Radical monk calls for boycott of the Sangha

[robblok]

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.

Actually i did not even think that he had red followers.. or that it helped him. What i was saying is that just returning land (and money.. wow what reason to keep money from donations outside temple accounts but on your own) is not good enough. Just because you got caught and you pay it back charges are dropped.. strange reasoning.

I think it was more of a deal.. ok you change your teachings and accept our rule and we accept and let you get away with thievery this time.

My red shirt remark was more that people hate Budha Isara and thus are bias in this story.

[Srikcir]

refuse to offer its members alms and other donations

Better yet, how about the government refuse to fund Buddhists entirely and stay out of religious affairs? The nation is slowly becoming nonsecular with the aging of the Thais and the higher birthrate of nonThais.

The only way in which the government can equally treat ALL religions in Thailand is to de-secularize itself and dissolve the Department of Religious Affairs, The government should let the civil and criminal courts deal with any violations of human rights and liberties, whether they relate to actions caused by religious members or anyone else in the Thai society.

[robblok]

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.

Ok so what your saying is that land can only be added and built on not sold later for cash. And the temple just wanted cash and so used the abbot to sell the land. Still strange then that some of the money stayed on his personal account. (the other user says he also returned money.. and money.. i see no reason for him to keep it on his account more then a few days)

Its a good explanation for the land.. and if its true.. i eat my words. Because it sounds plausible.

Can a temple rent out lands ?

[Chonburiram]

...Can a temple rent out lands ?

They can and do.

The cases i know, it's done in a fair, reasonable way.

In my neighborhood, is a temple who owes money to the banks. Didn't know that this was possible but the guy who told me (some kind of temple servant), assured me, temples are seen as very credit worthy.

[Smokemachine]

Has anyone heard of a case In Singapore regards to a church (City Harvest Church)? Does it have similarity to this temple?

[gandalf12]

May be a good idea if monks stayed out of politics

[Robby nz]

For anyone really interested in this temple there has been a discussion going on since 2009 on this site : http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=339&start=200

[Robby nz]

Came across this while searching for something else.

Remember the monk in the private jet ? Well it would seem that Luang Pu Buddha Isara was the only monk that stood up and denounced him, so it seems this isn't the first time he has stood up for the principles of Buddhism :

There is only one monk, Luang Pu Isara, that has dared to criticize the wrong-doing of Nengkham and the attitude of the high-ranking monks of the Thai Sangha that are protecting him (money and power seem to be involved), and he has made a call for responsibilites. He has also pointed several examples of wrong teachings on their dhamma. Luang Pu has received some “threats” since he started speaking about this issue, and today he is going to present evidences for a case in the court. (he already sent them through a messenger but they were rejected with no reason, so today he going to personally deliver them on the court)

[PaPiPuPePo]

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.

Ok so what your saying is that land can only be added and built on not sold later for cash. And the temple just wanted cash and so used the abbot to sell the land. Still strange then that some of the money stayed on his personal account. (the other user says he also returned money.. and money.. i see no reason for him to keep it on his account more then a few days)

Its a good explanation for the land.. and if its true.. i eat my words. Because it sounds plausible.

Can a temple rent out lands ?

There's no way any of us can match Sarathi's knowledge about this case, or, it appears, the pertinent laws, so one has to take his/her word on some of these important points.

Unless he's a legal scholar with an academic interest in this case, or just another citizen who for some reason has intensively followed it and studied the law around it, his familiarity implies (at least) partisanship, and it's obvious it on the side of Dhammakaya.

But that means any claims he makes have to be verified by someone else. Considering the bad press around the temple as reported in the two articles linked to on this page (so far), I would like to see if Sarathi has a response to that; are any of these serious allegations true?

Edited February 22, 2015 by PaPiPuPePo

[Sarathi]

I am indeed partisan in this case.

But not pro-Wat Dhammakaya. In fact I have serious criticisms of the temple. But they would belong in a different thread.

I am very much against Buddha Issara for his involvement in politics (which the Sangha generally stays out of), thuggery, blocking majour roads, and intimidating government workers. The list goes on.

As for the current case - it seems the temple accepted donations, which were later shown to come from embezzlement. I have no further insight on that case other than outlined in the articles. Did they accept in good faith?

[Lupatria]

I guess someone would like to raise a question simmering under his feet

[Scott]

Off-topic posts removed.

