Re: Rare Pali editions at the EFEO, Vientiane

This is a hastily written e-mail. However, I am very short on
time.
I apologize to the group in advance for my temporary gruffness
and sloppiness. I am in the middle of a lot of work right now.

There are a couple factual errors that I need to correct. I do
not want to be criticized for praising everyone too much:)

After this I will stop participating on this list unless it
has something directly to do with Pali grammar. I simply do
not have the time (with a family, volunteering, tutoring,
studying Burmese, and a full time job).

I also imagine people
on this list do not have the time (or desire) to listen to any
of my ramblings.

There are three points which Eisel is slightly mistaken about
in the last few e-mails.

First, it was widely reported on the first day after the
destruction of the Erawan Shrine (San Phra Phrom) in
Bangkok that the perpetrator had a long history of mental
illness. His father was interviewed extensively. We can choose
not to believe his father if we want to, but, to say that it
was not reported is wrong. It was in several Thai newspapers
and in the English language Nation and Bangkok Post. It was
also reported on the Asian News Network in English. These are
all available on-line. It is very sad that a person was
killed, but two men were arrested. If others were directly
involved in the beating, I guess they got away.

Second, Eisel is mistaken. The Wat Ong Teu (Sangha College)
library is open to the public. You just need to get permission
from the abbot first.
I have used it many many times. So have other scholars.

Third, Eisel is misrepresenting our earlier e-mail
conversation on the topic of the "Lao tripitaka." He writes as
if I "wrote off" his earlier "findings." I did not. I spent a
great deal of time on them. It seems like a wild goose chase
though. I also contacted many other Lao and Foreign Scholars
of Buddhism in Laos. They all confirmed my thoughts. I could
be wrong. However, I still have not seen any proof from Eisel.
   If there is proof, I will gladly agree with Eisel on this
matter. Its not about WHO is right, it is about finding out
WHAT is right. I just do not appreciate being misrepresented
or having my statements taken out of context. I am usually a
very passive and calm guy. I rarely get angry. No point
really. I am wrong about most things. However, since this is a
semi-public forum, I will defend myself.

Eisel wrote:
>The E.F.E.O. has the following on the shelves:
>    -  V.P. Mahaa-Vibha'nga 1 (viz., the text McDaniel
already attested to?)
>    -  S.P. D.N. Vol. 1 (printed in the same year)
>    -  A.P. Dhammasa'nga.ni Vol. 1 (printed in the same year)
>
>Thus, at a minimum, the first volume of each Pitaka was
simultaneously
>printed in this edition.  All of these are publications of
>photo-duplicated hand-written Pali text in Lao-Tham script, with
>occasional footnotes on textual variations.  The density of
text per
>page is low, and the script is clear and legible (but not very
>beautiful).  The heraldic seal of the royal family of Luang
Phabang is
>featured on the cover, title-page, etc. (viz. a three-headed
elephant
>bearing the wheel of the dhamma).
>
>The yellow, hard-bound volumes are each wrapped in a white
paper cover
>with blue (Lao-Tham) text on the spine --i.e., identical to the
>(complete?) edition I spotted at Luang Phabang.  As the
binding seemed
>incorrect to him at the time, McDaniel suggested (in response
to my
>initial observation) that this might just be a non-Lao
edition wrapped
>in a Lao cover.  I would now tend to re-affirm my earlier
speculation
>that at least an early "proof" was completed of all volumes
and kept
>at the palace --where it remains.

AGAIN, THIS IS WRONG, PLEASE SEE MY COMMENTS BELOW. I DO NOT
APPRECIATE BEING CRITICIZED FOR SOMETHING I DID NOT SAY.

Third, Eisel is mistaken about what I told him about the “Lao
tripitaka.” I did not “suggest” anything. I told him directly
what I knew. I hate to be petty. This blog seems to often
devolve into petty, non-Pali-grammar related issues. I am
wrong about many things in life. We all are. However, if I am
not sure about a subject, I do not make blanket statements
suggesting that I am correct. I could have been wrong about
the “Lao edition” of the tripitaka in Pali, but in this case,
I was not wrong. I will not continue commenting on this matter
again after this e-mail, because I imagine that I am becoming
irritating to the
rest of the group.
 
You will see that I told him of the “white cover
set” long ago. Indeed, everyone in Lao Buddhist Studies knows
about this edition. It is easily found. It is kept not only at the
EFEO library, but at Wat Mixay, Wat Ong Teu, The SRI library
in Bangkok, the National Library in Bangkok.  A number of sets
were printed. They are not a
“Lao edition,” but copies of the Northern Thai (Yuan) script
edition. This was largely a ceremonial printing it seems. The
first three volumes may have been seen as ceremonially
representing the entire tripitaka. There is another, red
cover, edition. I also mention this in my e-mail exchanges
with Eisel. It was printed in 1974-1975. I told Eisel about
this as well. It is not in Pali, but in Lao.
I told him this. I also give a slightly fuller description
below. I can write more on this, but since it does not relate
to Pali grammar directly, I won’t waste everyone’s time.
Please see e-mail exchange and my short description below.
Then I will shut up.

Eisel wrote:
>(1) Contrary to earlier statements by Dr. Justin McDaniel, I
observe
>that at least three volumes of the (ill-fated) Luang Phabang
edition
>of the Tipitaka were printed. 

YES THREE I SAID THAT. THREE VOLUMES. PLEASE SEE BELOW. I DID
NOT CONTRADICT MYSELF. I SAID THREE, THERE COULD BE MORE< BUT
NO ONW HAS SHOWN ME ANY EVIDENCE. HOW DID I CONTRADICT THIS?
PLEASE PRODUCE EVIDENCE OF OTHER VOLUMES IF YOU CAN. SO FAR
YOU HAVE NOT. I have asked friends in LP and have been there
many times myself. There is no corroboration for your
statements. You could be right, but, please provide proof.

EM wrote:
As I wrote in 2005, I have strong
>reason to suspect that the complete text was prepared, and at
least a
>single copy was published of most/all volumes of the Tipitaka. 

SEE my exetended comments below. Let me say right here though
-- "why do you have strong reason to suspect"? What evidence
to do have?

Eisel continues:
Last
>year I reported in some detail the edition I "discovered" in
Luang
>Phabang (but could not lay my hands upon) and its
binding/covers were
>identical to the three volumes now found at the E.F.E.O.
This is,
>again, an odd contradiction of the descriptions I've been
sent (of the
>binding) from Dr. McDaniel.

AGAIN, PLEASE SEE MY COMMENTS AND YOUR EARLIER STATEMENTS:

OUR exchange was:

EM:
Speaking of 20th century Pali editions: I was shocked to see a
beautiful set
of books with the spines printed in Lao-Tham script, reading
"Lavorajassatipitaka", i.e., the King of Lao's edition of the
tipitaka. 
Apparently this is a mid-20th century edition (I would be very
surprised if
it pre-dated 1950) from Luang Pabang --but I've never seen or
heard of it
before.  Does the Sangha college in Vientiane have a full set?
  The National
Library doesn't have a single volume.  On the next shelf over,
there was
what appeared to be a complete set of the Burmese script
Buddha-Jayanti
edition of the Suttapitaka --still in its original mylar
wrapper! 
Presumably this was a gift to the king of Luang Pabang --and
one that he
never opened?  Both of these were in the temple chamber
holding the ashes of
the king --or, at least, the vehicle that was used to parade
the ashes of
the king?  I'm not entirely clear on the function the vessel
in question.

JM wrote:
Real quick, how many volumes were in the
"King of Laos Tipitaka" that you saw in the glass case. What
that the actual title? Were they white or red volumes? I want
to check what I have in my office to what you saw.
justin

EM wrote:
There were 20 volumes visible --it is possible that more
volumes were in one
of the wooden cases (i.e., with no windows) in the same room.

Of the 20 volumes, almost all were suttapitaka --there was
just one vol.
from the Abhidhamma pitaka, and I counted (and wrote down) how
many were
from the Vinaya (maybe 4? I don't have my notebook with me).

Whether or not that particular set is complete, the visible
volumes do
indicate that it was the entire tipitaka that was published;
as mentioned,
the text on the spine was Lao-Dhamma --apparently
photo-facsimile from
hand-writing.

The actual title was as reported (i.e., in Pali) --although I
could only
read the spine, not the front cover, nor any publication data
within.

There was neither Laotian nor English on the spines of any of
the volumes; I
note with humour that "king of Laos" could also be interpreted
(in strictest
Pali) as "king of the reapers".  (Isn't "lavo"
reaper/harvester in Pali?).

JM> Were they white or red volumes?

The dust jackets were white & blue, and the binding beneath
looked like the
type of synthetic yellow that was more commonly used for
library editions in
the 1950s or early 1960s.

JM> I want
> to check what I have in my office to what you saw.

I do hope that this edition is available somewhere in
Vientiane --I have
nothing "at home" in Lao Dhamma script --and if I could xerox
a few pages of
it, it would be helpful both to me and to the fellow who is
making a Unicode
Lao Dhamma font.  He has a very impressive track record if you
want to look:
www.xenotypetech.com

The "white" edition you mention is probably the same: the dust
jacket had
blue text on a white background --in Lao-Tham script.

JM> (the volumes are in my office). I have a 1957 set in White...

  Looks like my attempt to guess the date was pretty much
accurate, then.

JM> (based on the Yuan version ...

It would be interesting to know more about this --i.e., the
history of
either the source text or the particular edition.

JM>and a Red set (not complete) in
> Tham from 1975 (I think). I remember being surprised at the
date.

JM -- I HAVE MORE ON THIS BELOW NOW.

Yes, the revolution may have cut the printing run short on the
"red"
edition.

JM wrote:
I think I have some of what you saw. They were printed in a
very small number and are not available anywhere I have
looked, including France. I will look in the Library of
Congress and send you a short description of what I have soon
(the volumes are in my office). I have a 1957 set in White
(based on the Yuan version and a Red set (not complete) in
Tham from 1975 (I think). I remember being surprised at the date.
More soon,
justin

JM WRoTE LATER:
Hi,
I am back in my office. See below a short exerpt from my book
(still in draft form) about the "King of Laos" tipitaka.

I ADD NOW-- THERE IS LAO LANGUAGE EDITION THOUGH. THE PALI
EDITION HAS WHITE COVERS (I GIVE DETAILS BELOW). SO FAR ONLY
THREE VOLUMES CAN BE CONFIRMED (as Eisel has seen in the EFEO
library). IF THERE ARE OTHERS, THERE CERTAINLY COULD BE, BUT
SO FAR NO ONW BUT EISEL WHO I KNOW HAS SEEN THEM. HE ONLY SAW
THE BINDINGS. IF HE CAN GET A COPY, PHOTOGRAPH IT, IT WOULD
HELP. BUT HE IS MAKING A CLAIM WITHOUT PROOF.

JM continued:
I am
a bit confused, I thought only one volume of the (RED-1975)
King of Laos
edition was ever published. I have that one volume. However,
perhaps they printed up to 20. As for the 1957 Tham script
edition, I thought there were only three volumes (white cover
--- no blue) ever printed. I am not sure what you saw and now
I have to go see for myself! I am excited. The 1957 edition is
based on a Lanna (that Yuan, not Chinese or Vietnamese Yuan)
edition which itself was based on the Siamese edtion of
1893/1916. The Lanna edition was printed at Wat Rampeung in
Chiang Mai.
I hope that this helps, if you know anybody in LP with a
digital camera that can take a picture of the volumes that you
saw, I would be very grateful.
Thanks,
justin

JM WROTE:
The editions I mentioned are in the modern Thai script, not
Khom or Mon. I have a Thai book that describes these editions,
I will dig it up.
I have heard today from a coupld Lao scholars that the LP mss.
are under stricter supervision and limited access because of
feared theft.
Thanks for your info. on the 1957 edition, I guess they
printed at least one copy with more than three volumes. I fear
  that they are all just copies of the Lanna edition though.
There are plenty of Pali books in CM. The Lanna script, Pali
language tradition is alive at well at Wat Suan Dok and Wat
Phra Singh (among others). Wat Thamma-o in Lampang with Phra
Dhammananda is doing Pali work as well and students of his now
teach Pali in Bangkok. I have lots of info. on this that we
can share in the future in person.
justin

Here is a very rough draft of a short piece on monastic
education in Laos (including some reports on Pali education)
in the last 100 years. Below, I mention the "red" and "white"
cover editions.

