Talk:Mindstream

A Mess (Uh, no, not at all — Nate)
This article is a mess. It is mostly the work, as far as I can see, of one editor (B9_Hummingbird_Hovering) and as is typical, contains a mix of original research with 'citations' that are carefully selected to support the author's own agenda and possibly some actual, verifiable, relevant 3rd party sources. It seems to me that B9 is banking on the fact that no one will be able to understand the article, let alone verify that the plethora of 'citations' are in fact relevant. I'm at a loss about what to do about this, aside from nominating the whole wreck for deletion. Zero sharp (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, much of the uncited material is incomprehensible or incorrect, and much of the cited material is irrelevant. Mitsube (talk) 00:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you two missed my edits? Contention, contestation and debate, prized in our tradition, engenders direct intimacy of the Triratna. Are u endeavouring to incite me to enter into chittychat and to continue editing? FYI, I am undergoing a dedicated retreat on the Ratnagotravibhaga in Sanskrit, with English commentarial literature atm. In relation to the your respective jibes (refer above), I have extracted the following from the talk page of the Longchen Nyingthig by Shunyata# (Key: # = the keen sword of prajna):

"Thank you. Just please try to remember when editing that not everyone who reads the article has your level of erudition and the connections you make that may seem obvious to you will be baffling to so [sic]. Your style is a little jarring sometimes, but my goodness do you know how to reference. I'm happy to work with you as well. Thanks. Zero sharp (talk) 08:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)"
 * Ah (Resonance of Atiyogatantrayana Mantrayana)
 * B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 08:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * How wonderful. However the 'traditions' of _wikipedia_ which are what is relevant here, prize citations for material added to articles, clarity of writing (such that encyclopedia articles are useful, clear and intelligible to people _outside_ of the 'tradition') and are not merely exercises in linguistic fireworks to fan ones own ego, which you do.  But, I'm really *really* tired of explaining this to you. Again and again. So I'll just continue to clean up after you. Or not. Zero sharp (talk) 01:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Your tone and manner represent yourself clearly: as they misrepresent me.
 * B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 07:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * While you may not be a moron, you are certainly a twit. 67.67.219.184 (talk) 10:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's nice! 67.250.61.187 (talk) 13:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Nate


 * Pulled this discussion forward from the archives because it is still relevant. Zero sharp's comments more or less express my sentiments, although I think the article has a certain amount of value. It's hard to know where to start cleaning these things up though.Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As of July 8th, I suggest you leave it as is. If there's something you don't understand, it is likely because you've had no education in it. I found this page entirely because I was looking for clarification of Atiyoga in relation to Mūlamadhyamakakārikā. This information as it stands is extremely helpful and organized. I was very pleased to see the quotations, which assured me the article was sound. Generally, I don't expect a Wiki article to be very authoritative, but this one was different. The quibbling here is ridiculous and rude, by the way. My thanks go out to whomever is resonsible for the Atiyoga teachings (to me, it looks like B9 Hummingbird Hovering is responsible for most of the important, clarifying stuff I was actually looking for). 67.250.61.187 (talk) 13:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)Nate


 * I have had more than enough of an education in the subject (and in B9's editing history) to be aware of his agenda and the selective use of quotations by which he furthers it, which is just as Zero sharp observed. The unfortunate tone in the comments section is reflective of years of frustrating discussions with B9 involving a number of editors, culminating finally in a process by which he was blocked from editing for refusing to abide by a number of reasonable policies. I agree that there is much about this article that is valuable, but it does need a lot of work.Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

If the participants who do not understand this VERY intricate matter could possibly restrain themselves from editing things they do not understand or cannot relate to, would be much obliged and grateful. Hummingbird's contribution is a wisdom source for us, long time Buddhists (30+ yrs). may all be auspicious, please do NOT delete this wonderful compilation due to the fact you cannot understand it. Others can, and cherish it profoundly. Konchog Rinchen well then he should blog about it. is this an encyclopedia article or wha..? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.198.118 (talk) 07:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Complete rewrite
I really don't think this article in its present state can be salvaged (ok, I don't think *I* could) -- so I'm tagging it complete rewrite. But, I welcome any contrary opinions as long as you can convince me that it *can* be made useful. PlainJain (talk) 01:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

EDIT!
This article is in serious need of editing. It's almost a book chapter-length. Can anyone tackle this and cut it down to an appropriate length? 63.143.219.45 (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Clean-up
Thoroughly cleaned all the pets of one editor. The topic boils down to Yogacara, and the Tibetan (Dalai Lama's?) belief in an ever-existing mind or consciousness. Here's the extended version before clean-up. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   11:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

viññāna-sota?
I am more familiar with viññāna-sota in Pali than Citta-saṃtāna in Sankrit, but is there any overlap here? It may be helpful to check whether there are possibilities to integrate some parts of the section Stream_of_consciousness_(psychology) into this article. There is so much conceptual overlap, that I am even thinking whether merger is an option.--S Khemadhammo (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Mario's secret tunnel
Remember now. Harm none. Have fun. All are one. Forever it runs. Speak of this none, but act upon. Remembrance done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:C036:B800:B005:D6F2:EC72:F6B4 (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)