Phra Kasem

May 2008

 

Phra Kasem put on the label at the base of the Buddha statue stating “this brass statue is not the Buddha, no need to prostrate yourself before it”. The incident occurred at Pa Sam Yak Temple, Wang Kwang subdistrict, Num Now district, Petchaboon province.  People later on learnt about Phra Kasem’s action and took pictures; the pictures were distributed on the mainstream media from newspaper to television. 

 

 

28 May 2008

 

Phra Kasem saw the pictures spread out on the news, so he decided to invite several TV reporters and explain about the shown message.  He gave the Tripitaka (the Buddhist canon – Translator) to the reporters and he put his foot on the Buddha statue ground and slapped statue at its face. The reporters recorded the actions, which they later became headline on the news.

 

The Monastic Order of Petchaboon hold a meeting and reached its finding that Phra Kasem had to take the sign off and informed Phra Kasem that he had to move out from the area. However, Phra Kasem refused to comply. The monastic therefore assigned the Director of the Provincial Buddhism Office to file the complaint to the police for further prosecution for insulting the religious objects according to the article 206 of the Criminal Code. 

 

 

31 July 2008

 

The Monastic Order, by the Monk Dean in Petchaboon (Dhammayuti sect), ordered Phra Kasem Ajinnasilo and all the residential monks at Pa Sam Yak Temple’s Monastic, Wang Kwang subdistrict, Num Now district, Petchaboon province, to leave the area under jurisdiction of the Monastic Order in Petchaboon and return to their original residence by 7th August 2008.  They also assigned the Director of the Provincial Office of Buddhism to file a complaint against Phra Kasem Ajinnasilo for insulting to the religious object according to the article 206 of the Criminal Code.  However, Phra Kasem, and other monks at Pa Sam Yak Temple, internally agreed that they wouldn’t leave their residential area. They believed that the decision made by the Monastic Order contradicted Dhamma Vinaya (the Doctrines and the Disciplines for monks- Translator) since the investigation did not involve the presence of both the prosecution and defendant; the findings from the Monastic Order therefore deemed invalid.

 

 

20 October 2009 

 

Phra Kasem submitted 12 pages of defendant testimony drafted by his lawyer, Mr. Anupong Chaithanavirat. 

 

In summary, it was stated in the testimony that article 206 of the Criminal Code does not consider Buddha statues as religious objects and the Buddha statues are not religious objects themselves. According to the Tripitaka, the Buddha ordered only Dhamma Vinaya represents him, whoever tries to imitate him by any statue or object; it will never resemble and definitely cannot be him.  It did not appear that the Buddha allowed the religious objects – no matter what they were made from. Phra Kasem ordered his disciples not to attach ones self to any objects but only attach to the abstract Three Jewel, which are the Buddha, Dhamma (teachings of the Buddha-Translator) and Sangha (The community of Buddhist monks-Translator). 

 

There is also no such Dhamma Vinaya specifies that putting on a sign or any act of forbidding others to pay respect to the Buddha statue is wrongful according to the Buddhist Code. The Constitution, the Criminal Code, the Monastery Act, and the Rule of Sangha Supreme Council of Thailand – none of them states that the Buddha statue is a religious object.  Therefore, insulting the Buddhist statue shall not constitute an act of violation according to article 206 of the Criminal Code. 

 

The defendant act, as described in the complaint, is a righteous act under freedom and religious belief.  The defendant expressed the pure and absolute form of freedom believing in Theravada Buddhism to secure and sustain Dhamma Vinaya.  The defendant act conforms to the Buddhist Canon and his act should be protected under article 30 and 37 of the Constitution B.E. 2550 (2007). The defendant action is an exercise of right to freedom of religious belief with intention to protect the nation, the religion and the king; the state, rather than prosecute, should protect his action.

 

As for the brass statue, it is not the same with the statue built or meld in Phra Si Ratana Maha Thatu Maha Viharn Temple in Pitsanulok.  However, it was somehow bought from foundry in Saraburi and gave to the monastic residence at Pa Sam Yak Temple. According to this, it means that the statue is not a replica of Shinaraja Buddha statue as claimed by the prosecution; it is only a generic brass statue that could be easily found in the marketplace.  When someone gave it to the monastic residence at Pa Sam Yak temple, it became the property of the community or the monastic residence at Pa Sam Yak temple.  The community at the monastic residence at Pa Sam Yak temple had studied Dhamma Vinaya and understood clearly that the statue contradicted Dhamma Vinaya.  No one had paid respect to the brass Buddha statue in Pa Sam Yak temple for such a long time.  It was an abandoned, and not respectful object in the Buddhist community of Pa Sam Yak temple. Furthermore, the defendant only committed the act on the brass Buddha statue in Pa Sam Yak temple; he never did the same act to any other Buddha statues that belonged to other people or other temples, otherwise, if that is the case, it would constitute an act of insulting the respectful object of others. In the internal discussion, the opinions of the community spitted into two sides; one side supported the immediate removal of the statue from the temple, others insisted that everyone had to calm down since the society would not accept such removal.  The arguments became more intense and finally the defendant put the sign to prohibit the worship of the brass Buddha statue.

 

The defendant action of stepping on the base of the brass statue and slapping its face, broadcasted to the public via radio and TV, should be counted as revealing Dhamma Vinaya to the public.  This is a sincere act that conformed to Dhamma Vinaya that the Buddha said, the act should be perceived as giving praise and respect to Buddhism. According to the teaching of the Buddha, the defendant act is not an insulting act to both Buddhism and the Buddha’s teachings.  Furthermore, the defendant forced no one to obey his belief.

 

The defendant act lacked intention and did not have all elements counted as a crime according to the article 206 of the Criminal Code. 

 

 

18 November 2009 

 

Phra Kasem submitted the 45 pages long of closing argument drafted by his lawyer, Mr. Anupong Chaithanavirat.  It can be summarized as follows: 

 

No. 1: Mr. Intaporn Jun-Iam, prosecution witness and the Director of the Provincial Office of Buddhist, has no authority to inspect the misdeed of the monk.  That duty belongs to the fellow monastic.  The witness has no authority since he has not studied whether Buddha statue could represent the Buddha or could be counted as a pagoda.  The opinion of the witness has no weigh to assert if the defendant act toward the statue is wrong.

 

The second prosecution witness, Mr. Sawang Phuthiwong, the village chief of Wang Kwang sub district, Num Now district, Petchaboon province, asserted that the defendant act is not an act of insulting to the religion which would constitute the crime as the prosecution accused.  He said that the defendant taught the villager to conduct good deeds and not get ones’ self-attached to any objects including to the Buddha statue.  The reason that the defendant put the sign on the ground of the statue is to prevent people paying a respect, as it does not conform to Dhamma Vinaya.  The witness also established that the defendant’s action followed the teaching of the Buddha, the defendant therefore had no intention to insult Buddhism as the prosecution complained. 

 

Phra Visutinayok (Thanom Sripakdi), the third prosecution witness, the Dean of the Provincial Monastic in Petchaboon (Dhammayuti), testified that Buddha statues represented the Buddha. However, he could not specify where it was codified.  He had no evidence from any teachings or sermons (sutra) or Dhamma Vinaya to support his claim.  He also admitted that there is nowhere in the Tripitaka specifying the Buddha statue as his replica; in fact the Buddha statues were first built after the Buddha has died for about 500 years. 

 

When the defense asked Phra Visutinayok about the issue of not paying a respect to the Buddha statue, the witness refused to answer if that violates Dhamma Vinaya.  The forth prosecution witness, Phra Kru Vichaipacharakit, the Dean of Lak Dan sub district (Dhammayuti) who delivered the defendant two letters from the Dean of Petchaboon, also avoided to answer the question.  He said the act was inappropriate, but he would not explain how it was so.  The witness was not sure if an order from the Monastic Order requesting monastic to leave the area, under its jurisdiction, could be considered as a form of punishment – despite the defendant attempted to make them find the justification of the prohibition of his act in Dhamma Vinaya.

 

The last prosecution witness was Police Lieutenant Colonel Pitak Kapong, the Investigating Officer.  He was forced to investigate because it was his duty.  He testified that he did not issue a summon, but he issued an arrest warrant right away instead.  He refused to answer why he did so, but further testified that Buddha statue does not represent the Buddha. 

 

No. 2: Administration of the Monastic Order of Petchaboon (Dhammayuti) does not comply with Dhamma Vinaya, state law, regulations of the Buddhist Society of Thailand, regulations, rules, and other orders.

 

Both intimidation and expulsion by the Monastic Order of Petchaboon (Dhammayuti) did not conform to Dhamma Vinaya since they did not investigate the case with the presence of the prosecution and defendant and that they failed to rule the case according to the principles enshrined in Dhamma Vinaya. According to Dhamma Vinaya, such action by the Monastic Order of Petchaboon (Dhammayuti) towards the defendant was invalid and should even be punished under Dhamma Vinaya. 

 

When the punishment was invalid, the resolution from the meeting of the Monastic Order and the authorization to the Director of the National Office of Buddhism to file a complaint against the defendant was illegitimate under the Dhamma Vinaya, the state law, and regulations of the Sangha Supreme Council of Thailand.  The Director of the National Office of Buddhism in Petchaboon was not an injured person and had no authority to complain. 

 

Article 206 is a religion-related crime, in order to adjudicate if the defendant should be criminally liable for an offence of insulting to the religion, one should consider Dhamma Vinaya together with his deliberations. The state law should be interpreted to generously support and protect Dhamma Vinaya.  Otherwise, the Buddha statue would precede Dhamma of the Buddha. 

 

No. 3: the symbol of Buddhism is Kàsàvavattha (saffron robe – Translator) and the monkhood.  The monkhood would be achieved by tradition of ordination and those who enter the monkhood must disseminate and teach Dhamma precisely as it was said in the Buddha’s words. If they do not learn Dhamma Vinaya thoroughly, they will only be just a fake symbol of Buddhism. 

 

When Buddhism aged several hundred years, most believers started to deviate from the original teachings, in which they started to build statues and assumed that those statues were the Buddha and also the symbol of Buddhism.  The culture of molding statues increasingly gained popularity, and up to date, people believe that worship of the statues could fulfill their wishes.

 

As for the brass Buddha statue that the defendant intended to step on and slap at its face, that statue was not the real replica of Shinaraja Buddha. Even when people from Phitsanulok brought it from the Pa Sam Yak temple back to Phitsanulok province (this is where the real Shinaraja Buddha statue located – Translator), the Monk Dean and householders in Phitsanulok rejected it and demanded to place the statue somewhere else; this was because the brass statue was not molded and constructed by the monastic of Phra Si Ratana Mahatat Voramahaviharn temple. 

 

Certainly no Buddha statues could represent the Buddha himself. If they could really represent the Buddha, no monk would dare to shamelessly violate Dhamma Vinaya before his presence.  Today, on one hand the monks worship the statues, on the other hand they accept money and other objects, which violate Dhamma Vinaya. 

 

The defendant wants you all to ruminate, as it has already come to this point, for those who have vowed – would you accept that Buddhism is the teachings of the Buddha and that the complete collection of teaching (the three baskets of teachings: Sūtra, Vinaya, Abhidharma – Translator) is the Tripitaka. When the defendant disseminated the Buddha’s teachings according to the Tripitaka, he was accused severely of obstructing the Buddhist public interest, which in fact the defendant was trying to guide the public to the great privacy and common treasure.

 

The defendant understands this clearly and nothing in this world could mislead him.  Even the defendant was forced, oppressed, and abused by any means; it shall not make the defendant understand otherwise. 

 

No. 4: Acts of the defendants described in the compliant amount to an exercise of right to freedom in belief and religion, in which it was an absolute expression of believing in Theravada Buddhism.  The intention behind this was to protect Dhamma Vinaya being sustainable and steadfast.  The defendant has performed all of his acts in accordance with the Buddhist Code and should be protected under 30, 37 and 70 of the Constitution B.E. 2550 (2007).

 

Buddha statues are not rightful objects in Buddhism as argued in the defendant’s testimony. At the stage of the Court of Justice, the defendant also entreated the Court to uphold the justice and adjudicate the case in favor of the defendant. He also entreated the Court to restore Buddhism’s prosperity and to entirely eradicate the impurities in the half of the Buddhist Era.