Decline of Khmer Empire coincided with rise of Theravada Buddhism

I find it particularly interesting that most of the great Angkorian Khmer kings were not Theravada Buddhists, but were Hindus and followers of the Mahayana school of Buddhism.

Is it a mere coincidence that the decline of the Khmer Empire gained momentum as Theravada Buddhism became established in Kampuchea, or is there something more?

Although other forces are involved, religion has always played a central role in Khmer civilization. How might the Theravada beliefs and practices lend weakening influences, if any, to the Khmer civilization?

Any thoughts? Bong Chumnith? Anyone?

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Hang, Chumnith on February 13, 2009 at 6:13am

Khmer became the mojor player in the region before there was Angkor. It is true that the religion of Pre-Angkor and Angkor Khmer was Hunduism, but the Khmer was not founded by Hindu.

Mahayana Buddhism came to srok Khmer before Jayavarman 7th. The Khmer rulers before him tolorated other form of religions but it was just not a state sponsor religion.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kambu (ខែមប៊ូ) on February 13, 2009 at 11:14am

According to the Chinese chronicles, Khmer civilization was established between the 3rd and 5th century with kingdoms of Funan (Nokor Phnom) and Chenla. Ancient Khmer civilization had enormous influence from India. Jayavarman II was credited for the founding of Kambuja (Kambujadesa) and practice of the devaraja (god-king).

Specifically speaking, Theravada Buddhism became a state religion in Cambodia in the 13th century. It was introduced by King Jayavarman VII's son,’Prince Tamilinda, who went o Sri Lanka to be ordained as a monk.

Theravada is practiced in Southeast Asia in countries such as Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, and Sri Lanka. Mahayana is practiced in Asian countries like Tibet, Mongolia, China, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan.

Here is a brief comparison of Theravada versus Mahayana:

http://www.suanie.net/2003/10/10/theravada-vs-mahayana/

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by SinNishM on June 26, 2009 at 10:43pm

Specifically speaking, Theravada Buddhism became a state religion in Cambodia in the 13th century. It was introduced by King Jayavarman VII's son,’Prince Tamilinda, who went o Sri Lanka to be ordained as a monk.

You get this wrong JVII doesn't have a son, he has a daughter w/his first wife (gave boy name cause he love a son) and happen to be older sister's of second wife. Historian got it all wrong that his second wife is the older sister! I don't believe in history especially the European version.

I ONLY believe in borameys because they live throught everything for many years in human times. I only know this (NOT CLAIMING) from boramey told me, I am JVII as a regular person now, and I was khmer king six time before I am JVII.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kambu (ខែមប៊ូ) on February 9, 2009 at 8:07pm

I have been thinking of this for a very long time. I totally believe that Buddhism played a major role in the declining of the Khmer Empire. Some western scholars suggested that the Khmer Empire collapsed was due to the failed irrigation systems that lead to the shortage of rice productions. I totally disagree with that. I think ancient Cambodia was abundant with food. The land of the kingdom was not arid. There were plentiful of fish, fruits, rice, game, and etc.

Look no further, the evidence is edged in stones in the kingdom. According to Khmer History, King Jayavarman VII converted ancient Cambodia from Hinduism to Buddhism. If we study King Jayavarman VII's predecessors, we can see that they built many Hindu styles ruins which devoted to the Hindu deities. All of Jayvarman VII's predecessors were Hindus. Many of the temples were built usually depicted kings' coronations and glorified war scenes. Those Hindu Khmer Kings reigned with the practice of the tradition of the Devaraja. When King Jayavarman VII built his Great City (Angkor Thom), we can see the style is more that of a Buddhist. King Jayavarman VII adapted his subjects' daily lives into stone carvings which served as documentaries of how life was like during his time. Even though King Jayavarman VII, was a great warrior, he did not glorify war like his predecessors did.

Khmer Empire lasted for 600 years.....wow that is a very long time.:) The end of the King Jayavarman VII's reigning marked the end of the Khmer Empire. After Kambujadesa became a Buddhist Kingdom, the empire was left vulnerable to foreign attacks. None of King Jayavarman VII's successors were Hindus, which I assumed all were Buddhists, did not glorify war. I give credits to those Hindu Khmer Kings for securing the empire for 600 years. I believed kings after Jayavarman VII were not as warriors comparing to their predecessors this could explain with the practice of Buddhism.

