# Talk:Dhammakaya tradition

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

Since this article deals a lot with the social and political situation in Thailand, I am also pinging Paul012.--Farang Rak Tham  (Talk) 08:13, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
I've read the requests of both you and Farak, but the speed of editing and discussion here is too high for me; Iknow too little about the topic. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
It's farang, Joshua. Farak sounds like a failed boat.--Farang Rak Tham  (Talk) 09:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Here's an article that may be of interest to both of you: Miri Albahari (2002), Against No-Atman Theories of Anatta, Asian Philosophy, Vol.12, No.1. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:49, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Very interesting, Joshua. Too bad it does not cover Dhammakaya.--Farang Rak Tham  (Talk) 10:05, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
@Joshua Jonathan: Thanks. Albahari has an interesting perspective, though inconsistent with almost all Buddhist schools and their massive collection of commentaries found in the monasteries of East Asia, Southeast Asia, and South Asia. The history of Buddhism has interpreted and re-interpreted the anatta and other doctrines. Remember, the Buddha never wrote down his views, and the "Thus I have heard" stories were written down many centuries after the death of the person who is traditionally attributed to have heard. We also have evidence that the Pali canon was repeatedly redacted, two of which were major redactions. So the commentaries are not only a window into the past understandings, they are clues to possible original/alternate versions of interesting, profound spiritual questions our human ancestors struggled with. Jainism and Hinduism scholars, in the centuries past, had reasonable cause to disagree with some doctrines of Buddhism. Dhammakaya is one of the modern era movements that has reformulated anatta, just like recent attempts to reinterpret or deny "rebirth", 4NT etc. The least we can do is appreciate that the Thai sangha has "reasonable cause to theologically disagree with Dhammakaya". This needs to be respectfully acknowledged for both sides, in this and various related articles, per our NPOV guidelines. That is the way to keep this article and the wikipedia a bit more honest, a cause which RexxS, Bishonen and many of our experienced editors/admins sometimes struggle to enforce. I have read through the talk page archives of the related wikipedia articles, and feel you JJ and others had good points. If you read the older version(s), or even the current one, we read that there are differences, but we are left wondering what the differences in beliefs and practices are, per WP:RS, between the four temples mentioned in this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:17, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Thanks, Joshua Jonathan! Yeah, let's keep things positive and to the point. Those interlanguage links are great.--Farang Rak Tham  (Talk) 11:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Support. Due to the complex’s content of this article, I also support that the title should be revised as Dhammakaya Tradition. Bandai153 (talk) 10:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Bandai153 please remember to sign your comments on the talk page using the four tildas. That said, I actually agree with changing it to Dhammakaya Tradition. I have a few reasons for this. First, the article and sources define it as a Thai Buddhist tradition, so it would be perfectly accurate to call it such and would be a superior way to convey information to readers quicker. Second, it is noted by Newell that the term "Dhammakaya Movement" is sometimes used interchangeably with Wat Phra Dhammakaya by various scholars, which can be very confusing, especially if a reader was to do further reading and read stuff about the "Dhammakaya Movement" when the scholar or source was really just talking about Wat Phra Dhammakaya specifically. Since this page is clearly about the wider tradition that began at Wat Paknam that just happens to include Wat Phra Dhammakaya as well as several other temples, it would be beneficial if we titled the article in a way that makes the distinction clear. Dhammakaya tradition would be good way to do this, and it would still be very much accurate, since it is a Buddhist tradition. Wikiman5676 (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your suggestion and discussion Wikiman5676. --Bandai153 (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Bandai153 (ping Wikiman5676), I have reverted your conversion of Dhammakaya Tradition to an article (a WP:CONTENTFORK from here -- also please don't copy content between articles without crediting the source). From the thread above, I believe that what you might actually need is a WP:MOVEOVERREDIRECT requested at WP:RM(?). ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 06:46, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, Hydronium Hydroxide. I think that is what Bandai153 intended to do. I agree with him and I'll propose a move below.--Farang Rak Tham  (Talk) 07:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)