Wat Dhammakaya

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
chownah
Posts: 4340
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Wat Dhammakaya

Postby chownah » Tue Aug 02, 2016 11:24 am

ManEagle wrote:
chownah wrote:
ManEagle wrote:Anyway, back to the main point here, and that is that I believe that Dhammakaya as an organisation have a responsibility to ensure their followers are not becoming too extreme in the way they conduct themselves in everyday life.

That is an interesting idea. Can you describe how they might do this...as an organisation?
Does dhammawheel as an organisation have a responsibility to be sure that people aren't spending too much time here?
chownah


In answer to your first point, perhaps it could be partly done through their DMC TV channel although from what I've seen of that it is very unlikely. I don't understand very much Thai language but I get the gyst of some of the stuff.

Your second point is nonsensical and completely irrelevant because as far as I know dhammawheel is not an organisation in the same way as Dhammakaya.

If I do not see the relevance of something I do not call it irrelevant. My second point is extremely relevant I think, it is just that you do not see the relevance.

Back to your answer. You said that you think it could be partly done through their tv channel....can you be more specific about what they would do on thier tv channel?....and you said the problem could be "partly" done there so what else might dhammakaya as an organisation do?

Also, so you think that generally speaking that the problem you are addressing is a big problem at dhammakaya? Do you think it is wide spread? I really have very little information about what the experience is of the typical dhammakaya follower but I think it is probably nothing like your wife's experience but maybe I am wrong. What do you think?
chownah

davidbrainerd
Posts: 274
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Wat Dhammakaya

Postby davidbrainerd » Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:09 pm

ManEagle wrote:Actually, we're not so different. I too have had a keen interest in religions for many years. I have studied religions at university and became interested in Buddhism in particluar because it fitted more with my then views on how best to live my life. I practiced meditation and found it to be very beneficial in many ways, not least in helping to keep my mind quiet and focussed. My interest in Buddhism happened long before my academic studies and long before I met my wife. But I was, and still am, interested only in some aspects of Buddhism. I'm not interested in being part of all the supernatural aspects of Buddhism, such as karma, rebirth and merit making. None of these things are important to me. I believe my views are similar to Stephen Batchelor's. I have read one of his books some years ago called "confessions of a Buddhist atheist" which made an impression on me. I intend on reading another of his books sometime called "Buddhism without beliefs" which sounds like it's 'right up my street'!


In other words your only interest is in meditation as stress relief which you just happened to come accross by academically looking into Buddhism rather than Hinduism or Jainism or any host of other Indic philosophies and religions that involve meditation in some form. Therefore you call your bare meditation practice devoid of any metaphysics "Buddhism", just as if you had encountered meditation while academically looking into Hinduism you would call your bare meditation practice devoid of any metaphysics "Hinduism." So in other words, deep down you know its not Buddhism and hate real authentic Buddhism for exposing the fact that "Buddhism without beliefs" is no Buddhism at all but only meditation as stress relief. It causes you deep stress that your wife believes in an actual Buddhism becuase then you feel your bare "Buddhism" of meditation for stress relief (which you could equally accurately or inaccurately misname "Hinduism without beliefs" or "Jainism without beliefs" or "generic Indian religion without beliefs") is inferior since its nothing but one generic aspect being taken out of the context of a metaphysical system and used in a purely secular, almost banal, way. Yeah, I can see why you hate Buddhism so much now.

TRobinson465
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 5:29 pm

Re: Wat Dhammakaya

Postby TRobinson465 » Wed Aug 03, 2016 2:00 am

ManEagle wrote:
TRobinson465 wrote:I myself am probably the opposite of you, I have had strong interest in religion since a very young age, all religions interested me actually, not just Buddhism.


