Talk:Thai Forest Tradition

Edits
Someone should do a better job here. I do my best. Wikipedia gets quite a lot of hits, because it shows on the top of Google searches... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Santerisulo (talk • contribs) 15:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Precepts and Ordination
This section says nothing unique about Thai forest tradition, and appears to be addressing Buddhism in general. Needs to be edited or else removed. Calaf 21:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Images
Need photographs and/or images. Viriditas (talk) 03:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

HACKED
This page has been corrupted by some stupid hacker. It needs cleanup 212.159.59.5 (talk) 07:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

does this page need this information?
I found the following quote from the Meditation page and brought it here.. "One particularly influential school of Buddhist meditation in the 20th century was the Thai Forest Tradition which included such notable practitioners of meditation as Ajahn Thate, Ajahn Maha Bua and the Ajahn Chah. " it has little to do with meditation per se, and didn't 'fit' in the other page with the topic of meditation and all.

hopefully you can use it here :) makeswell 13:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makeswell (talk • contribs)

Needs References
Beyond the Origins section there are no references. Also I think much of the article reads more like promotional blurb for the tradition rather than an objective encyclopedia article. Aren't there any academic articles or studies of the tradition that could be used as suitable sources? Chris Fynn (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits
This page has had a ton of work done on it, which is great. Unfortunately, it now appears to be shilling the Forest Tradition pretty hardcore. We are an encyclopedia and need to tone down the cheerleading. "This is a revival of early Buddhism", for example: first, which early Buddhism? Presumably you mean pre-sectarian Buddhism. That article notes quite clearly that "Some of the contents and teachings of this pre-sectarian Buddhism may be deduced from the earliest Buddhist texts, which by themselves are already sectarian." We have no non-sectarian sources. This is a religious claim that can not be verified by scholars. Second, your quote says something quite different than "which emerged from a revival of early Buddhist practice". That sentence claims early Buddhist practice is back to life; the quote you cite says: "However, my overriding concern is an attempt to detail religious categories of thought and action first and foremost as enacted in the forests of northeastern Thailand. I do not assume that “textual” Buddhism is in any way identical with “living” religion, but perceive con­temporary forest monasticism as an expression of a parochialized and legitimate enactment of normative historical tradition; that is, doctrinal Buddhism in its most primitive mode of expression. To phrase this another way, the forest tradition stresses self-realization through praxis and the “faithful” application of the disciplinary charter which is not in conflict with w hat we know o f the early teachings and injunctions, codified and trans­mitted in the Pali Canon and later commentaries." We need to be more clear that this is the founders' vision of early Buddhism, not some magical rebirth of a timeless tradition. Ogress smash! 19:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I was referring to Buddhist practices as outlined in the nikayas. It was revived in Thailand, because the dominant traditions in Thailand at the time were more Thai folk religion than Buddhism. Additionally, the Forest tradition is often described as a return to early Buddhist ideals because of it's pioneering emphasis on the suttas at a time when the commentaries and the Visuddhimagga were considered infallible. Compared to the commentarial Theravada schools of Buddhism in Burma and Sri Lanka, the regional folk Buddhism in Thailand, and Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism, the Forest tradition is an early Buddhism. I was not referring to the pre-sectarian Buddhism you were mentioning, however I'm going to strike this statement from the lead entirely for now because it seems to be causing problems. In the mean time I would like to address some of the other claims you have made.


 * I certainly don't expect you to be convinced that Ajahn Mun and his disciples experienced the same Nirvana as the Buddha, however Thai Buddhists do. For Thai Buddhists the Forest tradition is "some magical rebirth of a timeless tradition", to put it in your words. Additionally, the Forest tradition never was a "vision" of the founders, it wasn't even founded. It began when Ajahn Mun returned to Isan after he was satisfied that he had reached non-return; just as, according to the Pali Canon, Buddhism began when the Buddha was satisfied he had reached Buddhahood. Hence Tambiah's treatment of Ajahn Mun's hagiography as an indexical symbol for the life of the Buddha.


 * This is the only specific issue you have raised. It has nothing to do with the flags you placed at the top of the article, and you still placed the flags in spite of fixing the sentence to your liking. Originally you did it without any discussion on the talk page. You placed two flags instead of one, which makes the article appear much worse than it is. The flags that you chose are particularly strange. You're saying the article doesn't offer real information and is promotional? What material is not informational? Where is the subjective promotion? Where are the problematic weasel words? Apart from this first sentence, you haven't provided any argument that the article is biased. As it stands right now, both of these claims have no support. Furthershore 22:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Furthershore (talk • contribs)
 * Fine, I'll be honest: this page is clearly written by adherents of the TFT and it reads like hagiography crossed with proselytisation. It problematically defines TFT using ideals of purity: it's the earliest Buddhism, reborn. Its leaders achieved "Noble Attainments". And - in contrast to your redaction of my edits - the use of English jargon is incomprehensible; the Pali is often easier to understand. Prajna meaning "discernment into the nature of things"? Really? We're going to go with that and not stick to "prajña" or the Pali form? What does this sentence mean: "The Forest Ajahns assert that the primal radiance of the mind is still a samsaric phenomenon"? The section under doctrine is practically instructional. The terms used to describe the leaders are honorifics, which are not MOS for Wikipedia: we don't care about Ajahn or any of those things on Wikipedia.


