Talk:Dhammakaya tradition

Archives (Index)

1

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Sources for this and related articles

@Joshua Jonathan:, @JimRenge: You have noted some of your concerns/suggestions quite a while ago in the archived talk page threads of related articles. Should we consider merging / re-summarizing / re-arranging some of these articles? Any additional scholarly sources we should consider here and the Dhammakaya-related articles? Comments welcome, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:08, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Since this article deals a lot with the social and political situation in Thailand, I am also pinging Paul012.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:13, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I've read the requests of both you and Farak, but the speed of editing and discussion here is too high for me; Iknow too little about the topic. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

It's farang, Joshua. Farak sounds like a failed boat.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Here's an article that may be of interest to both of you: Miri Albahari (2002), Against No-Atman Theories of Anatta, Asian Philosophy, Vol.12, No.1. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:49, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Very interesting, Joshua. Too bad it does not cover Dhammakaya.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 10:05, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Thanks. Albahari has an interesting perspective, though inconsistent with almost all Buddhist schools and their massive collection of commentaries found in the monasteries of East Asia, Southeast Asia, and South Asia. The history of Buddhism has interpreted and re-interpreted the anatta and other doctrines. Remember, the Buddha never wrote down his views, and the "Thus I have heard" stories were written down many centuries after the death of the person who is traditionally attributed to have heard. We also have evidence that the Pali canon was repeatedly redacted, two of which were major redactions. So the commentaries are not only a window into the past understandings, they are clues to possible original/alternate versions of interesting, profound spiritual questions our human ancestors struggled with. Jainism and Hinduism scholars, in the centuries past, had reasonable cause to disagree with some doctrines of Buddhism. Dhammakaya is one of the modern era movements that has reformulated anatta, just like recent attempts to reinterpret or deny "rebirth", 4NT etc. The least we can do is appreciate that the Thai sangha has "reasonable cause to theologically disagree with Dhammakaya". This needs to be respectfully acknowledged for both sides, in this and various related articles, per our NPOV guidelines. That is the way to keep this article and the wikipedia a bit more honest, a cause which RexxS, Bishonen and many of our experienced editors/admins sometimes struggle to enforce. I have read through the talk page archives of the related wikipedia articles, and feel you JJ and others had good points. If you read the older version(s), or even the current one, we read that there are differences, but we are left wondering what the differences in beliefs and practices are, per WP:RS, between the four temples mentioned in this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:17, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

[th]

Somdet Suk brilliant! What a nice little piece of Wiki-code! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Joshua Jonathan! Yeah, let's keep things positive and to the point. Those interlanguage links are great.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Support. Due to the complex’s content of this article, I also support that the title should be revised as Dhammakaya Tradition. Bandai153 (talk) 10:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Tradition

Due to the complex content in this article, the topic should be considered as a "Tradition" rather than "Movement" which seems to be an orientation of religious sociological term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bandai153 (talk • contribs)

Bandai153 please remember to sign your comments on the talk page using the four tildas. That said, I actually agree with changing it to Dhammakaya Tradition. I have a few reasons for this. First, the article and sources define it as a Thai Buddhist tradition, so it would be perfectly accurate to call it such and would be a superior way to convey information to readers quicker. Second, it is noted by Newell that the term "Dhammakaya Movement" is sometimes used interchangeably with Wat Phra Dhammakaya by various scholars, which can be very confusing, especially if a reader was to do further reading and read stuff about the "Dhammakaya Movement" when the scholar or source was really just talking about Wat Phra Dhammakaya specifically. Since this page is clearly about the wider tradition that began at Wat Paknam that just happens to include Wat Phra Dhammakaya as well as several other temples, it would be beneficial if we titled the article in a way that makes the distinction clear. Dhammakaya tradition would be good way to do this, and it would still be very much accurate, since it is a Buddhist tradition. Wikiman5676 (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your suggestion and discussion Wikiman5676. --Bandai153 (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Bandai153 (ping Wikiman5676), I have reverted your conversion of Dhammakaya Tradition to an article (a WP:CONTENTFORK from here -- also please don't copy content between articles without crediting the source). From the thread above, I believe that what you might actually need is a WP:MOVEOVERREDIRECT requested at WP:RM(?). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 06:46, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Hydronium Hydroxide. I think that is what Bandai153 intended to do. I agree with him and I'll propose a move below.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 29 February 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. wbm1058 (talk) 00:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

