Redshirts beating a Buddhist monk in Nonthaburi [video]

[northernjohn]

95% of Buddhists in Thailand follow the Theravada version generally they also wear a different colour of robe from other schools of thought to distinguish the difference, this one was in typical Theravada saffron yellow.

It is just more likely he forgot his teachings or chose to ignore them as so many other monks do that either smoke or drink or engage in other transgressions against their shangha here. It is not uncommon.

Any chance of telling us what this all has to do with a Monk telling a gang of thugs it is wrong to destroy property that is not there's?

[northernjohn]

The english language paper we can not quote here just reported that 3 man and 1 women turned themself in at the policestation. The women claimd that the monk pointed his cane at her. She tought that he was not a real monk and was going to hit her with his cane.

She ask the man from this group to check him and than the assault took place.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

What I found interesting about that article was that it said three 19 year old youth and one 43 year old women.

From all the pictures I have seen it kooks like the assailants were more than 19. Were they paid to take the fall. After all you can't have the highly paid leaders take the fall.

[northernjohn]

"Sathien Wipornmaha, secretary of the Buddhist Association of Thailand (Bat), an non-government organisation (NGO), said that while monks have feelings like everyone else, sangha regulations prevent political expression...."

"Director general of the [National Office of Buddhism], Nopparat Benjawatananun, said joining a political protest is a breach of Buddhist discipline"

Source: Thailand's Bad Boy Monk Buddha Issara Keeps Getting Worse http://www.establishmentpost.com/thailands-bad-boy-monk-buddha-issara-keeps-getting-worse/#ixzz2wzdZv2hA

[Note, however, we don't know what the monk in this case said to incense the crowd].

Exactly my point, this is not Vietnam nor Tibet and neither are the same school of Buddhism as Thailand. The Theravada sangha directive is not to get involved in politics at all.

This dosnt excuse an attack on the guy at all of course, it is just wrong but he should also not be having any political involvement or opinion at all. It is unlikely this would ever have happened id Issara was not so publicly involved in political protests and sending the message out it is ok to be involved in politics here whilst wearing a robe... It is not.

Issara has a lot to answer for.

If you would take the time to inform yourself you will find that the monk in question was attacked for bereating the Red Shirts for chasing and assaulting another person, nothing political in that. Apparently the Red Shirts thought that was enough grounds to mug the monk in "self defense".

No use in trying to explain reality to red shirts they have their script from Thaksin and will not deviate from it. When ever wrong use misdirection never never admit you are wrong.

[geriatrickid]

redshirt scum....anyone going to defend that...

The PRD were exercising their right to protest just like the PDRC.

The chap dressed up as monk certainly was no monk. As you know, monks are not supposed to engage in political activities, nor should they use curse words nor call people derogatory names. As there were no PDRC protestors at the location, the monk was not intervening for humanitarian reasons, but did so for his own political motives. Simply because the man was wearing a monk's attire does not make him special or holy. He made the mistake of trying to use his position to intimidate people. He miscalculated and perhaps should stick to selling magical amulets to the superstitious.

the PDRC where not exercising there right to protest. They were tearing down property belonging to others. They were also beating up any one who pointed out to them that it was a wrong thing to do.

Your red shirt is showing through loud and clear claiming the man was not a Monk. Have you any proof of this. Remember it is well established that he was not making political statements just pointing out that it was wrong to wantonly destroy other peoples property.

Is there any chance that you would dress like a monk and attack thirty people single handedly. This is what you are claiming happened. It must be a strange world you live in. Then again following Jatuporn is a strange world.

The PDRC erected their protest site in an illegal manner. It was illegal because they did not have a permit to erect the structures, and the presence of such loudspeakers was intended to harass and to interfere with the locals going about their business. If you were to illegally erect such items in front of a public building and were to force yourself on others, would you not expect your loudspeakers and related material to be removed? The police did nto intervene, and the people took it upon themselves to remove the illegal structures.

The PDRC have the legal right to protest. The have no legal right to unlawfully occupy public space and to prevent others from using that space for an extended period of time. For example, if the PDRC wished to hold a rally in Lumpini park and protest, they have that legal right. The PDRC do not however have the legal right to set up camp and live in Lumpini and prevent others from accessing the park. The PDRC have set the rules of the engagement. The precedent was set months ago when the PDRC occupied Bangkok and shut down major thoroughfares. Now the people are fed up with such events and don't want the protestors to scream at them and to stop them from going about their lives.

