Talk:Tradruk Temple

Merge
Only after creating this article, I noticed that there has been an article on Changzhug already, but under its Chinese name (Changzhu Temple) and without any sources. I suggest that the material of that article should be merged into this one. —Babelfisch 08:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've replaced the old article with a redirect. Here is the text of the old article:
 * “Changzhu Temple is an ancient Buddhist monastery located in Changzhu village 5km south of Tsedang on the road to Yumbi Lakang in Tibet. Very little remains of the temple which was thought to have been founded in the 7th century, during the reign of King Songtsen Gampo. The original temple was made from wood and thatch but in the 14th century it was rebuilt and enlargened and turned into a monastery that supported 300 monks. Changzhu monastery contained numerous halls including a Great Hall which closely resembled that of the Jokhang Temple in Lhasa. The hall was famous for its grand bell and sublime statuary. In the forecourt of the temple the immense pillars and massive beams of the 14th century entrance can still be seen and one small temple still remains in the inner courtyard. Its centrepiece is a splendid old banner embroidered in almost 30,000 pearls representing Chenrezi in repose. Restored in the 1980s, Changzhu Temple is now a repository for ancient religious objects of value that have been found throughout Tibet.”
 * The old article didn't quote any sources, so I've not added any of this to the new one. —Babelfisch 01:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Move and major review of names
This article is listed under its new (and very different) Chinese name ("Changzhug"), rather than one of the Tibetan forms (such as Khra-'brug (Wylie) or, in simplified phonetic form, "Tradruk Temple". As it is very famous and is thought to be Tibet's oldest Buddhist temple, it seems only fair to me to list it under one of its Tibetan names. I will, therefore, move it to "Tradruk Temple", with appropriate redirects. Further, the article seems to have been originally a translation from the German article and, therefore, has what seem to be the German forms of Tibetan names and which badly need to be converted into better-recognised forms for English-speaking readers. John Hill (talk) 02:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)