King Taksin The Great
Chapter 16: The Final Events of King Taksin’s Reign
The Uprising in Thonburi, 1781 (B.E. 2324)
Signs of instability had begun to manifest following the campaign of General Azhayawunki against the northern provinces. After this war, His Majesty the King of Thonburi frequently journeyed to meditate at Wat Bang Yi Ruea (later known as Wat Inthararam), a temple he had regularly restored. Over time, His Majesty became increasingly devoted to meditation, and his temperament began to grow unstable. His manner became progressively severe and erratic.
Not long after Somdet Chao Phraya Maha Kasatsuek departed on a campaign to Cambodia, His Majesty exhibited signs of mental disturbance, coming to believe that he had attained the state of a Sotapanna (stream-enterer).
On the 12th day of August, 1781, His Majesty summoned all senior members of the Sangha to assemble in the Hall of the Emerald Buddha (Phra Kaew) — then housed in the southern small vihara adjacent to the old ordination hall along the riverbank in the Phra Prang district of Wat Arun. There, His Majesty emerged and questioned the assembled Sangha: whether a layman who had attained Sotapanna should rightfully be worshipped by common monks.
Most members of the clergy, fearing royal wrath, responded affirmatively. However, three high-ranking monks — Somdet Phra Sangharaja (Si) of Wat Bang Wa Yai (now Wat Rakhang), Phra Phimontham of Wat Photharam (now Wat Pho), and Phra Phutthachan of Wat Bang Wa Noi (now Wat Amarin) — stood firm in Vinaya (discipline) and, unshaken by fear of punishment, humbly submitted their reply: that though a layman might be a Sotapanna, his state remained lower than that of an ordinary monk who had taken up the saffron robe and upheld the Fourfold Purity of Discipline. Thus, it would not be appropriate for monks to pay homage to a layman.
This episode marked a critical moment in the unfolding unrest that would later erupt in full rebellion within the capital.
Upon hearing the monks’ reply, His Majesty the King of Thonburi flew into a rage, declaring that although the majority of the royal clergy had deemed it acceptable to offer homage, these three senior monks had dared to oppose and contradict him, delivering a response that defied the canonical scriptures. He thus issued a command to strip them of their ecclesiastical titles and ordered that Somdet Phra Sangharaja and the two other disrobed prelates, together with their affiliated monks, including attendants, students, and resident monastics, numbering approximately 500 in all, be brought to Wat Hong for punishment.
There, it was decreed that Somdet Phra Sangharaja and the two senior monks be flogged 100 strokes each, those of Parian rank (learned monks) 50 strokes each, and ordinary monks 30 strokes each. After the punishment, they were imprisoned, tasked with cleaning all excrement and filth at Wat Hong. From that time onward, all monks entering the royal presence were compelled to prostrate and pay homage in the same manner as secular officials.
These acts reflected a state of deteriorating royal judgment. As the news of the king’s behavior spread, widespread alarm gripped the people. Many perceived this as a sign of instability within the kingdom. Some were incensed, others grieved deeply for the monks who had suffered such royal wrath—so much so that some even offered themselves to take the punishment in their place. Turmoil and distress reverberated throughout the capital.
In the following days, His Majesty descended further into suspicion and fear, convinced that officials were conspiring to embezzle royal wealth. He ordered whippings, imprisonment, and at times even had the accused burned over open fire in attempts to force confessions. Those who accused others were often rewarded, with their denunciations treated as acts of merit in royal service. This climate encouraged false accusations, leading to an increase in arrests, floggings, and executions, which grew more frequent and brutal with each passing day.
(Chanya Prachitromrun, 2000: 234–236)
16.1 Who instigated rebellions during the Thonburi period?
Phraya San Rebellion
King Taksin of Thonburi appointed Phra Wichit Narong (or Phra Phichit Narong), a royal tax contractor, to urgently collect taxes from the people in Ayutthaya. The collection was carried out harshly and unfairly, leading to severe public unrest. Consequently, Nai Bunnak, the village headman of Ban Maela (present-day in the area of Amphoe Nakhon Luang, Ayutthaya Province), along with Luang Sura (or Khun Sura) and Luang Chana (or Khun Chana), rallied villagers to form a rebel group. They descended upon Ayutthaya, captured Phra Wichit Narong and several government officials, killing many, and set fire to the house of the city’s governor.
King Taksin then sent Phraya San to suppress the rebels of Ban Maela. However, among the rebels was Khun Kaew, Phraya San’s younger brother. Phraya San was persuaded to join the rebellion and subsequently became its military commander. The group sailed down the river, aiming to seize Thonburi, citing the justification that the kingdom had descended into chaos (galayuk).
Phraya San and the rebels arrived in Thonburi on Saturday, the 11th waning day of the 4th lunar month, Year of the Ox, corresponding to March 9, 1781 (B.E. 2324). They infiltrated the city at nightfall.
Upon arrival, they launched an assault on the Royal Palace, bombarding it with gunfire. Cannonballs struck the palace walls (then situated along the canal that is now Khlong Nakornban, north of Wat Arun). The loud gunfire caused panic and alarm within the compound. King Taksin, who had been sound asleep, awoke in shock, grabbed his sword, and ascended to the Phra Thinang Yen (Cool Pavilion). He shouted to the European soldiers stationed at Phom Wichai Prasit, ordering them to fire cannons at the rebels.
The rebels engaged in combat with the palace guards throughout the night until dawn but were unable to break into the palace. The defenders, however, were reluctant to fight against the rebels, or else the uprising might have already been quashed before sunrise. When King Taksin learned that Phraya San, whom he had entrusted to investigate and capture the rebels, had become the rebel leader himself, he was infuriated.
He ordered the arrest and imprisonment of Phraya San’s wife and children, then proceeded himself to the women’s prison, cutting open the cell door with his sword and releasing all the detained women.
Meanwhile, at Phom Wichai Prasit, near the mouth of Khlong Bang Luang, Phraya Thibet, Phraya Raman (Mason, ancestor of the Sriphen family), and Phraya Ammat hauled heavy cannons onto the fortifications and defended the city, successfully preventing the rebels from penetrating the capital from that side.
When King Taksin of Thonburi emerged from the inner palace, he solemnly declared, “My merit is at an end. Do not cause hardship for the people.” These words deeply saddened the royal officials who remained steadfastly loyal to him. Among them, Phraya Thibet Borrirak, Phraya Raman, and Phraya Ammat tearfully prostrated themselves and pleaded, “If Your Majesty forbids us from fighting the rebels, then let us die by the red rice pestle. We would rather perish alongside Your Majesty.”
Yet the King forbade any further resistance, having realized the futility of armed struggle. He thus commanded that Somdet Phra Sangharaja (Chuen) of Wat Hong, Phra Phimontham, and Phra Rattanamani (or Phra Rattanamuni) be summoned to negotiate terms of surrender with the rebel forces. Phraya San, the rebel leader, received the monastic envoys and sent a message to King Taksin stating: “If Your Majesty consents to surrender, it is acceptable. We ask that you enter the monkhood for three months to cleanse the kingdom of ill fortune.”
King Taksin agreed to the terms. In this violent upheaval, he lost forty high-ranking officials, men who had served him with unwavering loyalty. Upon accepting the request for ordination, the King laughed, slapped his thigh, and exclaimed, “Ehi bhikkhu—he has come.” This gesture was later remarked upon by King Rama V, who noted in a royal critique that it was “most befitting the character of the King of Thonburi.”
Thus, on Sunday, the 12th waning day of the 4th lunar month, in the Year of the Ox—corresponding to March 10, 1781—King Taksin was ordained as a monk at the ordination hall (phatthasima) of Wat Arun Ratchawararam, at approximately 9 PM. (An alternate account by Pharadee Mahakhan, 1983, gives the time as 9 AM and the year as 1782.) At the time of his ordination, the King had reigned for 14 years and 4 months.
According to the Memoirs of Krom Luang Narinthon Thewi, “Phraya San requested the senior monks to offer a plea for His Majesty to enter the monkhood for three months. His Majesty laughed, slapped his thigh, and said ‘Ehi bhikkhu—he has come,’ and then ordered the royal shaving blade (phra krabit) be brought. At the third hour, he was ordained on the 12th waning day of the 4th month, after a reign of 14 years and 4 months.”
This ordination was not voluntary, but rather compelled by Phraya San, under the pretense of ritual purification to dispel misfortune. King Taksin was detained during the ordination, along with his young son, Prince Phong Norin (also known as Prince Thasanphong). Meanwhile, close royal relatives were placed under arrest by order of Phraya San.
Phraya San then declared himself the interim administrator of state affairs, pending the arrival of Somdet Chao Phraya Maha Kasatsuek. The royal officials, though sorrowful, offered no resistance, allowing Phraya San to govern the kingdom in the King’s stead.
Why, then, did the rebels request King Taksin the Great to enter the monkhood instead of storming the palace and executing him outright?
This matter likely stemmed, first, from the rebels’ lack of sufficient military strength to do so. Another plausible reason is that the common people may not have supported such an act. Even those among the populace who had been misled into joining the rebellion were likely not so ungrateful as to contemplate murdering the very monarch to whom they owed their deliverance from past chaos. It seemed sufficient merely to have the King temporarily enter the monkhood. Had the true instigators attempted to force matters more violently, the truth might have been revealed, and a popular backlash could have ensued. Thus, they were compelled to ask only for a three-month ordination, a ruse to placate the people who had been incited to revolt.
Once the King was safely removed from power, they could consider their next course of action. After ordination, any further harm or execution could be conducted more easily, since reverence for monastic precepts was no obstacle for those who feared neither sin nor sacrilege. However, such brutality would forever stain the land with infamy.
While Phraya San served as regent, he held court in the throne hall of the palace, issuing orders to release all court officials—both civil and military—along with commoners who had been imprisoned under King Taksin’s royal commands. This ushered in a period of great disorder in Thonburi, as if the kingdom had lost all sense of law and order. Many of the newly released, who had suffered punishment without just cause, sought revenge against those who had denounced them. Now that King Taksin had entered the monkhood and wielded no authority, these vengeful individuals freely hunted down their accusers, among whom Phan Si and Phan La were most prominent. They killed them without mercy.
The situation escalated as the accused fled into hiding—some to temples, others to remote villages. Few survived. Death tolls rose daily in Thonburi, with murders occurring openly and unchecked. Anyone could slay whomever they pleased, and there were no officers of the law to investigate or punish such crimes.
Meanwhile, Phraya San, having secured absolute power, grew increasingly arrogant and self-indulgent. He was struck by a whimsical desire to hear royal court performances—not to watch them, but merely to listen to the singing. He thus ordered court musicians to perform behind closed doors, while he lay outside listening to the sweet melodies. With no one left to oppose his authority, his arrogance swelled unchecked. Yet, he still harbored fear of one man: Somdet Chao Phraya Maha Kasatsuek, the formidable general whose return loomed on the horizon.
Phraya San thus sought a means to eliminate Somdet Chao Phraya Maha Kasatsuek. He saw that only Krom Khun Anuraks Songkhram (Chao Ramlak, a grandnephew of King Taksin) — a high-ranking noble whom he had ordered to be detained when seizing power — could serve as a leader to oppose Somdet Chao Phraya Maha Kasatsuek. If Krom Khun Anuraks Songkhram were made head of the forces, he could manage to fight Somdet Chao Phraya Maha Kasatsuek effectively when the latter returned with his army. Phraya San therefore secretly conferred with Krom Khun Anuraks Songkhram, persuading him to undertake this task. Funds to recruit and sustain troops for the suppression would be drawn from the royal treasury, and Krom Khun Anuraks Songkhram accepted leadership in accordance with Phraya San’s plan.
Phraya San then released Krom Khun Anuraks Songkhram, granting him royal funds to travel and recruit followers. He successfully persuaded Phraya Maha Sena, Phraya Ramanyawong (or Chakri Mon), formerly Luang Bamrœ̄ Phak, the elder brother of Thao Songkandar (Thong Mon) and Phraya Klang Muang, among others, to join their cause. Phraya San feigned ignorance of these events. Those enticed by promises of wealth flocked to join in great numbers.
However, Krom Khun Anuraks Songkhram’s loyalty to Phraya San was questionable. Once he amassed sufficient followers, he intended to seize Thonburi as his stronghold. When Somdet Chao Phraya Maha Kasatsuek returned with his army, Krom Khun Anuraks Songkhram would be better positioned to engage in battle with a fortified base.
At the time of the Thonburi uprising, while Phraya San seized power from King Taksin, Somdet Chao Phraya Maha Kasatsuek was still suppressing the Khmer rebellion. The rebel leader Fa Talaha (Mu) fled to Vietnam to seek aid, and Chaophraya Surasi pursued him with an army. Learning that a Vietnamese force was stationed in Phnom Penh, Chaophraya Surasi prepared his troops, awaiting orders from the supreme commander on whether to engage the Vietnamese.
Phraya San controlled Thonburi for two weeks. Meanwhile, Phraya Suriyaphai (Thong In), the governor of Nakhon Ratchasima (a nephew of Somdet Chao Phraya Maha Kasatsuek and later titled Krom Phra Ratchawang Lang during King Rama I’s reign), learned of the unrest in Thonburi. He traveled to Siem Reap to report the situation to Somdet Chao Phraya Maha Kasatsuek. The latter instructed Phraya Suriyaphai to march to Thonburi ahead of the main army, which would follow later. Phraya Suriyaphai returned to Nakhon Ratchasima, appointing his younger brother, Phraya Aphai Suriya Palat, to govern the city, and hastily mustered a force of approximately 3,000 men (according to Paradi Mahakhun, 2526:34, the force was about 1,000 men) to advance toward Thonburi.
The army from Nakhon Ratchasima arrived at Thonburi on Friday, the 9th day of the waxing moon in the 5th lunar month, at a time when Phraya San had already seized power and assumed the position of regent. They arrived before Krom Khun Anuraks Songkhram had taken the capital as a stronghold. When Phraya Suriyaphai led his troops into the Thonburi vicinity, they halted and camped at Ban Duem, located in the district of Suan Mangkhut, Suan Linchee.
At that time, the noble officials, both senior and junior, were divided into two factions. Those who had received rewards aligned themselves with Phraya San, while those who still respected the authority and influence of Somdet Chao Phraya Maha Kasatsuek refrained from accepting Phraya San’s rewards and instead joined the faction loyal to Phraya Suriyaphai.
Upon learning of Phraya Suriyaphai’s army arrival, Phraya San was alarmed, fearing his plans would be exposed. He therefore arranged a meeting with Krom Khun Anuraks Songkhram and his allies on Tuesday, the 5th day of the waning moon in the 5th lunar month (April 2, 1782). They planned a midnight raid on Phraya Suriyaphai’s residence in Suan Mangkhut, Suan Linchee.
However, Krom Khun Anuraks Songkhram’s forces were small because the city inhabitants refused to support him. His army was mainly composed of Mon soldiers from Phraya Ramanyawong’s and Phraya Klang Muang’s troops. They advanced to Ban Pun, near the southern edge of Suan Mangkhut. Seizing the opportunity provided by the strong winds typical of the season, they set fire to the villagers’ houses in Ban Pun, and the flames quickly spread to the residences and estates of Phraya Suriyaphai.
The attacking forces surrounded the western side, extending to Wat Bang Wa Noi, firing into Phraya Suriyaphai’s homes. Caught unprepared, Phraya Suriyaphai ordered his troops to fight and return fire. Both sides exchanged gunfire. When the fire approached near Phraya Suriyaphai’s dwelling, he made a solemn vow:
“I have practiced precepts and charity, but I only desire supreme wisdom. By the power of this vow, may the wind turn and prevent the fire from reaching my home.”
Immediately after his vow, the wind shifted direction, putting out the fire’s advance toward Suan Mangkhut. This was witnessed by all and prevented destruction to the area. Phraya Suriyaphai’s forces were thus emboldened to fight back fiercely.
During the battle, Chao Sirirojana or Chao Sri Anocha, the noble consort of Chaophraya Surasi (daughter of Chao Fa Kaeo and sister of Phraya Kawila of Chiang Mai, who at the time was ruler of Lampang), who resided just outside the eastern city wall at the mouth of Khlong Bang Lamphu, demonstrated remarkable bravery. As a noble consort of Chaophraya Suea, she was a heroic figure. Upon learning of the raid on Phraya Suriyaphai’s residence, she summoned Phraya Jeng, Phraya Ram, and a group of Mon officers to consult on how best to assist.
Note:
Somchot Ongsakul (2002: 3–4) mentioned the history of Chao Sri Anocha (also known as Chao Sirirojana). During the time when Phraya Kawila received the royal army of Thonburi and presented his daughters as attendants, the chief commander of the Thonburi army, Chaophraya Surasi (Bunma), had the opportunity to see the beauty of Lady Sri Anocha, sister of Phraya Kawila, and was greatly impressed. He sent emissaries to propose marriage. As recorded in the chronicles, “… Chaophraya Surasi was deeply fond of Lady Sri Anocha, the royal daughter and sister of Phraya Kawila. He employed wise officials to seek permission from all seven siblings, with Prince Kaew, their father, presiding. Seeing a close ally for the future, they gave Lady Sri Anocha to Chaophraya Suea as his royal consort.” (See Suwan Ho Kham Chronicles, Lampang; the Legend of the Seven Princes and the Verified Manuscript of the Ho Kham Mongkhon, cited in Thiw Wichaikhattakha, “Her Highness Chao Sri Anocha,” Chiang Mai Descendants, Bangkok: Chiang Mai Lineage Heirs, 1996, p. 266.)
After Chaophraya Surasi (Bunma) received Lady Sri Anocha from Prince Kaew and Phraya Kawila, along with other nobles from Lampang, he journeyed through Sawankhalok back to Thonburi, establishing Lady Sri Anocha as the noble consort of the household at Pak Khlong Banglamphu. It can be said that after the Chiang Mai restoration campaign in 1774 (B.E. 2317), the beautiful woman from Lampang followed Chaophraya Surasi to become one of the consorts of the Thonburi army’s chief commander, working for the kingdom and fostering good relations between Thonburi and Lanna.
The Thai-Burmese Wars book (by Somdet Krom Phraya Damrong Rajanubhab) recorded the role of Chao Sri Anocha or Chao Sirirojana: “During the battle, Lady Sirirojana, the consort of Chaophraya Surasi, at her residence at Pak Khlong Banglamphu, learned that enemies had come to raid Phraya Suriyaphai’s house. She conferred with Phraya Jeng, Phraya Ram, and Mon captains to suppress the rebellion.”
Meanwhile, the local Chiang Mai chronicle records that Chao Sri Anocha sent messages to the people of Pak Priao and threatened: “If you support Phraya Sing and Phraya San, I, while alive, will not allow you to govern the country or trade freely except as I desire. The people of Pak Priao have already captured and killed Phraya Sing and Phraya San.” (Somchot Ongsakul, 2002: 4). The two Mon leaders agreed and led their troops by boat across the Chao Phraya River to fight the enemies immediately. The Mon forces engaged the rebels, supporting Phraya Suriyaphai, who fought until dawn.
Krom Khun Anuraks Songkhram’s troops were defeated and scattered, and he fled to Wat Yang (in Khlong Bangkok Noi near Wat Nai Rong). Phraya Suriyaphai captured him the same day.
King Chulalongkorn (Rama V) later commented: “The place where Chaophraya Ram Lak set fire was north of Ban Pun at that time, which was probably not the same as today’s Ban Pun Bang Yi Khan. It was likely situated between Wat Amarin (formerly Wat Bang Wa Noi) and Suan Mangkhut. Chaophraya Ram Lak set up his encampment surrounding the area up to Wat Bang Wa Noi, near the northern city wall. The fire was ignited at houses by Wat Bang Wa to spread toward Ban Pun, which lies north of Suan Mangkhut. However, when the fire approached Ban Pun, due to the vow of Krom Phra Ratchawang Lang (Phraya Suriyaphai), the wind shifted back toward the north, the direction from which Chaophraya Ram Lak came down. Chaophraya San presumably controlled the southern side from the royal palace upward. When Chaophraya Ram Lak’s operation failed and his troops ended up south of the fire, Phraya San, seeing this, likely withdrew because of his unstable nature.”
Upon learning that Phraya Suriyaphai had captured Krom Khun Anuraks, Phraya San feared being implicated but was unsure how to act. With his plans frustrated, he remained quiet inside the palace, fearing possible dangers. However, he consoled himself that his support of Krom Khun Anuraks Songkhram was kept secret. Even if suspicion arose about his involvement in assisting the army, he believed he could justify his actions.
As for Khun Kaeo, he appeared to have become estranged from his brother Phraya San, as well as from Khun Sura and Nai Bunnak, his original co-conspirators. There is no evidence that he colluded with Phraya San’s ambitious schemes. It is only known that Khun Kaeo led his followers with artillery to assist Phraya Suriyaphai’s forces in fighting against Krom Khun Anuraks Songkhram’s troops.
Note:
Regarding Phraya San, King Chulalongkorn (Rama V) commented critically:
“This Phraya San was a rather strange character. Both in the chronicles and in recorded letters, he is known as the general sent down to lead troops. After he deposed King Taksin of Thonburi from the throne, it appeared that he intended to hand over the throne to Somdet Chaophraya Maha Kasatsuek (later Rama I). However, he did not maintain this position. Instead, he released Chaophraya Ram Lak (Krom Khun Anurak Songkhram) to attack Krom Phra Ratchawang Lang (Phraya Suriyaphai). If he had ambitions to seize power himself, his plans were weak and never fully succeeded. When he captured Chaophraya Ram Lak, he should have known that Chaophraya Ram Lak would implicate him. Whether he tried to confess or fight, nothing was resolved; he just remained silent. When Phutthayotfa Chulalok (Somdet Chaophraya Maha Kasatsuek) arrived, he pretended ignorance. He seemed to lack any real intelligence or resolve; he simply followed whomever sent him in any direction.”
On the other hand, after Phraya Suriyaphai captured Krom Khun Anurak Songkhram and imprisoned him, he set up camp from Suan Mangkhut to Khlong Nakhonban, near the royal palace. He ordered that King Taksin, who was confined near the ordination hall of Wat Arun Ratchawararam, be taken to the camp to be guarded carefully, aiming to prevent any further disturbances.
The chronicles amplify this episode, stating that Phraya Suriyaphai (Thong In) and Phraya San conspired to have King Taksin defrocked and bound with manacles (chains).
Note:
However, this cannot be fully true, as records confirm that at the time Krom Khun Anurak Songkhram led troops to suppress Phraya Suriyaphai’s forces, King Taksin was still ordained as a monk. The royal chronicles compiled by Somdet Phutthayotfa Chulalok (Duang edition), volume 65, confirm that when Chaophraya Chakri (Duang) rushed his army to Thonburi, King Taksin was still a monk. This strongly suggests he had not yet been defrocked. Furthermore, Phraya Suriyaphai (Thong In) likely did not dare to forcibly defrock the nation’s savior at that time.
(Source: http://board.dserver.org/n/natshen/00000133.html, 21/11/45)
Phraya San dared not take any decisive action. Phraya Suriyaphai had only about 3,000 troops from Nakhon Ratchasima, plus a small number of men from the two Mon leaders. It was difficult for them to seize control of the capital, so they cautiously held their position, awaiting the arrival of Somdet Chaophraya Maha Kasatsuek.
Meanwhile, Somdet Chaophraya Maha Kasatsuek, after ordering Phraya Suriyaphai to return to Thonburi, remained at Siem Reap, monitoring the situation closely. When he heard about the rebellion in Thonburi, his concern for the country and its people grew deeper. He then assigned military command to Chaophraya Surasi while ordering the Khmer army to besiege the forces of Krom Khun Inthraphithak. Additionally, he instructed Phraya Thamma, who was stationed at Kamphaeng Svai, to capture and detain Krom Khun Ram Phu Bes and then to disband his troops and march to the capital.
King Chulalongkorn (Rama V) commented on Krom Khun Inthraphithak:
“…Observing this man, he was weak and faced many punishments. His military campaigns lacked strength. In some letters printed in the Thetsaphiban book, he is referred to as Somdet Phra Chao Lukya Thoe Chao Fa Krom Khun Inthraphithak, King of Thonburi (meaning King Taksin). It is understandable why he planned to escape and become king of Cambodia.”
Prince Muen was elevated to be Prince Suphanwong. It seemed he foresaw that the internal situation would not last long, and he did not regard Phra Phutthayotfa (Somdet Chaophraya Maha Kasatsuek) as significant. When the army marched to Cambodia together with Chao Boonchan (Krom Khun Ram Phu Bes) to capture and execute Chao Boonchan, Krom Khun Inthraphithak (Chao Jui) was only ordered to besiege the Cambodians, who managed to escape into Prachinburi.
However, when the troops learned that the regime had been overthrown, they fled along with the former governor of Nakhon Ratchasima, who had been replaced by Krom Phra Ratchawanglang (Phraya Suriyaphai) as the regent of the city. They went to live at Khao Noi near Pathawi and stayed long enough to plant betel trees and other plants.
When they were captured and brought to Bangkok, the king kindly spared their lives if they would submit, but if they refused, there would be consequences.
On Saturday, the 9th day of the waning moon of the 5th month, year of the Tiger, Chatusa year, Chulasakarat 1144, corresponding to April 6, 1782, the army of Somdet Chaophraya Maha Kasatsuek arrived at the capital. The people of the capital, upon hearing of Somdet Chaophraya Maha Kasatsuek’s return, were filled with joy. Many citizens went out to welcome him, calling for him to help suppress the turmoil and bring happiness and peace to the country as before. Along the way, they expressed their delight and hope that Somdet Chaophraya Maha Kasatsuek would bring lasting peace and stability to the nation.
When Phraya Suriyaphai learned that Somdet Chaophraya Maha Kasatsuek had arrived, he was greatly pleased. He had prepared a pavilion to welcome him at the pier bridge of Wat Pho Tharam (Wat Phra Chetuphon). The pavilion was built as a place of rest near the royal audience hall, located between Tha Chang and Tha Tian by the Grand Palace. He also arranged royal barges to pay respects and wait for the arrival. Thao Songkandarn Thong Mon, a noble in the palace, came by boat to receive him as well.
Upon reaching the pavilion, Somdet Chaophraya Maha Kasatsuek likely stayed there overnight. The pavilion, originally probably part of Wat Pho Tharam’s land, was used as a meeting place for nobles and officials to deliberate on the rebellion and disturbances in the capital. This pavilion continued to be known as the royal audience hall.
At that time, Phraya San remained within the palace and did not oppose any action. Many officials came to show respect and greet in unison. They already knew that Phraya San had proclaimed himself temporary regent to maintain order for Somdet Chaophraya Maha Kasatsuek. Therefore, none of the officials acted with arrogance. Phraya San and his supporters felt fear of Somdet Chaophraya’s power and did not know whether to flee or resist. Trapped with no way out, they came to pay respects with all the officials.
