Talk:Dhammakaya tradition/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Talk page

Please do not delete parts of this talk page to eliminate things such as the NPOV considerations. These are legitimate concerns and should be kept as to keep Wikipedia in a constantly-improving state.

Romanization

A note about the Romanization of Thai names on this page; Phramonkolthepmuni should be Romanized as Phra Monkolthepmuni. 'Phra' is a common title for a monk, rather than part of a name. --Clay Collier 02:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Romanization of Thai is not hard and fast, even in official Thai state documentation. The previous comment is true in the case of monks who carry no titles e.g. Phra Somchai Sirichayo (format=Phra + forename previous to ordination + Pali name given at ordination) or who hold non-royal monastic titles e.g. Phra Kru Panyakanjanakij. In both cases, the word 'Phra' is merely like Rev. or Ven. in the English language. In this case of royal titles, however, such as monks who have received royal titles at the levels Phra..., Phraraj..., Phrathep..., Phrathamm..., the 'Phra' prefix actually becomes part of the name (even on their passports). Especially when the monk has additional titles like 'Somdej' tagged on the front to replace the 'Ven.', the word 'Phra' is meaningless in separation. The incidences of separate and joined 'Phra..' are roughly equal for romanized royal monastic titles on the internet, except ironically for H.H. the Supreme Patriarch who seems to insist on making a separation. As for Phramonkolthepmuni, the only major biography in English, The Life & Times of Luang Phaw Wat Paknam uses no separations. Thanissaro 23:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Agree to the second comment. Principally, the usage of the term "Phra" varies in different cases. However, this is not so serious as there can be a number of variations in Romanisation of Thai words. This is due to the different nature of the languages. Dhammamedhi 21:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

So in this case, is his full title Phramonkolthepmuni? Would this be a title that some other individual could conceavibly hold in the future? --Clay Collier 06:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes. The title 'Phramonkolthepmuni', with no separation, is more precise and can be conceivably held in the future. However, it needs to keep in mind that this is Romanization of a Thai word, not a Pali word, as such royal title is given in Thai. Dhammamedhi 09:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

POV

"These successes were, owing to jealous rivalry in Thailand, belittled or subject to mudslinging...", etc. doesn't seem very neutral Paul C 18:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Please stop removing the new and informational links at the bottom. These are mainly from legitimate media sources, and help to provide sources of information that will help promote NPOV. If you have a legimitate reason for their removal, please state so in the talk page so that we don't have to keep changing the wiki back and forth.Quincetessence 22:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Umm, ok.. Dhammakaya is actually very controversial in Thailand. I'm surprised this article failed to mention the controversies. Quite a considerable amount of people think Dhammakaya is a brainwashing cult... Not joking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.130.155 (talk • contribs)

I've been too busy to do any substantial research on the subject, but if you're willing to write about and cite these controversies with better sources than the links I've put on, then I encourage you to do so! We can all contribute and make these wikipedia articles better. Quincetessence 07:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Controversies should be detailed in the article

The Dhammakaya sect is controversial in Thailand, but the article doesn't mention this at all, besides noting that it is the target of "jealousy". There are at least two areas of controversy that are well known to the public, and should be covered in some detail in this article:

1) Emphasis on material donations. In the 90's, the sect has accumulated over $2 billion in donations, far more than any other temple/sect.

2) Public support for Thaksin Shinawatra during the Thailand political crisis 2005-2006.

I do not have any particular feeling for or against Dhammakaya, but I also do not consider myself an expert in Buddhism. Could somebody who has better understanding than me expand on the above two topics. Patiwat 09:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Additional information should be included in the article

I believe that some additional uncontroversial information should be included in the article:

  • Unlike most temples/monks, Dhammakaya does not produce amulets, sprinkle "holy water", or predict lottery numbers
  • Dhammakaya has many powerful and wealthy supporters, like former PM Chavalit Yongchaiyudh
  • They are extremely active in universities, dominating most university Buddhism clubs
  • They have a well organized marketing, financial, and management organization which is significantly more effective than traditional religious organization. Patiwat 09:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Could someone please confirm or deny the presence of any reference to extra-terrestrial beings in relation to the teachings of Dhammakaya? Many anecdotal reports by Thai people who are opposed to Dhammakaya have included reference to UFO's and other similar content. The Dhammakaya Foundation website www.dhammakaya.or.th has a logo on its front page which also resembles a 'flying saucer'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.130.37.6 (talk • contribs)

Addendum: Wat Dhammakaya had in the past produced amulets for believers with the purported belief and catch phrases of miraculous powers promised to wearers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.102.42.97 (talk • contribs)

If it was up to me, I'd be comparing Dhammakaya Movement with Scientology. They are more alike than you would have thought.Suredeath 05:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems the discussion is heading off the route.

I understand that this article is about the "Dhammakaya tradition" or "Vijja Dhammaka," said to be originated in Thailand. Perhaps we are mixing it up with "Wat Phra Dhammakaya," available as separated Wikipedian article.

The controversies are regarding "Wat Phra Dhammakaya," and not "Vijja Dhammakaya." Owing to this reason, the various links of such controversies should be removed from this article.

Perhaps more details about the Dhammakaya traditions should be added here, and the detailed information regarding Wat Phra Dhammakaya should be moved to the article entitled "Wat Phra Dhammakaya" instead. Dhammamedhi 17 June 2006

word choice; 'literal' vs 'substantialist'

I think that this article is misleading in its use of the term 'literal' in sentences like : "The movement is characterized by a literal interpretation of many Buddhist teachings" and "The Dhammakāya school of meditation is marked by its literal interpretation of Buddhist technical terms, (including the term dhammakāya) in their physical meaning". When I first read 'literal' I assumed that the point of the sentences was to argue that Dhammakaya is committed to the most orthodox reading, ie, the most literal meaning in the sense of reading the least into the scriptures/adding the least to them (the least strained interpretations). However, this, I believe, was my mistake; the author was not trying to make this point -- he simply chose a potentially confusing word to make a different point. I believe what was meant was something like, "The movement is characterized by a realist/substantialist/reifying/hypostasizing interpretation of many Buddhist teachings". The point seems to be that Dhammakaya is characterized by taking buddhist technical terms as naming entities/things and IF this is the point then the word that should be used is not 'literal' (which puts emphasis on an attempt to pursue the least strained reading of a text; the emphasis of the argument seems to be not on how loosely or strenously Dhammakaya interprets a text, but rather on what they interpret the texts to indicate, that is, not on the form of their reading but on the content of their reading -- 'literal' emphasizes formal aspects of interpretation (strength or looseness) and so is not the right word to use) but rather any of the following : 'realist', 'substantialist', 'reifying', 'hypostasizing'. I, myself, would go with 'substantialist' as the clearest and best choice.

Stonehouse 17:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Update to Citations

I have updated the 'controversy' citations as it is unfair to give lengthy quotes of opinions expressed at a time when the court case was still in progress. Future contributors might bear in mind that some of the material they want to add may be more relevant to the articles on Wat Phra Dhammakaya or Phrarajbhavanavisudh or Dhammakaya meditation rather than using this article as a runway for anything related to Dhammakaya. Thanissaro (talk) 08:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Separated content in different articles about Dhammakaya tradition

I have removed a great deal of the contents of this page, to clearly distinguish between Dhammakaya as a tradition as a whole, and the temples which are part of this tradition. Whereas the first mostly involves Buddhist doctrine, the latter includes important monks, and the history and politics of those individual temples. The removed contents are almost entirely copied from Wat Phra Dhammakaya and Dhammakaya Foundation, and those few lines that are different, I will move to these Wikipedia pages later on. Please note that these rather 'severe' edits serve to improve the clarity of the subject matter, in accordance with WP:REDUNDANTFORK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S Khemadhammo (talk • contribs) 15:24, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Now that my nine edits have all been reverted for reasons that I am inquiring into, I'd like also to point out that the concerns regarding redundancy and WP:REDUNDANTFORK have also been addressed below [above] by Dhammamedhi, under the heading "It seems the discussion is heading off the route". This is from 2006, and after ten years of waiting to take action I think some serious discussion and editing is warranted now. S Khemadhammo (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Some notes here.
  • First, Dhammakaya Foundation redirects to Dhammakaya Movement, that is, this article. Strange that you didn't second. Wat Phra Dhammakaya#Controversies contains info on 2015 events, so I don't see how you could have been waiting to skip info which was added fairly recently.
  • Revision as of 16:37, 25 June 2016, edit-summary "Identifying features: improved neutrality by rewriting some words, removed unreferenced and irrelevant material, without further tagging, since page has been tagged for a while now; removed redundancies, corrected inaccuracies." - removal of sourced info; why?
  • Revision as of 16:55, 25 June 2016, edit-summary "Peronalities: removed because unreferenced →‎Dhammakaya Foundation: and →‎Wat Phra Dhammakaya: removed, because because separate pages exist and serves no useful purpose here. Some information that is unique here, has been moved to those pages" - This edit removed the "Public accusations of 1999–2002"-section without mentioning this; if it was moved to another page, which one? I don't see such edits in the contributions-list of S Khemadhammo, so I think this is an attempt to censor info.
  • Revision as of 17:13, 25 June 2016 - removal of critical information.
  • Revision as of 02:37, 26 June 2016 - removal of sourced info.
  • Revision as of 03:01, 26 June 2016, edit-summary "Identifying features: removed sentence in previous edit, because this content cannot be found in reference used. Replaced with sentence repeated from →‎Lead: , but referenced it as well. Added new subsection about Dhammakaya meditation." - so, here's the explanation. I checked the source; it's there, p.126.
So, highly problematic edits; next time ANI may be an option. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your extensive comments. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!, what is your understanding of the term "Dhammakaya movement"? The reason I ask is that it will help me to explain my edits.S Khemadhammo (talk) 23:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

This article has no clear scope

As already mentioned by Dhammamedhi and Thanissaro above, there are differening opinions in what is included in the scope of the term 'Dhammakaya movement'. Some of the information mentioned here refers to Wat Phra Dhammakaya, some of it to Luang Pho Sod Dhammakayaram, some of it to Wat Paknam Bhasicharoen, without clearly acknowledging

  1. on the one hand, the differences that may exist between these wats and
  2. one the other hand, failing to clearly explain what the shared ancestry is of these wats.

