The founding figure of the Angkorian period, Jayavarman II (r. c. 802–850), was connected by blood to earlier rulers. He arrived in the region from a place named Javà32 around 800 ce, setting up a power base at Indrapura, a not completely identified location but probably Banteay Prei Nokor, to the east ofKompong Cham. He then gradually extended his influence across much of Zhenla, subsequently moving his capital to Hariharàlaya, fifteen kilometers southeast of modern-day Siem Reap, and finally to
Mahendraparvata (Phnom Kulen), where a Brahmin named Hira¢yadàma “learned in the magical science (siddhi vidyà)” ordained 9ivakaivalya as royal chaplain (purohita)33 so that he might perform rites associated with the cult of devaràja.34 Earlier scholars, such as Cœdès and Dupont, understood the devaràjato be either the deified king himself or a singular image of 9iva standing in the king’s stead. The matter has not been adequately resolved, but it now seems more likely that the devaràja was a special mobile image (calantì pratimà) of a protective deity (Kulke 1993, 355) or, perhaps, some sort of sacred fire (Woodward 2001, 257–258). It was on Kulen that Hira¢yadàma also performed a ritual that sacralized Jayavarman’s claim to be a universal king (cakravartin)35and symbolically broke his dependency on Javà. According to an important and very long Sanskrit and Khmer inscription from Sdok Kak Thom [K. 235], dated 1052, this ritual derived from four Indic texts: Vinà8ikha, Nayottara, Sarmoha, and the 9ira8cheda.36 These were probably tantric, with a sixth- to seventh-century northern Indian provenance. We do know that many Angkorian inscriptions, from as early as the beginning of the ninth century, mention texts of the 9aiva Àgama corpus (Bagchi 1930). These describe the proper construction of the various classes of 8ivali¡ga, and this expansion of 9aivism fits in well with what we know about religious developments toward the end ofthe Zhenla period. The Àgamas make it clear that the priests conducting such rites must be drawn from Brahmanical families of northern Indian origin, and it looks likely that there would have been significant intercourse with India itself at this stage of Cambodia’s history. Indeed, the Phum Ta Tru inscription [K. 538], dated 978 ce, underlines this, for another royal chaplain, BhaVVa Divàkara, is said to have come from the banks of the Yamuna River in northern India. Such an arrangement operated, however sporadically, for a considerable time; even as late as the last Sanskrit inscription in Cambodia [K. 300], dating from the fourteenth century, the priest Sarvajñàmuni is said to have come from Àryade8a, that is, India. Having said all this, we should avoid assuming that either 9ivakaivalya or Hira¢yadàma was definitively Indian. Only the ruins ofJayavarman’s Krus Preach Aram Rong Chen—the templemountain on Phnom Kulen, which housed the devaràja—remain today. However, the king did not reside there. It was too sacred and, on a more pragmatic level, rather inhospitable. He died at Hariharàlaya and was deified with the posthumous name “Parame8vara.” His funerary temple,37 Preah Ko, was erected at his death, though not completed until 879. Preah Ko comprised six towers in two rows on a low platform. The three towers at the front contained images of9iva, while the back three housed representations of the god’s female consort Gaurì. In addition, the central tower of the front row was dedicated to Jayavarman, and the one behind to his wife, who had also been given a posthumous name, “Dhara¢ìndradevì.” In this way the royal couple were incorporated into a ma¢qala of divinities, a characteristic feature of Angkorian religion, both Brahmanical and Buddhist, that was to become increasingly complex as the period unfolded. The next important king, Indravarman (r. c. 877–889), had a chaplain (purohita),9ivasoma, who was not only a member of the royal lineage but also appears to have been a disciple of 9ankara (c. 788–820), the great Indian 9aiva founder of the Advaita Vedànta school of orthodox Hindu philosophy.38 Like Jayavarman II before him, Indravarman clearly favored 9aiva cults, dedicating a temple to 9iva at the already sacred site of Phnom Bayang in the south of the country. But his most important monument is the Bakong, dedicated at Hariharàlaya in 881.39 Although also a 9aiva shrine, the Bakong resembles the Buddhist temple-mountain of Borobudur on the island of Java, which had been constructed by the 9ailendra kings around the middle of the ninth century (B.