I am proud of my Theravada Buddhism religion. Sometimes, I wonder what would Cambodia and her people be like today if the kingdom had hadn't changed to Buddhism. Through out history other religions seeked to destroy Buddhism. Buddhism, however, never seeked to destroy other religions. Compare to other religions, I don't think there is such thing as fundemantalist Buddhism and this is one of the reasons that I am proud of Buddhism.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by KC Admin on February 10, 2009 at 1:43am

Very informative response, Kambu.

I don't think Buddhism was responsible for the decline of Khmer civilization. Quite the opposite, I think it was weakened role of Dharma in the everyday lives of Khmer leaders and ordinary citizens alike that led to our present state. This led me to wonder if there isn't something about the practices and traditions of the Theravada school of Buddhism that might have contributed to the divorce of Dharma from the everyday thoughts and actions of Khmer people?

Hindus consider Buddhism not as a separate religion, but as a part of Hinduism, which is partly why the transition from Hinduism to Buddhism in Khmer history was so smooth. By contrast, sectarian and denominational divisions within Islam and Christianity have been responsible for much bloodshed among their followers.

King Jayavarman VII, the greatest of Khmer kings, was a Buddhist king; to be more specific, he was a Mahayana Buddhist king. The phrase "Buddhist king" has a very special meaning here. It signifies not just a king who happened to identify himself as a "Buddhist," but one who had exceptional intellectual and spiritual grasp of the Dharma, and whose religious thoughts and convictions were expressed through his great deeds. The Buddhist kings, I surmise, were religious scholars who were adept at meditation and at applying Dharma to everyday governance. They did not simply uphold and advocate religious practices and tradition. In these respects, the Khmer "Buddhist kings" were not so different from their Hindu god-king predecessors.

The Khmer Buddhist kings of old, who devoted their lives and kingdoms to the realization of their spiritual convictions, would have no use for $100 million in a personal Swiss account, for instance. They'd use the money to fortify national defense, build social infrastructure, and erect great monuments to mark their lofty aspirations. That, in my view, was why they were such great warriors and builders.

The real issue is not that we should dump Theravada Buddhism in favor of Mahayana Buddhism or Hinduism. If anything, we should do away with "isms" altogether. The question is, how do we incorporate the beautiful teachings of the Buddha into the daily lives of Khmer leaders and ordinary citizens alike? How can Khmer people become more engaged in the spiritual underpinnings of a religion to which we so proudly proclaim to belong?

Practically every Khmer person agrees that Angkor is a great achievement. But do we really understand why it is so great?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kambu (ខែមប៊ូ) on February 12, 2009 at 2:26pm

Hi Oudam,

Sorry I meant the practice of Buddhism not the religion itself played a major role. I mean Buddhism is a religion of peace and tranquility. I totally agree with the fact that Buddhism is part of Hinduim. After all when Siddartha walked the earth Hinduism was already in exitence. Except for the period of King Jayavarman VII, the security of the empire which lasted for 600 years and stone carvings on those ruins would not be possible if it wasn't from the strong convictions of religious belief in Hinduism practiced by Hindu Khmer kings. Hinduism has many deities god of luck, god of war destruction and war, and so forth. It only makes sense that the Khmer Empire was powerful was because Kmer kings worhsiped Hinduism. I see Hinduism as religion that is not as passive as Buddhism. For instance, Emperor Ashoka spread Buddhism through out India. War and killings were denounced by the emperor. Emperor Ashoka took over much of India including present-day Afghanistan, Assam, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. Similiar to King Jayavarman VII, Emperor Ashoka converted to a Buddhist and spreaded Buddhism through out India. Emperor Ashoka denounced war and killings. The Mauryan Empire also declined right after the reigning of Emperor Ashoka similiarly to King Jayavarman VII's Khmer Empire.

