I was reading this article that some Buddhist monks are complaining against Muslims and I have noticed a semi-nude woman picture hugging a statue!!!. Does anyone know if nudity is part of their dogma or they just put it to irritate Muslims?
Without seeing the picture you are talking about it is not possible to be sure. Buddhism is originally an Indian religion, and some of its imagery is based on Indian models which do not conform to Abrahamic standards. For example, there is a famous statue of the Prajñāpāramitā (Perfection of Wisdom) from Java which would not be suitable for a Catholic Church.
Further away from India, such as in China or Japan, the statues conform more to local norms and tend to wear more. You do not say where the events you are talking about took place.
Doing something purely to deliberately irritate other people is not good Buddhism.
I think the image they are using is one that they are claiming as an example of how muslims are mocking them (given the context of the poster).
Semi-nude? Her face and one arm and one leg are visible. Her torso isn’t really shown, but it appears to be fully covered.
that is what i got out of it,off topic op why the tiny font?
Well…I cannot really comment on the picture because there is simply too little information. I doubt that “nudity” is any sort of “dogma” in Buddhism, but then again they may view the matter differently than the Muslim faith does.
As to if they did it “just…to irritate Muslims”…I would say that such would be highly unlikely given the general tenor and nature of Buddhism.
What I find interesting is that the protest is in response to Muslim attaks on their houses of worship AND “The rally ended when police asked the monks to disperse”.
How different from the recent actions by Muslims in other places recently…
So overall, what I get from the article…
Muslims have attacked Buddhist temples…Buddhist Monks respond with a non-violent rally outside of an embassy…The police ask the monks to disperse and they do so…
As to the picture…I just don’t know…can anyone translate the caption?
Well in many Muslim cultures that WOULD be considered “semi nude”.
Global Catholicism reflects the regional and ethnic cultural standards it’s in as well.
Michelangelo’s David was commissioned to set on top of an Italian Catholic church. And you also have nude paintings - or near nude paintings - inside some Italian churches. Both Adam and Eve are depicted totally nude in one Italian church.
Actually, some of the Renaissance Italian artwork depicting characters as naked can offend the more conservative sensibilities of American atheists.
A while back on a different website I posted pictures up of some artwork in an Italian Catholic church in which some of the characters painted were naked or near naked. The openly, homosexual that was or is atheist as well, got very offended. He thought it was X-rated material that would corrupt the morals of children or something. :rolleyes:
Which of course led me to explain the U.S. Supreme Court has tackled the pornography issue and acknowledged the issue is subjective when it deals with art. Intent of the images are important. And as I went on to point out the images I posted were not from a online pornography site. Meaning… the powers that be thought the images to fall under art or fine art and not pornography.
Even to this day, what the Italians might tolerate in public art the secular culture of the United States won’t. The brief exposure of Janet Jackson’s nipple is one example (and contrast that not with Italy but Mexican TV where women’s bare breasts are exposed - and Mexico is one of the more conservative Catholic nations)
Also, while not naked, the Ecstacy of St. Teresa statue seems to remind one of sex.
David is a masterpiece of Renaissance sculpture created between 1501 and 1504, by the Italian artist Michelangelo. It is a 5.17-metre (17.0 ft) marble statue of a standing male nude. The statue represents the Biblical hero David, a favoured subject in the art of Florence. Originally commissioned as one of a series of statues of prophets to be positioned along the roofline of the east end of Florence Cathedral, the statue was instead placed in a public square, outside the Palazzo della Signoria, the seat of civic government in Florence, where it was unveiled on 8 September 1504. Because of the nature of the hero that it represented, it soon came to symbolize the defence of civil liberties embodied in the Florentine Republic, an independent city-state threatened on all sides by more powerful rival states and by the hegemony of the Medici family. The eyes of David, with a warning glare, were turned towards Rome. The statue was moved to the Accademia Gallery in Florence in 1873, and later replaced at the original location by a replica.
You do realize Buddhist monks from different monasteries have been caught on tape publicly fist fighting each other out in the streets over issues revolving around money? I can’t remember the country. But admittedly that is a rare occurrence.
But one of the most intentionally antagonistic person’s towards Jesus and Christianity I’ve ever encountered - online - was/is a serious Buddhist women from Asia. And she would meditate for hours a day she claimed. Time and again she would make posts attacking or putting down Christians and Christianity. In one post she belittled Jesus as less a real man than Mohammad because Jesus was probably poor, lived with his mother, and had no girlfriend or wife. So, she said she would rather date or follow Mohammad.
I wouldn’t put too much stock in what a person’s religion is. Most people are the same in certain respects to desires and basic drives. A Buddhist might meditate or do mantra 5 hours a day but kick him in the nuts and he’s going to want to stick a table fork in your eye.
One reason Buddhist Thailand has so many drug addicts* - because they’re not much different than other people.
**I remember reading maybe a year ago, an article online from an Asian news source, about police in some Asian country arresting several Buddhist monks that were drug addicts, and buying from drug dealers, and one or more of the monks had porno magazines in his sleeping quarters.
I’ve heard that in Asia Buddhist monks have a high rate of HIV too.*
That is the most sensible thing i’ve ever seen written on an internet forum.
Now if it were only possible to convince the rest of the planet… :shrug:
I don’t know about their substance abuse ratio. I have seen the Buddhist’s detoxe within their faith, and while they have a decent success rate I’m not sure its productive medically, though their claim is spiritual. They use a constant purge process to eliminate toxins by herbal combinations with much water, yet they continue this after the detoxe is complete as a spiritual practice, which I found perplexing. Of course this is only a small aspect of the process. Also most detoxing were from Europe or the West who left for the East, I don’t know the statistic breakdown.
Intoxication of any kind is against the principles of Buddhism.
However, I agree with the above also, some people will use a substance, its not indictive of their faith its indictive of a human condition.
I would be very careful about using the u.s. supreme court as a model to go by for what it good, decent, right or wrong. After all the supreme court that defines art and porn also says abortion is okay. Food for thought. Blessings to all.
i’ll ask that posters refrain from profanity.
No, nudity is not a part of Buddhist dogma. Generally speaking, Buddhists believe that the body, and the rest of the physical world, does not really exist, and is merely an illusion caused by a person’s desires. There are some interesting variations within certain Buddhist schools, especially Chan and Tantra ones, but the norm is the avoidance of anything like even “soft” porn, since that would strengthen the desires which one is meant to overcome.
Myanmar has been experiencing quite a lot of social unrest for some time now, and that includes inter-religious tensions. These protests are part of that. It is a very strange poster for the monks to use, however, since it plays right into Muslim rhetoric about other faiths’ lack of proper decency and especially about the worship of idols: any Muslim seeing it will be only further convinced about their own correctness. Perhaps it is meant to sell Buddhism to the laity.
Neither Buddhism or Catholicism has a prohibition on nudity in art (all the nudity in the Sistene Chapel).
In particular, while sexual lust would constitute material attatchment, I don’t think Buddhism has an outright set of rules and regulations for sexual morality like Christianity does. Which would explain why it’s so popular amongst liberals.