323rd
Meeting – Tuesday, June 8th 2010
A talk by Roger Casas
Present: Bob Vryheid, Steve Epstein, Derrick Titmus, Ken Dyer,
Ricky Ward, Jack
Eisner, Renee Vines, Bonnie Brereton, Hand and Sangdao Bänziger,
Jacques
Leider, Louis Gabaude, Prissy Soontorminate, Willem van Gogh, Hunter
Marston,
Uwanna Rathanasri, Caroline Marsh, John Cadet, Reinhard Hohler, Ann
Adams,
Ursula Cats. An audience of 22.
The following is a summary of his talk prepared by
Roger:
The Tai Lue of Sipsong Panna are arguably one of the
ethnic groups in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) that have
received more
attention from academic scholars since the end of the 1980s. The
importance
that Sipsong Panna has acquired since the beginning of the 1990s as one
of the
main tourist destinations in the PRC undoubtedly plays an important
role in
this interest towards the area and the changes it is experiencing as
part of
its integration within national and regional trade markets.
Assimilating on its way elements of previously
existing local cults, Theravada Buddhism spread from Chiang Mai (via
Kengtung,
in Shan State, Burma) and was adopted as a legitimating cult by the
ruling
class of Sipsong Panna at some point between the thirteenth and
fifteenth
centuries. As it is the case of many
other Tai
societies in Southeast Asia, Buddhism in Sipsong Panna essentially
revolved
around the practice of dana (Pali) or tan (Lue), the
virtue of
giving, exercised mainly through the various religious festivals (also
called tan)
informing the Lue calendar, but also through the daily food offerings
by which
villagers provide the means of subsistence for the Sangha, the
community
of monks and novices.
Traditionally,
Lue males were expected to become monks at least once in their lives,
usually
for a few years during childhood or youth, although there were no fixed
norms
regulating when to enter the Sangha or for how long. The temple stood
as the
main institution for cultural transmission, for it was practically the
only
place where someone could learn to read and write the Lue script, and
therefore
spending more or less time in the Sangha was also a fundamental scale
by which
Lue would judge social status of individuals.
According to the ethnographic work carried out in the
region by Chinese specialists during the 1950s, these features remained
virtually unchanged until the incorporation of the Sipsong Panna polity
within
the structures of the PRC through the creation of the Xishuangbanna Dai
Autonomous Prefecture (XDAP) in 1953, and the subsequent implementation
of
socialist policies in the area. The land reform in 1956 marked the
beginning of
a series of measures aimed at transforming the political and social
organization in newly created Sipsong Panna, and affirming the control
of the
Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in the area. As Buddhist religion was
considered
a major support for the political structure of the former Sipsong Panna
kingdom, CCP policies were persistently pursued to dismantle the
religious administrative
framework in the area. Religious practice was broadly deemed an
obstacle for
the carrying out of economic reform, and therefore the land reform, as
well as
the consecutive movements of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural
Revolution, caused the overall interruption of religious practice among
the
Sipsong Panna Lue. Many Lue monks fled to
The change of leadership in the CCP and the PRC in
1976-78 brought this period of overt repression to an end. The Cultural
Revolution was officially deemed a negative period that had put in
danger
harmonious relations between the Han and the rest of ethnic groups
inside the
PRC. Religious practices of ethnic groups were again tolerated by
official
ideology, and, consequently, after being repressed for more than three
decades,
Buddhist practice in Sipsong Panna flourished again: since the
beginning of the
1980s a process of reconstruction of temples and shrines and overall
recovery
of Buddhist practice took place in the region; once village temples had
been
restored (even if precariously), locals arranged for the ordination of
novices,
recovering a process that had been practically disrupted for more than
20
years. To this day monks and novices are still an inseparable part of
the social
landscape in Sipsong Panna.