Actually, we're not so different. I too have had a keen interest in religions for many years. I have studied religions at university and became interested in Buddhism in particluar because it fitted more with my then views on how best to live my life. I practiced meditation and found it to be very beneficial in many ways, not least in helping to keep my mind quiet and focussed. My interest in Buddhism happened long before my academic studies and long before I met my wife. But I was, and still am, interested only in some aspects of Buddhism. I'm not interested in being part of all the supernatural aspects of Buddhism, such as karma, rebirth and merit making.

We are living in an evolving world where times change for one reason or another and I'm sure you will agree that Dhammakaya to a large extent has taken this on board in terms of how they have interpreted some of the original teachings of the Buddha as I understand it. Although, to be fair, is it not true to say that the many different forms of Buddhism have been doing this for centuries?

Anyway, back to the main point here, and that is that I believe that Dhammakaya as an organisation have a responsibility to ensure their followers are not becoming too extreme in the way they conduct themselves in everyday life.


Interesting, the parts of religion that interested me the most was the supernatural and afterlife aspects. And yes, Dhammakaya is very "merit" based so you are definitely not one of the people who would like it. Millions do though, in part because they find karma and the merit aspects of Buddhism to be useful, I find it useful also since i dont expect to become an arahant in this life and will have to face rebirth again.

I wouldnt say Dhammakaya "interprets" Buddhism differently as a result of the evolving world, at least not that much. i think most of the differences come from approaching Buddhism and emphasizing certain parts of Buddhism to adjust to the modern world. I remember one news article call it a temple that appeals to the "spiritually hungry" middle class, which i think is somewhat accurate. And yes many forms of Buddhism come as a result of changing times, for example in many Chinese traditions of Buddhism, monks grow their own food rather than rely on alms, the reason being in ancient Chinese culture, it was looked down upon to live off others rather than produce things yourself. This type of adjustment to culture and times is pretty prevalent in the history Buddhism and all religions really.

i think you make a good point, I can see why you would want them to tone it down. From my understanding though the temple is run by monastics who devote thier lives to Buddhism, so im pretty sure theres a disparity in what they perceive as extreme and what you perceive as extreme. It should also be known that how you describe your wife, she seems to be part of the devoted subgroup that attends Dhammakaya, which is sizable, but still just a minority of Dhammakaya goers

In answer to your first point, perhaps it could be partly done through their DMC TV channel although from what I've seen of that it is very unlikely. I don't understand very much Thai language but I get the gyst of some of the stuff.

Your second point is nonsensical and completely irrelevant because as far as I know dhammawheel is not an organisation in the same way as Dhammakaya.


As for this point, I agree Dhammawheel is different, but I agree with the concept of Chownahs point, I think the idea you are suggesting makes sense but this isnt that practical in reality. I dont think Facebook is capable of stopping people who go overboard with thier site, they can try, but there's no way to stop this. If you are familiar with the Pokemon Go craze thats been going on in much of the world, including America, many people go overboard with the game, and Niantic has tried to get people to tone it down (i know cuz i play the game lol, thats actually why i was busy last weekend and couldnt reply on here in a timely fashion) But really, no matter what Niantic does there are always going to be fanatics who take the game too far and i think this is Chownah's point. Your suggestion that Dhammakaya try to keep followers from becoming too extreme makes sense, but it doesnt seem feasible. There are people of every kind who are fanatic, apple fans, comicbook fans, etc, and no matter what the organization does there will be people like this.
"Do not have blind faith, but also no blind criticism"

TRobinson465
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 5:29 pm

Re: Wat Dhammakaya

Postby TRobinson465 » Wed Aug 03, 2016 2:04 am

davidbrainerd wrote:
ManEagle wrote:Actually, we're not so different. I too have had a keen interest in religions for many years. I have studied religions at university and became interested in Buddhism in particluar because it fitted more with my then views on how best to live my life. I practiced meditation and found it to be very beneficial in many ways, not least in helping to keep my mind quiet and focussed. My interest in Buddhism happened long before my academic studies and long before I met my wife. But I was, and still am, interested only in some aspects of Buddhism. I'm not interested in being part of all the supernatural aspects of Buddhism, such as karma, rebirth and merit making. None of these things are important to me. I believe my views are similar to Stephen Batchelor's. I have read one of his books some years ago called "confessions of a Buddhist atheist" which made an impression on me. I intend on reading another of his books sometime called "Buddhism without beliefs" which sounds like it's 'right up my street'!


