# Talk:Dhammakaya meditation

I am try editing this page, so please not speed delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philothai (talk • contribs) 

Hello, please use the {{wip}} template on the article to indicate that. Also, please sign your comments on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~) after your message. -- intgr 10:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
It appear that this article as well as related ones are written by a Dhammakaya follower. There is nothing wrong with it as long as it is sourced from the third party verifiable source (i.e. media or academic). Please read the editorial policy of this site, especialy NPOV. "The most ancient..." or "the best evar..." type of contents is not really good. Vapour

Dhammakaya(Crystal ball meditaton) is not Buddhism meditation, It's only Phramongkolthepmuni technique. Don't have any crytal ball meditation in tipitaka

Many of the facts here are clearly inaccurate, even including the years in Phramongolthepmuni's timeline. Phramongkolthepmuni attained the Dhammakaya in 1917, not 1914. Many other things seem not well checked and perhaps even original research.  S_Khemadhammo 22:20, 16 April 2016 (CET)
I have now added a new reference in the reference list (Exemplary...), of which the years contradict with source 1 (Life and Times...). Since the reference 'Exemplary' is directly translated from Thai, and the timeline corresponds with all Thai biographies i have come across, the years of this book are preferable. E.g. Phramongkolthepmuni attained the Dhammakaya in 1917, not 1914. S Khemadhammo (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Ekalyanamagga is a typo for ekayanamagga. S Khemadhammo (talk) 13:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I have not come across any teaching of Phramongkolthepmuni in which he compares the inner bodies with the five eyes, nor is this taught in Wat Phra Dhammakaya to my knowledge. Can anyone refresh my memory? If not, i'll be so bold to remove this table.S Khemadhammo (talk) 13:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Greetings, S Khemadhammo! I hope you don't mind that I numbered the points your brought up so I can reply more consistently. Anyway, with respect to the issue number two, the "Dhammakaya Open University" source can hardly contradict with Dhammakāya Foundation (1996), since the year range suggested by the former (p. 154) goes from 2427 B.E. to 2502 B.E. The issue number four, I actually noticed the same and ultimately decided to remove the whole table (it was completely out of the article context anyway). Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 09:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Great, good idea, Jayaguru-Shishya! Thanks for you help. Could you expand on the point of the year range? I am not sure what you are refering to here, but all sources i have come across report the year Phramongkolthepmuni attained Dhammakaya as 1917, not 1914. In converting Buddhist Era years to Common Era, we should substract 543 years, and i suspect the 1996 reference has not done this properly.S Khemadhammo (talk) 20:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Okay, i have now addressed the issue of the incorrect quote of the Visuddhimagga, also refered to in another reference as 'Vism.' The page number i provided was correct in the 5th edition, but the link that has been linked to http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/PathofPurification2011.pdf is the 4th edition. I have now adjusted the page numbers to fit this edition and added the relevant quote to prove the point.S Khemadhammo (talk) 21:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
The year numbers in the 1996 source are incorrect, as i mentioned above. The Open University reference http://book.dou.us/download.php?file=gl305e.pdf has another list of years in the page mentioned in the article refrence (page 154). The correct years can also be found in the Thai wikipedia article https://th.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B8%9E%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B0%E0%B8%A1%E0%B8%87%E0%B8%84%E0%B8%A5%E0%B9%80%E0%B8%97%E0%B8%9E%E0%B8%A1%E0%B8%B8%E0%B8%99%E0%B8%B5_(%E0%B8%AA%E0%B8%94_%E0%B8%88%E0%B8%99%E0%B8%BA%E0%B8%97%E0%B8%AA%E0%B9%82%E0%B8%A3) if you can read Thai. I will see if I can find any English-language sources to verify which timeline is conclusively correct. S Khemadhammo (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry S Khemadhammo, my bad! I was looking for the source online myself, and I didn't quite notice that I replaced the reference with an older edition. Thanks for your corrections though, S Khemadhammo!
Frankly speaking, I am not an expert when it comes to the Buddhist calendar. I noticed that neither of the sources (Dhammakaya Open University or Dhammakāya Foundation) is actually a WP:THIRDPARTY source; do you think there was a scholarly secondary source available to set the timeline right? I am afraid that taking one thing from a primary source, and then interpreting it to fit another context, could actually constitute WP:OR. JimRenge, you must be more qualified with these issues? :-D Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
That may be quite difficult to find, especially in English language. None of the biographies of Phramongkolthepmuni I know of are WP:THIRDPARTY. However, as I said before, it seems all Thai-language sources do agree on the timeline. The problems only exist in English-language sources due to incorrect conversion from the Buddhist Era. Is there some way we make an offically agreed upon translation from a Thai source through Wikipedia methods?S Khemadhammo (talk) 20:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Jayaguru-Shishya, I share your concern about  WP:OR: "taking one thing from a primary source, and then interpreting it to fit another context" is WP:OR. We are not allowed to use  "religious texts as primary sources without referring to secondary sources that critically analyze them." I have seen this problem in many articles about religious topics. The result is often an inside view that does not fit into an encyclopedia (see also WP:PRIMARY). The only secondary sources in this article are Bechert and Cousins and I doubt that Bechert states anything specific about Dhammakaya meditation. JimRenge (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
This topic is actually discussed below, but anyway, here goes: second source quotes can actually be added easily. For example, if you notice, there is also a Dutch page on the same topic which i wrote myself and this page doesn't have this issue. In fact, the need to quote the Tipitaka all the time instead of Dhammakaya teachers may come from some previous editors here trying to give more credit to the Dhammakaya tradition. Since by now, this hasn't turned out very well, I suggest we simply add more references from Dhammakaya tradition teachers, notably Phramongkolthepmuni himself, and voila, the problem is solved. I'll get to this as soon as I can. I need to trace down a book to do this. S Khemadhammo (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