Phraya San comforted himself and resolved to face the situation rather than escape, even though he knew he had conceived a great rebellion. Meanwhile, Krom Khun Anuraksongkhram, when brought for consultation on his punishment, was expected to confess and implicate others.
Somdet Chaophraya Maha Kasatsuek then spoke and questioned them, learning the full details of the rebellion from its beginning. He consulted with the ministers, saying, “When the king becomes unjust and corrupt, what will you do?”
The ministers deliberated and answered, “The king has abandoned righteousness and behaved wickedly. He is a great thorn and obstacle in the land. This cannot be ignored and must be punished.”
Upon reviewing the case of Krom Khun Anuraksongkhram, since he had given truthful testimony implicating Phraya San and his conspirators, the great deputy of the kingdom, the regent, and all those involved in the rebellion were sentenced according to their crimes.
As for Somdet Phra Chao Krung Thonburi, Somdet Chaophraya Maha Kasatsuek must have felt considerable sorrow. He likely reflected on personal matters beyond state affairs, as there were close ties between them. One of Somdet Phra Chao Krung Thonburi’s daughters was given to serve as a chief lady-in-waiting in his household. Moreover, Somdet Phra Chao Krung Thonburi had rendered countless merits and services to the nation. However, at that time, the country was in turmoil with numerous problems—military, economic, religious, and administrative. Faced with such immediate crises and environmental pressures, and following the royal traditions practiced since the Ayutthaya period, it was deemed necessary by fate.
In another sense, all beings are bound by karma. Where there is desire, karma follows; where there is karma, results arise; and where there are results, new desires are born in an endless cycle. This is unavoidable. Both Somdet Phra Chao Krung Thonburi and Somdet Chaophraya Maha Kasatsuek were subject to this law, which led Somdet Chaophraya Maha Kasatsuek to decide and approve the execution of Somdet Phra Chao Krung Thonburi in accordance with the ministers’ counsel.
Some accounts do not state that the ministers’ decision was unanimous. For example, when Chaophraya Chakri’s army (Duang) arrived, many senior officials were consulted about how to proceed.
Those officials who remained loyal to King Taksin and trusted his wisdom insisted that the proper course was to respectfully petition for his return from the monkhood to urgently assume the throne and govern the kingdom.
16. 2 Did King Taksin the Great truly suffer from mental illness?
This matter is difficult to answer definitively because historical records state one thing, while some individuals have proposed differing assumptions. The summary is as follows:
a. “When King Taksin the Great reigned for a long time, he began to lose his mind and become disturbed.” (Royal Chronicles of the Old Capital: 70) King Taksin had to devote himself intensely to military campaigns to defend and unify the kingdom, as well as to expand the kingdom’s political power. He also faced severe economic and social problems. These heavy royal duties caused him mental exhaustion, leading him to focus on meditation (vipassana).
Additionally, some royal duties forced him to act in ways that caused repeated internal conflict. He thus became irritable and behaved abnormally. Whenever displeased, he often ordered harsh punishments without exception, whether for monks, nobles, royal family members, or commoners. A passage from the Memoirs records:
“When Somdet Chao Phraya Mahakaset Suek, Chao Phraya Surasi, and His Royal Highness Krom Khun Inthraphithak led the army to suppress a rebellion in Cambodia, unrest arose in Thonburi. Phan Si (Khun Jitrakun) and Phan La (Khun Pramoon Phrachat) accused nobles and commoners of secretly selling rice, salt, and some prohibited items. They falsely accused those who did not sell, and when disputes arose, those who refused to admit were flogged; those who feared punishment confessed and were fined; those who had money were released, while those without money were pressed for payment until it was obtained, causing great suffering. Later, 2,000 silver coins (each one baht, three salung, one fueang) and ten rolls of yellow silk were lost from the royal treasury. The treasury officials were severely punished, and inner royal family members were suspected and punished by imprisonment, flogging, or fines. Because the king spent much time in meditation, some nobles took advantage to seek personal gain by accusing others of wrongdoing. When the king received accusations, he did not thoroughly investigate but ordered punishment of the accused, causing widespread fear and suffering.” (Pharadi Mahakhun, 1983: 33)
b. Pharadi Mahakhun (1983: 32–37) cited W.A.R. Wood, the British consul in Thailand, who said about King Taksin:
“… To be honest, no one but a madman with courage in his head would dare to undertake such a great task as King Taksin did and succeed…” (History of Siam: 253–254)
The evidence shows that King Taksin the Great devoted his full strength and ability to his great royal duties. He was a monarch of immense merit and virtue for the Thai people. However, toward the end of his reign, he became a king who, without his own knowledge, caused hardship to his own subjects, leading to a crisis.
This crisis is believed to have arisen due to the mental decline of King Taksin. The French bishop Le Bon, who introduced Christianity during King Taksin’s reign, recorded that “At this time, King Taksin must be regarded as a superhuman figure in this world.” Bishop Coude, who succeeded Bishop Le Bon, wrote a report about King Taksin’s behavior in the late reign: “He would chant prayers, fast from food, and meditate in order to prepare for flying through the air.” In 1780, he wrote to the head of the missionary seminary abroad (Directure du Seminaire des Mission) that:
“Until July 1779, Thailand was in reasonably good order. The great king was occasionally angry with us, but his anger soon passed. For over a year now, he has not allowed us to have an audience. He is absorbed in chanting prayers, fasting, and practicing vipassana meditation, believing it will enable him to fly.”
Bishop Coude also recorded that he confided with King Taksin’s son that the king had withdrawn privileges formerly granted to missionaries and was about to expel them from Thailand. The missionaries told the prince that previously the king had granted full freedom to practice Christianity, not only for missionaries but also for Thai converts, and had even donated royal funds to build churches. The prince replied, “You speak correctly. My father has changed greatly.” (Chulachakpong, Prince, 1971: 130–131)
Bishop Descrouvrieres wrote from France on December 21, 1782, that:
“For many years now, the King of Siam has caused distress to his subjects and foreigners residing or temporarily trading in Siam. The Chinese merchants who used to trade here almost had to cease trading altogether. In recent years, the king, who seems somewhat insane, has increasingly caused suffering and exhibited greater cruelty.”
c. Regarding King Taksin’s illness, near the end of his reign, a rebellion arose in Thonburi. It was said that karma caused King Taksin’s temperament to change abnormally from his original self, with a disturbed mind that brought suffering to the people.
In the book The Life of His Royal Highness Prince Chulachakphon (1971: 128, 131), the author reflected as follows:
“Many have opined that the physical and mental exhaustion from waging war for seven years and ruling the country as an absolute monarch for another three was too severe, causing King Taksin to suffer mental illness. Stories tell of his unusual cruelty, such as ordering Buddhist monks to be flogged because they refused to prostrate before him, as he claimed to be a bodhisattva. This was contrary to Buddhist practice, where monks do not bow to people but only to the Buddha image or senior monks, unlike clergy in other religions who show respect to laypeople.”
Thuan Boonyaniyom (1970: 186–187) wrote about this matter:
“When His Royal Highness the Great King’s Deputy (Somdet Chaofa Phraya Mahakasat Suek) marched his army to Cambodia, not long after, King Taksin began to show signs of madness, believing himself to be a sotapanna (one who has attained the first stage of enlightenment).”
“On Sunday, the 6th waning day of the 9th lunar month (the Year of the Ox, 1781), King Taksin convened the Sangha council at the Royal Emerald Pavilion. At that time, his mind was disturbed by the delusion that he had attained sotapanna fruition. He asked the council:
‘Can ordinary monks pay respect by bowing to a layperson who is a sotapanna, or not?’ The monks, many of whom were timid and eager to please to avoid royal punishment, responded affirmatively. Among them were the Buddha preacher of Wat Bang Wa Yai (Wat Rakhang), Phra Bodhiwong, and Phra Rattanamanee (or Phra Rattanamuni) of Wat Hong. They said, ‘Monks can bow to a layperson who is a sotapanna.’
However, the Supreme Patriarch (Si) of Wat Bang Wa Yai, the Chief Preacher of Wat Bang Wa Noi (Wat Amarin), and Phra Phimoltham of Wat Phra Chetuphon, who were steadfast in adhering to the Vinaya and true Buddhist doctrine and were not sycophantic, answered: ‘Even if the layperson is a sotapanna, monks should not bow to him.’
But monks are of a lower nature than the bhikkhus, for monks, even though they are ordinary beings, abide in the highest noble nature by wearing the saffron robe and observing the fourfold purity precepts, which are most excellent. Therefore, it is not proper to pay respect by bowing to a layperson, even if that person is a sotapanna (one who has attained the first stage of enlightenment).
King Taksin heard this and became angry, saying, “This answer is contrary to the Pali scriptures. Those who say it is proper are many, but only three say it is improper — is that acceptable?” Then he ordered Phra Bodhiwong, the Buddha preacher, to bring before him the Supreme Patriarch (Si), the Chief Preacher, and Phra Phimoltham, who were the three royal ecclesiastics steadfast in doctrine, and have them punished at Wat Hong. He commanded that each royal ecclesiastic be beaten 100 times on the back, senior monks 50 times, and monks of lower rank 30 times.
Counting the monks who upheld their precepts and refused to bow, in the three monasteries there were about 500 monks punished in total. There were even more monks with corrupted discipline who said it was acceptable to bow. The three punished royal ecclesiastics and the 500 monks were made to clean and scrub the monks’ quarters at Wat Hong. The three royal ecclesiastics were stripped of their ecclesiastical titles and demoted.
Phra Bodhiwong was appointed Supreme Patriarch, and Phra Buddha Khoja was appointed as a chief monk (Phra Wanrat).
This was a great calamity in Buddhism and was deeply mourned. All those with right view who revered the Triple Gem were filled with sorrow and compassion for Buddhism, crying bitterly with tears streaming down their faces. Many devoted believers accepted the punishment by flogging themselves in place of the monks. The lamentation and wailing filled the city except for dishonest persons.
Since then, the corrupt monks who claimed that bowing to laypersons was acceptable came to prostrate to the king like lay officials. King Taksin ordered the new Supreme Patriarch to detain the three removed royal ecclesiastics at Wat Hong and not allow them to return to their own monasteries. He appointed Phra Yantrai Lok of Wat Liap to reside at Wat Photharam (Wat Phra Chetuphon).
He ordered Phra Rattanamuni to bestow a new grand title upon himself, which reflected the king’s own disturbed mind:
“His Majesty the Supreme Yogi of Siam, of the Buddha lineage, of the invincible royal lineage, ruling over the realm of Bangkok, Borommaratcha Thonburi, Sri Ayutthaya, Maha Dilok Lopburi Nopparat Ratchathani Buriram, the Great Royal Residence.”
King Taksin was pleased with this title, which matched his own disturbed and deluded state of mind.
On Thursday, the 12th lunar month, the first waning day, a supernatural vision appeared in the sky—clouds took the shape of a bamboo lattice toward the east.
On Sunday, the 1st lunar month, the ninth waning day, an accuser came to report to Phraya Racha Setthi of the Vietnamese that there was a plan to flee into the city of Phutthaimat. The king then ordered the capture and execution of Phraya Racha Setthi and 31 Vietnamese accomplices.
On Wednesday, the 2nd lunar month, the twelfth waning day, nine prisoners were executed.
He ordered the imprisonment, torture, and whipping of royal consorts, princes, and even the crown prince at his whim.
In the 12th month, Phraya Phichai Racha (not Phraya Phichai Daphak), the lord of Sawankhalok, came to serve in the capital. He arranged for elderly men to bring the younger sister of Chao Chom Chim, the chief royal consort and daughter of the Lord of Nakhon Si Thammarat, who was in the royal palace, to be his wife. When King Taksin learned of this, he became enraged and said, “How dare he come to be a mere son-in-law, competing with me who am the sovereign king?” He therefore ordered the execution of Phraya Phichai Racha by beheading and had his head displayed at the gate beside the curtain wall of the palace at Pak. This was done as a warning so that no one would imitate him in the future.
King Taksin, after restoring independence and ascending the throne of Thonburi, granted multiple consorts from the royal family of King Borommaracha Thirat (King Borommakot), such as Mom Chao Ying Bussaba or Bupha, Mom Chao Ying Pratum, daughter in the royal palace of Borom Krom Khun Senphithak (Prince Kung), Mom Chao Ying Ubon of Krom Muen Theppipit, and Princess Chim, daughter of Chao Fa Jeed. Among these consorts, he favored Mom Chim and Mom Ubon most, granting them the privilege to sleep on the royal bed, one on the right and one on the left. Otherwise, King Taksin showed favor as appropriate.
Later, an incident occurred where rats gnawed on the royal bedding in the bedchamber. The king considered this an ominous and disgraceful sign. At that time, two Portuguese foreigners serving as royal pages close to him were favored by the king and addressed by Thai titles according to their ranks: Chit Phuban and Chan Phubet. The king ordered a search for the rats both in the royal bedchamber and under the royal dining platform.
Because of the king’s open favor toward these two foreigners, jealousy arose within the white umbrella of the old palace. Accusations were made, notably by Mom Chao Ying Pratum. Subsequently, the two foreigners carried out the search for the rats.
Mom Chim and Mom Ubon were lovers of the favored Westerners close to King Taksin. It was suspected that Mom Chim became jealous of Mom Ubon for some unknown reason, even though the king favored them both and allowed them to share his bed and live together openly. Whether Mom Chim falsely accused Mom Ubon out of jealousy or if the accusations were true remains uncertain. Mom Ubon had once been a consort of a palace official named Nai Kan, under Luang Paeng’s faction. Mom Chim, likewise, had been displaced and wandered since the fall of Ayutthaya to the Burmese, which might have led to mistakes. King Taksin took them in and favored them dearly. When the accusations reached the king, he was deeply grieved and questioned Mom Ubon, who denied having an affair with the Westerner. Mom Chim, a spirited and articulate woman, confessed, taking the blame upon herself and boldly declared, “Why remain as a secondary wife? I shall die following you, my lord.”
