Its good to learn about a history of nation. However, a history is often written by national historians or westeners who serve the interest of a particular country in order to educate people or influence them to believe what the authors believe. Anyway, here is a part from another research paper on this issue by Eric Roeder:

Chieng Rai, Lampang, Chieng Mai, Luang Prabang, and Vientiane

Perhaps the most reproduced aspect of the history of the Emerald Buddha is its remarkable discovery in 1434. The majority of books dealing with Thailand's history mention this discovery of the Emerald Buddha in Chieng Rai. Depending on which sources are used, the Emerald Buddha is said to appear in either 1434 or in 1436. Those who quote W.A.R. Wood's A History of Siam note the date 1436, while those who cite the chronicles use 1434. Yet what is important is not the slight discrepancy in the date of discovery, but the emergence of the Emerald Buddha from a mythical past to a historical reality.

According to the history found in the chronicles, in 1434 the Phra Keo Morakot was inside a large stupa at Chieng Rai. When the stupa tumbled down after being struck by lightning, a monk noticed a Buddha image covered in gold leaf beneath the crumbled stucco. Believing that the image was composed of ordinary stone, the monks of the temple placed it in the wihan (temple sanctuary) along with the many other Buddhist statues. Chadin Flood writes:

Two or three months later, the plaster that covered the statue that was lacquered over and then covered with gold leaves, chipped off at the tip of the statue's nose. The head monk of the temple saw that indeed the statue inside was made of a beautiful green crystal. He therefore chipped out the rest of the plaster, and it was then seen by all that the statue was made of one solid piece of crystal without marks or imperfection.[9]

The population of Chieng Rai and the surrounding regions soon flocked to venerate the Emerald Buddha. News was also sent to the ruler of Chieng Mai who ordered an elephant procession to transport the image (called Phra Mahamaniattanapatimakon according to the chronicles) to Chieng Mai. As the procession approached the crossroads leading to Lampang, the elephant carrying the Emerald Buddha became agitated and ran off down the road toward Lampang. The elephant's mahout calmed his pachyderm then struggled to return it to the intersection, to continue the journey to Chieng Mai. Yet once again the elephant became excited and ran off toward Lampang.

At this point it was decided that a more docile elephant would be chosen to carry the image, yet the next elephant also reacted in the same way, charging down the road to Lampang. The news of the combative elephants soon reached the ruler of Chieng Mai. Being a strong believer in the supernatural, he feared the consequences of the incident and felt that the spirit guarding the Emerald Buddha did not want the image to come to Chieng Mai. The ruler of Chieng Mai thus allowed the image to go to Lampang and stay at a temple built from alms given by the people of Lampang. The image remained in Lampang for the next thirty-two years, residing within a temple that even today is referred to as the Phra Keo.[10]

According dynastic chronicles of the Bangkok Era (First Reign), in the year of the Chula Era, A.D. 1468, a new ruler of Chieng Mai came to power. He believed that the previous ruler should not have allowed the Emerald Buddha to stay in Lampang. Diskul Subhadradis confirms that "the Emerald Buddha was moved to Lampang from Chieng Mai in 1468."[11] The Buddha was brought in procession to Chieng Mai and set up in a wihan. The Chieng Mai ruler ordered a prasat (spiral roof) for the temple housing the Emerald Buddha, but after repeated lightning strikes destroyed the roof, the idea was abandoned. Within the wat, the Emerald Buddha was kept in a cabinet and was put on public display only occasionally. The Emerald Buddha stayed in Chieng Mai for eighty-four years. Flood writes:

In 1551 the ruler of Chieng Mai was Chao Chaiyasetthathirat, the son of the ruler (Phra Chao Phothisan) of Luang Prabang. The previous ruler of Chieng Mai gave his daughter, Nang Yotkham, in Marriage to Phra Chao Phothisan. She became his consort and bore him a son Chao Chaiyaset. When the latter was fifteen years of age, the ruler of Chieng Mai, his maternal grandfather, passed away. There was no other descendant to succeed him. High-ranking officials and Buddhist monks therefore agreed unanimously to offer the throne to Chao Chaiyaset, the eldest son of Phra Chao Phothisan and the grandson of the late ruler of Chieng Mai. His name was lengthened to Chao Chaiyasetthathirat.[12]

