The newly amended Sangha Act may effectively put an end to the supreme patriarch nomination row, but it cannot restore public faith in the corruption-ridden clergy. Nor can it stop the popularity of the controversial Dhammakaya temple.
Citing the need to return to traditional practice, the National Legislative Assembly on Dec 29 swiftly and unanimously amended the Sangha Act to strip the Supreme Sangha Council of its power to nominate the supreme patriarch by entrusting the King with the power to pick the top monk instead.
It was a shrewd political move. The clergy was caught off guard. Protesting was difficult during the long New Year holiday. And who dares challenge royal authority anyway.
The initial outcry quickly subsided. Admitting defeat, the Supreme Sangha Council announced on Jan 8 through its secretariat office that its previous nomination was no longer valid under the new law.
Sanitsuda Ekachai is former editorial pages editor, Bangkok Post.
But is it too soon to write off the clergy's and Dhammakaya's influence? Since the passing of the late supreme patriarch in 2013, the Sangha Council had relentlessly pushed the government to endorse its nomination for Somdet Phra Maha Ratchamangalacharn, aka Somdet Chuang, the abbot of Pak Nam temple.
The nomination met with fierce resistance. Somdet Chuang has close ties with the controversial Dhammakaya temple, believed to enjoy support from fugitive former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.
In addition, the temple has long faced criticism for its teaching which encourages followers to buy their places in heaven through donations to the temple -- the more donations, the higher planes of heaven. The supreme heaven is called nirvana, which further intensifies criticism of Dhammakaya for distortion.
Dhammakaya, however, enjoys support from mainstream monks, thanks to its decades-long financial support for monks' education. The wealthy temple is also known to have great influence over the elders.
The clergy's support for Somdet Chuang then spurred widespread concerns that it would pave the way for Dhammakaya to take over the whole Thai clergy with its un-Buddhist teachings. Probably more important is the fear that Dhammakaya would strengthen Thaksin's support base.
Given Thailand's divisive politics, this scenario is simply unacceptable for the regime.
Many believe the supreme patriarch crisis is now over and Dhammakaya will soon face its demise on charges of money laundering. Distortion of Theravada Buddhist teachings are also up for punishment in the new constitution, probably as a legal tool to punish Dhammakaya in the future.
Meanwhile, many harbour hopes the highly-respected monk scholar P A Payutto, recently bestowed the ecclesiastical rank of Somdet Phra Buddhakosajarn, could clean up the clergy should he be chosen to be the next top monk.
I beg to disagree. I have high respect for the monk scholar. His book Buddhadhamma is a rare gem in modern Buddhist scholarship. His dictionaries on Buddhism -- now available on the net -- are my most trustworthy references. Unlike most other elders, the learned monk also lives an exemplary simple, humble life as monks should.
Our previous supreme patriarch, the preceptor of the late King, was also a humble and flawless monastic. Yet he could do nothing with the corrupt system. Why should we think Somdet Phra Buddhakosajarn, given his frail health, will deliver?
Like many Buddhists, I disagree with Dhammakaya's teachings, but I don't think its distortion of the teachings pose that serious a threat to Thai Buddhism.
Look around. Aren't many other monks and temples doing the same thing, cashing in on animism, self-proclaimed supernatural powers, or simple cheating?
You might want to argue the issue here is Dhammakaya's gigantic size, wealth and ambition, which is why it must be stopped before it takes over the Supreme Sangha Council and the whole Buddhist clergy.
No, the issue here is not Dhammakaya's teachings nor its ambition. The issue here is the clergy's centralised, corruption-ridden structure, which is too weak to command public faith yet too powerful with its absolute power to control, punish and reward all monks in a feudalistic, non-transparent system.
The rise of new religious groups and sects is a common phenomenon around the world when mainstream religions cannot answer present-day anxieties and aspirations. Dhammakaya is just one of them. So is Santi Asoke, the fundamentalist Buddhist group which teaches frugality and self-sacrifice to the temple.
Yet Santi Asoke has been ostracised for its fierce criticism of the elders while Dhammakaya is rewarded for its services in cash and in kind.
Much of the clergy's decline in public faith and structural weakness stem from the Sangha Act which gives the Supreme Sangha Council full autocratic control over the 300,000-strong clergy.
The elders in their 80s and 90s lack management skills and cling to their feudal privileges. The Sangha law also gives abbots absolute power over temples, resulting in widespread corruption and abuse of power.
The recent amendment of the Sangha Act has fixed the top monk appointment procedure but left the crux of the problem -- the clergy's autocratic and inefficient structure -- intact. It also puts the monarchy at risk with monks' politics.
How to open up this closed system? Maybe a better question is how to nurture religious freedoms.
True, amending the Sangha Act to allow a more decentralised, inclusive structure is necessary to tackle temple corruption and inefficiency.
But even a better Sangha Act still will perpetuate state patronage for the clergy. In fact, the clergy should no longer be able to use state power to punish dissent or monopolise the teachings, which allows for easy abuse.
This patronage has to end, religious freedoms need to be upheld, or the clergy will not feel the need to reform itself to regain public trust and become competitive in the faith markets.
The danger of Dhammakaya is not so much in its teaching. Animism and the belief in the accumulation of merit to go to heaven has long been part of traditional Thai Buddhism.
Dhammakaya may have embellished it to make its leader a doomsday saviour, but had the clergy's structure been open to community participation and oversight, it wouldn't be susceptible to easy infiltration and take-over. In other words, the central control of the Sangha Council must end.
The government cites the need to return to tradition in amending the monks' law. May I suggest a return to the monks' oldest tradition -- the monastic disciplines set by Buddha himself?
In Buddha's times, there was no centralised clergy, no feudal hierarchy, and each monastic community was governed by communal consultation -- not a top-down order -- with the aim of supporting one's spiritual practice.
Each monk must also observe monastic codes of conduct which boil down to simplicity, not pursuing feudal perks and power like today's clergy.
Dhammakaya or not, there is no way to stop the rise of new religious groups to respond to a more diverse society with different needs.
Central control and punishment is not the way for the clergy to survive. Returning to the clergy's participatory system and the monks' original vocation is.