-P. Groslier 1962, 99). Inscriptional evidence from the reign certainly demonstrates that Buddhism had not entirely disappeared as an element in the religious life of the region. A Sanskrit inscription from Ban Bung Ke—near Ubon in the Mun valley [K. 495], dated 886 ce, and erected by one Somàditya— mentions Indravarman as the reigning king and describes the donation offields, gardens, slaves, and buªalo to make merit for Somàditya’s deceased father. The text also notes the installation of a stone image of “the master of all the munis, Trailokyanàtha.” As Majumdar (1953, 74) notes, Trailokyanàtha is “evidently a Buddhist god.” Indravarman was also the originator of the great hydraulic schemes that so graphically typify the material and symbolic aspects of Angkorian civilization. The technical and managerial resources that he must have commanded in order to construct the Lolei Baray40 (IndrataVàka)—a rectangular tank of three hundred hectares containing ten million cubic meters of water, aligned on an east-west axis to the north of Hariharàlaya—remain quite remarkable even from the contemporary perspective. This artificial body of water was not simply a reservoir. It had a clear symbolic significance, given that some of its water was diverted along canals to nearby sanctuaries,41the whole design evoking the oceans surrounding Mount Meru in traditional Hindu and Buddhist cosmology. Indravarman’s successor, Ya8ovarman (r. 889–900), was associated with another enormous hydraulic project: the Eastern Baray (Ya8odharataVàka), to the northeast of his new capital, Ya8odharapura. One of 9ankara’s great practical achievements had been to establish monasteries (maVha)in the four corners of India, and it was perhaps in imitation of this that, in the year that he acceded to the throne, Ya8ovarman commissioned one hundred hermitages (à8rama), some of which have been discovered by recent archaeological investigation.42 It seems that these à8rama catered to a variety of religious sects. The inscriptional record makes it clear that the southern shore of the Ya8odharataVàka was the site for a number of à8rama, including one for each of the assorted 9aiva and VaiU¢ava groupings that flourished in the kingdom. However, a Sanskrit stele found at Tep Pranam, Angkor Thom [K. 290], dated from the end of the ninth century, suggests that one of the structures in this area was a Buddhist monastery (Saugatà8rama).43 Its remains have not yet been identified—they were probably replaced when Tep Pranam was constructed—but the existence of organized Buddhism so close to the symbolic heart of the state points to o‹cial toleration of the religion. It is di‹cult to be certain of the factors that contributed to this situation, but a close study of the text of K. 290, alongside the very similar and roughly contemporary inscription of nearby Prasat Komnap [K. 701], the site of a VaiU¢avà8rama, suggests that the religious landscape of the period had syncretic features. It seems that the establishment of both VaiU¢ava and Buddhist structures is preceded by an invocation to 9iva, but it would be incorrect to push the notion of interreligious tolerance too far. Residents at the VaiU¢avà8rama seem to have held some Buddhists in low regard, for K. 701 warns that ignorant Buddhists with bad morals, possibly with regard to celibacy, are not welcome in the hermitage. Bhattacharya (1955a, 112–113) notes that the same stipulation is not made for 9aivas. The construction of the 9aiva 9ikharì8vara temple at Preah Vihear and the sanctuary of Lolei dedicated to his parents apotheosized as 9iva and Umàwas begun during the reign of Ya8ovarman, but his finest achievement was the construction of the Bakheng in 893 ce. With some 108 towers arranged around the central shrine, this seven-level temple-mountain, surmounted by five sanctuaries arranged in quincunx, appears to be overflowing with complex Indian cosmological significances. This is certainly the view of Filliozat (1954),44 although Vickery (1998, 59, 172) has suggested that Indic cosmological norms may have been imperfectly known in Cambodia at the time of the construction but have been anachronistically transposed onto the structure without consideration of other