Journal of Dhamma for Life

An Approach of Comparative Judgement to the Arrogance Offence in Vinaya Pitaka and the Offences under Thai Law

Phrakru Vajaradhammanuwat Chontawangso Suesat, Viroj Koomkrong — Fri, 13 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0700

This research article aims to (1) to examine the concept of falsely claiming superhuman attainments (uttarimanussadhamma) in the Vinaya Pitaka; (2) to study Thai legal principles concerning the offense of fraud against the public; and (3) to propose comparative adjudicative guidelines between the offense of falsely claiming superhuman attainments under the Vinaya Pitaka and the offense of fraud under Thai law. This research employs a qualitative documentary research methodology. Data were collected from the Tipitaka, commentaries, the Thai Penal Code, and relevant academic literature. The data were analyzed and synthesized using content analysis and presented through descriptive writing.

The findings reveal that falsely claiming superhuman attainments refers to asserting spiritual achievements beyond ordinary human states such as jhāna, vimokkha, samādhi, samāpatti, knowledge and insight (ñāṇadassana), realization of the path and fruit, eradication of defilements, mental liberation, and delight in seclusion without having actually attained them. The origin of this rule is traced to a case in which monks residing near the Vaggumudā River, during a period of famine, falsely claimed spiritual attainments to inspire laypeople’s faith. Upon learning of this, the Buddha reprimanded them and promulgated the fourth Pārājika rule, stipulating that any monk who falsely claims superhuman attainments is immediately defeated and expelled from the monkhood. Under Thai law, the offense of fraud is prescribed in Section 341 of the Penal Code, which provides that any person who dishonestly deceives another by false representation or concealment of facts and thereby obtains property shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years, or a fine not exceeding 60,000 baht, or both. In aggravated circumstances under Section 342 (3), the penalty may extend to imprisonment not exceeding 5 years, or a fine not exceeding 100,000 baht, or both. The comparative analysis is structured into 4 dimensions: (1) legal status and doctrinal foundations; (2) criteria for determining liability; (3) sanctions and penalties; and (4) integrative remedial measures. The study proposes cooperative mechanisms between the Sangha and state authorities, including the appointment of Vinayadhara experts proficient in both ecclesiastical discipline and secular law to adjudicate such cases. The research culminates in the development of the “CT Model,” a systematic framework for comparative legal-religious analysis and adjudication.

The Approach of Pancadhamma Teaching Implementation for Behavior Growth on Pancasila’s Performance

Pharamaha Sanit Sanvaro Hanchiaw, Viroj Koomkrong — Fri, 13 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0700

This research article aims to: 1) examine the concept of the Five Virtues (Benjadhamma) in Theravāda Buddhist scriptures; 2) study the Five Precepts (Benjasīla) as presented in Theravāda canonical texts; and 3) propose guidelines for promoting the Five Virtues in order to support ethical conduct in accordance with the Five Precepts. The study addresses the conceptual relationship between inner moral qualities and external behavioral regulations, a critical issue for strengthening Buddhist ethics in contemporary society. This research employs a qualitative methodology, specifically Documentary Research. Data were collected and analyzed from the Pāli Canon, commentaries (Aṭṭhakathā), sub-commentaries (Ṭīkā), the Visuddhimagga, and relevant contemporary academic works. Content analysis and systematic conceptual synthesis were applied to construct integrative conclusions.

The findings reveal that: 1) The Five Virtues represent foundational internal moral qualities, comprising loving-kindness and compassion (mettā–karuṇā), right livelihood (sammā-ājīva), restraint in sensual conduct (kāma-saṃvara), truthfulness (sacca), and mindfulness with clear comprehension (sati-sampajañña). These virtues function as the psychological and ethical foundations of Buddhist morality. 2) The Five Precepts constitute the fundamental moral code for lay Buddhists, consisting of abstention from killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, false speech, and intoxicants. These precepts serve as external behavioral regulations that foster social harmony and peaceful coexistence. 3) Through conceptual synthesis, the study develops an ethical framework termed the “MORAL Model” to illustrate the complementary relationship between inner virtues and outer precepts: M = Metta–Karuṇā supports the first precept; O = Occupation (Right Livelihood) supports the second; R = Restraint in Sexuality corresponds to the third; A = Accuracy in Speech aligns with the fourth; and L = Lucid Awareness reinforces the fifth. The MORAL Model represents a novel body of knowledge demonstrating how cultivated inner virtues empower individuals to observe the Five Precepts voluntarily and sustainably, with practical applications at individual, familial, community, and policy levels for sustainable social development.

A Guideline of Comparative Judgement to the Offence of Sexual Intercourse in Vinayapitaka and Sexual Offenses Thai law

Phrakhru Wipoonwaranukit Thitapatipo phankut, Viroj Koomkrong — Fri, 13 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0700

This research article aims to (1) examine sexual intercourse (methuna) in the Vinaya Piṭaka, (2) study sexual offenses under Thai law, and (3) propose a comparative framework for diagnosing sexual misconduct in the Vinaya Piṭaka and sexual offenses under Thai legal principles. The study employs a qualitative documentary research design. Data were collected from the Tipiṭaka, its commentaries, the Thai Criminal Code, the Sangha Act B.E. 2505 (1962) and its amendment B.E. 2535 (1992), as well as related academic works. The population and samples consisted of primary and secondary documents concerning the first Pārājika rule and sexual offenses under the Criminal Code. Research instruments included document recording forms and a comparative analytical framework. Data were analyzed through content analysis and descriptive synthesis.

