Buddhism on actors

General discussion, particularly exploring the Dharma in the modern world.
[N.B. This is the forum that was called ‘Exploring Buddhism’. The new name simply describes it better.]
User avatar
ShineeSeoul
Posts: 256
Joined: Fri May 29, 2015 9:49 pm

Re: Buddhism on actors

Post by ShineeSeoul » Tue Jun 05, 2018 7:48 am

Minobu wrote:
Mon Jun 04, 2018 7:33 pm
ShineeSeoul wrote:
Mon Jun 04, 2018 6:47 am

You need to read the OP, you got the sutta wrong, the Buddha was saying he is having wrong view for doing acting, the Buddha is against acting
"Thus the actor — himself intoxicated & heedless, having made others intoxicated & heedless — with the breakup of the body, after death, is reborn in what is called the hell of laughter'
read the full passage and you will get it
sorry dude read this...
But if he holds such a view as this: 'When an actor on the stage, in the midst of a festival, makes people laugh & gives them delight with his imitation of reality, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of the laughing devas,' that is his wrong view
your whole demonic music thing thanking gods you got over it sounds ....well...not right view...
lol you got it wrong the sutta and still pointing out to me to have wrong view, understand the sutta first, before judging on me and my personal life to what I went through, which is not your business to judge nor you understand it or know me personally, its non-sense and pointless

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1749
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Buddhism on actors

Post by Coëmgenu » Tue Jun 05, 2018 3:55 pm

Minobu wrote:
Tue Jun 05, 2018 4:52 am
Coëmgenu wrote:
Tue Jun 05, 2018 1:57 am
Minobu wrote:
Mon Jun 04, 2018 7:33 pm


sorry dude read this...



your whole demonic music thing thanking gods you got over it sounds ....well...not right view...
There is confusion over "reborn in the company of the laughing devas" and "reborn in the hell of laughter". These aren't the same places. In the dispensation to the śrāvaka the Buddha teaches against acting and musicianship, among other things.

It's all a part of the early radical framing of ascetic cutting-off from the world in the beginning of the teaching. There is a huge focus on sequestering yourself in isolating dhyāna heavens, etc.

This is the strata of the teaching, that teaches against acting, singing, dancing, etc, is the same strata that the bodhisattva prohibitions in the Sukhavihāraparivartaḥ (L.S., Ch. 14) (such as, "do not associate with jugglers") are echoing.
Well this might seem like blasphemy...but i doubt very much if an enlightened being refutes music and dancing... :juggling: :jumping: :woohoo:

i don't know ...but this piece defo is pointing to it's ok.
There's a Footloose joke in here somewhere hiding.
नस्वातो नापिपरतो नद्वाभ्यां नाप्यहेतुतः उत्पन्ना जातु विद्यन्ते भावाः क्वचन केचन
There absolutely are no things, nowhere and none, that arise anew, neither out of themselves, nor out of non-self, nor out of both, nor at random.
सर्वं तथ्यं न वा तथ्यं तथ्यं चातथ्यम् एव च नैवातथ्यं नैव तथ्यम् एतद् बुद्धानुशासनम्
All is so, or all is not so, both so and not so, neither so nor not so. This is the Buddha's teaching.

一切實非實亦實亦非實
非實非非實是名諸佛法

User avatar
Minobu
Posts: 2156
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 6:57 pm

Re: Buddhism on actors

Post by Minobu » Tue Jun 05, 2018 3:59 pm

ShineeSeoul wrote:
Tue Jun 05, 2018 7:48 am
Minobu wrote:
Mon Jun 04, 2018 7:33 pm
ShineeSeoul wrote:
Mon Jun 04, 2018 6:47 am

You need to read the OP, you got the sutta wrong, the Buddha was saying he is having wrong view for doing acting, the Buddha is against acting
"Thus the actor — himself intoxicated & heedless, having made others intoxicated & heedless — with the breakup of the body, after death, is reborn in what is called the hell of laughter'
read the full passage and you will get it
sorry dude read this...
But if he holds such a view as this: 'When an actor on the stage, in the midst of a festival, makes people laugh & gives them delight with his imitation of reality, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of the laughing devas,' that is his wrong view
your whole demonic music thing thanking gods you got over it sounds ....well...not right view...
lol you got it wrong the sutta and still pointing out to me to have wrong view, understand the sutta first, before judging on me and my personal life to what I went through, which is not your business to judge nor you understand it or know me personally, its non-sense and pointless
not being questionable about your personal life...just what you post.

User avatar
Minobu
Posts: 2156
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 6:57 pm

Re: Buddhism on actors

Post by Minobu » Tue Jun 05, 2018 4:17 pm

Coëmgenu wrote:
Tue Jun 05, 2018 1:57 am


It's all a part of the early radical framing of ascetic cutting-off from the world in the beginning of the teaching. There is a huge focus on sequestering yourself in isolating dhyāna heavens, etc.
i see ...so elsewhere on this site there are hints that sutras sometimes are man made...

agendas agendas everyone has an agenda

User avatar
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 6377
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Buddhism on actors

Post by Queequeg » Tue Jun 05, 2018 5:44 pm

Kim O'Hara wrote:
Fri Jun 01, 2018 7:45 am
I don't think there was much separation between the two in the Buddha's time - I think they were all "entertainers" in our terms, singing, dancing, acting, juggling and whatever else they could do to put on a show, but I'm not quite sure how I arrived at that belief. Hints in the sutras and Jataka Tales, probably, plus knowing a bit about similar travelling groups in other pre-modern cultures.

