Photographing Novices: A Contrast of Values

The Huffington Post recently published a collection of photos of novices in Myanmar by Stephen Wallace, and which can be found here. Just as a previous post discussed the dynamic between Western and Burmese attitudes in regards to the imprisonment of Mr. Philip Blackwell, this photo collection raises similar concerns. To most Western travelers, the site of young, playful monks is something that brings a smile to one's eye and the camera immediately to one's face, as these young novices seem to represent an irresistible mix of the noble and the playful, the mature and the innocent, the wise and the young. However, many photographers ultimately end up taking pictures that would be considered highly inappropriate to Burmese, and what is more, then sharing and even selling these prints to other like-minded Westerners. This is certainly true of those photos in Mr. Wallace's collection, where novices are seen half-clothed and playing in some of the country's sacred temples. 

Again we see cultural attitudes come to play. The Western attitude here may be, "I am just taking photographs of what's really happening before me. What am I supposed to do, not take the photos? If novices are not supposed to be behaving this way, then their teachers should teach them how to behave, not blame me for taking the photos."

The Burmese attitude, however, may be one of anar, an essentially untranslatable word that means to not behave in a way that would disturb or disrupt other people. One may feel anar...

· when being offered the last piece of mango slice.
· when one has been helped by a friend who had to exert some effort on one’s behalf.
· by having one’s meal suddenly paid for by a friend.
· by being invited somewhere and not being able to come.

Similar to ignoring the demands of “face” in other cultures, it is said in Myanmar that one who behaves without this fear of anar is not acting in the “proper” way, since it shows a disregard for others in favor of one’s own wants or needs. As one local man explains, “When you ask us if we would like to join you for lunch or dinner, make sure you ask us twice or more because we will say no the first time, even though we’d love to because of our culture.”

In this way, simply because these scenes may be happening do not automatically give the foreigner license to photograph anything he wishes, let alone to then share or make a profit from his photographs. A similar observation was made by Australian journalist Peter Olszewski in Land of a Thousand Eyes, when he notes that the Burmese concept of modesty means that when a woman must breast-feed in public because she has no other place to do it, people automatically avert their eyes; and when neighbors talk about personal matters through thin walls, one simply decides not to listen. In this case, following the principles of anar, the culturally appropriate thing for people such as Mr. Wallace to do is simply to choose not to take photographs of such scenes. However, as one can see, Western cultural attitudes contrast with this.

Perhaps nowhere has this contrast between modern tourism and a search for exoticism, and the traditional Buddhist faith come more into contact than at Maha Gandayone Monastery in Amarapura. This was overseen by many years by one of Myanmar's great 20th century monks, Sayadaw U Janaka.

In addition to his many Burmese lay supporters, U Janaka also welcomed foreign visitors in the post World War II era. Initially this was a beneficial exchange. The Sayadaw remembered how “many foreigners came and talked with me. They looked around and said that they were quite pleased with everything they found here.” One Korean monk during this time was so moved that he commented: “This place is an ideal for monks and we hate to leave it. It is sad that we were not born here. We hope to mettā gain and hope to become this Venerable Monk’s disciple and pray that we reach nirvana together.”

Unfortunately, the monastery today has ended up on the tourist trail, with large tour buses showing up and treating it like a cross between a museum or a zoo, freely taking photos, walking around, with many of the foreign tourists unconcerned with dress or basic protocol. Monks report that nearly as many as one hundred visitors may come in a single day, and they usually do so just after 10 am in order to watch the monks take their meals. For many of the monks this ritual is part of their mindfulness training, but tourists strain to observe the exotic scene and record it with photography and video. There is even at least one package tour group that organizes visits here strictly for aspiring photographers.

