The Buddha, Imagination and The Artistic Process

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
Post Reply
pt1
Posts: 417
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:30 am

Re: The Buddha, Imagination and The Artistic Process

Post by pt1 »

Yeah, perhaps that god thing should be rephrased appropriately. Afaik, in theravada it's not about a creator of things and ordinary objects, but it's about conditions. I.e. everything arises based on conditions and then falls away again based on conditions. And this happens horribly fast. According to theravada abhidhmma and commentarial tradition, all external materiality (rupa) is conditioned by temperature, while all materiality that constitutes what we might conventionally call a person's body is conditioned by temperature, kamma, nutrition and citta (consciousness). Nama dhammas (i.e. mental factors and cittas) are conditioned by other nama dhammas. Nibbana is the only dhamma that's not conditioned, hence why theravada buddists are after it.

Best wishes
pt1
Posts: 417
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:30 am

Re: The Buddha, Imagination and The Artistic Process

Post by pt1 »

MayaRefugee wrote: it'd be good if some of you tackled any questions I may raise.

Does God have a mind that formulated the intention to provide these "ordinary objects" for the instigation of insight in the minds of men?

What's going on in the mind of someone that ends up producing a "work of art" - what was there intention?

When I say "work of art" I include all man-made objects because as they say beauty is in the eye of the beholder so it's possible every human creation has atleast one "beholder" that thinks it's beautiful/a work of art.

It's been said that neccesity is the mother of all invention - what neccesity does the mind of the artist see that requires the production of a work of art?
All these would be conditioned, i.e. the current intention (mental factor called cetana) would be conditioned by the arising of citta (consciousness) and mental factors that accompany the citta. E.g. if anger (mental factor) accompanies the citta, then intention will be unwholesome. Anger in this case would be conditioned by moments of anger in the past, among other things. The understanding of conditionality affecting every moment is directly related to anatta - understanding every conditioned dhamma (like intention) as not-self, and thus abandoning attachment to it because all conditioned dhammas are impermanent and suffering.

So, in general terms, if there's suddenly a need to make an angry song, well that's probably conditioned by moments of anger in the past, etc. So, what can one do, the dhamma (anger) and the intention (also a dhamma) associated with it have already arisen. If there's recognition that this happened, and it's understood that it's just conditioned dhammas, hopefully not-self nature of it all will be understood a bit. Maybe then anger subsides, or maybe it doesn't, or maybe the person forgets all about anatta and proceeds with making the angry song. If he forgot about anatta, well that was conditioned too, by ignorance this time (which is also a dhamma). Etc.

Similarly, if there's an intention to make a song as an expression of kindness, to make someone feel happy, etc, well that intention (cetana) and that kindness (metta) are also dhammas, and these are in turn conditioned by moments of kindness in the past, among other things, etc.

As all these things are happening due to conditions, one can be either aware of it or not. Awareness is also a conditioned dhamma that arises thanks to moments of awareness in the past among other things. If one's aware of the dhammas happening now, that will gradually lead to being able to tell which dhammas are wholesome, and which are unwholesome. This will then gradually lead towards abandoning unwholesome ones thanks to understanding the difference.

E.g. if someone gives me a gift, I might feel joy, but the questions is in what way am I experiencing that joy - am I happy because I like experiencing pleasant feeling (this of course is attachment, so unwholesome), or am I happy because I think when people give me a gift that means they like me and I feel 'loved' (this would be conceit, so unwholesome), or am I happy because I'm experiencing gratitude and participating in their joy (mudita, so wholesome). Similarly, with giving a gift (it can even be a gift of music, or whatever, it doesn't really matter) it can be motivated by metta, karuna, pride, hate, greed, etc. So very important to be able to tell the difference if you're really concerned about kamma. In essence, kamma is intention (cetana). Cetana would depend on the type of citta - if the citta is accompanied by hate, then the intention which accompanies the same citta will be unwholesome and bring unwholesome result in the future (though, there are different strengths of unwholesome deeds with varying results - not sure if you're interested in this, so will stop here).

