Dvāravatī

墮和羅（Dvāravatī，6–11 世紀）是猛族人（Mons）在古代暹羅（Siam）建國的一個國家，並有長期發展佛教的歷史。泰國學者地答．沙拉雅（Didha Saraya）將墮和羅的佛教分為兩種：（1）民 間信仰的佛教，及（2）帝王信仰的佛教，並認為兩種都是小乘上座部（the Theravāda）的佛教信仰。地答．沙拉雅說，墮和羅的帝王能同時以：（1）「菩薩」或「聖神彌勒」（Phra Śrī Āriyamettrai）及（2）「轉輪王」（cakravartin）的面貌統治國家。從墮和羅帝王能以轉輪王的姿態統治天下此事，我們知道，墮和羅有長期使用「佛教轉輪王建國信仰」建國的歷史。所謂「轉輪王建國信仰」，即是法 國學者戈岱司（G. Coedes）所言的「佛教帝王建國信仰」（Buddhist conception of royalty）。帝王使用轉輪王建國信仰時，必會用大乘佛教信仰作為其建國的方法及內容。因轉輪王建國信仰是一種大乘在歷史上奠立的治國術或政治傳統。筆者在此文中即要用大乘佛經及墮和羅的造像等證據證明墮和羅所發展的佛教，並不是小乘上座部的佛教，而是龍樹（Nāgārjuna）在 2 世紀後半葉於南印度奠立的大乘佛教建國信仰或「支提信仰」（the caitya worship）。

The kingdom of Dvāravatī (6–11th century) established in ancient Siam had a long history of promoting Buddhism. Thai scholar Didha Saraya classifies Dvāravatī’s Buddhism into two types: (1) folk Buddhism, and (2) Buddhism of royalty. Where the Buddhism of royalty is concerned, she suggests that a Dvāravatī king can simultaneously take the disguises of a “Bodhisattva” or “Phra Śrī Āriyamettrai” (the divine and saintly Maitreya) and a cakravartin, a “king of kings” who rules in accordance with Theravāda Buddhism. However, according to my research, a king with these two features can also be found in the caitya worship which belonged to a conception of Mahāyāna Buddhist kingship. This conception was established by Nāgārjuna in the late 2nd century A. D. in South India. I use Mahāyāna Buddhist texts and Dvāravatī Buddhist sculptures to prove that the Buddhism promoted in Dvāravatī belonged to the conception of Mahāyāna Buddhist kingship founded by Nāgārjuna.

The quest for scarce and valuable raw materials such as gold would have acted as major stimuli for the Indian merchants who were not only sourcing gold ore but, from the archaeological evidence, were also involved in the significant production of finished objects to supply long distance markets. These commercial centres would therefore have facilitated not only the supply and exchange of raw materials and finished goods but also the exchange of ideas and cultural beliefs. The growth in trade of highly prized rare prestige goods and the spread of iconographic conventions which accompanied the expansion of the “newly” emerging power structures within the Dvāravatī sphere of influence, which was clearly much larger than any unified political unit, would no doubt have fuelled the instigation and development of new trade routes, both overland and overseas.

Dvaravati, ancient kingdom of Southeast Asia that flourished from the 6th to the late 11th century. It was the first Mon kingdom established in what is now Thailand and played an important role as a propagator of Indian culture.  The Khmer empire was a powerful state in South East Asia, formed by people of the same name, lasting from 802 CE to 1431 CE. At its peak, the empire covered much of what today is Cambodia, Thailand, Laos, and southern Vietnam
Many ask the question- what is the relationship of this Kingdom with DWARKA also called Dvaravati? Dwarka in Gujrath State,India  is often identified with the Dwarka Kingdom, the ancient kingdom of Krishna, and is believed to have been the first capital of Gujarat. The city's name literally means gateway. Dwarka has also been referred to throughout its history as "Mokshapuri", "Dwarkamati", and "Dwarkavati". It is mentioned in the ancient prehistoric epic period of the Mahabharata.[2] According to legend, Krishna settled here after he defeated and killed his uncle Kansa at Mathura. This mythological account of Krishna's migration to Dwarka from Mathura is closely associated with the culture of Gujarat. Krishna is also said to have reclaimed 12 yojanas or 96 square kilometres (37 sq mi) of land from the sea to create Dwarka.

