Anek Suwanbundit, Ph.D.

Introduction

Thai philosophy does not emerge in isolation but often approached through the prisms of Buddhism, folk traditions, and royal intellectual culture, is best understood not as a closed system, is constructed through centuries of cultural encounter and intellectual transformation. Each of those cultural exchanges has contributed to the Thai philosophical world-view, not merely by introducing doctrines but by reshaping the ontological assumptions concerning—its understanding of being, reality, and relational existence—develops through both chronicle, a linear narrative of historical exchanges, and genealogy, a tracing of how knowledge and power relations shaped philosophical categories (Foucault, 1971). By situating Thai philosophy within these two frames, we can understand not only what influenced it but how those influences were absorbed, contested, and transformed into distinct ontological orientations.

The ontology of Thai philosophy is not defined by abstract metaphysics in the Western sense, but by an interwoven sense of lived reality, relational existence, and impermanence. Ontological categories in the Thai intellectual tradition are situated in the tension between universal Buddhist truths and local cosmological imaginaries. This allows Thai thought to adopt, adapt, and harmonize foreign conceptual frameworks into its own cultural matrix, transforming them into what may be termed “ontological pluralism.”

Chronicle of Transcultural Influences

Indian Foundations

The earliest ontological categories in Thai thought were shaped by Indian influences along maritime trade routes across the Bay of Bengal (Coedès, 1968). Indian merchants and Brahmin priests brought Brahmanical cosmology, Sanskrit texts, and ritual practices into the early states of Southeast Asia (3th B.C.-5th C.E.). Hindu cosmology introduced concepts of cyclical time, divine order (dharma), and the ontology of sacred kingship linking political authority to cosmic harmony (Zimmer, 1951).

Buddhist philosophy, arriving through both Theravāda and Mahāyāna routes, provided frameworks of impermanence (anicca), non-self (anattā), dukkha (suffering), and dependent origination (paṭiccasamuppāda), which became the backbone of Thai ontological discourse (Gombrich, 2006).

Gupta-style Buddhist art and Sanskrit inscriptions (6th–9th centuries) were spread through Dvāravatī kingdom (Gombrich, 2006), centered in present-day central Thailand, show how ontological categories were localized. Temples represented Mount Meru cosmology, reinforcing an ontological vision of the universe structured around sacred order.

During 8th to 16 th C.E. Indian influence through Srivijaya, Khmer, Burma and Lanka to the small states of the north, central and south of Thailand. During 16th–18th C.E. in Ayutthaya Kingdom, alongside scholastic Buddhism, Indian Tantric and Yogic traditions entered Thai esoteric practices (Samuel, 2005). Mantra, yantra, and yogic breathing techniques shaped Thai ritual ontology, where sound, symbol, and body were seen as transformative elements of reality.

Colonial Era and Reform (19th–20th C.E), Indian intellectual movements such as Hindu reform and Buddhist modernism influenced Thai reformers (Lopez, 2010). The ontology of Buddhism was reframed to align with rationalism and modern science, emphasizing meditation as “mind science.” Buddhism was interpreted as philosophy rather than mere religion, compatible with science. Indian anti-colonial thought influenced Thai intellectuals to link Buddhism with national identity.

Today, Indian influence persists in Thai philosophy through Hindu rituals at royal ceremonies, where Brahmins officiate rites that invoke Indian cosmology. Yoga and meditation practices, where Indian psychology is integrated into Thai medicine and wellness, and spiritual culture. Academic philosophy, where Indian Buddhist logic, ethics, and metaphysics are studied alongside Western frameworks in many universities.

Chinese Foundations

Chinese influence reached Thailand primarily through trade networks and migration communities in Tang–Song Periods (7th–13th C.E.). Chinese merchants brought with them not only goods but also Confucian, Daoist, and Chinese-mahayana Buddhist texts and practices (Wolters, 1999). The ontology of Confucian social harmony, centered on filial piety and hierarchical relations, resonated with Thai notions of duty toward family and king. Daoist cosmology introduced yin-yang and five-element theory, shaping Thai astrology, traditional medicine, and ideas of balance within the human body and cosmos.

By the Ayutthaya kingdom (14th-18th C.E) large Chinese diaspora communities had developed in many towns (Reid, 1988). Confucian ethics influenced Thai governance and bureaucracy, reinforcing the moral-ontological role of the ruler as a paternal figure who must maintain harmony. Daoist ritual specialists also contributed to Thai temple festivals and cosmological practices, blending Daoist deities and techniques with indigenous animism and Theravāda rituals. Philosophically, the ontology of “relational being” became more explicit: one’s existence was defined not by individual autonomy but by relational duties within family, community, and cosmos. This aligned with both Confucian and Buddhist frameworks, strengthening Thai relational ontology.

During the Rattanakosin period (18th-20th C.E.), waves of Chinese immigrants—especially Teochew (Chaoshan region in south China)—reinforced Chinese intellectual influence (Cushman, 1991). Confucian values of diligence, loyalty, and hierarchy merged with Buddhist merit-making to form an ethic of both social responsibility and karmic duty. Chinese-Mahayana Buddhism (particularly Pure Land sect) also entered Thai devotional life, subtly influencing lay religiosity with an ontology that emphasized salvation through faith and collective chanting, rather than exclusively through monastic meditation. Daoist alchemical and cosmological concepts continued to shape Thai medicine and astrology.

Today, Confucian ethics remain embedded in Thai social ontology through emphasis on family piety, respect for elders, and hierarchical harmony in schools and workplaces. Daoist ideas persist in Thai-Chinese temples, astrology, and health practices. Chinese-Mahayana Buddhism continues to inform popular religiosity, coexisting with Theravāda as a pluralistic ontology of faith both karmic causality and communal devotional practices, merit, and cosmic order.

Srivijaya and Khmer Cosmologies (6th–13th C.E.)

During the Srivijayan and Khmer ascendancy, Mahāyāna, Tantric Buddhism, and Hindu rituals shaped the ontology of sacred space and political authority. Mahāyāna-Tantric Buddhist ontological influence in Srivijaya Kingdom (8th -10 th C.E.), the south of today Thailand, Malay peninsula, and Islands, Srivijaya’s role as a stop and study center for Buddhist monastics. Its introduced th ritual vocabularies, tantric praxis (mantra, mandala, deity yoga) to the main land and forced the Bodisattva and Dhammarāja reinforce the kingship. the expansion of ritual and soteriological pluralism impact in Thai religious life absorbed both Theravāda and Mahāyāna ritual repertoires, resulting in flexible ontologies that could host multiple soteriologies. After Srivijaya’s decline (15th C.E.), The mandala model, political centres expressing concentric layers of influence borders, was common across the archipelago, then shared and adapted among Southeast Asian polities, including in the Chao Phraya basin as a fluid border.

Hindu-Khmer ontological influence, from the the Chenla kingdom (6th-9th C.E) then Khmer Empire (9th-13th C.E.) that extended cultural and political influence across mainland South East Asia, derived from Shaiva, Vaishnava, and Mahayana Buddhist traditions. The Devarāja (god-king) cult, invoking Śiva and Viṣṇu, reinforced the ontological identity of kingship as both divine and human, Vedic rituals, Sanskrit epigraphy, and Hindu metaphysics wide spread through the land. After the rise of Sukhothai (13th–15th C.E.), Ayutthaya (14th–18th C.E.), and Ratanakosin period (18th-21th C.E.) Thai continued absorb and transform Hindu-Khmer models but blending with Theravāda Buddhism such as Devarāja to Dhammarāja, Royal court such as Chatusadompa (the four ministries), Sakdina (social ranking system) and royal ceremonies while merged with Persian, Indian, and Chinese inputs. The temple-mountain structure (Mount Meru cosmology) became a spatial ontology embodied in Thai architecture (Higham, 2001).

Today, Many Hindu-Khmer legacies persist in Thai ritual life, kingship, and aesthetics as syncretism, Hindu-Khmer ontology provides the ritual-symbolic skeleton, while Theravāda ethics fills the moral-philosophical body. In north-eastern provinces and eastern provinces of Thailand with the border with Cambodian provinces, shared oral traditions, rituals, and folk cosmologies (spirits, ancestor cults, syncretic Buddhism) create ongoing mutual influence. However, modern Cambodia (postcolonial, post-Khmer Rouge) still recovering from historical trauma, then has not been a source of new philosophical currents for Thailand.

Theravāda Consolidation from Burma and Lanka (13th–16th C.E.)