BUDDHIST MONASTIC EDUCATION IN INDOCHINE
By the time Lefèvre arrived in Luang Phrabang the monastic
schools of Laos had over 400 years of development.  Besides
pedagogical manuscripts there is little we can know about this
history. The French did not base their secular and Catholic
educational institutions on local monastic models, nor did
they invest in the maintenance of monastic schooling. In fact,
“Western” influence, in practice and theory, seems to have
bypassed monastic educational practices. Where we do see the
French influence is at the elite institutional level and
attempts for French scholars to “renew” Buddhist education.
The problem was that there is no evidence that there was a
time in history when local Lao and translocal Buddhist
beliefs, rituals, and literature were not intimately
intertwined in text, education, and performance. Early on the
French mistook their own conceptions of ideal Buddhist
education for what was the “original” local conception. It is
essential to understand this formative historical period in
order to have a foundation from which to discuss the
curricular history of monastic education.
The French based their primary administrative offices for
Indochine in Vietnam. Ideally in each French designated town
there were one public école cantonale (primary school) and in
the major French administrative regions there were écoles
d'arrondissement (district schools) which were supposed to be
directed by a French-born teacher and overtime assisted by
native teachers. In Vientiane, Savannakhet, Luang Phrabang,
and Paksé there were eventually Catholic schools and major
urban centers had one école cantonale.   These schools were
primarily run by Vietnamese hired by the French.
The French established a Ministry of Education with a French
administrator. His primary goal was to open French language
schools and train young Laos to help in the organization and
administration of the country. French speaking Laos were
permitted to be primary school teachers in new schools built
with limited colonial funds. In 1896 the first French language
school opened in Luang Phrabang. This school only served the
elite Lao in the city, while monastery schools operated
without French involvement in most of the city and rural
areas. Soon other écoles primaire (Hong Hian Pathom Seuksā)
opened in Champasak, Vientiane and Xiang Khouang. Secondary
education was limited to a two-year institution in the
capital. In order to complete a secondary school degree Lao
students had to study in Hanoi or Saigon, Vietnam. By “1940
only 7,000 students attended state-run schools. By 1945 only
ten Lao had gained tertiary qualifications.”  A small
percentage of the students at these schools were women. Even
for men, school was not an important option for Lao families
under the French. A few elite Lao, like King Sisavangvong and
S.P. Nginn, studied in Paris, but most common Lao women and
men had little commerce with French state-rum schools. 
The vast majority of lay and ordained students still studied
at monastic schools without influence from the French language
or curriculum. The French did not oppress or discourage
monastic education. Quite the opposite, the French encouraged
monks to study at these schools as well, but there was neither
funding given to monastic schools nor any significant effort
to change the curriculum.  Beginning in 1929 they began
funding restoration of monastery buildings and images, but
there was no direct funding provided for monastic schooling.
In fact, much of the restoration work was done at monasteries
that were archaeologically valuable, but that had no resident
monks or schools, like the ancient Khmer temples in the South
and burnt and abandoned temples.
The particular training of ordained novices and monks has
changed little over this period and indeed little since the
sixteenth century in terms of subject matter and pedagogical
methods. The French did not concern themselves with changing
the mode of education for most non-elite Lao because of the
great expense involved.  It is difficult to determine if the
French even saw informal instruction at rural monasteries as
“education.” The French needed a certain number of French
speaking administrators and these were supplied by the
Vietnamese, who the French largely saw as culturally and
ethically superior to the Laos. This staff was adequately
produced at the small number of primary and secondary schools
in urban Laos. It is unclear if monastic education was seen as
secondary to secular education or if “graduates” from monastic
schools were seen as “educated” citizens. In short, French
records tell us little about the schedules, duties,
examinations, pedagogical methods, curricular content, etc. of
monastic students and teachers. However, although they did not
actively support country-wide monastic education they invested
in the study of Buddhism, Lao history, linguistics, epigraphy,
archaeology, and art history. 
The Ecole française l'Extrême-Orient (EFEO), which was founded
in Saigon in 1898, sent French scholars to Laos in the early
part of the twentieth century to research in the vast
manuscript archives and analyze the Buddhist and other
monuments.  Louis Finot, the first great French scholar of
Laos, composed the first major catalogue of Lao palm-leaf
manuscripts.  In the first half of the twentieth century,
unlike EFEO scholars in Indonesia and Vietnam, there was less
focus on ethnography and contemporary history and more on
Buddhist texts, architecture, and images. 
It seems that palm-leaf and stone were more important to
foreign Buddhologists than the actual lives and education of
Buddhist monks. How Lao monks used these texts in practice was
of no concern.  If Laos was seen as important at all by early
colonial era scholars it was for texts.  The focus on Buddhist
texts and learning in general led the EFEO not only to
catalogue manuscripts, but also to promote the composition and
preservation of, especially Pali texts. To this end, in 1922
under the influence of Finot, the Cambodian King Sisovath and
the résident supérieur of Laos, agreed to establish the Ecole
supérieure de pâli under the patronage of the EFEO.  This
focus on a Pali school was due to the general attitude that
Pali was the “original” and thus superior Buddhist language of
learning. Even though Finot’s own survey concluded that Pali
composition and commentary was not a primary part of the Lao
Buddhist intellectual heritage, the EFEO saw Pali instruction
as their priority. The Pali language was seen as tying the
regions populated by Sri Lankan and Mon influenced “Theravada”
Buddhism (Sri Lanka, Siam, Burma, the Shan States,
Sipsongpanna, Northern Thailand, Laos, Cambodia) together.
Moreover, the general attitude among Western Buddhologist in
the early twentieth century was that contemporary Lao Buddhism
had unfortunately been cut from its Indic roots and had become
corrupted with animist and other local beliefs. This focus on
Pali also placed Laos as derivative to other Theravada
kingdoms in Sri Lanka, Burma, Cambodia, and Siam.
It seems that the French sought to renew Lao Buddhist
education to a state that never actually existed. This
attitude is reflected in the 1910 Catholic encyclopedia which
reported: “[I]ts [Buddhism’s] philosophy, scarcely understood
by a few bonzes and educated laity, is a mystery to the mass
of the population. The Laotine of the present day is a
nature-worshipper and a fatalist.” According to the EFEO, Pali
helped develop “les études de théologie bouddhique par un
enseignement rationnel des langues anciennes sacrées, le pâli
et le sanskrit, et de toutes connaissances indispensables à la
compréhension et à l’explication des textes religieux.”  To
further support the “rediscovery” of Pali (and Sanskrit) by
the Lao bonzes/monks Suzanne Karpelès was brought from
Cambodia. The first Pali schools were established (before she
arrived there) in 1909 and 1914. Her hope for the Cambodians,
with French governmental support, was the they [les
Cambodgiens] “élaborent l’édition d’un Canon bouddhique
complet, établissant le texte en pâli (notamment à partir des
textes de la Pali Text Society, basée à Londres...).”  This
focus on the British Pali Text Society’s notion of the Pali
canon (tipitaka) was seen in research by foreign Buddhist
studies scholars in Sri Lanka, Burma, and Siam as well and has
been well documented by other scholars as of late. 
One of the growing criticisms of colonial era orientalist
scholars was that they privileged classical over vernacular
languages and the ancient over the modern, and in the case of
Southeast Asia – the Indic over the indigenous. This attitude
and approach to research was replete with a messianic rhetoric
– the colonizers were not exploiters, but restorers and
preservers. They were here to discover the Lao past and its
glorious Indic roots for the Lao. Based on this
generalization, the orientalist rubric can be applied to early
EFEO scholars in Laos, especially since most of them were
trained Indologists who had worked in or on India, and their
initial projects were not only centered on collecting
manuscripts and investing in renewing Pali education, but also
on restoring monuments. 
However, this description is much too simplistic. To be fair,
the even the earliest EFEO scholars did not see Laos as merely
a passive receptor of other Buddhist cultures.  Their work was
never explicitly derisive or dismissive. These were not
ordinary colonizers, travelers or missionaries. First, the
budget and expertise of the EFEO was limited in Laos. Most
French ethnographers, economists, botanists, archaeologists,
etc. worked in Vietnam or Cambodia. There is a rich tradition
of French musicology, anthropology, secular literature, and
even ethnobotany in Vietnam. Second, although Finot and
Karpelès favored Pali texts and education, the former did make
a great effort to document vernacular and non-Buddhist
literature. 
It is difficult to define the colonial “influence” on the
study of Lao Buddhism or Lao intellectual and literary life in
general. There wasn’t one model of a good colonist as there
wasn’t one model of what made a good monastic student. There
certainly seems to be little direct colonial influence on Lao
monastic education. The wide variety of classical and
vernacular texts and the dynamic integration of textual and
ritual practices seen in Lao monasteries past and present has
generally been reflected in the scholarship. In Laos, the
convenient division between the pre-modern and the modern or
the pre-and post-colonial is of limited use.
The Lao case gives us a new perspective on the nature of
colonialism and orientalism. There was not an overwhelming and
internally consistent colonial ideological machine which
attempted to change all modes of Lao intellectual and
religious expression. Many EFEO scholars’ motivation was not
simply “orientalist;” meaning they were not trying to discount
the local and the present in favor of the ancient and the
pan-Asian. Their concerns were highly local. Although Finot
and Karpelès saw the Pali Text Society’s idea of the Pali
canon as ideal and original, Karpelès, herself, stated that
the establishment of a Pali school in Laos would be useful as
a way of keeping Lao monastic students from moving to study in
Siam, while simultaneously connecting Lao students to their
supposed “Theravada” comrades in Cambodia. Although Siam
(especially the regions of Northeastern and Northern Thailand)
and Laos are much more closely related in language, curricula,
ritual, than Cambodia and Laos, the French needed to bind
Indochine together and encourage the Lao to travel down the
Mekhong to study rather than across it.  The investment in
Pali education and the entire Institut bouddhique was largely
practical and institutional, not ideological or epistemological.
In 1931, Suzanne Karpelès, M. l’Administrateur Mantovani
(representing the Résident supérieur of Cambodia), S.E. Tiao
Phetsarath (the first President of the Institut bouddhique in
Laos), Prince Sisaleum, M. Bosc (representing the Résident
supérieur of Laos), and Prince Sutharoth of Cambodia’s
representative (because the prince could not travel such a
long distance from Phnom Penh) met in Vientiane to inaugurate
the official opening of the Institut bouddhique. The Institut
was dedicated to the memory of Auguste Pavie, the famous
explorer of Laos to “définir l’œuvre du progrès moral et
intellectual que la France poursuit au Laos.”  Monks were
invited to chant at the ceremony and books “de morale écrits”
in Lao “caractères” (which I assume, but cannot confirm, means
that they were short Pali prayers, “beum suat mon” in Pali
written in Lao script) were distributed to the crowd.  Later
that afternoon, in conjunction with this ceremony was the
opening of the newly rebuilt hǭ tai manuscript library at Vat
Sisaket, which had been looted and burnt by Siamese armies in
1827. This certainly was a symbolic act to establish the
French as the defenders of the Lao against the Siamese. The
simple fact that the French established their primary colonial
offices in Vientiane and largely rebuilt the city was a sign
of renewal after the Siamese had depopulated and almost
completely destroyed the city a century previously. It was
also economically better connected to Cambodian centered
trade. The head of the Lao sangha is reported to have thanked
the French for preserving Lao Buddhism and conserving “des
monuments religieux du pays et de la sollicitude dont elle
entourait la pratique du culte bouddhique.” 
At this ceremony it was also announced that a new Pali school
(Ecole élémentaire de Pâli à Bassac) was being opened in
Bassac (modern day: Champasak in Paksé Province in Laos’ deep
south about 50 miles from the Cambodian border).  Bassac was
to draw Lao students closer to their fellow monks in Cambodia.
She stated that Bassac was an area “très fertile, très
peuplée, se développe rapidement au point de vue économique.”
  However, in the 1920s and 30s the French vision of opening
the fertile fields, mines, and forests of Laos to the sea
through Cambodia was still alive. The Pali school was one
small part of their hopes of linking Cambodia and Laos
culturally, as well as economically and politically. 
Karpelès’ expertise was in Cambodia, where she had worked for
a lengthy period before being assigned to Laos.  In speeches
she continually attempted to connect Cambodia to Laos. For
example, she invited Cambodian officials to Laos for the
opening of the Institut bouddhique.  She brought together Lao
monks from all over the country who had never met and
introduced them to Cambodian monks. Twelve of these Lao monks
actually traveled with her to Phnom Penh. In Phnom Penh the
Lao monks were questioned on their knowledge of the Vinaya and
trained on opening a Pali school in Laos.  Karpelès stated
directly that this would help Lao monastic students study Pali
without going to the monastic schools in Bangkok. The Bulletin
of the EFEO for 1931 states that these students
“inévitablement l’attrait de Bangkok et, chaque année, des
bonzes laotiens vont dans la capitale du Siam pour leurs
études religieuses. La création d’une Ecole de Pâli à Bassac,
serait de nature à remédier à cette fâcheuse situation et à
retenir chez nous les jeunes gens désireux de se livrer à
l’étude de la langue sacrée.”   The establishment of the Pali
school by the French not only showed their support of Lao
Buddhism, but also “remedied a sad situation and helped retain
the young men” who would otherwise seek to “read and study the
sacred [Pali] language” in the uncolonized/non-French Bangkok.
  The Résident supérieure of French Laos echoed Karpelès’
pan-Indochine mission for the EFEO. At the inauguration of the
Institut bouddhique, he stated
  The mission [scope of work] of this new [intellectual] body
extends not only over all of Cambodia and Laos, but also
covers a large part of the provinces of Southwest Cochinchina,
where more than 200,000 souls effectively remain Cambodian and
deeply attached to their native land. They continue, despite
the numerous trials that they have undergone, to practice with
rigor the precepts of the Buddha. In order to help them
preserve intact the pious heritage of their ancestors, the
institute has provided a much needed moral foundation by
establishing a constant relationship between them [Southern
Lao] and their Cambodian brothers. For Laos and the Khmer
kingdom, the institute is striving to renew the common
intellectual heritage that formerly existed between these two
countries.
At this ceremony high ranking monks from the sanghas in
Cambodia and Laos gave speeches. However, the differences
between their speeches are telling and may reflect some subtle
tensions in the management of Buddhist scholarship and
education under colonial control. Venerable Nath of Cambodia,
the director of the Pali school in Phnom Penh and the head of
the “Tipiṭaka Commission,” like his new French leaders
discussed the links between the Buddhism(s) of Cambodia and
Laos. In fact, Venerable Nath of Cambodia even stated that the
Buddhist monks of Vietnam were “equally” students of the
Buddha and therefore the differences between the “Hinayāna”
and “Mahāyāna” sects were less significant than their status
as Buddhists. He made this connection between the three major
Indochinese groups by emphasizing the importance of studying
the Tipiṭaka (although we do not know which texts and they
did not emphasize the importance of the texts being in Pali).
Indeed, the Vietnamese never had a tradition of studying Pali
texts. The Venerable Nath of Cambodia did mention a story from
the canonical Anguttara-Nikāya in which the Buddha emphasized
the importance of monks studying the Dhamma and keeping their
monastic rules. However, he emphasized the importance of the
king and the government protecting the Tipiṭaka more than the
actual contents of the teachings.  The emphasis on the power
of the king as well as the government may indicate an attempt
to remind the French that the monks still paid allegiance to
their own ceremonial and political leader.
The speech from the unnamed head of the Lao sangha is
strikingly different. Perhaps emboldened  by the fact that the
ceremony was taking place at one of the most sacred Lao
monasteries, Vat Chan, or because he resented speaking after
his Cambodian equivalent, the Lao monk did not mention
Cambodia, Vietnam, Indochine, or brotherhood whereas they were
mentioned several times by the others. He concentrated his
remarks only on the heritage of Lao Buddhism and the Lao
people. He thanked the governor general, but only because he
