Wat Dhammakaya

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Visuddho
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2016 5:12 pm

Re: Wat Dhammakaya

Postby Visuddho » Fri Sep 16, 2016 11:18 am

If you want to look it up and read it, it was published online in the Bangkok post shortly after the dsi tried to arrest your leader.

Concerning communication and values:
It is useless to explain to a blindborn person how red looks like. Although you have eyesight you choose not to open your eyes but prefer to be stuck in your corrupted imaginary world. Like in matrix, you choose the blue pill, to stay in the prison of mind, the 'blissful' illusion.
One could also say you are like a person blinded by love/strong attachment. When you are in love you loose reason and surrender to blind emotions.

Unfortunately even you are well educated it bears little fruit to explain to you what you do not want to hear like that the Buddha said "birth is dukkha!". You enjoy dukkha (the matrix) and want more of it. The Buddha thaught the way to end dukkha (=birth) but you like to prolong dukkha.

To put it shortly we are both (as well wpd and people who want to end dukkha) on different paths because of different views. You believe what is dukkha to be sukkha (one of four corruptions). 'So stay in your illusion and keep your eyes fast closed. Dare you open your eyes.' *

Keeping that in mind it is very normal that you join a group who shares your desires and values. Wpd is one of many big groups of people who likes to continue to live in darkness = dukkha. Whatever rebirth it is still unsatisfactory/unpleasant = dukkha. You will never be at ease nor will you ever reach real satisfaction on your path.

Yes it is pretty pointless, energy wasting and you accumulate only demerit to put effort in sharing your views, that it's good to keep ones eyes closed/ to enjoy and prolong dukkha, to people who value open eyes/ want to end dukkha. But well this you also not want to hear.

The point we agree on:
Yes most people in the world share your wrong view and values. That's why wpd has more followers as eg the forest tradition. Also yes wpd followers accumulate less demerit than people who do more akusala actions.

Remember but don't reflect to much on it that whatever information your wpd friends give you (like all these videos etc which you post here) it would be never something which puts wpd in a bad light. But they always try to shape and deepen that what they and you want you to believe and think. Yes it is not different to what everyone (who holds corrupted views) does.

In case you want to preserve your noble speech how about to let those people here post what they believe or/and experienced first hand and you continue to post your views on your blog? Anyway it was educational and entertaining for me that you popped in so thanks a lot for that!

Let's make a stop here since all has been said.

Be well

* ;) I suppose you know how I mean that.
Last edited by Visuddho on Sat Sep 17, 2016 3:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
dhammafriend
Posts: 225
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2010 9:19 am

Re: Wat Dhammakaya

Postby dhammafriend » Fri Sep 16, 2016 3:44 pm

From Dhammakaya Uncovered:

http://www.dhammakayauncovered.com/facts/2016/7/5/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-dhammakaya-scandal-a-short-fact-sheet

Some extracts from the article:

DID THE ABBOT RECEIVE STOLEN MONEY?

No, he did not. Obviously, to have received stolen money, the money in question has to be stolen. However, whether or not the money was actually stolen has not yet been determined* - that case is still in court. How can you file a case against someone based on “evidence” that hasn’t been proven to be true?

DID THE ABBOT LAUNDER MONEY?

No, he did not. To have laundered money, the Abbot had to have (1) known the money was stolen, (2) masked the money trail by putting the money through a series of transactions, and (3) returned the money to the former chairman. All three conditions need to be met for the act to be considered money laundering. However, none of this happened.

HOW DO YOU KNOW NONE OF THIS HAPPENED?

To address (1), there is no possible fact-based way to prove that the Abbot had no knowledge. However, the lack of evidence to show that he did have knowledge indicates his innocence. Regarding (2) and (3), the Anti-Money Laundering Office traced all cheques involved and found a clear money trail, and confirmed that no money was ever returned to the former chairman.


I'll be the first to admit that I'm not a fan of some of the fund raising methods used by Wat Phra Dhammakaya, but you have to be blind to not see something extremely fishy is going on with this 'case'. Both the Somdet and Phra Dhammajayo are practitioners of Vijja Dhammakai Lineage. This is too much of a coincidence.

For anyone actually interested in the origins of Vijja Dhammakai, check out this thread I created with a few useful links, academic and religious.

http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=26644&p=382989#p382989

Clearly the Vijja Dhammakai tradition (of which Wat Phra Dhammakaya is an heir) is a remnant of the pre-reform Yogavacara Buddhist traditions in Thailand. What we think of as standard Theravada Buddhism in Thailand today is actually a very recent (historically speaking) construction /reaction based on Thailand's encounter with modernity and western cultural influence.
Metta
Dhammafriend

Natthi me saranam annam buddho me saranam varam
For me there is no other refuge, the Buddha is my excellent refuge.
Etena saccavajjena vaddheyyam satthu-sasane
By the utterance of this truth, may I grow in the Master’s Way.

