Your lords, not mine: Buddhist–Christian encounter and the language of directive in the ‘Kitchanukit’

Abstract

This article revisits the interpretation of the most crucial text in the history of scientific knowledge in Thai society: Nangsue Sadaeng Kitchanukit (A Book Explaining Various Things, 1867). Dominated by Thai historians for over four decades, the ‘Kitchanukit’, authored by Chaophraya Thiphakorawong, has been fundamentally explained not only as an early phase of Siamese elites’ reaction to Western challenges by portraying the encounter between Theravada Buddhist and Christian missionaries, but also the advent of science communication in the country. To redirect the readers’ consideration of the linguistic aspect of the text, the researchers argue that, through the method of critical discourse analysis, especially focusing on the style of speech act and conceptual metaphor in ‘Kitchanukit’, readers can gain a better understanding of Thiphakorawong’s language strategy which the researchers refer to as double demarcation. Significantly, it was employed by the author as a persuasive and hedging tactic in the Buddhist–Christian dialogue on the issue of faith and knowledge.

Keywords:

• Buddhist–Christian dialogue
• Nangsue Sadaeng Kitchanukit
• critical discourse analysis
• double-demarcation
• Thai intellectual history

REVIEWING EDITOR:

• Jeroen van de Weijer, College of International Studies, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China

SUBJECTS:

• Asian History
• Intellectual History
• Language & Linguistics
• Thai history

Introduction

From the first half of 19th century, the East-West encounter involves Western nations engaging with Eastern civilizations, focusing on religion, philosophy, and cultural customs. This period was marked by Western scholars, officials, and missionaries trying to understand documents of Eastern religions, such as Buddhism, in Sri Lanka, leading to a complex exchange of ideas and beliefs (Harris, 2006; Blackburn, 2010). This encounter often involves a dialogue between the differing worldviews of Eastern spiritual and philosophical traditions and the Western emphasis on empirical science and secular governance, influencing how communities navigate modern challenges (Schober & Collins, 2018, p. 39).

In mainland Southeast Asia, where most nations are Buddhist, the confrontation between the two worldviews during the transitional period is an academic issue that has been researched through modernization and postcolonial theory for many years. The early focus has been on the reception of modern ideas by indigenous elites through the adaptation of religious knowledge to keep its core compatible with scientific reasoning and counter the alien faith – it has been a matter of debate since the late 1960s. Western colonial powers linked the pacifism of Buddhists with their subject status in colonial territories, justifying further European intervention (Schober & Collins, 2018, p. 33). Asian nations also adopted the Western impact similarly. The Eastern focus on Buddhist modernism and the efforts to purify Buddhist practices in response to colonial influences hint at a broader strategy of confronting Western knowledge by integrating it with local values to maintain cultural integrity (Hansen, 2007, p. 3). Furthermore, this region selectively adopted Western scientific advancements, aligning them with indigenous practices, especially in medicine. Hansen (2007, pp. 109-132) discussed Cambodia’s response to colonialism, focusing on French scholars’ backing of Buddhist institutions and the interaction between Cambodian monks and European intellectuals. The collaboration involved enhancing local religious and educational settings rather than engaging in direct conflict. In 1914, Cambodian intellectuals and monks worked with French experts to establish a modernist movement that created new purified Buddhist texts and embraced reform influenced by Western ideas. They translated, produced, and spread Buddhist texts while incorporating Western methods to improve the local religious system. Similar to Sri Lanka, they used European critics’ arguments against Christianity to present Buddhism as rational, scientific, and morally superior, countering negative portrayals by Christian missionaries. They engaged in public debates like the Panadura Debate to challenge misconceptions about Buddhism, demonstrating its logical coherence and ethical teachings. Despite tensions, there were efforts towards religious harmony, with Buddhist and Christian leaders condemning unethical conversion practices and promoting mutual respect and understanding among different religious groups (Harris, 2006, pp. 7-185).

In Thailand, previously known as Siam, intellectual transformations commenced in the mid-19th century and accelerated with the Bowring Treaty between Siam and England in 1855.¹ The new context of commercialism, the expansion of modern knowledge; and the influx of European and other foreign residents attracted by new trade opportunities in Siam all pushed Siamese elites and intellectuals, who in the past had a Theravada Buddhist worldview, must acquire modern knowledge rapidly. They particularly value scienctific knowledge as superior to traditional knowledge. Simultaneously, Westerners, especially American missionaries, disseminated their concepts and critiques of Siamese society by exploiting writing and emerging public media like newspapers to identify the root of its backwardness. Western missionaries viewed Buddhism as representing Siam’s backwardness and a barrier to adopting Western technologies, hindering progress. Conversely, Christianity played a pivotal role in the evolution of Western civilization.

With this intellectual context, religious discussions between educated Siamese elites and American Christian missionaries became more contentious. One primary reason for the conflict stemmed from striking resemblances in their assertions of truth and universality. Siamese religious eclecticism hindered the expansion of Christianity in the country and also started growing into a challenge for the Buddhist community (Trakulhun, 2017, p. 66). It partially prompted the Buddhist reformation movement in the mid-19th century, which was led by Prince Mongkut, who ascended the throne as King Rama IV (1851–1868).

Among the notable elites who played a significant role in the east-west encounter, Chaophraya Thiphakorawong (1813–1873), also known as Kham Bunnag, was a prominent figure who challenged Western assertions of superiority (Puaksom, 1998, 2023; Kanchanadit, 2015). He was recognised as one of the most influential intellectuals under Prince Mongkut. The author of Nangsue Sadaeng Kitchanukit (หนังสือแสดงกิจจานุกิตต์ or A Book Explaining Various Things, hereafter referred as Kitchanukit) was born in Bangkok as a member of the powerful Bunnag family, known for its significant involvement in the governance of Siam. Kham Bunnag played a crucial role in the election process and strongly backed Prince Mongkut to become the king of Siam due to their close relationship. King Rama IV rewarded Kham’s loyalty and promoted him to the noble rank of Chaophraya (minister of state) in 1853. Besides Kitchanukit, written later in his life, Thiphakorawong also dedicated his final years to producing books and essays on Thai history, culture, and religion (Trakulhun, 2017, p. 63; Kanchanadit, 2015) (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Chaophraya Thiphakorawong (Historical critique, 2017).

Kitchanukit has been academically seen as a milestone in the historical development of Buddhist rhetoric and intellectual tactics used to preserve Buddhist Thai identity against the threat of Western thoughts. Moreover, Thai academia has emphasized Kitchanukit as the rationalization of Thai Buddhism and the beginning phase for disseminating scientific knowledge to the Thai public (Winichakul, 2015, pp. 44-77). Consequently, authors’ language and discourse patterns are compelling areas of study due to their significance in effectively communicating new information. Recent research on Kitchanukit has addressed the importance of writing style, mainly focusing on distinctive characteristics in prose. Nevertheless, the analysis provided is broad in scope. They still need to thoroughly investigate the linguistic framework analysis, which can reveal the language approach employed to influence Thai readers.

Literature reviews

Fundamentally, existing literatures on colonial modernity in Southeast Asian region illustrated the Europeans’ endeavour in changing indigenous culture under their dominion, firmly believing in the supremacy of European customs (Nandy, 1982, pp. 31-32). Similarly, Western confidence in their sophisticated expertise led to the exclusion or repression of Eastern societies (Schober & Collins, 2018, p. 29). In the case of Siam, the different viewpoints on authority exhibited notable disparities, where the feudal elites’ Buddhist ideology embraces hierarchical arrangements while the Western philosophy promotes notions of equality and individual liberties, as depicted in the interactions between Anna and the King of Siam (Yue & Song, 2018, p. 23).

Within this historical context, Thai scholars have shown a keen interest in the significance of the Kitchanukit, as an exemplar of the intellectual change, through research conducted since the 1970s. During the 1970s-80s, Kitchanukit was referenced in a study on the modernization of Thai society. At that time, master’s theses in history from the University of Chulalongkorn and Srinakarinwirot University concentrated on researching the modernization of the Thai state by accentuating the Chakri Dynasty monarchy and the ruling elite as crucial to administrative reform and modernization efforts. Under this concept, adopting modern Western ideas, which mainstream Thai historiography popularly placed in the mid-19th century or, more specifically, the reign of King Rama IV, was an important issue in studying Thai history. On the other hand, Southeast Asian studies experts focused on studying the adaptation to the Buddhist worldview, seen as contrasting Western knowledge and a fundamental aspect of Thai society’s ideology. This research method also involved comparing the degrees of modernization between Siam and neighbouring Asian countries.

The article ‘Buddhist Cosmography in Thai History, with Special Reference to Nineteenth-Century Culture Change’ by Craig Reynolds (1976), was among the earliest scholarly attempts to analyze that Kitchanukit offered a distinct geographical knowledge compared to the Traibhumikatha, which formed the basis of Thai thought. He eloquently explained that Kitchanukit separated the Traibhum cosmography into the natural world and religion, each with a particular set of ‘laws’ governing its functions (Reynolds, 1976, p. 215). Later, in 1979, Nidhi Eoseewong emphasized Reynolds’s observation. He stated that Thiphakorawong used scientific reasoning to interpret Buddhist doctrines and verify supernatural elements in Buddhist teachings that did not always come from lord Buddha’s words. Furthermore, Thiphakorawong’s beliefs and worldview were prevalent among Siamese elites who engaged with Westerners (Eoseewong, 1979, pp. 27-29). Next, in 1983, Somjai Phairotthirarach’s doctoral dissertation at Northern Illinois University thoroughly examined the biography and historical writings of Thiphakorawong as ‘the man of the transitional period’ (Phairotthirarach, 1983).

Although the work by Cherdkiat Atthakorn did provide a systematic analysis of the significance of Kitchanukit in an article published in 1986, the article’s primary focus remained on disseminating new scientific and geographical knowledge that diverged from Traibhumikatha’s previous worldview. Then Edward Said’s Orientalism influenced Davisakd Puaksom’s article in 1998. He proposed an unfamiliar view, suggesting that Kitchanukit resulted from intellectual encounters and debates between Christian missionaries and Siamese intellectuals. In this challenging epistemic situation, Thiphakorawong opposed the unity between Christianity and material progress promoted by missionaries. Puaksom argued that despite the West’s technological superiority, Buddhism was more rational than Christianity in the eyes of Siamese elites (Puaksom, 1998). Puaksom’s argument has been the predominant interpretation of Kitchanukit in Thai studies circle since the late 1990s till now.

Apichet Kanchanadit (2015) conducted a recent study on the significance of Kitchanukit as a compulsory historical document, which the Thailand Research Fund subsidised. In this work, he classified the research status on Kitchanukit into two groups. The first group considers the Kitchanukit to represent modern knowledge the Siamese elites acquired from the West. The second group focuses on developing knowledge construction in Thai society with Western knowledge. For the latter one, some works proposed that Thiphakorawong wrote the Kitchanukit to counter the superiority of the West (Kanchanadit, 2015, pp. 60–64).

To be clear, even though Kanchanadit was aware of the existing literature on the Kitchanukit written by scholars in the Thai science circle, he never classified them as the third group. However, from the historical landscape of research on Kitchanukit and Thiphakorawong’s thought, we can argue that the research from science scholars and humanities who study scientific knowledge related to Thai society can be categorized as the third one. The main agenda of this category considers the text as evidence of the development of science communication in Thai society. For example, the doctoral dissertation on the history of science communication in Thailand written by Saowanee Chinnalong (2015) pinned the coming of Kitchanukit in 1867 as the beginning of communication of scientific knowledge in Thai history meanwhile Soraj Hongladarom, who conducted research on history of science in Thai society and followed Reynolds and Puaksom’s arguments, praised Kitchanukit as the best and most consequential writing in theme of the encounter and reception of western knowledge in Thai society (Hongladarom, 2002, pp. 157-161). Moreover, Chaiwat Kupratakul’s research on the review of Thai science books, granted by the Thailand Research Fund also included the Kitchanukit as one of 88 good science books Kupratakul (Kupratakul et al., 2001).

In the 2010s, the work by Thongchai Winichakul on the history of comparative religion in Thailand and the role of Buddhist defenders elucidated Thiphakorawong’s intellectual strategy more evident than other scholars since the 2000s. He explains that ‘the author (Thiphakorawong) stands firmly behind Buddhist teachings on almost every issue, arguing for the superiority of Buddhism over Christianity in the realm of spirituality through techniques such as framing karma and rebirth as rational and belief in a creator god as unscientific’ (Winichakul, 2015, pp. 77–78) and called the intellectual style of Buddhist apologetics as bifurcation intellectual strategy. However, Sven Trakulhun’s fine writing on the Kitchanukit provides a concise introduction for international readers. At the same time, Ruth Streicher (2021) recently demonstrated the dual imperial context that formed the content of Kitchanukit and the religious reform movement in mid-19th century Siam. However, it might be claimed that there are no scholarships on Kitchanukit that seriously.