Mom Ubon then admitted as well that she too had been involved with the Westerner. The king’s wrath deepened; in punishment, he ordered both consorts to be flogged, then had saltwater poured over their wounds, cut open their chests, applied salt to the wounds, and amputated their hands and feet, humiliating them severely to match their insatiable lust.
After carrying out the punishment, the king’s heart grew heavier still, for he deeply loved Mom Ubon, who was then two months pregnant, and thus the unborn child also suffered. His sorrow was compounded by his sense of guilt, for Mom Ubon’s fate seemed sealed along with Mom Chim’s. Reflecting on Mom Chim’s brave confession, he was moved by compassion. His beloved consort, the lady of his heart, was lost so suddenly, plunging him into great grief. He exclaimed, “If I must die, who will die with me?” Consorts Krom Muen Theppipit, Mom Thongchan, Mom Ket, Mom La, and Mom Bussaba wished to die with him. The king granted each one a silver tael and gold for funeral rites, promising to execute those who would follow him first, and then to end his own life with the royal sword.
When this matter became known, it caused great panic and disorder. The senior monastic official, Phra Khun Yai Songdan, and the elder Mom Thongchan regained their senses and hurried to summon many monks to the palace. The monks all prayed for the king’s life, beseeching him to regain his composure, saying:
“In urging the king to hasten his own death, how could he be expected to depart this life together with the two consorts? The realm was still in grave peril; without the sovereign who had labored to restore liberty and independence, how could the entire Thai nation hope to rely upon royal grace? Thus, they offered prayers beseeching for the life of His Majesty the King to be preserved. Upon receiving the monks’ solemn counsel, King Taksin regained his composure. As his grief began to subside and his mind returned to clarity, the monks respectfully withdrew their prayers and took their leave…”
This segment appears near the end of the narrative describing the monks’ intervention that prevented King Taksin from carrying out his plan to die alongside the two punished consorts, as found in Tuang Boonyiam’s work (1970:179-181).
He imprisoned and flogged high-ranking officials, forcing them to confess to various offenses they had never committed (Chulachakpong, Prince Vorawongse Thepkamol, 1971: 131). Thuan Boonyaniyom (1970: 189) described the matter as follows:
“Judgments were reversed, falsehoods made true, forcing confessions under torture. If the plaintiff swore, the accused would be fined or subjected to flogging, hands tied, beaten, nailed, or even burned at the stake—some died. This caused tremendous suffering. Those accused, both officials and commoners, feared punishment and thus readily confessed, accepting penalties for selling forbidden goods abroad for cash or loans of small amounts, believing that once punished, they would be free. However, if new accusations arose, those who had money were forced to pay, while the poor endured daily flogging until they could raise the funds. Many died or endured great hardship. People’s faces were gaunt and tear-streaked; pity and hardship spread across the land as far as every blade of grass. Only villains and the plaintiffs thrived, as did King Taksin, who was pleased that these ruffians extorted wealth from the people and sent it to the royal treasury, without regard to the suffering of the populace. The king regarded such acts as just and proper, following his own ascetic practices and personal satisfaction…”
“Even the children, wives, and relatives of officials serving in the armies faced accusations by plaintiffs and were subjected to royal punishment. The royal chronicles describe that at that time, at the palace’s cleansing hall, cries and laments echoed daily, and the capital’s residents suffered widespread hardship.”
ง. In a record of a royal command from Somdet Krom Phraya Damrong Rajanubhab to Mom Ratchawong Sumnachat Sawasdikul regarding the issue “Was Khun Luang Taksin Mad?” it is written:
Issue: Various authors have written articles about Khun Luang Taksin, often claiming he was of sound mind in every respect, which contradicts historical evidence found in royal chronicles, annals, and contemporary literature. Therefore, a royal opinion was requested.
Response: The matter of Khun Luang Taksin is significant. Modern scholars are attempting to defame the Chakri dynasty by asserting that Khun Luang Taksin was not mad, thereby suggesting that King Buddha Yodfa (Rama I) was a rebel against Khun Luang Taksin. According to the chronicles of the war with Burma during the Thonburi period, we strove to be just in describing Khun Luang Taksin’s virtues thoroughly, and after full consideration, it is beyond doubt that Khun Luang Taksin was indeed mad. However, the true instigator of the rebellion was Phraya San, a native of Thonburi. King Buddha Yodfa was the one who suppressed the rebellion and found Khun Luang Taksin in such a condition that he did not know what to do. The officials, nobles, and populace agreed to execute him, and the Burmese threat was imminent. If decisive action was not taken, governance would be difficult. King Buddha Yodfa did not order Khun Luang Taksin’s death, though some fault might be found in his failure to prevent it. Anyone in King Buddha Yodfa’s position would be distressed. Had Khun Luang Taksin been mad beyond reason, King Buddha Yodfa would have pleaded for his life. Khun Luang Taksin was mad, but not dangerously so. Anyone in King Buddha Yodfa’s position would understand the difficulty of the situation. After the execution, grand cremation ceremonies were held. Khun Luang Taksin’s merits were many and detailed in the chronicles of the Burmese wars during the Thonburi era. The evidence should be carefully considered without greed or bias, so that the judgment in the chronicles remains fair.”
However, several historians and critics hold differing views, such as:
ก. Phiset Chiajantapong (1999: 3562) opined that the claims of madness were politically motivated excuses, implying the loss of royal legitimacy for King Taksin for the following reasons:
During his 15-year reign in Thonburi, King Taksin labored extensively to govern the newly restored kingdom. Born to a merchant family and initially serving as a minor border lord, he entered Ayutthaya only after the kingdom was in crisis. Thus, ascending to the throne as the monarch of the Siamese kingdom brought significant difficulties. His military successes, efforts to revive the economy—recognized by the Chinese court—and promotion of Buddhism did not suffice to fully legitimize his status as monarch of Siam…
The King likely lacked some crucial elements that traditionally upheld the institution of monarchy, such as the royal customs and ceremonies within the court. This was tangibly reflected in his residing in a small Chinese-style pavilion rather than a grand palace, and the audience hall where official affairs were conducted was a simple hall without the ornate spires symbolizing regal authority. Unlike the great capital city of Ayutthaya before, his royal presence did not display the magnificence of monarchical power.
It is possible that His Majesty placed these matters at the lowest priority in his efforts to restore the Siamese kingdom. Consequently, his behavior towards nobles and commoners deviated from that of past monarchs of Ayutthaya, despite the fact that the sacred royal images and traditions had only recently passed and remained vivid in the collective memory of the people.
Such circumstances were inevitably used as political pretexts to accuse him of mental instability, which implied the loss of royal legitimacy. Thus, King Taksin the Great ultimately lost his power and was executed in 1782 (Piset Chiajantapong, Thai Central Culture Encyclopedia, Vol. 8, Bulanloy Luean – Phleng: Phrom Phiram, District, 1999: 3562).
The Royal Regalia
(Image from the book Royal Weapons of the City)
b. Sujitra Onkhom (2000: 62) expressed the following view:
King Taksin of Thonburi was a monarch bestowed with the title “The Great King” (Maharaj), yet he was the only great king who did not possess the Benjaratchakud—the five royal regalia, which are symbols of kingship consisting of the sword, the royal staff, the crown (unisex), royal sandals, and the fan and whisk. Seen materially, it might appear that he was the most unfortunate king. However, from the perspective of Dhamma (Buddhist teachings), he was praised as a king who profoundly attained Dhamma both in theory (pariyatti) and practice (patipatti).
Especially in practice, he was skilled in both samatha (calming meditation) and vipassana (insight meditation). The historical accounts recording that he suffered from mental disturbance are, therefore, impossible.
The reason such history was recorded likely stems from political motives prioritizing the survival and safety of the nation.
C. Phakdi Siam Association (2541: 41-42) expressed the following opinion:
“Some chronicles accuse King Taksin of cruelty, madness, killing people, whipping monks, and committing various atrocities. These accusations are entirely untrue. According to the memoirs of Krom Luang Narintharathavi and the royal commentary of King Chulalongkorn (Rama V), which the National Library has published in the same volume, their accounts align perfectly and contradict the chronicles that accuse the king as described. Krom Luang Narintharathavi was the younger sister of King Buddha Yodfa Chulaloke (Rama I) and was alive to witness the events firsthand. King Chulalongkorn’s commentary was fair and impartial, without bias.
Many other severe false accusations have been made because the chroniclers mistakenly believed that the more they defamed King Taksin, the more it would benefit the Chakri dynasty. However, Chakri monarchs themselves, such as King Chulalongkorn and royals like Krom Luang Narintharathavi, expressed opinions opposite to those found in the chronicles. These documents — the memoirs of Krom Luang Narintharathavi and the royal commentary of Rama V — serve as important records that provide much justice to King Taksin.
The turmoil at the end of King Taksin’s reign was due to malicious factions, corrupt officials, and greedy opportunists who created disorder for their own gain. Ultimately, the misfortune fell on King Taksin. When Phraya San (a noble) came to arrest him, the king was fully aware of Phraya San’s intentions. Even when Phraya San invited senior royal monks to negotiate for King Taksin to surrender, King Chulalongkorn’s royal commentary states this was untrue, as King Taksin’s true character was humble but never yielded to anyone and was always impartial.
History says Phraya San rebelled in Thonburi. This was known to Chaophraya Maha Kasatsuek, who was on a campaign in Cambodia. He hurried back to Thonburi, captured Phraya San, and was then crowned the first king of the Chakri dynasty (Rama I). King Taksin was said to have been executed. Upon thorough examination, it appears that King Taksin was instead taken to safety in the southern provinces, where he died of natural causes, not execution.
In summary, King Taksin was a great heroic king whose merit the Thai people should always remember.”
D. Khajorn Sukphanich (Historical Data of Bangkok: 8) stated:
“King Mongkut (Rama IV) judged the conduct of King Taksin during the crisis period as ‘King Taksin lost his temper and thus committed wrongdoings.’ King Chulalongkorn (Rama V) personally opined about King Taksin as ‘He was passionate but not insane.’”
(Referenced by Phanradi Mahakhan, 1983: 33)
E. Phra Theppharaphon, abbot of Wat Phra Mahathat Worawihan and provincial monk leader of Nakhon Si Thammarat, Phra Raj Wisutthimuni, abbot of Wat Chaeng and director of Southern Buddhist College, deputy regional monk leader 16, Phra Kru Chitkarn Prasat, abbot of Wat Suan Pan and district monk leader of Phrom Buri, Phra Kru Phisan Phatthanakit, abbot of Wat Pradu Phatthana Ram and district monk leader of Mueang Nakhon Si Thammarat, all did not believe that King Taksin was insane. They confirmed that King Taksin was an expert in Vipassana meditation and did not believe he was executed but rather fled to Nakhon Si Thammarat and ordained as a monk on Khao Khun Phanom until his passing.
(Somporn Thepsittha, The Merit of King Taksin: Was He Insane? 1997: 5-6)
Somporn Thepsittha (1997: 6-7) stated:
“I share the belief of the monks mentioned above. It is unlikely that a great king, who restored Thai independence within seven months, would become insane, especially since he practiced meditation diligently. It is also unlikely that Chaophraya Maha Kasatsuek, a virtuous man who adhered to Buddhist principles and was a close companion and general fighting side by side, would have ordered King Taksin’s execution.
On the marble wall of the viharn at Wat Intaram, Bang Yi Ruea, Thonburi, is inscribed King Taksin’s royal decree at Phutthaisong in 1771 (B.E. 2314), stating he did not desire wealth. Whoever could rule the kingdom to bring happiness to monks, brahmins, and subjects would receive the kingdom’s wealth to pursue the ascetic path and seek enlightenment.
This royal decree shows King Taksin’s strong aspiration for enlightenment, suggesting he grew weary of kingship and believed Chaophraya Maha Kasatsuek was more suitable to rule. Hence, he feigned insanity and fled to ordain as a monk in Nakhon Si Thammarat.”
In the year of the Goat, 1775 (B.E. 2318), King Taksin revealed his nation-building plan to the Sangha authorities, setting a timeline for completion in the year of the Snake, 1785 (B.E. 2328). The Malay Peninsula would return fully to Thai control, and after stabilizing the kingdom, he would retire from royal duties to perform merit-making. However, before this plan was fulfilled, in the year of the Tiger, 1782 (B.E. 2325), on April 6, before noon, he passed away at the viharn of Wat Arun Ratchawararam. Thus, he died four years before completing his nation-building plan.
(Worasan: The Nation-Building Work of King Taksin, 1953: 79)
F. Pol. Maj. Suchart Phueksakon (2000: 2-7) did not agree with the notion that King Taksin truly suffered from insanity. He pointed out clear evidence in historical documents such as royal chronicles, letters, and foreign missionaries’ reports of that time, which describe King Taksin’s deep devotion to Buddhism and diligent practice of the Buddha’s teachings. He accumulated merit throughout his life until his final days.