TRobinson465
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 5:29 pm

Re: Wat Dhammakaya

Postby TRobinson465 » Thu Sep 29, 2016 2:57 am

I see Vissudho avoided providing a shred of evidence for anything he said (big shock) and decided to switch to the classic ad hominem attacks. Not that i was expecting him to use real evidence anyways. But from now on lets not start demanding evidence unless we can provide some ourselves huh? especially since im the only one here thats actually able to provide actual sources backing my claims, and I dont just make something up about how it "exists" somewhere, i provide it here. I am glad we agree on disagreeing tho.

Anyways i think the posts of the anti-Dhammakaya evangelicals here are worthy enough on thier own without a need for a response so feel free so scroll thru thier "claims" against the Dhammakaya and decide for yourselves. The posts are very telling about the kind of ppl who dont like Dhammakaya. (and dont get me wrong there are non-self-righteous evangelicals who dont like us for actual legit reasons). Regardless, I think the evangelicals here are determined to "silence" :quote: me by claiming im silencing the others simply by providing proof and sources to refute thier misinformation so no worries ill be gone soon. anyways i think i have provided enuff information on the case and Dhammakaya's side on many of these random accusations. so I am done here. I will do a few more informative posts and then i will be gone. so the evangelicals here are free to reign in completely unopposed again because they apparently cant stand attacking something when there's some1 actually defending it. true courage evangelicals, true courage.

Anyways. I will not be back at all unless theres new information i want to share (such as new developments in the case, because if favorable to Dhammakaya i know it wont be posted here). But first i wanna provide some info on Mano Laohavanich/Mettanando Bhikkhu since half the ppl here got thier information on Dhammakaya entirely from him. I will provide on a new post.
"Do not have blind faith, but also no blind criticism"

TRobinson465
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 5:29 pm

Re: Wat Dhammakaya

Postby TRobinson465 » Thu Sep 29, 2016 4:10 am

As for Mano Laohavanich/Mettanando Bhikkhu who many of the evangelicals have cited here, i will tell you this. Most of what he says is made up. he also made up that he was one of the "top leaders" of Dhammakaya. he was not. i know a monk that is even more senior than Mano would be if he stayed a monk and even he is not considered one of the "top leaders".

This is the real story behind this fraud. Mano Laohavanich/Mettanando Bhikkhu was a Dhammakaya monk for about 12 years. (he claims 20 years experience with dhammakaya, i think hes including as a layman) Over half of that time he spent abroad studying for his many degrees on a Dhammakaya scholarship. Once he came back to dhammakaya he left after just a few years because he got into several conflicts due to Mano being a huge narcissist. Also, despite being a monk he hated meditating and Dhammakaya is all about meditation. not a good fit. Unlike most of the things Mano claims about Dhammkaya if you ask any long time member of Dhammakaya about him they can all independently verify this. The truth is easier to remember than lies, that is why Mano cant keep the story straight about why he left Dhammakaya. I alone have heard him give 3 conflicting reasons as to why he left: fundraising, the abbot telling him he was a god, and that he saw the abbot invested in weapons. 2 of which are total BS and the first is understandable but not the real reason he left.

This wont be enuff evidence for you evangelicals so heres more. After he left Dhammakaya he went to Wat Ratcha Orasaram, was eventually kicked out, and then went to Wat Nak Prokand and was eventually kicked out again for being a huge narcissist. Dont beleive me? Those in thailand can go to those 2 temples yourselves and ask why Mano/Mettanando Bhikkhu left, it is not just us Dhammakaya slaves who can verify this fact that Mano Laohavanich is a massive narcissist.

No other temple would take him so he asked to come back to Dhammakaya, the abbot refused unless he apologized to everyone for his behavior. Mano, being a narcissist, refused and disrobed because no other temple would take him.

After that, he was butthurt against the abbot for not taking him back so he built his post monk career on the lie that he was a Dhammakaya "expert" and made up a bunch of bizzare accusations that many of the evangelicals here have been citing the past 7 years. Using his numerous degrees that he got on Dhammakaya's dime to give himself some credibility. Some ppl beleive that Elvis Presley is still alive so of course some ppl believed Mano, no matter how stupidly ridiculous his claims were. He made his claims up so he knew he couldnt prove it so he puts himself as a reference to make his claims appear more legit. (he actually does put himself as a reference btw, because he had so few and wanted to fool ppl into thinking his work was properly sourced.)

http://www.dhammakayauncovered.com/opinion-1/2016/5/18/the-esoteric-teachings-of-mano-lemon-laohavanich-a-laypersons-comments

Mano makes up most of his information, even the ones that arent defamatory, and most of whats true is just common knowledge among members anyways that outsiders wouldnt know because they havent been to Dhammakaya. Heres a little riddle. Mano told numerous news outlets that Dhammakaya has two stupas. However, one of the stupas (as well as half the temple) wasnt built until many years AFTER Mano Laohavanich/Mettanando Bhikkhu left the temple. So, to the evangelicals who have been citing him for 7 years on this thread. How did this so called "expert" know we had two stupas?










I would wait for the evangelicals here to "make up" reasons (as usual) as to how he could have known but i dont plan on coming back here unless theres legit new information to share.

Here's the answer. Mano Laohavanich DIDNT know we had two stupas.

