Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T06:29:51.688Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Political Significance of Religious Wealth in Burmese History: Some Further Thoughts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2011

Victor B. Lieberman
Get access

Abstract

This article examines the recent assertion by a scholar of Burmese history that extensive landholding by the Buddhist monkhood helped to undermine every dynasty between the ninth and nineteenth century. It argues that religious wealth, possibly before the fifteenth century and certainly after that period, was less significant than has been suggested, and that the institutional relation between throne and monkhood was by no means static. During the later dynasties, secular elites represented the principal threat to the centralization of resources. Further, in certain instances, royal purification of the Religion sought not to deprive the monkhood of wealth, but to strengthen both the Religion and the crown at the expense of private lay interests.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Asian Studies , Volume 39 , Issue 4 , August 1980 , pp. 753 - 769
Copyright
Copyright © The Association for Asian Studies, Inc. 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 JAS 38, no. 4 (August 1979): 671–88, hereafter cited as “Sasana Reform.”.Google Scholar

2 Of five major cycles—Pagan (1044–1287), Ava (1365-ca. 1555), First Taung-ngu (ca. 1530– 1599), Restored Taung-ngu (1597–1752), and Kon-baung (1752–1885) –rulers in the Pagan and perhaps the Ava period were genealogically discontinuous, so the term “administrative cycle” seems preferable.

3 “Sasana Reform,” p. 688.

4 Ibid., p. 672.

5 Ibid., p. 673.

6 Ibid., pp. 673, 684.

7 Ibid., p. 673.

8 Ibid., p. 677, Table 1.

9 Ibid. Orchards, alluvial lands, dry crop fields, and irrigated rice fields (the latter comprising 42,149acres). Tun, Than, Hkit-haùng myan-ma ya-zawin [Ancient Burmese history] (Rangoon: Maha-dagon Press, 1964), pp. 179–81.Google Scholar This source is cited in Thwin, Michael Aung, “The Nature of State and Society in Pagan: An Institutional History of Twelfth and Thirteenth Century Burma”(Ph.D. diss., Univ. of Michigan, 1976), pp. 336,340, n. 3Google Scholar, which in turn served as the basis for “Susana Reform,” p. 677, Table 1.

10 Than Tun, p. 181.

11 Sheì-baùng myan-ma kyauk-sa-myá, patama-twè, s. 474–600 [Ancient Burmese inscriptions, vol. 1, Burmese Era 474–600] (Rangoon: Ministry of Culture, 1972), written ca. 1967, is the latest source cited in Aung Thwin. On inscriptions found after ca. 1960, see Sheì-baùng thú-tei-thanà hnyun-chà-yeì-wun-i hnit-chok asi-yin-hkan-sa [Annual report of the director, archaeological survey], 1960–61(Rangoon: Baho Press, 1966), 1962–63 (Rangoon: Baho Press, 1971), 1963–64 (n.p., n.d.), 1964–65 (n.p., n.d.).

12 Aung Thwin, “State and Society,” p. 336.

13 “State and Society,” pp. 336, 340, cites Harvey, G. E., History of Burma from the Earliest Times to 10 March 1824 (1925; rpt. New York: Octagon Books, 1967), pp. 318–20.Google Scholar In fact, Harvey's figures came from Stuart, J. M. B., Old Burmese Irrigation Works (Rangoon: Supt. Govt. Print., 1913). PP. 5–14.Google Scholar

14 “State and Society,” pp. 336–37, 340, n. 4;“Sasana Reform,” p. 677, Table 1. A second, unstated assumption may have informed Dr.Aung Thwin's calculations—namely that Min-buand Kyauk-hse were the only irrigated districts under government control. Yet this contradicts seventeenth through nineteenth century patterns (see below, n. 16), as well as Dr. Aung Thwin's own observation that “irrigated land meant, on the whole, government owned land” (“State andSociety,” p. 336). Ibid., p. 340, n. 1 refers to irrigated areas in excess of those contained in Kyauk-hse and Mìn-bù.