I would not say King Jayavarman VII was "the greatest", however, I would say he was one of the greatest of Khmer kings. Remember, the empire's life span of 600 years up to his reigning, I would also consider his predecessors were also the greatest. I mentioned King Jayavarman VII's successors were different from their predecessors due to the fact that I noticed that nothing great was achieved after the reigning of King Jayavarman VII. Now if war mentality and security of the empire were on their mind, the empire would not have fallen in 1431. King Jayavarman VII might have lain the foundation of the infrastructure then why his successors did not maintain it. I think this goes with lacking of the security and war mentality of the successors to safequard the empire. The Siamese launched many attacks on the declining empire through out the centuries and why the successors kept moving their capital instead of conducting preemptive attacks against the Siam. To me this shows that the successors were different than their predecessors. For six centuries, there got to be strong infrastructure in the empire and all the succeeded kings had to do, was maintaining it, However, they failed their duties and ancient Cambodia was swallowed by Annam and Siam. I think luck somewhat prevented Cambodia from becoming extinct. I say you have got to see the different between warriors Hindu kings and non-warrior Buddhist Kings.

I agree with the fact that Cambodians need to adapt dharma into their daily lives especially the leaders of the country. Then again you can't dismiss what Cambodia had gone through in recent memories. The leaders who have fat checking accounts I consider them as not true Buddhists since they have committed many bad deeds. You can bet that today Cambodians are plagued with war mentality. I mean not the war mentality that possessed by great Khmer Kings to united and secure the empire happened so long ago, but the war mentality state of destroying each other. I think Cambodians' mentality state is slowly healing hopefully time and education will make the improvement. Hopefully, every Khmer then will fully incorporate the dharma into his/her daily life.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by KC Admin on February 13, 2009 at 1:54am

Hi Kambu,

I have often wondered about the notion that Buddhism has somehow made Khmer people more passive and thereby our nation weaker. Although there is some merit to this theory, it doesn't explain Cambodia's violent past, especially the Khmer Rouge's atrocities, and the fact that our predatory neighbors are also Buddhist states.

I think a more plausible theory is not that Buddhism has had too much of a softening effect on the Khmer people, but that it hasn't been construed accurately and embraced fully and passionately enough to maintain the strength of our civilization. This was what prompted me to question that if there isn't about Theravada practices and orthodoxy that has encouraged our people to remain religious yet become less spiritually enlightened. Of course, "religious" doesn't always mean "spiritual". If you look at the great Khmer kings of old, whether they're Hindus or Buddhists, you'll find that they all shared a high level of spiritual attainment, which undoubtedly guided their visions, purposes, and leadership.

After all, Buddhism is science of the mind. A deep and thorough proficiency in this field, involving study, meditation, and analysis, is the key to immense power. I think Khmer empire had embodied a lot of this during its rise to greatness.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kambu (ខែមប៊ូ) on February 13, 2009 at 12:33pm

Khmer Rouge's atrocities rooted from the evil of communist idealogy. The KR committed those acts out of power, greed, paranoia, etc. But we know there were other complicated factors invloved. The KR had no religion. As for our predatory neighbor Buddhist states, they had to be aggressive in order to carve Khmers' domain to make their own. Perhaps this could be the aggressive nature of their leaders even though they were Buddhists. I can only say that since the empire adopted Theravada Buddhism it became weak poitically, militarily, and econmically. This is of course not to soley blame on the religion itself, but the behaviors of Khmer leaders in general.

If Buddhism has not been construed accurately and embraced fully like what you said, then who should be responsible to make sure these things happen. Should it be the political leaders, the supreme buddhist patriarch (sangharaja)? In order to achieve some of the goals, I think there would have to be definitely a rigid religious reform. Buddhism stresses individual to seek his/her own merits and salvation. Most Khmer people go to the temples to tver bon pretty much in order to benefits their afterlife. It seems that the present is not that important, but the afterlife. During ceremonies at the temples, it seems the elderlies are more religious than the young. I think in order for Buddhism to be fully embraced, practiced, and understood deeply Khmer people in general need to learn it in depth. I think most Khmer people know only the basic Buddhism. Also most Khmer go to the temple to chant in Pali without knowning what it means. In order for Buddhism to be fully embraced, understood, and practiced, Khmer people in general need to learn it in depth and apply to his/her daily life.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by KC Admin on February 13, 2009 at 2:55pm

If Buddhism has not been construed accurately and embraced fully like what you said, then who should be responsible to make sure these things happen. Should it be the political leaders, the supreme buddhist patriarch (sangharaja)?

