Cambodia either stays Hindu, or reverts to Hinduism

[TheWitheredStriker]

The Khmer Empire fascinates me for several reasons. It was a highly prosperous and deeply developed empire, invented the first modern healthcare system, was larger than the Eastern Roman Empire, and remained Hindu in an era where basically all of its neighbours were Buddhist, being the only non-Austronesian Hindu state on the Southeast Asian mainland. Well, until the 13th century anyway, when it converted to Buddhism. This is actually seen by many researchers as a major cause of its decline. Quoting the much-maligned Wikipedia:

Historians suspect a connection with the kings' adoption of Theravada Buddhism: the kings were no longer considered devarajas (god kings) and there was therefore no need to erect huge temples to them, or rather to the gods under whose protection they stood. The retreat from the concept of the devaraja may also have led to a loss of royal authority and thereby to a lack of workers. The water-management apparatus also degenerated, meaning that harvests were reduced by floods or drought. While previously three rice harvests per year were possible – a substantial contribution to the prosperity and power of Kambuja – the declining harvests further weakened the empire.

With this in mind, I'm looking for a way to make modern-day Cambodia a Hindu kingdom. Buddhism either needs to never become the state religion, or the country should convert back to Hinduism.

For the former, I think we should do something with this guy. He seems to have been the last great Hindu king; he was succeeded by his idiot nephew, then by some better kings who adopted Buddhism, and then after that by another line of weak rulers until the Siamese sacked Angkor. From reading his page, he seems to have had multiple wives, but no one ever mentions children, so I cautiously assume that he was childless. Maybe he has a son too succeed him, who maintains Hinduism and keeps the empire in a good position?

The alternative option is for a reversion to Hinduism after Buddhism is imposed. I'm not sure how this could happen. Cambodia is quite far removed from the Hindu world at this point, with the only neighbouring Hindu polities of note being Majapahit and Sunda, who both keeled over and died in 1527 and 1579 respectively following century-long decline. I also don't seem to remember either of these two countries sending out missionaries. It's also worth mentioning that when this guy converted to Islam, his subjects rose up and ejected him from the throne, and the kings of Siam and Vietnam both planned military interventions. Theravada Buddhism seems to be very resistant to conversion, unlike its Mahayana counterpart.

All this said, how can Cambodia maintain or revert to Hinduism? And if the first option happens, could the decline of Angkor be avoided?

 

[Metempsychosis]

Theravada Buddhism seems to be very resistant to conversion, unlike its Mahayana counterpart.

Looking at Japan, I can say that that is manifestly untrue.

The thing about Hinduism and Buddhism is that the Dharmic religious atmosphere is far more... pluralistic, you could say, than the Abrahamic tradition of one God, before whom there is no other. The Hindu gods and heroes, the Buddhist bodhisattvas, and the spirits of native animism can all coexist pretty easily in the same Dharmic religious atmosphere, in a similar way to how ancient Rome had the Greek and Celtic and Syrian gods mixing together and coexisting with the ancient Italic numina and the newly deified emperors.

Honestly, I don't know enough about Cambodia's specifics, but I can say this: the devaraja idea might not have been a cause of the decline so much as an effect. As the kingdom declined, the divine luster might have faded, and religious favor might have turned from the god-kings of the Khmer to the Buddhist sanghas because of it, rather than as an effect of it.

 

[TheWitheredStriker]

Thank you for the response!

My remarks about the Buddhist schools were poorly worded in a hurry. I did not mean to imply that Mahayana Buddhism was not resistant to conversion at all. I did notice, however, that many historically Mahayana regions, like Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Maldives, converted to Islam, whereas most Theravada regions remained staunchly Buddhist. I also remember reading up on this with other althistorians (including on this board) making the same point.

Regardless, it doesn't particularly matter much. I appreciate your insight on the devaraja idea. The conversion to Buddhism is just one of multiple causes that historians pinpoint for the decline of the Khmer Empire.

 

[twovultures]

I think in order to develop a POD that will see Hinduism successfully fend off Buddhism in Cambodia, you need to understand what Cambodians found appealing about Buddhism (and make no mistake-the common people must have found the religion appealing, as you yourself have given examples of kings deposed for trying to force an unwanted religion on the people).

Having criticized Buddhist monasticism in a recent thread, I should be fair and balanced and give them some praise here. Despite being resource-intensive, monasteries provide vital services. They gather resources, yes, but can redistribute those resources to the most vulnerable-widows, orphans, the handicapped, the sick, etc-thus acting as a social safety net. They provide a life path for people who may not have another place in society, such as younger sons in elite families who risk getting out-competed for resources/inheritance. They can provide education and preserve knowledge, thus creating an educated class that is useful for the state. In supporting Buddhist institutions, the Cambodian kings were thus supporting social services for the most vulnerable, supporting themselves by providing resources to sustain a bureaucratic class, and supporting elites by giving them options in life that did not involve committing violence against other elites.

So the question becomes, how can a king who is still definitionally Hindu provide for these needs and services in the context of Cambodian Hinduism? Building a giant and pretty Hindu temple is all well and good, but for the person on the street, a more modest Buddhist monastery might be more impressive because it positively benefits their day-to-day life. If you interpret Sikhism as a Hindu Bakhti movement instead of its own religion, you start to see one way-Sikh langars provide food as an act of charity to the community. So basically, the kings supporting a Hindu movement that is big on charity and social services may allow them to push back against Buddhist evangelization.

 

[sarsenapati]

In supporting Buddhist institutions, the Cambodian kings were thus supporting social services for the most vulnerable, supporting themselves by providing resources to sustain a bureaucratic class, and supporting elites by giving them options in life that did not involve committing violence against other elites.

The first two of these you'd still get under a Hindu system - major temples operate a soup kitchen and run other charitable endeavours, and create a literate class, the Brahmins - who had a near monopoly on bureaucratic appointments throughout India even in some Muslim states like Hyderabad.

 

[cmakk1012]

Superficially, it sounds like the shift to Buddhism coincided with and may have been partially caused by ruler instability that was in turn caused by the failure of Khmer-Cham war under Suryavarman II. The Cham became a major thorn in the side of the kingdom, raiding and burning down cities and so on, although the wars were begun by Khmer’s ambition. The solution here might be to either have Suryavarman decisively beat the Cham or not start the war at all.