 * There's also zero mention of criticism. For example, the TFT is notably uninterested in "reviving earliest Buddhism" when it comes to the issue of women. In fact, it has thrown elder monks and abbots out of the Order for participating in upasampada for women. Thanissaro Bhikkhu has been a leading voice denying upasampada for women.


 * I didn't "randomly" choose tags, I chose two that encompass the issues: peacock terminology and weasel words. Ogress smash! 23:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The doctrine section is gone. I had intended for that to be a section where the Forest traditions opinion on concepts could be represented, because opinions of Forest Ajahns like Thanissaro are oddly excluded from the actual articles on Buddhist concepts in Wikipedia, in spite of contributors' fondness for using his translations. You can't have it both ways: either Thanissaro is an expert on the Pali Canon through his translations, and his opinion on the content of the Canon is just as valid as Bhikkhu Bodhi's or Nina Van Gorkom's; or he's not an expert, in which case he wouldn't be fit to competently translate the Canon, and his translations shouldn't be used.


 * According to Tambiah and Taylor, the Forest Ajahns are considered to be arahants. Large portions of their books -- the only neutral source material for the Forest tradition -- is dedicated to comparing their conduct and practice with those of the arahants of the Pali Canon.


 * You seem offended by my work here. In 24 hours you have gone from tagging without an explanation to ad hominem attacks. You have been absolutely uncompromising in your edits which have made the article more clear only to you, all without actual contribution of content to the article. This seems to be a common practice among Wikipedia editors: last month someone replaced every instance of "concentration" with "samadhi", which rendered the title of Thanissaro's book "Right Concentration" into "Right Samadhi", which is not the title of his book. While you may feel that the English translations of Pali words are incomprehensible, at least one well-respected Pali scholar disagrees with you.


 * As for the Thai honorifics: that's fine, do away with every mention of the word "Ajahn" in the article. Just keep the MOS criticism separate from the NPOV criticism, because I don't refer to the Ajahns as Ajahns to glorify them, I do that because that is what they are called.


 * As for your remark: "There's also zero mention of criticism. For example, the TFT is notably uninterested in 'reviving earliest Buddhism' when it comes to the issue of women." I could argue that they are defending early Buddhism from proponents of Bhikkhuni ordination, who are being incredibly dishonest when they say there is no basis in the Vinaya to deny ordination to bhikkhunis to suit their own goals. These are opinions, however you seem to have made up your mind on this issue, and without having all of the facts straight.


 * If the subject of full ordination of women is covered in this article, certain things would need to be covered in order to achieve neutrality. Yes, support for the proponents position includes things like the misogynistic statements from forest monks who assert that women do not have the capacity for arahantship, which I am sure you are familiar with. However, in addition to support for the proponents side, we would need to include:


 * The opinions of the Mae Chis in the Forest tradition, who are opposed to full ordination.


 * If we were to cover the questionable ordination by Ajahns Sujato and Bramavamso in 2009 we would have to include the distasteful behavior of the bhikkhunis leading up to their ordination, who practically spit in Ajahn Sucitto's face after he and Ajahn Sumedho catered to their every whim, including being given a whole center to themselves to practice in.


 * Sujato and Brahm's backhanded gesture of inviting the American Wat Pah Pong Ajahns to Bodhinyana specifically to discuss the question of whether or not to ordain bhikkhunis, and subsequently ordaining them without their knowledge while they were all on their way to Perth. Contrary to to the popular belief that is perpetuated on Sujato's propaganda farm, this was the actual reason stated by the Wat Pah Pong abbots that Ajahn Brahm and his monastery was excommunicated from the Wat Pah Pong branch. In fact, their actions were so deplorable they were publicly condemned by Bhikkhu Bodhi, a proponent of Bhikkhuni ordination.


 * We would also need to cover the non-Buddhist feminist organization that backed the Bhikkhunis, then withdrew their support after the ordination was performed and the issue was no longer receiving press.


 * I came to this article three months ago. From the comments in your last post I get the sense that you are blaming me for not hurriedly slapping together coverage of this delicate issue while I am still working on the early history of the Forest tradition. Also, for someone who is claiming to bring neutrality to the artice, you made a very non-neutral pro-bhikkhuni statement above; you have inaccurately exaggerated Thanissaro's role in the events surrounding Ajahn Brahm's ordination in 2009, calling Thanissaro "a leading voice denying upasampada for women" on this talk page; and you have been very uncompromising in your criticsm of my writing style, while not actually making contributions to the article. Furthershore 03:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I started out by commenting on that: "This page has had a ton of work done on it, which is great." I then tried to politely explain the situation since you had worked on it very hard and I didn't want to start by sledgehammering you - you even deleted the tags I put up as "drive-by", which is unfair given the work I have done to this page in the past. But your reaction was very strong, and I replied more firmly when you reacted that way.


 * So then I was more honest. I am a little angry you keep ignoring my comments and deleting my tags, especially when I was trying to be nice, and now react so strongly. In three months, you pretty much have only written on this page and a few others. Perhaps I was harsh: it is because I tried to ease into criticism gently and you shut me down.


 * As for criticism of the TFT, I needed to give examples, and an easy one was the bhikkhuni issue. Calling me "pro-Bhikkhuni" is unfair: not a single woman (who comprise half the people on Earth) is even mentioned on this page. Not a single woman is mentioned. 50% of the population (at minimum, usually more), and not a single woman is mentioned. You even know there's issues going on and go into significant detail them in reply, but in three months of hyper-focus on this page (and a few others in Buddhism), you haven't once mentioned one. You've even discussed Mon lineages, but never once used the word woman, women or she. (You didn't even manage to squeeze in a reference to the Queen, which is impressive.)


 * Is that because there are no women in the Forest Tradition? There are women; there is even a rather popular nonfiction book on Buddhism in English that came out in 2005 about a trainee maechi practicing at a wat where maechis are treated very seriously indeed and some even live as thudong, or at least thudong-approximates. (It's called Meeting Faith, if you didn't know.)


 * So let me try this again: I tagged this page because despite the very hard work you did, there's some issues. I'm not nearly as familiar or well-sourced as you are, and I applaud your hard work, but that does not mean there is no criticism to be made or that my criticism is unfounded. Or, for that matter, that you just need to delete things, as you did with "earliest Buddhism". I actually think it's relevant to the FT, as a fundamentalist arannaka movement, considers itself to be bypassing the accretions of the ages to restore earliest Buddhism - but we have to say that's what they believe. We can't state it as fact because we don't even know what earliest Buddhism looked like. We can say what things they focus on. Their focus on Rhinoceros Sutra-like lifestyles is both remarkable and notable, and I did not ask you to delete that sentence, merely rephrase it.


 * The same is true of "weasel" and "peacock" terms. I'm not saying TEAR IT ALL UP, I'm saying, "this needs to be reviewed with an eye to neutrality." I tried to do that before but you just reverted my work, so I tagged and you reverted, so then I came to talk and tried to talk it and you responded very strongly. It's unfair of you to take this tone when we are supposed to critique each others' work as writers.


 * And finally: as for "not making contributions", that's just untrue. Look at the page logs. My contributions are not as deep as yours are, but then again on an average day I work on a very large number of articles. We all edit in different ways and spelling, grammar, consistency of terminology, reference checks, wikilinking, and clarity of prose are only things you can ignore when someone else is doing that work. I have 3,399 pages on my watchlist, and I keep eyes on all the activity on all of them, from obscure buddhist terminology to rather bitter arguments by Valencian ethnic nationalists, so before you jump down my throat take a note of what I actually do. It's as important to have shallow, big-picture people as much as it is to have people focused on one small area. Ogress smash! 03:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Your concern about women not being mentioned is a valid one, but it isn't bringing us any closer to consensus on the material that is there. The statement about early Buddhism is gone, and can be reintroduced later. In the current edit of the article, where is the wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. Where are the weasel words? I can't fix something if I don't know what the problem is.


 * I'm also still worried that you are unwilling to compromise on the use of jargon. You raise a valid point that "discernment into the nature of things" isn't a good translation for pannya (I would prefer just "discernment"), and if you would prefer that RTGS is used for things like "Thammayut", I don't see a problem with that. However, changing the four-syllable "Wachirayaan" to the nine-syllable "Vajiranyanavarorasa"; or changing "Thai Royal Family" -- something that's immediately understandable, to "Chakri Dynasty of Thailand" -- something people have to follow the link of to figure out the meaning . . . these changes make the article less clear to a general audience.


 * I looked at WP:Honorific, and it states that in cases where the honorific is included in reliable sources and common usage it is more correct to include it. The examples given are "Father Coughlin" and "Mother Teresa" -- hopefully it is obvious that "Ajahn Mun" fits into this category. You changed "arahants" (Pali), to "arhats" (Sanskrit). You changed "an increasingly scholastic culture", to an incorrectly capitalized "Thaification", requiring people to follow the link just to see what that means. You changed "Northeast Thailand" to "Isan", and seemed offended when I changed it back, saying "stop erasing it's identity". Are you from or do you know someone from Isan? Keep in mind Thanissaro lived in Isan for 20 years and he still calls it "the northeast".


 * I made this article with a style where the prose flowed naturally for a general reader who doesn't know what the terms mean, and they can follow the links if they want to know the jargon. It wasn't perfect yet but it was getting better. You changed the style of the article so the reader is exposed to the jargon and has to follow the links to make sense of the article, implying that style of the article was incorrect. Are you sure that was the case in every one of your edits?


 * I can include a section on the maechis in the article. Of course there aren't any reliable sources, so I may get some flak from the source-checker folks, however I think you are right and that part of the tradition should be included in the article. There has to be some agreement here though. I can't just continue on with the article flagged like that.    Furthershore 02:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Furthershore (talk • contribs)

Okay I'm kind of overrun right now but I'll note a few things: I'm sorry I'm not able to reply further today, I'm swamped. And I'm willing to edit the page later to find specifics, but think of it this way: if it's not phrased like an anthropologist or other outsider would write it, it's not neutral. It's like with early Buddhism reborn: we don't say it is early Buddhism reborn, we say, "the founders believed they were reinstating pre-sectarian Buddhism" (or something) without accepting the truth of their statements. The same is true of arahanthood: we say, with cite, "Thai followers believe they are arahants", not "Ajahn is an arahant". Ogress smash! 18:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Many of the objections you are making are to the common names. When you object to me using the WP:COMMONNAME, your arguments seem to be very parochial. Vajirañāṇavarorasa is the WP:COMMONNAME (with the correct Pali diacritics added). That's where the article is located, not at Wachirayan. If you think a reader can't handle Vajirañāṇavarorasa, which I'd like to add was his name, we can add, "who was known as Wachirayaan in Thai." Of course, you need to use RTGS, not just some ad-hoc transliteration, for the Thai form. If you want to clarify the Chakri Dynasty is the Thai Royal Family, you can do that, but COMMONNAME is a guideline we use when referring to a subject. If you use a term in Pali, pipe the original so we're not using redirects. Isan is also the common name, reinstated by King Vajiravudh; a tremendous political struggle by Lao people after Mun Bhuridatta's generation affirmed the identity of the area, which had been erased by the Thai kings deliberately. Remember in this article how the Rama objected to the Prince being ordained by "minorities"? Racism against non-South-Central Thais was rampant, read Thaification, where it was a deliberate policy of genocide and erasure of non-S/C Thai identity (and its capitalisation is a matter of debate). You perhaps should read the page on Isan (and history of Isan, where it is stated quite clearly, "Since the beginning of the 20th century, northeastern Thailand has been generally known as Isan, while in official contexts the term phak tawan-ok-chiang-nuea (ภาคตะวันออกเฉียงเหนือ; "northeastern region") may be used. The term "Isan" was derived from Isanapura, the capital of the Chenla Kingdom. The majority Lao-speaking population of the region distinguish themselves not only from the Lao of Laos but also from the central Thai by calling themselves khon Isan or Thai Isan in general. ... The main language is Isan, which is a dialect of the Lao language. .... The Lao Isan people are aware of their Lao ethnic origin, but Isan has been incorporated as a territory into the modern Thai state through over one hundred years of administrative and bureaucratic reforms, educational policy, and government media." And sure, I live in SoCal, I know Isan people. We have every kind of Northern, Eastern, Southeastern, Island and South Asian community here outside of Siberians. There's an Isan-style restaurant two blocks from my house.
 * 2) The uninformed reader is going to do better with links to the term with a translation following. That's the original text, and translations are less true than the original. Many readers are Buddhists or scholars of Indian religions and they're going to latch on to the terms as recognisable. Prajñā/paññā, vipassanā, samatha, samadhi, etc., these are all common-use words and it's confusing to demand this article use a special English translation or Thai form for every single one when every other article on Buddhism sticks to the Sanskrit or Pali unless there is a real and demonstrable reason not to, such as the fork of Guanyin and Avalokiteśvara, or the distinct terms for viharas that are combined with other styles of building: the temple-vihara wat, the school-temple kyaung, the massive Tibetan gompa and the fortress-vihara dzong, or the unique evolution of the stupa that is the pagoda. We aim for consistency so that readers can recognise the same term by its common name throughout pages on Buddhism without having to learn the Korean, Lao, Thai, Japanese, Sinhalese, Burmese and other terms. Vihara, bhikkhu, nirvana/nibbana; there is a very, very good reason to keep these terms in the Classical forms.
 * 3) Well, I gave you at least one source on maechis. And there were no laywomen? No anagarikas? No women of any kind other than the maechi I mentioned? Because I recall you getting very annoyed in quite some details about women's upasampada, and those event are also part of the TFT, even if it is in the context of abbots being ejected for supporting upasampada or whatever. I'm quite sure that information is citable, as there are many books on the issue of the Theravada women's upasampada drama.
 * I've had a chance to look, and even Forest Traditions, which is cited on this page a few times, has a great deal of discussion of women, their important encounters with thudong monks as laywomen donors as well as religious practitioners (Man is described as being deeply impressed by the spiritual advancement of two women practitioners at one point), their previous respect by monks, and their loss of legitimacy in Thai Buddhism due to centralised nationbuilding by the Thai crown. I don't have access to most of the text, however. Ogress smash! 16:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 07:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Original Mind
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  08:51, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Alan Robert Lopez (2016), Buddhist Revivalist Movements: Comparing Zen Buddhism and the Thai Forest Movement
 * Jack Kornfield, The Wise Heart: Buddhist Psychology for the West


 * The concept of an immutable and eternal mind is not something accepted widely in the tradition. In Ajahn Pasanno and Ajahn Amaro's The Island they write


 * "In the employment of such terms as 'the one who knows,' it is important to understand that this is a colloquial usage and in no sense is some kind of 'true self' or 'super-entity' implies - it's merely a conventional figure of speech. - page 194"


 * Also Ajahn Brahm in Mindfulness, Bliss & Beyond says


 * "Even some good, practicing monks fail to breach illusion's last line of defense, the knower. They take "the one who knows," "the original mind," "the pure knowing," or some other descriptions of the citta as ultimate and permanent reality. To be accurate, such concepts belong to the teachings of Hinduism and not to Buddhism, for the Buddha clearly refuted these theories as not penetrating deeply enough. - page 201"


 * Kornfield studied with Ajahn Chah but also with others and his view are not those of the Thai Forest Tradition. He speaks from the standpoint of many traditions. Dharmalion76 (talk) 12:57, 3 November 2018 (UTC)


 * thanks! Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  18:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Intro
An IP just rolled back 134 edits, with the argument No Joshua. You removed my peer-reviewed source material with your online blog material. You find better sources, and you take your edits to the talk page. That's a lousy "argument" to ignore 134 edits and their rationale. Yesterday I reinserted sourced material which was removed, and asked for sources to back-up a statement (see next thread); in response, 134 edits are rolled-back. That's not a proper and proportional response to my recent edits, nor is it a proper treatment of those older edits. With older edits, I shortened sections with undue material: Et cetera. See also WP:OWN. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  04:30, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * diff unsourced
 * diff removed undue quote; added info
 * diff shortened undue
 * diff shortened undue
 * diff shortened; "experiencing" the deathless seems incorrect; modernistic notion. See Robert M. Sharf, The Rhetorics of Meditative Experience
 * diff shortened/rephrased


 * Read these:


 * [A] "The original mind here refers to the origin of conventional realities, not to the origin of purity. The Buddha uses the term ‘pabhassaraṁ’—‘pabhassaram-idaṁ cittaṁ bhikkhave’—which means radiant. It doesn’t mean pure. " Thanissaro Bikkhu [translator], Straight from the heart, The Radiant Mind Is Unawareness


 * [B] "The new Thammayut-tikaa movement, which C.Reynolds (1972) notes was originally in the Central Division, was not dissociated until 1881 when Wachirayaan was appointed by King Chulalongkorn as its deputy head (Jao Khana Rong Khana Thammayut-tikaa)."


 * [C] As to the claim that Mongkut said that Nirvana is impossible, he did not say that. Vajiranana/Chulalongkorn said that. Mongkut founded Dhammayut in part to find out if Nirvana was possible or not. The only person who says Mongkut said Nirvana was impossible is Sujato and it's not corroborated elsewhere.


 * [D] That's part of a broader problem though. A student of a student of Ajahn Chah says something and all of a sudden it's taken as official TFT doctrine on the internet, even if it contradicts what Ajahn Chah said. This WP page should be better than that. Go read Tambiah's book, go read Taylor's book, go study the original TFT primary sources (Aj. Mun, Aj. Lee).


 * [E] If you want to quote Aj. Chah's students (Aj. Sumedho and Aj. Amaro) fine, but their views should be attributed and in a separate section if they diverge from Aj. Chah. The reason I like Thanissaro here is because he is very careful to connect what he writes with the canon or the original teachings of the TFT first-gen students. Some of Aj. Chah's students — and some of the newer up-and-coming Dhammayut ajaans — are not always as careful.


 * [F] Aj. Sujato is very problematic for several reasons and should just be avoided for the TFT page. He has declared himself apart from TFT and has POV issues in that regard. And while he may be popular in the wake of the Access to Insight closure, his scholarship in other areas (e.g. translations) is questionable.


