Daniel M. Veidlinger. Spreading the Dhamma: Writing, Orality, and Textual Transmission in Buddhist Northern Thailand. Southeast Asia: Politics, Meaning, Memory Series. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2006. 259 pp. $52.00, cloth, ISBN 978-0-8248-3024-3.

Reviewed by DC Lammerts

Published on H-Buddhism (May, 2011)

Commissioned by Thomas Borchert (University of Vermont)

Recent years have been fortunate to witness a discursive, and ritual lives are worthy of study in gradual intensifcation of academic interest in the their own right. Pali and vernacular Buddhist manuscript cultures A major recent contribution to this burgeon‐ of Southeast Asia.[1] Scholars of the region have ing feld of Southeast Asian Buddhist manuscript increasingly begun to draw on the careful study studies, and to the history of Buddhist engage‐ of manuscripts to inform a variety of projects in ments with textuality more generally, is Daniel M. Buddhist cultural and literary history, anthropolo‐ Veidlinger’s important frst book Spreading the gy, codicology, and philology.[2] In case there was Dhamma, based on his doctoral dissertation for any doubt, such scholarship has laid bare the rich the Department of South Asian Languages and analytical possibilities of engaging with Civilizations at the University of Chicago (2002). manuscripts as more than simply vehicles for the While the book has much to ofer as a history of conveyance of texts. Gone are the days when premodern manuscript culture in the Northern Burmese or Cambodian manuscripts were of val‐ Thai polity of Lan Na over the longue durée from ue to Buddhist studies only insofar as they served the fourteenth through nineteenth centuries, Vei‐ as the basis for critical Pali editions or transla‐ dlinger’s discussions are directed by a broader set tions into European languages. Informed by and of ambitious questions concerning the develop‐ occasionally in conversation with scholarship on ment and function of literacy and its relationship the manuscript cultures of insular Southeast Asia, to orality and the transmission of Buddhism and India, medieval Europe, and the Middle East, this Buddhist texts in the region. Specifcally, Spread‐ new work suggests the promise and importance ing the Dhamma is interested in investigating “the of taking manuscripts seriously as complex mate‐ forms in which [premodern Buddhists in Lan Na] rial, textual, and aesthetic objects whose social, actually encountered [Buddhist texts] and ... how these experiences might have afected the way H-Net Reviews they construed and practiced their religion.” A 1420-1500). (It should be noted here that aside further and related aim is “to assess the attitudes from briefy mentioning that “it is difcult to as‐ that diferent sectors of society held regarding sign an accurate date” to these chronicles [p. 66], orality and writing during the periods under Veidlinger does not delineate the codicological, study” (p. 4). These investigations unfold in the text-critical, or philological problems that lurk be‐ context of the book’s central historical thesis, that hind their attributions [or indeed those of any of over the course of the fourteenth to the nine‐ the other textual sources utilized in the study]. He teenth centuries Lan Na witnessed a rise, decline, appears to accept as reliable their published ver‐ and fnally a renaissance of literate Buddhist cul‐ sions and the dates assigned to them by other ture. scholars, although he does not explain why doing Veidlinger’s introduction sets forth the so is justifed. Given that so much of his ensuing methodological and theoretical parameters of the argument hangs on the fact that certain chroni‐ study, arguing for the relevance of recent media cles were written by certain individuals at certain and literacy theory (drawing on the work of Mar‐ times, this failure to explicitly address fundamen‐ shall McLuhan, Ruth Finnegan, Jack Goody, Wal‐ tal questions concerning textual compilation, ter Ong, and others) in approaches to premodern transmission, and variation constitutes a crucial Buddhist manuscript and textual culture. He then limitation of the study.) discusses the impressive array of Pali and vernac‐ To what extent was the early spread of Bud‐ ular primary sources used for the project, which dhism in Northern Thailand dependent on the cir‐ comprise an extensive range of published North‐ culation of written Buddhist texts? In chapter 1, ern Thai and Tai chronicles (including material “Monks and Memory: The Oral World,” Veidlinger written both in Lan Na proper and further afeld argues that fragmentary epigraphic evidence dat‐ in Nan and the Tai Khoen region centered at Chi‐ ed to the seventh through thirteenth centuries CE ang Tung in present-day Burma); colophons of suggests that the Mon, whose culture in Thailand surviving manuscripts produced in Lan Na; and predates the attested emergence of Tai-speaking epigraphic texts, artifacts, and archaeological communities by over half a millennium, may data. have been in possession of written Buddhist texts Chapters 1-3 are devoted in large part to a (including a “golden Tipitaka” [p. 39]) and may close reading of the chronicles to explore the sta‐ have placed a relatively high value on writing. tus of literacy and rise of written texts in the Bud‐ However, judging from chronicle accounts, in‐ dhist culture of Lan Na prior to the inauguration scriptions, and a lack of manuscript evidence, ear‐ of two centuries of Burmese suzerainty over the ly Tai civilization in the North between the thir‐ region from 1558 CE. Here, four chronicles are teenth and mid-ffteenth centuries did not share particularly important: two in Pali, Camade‐ similar ideas about literacy, and was character‐ vivamsa (Legend of Queen Cama [CDV], attributed ized by a predominantly oral encounter with Bud‐ to c. 1410 CE [1998]) and Jinakalamali (Sheaf of dhism. Garlands of the Epochs of the Conqueror [JKM], c. The evidence and argumentation marshaled 1528 [1968]); and two in the vernacular, Tamnan to support the latter claim in chapters 2 and 3 are Mulasasana Wat Pa Daeng (Chronicle of the Red fairly complex. In chapter 2, “Early Thai Encoun‐ Forest Monastery [TPD], in Tai Khoen, date un‐ ters with Orality and Literacy,” Veidlinger shows known [1968]) and Tamnan Mulasasana Wat that the earliest surviving Northern Thai chroni‐ Suan Dok (Chronicle of the Flower Garden cles have very little to say about the importance Monastery [MS], in Tai Yuan [or Northern Thai], c. of writing in Lan Na before the late ffteenth cen‐

