Except for proper names of people or places best known under another spelling, Thai terms have been transcribed in accordance with the Haas phonemic system of transliteration.

¹ Griswold, A. B. & Nagara, Prasert Na, “The Inscription of King Rama Gamhen of Sukhodaya (1292 A.D.),” Journal of the Siam Society [hereafter JSS], LIX (1971), pp. 179–228Google Scholar, is the most recent translation of this inscription; it includes a discussion of previous translations. See also Coedes, G., Recueil des inscriptions du Siam: premierepartie, Bangkok: Bangkok Times Press, 1924Google Scholar.

² This decree, issued on 21 Aug. 1782, is cited in Chakrabongse, H.R.H. Chula, Lords of Life: The Paternal Monarchy of Bangkok, 1782–1932 (Lonkdon: Redman, 1960), p. 89Google Scholar. See also Lingat, R. (ed.), Pramūan kotmāi ratchakān thī nyng (Legal codes of King Rama 1), Bangkok: Thammasat Univ., 1938Google Scholar.

³ Terwiel, B. J., “A Model for the Study of Thai Buddhism” [hereafter “MSTB”], Journal of Asian Studies [hereafter JAS], XXXV (1976), pp. 391–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar. cites most of the relevant studies; see also Thrombley, W. G. & Siffin, W. J. (eds.), Thailand: Politics, Economy and Socio-Cultural Setting Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press, 1970), esp. pp. 104–08Google Scholar.

⁴ “Buddha and the Seven Gods: The Dual Organization of a Temple in Central Ceylon,” JAS, XXVII (1968), pp. 541–50Google Scholar.

⁵ , Landon, Siam in Transition, Shanghai: Kelly and Walsh, 1939Google Scholar, and his Southeast Asia: Cross-roads of Religion, Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1949Google Scholar; May, Le, An Asian Arcady: The Land and Peoples of Northern Siam, Cambridge: W. Heffer, 1926Google Scholar.

⁶ Ames, M., “Magical-animism and Buddhism: A Structural Analysis of the Sinhalese Religious System” [hereafter “M-A”], JAS, XXIII (1964), pp. 21–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar, notes this stratigraphic view with respect to Sinhalese religion; also Obeyesekere, G., “The Great Tradition and the Little in the Perspective of Sinhalese Buddhism” [hereafter “GT”], JAS, XXII (1963), pp. 139–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷ See Landon, Siam, p. 201; Le May (n. 5 above), p. 135.

⁸ F. Reynolds's bibliographic essay “Tradition Change in Therāvada Buddhism,” Contributions to Asian Studies [hereafter CAS], IV (1973), 94–104Google Scholar, cites most of the relevant literature; see his “From Philology to Anthropology” in Smith, B. (ed.), The Two Wheels of Dhamma (American Academy of Religion Studies in Religion, #3, 1972), pp. 107–21Google Scholar. Terwiel's “MSTB” also lists a number of relevant studies. Nash, M. (ed.), Anthro-pological Studies in Theravada Buddhism, Yale SE Asia Studies, Cultural Report Series #13, 1966Google Scholar, and Harper, E. (ed.), Religion in South Asia, special issue JAS, XXIII (1964)Google Scholar, contain examples of this approach.

⁹ Ames, “M-A”; also his “Ritual Prestations and the Structure of the Sinhalese Pantheon” in Nash (ed.), n. 8 above; and “Buddha and the Dancing Goblins: A Theory of Magic and Religion,” American Anthropologist [hereafter AA], LXVI (1964), pp. 75–82Google Scholar. Spiro's Burmese research is represented distinmost fully in his Burmese Supernaturalism [hereafter BSN], Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1967Google Scholar, and Buddhism and Society [hereafter B&S], N.Y.: Harper & Row, 1970Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Of course, there may be perfectly valid reasons for distinguishing only two components in these studies; however, the tendency to dichotomize analytic domains is not restricted to those who distinguish only two components. For example, Terwiel, “MSTB,” discerns two religious orientations in Thai religion: compartmentalized and syncretist; and Tambiah, S. J., Buddhism and the Spirit Cults in Northeast Thailand [hereafter BSC]. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1970Google Scholar, focuses on four major ritual complexes, but he emphasizes the duality of village religion and employs concepts such as reci-procity and complementarity, which lend themselves to a dichotomized approach. With respect to distinmost guishing Buddhist and non-Buddhist components, Gombrich, R.. Precept and Practice: Traditional Buddhism in the Rural Highlands of Ceylon, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971Google Scholar, indicates that many features often assumed to be non-Buddhist intrusions in fact have a long history within the Buddhist tradition; hence, the effort to distinguish between Buddhist and non-Buddhist features may be fraught with difficulty.