Scale of observation with archaeological phenomena has a profound impact, even though this factor is not always explicitly recognized and accounted for in research and interpretation. Continuing issues with the conceptualization of the early historic entity labeled "Dvāravatī” in central Thailand is partly attributable to the broad-scale ("top-down") approach taken by its early observers, issues that can only be addressed by applying a multi-scalar approach with a minimum of pre-conceived ideas about what Dvāravatī is or is not.

The Ruesi Khao Ngu Cave inscription has been studied and published on several occasions.  Georges Cædès was the first scholar who published this inscription on his book Recueil des inscriptions du Siam, Deuxième Partie: Inscriptions de Dvāravatí de Crivijaya et de Lāvo in French and Thai in 1961. G. Cædès said that the inscription was written in Sanskrit and Old Mon. The inscription is inscribed on a throne (between the ankles of the image) of 2.5m high sitting Buddha image which was carved on the cave
wall. The image is commonly known as Phra Phuttachai Tham Ruesi Khao Ngu. Ruesi Khao Ngu Cave is 8 km. West of Ratchaburi along the road Chom Bueng (Route No. 3078) in Mueang District, Ratchaburi Provine, Thailand.

“Dvāravatī” is the term applied to an early historic cultural expression in the region of Thailand that, despite 130 years of scholarly investigation, remains poorly understood in many aspects of its material content and sociopolitical organization. An early scholarly focus on monumental art and architecture set a trajectory for the definition and study of Dvāravatī that emphasized an art historical approach and neglected domestic aspects of the cultural record. Neither is the range of settlement types adequately documented, and chronometric information is underdeveloped. Dvāravatī is typically assigned a time range of several centuries between the sixth and eleventh centuries AD, but there is substantial evidence for a “proto” phase before the appearance of monumental sculpture and architecture. Operating in an era when exogamous ideologies and practices entered the region of central Thailand, Dvāravatī has the potential to illuminate local processes of cultural adoption and adaptation. Only a more holistic approach to documenting material and social content, however, will improve our understanding of the Dvāravatī phenomenon.

The millennium between c.100 BCE and c.900 CE saw the growth of long-distance economic and cultural exchange both within and beyond Southeast Asia, processes which contributed to the development of early states and precipitated cultural changes through encounters with Indian and Sinitic cultures. Increasing numbers of people were travelling long distances along established trade routes into, within, through and out of the region, and for many different reasons. Visual representations of people claimed to be ‘foreigners’ in the art of this period have been identified in several cultural contexts, but have mostly received only cursory mention, often with a simple assertion of their identity. However, they are significant as locally-produced representations because, appropriately interpreted, they may offer new insights into intercultural interactions that have in large part been reconstructed from non-Southeast Asian textual sources and via studies of stylistic relationships and archaeological exotica. This thesis seeks to develop a methodology for the informed interpretation of such images that incorporates an appreciation of the cognitive processes behind the perception and representation of difference, otherness and foreignness in ancient art, in part by drawing on interpretive discussions of this kind of visual material elsewhere in the ancient world. Additional considerations pertinent to Southeast Asian engagement with non-local iconographic traditions are included. The resulting methodology is discussed further in three case studies where figures have been claimed to represent ‘foreigners’ to highlight the subjectivities, subtleties and sources involved in interpretation. Two of these have geographical foci, in pre-Angkorian Cambodia and Dvāravatī culture in Central Thailand, and one has a thematic focus, being an apparent association with early representations of horses in the region. In each case, significant new insights result from the attention paid to these figures and their interpretation, showing the methodology to be a productive approach to understanding long-distance connections in Southeast Asia, or indeed elsewhere in the ancient world.