WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY Committee on Comparative Literature Dissertation Examination Committee: Robert E. Hegel, Chair Joseph Claude Evans, Jr. Beata Grant David Hadas Robert Henke Stamos Metzidakis Richard Ruland THE PLAY OF UNDECIDABILITY: A DECONSTRUCTIVE ANALYSIS OI BE We by Namphueng Padamalangula A dissertation presented to the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences of Washington University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy December 2003 Saint Louis, MissouriUMI Number: 3117081 INFORMATION TO USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized ‘copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMI UMI Microform 3117081 Copyright 2004 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346, ‘Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346Acknowledgements Many people have helped me to make the completion of this dissertation possible. First and foremost, I wish to express my deep gratitude to the Anandamahidol Foundation under the royal patronage of His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej and Her Royal Highness Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhom for granting me a scholarship to pursue my study at Washington University. Tam profoundly grateful to Professor Robert Hegel, my dissertation advisor, whose intellectual guidance and mental support significantly contributed to the completion of this dissertation. The discussions I had with him not only helped me formulate my ideas and the scope of my study, but they also proved to be crucial and invaluable at every stage of the development of this project. I would not have been able to expand my dissertation to this present volume without his insightful advice, motivating comments and relentlessly enthusiastic interest in my topic. I will always be grateful for his kind concer, patience, and understanding, which sustained my spirit throughout the course of writing. also wish to extend my gratitude to all of my dissertation committee members for their valuable time in discussing this project with me and for their stimulating comments that enabled me to effectively improve my dissertation. My special debt of gratitude is owed to Professor Richard Ruland, who put in a considerable amount of time in teaching and helping me develop my critical thinking. His intellectual guidance played an important part in my academic development. I am thankful for his patience, valuableadvice, and straightforward comments that kept me practical and motivated me to work more productively. A heartfelt gratitude is owed to Professor Stamos Metzidakis, who inspired my interest in literary theory. His keen insight and extensive knowledge on research always helped me move forward and contributed greatly in expanding the horizon of my vision. “My deep gratitude also goes to Professor Beata Grant for her attentive reading, insightful questions, and perceptive suggestions that proved to be very helpful in clarifying my thought an proving my argument. I also wish to thank Professor David Hadas for introducing me to reading religious texts as literature, and for his kind advice and concem throughout the time of my study. 1am deeply grateful to Professor Robert Henke for his critical reading and enthusiastic interest in my dissertation. His inspiration and valuable suggestions were beneficial not only to this project but also to my future career. I am privileged to have Professor Joseph Claude Evans as a member of my committee. His stimulating comments and philosophical insight sharpened my analytical thinking, which helped increase my confidence in the quality of this work. Talso would like to express my gratitude to all of my teachers at Washington University, particularly to Professor Robert Milder, whose comments on my Emerson paper essentially changed the way I studied literature, and to Professor Randolph Pope, Former Chair of Comparative Literature, for giving me a chance to study in this program and for his advice throughout the time I was under his supervision. My deep gratitude also goes to Ms. Doreen Salli, who kindly gave me a considerable amount of time inteaching and improving my background in writing and literature. Lam grateful for her patience and guidance, which proved to be very helpful to my overall writing and reading ability. Iam also thankful to Ms. Carolyn Smith for the kind support and thoughtful caring that she has shown me since my first class with her. My profound gratitude also goes to Ajarn Suchitra Chongstitvatana, my teacher at Chulalongkorn University, for her kind and loving guidance in shaping my academic path and in encouraging me to pursue my graduate study here. I am indebted to all committee members of the Anandamahidol Foundation, especially to Ajarn Maneepin Phromsuthirak, who has been very kind and helpful to me since the time I was under her care. also would like to acknowledge the staff of the Anandamahidol Foundation, the Olin Library, and the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences for the assistance they have provided. Iam particularly thankful to Ms. Ann Cooper and Ms. Martha Tumer for their kind assistance throughout the time I have studied here. A special note of appreciation also goes to Ray Shea for all his help, constant support, and comforting encouragement, Tam very grateful fo my family for their patience and understanding. My deepest gratitude is owed to my parents, who have fostered me with their love and unfailing faith. ‘Their confidence in me and in my study gave me the strength to overcome any difficulties T faced. With love and profound gratitude, this dissertation is dedicated to them. Special thanks also go to my older sister, Chantana, and my big brothers, Theerawat and Niphon, for their love and support; and to my dear friends, Darin Pradittatsanee and Sutanit Puttapanom, for their invaluable friendship, generous assistance, and cordial comfort, iiiFinally, I would like to express my loving gratitude to Saravut Chareranoon for his inspiration and insightful suggestions. Iam very grateful for his loving care and ‘understanding that have nourished my spirit throughout the course of my study. Without his unfailing faith and tremendous spiritual support, this dissertation would have never been accomplished. A special debt of gratitude is also owed to his parents for their kind concer and words of encouragement. iv‘To my parents, Petchtree and Kanok PadamalangulaTABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements Table of Contents List of Figures Abstract, Introduction Chapter One: Traiphum Phra Ruang: Its Background and Influences on Thai Society Chapter Two: The Traiphum’s Cosmography: Displacement and the Play of the Structure Chapter Three: Putting Hierarchy “Under Erasure”: ‘An Undecidability in the Traiphum’s Notion of Hierarchy Chapter Four: The Discourse on Nibbana: An Interplay between Presence and Absence Conclusion Appendix Bibliography vi vi vii viii 35 85 145 203 254 259 269LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. The “Three World” cosmology 36 2. The Prang at The Temple of the Dawn, Thailand 64 3. Pra Pathom Chedi, Thailand 65 4, An example of a pyramidal roof from the Mondhop at the Shrine of the Buddha’s Footprint, Thailand 66 5. A diagonal view of the universe (cakkavala) and the elements that sustain it 88 6. A horizontal view of the universe (cakkavala) and the elements that sustain it 89 7. The division of Hell, Earth, Heaven of the universe (cakkavala) surrounded by the Cakkavala Wall 90 8. The universe (cakkavala) and its concentric frames 92 9. An image of the Hindu cosmography 107 10, Another image of the Hindu cosmography 108 11. Three universes and the Lokanta hell 122 12, An image of multiple universes and Lokanta hells 123 13. The Lokanta hell as the frame of the universe 136 14, A cirele ina square 142ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION The Play of Undecidability: A Deconstructive Analysis of Traiphum Phra Ruang (Three Worlds According to King Ruang) by Namphueng Padamalangula Doctor of Philosophy in Comparative Literature Washington University in St. Louis, 2003, Professor Robert E. Hegel, Chairperson This study is an attempt to offer a new approach in analyzing Traiphum Phra Ruang, a Thai Theravada cosmological narrative and the most influential text in Thai literary history. By applying deconstructive criticism to the structural analysis of this text, this study explores the “ruptures” in the discourse that formulate a pattem of undecidability, which produces logical iresolvability to the overall structure of the text Since deconstructive ruptures usually appear as marginal elements, this study highlights the textual elements that tend to be disregarded, especially in terms of their effects on the overall structure of the Traiphum. ‘Chapter I reviews the historical context of the Traiphum and its influences on Thai society, culture, and arts. This chapter also reviews recent scholarship on the ‘Traiphum and shows the limitations of the scholarship in terms of textual strategy. Chapter 2 focuses on the fraiphum cosmographical structure. By applying Derrida’s viiinotions of displacement, decentering, and paregonality, this chapter proves that the Traiphum’ s cosmology illustrates a “play of the structure” in which the notions of center, frame, and the totality of the universe itself are all put in question. Chapter 3 investigates hierarchy and the ways this notion is disrupted. By being put “under erasure,” hierarchy here is simultaneously asserted and denied, making the structure of the Traiphum operate inside and outside hierarchy at once. Chapter 4 underscores the representation of nibbana (nirvana) in the Traiphum and its relation to the overall structure of the text. Under the light of Derrida’s denegation and supplementarity, nibbana becomes a “double gesture” that not only eludes categorization in terms of presence and absence, but also represents another rupture that makes the entire discourse of the Traiphum’s narrative “slide.” As this study reveals, the notions of center, frame, totality, hierarchy, and presence, which are the key concepts that deconstruction aims to subvert, are all put into question in the Traiphum, But instead of the end in itself, the play of undecidability in the Traiphum is a means to subvert all notions of self-presence in order to convey the ‘Theravada teaching on anatta or non-substantiality as the underlying logic of the text. ixINTRODUCTION 1. Thinking Deconstructively In the opening paragraph of “Plato's Pharmacy,” Jacques Derrida writes: “A text is not a text unless it hides from the first comer, from the first glance, the law of its composition and the rules of its game.”' It seems that for Derrida, one of the differences between a “text” and a “book” lies in the notion of “play.” One might say that while a book like a history or an encyclopedia focuses on providing details and information, a text in a deconstructive sense underscores instead the play of the elements manifested in the narrative. The concept of a book accordingly relies on the clarity of meaning and signification while the notion of a text places its emphasis instead on putting the process of signification itself into play. “The good writing,” as Derrida once notes, has therefore always been comprehended. Comprehended as that which had to be comprehended . .. within a totality, and enveloped in a volume ora book. The idea of the book is the idea of a totality. ... [But] the idea of the book, which always refers to a natural totality is profoundly alien to the sense of writing. Itis the encyclopedic protection of theology and of logocentrism against the disruption of writing, against its aphoristic energy, and... against difference in general. If I distinguish the text from * Jacques Detrida, Di Chicago Press, 1981) 63. ination, trans. Barbara Johnson (Chicago: University ofthe book, I shal! say that the destruction of the book, as it is now under way in all domains, denudes the surface of the text.” ‘To read a book as a text therefore is to see difference in coherence, displacement in order, rupture in closure and totality. In short, in order to sead a book as a text, “one must think of writing as a game within language.”* ‘Thus, despite the negative responses it may elicit, deconstruction is in fact a mode of reading and interpretation—a strategy of textual analysis that aims to reveal the “game” hidden in the narrative. “What is deconstructed in deconstructive analyses,” therefore, “is not the text itself but the text as itis read, the combination of text and the readings that articulate it. What is put in question are the presuppositions and decisions that convert a complex pattem of internal differences into alternative positions or interpretations.’ In fact, as Barbara Johnson points out, “the word ‘de-construction’ is closely related not to the word ‘destruction’ but to the word ‘analysis,” which etymologically means ‘to undo’—a virtual synonym for ‘to de-construct’.” In Johnson’s view, “the deconstruction of a text does not proceed by random doubt or generalized skepticism, but by the careful teasing out of warring forces of signification within the text itself. If anything is destroyed in a deconstructive reading, its not meaning but the claim ? Jacques Derrida, Of Grammatology, trans, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976) 18. * Derrida, Of Grammatology, 50. * Jonathan Culler, On Deconstruction: Theory and Criticism after Structuralism (Ithaca: Comet! University Press, 1982) 215.to unequivocal domination of one mode of signifying over another.”* In addition, according to Rodolphe Gasché, the main concepts to which deconstruction can be traced are the concept of Abbau (dismantling) in the later work of Husserl and the concept of Destruktion (destruction) in the early philosophy of Heidegger. Despite their negative terminology and the differences among these three terms, “all three are in essence positive movements, never negative in the usual sense, and certainly not ‘purely negative’; and all three attempt to construct, in a more or less systematic fashion, grounds of greater generality for what is to be accounted for." Although its criticism of the traditional ways of reading tends to make deconstruction appear as a negative operation seeking to eradicate all conventional thinking, Derrida in fact never urges his readers to completely discard traditional criticism. Rather, what Derrida aims to encourage is for the reader to break off from the limitation of the traditional ways of reading. To Derrida, traditional criticism has a twofold effect on the task of textual analysis because while serving as a guideline of interpretation, traditional criticism also limits the scope of interpretation only within certain parameters. “To recognize and respect all its classical exigencies,” as Derrida remarks, “is not easy and requires all the instruments of traditional criticism. Without this recognition and this respect, critical production would risk developing in any $ Barbara Johnson, ‘“Translator’s Introduction,” Dissemination, xiv. (Original emphasis) © Rodolphe Gasché, The Tain of the Mirror: Derrida and the Philosophy of Reflection (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1986) 109-18.Girection at all and authorize itself to say almost anything. But this indispensable guardrail has always only protected, it has never opened, a reading.”” To put it in Vincent B. Leitch’s words: In the past, critical reading worked within and with the elements of the logocentric system, foregoing its own potentially corrosive powers of criticism by repeating endless variations on given precepts. Fine-tuning the myriad mechanisms of logocenttism, traditional commentary never opened these precepts to criticism. In the past, as Derrida construes it, reading was more often refinement of the given than inquiry into founding mechanisms.* ‘The task of deconstruction as Derrida perceives it therefore is to open up the reading—to “breach” the limitation of traditional criticism by “reinscribing” interpretation in another way. The goal that deconstructive criti ism seeks to accomplish accordingly is “to p10 analyze the way in which texts are made”"° and to explore the “phenomena of ” Derrida, Of Grammatology, 158. * Vincent B. Leitch, Deconstructive Critic Columbia University Press, 1983) 176. An Advanced Introduction (New York: ° The word “breach” here is intended to be a translation of the German word Bahnung. According to Alan Bass, Bahnung, which is derived from Bahn (road), literally means pathbreaking. The word “breaching” can signify both “the sense of the force that breaks open a pathway, and the space opened by this force.” See Jacques Derrida, Writing and Difference, trans. Alan Bass (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978) 200 and 329. Posi © Jacques Derri 1981) 49. is, trans. Alan Bass (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,textuality"!" in its furthest extent. In a deconstructive analysis, reading is not “carried out as a simple table of concepts or words, as a static or statistical sort of punctuation.” Rather, we “must reconstitute a chain in motion, the effects of a network and the play of a syntax.”"? In this sense, one can say that deconstructive criticism is “a reading that, nis produces rather than protects," and “however negative it may sound, deconstruction implies the possibility of rebuilding.”"* To read a text in a deconstructive way therefore is to pay close attention to the interaction of textual elements in the narrative. Deconstructive criticism can be viewed as a kind of close reading. But as Culler points out, “the ‘closeness’ of deconstructive readings lies not in word-by-word or line-by-line commentary but in attention to what resists other modes of understanding.”"* Generally, this can refer to the ways the text differs from itself by subverting the textual logic that the text appears to set up: At its simplest and least specifically deconstructive, this involves an interest in anything in the text that counters an authoritative interpretation, including interpretations that the work appears most emphatically to " Culler, 225; " Derrida, “The Double Session,” Dissemination, 194, '° Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, “Translator’s Preface,” Of Grammatology, Ixxv. Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight: Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary ism, Theory and History of Literature, Vol. 7 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983) 140. ® Culler, 256.encourage. Whatever themes, arguments, or patterns are cited in defining the identity of a particular work, there will be ways in which it differs from the self so defined, systematically or obliquely putting in question the decisions at work in that definition.'® ‘Thus, to explore the logic underlying the narrative is clearly a significant part of econstructive criticism. In some texts, the play of conflicting logic at work in the narrative does not simply reveal the self-subversive aspects of the text in undermining its ‘own rules. But the operation of this play also puts the system of dialectical thinking itself in question, Instead of being a play that can be explained by formal logic, the play of logic in terms of deconstruction operates in another system. It is a system that replaces dialectical closure with what Derrida calls the “undecidable.” In “The Double Session,” Derrida explains an “operation” that he calls “undecidable” by referring to a highly acclaimed theorem of Kurt Gédel, a renowned mathematical logician.'’ As Derrida writes: “An undecidable proposition, as Gédel * Culler, 213-14. "” Kurt Gadel was bom in Austria-Hungary in 1906. He entered the University of ‘Vienna in 1923. After completing his doctoral dissertation in 1929, Godel became a faculty member of the same university. In 1938, Gidel joined the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, New Jersey. He became Chair of the Institute in 1953 and remained with the Institute until his death in 1978. During his life time, Godel received several honors including the Einstein Award and the National Medal of Science. Murray Gell-Mann, who was awarded the 1969 Nobel Prize in Physics, mentions that Godel and Albert Einstein were good friends. While working at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, Gell-Mann used to see Godel and Einstein walked to work together. See Murray Gell-Mann, The Quark and the Jaguar: Adventures in the Simple and the Complex (New York: W-H. Freeman and Company, 1994) 39. ‘Also, for further reading on Godel’s life and work, see John L. Casti and Werner DePauli, Gide! A Life of Logic (Cambridge, Mass.: Perseus, 2000). 6demonstrated in 1931, is proposition which, given a system of axioms governing a multiplicity, is neither an analytical nor deductive consequence of those axioms, nor in contradiction with them, neither true nor false with respect to those axioms. Tertium datur, without synthesis.”"