Wat Dhammakaya

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
TRobinson465
Posts: 1783
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 5:29 pm
Location: United States

Re: Wat Dhammakaya

Post by TRobinson465 »

Im not sure how completely dodging the fact that i asked Visuddho to provide evidence and calling me uneducated because you have nothing to back up your many accusations is not an ad hominem attack. I also wonder why you keep saying ME and my friends. if there really are other Dhammkaya members here why dont you ever refer to them by name? im the only one here thats revealed any actual inside knowledge. Some1 who doesnt think Dhammakaya is a Nazi cult bent on world domination isnt automatically a dhammakaya follower.

Anyways to respond to the recent posts. first off, I accept that you wont provide the link to your totally existent proof Visuddo, that is fine. U do make a good point about the Bkk post subsciptions. But for the record i dont have a subsciption either and was still able to find my evidence regarding WPD asking DSI to give the abbot his charges at the temple. those articles were also archived but you can still find them on google, you just cant read the whole thing, but what you can read proves my statement enough and i read the articles fully b4 they were archived. if any1 thinks the whole article doesnt support my statement or is "taken outta context" buy a subscription and screenshot the whole article and i will leave dhammakaya forever. I am that confident about it.

I do think the DSI scandal is relavent because it is proof that DSI is shady and dhammakaya has a valid reason not to trust them. But no matter, if you guys think it is off topic i will concede on that. But just saying why i thought it was on topic and that it is somewhat relavent.

As for mano, i can literally make up a rumor saying he is a serial killer and since you dont know enough about him or me you cant say its for sure false. he has never provided evidence for his accusations so me saying he is a serial killer is just as credible as anything he says. dhammakaya does not respond to most of his claims because he makes so many and so frequently and it doesnt matter if we do. In america ppl used to say Obama needs to show his birth certificate to prove he was born here, when he did the same ppl just said it was a fake. That is exactly what would happen if we wasted our time denying his ridiculous accusations. you say i dont know enuff about mano to know he is lying but i know enuff about WPD cuz i actually bother to go there, and from my experience firsthand I know that Mano gives inaccurate statements all the time that he clearly made up. given his track record, and the fact that Mano is the ONLY one claiming these things it is reasonable to say he lies about the things we cant "disprove" also. Im sure there are things that are true, but with his record of false claims its hard to tell whats true and what isnt. Mano knows a group of ppl will believe in anything even if it has no evidence whatsoever so he makes up these ridiculous things about WPD and our abbot. I bet you anything if i went to Juntaland and walked around with my digital tally counter that I use for mantra meditation that Thai people who listen to Mano would try to order a pizza on it.



I am not leaving as an excuse, i am leaving because much like the obama birth certificate people this is a fruitless arguement. if i say something I have to provide proof, if i provide proof its "out of context" and biased. Im not exactly sure in what context the actual board members of the victim credit union saying they do not support the case against dhammakaya could possibly not mean exactly that. Not only is my proof not good enuff the evangelicals here don't have to provide proof and are allowed to state incredibly demonizing "facts" without any evidence whatsoever and unless i can disprove them they are true. and of course even if i do disprove them its biased. This is too much work for me, i have a full time job and a life, its not a fair match if i can only stick with verifiable facts while the critics can make up "contexts" and "facts" as they please. Even if my proof is biased it is better than anything you evangelicals have provided. Still waiting for those sources.

Im not going to sit here and provide more links that the evangelicals will call "out of context" and biased, but i will tell you that there is consensus that Dhammakaya appears in the pali canon, simple CTRL-Find. its clear its there. the controversy is the interpretation. Ven. Payutto, a leading Buddhist scholar (also a critic of Mano Laohavanich for never providing any kind of evidence for anything he says) has criticized the Dhammakaya tradition on our intepretation of Dhammakaya. which is fine because of course we differ in interpretation, but that's proof that the word is clearly in there, its just the interpretation that is debatable and there are many interpretations

I do agree with Bhikkhu Pesala about the rhetoric on here being way overblown. I am a guilty party i will admit, but this was a problem way before i was here and most of the posts before i was here were overwhelmingly anti-dhammakaya. id also like to point out that i made a similar statement to his earlier in the thread. just saying. It woulda been nice if somebody provided that kind of insight sooner than 7 years after this hate thread started.

