Comments on: The deva-raja http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2006/09/26/the-deva-raja/ New perspectives on mainland Southeast Asia Tue, 24 Nov 2009 04:10:35 +1100 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: New Mandala » Buddhist Studies at Oxford http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2006/09/26/the-deva-raja/comment-page-1/#comment-5295 New Mandala » Buddhist Studies at Oxford Wed, 01 Nov 2006 15:40:41 +0000 http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2006/09/26/the-deva-raja/#comment-5295 [...] Depending on how broadly it is conceived, “Buddhist Social History” is one sub-discipline that is particularly relevant to the sorts of recent discussions we have hosted here at New Mandala. [...]

]]> By: New Mandala » “Thou shalt not criticise dad” http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2006/09/26/the-deva-raja/comment-page-1/#comment-4051 New Mandala » “Thou shalt not criticise dad” Wed, 18 Oct 2006 10:34:04 +0000 http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2006/09/26/the-deva-raja/#comment-4051 [...] Kraisak argued that it is ridiculous to suggest that the monarchy is on the rise in Thailand and said that any suggestions that the king was behind the coup are “absolutely false”. He suggested that the idea of a god-king (deva-raja) is contrary to democratic ideology. Like Sondhi he emphasised the positive role of this king. He referred to the role of the king in protecting people in the violent crises of both 1973 and 1992. He applauded the king for speaking out against Thaksin’s bloodthirsty war on drugs. Like Sondhi, Kraisak also emphased the role of the king in welfare provision: many of the minorities in the north of Thailand would still be very poor if it wasn’t for the king’s projects (whereas Thaksin, he claimed, had annulled the citizenship of many uplanders and, through the free trade agreement with China, destroyed the opium substitution initiatives of the Royal Project Foundation). And, Kraisak argued, prior to the Thaksin era, the “network monarchy” had played an important role in easing tensions in the south. [...] [...] Kraisak argued that it is ridiculous to suggest that the monarchy is on the rise in Thailand and said that any suggestions that the king was behind the coup are “absolutely false”. He suggested that the idea of a god-king (deva-raja) is contrary to democratic ideology. Like Sondhi he emphasised the positive role of this king. He referred to the role of the king in protecting people in the violent crises of both 1973 and 1992. He applauded the king for speaking out against Thaksin’s bloodthirsty war on drugs. Like Sondhi, Kraisak also emphased the role of the king in welfare provision: many of the minorities in the north of Thailand would still be very poor if it wasn’t for the king’s projects (whereas Thaksin, he claimed, had annulled the citizenship of many uplanders and, through the free trade agreement with China, destroyed the opium substitution initiatives of the Royal Project Foundation). And, Kraisak argued, prior to the Thaksin era, the “network monarchy” had played an important role in easing tensions in the south. [...]

]]> By: JS http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2006/09/26/the-deva-raja/comment-page-1/#comment-2966 JS Thu, 28 Sep 2006 05:03:23 +0000 http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2006/09/26/the-deva-raja/#comment-2966 To me, what is unclear in Peter interpretion of 'God-King' here is the way he defines the concept of 'deva-raja' in modern thai society. Besides, I think by framing the analysis with such concept in explaining the changing images of kingship percieved by Thais is partial true yet too quick for conclusion. Another discourse that maybe worth understanding is the idea of 'Dhama Raja' And if you watch television program during the royal celebration, you might see the quick swap, and the mixture of, representations of the king as both Deva and Dhamma Raja. Often times, theses two concepts have been used interchangable by medias without really dig into the roots of its very idea. There is a trend in society to shift the the idea of King from merely grounded on Deva notion to the more integrative representation with relations to the realm of Dhama. The very reason is that the latter one, as it is more down to earth, can be 'felt' and 'sympathetic' by the Thai people better. And that they are more tied or feel closer to the royalty than the king as god. If you ask the Thais walking on the street how they percieve the King as, I am sure that the latter one will make more counts. So, yes, I agree that the idea of Deva still is attached to the royalty symbolism and as social institution, but using merely Deva concept in explaining the changes may risk ignoring the dynamics of royal re-construction of public images as well as different chrarismatic tools employed by the palace in maintaining the royal legistimacy in today Thailand. To me, what is unclear in Peter interpretion of ‘God-King’ here is the way he defines the concept of ‘deva-raja’ in modern thai society. Besides, I think by framing the analysis with such concept in explaining the changing images of kingship percieved by Thais is partial true yet too quick for conclusion. Another discourse that maybe worth understanding is the idea of ‘Dhama Raja’ And if you watch television program during the royal celebration, you might see the quick swap, and the mixture of, representations of the king as both Deva and Dhamma Raja. Often times, theses two concepts have been used interchangable by medias without really dig into the roots of its very idea. There is a trend in society to shift the the idea of King from merely grounded on Deva notion to the more integrative representation with relations to the realm of Dhama. The very reason is that the latter one, as it is more down to earth, can be ‘felt’ and ’sympathetic’ by the Thai people better. And that they are more tied or feel closer to the royalty than the king as god. If you ask the Thais walking on the street how they percieve the King as, I am sure that the latter one will make more counts.

