Talk:Dzogchen/Archive 1

Dzogchen in Nyingma and Bon

In my view, a disambiguation page may be appropriate to distinguish between Nyingma and Bon Dzogchen traditions, or else further clarification in this page. There is definitely a range of opinion as to how similar or dissimilar the two are. Thoughts?

What is the Tibetan title of the Maha Ati Tantra

What is the Tibetan title of the Maha Ati Tantra? Is it translated? ISBN?

Maha Ati Tantra isn't a specific tantric text. It is a class of tantra. Tantra, in the Nyingma tradition, is divided into nine vehicles or yanas. Maha Ati Tantra is the highest of these vehicles. --Albill

Actually, Maha Ati is not even a class of tantra (at least in the Nyingma system). This seems to be an invention of H.H. Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche to meld MAHAmudra and ATIyoga (i.e. phyag rgya chen po and rdzogs pa chen po in Tibetan). Albill seems to be mistakenly thinking Mahayoga and Atiyoga are one in the same. The Nyingma school groups its tantras into 6, not 9, divisions. There are a total of nine yanas, or vehicles, in the Nyingma system, but only the last 6 are tantric. These are the sravakayana and pratyekabuddhayana (which are associated with the Hinayana), the bodhisattvayana (associated with sutra Mahayana), kriya, upa, and yoga tantra (the outer tantras), and maha, anu, and ati yoga (the inner tantras). As you can see here, Mahayoga (typically identified with creation/development stage meditation) and Atiyoga (identified with "signless" completion stage meditation) are totally distinct categories. They have their own textual traditions and lineage masters and are totally different in terms of practice. Hope this helps clarify the issue!

Re the term Maha Ati. In his talks & writings Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche may have intended "Maha Ati" to indicate the union of Maha Mudra (phyag rgya chen po) and Ati Yoga (shin tu rnal 'byor) another name for Dzogchen / Mahasandhi. However the term "Maha Ati" does occur elsewhere e.g. in the Nyingma tradition of 9 vehicles the three higher levels of Tantra are classified as "Maha", "Anu" and "Ati" - and Ati is sometimes further sub-divided into "Maha-Ati", Anu-Ati and "Ati-Ati".

The article currently claims that "Maha Ati is a term coined by Trungpa Rinpoche" - there neds o be a citation for this claim. Chris Fynn (talk) 07:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is this page marked NPOV?

I can't see anything in it that is particularly controversial, considering the article is explaining a religious tradition. The talk page doesn't seem to have anything in it to explain this NPOV tagging.

Dzogchen itself is controversial, of course.

BTW: there's a contradiction regarding the origins of Dzogchen. Was its source Padmasambhava? If so, how come Garab Dorje is expounding it? Garab Dorje was one of Padmasambhava's teachers. Anyway, according to my understanding, Dozgchen is supposed by its adherents to be a teaching of the Buddha. The lineage is rather odd, though, because it involves at least one teacher of implausible longevity. But then you tend to get that with tantric lineages.

--MrDemeanour 12:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I (hesitantly) untagged it, because I eventually found the explanation for the NPOV tag in history; and it's supposedly been addressed, over a month ago. I'm a wikinewbie - let me know if this was wrong! It could still be improved, IMO; currently the only living Dzogchen teacher cited in the body is Sogyal Rimpoche, who has published prolifically, but isn't universally regarded as an unimpeachable authority. There are plenty of classical authorities that could be cited instead. Citing (under references) of books that are actually in print seems to me to be not only unobjectionable, but entirely appropriate.

--MrDemeanour 12:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Dzogchen and Nirvana

I have removed Klimov's addition of a link to Nirvana because Dzogchen is a state of non-duality; it is the realization that there is no Nirvana and no Samsara because there is no difference between the two. It is incorrect to think that Dzogchen is a path to Nirvana or that they are the same thing. Csbodine 18:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Klimov:
Yes, sure, I agree with that.

However, I don't think that this page is written mostly for the people who understand that.

I do think that this page would be read mostly by the people who do not have any idea what is dzogchen and if the term designates a mental state or a religion or teaching or meditation or something. If they somehow came to the page, they seem to me should have heared about nirvana. I've added the link to nirvana to create positive motivation for the newbies.

It seems to me that the link to nirvana should be put back and the above explanation by Csbodine somehow worked in as a note or 'small print' or something like that. --Klimov 22:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but I also think that it is important for the Wiki entry to explain what it is, not what it is sorta like. Obviously (maybe?), Dzogchen is a topic beyond the grasp of (or at least very counter-intuitive to) most Tibetan practioners, let alone the general public. Therefore, it is important that the article give as clear and concise and acurate description. I'm not really happy with the way the article is written to begin with, but I don't have any suggestions for correction yet. Csbodine 23:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Klimov:
OK, let's try to mention Nirvana as in "compare with Nirvana".--Klimov 17:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Nirvana and Dzogchen

The new page Nirvana and Dzogchen created based on the above text by Csbodine.
--Klimov 17:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Mental state vs state of realization

Reverted 'state of realization' by Csbodine back to 'mental state' because it seems that the term 'realization' does not designate anything meaningful for the reader and represents circular definition: X defined as Y where both are unknown.
--Klimov 18:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean by "mental state"? If it is a state of mind, it is wrong. The state of Dzogchen is beyond mind and concepts.