In other words your only interest is in meditation as stress relief which you just happened to come accross by academically looking into Buddhism rather than Hinduism or Jainism or any host of other Indic philosophies and religions that involve meditation in some form. Therefore you call your bare meditation practice devoid of any metaphysics "Buddhism", just as if you had encountered meditation while academically looking into Hinduism you would call your bare meditation practice devoid of any metaphysics "Hinduism." So in other words, deep down you know its not Buddhism and hate real authentic Buddhism for exposing the fact that "Buddhism without beliefs" is no Buddhism at all but only meditation as stress relief. It causes you deep stress that your wife believes in an actual Buddhism becuase then you feel your bare "Buddhism" of meditation for stress relief (which you could equally accurately or inaccurately misname "Hinduism without beliefs" or "Jainism without beliefs" or "generic Indian religion without beliefs") is inferior since its nothing but one generic aspect being taken out of the context of a metaphysical system and used in a purely secular, almost banal, way. Yeah, I can see why you hate Buddhism so much now.



I actually sorta concur with this. Buddhism is much more than meditation. Meditation without the metaphysical aspects of Buddhism is just a hobby. It would be like if you like Hinduism or other Indian beliefs but only like the Yoga. Yoga without the religious aspects isn't Hinduism or any kind of religious philosophy, it is exercise.
"Do not have blind faith, but also no blind criticism"

ManEagle
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 6:43 pm

Re: Wat Dhammakaya

Postby ManEagle » Wed Aug 03, 2016 1:18 pm

davidbrainerd wrote:
ManEagle wrote:Actually, we're not so different. I too have had a keen interest in religions for many years. I have studied religions at university and became interested in Buddhism in particluar because it fitted more with my then views on how best to live my life. I practiced meditation and found it to be very beneficial in many ways, not least in helping to keep my mind quiet and focussed. My interest in Buddhism happened long before my academic studies and long before I met my wife. But I was, and still am, interested only in some aspects of Buddhism. I'm not interested in being part of all the supernatural aspects of Buddhism, such as karma, rebirth and merit making. None of these things are important to me. I believe my views are similar to Stephen Batchelor's. I have read one of his books some years ago called "confessions of a Buddhist atheist" which made an impression on me. I intend on reading another of his books sometime called "Buddhism without beliefs" which sounds like it's 'right up my street'!


In other words your only interest is in meditation as stress relief which you just happened to come accross by academically looking into Buddhism rather than Hinduism or Jainism or any host of other Indic philosophies and religions that involve meditation in some form. Therefore you call your bare meditation practice devoid of any metaphysics "Buddhism", just as if you had encountered meditation while academically looking into Hinduism you would call your bare meditation practice devoid of any metaphysics "Hinduism." So in other words, deep down you know its not Buddhism and hate real authentic Buddhism for exposing the fact that "Buddhism without beliefs" is no Buddhism at all but only meditation as stress relief. It causes you deep stress that your wife believes in an actual Buddhism becuase then you feel your bare "Buddhism" of meditation for stress relief (which you could equally accurately or inaccurately misname "Hinduism without beliefs" or "Jainism without beliefs" or "generic Indian religion without beliefs") is inferior since its nothing but one generic aspect being taken out of the context of a metaphysical system and used in a purely secular, almost banal, way. Yeah, I can see why you hate Buddhism so much now.

How little you understand me. But then thats probably more my fault than yours, I haven't explained myself well enough and perhaps I no longer need to. Getting involved in this discussion seems to have had a somewhat cathartic effect on me over time. Perhaps putting it down in words and getting input from you and others has helped me come to the realization that it is not my wife who needs to change but it is me, and I'm going to start that process immediately - infact I guess you could say it had already started. Not that you or anyone really needs to know this but the love and respect I have for my wife as a wonderful human being transends anything else and telling myself this again and again more than anything enables me to deal with deal with any differences we may have now or in the future. So, with this in mind I will endeavour to not get angry with my wife or Dhammakaya now or in the future, be it at Christmas time or whatever. What I will try more and more to do is to be understanding and continue to be a loving husband. What I will not be doing is joining Dhammakaya. I will still make visits to the temple with my wife when she wants me to and without protest. I know I am a good person despite the fact that I am not religious. I neither need nor desire religion of any sort in my life. But I will probably continue to use some Buddhist meditation as when I want, if that's ok with you.

Virgo
Posts: 1313
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:52 pm

Re: Wat Dhammakaya

Postby Virgo » Wed Aug 03, 2016 5:27 pm

ManEagle wrote:Not that you or anyone really needs to know this but the love and respect I have for my wife as a wonderful human being transends anything else and telling myself this again and again more than anything enables me to deal with deal with any differences we may have now or in the future. So, with this in mind I will endeavour to not get angry with my wife or Dhammakaya now or in the future, be it at Christmas time or whatever. What I will try more and more to do is to be understanding and continue to be a loving husband.

That's wonderful Eagle! :anjali:

Really excellent.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.1.08.amar.html
Virgo

TRobinson465
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 5:29 pm

Re: Wat Dhammakaya

Postby TRobinson465 » Thu Aug 04, 2016 12:59 am

ManEagle wrote:How little you understand me. But then thats probably more my fault than yours, I haven't explained myself well enough and perhaps I no longer need to. Getting involved in this discussion seems to have had a somewhat cathartic effect on me over time. Perhaps putting it down in words and getting input from you and others has helped me come to the realization that it is not my wife who needs to change but it is me, and I'm going to start that process immediately - infact I guess you could say it had already started. Not that you or anyone really needs to know this but the love and respect I have for my wife as a wonderful human being transends anything else and telling myself this again and again more than anything enables me to deal with deal with any differences we may have now or in the future. So, with this in mind I will endeavour to not get angry with my wife or Dhammakaya now or in the future, be it at Christmas time or whatever. What I will try more and more to do is to be understanding and continue to be a loving husband. What I will not be doing is joining Dhammakaya. I will still make visits to the temple with my wife when she wants me to and without protest. I know I am a good person despite the fact that I am not religious. I neither need nor desire religion of any sort in my life. But I will probably continue to use some Buddhist meditation as when I want, if that's ok with you.



Awesome. Good to see the change. I think this new outlook for you will make both you a lot happier.
"Do not have blind faith, but also no blind criticism"

User avatar
suriyopama
Posts: 466
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 10:44 am
Location: Thailand

Re: Wat Dhammakaya

Postby suriyopama » Wed Aug 10, 2016 12:39 am

The mega-greedy cult has to return part of the encroached land from their World Peace Valley Meditation Centre at Khao Yai.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/general/1057413/meditation-centre-to-give-back-land

User avatar
Khemadhammo Bhikkhu
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:38 pm
Location: Lede, Belgium

Re: Wat Dhammakaya

Postby Khemadhammo Bhikkhu » Wed Aug 10, 2016 5:06 pm

I am happy that this thread has become a bit more balanced now that Trobinson and Paul Trafford are also joining in with the discussion. I wish to add in a few notes here, before I move to another center for the second vassa, with most likely a bad Internet connection.

Regarding Wat Phra Dhammakaya, I think there will always be extreme opinions and it seems to be a tradition that people either love or hate. That said, it is good to be aware that many of the sentiments expressed in this threat not so much concern Wat Phra Dhammakaya itself, but concern more differences between city and forest temples. Thai city temples in general tend to be more focused on teaching lay people and education, whereas forest temples tend to be less focused on education and more on a withdrawn monastic lifestyle. In fact, you need both to keep Buddhism alive, and, as we can gather form historical records, in the time of the Buddha both kind of temples existed (e.g. Jetavanarama was more focused on education and Veluvanarama more on meditation and withdrawal from society). The problem with Thai Buddhism is that these two forms of Buddhism have become more strictly separated since the official separation of the Mahanikaya and Dhammayuttika fraternities during the time of Rama III and IV. Although the revival that took place during those days vrought many good things to Thai Buddhism, it also led city and forest tradition monks to lead more separate lifestyles.

When Wat Phra Dhammakaya, or its precursor Sun Phutthachak-patipattham, was founded, the original idea was to simply found a meditation center in an area which at the time (1970s) was still pretty uninhabited and outside of Bangkok. During the years after, however, Bangkok absorbed the northern Patumthani area, Wat Phra Dhammakaya was suddenly part of a city community, and had to adapt to the needs of the society. The wat therefore decided to set up retreat centers all over the country to give the opportunity for people to join meditation retreats whenever they had the chance to take leave from their busy business lives.

Some people who have had only a first impression of Wat Phra Dhammakaya, Thai or non-Thai alike, may therefore mostly associate the temple with an emphasis on ceremonies and on fund-raising for building projects. These are in fact important aspects of Wat Phra Dhammakaya. However, without being familiar with the training programs and the meditation retreats of the wat, one could come to the conclusion that the wat only teaches dana and not any other qualities of the Buddhist path, such as meditation, right mindfulness, training one's habits and living with the sila's. These are in fact the heart of the culture of Wat Phra Dhammakaya, as established by the mae chi Khun Yai and Luang Phor Dhammajayo.

Because of these reasons it is important to recognize:
A. that due to the strict separation of the city and forest traditions in Thailand, certain sentiments felt by our Thai fellow monks (in both city and forest temples) might often not reflect reality accurately. There are many misundertandings on both sides of the spectrum.
B. Wat Phra Dhammakaya teaches many aspects of the Buddhist path, but some of these aspects might not be very well known to those who don't know the temple very well. As mentioned, many important activities of Wat Phra Dhammakaya are organized outside of the temple, in meditation retreats and training programs in the provinces outside of Bangkok.

If I have time, I'll try to be online more during the next days to continue this discussion, before I move to the Netherlands.

PS: I hate to be fuzzy, but would it be possible to use the full names of Buddhist temples and monks, as a way of showing respect? The title of the thread shoud actually be "Wat Phra Dhammakaya", not "Wat Dhammakaya". Similarly, it shows more respect to write "Luang Pu Cha" or "Ajahn Chah", rather than A. Chah" or something like that. Thanks.
He stopped and called out to the Blessed One: "Stop, recluse! Stop, recluse!"
"I have stopped, Angulimāla, you stop too."
(M ii.100)

jameswang
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2013 9:00 am

Re: Wat Dhammakaya

Postby jameswang » Fri Aug 19, 2016 10:39 am

TRobinson465 wrote:
jameswang wrote:
TRobinson465 wrote:what happened was somebody embezzled money and donated it to Dhammakaya as well as a bunch of other organizations.

Hmmm.... and he "donated" quite a lot, didn't he? What was the percentage that he kept?



To explain. KCUC filed a lawsuit when they were becoming insolvent for 12 billion baht worth of checks the chairmen issued to numerous groups from 2009-2011 that the credit union alleged were unauthorized. One of the groups was Wat Phra Dhammakaya. About 380 million baht worth of checks went to his family members. However the court threw the case out for insufficient evidence twice in 2013 or something. DSI is just randomly opening the case again now and is for some reason only focusing on Dhammakaya.

