Radical monk calls for boycott of the Sangha

[Lite Beer]

Radical monk calls for boycott of the Sangha
THE SUNDAY NATION

BANGKOK: -- Buddha Isara urges Buddhists to deny alms over decision not to defrock Dhammachayo

OUTSPOKEN Buddhist monk Buddha Isara yesterday called for a boycott of the Sangha Supreme Council following its decision on Friday not to defrock the controversial abbot of the Dhammakaya Temple.

Buddha Isara led a group of some 200 followers to the Pak Nam Phasi Charoen Temple to lodge a complaint. His petition was addressed to Wat Pak Nam abbot Somdej Phra Maha Rajamanglajahn, who heads the monastic committee performing the duties of the Supreme Patriarch.

The outspoken Buddha Isara, who is abbot of Wat Or Noi in Nakhon Pathom, urged the public to boycott the Sangha Supreme Council by refusing to offer its members alms and other donations until it reverses its decision not to defrock Phra Dhammachayo.

"This may help change their behaviour. In fact, it is not a sin to boycott monks. Lord Buddha once taught this as a way to reform wayward monks. If they don't change their behaviour and if they continue to ignore Lord Buddha's monastic code, they should be allowed to starve to death," Buddha Isara said.

The monk said that the monastic council members had apparently ignored Lord Buddha's monastic code when they made their decision in the Phra Dhammachayo case.

He said that the council also ignored the written judgement by the late Supreme Patriarch in 2006 that stated Dhammachayo's acts should warrant his expulsion from the monkhood.

The council's spokesman, Phra Phrom Methi, said on Friday that Dhammachayo seemed to have acted with no ill intent and that the issue was old news, while Thailand was now undergoing a reconciliation process.

Council 'is a tool for a sect'

"The disciplines of Buddhist monks according to the Tripitaka canon are based on actual intent," he said.

Buddha Isara said it seemed the council was not working for the benefit of Buddhism and was being used as a tool by a certain sect.

"It's clear that Buddhism cannot rely on the current Sangha Supreme Council, so there should be a new set of members of replace them," he said.

Buddha Isara was a leader of the People's Democratic Reform Committee, which staged more than six months of street protests against the Yingluck Shinawatra government before the military coup last May.

At Wat Pak Nam yesterday, Buddha Isara met with the temple's deputy abbot Phra Phrom Molee, who received his complaint on behalf of the abbot.

There were dozens of police |and military officers inside the |temple's compound to keep law and order.

Meanwhile, National Legislative Assembly member Poomsawan Seniwong na Ayutthaya yesterday called on the Sangha Supreme Council to follow the late Supreme Patriarch's judgement on Phra Dhammachayo.

He urged the National Council for Peace and Order to help reform Thai Buddhism so it better complies with Lord Buddha's original teachings.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Radical-monk-calls-for-boycott-of-the-Sangha-30254610.html

-- The Nation 2015-02-22

[chooka]

When it comes to nasty idiot monks this guy is number 1. He should be the one boycotted and disrobed. The guy is pure evil.

[Mango Bob]

Suthep created a monster in his own image.

[ikke]

Is it because he is yellow minded that he is allowed to protest !

200 people are not allowed to gather, except for the yellows and monks ?

[chooka]

Is it because he is yellow minded that he is allowed to protest !

200 people are not allowed to gather, except for the yellows and monks ?

He should be arrested for baring his naked rear end at martial law but I guess the law only applies to one side in the name of reconciliation and harmony.

[Valentine]

No matter what you think about him he raises some valid points. The Dharmakaya sect tells everyone the more money they put in the higher their reward will be in the afterlife. It really puts down poor people implying they have no chance. I have seen families torn apart due to a spouse giving all their hard earned money to the sect & when you try to make them see the folly of it it is like they have been brainwashed. I am pretty sure the Lord Buddha would not approve. If the money trail was followed it could turn up some surprising results.