After Chaiyasetthathirat assumed rule of Chieng Mai, his father Phothisan passed away in Luang Prabang. Concerned that if he attended his father's funeral, he might be prevented from returning to Chieng Mai, Chaiyasetthathirat decided to take the Emerald Buddha with him to Luang Prabang. He also claimed that taking it to Luang would allow his relatives the opportunity to venerate the image and make merit.

The Chieng Mai chronicles record that Chaiyasetthathirat also decided to stay and rule Luang Prabang. The dynastic chronicles of the Bangkok era (First Reign) tell a slightly different story; while there is no mention of Chaiyasetthathirat's rule of Luang Prabang, it is written that he was on good terms with his half-brother and thus decided to stay in Luang Prabang for three years, discussing the division of their inheritance. It is also indicated that the officials of Chieng Mai felt that Chaiyasetthathirat had stayed away too long.

Breazeale writes that these officials of Lanna (Chieng Mai) were no longer willing to wait for Chaiyasetthathirat, and sought found another descendant of Mangrai dynasty to take the throne. This Shan prince, known as Mae ku, was a distant relative of Chaiyasetthathirat. The Chieng Mai chronicles again differ in their version of the story, recording that the officials chose a Buddhist monk called Mekuti, a relative of the late ruler of Chieng Mai. Yet neither text mentions any attempt by Chieng Mai to retrieve the Emerald Buddha from Luang Prabang.

In any case, Mekuti or Mae Ku may not have had an opportunity to do anything. Chaiyasetthathirat came under serious threat of attack after the Burmese took Chieng Saen, north-east of Chieng Mai, and Bayin-naung's forces gained the position to make an armed attack down the Mekong river. Thus, after twelve years in Luang Prabang, Chaiyasetthathirat decided to move his residence to Vientiane in the 1560's, taking the Emerald Buddha with him. The image stayed in Vientiane for two hundred and fifteen years until 1778.

Taksin and Chao Phya Chakri

Around the time the Burmese captured and pillaged Ayuddhya in 1767, a young Siamese general fled the capital with a few hundred followers. Scholars have speculated about the origins of this Ayuddhya citizen, Taksin, who seems to have been born with the Chinese family name Sin, which when was then extended to 'Taksin' when he served as governor of Tak.[13] As he traveled south of the sacked city of Ayuddhya, Taksin was able to increase his following and go on the offensive, routing the Burmese. Remarkably, within a short period of time Taksin had reconstituted the kingdom and was crowned king in 1768. Indeed, during his fifteen-year reign of Siam, Taksin was able to both unite the kingdom and expand its territorial claims.

With Ayuddhya so thoroughly destroyed, Taksin set up his new capital of Thonburi on the western side of the Menam Chao Phya, south of Ayuddhya. While Taksin set about the task of expanding his territory, one of his most accomplished generals also made a name for himself on the battlefield. A long-time associate of Taksin's, Chao Phya Chakri was victorious in the majority of his battle campaigns; one of his few defeats took place at Phitsanulok in 1776. Due to famine and a lack of supplies, Chao Phya Chakri was forced to abandon Phitsanulok to the Burmese. According to W.A.R. Wood,

During this invasion Maha Sihasura expressed a desire to meet Chao Phya Chakri, whom he had found to be the toughest of his antagonists. A meeting was arranged, and the Burmese General, himself a very old man, was astonished to find that Chao Phya Chakri was only thirty-nine years of age. Maha Sihasura prophesied that Chao Phya Chakri was destined to wear the crown; a prophecy which came true approximately six years later.[14]

It should be noted that 'Chakri,' which designates the present dynasty, is a title rather than a family name. The title Chao Phya Chakri is found at various times in the history of Thailand. It is conferred upon a high-ranking military officer, who, upon accepting the title, will drop the name given to him at birth. The Chao Phya Chakri who served King Taksin was one of King Taksin's top military commanders. In 1778, he subdued Vientiane and removed the Emerald Buddha from Vientiane, taking it to Thonburi.