:namaste:
Kim
It helps to think about the economics of the societies. Traditionally, wealth has meant land holdings. If you have land, its because you either claimed it and defended it, or were given it by someone who claimed it and defended it... Hence warriors sat at the top of social hierarchies. And subsequently, the religious gained land from the warriors... there are plenty of cynical explanations as to how, for instance, the Catholic Church became one of the largest real estate companies in the world... after a life of killing, raping, and pillaging, who can offer solace in the afterlife? "How much land will purify my misdeeds?"...

If you didn't own land, you needed to have skills that you could perform in exchange for the things you need to live. The emergence of division of labor happened during the so-called axial age, and coincided with the appearance of Buddha, Lao Tzu, Confucius, Plato, Aristotle... Among the unlanded, craftsmen and merchants sit at the top of the social hierarchy. The nature of the work requires education, care, discipline, patience and restraint... qualities we associate with these teachers, but also with bourgeoisie, across civilizations. Actors and performers are also part of this unlanded class, but consider the skills that lead to their success - its about tickling people's sensibilities, stimulating their emotions, in a way that makes them feel motivated to make offerings to keep the performers coming back. Its about pleasing the audience on various sensual levels...

Think of the traveling circus... the stereotypes about carnies... Shows that also often included "adult entertainment" and prostitution... The whole operation had a seedy air about it... Actors and other performers... the way that they used their bodies and minds, acting on stage and then being courtesans off stage. The type of social atmosphere created by these activities things are affronts and threats to the values of the merchant and artisan classes.

Traditionally, its been the aristocrats who have associated with performers socially. People who are not required to subscribe to the bourgeois standards... Who have so much that the rules don't apply to them... and actors and performers adorn the environments they create, enabling it.

Buddhism has, from the beginning, been a merchant and artisan class religion, a suburban religion. Performers undermine the values of the class. You will not be a successful merchant or artisan during the day if you spend your evenings carousing. Its just the limitations of how we are built. The old grasshopper and ant story.

The Lotus Sutra presents a pretty good picture of the society in which the Mahayana emerged... "Sons and Daughters of Good Families"... Stay away from these people...
“What is the sphere of the relationships of the bodhisattva mahāsattva? The bodhisattva mahāsattva should not consort with kings, princes, ministers, and chief officials. He should not consort with heretics, brahmans, Jains, and others, or with worldly writers, critics of poetry, materialists, or extreme materialists. Nor should he become acquainted with pranksters, boxers, wrestlers, clowns, and various jugglers, nor with outcastes and people who raise boars, sheep, chickens, and dogs, nor with hunters, fishermen, and those with evil conduct. A bodhisattva should teach such people the Dharma if they come to him, but expect nothing.
Lotus Sutra, Peaceful Practices

Who is left out of that list? Merchants and Artisans... people who make "honest" livings, who don't kill for a living, who don't lounge around in harems, people who don't stimulate others for a living...
Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.

-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

There are beings with little dust in their eyes who are falling away because they do not hear the Dhamma. There will be those who will understand the Dhamma.
-Ayacana Sutta

User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Former staff member
Posts: 3736
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Buddhism on actors

Post by Kim O'Hara » Wed Jun 06, 2018 4:04 am

:good:

Just two small points:
Traditionally, its been the aristocrats who have associated with performers socially. People who are not required to subscribe to the bourgeois standards... Who have so much that the rules don't apply to them... and actors and performers adorn the environments they create, enabling it.
But there was never any doubt about their relative power and rank. If the troubadour ran off with the lord's daughter, he would be hunted down remorselessly.
Buddhism has, from the beginning, been a merchant and artisan class religion, a suburban religion. Performers undermine the values of the class. You will not be a successful merchant or artisan during the day if you spend your evenings carousing. Its just the limitations of how we are built. The old grasshopper and ant story. ... Who is left out of that list? Merchants and Artisans... people who make "honest" livings, who don't kill for a living, who don't lounge around in harems, people who don't stimulate others for a living...
Also a fairly important group of small landholders, if I remember the social background of the sutras correctly. But yes, still quite middle-class in our terms.

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
Minobu
Posts: 2156
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 6:57 pm

Re: Buddhism on actors

Post by Minobu » Wed Jun 06, 2018 6:14 am

well all this reeks of useing religion for control of the masses and defining them...

so far from enlightened thought it stinks...

like there is a question as to what is buddha's words and what isn't ...but this is blatantly similar to creating a god figure who gives the right for the person and family lineage to be divinely decided-on being king ...the priest anoints the king and crowns him in the name of god.

I'm trying to show similar paradigms here...using religion for ulterior social and caste purpose..

User avatar
ShineeSeoul
Posts: 256
Joined: Fri May 29, 2015 9:49 pm

Re: Buddhism on actors

Post by ShineeSeoul » Wed Jun 06, 2018 10:50 am

Minobu wrote:
Tue Jun 05, 2018 4:52 am
Coëmgenu wrote:
Tue Jun 05, 2018 1:57 am
Minobu wrote:
Mon Jun 04, 2018 7:33 pm


sorry dude read this...



your whole demonic music thing thanking gods you got over it sounds ....well...not right view...
There is confusion over "reborn in the company of the laughing devas" and "reborn in the hell of laughter". These aren't the same places. In the dispensation to the śrāvaka the Buddha teaches against acting and musicianship, among other things.

It's all a part of the early radical framing of ascetic cutting-off from the world in the beginning of the teaching. There is a huge focus on sequestering yourself in isolating dhyāna heavens, etc.

This is the strata of the teaching, that teaches against acting, singing, dancing, etc, is the same strata that the bodhisattva prohibitions in the Sukhavihāraparivartaḥ (L.S., Ch. 14) (such as, "do not associate with jugglers") are echoing.
Well this might seem like blasphemy...but i doubt very much if an enlightened being refutes music and dancing... :juggling: :jumping: :woohoo:

i don't know ...but this piece defo is pointing to it's ok.
I guess you don't understand Buddhism, still have long way to go

User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Former staff member
Posts: 3736
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Buddhism on actors

Post by Kim O'Hara » Wed Jun 06, 2018 12:26 pm

Minobu wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 6:14 am
well all this [social background] reeks of useing religion for control of the masses and defining them...

so far from enlightened thought it stinks...

like there is a question as to what is buddha's words and what isn't ...but this is blatantly similar to creating a god figure who gives the right for the person and family lineage to be divinely decided-on being king ...the priest anoints the king and crowns him in the name of god.

I'm trying to show similar paradigms here...using religion for ulterior social and caste purpose..
Not necessarily. In fact, I think it is mostly the other way round. The Buddhas was dissatisfied with his (high-caste) life, became a wanderer, achieved enlightenment, and began teaching a dharma which showed others the way to do the same. It emphasised that enlightenment was not a matter of caste, as against Brahmanism which basically said, "If you're not high-born, forget it." (Read this sutra, for instance - https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html. It's very much to the point and (bonus!) is quite funny.)
On the other hand, it did then appeal mostly to people who were doing okay in the world. It's possible that was partly because the people on top weren't looking for any changes and the people on the bottom were so busy looking for their next meal they didn't have much time for religion, and it's possible that the religion was gradually warped by the social environment (e.g. emphasis on dana, supporting the monks, as merit-building). That does not mean in any way that the religion was contrived or used for social control.

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 6377
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Buddhism on actors

Post by Queequeg » Wed Jun 06, 2018 4:37 pm

Kim O'Hara wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 4:04 am
If the troubadour ran off with the lord's daughter, he would be hunted down remorselessly.
As I was writing this, I had in mind the Julian-Claudian dynasty of the Roman empire. Julius Caesar's daughter, I believe, was banished because she spent all her time hanging out with actors and performers, and her companions were executed. And then there was Nero.
Also a fairly important group of small landholders, if I remember the social background of the sutras correctly. But yes, still quite middle-class in our terms.
Right. Farmers - not necessarily the ones who toiled in the fields, but the ones who owned and managed enough land to have what amounted to a middle class life. Farming is another occupation that requires diligence and hard work - animals need to be fed everyday no matter how you feel, and the seeds have to be planted at the right time and crops harvested at the right time. The cycles of life yield for no one.
Kim O'Hara wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 12:26 pm
Minobu wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 6:14 am
well all this [social background] reeks of useing religion for control of the masses and defining them...

so far from enlightened thought it stinks...

like there is a question as to what is buddha's words and what isn't ...but this is blatantly similar to creating a god figure who gives the right for the person and family lineage to be divinely decided-on being king ...the priest anoints the king and crowns him in the name of god.

