Dhammakaya replaces "anatta" with "atta" in their Tipitaka!

[plwk]

I fail to see how all this Dhammakaya stuff has its relevance with this Classical Theravada forum...can someone show me otherwise?
Would 'Modern Theravada' be more apt?

[gavesako]

Well, the original topic (which is now probably exhausted) was about how classical Theravada texts get transmitted until the present, which is quite relevant.

[nyanasuci]

Dear Phra Sander,

Could you explain to us what is your understanding of connection between atta and nibbana? And what is Dhammakaya's grasp of it. Thank you.

[M.G.A.]

Another question regarding the Dhammakaya movement, if that is OK...?

I just found this article on the Buddhist Channel: http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=52,10025,0,0,1,0

The article is about foregin English teachers, working at temples in Thailand, and one of them being Wat Luang Phor Sodh in Ratchaburi.

In the article I read the following quote:

"Numerous teacher volunteers have been able to meditate to experience nirvana, and get advice from Buddha or the Noble Disciples," he said. "This is an undreamed of, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.

When the thing about getting "advice from Buddha or the Noble Disciples" was brought up I at first belived that this was nothing but a slightly imprecise way of refering to sutta studies. But then the text goes one:

"Of 16 teachers since the very beginning, six experienced nirvana temporarily. An additional three transcended beyond this world to Dhammakaya, and another three more achieved trance states like heavenly bliss. The remaining four only attained inner peace."
(...)
Asked about their purported temporary experience of nirvana, Dr. Yanathiro replied: "I am using the official definition, where one actually sees and communicates with Lord Buddha and his disciples.

Most amazing is the personal instruction some have gotten directly from Buddha. (...)

"They see Buddha and the disciples. Communication is by direct telepathy, so language is irrelevant. One does get clear verbal communications, but more impressive are their descriptions of experiences such as feeling oneself becoming a tree."

Any comments on this anyone?


With metta,

[nyanasuci]

Hello,

It is interesting: when there are critics against Dhammakaya, its members immediately responded, and offered some explanations. 'kentsiam' even sign-up to this forum just to give his/her defend, and 'Khemadhammo Bhikkhu' was able to give some more words on the topic. It is easy to defend and argue against in such worldly way what is the aim of Dhammakaya and what not. And, of course, Ven. Khemmadhammo thinks that Dhammakaya teaches according to Dhamma-Viniya, and therefore he speaks accordingly. But as 'my view' is usually taken as 'the right view' there can be many contradictory views and misunderstandings in our conversation. And this is reason why I questioned about the Venerables' views directly, hoping for Dhamma dialogue. I asked: “Could you explain to us what is your understanding of connection between atta and nibbana? And what is Dhammakaya's grasp of it?” But now none of the two members were able to give a any respond. That was expected.

Yes, M.G.A., it is unusual teaching. Simple bliss is nibbana. My goodness, I know many monks who got such attainments, but nobody would dared to think that this is nibbana! So, it seems that Dhammakaya lowered down the goal, so that their supporters can get 'attained' much faster and easier. Moreover, I cannot believe that 'going to' nibbana is once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. It seems there is no cessation of bhava in their nibbana. Weird teachings... I just wonder if they are aware of the consequences of such actions.

I do not know the monks directly. There are some Dhammakaya monks who settled down in the city near our monastery. But they didn't come here to pay respect to our abbot. That is, according to Thai customs, quite disrespectful action. But perhaps dark-brown-robed monks are having also too dark-browned minds. Perhaps that is small matter, but it does indicate that there is a split of traditions. Some Thais told me that when they go to Dhammakaya monastery in UK and offered them some donation there is set up a live broadcast to Thailand, so that their relatives in Thailand can see how they are making donations! Better to go to Dhammakaya, especially if you like to be seen on TV!

I can somehow understand that Thai likes such simplified teachings which is according to their inspirations: building up merits (more your have richer you get), neat and shiny appearances, hierarchical system, praying to Buddhas and Arahats, etc, etc. But I do not understand why also Westerners are getting attracted to such movement.