2 H-Net Reviews tury and narrate the arrival of Buddhism in the “Pali culture in Lan Na reached its zenith” (p. 82). region in terms which indicate that only the oral Veidlinger suggests the provocative hypothesis transmission of texts occurred at the hands of that one of the reasons why Lan Na kings might bhanakas (reciters of scripture) and tipitakad‐ have been interested in the “new technology of haras (monks who had memorized the scriptures writing” profered by the arannavasis is because and communicated them without textual support; it allowed them a greater degree of “legitimizing” though it could be argued that such individuals Buddhist authority and control over scripture (pp. memorized written texts, as is the case with 97-98). By sponsoring the copying of written texts, monks attempting to become tipitakadharas in kings could involve themselves more essentially modern Burma). Veidlinger admits that writing in the patronage and dissemination of the dham‐ would not have been entirely unknown during ma, which had previously been the sole preroga‐ this period, but maintains that its use was signif‐ tives of bhanakas. The earlier fraternities that up‐ cantly restricted and had only negligible impact held the oral tradition would have perceived the on Buddhist learning or culture. arannavasi promotion of writing as a threat, and Veidlinger documents a gradual shift in per‐ Veidlinger suggests that controversies over the ceptions of Buddhist literacy in the slightly later status of writing may have been integral to inter- chronicles, JKM and TPD, which allows him to ar‐ monastic rivalry and competition of the time. gue that from the late ffteenth century Buddhist Veidlinger is aware that taking these chroni‐ texts were becoming increasingly available and cles as evidence for this historical shift in literary important to certain monastic communities in mentalities and practices invites the criticism, of‐ Lan Na. What was responsible for this shift? In ten levied against indigenous historiography chapter 3, “Golden Age, Golden Images, and Gold‐ throughout Southeast Asia, that chronicles simply en Leaves,” Veidlinger shows that the JKM and cannot be used as documentary sources in this TPD were composed by members of a new “forest- way since they were written not to record factual dwelling” (arannavasi) lineage that arose in the events but to present specifc arguments used to mid-ffteenth century. Their compilers belonged articulate the authenticity and prestige of monas‐ to a fraternity traced to a group of monks led by tic or (in the case of royal chronicles) royal lin‐ Nanagambhira who had studied and received re‐ eages. He refers to certain chronicles or narra‐ ordination in Lanka in the 1420s and subsequent‐ tives that can be used as historical sources as “se‐ ly disseminated this ordination throughout Lan rious” or “scholarly” while others are dismissed Na. Unlike the earlier lineages present in Lan Na-- as “fanciful tales” (pp. 12-13). The former seek to the “Flower Garden” lineage centered on Wat “avoid egregious anachronism” while the latter Suan Dok (of which the compiler of the MS was a are “not bothered by such considerations” (p. member) and the putative (and perhaps Mon-afl‐ 177). But can we so readily distinguish between iated) “City Dwelling” (nagaravasi) order of the the “historical accuracy” of some chronicles and CDV’s author--this new arannavasi fraternity the depiction of only a “legendary past” in other placed a higher value on the written word. Ac‐ works (p. 185)? Given that so much explanatory cording to Veidlinger, their views regarding the weight is placed on the testimony of chronicles, importance of written texts were perhaps bor‐ readers may have benefted from a more critical rowed from Lanka where writing played a more discussion of their reliability. pronounced role in religious activity. Gradually Veidlinger seeks to preempt this criticism this new fraternity garnered royal patronage and through a survey of roughly contemporary epi‐ support from King Tilaka (r. 1441-87), and under graphic and manuscript sources from Lan Na that his grandson King Bilakapattanu (r. 1495-1526),

