Talk:Book of Dzyan

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)
 * 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)


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

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)


 * 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)


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

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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)

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)


 * 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)

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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 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 ).

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

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)