It should be noted that the term "Dhammakaya Movement" has no Thai language equivalent, and Thai people, especially scholars, usually distinguish the wats clearly. "Dhammakaya movement" has been coined by mostly Western scholars and is at risk of being a general term for anything unconventional in Thai Buddhism. E.g. the sentence in this article in the subsection "True self" "According to the Dhammakaya Movement, the Buddha made the discovery that nirvana is nothing less than the attā [the true Self]'" actually paraphrases a quote from a previous Thai Sangharaja, but is quoted as part of the Dhammakaya movement.

To make things more complex, the link Dhammakaya Foundation has recently been diverted to Dhammakaya Movement, even though the Dhammakaya Foundation is part of Wat Phra Dhammakaya. See [1] (see in the middle of the page, at "Location"). This whole article seems like a mixture of a lot of organizations and opinions, without really acknowledging or trying to explain this diversity.

My proposal is to expand the lead of this article, and clearly define what we mean by "Dhammakaya movement". Then using the lead as our guide, we can then critically take a look at the main contents, and decide what should be there and what shouldn't. In all honesty, I am certainly not opposed to any of the wats mentioned, but it doesn't make sense to talk about the details of one particular church in Amsterdam, if the article is about "Christianity".

If no clear scope can be established, I propose the contents be moved to Wat Phra Dhammakaya, Wat Paknam Bhasicharoen and that an article be written to include the opinions of Phra Thepyanmonkol. It may also be sufficient to explain Wat Paknam Bhasicharoen's heritage in the article on Wat Paknam. See WP:WHENSPLIT S Khemadhammo (talk) 02:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

You've got a point here (though "Dhammakaya Foundation" was not redirected recently, but in 2006). When adding information on what's included in the Dhammakaya "Movement," use the first section, "origins." When moving info to other articles, to it one step at a time, and state clearly in your edit-summary "info moved to ...," so others can follow what you're doing. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I've moved th info on the Dharmakaya Foundation to its proper page. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the edits and tips. S Khemadhammo (talk) 14:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to merge. Farang Rak Tham (talk) 08:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I propose to merge the page Thongsuk Samdaengpan into this page. Thongsuk_Samdaengpan only has notability in Thai-language sources. Merging would mean that her life can be explained in a separate section in this article.--S Khemadhammo (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2016 (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.

Roots to Yogavacara

@Joshua Jonathan:, I appreciate your ideas to make this article more noteworthy. However, the edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dhammakaya_Movement&oldid=740450387 does not properly reflect the main article. Currently, the roots between Yogavacara and Dhammakaya tradition are still a matter of debate. Some scholars such as Crosby are certain about the connection, but Mackenzie is still in doubt.. If you believe that pro-Yogavacara opinions have not been properly or sufficiently addressed in Dhammakaya Movement#Tantric Theravada, please add to or correct this paragraph first, and then adjust the lead accordingly, so as not to create a discrepancy.

Please not also that there are now two sentences in the lead that independently describe the connection between Yogavacara and Dhammakaya. We would have to remove one of them, or connect them somehow. S Khemadhammo (talk) 11:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dhammakaya Movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dhammakaya Movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dhammakaya Movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Wat Rajorasaram

Hello, I propose making a wikipage for Wat Rajorasaram. The information on that temple is disproportionately high for this page and there is enough detail in the section to simply create another page. I propose creating another page and providing a short summary of the temple in the section as was done in the sections on Wat Phra Dhammakaya and Wat Paknam. Wikiman5676 (talk) 01:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Seems fine to me, but the article would heavily rely on Thai language sources. That does not violate any policy though.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 08:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Redundant content section Dhammakaya Movement#Wat Rajorasarama

  • Originally called Wat Chomthong, it was a small temple mostly visited by local orchard workers.[1][2][3]
  • ... work [renovating] which he supervised himself.[4]
  • Following the preferences of Rama III, the temple has an architecture that shows much Chinese influence, which was becoming a fashion at the time.[5][2][6] Rama III had an interest in Chinese culture due to his successful trade contacts with the Chinese.[7]
  • In an interview with newspaper The Nation in 1997, he expressed concern regarding the problem of lack of education among monks in Thailand, complaining that "people who are considered bright and smart do not want to become monks".[8]
  • ... of which [a book] 45,000 copies were distributed.
  • An officer of the Ministry of University Affairs stated Luang Por Thongdi was actually open-minded to modern reform, and he wondered whether there were other, undisclosed reasons for the removal.[9]
  • Despite the removal from the Sangha Council, Luang Por Thongdi received a new honorary name in 2014, as "Phra Maha Pothiwongsacharn".[10]
  • These traditional texts were protected by copyright by the Ministry of Public Health in 2009.[11][12]
  • After Rama III's death, part of his ashes were kept at the temple.[13]
  • There is a monastic school at the temple, as well as a secular state school which is supported by the temple.[14] The latter is one of the last state schools in Thailand still located in a Buddhist temple.[15][16]
  • Less well-known is that he [Luang Por Thongdi] contributed to several Tipiṭaka scripture sets in the original Pali and in Thai translation.
  • Apart from traditional yearly ceremonies, there is weekly Dhammakaya meditation at Wat Rajaoros, there are training programs for schools, merit release ceremonies, regional training programs for teaching monks, and a regular transfer of merit ceremony for Rama III.[17][18][14]


References

  1. ^ Khemasiddho, Phra Maha Prasith. ประวัติวัดราชโอรสาราม ราชวรวิหาร [History of Wat Rajorosaram Rajavaraviharn]. Wat Rajorosaram Rajavaraviharn, Rama III's temple (in Thai). Archived from the original on 9 January 2010. Retrieved 23 December 2016. {{cite web}}: Invalid |script-title=: missing prefix (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |lay-source= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)
  2. ^ a b Sthapitanonda, Nithi; Mertens, Brian (2012). Architecture of Thailand: a guide to traditional and contemporary forms. Singapore: Didier Millet. p. 214. ISBN 981-4260-86-X.
  3. ^ วัดราชโอรสหรือวัดจอมทอง เขตบางขุทเทียน กรุงเทพฯ [Wat Rajoaoros or Wat Chomthong, Bang Khun Thian Area, Bangkok]. Khao Sod (in Thai). Matichon Publishing. 23 September 1997. p. 32. Archived from the original on 14 February 2017. Retrieved 13 February 2017 – via Matichon E-library. {{cite news}}: Invalid |script-title=: missing prefix (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  4. ^ วัดราชโอรสาราม ราชวรวิหาร กทม. [Wat Rajorasarama, Royal Temple in Bangkok]. Khao Sod. Matichon Publishing. 28 September 1997. p. 40. Archived from the original on 14 February 2017. Retrieved 13 February 2017 – via Matichon E-library. {{cite news}}: Invalid |script-title=: missing prefix (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  5. ^ Jotisalikorn, Chami; Di Crocco, Virginia; Bhumadhon, Phuthorn (2012). Classic Thai Design Interiors Architecture. Boston: Tuttle Publishing. ISBN 1-4629-0686-9.
  6. ^ Van Beek, Steve (2012). The Arts of Thailand. Tuttle Publishing. ISBN 1-4629-0676-1.
  7. ^ ชมสถาปัตยกรรม และตระการวัดราชโอรสฯ วัดพระจำราชการสมเด็จพระนั่งเกล้าฯ [Taking a look at the architecture and grandeur of Wat Rajaoros, the temple of Rama III's reign]. Siam Rath (in Thai). 31 January 1997. p. 29. Archived from the original on 19 February 2017. Retrieved 18 February 2017 – via Matichon E-library. {{cite news}}: Invalid |script-title=: missing prefix (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  8. ^ Eliot, Joshua; Bickersteth, Jane (1999). Thailand Handbook. Footprint handbooks (2nd ed.). Bath: Footprint. p. 772. ISBN 1-900949-32-6.
  9. ^ Cite error: The named reference Matichon 2001 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  10. ^ พระพรหทเวที ขึ้นสมเด็จพระพุฒาจารย์ พระธรรมกิตติวงศ์ รองสมเด็จ เจ้าคูณใหม่ 44 รูป [Phra Phromwethi receives name Somdet Phra Putthacharn, Phra Dhammakittiwong becomes vice-patriarch, 44 others receive Chao Khun title]. Khao Sod (in Thai). Matichon Publishing. 7 November 2014. p. 27. Archived from the original on 28 March 2017. Retrieved 27 March 2017 – via Matichon E-library. {{cite news}}: Invalid |script-title=: missing prefix (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  11. ^ Sitthirangsan, Warunee (29 May 2016). ตำรายาวัดราชโอรส [The medicinal texts of Wat Rajaoros]. Matichon (in Thai). p. 7. Archived from the original on 23 March 2017 – via Matichon E-library. {{cite news}}: Invalid |script-title=: missing prefix (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  12. ^ Hiranras, Nilobon (2015). The Intellectual Property and Alternative Legal Protection for Thai Cultural Heritage Properties, Traditional Knowledge and Products (Ph.D. thesis). Durham University. p. 60.
  13. ^ Cite error: The named reference Daily 2016 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  14. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Today 2008 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  15. ^ Bermann, George A.; Symeonides, Symeon (1 January 1998). "American law at the end of the 20th century: U.S. national reports to the XVth International Congress of Comparative Law". American Journal of Comparative Law. 46 (Supplement 1998). American Society of Comparative Law: 82.
  16. ^ Sucharitkul, Sompong (1998). "Thai Law and Buddhist Law". GGU Law Digital Commons. 667. Golden Gate University School of Law: 21.
  17. ^ Khemasiddho, Phra Maha Prasith. การศึกษาพระปริยัติธรรม [Study and courses]. Wat Rajorosaram Rajavaraviharn, Rama III's temple (in Thai). Archived from the original on 7 September 2004. Retrieved 23 December 2016. {{cite web}}: Invalid |script-title=: missing prefix (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  18. ^ ไถ่ชีวิตโค–กระบือ 359 ตัว [Life release of 359 oxen and buffaloes]. Daily News (Thailand) (in Thai). 6 February 1999. p. 11. Archived from the original on 28 March 2017. Retrieved 27 March 2017 – via Matichon E-library. {{cite news}}: Invalid |script-title=: missing prefix (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Dhammakaya Movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dhammakaya Movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Dhammakaya Movement/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 10:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

