Talk:Supreme Patriarch of Thailand

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

Untitled[edit]

I'm unclear about whether His Holiness has spiritual authority over all branches of Thai Buddhism, including those outside the borders of Thailand?

For instance, does His Holiness hold a position of supreme spiritual authority over, say, Amaravati in England? Or Abhayagiri in America?

The Sangharaj holds authority over all monks ordained in the Thai sangha, whether inside or outside of Thailand. For example, it is through the Sangha council that monks are authorized to perform ordinations and through which the title of 'Somdet' is awarded. However, the two monasteries you mention are slightly different from most Thai wats you find outside of Thailand. Most Thai wats, for example here in San Francisco, are closely associated with the Sangha council which is heavily involved in the wat's operation. (I think)
Amaravati and Abhayagiri pretty different because they are 'forest monasteries' and also because they are for Westerners. Most forest monasteries tend to be fairly uninvolved with the formal Sangha administration, and doubly so the Westerners. The various branches of Wat Nanachat tend to do their own thing, but still are bound by the Thai Sangha in certain ways. For example, only Ajahns Sumedho and Pasanno are authorized by the Sangharaj to perform ordinations, so all ordinations within the branches of Wat Nanachat in the West are done by one of those two, whether here in America or in Australia, etc. Obhaso 15:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

Founded by Rama I. --Pawyilee (talk) 12:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Acting Supreme Patriarch?[edit]

I am uncertain why Somdet Chuang Varapunno is not mentioned as acting Supreme Patriarch? --S Khemadhammo (talk) 02:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mahanikaya anachronism?[edit]

Describing Supreme Patriarchs from before the time of the arising of the Dhammayuttika Nikaya as Mahanikaya seems an anachronism, as the term Mahanikaya was only coined when the Dhammayuttika arose. Are there any reliable sources on how the fraternities were called before the time of Dhammayauttika Nikaya, in each period? --S Khemadhammo (talk) 15:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was a distinction between the gāmavāsī (city-dwelling) and araññavāsī (forest-dwelling) monkhood (with the former being further divided into left and right during the Ayutthaya period), but I'm not sure how official or established this division was. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This paper seems to provide a good overview. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Paul 012:! I will take a look at it. --S Khemadhammo (talk) 04:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing on this. So does it make sense to call the supreme patriarchs prior to the founding of the Dhammayuttika Nikaya, Maha Nikaya? I realize Maha Nikaya is basically just anything not Dhammayuttika Nikaya, but even if there was a distinction in forest and city dwelling monks shouldnt we use the terms used back then rather than Maha Nikaya for the supreme patriarchs prior to Dhammayuttika? otherwise i would say just leave that section blank for the supreme patriarchs that predate dhammayuttika. Wikiman5676 (talk) 06:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikiman5676: Yes, it should be corrected. There was no Mahānikāya before the Dhammayuttika split-off.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Coming to speak about this, the source referred to above appears to be more of a political essay than a reliable scholarly source, despite it being written by a Chulalongkorn University scholar. The article includes suggestions for restructuring the Sangha, which makes it suspicious IMHO. Moreover, it cites mostly government documents. There should be better sources out there. I have serious doubts about whether the author with a royal surname did any fact-checking, or just copied pro-establishment propaganda.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, either way we need to call them by what they were actually called back then. So even if the source was reliable we need a way to use it to determine what order to categorize the Pre-Dhammayuttika monks. Given that i think this warrants removing Maha Nikaya from Supreme patriarchs that precede the use of the term. Wikiman5676 (talk) 03:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't be too difficult to check whether those earlier patriarchs were araññavāsin or gāmavāsin.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction?[edit]

Is the current Supreme Patriarch:

1. Somdet Phra Ariyavongsagatanana (Amborn Ambaro)
or
2. Somdet Phra Maha Muneewong

[1] Are they the same person? Kortoso (talk) 20:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are. The latter is his name as a Patriarch (Thai: พระราชคณะ), the former his name as Supreme Patriarch. In Thailand, it is common for monks in high positions to receive new honorifics every ten years or so, which is another reason why these honorifics should not be used too much on an English Wikipedia, in which this Thai practice is not well-known. Another problem is that the very use of such honorifics may go against WP:NEUTRALITY, since its usage is part of the Thai state's patronage of the Thai Sangha. Many Thai intellectuals have criticized this patronage, however, especially those who propose a separation of religion and state. I propose to limit the use of honorifics to position titles like Supreme Patriarch, Somdet, Luang Por and Luang phi, followed by monastic names, which do not change anymore after a person ordains. Please indicate whether you support or disagree with this.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 08:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.nationmultimedia.com/news/breakingnews/30305856

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Supreme Patriarch of Thailand. 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) 12:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Supreme_Patriarch_of_Thailand&oldid=1207970168"