From mentioned above, several previous studies have indicated a tendency towards historical analysis of Kitchanukit as the primary evidence that underscores the encounter between Western and Eastern cultures, including shedding light on the accounts of the coming of western influence in Siam and the challenge of indigenous knowledge within colonial context. Nevertheless, there is a need for more scholarly research from a linguistic perspective, particularly regarding the impact and language tactics that support the conveyance of ideologies by the upper classes.

Regarding most studies on Kitchanukit conducted in the way of intellectual history. They mainly examine historical perspectives, encompassing past ideas, beliefs, and knowledge evolution that have influenced our present understanding of the world. Hence, the Kitchanukit will be presented by Thai humanities scholars as the standpoints of the Siamese ruling class to impart knowledge and confirm the foundational ideas of Thai society.

Research method

This work is qualitative research, with the following textual and linguistic analysis within historical context. The researchers examined Kitchanukit using the first edition released in 1867 as a primary source. Given Kitchanukit was the first Thai book to describe science, geography, and religion in a modern manner and language. We examined the text within a distinct framework compared to existing literature on the issue.

It should be informed that, previously, there are not many studies that consider Thai historical text via linguistics, because history research is the dominant works on the studies of colonial modernity in Thailand. Nevertheless, recent study on Thai ‘Romance of the Three Kingdoms’ textbook demonstrated the new possibility in the combination of history and linguistics approaches to make better understanding of historical text (Iamsa-ard et al., 2024).

To explore the new horizon on the East-West encounter revealing through discourse-history approach, in this article, the researchers draw the readers to the linguistic dimension of Kitchanukit for more challenging consideration. We utilized a critical discourse analysis (CDA) framework to gain a better understanding of Kitchanukit. Fairclough (2010) introduced the concept of CDA as having three key dimensions: descriptive, interpretative, and explanatory. The descriptive dimension involves analyzing text to construct meaning using verbal and nonverbal elements, while the interpretative dimension examines discourse practices to uncover underlying implications and ideologies. Lastly, the explanatory dimension delves into the interaction between text, language, and sociocultural context, exploring how language shapes societal norms and power dynamics through media.

Academically, CDA has been utilized as a research framework for analyzing various forms of ideology embedded in religious texts. The fascinating studies include Abubakirova and Dilbarkhanova (2022). Their study did not focus on specific religious texts. Instead, it explored the general concept of religious discourse, including sacred texts with significant beliefs, stories, and teachings central to the faith (Abubakirova & Dilbarkhanova, 2022, p. 79). The study found that persuasive language, not oppression, was crucial for maintaining power in religious ideologies; it asserted that examining religious discourse was intricate and time-consuming yet necessary for comprehending power dynamics, beliefs, and social practices within religious environments (Abubakirova & Dilbarkhanova, 2022, p. 87).

Kompaoré (2004) examined Biblical laws within Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. Different types of directive texts in the Bible were classified, with tools provided to distinguish legal texts and enhance understanding of their unique characteristics. The study showed how biblical laws guide behaviour through language, themes, and structures, offering insights into thematic development, semantic roles, and the significance of their arrangements (Kompaoré, 2004, pp. 96-117). Furthermore, an instance of academic inquiry into Buddhist texts is depicted by analysing Prayudh Payutto’s Dharma Speech via CDA. Lapyai (2014, p. 74) stated that Prayudh Payutto’s teachings highlighted three main Buddhist ideologies, emphasising correct understanding and application for societal well-being. It suggested a pathway for resolving societal problems by realigning with core Buddhist teachings in personal and political realms. Contrary to existing east-west confrontation research on the topic or even works studied directly from Kitchanukit, it nevertheless mainly underlined the historical context and analyzed Siamese elites’ shared worldview through the text. Similarly, Critical Discourse Analysis has not been extended to the inspection of the aforementioned book.

The article provides readers with the way Thiphakorawong counters his rivals and preserves the identity of Siamese Buddhists by linguistic tactic. The researchers called this tactic double-demarcation and argued that, through the innovation of Thai linguistic practice, Thiphakorawong’s goal is the refusal of creator gods’ rationality and to Christianity as the source of Western progress. Specifically, the researchers will employ the benefit of Critical Discourse Analysis to provide a new light in the study of Kitchanukit.

In the next section, the researcher will propose a brief history of Kitchanukit’s publication. It’s crucial status in Thai literature and international recognition will be provided for understanding the influence of the text.

The text, history, and its position in Thai society

In terms of the history of the text, on November 23, 1867, the Kitchanukit was first published in two hundred copies and was on sale in Bangkok. It was the first textbook on science in Thai and reportedly the first book printed by the Siamese without foreign assistance (Kanchanadit, 2015; Trakulhun, 2017, p. 67). Thiphakorawong (1867, pp. 1-2) stated in the preface that his book was intended to improve school education in Siam, which he thought was based on obsolete intellectual principles contradicting empirical observation and the laws of nature. Thiphakorawong observed that in Siamese society during that period, there were limited books available, with the majority being melodramatic or royal literature that did not contribute to the advancement of ideas or dissemination of new knowledge. Therefore, he aimed to create a new guideline for young individuals to acquire knowledge, departing from the traditional literary styles seen in Thai literature of the past that included verses honouring the Buddha, Hindu deities, kings, and elders. This custom persists in modern Thai textbooks.It should be noted that traditional Thai textbooks during that time addressed word combinations, reading, writing, and poetry composition, while Kitchanukit emphasized exploring scientific and religious knowledge at basic and advanced discussion levels. Hence, it is essential to clarify that this book is likely not intended for children at an elementary educational level but for those with education beyond the primary level. They are likely the offspring of the elite who have obtained excellent fundamental schooling (Kanchanadit, 2015).

Basically, there are two sections to Kitchanukit. Using a question-and-answer format, the previous section describes everyday natural events. For example, the author inquires why seasons change and how comets and earthquakes occur. The discussion and comparison of Buddhism and Christianity is the main topic of the second half (Chinnalong, 2015, p. 45). During King Rama IV’s reign, Thiphakorawong employed prose in his compositions in response to the growing influence of the West.

Nevertheless, the author’s language strategy closely resembled the royal inquiry tradition of Ayutthaya. A royal inquiry refers to a question posed by the king to the monks seeking clarification on matters related to the Dhamma. Likewise, The Kitchanukit was a book for discussing and seeking answers to many concerns, particularly religious controversies, which Thiphakorawong discussed with the missionary group.

