113 Chapter Three Three Royal Wats and The
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
CHAPTER THREE THREE ROYAL WATS AND THE RECOVERY OF COSMOLOGICAL CENTER IN THE REIGNS OF RAMA I-III (1782-1851) Introduction In the previous chapter, the present conditions, contradictions and conflicts of three royal wats involved in urban preservation and planning schemes were elucidated. To understand the various forces that gave rise to the current architectural conditions and social contexts of these specific royal wats, it is necessary to delve deeper into the history and role of the royal monastery in Bangkok. This chapter aims to illustrate how royal wats in the pre-modern period functioned within Siamese semi-feudal structures and to discuss how their roles began to change in the modern period. Moreover, this chapter will also demonstrate how these changes affected each of the three royal wats specifically. It has often been stated by historians of Thailand that the construction of Bangkok beginning in 1782 was based on an Ayutthayan prototype. Drawing on archival resources, scholars such as Wyatt66 and Aasen67 have shown that one of the main goals of early Chakri kings was to reconstruct the glory of Ayutthaya before its defeat by the Burmese in 1767. Indeed, as we shall see in this chapter, monarchs of the Chakri dynasty did look to Ayutthaya in constructing the new city. For instance, they used the major place names from Ayutthaya for royal monastic complexes and palaces. Nevertheless, the discourse of Bangkok’s continuity with Ayutthaya tends to obscure a much more complex reality of discontinuities. Here we must consider that the Chakri dynasty faced a 66 David K. Wyatt, Thailand: A Short History (Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books, 1984), 147, citing Latthithamniam tangtang (Customs and Practices), 2 vols. (Bangkok: 1961-62), 495-496. 67 Clarence Aasen, Architecture of Siam: a cultural history interpretation (Kuala Lumpur and New York: Oxford University Press, 1998). There are other scholars from both Thai and English sources mentioning this point. 113 range of new political and economic challenges not only from without but also from within. In term of exogenous forces, the Chakri dynasts of this period faced transformations in their trade relations with China and the increasing influence of colonial powers. Synchronously, in terms of indigenous pressures, the rulers had to reconsolidate manpower to rebuild the city while at the same time negotiating intra-court tensions and rivalries with those who sought the throne. Most of these transformations and conflicts manifested themselves in the spatial and symbolic arrangement of the new urban landscape of Bangkok. During the first three reigns, Bangkok’s Chakri rulers used both monastic complexes and urban spaces as a means to shore up their political legitimacy among the populace, and as a tool in intra-court competition and rivalries for the throne. Behind the trope of continuity with Ayutthaya, therefore, is a complex history of how religious symbolism and the urban built landscape reflect the changing contours of political power. During the reigns of King Rama I and II, the discourse of continuity with the glory of Ayutthaya obscures the underlying fact that what was being reconstructed was a manpower system. Royal wats were not only sites of religious legitimation via continuity with the glory of the previous empire, but also a means of consolidating manpower and resettlement. Secondly, the idea of continuity also obscures extent to which ideas of Buddhist enlightenment and rationalization were affecting the Chakri dynasty’s self- perception, leading eventually to reforms and the marginalization of “animist” and Brahmin elements. Scholars such as Wyatt, Reynolds and Tambiah68 have discussed these transformations, but this chapter focuses on how these changes manifested in royal 68 David K. Wyatt, “The “Subtle Revolution” of King Rama I of Siam,” in Studies in Thai History (Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books, 1994), 131-172; Craig J. Raynolds, “The Buddhist Monkhood in Nineteenth Century Thailand” (Ph.D. Dissertation, Cornell University, 1972); Stanley Tambiah, World Conqueror, World Renouncer: A study of Buddhism, and polity in Thailand against an historical background (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1976). 114 monastic complexes and the built environment. As we shall see, elements considered Hindu or animist were in some cases eliminated or downplayed. Thirdly, the Sinified architectural motifs of King Rama III reflected his alliance with the Chinese in the lucrative tributary trade. This pattern changed in the King Rama IV (Mongkut) period. The reign of Rama III demonstrates how monastic architecture became an arena of contestation among rival political groups. In particular, the definition of holy space or sima was manipulated and became a significant apparatus for the future of the reform movement that established Prince Mongkut’s strong political base. The concept of kingship in the Bangkok period also reflected discontinuities. In contrast to the Ayutthaya period, when monarchs embodied the figure of a remote god-king or devaraja, during