Talk:Shambhala

http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Shambhala&action=historysubmit&diff=10882952&oldid=10882900 I have no dog in this fight but... Not sure I would agree if the basis is that it is considered advertising a private proprietary enterprise in that (1) it is widely respected eg see the popularity of Pema Chodron and (2) Chogyam Trungpa has not been around for a long time, actually even his successor passed on so it seems to count for a historically established lineage, no?

This is just a concern, I have questions about this treatment although I can understand it.Geof Bard 06:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Shambhala&action=historysubmit&diff=11892631&oldid=11888283

On this, I can see the philosophy behind the revert. I was just thinking in terms of disambiguation but yeah if every company name was disambiguated it would never end. But some people will be confused between the publisher and the practice and the older term which was I suppose appropriated by the Trungpa crowd. I don't know that there was anything particularly momentous about that appropriation one way or another, but it is a very nice word and I think a lot of people get very mixed up about what it means and its relationship the Shambhala. Geof Bard 06:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The bottom line
This is the payoff here because it is clear that Mr. Knaggs agrees with the main point of my edits, which was this http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Shambhala&action=historysubmit&diff=11892631&oldid=10882952 change ... so maybe Jeff and I will get along pretty well because I did have a dog in that one. It is not "holy" in the sense of sanctimony to which the term is at times degraded, it is more accurately mythical, mystic sacred. Jeff Knaggs gets that, and so I am down.Geof Bard 06:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your definition is for Shambahala Press, which is just a company. Not different to Oxford University Press. Mglovesfun (talk) 06:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)