More here http://www.rickross.com/reference/gener ... al644.html

[Khemadhammo Bhikkhu]

Dear Phra Sander,

Could you explain to us what is your understanding of connection between atta and nibbana? And what is Dhammakaya's grasp of it. Thank you.

I have just travelled back from Indonesia, and have not been online for a number of days. I am now just back online and happy to see your question, bhante. It is a good thing that we can have these kind of discussions, to clarify things and develop mutual understanding.

As I mentioned in a previous post, our wat feels that the nature of Nibbāna is something that is beyond intellectual understanding, and our abbot and our wat feels there is little use in going into debate about it. Our wat therefore has not much interest in propagating their views on Nibbāna to the general public. But if asked what is taught in our wat, then I can respond that we teach in accordance with Luang Pu Sod Candasaro's views on Nibbāna. His views were view coming from meditation experience, and are difficult to intellectually grasp or translate into English. Roughly then, Luang Pu made a distinction between Nibbāna as an attainment of mind, which in Thai he called phra niphan, and as an āyatana, which he called nipphan, existing outside of the sense-sphere realm, the rūpa and arūpa realm. Luang Pu taught that the attainment of Nibbāna is attā, because when someone has attained it, it is a state that is permanent, happiness and true self. Luang Pu Sod Candasaro did not intend to cause any controversy -- and nor does Wat Phra Dhammakāya -- he was simply describing his visions in meditation, and encouraging his students to attain the same. He also taught that the Buddha taught about anicca, dukkha and anattā, so that we would seek for that which is beyond these -- and opposite to it.

In the history of Theravāda Buddhism, there have been both scholars who said that Nibbāna is attā, and those who said that Nibbāna is anattā. Even in the Thai forest tradition, there is as you know Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu, who has views on this matter which differ from mainstream opinion. I think it is a question which is hard to resolve by discussion. Surely the only way to really understand Nibbāna is to meditate.

"Of 16 teachers since the very beginning, six experienced nirvana temporarily. An additional three transcended beyond this world to Dhammakaya, and another three more achieved trance states like heavenly bliss. The remaining four only attained inner peace."
(...)
Asked about their purported temporary experience of nirvana, Dr. Yanathiro replied: "I am using the official definition, where one actually sees and communicates with Lord Buddha and his disciples.

In Luang Pu's original meditation method, attainments in meditation takes a lot of preparation and practice, and a firm foundation of moral discipline, patience, etc. Its is normally not something that people attain overnight, unless in very rare cases like in the Buddha's time. There is therefore no lowering of the goal of Nibbāna. It normally requires a lot of practice to attain it.

Please note that Wat Sod Dhammakāyaram is a different temple from Wat Phra Dhammakāya. Although they are also a wat in the tradition of Luang Pu Sod Candasaro, their approach to meditation is different from our wat. I wouldn't be able to describe those differences in detail, since I have never tried their method. But I can tell you that the meditation experiences described in the previous post certainly do not quite reflect the meditation practice of Wat Phra Dhammakāya.

Frankly speaking, in my own opinion, I think that the main point in which our wat quite distinguishes itself, is not the attā-anattā affair, but rather the approach in spreading Dhamma, which some people find too big/too noticeable/etc. Sometimes the ceremonies in our wat are joined by great numbers of people, which contrasts with the traditional image of the Thai wat as quiet place with a few monks, deeply hidden in the forest, remote from civilization. This then leads people to find fault withour wat in other matters, such as being commercial, honoring UFO's, using hypnosis, etc., all of which I have found to be untrue.

Better to go to Dhammakaya, especially if you like to be seen on TV!

I would say that there are people in many places in Thailand who have imperfect intentions in doing good. But then again, I don't believe there is any teaching in the Dhamma that says we can't show others our goodness. To do good, and to give others the opportunity to rejoice in such goodness, would seem to me quite allright, and quite different from wanting to be famous. Our wat emphasizes the rejoicing in others' merit quite a lot, but we don't emphasize fame.

As for not cooperating with other wats, in fact our wat cooperates with many wats in Thailand. In many days throughout the year, we invite monks from other wats in Thailand to join ceremonies for food offering, to join ceremonies for rejoicing in the achievements of Pāli graduates, etc. I am not aware of there being any enmity with any other wats to the extent that you are describing. In what city is your wat located?

