Talk:Santi Asoke

[Untitled]
the name of the group is "the asoke"  Santi Asoke just refers to their bangkok community. i suggest someone make a page called asoke, and transfer this info over and make this a page for that specific place. this is an error they commonly encounter, but we should fix it. they are quick to correct people who call them "santi asoke"   im taking photos for a book about them and will upload some soon. ryan libre 118.175.214.3 (talk) 13:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I disagree. Although "Santi Asoke" may be the name of the Bangkok community, others being Srisa Asoke (Sisaket), Sima Asoke (Nakhorn Rajasima), Pathom Asoke (Nakhorn Pathom), etc, the name does apply to the movement as a whole. Ref. Juliana Essen's book on Srisa Asoke - "Right Development": The Santi Asoke Buddhist Reform Movement of Thailand.' "Asoke", however, may be a short form of referring to the movement as a whole, or perhaps some SA people are being a bit fussy.Adrianmjones44 (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)adrianmjones44

I withdraw my remarks. Looking again at Juliana Essen, I think she is careful to use the terms "Asoke" and "the Asoke movement" (or "group"). Perhaps the term "Santi Asoke" is used widely (as I've heard it used and used it myself) by people outside the movement itself. People inside the movement or close to it seem to use just "Asoke", as Ryan Libre declares above.Adrianmjones44 (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)adrianmjones44

To claim that neo-fascism in 'culturally inappropriate' in a discussion of Thai politics is ignorant to the extreme. Various Thai governments have been closely aligned with Fascism in the past. The government of Plaek Pibulsonggram is a prime example. Lest we forget that Thailand fought on the side of the Axis. Post-war, various Thai governments have experimented with Corporatism, as a counterweight to the Communist Party of Thailand. The PAD through its New Politics Party continues to advocate neo-Fascist ideas, such as Corporatism. 63.138.247.2 (talk) 14:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps if you used less extreme language you would have more credibility ("To claim that ... is ignorant in the extreme"). However, you are right that P. Piboonsongkram was pro-fascist to the extent that military and other forms of dictatorship appealed to him and his circle of ultra-nationalist advisors. I think it's stretching things though to say that Thailand fought on the side of the Axis. Siam fought a series of conflicts on land and sea with Vichy Indochina in 1940-41. This is hardly fighting "on the side of the Axis".

Essentially, Siam/Thailand relates to overseas events, like wars, and movements such as Fascism/Nazism only in terms of its own internal social dynamics and perceived national interests. I doubt there was ever in Thailand any ideological commitment to the racial and national superiority ideologies of the German and Italian types. There was a sense of grievance about borders and suspicion of a financial powerful ethnic group (the Chinese), but these were Siamese concerns, unrelated to European ideologies about territory and race.

Of course one can draw parallels, and the corporatism that the PAD proposed for a while is a case in point, but lots of people and movements have advocated or practised some form of corporatism and they may have had some similarities to what was encouraged in Fascist Spain. But to keep stretching the label "Fascism" into another century and another continent and another country is, I suggest, a disingenuous form of rhetoric intended to load the emotive baggage of an historically contextualised and discredited phenomenon onto something with quite a different provenance, character and goals.

Having said that, I find the PAD's (and the Asoke movement's) ultra-nationalism distasteful, but it's by no means confined to these movements. It's a feature of Thai-ness that one is nationalistic without knowing much of the relevant history and issues.Adrianmjones44 (talk) 02:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

added POV. This article is egregiously biased toward orthodox and state-centered anti-Asoke views. Please include more from the position of Asoke or Bodhirak himself. There is plenty of material to draw from other than only these few scholars and legal judgments. This article need a lot of work to remove the bias and present a more balance article which does not center on the state. Bodhirak has a lot to say, and this wiki does the movement a grave injustice, regardless if you agree with Bodhirak or not. We need to avoid this type of characterization. Please edit or I will flag for deletion. This article contributes more to misunderstanding than clarity and is far too polemical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindlessbuddha (talk • contribs) 00:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

"Samana Phothirak was once a Buddhist monk of Thammayutika Nikai, but his preceptor refused to take care of him after finding he had repeatedly breached the Buddhist doctrines. Phothirak then resorted to Maha Nikai at Wat Nong Krathum (วัดหนองกระทุ่ม), Changwat Nakhon Pathom. As he still repeatedly contravened the doctrines, the Thai Sangha (Community of Thai monks) requested the Supreme Sangha Council (SSC) to look into the case." I would highly recommend editing many parts of this article, including the above section (due to it being factually wrong). Chandima990 (talk) 13:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

rewrite
i believe this article needs a complete rewrite. almost nothing about who the santi asoke, their daily life, temples, pictures, useful information, vegetarian society, contributions, etc. the extensive review of the politics and court cases is unnecessary and immaterial to the lay reader. details of the rich culture of the santi asoke are completely missing. 2403:6200:8936:B31F:BD8A:2BF4:F1DD:26C9 (talk) 13:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)