[DLock]

redshirt scum....anyone going to defend that...

The PRD were exercising their right to protest just like the PDRC.

The chap dressed up as monk certainly was no monk. As you know, monks are not supposed to engage in political activities, nor should they use curse words nor call people derogatory names. As there were no PDRC protestors at the location, the monk was not intervening for humanitarian reasons, but did so for his own political motives. Simply because the man was wearing a monk's attire does not make him special or holy. He made the mistake of trying to use his position to intimidate people. He miscalculated and perhaps should stick to selling magical amulets to the superstitious.

the PDRC where not exercising there right to protest. They were tearing down property belonging to others. They were also beating up any one who pointed out to them that it was a wrong thing to do.

Your red shirt is showing through loud and clear claiming the man was not a Monk. Have you any proof of this. Remember it is well established that he was not making political statements just pointing out that it was wrong to wantonly destroy other peoples property.

Is there any chance that you would dress like a monk and attack thirty people single handedly. This is what you are claiming happened. It must be a strange world you live in. Then again following Jatuporn is a strange world.

The PDRC erected their protest site in an illegal manner. It was illegal because they did not have a permit to erect the structures, and the presence of such loudspeakers was intended to harass and to interfere with the locals going about their business. If you were to illegally erect such items in front of a public building and were to force yourself on others, would you not expect your loudspeakers and related material to be removed? The police did nto intervene, and the people took it upon themselves to remove the illegal structures.

The PDRC have the legal right to protest. The have no legal right to unlawfully occupy public space and to prevent others from using that space for an extended period of time. For example, if the PDRC wished to hold a rally in Lumpini park and protest, they have that legal right. The PDRC do not however have the legal right to set up camp and live in Lumpini and prevent others from accessing the park. The PDRC have set the rules of the engagement. The precedent was set months ago when the PDRC occupied Bangkok and shut down major thoroughfares. Now the people are fed up with such events and don't want the protestors to scream at them and to stop them from going about their lives.

Weak.

How about addressing you assertions that he was not a real monk?

Or that he was using curse words or derogatory names?

Or that he had political motives or he was trying to intimidate people.

You used to have some credibility in your posts. Now you are just another drunk old fool that knows not of what he speaks.

It's time to leave.

[geriatrickid]

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

redshirt scum....anyone going to defend that...

The PRD were exercising their right to protest just like the PDRC.

The chap dressed up as monk certainly was no monk. As you know, monks are not supposed to engage in political activities, nor should they use curse words nor call people derogatory names. As there were no PDRC protestors at the location, the monk was not intervening for humanitarian reasons, but did so for his own political motives. Simply because the man was wearing a monk's attire does not make him special or holy. He made the mistake of trying to use his position to intimidate people. He miscalculated and perhaps should stick to selling magical amulets to the superstitious.

GK, you have sunk to a new low...if that was even possible.

Making unfounded assumptions to try and rationalize and defend the beating of a Monk.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

A man dressed as a monk was assaulted. I do not condone, nor do I support the assault. I however, do understand the circumstances.

A monk is not supposed to hector people, nor should he use abusive and foul language. The monk is not supposed to engage in politics. You and others are of the belief that because the man was dressed as a monk, this somehow gave him special status, that it allowed him to use the monk's attire to hide behind when he launched his verbal abuse. If he felt there was wrongdoing, then he should have called the police or alerted his friends in the PDRC.

When the priests supported Franco's fascists and identified those who were deemed enemies of the church, which inevitably led to those people's torture and/or death, were those priests acting ethically and appropriately? Is it any wonder that there was anger towards the clergy?

When the priests took up arms or espoused revolution in the central American countries, were those priests entitled to some special protection because they were priests? Conversely, when the Church supported military juntas, was it still entitled to the special position as the "church"?

When evangelical ministers assault gay people, should they be treated differently than others who do the same? When a member of the clergy gets involved in general politics and violates the principle of non partisanship, of the supposed non interference in general political life, is that person acting as a clergyman, or as a supporter of one side?

You are upset because a "monk" was assaulted. The man was not acting in his capacity as a monk. He was acting outside his scope of activity, and I would say in violation of his supposedly sacred vow.

Oh, Gk, the hacklawyer in perfection. Knowing all, but understand nothing. Distorting every fact in a way

(high intelligence, I agree) that some people follow you . You was student of Mr. Amsterdam?