As for the satellite television channel (DMC), this is a free channel with Dhamma on it, which is promoted by our wat. It has many programs with Dhamma on it, for people of all ages to study the Dhamma in a moder format. The reasons why DMC was started, was to encourage people to study the Dhamma in their free time rather than to watch other television channels, which often promote wrong view and immoral values.

I can somehow understand that Thai likes such simplified teachings which is according to their inspirations: building up merits (more your have richer you get), neat and shiny appearances, hierarchical system, praying to Buddhas and Arahats, etc, etc. But I do not understand why also Westerners are getting attracted to such movement.

Speaking for myself, I have felt attracted to the teachings and practice of Wat Phra Dhammakāya, because I like their meditation technique. I also felt I could apply the Dhamma teachings well in daily life. Finally, I think their approach in spreading the Dhamma is quite active, and i think can truly change society for the better. I don't feel that our wat is just about neat and shiny appearances, I do think that Luang Pu Sod Candasaro and our current abbot, Luang Phor Dhammajayo, have always been very sincere in their intentions to study, practice and teach the Dhamma so that the teaching of the Buddha can be in this world for a long time.

http://www.rickross.com/reference/gener ... al644.html

I have sometimes seen people refering to this website. I think the website is quite biased because of its focus on the dangers of religion, rather than its benefits. (Usually anti-cult organizations are set up by cult victims.) Most of their information comes from Thai news papers, about which I already expressed my opinion quite extensively.
I hope this helps.
In the Dhamma,
Phra Sander.

[nyanasuci]

Dear Tan Sander,

Thank you for taking time to reply to my question. Much appreciated. Also I am pleased that you are happy of receiving not so positive comments on Dhammakaya at this forum, and that you are not taking all that so personally.

our wat feels that the nature of Nibbāna is something that is beyond intellectual understanding, and our abbot and our wat feels there is little use in going into debate about it.

You are right that we cannot grasp Nibbana only intellectually. I do not know anybody who succeeded just in such way. We do get many smart guys, but it is rare to see the Noble Ones. It takes a lot of effort and time to adopt the Buddha's views into our views. But I will not say that intellect is wrong. Who understands Nibbana and experience it for himself can still intellectually think about it and talk about it. Intellect element is anything what we describe, even when we try to describe undescribable (i.e. Nibbana). Therefore I do not follow 'the abbot of your wat' what we cannot talk about Nibbana but about all other 'little Dhammas'. I say, when we talk Dhamma (in right way, indeed) we always talk about Nibbana, and there is no separation. But it seems that your 'abbot' perceives two realities 'conventional' and 'ultimate', which would be approved by Mahayana. But nothing of that would be approved by me.

But yes, Dhamma is beyond the sphere of intellect and reasons, and this is why we have to translate intellectual knowledges into our experience. And Nibbana is 'extinction' (lit.) of our foolish grasp of the world, and not a realm on its own.

Our wat therefore has not much interest in propagating their views on Nibbāna to the general public.

The Buddha didn't hide anything from the public. It seems that you are suggesting that some teachings are for 'general public' and other for elite. (Btw. How much one has to pay for such Abhi level?)

an āyatana, which he called nipphan

Are you saying that Nibbana is āyatana?

Luang Pu taught that the attainment of Nibbāna is attā, because when someone has attained it, it is a state that is permanent, happiness and true self.

So, there is still attā even when there is cessation of conceiving (maññata)?

It seems that Dhammakaya just turned over aniccā dukkha anattā into niccā sukhā attā, like, again, as natures of two different realities. Nothing of that can be suggested from the Suttas. When we take something to be attā and it is based on what is impermanent and suffering, we realize that there cannot be nothing to be identified with. But you suggest that attā can be based on permanent and pleasurable. If that is so, it seems that attā is still determined. I think that Dhammakaya should go a bit deeper in subtlety of Dhamma. Anyway, to make sure that I understand you correctly, could you tell me what is that True Self for you?

