Vietnamese Buddhist Art
by Nguyen Ngoc Vinh | 2009 | 60,338 words
This essay studies Vietnamese Buddhist Art in South and South East Asia Context.—In the early spread of Buddhism to Vietnam, three primary sources are investigated: Chinese histories, Sanskrit and Pali literature and local inscriptions and art: Initially Buddhist sculptures were carried from India to Vietnam by monks and traders. The research are o...
Go directly to: Footnotes.
1. Sculptures in Champa
[Full title: Style and the Dating of Sculpture (1): South Vietnam (a): Champa]
As Ananda K. Coomaraswamy have been said that:
“Indian contacts may have been made some centuries before the beginning of the Christian era; Suvarnabhumi (sumastra) is mentioned in the Jatakas, Epics, and Mahavamsa and the sea-route must have been familiar, before the commencement of the general eastward extension of Indian culture. What is probably the oldest positive evidence of this Indian movement eastwards occurs in the remotest area, in the Sanskrit inscription of Vocanh in Annam (Vietnam), dateable about 200 A.D.,[1]�
An ancient kingdom in South Vietnam, has suffered so much from political vicissitudes that a great deal of its historical and archaeological remains have irretrievably disappeared. Inscriptions from the past make mention time and again of the splendid icons in bronze, some of which were destroyed by the enemies and replaced in later times. Excavations also revealed much traces of destruction by fire, which must have devastated the entire city or town. The most efficient approach to its rediscovery was to capture its vestiges, its abandoned towers, its forgotten sculptures, its sublime sites where the divine wanders; a pleasant task for the willing traveller, armed with the learned indications of the great ancients and attentive to the unbiased attraction of discovery.
Examining a statue, carrying out an authentication, is to interrogate condensed history. All the statues illustrated were closely examined, measured, inspected, and authenticated. All from private collections, often heretofore unpublished, they bring new blood to the observation: in art, nothing is more dangerous than inbred models and limited fields of vision.
Buddhist art in South Vietnam in general and sculpture in particular is profoundly original. It was rediscovered by the French and has now been repossessed by the Vietnamese at the beginning of the twenty first century. Rediscovered by the French during the period of French administration in Indochina in the second half of the nineteenth century, its scientists and explorers supported by the government of the day. Explorers, supported by architects, epigraphists and archaeologists not only garnered a unique fund of knowledge, combining documentation and commentary, but also carried out the major work of conserving South Vietnam sites. All most the best sources of South Vietnam Buddhist art are written in French, over the last five hundred years.
These documents have been repossessed today by the Vietnamese because they have been able, after the demands of years of war, to interest themselves in an art that, for many, remains foreign. The repossession of Cham (South Vietnam) culture is now flourishing: the care given to new publications, the valorising and restoration of sites, and the efficient archaeological digs, are all indications of a national realization and of a true will to reclaim Cham heritage which, today, is incontestably Vietnamese.
The prominent religion of the kingdom was Hinduism, in which the worship of Siva was held supreme. Metal covers of the Sivalinga, bearing the head of Siva are among the impressive finds that attest to the high level of metallurgy as achieved by the ancient Chams. Sculptures of the late ninth century, which reveal much of the ethnic traits of the people, represent the most forceful and most characteristic products of their culture.