[sweatalot]

In my opinion Buddha Issara is an honest and upright person.

Where he sees mischief he stands up against it.

Be it a dishonest corrupt government or a dishonest unworthy monk. I appreciate his actions.

[ableguy]

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.

Take his frock off and spank him, yes I could agree with that as seems to me it's all a money making racket, my views are based on what I read in the news almost on a daily basis, as are most major religions.

[englishoak]

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.

Actually i did not even think that he had red followers.. or that it helped him. What i was saying is that just returning land (and money.. wow what reason to keep money from donations outside temple accounts but on your own) is not good enough. Just because you got caught and you pay it back charges are dropped.. strange reasoning.

I think it was more of a deal.. ok you change your teachings and accept our rule and we accept and let you get away with thievery this time.

My red shirt remark was more that people hate Budha Isara and thus are bias in this story.

Actually in this case Isara should be beside the point on the whole issue and he is imo a attention seeking parasite but that dosnt mean hes wrong about the way the Buddhist council have done a U turn on this and clearly are letting a criminal get away with it, a very serious message to send the laypeople ... it only supports and encourages bad behaviour and since Monks are supposed to be an example to follow and listen to I can only see this as highly damaging to Thai Buddhism,its image and encouraging similar behaviour by the people..

Judgement was made a long time ago and just because theres a change in the council should not change the original decision.... the mere fact that over a decade later its still swirling around unclosed and done shows that Buddhism here is just as corrupted and dysfunctional as any Thai government.

As a side note Thai Buddhism is mostly similar to Sri Lanka and Myanmar, Within the religion is a competition between sects much as there is in other religions and varying branches of, there IS a battle going on between sects in Thailand and they are not beyond making deals and handing out payoffs or when opportunity arises attacking an opposing sect in public.

Isara has a good point against the Sanghas behaviour and I agree its disgusting and disrespectful to change a previous ruling once the old patriarch was dead. However

I also think Isara is using the usual public arena and making a stage for himself to stand on ... yet again.

Finally it also says a lot about other Monks in Thailand and the lack of any will to stand up to the Sangha when it clearly fails its own remit to provide Thai Buddhism with a respectable, honest and consistent ruling council

[PaPiPuPePo]

I am indeed partisan in this case.

But not pro-Wat Dhammakaya. In fact I have serious criticisms of the temple. But they would belong in a different thread.

I am very much against Buddha Issara for his involvement in politics (which the Sangha generally stays out of), thuggery, blocking majour roads, and intimidating government workers. The list goes on.

All you've said thus far, aside from "I'm not pro-Wat D" has been pro-Wat D. And this thread could bear the burden of a criticism or two, they may in fact be enlightening, so why don't you share and see what happens?

[bangon04]

In my opinion Buddha Issara is an honest and upright person.

Where he sees mischief he stands up against it.

Be it a dishonest corrupt government or a dishonest unworthy monk. I appreciate his actions.

If a Thai Buddhist Monk / Abbot rejects the authority of the Sangha Council and/or the Supreme Patriarch, is he by definition not a Thai Buddhist Monk? He may be the leader of a sect which dresses up in Monk's habits, but can be subject to secular laws and investigations.

On the other hand, if the same Monk / Abbot accepts the authority of and is protected by the Sangha Council and /or the Supreme patriarch is he by definition above the secular law?

[jaapfries]

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.

@Chooka: Judging by your comments, you obviously have NO idea what you're talking about. - Do your research; get the facts and THEN maybe comment on something which is totally foreign to you.

[jaapfries]

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

And therein lies the crux of the matter: a TRUE Buddhist monk, does not care about Money or any other material things. Likewise with "food"; - have you ever noticed that the alms-bowl gets filled-up with all kinds of different foods, including deserts. The true monk will eat this mixture of different things: NOT to experience "enjoyment", but merely for "sustenance", as advocated by the enlightened Lord Buddha.

I have learned a few things regarding Buddhism from my brother-in-law (a Monk in Petchaboon and a Prof. Dr.) who is a "real" monk. I greatly admire these "real" monks, for they practice what the Lord Buddha teaches: NOT because they have to, but because the have the very strong desire to !

[jaapfries]

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.

@Robby NZ: - Finally: a voice of reason & intelligence . . . . (crickey: that took a while !)

