From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject China (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Buddhism (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Tibetan Buddhism (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Tibet:Tibetan Buddhism, an attempt to improve content and create better coordination between articles related to traditional religion, cultural practices and customs in Tibet. Please participate in improvement by editing Zhangzhung and related pages, or visit the WikiProject Tibet main page for more details on the projects. WikiProject icon
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)

Ok after clicking on a few links, I came across this interview. I think the yungdrung Bön tradition was probably the result of syncretism. --Darthanakin 09:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


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)

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: Wikiherbal 03:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

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)


"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)

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)

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)

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)
  • Support Pinyin isn't a Tibetan romanization scheme. (talk) 11:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
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)
That's what redirects are for; people using the "wrong" spelling. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose As (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)
  • 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)
  • Move back to Zhang Zhung per Babelstone. -- Evertype· 17:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
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]

  • The result is not unified, why you move it to Zhangzhung? --Yohan (China) (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I said there's no necessity to use THDL. --Yohan (China) (talk) 14:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

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 (talkcontribs) 08:09, April 14, 2010

SOMEONE HAS SABOTAGED THE MAP WITH CLEARLY ERRONEOUS DESCRIPTIONS — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
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)