Portions of the research on which this paper is based were carried out during a stay in Thailand (Sept 1973-Mar 1974) which was supported by a Fulbright-Hays Faculty Fellowship. Supplementary grants were received from the Committee on Southem Asia Studies of the Univ. of Chicago, and the American Philosophical Foundation; and the project was approved by the National Research Council of Thailand. My thanks also go to Mani Reynolds, who actively participated in various aspects of the research.

¹ Both topics are covered in the collection of essays that appeared under the title Beyond Belief (New York: Harper & Row, 1970).Google Scholar For an excellent study which takes issue with many aspects of Bellah's analysis, see Winston Davis, “Civil Religion in Japan” (Univ. of Chicago Ph.D. diss., 1973).

² “Civil Religion,” Sociological Analysis, XXXI. 2 (1970), pp. 67–77.Google Scholar

³ Coleman's typology is roughly paralleled by a topology previously proposed by Apter, David in his well-known article “Political Religion in the New States” in Geertz, C. (ed.), Old Societies and New States (Glencoe: Free Press, 1967)Google Scholar. Apter distinguishes (1) theocratic systems, which he finds in virtually all pre-modern contexts; (2) a reconciliation system he finds only in the modern Western world; and (3) mobilization systems, which are centered on one or another form of modern “political religion.”

⁴ Conceptions of State and Kingship in Southeast Asia (Ithaca: Cornell SE Asia Program, Data Paper No. 18, 1956)Google Scholar.

⁵ See especially Mus, Paul, “Cultes indiens et indigènes au Champa,” Bulletin de I'Ècole Françhise Extrême Orient, XXXIII (1933). pp. 367–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶ In a recent discussion, Stanley Tambiah coined the very apt term “pulsating galactic polity” to describe the situation; see “Samgha and Polity in Thailand” in Smith, Bardwell (ed.), Religion and Political Legitimation in Southeast Asia [hereafter R & PL], (Chambersburg, Pa.: Wilson Books, forthcoming, 1977)Google Scholar.

⁷ In this paper, most of the Thai words and names have been transliterated directly from the written Thai form, using the system established by the Royal Institute (Bangkok). I have made exceptions in the case of names that have a generally accepted English spelling (e.g., Chulalongkorn) and in the case of well-known Buddhist terms, the latter being rendered in their Pali forms with diacritical marks omitted.

⁸ For an up-to-date discussion, see the article by Prasert Na Nagara & Alexander Griswold too narrowly titled “On Kingship and Society at Sukhodaya” in Skinner, G. W. & Kirsch, A. T., Change and Persistence in Thai Society: Essays in Honor of Lauriston Sharp (Ithaca: Cornell Univ. Press, 1975).Google Scholar

⁹ For Prince Dhani's discussion, see A History of Buddhism in Siam (Bangkok: Siam Society, 1965), p. 20ff.Google Scholar

¹⁰ In this paper I use the term “orthodox,” in relation to civic religion, simply to designate those forms of the tradition that, through the course of Thai history, were generally fostered by the established ecclesiastical and governmental elites. These orthodox forms stand in contrast to alternative forms of the tradition (e.g., the popular Metteya and phi boon cults) that emerged from time to time, and were often associated with opposition to the authorities in power.

¹¹ For a more detailed discussion of these Sangha laws of Rama 1, along with other aspens of Buddhist development during the late eighteenth and the nineteenth century, see Craig Reynolds, “The Buddhist Monkhood in Nineteenth Century Thailand” (Cornell Ph.D. diss., 1973).

¹² I have discussed the structure and development of this symbolism of image-and-scripture in much greater detail in “Th e Holy Emerald Jewel: Some Aspects of Buddhist Symbolism and Political Legitimation in Thailand and Laos” in R & PL.

¹³ The original Trai Phum was the Trai Phum Phra Ruang, written in the Sukothai period (ca. 1345) by King Lithai; see Reynolds, Frank & Mani (trans.), Three Worlds According to King Ruang, (Palo Alto and Bangkok: Stanford Univ. Press and the Siam Society, forthcoming, 1977)Google Scholar. At the time of Rama I, it was not known that two Trai Phum manuscripts had, in fact, survived the destruction of Ayutthaya; thus, the need for a new version was keenly felt. The text of the version compiled for Rama I, which contains much more material than Phya Lithai's original but is less well organized, is presently available in typescript at the Nat'l Library in Bangkok; see Pitoon Maliwan (ed), Traiphumlokawinichai.

¹⁴ The significance of the two ceremonies and of the delay in the performance of the second are discussed in Craig Reynolds (n. 11 above), pp. 35–50.

¹⁵ For a discussion of the basically Brahmanic .court traditions, with some reference to the Buddhist and local elements that were incorporated, see Wales, H. G. Quaritch, Siamese State Ceremonies: Their History and Function (London: Bernard Quaritch, 1931).Google Scholar

¹⁶ Robert Lingat has provided an interesting discussion of the religious dimensions of the Dhamma-that tradition in “Evolution of th e Conception of Law in Burma and Siam,” Journal of the Siam Society, XXXVIII, Pt. 1 (1950), pp. 9–31.Google Scholar

¹⁷ For an excellent discussion of the way in which the authority of the Sangha hierarchy was extended to outlying areas in this period and beyond see Keyes, Charles, “Buddhism and National Integration,” JAS, XXX (1971), pp. 551–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁸ For a discussion of the role of Thammayut leaders, especially Prince Wachirayan (who was Mongkut's son and Chulalongkorn's half-brother), see Wyatt, David, The Politics of Reform in Thailand: Education in the Reign of King Chulalong-korn (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1969).Google Scholar

¹⁹ See Reynolds, Craig, “Buddhist Cosmography in Thai History with Special Reference to Nineteenth Century Culture Change,” JAS, XXXV (1976), pp. 203–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁰ I treat the historiographic dimensions in greater detail (and also focus attention on other, more local, aspects of the tradition-including a number of specifically cadastral elements) in “Sat-sana Khong phonlamuang nai prawatsat Thai” (Civic religion in Thai history) in the special Prince Wa n Waithyakorn issue of Social Science Review [Bangkok], Aug 1971.

