I'm not talking about that rule. There's a rule prohibiting monks from making such claims, even if it's true. You know that one? I suppose they don't tell you about this rule.exonesion wrote:On the fourth parajika: Claiming of supernatural powers“Should any bhikkhu, without direct knowledge, claim a superior human state, a truly noble knowledge and vision, as present in himself, saying,"jameswang wrote: So what if he has? It's still an offense for making claims of psychic powers.
This rule of defeat is applicable only when the Bhikkhu lies about his meditative attainments. Therefore, I asked if the abbot really has vijja or nana of the past. If he has, then wouldn’t this precept remain intact? However, my concern and my doubt is the practical application of this rule. How do you prove that a Bhikkhu is lying? Can any venerable share their understanding of the fourth parajika and how it is accessed to be broken?
Did you even take a look?On unfair treatment of WPDYes, the extremely harsh and extrajudicial use of Article 44 on a temple, with unarmed devotees. Are they a national threat to safety? I'd say this is bully.jameswang wrote: Do you see any unfair treatments?
As for your post about the music video and that your allegation that the human rights may be copied from somewhere, may we know where? We could use some mention of that somewhere. And I don’t think a music video posted on their site is enough to discredit the website.
It's really hard for me to decide if you're just pretending to be unintelligent.
But never mind, I'll give you the benefit of doubt, be more direct about what I think: It's a fraudulent website.
The music video blog post is among the other irrelevant posts shown as posted in 2012, while according to
the domain was "Created on 2014-03-05".
Most of the supposedly older postings are just copied material from elsewhere. Only the more recent ones are original, and they are specifically on Dhammakaya.
Seems obvious to me it's a (lousy) con PR job.
That wouldn't make sense. As I understand, in Thailand, a monk can be disrobed wherever he is. And didn't the kind just did that? So, I renew my question: If he knew what would happen, why didn't he just go to the police station and save the temple the raid?On the abbot surrendering(1) If Luang Phor Dhammajayo did, it’s likely he’ll be forced to disrobe. Why? Because DSI made things difficult for him and the temple. For example, DSI could have video-conferenced to him the charges, but they didn’t. They made things horrendously difficult.jameswang wrote:
(1) If he knew, why didn't he just go to the police station and save the temple the raid?
(2) Anyway, instead of sleeping in tents, they can choose to go home, right?
Maybe he didn't know, like he didn't expect the military to take over the government. But I wonder if Dk members can accept that he doesn't have the power he claims to have.
I don't know if human rights have actually been violated as claimed. But if I were the PM, I wouldn't have used hard power. There's a better way, and I'm told that's presently underway.This is possibly the start of what led to the imposition of Article 44, and all the human rights violation we see today.
I've trouble believing that the wealthy Wat Dhammakaya have nowhere else to house their monks. It's clearly a tactic.(2) They cannot choose to go home. If you mean WPD’s monks, their temple IS their home. And the DSI has currently blocked monks from entering their temple, and hence their home.
Thank you for the info. I appreciate it.On asking for fixed donationsAt WPD’s Singapore, also known as DCS Singapore, it does not ask for a specific amount of donation. Even though I’m not very close to the centre, I’ve attended their beginner and intermediate meditation classes for about 2-3 times and also many of their activities.jameswang wrote: Is it normal in Thailand or Singapore for Buddhist organizations to ask for specific amount of donation?
That's about a month's salary for some people there, right?
In terms of donations, DCS Singapore does not often ask for fixed donations – devotees are free to give any amount they like. But for bigger projects, like the construction of Singapore’s new permanent centre, a lot of funds is required. And they’ve set the minimal donation at certain sum (there’re tiers as well).
I believe (in my opinion), this will encourage devotees to raise more funds to build the new temple and encourage them to donate more (within their capabilities, of course). It is a month’s salary for some people, but the common practice is to pool money and offer it as a group.
I’m not sure about Wat Phra Dhammakaya in Thailand, but from what I can remember, there’re minimal donation amounts for certain projects as well. TRobinson, am I correct?
No issue here.On "Free" stuffYes indeed James, the temple is a non-profit organization. So, the “free” stuff are financed or given by devotees. And it’s because of the devotee’s support that the temple is there in the first place. Moreover, giving “free” stuff isn’t specific to WPD. In Singapore, the Singapore Buddhist Lodge provides free vegetarian meals (breakfast, lunch, dinner) for the needy, which is possible only with the funds donated from devotees.jameswang wrote: Anyway, your free stuff came from people like "form".
Hence, I don’t see what’s the issue with giving of free stuff here, James.