As I wrote on my last post, it seems that Dhammakaya (intentionally or unintentionally) simplify Dhamma. Telling people that this is enough for realization only blocks their progress: and that will lead only to harm.

Anyway, now it confirms that Dhammakaya does actually like to change in some places anattā into attā. I am sure they are doing that will good intention and to protect the Dhamma. However they are still doing it without 'Right Intention'. But what we can do than try to safe ourself as soon as possible. The Buddha's Teaching are now dying, and what Dhammakaya is doing is just the 'natural process' which was probably expected by the Buddha.

And, Tan Sander, do you and your fellow monks carry and own money?

I am not going to respond on commercialization of Dhammakaya. I think that most of members at this forum are of the same thought as I.

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=339&p=11382&hilit=dhammakaya#p11382
viewtopic.php?f=24&t=455&hilit=dhammakaya

[nyanasuci]

I tried to visit http://www.dhammakaya.net/ but my Mozila blocked it and warned me saying:

Trustworthiness Very poor
Vendor reliability Very poor
Privacy Very poor
Child safety Very poor

Before I open the page did anybody had any problems with virus, etc.?

[dharmapravicaya]

*If true* this would be rather shocking, and Ven.Anil should be congratulated for detecting what had been done. It should be easy though – many Thais would know ‘sabbe dhammā anattā’ by heart, and hence they would be able to notice the oddness of prayer books that change that. I think very strongly, though, that this piece of news should be double checked. It sounds very strange to me, in fact, that Ven.Anil would make a public appearance and make such declarations. I wasn’t able to find any reference to this matter on the Bangkok Post, hence, I remain a bit doubtful about the authenticity of the information.

About Oxford, let me notice that ‘critical scholarship’ is often not as ‘critical’ as it may appear. In my opinion, some scholars of Pāli coming from an Oxford background have a tendency to be a bit over self-confident about their ability to reconstruct the Buddhist past basing themselves on purely philological considerations. Their methods are often highly speculative and, to my mind at least, not as conclusive as they present them to be.

A good example of that is the work of Dr.Alexander Wynne, who has basically argued that the ‘earliest’ of the Buddha’s teachings entail that the aggregates are not the self, but they do not entail that the self doesn’t exist at all. In the articles wherein he forwards such a line of argument, he shows himself to be extremely erudite and careful in citing the original sources. However, it seems to me that the arguments themselves contain some possible fallacies – in particular the main argument is, I believe, circular.

It so happens that scholars with good erudition and with a prestigious institutional background feel rather confident in asserting conclusive statements about what the Buddha taught or thought basing themselves on a few sentences, whose chronology they claim to know better than anyone else. When we look at the arguments themselves, however, we can see that they are far, very far from conclusive.

Dr.Wynne’s positions would actually give credence to the Dhammakaya contentions and teachings. In themselves, I do not find their teachings so objectionable – well, at least not in the version taught in their source monastery, Wat Pak Nam. I do not find the teaching to be so easily comparable to the non-Buddhist teachings about ātman; my impression is that, in the end, it is not so easy to assess.

Changing the Suttapiṭaka intentionally seems an act of great demerit. However, please do consider that scholars too, often effectively do re-write the Tripiṭaka. While their claim is to reconstruct a philologically probable original, what often happens is that their reconstruction contains a great level of arbitrariness and depends on the perceptions and expectations they may have about both the content and the language of the texts. If you would like to know more about what I mean, please consider the very long lived polemics that has surrounded the nature and content of the Aṅgaññasutta, with scholars such as Gombrich and Gethin taking up very different positions. In my opinion, this is partly occasioned by (mis?)understanding Buddhism as a purely textual tradition, hence disregarding the continuous practice of interpreting and understanding the text that is still alive to this day: questioning traditional methods and positions is one thing – overlooking them, is another.

