Misplaced Pages

Talk:Dzogchen: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:51, 3 April 2015 editZuluPapa5 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers6,447 edits →Lead changes: new section← Previous edit Latest revision as of 11:30, 27 March 2024 edit undoSkyerise (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers141,232 edits archive box is redundant as it is included in the talk header 
(41 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}} {{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Buddhism|class=B {{WikiProject Buddhism|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=mid|eastern=yes|religion=yes}}
|importance=Top
{{WikiProject Tibet|importance=Top}}
}}
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=high|class=b|eastern=yes|religion=yes}} {{WikiProject Religion|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Tibetan Buddhism|class=B|importance=Top}} {{WikiProject Yoga|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Religion|class=B|importance=top}}
}} }}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
Line 12: Line 11:
|maxarchivesize = 100K |maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 1 |counter = 1
|minthreadsleft = 8 |minthreadsleft = 10
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 2
|algo = old(120d) |algo = old(120d)
|archive = Talk:Dzogchen/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Dzogchen/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{archive box|] }}


== Mahayoga is not Dzogchen == == Lead changes ==


This seems to be missing a refutation to appreciate the deletions intent. It can be restored. ] (]) 14:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
{{yo|Joshua Jonathan}}, I don't know how you got the idea that Mahayoga is Dzogchen.]<sup>]</sup> 01:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
:Yo? That's a new tag for me. Anyway: Berzin uses the term in his description of the stages of practice, and Sam van Schaik mentions Atiyoga as part of Mahayoga, at the earliest developmental stage of Dzogchen:
::''"So when did Atiyoga become a vehicle? Moving on to the 10th century, there are a couple of texts from Dunhuang which do set out early versions of the nine vehicle system. Yet even here, though we see the beginnings of the standard distinctions between Mahāyoga, Anuyoga and Atiyoga, these three are not yet called ‘vehicles’. The texts carry on presenting Anuyoga and Atiyoga as modes of Mahāyoga practice, without any specific content of their own." ''
:I'm working on it; encyclopedic entries by Buswell & Lopez and by Germano have yet to be incorporated, and a longer text by Sam van Schaik, ''. Best regards, ] -] 05:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
:::Forget about the "earliest developmental stage". Mahayoga is not Dzogchen.]<sup>]</sup> 16:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
:::: Extremely incorrect, Mahayoga is withing Dzogchen . ] (]) 21:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


== More sources == == Merger proposal ==


I propose that ] be merged into ]/]. "Maha Ati" is merely a (recently-coined) synonym for Ati yoga / Dzogchen. ] (]) 14:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
I found some more sources:
* Samten Gyaltsen Karmay (1988), '''', BRILL
* David Germano (1997), chapter on ''ru shan'', in Lopez (1997), "Religions of Tibet in practice"
* David Germano and Jeanet Gyatso (2001), ''Longchenpa and the possession of the Dakinis'', in White's ''Tantra in Practice'', gives more info on Longchenpa
* Sam van Schaik (2004), ''
* Sam van Schaik (2004), "Approaching the Great Peerfection", gives details on Jigme Lingpa's descriptions
* Kurtis R. Schaeffer, Matthew Kapstein, Gray Tuttle (2013), '''', Columbia University Press
* {{Citation | last =Schaik | first =Sam van | year =2011 | title =Tibet A History | publisher =Yale University Press}}
] -] 10:31, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


* '''Support''' ] -] 15:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
From Germano (2005):
* '''Yes''' it happened here too in a stub without reference. ] (]) 02:07, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
:''"Three historical problems have bedeviled traditional and modern scholarship on the Great Perfection:
* '''Support'''. This seems good and useful. Yes. Best, ] (]) 22:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
::''(i) the chronological conundrum of authorship resulting from the veil of the tradition’s visionary practices of concealing and revealing texts,
::''(ii) the seemingly unified homogeneity indicated by the single rubric Great Perfection in contrast to the heterogeneity of its internal doxographical categories and sub-rubrics of identification, and
::''(iii) its relationship to late Indian Buddhist Tantra, particularly in terms of its frequent rhetoric of a transcendence of, or standing apart from, Tantra.
:''On these points, traditional historiography with its visionary biases has
::''(i) strongly portrayed Great Perfection in all its varieties as being fully developed in the eighth century by non-Tibetan authors,
::''(ii) stressed the consistency of distinct subtraditions rather than viewing them as sharply divergent and mutually critical traditions, and
::''(iii) failed to clearly account for the distinct relationships of each of these subtraditions to Buddhist Tantra.
:''Modern academic scholarship has tended to either uncritically accept these claims or to only suggest vague questions about their veracity. Samten Karmay’s The Great Perfection was a landmark in initiating the historical study of the Great Perfection, but the flood of subsequent studies has for the most part shed little additional light on historical issues."''


