著者

村嶋 英治

出版者

早稲田大学アジア太平洋研究センター

雑誌

アジア太平洋討究 (ISSN:1347149X)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.47, pp.49-72, 2023-12-15 (Released:2023-12-21)

---

Today, Thai Buddhism is commonly referred to as Theravada (Thai pronunciation: Thērawāt) Buddhism. This is because the Buddhism that is practiced today in Sri Lanka and mainland Southeast Asia, which is based on Pali Buddhist scriptures, originated in Ceylon in the 3rd century BC and was established around the 5th century by Buddhaghosa and others in the Mahavihara Order, which is a Theravada lineage.However, it does not seem to be long ago that Thai Buddhists began calling themselves Theravada Buddhists.It was not until the second half of the 20th century that the term Theravada Buddhism became widely used to refer to Thai Buddhism.Before that, the name Hinayana Buddhism was widely used. At the Cabinet meeting on 13 January1930, King Rama VII (Prajadhipok) described Thailand’s state religion as Hinayana Buddhism. However, “Hinayana Buddhism” is a derogatory name from Mahayana Buddhism. The Thai dictionary published by the Thai Ministry of Education in 1928 also clearly states that Hinayana Buddhism is a derogatory term.So, why and when did Thailand begin to call itself Hinayana Buddhist country?It is believed that the major impetus for this was King Rama V (Chulalongkorn)’s use of “Hinayana Buddhism”, which he borrowed from A Short History of the Twelve Japanese Buddhist Sects published in English by Japanese Mahayana Buddhists in 1886. In June 1900, a large group of Japanese Buddhist delegation in order to receive Buddha relics visited Thailand and donated the above- mentioned book to King Rama V. The king read the book closely with great interest, and in 1904, based on the knowledge he gained from the book and other sources, he gave the treatise of “Comparison of Hinayana Buddhism and Mahayana Buddhism” in letters to the high royalty. Since the king himself adopted the concept of Hinayana Buddhism to Thai Buddhism, it is believed that this was the beginning of the widespread use of the term Hinayana Buddhism by Thai intellectuals.On the other hand, it was around 1930 that the term Theravada Buddhism began to be used in Thailand in parallel with Hinayana Buddhism.Thailand is a multi-ethnic country, with Annamese people (overseas Vietnamese) and overseas Chinese living there, and their temples of Mahayana Buddhism have existed in the Bangkok area since at least the late 18th century. Both King Rama IV (King Mongkut) and Rama V (King Chulalongkorn) incorporated meritorious ceremonies (Kong Teck) performed by Annam monks at the funerals of important royal family members . Furthermore, King Rama V recognized the Annamese Mahayana Nikāya (Anam Nikāi) in 1878 and the Chinese Mahayana Nikāya (Chin Nikāi) in 1880. However, the king’s treatment of monks differed greatly between Mahayana and Theravada Buddhist monks. Annamese and Chinese monks were required to bow to the king. The Theravada monks, on the other hand, were to be worshipped by the king.Around 1930, interest in Mahayana scriptures arose in Thailand.The pioneering translation of Mahayana scriptures into Thai is thought to be the translation of the Amitabha Sutra (Kumarajiva’s version) by the Minister of Public Instruction (Education), Prince Dhani Nivat. Dhani translated the Amitabha Sutra from the English text, which he had obtained during his visit to Kyoto in November 1926, into Thai and published it in 1928. The Royal Thai Academy published a Thai translation of W. Woodville Rockhill’s Life of the Buddha, translated from Tibetan into English, in 1932, and a Thai translation of Dr S.Lefmann’s Sanskrit version of Lalita Vistara in the following year.