When Taksin acquired the Emerald Buddha, he placed it in a building near the site of Wat Arun, an action that has, curiously, been overlooked by many historians. The Emerald Buddha remained in Thonburi until Taksin's death. Alleged to have become insane, Taksin was removed as king and put to death by Chao Phra Chakri, who in turn ascended the throne. When Chao Phra Chakri assumed the title Rama I, he moved the site of the capital across the Menam Chao Phra to its present location in Bangkok. The Emerald Buddha also traveled across the river, very likely accompanied with pomp and circumstance. To house the image, Rama I constructed Wat Phra Keo.

For the full text you can visit this link: http://www.hawaii.edu/cseas/pubs/explore/eric.html 

All history is written from a particular perspective, so all history is biased in some way. Lao, Thai and Westerners write history in their own, often conflicting interests (and this conflict over history happens even within nations, not just between them). This does not mean you cannot learn from history, but you must be aware that it is always partial and never about the 'truth'. The only truth in history is that it is always about a political struggle to define it as truth. Grant Evans would acknowledge this. There is an advantage of being an 'outsider' and looking in at history, because you can be 'dispassionate' - you don't have to take sides and argue for or against Thai or Lao history. But the danger is that an outsider cannot understand the 'passion' with which people struggle over history and may therefore disrespect this 'insider' history, even though it may be disagreeable. I argue for people to be open about history, not see it as truth, not take sides, not attribute blame to others, abandon nationalism because it only produces conflict. If we can acknowledge that history is a 'conversation' with different points of view then perhaps we can begin to fix the pain of the past and prevent future conflict.

Anonymous wrote:

---

All history is written from a particular perspective, so all history is biased in some way. Lao, Thai and Westerners write history in their own, often conflicting interests (and this conflict over history happens even within nations, not just between them). This does not mean you cannot learn from history, but you must be aware that it is always partial and never about the 'truth'. The only truth in history is that it is always about a political struggle to define it as truth. Grant Evans would acknowledge this. There is an advantage of being an 'outsider' and looking in at history, because you can be 'dispassionate' - you don't have to take sides and argue for or against Thai or Lao history. But the danger is that an outsider cannot understand the 'passion' with which people struggle over history and may therefore disrespect this 'insider' history, even though it may be disagreeable. I argue for people to be open about history, not see it as truth, not take sides, not attribute blame to others, abandon nationalism because it only produces conflict. If we can acknowledge that history is a 'conversation' with different points of view then perhaps we can begin to fix the pain of the past and prevent future conflict.

---

WELL SAID MY FRIEND! I 100% agree. If I was a leader, I'd make you minister of education ASAP! I was the one that posted before you by the way.

I only wish the person that posted before me read your post... LOL!5555

 

Anonymous wrote:

---

Once home to the "Emerald Buddha"

One of Vientiane’s “must see” Buddhist temples—Haw Pha Kaew, once the king’s personal Buddhist temple—is not actually a temple per se with monks on the premises and services being performed, but today functions as a museum of art and antiquities. 

 Although this temple, which was built in the sixteenth century, has many priceless Buddhist artifacts on display, what makes this temple interesting and perhaps somewhat infamous is its controversial past which revolves around the Emerald Buddha, one of the most sacred items in all of Southeast Asia and the symbol of Thailand. 

According to legend, the Emerald Buddha was found when lightning struck a Chedi at Wat Phra Kaew Don Tao in Chiang Rai province, Thailand, in 1434 AD. A statue covered in stucco was found inside. The stucco was removed and the Emerald Buddha was discovered. It was kept in Lampang, Thailand until 1468 when it was moved to Wat Chedi Luang in Chiang Mai. 