15 Shortly after the annexation, Report on the Administration of Burma During 1888–89 (Rangoon: Supt. Govt. Print., Burma, 1889)Google Scholar, Table III E-1, listed for lowland Upper Burma, heart of the Pagan empire, 3,248,595 acres “actual area on which crops were grown,” of which 1,605,936were planted in rice. The report for 1889–90 showed 3,055,542 and 1,553,271 acres, respectively. Andrus, Cf. J. Russell, Burmese Economic Life(Stanford: The Univ. Press, 1947), p. 43.Google Scholar See the discussion of the reliability of statistics in Adas, Michael, The Burma Delta (Madison: Univ. of Wisconsin Press, 1974), pp. 231–32.Google Scholar

16 It should be noted that contra “Sasana Reform,” p. 675, in the 17–19th centuries, ahmú-dàn lands were by no means restricted to irrigated districts; that ahmú-dàns were not exempt from per capita taxes, only athi departmental taxes; and that both ahmú-dàns and athis paid land taxes distinct from per capita departmental taxes. See Sein, Daw Mya, The Administration of Burma (1938; rpt. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford Univ. Press, 1973), p. 62Google Scholar; Koenig, William J., “The Early Kòn-baung Polity, 1752–1819”(Ph.D. diss., Univ. of London, 1978), p. 127Google Scholar, and Appendix 3; Tragerand, Frank N.Koenig, William J., Burmese Sit-tàns 1764–1826(Tucson: Univ. of Arizona Press, 1979), esp. chs.4, 5, and pp. 175, 279–80, 289–90, 322, 355,369Google Scholar; Tin, Ù, Myan-ma-mìn ok-chok-pon sa-dàn[Record of Burmese royal administration] (hereafter MMOS), 5 vols. (Rangoon: Supt. Govt. Print., Burma, 1931–33). 3: 51–54. and 5: 19–34Google Scholar; Furnivall, J. S. and Tin, Pe Maung, eds., Zam-bu-di-pà ok-hsaùng kyàn [Garland of the crown of Zam-bu-di-pá] (Rangoon: Burma Research Society, 1961), esp. pp. 41, 50, 65, 90.Google Scholar

17 See, for example, Harvey, pp. 318–20; Stuart, pp. 5–14; Stewart, J. A., “Kyaukse Irrigation: a side-light on Burmese History,” Journal of the Burma Research Society (hereafter JBRS) 11, no. 1 (April 1921): 1–4.Google Scholar

18 Than Tun, pp. 181, 183.

19 See Tun, Than, “History of Burma, A.D.1000–1300,” Bulletin 0f the Burma Historical Commission 1, pt. 1 (June 1960): 41Google Scholar; Aung Thwin,“State and Society,” p. 14.

20 Tun, Than, “History of Burma: A.D. 1300–1400,” JBRS 42, no. 2 (December 1959): 121Google Scholar;idem, “The Buddhist Church in Burma During the Pagan Period, 1044–1287” (Ph.D. diss., Univ. of London, 1955), pp. 45–47, 68–69Google Scholar; Luce, G. H., “The Early Syam in Burma's History,” Journal of the Siam Society 46, no. 2 (November 1958): 150–56.Google Scholar

21 See n. 20 above; also, Than Tun, “Buddhist Church,” pp. 46, 94–95, 114, 329–30; Aung Thwin, “State and Society,” pp. 40–43, 56, 125,276,314–15.

22 “Sasana Reform,” pp. 671, 673 684, 688;Aung Thwin, “State and Society,” pp. 9–11,325–26.

23 Cf. comments along these lines in “Sasana Reform,” p. 683.

24 On the Ava period, see Tun, Than, “Mahā-kassapa and His Tradition,” JBRS 42, no. 2 (December 1959): 99–118Google Scholar; idem, “History 1300–1400” Thaw, Tin Hla, “History of Burma: A.D. 1400– 1500,” JBRS 42, no. 2 (December 1959): 135–51Google Scholar; Harvey, ch. 3; Mon ya-zawin [History of the Mons] (Rangoon: Myan-ma Pyei, 1922), pp. 66–88.

25 Kalà, Ù, Maha-ya-zawin-gyà [Great Royal Chronicle], vol. 2, ed. Pwa, Hsaya (Rangoon: Burma Research Society, n.d.), pp. 139–40, 307.Google Scholar

26 Theìn, Ù Chit, ed. and trans., Sbeì-haùng monkyauk-sa baúng-gyok [Collection of ancient Mon inscriptions] (Rangoon: Ministry of Culture, 1965), pt. 2, p. 106Google Scholar; Rangoon University Library ms. 45235 (hereafter RUL 45235), “Tahse-chauktahse-hkunit-ya-zù myan-ma min ameín-daw-myá” [Royal edicts of the 16th and 17th centuries], edicts 10, 44, 89; Than Tun, “Mahākas-sapa,” pp. 99, 107, 116; idem, “History 1300–1400,” p. 131.