was helping the Lao people protect their texts by building a
library which would hold “Tham” manuscripts. By using the word
“Tham” instead of “Pali” or “Buddhist” or “Hinayāna” or
“Theravada” he was indicating that the newly restored
manuscript library at Vat Sisaket and the new Institut
bouddhique were important because it protected Lao texts
written in the Tham script which is unique to Laos.  Lao
monastic education was for the Lao and by the Lao. The French
merely supplied a building.
Notwithstanding the remarks of the head of the Lao sangha,
Suzanne Karpelès and her colonial bosses aimed to steer Lao
monks toward Cambodia and the Pali schools at Bassac and Phnom
Penh. This was part of a larger vision of culturally,
educationally and religiously binding the peoples of Indochine
together. It was particularly important for the French to
create a history in which Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos were
“naturally” “brothers,” to defend against Siam’s claims to the
latter two. Siamese armies had occupied large swaths of
Cambodia and Laos intermittently between the fifteenth and
nineteenth centuries. The French had to create an Indochine
culture at the expense of Siam. In this situation, Karpelès
can be seen more as a practical colonialist instead of a
condescending orientalist. Although since she worked “with”
Lao and Cambodian scholars and monks instead of “above” them
she cannot be labeled solely one or the other. In this regard
though, EFEO scholars and the Résident supérieur for the
French colonial government remained practical and
administrative in their relationship with Lao monastics. The
Lao sangha was placed under official French authority on
September 5, 1927. Article one of the religious code referred
to education and stated that the French were to assure that
the Lao monks maintained their rituals and preserved their
monasteries. Furthermore, they were supposed to “développer,
en vue du relèvement intellectuel et moral du peuple, les
écoles des pagodes où les enfants reçoivent les premiers
éléments d’instruction.”  It is clear that this colonial
rhetoric of “recovery” and “moral improvement” links Leria,
Lefèvre, Bassenne, and the French colonial government. The
French officially organized the monks placing all monasteries
in a district under the monastic district head “Chao
Raxakhana,”[sic] and the head district monks under the
authority of the provincial head monk. This proved to be of
little consequence to Lao monastic education, recruitment, or
organization. The French still maintained that the oldest monk
(in terms of years (literally: total number of pansā, Pali:
vassa or monsoon seasons ordained) would be the abbot of a
monastery unless the monks otherwise decided. If there was a
disagreement, then the Commissaire du Gouvernement would hold
an election.  
Besides these administrative rules, there is very little
mention of monastic education besides four articles in the
general French colonial “resolution on religious affairs.”
Articles 13-15 of the colonial religious code briefly mention
monastic education. They read:
Every religious [aspirant] (monk or novice) is required under
pain of sanctions laid out in the religious rules, to observe
the Buddhist discipline and law, to study the teachings of the
Buddha and to facilitate the work of the abbot. Two years
after one’s admission into the Buddhist clergy, each novice
must know how to read and write Lao, and each monk must know
how to read tham [script]. Each religious [aspirant] who does
not give proof of possessing these intellectual skills will be
removed from the order. The abbot is to maintain himself or by
designating other monks to do it for him, a monastery school
where children from the surrounding villages come to study Lao
writing and mathematics.
Article 31 is more specific and states that there are certain
texts that novices and monks should be familiar with -- those
being:
the Thatou Pattivek, Patticoula, Tangtianika, Atita (for
novices)” [sic; Pali: Dhātupaccavekkhanaṃ,
Paṭikkūlapaccavekkhanaṃ, Tankhaṇikapaccavekkhanaṃ,
Atītapaccavekkhanaṃ] and the Paṭimokhala Sangvaiasine,
Indrigna, Asiva palisukasine, Pattiaya Sinenesittasine [sic;
Pali: Paṭimokkhasaṃvarasīlaṃ, Indriyasaṃvarasīlaṃ,
Ājīvaparisuddhasīlaṃ, Paccayasannissitasīlaṃ] (for fully
ordained monks).
  This was not a stringent (and there is no evidence that it
was actually enforced) set of rules. Lay children were
expected to learn basic mathematics and Lao vernacular reading
and writing. Novices were expected to learn how to read and
write in the Lao vernacular and monks were expected to know
Lao and the old Buddhist script – Tham. Knowledge of Pali
grammar or the ability to translate, compose, etc. Pali texts
were not required. Moreover, the minimal curricular
requirements (which, again, we have no evidence of them being
enforced) were not more than more or any different from
standard pre-colonial texts. The texts for the novices listed
above are no more than parts of the basic monastic precepts
and chanting that are necessary to know (or memorize) to
perform the ordination ceremonies and for morning and evening
ceremonies (tham vat chao and tham vat yen). They are not
found as intact texts in this order in the canon, but are
commonly available in handbooks that guide monastic life and
usually form the first few pages. The texts required
specifically for monks are little more than four short
chapters from the non-canonical Visuddhimagga. The French were
not directing the study of particular canonical Pali texts,
but were simply following what Lao novices were actually
studying and memorizing in the pre-colonial period. In fact,
the novice’s requirements are less than five pages of Pali
text (memorized for basic prayers). Handbooks that guide
novices’ and monks’ chanting are still commonly available in
Laos and these short Pali texts were common in manuscript form
as well. The first chapter of the Visuddhimagga, from which
the texts for the monks derive, is common in nissaya-form in
Laos. The common criticism that colonial and/or Western
Buddhologists discounted and devalued local Buddhist practice
and learning cannot be universally applied to the scholars of
the EFEO, members of the Institut bouddhique, or officials of
the French colonial government. In fact, the French had very
little influence on the actual content of monastic education.
  Although Karpelès did promote the study of Pali and seems to
have had a genuine desire to enhance of Lao education far and
above the needs of French colonial security very few monks
ever actually studied at the Pali schools in Cambodia. In
practical terms, these schools were far away from the
traditional seats of Lao monastic education in Luang Phrabang
and Vientiane. Few monasteries had the funds to send monks to
Cambodia and few Lao monks could speak Khmer or French. Where
a Lao person could learn Thai in a few weeks, Khmer and Lao
are two different language families with entirely different
syntactic, morphological and phonological foundations and
rules. Simply put, the impact of French reform on Cambodian
monastic education discussed extensively by Bizot, Edwards and
Hansen was not seen in Laos. 
Still, there is evidence that Lao monks did see Cambodian Pali
schools as desirable seats of learning. Penny Edwards provided
me with several letters from the Résident supérieur du
Cambodge collection of the National Archives of Cambodia in
which Lao novices and monks were given permission to study to
Phnom Penh. For example, a 24 year old Lao monk named Thong Di
(Phra Thammapanya) was one of the first Lao monks sent in July
1923. His letter of introduction states that he had studied
Pali at Vat Phra Chinalong in Luang Phrabang for six to seven
years and was being sponsored for further study by the Lao
Ministre des Cultes. This suggests that Lao scholar monks were
not being forced to study in Cambodia, but actually did
consider the Pali school in Phnom Penh as capable of providing
instruction to their best and brightest young monks. 
Other letters (in Khmer and translated into French) support
this interpretation. On April 25, 1929 eight Lao monks were
given permission to travel to study at the Pali school in
Phnom Penh because of their “grand interet” and for the sake
of improving there previous studies in Laos. A letter written
two days later states that these Lao monks were accepted and
provided with housing at Vat Unnalom (a major monastery in
Phnom Penh) and that they would be greeted by Prea Nhien Bovar
Vichea, the Director of the Pali school himself. In a letter
dated May 27, 1929 The Cambodian minister of public education,
Ponn, provides the names of other Lao monks who moved from
Laos to Phnom Penh for the primary purpose of studying Pali:
Sathou-Bonthon, Kho-Keo, Sathou-Pheng, Kho Thūng,
Sathou-Somchin, Am, Ung, Souk, and the novices: Neo, Tho,
Phoumy, and Uon. This relatively large contingent of monks and
novices who probably had the ability to speak some French and
some Khmer, and who had proven some previous study in Pali
suggests that the Pali school in Cambodia was more than an
ambitious colonial project that only existed on paper, but not
much more.
What I have not been able to discover is the impact these Lao
monks had on their Khmer classmates or to what extent their
studies (methods and texts) had on Lao monastic education
after they returned (if they indeed all returned) to Laos. The
exchange encouraged by the French and the royal families in
both countries seemed to have little lasting effect (in terms
of long-term intellectual exchanges, shifts in pedagogical
methods or printed texts) on monastic education in general.
One letter speaks to the lofty ambitions of these leaders as
to their quiet failures. On April 28, 1937 the Secretary
General of the Royal family sent a letter to the colonial
authorities stating that monks at the monastic school at Vat
Mai in Luang Phrabang were sending Phra Chan Souk and a novice
to Phnom Penh to make Lao translations of the “tipiṭaka” (it
does not specify which texts). I believe that this is most
likely the Lao monk Souk mentioned as moving to Cambodia to
study in 1929 in the letter above. “Phra Chan Souk” is most
likely a French mistake – it should read: Phra-a-chan Souk
[Phra Āchān Souk/Phra Ācāriya Sukha] or “Venerable Teacher
Souk.” The senior ranking monks of Laos would probably entrust
a project of this importance to a monk trained in Pali who
spoke Khmer and who had lived in Cambodia. The letter states
that Karpelès herself arranged this trip and its funds (of the
Institut bouddhique) in April 1935. Phra Chan-Souk and his
accompanying novice were given 300 piastre as an annual
stipend to cover their room and board and other needs in Phnom
Penh. Although, Mlle. Karpelès made the arrangements, the king
of Laos himself seemed to be the instigator of this trip since
he ordered 1,500 copies of the “tipiṭaka” (Sanskrit:
tripiṭaka) of which half would be distributed to local Lao
monasteries and the rest would be sold. This is a considerable
project considering any copy of the tipiṭaka would be at
least 35 volumes (often over 40 depending on how many pages
are in each volume). Penny Edwards notes that the Khmer text
is slightly different from the French translation of this
letter. The French translated “preah trey” (short for “preah
treybeidak” or tipiṭaka) and “vicchie pseing pseing” (various
subjects) as simply “Pali.” Perhaps “vicchie pseing pseing”
meant commentarial texts as opposed to canonical/tipiṭaka
texts, or it might refer to vernacular literature, meditation
and ritual, or other non-Buddhist subjects. It is unclear
still what was considered the “tripiṭaka” and since the
tripiṭaka edition in Cambodia was not completed in 1937, it
is unclear what would have been available for Lao translation.
The king of Laos sent Phra Chan-Souk to translate the Khmer
version of the tripiṭaka into Lao, but there is no evidence
that this project was even partially completed.
I have serious doubts that this project produced any texts or
that the Lao received a new edition of the tipiṭaka from
their Khmer colleagues. French records reveal that a “book
bus” was sent from Cambodia to Laos, but so far, I have not
been able to determine what was actually in that transport. It
certainly was not 1,500 copies of the tripiṭaka or even 1,500
single volumes. There has never been a “complete” tipiṭaka
translated into Lao (the nature the term tipiṭaka in
Southeast Asia is the subject of chapter six). This project,
by all accounts, was ever completed and there is no evidence
that any Lao translations of Khmer Pali texts were ever
distributed to Lao monasteries. I have never seen tipiṭaka
texts from Cambodia in any Lao monastery or archive. This is
not simply the result of unskilled monks, intellectual debate,
lack of royal and French funding, lack of materials, or
clerical bungling. The Second World War and the Japanese
occupation of the capitals of Southeast Asia certainly must
have inhibited this work as did the Khmer independence
movement of the late 1940s and early 1950s. If Phra Chan-Souk
indeed did go to Phnom Penh first in 1929 and Karpelès sent a
letter in 1935 for him to work on the tripiṭaka project in
1935 and he did not actually leave until 1937, we can see that
these projects were long term endeavors hampered by distance,
available experts, language, and funding. Regardless, these
contacts certainly must have produced valuable personal
relationships between the two sanghas. 
In sum, over the entire colonial period, the Institut
bouddhique and the Royal Family of Laos never completed a
major publication project in Laos.  We cannot simply classify
the French as brutal oppressors or orientalist preservers in
Laos. French scholars were simply more invested in Cambodian
texts and practices. For example, the first Khmer dictionary
“commission” was initiated by the Institute in 1914, the
project started in 1929 (completed: 1938).  In 1931 a “full”
translation of the tipiṭaka (from Cambodian manuscripts) was
started (completed in 1969).  Scholars working for the
Institut bouddhique and the EFEO completed nothing comparable
in Laos. In fact, a project to produce an edition of the
tipiṭaka in Tham script in Vientiane was started and never
completed in 1957. The three volumes produced are no more than
an unedited copy of the Yuan script version from Northern
Thailand. It was not until the post-colonial period in the
1960s that any serious textual work was undertaken by French
scholars in Laos and then it was mostly work on vernacular,
not Pali, texts. In fact, it was a Lao scholar named (Mahā)
Sila Viravong, who promoted the study (especially grammar) of
canonical Pali in Laos as the Pali professor at Vat Ong Teu’s
Sangha College (Vithyālai Song) in the 1930s. He was trained
in Bangkok and had little commerce with French scholars. 
However, even Sila Viravong edited and promoted more Lao
vernacular literature than Pali canonical or extra-canonical
material.  The colonial period neither signaled the return of
classical and canonical texts to monastic education nor did
the French or their Lao scholarly interlocutors suppress local
Buddhist customs in favor of Catholicism or an ideal,
translocal, ancient form of Theravada Buddhism.  The great
Lao-Khmer monastic exchange envisioned by Karpelès and members
of the colonial government and the EFEO never came to fruition
and ended with in the waning years of Indochine in the 1950s.
However, Lao scholar monks were never entirely dependent on
French funding or intellectual vision. Work in the realm of
Buddhist education and textual production grew after
Indochine. Certainly, monks like Phra Chan Souk and Thong Di
mentioned above did not request Pali texts from Cambodia or
seek to study in Cambodia because they were forced by the
French. They were motivated to learn more, gain new
experiences, look for more textual material to improve their
practice and answer important ethical, epistemological and
ritual questions. However, their motivations and the fruits of
their intellectual labors did not fundamentally change the way
Lao monastics approached Buddhist learning. Cambodian texts,
rituals, and reformist interpretations of socially engaged
monkhood, French ideas of original Buddhism and the Pali canon
did not seriously alter the state of Lao monastic education.
This does not mean there were no tangible intellectual
achievements in twentieth century Lao Buddhist scholarship and
education. It just did not come from direct colonial
assistance. For example, on June 1, 1975 at Vat Mai, the
monastery school which Lefèvre described in 1895, proved that
intellectual activity was still alive and quite organized. On
that date the first Lao edition of the Tipiṭaka in Lao script
and the Lao vernacular language (Phra Tripidok Sabab Lao). The
first volume contained the first four stories in the first
book, the Dīghanikāya, of the Suttanta Piṭaka. Somdet Phra
Buddhachinorot Sakonmahāsanghapāmōkkha of Vat Mai in Luang
Phrabang wrote the introduction and headed the project which
had a staff of 56 monks, scholars, and novices had begun in
1972.  These monks, scholars and novices studied and taught at
Vat Mai and other monasteries in the old royal capital. They
drew from the Thai script edition of the Tipiṭaka printed at
the end of the nineteenth century. Somdet Phra Buddhachinorot
Sakonmahāsanghapāmōkkha stated that he consulted unnamed Thai
history texts printed as late as 1974. To my knowledge, a
“complete” set was never printed because of the fall of the
American supported Royalist government on December 2, 1975. By
June 1, 1975 the new Marxist government was already usurping
formal power through out the country. Luang Phrabang was
occupied by communist troops on August 23. Most monastic
publishing and printing was discontinued for over fifteen
years until a revival after 1990.
The first volume of the Tipiṭaka reflected the tenuous
relationships between the royalty and the new Marxist
government is seen in the introduction where the first volume
is dedicated to Prince Suvannabhūmā (Souvanna Phouma) who had
been relatively anti-communist, as well as another prince who
would become the first communist president, Prince Suphānuvong
(Souphanouvong). Prince Suvannabhūmā was stripped of power
soon after 1975. The Tipiṭaka project has yet to be
restarted. Laos is the only majority Buddhist “nation” in the
world without their own printed/published edition of the
Buddhist canon. As we will see in chapters four and five, this
is certainly does not mean that there is no foundation to Lao
Buddhist education.