30 years after the start of the
Buddhist “revival” in the area, however, the discipline
(or, better put, lack
thereof) of local novices and monks remains an issue – for the
heads of the
local Sangha in particular: measured by the standards of monastic
discipline in
Thailand and other countries in the region, the behaviour of monks
(called tu in Lue language) and novices (pha
in Lue) in Sipsong Panna, where
drinking alcohol, eating full meals in the afternoons, driving motor
vehicles,
working in the fields, and flirting with girls are common practices
among
members of the Sangha, is nowadays considered by both insiders and
outsiders as
“backward”, and a reflection of the extreme repression
suffered in the recent
past.
This is only partially true. On one
hand, the repression suffered by Buddhism in Sipsong Panna is probably
only
comparable to that suffered by Khmer Buddhism under the Democratic
Kampuchea
regime between 1975 and 1978; on the other, however, Buddhism in that
region can
be said to belong to a different tradition than that of the different
schools
present in today’s Southeast Asia: Sipsong Panna has not gone
through a
reforming process of religious administrative centralization and
purification
of practices, as has happened, for instance, in Thailand – if
anything, it can
be argued that the local Sangha is now going through one such process.
In any
case, remnants of local, past elements of Buddhist practice have
survived in
Sipsong Panna (for instance, the absence of alms collection, the
afternoon meal,
etc.), elements prior not only to any modern reform, but even to the
so-called
“singhalization” of Southeast Asian Buddhism around the
fifteenth century. The
problematic of discipline of Sipsong Panna monks at present probably
reflects a
situation that was common among Buddhist communities in the so-called
“pre-modern” period.
In
any case, the problematization of monastic discipline in Sipsong Panna
has
provoked a series of interventions through which the discipline of the
local Sangha
has become the target of a reformist project aimed at transforming
local monks
into examples of moral conduct and model citizens, in a context of
economic
modernization and the internationalization of local traditions. I would
like
now to focus on this project, and specifically in the significance of
the
individual practices of religious specialists and their adaptation to
the new
cultural context in Sipsong Panna. In any case, I will not discuss
monastic
discipline in the area from a normative point of view; instead, I
simply aim
here at highlighting some points of the relation between this
problematic and
the political, social and economic transformations that Sipsong Panna
has
experienced in its recent past.
To start with, we may ask what the determinants of
traditional practice in relation to monastic discipline are. In
relation to
this problem, an increasing number of academic works are putting into
question
the importance of textual training for the study of Buddhist monastic
learning,
privileging instead the relevance of ritual practices over the study of
texts,
and emphasising other, informal and non-verbal aspects of monastic
education – such
as body practices and the imitation of models within and outside the
temple.
Concerning monastic education in
Sipsong Panna, it is clear that textual learning has a very secondary
place in
local temples – more important are the diverse models of
behaviour influencing
learning practices of the novice. After the members of the family, once
the boy
enters the temple the monk or monks within it then become obvious
models of
behaviour for the child, who, observing them, will imitate and acquire
the
manners and attitude of his mentor. Other, intermediate but sometimes
closer models
are provided by the pha long or elder
novices, with whom the younger (pha noi)
often establish strong bonds of affection.
Village temples in Sipsong Panna are still, among many
other things, places for the recreation of village men and boys; lay
teenagers in
particular often come to the temples to spend time and play with their
peers,
providing an important and strong link with the “outside
world” for novices. This
interaction symbolized in the friendship between novices and lay
teenagers points
to a continuity with the secular “world” and with a type of
“education” outside
strict monastic morality. One of the most important aspects of this
education is
masculinity, especially through this
contact with other teenagers and young adults; the novice acquires the
habits traditionally
associated with male behaviour: drinking alcohol, smoking, flirting
with girls,
etc. All of these practices are generally accepted by Lue villagers,
and not
necessarily looked down upon even among religious specialists.
But this does not mean that there is
no separation between monk and layman, or that the canonical discipline
is totally
disregarded, or that there are no norms concerning how monks should
behave. “Canonical”
Buddhist morality is also relevant to understand local monastic
discipline: there
are older monks and novices who do try to adhere to a more strict way
of life –
and these are of course equally respected within the community.
