Wat Dhammakaya

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
TRobinson465
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 5:29 pm

Re: Wat Dhammakaya

Postby TRobinson465 » Thu Aug 25, 2016 12:57 am

jameswang wrote:Then better not post information here as if you know.


I post proven facts with support as well as opinions and i give reasons for my opinions, this is still more than what the 3 ppl who make 90% of the posts on this thread do with thier wacko conspiracy theories. plus they post pretending to be experts on a temple im sure they never bothered to visit. Im not sure why you are singling me out, when this would apply better to a few others. Perhaps you are using DSI logic.

Your second statement isnt even accurate either so you should not be the one to talk about "posting information as if you know" because you clearly dont know. Perhaps if you put as much effort into questioning the main people who have been posting on this thread obsessively for the past few years as you do me you would have a more accurate view of the situation. I will correct your statement in my follow up post.

Btw. I'm not "certain" if they are investigating the other 20 groups that linked to the exact same money solely because its harder to determine if they arent doing something than if they are. But i have sufficient reason to believe and am pretty sure they are not actively investigating the other 20 plus groups because they would've pointed to evidence of that by now and i have not seen any sign of them doing so.

So my statement still stands.

STILL waiting for the other 20 plus groups to be investigated for "receiving stolen goods"
Last edited by TRobinson465 on Thu Aug 25, 2016 1:30 am, edited 2 times in total.
"Do not have blind faith, but also no blind criticism"

TRobinson465
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 5:29 pm

Re: Wat Dhammakaya

Postby TRobinson465 » Thu Aug 25, 2016 1:26 am

DSI claims they cant go to the temple because it is not proper legal procedure, thats just an excuse.

Wait a minute. DSI can't go because its officers were blocked, no?
And when they were allowed to enter, the abbot can't be found and nobody in the wat was helping.
Are you trying to confuse us?


Im not trying to confuse anyone. You yourself seem to be confused about the chronology of the events though...

I'm actually glad you pointed this out though because honestly, im sure there are others who are also unclear about the situation and this is an opportunity to clarify for you and for everyone else here. The Videos i posted before would also make much more sense once this is explained.

First off, DSI requested the abbot of Dhammakaya meet them at thier office to hear charges for "Money Laundering and Receiving stolen goods" :quote: in a case that involves over 20 other groups. The Thai Anti-Money Laundering office investigated and found that the temple spent every single baht on exactly what they said they did and therefore was not laundering money by definition.

Here it is again in English: http://www.dhammakayauncovered.com/news ... ing-office

But a charge for "receiving stolen goods" alone sounds stupid so they also charged him for money laundering anyways.

Before the Summons date the temple told DSI the abbot could not make it to the meeting, citing health reasons, and requested DSI give him his charges at the temple. They refused. The abbot obviously failed to report to hear the charges so DSI seeked an arrest warrant, grounded on the fact that he "failed to report to hear charges". DSI says the reason they had to get the warrant was because they couldnt continue the investigation without first giving the abbot his charges. Its completely reasonable to just give him his charges at the temple and just continue the investigation from there instead of turning this into such a huge farce, but they didnt do that. When asked why they didnt, they made up the (false) excuse that the law requires they have to give him his charges at a government facility (which is incorrect, as my videos showed), in reality they could give him his charges at the temple, or even by phone or video conference and just continue the case no problem. It was just an excuse to get an arrest warrant.

The blocking thing you are referring too was way after when DSI came to the temple to arrest the abbot (again, for not reporting to hear charges), which the followers did not want so a bunch of them blocked the way. DSI never once tried to give the abbot his charges at the temple. Followers would have no objection to that because that is exactly what the temple requested they do, officers never appeared to give him his charges (they dont even need to, just a phone call would suffice), they only appeared to arrest him for not hearing them.

