Talk:Zhangzhung

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

before Shakayamuni Buddha[edit]

How could they have been Buddhists before the "Shakyamuni Buddha"? Isn't that like saying "They were Christians that predated Christ?"

This claim does have its improbable aspects, I will grant you that. While a Western historian can discount this claim on the face of it, the beauty of it is that it tempts the rival Nyingmapa sect (the sect in Tibetan Buddhism which prides itself on being the oldest) to assert the claim is not true, when both sects take it as an article of faith that the Buddha indeed did have previous lives before appearing as the Shakyamuni Buddha. Welcome to Buddhist metaphysics! What we are seeing here is Tibetan Buddhist one-upmanship of the finest kind. (There is a whole class of stories dedicated to the prior lives of the Buddha known as jataka). I felt slightly guilty about including this claim in the article, but it is so much fun I couldn't resist. — technopilgrim 17:31, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Among Buddhist sutras themselves there are legends of previous buddha-like figures. While the sutras are not impartial, the "legends" may have some basis in fact, adn they might be previous religious teachers similar to gautama/sakyamuni. Anyway, the Gnostics were sort of "Christians that predated Christ" --Darthanakin 09:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok after clicking on a few links, I came across this interview. http://www.buddhistview.com/site/epage/8958_225.htm I think the yungdrung Bön tradition was probably the result of syncretism. --Darthanakin 09:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bon[edit]

Bon is today accepted as a form of buddhism by Dalai Lama and most tibetan schools. Besides not believing the history Bon claims for its lineage, its view is considered perfect. I think it has been accepted as such from the very beggining of the Rime movement. Theres quite a lot of texts on this encyclopedia that say that someone population practice 'Bon or Buddhism', , while enumerating religions, among other options, implying Bon isnt Buddhism... Also, Some (non-Bon) lamas, like Namkhai Norbu Rimpoche, after some research, grant Bon its claim that its tradition does have an independend origin and independent transmission of buddhism from the other tibetan schools, though of course not dating it nearly as far back, maybe just a little before Nygmapas (certanly not before Shakyamuni buddha, though some fundamental teachings of tibetan buddhism, like dzogchen, which is a part of Bon too, are not even claimed to have ever been tought by shakyamuni buddha, but by Garab Dorje), and still considering much of whats todays Bon (but not all, and not even all thats buddhism in it) as appropriated from Nygmapas later... --Aryah 20:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No its not - Bon is Bon. It has adapted intself to the political reality of buddhism, at least in terms of ritual and appearance etc., but in fact ALL of the rituals of tibetan buddhism are bon in origin. The above statement is absolutely nonsensical if one exams the origin of Bon, in Siberia. Why don't you read the article you are apparently discussing?? or maybe this one: http://www.iras.ucalgary.ca/~volk/sylvia/Magic.htm Wikiherbal 03:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed this section to: Zhang Zhung culture's influence in India, with a discussion of the similarities and links between Lord Shenrab Miwo, the founder of the "yrungdrung" Bon (basically, all Bon). The yrungdrung section in the Bon entry is also poorly written, and totally besides the point. The "tantilizing" claim is only "tantilizing to the apparent fixation of the author. The comments have nothing to do with Bon, or really what Bonpos think. I will get to it eventually.Wikiherbal 03:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarmatians?[edit]

"The Zhang Zhung culture was centered around sacred Mount Kailash and extended west to Sarmatians and present-day Ladakh ..." Ladakh in the West sounds logical. The Sarmatians were in Ukraine. Don't just tell some name. This claim about Sarmatians in Tibet needs explanation. Truchses 22:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Move page to Zhangzhung[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move Parsecboy (talk) 14:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the usual (Wylie's) transliteration of the Tibetan name in English (variants include: Zhang Zhung, Zhang-zhung and Shangshung). The Pinyin version, Xangxung, is a recent Chinese transliteration of the ancient Tibetan name and is misleading to English readers who do not know the Chinese Pinyin system of romanisations - leading to confusion regarding its pronunciation. As the Tibetans have used Zhangzhung for many centuries and this has been the standard English romanisation for a long time, it should be listed as such. Thank you, John Hill (talk) 08:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the page should be speedily renamed back to Zhang Zhung. We should use the standard transliteration of Tibetan, not a phonetic transcription. The page now has Xang Xang as the title and the first word of the article, but still keeps Zhang Zhung everywhere else throughout the article, which is ridiculous. Unless there is a Wikipedia policy to use PRC Tibetan transcription for all Tibetan-related articles, then we should stick with Zhang Zhung. BabelStone (talk) 11:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am unconvinced it is going to aid folk trying to find the article. As it is an alternate spelling, won't people think the artile doesn't exist If they are unable to use the "wrong" spelling? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's what redirects are for; people using the "wrong" spelling. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As 76.66.196.229 (talk) said, "Pinyin" isn't a Tibetan romanization scheme. However, there several Pinyin system: e.g. Hanyu Pinyin and Tibetan Pinyin. Hanyu Pinyin isn't a Tibetan romanization scheme, however, Tibetan Pinyin is. So Xiàngxióng is not a good name but Xangxung is.
  • Move back to Zhang zhung - As Babelstone above - Xangxung is a Pinyin transliteration. As far as I'm aware Zhangzhung is how it is transliterated in old Tibetan scripts. We should try to stay as close to the original as possible in translierating. Aside from this the article refers to it as Zhang Zing so it now looks out of place. Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my opinion Xangxung is the best name. Zhang Zhung is a good name. Do not use Zhangzhung: There's no necessity to use THDL. If you need a transcription, use Xangxung; if you need a transliteration, use Zhang Zhung. --Yohan (China) (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move back to Zhang Zhung per Babelstone. -- Evertype·✆ 17:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The standard English usage, from my reading at least, is Zhang-zhung or some variant with spacing and capitalization. Per wikipedia naming policy, we should use the name that is most common in the English literature. As the article is expanded, most of the references will use "zh" spellings; the article name should conform to the references. --Gimme danger (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support change back to Zhangzhung. This is English Wikipedia not Pinyin Wikipedia. The standard transcription in English language books is Zhang Zhung or Zhangzhung not Xang Xung or Xangxung. For Tibetan: ཞང་ཞུང་ the standard Wylie transliteration is zhang zhung. As the previous poster mentioned, according to Wikipedia naming policy, we should use the name that is most common in the English language publications ~ so there is no real case for using the Tibetan Pinyin, a Transliteration system which is hardly used in any publications outside of China. IMO whoever moved the article to "Xangxung" had no business doing so in the first place.
Native English speakers do not normally pronounce Xa as "Zha" ~ which is much closer to what the Tibetan sounds like than "Xa". Pinyin might be a good system for Romanizing Han Chinese language, but no kind of Pinyin is well suited for Tibetan language - especially in articles aimed at an English speaking audience. If normal English speaking readers try to pronounce Tibetan Pinyin it bears almost no resemblance to the Tibetan. Chris Fynn (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This page was moved without prior discussion and should be returned to the previous title post haste.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 02:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move to Zhang Zhung[edit]

BC/AD error[edit]

Someone made an error in the description of one of the maps, which the map itself said was AD but the editor's description said it was BC. I rectified this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.58.43.68 (talk • contribs) 08:09, April 14, 2010

SOMEONE HAS SABOTAGED THE MAP WITH CLEARLY ERRONEOUS DESCRIPTIONS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.61.188 (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In adition, this article was established using AD and BC dates but many edits have introduced BCE and CE dates, creating a mishmash of styles. As per WP:BCE they should be consistent within the article. Since AD and BC were first used, that style should become dominant on this article unless someone gives a reason that this article is a special case requiring BCE and CE or some other format. Rincewind42 (talk) 00:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Zhangzhung. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Zhangzhung. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Criticism of this Wikipedia article by Prof.Per Kværne[edit]

Bon and Buddhism, Two Faces of the Same Coin? from about 35:00 on.

Chris Fynn (talk) 06:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Transliteration/phonetics errors[edit]

The article erroneously says in the section on "Extent of the Zhangzhung kingdoms", "The capital city of Zhangzhung was called Khyunglung (Wylie: Khyunglung Ngülkhar or Wylie: Khyung-lung dngul-mkhar),".

First of all, only the second one is an (incorrect) approximation of Wylie Transliteration. The first "Wylie" is not Wylie, but rather a system of phoneticization, and should not be referred to as Wylie. Furthermore, the hyphens in the second Wylie (the one which is actually Wylie) should be removed and replaced with spaces. The correct Wylie transliteration of ཁྱུང་ལུང་དངུལ་མཁར་ is "khyung lung dngul mkhar," with no capital letters or hyphens. Gcurtis509 (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Zhang-zhung" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect Zhang-zhung has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 28 § Zhang-zhung until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:41, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zhangzhung&oldid=1194098348"