However, and regarding
the “problematic” activities described above, the
determinant factor in their
social acceptance is that the novice or monk is also expected to
establish a discipline
of moderation in relation to them: novices and monks are allowed and
often
expected to take part in practices usually considered improper for
religious
specialists outside of Sipsong Panna, but on the condition that they
show the
necessary self-control and self-restriction.
The importance of Buddhist monastic
discipline among the Lue (and other Buddhist groups) lies thus in
establishing
a certain ethos, a particular attitude of self-control, and through it
a
certain morality, which help legitimating the privileged status of some
Tai men
in relation to other fellow Tai men, of Tai men in relation to all
women (who
cannot be ordained and must conform with helping provide the means of
subsistence of monks and novices and participating in ritual
activities), and
of the Tai as a whole in relation to other ethnic groups inhabiting the
region
such as the Akha, Lahu, etc., and which are excluded from access to
this
privileged form of education. In short, even if many of the norms taken
for
granted in Thailand and elsewhere are not observed among monks and
novices in
Sipsong Panna, Buddhist monastic discipline still acts among the Lue as
a major
tool for cultural transmission and social differentiation, a veritable
“discipline
of power”.
This is still to a great extent
valid. However, the consolidation of CCP rule together with the massive
arrival
of Chinese migrants in the area during the last five or six decades has
put an
end to the previous cultural-symbolic and socio-economic dominance of
the Tai
in Sipsong Panna – and brings into question the role of Buddhism
as a
fundamental cultural marker among them. This end has come in a gradual
way,
accelerating from 1980 onwards by the spread in the region of the
national
media, and, most importantly, the public education system.
Since the beginnings of the twentieth century, different
Chinese governments in Sipsong Panna have tried to limit the power held
by
local Buddhist temples over the education of Lue boys. Of course, the
overt repression
of the Maoist period did not succeed at this: as mentioned, with the
Buddhist “revival”
at the beginning of the 1980s, Tai boys left public schools en
masse to be ordained as novices at
their village temples. This created a problem for the local government
and its
goal of expanding state education and the study of Chinese language in
Sipsong
Panna: Lue boys and their families preferred them to become novices in
the
local temples than to enter public schools, and the number of Tai girls
in
schools was far greater than that of boys. Cooperation between local
monasteries and the public system of education seemed to be the logical
solution to this problem; however, while in the 1980s and 1990s there
were some
attempts to establish special classes for novices combining Buddhist
and public
curricula and teaching in Lue language, most were abandoned after a few
years,
and it can be argued that, in general, during the last few decades
there has
been little cooperation between the Buddhist authorities and the state
education system.
The only option remaining for members of the Sangha
wishing
to obtain a recognized diploma is the public school system. This option
has
been promoted not only by the State and the local government, but also
by the
local Buddhist elite: in the 1990s many Lue monks and novices from
Sipsong
Panna spent several years in temples in Thailand, particularly in Wat Phra Phuttabaat Taak Pha, in Lamphun
province.
Some of these monks were officially sent by the Sipsong Panna Buddhist
Association,
while others travelled there by their own means. In any case, upon
returning
from
What are the processes involved in the education of
religious
specialists within public schools? To start with, in state boarding
schools novices
and monks are usually uprooted from their village communities and
subject to an
experience in some sense similar to that of the temple; in fact, some
aspects,
such as the organization of time, are even more emphasised, more
strictly
organized in the school than in the temple.
Contrary to what happens within villages, where
novices and monks enjoy special status, at school they are considered
equal to
other students: while some novices rebel against this (this is a cause
for
dropping out), in general those pha
studying within public schools are even more prone to adopting
allegedly secular
practices such as spending time with girls, playing basketball, doing
menial
work, etc.
In relation to this, the public school system promotes
a somehow different relation of the boys to their own bodies: even if
the care
of the body is also arguably important within the temple (starting with
the
canonical dietetic prescriptions), in the school the care of the
healthy
individual body, understood as part of the healthy body of the nation,
is
systematized through physical exercise – for example through gym
class, to
which novices and monks are also subject, but also diverse sports and
competitions played in breaks, etc. Although the origins of this
emphasis on
the body can be traced back to Maoist policies on public health,
traditional
Chinese conceptions of macrobiotics play an important role here too.