* According to Cristian S. Calude, Kurt Gidel “was the greatest logician of the twentieth century. There is no trace of exaggeration in saying, following Wang," that Gédel’s contribution to mathematics has the same status as Freudian psychology, Einstein’s theory of relativity, Bohr's principle of complementarity, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, Keynesian economics, and Watson and Crick double helix model of DNA.”° Godel’s most important work, which is a great contribution to mathematics and logic, is his revolutionary paper entitled “On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems” published in 1931.7" By being a discovery that challenged some basic assumptions underlying ‘mathematics and logic, this paper of Godel is highly praised as “[an] epoch-making, '® Derrida, Dissemination, 219. Another reference to Gédel can be found in Jacques Derrida, Edmund Husserl’s Origin of Geometry: An Introduction, trans. John P. Leavey, Jt (New York: Nicolas Hays, 1978) 53. *° See Hao Wang, A Logical Journey: From Gédel to Philosophy (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1996). * Cristian S. Calude, “A Genius’ Story: Two Books on Gédel,” CDMTCS Research Report Series 39 (June, 1997). CDMTCS. Online. http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/CDMTCS. 27 Dec. 2002: 1 2 The original title of the paper is “Uber formal unentscheidbare Sitze der Principia ‘Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I,” published in the Monatshefte fiir Mathematik und Physik, v. 38, 1931: 173-198. For an English version of this paper, see Kurt Gédel, On Formnally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems, trans. B. Meltzer (New ‘York: Dover Publications, 1992)discovery”” and “a milestone in the history of logic and mathematics.”"* Until Gidel’s time, mathematicians had believed that the mathematical formal system which is primarily based on a system of axioms and rules of reasoning could be proved to be consistent and to be “used in principle to derive the truth or falsity of all mathematical propositions.” But “Gadel showed that neither of those goals is attainable."™* The proof that Gédel proposed therefore stunned the world of mathematics in the early 1930s and 3 ins proved to be “one of the most important contributions to logic since Aristotle,’ discovery, as Douglas R. Hofstadter puts it, destroyed the hopes of those who believed that mathematical thinking is capturable by the rigidity of axiomatic systems, and he thereby forced ‘mathematicians, logicians, and philosophers to explore the mysterious newly found chasm irrevocably separating provability from truth. Ever since Giidel, it has been realized how subtle and deep the art of = RB. Braithwaite, “Introduction,” On Formally Undecidable, 1, Braithwaite also mentions that when Harvard University awarded Gédel an honorary degree in 1952, the work was described in the citation as “one of the most important advances in logic in modem times.” * Emmest Nagel and James R. Newman, Gédel's Proof (New York: New York University Press, 2001) 1 ™ Gell-Mann, 39. °B. Meltzer, “Preface” On Formally Undecidable, vii.mathematical thinking is, and the once-bright hope of mechanizing human mathematical thought starts to seem shaky, if not utterly quixotic.” According to Gédel’s proof, the system of axioms is incomplete because there are some propositions which can neither be proved nor be disproved within the system.”” That is to say, “given any system of axioms for mathematics, there will always be propositions that are undecidable on the basis of those axioms, in other words, there are propositions that cannot, in principle, be shown to be either true or false.” This proof of Godel in its absolutely barest form, as Hofstadter points out, involves a translation of “Epimenides paradox” or “liar paradox” into mathematical terms.” In the Epimenides paradox, Epimenides, who was a Cretan, said: “All Cretans are liars.” If Epimenides was telling a truth, all Cretans would be liars. But since Epimenides was also a Cretan, his statement was supposed to be a lie; then the statement: “All Cretans are liars” must be false. On the other hand, if Epimenides was telling a lie, his statement: “All Cretans are * Douglas R. Hofstadter, “Forward,” Gadel’s Proof, xiv. Gregory J. Chaitin also ‘mentions that Gidel's theorem of undecidability “was a great shock and eaused much uncertainty and depression among mathematicians sensitive to foundational issues, since it seemed to pull the rug out from under mathematical certainty, objectivity, and rigor.” (1) See Gregory J. Chaitin, “Godel’s Theorem and Information,” Intemational Journal of Theoretical Physics 22(1982): 941-54. CDMTCS, Online. http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/CDMTCS/chaitin. 27 Dec. 2002. ” In its original statements: “Proposition VI: To every a-consistent recursive class ¢ of formulae there correspond recursive class-signs r, such that neither v Gen r nor Neg (v Gen r) belongs to Fig (c) (where v is the free variable of r).” Godel, On Formally Undecidable, 57. * Gell-Mann, 39. * Dougias R. Hofstadter, Gédel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid (New York: Basic Books, 1999) 17,liars” must be false as well. The paradox of this statement therefore lies in the way that the same statement can carry the values of a truth and a lie at the same time.°° In Godel’s proof, Gédel translates the Epimenides paradox into the number theory framework. “His final transplant of Epimenides did not say, “This statement of number theory is false’, but rather, ‘This statement of number theory does not have any proof”.”"! To prove this statement is to engage in a circular dialogue. First, let us assign a proposition P = “This statement does not have any proof.” If P can be proved, it means that “This statement does not have any proof” is true. But if “This statement does not have any proof” is true, then it cannot be proved. On the other hand, if P cannot be proved, this failure of proving does confirm that “This statement does not have any proof” is true; then it becomes that this statement is proved. Such inconsistency of proof reveals that in fact, similar to what Godel discovered in terms of the number theory, there are propositions that are undecidable and cannot be proved or disproved within the system. Gédel’s theorem of undecidable propositions clearly has a direct influence on Derrida’s notion of undecidability. According to Derrida, “undecidability” cannot be defined as a concept. Rather, it should be perceived in terms of an operation °° For further reading on liar paradox, see Jon Barwise and John Btchemendy, The Lii ‘An Essay on Truth and Circulatity (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987); Robert Martin, ed., The Paradox of the Liar (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1970); W.V. Quine, The Ways of Paradox and Other Essays (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1976). * Hofstadter, Godel, Escher, Bach, 18. 10characterized as “certain marks” that “by analogy” he calls “undecidables.” These marks, as Derrida explains, {are] unities of simulacrum, ‘false’ verbal properties (nominal or semantic) that can no longer be included within philosophical (binary) opposition, but which, however, inhabit philosophical opposition, resisting and disorganizing it, without ever constituting a third term, without ever Ieaving room for a solution in the form of speculative dialectics. . Neither/nor, that is, simultaneously either or.°? Since these undecidable marks do not follow the rules of logic, they appear merely as, “false” verbal properties in discursive discourse, Despite operating in the form of opposition, “undecidables” are not logical contradictions. Instead, they work to subvert reasoning within the binary opposition itself. This must be a reason why Derrida emphasizes that he uses the term “undecidable” only “by analogy.” In Derrida’s view, the term “undecidable” still has “a sense by some irreducible reference to the ideal of decidability.” It is “essentially and intrinsically haunted in its sense of origin by the telos of decidability."** To use the term “undecidable” only by analogy therefore is to relieve the operation from the relation between “decidable” and “undecidable,” which is a * Derrida, Positions, 42-43. (Original emphasis) Cf. note 18 above. Perhaps it should be noted here that sometimes Derrida uses “undecidables” as a plural noun of the term. * Derrida also mentions his emphasis on the words “by analogy” once again in Dissemination, 219. * Derrida, Edmund Husserl’s Origin of Geometry, 53. Wrelation within the binary opposition that the operation aims to subvert. Thus, it may be proper to keep in mind that undecidability in a deconstructive term operates in “a level vaster than that which is encompassed by the opposition between what is decidable and undecidable.”* In terms of its mode of operation, this kind of undecidability involves syntax rather than semantics. An element becomes undecidable not because of its vagueness, lack of clarity, or polysemous meanings of the term but “rather because of the way in which the words are inscribed in the text, ot in other words, because of the relationship they have with others in the text that makes the meaning of those terms undecidables or paradoxes.” Derrida himself also points out this aspect of undecidability quite clearly in “The Double Session,” when he discusses Mallarmé’s work. As he explains: “Undecidability’ is not caused here by some enigmatic equivocality, some inexhaustible ambivalence of a word in a ‘natural” language, ..... What counts here is not the lexical richness, the semantic infiniteness of a word or concept, its depth or breadth, the sedimentation that has produced inside it two contradictory layers of signification (continuity and discontinuity, * Gasché, 241. ® Hongchu Fu, “Deconstruction and Taoism: Comparisons Reconsidered,” Comparative Literature Studies 29.3 (1992): 298. 12inside and outside, identity and difference, etc.). What counts here is the formal or syntactical praxis that composes and decomposes it.” To put it briefly, an element becomes undecidable because it produces “a structure of, logical irresolvability"* that subverts the notion of self-presence and any possibility for synthesis and closure. To view undecidability merely as a paradox or a semantic ambiguity would be a misreading of its complexity. In addition, even though undecidability operates outside the rules of typical contradiction, it is not contradiction in the Hegelian form of contradiction either.” In fact, undecidability can be viewed as an operation that functions in an opposite direction to the Hegelian dialectical method. For Hegel, the basic strategy for the creation of categories or determinations of the Concept is based on two assumptions. First, for every category, there is an opposing one that can reveal itself upon closer analysis to be the true meaning of the category it is opposing. Secondly, for every two categories opposing each other in this manner, there will be a third category whose meaning is determined by that which makes the two opposing categories compatible. In Hegel’s view, only these two assumptions can constitute the means that leads to a complete and non-contingent system of category. In other words, Hegel perceives contradiction as analogous to positive and negative determinations that can neutralize each other and constitute in the process * Derrida, emination, 220. * Culler, 202. » Derrida, Positions, 101 (n. 13).something informative about the object to which the neutralizing determinations apply.” Hegel's logic consequently aims to produce synthesis in which contradiction resolves itself. Itis “{the] ceaseless vanishing of the opposites into themselves;” for each of an opposition “is simply the transition or rather the self-transposition of itself into its opposite." ‘The deconstructive undecidability, on the other hand, does not resolve the contradiction in the way Hegelian dialectics does but rather puts the notion of contradiction itself into play. While Hegel’s concept of contradiction aims to produce synthesis or dialectical sublation, Derrida’s “undecidables” produce instead irresolvability that removes the idea of unity and closure. Hegel's dialectics asserts the neutralization of opposites whereas the undecidability of any element “cuts [that element] off from (prevents it from depending on) every—and hence any—signified, whether antithetic or synthetic." Derrida also mentions several times that his deconstructive operation is, meant to subvert Hegelian notion of Aufhebung or dialectical sublation. In fact, I attempt to bring the critical operation to bear against the unceasing reappropriation of this work of the simulacrum by a dialectics of, “ The above summary of Hegel’s dialectical method is derived from Rolf-Peter Horstmann, “Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel,” Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1998 ed. For further reading of Hegel's philosophy, see Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Science of Logic, trans. A. V. Miller (New York: Humanities, 1969). “Hegel, 433. Derrida, Dissemination, 261. (Original italic and parenthesis) 4the Hegelian type (which ever idealizes and ‘sematizes’ the value of work), for Hegelian idealism consists precisely of a reléve of the binary ‘oppositions of classical idealism,” a resolution of contradiction into a third term that comes in order to aufheben, to deny while raising up, while idealizing, while sublimating into an anamnesie interiority (Errinnerung), while interning difference in a self-presence.”* To Derrida, Hegel “determines difference as contradiction only in order to resolve it, to interiorize it, to lift it up (according to the syllogistic process of speculative dialectics) into the self-presence of an onto-theological or onto-teleological synthesis.” Itis a process that allows resolution in order to assert the notion of self-presence. But as for undecidability, its “conflictuality” can neither be “totally resolved” nor “governed by a referent in the classical sense, that is, by a thing or by a transcendental signified that * According to Alan Bass who translates this interview with Derrida, “releve” in the technical sense “is Derrida’s translation of the Hegelian term Aufhebung, which means to preserve and to negate in a spiritual ‘lifting up’ to a ‘higher level.” Although the English ‘lifting up’ has some relationship to Aufhebung, itis not an appropriate technical translation of the Hegelian term. Thus, throughout this interview, whenever reldve is used in the technical sense T have left it untranslated.” See Derrida, Positions, 99 (n. 2). In another translation of Dertida’s ‘works, Bass also explains Auflebung as containing “the double meaning of conservation and negation. For Hegel, dialectics is a process of Aujhebung: every concept is to be negated and lifted up to a higher sphere in which itis thereby conserved.” See Jacques Derrida, Margins of Philosophy, trans. Alan Bass (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982) 20 (n. 23); 43 (a. 15); 88 (a. 16); 258 (n. 61). A similar explanation could also be found in Derrida, Writing and Difference, 335 (n. 13). “ Derrida, Positions, 43. (Original emphasis) 15would regulate its movement.“ Rather, undecidability is an operation that preserves differences while subverting the notions of unity, essence, closure, self-presence or any forms of transcendental signified. Instead of being an interplay between “either/or” of an opposition, undecidability operates as an interplay between the logic of participation and that of exclusion, producing “an essential indecision” which leaves the element in question up in the air: This interplay, as Derrida puts it succinctly, can be described as “neither/nor, that is, simultaneously either or.”*” ‘That is to say, if A and Not-A represent a pair of opposition and P is an clement involving these two opposing terms, P will be an “undecidable” when it assumes all of the following four positions at once: LPisA. * Derrida, Positions, 44, Though the quotations above are derived from Derrida’s discussion of différance, they can be applied to his notion of undecidability as well. As Derrida once remarks that différance is the destruction of Hegel's reléve. “If there were a definition of différance, it would be precisely the limit, the interruption, the destruction of the Hegelian reléve wherever it operates.” Derrida, Positions, 40-41 “ Derrida, Dissemination, 177. * See note 32 above. “ Sce examples of this mode in the chapters below. It should be pointed out here as well that Derrida’s “neither/nor, that is, simultaneously either or,” which implies all of these four positions at once, is also similar to catuskoti (tetralemma or “a four-branched dilemma”) in Buddhist logic. Since the focus of this study is less on investigating the similarity between Derrida’s thought and Buddhist philosophy than on applying deconstruction to the study of Traiphum Phra Ruang, I will not pursue the discussion on the similarity between Derrida's “undecidable” and catuskoti in Buddhist logic but leave it for future studies. For further reading on Buddhist logic, see F. Th. Stcherbatsky, Buddhist Logic, 2 vols. (New York: Dover, 1962); and KIN, Jayatilleke, Barly Buddhist Theory of Knowledge (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1963) 162. PisNot-A. 3. P is both A and Not-A. 4. Pis neither A nor Not-A. ‘The key word here is the word “simultaneously” or “at once.” By being each and every position at one and the same time, the element P becomes an “undecidable” that confounds and suspends all logical conclusions regarding its positions. Since an “undecidable” cannot be registered in terms of either plus or minus, either positive or negative or any other forms of binary opposition, it is the play that operates outside formal logic, which is predominantly regulated by the principle of bivalence.*” According to the principle of bivalence, for any proposition P, it must be either P is true ® As Derrida points out in “Plato's Pharmacy”: ““At once” means that the being-present (on) in its truth, in the presence of its identity and in the identity of its presence, is doubled as soon as it appears, as soon as it presents itself.” Also, in “The Double Session,” Derrida ‘maintains once again that “[alt the same time: this is what we must account for.” See Derrida, Dissemination, 168, 202. * Certainly, Derrida’s undecidability is not the only Western mode of thinking that does not conform to formal logic. Many-Valued logic, which was developed around 1920s by Jan Lukasiewicz, a renowned mathematical logician, and fuzzy logic, which is a kind of many-valued logic, can serve as examples of the modes of reasoning that reject the principle of bivalence. In fuzzy logical system, for example, everything is a matter of degree or partial occurrence of relations. In contrast to formal logic or bivalent thinking, the truth-values in fuzzy logic can be true, false, and indeterminate. The third truth-value, “indeterminate,” is the borderline case or a class that cannot be identified as true or false. The similarity between fuzzy logic and Buddhist logic in terms of their non-binary modes of reasoning is also a subject of study by recent ‘mathematical scholars. For further reading on Logic, see John P. Cleave, A Study of Logics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991). For reading on many-valued logic, see Grzegorz Malinowski, Many-valued Logics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993); Nicholas Rescher, ‘Many-Valued Logic (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1969). For reading on indetermination, see Roy A. Sorensen, Vagueness and Contradiction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001); Timothy Williamson, Vagueness (New York: Routledge, 1994). For reading on fuzzy logic, see Daniel ‘McNeill and Paul Freiberger, Fuzzy Logic (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994); Bart Kosko, Fuzzy Thinking: the New Science of Fuzzy Logic (New York: Hyperion, 1993). 7or Pis false. There are only two truth-values which cannot be true at the same time. If P is not true, then it has to be false. In terms of other oppositions, if it is not one, then it must be the other. When Derrida describes undecidability as “neither/nor, that is, simultaneously either or,” this statement already implies its self-contradiction. Since “neither/nor” signifies the negation of both, logically it cannot be “either.” In addition, it should be pointed out here that normally “either/or” can signify two forms of disjunction. One is an exclusive disjunction or the disjunction in which only one of the alternatives can be true. The other is an inclusive disjunction of the disjunction in which one or the other or both of the alternatives can be true. Thus, in general, when “either/or” is applied to an opposition, it can represent only an exclusive disjunction.*' But in Derrida’s “neither/nor, that is, simultaneously either or,” his use of “either or” here tends to suggest an inclusive disjunction instead. By using the word “either or” with an emphasis on the word “or” and without a slash between “either” and “or,” as contrast to “neither/nor” in the beginning of the statement, Derrida seems to stress the alternate positions of his “either or” rather than a choice between a binary opposition.” To put it in other words, "In its broadest sense, a disjunction “means that af least one of the propositions is true.” ‘See Edith Watson Schipper and Edward Schuh, A First Course in Modem Logic (New York: Holt, rinehart and Winston, 1966) 101-104. For further reading on disjunction, see Rowan Gamier and John Taylor, 100% Mathematical Proof (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1996) 19- 20; Daniel J. Velleman, How to Prove It:_A Structured Approach (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996) 14. * Although “either/or” in general is a choosing between two alternatives that are not necessary to be in opposition, “either/or” involving the deconstructive undecidability as Derrida ‘mentions here always refers to choices in terms of two opposing alternatives. 18Derrida’s “either or” does not simply mean only “one” in the choice of two but rather “one” or “the other” or “both.” An element that can be Derrida’s “neither/nor, that is, simultaneously either or,” therefore is an element that can be “either,” “both/and” and “neither/nor” at the same. time. To use the example cited earlier, any undecidable P is an element that can be ‘Not-A;’ ‘both A and Not-A;’ and ‘neither A nor Not-A’ at once. But since this element P can be all of these positions simultaneously, it produces logical conflictuality that can never be resolved, That is to say, if P is A, it cannot be Not-A and vice versa. If P is both A and Not-A, it cannot be neither A nor Not-A. If P is neither A nor Not-A, it cannot be either A or Not-A.* Any attempt to define P becomes in vain for the identity of P turns out to be entangled in a circularity that is logically irresolvable. The element P can be all of these four positions. But since it can be all of the four positions, it simultaneously represents none of these positions, for the validity of each position is nullified by the others. Each position of A; Not-A; both A and Not-A; either A nor Not-A; in relation to P is both asserted and denied in this process. One cannot positively say that the element P represents each or all of these positions because each of these positions is in fact negated * In “The Double Session,” Derrida also refers to undecidabillity as “neither one nor the other and both at once.” Derrida, Dissemination, 259. * Derrida also once mentions that he prefers the term “undecidat “indeterminacy” because “undecidability is always a determinate oscillation between possibilities.” As Derrida further explains, “fundecidability is] not at all some vague ‘indeterminacy.’ Tsay ‘undecidability” rather than “indeterminacy” because I am interested more in relations of force, in differences of force ....” See Jacques Derrida, “Afterword: ‘Toward An Ethic of Discussion,” Limited Ine (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1988) 148-49, 19by the others. Yet at the same time, one can neither say that P does not represent any of these positions because it indeed represents all of them. Any inference regarding the element P and its relations to A and Not-A becomes suspended for P is and is not each position at once. By being an operation that performs assertion and denial simultaneously, undecidability cannot be viewed simply as a negative operation intended (o reveal annihilation as its ultimate meaning. In fact, what undecidability aims to propose is a ‘more constructive goal in seeking a way to break off from the conventional way of thinking which is predominantly controlled by the system of binary opposition. As Derrida explains: ur intention here is not, through the simple motions of balancing, ‘equilibration or overturning, to oppose duration to space, quality to quantity, force to form, the depth of meaning or value to the surface of figures. Quite to the contrary. To counter this simple alternative, to counter the simple choice of one of the terms or one of the series against the other, we maintain that it is necessary to seek new concepts and new models, an economy escaping this system of metaphysical oppositions. . . . Our discourse irreducibly belongs to the system of metaphysical oppositions. The break with this structure of belonging can be announced only through a certain organization, a certain strategic arrangement, 20which, within the field of metaphysical opposition uses the strengths of the field to tums its own stratagems against it, producing a force of dislocation that spreads itself throughout the entire system, fissuting it in every direction and thoroughly delimiting it. Instead of undermining the system of binary opposition from outside, undecidability operates within the system of binary opposition only to subvert it from inside. Since undecidability still works in the form of binary opposition, this subversion cannot mean erasing the binary system but rather breaching its limits by putting the whole system into play. Itis the play that operates inside and outside the system of binary opposition at once. Thus, as its term implies, the play of undecidability is an irreducible operation that does not yield any sense of closure. Its logical irtesolvability does not only confound our reasoning but also evokes “anxiety,” which, according to Derrida, is “invariably the result of a certain mode of being implicated in the game, of being caught by the game, of being as it were at stake in the game from the outset."** 2. Introducing the Traiphum Although Derrida discusses his operation of undecidability only in the context of Western texts, this operation surprisingly tums out to be a useful tool in analyzing * Jacques Derrida, Force and Signification,” Writing and Difference, 19-20. “Derrida, “Structure, and Difference, 279. ign and Play in the Discourse of the Human fences,” Writing a‘Traiphum Phra Ruang, the most influential cosmological narrative in Thai literature.” Composed in 1345 C-E. by King Lithai of Sukhothai, the first dynasty of the Thai kingdom, Traiphum Phra Ruang is a text concerning the concept of universe from the ‘Theravada perspective. According to the Theravada Buddhist tradition, a universe consists of three Worlds situated one World above the other. These three Worlds also divide into thirty-one realms representing different levels of destination where rebirth takes place. Since the future destiny of each being is determined by its own kama’ performed in its previous and present births, there is no certainty that the beings who are bom as human beings in this life will be reborn as human beings in their next lives. ‘Depending on their amma, these beings could be reborn whether in a higher realm, a lower realm, or the same realm as they are now. Unless they attain nibbana (or nirvana in Sanskrit), beings are destined to be bom and reborn endlessly in these three Worlds. For most readers, the fact that King Lithai compiled the Traiphum® from more than thirty Buddhist scriptures and commentaries, and the style of writing which is rich in details that are consistent with those doctrines, validates the Traiphum to be a documentary narrative containing comprehensive details on Buddhist cosmology rather than simply a 5 See more details of Traiphum Phra Ruang in Chapter 1 below. * Literally, kamma(or karma in Sanskrit) means deed. The Buddhists regard kamma as the fundamental factor in the law of causality which is the law that explain the nature and existence of all beings. ® Following the Thai custom, I will use the term “Traiphum” as an abbreviated title of this text. 22fictive story.” In fact, the Traiphum has always been perceived as the most authoritative reference on Thai Buddhist cosmology. Thus, despite having some beautiful rhetoric which enables the Traiphum to be classified as a literary text, most of the narrative in the ‘Traiphum is somewhat dry and doctrinal. Many readers therefore read the Traiphum only to obtain information conceming the concept of the universe by following the thread of details that the narrative provides. But if a “text” in a deconstructive sense is defined by the way “it hides from the first comer, from the first glance, the law of its composition and the rules of its game," the Traiphum would be a good illustration of a deconstructive text that conceals the subtlety of its play quite well beneath its seemingly straightforward narrative. ‘There is nothing wrong with reading the Traiphum for its details but that kind of reading would be a reading of the Traiphum as a “book” rather than as a “text.” In fact, reading the ‘Traiphum as a book is the reading that obscures the play within the narrative. As mentioned earlier, a book is always characterized by the notion of totality. Reading the ‘Traiphum as a book therefore is the reading that is predominantly controlled by the desire to connect the details in order to make a whole of the narrative. With this kind of See the list of the Buddhist doctrines from which King Lithai derives his text in the Prologue and the Epilogue of the Traiphum “See note 1 above. As David E, Klemm points out, in terms of textual practices, “deconstruction and hermeneutics are different. Deconstruction is figured by the disruptive play of signs. ‘Hermeneutics is figured by the continuity of meaning in the word.” (20) See David E. Klemm, “Open Secrets: Derrida and Negative Theology,” Negation and Theology, Robert P. ‘Scharlemann (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1992) 8-24. 23reading, any minor elements that do not seem to fit in with the logic and the structure of the narrative would be overlooked and considered merely as “accidental aberration"® that does not have any significance to the overall meaning of the narrative. In a deconstructive reading, on the contrary, these seeming aberrations are indeed the focus of reading because, regardless of their appearance of insignificance and marginality, these elements can serve as the clues to reveal the play hidden in the narrative. To read the ‘Traiphum as a “text” therefore is not to read in order to capture the totality and the coherence of its details but rather to read in order to find “ruptures” within the narrative. In terms of deconstruction, ruptures are not simply the points where differences ‘occur but these differences must have a certain impact on the overall structure of the text. ‘To put it in other words, a rupture can be located in the moment when the text differs from itself by subverting the logic that it appears to set up. Tt is “the place in a pattern” © This phrase is borrowed from Desrida’s discussion of Saussure. See Derrida, Of Grammatology, 40. Deconstructive criticism is very well-known in placing its emphasis on marginality. The deconstructive operation usually involves employing marginal elements to subvert the structure. As Leitch points out: “Often deconstruction interrogates some seemingly unimportant iterm—a word, an isolated letter, a title, a phrase, a printing error, a piece of punctuation—in order to break down a concept, passage, or text.” See Leitch, 253. A good illustration of this ‘operation can be viewed from Derrida himself, According to Spivak, Derrida “often devotes his ‘attention to the text in its margins, so to speak. He examines the minute particulars of an undecidable moment, nearly imperceptible displacements, that might otherwise escape the reader's eye. Reading Foucault, he concentrates on three pages out of 673. Reading Rousseau, hhe chooses a text that is far from ‘central.” Reading Heidegger, he proceeds to write a note on a note to Sein und Zeit.” See Spivak, xxv. 24that “‘slide{s] and make[s] the entire discourse slide.”® The operation of undecidability that we discussed earlier is in fact a form of rupture. By inhabiting the binary opposition but eluding being classified in terms of opposition, an “undecidable” is a “double gesture” that slides and makes the whole system of binary oppositions slide. It is a rupture within the system of binary opposition that “keeps itself beyond the opposition of the positive and the negative.” When this “undecidable” appears as “a mark” in the text, it also becomes a rupture of the discourse. For its “double, contradictory, undecidable value”® does not only affect the property of the element that it characterizes But the indecision and instability produced by an undecidable element also “propagate its effects throughout the entire chain of discourse." Having these effects, an “undecidable” becomes an element that slides and makes the entire discourse slide. Itis a form of rupture which, despite its apparent insignificance and arbitrariness, is not a mistake or an accident aberration that haphazardly happens in the narrative. Rather, an “undecidable” is indeed a structural property of the discourse itself. © Derrida, “From Restricted to General Economy: A Hegelianism without Reserve,” Writing and Difference, 264. In fact, the term “making slide” tends to be the term that is most equivalent to “deconstructing” for to deconstruct any system is to make that system slide rather than to ‘exterminate it. As Derrida mentions in an interview with Henri Ronse regarding his, deconstructive operation that “[he tries] to respect as rigorously as possible the internal, regulated play of philosophemes or epistimemes by making them slide—without mistreating them—to the point of their nonpertinence, their exhaustion, their closure.” Derrida, Positions, 6. Derrida, Writing and Difference, 271-72, ® Derrida, Dissemination, 221.‘Thus, in this dissertation, | intend to explore the “ruptures” or the “sliding” of the discourse in Traiphum Phra Ruang, particularly in the ways these ruptures form a pattern of undecidability that produces logical irresolvability both to the elements that embody these ruptures and to the overall structure of the narrative. Since ruptures can usually be located in the form of marginal elements, the focus of my study will be on the elements that tend to be disregarded or never have been investigated in terms of their effects to the structure of the Traiphum. By analyzing these elements, I will demonstrate that despite their appearance of insignificance and arbitrariness, these elements in fact serve as the clues to reveal the play of undecidability in the Traiphum’s narrative, a complex design that enables the Traiphum to be not simply a “book” on Buddhist cosmology but also a deconstructive “text.” 3. An Outline of the Study Since the Traiphum is a text rarely known by Western audiences, Chapter One of this dissertation will provide some background of the Traiphum concerning the history of ‘composition, the historical and political dimensions of the text as well as its influences on Thai society, culture and arts. This chapter also offers a brief review of the scholarship on the Traiphum in order to point out that the studies of this text have been more “refinement of the given than inquiry into founding mechanisms.”” ‘There has never been a critical study on the textual strategy of the Traiphum in terms of the interactions of textual elements and the effects these interactions produce to the overall structure of the Derrida, Writing and Difference, 272. 26text. As the findings of this survey reveal, the previous studies of the Traiphum seer to fall into only two categories. One is the study of the Traiphum that concentrates on the historical, political and ideological aspects of the text. The other is the study that, examines the details of the text simply as a descriptive analysis on the concept of Buddhist universe. By shifting the focus to the textual operation of the Traiphum itself, this present study opens up a new approach in analyzing this text. In Chapter Two, the emphasis of investigation will be on the cosmographical structure of the universe depicted in the Traiphum. Although the Buddhist universe is commonly perceived as a complete and clearly defined unit of which Mount Sumeru is, the center, this chapter will prove that this seemingly rigid structure is in fact a good illustration of Derrida’s “play of the structure.” By focusing on the Jambu continent and the Lokanta hell, I will demonstrate that both elements function as two significant ruptures which produce undecidability to the notions of center, frame, and even to the totality of the universe itself, making the entire structure of the Traiphum’s universe slide. ‘The analysis on “the play of the structure” is developed further in Chapter Three. In this chapter, I will examine two aspects of hierarchy displayed in the Traiphum: One is the hierarchy in the organization of the universe; the other is the hierarchy in the organization of society. Even though the notion of hierarchy seems to be an underlying logic of this text, I will argue that actually there are ruptures in both aspects of hierarchy making the notion of hierarchy itself as well as the cosmological and the social structures ™ See note 8 above. 27that the text appears to set up slide. As an effect of these ruptures, one can no longer determine the position of the Traiphum regarding the notion of hierarchy, for hierarchy is both asserted and denied at once, and consequently presents itself as another “undecidable” in the Traiphum’s discourse Tn Chapter Four, I will concentrate on the representation of Nibbana and its relations to the overall structure of the narrative. For most readers, the roles of Nibbana. in the text tend to be overlooked. Despite its significance as an ultimate goal of Buddhism as well as the purpose of narrating the Traiphum, Nibbana is perceived simply ‘as a marginal element, a point of reference mentioned in the text merely as an opposite of the story of the Three Worlds, which apparently assumes the role of the center of the narrative. In my study, however, I will demonstrate that Nibbana in fact functions as another rupture participating in the play of undecidability in the Traiphum’s narrative. ‘The focus of my discussion will be on the ways Nibbana is represented as a textual clement that cannot be registered in terms of either presence or absence, either central or marginal. Rather, the presence of Nibbana in the Traiphum always remains “a double ‘gesture” that eludes categorization in the system of binary opposition The notions of center, frame, totality, hierarchy, presence, which are the key concepts that deconstruction aims to undermine, are all put into play in the Traiphum. But instead of simply recapitulating the similarity between Derrida’s deconstruction and the play of undecidability in the Traiphum, the concluding chapter of my study also 28stresses the relation between the play of undecidability in the Traiphum and the Buddhist teachings on anata or non-substantiality. From my perspective, the play of undecidability as manifested in the Traiphum is not designed to leave the reader with the notion of undecidability itself. Rather, this play is employed as a means to subvert the bivalent thinking in order to convey anatta or non-substantiality as the underlying logic of the text. Although the notion of play in terms of deconstruction should not result in any form of closure or a totalization of meaning, having anatta as the unified meaning of the play in the Traiphum in no way contradicts the deconstructive frame I have outlined for this study. As Derrida maintains, what he deprecates in the totalization or the self- presence of meaning is what he identifies as a “transcendental signified,” the signified that does not participate in the play but governs it from the outside. In this sense, despite being the unified meaning of the play in the Traiphum, anatta is not a transcendental signified that Derrida opposes. For by representing the denial of self-presence which at the same time is not absence in terms of an opposition of presence, anaita eludes any binary categorization and thus could be viewed as participating in the play of undecidability as well. Since cosmology is usually considered a philosophical genre rather than a literary text, most studies of Buddhist cosmology tend to focus exclusively on investigating the metaphysics of the universe. To apply deconstructive criticism in analyzing the Traiphum as presented in this study therefore is a new approach in studying this text as well as a 29new way in viewing Buddhist cosmology. Furthermore, since there has never been a critical study on classical Thai literature and Thai Buddhist literary texts by using deconstructive criticism, this study sheds a new light not only to the study of the Traiphum itself but also to the study of Thai literature in general. Although I deploy deconstruction as a tool to help explain the play of undecidability manifested in the ‘Traiphum, the surprising similarity between Derrida’s thought and the textual strategy of the Traiphum in tum helps illuminate the deconstructive notion of undecidability, which has never been discussed in the way outlined in this present study.”