Kitchanukit was written from Thiphakorawong’s perspective and shared the Buddhist worldview with leading intellectuals. Conversations with Westerners were self-composed. He proceeded to criticize Western ideologies. Furthermore, Thiphakorawong inquired about natural phenomena and suggested scientific concepts like the origin of rain and the Earth’s shape, contradicting traditional beliefs in Traibhumikatha. He employed systematic writing by defining the causes of various phenomena and providing explanations based on existing knowledge. Thiphakorawong summarized his discussions with different religious members, followed by criticism of their beliefs. The language strategies in the Kitchanukit demonstrated a shift in writing from poetry to prose. The work occurred during a crucial transitional moment when Thai literature moved towards modernism.

Following the publishing of the earlier edition, the book received criticism from both Thais and foreigners. In The Modern Buddhist (1870), Kitchanukit was translated some passages into English by Henry Alabaster, a British diplomat, under the name The Modern Buddhist and was mentioned in the journal Nature the same year. Next year, the text was included with other translation work on Buddhism titled The Wheel of the Law, Illustrated from Siamese Source (Alabaster, 1871). This book made Thiphakorawong recognized as a notable Siamese intellectual worldwide.

In Thailand, the status of Kitchanukit, as noted in Thai literature, is very special for many factors. Since its first publication in 1863, Kanchanadit suggests it was published in Thai at least two more times before the 1970s. Interestingly, when it was reprinted as a memorial of Suk Naksuwan’s funeral in 1965, the book title was still spelled the same as the first edition. However, the spelling of the Thai title was changed from ‘กิจจานุกิตย์’ (literally the things must do respectively) to ‘กิจจานุกิจ’ (literally various things) in the new edition by Sukich Nimmanheminda, a former educator, scholar, and politician published in 1971. In the same year, the trade organization of the Teachers Council published Kitchanukit under the new spelling as well and continues to print this book under that name until the present (Kanchanadit, 2015, p. 59).

Besides the crucial position of Kitchanukit in the study of Thai intellectual history, the text’s reputation was widely known beyond the circle of Thai literary students. Even more so when, in 1998, a team of researchers led by Wittayakorn Chiangkul in the project of 100 good books granted by the Thailand Research Fund counted Kitchanukit in the list that read for Thai citizens. It should be noted that although the selection criteria began counting from writings from the reign of King Rama V, books that began in the 1860s were selected in the category of nature and science. The following year, another 88 good books on science were ranked. Chaiwat Kupratakul, the head of the research project titled The Review of 88 Good Science Books, included Kitchanukit in the list again. He proposed that Kitchanukit is one of the most crucial science documentaries that those interested in science matters in Thai society should read (Kanchanadit, 2015, pp. 63-64; Chinnalong, 2015, p. 93)

Finally, in 2011, the research project on 100 key Thai historical documents granted by the Thailand Research Fund again stressed the importance of Kitchanukit as historical evidence that must be contextually explicitly investigated, and the report was publicized in book format in 2015. In short, the status of Kitchanukit was valorized from the narrow academic circle to the Thai public sphere.

Language strategies and occidentalization

From above mentioned, Kitchanukit shows Siamese intellectuals seeking knowledge, reflecting a broad view during encounters with Western knowledge. This marked a shift towards modernity in Thai culture. It also indirectly resists the spiritual aspect of westernization.

According to the CDA framework, Thiphakorawong was the text presenter. He belonged to the ruling elite and had a close relationship with the king. Kitchanukit was split into science and comparative religion (Atthakorn, 1986, p. 88). While Kitchanukit’s contents needed to align entirely with modern scientific knowledge, the book helped challenge the assumption that many issues stemmed from the influence of faith. The communication format was one-way but included content about a conversation between the author and a missionary. Kitchanukit used prose in his compositions in reaction to the increasing popularity of Western literary values during the reign of King Rama IV. The writing technique resembled the royal tradition dating back to the Ayutthaya period. The Royal Inquiry was a series of religious questions posed by the king to the monks for them to answer (Prasit Saengthap, 2007). The dissemination and consumption of the text were initiated by the text presenter, who published 200 copies of the book and offered it at a discounted price due to its high cost relative to living and educational standards at the time. Regardless, it could have reached more people. In 1997-1998, Kitchanukit held a unique status as one of the 100 books recommended for Thai people to read as part of a research project to identify exemplary literature of the century. Similarly, it was the 76th significant Thai document in the 100 Key Documents on Thai History project.Kitchanukit utilized linguistic strategies to convey Thiphakorawong’s worldview alongside social and cultural values as a Siamese elite representative. This book applied three language techniques: lexical strategies, modification, and discourse-pragmatic strategies as pursued.

Lexical strategies

The identified lexical strategies were name and naming. They provided a sociocultural viewpoint on the topic under discussion. Utilizing the Titles of God and Prophets such as Jehovah/phráʔ jáʔ ho: wa: câw/, Jesus/phráʔ khrít to:/, Allah/ʔâ: là:/, and Shiva/ʔì suǎn/aligned with religious beliefs and was linked to identity expression, given that interreligious differences affect the perception of both co-religious and non-religious members of the group as in-group or out-group members. However, Thiphakorawong’s phonetic transcripts were not entirely accurate due to differences in the number of phonemes between Thai and English. This state occurred during the early stages of Thai society learning English. The word forms utilized were transcribed based on the author’s comprehension.

The identified lexical strategies were name and naming. It provided a sociocultural viewpoint on the topic under discussion. Utilizing the Titles of God and Prophets such as Jehovah/phráʔ jáʔ ho: wa: câw/, Jesus/phráʔ khrít to:/, Allah/ʔâ: là:/, and Shiva/ʔì suǎn/aligned with religious beliefs and was linked to identity expression, given that interreligious differences affect the perception of both co-religious and non-religious members of the group as in-group or out-group members. However, Thiphakorawong’s phonetic transcripts were not entirely accurate due to differences in the number of phonemes between Thai and English. This state occurred during the early stages of Thai society learning English. The word forms utilized were transcribed based on the author’s comprehension.

