Sarathi

I bet against Manny when he fought Oscar DLH. I thought there was no way he could win that.

I thought Manny would be overpowered by the huge Joshua Clottey.

I really thought that Cotto, one of the finest boxers out there, would be too much for the smaller Manny P

Now once again, I can't see how MannyP will win this.

He certainly COULD win it - he's a better fighter than most who have faced Mayweather.

Look for the diabolical ref Bayliss to break at every sign of engagement, and force the fight to proceed on the outside where Mayweather is most comfortable - this is the ref who prevented Ricky Hatton from any kind of infighting (not that Hatton would have won otherwise)

Prediction: Mayweather UD after a long and boring night

They found an old painting and a violin in the collection, which were identified as a Rembrandt and a Strativarius.

Unfortunately, Strativarius couldn't paint, and Rembrandt made lousy violins

?

It strikes me that PM Prayuth is no longer head of the army. Sooner or later the army will wonder who should be giving them orders.

and we are not talking about former PM Taksin.

"without the Red Tape"

The 'red tape' is the Rule of Law he said he was restoring.

And to think that these attacks happened under marshal law by the 7% supporters of terrorism.

Lets hope the UDD and their red shirt supporters leave the majority in peace until reform is implemented.

The majority do not deserve to be attacked and bombed while democracy is being installed.

Yes - the Army reform of the constitution that was imposed by the Army in 2006

There is only one group that secures its position by letting off a few bombs.

Khun Abhisit had every right and duty to remove the protesters in 2010.

The issue is that many, if not most, of the army was on the Red Shirt side, especially the rank and file.

It was only when the Burapha Phayak (Easter Tigers) led by Gen. Prayuth took their turn in front position that 'suddenly' Black Shirts appeared firing guns, giving Prayuth the chance to clear the streets.

Coincidence?

Abhisit is being thrown under the bus.

That might be why he has been speaking out a bit more against the next Constitution.

Terrorists don't come out with scripted confessions after being caught. They rant and rave 'Down with the Regime!!'

This is not the MO of Thaksin - he is a sociopath, which means he is without fear, remorse or conscience; always glad to roll the dice for a big reward. Sociopaths are professional liars, and above all, calm calculators. It is not in his interest to throw bombs around as it only ties in with the military and their extension of Martial Law. It is not because he is a good guy that he would not be behind this, but for cool hard calculated reason.

800 million baht is a lot of money for monks who don't need money. Where did it go?

oops - wrong Quote button. comment removed.

chooka, on 07 Mar 2015 - 00:58, said:

"So when the Mad Monk held a demonstration and protested in blatant breach of martial law, nothing was said and all was ok. The Mad Monk along with suthep helped Prayuth gain ultimate power and are close friends." -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry, I genuinely do not recall that Phra Buddha Issara "held a demonstration and protested in blatant breach of martial law. " Was martial law in place when "The Mad Monk along with suthep helped Prayuth gain ultimate power and are close friends" ?

Yes Neil - Ven Buddha Issara staged a march/blockade/protest last week when he and several hundred followers marched in to Wat Paknam, to offer underpants and funeral flowers to the (very much alive) acting Supreme Patriarch.

BTW, 'Buddha Issara' is also the name given to the Historical Buddha's evil cousin who tried to oust the Buddha and instal himself as leader of the Sangha. A crime for which he is currently spending a awful long time in torment in a hell realm (you can see this depicted in many temple murals)

Interesting that the Junta's main 'asset' and feature is its (self granted) mandate to do what it wants, and without criticism. A strong administration.

But the future they are carving for Thailand is an almost toothless, feeble political party system, where politicians have little power: i.e. setting up weak future administrations.

Klongchan Credit Union Cooperative must be at least a little happy that most of the attention has focussed on Wat Dhammakaya, and not the actual people who embezzled funds.

Maybe he should invite Suthep back to deliver the one, final push!

If other monks than watthammagaay would be protesting, I would support it.

But Watthammagaay is one of the most controversial and rich Buddhist organisations in Thailand and a cleanup would be more than welcome.

I do however support the right on freedom of speech and I think they should have the right to protest (I am against the martial law),

just like the government should have the right to cleanup corrupt organisations.

The monks threatening to protest were from the monastic universities, not from Wat Dhammakaya. In fact, Wat Dhammakaya forbade any of their members, both monks and laiety, even commenting on the issue.

The threatened protest was to be a show of support for the SSC and acting Supreme Patriarch, who is universally respected among the Sangha (except for 'activist' Buddha Issara).

Why the sudden backdown on the part of the 'Government'?

Probably the simplest explanation is the most likely.

The PM has shown his superstitious side several times; in the ritual cleansing of Government house, and his claim of being attacked by black magic. He just does not want to jinx himself at this juncture.

That's my best guess.

