The Begging Bowl

Buddhist monks, in practicing their call to holiness, rely upon the alms of the lay faithful to provide them with food, clothes, and other needs. Often, these alms come in exchange for spiritual services the monks perform for the laity such as weddings and funerals. The posture a monk observes when receiving alms is holding the empty bowl in hand so that the almsgiver may place the alms in the bowl. However, when a monk turns the begging bowl upside down, rendering the possibility of giving alms impossible, the monk is withdrawing consent from the the spiritual practice of the community.

In Burma, the upside down bowl became a powerful symbolic action in response to the military junta's repression of the pro-democracy movement. In a devoutly Buddhist country, the withdrawal of the monk's begging bowl represents the denunciation of the systemic violence and oppression of the country's military leaders.

13 November 2007

Preserving What?

This is an email I received the other day from my alma mater requesting donations for a Veteran's Memorial. I am troubled very much by how the only way we understand peace is through force, and violent force at that. The preservation of peace, semantically, implies that peace is foreign, something that is strange and hard to hold on to. Preservation seems to be employed when something cannot exist on its own. In our current dominant ideology, this is the proper way to characterize peace: it is something that must be preserved (if wanted). The reason is cannot flourish naturally, much like our beautiful forests, wetlands, rivers, etc. is that there are structures in place to prevent it from growing, limiting the extent that it may prevail. This is because we cannot imagine a world otherwise. We cannot imagine or envision a world where peace is the standard, the status quo, the natural flourishing. Instead, our world is informed by an ideology that violence always has and always will be a part of human life and interaction. It is inescapable. Because it is inevitable, peace must be "fought for." Peace is not is what is preserved, but a way of life, a lifestyle, a certain ethic of an excluding group of people is what is really preserved. The logical inconsistency aside, the fighting for peace has so pervaded the souls of our world that to even dare to dream of this ideology not only being wrong, but there being a possible third way in the global drama of war or extinction is incredulous. But it is not. It is a necessity, a necessity kept alive by a few liberated, haunted, troubled, holy people: Buddha, Jesus, Gandhi, Dr. King, Rumi. Theirs is a dream that inspires and proclaims a vision, although yet to fully be realized, entirely possible. The preservation of peace falls on the shoulders of the war-makers and the politicians of nation-states. The building of peace falls on the shoulders of peace-makers and believers of a nonviolent Spirit of God. Of which is more worthy of the service and honor we should dedicate our lives to?

No comments: