Talk:Ajahn Maha Bua

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edits[edit]

I Agree with the previous editor of this page. I am doing some updates in to the page based on the authoritative sources of Luangta.com. I uploaded a picture. I ask future editors to keep hot political debates away from this page. With question e-mail me santerisa@gmail.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Santerisulo (talk • contribs) 12:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits[edit]

Luang Ta Maha Bua may be a controversial figure but to base this article almost exclusively on the Devadatta incident is totally beside the point. Ajarn Maha Boowa is one of the greatest masters of the forest tradition in Thailand but there is nothing about his life or his teachings in the article. This is plainly ridiculous.


The Value and Meaning of Ajahn Maha Boowa's life[edit]

There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Ven. Ajahn Maha Boowa is widely regarded within Thailand (and even beyond) to be an Ariya (a Buddhist saint), and indeed, is possibly the most well known and respected Buddhist monk living in Thailand today. As an informed Theravadan Buddhist - I have been serving as president of the Buddhist Society of Western Australia for the past four years - I can only assume that this original posting of this article on the "Devadatta Incident" is intentionally derogatory and/or containing an overtly political intention and message. I agree with the above (anonymous) poster that the article as it is originally constituted is plainly ridiculous.

Whilst I am not an expert on Ajahn Maha Boowa's life, I feel duty bound to make very substantial changes to this article in order to reflect a more balanced biographical reflection on his life.

And finally, I think that the redirection from "Ajahn_Maha_Boowa" to "Luang_Ta_Maha_Boowa" is the wrong way around. Whilst in the Thai it may sound more honorific to refer to senior monks as "Luang Por" (implying reverence, like "Venerable Father"), and he often refers to himself as "Luang Ta" (implying slight derision, "Venerable Old Man"), senior monks in the Thai tradition are most often referred to in English as "Ajahn" (literally "teacher"). For the sake of consistency, I believe that the redirection should be working the other way around.

Solasaurus 02:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a short biography to get things started. I also deleted most of the newspaper quotes as these are superfluous, and furthermore the whole incident is superfluous in the context of his life. This is an Arahat we're talking about here. If if you discount the Buddhist perspective on his attainments, one could still point to his humanitarian work. Every year millions of dollars are donated to his monastery. Yet Wat Pa Bahn Tahd is a model of austere simplicity. The money is forwarded on the humanitarian projects like building hospitals in needy rural areas and providing the poor. How come none of this is mentioned? He lives in the sticks in north-east Thailand, and is a simple monk. Whilst his style of speaking is gruff, direct and often hyperbolic, a casual reader of Wikipedia, not understanding his style of speech (especially when translated from the Thai) would misinterpret these statements and not understand the reverence with which he is considered by millions of Buddhists in the world today.

Solasaurus 03:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that the title be changed to Maha Bua. It is very confusing to call him Luang Ta. No person outside of Thailand would do this. In twenty years, I've never heard anyone refer to him as Luang Ta Maha Bua. The title is personal piety, not any kind of formal or official name - Santi

"Monastery Barn Tard"?[edit]

What or where is "Monastery Barn Tard"? Maybe you confused it with "Wat Pa Baan Taad"? Please use RTGS when using Thai words in Latin script. --hdamm (talk) 06:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citta[edit]

Basic teachings on Citta section is a bit large no? unless this is mostly what Ajahn Maha Bua is known for i dont think it should be this big of a section. Wikiman5676 (talk) 02:01, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ajahn Maha Bua. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC) –  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  17:40, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 November 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Not seeing much agreement here for this request as it has been proposed. There does seem to be a growing consensus for a title of Maha Bua, so there is no prejudice toward a new request for that title. If there are others called by that name, then whether or not they are notable becomes important, as well as who would be the primary topic, and perhaps WP:TWODABS. That also applies to the potential title Bua, which may or may not be the highest and best title for this article. (closed by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  17:38, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ajahn Maha Bua → Luangta Maha Bua – The subject is overwhelmingly referred to with the honorific "Luangta" (or "Luang Ta"), both by the public and generic sources. Paul_012 (talk) 04:09, 23 November 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Jenks24 (talk) 05:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Bradv 15:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed per reasons given.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 08:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move to Maha Bua (1913-2011) per WP:HONORIFIC. See third party book sources such as James Taylor Buddhism and Postmodern Imaginings in Thailand 1351954431 2016 "worldly pursuits is symbolically important in the charisma building of a forest monk saint. Maha Bua recalled his first teaching from the Master: 'Dhamma is fact; Nibbana is fact. The world is uncertain, but Nibbana is certain'. " Ajahn teacher and Luangta are not part of this persons name. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that "Laung Ta" "Luangda" "Luangta" are all more used than "Ajahn", but non-devotional sources simple say "Maha Bua" In ictu oculi (talk) 09:34, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this would be a case where use of the term would be overwhelmingly common enough to warrant its inclusion in the title, per the WP:HONORIFIC point that states, "Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found in English reliable sources without it, it should be included. For example, the honorific may be included for Mother Teresa and Father Coughlin." You've provided a good counter-example though. Will have to look a bit further. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:26, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A fair attempt of In ictu oculi to apply policy, but maha (Pali language, meaning 'great') is also an honorific. It is given to monks in Thailand once they pass their Pali examination at the third level.[1] If you would want to strictly apply WP:HONORIFIC, you would have only been left with Bua, which would make the subject of the article completely unrecognizable. Bua (Thai: บัว) is a first name that is commonly used in Thailand, similar to Jack or Bob in the US.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 12:05, 23 November 2017 (UTC)--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 12:14, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please also note that at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (clergy)#Other religions several exceptions are given to the honorific policy in the conventions mentioned, and at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Burmese)#Honorifics, it is stated that As Burmese names are often very short, honorifics are sometimes treated as an integral part of a person's name, for example, U Nu or U Thant. If a Burmese person's name consists of a single short word, or their name is most commonly written with the honorific, you may leave the honorific in the title. There are similarities here, especially with regard to honorifics being treated as an integral part of a person's name.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 12:14, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Paul: but that's the problem: "that the name is rarely found in English reliable sources without it" doesn't apply. See sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:19, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In ictu oculi, the page on Google Books to which you are linking here, has eight out of ten hits with honorifics, and two without. Though it does prove that "Maha Bua" is the most consistently used part of the name, it also proves that he is most often written about with a honorific, because "Maha Bua" is not nearly as accurate, and can refer to many people in Thailand.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 12:29, 23 November 2017 (UTC) Correction.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 12:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To close my argument, I'd like to point out that a search on Google Scholar does show most sources referring to the subject as "Luang Ta Maha Bua". But the example you mentioned above, is inaccurate: in James Taylor's book, the subject is at times referred to as Ajaan.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 12:45, 23 November 2017 (UTC) Edited. --Farang Rak Tham (talk) 12:47, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but it has results for zero, then 3 different honorifics, overall that's an argument for none. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In ictu oculi, do you mean Google Scholar or Google Books? It would seem to me the former is a more reliable way to check this.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 17:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I meant books, but even in Scholar not convincing. WP:HONORIFIC should stand. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not particularly care whether he is referred to as Luang Ta or Ajahn. However I disagree with not including honorifics in his name at all. The honorifics of Buddhist monks are almost always attached, even if it there are different honorifics for the same person, "Luang por", "Ajahn", "Bhikkhu", "Bhante" etc. I would consider this akin to the exceptions of Mother Theresa and U Thant as the policy states "honorifics may be preserved if they are part of the normal form of address, even for ordinary people". Even the Burmese Ashin Wirathu has the honorific "Ashin" in his name, which means "Lord", and he is generally seen in the English speaking world as being quite controversial. If we remove the honorific from Ajahn Maha Bua's name that would reasonably warrant a removal of honorifics for quite a few other people to which these names are often used. Ajahn Sao Kantasīlo would simply be "Sao Kantasīlo". Ajahn Chah would simply be "Chah", Tsoknyi Rinpoche, would just be "Tsoknyi", Bhikkhu Bodhi would just be "Bodhi", etc. Thus for these reasons I oppose removing the honorific. I actually think the Wikipedia policy on Honorifics should actually stipulate allowing the honorifics on the names of Buddhist teachers since they are attached so often. Although the policy on Burmese names is a reasonable extrapolation. Wikiman5676 (talk) 18:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Maha Bua. This is an unambiguous, binary and common name, and so doesn't satisfy the conditions for adding an honorific. Most (perhaps not all) of the examples given where honorifics have been added do satisfy these conditions; Any exceptions should themselves be fixed. Andrewa (talk) 05:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • As stated above, mahā is also an honorific.[1] So choosing Maha Bua is not going to solve the problem with avoiding honorifics.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 10:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • OHO yes I missed that. It's a good point, but is he ever referred to as Bua without the Maha honorific? If not, then perhaps we need to add that honorific but not the others. That would seem to me to be in the spirit of the guideline. But interested in other views. No change of !vote, for now at least. Andrewa (talk) 11:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • And that is your right, of course. But my point is that this is the question we should be asking ourselves here:
          1. when we know that the subject of the article's almost entire name is an honorific,
          2. and by removing all those honorifics we are making him unrecognizable (leaving only Bua, a common first name),
        • then instead of avoiding honorifics we had better choose the honorifics under which the subject is best known. As Paul_012 already stated above, The subject is overwhelmingly referred to with the honorific "Luangta" (or "Luang Ta"), both by the public and generic sources. And this is also confirmed by a search on Google Scholar.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Agree that then instead of avoiding honorifics we had better choose the honorifics under which the subject is best known, with one important reservation... in this case it's in the spirit of the naming conventions and policy to use only the honorific that's essential. And that would give us Maha Bua as the preferred name. Ajahn Maha Bua and Luangta Maha Bua just add an additional honorific, so in that sense are also occurrences of Maha Bua. All three names occur in sources. Andrewa (talk) 20:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • Can you clarify your reasoning for removing the honorific for Ajahn Maha Bua but not for Bhikkhu Bodhi or Ajahn Chah? I'm not sure I'm understanding your point. I think it would be best to keep it for sake of consistency, as readers would be confused as to why most Buddhist teachers have their honorifics but not Ajahn Maha Bua. This is my perspective at least. Wikiman5676 (talk) 05:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Ferguson, J.P.; Ramitanondh, S. (1976). "Monks and hierarchy in northern Thailand" (PDF). Journal of the Siam Society. 64 (1): 119.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ajahn_Maha_Bua&oldid=1206464183"