Talk:Reality in Buddhism

message: This is a highly subjective treatise not worthy of the appellation factual and objective. It would be better if it were removed and replaced by fact and links only.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.163.225.144 (talk) 13:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. This is clearly someone's personal opinion and is written apparently without much regard for WP's standards and rules. Why, for example is Dzogchen given such prominence when just about every one of Buddhism's hundreds of major philosophers had an opinion on this topic? The article provides some opinion and material of interest but it seems more like the kind of article you find on one of the many Buddhist article sites than on Wikipedia. --50.64.40.229 (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

text: Hi, 20040302!I am not sure that Namkhai Norbu would be happy with what is claimed next to his name: "In Dzogchen, the perceived reality is considered to be unreal."I've heard him saying that (without the like and without mentioning Dzogchen in that statement) and in a very clear context, on a webcast. I know precisely the date and at what time, because I've trascribed this very carefully.The Dzogchen section is based on the Dream yoga book by ChNN. You could also compare the paraphrasing with the ChNN's text (I've given the page numbers).Did you read The Primordial experience? Same thing Longchenpa said in grub mtha' mdzod- Look up pages 20, 21, 22. --Klimov 18:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am concerned about the way in which this comes across. Dzogchen is famous for using simple language. One could strongly argue that any understanding of the tradition requires personal instruction. Word One backs me up: One is introduced directly to one's true nature. Certainly, if the experience could be communicated in writing (or any other form of non-feedback oriented broadcast) alone, then one would not need to be directly introduced to the experience. As I said above, the cite on the article is clear, straight from Sutra. What is meant by 'unreal' depends on context, regardless of tradition. Is ChNN saying that the thumb of my left hand is as unreal as the famous US President Frederick Foobar?! It is dangerous to take a phrase out of context, and state "In Dzogchen, the perceived reality is considered to be unreal.", even if you hear your lama say it. As I understand it, Dzogchen isn't about philosophising, or writing books (or WP articles!) about the practice, and prides itself for that. Word Two backs me up: One attains certainty about this natural state and this certainty is not found by reading or studying, but by repeatedly familiarising one's mind with the direct experience as directly introduced by the lama. Then there is little else to it, but to maintain the practice as in Word Three: One continues with confidence in liberation. So, back to my original question - what is this article for? (20040302 10:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  what is this article for? Well, that seems an interesting question. Probably the purpose of the article is to give people pointers to information, e.g. to the ChNN's Dream yoga book or to the sutras referred to in the first section or to the Tathagatagarbha referred to in the newest section. What specific term are we using for 'reality' here? dharmata? tattva? svabhāva? From the The Primordial experience I'd say, this article refers to the Tibetan term snang ba, appearances or, maybe a more precise translation would be 'the way things appear'. It seems interesting what Sanskrit term has been translated by snang ba. --Klimov 11:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: If we feel it is useful to talk about dream yoga in this article, we should probably supply a link to Lucid dreaming. (20040302 11:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is ChNN saying that the thumb of my left hand is as unreal as the famous US President Frederick Foobar?!  Hmm... No, it doesn't seem so....Dzogchen isn't about philosophising, or writing books (or WP articles!)... That seems correct. --Klimov 10:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Do these two philosophies go hand in hand? Or are they contradictory? Zachorious 10:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dzogchen and  Tathagatagarbha Sutras, Complimentary Philosophies? 

message: This article seems to be pretty much of one. It consists of a haphazard selection of ideas from a variety of sources, often unattributed. Opinions of some scholars are stated as facts, & teachings of particular schools or teachers are stated as Buddhist or Mahayana teachings. Some of the material about Theravada is simply wrong, & I've deleted it. Nibbana is ultimate reality for that school. I've added qualifications to other statements.
To say "often misunderstood and misinterpreted" is not NPOV. WP does not take sides. It does not say which interpretations are correct. Peter jackson (talk) 09:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mess