possible and more culturally compatible factors. The squared arrangement of the Bakheng does seem problematic from an Indic perspective, although it makes perfect sense in the context of what we know about traditional Southeast Asian spatial concepts.45 Like many of the important architecture structures at Angkor, the Bakheng had a dynamic history, in that it has been significantly remodeled on more than one occasion. Indeed, we know that by the mid-sixteenth century it had become a Buddhist temple.46 During the reign of Ràjendravarman (r. c. 944–968) a high-ranking Brahmin named Kavìndràrimathana, the only named architect in the epigraphical record, was charged with the construction of the Eastern Mebon temple on an island in the middle ofthe Ya8odharataVàka. Kavìndràrimathana is described as an emissary (chàra), but it is also clear that he was a devotee of the Buddha.47 In this capacity he was involved in the establishment of the previously mentioned Saugatà8rama, to which he donated slaves. He also founded the temple of Bat Chum in 953 ce. According to Sanskrit and Khmer inscriptions on its three towers [K. 266–268], Bat Chum enshrined a triad of deities: the Buddha, Avalokite8vara-Vajrapà¢i, and Prajñàpàramità.48A mystical diagram (yantra) of forty-eight Sanskrit syllables arranged on a lotus blossom was engraved on one of the foundation stones of the temple, appearing to emphasize further that the cult practiced at the site was Mahayanist and tantric (Cœdès 1952). However, some caution is required in this context, for we know that later forms of Theravada Buddhism practiced in the region49 employed similar imagery. Whether Bat Chum represents an early manifestation of this latter tradition or was fully Mahayanist must, given our present state of knowledge, remain an open question. Whatever the answer, there can be little doubt that Buddhism was patronized at the highest level, for one of Kavìndràrimathana’s relations, Vìrendravikhyàta, was also associated with the Buddhist cult. Furthermore, the foundational inscription of Kdei Car, Kompong Thom Province [K. 157], dated 973, tells us that the vihàra was constructed to house pure bronze images of Loke8vara and Devì(= Prajñàpàramità) donated by Ràjendravarman himself.50 A number of very significant Brahmanical structures were also completed in Ràjendravarman’s reign. The best-preserved of these today, Banteay Srei (Citadel of Women), is a 9aiva temple in miniature that was dedicated in 968 by two Brahmins, Yajñavaràha and his younger brother ViU¢ukumàra. An undoubted architectural gem, it is richly decorated with numerous scenes, including many derived from the Mahàbhàrata and Ràmàya¢a. Ràjendravarman, on the other hand, constructed Baksei Chamkrong and Pre Rup. The latter’s inscription [K. 806], dated 961, is of particular interest. Bhattacharya (1971, 99) has described its author as probably the most erudite figure of the Sanskrit epigraphy of ancient Cambodia. An adherent of the Brahmanical philosophical tradition, he demonstrates a broad understanding of the great range of Indian literary and philosophical thought, even referring to two important concepts of Mahayana Buddhist philosophy, representation-only (vijñaptimàtra) and emptiness (8ùnyatà).51 It is clear that quite sophisticated understandings of Buddhist intellectual categories flourished among the religious elites of the period, even though the evidence indicates that Buddhism occupied a subordinate position in the religious imagination of the early Angkorian period. The situation begins to change from the second half of the tenth century, when we witness a steady increase in the production of Buddhist statuary and, for the first time, we discover Buddhist episodes inscribed on temple lintels. Little of this material has been discovered with supporting epigraphy, and it has consequently been rather neglected. Nevertheless, much of the material exhibits stylistic parallels with Brahmanical statuary, most ofwhich has been more fully studied and stratified, so it is possible to arrive at some fairly accurate datings (Boisselier 1966, 271).52 On this basis we can say that sculpted images of buddhas and bodhisattvas were quite common in the late tenth century. Good examples are the seated Buddha from Peam Cheang, encircled and protected by the nàga-king Mucalinda, now in the Phnom Penh National Museum, and a