So, yes, I agree that the idea of Deva still is attached to the royalty symbolism and as social institution, but using merely Deva concept in explaining the changes may risk ignoring the dynamics of royal re-construction of public images as well as different chrarismatic tools employed by the palace in maintaining the royal legistimacy in today Thailand.

]]> By: Andrew Walker http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2006/09/26/the-deva-raja/comment-page-1/#comment-2903 Andrew Walker Wed, 27 Sep 2006 09:16:59 +0000 http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2006/09/26/the-deva-raja/#comment-2903 I suppose the key question is how you would translate “deva raja”. You may be interested in reading Grant Evans’ review of Paul Handley’s The King Never Smiles which we featured earlier on NewMandala. Evans is critical of Handley’s use of the deva-raja concept (and he also states that Handley overestimates the power of the king). I suppose the key question is how you would translate “deva raja”. You may be interested in reading Grant Evans’ review of Paul Handley’s The King Never Smiles which we featured earlier on NewMandala. Evans is critical of Handley’s use of the deva-raja concept (and he also states that Handley overestimates the power of the king).

]]> By: Nicholas Farrelly http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2006/09/26/the-deva-raja/comment-page-1/#comment-2900 Nicholas Farrelly Wed, 27 Sep 2006 08:42:32 +0000 http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2006/09/26/the-deva-raja/#comment-2900 Dear Nui, I understand your frustration but, just to clarify, Peter Jackson does, in my experience, speak and read Thai. He is a very competent historian, and a serious scholar of Thai religion, sexuality and politics. The sloppy (and sometimes awkwardly eurocentric) interpretations that you criticise in your 2004 blog post perhaps don\'t apply in Jackson\'s current research. I didn\'t attend this recent seminar - and haven\'t seen his paper on this particular topic - but in my experience his work always merits a concerted reading. It may be a bit presumptuous to dismiss his ideas as \"silly things\". Nicholas Dear Nui,

I understand your frustration but, just to clarify, Peter Jackson does, in my experience, speak and read Thai. He is a very competent historian, and a serious scholar of Thai religion, sexuality and politics.

The sloppy (and sometimes awkwardly eurocentric) interpretations that you criticise in your 2004 blog post perhaps don\’t apply in Jackson\’s current research. I didn\’t attend this recent seminar – and haven\’t seen his paper on this particular topic – but in my experience his work always merits a concerted reading.

It may be a bit presumptuous to dismiss his ideas as \”silly things\”.

Nicholas

]]> By: Nui http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2006/09/26/the-deva-raja/comment-page-1/#comment-2887 Nui Wed, 27 Sep 2006 03:42:34 +0000 http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2006/09/26/the-deva-raja/#comment-2887 Here, I wrote this blog in October 2004, <a href="http://thaihistoryblog.blogspot.com/2004/10/pra-chao-paendin-not-god.html" rel="nofollow">"Pra Chao Paendin" not a God</a>. I find it frustrating that people who don't speak our language try to interpret our concepts for us. The dig in their books and papers and use their intelligence to imagine silly things. Here, I wrote this blog in October 2004, “Pra Chao Paendin” not a God. I find it frustrating that people who don’t speak our language try to interpret our concepts for us. The dig in their books and papers and use their intelligence to imagine silly things.

]]>