importance to its lineage of teachers, starting from Luang Pu Sodh Candasaro, who then passed on his experience to Maechi Chandra Khonnokyoong, who in her turn passed it on to Luang Por Dhammajayo. In the PR and media of the temple the teachers are much emphasized as an inseparable part of the temple's tradition, from which the temple gains its authenticity.Wat Phra Dhammakaya attempts to revive the local temple's role as a spiritual community center, but does so within a format that is meant to fit with modern society and customs. According to the temple's active propagation philosophy, in the present day and age people will not come to the Buddhist temple anymore, because the temple is no longer the center of community life. The temple therefore must seek out its devotees in society in an active way, so as to promote virtue both in the temple at home and school. In this active propagation philosophy, if it would be possible to introduce Buddhism and Vijja Dhammakaya to every person in the world, they would do so. An important part of this active propagation style is the role of the layperson. The temple has been noted for its emphasis on lay participation. The propagation of the temple has been analyzed from three scholarly approaches. The earliest analyses of the temple were done by Thai (former) monastics and intellectuals, who criticized the temple for the content of its teachings. These scholars described the temple's teachings as "distorted" from "original" Theravāda Buddhism, and depicted the temple as using these teachings for profit and power. Some of the more well-known of these critics are Phra Payutto and Prawase Wasi, who have concluded that the temple cannot be regarded as part of Theravāda Buddhism. Religious studies scholar Rachelle Scott and Asian Studies scholar Jesada Buaban have pointed out the modernist perspective in this approach, as it emphasizes a deviation from a rational, idealist and universal Buddhism, that is unaffected by local customs and traditions. The second group of scholars were anthropologists and sociologists, both Thai and non-Thai, who mostly studied the question why the temple had been so effective in its propagation. Most scholars in this group emphasized the popularity of the temple among middle-class Thai from the cities, and the ability of the temple to appeal to middle class attitudes and use modern technology. The third group are scholars who believe that Thailand