Can you point us to some official report about the court throwing the case out?
Btw, I doubt DSI's opening the case and focusing on Dhammakaya is random.

jameswang
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2013 9:00 am

Re: Wat Dhammakaya

Postby jameswang » Fri Aug 19, 2016 10:51 am

Khemadhammo Bhikkhu wrote:Regarding Wat Phra Dhammakaya, I think there will always be extreme opinions and it seems to be a tradition that people either love or hate. That said, it is good to be aware that many of the sentiments expressed in this threat not so much concern Wat Phra Dhammakaya itself, but concern more differences between city and forest temples.


You probably wanted to type "thread", but that does look like a Fruedian slip, doesn't it?
I've noticed quite a significant surge of counter-effort online by Dk members since the warrant was issued.
Anyway, I think it's quite obvious the thread/topic is really about Wat Dhammakaya as subject shows.

User avatar
gavesako
Posts: 1653
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 5:16 pm
Location: England

Re: Wat Dhammakaya

Postby gavesako » Fri Aug 19, 2016 2:03 pm

More update on the forest encroachment case and another arrest warrant:

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/nationa ... 93123.html

http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/dhamma ... est-sight/


To put it into proper context, compare similar cases involving holiday resorts illegally built on forest land (bribing the officials who issued fake land deeds to them).

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/general ... -thap-boek


Many resorts and also some temples in Thailand are now facing investigation into how they obtained such land deeds. Usually corruption is involved in order to obtain a nice plot of land surrounded by nature. In the past, forest monks were allowed to live in simple huts in such forest areas in order to seek seclusion and to prevent illegal logging. Many forest monks faced death threats while living in such areas because the loggers (or corrupt officials) wanted to get rid of them and make use of the land instead. But forest monks did not build any large permanent structures ('meditation centers') on such land which would 'bring the city into the forest.'

Here is a good interview with Ajahn Pasanno about protecting forests in Thailand:

http://www.fsnewsletter.amaravati.org/html/35/save.htm
http://www.inquiringmind.com/Articles/Bhikkhu.html
Bhikkhu Gavesako
Kiṃkusalagavesī anuttaraṃ santivarapadaṃ pariyesamāno... (MN 26)

ajahnchah.org - Teachings of Ajahn Chah in many languages
Dhammatube - Videos on Buddhist practice
Ancient Buddhist Texts - Translations and history of Pali texts

TRobinson465
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 5:29 pm

Re: Wat Dhammakaya

Postby TRobinson465 » Sun Aug 21, 2016 11:02 pm

To explain. KCUC filed a lawsuit when they were becoming insolvent for 12 billion baht worth of checks the chairmen issued to numerous groups from 2009-2011 that the credit union alleged were unauthorized. One of the groups was Wat Phra Dhammakaya. About 380 million baht worth of checks went to his family members. However the court threw the case out for insufficient evidence twice in 2013 or something. DSI is just randomly opening the case again now and is for some reason only focusing on Dhammakaya.

Can you point us to some official report about the court throwing the case out?


Sure thing, here are some links a Thai contact I have in the temple sent me.

http://thaipublica.org/investigations/c ... hong-chan/

http://thaipublica.org/2015/10/credit-u ... ngchan_71/

http://thaipublica.org/2015/10/credit-u ... ngchan_74/

https://dsi.go.th/view.aspx?tid=T0001233

Unfortunately they are in Thai, which i know is against Dhammawheel policies but there aren't really any official English reports on this except for stuff Pro-Dhammakaya sites write which draw from the Thai stuff. I myself cant really read Thai very well but my contact told me these mention the prior cases. Sadly most of the stuff about this case in Thailand is (naturally) in Thai.

Here's one in English, but its from a pro-Dhammakaya site and i guess this wouldnt count as an official report.

http://www.dhammakayauncovered.com/edit ... ade-by-dsi

Perhaps a neutral third party person here on Dhammawheel who can read Thai fluently can take a look at the links i provided and give a brief summary?