Is this clear?
"Do not have blind faith, but also no blind criticism"

User avatar
suriyopama
Posts: 471
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 10:44 am
Location: Thailand

Re: Wat Dhammakaya

Postby suriyopama » Thu Aug 25, 2016 4:07 am

jameswang wrote:
TRobinson465 wrote:DSI claims they cant go to the temple because it is not proper legal procedure, thats just an excuse.

Wait a minute. DSI can't go because its officers were blocked, no?
And when they were allowed to enter, the abbot can't be found and nobody in the wat was helping.
Are you trying to confuse us?


They may try to confuse and twist, but the pictures are unforgiving.
Just search Google Images for wat dhammakaya block road
:popcorn:

chownah
Posts: 4360
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Wat Dhammakaya

Postby chownah » Thu Aug 25, 2016 4:45 am

suriyopama wrote:
jameswang wrote:
TRobinson465 wrote:DSI claims they cant go to the temple because it is not proper legal procedure, thats just an excuse.

Wait a minute. DSI can't go because its officers were blocked, no?
And when they were allowed to enter, the abbot can't be found and nobody in the wat was helping.
Are you trying to confuse us?


They may try to confuse and twist, but the pictures are unforgiving.
Just search Google Images for wat dhammakaya block road
:popcorn:

It seems you do not understand what was said in the post before yours....so I will do my best to explain. TRobinsonxxx reported that the people at the temple did bar dsi people from entering because they came to arrest the abbot. They were going to arrest the abbot because the abbot did not go to the dsi offices to acknowledge the charges placed against him. BUT there is no necessity for the abbot to go to the dsi offices to acknowledge the charges and the temple actually REQUESTED that dsi officials come to the temple so the abbot could acknowledge the charges...and this practice of the dsi doing this at the persons location and NOT at the dsi offices is standard practice and ONE WONDERS WHY THE DSI DIDN'T JUST SEND SOMEONE THERE SO THAT THE ABBOT COULD ACKNOWLEDGE THE CHARGES BUT INSTEAD SENT PEOPLE THERE TO ARREST HIM FOR NOT GOING TO THE DSI OFFICES TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE CHARGES. There is no legal reason barring the dsi from going to the temple and letting the abbot acknowledge the charges there so why didn't they just do it?.......seems they are trying to make a fuss about this and create bad press and problems for the temple I guess. Can you offer a reason why the dsi did not go to the temple to let the abbot acknowledge the charges?
Get it?
chownah

User avatar
suriyopama
Posts: 471
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 10:44 am
Location: Thailand

Re: Wat Dhammakaya

Postby suriyopama » Thu Aug 25, 2016 7:59 am

A brief recapitulation:

1. The late Supreme Patriarch, the venerable Somdet Phra Nyanasamvara, wrote a letter ordering to defrock Dhammachayo for distorting the Buddhist teachings, violating the monastic code, false supernatural claims, and breaking the law.

2. The Acting Supreme Patriarch, Somdet Chuang, collector of luxury cars and expensive items, preceptor of Dhammachayo and beneficiary of billionaire gifts and donations from Wat Dhammakaya, dismisses the letter and does not defrock Dhammachayo (he alleged that Dhammachayo had already returned the money, but he didn't mention the other offences).

3. Dhammachayo is still wearing the robes. Furthermore, he has not stopped breaking the law, distorting the teachings and claiming supernatural powers.

And do you still believe that it is wrong that the DSI wants to intervene? Do you believe that Dhammachayo deserves to wear those robes, after having committed pajarija offenses? Do you disregard the resolution of the venerable Somdet Phra Nyanasamvara?

chownah
Posts: 4360
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Wat Dhammakaya

Postby chownah » Thu Aug 25, 2016 10:54 am

suriyopama wrote:A brief recapitulation:

1. The late Supreme Patriarch, the venerable Somdet Phra Nyanasamvara, wrote a letter ordering to defrock Dhammachayo for distorting the Buddhist teachings, violating the monastic code, false supernatural claims, and breaking the law.

2. The Acting Supreme Patriarch, Somdet Chuang, collector of luxury cars and expensive items, preceptor of Dhammachayo and beneficiary of billionaire gifts and donations from Wat Dhammakaya, dismisses the letter and does not defrock Dhammachayo (he alleged that Dhammachayo had already returned the money, but he didn't mention the other offences).

3. Dhammachayo is still wearing the robes. Furthermore, he has not stopped breaking the law, distorting the teachings and claiming supernatural powers.

And do you still believe that it is wrong that the DSI wants to intervene? Do you believe that Dhammachayo deserves to wear those robes, after having committed pajarija offenses? Do you disregard the resolution of the venerable Somdet Phra Nyanasamvara?

The dsi wants the abbot to acknowledge the charge and the abbot is perfectly willing to do that but he is in poor health and requested that the dsi come to the temple so he can acknowledge the charges. This is (according to what has been posted here) a perfectly acceptable request and there is no reason why the dsi doesn't just go there with the papers and personel so that the abbot can acknowledge the charges....but they won't do that. They are denying the abbot (according to what has been posted here) the perfectly acceptable alternative of acknowledging the charges at the temple because of his poor health and the health risks of his traveling to the dsi offices to acknowledge the charges.

SO, DO I THINK IT IS WRONG FOR THE DSI TO GO TO ARREST THE ABBOT? YES, I DO BECAUSE THE DSI SHOULD BE GOING TO THE TEMPLE TO FACILITATE THE ABBOT ACKNOWLEDGING THE CHARGES. BASICALLY THEY ARE SAYING "WE WILL NOT ACCOMODATE THE ABBOT'S POOR HEALTH EVEN THOUGH IT IS STANDARD PROCEDURE TO DO SO BUT INSTEAD WE WILL ARREST HIM FOR NOT ACKNOWLEDGING THE CHARGES".
Clearly there is some kind of agenda going on if how the situation as described here is in fact what has transpired.
I ASKED YOU BEFORE BUT YOU DID NOT ANSWER: Can you offer a reason why the dsi did not go to the temple to let the abbot acknowledge the charges?
chownah

TRobinson465
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 5:29 pm

Re: Wat Dhammakaya

Postby TRobinson465 » Fri Aug 26, 2016 1:24 am

chownah wrote:
suriyopama wrote:
A brief recapitulation:

1. The late Supreme Patriarch, the venerable Somdet Phra Nyanasamvara, wrote a letter ordering to defrock Dhammachayo for distorting the Buddhist teachings, violating the monastic code, false supernatural claims, and breaking the law.

2. The Acting Supreme Patriarch, Somdet Chuang, collector of luxury cars and expensive items, preceptor of Dhammachayo and beneficiary of billionaire gifts and donations from Wat Dhammakaya, dismisses the letter and does not defrock Dhammachayo.



SO, DO I THINK IT IS WRONG FOR THE DSI TO GO TO ARREST THE ABBOT? YES, I DO BECAUSE THE DSI SHOULD BE GOING TO THE TEMPLE TO FACILITATE THE ABBOT ACKNOWLEDGING THE CHARGES. BASICALLY THEY ARE SAYING "WE WILL NOT ACCOMODATE THE ABBOT'S POOR HEALTH EVEN THOUGH IT IS STANDARD PROCEDURE TO DO SO BUT INSTEAD WE WILL ARREST HIM FOR NOT ACKNOWLEDGING THE CHARGES".
Clearly there is some kind of agenda going on if how the situation as described here is in fact what has transpired.
I ASKED YOU BEFORE BUT YOU DID NOT ANSWER: Can you offer a reason why the dsi did not go to the temple to let the abbot acknowledge the charges?
chownah


Notice how he and the other prolific posters on this thread who are apparently more obsessed with Dhammakaya than most of the actual ppl who go there, used to say the abbot is guilty of embezzlement (which isnt even the charge) in this case of "money laundering" :quote: and Dhammakaya followers raised money so he can "skip justice" (I provided PROOF the followers returned it when they found out the donations were linked to a scandal and that the credit union later dropped the charges). I come in with supporting links and evidence proving him wrong and clarifying what is really going on in the case so he changes the subject because he knows the case is baseless and cant use it to harass Dhammakaya obsessively anymore.

Also, what he is mentioning is from a long time ago. In fact, i just looked it up, that letter from Somdet Nyansamvara was from 1999 :clap: So that is not a recap, that is changing the subject because he lost his case regarding this topic because i provided facts and evidence about the actual case and he cant make stuff up about that anymore. Also, the reason the abbot wasnt defrocked was because NOBODY in the Supreme Sangha Council (meaning none of the 17 members) endorsed the order. Unless Somdet Nyansamvara was an Arahant who can do no wrong, his word is not always right and that is why there is the Supreme Sangha Council to keep the Supreme Patriarch in check, not to mention, a 17-0 vote is really saying about how flimsy the grounds Somdet Nyansamvara based defrocking the abbot of Dhammakaya on.
Last edited by TRobinson465 on Fri Aug 26, 2016 2:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Do not have blind faith, but also no blind criticism"

TRobinson465
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 5:29 pm

Re: Wat Dhammakaya

Postby TRobinson465 » Fri Aug 26, 2016 1:32 am

BTW now that i have clarified the situation and provided context in my post above

Seen here so its easy to find: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=339&p=392984#p392984

I will repost the videos from earlier since they are on the prior page and I guess they didn't make that much sense if you werent following the case closely and knew about the context of what happened.

Deputy Prosecutor
phpBB [video]



Police General

phpBB [video]
"Do not have blind faith, but also no blind criticism"

User avatar
suriyopama
Posts: 471
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 10:44 am
Location: Thailand

Re: Wat Dhammakaya

Postby suriyopama » Fri Aug 26, 2016 2:31 am

There are technical legal explanations (furthermore, his medical certificate had irregularities and it was proved by witnesses and pictures that he was not so sick as to not to move) but I’m not going to waste time elaborating it to someone that is shouting. Anyway, those technicalities on that particular detail do not exempt Dhammachayo from having committed pajarija offenses, distorting the Buddhist teachings, claiming supernatural powers and repeatedly violating the law. At least since 1999!!! as Mr. TRobinson465 has kindly reminded to us. :tongue:

ps: the 17-0 vote means that the whole council is dhammakayized. That is the sad true
:alien:

User avatar
suriyopama
Posts: 471
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 10:44 am
Location: Thailand

Re: Wat Dhammakaya

Postby suriyopama » Fri Aug 26, 2016 2:47 am

The Dhammakaya propaganda machinery, and the persistence of Dhammakayauncovered Editorial is incredible. It is evident that the Wikipedia page of the DSI has been entirely written by them :lol:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Special_Investigation

Most of the links at the References lead to Dhammakayauncovered or to interviews with Dhammakaya slaves :reading:

Coëmgenu
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm

Re: Wat Dhammakaya

Postby Coëmgenu » Fri Aug 26, 2016 2:48 am

suriyopama wrote:There are technical legal explanations (furthermore, his medical certificate had irregularities and it was proved by witnesses and pictures that he was not so sick as to not to move) but I’m not going to waste time elaborating it to someone that is shouting. Anyway, those technicalities on that particular detail do not exempt Dhammachayo from having committed pajarija offenses, distorting the Buddhist teachings, claiming supernatural powers and repeatedly violating the law. At least since 1999!!! as Mr. TRobinson465 has kindly reminded to us. :tongue:

ps: the 17-0 vote means that the whole council is dhammakayized. That is the sad true
:alien:


Hello Bhikkhu (I think you are a monk? It is sometimes difficult to tell on these forums),

I have only been following this serious issue tangentially, because so much of the issue intersects with Thai politics that I really have no relationship to or access to.