THE OPIATE OF THE PEOPLE: MONASTIC EDUCATION IN MODERN LAOS
In March, 1979 (Kūpā) Thammayāno, an 87 year old monk, quietly
floated on a homemade raft made of inflated rubber tires
across the Mekhong from Laos to Thailand.  This was no
ordinary monk. He was the head of the entire Lao sangha, the
Sangharāja, and his escape from Laos reflected the degree to
which the Lao Patriotic Front/Communist Party (Neo Lao Hak
Xat) had inhibited his ability to run the Buddhist ecclesia
and its educational institutions in the fledgling communist
polity. He was not alone, almost 10 percent of the Lao
population fled Pathet Lao rule between 1975 and 1980.  Laos
gained independence from the French in 1954. French scholars
remained in Laos, but central administrative control of
monasteries ceased to be enforced and it was not until the
Marxist takeover by the Pathet Lao party in 1975 that Buddhist
educational institutions were monitored and administered by
the state. The latter half of the twentieth century has seen a
significant decline in the population and patronage of Lao
monastic schools.
For the sake of space, I must be brief, but between 1954 and
1975, despite the rise in printing in Laos and the growth in
anthropological and economic interest in Laos by foreign,
especially American, scholars, there still are very few
descriptions of the day-to-day pedagogical practices among
Buddhists in Laos.  Several older Lao scholars who had been
(and some still are) monks in Laos in the 1960s told me that
education was relatively informal.  Interviews with them over
the past six years has greatly improved my understanding of
the period. I also interviewed a number of Lao monks who now
reside in Thailand (Ubon Ratchathani, Nong Khai, Mukhdahan,
Roi Et, Udon Thani, Nan, and other places) and in the United
States (especially in Providence, RI, Columbus, OH, and
Riverside, CA). Generally, I was told, that the abbot or
senior teacher would give sermons on general subjects and
novices, lay students, and young monks were expected to learn
how to memorize Pali and Lao prayers, learn how to read and
write the Tham and Lao scripts.  There is no evidence that
there was a formal curriculum for Lao Buddhist students until
very recently and that curriculum operates only at large urban
monasteries. 
Although monastic education in Laos after 1954 can be called
informal at best, there are some basic institutional facts
that are available. Between 1959 and 1975 American “advisors”
were ubiquitous in Laos. They saw the monastery as one place
where the “hearts and minds” of the Lao populace could be
“won” and turned against the red menace. Buddhism had been
made the “state religion” by the royal government after
independence from the French in 1947.  An American scholar,
Joel Halpern, observed that the royal government used
“suppressive measures” to control Buddhist teachers who were
opposed to the government.   In May 1959 a royal ordinance
stated that all “correspondence between administrative levels
of the sangha had to pass through government channels. Even
the appointment of the Phra Sangharāja while made by the
monarch, was subject to procedures involving the Ministry of
Religious Affairs.” Gunn notes that the Americans had
encouraged these actions and had also actively recruited monks
in their fight against communist insurgents.  
These efforts to modernize and internationalize the Lao sangha
were not merely the results of American anti-communist
machinations. In fact, they can be seen as connected to
indigenous Lao nationalism and the growth of nationalism and
“development” monks across the river in Thailand.  The most
significant Lao monastic national movement that was linked to
changes in monastic education was the Buddhawong Association
(Samākhom Buddhawong) and the Buddhist Youth School of Laos
(Honghīan Oplom Sinsilatham Buddhayaovason Lao) founded by
Phra Mahāpān Ānantho (lay name: Pān Kāeochumphū) on May
22,1959. This popular monk, especially in Vientiane, was born
into a rice farming family in rural Savannakhet in 1911. As a
young man he did just what Suzanne Karpelès was trying to
prevent, he traveled to Bangkok to study Buddhism. The efforts
of Phra Mahāpān Ānantho to reform Lao Monastic Education and
spread Buddhist teachings to Lao youth were certainly
influenced by his schooling in Thailand. These influences will
become obvious in chapters two and three. Phra Mahāpān is one
of the only Lao monks in the twentieth century to study at a
very high level in Thailand.  He studied Abhidhamma material
at Mahachulalongkorn Monastic University in Bangkok and
received the rank of Udombarinyā (which is one the highest
ranks in Thailand). There is no record that I have found that
stated he passed ecclesiastical examinations there, but it is
said that he studied up to the eigth level (prayok baet) at
Vat Chanthabuli in Vientiane, but since there were not regular
examinations there, I am not sure how his level was
determined. From his writings, of which there are several
short books clearly drawn from Thai textbooks for youth (see
chapters three and five), a book on Lao customs, and dozens of
collected sermons, he certainly was more interested in
spreading meditation practice and teaching social
responsibility, rather than Pali language or Buddhist history.
  This is confirmed in the newspaper account of his funeral
which stated that he studied nine years of vipassana
meditation which had experienced a popular revival in Thailand
at that time. In 1961, it is reported that he traveled to
India to participate in a worldwide Buddhist ecumenical
meeting and in 1963 he visited Cambodia.
In 1967 Phra Mahāpān summarized the school and association’s
objectives (his efforts at internationalism is seen in the
fact that this is a rare Lao texts published in Lao with a
short English summary).  The summary of the objectives reads:
“To support Buddhism and to maintain the good tradition and
culture of the nation; to study, research, plan and propagate
Dhamma to all organizations in the nation; to coordinate with
other organizations with the same aims; to study the ways how
to construct and restore the temples and public places; to
look for funds...; to assist and promote the youth to be able
to study Dhamma, culture and the traditions of the nation; to
help poor children...;to extend the activities at home and
abroad and to cooperate with all Buddhist Organizations all
over the world.”  To these ends they published 58 short
volumes Buddhawong magazine, ran a radio program once a week,
organized 300 public lectures, opened five branches of an
Abhidhamma school, opened a library with “about 3,000 books,”
opened an orphanage, opened dozens of vipassana mediation
centers, (ten in Vientiane alone) and opened 15 schools for
lay and ordained youth with approximately 3690 students (very
similar to Mahānikāya projects sponsored by monks at Wat
Mahāthāt and Wat Rakhang Ghositarāma in Bangkok in the 1950s).
Besides students, they also claimed to have 687 adult members
of the association spread out over 10 provinces (370 of which
lived in Vientiane). While these numbers are certainly
exaggerated and the Buddhawong Magazine was never a
substantial publication, it shows the extent of this project
which was neither the brainchild of the Americans nor the French.
Turning specifically to the schools connected with the
association, the first was founded on August 9, 1959 at Vat
Pālūang under the direction of Phra Mahāpān himself. He
claimed inspiration for the school from the Buddhist Youth
School of Sri Lanka which he had visited in 1958. Subsequent
branches were opened by Phra Mahā Khampui Sirimangalo, Phra
Mahā Inpeng Busaba, Phra Mahā Thǭng Khun Tuthathammo, Phra
Mahā Khampui Sisavat, Phra Mahā Khamlek, Phra Mahā Ēuan, Phra
Mahā Sommai and many others between 1966 and 1971. Lay
scholars like Kāeo Viphakǭn and Bualy Chandara were also
involved in the school management. These schools started a
school newspaper, opened “Sunday Schools” (another Sri Lankan
influence), composed nationalistic Buddhist songs, put on
Buddhist “plays” and dances, started vipassana meditation
classes (similar to those growing in popularity in Cambodia,
Thailand, Burma, and Sri Lanka at the time), performed
charitable “social welfare,” and sponsored debates. These
activities were completely foreign to traditional Lao monastic
education.  The details of these activities are described in
the Lao text.  An addendum to this text inserted in the back
flap came out a year later in the form of a Lao language
poster distributed in Vientiane on March 5, 1972. The poster
advertised the Buddhawong Association’s and the Buddhist Youth
School’s support of the Lao nation and parliament. It calls
Buddhism the “national religion” (Sāsanā Phachām Chāt Lao). In
honor of their allegiance to the state and the youth of the
nation they put on a festival of traditional dance, music,
Buddhist chanting, sports, and a procession from the famous
stupa of Thāt Luang to the Parliament Building linking the
future of the nation with the future of Buddhist education.
This Buddhist youth education movement, the American
“clandestine” operations, as well as the efforts of the royal
government, had little long-term or wide-spread effect though
on the lives of students and teachers in monasteries. The
Abhidhamma schools are gone, the youth school branches have
been closed or transformed into traditional monastic secondary
schools, and the remnants of the Buddhawong Association are
seen at Wat Pālūang on the outskirts of Vientiane. Vipassana
classes have grown in popularity in the tourist areas, and at
certain “progressive” monasteries like Vat Nakǭn Noi and Vat
Pālūang in the Vientiane province, but are associated with
informal lay education than institutionalized monastic
education. In short, the curriculum was radically transformed
by these post-colonial movements.  Laos, especially the rural
areas, had a deeply depressed economy during these years,
rural and urban monastic schools operated largely undisturbed
until American bombs began falling by the thousands in the
late 1960s and early 1970s. Many of my Lao teachers attended
monastic schools in the 1960s and 70s before the Marxist
takeover. However, the rise of secular education under the
French and later royal interwar government and the “cave”
schools during run by the communists during American bombing
raids did draw students away from the monastery school.
Christian Taillard and Georges Condominas, working in Laos in
the early 1970s noted that the rural monastery was the major
center of education in villages, but its universal hold on
education in Laos was slowly being replaced.  Secular
education grew under the French between 1893 and 1949 and had
grown under the royal and communist governments between 1947
and the present have reduced the educational role of the
monastery. 
In 1975, Laos, like Cambodia and Vietnam, was “liberated” by
or “fell” to Marxist rebels – the Pathet Lao. The Pathet Lao
were the Lao equivalent of the Vietminh/Vietcong in Vietnam
and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. However, their interpretation
of social reform and Marxism differed from their Indochinese
comrades. Looking specifically at their policies regarding
Buddhist education, the Pathet Lao (later the Lao People’s
Democratic Republic – Sāthārana Pasāson Pathet Lao) subsumed
the sangha under the Ministry of Education, Sports, and
Religious Affairs headed by Phoumi Vongvichit, while the party
was in the jungle fighting royalist and American forces. In
December 1975, when the party was on the verge of defeating
the American-backed royalist government they held the National
Congress of People’s Representatives. The president of the new
government, Kaysone Phomvihan, spoke to the congress, six of
whom were monks themselves:
To venerable monks, novices and other clergymen who should, in
order to contribute actively to reviving the spirit of
patriotic union, encourage the population to increase
production and to economize, help in educating people so as to
raise their cultural standard, contribute to persuading,
educating and correcting those who do not live virtuously or
misbehave, so that become good citizens.
This veiled warning to the sangha was quickly followed by a
series of restrictive reforms. First, the populace was banned
from offering food to monks and novices in the morning which
eliminated the primary way for the laity to make merit.
Second, the teaching of Buddhism was banned in all schools.
Third, members of the sangha were told to till the soil and be
self-sufficient that ostensibly removed their ritual, ethical,
and social significance since the mere act of tilling soil
involved breaking the very precepts that made a person a monk.
Pro-actively, the government forced members of the sangha to
attend monthly indoctrination seminars (about seven days long
with about 35 senior monks from the capital), where monks were
told that they should “actively contribute in transmitting the
policies of the Party and the State, educating young people
and providing medical care for the population.” They were also
encouraged to “study politics to consolidate their political
background and make it conform to progressive revolutionary
politics. This will enable them to more easily integrate
themselves into the revolutionary ranks…”  Martin Stuart-Fox
notes that many of these monks did “integrate” themselves. For
example, (Phra) Khamtam Depbūali announced to a delegation of
visiting Vietnamese monks at the annual Thāt Lūang festival
that “the Buddhist monk has the capacity to become a
revolutionary, sharing the tasks of the nation and people.”
Being a revolutionary did not preclude the monks from their
role as teachers or from their own study, but it did transform
it. Phoumi Vongvichit declared in October, 1976 that
Buddhist monks assigned to teach the people in rural areas
must understand the people who attend their sermons. They must
select an appropriate sermon to give the people in order to
change their line of thinking. If they use only Buddhist
politics coupled with examples from ancient times [i.e. royal]
it may be difficult for the people to understand them, and the
people may not be able to relate the example to present
reality. Therefore, they should mix the themes of current
politics and Buddhist politics in giving sermons and using