²¹ When the original draft of this paper was presented at the national meeting of the Association for Asian Studies in April 1973, the October uprising had not yet occurred. The references to that event and to subsequent developments have been added in the final revision of the paper which was completed in July 1976.

²² Space limitations have made it necessary to limit the discussion of the satsana to its Buddhist aspect. I intend, in another paper, to discuss the character and importance of the tension between the identification of the satsana with Buddhism and its use as a referent to all of the “great religions” that have Thai adherents, including especially Islam and Christianity.

²³ In his interpretation of Buddhism, Wachirawut depended heavily on the teachings of the Sangharaja, Prince Wachirayan, who had been his own preceptor. For sources that have been translated into English by Wachirawu t himself, see The Buddhist Attitude Toward Defence and National Administration (Bangkok: 1916)Google Scholar and Right is Right—A Special Allocution and An Address to the Officers of the Honourable Corps of Wild Tigers (Bangkok: 1918).Google Scholar

²⁴ Interesting discussions of Thienwan's life and thought are included in Rangai, Sunthorn Na, Chiwit Thai Lai Rot (Bangkok: Khlang Witthya, 1966).Google Scholar

²⁵ For an excellent discussion of the background. symbolic significance, and lasting impact of the 1932 coup d'etat from a perspective very much akin to the one that informs this study, see Koson Srisang, “Dhammocracy in Thailand: Social Ethics as a Her-meneutic of Dhamma” (Univ. of Chicago Ph.D. diss., 1973).

²⁶ For a more general discussion of Buddhist symbolism related to civic religion, see my article “Buddhism as Universal Religion and as Civic Religion: Some Observations on a Tour of Four Contemporary Buddhist Sites in Central Thailand,” JSS, LXIII, 1 (1975)Google Scholar, to be republished in R & PL.

²⁷ The sociological basis for the rapport between the top ecclesiastical and the military leaders during this period is analyzed with great insight by Tam-biah (n. 6 above).

²⁸ For a further discussion of the royal tradition and the changes that have occurred since 1932, see my article “Sacral Kingship and National Development: The Case of Thailand” in Contributions to Asian Studies, IV (1973), pp. 40–51Google Scholar. to be republished in R & PL.

²⁹ For an excellent discussion of the various constitutions, see Koson Srisang (n. 25 above).

³⁰ See “Legitimation and Rebellion: Thai Civic Religion and the Student Uprising of October, 1973 in R & PL.

³¹ Since the Boy Scouts in Thailand are called luk sua, the name luk sua chaw ban could also be translated as “village scouts.”

³² My information on the luk sua chaw ban has been gained from news reports carried from time to time in the biweekly Pracbacbat magazine and from personal conversations with Dr. Koson Srisang.

³³ For a more complete account of the Nawaphon and its activities, see the various reports in Pracbachat—especially the article on “Nawaphon Re Ok Chak Khwa” (7 Aug. 1975).

³⁴ Some aspects of the problem, particularly in regard to Buddhism, are discussed by Donald Swearer in his monograph Wat Haripuñjaya (Missoula, Mt.: Scholars Press, 1976), pp. 71–73.Google Scholar

³⁵ See, for example, Koson Srisang's discussion of the orientation of Thailand's best-known leftist politician, Pridi Phanomyong ; n. 25 above, esp. pp. 152–89.

³⁶ Between the time this paper was finished and the time it was sent to press, a series of leftist demonstrations and right-wing counterdemonstrations set the stage for a military coup that brought Thailand's most recent experiment in democratic government to a dramatic end. It is clear that various elements of civic religion were involved i n the process that led up to the coup, and that an interesting interplay between the civic religious tradition and the government has already begun to take place as the new regime moves to consolidate and legitimate its power. At this point, however, our information concerning the details remains very scanty and problematic, [author's note, late Oct 1976]

³⁷ For a set of papers on related themes, which also emphasize continuity, see the issue of Daedalus entitled Post-Traditional Societies (CII, 1, 1973).

³⁸ For a discussion of this distinction see Kitagawa, Joseph, “Primitive, Classical and Modern Religion: A Perspective on Understanding the History of Religions” in Kitagawa, (ed.), The History of Religions: Essays on the Problem of Understanding Divinity, Vol. I, (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1967).Google Scholar

³⁹ Winston Davis (n. 1 above) includes a fascinating chapter in which he discusses these religious needs and concerns of the civic community.

⁴⁰ Though in this article I have not been concerned with the kind of normative issues evident in Bellah's work on civil religion, the civic religion perspective does have implications at this level as well. For example, it allows one to recognize the possibility that checks against the emergence of a demonic form of national-religious absolutism may be embedded not only in the character and depth of the specific symbols involved, but also in the tensions among the various components that interact with one another in order to form the broader civic religious tradition.