In Luang Prabang, the former royal capital of Laos, the ancient Buddhist tradition of Tak Bat, the morning alms round, is practised each day at dawn. Emerging silently from the town’s 35 temples, hundreds of barefoot monks in orange robes walk in single file through the streets to collect food from the local people. In the early morning mist, the lay community – men, women and children – kneel or sit with bowls of sticky rice to await the monks to whom they will offer it, an act performed in serenity and prayer. By giving, they earn merit and blessings, participating in a living ritual that is practised throughout the country and throughout Southeast Asia. But this is a practice under threat.
The tak bat – also known as the sai bat in Lao – is a source of admiration by most visitors. But it has become so popular as a tourist attraction that in some places monks can hardly process through the streets as they are blocked by raucous tour groups with flashing cameras. So disruptive has this become to their religious life that many of them no longer wish to collect alms and the Senior Abbot, Sa Thu Boun Than, is asking for legal help.
To raise awareness of this problem, the art and education project, The Quiet in The Land, created a poster that was placed in many hotels. In addition, a leaflet entitled Help Us Respect the Almsgiving Ceremony has been distributed throughout the town, published by the provincial tourist office and supported by the Lao Buddhist Fellowship and hotels such as the Amantaka and the Phou Vao Resort which are dedicated to the preservation of such traditions. The leaflet, illustrated with a photograph by Hans Berger who has documented Lao Buddhist life, explains the custom and begs visitors to respect it with appropriate behaviour and dress. It asks that they participate in the ceremony only if it has personal meaning for them, rather than purchase rice sold by unscrupulous locals to give indiscriminately and thereby trivialise a sacred tradition.
Equally concerned is Deputy Head of Luang Prabang’s Provincial Tourism Department, Khamtanh Somphanvilay. ‘Earning income from this activity should be restricted,’ he claims. ‘It creates a negative impact on the image of a place like Luang Prabang.’ He has profound respect for what he describes as a crucial ceremony. ‘The Buddhist monks’ activity is very impressive, not only for tourists but for local people too.’ He has had meetings to discuss ways of coping with this delicate issue without affecting the positive benefits of tourism. His office website contains a plea in English for an understanding of the almsgiving, describing it as a sacred religious ceremony: ‘Tourists may participate and photogaph the ceremony. However, the people of Luang Prabang, especially the monks, ask that this is done is a respectful way and visitors do everything they can not to disrupt this ancient tradition.’
It was a tradition that Khamtanh himself participated in as a novice monk when he was younger. Like most Lao boys, he spent several months at a temple and took part in the tak bat. For most Laotians, holy rituals have always been fundamental to their way of life, part of every festival and celebration. Monthly rites and ceremonies connected with agricultural seasons, rice planting, full moons and new year, in which the entire community participates, structure the annual calendar and the way in which they organise their lives. Religion and society are not separate, but form part of a seamless whole, where spiritual well-being is essential to personal and universal harmony.
Always monarchical, Luang Prabang’s kings were considered to be descendents of the town’s mythological founders and the ancient Kingdom of Lane Xang. Theravada Buddhism was adopted in the 13th and early 14th centuries, influenced by the Khmer kingdom, adding further layers to an already complex belief system based on animism and the guardian protectors, devata luang, Pu No and Na No, of the town and its territories. Buddhism spread slowly and was first declared a state religion in the 14th century by King Fa Ngum, which he did by accepting from his Khmer father-in-law the golden Pra Bang Buddha, the palladium of the Kingdom of Lane Xang. In 1356, he built a wat in Muang Swa, the early name of Luang Prabang, to house this revered image which today, although rumoured to be a replica, is kept within the former Royal Palace, now the National Museum, and for which a new shrine has been built in the grounds. During King Sulinya Vongsa’s reign in the mid-17th century, Buddhism was taught in schools. It was added to animistic practices, including spirit, phi, worship, and images of Buddhism were surrounded by ritual offerings of food, fruits, flowers, incense and candles. By the 19th century, 63 Buddhist temples had been built in Luang Prabang, although today only 35 remain. They were destined for the lay community as well as the sangha, monkhood, for meditation and listening to the monks’ chanting.