I'm trying to show similar paradigms here...using religion for ulterior social and caste purpose..
Not necessarily. In fact, I think it is mostly the other way round. The Buddhas was dissatisfied with his (high-caste) life, became a wanderer, achieved enlightenment, and began teaching a dharma which showed others the way to do the same. It emphasised that enlightenment was not a matter of caste, as against Brahmanism which basically said, "If you're not high-born, forget it." (Read this sutra, for instance - https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html. It's very much to the point and (bonus!) is quite funny.)
On the other hand, it did then appeal mostly to people who were doing okay in the world. It's possible that was partly because the people on top weren't looking for any changes and the people on the bottom were so busy looking for their next meal they didn't have much time for religion, and it's possible that the religion was gradually warped by the social environment (e.g. emphasis on dana, supporting the monks, as merit-building). That does not mean in any way that the religion was contrived or used for social control.
Expanding on Kim's point, Buddha was a unique founder in the sense that he did not try to overthrow the existing paradigm, instead, more or less working within its constraints. Part of the reason that monks were required to settle down for the monsoons was because walking around trampled the plant shoots which annoyed the ordinary people who regarded the blooming of plants as sacred. His teachings were, nonetheless subversive. He encouraged lay people to continue to honor their ancestral rites, but counseled them to replace blood offerings with bloodless offerings. As Kim touched on, he redefined "noble" ie. "arya" to be a quality of character rather than birth. Implicitly this was a critique of the caste system without advocating the overthrow of the hereditary king. (He was in fact very fond of Vaishali because it had a republican government that governed on consensus decision making, rather than an autocratic hereditary king). And within the sangha, caste had no significance. Instead, hierarchy was strictly based on seniority. There is a poignant story of the Buddha's aristocratic cousins who counted in their circle of friends the son of a barber. When they resolved to enter the sangha, they insisted that the barber take the vows first so that he would be their superior.

I think its fair to question traditional value systems, but we ought to keep in mind the circumstances in which they arose and operated.

In the Buddha's time, there were no safety nets. Keeping a family business going was a life and death matter. If your business or farm or artisan shop collapsed, its likely you, your extended family, all dependents which included servants and their families, were all out on the street begging for food. If a son decided to run off and join the circus and there was no one else to take over in the next generation, that was a death sentence for the family. And actually, many who joined the sangha put their families in dire positions. The Buddha himself probably brought about the collapse of his clan. There are many stories of bikkhus who could only join after their parents died, or who faced significant opposition from their families. In this context, it is understandable why bourgeois values would be so important. Survival depends on being bourgeois, especially where the rulers could be capricious - there was no rule of law. Life and liberty could be taken away without due process. In India this evolved into the grotesque caste system. In other places, the rules might not be so hard and fast, but middle class people generally marry and make families with people of similar backgrounds in order to perpetuate their livelihood. See Jane Austen for a picture of 19th century English middle class life.

The Middle Path taught by the Buddha, I think, resonates with middle class values, and that's why merchants and artisans found Buddhism appealing, not that Buddha was a crypto-aristocrat devising a system to keep people docile and subservient. The path requires diligence and vigor, the same sorts of values that if applied to secular occupations tends to success.

Relevant here, we might consider the Vimalakirti Sutra. It opens with a courtesan, Amrapali, beating out young noblemen from Vaishali for the opportunity to host and feed the sangha. And then the main character is Vimalakirti, a worldly merchant who is no stranger to the pleasure quarters, besting all the sravakas and even the great bodhisattvas in debate.

Marxist analysis is probably not going to get you a whole lot out of Buddhism except to confirm the Marxist theories about the world. To a hammer, everything is a nail.
Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.

-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

There are beings with little dust in their eyes who are falling away because they do not hear the Dhamma. There will be those who will understand the Dhamma.
-Ayacana Sutta

User avatar
Minobu
Posts: 2156
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 6:57 pm

Re: Buddhism on actors

Post by Minobu » Wed Jun 06, 2018 5:23 pm

Kim O'Hara wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 12:26 pm
, and it's possible that the religion was gradually warped by the social environment (e.g. emphasis on dana, supporting the monks, as merit-building). That does not mean in any way that the religion was contrived or used for social control.

:namaste:
Kim
It's this type of thing that gets me to thinking along lines that are not necessarily purely Buddha's teaching.


When i say control...it is a little too bent towards propaganda control through religious fear mongering....
i don't really feel that...

but reading various stuff that pops up in sutras i never read before, it makes me feel like a man made produced agenda has been inserted into the words that are supposed to be Buddha's.

i recall on Esangha ,Malcolm comparing some of the sutras to how in hinduism they write something and say it is the words of Krisna..even though they are not..sort of giving the good housing seal of approval to something that someone wants out there.

So are all the words we read in sutras strictly 100% Buddha's words or are there man made injections of agenda...??

I came to terms with Lotus Sutra being formed into a Lotus buddhism over time...I take a lot of credence into it being revealed over time with several masters at the wheel ...to ultimately leave a school of thought introduced by Nichiren shonin.

There are scholars that have ....{i am no expert in this and this is like foggy layman interpretation from stuff i read}....written that it is impossible for Sakyamuni buddha to have taught the Lotus sutra for it is in a language , pali or sanskrit or something that was not of the buddha...Some say it was written totally by some Persian dude....So i rely on faith and dharmakaya ....and Lotus Buddhism masters....and of course "Q" ;)


so like this whole actor thing and who is acceptable and who is to be avoided by Bodhisattvas rings of agenda based man made weirdness.

it has no place in the modern era...unless you are some fanatic who thinks music and singing is evil and demonic. then yeah read into it what you will.