The findings reveal that methuna is considered a secular act reserved for laypeople and inherently involves two parties. The promulgation of the first Pārājika rule originated from the case of Venerable Sudinna, who engaged in sexual intercourse with his former wife, leading to public criticism. Consequently, the Buddha strictly prohibited monks from engaging in sexual intercourse, even with female animals. Such misconduct encompasses four categories of persons and three bodily orifices, resulting in immediate expulsion (Pārājika) from the monkhood. In contrast, Thai law defines sexual offenses to protect rights, liberties, and human dignity. For example, rape under Section 276 of the Criminal Code prescribes imprisonment and fines. The Sangha Act further prohibits those expelled under Pārājika from reordination. The comparative analysis indicates that the Vinaya aims to preserve celibacy and monastic purity, whereas Thai law seeks to protect society and victims. Although differing in nature religious sanction versus criminal punishment both systems converge in regulating conduct that affects morality and social order, suggesting an integrated doctrinal and legal approach for sustainable prevention and resolution.

The Guideline of Comparative Judgement on Offense of Theft and Incorrect According to Thai Law

Phra Paiboon piyatummo Dodlip, Viroj Koomkrong — Fri, 13 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0700

This research article aims to (1) to examine the doctrinal foundations of theft as prescribed in the Vinaya Pitaka; (2) to analyze Thai legal principles concerning the offense of theft; and (3) to propose a comparative framework for adjudicating theft under the Vinaya Pitaka and Thai criminal law. The study emphasizes doctrinal analysis, elements of the offense, and punitive measures within both religious and secular legal systems. This research employs a qualitative documentary methodology, drawing upon primary sources including the Tipitaka, its commentaries, and scholarly works in Buddhist studies, as well as statutory materials such as the Thai Criminal Code and the Sangha Act. Data were analyzed through content analysis and synthesized using descriptive-analytical methods.

The findings reveal that the case of Venerable Dhaniya, who took royal timber to construct his dwelling, led the Buddha to promulgate the second Parajika rule. This rule stipulates that a monk who steals property valued at more than 5 masakas commits a Parajika offense and is immediately and irrevocably expelled from the monastic order. The offense comprises five essential elements: (1) the property belongs to another; (2) the offender knows that it belongs to another; (3) the value exceeds the prescribed threshold; (4) there is intention to steal; and (5) the act results in the movement of the property. In contrast, Section 334 of the Thai Criminal Code defines theft as dishonestly taking another person’s property and prescribes penalties of imprisonment and/or fines. Additionally, the Sangha Act provides legal consequences related to the status of monks who have incurred Parajika offenses. The comparative analysis demonstrates that both the Vinaya and Thai law emphasize intentionality and ownership as core elements of theft. However, they differ significantly in their underlying objectives and sanctions: the Vinaya seeks to preserve the moral purity and integrity of the monastic community, whereas criminal law aims to protect property rights and maintain public order. The research synthesizes these findings into the “TT Model,” a conceptual framework for systematically comparing legal principles, adjudicative criteria, and integrative approaches to moral and legal sanctions.

The Guideline of Comparative Judgement on Human Killing and Offence under Thai Law

Phrakhru Withanudomkit Jongjetdee, Viroj Koomkrong — Fri, 13 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0700

This research article aims to (1) to examine the principles and substantive provisions concerning the offense of killing a human being under the Vinaya Piṭaka; (2) to study the relevant provisions of Thai law relating to the offense of homicide; and (3) to propose a comparative framework for adjudicating homicide offenses between the Vinaya Piṭaka and Thai law. This research employs a qualitative documentary research methodology, drawing upon sources including the Tipiṭaka, its commentaries, statutory provisions namely Sections 288 and 289 of the Thai Criminal Code, and Section 44 of the Sangha Act B.E. 2505 (1962), as amended by the Sangha Act (No. 2) B.E. 2535 (1992) as well as related academic works. The collected data were analyzed and synthesized through content analysis and principled interpretation, and the findings are presented descriptively.

The findings reveal that Pārājika Rule No. 3 of the Vinaya Piṭaka stipulates that intentionally depriving a human being of life or seeking means to cause a person’s death constitutes the gravest offense, resulting in immediate and irreversible expulsion from the monastic order. The offense includes specific constituent elements and seven exceptions, such as insanity. In contrast, Section 288 of the Thai Criminal Code prescribes penalties of death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment for a term of fifteen to twenty years for homicide, while Section 289 provides aggravated circumstances punishable by death. Furthermore, Section 44 of the Sangha Act prescribes imprisonment not exceeding one year for a person who, having committed a pārājika offense, re-enters the monkhood while concealing the disqualifying fact. The comparative analysis indicates that both legal systems fundamentally aim to protect the value of human life. The Vinaya emphasizes the purity and integrity of the monastic status, whereas secular law focuses on maintaining public order and social justice. Although differing in form and purpose, the severity of sanctions in both systems reflects a comparable degree of gravity. In this regard, the researcher has developed an integrated body of knowledge in the form of the “HT Model” to systematically explain the comparative adjudicative framework, contributing to further studies in Buddhist legal philosophy and jurisprudence.