---

Dhammakaya Movement → Dhammakaya tradition – Per reasons provided by Wikiman above: "First, the article and sources define it as a Thai Buddhist tradition, so it would be perfectly accurate to call it such and would be a superior way to convey information to readers quicker. Second, it is noted by Newell[1] on pages 15–16 that the term Dhammakaya Movement is sometimes used interchangeably with Wat Phra Dhammakaya by various scholars, which can be very confusing, especially if a reader was to do further reading and read stuff about the Dhammakaya Movement when the scholar or source was really just talking about Wat Phra Dhammakaya specifically. Since this page is clearly about the wider tradition that began at Wat Paknam that just happens to include Wat Phra Dhammakaya as well as several other temples, it would be beneficial if we titled the article in a way that makes the distinction clear. Dhammakaya tradition would be good way to do this, and it would still be very much accurate, since it is a Buddhist tradition." [Reference added, changed style fonts]-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 18:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Support I obviously support this. Id also like to add a few things to strengthen the case. The article is about a Buddhist tradition that began in the 1910s, there is no consensus in English on what this particular Buddhist tradition is called with different scholars providing different names. Rory Mackenzie calls the collective temples that practice this form of Buddhism Dhammakaya Tradition, Catherine Newell-Dhammakaya Temples, Kate Crosby- Dhammakaya Network, Justin McDaniel- Dhammakaya Movement, but also uses this interchangably with Wat Phra Dhammakaya, one large temple founded in the 1970s that happens to practice in this form of Buddhism. Of the various names provided only Dhammakaya Tradition and Dhammakaya Movement make any kind of sense per Recognizableness, Naturalness, or Consistency per the WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, as a non-scholar would not recognize the other names and conclude what the article is about quickly and the two names are consistent with the naming conventions of similar subjects like Vipassana Movement or Thai Forest Tradition. But again, Dhammakaya Tradition would be superior to Dhammakaya Movement because some scholars and some news sources ive seen use Dhammakaya Movement to refer to the large temple founded in the 1970s in Pathum Thani, rather than the subject of this page, a form of Thai Buddhism founded in the 1910s. Therefore using tradition would check the precision category to make sure readers know they are on the right page. Wikiman5676 (talk) 07:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Support I also agree for this request. The significant reason is that the complexity of its content. Therefore the title should be revised to Dhammakaya Tradition. --Bandai153 (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment I'm not proposing to stand in the way in either case, but I thought it might be useful to have another point of reference and option. Looking at both JSTOR and Google Scholar, 'Dhammakaya movement' seems to have the most hits, with 'Dhammakaya tradition' having only 10% or so of the number of hits of 'Dhammakaya movement'. Many articles refer to Wat Phra Dhammakaya without either of those terms, or simply refer to 'Dhammakaya' in the context of Thailand without any other qualification. I think it makes sense for both 'Dhammakaya movement' and 'Dhammakaya tradition' to direct to the article. Dhammakaya (Thailand) I think might also be a good option, as it removes any sociological or historical claim while making it clear that there's a meaning in the Thai context that is distinct from the generic Sanskrit or Pali meaning of the term, and reflecting that writers are sometimes referring to it just as 'the Dhammakaya of Thailand' or 'Thai Dhammakaya'. --Spasemunki (talk) 02:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Dhammakaya (Thailand) would certainly lead readers to confuse it with the specific temple Wat Phra Dhammakaya, which is what we are trying to avoid.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 03:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that would be the case. Dhammakaya is already a disambiguation page distinguishing the temple from the Pali term and the broader Thai phenomenon, and there is already an article with a more specific title for the wat. If we're not going to use the most common form of English reference for the title, it seems like using 'tradition' is implying a historical connection that pre-dates Luang Pu Sodh. If we're trying to shed the implicit sociological perspective or modern novelty implied by 'Movement', NPOV suggests that the article's title shouldn't take a position on whether Dhammakaya is a modern or older phenomenon, given the ambivalence of the evidence and academic opinion and the explicitly modern origin proffered by the Dhammakaya. --Spasemunki (talk) 04:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I dont agree with this reasoning. Dhammakaya (Thailand) would imply Dhammakaya just has a different meaning in Thailand or something like that, and would cause confusion between the tradition and the temple. Per article title guidelines we need something clear cut so the reader knows they are on the page about the Buddhist tradition that began in the 1910s, not something ambiguous that can mistake it for the temple founded in 1970. Wat Phra Dhammakaya having a seperate page or not, we want the title to clearly indicate which page the reader is on without the need to look at other page titles. I would also argue that the common usage of Dhammakaya movement probably just comes from the fact that that is what Wikipedia has been calling it that for over a decade, so a potential WP:REFLOOP. As demonstrated above, there doesnt seem to be scholarly consensus on what the lineage of Luang pu sodh is called in English. I also dont think using tradition implies something that predates luang pu sodh. The Thai Forest Tradition is a completely suitable name for the lineage of Ajahn Mun (a very strong parallel to this particular form of Buddhist that comes from Luang Pu Sodh), and the Thai forest tradition was only founded like a decade earlier than Dhammakaya. Wikiman5676 (talk) 02:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Another issue is that, again Dhammakaya movement is sometimes used interchangably with Wat Phra Dhammakaya. Which is what we are trying to avoid. Here's an example of news sources that used Dhammakaya movement to refer to the temple founded in 1970 rather than the subject of this page, a Buddhist tradition founded in the 1910s.[[2]] [[3]]. And its not just these plus Mcdaniel. Paul Williams flat out uses Dhammakaya movement to refer to Wat Phra Dhammakaya on page 121-122 here[[4]]. We know hes talking about the temple and not the Buddhist tradition because he says founded in 1970s rather than 1910s. So several of those hits could just be references to Wat Phra Dhammakaya that they are calling Dhammakaya Movement. Again, a confusion we want to avoid. Wikiman5676 (talk) 02:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support Seems to have been commonly used by books such as: [5][6] Editorkamran (talk) 14:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: I am pinging all notable editors of this article, as to wrap up this discussion: Ms Sarah Welch, Joshua Jonathan, Thanissaro, Quincetessence, Paul 012, Suredeath, Philothai, JimRenge and Mike Christie. Please weigh in.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:28, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support. I don't really know enough about the subject to comment first-hand, but I find the provided rationale convincing enough. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.