The Sukhothai and Ayutthaya kingdoms drew heavily from Burmese and Sri Lankan Theravāda traditions (Swearer, 2012). Thai absorbed Burmese-monastic scholastic models, especially vinaya (discipline), Pali canon preservation, and ritual standardizationThe chronicle of this period shows a consolidation of Buddhist scholastic ontology; detailed analysis of consciousness (citta), ethical causality (kamma – the structure of human becoming across lifetimes), and liberation (nibbāna) (Payutto., 2021). This became the dominant intellectual frame of Thai philosophy. Burmese emphasis on vinaya and scriptural study shaped Thai philosophy of “purification of the sangha” as an essential condition for state legitimacy. Burmese concepts of the dhammarāja influenced Thai kingship, especially under early Ayutthaya, resonated with and reinforced Thai notions of barami (parami) as the ontological basis of authority. During 19th–20th C.E., Under British colonialism, Burma-Buddhist reforms emphasized scriptural study and lay meditation accessible to ordinary people. This reinforced Thai moves toward a scriptural, rational, lay-oriented Buddhism. Nowaday, Burmese vipassanā shaped Thai-mindfulness with discourse on direct experience, phenomenology of consciousness, and democratization of spiritual practice. Meanwhile, there are shared ethnic groups (Mon, Karen, Shan) straddle the Thai–Myanmar border, transmitting folk cosmologies, spirit beliefs, and hybrid Buddhist practices.

While, in the late 12th C.E., Sri Lankan Buddhism had preserved the Pali Canon and major commentaries (Aṭṭhakathā), and consolidating the sangha under one ordination lineage. Thai monks traveled to Sri Lanka to receive re-ordination until Sukhothai Kingdom (13th–14th C.E.) invited monks who were of the Lankāvamsa (Lanka lineage) to the land to settle Langa-Theravada in Sukhothai Kingdom. Thai scholars imported this scholastic system, which formed the basis of Thai philosophical education emphasis on exegetical and text-grounded, valuing canonical purity. In the mid of Ayutthaya, Sri Lanka was in the time of decline, Ayutthaya sent missions to Sri Lanka to renew ordination and embedding the Lankāvat lineage as the metaphysical “root of authenticity. In early Ratanakosin, Thai invite Lanka monks to ordination again. After that Lanka gave Thailand a model for rationalist Theravāda reform, with emphasis on canonical authenticity over ritual accretion. Buddhist modernism in Thailand drew inspiration from Lanka’s integration of modern science, lay participation, and education. Today, Buddhist-Thai scholars adopted ideas of Buddhism as social transformation, linking personal liberation with collective responsibility and emphasis on Buddhist peace philosophy.

Vajrayana Consolidation from Tibet and Himalayan countries (16th-20th)

Tibetan Vajrayana spread through the Himalayas, some indirect awareness existed through Chinese trade, pilgrims, and Shan monks, to the Lanna Kingdom (the ancient kingdom in the north of Thailand). They introduced ritual ontology, where reality is seen as both symbolic and transformative. Such influences remain evident in Lanna-Thai esoteric practices. In 19th–20th C.E. Western scholars studying Buddhism introduced Thai intellectuals to Mahayāna and Vajrayāna texts from Tibet and then Thai monks and scholars began to recognize that Theravāda was one branch of a wider Buddhist world. After the 1959 Tibetan diaspora, Tibetan masters (e.g., the Dalai Lama, Karmapa, and other Rinpoches) spread Vajrayāna across Asia and the West. Thai intellectuals and practitioners encountered Tibetan Vajrayāna mainly through academic study, international conferences, and spiritual tourism. Thai scholars began comparing Vajrayāna and Thai meditation schools in the ontology of form, deity visualization—entered through esoteric networks, creating a plural ontology where reality was simultaneously symbolic, ritualistic, and symbolic transformation (Samuel, 1995)

Nowaday, Thai philosophers study Madhyamaka (Nāgārjuna’s emptiness philosophy) and Yogācāra as transmitted through Tibet. This challenges Theravāda’s more realist Abhidhamma ontology, broadening Thai discourse to emptiness as relational, not substance-like. Recent Thai Scholars interest and practice more Tibetan Vajarayana and retreat activities.

Regional Flows: Laos, and Vietnam (12th–18th C.E.)