Hacklawyer (sic) ? I am not a member of the Thai bar, and do not practice law in Thailand. Nor have I ever held myself out as such. In any case, it's a restricted field. I have not distorted any facts, but am well rooted in the realm of reality. I do not understand your question, "you was student of Mr. Amsterdam" Any chance "you was (sic) drinking" when you wrote that? He specializes in human rights and has been recognized for his excellent work, receiving many honours over the course of his illustrious career. I have quite a different field of employment, and travel in a different social circle.

[geriatrickid]

Thank You, Northernjohn.

An we have to keep in mind that this article is from Khaosod, the Red Shirt newspaper. So the allegation that he reportedly made "impolite remarks" may not be so true.

Ah... so the Red Shirts are so low that they would simply attack a monk who walked peaceably by them? Your mind is filled with its own propaganda...

The monk verbally abused several people. Using curse words and foul threatening language, is not the behaviour of a peaceful monk.

Apparently, the poor chap doesn't get out much as he did not demonstrate good people skills. Had he been a monk possessed of serenity and of a peaceful nature he would have made his point in a more appropriate manner. Better yet, he would not have become involved in a political dispute.

[DLock]

Thank You, Northernjohn.

An we have to keep in mind that this article is from Khaosod, the Red Shirt newspaper. So the allegation that he reportedly made "impolite remarks" may not be so true.

Ah... so the Red Shirts are so low that they would simply attack a monk who walked peaceably by them? Your mind is filled with its own propaganda...

The monk verbally abused several people. Using curse words and foul threatening language, is not the behaviour of a peaceful monk.

Apparently, the poor chap doesn't get out much as he did not demonstrate good people skills. Had he been a monk possessed of serenity and of a peaceful nature he would have made his point in a more appropriate manner. Better yet, he would not have become involved in a political dispute.

Back your statements up.

Just by you saying it does not make it true, nor defend your words in any way.

You are reaching and looking extremely foolish about now.

[AleG]

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

The PRD were exercising their right to protest just like the PDRC.

The chap dressed up as monk certainly was no monk. As you know, monks are not supposed to engage in political activities, nor should they use curse words nor call people derogatory names. As there were no PDRC protestors at the location, the monk was not intervening for humanitarian reasons, but did so for his own political motives. Simply because the man was wearing a monk's attire does not make him special or holy. He made the mistake of trying to use his position to intimidate people. He miscalculated and perhaps should stick to selling magical amulets to the superstitious.

GK, you have sunk to a new low...if that was even possible.

Making unfounded assumptions to try and rationalize and defend the beating of a Monk.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

A man dressed as a monk was assaulted. I do not condone, nor do I support the assault. I however, do understand the circumstances.

A monk is not supposed to hector people, nor should he use abusive and foul language. The monk is not supposed to engage in politics. You and others are of the belief that because the man was dressed as a monk, this somehow gave him special status, that it allowed him to use the monk's attire to hide behind when he launched his verbal abuse. If he felt there was wrongdoing, then he should have called the police or alerted his friends in the PDRC.

When the priests supported Franco's fascists and identified those who were deemed enemies of the church, which inevitably led to those people's torture and/or death, were those priests acting ethically and appropriately? Is it any wonder that there was anger towards the clergy?

When the priests took up arms or espoused revolution in the central American countries, were those priests entitled to some special protection because they were priests? Conversely, when the Church supported military juntas, was it still entitled to the special position as the "church"?

When evangelical ministers assault gay people, should they be treated differently than others who do the same? When a member of the clergy gets involved in general politics and violates the principle of non partisanship, of the supposed non interference in general political life, is that person acting as a clergyman, or as a supporter of one side?

You are upset because a "monk" was assaulted. The man was not acting in his capacity as a monk. He was acting outside his scope of activity, and I would say in violation of his supposedly sacred vow.

Oh, Gk, the hacklawyer in perfection. Knowing all, but understand nothing. Distorting every fact in a way

(high intelligence, I agree) that some people follow you . You was student of Mr. Amsterdam?

Hacklawyer (sic) ? I am not a member of the Thai bar, and do not practice law in Thailand. Nor have I ever held myself out as such. In any case, it's a restricted field. I have not distorted any facts, but am well rooted in the realm of reality. I do not understand your question, "you was student of Mr. Amsterdam" Any chance "you was (sic) drinking" when you wrote that? He specializes in human rights and has been recognized for his excellent work, receiving many honours over the course of his illustrious career. I have quite a different field of employment, and travel in a different social circle.

