Applying the Six Principles of Cordiality (Sārāṇīyadhamma) for Participatory Management of Meditation Centers in the Digital Era
Main Article Content
Abstract
Meditation centers are vital religious institutions that play a significant role in sustaining Buddhism and fostering spiritual development among the Thai people. However, in the digital era, their management faces multiple challenges, including insufficient use of modern technologies, limited access to younger generations, a lack of systematic personnel development, financial management without transparency, and weak connections with local communities. These issues hinder their ability to build trust and respond effectively to the needs of contemporary society.
A practical solution is to integrate the Six Principles of Cordiality (Sārāṇīyadhamma)—benevolent bodily conduct, benevolent verbal conduct, benevolent mental conduct, sharing of benefits, moral harmony, and doctrinal harmony—into management practices. These principles emphasize trust, unity, and harmonious coexistence. When combined with the concept of participation, which includes collective thinking, action, responsibility, and shared benefits, meditation centers can enhance inclusivity and community engagement. Digital tools such as online meetings, social media dissemination, transparent online donation systems, and digital Dhamma networks can further expand participation across diverse groups. Therefore, applying the Six Principles of Cordiality in conjunction with participatory approaches in the digital context provides a constructive framework for developing meditation center management. This integration promotes efficiency, transparency, and modernity while preserving Buddhist values. Ultimately, it enables meditation centers to meet the spiritual and social needs of contemporary Thai society and ensures the sustainable continuation of Buddhism in both physical and digital communities.
Article Details

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyright Notice
The content and information in the articles published in Journal of MCU Palisueksabuddhaghosa Review, are regarded as opinions and responsibilities of article author only. It definitely does not mean that the editor must agree or share any responsibility to the author.
Articles, information, content, figure etc. that have been published in the Journal of MCU Palisueksabuddhaghosa Review is considered as the copyright of the Journal. If any individual or organization will to bring any parts of article for promote or to do anything, must be licensed only in official form from the Journal of MCU Palisueksabuddhaghosa Review.
The content and information in the articles published in Journal of MCU Palisueksabuddhaghosa Review, are regarded as opinions and responsibilities of article author only. It definitely does not mean that the editor must agree or share any responsibility to the author.
Articles, information, content, figure etc. that have been published in the Journal of MCU Palisueksabuddhaghosa Review is considered as the copyright of the Journal. If any individual or organization will to bring any parts of article for promote or to do anything, must be licensed only in official form from the Journal of MCU Palisueksabuddhaghosa Review.
References
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224.
Castells, M. (2010). The rise of the network society. Wiley-Blackwell.
Chambers, R. (1997). Whose Reality Counts? Putting the First Last. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.
Cohen, J. M., & Uphoff, N. T. (1980). Participation’s place in rural development: Seeking clarity through specificity. World Development, 8(3), 213–235.
Koontz, H., & Weihrich, H. (2010). Essentials of management: An international perspective. McGraw-Hill.
OECD. (2020). Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions: Catching the Deliberative Wave. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Pretty, J. N. (1995). Participatory Learning for Sustainable Agriculture. World Development, 23(8), 1247–1263.
Sanghamitra, A. (2020). Digital Dharma: Buddhist Practices in Online Communities. Journal of Global Buddhism, 21(1), 56–73.
Tiravanija, P. (2019). Transparency and Accountability in Digital Religious Communities. Journal of Contemporary Religion, 34(3), 421–438.
ชยสาโรภิกขุ. (2552). วินัยกับการอยู่ร่วมกันในสังคมสงฆ์. กรุงเทพฯ: มูลนิธิพระไตรปิฎก.
บุญทัน ดอกไธสง. (2562). รูปแบบการบริหารจัดการสถานปฏิบัติธรรมเชิงพุทธในภาคตะวันออกเฉียงเหนือ. วารสารมนุษยศาสตร์และสังคมศาสตร์, 10(2).
พระธรรมกิตติวงศ์ (ทองดี สุรเตโช). (2548). พจนานุกรมพุทธศาสน์ ไทย-อังกฤษ. กรุงเทพฯ: สำนักงานพระพุทธศาสนาแห่งชาติ.
พระธรรมปิฎก (ป.อ.ปยุตโต). (2544). พจนานุกรมพุทธศาสน์ ฉบับประมวลศัพท์. กรุงเทพฯ: มหามกุฏราชวิทยาลัย.
พระพรหมคุณาภรณ์ (ป.อ. ปยุตฺโต). (2559). พุทธธรรม. กรุงเทพฯ: มูลนิธิพุทธธรรม.
พุทธทาสภิกขุ. (2538). สาราณียธรรม 6: ธรรมเพื่อความสามัคคีในหมู่คณะ. กรุงเทพฯ: ธรรมสภา.
พุทธทาสภิกขุ. (2538). หลักการอยู่ร่วมกันในพระพุทธศาสนา. กรุงเทพฯ: ธรรมสภา.
ยานันท์บุญสิริ, ม., สิริธรังศรี, พ., & บุญประเสริฐ, อ. (2022). การบริหารจัดการสำนักปฏิบัติธรรมประจำจังหวัด: สภาพปัญหาและยุทธศาสตร์. วารสารพุทธศาสนาและการพัฒนา, 14(1).
สุวรรณ, พ. (2561). การสื่อสารทางศาสนาในยุคดิจิทัล: ความท้าทายและโอกาส. วารสารศาสนาและสังคม, 13(2).