Page 57 - วารสารแสงธรรม เล่ม 10

56 แสงพระธรรม กรกฎาคม 2564 ถึง มิถุนายน 2565 The Light of Dharma July 2021 – June 2022 57

6 The present Mahadhatu at Nagara Sri Dharmaraja was built by members of the Ceylon sect. The original one is to have been very imperfectly known to him, being based chiefly on his acquaintance with a certain number of
hidden inside, as was discovered when the monument was restored in the Fifth Reign. (D.R.) Jatakas gained after his conquest of Thaton. It was only in the reign of his second successor Kyanzittha (1804-1113)
7 The author later learned from an English colonel that votive tablets are still made of unfired clay in Tibet. He that Theravada Buddhism became predominant at Pagan; see Luce, Old Burma, Chapter IV. If Anuruddha con-
concluded that this practice was in accordance with Mahayana tradition, i.e. that after cremation the ashes and quered Northern Siam, which he almost certainly did not (see note 14), it seems unlikely he would have planted
bones of a senior monk would be powdered and mixed with clay in order to make votive tablets stamped with Theravada Buddhism there, where at the time it was already much better known the at Pagan. As the kingdom
figures of the Buddha or the Bodhisattvas, for the benefit of the deceased in the world to come. As his relics had of Haripunjaya (Lumpun) was an offshoot of Dvaravati, there is every reason to believe that the Mon form of the
th
already been cremated, the votive tablets were not fired. The author then abandoned his original surmise that Theravada was implanted there around the 8 century when the kingdom was founded, and we know from in-
th
the votive tablets were made to spread the Doctrine. (S.D.) scriptions at Lampun that it was still flourishing there in the early 13 . (A.B.G.)
18
8 cf. above, note 5. More research is needed to discover how much of Siam, if any, was conquered by Anuruddha. (S.D.)
9 It is often difficult to tell whether an image of the Buddha was made for the Theravada or the Mahayana, and 19 The theory that the Tai of Siam came from Yun-nan can no longer be taken seriously. See F. W. Mote, ‘Problems
the same is true of images of Bodhisattava Maitreya. On the other hand images of the great mythical Bodhisat- of Thai Prehistory’, Social Science Review, Vol. II, No. 2. In writing about the supposed Tai kingdom between
China and Tibet, the author was misled by 19 -century European Sinologists who translated the Chinese histories
th
tavas, such as Avalokitesvara (Lokesvara) and Manjusri, are specifically associated with the Mahayana. (A.B.G.) of the kingdom of the Nan-chao. On the basis of very flimsy evidence these scholars concluded that Nan-chao
10 Only a part of the evidence for this hypothesis is epigraphic; the rest is best on deductions from chronicles. See was a Tai kingdom (see Mote, op, cit.). It now seems pretty certain that the predominant race in Nan-chao were
Coedes, Les Etats hinduouises d’iNdochine et d’ Indonesia. Paris, 1964, pp. 247-253. For a more up-to-date in- a Tibeto-Burman people who spoke a language akin to Lolo, and were therefore probably the ancestors of the
terpretation of the evidence, see Coedes, Inscriptions du Cambodge, Vol. VII, Paris, 1964, pp. 164-189, especially Lolo who still form a considerable proportion of the population of Yun-nan; if there were any Tai in Nan-chao
pp. 166-172. (A.B.G) when it was an independent kingdom, they played an insignificant part in its affairs. More recent studies suggest
11 Inscription XIX. The text, which is in Khmer, bears three dates, the last of which is partly illegible. The first cor- that the principal homeland of the Tai before the beginning of the Christian Era was in the region of the present
responds to 1022 A.D., the second to 1025 A.D., both in the reign of Suryavarman I. See Coedes, Recueil des in- Chinese provinces of Kwangtung, Kwangsi and Kweichow, where there is still a large Tai-speaking population. At
scriptions du Siam, deuxieme partie, deuxieme edition, Bangkok, n.d. (B.E. 2504), p. 10 f. (A.B.G.) that period the Tai very likely had city-states and principalities of there own there. Various groups of there Tai
12 A number of statues of Brahmanical gods of Dvaravati style or of styles contemporary with Dvaravati are known later moved into Tongking. Some of them remained there, and the present-day Tai of Tongking are presumably
their descendants. Other groups eventually went father west and settled in Laos. As Prince Damrong observes
(A.B.G.) further on, the Tai of Loas were probably the ancestors of the Tai of Sukhodaya. (A.B.G.)
13 For a more up-to-date account of Anuradha’s conquests, see G.H. Luce, Old Burma. Ascona and Locust Valley, 20 As the author remarks in a footnote, it has been suggested that Shan and Syam (Siam) are the same word. This
1969, Vol. I. Chapter II. This Monarch’s name is variously written Aniruddha, Anohrata, Anawrahta, etc. Raman- identification now seems fairly sure. (A.B.G.)
nadesa is the Mon country in lower Burma. (A,B.G.) 21 th
This statement seems to be based on the belief which was prevalent in the early 20 century that the kingdom
14 The author cites no evidence for his statement that Anuruddha conquered Lan Na and Dvaravati. For his state- of Haripunjaya (Lampun) was rule by the Khmer. We now know it was an offshoot of Dvaravati, and it was ruled
ment that Anuruddha conquered Labapuri he cites the History of the North (พงศาวดารเหนือ), composed in 1807, by a Mon dynasty, several of whose inscriptions in Pali and Mon of the 11 (?) to 13 century still servive. (A.B.G.)