User avatar
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 6377
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Buddhism on actors

Post by Queequeg » Wed Jun 06, 2018 6:04 pm

Minobu wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 5:23 pm
So are all the words we read in sutras strictly 100% Buddha's words or are there man made injections of agenda...??
Buddha Vacana = Buddha's Voice. All teachings that accord with the Truth, are the Buddha's teachings. This has been the standard to address questions about the authenticity of the teachings. The variety of teachings is also addressed by concepts such as upaya in Mahayana, particularly as explained in the Lotus Sutra. This has also been explained in, for instance, the East Asian context, through the Four Siddhanta, and in the Tiantai Context, the Four Teachings, Four Methods, and Five Flavors/Periods. The Mahaparinirvana Sutra, among others, explicitly asserts, All True Teachings are Buddha's Teachings.
so like this whole actor thing and who is acceptable and who is to be avoided by Bodhisattvas rings of agenda based man made weirdness.

it has no place in the modern era...unless you are some fanatic who thinks music and singing is evil and demonic. then yeah read into it what you will.
I recall reading about someone asking Chogyam Trungpa if he thought any Western music expressed enlightenment and he flatly said, "no."

I think we can safely say, all popular music is not enlightenment music. No matter how wise the lyrics might be, they are expressions of an unenlightened mind. When excellent, they capture the mind of the lyricist who casts an image of a place, or time, or exchange, or feeling. The tunes as well express feelings and emotions ("Hey, kids, Want a soundtrack that'll make you feel tense?" . And when you hear a song, and sing the lyrics, you internalize those ideas - no different than chanting a sutra. All the things you see, hear, taste, smell, touch, contribute to the way you experience and act in the world. The influence of an evil friends is emphasized in the sutras as a cause of downfall, while good friends are cause of awakening. Because they normalize whatever mind they have on the inside.

We are careful about what we eat... we ought to be careful about the experiences we have, friends, and media we consume as well.

That said... :shrug:
Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.

-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

There are beings with little dust in their eyes who are falling away because they do not hear the Dhamma. There will be those who will understand the Dhamma.
-Ayacana Sutta

Sherab Rigdrol
Posts: 190
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2013 9:07 pm

Re: Buddhism on actors

Post by Sherab Rigdrol » Wed Jun 06, 2018 6:35 pm

Queequeg wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 6:04 pm
Minobu wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 5:23 pm
So are all the words we read in sutras strictly 100% Buddha's words or are there man made injections of agenda...??
Buddha Vacana = Buddha's Voice. All teachings that accord with the Truth, are the Buddha's teachings. This has been the standard to address questions about the authenticity of the teachings. The variety of teachings is also addressed by concepts such as upaya in Mahayana, particularly as explained in the Lotus Sutra. This has also been explained in, for instance, the East Asian context, through the Four Siddhanta, and in the Tiantai Context, the Four Teachings, Four Methods, and Five Flavors/Periods. The Mahaparinirvana Sutra, among others, explicitly asserts, All True Teachings are Buddha's Teachings.
so like this whole actor thing and who is acceptable and who is to be avoided by Bodhisattvas rings of agenda based man made weirdness.

it has no place in the modern era...unless you are some fanatic who thinks music and singing is evil and demonic. then yeah read into it what you will.
I recall reading about someone asking Chogyam Trungpa if he thought any Western music expressed enlightenment and he flatly said, "no."

I think we can safely say, all popular music is not enlightenment music. No matter how wise the lyrics might be, they are expressions of an unenlightened mind. When excellent, they capture the mind of the lyricist who casts an image of a place, or time, or exchange, or feeling. The tunes as well express feelings and emotions ("Hey, kids, Want a soundtrack that'll make you feel tense?" . And when you hear a song, and sing the lyrics, you internalize those ideas - no different than chanting a sutra. All the things you see, hear, taste, smell, touch, contribute to the way you experience and act in the world. The influence of an evil friends is emphasized in the sutras as a cause of downfall, while good friends are cause of awakening. Because they normalize whatever mind they have on the inside.

We are careful about what we eat... we ought to be careful about the experiences we have, friends, and media we consume as well.

That said... :shrug:
Trungpa had shitty taste in music......

User avatar
Minobu
Posts: 2156
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 6:57 pm

Re: Buddhism on actors

Post by Minobu » Wed Jun 06, 2018 7:56 pm

Queequeg wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 6:04 pm
Minobu wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 5:23 pm
So are all the words we read in sutras strictly 100% Buddha's words or are there man made injections of agenda...??
Buddha Vacana = Buddha's Voice. All teachings that accord with the Truth, are the Buddha's teachings. This has been the standard to address questions about the authenticity of the teachings. The variety of teachings is also addressed by concepts such as upaya in Mahayana, particularly as explained in the Lotus Sutra. This has also been explained in, for instance, the East Asian context, through the Four Siddhanta, and in the Tiantai Context, the Four Teachings, Four Methods, and Five Flavors/Periods. The Mahaparinirvana Sutra, among others, explicitly asserts, All True Teachings are Buddha's Teachings.
so like this whole actor thing and who is acceptable and who is to be avoided by Bodhisattvas rings of agenda based man made weirdness.

it has no place in the modern era...unless you are some fanatic who thinks music and singing is evil and demonic. then yeah read into it what you will.
I recall reading about someone asking Chogyam Trungpa if he thought any Western music expressed enlightenment and he flatly said, "no."