3 H-Net Reviews corroborate the chronicles’ depiction of the “am‐ spite numerous inscriptional references to li‐ bivalent attitudes towards writing” that prevailed braries and the making and donation of in Lan Na before the rise of the arannavasis (p. manuscripts on a variety of textual supports (met‐ 63). Although the distinctively Lan Na (Dhamma al, mulberry paper, slate, palm-leaf, etc.) during or Tua Muang) script makes its appearance in the period c. 1200-1600, no surviving manuscripts epigraphy only in the mid-ffteenth century, there (including ornamental “tamarind-seed” kam‐ are Northern Thai inscriptions found in Lamphun mavaca manuscripts [p. 115]) have been securely and Phrae written in versions of the Sukhothai dated to before the early seventeenth century script dated to nearly a century prior. Yet there is (though carbon dating of manuscript fragments scant inscriptional record of the production of released from Pagan-era cetiyas (reliquary written texts and the building of libraries before mounds) may soon revise this).[3] This leaves us the late ffteenth century, and no manuscripts sur‐ with the inscriptional evidence. Indeed, there is vive from this period. little epigraphic record of manuscript culture in Compelling and well argued though this ac‐ Lan Na before the late ffteenth century, but there count is, the fact that it relies on several argumen‐ are only a handful of inscriptions from the region ta ex silencio may leave some readers unsatisfed. during this period; the silence of such a modest Perhaps the strongest countervailing evidence in corpus is not conclusive. favor of an early value placed on writing in Lan Chapter 3 and chapter 4, “The Text in the Na comes from the very fact of the compilation of World: Scribes, Sponsors, and Manuscript Cul‐ the CDV and the MS, as these are quite plausibly ture,” show that following the arrival of the aran‐ the earliest written chronicles, if not some of the navasis we begin to fnd more epigraphic and earliest dated examples of literature of any genre chronicle references to manuscript culture and (assuming that their dates are correct), from any‐ that writing, and perhaps especially writing in where in Southeast Asia. Burma, whose extensive Pali, comes to play a more important role in corpus of donative inscriptions attests to a vigor‐ Northern Thai Buddhism. Veidlinger ofers a re‐ ous and widespread monastic manuscript culture construction of some of the salient features of the at Pagan from the thirteenth century, preserves manuscript culture of this period, including illu‐ no written chronicle literature dated prior to the minating discussions of the identity and social sta‐ very end of the ffteenth century at the earliest tus of donors, aspects of the scribal process, the (and here this date is open to dispute). As Vei‐ economic value of manuscripts, and the various dlinger rightly celebrates, Northern Thailand is modes through which texts were aurally/orally responsible for some of the earliest dated exam‐ engaged and corrected and commented on. It is ples of palm-leaf manuscripts found anywhere in during this “Golden Age” (a phrase often invoked the Buddhist world: “at least eleven extant in Lan Na studies but whose analytic utility de‐ manuscripts from the ffteenth century and over a serves further scrutiny) that a number of original hundred from the sixteenth century” (p. 104), the Pali texts were composed, such as those by the earliest of which is a fragment of a Jataka dated monks Ratanapanna (the author of the JKM), Siri‐ 1471 CE (though this is followed closely in 1472 by mangala (the author of the infuential Man‐ a vernacular legal text entitled Avaharn [on theft, galatthadipani among other texts), and the com‐ p. 56]). But does the argument that no earlier mentator Nanakitti, all of whom were probably manuscripts survive have direct bearing on the afliated with the arannavasi order. Here the claim that manuscript production began only in reader may have benefted from a more in-depth the late ffteenth century? Here again compar‐ presentation and discussion of some of these isons with neighboring Burma are instructive. De‐ texts: to what extent does their content, structure,

