Icons

[Michel]

The third fetter is Clinging to rules, rites and rituals (silabbata-paramasa; s. upadana). It is clear to me what it means.

But just a comment: Tibetan Buddhism with all it's rites and rituals is a far cry from the Pali canon. I think that the Buddha would have frowned at the practice of doing 108 prostrations before a statue of him, as they do in Tibetan Buddhism. The Dalai Lama does this on a daily basis. He says it keeps him humble; I think it certainly makes him fit.

Clinging to rites and rituals with the belief that they will somehow bring one closer to liberation is a fetter. Better to use one's time learning the Dhamma and developing one's meditation, and contemplative practice, rather than wasting all your precious time engaging in some useless rites and rituals.

[Jhanananda]

I suppose we should consider any religion that emphasizes ritual devotion, or the contemplative life, is a religion that has institutionalized the third fetter of Clinging to rules, rites and rituals (silabbata-paramasa; s. upadana).

[Sam Lim]

Yes, I would agree with Jeff. I still do not understand how any one can have the image of the Buddha in temples and in their homes as Siddartha specifically said that he does not want his image drawn or scuplted. I do not not own any images at all.

[Alexander]

It is an ancient debate whether it is better to be an iconoclast (a destroyer of icons) or an iconodule (a lover of icons). Personally, I am the latter. I believe they are powerful aids in meditation. At the same time, I understand the iconoclast's arguments. He is angry with the worship of icons. He sees it as a form of blasphemy, and an example of missing the point of religion.

Both the Buddha and Mohammed were against icons. Except in Turkey, there were never any images of Mohammed. Ironically, the Arabs developed their own art style through calligraphy.

Many Buddhist schools are aniconic. They will represent things like the dharma wheel. However, other schools depict the Buddha, divinize him, and so on. Honestly, I have no strong opposition to that. However, for the simple person I see how that is not good. He is not entering into the real meaning, or understanding the significance of the Buddha's teaching.

Here are a couple images I own that I consider very beautiful:

http://i.imgur.com/KpRyZSm.jpg
Christ

http://i.imgur.com/ne0L5e0.jpg
The Maharshi

[Alexander]

Shiva:

Iconic: Sitting, Nataraja

Aniconic: Linga

[Jhanon]

Alexander, I am with you on this. I can see how it could be not good for a simple person. For example, I see Christ images in many homes I visit. And it seems like owning the images is their form of practicing. But, never mind "what it seems like."

For me, I have found images of the Buddha and other eastern Noble Ones to be inspiring. Just to see them; to know that they were on this Earth. Especially if they're not glorified with auras and such. For me, it's like "This was an ordinary guy, who accomplished something extraordinary. You can, too. It's like the contemplative's version of a "goals board."

Also, if it's a wallpaper or somewhere in the house; it can remind one to practice.

[Alexander]

I agree about it being just a normal guy. Although I don't mind the auras. That is the whole concept about Christ; that he was both divine and human. That an ordinary man can achieve the heights... to me that is powerful and inspiring.