[Buddha-l] beauty--or art-- (?) and the restraint of the senses,

[Kdorje at aol.com]

In a message dated 5/4/2009 3:26:26 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
jehms at xs4all.nl writes:

Speaking  for myself I cannot imagine that one would slow down ones
development by  listening to Bach or looking at the Taj Mahal and
meditation is easier in a  park than in a junkyard. And about Buddhist
art: the best Buddhist  paintings are probably the Chinese ones, because
of their love of nature.  Creativity and good taste are not monkish
qualities. A monk wants to obey  rules and repeat again and again.

erik





We do?
 
One learns something new every day.
 
I don't know how one can develop upaya without creativity, if one pursues  
that sincerely.
 
What is missing (so far) from this discussion is the role that art plays in 
 traditional Buddhist practice and culture. There seems to be an assumption 
 heretofore that art is always an expression of some kind of 
emotion---preferably  overwhelming---and personal, usually samsaric. Not always so. 
Historically  the purpose of art in Buddhism is iconographic, especially in 
Central  Asian/Tibetan/Vajrayana. It serves as a template, conveying spiritual  
information visually, somewhat as did cathedral art of pre-universally  
literate Europe, though of course  distinctions could be drawn.  Traditionally in 
Buddhism art is in service of soteriology, rather than of  expression of the 
self, with the attendant dangers of reification of that self. 
 
 
Best  wishes,

Konchog Dorje
**************2009 3 Free CREDIT SCORES: See Your 3 Credit Scores from All 
3 Bureaus FREE! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221797372x1201397989/aol?redir=https:%2F%2Fwww.freescore.com%2FOffers%2FStart%2FFreeCreditRepor
tAndScore.aspx%3FID%3D91831F371F138345B53A153F49D4D872%26siteid%3De927580bf7
)