Talk:Buddhism in Cambodia

= Split? = The history section sort of dominates the article at the moment. Should it be split into a separate History of Buddhism in Cambodia article? --Clay Collier 09:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea - I'd go for it, cut it down a little but not too much. Paxse 16:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Buddhism as practiced by laity
As stated above, this article focuses on the history of how Buddhist doctrine was brought to Cambodia, but it makes no mention of how Buddhism is actually practiced in Cambodia. The religion of the Cambodian people, while based on Therevada Buddhism is a uniquely synchretic religion with elements of Hinduism (astrology, fortune-telling, etc), pre-Indianization animism (belief in and appeasement of local "guardian spirits", curses, kruu, possession/channeling, etc), and ancestor worship. No discussion of Buddhism in Cambodia is complete without discussion of how the majority of the laity, and indeed the majority of the minor monks, understand and practice their religion.--William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 16:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I want to know the number of the monks in Cambodia noweday. who can help me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.29.249.234 (talk) 13:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Ta Prohm in 625?
Does anybody have access to the source for this sentence from the first paragraph of the History section: "An inscription from Ta Prohm temple in Siem Reap province, dated about 625, states, that the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha are flourishing."? As Ta Prohm was built by Jayavarman VII around 1186 AD, there can't be an inscription on the temple dated from 625.--William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 05:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Preah Pithu T Monks - Siem Reap.jpg to appear as POTD
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Preah Pithu T Monks - Siem Reap.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on April 2, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-04-02. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Temple Slaves?
I noticed that there was a recent claim in the decline of Angkor section which stated that the temples were ran and built using slaves. This is incorrect and is refuted by the inscriptions of the temples. The mistake derive from the phrasing "kyom" which is taken as to mean "slave" by some untrained deciphers. However, most modern scholars agree that the "kyoms" according to the inscriptions were "free" to choose their profession therefore they were not forced into servitude to the temples. The term "kyom" meant contracted servants. Since the inscriptions are the very source of this mentioning of "kyoms" it must be mention properly what the term actually mean to avoid confusion. Servants of the temples were clothed, fed, and housed by the temples. In return they farm the fields belonging to the temples as well as performing other tasks required for the upkeep of the place. Education was also given to those capable so servitude under the temples was not slavery but a desirable employment for many.

The Khmer word for slave is "Konjeas". Remember that the practice of leaving one's child at a temple to receive free education is still common to this day and has its roots in the Angkor temple system. To define the rise of Buddhism as an undermining of an oppressive Hindu system is simply euro-centric and is an outdated attempt to define Khmer history in the incorrect mask of Rome and Christianity. The locals have no recollection of such stories and nothing in the Khmer culture or character would suggest any animosity towards the ancient shrines as they are universally worshiped through out the centuries and still are today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiname12345 (talk • contribs) 04:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * There are a couple issues here. First, and most important to Wikipedia, is where are you getting your information from? Everything in Wikipedia is supposed to be verifiably sourced to reliable sources, preferably academic peer-reviewed sources. We don't allow original research. Second (and this is more of of a general observation), inscriptions alone are not reliable. Inscriptions are basically "bragging" to make the writers (or rather, the rulers) look good. Nobody ever writes in inscriptions: "I was a terrible ruler, I lost every battle and treated my subjects poorly". Inscriptions are a valuable source of information, but must be read in context and considered with other contemporary records as well as those from neighboring areas (for example the Cham, Thai and Chinese chronicles). This is what scholars do; we simply regurgitate their conclusions here. If you have reliable sources that you believe contradict the information in the article, feel free to bring them up.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 06:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I am aware of the ambiguity of the inscriptions. However, when talking about these inscriptions you have to realize that they can be quit objective compared with other sources. Both victories and loses are recorded and the measurements of Wat Phu found at another Temple was exact to the meters. "Bragging" is customary as with the Cham sources. When talking about Angkorean society the inscriptions are the best sources of information followed by the living society which inherit this legacy. Now let's analyse the objectivity of other sources. Firstly, you've brought up the possibility of Thai documents which are even more inaccurate compared the temple inscriptions. The Thais are invaders in this case and the best way to legitimize a conquest is to rewrite the history of the people you defeated. The Thais also arrived two to three centuries after many of the Temples were constructed so counting on their point of view is as good as asking an American pilgrim what happened in an 11th century Iroquois village. The same happened with Normans and England; the Anglo-saxons and the Britons etc. Secondly, if you are truly acquainted with the latest findings by modern scholars you'll realize that Chinese sources are extremely inaccurate. I am aware that the claim of slavery was made by some Chinese sources but these are the exact same sources which claimed human flesh were offered at Lingapura(wat phu). Shiva whom the flesh offerings were made to as claimed by the Chinese is a vegetarian and the proposed size of the city was found by archaeologists to be highly exaggerated. Most modern scholars do not take the Chinese accounts any more serious than the indigenous inscriptions as they are clearly based upon hearsay and anecdotal merchant rumors. Due to copy rights laws I do not think I can directly share the scholarly sources that I personally own in hard copy with you but you can check out the works of George Coedes and I do believe the book "The Khmer Empire" by Claude Jacques and Phillipe Lefond touched upon the subject in their intro.