### General discussion
Hi there, S Khemadhammo. Do you happen to know to which page the Davids (1896) source is referring to exactly? I also tried to get access to the Bechert (1997), but couldn't find it anywhere available. Any help with the source hunt would be appreciated! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

We meet again, hehe. Jayaguru-Shishya, I have read the Yogavac(h)ara Manual, and there is mentioning of focusing at the navel there. (But not the same point as Phramongkolthepmuni's meditation method though.) And I am not sure whether it really would prove any point. The main point of Phramongkolthepmuni's Dhammakaya meditation method is that there is a inner pathway within every human being, which he believed to be the deeper meaning of the word Middle Way in Buddhism. This pathway can be entered by stilling the mind in one place, rather than moving it around as in Anapanasati or in Satipatthana meditation as practiced by the Vipassana movement. This is the unique approach of Phramongkolthepmuni, but the overly dry tone of this article, and all the other problems in this article have killed these main important points. If you want my opinion, nothing can be gained by adding a page to the Rhys-Davids source, but if you insist, i can retrace it for you.S Khemadhammo (talk) 18:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
I have found it now, it is on page 8 ff. of the English source. I'll replace the Pali source with an English translation source. I will also write a new paragraph to make everyone understand the scope better of what the person adding this link was refering to.S Khemadhammo (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I have now rewritten the paragraph about the relation between Dhammakaya meditation and meditation forms refered to as Tantric Theravada. Since the latter is a separate article specifically about this subject (in which the Dhammakaya tradition is also mentioned), i have taken the liberty of keeping this paragraph quite concise. I have therefore not expanded on the Yogavachara Manual anymore.S Khemadhammo (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

|}

Though i haven't add this tag myself, I think this is indeed another problem of this article. It would be better if the samatha and vipassana sections were to be linked to references of Phramongkolthepmuni himself, and the Tipitaka afterwards, rather than only the Tipitaka.S Khemadhammo (talk) 01:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I have moved the cleanup templates inline. I haven't removed the primary sources tag, but i am thinking of removing it altogether, since there isn't really any place left to tag. The factual accuracy tag i added myself, but i think it only is valid for the origins section now, as i do think the timeline of Phramongkolthepmuni not agreeing with the Thai article is still an issue.S Khemadhammo (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Greetings! If one had a look at the current References list, one would find entries such as follows:

D.iii.273, A.i.60
A.iii.62, Vbh.378
Comp.94
Comp.203, Vism.125
Doesn't tell anything to me; we'd need something more steadfast. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 09:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

