Talk:Southern Esoteric Buddhism

"Tantric" Theravada?

​The title of this article seems misleading since Tantric Buddhism usually refers Buddhist schools which accept Buddhist Tantras, a specific class of texts (tantra as opposed to sutra/sutta) as part of the Buddhist canon (e.g. the Tibetan Buddhst canon or Tripitaks has a specific rGyud (Tantra) division). As far as I know there are no canonical texts called or classed as Tantra within any Theravada tradition. The term "Tantra" is also rather loaded in the western (and some eastern) imagination being associated with sexual practices. Wouldn't it be better and more accurate if this article was renamed something like "Southern Esoteric Buddhism" (which is what Cousins calls it), "Esoteric Theravada Buddhism", or "Esoteric traditions in Theravada/Southern Buddhism"?
Chris Fynn (talk) 07:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

CFynn, I agree and propose a rename in the next section.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 10:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 11 April 2020

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to "Southern Esoteric Buddhism" buidhe 23:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

---

Tantric Theravada → Yogāvacara – The term Tantric Theravada has become outdated in current scholarship. The scholar who coined the term, François Bizot,[1] already acknowledged that the term was not very accurate. Current scholarship tends to use the term Yogāvacara[2] or Borān[3][4] practices instead. Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. buidhe 20:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• Pinging notable authors per info provided here: @Javierfv1212, Eroux108, JimRenge, Joshua Jonathan, SJ Defender, Invokingvajras, Rossen4, Chris the speller, and Brittney Tun:.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• I'm all in for a rename yes, the only reason I didn't do it when I edited the page a few weeks ago was out of laziness, sorry! Is Yogāvacara attested a lot outside of the old article you point to? Otherwise I would go for Boran Kammathan (spelling coming from Skilton's article), although I think it would be best with a qualifier like Boran Kammathan (Buddhist Practices) 11:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Élie Roux (talk)
• Hello. I agree. I like Boran Kammathan, Yogāvacara sounds a lot like Yogacara and it might confuse people. Besides I'm not sure Yogāvacara is known much outside of the scholarly literature, IMO in Thailand or Cambodia at least, not many would know what this means. [Edit] Regarding Southern Esoteric Buddhism. This is not bad and I would not be against it. However, a notable issue with this is that it may be confused with the lesser known Indonesian Esoteric Buddhism, which is technically in Southeast Asia. If we are searching for an english title, perhaps Esoteric Theravada?☸Javierfv1212☸ 15:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that Indonesian Esoteric Buddhism is well-known enough to really create much confusion. Given that it is also a form of esoteric Southern Buddhism, including a short summary with a link to Indonesian Esoteric Buddhism would eliminate any such risk. To me another benefit of Southern Esoteric Buddhism is that they keep out of the waters of WP:SYNTH. The geography and description as esoteric by sources is unambiguous, whereas otherwise one might quibble as to whether a specific practice has been described as borān kammaṭṭhāna vs. Yogavacara vs. esoteric Theravada vs. something else. I was also mulling proposing something like 'Esoteric practices in Theravada Buddhism'- I'd consider something like that acceptable as well but prefer the solution described above. --Spasemunki (talk) 13:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• I prefer Southern Esoteric Buddhism for being both an English title that is more readily understandable to English-language readers, and for being broader than either Boran or Yogavacara. There are practices or traditions that would fall under the heading of esoteric Theravada but are not explicitly identified with either of those terms. Borān kammaṭṭhāna seems preferable to Yogavacara, but I think there are things that could rightly be called esoteric Theravada/Southern esoteric that aren't clearly part of either. --Spasemunki (talk) 23:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Agree with the previous poster. Southern Esoteric Buddhism might be better as it is wide enough to cover a range of different esoteric traditions within Theravada Buddhism and within different Theravda countries - and could have a subsection for each. A title in plain English is also advantageous for the general reader and would make the article easier to find.
  - Chris Fynn (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with Spasemunki and Chris Fynn, Southern Esoteric Buddhism is a broad term and plain English. JimRenge (talk) 20:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support renaming to Boran Kammathan. I have never liked the use of tantric for this article, mostly for the reasons already mentioned by others here. I also can not support the Southern Esoteric Buddhism option. Labeling it "Buddhism" seems a little POV to me since, to the orthodox and reformed Theravadans of Southeast Asia, these practices are not considered part of Buddhism. In fact, that is exactly what sets this group of practices apart: they have been identified as syncretic local folk beliefs and surviving pre-historic magic/superstitions and subsequently purged from reformed and more orthodox schools in the region. Even to those who do practice these traditions, they are more of a way of understanding Theravada doctrine and not the doctrine itself. The article uses the quote: "(it involves) the physical internalisation or manifestation of aspects of the Theravada path by incorporating them at points in the body between the nostril and navel." As such, Boran Kammathan ("ancient practices/meditations") is a more descriptive and apt term. Additionally, Southern Esoteric Buddhism is not only overly broad, but also runs the risk of giving the false impression that this is another "sect" of Buddhism (cf. Mahayana, Theravada, etc) instead of just a set of practices within a subset of a "sect".--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 00:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

We adopt a comparable approach to other articles that don't fit neatly into sectarian categories- East Asian Buddhism, Indian Buddhism, Engaged Buddhism. Southern Buddhism and Northern Buddhism are also fairly standard categories used in discussion of wider trends in the Buddhist world. I agree with Eroux108's observation- NPOV doesn't require we defer to a critical perspective. The consensus in academic literature is that this is a Buddhist phenomenon, practitioners identify as Buddhists- even some critics may still see it as superstitious, unorthodox, or degenerate Buddhism rather than non-Buddhist. I do think that the article ought to reflect relevant criticism of orthodoxy or orthopraxy if it can be identified. If there are contemporary opinions from notable sources (like well-known teachers or national hierarchs) they should be included. With respect to breadth, the article as it stands includes elements from Sri Lanka and Burma as well as the Thai-Lao linguistic sphere and others could probably be added- the English name's generality seems appropriate in such a case --Spasemunki (talk) 08:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Similarly, some Christian groups or denominations may not recognize for example Mormons or Pentecostals as fellow Christians. I don't think Wikipedia can be an arbiter of orthodoxy for any religious faith or tradition, though articles can certainly detail how the beliefs of one group within a particular religion diverge from others. If the majority of people within a tradition self-identify as Buddhist, or even as Theravada Buddhists, I think we have to broadly accept that they are. Chris Fynn (talk) 14:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• I think not labeling something "Buddhist" because some don't consider it orthodox is very odd. If we follow that line of thoughts then we shouldn't use Tibetan/Vajrayana/Pure Land/Tantric Buddhism because Theravadin don't consider it orthodox... Élie Roux (talk) 07:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.