Talk:Kalachakra

Tibet B‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tibet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Tibet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TibetWikipedia:WikiProject TibetTemplate:WikiProject TibetTibet articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Buddhism B‑class

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Kalachakra was a good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.
Review: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{DelistedGA|insert date in any format here}}.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about or posting random quotes with no apparent bearing on the article.. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about or posting random quotes with no apparent bearing on the article. at the Reference desk.

why disputed?

I would be very curious to know who and why this article is made disputed? rudy

As far as I know it's not. Sylvain1972 19:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Jonang

I've deleted the latest edits of "Geir Smith," the self-proclaimed authority. They were ungrammatical and somewhat incoherent, and didn't add anything to the article that isn't better left to the "Jonang" entry. Sylvain1972 15:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I've further deleted some of Geir Smith's untrue additions and irrelavent passages. The Dorje Shugden has nothing to do with the Kalachakra and has no place in this article. Regarding Taranatha, he is not the father of Kalachakra, as this article makes clear. While he important in the history, yes, there are many others who preceededed him and contemporaries of equal importance, and this is already clearly explained in the article. Sylvain1972 19:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Delisted GA

It seems that this article did not go through the GA nomination process. Looking at the article as is, it fails on criteria 2 in that it does not cite any sources. Most Good Articles use inline citations. I would recommend that this be fixed and submit the article through the nomination process. --RelHistBuff 15:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some explanation from the Dalai Lama

can be found here [1].

Austerlitz -- 88.75.73.41 (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The prophecy of the Shambhala war represents the triumph of the human race over religious militarism and materialistic reification and/or nihilism. The Kalachakra Tantra offers a vision of the elevation of the human spirit beyond these forces. It envisions a uniting of humanity into a single "vajra" race, through the acknowledgement that each and every being possesses the same essence or "buddha nature", beyond any conceptual notion of a "self" that is based on cultural, ethnic, and emotional affiliations, and thus beyond historical and religious enmities."

Who says so? Sounds like propaganda. Anyway, the source should be cited.

Austerlitz -- 88.72.7.43 (talk) 06:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed a source is needed, but this sounds like just the basic view of vajrayana buddhism to me and not particularly controversial aside from the military language. Though it's a little off, because once one realizes the vajra body one also realizes the inseparability of all beings. So not so much that they possess the same essence (that idea of possession implies truly established existence) but more that one realizes buddha nature was all there really was to begin with. Something like that. - Owlmonkey (talk) 11:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to think about this.

Right now I want to quote a remark from wikisite Chakravartin: "The cakravartin in Buddhism came to be considered the secular counterpart of a Buddha."

Austerlitz -- 88.75.87.35 (talk) 11:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In some renderings of the story of the Life of the Buddha, it was prophesized when he was born that he would grow up to either be a Buddha or a Chakravartin. His father, the Shakya king, only wanted the latter and attempted to raise him in such a way that he would become a secular ruler. But the attempt failed. No idea though if that concept of chakravartin pre-dates Buddhism or was an interpretation added later, after the fact. The concept of a benevolent monarch is perhaps universal though? - Owlmonkey (talk) 11:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. you should really create an a wikipedia account if you don't already have one, Austerlitz, since you're making so many edits. Makes it easier to see who is doing what in the edit histories and for people to contact you / comment. Otherwise leaving comments on IP address talk pages is unreliable. Best Regards. -Owlmonkey (talk) 11:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Weird sentence"

This one: "Some doubt: do the ghosts being evoked know the realm of symbolism?" Why do you think so?

Austerlitz -- 88.72.29.72 (talk) 10:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]