== External links modified ==
And Vic comes up with this:
* '''' by Ronald Davidson. Particularly chapter 6
*
*
* "Religion, Medicine and the Human Embryo in Tibet" has a lot about Dzogchen
* David germano (2007), ''“The shifting terrain of the tantric bodies of Buddhas and Buddhists from an Atiyoga perspective”'', in Ramon Prats, ''The Pandita and the Siddha'', talks about Menngagde being derived from ].


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
Thanks! ] -] 14:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


I have just modified {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
== Traditional accounts ==
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717191240/http://webdelprofesor.ula.ve/humanidades/elicap/en/uploads/Biblioteca/bdz-e.version.pdf to http://webdelprofesor.ula.ve/humanidades/elicap/en/uploads/Biblioteca/bdz-e.version.pdf


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}).
From what I've seen so far, most books will ''only'' tell the traditional account. It's part of the story too, isn't it? And there's plenty of the other side, the ''historical'' story. NB: the traditional accoubts are also being mentioned by the serious sources. ] -] 20:18, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
:But later traditional accounts obscure earlier traditional accounts. Its better left unsaid.]<sup>]</sup> 07:11, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
::Good point, very good point. Let me think over it, for one or two days, okay? Best regards, ] -] 07:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=true}}
::: Traditional accounts are part of the historical analysis context and often are key to proper symbology. How the tradition evolves and disperses is only obscured by view. ] (]) 21:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 07:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
== Semde, Longde and Menngagde are not practiced in order ==


== External links modified ==
Semde, Longde and Menngagde are not practiced in order. If Longchenpa says such a thing, it would be purely hermeneutical (I don't know if this is the right word). Longde is rarely practiced at all.]<sup>]</sup> 16:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
:I already found it a starnge comment; for that reason too I'd moved it into a note. ] -] 05:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
== Many changes in this article==


I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
Just to alert the reader and editors of this article, that there have been many changes made recently by Joshua Jonathan. There has been hardly any discussion here of these changes, either before or after. Many sections removed, others rewritten, new sections added, article re-organized.
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714181933/http://www.wisdom-books.com/ProductExtract.asp?PID=14663 to http://www.wisdom-books.com/ProductExtract.asp?PID=14663


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
For the extent of the changes compare the diffs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Dzogchen&diff=640295086&oldid=634250698


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
and https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Dzogchen&diff=617014339&oldid=613080236


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 09:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
This may need attention as an editor doing such a large scale rewrite so rapidly can't be expected to be expert on all the topics in the article, and hasn't got time to read or re-read all the citations in detail and review them.


== External links modified ==
One thing I noticed right away is that the section on Maha Ati was removed. Why? It is of interest to readers that Trungpa Rimpoche coined the term Maha Ati which is in quite widespread use, for instance one might encounter the term and wonder what it means - so why remove this section?


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
There must surely be many other things like that. ] (]) 12:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
:The info on Chögyam Trungpa's introduction of the term is unsourced, and totally ]. The second part is unintelligible, and also ]. I , for precisely these reasons: ''"Removed unsourced; removed ]"''. No complaints from Vic or Chris, the obvious experts here.
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131505122900/http://www.dalailama.com/messages/dolgyal-shugden/ganden-tripa/the-shugden-affair-i to http://www.dalailama.com/messages/dolgyal-shugden/ganden-tripa/the-shugden-affair-i
:After that, I've turned this article into a mature, readable and intelligible article; please stop ] me, and quit your ] talkpage behaviour. {{yo|VictoriaGrayson}} {{yo|JimRenge}} {{yo|Montanabw}} How about ANI for persistent disruptive editing and wiki-hounding? ] -] 12:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
:::His ] talkpage behaviour will inevitably end up at ANI (or ARBCOM if there is no solution at ANI). Several editors have asked him to stop writing walls of text etc. but he seems to be ] to comply with ]. ] (]) 14:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
:::: What is better, to write a lot on the talk pages, or to do large scale editing of mature articles without writing on the talk pages? I do understand that other editors find my responses rather long so keep them as short as I can, also post less frequently, to give other editors time to catch up with the conversations here and collapse parts of longer responses to help readers who want just a short overview of the response. ] (]) 15:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 16:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
:: Unsourced and ]? A google search for the term "maha ati" would have turned up citations right away. See for instance and . Also wikipedia has a short article ] on it. A google scholar search turns up 76 citations that use the term: http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=%22maha+ati%22 .


== Could this material be useful here or on a related page? ==
:: If a section has insufficient citations, you should start by adding a "citations needed" tag and ask on the talk page for citations, or search for citations yourself, not just delete it!


Hi Dzogchen editors,
:: Yes I did find this article by looking through your recent edit history, but that's in preparation for posting about your edits to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard as Robert McClenon recommended, I think it is reasonable enough to look at other articles that you have treated in the same way. And when I found it, I thought - good idea to alert other editors to this as there would be no way to know from the talk page, otherwise, that a major rewrite of the article has occurred.


The material below currently exists on the ] page. It is hard to justify having this long historical overview only to conclude panpsychism is not a part of Dzogchen. However, as a matter of the history of Western study of Dzogchen, it is important knowledge that early translators had a false impression about Dzogchen teachings. Could it go on this page, as part of a "Historiography" section, perhaps? Or is there a related page where this would be useful? It seems a shame just to delete it.
:: ] (]) 14:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


:: According to a common misunderstanding, in the Buddhist ] tradition {{Citation needed|date=February 2011}}, particularly Dzogchen ] or "mind series" the principal text of which is the ], there is nothing which is non-sentient, i.e. everything is sentient. Moreover, two of the English scholars who opened the discourse of the ] literature of the ] Dzogchen tradition, ] & ] (1954, 2000: p.&nbsp;10) specifically with their partial translation and commentary of the '']'' into the English language write of the "One Mind" (Tibetan: sems nyid gcig; Sanskrit: *ekacittatva; *ekacittata; where * denotes a possible Sanskrit back-formation) thus:
===Jonathan's motive for these edits - to make the article "comprehensible to normal people like me"===


:: {{quote|The One Mind, as Reality, is the Heart which pulsates for ever, sending forth purified the blood-streams of existence, and taking them back again; the Great Breath, the Inscrutable ], the Eternally Unveiled Mystery of the Mysteries of Antiquity, the Goal of all Pilgrimages, the End of all Existence.<ref>Walter Yeeling Evans-Wentz, Carl Gustav Jung (1954, 2000). ''The Tibetan book of the great liberation, or, The method of realizing nirvāṇa through knowing the mind''. Oxford University Press US, 2000. {{ISBN|0-19-513315-3}}, {{ISBN|978-0-19-513315-8}}. Source: (accessed: Sunday March 7, 2010)</ref>}}
I see now that you did say something in the Cleanup section which I didn't spot before as it is in the archive, https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Dzogchen/Archive_1#Clean-up '''"I've removed a lot of WP:UNDUE stuff, to make this article comprehensible for normal people like me ". '''


:: It should be borne in mind, that Evans-Wentz never studied the Tibetan language and that the lama who did the main translation work for him was of the ] sect and is not known to have actually studied or practiced Dzogchen.
But - that doesn't seem a good motive to me. As far as I know, '''there is no wikipedia guideline saying that all content has to be comprehensible to "normal people"'''.


:: According to the translation with commentary, "Self-Liberation Through Seeing with Naked Awareness", by John Myrdhin Reynolds, the phrase, "It is the single nature of mind which encompasses all of Samsara and Nirvana," occurs only once in the text and it refers not to "some sort of ] hypostasis, a universal ''Nous,'' of which all individual minds are but fragments or appendages", but to the teaching that, "whether one finds oneself in the state of Samsara or in the state of Nirvana, it is the nature of the mind which reflects with awareness all experiences, no matter what may be their nature." This can be found in Appendix I, on pages 80–81. Reynolds elucidates further with the analogy of a mirror. To say that a single mirror can reflect ugliness or beauty, does not constitute an allegation that all ugliness and beauty is one single mirror.
E.g. much of the material here in wikipedia on mathematics, e.g. pretty much the entire ] article is only comprehensible to mathematicians, to take an example.


{{cot}} {{reflist-talk}}


Let me know if this could be valuable. ] (]) 03:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
DzogChen has a reputation as one of the most profound topics in Buddhism - and hardest to explain and to understand - and it is not too surprising if some of it gets rather technical at times.


:I can hardly follow what this text is about... ] -] 05:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
And your changes have been very extensive as the diffs show, removing sections, rewriting others, re-organizing it, etc etc, with just a few brief remarks on the discussion page. They are bound to introduce mistakes, especially done by an editor who doesn't understand the material being edited.