27 Sheì-haùng mon kyauk-sa, pt. 2, p. 106; and RUL 45235, edicts 10, 44, 89. Ferguson, Cf. John P., “The Symbolic Dimensions of the Burmese Sangha” (Ph.D. diss., Cornell Univ., 1975), pp. 164–66.Google Scholar

28 Thi-rí-ú-zana, , Làw-ká-byu-ha kyàn [Treatiseof customary usages] ed. Lat, Ù Hpò (Rangoon: Baho Press, 1968), pp. 185–215; Maha-ya-zawin-gyì, vol. 2., pp. 168–451, passim; and Maha-ya-zawin-gyì, vol. 3, ed. Sò, Ù Hkin, (Rangoon: Han-tha-wadi Pí-tá-kat Press, 1961)Google Scholar, passim. Cf. Tragerand Koenig, pp. 48–49.

29 This was the work of the first Taung-ngukings. See Harvey, ch. 6.

30 See, inter alia, V. B. Lieberman, “Europeansand the Unification of Burma, ca. 1540–1620,”in a volume on East-West contacts, ed. Michael Kammen and James Boon, forthcoming; Thi-rí- ú-zana, p. 42; Furnivall, J. S., ed. and trans., “TheHistory of Syriam,” JBRS 5, no. 1 (April 1915):51–52Google Scholar; India Office, London, Records of Fort St. George: Diary and Consultation Books, 1679–1740 (Madras: Supt. Govt. Press, 1911–31); Koenig,“Kon-baung Polity,” pp. 240–41.Google Scholar

31 Perhaps because in comparison with Upper Burma the balance between commerce and agriculture was weighted more heavily toward the former, land donations in the Mon kingdom were always relatively modest. Cf. Sbeì-baùng mon kyauk-sa, pt. 2, with Table 1 below.

32 “Sasana Reform,” pp. 677–78. See, however, n. 54 below. Burma's loss of sovereignty over the coast in 1852 did not stop the growth of a money economy in the interior; quite the contrary.

33 RUL 45235, edicts 19, 54, 57; Tun, Than,“Administration Under King Thalun (1629–1648),” JBRS 51, no. 2 (December 1968): 187.Google Scholar

34 “Sasana Reform,” p. 677, esp. n. 13.

35 Duroiselle, Charles, comp., A List of Inscriptions Found in Burma, vol. 1 (Rangoon: Supt. Govt.Print. Burma, 1921)Google Scholar. Annual Report of the Superintendent, Archaeological Survey, Burma, 1913–26,1937–39, 1940–41 (Supet. Govt. Print. Burma,1913–41); Kam-peì kyauk-sa-wun-i asi-yin hkan-sa[Reports of the Supt., Archaeological Survey], 1946–54 (Rangoon: Supt. Govt. Print., 1949– 56)Google Scholar; Sheì-haùngthù-tei-thána hnyun-chà-yeì-wun-i hnit-chok asi-yinhkan-sa [Annual Report of the Director, Archaeological Survey], 1954–59 (Rangoon: Departmentof Government Printing, 1958–61)Google Scholar; Sheì-haùngthù-tei-thána hnyun-chà-yeì-wun-i hnit-chok asi-yin hkan-sa [Annual report of the director, archaeological survey, Burma], 1959–61, 1962–65 (Rangoon: Baho Press, 1965 et seq.)Google Scholar. Most of the missing numbers were never published. Cf. “Sasana Reform,” p. 677, n. 13; and Aung Thwin, “State and Society,” pp. 342–45.