Lastly, I'd like to make a point about your own statement over the matter. I see that you are defending the "slavery" claim but I can see that this claim itself lacks any proficient backing from any peer reviewed or research sources. As far as I am concerned, the burden of proof lies with the accuser in this case and I was simply refuting an unrestrained statement. It is customary for many to assume "forced labor" as the source of the achievements of an ancient society but this is not the case for all. We are not talking about a secular building like the Chinese Great Wall, these are Hindu-Buddhist holy structures. The tradition of temple building carries on to this day and villagers can be observed volunteering to construct or donating money to help raise temples. I know this isn't the place to talk about Ancient Khmer administration so I won't go into the details of taxation, religious concepts of Karma which helped drove the volunteering process. With the huge number of Temples, Angkor would've needed to enslave it's most population which by logic is not sustainable. The Angkor period would've not lasted for 6 centuries it would've collapsed in a few generations like the Qin dynasty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiname12345 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I did not say I was defending the "slavery" claim. I did say we, as editors, don't "analyse" as you put it. We simply record what the experts say. Also, your implication ("...if you are truly acquainted with the latest findings by modern scholars...") is not exactly in the spirit of WP:AGF or WP:CIVIL. But in your very next sentence you use George Cœdès as an example of a modern scholar??? I believe it may be you who are using outdated sources. Cœdès and the works from his generation aren't taken seriously anymore. It's hundred-year-old information. There has been so much more and better work done in recent times. Don't get me wrong, his translations and recording of inscriptions were invaluable, but his analysis and conclusions are oftentimes nothing more than supposition or pure romantic fantasy and his "histories" are useless. Michael Vickery, although I don't agree with his politics, is an example of an excellent modern scholar in the field of Cambodian history (see his opinion of Cœdès here).


 * My overall point is that, if you have something to add to the article, please do. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anybody can edit. But anything added must be backed up by references to reliable sources. We can't add our own analysis or opinions to the article. I suggest you read up on the truly current state of Southeast Asian History and support your claims with reliable sources. Article talk pages are for discussions to improve the article, not talk forums. Continuing to make opinionated statements on a talk page without specific suggestions for improvement or specific cites and page numbers is not productive.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 02:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Fair points overall but Coedes is still a relatively modern scholar. I am aware of his "romanticism" and to be fair on my accounts I was only making an example. I did give a more "modern" example of a work to prove my point if you've read my comment correctly. Now to be fair you'll realize that I do use a variety of different scholars to quote in my other editions within the articles section. My point about the slavery claim is a rebuttal to an earlier post which I've edited out and Wikipedia do not exactly require quotation for a deletion of an evidence-less and poorly worded phrase. I did not realize that a talk page was in anyway anti-opinion because if it were I would not be the only one guilty with all respect. Plenty of the comments in this very talk page do not contain a single citation to back them up; it is what it is, a respectful discussion page and one can not have a meaningful discussion without a genuine opinion. As for your concern about keeping this talk page relevant to the article I was making a relevant and respectful point on the matter of the article to help future editors to be more conscious of their work and my points were legitimately proven. You will see that 80% of what I wrote here is about the topic of the article so I fail to see in anyway any transgression on my account. Please note that this is a respectful respond to your commentaries and I do appreciate your respond. Though it is a good point that claims should be made with some sort of scholar material behind them, I did not realize that it is a necessity to quote everything one says even in a talk page. Feel free to correct me in anyway as I am quite new to this.

P.S. On the matter of Coedes and his generation of scholars, I think I do agree to an extent with the statement you`ve made about them. However, if you are quite acquainted with Southeast Asian history, I do not think it is good for your claim to credibility to list Chinese or Thais sources over local inscriptions as more reliable sources. Remember, the Chinese never even once used the actual names of local Kingdoms or rulers in their text and to count on this for more credibility than the native inscriptions is laughable at best. If you are really acquainted with modern works you will know that most will not even quote Chinese annals as a source for their research. That was more of a thing for the Coedes generation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiname12345 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * BuddhMonksHospital-PhnomPenh ca1960.tif

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Jhotañano Chuon Nath ជួនណាត MahanikayBuddhMonksSynod UnnalomTemple 1960.tif

== Topic: Most of Cambodian people are Buddhists so Buddhism plays the important roles in Cambodian society. What are these? Write about "The important roles of Buddhism in Cambodian society". (Write as an essay at least 100words). * ==

Topic: Most of Cambodian people are Buddhists so Buddhism plays the important roles in Cambodian society. What are these? Write about "The important roles of Buddhism in Cambodian society". (Write as an essay at least 100words). * 203.144.80.109 (talk) 02:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)