Verb forms were observed in contexts where God was mentioned. By utilising the royal verb, which was a verb affiliated with the monarchy, the author conveyed admiration or esteem for the noun phrase of the sentence as an example: ‘Then he thought that it was not appropriate to create only one man, and he had to create a woman to be a companion that he would like’. 4 The verb ‘think’ or ‘thought’ as a royal verb was/soŋ phráʔ damrì/. Likewise, Thiphakorawong used the auxiliary verb/soŋ/before regular verbs to elevate them to royal verbs, including produce/soŋ sâ:ŋ/and preach/soŋ sàŋ sɔ̌ːn/. Although royal verbs were occasionally mixed with common verbs when referring to prophets or deities from different religions, the context surrounding Buddha utilised the above verb forms more consistently. Therefore, it demonstrated the gap in beliefs between Christianity and the author. To conclude, the author did not worship God as much as Buddha; thus, the verb used did not glorify God in the same way as Christians but instead honoured believers, which involved religious freedom during the reign of King Rama IV.

Kitchanukit used the term ‘god’,/phráʔ/, a referencing, referring to Jehovah and Allah. The example depicted respect as a significant goddess in various religions, while the author aimed to criticise the diverse concepts and doctrines of theistic religions./phráʔ/was not associated with Buddhist priests, even though it possessed the same word form. The term/phráʔ/originates from the Pali root word/wá rá/, which translates to superb. It additionally shows the author’s devotion to God if critiqued in this manner.

This strategy was revealed in discussions of Christianity through allusions to John Taylor Jones/mɔ̌ː jɔːn ʔà me: rí kan/, and Jesse Caswell/mɔ̌ː kàt (kat́) wɛːn/, an American protestant missionary. Regardless of the doctor-author relationship, the term/mɔ̌ː/’doctor’ invariably connoted a professional status. Despite the author’s intention to argue otherwise, the researcher assumed that Thiphakorawong’s high social status necessitated language usage that illustrated maintaining a positive countenance in the third person and contributed to preserving one’s image. Science-related content was a recent addition to Thai society. It may clash with traditional beliefs used to interpret phenomena like Mekhala and Ramsura, the myths of lightning and thunder, and the movement of the Ananda fish, which is claimed to cause earthquakes. The author, therefore, utilised referencing for establishing credibility in a new dataset via the term ‘philosopher’/nâk prà:t/along with ‘you’/thân/or/khǎw/. Furthermore,/thân/or/khǎw/functioned as a shadow pronoun for ‘philosopher’, conveying admiration for their intelligence.

The modification

The modification emphasised the section that requires expansion to amplify specific meanings or concepts (Angkhaphanichkit, 2018, p. 195). The quote, ‘I examined the literature children were reading and found it to be unhelpful’, by Thiphakorawong (1867) exemplified how he used a derogatory style to establish the novelty and reliability of his work.

This perspective assessed the literature created before Kitchanukit as lacking in usefulness. They were frequently melodramatic or hilarious but did not prioritise academic understanding, particularly the new knowledge derived from the West. Textbooks in Thailand existed before the Kitchanukit, like Chindamani Prathom Ko Ka, but they primarily addressed reading, writing, and poetry composition. This issue pertained to Thai education in the past, which did not have a formal system or curriculum. The temples were where men obtained the scriptures, moral principles, and other knowledge essential for daily life during that era. A patriarchal society, meanwhile, required women to acquire knowledge of housework to fulfil the role of a decent wife. During that era, particular ethical principles and values were prioritised over modern technology and scientific inquiry, particularly regarding discovering the truth behind phenomena unconnected to any legends. While Kitchanukit advocated evidence for verifiable facts, its discussion of Buddhist beliefs, including the Tavatimsa paradise, was prejudiced. The author implemented the term ‘certainly’/pen nɛ̂ː/to unequivocally confirm the existence of Tavatimsa, as it was where the Buddha edified his mother. The derogatory style was evident in the religious argument between the missionary and the author. Thiphakorawong criticised Christian ideas about God as the creator of all things and his love for all people. The author used examples of many illnesses to demonstrate that if God genuinely loved humankind, He ought not to generate diseases. The author stated that medical treatment went against God’s dictates, as God had the ultimate authority to decide human beings’ fate. The following example illustrates the perspective mentioned earlier (Thiphakorawong, 1867, p. 174).

The doctor replied that God was the creator of all things and that nothing occurred spontaneously. I inquired about human wrongs for whom God created gallstones in their bodies. The doctor, who was devout, performed surgery to remove the gallstones and treat the illness. Did the doctor go against God’s intentions by saving the man’s life?²

Kitchanukit used modality through a range of grammatical terms. The study identified auxiliary verbs in this text to convey the writer’s viewpoint on predicting events, such as ‘might’/khoŋ càʔ/: ‘If we transferred animals from this atmospheric layer to a higher. I was uncertain about what would happen, but I believed it might be death due to the cold’.³

Similarly, when presenting contrasting viewpoints, the conjunction ‘but’/tɛ̀ː/was used in different connecting terms, like when discussing the reason for rainfall. Kitchanukit referred to the traditional belief that the Naga in Sitandra, the great sea, ejected water into the atmosphere, which the wind then dispersed and fell as rain in various places. Obviously, the author used the conjunction ‘but’/tɛ̀ː/to indicate that this belief lacks empirical support. He stated, ‘In Sitandra, the Nagas joined the water fight, causing it to be dispersed into the air where the wind carried it, resulting in rainfall. Nevertheless, the story I recounted lacks evidence. Since the deities in Vassalahak Vimana were absent, they were not visible to me. I was unsure whether they were able to induce rainfall’.⁴

This above modality challenged conventional wisdom and aligned with scientific proof to offer a more precise rationale for the rain’s occurrence. The previous statement was also connected to negation to verify that the rain tale was false, serving as another strategy to convey critical analysis. Thiphakorawong also objected to worshipping God. He contended that nobody would obtain precisely what they prayed for. For instance, ‘Prayers to God did not accomplish the men’s wishes’.⁵ The negative unit ‘no’/mâj/not only contradicted the discourse but also criticised the creationist mindset of Christianity.

Discourse-pragmatic strategies

The discourse-pragmatic strategies depended on an extratextual background involving knowledge, concepts, and sociocultural information. The presupposition was employed to suggest that a prior event occurred before the event in the discourse or that a specific thought or intention was disguised in the sentence.

The presupposition triggers like/khɯ̂n/are crucial. It has an abstract connotation of happening or altering and functions as an auxiliary following a verb in Thai. Observe the sentence: ‘God combined soil to form⁶ a man. God christened him Adam’.⁷

/khɯ̂n/expanded on the creation event of man, suggesting that there were no humans before God’s creation or that Adam was the first human being. Furthermore, this trigger reinforced beliefs about God the creator.