Among the most important of these wats were Xieng Thong, Tat Luang, Visoun, Mai and Aham, places of ritual and royal worship and important respositeries of knowledge with manuscripts on palm leaf, in Pali, teaching the Buddhist canon, as well as lacquerware and textiles, which resonated with religious symbolism. Wats were grouped around the royal residences, built with royal patronage or by affluent individuals, as funding the building of a wat gains merit in Buddhism. The king employed master craftsmen and architects to build them, specialists in ivory, wood, gold or silver, carving and stencilling, and even today monks themselves work as carpenters, sculptors and painters. The upkeep of most wats, and that of the monks living within them, is entirely dependent upon donations from the community, since monks become ascetic and relinquish all possessions except their robes and an alms bowl. But supporting the monastery and giving alms brings merit to the donors, improving their karma.
The first European to penetrate this remote, mountainous place, Frenchman Henri Mouhot, arrived in 1861 – 150 years ago this year – followed by French colonisers whose influence would change the mythological and ceremonial society structured around the temples. Nevertheless, these customs continued to be upheld right into the 20th century, even during three decades of war, civil unrest, revolution and social changes, culminating in the victory of the communist Pathet Lao in 1975. The monarchy was abolished – the last uncrowned king, Savang Vatthana, and his family died in captivity in northern Laos – and Buddhism was temporarily banned, but these practices never completely disappeared. The eventual return to peace brought an immediate resumption of the familiar ways of life and of these the tak bat was the simplest and most fundamental, a daily practice of respect and honour.
When Luang Prabang was made a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1995 to protect its fragile culture, a status extending to 177 sacred structures which make up the 35 temples together with 443 civic buildings, it started to become a key destination for tourists to Southeast Asia. Tourism has been the most significant benefit of heritage inscription. A place that has historically never been abandoned, as many other ancients sites have, its social elements have remained intact, reflecting a living heritage site, and the preservation of its customs, especially the tak bat, have become part of the tourist attraction.
Last year 235,000 visitors descended on Luang Prabang, generating an income of US$180 million. As the tranquil town of just 452,000 people adapts to the demands and changes this has brought, many materially advantageous and alleviating poverty that previously existed, the risks are a loss of authenticity and identity and commodification of its cultural heritage.
This applies to its intangible heritage. Ironically, as the town has improved economically, aspects of daily life have deteriorated, including the rituals that people were proud of and that made it so alluring to visitors. But, as old Luang Prabang residents point out, the town’s traditions are changing because its inhabitants are changing. Transformations are occurring in living arts such as textiles, for example, where weavers now cater for tourists and international trade rather than for local communities. Residents are moving out of their homes and leasing them to foreigners so that the town is visibly changing from a living entity into a commercial museum. Scholars refer to the ‘UNESCO-isation’ of the site and managerial aspects are being questioned as heritage conservation clashes with urban and tourist development. Museumification is inevitable, in particular at the most important temple, Wat Xieng Thong, where the impact of so many tourists renders it difficult to function as a wat where monks can meditate and study scriptures.
While many visitors witnessing the tak bat adhere to the solemnity of the occasion, the sheer numbers and presence of those for whom it is just another tourist show, mitigate against it. Yet, if travel agencies and tour guides show visitors how to respect the ceremony, if hotels distribute and display the leaflets, tourists can understand the religious implications even though their time in a Buddhist country may be short – usually only three days. Thus, hopefully, the situation can be managed and the soul of the town preserved.
If visitors are made aware of Buddhism, its philosophy and history, they can appreciate the dignity and beauty of this ceremony and its role in the life of Luang Prabang. In this way, the ancient practice can be perpetuated, heralding the start of each day at dawn as hundreds of monks in orange robes walk barefoot through the streets in silence to perform the tak bat.