Dhammakaya: Traditional Buddhism Or Commodification?

[Xangsamhua]

Wat Dhammakaya – Traditional Buddhism or Commodification of Buddhist Piety?

Some notes on Rachelle M. Scott, Nirvana for Sale: Buddhism, Wealth and the Dhammakaya Temple in Contemporary Thailand. Albany. SUNY Press. 2009.

This posting is in response to another thread seeking information about Wat Dhammakaya and the Dhammakaya movement. I apologise for its length, but in view of that and its form as a reflection proceeding from rather than a review of Rachelle Scott’s book I have submitted it as a separate thread.

Wat Dhammakaya represents a form of Buddhism that sits comfortably with the ethos of many urban upwardly mobile Thais, but is somewhat repellent to those who lament the association of Buddhism and its Sangha with wealth and superstition. Unfortunately for those with a romantic view of Thai ethics and culture, material wealth and superstition are very powerful motivators for many Thais, perhaps most of them in certain sub-populations.

Rachelle Scott has tried to avoid making judgements about the right or wrong of Dhammakaya’s beliefs and practices. She is an anthropologist who wishes to describe and explain why things are the way they are. She doesn’t wish to get into discourses of legitimation, which she regards as the products of competition for power and control over material resources.

It’s several weeks since I read this book and have subsequently been distracted by an overseas trip, but the notes below may shed some light on Wat Dhammakaya as seen by a scholar who attempts to be open-minded, though the strain shows at times, as well as my own less than neutral responses to what she portrays. However, the instinctive repulsion felt by one brought up in a post-Christian society to the apparent bare-faced charlatanism and delusion driving so much of what Dhammakaya is and does has to be restrained when one remembers that Dhammakaya not only reflects an historically legitimate aspect of Theravada (and Mahayana) Buddhism, but is also quite attractive to many perfectly decent and well educated urban Thais.

1. Buddhism in Thailand is generally described and judged by outside observers in terms of two forms of Orientalism. Early Orientalism, the perspective of 19th century Protestant and rationalist scholars, taken on board by Kings Rama IV and Rama V, deplored the pervasiveness of myth and miracle in Siamese presentations of Buddhist teaching. Neo-Orientalism, a later development, laments the association of wealth and its attractiveness with Buddhist institutions and individuals, emphasizing a “pure” Buddhism that is found in the Pali Canon and an austere Sangha that has no truck with money or material acquisition.

2. The fact is, however, that an association of wealth with merit is an ancient and authentic aspect of Buddhist social and personal ethics. The Buddha was himself of noble birth in both his life as Gotama and earlier as Vesantara. He was surrounded by disciples who had had the benefits of a wealthy upbringing and was supported by lay followers who were sometimes fabulously rich. Renunciation itself depended on surplus wealth to cover the loss of earnings to the family of the one who had gone forth into homelessness. Dhammakaya representatives argue that there is nothing wrong with being wealthy or enjoying wealth. Wealth in this life has traditionally been viewed as a reward for merit earned in a previous one. Problems arise when one actively craves wealth, acquires wealth by sinful means and/or uses one’s wealth wrongly.

3. Opponents of Dhammakaya, such as Sulak Sivaraksa, Samana Photirak and Phra Phayom Kalayano, chide Dhammakaya for its materialism, but the Temple responds that generosity to the Sangha and donations for temples and chedis have always been and are still regarded as the most highly valued means of making merit among Thai people. The grandiose structures at Wat Dhammakaya in their view reflect the legitimate aspirations of their donors. They also serve as a sign of and a vehicle for spiritual attainment. (In Christian terms, therefore, they are seen as having a sacramental function.)

4. While acknowledging that the actual possession of wealth is not seen as a sin in any mainstream religion (though Jesus, e.g. in his advice to the rich young man, suggested that one would be spiritually better off without it), Dhammakaya is regarded by its critics as being obsessed with wealth and ostentation. This criticism came to a head in the late 90s when, while many Thais were suffering quite seriously from the effects of the Asian economic crisis, Dhammakaya was building its giant structures in Nonthaburi and calling for more and more donations. To be fair, it had begun some years earlier, when conspicuous consumption and greed were the order of the day, but when it was found that the abbot, Phra Dhammachayo, was accumulating large swathes of land near the temple and registering them in his own name, many people had a sour taste in their mouth. The temple’s and its abbot’s links with the all-conquering Thai Rak Thai party of Thaksin Shinawatra helped to get the charges quashed, but the episode did not speak well of Dhammakaya’s form of Buddhism. Added to that the abbot’s liking for Swiss-designed silk robes, luxury cars, gourmet dining and unwillingness to eat with his monks and it seemed like we had another Baghwan Shri Rajneesh (later Osho) to contend with. However, Abbot Dhammachayo did not compromise his vows in the vulgar and salacious ways that other notorious Thai monks have, so he escaped with his position intact and the loyalty of his followers apparently unquestioned.