General

  • [2] is a dead link.
That one was archived.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • There's a harv warning on Swearer 2010 -- no link pointing to the citation.
    You mean the source is redundant? minus Removed You have to teach me sometimes how you spot those.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
    It's the script I mentioned a couple of reviews back -- if you install it, it pops up harv error messages in the source list and footnotes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I installed it, and it while it does show error messages, it does not tell which sources are not used in the article's text.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Not a problem for GA, but there seems no reason to have just one citation in the lead.
    I belief that is actually part of GA criteria. minus Removed--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
    Struck; is it actually in the criteria? Where do you see it? I've always thought this was optional. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, WP:GACR refers to MOS:LEAD, and MOS:LEADCITE is part of that.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

History

  • The sequence of some of the sentences in the "History" section seems backwards, giving the lineage from today back to Luang Pu Sodh. Wouldn't it make more sense, and be more readable, if this were in chronological order?
I am not sure I can follow. You mean the part on Yogavacara? That is a pre-modern tradition which precedes Luang Pu Sodh Candasaro.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I understand what you mean now.  Fixed--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • When Luang Pu Sodh was given his first position as abbot at Wat Paknam, Dhammakaya meditation has been associated with this temple ever since: "has been" is the wrong tense for "when". Suggest "Dhammakaya meditation has been associated with Wat Paknam since Luang Pu Sodh was given his first position as abbot there".
 Fixed--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Notable Temples

  • but it has also been noted that the relation with Somdet Chuang Varapuñño and Wat Phra Dhammakaya has been good: the reader doesn't know at this point who Somdet Chuang Varapuñño is, and why would we expect him not to have a good relationship with Wat Phra Dhammakayo.
minus Removed--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • In fact the rest of the paragraph seems odd -- why is it notable that the two abbots were close friends? The only mention of problems is "even some dissension", but no details are given and that phrasing implies that the differences were minor. The position of this paragraph implies it's an introduction to the temples, but it seems to be more of a discussion of the nature of the movement and the relationship between the overall movement and the individual temples.
 Fixed Made a new section.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • "Currently" should have an "as of" date.
 Fixed--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The summary of Wat Phra Dhammakaya should be updated with Luang Por Dhammajayo' s current status and the new abbot's name...
     Done--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
    This seems to not be done? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Oops. Hold on.  Fixed--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • ...(which should also be in the lead of the temple article, I would think).
 Done--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • You have both "Wat Rajorasaram" and "Wat Rajorasarama"; presumably they should be consistent.
 Done--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Rama III's renovations of Wat Chomthong were completed in 1831; Rama II died in 1824 but you say he renamed the temple after the renovations were completed.
I misinterpreted the article.  Fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The details about Luang Por Thongdi seem rather undue weight for this article; do they really have anything to do with the movement itself? The change in the status of an abbot in the movement is obviously relevant, but why is it relevant to the movement to quote Thaksin's opinion, or say how many copies of his book were distributed, or give his opinion on the education level of monks?
    This will take some more time. I will be back.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
     Fixed--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 01:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
    I see you've removed the points I commented on, but what's the justification for the whole paragraph? What does it have to do with the Dhammakaya Movement? It could be included in an article about Luang Por Thongdi, or about the council, but why here? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, like you said above, The change in the status of an abbot in the movement is obviously relevant. Luang Por Tongdi was trained in Wat Paknam, and is considered part of the same tradition. That's why the protests were held. I'll try to think about your comment for a while, and see how the link with the tradition can be clarified.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • partly in response to Wat Phra Dhammakaya: in what sense was it a response? Were they trying to gain popularity as Wat Phra Dhammakaya was doing, or was it oppositional?
Oppositional.  Fixed--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 01:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Apart from an Uposatha hall: is there a possible link for "Uposatha hall"?
 Done--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 01:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • As of 2014, the stupa was expected to be finished in two years: can we get an update?
No update yet. Couldn't find any source in Thai or English on Google News about this topic.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 01:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Features

  • has specifically stated not to want to start a new fraternity: a bit clumsy; how about "has specifically said that they do not want to start a new fraternity".
 Done--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 01:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • the biography by Wat Phra Dhammakaya: a temple can't write a book; should this be "published by"? Or can we include the name of the author?
 Fixed--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 01:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • He did, however, often heal people through meditation: we can't say he definitely healed them in this way in Wikipedia's voice; this must be attributed.
 Fixed It is attributed in the sentence preceding it.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 01:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • As of 2007, there was not yet enough evidence to draw any conclusions about the relation between Yogavacara and Dhammakaya: this might be better attributed to the scholar who asserts it.
 Fixed I replaced the entire section by a section from Dhammakaya meditation, which I believe is significantly better written.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 01:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Also, only the compounded and conditioned is not-self—not nirvana: I don't understand this.
 Fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 01:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The article uses both "mae chi" and "maechi"; it should be consistent.
 Fixed per Talk:Maechi#Requested_move_24_April_2015.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 01:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


Footer

  • The fansite should be removed from the external links list, unless it is actually a reliable source by our definition.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed Replaced by archived version of official website, now no longer online.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 01:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

13 February 2018

Mike Christie, thanks for helping to evaluate this article. I think it will require more work than any other article before this, but I will start with it this evening.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

16 February 2018

Awaiting further review.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 01:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Just one point remaining above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and promote; the paragraph about Luang Por Thongdi seems a bit too detailed for my taste, but it's a matter of judgement; the other point I raised has been fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! I will try to make the paragraph more concise. Have done so now.
Meanwhile, any tips for a DYK entry, Mike Christie?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 17:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)17:57, 16 February 2018 (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.

Additional sources

With regard to Ms Sarah Welch's suggestions, I have not been able to access any sources of Potprecha Cholvijarn, should they be sufficiently reliable. Perhaps Ms Sarah would be willing to share a link or a source? My wikimail is accessible. I don't have any complex reasons—I'm not a very complex person. As for the Nitta source, this looks very interesting, but probably more relevant for the Dharmakaya article. Nevertheless, if you can access it, I would be much interested, in case it also mentions the Dhammakaya tradition, or can be used to improve Dharmakaya. Thanks.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

FRT: Thanks. See this link and similar links as well, since some scholars just cite "Cholvijarn (2008)" etc or P. Cholvijarn, or etc. I can't email you copyrighted works in bulk without the appropriate permissions from the author/publisher. I will try to summarize some of these in the next few days/weeks. FWIW, the first one was a University of Bristol thesis on Dhammakaya and includes a review. The rest are secondary works in journals etc. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
(ps) I prefer to avoid university thesis, with some exceptions. If a topic/subject/region has relatively fewer publications, a thesis approved by an academic thesis committee may be better than no source. Another exception is when a thesis has been cited by well known, respected scholars of that topic/field. That makes it notable. I note that this particular article already cited university graduate thesis such as of Cook before my first review and edit. If a thesis has been okay to include before, Cholvijarn's thesis is okay too, particularly given that it has been cited by other scholars. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:20, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
But this is a primary source, Sarah. It was written and published by Dhammakaya Movement#Luang Phor Sodh Dhammakayaram.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:08, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
FRT: You may wish to look deeper into the Seeger's paper I just cited and briefly summarized. It has more on Komontha's views and counter-arguments to Payutto's. Seeger's notes on pariyatti (textual study), patipatti (practice) and pativedha (experience) are quite interesting, given the old, well-known conflict in the Theravada tradition on it. This hermeneutical dispute between the Dhammakaya and Thai sangha maybe worth some reflection, and if appropriate a summary. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Okay, i'll do that. Thanks.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:08, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Which source is primary? url / isbn / title? If you mean the thesis Nibbāna as Self Or Not Self... it was published in 2007 by University of Bristol under the supervision of professor Rupert Gethin, with Paul Williams and Martin Seeger on the review committee. Much of it became a part of another book republished in 2011, under a different title, from Thailand if I recall. But republication neither makes it, nor the earlier work, a primary text by the republisher. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
I found this statement by Gethin, which would give some credence to the self-published book here. I will take a good look at it, as well as Seeger 2009.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC) I couldn't trace the original thesis yet, but it may therefore not be required.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Dhammakaya and traditional Theravada beliefs, NPOV issues

@Farang Rak Tham: Your edit summary states that, "emoving content that does not mention subject, to prevent original research+removing weasel sentence". Please explain, because:

  • This is clearly in the source and significant, "....the teachings of Dhammakaya movement violate those of Theravada Buddhism".[1]
  • This was the weasel part. Who are the "Thai commentators"? What kind of commentators? Scholars? News analysts?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • A comparison of Dhammakaya movement beliefs and Theravada Buddhism beliefs is due, both in what they agree and what they disagree upon. On 'not-self' etc, it is not OR if [a] peer-reviewed scholarly sources state it and we are embedding quotes to verify that, and [b] if we do not do WP:Synthesis by reaching new conclusions. If you allege something is WP:OR, you must identify either what is not in the source, or identify the new conclusions in the article that the sources do not reach. The subject of "article" is indeed Dhammakaya, but if a section has the title of "true self" then we must not forget that sub-subject layer and a summary of the peer-reviewed scholarship on "true self" – "non true/fake self" – and "not-self" – and such, is due from reader's perspective who may not know what all this is about. Else you are suppressing/taking sides, creating NPOV issues.

As I wrote a few days ago in my edit summary, this article is fluffy. You are relying on a Mahayana Buddhist book by Williams' to explain the 'true self' doctrine in a Theravada community, which is fine but this is incomplete. There is much written by Theravada monks and scholars of Buddhist studies on this. We must summarize it.

  • This article is about the Dhammakaya Movement, not about anatman or atman. We can of course include a discussion about orthodoxy, differences and dissension, but we should use sources that deal with the subject, not just any source. Since many scholars from many disciplines have written about the movement, I don't see why you would not use the sources about the subject—lest we stray in OR.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

The black and white Dhammakaya is also important as it ties into the "Mara" mythology and one of the reasons for meditation being important in Dhammakaya. Please see Harvey, p. 390, second para. Yes, this is a bit conflict-prone topic, but we do not shy away from conflicts or censor things, but strive to provide a careful, balanced summary.

  • Sure, but this is challenging material. AFAIK all scholars use Mettanando as their source for the black–white Dhammakaya stories. Mettanando is a former Dhammakaya monk who was interviewed by Fuengfusakul in the early 90s, at a time when he was himself about to leave the temple due to his political pursuits. Mackenzie and other scholars base their information on Fuengfusakul, but do not provide much detail. Also, there is no evidence to show that these beliefs are also held by other temples in the same tradition, so it may not even be a tradition-wide matter.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Another serious problem in this article is the url linking of websites that allow illegal download of copyrighted books. I suggest you remove all of them and use on google books or academic/journal or such sites, in this article and elsewhere in future, if it was you who added them. See the WP:COPYVIOEL Wikipedia policy.

I intend to re-add some of what you removed, and more, to improve this article. I will give you a bit of time to respond to the above, so we can collaboratively address this. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:35, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Tun-jen Cheng; Deborah A. Brown (2015). Religious Organizations and Democratization: Case Studies from Contemporary Asia: Case Studies from Contemporary Asia. Taylor & Francis. pp. 113–114. ISBN 978-1-317-46105-0.
Farang Rak Tham: If Harvey and other scholarly sources discuss black and white dhammakaya, we should summarize it. With "there is no evidence to show that these beliefs are also held by other temples in the same tradition", you seem to be doing OR by mixing in what you believe/feel/know, rather than what the scholarly source is stating. If you find a peer-reviewed source that states "there is no evidence....", we can summarize that as well. If you can't find a source, then it is your OR. Please do not filter scholarly sources based on your own personal views/feelings, as that leads to a POV-y summary. On this "article being about the Dhammakaya Movement", that is true. It is also true that the section in question is about "true self" in Dhammakaya and traditional Theravada context. Further, the "true self" and "false/not-self" discussion therein is with the respect the anatta doctrine. So, all this needs to be there. I will look for more sources that make this clear. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
ps: please order your response chronologically, don't inject them into my comments. It is easier to read and follow. That is our talk page guidelines suggest. Thank you, 23:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
@FRT: See Chapter 2 of this University of Bristol published source. It is clearly Dhammakaya's interpretation of anatta. I am puzzled by your comments, in case you are denying that the 'true-self' etc is not related to the anatta doctrine. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay so reading through this i think its easier if i just summarize my thoughts coherently here if that's okay.

