|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mount Kailash article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Mount Kailash has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Geography. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Tallest mountain in Tibet?
Why should the mountains in Category:Mountains of Tibet not be considered mountains of Tibet? Everest is on the border between Nepal and Tibet, so it's Tibet's highest mountain, so Kailash isn't Tibet's highest mountain. I don't see any ambiguity here. Kosebamse 18:16, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I've rewritten the intro to clarify the situation. I've also withdrawn my objection on Category:Mountains of Tibet. —Lowellian (talk)[] 21:29, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
The intro looks fine now. Thanks for your help. Kosebamse 21:52, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Kailash is not the tallest mountain in Tibet even if you exclude the Himalayas. The Nyanqentanglha range in central Tibet has peaks over 7000m. You really should remove this claim totally. (Gordon Aug 22 2005)
I have noted under the subtitle Buddhism in the article that there is some confusion regarding the identity of the "Champion of Tantric Buddhism". Although I think Padmasambhava is likely to be the person to which the contributor is refering, the accuracy of the passage in general may require checking. 184.108.40.206 19:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)(RD 15th November 2006)
I WANT TO KNOW ANY BODY HUMAN MAN HAVE TO SEE A MOUNT KAILASH S CAFE?
Curiously this Mystique Mountain in the Tibetan plateau is the focal point for the Hindus and the Buddhists alike. The surfacial features of this mountain are unique and I think no other structure in the Tibetan plateau or in the Himalayan range have any resemblance to this mountain. The Hindus and the Buddhists consider this place encompassing the nearby lake of Manasarovar as heavenly place. No wonder as this part of the Tibetan Plateau indeed is one of the most magnificent places on earth. There must be something here in this place which attracts the two religions alike. Vgyan 09:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Buddhism is a kind of "reform Hinduism". You could say that the Buddha critiqued and transformed Hindu doctrine much as Jesus and his followers transformed Judaism into Christianity. In the process the Buddha also transformed a somewhat nationalistic, place-rooted and historical religion into something more universal and broadly accessible. So if the Kailas/Maasarovar region is holy to Hindus, that status tends to carry over into Buddhism, just as the holy land for Christians largely overlaps that of Judaism.
For a long time Hindu cosmography postulated a Mount Meru, center of the universe, but they were not quite certain of its location. Sometimes it was located in the Vindhya range separating the culturally different regions of North and South India, sometimes it was placed in the Pamir Knot. However as geographic knowledge accumulated, it became clear that the Kailas/Manasarovar region in effect was the hydrographic nexus of South Asia, for the Indus, Ganges/Karnali and Brahmaputra rivers all have their sources in this very finite area. Thus Kailas came to reify Mount Meru. LADave (talk) 07:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:TG PartTwo.jpg
The image Image:TG PartTwo.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
- That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
- That this article is linked to from the image description page.
Inaccuracies about Climbing the Mountain
It seems that people definitely climb this mountain. See, for example, http://www.summitpost.org/mountain/rock/151369/Kailash.html or http://www.summitpost.org/view_object.php?object_id=151369
- There have been no verified ascents of the mountain. The website you mention, http://www.summitpost.org/mountain/rock/151369/Kailash.html#chapter_10 explicitly refutes rumours that the mountain has been climbed. BabelStone (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
श or स?
The Sanskrit name is spelled with the letter श ś. In a Hindi context the spelling with स s has also been of frequent occurrence.
The Oxford Hindi Dictionary (I have the 1997 printing) gives कैलास as the main entry, while कैलाश is cross-referenced to it as a "pronunciation variant." So Oxford seems to be citing कैलास as the standard form in Hindi.
The Hindi Vikipīḍiyā article on this mountain uses only the spelling with श. The Hindi editors there have chosen to make no mention of the spelling कैलास for the mountain. In other words, it looks like the tadbhava form has been completely replaced by the tatsama form here. Is this a sign of a movement toward increased Sanskritization of Hindi? This article not only implicitly makes कैलाश the standard form, it ignores the other form altogether, which Oxford gave as standard Hindi.
So my questions are: How do they decide when to use which form of the name? Do you think the English and Hindi Wikipedias should mention the tadbhava form too (if only to note that it is also commonly met with)? I mean, as a foreign student of Sanskrit and Hindi, I always got confused about which spelling is actually preferred. Maybe a little clarification would be helpful to foreigners studying this subject. Thank you. Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 00:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Where is a citation to श ś being the Sanskrit form? Monier Williams disagrees: it gives स s as the only form, and cites "MBh. iii , 503 & 1697 Hariv. R. iii , iv , 44 , 27 VarBr2S. &c". For that matter, where is the citation for the meaning crystal either: I know of no etymology in Sanskrit that would give that. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 03:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- This article has been propagating the most brazen falsehoods. The Sanskrit term is कैलास; there's no कैलाश in Sanskrit as has been so confidently asserted in the article. I'm fixing it. Shreevatsa (talk) 08:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe that's the usual rule, but it's reversed for these instances at least. If you look up those words (see Monier Williams) , you'll find that the version with a normal "s" is the original Sanskrit. This is also reflected in how these words have been borrowed from Sanskrit into other languages - eg. Malayalam, which has a "ś" for "śiva" "śakti" etc, but a "s" for "Kailāsa", "Dhanus", "Kausalyā". Kannan91 (talk) 12:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- I see. Thank you for the information. So anyway we still don't seem to have gotten any closer to an answer to this question. I feel that somewhere someone must have studied this and published a good explanation of it. Just got to keep looking for it. Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the passage saying that Colin Thubron attempted to climb the mountain between the wars because there was no reference given for this claim. Perhaps he did, but we need a reference. Ericoides (talk) 09:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section., and are posted here for posterity. Following
|While there are a number of references, inline citations are lacking for many of the statements made. A number of the sections contain just one statement and some of the paragraphs have unrelated statements within them. The article just reads like some peoples' opinions on the religious significance of the mountain. RedWolf (talk) 16:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)|
Last edited at 16:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 00:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)