I think we can safely say, all popular music is not enlightenment music. No matter how wise the lyrics might be, they are expressions of an unenlightened mind. When excellent, they capture the mind of the lyricist who casts an image of a place, or time, or exchange, or feeling. The tunes as well express feelings and emotions ("Hey, kids, Want a soundtrack that'll make you feel tense?" . And when you hear a song, and sing the lyrics, you internalize those ideas - no different than chanting a sutra. All the things you see, hear, taste, smell, touch, contribute to the way you experience and act in the world. The influence of an evil friends is emphasized in the sutras as a cause of downfall, while good friends are cause of awakening. Because they normalize whatever mind they have on the inside.

We are careful about what we eat... we ought to be careful about the experiences we have, friends, and media we consume as well.

That said... :shrug:
as always...lucidity reigns....

thing is ...i just do not think music and film and stage is evil...

of course it effects us...

but taking it to a level where all is to be avoided and it has no value and only can cause distraction and it's not enlightened...i mean really now...

i listen to the rolling stones practically on a daily basis since i was 8 . :thumbsup: ..never looked at it for enlightenment... :bow:
I think we can safely say, all popular music is not enlightenment music
none of my posts in this thread had that :quoteunquote: on the radar ...

i mean like eating strawberry sundaes is not going to cause enlightenment...so should we focus on the evil of strawberry sundaes..well maybe dairy queen...i heard there so called soft ice cream is derived from crude oil...


this is why Nichiren shonin for me...brought buddhism to the level of common mortals and their living a daily life with it and enhancing that is sundry...yeah some of His schools became pretty rigid...but i never quite got that from His "THING"

User avatar
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 6377
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Buddhism on actors

Post by Queequeg » Wed Jun 06, 2018 9:17 pm

Minobu wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 7:56 pm
thing is ...i just do not think music and film and stage is evil...

of course it effects us...

but taking it to a level where all is to be avoided and it has no value and only can cause distraction and it's not enlightened...i mean really now...

i listen to the rolling stones practically on a daily basis since i was 8 . :thumbsup: ..never looked at it for enlightenment... :bow:
I mentioned the Vimalakirti Sutra above. I think it addressed the issues of being a lay person and all the types of people and situations we might find ourselves in... including brothels... gambling dens... etc. Vimalakirti frequented these places and interacted with the various people he met, but remained unstained. There's a reason why he was such a popular figure and this Sutra was considered so important in East Asia.
I think we can safely say, all popular music is not enlightenment music
none of my posts in this thread had that :quoteunquote: on the radar ...

i mean like eating strawberry sundaes is not going to cause enlightenment...so should we focus on the evil of strawberry sundaes..well maybe dairy queen...i heard there so called soft ice cream is derived from crude oil...
In practice, I think we do the best we can.

Buddha remarked before he set out on the ascetic life, "Household life is crowded and dusty; life gone forth is wide open. It is not easy, while living in a home, to lead the holy life utterly perfect and pure as a polished shell. Suppose I shave off my hair and beard, put on the yellow robe, and go forth from the home life into homelessness."
Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.

-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

There are beings with little dust in their eyes who are falling away because they do not hear the Dhamma. There will be those who will understand the Dhamma.
-Ayacana Sutta

User avatar
ShineeSeoul
Posts: 256
Joined: Fri May 29, 2015 9:49 pm

Re: Buddhism on actors

Post by ShineeSeoul » Thu Jun 07, 2018 10:46 am

Queequeg wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 6:04 pm
Minobu wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 5:23 pm
So are all the words we read in sutras strictly 100% Buddha's words or are there man made injections of agenda...??
Buddha Vacana = Buddha's Voice. All teachings that accord with the Truth, are the Buddha's teachings. This has been the standard to address questions about the authenticity of the teachings. The variety of teachings is also addressed by concepts such as upaya in Mahayana, particularly as explained in the Lotus Sutra. This has also been explained in, for instance, the East Asian context, through the Four Siddhanta, and in the Tiantai Context, the Four Teachings, Four Methods, and Five Flavors/Periods. The Mahaparinirvana Sutra, among others, explicitly asserts, All True Teachings are Buddha's Teachings.
so like this whole actor thing and who is acceptable and who is to be avoided by Bodhisattvas rings of agenda based man made weirdness.

it has no place in the modern era...unless you are some fanatic who thinks music and singing is evil and demonic. then yeah read into it what you will.
I recall reading about someone asking Chogyam Trungpa if he thought any Western music expressed enlightenment and he flatly said, "no."

I think we can safely say, all popular music is not enlightenment music. No matter how wise the lyrics might be, they are expressions of an unenlightened mind. When excellent, they capture the mind of the lyricist who casts an image of a place, or time, or exchange, or feeling. The tunes as well express feelings and emotions ("Hey, kids, Want a soundtrack that'll make you feel tense?" . And when you hear a song, and sing the lyrics, you internalize those ideas - no different than chanting a sutra. All the things you see, hear, taste, smell, touch, contribute to the way you experience and act in the world. The influence of an evil friends is emphasized in the sutras as a cause of downfall, while good friends are cause of awakening. Because they normalize whatever mind they have on the inside.