 * Furthershore 09:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Response by JJ What exactly are you responding to now? Let me help you breaking down your responses:
 * [1] You removed the following, edit-summary :also inaccurate: sangha thaification began long after Mongkut died:
 * Notes:
 * References:
 * Which I reverted, edit-summary please discuss at talk, and provide source(s) for your statement, the statement being "sangha thaification began long after Mongkut died." You can say whatever you think is correct, but as long as you don't provide sources which back-up this claim, no one can verify it.
 * References:
 * Which I reverted, edit-summary please discuss at talk, and provide source(s) for your statement, the statement being "sangha thaification began long after Mongkut died." You can say whatever you think is correct, but as long as you don't provide sources which back-up this claim, no one can verify it.
 * Which I reverted, edit-summary please discuss at talk, and provide source(s) for your statement, the statement being "sangha thaification began long after Mongkut died." You can say whatever you think is correct, but as long as you don't provide sources which back-up this claim, no one can verify it.


 * [2] You removed the following, edit-summary inaccurate: primal mind refers to the origin of the round of samsara and *not* the remainder of an arahant:
 * I reinserted this sourced part, edit-summary sourced info:
 * Notes:
 * References:
 * Notes:
 * References:
 * References:


 * [3] As noted above, after I requested sources for your statement for removal [1], you rolled back 134 edits, with the "argument" You removed my peer-reviewed source material with your online blog material, which is incorrect.

I presume that Basically, you remove sourced info, refuse to give exact references for statements you make in defence of your removals, and even go so far to do a mass-revert with the claim that I removed sourced info, without bothering to find out what exactly I removed (shortened) and copy-edited. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  20:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * [A] refers to [2]
 * [B] refers to [1A], though I don't see how [B] supports your edit-summary that "sangha thaification began long after Mongkut died"
 * [C] refers to [1B]; no sources are given for your statement he did not say that [Nirvana is impossible]. Vajiranana/Chulalongkorn said that
 * [D] A student of a student of Ajahn Chah says something and all of a sudden it's taken as official TFT doctrine on the internet - that's a misrepresentation. And what exacrly do you want us to read in those books by Tambiah and Taylor? Please formulate exact objections and proposals, with references to sources, not vague statements.
 * [E] Could you please tell me where I quote Sumedho or Amaro?
 * [F] Maybe Sujato is problematic; we can discuss that further. Still, that's no reason to rollback 134 edits after I request sources for your statement that sangha thaification began long after Mongkut died.

ad [2]/[A] Original Mind, Pure Mind, Radiant Mind
To sum up:
 * [2] You removed the following text:
 * Notes:
 * References:
 * References:
 * References:


 * giving this edit-summary


 * I re-inserted the follwong sourced info:
 * Notes:
 * References:
 * References:
 * References:


 * [A] Then you quoted Tanissaro:

Kornfield nor Lopez nor Thanissaro mentions a "primal mind," nor do Kornfield or Lopez mention the "the remainder of an arahant." Thanissaro does not mention the "round of samsara." Nevertheless, it's clear that "Primal Mind" refers to radiant (luminous) or Original Mind. What Thanissaro does speak about is the cleansed mind which is fully pure, in which "[a]ll that appears is its own nature by itself, just its own timeless nature. That’s all. This is the genuine mind." Thanissaro quotes the Buddha:

So, the original mind is defiled, and the original, genuine mind is lost out of sight. But when the defiled is purified, it's original radiant nature appears again. It seems to me that you don't understand what the Buddha, Kornfield, Lopez and Thanissaro is saying; at best, we can add Thanissaro's clarification about the difference between original, radiant mind, and purified mind. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  21:30, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Regarding your comment You problematically say that purification begins before the stage of the primal mind. The primal mind is reached first, and then it is purified., see this quote from Maha Bua (translationThanissaro; my fault):
 * See also "lines 14 and 15 of page 163": "we are born with radiance." Original, primal or radiant mind is not "reached"; it's right there, from the beginning; but defiled. Only after cleansing it from the defilements is the "genuine mind," the purified radiant mind "reached." The phrase (italics mine) pure radiant Original Mind [is] the essence that remains when all mental productions are stopped was, and is, correct. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:23, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * See also "lines 14 and 15 of page 163": "we are born with radiance." Original, primal or radiant mind is not "reached"; it's right there, from the beginning; but defiled. Only after cleansing it from the defilements is the "genuine mind," the purified radiant mind "reached." The phrase (italics mine) pure radiant Original Mind [is] the essence that remains when all mental productions are stopped was, and is, correct. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:23, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

ad [1a]/[B]: Sangha Thaification
To sum up:
 * [1A] Regarding this removal, edit-summary also inaccurate: sangha thaification began long after Mongkut died

Notes

References


 * [B] you gave the following quote:

References

You may be correct, but I don't see how [B] supports your edit-summary that "sangha thaification began long after Mongkut died," nor how it disproves that Mongkut "[tried] to establish a national identity through religious reform." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  21:30, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Joshua Jonathan, at this point I am mostly done with this wikiproject. I only came back to correct these three things. Forget the "roll-back" and keep your comments to the original three issues.