[WitawatWatawit]

There is no problem with you guys pouncing on the political aspects of this story. But now that you have done so, I think you should show some intelligence by balancing out your bigoted attitudes with some comments on the point of the story. Do you feel it's right to protest against this sect and the decision of the Sangha? Looking forward to some nonpolitical opinion from you. If it's possible.

[thesetat2013]

Its actually quite funny when you think about it. Buddha Isara actually thinks stopping alms and donations would hurt this monk.

This monk has millions and millions of baht. I don't believe he would starve to death or be hurt by this at all

[mca]

Update: Such was the success of Thailand's answer to "One Direction" that they received a military escort to protect them from adoring fans after their recent concert at Impact Arena.

[Mango Bob]

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

There is no problem with you guys pouncing on the political aspects of this story. But now that you have done so, I think you should show some intelligence by balancing out your bigoted attitudes with some comments on the point of the story. Do you feel it's right to protest against this sect and the decision of the Sangha? Looking forward to some nonpolitical opinion from you. If it's possible.

I agree with you to a certain point. But their are so many stupid people in this world who believes that there is an heaven or hell and if they are good or bad or give money and devote themselves to these believes that they will go to an after life. You die your rot in the ground or burned, there is no soul and no afterlife.

[robblok]

There is no problem with you guys pouncing on the political aspects of this story. But now that you have done so, I think you should show some intelligence by balancing out your bigoted attitudes with some comments on the point of the story. Do you feel it's right to protest against this sect and the decision of the Sangha? Looking forward to some nonpolitical opinion from you. If it's possible.

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.

[sweatalot]

When it comes to nasty idiot monks this guy is number 1. He should be the one boycotted and disrobed. The guy is pure evil.

It seems you know nothing

[sweatalot]

There is no problem with you guys pouncing on the political aspects of this story. But now that you have done so, I think you should show some intelligence by balancing out your bigoted attitudes with some comments on the point of the story. Do you feel it's right to protest against this sect and the decision of the Sangha? Looking forward to some nonpolitical opinion from you. If it's possible.

" Looking forward to some nonpolitical opinion from you. "

Even their political opinion is weird - not minding violent and corrupt politicians in power

[WitawatWatawit]

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

There is no problem with you guys pouncing on the political aspects of this story. But now that you have done so, I think you should show some intelligence by balancing out your bigoted attitudes with some comments on the point of the story. Do you feel it's right to protest against this sect and the decision of the Sangha? Looking forward to some nonpolitical opinion from you. If it's possible.

I agree with you to a certain point. But their are so many stupid people in this world who believes that there is an heaven or hell and if they are good or bad or give money and devote themselves to these believes that they will go to an after life. You die your rot in the ground or burned, there is no soul and no afterlife.

Nice try, Bob, but could you please be a little more specific, a la robblok? Crass generalisations pounded out on an empty drum don't quite encourage debate. So let me ask you a question: Do you think the Dhammakaya sect deserves to be compred to the Moonies, the Hare Krishnas, the Scientologists? That should be fairly easy for you. More questions later.

[Sarathi]

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.

[robblok]

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 find it a lame excuse.. sorry.. the money was not really stolen as there was no intent to do so. He transferred money to his private accounts.. and now AGAIN the temple is in the news for 700 million that they REFUSE to return even though they know it gotten fraudulent and people are suffering. Does not sound real Buddhist to me. Actually the fact that there are 2 of such incidents now show me a lot about that abbot in charge.

If once you could say.. no intent.. now a second time....

Sorry sounds like the abbot is using the temple to amass a fortune and does not care what suffering he inflicts on the victims of the fraud.

[siam2007]

if I would need another reason to stay away from any things religious, here it is......

luckily I am able to use my brain to a certain degree and came to my conclusions long time ago.....

[Mango Bob]

They found the 700 million baht was for construction of shrines and temple buildings they had receipts for this. They can not take back what was spent for what someone wanted to give believing that their soul would be saved. It is not fraud, its stupidity on the part of those who gave. You can't prove the monk right or wrong unless you can prove the money when into a private account in his name for his personal use. I don't respect either monk but I hate that SOB Buddha Issara and will jump on him every chance just like you yellows jump on YL.

