Misplaced Pages

Talk:Dzogchen: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:24, 29 May 2005 editAndrewspencer (talk | contribs)305 edits Request for practical comments← Previous edit Revision as of 19:46, 5 June 2005 edit undoAndrewspencer (talk | contribs)305 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 13: Line 13:


Comments welcomed. Comments welcomed.

==When does the NPOV Dispute end==
I have made numbers of changes and consider from my perspective it should be ok now. Anyone else agree? --] 19:46, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:46, 5 June 2005

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

Is that "enlightment" a typo? -- Error 00:46 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

I dare say yes. --Menchi 05:05 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

This really seems like an ad for books/seminars/whatever, a glowing description of some sort, without balance. Whig 13:22, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree. Most knowledgeable Dzogchen practitioners and scholars I'm aware of are not very interested in the Internet or Misplaced Pages, and this tradition in the West is pretty much where Zen was back in the 1930's. Based on what little I know, the information presented here is all accurate, but desperately in need of attention and substance. FJ | hello 03:56, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Further Work

I have done further work concerning the NPOV dispute. However, if you have any direct comments about the work so Far I would appreciate it. There is need for further research on some aspects -- which I am doing.

Comments welcomed.

When does the NPOV Dispute end

I have made numbers of changes and consider from my perspective it should be ok now. Anyone else agree? --andyman 19:46, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)