 * You demand that I find sources for things that people didn't say. I don't do that to you. I don't wikilawyer and tell you to find a source that says that Kornfield or Lopez never mentioned anupadisesa-nibbana. I don't do that because it's impossible to find sources for things that people didn't say. And yet you want me to find a source that says that Mongkut never said something? No. You go read the sources that I did provide, and you will see there is no mention of Mongkut saying Nirvana is impossible.


 * In your last response, you were too busy aggressively lawyering small details to realize that the radiant mind quote is from Ajaan Maha Bua, NOT Thanissaro. Lopez cites him as a source of his problematic "Pure Mind" thesis. Go read lines 14 and 15 of page 163 where Lopez very clearly paraphrases "if the radiant mind were already pure, there would be no need to purify it".


 * You insult me and my understanding of the primal mind phenomenon, but you don't have the basics down like correctly attributing information to the right people. It's exhausting. It's like the quote on your page: "The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."


 * BTW it's offensive to me that you mention the Buddha, Kornfield, Lopez and Thanissaro in the same breath. It shows how little *you* know about how Kornfield routinely contradicts the Canon and puts words into the Buddha's mouth to appease mass audiences and sell as many books as possible.


 * Putting Kornfield's agenda aside, Thanissaro has 40 years of TFT experience and is far more of a TFT expert than Kornfield, with his 3 years on-and-off at WPP. Where they contradict on TFT subjects, Thanissaro is preferred and Kornfield's "clarification" is added "at best". Not the other way around. If you can't see that, there's no point in continuing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Furthershore (talk • contribs) 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * [1b]/[C]: If you don't care about WP:BURDEN, you're indeed done with this project. But you also stated that Vajiranana/Chulalongkorn said that [...] Nirvana is impossible. At least you cabn provide a source for that statement, can't you?
 * [2]/[A]: The radiant mind quote you gave comes from a talk from Thanissaro. At least, that's the link you provided. To quote your response: "you don't have the basics down like correctly attributing information to the right people." Anyway, Lopez' paraphrase of Maha Bua sounds the same as my summary of the Buddha, Kornfield, Lopez and Thanissaro, as given above.
 * Regarding Thanissaro, if you want to discuss who's "best," instead of simply trying to improve this article in a cooperative way, there's indeed no point in continuing. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:03, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * No JJ. No. The quote is from Ajaan Maha Bua. Thanissaro is the translator. The longer you belligerently insist that the quote is Thanissaro's, the more you embarass yourself. And no, you're wrong, the quote from Lopez sounds nothing like your recap. You problematically say that purification begins before the stage of the primal mind. The primal mind is reached first, and then it is purified.


 * As for WP:BURDEN, you prove your own ignorance of Wikipedia policies. "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material,". THAT MEANS YOU. Your self published web based blog is not verifiable. THE BURDEN IS ON YOU TO PROVIDE A BETTER SOURCE.


 * JJ you may be the rudest, most arrogant editor I have ever come across. You insult my intelligence as you demonstrate your own ignorance of WP policies, and your ignorance of basic facts. You engage in edit warring and you wrongly burden me with sources when policy clearly states that the burden is on you, and you always insist on your revision staying on the page while you bog people down with your wikilawyering. I left you to the jhana page over a year ago, after you acted like you owned that page (in vioation of WP:OWN, one of your favorite policies).


 * I gave you a lot of yield with your Alex Wynne nonsense on the jhana page. You are wrong about jhana on so many counts, but I let it go because it's just not worth it. You are not worth it. But you butchering the TFT page is a bridge too far. I am holding my ground here. You are wrong on the facts, and you are wrong on the burden. The longer you belligerently and wrongly argue, the more embarassed you are going to be when you are impeached. Just go away. Furthershore 10:02, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * If the quote comes from a publication from Thanissaro, then the quote is from Thanissaro. Here's Sujato; you can verify the source. You're confusing WP:VERIFIABILITY with WP:RS. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  13:31, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

add [1b]/[C] - Mongkut on Nibbana
Regarding

you wrote

This is what Thanissaro (1998), [https://tricycle.org/magazine/home-culture-dharma/ ''The Home Culture of the Dharma. The Story of a Thai Forest Tradition''], TriCycle, writes:

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  21:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I will admit that you are right that Mongkut probably believed Nirvana was no longer possible. However, Mongkut's motivation certainly was an attempt to get back to Presectarian Buddhism and certainly not out of establishing national identity. Read a quote from Mongkut on page 10 of Thanissaro's Traditions of the Noble Ones:




 * There is still the issue of your aggression in always insisting that your revisions remain on the page during disputes. You revert others' edits and tell them to take it to the talk page. You restore others' reverts and tell them to take it to the talk page. You are enforcing a double standard, and in doing so, casting your self as a "judge" on Wikipedia where other editors need to justify themselves to you before they can edit. This aggression makes it all the more upsetting when you take pot-shots and cast insults at people.


 * This has been going on for years. And you objected when I rearranged sections on the Jhana page, and I see that you have rearranged sections on the TFT page. Again, this wouldn't be quite as upsetting if it weren't for your aggression in the edits.


 * And you belligerently continue to say that "the quote is from Thanissaro". To close the matter, here is a version published by WPBT. So now even your twisted criteria of what quote belongs to whom is satisfied.


 * You also continue to argue your "pure radiant original mind" idea long after I have provided evidence that Ajaan Maha Bua did not teach that way. Lopez cites a WPP translation of Ajahn Chah, and the translation of "Original Mind" in not certain — there have been issues with different translations using "Genuine" and "Original/Primal" differently.


 * I would like to remind you that I'm not proposing that anything be added that could be objected to, I'm only proposing that this problematic information be removed. I have many more objections with your TFT edits but these are the only ones that I care enough about to change. Your refusal to ever budge on any issue is hindering movement towards a consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Furthershore (talk • contribs) 22 november 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link; that was not clear from the bare link you first provided. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up
There is confusion on the word mind here.

On that topic Ajahn Geoff says at 46min50 (italics= him quoting his translation of Ajahn Lee's "Frames of references"; [ braces ] = my comments):

Also regarding the sentence in the lead concerning "the Radiant Mind": "Some representatives of the tradition regard the pure Original or Radiant Mind that remains when all mental productions are stopped as an undying essence."

The citation from  Maha Bua  with which it is sourced mentions that "the natural power of the mind itself is that it knows and does not die." It does not claim that the mind is an undying essence.

Basically when he talks about deathless mind it's in relationship to, in other words, within the context of the round of death and rebirth (samsara) which is why he adds right after that it being "beyond disintegration" = unaffected by the passing away.

It's not stated in the abstract as there is already a layer of supposition going on, it's not a metaphysical statement about the mind as the true (undying) self as the phrasing of the sentence in the lead would suggest.

Or as Ajahn Lee would explain it:

As for the  Buddha  (Pali Canon), he points out the awakened state being beyond classification 1, 2 and does not declare anything in that regard, does not take a stance 3, 4, 5 6,... (there are many more).

Ajahn Geoff sums it up:

Jack Kornfield is by no mean a "representative of the tradition", as Furthershore pointed out he spent a few years with Ajahn Chah (who himself spend only a week-end with Ajahn Mun and then went on to make a subsidiary tradition of his own) over 40 years ago and has been a secular buddhist teacher ever since. I will delete his reference in the near future.

Ajahn Sujato and Ajahn Brahm were "delisted" - effectively reproved - from the Ajahn Chah Sangha because of divergent views. Their views can't be taken a priori as representative of the Thai Forest Tradition.

@, @ 2607:9000:2000:16:0:0:0:A44D (talk) 15:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Here's the explanation for this edit:
 * Again, "reality" and "indestructible": these are your words and are not provided by the quote.
 * A full direct quote is needed for this statement. I'm guessing however it is based on an excerpt from "The Ballad of Liberation from the Khandas" where it is mentionned that the mind is "discarding its attachment". 1) Nibbana isn't mentionned in this passage 2) If the mind is doing something it is currently involved in a process toward a result and Nibbana isn't a process toward a result.
 * To come back to the quote from Wikipedia: During the Nibbana experience there is no attachment, by its very litteral meaning "Nibbana" it is unbound, unconnected with anything, having been „bhagavā“, separated, disjoined from everything.
 * continue: „to keep happening, existing, or doing something“
 * This statement is sourced with a quote: „However it cannot be stated affirmatively where the mind of an arahant exists or that it exists at all“... which it directly contradicts. Continue is within the realm of existing and - as the quote mentions - doesn‘t apply here.
 * continue: „to keep happening, existing, or doing something“
 * This statement is sourced with a quote: „However it cannot be stated affirmatively where the mind of an arahant exists or that it exists at all“... which it directly contradicts. Continue is within the realm of existing and - as the quote mentions - doesn‘t apply here.
 * continue: „to keep happening, existing, or doing something“
 * This statement is sourced with a quote: „However it cannot be stated affirmatively where the mind of an arahant exists or that it exists at all“... which it directly contradicts. Continue is within the realm of existing and - as the quote mentions - doesn‘t apply here.


 * Anyway I don‘t see why this statement regarding the original mind should remain in the lead. It‘s not a core teaching of the thai forest tradition. If anything it's one of the „Founding Maxims“ of the infobox that should be emphasised here.
 * One last thing: Itivuttaka 55. This is the path.
 * 2607:9000:2000:16:0:0:0:A44D (talk) 13:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)