Quote:



An Artist who calls himself a Bodhisattva - but who writes in RED and BOLD and UNDERSCORES -

Should be treated with great circumspection...

I see, Sylvain, that I have tried your patience, which was not my intention.

This morning I stopped at a grocery store, and when I came out a woman was there crying. Another woman told me that the woman had struck my vehicle. I gave the crying woman a hug, said "Don't worry about it" and left. The damage was mostly cosmetic.

Between us the damage is mostly cosmetic, and if you were in reach you'd get a hug too. And then I'd tell you, "Don't worry about it."

Tom

Tom, I worry about people who 'shout' - because, in this World, those who shout the loudest - are often the only ones being 'heard'.

And often the ones who whisper gently, are the only ones worth listening to:-

(((Tom))) Big Hugs...

Penelope, I used red and bold only to distinguish between the progenitors of the statements. Perhaps if Tom would share his method for creating those aesthetically pleasing boxes around quotes I could do the same...

As for anger, I would say incredulous and passionate to get some clarity in a dialogue that suddenly became solely argumentative and contradictory. At such a level of discussion as this, there can be little tolerance for nonsense. The Buddha was a strict teacher. Stricture and discipline when directed at correction to one's highest potentials is the most compassionate action. Stricture to an egotistic agenda is highly distructive. I think in the West, many have forgotten that the act of compassion is sometimes harsh and distasteful. A spoonful of truth is not always sweet...

A Bodhisattva mission is a mission to facilitate others to the correct path, it is by no means a claim to perfection Though I am an ordained and practicing Buddhist for over twenty years and teach as well, I am firstly a man in Samsara, and an artist. This book represents years fo introspection, practice, and research putting forth a serious and deep understanding and insight into the many facets of "Art". As such, it is important to me that the ideas it discusses are understood clearly.

So, once again, I am supremely thankful for the opportunity to discuss around this topic and greatly appreciate all participants and comments. As the Buddha teaches, everything and everyone is my teacher.

Tom, you did not "try" my patience. You did however chose to create statements of total disregard and convolusion, which I corrected. If it is not your goal to arrive at clarity, then I am sad to see this as the way you terminate your discussions. If it was your goal to create discord, then I am equally sad.

Penelope, Who is shouting? If you asume that my use of bold type is "loud" I apologize and again state that it was just a diferentiating method. Had I chosen specific words or sentences to bold, well perhaps then it would seem a stronger point.

As far as hugs, let us all hug all around.
Spirited discussion is healthy and a journey for all. Without spirited discussion we can easily digress into memetic parroting and uninspired banter. I congratulate you all...job well done :_P

Love and respect

Sylvain

Yes, Sylvain, that I can do.

The text you see on your monitor is formatted in Bulletin Board Code (BB Code), and you will find an explanation at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBCode

Then go down to: 2 BBCode tags.

Each message at BookTalk has a quote button in the upper right corner. Click on this button and you will go to the Post a Reply window and can see how the text has been formatted. That's how I learned the few BB Code tags I uses. I think it's possible to insert tags by clicking on them above the Post a Reply Window, but my habit is to type them in directly.

Once you have formatted your text, click on the Preview button to see what the text will look like. Edit errors and click Preview again until everything looks good. Then click the Submit button.

If latter you find an error in your posted message, you may correct it by clicking on the edit button, which is just to the right of the quote button in messages you post.

My statements about my view of art were no more disregardful, terminative, or discordant than the above. In both cases I was trying to be helpful according to my lights.

Tom

Sifusilvain (would it be impolite to call you Sifu?)

Thank you for your kind explanation and truly, I am very grateful. I do understand now, your reason for sounding so strict and authoritative.

The fact that you have taken the trouble to explain is very reassuring, because I am sure you realise that it is important to be circumspect when accepting a Guru. Which is what you seem to be.

When the student is ready, the Guru will appear: So I have been told. It can be verified on this forum that I have gone to some lengths to defend the teachings of Budhism (only, as I have begun to understand it). I have defended it on this atheist forum, and so have felt rather drained and needed someone to come along and 'direct' my thoughts/path.

I know that I am not as erudite, educated or academic as either Robert Tulip or Tom Hood, but I do seek with a sincere heart.

Thank you again. I will search out your book, and recommend it to others if I find it accessible, but I do hope that you will continue to have a dialogue with us on here as it is a great privilidge to have a personal exchange with the Samsara(?)....I hope I am using the correct term.

Best Wishes
Penn

Thank You Tom.

I will look into it right away. It is much more pleasing to the eye.

Namumyohorengekyo

Love and respect

Sylvain

Many do refer to me as Sifu. Thank You.

I have to thank Tom for the "quote" button info. Now I can relax about the cut and paste thing...

I truly appreciate your kind and supportive words. My heart and mind have truly grown through this thread. I appreciate all the participants even those who may have read but not contributed in writing.

I will always make every effort to remain true to the teachings and help to the degree that I am able, those who seek out more learning opportunities. I wish you strong health and good fortune.

Should you like to communicate outside this forum, my email is threefoldlotus@hotmail.com and the sanctuary website is at http://threefoldlotus.com

Thank You Tom, Robert, Penelope!