Both Thai and Lao peoples descend from Tai cultural groups that migrated from southern China. The animistic worldviews, ancestor veneration, and spirit rituals (phi, khwan, sukhwan) formed a proto-philosophical ontology of life-force, balance, and cosmic harmony in both Lao and Thai folk philosophy. After Theravāda Buddism widespread in Lan Xang Kingdom in 14th-18th C.E., Lao monks and Thai monks exchanged ordination lineages, scriptures, and ritual practices. Laos contributed ritual and liturgical Theravāda that reinforced communal ontology particularly in ritual life emphasis on community solidarity, gratitude, and kinship-based ethics. Lao-style stupas influenced stupa-building traditions in north-eastern Thailand. Lao philosophical identity persisted through literature, music (mor lam), and Buddhist sermon, emphasis on simplicity, nature, and direct experience of dhamma — deeply resonant with Lao Buddhist sensibility.

There were limited direct intellectual exchanges between ancient Dai Viet and Siam. Vietnam employed Mahāyāna and Chinese-Vietnamese Confucian frameworks added layers of moral ontology. After conflicts between Vietnam and Siam in 17th-19th C.E. many Vietnamese were resettled in Siamese territory, Vietnamese Catholic and Buddhist communities preserved ritual practices that influenced Siamese local culture. Marxism–Leninism and Revolutionary Philosophy of Vietnam were influence to Thai intellectuals in 1960s-70s, nowaday the radical Dhammic socialist thought emphasis on interbeing ontology diffuse to Thai Buddhism as activism.

Japanese and Korean: Zen and National Influences (16th-20th C.E.)

Japanese influence on Thai thought was minimal and mostly indirect in Ayutthaya period through Japanes settlement. Samurai, ronin, merchants, and Christian exiles arrived in Ayutthaya and settled the Japanese village, hub for commerce and diplomacy. The circulation of Japanese weapons and aesthetics subtly influenced Thai martial and cultural life, adding to Ayutthaya’s pluralistic ontology. The Japanese bushidō ethic of loyalty, honor, and martial valor interacted with Thai notions of kingship and service, enriching local understandings of virtue and discipline. When the Meiji Restoration became known across Asia (early 20th C.E.), Siamese reformers looked to Japan as an example of how an Asian nation could modernize while preserving its sovereignty (Duus, 1976). Thai scholars and officials studied Japan’s modernization, legal system, and education. Confucian-infused Japanese ethics—duty, loyalty, discipline—were observed and adapted. During the Second World War, Thailand allied with Japan, Japanese pan-Asian rhetoric (“Asia for Asians”) encouraged Thai intellectuals to imagine themselves within a broader Asian civilizational identity. in the middle of 20th C.E., Thailand looked again to Japan as a model of economic ontology—how a nation could rebuild and prosper while rooted in tradition.

Korean influence on Thai thought also indirect in premodern era. However, after Korean war, Thailand had political and military contact with South Korea and then from the 1960s onward, Korea’s rapid industrialization and state-led development became an object of study in many Asian countries, including Thailand. Thai policy-makers and economists examined elements of South Korea’s developmental model (education rigor, state planning, export orientation), which indirectly influenced Thai discourses about modernity, national project, and the ethics of development.

Today, Japanese influence on Thai philosophy appears in Popular Zen Buddhism: mindfulness and emptiness circulate in Thai meditation circles, adding a new ontological emphasis on direct experience beyond conceptualization. Japanese ethics of work such as discipline, group loyalty, and work ethic shapes Thai business philosophy, reinforcing the relational ontology of the self as embedded in community. Aesthetic and Environmental Ontology wth Japanese wabi-sabi aesthetics (simplicity, impermanence) inspire Thai approaches to art, architecture, and eco-philosophy.

While Korean cultural flows and soft power to Thailand. The export of Korean popular culture (K-dramas, music, film) has reshaped attitudes and social imaginaries among Thai youth from year 2000s. It influenced taste, moral narratives, and youth conceptions of selfhood.

Persian and Islamic Encounters (16th–18th C.E.)

From the 14th–15th C.E., Islam spread rapidly across the Malay Archipelago and became the major maritime powers and nodes of Islamic learning. Trade and diplomacy with Siam continued (Reid, 1988). Persian-Islamic traders brought cosmological and medical texts, which informed Thai astrology and healing practices (Robinson, 2011). Ontologically, this period reveals a hybridization of rational calculation and spiritual destiny, blending Buddhist karmic determinism with Islamic notions of divine order. They introduced ways of thinking about law, contractual relations, and community.

