Buddha Bar

A good friend just sent me a short text (see below, I've chosen to include it here integrally for clearer reference) stating that the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka is concerned against the usage of Buddha statues in a chain of food and entertainment venues deemed Buddha Bar. His concern is that the Buddha statues are set in a context where alcohol is consumed and dancing takes place.

My objective throughout the body of this post is to explain, in my opinion, which are the positive and negative aspects of this question, while trying to perhaps give some more context to why this question was raised in the first place.

"Newspaper reports here say the prime minister is seeking details on the nature of the Buddha Bar chain, which is based in Paris and appears to have branches in other cities including Dubai, New York and Sharm el-Sheikh in Egypt. The trendy and expensive restaurants feature large statues of Lord Buddha. The prime minister's concern appears to be that alcohol is consumed or dancing takes place in front of the statues, both activities which many
Sri Lankans deem disrespectful in the religious context. If so, the prime minister wants to "take necessary action" against the bars but it's not clear what this would entail. The issue has already proved controversial in Indonesia, which has a Buddha Bar outlet in the capital. Members of the Buddhist minority and even a government minister have asked that it change
its name or close down, but neither has happened. The Sri Lankan government is sensitive about the majority faith here and recently the international rap singer, Akon, was forced to cancel a concert here because one of his videos shows a swimming pool party flanked by a Buddha statue. But a prominent Sri Lankan blogger has criticised the government attitude, calling the prime minister's comments an "empty threat" designed to bolster the
country's image as an island of Buddhism surrounded by Hinduism and Islam.// The blogger commented that many Westerners are interested in Buddhism because, in his words, "it's perceived as being above the petty squabbles and offences of other religions". The government may be gratified, however, to hear that the recession recently forced the London
branch of Buddha Bar to close down.

Prime Minister D. M. Jayaratne has sought information on a Restaurant\Bar chain located in several countries called the ‘Buddha Bar’ in a bid to see whether they were openly abusing Buddhism.

The Premier who is also the Buddhist and Religious Affairs Minister has instructed his Secretary to seek a report in this regard from Sri Lankan embassies.

The Prime Minister’s office reported that they had received information that these restaurants which serve liquor to customers in the presence of Buddha statues existed in the US, UK, France etc.

Details on their activities have been published on the Internet, they added.

Following the revelation, the Premier had instructed authorities to look into the matter and if found to be true, inform the Governments with the intervention of the External Affairs Ministry, to take steps to prevent such inappropriate use of Buddha statues.

The Prime Minister also expects to bring the issue to the attention of the World Buddhist Council."

I can see the validity of Sri-Lankan Prime Minister's argument, especially if he is someone that, as we Buddhists tend to say, has tasted the Dhamma.

When one has profound meditative experiences one's perception of world and self changes substantially. When this happens, as the direct result of applying the Buddha's teachings to one's life, one spontaneously begins to deeply treasure both the teachings, the Buddha and those that have sustained, expanded and nurtured these teachings safe for so many centuries. Sacredness is therefore temporal, contextual and, perhaps most importantly, directly experiential.
In this, I believe I comprehend how a fellow Buddhist might feel. For the Buddha was a man of incredible inner strength, something I feel only truly enlightened beings can truly understand (for they share it, at least to some extent). For the rest of us, the vision we have is much less clearer and therefore our perception of the Buddha tends to be based on hearsay, tradition, religion or indirect knowledge.
And, because of this, we miss the true sacredness, not only of the Buddha but also of all enlightened beings.

So, it is quite natural (especially for those of us not born in some sort of Buddhist tradition) for us to look upon a statue of the Buddha and see it perhaps more as a decorative element rather than a symbol of true sacredness.

Now I don't think that there's nothing necessarily wrong with this. It's a lack of cultural context, simply put.

However, I also feel that the core of the Buddhist teachings is the practice itself rather than any other external symbolism. I think the Buddha himself was very clear on this. His compassion was in his concern towards others. He knew that images are ultimately a distraction from the ultimate goal of meditation but that, in the earlier stages of the practice, they can be one of the supports towards the development of one's eightfold faculties.

My belief is that, if the Buddha were alive he would understand with an open heart someone's usage of his own image for commercial purposes. And he would continue to do his work of liberation for all beings.

I roughly agree with what the blogger that said that Buddhism is "perceived as being above the petty squabbles and offences of other religions".
Even though I don't agree so much with the wording he employed, I believe I've grasped the general intention for its using.
For me Buddhism's fundamental difference is that it focuses more in bringing to the world a method, a practice that allows each and everyone of us to come nearer to the non-dual experience that is at the heart of the human being. This is the thing perhaps most of us should be looking for. The thing most of us are in fact looking for - albeit in perhaps skewed ways.

Therefore each issue that confronts Buddhism should be seen from this light, from the light of compassion and non-duality.

I think it is important for us to differentiate between the teachings themselves and perhaps our attachment to them.

From another perspective I think we can confidently say that the image of the Buddha is one of the very few that the vast majority of human beings alive today can recognise and identify. It's not only obvious but inevitable that this image will be used for all manner of purposes. It is not owed by anyone. Even if some of us might cherished it incredibly, others definitely will not.
Some will perhaps even hate it. It doesn't matter. I think that there are bigger issues at hand.
Like how to remain compassionate in societies where humans are highly competitive and aggressive towards one another.
How to take care of the teachings and pass them on to future generations.
And, how can we ourselves become better human beings.
If these things are being observed then the the misuse of images isn't even a problem.

In fact we can even see this whole problem from a completely different perspective- We can see it as a celebration.
If for a long time now people have deified the image of the Buddha, well, I believe that I'm not too far of ins stating that, as culture changes, deification changes also.
To put it simply, that we are doing it again.
And that we are doing it through the eyes and tools of contemporary culture.
Thus, our deification comes through consumerism, perhaps the world's biggest religion these days.

In fact we might even say that this is a good sign. A sign that Buddhism is so present in current times, throughout the world, that somebody somewhere even thought that having a chain of restaurants/bars with the name Buddha would be good for business.
It means that Buddha and Buddhism are a recognised and recognisable part of our society. They are known.

And this is good. After all with obscurantism comes forgetfulness, comes a greater likelihood of the teachings being lost.
Of course with widespread knowledge comes everything else. Comes the preservation of values but also their distortion.
It's a natural consequence, nothing more.

Besides, we can always hope that, at least some of those that will enter the Buddha Bars for simple enjoyment, may perhaps leave a bit more curious about Buddha and Buddhism.
Perhaps even a few of those will read some Wikipedia entry about these things.
Perhaps a smaller fraction even will engage in the study and practice of the teachings and have their life transformed by them.

And who will be able to say that the Buddha Bar was a bad thing then?

On a more practical note we can also say that we will never be able to track down each improper usage of Buddhist imagery. I think it's somewhat pointless to even try and go out into the world and do that. I think we have more to lose by opposing one's freedom of using imagery that belongs to no one and all than we might possibly gain by doing so.
We must not forget that Buddhist imagery has been witness to many good and bad things throughout these 25 centuries. And it is likely that they will continue to do so.
If anything let's us take these things in the spirit of the Buddha. In the spirit of what he taught and struggled so hard to give to people, to help people achieve for their own benefit and that of all beings.
To take these matters with compassion and understanding, promoting a right, holystic, wholesome view.
Let us replace confrontation with compassion.
Let us be Buddhists.