Mahayana Buddhism also received official and royal patronage in the ninth and early tenth centuries, although the Southern region of the country had been susceptible to the influences of this religion sometime earlier. This was probably due to the same waves of religious currents that swept across peninsular Thailand and maritime South East Asia during the eighth to the twelfth centuries.[2]
Base on the things in nature of Cham art are presenting in museums. The school’s buildings first housed, as early as 1899 in Saigon, a few stones brought back from the ruins in My son.[3] Then a few sculptures left for Hanoi between 1900 and 1905 and, little by little, through pieces gathered fortuitously or during organised digs, true museum collections were constituted. The dates of the actual creation of these museum are earlier but we have chosen to list here their definitive installation: the Louis Finot Museum in Hanoi (inaugurated in 1933), the Henri Parmentier Museum (1936) in Tourane-Danang, the Khai Dinh Museum in Hue (1923), the Blanchard de la Brosse Museum in Saigon (1929). Bit by bit foreign museums found it possible to assemble collections of quality, for example, the Cleveland Museum of art, Cleveland, the Metropolitan Museum, New York Museum and Brooklyn Museum in USA. Museum Rietberg in Switzerland, Guimet in Paris, and Labit in Toulouse. Not only epigraphists, architects, archaeologists, and translators but also hobbyists have provided knowledge of the Cham civilization, its temples and, in particular, its sculpture. Below, category by category, these illustrious innovators are listed with a brief overview of their contributions.
Architect Henri Parmentier[4], between 1909 and 1918 uncovered the main Cham sites by his majestic two-volume book “Descriptive Inventory of the Cham Monuments of Annam.� He uncovered the monuments of My Son and Dong Duong in 1902 and 1903, those of Po Klaung Garai in 1908 beside that Jean-Yves Claeys (1896-1979) the same Parmentier who architect was also a graduated from the Ecole des Beaux-Arts in Paris as well as the Ecole des Arts Decoratifs in Nice. Both of them are the members of the EFEO.[5] He dedicated his works not only to Cham architecture but also to archaeology, notable to uncovering the Thap-Man (Mam tower) site in1934-35 after working on Tra Kieu in 1920.
Parmentier and Claeys not only uncovered monuments buried in vegetation but also drew up precise lists that catalogued for the purpose of protection, statues and inscriptions for the museums of the EFEO and carried out several digs in the immediate surroundings of the main monuments.
When Parmentier inventoried the My Son site at the beginnings of the twentieth century, he counted seventy towers or temples. Up to 1945, the EFEO carried out major renovation work on these sacred buildings. Today, only about twenty remain: the disastrous effect of the war is obvious. Perhaps the American bombing in 1969 was the most ill fated, destroying at My Son groups A and A� that included nineteen structures, among which the splendid and magnificent A1 tower. Jean Boisselier (a member of EFEO 1949) used the A1 tower to refine his progressive dating of the Khuong My and Tra Kieu styles within the style of My Son A1.[6]
It is thus still very difficult today to truly describe Cham art. We are therefore brought to present an overall schema that can serve to describe a sort of “ideal� type.
To precisely date Cham sculptures, to propose the characteristics of particular styles, was the task that, as of the beginning of the twentieth century, French specialists took upon themselves.
It was due to Henri Parmentier and his Descriptive Inventory of Cham Monuments in Annam (whose publication, begun in 1912, was completed in 1918), but above all, Philippe Stern[7] and his remarkable The Art of Champa and its Evolution published in 1942 and Jean Boisselier (Statuary of Champa, 1963) that a general but often-contested dating system was established. It goes without saying that more recent discoveries, in particular in 1982 (on the An My site) not only allowed some of these datings to be made more precise, improved or even contradicted, but also made it possible to determine that they needed to be moved back in time and to place them regionlly. The An My site, in the Tam Ky district, Quang Nam province, notable delivered several remarkable sculptures (lingayoni, dikpala, etc.) that Vietnamese archaeologists date from the first half of the tenth century. In addition, in 1987-88, numerous new Cham sites were identified, either on the plain (Tuy Phuoc and An Nhon districts) or on the high plateaux (Gia Lai, Kontum). Parmentier’s classification no longer has any didactic value. On the other hand, in terms of iconography and dating, the work of Stern and that of Boisselier remain the reference.