Other monasteries may be threatened by similar issues in the future, and it’s worrisome to consider how this will affect their training, signs of which can already be seen in neighboring countries Thailand and Laos, where seeing an alms rounds is on the “to-do” list of most tourists. In some ways, the schizophrenia of the modern Western world’s relationship to traditional Burmese Buddhist sites and practices can be seen playing out at Maha Gandayon in real time. For example, in one past edition, Lonely Planet recommended that backpackers try to visit Maha Gandayone specifically during lunch to watch the monks eat; then, in a subsequent edition, they stood by their recommendation but advised against wanton picture taking; and in the present edition, they now call picture-taking at the monastery “worth avoiding.” In other words, while they may be commended for their growing awareness, they are now frowning on the very behavior they were hyping only a few short years ago!

One may wonder how the Maha Gandayone monks themselves regard such an increase in this frenetic activity. One response has been to plaster English signs throughout the grounds advising tourists on basic monastic discipline. They also have tried to restrict tourist access to just certain parts of the monastery, so the disruption can be contained. Towards this end, “No Entry!” signs hang throughout. Burmese tour guides are often implored to make certain that their foreign visitors are properly attired, but money talks loudly, and so this is not always adhered to.

The obvious question may be, why do the monks tolerate this? When asked, some senior monks admitted that they are not so fond of the noise, disruption, or occasional inappropriate behavior; however, as one monk commented, the Mingala Sutta teaches how even glimpsing the sight of a monk may give one faith in the Dhamma. He went on to say that “Buddhism is to share, and not to own. Foreigners may come for tourism but still find some happiness while here. The Buddha would also allow this, because the Sasana is open to all, it is like the moon that everyone sees.” He added that a foreign visitor may become more curious about the Buddha’s teachings, and in asking may learn something valuable. Such a sentiment is even found on the large English sign advising visitors on basic monastic etiquette, where Point #9 reads: We all the monks from this monastery thank for your visit and pray for your happiness and goodwill.

The Buddha in Modern Myanmar

On the Democratic Voice of Burma, Dr. Paul Fuller has reported on a fascinating developing story in Myanmar, about a New Zealander, Philip Blackwood, who was arrested for using the image of a Buddha wearing headphones in a trance-like state to promote his new bar. Mr. Blackwood, along with Burmese partners Tun Thurein and Htut Ko Ko Lwin, have been charged under blasphemy law. Additionally, monks from the ma-ba-tha movement (meaning the "Organization for the Protection of Race and Religion") have protested these images for being highly offensive and inappropriate. 

This story hits so many themes and and cultural attitudes that disentangling them may pose a challenge. On one side, many Burmese Buddhists, Western meditators, and most readers of this blog would also share in being offended and disgusted at seeing a Buddha image shown to be rolling in sensual entertainment (e.g. rave music) and even worse, advertising and encouraging people in a deeply Buddhist country to come to a bar whose main purpose is the distribution of intoxicants (e.g., beer and other alcohol). These acts so oppose the Buddha's teachings, as well as Myanmar's conservative values, that it is highly shocking and inappropriate that a Buddha image would be used in this way. Few meditators would condone such an appropriation and many would protest the image with a goal in mind of having it removed. 

But on the other hand, the values of freedom and individual choice are so cherished in Western life that many of these same meditators would feel something unpleasant upon hearing that the government would wade deep into religious territory, let alone by imprisoning individuals who are merely engaged in artistic impression-- no matter how disgusting their choice of artistic impression may be. In this vein, one can easily compare Myanmar locking up Mr. Blackwell with Muslim governments that harass writers and cartoonists who portray Mohammad in ways that they disagree with.

This may essentially be a question of "How far is too far?" This is a question that Myanmar especially must grapple with as it moves into a free society, and a question that every society must evaluate at at each stage of its history. For Western meditators, it may be especially tricky, for two forces oppose each other-- the force of the Dhamma, the devotion towards the Buddha, and the preservation of all his teachings and practices; and the force of safeguarding individual rights of expression, religion, opinion, and choices.

Interestingly, this is a dynamic that most Western monastics and yogis who live in Myanmar have to negotiate in some way or the other. An example from the life of one European monk illustrates this issue in a rather drastic way. He was living deep in the forest, under the protection of his Sayadaw. Here, "protection" has a many-fold meaning: his Sayadaw ensured his health, nourishment, shelter, meditation instruction, visa, as well as the greater spiritual protection to practice the Dhamma. The monk had great faith in this Sayadaw, and had renounced his entire life in Europe in order to learn under him. 