Cheers, mate !

[hughben]

I've always wondered what the percentage is of Buddhist monks or even 'Buddhists' in Thailand that eat meat?

[robblok]

I've always wondered what the percentage is of Buddhist monks or even 'Buddhists' in Thailand that eat meat?

Their reasoning.. if its dead already you can eat it.

[nithisa78]

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.

bigots don't have any intelligence.

[Sarathi]

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.

Actually i did not even think that he had red followers.. or that it helped him. What i was saying is that just returning land (and money.. wow what reason to keep money from donations outside temple accounts but on your own) is not good enough. Just because you got caught and you pay it back charges are dropped.. strange reasoning.

I think it was more of a deal.. ok you change your teachings and accept our rule and we accept and let you get away with thievery this time.

My red shirt remark was more that people hate Budha Isara and thus are bias in this story.

Actually in this case Isara should be beside the point on the whole issue and he is imo a attention seeking parasite but that dosnt mean hes wrong about the way the Buddhist council have done a U turn on this and clearly are letting a criminal get away with it, a very serious message to send the laypeople ... it only supports and encourages bad behaviour and since Monks are supposed to be an example to follow and listen to I can only see this as highly damaging to Thai Buddhism,its image and encouraging similar behaviour by the people..

Judgement was made a long time ago and just because theres a change in the council should not change the original decision.... the mere fact that over a decade later its still swirling around unclosed and done shows that Buddhism here is just as corrupted and dysfunctional as any Thai government.

As a side note Thai Buddhism is mostly similar to Sri Lanka and Myanmar, Within the religion is a competition between sects much as there is in other religions and varying branches of, there IS a battle going on between sects in Thailand and they are not beyond making deals and handing out payoffs or when opportunity arises attacking an opposing sect in public.

Isara has a good point against the Sanghas behaviour and I agree its disgusting and disrespectful to change a previous ruling once the old patriarch was dead. However

I also think Isara is using the usual public arena and making a stage for himself to stand on ... yet again.

Finally it also says a lot about other Monks in Thailand and the lack of any will to stand up to the Sangha when it clearly fails its own remit to provide Thai Buddhism with a respectable, honest and consistent ruling council

Just a couple of points - there has been no U-turn on the part of the Sangha Council. Acting on letters some 15 years ago from the then Supreme Patriarch they investigated Wat Dhammakaya, both via the courts, and by the Sangha mechanisms. They found nothing untoward, except land that was under the abbots name. There's nothing unusual in that, and it had not been 'stolen' or transferred away from the temple. On recommendation from the council the private land was transferred and put under the temple.

"Judgement was made a long time ago" is incorrect, in reference to the original letters - it was the Supreme Patriarch alone who wrote the letter. There is a procedure to follow after that.

For instance, the current acting Patriarch could write a letter suggesting Buddha Issara be disrobed, but it would not hold water unless it was sanctioned according to the proper Sangha procedures.

Therefore "its disgusting and disrespectful to change a previous ruling once the old patriarch was dead. " is also incorrect. The Sangha Council finding occurred long before the previous Patriarch passed away, and has never been changed.

"the mere fact that over a decade later its still swirling around unclosed" The case was closed long ago. It is just part of the political attack on the previous government. It has been dredged up, muchly (not entirely) by Buddha Issara, who after all, has had a decade to complain about this if he was such a social hero - no, he's just after another 15 minutes int he spotlight, and the chance to walk at the head of a few hundred people gathering in clear contravention to Martial Law (and allowed to do so)

Hope that helps.

[Smokemachine]

As you sow ,so you reap.

Sadhu.

[connda]

I think it's time for the 'radical monk' to disrobe. Talk about completely losing sight of what being a monk is all about.

[Thai at Heart]

Boycott of the Singha? and the Chang and Archa too I hope.....

[Artisi]

I've always wondered what the percentage is of Buddhist monks or even 'Buddhists' in Thailand that eat meat?

Their reasoning.. if its dead already you can eat it.

An extremely p-ss poor reason of justification, similar to contracting out a murder to a hit man and then claiming to have no responsibility - not me, I didn't do it - someone else did.

[DM07]

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.

You should watch the DMC- channel for a while!

This is the closest thing to a sect'ish cult as I have ever seen one!

Frightening!