:: Hi ], probably no good for this page then. Do you think it could be useful on the ] page, though? It is saying that when Evan-Wentz and Jung first translated the text, they misrepresented it as saying one great mind pervades the universe, whereas it said no such thing. That said, if the above is incomprehensible I'll just delete it from the ] article. ] (]) 16:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I mean - if it is "not comprehensible to you" - then a corollary is that you don't understand it. Would you apply a similar treatment to ]? I'm sure most of that will be not comprehensible to you unless you are a mathematician. Would you expect that article to remain an accurate, thorough, and clear presentation of the topic after your rewrite? Is it not better to ask for someone to rewrite it who does understand the material?


:::I don't know, I can't judge. It's too specialized... ] -] 18:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
You could of course ask other editors to work on presenting the more technical sections in ways more accessible to readers not familiar with the content. That would be a reasonable thing to do, though in some cases content simply can't be expressed in non technical ways. That's true of the Reimann hypothesis at least. It can be stated in a single sentence, easily, but uses concepts so advanced you need to master several different degree level subjects before you can know what they mean. You only begin to understand it towards the end of a first degree in maths, and would need to do postgraduate research in that particular field to have a clear understanding of it e.g. enough to read recent research papers on the topic and have some understanding of what they are about. And this particular hypothesis is so technical, it is probably not possible to explain it to non mathematicians at all. That's just the way things are sometimes.
== "Gartak (martial art)" listed at ] ==
{{cob}}
]
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ]. Please participate in ] if you wish to do so. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 21:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


== Article too long ==
Some technical articles and sections simply can't be given that kind of a treatment. Best you can do is to make as much of it comprehensible as possible, for as wide an audience as possible, wherever it is possible and reasonable to do so.


There are sections that could stand alone as articles, rigpa, trekcho, togal, among others. ] (]) 13:29, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Does this make sense to you?


==Split proposal==
] (]) 14:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
The article is really too long and the practice section nested too deep. Logically ], currently a redirect to the section, would be the place to which to split the material. I'm also open to ], but I think the dab style is currently preferred. ] (]) 20:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


I think the length is fine, only the "base, path, and fruit" is of considerable length, nonetheless, I've seen longer articles. ] (]) 13:03, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
], Just adding something else that just possibly might help. When you read stories about some of the Buddha's first disciples realizing nirvana with just a few words spoken to them, or Zen Buddhist stories about Koans, is easy to think that all Buddhist ideas have to be simple to explain.

As I understand it, the complexity of the explanations reflects the complexity of our relative world, and the need of some people on some paths to need complex expositions. If the teachers only cover material that can be presented with few words - that may be all that needs to be said for some students, but others who need more words in their explanations will be left out. ] (]) 12:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

== ANI ==

I've filed an ANI-complaint at ]. ] -] 19:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

: Thanks, I've replied. ] (]) 20:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

== Togal ==

{{yo|VictoriaGrayson}} What's wrong with ? ] -] 06:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
:{{yo|Joshua Jonathan}} In thogal, there is no active manipulation of the subtle body like in perfection phase. Germano himself explains this in ''The shifting terrain of the tantric bodies of Buddhas and Buddhists from an Atiyoga perspective''. So you probably conflating historical development with the actual practice. Also the phrase "extensive practices, including yogic postures, breathing practices" is really not accurate. Your cited reference of page 38 in ''Union of Mahamudra and Dzogchen'' doesn't say anything about it.]<sup>]</sup> 15:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
::Okay, thanks. ] -] 17:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

== Line in Etymology ==

Hello all - I have no real knowledge of this subject, so I wanted to ask if someone else would double check this line from the Etymology section at the top:

"According to the 14th Dalai Lama, the term dzogchen may be a rendering of the Sanskrit term mahāsandhi, sandhi meaning "alliance, union, connection," "intercourse with," or "vagina or vulva"."

This is seems almost definitely a crude joke, but then again I guess I don't know 100%. The web link used as a source is broken, whatever the case. ] (]) 15:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

:{{yo|VictoriaGrayson}} What do you think? ] -] 15:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
::I say remove it.]<sup>]</sup> 16:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
:::I have boldly removed it because the speculations on its meaning are OR and not from the cite.<small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
::::Well done (said the intrigant). ] -] 21:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

== Respects and Warning ==

My experiences with this tradition typically begins with warnings and respect for secrecy, as well as the emphasizing importance of living beings in pursuing it's practice This article would be wise include sourced content in this regard. ] (]) 21:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