Let us briefly recall how these men formulated their reasoning and their conclusions. Parmentier began with a principle:
“Between two undated forms of art, the most perfect one is the oldest.�
His observation, in the field, of temples and Cham sculptures brought him, guided by this principle, to divide Cham art into two periods. The first, called “primary�, stretches from the seventh to the tenth centuries, and is itself divided into three “arts� that can overlap chronologically: “primitive� art of the fifth to seventh centuries, illustrated notably by My Son A1[8] “cubic� art from the seventh to ninth centuries, as at Hoa Lai[9], and “mixed� art, in the tenth century, as at Dong Duong.[10] The second period, called “secondary�, can here again be separated into “classic� art of the eleventh century, such as at the Silver towers, “derived� art, in the twelfth to seventeenth centuries, as at Po Klaung Garai, and “pyramidal� art, from the tenth to fourteenth centuries, as at Po Nagar in Nha Trang.[11]
To make these classifications, Parmentier gave precedence to his training as an architect, which led him to date buildings rather than sculptures. The general shape of the edifice, its elements (base, pilasters, pieces d’accent, false doors, etc.), and certain elements of decoration (foliated scrolls, lotus flowers) serve as the basis for this stylistic and chronological classification.
Gilberte de Coral Remusat (1903-1943), “free attache� (1931) to the conservation of the Indo-Chinese museum at the Trocadero in Paris, then “attache� (1934) to the Guimet Museum (Paris) and corespondent for the French School of the Extreme Orient, contested, as early as 1932, Parmentier’s work. She essentially affirmed that the central tower at Dong Duong had to be classified between “cubic� art and the art of My Son A1. She identified in this manner four other styles: Tra Kieu (seventh and eighth centuries), Dong Duong (eighth to tenth centuries), “classical� and Binh Dinh styles (post tenth century), and, finally, the “late� style. Coral-Remusat’s classification is no longer taken into consideration today, but she managed to “dust off the material and offered a wide window of study to Philipppe Stern.
Jean Boisselier, for his part, completed, by adding to it and making it more specific, Stern’s dating. We can but briefly, as the dimensions of this book dictate, summarise the combined contribution of these two authors.
The first verifiable style is that of My Son E1, which begins at the start of the seventh century and continues into the eighth. Its main characteristics, like those of the pediment of the eponymous. Its main are: the originality of the theme (the creation of the world with Vishnu coming out of Brahma’s navel), the sobriety of its treatment, the very low arch (i.e. whose height is less than half of its width), wide and decorated with separated flowers on a plain background.[12] The second is that of Dong Duong (late ninth, early tenth centuries) with heads of divinities or laymen that are original: narrow foreheads, limited by two peaks of hair that come down to the prominent eyebrows presented in a continuous line, wavy and going upward toward the hair; long eyes, with thin eyelids; wide noses that are aquiline in profile; an unsmiling mouth (the smile will only come later) with thick lips having turned-up corners and short chins.[13]
Next comes the My Son A1 style, that can be chronologically divided into the Khuong My style (first half of the tenth century) and the Tra Kieu (second half of the tenth century) with a “sub-style� referred to as Chanh Lo (late tenth to first half of the eleventh centuries).[14]
In all these styles flourish soft poses and faces, beautiful jewellery and richness in themes. It should be noted that with the Chanh Lo style, there was a pronounced evolution toward a simplification of jewellery, a new composition of the kirita-mukuta, a new composition of clothing -the turned up edge and the pocket-like draping having disappeared -with a new body position in which the back is arched and previous jutting hips are gone and the obliteration on the face of the half-smile and the “fundamental question�; finally, a return to traditional facial features: large lips, wide nose, eyebrow ridges in strong relief. If it be necessary to speak once again of a return of the past, the Chanh Lo style could furnish convincing arguments.