bronze Maitreya from Wat Ampil Tuk (Girard-Geslan 1997, 182). Both show Indic influences, particularly in the way that the conical uU¢ìUa is composed of many fine braids of hair in the style of a tiara (mukuVa). During the reign of Ràjendravarman’s son, Jayavarman V (r. 968–1001), 9aivism was still in the ascendant. However, a detailed Sanskrit inscription from Wat Sithor [K. 111], dated 968, indicates the extent to which Buddhism was percolating the region. The first section (vv. 1–9) starts with an invocation to the Buddha, dharma, and bodhisattvas, followed by verses expressing adoration for the Buddha’s triple body (trikàya). The statement that “this world is nothing but mind (cittamàtra)” (v. 8) indicates that we are in Mahayanist territory. The author of the text, Kìrtipa¢qita, is a servant of the king. Thanks to the latter’s eªorts, “the law of Buddha reappeared from the darkness, as autumn brings out the moon that up to a short time before had been veiled by the clouds of the rainy season.” The servant continues, “In his [the king’s] person the doctrines of emptiness (nairàtmya)and subjectivity (cittamàtra) . . . reappear like the sun that brings back the day. He reignited the torch of the true law, the 8àstra Madhyantavibhàga, and the other, that the destructive gusts of sin had extinguished. He brought in from foreign lands, in order to spread their study, many philosophical books and treatises, such as the Tattvasargrahacommentary” (vv. 26–29). There is a strong suggestion here of an attempt to reestablish the intellectual credentials of Buddhism in Cambodia after a period of persecution. It is di‹cult to be precise about the context, although the occurrence of Mahayanist concepts in K. 806 only six years before could suggest that any harassment of Buddhism may have occurred before 961 ce. The missionary strategy outlined by Kìrtipa¢qita appears to be based around the importation, possibly from India, ofrelatively sophisticated philosophical concepts and supporting texts. Specific mention of the commentary to the Tattvasargrahaand the Madhyantavibhàga, a key work of the Mahayanist Yogàcàra school, is particularly intriguing, given that Paramàrtha, a great champion ofthe same school, had a connection with the region some four centuries before. Could it be that Kìrtipa¢qita was trying to revivify this earlier tradition? K. 111 concludes with a series ofroyal ordinances relating to various aspects ofthe Buddhist cult, such as the correct performance of monthly rituals to the constellations [vv. 52–55], procedures for the dedication of a monastery [vv. 58–65], daily rites [v. 67],ceremonial ablutions of buddha images at the full moon and other occasions [vv. 70, 71, 74], copying sacred writings [v. 82], and much else besides. The inscription of Phnom Banteay Nan [K. 214], dated 982, is also connected with Jayavarman V’s reign.53The text’s author, Tribhuvanavajra, is “celebrated for his discipline (vinaya).” In Sanskrit he praises the Buddha’s triple body (trikàya)before invoking Loke8vara and Prajñàpàramità, the “mother of the buddhas.” The Khmer portion also mentions his many donations to Trailokyavijayàgì8varì (= Prajñàpàramità). Another purely Buddhist inscription from Thmar Puok [K. 225], dated seven years later, invokes an even more complex set of six Buddhist deities—the Buddha, Prajñàpàramità, Loke8vara, Maitreya, Vajrin (= Vajrapà¢i), and Indra—said to have been enshrined by the sage Padmavairocana.54 A preoccupation with Mahayanist pantheons, then, is a distinct feature of the period. Sùryavarman I (r. 1002–1050) was accorded the posthumous title “Nirvà¢apada,” clearly Buddhist in inspiration. Both epigraphy and the northeastern Thai Pali chronicles of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, such as the Càmadevìvarsa, suggest that Khmer power began to extend to the Chao Phraya basin during his reign. Despite the evidence of K. 701, relations between various religious sects fell into a more settled pattern. Sùryavarman I’s Lopburi inscription [K. 410] tells us that Mahayana and Sthavira Buddhist monks lived in proximity to Brahmanical ascetics. They are all ordered to oªer the merit of their austerities to the king, and anyone hindering their holy retreat is to be expelled and punished heavily.55 A more markedly syncretic outlook is revealed around this period. An early piece of evidence from