== Lead changes ==

This seems to be missing a refutation to appreciate the deletions intent. It can be restored. ] (]) 14:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 11:30, 27 March 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dzogchen article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 4 months 
This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconBuddhism High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPhilosophy: Religion / Eastern Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Philosophy of religion
Taskforce icon
Eastern philosophy
WikiProject iconTibet Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Tibet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Tibet on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TibetWikipedia:WikiProject TibetTemplate:WikiProject TibetTibet
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconReligion Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconYoga Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Yoga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Yoga, Hatha yoga, Yoga as exercise and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YogaWikipedia:WikiProject YogaTemplate:WikiProject YogaYoga
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lead changes

This seems to be missing a refutation to appreciate the deletions intent. It can be restored. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Maha Ati be merged into Atiyoga/Dzogchen. "Maha Ati" is merely a (recently-coined) synonym for Ati yoga / Dzogchen. 109.156.203.132 (talk) 14:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dzogchen. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 07:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dzogchen. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 09:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dzogchen. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 16:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Could this material be useful here or on a related page?

Hi Dzogchen editors,

The material below currently exists on the panpsychism page. It is hard to justify having this long historical overview only to conclude panpsychism is not a part of Dzogchen. However, as a matter of the history of Western study of Dzogchen, it is important knowledge that early translators had a false impression about Dzogchen teachings. Could it go on this page, as part of a "Historiography" section, perhaps? Or is there a related page where this would be useful? It seems a shame just to delete it.

According to a common misunderstanding, in the Buddhist Dzogchen tradition , particularly Dzogchen Semde or "mind series" the principal text of which is the Kulayarāja Tantra, there is nothing which is non-sentient, i.e. everything is sentient. Moreover, two of the English scholars who opened the discourse of the Bardo literature of the Nyingma Dzogchen tradition, Evans-Wentz & Jung (1954, 2000: p. 10) specifically with their partial translation and commentary of the Bardo Thodol into the English language write of the "One Mind" (Tibetan: sems nyid gcig; Sanskrit: *ekacittatva; *ekacittata; where * denotes a possible Sanskrit back-formation) thus:

The One Mind, as Reality, is the Heart which pulsates for ever, sending forth purified the blood-streams of existence, and taking them back again; the Great Breath, the Inscrutable Brahman, the Eternally Unveiled Mystery of the Mysteries of Antiquity, the Goal of all Pilgrimages, the End of all Existence.

It should be borne in mind, that Evans-Wentz never studied the Tibetan language and that the lama who did the main translation work for him was of the Gelukpa sect and is not known to have actually studied or practiced Dzogchen.
According to the translation with commentary, "Self-Liberation Through Seeing with Naked Awareness", by John Myrdhin Reynolds, the phrase, "It is the single nature of mind which encompasses all of Samsara and Nirvana," occurs only once in the text and it refers not to "some sort of Neo-Platonic hypostasis, a universal Nous, of which all individual minds are but fragments or appendages", but to the teaching that, "whether one finds oneself in the state of Samsara or in the state of Nirvana, it is the nature of the mind which reflects with awareness all experiences, no matter what may be their nature." This can be found in Appendix I, on pages 80–81. Reynolds elucidates further with the analogy of a mirror. To say that a single mirror can reflect ugliness or beauty, does not constitute an allegation that all ugliness and beauty is one single mirror.

References

  1. Walter Yeeling Evans-Wentz, Carl Gustav Jung (1954, 2000). The Tibetan book of the great liberation, or, The method of realizing nirvāṇa through knowing the mind. Oxford University Press US, 2000. ISBN 0-19-513315-3, ISBN 978-0-19-513315-8. Source: (accessed: Sunday March 7, 2010)

Let me know if this could be valuable. Gazelle55 (talk) 03:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I can hardly follow what this text is about... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi Joshua Jonathan, probably no good for this page then. Do you think it could be useful on the Kulayarāja Tantra page, though? It is saying that when Evan-Wentz and Jung first translated the text, they misrepresented it as saying one great mind pervades the universe, whereas it said no such thing. That said, if the above is incomprehensible I'll just delete it from the panpsychism article. Gazelle55 (talk) 16:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't know, I can't judge. It's too specialized... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

"Gartak (martial art)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Gartak (martial art). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill 21:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Article too long

There are sections that could stand alone as articles, rigpa, trekcho, togal, among others. Skyerise (talk) 13:29, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Split proposal

The article is really too long and the practice section nested too deep. Logically Practice (Dzogchen), currently a redirect to the section, would be the place to which to split the material. I'm also open to Practice in Dzogchen, but I think the dab style is currently preferred. Skyerise (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the length is fine, only the "base, path, and fruit" is of considerable length, nonetheless, I've seen longer articles. 178.120.59.13 (talk) 13:03, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Categories: