|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kagyu article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Rick Block's edit (categorization: Category:Tibetan Buddhism is a form of Category:Vajrayana Buddhism) seems a bit strange. Certainly not all Kagyu is from Tibet. And Vajrayana spred as far as Mongolia and Siberia. On the other hand 'Tibet' and 'Buddhism' are inventions of western scholars, and maybe most people in the west use Vajrayana and Tibetan Buddism interchangably. Comments please! Billlion 16:47, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Feel free to recategorize. I've been doing cleanup from category:orphaned categories and starting from category:Buddhism there was no category for Vajrayana Buddhism. If category:branches of Buddhism can be better organized in categories and subcategories, please fix it! Rick Block 17:09, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Is it accurate to state, that Karmapa is the head of the Kagyu-school? I think he is the head of the Karma-Kagyü-School of tibetan-buddhism. There are different other Kagyu-lineageholders like the Drikungpa-lamas. I assume that Karmapa is not the head of the Drikung-school. So it is maybe better to give unter Kagyu a general introduction to Kagyu, a schoolform developed by Gampopa, by uniting the yogic and monastic form of tantric buddhism. From Gampopas diciples developed the different Kagyu-schools under wich, the Karma-Kagyu with its head Karmapa is only one of nine. (Drukpa, Drikung, Yelpa, Yoru, Krophu, Karma, Shangpa etc.) Greetings Panchito 9.12.04 10:35 CET
Dispute Over Karmapa Title
The article does not mention the disputed title of Karmapa and the two contenders. It should at very least mention this and explain both sides of the argument. For basic background on this dispute, which has split the Karma Kagyu school, refer to this article: http://www.newstatesman.com/200405170048
- No need for all that here. There is now a specific Karmapa controversy article where both sides of the argument seem to be explained. Chris Fynn (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- The Karmapa controversy should at least be summarized here. --Gimme danger (talk) 19:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- I've added a summary section. --Gimme danger (talk) 20:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I reverted Nathan Hill's edits as it rather difficult to revert just his obscurification of tibetan words. Nathan please feel free to reinstate your other edits, and if you like put the tibetan in your favourite romanization of the correct pronunciation in brackets after the first time each word is used. Billlion 18:43, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Why is there no information on the Six Yogas of Naropa? This article is seriously short. There's ample info available on it. Maybe all this info is in other articles?
- I'll add some brief info on this - there is also the article Six Yogas of Naropa Chris Fynn (talk) 12:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
My local Kagyu centre pronounces it Kadjyu. I don't know if this is a common Anglicisation or not. I've not heard the pronounciation suggested in the article. Secretlondon (talk) 22:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- My understanding is that is how Khampas tend to pronounce it, the other pronunciation being more standard (central) Tibetan.Sylvain1972 17:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylvain1972 (talk • contribs)
- Per Tournadre and Sangda Dorje, [kácyʔ] is the correct "standard" Central Tibetan pronunciation. But please note that these are almost all sounds do not exist in English or which sound significantly different from the English versions. I would suggest that something like "Gah-djyoo" or "Gah-djyoog" might be the closest you could get using only native English sounds. Personally, I'm not sure I've really said that word out loud, but I think I would tend to make it "Kah-gyoo"—not too affected, and with a reasonable basis in historical Tibetan pronunciation.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 04:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Re working the page
- For a start I've eliminated the reference to Bön as one of "the five schools of Tibetan Buddhism". The Dalai Lama has written "if we look from the point of view of the original stock of teachings that are at its core, we have to say that Bön is a seperate tradition from Buddhism. We cannot consider it one of the Buddhist taditions since then it would need a traceable Buddhist source.". Chris Fynn (talk) 05:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Since with regard to related articles, there has been some fairly vigorous discussion over the names Kagyu and Kargyu(d) I decided to quote extensively the most authoritative English language source I could find which refers to the matter in the section Name under the heading Kagyu & Kargyu Chris Fynn (talk) 08:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- You're doing a great job on this article. I'd like to help out, but I don't want to get in your way and cause edit conflicts. If you'd like, drop me a note on my talk page when you're finished with your rewrite and I'll provide a fresh pair of eyes. And if you need any help with MOS and citation issues, likewise. --Gimme danger (talk) 11:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Removal of Tibetan-Chinese-box
I've removed the Tibetan-Chinese infobox since it adds nothing of real value to the article and just adds clutter. This is English Wikipedia and the article is about an aspect of Tibetan Buddhism ~ so I think it best to stick to English and Tibetan names (and maybe translitterated Sanskrit where a technical term is better known in that language). If someone wants to know the Chinese name they can always look at the corresponding article in Chinese Wikipedia which is linked in the left column of the page along with other languages. BTW I don't see any English or Tibetan names there. Chris Fynn (talk) 17:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
@Ogress and VictoriaGrayson:Most of the material inserted in the sub-section on Martsang Kagyu on 7 January 2014 seems to be just a copy and paste job by Rinchen Tsomo from the two Martsang Kagyu web sites www.martsangkagyu.co.uk & martsangkagyuofficial.org - and potentially a copyright violation. Anyway it needs better quality sources. Also, considering the relative historical importance and influence of this particular Kagyu sub-school, the Martsang Kagyu section has grown far too long. The section is now in need of a serious cleanup. This Kagyu article was intended to be an overview of all the Kagyu schools of Tibet and not go into great detail about each particular one. Where they are sufficiently significant or notable these Kagyu sub-schools can always be the subjects of separate Wikipedia articles. If someone thinks the Martsang Kagyu is sufficiently notable and wants to write a separate Wikipedia article on the Martsang Kagyu, go ahead (though any such article should obviously be based on good quality secondary sources, rather than on the self-published Martsang Kagyu affiliated websites). Chris Fynn (talk) 13:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)