The cases I am mentioning are case no. 146/2556 which was filed in 2013, case no. 63/2557 filed in 2014, and the current case which is case no. 27/2559.
"Do not have blind faith, but also no blind criticism"

TRobinson465
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 5:29 pm

Re: Wat Dhammakaya

Postby TRobinson465 » Sun Aug 21, 2016 11:17 pm

Btw, I doubt DSI's opening the case and focusing on Dhammakaya is random.



I agree completely, it is not random (poor word choice on my part on the last post i guess, but it was meant to make a point). It is very clearly intentional and targeted. Here's a report from The Nation, which is an Anti-Dhammakaya news site.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/nationa ... 87045.html

It states that "The case against the monk was a follow-up to the Klongchan Credit Union Cooperative embezzlement scandal and authorities were not just singling out one suspect, he said.

'In fact, this case involves not just Phra Dhammachayo, but also some 20 others. If you spare him, you have to do the same to the others. How can we enforce the law then?'"

Of course the justice minister is trying claim that since other organizations were involved they cant be lenient on Dhammakaya. But from our point of view the question is why is DSI focusing only on Dhammakaya in the first place when this case which was originally from 2013 involves over 20 others?

The money laundering charges are bunk since the Thai Anti-Money Laundering Office released a statement saying the money trail was clear and the temple spent every single baht of the illicit funds on exactly what they said they did. Here's an English translation of the statement with a link to the original thai statement.

http://www.dhammakayauncovered.com/news ... ing-office

Still waiting for the other temples, the Thai Red Cross, and the other 20 groups involved in the case to be investigated for "receiving stolen goods".
"Do not have blind faith, but also no blind criticism"

jameswang
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2013 9:00 am

Re: Wat Dhammakaya

Postby jameswang » Tue Aug 23, 2016 4:41 am

TRobinson465 wrote:
Btw, I doubt DSI's opening the case and focusing on Dhammakaya is random.



I agree completely, it is not random (poor word choice on my part on the last post i guess, but it was meant to make a point). It is very clearly intentional and targeted.

Perhaps there's a good reason for it.

Here's a report from The Nation, which is an Anti-Dhammakaya news site.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/nationa ... 87045.html

It states that "The case against the monk was a follow-up to the Klongchan Credit Union Cooperative embezzlement scandal and authorities were not just singling out one suspect, he said.

'In fact, this case involves not just Phra Dhammachayo, but also some 20 others. If you spare him, you have to do the same to the others. How can we enforce the law then?'"

Of course the justice minister is trying claim that since other organizations were involved they cant be lenient on Dhammakaya. But from our point of view the question is why is DSI focusing only on Dhammakaya in the first place when this case which was originally from 2013 involves over 20 others?

Could it be it only seem so because others have been more cooporative, while the Dk abbot has been evasive?

The money laundering charges are bunk since the Thai Anti-Money Laundering Office released a statement saying the money trail was clear and the temple spent every single baht of the illicit funds on exactly what they said they did. Here's an English translation of the statement with a link to the original thai statement.

http://www.dhammakayauncovered.com/news ... ing-office

Still waiting for the other temples, the Thai Red Cross, and the other 20 groups involved in the case to be investigated for "receiving stolen goods".

Are you certain they are not?

TRobinson465
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 5:29 pm

Re: Wat Dhammakaya

Postby TRobinson465 » Wed Aug 24, 2016 2:01 am

TRobinson465 wrote: I agree completely, it is not random (poor word choice on my part on the last post i guess, but it was meant to make a point). It is very clearly intentional and targeted.


Perhaps there's a good reason for it.


If there is a good reason for it, they should say what it is. They were grilled on why they only targeted Dhammakaya so they denied singling the abbot out because they couldnt come up with a real reason to only target Dhammakaya in a case that involves over 20 others. At least that's what I'm inclined to think.


The money laundering charges are bunk since the Thai Anti-Money Laundering Office released a statement saying the money trail was clear and the temple spent every single baht of the illicit funds on exactly what they said they did. Here's an English translation of the statement with a link to the original thai statement.

http://www.dhammakayauncovered.com/news ... ing-office

Still waiting for the other temples, the Thai Red Cross, and the other 20 groups involved in the case to be investigated for "receiving stolen goods".


