<nettime> 1001 uses for an extra buddha digest [x5]

["nettime's_collection_service" <nettime@bbs.thing.net>]

Subject: Re: <nettime> disposal of surplus buddhas
     Erik Davis <figment@sirius.com>
     David Irving <dirving@box.net.au>
     Richard Joly <rjoly@CAM.ORG>
     noah wardrip-fruin <noah@mrl.nyu.edu>
     Newmedia@aol.com

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 18:09:49 -0700
From: Erik Davis <figment@sirius.com>

>Well, he did not want to be worshipped, though lots of his followers seemed
>to forget that.
>
>The interesting story, and perhaps nettimers might have the details (I
>don't) is that the Taliban were upset with the cultural mission that came to
>discuss the statues but would not allow the restauration funds be used for
>aiding people/refugees.  It was at this moment that they decided to trash
>the statues. In short, the tolerate-no-icon  reason given by the clerics was
>not the main reason.
>
>Anyone know more about this?

A young man sent to NY to represent the Taliban spoke quite 
explicitly about these matters to the NYT. This surprised me. Unlike 
the media portrayals (and what I can only imagine is the frequent 
reality) of the hardcore clerics, he was pretty reasonable, and spoke 
explicitly about the offense they took to the  lack of care exhibited 
by, I believe, the UN representatives about feeding the kids, etc. 
While he still rolled out the anti-iconography line, from this 
interview, he seemed to be acknowledging that the destruction was 
pretty much a "fuck you."

This destruction has produced some interesting responses in the 
Buddhist community. What most people focus on isnt the slip into 
idolatry (which itself is a rather complex question) but rather the 
impermanence of everything, including the dharma. The Buddha himself 
proclaimed (or at least the sutras proclaim) that the dharma itself 
would fade away, which it did in northern India and  Afghanistan and 
much of the Silk Road mileau where it once thrived. Though some 
Buddhists were very upset about the destruction, others were like: 
"Hey, what did you think all this impermanence stuff was about?" 
These folks werent gonna be caught dead clinging to such obvious 
forms. For some people the usual religious response -- to get all 
angry and upset about such sacrilege -- was itself seen as the gauche 
and "unenlightened" response.

erik

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 06:33:53 +0930
From: David Irving <dirving@box.net.au>

It's probably a lot better (from _any_ perspective) than nearly everything
else the Taliban does (treatment of women, anyone who disagrees with them,
etc). But what else can you expect from a bunch of ignorant fundamentalist
thugs? And at least destroying the buddha statues took their attention away
from the people of Afghanistan briefly.

Regards,
David

Bill Spornitz wrote:

> Is it just me, or is it generally okay to destroy buddhas (I mean,
> from a buddhist perspective, like?)
 <...>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 15:03:17 -0400
From: Richard Joly <rjoly@CAM.ORG>

>the statues. In short, the tolerate-no-icon  reason given by the clerics was
>not the main reason.
>
>Anyone know more about this?

I can recommend this site, they usually have quite up to date news on art
related issues and they compile relevant materials from many good sources
into helpful dossiers.

http://www.artsjournal.com/issues/Taliban.htm

has lots of info on various aspects of the politics behind the destruction,
 looting / smuggling, etc., from both an art and policital perspective.

Additionaly, I also recall an article about one of the Taliban very young
minister [ of Information Tourism International Trade ? ]  who recently was
in the US, and he gave a speech on some  CA campus. Of course, now, I can't
find it again.  As I recall, he commented on the funding his country was
receiving from international charities,  funds who were helping restore art
works and the likes, whereas the 'west' still refuses to help the people
with recognition of the politicians in power, and cash to help feed the
population. IF I'm correct, he [and the taliban leaders] found this
disgraceful.  My take from the article was  that therefore, destroying the
statues was a way to signify to the west, that they should send money to
help the real victim of this isolation, ie the people, not the
illegal/blashpemous icons.

Richard 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 10:33:17 -0700
From: noah wardrip-fruin <noah@mrl.nyu.edu>

At 8:06 AM -0500 4/16/01, Bill Spornitz wrote:
>Is it just me, or is it generally okay to destroy buddhas (I mean,
>from a buddhist perspective, like?)

"If you see the Buddha on the road..." you mean? I think that refers 
to the Buddha being in the way of your Buddhism. As I understand it, 
worshipping Buddha is not the point of Buddhism.

Yes, also, Buddhism describes everything as impermanent, and 
attachment as a problem, but it goes for people and cultures as much 
(and as little) as statues. The Taliban, like the Chinese who occupy 
Tibet, are living out their Karma, it seems to me - but that doesn't 
mean we don't wish they would do something else (because I just can't 
let go of attachment).

Noah

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: Newmedia@aol.com
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 15:11:04 EDT


Steve:

Yup, that's the story, all right . . . at least the one given in a television 
interview that I saw with a Taliban spokes-fellow.

Apparently the rule is "no *worshipping* of idols," not "no idols" . . . so 
there are many, many Buddhas in Afghanistan (among other artifacts) that no 
one pays much attention to and so no one needs to blow them up . . .

The "cultural mission" was offering substantial sums for "restoration" of 
these particular Buddhas -- which constitutes "worship," it would seem -- and 
that's what set the whole exposive matter into motion.

Best,

Mark Stahlman

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net