Talk:Lamrim

I think it will be a good idea to put in some new sections: 1)lam rim lineage (with the lineage lama`s named), 2)prelimenaries for lam rim meditation: the djor Chö and 3)lamrim retreat 4) the 8 great Lam Rims please some coment on this. thanks, Tjvogel (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I refreshed and improved the article. The links I removed, because the article is on Lamrim, so only texts or medias of lamrim should be mentioned. Because I'm not a native English speaker you're most welcome to improve my English style. Kt66 01:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stages of the Path (lamrim, lam-rim)[edit]

I began a section with the above heading in the Tibetan Buddhism article, then realised this was already here and linked to it instead. The proposed subheadings I had were

lineage of the Stages of the Path - sutra etc, Atisha's Bodhipathapradipa (byang-chhub lam-gyi sgron-ma), Kadampa, Gampopa, Tshong-kha-pa
features of the Stages of the Path - systematic progression in concepts (enumerate concepts)
method of training in the Stages of the Path

hearing, analytic meditation, focussed meditation in retreat

Are these bits useful? Are there problems with them? I hope to move other stuff over to here and hope others will like it.

Moonsell (talk) 11:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Authenticity Section[edit]

I've attempted to make this section a little more neutral by qualifying some of the claims and removing the sweeping conclusion at the end. I'm still uncertain what is meant by the sentences that refer to the hidden meaning of the sutras being contained in the number and ordering of topics- can anyone clarify this point, or is this just some sort of esoteric way of saying that meaning was encoded in the selection of subjects that Atisa was later able to divine? Second, this section seems to be attempting to address concerns about the authenticity of Lamrim as something that was taught directly by Shakyamuni, but unless there are specific critiques of this particular teaching, I don't see a reason to get into that- I would assume that it should be taken for granted that tantric and Mahayana teachings are not generally regarded as authentic by Theravada practitioners, and that that fact doesn't need to be mentioned for every single Mahayana and Vajrayana sutra in WP. What would be helpful here is an accounting of the history of the texts as a document- Vajrayana practitioners regard them as having been created by the Buddha and revealed by Atisa, but surely someone has traced their earliest mention in a manuscript, earliest extant examples of this type of text, etc. --Clay Collier (talk) 10:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This section claims lamrims cover tantra as well as sutra. We need to lose that misconception. There is no need to allude to tantra in this article. Moonsell (talk) 11:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]