Original sentence: According to Luang Por Sermchai, it tends to be scholars who hold the view of absolute non-self, rather than Buddhist meditation practitioners.According to Patchanee Malikhao, the "sermons of Dhammakaya are controversial because it contradicts the dogma of anatta in Theravada Buddhism".Further, Prayudh Payutto and Phra Bhramagunabhorn have analyzed the Dhammakaya teachings and concluded that "they are not in line with either Theravada or Mahayana Buddhism", states Malikhao.Payutto has written much to oppose the views of the Dhammakaya Movement.The bulk of Thai Theravada Buddhism rejects the true-self teaching of Dhammakaya, and insists upon non-self as Buddha's real teaching.The not-self teaching is considered by Dhammakaya to let go of what is not the self, to attain the true self.Williams summarises the views of Luang Por Sermchai about "Self, not-Self, and not not-Self", then states that these ways of reading Buddhism in terms of "a true Self certainly seem to have been congenial in the East Asian environment, and hence flourished in that context where for complex reasons Mahayana too found a ready home"
Edited sentence: Against this, Luang Por Sermchai argues that it tends to be scholars who hold the view of absolute non-self, rather than Buddhist meditation practitioners.As for Thai scholars, the scholar-monk Prayudh Payutto has written much to oppose the views of the Dhammakaya Movement.The bulk of Thai Theravada Buddhism rejects the true self teaching and insists upon non-self as Buddha's real teaching.The not-self teaching is considered the method to let go of what is not the self, to attain the true self.Williams summarises the views of Luang Por Sermchai (here referred to by his former honorific name Phra Rajyanvisith), and adds his own comment at the end: