“Such children of the laity as go to school frequent the bonzes, who give them instruction.  When grown up they return to a lay life.

“I have not been able to make an exhaustive investigation.”

Elsewhere he says “All worship the Buddha” and he describes some popular festivals which resemble those now celebrated in Siam.  In every village there was a temple or a Stupa.  He also mentions that in eating they use leaves as spoons and adds “It is the same in their sacrifices to the spirits and to Buddha.”

Chou Ta-kuan confesses that his account is superficial and he was perhaps influenced by the idea that it was natural there should be three religions in Camboja, as in China.  Buddhists were found in both countries:  Pan-ch’i no doubt represents Pandita and he saw an analogy between the Brahmans of the Cambojan Court and Confucian mandarins:  a third and less known sect he identified with the Taoists.  The most important point in his description is the prominence given to the Buddhists.  His account of their temples, of the dress and life of their monks[314] leaves no doubt that he is describing Hinayanist Buddhism such as still nourishes in Camboja.  It probably found its way from Siam, with which Camboja had already close, but not always peaceful, relations.  Probably the name by which the bonzes are designated is Siamese.[315] With Chou Ta-kuan’s statements may be compared the inscription of the Siamese King Rama Khomheng[316] which dwells on the nourishing condition of Pali Buddhism in Siam about 1300 A.D.  The contrast indicated by Chou Ta-kuan is significant.  The Brahmans held high office but had no schools.  Those of the laity who desired education spent some portion of their youth in a Buddhist monastery (as they still do) and then returned to the world.  Such a state of things naturally resulted in the diffusion of Buddhism among the people, while the Brahmans dwindled to a Court hierarchy.  When Chou Ta-kuan says that all the Cambojans adored Buddha, he probably makes a mistake, as he does in saying that the sculptures above the gates of Angkor are heads of Buddha.  But the general impression which he evidently received that everyone frequented Buddhist temples and monasteries speaks for itself.  His statement about sacrifices to Buddha is remarkable and, since the inscriptions of Jayavarman VII speak of sacrificers, it cannot be rejected as a mere mistake.  But if Hinayanist Buddhism countenanced such practices in an age of transition, it did not adopt them permanently for, so far as I have seen, no offerings are made to-day in Cambojan temples, except flowers and sticks of incense.

The Pa-ssu-wei have given rise to many conjectures and have been identified with the Basaih or sacerdotal class of the Chams.  But there seems to be little doubt that the word really represents Pasupata and Chou Ta-kuan’s account clearly points to a sect of linga worshippers, although no information is forthcoming about the “stone on the altar of the Sun God in China” to which he compares their emblem.  His idea that they represented the Taoists in Camboja may have led him to exaggerate their importance but his statement that they were a separate body is confirmed, for an inscription of Angkor[317] defines the order of hierarchical precedence as “the Brahman, the Saiva Acarya, the Pasupata Acarya."[318]