Factual errors in an article titled "The Advent of Pali Literature in Thailand" (Ven. H. Saddhatissa)

I was going to send this off-list to a few different members, but it stands
to reason that it will interest more than a few on-list.  Note that I sent
this in "as a set of corrections" and so it serves my purpose to be brief. 
This is hardly an encyclopedic explanation of the misuse of Ashoka's
edicts-- but it may be amusing to members, and relates to some earlier
comments along these lines.

Many of us in asia have to face down the "modern mythology" that has been
constructed around the origins of Pali literature in S.E.A., and the Ashokan
edicts play a strange role in these myths.
  ---------------
Hello ...,

  I composed a short note below on factual errors in one of the articles on
your website.  Sadly, these "errors" are promoted as a kind of propaganda in
Thai museums, and many people are confused by vague statements about the
history of the region.

  Perhaps you could post these "corrections" as a hyperlink from the original
article?  Much of the information on the 19th & 20th century in that article
is correct --but the early history is very much in error.

...

Yours,

  Eisel Mazard
  ------------------------
Factual errors in an article titled "The Advent of Pali Literature in
Thailand" (Ven. H. Saddhatissa), first published in Vidyodaya, Vol.12,
Colombo, 1984, pp.418-224.

1. "… at the beginning of the second century B.C. their long migration from
the valleys between the Huang Ho and Yangtze Kiang in China began in
earnest."
This is misleading.  The Tai-Kadai migrations into what is now Thailand,
Shan State, etc., "began in earnest" in the 13th cenutry A.D. --and the
evidence of substantial Tai polities and kingdoms in the region are of an
even later date.  A very small Tai/Thai presence in (what is today) Vietnam,
Laos and northernmost Lanna, might be supposed as early as the 11th century,
but even this would be theoretical.  We have two important inscriptions from
as late as 1167 (at Nakon Sawan) and 1183 (at Jaiya) that are in Cambodian
script, and show no evidence of Thai/Tai presence or participation in the
local culture whatsoever; rather, these seem to indicate that until (at
least) the 12th century, most of (modern) Thailand remained either Mon or
Khmer.
There are conjectures about the movements of proto-Tai peoples within the
bounds of (what is today) modern China circa the 2nd century B.C., but these
are speculations concerning the earliest origins of Tai linguistic groups,
and do not imply that any Thai people were actually in (what later became)
Thailand for more than a thousand years thereafter.  Thus, Saddhatissa's
mention of such an early date (for the beginning of the southward migration
into Thailand) seems to be deceptive.
The stone-age sites in (modern) Lao and the Issan country are absolutely
"pre-Thai", and the people who inhabited those ancient sites were neither
ethnically nor lingually related to the Thais.  The Tai-Kadai migration
should be clearly understood to be a phenomenon of the 12th century A.D. and
later.  It is not until the fall of Haripunjaya in the 14th century that we
can speak of Thai predominance in the North.

2. "Some scholars say that Buddhism was brought to Thailand by missionaries
of the Emperor Asoka, two of whom were the theras Sona and Uttara who went
to Suvannabhumi (the Golden Land or Land of Gold). [...] Some identify
Suvannabhumi with Burma and others with the Hiranyavati district along the
Sona river. But the many artefacts found in Thailand around Nakon Pathom
show that it was almost certainly modern-day Thailand."
This is false.  There is no respectable scholarship that supports the
identification of Ashoka's use of the word "Suvannabhumi" with Thailand, nor
Burma.  There are absolutely no artefacts in Nakon Pathom that indicate any
connection to Ashoka's dynasty; the truth is that the earliest
archaeological finds (at Nakhon Pathom) are only two fragments of Buddhist
inscriptions and they date from the 6th century A.D. or later.  The article
tries to confuse the reader by suggesting that these artefacts prove a
connection between the Dvaravati in Thailand (in the 6th century A.D.) and
Ashoka in Northern India (in the 3rd century B.C.); anyone who looks at a
map will realize that these archaeological finds are both too far away, and
about 900 years too late, to "show that [where Ashoka sent his Buddhist
missionaries] was almost certainly modern-day Thailand".
We should also be unambiguous about the fact that the inhabitants of Nakhon
Pathom (circa the sixth century A.D.) were not Thai.  The early Dvaravati
art that is found in Nakon Pathom is important for understanding the spread
and development of Theravada Buddhism in Thailand, however, it neither
identifies "Dvaravati" with "Suvannabhumi", nor does it identify any
connection between pre-Thai civilization and the emperor Ashoka.
Saddhatissa vaguely mentions "many artetacts found … around Nakhon Pathom",
but
It is significant to note that the mythological traditions that claim that
Ashoka sent missionaries to this part of Asia are from the 19th century. 
These are modern myths that have developed in response to Western scholars
translating and publishing the edicts of Ashoka.
It is very obvious from the study of the Ashokan inscriptions that the
"Suvannabhumi" mentioned there is in peninsular India; the attempts to
identify this word with any place in South-East Asia (Burma or Thailand)
tend to rely on confusing Ashoka's use of the word (in the 3rd century B.C.)
with the much later usage found in the Sinhalese Mahavamsa, or the very
vague descriptions of the region provided by the records of Chinese pilgrims
on their way to and from India.
Even if it were (magically) true that Ashoka had sent missionaries to
Thailand, there would not have been any Thai people there to receive them. 
Ashoka's thrid council was in the third century B.C.; there were absolutely
no Thai people anywhere near Thailand at that time --even Saddhatissa's own
absurd (and vague) claim about the 2nd century B.C. would be a hundred years
too late.  The reality is that the Tai-Kadai migration was more than a
thousand years too late.