! Perhaps, it should be pointed out here as well that the similarity between Dertida’s deconstruction and Easter philosophy is also a subject of studies by contemporary scholars. Nonetheless, these studies focus on comparative philosophy, particularly between Derrida and Mahayana tradition, rather than on textual strategy or an application of deconstruction to textual analysis. For example, in Derrida and Indian Philosophy,” Harold Coward examines the theory of language in Derrida’s philosophy and compares it to Madhyamika Buddhism and other schools of Indian philosophy. According to Coward, though there are some similarities between Derrida's and Nagarjuna’s approach, ™ Although there are a number of studies on deconstruction, an investigation on Derrida’ notion of undecidability itself as well as a study that applies this notion to textual analysis are limited, This study therefore may offer a new perspective to the discussion on the deconsiructive notion of undecidability in both aspects. ” Harold Coward, Derrida and Indian Philosophy (New York: State University of New York Press, 1990). 30their assumptions regarding the nature of language and their goal are different."” For instance, in Derrida’s view, “language is the means for the experience of the real,” whereas for Nagarjuna, language is considered as “imaginary construction,” an “obstacle” that has to be removed “if the real is to be seen.” In Nagarjuna’s view, the ultimately reality can be experienced “only when language is completely negated.” But for Derrida, “itis only a question of Keeping the tension even between the opposites, through continual deconstruction so that neither extreme ever triumphs.” In Derrida’s view, “there is nothing outside of the texts. Deconstruction of language is the process of becoming self-aware, of self-realization.” Derrida sees “language to be rooted in reality” and “it is through language, continually deconstructed from its extremes, that reality is realized.” As for Nagarjuna, “language is empty of reality and must be transcended for reality to be realized.”" Since other studies of Derrida and Buddhism also have similar emphases on comparing Derrida to Mahayana philosophy, a subject that is beyond the Nagarjuna was a prominent scholar of Madhyamika school of Mahayana Buddhism. Although Theravada and Mahayana schools share the fundamental Buddhist doctrines, both schools have different interpretations regarding certain aspects of the doctrines. For more details on Mahayana Buddhism, see Brian Carr and Indira Mahalingam, eds., Companion Encyclopedia of Asian Philosophy (New York: Routledge, 1977); Paul Williams, Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations (New York: Routledge, 1989). For further reading on Nagarjuna’s philosophy and Madhyamika school of Buddhism in particular, see Nancy McCagney, Nagarjuna and the Philosophy of Openness (Lanham; Rowman & Littlefield, 1997). ™ Coward, 138-40. 31extent of this study,”® it suffices to say that a comparative study on an application of deconstructive criticism to the textual strategy of a Buddhist text is very rare. Traiphum is a text rich in details, But due to the fact that these details can distract the reader from “the law of its composition and the rules of its game,””° and the fact that the approach of this study is to find “ruptures” in the logic and the structure of the text, the reference to the details of the Traiphum will be limited only to the parts that are relevant to the discussion. In addition, since this study is not intended as an investigation of deconstruction per se but an application of deconstructive criticism to the study of the Traiphum, the discussion of deconstruction here will not be conclusive but will highlight only the points that can be helpful in explaining the textual strategy of the Traiphum’s narrative. It is always difficult to quote Derrida for, as Barbara Johnson points out, “Derrida’s text is constructed as a moving chain or network, it constantly frustrates the 75 Other studies on Derrida and Mahayana school of Buddhism can be found in David Loy, “The Deconstruction of Buddhism,” Derrida and Negative Theology, ed. Harold Coward and Toby Foshay (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992) 227-53; Toby Avard Foshay, “Denegation, Nonduality, and Language in Derrida and Dogen,” Philosophy East & West 44.3 (1994): 543-58; Zongqi Cai, “Derrida and Seng-Zhao: Linguistic and Philosophical Deconstructions,” Philosophy East & West 43.3 (1993): 389-404; Newman Robert Glass, Working Emptiness: Toward a Third Reading of Emptiness in Buddhism and Postmodern ‘Thought (Atlanta: Scholars, 1995). Although Glass does not discuss Derrida directly, his study provides some interesting aspects on deconstruction and Mahayana Buddhism. Some studies also include Taoism in their comparative studies of Derrida and Eastern philosophy, see for example, Hongchu Fu, “Deconstruction and Taoism: Comparisons Reconsidered,” Comparative Literature Studies 29.3 (1992): 296-321; Robert Magliola, Derrida on the Mend (Lafayette: Purdue University Press, 1984). % See note 1 above. 32desire to ‘get to the point’.””” Although Derrida usually develops his ideas through his criticism of the Western texts, I intend not to include Derrida’s discussions of these texts in my study for fear that they might divert the subject at hand. Nonetheless, all citations of Derrida in this study are quoted with an attempt to preserve their original contexts. Unless otherwise noted, all English citations of the Traiphum in this study are from Frank E. and Mani B. Reynolds’s Three Worlds According to King Ruang: A Thai Buddhist Cosmology.”* I choose the Reynolds’ translation because it provides many extensive explanatory notes that might be useful for the Westem readers who are not familiar with the Traiphum. Although I do not quote from the original Thai text, all citations will be equipped with page numbers of both Thai and English versions of the text; the first page numbers are from the Thai text, Traibhumikatha or Traiphum Phra Ruang: Revised Edition;” the second from the Reynolds's translation. The term “Buddhism” used in this study primarily refers to but is not necessarily limited to ‘Theravada Buddhism. In referring to Buddhist technical terms, I will not use Sanskrit but Johnson, “Translator’s Introduction,” Dissemination, xvi. ”* Frank B. and Mani B. Reynolds, Three Worlds According to King Ruang: A Thai Buddhist Cosmology, Berkeley Buddhist Studies Ser. 4 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982). ” Phaya Lithai, Traibhumikatha or Traiphum Phra Ruang: Revised Edition, ed. Phitoon Maliwan (Bangkok: ‘The Department of Fine Arts, Ministry of Education, 1983). 33Pali transliteration, which is the canonical language in the Theravada tradition.” Except for the proper nouns, all Pali, Thai, and other foreign terms will be in italics. © For further reading on Pali language, see Steven Collins, “What is Pali?,” Nirvana and Other Buddhist Pelicities: Usopias of the Pali Imaginaire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998) 46-53; A.K. Warder, Introduction to Pali (London: Pali Text Sociery, 1963); Wilhelm Geiger, A Pali Grammar, rev. K.R. Norman (London: Pali Text Society, 1994). 34CHAPTER 1 TRAIPHUM PHRA RUANG: ITS BACKGROUND AND INFLUENCES ON THAI SOCIETY ‘Traiphum Phra Ruang or the Three Worlds According to King Ruang is a Thai ‘Theravada! cosmological narrative describing various places where rebirth takes place.” Although iconographically the “Three Worlds” could be viewed as the three planes of Heaven, Earth, and Hell, they in fact refer to the World of Desire, the World of Form, and the World of Formlessness—the “Three Worlds” that are defined by the refinement of form and mind? As illustrated in the Traiphum, the future destiny of each being is ‘Theravada or the “Teaching of the Elders,” is an orthodox school of Buddhism which places great emphasis on the Buddha and the ultimate release of nibbana. For more details on the differences between Theravada and other schools of Buddhism see Charles S. Prebish, ed., Buddhism: A Modern Perspective (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1975); ‘André Bareau, “Hinayana Buddhism,” The Encyclopedia of Religion, 1987 ed.; Nakamura Hajime, “Mahayana Buddhism,” The Encyclopedia of Religion 1987 ed. 2 Since Buddhism believes in reincarnation or the cycle of birth and rebirth, death is regarded as a transmigration of the soul into another place and another form of life. > According to the Traiphum, the World of Desire comprises eleven realms of the beings who are predominantly controlled by worldly desire. These eleven realms are the realm of hell- beings, the realm of animals, the realm of suffering ghosts, the realm of asura or giants, the realm of human beings, and six realms of devaza, the divine beings who still enjoy their desire. ‘The World of Form consists of sixteen realms of brahma, the divine beings who have more refined state of mind and thereby possess only physical forms but no sense of desire. The World of Formlessness consists of four realms of Brakma who, due to their supreme states of mind, neither have bodies nor desire, but exist only as pure consciousness. The total numbers of realms within the Three Worlds therefore are thirty-one realms. (See Figure 1 and Chapter 3 below) Since the realm of suffering ghosts, the realm of animals, the realm of asura, and the realm of men all share the same space on earth while all divine beings reside in various levels of heaven, these thirty-one realms could be viewed iconographically as the three planes of Hell, Earth, and Heaven. 35Traiphum Kamabhumi { Rupabhumi ‘Arupabhumi (The World of Desire) (The World of Form) (The World of Ce _ Formlessness) _ Parisaljabhumi a Nirayabhumi_ — ———] ‘Akasanancaya- (hells) Purohitabhumi tanabhumi is (the realm of the Tiracchanabhumi Mahabrahmabhuri infinity of space) {the realm of animals) Vinnanancayata- — Parittabhabhumi rnabhumi Petavisayabhumi (the realm of (the realm of sulfering ‘Appamanabhabhumt infinite mental ghosts) process) ———— Abhassarabhumi ane | Asurakayabhumi | |__ Anessa _| | Atincannayatana- (the realm of asura) Parittasubhabhumi (the reaim of Lbraer ral 7 “Appamanasubhabhumi 7 ——s ~ (he ral of human amar ren ee Subhakiahabhu sannayatana- Catumaharajkabhumi | j—————__.__| qroveainot —— \Vehapphatabhur neither perception ‘Tavatimsabhumi a nor non —— pswriacns—| |_emon Yamabhumi ne Avinabhuri oe || Pans | —— PE | Nimmanaratibhumi || Sudassabhum! _— | ‘Sudassibhumi Akarnitthabhumi Figure 1 “Three World” cosmology 36determined by its own kamma‘ performed in its previous and present lives. There is no certainty that the beings who are born as human beings in this life will be reborn as human beings in their next lives. Depending on their kamma, they could be reborn either in a higher realm, in a lower realm, or in the same realm as they are now. Unless these beings attain the final release or nibbana,’ they are destined to be bom and reborn “wanderfing] around and back and forth in these three worlds; and these go on continuously without ever ceasing.” (124/271) Although the Traiphum appears merely as ‘an account of the Theravada universe and of the different kinds of beings who reside in this cosmological system, itis indeed a complex text that could be interpreted on many levels. In fact, besides being the first Thai Buddhist text, Traiphum Phra Ruang is the most complicated and the most influential text in Thai literary history. Thus, in order to introduce this text to Western readers, I will review the historical context of the Traiphum “In Thai, the word “kama,” which literally means deed, could signify both the cause and the consequence of a deed. When signifying the cause, the word kamma usually has a neutral meaning of “a previous deed.” But when it is used to refer to the consequence of a deed, kamma commonly denotes the result of an evil deed, as contrast to puntya or “merit,” which is the result of a meritorious deed. Buddhists regard kamma as the fundamental factor of the cycle of birth and rebirth. In other words, kamma is the cause of existence of all beings. For more details on rebirth and kamma, see Peter Harvey, An Introduction to Buddhism: T is Practices (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990); and David J. Kalupahana, Buddhist Philosophy: A Historical Analysis (Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii, 1976). 5 Nibbana (or “nirvana” in Sanskrit) is the highest Truth and the ultimate cessation of suffering in Theravada Buddhism. The attainment of nibbana guarantees that the being will never be born in the Three Worlds again. For further reading on nibbana in the Theravada tradition, see Chinda Chandrkaew, Nibbana: The Ultimate Truth of Buddhism (Bangkok: Kurusapha, 1982); Ninian Smart, “Theravada and Processes: Nirvana as a Meta-proces: Buddhism, ed. Frank J, Hoffman and Deegalle Mahinda (Surrey, Britain: Curzon, 1996) 196- 205. For further discussion of nibbana in the Traiphum, see Chapter 4 below. 37as well as its various influences on Thai society. In addition, in order to demonstrate that, despite being an important text to the development of Thai culture and literature, further study of the Traiphum is still warranted, the last section of this chapter will discuss the limitations of recent scholarship on this text. 1. Background and Contexts of Traiphum Phra Ruang 1.1 Title ‘Traiphum Phra Ruang is considered the first text written in Thai.® Its original title is “Traibhumikatha,” which literally means a discourse or a sermon on the Three Worlds. ‘The word “traiphum” means “Three Worlds” (“trai” means three; “phum'” is derived from “bhumi,” which means place, realm, or plane of existence; and “katha” means discourse or sermon). ‘The name “Traiphum Phra Ruang” is a new title given by Prince Damrongrajanuphab, the editor-in-chief who authorized the publication of this text for the first time in 1912. Generally speaking, the term “Phra Ruang”” is a common name for the kings of Sukhothai, the first dynasty of the Thai kingdom.® Although there is no solid ©The Thai script was established in 1283 C.E. Since there is no evidence that there were any other texts dated before the Traiphum, most scholars agree that the Traiphum is the first Thai text as well as the earliest Buddhist literature written in Thai. For more details on the history of ‘Thai literature, see P. Schweisguth, Etude sur la Littérature Siamoise (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1951). "The word “phra,” which literally means excellence, isa title commonly used in front of the wide variety of names, such as the names of the Buddha, gods, kings, monks, royal monuments, sacred objects and places. “The history of Thailand is divided into four dynasties, namely Sukhothai, Ayutthaya, ‘Thonburi, and Ratanakosin. Except the Ratanakosin dynasty, which has Bangkok as its capital, all other dynasties have the capitals at the cities from which the names of the dynasty are derived. 38explanation regarding the source of the name “Ruang,” it is believed, according to a folk tale, that the first Phra Ruang’ was a person with high merit who had sacred words that could make things happen according to his command. “Phra Ruang” therefore became a term associated with merit and power. With this implication of the term, every king of Sukhothai was thus commonly called “Phra Ruang.” Since the Traiphum is the text composed by Phaya Lithai, the fifth king of Sukhothai, the title of “Traibhumikatha” was changed to “Traiphum Phra Ruang.” According to his introduction in the first edition of the Traiphum, Prince Damrong explained that he changed the title of the text into “Traiphum Phra Ruang” in order that this text would be in the same collection with ‘Suphasit Phra Ruang (Phra Ruang’s Maxims), another literary text that he believed to have been composed in the same period." Although seyeral years later Prince Damrong, expressed his regret regarding his change of the Traiphum’s title,'' by binding the text to the royal status of its author, the term “Phira Ruang” plays an important part in increasing the credibility and authority of this text among the reading public. 1.2 Author For further details on the history of Thailand, see David K. Wyatt, Thailand: A Short History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984). ° In order to distinguish a general term from a proper name, I will italicize only the ‘general term. This will be the rule that applies to all reference of foreign words in this study. " See Damrongrajanuphab, “Introduction,” Traiphum Phra Ruang, by Phaya Lithai, 8th ed. (Bangkok: Silapabannakan, 1970) (1)-(7) " See Sompong Chaolam, Traibhumikstha chabab khoy yang chua [Traibhumikatha: An Easier Version] (Bangkok: Rung-reung Sam, n.d.) 1. 39.Despite questions of some contemporary historians conceming the authenticity of the Traiphum’s authorship,'? most Thai literary scholars still believe that Traiphum Phra Ruang was composed by Phaya Lithai in 1345 C.E., when he was an uparaja, the “second king” or heir apparent to the throne, governing Srisachanalai, the second most important city of the Sukhothai kingdom. The evidence that supports this opinion can be found in the Words of Praise, the Prologue, and the Epilogue as follows: In the Words of Praise: ‘The king, who prospers with the populace, possesses wisdom as his golden palace, holds fast to the fruits of the tree of faith, and harbors truth and liberality in his arms; who supports the lesser kings who tremble; who wins the hearts of heroes, whose name is Lithai and who is the son of the king of Sukhothai; ... this king has composed this account concerning the “three worlds” in the Thai language in the city of Srisachanalai in order that the religion might be complete and spread universally. (1/43-44) Inthe Prologue: Who is the one who carried out this extensive inquiry? It was [Phaya] Lithai, the son of [Phaya] Lelithai, who reigned in the city of Srisachanalai and Sukhothai. This (Phaya] Lithai is the grandson of King "* For further details on this controversy, see the section on the scholarship of the ‘Traiphum below. 40Ramkhamhaeng,'* who was in the solar lineage. [Phaya] Lithai reigned in Srisachanalai for six years, and then he composed this Sermon on the ‘Three Worlds. (2/45) In the Epilogue: ‘Who composed it? It was [Phaya] Lithai, who was the son of [Phaya] Lelithai . . . and the grandson of King Ramkhamhaeng who was of the solar lineage. After he had reigned at Srisachanalai for six years he wrote the sermon. (156/349) According to the stone inscriptions dated from the Sukhothai period, it can be assumed that Phaya Lithai ruled over Srisachanalai from around 1339 CE. Six years after he had taken the throne at Srisachanalai, when he composed the Traiphum, therefore would be around 1345 C.E."* 5 King Ramkhamhaeng the Great was the third king of the Sukhothai kingdom. He is famous for being a great ruler who not only expanded much of Sukhothai’s territory but also invented the Thai script, which marked the beginning of Thai literature. For some historians, the reference to King Ramkhamhaeng here does not simply indicate a genealogy. Rather, this reference of genealogy also serves to emphasize Phaya Lithia’s influential lineage and his Iegitimation of power over the Sukhothai kingdom. ‘his interpretation seems to be supported by the fact that Phaya Lithai had to fight for his throne against a usurper. The affirmation of his royal lineage, especially to King Ramkhamhaeng, who was highly esteemed, therefore could serve as a valid justification of his kingship. For further details on this subject, sce Sombat (Chandarawong, “Phraya jakraphadiraj nai traiphum phra ruang: Khaw sangket bang prakamn kkiew kab khwammai thang kammeung [The Universal Monarch in Traiphum Phra Ruang: Some Remarks on Its Political Implications],” Warasam prawattisat 4.1 (1979): 1-17. * For further details conceming the Sukhothai stone inscriptions, see George Coeds, Receuil des Inscriptions (Bangkok: Bangkok Times, 1924); and A.B. Griswold and Prasert Na ‘Nagata, “Epigraphic and Historical Studies no. 9: The Inscription of Ramkamhaeng of Sukhothai (1292 A.D.),” Joumal of the Siam Society 7.2 (1971): 179-229, a1.3 Buddhism and the Sukhothai Monarchy ‘Buddhism is regarded as an integral part of Thai identity since the establishment of the nation. In relation to the Thai kingship, Buddhism is a major factor that helps justify the royal power and helps reinforce the position of kings throughout Thai history. Particularly in the Sukhothai period when the nation was first established,"® the king’s lavish patronage of Buddhism could contribute to peace and prosperity within the kingdom as well as to greater prestige and desirable alliances with neighboring states. During the reign of King Ramkhamhaeng, Phaya Lithai’s grandfather, Sukhothai succeeded in becoming a very strong and well-established kingdom in Southeast Asia. A ‘major part of this success came from the fact that King Ramkhamhaeng was both a powerful ruler, who expanded much of Sukhothai’s territory, and a devout supporter of, ‘Theravada Buddhism, which at that time was becoming influential throughout the region.'