[Robby nz]

Anyone interested in learning about the Dhammakaya temple should have a read of this http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dannyfisher/2014/08/a-new-investigative-report-on-wat-phra-dhammakaya-for-the-bangkok-post/

Might give those with an open mind an idea what Buddha Isara is complaining about.

Of course it will mean nothing to the bitter twisted reds who cant get over him being part of their beloved Yinglucks demise.

No mods it isn't a link to the BKK post.

Edited February 22, 2015 by Robby nz

[lildragon]

The whole idea of that sect sounds very Scientologist like. Pay more assure entry to heaven!

Can't imagine the Buddha condoning such a thing.

[robblok]

The whole idea of that sect sounds very Scientologist like. Pay more assure entry to heaven!

Can't imagine the Buddha condoning such a thing.

Of course not.. and this temple is super rich.. it could pay those 700 million back if they wanted too. But the abbot decided not too. Its his personal sect and I am sure he is leaching off money. This just shows how bad this temple and abbot is and that the actions of Budha Isara in this case (you can disagree about other cases) is just.

This abbot has set up this mega rich temple and has put possessions of this temple in his own name (in the past).. and now he says he can't pay the money back.. I am sure that if they audit the books the money is still there. This abbot just wants to keep the money and does not care about the victims of the fraud.. all he cares about is a fat bank account for his temple.

[Gunna]

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

[Anthony5]

They found the 700 million baht was for construction of shrines and temple buildings they had receipts for this. They can not take back what was spent for what someone wanted to give believing that their soul would be saved. It is not fraud, its stupidity on the part of those who gave. You can't prove the monk right or wrong unless you can prove the money when into a private account in his name for his personal use. I don't respect either monk but I hate that SOB Buddha Issara and will jump on him every chance just like you yellows jump on YL.

The money from the Louis Vuitton monk was also intended to built a temple and a Buddha statue.

You should read up on the case from the nineties on this abbot.

Edited February 22, 2015 by Anthony5

[Sarathi]

<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.

[robblok]

<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.

[Sarathi]

<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.

[lildragon]

The whole idea of that sect sounds very Scientologist like. Pay more assure entry to heaven!

Can't imagine the Buddha condoning such a thing.

Of course not.. and this temple is super rich.. it could pay those 700 million back if they wanted too. But the abbot decided not too. Its his personal sect and I am sure he is leaching off money. This just shows how bad this temple and abbot is and that the actions of Budha Isara in this case (you can disagree about other cases) is just.

This abbot has set up this mega rich temple and has put possessions of this temple in his own name (in the past).. and now he says he can't pay the money back.. I am sure that if they audit the books the money is still there. This abbot just wants to keep the money and does not care about the victims of the fraud.. all he cares about is a fat bank account for his temple.

I'm no fan of Isara at all, in fact I think he needs de-frocking but that is another story.

The Buddha left his palace life of luxury to go and sit under a tree and attain enlightenment no? Thai Buddhism in general (and especially this case) misses the point entirely. But hey, guess that makes it on par with all the other religions.

[geriatrickid]

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.

[Thaiready]

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

There is no problem with you guys pouncing on the political aspects of this story. But now that you have done so, I think you should show some intelligence by balancing out your bigoted attitudes with some comments on the point of the story. Do you feel it's right to protest against this sect and the decision of the Sangha? Looking forward to some nonpolitical opinion from you. If it's possible.

I agree with you to a certain point. But their are so many stupid people in this world who believes that there is an heaven or hell and if they are good or bad or give money and devote themselves to these believes that they will go to an after life. You die your rot in the ground or burned, there is no soul and no afterlife.

While I stay neutral on the matter of a Afterlife. ....you speak as though you know for sure there isn't.....do you offer any proof of your claims......I think not......While options are like ass holes everyone has one.

[rubl]

Some comments make me wonder, what was it again that Henry II allegedly said ?