th
th
and the Yonaka History (ต�านานโยนก), published in 1907. Apparently the entry in the former that he has in mind 22
is พระราชพงศาวดารเหนือ, ฉบับหอสมุดแห่งชาติ, ส�านักพิมพ์ก้าวหน้า, Bangkok, B.E. 2506, p. 38 f. (translated by Norton in This statement needs qualification. Sukhodaya became an independent kingdom at an unknown date, very
Legendes sur le Siam et le Cambodge, Bangkok, 1939, p. 53 f.), which is the basis of the one in the Yonaka His- likely a little before 1250 A.D., but remained quite a small state for several decades. King Ram Kamheng (r. 1279?-
tory (เรื่องพงศาวดารโยนก, Bangkok, R.S. 126, p. 77; translate by Norton in Annales du Siam, premiere party, Paris, 1298) expanded it enormously, until the end of his reign he controlled a large part of Siam, as well as the Malay
1926, p.206 ). In C.S. 220 (858 A.D.), according to the account in the History of the North, King Anoradhamancho Peninsular, Lower Burma and parts of Laos. But he did not conquer Lan Na, with which he had an alliance; he
(อโนรธามังฉ่อ) of Sadom (Thaton) advanced with his army to attack Lavo (Labapuri), but changed his mind when probably did not conquer Lavo (Labapuri); and it is unlikely that he controlled more than a small part of North-
the King of Lavo presented one of his wives to him; and the son born to this lady and Anoradhamancho fought eastern Siam. (A.B.G.)
an elephant duel against the son of the King and Queen of Lavo in C.S. 431 (1069 A.D.). He must have been over 23 cf. above, notes 14, 17.
200 years old at the time. In fact the account of the elephant duel seems to be a garbled version of the elephant 24
duel between Naresvara of Siam and Uparaja of Hansavati in C.S. 954 (1592 A.D.). Such oddities, which are not The author’s statement seems to be based on the belief that the Tai came from Nan-chao (see above, note
rare in the History of the North, make us question its value as an historical source. The author of the Yonaka 19); and as we know from the Chinese accounts the rulers of Nan-chao professed the Mahayana. There is no
th
History (loc. cit.) nevertheless seem to take the account seriously, but reads the date C.S. 220 as C.S. 395 (1033 evidence that any substantial number of Tai were Buddhists before the 13 century A.D. Even today many of the
Tai of Laos are not Buddhists but animists. The same is true of most of the Tai of Tongking,Kweichow, Kwanghsi
A.D.), and identifies Anoradhamancho of Thaton with a ruler name Anoruddha or Anoraddhamenso (อโนรธามงโส)
who is mentioned in the Mon Annals, apparently the Anawrahtaminsaw who, according to Harvey, was ruler of and Kwangtung. (A.B.G.)
the Arakan in 1406 A.D. (Harvey, History of Burma, London, 1925, pp. 87, 91). At the same time the author of the 25 They almost certainly did not adopt it from Pagan (see note 17). It seems more likely they adopted it from
Yanaka History identifies both Anoradhamancho of Thaton and Anoradhamenso of Arakan with Anuruddha of Haripunjaya. Even as late as 1345 A.D. Prince Lidaiya (the future Mahadharmaraja I of Sukhodaya), in the introduc-
Pakan (who, according to Professor G.H. Luce, probably reigned from 1044 to 1077 A.D.). Professor Luce tells me tion to his famous work Traibhumikatha, acknowledges his indebtedness to a monk from Haripunjaya for help in
that there is no epigraphic evidence that Anuruddha or any other king of Pagan ever conquered any territory east composing it. (A.B.G.)
of the Salween. It is odd that the Siamese believe Anuruddha conquered a large part of Siam while the Burmese 26 The decline in the power of Pagan after Anuruddha’s death was brief; his second successor, Kyanzittha, was the
do not. (A.B.G.) real consolidator of the kingdom. The author, however, may have been thinking of a considerably later period,
15 The Theravada was almost extinct in northern India at this time, but was still flourishing in South India. The in the second half of the 13 century A.D., when the kingdom of Pagan collapsed. (A.B.G.)
th
Mahayana enjoyed great favor in Bengal and Bihar in North India under the Pala dynasty (18 -12 century A.D. 27 It is not clear what people the author means by the ‘Lao’ (ลาว), some of whom became assimilated by the
th
th
A.B.G.) Khmer and some by the Tai, while others became the ancestors of the modern Lawa and Lawa. Presumably they
16 At Pagan, in fact, Anuruddha had first to reduce the power of the Tantric sect which probably originated at the were the ancient Lao (ลาว) he mentions two paragraphs earlier, with whom the Pu Tai, the Lu, the Kon, and the
University of Nalanda or one of the other center of Mahayana in Bengal. After that he was able to implant the people of Luang Pra Bang, Veing Jan and the northeastern provinces of Siam were confused, with the result that
Mon form of the Theravada at Pagan. (S.D.) these Tai became mistakenly Known as Lao (ลาว). (A.B.G.) The Lawa or Lawa discussed here must be the people
17 It now appears that Anuruddha was anecumenical Buddhist, sympathetic to all of Buddhism. Many of the votive of Indonesian race who had migrated to Indochina in the neolithic period. They were not Mon, nor did they use
tablets he made have inscriptions in Sanskrit, and bear figures of the Bodhisattva Lokanatha (Avarokitesvara). See the Mon language of the Dvaravati kingdom. (S.D.)
Luce, Old Burma, pp. 15-18. Others of his votive tables bear inscriptions in Pali, but Theravada Buddhism seems