|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dzogchen article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Mahayoga is not Dzogchen
- Yo? That's a new tag for me. Anyway: Berzin uses the term in his description of the stages of practice, and Sam van Schaik mentions Atiyoga as part of Mahayoga, at the earliest developmental stage of Dzogchen:
- "So when did Atiyoga become a vehicle? Moving on to the 10th century, there are a couple of texts from Dunhuang which do set out early versions of the nine vehicle system. Yet even here, though we see the beginnings of the standard distinctions between Mahāyoga, Anuyoga and Atiyoga, these three are not yet called ‘vehicles’. The texts carry on presenting Anuyoga and Atiyoga as modes of Mahāyoga practice, without any specific content of their own." 
- I'm working on it; encyclopedic entries by Buswell & Lopez and by Germano have yet to be incorporated, and a longer text by Sam van Schaik, The Early Days of the Great Perfection. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
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.VictoriaGraysonTalk 07:11, 26 December 2014 (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
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?
- 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)
- 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.
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.
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?
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)
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)
- @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.VictoriaGraysonTalk 15:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Line in Etymology
Hello all - I have no real knowledge of this subject, so I wanted to ask if someone else would double check this line from the Etymology section at the top:
"According to the 14th Dalai Lama, the term dzogchen may be a rendering of the Sanskrit term mahāsandhi, sandhi meaning "alliance, union, connection,"[web 2] "intercourse with,"[web 2] or "vagina or vulva".[web 2]"
- @VictoriaGrayson: What do you think? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- I say remove it.VictoriaGraysonTalk 16:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Respects and Warning
My experiences with this tradition typically begins with warnings and respect for secrecy, as well as the emphasizing importance of living beings in pursuing it's practice This article would be wise include sourced content in this regard. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)