Talk:Book of Dzyan

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Book of Dzyan article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

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

Article policies

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

Religion: New religious movements Low‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Religious texts (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Religious textsWikipedia:WikiProject Religious textsTemplate:WikiProject Religious textsReligious texts articles

Buddhism Low‑importance

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Occult Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

däniken

Sure Däniken expanded. The published text of "Book of Dzyan" only runs to a few pages and is highly cryptic. Blavatsky's exegesis is itself difficult to understand. Dänikens tales probably do little to increase serious undertstandign of these questions --Vindheim 11:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's original research- Daniken doens't say in his book "Here's what I know about the book." He says "Here's what I heard about the book." So the people who expanded it, to the best of our knowledge, are a bunch of unnamed people, but not Daniken himself. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 17:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Fine with me.--Vindheim 19:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Connections

The source for the statement Recent research has however uncovered connections to the Buddhist tantric corpus known as "The Kalachakra Tantra" is a website that, well, seems to be connected with the whole Theosophy movement. I'm pretty sure it isn't a reliable source, so unless someone can demonstrate that the website is reputatble, or provide a better source, I'm going to remove it. Rbl 16:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can provide a refrence to the printed version of the Reigles' research on the Book of Dzyan. As far as I know David and Nancy Reigle are not members of any theosophical association. They may define themselves as theosophists , but would you deny christians the right to do research on the origins and development of the Bible ?--Vindheim 17:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the way it is currently phrased and cited much more. Thank you. Rbl 19:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsubstantiated Claims

Someone added the false statement: "Religious Science has held that the verses are entirely spurious, a fabrication by Madame Blavatsky." Then there was added a reference note citing page 384 of The Extraordinary Life and Influence of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky by Sylvia Cranston to make it appear that there was evidence for this claim. There is only support for the validity of the Book of Dzyan on that page and in the entire book. Aburesz 21:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is not whether the verses are spurious or not, but that such a claim has been - and is - put forward in the name of religious science.--Vindheim (talk) 12:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coleman is the one that made the claim that the verses are spurious, but never provided his "evidence". "Religious Science" is a religious organization that NEVER made any statements on this issue. Arion (talk) 13:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religious science wass not intended as a refrence to an an organization but to the academic discipline , I have reworded the phrase to avoid misunderstanding. --Vindheim (talk) 14:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is obviously no such thing as religious science. That is a ridiculous word combination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.201.140.155 (talk) 16:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewording to "Max Müller and many later representatives of academic religious studies have held that the verses are entirely spurious, a fabrication by Madame Blavatsky." does not substantiate that Max Müller or the more nebulous "many later representatives of academic religious studies" ever actually said or wrote that the verses were spurious. Please provide a citation to a reference that states this. Arion (talk) 15:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For students of religion it is well known that Müller and many other were extremely hostile to Blavatskys claims on this and many other points, but I may need a day or two to quote a source.--Vindheim (talk) 15:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although this debate went on two years ago, some of you may still be interested. Here are a couple of properly referenced books that clearly show plagiarism, whether intentional or not: Guenon, R. (2003): Theosophy: History of a pseudo-religion. Sophia Perennis/TRSP Publications, ISBN-13: 978-0900588792, especially page 85-86. Saurat, D. (1930): Literature and Occult Tradition, Kessinger Publishing Co, ISBN-13: 978-0766157941, and also this: Maroney, T. (ed.) (2006): The book of Dyzan, Chaosium Inc, ISBN-13: 978-1568821986. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redjsteel (talk • contribs) 16:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

The following paragraph has twice been inserted:

She wrote^[1] that the book is said to come from  occultism.

However I have heard time figuring out what it is supposed to imply. Does the writer suggest that the text was received by occult means?--Vindheim (talk) 12:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ The Secret Doctrine, Vol. 1, Page xxxvii Stanzas, which are (...) are said to emanate from a source (Occultism) repudiated by science;

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Book of Dzyan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101230202540/http://www.theosophy.net:80/profiles/blogs/the-origins-of-the-stanzas-of to http://www.theosophy.net/profiles/blogs/the-origins-of-the-stanzas-of

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ad hominem and a wrong one too

Coleman himself, far from being an authority on occult material, was a clerk in the Quartermaster Department of the US Army.

from the wiki article on him he was a member of american oriental society, royal asiatic society of britain and a spiritualist himself, also he apparently published his research on plagiarism in "isis unveiled", another book by blavatsky 212.91.214.20 (talk) 09:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The Secret Doctrine, Vol. 1, Page xxxvii Stanzas, which are (...) are said to emanate from a source (Occultism) repudiated by science;

[1]