When I dreamt, I found the spaces in between…

The week or so that we spent in Thailand, and now the week and a half or so that we’ve spent in Laos, has been a lesson on (or at least a confused observation of) contrasts. It doesn’t make sense for me to go into all of the details (would take too much time than I’d like in an internet cafe), but here are some thoughts:

Wandering from northern to southern Laos, Trix and I keep sensing a difference in the expression of Buddhism between the two countries. Yes, we see plenty of wats and monks in orange and incense and flowers offered in honor of the Buddha in both countries. At first it seems like the same flavor and it’s easy to shrug and pass on. But you start noticing that in Laos there are less monks in each town, that wats are more likely to charge an admission fee (rather than just have a donation box), that many of the wats have concession stands selling post cards and sodas and snacks, and that you just feel a little more awkward going to these wats than you do in Thailand.

So I did a little reading, which of course means in the Lonely Planet guide to Laos (’cause it’s all I’ve got for now, sorry folks), and here’s what I learned. Buddhism was alive and well in Laos until 1975, when the Communist government almost completely squelched the religion, going so far as to forbid Laotians from offering alms to the monks, thereby forcing the monks to work for their own food (which is a strict no no in Buddhism). After serious discontent and anger from the people, the government allowed alms-giving in 1976. Since then, however, according to LP, it has also edited all of the Buddhist texts that monks are allowed to study, has banned Thammayut Buddhism (apparently the form of Buddhism that monks in Thailand follow, which emphasizes the importance of meditation), and makes monks submit to a sort of political indoctrination while in the monastery. (We also learned, quite separately, that there’s a country-wide curfew of midnight, all the time…this is also of interest regarding the general political situation here.) Interesting, indeed.

Obviously, we had a ton of questions about what this has meant for Buddhism, religion, and spirituality in general in Laos. How important is Buddhism in the lives of young folk in Laos, since it seems so limited in its scope of influence? What exactly is the scope of influence in the lives of Laos people? Why did it seem like the wats in Laos (north all the way down to Vientiane, at least, so far) focused more on making money from tourists than on actual places of worship, honor, and spirit, as they seemed at least moreso in Thailand?

We found an English speaking guide in one wat today in Vientiane and were able to ask him some of these questions. First of all, when we told him we were from California, he called us hippies, which was hilarious and vaguely mortifying. When we asked if he had ever been a monk, he told us that he was for one day, which also kind of hilarious and vaguely mortifying. Mostly funny tho, when you think about it. Anyway, here’s what he had to say, which of course is only one guy’s opinion, but it was interesting to hear nonetheless:

There are certainly less monks here in Laos than there are in Thailand, in part because it’s more lucrative to learn English and launch yourself into the tourist industry than it is to become a monk and devote yourself to poverty and the contemplative life. Understanding this, according to this guy, this is actually why the poor of Laos send their boys to monastery for a short period of time: to learn English, launch themselves in the tourist industry, and send home their earnings. He also told us how many of the young monks now have cell phones and talk to girls. Again, hilarious/mortifying.

Before talking to this guide, I had been feeling kind of badly about thinking that the people in Laos that we came into contact with (who were associated with the wats) really were only concerned about our money, that I must be missing something. I’m sure I’m still missing something, and I’m sure this guy’s story isn’t the be all and end all, but I was surprised to hear him tell us the very things that we were thinking: Buddhism is less about religion these days than it is about commerce.

I have half-baked theories about this, and they will remain half-baked until (and if/when) I’m able to research more and ask more questions, but here are some very short (and probably obvious, at this point) thoughts. First, Communism in this form necessarily limits the expression of religious ideas, especially religious ideas that promote freedom from the self, from institutions, from daily struggle, hence the government-edited Buddhist texts (oh, how I wish I could get my hands on a translated version of these!) and the political indoctrination. After a few decades, with this cleaned up and controlled version of religion comes a inherent change in how Buddhism is expressed, understood, used, and practiced. Then enter the rapid increase of tourism into the equation, the commerce factor is added, and we seem to get is a form of Buddhism that trumps commerce over spirituality. Out comes a weirdly distant and kitsch-ified religion, that doesn’t seem to be supported culturally. A means rather than an end?

Enough. This has been fun to think about and I’m eager to learn more. Anyone want an internet research project while I’m gone…? ; )