buddhist colorbar

toujour_333

a simple buddhist
Messages
95
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
augusta, ga
this is a buddhist colorbar that i found on a friends website. im not sure if they made it or not, but they wanted to share it and i thought here would be a great place. i am a gay buddhist and i thought that this was very beautiful b/c its the only thing that ive seen that is gay friendly that involves a religion. however, i hope that u all enjoy it and if u would like a link or would like me to send it to u, just let me know and id be happy to send it. Buddha is love!

be well in peace
 

Attachments

  • buddhacolourbar.jpg
    buddhacolourbar.jpg
    14.6 KB · Views: 377
toujour_333 said:
this is a buddhist colorbar that i found on a friends website. im not sure if they made it or not, but they wanted to share it and i thought here would be a great place. i am a gay buddhist and i thought that this was very beautiful b/c its the only thing that ive seen that is gay friendly that involves a religion. however, i hope that u all enjoy it and if u would like a link or would like me to send it to u, just let me know and id be happy to send it. Buddha is love!be well in peace

Don't know what a colorbar has to do with gayness or queerness or the-preference-for-people-with-the-same-equipment-ness unless you're making the age-old connection to interior decoraters! But maybe the best takes on sex & gender in Buddhism are found in the Lotus Sutra in the Devadatta (ahem) chapter and in the goddess chapter of the Vimalakirti; it both cases it's played for laughs. Back at you, peace-wise.
 
Don't know what a colorbar has to do with gayness
In the US (maybe further) the gay community has adopted the rainbow as a symbol... I take it this colorbar is an extension of that.

I personally view the rainbow as inclusive to all, not symbolizing gay rights or gay pride but a view of the entire spectrum all shades and hues of thought as rays of the light of wisdom....fully inclusive of all, even the portions of the spectrum which can't be seen or categorized.

Attending a gathering of the rainbow tribes would be good for everyone...
 
toujour,

I see some issues that I want to raise here, but I want to assure you that I mean no insult by this and I hope you feel comfortable discussing these issues.

First I want to say that I don't think being Gay has anything to do with being a buddhist since any kind of sex is clearly a samsaric pleasure and attachment to anyone is wrong. Homosexuality is just another delusion that must be abandoned, as is hetrosexuality.

Mainly I feel compelled to question why a person would alter an image of the Buddha to suit his/her sexuality? An image of a Buddha is an image of a perfect being, and any imperfection therein derives from our cognition of it.

With this in mind, to deliberately alter the image of Buddha to make it "Gay Friendly" is just crazy.

It is very pretty, it looks like something I would expect to see on the wall of a nightclub, but theologically I think it is a bad idea.

Peace
ATF
 
wil said:
In the US (maybe further) the gay community has adopted the rainbow as a symbol... I take it this colorbar is an extension of that.

I personally view the rainbow as inclusive to all, not symbolizing gay rights or gay pride but a view of the entire spectrum all shades and hues of thought as rays of the light of wisdom....fully inclusive of all, even the portions of the spectrum which can't be seen or categorized.

Attending a gathering of the rainbow tribes would be good for everyone...

Thanks, Wil. I'd forgotten that rainbow connection. But now I also remember the Rainbow Coalition of Jesse Jackson, which as, you're saying here, including the whole shooting match.
 
Awaiting_the_fifth said:
First I want to say that I don't think being Gay has anything to do with being a buddhist since any kind of sex is clearly a samsaric pleasure and attachment to anyone is wrong. Homosexuality is just another delusion that must be abandoned, as is hetrosexuality.

After you abandon sex, who will you find to abandon your abandonment? Who will renounce your renunciation? Will you contract out of shop?

Awaiting_the_fifth said:
Mainly I feel compelled to question why a person would alter an image of the Buddha to suit his/her sexuality? An image of a Buddha is an image of a perfect being, and any imperfection therein derives from our cognition of it..

Would this be like drawing a picture of Mohammed?

Awaiting_the_fifth said:
With this in mind, to deliberately alter the image of Buddha to make it "Gay Friendly" is just crazy...

