Apart from becoming a new symbol for the integration of Lue Buddhism into economic and educational national structures (exemplified by the compulsory inclusion of public school subjects in the curriculum, in order for it to obtain state recognition), and in relation to it, the temple is probably also another step in the transformation (or “reformation”) of local Buddhism into a tradition focused on “educational” or “monastic” elements, as opposed to the traditional role of monks in the performance of community rituals –a transformation surely based on Thai models. This may obviously serve to partially thwart the destructive effects that state schooling has upon ordination, but it also implies a reduction of the traditional social role of the Lue monk; that is, if the new school will serve to increase the social mobility of local monks (through an enhanced integration of the sangha in state structures, etc.), it will do so at the cost of modifying the relationship between the monks and the laity, transforming old monastic education into a kind of vocational training in which those elements of traditional knowledge not fundamental to achieve individual recognition will expectedly tend to be excluded and ultimately disappear from the system.

I would argue that such a process is still in its early phases in Sipsongpanna, and in fact local Buddhism remains a strongly community-embedded practice, as the massive attendance of locals to the inauguration of the new Wat Luang Muang Lue (another name for the temple which refers to the old denomination of the Sipsongpanna) shows –as it also shows what the Dai “think” of the new site, surely considered by locals to be a legitimate place for performing making-merit activities, in spite of the ongoing confusion surrounding the entrance fee (which by the way is more expensive than I first stated, around 15 USD per visitor), who is to be charged and who is not.

There are also of course those Lue who oppose or mistrust this and other developments in which the local Buddhist hierarchy is involved –but their discourse does not seem to have an articulate presence in Lue society –which can be read as another success of PRC administration–, and their only option is to keep aloof from such developments.

Anyway, these views may not be so accurate, and I would appreciate any further insight and comments that can be offered