Talk:Ground (Dzogchen)

Lacks context

This article needs a better written lead section framing it in the context of Buddhism generally; Dzogchen is a pretty rarefied and advanced topic. Moreover, a lot of the language, word choice etc. are unnecessarily jargon-y. If you attempt to argue that they can't be made simpler than that, I'd say that's a pretty good indication the subject may not be notable enough for its own article and should be considerably shortened and merged elsewhere. 65.46.253.42 (talk) 22:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

... and you removed the templates without even so much as a discussion. Typical arrogance and WP:OWN behavior. 65.46.253.42 (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

the very temerity B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Language use

I have employed the language used by the peer reviewed secondary literature. I have removed "excellent" in qualification of a specific work of Gunther as it is indeed an opinion and a value judgment. But Gunther's writing is excellent and he, like my experience upon Wikipedia, was often charged with unintelligibility.B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

To-do list

• summarize and incoroporate lengthy quotes into text while retaining references to original sources
• replace jargon with simpler language where possible
• find a better way to handle the translations of the term into eighteen different languages than frontloading the lede

PlainJain (talk) 06:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't mean ground of being

It just means "ground". The first long quote shows it isn't ground of being. Article should be deleted. Mitsube (talk) 18:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Or just moved to Ground (Dzogchen), assuming it's a notable topic. /ninly_(talk) 20:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Ground of being is how it has been termed in Western peer reviewed discourse which I cited. The Base/Ground gzhi/ashraya is the Ground of Being within the Dzogchen context. The term 'being' or 'existence' is problematized by Buddhist discourse but Buddhist literature also sometimes tips a hat to the philosophical discourse of "Ground of Being". Ground of Being is of salient import within philosophical discourse within innumerable sacred traditions in Western scholastic discourse within the English language. 49.3.29.32 (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Rewrote article

rewrote the article based on previous discussions on B9 hummingbird hovering, going back a year. Thigle (talk) 17:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

User B9 hummingbird hovering was indefinitely blocked from editing quite some time ago, if I remember correctly, and you have recently been blocked for edit warring, too. Please discuss your suggestions for improving the article here (or prepare drafts of your proposals in user space) before making major edits. /ninly_(talk) 20:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Agenda

Much cited information has been removed without any comment on the talk page. This is malicious editing with covert agenda. None of those Dzogchen pseudo-scholars including those well commercially published are my equal and to be honest they know it as well. This is a professional warning. Just as you know who I am ~ I know who you are and I will make it an object of my amusement to ridicule your work mercilessly and relentlessly for the sake of posterity. It will be edifying. You will have no legacy if you ever remove work that I have cited again. With love, Avadhuta Necr0prancer

49.3.29.32 (talk) 13:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller:@Bishonen: Sounds like somebody's not happy here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Ah well, there's no such thing as bad publicity. Warned him but he hasn't posted since. Dougweller (talk) 11:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

There was no threat you are mistaken: there is and was only a professional and scholastic promise that will be delivered upon in time. That there is no version quality control and assurance of preservation of quality edits and iterations is another flaw of the Wikipedia/Wikimedia model. What has become of the quality that I tendered in this particular article to the English global Internet community? It has been sullied without comment and without declaration. Cited edits have been removed with no comment on the talk page and the site has not been looked after. Importantly, though it runs counter to Wikipedia policy, what it includes is the salient original research discovered by me, that identifies the provenance of the triunic Dzogchen Ground or Base of the Seventeen Tantra tradition to the discourse tradition of the Chinese text Awakening of Mahayana Faith. This is what a particular scholar is at pains to hide as it throws into question the authority and authenticity of one of the greatest Tibetan Buddha Dharma traditions, that of the Nyingmapa Ngagpa and Dzogchenpa. If you are the monitor of this Wikipedia article that I created and edited with scholarship and skill you are remiss. I was bullied on Wikipedia. Bullied relentlessly and my editing name was blocked in a way that was so unjustified and arbitrary it made me ashamed to be involved with English Wikipedia. The editing name was blocked indefinitely with no way to engage in independent review which runs counter to publicized Wikipedia values. The licensing agreement of Wikipedia identifies that the providence of the editing work resides with the editor, me. My whole experience with Wikipedia and Wikipedians in general has left the bitter taste of Wormwood in my mouth. I am extracting all my work and will publish it independently and will credit specific historical versions of articles I edited and will critique Wikimedia policy in due course. There is no need to block this computer though you may if you so choose as I will not be editing Wikipedia again. I see mistakes often that I would have once repaired with ease and efficiency preserved for years. I was mad when I wrote the post to which you respond. This was time and hard work and skill that has just been ruined by agenda, stupidity and poor scholarship. My tone was inappropriate but I am a powerfully emotional being and that is the tone and manner that was evoked from me due to such flagrant discourtesy and disrespect. 49.3.29.32 (talk) 13:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi B9. I've read several of your extended edits. There are two problems with it: it is indeed original research, and it's sometimes very hard to understand what you mean. Nevertheless, I think I can follow your "stream of thought" - and even basically agree with it! "Awareness", living, moving awareness, as "the Ground of Being", right? Or: the "ungrund", no ground to stand on. I wish you all the best with your own publications. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

kun gzhi (ālaya) is the opposite of gzhi in Dzogchen. Please correct article.

