Top ten things that the Mon Paradigm might be
1. A way for Aung-Thwin to remember what he is writing about
2. A way to humiliate the Mons while perversely claiming to be a Mon oneself.
3. A way to curry favor with the ruling Junta in Burma.
4. A tricky way to distract the reader from the fact that the author doesn't know a single word of the Mon Language and therefore cannot read and evaluate Mon inscriptions or chronicles.
5. A way to find colonial era ideas lurking in the ideas of his contemporaries, i.e. a conspiracy theory.
6. A convenient vehicle for attacking enemy scholars.
7. A way to pull together unrelated topics into a book.
8. A sneaky way to evade scholarly scrutiny and slip in the back door.
9. A way to control all academic debate on his region and time period.
10. Pent up anger about the following possibility: A Mon kingdom civilized Burmese Pagan (Aung-Thwin, 2005, 2).
11. A burning desire for the following to be true: A Mon kingdom at Thaton was not conquered by Pagan. Buddhist scriptures, the Mon royal family, as well as craftsmen and artisans were not brought back to Pagan. They did not influence the culture at Pagan in any way (Aung-Thwin, 2003).
12. Or this to be true: Before Pagan there was not a Mon kingdom at Thaton.
2. A way to humiliate the Mons while perversely claiming to be a Mon oneself.
3. A way to curry favor with the ruling Junta in Burma.
4. A tricky way to distract the reader from the fact that the author doesn't know a single word of the Mon Language and therefore cannot read and evaluate Mon inscriptions or chronicles.
5. A way to find colonial era ideas lurking in the ideas of his contemporaries, i.e. a conspiracy theory.
6. A convenient vehicle for attacking enemy scholars.
7. A way to pull together unrelated topics into a book.
8. A sneaky way to evade scholarly scrutiny and slip in the back door.
9. A way to control all academic debate on his region and time period.
10. Pent up anger about the following possibility: A Mon kingdom civilized Burmese Pagan (Aung-Thwin, 2005, 2).
11. A burning desire for the following to be true: A Mon kingdom at Thaton was not conquered by Pagan. Buddhist scriptures, the Mon royal family, as well as craftsmen and artisans were not brought back to Pagan. They did not influence the culture at Pagan in any way (Aung-Thwin, 2003).
12. Or this to be true: Before Pagan there was not a Mon kingdom at Thaton.
posted by Jon Fernquest at 1:53 AM
1 Comments:
Sir,
Thank you very much for your interesting comments. I'm not a historian, but a medical doctor interested in Burmese history. I wonder whether Thaton of King Manuha had such a civilization to influence Pagan king's Anawrahta as there were no cultural relics found in present Thaton or around it. Besides, the Indian scholars are writing that Pagan had acquired much culture and literacy from the Indians of that time. Surely Pyu also must have contributed to it. My question is:
Where is the evidence that Thaton or Ramanna of early 11th century AD had contributed to Pagan such as archaeological and religious artifacts?
Thank you.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Maung Maung Nyo
Post a Comment
<< Home