Polar Bears and Penguins are both excellent swimmers. I think Noah's arc was for non-aquatic creatures only.

Just like all religious groups there are those within that interpret their rules from their good books to suit their agendas.


Now on a lighter note, are we all to believe that 2 Polar Bears and 2 penguins walked all the way from the artic circle to Turkey and meet up with some bloke called Noah?

Nobody finds that odd? But a Rolex wearing monk is considered to be outrageous?

Looking at the media it seems the Junta is gaining some moral high ground by gunning for Buddhism. Yet in the temples it seems to make no difference. It is business as usual.

Or should I rephrase that?

This is what happens when a bunch of unelected politicians have a sense of moral authority, and want to legislate the nation into being 'good'.

They are not consulting the Sangha on these issues.

There is also a question that as many enter the monkhood in later life when they have already accumulated assets, what happens to the assets they had before they became monks ?

There are some who only enter a temple for a short time, how does these things apply to them ?

There is also ones like the one on the panel who said he left the monkhood after 20 years, do they leave with no assets ?

Couple of points:

• The monkhood is Shinawatra leaning - mostly because there are more monks from the North and Northeast than from other regions. (the only systematic survey revealed a 70/30 split for political bias)
• The Sangha is not united politically, and for the sake of their own harmony, they stay out of politics (except for V. Buddha Issara). Sangha harmony is considered more important than politics.
• There are not 'five deadly sins' in Buddhism. There are four offenses that result in disqualification from the monkhood
• Ven. Dhammachayo was not caught embezzling funds. Any Thai has a legal right to own land, and to receive gifts from others. That's why the legal case against him was dropped. It did not hold water. No land or funds were ever taken (embezzled) from the temple. The Sangha investigation however, deemed it inappropriate, and so the land was gifted as an addition to the temple. (this does not relate to the current case of receiving donations that came from commercial embezzlement)
• To promote monks due to seniority rather than rank is absolute nonsense - imagine if the government of anywhere was run by the country's oldest people ??? NUTS. Ecclesiastical rank is not a great yardstick either, but at least presumably you need to show some kind of ability to receive such a rank.

I was talking to a NACC senior a few days ago. He told me that they were terribly disappointed that the SSC did not pursue the abbot of Wat Dhammakaya. I asked him why the courts didn't - after all if he committed a criminal offense, he can be tried in a criminal court.

He also said that Buddhism was in need of reform, and the new government are just the guys to 'clean up Buddhism'. One of his suggestions, I'm not kidding, was to have monks wear shoes on almsround.

Hope that helps.

(edited typos)

Most likely the temple is not money laundering - it's the crooks who think that giving a portion of their proceeds to the temple will clean up their bad Karma for stealing it in the first place.

Not possible form the red users.. I mean if this guy was a red shirt I would still agree with what he stands for in This case.

The supreme patriarch said defrock and this council quickly reversed it after his death. The abbot in this case had put all the temple his money in his own name. Also the temple has gotten 700 million of money that was gained by fraud and refuses to give it back. Leaving the victims in problems.

Seems to me the council got some gifts...

Ah but red users you know how they are.

Are you sure about your facts? When the prosecutors made public their recommendation that charges be dropped in September 2006, they made several statements to support their position.

- There was disagreement within the clergy and among Buddhists as to the validity of the charges;

- Phra Dhammachayo returned land and money worth nearly 960 million baht to his temple.

- As to his teachings that contradict the Lord Buddha's on Non-Self, the prosecutors cited support for Dhammakaya from the Ecclesiastical Council and official authorities to guarantee that Dhammakaya teachings are now true to Buddhism.

- Praise came from a diverse group of supporters and clergy who claimed that Dhammakaya was financially supporting the religious activities of the clergy and the promotion of Thai Buddhism overseas.

It is ignorant for you to suggest that the council was paid off and that this man is somehow getting away because of his "red supporters". I find it surprising that you do not understand who and what makes up the council. It is not a red shirt organization and is typically apolitical except when it comes to maintaining what it perceives are the core values of Thailand and Buddhism. If anything, they lean towards the political views of the monarchists and nationalists. The council is not dominated by one person. There is no doubt that this is a puzzling case. A few weeks after the charges were suspended, General Surayud Chulanont took control of Thailand. His government did not reinstate the charges. Had this been a political issue specific to one of the ruling parties, I think the charges would have been reinstated. The abbot has a diverse group of supporters and includes people we would expect would be political enemies. They include some important people associated with the military. There is also a strong chance that the "monk" making a fuss on this issue is so loathed and disliked by the council that his actions only encouraged the council to close the file.

Actually i did not even think that he had red followers.. or that it helped him. What i was saying is that just returning land (and money.. wow what reason to keep money from donations outside temple accounts but on your own) is not good enough. Just because you got caught and you pay it back charges are dropped.. strange reasoning.

