MANDALA
What is a mandala?
Mandala is a Sanskrit term; ‘manda’ means ‘essence’ while ‘la’ means ‘possessor’. It is a Hindu-Buddhist religious diagram made of overlapping concentric circles and squares which are the representations of the universe, the relationship between men and gods, and has ritual significance in both Hinduism and Buddhism.
How has it been used/adapted in Angkor Empire to strengthen the idea of kingship?
The kings in Angkor used this this religious concept to apply into geopolitical structuring in his own empire, where polities (political entities, societies) were defined by their centre as opposed to its geographical boundaries. Mandala represented the devaraja’s (god-king) personal charismatic authority radiating out from a center, in contrast to the vertically organized hierarchy of power directly exercised through the ruler’s representatives. This meant that the power of the empire radiated from a single king at the center, in line with the mandala notion of the centre being the most powerful. A king who could tap into ‘cosmic power’ was considered as the charismatic center, thus a man of ‘prowess’. Mandala reveals how religion played an integral part in Angkor Empire by supplying the people with the ideology that strengthened the idea of divine kingship.
The people revered the devarajas and provided service to them. In fact, there was a patron-client relationship: the patron (king), with more power and higher status than the client, offers protection and access to scarce resources such as land or jobs to the client; the client in turn, provides support and services such as labour and loyalty for the patron.
In Angkor Empire, devarajas’ divine powers ensured the fertility and good fortune of their lands and people. There was even an oath in an inscription which states that officials will be loyal to the king and that there would be dreadful punishments on those who stray. This oath shows the extent of royal power. Traditional belief among the people was that their king was the source of their spiritual and economic welfare: people believed that they had to attach themselves to the king and respect them as only the king had the power to link the kingdom to the cosmos and help each person to attain a higher merit. This ideology helped the king to rule over the country with sovereign spirituality over his people.
In other words, mandala in Southeast Asia was a political tool that created a form of system, with its main emphasis on the overlordship of the devaraja. While mandala takes on a political manifestation in SEA, it remains as a religious symbol in India, which puts the people in their political spheres and social places. This is the aspect that makes mandala a defining trait of Angkor and Southeast Asia; mandala reflects how Angkor Empire was highly selective and adaptive in picking, ‘sieving’ and adapting the Indian ideas which would benefit its own empire.
What is a mandala?
Mandala is a Sanskrit term; ‘manda’ means ‘essence’ while ‘la’ means ‘possessor’. It is a Hindu-Buddhist religious diagram made of overlapping concentric circles and squares which are the representations of the universe, the relationship between men and gods, and has ritual significance in both Hinduism and Buddhism.
How has it been used/adapted in Angkor Empire to strengthen the idea of kingship?
The kings in Angkor used this this religious concept to apply into geopolitical structuring in his own empire, where polities (political entities, societies) were defined by their centre as opposed to its geographical boundaries. Mandala represented the devaraja’s (god-king) personal charismatic authority radiating out from a center, in contrast to the vertically organized hierarchy of power directly exercised through the ruler’s representatives. This meant that the power of the empire radiated from a single king at the center, in line with the mandala notion of the centre being the most powerful. A king who could tap into ‘cosmic power’ was considered as the charismatic center, thus a man of ‘prowess’. Mandala reveals how religion played an integral part in Angkor Empire by supplying the people with the ideology that strengthened the idea of divine kingship.
The people revered the devarajas and provided service to them. In fact, there was a patron-client relationship: the patron (king), with more power and higher status than the client, offers protection and access to scarce resources such as land or jobs to the client; the client in turn, provides support and services such as labour and loyalty for the patron.
In Angkor Empire, devarajas’ divine powers ensured the fertility and good fortune of their lands and people. There was even an oath in an inscription which states that officials will be loyal to the king and that there would be dreadful punishments on those who stray. This oath shows the extent of royal power. Traditional belief among the people was that their king was the source of their spiritual and economic welfare: people believed that they had to attach themselves to the king and respect them as only the king had the power to link the kingdom to the cosmos and help each person to attain a higher merit. This ideology helped the king to rule over the country with sovereign spirituality over his people.
In other words, mandala in Southeast Asia was a political tool that created a form of system, with its main emphasis on the overlordship of the devaraja. While mandala takes on a political manifestation in SEA, it remains as a religious symbol in India, which puts the people in their political spheres and social places. This is the aspect that makes mandala a defining trait of Angkor and Southeast Asia; mandala reflects how Angkor Empire was highly selective and adaptive in picking, ‘sieving’ and adapting the Indian ideas which would benefit its own empire.
Mandala for economic system
Angkor Empire relied on agriculture and temples to survive, and enforced its political system of mandala for its economic system as well. In the Angkor Empire, the subordination of one local temple to another has emerged. The idea that Angkor kings not only used mandala for its political system but also as a way for structuring and administrating economic center for storage of wealth and capital, show how Indianisation has shaped the system and structure in Angkor Empire.
How does this relate to the idea of kingship?
As seen in this patron-client relationship, the Angkor aristocracy donated their gifts of gold, land, livestock, food and labor to the temples to show their loyalty to the central temple and the king. It was mainly for merit purposes (material and spiritual benefits); the king patronized the aristocracy and expected their loyalty while the aristocracy could claim titles. As the patron-client relationship is founded on the basis of the give-and-take between overlord and the locals, the expansion of the king’s kingdom will also benefit the locals in their daily lives with higher standard of living. The diagram shows how everything is ultimately linked to the main central temple, thus revealing the idea of kingship and power from the center. In fact, with more crops and gifts donated to the temple, the kings had more to exhibit and distribute to those below him. This shows how the king used the mandala concept in economic terms to accumulate wealth, which naturally led to the accumulation of more power and sphere of influence.
The temples of Angkor Empire show the capability of Angkor king to utilize the mandala concept to create such wealth on this administrative and economic specialization. Religion supplied an ideology and a structure that set out the role of each person (as a king or as his follower). As seen, the kings used the concept of mandala to increase their own power and prosperity of their empire to build an ordered civilization.
Angkor Empire relied on agriculture and temples to survive, and enforced its political system of mandala for its economic system as well. In the Angkor Empire, the subordination of one local temple to another has emerged. The idea that Angkor kings not only used mandala for its political system but also as a way for structuring and administrating economic center for storage of wealth and capital, show how Indianisation has shaped the system and structure in Angkor Empire.
How does this relate to the idea of kingship?
As seen in this patron-client relationship, the Angkor aristocracy donated their gifts of gold, land, livestock, food and labor to the temples to show their loyalty to the central temple and the king. It was mainly for merit purposes (material and spiritual benefits); the king patronized the aristocracy and expected their loyalty while the aristocracy could claim titles. As the patron-client relationship is founded on the basis of the give-and-take between overlord and the locals, the expansion of the king’s kingdom will also benefit the locals in their daily lives with higher standard of living. The diagram shows how everything is ultimately linked to the main central temple, thus revealing the idea of kingship and power from the center. In fact, with more crops and gifts donated to the temple, the kings had more to exhibit and distribute to those below him. This shows how the king used the mandala concept in economic terms to accumulate wealth, which naturally led to the accumulation of more power and sphere of influence.
The temples of Angkor Empire show the capability of Angkor king to utilize the mandala concept to create such wealth on this administrative and economic specialization. Religion supplied an ideology and a structure that set out the role of each person (as a king or as his follower). As seen, the kings used the concept of mandala to increase their own power and prosperity of their empire to build an ordered civilization.