present examples…the policy of the Party and the government
is…to request Buddhist monks to give sermons to teach the
people and encourage them to understand that all policies and
lines of the Party and the government are in line with
teachings of the Lord Buddha so that the people will be
willing to follow them. Thus there will be no lazy people,
thieves, or liars in our country. If our Buddhist monks can do
this, it means that they are contributing to economic
construction.
This standard fear of “ancient times,” the condescending
attitude toward the general populace ability to understand the
“present reality,” and the call to “work hard” seen in all
revolutionary literature is too transparent to warrant
commentary, but it is important to note that the Lao Communist
Party, unlike its contemporaries in Cambodia did not
completely eliminate Buddhist education but attempted to
revolutionize it.  Monks were constantly informed that
Buddhism and socialism were congruent and complementary since
they promoted equality, communal sharing and the objective of
ending suffering. The Buddha himself sacrificed his own wealth
by leaving his family and palace for the sake of all
sentient/socialist beings; therefore, monks and novices should
walk in the Buddha’s footprints and work for the people.  The
teaching of Buddhism, even with a Marxist veneer, was
formalized and closely monitored. The sangha was re-organized
under the “Lao Union of Buddhists.” Monks were enlisted by the
government to teach the youth and adults how to read and write
as part of “campaign for the elimination literacy.”  They also
were told to head public seminars to encourage the people to
trust the government and wholeheartedly incorporate their new
policies into their daily lives. 
In order to ensure adherence to these policies, the government
initiated a two-step program to educate the monks and novices
and dismantle their power base and structure. The government
saw that years of war and lack of investment by the French
colonial and post-independence (1949) Royal government had led
to a dearth of well educated monks (although we have no
statistics of how many “educated” monks there were before this
period).  There was no overall organization for Lao Buddhist
education. Each monastery largely educated its monks and
novices in its own way based on the texts available, ritual
and homiletic demands, and the particular lineage of teachers
and teachings passed down from generation to generation.
While there are certain similarities that bind Lao Buddhist
teachings and teachers together, there was no formal
institutional unity, curriculum or educational governance.
Therefore, the Party decided to formalize Buddhist schooling
while infusing it with socialist teachings. What the party
failed to realize is that they weren’t returning to a pristine
pre-colonial state, but that Lao monastic education had never
been formally organized.
Vat Ong Teu, being a traditional center of Buddhist education,
was particularly seen as a place that needed reform.  It was
the largest single monastic school with 341 students in 1979.
First, monks were commanded to submit their books to the Party
for censorship. Manuscripts were largely ignored since most
monks and certainly most Party officials could not read them
in the “ancient” (Tham) script. The texts had to be inline
with what Lafont calls the “three principles – not to sin
[i.e. the five precepts against lying, stealing, sexual
misconduct, inebriation and killing]; to increase one’s
excellence; and to purify one’s own heart – all of which are
compatible with Marxism-Leninism” (Lafont, 1982: 155). They
were banned from teaching the concept of karma or merit to
ensure that the people did not waste their resources on giving
food to monks and to the upkeep of statues and temples.
Furthermore, they were banned from teaching about heavens,
hells or phī (ghosts or spirits). The Buddhist cosmology based
on 33 heavens and 8 hells occupied gods, goddesses, munificent
and nefarious ethereal spirits was criticized and the teaching
based on temple murals which often depicted these worlds and
their various fantastic denizens was forbidden. All monastic
schools, including Vat Ong Teu, were “given directives”
according to the revolutionary congress “whereby they will
function in conformity with the orientation of national
education.”
One can understand why (Kūpā) Thammayāno would subject his 87
year old frame to the currents of the Mekhong to escape this
radical overhaul of the sangha and the removal of his power.
Rumors that 20 monks had been executed by the Party in
Champassak province in Southern Laos in May, 1978 and that two
other monks critical of the Party had “disappeared” may have
also contributed to his fear. Not only did monks like
Thammayāno flee, many gave up the robes or entering the
monkhood altogether. After 1975 there was a significant
decrease in the numbers of monks in Laos. Martin Stuart-Fox
notes that
Pagodas left with no monks were taken over as [secular]
schools. Some were even reported to have been used on occasion
as barracks and storage barns. Buddha images and other ritual
objects from these monasteries were consigned to museums…An
important overall effect of government measures was to break
down the key relationship between monks and the lay community
that had sustained the position of the Sangha in traditional
lay society. Monks continued to preach the Buddhist Dharma,
but, as one monk put it, ‘they are always expected to throw in
a bit of communist ideology too.’ Refugees claimed that monks
complied out of fear: even if there was no known PL official
present, it was taken for granted that there would be some
informer in the audience. The traditional Pali formula of
homage to the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha was all but replaced
by repetition of the five ideals of the Lao People’s Democatic
Republic.
The most recent governmental guidelines to religion in Laos is
summarized by the “Lao Front for National Construction” (LFNC)
which is a branch of the Lao communist government and manages
affairs for the relatively new “Department of Religious
Affairs.” In 2003 it published, oddly enough in English versus
Lao, its new guidelines for Lao religious institutions written
by Maha Khampheuy Vannasopha. These policies are based on
Article 9 of the Constitution approved on August 15, 1991
which was updated in 1995. The English publication most likely
reflects the need to convince the World Trade Organization and
the United Nations of its promotion of civil rights and
religious freedom. Indeed the second half of the 65 page
document has letters of support from Evangelical Christian,
Bahai, Cambodian Buddhist, and Catholic churches operating in
Laos. They are explicit attempts to prove that the Lao
government does not oppress religion. As the publication
states, religion is seen as a useful part of the LFNC’s
efforts to “enhance the tradition of patriotism, loving the
regime [sic], make people be proud of the nation, create a
spirit of self-reliance, self-autonomy, enhance unity among
the entire Lao people including the Lao expatriates.” Although
this document discusses Islamic, Christian, Taoist, and other
religious institutions in Laos, its main focus is on Buddhism.
In poor English, it states that Buddhist education is
important because
temples used to play a partial role for teaching; it was a
place to educate the public to behave themselves in dharma, to
be kind, hospitable towards each other and avoid bad
behavior...Under the light of the revolution, the Monks and
Buddhists have strictly behaved by the dharma principle of
Buddha; have jointed in the nationalism procession, contended
with the imperialism and colonialism for national liberation.
In the past 26 years [1975-2001], the Buddhist priest have
strengthened the patriotic tradition, joined in the protection
and the development of the country, especially playing a part
in the propagation of party and government policies, protected
and renovated places of worship, temples and valuable ancient
items, have also participated in education, public health and
other community activities.
Institutionally the LFNC instituted a new policy to issue
identity cards to all monks, novices, and nuns (as well as
Christian and Islamic clergy) and register all “movable and
immovable properties” at places of religious practice.
Speaking of the Lao government’s role in protecting Buddhism
and all religious groups, the text continues “the
propaganda—training of the Central Party Committee and Lao
Front for National Construction are assigned to cooperate to
lay down the contents and education methods to enable a
suitable system to advise all sectors.” Article 14
specifically states that “the printing of books, documents for
dissemination, signs and various plates related to religion
shall be authorized by the Ministry of Information and Culture
with the approval of the Central Committee” of the LFNC.
Furthermore, “it is forbidden for believers in the Lao PDR to
publish or possess books, documents, photographs, signs, video
cassettes, VCD, films or other media having characteristics of
superstitions, pornography, distortions of truth, slandering
or obstructing the progress of the nation.” In addition to
these restrictions, all monastic building, communication with
foreigners, study tours, etc. must be approved by the LFNC.
These institutional changes are reminiscent, although more
ecumenical and with different rhetoric, of the policies of
King Phothisarat and the Résident Supérieure of France.
However, just like the institutional changes brought on by
their predecessors, the LFNC’s policies have not changed
seriously the way that Buddhism is taught or the choice of
texts and methods on the ground. 
Today, the government will not allow the sangha institutional
freedom and monks are not freely allowed to enter the monkhood
without permission (nunhood, buat mae chī or buat mae sin, has
all but disappeared in Laos—altough it is growing among Lao
Buddhists in the United States); however, more monks are
entering monastic schools in Vientiane, Savannakhet and Luang
Phrabang and even rural monasteries are frequented more often.
  The active sermon tradition of the pre-communist era has been
curtailed and education in many rural areas has been replaced
by ritual (which certainly have educational content as well as
we will see below) occasions like funerals, weddings, house
blessings and calendrical rituals like the Bun Bān Fai and Bun
Phra Vet, but there are signs of greater activity in the
educational practices of monks. Government policy recently has
remained strict in presentation, but weak in actual
implimentation. For example, recently monks in Vientiane, as
well as Savannakhet and Pakxe have published printed copies of
their sermons (Pali: desanā) alongside the more common ritual
liturgical handbooks. Monks at these monasteries tell me that
there has been no government interference or crackdown. As we
saw in the introduction, personal notebooks are used in
teaching monastic students. These are not subject to review,
restriction or approval by the government. Many monks and lay
scholars have been involved in the collecting, cataloguing,
cleaning, copying, preserving and storing of palm-leaf
manuscripts funded by German, French and Japanese research
organizations and corporations. I sat with the Minister of
Information and Culture recently at a Lao Buddhist ceremony to
honor the preservation of manuscripts at Vat Nā Sǭn near
Vientiane. He participated in the rituals and gave a speech
thanking the monks and scholars for their efforts. There was
no explicit oppression and the Minister himself, like most lay
participants, could not read the Tham script of the
manuscripts or understand the Pali chanting. Several monks and
former monks (in private) have told me that they feel no
restrictions, although they did in the 1970s and 80s, on their
teachings.
There is still a mood that they should not question the
legitimacy of the Party. However, monastic sermons and
writings according to pedagogical manuscripts, Buddhist
narratives, eye-witness accounts, and chronicles have
consistently reflected an attitude of support for the ruling
elite in Laos. Lao monastic education has survived based in
part on the ability of most teachers and students to stay out
of politics (although as Patrice Ladwig, forthcoming, will
show, not all Lao monks stayed away from politics). Although
there were efforts to both politicize Lao monks by the ruling
elite and efforts by monks like Mahāpān Anantho and others to
offer their “Buddhist” voice to politicians, there never has
been a major sustained Lao “liberation” Buddhist movement, as
seen in Islam and Catholicism in other historical contexts, or
Theravadan monks at different periods in Sri Lanka, Cambodia,
Burma, and Thailand. This does not mean that Buddhism is by
nature apolitical in Laos or other places, indeed it is often
highly political and revolutionary in many Buddhist countries
and cultures. However, in Laos, aside from some isolated local
rebellions led by lay “holy men” (phū mī bun) in the
late-nineteenth and early twentieth century in Northeast
Thailand near the present-day Lao border there is not simply
no evidence that links Buddhism to rebellion in Laos. These
holy men were not teachers or students in monasteries.  In
short, Lao monastic educators have never fostered large scale
or consistent rebellion against king, colonialist, or
communist. Many though did express their political
disatisfaction by leaving the country, and many Lao-American
monastic communities are particularly anti-Communist.
Still, despite institutional organization Lao monks continue
teaching according in similar ways that they have for 500
years. Buddhist pedagogical methods and texts have been little
affected by Marxist institutional reform. The Lao sangha has
had a long history of overcoming reform, oppression, economic
and demographic declines, and government interference. In
fact, one wonders of the workings of the Lao Communist Party
is much different or any more damaging to religious freedom
than periodic royal reforms and French colonial restrictions
since the sixteenth century. In order to understand the lives
monastic of teachers and students in post-1975 Laos, we have
to listen to them.


