Fwd: Thai Sangha Crisis, Bangkok Post 22 Mar (fwd)

["M.G.G. Pillai" <pillai@mgg.pc.my>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 15:29:50 +0700
From: William Stevens <stevens@LOXINFO.CO.TH>
Reply-To: Southeast Asia Discussion List <SEASIA-L@LIST.MSU.EDU>
To: SEASIA-L@LIST.MSU.EDU
Subject: Fwd: Thai Sangha Crisis, Bangkok Post 22 Mar

Bangkok Post, 22 Mar 2000

Thai Sangha Crisis

The Wat Phra Dhammakaya case

Following are excerpts of Santikaro Bhikkhu's recent talk at Cornell
University's Kahin Center for Southeast Asian Studies, given March 7,
2000. 

The criticisms of Wat Phra Dhammakaya come from many sources and many
angles.  Here I list most of the significant ones, in a somewhat
chronological order, without much personal commentary or debate. 

Wat Phra Dhammakaya is big money and big business; huge cash flow,
expensive advertising and media; even some 'fascist' trappings. 
Nonetheless, many in Thailand are impressed by all that. 

Wat Phra Dhammakaya distorts certain central teachings of the Lord
Buddha as recorded in the Pali Tripitaka and its commentaries. 

Wat Phra Dhammakaya staged an aggressive takeover of the Buddhist clubs
at most Thai universities and institutions of higher education.  This
involved lots of money and the support of the Ministry of Education's
Religious Affairs Department.  Once their followers controlled the
officer position of each club, it became an exclusive tool for
organizing Wat Phra Dhammakaya activities, fund raising and teachings. 

Wat Phra Dhammakaya recruited school principals, hospital directors, and
other such civil servants, then had them pressure their staff to attend
Wat Phra Dhammakaya activities and make donations. 

At the time of the financial crisis, Wat Phra Dhammakaya pushed ahead
with the construction of their Mahadhammakaya Chedi, insisting on
building it with expensive imported materials at a time when Thailand's
balance of payments was in very bad shape, and absorbing huge sums of
money at a time when small businesses were desperate for working
capital.  Their blatant fund-raising at a time of national crisis
angered journalists and some academics who finally acted on suspicions
that had built up over the years.  This was what brought the 'crisis'
out into the open. 

Once the police began to investigate Wat Phra Dhammakaya and the abbot,
allegations of land speculation and embezzlement came out.  Details of
these were in the papers for months last year and finally led to the
arrests of the abbot and three other followers.  Eyebrows also were
raised by the elaborate system of moving this money around bank
accounts, mostly in the name of female disciples.  How did so much money
donated to the temple and the Dhammakaya Foundation end up in the
private accounts of the abbot under his lay name? 

It is widely believed that Wat Phra Dhammakay has given lavish 'gifts'
to senior monks.  Thus, many people assume that the unwillingness of
senior monks to confront the mess is motivated by these gifts. 

There are rumors that the inner core of Wat Phra Dhammakaya, monk and
lay alike, consider themselves to be Buddha.  This and other rituals,
such as making the vow to die for the abbot, appear to be cultist
behavior to some commentators. 

Finally, the duplicity, dishonesty, threats of violence, and smear
campaigns that came out of Wat Phra Dhammakaya in response to criticisms
did not win them respect or friends. 

Significance of the crisis

Wat Phra Dhammakaya is the premier example of capitalist Buddhism in
Thailand (and thus can be compared with the ( Soka Gakkai ) in Japan and
( Fu Kwang Shan ) in Taiwan.  Unlike more traditional temples that do
their money grubbing like Chinese business families or mom and pop
stores, Wat Phra Dhammakaya is organized like a modern corporation with
marketing plans, cash flows, contributions to leading politicians, and
so on. 

Wat Phra Dhammakaya has infiltrated the main power centers of Thai
society:  banking, finance, and stock market; the business world, e.g.,
land development and speculation; segments of military; bureaucracy;
political parties; universities; and their own media.  This is a deeper
entangling of Thai Buddhism with the power structure than what is health
for civil society, justice, and human rights.  One should note that Wat
Phra Dhammakaya has paid no attention to the poor, except influence and
image burnishing gifts to rural monks. 

