When Buddhism is not Buddhism there is no loss You said, "[Christian Evangelism] fails where Buddhism is actually practiced by lay people." But as we have discussed on my site. Most of the lay Buddhists in the world practices a ritualistic, magic-favor, me-me-me, fear based religion with some ethical-community components -- no radical mental transformations. So why preserve that form of Buddhism which is really very similar to the Christianity that replaces it. Thus, Christianity is not a threat -- it will only replace other silly stuff. I agree with you, Statism is indeed a threat -- where the state assumes enormous power. Defending the banner of "Buddhism" is the silly game that all people play. With your interest that Buddhism survives, I can't imagine Aro being something helping in that survival. Aro seems largely based on a charismatic main leader (no?), it has the nudity thing which seems extraneous given its non-centrality yet will great loss of appeal, it has an unnecessary fascination with Tibet which many will find unattractive. I would think a good place to begin trying to preserve the insights of your traditions is to work on internal reformation and marketing. But I understand, as you wrote elsewhere, giving up tradition goes with some loss. But the Tibetan tradition was organically grown in Tibet -- transplants rarely survive. Too bad we won't be around 60 years from now to see how Aro evolves after the departure of your main Lamas. You are right, the dance between pattern and nebulosity are fascinating and uncontrollable. Yet we can't help wondering if we can't add useful assists. :-) But, as your other pages and Meaningness speak of, even given attractive modern forms of Buddhism, changes in the under-girding secular cultures may make all adaptations impotent.