Klimov:
Agreed. Desirable seems a simple definition, that would be both theoreticaly and experientially correct and would be also non-circular (see Fallacies of definition).
The current one seems at least better than the one that defined dzogchen as simply teachings.--Klimov 20:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Klimov:
OK, folks, next try. Please critique 'special state' + the 'context' thing.--Klimov 20:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• It is hardly possible to define Dzogchen precisely. What we can try to do is to emphasize that Dzogchen means both one's own natural state (that can only be experienced directly but not expressed), and the Dzogchen teaching, i.e. the methods that can lead to this experience. I'd suggest to express it as 'the natural state of individuum' instead of 'special state', but I'd leave the decision to a qualified native speaker. -- Mokhin 21:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• I have four or five books on Dzogchen that I'm going to scan through and see if I can piece together some better, substantiated information. For instance, Tregchod and Thodgal aren't even mentioned in this article, nor is the Rainbow Body mentioned. I think this article, in general, is really lacking. Csbodine 09:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• I agree, though I think there is a lot of good material in the article that could stand some grooming and reorganization. As is often (I feel) the case, there is also a lack of high-level, more easily accessible introduction. A lot of what is written assumes (perhaps) a bit too much background on the part of the (non-specialist) reader -- but I think that can be remediated with a good introductory paragraph -- and yes that was the sound of me volunteering myself to write it :). Though, I hasten to add, you can make a complex topic like Dzogchen only so much simpler. Hmackiernan 06:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The word 'condition' is more appropriate than 'state'

Namkhai Norbu says: "What is Dzogchen? Truly speaking, Dzogchen is our condition. When we get together to do a retreat, what I explain throughout is the understanding of our own condition. Even if I explain it in different ways, that which we call Dzogchen, the Great Perfection, is our own condition. If you understand this, then there is a real basis for development. When we lack this knowledge, it is called marigba (ma.rig.pa.), 'ignorance.'" Source: http://www.dhost.info/atiyoga/dzogchen/chnnintro.html Norbu very often uses the phrase "condition"

The reason he says this is that the whole point of practice is to experience the nature we have had since beginningless time. 'State' implies something temporary, like a mood, feeling, or similar. eg. the phrase "change of state" "state of mind" etc. It is our CONDITION. Our nature. NOT yet another temporary meditation state, jana, concentration, realisation or whatever. One of the most important aspects OF IT, is that it has always been there, always will be and is not something CREATED or which can be DESTROYED. That's one of the MAIN POINTS about it. So to call it a 'state' - with all its intimations of transiency, is a bit misleading. Yes, true, a STATE is involved in that one must enter a state of contemplation to experience this condition, but that is secondary to the main fact of the condition's existence. In fact, the teachers have pointed out that even when people HEAR of the existence of this 'Buddha Nature' it makes them rejoice. Even the mere hearing of the fact that they have this primordially perfect, indestrutible pure nature. So it's permanent existence - 'before one was even born', and no matter what 'states' you may experience - is a central point. However I am in too much of a state of tiredness to change it right now, even though my condition is eternally pure. hehe -Zenji, long term student of Buddhism and Dzogchen, including retreats with N.N

That seems OK. Maybe let's try to incorporate both words, condition and state. ChNN does.--Klimov 18:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Is Dzogchen a 'state' or our natural CONDITION?

One of the main authors of this page says that dzogchen is a state. This is an intruiging idea, implying that it is like a state we can reach. Almost like a state of contentment. However my understanding of it, after reading Norbu extensively and attending his retreats, plus my own meditation, is that it is more like our primordial condition - ever-present and just waiting to be discovered. Like the 'gold hidden under the house', 'the buddha wrapped in rags' and other analogies. And that the practice is, perhaps, to remain aware of this state. (Which could be likened to the sat-chit-ananda of Hinduism). Either way, everything I've encountered points to an always already existing CONDITION (as Norbu describes it) rather than a state to arrive at per se. This is why Norbu uses the example of the crystal, mirror and so forth. I do find the state idea this author is proposing interesting though. Perhaps they are referring to the state of being aware of the condition?

• That is what I've heard from ChNN, state of dzogchen, natural state etc. He also did use sometimes in this context the word condition.--Klimov 17:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

Dzogchen is an idea within the context of within Buddhist thought. The article needs to begin with:

According to Buddhism...

Or with some other analogous phrase. — goethean ॐ 19:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I concur and have attempted to remedy that. Zero sharp 19:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Possible external links

An external link pointing to a free podcast on the iTunes store (no advertising) of a new book presenting a philosophical introduction to Awareness that is being syndicated as it goes to print was added and then removed as SPAM. If anyone is interested in having the podcast added as an external link, the information is:

• An Introduction to Awareness podcast Philosophical introduction to Awareness

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.190.24.116 (talk) .Zero sharp 20:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Article has taken a wrong direction

People seem to have take pieces out of teachings and books of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche and Geshe Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche (mainly) and put them into this article. I think this corresponds neither to the teachings nor to the character of Wikipedia. I think entries like Dzogchen should explain the relationship to other Buddhist teachings, give an overview of history, and maybe a few hints about specific practice, as far as appropriate and understandable for a general audience. For my taste there are too many half-digested pieces of teachings here. Teaching is a task for teachers, and in an appropriate setting.

The paragraph on well-being is a typical example for the haphazardness of what is appearing where. It may well be that a Dzogchen teacher has explained something like what is written here, but this does not make such a statement suitable for the Dzogchen entry.

I would kindly ask the authors of this article (and of other articles having taken a similar direction recently) to reconsider their editing style and to streamline their entries. --Menmo 13:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. If one is a practitioner one needs to be VERY CAREFUL when writing/talking about Dzogchen. I think what might be particularly helpful would be to provide a greater sense of the context of Dzogchen, i.e. its status within Tibetan Buddhism in general and its relationship with the Bon tradition. Christopher Melen 16:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• I agree too... the article is an undigested mess. However, one would have to be very brave to make a serious attempt to fix it. At some point, a qualified scholar should do a total re-write. I'm not sure what to do until then, particularly given the acrimony shown on this talk page. Perhaps rather than trying to deal with details, editors could try and find a better overall structure for the material. Arthur chos (talk) 19:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:User_Dzogchen

New user box template created:

This user follows Dzogchen teachings.