I will say that i am quite glad Dhammawheel and Dharmawheel are two seperate sites though. Considering the hatred for Dhammakaya i could only imagine how badly the evangelicals here would trash Mahayana Buddhism, which is way more different to the forest tradition than Dhammakaya is. It sure would reflect badly on Theravada Buddhists if a bunch of evangelical Buddhists trashed and demonized mahayana buddhism for several years and made up a bunch of random accusations trying to portray them as evil. Especially when one of the arguments used is "The way they practice is how the majority of buddhists practice, but I am right and everybody else is wrong so they deserve to be trashed" (a bit of a paraphrase/exaggeration of this from Vissudho)
Visuddho wrote:Yes most people in the world share your wrong view and values. That's why wpd has more followers as eg the forest tradition
and for the record the exagerration in my paraphrase is meant to make a point.

Anyways, this is the reason I am back on here. I recently got news of this and thought i would share.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/crime/1 ... r-4th-time

Juntaland has again postponed the decision on whether to indict our abbot. This can be taken many ways, evangelicals saying we control the prosecutor, me saying its because Juntaland knows they dont have enough evidence to indict etc.

But it does say that exactly five suspects are being investigated for the money. To reiterate my statement from a previous post.

STILL waiting for the other 20 plus groups who recieved the exact same money to be investigated for "recieving stolen goods"


I will see you all randomly in the future if/when there is anymore news to share. :namaste:
Last edited by retrofuturist on Sun Oct 09, 2016 11:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Edited for language
"Do not have blind faith, but also no blind criticism" - the 14th Dalai Lama

"The Blessed One has set in motion the unexcelled Wheel of Dhamma that cannot be stopped by brahmins, devas, Maras, Brahmas or anyone in the cosmos." -Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Wat Dhammakaya

Post by SDC »

Moderator Note: Just when it seems the conduct in this thread could not get any worse, it does. It has now been transferred to "HOT TOPICS" where each post will require moderator approval. This is not something we like to do as it makes our job harder. Make sure your posts are completely in line with the ToS from now on or they will be immediately disapproved. Please contact the staff if you have any further questions.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
jameswang
Posts: 87
Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2013 9:00 am

Re: Wat Dhammakaya

Post by jameswang »

TRobinson465 wrote: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".
How do we know if what you say above, along with other things, is true?
jameswang
Posts: 87
Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2013 9:00 am

Re: Wat Dhammakaya

Post by jameswang »

JeffR wrote:
identification wrote: 1. In the Pathikavagga Sutta (Thai ที. ปา. 11/55/92), Lord Buddha says Dhammakaya is a name for the Buddha. “Dhammakaya, Dhammabhuto, Brahmakaya and Brahmabhuto are all names for the Tathagata.” The Thai Dighanikaya Commentary (Thai ที. อฏ. 3/50) explains that this is because Dhamma came from his heart via his words.

....

"We don't have to be distressed because Dhammakaya in the Buddhist teaching does exist. It is true. Neither fraudulent nor artificial.
Dhammakaya will be found as the truth by those who practice and attain enlightenment." - Phramongkolthepmuni (Luang Pu Sodh Candasaro)
None of this is in reference to Wat Dhammakaya or what they teach.
Well and simply said. Just because someone use an obscure word in the suttas in his teachings doesn't prove his teaching is from the suttas. I really feel sorry for the gullible.
User avatar
dhammafriend
Posts: 270
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2010 9:19 am

Re: Wat Dhammakaya

Post by dhammafriend »

jameswang wrote:
JeffR wrote:
identification wrote: 1. In the Pathikavagga Sutta (Thai ที. ปา. 11/55/92), Lord Buddha says Dhammakaya is a name for the Buddha. “Dhammakaya, Dhammabhuto, Brahmakaya and Brahmabhuto are all names for the Tathagata.” The Thai Dighanikaya Commentary (Thai ที. อฏ. 3/50) explains that this is because Dhamma came from his heart via his words.

....

"We don't have to be distressed because Dhammakaya in the Buddhist teaching does exist. It is true. Neither fraudulent nor artificial.
Dhammakaya will be found as the truth by those who practice and attain enlightenment." - Phramongkolthepmuni (Luang Pu Sodh Candasaro)
None of this is in reference to Wat Dhammakaya or what they teach.
Well and simply said. Just because someone use an obscure word in the suttas in his teachings doesn't prove his teaching is from the suttas. I really feel sorry for the gullible.
James, there are literally theses written about this very topic.