¹¹ Terwiel, “MSTB,” p. 403. Ames's theoretical views are set out in his “Buddha . . .” (n. 9 above); while Spiro's point of view is stated most succinctly in “Religion: Problems of Definition and Explanation” in Banton, M. (ed.), Anthropological Approaches to the Study of Religion (London: Tavistock, 1966), pp. 85–126Google Scholar.

¹² Obeyesekere, “GT,” discusses some of the problems involved in such an approach.

¹³ The perspective set out here was developed in the course of fieldwork in NE Thailand carried out in 1962–1964. (The support for this research—an NIMH predoctoral fellowship [MH-12,050] and research grant supplement [M-2448]—is gratefully acknowledged.) This perspective is elaborated in “Phu Thai Religious Syncretism: A Case Study of Thai Religion and Society,” my Ph.D. diss., Harvard, 1967. Some of the social correlates of Thai religion viewed from this perspective have been discussed in my articles “The Thai Buddhist Quest for Merit” in McAlister, J. (ed.), Southeast Asia: The Politics of National Integration (N.Y.: Random House, 1973), pp. 188–201Google Scholar, and “Economy, Polity and Religion in Thailand” in Skinner, G. W. and Kirsch, A. (eds.), Change and Persistence in Thai Society [hereafter Change], (Ithaca: Cornell Univ. Press, 1975), pp. 172–96Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Nivat, H. H. Prince Dhani, A History of Buddhism in Siam, Bangkok: Siam Society, 1965Google Scholar, provides a useful historical overview of Buddhism in Thailand. See also the series of “Epigraphic and Historical Studies” by Griswold, A. B. & Nagara, Prasert Na, which has appeared in JSS starting with LVI (1968)Google Scholar.

¹⁵ Wales, H. G. Q., Ancient Siamese Government and Administration, London: Bernard Quaritch. 1934Google Scholar. discusses the structure of early Ayutthayan society.

¹⁶ It is worth noting that Thai writers see these two Buddhist doctrines as especially strategic; see King Prajadhipok's Introduction in Diskul, H. S. H. Poon, Buddhism for the Young (Bangkok: Bangkok Times Press. 1931), p. ivGoogle Scholar.

¹⁷ This appears to be Spiro's view in B&S, pp. 11—12, 66–91.

¹⁸ Hanks, L., “Merit and Power in the Thai Social Order,” AA, LXIV (1962), pp. 1247–61Google Scholar, skillfully evokes the pervasiveness of merit as a means of accounting for life situations.

¹⁹ Bhikku Khemo, What is Buddhism? (Bangkok: Prachandra Press, 1957), p. 33Google Scholar, sets out this particular cosmological formulation. See also Reynolds, C., “Buddhist Cosmography in Thai History,” JAS, XXXV (1976), pp. 203–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Coedes, G. & Archaimbault, C., Les Trois Mondes, Paris: Ecole franchise d'Extreme Orient, 1973Google Scholar, concerning the early Thai version of the Buddhist cosmological scheme. Heine-Geldern's, R. classic Conceptions of State and Kingship in Southeast Asia, Ithaca: Cornell SE Asia Program, Data Paper #18, 1956Google Scholar, suggests some of the ways in which cosmological ideas influenced Southeast Asian societies.

²⁰ Geertz, C., “Religion as a Cultural System” in Banton, M. (ed.), Anthropological Approaches to the Study of Religion (London: Tavistock, 1966), pp. 1–46Google Scholar, emphasizes the role of ritual as a context for socialization. Ames, “M-A,” also views Sinhalese rituals as socialization mechanisms.

²¹ Swearer, D., “The Role of the Layman Extraordinaire in Northern Thai Buddhism,” JSS, LXIV (1976), pp. 151–68Google Scholar, highlights the role of such laymen.

²² See Keyes, C., “Buddhism and National Integration in Thailand,” JAS, XXX (1971), pp. 551–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On Buddhist pilgrimages see , Keyes, “Buddhist Pilgrimage Centers and the Twelve Year Cycle,” History of Religions, XV (1975), pp. 71–89Google Scholar, and Preuss, J., “Merit Seeking in Public: Buddhist Pilgrimage in Northeast Thailand,” JSS, LXIV (1976), pp. 169–206Google Scholar.

