This paper aims to contribute an understanding of the historical experience and current situation
of Cambodian rural society by throwing light on changes and reconstruction of Buddhist practice
in two temples in the central region of Cambodia. It is well known that the country suffered
extraordinary societal upheaval during the rule of Democratic Kampuchea (1975–79). However,
intensive field research of these changes has been scarce until now. Theravada Buddhism, which
was declared the state religion since Cambodia’s independence from French colonial rule, was
one cultural aspect most harshly suppressed by the regime. All Buddhist monks were forced to
return to secular life in 1976 and Buddhist activities came to complete cessation during this
era. However, since the collapse of the Democratic Kampuchea regime in 1979, Buddhist practice
started again spontaneously. This paper, based on long-term rural fieldwork, describes the
specific situation of the demise and rebirth of Buddhist practice in the local community.
At the same time, this paper also focuses its attention on the history and actual conditions of
division within village Buddhism. In fact, two differing styles of Buddhist practice, which are
indicated by local people through the words samay (new/modern) and boran (old/ancient), have
been observed in the research area. The so-called samay practice, which has its origin in the
reformist monks’ movement that began in the center of national Sangha in the 1910s, was introduced
to one of two temples studied in the 1940s. On the other hand, the other temple studied
upheld traditional practices called boran until the 1960s, but accepted a part of samay practice in
its reconstruction process in the 1990s for the first time. In other words, the confrontation
between Buddhist samay and boran emerges in a more complex manner at present than in prewar
times. This paper analyses local people’s varied attitudes toward the division of Buddhist
practice, with careful consideration of the relationship between temples and their communities in
light of the recent socio-economic changes of the local people’s lives.