Best wishes
User avatar
Annapurna
Posts: 2639
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 8:04 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: The Buddha, Imagination and The Artistic Process

Post by Annapurna »

Kim O'Hara wrote:
Annapurna wrote:
MayaRefugee wrote: ...
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.

Does God have a mind that formulated the intention to provide these "ordinary objects" for the instigation of insight in the minds of men?
...
MayaRefugee wrote:..... "ordinary objects" and "works of art" can provoke insight however "ordinary objects" (..... 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.
According to theist beliefs, nothing happens without God's will. Many famous artists didn't attribute their success only to their own work, but thought of it as God given. That's humble, actually.
How did God get into this?
:cookoo:
We're all Buddhists here, aren't we?
:meditate:

Kim
Kim, does it constitute not being a Buddhist for you, if theist concepts are briefly being mentioned or discussed ? Then Tiltbillings is not a Buddhist, not the Dalai Lama, Ninh That Hanh et alii.

If God pushes your buttons, remove the buttons, perhaps? :tongue:

:focus:
Last edited by Annapurna on Sat Feb 13, 2010 8:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Annapurna
Posts: 2639
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 8:04 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: The Buddha, Imagination and The Artistic Process

Post by Annapurna »

MayaRefugee wrote:Kim,

I was trying to point out that one is man-made and one is not.
I know. :anjali:
Annapurna,

Nice going with the art - :thumbsup: - seems we're pretty similar (apart from the BA! - :tongue: ).

Peace.
:twothumbsup:
User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5584
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: The Buddha, Imagination and The Artistic Process

Post by Kim OHara »

Annapurna wrote: If God pushes your buttons, remove the buttons, perhaps? :tongue:
Hi, Annapurna,
Actually, I can quite comfortably talk about God, 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: we suddenly have to deal with motives and powers which are completely unknowable in principle and in practice.
Since I happen not to believe in the existence of this interventionist kind of God*, I thought the easiest solution was to cut him/her/it out of the discussion, i.e. remove the imaginary God, not the imaginary buttons.
OK?
:namaste:

Kim

*FWIW, I have grave doubts about any other kind, too.
MayaRefugee
Posts: 66
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 6:15 am

Re: The Buddha, Imagination and The Artistic Process

Post by 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.
User avatar
Annapurna
Posts: 2639
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 8:04 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: The Buddha, Imagination and The Artistic Process

Post by Annapurna »

Kim O'Hara wrote:
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... :o 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?
User avatar
Annapurna
Posts: 2639
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 8:04 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: The Buddha, Imagination and The Artistic Process

Post by 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 :focus: ?
User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5584
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: The Buddha, Imagination and The Artistic Process

Post by Kim OHara »

Annapurna wrote: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 :focus: ?
Isn't 'nature' a better word for 'nature'?
:thinking:
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.

:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Annapurna
Posts: 2639
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 8:04 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: The Buddha, Imagination and The Artistic Process

Post by Annapurna »

Kim O'Hara wrote:
Annapurna wrote: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 :focus: ?
Isn't 'nature' a better word for 'nature'?
:thinking:
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.

:namaste:
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.
User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5584
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: The Buddha, Imagination and The Artistic Process

Post by Kim OHara »

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

Kim
MayaRefugee
Posts: 66
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 6:15 am

Re: The Buddha, Imagination and The Artistic Process

Post by 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.
User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5584
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: The Buddha, Imagination and The Artistic Process

Post by Kim OHara »

MayaRefugee wrote: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:

:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Annapurna
Posts: 2639
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 8:04 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: The Buddha, Imagination and The Artistic Process

Post by 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....".
Last edited by Annapurna on Sun Feb 14, 2010 3:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5584
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: The Buddha, Imagination and The Artistic Process

Post by 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 ...
:shrug:
Kim
Post Reply