and concept he has transcended.
Is this "just a body"? Or does it have a special meaning and an intrinsic value
clw_uk wrote:If I threw you on the floor and you got upset, wouldn't that be aversion too?
If by upset you mean not being mindful of the painful sensation and averting from it, and thus experiencing grief, then yes it is aversionIn the case of pleasant feelings, O monks, the underlying tendency[1] to lust should be given up; in the case of painful feelings, the underlying tendency to resistance (aversion) should be given up; in the case of neither-painful-nor-pleasant feelings, the underlying tendency to ignorance should be given up.
"If a monk has given up the tendency to lust in regard to pleasant feeling, the tendency to resistance in regard to painful feelings, and the tendency to ignorance in regard to neither-painful-nor-pleasant feelings, then he is called one who is free of (unwholesome) tendencies, one who has the right outlook. He has cut off craving, severed the fetters (to future existence), and through the full penetration of conceit,[2] he has made an end of suffering."
If one feels joy, but knows not feeling's nature,
bent towards greed, he will not find deliverance.
If one feels pain, but knows not feeling's nature,
bent toward hate, he will not find deliverance.
And even neutral feeling which as peaceful
the Lord of Wisdom has proclaimed,
if, in attachment, he should cling to it,
he will not be free from the round of ill.
And having done so, in this very life
will be free from cankers, free from taints.
Mature in knowledge, firm in Dhamma's ways,
when once his life-span ends, his body breaks,
all measure and concept he has transcended.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .nypo.htmlIs this "just a body"? Or does it have a special meaning and an intrinsic value
Its just a body
LOL, you're insane.

fernrichardson wrote:I'm Jewish, so I wouldn't want a crucifix in my garden. Though I know that many Christians have statues of saints and the like in their gardens. To get the conversation back on point, I also don't feel it is within my values for me to have a Buddha in my garden, since it is not in keeping with my personal religious practices. I am just trying to figure out how to guide other people. Whether this is a topic where I should say, "don't do it, it's disrespectful" or "If you decide to have a statue, here's how to do it."
clw_uk wrote:Individual, I didnt write what you quoted me as saying above

Individual wrote:These same Thais are also apparently in a violent conflict with Cambodia over the Preah Vihear Temple. They're idiots.
fernrichardson wrote:I'm Jewish, so I wouldn't want a crucifix in my garden. Though I know that many Christians have statues of saints and the like in their gardens. To get the conversation back on point, I also don't feel it is within my values for me to have a Buddha in my garden, since it is not in keeping with my personal religious practices. I am just trying to figure out how to guide other people. Whether this is a topic where I should say, "don't do it, it's disrespectful" or "If you decide to have a statue, here's how to do it."
clw_uk wrote:Individual, I didnt write what you quoted me as saying above
Individual wrote:clw_uk wrote:Individual, I didnt write what you quoted me as saying above
It looks like somebody fixed it. It was unintentional. Sorry. Thanks for pointing it out.
Registered users: Bhikkhu Pesala, Bing [Bot], ck_c, Crazy cloud, Exabot [Bot], Feathers, Google [Bot], JeffR, LG2V, Majjhima Patipada, Sekha, Will