  • For comparison of Theravada and Dhammakaya i think this is difficult to do, namely because Theravada is not a single coherent set of beliefs but a broad sect that encompasses all Buddhist traditions of Southeast asia, its not like your comparing one tradition to another, you're comparing one tradition to every other tradition as if all the other traditions agree, which they don't. In fact i would argue its wrong to even distinguish Dhammakaya from theravada for their teachings on non-self/true self, since Dhammakaya is not the only one that teaches this. Simply pointing out this teaching and highlighting that the bulk of Theravada rejects this (which is what it said before) is fine and due weight. I'd like to point out I'm certainly open to changing the text if other editors disagree, but i dont think we should be putting too much emphasis on the Theravada v Dhammakaya comparisons for the above reasons.
  • I have not been able to find a single source about the black/white teaching that isnt sourced to either Mettanando or Fuengfusakul (who simply got this from an interview with Mettanando), every subsequent scholar i found who discussed this reported it to be from one or the other (meaning literally only from Mettanando) which is why i think it would break WP:QUESTIONABLE to include that, especially considering Mettanando doesn't exactly have a track record of making reliable statements. If you have anything that clearly comes from anywhere but Mettanando, please provide. At best we can include it and point out this fact, but even then i dont think wiki policy is to include such claims. For instance, the featured article on Barack Obama has absolutely no mention of him being accused of being born in Kenya or being a secret Muslim, despite the fact that these were fairly publicized allegations and were peddled by the well known figures like Alex Jones, Jerome Corsi and, for the former claim, even current US president Donald Trump. The fact that an article of featured quality would not include such publicized details, even in a manner that pointed out the poor credibility of the accusations, would be an argument against including this clearly dodgy alleged teaching in this article.
  • As for this short controversy section, which at the time of me writing this currently reads "According to Tun-jen Cheng and Deborah Brown, the teachings of Dhammakaya movement have been denounced by the traditional Thai Buddhist sangha, accompanied by claims that Dhammakaya rejects the official Buddhist doctrine or "distorts the Theravada teachings".[143] It has also been accused of heresy, failure to "follow prescribed discipline and precepts", fraud, as well as financial and sex scandals, state Cheng and Brown.[143]" does not really add any kind of value to the article. Like, what does this even mean? This is extremely vague. For one, per WP:CRIT this should be incorporated throughout the article with perhaps more concrete incidents rather than put into its own section as a vague general statement. Two, The first sentence is already incorporated in the article and the second sentence is just vague allegations, not to mention the fact that if you read almost any critical report on Buddhism in Thailand, Thai Buddhism in general is "accused" of everything in the second sentence. If you literally read any report about a monastic scandal in Thailand reporters will almost always point out that people regularly accuse the Thai Sangha in general of doing financial and sex crimes and not following the "discipline and precepts". That doesnt mean such things shouldnt be mentioned at all in this article, but if so they should be more concrete than vague generalized statements. If you want to include that you should provide these alleged incidents, not general blanket statements. Wikiman5676 (talk) 10:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your input on this, Wikiman5676. I have send notifications to several main contributors, so I am glad at least one person wishes to weigh in. I'd like to add some clarifications of my own:
  • "[T]here is no evidence to show that these beliefs are also held by other temples in the same tradition" simply means that the small number of sources that do discuss black–white Dhammakaya ideology do so with reference to Wat Phra Dhammakaya. They don't mention Wat Paknam Bhasicharoen, or the other temples in the tradition. Since this article deals with the movement in its entirety, it is important to recognize this.
  • Of course all sources agree that the movement teaches a true self, and many of them mention that this is unorthodox. But we cannot just start adding sources about the topic of true self that do not mention a connection with the movement. There is no way to prove that content about not-self in Buddhism can be related to the movement, if the sources do not make such a connection. This is "no synthesis" policy 101.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:03, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
@Wikiman5676: Do you have any peer-reviewed/scholarly sources? for example, for the Mettanando/etc, along with scholarly criticism of Mettanando/etc? If so, please provide page numbers and the source(s). If not, this is your POV/OR, we must disregard/ignore it, and we must stick with the published sources for this article. On WP:CRIT, it would indeed be best to integrate that theme throughout the article, with care to cover all sides. Once again, you claiming "vague allegations" is not very helpful, but if you provide quality non-WP:QUESTIONABLE sources that call those statements in the RS as "vague" or challenge it or whatever, we can and should integrate that in too for NPOV. If multiple publications are discussing "claims of fraud, prosecution, etc" for Dhammakaya, we should not censor these sources, rather we should summarize all sides. For the record, as I sense you know, we do not judge nor take sides, we explain the sides. I feel you are trying to say the same thing. Can you bring quality sources from all side and summarize them? I would welcome such an effort from you and other talk page watchers, as that would improve this somewhat fluffy article. I await quality sources with page numbers to check and collaborate with you.
FRT: Please do clarify those differences between the different temples citing peer-reviewed sources, e.g. the Mara-mythology and black/white Dhammakaya. Harvey's Cambridge University Press publication, as I noted earlier, mentions this on p. 390 and Harvey is RS (and already cited in this article). He does say, "some in WPD subscribe..." if I recall, and therefore we need to be careful in our choice of words. On anatta, I am fine if we limit ourselves to sources that discuss true-self / fake-self / not-self / not not-self / etc in the context of Dhammakaya. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Greetings @Ms Sarah Welch:, the policy on reliable sources does not require that reliable sources explicitly point out a particular source or statement as unreliable to be considered unreliable, WP:NOTRELIABLE, so i dont think my points above would constitute WP:OR. That is also an unreasonable benchmark since you cant expect reliable sources to say something about every unreliable source, especially on topics that are a bit more obscure. That said, I should mention I actually opened a discussion on Mettanando quite a while ago (apologies, i realize i should've mentioned this the first time around) and he was deemed not reliable via WP:CONSENSUS, which can be found here Talk:Wat Phra Dhammakaya/Archive 1#Reliable Source Discussion (a link to the actual Reliable Source Noticeboard is linked in the body). Granted not very many people weighed in at the time, but I have brought this up on subsequent occasions to other editors and asked for thier input and they never challenged the consensus. If you would like to weigh in on that discussion you are more than welcome to of course. Anyways, i want to make clear that what i mean is vague statements lower the quality of the article and leave readers with a sense wanting, which is not constructive. Plus those particular vague statements are just general accusations that were circulated if you read the source and would essentially constitute rumors, and in fact, they are contradicted in other sources, for instance in HEIKKILA-HORN, MARJA-LEENA (1996). "Two Paths to Revivalism in Thai Buddhism" page 95, states "Not a single Dhammakaya monk has been involved in a sex, gambling or other scandal – again, contrary to the mainstream, where these types of scandals are quite common, and well publicised in the press.". I downloaded the paper a while ago and do not remember how to get it. Please give me some time to try and find where to get it. It is on my computer and I can send/upload the pdf somewhere as well (not sure about the technicalities and wiki policy on non-online electronic copy sources) as proof that it says this. As for the alleged financial scandals, Wat Phra Dhammakaya and the Dhammakaya Movement are not the same thing as FRT pointed out and as is written in the nomenclature section and the financial scandals truly are unique to Wat Phra Dhammakaya and not the tradition as a whole. And these details are already explained in the Wat Phra Dhammakaya and History of Wat Phra Dhammakaya pages. Arnaud Dubus, someone fairly critical of Wat Phra Dhammakaya, makes this distinction, in Buddhism and Politics in Thailand page 9, footnote 6 which points out that WPD is "Not to be confused with the Vijja Dhammakaya Meditation Institute opened in 1982 in Ratchaburi province. Although it shares its origin with the Pathumthani Dhammakaya Temple, i.e. the Pak Nam Phasi Charoen temple in Thonburi, unlike the Pathumthani temple, the Institute has never been involved in controversy.". Since this is about the Dhammakaya Movement and not the temple in Pathum Thani, it is important to keep this distinction in mind when adding material. The Vijja Dhammakaya Meditation Institute (another name for Wat LP Sodh Dhammakayaram i believe), also identifies with the Dhammakaya Movement but these allegations of financial scandals don't apply to them or really any of the other temples that follow in the tradition besides WPD. Wikiman5676 (talk) 07:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I found the source of the HEIKKILA-HORN paper, it was sent to me by a friend who contacted the institute https://www.utu.fi/en. Try emailing petolo@utu.fi for the paper. Wikiman5676 (talk) 08:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
@Wikiman5676: Please spare the wikipedia community and me from the forum-y lectures and wikilawyering if you can't find a published peer-reviewed source that supports either of your two-part personal POV/wisdom/prejudice/allegations that "this [black/white-Dhammakaya etc] view is exclusively/predominantly of X, and X is an unreliable source". We must rely on and summarize what the RS state, not what they do not. Thank you for specific Dubus etc source with page number. Dubus is confirming the notability of WPD, but your quote from page 9 footnote 6 just confirms the shared origin and that the Institute is not involved in the controversy. But then, this article is not about that Institute. We too can mention a ref note like Dubus does, to clarify. However, the phrase "Dhammakaya movement" isn't in Dubus source, and we must respect FRT's sentiment that we avoid WP:Synthesis. The source must state the conclusion(s) you apparently have. So this and similar sources are not useful here. Can you provide us with publication details such as those in WP:CITEHOW for books/journals/etc or url link for the HEIKKILA-HORN (2016) source and any others relevant here? or is it the same as the 2015 one cited in this article? You can alternatively post relevant quotes on this talk page, if you wish, so everyone can read and reflect... but do include the title/publisher/isbn/doi/etc details of that source to help establish peer-review. I will look into all this more and see what and how we can weave in all the sides. I hope to get this done later this week or next. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
If Harvey says ""some in WPD subscribe...", it does not say anything about the other temples in this article. Please note that there are separate articles about Wat Phra Dhammakaya and Wat Paknam Bhasicharoen: the current article is about what connects these and other temples. The teachings about true self are held by all temples, as pointed out by Williams 2009 as cited and quoted in the article here: Luang Por Sermchai is not a Wat Phra Dhammakaya monk, but a monk from Luang Phor Sodh Dhammakayaram, which is another temple in the same tradition. It could be that the teachings about the black and white Dhammakāyas are also held by other temples, but the fact remains that we do not know that, so we cannot discuss it in this tradition-wide article. If RS mention clearly that other temples apart from WPD do hold or do not hold such beliefs, we could draw up a comparison. As i see it now, however, it is material for Wat Phra Dhammakaya, not for this article here.
Apart from what Dubus and Heillika-Hoern say, the allegations are already mentioned in the section on Dhammakaya Movement#Wat Phra Dhammakaya, and since they are not tradition-wide phenomena (they are quite specific to Wat Phra Dhammakaya), they are, again, material for Wat Phra Dhammakaya, not this article.
For the distinction between the Dhammakaya Movement and Wat Phra Dhammakaya, also see discussions above: #It seems the discussion is heading off the route., #Update to Citations and #This article has no clear scope.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
FRT: I urge you to take another look at many of the sources you have cited in this article on meditation etc.... Williams, Harvey, Scott, Newell, Seeger, etc. Check their context. Are these sources most often discussing and presenting a specific temple's view, or presenting the Dhammakaya movement's view? For example, are we presenting or implying [Luang Por, venerable father] Sermchai's view on anatta-nibbana as that of Dhammakaya movement? I, for one, am fine with an approach that you have somewhat used already where specific teacher's or temple's view is included, assuming we more clearly identify the temple and and the teacher. But it feels like you are now making an artificial screen, one inconsistently applied. Let us check all the sources again and reflect on this a bit. Per our content policies and for a comprehensive encyclopedic article, each temple's notable views, particularly the most cited ones in peer-reviewed scholarship, along with what they agree and disagree on, belongs in this article. We just need to attribute and clarify, with care. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
@Ms Welch. You are correct that some sources do indeed lump DM and WPD together. However there are also sources that make a distinction between them. When RS contradict we are to use WP:CONSENSUS. please view the relavent talk page discussions. If we lump wpd and DM together. What's the point of even having the pages on wat paknam and wat phra dhammakaya? Wikiman5676 (talk) 16:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
A record of the Horn piece can be found here [3] Wikiman5676 (talk) 17:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I think many of the sources you mention describe multiple temples, as opposed to one temple, Ms Sarah Welch. Newell is even quoted as such in the section #Nomenclature.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikiman5676: Your generic comments are neither constructive nor helpful. Which RS are contradicting what? please provide specific page numbers of the whatever sources you consider contradicting. Multiple articles are okay, per WP:SPINOFF where this article provides a summary style coverage, but we must avoid WP:CFORK. Please do not remove sourced content, simply because you personally disagree or find the scholarly publication's choice of word to be "weasel" or whatever, as this comes across as OR or POV-pushing despite what the peer-reviewed sources are stating. If you can find an alternate source that presents a different side/view, we can certainly include that side too for NPOV, as I noted above. Thank you.
FRT: Before I proceed with more review and revisions, I have a question for you. Why no mention of Potprecha Cholvijarn's review and publications on Dhammakaya in this article? Williams, Harvey, etc cite Cholvijarn's scholarship on Dhammakaya. Is this because you didn't have access to the sources, or you had a other more complex reasons? Similarly, Tomomichi Nitta (2002) has discussed the history of term "Dhammakaya" in Pali/Theravada Buddhism in a paper published in the Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies, Volume 51, No. 1, pp. 45-47. We make no mention of it. Any thoughts? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Ms Sarah Welch, I will do my best to be more concise. Basically my main objections are your proposed changes go against the consensus held here [4] and here [5] also take a look at the following discussions [6] [7]. If the consensus is challenged or there is consensus that these do not apply to your changes i will fold and not war with you of course. Anyways, the controversies you added earlier are already detailed in the Wat Phra Dhammakaya or History of Wat Phra Dhammakaya pages. It is pointed out by Newell on pages 15-16 that there is a broader tradition that follows Luang Pu Sodh Candasaro, so why add the controversies again here? Lastly, I think its hardly controversial that "heretical" would be seen as a loaded term, especially to put in a lead, heretic is even used as an example of a contentious word in WP:LABEL. You are correct that this is allowed if reliable sources widely used this term, but so far I have only seen this used by P.A. Payutto. If you have seen other scholars say this feel free to provide the scholars and page numbers. While P.A. Payutto is an esteemed scholar that is hardly justification for using that term in the article, let alone in the lead. Wikiman5676 (talk) 03:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
I'd also like to point out that multiple does not mean widely. Wikiman5676 (talk) 05:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Wikiman5676: Those past talk page discussion primarily by you does not overrule what the scholarly sources are stating. Just because you alone or 2 or 2+ (uninformed) editors concur on a talk page to suspend NPOV / verifiability / other core content policies or guidelines of wikipedia, that does not mean that is a "consensus" or a valid one. Such wikilawyering, if accompanied with edit warring / tag-bombing / disruption, that generally need and leads to noticeboards and admin review. You are obviously wrong that only Payutto states this, and you last one line comment suggests you might be aware that multiple sources state this. Do read the cited sources in the main article. "Multiple" is not "widely" etc is unconstructive, as once again you are not offering any scholarly sources with page numbers with counterviews, but offering your personally held wisdom/prejudice/views to stonewall. I urge you again to avoid FORUM-y lectures, instead please do cite peer-reviewed published sources with your comments. Then we can collaborate more productively and efficiently. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Ms Welch: There is no need to go around insulting me and the other editors or trying to accuse me of hidden motives like secretly knowing there are others who say heretic. I'm just trying to present my case. I have no problem with neutral material being added to improve the article. Again You've still not addressed my point of why include the controversies on WPD (which, again, are already detailed on the other pages) on this page when this is about the broader tradition. I in fact do not know of any sources besides PA Payutto that says this. I do know that multiple scholars do mention that PA Payutto said this. This is what I meant by multiple is not widely. If Pat Robertson calls Catholicism a "cult" and multiple RS point out that he said this, that is not something you put on the Catholicism page you put it on the Pat Robertson page. "Heretical" very clearly falls under WP:LABEL. Since you want to add the word the burden is on you to provide the sources and page numbers. Wikiman5676 (talk) 17:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Just for the record I will be on vacation from the 13-16th with little to no Internet access. So that is the explanation for my silence on this active discussion for the next few days. I hope we can reach a good and agreeable conclusion. Wikiman5676 (talk) 05:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikiman5676: Those multiple souces were already cited in the article, with page numbers, before you added the tag. Have you read them? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Ms Welch, forgive me, I did not read them last week as I was too busy preparing for my holiday to dig deeper into the issue, I was relying on what I read in works previously to make my points. I have read them now and see that, while PA Payutto is still mainly cited, there are others. I think that is sufficient to include it in the body, but nonetheless I still oppose including an obvious WP:LABEL in the lead. Anyways, while i do disagree with the addition of the black/white myth for reasons I have already stated above, I'll be courteous and not remove it while we are still discussing. I also think that if we were to include this it should be on the WPD page instead, since the sources do say WPD specifically. It also makes little sense for a myth that involves WPD's abbot specifically being an alleged messiah to be believed by the broader tradition, and before you accuse me of WP:OR that policy is about articles not talk page discussions. I've also made some changes which you can see in the edit summary for my reasoning. I thought how you added that was rather confusing. for instance "Some in the Dhammakaya movement believe in the mythical ongoing cosmic struggle between the "Black Dhammakāya" and the "White Dhammakāya", the former reflecting the evil Mara and the latter as the "good realm"." made absolutely no sense to me, i didnt understand what was meant by "good realm" until i read the source personally. Wikiman5676 (talk) 02:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Heresy

FRT: Here are some definitions of heresy:

  • Cambridge English Dictionary, Cambridge University Press: [1] opposite to or against the official or popular opinion, or showing no respect for the official opinion; [2] (of a belief) against the principles of a particular religion.
  • Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford University Press: [1] (of a religious belief or opinion) against the principles of a particular religion; [2] (of a belief or opinion) disagreeing strongly with what most people believe.