We are careful about what we eat... we ought to be careful about the experiences we have, friends, and media we consume as well.

That said... :shrug:
very will said, I can't emphasize how important to be careful to the kind of media we consume, because I already have not good experience with consuming the wrong kind of media

Buddha won't give a no sense advice, everything he advises us against it must have a good reason why he said so

User avatar
Minobu
Posts: 2156
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 6:57 pm

Re: Buddhism on actors

Post by Minobu » Thu Jun 07, 2018 4:07 pm

Queequeg wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 9:17 pm
Buddha remarked before he set out on the ascetic life, "Household life is crowded and dusty; life gone forth is wide open. It is not easy, while living in a home, to lead the holy life utterly perfect and pure as a polished shell. Suppose I shave off my hair and beard, put on the yellow robe, and go forth from the home life into homelessness."
Queequeg wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 9:17 pm


In practice, I think we do the best we can.
Well if i read these quotes and reflect on the aim of Nichiren Shonin, The Votary of the Lotus Sutra , Bodhisattva Jogyo in the flesh, what will i realize.

Simply put that listening to music, living as an householder , watching HBO , tuning into CNN to see Trump act as boorish and barbaric as he can possibly muster....is all enlightened ...for the practice turns all this desire activity into learning and enlightenment.



Desire equals enlightenment ..


We need , as householders to eat healthy heapin' helpin' of this stuff whilst we practice a daily dose of gongyo and daimoku with a splash of study and reflection ...everything Nichiren taught aims at living in this realm of desire. and coming out the other end enlightened.

Though there is a priesthood in nichiren shonin's Schools ...the real aim was towards the householder mired in the realm of desire...

i recall him saying something about chanting whilst under the mandarin duck quilt....really bad quote on my part...but it was some bed blanky with ducks on it that husband and wife had sex under in olden days Nippon .

User avatar
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 6377
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Buddhism on actors

Post by Queequeg » Thu Jun 07, 2018 4:50 pm

Minobu wrote:
Thu Jun 07, 2018 4:07 pm
Queequeg wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 9:17 pm
Buddha remarked before he set out on the ascetic life, "Household life is crowded and dusty; life gone forth is wide open. It is not easy, while living in a home, to lead the holy life utterly perfect and pure as a polished shell. Suppose I shave off my hair and beard, put on the yellow robe, and go forth from the home life into homelessness."
Queequeg wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 9:17 pm


In practice, I think we do the best we can.
Well if i read these quotes and reflect on the aim of Nichiren Shonin, The Votary of the Lotus Sutra , Bodhisattva Jogyo in the flesh, what will i realize.

Simply put that listening to music, living as an householder , watching HBO , tuning into CNN to see Trump act as boorish and barbaric as he can possibly muster....is all enlightened ...for the practice turns all this desire activity into learning and enlightenment.



Desire equals enlightenment ..


We need , as householders to eat healthy heapin' helpin' of this stuff whilst we practice a daily dose of gongyo and daimoku with a splash of study and reflection ...everything Nichiren taught aims at living in this realm of desire. and coming out the other end enlightened.

Though there is a priesthood in nichiren shonin's Schools ...the real aim was towards the householder mired in the realm of desire...

i recall him saying something about chanting whilst under the mandarin duck quilt....really bad quote on my part...but it was some bed blanky with ducks on it that husband and wife had sex under in olden days Nippon .
You have to be careful about mixing teachings. I mentioned above, the Buddha taught upaya - promising toys outside a burning house, hiring his son to clean toilets, sending word that he is dead, teaching beings that the tripitaka and provisional Mahayana lead to liberation, teaching that he was born at Lumbini, awoke at Gaya, turned the Wheel at Sarnath, and passed away at Kusinagara.

When we're talking about "Klesa are Bodhi" ("Earthly Desires are Enlightenment") and Samsara is Nirvana, these are teachings from a different, subtler view. In this view there is acknowledgment that the causes and effects that are seen as samsara are interminable and without beginning. The churning is not good nor bad nor neutral. It is such. From this view, purification is a pointless austerity. With this view, though, all vanity is said to simply drop. One no longer strives on the compulsive drive of ego, because the ego is short circuited. The terms by which ego are defined are unmistakably undermined and so action based on those terms is known to be pointless.

Its something like the Overview Effect, except at the level of being. Having an insight into the emptiness and dependently originated nature of reality undermines everything. In the Lotus Sutra, the Buddha doesn't point by point counter mistaken views. He simply opens up his view, explaining that his lifespan is immeasurable, and the implication is that if samsara is immeasurable, and we've been churning in samsara since time without beginning, our lifespan is also immeasurable. If you lifespan is immeasurable, how do the trivialities of this life compare? What is their scale and meaning in that immeasurable context? Zhiyi compares it to the petals falling off the Lotus flower to reveal the fruit.

