Wat Phra Dhammakaya

[sabaijai]

I spent two weeks in a meditation class at Wat Luang Por Sodh Dhammakaya in Rajburi in 2007. It was pretty strange. They were very adamant about Luang Por Sodh's meditation techniques. They claimed this style was the only way to reach nirvana. It was way too detailed for me.

Hmmm...I have been to their meditation programme before but they didn't tell me this meditation technique is the only way to reach nirvana. They told me taking meditation is like choosing a road to travel. Meditation technique is like a road. Every road goes to the same place, some road may has shorter path, some road maybe easier. It's up to us to choose, and Dhammakaya is just one of the roads that lead us to nirvana, and it's a shorter, more comfortable road. Personally I kindna like the teaching. However, I am Thai and all the instructions were in Thai, so maybe English version was different?

No the English version is the same. This thread is not very factual. Lots of unsubstantiated comments Why?

Would you like to mention specifics on what is or is not factual?

[phetaroi]

I am neither pro or anti dhammakaya but you always seem to support the anti side, a bit biased are we?

Even pseudo journalists should check their bias or are you just supporting your ( equally biased and out to lunch ) boss.

I could care less about this particular temple, but I find your comment odd. This forum is not a news source. It's basically an opinion forum. Virtually every post, even in this section on Buddhism, has a bias.

[caf]

I am neither pro or anti dhammakaya but you always seem to support the anti side, a bit biased are we?

Even pseudo journalists should check their bias or are you just supporting your ( equally biased and out to lunch ) boss.

I could care less about this particular temple, but I find your comment odd. This forum is not a news source. It's basically an opinion forum. Virtually every post, even in this section on Buddhism, has a bias.

I assume you mean " I could not care less "

Obviously people can have opinions that are different from those of others. Perfectly acceptable in any forum - buddhist or otherwise.

My point was that Steven and his boss make very one-sided and biased posts about this particular wat which can not be substantiated. He made some libellous comments a few months back and I had to point out that the king had actually honoured the current abbot at that time. I gave detail and dates. He "went into hiding " on that forum for several days. That is why I said "pseudo journalist" He had to back down for a while. And by the way I know journalists who agree with me. So , no, I do not think my comment is odd. He is biased and can not stand by his own convictions.

[phetaroi]

I assume you mean " I could not care less "

Obviously people can have opinions that are different from those of others. Perfectly acceptable in any forum - buddhist or otherwise.

My point was that Steven and his boss make very one-sided and biased posts about this particular wat which can not be substantiated. He made some libellous comments a few months back and I had to point out that the king had actually honoured the current abbot at that time. I gave detail and dates. He "went into hiding " on that forum for several days. That is why I said "pseudo journalist" He had to back down for a while. And by the way I know journalists who agree with me. So , no, I do not think my comment is odd. He is biased and can not stand by his own convictions.

Don't assume. You're showing a bias.

Actually I could care less...there's just enough of a curiosity in me that one day soon I'm going out to snap a few photos of the temple.

Certainly there's a lot of very public controversy surrounding the temple and its practices, particularly as they relate to finance.

Now, how about telling us your bias?

[sabaijai]

I am neither pro or anti dhammakaya but you always seem to support the anti side, a bit biased are we?

Even pseudo journalists should check their bias or are you just supporting your ( equally biased and out to lunch ) boss.

I could care less about this particular temple, but I find your comment odd. This forum is not a news source. It's basically an opinion forum. Virtually every post, even in this section on Buddhism, has a bias.

I assume you mean " I could not care less "

Obviously people can have opinions that are different from those of others. Perfectly acceptable in any forum - buddhist or otherwise.

My point was that Steven and his boss make very one-sided and biased posts about this particular wat which can not be substantiated. He made some libellous comments a few months back and I had to point out that the king had actually honoured the current abbot at that time. I gave detail and dates. He "went into hiding " on that forum for several days. That is why I said "pseudo journalist" He had to back down for a while. And by the way I know journalists who agree with me. So , no, I do not think my comment is odd. He is biased and can not stand by his own convictions.

Caf either come across with facts to support your assertion, or cease defaming Stephen Cleary. Perhaps he is only stating the facts. Wat Phra Dhammakaya has many critics in the media.

[honu]

I'd like to offer another point on how Dhammakaya beliefs differ from the standard Buddhist take. In terms of background, I spent a week at a Dhammakaya temple on a meditation retreat towards the end of just over two months ordained as a Thai monk in a Bangkok city temple. And I studied Buddhism while obtaining two college degrees in philosophy, one with a religion concentration. This post represents my own understanding, not as an expert but only as someone who has looked into the subject.