A further and clear example of ‘revisionism’ is the edition of Buddhist texts in Sanskrit. Many scholars have tended to ‘regularize’ the syntax and spelling of these texts, according to an idealized and probably rather artificial idea of how Sanskrit should look like. In recent years the attitude towards Buddhist texts in Sanskrit has changed, so that now editorial decisions of some earlier scholars are being questioned. And so forth. (Incidentally, a preconceived idea about the nature and regularity of Pāli may be one reason why the study of Pāli texts composed in South East Asia has been rather neglected for decades; this too, has created a rather artificial idea about ‘Theravāda’ Buddhism. I recommend Prof.Peter Skilling’s articles on that matter).

To me, it still seems unlikely that the Dhammakaya might do such a thing. Their strategy has been different – they have concentrated on the sections of the Pāli Canon that lend more credit to their views, and they have looked for texts from other Buddhist traditions that also may support their interpretation: all of this seems much more legitimate and acceptable. Of course it is a complex procedure, since the Tathāgatagarbha texts (which do use the term ātman) are difficult to interpret and often explain that ātman is nothing but a synonym of nairātmya (‘self’ is used to indicate the ‘selflessness’ is always the case).

In brief, I am arguing that although here a very straightforward dividing line has been set between the Dhammakaya methods of revising texts and the ‘critical scholar’ contentions about his/her own work of revision, I think that the difference is not so much. In both cases, a remarkable degree of arbitrariness and a priori assumptions is necessary. If we invest ‘critical scholars’ with such a higher degree of prestige and trust, we should really ask ourselves why – and we should really ask ourselves whether we are being critical at all.

I personally believe that institutional prestige should be thrown out of the window, especially when we are referring to modern universities, who have a very short history in terms of their tradition of Buddhist studies. Can any single western university claim to have fostered the study of Buddhism at a high level for anything more than a hundred years?

P.S.: If the main piece of information in the initial post were to be confirmed to be false, wouldn't it be desirable to create a new post with a corrective title? I believe it would be fair and polite towards the Dhammakaya.

[nyanasuci]

Sadhu, dharmapravicaya!

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

P.S.: If the main piece of information in the initial post were to be confirmed to be false, wouldn't it be desirable to create a new post with a corrective title? I believe it would be fair and polite towards the Dhammakaya.

Yes, I agree... if someone has any information which confirms it to be false, please advise a member of Dhamma Wheel staff.

Metta,
Retro.

[Nibbida]

Apparently they hired the foreign scholars and gave them salary of 15 thousand baht per month to replace e.g. "anicca dukkha anatta" with "anicca dukkha atta".

Couldn't they just do a "find and replace" in MS Word? It would have saved them a lot of bahts.

[gavesako]

I don't think they worry about the funding that much...



Typical promotional letter sent out by the organization:

Dhammakaya image
Dear …., Firstly, I rejoice in your merit of good thinking. Building the Personal Dhammakaya Image will bring a lot of merit to you because it is the copying of the Lord Buddha’s body, Dhammakaya, and installing it at Maha Dhammakaya Cetiya. The inst...alled images will make the worshipers pure and bright. You can build the Personal Dhammakaya Image by donating 15,000 Baht per image and engrave your name or your beloved one’s name at the base of the image. The engraved name is 20 characters or less. For the name engraving, we allow only the person’s name and surname. We do not allow engraving the surname as the whole family, the company’s name or the pet’s name. What do you receive for this donation? 1. The Name Engraving at the base of the Personal Dhammakaya Image 2. The Rejoice Card for you to remind of this donation 3. The Master Nun Chand Khonnokyoong Coin You can donate to make this merit until April 22nd, 2011. Another big merit associating with the activities on April 22nd, 2011 is the Great Indefinite Alms Offering to the Monks from over 30,000 temples nationwide. You can donate with us, www.dmc.tv, via transferring your money to: The Saving Account of Siam Commercial Bank, Klongluang Branch Account Name: Phramaha Thossaporn Boonyarangkul Account No.: 314-456911-8 After finish transferring, please inform us by email to tung@dmc.tv or call 08-9685-0072 Special!! For you who make merit with www.dmc.tv Department If you donate for 2 images, you will receive an additional 1-inch Clear Dhammakaya Image. If you donate for 3 images, you will receive an additional 5-inch Clear Dhammakaya Image. If you donate for 5 images, you will receive an additional 9-inch Clear Dhammakaya Image. If you donate for 10 images, you will receive an additional 12-inch Golden Luang Phu Image. If you are not available to receive your small Buddha Image and other gifts, we will mail them to you. For more information, please call 08-9685-0072 or meet us at Post E6 in the International Dhammakaya Meditation Hall, Dhammakaya Temple. Overseas Money Transfer for Donation SWIFT CODE : SICOTHBK BANK NAME : SIAM COMMERCIAL BANK BRANCH NAME : KLONGLUANG BANK ADDRESS : 93 MOO 8 KLONGLUANG PATHUMTHANI 12120 THAILAND ACC NAME : Phramaha Thossaporn Boonyarangkul ACC Type : Saving Rejoice in your merit,See more