Then followed the Thap-Nam style, at the end of the eleventh to the fourteenth centuries. It was, at one and the same time, Baroque in its elaborate decoration, and by the imaginative expression of its divinities, centred more on Vishnu than previous ones. In Thap-Nam faces, the features are thick, the lips fleshy, the eyebrows are clearly in relief, the dvarapala busts show eyes that are slightly bulging, a pouting lower lip, obvious neck tendons, dilated nostrils, a beard, moustache and eyebrows that seem to be lying on the face more than belonging to it and subtle “make-up�. The motif that bears the name Thap-Nam, a sort of curled up snail in relief with a point toward the top also allows, especially in borders, to date sculptures. It was about this style, which is so surprising, that Boisselier asked himself if it was a question “of a decadent piece of work or [one at the] summit of art pushed to its limits.�[15] one might well consider this a translation of the whole of the author’s ambiguity about Cham art.
According to Emmanuel Guillon:
“In the case of other images there seems to be a much clearer connection with Khmer art but here it is more likely to be a matter of cultural exchange rather than straight-forward borrowings, since a limited influence of the Thap Nam style on the Khmer Bayon style is indisputable on both historical and stylistic grounds.�[16]
Finally, the Yang Mum style (fourteenth and fifteenth centuries)[17] heads with long faces, a thin nose, half -closed semi-circular eyes, eyebrows that hardly touch with very strongly accentuated double curves, stylized ears, a beard-when one is present-cut into a point and a drooping moustache with slightly raised edges. The diadem band has no pearls and consists of a single row of jewels. Three examples can be given:
For one, Po Yan Ina Nagar. This goddess, worshipped in Nha Trang, is supposed to have been born from sea foam and clouds. She is the creator of the earth and at the hierarchical summit of all supernatural beings; however, from the statuary point of view, it is simply a question of a Bhagirathi (“she who is blessed�), Sakti of Shiva or Vishnu, perhaps dating from the tenth or eleventh century. However preposterous this may appear, none of today’s worshippers of the divinity could say that she was of Braham origin.[18]
Secondly, Po Klan Garai, the mythical king who taught human beings to build dams on the rivers in the Kauthara and Panduranga plains.[19]
Finally, Po Rome, king from 1627 to 1651, the unifier. He was the object at one and the same time of a local cult (cham jat) and an Islamic cult (Cham bani); once again, our Po Rome was originally a Shivaist idol.[20]
For the purpose of simplification and in respect for the future of this research, this text uses the following chronology:
4th -7th centuries: Primary style,
7th -8th centuries: My Son E1 style,
9th -10th centuries: Dong Duong style,
10th century: Tra Kieu style,
10th -11th centuries: Chien Dan style,
11th -13th centuries: Thap Nam style,
14th -15th centuries: Yang Mum style
Each of these styles groups the characteristices listed above, thereby constituting standard models that can be accompanied by variations.
The god is identifiable by the eye in his forehead. The hair is worn like a skullcap topped by a ringed, octagonal, vertical element and held in place by a diadem with three large rosettes. The face has heavy lips and a rather imposing moustache. The nose is straight and the eyebrows touch. The pupils are noticeably raised. The clothing, held by two belts, hangs very low. It is notably by comparing this style of dress to that found on figures on the tympani of My Son E1 and My Son C1 that it is evident that dating from the eighth century should be retained.[21]
Vajrapani or Prajnaparamita (“perfection of divine wisdom�), Lokesvara’s consort (who is a bodhisattva) wears the Amitabha Buddha in the front of her hair. A tuft of hair, the urna, can be noticed on her forehead: this is sometimes confused with the eye of Shiva. The divinity is holding a lotus flower in her left hand.[22]
Feminine entity of the “Greater Vehicle� (Mahayana), Tara is the female counterpart of the Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara. In Sanskrit, the “compassionate lord�, or the “lord who looks down from on high�[23], Avalokitesvara carries in his hair the image of the Buddha Amitabha (“infinite light�), one of the five meditation Buddhas of Mahayana.[24]
The enlightened one is seated in dyaasana on a base of lotus petals, with his hand in the teaching gesture. The facial features are particularly soft. The Dong Duong Buddha has been greatly inspired by the Funam art from the historically neighboring Mekong Delta.[25]
The Buddha’s two hands are spread on his knees, expressing a very rare mudra, that of “illumination�, and is seated in dyaasana. The outer clothing (the uttarasanga) has thick, even folds. An undergarment (antaravasaka) with similar folds can be imagined. The right shoulder and arm are bare. He is resting, leaning against a recess, on a tiered base. A row of lotus petals provides him with a cushion.
