[Dwencejed]

After being quiet for a long time on how the world uses Buddha's images and name in a disrespectful way, reportedly, Buddhists will be no be longer be quiet. That's not really true. I live in Thailand and these types of complaints are extremely common (foreign tourists with Buddha tattoos on their feet, bars in America with Buddha decorations, British artists using Buddhas in 'inappropriate' ways, etc. etc.) Outside a fairly narrow range, nobody really cares so it's never going to be front page news on the BBC but it's there.

As for whether these guys are justified in complaining, if they find it upsetting it seems fine to complain about it and fine to expect others (Disney, a bar owner, me) to respect that. We should - it's not hard for Disney to think of another name for a dog or for a tourist to get a tattoo of something else; the benefits are great and the costs are essentially non-existent.

Is it 'Buddhist' to complain about this stuff? I don't think there's an answer to that. Thai Buddhism is one thing and the kind of Buddhism most westerners value is another but the latter is not some purer, more essential, more truthful distillation of the former so I'd be a bit careful about making pronouncements on whose interpretation is right. And in any case, it seems that the theological aspects to these questions are beside the point. To ask "Does Islam really prohibit depictions of Mohammed?" or "Does patriotism really oblige Americans to treat the flag as a religious icon?" or "Ought Buddhists really to venerate images?" is an exercise in futility. Just be nice to people and try not to upset them is surely enough to be getting on with - that alone is difficult enough for most of us to do, before we get into doctrinal disputes.