Talk:Dzogchen - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 00:33, 26 December 2015 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Dzogchen/Archive 1) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:33, 26 December 2015 by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) (Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Dzogchen/Archive 1) (bot)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 4 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Buddhism High‑importance

	This 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Philosophy: Religion / Eastern Mid‑importance

This 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

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophy of religion
	Eastern philosophy

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Tibet Top‑importance

	This 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Religion Mid‑importance

	Religion portal This 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 8 sections are present.

Mahayoga is not Dzogchen

@Joshua Jonathan:, I don't know how you got the idea that Mahayoga is Dzogchen.VictoriaGrayson 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, The Early Days of the Great Perfection. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Forget about the "earliest developmental stage". Mahayoga is not Dzogchen.VictoriaGrayson 16:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Extremely incorrect, Mahayoga is withing Dzogchen . Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Traditional accounts

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. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:18, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

But later traditional accounts obscure earlier traditional accounts. Its better left unsaid.VictoriaGrayson 07:11, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Good point, very good point. Let me think over it, for one or two days, okay? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

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. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Many changes in this article

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.

For the extent of the changes compare the diffs: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Dzogchen&diff=640295086&oldid=634250698

and https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Dzogchen&diff=617014339&oldid=613080236

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.

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?

There must surely be many other things like that. Robert Walker (talk) 12:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The info on Chögyam Trungpa's introduction of the term is unsourced, and totally WP:UNDUE. The second part is unintelligible, and also WP:UNDUE. I removed it already at 12 juni 2014, for precisely these reasons: "Removed unsourced; removed WP:UNDUE". No complaints from Vic or Chris, the obvious experts here.

After that, I've turned this article into a mature, readable and intelligible article; please stop WP:WIKIHOUNDING me, and quit your WP:DISRUPTIVE talkpage behaviour. @VictoriaGrayson: @JimRenge: @Montanabw: How about ANI for persistent disruptive editing and wiki-hounding? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

His WP:DISRUPTIVE 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 unable to comply with WP:TALK. JimRenge (talk) 14:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

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. Robert Walker (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced and WP:UNDUE? A google search for the term "maha ati" would have turned up citations right away. See for instance The Way of Maha Ati by Chogyam Trungpa and Rigdzin Shikpo and Maha Ati: Natural Liberation Through Primordial Awareness. Also wikipedia has a short article Maha Ati on it. A google scholar search turns up 76 citations that use the term: http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=%22maha+ati%22 .

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!

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.

Robert Walker (talk) 14:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Jonathan's motive for these edits - to make the article "comprehensible to normal people like me"

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 ".

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".

E.g. much of the material here in wikipedia on mathematics, e.g. pretty much the entire Reimann Hypothesis article is only comprehensible to mathematicians, to take an example.

Extended content
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. 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. 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 Reimann Hypothesis? 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? 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.

Extended content

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.

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.

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 Reimann Hypothesis? 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?

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.

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.

Does this make sense to you?

Robert Walker (talk) 14:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Joshua Jonathan, 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. Robert Walker (talk) 12:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Togal

@VictoriaGrayson: What's wrong with this info? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@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.VictoriaGrayson 15:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 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. 75.177.80.210 (talk) 15:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: What do you think? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I say remove it.VictoriaGrayson 16:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I have boldly removed it because the speculations on its meaning are OR and not from the cite.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogress (talk • contribs)

Well done (said the intrigant). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 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. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

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)

Support Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Categories: