Buddha Was Really From Cambodia?

[podgey]

Hi, i dont claim to very well informed on any topic least of all religion of any teaching, but i was suprised to hear my wife recently say that buddha was a cambodian prince and that this is what was taught to her from the temples in thailand. I was lead to belive that the oringinal buddha was a indian prince, when i mentioned this she was very suprised. The storys seem very similair and im sure my wife is not misinformed because she's pretty serious about her buddha and the temples.

Ive heard told that many people share the same name as buddha so maybe thats where we become confused.

Also the chanting done by thai monks in ancient 'k'mer', does anyone know what they're chanting?

[Brucenkhamen]

Hi, i dont claim to very well informed on any topic least of all religion of any teaching, but i was suprised to hear my wife recently say that buddha was a cambodian prince and that this is what was taught to her from the temples in thailand. I was lead to belive that the oringinal buddha was a indian prince, when i mentioned this she was very suprised. The storys seem very similair and im sure my wife is not misinformed because she's pretty serious about her buddha and the temples.

Ive heard told that many people share the same name as buddha so maybe thats where we become confused.

Also the chanting done by thai monks in ancient 'k'mer', does anyone know what they're chanting?

The historical Buddha (Gautama Siddhartha) was born and lived in North East India and Nepal. The sites he lived in and visited are well documented so I can assure you your gf is wrong.

Theravadin Buddhists don't generally refer to other Buddhas other than the above and they all pre-date him and Khmer civilization.

Thai monks chant in Pali which is an ancient Indian Language similar to sanskrit, not Khmer.

I notice you are in Rayong which I guess may have a mix of Thai and Khmer ethnicity so perhaps that's where these tall stories are coming from. Has anyone heard anything similar from Thais they know?

[Virin]

Class of Buddhism is a required subject in schools across the country (except schools of some other religions), we learn the history of Buddha, Buddhist principles. Many temples have the paintings of Buddha since he was born, his enlightenment, etc. and everyone in those paintings can be easily identified that they were Indian.

Thai language has influence from many languages which includes Khmer but the monks don't chat in Khmer. Brucenkhamen is right the monks chant in Pali.

[Brucenkhamen]

Class of Buddhism is a required subject in schools across the country (except schools of some other religions), we learn the history of Buddha, Buddhist principles. Many temples have the paintings of Buddha since he was born, his enlightenment, etc. and everyone in those paintings can be easily identified that they were Indian.

Thai language has influence from many languages which includes Khmer but the monks don't chat in Khmer. Brucenkhamen is right the monks chant in Pali.

Yes, it seems either his wife is not very smart or is telling porkies. I'm wondering though if there is another explanation and some sort of cult in Thailand teaching along these lines, didn't something similar come up on this board a few months ago?

[podgey]

Yes, it seems either his wife is not very smart or is telling porkies. I'm wondering though if there is another explanation and some sort of cult in Thailand teaching along these lines, didn't something similar come up on this board a few months ago?

Accusing my wife of not being smart is a big call coming from somebody who doesnt know her. Naive maybe, as she does come from a small village in sisaket where the local dialect is a mixture of Cambodian/esan.

I refuse to believe my wife is as you delicately put it "not smart" as she did after all marry me.

So thanks for clearing that up for me, i am sure your original post would have sufficed though. In future keep your doubts about other people's intellects or their honesty (though she is female) to your self.

Like my dear mother always used to tell me "if you don't have anything nice to say....say it on the Internet so you don't have any serious repercussions", or something along those lines.

Edited June 17, 2008 by camerata
Fixed broken quote.

[garro]

What we believe in has little to do with how smart we are. From my perspective, where the Buddha is said to have come from isn't that important as the message and themes are universal. The Buddha could have been born anywhere and it wouldn't change the truth.

[Brucenkhamen]

Accusing my wife of not being smart is a big call coming from somebody who doesnt know her. Naive maybe, as she does come from a small village in sisaket where the local dialect is a mixture of Cambodian/esan.

I refuse to believe my wife is as you delicately put it "not smart" as she did after all marry me.

So thanks for clearing that up for me, i am sure your original post would have sufficed though. In future keep your doubts about other people's intellects or their honesty (though she is female) to your self.

Like my dear mother always used to tell me "if you don't have anything nice to say....say it on the Internet so you don't have any serious repercussions", or something along those lines.

Sorry my post caused offence.

The point I was trying to make, though badly worded, was that rather than coming to these kinds of conclusions can we work out where these ideas may have come from.

You are right, naive would have been a better term, or even better leaving the conclusions I was trying to direct away from unstated.

[podgey]

No biggie Brucenkharmen, Ive asked a few other Thai people that i know from different areas of Thailand and they all have a better idea about where Buddha is from. So we are right in our thinking that it was a regional teaching. I'm not really surprised because Ive been to my wife's village and was at any moment waiting for king Kong to arrive.

I was relived to find out that temples in the main teach accurate accounts of Buddha's life not because it matters as Garro pointed out , but for some reason it does make me feel better.

My wife with typical Thai pragmatism was not devastated to learn the truth, but accepted very quickly as this is what most other people believe.

Thanks to everyone for their valuable input because we are now enlightened people.

Cheers

[thithi]

it was def. from india where we believe that the buddha was born.

[Xangsamhua]

Podgey, there may be something to what your wife has picked up from local temples, particularly if they're in Khmer-speaking areas, but the stories may have been blended and reconstituted over time.

Cambodia (Kambuja) is believed to have been settled by a branch of the Kambujiya people, who seem to have migrated from Iran in the second century CE into Northern India. The Kambujiyan people came to Cambodia via Sri Lanka, which, I suppose, provided the Buddhist connection, though the Kambujiyan-originated dynasties in Angkor were Hindu until Jayavarman VII in the 12th century.

A Kambujiyan prince from Northern India, who was also a sage or hermit, is believed to have come to Cambodia in the fourth century CE and married an apsara, from which union the Khmer lineage is said to have derived.

The strong historical connection of Cambodia with India, through the Kambujiya people and, later, the South Indian Pallava dynasty, together with the origin story based on Prince Kambu and his apsara wife could have become mixed in with the life of the Buddha, also a North Indian prince who became a hermit (but didn't marry an apsara).

If your wife wants to believe that the Buddha was a Khmer prince, what harm is there in that (unless she's training to be a teacher or planning to do a degree in history or religious studies)?

Edited June 21, 2008 by Xangsamhua

[garro]

Podgey, there may be something to what your wife has picked up from local temples, particularly if they're in Khmer-speaking areas, but the stories may have been blended and reconstituted over time.

Cambodia (Kambuja) is believed to have been settled by a branch of the Kambujiya people, who seem to have migrated from Iran in the second century CE into Northern India. The Kambujiyan people came to Cambodia via Sri Lanka, which, I suppose, provided the Buddhist connection, though the Kambujiyan-originated dynasties in Angkor were Hindu until Jayavarman VII in the 12th century.

A Kambujiyan prince from Northern India, who was also a sage or hermit, is believed to have come to Cambodia in the fourth century CE and married an apsara, from which union the Khmer lineage is said to have derived.

The strong historical connection of Cambodia with India, through the Kambujiya people and, later, the South Indian Pallava dynasty, together with the origin story based on Prince Kambu and his apsara wife could have become mixed in with the life of the Buddha, also a North Indian prince who became a hermit (but didn't marry an apsara).

If your wife wants to believe that the Buddha was a Khmer prince, what harm is there in that (unless she's training to be a teacher or planning to do a degree in history or religious studies)?

I fully agree. I don't believe it is possible to prove the legend of the historical Buddha. I don't think this is important. The only useful thing, in my opinion, is the teachings and what we can prove to ourselves is the truth in them.

I think that Buddhism is the only 'religion' where you could remove the main character and yet it would still hold water.

Edited June 21, 2008 by garro

[Xangsamhua]

I think that Buddhism is the only 'religion' where you could remove the main character and yet it would still hold water.

Interesting comment, Garro, and I think I see your point, but am not sure you can really say that. I mean "not sure" literally, not rhetorically.

Philosophically, I can see that the possibly apocryphal life of the Buddha is not central to the teachings ascribed to him. However, as a religion, Buddhism is about more than philosophy, and includes beliefs and dispositions that include faith in the efficacy of intercession, divine attributes ascribed to the founding teacher, and so on. Some Buddhists, I understand, would separate the doctrine of karma from Buddhism as a philosophy and place it in the category of religious faith.

The problem with this kind of thinking is that we start to argue over what is "real" Buddhism and what is in some way "corrupted" or at least culturally derived as opposed to pure doctrine.

I think the Buddha as a person is important for many or most Buddhists. The triple gem would suggest so, though we may de-historicize the Buddha in this case. (I'm not a Buddhist, so am open to correction.) I'm also thinking that, unlike Christianity or Islam, where the historicity of the "central character" seems to be essential (though possibly it's not, or at least its centrality is diminishing, at least in the former), Sikhism may be an example of a religion where the founder and the early fathers are no longer central, having handed their patrimony over to the Sikh scriptures.

[garro]

I think that Buddhism is the only 'religion' where you could remove the main character and yet it would still hold water.

Interesting comment, Garro, and I think I see your point, but am not sure you can really say that. I mean "not sure" literally, not rhetorically.

Philosophically, I can see that the possibly apocryphal life of the Buddha is not central to the teachings ascribed to him. However, as a religion, Buddhism is about more than philosophy, and includes beliefs and dispositions that include faith in the efficacy of intercession, divine attributes ascribed to the founding teacher, and so on. Some Buddhists, I understand, would separate the doctrine of karma from Buddhism as a philosophy and place it in the category of religious faith.

The problem with this kind of thinking is that we start to argue over what is "real" Buddhism and what is in some way "corrupted" or at least culturally derived as opposed to pure doctrine.

I think the Buddha as a person is important for many or most Buddhists. The triple gem would suggest so, though we may de-historicize the Buddha in this case. (I'm not a Buddhist, so am open to correction.) I'm also thinking that, unlike Christianity or Islam, where the historicity of the "central character" seems to be essential (though possibly it's not, or at least its centrality is diminishing, at least in the former), Sikhism may be an example of a religion where the founder and the early fathers are no longer central, having handed their patrimony over to the Sikh scriptures.

I see what you mean. I suppose what I was trying to say was that for me the truth behind the teachings are there if the Buddha discovered them or not. I think that is what is so appealing about Buddhism, at least in my case. Many of the teachings automaticaly resonate with me as being true. I was raised a Catholic but at about fifteen the teachings of the church just didn't make any sense to me - Buddhism did.

I think what makes the Buddha story different is that he was given no great revelation from the gods. What he found was there for anyone to find if they knew where and how to look. Of course others might disagree with my simplistic view of Buddhism and perhaps at other stages of my life so would I.

[Xangsamhua]

I think what makes the Buddha story different is that he was given no great revelation from the gods. What he found was there for anyone to find if they knew where and how to look.

Good point. He had to work long and hard to become awakened. I mentioned Sikhism. Guru Nanak may have made a lot of sense, but he did not claim his fundamental insights as his own; rather, he had gained them from a 3-day assumption into heaven, where he was blessed and told to "Go, rejoice in my [God's] name and teach others to do so also." An archetypal revelation experience.

The Buddha did not depend upon, nor did he receive any special revelation to our knowledge. He did draw on the Vedic/Hindu traditions of his culture, however, including the doctrine of karma, and I understand his teaching was very close to that of his older contemporary, Mahavira, the founder of the Jain religion. Where no special revelation was involved one would have expected him to draw on familiar ideas. If I might venture a simplified view, perhaps what was new was the realization of self-lessness and impermanency; hence, radical detachment, and the need to depend upon oneself to find enlightenment, without the mediation of a priestly caste.

[Smithson]

I would be interested to see the results of a survey asking Thais were Buddha was born. A lot who I've spoken to don't know. They don't seem keen on the idea of him being born in India, in fact in general Thais aren't crazy about Indians. Maybe that's the reason?

[jumnien]

Lumpini is in Nepal.

[camerata]

Perhaps the Cambodian connection comes from the legend that the Buddha visited the ancient land of Suvarnabhumi, which is thought to have extended to Cambodia and parts of today's Thailand that were once part of the Khmer empire.

Anyway, the Buddha was supposed to have had blue eyes, golden skin and an aquiline nose, so no one should mind if he was actually Indian.

[Tilokarat]

Lumpini is in Nepal.

No, it isn't. It is in Bangkok and you can get there by Sky train, or the subway, or one of those and you can achieve a kind of nibbana through making numerous purchases some of which can be had at bargain prices at Lumpini. - joking, joking...

Edited July 3, 2008 by camerata
Enough jokes. Let's stay on topic please.