“… King Taksin of Thonburi showed himself to be more than a mere patron of Buddhism—a role long reserved for the monarchy from the very outset of a reign. After the campaign against King Alaungpaya, there is clear evidence that His Majesty’s devotion to the Dhamma deepened still further. The Royal Chronicles record that, from B.E. 2319, He withdrew to practise meditation at the ubosot of Wat Bang Yi Ruea Tai…
… The psychic powers said to have arisen from His success in meditation are described in the reports of French and Danish visitors, who interpreted those marvels through the Western sensibility of their age…
… In B.E. 2322, the year in which the missionary reported these events, a Danish naturalist, Dr. Gunik, likewise noted King Taksin’s religious zeal. He wrote that the King believed, in accordance with Thai doctrine, that one day He would attain Buddhahood or Arahantship. He had mastered breathing to such refinement that He could sense every subtle movement in His abdomen… He could remain utterly still for hours in deliberate samādhi.”
Having studied and practised meditation myself, I am convinced that King Taksin, through royal faith, energy, mindfulness, concentration and wisdom, must have attained at least the first stage of insight—making Him an ariya. Only He would know if He reached the stage of Stream-Enterer or beyond.
From the moment He began the struggle to restore Siam’s independence until the end of His reign, King Taksin governed in a manner quite unlike any Ayutthayan monarch. He addressed subjects and officials—civil and military—as a father would His children, calling Himself “Father” and them “Children.” He cared deeply for the hardships of his people, whose homes and families had been shattered by the fall of Ayutthaya. He even personally distributed rice to the populace, embodying the Four Sublime States in practice. A French missionary, Palluquois, was so impressed by these royal deeds that in B.E. 2315 he recorded:
“… King Taksin did not behave like previous monarchs… He bore fatigue bravely, listened personally to every plea, endured great exertion, and displayed both courage and keen intelligence. He judged well and acted swiftly, neither fearing nor caring that coming among the people would diminish his royal authority.”
After Ayutthaya fell, not only was treasure looted by the invaders, but learned bhikkhus—scholars of the Tipiṭaka—were carried off, and many more perished in the strife; scriptures and monasteries were burned. It can be said there remained almost no pillars to support Buddhism. To revive the Sangha, King Taksin summoned whatever monks still lived in nearby regions, granted them appropriate ecclesiastical titles, and established a new system of monastic governance in Thonburi—unlike any in Ayutthaya’s past.
Because He Himself had mastered both samatha and vipassanā, King Taksin devoted part of His time to restoring the faith. In B.E. 2319, He composed a manual of advanced meditation called Lakṣaṇabūna. That same year He restored Wat Bang Yi Ruea, installed many vipassanā monks in lodgings He built, and delivered instructions to ensure correct practice. He also issued royal regulations governing only the Sangha—decrees not meant for laypeople but designed to enforce discipline among the monks. He wrote treatises on meditation methods and gave solemn instruction to the clergy. In this, He became the first Thai sovereign to serve as both religious protector and spiritual leader—a role unseen in Ayutthaya.
His reign set a model for King Rama I, who in B.E. 2325 incorporated and clarified these regulations, specifying penalties for every infraction. To test a monk’s mastery of the Tipiṭaka, King Taksin posed questions—Puñña-Vivicchana—in the fashion of King Milinda’s exchanges with Nāgasena. Any monk unable to respond accurately, or even if correct but insufficiently versed, was given stern guidance. Where progress proved impossible, He removed that monk’s rank and had him disrobe.
A later charge arose that He forced monks to bow to laymen who had attained stream-entry; but the historical record—chronicles, royal annals, and eyewitness reports—shows contradictions and inaccuracies, not clear proof of the alleged insanity.
The fact that King Taksin the Great posed the royal question:
“Can a monk pay homage to a layperson who has attained the Dhamma?”
…suggests that His Majesty may have employed Pāli terminology, denoting a person who had attained exceptional spiritual realization, such as Sotāpatti-magga, Sotāpatti-phala, or higher stages—realizations explicitly mentioned in the Buddha’s discourses.
Thus, the term used likely referred to one who had entered the noble path, beginning with the stream-enterer, and possibly progressing toward the once-returner, non-returner, or even the arahant.
Such an inquiry reveals that His Majesty did not merely seek clarification on monastic protocol, but rather touched upon a profound question within the framework of Buddhist doctrine—one that considers the supremacy of Dhamma attainment above social rank or ordained status.
Hence, the royal question of King Taksin the Great reflects his profound engagement with the Dhamma and his reverence for spiritual truth beyond conventional boundaries.
Alanko cepi sama careyya,
santo danto niyato brahmacari,
sabbesu bhūtesu nidhāya dandam,
so brahmano, so samano, bhikkhu.
Which means in Thai:
Though he be adorned in whatever garb,
if his mind is calm and composed,
steadfast, pure, and harms no living being—
he is called a Brāhmaṇa, a Recluse, or a Bhikkhu.
And
Yo ca punnan ca papan ca,
bahetva brahmacariyava,
sankhaya loke carati,
sa ve bhikkhuti vuccati.
Which means in Thai:
Whoever has abandoned both merit and sin,
and lives the supreme life of purity,
walking this world with wisdom—
he indeed is called a Bhikkhu.
This, therefore, became the reason why certain monks, who lacked sufficient depth in Pāli terminology and doctrinal understanding, gave erroneous responses when questioned. If such a monk held the rank of a royal ecclesiastic (rājakhanika), it was deemed appropriate by His Majesty to depose him from such ecclesiastical rank, for his continued position would serve no benefit to the royal directive of reviving and strengthening the Buddhist religion.
The discontent that arose from being stripped of ecclesiastical title or forcibly defrocked gave rise to the dissemination of rumors, which later found their way into historical records, stating that:
“… Phraya Taksin, who governed the realm at that time, acted under the sway of delusion and greed, failing to conduct himself in accordance with ancient custom…”
—a statement that seems most improbable for one who had deeply imbibed the essence of the Dhamma.
Moreover, during that same period, there existed a report authored by a French missionary who bore ill sentiment toward the principles of Buddhism and harbored resentment for the fact that King Taksin the Great showed no inclination toward other religions. This disappointment stemmed from the failure of the missionary’s principal objective—namely, to propagate Christianity in Siam by persuading the sovereign to embrace it as the state religion, as had once been attempted during the reign of King Narai the Great.
Frustrated by this lack of success and ultimately expelled from Thonburi by royal command for inappropriate conduct, the said missionary composed a report that deliberately distorted the facts, alleging that King Taksin had descended into madness. This falsehood served only to fan the flames of public misconception and further maligned His Majesty in ways that made such allegations seem more credible to some.
What is particularly noteworthy is that in the text Sangītiyavaṃsa, composed in 1789 (B.E. 2332) by Phra Phimontham—a senior monk who, by the end of King Taksin’s reign, had fallen out of royal favor—there is not a single mention of the King having gone mad.
“… Phra Phimontham, also known as Somdet Phra Phonrat, was one among those who held grievances against the King of Thonburi… The treatise he composed was not entirely independent, but was written to be presented to King Phutthayodfa Chulalok (Rama I). Thus, it could be said that he was a court historian.
Even in his role as a royal chronicler, and in composing Sangītiyavaṃsa as a work extolling the reign of King Rama I, Phra Phimontham did not at any point claim that the King of Thonburi suffered from mental derangement…”
Furthermore, other reliable sources, especially the Astrological Chronicles recorded during the reign, make no mention—either explicitly or by implication—that His Majesty King Taksin the Great ever suffered mental derangement in any form. On the contrary, the Mon Chronicle provides a detailed account stating that His Majesty continued to perform royal duties in full capacity until the tenth and eleventh lunar months of the year 1781 (B.E. 2324), as follows:
“… In the Chulasakarat year 1143, the King of Bangkok made meritorious offerings beginning half a month into the Rains Retreat. Robes numbering 433 sets and over 7,000 sabongs were sewn. The monks themselves sewed and made merit along with the King. These were then bestowed upon princes and nobles. The Royal Kathin was offered throughout Ayutthaya without a single place being left out. In the tenth and eleventh lunar months, the King granted money to the poor and to civil and military officials in great number…”
A historical document known as the Campaign Daily Record during His Majesty’s expedition against Phutthaimat likewise records the royal utterances of King Taksin the Great, which serve to affirm his unwavering heart and devotion to the Buddha Sasana as the supreme objective beyond all else, as follows:
“… It is the truth of my person that I exert myself in earnest effort, never once considering my own body or life. This time, I do not seek riches or treasure, but desire only that monks, ascetics, and all living beings live in peace without oppression, and that they remain steadfast in the practice of Dhamma, which shall serve as the foundation for Bodhinana alone. If any person should be capable of holding the throne in such a manner as to ensure the happiness of monks, Brahmins, and the populace, I shall bestow the entire realm upon that person. As for myself, I shall go forth and pursue ascetic discipline alone. If not, should anyone wish for my head or my very heart, that too shall be granted to them…”
“His Majesty King Taksin the Great followed the footsteps of the Blessed One, the Sammāsambuddha, throughout his lifetime. He was possessed of purity , wisdom, and compassion —qualities that characterize an Ariya-puggala (Noble One) in the Buddha’s dispensation. To pay reverence to His Majesty, on any day or at any hour, shall assuredly bring auspiciousness to those who do so in earnest.”
Nevertheless, Nithi Eawsriwong (1997: pp. 160–165) opines that the available evidence remains insufficient to reach a definitive conclusion as to whether King Taksin was truly afflicted with madness, offering the following critique:
Was the delusion of perception true or false?
In reviewing the totality of the evidence, there exists only one Thai source (or a related cluster of sources) that makes mention of the King of Thonburi having descended into madness—namely, the Royal Chronicles, which allege that His Majesty “lost his reason and became deranged”.
This is indeed a matter of considerable astonishment, for no other contemporary Thai sources mention such a thing whatsoever. In addition, there exists only one foreign account—the letter of Des Courvières—which describes the King as being “of erratic mind.” These two pieces of evidence are not without weakness, and any serious student of history must approach them with caution, both in terms of their meaning and their nature as politically motivated documents. I do not wish to make a definitive conclusion that the accusation of madness against King Taksin is entirely baseless, nor do I wish to assert that the evidence claiming His Majesty’s derangement is entirely credible and beyond dispute. Given the limited sources presently available, no conclusion—one way or the other—can be made with finality.
What these documents do reveal is only this: toward the latter part of the reign, King Taksin pursued fiscal and taxation policies that caused discontent among certain segments of the populace. These may have been the very people who desired to seize the throne—whether driven by dissatisfaction with such policies, or already harboring such ambitions and simply awaiting an opportunity (the records are not conclusive on this point). They seized upon the King’s changed behavior, which diverged from the early years of the reign, to argue that these new policies were causing distress to both the monastic community and the civil populace alike.
It is possible that these individuals propagated the claim that King Taksin had become insane. This propaganda may have been grounded in truth, or it may have been politically motivated, intended to undermine public reverence for His Majesty. Their partisans, such as Nai Pheng, who commanded levied troops outside Saraburi; Nai Bunnak, headman of the village Maela near old Ayutthaya; and Khun Kaew, brother of Phraya San—all initiated rebellion beforehand.
This led to the uprising in Thonburi at the close of the year 1781 (B.E. 2324). The governor of Nakhon Ratchasima, Phraya Suriyaphai, who had already prepared for this plan, promptly led his army down to Thonburi to take preemptive control of the situation. The nobility became divided into two factions—those who remained loyal to King Taksin and those who sought to usurp the throne. The faction that sought the succession ultimately triumphed in battle and thereby concluded the reign and historical narrative of King Taksin—both in actual events and in the Royal Chronicles.
Madness, in its clinical sense, is a condition of psychiatric pathology—and at this point, it is far too late for any physician to examine the mental state of His Majesty King Taksin. However, in the vernacular understanding, any conduct that diverges from prior convention may be labeled as insanity. It is likely that King Taksin did something deviating from what had previously been customary, leading some to genuinely believe, or to convince others, that His Majesty had indeed “lost His mind and become deranged.”
Yet, there were still many among those closest to His Majesty who did not share such belief, and thus remained steadfastly loyal to Him. At the very least, over a hundred officials were eliminated in the overthrow of His throne. According to the Bradley edition of the Royal Chronicles, King Rama I “then gave orders for those thirty-nine officials to be put to death.” As for the Front Palace, he “dispatched the police to seize all officials who had once shown resentment or displeasure toward His Majesty, and had them all, numbering more than eighty, executed.”
This cleansing of the realm coincides with another primary source titled “Deliberation on the Appointment of Officials in the Reign of His Majesty King Rama I,” in which nearly a hundred new officials were appointed to various posts. This indicates that those previously occupying such offices were likely executed. These hundred or so individuals would certainly not have surrendered their lives to one whom they believed to be mad. Their attitude toward King Taksin—who, even when under the custody of Phraya San, still maintained enough lucidity to say, “My merit is spent; do not trouble the common folk,” and who understood Phraya San’s intentions clearly enough to exclaim, when the monastic elders urged him to take ordination, “Here comes the monk seeking alms”—suggests that King Taksin retained full mental clarity, like any ordinary man.
When this matter is viewed in the context of events near the end of the reign, the question of insanity thus emerges as merely a “matter of opinion,” both for people of that time and of the present. That is, one group held the “opinion” (whether sincerely or not) that His Majesty had lost His mind; another group held the “opinion” (likewise, whether sincerely or not) that His faculties remained intact.
Under present-day terms, the question of King Taksin’s sanity is intertwined with the succession to the throne by King Rama I. The subtext often implied when considering this matter is: if King Taksin had not truly become deranged, then King Rama I had in fact usurped the throne from him.
