When metaphors come to life

[hrj]

A couple weeks ago, during a kerfluffle on one of my e-mail lists about a person being upset that the list failed to respond (or rather, not respond) in a specific way to a specific type of posting, I suppressed the urge to post a metaphor about how if I were to create an intricate sand painting on a public walkway, I wouldn't really have a reasonable basis for throwing a fit it some kids ran through it and messed it up, because I was the one co-opting a public space for something contrary to its primary purpose. Well lookit here. News items on this story alternate between blaming the mother for not supervising her kid more closely and praising the fatalistic patience and forgiveness of the monks. Well, I say it was the floor of a public place of business fergoodnessakes. If you're going to create a piece of performance art in the middle of a public walkway, it shouldn't be any great surprise or marvel if somebody walks through it!

Comments

[bemused-leftist.livejournal.com]

The monks I've known would have been suppressing giggles and thinking of the publicity. Plus, if the child was joyfully 'tap-dancing', then some serious Eastern doctrines would say that was a good vibes thing, and should be respected.

Of course they'd 'smile and start over'. They were doing lots of this practice, touring many cities.

Sand is cheap. Meditation-by-sprinkling-sand happens wherever the monk happens to be. It's not about the resulting picture.

[maestrateresa.livejournal.com]

Heh!
And sand art is supposed to be fleeting, anyway--that's part of the point.
(Which I know you know :)

If you're going to create a piece of performance art in the middle of a public walkway, it shouldn't be any great surprise or marvel if somebody walks through it!

yes indeedy!

About That Kerfuffle....

[shalmestere.livejournal.com]

I actually read the thread in question--my take on it was that the original post was fairly dispassionate (the "game's" one "rule" had been broken, so s/he was stopping the "game"); the subsequent posters were (IMO) either snarky or making mountains out of molehills. (Clearly, other folx' MMV--but I've know the OP for a number of years, and I don't think that my reading (of the OP at least) is off-base....)

Re: About That Kerfuffle....

[hrj.livejournal.com]

My point is that there are "games" where the design of the set-up makes failure a much more natural outcome than success. And setting some random passer-by up to be the proximal cause of that failure isn't kind.

[bemused-leftist.livejournal.com]

That's how I felt about the WP stunt of getting a famous violinist to play disguised as a busker in the subway during morning rush hour -- when people COULDN'T stop to listen. It would be cruelly tantalizing those who recognized the quality of the music (as well as making fun of those who didn't).

[kahnegabs.livejournal.com]

Yes, the monks are more into the meditation than the result, so the distriction's of little concern to them. They are fine.

I was more concerned that a mother left a child so young unattended while she was in the post office. For goodness sake, anyone could have walked off with him while he was playing on the mandala. The child in not in good hands. That makes me sad.

[callistotoni.livejournal.com]

Years ago (at least 10 and probably more) there was an incident at the SF Asian Art Museum where some monks were making a sand mandala and a crazy woman came and destroyed it before they were done. Jon Carroll wrote a great column about the indident. Carrol used the line, in refering to the monks response: "And the monks nodded and went to lunch". Honestly, I've been remembering that line in response to recent SCA-related foo/drama.

[goldenstag.livejournal.com]

Hahahahaha. That does sorta work for all the SCA drama, at least most of it.

[bemused-leftist.livejournal.com]

Right. The monks are getting paid by the hour, so to speak. :-) If they wanted a permanent result, they wouldn't use sand.

[xrian.livejournal.com]

Hmmm. I come down on the side of saying that the mother ought to have been more on top of things. Turning your back on a three-year-old for more than three consecutive seconds is asking for trouble. And in this society, nobody else is going to control your child (or more worrisome, protect them in most cases) if you won't.

OTOH, I expect the three-year-old was most likely acting without malice -- just enjoying the pretty colors. So what are monks going to do? Blame a three-year-old for being three, or accept that life is just like that sometimes and move on?