"I have not distorted any facts"

Here's you distorting facts in the same post were you claim not to distort facts:

"A monk is not supposed to hector people, nor should he use abusive and foul language. The monk is not supposed to engage in politics."

The monk in question was attacked after scolding the Red Shirts for assaulting another person, if you think that a monk, or any human being, should not condemn an act like that there's something wrong with you. On the second sentence you are clearly distorting the facts by claiming without any substantiation that the monk was engaged in politics.

"If he felt there was wrongdoing, then he should have called the police or alerted his friends in the PDRC."

"his friends in the PDRC" do you know the monk? do you know if he has friends in the PDRC? Here you are denigrating the man with fabricated facts.

"When the priests supported Franco's fascists and identified those who were deemed enemies of the church, which inevitably led to those people's torture and/or death, were those priests acting ethically and appropriately? Is it any wonder that there was anger towards the clergy?

When the priests took up arms or espoused revolution in the central American countries, were those priests entitled to some special protection because they were priests? Conversely, when the Church supported military juntas, was it still entitled to the special position as the "church"?

When evangelical ministers assault gay people, should they be treated differently than others who do the same? When a member of the clergy gets involved in general politics and violates the principle of non partisanship, of the supposed non interference in general political life, is that person acting as a clergyman, or as a supporter of one side?"

All this is a complete non sequitur based on nothing but your own imagination ascribing political motivations to the monk, and even if he had any political motivations that is no excuse for assaulting people. There's a concept called freedom of speech you may want to get acquainted with.

"You are upset because a "monk" was assaulted. The man was not acting in his capacity as a monk. He was acting outside his scope of activity, and I would say in violation of his supposedly sacred vow."

First you distort the facts by calling him a "monk", clearly implying that he is not an actual monk, second you state as a fact that he was acting "outside the scope of his activity" without providing any facts to support the allegation, AKA making things up.

You'd be in good company with the Red Shirts that attacked the monk, if you read the Bangkok Post account of the events the monk bereated the Red Shirts for chasing and assaulting a man, he pointed his walking cane at them and a woman accused him of being a fake monk (as you are doing in your post), then 10 or so Red Shirts proceeded to assault the monk in "self defense".

Edited March 26, 2014 by AleG

[LeamchabangLarry]

red thugs make me sick

[sidewaysallwayz]

Wow to go as far as this,...what wouldn't they do?

[djjamie]

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

GK, you have sunk to a new low...if that was even possible.

Making unfounded assumptions to try and rationalize and defend the beating of a Monk.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

A man dressed as a monk was assaulted. I do not condone, nor do I support the assault. I however, do understand the circumstances.

A monk is not supposed to hector people, nor should he use abusive and foul language. The monk is not supposed to engage in politics. You and others are of the belief that because the man was dressed as a monk, this somehow gave him special status, that it allowed him to use the monk's attire to hide behind when he launched his verbal abuse. If he felt there was wrongdoing, then he should have called the police or alerted his friends in the PDRC.

When the priests supported Franco's fascists and identified those who were deemed enemies of the church, which inevitably led to those people's torture and/or death, were those priests acting ethically and appropriately? Is it any wonder that there was anger towards the clergy?

When the priests took up arms or espoused revolution in the central American countries, were those priests entitled to some special protection because they were priests? Conversely, when the Church supported military juntas, was it still entitled to the special position as the "church"?

When evangelical ministers assault gay people, should they be treated differently than others who do the same? When a member of the clergy gets involved in general politics and violates the principle of non partisanship, of the supposed non interference in general political life, is that person acting as a clergyman, or as a supporter of one side?

You are upset because a "monk" was assaulted. The man was not acting in his capacity as a monk. He was acting outside his scope of activity, and I would say in violation of his supposedly sacred vow.

Oh, Gk, the hacklawyer in perfection. Knowing all, but understand nothing. Distorting every fact in a way

(high intelligence, I agree) that some people follow you . You was student of Mr. Amsterdam?

Hacklawyer (sic) ? I am not a member of the Thai bar, and do not practice law in Thailand. Nor have I ever held myself out as such. In any case, it's a restricted field. I have not distorted any facts, but am well rooted in the realm of reality. I do not understand your question, "you was student of Mr. Amsterdam" Any chance "you was (sic) drinking" when you wrote that? He specializes in human rights and has been recognized for his excellent work, receiving many honours over the course of his illustrious career. I have quite a different field of employment, and travel in a different social circle.

"I have not distorted any facts"

Here's you distorting facts in the same post were you claim not to distort facts:

"A monk is not supposed to hector people, nor should he use abusive and foul language. The monk is not supposed to engage in politics."

The monk in question was attacked after scolding the Red Shirts for assaulting another person, if you think that a monk, or any human being, should not condemn an act like that there's something wrong with you. On the second sentence you are clearly distorting the facts by claiming without any substantiation that the monk was engaged in politics.

"If he felt there was wrongdoing, then he should have called the police or alerted his friends in the PDRC."

"his friends in the PDRC" do you know the monk? do you know if he has friends in the PDRC? Here you are denigrating the man with fabricated facts.

"When the priests supported Franco's fascists and identified those who were deemed enemies of the church, which inevitably led to those people's torture and/or death, were those priests acting ethically and appropriately? Is it any wonder that there was anger towards the clergy?

When the priests took up arms or espoused revolution in the central American countries, were those priests entitled to some special protection because they were priests? Conversely, when the Church supported military juntas, was it still entitled to the special position as the "church"?

When evangelical ministers assault gay people, should they be treated differently than others who do the same? When a member of the clergy gets involved in general politics and violates the principle of non partisanship, of the supposed non interference in general political life, is that person acting as a clergyman, or as a supporter of one side?"

All this is a complete non sequitur based on nothing but your own imagination ascribing political motivations to the monk, and even if he had any political motivations that is no excuse for assaulting people. There's a concept called freedom of speech you may want to get acquainted with.

"You are upset because a "monk" was assaulted. The man was not acting in his capacity as a monk. He was acting outside his scope of activity, and I would say in violation of his supposedly sacred vow."

First you distort the facts by calling him a "monk", clearly implying that he is not an actual monk, second you state as a fact that he was acting "outside the scope of his activity" without providing any facts to support the allegation, AKA making things up.

You'd be in good company with the Red Shirts that attacked the monk, if you read the Bangkok Post account of the events the monk bereated the Red Shirts for chasing and assaulting a man, he pointed his walking cane at them and a woman accused him of being a fake monk (as you are doing in your post), then 10 or so Red Shirts proceeded to assault the monk in "self defense".

All you have to do is swap the names around in the OP and have a group of PDRC supporters beat up a monk and he will be defending the monk. That in itself shows it is agenda driven rhetorical where his "beliefs" override facts.

[biplanebluey]

Let's see now what is Thai police going to do about this particular case. Most of culprits are caught on the video. Surely beating a Buddhist monk in the broad daylight in supposedly Buddhist country must be some sort of a crime. Or maybe some people are allowed to beat innocent people up based on their support for the caretaker government? I don't know, you tell me.

I see the monk and I see the thugs,and the Police that rescued the Monk are where? I see no Police!!!!!

[Diablo Bob]

"Budhist monks should stay out of politics and remain neutral, as they represent a spiritual holiness for the country, but in Thailand and Burna, Budhist monks always get involved in politics, which resulted in them being beaten and even executed; especially in time of crisis. Religious figures must remain neutral, in order to be respected by all sides. This is a wisdom that most religious figures do not comprehend or understand."

"Tell that to Archbishop Desmond Tutu and the spirit of Dr. Martin Luther King."

. . . And let's not forget Thich Nhat Hahn in Vietnam, not to mention the legion of monks in Burma and the Saffron Revolution.

"Sathien Wipornmaha, secretary of the Buddhist Association of Thailand (Bat), an non-government organisation (NGO), said that while monks have feelings like everyone else, sangha regulations prevent political expression...."

"Director general of the [National Office of Buddhism], Nopparat Benjawatananun, said joining a political protest is a breach of Buddhist discipline"

Source: Thailand's Bad Boy Monk Buddha Issara Keeps Getting Worse http://www.establishmentpost.com/thailands-bad-boy-monk-buddha-issara-keeps-getting-worse/#ixzz2wzdZv2hA

[Note, however, we don't know what the monk in this case said to incense the crowd].