[mikenz66]

Following up on this post on DharmaWheel: http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.ph ... ad#p139929 I came across this blog entry: http://zennist.typepad.com/zenfiles/200 ... iland.html

Pro self (atta) in Thailand
September 06, 2009

For the last couple of days I’ve been looking over the discussion background of Wikipedia’s treatment of Anatta (non-self) and Atman (Buddhism) (it’s the most interesting part of Wikipedia in my book). All in all, there is much that is missing which might shed a better neutral light on anatta and atman in Buddhism coming closer to what Pande said in 1957.

“The doctrine [of an-atman] denies that there is in the physical or mental realms anything which may properly be called one’s “self” since everywhere within them impermanence and dependence rule. This of itself does not mean the denial of all “self” whatever, but only of the phenomenality of the “Self”. What is usually denied is that any of the khandhas may be the Attâ [self], not the existence of the Attâ as such. Even in the more positive later literature, the Attâ that is denied is often conceived purely phenomenally” (Pande, Origins of Buddhism, 499).

This about sums up anatta and atman in a neutral way if one has bothered to read the Pali Nikayas and not just read what is on the Internet—or purposely refuse to understand.

Now, what I want to say is the problem of anatta and atman is not unique to Western shores. At least not in Thailand which is a very ancient Buddhist country.

Based on Paul Williams book, Mahayana Buddhism (2008), in 1939 the Samgharaja of Thailand, the head of the national Samgha, gave up the accepted Theravada Buddhist notion of Non-Self (anatta) and switched to the doctrine of the Self (atman), insisting nirvana (P., nibbana) is the true Self. Citing an unpublished dissertation by P. Cholvijarn, Nibbana as Self or No Self (2007), Williams quotes the following from Cholvijarn who summarizes Samgharaja's argument:

"[T]he uniqueness of the Buddhist doctrine of anattâ [not-Self] is realised once attâ [the Self] has been attained. The Buddha discovered that nibbana is attâ and only by doing so, was able to say that the five aggregates are anattâ. The anattâ doctrine of the Buddha is the doctrine of only Buddhism because the Buddha realised attâ that is different from conditioned dhammas. Nibbana is the purity of an object, it is void of defilements [cf. the tathagatagarbha] and once it is reached there is no more clinging. As purity, it must [be] situate[d] within an object. That object is self. Anattâ is a tool that the Buddha uses for [his] disciples to reject the conditioned dhamma and to accept nibbana. If nibbana is anattâ, then, nibbana is to be rejected and there would be no purpose in practising the Noble Eightfold Path."

Perhaps even more important in moving Thai Buddhism out of the doldrums of Non-Self doctrine was the legendary Buddhist monk Phra Mongkolthepmuni (1884–1959). In 1916 he founded the Dhammakaya Foundation which has grown immensely since then with presently millions of members.

It would not be wrong to say Phra Mongkolthepmuni was responsible for the recrudescence of Buddhism in Thailand giving it new meaning and vitality. Unique in Phra Mongkolthepmuni's understanding of Buddhism was his realization that nirvana is the true Self which is also the Dhammakaya (i.e., the Buddha’s true body).

The Dharmakaya is, according to Phra Monkolthepmuni, niccam (permanent), sukham (blissful), and atta (self). But perhaps even more important and central, the Dhammakaya is a reality anyone, through study and meditation, can apperceive.