I HAVE MORE ON THE PERIOD FROM 1975-present, but not directly
relevant. I will be in a book I am writing that should be
published in a year or so.

NOTES:
   For a basic description of French administration of public
education in Indochine see the Catholic Encyclopedia, I also
thank Mme. Vachier at the Centre des Archives d’Outre-Mer in
Aix-en-Provence for suggestions. French Catholic missionaries
were also not as active in Laos as in neighboring Vietnam.
Administratively, Laos was included in the Vicariate Apostolic
of Siam until the French made Laos an official colony. After
1899, Mgr. Cuaz, the “Bishop of Hermopolis Minor,” was placed
in charge of the Lao territory, although, he probably never
set foot in the country. The Catholic Church reports that as
of 1910 there were 10,682 Catholics in Laos and 33 priests (29
of whom were European). There was only one seminary with eight
students, 54 churches and chapels, 35 schools with 797 pupils;
22 orphanages with 304 “inmates.” The Catholic Encyclopedia,
Volume VII, 1910, Bibliotheca Sinica: Essai d'une
Bibliographie des ouvrages relatifs à la presqu'îte
indo-chinoise in T'oung P'ao Archifs pour servir à l'étude de
l'Aise Orientale (2nd series), IV (Leyden,1903—).  Nouvelle
Géographie Universelle, VIII (Paris, 1883), de Lanessan, La
Colonisation française en Indo-Chine (Paris, 1895), which
furthermore gives an excellent account of the state of the
French possessions toward the close of the nineteenth century;
Henri d'Orléans, Autor du Tonkin (Paris,1894), tr. Pitman,
Lemire, Le Laos annamite (Paris, 1894); Tunier, Notice sur la
Laos français (Paris, 1900),  Madrolle, Indo-Chine
(guide-book, Paris, 1902); Le Blant, Les martyrs de
Extréme-Orient et les persécutions antiques (Arras, 1877);
Louvet, La Cochinchine religieuse (2 vols, Paris, 1885);
Dépierre, Situation de catholicisme en Cochinchine à la fin du
XIXe siècle (Saigon, 1900).
   Stuart-Fox, The Kingdom of Lan Xang, 35.  There was a school
to educate Lao administrators in 1928. Before this time, most
administrative staff positions were held by ethnic Vietnamese
in Laos. At its height the French colonial administration had
less than 200 people involved in running the country, many
fewer involved in any form of teaching.
   Sila Viravong, Pavatsāt Lao, 248-250. Of course, ethnic
groups that did not traditionally go to Buddhist monastic
rituals and family events (Hmong, Khamti, Akha, among others)
were neither part of monastic nor French education. For more
information on the formation of Lao national identity
politically and culturally in pre-colonial period see two
articles by Volker Grabowsky : “Forced resettlement campaigns
in northern Thailand during the early Bangkok period.” Orient
Extremus 37.1 (1994): 45-107 [reprinted Journal of the Siam
Society 87.1 (1999): 45-86] and “Origins of Lao and Khmer
national identity: the legacy of the early nineteenth
century.” In Nationalism and cultural revival in Southeast
Asia: perspectives from the centre and the region, ed. Sri
Kuhnt-Saptodewo, Volker Grabowsky, and M. Großheim (Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz Verlag, 1997).
   One of the first scholars that explicitly noted the limited
effectiveness of the French in Laos was Charles Keyes, The
Golden Peninsula (New York: MacMillan, 1977): 101.
   Recent publications trace the history of the EFEO in detail.
See especially Catherine Clémentin-Ojha et Pierre-Yves
Manguin, Un siècle pour l’Asie: L’École français
d’Extrême-Orient, 1898-2000 (Paris: Les editions du pacifique
et l’École français d’Extrême-Orient, 2001). See also Louis
Malleret, Le cinquantenaire de l’École français
d’Extrême-Orient: Compte rendu des fêtes et cérémonies (Hanoi:
L’École français d’Extrême-Orient, 1953). The EFEO started in
Hanoi where it replaced the Mission archéologique d’Indochine.
For a brief history of the EFEO in Indochine see Michel
Lorrillard, “100 ans de recherche de l”EFEO au Laos” a talk
given at the French embassy in Vientiane on June 15, 2001.
Anne Hansen pointed out to me that there were French scholars
(although not strictly Buddhologists) working on ritual and
use of texts in Cambodia. For example, Leclere (an amateur
Buddhologist and ethnographer), Guesdon (who wrote on
literature) and Pavie (who collected stories).
   Louis Finot, “Recherches sur la littèrature laotienne,”
Bulletin de l’École français d’Extrême-Orient 17.5 (1917).  In
1918 he also surveyed the royal library in Luang Prabang.
Other EFEO scholars like Lunet de Lajonquière, George Coedès,
Auguste Barth, Éveline-Porée Maspero, Henri Maspero, André
Bareau, Ginette Terral-Martini, Alfred Foucher, Paul Levy,
Suzanne Karpelès, Henri Parmentier, Pierre Dupont, Henri
Deydier, Jean-Louis Claeys, Pierre-Bernard Lafont, Madeleine
Colani, Antoine Cabaton, Paul Mus, Charles Archaimbault, Henri
Marchal, François Gros, Georges Condomindas, Paul Guilleminet,
Louis Gabaude, Étienne Aymonier, François Bizot, Olivier de
Bernon, François LaGirarde, Anatole-Roger Peltier, and most
recently Michel Lorrillard have worked in Laos or on related
projects in Cambodia and Siam (Thailand). The Institut
bouddhique initially had offices in Luang Phrabang and
Vientiane in 1931-1932.
   The six volume collection by members of the Mission Pavie
(1879-1895) and the work of the non-French Karl Izikowitz in
the 1930’s discusses how local animistic practices of the
Hmong, Sedang, Moi and other Lao hill-tribes became mixed with
Buddhist practices and how monks took on the role of magician,
appeaser of local deities, doctor and secular and religious
teacher in Lao villages. Still, there were no systematic
ethnographies written by foreign researches in Laos before the
1960s.
   In 1901 one EFEO affiliated scholar, Alfred Lavallée, did
visit the rural region of Boloven (which soon became a great
center for coffee production and so there may have been an
ulterior motive for his trip) and documented the languages and
wrote a basic ethnography of 11 different ethnic groups. See
Lorrillard, “100 ans de recherche de l”EFEO au Laos.” Until
the recent work on Vat Phū in Southern Laos and the Thāt Luang
in Vientiane, most archaeologists worked in Central Vietnam
and at the great temple complex of Angkor in Cambodia. In
fact, the first major EFEO project in Laos was to document all
the Cambodian monuments therein. Early on (and often today)
Lao religion, culture, and art was seen as secondary and even
derivative of Siam and Cambodia. There was little in the way
of ethnography in Laos until the 1960s. Most early work by
Charles Batteur, Henri Parmentier, Jean-Louis Claeys, and
Madeleine Colani was in the realm of restoration, pottery,
imagery, and architecture.
   Catherine Clémentin-Ojha, Un siècle pour l’Asie, 164.
   Peter Skilling offered a history and criticism of the use of
the term “Theravada” in describing Buddhism in Southeast Asia
at a meeting in Singapore (August, 2004) a published version
is forthcoming.
   Catherine Clémentin-Ojha, Un siècle pour l’Asie, 165. My
translation: “the study of Buddhist theology by the rational
teaching of ancient, sacred languages, Pali and Sanskrit, and
the knowledge indispensable for the comprehension and
explanation of religious texts.”
   Catherine Clémentin-Ojha, Un siècle pour l’Asie, 166. My
translation: “they would finish a complete edition of the
Buddhist Canon based on Pali texts (particularly from the
texts edited by the Pali Text Society in London).”
   A number of publications document this history. See for
example, Philipp Almond, The British Discovery of Buddhism
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), Anne Blackburn,
Buddhist Learning and Textual Practice in Eighteenth-Century
Lankan Monastic Culture (Princeton: A Princeton University
Press, 2001), Donald Lopez, ed., Currators of the Buddha
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), William
Halbfass, India and Europe (Albany: State University of New
York Press,1988), and the classic by Raymond Schwab, La
Renaissance Orientale (1950) [Engl. transl. The Oriental
Renaissance. Europe's Rediscovery of India and the East,
1680-1880] (New York: Columbia University Press, 1984).
   “Annual Report,” Bulletin de l’École français
d’Extrême-Orient XXX (1931): 623. Penny Edwards provides a
concise history of French scholars Indology background in “Taj
Angkor: Enshrining l’Inde in le Cambodge,” in France and
‘Indochina’ Cultural Representations, eds. Robson and Yee,
13-27 (Lanham: Lexington University Press, 2005). One of the
largest projects the EFEO ran in Laos was the restoration of
the Thāt Luang in Vientiane. M. Batteur and M.L. Fombertaux
headed this project. Even today, restoration remains a
fundamental part of French scholarship in Laos. This
restoration of monuments in Luang Phrabang and Champasak has
been taken over in the past ten years by UNESCO.
   This work is continued today most notably by Bizot, Gabaude,
Lorrillard, Becchetii, Peltier, as well as German scholars
like Harald Hundius, Oskar von Hinüber, Patrice Ladwig,
American scholars like Charles Keyes and Peter Koret, the
British scholar David Wharton, and Thai scholars like Wajuppa
Tossa, Rujaya Abhakorn, Sommai Premchit, Udom Roonruangsri,
Prakong Nimmanahaeminda, Aroonrut Wichienkeo and Balee
Buddharaksa. They have worked alongside Lao scholars like Dara
Kanlaya, Kongdeuane Nettavong, Thongsa Sayavongkhamdy,
Thongxuey Uthumpon, Boonleut Thamajak, Khamhoung Sacklokham,
Nou Senesounthone, Douangdeuane Bounyavong, and Venerable Sali
Kanthasilo.
   In brief, the Preservation of Lao Manuscripts Program (PLMP)
with the financial and scholarly assistance of Dr. Dr. Harald
  Hundius (Director of the Joint Preservation Program), the
DAAD (German Academic Exchange Service) and the Toyota
Foundation, has surveyed almost 600 monasteries in Laos. When
I was reading manuscripts in the archive, a total of over
270,000 fascicles have been surveyed and over 30,000 fascicles
had been microfilmed onto 500 rolls of 35 mm film. The
majority of manuscripts have been found in Vientiene, Luang
Pabang and Champasak provinces (54,130, 64,809, and 48,536
respectively) , while smaller remote provinces like Attapeu,
Phongsali and Udomxai have considerably fewer (4,806, 4,125,
and 6,497 fascicles respectively). In addition to the survey
and microfilming, which continues at present (for example, the
PLMP recently released photos and a field report of their
survey efforts in the far north of the country), the PLMP
regularly produces a newsletter in Lao (15 volumes to date)
and has published a pamphlet in English and Lao outlining
their activities and goals.  They also train local monks, nuns
and lay people in basic preservation techniques.  This work
has been recognized by UNESCO and the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of the Federal Republic of Germany. For the scholar
interested in locating specific manuscripts this program has
offered an excellent place to begin the search.  Paper copies
from microfilm (although time consuming to produce because
there is only one viewing and photocopying machine) are of
good quality and the provenance, dates, scribe’s name, date of
survey, date of microfilming, etc. are included on a cover
sheet (when available)(in Lao).  For those manuscripts not
microfilmed there are several catalogues specific to province.
  With written permission from the director and supervision by
Ajahn Boonleut or Ajahn Thong, a researcher may examine any of
the manuscripts housed in the library’s manuscript room, where
s/he will find hundreds of fascicles held in glass cases
wrapped in white cotton bags. Although the viewing room lacks
the necessary protective measures, such as gloves and filtered
lighting, air-conditioning has recently been installed and the
glass cases are locked. The program finished its work in 2005
after fifteen years, but has spawned a number of smaller
programs. The culmination of their work was seen at the first
conference on “Literary Heritage of Laos” was held in
Vientiane, the capital of the People’s Democratic Republic of
Laos, from January 8-10, 2004. Organized by Sisouphan
Doungmany, Harald Hundius, Dara Kanlaya, Kongdeuane Nettavong,
Oliver Raenchen, Khammak Vongsakda and Khanthamaly Yangnouvong
under the auspices of the Lao Ministry of Information and
Culture, the Japanese Toyota Foundation, and the German
Ministry of Foreign Affairs the conference brought together
the most active scholars in Lao Literature from Burma,
Cambodia, China, France, Germany, Japan, Laos, Thailand, the
United States and Vietnam. Living up to the conference’s
subtitle: “Preservation, Dissemination, and Research
Perspectives,” the 41 speakers addressed wide-ranging issues.
Its collected papers were published in 2005 by the National
Library of Laos and edited by Hundius. His introduction gives
the latest report on manuscript preservation.
   Even though Karpelès’ wanted to draw Lao students away from
Bangkok, she and the teachers at the Pali schools in Phnom
Penh and Champassac were not anti-Siamese in their choice of
source texts for the Pali examinations. In fact, the
examinations designed by King Mongkut in Bangkok and those in
Cambodia were nearly identical. They both emphasized
commentarial over canonical texts like the Māgaladīpani, the
Vissuddhimagga, the Abhidhammasaṅgaha, and the
Samantapāsādikā. However, the late texts like the Paṇṇāsa
Jātaka and the Pathamasaṃbodhi composed in Northern Thailand
were part of the Cambodian and Lao examinations are not the
early Siamese examinations. In general, there is a long
tradition of Lao monks studying in Thailand and vice versa. In
recent years many Lao students have been crossing the Mekhong
to study in large monastic schools in Mukhtahan, Ubon
Ratchathani, Udon Thani, Nong Khai, Sakorn Nakorn, Nakorn
Panom, Chiang Mai, Nan, and Chiang Rai. I met several students
in Savannakhet who had purchased monastic school books in
Mukhtahan (Thailand) and in Vientiane many monks had studied
in Bangkok. At my monastery in Ubon Ratchathani (Thailand)
there were two visiting monks from Laos. There are comparably
fewer monks studying or teaching at Mahāchulalongkorn and
Mahāmakuta Monastic Universities in Bangkok and their branch
campuses in Chiang Mai are from Laos. There are photographs of
Lao monks and royalty visiting Cambodia in Penny Edwards
(ed.), History of the Buddhist Institute (Phnom Penh: Buddhist
Institute, 2005). I thank Penny Edwards and Anne Hansen for
sending photographic evidence of these trips to me.
   “Annual Report,” Bulletin de l’École français
d’Extrême-Orient XXXI 1-2 (1932): 334.
   Unfortunately I have been unable after a few years to find a
copy of this book. I have a strong belief that it is a
collection of Pali prayers (Lao: mon; Pali: manta; Sanskrit:
mantra) that were and are common in Lao temples. These short
chanting guides are still printed for and in Lao temples
through out the country. I have been able to collect about 15
different versions of them. If the text was in Lao, it may
have been an early copy of “suphasit” or pithy moral maxims
still common today or “phū sǭn lan” (grandfather teachers
grandchild) a collection of Lao moral maxims common in
manuscript and printed form.
   “Annual Report,” Bulletin de l’École français
d’Extrême-Orient XXXI 1-2 (1932): 334.
   A visitor can still see the abandoned railway project and
bridges among the islands (Sī Pan Done) of the Mekhong along
the Cambodian border. The old French hospital, school, and
administrative buildings are still standing. There are several
well preserved French plantation homes along the river in the
region, especially in the small town of Champasak near Vat
Phū. Indeed, Bassac was on the direct road and river between
Phnom Penh and Vientiane. Ibid., 335.
   Søren Ivarson is writing on this period. See his forthcoming
“Bringing Laos into Existence.”
   Karpelès had a long career in Buddhist Studies before
working in Laos. She had worked with Sylvain Lévi, Louis
Finot, and Alfred Foucher on the French translation of the
Sanskrit and Tibetan manuscripts of the Lokeśvaraśataka in
1919, on the Sri Lankan and Siamese manuscripts of the
Kanikhāvitaranī in 1922-23, and on a Siamese version of the
Ramāyāna in 1925. Sadly she was taken out of her post because
of anti-semitic laws instituted by the Nazis in France in 1941
(see Un siècle pour l’Asie). I value Anne Hansen comments on
this statement. She believes that Karpelès’s personal
correspondence reflects a scholar who was truly invested in
making Pali texts available to her Khmer interlocutors, but
was, like many scholars, short on funding and needed to
convince her French colonial bosses that they needed to fund
humanities projects for practical economic and military
reasons. Therefore, her public writing might have been partly
rhetorical in order to convince the French administration to
fund her decidedly unpractical projects. Anne Hansen’s
forthcoming book on Cambodian Buddhist History (1860-1930),
especially chapter four, has much more in depth information
about Karpelès. Penny Edwards is also writing a major
biography. I thank David Chandler for his valuable comments on
the lives of Karpelès and Paul Mus. In her forthcoming
(University of Hawaii Press, 2006) book, Hansen writes:
The idea of Pali education was inherently compatible with
their own scholastic experiences, and the educational system
they promoted to members of the administration was drawn from
Khmer and Siamese design.  Judging from their correspondence,
their interest in promoting Pali education in Cambodia
probably had as much to do with their own personal perceptions
of its importance as with their arguments concerning the use
of Pali education as an instrument for stemming Dhammayut
influence and assuring colonial security.  In reading through
years of their letters, particularly between and by Coedès and
Karpelès, including some of the hand-scrawled drafts of royal
ordinances they wrote on behalf of King Sisowath, it was not
entirely clear that their own perspectives always coincided
with the rhetoric they presented to the Résident Supérieur.
They had devoted their entire lives to studying the Buddhist
production of meaning and it hardly seemed necessary to
explain why it was important – except that they had to find
ways to elicit support and funding from an administration with
competing claims for its resources” (Chapter four, cited with
permission of the author).
   Penny Edwards comments on this section of the chapter were
extremely valuable. She kindly supplied me with several
documents and photographs of Lao royal tours in Cambodia which
enriched this chapter considerably. Photographs of the opening
of the Institut bouddhique in Laos and the visit of the Lao
prince Pethsarat to the Institute in Phnom Penh are reprinted
in her translation/edition of the history of the Buddhist
Institute (2005). This book also contains the original Khmer
text written by Chheat Sreang, Yin Sombo, Seng Hokmeng, Pong
Pheakdeyboramy, and Saom Sokreasey.  In a personal
communication, Edwards emphasizes that Karpelès did not simply
dictate Lao and Cambodian Buddhist policy. She was influenced
by the Lao king who had been impressed by the manuscript
library in Phnom Penh on his visits to Cambodia. Most likely
due to the king’s encouragement she modeled the institute’s
manuscript library on Phnom Penh’s. Edwards further emphasizes
that one of the most common tendencies of scholarship on the
French colonial period is for scholars to underestimate the
agency of Lao scholars and policy makers.  One example of that
agency is seen in a letter from April 24, 1932 in which Paul
Pasquier, an assistant to the Résident supérieure in Phnom
Penh, advises Karpelès that he had not been able to name the
president of the religious section in Luang Phrabang because
he had not yet received the nomination from the Lao royal
Sisavangvong. The French did not merely assign positions
according to their own self-interests, but followed the advice
of the Lao ruling elite. The Institut bouddhique was not the
original name of this organization. In 1923 though, under the
direction of Karpelès, an Institut for the Study of the Small
Vehicule (i.e. Theravada--Institut our l’etude du bouddhisme
du petit Véhicule) was established under the patronage of King
Sisavangvong of Laos and King Sisovath Monivong of Cambodia.
See Jean-Pierre Drège, L’École française d’Extrême-Orient et
le Cambodge 1898-2003 (Paris: L’École français
d’Extrême-Orient, 2003): 41-42.
   The full description of these ceremonies is found in the
annual report of the Bulletin de l’École français
d’Extrême-Orient XXIX (1930): 519-521.
   “Annual Report,” Bulletin de l’École français
d’Extrême-Orient XXXI 1-2 (1932): 335. My translation:
“inevitably [feel] the attraction of Bangkok and each year Lao
monks have gone to the capital of Siam for religious studies.
The creation of a Pali school in Bassac would naturally remedy
this unfortunate situation and retain among us these young men
that want to devote themselves to the study of the sacred
language.”
   Ibid., 337-338. My translation from: “Le champ d’action de
ce nouvel organisme s’étend, non seulement sur tout le
Cambodge et le Laos, mais aussi sur une grande partie des
provinces du Sud-Ouest de la Cochinchine, où plus de 200.000
âmes demeurées foncièrement cambodgiennes et profondément
attachées au sol natal, continuent, en dépindes nombreuses
épreuves qu’elles subrient, à pratiquer avec ferveur les
préceptes du Buddha. Pour les aider à conserver intact ce
pieux héritage de leurs ancêtres, l’Institut leur a apporté
l’appui moral dont elles avaient besoin, en établissant une
liaison constante entre elles et leurs frères du Cambodge.
Pour le Laos et le royaume khmèr, l’Institut s’efforce de
renouer les relations de sympathie intellectuelle qui
existaient autrefois entre ces deux pays.”
   “Annual Report,” Bulletin de l’École français
d’Extrême-Orient XXXI 1-2 (1932): 341.
   My translation: “to develop, in light of an intellectual and
moral recovery of the people, the monastery school where the
children receive the first parts of their education.”
   In addition to this hierarchical clarification, the French
requested (although I have not found much evidence that this
rule was ever enforced) that each monastery reported the
number of monks and novices that resided at the monastery plus
the number of school-aged children that used the monastery for
education. In addition to reporting the population of the
monastic school, the abbot was supposed to report any
infraction to the rules (moral or civil), and any movement of
monks/novices/students from one monastery to another. The only
exception to these rules was for Luang Phrabang, where monks
in the city were instructed (ideally in this code, of which we
do not have evidence, was actually known or read by the monks)
to follow the traditional rules of the King of Laos based on
approval of the French governor (Bulletin de l’École français
d’Extrême-Orient  XXIX (1930): 529.
   Ibid., 522. It is interesting to note that the French rules
(called the “Arrêté portant réglementation du clercé
bouddhique du Laos”) also asked the monasteries to report the
number of Buddha (or other) images they had in their
possession, as well as the condition of the monastery. I
assume this was designed to designate funds for repair or
research. 
   Ibid., 524. My translation from: “Tout religieux (bonze ou
novice) est tenu, sous peine des sanctions prévues par les
règlements religieux, d’observer la discipline et les règles
bouddhiques, d’étudier l’enseignement du Bouddha et de
faciliter la tâche du chef de pagode. Deux ans après son
admission dans l’ordre du clergé bouddhique, tout novice doit
savoir lire et écrire le laotien, et tout bonze doit savoir
lire le Tham. Tout religieux qui ne pourra pas justifier de
ces connaissances sera exclu de l’ordre. Le chef de pagode est
tenu de faire fonctionner par lui-même ou par les bonzes
désignés par lui, une école de pagode où les enfants des
villages environnants viennent apprendre l’écriture laotienne
et le calcul.”
   Anne Hansen has recently argued that in Cambodia European
influence on Pali literature and educational reform has been
over emphasized. She writes “the influence of colonial market
forces helped to change the nature of sacred writing in
Cambodia, the turn to print during this period was prompted as
much or perhaps more by the force of the “Pali imaginaire”
than by European ideas and economic factors.  In other words,
Buddhist tropes of purification, which took on new meaning for
young Khmer monks and scholars during this period, led to new
ideological and aesthetic imperatives for printing Buddhist
texts; printed texts, produced through modern rationalist
methods of translation, came to represent purified texts,
which simultaneously led their readers to greater
opportunities for purifying their knowledge and purifying
their behavior.” Hansen, unpublished draft of a paper
delivered at the Conference of the International Association