Exactly my point, this is not Vietnam nor Tibet and neither are the same school of Buddhism as Thailand. The Theravada sangha directive is not to get involved in politics at all.

This dosnt excuse an attack on the guy at all of course, it is just wrong but he should also not be having any political involvement or opinion at all. It is unlikely this would ever have happened id Issara was not so publicly involved in political protests and sending the message out it is ok to be involved in politics here whilst wearing a robe... It is not.

Issara has a lot to answer for.

What my research has produced so far:

Government ties[edit]

While Thailand is currently a constitutional monarchy, it inherited a strong Southeast Asian tradition of Buddhist kingship that tied the legitimacy of the state to its protection and support for Buddhist institutions. This connection has been maintained into the modern era, with Buddhist institutions and clergy being granted special benefits by the government, as well as being subjected to a certain amount of government oversight.

In addition to the ecclesiastic leadership of the sangha, a secular government ministry supervises Buddhist temples and monks. The legal status of Buddhist sects and reform movements has been an issue of contention in some cases, particularly in the case of Santi Asoke, which was legally forbidden from calling itself a Buddhist denomination, and in the case of the ordination of women- monks attempting to revive the Theravada bhikkhuni lineage have been prosecuted for attempting to impersonate members of the clergy.

What type of government does Thailand have right now? Oh, that's right a pro-Red Shirt supportive government. That's why Nopparat Benjawatananun, said joining a political protest is a breach of Buddhist discipline, most likely becuse the target of the protest was his government.

Calls for state establishment[edit]

In 2007, calls were made by some Thais for Buddhism to be recognized in the new national constitution as a state religion. This suggestion was initially rejected by the committee charged with drafting the new constitution.^[7] This move prompted a number of protests from supporters of the initiative, including a number of marches on the capital and a hunger strike by twelve Buddhist monks.

Gee, a hunger strike by 12 Buddhist monks in Thailand for a political issue......

The Sangha Supreme Council also declared the same prohibition, pursuant to its Order dated 17 March 1995.^[13] At the end of the Order was a statement of grounds given by Nyanasamvara, the Supreme Patriarch. The statement said:^[13]

"When a monk or novice is involved in or supports an election of any person..., the monk or novice is deemed to have breached the unusual conduct of

pabbajita

and brought about disgrace to himself as well as his community and the Religion. Such a monk or novice would be condemned by the reasonable persons who are and are not the members of this Religion. A

pabbajita

is therefore expected to stay in impartiality and take a pity on every person...without discrimination. Moreover, the existence of both the monks and the Religion relies upon public respect. As a result, the monks and novices ought to behave in such a way that deserves respect of the general public, not merely a specific group of persons. A monk or novice who is seen by the public as having failed to uphold this rule would then be shunned, disrespected and condemned in various manners, as could be seen from many examples. ..."

The members of the Buddhist community are called

samaṇa

, one who is pacified, and also

pabbajita

, one who refrains from worldly activities. They are thus needed to carefully conduct them the prohibitionselves in a peaceful and unblamable manner, for their own sake and for the sake of their community. ... The seeking of the representatives of the citizens to form the House of Representatives is purely the business of the State and specifically the duty of the laity according to the laws. This is not the duty of the monks and novices who must be above the politics. They are therefore not entitled to elect or be elected. And, for this reason, any person who has been elected as a Representative will lose his membership immediately after becoming a Buddhist monk or novice. This indicates that the monkhood and noviceship are not appropriate for politics in every respect. ...

It seems that the specific prohibition has to do with supporting a candidate or running for an office but I guess if you protest you will be shunned, disrespected and condemned in various manners but it doesn't prohibit political protests (See above Hunger strike).

Can't seem to find any sangha regulations that prevent political expression, help!

[SheungWan]

Thai monks should keep to doing monk-like things and keep their nose out of politics. Amazing all the Thaivisa experts having an orgasm over this. Didn't see much written by these same exerts over the taxi driver beaten into a coma by PDRC or the under cover police beaten by PDRC guards and then interrogated by that rat- bag monk who set up the stage at Chaeng Wattana.

Sometimes the 'peaceful' mask of the forum red cheerleaders slips and their snarling face is revealed in all its glory.

