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

responding to Eisel:

Time doesn't permit to address this in detail, but a few comments
seem worthwhile:

1. It used to be believed that the ancestors of the Tai peoples went
through a 'long migration' starting in around the 2nd century B.C.
and eventually arrived in present-day Laos, Burma and Thailand in the
first part of the second millennium A.D. There are those now who
doubt this.

2. There is no mention of Suva.n.nabhuumi in the inscriptions of
Asoka. The source for this is the Pali Commentaries. Ven. Saddhatissa
accepted these as an authoritative source for the reign of Asoka and
hence believed that Asoka sent a mission to Suva.n.nabhuumi. What is
meant by Suva.n.nabhuumi in this and other first millennium sources
is, as Dr Saddhaatissa pointed out, much discussed.

3. Thai, Khmer and Mon are languages, not races. We need not doubt
that the genetic makeup of Thailand today is largely the same as it
was two thousand years ago. Many, probably most, of the ancestors of
present-day Thai speakers certainly spoke Mon or Khmer or very
probably various other extinct languages. Inscriptions of course tend
to represent the culturally dominant language of a ruling class,
rather than the languages actually spoken among the population at
large.

4. There is no doubt that a form of Buddhism using a type of Pali is
very old among the Pyu speakers in Burma, among the Mon speakers in
Southern Burma and among Mon speakers in North, Central and even
Southern Thailand, even among some Khmer users. We do not know
whether this came from southern India or from Ceylon. It is clear
that in many of these areas there is some influence of Mahaayaana in
the second half of the first millennium. Note that the same is also
true in Ceylon; for all we know the influence came from there as much
as from India. A kind of Mahaayaana Theravaada seems to have been
strong in Ceylon during this period, at least among the wealthier
classes.

5. After the 'reform' of Paraakramabaahu in the twelfth century the
new Ceylonese orthodoxy was gradually introduced across S.E. Asia.
This can be viewed as the introduction of Theravada, since those
involved would certainly have reserved the term Theravaada for their
own tradition. But it does not alter the fact that something close to
Theravaada does seem to have been present in most of this area for a
very long time before this.

Lance Cousins

>  ------------------------
>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.
>