of Buddhist Studies, London, August 31, 2005.
   Bizot ties the modernization of monastic education in
Cambodia to two forces: 1) the Siamese/Thai Thammayut
(Dhammayuttika Nikāya) sect’s influence and; 2) French
privileging of Pali canonical texts and Vinaya orthodoxy over
protective rites and vernacular texts. He notes that many of
the Pali texts translated into Khmer in the colonial period
were based on Pali Text Society editions from Britain. Bizot,
Le figuier à cinq branches (Paris: L’École français
d’Extrême-Orient, 1976): introduction.  See also Hansen,
forthcoming and Edwards, The Buddhist Institute, 13-32.
   The talent of Thong Di and the reason he needed to study in
Cambodia is attested in the rest of the letter which reads:
Mais d’après les articles 12 et 14 de l’Ordonnance Royale du
13 Aout 1922, concernant l’organization de l’Ecole de Pâli, il
n’est permis de suivre les cours de cette école que ceux qui
ont réçus au concours d’admission. Cependant cette Ordonnance
Royale ne prévoit cela que pour les Cambodgiens. Or le bonze
Thong Di est un laotien, et de plus il fait preuve de bonne
volonté en venant de si loin nous demander à s’inspirer. Il a
entendu dire qu’on peut faire de bonnes études de pali dans
cette école don’t s’occupe l’Administration et c’est pourquoi
il est venu demander a y entrer, dans but de pouvoir plus tard
enseigner aux éleves du Laos d’après la méthode d’enseignement
qu’il y aura appris.  Je trouve que le bonze Thong Di pourrait
etre permis à suivre le Cours Moyen de l’Ecole de Pâi parce
qu’il possède déjàà assez de connaisssances en cette langue,
et si vous n’y voyez pas d’inconvenient, je demandera a ce
qu’un arrêté soit pris à ce sujet.  Mais quel que soit votre
avis, je vous prie de vouloir bien me le faire connaître a fin
de m’y conformer.
Letter provided by Penny Edwards.
  Specifically regarding funding, the second half of this
letter consists of a complaint by the King of Luang Phrabang
that the Institut bouddhique in Vientiane and Luang Phrabang
were supposed to receive a budget allocation of 1,400
piastres. However, the king complains, the Institut in Luang
Phrabang especially did not receive this funding and that he
wanted to call this fact to the attention of the colonial
authorities so that the Institut could help “le developpement
de la culture religieuse et intellectuelle du pays.” I thank
Penny Edwards and the staff at the Buddhist Institute in Phnom
Penh for supplying me with copies of these letters.
   For more information on the failures of the French and Lao
royalty in the production of Plai and/or vernacular texts in
this period see Hundius, “Lao Manuscripts and Traditional
Literature: The struggle for their survival,” 4.
   As part of this project in Cambodia, the Bibliothèque royale
du Cambodge published a periodic Khmer language report on the
activity of Buddhist textual work called the Kampuchea Suriya
(Cambodian Sun) which included sample translations and short
articles. Nothing of this kind was produced in Laos. See
Jean-Pierre Drège, L’École française d’Extrême-Orient et le
Cambodge 1898-2003, 40.
   Sila Viravong’s family, especially his daughter, has been
building a library in his honor for the past decade. This
project hopes to bring together his collected works and other
important sources for Lao history, literature, and religion in
Vientiane. Dara Kanlaya and Douangdeuane Bounyavong presently
head this project.
   The French actually patronized local Lao Buddhist practices
and learning. Finot, Karpelès, Coedès and other attended large
Buddhist and royal ceremonies in Laos frequently. In fact,
there are reports that they, like EFEO scholars today,
participated in the Lao baxi ceremony (which involved tying
sacred white strings on the wrists for protection and good
fortune) an imminently local Lao protective rite not
documented in translocal classical Buddhism.  These were not
always distant, arm-chair scholars seeking only to collect
texts divorced from their living context.
   Martin Stuart-Fox, Buddhist Kingdom, Marxist State (Bangkok:
White Lotus, 1996): 105.
   Evans, A Short History, 178.
   There was very little critical scholarship on Lao Buddhism
between 1955 and 1975. The Bulletin des Amis du Royaume Lao
issue on Buddhism (1973) and Marcel Zago’s Rites et cérémonies
en milieu bouddhiste lao (1972) work on Lao ritual practice
are good general survey’s, but they offer little in the way of
textual analysis, interviews, or in depth analysis. On
problems with sources and “comprehensive” studies of Lao
culture and history see Martin Stuart-Fox, “On the Writing of
Lao History: Continuities and Discontinuities,” Journal of
Southeast Asian Studies 24 (1993). See also Vatthana
Pholsena’s excellent “Changing Historiographies of the Lao
Past,” Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 35.2 (2004): 235-259.
   I thank Boualy Paphaphanh, Bounteum Sibounheuang, and Thong
Xeuy, as well as the directors of the Sangha College for all
of their assistance. Ajahn Seng at Wat Lao Riverside was also
helpful in explaining Sangha education before 1975.
   Geoffrey Gunn, Rebellion in Laos: Peasant and Politics in a
Colonial Backwater (Boulder, CO: Westview, 1990), and Gunn,
Political Struggles in Laos, 1930-1954: Vietnamese Communist
Power and the Lao Struggle for National Independence (Bangkok:
Duang Kamol, 1988): 76-99; and Gunn, Theravadins,
Colonialists, and Commissars in Laos (Bangkok: White Lotus,
1998): 118. See also Joel Halpern, Government, Politics and
Social Structure in Laos: A Study of Tradition and Innovation
(Yale University Press, New Haven, 1964): 58-60.
  See also note #19 in chapter seven of this book regarding a
short book entitled Phra Buddha Sāsanā kap Kān Bok Kong Pathet
(Buddhism and Governing the Nation) composed in 1916 by Prince
Wachirayan of Thailand (Somdet Phra Mahāsamanachao Krom Phra
Vajirayān Wororot) that was popular and translated into
English. The English version (not the Thai!) was the basis of
a Lao translation by Bunthip Chanthamontrī under the
sponsorship of the Asia Foundation and Lao royal patronage in
1967 in honor of Maghapuja Day (a popular Buddhist holiday).
This book was translated and printed in Lao to encourage their
resistance to communism and allegiance to the growing power of
the Marxist Pathet Lao Party. It also was designed to combat
Marxist interpretations of Buddhism as corrupt, antithetical
to progress and equality, and incommensurate with good governance.
   McDaniel, “Buddhism in Modern Thailand.”  Here I discuss the
rise of Dhammadūta, or emmisary monks sent by the Central Thai
government to reform practice in the Northeast and to preach
against Communism.
   Some of these books, many of which were published
posthumously, include: (Phra) Mahāpān Anando, Prabeni Lao
(Vientiane, Vat Mikhathaya, 2517 [1973]) and his Thāng Hā Sai
(Vientiane, 1999). Phra Mahāpān Anantho’s legacy was promoted
by a number of his students in the early 1970s and in a recent
revival in the last ten years. For example, his work is
mentioned in a book on the biographies of five great monks
(Ǭngkān Buddhasāsanā Sampan Lao, Sivit lae phon ngān khǭng
phramahāthera hā ǭng (Vientiane: Ǭngkān Buddhasāsanā Sampan
Lao, 2001), his teachings inspired monks and lay scholars like
Phra Mahā Khamphuey, Phiak Chunlamontri, Phra Philawong, and
the highly influential monk in contemporary Laos, Phra Sāli
Kanthasilo. His life is also briefly summarized in his funeral
festshrift edited by Phayā Khamnai Chantabanyā, Khamhā
Sithirātwongsā, and many others and printed for free
distribution at Vat Pāluang.
   (Phra) Mahāpān Anantho, Samākhom Buddhawong Lao lae
Buddhayuvaxon Lao (Vientiane: Vat Buddhawongsa Pāluang, 1971).
   Ibid., 16-17.
   I thank Patrice Ladwig for providing a number of important
sources for the life of Phra Mahāpan Anantho. In particular
see the report of his funeral in Lao Samay Daily News (Vol.
288) 1968.
   Lao folktales are a major part of monastic education.
Stories from the Xīeng Mīeng cycle, the Xin Sai, etc. break
down the division between secular and religious literature as
they are told alongside local adaptations of translocal
“Buddhist” narratives like the Vessantara Jātaka, Sujavanna,
etc. See McDaniel, “Creative Engagement: the Sujavaṇṇa Wua
Luang and its Contribution to Buddhist Literature,” Journal of
the Siam Society 88 (2000): 156-177. See also Peltier, Le
Roman Classique Lao (Paris: L’École française
d’Extrême-Orient, 1988), Louis Gabaude, Les Cetiya de sable au
Laos et en Thaïlande : les textes (Paris: L’École française
d’Extrême-Orient, 1979) and Georges Condominas, Le bouddhisme
au village (Vientiane: L’École française d’Extrême-Orient,
1998): 44-45. Condominas writes: “pendant des siècles le vat a
été la seule école. Les enfants y entraient comme novices, ou
‘bonzillons,’ pour apprendre, outrè le calcul, à lire et
écrire le lao, puis le paali, langue sacrée de bouddhisme
theravaadin…Mises à part les premières notions d’arithmétique,
l’enseignment dispensé au monastère est surtout littéraire et
religieux: il repose sur les texts sacrés, où les jaataka, les
récits des vies antérieures du Bouddha, tiennent une place
capitale. Le développement de l’enseignment public et läic,
basé sur les principes démocratiques d’accès à l’instruction
pour tous, qui s’est beaucoup développe’ ces dernières années,
a réduit considérablemnt ce rôle d’école primaire que jouait
la pagode.”
   Many school building built by the French are still in use,
but often they have been abandoned or converted into farm
houses, clinics, or even garages.
   Pierre-Bernard Lafont, “Buddhism in Contemporary Laos,” in
Contemporary Laos, ed. Martin Stuart-Fox (St. Lucia:
University of Queensland Press, 1982): 149, 152.
   Stuart-Fox, Buddhist Kingdom, 102-103.
   Ibid., 103.
   Ibid., 103.
   Ibid., 96.
   Lafont, “Buddhism in Contemporary Laos,” 153.
   Stuart-fox also notes that: “young monks were attracted out
of the Sangha by government offers of training and education,
special vocational training schools having been set up for
ex-novices. The actual decline in Sangha numbers is hard to
estimate. A refugee monk from Viang Chan [Vientiane] reported
that by the end pf 1976 the number of monks in the capital had
fallen by about two-thirds; another monk from the south of the
country reported that by mid-1978 numbers were down to about
one-twentieth or less. In early 1979, according to the
secretary of the Sangharaaja, there were only 1,700 monks in
the country, down from 20,000 when the PL [Pathet
Lao/Communist Party] took power.” The government’s policy
certainly did “reduce the independence of the Sangha in order
to enable the Party to monopolize social and political
influence” (107). However, throughout the 1980s and 90s
religious freedom slowly returned under pressure from foreign
watchdog groups and economic failure. By 1996 the government
began actively promoting the value of Buddhism to attract
tourist dollars. All guidebooks to Laos emphasize the
country’s Buddhist traditions “untouched” by time. Official
Lao tourist brochures and magazines, Chinese, German,
Australian, and Thai tour companies’ websites, as well as
foreign guidebooks like Fodors and the Rough Guide, always
include pictures of docile monks walking on their alms rounds
in the misty mountains. Laos is touted as a place to see what
Buddhism was like in the past if tourists are disappointed by
the economic progress and “commercialization” of Buddhism in
“gaudy” Thai Buddhist temples. It is striking that guidebooks
universally celebrate the poverty and lack of economic growth
in Laos as a bonus for tourists who can take pictures of poor,
but smiling, monks and villagers and dilapidated monasteries
and then safely return to their hotels and bars. Adjectives
like “rustic,” “traditional,” “timeless,” “peaceful,” can
easily be replaced with “impoverished,” “oppressed,”
“stagnant,” and “servile.” See Stuart-Fox, Buddhist Kingdom,
96, 105-106.
   See (Mahā) Khampheuy Vannasopha, Religious Affairs in Lao
PDR: Policies and Tasks (Vientiane: Ministry of Information
and Culture, 2003).
   See especially Chatthip Nartsupa, “The Ideology of Holy Men
in North East Thailand,” Ethnological Study 13 (1983): 111-134
and Collins, Nirvana and other Buddhist Felicities (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1998): 405-413.



______________
Dr. Justin McDaniel
Dept. of Religious Studies
2617 Humanities Building
University of California, Riverside
Riverside, CA 92521
909-827-4530
justinm@...