I'll even place some links below:

https://www.scribd.com/document/3388798 ... r-Not-Self

https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitstre ... Thesis.pdf

http://pqdtopen.proquest.com/doc/304848166.html?FMT=AI
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.
slimdabuddhist
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 3:07 am

Re: Wat Dhammakaya

Post by slimdabuddhist »

the third link has no credibility, yes of course it was written by someone with a master's degree, but it is only defending the temple's sake. It's not really proving that Dhammakai has existed. Btw a thesis is a statement or theory that is put forward as a premise to be maintained or proved. Which means that those links that you provided are just mere opinions by people. and yes I know they have some sort of degree, but the credibility lies in where they got their research from and what the source was. If the source was indeed just wat dhammakya then it doesn't prove the arguement you all are making.

And like I said again provide us with NEUTRAL AND UNBIASED SOURCES that aren't from wat dhammakaya supporters because you avoided my question there.
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8151
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Wat Dhammakaya

Post by Coëmgenu »

JeffR wrote:
identification wrote:The Dhammakaya is in the Pali Canon
Yes, and so is Christianity.
....!? Christianity in the Pali Canon? :jawdrop: That would be a very impressive demonstration of time-travel by the Buddha, to be able to address Christians 5-600 years before Christ.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
User avatar
JeffR
Posts: 269
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 3:54 am
Location: Minnesota, Lakota Nation (Occupier)

Re: Wat Dhammakaya

Post by JeffR »

Coëmgenu wrote:
JeffR wrote:
identification wrote:The Dhammakaya is in the Pali Canon
Yes, and so is Christianity.
....!? Christianity in the Pali Canon? :jawdrop: That would be a very impressive demonstration of time-travel by the Buddha, to be able to address Christians 5-600 years before Christ.
Why would Buddha need to time travel or address Christians?
Did he need to time travel to address us?
Mark 4.3-4.8 is basically a reiteration of SN 42.7. There are other passages in the Christian Bible that mimic what the Buddha taught, but I'll let you do your own homework.
Therein what are 'six (types of) disrespect'? One dwells without respect, without deference for the Teacher; one dwells without respect, without deference for the Teaching; one dwells without respect, without deference for the Order; one dwells without respect, without deference for the precepts; one dwells without respect, without deference for heedfulness; one dwells without respect, without deference for hospitality. These are six (types of) disrespect.
:Vibh 945
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8151
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Wat Dhammakaya

Post by Coëmgenu »

JeffR wrote:
Coëmgenu wrote:....!? Christianity in the Pali Canon? :jawdrop: That would be a very impressive demonstration of time-travel by the Buddha, to be able to address Christians 5-600 years before Christ.
Why would Buddha need to time travel or address Christians?
Did he need to time travel to address us?
Mark 4.3-4.8 is basically a reiteration of SN 42.7. There are other passages in the Christian Bible that mimic what the Buddha taught, but I'll let you do your own homework.
Buddha does not need to time travel to address us because his audience is intended to be anyone, regardless of when they are living, as I think is evidenced by the fact that a Pali Canon exists, that the Dharma was propegated at all, etc.

To frame Buddhism, the context of Buddhism, the reason for Buddhism, as in opposition to and reacting to something that postdates the Buddha by half a millenia is ahistorical and a bit of a degeneration of the Dharma, which now, instead of standing on its own, is framed as reactionary.

Christianity is not addressed in the Pali Canon, you will never find the Buddha talking about a God-man who sacrifices himself to save the world by destroying death and propagating a moral teaching of extreme pacifism. What is addressed is a handful of views that modern Christians could be accused of having, not "Christianity". No Christian, to the best of my knowledge, sees their religion reflected in or addressed by Buddha's critiques of Great Brahma, because Christianity shares in Buddhism's critique of Great Brahma figures. So no, Christianity is not addressed in the Pali Canon, what is addressed is some views that some people believe Christians presently hold.

Saying the dhammakaya is in the Pali Canon is far less a stretch than saying Christianity is "in" the Pali Canon, just because Jesus and Buddha both seem to generally say "not everyone will follow me" and "the Dhamma/word is hard to follow" in Mark 3 and the Khet­tū­pama­sutta. These similarities are because both traditions are missionary traditions, not because Buddha cross-pollinated his teachings with Christianity or Jesus did the same with Buddhism.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
User avatar
JeffR
Posts: 269
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 3:54 am
Location: Minnesota, Lakota Nation (Occupier)

Re: Wat Dhammakaya

Post by JeffR »

Coëmgenu wrote:
Christianity is not addressed in the Pali Canon, you will never find the Buddha talking about a God-man who sacrifices himself to save the world by destroying death and propagating a moral teaching of extreme pacifism. What is addressed is a handful of views that modern Christians could be accused of having, not "Christianity". No Christian, to the best of my knowledge, sees their religion reflected in or addressed by Buddha's critiques of Great Brahma, because Christianity shares in Buddhism's critique of Great Brahma figures. So no, Christianity is not addressed in the Pali Canon, what is addressed is some views that some people believe Christians presently hold.
There are teachings taught in Christianity also in the Pali Canon, as I've shown you, just as there are teachings taught by Dammkaya in the Pali Canon. The point is, Just because there are teachings of a specific group contained in the Canon of a religious school; it does NOT mean that group is a representative of that school (Theraveda Buddhism in this case). Especially when some of the popular teachings of said group contradict core teachings of the school.

Because Dhammakaya promotes teachings contradictory to core elements of the Canon, I cannot consider them to be representative of Theraveda Buddhism.
Therein what are 'six (types of) disrespect'? One dwells without respect, without deference for the Teacher; one dwells without respect, without deference for the Teaching; one dwells without respect, without deference for the Order; one dwells without respect, without deference for the precepts; one dwells without respect, without deference for heedfulness; one dwells without respect, without deference for hospitality. These are six (types of) disrespect.
:Vibh 945
User avatar
dhammafriend
Posts: 270
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2010 9:19 am

Re: Wat Dhammakaya

Post by dhammafriend »

slimdabuddhist wrote:
the third link has no credibility, yes of course it was written by someone with a master's degree, but it is only defending the temple's sake. It's not really proving that Dhammakai has existed. Btw a thesis is a statement or theory that is put forward as a premise to be maintained or proved. Which means that those links that you provided are just mere opinions by people. and yes I know they have some sort of degree, but the credibility lies in where they got their research from and what the source was. If the source was indeed just wat dhammakya then it doesn't prove the arguement you all are making.

And like I said again provide us with NEUTRAL AND UNBIASED SOURCES that aren't from wat dhammakaya supporters because you avoided my question there.
If you would do your research you would know that vijja dhammakai represents a remnant of what is known in Thailand as boran kammathana. (Yogavacara) This is partly what's left of what you might call Pre-Reform Buddhism in Thailand. No one here (or in the vijja dhammakai tradition) is arguing that what is taught in this tradition can be found unambiguously within the earliest Canon. Not even the founder claimed that. The claim is far more nuanced than that.

That fact you that you would dismiss the research these people above put into their studies as mere opinions, is rather sad and shortsighted. The research, if you would bother to immerse yourself in it, would make this clear:

The current presentation that we have of Theravada Buddhism in SEA (as a rational tradition that forsakes the supernatural) are modern constructions based on encounters with the 'West' and 'modernity'. Meditation lineages existed in parallel to textual traditions and informed each other as they evolved. In SEA, meditation was seen as an essential part of medical practices that had ramifications for the patients spiritual practice. They were not seen as essentially separate skills.

This changed with the advent of modernity, medicine was no longer the province of the Kru Ba Ajaans, but of western medicine. What Buddhists did in answer to that, was to place Buddhist practices solely in the mental / psychological domain. These changes / adaptations have not been uniform or complete, hence when you actually engage with SEA Buddhism in situ, you see the discrepancy between rhetoric and day to day practice.