They are references to Buddhist texts, in particular to the Tipitaka. I am not sure whether this agrees with Wikipedia conventions. S Khemadhammo (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, S Khemadhammo. Could you help me to provide full quotations for these references? Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Alright, i will see what I can do. Some of it is not available online though.S Khemadhammo (talk) 20:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Some of the sources don't check out. That is, the references don't quite support the contents. As i said above, it maybe better to replace the references to the Tiptaka with references to Phramongkolthepmuni himself. This will also solve the problem of having too many primary sources. Anyway, I will clarify these references first before we start replacing them.S Khemadhammo (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
For example, reference 8 can be found online here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.22.0.than.html (Mahasatipatthana Sutta). This doesn't quite support the statements made though. I can understand what they're coming from, because Phramongkolthepmuni would often use this sutta in his explanations, but we might have to refer to Phramongkolthepmuni sermons instead to clarify things.S Khemadhammo (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Done, all the references refer to actual English-language translations now. In a few days I will also start adding references to Phramongkolthepmuni himself, as there are at least two English sources available.S Khemadhammo (talk) 22:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

To Jayaguru-Shishya, I understand you would like more transparency and clarity with regard to links, and I thank you for the edits, but I'd insist on keeping the link to the Nimitta. This is a technical term that I am sure not many readers will know, even Buddhist readers. S Khemadhammo (talk) 17:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, S Khemadhammo. I would understand the case to link "nimitta", but it's actually a redirect to "Dhyāna in Buddhism" instead of a clarifying article of its own. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:55, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Alright. But links to Dhyāna in Buddhism and Arhat are actually quite helpful -- Jhana and Arhat are technical terms, which need to be explained for people not familiar with the details of the subject. Almost all Buddhist Wikpedia pages emphasize Sanskrit terms more than Pali, which is why the Jhana links to Dhyāna in Buddhism. As for arahant and arahat -- these are synonyms. The links really make more sense than you might think, and they help the reader to understand an otherwise overly scholarly page. Please assist in making this page more understandable.S Khemadhammo (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@JimRenge: and others, please note some of content in the further reading entry from Ruangsan, Phramaha Niras (the PhD thesis) matches text of the article Luang Pu Sodh Candasaro#Teaching. This thesis is actually quite useful, and at first I intended to use it as a reference to improve on the article. Then I found the following paragraphs on page 3: 

"Sot devoted the rest of his life to teaching and furthering the depth of knowledge of this meditation technique known as "Dhammakāya meditation or Vijjādhammakāya" (i.e., meditation for attaining the dhammakāya or by using the dhammakāya). In 1918, he was appointed abbot of Paknam Phasicharoen temple (or Wat Paknam Bhasicharoen), and there he devoted his time to researching the insights of Dhammakaya meditation and refined the technique to make it more systematic through experimenting with the ways the meditation could best be applied for the common good. During an exceptionally long ministry of over half-a-century, Sot was unflagging in teaching all comers the way to attain the dhammakāya, with activities nearly every day of the week. He recognised the need to open up and redevelop the oral tradition of meditation teaching, which was becoming disorganized and rare in Thai Buddhism. He provided the opportunity, with the technique, for meditators to verify for themselves, in their firsthand experience, the success of the technique.