--Klimov 13:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I profoundly disagree with this, as it is inappropriate for a practitioner of Dzogchen to advertise the fact. It should be kept SECRET. 90.205.92.112 (talk) 23:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

My root teacher does not keep secret the fact that he is following Dzogchen teachings. --Klimov (talk) 16:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well it is certainly true that Dzogchen is not as 'secret' as it used to be. But whereas masters like ChNN cannot help but advertise the fact that they are practitioners, we as the students of such masters should never reveal it. As Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche said the Dzogchen practitioner should be 'outwardly Hinayana'. It is even advisable to keep it secret from practitioners of lower teachings, such as Sutra and Tantra. What you are effectively doing is broadcasting to potentially the entire visible and invisible universe that you are a practitioner, and that at the very least just seems not in keeping with the spirit of Dzogchen. I wouldn't wish to get into an argument about this, however, so if you wish to continue with this I will not make further objection. Just a friendly suggestion to a spiritual fellow traveller. 90.205.92.102 (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I would hardly characterise your initial comment as 'friendly'. If you disagree, don't display the userbox on your page. It's really just as simple as that. One wonders if you perhaps have some issues of your own too work out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.26.76 (talk) 00:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

My initial comment was simply a statement of disagreement, neither friendly nor unfriendly - though admittedly somewhat direct. I am entitled to voice disagreement, I think. Oh, and undoubtedly I do have many and varied issues, since I'm a human being. But I am simply repeating the advice of my teacher, nothing more. That is the advice I have been given. 90.205.92.102 (talk) 04:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

"Outwardly Hinayana" simply means "maintain your vows". I'd be willing to bet that this phrase was followed by "inwardly Mahayana" and "secretly"... fill in the blank according to the teacher or system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.65.143 (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

alayvijnana for karma

B9 had wkfyed 'karmic traces' to point at 'alayavijnana' -- I'm not aware of any link between Dzogchen and cittamatra so I made the target to 'karma_in_buddhism', on the theory that it is more general, and probably more applicable here. If I've misunderstood someone's intent, I apologize and please edify me :D Zero sharp 05:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Etymology

It seems to me that Dzogchen comes from the Chinese word "Jiujing"(究竟, meaning "most fundamental"), a term used widely in Zen Buddhism literature since at least 6th Century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptr123 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Maha-siddhi

The translation of Dzogchen as Maha-siddhi is incorrect, because this term doesn't appear in any dzogchen or tantric source, Indic or Tibetan. I'm removing it.

"... although, more properly, rDzogs-chen is a direct translation of the Sanskrit term Mahā-siddhi ('Great Perfection')." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.193.251 (talk) 02:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Monist language

Please give the exact quote that you rendered "The result is already present in the cause, the fruit in the seed, and Buddhahood in the sentient being. There is no essential movement, only a recognition of what is, was and always will be a unified whole - total singularity and non-duality." Mitsube (talk) 01:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Mitsube: stop deleting my substantial and referenced contributions. Nearly every time I make a major contribution, you pop up and delete my material. Utterly childish behaviour. Don't you know by now that you should discuss matters with the editor concerned first - and, indeed, with other interested editors - before deleting a whole passage? Deletion should only occur if consensus is reached that the material is irremediably wrong in some way. If you continue this obvious vendetta of trouble-making that you are pursuing against me, I will take the matter further ...

I have restored the deleted section of the Intro, and added a relevant section (boundless Wholeness) later in the body of the article. Suddha (talk) 11:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Please answer my question, and don't accuse me of things I didn't do, such as deleting something. Mitsube (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I see that you did not in fact delete my Intro section the first time round, but moved it to a different part of the article. You should have made this clear. Given your relish for deleting material, it was hardly surprising that I thought you had deleted this contribution of mine too. Yet now you seem to have deleted my section, 'Boundless Wholeness'. As for my words on Buddhahood in the being, the fruit in the seed, this is implicit in the meaning of that sentence by Klein et al. which I quote, and indeed of much of that book, and is basic Dzogchen doctrine. I also provided a quote on base, path and fruit which you seem to have deleted now (along with my entire 'Boundless Wholeness' section, of which it formed part). I don't see why you fail to practise 'good faith' as regards my edits: I have nowhere posted material that is false or inaccurate. I intend to restore that section on 'Boundless Wholeness', as well as my Intro material to the Introduction, where it belongs. Suddha (talk) 01:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

You have given personal interpretations that do not belong on wikipedia before. I see that you are now giving your own personal conclusions regarding the secondary source, thus becoming yourself the tertiary source. That is unacceptable. Dzogchen is not a monist doctrine. It is informed by Madhyamaka philosophy. You can say otherwise only if you find a source saying so, as usual. I am also interested to read if the source actually says the following: "a completely open Awareness, which recognises itself as the base of all, and which is complete in itself." Mitsube (talk) 01:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your statement "Nearly every time I make a major contribution, you pop up and delete my material." You know that it not true. I have not quibbled with large swathes of quotes from scholarly sources that you like. It is only your personal interpetations that I have excised. Mitsube (talk) 02:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Suddha, you have been asked to provide the sources for the following sentences:

• "The result is already present in the cause, the fruit in the seed, and Buddhahood in the sentient being. There is no essential movement, only a recognition of what is, was and always will be a unified whole - total singularity and non-duality."
• "a completely open Awareness, which recognises itself as the base of all, and which is complete in itself."
• Please explain your source's use of the word "essence" in the "boundless wholeness section." Mitsube (talk) 07:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Mitsube and His Intolerant and Intolerable Behaviour

It is time to speak clearly and plainly about the absolutely intolerable behaviour of User:Mitsube. Ever since I signed up with Wikipedia a month or so ago, this 'editor' has been following me around Wikipedia and making endless demands and complaints regarding my contributions to, and discussions of, Buddhist articles on Wikipedia, especially regarding the positive doctrines of Tathagatagarbha, Purity in Buddhism and Dolpopa (no other editor has done the same, nor even seriously criticised the accurate information which I have put out). How is User:Mitsube's behaviour unreasonable? First, sources that I quote are deemed by him not to be good enough (although they are accepted by scholars). Then when other sources are cited, I am accused (as above, in the 'monist language' section of this page) of putting out my own personal interpretation of those sources (which I do not do); then when quotes from primary texts are given which clearly and unequivocally support what I have written, this is rejected by Mitsube as quoting primary texts out of context and/or slanting them to my personal interpretation (again, an unjust and groundless accusation); then when unimpeachable secondary sources are referred to which support my words, Mitsube wants to see tha actual quote; then, when the quote is duly supplied, Mitsube is still not satisfied: he wants to know how a particular word is used in that particular book .... on and on it goes, with no end in sight. Well, I am going to end it - now. I can recognise foolishness when I encounter it, and I am encountering it right here in the guise of this 'editor, Mitsube. I will no longer engage with this time-wasting, autocratically inclined person. I am happy to deal with sensible and fair-minded editors (which I believe most Wikipedians to be) - but I cannot waste time on a person whose behaviour (in another context, of trying to reveal my identity, on Wikipedia) has this very day been deemed 'unacceptable' by a Wikipedia Administrator, and which behaviour could well have earned Mitsube (as the Administrator indicates) debarring from editing (if he had not escaped that fate by a technicality). I have more important things to do in my life than constantly brush aside the irritating buzzing of a little fly-like irritant called 'Mitsube'. As I said, I am happy to work with reasonable editors, those who have a sense of fair-play and reasonableness. Unfortunately, both of these qualities are strikingly absent from Mitsube's character. I wish you all well. Suddha (talk) 12:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It may be that you are unaware that statements of the kind I have objected to are entirely unbuddhist. That is the view of many scholars that I have quoted elsewhere and I won't list them again here. So if you are going to attribute your views to Buddhist sects, you have to have solid ground for doing so. Regarding the word "essence," entire streams of Buddhist philosophy revolve around rejecting "essence." So please give the quote. Mitsube (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

