Talk:Dhammakaya Movement
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] 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.
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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'. —The preceding unsigned comment was 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.102.42.97 (talk • contribs).
[edit] 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
[edit] 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)