® As described in the inscriptions from the Sukhothai period, the reign of King Ramkhamhaeng was notably moral and prosperous. People did not need to be concerned about their living because the land provided such an abundant supply of food and the 'S-The history of the Thai nation began in the early thirteenth century when King Sti Indrathitya, Phaya Lithai’s great grandfather, established Sukhothai as a sovereign state by declaring independence from a Khmer king of Angkor, who had previously dominated the Sukhothai area and its vicinity. ‘Theravada Buddhism originally had its center in Sri Lanka and later expanded its influence to the Southeast Asian countries. For an overview of Theravada Buddhism and Southeast Asia, see Robert C. Lester, Theravada Buddhism in Southeast Asia (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan P, 1973); D. R. SarDesai, Southeast Asia: Past and Present, 4th ed. (Boulder: Westview, 1997); and Nicholas Tarling, ed., The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia, 2 vols. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 42authorities exercised their power with justice. The benevolence that King Ramkhamhaeng had toward his people was usually described in terms of patemal kindness. If anyone had sickness or grievance and needed to address to the king, he could ting the bell which the king hung at the gate of his palace. Also, at the center of his city, King Ramkhamhaeng placed a stone throne where he himself listened to people's plaints and petitions, and where monks weekly preached Dhamma to the public.'’ The social relationship between the king and his people therefore was very close. In fact, besides representing the picture of an idyllic society characterized by the king's patemal benevolence and accessibility, the above description of Sukhothai in King Ramkhamhaeng’s reign reveals the close connection between kingship and Buddhism. As symbolized by the act of alternately taking the stone throne between the king and the monks mentioned earlier, kingship and Buddhism cooperated in the way that both supported each other in the administration of the state. After the reign of King Ramkhamhaeng, the stability and prosperity of Sukhothai ‘went into decline and the kingdom lost many of its vassals. When Phaya Lithai succeeded his father, Phaya Lelithai, in 1347 C.E., he inevitably confronted the problems of improving the administration, of reconstructing the alliances, and of restoring some of "The word “Dhamma” here means moral, wisdom, and truth in the Buddha’s teachings. For further details on King Ramkhambaeng’s reign, see Griswold and ia Nagara, 179-229. 43the kingdom’s prestige which had waned during his father’s reign."® As it is recorded in the inscriptions from his period, Phaya Lithai was a just ruler who was willing to limit his ‘own power for his people’s well-bein; [Bly tradition, the king was entitled to one-tenth of the harvest (sassamedha), but [Phaya Lithai] emphasized that his officials should collect nothing from those people whose harvest had failed: a king could only exact moderate corvée from his subjects, and should not demand more than they were able to give, while old people should be completely exempt; the king should make available loans from the royal treasury, but could not, like private citizens, charge either tax or interest.” Besides being a righteous ruler, Phaya Lithai is very famous for his devout support of Buddhism. Although some historians view Phaya Lithai as being less interested in the affairs of state than in religion, his ardent patronage of Buddhism was indeed a major factor that helped sustain his monarchy. For instance, by distributing, sacred relics like Buddha images and footprints to the nearby cities, Phaya Lithai not only received high regard for his piety but also gained administrative benefits in binding the people to him because “the monks who accompanied a sacred relic on its passage through "S See more details on the history of Phaya Lithai’s reign in Barbara Watson Andaya, “Statecraft in the Reign of Li Tai of Sukhodaya (ca. 1347-1374),” Religion and Legitimation of Power in Thailand, Laos, and Burma, ed. Bardwell L. Smith Pennsylvania: Anima, 1978) 2-19. " Quoted in Andaya, 11. The original citation is from George Coeds, “L’art Siamois de T’époque de Sukhodaya,” Arts Asiantiques 1.4 (1954): 295, Besides being recorded in the stone inscriptions, similar statements could be found in the section on the roles of a good ruler in the ‘Traiphum. See Traiphum, 57-60/148-54the country helped strengthen the nexus between outlying centres and the capital.” In addition, by sending his royal envoys to Sri Lanka, which at that time was the center of ‘Theravada Buddhism, for the Buddha's relics, and by inviting the renowned monks of Sti Lanka to preach in Sukhothai, Phaya Lithai restored the orthodoxy of Sukhothai Buddhism while asserted the kingdom’s status of being a leading Buddhist state in this region. In this respect, whether it was due to his devotion to religion or a design to promote his administration, the reign of Phaya Lithai was mainly characterized by his piety. Although virtue was a concern of Thai kings from the start, what makes Phaya Lithai different from his predecessors lies in the way he presented himself not simply as a Buddhist ruler who adopted Dhamma in his administration, but rather as a ruler who himself can preach Dhamma to his subjects, helping them to be on the right path toward the final release of nibbana. As indicated in the Prologue and the Epilogue of the Traiphum, Phaya Lithai composed this sermon on the Three Worlds in order to “enhance the usefulness of the Abhidhamma,”' to fulfill his desire to preach, especially to his mother, to help beings to gain release, and to advance the cause of Dhamma."(156/349) ‘This announcement is followed by two pieces of information. One is a list of over thirty * Andaya, 9. ® Abhidhamma is a grand Buddhist doctrine in the Pali canon, 45Buddhist scriptures and commentaries from which Phaya Lithai derived his text.” The other is a list of his teachers, who were distinguished monks of his time. In a way, these two pieces of information serve both to support the credibility of his sermon and to present Phaya Lithai as a scholar who had an extensive knowledge on Buddhist teachings. ‘Thus, from the information provided in the Prologue and the Epilogue of the Traiphum, Phaya Lithai appeared as if he were a learned monk who preached Dhamma in order to “help beings to gain release.” His wish to follow the Buddha’s steps is also reflected in his statement expressing a desire to preach his mother. According to the stories of the Buddha’s life, the Buddha temporarily ascended to heaven after his Enlightenment in order to preach Dhamma to his mother, who had died and was reborn in heaven. In addition, since the Theravada tradition believes that only the monks who reach the state of sainthood (arahanta) can have the vision and the knowledge of all the realms within. the Three Worlds, by choosing, among many topics on Buddhism, to write a sermon on the Three Words, Phaya Lithai might intend to imply this symbolic significance of his subject matter. Thus, when taking all of these aspects into account, one can say that by composing the Traiphum or a sermon on the Three Worlds, Phaya Lithai practically transformed his position from that of a mere virtuous ruler, who simply complied with the ® For the list of these scriptures and commentaries, see Appendix below. Also, for further details on the sources of the Traiphum, see Niyada Laosunthorn, Traiphum phra ruang: ‘Kam suksa thi ma [Traiphui Phra Ruang: A Study of Its Origin] (Bangkok: Mae Kampang, 1995),Buddhist teachings, into a true Buddhist king, who not only knew Dhamma very well but also possessed a significant potential to be a spiritual leader for his people.” ‘This new image of kingship, a king who is an embodiment of both worldly and spiritual leader, is also exemplified by the role of the “Cakkavatti king,” the Theravada ideal ruler, which Phaya Lithai mentioned in his text. As illustrated in the Traiphum, the ‘Cakkavatti king, or the Universal Monarch, is the position for any king who accumulates such a high degree of merit that he becomes the ruler of the entire universe.* The power of the Cakkavatti king over other kings therefore is the power that he obtains not by force but by his own merit, Because of his merit, all other kings simply come to pay their respects and to offer their loyalty to the Cakkavatti king, and the Cakkavatti king will preach Dhamma to these rulers. (55-60/146-54) Although the Cakkavatti king “cannot at all be compared with the Lord Buddha” (60/154), he is still regarded as a substitute leader for the Buddha. As it is stated in the Traiphum, “in any kappa’ in which there is neither Peshaps this can reflect a difference between Phaya Lithai and King Ramkhamhaeng, his predecessor. Unlike King Ramkhamhaeng who still drew a division between a ruler anda preacher, as suggested by the alternative role of the king and the monks in taking the stone throne, Phaya Lithai appears to have united both roles into himself. * See more discussion of the Cakkavatti king in Chapter 3 below. * & kappa is a cosmic age. One kappa could not be counted in terms of years and ‘months, but could be only suggested by a simile as followings: “There is a mountain that is one yojana high and has a circumference of three yojana, and once every hundred years the mountain is wiped with a celestial cloth as soft as smoke; when the mountain has become worn down so that it is level with the rest of the ground, then it can be said that one kappa is over” (Craiphum, 20/83). [Note: A yojana is approximately 10 miles} 47Buddha {nor] a Pacceka Buddha,” there is a great Cakkavatti king instead.” (51/139) For many scholars, the fact that Phaya Lithai discussed the role of the Cakkavatti king in great detail in the Traiphum (49-72/135-72) evidences that the role of an ideal Buddhist ruler, who is the great king and the spiritual leader for his people, is indeed the role which Phaya Lithai himself intended to pursue. This new conception of Thai kingship, which is later referred to as “dhammaraja” (the dhamma-king),”’ a development from the Hindu concept of “devaraja” (the god-king),”* became a foundation of the Thai monarchy from Phaya Lithai’s period until the present time. 1.4 The Transmission of the Text 6 The Theravada believes that there could be none or up to five Buddhas in a kappa. In the kappa in which we are now, there are five Buddhas; the current Buddha is the fourth one. ‘That means before this kappa comes to an end, there will be another Buddha come to this worl. ‘The name of the present Buddha is Gotama, and the name of the next Buddha is Sri Ariya Metteyya. All of these Buddhas could lead beings to the ultimate release of nibbana, But unlike ‘a Buddha, a Pacceka Buddha is the being who only attains Buddhahood, but does not play any role in leading other beings to nibbana. See more details in Traiphum, 142-43/312-13, 155/346- 48. © The term “dhammaraja” here contains a double significance. First, as its literal ‘meaning ie. “dhamma-king,” the term denotes the concept of the Buddhist ideal ruler, who knows Dhamma, preaches Dhamma, and practices it in his administration Secondly, this term can directly refer to Phaya Lithai himself for his ceremonious title is “Sri Suriya Phongsa Rama Maha Dhammaraja-thiraj,” which is usually shorten as “Dhammaraja.” % “Devaraja,” a Brahmanic concept that emphasizes the absolute power of king, is the concept of kingship that previously prevailed in Thai region and its neighboring states. Unlike King Ramkhamhaeng, who replaced the lofty image of devaraja with the paternal benevolence toward his people, Phaya Lithai is the first Thai king, and probably the first king in Southeast Asia, who adapted the concept of devaraja by combining it with the Buddhist concept of an ideal ruler. For more details on this subject, see Chondhira Kladyu, “Traiphum phra ruang: Rakthan khong udomkarn karnmeung thai” [Traiphum Phra Ruang: The Foundation of Thai Political Ideology], Thammasat University Journal 4.1 (2517): 106-121. 48Itis likely that a number of the traiphum manuscripts were produced in the ‘Sukhothai petiod. Unfortunately, those Sukhothai manuscripts as well as almost all of the copies from the Ayutthaya period were either destroyed or lost during the wars with ‘Myanmar. Only three traiphum manuscripts from the Ayutthaya period survived Myanmar’ attacks. Nonetheless, none of these manuscripts is complete; one manuscript contains only one-tenth of the full text and the other two are palm leaf booklets that ‘mostly contain illustrations and only small portions of prose.”” In the Thonburi period, a monk named Maha Chuay somehow had access to the allegedly lost scripts of the ‘Traiphum and made a copy of the whole text in 1778. As it is indicated in the colophon of the Traiphum: “The monk [Maha Chuay] copied the Sermon on the Three Worlds at the temple at Paknam called Temple Klang. He finished it in the fourth month of the year of the dog on a Sunday afternoon after 3 o'clock. ‘That is to say, it was finished in the 2321st year of the Buddhist era,” in the ninth month, on the twenty-sixth day.” (157/350- 51) This manuscript, which is later widely known as “the Maha Chuay version,” became accepted as the most authoritative and the oldest existing complete manuscript of the ‘Traiphum. But before being rediscovered in the twentieth century, this ten-volume palm. leaf manuscript of Maha Chuay also disappeared during the transition from Thonburi to ® These two manuscripts were recently published as Samudphab traiphum chabab krung stiayutthaya—chabab krung thonburi [The Collections of Traiphum Illustrations from the Ayutthaya to the Thonburi Period), 2 vols. (Bangkok: The Department of Fine Arts, Ministry of Education, 1999). ™ To convert the Buddhist era into the Common Era, subtract 345 years. 49the Ratanakosin period. In order to reconstitute the Traiphum, King Rama the First of Ratanakosin commissioned a group of monks and royal sages to compile another “Three Worlds” text in 1783. But since there was no solid reference to the Traiphum on which the new compilation could rely, this new compilation, which was later entitled Traiphum Lokavinicchayakatha after its revision in 1802, became another cosmological text that preserves only the outline of the “Three Worlds” cosmography but does not represent the Traiphum of the Sukhothai period." In the early twentieth century, Prince Damrongrajanuphab directed a widespread search for ancient manuscripts." ‘The search was resulted in a major retrieval of a large number of lost literary works, including Maha Chuay’s manuscript of the Traiphum. In order to preserve the text, Prince Damrong decided to publish the Traiphum for the first time in 1912. This text was reprinted several times afterward. But since the first and the subsequent editions of the Traiphum rendered the text in the authentic style of the Maha Chuay version, its archaic language discouraged the public from accessing this text. ‘Thus, as an attempt to make this text more accessible to the public, the Department of Fine Arts published a revised edition of the Traiphum in 1974. For this new edition, Phitoon Maliwan, the editor, did not entirely base the text on Maha Chuay’s manuscript, See details in Phraya Dhammapreecha, comp., Traiphum Lokavinicchayakatha, 3 vols. (Bangkok: ‘The Department of Fine Arts, Ministry of Education, 1977) * Prince Damrongrajanuphab (1862-1943) is regarded as the founding father of Thai historiography. His pioneering efforts contributed considerably to the study of Thai history and literature. See more details in Chetana Nagavajara, “Literary Historiography and Social-Cultural ‘Transformation: The Case of Thailand,” Comparative Literature from a Thai Perspective: Collected Articles 1978-1992 (Bangkok: Chulalongkom University Press, 1996) 41-60. 50of 1778. Rather, he consulted with two additional sources discovered sometime after the ‘Maha Chuay version. The first source is another manuscript of the ‘Traiphum inscribed by a monk named Maha Chan in 1787. ‘The second source is an incomplete manuscript believed to date from the Ayutthaya period.*? Since these manuscripts are not the original manuscripts from the Sukhothai period but the copies inscribed in different periods, the problems of authenticity concerning these manuscripts inevitably occur. Nonetheless, according to specialists on ancient Thai language, these manuscripts correspond sufficiently to indicate that they are copies of a single text. The archaic vocabulary used in these manuscripts as well as their styles of writing also clearly reflect the characteristics of language during the Sukhothai period.“ With the explanatory footnotes and the glossary added, this revised edition currently constitutes the most complete and reliable version of the Traiphum. In 1973, with a support from the UNESCO, Lécole Francaise d'Extréme-Orient published a French translation of the Traiphum by George Coeds and C. Archaimbault. ‘This is the first time that a translation of the Traiphum into a Western language was © See more details in Pithoon Maliwan, “Remarks on Revision of Traibhumikatha,” ‘Traibhumikatha: The Story of the Three Planes of Existence, trans. The Thai National Team. ‘Anthology of ASEAN Literatures vol. 1a. (Bangkok: ASEAN, 1987) (16)(19); and “Preliminary Remarks,” Traibhumikatha or Traiphum Phra Ruang: Revised Edition, ed. Phitoon Maliwan (Bangkok: ‘The Department of Fine Arts, Ministry of Education, 1983). ™ See Damrongrajanuphab, (1); Sthirakoses, Lao reuang nai traiphum [Narrating the ‘Traiphum} (Bangkok: Klangviddhaya, 1975); Pithoon Maliwan, “Remark on Revision of ‘Traibhumikatha,” Traibhumikatha (16)-(19). slpublished.®> Nine years later, the University of Califomia at Berkeley published the first English translation of the text by Frank E. and Mani B. Reynolds. Unlike Coeds and Achaimbault’s translation, which relies exclusively on the Damrong edition of 1912, the Reynolds” translation depends on both the Damrong Edition and Pithoon’s revised edition. Nevertheless, both translations have distinctive value in their own styles. With an attempt to make the Traiphum more accessible to the readers as well as to render an English version of the text from a Thai perspective, the Thai National Team, as a part of the Committee on the Anthology of ASEAN Literatures, published two subsequent editions of the text. The first publication in 1985 is a simplified version of the Traiphum in Thai prose, and the second publication in 1987 is an English translation of the text.*° It should be pointed out here as well that when the Traiphum was first published in 1912, Prince Damrongrajanuphab, the editor-in-chief, expressed his concern that despite being a rare text which had never been published, the Traiphum might not attract public attention and nobody would want to buy the book if it were to be sold.” Thus, * See Phaya Lithai, is Mor ibhumi Brah R'van), trans. G. Coedés and C. Archaimbault (Paris: Ecole Frangaise d’Extréme-Orient, 1973), * See Traibhumikatha chabab thod kwam [Traibhumikatha: A Simplified Version), ed. ‘The Thai National Team for ASEAN Literatures (Bangkok: ASEAN, 1985); and ‘Traibhumikatha: The Story of Three Planes of Existence. (See note 33 above) *” Damrongrajanuphab, “Introduction,” Traiphum Phra Ruang, (6). Probably a major factor of Prince Damrong’s concern came from witnessing cultural changes in Thai society at his time. As Craig J. Reynolds points out, the belief in the Buddhist cosmography had been on the decline since the nineteenth century as an effect of Thai cultural changes resulting from the advent of the western culture. See more details in Craig J. Reynolds, “Buddhist Cosmography in ‘Thai History, with Special Reference to Nineteenth-Century Culture Change,” Journal of Asian Studies 35.2 (1976): 203-20. 92under Prince Damrong’s authorization, the Traiphum was published to be gratuitously distributed during the funeral of Phra-ongjao Prasamsrisai and Phra-ongjao Prapaisrisa- ard, two members of the royal family.** But contrary to Prince Damrong's concern, the Traiphum became a popular book and has been republished several times, both by commercial publishers and by the Department of Fine Arts of the Ministry of Education. In order to make this text more comprehensible for modem readers, Sthirakoses, a prominent Thai scholar, composed the first commentary that explains the account of the ‘Traiphum and its relationship to Thai literature. It could be said that Sthirakoses’ book, ‘Lao reung nai traiphum [Narrating the Traiphum], first published in 1954, was a very influential study that not only inspired the reader to learn more about the Traiphum, but also set a model for later writers to write a commentary of the text in their own versions.” The public's growing interest in the Traiphum also inspired more publications of other Buddhist cosmological texts, including: ‘Traiphum Lokaviniechayakatha (composed in 1802, published in 1977) Cakkavalathipanee (composed in 1520, published in 1980) Lokabanyat (no date of composition, published in 1985) 3 Damrongrajanuphab, “Introduction,” Traiphum Phra Ruang, (6). » See, for example, Traibhumikatha chabab thod kwam; and Sompong Chaolam, ‘Traibhumikatha chabab khoy yang chua [Traibhumikatha: An Easier Version] (Bangkok: Rung- reung Sam, n.d. These cosmological texts were composed in different regions of Thailand. Except for ‘Traiphum Lokavinicchaya katha, Pathommul, and Pathomkap, which were written in Thai, the others were written in Pali 33Lokathipakasara (composed around the thirteenth century, published in 1986)"" Lokuppatti, Arunavatisutra, Pathommul, and Pathomkap (no date of composition, published in 1990) Although there are several Thai Buddhist cosmological texts and some of them were even ‘composed around the same period as the Traiphum, none of these texts has the same level of complexity as the Traiphum. Hence, even in the present time, the Traiphum still remains the most complex and the most influential cosmological text in Thai literature. 2. The Influences of Traiphum Phra Ruang on Thai Society ‘Traiphum Phra Ruang has a paramount importance on various aspects of Thai society. Though the Traiphum is not the only source of ideas from which Thai society develops, it can be perceived as a very significant source for understanding the Thai organization of the state, social relations, culture and arts. As mentioned earlier, the ‘Traiphum played an important part in the development of the Thai monarchy. By ‘maintaining that kingship is a consequence of the superior level of merit accumulated by kings during their previous lives, the Traiphum associates kingship with conception of ‘merit and thereby justifies the higher position of kings by referring to the Buddhist law of kamma, But instead of simply rationalizing the higher position of king, the Traiphum also aids the administration by promoting good relations between kings and their people. “If the estimated date of composition of this text is accurate, Lokathipakasara can evidence that the Traiphum is not the only Buddhist cosmological text from the Sukhothai period. But unlike the Traiphum, which was written in Thai, Lokathipakasara was written in Pali cyAs suggested through the image of the Cakkavatti king, the Traiphum sets the concept of “dhammaraja” as a standard of conduct for kings ever since the Sukhothai period. Even after the Brahmanic concept of “devaraja” (the god-king) regained its influence in the Ayutthaya period, “dhammaraja” has still been a fundamental principle for Thai kings in all periods. In fact, it could be said that the concept of “dhammaraja” is a major element that sustains the Thai monarchy. With a support from this concept, Thai kings are able to maintain their high position even in the present time, when the nation has undergone major political changes that compromise the power of the monarch. Besides reinforcing the rules of conduct for kings, the ‘Traiphum promotes ethical standards for all people. As illustrated in the various descriptions of sins and punishments of the persons who would be born as hell-beings and suffering ghosts,” these sins mainly deal with social misconduct of people in all classes. An example could be found in the description of Thusapalaca hell, a place of punishment for those “who have mixed atrophied rice, chaff, and straw with good grain, and have sold the mixture to others, passing it off as good rice.” When these people die, they will be reborn in this hell where they are in a river full of blazing atrophied rice and chaff that burns their bodies. When these hell-beings are thirsty, they will scoop up some of this red-hot rice and chaff “ Unlike the hell-beings, who are confined and tortured in the hells underneath the earth, the suffering ghosts could wander and stay in any place. * According to the Traiphum, the realm of hell-beings is divided into eight levels. Each level contains a major hell surrounded by sixteen auxiliary hells, which are in turn surrounded by ‘a number of smaller hells. Thusapalace helt is an auxiliary hell in the first level, which is the level that is closest to the surface of the earth. ‘The Traiphum explains in detail only the sixteen auxiliary hells in the first level. See Traiphum. 9-18/66-80. 38to eat. But as soon as it reaches their stomachs, it becomes fire shooting out from their anuses. (15/75-76) Another hell is called Lohabalisa hell a place of punishment for those who “say that they will buy the goods of others and thereby deceive them into thinking that they will give payment, who trick others out of their goods with false weights and measures, and who trick others into making mistakes and losing their goods without giving them any payment.” When these persons die, they will be reborn in this hell where the hell guardians grasp their tongues with tongs, pull them out, hook them with flaming red iron fish-hooks that are as large as the trunks of palm trees, and drag these hell beings over to lie down on fiery red iron plates that burn out their entire bodies. Then the hell guardians “skin them and put their skins on a stretcher just like cowhide.” The hell-beings ery bitterly with great pain. “Their bodies shake and shudder like fish after someone has broken their necks and thrown them on the dry ground; they drop feces, and vomit blood over and over again.” (16/77-78) As for the governors who take bribes and perform their duty without justice, when they die, they will be reborn as suffering ghosts who are terribly destitute. Being unable to find anything to eat, these suffering ghosts eat their own flesh by using their fingernails, “which are as sharp as very sharp knives, to scrape. and scratch their flesh and skin” and eat it instead of food, (31/101) “ Lohabalisa hell is another auxiliary hell in the first level of the realm of hell-beings. 56It could be assumed that the vivid descriptions of sins and the terrifying punishments in the Traiphum served as a substitute for law in the Sukhothai period."* In order to prevent people from wrongdoing, Phaya Lithai used these powerful descriptions to intimidate them and set norms of conduct for all classes. Although several punishments described in the ‘Traiphum are derived from the Buddhist texts which Phaya Lithai used as his sources, there is enough evidence to believe that some details were added in order to make the sermon more relevant to the circumstances and more convincing to people in the Sukhothai period. Even in modem times, when the belief in the Three Worlds has already declined, the images of the pleasure of heaven and the horrors of hell as described in the text still effectively remain in the Thai imagination, ‘Through graphic descriptions of various punishments in hells that await the evil-doers as well as the vivid pictures of celestial rewards that await the righteous persons, the ‘Traiphum motivates the reader to practice Dhamma in everyday life by enhancing ‘goodness and abstaining from evil. No matter how much Thai society has changed, the moral standards of the people can still be viewed from the Buddhist teachings in this text. While the descriptions of the punishments in hells and the rewards in heavens of the Traiphum explain the standard of conduct by the law of kamma,"* the whole concept “ According to a stone inscription, the first law in Thailand was enacted in 1373, twenty- ‘eight years after the composition of the Traiphum. The Traiphum therefore is considered to be a rule of conduct that created social order during the time when the legal system had been yet established. See more details in Kladyu, 112-14. “© See note 4 above. For further reading on the concept of kamma, see David J. Kalupahana, Causality: The Central Philosophy of Buddhism (Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii, 1975). 7of the “Three Worlds™” aims to illustrate that suffering, impermanence, and non- substantiality are indeed the true nature of things from the Buddhist perspective.“* Thus, there are two levels of Buddhist teachings illustrated in the Traiphum: One is ethics and the other is metaphysics. ‘The law of kamma explains the logic of being born in the Three Worlds whereas “Trilakana™® displays the fundamental nature of the whole concept of the Three Worlds itself.°° With the logic of cause and effect, the law of kamma teaches *" fe might be appropriate to remind the reader that the concept of the “Three Worlds” does not refer to the three planes of Heaven, Earth, and Hell. Rather, itis the concept of the universe characterized by Trilakana (see note 48-49 below). the law of kama, and the cycle of birth and rebirth. Nibbana, in the Theravada perspective, therefore, is the release from Trilakana, from the law of kamma, from the cycle of birth and rebirth, or in sum, nibbana is the release from the Three Worlds. (Kamma and the cycle of rebirth are related because kamma, or previous deeds, is the cause of rebirth in the subsequent lives. Kama therefore is the logic that explains the existence of all beings. (See note 3-5 above.) * According to the Theravada perspective, the term “suffering” does not simply refer to physical and mental anguish. Rather, it signifies intrinsic nature of all existence. In Theravada conception, suffering could be viewed in three aspects: First, suffering pertaining to the process of life which involves birth, aging, sickness, and death; secondly, suffering due to the transitoriness of all phenomena; and thirdly, suffering relating to the conditionedness of things. Impermanence and non-substantiality of the phenomenal world are also the causes of suffering. The Theravada views non-substantiality or non-self as the nature of all existence for, according to the Theravada perspective, everything, including our own existence, is a mere compounded thing constituted from diversity of factors. Since each factor exists dependently on other factors according to the law of causality, none of these factors stands as a core but exists only conditionally. For further details on suffering, impermanence, and non-substantiality, see Chinda Chandrkaew, Nibbana: ‘The Ultimate Truth of Buddhism (Bangkok: Kurusapha, 1982); H. Wolfgang Schumann, Buddhism: An Outline of Its Teachings and Schools, trans. Georg Fene (London: Rider, 1973). * Trilakana, which literally means “three characteristics” (trai means three, lakana ‘means characteristics), is the term used to refer to suffering, impermanence, and non substantiality—the three fundamental characteristics of all beings and things within the Three Worlds. See more details in Chapter 4 below. ® Although kamma is the logic that explains the existence of all beings in the Three Worlds, the law of causality, which is another logic underlying the concept of kama, also relates to the concept of Trilakana, For if existence is a mere consequence of causes, all 58Taymen about moral conduct and the way to live their best in the Three Worlds. As for Trilakana, by revealing the true nature of the Three Worlds, Trilakana teaches us to have an accurate perception of these Worlds in order that we would not hold on to their deceptive appearance.®! The knowledge of Trilakana therefore is the basis for transcending the Three Worlds and for breaking off from the law of kamma.*” With all of these philosophical implications, the Traiphum is not simply the text describing the cosmology of the Three Worlds. Rather, the description of the Three Worlds is aimed to illustrate two levels of Buddhist teachings: One is moral conduct that will enable us to have good lives within the Three Worlds; and the other is the knowledge that will release us from these Worlds. These two levels of teachings seem to be well captured by many “traiphum” mural paintings, which usually cover the walls behind the Buddha images in the existence is only conditioned. Being conditioned thereby reconfirms that suffering, impermanence, and substancelessness are the intrinsic nature of all things. 5" Although various heavens could provide one with great happiness, the joy of heavens is still limited and conditioned, and accordingly could not in any way compare to the ultimate felicity of nibbana. * For more details on the relation between kamma and Trilakana in the Traiphum, see Phra Rajavaramuni, Traiphum phra ruang itthiphon tau sangkom thai [The Influence of Traiphum Phra Ruang upon Thai Society] (Bangkok: Seng Rung. 1983); and Phra-maha Narongphaddayano, “Khunkha khong wannakhadi reung traiphum phra ruang [The Merit of ‘Traiphum Phra Ruang}, Buddhachak 38.4 (1984); 20-28, ® For an overview of Thai painting, see Elizabeth Lyons, “A Note on Thai Pait ‘The Arts of Thailand, ed. Theodore Bowie (Westport: Greenwood, 1975) 166-81; Santi Leksukhum, ‘Temples of Gold: Seven Centuries of Thai Buddhist Paintings, trans. Keaneth D. Whitehead (New York: George Braziller, 2000). 39ubosot.* In these colored paintings, hell is depicted in the lower part of the wall whereas heaven is in the upper part. ‘The image of hell is typically characterized by hell beings tortured in various manners while the image of heaven is often displayed as an assembly of divine beings adorned with many beautiful details. In the first level, these paintings teach ethics to the beholders by inspiring them to be aware of the consequences of their deeds or, in other words, to realize the law of kamma.*> But on a deeper level, these paintings display the concept of Trilakana. Seeing the images of heaven and hell in a single composition, the beholders realize that heaven and hell, which seem to be totally different at first glance, tum out to share the same characteristics. For no matter how much joy the divine beings have or how much suffering the hell beings are inflicted, both groups share the same characteristics of suffering, impermanence, and non- substantiality.** In this way, a subtle meaning that the images of heaven and hell aim to convey is for the beholders to realize the true characteristics of the phenomenal world in order that they would not hold on to its deceptive appearance but focus instead on practicing the ways to gain release. Since the Buddha images situated in front of these paintings represent not only the Buddha himself but also his Enlightenment or the release + Ubosot is a consecrated building in a Thai temple, It serves as an assembly hall where monks gather to carry out religious ceremonies. Each ubosot has a principle Buddha image in the center and the wall behind the Buddha image is usually adomed with scenes from the life of the Buddha and images from the “Three Worlds” cosmology. * For Thai laity, the law of kama could be summarized simply as “a good deed will bring a beneficial result, and an evil deed will bring a bad consequence in return.” * See note 49. 0.from the Three Worlds, the focus that these background paintings aim is indeed symbolized in the Buddha images in front of them. The position of these paintings therefore could not be more proper. By placing these paintings behind the Buddha images, Thai artists cleverly create an interaction between painting and sculpture, and highlight the presence of the Buddha both in an artistic and a symbolic ways. In some ubosor, instead of having the pictures of heaven and hell behind the Buddha images, the entire walls are painted as Mt. Sumeru surrounded by seven mountain ranges. According to the Traiphum, Mt, Sumeru is the great mountain at the center of the universe of which the summit is the dwelling place of the divine beings.” Nonetheless, when the time comes, this great mountain as well as the universe itself will be destroyed according to the cycle of destruction and renewal, the natural process of all things within the universe. The paintings of Mt. Sumeru in these ubosor therefore not only serve an aesthetic purpose, but also convey the truth of Trilakana that things, no ‘matter how great and significant they appear, do have suffering, impermanence, and non- substantiality as their intrinsic nature. Not a mountain with a magnificent presence or * For more discussion of Mt. Sumeru and the Traiphum’s cosmography, see Chapter 2 below. % As indicated in the Traiphum, the Theravada believes in the cycle of destruction and renewal of the universe (ef. the cycle of birth and rebirth of all beings). Except for the highest seven realms in the World of Form and the four realms in the World of Formlessness, all realms that constitute the universe will be destroyed when the end of the Kappa arrives. (See notes 3 and 25 above) After the process of destruction is complete, the universe will be reconstructed and a ‘new kappa begins. This process of destruction and renewal of the universe continues like this until the end of time. For more details on the destruction and renewal of the universe, see ‘Traiphum, 139-44/305-17. 61even the universe itself could remain forever.” In this sense, to paint the images of Mt. ‘Sumeru at the walls behind the Buddha images can be viewed as a design to highlight the contrast between the ever changing phenomenon of the Three Worlds represented in the images of Mt. Sumeru and the permanent felicity of nibbana symbolized by the Buddha images. The focus that these paintings aim to convey is thus once again embodied by the Buddha images in front of them. For the beholders to understand the symbolic significance of these paintings and their rapport with the Buddha images, the knowledge of Buddhist cosmology is required. Even when the paintings do not focus on the “Three “Worlds” but scenes from the life of the Buddha, they still contain cosmological elements and mythical figures which the knowledge of the Traiphum plays an important part in enhancing the beholders’ appreciation. Though the Traiphum might not be the only source from which Thai artists derived their inspiration concerning these cosmological elements,” it is the first text that organizes these ideas into the most colorful and the most authoritative refefence for Thai Buddhist cosmology. ® Although it seems that the destruction of Mt. Sumeru and the universe denotes only the notion of impermanence, it indeed implies all three aspects of Trilakana, ic. suffering, impermanence, and non-substantiality. As previously noted, these three aspects of Trilakana are all interrelated; they all signify the state of things that cannot sustain their existence, See note 48-49 above. © As mentioned earlier, there are several cosmological texts in Thailand and some were ‘even composed around the same period as the Traiphum. Accordingly, it is believed that the concept of “traiphum” ot the “Three Worlds” had widely dispersed in the Thai regions before the composition of the Traiphum. For further discussion on the dispersion of the concept of “rraiphum” or the “Three Worlds,” see Dhida Saraya, “Traiphum kab kar jad rabieb khwamkid ‘nai prawattisat sangkhom thai (Traiphum and the Organization of Ideas in Thai Social History],” Sinlapa-Wathanatham 6.2 (1984): 94-102; and Niyada Laosunthom, “Traiphum phra ruang: ‘Mummong mai [Traiphum Phra Ruang: A New Perspective},” The Wilderness of the Past oThe influences of the Traiphum on Thai arts can also be viewed from many Thai Buddhist architectural styles. Basing his study on the Traiphum, Chod Kalayanamit maintains that the concept of the “Three Worlds” is a framework that shapes the characteristics of Thai architecture.” Although it has been widely accepted that the profiles of many Thai Buddhist architectural structures are derived from the image of Mt. ‘Sumeru, what makes Kalayanamit’s study distinct is his approach in investigating the detailed embellishment displayed in these structures. In his discussion on the structure of the prang™ at the Temple of the Dawn in Bangkok (see Figure 2), for example, Kalayanamit does not simply say that the tower of the prang stands for Mt. Sumeru as many critics claim, but he also applies the knowledge of the Traiphum to point out the significance of the details of this prang. In Kalayanamit's view, since the tower of the rang symbolizes Mt. Sumeru, the six tiers on the upper part of the tower can be interpreted as the six levels of heaven in the World of Desire. This interpretation is Essays in Honor of M.R. Supawat Kasemsti, ed. Winai Pongstipian (Bangkok: n.p., 1994) 221- 36. ' Chod Kalayanamit, “Traiphum nai phuthasasana kab sathapatayakam thai [The Concept of Traiphum in Buddhism and Thai Architecture],” Silpakorn University Journal 2.1 1978): 53. © & prang is a tower sanctuary with a distinctive comcob profile on a square base. The style is originally derived from Khmer architecture but details were adapted according to Thai Buddhist architecture. For more details on Thai architecture, see Subhadradis Diskul, Artin Thailand: A Brief History (Bangkok: Krung Siam, 1970). 6Figure 2 ‘The Prang at The Temple of the Dawn, Thailand. Source: Theodore Bowie, ed., The Arts of Thailand: A Handbook of the Architecture, Sculpture and Painting of Thailand (Siam), (Bloomington: Indiana University, 1960) 158,Figure 3 Pra Pathom Chedi, Thailand Source: Theodore Bowie, ed., The Arts of Thailand: A Handbook of the Architecture, ‘Sculpture and Painting of Thailand (Siam), (Bloomington: Indiana University, 1960) 158,Figure 4 An example of a pyramidal roof from the Mondhop at the Shrine of the Buddha's Footprint, Thailand Source: Theodore Bowie, ed., The Arts of Thailand: A Handbook of the Archit es Sculpture and Painting of Thailand (Siam), (Bloomington: Indiana University, 1960) 159, 66substantiated by two groups of sculptures. One is the sculpture of Indra, serving as the representative of gods (devata) in the World of Desire, in the upper part of the tower. ‘The other is the sculptures of astra (giants), serving as the guards of the tower in the lower part of the prang, the position that conforms to the location of the realm of asura which, according to the Traiphum, is situated beneath Mt. Sumeru.* In another example, Kalayanamit interprets the specific numbers used in the configuration of Thai Buddhist architecture by relating them to the structure of the universe described in the Traiphum. In the configuration of a chedi (see Figure 3),° for instance, the number of tiers circling the tall spire on the top of the chedi could be explained by the combination of realms in the traiphum cosmology. For example, six tiers could signify the six levels of heaven in the World of Desire, eleven tiers are the eleven realms that compose the World of Desire, sixteen tiers are the sixteen realms that compose the World of Form, twenty tiers are the twenty realms that compose the World of Form and the World of Formlessness, and thirty-two tiers are Nibbana and all thirty- tt is unlikely to mistake Indra for other gods because the sculptures of Indra are usually portrayed as he is riding his elephant, Eravana, who has a unique characteristic of having thirty- tee heads (but is normally portrayed as having three heads in the sculptures). For more details on the asura, see Chapter 2 below. ° & chedi is a Buddhist monument in a shape of a dome symbolizing Mt. Sumeru. The top of a chedi is stylized as a tall spire ringed with several tiers. The number of tiers in each chedi is varied. Some chedi might have only six tiers whereas others may have as many as thirty two tiers orone realms that compose the Three Worlds.” A similar concept can be found in the roof pattern of a palace. Since a palace is usually compared to the heaven of Indra on the pinnacle of Mt. Sumeru,’” the pyramidal roof of the palace is designed as seven overlapping layers in order to imitate the seven mountain ranges that surround Mt. Sumeru. (See Figure 4) Thus, as all of these examples show, it would not be an exaggeration to maintain that without the knowledge of the Traiphum, one would hardly have a true understanding in the subtlety of Thai Buddhist arts. Besides its influences on Thai arts, the Traiphum plays a pivotal part in Thai literary study. By being a comprehensive text describing the Theravada universe in great detail, the Traiphum is considered a literary work itself as well as a source of reference for Thai poets and writers of later periods. A large number of Thai literary texts refer to the various cosmological elements, mythical figures, names, and stories described in the ‘Traiphum. Although it is difficult to determine whether these elements derive directly from the Traiphumn since there are a number of Thai cosmological texts, itis generally accepted that the knowledge of the Traiphum is the basis for understanding Thai literature, For instance, since Thai classical poets usually describe their love and their Cf. note 3 above. According to the Traiphum, nibbana or the Release is represented as ‘a perfect city called the city of Nibbana. For further discussion on the city of Nibbana, see Chapter 4 of this study. © although the heaven of Indra is not the highest level of heaven in the Three Worlds, this heaven is usually regarded, due to its joyous and magnificent images, as the representation of heaven in Thai conception. “ For an overview of various cosmological elements in Thai literature, see Sthirakoses, note 34 above. 68sorrow at being separated from their beloved by referring to cosmological elements and mythical figures; the background of the “Three Worlds” cosmology is required to understand their lamentation, A good example can be found in a four-lined poem by Sri Prat, a famous poet of the Ayutthaya period. In this poem, the poet laments that he cries until his tears become a deluge that floods the world up to the heaven of brahma.” All beings are drowned and even Mt. Sumeru is dissolved by his deluge of tears. If it were not because of a brahma from the highest realm of heaven in the World of Form who kindly helps him, he himself would also be drowned by his own tears. Without the knowledge of the “Three Worlds” cosmology, the readers would not be able to understand the intensity of his emotion and the vivid imagery that the poet tries to convey. As depicted in the Traiphum, the process of the destruction of the universe is an extending period of extreme turmoil. The universe will be destroyed by three factors: First by fire, then by water, and finally by wind. After the destruction of fire, there will be a deluge that floods the world up to the heavens of brahma. This deluge drowns all beings, and destroys Mt. Sumeru, all heavens in the World of Desire, and even some heavens in the World of Form. Only the highest seven realms of brakma in the World of Sri Prat’s birthdate is unknown but it is believed that he lived during the reign of King Narai (1656-1688). His father was a royal sage and Sri Prat first showed his poetic talents at the age of nine, when he completed an unfinished poem composed by King Narai. Therefore Sri Prat became one of King Narai’s favorite sages. Unfortunately, his life was cut short by his sharp tongue and unreserved manners. For more details on Sri Prat, see P. Schweisguth, 114-18; and Manich Jumsai, History of Thai Literature (Bangkok: Chalermnit, 1992) 155-69. ”° Brahma are the divine beings in the World of Form and the World of Formlessness. See note 3 above. 9Form and the four realms of brahma in the World of Formlessness can survive this destruction.” In this regard, when the poet associates his tears to the deluge that destroys the universe, he captures, within only four lines, the whole image of turmoil and devastation of the universe, and artistically connotes the immense intensity of his sorrow. Even for contemporary Thai literature, the knowledge of the Traiphum still helps illuminate certain meanings that the modem poets and writers intend to convey. For instance, in a poem called “A Poet's Pledge” by Angkarn Kalayanaphong,”? the background of the Traiphum helps underline the distinction between the traditional ‘Theravada beliefs and the poet’s unconventional world-view.”’ By pronouncing his devotion to renounce nibbana in order to remain in samsara or “this cycle of birth and rebirth,” the poet reverses the Theravada values exemplified in the Traiphum. As ‘mentioned earlier, the Traiphum presents the image of the Three Worlds in order that the readers would not hold on to their deceptive appearances and aspire instead to nibbana. The ultimate goal of the Traiphum therefore is to gain release from the Three Worlds or, in other words, from samsara or the cycle of birth and rebirth. But as for the poet in “A Poet’s Pledge,” he is not only willing to give up nibbana but also determines to remain in the samsaric world as long as he can, As suggested by an image of “fossils,” which ' See note 58 above. ” Angkarn Kalayanaphong (bom 1926) is a leading contemporary Thai poet and artist. He is famous for his bold imagery, his caustic social criticism, and his strong devotion to the supremacy of arts, ” For an excerpt of this poem discussed here, see Appendix below, 70implies a potential of crossing time, the poet expresses his strong desire to hold on to this world in order to keep “eternal watch on [his] creation.” For the poet, his poetry is not simply a work of art. Rather, it is a work of art that “tid{s] mankind of sufferings"—the role that the Traiphum reserves only for nibbana. ‘The universe that the poet creates thus, appears as an act of renouncing the conventional Theravada values illustrated in the ‘Traiphum. While the Traiphum emphasizes the concept of non-self and maintains that the universe exists by itself without any creator, the poet in “A Poet’s Pledge” declares himself as a creator of “a new universe of the mind” where heaven is decorated, not with gold and jewels as in the Traiphum, but with “the magic of poetry.” In addition, while the Traiphum emphasizes the merit in the sense of virtuous deeds outlined by moral and religious principles, the poet defines his new version of merit by pronouncing that “merits can thus be made through artistic creations.” In this sense, although “A Poet’s Pledge” does not directly refer to the Traiphum, the Theravada belief manifested in the Traiphum could be viewed as the foundation for the poet to build his own revolutionary universe. The influence of Western ideas on Angkam Kalayanaphong’s poetry is also a subject of investigation for recent studies. See, for example, Chetana Nagavajara, “Art in Place of Nirvana: Western Aesthetics and the Poetry of Angkam Kalayanaphong,” Comparative Jterature from a Thai Perspective: Collected Articles 1978-1992 (Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Press, 1996) 213-28. Although Tagree with Nagavajara that Kalayanaphong’s poetry shows the influence of Western thought, his expression of renouncing nibbana in order to remain in this world to rid mankind of suffering seems to remind us of the role of a Bodhisattva in ‘Mahayana tradition, who intentionally delays his or her attainment of nibbana in order to alleviate the suffering of other beings. Nonetheless, unlike the Bodhisattva who focuses on practicing Buddhist compassion, Kalayanaphong’s “poet” expresses his compassion for mankind through his art 1Thus, as these examples reveal, the roles of the Traiphum in the development of ‘Thai literary and art history are evident. Whether directly or indirectly, the knowledge of the Traiphum indisputably plays a significant part in the understanding of Thai literary texts in all periods; even if those texts might represent the changing world-views that are totally different from that of the Traiphum. 3. The State of Scholarship on Traiphum Phra Ruang Although the Traiphum is the Thai classical literary text most known to the Westerners, the study of the Traiphum by Western scholars is still imited both in the number and in the scope of their studies. While some scholars treat the Traiphum as a historical reference that helps reveal real conditions during the Sukhothai kingdom,” several contest that notion by their arguments concerning the authenticity of the text. Michael Vickery is one of the leading scholars who argue that the version of the ‘Traiphum we have is probably not the writing of the Sukhothai period.”* According to ‘Vickery, the dates specified in the exordium and the colophon of the text could not be the reliable sources for determining the date of the composition of the Traiphum. For, in Vickery’s view, both the exordium and the colophon of the Traiphum “were composed considerably later than the Sukhothai period and by a scribe who had only a hazy 5 See George Coedés, “The Traibhumikatha: Buddhist Cosmology and Treaty on Ethics,” East and West 7 (1957): 349-52. * See Michael Vickery, ““A Note on the Date of the Traibhumikatha,” Journal of the Siam Society 62 (1974): 275-84; and “On Traibhumikatha,” Journal of the Siam Society 79 (1991); 24-36. 2conception of true Sukhothai history."”” Against the conventional belief of many Thai literary scholars, who hold that the archaic language in the Traiphum reflects the characteristics of language in the Sukhothai period,”® Vickery maintains that the Traiphum “exhibits language features which distinguish it from the 14th-century Sukhothai inscriptions, and which also distinguish some parts of {the Traiphum] itself from other parts, indicating that the entire text was not composed at the same time by a single person, or group of persons working together.””” Vickery therefore concludes that the current text we have is “probably” the writing during the reign of King Rama the First of the Ratanakosin period.” Although it is legitimate to maintain that the Traiphum contains some variations of vocabulary that can be attributed to the “generations of copyists” of the text as Vickery claims, to state that “the entire text was not composed at the same time by a single person, or group of persons working together” is certainly a proposition that needs further substantial investigation. In my view, despite having some variations in its vocabulary and linguistic style, the Traiphum, as this present study will explore in the following chapters, is still a very organized narrative in which details, including the minor ones, are orchestrated into a single unified text. If we were to compare the narrative of the 7 Vickery, “A Note on the Date of the Traibhumikatha,” 279. ”* Cf, note 34 above. ” Vickery, “On Traibhumikatha,” 32. © Vickery, “On Traibhumikatha,” 33 B‘Traiphum to that of Traiphum Lokavinicchayakatha, another “traiphum” text which is a work of several compilers (see note 31 above), we would see the differences in the narrative style between a unified “text” and a “book” compiled by several authors. Vickery’s proposition, however, is supported by Piriya Krairiksh, a Thai scholar, who also believes that neither the Traiphum nor the Ramkhamhaeng inscription®! date from the Sukhothai period." But unlike Vickery who suggests that the Traiphum was composed during the reign of King Rama the First, Krairiksh ascribes the text to King Rama the Fourth. Krairiksh begins his study by comparing the Traiphum to the Ramkhamhaeng inscription and maintains that both texts contain sufficient similarity of linguistic styles to assert that they are the writings of the same period. Then, by comparing these two texts to Phaya Lithai’s inscriptions from the Sukhothai period, Kraitiksh uses the linguistic dissimilarity between these two groups to indicate that the ‘Traiphum and the Ramkhamhaeng inscription are not the writings of the Sukhothai period as generally believed. After concluding that these two texts are not the products of the ‘Sukhothai period, Krairiksh then compares these (wo texts to certain passages from *\ ‘The Ramkhambaeng inscription is a very significant piece of evidence for the study of the Sukhothai history. (See notes 13 and 14 above) Although itis stated to be inscribed in 1292 by King Ramkhamhaeng after he established the Thai script, the authenticity of the Ramkhamhaeng inscription has been challenged by a number of modern Thai historians. ® See Piriya Krairiksh, “Khaw Khid kiew kab traiphum phra ruang: Phrarajaniphon nai phramaha dhammaraja thi neung phraya lithai reu phrabatsomdej phrajomklao jaoyuhua {Some Considerations on Traiphum Phra Ruang: A Writing by King Dhammaraja the First or King Rama the Fourth?),” Thaikhadi suksa: Ruam botkwam thang wichakam phua sadaeng smuthitachit ajar phan-ek ying khunNion Sanitwong na Ayudhaya [Thai Studies in Honor of Colonel Khun Nion Sanitwong na Ayudhaya), ed. Sunthari Asawai et al. (Bangkok: Amarin, 1990) 4literary texts of the early Ratanakosin period, and uses the linguistic similarity among them to justify that they all are the writings of the same period. Since Krairiksh has already indicated, in his other studies, that King Rama the Fourth of Ratanakosin is the real author of the Ramkhamhaeng inscription, he thereby concludes that the linguistic similarity between the Traiphum and the Ramkhamhaeng inscription attests that both texts share not only the same period but also the same author. Although the way Krairiksh bases his investigation on the comparative studies of Janguage makes his study appealing, his study is not substantial or conclusive enough to determine that King Rama the Fourth is the real author of the text. Instead of studying the entire text of the Traiphum, Krairiksh focuses only on certain phrases and passages of the text that support his argument. His strong belief in his presupposition tends to make him disregard other possibilities even when they are supported by his own findings. An ‘example could be found when he compares the Traiphum and the Ramkhamhaeng inscription to Phaya Lithai’s inscriptions of the Sukhothai period. According to Krairiksh, the linguistic dissimilarity between the Traiphum and the Ramkhamhaeng_ inscription on the one hand and Phaya Lithai’s inscriptions on the other hand asserts that the Traiphum and the Ramkhamhaeng inscription are not the writings of the Sukhothai period. But when the findings show that there are also some similarities among them, Krairiksh simply assumes that the author of the Traiphum and the Ramkhamhaeng inscription must have read Phaya Lithai’s inscriptions and borrowed some passages from 15these inscriptions to put into his texts."? Krairiksh’s standard therefore appears to be inconsistent. While, in other instances, he uses linguistic similarity as an indication of being in the same period, this time similarity simply suggests an act of imitating. Thus, despite having an interesting approach, Krairiksh’s study could not subvert the conventional agreement regarding the author and the date of composition of the Traiphum. Most scholars therefore are still convinced that the Traiphum was composed by Phaya Lithai in 1345 CE. Despite being a very important text in Thai literary history, the critical study of the literary aspects of the Traiphum is very rare. Instead, most of the studies concerning the ‘Traiphum exclusively explore the historical and political dimensions of this text. For instance, in his article on the role of the Cakkavatti king, or the Universal Monarch, in the ‘Traiphum, Sombat Chandarawong limits his study only to the political implications of the text. In Chandarawong’s view, the most significant part of the Traiphum is the realm of human beings" of which the account of the Cakkavatti king is presented as the center.** Although his discussion on the political significance of the Cakkavatti king is convincing, Chandarawong, in my view, apparently misinterprets the focus of the text. By © Krairiksh, 225. * See Sombat Chandarawong, “Phraya jakraphadiraj nai traiphum phra ruang: Khau sangket bang prakarn kiew kab khwammai thang karnmeung [The Universal Monarch in ‘Traiphumn Phra Ruang: Some Remarks on Its Political Implications},” Warasarn prawattisat 4.1 (4979): 1-17. ® See note 3 above. * Chandarawong, 9 6disregarding the chapter on Nibbana and considering the Traiphum as illustrating only an account of the Three Worlds,” Chandarawong leaves out the most important part of the text. His conclusion that the Cakkavatti king is the focus of the Traiphum therefore is based on an incomplete view of the text. It is true that the realm of human beings is the longest section of the Traiphum. It is also true, as discussed earlier, that the role of the Cakkavatti king has certain connections with the role Phaya Lithai intended to assume. Nevertheless, political significance is not the central meaning of the Traiphum nor is the role of the Cakkavatti king the center of the text. If the Traiphumm aims to promote the highest position of kingship, the story of the Cakkavatti king would not be immediately followed by the stories of Queen Asandhimitta and Jotika.” The fact that these three stories are put in a series suggests that the point the author intended to underline is not the highest position of king but the power of merit, which is the central theme shared by these three stories. Phaya Lithai’s main reason of elaborating the realm of human beings therefore is to remind the readers of their potential to control their kamma or, in other words, to determine their “places” within the Three Worlds. * Chandarawong, 5. The Traiphum is divided into eleven chapters of which Nibbana is the last chapter. Although readers tend to see the Traiphum simply as an account of the Three Worlds and disregard the chapter on Nibbana, Nibbana is in fact the most important factor for a true understanding of the whole text. See more discussion of Nibbana in Chapter 4 below. © in my view, the stories of Queen Asandhimitta and Jotika are the stories that subvert the highest position of king. Both of them prove that ordinary people, like a woman or a merchant, can possess great merit as well. Stil, like the section on Nibbana, these two stories are overshadowed by readers’ focuses on the Cakkavatti king. See more discussion on this subject in Chapter 3 below nBut for the critics who see the Traiphum as a political discourse, kamma is viewed as an instrument that the royal author employed to support his own status. Although it is evident that the aw of kamma helps justify kingship through the notion of merit, kingship is not the center of the Traiphum but only an example that serves to illustrate the power of merit. By focusing on kamma only in its relation to the royalty of the author, these critics maintain that the author used kamma not only to promote his position but also to convince people to accept their inferior status. According to Kanjana Kaewthep in her analysis on fear in Thai society,” the law of kamma benefits the ruling class in two aspects. First, from the premise that a person’s state of being is the result of his merit performed in his previous lives, the law of kamma reduces the tension between classes by providing an unarguable explanation for class distinction.”