It is remarkable that King Rama I himself—and the early Thai leadership of the Rattanakosin period, at least up to the reign of King Rama III—did not even attempt to conceal that Chao Phraya Chakri had seized the throne from King Taksin. In that period, the deposed monarch was referred to by various names such as “Khun Luang Taksin,” “Yi Ta Tak,” “The Former Lord,” and “Phraya Tak” (but never, in any known source from the First Reign, referred to as His Majesty the King in the Royal Reliquary). These disparaging epithets reveal that King Rama I and other early Rattanakosin leaders deemed it justifiable for Chao Phraya Chakri to have taken the throne from King Taksin.
King Phutthayotfa Chulalok (Rama I) harbored no hesitation in describing his own accession to the throne as a “Prapatson Phisek” (royal enthronement through subjugation), as clearly stated in royal correspondence dispatched to China during his reign. Phra Phimontham, the official court historian of His Majesty, recorded unequivocally that both Chao Phraya Chakri and Chao Phraya Surasi had long harbored aspirations to liberate all beings from suffering, and that since the reign of King Taksin of Thonburi, they had gathered power and men, yet “restrained themselves for lack of opportunity.” The dissatisfaction of the populace toward King Taksin in the final years of his reign provided them with “the moment to suppress those who clung to falsehood and adharma.”
The seizure of the throne was one of the core mechanisms perpetually present in the political system of old Siam. Like other such mechanisms, it functioned to sustain and preserve that system. The act of usurpation served as a form of natural selection among the elite class—selecting one who was strong, capable, and supported by powerful cliques to inherit sovereign power. In a polity where the monarch wielded absolute legislative authority and served as the supreme judge, as was historically the case in Thailand, failed policy, unjust laws, oppressive taxation, and administrative collapse could scarcely be corrected unless the monarch died or his lineage was removed from power. In such context, the seizure of the throne served as a means of governmental correction.
Behind every usurpation lay negotiations of interest, promises of a better order, and reformative adaptation to confront the realm’s woes. In any political system, adaptability is essential—and all systems develop mechanisms to accommodate it. In the Siamese context, royal usurpation functioned as such a mechanism—an unavoidable instrument of political recalibration.
Naturally, to evaluate King Taksin’s alleged insanity through the lens of modern psychiatry lies beyond the capacity of the historian. Nor would it yield any further insight into a historical epoch. Yet, the symptoms of madness described in certain sources did not emerge from a vacuum. Rather, they appeared amidst a particular political, social, and economic milieu unique to that era.
Answering whether it was “yes” or “no” in this case leads to a deeper understanding of the political, social, economic, and cultural conditions of the time. Historians are not preoccupied with insanity as a clinical condition, but rather with the political insanity of rulers—as interpreted within their specific political context. To understand the peculiar environment surrounding such claims of insanity, one must undertake a rigorous examination of historical evidence, not speculation or reasoning unsupported by sources.
And thus, the writing of history must begin with simple, direct, unpretentious questions such as: Did King Taksin truly go mad?
Such is the case that the answer to this question may give rise to other, deeper and broader questions. The question itself is a legitimate one for historians to ask. At the very least, no one can deny that it is among the most frequently posed questions by the general public in Thai history. If history as a discipline remains a part of society, it must be able to satisfy the curiosity of the people—this being a fundamental basis of the historical study itself.
Any question that proves useful for historical inquiry should be judged by academic standards. A useful question is one that leads to a more profound and comprehensive understanding of a particular era, individual, institution, or movement—matters significant to history itself—not by contemporary political standards or the personal distastes of certain individuals.
Is it truly so that the “crazed or sane” state of a monarch, whether true or fabricated by political enemies to defame King Taksin of Thonburi, inevitably leads to a successful usurpation? If so, why have no such accusations been leveled at other kings who were deposed? The charge of “crazed or sane” (whether true or false) would only serve political advantage under a very specific circumstance—that of King Taksin’s reign alone.
According to accounts from some princes of the Chakri dynasty, the officials who dared speak thus were men of steadfast truthfulness. These men knew well that speaking out meant death, yet fearing not death, they spoke nonetheless. Ultimately, all were arrested and executed (estimated at over thirty persons).
( http://board.dserver.org/n/natshen/00000133.html , 21/11/2545)
When the day came for King Taksin’s execution, his guards and executioners bound him with fetters and took him by boat to be put to death at Wat Bang Yi Ruea (Wat Intaram). His remains were kept at that temple. (Thuan Boonyaniyom, 1970: 138-202)
16.3 Why then was King Taksin executed?
The execution of King Taksin is discussed from various perspectives. “Phaya Anuchit” wrote in the book King Taksin that “The fact that Somdet Chao Phraya Maha Kasat Suek (Thongduang) had to execute King Taksin was not due to any personal quarrel. It was because King Taksin, as the sovereign, caused suffering and hardship throughout the religion, the nation, and the people. When a ruler brings such distress to the country, it becomes necessary to overthrow him to prevent further harm. Thus, Somdet Chao Phraya Maha Kasat Suek had to depose King Taksin to end the suffering and to support Buddhism, so that the country could prosper even more. We have enjoyed peace under his (Somdet Chao Phraya Maha Kasat Suek’s) reign up to the present, as evidenced by the progress we see today.”
Luang Wichitwathakan commented on the execution of King Taksin, stating, “The reason Somdet Chao Phraya Maha Kasat Suek ordered the execution of King Taksin was that the officials, courtiers, and royal advisors collectively agreed that the execution was necessary because King Taksin had committed serious offenses.”
Somdet Phra Borom Wong Ther Krom Phraya Damrong Rajanuphap offered his commentary on this matter: “As a member of the Chakri royal family, I am not in a position to express any opinion regarding Somdet Chao Phraya Maha Kasat Suek’s order to execute King Taksin.”
Phra Worawong Thoe Phra Ong Chao Chulachakrabongse wrote in Chao Chiwit (1971: 133-135) as follows:
“According to the chronicles, King Taksin surrendered peacefully and only requested to be ordained as a monk… Even if he were allowed to become a monk, there was no guarantee that matters would proceed smoothly afterward, because monks in Buddhism may disrobe at any time… If he were exiled, there would be no guarantee of improvement either… When the new king consulted with his ministers, all unanimously advised that it was necessary to execute King Taksin.
There is a story that when King Taksin was carried on a palanquin to the execution site, he requested a chance to bid farewell to Chao Phraya Chakri (who at that time had already been granted the title Somdet Chao Phraya Maha Kasat Suek—the author’s note). The king’s top general was present for the last time. Chao Phraya Chakri stood not far away and could see him. When someone reported that King Taksin wished to see him, Chao Phraya Chakri’s eyes filled with tears; he was deeply moved and speechless, only waving his hand. Then King Taksin was taken to be executed.
Later, early in the reign of the Chakri dynasty, when King Rama I learned of this, he ordered that King Taksin’s royal remains be exhumed and given a royal cremation befitting his status. Both King Rama I and his younger brother (formerly Somdet Chao Phraya Surasi) attended the cremation of the man who had once been their military commander.”
Woramai Kabilsingh (1997: 65, 83-180) discussed the cause of the dynastic change as rooted in debt problems caused by addressing the poverty and livelihoods of the people, as well as military issues related to procurement of weapons and supplies—heavy royal burdens that King Taksin had continually tried to resolve throughout his reign.
Economic problems and military arms procurement were urgent issues since the beginning of King Taksin’s reign.
King Taksin had the following royal intentions to solve the problems that arose:
To find money to repay debts borrowed from the Chinese for purchasing weapons, clothing, and food, by ordering officials of the Maritime Department to arrange goods to be loaded onto ships for sale. The proceeds from these sales would be used to pay off the debt, deducting the borrowed amount plus interest.
He ordered nobles to speed up tax collection.
He sent another group to the old capital (Ayutthaya) to dig up valuables that had been buried when the city fell but whose locations were forgotten, so these could be used to repay the borrowed debts (from the Chinese). (Woramai Kabilsingh, 1997: 113)
Additionally, he received money as offerings as follows:
His old Chinese soldiers collected money from relatives and merchants amounting to ten thousand tamlueng.
His mother and siblings dug up gold and money that had been buried in jars before the fall of the capital and gave them to him.
Before fleeing Ayutthaya through the Burmese siege, his sister Khun Prayong disguised herself as a man along with his brother (Jian Si), pretending to bring snacks and fruits from the garden to care for him, but in reality, they brought money, gold bars, and silver bars, which were his inherited shares from his father (Nai A-korn Bon Bia or Khun Phat).
His younger brothers (Khun Jian Si and Khun Jian Jin) brought profits from trade to offer him whenever they visited.
His relatives sent goods to be sold in Chanthaburi and nearby towns by junk ships, receiving financial support between five thousand and ten thousand tamlueng. The ships traded for about seven days before returning, likely buying rice from Vietnamese merchants on the way back. (Woramai Kabilsingh, 1997: 20, 39, 65, 78, 80-81)
Regarding debts to the Chinese and repayment, most of the borrowing came from the shortage and poor condition of weapons. Chieng Siam, an official in the Maritime Department familiar with junks and military officers in Beijing, having traveled there several times, volunteered to borrow sixty thousand tamlueng from merchants and officials in Beijing to buy swords, steel for sword-making, and other weapons. (Woramai Kabilsingh, 1997: 81-82) King Taksin was to write letters requesting the loans from China, but his brother Jian Jin actually wrote and signed on King Taksin’s behalf to preserve the king’s dignity.
It is well known that China lent King Taksin of Thonburi an enormous amount of wealth (sixty thousand tamlueng) to support the rebuilding of the Thai nation after he restored its independence.
The great cooperation and generosity shown by China was well understood by both China itself and the highly wise King Taksin. However, King Taksin firmly believed that he could resolve the situation for the benefit of Thailand. Therefore, he accepted China’s cooperation wholeheartedly, which enabled him to restore and rebuild everything so that Thailand could regain its sovereignty impressively according to the capacity at that time. (“King Taksin the Great and the Chakri Dynasty,” Silpakorn Wattanatham, Vol. 8, No. 2, December 1986: pages 68-71)
Later, when Chinese official Kung Siam realized that the letters were actually fabricated by King Taksin’s brother, Jian Jin, he sent three letters regarding money matters. The last two letters demanded interest payment urgently, stating that if the money was not paid quickly, China would either demand a princess from the King of Beijing as a bride, or ask Thailand to become a vassal state under Beijing, or else send troops to seize the land. The letters openly mentioned that the kingdom had been mortgaged to China as collateral. (Woramai Kabilsingh, 1997: 104)
Thus, the plan for China to use military force to take control of Thailand, masked as a debt collection, began. One should deeply understand King Taksin’s royal mind in this situation. Thailand was still battered from the war to regain independence that had just ended, and having to fight another war against China at that time would have been unbearably frustrating for the King. He surely understood well that there was no way to lead Thailand to victory against the large Chinese army.
It is possible that before the ultimatums forcing immediate repayment were issued, there had been attempts to persuade the King to agree that China was more important than Thailand. They wanted him to accept China’s supremacy and make Thailand a vassal state under China.
King Taksin, however, could never accept this. He regarded himself as Thai, having been born in Thailand to a Thai mother. He loved Thailand more than his own life (Woramai Kabilsingh, 1997: 114). Beyond his great compassion for Thailand, he had the indomitable spirit of a Thai ruler—his royal dignity and honor lay with being a Thai sovereign, not a Chinese one. Therefore, he never wavered nor bowed to China. He had a firm and resolute royal heart, believing he was the King of Thailand and had the duty to protect and preserve the Thai nation forever. No other reason, not even death, could destroy his steadfastness. (“King Taksin the Great of Thonburi and the Chakri Dynasty,” 1986: 69)
Regarding the debt, King Taksin devised a plan to make the Chinese, who wanted to seize the kingdom, lose faith and give up. There was only one way—to pretend to lose his mind or to die, so that the debt problem would vanish. In truth, the debt of sixty thousand tamlueng was not very large, and if given enough time, it could have been repaid.
The content you provided recounts the difficult situation faced by King Taksin the Great. He was pressured both by the persistent demands of Chinese creditors and repeated Burmese invasions, which threatened the stability of the kingdom. Allowing a conflict between the Chinese and Burmese armies to erupt within Thai territory would only bring further devastation to the Thai people. King Taksin consulted privately with Somdet Chaophraya Maha Kasatsuek—later known as King Rama I—and only his sister Khun Prayong was privy to this matter.
Ultimately, King Taksin decided to relinquish the throne to a more capable person in order to save the nation. He expressed his hope and assurance that the one he had empowered above all others would be able to restore and stabilize the country. He advised that he himself should retreat and ordain as a monk, gaining spiritual merit while letting the people lose faith in him for the greater good.
Somdet Chaophraya Maha Kasatsuek, the future King Rama I of the Chakri dynasty, was the sole figure King Taksin trusted to take over the responsibility of rescuing the kingdom.
This profound and selfless royal strategy by these two founding monarchs secured the sovereignty of the Thai nation enduringly. King Taksin showed unwavering resolve even to the point of sacrificing his own life. King Rama I demonstrated firm determination, sacrificing his own prestige and honor, as history records his royal command to execute King Taksin, his once cherished comrade and great benefactor.
This subtle and profound royal policy outwitted the Chinese, who had planned to invade Thailand under the pretense of debt collection. The plan collapsed instantly when news spread that King Taksin, the principal debtor to China, had been sentenced to death.
After King Taksin ordained and resided at Khao Khun Phanom, his brothers—Khun Jian Si and Khun Jian Jin—assumed responsibility for repaying the debts by trading goods and making monthly payments until the debts were fully settled.
16.4 Was King Taksin the Great executed as stated in the royal chronicles, or was it merely a deception to suggest he was executed?
a. Regarding the execution of King Taksin the Great as stated in the chronicles, foreign missionary records from that time, who sought refuge under the king’s protection, also noted that he was indeed executed.
b. By what method was the execution carried out? According to the Palace Law, if the condemned was a monarch, the execution was to be performed by striking with a sandalwood club so that the royal blood would not fall upon the earth. For officials or commoners, beheading was most common, though other methods could be decided by the jury court. There were some Ayutthaya monarchs who were beheaded, such as Khun Worawongsa Thiraj and Thao Srisudachan. However, Prince Chulchakraphong, in his works Chaowit (1971: 24) and Thanakit (2000: 174), recorded that King Taksin was executed by the royal method—that is, struck with a sandalwood club—according to the Palace Law of King Boromtrilokkanat established in 1450 BE (1993 CE), after which his body was buried.
An imagined depiction illustrating
the execution ceremony of a monarch
Execution by sandalwood club, imagined based on the Manthiraban rules, by Theeraphan Saipiboon
(image from the book Ayutthaya)
It appears that there are confirmations regarding the execution of King Taksin, stating that he was beheaded. “The last monarch was King Thonburi, who was ordered to be executed by the then regent of the kingdom.” (Pramin Krueathong, 2002: 82, 88)
The book Krung Taek Phra Chao Taksin by Nithi Eawsriwong, after researching multiple chronicles, concluded that “…from all this evidence, it is more convincing that King Taksin was executed by beheading like a commoner rather than as a monarch. This is because those who seized power did not regard him as equal to a king, at least not during the first two or three years of King Rama I’s reign.”
(http://pantip.inet.co.th/caf?/library/topic/k1578551/k157855.html, 27/6/45)
The detailed account from the Royal Chronicle, the Royal Letter Edition, states:
“…King Thonburi was executed by the then regent of the kingdom, who later became King Phra Buddha Yodfa Chulaloke (Rama I). The order was given to execute him. The executioner and guards carried him on a stretcher with shackles. King Taksin said, ‘My fate has ended; I am about to die. Please take me to see the regent; I wish to speak a few words.’ The guards brought him in, but upon seeing him, the regent waved his hand not to allow the meeting. The guards and executioner then carried him out of the palace and executed him by beheading at the front of Vichaiprasit Fortress.”
(Royal Chronicle, Royal Letter Edition, Vol. 2, 1973: 451)
Regarding the place of execution, sources differ:
Thuan Boonyaniyom (1974: 203) wrote, “The guards and executioner headed the boat to Bang Yi Ruea Temple (Wat Intaram), where the execution took place. The royal remains were left there.”
Phanradi Mahakhun (1983: 35) and Na Paknam (1993: 58) wrote, “King Taksin was sentenced to death at the rear city fortress (Vichaiprasit Fortress).”
Records from Western missionaries who sought refuge during that time agree that he was executed in front of Vichaiprasit Fortress.
Slightly different information says:
“King Taksin was executed on that day (April 6, 1782, before noon) at the pavilion in Wat Chaeng (Wat Arun).”
(N.P.R., 1953: 79)
Counting from the day he entered monkhood until the day he was executed totals 28 days. The astrologers recorded the event as ‘death’, not ‘passing away’ or ‘royal demise,’ to emphasize that he was executed even while being a monk. Thus, the term ‘death’ was used to show it was not a royal death by natural cause. In fact, he remained a monk until his death.
After the execution was completed, the royal remains were taken to be buried at Wat Intaram, Bang Yi Ruea, near Talat Phlu and Khlong Bang Luang (at that time still called Wat Bang Yi Ruea). The bodies of loyal officials, such as Chaophraya Nakhon Ratchasima (Boonkhong, ancestor of the Kanchanakorn family), Phaya Sankhaburi (ancestor of the Paeng Sapa family), Phaya Ramanyawong (ancestor of the Sriphen family), and Phaya Phichai Dap Hak (Thongdee, ancestor of the Wichai Khatka and Phichai family), numbering more than fifty, were also buried in rows near King Taksin’s tomb.
(Silpa Wattanatham Magazine, Vol. 3, No. 2, December 1981, cited at http://board.dserver.org/n/natshen/00000133.html, 21/11/45)
Regarding the date of his passing and his age:
Astrological chronicles record the death of King Thonburi as the 13th waning day of the 5th lunar month (Chronicles Compilation, Vol. 8). This was four days after Chaophraya Chakri returned to Thonburi. According to the Royal Chronicle (Thonburi Chronicle, Panjanthanu-mat edition), if the return date was April 6, 1782, then the death date would be April 10, 1782. He died at the age of 48 years and 15 days.
A French missionary’s account, written approximately nine months after the event based on rumors, states that King Thonburi died on April 7, 1782 (Missionary Chronicle, Chronicles Compilation, Vol. 39).
(http://board.dserver.org/n/natshen/00000133.html, 21/11/45)Thai records state that King Thonburi died on April 6, 1782. It is noted that:
“…when the army of Phaya Chakri arrived at Thonburi in the morning (April 6), his followers prepared a welcome and proceeded from the east bank to the west bank, settling at the Jury Hall, where the senior officials and nobles assembled. In that assembly, they discussed the punishment for King Thonburi…”
(Chronicles Compilation, Vol. 26, Thonburi Chronicle, Panjanthanu-mat edition, and the Royal Chronicle of Thonburi, the reign of King Rama IV, Ministry of Religious Affairs)
“…there was an order to execute him. The executioner and guards dragged him on a stretcher, shackled, and upon reaching the front of Vichaiprasit Fortress, he was beheaded and died. The order was given to bury the body at Wat Bang Yi Ruea Tai.”
(Chronicle of the Kingdom of Siam, Doctor Bradlay Press)
(http://board.dserver.org/n/natshen/00000133.html, 21/11/45)
On Saturday, the 9th waning day of the 5th lunar month, Chulasakarat year 1144, year of the Tiger, corresponding to April 6, 1782, King Taksin was aged 48 years, having reigned for 15 years (Commemorative book for the opening ceremony of King Taksin’s monument in Chanthaburi Province, 1981: 43). However, Police Major General Suchart Phueksakon wrote that the reign lasted 14 years and 4 months (http://www.tongzwb.com, 28/11/44).
Sathiwan Supasopon (1974: 203) recorded that
King Thonburi (King Taksin the Great) was 48 years old at the time of his passing. He was the only monarch of the Thai nation who ruled over a capital city he himself established, with a reign lasting only 15 years. He was the sole monarch whose life ended with the dissolution of the capital city. He was the only monarch in the Thonburi dynasty. The life of King Taksin the Great ended abruptly because fate had ordained it so. Destiny or divine will had set the course of his life only to that point. It was the destined end in the cycle of life, which is impermanent.
“… The karmic reason of beings—like a land growing hot—the people like fruits, when the root of the land was cool with the royal grace, nourishing the soil so the fruit could mature. At the end of the land, the heat surrounded the roots, causing the fall, covering the land with the absence of royal grace, and only that …” (Memoirs of Krom Luang Narindradevi, p.16)
The remaining royal family who helped restore the nation, if they were princes of mature age, were executed. Only the young princes and princesses were spared but stripped of their royal titles and called commoners (Mom) equally. Even the queen and royal consorts had their titles revoked, a practice never done before. Still, the royal lineage has continued unbroken to the present day (see “Thai Must Remember” and the ancient genealogies, Vol. 4, Department of Fine Arts, 2nd edition).
Meanwhile, Chaophraya Inthawongsa, the Chief of the Armed Forces, who had established a command post near Thalang, upon learning of King Taksin’s execution, committed suicide, unwilling to serve another lord or seek power for himself, in the midst of the distress of the Thai people.
After the news of King Taksin the Great’s execution spread, the important western cities of Tanaw Sri and Mergui slipped away from Siam and fell to Burma that same year. Regarding relations with the Vietnamese under secret treaties, Siam had to continue aiding the Vietnamese twice in fighting against the Lao or Hue dynasty (called Tai Thieng) and provided countless military supplies. Ultimately, when the Vietnamese successfully established the Nguyen dynasty and grew powerful, Siam lost the city of Phuthaimat to them and suffered many further losses in influence thereafter (see Chronicles translated by Nai Yong, Vol. 2, pp. 394, 419, and “Thai Must Remember,” 2nd edition, p. 113) (Silpa Wattanatham magazine, Vol. 3, No. 2, December 1981, cited by http://board.dsever.org/n/natshen/00000133.html, 21/11/45).
16.4 Or was the execution of King Taksin the Great merely a ruse?
Later on, some believed that King Taksin the Great did not die by execution. Several authors have argued that King Taksin was not executed by order of Somdet Chaophraya Maha Kasatsuek (Rama I of the Rattanakosin era) and was not executed in Thonburi. These include:
Jullada Phakdipumin, in Sakun Thai, Vol. 48, 2542 (July 23, 1999: pages 66-69)
Major General Luang Wijitwathakan, from “Who Killed the King of Thon” (2544: pages 305, 334, 358-361)
Woramai Kabilsingh, from “Who Killed King Taksin?” (2540: pages 129, 138-140, 142-143, 149-154, 181-184)
Silpa Wattanatham magazine, Vol. 8 No. 2, December 2529, “King Taksin the Great of Thonburi and the Chakri Dynasty,” author not specified (pages 66-75)
Mr. Marvell, from the story “Naga King’s Daughter”
Opinions of Professor Wichian Na Nakorn
Opinions of a monk from Nakhon Si Thammarat province, cited by Mr. Somporn Thepsittha (2540: pages 49-63)
Details include:
Jullada Phakdipumin (2545: 66, 69) wrote that according to royal chronicles and Western records, it is recorded that the king was executed. However, there are reasons to believe that His Majesty may have fled before the night of execution (April 7, 1782) and was not actually executed on that night.
However, since this reasoning lacks clear proof, the author of “Bunbun” chose not to portray it as a definitive image for readers, but rather presented it as a narration by characters—actual historical figures with descendants continuing to this day—such as Phra Phong Narin (Prince Thasphong or Thatsaphong), Thao Song Kandarn (Thong Mon), and Chao Chom Mad Tim (the consort of Prince Amphawan or Khun Wan). For example, the event of the king’s execution late at night is recounted by Phra Phong Narin—who, according to the memoirs of Krom Luang Narintaree, was then 11 years old and alone inside the ordination hall with his father—relaying it to his wet nurse, Krom Luang Brijasudarak or Chao Chom Mad Chim. The characters only hint at the event and never openly discuss it, such as when Phraya Phatthalung met Phraya Nonthaburi later on.
The persistent doubt emphasized by the characters is that King Rama I (Phra Buddha Yodfa Chulalok Maha Rat) did not permit the execution of King Taksin’s royal offspring. Though King Taksin reigned only 15 years, his children were still young. Even though Krom Phra Ratchawang Bowon Mahasurasinghanat requested to have them drowned in the river according to tradition, this did not happen. Normally, if a king was executed, his children were also killed to prevent future revenge. Yet, not only were they spared, but King Rama I raised some of them closely as his own. Two princesses later married princes of the Chakri royal family—Princess Samliwan and Princess Panjapapi. Many grandchildren of King Taksin remained close to the Chakri dynasty, serving as ladies-in-waiting or royal wet nurses.
Some historians speculate that the execution of King Taksin to change the dynasty may have been a ruse. After King Taksin successfully restored the nation and established Thonburi as the capital, it is said he borrowed money from Chinese merchants or that China supported the country by providing resources and feeding starving people. In short, lacking funds, the debt was “written off” by changing the monarch.
This remains speculation, but what is striking is found in the book on Thai-Chinese relations by Likit Huntakun (permission granted here to cite), which records Siamese history mainly from Chinese sources—from King Ramkhamhaeng the Great to King Mongkut of the Rattanakosin era (1825–1853 BE). Regarding the Thonburi and early Rattanakosin periods, it states: “Siam during the Thonburi period had only one king—King of Thonburi.”
In Chinese historical records, it is written as “Taejiao,” with a notable annotation:
Mr. Marvell, a writer from Oxford University and author of Naga King’s Daughter related to Nakhon Si Thammarat, hypothesized that King Taksin passed away in Nakhon Si Thammarat and that his ashes were interred together with those of Phra Ya Nakhon (Noi). The records also state that during the Rattanakosin period following Thonburi, “Siam had only one king during the Thonburi period,” referring to King Rama I, Phra Buddha Yodfa Chulalok, in 1782 AD. It mentions that King Cheng Qianlang ruled for 47 years and that Taejiao (the younger brother of Taehua, i.e., Phra Buddha Yodfa Chulalok) was crowned king of Siam and sent royal envoys to establish diplomatic relations for the first time. However, the older generations of Nakhon Si Thammarat, even up to their grandparents, believed that King Taksin was not executed but instead took monastic vows at Wat Khao Khun Phanom in Nakhon Si Thammarat and died there.
16.4.2 Opinion of Luang Wijitwathakan (2001: 297–361)
Luang Wijitwathakan wrote in Who Killed the King of Thonburi that “The important point is that King Taksin was not executed by the order of Somdet Chao Phraya Maha Kasatsuek (King Rama I). He was not executed at Thonburi (at Wichai Prasit Fortress) nor on April 5, 1782, as commonly believed in history. Instead, one of King Taksin’s aides was executed in his place, and King Taksin was secretly hidden elsewhere for nearly three years until his death due to mistreatment.”
The substitute who died was Luang Asa Suek (also called Nai Boonkong), who resembled King Taksin in appearance. He served closely with King Taksin at Wat Phichai camp, fought alongside him at Pho Sanghan, Ban Pranok, and Dong Sri Maha Bodhi, and was the mahout of the war elephant Phan Khiri Banchorn during the siege of Chanthaburi. Nai Boonkong, or Luang Asa Suek, volunteered to take the king’s place by becoming a monk and entering the ordination hall at Wat Chaeng (Wat Arun). He was judged guilty and taken for execution by beheading in front of Wichai Prasit Fortress, with his body buried at Wat Bang Yi Ruea Tai, on April 5, 1782.