4 H-Net Reviews form, etc. shed light on their compilers’ approach‐ gradual resurgence in manuscript making and lit‐ es to literacy and orality and the higher value erary activity in Lan Na and the neighboring poli‐ they placed on textuality? In further support of ty of Nan through a reading of the late Chiang Mai the claim that the arannavasis were responsible Chronicle (1998) and Nan Chronicle (1994). Here for the growing prestige of Buddhist literacy, Vei‐ he suggests that it is possible that European, dlinger shows that many of the oldest surviving Siamese, and Burmese values regarding literacy manuscripts were in fact copied or sponsored by may have been partially instrumental in stimulat‐ monks who regarded themselves as members of ing this renaissance. Some readers may have this fraternity. reservations about the degree to which foreign in‐ Chapter 5, “Turning over a New Leaf: The Ad‐ fuence (whether here or as above in the case of vance of Writing,” addresses the mid-sixteenth- Sri Lanka in the ffteenth century) is invoked as a century twilight and subsequent demise of the principal catalyst for the local promotion of litera‐ brief Golden Age following the Burmese conquest cy. of the region by King Bayinnaung. Based on the The fnal chapter, chapter 6, “Overlooked or evidence of dates in colophons to extant Looked Over? The Meaning and Uses of Written manuscripts he has surveyed, Veidlinger argues Pali Texts,” stands out from the rest of the book in that “after about 1610 ... there is a sudden, precip‐ that it departs from the chronological trajectory itous drop in manuscript production.” He at‐ of the foregoing, and instead approaches all the tributes this drop to “a series of insurgencies Northern Thai evidence from various eras collec‐ aimed at wresting independence from the tively. The frst section of the chapter is devoted to Burmese,” which the Burmese met “with a more an interesting analysis of the motivations donors systematic program of repression” (p. 136). He had for sponsoring manuscripts based on the tes‐ also speculates that the Burmese may have “ac‐ timony of colophons. Unfortunately, nowhere in tively discouraged Lan Na manuscript culture” Spreading the Dhamma does Veidlinger provide and use of the local script in the interest of disin‐ an entirely transparent account of the number of tegrating the “Lan Na identity and with it the po‐ manuscript sources he has surveyed (though see tential for rebellion” (p. 137). Although far more pp. 15, 91-93). Nor does he speculate about how research is required on shifts in literary and cul‐ representative his samples may be of the general tural practices during the “Burmese period” of character of all the manuscripts produced in the Northern Thai history, and arguably much of region during certain periods. Are there some or what is written here regarding the ill-intentions of many monastic collections he has not gone the Burmese is overstated,[4] Veidlinger shows through? Approximately how many manuscripts that in the seventeenth and early eighteenth cen‐ or libraries remain to be accounted for? Such in‐ turies a literate Pali culture persisted in certain formation would have been helpful to the reader, areas, such as Wat Hai Lin outside of Lampang, and its absence makes some arguments difcult to where the arannavasi monk Kesarapanna collect‐ appraise. While it is the case that the colophons ed and sponsored the recopying of a number of he cites refect difering donor desires (for rebirth manuscripts. Nonetheless, he documents a “wan‐ during Metteyya’s reign, for merit, for nibbana, ing of scribal culture” especially during the mid- for wisdom, etc.), and that these motivations may to late eighteenth century when much of the re‐ have changed over time, the extent to which we gion was in a perpetual state of insurgency and can generalize these claims is not entirely certain. counterinsurgency (p. 139). After the Burmese The fnal part of chapter 6 is devoted to a very were expelled from Chiang Mai by a joint Lan Na- instructive questioning of the presence of a “cult Ayutthaya alliance in 1775, Veidlinger traces a

