Talk:Dzogchen

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)