Resources for Thai Massage, Traditional Thai Medicine & Theravada Buddhism
History of religions in Southeast Asia
Here's a question i received by email, along with the answer i gave. I'm sharing it so that we can start a thread about history and religion in SE Asia. Please add your comments/questions below.
--------------
QUESTION:
Okay, so I know the story of king asoka, how he spread buddhism all about like cream cheese on a bagel. What I don't understand is how Hinduism came to be a part of the Khmer culture. I especially don't get why the Khmer had hinduism in their indianization, but I don't see people talking about the Mon as having Hinduism; just Buddhsim. Yet the Mon were closer geographically to India. Do you know? Did Hinduism spread pretty much simultaneously? Was it all a mish mash? What went down???? Feel free to point me toward a book.
thanks
------------
MY ANSWER:
Hello
The first thing I should do is refer you to this book:
Coedès, G. 1969. The Making of South East Asia. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.
It has a much fuller discussion of these and other issues. Other reads include:
Coedès, G. 1968. The Indianized States of Southeast Asia. Honuolulu: East-West Center Press.
Wales, H. G. Quaritch. 1967. The Indianization of China and of South-East Asia. London: Quaritch.
Anyway, the way I see the “big picture” is that SE Asia was on the receiving end of just about every major religious, cultural, and artistic trend coming out of India over the course of the medieval period. What particular mix of these aspects “stuck” in a particular time and place and became part of the national culture had a lot to do with local political factors, socio-economic links, the policies of individual rulers, and sometimes luck of the draw.
The books above get into the details of these local historical factors. However, the bottom line is that the whole region is characterized by a blend of different Indian and indigenous traditions. Theravada Buddhism became dominant in Burma and Thailand, while it lost out to Mahayana Buddhism in Java and Sumatra. Then when Islam came through, these Indonesian islands became part of that movement. The Khmers and the island of Bali were the places that most overtly adopted Hinduism, but there is also Hindu influence in the other countries in the region as well. For example Ganesh is known across the region regardless of religion, as are Shiva and Rama as well.
So, in one sense these outcomes were random, and in another sense they were part of the long and intricate history of the region. As for a specific answer on why any one particular place chose one particular tradition, take a look at Coedes.
Hope this helps.
P.
Oh, and by the way, Asoka is a myth. But you probably could have guessed that, right?
--------------
QUESTION:
Okay, so I know the story of king asoka, how he spread buddhism all about like cream cheese on a bagel. What I don't understand is how Hinduism came to be a part of the Khmer culture. I especially don't get why the Khmer had hinduism in their indianization, but I don't see people talking about the Mon as having Hinduism; just Buddhsim. Yet the Mon were closer geographically to India. Do you know? Did Hinduism spread pretty much simultaneously? Was it all a mish mash? What went down???? Feel free to point me toward a book.
thanks
------------
MY ANSWER:
Hello
The first thing I should do is refer you to this book:
Coedès, G. 1969. The Making of South East Asia. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.
It has a much fuller discussion of these and other issues. Other reads include:
Coedès, G. 1968. The Indianized States of Southeast Asia. Honuolulu: East-West Center Press.
Wales, H. G. Quaritch. 1967. The Indianization of China and of South-East Asia. London: Quaritch.
Anyway, the way I see the “big picture” is that SE Asia was on the receiving end of just about every major religious, cultural, and artistic trend coming out of India over the course of the medieval period. What particular mix of these aspects “stuck” in a particular time and place and became part of the national culture had a lot to do with local political factors, socio-economic links, the policies of individual rulers, and sometimes luck of the draw.
The books above get into the details of these local historical factors. However, the bottom line is that the whole region is characterized by a blend of different Indian and indigenous traditions. Theravada Buddhism became dominant in Burma and Thailand, while it lost out to Mahayana Buddhism in Java and Sumatra. Then when Islam came through, these Indonesian islands became part of that movement. The Khmers and the island of Bali were the places that most overtly adopted Hinduism, but there is also Hindu influence in the other countries in the region as well. For example Ganesh is known across the region regardless of religion, as are Shiva and Rama as well.
So, in one sense these outcomes were random, and in another sense they were part of the long and intricate history of the region. As for a specific answer on why any one particular place chose one particular tradition, take a look at Coedes.
Hope this helps.
P.
Oh, and by the way, Asoka is a myth. But you probably could have guessed that, right?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Laura Covington at Bodhi Tree on -
OK...so explain what part of Asoka story is a myth? He was a King, correct? Is the myth just how he is responsible for the start of spreading Buddhism outside of India?
-
Permalink Reply by TaoMountain on -
As far as scholars know, Asoka was a king of Maurya. The main source of historical information we have about him is that he set up a number of pillars with inscriptions across his land about his policies. These exhorted people to practice the Dharma, but of course, in his time "the Dharma" was something all of the Indian religious groups talked about. He also urged supporting sramanera, but of course, in his time this word referred to many different types of religious practitioners, not just Buddhist. Several historians have argued that there is nothing in Asoka's inscriptions that are specifically Buddhist. They argue that he was interested in promoting religion, charity, etc., but not necessarily in a specifically Buddhist vein.
... And the story about the missionaries is just a story. I don't know of any evidence for this outside of Buddhist stories.
Something to read on this is a chapter in this book: Norman, K.R. 1994. A Philological Approach to Buddhism: The Bukkyō Dendō Kyōkai Lectures. London: SOAS. Email me if you're interested.
About
© 2009 Created by TaoMountain