What Kewown says

Page 24 of the Encyclopedia of Buddhism is visible here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=KE56vyhOHGsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=dictionary+of+buddhism#v=snippet&q=dzogchen&f=false

It clearly lists "atiyoga" as a Sanskrit word and a standard equivalent of Dzogchen. It is time for User:B9 hummingbird hovering to stop changing the sentence to state the opposite of what the source actually says. I am getting tired of reverting it, I have better things to do.Sylvain1972 (talk) 19:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Dubious quote

Please give the exact quote supporting the following: "It is said to be unconditioned and permanent, changeless (because not originated from causes and conditions), blissful, and the base or support of numerous exalted qualities ." Mitsube (talk) 20:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I found it. Mitsube (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

new info?

• [1] " Three traditions of the Dzogchen

There exist three schools of Dzogchen: the school of the spirit (Sems-sde) allotted to Shrisimha and Vairotsana; the school of the medium (kLong-sde) which is claimed of Longde Dorje Zampa, of Shrisimha and Vairotsana; the school of the essential instruction (Man-ngag-sde) which is based on Essence of the heart (sNying-thig) allotted to Padmasambhava and Vimalamitra."

-- 88.75.66.151 (talk) 10:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This is covered at Semde. Probably there ought to be a brief article on the Three Series (Semde, Longde, Menngagde), however. Arthur chos (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• [http://aroencyclopaedia.org/shared/text/d/dzogchen_ar_int_eng.php Ngak’chang Rinpoche

interviewed by Ngakpa Rig’dzin Dorje and Ngakma Shardröl Wangmo on the subject of Dzogchen 6th of June 1994 in Llanilltud Fawr] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.75.66.151 (talk) 10:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Dzogchen meditation

Peter Harvey's Introduction to Buddhism has an excellent introduction to Dzogchen meditation starting on page 268. Mitsube (talk) 06:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I will be expanding that section and the section in the Mahamudra article soon, from Harvey and Ray. Mitsube (talk) 05:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits by Tigle

Has anyone reviewed series of edits]? They appear to me to be somewhat problematic, removing longstanding material and changing other material which is cited. It's hard to know if the changes still correspond to the source. An IP editor made some edits removing another paragraph and making similar possibly sectarian inspired changed. Not sure if this was simply Tigle logged out, but only a few minutes intervene between edits. Could some of the regular editors of this article please review? Yworo (talk) 23:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted the whole series of edits. Certainly the article can stand some improvement, but a massive deletion of cited material is not acceptable. User Tigle seems to have deleted everything he happens to disagree with, regardless of how well-cited the points may be, and replaced it with incorrect assertions in many instances.Sylvain1972 (talk) 00:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

That's what I thought. He's done the same on some other articles to a lesser degree, and I restored the text on those. I know a little, but not much, about this topic, which is why I asked for a review by a more knowledgeable editor on the subject, since so much was changed it seemed possible some of the changes were valid, etc. Yworo (talk) 00:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I am going to do one more edit, trying to follow the rules as closely as possibly. Hopefully this pleases everyone. Thigle (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Fundamental errors in the article. Dzogchen has nothing to do with mind.

Does anyone have the verbatim quotes from Keown, Damien. (2003). A Dictionary of Buddhism, p. 82. Oxford University Press. and Reginald Ray, Secret of the Vajra World. Shambhala 2001, pages 308-309.?

The issue is that the persons who wrote the article, uses these sources to state that Dzogchen is a state of mind which is innaccurate. Even worse, this is in the first sentence of the entry. It is common knowlege and almost a cliche that Dzogchen is a state beyond mind, where you distinguish rigpa from sems. Sam van Schaik, Dalai Lama, Jigme Lingpa, Fifth Dalai Lama, Longchenpa, and the Seventeen tantras all are very clear on this.

I will use Sam van Schaik, since it is easily available

"Jigmé Lingpa’s differentiation of the two approaches is based on the distinction, particular to the Instruction Series (man ngag sde) of the Great Perfection, between the samsaric, conceptual mind (sems), and nirvanic, non-conceptual awareness (rig pa). The meditation practices of the Instruction Series found in the Longchen Nyingtig proceed on the basis of this distinction, which comes from the earliest Instruction Series scriptures, the Seventeen Tantras.[21] Therefore it is not surprising that Jigmé Lingpa insists upon the importance of the distinction. He argues that, if the meditator attempts to stop conceptual activity without distinguishing between mind (sems) and awareness (rig pa), the result is a blank indeterminacy (lung ma bstan). In awareness, he argues, conceptualisation is neutralised in a state that is “like a crystal ball”, a simile which points to clarity and vividness, rather than indeterminacy and blankness."

http://earlytibet.com/about/hashang-mahayana/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thigle (talk • contribs) 13:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad your amenable to working toward consensus on this. There are certainly semantic distinctions to be made, but they are not always made easily. Certainly Dzogchen is said to be a state beyond conceptual mind, but "conceptual mind" is not always implicit in "mind," nor do writers in English always mean to refer to sems when using "mind." You can often check quotes on Amazon and/or in Google books. In the case of the Ray quote, he uses the term "mind" in quotes. The van Schaik quote you introduce is a good example of this sort of problem - in your edit summary you say "Dzogchen has nothing to do with awareness," but as the van Schaik quote illustrates it is very common for both Western scholars and contemporary lamas to use the term "awareness" to translate rig pa.