The trigger ‘again’/ʔì:k/signified a recurring event, illustrated by the phrase, ‘If in the next life there was death and rebirth, humans would have peace of mind. In a round of existences, humans would delight in their current lives due to their past good actions’.⁸/ʔì:k/denoted the Samsara, a fundamental tenet in Buddhism. Christianity dismissed the Samsara concept, asserting that humans are born and die just once. After death, God determines whether a man’s afterlife will be in heaven or hell. Judgement is additionally contingent on faith in God. Thiphakorawong observed that this Buddhist idea inspired men to engage in virtuous actions or alter their destinies. Thus, the Christian faith enabled us to reconcile our lives with God’s purposes rather than concentrating on personal and spiritual growth.

In addition, the trigger ‘still’/jaŋ/has emerged in this example: ‘Wicked men had prolonged lives as God mandated that they change their ways to avoid sin. Children were still unaware of merit and sin, yet they died due to God’s mercy. He desired to bring the child to heaven as well’.⁹ The author encapsulated his discussions with the missionary. Christians’ ideas contradicted the general public’s comprehension by utilising/jaŋ/. Furthermore, it mirrored the fundamental concept of life without sin and moved swiftly towards the kingdom of God. The phrase ‘still unaware of merit and sin’ underscored the renouncing sin tenet for eternal life.

According to the following strategy, metaphor serves as a communication approach to creating imagery. The paper explores conceptual metaphors in Kitchanukit that are related to different concepts. Conceptual metaphor helps grasp abstract ideas through concrete examples or experiences distant from human understanding. Metaphor is not just a matter of using language but also corresponds to the human thinking system (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980).

The sin metaphor in Buddhism and other religions, especially Christianity, was examined for its contrasting interpretations. Thiphakorawong utilized this strategy to explain religious views, aiming not only to clarify but also to use metaphors to challenge other beliefs and support Buddhism. Payutto (2004) defined sin as evil actions leading to suffering in Buddhism. Sin arises from human deeds, which causes suffering. Buddhist teachings suggest mindfulness and Dhamma practice to avoid wrongdoing and live peacefully.

The primary principle in Christianity is that ‘Sin is dirt’. This idea was conveyed through nouns and verbs, including terms like baptism, wash, and purify. This metaphor linked concepts in the source domain, where ‘dirt’ symbolizes something tainted, as illustrated in the verses: ‘Baptism is the cleansing of sin with water’.¹⁰ and ‘Jesus entered Saint John’s shrine and received baptism’.¹¹

The conceptual metaphors represented the belief that sin is equivalent to dirt. Baptism and godhood might purify it, with Jesus serving as the redeemer of humanity’s sins. In summary, Christianity and Buddhism embrace the premise that ‘Sin is a dirt’ but differ in their approaches to achieving release from sin. Buddhism teaches that people must take responsibility for and have the right to address their wrongdoings. Christianity believes that sin can be absolved via baptism, God, and following what God wants. The verse indicates that ‘those baptized are nevertheless affected by Adam and Eve’s sin. They were weary and fatigued, similar to those worldwide who had not undergone baptism’.¹²

Sin holds theological importance in Christianity due to the absence of the rebirth concept. Christians must aim for salvation from sin as a requirement. Conceptual metaphors are used to explain the complex idea of sin for better understanding. The functions of conceptual metaphor based on Goatly (1998) are as follows:

Conceptual metaphors aid in comprehending the idea of sin by using analogies

It was utilised to elucidate theoretical concepts in the human cognitive system by making them more tangible or relatable due to the interconnectedness of meanings between different elements. Sin is categorised as an intangible, shapeless condition that is not perceptible through the five senses. The analogies illustrate a comparison where sin is compared to dirt, and humans are likened to masters, things, and animals. The source domains are more closely related to human experience. This analogy represents a cognitive model that mirrors previous visuals. The objective of Christianity is to be freed from sin, live according to Yahweh’s will, and attain eternal life in the kingdom of God.

Christian thought employs conceptual metaphors to represent sin

Language structures convey the human system of thought. The form of language also influences the cognitive system. The research-based conceptual metaphors were all focused on defining the primary notion of Christianity, which is that Yahweh is the supreme God and the saviour of humanity. All mental analogies align with the principal notion and advocate for a life without sin for humans. The metaphors revealed serve to strengthen the position of religious institutions. The concept is closely linked to socialisation through the teachings of many doctrines, emphasising the religious idea of living under God’s ways and reuniting with Him in the Kingdom of God for eternal life.

All metaphors for sin adhere to Christianity. Christians believed in Yahweh’s glory and love for mankind, leading Him to send Jesus, His only begotten Son, to instruct people to avoid behaviours that go against His will (Romans 3:23). Jesus died on the cross to provide atonement for the sins of all individuals (1 Peter 3:18) (Thailand Bible Society, 2011).

The underlined strategy was hedging. It revealed the text presenter’s desire to maintain an acceptable distance and avoid direct involvement with the underlying ideas or events discussed. Thus, hedging entails disengaging oneself from the predetermined text.

Not only did Thiphakorawong employ hedging with transparent indicators, but he also obscured information about Buddhism at the discourse level by averting criticism. He frequently attacked the beliefs of other religions as unverifiable or lacking empirical evidence. However, karma, samsara, and hell and heaven concepts in Buddhism are not empirically verifiable and lack sufficient justifications as well. King Mongkut’s tight relationship with Thiphakorawong and his high social rank may have contributed to his reluctance to critique Buddhism on some issues. King Mongkut, in particular, formed the Dhammayuttika Nikaya, a modernist Buddhist reform organisation that served as a model for other reform movements in this region (Streicher & Hermann, 2019, p.3). Like being the supreme supporter (Akkhasasanupathamphok), which King Rama I stated in his epithets in late 18th-century Siam, various decrees issued under royal rule had the sovereign endorse Buddhism in terms of teachings and practice. Criticising Buddhism could, therefore, affect Thiphakorawong’s status.

Regarding scientific knowledge, Thiphakorawong’s understanding was still superficial and frequently inaccurate. It was not based on personal experience, but rather primarily on data from direct interactions with Westerners (Trakulhun, 2017, p. 68). The author exploited the pronouns ‘they, she, he’/khâw/to maintain anonymity and indicate that Thiphakorawong was not the originator of the knowledge or thoughts, for example: ‘They stated that rain was falling in numerous locations. There is continuous precipitation throughout the entire year’¹³, and ‘What was the reason for the rain shortage? They observed that the region was a desert. The gravitational force on Earth was impacted by hot vapour, preventing it from ascending into the atmosphere. They resolved the issue by stimulating the growth of trees. Rain poured wherever trees grew’.¹⁴

Additionally, hedging was applied to mitigate disagreements and demonstrate a lack of commitment to a statement. Thiphakorawong frequently concluded his statements with a phrase that translated to ‘Please contemplate this’. concerning another religion or traditional concepts like the world’s origin, sin, baptism, natural phenomenon, and so forth. It can be said that the author allowed the reader to decide whether to believe the new information offered, for instance: ‘Chinese people believed Phon Kosi established the Earth approximately two hundred thousand years ago, surpassing Indian belief. Indians believe that Earth was formed six thousand years ago. This information was quite distinct. Please consider whichever side is acceptable’.¹⁵, and ‘Those who believed in Allah also agreed that he generated (thunder and lightning) by his divine power. Those who are wise, please contemplate’.¹⁶

The analysis pointed out how Thiphakorawong applied language to advocate his interpretation of Buddhism, compare it approvingly to further religions, particularly Christianity, familiarize new scientific concepts while acknowledging his knowledge’s constraints, sustain his status in society, and prevent potential criticism by obscuring some facts. This approach provided a deeper understanding of Kitchanukit beyond its surface content, stressing the author’s underlying motives and strategies to persuade his readers (Figures 2 and 3).

Figure 2. Kitchanukit, the 1st edition in 1867 (Book Showing Various Matters, 2022).

Figure 3. Kitchanukit Teachers Council Edition, published as a Thai language book set by the Teachers Council (Kunmaebook, 2022).

Conclusion

The main objective of the research was to investigate linguistic strategy in one of the most crucial and polemic texts in Thai intellectual history. This study diverges from previous analyses by highlighting how language articulates ideology and ideas dictated by the state or ruling class’s worldview.

Kitchanukit was concerned with the intellectual encounter between Western and Eastern perspectives in 19th-century Siam. At the time, Siamese elites experienced significant influence by the Western Hemisphere during this period. American missionaries noticed Buddhism as regressive, backwardness and obstructing betterment, whereas Thiphakorawong sought to defend and modernize his religious faith. The prominent intellectual oppugned Western claims of supremacy in Kitchanukit, assembling the work as a mighty stronghold of Thai Buddhist identity and advocacy for scientific thought in the face of Western effect. It could be claimed that, from this situation, educated Siamese elites, especially later royal offsprings, began to define themselves as Thai via Buddhism. As the case of Prince Damrong Rajanubhab who has been praised as father of Thai history (Dejpawuttikul, 2022, p.54).

Based on Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), a new perspective in Kitchanukit was investigated via the linguistic dimension. Thiphakorawong employed three tactics: lexical strategies, modification, and discourse-pragmatic strategies. The main point of linguistic usage in Kitchanukit was the concealment of some facts through hedging, including visible and invisible hedging indicators. Thiphakorawong used hedging to keep a distance from specific concepts or refrain from directly criticizing Buddhism. Furthermore, he also employed hedging to keep a distance from specific thoughts or refrain from directly criticizing some Buddhist practices. This tactic included using pronouns to evade accepting ownership of knowledge and requesting readers to assess details about different myths and religions he implied he did not accept.

Thiphakorawong’s language strategy results in a double discursive demarcation against Western threats. First, he demarcated Christianity out of the material progress of the Western world via the narrative of God’s creator. Secondly, after providing a rational boundary, he demarcated supernatural things out of Theravada Buddhist philosophy by establishing Lord Buddha’s word as a source of genuine principle. It should be said that even Thiphakorawong attempted to purge all supernatural things. However, some beliefs have been deeply tied to Thai values and the legitimacy of the Siamese ruling class, so he does not hesitate to insist on the existence of local miracles. Thiphakorawong’s execution can definitely be, arguably, understood by the Weberian value of rationality.

In conclusion, through this double demarcation, Thiphakorawong’s language usage demonstrated his deep inclination towards Buddhism while readily critiquing other religions. It exhibits the correlation between Buddhist ideology, new linguistic practice, and, interestingly, the early formation of Buddhist elite identity during Siam/Thailand’s radical change. This Buddhist-state identity will be modernized and expand to other part of Siamese state as a tool to define being Thainess.

The linguistic examination of Kitchanukit in this article demonstrated that, before the reformation of Thai language education at the end of 19th century, Siamese elites utilized Thai language to demonstrate their legitimacy and identity through Buddhist discourse and partly connected it to scientific knowledge at time. However, it should be stated that Kitchanukit is not only an exemplar of Siames elites’ lingual strategy in the early phase of colonial encounter. There are other contemporaneous sources that have receivedlimited scholarly attention in the field of linguistics. Thus, more documents from the mid-19th century are a field that need further critical research.

Author contributions

Bhasrvarin Iamsa-ard (First Author): Research design, material data collection, literature review, analyzing linguistic content, CDA, writing and revision. Thanapas Dejpawuttikul (Corresponding Author): Research design, literature review, constructing historical context and main argument, writing and revising manuscript. Kosit Tiptiempong (Co-author): revising manuscript, correcting IPA, proofreading.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Bhasrvarin Iamsa-ard

Bhasrvarin Iamsa-ard holds the position of lecturer within the Thai Major of the Education Program at the School of Education and Liberal Arts, Walailak University. Her research pursuits span across a range of linguistic areas, including semantics, historical linguistics, conceptual metaphor, critical discourse analysis, and contemporary educational practices.

Thanapas Dejpawuttikul

Thanapas Dejpawuttikul is an assistant professor in Southeast Asian Studies at the School of Liberal Arts, Walailak University. He has background in history discipline and political science. Thanapas’ academic interest was shifted from general Asian history to intellectual history of Thailand and Myanmar. His current research focuses on the issue of agrarian transition in southern Thailand and its impact to culture and politics of the region with comparative perspective.

Kosit Tiptiempong

Kosit Tiptiempong is an associate professor at the Institute of Global Studies, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies. His research specialization lies within the field of humanities encompassing areas such as literature, foreign language education, the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), as well as Thai language and culture.

Notes

1 One of the long-running debates in Thai intellectual history since the early 1980s is the mainstream view that Westernization and modernization in Thailand beginning in the middle of 19th century or the reign of King Rama IV, while the late Nidhi Eoseewong, a preeminent Thai historian, proposes in his magnum opus Pen & Sail (Eoseewong 2005) that the roots of the change towards modernity initially appeared in the late 18th century or known as the early Bangkok period by considering the change in worldview of the Thai feudal elite and the bourgeoisie.