3. "The first form of Buddhism to reach Thailand was that of the Theravada
and this is borne out by the many historical remains which were found at
Nakon Pathom."
This is misleading and untrue.  As with Indonesia and the Malay peninsula
to the south, the southern coastal regions of (what became) Thailand were
certainly Mahayana first, and later converted to Theravada Buddhism.  The
same is even more dramatically true for eastern Thailand, where massive
stone edifices (such as Prasat Hin Phi-Mai) stand as a constant reminder
that the practice of a mix of Hinduism and Mahayana Buddhism prevailed up
until a fairly late date (as in Cambodia).  The transition to Theravada
Buddhism in Cambodia is dated to the 15th century A.D.; at this time, the
Cambodians ruled most of what was later to become Thailand.
There is strong evidence that it was not merely the Khmer, but also the
Thai "immigrants" to their territory, who practiced hybrid Hindu-Mahayanism.
We have a Thai inscription from as late as 1510 (Kampheng Phet Royal
inscription, no. 13) on the base of an image of Shiva, asking the latter
diety for the protection of "Buddhism, Hinduism, and traditional cults"
[Michael Vickery, Cambodia in the 15th Century].  The worship of Shiva and
his associated Lingam cults predominated in Khmer (and Khmer-influenced)
Asia, and all scholarship affirms that the Thais inherited this hybrid
religion from Cambodia, or that they emulated Cambodian religious forms in
their earliest period inhabiting the region.  Hindu dieties have also been
found in several important temples throughout the sprawling archaeological
site of Sukhothai.
Conversely, it is true that the Mon were practicing Theravada Buddhism from
a very early period (there is debate and uncertainy as to just how early
Theravada Buddhism arrived among the Mon; their own histories seem to
indicate that Theravada orthodoxy had trouble expunging earlier, Mahayana
elements); but the article gives the false impression that the Thais were in
some sense Theravada from a very early period on account of Mon/Dvaravati
history.
This kind of appropriation is really very insulting.  The Mon are not Thai;
they inhabited the low country of Burma, and some areas of what is today
Thailand, long before the Thai or the Burmese peoples migrated into
South-East Asia.  Since about 1750, they have been the victims of an
intermittent campaign of genocidal persecution, and today are found (in
miserable conditions) in concentration camps along the Thai border.  Given
this recent (and ongoing) history, a certain degree of cultural sensitivity
is in order.
The history of the Mon people is indeed important for understanding the
history of Theravada Buddhism in the region; however, it is simply not part
of the history of Thais or Thailand.

4. "… it can be assumed that early missionaries went there from Magadha in
Bihar. … The Great Stupa (Phra Pathom Chedi) can be compared with Sanchi
…Evidently the earliest Buddhist scriptures must have reached Asian kingdoms
from India in the third century B.C."
This is misleading.  Statements of this kind seem to be intentionally vague
as to the relative dates of the actual archaeological remains in Nakon
Pathom and India respecitvely.  It is simply laughable to "assume" that
missionaries directly connected these sites to mainland India prior to the
canonization of Buddhism in Sri Lanka.  It would be very difficult to
"assume" that scriptures reached Thailand (directly from India) more than
two hundred years prior to their being recorded in writing (in Matale, Sri
Lanka, circa 29 B.C.).  There is absolutely no evidence to support such a
theory, and all responsible scholarship assumes the contrary --i.e., that
the Thais received the written scriptures of Theravada Buddhism at a much
later date, and as part of a tradition that was reliant upon Sri Lanka.


--
A saying of the Buddha from http://metta.lk/
View Streaming Dhamma Video http://dharmavahini.tv/
For one who is in the habit of constantly honouring and respecting the
elders, four blessings increase - age, beauty, bliss, and strength.
Random Dhammapada Verse 109