Is the post-scriptum at the end of your message saying that if there is a 17-0 vote the council will be 'dhammakayized'? or is it that this vote has already taken place.

If it is such a big issue, is there likely to be a schism in Thailand? Does Buddhism even have schisms like Christianity does when one governing body of a sect disowns the others legitimacy? Is a schism even legal/possible in Thailand, where the sangha and the government and royal institutions are so entwined?

Forgive my ignorance on the matter,
-Caoimhghín
Bhagavā arahaṃ sammasāmbuddho
Svākkhāto yena bhagavatā dhammo
Supaṭipanno yassa bhagavato sāvakasaṅgho
Tammayaṃ bhagavantaṃ sadhammaṃ sasaṅghaṃ
Imehi sakkārehi yathārahaṃ āropitehi abhipūjayāma.

User avatar
suriyopama
Posts: 471
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 10:44 am
Location: Thailand

Re: Wat Dhammakaya

Postby suriyopama » Fri Aug 26, 2016 2:57 am

Coëmgenu wrote:
suriyopama wrote:There are technical legal explanations (furthermore, his medical certificate had irregularities and it was proved by witnesses and pictures that he was not so sick as to not to move) but I’m not going to waste time elaborating it to someone that is shouting. Anyway, those technicalities on that particular detail do not exempt Dhammachayo from having committed pajarija offenses, distorting the Buddhist teachings, claiming supernatural powers and repeatedly violating the law. At least since 1999!!! as Mr. TRobinson465 has kindly reminded to us. :tongue:

ps: the 17-0 vote means that the whole council is dhammakayized. That is the sad true
:alien:


Hello Bhikkhu (I think you are a monk? It is sometimes difficult to tell on these forums),

I have only been following this serious issue tangentially, because so much of the issue intersects with Thai politics that I really have no relationship to or access to.

Is the post-scriptum at the end of your message saying that if there is a 17-0 vote the council will be 'dhammakayized'? or is it that this vote has already taken place.

If it is such a big issue, is there likely to be a schism in Thailand? Does Buddhism even have schisms like Christianity does when one governing body of a sect disowns the others legitimacy? Is a schism even legal/possible in Thailand, where the sangha and the government and royal institutions are so entwined?

Forgive my ignorance on the matter,
-Caoimhghín


Hi Caoimhghín. I am not a monk, but I wish to ordain before I am too old and lazy 

The vote has already taken place, with the result of 17-0. Dhammakaya has all the Supreme Sangha Council at their pay-roll (with juicy donations and gifts).

Some highlights:
http://www.bangkokpost.com/learning/learning-news/817884/supreme-patriarch-appointment-dhammakaya-or-not

Coëmgenu
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm

Re: Wat Dhammakaya

Postby Coëmgenu » Fri Aug 26, 2016 2:59 am

suriyopama wrote:
Coëmgenu wrote:
suriyopama wrote:There are technical legal explanations (furthermore, his medical certificate had irregularities and it was proved by witnesses and pictures that he was not so sick as to not to move) but I’m not going to waste time elaborating it to someone that is shouting. Anyway, those technicalities on that particular detail do not exempt Dhammachayo from having committed pajarija offenses, distorting the Buddhist teachings, claiming supernatural powers and repeatedly violating the law. At least since 1999!!! as Mr. TRobinson465 has kindly reminded to us. :tongue:

ps: the 17-0 vote means that the whole council is dhammakayized. That is the sad true
:alien:


Hello Bhikkhu (I think you are a monk? It is sometimes difficult to tell on these forums),

I have only been following this serious issue tangentially, because so much of the issue intersects with Thai politics that I really have no relationship to or access to.

Is the post-scriptum at the end of your message saying that if there is a 17-0 vote the council will be 'dhammakayized'? or is it that this vote has already taken place.

If it is such a big issue, is there likely to be a schism in Thailand? Does Buddhism even have schisms like Christianity does when one governing body of a sect disowns the others legitimacy? Is a schism even legal/possible in Thailand, where the sangha and the government and royal institutions are so entwined?