Such
conceptions are popularized not only through the school system, but
also
through the daily practices of Han migrants (daily morning and
afternoon
physical exercises, etc.), and through the media – especially
through the
immensely popular martial arts films and TV series, which emphasise the
importance
of mental and body ability and skills in the transformation of the self.
Apart from this, novices and monks attending public
school are subject to the influence of ideas related to a national
conception
of the community – there is an almost absolute absence of
subjects related to
local culture and language in the state education system, not to speak
of
religion and Buddhism. But, apart from the purely theoretical content
of such
teachings, there is one fundamental element in the contemporary Chinese
education system to which members of the local Sangha can relate: this
is the
concept of suzhi, or “quality”, a very
popular concept in contemporary China, spread through both formal and
informal
educational contexts.
There are two points related to this concept of suzhi that may be said to build a bridge
between the discipline of the temple and that of the public school,
facilitating the integration of local monks and novices into the school
system.
First, suzhi implies a work that one
carries out upon oneself, a work aimed at improving the
“quality” of the
individual as well as their chances of social mobility in the new
economic
system. In the temple, the emphasis is arguably put on moderation and
self-control,
and the content of education, the goals of this personal project, are
basically
different, but the ideas related to the potentiality for development
and the
capacities of the individual (both in body and soul), and on
self-transformation, are relevant to both systems.
Second, suzhi
is a concept universally applied – not only to individuals, also
to groups: the
concept establishes a categorization, a scale of value in which
different
groups or individuals (both inside and outside China) are ideally
located
depending on their possession (or lack) of “quality”. The
belief that there are
beings which are superior to others, capacitated and legitimated to
dominate
others, is then another fundamental common point shared by Tai and
Buddhist
culture, on one hand, and the Chinese school system, on the other. And,
as
stated, this status is achieved in a similar way: through the work
carried on
oneself, through the transformation of the individual.
The public school system, as well as the Chinese media,
sells the idea that Han culture is superior to all others (again, both
inside
and outside of the country); especially since the founding of the PRC,
this
idea has gradually won over the “minorities”, and nowadays
local families
choose to send their children to state school, because they consider
the kids
will be better taken care of there. Obviously, the perspectives of
social mobility
play an important role here, but we must not forget that it is mainly
individual
practices which facilitate the adaptation of novices and monks to the
public
system: for the members of the Sangha, the goal is to improve their own
quality
and that of their ethnic group (minzu).
There is “opposition” and
“resistance” to this process:
the number of Tai Lue boys not attending or quitting public school is
still
relatively high. But the symbolic dominance of this framework is such
that
those who fail in school are generally presented (also by local Tai) as
proof
of their low quality, and of the low quality of the Tai (as well as
other
minority groups) as a whole in relation to the Han majority.
In conclusion, the conduct of monks and
novices has been problematized through two parallel processes: the
internationalization of local Buddhism (especially the increasingly
formal contacts
with Thailand) and the institutionalization at the national level of
Buddhist
religion in accordance with modern ideas of “religion”.
Local projects aimed at
reforming monastic conduct have to be understood as efforts at
integrating
Buddhism and Lue culture within national and international structures
– in
which the conduct of monks is seen in a different way from that
traditionally
dominant in Sipsong Panna. This project is succeeding at least in part
– partly
thanks to the similarities between conceptions related to individual
practices of
self-transformation in both temples and public schools; however, and on
the
other hand, the continuation of the “backward” practices of
the local Sangha (which
may be said to include the rejection of the state school system) can be
seen as
an affirmation of a traditional form of Buddhism, and at the same time
of a
local identity. In any case, to give account of the transformations in
Buddhist
practice and in culture in general, it is necessary to take account not
only of
the “technologies of power” put into practice by the state,
but also of the individual
“techniques of the self” through which the former are
reproduced and also
contested.
A most
informative and entertaining evening.