The Dzogchen practice of the 5th, 13th and 14th Dalai Lamas is most definitely controversial among some conservatives Gelugpas and is indeed a major subtext of the rdo-rje shugs-ldan controversy. I will source that and restore the passage shortly.Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I have archived internet posts by this guy a Tibetan Loppon, which specifically state that Dzogchen is beyond mind, not just conceptual mind. I believe mind is when rstal mixes with the karmic winds. There is even a quote by Longchenpa that states the mind itself is an obscuration. But these are all internet posts by this guy. He IS a tibetan loppon though. http://sakyatradition.blogspot.com/Thigle (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Uh, where? I searched for the term "Dzogchen" on that blog, and got the result that no posts included the term. Yworo (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

No its not on the blog. Its archived on an internet forum. But it is from that guy. Thigle (talk) 15:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You might want to read about our policy on reliable sources. Neither blogs nor forums can be used as sources. Read any books lately? Yworo (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Well noone denies you have to distinguish rigpa and sems The distinction of rigpa and sems in the Dalai Lama's books, Sam van Schaik's book and pretty much every Dzogchen book. Thigle (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem, as I mentioned before, is that mind is an English word that can be applied to all sorts of things, including rig pa. Just today I opened a book about Dzogchen by Tony Duff, who is a longtime practioner and well-respected scholar, which describes Dzogchen as "meditation practice done to cut through the problem mind and penetrate directly to the sane mind which at the core of every being.” I can see people objecting to his phrasing, but there will always be issues when using language to describe something that is purportedly nonconceptual and nondual. If you find a reliably sourced objection to phrasing you find objectionable, we can incorporate that objection. The solution is to be sure that all of the material in the article is in agreement with WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and other relevant policies. While I respect Loppon Namdrol/Malcom, his opinions on esangha or a blog won't do, as Yworo mentioned. Please also take the time to familiarize yourself with the procedure for adding references properly - the code is simple and easily deduced.Sylvain1972 (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have the "A Dictionary of Buddhism" reference? This forms the basis for the opening lines of the entry, where it says that Dzogchen is a form of mind. Also, it is obvious you have the Ray book. Would it be too much trouble to type up what he actually said? Thigle (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

References generally only cover the sentence they follow. The first sentence in this case is unreferenced. However, the first sentence does not say that Dzogchen is a "form of mind." I don't have the Ray book handy - I looked up the quote in exactly the way I already told you how to.Sylvain1972 (talk) 23:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course I tried google books even before I started this section. I don't know what you mean by going through amazon. Anyway if references only cover sentences instead of paragraphs, how about getting rid of mind in the opening? Also why does it say "According to some schools of Tibetan Buddhism and Bön". All schools, even Mahamudra crazy Kagyu acknowledge Dzogchen as a valid teaching. Thigle (talk) 03:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Amazon lets you search inside a book. Just look up the book and then search in it. I think the first sentence is now problematic, because wikipedia articles are supposed to be intelligible to the general reader, and as the sentence now stands it makes little sense. Dzogchen is the natural condition of what? Writers on Dzogchen are less allergic to talking about mind than you think. This is how Samten Karmay translates a passage of the Kun byed rgyal po:

“then, the mind that is enlightened, the king who creates all, pronounced his own nature which is the spontaneity of complete non-action. Oh! listen, the Great Being” (de nas byang chub kyi sems kun byed rgyal po des/ kun byed nyid kyi rang bzhin bya med rdzogs pa lhun gyis grub pa ’di gsungs so/ kye sems dpa’ chen po nyon cig/.) (Samten G. Karmay - The Great Perfection (rDzogs Chen): A Philosophical and Meditative Teaching of Tibetan Buddhism. pg 47)

Dzogchen talks a lot about sems nyid, the "absolute aspect of mind" or "mind's nature." Per Karmay on sems nyid or sems kyi de kho na nyid, “the reality of the mind”

ji bzhin pa, a contraction of ji lta ba bzhin. SM (p. 396) defines it as bcos bslad med pa, “that which is neither altered nor spoiled”. It has the same sense as that of de kho na nyid or de bzhin nyid (tathatà), “that which just is so”. It is therefore translatable by “thusness” or “suchness”. In fact, it often occurs with these side by side: ji bzhin pa de kho na nyid (SM pp. 388–89), but also in rDzogs chen refers to the gzhi, the Primordial Basis which according to SM (p. 399) is beyond 50 expressions (tha snyad lnga bcu las grol ba). In a later work (TY p. 171), commenting on the same verse, ji bzhin pa is explained as being sems nyid or sems kyi de kho na nyid, “the reality of the mind” (pg 50)

Consider this passage on pg 60:

The text then goes on to state that all words fail to express this experience and physical and mental activities involve a “fixing stake” (’dzin pa’i phur pa). The remaining verses bring in the important rDzogs chen theories: the absolute aspect of mind (sems nyid ) being the basis of all (kun gzhi ). Byang chub sems, the noumenal state of sems nyid which is often symbolically called Kun-tu bzan-po.

That's just one source (which you can get here.[2]) and I barely had to look at it before finding those examples.Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Fine let me put it back in.....for nowThigle (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

This is what Sakya Loppon Malcolm Smith said: "My comment is based on a statement by Longchenpa: "The essence of mind is an obscuration to be given up. The essence of rigpa is wisdom to be attained." This means that mind itself is a knowledge obscuration, hopeless trapped in dualism until it is allowed to self-liberate. That is the wisdom of rigpa."

Even if the Dalai Lama, Sogyal Rinpoche, or Norbu had a blog, that wouldn't count either? Seems like wikipedia is stuck in the past. Thigle (talk) 14:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The blogs of notable published writers about the subject for which they are notable can be used. So if those individuals had blogs they could be used. Yworo (talk) 15:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

A blog by someone like Malcolm is on the edge of being considered an acceptable source. But when there is an apparent contradiction between legitimate sources, the WP:NPOV thing to do is just acknowledge that reliable sources appear to disagree. In this case, however, we have a self-translated quote from Longchenpa with no source or context or further attribution. It would be pretty hard to use it constructively.Sylvain1972 (talk) 20:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

What is the basis of this phrase in the article. "This is an advanced Phowa practice."Thigle (talk) 19:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Dzogchen controversial?

Hi Sylvain.

I read the source you posted by Georges Dreyfus to support your position that Dzogchen is somehow controversial. I actually took time to read that exhausting article, which was more interesting than I thought it would be, with mysterious deaths etc. But it does not support your position that Dzogchen is controversial. Did I miss something?Thigle (talk) 22:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

My position is not that Dzogchen is controversial. My position is that for some conservative Gelukpas as exemplified by Pabongkha, Dzogchen practice by Gelukpas is unacceptable (including Dzogchen practice by Dalai Lamas). This is what Dreyfuss is saying. One of the main points of Shuk-den is to punish Gelukpas who do Nyingma practices, Dzogchen in particular.Sylvain1972 (talk) 00:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

First off the article is talking about ancient history, with little relevence to the present, even with the Shugden controversy. Thigle (talk) 02:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not at all, it's talking mostly about things that happened starting in the early 20th century and extend right up to the present day. There is a lot of context provided about the earlier developments. But the citation more than substantiates the statement in question.Sylvain1972 (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Not really. The article was about MIXING Dzogchen with a specific Gelug teaching. Even I agree with that. Dzogchen should not be mixed with other teachings. Thigle (talk) 00:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I could see how you might read it that way, but that isn't what it is talking about. It is talking about "mixing" in the sense of doing the practice of Dzogchen at all if you are a Gelukpa. No one--even the most eclectic Rime lamas--"mixes" practices in the sense you mean, and that is not what is being discussed here either. The issue is Pabonkha and other conservative Gelukpa's "opposition to the adoption of Nying-ma teachings by some Ge-luk-bas."Sylvain1972 (talk) 00:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thogal description

Is it just me or is the thogal description totally wrong?

Isn't thodgal different than dark retreat although they both work using the same principles?

I am not saying to give a detailed explanation of what thogal is, but simply take out this erroneous info. Thigle (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The source says what is written there. This article says "it is typically carried out in the strict seclusion of a 'bardo retreat'." What should it say instead? Mitsube (talk) 01:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The source says Thogal is carried out in dark retreat? What the heck?Thigle (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

A bardo retreat is different than thogal. Can someone type out the source?Thigle (talk) 23:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It almost exactly what it quoted in the article. What is wrong with that description? Mitsube (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thogal is not a bardo retreat or dark retreat. Can someone type out the source?Thigle (talk) 23:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Stop deleting long paragraphs of sourced material. At this point you must know that it is not acceptable. I also told you already how to look up books on google and amazon.Sylvain1972 (talk) 01:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I just got how to do the amazon thing. That is amazing. The book somehow conflates yangti with thogal. The description of the book is of yangti, and uses the term yangti. The book is wrong. There are many other books that describe thogal accurately. Thigle (talk) 02:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, after waiting days for a response, I deleted what I thought was UNsourced material, and moved the sourced material. I was told before references have only to do with the sentence before, not the entire paragraph. Thigle (talk) 03:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You deleted the whole section called "Tregchöd and thödgal" and everything in it. Regarding thogal and yangti, Ray doesn't conflate them - he just says that thogal is usually done in the context of a dark retreat, which is true. There is nothing in the article section that is wrong. Writing in the Encyclopedia of Religion, David Germano writes "Direct transcendence, however, is an innovative practice that involves relying on yogic postures, breathing practices, and gazing directed at the complete darkness of a specially prepared retreat hut, or at sources of light such as the sun." He is perhaps the leading Western scholar of Dzogchen.Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I just got a page long email response from Reginad A Ray, the author of the source. The book is wrong. To quote him it was a "pretty obvious mistake" and "the discussion of Yang ti isn't very clear and what is said isn't right". I added the bolded emphasis. If you want his email to confirm, let me know. He also liked my contributions to the Dzogchen entry saying "I liked your write up on dzogchen; I thought it was accurate and made a potentially abstruse subject quite accessible."Thigle (talk) 02:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Fine, but you'll still have to clarify exactly what you think is wrong with the section. That thogal is usually done in dark retreat? That is true, as my additional source indicates. That imagery is said to spontaneously appear? That is true. There is no reason to delete the entire section. What exactly "isn't right?"Sylvain1972 (talk) 19:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying thogal is usually done in the dark?Thigle (talk) 21:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It often (but not always is) - per the Germano quote I gave you above, "Direct transcendence, however, is an innovative practice that involves relying on yogic postures, breathing practices, and gazing directed at the complete darkness of a specially prepared retreat hut, or at sources of light such as the sun."Sylvain1972 (talk) 01:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the Reginald A Ray source is FUBAR as is all the thogal info in the Dzogchen entry based on it. If you want to use the David Germano information mentioning BOTH dark and light that is fine. Thigle (talk) 16:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Sky Gazing

I quote the source: "In the Cutting Through Practice, sky gazing is important." This is my understanding as well. I merged it with the trechod (Cutting Through) section. Thigle (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the latest changes are fine.Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Couple of uninformed users interfering with the Dzogchen articles.

Drmies and Tbhotch are preventing constructive changes from going forth. I need some support here. Thigle (talk) 03:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

They just shot months of work. Thigle (talk) 04:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Your months of work should have also included finding reliable sources as dictated by WP:V. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You are embassing yourself, as it is obvious you know nothing about this subject. Those are the top sources in this field. Why don't you just revert all the changes I have made over the year, especially the ones everyone wanted as described on this very page. Oh right, you didn't even read this discussion page. Thigle (talk) 05:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Have you read Wikipedia:Citing sources? "When and why to cite sources: The policy on sourcing is Verifiability. This requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Have you heard of group consensus? There is NO Dzogchen person who will complain with what I did here. That is fact. Thigle (talk) 05:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

In the best case, the citation style needs to be improved. The section on "gzhi (Basis)" has no footnotes in it, although looking at the text of the section, it appears to rely on Garab Dorje's commentary. —C.Fred (talk) 05:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Thigle, consensus, especially amongst like-minded editors, does not trump policy, and certainly not WP:V. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

