In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

5 Cambodian Buddhism under Colonial Rule Traditionalism versus Modernism: Splits in the Monastic Order Cambodia’s weakness after the fall of Angkor meant that it could oªer little resistance to the oscillating influences and rivalry of its two stronger neighbors, Vietnam and Thailand, which tended to dominate its internal aªairs. The Cambodian royal family periodically divided into antagonistic pro-Thai and proVietnamese factions, further undermining the coherence of the state. But the Vietnamese were viewed with more trepidation than the Thai, who at least shared the same traditions of orthography, aesthetics, and religion as the Khmer. The metropolitan outlook, Sinitic worldview, managerial genius, and ruthless e‹ciency of the Vietnamese were a world away from the Indianized thought universe inhabited by both Thai and Khmer. King Norodom (r. 1864–1904), like Duang before him, had spent considerable time as a hostage in Bangkok before coming to the throne. There can be little doubt that Thai traditions in religion and culture flourished, as they had under Duang, when Norodom returned. But in August 1863, shortly before his coronation, Norodom signed a secret treaty of protection with French o‹cials, eªectively inaugurating the colonial era. It is di‹cult to get a clear insight into his motives, but even though he was no great lover of the French, it seems that he wished to counteract undue Thai interference in Cambodia. Some vestigial sympathy for Thailand is revealed in his attitude toward religion. He is reported as having said, “It is the king of Siam [i.e., Mongkut] in Bangkok who put the monastic robe on me; he is my religious preceptor, and there is a powerful bond between our two countries” (Fillieux 1962, 307). This implies that Norodom had been ordained in the newly established Dhammayutika Nikàya (Thommayut ). But he was very angry when the northwest provinces of Battambang, 105 Sisophon, and Siem Reap—including Angkor, the historical and symbolic heart of the kingdom—were ceded to Thailand by the Franco-Thai convention of 1867, an agreement that ended the Thai claim to suzerainty over the rest of Cambodia . This event coincided with Mongkut’s death. It ensured that significant Thai influence on Cambodia waned from this point on, although it never entirely disappeared. The three ceded northwest provinces had, in reality, been incorporated into the Thai administrative region of Monthon Burapha sometime before. Therefore they were aªected by the Thai religious and administrative reforms toward the end of the nineteenth century. This meant that the northwest eªectively became the first part of Cambodia to come under rationalist and reformist influence. The local ecclesiastical hierarchy was integrated into a national pattern , and monastery-based schools were absorbed into a national curriculum (Yang Sam 1998, 254–255). Regular reports concerning religious and ethical observance were made for the first time. These were not encouraging, for they revealed that the newly introduced festivals of magha and visakha pùja were not widely observed and that Khmer monks attempted to subvert the use of the Thai language. A significant proportion of monasteries did not possess a proper sìmà, rendering many of their rituals ineªective from the strict perspective of vinaya observance, and morning readings from the Buddhist canon were neglected. Indeed, study of the Tripitaka simply did not take place in around half of all of the monthon’s monasteries.1 Many monks appear to have been illiterate, and a significant proportion did not possess a full complement of monastic robes. Finally, monastic decorum was found to leave a good deal to be desired. Despite the modernist emphasis, the practices of martial arts, kite flying, chariot and boat building, and firework manufacture remained traditional monastic pursuits.2 In 1854 Ang Duang had petitioned the Thai king to send a complete version of the Tripitaka in the pure form of Pali recently championed by the monastic reformers of that country, on the grounds that nothing of the sort existed in Cambodia. Led by Mahà Pan (1824–1894), a Khmer based at Wat Bowonnivet, Bangkok, a delegation of eight monks representing Mongkut’s rationalist and reformist Thommayut subsequently arrived at the royal court of Udong, carrying bundles of some eighty sacred writings. A Cambodian branch of the Thommayut was established at Wat Neak Tà Soeng3 under royal patronage , probably around 1855. Mahà Pan became its first chief.4 There is little to distinguish the Thommayut and the Mahanikay in terms of doctrine, but...

Share