Trying to encapsulate Phra Mongkolthepmuni’s meditation, which by no measure is exhaustive on my part, it must be first accepted that meditation for Phra Mongkolthepmuni was the necessary means of awakening (sambodhi)—and only by awakening do we learn and verify what the Buddha actually taught. Explaining his own awakening in 1916, to see the Buddha’s real and true body, the Dhammakaya, he was able to reduce all thinking (mental interference) to a single point. In this way he transcended it (i.e., the thinking). As a result, what comes to exist is the mind, itself. If thinking is not transcended by this means, the mind won’t be seen, according to Phra Mongkolthepmuni. It should be added, that before his awakening, Phra Mongkolthepmuni was a highly skilled meditator, having studied many different forms of meditation under many different teachers.

For Phra Mongkolthepmuni, his particular practice of meditation enabled him to see and to actualize the Buddha’s ultimate body which, like Buddha-nature, is something real within us but owing to our ignorance, we are unable to comprehend it.

But his pro-Self stance, which was verified by his awakening, nevertheless drew criticism from the old guard who believed the Buddha fundamentally taught the doctrine of Non-Self (anattavada). The Dhammakaya Foundation addressing such criticism holds that accomplished practitioners of meditation understand that nirvana is the same as the true Self and it is only scholars who have never had profound realizations who argue there is no Self.

If this sounds like a strange counter argument, consider if one during a period of deep meditation apperceives a state of being that is unaffected by the psychophysical body (i.e., the Five Aggregates). What are we to call this? Calling it void would be wrong because there is something apperceived—a sheer fullness. We could say, however, it is the Self since it is itself and not other. And were someone to insist that we might be deluded, we could justifiably laugh at them. (Speaking only for myself there are states one can reach during meditation that do in fact verify what the Buddha taught and make his teaching—I hate to say this—easy to grasp.)

The enormous growth of the Dhammakaya Foundation is testimony to the longing people have to find what is permanent, blissful, and substantial (atman). It is quite evident that the majority of Buddhists in Thailand are not satisfied with just the Buddha’s negative diagnosis of all conditioned things that they are impermanent, painful, and insubstantial. They also want the cure he promised and taught which is nirvana; which is the true Self.

Mike

[Ñāṇa]

Trying to encapsulate Phra Mongkolthepmuni’s meditation, which by no measure is exhaustive on my part, it must be first accepted that meditation for Phra Mongkolthepmuni was the necessary means of awakening (sambodhi)—and only by awakening do we learn and verify what the Buddha actually taught. Explaining his own awakening in 1916, to see the Buddha’s real and true body, the Dhammakaya, he was able to reduce all thinking (mental interference) to a single point. In this way he transcended it (i.e., the thinking). As a result, what comes to exist is the mind, itself. If thinking is not transcended by this means, the mind won’t be seen, according to Phra Mongkolthepmuni. It should be added, that before his awakening, Phra Mongkolthepmuni was a highly skilled meditator, having studied many different forms of meditation under many different teachers....

If this sounds like a strange counter argument, consider if one during a period of deep meditation apperceives a state of being that is unaffected by the psychophysical body (i.e., the Five Aggregates). What are we to call this? Calling it void would be wrong because there is something apperceived—a sheer fullness. We could say, however, it is the Self since it is itself and not other. And were someone to insist that we might be deluded, we could justifiably laugh at them. (Speaking only for myself there are states one can reach during meditation that do in fact verify what the Buddha taught and make his teaching—I hate to say this—easy to grasp.)

This is nothing new. Non-Buddhist yogis have been making this same mistaken identification for centuries. It's rooted in a type of wrong view described in DN 2:

That which is called "the eye," "the ear," "the nose," "the tongue," and "the body" — that self is impermanent, unstable, non-eternal, subject to change. But that which is called "mind" (citta) or "mentality" (mano) or "consciousness" (viññāṇa) — that self is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, and it will remain the same just like eternity itself.

DN 15 gives instructions on how to analyze and begin to see through this kind of self-view.

[appicchato]

...a lot of bahts.

1 Baht, 100 Baht...