Angkor 'What'? — Roaming with Roth

Without going into great detail regarding Angkor's history, suffice it to say that there is long tradition of Khmer culture dominating from 100 B.C. Through 500 A.D. The religion was primarily Hindu. Indeed, architecturally Angkor was modeled after Mount Meru, the mythical home of Hindu gods. As Buddhism took hold, as early as the 7th century, there was a general tolerance of practice and observation amongst the varying 'sects' of Hindu and Buddhists. Then, in the earliest part of the 13th century there was a kind of rift during the reign of Jayavarman VII. The Khmer culture, so integral a part of the Angkor's history, began to lose its place, as various sects of Buddhism prevailed.

A fascinating 'bas-relief' on the wall of Angkor Thom, the last and most enduring capital city of the Khmer empire. I was taken by this relief, its beauty and irony.

On the [above] bas-relief, you will observe two sets of knees, one set lying flat in "full lotus" (Buddhist) posture, the other with knees in a more traditional Khmer posture. You will also notice that the monk has a beard, a particularly Khmer practice. Lastly, he is wearing a full headdress, further evidence of early Khmer influence. These were all changes to the existing bas relief. In a sense, this relief is both defacement and resistance to the changes taking place describing a 'new order' during this transitional period. Some appointed radical with a chisel did the king's handiwork.

For me, this exemplifies merely 'one' problem with religion. I thought of the sad irony that a lineage of a single culture, tolerant and accepting for hundreds of years, eventually and finally instigates its own demise with schisms amongst its same peoples. There was hardly a rationale. The religious beliefs and practices were, for the most part, identical. There leadership had been consistent over nearly fourteen centuries. It was more a political act of asserting one faith over another that caused the rift to widen.

Not being religious (not being 'theistic') I have, since childhood, observed and watched with lurid fascination the 'preacher'-types - charlatans and snake oil sales persons - who have taken podiums or stood on platforms and with transfixing cadence, intense ardor, absolute certainty, breathy intonmemt and glorious splendor evangelized their form of observance to their particular 'god'. Richard Dawkins has famously observed (and I paraphrase) that what is absolutely true is that we are all atheists. The whole world is comprised of self-avowed atheists. They all don't believe in every god except those who believe in their one god. It is that supercilious application here that got to me. One sect imposing a set of rules over another that has the same history, culture, practices, sensibilities and with whom they lived in harmony for centuries.

And then, of course, there are the people...