To the moderators, please inform me whether you intend to edit my post and therefore change what I mean to convey. I may chose to then not post at all. But give me that option.
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: 1783
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 5:29 pm
Location: United States

Re: Wat Dhammakaya

Post by TRobinson465 »

EDIT: okay i was apparently really tired when i wrote this and butchered my post quite a bit haha. i will correct it. sorry for the extra work moderators.

lol. so i actually logged into this site on accident (typo and autofill). sorry about my language moderators, tho id like to point out there have been some extremely derogatory language going on way b4 i was here. but its nice the moderators are patrolling this thread.

as for the "how do we know what i say is true?" claim. thats exactly my point. my claims about the temple and mano (im guessing ur not counting my claims about DSI, which i have provided proof from independent sources on, and the stuff i post here that is on dhammakayauncovered is mostly just english translations of different thai sources) are just as credible as Mano's claims about us because it is by word, anything any1 says is just as credible as mano because he provides no proof whatsoever. what everybody here says about anything is just as credible as mano. and unlike Mano's claims my claims arent completely crazy nor have i given information that was proven false and clearly made up. for instance, mano saying we have two stupas. if you dont believe me go to WPD yourself and you can prove we only have one. Mano also claimed our abbot had a lifetime visa to the US. which was also proven false. im from the US. that doesnt even exist. i doubt this wackjob has more knowledge about our visa program than our own state department.

I dont know why we are still on mano, i dont see why you ppl are so desperate to defend him. im tired of hearing ppl try to Pricksplain why Mano is credible with excuses like "well, his accusations cant be 'disproven'". you know there are other critics of WPD you can quote right? who dont have a proven history of making up things about the temple. i noticed many of you evangelicals cite Mano almost verbatim, tho i guess you dont really want Mano to be discredited and have to stick with other critics, since the whole WDP being a Nazi cult bent on world domination portrayal sorta falls apart without him. you could try and find another source for these wacko claims, but of course if you bother to investigate them you'll find that there are none since Mano is the only person making these bizarre accusations against us. 3 million members and a satellite tv program and not a single person can verify this totally-not-crazy and "widely known fact" that our abbot was a Hitler worshiping Nazi except for this one person who happens to not like Dhammakaya and has had a proven history of making false claims about us b4. Gee i wonder why that is??? cant be because Mano Laohavanich makes it all up right???

Anyways, im just popping in to correct my butchered post and add a bit more to it. so i will be off for the near future.
"Do not have blind faith, but also no blind criticism" - the 14th Dalai Lama

"The Blessed One has set in motion the unexcelled Wheel of Dhamma that cannot be stopped by brahmins, devas, Maras, Brahmas or anyone in the cosmos." -Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta
ManEagle
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 6:43 pm
Location: Kent

Re: Wat Dhammakaya

Post by ManEagle »

TRobinson465 wrote:
I dont know why we are still on mano,
I wasn't going to bother with this anymore but something inside me can't resist.

My only comment here is that, correct me if I'm wrong (which actually I know I'm not because I've already checked), YOU are the one who keeps on about Mano. Aside from his name being mentioned in a link someone posted months ago he has not been cited by anyone else. You use the name 13 times in your last post and many many more in previous ones.

Hopefully I'm not the only one who's noticed this!

This is just an observation really but there is an underlying criticism that you appear to write in an antagonistic way and are bent on discrediting Mano and anyone else who dares to criticize Dhammakaya.
slimdabuddhist
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 3:07 am

Re: Wat Dhammakaya

Post by slimdabuddhist »

I don't blindly follow everything I see and just go with it. It's like that analogy of would you jump off a cliff if someone told you that it'll help achieve happiness. Calling me shortsighted just because I don't agree with you, tells me alot about Wat Dhammakaya followers and how they brush people off if we don't agree with how things are. Just because these ppl have masters and degrees doesn't mean I have to agree with them . It's like saying because Ben Carson is a surgeon he is qualified to be president. And look one of your fellow Dhammakaya followers is critisizing someone with a doctorate and calling him names because he doesn't agree with the temple's views so don't be preach if yall can't do the same.
User avatar
Kumara
Posts: 995
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:14 am
Contact:

Re: Wat Dhammakaya

Post by Kumara »

ManEagle wrote:
TRobinson465 wrote:
I dont know why we are still on mano,
I wasn't going to bother with this anymore but something inside me can't resist.

My only comment here is that, correct me if I'm wrong (which actually I know I'm not because I've already checked), YOU are the one who keeps on about Mano. Aside from his name being mentioned in a link someone posted months ago he has not been cited by anyone else. You use the name 13 times in your last post and many many more in previous ones.

Hopefully I'm not the only one who's noticed this!
I didn't count, but I noticed the rehashing. It's a psychological technique is argument: Keep attacking the opponent at its (seeming) weakest point, so that people are distracted from the larger issue.
Post Reply