To bring this back to Actors... In the scheme of time without beginning, what is the significance of an actor and their charade? You see through it for what it is. It no longer has the same effect on you.

That said, we are still dependently originated beings who are very much dependent on the concrete circumstances around us. We still need to worry about eating bad food and taking in bad ideas.
Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.

-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

There are beings with little dust in their eyes who are falling away because they do not hear the Dhamma. There will be those who will understand the Dhamma.
-Ayacana Sutta

User avatar
Minobu
Posts: 2156
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 6:57 pm

Re: Buddhism on actors

Post by Minobu » Thu Jun 07, 2018 5:48 pm

Queequeg wrote:
Thu Jun 07, 2018 4:50 pm
Minobu wrote:
Thu Jun 07, 2018 4:07 pm
Queequeg wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 9:17 pm
Buddha remarked before he set out on the ascetic life, "Household life is crowded and dusty; life gone forth is wide open. It is not easy, while living in a home, to lead the holy life utterly perfect and pure as a polished shell. Suppose I shave off my hair and beard, put on the yellow robe, and go forth from the home life into homelessness."
Queequeg wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 9:17 pm


In practice, I think we do the best we can.
Well if i read these quotes and reflect on the aim of Nichiren Shonin, The Votary of the Lotus Sutra , Bodhisattva Jogyo in the flesh, what will i realize.

Simply put that listening to music, living as an householder , watching HBO , tuning into CNN to see Trump act as boorish and barbaric as he can possibly muster....is all enlightened ...for the practice turns all this desire activity into learning and enlightenment.



Desire equals enlightenment ..


We need , as householders to eat healthy heapin' helpin' of this stuff whilst we practice a daily dose of gongyo and daimoku with a splash of study and reflection ...everything Nichiren taught aims at living in this realm of desire. and coming out the other end enlightened.

Though there is a priesthood in nichiren shonin's Schools ...the real aim was towards the householder mired in the realm of desire...

i recall him saying something about chanting whilst under the mandarin duck quilt....really bad quote on my part...but it was some bed blanky with ducks on it that husband and wife had sex under in olden days Nippon .
You have to be careful about mixing teachings. I mentioned above, the Buddha taught upaya - promising toys outside a burning house, hiring his son to clean toilets, sending word that he is dead, teaching beings that the tripitaka and provisional Mahayana lead to liberation, teaching that he was born at Lumbini, awoke at Gaya, turned the Wheel at Sarnath, and passed away at Kusinagara.

When we're talking about "Klesa are Bodhi" ("Earthly Desires are Enlightenment") and Samsara is Nirvana, these are teachings from a different, subtler view. In this view there is acknowledgment that the causes and effects that are seen as samsara are interminable and without beginning. The churning is not good nor bad nor neutral. It is such. From this view, purification is a pointless austerity. With this view, though, all vanity is said to simply drop. One no longer strives on the compulsive drive of ego, because the ego is short circuited. The terms by which ego are defined are unmistakably undermined and so action based on those terms is known to be pointless.

Its something like the Overview Effect, except at the level of being. Having an insight into the emptiness and dependently originated nature of reality undermines everything. In the Lotus Sutra, the Buddha doesn't point by point counter mistaken views. He simply opens up his view, explaining that his lifespan is immeasurable, and the implication is that if samsara is immeasurable, and we've been churning in samsara since time without beginning, our lifespan is also immeasurable. If you lifespan is immeasurable, how do the trivialities of this life compare? What is their scale and meaning in that immeasurable context? Zhiyi compares it to the petals falling off the Lotus flower to reveal the fruit.

To bring this back to Actors... In the scheme of time without beginning, what is the significance of an actor and their charade? You see through it for what it is. It no longer has the same effect on you.

That said, we are still dependently originated beings who are very much dependent on the concrete circumstances around us. We still need to worry about eating bad food and taking in bad ideas.
you know i get you..and the teaching...but you also know me and my worries for others ...

the middle way...

actors are not evil...nor is their craft....

if you resolve to define them as such ...what do you have...

look at our friend here...ShineeSeoul here...mired in the belief demons were involved somehow , he does not really tell us the exact event...alas in his choice of music and some involvement of demons something he has not told us but hinted at happened.

i worry for him...he is stepping over the middle path and we see his angst....he believes the buddha taught actors and their craft is evil....

for ShineeSeoul it is real...upaya is not on the radar here....

User avatar
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 6377
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Buddhism on actors

Post by Queequeg » Thu Jun 07, 2018 6:54 pm

Minobu wrote:
Thu Jun 07, 2018 5:48 pm
for ShineeSeoul it is real...upaya is not on the radar here....
I think you are being unfair to ShineeSeoul. S/He can speak for himself.
Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.

-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

There are beings with little dust in their eyes who are falling away because they do not hear the Dhamma. There will be those who will understand the Dhamma.
-Ayacana Sutta

Post Reply

Return to “Dharma in Everyday Life”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 53 guests