Forgive my ignorance on the matter,
-Caoimhghín


Hi Caoimhghín. I am not a monk, but I wish to ordain before I am too old and lazy 

The vote has already taken place, with the result of 17-0. Dhammakaya has all the Supreme Sangha Council at their pay-roll (with juicy donations and gifts).

Some highlights:
http://www.bangkokpost.com/learning/learning-news/817884/supreme-patriarch-appointment-dhammakaya-or-not


What happens now among Thai Buddhists who oppose Dhammakaya? Is there a large movement against them in Thailand?
Bhagavā arahaṃ sammasāmbuddho
Svākkhāto yena bhagavatā dhammo
Supaṭipanno yassa bhagavato sāvakasaṅgho
Tammayaṃ bhagavantaṃ sadhammaṃ sasaṅghaṃ
Imehi sakkārehi yathārahaṃ āropitehi abhipūjayāma.

davidbrainerd
Posts: 285
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Wat Dhammakaya

Postby davidbrainerd » Fri Aug 26, 2016 3:32 am

Coëmgenu wrote:What happens now among Thai Buddhists who oppose Dhammakaya? Is there a large movement against them in Thailand?


:popcorn:

I await an answer from someone actually living in Thailand which should be interesting. But from everything I've read in English sites on this, the opposition looks to me like the ineffectual pontificating of the Pope and Catholic clergy responding against Protestantism during the Protestant Reformation, while losing massive amounts of their own lay following to Protestantism.

TRobinson465
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 5:29 pm

Re: Wat Dhammakaya

Postby TRobinson465 » Fri Aug 26, 2016 3:38 am

suriyopama wrote:There are technical legal explanations (furthermore, his medical certificate had irregularities and it was proved by witnesses and pictures that he was not so sick as to not to move)


No there arent, nobody is giving explanations as to why they cant, again, they can even do it with a video conference if they really wanted to get the case done with. And the Medical certificate was confirmed valid by the medical council of thailand, the only problem was it was against hospital policies because a hospital official didnt sign off, that is the irregularity you are discussing. Even then thats not a good excuse if DSI really wanted to get this case done. Of course he can move, still cant travel long distances though, he has not left the temple in 8 years for that very reason.

the 17-0 vote means that the whole council is dhammakayized. That is the sad true


This is your argument for everything. I bet you think the medical council of thailand is also "dhammakayized" for confirming the medical certificate was valid. And i find it strange that they were able to control the 17 members of the Supreme Sangha Council but not one Supreme Patriarch. All you say when i provide evidence is that dhammakaya controls it and influences it. There's no point in arguing with you so go ahead and ignore my evidence, they are for everyone else here anyways.
"Do not have blind faith, but also no blind criticism"

TRobinson465
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 5:29 pm

Re: Wat Dhammakaya

Postby TRobinson465 » Fri Aug 26, 2016 3:41 am

Coëmgenu wrote:
Is the post-scriptum at the end of your message saying that if there is a 17-0 vote the council will be 'dhammakayized'? or is it that this vote has already taken place.

If it is such a big issue, is there likely to be a schism in Thailand? Does Buddhism even have schisms like Christianity does when one governing body of a sect disowns the others legitimacy? Is a schism even legal/possible in Thailand, where the sangha and the government and royal institutions are so entwined?

Forgive my ignorance on the matter,
-Caoimhghín


Just so you know. thats not what i was referring too. I was saying none of of the 17 members of the Supreme Sangha Council endorsed the letter to defrock the dhammakaya abbot. You are referencing something else, the vote for supreme patriarch, which was decided by 17-0 a few years ago but not endorsed by the secular gov.
"Do not have blind faith, but also no blind criticism"


Return to “General Theravāda discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: cjmacie, davidbrainerd, mikenz66, robertk and 55 guests

Google Saffron, Theravada Search Engine