Love and respect,

Sylvain

After seeing Sylvain's comments on this post, here are mine. Tom was on to something with his earlier use of the atman=brahman idea - that the real self is to the cosmos as a wave is to the sea - combining particular identity and unity with the whole. Great geniuses such as Picasso often have this intuitive sense of cosmic unity, and he was renowned for how his style and character infused all his work. Nonetheless, you cannot recapture the naivety you had before you knew something was by Picasso, so similarities that are obvious to an informed person are far from obvious when the painter's identity is unknown. Certainly Braque is similar and often hard to tell from Picasso, but like Lennon and McCartney (or Lenin and Stalin) they are individuals whose own muse comes through in their creations. On Guernica, Sylvain is passionate about its message, while Tom places that message in a political context. The struggle between communism and fascism was not a struggle between truth and falsehood or between good and evil. Tom has a fair point that in painting Guernica Picasso was expressing his political support for the Spanish Republic, and Tom is entitled to his opinions about the compromised morality of the republican cause. But saying it is not art is a rough comment about one of the most esteemed works of the last century. What ever you think of the communist cause it was at times inspired by genuine human feeling regarding the need for social justice, and this inspiration comes through in Guernica. Socialist realism manipulated this feeling for base motives, and this is what I suspect Tom is reacting against. Robert

Hi Robert!

You writing is very lucid, and I both appreciate and envy you this gift.

I agree in both your descriptions of Artists and Guernica. I would only add that my "passion" regarding the "content" of Guernica was in the context of the stated question, "Art" and Artist as one?

The first difficulty of this guestion was to define what is "Art".
The second difficulty, to define which "art" the artist is "one" with...

Certainly I agree of Picasso's stature and his obvious reaction to Franco, et al. I would even say, as I think I inferred, that Picasso let's the world know his opinion of the events. As much as this resembles the "fusion" of artist and "work" of "Art", my entire diatribe has been to show that the "Art" of the "event" of both Picasso and Guernica is transcendent of the two "physical" entities (Picasso, Guernica) in the content that affects and informs both and all who experience it. The "Art", I argue is neither Picasso nor Guernica, but of and through both. The "artwork" and the "artist" are bound in a synergistic moment of communicating this larger truth which is neither contained or created by either. Makes sense?

This is why I alluded to the idea that Tom and I are not far apart on this guestion. Semantics being what they are, the wave is not the ocean, but certainly closely related. On a larger scale though, the ocean and the waves can be viewed as "one" from the vantage point of their tiny part of the universe and its functions. Ultimately there is no diferentiation in an enlightened state, but this is Samsara, a state of diferentiation by definition. And so I will state in another way why clarity in understanding is essential.

In the moment an artist experiences transcendent energies, thoughts, what-have-you, that artist may truly be experiencing "one"-ness. It is my contention that this "oneness" is with the universal, the eternal. As this experience "takes form", transmits, translates, through the artist and onto the support medium, the transcendent becomes imbude with the artists experience and lense. The art "work" becomes artifact of the artist in transformation and the artist's communication to the medium. Because the work receives and then becomes static, it "develops" throughout the artist's experience from entry to exit. The "work" now stands for an event much as a worn out shoe represents an event, allbeit prolonged. Like the Moon, rife with craters and marks, there is evidence of "event" that can communicate beyond its marks and craters, something "other" than Moon or marks or meteor, etc... The event is not the work and it is not the artist, but experienced by both and by nature, disparately. Certainly the meteor and the Moon have diferring accounts of the "event".

The shoe and the wearer/s certainly share history, and event, but the worn out shoe, like the work, are impermanent and have no "real" or eternal identity. Nor does the artist. What is shared between these two impermanent instantiations is the event, which demonstrates certain eternal truths of decay, pressures, and even attachments of impermanence itself. You could argue that ultimately all things then are "one", but the point is that here, in Samsara, there is diferentiation. And it is in this diferentiated state that we find artist, art work, and "Art". Were they ever to become "one" in this mundane world, they would simply not exist as artist, work, "Art" or Picasso, or guernica, or....yes?

Having said this, the "Oneness" communicated may have resulted in the viewer/reader as a result of sharing the event through the "work" by an "artist". That is always a precious moment and one that every artist reaches for. But the "Oneness" transmitted is the viewer/readers, and neither the work's nor the artist's. Herein lies the confusion. The Artist, the work, the "Art" may be praised and lauded as benevelant communicators and gifted linguists, translators, and even promote a sense of the sublime where all things are "perceived" as "one". But non are one, for then there would be none...

It appears to me as it did at the start, that this entire dialogue has been generated through a very poorly defined guestion. But the "revelations" of that definition have been the opportunity to investigate far beyond the parameters of the stated question into the realm of "the guestion"...

And this is where I hear the Buddahs' voice chuckling at the uselessness of words...

Truly, I have not had the pleasure of such a wonderous dialogue in a long time. I hope you all truly sense how much I have enjoyed this interlocution. Typos and all.

Sincere praise,

Sylvain

I've noticed that many BookTalk members make mistakes when using BB Code. I've thought of two reasons:

First, the code buttons do not always put the tag at the cursor, so if you want a tag at a particular location it may be necessary to type it in. If a tag is mislocated, then the display will be in error until that tag is found and deleted.

Second, many BB Code tags are ordered pairs like parentheses. Each left parenthesis must eventually be follow by a right parenthesis. Each beginning tag must be followed by a closing tag. If any one tag is in error, then the display may be incorrect throughout the text.

Tom