2 In Thai: “หมอตอบว่ามีผู้สร้างหมดทุกสิ่ง แลสิ่งไรจะเปนเองไม่ได้ ข้าพเจ้าจึ่งถามว่า ถ้ามีผู้สร้างเมล็ดนิ่วขึ้นในตัวมนุษยแล้ว ก็มนุษยที่เปนโรคนิ่วนั้น มีความผิดสิ่งไร พระจึ่งมาสร้างลูกนิ่วขึ้นในตัวมนุษยให้ตายเสีย ก็หมอเปนลูกสิษของพระผู้สร้าง แล้วมาผ่าเอาลูกนิ่วออกเสียให้โรคหายไปนั้น ก็จะมิมีความผิดต่อความประสงคของพระไปฤๅด้วยพระจะทำให้เขาตาย แล้วหมอมารักษาขึ้นไว้ จะมิเปนการขัดรับสั่งไปฤๅ” (Thiphakorawong, 1867, p. 174).

3 In Thai: “ก็ถ้าจะเอาสัตวในอากาศเลอียดนี้ ขึ้นไปให้สูงถึงอากาศเลอียดอีกชั้นหนึ่ง เกินกำหนดอากาศนี้ขึ้นไปจะเปนอย่างไรก็ไม่รู้ ก็คิดเหนว่าคงจะตายเพราะความเอย็น” (Thiphakorawong, 1867, pp. 56-57).

4 In Thai: “อีกประการหนึ่งว่าพระยานาคที่อยู่นทีษีทันดรขึ้นเล่นน้ำ พ่นน้ำขึ้นไปบนอากาศมีลมหอบเอาน้ำนั้นไปตกเรี่ยรายไป จึ่งเรียกว่าฝนตก แต่คำที่ว่ามานี้ เปนของไม่มีพยานก็ไม่เหนจริง ด้วยเทวดาวัศวลาหกวิมานอยู่ที่ไหนก็ไม่เหน จะบันดานให้ฝนตกจริงฤๅไม่จริงก็ไม่รู้” (Thiphakorawong, 1867, pp. 34-35).

5 In Thai: “แลสวดอ้อนวอนฃอต่อพระผู้เปนเจ้าสร้างโลกย ก็ไม่เหนได้ตามความปราฐนาของมนุษย” (Thiphakorawong, 1867, p. 54).

6 In Thai, the word “form” or/sâ:ŋ/is always accompanied by/khɯ̂n/.

7 In Thai: “จึ่งเอาดินศรีต่างๆ มาผสมกัน สร้างเปนมนุษยชายขึ้นคนหนึ่งให้ชื่อว่าอาดำ” (Thiphakorawong, 1867, p. 142).

8 In Thai: “ถ้าปะระโลกยข้างน่ามีตายแล้วเกิดอีก ก็จะได้ชื่นใจในทางโลกยน่านี้อย่างหนึ่ง ถ้าปะระโลกยเบื้องน่าไม่มีตายแล้วสูญกัน ก็จะได้ความชื่นใจในประจุบันชาตินี้ ที่ตัวได้ทำความดีไว้” (Thiphakorawong, 1867, p. 403).

9 In Thai: “คนใจบาปอยาบช้าอายุยืนจนแก่ชะรานั้น พระจะให้อยู่แก้ตัว จะได้ละเสียซึ่งความบาปที่ทำมาแต่ก่อนๆ ก็ที่เด็กๆเล็ก ยังไม่รู้จักบุญแลบาปนั้นตายไป ก็พระผู้สร้างโปรดปรานเด็ก จะเอาไปเลี้ยงไว้เมืองสวรรคด้วย” (Thiphakorawong, 1867, p. 190).

10 In Thai: “ศีลบัพดิศเม คือเอาน้ำชำระเสียให้หมดความบาป” (Thiphakorawong, 1867, p. 141).

11 In Thai: “พระเยซูจึ่งเข้าไปยังสำนักนิ์นักบุญโยฮัน ๆ จึ่งให้พระเยซูรับศีลล้างบาปในสำนักนิ์ตัว” (Thiphakorawong, 1867, p. 140).

12 In Thai: “ทุกวันนี้เหนคนที่ได้รับศีลบัพติศเมแล้วก็ไม่พ้นบาปคำแช่ง ซึ่งติดมาแต่บิดามารดาเดิม ก็ยังมีความเจ็บความเหนื่อยยาก แลทุกข์โทรมนัศก็เหมือนกันกับคนทั้งโลกย ที่เขาไม่ได้รับศีลล้างบาปก็เหมือนกัน” (Thiphakorawong, 1867, p. 161).

13 In Thai: “เขาว่าฝนตกที่โน่นบ้างที่นี่บ้าง ทั้งตาปีมิได้ขาดสักวันหนึ่ง” (Thiphakorawong, 1867, p. 37).

14 In Thai: “ทำไมจึ่งไม่มีฝนตกลงมาเพราะเหตุอะไร เขาเหนว่าเปนทเลทราย เปนทุ่งเตียนไม่มีต้นหญ้าขึ้น แรงดูดในแผ่นดินถูกอายร้อนนัก จึ่งไม่ขึ้นไปได้ เขาคิดแก้ไขลองดูทำให้เกิดต้นหญ้าขึ้นที่ตรงใด ก็มีฝนลงมาที่ตรงนั้น ที่ใดยังไม่เกิดต้นหญ้า ก็ยังไม่มีฝนเลย” (Thiphakorawong, 1867, p. 50).

15 In Thai: “ข้างจีนเขาว่าตั้งแต่พลโกษีมาสร้างโลกยได้ประมาณสองแสนปี มากกว่าข้างแขก ๆ ว่าพระสร้างโลกยมาถึงเดี๋ยวนี้ได้หกพันปี ผิดกันมาก จะถูกข้างจีนฤๅข้างแขกให้คิดดูเถิด” (Thiphakorawong, 1867, p. 146).

16 In Thai: “ข้างพวกที่เขาถือว่าอ้าหล่าสร้างโลกย เขาก็ว่าพระอ้าหล่าบันดานให้เปนด้วยอำนาจฤทธิพระฃอให้ท่านผู้มีสติปัญญาตริตรองดูเถิด” (Thiphakorawong, 1867, p. 68).