After about a year into his stay, the monk had requested to meet some friends a day car trip away from his forest retreat and the Sayadaw accepted. However, when the day came to leave, the Sayadaw changed his mind and refused to give the monk his passport, and did not offer to take him in his car-- the only way to leave the forest. The monk was torn along these very lines described above. The "dhammic" and "Buddhist" part of his being sought to take this as another moment for practice. To observe the mind as it rolled in frustration, to accept the wisdom of his Sayadaw in whom he had faith, and to submit to the instruction of a superior as he continued to make the Path is highest aspiration. However, the "Western" part of his upbringing felt a need to stand up to what was essentially a broken promise, to insist that the passport was his property and to protest against the justice (and illegality) of it not being given to him on demand, and to find a productive way to communicate his frustration with the Sayadaw so that their relationship could be maintained. Which side to follow? For many meditators reading about Mr. Blackwell, a similar dynamic may come into play.

Dr. Fuller does not so much get into this discussion in his article, but rather focuses on the power of the Buddha image itself, such as when he writes: 

"The power of Buddhist sacred objects is part of what has been termed “apotropaic Buddhism”. This idea is often ignored in the modern understanding of Buddhism. The term “apotropaic” refers to object, texts and teachings that are regarded as having protective and even magical qualities. An image of the Buddha (which in a way is not simply an image, but is the Buddha, a surrogate Buddha, as it were), has the power to protect and avert danger....And this is where the offence caused by the DJ-like Buddha image is lost on those producing such an image. The images are not only offensive to certain sensibilities but are primarily dangerous and inauspicious. The modern Buddhist might emphasise those parts of the Buddha’s teaching that focus upon notions of freeing the mind of all forms of attachment, including attachment to sacred objects, but miss other important aspects of Buddhism that emphasise the protective power of the Buddha, Dhamma and the Sangha."

While it is good that he tries to explain the offense caused to what may be a primarily Western readership at DVB, what is missing from this description is the absolute devotion and respect shown to monks and the Buddha throughout Myanmar. For a Westerner to really understand the level of shock and offense that Mr Blackwell's poorly thought out image must have caused, one needs to see the spotless pagodas, the monks' alms rounds at 4 am on each and every morning through villages and cities across the country, the daily offerings made at Buddha statues in one's home or at pagodas or at monasteries, the huge dana given to Buddha statues from a people that are considered some of the poorest in the world, the way these Buddha images are kept clean and immaculate even in a country without a proper refuse system, etc. The first thing any Burmese Buddhist will do upon moving into a new home is build their shrine room and then maintain its sanctity. There is no level of devotion or respect that can be found in any Western country as a comparison, and it goes into the very heart of the Burmese Buddhist to see this Teacher portrayed so inappropriately in their very city. Again, this may not mean that imprisoning the perpetrator is the correct response, but a clearer understanding must be made of how shocking this portrayal would be. For many Westerners who may believe that they understand the Buddha's teachings, Dr. Fuller gives voice to them by noting that "those using an image of the Buddha in a commercial way stress part of the teachings of Buddhism in which “letting go” and non-attachment are the central focus and then assume that the use of an image will not be offensive because the Buddhist is not attached to such things." This is a very superficial and Western-centric way to view the faith, and one that entirely ignores and dismisses the Burmese Buddhist attitude. 

Elsewhere, Dr. Fuller writes: "Therefore, on the one hand, the manipulation of the Buddha image is harmless and surely the Buddha, being free from all attachment would not have taken any offence. In another sense the Buddha was not simply an ordinary person but someone who had strived for thousands of lifetimes generating ethical actions so that one day he could become a Buddha."

The Buddha was certainly no ordinary person, and this gets at the heart of the dynamic between "honoring those who are worthy of respect," while finding the line where individual freedoms may be maintained.