This is because we DONT have two stupas. We have one. ANYBODY who has actually gone to dhammakaya would know this, it actually is "a widely known fact" among our members that we have one stupa. Mano built his career on the lie that he was a Dhammakaya expert. When asked to identify one of the buildings, (in reality a memorial hall) he didnt know what it was because it was built after he left over 20 years ago. He didnt want to look like an idiot so he did what he always does and made something up and told the news the building was a second stupa. This is a fairly benign statement (although inaccurate) but just to show how uncredible this guy is. Couldnt even get a basic fact right that anybody who has been going to dhammakaya for even a few weeks would know.


BTW. anyone want to know who one of the chief proponents of the case against our abbot is in the credit union case? It is somebody with NO affiliation with the victim credit union whatsoever. His name is Mano Laohavanich/Mettanando Bhikkhu.

Here is an English transcription (with Thai video source for those who understand thai) of an interview with one of the ACTUAL board members of the victim credit union in the case against Dhammakaya speaking out about Mano Laohavanich highjacking the case and turning it into his own vanity show. As shown in my previous (actual) evidence, the victim credit union in the case against us dropped the charges and has made repeat public statements that they do not support the current case against our abbot and that most of the main proponents of the case (such as Mano) dont have any affiliation with the credit union we "laundered money" from WHATSOEVER!!!

http://www.dhammakayauncovered.com/news/2016/6/9/12-may-2016-kcuc-speaks-out-after-dsi-is-urged-by-third-parties-to-expedite-case
"Do not have blind faith, but also no blind criticism"

TRobinson465
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 5:29 pm

Re: Wat Dhammakaya

Postby TRobinson465 » Thu Sep 29, 2016 4:32 am

dhammafriend wrote:From Dhammakaya Uncovered:

http://www.dhammakayauncovered.com/facts/2016/7/5/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-dhammakaya-scandal-a-short-fact-sheet

Some extracts from the article:

DID THE ABBOT RECEIVE STOLEN MONEY?

No, he did not. Obviously, to have received stolen money, the money in question has to be stolen. However, whether or not the money was actually stolen has not yet been determined* - that case is still in court. How can you file a case against someone based on “evidence” that hasn’t been proven to be true?

DID THE ABBOT LAUNDER MONEY?

No, he did not. To have laundered money, the Abbot had to have (1) known the money was stolen, (2) masked the money trail by putting the money through a series of transactions, and (3) returned the money to the former chairman. All three conditions need to be met for the act to be considered money laundering. However, none of this happened.

HOW DO YOU KNOW NONE OF THIS HAPPENED?

To address (1), there is no possible fact-based way to prove that the Abbot had no knowledge. However, the lack of evidence to show that he did have knowledge indicates his innocence. Regarding (2) and (3), the Anti-Money Laundering Office traced all cheques involved and found a clear money trail, and confirmed that no money was ever returned to the former chairman.


I'll be the first to admit that I'm not a fan of some of the fund raising methods used by Wat Phra Dhammakaya, but you have to be blind to not see something extremely fishy is going on with this 'case'. Both the Somdet and Phra Dhammajayo are practitioners of Vijja Dhammakai Lineage. This is too much of a coincidence.

For anyone actually interested in the origins of Vijja Dhammakai, check out this thread I created with a few useful links, academic and religious.

http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=26644&p=382989#p382989

Clearly the Vijja Dhammakai tradition (of which Wat Phra Dhammakaya is an heir) is a remnant of the pre-reform Yogavacara Buddhist traditions in Thailand. What we think of as standard Theravada Buddhism in Thailand today is actually a very recent (historically speaking) construction /reaction based on Thailand's encounter with modernity and western cultural influence.


Thanks for the post and link Dhammafriend. Very helpful for those looking to learn about the tradition.
"Do not have blind faith, but also no blind criticism"

TRobinson465
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 5:29 pm

Re: Wat Dhammakaya

Postby TRobinson465 » Thu Sep 29, 2016 4:40 am

A quick summary of a recent scandal rocking DSI:

1. A detained suspect in DSI custody was reported to have "hung himself" with his socks in his cell.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Death-of-land-official-shrouded-in-mystery-30294328.html

2. An autopsy revealed he had died of a ruptured liver, meaning most likely physical injury, which DSI stated happened due to CPR.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/crime/1075841/doctor-dismisses-dsis-cause-of-death-theory

3. DSI's servers happened to have "malfunctioned" at the time so there are no recordings of the incident on their security cameras.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Probe-into-suspects-death-in-DSI-custody-to-be-con-30294788.html


I even provided specific sources with each claim. So id love to see what the evangelicals here have to say about this.

My guess.

1. Pull a Mano Laohavanich and make up something to say its a Dhammakaya conspiracy.

2. resort to Ad hominem attacks.

3. change the subject and make up something else to attack dhammakaya on.

Id like to see what the evangelicals here have to say about this scandal but like i said Im not coming back unless I have new information to share.

Bye. Im Out.
"Do not have blind faith, but also no blind criticism"


Return to “General Theravāda discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bhikkhu Pesala, identification, ihrjordan and 79 guests

Google Saffron, Theravada Search Engine