Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow, the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.
@Bodhi - I have already had this discussion in the comment section of the answer below. Further, a moderator has pointed out to me that the comment section is not the ideal place for side talk. However, if you request a clarification, I can edit my answer to address it.
@Hrafn - Not ignoring you. Maybe this question is better for chat (so if it disappears I won't be offended), but for future reference: I thought that as long as the back-and-forth didn't go off-topic, it was allowed. Is there any other criteria?
@back2dos - I received no clarification by the user. As for the rest, I have answered your objections, any more and I would be repeating myself, so that's a good sign that I have said all that can be said.
(con't) its hands completely clean, even today. We cannot control the future, so I don't see how removing religious imagery would be any more of a protective measure than, say, demanding more accountability for embezzlers, sexual predators, and pedophiles in the sangha. With the statues gone, those people would still remain.
(con't)isolationist. This concept is actually contrary to human nature. Our understanding of different concepts, like religion, is social and dynamic. It is not a coincidence that hermits have to be very advanced in spiritual practice (or at least on their way to being so) in order to be able to practice alone and not go insane. Us householders who do not have that same experience suffer in isolation. Even modern psychologists agree that extreme isolation is damaging to the human mind. Lastly, removing imagery would not guarantee that Buddhism wouldn't devolve, not that Buddhism has(con't)
@back2dos - 1) How have you proven imagery is less useful? If anything, imagery and ritual is more useful to illiterate people, or people who do not have the inclination for Buddhist studies (there is nothing wrong with that; religion isn't everyone's forte), 2) the Buddhist community and our commonality of belief is definitely not something just in my head, and in no way is celebrating the dharma with others an instrument of oppression and 3) it takes a community to fight instruments of oppression, not one lone person. I do not think the solution to answering this is to become(con't)
(con't) more people, not turning it into an elitist club where only the ones who "really get it" benefit. The Buddhas and Bodhisattvas love everyone, so I do not doubt that they will answer a call of sincerity, instead of denying people merit for not getting everything right on some dharmic checklist. Also, the newer generation is actually even more information hungry on average, so I do not think the dharma is in danger. So, alienating people for the sake of strict orthodoxy is unnecessary. People are free to join traditions that don't emphasize imagery; there is something for everyone.
@Bodhi - I have never witnessed such a resentment, but I do believe you when you say that some people are resentful. However, I would counter that 1) even more people would be resentful of their religion being stripped of the tradition that has been grounding them for generations because people thought they were too ignorant to keep it and 2) upaya such as religious imagery and ritual teaches illiterate people, or people without scholarly inclination, and there is nothing wrong with not having scholarly inclination when it comes to religion. We should make following the path easier, for(con't)
@back2dos - Edit - Also, as to your historical point, I personally do not see the value in trying to reconstruct a religious concept based on "the original". Since we weren't there, our perspective is obviously going to be flawed. Further, it is natural for religions to evolve over time, and chasing the past often leads to someone practicing a religion that only exists in their head.