I read your edit comment, but I respectfully disagree. Let us just stick with the RS on this, per our content guidelines. If numerous scholarly sources use the word "heretical" or "heresy" in Dhammakaya movement context, so should we. I have already cited many and embedded enough quotes. There should be no need for WP:CITEKILL. Please feel free to take this to any noticeboard if you wish. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

There is no consensus for the inclusion of the word heretical in the lead of the article, as Wikiman5676 and me are both opposed. Furthermore, you are making a straw man argument against me. I have not denied the usage of the word heretical in reliable sources, but in editing in an encyclopedic tone, it is not always required—and often ill-advised—to use exactly the same terms as used in the secondary sources you are citing from. The word heretical is a text book example of WTW, as it is specifically mentioned in this policy as an example, and it can easily be replaced with a more helpful description. With regard to the responses of Thai scholars and state institutions, my description of "going against the tenets of Theravāda Buddhism" is a correct summary of the sources cited, and there is no iota in it of original research. As said, there is no consensus for the usage of this term in this article, and if you still insist on going against consensus for a third time, your editing can be considered disruptive editing. I need not remind you that you have been blocked for a long time before, so I think we are both better off if we discuss things first before forcing our opinion through.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:01, 16 December 2018 (UTC)--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC) Edited.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 17:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
@Farang Rak Tham: Instead of providing me any RS to support the "not heretical" POV, you are stonewalling and reminding of a block that was reviewed and reversed by ARBCOM. You are being unfair and disruptive. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
'Heretical' is in quotes with regard to Thai religious authorities, but it seems to be that this is the source's interpretations of their statements rather than a direct translation. Heresy is a freighted word in English and I'm not sure if there is a direct correlate in Thai. Older translations of the Pali texts use it to translate words that are now more likely to be translated as 'dispute', 'controversy', or other, more neutral terms. I think it can be a little misleading to apply a term with a specific meaning in Western theology to a dispute from another tradition. Unless 'heretical' is a direct quotation from an official statement by the religious hierarchy, it seems like it's more NPOV to simply quote the statements made by Payutto and others who presumably speak for Thai Theravada orthodoxy, rather than offer an interpretation with very specific connotations in English theology. --Spasemunki (talk) 02:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
It seems FRT is confused that "consensus is all that matters, to hell with our core content policies", when "consensus within core content policies/guidelines" is what we must strive for in a collaborative spirit. "Heresy", "heretical" is the word used in 5 scholarly sources cited in this article, yes, in the context of Dhammakaya movement's views on anatta. Dhammakaya's views and traditional Theravada Buddhism literature/history are indeed opposed, and why the arguments of the two sides have been notably intense. I have already embedded quotes from several of these scholarly sources, to ease verification (just look at my edit diffs). With some words or the other, to keep Wikipedia honest, we need to state this. We must summarize what mainstream high quality, peer-reviewed, scholarly sources published by some of the most well known Buddhist Studies scholars are stating. My interest here is not to shove a particular word in this article, but to reflect what these sources are stating. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
@Spasemunki: What do you mean by "indirect quotation"? The cited sources are stating "heretical teachings and practices" or "heretical...." or equivalent. FWIW, if you study the choice of words in my older edits, you will see that I preferred "alleged", rather than what it is now. If you study the scholarly publications on this, "opposed to Theravada" better reflects the situation here, rather than "departures from..." as the latter can be (mis)understood as possibly "similar but some minor differences". There is extensive scholarly literature on anatta and nirvana doctrines if you have the interest. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:39, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
From my reading it previously gave the impression that the Thai sources were directly using the word 'heretical', rather than that being the term used by other authors to summarize their critique. I think that distinction is significant given this particular term. I reworded slightly- my intention isn't to minimize the disagreement. --Spasemunki (talk) 04:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Ms Welch, WP:LABEL policy clearly states that contentious labels (like heretical, which is an actual example used) "are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution". So the idea that policy supersedes consensus in this case and requires we include heretical in the body or lead is ridiculous. Wikiman5676 (talk) 06:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikiman5676: The WP:LABEL states,

Quote: "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization (...) unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution."

If you can't understand such simple English, you have WP:CIR issues. As I wrote above, we will summarize this "heretic / opposite / against the Theravada opinion" in some form, with due care, because numerous reliable sources state so and because our content guidelines / best practices suggest we do while relying on these RS (see WP:COMPREHENSIVE, WP:CENSOR, etc). For more, read all my comments above. @Spasemunki: After checking the sources, I have reworded it a bit to clarify and not minimize that disagreement. My most favored version would be to quote exact with attribution, accompanied by clarifying language. I will also accept an alternate version that fairly summarizes the disagreement between the two sides in different words, yet reflect the scholarly publications. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

For the Second time Ms Welch. There is no need to go around insulting me or the other editors. Please do not use personal attacks such as calling other editors ill-informed or incompetent. The point i was making in regards to "unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution" is that
1. Widely used does not just mean multiple, we should get consensus if its is indeed "widely" used since it is a clear instance of a contentious label. and
2. Your repeat attempts to include "heretical" in the lead and the inclusions in the body were not even in-text attributions. Wikiman5676 (talk) 05:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC) edit Wikiman5676 (talk) 05:20, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't see what it would add to have heretical in the lead. I think the lead is a correct summary as it is now. Why continue this controversial debate when it is not required content-wise.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Wikiman5676: It was attributed to Thai Theravada monastic officials. If you insist, I am open to alternate wording. Once again "widely" is in reference to the WP:RS, and I have already cited five scholarly sources... you may want to check with dispute resolution noticeboard(s) if that suffices! FRT: I am okay with not having the word 'heretical' in the lead if and only if, per NPOV and other content guidelines, we summarize with equivalent words their serious disagreement / dispute about the anatta doctrine in the lead and explain it in the main. We must reflect what the multiple RS are stating. The recent updates to this article have improved this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, Sarah.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:11, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Merit-making, donations etc content