Have you never heard the zen saying, When you meet a Buddha in the road, paint him in pastels?

Awaiting_the_fifth said:
It is very pretty, it looks like something I would expect to see on the wall of a nightclub, but theologically I think it is a bad idea.

Theologically?

I guess we're disposed very differently on these things. But no need to debate. I was only offering my differing perspectives.

With metta
 
well, i hope that everyone knows that i did not mean to delibrately disgrace a image of the buddha for personal gain or recognition. i simply saw this on another website and thought that it offered a different prespective as well as shown the openness to homosexuality that is somewhat lacking in more larger, more mainstream religions. i think that it is a beautiful thing that someone decided to make and i appreciate this person for doing so. i however, do not hold any anger towards anyone who sees this as a bad thing because that is there opinion and everyone is entitled to be able to speak their thoughts and opinions on things. being a homosexual in the southern part of the USA is very difficult especially b/c i have many churches telling me about how i will burn in hell and my flesh will melt from my skin, and to find a religion so open to homosexuality is not only refreshing but it makes me happy to know that there are people as well as a religion that doesnt worry about who makes u happy and who u decide to spend your life with. and so, yes, when i saw that someone had made this, it did make me really happy and i thought that i would share this with everyone on here in hopes that it would make someone else as happy as it made me. i apologize for any disgracing that may have occured and i take full responisibility for it, though i dont know who made it.

personally, i think that the 'image of the buddha' that was spoken about on here should be directed more towards the image of the buddha in ones mind rather than a statue or picture. however, since i am a young buddhist, i may not be as wise as many others on this website in the proper ways to do things. but, that is my personaly opinion on the matter and i do apologize for any problems that this might have caused as well as any disgrace of the buddha that may have happened in the process of making this colorbar as well as in the sharing of it. i can be sure that it wasnt meant to be offensive or disgraceful of the buddha in any way.

may all be well in peace
 
Hello Toujour,

I would like to thank you for sharing the colorbar with us. I also don't think you should have to apologize for sharing it. I'm sure the creators intention was to promote loving kindness and acceptance. I should also mention that the only reason we perceive any sort of impurity is due to the impurity of our own mind.

I would also have to agree and conclude that the creator probably didn't do it with the purest "Buddhist" intention because it would still be promoting ideas and attachments of the non-existant mind and ego... but so does any image of the All Good One... Hmm... And as AT5 pointed out, homosexuality is just another attachment that one must overcome, but not any different than heterosexuality and there are many buddhist hetero couples. They just add their attachment to their list of attachments to overcome.

So if we are speaking conventionally, and I think we are, because most of us are not constantly doing things while directly realizing emptiness and having the purest of intentions... thank you for sharing.

Namaste
 
Gonna have to go with Devadatta on the whole renunciation/non-attachment issue that has arisen in this thread.

Awaiting the Fifth said:
attachment to anyone is wrong.

I couldn't disagree more. How can we live without attachment to anyone? I know this may sound unbuddhist, but to assert otherwise is impractical. Buddhists, for instance, are usually attached to Buddha, or perhaps a guru, or a sangha, or a certain teacher whose books they read.

It's not wrong to experience the pain and pleasure of attachment, but it can be overwhelming. I'm attached to many people. If they were to leave my life I would feel great pain. While they are in my life I am strengthened and empowered. Some day, though, I know that I will not work with the group of people I am currently working with. I will miss them and try to keep in touch; but I know I will be alright and will carry the experiences that I had with them along with me. If I were to lose my partner, I would be devastated. I am certainly attached to her, but I wouldn't have it any other way. She helps me develop and helps me in my practice. That is not wrong, in my mind.

Furthermore, if I thought and practiced that attachment to anyone is wrong, I would probably spend most of my time in a shack or a mountain cave, trying very hard to reach some sort of meditative bliss, simply to alleviate the loneliness. And then I would be facing all sorts of attachments: attachment to meditation, to loneliness, to my shack or cave that would keep my precious isolation and non-attachment intact. :eek: :eek: :confused: As Devadatta illustrated in his post, a deconstructionist approach to the idea of non-attachment is absurd.

toujour333 said:
i am a gay buddhist and i thought that this was very beautiful b/c its the only thing that ive seen that is gay friendly that involves a religion.

Have you looked into paganism at all? Oftentimes people in that community are open-minded and accepting of a wide range of sexual preferences and expression. Not that you should stop being a Buddhist. For me, I like to practice as many spiritual avenues as call my name.

Personally, I think the colorbar is fine. Would make a nice bumpersticker. ;)
 
its kinda funny that u mention paganism Pathless. i was a pagan for about9 years. i practiced with high-priestesses and high-priests and actually became very well versed in the pagan religions. however, i didnt find as much peace as i did when i started studying buddhism and i dont think i would ever go back. its just because i enjoy the path that i am on now and i believe that it is the path for me. if something happens along the way and my path leads another way, then so be it. but until then, im going to practice diligently and do my best to be the best person i can be and help as many people as i can. but, thanks Pathless. and thanks to everyone who has commented on here, despite our different of views.

be well in peace
 
I am certainly attached to her, but I wouldn't have it any other way. She helps me develop and helps me in my practice.
We often mistake attachment for love :)
 
toujour,

I assure you again that I meant no offense in my earlier post. There was no 'disgracing' that I could see.

I was simply saying what was in my mind for the purpose of debate. I always feel comfortable doing this here and I hope that you do as well.


Devadatta,

I think you're playing on semantics. What does it mean to renounce renunciation and abandon abandonment? Are you saying that it is wrong to renounce and/or abandon ones attachments?


Pathless,

I'm attached to many people. If they were to leave my life I would feel great pain.

This is the whole problem with attachment, like every other samsaric pleasure, it leads to pain.

if I thought and practiced that attachment to anyone is wrong, I would probably spend most of my time in a shack or a mountain cave, trying very hard to reach some sort of meditative bliss

Such dedication to meditative practice could only be a good thing. Perhaps if this was the case you would reach great enlightenment and be able to really help those who you love.

But no one is claiming that you should never see anyone again, just avoid attachment to people (or anything).

Just my opinion

Peace
ATF
 
Awaiting_the_fifth said:
This is the whole problem with attachment, like every other samsaric pleasure, it leads to pain.

I recognize that. My point is more that there is no getting around that. "Attachment" seems to be a subjective term that leads to misconceptions. It's my personal belief that to attempt to be detached from passions can be a from of supression--which will ultimately make things worse.

Awaiting_the_fifth said:
Such dedication to meditative practice could only be a good thing. Perhaps if this was the case you would reach great enlightenment and be able to really help those who you love.

Again, I am trying to point to something a bit different. How would I be able to help anyone if I simply isolated myself from everyone for fear of being attached? How can a person help other people if they remain isolated in their quest for 'enlightenment?' It must be done in the world, whether you are a renunciate or a lay person. Relationships are not attachments to be transcended; sexuality is not a defilement to be denied, either.

My thoughts on the subject. :) Apologies if this is getting off-topic.
 
Pathless said:
How would I be able to help anyone if I simply isolated myself from everyone for fear of being attached? How can a person help other people if they remain isolated in their quest for 'enlightenment?'

The idea is that you cannot really help anyone while "in the world" because soon we will all die and be reborn and any worldly help you have rendered will be lost as we begin again in yet another life surrounded by suffering. This is, of course, not to say that we should not help each other, far from it, but the only absolute cure for the suffering of mankind is enlightenment and liberation. To become a Buddha in order to help others achieve the same is the basic tennant of Mahayana Buddhism.

Not trying to preach, just explaining my POV, hope you understand.

Peace
ATF
 
I guess it's fair to say that attachment/non-attachment, like non-self/self, is one of the creaky hinges of Buddhism (roughly parallel, if you permit me, to the eros/agape, in the world/not of the world hinges of Christianity). In both cases, I think it's about the hinges, not about the door, or even about whether the door is open or closed.

And no, Awaiting the Fifth, I wasn't playing semantics, but only alerting you to the contextual nature of these issues. Some ascetic traditions may follow simple equations like purity=liberation, but I don't think that Buddhism, in its fullest expression, is one of them.

In one context, one stage of practice, you may want to adhere to the battle cry: we must overcome all attachments! In another context, you may come to different understandings of every word in that phrase. Attachments? Overcome? Must? We?

There are innumerable ways to look at what attachment and its overcoming means, and you know best what it means to you now, today. So I wasn't trying to covert you to some other understanding, but only alerting you to the provisional nature of all dhamma statements, and the danger of converting dhamma into a creed, and thus falling into wrong view.

(Here I want to mention that we are all practicing without a license, and for my part I hope I've been more helpful than harmful.)

with metta
 
hello all,

i hope that no one here thinks that i am angry about anything said on here. i welcome discussion and though i dont agree with some things said, i am happy that we are able to discuss things on here in an open enviroment. i apologize if i took things out of context or if i let my emotions on certian subjects get the best of me b/c that was wrong. this forum is here for the purpose of sharing ideas and discussing topics that are dear to all of our hearts and nothing that is discussed on here should be met with any inclination of anger, disapproval, or anything other than love, compassion, joy, and equinimity. i think that i took 'Awaiting_the_fifth's comments the wrong way, despite the beginning statement asking that i not take offense to it, and i personally want to apologize to you, 'awaiting' b/c that wasnt the right thing for me to do. i want to thank you for your imput on this subject b/c it has taught me a lot. thank you all and i hope that you all are happy and blessed.

be well in peace
 
Hello again,

Just throwing out what I intend to be some clarity.

Devadatta said:
I guess it's fair to say that attachment/non-attachment, like non-self/self, is one of the creaky hinges of Buddhism (roughly parallel, if you permit me, to the eros/agape, in the world/not of the world hinges of Christianity). In both cases, I think it's about the hinges, not about the door, or even about whether the door is open or closed.

I don't believe there is a creaky hinge with Buddhism, generally speaking. I find that to be true the more I practice and the clearer my understanding becomes. I've gotten to the point now that when I perceive a problem with Buddhism, I know it's in my own mind. However, in reference to the above; the idea in Buddhism is to break all attachment and understand emptiness but we skillfully, choose the objects we "believe" in and must attach ourselves to. We should know that through our practice our objects of refuge are also attachments we must one day break. But they're necessary stepping stones to reach the top.

Just my understanding. ;)
 
rdwillia said:
Just throwing out what I intend to be some clarity.

I don't believe there is a creaky hinge with Buddhism, generally speaking. I find that to be true the more I practice and the clearer my understanding becomes. I've gotten to the point now that when I perceive a problem with Buddhism, I know it's in my own mind. However, in reference to the above; the idea in Buddhism is to break all attachment and understand emptiness but we skillfully, choose the objects we "believe" in and must attach ourselves to. We should know that through our practice our objects of refuge are also attachments we must one day break. But they're necessary stepping stones to reach the top.

Just my understanding. ;)

Hi RD. I appreciate your understanding, and wouldn't take issue with its expression.

But it may be that you're reading something into my "creaky hinge" metaphor that I didn't intend. The metaphor may strike you as a little cheeky, but in no way is it pointing to a "problem" in the dhamma. It's saying the opposite: creaky hinges are why dhamma works.

Like explaining a joke, explanations in such cases are probably pointless, but if we think of a creaky hinge as an either/or expression that we work over & work over until it's oiled & working smoothly, two implications are plain: all verbal expressions are provisional, and the goal is not to be in this place or that place, but to attain free movement & the removal of all obstruction.

with metta
 
Hello Devadatta,

Gotcha'. I did misunderstand... Thank you for the clarification. See? Whenever I perceive some sort of confusion or problem, I can be certain it is the mud of my own my mind.

"Better keep yourself clean and bright; you are the window through which you must see the world."
-George Bernard Shaw

Metta
 
Back
Top