I am thinking specifically of the Santi Asoke movement and the Dhammakya group. It has been my observation that small differenes in ideology and practice tend to cause the most tension. For example, observant Jews can tolerate Christians and liberals conservatives, but congregationalist Jews might have a hard time with Hassidim and Trotskyites with Leninists.

In brief, what do typical 'man in the street' Buddhists whose religion is strongly influenced by animism and Hinduism think of reformist movements?

Secondly, a comment...

When I ate at my favourite Santi Asoke vegetarian canteen I noticed a rather staid and non-social mood whereas in wats and community fars it seems more realxed and congenial. Perhaps it is a class thing - middle versus working class?

i guess mainstream dogmas have more to fear from sects that bud off, as opposed to completely different bodies of thought because the common pool of followers are less likely to stray off too far and join a completely new philosophy. A mainstream theravada buddhist is surely more likely to be seduced by a new sect with a more common philosophy eg Santi Asoke as opposed to Scientology say. So id say this would be the source of tension, the hierarchy is scared of losing its flock, and thus its power.

When I ate at my favourite Santi Asoke vegetarian canteen I noticed a rather staid and non-social mood whereas in wats and community fars it seems more realxed and congenial. Perhaps it is a class thing - middle versus working class?

Yes, that could be part of it. Also, with the exception of tourist areas, I find many Thai people tend to avoid social interaction with strangers except when at their 'home base', surrounded by close friends and family.

Further ideas, maybe the Santi Asoke people are trying to boost mindfulness and therefore avoid social interaction?

Strictly speaking, Santi Asoke is just the Bangkok centre of the Asoke movement. For Bangkokians though - I'm not sure about others - "Santi Asoke" is the widely used generic term.

Dhammakaya and Asoke are very different. It looks to me like Dhammakaya has taken on some Mahayana philosophy whereas Asoke is fairly purist (though Samana Bhodiraksa [Photirak] has his own take on the scriptures sometimes).

Dhammakya's general modus operandum is much closer to that of popular Thai Buddhism, but is packaged in powerful modes of media use (DMCTV), emotional manipulation and fundraising methods similar to the megachurches of evangelical Protestantism. Asoke are no mean users of media also (they have FMTV), but they do not raise funds other than by sale of publications, DVDs, etc and through their supermarkets, recycling and so on. You cannot donate to Asoke until you've visited one of their centres at least seven times, to establish your good intentions, and Asoke monks will never accept money.

It's just my impression, but Dhammakaya seems to be supported largely by Sino-Thais, especially in Bangkok, whereas Asoke has a broader base of support. Research done in the mid-90s indicated that people from Isaan were highly represented among Asoke followers, but that data is now rather old. Asoke has a number of centres in different regions and cities in Thailand.

I have posted in this forum on Dhammakaya and Asoke, the latter mainly through research done by Juliana Essen at the Asoke community in Sisaket, but with reference to the broader aims and practices of the Asoke movement.

http://www.thaivisa....ommodification/

http://www.thaivisa....nd-santi-asoke/