I think it was more of a deal.. ok you change your teachings and accept our rule and we accept and let you get away with thievery this time.

My red shirt remark was more that people hate Budha Isara and thus are bias in this story.

Actually in this case Isara should be beside the point on the whole issue and he is imo a attention seeking parasite but that dosnt mean hes wrong about the way the Buddhist council have done a U turn on this and clearly are letting a criminal get away with it, a very serious message to send the laypeople ... it only supports and encourages bad behaviour and since Monks are supposed to be an example to follow and listen to I can only see this as highly damaging to Thai Buddhism,its image and encouraging similar behaviour by the people..

Judgement was made a long time ago and just because theres a change in the council should not change the original decision.... the mere fact that over a decade later its still swirling around unclosed and done shows that Buddhism here is just as corrupted and dysfunctional as any Thai government.

As a side note Thai Buddhism is mostly similar to Sri Lanka and Myanmar, Within the religion is a competition between sects much as there is in other religions and varying branches of, there IS a battle going on between sects in Thailand and they are not beyond making deals and handing out payoffs or when opportunity arises attacking an opposing sect in public.

Isara has a good point against the Sanghas behaviour and I agree its disgusting and disrespectful to change a previous ruling once the old patriarch was dead. However

I also think Isara is using the usual public arena and making a stage for himself to stand on ... yet again.

Finally it also says a lot about other Monks in Thailand and the lack of any will to stand up to the Sangha when it clearly fails its own remit to provide Thai Buddhism with a respectable, honest and consistent ruling council

Just a couple of points - there has been no U-turn on the part of the Sangha Council. Acting on letters some 15 years ago from the then Supreme Patriarch they investigated Wat Dhammakaya, both via the courts, and by the Sangha mechanisms. They found nothing untoward, except land that was under the abbots name. There's nothing unusual in that, and it had not been 'stolen' or transferred away from the temple. On recommendation from the council the private land was transferred and put under the temple.

"Judgement was made a long time ago" is incorrect, in reference to the original letters - it was the Supreme Patriarch alone who wrote the letter. There is a procedure to follow after that.

For instance, the current acting Patriarch could write a letter suggesting Buddha Issara be disrobed, but it would not hold water unless it was sanctioned according to the proper Sangha procedures.

Therefore "its disgusting and disrespectful to change a previous ruling once the old patriarch was dead. " is also incorrect. The Sangha Council finding occurred long before the previous Patriarch passed away, and has never been changed.

"the mere fact that over a decade later its still swirling around unclosed" The case was closed long ago. It is just part of the political attack on the previous government. It has been dredged up, muchly (not entirely) by Buddha Issara, who after all, has had a decade to complain about this if he was such a social hero - no, he's just after another 15 minutes int he spotlight, and the chance to walk at the head of a few hundred people gathering in clear contravention to Martial Law (and allowed to do so)

Hope that helps.

I am indeed partisan in this case.

But not pro-Wat Dhammakaya. In fact I have serious criticisms of the temple. But they would belong in a different thread.

I am very much against Buddha Issara for his involvement in politics (which the Sangha generally stays out of), thuggery, blocking majour roads, and intimidating government workers. The list goes on.

As for the current case - it seems the temple accepted donations, which were later shown to come from embezzlement. I have no further insight on that case other than outlined in the articles. Did they accept in good faith?

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

the recommendation of the late Supreme Patriarch that Ven. Dhammachayo was Parajika (disqualified from being a monk) was acted on, investigated, and rejected by the Thai Sangha. Such a decision is not made on a whim by one man, even the Supreme Patriarch. The Buddha did not appoint a supreme leader of the religion, and outlined very democratic mechanisms for the Sangha to meet and reach a consensus as a group.

The current acting Supremem Patriarch has the total suppor tof the Thai Sangha as one who has worked hard and acted responsibly for 40 years. Ven. Buddha Issara on the other hand, is not supported by the Thai Sangha, due to his belligerent behaviour and political partisan stance.

The case is 15 years old. Ven. Buddha Issara is just using it to attract attention to himself again ... can't bear to be out of the limelight. Taking his realtively few supporters to 'protest' this issue is in clear contravention of the Military ban on political gatherings. Once again the Sangha has found Ven. Dhammachayo not to have violated Parajika rules for monks. If the Courts wish to pursue a civil case against him (again) they are free to do so.

As for the new case regarding the sums of money donated to the temple - this should be investigated openly and fairly, by both the Sangha (who have not made any statement on this issue yet) and by the courts.

I thought Buddist Monks were meant to live a life of austerity, ie not keep donated land and money in their name

This Dhammakaya sect has a very dubious record, two examples below

1999 Dhammachayo was reluctant to transfer to Wat Phra Dhammakaya 1,500 rai of land donated to him by his followers.

In 2006 the Thai National Office for Buddhism cleared the Dhammakaya Foundation and Phrathepyanmahamuni of all accusations when Phrarajbhavanavisudh agreed to return all the allegedly embezzled funds to name of his temple.

It appears they only give it back when caught red handed

I can fully understand people's dislike of religion. But lets keep a religious view and a criminal view separate.

In the case of the land found to be in Ven. Dhammachayo's personal name - this was given to him by donors. It is nothing unusual for abbots and foundations to hold land in personal names, especially when it is often tricky to incorporate as part of the monastery. Such private land may be used by the temple (for car parks, food tents etc..) if the owners wish.

Ven. Dhammachayo never embezzled funds - if he had, that would be a criminal case. There was land adjacent to the temple, in his personal name, that had not some from temple funds. He was asked to donate the land to the monastery by the Sangha Council, which he did.

In no way was he Parajika (disqualified from monkhood according to the monastic Vinaya), nor found guilty of criminal embezzlement.

Now, there are plenty of other dodgy things to criticise the temple for - both secular legal issues, and monastic ones.

But please be clear of the facts in this case, and why he was cleared of wrongdoing both by the court and by the Sangha.

Why is it hard to change the lands to the temple ? I mean sounds like a trip to the land office to me. If the donor wanted the temple to have it the abbot should not keep it.

Good point.

Shouldn't be too hard.

Donnor's can give to the temple if that is what they want.

Often people like to own land adjacent to big temples. It can be used to assist the temple. Often it is subdivided and sold as plots for followers to build their own houses so they can go stay next to the temple. That kind of thing.

Incorporating into official monastery boundary would prohibit this. Also would prohibit resale at a later date if the temple changes or the donor changes their affiliation.

adding land to a temple, especially if it has buildings or there is intent to put up buildings, also has to pass through the (then) department of religion under the education ministry (since changed to the National Buddhism Office), and after the financial crisis in 97, there was an official freeze in expanding temple lands, putting up large new structures, or sanctifying new temples.

Thus there are often various owners of what would appear to be monastery land. The actual monastic grounds might only be a small part of what you see.

In this case, the abbot was asked to register the land adjacent to the temple as part of the official grounds, with all the relative restrictions, which he did.

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

the recommendation of the late Supreme Patriarch that Ven. Dhammachayo was Parajika (disqualified from being a monk) was acted on, investigated, and rejected by the Thai Sangha. Such a decision is not made on a whim by one man, even the Supreme Patriarch. The Buddha did not appoint a supreme leader of the religion, and outlined very democratic mechanisms for the Sangha to meet and reach a consensus as a group.

The current acting Supremem Patriarch has the total suppor tof the Thai Sangha as one who has worked hard and acted responsibly for 40 years. Ven. Buddha Issara on the other hand, is not supported by the Thai Sangha, due to his belligerent behaviour and political partisan stance.

The case is 15 years old. Ven. Buddha Issara is just using it to attract attention to himself again ... can't bear to be out of the limelight. Taking his realtively few supporters to 'protest' this issue is in clear contravention of the Military ban on political gatherings. Once again the Sangha has found Ven. Dhammachayo not to have violated Parajika rules for monks. If the Courts wish to pursue a civil case against him (again) they are free to do so.

As for the new case regarding the sums of money donated to the temple - this should be investigated openly and fairly, by both the Sangha (who have not made any statement on this issue yet) and by the courts.

I thought Buddist Monks were meant to live a life of austerity, ie not keep donated land and money in their name

This Dhammakaya sect has a very dubious record, two examples below

1999 Dhammachayo was reluctant to transfer to Wat Phra Dhammakaya 1,500 rai of land donated to him by his followers.

In 2006 the Thai National Office for Buddhism cleared the Dhammakaya Foundation and Phrathepyanmahamuni of all accusations when Phrarajbhavanavisudh agreed to return all the allegedly embezzled funds to name of his temple.

It appears they only give it back when caught red handed

I can fully understand people's dislike of religion. But lets keep a religious view and a criminal view separate.

In the case of the land found to be in Ven. Dhammachayo's personal name - this was given to him by donors. It is nothing unusual for abbots and foundations to hold land in personal names, especially when it is often tricky to incorporate as part of the monastery. Such private land may be used by the temple (for car parks, food tents etc..) if the owners wish.

Ven. Dhammachayo never embezzled funds - if he had, that would be a criminal case. There was land adjacent to the temple, in his personal name, that had not some from temple funds. He was asked to donate the land to the monastery by the Sangha Council, which he did.

In no way was he Parajika (disqualified from monkhood according to the monastic Vinaya), nor found guilty of criminal embezzlement.

Now, there are plenty of other dodgy things to criticise the temple for - both secular legal issues, and monastic ones.

But please be clear of the facts in this case, and why he was cleared of wrongdoing both by the court and by the Sangha.