[Pops]

Finally, since the red-shirt mob was still waiting to beat the monk again, it was the unarmed Royal Thai Army who had to intervene to escort the monk to a safe place, in front of the PASSIVE COPS that did nothing to protect the monk. As you can see on the video, the Police was only interested in registering the bag of the monk (and found nothing interesting).

ps: at the video you can also hear the monk that politely says to the red-shirts that it is not good to create problems for the community. Then the Red Shirts start to beat him shouting that he is a PDRC. I cannot imagine what they would do to a person that is not a monk and is actually an anti-government protester.

Front "unarmed Royal Thai Army" man on right hip a 45 ACP.

Probably a bee bee gun, right ?

[JamesDean3]

Red Shirts are Communist.

[outsider]

Didn't agree to them reds being called 'buffaloes'... reconsidering my resolution now.

[khunsuar]

redshirt scum....anyone going to defend that...

The PRD were exercising their right to protest just like the PDRC.

The chap dressed up as monk certainly was no monk. As you know, monks are not supposed to engage in political activities, nor should they use curse words nor call people derogatory names. As there were no PDRC protestors at the location, the monk was not intervening for humanitarian reasons, but did so for his own political motives. Simply because the man was wearing a monk's attire does not make him special or holy. He made the mistake of trying to use his position to intimidate people. He miscalculated and perhaps should stick to selling magical amulets to the superstitious.

the PDRC where not exercising there right to protest. They were tearing down property belonging to others. They were also beating up any one who pointed out to them that it was a wrong thing to do.

Your red shirt is showing through loud and clear claiming the man was not a Monk. Have you any proof of this. Remember it is well established that he was not making political statements just pointing out that it was wrong to wantonly destroy other peoples property.

Is there any chance that you would dress like a monk and attack thirty people single handedly. This is what you are claiming happened. It must be a strange world you live in. Then again following Jatuporn is a strange world.

I asked this question a few days ago, and so far Geriatrikid has fail to supply the smallest simlucrum of proof. Still waiting, of course.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[fullcave]

Disgusting story.

Edited March 27, 2014 by fullcave

[max2u]

Oh, Gk, the hacklawyer in perfection. Knowing all, but understand nothing. Distorting every fact in a way

(high intelligence, I agree) that some people follow you . You was student of Mr. Amsterdam?

Squareface's amply-enriched mouthpiece publishes articulate reams of apologetics, and avoidances of accountability, for the would-be 'great leader who is above the law'

The 'student' scribes a shadow of Bob A's thaksinite twaddle.

While reaching to rationalize criminal assaults on a monk, he provides a lesson that propaganda is best left to the professionals

[Prbkk]

Interesting. There are those on here who will not condemn the kidnapping , torture and attempted murder of someone going about his business in a peaceful way in Lumpini Park but will shriek in indignation when an aggressive, politicised monk gets a bit of a going over. Violence is not the solution to these conflicts .

[whybother]

Interesting. There are those on here who will not condemn the kidnapping , torture and attempted murder of someone going about his business in a peaceful way in Lumpini Park but will shriek in indignation when an aggressive, politicised monk gets a bit of a going over. Violence is not the solution to these conflicts .

There are some who don't believe BS made up stories.

Sent from my phone...

[Prbkk]

Interesting. There are those on here who will not condemn the kidnapping , torture and attempted murder of someone going about his business in a peaceful way in Lumpini Park but will shriek in indignation when an aggressive, politicised monk gets a bit of a going over. Violence is not the solution to these conflicts .

There are some who don't believe BS made up stories.

Sent from my phone...

So the dead and injured, tortured, beaten, bruised, tied, dumped in the river....suicides? Interesting theory

[whybother]

Interesting. There are those on here who will not condemn the kidnapping , torture and attempted murder of someone going about his business in a peaceful way in Lumpini Park but will shriek in indignation when an aggressive, politicised monk gets a bit of a going over. Violence is not the solution to these conflicts .

There are some who don't believe BS made up stories.

Sent from my phone...

So the dead and injured, tortured, beaten, bruised, tied, dumped in the river....suicides? Interesting theory

Suicide is a stupid theory, and not one that I have mentioned or have I seen anyone else mention.

[Ricardo]

Interesting. There are those on here who will not condemn the kidnapping , torture and attempted murder of someone going about his business in a peaceful way in Lumpini Park but will shriek in indignation when an aggressive, politicised monk gets a bit of a going over. Violence is not the solution to these conflicts .