Wikiman5676: I am surprised by your mass delete and edit summary? Have you read the cited scholarly sources? Falk is explicitly stating "the Dhammakaya movement", not a specific temple! Wat Paknam is indeed mentioned in the source too. Please explain. Further, much of this article relies on sources that discuss a particular temple. That is okay if attributed because summary-style is encouraged per our content policies. The merit-making and donations section is okay too in the same format, and necessary for completeness and NPOV. Let us discuss your concerns. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Ms Welch: yes it is correct that Falk says Dhammakaya Movement, but as Newell points out and is mentioned in the Nomenclature section some scholars use Dhammakaya Movement and Wat Phra Dhammakaya Movement interchangably. What is the point of using them interchangeably on this article? The only reason this article exists is to represent the broader tradition, otherwise we should just merge it with the page on Wat Phra Dhammakaya Talk:Wat Phra Dhammakaya/Archive 1#Merger. This page is called the Dhammakaya Movement because there is truly a lack of a better term as scholars do not agree on an English term for the broader tradition, even when they acknowledge it exists. If a source is clearly talking about Wat Phra Dhammakaya we should make sure to include it there and not here or its going to create confusion. The mentions of specific temples in other parts of the page are far more sporadic than your edits. You are including a whole section that is clearly about Wat Phra Dhammakaya specifically. The one mention of Luang Pu Sodh is WP:OR as Newell is just pointing out a historical fact without making any kind of link between Luang Pu Sodh and the practices at Wat Phra Dhammakaya as you are in that section. That bit on Luang Pu sodh was also not included in the edit I undid earlier anyways [8]. Also, the mention of the sun miracle is being attributed to Wat Paknam when its an event that actually involved Wat Phra Dhammakaya. So its very clear the source is being falsely represented. If it is something unique to WPD, it should be mentioned there.
On a side note, please stop adding that bit on Mackenzie saying "some followers find it hard not to believe...". This is not what the source is saying. If you read page 61. Mackenzie is expressing his opinion, not quoting followers. I am going to undo some of your edits once again. I respectfully ask that you please carefully reread the sources you cited, specifically Mackenzie page 61 and Scott pages 2-3, as how they are summarized in your edits are not accurate. If you still dispute this we can ask for arbitrators or a third opinion to help us resolve this as the sources are publicly available for other editors to read as well. Wikiman5676 (talk) 05:18, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
PS If you decide to undo my edits I will not revert it again as we go for a third opinion/arbitration as this would create an unnecessary edit war. But I encourage you to carefully reread the sources you cited before doing so again. Wikiman5676 (talk) 05:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Comment: the sentence inserted here ("Some of the movement's followers 'find it hard to believe that they would not believe that their leader is an Avatara'") isn't correct English.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
FRT: I am trying to avoid dispute and edit warring by using exact quote from the source. That is why it is in "quotes". Feel free to reword it to something better rather than a direct quote. Wikiman5676: What you removed is actually in the context of Dhammakaya movement, while some of it is illustrative temple specific indeed. But then, as I mentioned above, many of the claims FRT / you previously have made or retained in this article about magic etc in the lead and main sections (e.g. "The movement opposes traditional magical rituals, superstition, fortune telling, and other folk religious practices"), before my first edit, are also temple specific, or more accurately in some cases "specific to a temple and an individual from that temple only". You never objected to it or deleted it. Many sections in this article continue to be based on much temple-specific content. This use of double standards by you is not okay. I think the article needs both the generic and the specific examples to be a good quality article. As to the rest... mass revert such as this by you is disruptive censorship / POV-pushing that ignores what peer-reviewed scholarly sources are stating. You allege OR. It isn't because it is in the Newell source, a source that this article has extensively used before my first edit. We can exact quote the source, if you prefer, as a compromise. I am open to other suggestions. I welcome you to reflect on this and collaborate with me to develop the fundraising section for this article. I also welcome you to bring additional scholarly sources for it or other sections. No stonewalling, please. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:06, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
FRT: Do you have access to and have you read the Ruangsan's 2015 publication on Vijjādhammakāya from the University of Sydney? It is a secondary source that studies and critically reviews five texts on merit-making that were written during Luang Pu Sodh Candasaro's lifetime from the Dhammakaya movement context. It is quite long – about 590 pages exclusive of its glossary. I would like to include a few sentences summary of the notable parts. Any suggestions or concerns? I welcome you to take the initiative if you have access to it and the Dhammakaya-related literature it cites (see the very end of it). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:11, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Ms Welch, the extensive use of direct quoting is hardly helping the article either, and the magical rituals is at least mentioned by multiple specific temples. Again, your mention of the sun miracle in the fundraising section is implicating Wat Paknam when it was an event that involved Wat Phra Dhammakaya, Luang Pho Sodh of Wat Paknam is a person. Scott is clearly talking about WPD here. Wikiman5676 (talk) 18:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Wikiman5676: One way to address your concerns/allegations of OR is to use a direct quote. On Scott etc, summary style content related to each temple is okay and per our content guidelines. It is also consistent with FRT/your extensive use of the same pages, the same context and the same sources (Scott's etc) in this article before my first edit and so far. NPOV is our core policy. The "of Wat Paknam" mention is again an exact quote from the source. Luang Pho Sodh was the founder of this movement and amulets produced in his leadership for fundraising were in the Dhammakaya movement context, per the Newell source. Please see the illustration on page 97 and associated discussion on pages nearby as well as elsewhere such as pages 84–95 starting with "Its construction was funded by the production of amulets, a common method of financing major temple building projects", etc. Frankly, your continued frivolous objections suggest you have not carefully read the sources and you may be WP:NOTHERE. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:47, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
If it wasn't clear by now, I agree with Wikiman5676 that modern fundraising methods and the criticism that accompanies that is not found in other temples in the movement. Per BURDEN, it is the editor that inserts such content in this article, that must prove otherwise. Otherwise, the content with regard to fundraising should be added to the subsection on Wat Phra Dhammakaya, where I believe it is undue by now, since it is already covered there extensively. A separate section would imply it is a movement-wide phenomenon, which it is not. Amulets were distributed by Luang Pu Sodh/Wat Paknam in the early 20th century, but there were no accusations that this was commercial or capitalist fundraising. I haven't seen any source saying otherwise.
I also like to point out here that though general edits on basic information can be made by everyone of course, to make very specific edition decisions with regard to this subject matter, including what belongs in this article and what belongs in Wat Phra Dhammakaya, may require some basic knowledge about Thai society. If you want to edit this article extensively, as Sarah is apparently attempting to, Thai sources and language skills are a requirement, per WP:Competence is required.
Ruangsan's source was rejected on the basis of copyright concerns, see Talk:Dhammakaya meditation#Plagiarism?. Take it up with the sysop Diannaa if you want to challenge that decision.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:14, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
FRT: We rely on WP:RSUE sources in en-wikipedia. Competence in non-English languages is not required to edit en-wikipedia... if you allege otherwise, perhaps we should have a discussion on an appropriate noticeboard. I have met BURDEN by citing multiple scholarly sources. These have included new scholarly publications, as well the same sources, the same pages, the same temple-specific context that you had extensively used before my first edit. As I wrote weeks ago, this article was fluffy, i.e. weak, one-sided. The article has recently improved as you agree above. So, I do not understand your objection. Let us start with your allegation "if you want to edit this article extensively, as Sarah is apparently attempting to, Thai sources and language skills are a requirement, per WP:Competence is required" at an appropriate noticeboard... because it reflects a part of your misunderstanding and mindset in en-wikipedia. Ms Sarah Welch (talk)
[ps] I concur with Diannaa's, JimRenge's, Joshua Jonathan's call in 2016 on the Ruangsan publication. We haven't cited it so far, let us avoid it. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:48, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Ms Welch, I did read the sources, I was talking about your edits before they were changed, which indeed falsely implicated Wat Paknam [9] in something that was actually about WPD. They have since been corrected [10] so clearly I wasn't being frivolous in my objection. The section certainly seems to reflect the sources accurately now, but i still think the section doesn't belong as the mention of Luang Pu Sot's common practice of selling amulets is not linked to the more controversial fundraising methods of WPD, which is what the entire rest of the section is about. This should be just incorporated into the existing fundraising section on that page (although its already quite extensive at this point). Wikiman5676 (talk) 22:45, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikiman5676: I am delighted to learn that you now consider the "section certainly seems to reflect the sources accurately now". The role of amulets with magical powers in the Dhammakaya has been significant and is much discussed in multiple scholarly publications. WPD is the largest, most discussed temple. The article presently summarizes the significant pre-WPD and WPD amulet-related practices in a summary-style from multiple scholarly sources. We can't censor this, and we need this for NPOV. I welcome summary from additional RS. For example, I will welcome a summary from additional scholarly sources about different fundraising methods by one or more non-WPD temple(s), if we can find such RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:20, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Ms Welch, that entire section on page 95-96 is just about amulets with a brief mention of using them to raise funds (which Newell states is common anyways). There is no link stated in the source between that event and the controversial fundraising practices of Wat Phra Dhammakaya that this section makes up. Again, the difference between the mention of magical rituals and this is that multiple specific temples are mentioned. There is no reason to have another, fairly large, section on Wat Phra Dhammakaya's fundraising practices when there is an existing page on Wat Phra Dhammakaya that already has a section on this. This is a redundant WP:CONTENTFORK. Unless you can provide a RS that mentions these fundraising practices at a Dhammakaya Movement temple besides Wat Phra Dhammakaya, I just see no point in keeping this section on this page. Wikiman5676 (talk) 05:47, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Wikiman5676: That is either a misunderstanding or a misrepresentation of the Newell source. The magical amulets-based fundraising under Dhammakaya-founder Sodh's leadership is stated to be in Dhammakaya-context, and not stated to be related to Wat Phra Dhammakaya-context by the Newell source. We need the fundraising section for NPOV and because it has been a notable aspect covered in numerous scholarly sources. I suggest you reread the source. FRT: I have invited you to add summary-style content on alternate fundraising methods in use by other temples from any RS, I have not agreed to censorship nor have I agreed to NPOV policy violation. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:57, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Ms Welch: I am not trying to censor anything. please listen, we can include the amulet selling. but theres no link between that and the fundraising controversies of WPD. Its redundant to include a section on WPD on this page when there is another page that already has a fundraising section about WPD. We should stick to talking about the broader tradition and practices among multiple temples within the tradition here, not make a whole section about one temple's practices that already exists on that temple's page. Wikiman5676 (talk) 06:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Wikiman5676. And I don't see why making criticism specific would be a form of censorship.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:43, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
See below, particularly the "before WPD was founded" part. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:03, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Content redistribution

