Humiliation & Buddhist Monks?

PDN

I was really troubled by an article (and the accompanying photograph) in the International Herald Tribune on Monday: http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/13/asia/luang.php


Apparently Buddhist Monks in Laos are a real tourist attraction - but am I alone in finding the above photo as embodying the ugliness of human nature? The tourists treating the monks like animals on safari turns my stomach.

What surprised me is that some of the locals who promote the tourism served as monks themselves for a period. Surely this kind of thing must be humiliating for the monks involved, but I want to know is that the point of having them begging anyway? Is the whole point to deny oneself and get rid of pride? Are the tourists actually helping the monks to do this?

Asiaprod

PDN wrote: »

Surely this kind of thing must be humiliating for the monks involved, but I want to know is that the point of having them begging anyway? Is the whole point to deny oneself and get rid of pride? Are the tourists actually helping the monks to do this?

Good question PDN. The original name for a monk is bhikkhu. This literally translates as "beggar", and it is traditional for bhikkhus to beg their food. In many places this has become a ritual, where lay people feed monastics in order to obtain merit which will ensure them a fortunate rebirth.

In addition, monks are not supposed to own possessions. You are correct in that begging for food was traditionally a way of ridding oneself of pride. I believe groups like the Franciscans and other Christian Monastic orders all follow the same practise. There are always exceptions as in any faith where some just find it easier to live off the general populace.
Another regional quirk is where people become monks for short periods of their lives. In Asia, the life of the village revolved around the temple. Sons were given to the temple for short periods of time to serve the monks. This is in contrast to western faiths where one is a priest for life.

The commercialization of the monks as you mentioned can go either way. Some promotors give monetarily back to the temples, some do it for their own gain. Tourists are tourists and will do silly things. Does this commercialization help the monks, I have no idea to be honest, I can make a case for either position. To survive in this day and age one needs money so the commercialization can help the monks meet their needs. If money takes precedence over the monk's spiritual journey then commercialization works against the monks. Guess it all comes down to the particular monk or his temple elder.

MeditationMom

I had the same reaction and judgment - "ugly tourists" - and "great question".

On further thought - it can only be the monk's ego that can be uncomfortable, which makes greedy photo tourists indeed good practice for them. The tourists - poor in spirit - are drawn to and want to capture what is rare and beautiful - just like wild animals are rare and beautiful - and precious, because endangered. Animals and buddhist monks are much alike in these areas, which explains this scene.

Now if the monks could just become as easy going, or even playful, or even bow to the tourists - that would be something. After this further thought I feel compassion for the tourist who is so poor. How his life could be enriched by a serene Buddha smile or humble bow. It is up to the monks to turn this lead situation into gold - maybe even literally - as in good for tourism for the town that is feeding them. I see the old monks - with a twinkle - sending out the young monks into this situation.

DublinWriter

Ask yourself who are the ones truly being humiliated.