36 See below, n. 39.

37 Furnivall and Tin, pp. 52–53, 69–70, 85;Trager and Koenig, pp. 136–338 and Yi, Yi, “Kon-baung-hkit sit-tan-mya” [Kdn-baung erainquests], JBRS 49, no. 1 (June 1966): 87–88.Google Scholar

38 Duroiselle, nos. 1071–1087; Sheì-haùng monkyauk-sa, pt. 2, pp. 105–8.

39 The large discrepancy derives chiefly from an ambiguous reading in Duroiselle no. 1098. The lower figure is almost certainly accurate. The following sources have added surprisingly little to acreage totals in Duroiselle nos. 1088–1115: Furnivall and Tin, p. 53; Maha-ya-zewin-gyì vol. 3, royal eulogies; British Library, London, Oriental ms. 6452 B (1), Appendix; microfilms of parabaik religious records in National Library, Rangoon, Burma, reels no. 1031–7 Centre for East Asian Cultural Studies, The Toyo Bunko, Tokyo. India Office, London, Burmese ms. 3420, gú-gu.

40 Than Tun, “Buddhist Church,” ch. 9; idem, “Administration under Thalun,” p. 187; Aung Thwin, “State and Society,” pp. 38,45, 127–28, 150. The latter seems to distinguish between de facto hpayà kyuns whose services were temporarily donated but who may still have belonged to lay masters, and hpayà kyuns formally donated in perpetuity to the Religion. Apparently only the latter were exempt from the poll tax. This distinction does not appear in Than Tun.

41 See, inter alia, Than Tun, “Administrationunder Thalun,” p. 187; Koenig, “Kon-baung Polity,” pp. 128–29, 259; Report on the Settlement Operations in the Sagaing District, Season 1893–1900 (Rangoon: Supt. Govt. Print., Burma, 1903), pp. 3–4Google Scholar;Oriental ms. 3464 (History of Pegu), p. 139, British Library, London.

42 Koenig, “Kon-baung Polity,” p. 259, relying on census inquest records.

43 Aung Thwin, “State and Society,” pp. 43–47, 127; Tun, Than, “Religion in Burma, A.D.1000–1300,” JBRS 42, no. 2 (December 1959):59–66Google Scholar; idem, “Mahakassapa,” pp. 109–11;idem, “Buddhist Church,” pp. 221–27.

44 Aung Thwin, “State and Society,” pp. 291–92; Than Tun, “Buddhist Church,” pp. 96, 103.

45 Furnivall and Tin, pp. 64, 66. Cf. Hsaya-daw, Hpayà-byu, Tha-thaná-bahú-thú-ta-paka-thani [Explanation of religious topics] (Rangoon: Dì-dutPress, 1928), pp. 169–70, 173–74.Google Scholar

46 MMOS 3: 54–55, and 4: 69, 75; Scott, J. George and Hardiman, J. P., comps., Gazeteer of Upper Burma and the Shan States (Rangoon: Supt. Govt. Print., Burma, 1900–1), pt. 1, vol. 2:3–6.Google Scholar Cf. Koenig and Trager, pp. xiv, 46–48,150, 355; Mendelson, E. Michael (J. P. Ferguson, ed.), Sangha and State in Burma (Ithaca: Cornell Univ. Press, 1975), p. 73.Google Scholar I am uncertain whether kathaúng-myaúng taik religious revenues were supervised by the wut-myei-wun, or represented a separate, possibly older, method of state control.

47 Searle, H. F., comp., Burma Gazeteer—The Mandalay District, vol. A (Rangoon: Supt. Govt. Print., Burma, 1928), p. 192Google Scholar; Report on the Settlement Operations in the Minbu District, Season 1893–97 (Rangoon: Supt. Govt. Print., Burma, 1900), p. 56.Google Scholar

48 See, inter alia, MMOS 3: 16, 135; Mendel-son, chs. 1, 2 (esp. pp. 81–82), and p. 246; Hpayà-byu Hsaya-daw, pp. 171–73; Thi-rí- ù-zana, pp. 283–84, 300–307; Scott and Hardi-man, pt. 1, vol. 2: 4–5.

49 The ensuing discussion of the First and Restored Taung-ngu periods derives from Victor B. Lieberman, “Provincial Reforms in Taung-nguBurma,” forthcoming in Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, Univ. of London 4 3,, no. 2 (1980).

50 Ù Kala, 3: 71, 92. It should be noted that these efforts at sangha purification, like that of Dama-zei-di at Pegu over a century earlier, made no reference, explicit or implicit, to the question of religious lands. This writer can find no justification in the text of the Kalyānī Inscriptions for the claim in “Sasana Reform,” p. 681, that Dama-zei-di ordered an inquest of glebe lands. Moreover, the claim in Ibid., p. 678, that the First Taung-ngu Dynasty passed “without a single (religious) reform” is certainly inaccurate.

