Talk:Buddha in art

Merger proposal

I'm proposing that the information at Buddhahood#Depictions_of_the_Buddha_in_art be merged into this article (and deleted from Buddhahood) since that information no longer seems pertinent to that article. More specifically, the Buddhahood article used to be general information about "Buddha" but has since been moved from that namespace (for a dab) and re-focused on the matter of Buddhahood per se; given this refocusing, the inclusion in that article of information relating to depictions of the Buddha (or a Buddha) in art no longer seems pertinent; given that this article seems to cover similar material, I think it would be beneficial to move material (including photos) from Buddhahood#Depictions_of_the_Buddha_in_art to here. Any thoughts? Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a good idea! As for the name, I would prefer if it could be called "Buddha in art", because that is, to quote WP:Wikipedia:Naming conventions, "what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize", and it allows the article to include a wider range of topics which otherwise would have no other place than maybe at Buddhahood. — Sebastian 15:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Link

does it make sense to insert this link 32 marks of the Buddha ("THIRTY TWO MARKS OF A GREAT MAN") into the article?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.95.91 (talk) 11:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, given the specific topic of the external web page, I think such would be best to place in the "External links" section of Physical characteristics of the Buddha. Nonethless, you raise an interesting linkage idea, so I'll add a "See also" link on this page to Physical characteristics of the Buddha now. Thanks for putting this forth.

The reason for my reservation about adding this particular external link to this WP page is that, based on my incredibly limited and questionable experience regarding this topic, the vast majority of the 32 characteristics would not (could not?) be found on most statues (thought certainly, as you suggest, several are typical). Moreover, I also have a qualm about this external link per se insomuch that it does not identify the source it uses for the "significance" column; we can assume it comes from some commentary somewhere but it could just be a contemporary teacher's thoughts or a web page editor's whimsy.

Having said all this, if you're inclined to add this link here, I certainly wouldn't stop you :-) Austerlitz, thanks for your continued sharing of interesting ideas. With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Budai/Gautama

I have cleared up the distinction here between the Happy, Fat, Laughing Chinese Buddha, Budai, a different historical figure, and the stoic, gaunt, indian Siddhārtha Gautama, the founder of the religion.

In further edits to this article, it is important not to get these two confused, as their depictions could not be more different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saktoth (talk • contribs) 11:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Clarifying the scope

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Easily confused Buddhist representations, where this article has come up. At present the first sentence says (in fact this is the entire lead): "Buddharūpa (literally, "Form of the Awakened One") is the Sanskrit and Pali term used in Buddhism for statues or models of beings who have obtained Buddhahood, including the historical Buddha, Gautama Buddha." However, the rest of the article deals entirely with "the historical Buddha, Gautama Buddha." I propose restricting the subject to that, and renaming and rewriting Easily confused Buddhist representations to cover other buddhas in art. I also think this article should be renamed, perhaps to Buddha in art (as suggested long ago above), but before that we need to agree what the subject is. Johnbod (talk) 22:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll take that as a yes then! Johnbod (talk) 02:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 3 June 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 07:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

---

Buddharupa → Buddha in art – (which currently redirects here). This is emphatically not the WP:COMMONNAME used in English for images of the Buddha, nor is the term at all well known. This arises out of this discussion. I don't mind The Buddha in art, if people prefer it. Johnbod (talk) 03:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Showiecz (talk) 02:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Much clearer and helpful to readers. Walrasiad (talk) 06:44, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Srnec (talk) 13:53, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

• Should probably be Gautama Buddha in art per WP:CONSUB. Srnec (talk) 14:00, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

• The recent discussion there suggests that page is ripe for renaming, indeed that discussion could arguably be taken as justifying a move by itself. Anyway, I think adding "Gautama" here is likely to confuse more readers than it helps, and it is not the usual term in art history. Johnbod (talk) 15:00, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

• Closing comment: This does not IMO preclude a further move if it is decided that Buddha here is not sufficiently precise, but I do note that the current lead reads in part usually meaning the historical Buddha, Gautama Buddha, but sometimes others who have obtained Buddhahood (my emphasis). So the new title seems to me to match the existing scope exactly. Andrewa (talk) 07:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Not any more - see the previous section. Johnbod (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)