Preah Khan of Kompong Svay [K. 161], dated 1002, starts with an invocation to 9iva NaVaràja and is followed by one to the Buddha. It contains a mélange of Buddhist and 9aiva ideas (Bhattacharya 1961, 35–36). Similarly, the inscription from 1041 ceat Phimai [K. 953] has a Sanskrit invocation to 9iva on one side of the stele, while a Khmer verse honors the Buddha on the reverse. That this state ofaªairs persisted is evidenced by the Trapan Don On inscription [K. 254] of 1129, which lists oªerings to 9iva, ViU¢u, and the Jina (victor) of Va¡8àràma—an epithet of the Buddha (v. 30). A probable explanation is that it is related to the growth of tantrism in the region. Indeed, a recently discovered bilingual inscription from Sab Bàk near Nakhon Ratchasima, present-day Thailand, dated 1066,56 provides clear evidence of the presence of tantric Buddhist concepts. The Sanskrit part of the text refers to the five buddhas (pañcasugata), together with Vajrasattva in his capacity as their chaplain (purohita). We also read ofa powerful individual, possibly Sùryavarman I, who has eliminated a threat to Buddhism and consolidated the religion in the country. The Khmer portion informs us that nine images of Buddha-Loke8vara, formerly erected on a mountaintop to forestall a threat from Java, have been renovated. This all appears quite consistent with what we know about the protective and exorcistic character of many tantric rites. A final interesting feature of the inscription is a reference to a secret tree (guhyavwk8a) from which the fruit of truth may be eaten (Chirapat Prapandvidya 1990, 12). There is, perhaps, some connection between this and other magical trees mentioned in the esoteric Buddhist texts of a much later period.57 We know virtually nothing about the reign ofJayavarman VI (r. 1080–1107), but later inscriptions link him both to 9aiva constructions, particularly at Preah Vihear and Wat Ph’u, and to Buddhist structures at Phimai and Preah Pithu.58 Phimai (Vimàya) is the most important and imposing Khmer monument to survive in present-day Thailand. Started around 1000 ce and architecturally representing an early transition between the Baphuon and the Angkor Wat styles, the site was probably associated with Buddhism before this date, as attested by the incorporation of a stone inscribed in Sanskrit [K. 1000], dating from the eighth century and mentioning a statue ofthe Buddha (muniràj)in the masonry ofthe first gallery (Dagens 1988, 18). Phimai once contained a large amount of Buddhist tantric imagery,59 most significantly a figure of Vajrasattva surrounded by a profusion of Brahmanical iconography and an image of Trailokyavijaya (“conqueror of the three worlds”), who, in a Khmer inscription [K. 397] of 1110 ce, is described as the general (senàpati) of the kamrate¡ jagat of Vimàya.60 This use of military terminology fits the tantric and exorcistic context quite nicely. The temple still boasts fine Buddhist scenes on the lintels of the sanctuary, including the first known Khmer Buddha in bhùmispar8amudrà(Boisselier 1966, 274). Banteay Samre and Beng Mealea, both Buddhist foundations dating from the early to mid-twelfth century, are similar to Phimai in structure and iconographical arrangement. Erected during the reign of Sùryavarman II, at about the same time that the great VaiU¢ava temple of Angkor Wat was being constructed, both have a central tower adorned with Buddhist imagery surrounded by VaiU¢ava structures and devices. These caused problems for earlier investigators who tended to misidentify the small number of Buddha figures on the lintels of Beng Mealea, concluding that the temple must have been exclusively Brahmanical.61 As Boisselier (1952–1954, 218) sagely notes, the iconography of Beng Mealea and Banteay Samre is su‹ciently problematic to make it di‹cult to form any clear hypothesis about the type of cult practiced there, but, given the obvious parallels with Phimai, the most likely explanation is that they were all conceived as three-dimensional ma¢qalas,instantiating elaborate Mahayana Buddhist-dominated pantheons arranged to provide a religio-military protective function in accord with the prevailing tantric mood. When we turn to the reign of the greatest Angkorian king, Jayavarman VII (r. 1181–c. 1220), we shall
have more evidence at our disposal to indicate how Mahayana Buddhism performed this apotropaic role.