And based on this discussion, I would say that there is lack of consensus on whether the article content is sufficiently verified! —C.Fred (talk) 05:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'd like to know what "Yeshe Lama, Jigme Lingpa" means. No bibliographic information, no page numbers, no indication of precisely what comes from that mysterious source--it's simply poor editing, with an inversely proportionate attitude. Look above to see how many editors disagree with this editor. Drmies (talk) 05:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

What disagreements? Scroll down. Maybe in the beginning there were disagreements. But I have been editing these pages with no complaints since August 2010. Thigle (talk) 05:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

But now your latest edits have drawn objections. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah from people who have ZERO knowledge in this field. I said Dzogchen people won't complain. Thigle (talk) 05:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I put an original research tag, even though this is not original research at all. But whatever. Thigle (talk) 05:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

<--The requirements of Wikipedia are that information be sourced. If you can't provide sources, the information is useless. Moreover, without such sources there is no indication that you are an expert here. Of course, you may well be knowledgeable--but so may I. Your assumption that we don't know nothing is silly at best, and we don't have any reason to believe that you're an expert. But all that's beside the point: perhaps you should read WP:TRUTH as well. Drmies (talk) 05:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

If you look above, you can see I correct EVEN PUBLISHED AUTHORS and have them admit their errors to me. Thigle (talk) 05:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

That is completely irrelevant, even if true. Wikipedia is about WP:verifiability, not truth. You must cite reliable third party sources for your information, even if you believe yourself to be an expert in the field, and you cannot dismiss the disagreements or concerns of other editors even if they are less knowledgeable about the field than you are except through citing reliable third party sources in support of your positions. Kevin (talk) 05:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I put an original research tag. People will help me out to get this sourced. Thigle (talk) 05:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Have any of you heard of Dzogchen before today?Thigle (talk) 06:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess notThigle (talk) 06:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You are in violation of WP:3rr which is a brightline rule. The validity or correctness of your edits does not matter, if you continue to revert them you will be blocked. Kevin (talk) 06:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Slakr blocked Thigle for 24 hours. Kevin (talk) 06:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

For the other Dzogchen Editors

If I get banned, work from my last edit revision. Try to get the "basis" sectioned sourced and verifable. Even though it is sourced and verifiable ALREADY. I don't know what these non Dzogchen people want in terms of source. Thigle (talk) 06:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

While you are blocked, read Wikipedia:Citing sources again, specifically WP:INCITE. We're looking for page numbers, book titles, authors, and publishers. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

If this has already been covered, forgive me, but the edits Thigle have been making are largely (if not wholly) taken from this forum. Unless I'm mistaken, that makes it a copyright violation. - SudoGhost (talk) 01:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Copyright violation if text was lifted verbatim and not a reliable source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

If you hit CTRL + F (or whatever 'find' is on your browser) and search that forum for 'it is important', you will see a verbatim copy-paste found in this diff with the exception of the last three paragraphs added with that diff. Even forum postings have copyright, and a verbatim copy-paste without permission is a copyvio. - SudoGhost (talk) 01:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Overly technical writing

Thigle, please re-write the section you're inserting into the page. Most people do not understand chulen or sgra thal 'gyur, so that entire paragraph is useless to them in its current state. - SudoGhost (talk) 16:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

How come when I tried to rewrite the Ground of Being (Dzogchen) page for the VERY SAME reason, and with the consensus of the other buddhists, you guys reverted me? Go to the Ground of Being (Dzogchen) page and verify. It seems to me that you guys are simply vandals. Its that simple. Thigle (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

You simply don't have the right to revert my edits. Two phrases are over you head? Chulen and sgra thal 'gyur? Well "sgra thal 'gyur" is the title in Tibetan. I don't know what the english translation is. And chulen is chulen. What do you want me to do, rename it? The rest is in plain english. Or do you deny the rest is in plain english?Thigle (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

You're mistaken. I do have the right to revert your edits. The two phrases are over the heads of anyone reading the article, and that makes the section worthless as it is.

"chulen of space" is a necessary secondary condition for attaining rainbow body. This sentence is the key statement of that paragraph. What does it mean? Without knowing what chulen is, it's worthless. chulen "...ultimately perfects the qualities of buddhahood". Awesome! What is a chulen? Without knowing what it is, that sentence is also worthless.

By the way, the English translation of sgra thal 'gyur is Reverberation of Sound, which is one of the primary Dzogchen tantras. Being the expert that you are, I'm surprised you don't know this. - SudoGhost (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

You don't get the main point of that section. It doesn't matter what chulen is. The point is that it is a secondary condition for rainbow body. If you want more info, reference the source. Thigle (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Explain to me, how come I am not able to rewrite the Ground of Being (Dzogchen) page as dictated by several buddhists due to B9Hummingbird's obscure writing? Its a double standard. You are ridiculous. Thigle (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I edited it to satisfy you, against my better judgement. Thigle (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

You aren't as familiar with this body of work as you would like others to think, as evidenced by your statements above. Further, your additions are a violation of copyright of this forum, in addition to your copyright violations mentioned above. It is for this reason that I am removing any content which infringes on the copyright of others, as per WP:COPYVIO and WP:3RR. Please do not add such content again. Thank you. - SudoGhost (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Because I don't know Tibetan, I am not familiar with this subject? Have you heard of Dzogchen before two days ago? I am not in violation of any copyright violation. Check the source. Thigle (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

You don't think I know what chulen is? For for your information, chulen of space is basically a kumbhaka exercise to wean onself off of food and balance the five elements. The reason why I don't explain it is because it would take an entire page, and its really not the point of the section, as I repeatedly state. There are many different types of chulens which culminate in chulen of space. It is not brief subject at all. If you want to create a chulen article, go for it. Oh wait, you haven't even heard of this subject till today. Thigle (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

My knowledge of Reverberation of Sound was no accident. However, my knowledge on the subject matter has no bearing on my ability to correct an article.