Persian-Muslim scholars and Sufi missionaries in Mainland influenced local elites, offering new perspectives on political authority, cosmology, and human ethics (Reid, 1988). In Ayutthaya, they imprinted Persian administrative and ceremonial models , including royal court etiquette, ceremonial textiles, and diplomatic rituals on Thai court and elites. However, Persian-Islamic ideas were rarely adopted wholesale but were integrated with Indian, Chinese, and indigenous conceptions, producing hybrid cosmologies, ritual forms, and legal practices. During modernization time, Bangkok’s diplomatic relations with Ottoman Turkey and British Malaya introduced reformist Islamic thought into Siam.

Today, In the southern provinces and borderlands, and muslim elite in Central Thailand, the Islamic thought, calligraphy and poetry continues to shape local ontologies, modes of communal identification, and jurisprudential pluralism.

Western Intellectual and Modernization (16th–20th C.E.)

Portuguese brought Christian theology, Aristotelian scholasticism, and Renaissance science first. After that Catholic missionaries (Dominicans, Jesuits, Franciscans) introduced ideas of monotheism, natural law, and soul-based anthropology. Ayutthaya elites absorbed only scientific rationalism, cartography, and natural history. Latter, Dutch and French brought rational commerce, mercantilism, Cartesian rationalism, Catholic scholastic metaphysics, and legal contracts with pragmatic ideas of law and sovereignty.

The British-French colonial threat and modernization projects introduced Western ontologies of nationhood, sovereignty, and rational science (Winichakul, 2013). Utilitarianism and liberal constitutional thought began to influence Siamese elites. Cartesian dualism, empiricism, and positivism influenced Thai education and medicine. Later, Kantian ethics, existentialism, phenomenology, and Marxism opened discourses on the nature of subjectivity, freedom, and material ontology, creating tensions between Buddhist non-self and Western individualism (Hongladarom, 1996). Modern legal and political ontologies, framing the Siam and now Thailand as both sovereign and relational in global order. Post–World War II, Thai academia imported analytic philosophy, existentialism, phenomenology, and pragmatism, influencing debates on knowledge, ethics, and political thought.

During the Cold War, Thailand aligned with the US, leading to the spread of pragmatism, liberal democracy, human rights discourse, and development theory. Post–Cold War globalization opened Thai philosophy to postmodernism, deconstruction, and critical theory (Foucault, Derrida, Lyotard), inspiring critiques of hierarchy, nationalism, and Buddhism itself. Feminist philosophy and gender theory, largely imported from Western academia, challenged patriarchal structures in Thai culture and monastic life. Environmental ethics, bioethics, and global justice debates influenced by Western philosophy are now taught alongside Buddhist ethical frameworks. Digital globalization allows direct access to continental philosophy, analytic metaphysics, and contemporary political theory, making Thai philosophy part of a global intellectual conversation.

Genealogy of Thai Ontological Categories

Unlike a chronicle, which tells the story of linear diffusion, a genealogical approach reveals how Thai ontological categories are products of negotiation, hybridization, and power relations (Said, 1993).

Kingship and Ontology: Indian dharmic kingship, Khmer cosmology, and Theravāda merit-making created a genealogy of political ontology where the king was simultaneously worldly ruler and cosmic pivot (Tambiah, 1976).

Body and Cosmos: Daoist energy systems, Ayurvedic models, and Buddhist meditation practices merged into a genealogy of embodiment, where the human body was conceived as both biological and cosmological (Swearer, (2012).

Self and Subjectivity: The Buddhist doctrine of anattā was continuously reinterpreted in relation to Confucian ethics, Persian mysticism, and Western existentialism. Genealogically, the Thai self emerges not as a fixed essence but as a field of negotiation between relational duty, karmic continuity, and modern individual rights (Bunchua, 2018).

Knowledge and Power: Monastic scholasticism, royal chronicles, and modern universities functioned as sites of knowledge-production (Reynolds, 1973). Genealogy shows how what counts as “philosophy” in Thailand is shaped by shifting regimes of authority—from monks to monarchs to academics—each redefining ontological categories in alignment with their power.

Ontological Synthesis: Thai Philosophy as Plural Becoming

The ontology of Thai philosophy cannot be reduced to one system. Through its chronicle, it absorbs and reinterprets ideas across civilizations. Through its genealogy, it reveals the conditions of possibility for those ideas to take root and transform. Thai philosophy therefore embodies ontological pluralism: being is impermanent, relational, and always shaped by transcultural exchanges. Its ontology is not static but a becoming, continuously reshaped by chronicle and genealogy.

Conclusion

The ontology of Thai philosophy is characterized by hybridity and synthesis. It is not a derivative collage but an ongoing ontological negotiation, where foreign influences are domesticated into the Thai intellectual cosmos. By examining Thai philosophy through the dual lens of chronicle and genealogy, we see that its ontology is both historical and relational. The chronicle traces its layered encounters across India, China, neighbour countries, and the West. The genealogy shows how power and knowledge shaped categories of kingship, body, self, and cosmos. Taken together, Thai philosophy emerges as a living ontology, plural, adaptive, and deeply transcultural to maintain continuity while embracing multiplicity.

References

1. Bhikkhu P. A. Payutto. (2021). Buddhadhamma: The Laws of Nature and Their Benefits to Life (R. P. Moore, Trans.) (4 th e.d), Bangkok, Buddhadhamma Foundation. retrieved from https://buddhadhamma.github.io/titlepage.html
2. Bunchua, K. (2018). Thai Philosophy. (in Thai). Bangkok, Suan Sunandha Unviersity.
3. Coedès, G. (1968). The Indianized States of Southeast Asia (S. B. Cowing Trans). Hawaii, University of Hawaii Press.
4. Cushman, J. W. (1991). Family and State: The Formation of a Sino-Thai Tin-mining Dynasty, 1797-1932. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
5. Duus, P. (1976). The Rise of Modern Japan. Boston, Houghton Mifflin.
6. Foucault, M. “Nietzsche, la genealogie, l’histoire,” In S. Bachelard, et al., Hommage à Jean Hyppolite. Paris: Presses Universitaire de France, 1971, 145-72; trans. “Nietzsche, Genealogy, History,” In Donald F. Bouchard (ed.), Language, Counter-memory, Practice, Trans. D. F. Bouchard, Sherry Simon (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1977) 139-64. retrieved from http://www.individual.utoronto.ca/bmclean/hermeneutics/foucault_suppl/NGH_outline.htm
7. Gombrich, R.F. (2006). Theravāda Buddhism: A Social History from Ancient Benares to Modern Colombo. (2nd ed). London, Routledge. retrieved from https://archive.org/details/theravadabuddhis0000gomb/mode/2up
8. Higham, C. (2001). The Civilization of Angkor. London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson. retrieved from https://archive.org/details/civilizationofan0000high
9. Hongladarom, S. (1996). “How is Thai Philosophy Possible?”. Paper presented at the International Conference on Thai Studies, Chiang Mai University, 14-17 October, 1996.
10. Lopez, D. S. (2010). Buddhism and Science: A Guide for the Perplexed (Buddhism and Modernity). Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
11. Reid, A. (1988).Southeast Asia in the Age of Commerce, 1450–1680: Volume One: The Lands below the Winds. Connecticut, Yale University Press.
12. Reynolds, C. J. (1973). The Case of K.S.R. Kulap: A Challenge to Royal Historical Writing in Late Nineteenth Century Thailand. Journal of The Siam Society, 61(2). 63-90.
13. Robinson, F. (2011). The Islamic World in the Age of Western Dominance. Cambridge University Press. retrieved from https://dn790000.ca.archive.org/0/items/TheNewCambridgeHistoryOfIslamVolume1/The_New_Cambridge_History_of_Islam_Volume_5.pdf
14. Said, E.W. (1993). Culture and Imperialism. New York, Vintage Books. retrieved from https://archive.org/details/culture-and-imperialism-edward-w-said-ia-1/page/n13/mode/2up
15. Samuel, G. (1995) Civilized Shamans: Buddhism in Tibetan Societies. Washington, DC. Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press.
16. Samuel, G. (2005). Tantric Revisionings: New Understandings of Tibetan Buddhism and Indian Religion. London, Routledge.
17. Swearer, D. (2012). The Buddhist World of Southeast Asia (2nd ed). NewYork, State University of New York Press.
18. Tambiah, S. J. (1976). World Conqueror and World Renouncer. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
19. Winichakul, T. (2013). Siam Mapped: A History of the Geo-Body of a Nation. Bangkok, Read Publication.
20. Wolters, O. W. (1999). History, Culture, and Region in Southeast Asian Perspectives. New York, Cornell University.
21. Zimmer, H. (1951). Philosophies of India. New Jersey. Princeton University Press.