I myself would condemn the beating several weeks ago of the taxi-driver, even though he may have thrown something at the anti-government protesters, but feel also that it's a big stretch to describe this latest case as "an aggressive politicised monk", when he appears to have been merely a passer-by who saw something mildly-wrong happening, and spoke out against it.

I also feel that it's a very-worrying escalation, when monks become fair game for violence, that's simply not the Thailand which I know (a bit) and love.

Agree completely that this violence is not the solution, and it seems to be escalating by-the-day, the shooting-up of an unwanted-by-locals new red radio-station shows how both sides have hot-heads amongst them. And we all know that, when a Thai finally loses control, he/she tends to go over-the-top.

Right now things seem to be going from bad to worse.

[NBD]

A minor scuffle at a rally site. I don't see why that fact that he was wearing an orange cloth has anything to do with it.

As far as I can tell not even very many Thais have the level of absurd reverence for monks that people seem to be showing on this thread.

Edited March 28, 2014 by NBD

[kannot]

Ah those peaceful, happy, smiling, gentle natured Thais eh..............dont how much longer they can peddle their tourist crap around the world, face it Thailand is a savage dog eat dog place where life and rights have little or no meaning to the masses.

What a lovely society they have created, I hope the top man is pleased??

[kannot]

Interesting. There are those on here who will not condemn the kidnapping , torture and attempted murder of someone going about his business in a peaceful way in Lumpini Park but will shriek in indignation when an aggressive, politicised monk gets a bit of a going over. Violence is not the solution to these conflicts .

I myself would condemn the beating several weeks ago of the taxi-driver, even though he may have thrown something at the anti-government protesters, but feel also that it's a big stretch to describe this latest case as "an aggressive politicised monk", when he appears to have been merely a passer-by who saw something mildly-wrong happening, and spoke out against it.

I also feel that it's a very-worrying escalation, when monks become fair game for violence, that's simply not the Thailand which I know (a bit) and love.

Agree completely that this violence is not the solution, and it seems to be escalating by-the-day, the shooting-up of an unwanted-by-locals new red radio-station shows how both sides have hot-heads amongst them. And we all know that, when a Thai finally loses control, he/she tends to go over-the-top.

Right now things seem to be going from bad to worse.

"seem to" humph all I see is a selfish, careless greedy nation of irresponsible people. Oh well they'll get the problems they deserve in the end when it all goes tits up.

[slipperx]

"Budhist monks should stay out of politics and remain neutral, as they represent a spiritual holiness for the country, but in Thailand and Burna, Budhist monks always get involved in politics, which resulted in them being beaten and even executed; especially in time of crisis. Religious figures must remain neutral, in order to be respected by all sides. This is a wisdom that most religious figures do not comprehend or understand."

"Tell that to Archbishop Desmond Tutu and the spirit of Dr. Martin Luther King."

. . . And let's not forget Thich Nhat Hahn in Vietnam, not to mention the legion of monks in Burma and the Saffron Revolution.

"Sathien Wipornmaha, secretary of the Buddhist Association of Thailand (Bat), an non-government organisation (NGO), said that while monks have feelings like everyone else, sangha regulations prevent political expression...."

"Director general of the [National Office of Buddhism], Nopparat Benjawatananun, said joining a political protest is a breach of Buddhist discipline"

Source: Thailand's Bad Boy Monk Buddha Issara Keeps Getting Worse http://www.establishmentpost.com/thailands-bad-boy-monk-buddha-issara-keeps-getting-worse/#ixzz2wzdZv2hA

[Note, however, we don't know what the monk in this case said to incense the crowd].

This wouldn't be the same Thai monk who said Buddism was created for the Thais - would it? May have been another but I saw a video clip on Aljazeera a short time back.

As for the Monk who thinks politics has nothing to do with religion - apart from that being basically just a fallacy - maybe he needs to study more?

Did you read the quotes? These aren't statements from random monks pulled out of their wats. The second statement is from the official regulator of Buddhism in Thailand (ref http://www.onab.go.th/en/index.htm - see 'ministerial regulation'). The first is from an association that codifies the regulations (see http://www.thaibuddhistassociation.com/home.php). Maybe you need to study more...

Well maybe religion should also be free of man made codifications. Religion is a personal thing and most especially Buddhism. And the monk who said Buddhism was made for the Thais was not a random monk either. Maybe not at the top of the political monk ladder but nevertheless senior ranking.

Next you'll be telling us there is no politics in the Vatican either!