On another note, the section that was reinserted was a copyright violation, and in Thigle's own words: really not the point of the section. For that reason, unless any of the other editors involved disagree, I would suggest that the information in question not be re-inserted into the article, due to the over-technicality of the paragraph, and also because of the copyright violation issue (and lack of source other than a WP:SPS). I would appreciate feedback from the other editors on this matter. Thank you. - SudoGhost (talk) 20:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Causality and interdependent section

I'm sorry, but this whole section is becoming worse and worse. All you need to do is cite Rongzom. Rongzom is the ultimate authority on these matters, which is why Mipham defers to him. Please read Establishing Appearances as Divine. While Madhyamaka (a sutra level teaching) subscribes to 2 truths, Dzogchen subscribes to 1 truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.159.203 (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback:

• I have a copy of "Establishing Appearances as Divine" on Kindle. What I read is that Mipham was influenced by Rongzom, but not that he defers to him. In any event, I assume that the one truth you are referring to is the unity of the two truths--is this correct?
• I strongly recommend Anyen Rinpoche's book Journey to Certainty. The reason why it is so valuable is because Anyen Rinpoche explains Mipham's views very clearly for a contemporary audience--which is precisely the type of reliable secondary source that we should be using for a Wikipedia article. (Establishing Appearances as Divine is also a very reliable source--but it seems to be written for academics--it uses very specific academic language and assumes a good deal of prior knowledge. It think this generally makes a text easier to misinterpret.)
• That quote at the beginning should be removed because it is an early translation of a primary source presented without context--and easily misinterpreted. - Dorje108 (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Clean-up

I've removed a lot of WP:UNDUE stuff, to make this article comprehensible for normal people like me (...). I've also removed unsourced stuff, and moved info on practice from Rigpa to here. The section on Dzogchen#Origins and history remains to be done. Next is Mindstream. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Longchen Nyingthig

Vic, it's not a matter of "singling out" some specific teaching, it's a matter of trying to understand what Dzogchen is about. Not everybody can understand it with the minimal resurces that you need. If there is better stuff, then please give me a shortcut (an not a 700-page book. And you know who says so; you know I read that kind of books.) Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

All newbies seem to only know about Longchen Nyingthig, and you are perpetuating that.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see - and no more than that. Where do have to situate Longchen Nyingthig within Dzogchen? And do you please have some more info, a book, a weblink, which provides me with a little bit more info? This is what I've understood so far: external prelimininary practices, internal preliminary practices (these two are clear to me), trekcho, further practice to stabilise this insight, and to 'act from this insight', c.q enlightened behaviour in the world, instead of "dwelling in nirvana." Am I correct here, sort of? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Sources - Berzin Archive

@VictoriaGrayson: I'm pretty sure you won't accept the Berzin Archive] as a source. Nevertheless, I want to propose it, since this article on The Major Facets of Dzogchen gives an overview of the path of Dzogchen. He gives the following structure:

• Outer Preliminaries
• Inner Preliminaries
• Empowerment Stage
• Mahayoga Stage
• Atiyoga Stage

How about it? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

He's a scholar, but also a practitioner. His website seems to be written from an insiders-perspective. See About the Berzin Archives. Nevertheless, is it acceptable as a primary source? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Sources - Longchen Rabjam The practcie of Dzogchen

@VictoriaGrayson:Is Longchen Rabjam's The practcie of dogen a good source? (I've got the Snow Lion version). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

View and Philosophy of Dzogchen

There seems to be quite a bit in this article on the practice of Dzogchen - but very little on the view and philosophy of Dzogchen, which are very important and influential in the whole history of Tibetan Buddhist thought. I'll add some good sources on these aspects, which editors of this article might wish to pursue. Regards. Chris Fynn (talk) 12:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@CFynn: Those sources would still be very welcome! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

More sources

I found some more sources:

• Samten Gyaltsen Karmay (1988), The Great Perfection (rdzogs chen). A Philosophical and Meditative Teaching of Tibetan Buddhism, 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), The Early Days of the Great Perfection
• Sam van Schaik (2004), "Approaching the Great Peerfection", gives details on Jigme Lingpa's descriptions
• Kurtis R. Schaeffer, Matthew Kapstein, Gray Tuttle (2013), Sources of Tibetan Tradition, Columbia University Press
• Schaik, Sam van (2011), Tibet A History, Yale University Press

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:31, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

From Germano (2005):

"Three historical problems have bedeviled traditional and modern scholarship on the Great Perfection:

(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."

And Vic comes up with this:

• Tibetan Renaissance by Ronald Davidson. Particularly chapter 6
• A Preliminary Note on Vimalamitra's Aural Lineage
• David Germano (2005), The Funerary Transformation of the Great Perfection (Rdzogs chen)
• "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 Kalachakra.

Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

More sources

I found some more sources:

• Samten Gyaltsen Karmay (1988), The Great Perfection (rdzogs chen). A Philosophical and Meditative Teaching of Tibetan Buddhism, 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), The Early Days of the Great Perfection
• Sam van Schaik (2004), "Approaching the Great Peerfection", gives details on Jigme Lingpa's descriptions
• Kurtis R. Schaeffer, Matthew Kapstein, Gray Tuttle (2013), Sources of Tibetan Tradition, Columbia University Press
• Schaik, Sam van (2011), Tibet A History, Yale University Press

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:31, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

From Germano (2005):

"Three historical problems have bedeviled traditional and modern scholarship on the Great Perfection:

(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."

And Vic comes up with this:

• Tibetan Renaissance by Ronald Davidson. Particularly chapter 6
• A Preliminary Note on Vimalamitra's Aural Lineage
• David Germano (2005), The Funerary Transformation of the Great Perfection (Rdzogs chen)
• "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 Kalachakra.

Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Semde, Longde and Menngagde are not practiced in order

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.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I already found it a starnge comment; for that reason too I'd moved it into a note. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

ANI

I've filed an ANI-complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive talkpage behaviour. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I've replied. Robert Walker (talk) 20:17, 4 January 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/w/index.php?title=Dzogchen&diff=640295086&oldid=634250698

and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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/wiki/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.

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^Talk 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,[5] sandhi meaning "alliance, union, connection,"[web 2] "intercourse with,"[web 2] or "vagina or vulva".[web 2]"

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^Talk 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)

Mahayoga is not Dzogchen

@Joshua Jonathan:, I don't know how you got the idea that Mahayoga is Dzogchen.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 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." [3]

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^Talk 16:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Extremely incorrect, Mahayoga is withing Dzogchen [4]. 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^Talk 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)

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)