the Bangkok period monarchs shifted to embodying the ideal of a dharmaraja, or righteous Buddhist king. They achieved this transformation in part by concentrating more on Buddhist religious affairs, and also in part by increasing their external relations. For instance, in the King Rama III period, the monarch offered support for Buddhist education and monastic complex renovation to compensate for his lack of legitimacy, and in the process he brought Chinese craftsmanship to Bangkok monastic architecture. Synchronously, Buddhist purification was conducted by a prominent monk Prince Mongkut, and Sri Lankan and Mon practices were implemented in his royal wats. The Political Context of State& Religion from the Reign of Rama I to Rama III (r.1782-1851) Reconstructing the Buddhist Cosmological Center (RamaI-II, r.1782-1824) Army general Somdet Chao Phraya Mahakasatsuek was crowned in 1782 as King Borommaracha Ramathibodi (Rama I) after he subdued the riot in Thonburi and executed the former ruler, King Taksin, on the grounds of his insanity. The new king then moved capital city from Thonburi to the east bank of the Chao Phraya River, which was called Bangkok (the Village of Water Olives). Unlike his predecessor, King Rama I and his 115 supporters joined forces to revive the glory of Ayutthaya, the former capital city which was sacked by the Burmese in 1767. In the traditional practice of constructing cities in mainland Southeast Asia, building a new city signified the establishment of a Buddhist cosmological center. Rather than building an entirely new city, however, urban architecture sought to create the continuity with the great Buddhist kingdoms of the past. In the case of capital city of Bangkok, its full name is comprised of several auspicious names such as Rattanakosin, meaning Lord Indra’s gems; and Ayutthaya, the heavenly city of Lord Rama69, while its founder was proclaimed as the king of Ayutthaya70. In a similar pattern, Ayutthaya’s full name includes Dvaravati, a reference to the ancient Mon Buddhist Kingdom. By inheriting the legacy of Ayutthaya, Bangkok sought to reconnect to other Buddhist ancient kingdoms. Most royal constructions in the early stage of Bangkok’s establishment bore the trace of important places in Ayutthaya. Thirty-two wats existed in the vicinity before the foundation of Bangkok71. With its establishment, fifteen of them were renovated, including four existing monastic complexes inside the city wall, six outside the wall, and five in the Thonburi area across the river72. Of these, four of the newly renovated monastic complexes, the three inside the city wall and one outside the wall, were given place names associated with Ayutthaya. These include Wat Mahathat (the monastic complex of the Lord Buddha Relics), Wat Phrasisanphet (the royal Buddhist shrine complex inside the Grand Palace which later on was renamed Wat 69 Bangkok’s full name is “Krungthep Mahanakhon Amonrattanakosin Mahinthara Ayutthaya Mahadilok Phopnoppharat Ratchathani Burirom Udomniwet Mahasathan Amonphiman Avatansathit Sakkayawitsanukramprasit.” 70 Narinthrathewi, Princess, Chotmai khwamsongcham khong Phrachao Paiyikathoe Krommaluang Narinthrathewi (Chao Khrok Wat Pho): tangtae Cho. So. 1129-1182 phen wela 53 pi (Chronicle from Memoir of Princess Narinthrathēwī from 1782-1815 or 53 years) (Bangkok: Samnakphim Ton Chabap, 2003), 165. 71 Nængnoi Saksi, Ongprakop thang kaiyaphap Krung Rattanakosin (Physical composition of Rattanakosin City) (Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University, 1991), 54. 72 Ibid., 58. 116 Phrasirattanasatsadaram), Wat Sraket with Khlong Mahanak (the name of canal near Golden Mountain Pagodas outside the city wall of Ayutthaya) and Wat Suthat (the grand monastic complex at the central point of the city similar to those at Sukhothai and Ayutthaya). In fact, the discourse about the revival of Ayutthaya was still evident during King Rama III’s reign, as that king lamented the loss of Ayutthaya, the great heavenly city, and declared his intention to embellish Bangkok by emulating the glory of the previous capital city73 (see Map 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3). Moreover, after the establishment of Bangkok, the salvage of Lord Buddha statues from the ruined monastic complexes all over Siam’s principalities was one of the earliest orders of King Rama I. He is credited with transporting nearly 1,250 Buddha statues to Bangkok, restoring them, and redistributing them to several newly renovated monastic complexes within the new capital city74. In addition, the Lord Buddha relics were also transported to Bangkok from several principalities such as Nan75. This endeavor of the massive transportation of Buddha images could be seen as the king’s desire to assert Bangkok’s status as a new Buddhist center and re-affirm the role of its ruler as a great and righteous king who upholds the Buddhist religion as other great monarchs had in the past76. Monastic complexes housing these images connected Bangkok symbolically to other cities in Buddhist legend. 73 Damrongrajanuphap, Prince, Munhet haeng kansang wat nai Prathet Thai (Rationale for the construction of monastic complex in Thailand) (Bangkok: Rongphim Krom Uthokkasat, 1956), 153.