Talk:Dhammakaya meditation

message: I am try editing this page, so please not speed delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philothai (talk • contribs) 
:Hello, please use the  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)
thread_title:  Work in progress 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  General discussion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lack of secondary sources 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Thanks, S Khemadhammo. Could you help me to provide full quotations for these references? Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text:  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)
thread_title:  What are these references? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Over-linking and Easter eggs 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Plagiarism?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Caution with advocacy/propaganda, need for NPOV 

message: FRT,  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Miracles from Dhammakaya meditation: a need for NPOV summary 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: links to Vipassana

message: 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)
replies: text: How does it ramble?--Farang Rak Tham  (Talk) 08:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  FA or GA?--Farang Rak Tham  (Talk) 02:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article