! Secondly, from the notion that a person’s deeds in this life can determine the rewards and the punishments he will receive in his next life, the law of kamma directs people’s behavior to conform to the ® See Kanjana Kaewthep, “Botwikhraw “kwam klua nai sangkhom Thai” duay thridsadee jitwithaya jitwikhraw lae sangkhom widthaya Marxism [An Analysis on “Fear in Thai society” Based on Psychological, Psychoanalytical, and Marxist Theories],” Sethasat karmmeung 2.21982): 28-50. * Although Kaewthep as well as several critics view kamma as the basis for class distinction, the Buddhist law of kamma was indeed developed to oppose the Brahmanic concept of social classes in India. Instead of confining men to a rigid class distinction, the Buddhist law of kamma emphasizes that a person possesses a power to control his own destiny. All men have ‘equal opportunity to direct their places, whether to move upward or downward, within the Three Worlds. For more details on the differences between the Buddhist law of kamma and the Brahmanic tradition, see David J. Kalupahana, Causality: The Central Philosophy of Buddhism (Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii, 1975). Bsocial disciplines designed by the ruling class.” In Kaewthep’s view, the purpose of composing the Traiphum as well as the purpose of describing the images of heaven and hell in the text are firmly based on political ground. While the image of heaven attracts people with the prospect of rewards in exchange for their obedience, the image of hell controls people by creating horrifying imagination, which, according to Kaewthep, is the source of endless fear.®? With this premise, Kaewthep concludes that the Traiphum is the foundation of the construction of fear in Thai society. ‘Thus, for a number of critics, the Traiphum represents a text that serves the ruling, class and promotes social inequality. Especially after Thailand’s political upheaval in 1973, the leftists condemned the Traiphum as the text that represented a hindrance to the development of the nation and demanded the text to be burned due to its “deluded 195 nature.”°> Many interpretations of the Traiphum during this period therefore appear to ® Kaewthep, 36-40. *® Kaewthep, 41. Like other forms of ethics, the images of heaven and hell unquestionably relate to the concepts of control and discipline. But in contrast to Kaewthep’s perspective, the horrors of hell in the Traiphum do not aim to contro! only the lower class but the ruling class alike. In addition, the Traiphum is not the only text that portrays the image of hell. The similar horrific descriptions of hell could also be found in a number of Buddhist texts as parts of their ethical teachings. For more details on the Theravada and Mahayana descriptions of hell, see Akira Sadakata, Buddhist Cosmology: Philosophy and Origins, trans. Gaynor Sekimori (Tokyo: Kosei, 1997); and Daigan and Alicia Matsunaga, The Buddhist Concept of Hell (New York: Philosophical Library, 1972). ™ Kaewthep, 35. °5 Soren Ivarsson, “The Study of Traiphum Phra Ruang: Some Considerations,” Thai Literary Traditions, ed. Manas Chitakasem (Bangkok: Chulslongkorn University Press, 1995) 67, For more details on the effects of the contemporary Thai social and political movements on the ‘Traiphum, see Peter A. Jackson, “Re-Interpreting the Traiphum Phra Ruang: Political Functions of Buddhist Symbolism in Contemporary Thailand,” Buddhist Trends in Southeast Asia, ed. 9have been directed by the country’s political and social movements. But even before these contemporary movements, the Traiphum had been involved in a political discourse since its first publication in 1912, when King Rama VI wrote an English article entitled “Uttarakura: An Asiatic Wonderland” to ridicule the Thai “social reformers” in his time.** According to the Traiphum, Uttarakuru is an ideal land where people are all beautiful, happy, and equal. The wealth of this land is communally owned, and there is no need to work nor to accumulate private property since the land yields everything that ‘one might need.” By referring to Uttarakuru, the idealistic state in the Traiphum, King Rama VI mocked the socialists that their desire for a perfect society was not an innovative idea. Rather, the idea that they claimed to be “new” was in fact “as old as the hills” for it had been mentioned since ancient times. Even an old text like the Traiphum already contained an account of the idealistic state. Furthermore, since the Traiphum specifies that Uttarakuru is a land situated apart from the land where human beings like ‘Trevor Ling, Social Issues in Southeast Asia (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1993) 64-100. % This article was first published in 1912 in a journal called Siam Observers and reprinted as a book in 1965. See Vajiravudh (King Rama VI of Thailand), “Uttarakure: An Asiatic Wonderland,” Uttarakuru (Bangkok: Maha Mongkut Rajavidhayalai, 1965). * See more details in Traiphum, 44-48/126-35, and Chapter 3 below. Since the image of ‘Uttarakuru is similar to Thomas More’s Utopia, there are also some comparative studies on this subject. See, for example, Chuan Petchkaew, “Lok haeng udomkhati nai traiphum phra ruang lae Utopia khong Thomas More {The Ideal Worlds in Traiphum Phra Ruang and Thomas More’s Utopia},” Wicha 1.3 (1976): 81-87; and Sithdha Phinijphuwadol, “Naew khid ruam kiew kab sangkhom udomkhati nai traiphum phra ruang, Utopia, lac Tao tek keng {Common Themes of the Ideal Society in Traiphun Phra Ruang, Utopia, and Tao-Te-Ching],” Ramkhamohaeng University Joumal 9.1 (n.): 12-47. 80us live, Uttarakuru can be viewed as a kind of an imaginary land and its perfection simply as an idealistic vision that does not really exist in the real world. King Rama VI therefore contended that the socialists’ attempt to create a perfect society was not only outdated but also “arrant nonsense.”"* Nonetheless, for some contemporary scholars, Uttarakuru becomes a topic that is neither outdated nor nonsense. Rather, the notion of equality described in the account of this land confirms that an ideal society in Buddhist perspective is in effect the society that is fundamentally equal. As suggested by Chai-anan Samuthavanij in his study on the concept of utopia in a Buddhist scripture called Agganna Sutta,” the idealistic description of Uttarakuru in the Traiphum corresponds to the original state of Buddhist society described in this scripture. According to the Agganna Sutta, the original state of society was equality and happiness. People did not need to accumulate private property for everything was communally owned. There was no need for law nor government because people lived in harmony. But when society evolved, discord among people ‘occurred and society needed to be administered by a ruler, a step that led not only to the formation of State but also to the emergence of class distinction within society. In % Vajiravudh, 20. ® See Chai-anan Samuthavanij, “Utopia nai phra sutra [The Concept of utopia in a Buddhist Scripture],” Aksomsart Pijam 2.8 (1973): 55-60. Agganna Sutta is a Buddhist scripture containing a discussion on the origin of society. For an English translation of this scripture, see Steven Collins, “The Discourse on What is Primary (Agganna Sutta).” Nirvana and Other Buddhist Feticities: Utopias of the Pali Imaginaire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998) 627-34. A similar account on the origin of society can also be found in the Traiphum. See ‘Traiphum, 145-49/317-27. For further discussion on this subject, see Chapter 3 below. a1Samuthavanij's view, the natural and ideal form of society therefore is the communal state before the origin of government.’ By being featured as a land of harmony and equality, similar to the communal state described in the Agganna Sutta, Uttarakuru, in this way, becomes a perfect model for Thai socialists” ideal society—a society which not only corresponds to their socialist concepts but is also justified by Buddhism. ‘The socialist interpretation of Uttarakura as an evidence supporting the notion that Buddhism promotes the concept of communal society is contested by another group of scholars who focus their attention instead on the formation of social administration. Basing their discussion on the same scripture (i.e. Agganna Sutta) and the section on the origin of the State in the Traiphum,!” these critics maintain that democracy is indeed the fundamental form of government that is truly justified by Buddhism. Since the first ruler, as illustrated in these two texts, was elected by people in order to mediate their discord, people were the group who had most power in society, and the ruler was merely a position given by the popular consent. As suggested by the appellations of the king described in the Traiphum, “the reason that he is called Great Elect is because it is the people who appoint him to be their superior. The reason that he is called Khattiya is because the people agree to have him divide the highland fields, the lowland fields, the * Samuthavanij, 56-58. "©" See more details in Chapter 3 below. For a comparative study on the origin of the State in the Traiphum and in other Buddhist texts, see Somkiat Wanthana, “Thrisdi kamnerd lok, kamnerd sangkom lac kamnerd rath jak agganyasutra, traiphum phra ruang, traiphusn Iokavinicchayakatha [Theories of the Origin of the World, the Society, and the State from Agganna Sutta, Traiphum Phra Ruang, Traiphum Lokavinijchayakatha},” Journal of Social ‘Sciences and Humanities 11.1 (1981): 99-115. 82rice, and the water among them. The reason that he is called [Raja] is because he pleases the senses and the minds of the people.” (148/324-25) Thus, for the critics who advocate democracy, this section on the origin of the State supports their notion that a liberal and democratic administration is in fact the form of government justified by Buddhism, ‘The studies of the Traiphum in the social and political arena therefore are very diverse for the text has been interpreted to render justifications for conflicting social and political ideologies, starting from being viewed as promoting absolute monarchy, class distinction, a communal idealistic society, to a democratic form of administration. Although there have been attempts to shift the focus of studying the Traiphum to other areas,' social and political interpretations are still the dominant trends in studying this text, and a critical study on the structure of the text as a whole have been practically disregarded. The following discussion accordingly is an attempt, not to subvert the validity of the previous studies of the Traiphum, but to offer a new way of interpreting this text. By concentrating on the structure of the Traiphum as well as its textual strategy, this present study will show that it would cause endless arguments to put the Traiphum in any particular ideological framework. For, as the design of the whole text reveals, the '® See, for example, Prungsri Valliphodom et al., eds., Saroob phon karn sammana reung {raiphum phra ruang {Proceedings of the Symposium on Traiphum Phra Ruang} (Bangkok: The Department of Fine Arts, Ministry of Education, 1983). This symposium provided a discussion ‘on various aspects of the Traiphum, including politics, ethics, religion, philosophy, and arts, but the primary emphasis was placed on the role of the Traiphum as a significant part of the Thai cultural heritage. As for a discussion of Buddhist teachings in the Traiphum and their influences ‘on contemporary Thai society, see Phra Rajavaramuni, Traiphum phra ruang itthiphon tau sangkom thai {The Influence of Traiphum Phra Ruang upon Thai Society] (Bangkok: Seng Rung, 1983). 83Traiphum is the text that is intrinsically self-subversive and defies any notion of framing and certitude. 84CHAPTER 2 ‘THE TRAIPHUM’S COSMOGRAPHY: DISPLACEMENT AND THE PLAY OF THE STRUCTURE, ‘As suggested by its title which literally means “Three Worlds,” the Traiphum primarily concems the structure of the universe from the Theravada perspective. Like many cosmographies, the image of the Buddhist universe as illustrated in the Traiphum is constructed by the notions of center and frame. Generally, these two notions are basically interconnected for a frame functions not only to mark the boundary of the inside but also to highlight the center. In the case of the Traiphum’s cosmography, it is widely accepted that the universe is depicted as a clearly defined unit of which Mt. Sumer is perceived as the center. But in this chapter, by shifting the focus to the Jambu continent and the Lokanta hell, two elements that constitute radical displacements in the Traiphum’s cosmographical structure, I will subvert the traditional views of the traiphum universe and present instead a deconstructive interpretation.’ With this interpretation, Mt. Sumeru will no longer be the center of the universe and the universe itself could no longer be perceived as a clearly defined unit or even a complete world system. Rather, as the effects of those displacements, the image of the traiphum universe becomes an " When used in italic form, the word “traiphum” is intended as an adjective. 85illustration of “the play of the structure”? in which the notions of center and frame as well as the totality of the universe are all put in question. 1. The Image of the Traiphum Universe* Cosmographically speaking, the Theravada universe or “‘cakkavala” is composed of three worlds situated one world above the other, starting from the World of Desire, which is the lowest World, upward to the World of Form, and finally to the World of Formlessness.* Since the World of Form and the World of Formlessness are the aerial planes located above the heavens in the World of Desire, the only part of the universe that ccan be visualized is the World of Desire depicted in the form of the earth. Like many ancient cosmologies, this earth is conceived not as a sphere but rather as a disk. ? This term is borrowed from Derrida. See more in the discussion below and Derrida’s essay, “Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences,” Writing and Difference, 278-93. ? Most of the details on the image of the traiphum universe discussed here are derived from Chapter Nine of the text. See Traiphum, 124-139/271-304. It is necessary to keep in mind the discrepancy between word and concept that occurs in translation. Although the term “universe” is the closest translation of the Pali term “cakkavala,” which is the term signifying the Buddhist cosmological system, both terms do not connote the same concept. ‘Thus, whenever the word “universe” is used in referring to Buddhist cosmology in this study, it designates “cakkavala” and therefore is not equivalent to the concept of universe in the general sense of the term. * Perhaps it would be appropriate to remind the reader that the word “World” here is not meant to be visualized as a sphere but rather as a plane of existence. For the definition of each World including their subdivisions into various realms, see Figure 1 and Chapter 3. * The term “cakkavala” signifies a circle (“cakka” means a wheel or a circle). The circular shape of the universe also corresponds to the notion of samsara (the round of rebirth) which is the major characteristic of all the three Worlds within the traiphum universe. 86Although the Traiphum does not provide any explanation regarding the elements that support the earth itis said in Pali scriptures that the earth is supported by an immensely thick layer of water which is resting on a circle of wind that is floating in space.° Thus, if we do not consider the wind factor that supports the layer of water,’ the universe in the ‘Theravada view could be visualized as a cylinder filled with water and topped with a thick disk.* (See Figure 5-6) With this image, the surface of the disk therefore represents the lands of human beings whereas the space above it stands for Heaven and the thickness of the disk suggests the subterranean space of Hell. (See Figure 7) It should be noted here that although the Theravada believes in the existence of sultiple universes, these universes are all in exactly the same pattern. That is, from the top view, each universe (cakkavala) is in the shape of a circle and has a great mountain called Sumeru at its center. At the summit of this mountain is the city of Indra, © See Akira Sadakata, Buddhist Cosmology: Philosophy and Origins, trans. Gaynor Sekimori (Tokyo: Kosei, 1997) 25. Regarding the circle of wind that supports the water, some accounts mention that this wind is “solid and immovable to such an extent that it cannot be penetrated by diamonds.” See more details in William Montgomery McGovern, A Manual of Buddhist Philosophy: Cosmology (1923; rpt. Lucknow, India: Oriental Reprinters, 1976) 50. 7 Although the Buddhist texts do not give any explanation regarding the presence of water in space, water is commonly considered in various cultures as a primal factor of life and the world. As one scholar puts it, water is “the primitive medium in the womb of which is fashioned everything that exists.” Quoted in R. N. Dandekar, Universe in Hindu Thought ‘Bangalore: Bangalore University, 1972) 9-10. * According to Sadakata, the earth has the same diameter as the layer of water that supports it whereas the diameter of the circle of wind is much larger than both. See Sadakata, 25-21. 87ME sno EE were ce | Earth (2) Ea Wind (4) Figure 5 ‘A diagonal view of the universe (cakkavala) and the elements that sustain it. [Adapted from Akira Sadakata, Buddhist Cosmology: Philosophy and Origins, (Tokyo: Kosei, 1997) 27.] 88ae Mt. Sumeru (1) Ea Water (3) ie | Earth (2) Figure 6 A horizontal view of the universe (cakkavala) and the elements that sustain it 89Heaven Mt. Sumer The Cakkavala Wall Hell Figure7 ‘The division of Hell, Earth, Heaven of the universe (cakkavala) surrounded by the Cakkavala Wallthe king of gods in the second level of heaven.” Except for the first level of heaven, which is situated on the peak of the Yugandhara mountain range (see below), every realm of heaven is located above Mt. Sumeru one realm above the other. According to the Traiphum, Mt. Sumeru is 84,000 yojana thick,"° 84,000 yojana tall above the water, and 84,000 yojana deep under the water. Though certain texts consider Mt. Sumeru to be in a square shape,'’ it is described in the Traiphum as round and as having a circumference of 252,000 yajana (126/274). ‘The Base of Mt. Sumeru, which is under the water, is supported by three mountains called the Three-Peak range which are 4,000 yojana high. Since these three mountains support Mt. Sumeru in the manner of “the three stones that hold a cooking pot” (126/276), the space under Mt. Sumeru becomes a city where the casura live." Being the central point of the universe, Mt. Sumeru is encircled sixteen times by ‘oceans and mountain ranges creating a picture of the rraiphum universe to be * The celestial plane is divided into twenty-six levels: the six lower levels are in the World of Desire, the sixteen upper levels are in the World of Form, and the four uppermost levels are in the World of Formlessness. Although the second level of heaven, which is called Tavatimsa or “the heaven of the thirty-three gods,” is relatively in a lower rank in this structure, itis the representative of Heaven in the Theravada conception "© yojana is approximately equal to 10 miles. " See Sadakata, 26-29. The asura are giant-like beings who usually have either deformed or unsightly faces. According to the Traiphum, there are two kinds of asura: The asura who live miserable lives and the asura who have living-conditions similar to those of the devata in heaven. Despite their fortunate living-conditions, this latter kind of asura is still considered to be in one of “the realms of misery” because these asura do not have peace in their mind but are dominated instead by their anger and ill will. 1