5. Though one could argue that the focus on spectacle and an excessive interest in capital accumulation were either acceptable in the context or understandable temptations of the day, Dhammakaya’s linkage of money and merit seems to go beyond the bounds of reasonable middle-way Buddhism when the Temple establishes a “Millionaire’s Club”, which guarantees its members rebirth as a millionaire by paying a certain amount regularly into the Temple monthly. Thoughts of Jim and Tammy Bakker come immediately to mind. Likewise, the story of Khun Yay, Luangpor Sot's chief disciple, asking the Buddha for money and getting it seems questionable both on grounds of taste and credibility, but Dhammakaya is not noted for taste, and credibility doesn’t seem to concern them.

6. Among the many miracles and occult abilities associated with Luangpor Sot and Khun Yay are included the belief that by meditation, Luangpor and his disciples at Wat Paknam in Thonburi diverted allied bombers from Bangkok (I don’t know where they dropped their bombs instead) and on another occasion prevented the allies from bombing Bangkok altogether despite the presence of many Japanese in the city. (These two stories may be variations of the one.) Khun Yay, in exchange for donations, had a practice of visiting petitioners’ deceased relatives in hel_l and transferring the petitioners’ merit to those who were suffering the pains of damnation. It was said of Khun Yay that she could move as easily among the different realms of existence as among the buildings in the temple grounds.

7. Perhaps the most spectacular Wat Dhammakaya epiphenomenon was the reported “Miracle in the Sky”, which occurred before thousands of Dhammakaya followers in September 1998 (and which bears a strong resemblance to the widely known Miracle of the Sun reported at Fatima in October 1917). Something occurred or was believed to have occurred that set Dhammakayan nerves tingling and tongues buzzing. However, reports differ as to what actually happened. The Temple reported that the sun was “sucked out of the sky” and replaced by an image of Luangpor Sot. Others saw him as a golden staue, and others as a giant crystal. Professor Somsuda of Kasetsart University saw Luangpor in the sun, but Mr Termpong of the Thanachart Trust (now Thanachart Bank) saw the sun emitting flashing rays and an image of the Buddha. Who knows? Public ephiphenomena of this kind are seen as legitimation at a comprehensive level of the religious institution in whose name they occur – often the Roman Catholic Church, as at Fatima, Lourdes and Medugorge (this one popular, but contested by the official Church). Dhammakaya’s miracle gives credence to Donald Swearer’s view that the Temple sees itself as an international spiritual force while at the same time a bulwark against a possible impending decline of the monarchy and religious institutions in Thailand.

8. There’s much more to be said about Dhammakaya, but this is a posting to a forum, not a journal article, so it will close with reference to the Temple’s view of itself as a meditation centre and as a vehicle for the restoration of the meditation-based Forest tradition in urban Thailand. Dhammakaya, although it publishes lots of short pamphlets and booklets, is not really interested in text-based dhamma or discussion of doctrine. Both Luangpor Sot and Abbot Dhammachayo source knowledge and truth in meditation practice, not texts and discourses. In that respect they are true to the forest tradition of Ajarn Man and others in their reaction to the Pali-text based reforms of monastic education and practice initiated and fostered by Rama IV and V. Hence, Donald Swearer describes Dhammakaya as “fundamentalist”. The Temple has made little effort to counter the 1998 charges brought against them of heresy (they were teaching that nipphan pen atta – nirvana is the self) as they see truth and insight arising within oneself from meditation. There is no point then, in their view, arguing about it on a dialectic stage.

9. Can it be said then that Dhammakaya is indeed the inheritor and flag bearer of traditional Thai Buddhism, with its supernaturalism/superstition, merit-based counter-ethics, love of display and anti-intellectualism? If so, then one can only sympathise with the efforts of the 19th century Thai kings and their monastic relatives to reform Thai Buddhism. This would suggest that the Forest tradition has legitimately had its day and that the nostalgia of Buddhist intellectuals such as Sulak Sivaraksa and Kamala Tiyavanich is touching, but not constructive. Dhammakaya has stepped into the space they mourn.

Edited April 9, 2010 by Xangsamhua

[phetaroi]

Excerpts from OP: "...Unfortunately for those with a romantic view of Thai ethics and culture, material wealth and superstition are very powerful motivators for many Thais, perhaps most of them in certain sub-populations.

...

The fact is, however, that an association of wealth with merit is an ancient and authentic aspect of Buddhist social and personal ethics. The Buddha was himself of noble birth in both his life as Gotama and earlier as Vesantara. He was surrounded by disciples who had had the benefits of a wealthy upbringing and was supported by lay followers who were sometimes fabulously rich. Renunciation itself depended on surplus wealth to cover the loss of earnings to the family of the one who had gone forth into homelessness. Dhammakaya representatives argue that there is nothing wrong with being wealthy or enjoying wealth. Wealth in this life has traditionally been viewed as a reward for merit earned in a previous one. Problems arise when one actively craves wealth, acquires wealth by sinful means and/or uses one’s wealth wrongly.

3. Opponents of Dhammakaya, such as Sulak Sivaraksa, Samana Photirak and Phra Phayom Kalayano, chide Dhammakaya for its materialism, but the Temple responds that generosity to the Sangha and donations for temples and chedis have always been and are still regarded as the most highly valued means of making merit among Thai people. The grandiose structures at Wat Dhammakaya in their view reflect the legitimate aspirations of their donors. They also serve as a sign of and a vehicle for spiritual attainment. (In Christian terms, therefore, they are seen as having a sacramental function.)