The piece is slightly polychromed; this occurred after the date of execution. For a long time, since the mudra of illumination can be found in Chinese iconography of the Suei era (581 -618)[26], an earlier Chinese influence -via the “Indianised� style through the Gupta models of the Indian artistic centres Mathura and Sarnath, that was dominant in China in the Liang dynasty (502 -557), whether via the centre of Nanjing, in Wanfosi (Chengdu) or in Quingzhou (Shandong) was proposed.
Perhaps it would be more exact to refer to the influence of the Funam models. Magnificent Buddhas, made of stone or wood, have been discovered in the Mekong delta, very close to the southern frontier of Champa.[27] Rather than evoking an influence from the north via China, it might be more appropriate to speak of an influence of Gupta art.[28] The latter belonged to a civilisation (fourth to seventh centuries) of a high intellectual level where notably, a particularly original school of sculpture flourished. It profoundly affected India and all of its sphere of influence.
To summarise, Gupta artists combined the plasticity of Sanchi and Mathura with the linear elegance of Amaravati. The secret of the success of Mathura sculptors lies in having known how to disengage from the Hellenistic naturalism of the Gandhara, go beyond the attachment of Mathura artists from the Kushan period to terrestrial things and their grandiloquence, overcome the exuberance of Amaravati and find a harmonious balance of spiritual and sensual.[29] The Dong Duong school rendered Buddha virile and proposed a model of the Enlightened One that condenses contained strength and gentle watchfulness.[30]
The Buddha is standing on a pedestal with lotus petals. Note once again the influence here of Pre-Angkorian art.[31]
The officiant is standing on a base that represents a lotus flower. The right shoulder and arm are bare. There is neither usnisha nor chignon, but rather pipe-curls, and he is barefoot. This figure holds a lotus flower in his hands; his outer garments have wide curved folds and the undergarments have wide straight folds. The eyebrows are curved. The moustache, unusual for a monk, leads us to assume that this is a lay donor rather than a monk.
The panel most probably comes from the pedestal of a vihara, the meeting and meditation room for Buddhist monks where the image of Buddha is exhibited. (The most famous of these pedestals is the one from the Dong Duong temple, now in the Da Nang museum, unfortunately reconstructed in a preposterous manner).[32] From an architectural point of view, the pedestal classically is U-shaped, with the statue of Buddha perpendicularly above it, while the illustrated panels narrate Buddha’s life.
Maya, Buddha’s mother, is figured standing in the highest section of the panel. Beside her, two smaller servants are shown. In her left hand, Maya is holding the lower branch of a tree that one can imagine as rather large, with many leaves.[33] In the lowest part of the panel there is a female figure with her arms crossed, in a pose known as royal relaxation.
The Dong Duong temple was built toward the end of the ninth century, during the reign of Indravarman. An inscription discovered near the temple records that the king had a Buddhist monastery built in 875 CE as well as a temple dedicated to worship of Laksmindra-Lokesvara, the monarch’s protective god.This name, which combines two Hindu names (Lakshmi and Indra) and a Buddhist one (Lokesvara), proves that a mixture of Hinduism and Buddhism reigned at the time.[34]
Although fairly rare in Buddhist sculptures, dominant at the time, Shivaist sculptures can be found that regroup all the characteristics of Dong Duong style.
In Cham architecture, two types of arrangements of sites can be found:
Either an architectural triplet, composed of three parallet towers dedicated respectively to Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu, as for example:
Chien Dan (north of Tam Ky), Khuong My (South of Tam Ky) Duong Luong (Tay Son), Hung Thanh (Quy Nhon) and Hoa Lai (Phan Rang); or a central tower dedicated to Shiva, as for example at Dong Duong (Thanh Binh), My Son A1 (Duy Xuyen), or at the “Ba tower� (Nha Trang).
