One of the unique things in the Angkor life was the belief that the kings have special access to divine beings. That is the reason why Angkor’s rulers labored to edify physical constructions and monuments greater than their predecessors. The Angkor kings showed their political power by subjecting the population to the construction of these monuments “which thus became the cosmic centers from which they wielded their divinely mandated power” 2
The construction of Buddhist monuments were seen to be clearly motivated by the desire of the donors themselves who happened to be the kings, royal kins and elite families. They enamored to create merit for themselves and also to their deceased relatives.
The pagan history reveals a very interesting comparison with the Angkor in Cambodia. This comparison can be examined in three vantage points. First is that like Angkor4. First is that, like Angkor pagan was an inland agrarian polity that “enforces its authority over coastal areas; both Angkor and Pagan are impressive centres of monumental architecture; and the history of each came to an end contemporaneously with the advent of Tai peoples into lowland Southeast Asia”5.
In their early centuries, both the Pagan and the Angkor states actively sponsored religious foundations. Both of them benefitted from the religious foundation in generating economic growth and helping to enlarge their political control. “ From the thirteenth century or so, however, both governments and their successor states increasingly worked to limit the power of the foundations, whose combined wealth represented a challenge to the ruling power of the central state”6
The second prominent king of Pagan, Kyanzittha ruled from 1084 to 1112. He admired the Mon culture and has left inscriptions in the Mon language. He also admired and adapted the Mon Art and architecture. “The Mons appear to have dominated