Sam van Schaik states:

....the Seminal Heart distinction between two types of basis, the nirvanic basis known as the ground (gzhi) and the samsaric basis of consciousness, the ālaya (kun gzhi).

VictoriaGrayson (talk) 15:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

You're right, I misunderstood. This meas that 49~ is correct, and "aśraya" is the corretc Sanskrit word? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

According to this link, given in the note in the lead, "aśraya" is a synonym for "ālaya-vijñāna" - which means "kun gzhi", I guess. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Please see the quote of Sam van Schaik above. Definitely, kun gzhi = ālaya as you can see. And, gzhi = sthāna, although you have to find a reference for that. Did you understand the broader point, that in Dzogchen gzhi and kun gzhi are opposites?VictoriaGrayson (talk) 20:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

As far as I understood it, I wouldn't call it "opposites". More like gzhi is the "real" ground, and "kun gzhi" "comes out of it", or some"thing" like that.It reminds me of alaya-vijnana and buddha-nature, or alaya-vijnana and dharmakaya (writing this out of memory; would have to look it up, but haven't got the bok available now). Here's a link, though not a source. But alaya =ignorance, that's clear. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

That's a garbage blog. I'm familiar with those people. But yes alaya is ignorance. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Ashraya, as I initially wrote is not the 'correct' word it is THE attested Sanskrit analogue for the Tibetan gzhi within the principal source of quality within the hierarchy of available sources within the English. There may be secondary terms but the principal direct analogue is of importance. The source I drew from is the principal Nyingma Dzogchen document in English. The van Schaik is only derivative. 49.3.29.32 (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Lead and Brado

Vic, Wikipedia is meant for average people. Your latest changes may be quite hard to understand for most people:

• In Dzogchen Menngagde, the Ground (IAST: sthāna; Tibetan: གཞི, Wylie: gzhi) provides two paths and two fruitions, depending on whether it is recognized or not. - this is not a definition of "ground", it's about paths and fruitions. How many people understand, by this sentnece, what is emant with "ground"?
• "This single process of the spontaneous efflorescence of Buddhas from a concealed interior is found, as specified above, not only in the postmortem visions, but also in the central contemplative process of direct transcendence, the cosmogonic process known as ground-presencing, [...]" - here I stopped reading; makes no sense to me. And I'm not stupid, I've got a MA and a MSc, and have been studying and parcticing Buddhism for 26 years now, so this may be an indication...

Sorry... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Read the final last edit of the article that I instituted. None of that which is included within this particular subsection of Lead and Brado was within that. That which is directly quoted above is florid and ineffectual, my writing is not ~ though I am sometimes overly lyrical and sagely elliptical (with purpose). My offering in this article is dense and scholastic in register but it is succinct and every term was chosen with etymological gravitas and sensitivity. The sources were chosen with great care and an awareness of their hierarchy. There is indeed a hierarchy of source material to edit with authority and if authors/editors are not aware of this the article will be bunk. Grammar was cut to the bone as was all ineffectual dross and fill. All substantive edits were made by me in my nom de plume as b9hummingbirdhovering or somesuch. All the articles that I edited and indeed created and wrote in Wikipedia are/were in the register of encyclopaedic scholarship and this particular article needs to be technically precise and therefore learned language is requisite. The article is a discourse of considerable philosophical finesse on the cultural artifact and mystery of a mystery tradition. The topic requires such precision and sophistication to render it appropriately and sensitively. I am mad that qualitative edits appropriately cited have not been preserved and that their removal did not even warrant comment on the talk page. This hurt my feelings. 49.3.29.32 (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits

So much cited material of quality has not been preserved in the current version of this article. As a consequence, the current version is so much poorer in quality than prior versions. Sthana isn't appropriately cited nor is its provenance identified and critiqued within the hierarchy of sources. 49.3.29.32 (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Buddha-nature

In § Three qualities, we read:

According to the Dzogchen-teachings, the Ground or Buddha-nature has three qualities …

which clearly equates Ground and Buddha-nature. My concerns are these:

1. This is a strong claim, and requires citation to prove it.
2. If this identification is factually correct, it should appear in the lead paragraph.
3. If this identification is complete (which I doubt), then the discussion of Ground should appear in the Buddha-nature article itself, and the Ground (Dzogchen) article should simply redirect there.

yoyo (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

In "The Practice of Dzogchen" by Tulku Thondup (1996) page 42, Longchenpa is quoted as saying: Sems nyid (the nature of mind) [i.e. the basis - the equivalency is made in the quote above this one] is the Buddha-essence [i.e. the tathagathagarbha, i.e. Buddha nature] ☸Javierfv1212☸ 20:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)