...when it was found that the abbot, Phra Dhammachayo, was accumulating large swathes of land near the temple and registering them in his own name, many people had a sour taste in their mouth. The temple’s and its abbot’s links with the all-conquering Thai Rak Thai party of Thaksin Shinawatra helped to get the charges quashed, but the episode did not speak well of Dhammakaya’s form of Buddhism. Added to that the abbot’s liking for Swiss-designed silk robes, luxury cars, gourmet dining and unwillingness to eat with his monks and it seemed like we had another Baghwan Shri Rajneesh (later Osho) to contend with. However, Abbot Dhammachayo did not compromise his vows in the vulgar and salacious ways that other notorious Thai monks have, so he escaped with his position intact and the loyalty of his followers apparently unquestioned.

5. Though one could argue that the focus on spectacle and an excessive interest in capital accumulation were either acceptable in the context or understandable temptations of the day, Dhammakaya’s linkage of money and merit seems to go beyond the bounds of reasonable middle-way Buddhism when the Temple establishes a “Millionaire’s Club”, which guarantees its members rebirth as a millionaire by paying a certain amount regularly into the Temple monthly. Thoughts of Jim and Tammy Bakker come immediately to mind.

...

6. Among the many miracles and occult abilities associated with Luangpor Sot and Khun Yay are included the belief that by meditation, Luangpor and his disciples at Wat Paknam in Thonburi diverted allied bombers from Bangkok (I don’t know where they dropped their bombs instead) and on another occasion prevented the allies from bombing Bangkok altogether despite the presence of many Japanese in the city. (These two stories may be variations of the one.) Khun Yay, in exchange for donations, had a practice of visiting petitioners’ deceased relatives in hel_l and transferring the petitioners’ merit to those who were suffering the pains of damnation. It was said of Khun Yay that she could move as easily among the different realms of existence as among the buildings in the temple grounds.

...

...Dhammakaya, although it publishes lots of short pamphlets and booklets, is not really interested in text-based dhamma or discussion of doctrine.

..."

Very interesting article...I have been trying to read up on the temple recently since I do want to go out there...as a tourist! A couple of comments:

When the author says, "material wealth and superstition are very powerful motivators for many Thais, perhaps most of them in certain sub-populations", I'm not so sure it's that much different than in many (if not most) other societies. To oversimplify it, in Thailand there are two groups -- the haves and the have-nots. I see material wealth in both groups. For the haves, perhaps the best and most public example is Mr. Thaksin. Much of what is going on in about his trying to maintain his wealth. Among the have-nots, materials wealth may be less obvious, but it is there, nevertheless, and is apparent in what (in America) I refer to as post-Great Depression thinking...the hoarding of objects that may never be used again, but have a value of "waste not, want not". The crap that my partner keeps drives me crazy...but, although he is in the growing Thai middle class, he is from a poor village in Issan. I saw the exact same behavior from my mother, who was fairly poor and raised by post-Great Depression parents. I'm not sure that basic human behavior in terms of holding on to wealth and possessions differs much from culture to culture.

The concept of (dare I say it) buying merit...not sure that differs so much either between the haves and have-nots. Each group buys objects based on their ability. The poor person gives the monks food in the morning...that's what they can afford. A person a little higher up the ladder may give monks robes and materials on special occasions. A little higher up the ladder -- perhaps a small Buddha statue. A little higher up the wealth ladder...a larger Buddha statue. Or a sala. Or in the case of Wat Dhammakaya, contributions to build fantastic buildings. What would we think of a truly wealthy man in Thailand giving 1 kilogram of rice once a month to monks. We'd think we wasn't giving a sufficient amount based on his wealth. And this is very common in many religions. Tithing in many Protestant religions. Mormons giving 10% to the church. I guess what I would like to know is -- are there poor people at Wat Dhammakaya? Are they made to feel welcome despite their lack of wealth?

When the charges were quashed against the abbott, was it simply "political", or had he not broken the law?

Bangkok certainly was bombed by the Allies during WWII. Check out the history of Wat Ratburana, as one example. I'm not sure Bangkok was a primary focus of anti-Japanese military moves by the Allies, although there certainly were attacks along the Death Railway.

Funny, I was thinking of parallels to the Bakkers as I was reading, and the, there it was. Interesting.

In re the temple not being very interested in "text-based dhamma or discussion of doctrine"...how much is this done by other notable Thai temples?

[Somrak]

If i look back at the role they playd in support Taxins killings in his "war against drogs", moneylaudering, etc., i know what i have to think about a sect like them.

I still not understand why there abot could go away with steeling 12 billion Bath?

[khaowong1]

I stayed in a Dhammakaya temple in Ratchburi for two weeks once. I didn't see any "wealth" issues there, but never could get with their "meditation" program. I just couldn't quite understand it.

[sabaijai]

Please continue the discussion in the thread already dedicated to the Dhammakaya topic.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Wat-Phra-Dha...p;hl=dhammakaya