Where did King Taksin go?
Four men came to invite him (without revealing that they intended to take him away secretly), claiming he was being transferred to another temple. The state officials were to accompany him. King Taksin, as a monk, consented and boarded a small boat rowed by four men, then transferred to a large junk at Phra Pradaeng. Chao Phat then took him to reside in Nakhon Si Thammarat for two years, during which he remained a monk and practiced Vipassana meditation diligently.
The Passing Away
Later, the monk formerly known as King Taksin requested to reside in a cave in Phetchaburi, guarded by two attendants. Despite attempts to keep his relocation secret, news leaked. One day during the daytime, while he was practicing Vipassana meditation inside the cave, he was struck on the back of the head, fell forward, and passed away. The two attendants disappeared and were never found. The body of the monk, formerly King Taksin, was secretly brought into Thonburi to Wat Bang Yi Ruea Tai. The body of Luang Asa Suk was removed and reburied elsewhere, and the real body of the monk who was King Taksin was interred in his place (1991: 359).
Luang Wichitwathakan wrote about the possibility of someone dying in place of King Taksin, suggesting it might be true. He reasoned, “Considering the surrounding motives, it is quite believable. The story of a look-alike dying in one’s place is not unusual. Even in ancient times, such cases were common. For instance, Hitler had four doubles dressed with similar mustaches to deceive people, making them believe he was present” (1991: 9).
Wormai Kabinsingh (1997: 124–184) narrated in the book Who Killed King Taksin? that Phaya Suriyaphai forced King Taksin to leave the monkhood and be imprisoned, sentencing him to death. However, Khun Mun, a loyal relative of similar age and appearance, who was not a soldier but a rice mill worker, volunteered to die in his place. Khun Mun’s sacrifice allowed others to believe King Taksin had been executed. Khun Mun was dressed in old merchant clothes prepared by King Taksin’s sister, Khun Prayong, and was executed to convince those who wished to colonize Thailand under Chinese rule that the king was truly dead (1997: 141–143).
Afterward, King Taksin entered monkhood again at Khao Khun Phanom with a small entourage, including soldiers and relatives. He studied and practiced Dharma diligently for four years until he fell ill and passed away peacefully at age 52. His cremation was conducted quietly, and his ashes were initially interred in a small pagoda beside the ordination hall. Upon hearing the news in Bangkok, nobles transferred part of his ashes to a pagoda at Wat Bang Yi Ruea Tai in Thonburi (1997: 148–184).
In summary, King Taksin lived incognito as a monk at Khao Khun Phanom for four years before his passing at age 52. He was revered as a jewel of Thailand for restoring the nation without seeking personal reward, relinquishing the throne for the people’s happiness and national sovereignty (1997: 148–184).
According to the journal Silpa Watthanatham (Vol. 8, No. 2, December 1986: 66–75), a prisoner died in place of King Taksin by execution with a sandalwood cudgel, a punishment reserved for kings. News spread to China that a monk living strictly by precepts in Nakhon Si Thammarat was indeed King Taksin, who had just left monkhood.
Passing Away
Around the same time, King Taksin was last seen in the forests of Tak province, which he loved dearly. Later reports confirmed he passed away there. The turmoil in China ceased decisively, and after centuries, no surviving debtors or witnesses remain.
Mr. Marvell, a writer from Oxford University and author of Naga King’s Daughter concerning Nakhon Si Thammarat, hypothesized that “King Taksin passed away in Nakhon Si Thammarat and was interred alongside the ashes of Phaya Nakhon (Noi)” (Chulaladda Phakdipumin, 2002, “The Execution of King Taksin,” http://www.sakulthai.com/…, 5 February 2003).
16.4.6 The Viewpoint of Professor Wichian Na Nakorn (Historian)
In the archaeological travel document about southern Thailand by Professor Mom Chao Suphatdis Diskul, concerning Wat Khao Khun Phanom in Ban Ko Subdistrict, Phrom Khiri District, Nakhon Si Thammarat Province, it is mentioned that some believe King Taksin the Great resided here during the rainy season as a monk and passed away at this location.
Professor Wichian Na Nakorn, a prominent historian from Nakhon Si Thammarat Teacher College, wrote about Wat Khao Khun Phanom and held the belief that King Taksin the Great was not executed as recorded in the chronicles. Instead, a substitution took place in which a relative or soldier resembling the king was put to death in his place. Meanwhile, the real king was secretly taken by boat to Nakhon Si Thammarat. Upon arrival, he ordained as a monk and resided at Wat Khao Khun Phanom, practicing Vipassana meditation until his passing. After his death, his ashes were interred in a Chinese-style tomb (Huang Sui) to the north of the city.
16.4.7 The Viewpoint of Monastic Elders in Nakhon Si Thammarat Province
I, Somporn Thepsittha, had the opportunity to meet several revered monks of Nakhon Si Thammarat Province who hold the belief that King Taksin the Great did not suffer mental illness nor was executed, but instead ordained as a monk at Wat Khao Khun Phanom. Among these monks were Phra Thep Waraphon, abbot of Wat Phra Mahathat Worawihan and provincial ecclesiastical head of Nakhon Si Thammarat; Phra Raj Wisutthamuni, abbot of Wat Chaeng and deputy ecclesiastical head of Region 16; Phra Khru Chit Kan Prasat, abbot of Wat Suan Pa and district ecclesiastical head of Phrom Khiri; and Phra Khru Phisan Phatthanakit, abbot of Wat Pradu Phatthanaram.
Notably, Phra Khru Phisan Phatthanakit believes that the ashes enshrined in the small Chinese pavilion at Wat Pradu are those of King Taksin the Great. This belief is supported by descendants of King Taksin who regularly pay respects and make merit offerings in his honor each year.
The book Nakhon Si Thammarat published by Sarakadee Press describes Wat Pradu as containing a Chinese-style pavilion housing a stupa built to contain the ashes of King Taksin the Great. It also highlights Wat Khao Khun Phanom, noting archaeological features including an eastern cave with a plastered wall topped by boundary stones (bai sema), resembling a city wall about two meters high.
What makes this wall special compared to other caves is the legend that contradicts the official chronicles stating King Taksin was executed. The true story is that close associates successfully arranged a substitution before the king’s intended execution and secretly escorted him to Nakhon Si Thammarat. Thereafter, he ordained at Wat Khao Khun Phanom and passed away there.
This narrative aligns with the physical site, where a circular fortification is located on a rocky outcrop in front of the cave’s right side, with an opening believed to have been used for mounting a cannon. On the left side, there is a brick structure thought to have been the residence of King Taksin.
The necessity to change the system of governance may have stemmed from His Majesty’s own policy—though it is ultimately beyond our full understanding. However, if viewed in a favorable light, one must acknowledge that the country, at that time, was still far from secure.
The ascension of King Phutthayotfa Chulalok the Great to the throne following King Taksin the Great may have caused confusion or suspicion that it was a seizure of power. But if we consider the matter with fairness, it likely was not. At that time, the nation was still weak—what benefit would there be in vying for the throne? It was probably a strategic measure intended to stabilize the nation. The true intent and depth of His Majesty’s sacrifice for the country are hard for us to fully comprehend. Yet what is clear is the profound selflessness He demonstrated for the sake of the nation.
(Somphon Thepsittha, 1997: 49–62)
16.5 Is there a tomb of King Taksin the Great in China?
The tomb of King Taksin the Great is located in Shantou City, Tenghai District.
Her Royal Highness Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn once paid respects there in 1997 and wrote about it in her book “Return to the Greater China Homeland.” Here is an excerpt from her writing about the tomb:
“The tomb resembles an ordinary Western grave and is not curved like the traditional Chinese Feng Shui tombs I have seen elsewhere. There is a pink granite stone plaque engraved with golden Chinese characters, which translates to ‘The Tomb of the Royal Attire and Crown of King Taksin of Siam.’ It was built in the 47th year of the Qianlong reign (1789) and was renovated in the autumn of 1985.”
(Jullada Phakdipumin, “The Tomb of King Taksin the Great,” Sakul Thai, Vol. 48 (2488), June 25, 2002: 112)
Royal Aspiration
The royal aspiration and benevolent will of King Taksin the Great
Inscription at the Shrine of King Taksin the Great, Wat Arun Ratchawararam, Thonburi
The father figure is called Phraya Tak,
Enduring hardship to restore the nation and the Dharma,
Offering the land as a place of Buddhist reverence,
For the religion of the monks and Lord Buddha.
May it endure and last for five thousand years,
That monks, Brahmins, and ascetics may practice appropriately,
Cultivating tranquility and insight meditation, to his great joy,
Paying homage to the footprints of the Enlightened One.
Remembering the father, who stands beside you,
Our nation remains alongside the Dharma,
Buddhism endures alongside the monarch,
The Buddha entrusted this legacy to stand together.
In Thailand, when difficult matters arise, the task is often entrusted to capable individuals. However, once the work is done, problems frequently emerge in the final chapter. The later life of King Taksin of Thonburi remains shrouded in darkness. Historical evidence indicates that he was betrayed by Phraya San. The King forbade his close followers from fighting the rebels, saying, “My fate is sealed; do not trouble the common people.”
He ordained as a monk at Wat Intaram and planted lotus flowers as a memorial.
Some accounts say he was executed by strangulation with a sandalwood rod, and that Phraya San himself was later executed. His royal remains were buried in the area now known as the ordination hall of Wat Intaram, and his cremation was performed afterward. Other accounts hold that his death was only nominal. He lived out his monastic life in a cave at Wat Khao Khun Phanom, Phrom Khiri District, Nakhon Si Thammarat, until his passing.
The stories that have been passed down are thus to be remembered and retold.
Some say that King Taksin borrowed money from the Chinese to finance the restoration of independence, as well as to purchase rice, food, and clothing for his people. Lacking funds to repay the debt, a coup was orchestrated so that he could flee his creditors (Theerachai Thanaset, 1992. Opening the Court of King Taksin the Great. p. 117).
Thus ended the reign of King Taksin, a monarch skilled in warfare both on land and water. He was a king who found food to feed the Thai people. He established the National Restoration Pagoda at Wat Intaram. He had seven consorts and a total of twenty-nine sons and daughters (Bhamorabutr, A. 1984. Taksin the Great of Thailand. pp. 25-27).
In the third year after his passing, his royal remains were exhumed and cremated at Wat Intaram (Wat Bang Yi Ruea Tai). When the public learned of the official cremation, they prepared to shave their heads and dress in white to attend the ceremony in great numbers, willingly and without any official summons. During the cremation, the people wept and lamented almost universally… It is rare in history, especially Thai history, for a king who had passed away three years prior to still be mourned so deeply by his people. This is considered a remarkable event (P.Y.R. The Nation-Building Work of King Taksin the Great, 1953: 76-77; Thuan Boonyaniyom, 1970: 203-204).
This is the story of King Taksin, who was later honored as a Great King of Thailand. Today, his legacy remains in ancient sites such as the Throne Hall, paired pavilions by the gate where he once resided, and the grounds where trees such as the pikul, hu guang, longan, and sandalwood are planted. The Golden Pavilion, once a meditation hall, was moved to Wat Rakhang by King Nangklao. The shrine of King Taksin, the inner palace walls, the Chinese bell, Khao Din, the green wooden house… and various monuments stand in many places for Thai people to pay homage (Suree Phumipamon, 1996: 80).
King Taksin passed away over 200 years ago, yet the Thai people still remember his benevolence in restoring full independence to the nation. The Thai people honor him as a Great King (Thuan Boonyaniyom, 1970: 204). On October 27, 1981, the Cabinet resolved to confer upon him the title “King Taksin the Great” (Knowledge of Thonburi, 2000: 170).
Note: Somdet Phra Chao Borom Wong Ther Krom Phraya Damrong Rajanubhab composed the royal biography of King Naresuan the Great to present to His Majesty King Ananda Mahidol. In it, he remarked about great warriors: “Observing the history of all great warriors, there is a common pattern. When the country faces hardship, a great warrior arises. A great warrior is a special man, endowed with intelligence and extraordinary courage, possessing a character that differs from others. He can inspire trust in his wisdom and steadfastness, enabling him to perform miracles in saving the nation and expanding its realm to become a monarch. King Naresuan fully embodied these qualities…”
During the Thonburi period, the title “Somdet Phra Chao Taksin Maharaj” was bestowed even before the monument was erected at Wongwian Yai, Thonburi. However, the government did not officially use this title at the time. Even when the statue was ceremoniously unveiled on April 17, 1954, the name used was still “Somdet Phra Chao Taksin Krung Thonburi.” Nevertheless, Lieutenant Colonel Luang Ronnasitichai, then Director-General of the Fine Arts Department, wrote in the printed biography distributed at the unveiling ceremony that “The King of Thonburi truly performed royal duties with the spirit of a patriotic soldier. He fulfilled everything expected of a Thai patriot. Despite his circumstances, he never neglected his duty as a Thai. He was a loyal subject, a leader practicing the four divine abidings (metta, karuna, mudita, upekkha), and a king practicing the ten royal virtues (dasa-raja-dhamma). He deserved to be honored with the title ‘Maharaj,’ for he was greatly beneficent to the Thai people and to Thailand” (S. Playnoi, 2001: 29, 33-34). (For more information on the monument of King Taksin the Great, see the appendix.)