The King of Lanna had no sons but his daughter married the King of Lan Xang and a son was born who would become the future King Setthathirat (King Chaichettha in Thai). Both Kings died almost at the same time and he was given the chance to become King of Lanna, but instead returned to Lan Xang to become King, taking the Emerald Buddha with him. Around the same time, Burma invaded Siam. Chiang Mai which was the capital of Lanna, was invaded and conquered in 1558. Because of the danger posed by the Burmese, King Setthathirat moved the capital to its current location, Vientiane in 1560 and brought the Emerald Buddha with him.  

Five years later, in 1565, Haw Pha Kaew was constructed in Vientiane to house the Emerald Buddha (Pha Kaew means ‘Jewel Buddha Image’ in Lao; actually, the image is made of a type of jade). The Emerald Buddha would end up staying there for over two hundred years until it was taken back to Siam by Phraya Chakri, the future King Rama I of Thailand, in 1778 and placed in Bangkok’s Wat Phra Kaeo. Sadly, Haw Pha Kaew stood until 1827 when Vientiane was destroyed by Siamese troops in revenge for then King Anouvong attacking Siam.

by Jeffrey Miller

wordpress.com

---

Hor Pra Keo or haw pha kaew

Anonymous wrote:

---

 

Anonymous wrote:

---

Once home to the "Emerald Buddha"

One of Vientiane’s “must see” Buddhist temples—Haw Pha Kaew, once the king’s personal Buddhist temple—is not actually a temple per se with monks on the premises and services being performed, but today functions as a museum of art and antiquities.

Although this temple, which was built in the sixteenth century, has many priceless Buddhist artifacts on display, what makes this temple interesting and perhaps somewhat infamous is its controversial past which revolves around the Emerald Buddha, one of the most sacred items in all of Southeast Asia and the symbol of Thailand.

According to legend, the Emerald Buddha was found when lightning struck a Chedi at Wat Phra Kaew Don Tao in Chiang Rai province, Thailand, in 1434 AD. A statue covered in stucco was found inside. The stucco was removed and the Emerald Buddha was discovered. It was kept in Lampang, Thailand until 1468 when it was moved to Wat Chedi Luang in Chiang Mai.

The King of Lanna had no sons but his daughter married the King of Lan Xang and a son was born who would become the future King Setthathirat (King Chaichettha in Thai). Both Kings died almost at the same time and he was given the chance to become King of Lanna, but instead returned to Lan Xang to become King, taking the Emerald Buddha with him.Around the same time, Burma invaded Siam. Chiang Mai which was the capital of Lanna, was invaded and conquered in 1558. Because of the danger posed by the Burmese, King Setthathirat moved the capital to its current location, Vientiane in 1560 and brought the Emerald Buddha with him.

Five years later, in 1565, Haw Pha Kaew was constructed in Vientiane to house the Emerald Buddha (Pha Kaew means ‘Jewel Buddha Image’ in Lao; actually, the image is made of a type of jade). The Emerald Buddha would end up staying there for over two hundred years until it was taken back to Siam by Phraya Chakri, the future King Rama I of Thailand, in 1778 and placed in Bangkok’s Wat Phra Kaeo. Sadly, Haw Pha Kaew stood until 1827 when Vientiane was destroyed by Siamese troops in revenge for then King Anouvong attacking Siam.

by Jeffrey Miller

wordpress.com

---

Hor Pra Keo or haw pha kaew

 

---

There are no rules here, no standard Lao-English Orthograhy unfortunately. The article is incorrect. This Hor Pra Keo was actually rebuilt by the French on a 'different site' to the original Hor Pra Keo and it was redesigned, and this new rebuilt one 'never' housed the emerald buddha because the Siamese had already taken it. So we don't actually know exactly what the original hor pra keo looked like or where it was situated in the city.

 

Haw Pha Kaew was actually renovated during the colonial era. When the French arrived in the late 19th century, this temple stood only the foundation and columns, basically the wooden facade and the roof were burned down. So no one knows the real original building looked like at first. In fact, did you guys know that Haw Pha Kaew was once part of the royal palace ground, which today includes the presidential palace Haw Kham and wat Sisaket.