That Gabriele Fahr-Becker was represented in The Art of East Asia,
“In the temple cities of My Son and Po Nagar, there are several lingams that were clearly associated with the devotion to the phallus of Shiva. These lingams are symbols both of the cult of Shivaism, and also of the divine authority of kingship, which Shiva was thought to confer on a king through the agency of a priest.�[35]
It seems that the first sets of towers, chronologically, were the “three parallel towers� devoted to the three gods. Then, about the ninth century, the balance was disrupted and Shiva was raised to the highest rank, although a penchant for Shiva was already discernable in the system of three parallel towers, as the one dedicated to Shiva was always the highest. It can also be noted that, if this observation seems valid, it means that numerous rearrangements were made over the centuries, keeping only the core structure.
Originally, according to the Indian notion that informed the erection of these temples, the Cham temple was a Mount Meru in miniature, or more precisely its summit or summits, represented by the step-pyramid structure, each level repeating the previous one on a smaller scale. One can suppose that the central mountain range–an essential aspect of Cham geography–exercised figurative authority over the Cham temple. The �linga towers� can be explained as circular with a rounded, bulbous top in the shape of a linga as at Bang An (Quang Nam).
In Cham architecture, secondary towers with their curved roofs shaped like boats, are very typical of the architecture of South East Asian[36], as at My Son or Po Klong Garai. The tower is dedicated to the worship of kings and their protective gods. The small, square rooms is used by officiants, and not the worshippers, who circle the divinity-snanadroni complex, the main temple (kalan) is surrounded by towers and ancillary structures, inside an enclosure wall. It usually opens toward the rising sun; that mean the face opens toward the east side, except in the case of Buddhist temples like Dong Duong because the altar there is against the west wall.
Ananda K. Coomaraswamy described Buddhst temple at Dong Duong:
“It is scarcely inferior to My Son in richness and aesthetic importance.�
[37] Chikyo Yamamoto also represents Cham architect:
“The main temple is a sikhara building built on a large square base. The interior is a narrow room covered by a pyramidal ceiling. Such a high edifice was called a kalan. The first story of kalan is square and the roof is covered in a gradually diminishing form of the whole until it ends in the bud of a lotus in the fifth story. The facade is on the east side.�[38]
So general look The complex Cham towers disposed as the mandapa (pavilion in sanskrit), a long building made of bricks with several windows and two doors oriented east-west is the place of meditation and prayer preceding the ritual ceremony in the tower. Each temple has a founding myth and a reflection of the universe, but also of the god. The temple is, as mentioned earlier, Mount Meru, the axis of the world and of Jambudvipa, the mythical continent that India and nations under Indian influence identify India with. However, in Champa one does not find the image of the ocean ringing Jambudvipa in mythical Indian divine cosmology, such as the pool (as in India) or a round tower (as in Cambodia). Thus the temple is the god’s body, but also the universe over which the god rules. These universes welcome gods that will serve the main god.
Such that the Cham architecture is:
“Employed three types of buildings: a kalan, a tower-like sanctuary; a rectangular “library�; and a mandapa, a large hall.�[39]
All Vietnamese authors believe that Cham builders, in order to lay the parallel-piped bricks that make up all of these structures, used a resin that was boiled and then mixed with lime and brick powder. It should be noted that the sandstone, other than serving to sculpt the divinities described above, was used for the side-posts, pilasters, lintels and cornerstones. The Cham temple, therefore, definitely had a brick shell on which sandstone element were placed.