Dammakaya teachings assert that the Buddha went to heaven after he died (to a heavenly realm planet; same thing, roughly). In asserting this they more or less reject the standard belief that souls are impermanent and align themselves with a relatively similar afterlife scheme as the one Christians believe in. According to them this isn't a heresy, of course, but it is generally regarded as such in most traditional Buddhist interpretations in which the Buddha does just more or less cease to be at bodily death.

Of course in one well-known teaching the Buddha wouldn't answer the question of whether Buddhas cease to exist completely after death and instead rejected the question as not useful. Most teachings instead focus on Buddhist practices, not finer cosmological details. Other teachings do mention rebirth and karma (or kamma) so extensively that unless you pare down most traditional Buddhist teachings you almost have to accept those related parts. As with Christianity it is likely that the entire Buddhist cannon might not form a completely consistent set of teachings, which in Buddhism is easier to square since different teachings were offered to practitioners with different original worldviews (reflecting a more general Indian acceptance of this).

So what's the difference, if the Buddha is in heaven now or has more or less just ceased to exist, with his karmic forces ceasing to hold him together as a unique being after his death? I guess the belief would alter what someone thinks that prayer is supposed to be doing and their own long-term after-life aspirations. In the latter sense it doesn't matter so much since just about everyone expects to be around for a lot more rebirths anyway but there still could be subtle differences in perspective that remain based on whether you see yourself as permanent or not. And that seems to me to be the crux; it's a core Buddhist belief that all things are impermanent, perhaps especially the self, so varying from that rejects a lot of the core teachings. If there is a pragmatic, functional element to not holding a belief in the soul (which is kind of assumed given the typical emphasis) then the difference in belief system is problematic. In effect you could intentionally be attaching to an idea that the teachings are explicitly and purposefully rejecting (a permanent soul).

All of this doesn't really relate much to the more typical claims that Dhammakaya practices emphasize materialism too much, it all ties to longer term concerns than that, past rebirth sequences to the very ultimate end (if there is one). The parts in Dhammakaya beliefs about angels and other spiritual beings having a direct impact on human affairs is also not related to this issue. Buddhist cosmology is open to the possibility of their existence but this certainly is not central to personal beliefs or practices (outside of involvement with a school that emphasizes the importance of this type of thing). I was a little put off by the talk of angels and magic and demi-gods at the Dhammakaya temple but it wouldn't amount to heresy.

The meditation style also didn't work for me, and didn't strike me as a valid form of practice, closer to hypnotism than actual meditation. That part is just a personal opinion, though; even if I were some sort of expert (and I'm not, just a well-read practitioner with a couple decades of life experience based evaluation and a couple months experience in organized Buddhist religion) I wouldn't be qualified to make blanket evaluations of all sorts of meditation practices. My best guess is that the meditation technique couldn't possibly lead to anything but the calmness common to any meditation or even to relaxing passtimes. I say that because other forms of meditation typically involve an aspect of introspection (in an unusual form, often, but still tying back to awareness of attachments or events or apparent-self). Some others don't, and Thai Buddhist chanting, which is more or less seen as a meditative practice, is an obvious counter-example. In my experience most Thai Buddhists practice some form of insight meditation (vipassana) that is more traditional, with focus on breathing, seated and walking practices conducted in quiet locations, with less emphasis on objects of meditations (images and colors or the like). These certainly do not embrace guided meditation, an activity in which a meditation leader chants or talks and guides the experience, which gets away from the theme of one person using techniques to calm their own mind and also learn from the noise.

[Xangsamhua]

Informative and interesting post, honu. Thank you.

[lungmi]

Hony, you spared me a lot of time to write nearly the same.

Now I can go to the roots.

Ask a Damakaya-Follower this:

Is nibbana anatta or atta?

When he answers: atta -- then he is not Buddhist but member of a sect with all rights to be a member.

When he ansers: anatta-- then he is in the wrong community.

Buddha says: All dhammas (small letter) as part of the Dhamma are anatta. (nibbana included)

The meditation technique is as a kind of Yoga-technique older then the Buddha, in Tibet the Bo-Magiciens practised it before Buddhism came to Tibet and was assimilated as Tantra- meditation, in China the Daoist developed it.

It's good for someone but it isn't a special Buddhist meditation like anapanasati-meditation.

[mohinga]

[Good post, honu...