FRT: your so-called "consensus" views cannot overrule the community-wide consensus on NPOV being our core content policy. Why remove and redistribute the Sodh's fundraising-related content and related scholarly sources? That is not WPD-related, since these are pre-1970 and WPD emerged in the 1970s. Further, merit-making is an important practice in the Dhammakaya movement, and the Theravada Buddhism in general. This article needs a summary of this practice. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:28, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikiman5676 and me both agree that the modern fundraising practices and its criticism are a characteristic of Wat Phra Dhammakaya, and that the criticism did not involve practices of Wat Paknam Bhasicharoen, not Luang Por Sodh Dhammakayaram or Wat Rajoros. Perhaps you should review the article about Wat Paknam, or the sections on the other temples, to convince you that they are quite different temples. The criticism with regard to Wat Phra Dhammakaya involves many issues, of which the tradition of amulets is only one thing. E.g. Wat Paknam does not do modern fundraising a la Wat Phra Dhammakaya involving modern pr, a satellite channel, modern well-run websites, and person-to-person benefit-focused fundraising which has been compared by some fierce critics to direct-sales.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:46, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
It should be noted, however, that I have preserved 95% of your edits. I just moved the contents.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:47, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
FRT: It does not matter to en-wikipedia what you or Wikiman5676 or I feel are characteristic of Wat Phra Dhammakaya. According to the community-agreed content guidelines, this article needs to summarize mainstream scholarship. You can neither censor, nor create an NPOV-violating propaganda/advocacy spin in favor of Dhammakaya movement or a particular Dhammakaya temple. Perhaps you can write your own blog somewhere if you feel Sodh or Wat Paknam never produced and sold amulets etc for fundraising / merit making if you so desire, but that is simply not what the scholarly sources such as Newell are stating. We must include this for NPOV. You both having a consensus to censor, or misrepresent sources, or suppress the historic fundraising / merit-making practices of Dhammakaya movement – before Wat Phra Dhammakaya was founded – is simply unacceptable because that violates en-wikipedia's content guidelines. Yes, if you can find RS that describe what you feel are different recent practices of Wat Paknam Bhasicharoen, Wat Rajoros, etc... I would welcome a summary from those RS because that will further improve this article. I am delighted that Wikiman5676 agrees above that one of my more recent versions is an accurate summary of the RS, and you are now willing to accept 95% of my edits. We are making progress. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:48, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
You can neither censor For the record, I repeat that I have not censored Sarah's edits. I have preserved them, but just reorganized the content in different sections than Sarah did.
It is widely covered in reliable sources that criticism toward Wat Phra Dhammakaya was unique to this temple. Though Scott describes criticism to Thai monastics and temples before the 90s, that involved mostly suspicions toward left-wing thinking monks like Buddhadasa, who were regarded as communists. Amulets are made by nearly all temples in Thailand, and are a centuries-old tradition, as Stanley Jeyaraja Tambiah's groundbreaking work on amulets has shown. As Scott has covered in the early chapters of her book, an investigation by a government-established committee was held with regard to Wat Phra Dhammakaya's fundraising practices in 1997, after which a monastic investigation took over in 1998. This eventually resulted in five directives given to the temple, which the government felt was insufficient. The government then charged the temple with five accusations. These are the facts described by Mackenzie (and not, as you spelled it, MacKenzie), Scott and other scholars. Dhammakaya's fundraising practices that were criticized at the time (and still are, though less now) involved marketing and requesting donations that was deemed aggressive. Amulets were part of that, but that is not what made the temple stand out, as amulets are produced and distributed by nearly all temples in Thailand.
If you want to write that all temples mentioned in this article had aggressive fundraising, the burden to prove so is on you, not me, per WP:BURDEN.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:40, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
My invitation to include "different recent practices of Wat Paknam Bhasicharoen, Wat Rajoros, etc" remains open. I have met WP:BURDEN for the content I added, which I am glad you do not wish to censor any more (unlike previous mass delete). I will continue to improve this and other related SE Asia space articles. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:03, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Just because I do not modify every edit of yours, doesn't mean I agree with them. If you want to add information to an article on a particular topic, it is your responsibility to show its relevance to that topic. You have not shown any evidence that the other temples in the Dhammakaya movement apart from Wat Phra Dhammakaya were criticized for their fundraising practices.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Its not censorship because it is already covered on the WPD page, as it should because it is specific to that temple. Unless you provide RS that cover the fundraising practices at other temples there's no reason to put it here. You are challenging us to include the different practices because these are non-existent, RS have not covered the other temples' fundraising because they are insignificant and standard. Wikiman5676 (talk) 18:53, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
fundraising practices To be precise, Wikiman5676, Sarah did cover some fundraising practices of other temples, but she did not prove they were criticized or were a source of controversy. Sarah is trying to write a separate section with regard to the entire movement about its fundraising and the criticism and controversy this led to, but there is no evidence of this: the only evidence is that Wat Phra Dhammakaya was criticized for its fundraising practices. To push this content through without any attempt to find evidence to support it, at best shows misjudgment, at worst shows lack of respect for policy and guidelines.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Read what I added again. I just summarized the sources. The pre-WPD discussion was with quote. Joshua Jonathan too split the section, just like I did. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Mackenzie

Ms Welch, your edit here [11] is misrepresenting the source. The statement "Mackenzie quotes meeting Choompolpaisal who denied that this is an "insider's understanding", and quotes meeting followers who believed "their leader is an Avatara [reincarnation of the Buddha]". Mackenzie concludes the adherents at the temple may have many "insider understandings".[184]" is grossly misleading. Once again, this is not accurately depicting the source. Mackenzie says on page 61 "I [Mackenzie] have also met members who look to experience the miraculous at the temple and find it hard to believe that they would not believe that their leader is an Avatara." Please stop edit warring with me over this, this is rather WP:TENDENTIOUS. I have explained repeatedly that this is misrepresenting what the source is saying. Wikiman5676 (talk) 19:01, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree that Sarah's edits often do not follow the sources.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
FRT: Please be careful with your "often" allegation, as it is against wikipedia policy to cast aspersions without evidence. Please do include edit diffs when you are casting aspersions against anyone including me. In this case, you are wrong. I forgive you again WP:AGF. Here is the history with edit diff: I had added the exact quote (see Magic, Rituals" section of that edit). You, FRT, complained of "bad English" in that exact quote from source and then removed the quote stating "removing sentence with poor English, no idea what you intend to say here+ Fixing style/layout errors"! I reworded it. It is FRT who then added it back. FRT, you could have reworded it if you had any serious concerns. Please explain how it is a "grossly misleading" to include the exact quote from the source which both you and Wikiman5676 both somehow now suddenly understand!!!? FWIW, Mackenzie's referent is "members" who find it hard to believe, and not "himself". I sense your good faith confusion. Let us stick with the exact quote, because it removes all interpretation/OR/"alleged misrepresentation". Again, please avoid sweeping allegations without edit diffs, as repeated hostility is not helpful in improving this or any other article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:07, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
There are many examples, Sarah. For example, just today, you made this edit in the article Wat Phra Dhammakaya, with the citation "nirvana is not samsara", which is not in the book cited, and actually is in contrast with Scott's book. But if you want me to continue this line of reasoning, I prefer to do so on your talk page, rather than here, since it is not about the article but about you.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
@Farang Rak Tham: You are either grossly incompetent, or you repeatedly rush to make absurd misrepresentations of sources! You say, "nirvana is not samsara" is not in the source! See page 80 of Scott, 25th-29th lines from top. Please stop your hostility and idoitic claims! No that does not belong on my talk page, it belongs on the talk page of the affected article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Those words are in Scott's book, but this can not be summarized as Scott states that Wat Phra Dhammakaya publications and discourse describe Nirvana as being the state of supreme happiness, unlike the traditional Theravada [emphasis added], when Scott says on that page the temple does teach the via negativa, and in addition to that describes positive aspects of Nirvana. You contrast the temple's own interpretation and the orthodox interpretation, while Scott says the temple teaches both.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:09, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Ms Welch: Mackenzie states:
"I [Mackenzie] have also met members who look to experience the miraculous at the temple and find it hard to believe that they would not believe that their leader is an Avatara.".
Mackenzie is the one who would find it hard not to believe, as "they" refers to the followers. Since "they" cannot refer to the temple, Mackenzie is the referent who would not be surprised, with "they" being the followers. There is an easy test for this. Insert the subject before the verb "find":
  • "I [Mackenzie] have also met members who look to experience the miraculous at the temple and [I] find it hard to believe that they [the members] would not believe that their [the members'] leader is an Avatara."
  • "I [Mackenzie] have also met members who look to experience the miraculous at the temple and [the members] find it hard to believe that they [the members] would not believe that their [the members'] leader is an Avatara."
It seems rather unlikely that the members find it hard to believe that they themselves don't believe something. So it is clearly Mackenzie that would not be surprised, not the members. Anyways, my issue is the matter in which you are doing these edits, Sarah. Your original misquote was completely understandable [12]. As I can certainly see how someone could confuse that to mean "the followers" instead of Mackenzie. But even after I explained this to you [13] you just added it back anyways [14]. After it is added back by FRT (not sure why, but he does say "more later"), I remove it again and this time provide the full quote in the edit summary [15] but you add it back again anyways. [16]. Also, I have no idea how you got this edit here [17], which states: "Mackenzie quotes meeting Choompolpaisal who denied that this is an "insider's understanding", and quotes meeting followers who believed "their leader is an Avatara [reincarnation of the Buddha]"." This is implying something that seems to be very much off from the full quote's real meaning and why I said it was grossly misleading.
Another example of something like this is when you added this edit here [18] about fundraising controversy which is removed by FRT [19] for being about Wat Phra Dhammakaya specifically, which already has a section on its controversial fundraising practices. After which you added the section back with a mention of a fundraising controversy involving Wat Paknam (but was actually about Wat Phra Dhammakaya again) [20] which I remove [21] because that controversy was actually about WPD. Which you add back anyways [[22]]. You make some edits here [[23]] and here [24] which still implicate Wat Paknam, that i remove for the same reason [25]. You restore the edit again [26], later correctly attribute the controversy to WPD here [27].
Wikipedia is a collaborative project that requires working together. Such misrepresentation of sources certainly happens from time to time, but when you are repeatedly restoring them even when other editors point this out it is very WP:TENDENTIOUS. Wikiman5676 (talk) 01:49, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Wikiman5676: You now admit, "it seems rather unlikely...". In such cases, where the author's statement can mean two things, the best option is to quote exact with attribution. That is what I did and recommend we do. Yes, wikipedia is a collaborative project, but collaboration does not mean taking sides, advocacy in favor or advocacy in opposition. That violates NPOV and WWIN guidelines. Our aim should be to ask, how best to faithfully summarize the source. In cases where there is "seems rather unlikely" situation, a direct quote is better. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Ms Welch, dont try to WP:GAME the system by picking on my word choice. It is well known that "rather unlikely" is a convention to display significant doubt, not ambiguity. I am quite certain Mackenzie meant himself. Quotes are to still convey the original meaning, we are not to use quotes to convey different meanings than the source. The edit made here [28] conveys a meaning very different from the two "possible" readings and its not unreasonable to conclude the quotes used in that edit were aimed to mislead. Wikiman5676 (talk) 03:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikiman5676: Those were your words, and it is pretty obvious. I really don't care what you are quite certain or quite uncertain about. What I do care about is the best way to state neither more nor less than what the source is stating while respecting our community agreed content guidelines. The version that Joshua Jonathan and Farang Rak Tham left before your most recent edit is not exactly what I recommend, but I am willing to live with it. I suggest you do the same, or consider accepting the following exact quote from Mackenzie,

Quote: "The extent to which members believe that Phra Dhammachayo is an Avatara is unclear. Phibul Choompolpaisal informed me that it is not an insider’s understanding.[...] I have also met members who look to experience the miraculous at the temple and find it hard to believe that they would not believe that their leader is an Avatara. Thus it may be said that there are many insider understandings as people participate in the life of the temple in different ways."

Or feel free to take it to a dispute noticeboard. I will see you there. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:55, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any sound reason why you would want to bring up noticeboards all the time. We are all aware of their existence.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:09, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
I honestly believe that is not an accurate summary of the source in this edit. As he is clearly saying he would not be surprised, not that it would be unlikely. Although if the other editors agree this is acceptable I will accept the consensus. Wikiman5676 (talk) 00:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dhammakaya_tradition/Archive_1&oldid=1136660825"