著者

村嶋 英治

雑誌

アジア太平洋討究 (ISSN:1347149X)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.4, pp.33-47, 2002-03

著者

村嶋 英治

出版者

早稲田大学アジア太平洋研究センター

雑誌

アジア太平洋討究 (ISSN:1347149X)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.43, pp.277-344, 2022-02-28 (Released:2022-03-24)

著者

村嶋 英治

出版者

早稲田大学アジア太平洋研究センター

雑誌

研究資料シリーズ (ISSN:21851301)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.7, pp.1-187, 2017-03-31

著者

村嶋 英治

出版者

早稲田大学アジア太平洋研究センター出版・編集委員会

雑誌

アジア太平洋討究 (ISSN:1347149X)

巻号頁・発行日

no.1, pp.141-162, 2000-01

著者

村嶋 英治

出版者

早稲田大学アジア太平洋研究センター

雑誌

アジア太平洋討究 (ISSN:1347149X)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.42, pp.21-37, 2021-10-30 (Released:2022-03-08)

---

Khruba Srivichai (11 June 1878–21 February 1939) was a legendary monk in Lanna Thai. Both Thai and foreign scholars have studied his life. Among them, the works of Katherine A. Bowie are most numerous.In most of her works on Khruba Srivichai, she has relied only on articles from one English-language newspaper, the Bangkok Times, as her main sources. She connects directly such general information in those articles with the particular and individual events of Srivichai. For example, in “Of Buddhism and Militarism in Northern Thailand: Solving the Puzzle of the Saint Khruubaa Srivichai,” Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 73 No. 3, August 2014, she says the enforcement of the Military Conscription Act caused young men to escape into Buddhist temples. However she fails to show any concrete cases of young men who escaped into Srivichai’s temple. It seems that she made her own story without knowledge of the concrete facts and evidence.Moreover, she mistakenly mixed up King Vajiravudh’s royal coronation ceremony (Rachapisek) day and his coronation anniversary (Chatramongkhon) day.Srivichai did not decorate his wat with illuminations and did not beat a gong on the day of the royal coronation ceremony in spite of the order of the district officer. King Vajiravudh had two coronation ceremonies. The first one took place on 11 November 1910; the second one was held on 2 December 1911. After 1912, the coronation anniversary was celebrated on the 11th of November ever year during his reign.Srivichiai’s disobedience of the district officer’s order occurred on Rachapisek day (either in Nov. 1910 or Dec. 1911) as is mentioned in the original Thai statement of Sangha (Thalaengkan Khanasong, Vol. 8 no. 5, 1920). However Bowie understood incorrectly that it occurred on a Chatramongkhon day, that it was on “King Rama Ⅵ’s coronation anniversary” around 1919 (the above mentioned Bowie paper, pp. 716–717). Therefore she says, “Srivichai appears to have first run afoul of officialdom in about 1915; this date corresponds closely with the period in which these two acts [the Ordination Act of 1913 and the enforcement of Militarily Conscription Act in Monthon Phayab in April 1914] were being implemented.” (ibid., p. 714). She completely misunderstood the chronological order of events.Confrontation between Srivichai and local officialdom had occurred by December 1911 at the latest, not as late as around 1915 as she argued.In addition she says that the 1902 Sangha Act “was not enforced in Monthon Phayab—as these northern provinces were then called—until 1924.” (ibid., p. 713). However, plenty of evidence exists to support that the Sangha Act was enforced in northern Siam in the 1910s. The official proclamation of enforcement of the Act in northern Siam on 6 September 1924 was made only after the implementation was completed.In the last part of this paper, I will confirm Khruba Srivichai’s date of death as 21 February 1939 relying on Chinese, Thai and English-language newspaper articles that reported on his demise.

著者

村嶋 英治

出版者

早稲田大学アジア太平洋研究センター

雑誌

アジア太平洋討究 (ISSN:1347149X)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.29, pp.141-221, 2017-10-31

著者

村嶋 英治 鄭 成

出版者

早稲田大学アジア太平洋研究センター

雑誌

WIAPSリサーチ・シリーズ (ISSN:2185131X)

巻号頁・発行日

no.1, pp.1-241, 2012-12-15

著者

村嶋 英治

出版者

早稲田大学アジア太平洋研究センター

雑誌

アジア太平洋討究 (ISSN:1347149X)

巻号頁・発行日

no.29, pp.141-221, 2017-10

著者

村嶋 英治

出版者

タイ国日本人会

雑誌

クルンテ-プ

巻号頁・発行日

vol.18, no.512, pp.18-23, 2010-09

著者

村嶋 英治

出版者

早稲田大学アジア太平洋研究センター

雑誌

アジア太平洋討究 (ISSN:1347149X)

巻号頁・発行日

no.26, pp.157-223, 2016-03

著者

村嶋 英治

出版者

早稲田大学アジア太平洋研究センター

雑誌

アジア太平洋討究 (ISSN:1347149X)

巻号頁・発行日

no.27, pp.13-59, 2016-10

著者

村嶋 英治

雑誌

アジア太平洋討究 (ISSN:1347149X)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.1, pp.141-162, 2000-01

著者

村嶋 英治

出版者

日本政治学会

雑誌

年報政治学 (ISSN:05494192)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.40, pp.159-186, 1990-03-29 (Released:2009-12-21)

著者

村嶋 英治

出版者

早稲田大学アジア太平洋研究センター

雑誌

アジア太平洋討究 (ISSN:1347149X)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.43, pp.215-257, 2022-02-28 (Released:2022-03-24)

---

“Authentic” relics of the Buddha have the potentiality to become a common object of worship and symbol of all Buddhists regardless of Theravada, Mahayana or Tibetan Buddhism.The Buddha relics excavated in Piprahwa in India in January 1898 were offered by the British India Government to King Chulalongkorn, the sole existing Buddhist monarch. He did not accept them immediately, doing so only after careful consideration.The King distributed a portion of the relics to Russian Buddhists in August 1899, and then to Burmese and Ceylonese monks on 9 January 1900.Inagaki Manjiro, a devout Zen Buddhist and the first Japanese Minister in Siam, fully understood the importance of the relics for forming a unity of the different Buddhists both in Japan and Asia. Without any instructions from Foreign Minister Aoki Shuzo in Tokyo, Inagaki petitioned the King requesting a portion of the relics for the Japanese. Ishikawa Shuntai, the top administrator of the Otani sect of Shin Buddhism, responded favorably to Inagaki’s proposal. Ishikawa envisioned including the relics in his own magnificent plan to build a world Buddhist center in front of the Imperial Palace in Tokyo.A Japanese Buddhist mission (chief representative: Otani Koen of the Otani sect) had an audience with King Chulalongkorn on 14 June 1900 and received the relics the next day from Chaophraya Pasakorawong, Minister of Public Instruction.Ishikawa asked the Thai government to send some Thai monks for the ceremony to lay the cornerstone of his world Buddhist center in Tokyo. However the Thai government did not cooperate because they were not so enthusiastic about Buddhist unity as were Ishikawa and Inagaki.

著者

村嶋 英治

出版者

早稲田大学アジア太平洋研究センター

雑誌

アジア太平洋討究 (ISSN:1347149X)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.44, pp.1-50, 2022-03-24 (Released:2022-03-29)

---

Shaku Sōen (1860–1919), who is famous for introducing Zen to the West along with his disciple D.T. Suzuki, arrived in Galle, Ceylon, in April 1887, where he was ordained as Samanera and learned the Pali language from Kodagoda Pannasekhara under the patronage of Edmund Rowland J. Gooneratne (1845–1914).Disenchanted with Buddhism in the Western colonies, Sōen turned to the “genuine Buddhism” of independent Siam, where the king was a patron of Buddhism, especially the Dhammayut Order.In July 1889, he came to Bangkok from Ceylon, almost penniless, to be ordained fully as Bhikkhu in the Dhammayut Order. However Prince Vajirananavarorasa (Wachirayana Warorot, 1860–1921), the Vice President of the Dhammayut Order dismissed Sōen coldly. He did not give Sōen the opportunity to be ordained in the Dhammayut Order.Why did Sōen want to choose the Dhammayut Order in Siam? Where did he get the knowledge of the Dhammayut? Sōen himself did not say anything about these points.In fact, his aspiration to the Dhammayut Order was based on his teachers, Kodagoda Pannasekhara (พระปัญญาเสขร) and Bulatgama Sumana (Bulatgama Sumanatissa, พระศิริสุมนะติสสะ).Bulatgama Sumana, a close friend of King Mongkut (Founder of Dhammayut Order) was the central leader of the Buddhist revival movement in Ceylon in the mid-19th century. Bulatgama Sumana and Kodagoda Pannasekhara visited Siam in May–June 1886 with the far-reaching intention of reforming and reviving Buddhism in order to unify the divided Ceylonese Buddhist community by introducing the Dhammayut Order under the patronage of the King of Siam.Bulatgama Sumana was ordained as a monk of the Dhammayut Order in a boat on the Chao Phraya River on the night of June 5, 1886.They received a promise of support from the King Chulalongkorn, and was also authorized to be the sole contact persons for the introduction of the Dhammayut Order in Ceylon. Vajirananavarorasa, the Vice President of the the Dhammayut Order agreed that all those who wished to enter the Siamese Dhammayut Order from Ceylon must have a letter of introduction from Bulatgama Sumana or Kodagoda Pannasekhara.In accordance with the agreement, Sōen came to Thailand with a letter of introduction of Kodagoda Pannasekhara. Therefore His visit to Siam should have been welcomed and not expected to be treated unkindly.This paper is the first to make the agreement in 1886 between Bulatgama Sumana, Kodagoda Pannasekhara as one party and King Chulalongkorn, Vajirananavarorasa as other party reveal on the basis of Thai materials; The Journal of the Fifth King’s Royal Events, Part 21 published in 1946 and the unpublished diary of Prince Sommot.In Anne M. Blackburn’s Locations of Buddhism: colonialism and modernity in Sri Lanka(University of Chicago Press, 2010), she examines the modern interactions between Ceylon and the Theravada Buddhist countries of Southeast Asia with the cooperation of Craig Reynolds, an expert in the history of modern Thai Buddhism, but she has completely overlooked these facts.Bulatgama Sumana is generally believed to have been born in 1795, but according to Thai sources he was 74 years old and the period of ordination was 53 years (Buddhist Lent) in June 1886.

著者

村嶋 英治

出版者

早稲田大学アジア太平洋研究センター

雑誌

アジア太平洋討究 (ISSN:1347149X)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.43, pp.215-257, 2022-02-28

著者

村嶋 英治

出版者

早稲田大学アジア太平洋研究センター

雑誌

アジア太平洋討究 (ISSN:1347149X)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.42, pp.39-106, 2021-10-30 (Released:2022-03-08)

---

Both Higashi Honganji (Otani) sect and Nishi Honganji sect of Shin Buddhism in Japan started to send their preachers to the interior of south China in the late 1890s. By getting the announcement of permission by local authorities in Fujian province, both sects of preachers hired the local Chinese as directors (董事) to persuade Chinese inhabitants to participate in their sects. Accordingly they succeed in increasing the number of Chinese participants rapidly. However the main purpose of Chinese particpants who were living in unstable and disorder areas, was not faith in Japanese Buddhism, but the expectation of protection by Japanse preachers and Japanese government. They paid large sums of money to Japanese preachers and Chinese directors in order to become members.In the late year of 1904, Chinese central government started to suppress Japanese Budhhist preachers in the inner south China in the midist of burgeoning Chinese nationalism. Japanese preachers faced difficulties.Some of them, such as Takeda Ekyo of Otani sect in Amoy (Xiamen), Miyamoto Eiryu of Nishi Honganji sect in Swatow (Shantou) moved to Siam in 1907 in search of overseas Chinese who were immigrants from south China. Siamese Minister of Interior, Prince Damrong declined to write a letter of introduction to local authorities, but allowed Japanese Buddhist propagation by citing the freedom of religion in Siam. Japanese preachers used the same method employed in south China to propagate Japanese Buddhism. They hired the local Chinese dirctors and advertised Japanese protection as saling point to persuade overseas Chinese, who have no one to rely on in Siam. They succeeded to gain a large number of participants and to collect a good amount of cash.These Japanese activities were known to King Chulalongkorn (Rama Ⅴ) in February 1908. He ordered to extinguish Japanese Buddhist propagation as he was suspicious that the Japanese would gain the support of oversea Chinese contray to Siamese interest. Within one year and half Japanese Buddhist propagation in Siam was exterminated.

著者

村嶋 英治

出版者

早稲田大學アジア太平洋研究センター

雑誌

アジア太平洋討究 (ISSN:1347149X)

巻号頁・発行日

no.11, pp.85-121, 2008-10

著者

村嶋 英治

出版者

早稲田大学アジア太平洋研究センター出版・編集委員会

雑誌

アジア太平洋討究 (ISSN:1347149X)

巻号頁・発行日

no.7, pp.27-59, 2005-05