Are you certain they are not?


I admit that i am not "certain" they havent investigated others. However I do remember a news anchor interview the temple lawyer about the background of the case, the anchor asked the lawyer why DSI hasnt filed charges agaisnt the other groups and the lawyer basically responded "That's exactly my question" or something like that. I heard a rumor that DSI did decide to file charges against the other groups later on (possibly after they realized the mistake that it was suspicious to only file one against dhammakaya) but im unsure. Even if they did file charges they certainly dont seem to have actually pursued the charges against the others. If anyone can find sources confirming DSI actually investigated any of the other 20 entities that received the exact same illicit money as dhammakaya please post.

The only thing that makes Dhammakaya unique from the other recipients of the illicit money was we were the only ones who raised the money to return to the credit union once we found out it was illicit, but it seems like they should be doing the opposite of targeting only us for that.



It states that "The case against the monk was a follow-up to the Klongchan Credit Union Cooperative embezzlement scandal and authorities were not just singling out one suspect, he said.

'In fact, this case involves not just Phra Dhammachayo, but also some 20 others. If you spare him, you have to do the same to the others. How can we enforce the law then?'"

Of course the justice minister is trying claim that since other organizations were involved they cant be lenient on Dhammakaya. But from our point of view the question is why is DSI focusing only on Dhammakaya in the first place when this case which was originally from 2013 involves over 20 others?

Could it be it only seem so because others have been more cooporative, while the Dk abbot has been evasive?


I'm glad you asked that actually.

The abbot is not being evasive, DSI is simply making a scene about the case. DSI requested the abbot report to DSI's office to hear charges, the temple requested DSI simply give the abbot his charges at the temple because travelling long distances puts him at risk of a fatal pulmonary embolism. It is widely known by followers that the abbot is in poor health, several years ago he used to lead meditation every Sunday, the past few years, he never attends normal service, and misses even big events very regularly. In fact, i remember a few years ago he disappeared for like 5 months because of his bad health. The Sangha Council has even appointed acting abbots to take his place temporarily because his poor health didnt allow him to handle his duties as abbot.

There is nothing unreasonable with DSI giving the abbot his charges at the temple, it is easier for everybody and if they did that the case can continue and we can all get on with our lives (of course, they dont want that because they know if the case continued he would be found innocent). You will hear on opinion articles on anti-dhammakaya sites like the Bangkok Post that a special exception shouldnt be made and the abbot should follow the law. That is BS. DSI claims they cant go to the temple because it is not proper legal procedure, thats just an excuse. Real news outlets (unlike the Nation and the BkkPost) investigated and interviewed other law enforcement officials, they confirmed not only is it more logical to give the an ill defendant their charges at the location of their convenience, it is perfectly legal and what is done normally.

In fact, I actually have a source for this (with english subs too :D ) lemme find it and post on the thread.
"Do not have blind faith, but also no blind criticism"

TRobinson465
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 5:29 pm

Re: Wat Dhammakaya

Postby TRobinson465 » Wed Aug 24, 2016 2:10 am

Here's the source I mentioned in my above post. A TNN interview with the Deputy Prosecutor.

phpBB [video]
"Do not have blind faith, but also no blind criticism"

TRobinson465
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 5:29 pm

Re: Wat Dhammakaya

Postby TRobinson465 » Wed Aug 24, 2016 2:13 am

Here is another one, also with English subs fortunately. One with a police general this time.

I reiterate.

There. Is. No. Reason. DSI. Cant. Give. The. Abbot. His. Charges. At. The. Temple

phpBB [video]
"Do not have blind faith, but also no blind criticism"


Return to “General Theravāda discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: cjmacie, Dan74, Paul Davy, Sylvester, TRobinson465, Virgo, Yahoo [Bot] and 33 guests

Google Saffron, Theravada Search Engine