51 See above, n. 49

52 See National Library, Rangoon, ms. 1950,“(s.) 1000 pyeí tha-lun-mìn let-htet-gá-thi . . .tanìn-ganwei-mìn nàn-tet 14 hnit taing . . . amein-daw-pyan-tàn-zù” [Collection of edicts issued between s. 1000 in Tha-lun's reign . . . and the 14th year of Tanin-ganwei's reign] (Centre for East Asian Cultural Studies, Toyo Bunko, Burma microfilm reel 80, pt. 1); Furnivall and Tin, pp. 82–83, 98 Cf. Mon-ywei Hsaya-daw, “Maha-ya-zawin-gyaw” [Great Celebrated Chronicle] (Centre for East Asian Cultural Studies, Tōyō Bunko, Burma microfilm reel 24).

53 Koenig, “Kòn-baung Polity,” pp. 257–66, and chs. 1, 7.

54 See above, n. 47, and Operations in Sagaing District, p. 88. In this connection, I would raise several objections to the claim in “Sasana Reform,”pp. 677–78, that in 1885 “approximately 43 percent of all revenues collected was redistributed primarily for patronage purposes–as in the Pagan period, for patronage of the sangha.” First, religious allocations in the Kòn-baung-zet chronicle were public statements of piety which may not have reflected actual financial practice (see above, n. 47).Second, even if funds were expended as claimed, static patronage administered by royal officials out of current income had quite different political repercussions from the alienation of ever-increasing acreages to autonomous temple-monastery complexes. Third, and most important, the passage in question says that 43 percent of royal revenue went to support of relatives and appanage holders, unstated royal expenses, and religious patronage, Buddhist donations by the king and his court could have been 42 percent of the budget, or they could have been half of one percent. The text does not specify, and “Sasana Reform” is quite misleading in this respect.

55 Maha-damá-thìn-gyan, , Tha-thana-lin-ga-yása-dàn [Text adorning the Religion] (Rangoon: Han-tha-wadi Press, 1897), p. 192.Google ScholarLaw, Cf. Bimala Churn, trans., The History of the Buddha's Religion(Sāsanavamsa)(London: Luzac, 1952), pp. 123–31.Google Scholar

56 MMOS 3: 16. Cf. Ferguson, pp. 183–88.

57 “Sasana Reform,” p. 673: at the apex of each cycle, “the sangha was ‘pure, ’ and was unified under the king's primate.”.

58 Maha-damá-chin-gyan, pp. 193–98, 209–11; Law, pp. 131–35, 138–44; Ferguson, pp. 196–208. On the military and administrative decline before and during his reign, see Koenig, “Kòn-baung Polity,” chs. 1,7.

59 “Sasana Reform,” p. 672.

60 Ibid., pp. 678–79.

61 Whereas Hsin-byu-shin conquered Siam and Manipur and defeated successive Chinese invasions, Pagan's authority stopped at the Salween, while Ava lacked control over even the coast. It must be remembered, moreover, that firearms-wielding Siamese and Chinese opponents in the 18th century were more formidable than their 13th century counterparts.

62 For detailed discussion, see Lieber-man, Victor B., “The Burmese Dynastic Pattern,” ca. 1590–1760” Ph.D. diss., Univ. of London, 1976), chs. 1, 2, and 5.Google Scholar

63 See above, ns. 26 and 27.

64 Scott and Hardiman, pt. 1, vol. 2: 441–43. Cf. Operations in Sagaing District, p. 88; Koenig, “Kòn-baung Polity,” p. 260; “Sasana Reform,” p. 678.

65 RUL 45235, edicts 10, 44, 89; Hpayà-byu Hsaya-daw, pp. 169–70.

66 Than Tun, “Administration under Thalun,”p. 187.

67 Koenig, “Kon-baung Polity,” p. 260.

68 Ibid., p. 261; Scott and Hardiman, pt. 1, vol. 2: 443.

69 Koenig, “Kon-baung Polity,” p. 262. Cf. Stewart, J. A., comp., Burma Gazeteer– The KyaukseDistrict, vol. A (Rangoon: Supt. Govt. Print., 1925), p. 121.Google Scholar

70 This was the view propounded by the throne, and apparently accepted by leading monks in Thalun's day. Hpayà-byu Hsaya-daw, pp. 171–73.