Good question. Leaders motivated by Buddhist convictions could take the initiative to institute policies that promote Buddhist values, which are really universal values, so there is no conflict whatsoever with religious tolerance. More importantly, they should lead by example, by embracing such values as moderation, tolerance, compassion, and study. Understanding the web of relationships among all things is not just a Buddhist aspiration, but an essential skill for effective leadership and governance.

Educators, writers, and the media could play an important role in educating the public about Dharma. But we don't need them to promote and profit from popular beliefs in superstition, fortune-telling, black magic, and things of that nature. Unfortunately, I've noticed that these things are a main staple for Khmer popular magazines.

The Buddhist monks themselves should take a more proactive stance to teaching Dharma to lay followers. They should refrain from the practice of magic and fortune-telling. Rather than adhering to strict orthodoxy and performing traditional rituals and ceremonies, I would like to see them take a more progressive approach to the practice and dissemination of Buddhism, to promote greater spiritual attainment by lay followers.

I know this is not a position that everyone will agree on, but it goes without saying, for the Buddhist institution to survive, it must embrace the universal tenets of survival, which include change, flexibility, and adaptability. By contrast, qualities like rigidity, stiffness, and inflexibility-- as reflected in strict adherence to religious orthodoxy-- are more closely associated with death and decline. For example, a healthy bamboo plant is firmly rooted, bends and sways with the wind, but always aspire to be upright. But a dead piece of bamboo, on the other hand, is inflexible, brittle and breakable.

In our society so much authority is invested in the monastic order, so it's incumbent on the monks to not only uphold but also advance the religion.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kambu (ខែមប៊ូ) on February 12, 2009 at 2:28pm

Hi Lilly,

Yes, indeed it seems part of its belief, Christianity tries to convert others. I deteste that kind of belief practice. When I was young, I was almost converted and baptised by the actions of the Christian missionaries. My cousin who's currently living in France, was a Sunday teacher. I went to Sunday school pretty much. I had quite a few books in Cambodian Christianity. At that time, I was young and did not knowing anything about Buddhism. Because of Sunday school I knew more about Jesus Christ than Siddartha Gautama. After coming to the states, growing up, and going to college, that I started to learn more about Siddartha Gautama. At the beginning when I first settled in the U.S., my family was taken to church almost every Sunday. While attending the church, I saw what I did not like about some of the preachings. Christian church that I attended denounced Buddhism as a relgion of worshipping an idol. I later thought they (Church goers) had no rights to judge Buddhism. Also, every Christian that I met while growing up thought that his/her religion was superior and true. It was this sort of encounters I started reading more about Siddartha I wanted to know more about Buddhism especially with the history and teaching. I also attended a Khmer church, Khmer Christians blamed what happened in the 1970s in Cambodia was because Khmers in general have a belief in Buddhism. I think they forgot that the Khmer Rouge had no religion. Ever since, I stopped going to any church. I was not sure of the Bible after learning about the history of the planet, human beings, etc. And oh yeah, of course I can not leave out watching the history and discovery channels. I wish the history channel would do an indepth documentary about the life of Siddartha Gautama.

Ever since I declared myself as a Buddhist, I have encountered several convertion attempts by other religions and I said to them no thank you. >:) I have my own religion. Today, I have Hindu, Christian, and Muslim friends and I cheerish our friendship very much and of course not base on our religious belief. I would say you believe what you want to believe, make sure do your research and just don't let others use coersive tacticts to trick you to believe in something. Also I would say respect others' religious belief and don't impose your belief onto others.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hang, Chumnith on February 13, 2009 at 6:46am

the practices of buddhism that we see at the temples today are not purely hinayana buddhism in origin. I see a mixture of hinduism and mahayana. for example, the yantra, the chanting of protection by some monks, etc. are mahayana and hindu in concept.

as a people who have gone through many wars: with ourselves, with the siamese, with the VN, the chams, etc., we are exhausted. a tired person will take up anything that he think could help him get through the day. hence the practice of dark art (as the buddha called it) and evetually we give up what is true dharma and embrace what we need to embrace to help us psychologically.

If you all have a chance, please read books on Asoka (or Ashoka). He was a king who was transformed from killing to dharma. Once he embraced buddhism, he incorporated dharma into his administration. He was able to apply it to his and his people daily lives.