Gariele also acknowledge:
“Mostly of carved brick with elements of inlaid sandstone, though a few are built entirely of sandstone.�[40]
Cham sculpture is distinguished by a continuous process of renewal and by tendencies which can often seem contradictory. None of this, however, hinders it from being consistently and strikingly original. Each work has it own appeal as it reflects the ups and downs of the country’s history, and while the quality is often uneven, the Cham sculptors produced some of the authentic masterpieces of South East Asian art as well as some of its most degenerate portrayals of the gods.
The sculptures of the divinities are generally rather small in scale, and rarely apart from those dating from the earliest times-sculpted in the round. It seems that the later artists were more at home with the relief technique, often executed in the very high relief in which they excelled.
Footnotes and references:
[2]:
M. K. Sharan, Studies in Sanskrit Inscriptions of Ancient Cambodia, Delhi: 1974, p. 38.
[3]:
The centre power of Champa Kingdom belong to Da Nang province in the middle of Vietnam.
[4]:
Henri Parmentier who is 1919 published the Museum’s first catalogue, thus establishing the basis for subsequent studies of the civilization of Champa, and in particular its sculpture and architecture.
[5]:
EFEO: French School of the Far East. trans from Ecole Francaise d’Extreme-Orient
[7]:
Philippe Stern is the former Chief Keeper of the Guimet Museum, and a historian of Cham art.
[8]:
Emmanuel Guillon, Cham Art, Bangkok: 2001, p. 32.
[9]:
Ibid, p. 35.
[10]:
Ibid, p. 36.
[11]:
Ibid, p. 41.
[12]:
Ngo Van Danh, Champa Sculpture, Hanoi: 2002, p. 34.
[13]:
Ibid, p 36.
[14]:
Emmanuel Guillon, Cham Art, Bangkok: 2001, p. 44-45.
[15]:
Boisselier, Jean, La Statuaire du Champa, trans by EFEO, LIV, Paris: 1963, p. 67.
[16]:
Emmanuel Guillon, Cham Art, Bangkok: 2001, p. 58.
[17]:
Ibid, p. 61.
[18]:
Emmanuel Guillon, Cham Art, Bangkok: 2001, p. 60, 61.
[19]:
Ibid.
[20]:
Ibid, p. 62.
[21]:
Emmaneul Guillon, Cham Art, Bangkok: 2001, p. 165
[23]:
Ibid.
[24]:
Emmanuel Guillon, Cham Art, Bangkok: 2001, p. 25.
[25]:
Emmanuel Guillon, Cham Art, Bangkok: 2001, p. 81.
[26]:
Ibid, p. 82.
[28]:
R. C. Majumda, Ancient Indian Colonies in the Far East, Vol 1, Sanskrit Book Depot: 1927, p. 227.
[29]:
Dietrich Seckel, The Art of Buddhism, trans by Ann E. Keep, London: 1964, p. 55.
[30]:
Bachchan Kumar, The Buddhist Art: Vietnamese Perspectives, Delhi: 2007, p. 116.
[31]:
Ram Ranjan Das, Art Traditions of Cambodia, Calcutta: 1974, p. 66.
[32]:
Emmanuel Guillon, Cham Art, Bangkok: 2001, p. 92, 93.
[33]:
Emmanuel Guillon, Cham Art, Bangkok: 2001, p. 92, 93.
[34]:
Dietrich Seckel. The Art of Buddhism, trans by Ann E. Keep, London: 1964, p. 55.
[35]:
Gabriele Fahr Becker. The Art of East Asia, Vol 2, Konemenn: 1998, p. 390.
[36]:
Emmanuel Guillon, Cham Art, Bangkok: 2001, p. 30.
[37]:
Ananda K. Coomaraswamy, History of Indian and Indonesia Art, Delhi: 1972, p. 197.
[38]:
Chikyo Yamamoto, Introduction to Buddhist Art, Delhi: 1991, p. 136.
[39]:
Bachchan Kumar, The Buddhist Art; Vietnamese Perspectives, Delhi: 2007, p. 113.
[40]:
Chikyo Yamamoto, Introduction to Buddhist Art, Delhi: 1991, p. 393.