²³ It should be clear that the Buddhist “nuns” referred to here are not bhikkuni (formally parallel to monks). Such women are relatively rare in Thailand; official figures list fewer than two thousand in all Thailand (Office of the Prime Minister, Year-book for 1964, Bangkok: Government Printing Office, 1965, p. 501)Google Scholar.

²⁴ Phillips, H., Thai Peasant Personality (Berkeley, Univ. of California Press, 1965), pp. 59–61Google Scholar, indicates the importance of sanug for Thai. Given this value on “fun,” the number of men who serve in the monkhood is quite significant.

²⁵ Figures on monastic service are difficult to interpret, since a man may enter the Sangha at any time in his life after twenty. The importance of this ideal is suggested by official estimates that 97 percent of eligible Thai men serve for a period as a monk (Yearbook for 1964, p. 509). My own estimates in NE Thailand suggested that about 60 percent would be more accurate, for that region at least.

²⁶ Wyatt, D., “The Buddhist Monkhood as an Avenue of Social Mobility in Traditional Thai Society,” Sinlapākǭn (Fine arts), X (1965), pp. 50–53Google Scholar; also my “Development and Mobility among the Phu Thai of Northeast Thailand,” Asian Survey, VI (1966), pp. 370–78Google Scholar.

²⁷ C. Reynolds, “The Buddhist Monkhood in Nineteenth Century Thailand,” Ph.D. diss., Cornell, 1973, includes a discussion of the centralization of the modern Thai Sangha. On efforts of the govrnment to involve the Sangha in problems of modernization, see , Keyes, “Buddhism” (n. 22 above); Swearer, “Some Observations on New Directions in Thai Buddhism,” Sangkhomsat Paritat (Social science review), VI (1968)Google Scholar; and , Tambiah, “The Persistence and Transformation of Tradition in Southeast Asia, With Special Reference to Thailand,” Daedalus, CII. Winter 1973, pp. 55–84Google Scholar.

²⁸ Bellah, R., “Epilogue” in Bellah, R. (ed.), Religion and Progress in Modern Asia (Glencoe: The Free Press, 1965), p. 173Google Scholar, discusses the notion of religion as providing a cultural gyroscope for so cieties.

²⁹ Wales, H. G. Q., Siamese State Ceremonies: Their History and Function, London: B. Quaritch, 1931Google Scholar, surveys some of the Court Brahman ceremonies adopted by the Thai; see also his Ancient . . . n. 15 above).

³⁰ See the Griswold & Prasert series (n. 14 above); also Coedes (n. 1 above).

³¹ For example, various “Brahman” figures were prominent in the procession that carried the King in circumambulation of the old city walls in Bangkok, Dialec on the occasion of his thirty-sixth birthday in 1963. The First Plowing ceremony is still performed in Bangkok, though today it has t h e tone more of a tourist spectacular than a national ritual. Young, E., The Kingdom of the Yellow Robe (Westminister: Constable, 1898), p. 64f., 78f.Google Scholar, notes the popularity of such Brahman ceremonies as the tonsure ceremony, though such ceremonies have now virtually disappeared among the public. However, the modern wedding ceremony followed in Bangkok has much Brahman symbolism (e.g., pouring lustral water from a conch shell onto the bridal couple).

³² Though Tambiah, in his BSC and in “The Ideology of Merit and t he Social Correlates of Buddhism in a Thai Village” in Leach, E. (ed.), Dialectic in Practical Religion (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1968), pp. 41–121Google Scholar, uses a different theoretical perspective than that employed here, many of his observations can be related to this perspective.

³³ Ames, “M-A,” also characterizes non-Buddhist rituals as technological rather than strictly religious.

³⁴ Tambiah, BSC, p. 256, also notes the close link debetween Buddhism and local Brahman practitioners.

³⁵ Rajadhon, Phya Anuman, “The Khwan and Its Ceremonies” [hereafter “Khwan”), JSS, L (1962), pp. 119–64Google Scholar, provides a detailed discussion of the khwan concept; also see Tambiah, BSC, pp. 223–51.

³⁶ Phya Anuman, ibid., believes the notion of kbwan is Chinese in origin (but see Peter Bee's disclaimer in the same article, p. 121); however, he believes the traditional number of thirty-two is debetween rived from Buddhism. On the Buddhist concept of khandhā (Skt. skhandhā) see Thomas, E. J., The History of Buddhist Thought (N.Y.: Barnes and Noble, 1963), pp. 100–06Google Scholar, 162–64; also Spiro, B&S, p. 36. Though only five khandhā are distinguished, one of them (sankhara) is internally complex and made up of other elements.

³⁷ See Tambiah, BSC, pp. 224–37, for types of occasions when Brahman ceremonies are performed; also Anuman, “Khwan,” pp. 129–64, where he surveys a wide variety of such ceremonies in different parts of the country and different levels of society.

³⁸ Tambiah, BSC, pp. 223–51, emphasizes the therapeutic function; he does not deal with the legitimating function I discuss here.

³⁹ Obeyesekere, “GT,” pp. 147–48, distinguishes divine (karmic) and astrological causation (and a pardemonic causation as well), implying that these howtypes of causation are independent rather than inter-related as proposed here.

⁴⁰ BSC, pp. 223–62.

⁴¹ Tambiah, BSC, pp. 252–62, concentrates pardemonic ticularly on a practitioner known as paahm; howtypes ever, the soul-tying ritual is not restricted to this practitioner.

⁴² Anuman, “Khwan,” pp. 119, 121, 127, notes similar notions are found among the Burmese, Shan, Khmer, and Mon; also see Shway Yoe (SirScott, George), The Burman, His Life and Notions (London: Macmillan, 1896)Google Scholar, ch. 40; and Spiro, BSN, pp. 33–34, 69–70, 216–17. Since these similar beliefs—usually identified as indigenous, and attributed to an unchanging pre-Buddhist religious substrate—cut across ethnic and linguistic groupings but are all found in conjunction with Buddhism, it might be fruitful to pursue their connection with Buddhist ideas.

⁴³ E. Mendelson saw the gaing playing a similar intermediate role in Burmese religion; “A Messianic Buddhist Association in Upper Burma,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental & African Studies [London], XXIV (1961), p. 573Google Scholar. The role of the “exorcist” in Burmese religion also seems to perform similar functions, according to Spiro, BSN, pp. 230–45.

⁴⁴ Seidenfaden, E., “The So and Pu Thai,” JSS, XXXIV (1943), pp. 45–65Google Scholar. The contemporary situation of the Phu Thai is discussed in my “Phu Thai . . .” (n. 13 above), passim.

⁴⁵ For discussion of the cult of the guardian spirits, see Tambiah, BSC, pp. 263–84; also G. Condominas, “Phiban Cults in Rural Laos” in Change, pp. 252–77, for similar observations.

⁴⁶ See also Spiro, BSN, pp. 247–80, esp. p. 257f.

⁴⁷ Tambiah, BSC, pp. 274–76; he also notes the prominence of women in these animistic roles, pp. 283–84. See Spiro, BSN, pp. 205–29, on the shaman in Burmese religion, also typically a woman.

⁴⁸ Tambiah, BSC, pp. 280–84. discusses the regional focus of village religion.

⁴⁹ Table I might be fruitfully compared with Spiro, BSN, Table 14.1 (p. 258) and discussion (pp. 257–63).

⁵⁰ “Little Communities in an Indigenous Civilization,” in Marriott, M. (ed.), Village India, Stuclies in the Little Community, Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1955Google Scholar. Although there are some differences in Marriott's conceptualization and my own, he does help highlight a general type of process. Tambiah, BSC, pp. 367–77, sets out an alternative view, and expresses doubts about the type of approach attempted here. In his works on Sinhalese religion, Ames detects a process of Buddhaization similar to that I see in Thai religion.

⁵¹ The notion of “upgrading” is derived from T. Parsons, Societies: Comparative and Evolutionary Perspectives, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1966Google Scholar.

⁵² On the revolution of 1688, see Hutchinson, E. W., Adventurers in Siam in the Sevententh Century, London: Royal Asiatic Society, 1940Google Scholar.

⁵³ H. R. H. Chula Chakrabongse's Lords of Life (n. 2 above) covers the Bangkok kings and also refers to Taksin's reign. C. Reynolds (n. 27 above) discusses relevant changes in the Sangha. See also my “Modernizing Implications of 19th Century Reforms in the Thai Sangha,” CAS, VIII (1975), pp. 8–23Google Scholar.

⁵⁴ See references in n. 27 above.

⁵⁵ Tambiah, BSC, p. 256, notes the importance of literacy in this connection; see also his “Literacy in a Buddhist Village in North-East Thailand” in Goody, J. (ed.), Literacy in Traditional Societies (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1968), pp. 85–131Google Scholar.

⁵⁶ This increased interest in meditation on the part of lay Buddhists is not confined to Thailand; it is also found in modern Sri Lanka and Burma, suggesting that similar problems of relating abstract Buddhism to everyday life may be general in Buddhist societies.