DSI to summon Dhammakaya abbot to explain 'donation'

[webfact]

DSI to summon Dhammakaya abbot to explain 'donation'
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The Department of Special Investigation (DSI) will summon Phra Dhammachayo, the abbot of Dhammakaya Temple, to explain if he received money from a key suspect in the Credit Union Khlong Chan embezzlement case and the confirm if he is, in fact, still a monk.

Suwanna Suwannajutha, DSI director-general, said the agency had taken over the Bt16-billion embezzlement case from the police and would merge it with other cases recently filed by victims against Supachai Srisupa-aksorn, accusing him of stealing Bt27 million from them. These cases were filed with the Lat Phrao Police Station

Prime Minister General Prayut Chan-o-cha said yesterday that the Office of National Buddhism (ONB) was taking action against Phra Dhammachayo, first to determine whether he was defrocked a number of years ago, and then to find out if he had received money from a criminal suspect.

Commands handed down by the late Supreme Patriarch in 1999 caused Phra Dhammachayo to be defrocked because of his involvement in a number of offences, including ownership of the land on which Dhammakaya Temple in Pathum Thani is located. The abbot was once indicted for embezzlement of Bt959 million in assets donated to the temple, but public prosecutors later dropped the case after he promised to return the money to the temple.

PM's Office Minister Suwaphan Tanyuvardhana said he had seen one of the Supreme Patriarch's commands, the Third Order, which defrocked the abbot - a crucial issue that would be decided officially through monastic intervention. He said the ONB, which did not exist in 1999, would discuss this issue today.

As for the government’s role in the issue, Suwaphan said: "The government is obliged to promote and protect Buddhism. Whoever that damages Buddhism, we are required to act, in order to restore the people's faith in Buddhim."

Senator Paiboon Nititawan said that if the indictment against the abbot had not been dropped, there would not have been the Credit Union Khlong Chan embezzlement case, in response to a report that Dhammakaya Temple had agreed to return Bt714 million "donated" to it by the Credit Union.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/DSI-to-summon-Dhammakaya-abbot-to-explain-donation-30254502.html


-- The Nation 2015-02-20

[ezzra]

I'm thinking that in the event that the Thai government will ever need to borrow a huge loan, they will not

to go far from the Dhammakya temple people, these guys have more money than many other

countries around the glob, and the Thai government just allow this this to continue unabated,

it is clear to see that not all is kosher with the temple owning vast amount of funds and properties....

[arthurboy]

Check out the connections between this crowd and some previous high profile politicians currently around in the Thai media.

Money laundering, methinks.

Edited February 20, 2015 by arthurboy

[noitom]

The Thai police should be looking at evidence and taking depositions of witnesses. Talking to the monk and "asking him to explain" is analogous to putting the fox in the chicken coop.

[Anthony5]

Unbelievable that in a country where the majority of the population earns less than 300$ a month, on after the other Billion Baht scam surfaces, and this is going on for decades already.

I remember the 1999 Dhammakaya case, where they had to engage an army battalion to arrest the abbot.

[Lupatria]

"The government is obliged to promote and protect Buddhism. Whoever that damages Buddhism, we are required to act, in order to restore the people's faith in Buddhim."

Well, if this is the way the government “acts” some people did a lousy job here:

The abbot was once indicted for embezzlement of Bt959 million in assets donated to the temple, but public prosecutors later dropped the case after he promised to return the money to the temple.

[Srikcir]

"The government is obliged to promote and protect Buddhism. Whoever that damages Buddhism, we are required to act, in order to restore the people's faith in Buddhim."

Maybe this is why 4 million Muslims in the South are unhappy being under a Buddhist government. Under Islam such servitude is a crime against the faith.

[issanaus]

"The government is obliged to promote and protect Buddhism. Whoever that damages Buddhism, we are required to act, in order to restore the people's faith in Buddhim."

Maybe this is why 4 million Muslims in the South are unhappy being under a Buddhist government. Under Islam such servitude is a crime against the faith.

Hope this addresses your "concern"

From wiki

"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.[8] Some critics of the plan, including scholar and social critic Sulak Sivaraksa, have claimed that the movement to declare Buddhism a national religion is motivated by political gain, and may be being manipulated by supporters of ousted Prime Minister Thaksin Sinawatra.[8]

The Constitution Drafting Committee later voted against the special status of Buddhism, provoking the religious groups. The groups condemned the Committee and the constitution draft.[9] On August 11, Sirikit, the Queen of Thailand, expressed her concern over the issue. According to her birthday speech, Buddhism is beyond politics. Some Buddhist organizations announced the break of the campaigns a day after"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_in_Thailand

More directly related to the OP - Some of the background information to the question as to if the person being intervied was still a monk if to be found in a very interesting paper published in the journal of Buddhist Ethics @ page 487 - http://blogs.dickinson.edu/buddhistethics/files/2012/07/Laohanovich-Esoteric-Teaching-Wat-Phra-Dhammakaya-final.pdf.

I would have posted a quote by my computer skills failed. Here is hopeing that DSI also talk to the author who used to be involved in Dhammayaka

Edited February 20, 2015 by issanaus

[Sarathi]

Just to be clear.

Previous investigations into Ven. Dhammachayo cleared him of any offenses except holding land in his own name - this is not unusual in Thai Buddhism, and many of Thailand's top monks or lay donors do this. The reason is to maintain some control and ensure the temple runs properly. Later, when the monastery gains official monastic status (which necessitates the building of certain sanctified buildings and 'sima' areas), the land is included as part of the monastic grounds. Often land is bought privately adjacent to a monastery and slowly gets used for the monastery purposes (such as car parks or food tents) and so only gets registered as monastic grounds later.

This system may be right or wrong, but it is the way things are done in Thailand. Ven. Dhammachayo was asked to incorporate the land into the official monastic boundary, which he did. Hence the Sangha council had no further issue with him of the temple. This they already met and declared they have no further issue on this. (quite a stunningly swift meeting and conclusion for a body that usually moves at snail pace)

Further, association with certain exiled politicians is tenuous. All senior figures in politics, business or other areas, associate themselves with certain 'pet' temples. This in no way means the temple supports the person. In fact Wat Dhammakaya has always remained outside of politics - it does not pay them to limit their supporters to one or another political camp.

Lastly, the previous Sangharaja did write a letter to the Supreme Sangha Council, but this was a suggestion and invitation to investigate. It was not a 'judgement' with any official bearing. And it was written at a time around when the duties of the Sangharaja were taken away from his offices and given to other senior monks. The fact is he was of diminishing capacity at the time, and various offices in Wat Bownorn were making statements on his behalf. After a document promoting a junior monk was found to be endorsed with a forged signature, the official stamps and duties were removed and given to the abbots of Wat Saket, Wat Chanasongkran, and Wat Paknam.

There are things to criticise with Wat Dhammakaya, but we should be clear that there was no substantiated charge, and that the temple does have the support of the Buddhist Sangha Council in Thailand.

Hope that helps a bit.

[jaidam]

This DSI must be disbanded immediately and a new department, renamed, with new personnel created. Thanks to Tarit Pengdith and his puppet master's legacy, the DSI is thought of as a Thai einsatzgruppen. A malevolent state vehicle tasked with avenging the whims and moods of it's increasingly unstable leader in exile. Quite a departure from the original goal of the department, as an agency to investigate serious crimes.

[issanaus]

Just to be clear.

Previous investigations into Ven. Dhammachayo cleared him of any offenses except holding land in his own name - this is not unusual in Thai Buddhism, and many of Thailand's top monks or lay donors do this. The reason is to maintain some control and ensure the temple runs properly. Later, when the monastery gains official monastic status (which necessitates the building of certain sanctified buildings and 'sima' areas), the land is included as part of the monastic grounds. Often land is bought privately adjacent to a monastery and slowly gets used for the monastery purposes (such as car parks or food tents) and so only gets registered as monastic grounds later.

This system may be right or wrong, but it is the way things are done in Thailand. Ven. Dhammachayo was asked to incorporate the land into the official monastic boundary, which he did. Hence the Sangha council had no further issue with him of the temple. This they already met and declared they have no further issue on this. (quite a stunningly swift meeting and conclusion for a body that usually moves at snail pace)

Further, association with certain exiled politicians is tenuous. All senior figures in politics, business or other areas, associate themselves with certain 'pet' temples. This in no way means the temple supports the person. In fact Wat Dhammakaya has always remained outside of politics - it does not pay them to limit their supporters to one or another political camp.

Lastly, the previous Sangharaja did write a letter to the Supreme Sangha Council, but this was a suggestion and invitation to investigate. It was not a 'judgement' with any official bearing. And it was written at a time around when the duties of the Sangharaja were taken away from his offices and given to other senior monks. The fact is he was of diminishing capacity at the time, and various offices in Wat Bownorn were making statements on his behalf. After a document promoting a junior monk was found to be endorsed with a forged signature, the official stamps and duties were removed and given to the abbots of Wat Saket, Wat Chanasongkran, and Wat Paknam.

There are things to criticise with Wat Dhammakaya, but we should be clear that there was no substantiated charge, and that the temple does have the support of the Buddhist Sangha Council in Thailand.

Hope that helps a bit.

That is one interpretation of the situation - others would disagree with some of what you have written. In particular with the issue of Dhammakaya and politics.

For example there is your statement

"Lastly, the previous Sangharaja did write a letter to the Supreme Sangha Council, but this was a suggestion and invitation to investigate. It was not a 'judgement' with any official bearing. And it was written at a time around when the duties of the Sangharaja were taken away from his offices and given to other senior monks. The fact is he was of diminishing capacity at the time, and various offices in Wat Bownorn were making statements on his behalf. After a document promoting a junior monk was found to be endorsed with a forged signature, the official stamps and duties were removed and given to the abbots of Wat Saket, Wat Chanasongkran, and Wat Paknam."

There are varying interpretations of those events.

Personally would be interested in being able to read the sources behind that statement!!!

With Metta

[boomerangutang]

The gov't is on the right track, but will wilt when push comes to shove. There's too much hocus pocus encrusted on the Thai psyche, when they (even top cops) see orange robes, they switch automatically to obeisance mind-set. To re-word a quote: "they can't see the reality for the robes."