5 H-Net Reviews of the book” in Lan Na and the degree to which example, in his discussion of Lan Na legal texts. writing qua writing was perceived to have a “hi‐ What in fact are the boundaries of the properly eratic function” (p. 177). In dialogue with work by “Buddhist” literary world in Northern Thailand, Gregory Schopen and Daniel Boucher on the book and were those boundaries universally accepted? cult in early Indian Buddhist monasticism, Vei‐ Are medical, “Vedic,” and legal texts “Buddhist” or dlinger discusses Northern Thai attitudes toward does this label apply only to the elusive “canon” the veneration of manuscripts, the power of (p. 195)? Could it be that the arannavasis were in‐ yantras, (symbolic diagrams of magical, protec‐ terested less in the promotion of Buddhist textual‐ tive, or auspicious texts), and rituals of installing ity tout court, than in the dissemination of only written materials in cetiyas or Buddha images. particular genres of literature or individual texts Veidlinger shows that manuscripts were not per‐ that aligned with their specifc vision of Buddhist ceived as “embodying the same degree of numi‐ orthodoxy? What was vernacular, bilingual, or nous power possessed by other meritorious items Pali literary practice like outside this rarefed do‐ associated with the Buddha’s presence, such as main? relics or images” (p. 203). While I would disagree Spreading the Dhamma is a very welcome ad‐ with some of the statements of this chapter--for dition to the growing literature on manuscript example, Veidlinger’s supposition that “colophons culture in premodern and early modern South‐ that equate the words in the manuscript to Bud‐ east Asia. It is also useful as a history of monastic dha images” (such as those that are often found in Buddhism and Pali learning in Northern Thai‐ Burma) are “in some way a vestige of Mahayana land, especially during the critical late ffteenth infuence” (p. 177)--this section serves as a useful century. It persuasively argues that Lan Na en‐ comparative counterpoint to recent studies of gagements with Buddhist texts were a predomi‐ Cambodian and Siamese approaches to Buddhist nantly aural/oral afair that placed great value on textuality that emphasize the sacredness of writ‐ the powers of memory and recitational acumen, ing and the ritual veneration of manuscripts and and that manuscripts were important not only as other written texts. supports for this activity, but also as felds of mer‐ An issue that deserves further consideration it making and, perhaps occasionally, as objects of in future research on Northern Thai manuscript devotion. Importantly, by ofering a compelling culture is the degree to which Veidlinger’s central account of how approaches to textuality changed thesis about the rise, decline, and post-restoration quite dynamically over time in response to difer‐ renaissance of Buddhist textuality is borne out ent pressures, it departs from unhelpful struc‐ through an analysis of vernacular or bilingual turalist histories that depict premodern Southeast manuscripts, and especially those containing Asian Buddhist practices and mentalities as essen‐ para- or non-canonical texts. The picture of Bud‐ tially static. It is likely that not all readers will be dhist literary culture that Veidlinger paints is one convinced by all the arguments that sustain the which is primarily--almost exclusively--concerned provocative hypothesis that the written word be‐ with “canonical” Pali texts of the “Tipitaka” and came centrally important to Buddhist practice in its commentaries and sub-commentaries. These Lan Na only in the late ffteenth century. But on two loaded terms are often invoked but readers my reading Veidlinger successfully establishes the might have benefted from further analysis of key point that a rise in Pali literacy (if not vernac‐ their specifc historical meanings in the Northern ular literacy as well) was closely intertwined with Thai context (e.g., on pp. 18-20, 76, 89-90). Vei‐ the activities and fate of the arannavasi fraternity dlinger appears to posit a division between Bud‐ and its elite and royal patrons. One of the book’s dhist and other, nonreligious literary spheres, for great strengths is its recurrent engagement with

6 H-Net Reviews the theoretical and comparative historical litera‐ Manuscripts: Text and Image,” Journal of Burma ture on orality, literacy, and manuscript culture, Studies 14 (2010): 229-253. both in the Buddhist world and beyond, although [4]. See Justin McDaniel, “Two Bullets in a it would have been illuminating to also see an en‐ Balustrade: How the Burmese Have Been Re‐ gagement with recent work on these themes in in‐ moved from Northern Thai Buddhist History,” sular Southeast Asia. It certainly makes good Journal of Burma Studies 11 (2007): 85-126. sense to compare Buddhist Northern Thailand with Burma, India, and Sri Lanka, and also with medieval Christian Europe, but mainland-insular Southeast Asian comparisons are rarely undertak‐ en and should also be encouraged. The book should be required reading for students and scholars of Buddhist literature and premodern manuscript culture regardless of their geographi‐ cal region, period, languages, or genres of special‐ ization. It is hoped that future studies that deal with manuscript culture in Southeast Asia--in both Buddhist and non-Buddhist contexts--will en‐ gage with the book’s varied claims to strengthen our comparative understanding of the multiple functions of writing and the written word in re‐ gional religious and political culture during the pre-print and early print era. Notes [1]. To avoid encoding irregularities, in what follows I do not employ diacritics in the transcrip‐ tion of Indic or Southeast Asian vernacular terms. [2]. Much of this new work has relied on sig‐ nifcant advances in the cataloging, preservation, and availability of manuscripts by local and inter‐ national research organizations. There has been far more done in this regard on monastic collec‐ tions in Northern Thailand and Laos than any‐ where else in the region. Here the eforts of the Social Research Institute, Chiang Mai, and the Preservation of Lao Manuscripts Programme, Vi‐ entiane, (now online at www.laomanuscripts.net) deserve special mention. [3]. On ornamental and non-ornamental kam‐ mavaca manuscripts as well as manuscripts writ‐ ten on other supports (i.e., materials) in Burma, see Christian Lammerts, “Notes on Burmese

7 H-Net Reviews

If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the network, at https://networks.h-net.org/h-buddhism

Citation: DC Lammerts. Review of Veidlinger, Daniel M. Spreading the Dhamma: Writing, Orality, and Textual Transmission in Buddhist Northern Thailand. H-Buddhism, H-Net Reviews. May, 2011.

URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=30596

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.

8