This crisis is caught up in the historical Mahanikaya-Thammayut split
within the Thai Sangha.  While many younger monks no longer take this
split seriously, many older monks do.  Some top Mahanikaya monks are
still bitter about Thammayut privileges, wealth, and domination of the
Sangaharaja or Supreme Patriarch position.  It is not clear whether Wat
Phra Dhammakaya is exploiting this split or merely that the split makes
it even harder for the Supreme Sangha Council to deal with the mess. 

A faction in the Mahanikaya leadership is committed to acquiring the
Sangharaja position, and may see Wat Phra Dhammakaya as a modernizing
force to help them achieve the goal.  It is difficult to determine who
is using who more. 

This mess has ripped the bandages and scabs off the festering wounds in
the institutional Thai Sangha.  Symptoms of the deep, festering 'cancer'
are the Mahanikaya-Thammayut split just mentioned; toadyism towards the
government bureaucracy that dominates the Sangha; authoritarian,
top-heavy administration; dependence on government agencies;
money-grubbing; social irrelevance and increasing isolation;
backwardness; low standards for monks and poor education; class and
regional (rural, Isan) discrimination;  rituals; and so on.  Seeing
senior monks behave like politicians and businessmen has lowered the
Sangha in the public's esteem. 

The responses of the various players highlights the tensions in Thai
society between traditionalists (feudal, hierarchical, obedient, silent) 
and modernists (educated, secular, democratic, critical), between
statist and antistatis approaches, between politics of personalities and
the rule of law. 

Overall, the situation highlights the weakness of civil society by
showing its inability to deal with dilemmas of cultural and traditional
importance.  Intellectuals and elite are largely unconcerned with the
mess because it doesn't fit well with their modern, largely secular and
imported notions of civil society and their goals for Thailand's future. 

Responses

There has been a great deal of confused argument about how to respond to
Wat Phra Dhammakaya and problems in the Sangha.  The main reason for
this confusion, I think, is that many commentators fail to distinguish
between three main groups of problem. 

The three main problems with Wat Phra Dhammakaya, as I understand them
are: 

1)  They have some strange interpretations of Buddha-Dhamma. 

2.  They misrepresent the facts of the Tripitaka, the actual words of
the tests. 

3.  They throw money around to grease wheels, bribe, dissemble and
deceive, lie, de-fame and slander, use threats, embezzle, and otherwise
break the law. 

Distinguishing the main groups of problems is important because each
requires a different response from different social actors: 

1)  The strange interpretations of Buddha-Dhamma can only be countered
by education work, publications, public debate and so on.  The
government has no expertise here and should stay out of it.  I don't see
how any authority can be set up to preserve doctrinal orthodoxy in
"modern" Siam (and personally don't want one). 

2)  The Sangha must exercise some authority here, but is probably too
weak to do so.  It is not a job for the government or the politicians. 
The complicating factor is that government interference is a major
reason for the Sangha's incompetence.  The government's role should only
be to return autonomy to the Sangha so that it can learn to manage its
own affairs.  The government should support Sangha reform without
directing it. 

3)  The allegations of illegal acts and socially reprehensible behavior
are areas for the relevant civil authorities to do something, especially
when laws are being broken.  Civil society, including Wat Phra
Dhammakays's critics, should insure that there is due process both in
terms of Wat Phra Dhammakaya and their victims. 

The media and academics can play a positive role in supporting each of
these responses and ensuring fairness, intelligence, and public
scrutiny.  Much work needs to be done to strengthen civil society, and
the Sangha within it, for any of this to happen effectively. 

Failing to distinguish these areas and the appropriate responses
confuses the discussion and leads to being stuck in the mud of sloppy
thinking. 

Misguided academic commentary can end up protecting the rich and
oppressive players at the expensive of ordinary people. 



William F. Stevens - Diving Superintendent
J. C. Marine Service Co., Ltd.
Sriracha - Ao Udom,  THAILAND
http:www.jcmarine.com  /  steve@jcmarine.com