Indeed, Sot would challenge others to meditate in order that they might verify for themselves the claims which he made about the technique. It was the response to this need which led to the building of the 'meditation workshop'. Sot declared that this workshop should be kept in use by meditators for twenty-four hours a day, day and night," [etc.][Emphasis added.] Some of the phrases here match exactly those of Luang Pu Sodh Candasaro#Teaching, even though the paragraph of this wiki-article was written a few years before the PhD thesis was published. There are minor differences due to the Luang Pu Sodh article being edited for American English. The matches are more numerous though when we go back in time to previous versions of the named paragraph.
Whether this warrants deletion or not, I am in doubt, since the article is merely mentioned as a Further Reading source. Whatever the case may be, if including this source in this article violates Wikipedia policy somehow, let it be known for the record that I have marked it for deletion.--S Khemadhammo (talk) 06:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa: what do you think? Regarding "Indeed, Sot would challenge others to meditate in order that they might verify for themselves the claims which he made about the technique.", read Robert Sharf's "The Rhetorics of Meditative Experience." Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I have checked and agree that this part of the thesis was copied from Wikipedia. I suggest it should be removed from the Further Reading section so that people don't inadvertently use it as a source. If this part is copied, other parts might be as well. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
It was already included when the page was created, at 31 october 2005. You all noticed that the thesis starts with "Copyright and use of this thesis"? Though, we can't exclude the possibility that the PhD-author wrote this stuff for Wikipedia, as long ago as 11 years. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikiman5676, have you read the sources? You removed "it allows the meditator to visit past lives and other planes of existence whereby present circumstances can be affected". It is well supported in the cited scholarly source (see main section, Zehner (1990) pp. 406-407). It is also more notable, clear to the reader and significant from Theravada theology perspective than the vague window-dressing style "certain mental powers, at the higher levels of practice" that reads like POV / propaganda / advocacy-pushing by an agent or adherent gaming wikipedia. If you don't have access to the Zehner's paper, or suffer from other issues, that is not my problem. Yes, if you wish, I can add the exact quote to easy WP:V. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 06:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I didnt see this talk subject. I thought it was redundant, how it was incorporated originally was repeating an existing point, how it is now seems fine. i changed the lead because the lead should summarize points of the body so i reworded the lead to the more broad point. Wikiman5676 (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

FRT, @Joshua Jonathan: According to the Mackenzie source,

Quote: "There are a number of stories that are still circulating about the achievements of Dhammakaya meditation under the leadership of Luang Phaw Sot. Some of these come from the Second World War era when Thailand was occupied by Japanese forces from 1939 to 1942. Many members of the public believed Luang Phaw Sot had special powers enabling him and his supporters to survive. The people in the area of Wat Paknam would go to the temple compound rather than the air raid shelter when the siren was sounded. Public belief was shaped in part by the press coverage given to the sighting by many people of ‘nuns from Wat Paknam floating in the air, intercepting the bombs dropped by the bombers and patting them with their bare hands to fall harmlessly in the water or uninhabited areas of forest’ (Dhammakaya Foundation, 1998:96). Phra Dhattacheewo, the deputy abbot of Wat Phra Dhammakaya said in an interview with Baan Mai Ruu Rooy magazine:
"The stories they have written are all true. Including the story about the mae chii (nun) of Wat Paknam who flew up to push away the bombs (from dropping on Bangkok) during World War Two. . . . You may ask why it fell on Japan and killed so many people. I can answer by saying the power of the Dhamma pulled to Japan when the Japanese were bellicose and wanted to make war. That pulled the bomb in their direction. (Jackson, 1989:204)
Another offered explanation is ‘meditators at Wat Paknam used the mind controlling powers to force the planners to change their target’ (Bowers, 1996:28).
[lot more in the sources not quoted per fair use guidelines]
This is significant. These claims are in multiple scholarly sources (see Bowers, Jackson, etc that Mackenzie cites). We should not push it all under the rug, because it is notable to the movement, it is a notable source of controversy, and it helps appreciate a part of the appeal/significance of the Dhammakaya movement's meditation system as described in scholarly sources. I am not asking that we overwhelm the article with all this. But, a short appropriate summary of this would improve the balance. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 06:36, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I have no memory of having "pushed this under the rug", but I'll review the most recent changes.--Farang Rak Tham  (Talk) 13:53, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Certainly no need to overwelm. I have expanded the prior bombing mention to include the specific details. Wikiman5676 (talk) 18:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


### links to Vipassana
Wikiman5676: do you have a source to back your claim about supranormal and vipassana relationship? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I think there was a mention in Fuengfusakul. although i dont disagree with your moving of the section so i guess its irrelavent. Wikiman5676 (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I would review it, if you provided a page number. If there are sources in Thai language that discuss the supranormal and vipassana meditation relationship, I would be quite interested. A translation would also be helpful. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say, but tbis is not a Good article. The description of the method rambles, and is insufficient. It should be re-assessed to B-status, at best. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

How does it ramble?--Farang Rak Tham  (Talk) 08:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I've re-ordered quite some information; added info; and removed doublure info. See the history. Shouldn't have been necessary, for a FA, I guess. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
FA or GA?--Farang Rak Tham  (Talk) 02:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)